I am a strong woman and I believe in freedom of speech. Freedom of speech means that both sides of every issue get to be discussed. It does not mean that discussion is shut down because one side labels the others speech as ‘ Rape culture ‘ or dismisses it because it was written by a man and the issue is only relevant in their opinion to women.
Freedom of Speech
As they saying goes, they don’t like it up ‘em.
I get all sorts of emails, as you can imagine. Â But sometimes they are really worthy of a wider audience.
Here is today’s masterpiece
Im banned as you ownly want arselickers who agree with every thing you post.Your blog is the rightwing version of the standard,with the same intolerance to desenting viewsâŠ..
Now, a few things to keep in mind here.
This was the very first communication I received from John. Â I have no idea if he is really blocked or not. Â I doubt it, as he hasn’t actually participated on the blog since 2010, and his total contributions that year came to two comments.
Here they are Â Read more »
George Brandis is standing up for freedom of speech in Australia despite the howls of outrage from the left who as well all know are only supporters of freedom of speech if it is speech they agree with.
George Brandis has compared himself to Voltaire and derided proponents of climate change action as “believers” who do not listen to opposing views and have reduced debate to a mediaeval and ignorant level.
In an interview with online magazine Spiked, the Attorney-General also declares he has no regret for saying Australians haveÂ the right to be bigotsÂ and accuses the left of advocating censorship to enforce a morality code on the nation.
It comes as former Australian of the year Professor Fiona Stanley saidÂ climate science had been denigrated through politicisation and denial, and issued a stinging attack on the federal government for the absence of a specific department to tackle global warming.
Senator Brandis, who is driving reforms to Australiaâs racial discrimination act, describes the climate change debate as one of the âcatalysing momentsâ in his views on freedom of speech.
While he says he believes in man-made climate change, the Queensland senator tells the magazine he is shocked by the âauthoritarianismâ with which some proponents of climate change exclude alternative viewpoints, singling out Laborâs Penny Wong as âAustraliaâs high priestess of political correctnessâ.
He said it was âdeplorableâ that âone side [has] the orthodoxy on its side and delegitimises the views of those who disagree, rather than engaging with them intellectually and showing them why they are wrongâ.
As examples, he points to Senator Wong and former Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who he accuses of arguing âthe science is settledâ to shut down political debate on climate change. Read more »
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.
Jon Levett writes at The Atlantic about modern society’s propensity to shout down those who we don’t agree with.
A recent example is the ostracisation of the Mozilla CE for daring to democratically put his money where his personal beliefs lay, and for daring to support one side of a democratic argument.
Then there is the case of Phil Robertson and Duck Dynasty being bullied off air, and the moves by the media and the pro-warming crowd to silence skeptics on global warming who dare to challenge their views on the matter.
Teacher unions and scientists use this technique all the time…”Shut up, when was the last time you were in a classroom teaching”…as if that is a valid argument for the right to have a say on education. “Shut up, what is your science degree in relation to? Was it in climate science” using the same childish argument to silence critics.
Homer Simpson once said that alcohol is the cause of, and solution to, all of lifeâs problems. And I kept thinking: Thatâs actually a pretty good description of the Internet and how itâs changing our discourse. Itâs basically the cause of, and solution to, everything that plagues our culture.
Thatâs an exaggeration, of course. The Internet didnât cause Donald Trump, and it certainly canât solve Donald Trump. The way you defeat Donald Trump is by getting the ring of power into the hands of a pure soul, a hobbit, say, and that hobbit must journey to Mount Doom and release the ring into its fires. But the Internet: Did you know that every single day, the Internet produces more speech than was created between the dawn of civilization and the year 2006? You didnât know that, because I just made it up. But it feels true. We are all bombarded. We are drowning in information. Itâs no longer thrown on our doorstep each sunrise, or even just broadcast into our living rooms; itâs in our hands every waking hour; the endless stream of talking, as we spend all day moving our eyes from screen to screen to screen; itâs the first thing we see each morning and the last thing we see before we go to bed. The shower is the last safe space, which is why itâs the only place where we have decent ideas anymore.
In many ways this is good and getting better: We have unlocked the gates and we are removing the gatekeepers. We arenât beholden to the views of the three green elders in the village. (See, I tied it back.) But what happens nextâhow we face the downside of so much connectednessâwill determine whether or not this revolution empowers us, or once again empowers those gatekeepers. And I donât want that to happen, because those gatekeepers suck. Theyâre arrogant and easily swayed by big, nice-sounding dangerous ideas; theyâre ambitious and careerist and forgetful and unimaginative and shortsighted; theyâre subject to groupthink, beholden to corporate interests, and enamored of fame and power.
