The pathological loathing of freedom of speech

There is a great quote from James Delingpole which is oh so relevant to our current political debate in New Zealand. It applies clearly to people like Bomber Bradbury and to the liberal left in general as we have seen with reactions to Paul Henry, Alasdair Thompson, the Macsyna King Book, Don Brach and the Vote for Change campaign.

What is it about the liberal-left and its pathological loathing of freedom of speech and open debate? And why, instead of engaging in ideas – supported by facts – must it instead so invariably resort to this crude, smear technique whereby its opponents must forever be dismissed as morally compromised?

Actually, I ask these questions purely rhetorically because I know the answer already. To be on the liberal-left is not to trade in logic or reason or evidence-based argument. Essentially, it is about parading your own moral and socio-political virtue by being seen to express the “right” thoughts on any given subject – and by damning anyone who disagrees with you as a racist/homophobe/LittleEnglander/denier/fill-in-appropriate-noun-here.

Nothing disgusts me more than attempt to shut down political or any other discourse just because someone said something offensive. I find most things that socialists say offensive but rather than shutting them down I actually want them to speak that which they think so more people can see their foolish ideas.

I welcome idiots like Kyle Chapman, and Hone Harawira and Winston peters spouting their rubbish. They should be mocked not silenced. One of the more hateful developments after nine years of Clarkism was the shouting down of those who opposed her and her government. When the Exclusive Brethren dared to spend their own money telling the truth about the Greens labour and their allies passed a law to attempt to silence them, after demonising them and continuing to demonise them for using their democratic human right of freedom of speech.

Bomber talks of hateful people and hateful ideas and then goes on to demonise people for what he perceives as hate speech without realising that he practices a more hateful form of politics, he practices censorship. Trying to silence your foe through fear, intimidation and demonsiation is hateful, and it is that which much be opposed strongly.

The liberal left fear a contest of ideas that is why people like Bomber try to shut down debate, and the contest. They are fearful cowards. Long may they quake in fear of a contest of ideas.

 


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • cadwallader

    Agree!

    The proof?

    Visit the Standard if you can be bothered having a 3 hour shower to wash it off you afterwards. If when you are there you dare to demur even slightly the likelihood of a ban is considerable.

    • NZ Groover

      Maybe we need to start a banned by The Standard club where it as a badge of honour. I’ve been banned twice for what can only be termed “mild observations”.

  • Bomber makes me laugh.

  • thor42

    This is a topic that I feel extremely strongly about.
    As you’ll know, Geert Wilders (the Dutch MP) got hauled into court for doing nothing more than telling the **ugly truth** about Islam. Fortunately, he was acquitted of all charges, but another person – Elizabeth Sabbaditsch-Wolff – was *convicted* in Austria for doing exactly the same thing. Freedom of speech is now dead in Europe and the UK when it comes to Islam.
    I also feel strongly about the nonsense term “Islamophobia”. A phobia is an irrational fear. There is NOTHING “irrational” about fear or dislike of a hateful violent ideology like Islam. There is also **nothing wrong** with hating an ideology, and that is what Islam is. It is a violent, vicious ideology/cult – it does not deserve the label of a religion. Even if we do call it a religion, that should not prevent it from being criticised (just as the Catholic church was criticised over the abuse scandal).

    The other thing that the leftards have NO knowledge of is the truth about Israel and the “Fakestinians” – that it is ISRAEL who is the victim. That it was the **Arab countries** who encouraged the Arabs to leave Israel in 1948 – proved by a quote on this page by Khaled Al-Azm, Syria’s Prime Minister after the 1948 war –
    http://arabterrorism.tripod.com/quotes.html
    “”Since 1948 it is we who demanded the return of the refugees… while it is we who made them leave…. We brought disaster upon … Arab refugees, by inviting them and bringing pressure to bear upon them to leave…. We have rendered them dispossessed…. We have accustomed them to begging…. We have participated in lowering their moral and social level…. Then we exploited them in executing crimes of murder, arson, and throwing bombs upon … men, women and children–all this in the service of political purposes….”
    – Khaled Al-Azm
    The f**kwit leftards are **so ignorant** about Israel that it would be laughable if it were not so dangerous.

