censorship

What about this one Mr Currie?

hypocrites

Yesterday the NZ Herald displayed its cowardice in the face of Islamic terror by refusing to show images of Mohammed.

They claimed it was a long standing policy but inquiries by WOBH show that the policy has been in place a mere 6 years.

When contacted editor Shayne Currie said:

We’ve paid careful consideration to religious imagery since the controversy and backlash surrounding the Danish cartoons of the prophet Muhammad in 2006.

The examples you’ve highlighted below are news stories about billboards put up by a mainstream Christian denomination – our policy does not prevent reporting on debates within faith communities.

The policy as stated by The NZ Herald article is:

The Herald’s longstanding policy is not to publish imagery designed to cause offence to religious or ethnic communities.

It is not a response to the views of extremists or jihadists, which the Herald of course opposes, but to respect the sensibilities of mainstream believers.

The NZ Herald seems ok with insulting Christians, but not Muslims.

It also seems that presenting offensive imagery of other cultures is ok as well with this story from December last year about the case of a Kiwi bar manager on charges in Burma for using an offensive image of Buddha in his bar advertisements.

heraldhycporisy1 Read more »

Maori party turns on terror enabler Derek Fox

The Maori party has moved to distance themselves from terror enabler Derek Fox.

The Maori Party distanced itself from former candidate Derek Fox after he controversially blamed the victims of the Paris terror attacks for their deaths.

Mr Fox said on Facebook that the editor of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo had “paid the price” for his “bigotry” and “arrogance”.

He stood by his comments, and said if the magazine had not published gratuitous insults, the victims “would still be alive now”.

“But they didn’t, in fact they ramped it up to sell more mags. Well, they got bitten severely on the bum.”  Read more »

Rodney Hide on Sony and Hacking

Rodney Hide gives the NZ Herald editors a little lesson in freedom of speech.

But were they reading it?

George Clooney called it correctly: “We know that to give in to these criminals now will open the door for any group that would threaten freedom of expression, privacy and personal liberty.”

What’s next? The tyrant wanting to dictate news? The hackers’ success will only embolden them and others. What happens if news networks come under fire because of how they report news?

What is it about free speech that makes it so easy to toss away? We don’t give in when hostages are under threat. Why give in when they aren’t?

It’s not the first time. Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa in 1989 ordering Muslims to kill Salman Rushdie for his book The Satanic Verses.

Muslim fanatics in 2006 rioted and attacked diplomatic missions and killed dozens in the wake of a Danish newspaper publishing offensive cartoons.

There was a great hullabaloo in each case and each instance produced precisely the chilling effect that the oppressors desired.

Newspapers and publishers don’t need the grief. Authors don’t want to become targets. Our freedom to reason and debate is bit by bit eroded.   Read more »

The Islamic campaign to silence us

An interview from Sun News in Canada with Brooke Goldstein from The Lawfare Project which  is an organisation that fights for free speech against political censorship — especially from Islamic extremists.

interesting stuff, especially with regards to the recent EU decision about Hamas and UN actions.   Read more »

UN Official calls for boycott of Jerusalem Post, UN then say he didn’t say boycott…uhmmm…yes he did

UN official Chris Gunness has called for a boycott of the Jerusalem Post because he got his knicker in a twist that he wasn’t asked for a quote in an article about he ineffectiveness of UNRWA.

Gunnesstweet.jpg

There it is in black and white…”Boycott the JPost!”

Can’t get much clearer than that.

The story was an op-ed by a Palestinian Arab. Op-eds obviously don’t require quotes.  The Jerusalem Post is centrist in its editorial line and hardly ultra-right. And none of that had anything to do with Bassem Eid who is neither Israeli nor right wing.

Now, the UN is far from perfect and UNRWA has been spanked of late for promoting hate and violence as well as allowing their hospitals and schools to be used by Hamas to conduct combat operations.

But blatant lies are so far beyond the line something needs to be done.  Read more »

Whaleoil now part of Google’s “dark net”

Seems the European Data law that forces Google to filter search results with certain, erm, search results, has hit us too.