I donât want those voices to drown out the diverse and compelling voices that now have a better chance of making it in front of us than ever beforeâeven as we still have a ways to go. And what I think we have to do, then, to protect this new wonderful thing of âa good idea can come from anyone anywhereââis we need to stop telling each other to shut up. We need to get comfortable with the reality that no one is going to shut up. You arenât going to shut up. Iâm not going to shut up. The idiots arenât going to shut up.
We need to learn to live with the noise and tolerate the noise even when the noise is stupid, even when the noise is offensive, even when the noise is at times dangerous. Because no matter how noble the intent, itâs a demand for conformity that encourages people on all sides of a debate to police each other instead of argue and convince each other. And, ultimately, the cycle of attack and apology, of disagreement and boycott, will leave us with fewer and fewer people talking more and more about less and less.Â Read more »
Last week I broke the story of his threats to the security guards who just want their outstanding back pay.
Kim Dotcom has refused to meet or discuss their requests and ignored legal letters regarding the outstanding payments. Failure to pay the guards means that they were effectively on $8-00 per hour, well under the legal requirement of the minimum wage laws of New Zealand.
I posted this audio of his threats against the security guards:
Today he started a twitter campaign against the same guards.
He thinks nothing of legal agreements except in order to protect his interests. He has also falsely claimed that the guards had confidentiality agreements, which is false.
Look at how many tweets he has made about it.
All former gate security guards signed confidentiality agreements. But they leak private info to bloggers in an effort to extort more money.
â Kim Dotcom (@KimDotcom) March 23, 2014
They just want what is owed to them and this is how Kim Dotcom reacts. Where is the Mana party now? Where is Labour? What about the unions? Â Read more »
TVNZ have issues and apology, but is it enough?
What about their explanation that these two muppets thought it was satire?
Sheesh I have literally hundreds of abusive emails, tweets, and Facebook messages I could list…and these guys made some up.
Regan at Throng asks though if anyone will actually take the fall for this cock up?
Shane Taurima scurried out the door after revelations he had bought a serious conflict of interest into the TVNZ newsroom. Â Now we find two more TVNZ staff, one of whom has been a trustworthy figure in many homes delivering news most days of the week, have been making stuff up.
While TVNZ will spin this,Â and have, as a simple misunderstanding of what the piece was, this brings into question the integrity of the newsroom where at least one high profiled news reader has now been found to have made up statements for what was viewed as a serious and truthful news piece.
The question that now goes begging is âWhat else do TVNZ make up?â
If TVNZ take their stated position as being the countryâs most watched news provider seriously, and launched an investigation into Taurimaâs conflict of interest after he justifiably resigned, what actions will they take to assure the public that this isnât endemic in their newsroom because itâs certainly starting tolookÂ that way.
Will there be directions given to the nearest exit orÂ will the transgressions be ignored?
We seem to have a culture of excusing away bad behaviour, especially in government departments…will TVNZ actually do something meaningful in this case.
I’m not holding my breath.
I have received a great deal of email over the past few days and as you can expect there is the fair share of haters and excuse makers. I even got one from a longtime family friend that followed the usual patterns of people saying no one deserves death threats BUT…you brought this on yourself. There is no BUT…you either condone death threats, rape threats, and violence of the mob or you do not…there is no BUT.
And then buried in that morass of filth you find emails like this from people you have never met nor are ever likely to.
I was saddened to hear both of the cyber attack on your site and the abuse and death threats that have come your way.
I have been the recipient of both abuse and death threats in the past [from some religious conservatives] and know the effect this had on those who are close to me. Â My sympathy is with you at this time.Â Â Read more »
Judith Collins could learn from Australia’s Attorney-General George Brandis who has just set the cat amongst the pigeons with a new appointment to their Human Rights Commission.
Senator Brandis said Mr Wilson’s appointment would “restore balance to the Australian Human Rights Commission” which, he said had “become increasingly narrow and selective in its view of human rights” under Labor.
He praised Mr Wilson’s credentials for the role.
“He has published and broadcast widely on the topics of personal freedom, liberal democratic values and the rule of law. He was at the forefront in thwarting recent attempts to erode freedom of speech, freedom of the press and artistic freedom – rights and freedoms Australians have always held precious.” Â Read more »
Len Brown called for more privacy for politicians after I busted on of his sordid little secrets wide open.
Like Len’s mistresses, secrets fester in the darkness…Matthew Norman at The Telegraph explains clearly why any moves to curtail press and media freedoms must be opposed strenuously.
Secrets are onerous, dangerous and destructive things, in public life as in human relationships. They fester in the darkness and become fetid, until eventually they turn toxic. Just as people become ill without enough Vitamin D, so the body politic needs sunlight to stay healthy. Â Read more »