  • Exactly right, Thor. The Fakestinians were the rats of the Ayrab world. No Ayrab nation wanted them, even the country they came from (Jordan). They are used as pawns in a global anti-Israeli game. The leftoid bots forget the only place in the Middle East where anyone (including Ayrabs) has any liberty or freedom is Israel.

    And, I await with interest the first ‘hate speech’ trial in New Zealand where someone is charged for making about our brown brethren exactly the statements Ansell has made.

    • thor42

      Thank you! :) Hey, have a look at that quotes page, ay – it is ***chock-full*** of really incriminating quotes from ***Arab leaders***. Like this one –
      “You do not represent Palestine as much as we do. Never forget this one point: There is no such thing as a Palestinian People, there is no Palestinian entity, there is only Syria. You are an integral part of the Syrian people, Palestine is an integral part of Syria. Therefore it is we, the Syrian authorities, who are the true representatives of the Palestinian people.”
      – Syrian President Hafez Assad to PLO leader Yassir Arafat.
      Well then, Assad – if SYRIA is where the “Fakestinians” belong, then ***WHY DOESN’T IT TAKE THEM IN?***
      You Arab **bastards** caused the problem by encouraging them to leave, and now you use them as pawns!

  • ummmm

    I think you are misunderstanding what freedom of speech actually is. When someone like, for example, Ansell or Thompson says something you don’t like, freedom of speech means anyone can say anything they like in response. There is no restriction which says you are not allowed to say ‘that’s racist’ or ‘your employer should fire you’ or ‘I’m not coming to your shop if you stock that book’ or even saying ‘that sort of speech should be illegal’. That is all part of freedom of speech. In the USA it is known as the ‘free market of ideas – we all say whatever we like and the good ‘ideas’ get currency. The crappy ones bomb. What it is certainly not is any form of ‘censorship’. Censorship is a state action criminalising access to or dissemination of some particular form of information (like kiddie porn).

    • thor42

      The problem is, ummmm, that the lefties are *unable or unwilling* to engage in rational, reasoned debate on issues. The only way that they can fend off criticism of their ideas is to *abuse* the criticisers. Their favourite response is “RACIST!” ( which is **bullshit** when you are criticising Islam, as it is *not* a race – it is a cult/ideology. )

      The even bigger problem is that the so-called MSM have been captured by the lefties, and they have an overwhelming left-wing bias –
      http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23371706-yes-we-are-biased-on-religion-and-politics-admit-bbc-executives.do

      So, when you have the lefties screaming at you – sure, it is true that they are *entitled* to scream, but the end result is that you end up with “censorship by default”. You ***cannot debate rationally*** when the opposition is screaming at you, so your views and ideas (***no matter how valid they may be***) do not get heard.

    • thor42

      @ummmm – In fact, it is ***not exactly true*** that “the good ideas get currency”.

      If you are having a debate with a screaming leftie, you may well have *excellent and valid* ideas, but you will ***never be able to get them across*** when you’re being screamed at and abused!
      So, this results in “censorship by default”. The only ideas that get airtime are the boneheaded leftie ideas.
      Anything else gets shouted down or blocked due to “political correctness”.

      Even the BBC have admitted this – admitting what everyone knew anyway –
      http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23371706-yes-we-are-biased-on-religion-and-politics-admit-bbc-executives.do

  • gaskranken

    `Essen­tially, it is about parad­ing your own moral and socio-political virtue by being seen to express the “right” thoughts on any given sub­ject – and by damn­ing any­one who dis­agrees with you’

    Been like this since the eighties. In order to enforce correct and pure political thought from the left it is necessary to adopt very right wing methods to achieve the desired outcome.

    So anything from left field is undemocratic and whatever comes out of right field is democratic, oops that doesn’t quite work either.

    Maybe it’s got something to do with the enlightened ones and and those yet to come round to a more robust, pure and correct system – Goof-E should have a crack at selling that to us eh? Oh no that’s right we’ve already had a taste of living under a commissar.

41%