Mark Steyn is confrontational, he is also challenging and there are some out there that don’t like that, including Michael Mann (inventor of the hockey stick climate fraud) who is suing him for defamation.
Steyn is fighting it with the best defence of all, the truth.
In his latest offering at The Spectator he discusses the left’s willingness to shout down dissent, to silence opposition, and to use whatever means necessary.
These days, pretty much every story is really the same story:
- In Galway, at the National University of Ireland, a speaker who attempts to argue against the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) programme against Israel is shouted down with cries of âFucking Zionist, fucking pricksâŠ Get the fuck off our campus.â
- In California, Mozillaâs chief executive is forced to resign because he once made a political donation in support of the pre-revisionist definition of marriage.
- At Westminster, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee declares that the BBC should seek âspecial clearanceâ before it interviews climate sceptics, such as fringe wacko extremists like former Chancellor Nigel Lawson.
- In Massachusetts, Brandeis University withdraws its offer of an honorary degree to a black feminist atheist human rights campaigner from Somalia.
- In London, a multitude of liberal journalists and artists responsible for everything fromÂ Monty PythonÂ toÂ Downton AbbeyÂ sign an open letter in favour of the first state restraints on the British press in three and a quarter centuries.
- And in Canberra the government is planning to repeal Section 18C â whoa, donât worry, not all of it, just three or four adjectives; or maybe only two, or whatever itâs down to by now, after what Gay Alcorn in theÂ Age described as the ongoing debate about âwhere to strike the balance between free speech in a democracy and protection against racial abuse in a multicultural societyâ.
I heard a lot of that kind of talk during my battles with the Canadian âhuman rightsâ commissions a few years ago: of course, we all believe in free speech, but itâs a question of how you âstrike the balanceâ, where you âdraw the lineââŠ which all sounds terribly reasonable and Canadian, and apparently Australian, too. But in reality the point of free speech is for the stuff thatâs over the line, and strikingly unbalanced. If free speech is only for polite persons of mild temperament within government-policed parameters, it isnât free at all. So screw that.
Read more »