Due to a request under data protection law in Europe, we are no longer able to show one or more pages from your site in our search results in response to some search queries for names or other personal identifiers. Only results on European versions of Google are affected. No action is required from you.
These pages have not been blocked entirely from our search results, and will continue to appear for queries other than those specified by individuals in the European data protection law requests we have honored. Unfortunately, due to individual privacy concerns, we are not able to disclose which queries have been affected.

Please note that in many cases, the affected queries do not relate to the name of any person mentioned prominently on the page. For example, in some cases, the name may appear only in a comment section.

The following URLs have been affected by this action:

http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2010/04/page/6/
http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2010/page/147/

So, you too, as commenters anyway, are possibly censored.   Read more »

Google’s demise starts here, ctd

Not only are Google changing history, they are effectively censoring you, and me, and journalism too.

This morning the BBC received the following notification from Google:

Notice of removal from Google Search: we regret to inform you that we are no longer able to show the following pages from your website in response to certain searches on European versions of Google:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/thereporters/robertpeston/2007/10/merrills_mess.html

What it means is that a blog I wrote in 2007 will no longer be findable when searching on Google in Europe.

Which means that to all intents and purposes the article has been removed from the public record, given that Google is the route to information and stories for most people.

So why has Google killed this example of my journalism?

Well it has responded to someone exercising his or her new “right to be forgotten”, following a ruling in May by the European Court of Justice that Google must delete “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant” data from its results when a member of the public requests it.

Let’s pretend, 8 years from now, Len Brown petitions Google to have all of Whaleoil’s articles on him suppressed.  After all, it’s no longer relevant, he’s no longer  mayor, and it is definitely out of date.

This is insidious stuff.   Read more »

Google’s demise starts here

BrmSmukCUAIWcDE

“Do no Evil” is wrongly attributed to be Google’s credo, but it has become the de-facto one.  By erasing factual information from its databases, they are signalling the beginning of their decline.   The public have been very happy to trust Google, as they have been careful guardians and been able to balance their needs to make a dollar with those of their customers by only assuming a tiny footprint in their lives.

No organisation is large enough to sustain the damage that a loss of trust brings about.

The decline of Net neutrality.  Now the changing of history for those who have done things wrong but are publicity shy.

The rot has started.

It wasn’t Labour, or John Key, so who ordered the censorship at Fairfax?

Earlier today I busted Fairfax with their radical censorship of an article that was published yesterday.

Huge amounts of the original article were expunged and replaced with additions that made no sense. So much was removed that it shows clear manipulation of the story by someone.

WOBH contacted Labour and received an emphatic denial that they were involved in censoring the story. The spokesman for David Cunliffe said “We aren’t that powerful”.

Contact was also made with John Key’s people who as predicted said it wasn’t them.

I stand by my statement earlier that John Key probably laughed out loud when he saw David Cunliffe was calling him a liar.

Fairfax have now added a disclaimer to the bottom of the edited article.

balance Read more »

Back in ya box: Mark Steyn discusses the silencing of dissent

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 ‘Fucking Zionist, fucking pricks… Get the fuck off our campus.’
  • In California, Mozilla’s 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 ‘special clearance’ 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 from Monty Python to Downton Abbey 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 — whoa, don’t worry, not all of it, just three or four adjectives; or maybe only two, or whatever it’s down to by now, after what Gay Alcorn in the Age described as the ongoing debate about ‘where to strike the balance between free speech in a democracy and protection against racial abuse in a multicultural society’.

I heard a lot of that kind of talk during my battles with the Canadian ‘human rights’ commissions a few years ago: of course, we all believe in free speech, but it’s a question of how you ‘strike the balance’, where you ‘draw the line’… which all sounds terribly reasonable and Canadian, and apparently Australian, too. But in reality the point of free speech is for the stuff that’s over the line, and strikingly unbalanced. If free speech is only for polite persons of mild temperament within government-policed parameters, it isn’t free at all. So screw that.

Read more »