The slow death of free speech
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
They do....just not on this earth.
Are they going to subpoena God? Kinda silly when God made Gays and Lesbians for a reason. I have no idea why but there has to be an evolutionary advantage some where/how to explain the prevalence.
Have you noticed how, in all of those cases listed, it's all left wingers who are doing it? The Left Wing Establishment which now rules every Western country brooks no dissent. There must not be any comments on TV, on the radio or in the press which disagrees with the left wing consensus. Anyone who disagrees with it is quickly shut up, and they are often forced to "apologise" for "any offence caused".
The Former Chancellor Nigel Lawson (Nigella Lawson's dad) speaks more sense than many of his Global Warmist enemies, yet the BBC (you can't get more Lefty Establishment than that) didn't want to air his opinion, dismissing him by merely saying he is not a scientist and knows nothing about climate change. Yet the BBC sees no problem in allowing none scientists on who know nothing about climate change if they actually believe that climate change exists. It only wanted to air the opinions of Global Warmists. Hence there's no proper discussion and debate anymore. Only one side (the left) is allowed to air its views even though those views are almost always wrong and are detrimental to society and our well-being.
I mean, just look at Britain and the Establishment's attempts to shut Ukip up.
In apologising for having Nigel Lawson on to discuss climate change, the BBC has breached its charter
Rational debate is poisonous to climatic correctness
183 Comments
The Spectator
12 July 2014
Can you spot the thought criminal? (Photo: Getty)
It is only a matter of time before Nigel Lawson — if he is allowed on the BBC at all — has to have his words spoken by an actor in the manner of Gerry Adams at the height of the IRA’s bombing campaign during the 1980s. In the case of Mr Adams, whose voice was banned from the airwaves by the government, the BBC stood up for free speech. But it is quite a different story with Lord Lawson. The BBC has effectively banned the former chancellor (and former editor of this magazine) from appearing on its programmes to debate climate change, unless he is introduced with a statement discrediting his views.
The BBC’s Editorial Complaints Department this week ruled that the Today programme broke BBC guidelines in February by inviting Lord Lawson to a debate with Sir Brian Hoskins, chairman of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change. It bizarrely claimed that his views are ‘not supported by the evidence’ — though he had pointed out, correctly, that the planet has not been warming for the past 17 years. Nevertheless, the BBC politburo warned, listeners should have been warned that Lord Lawson is in a minority and, therefore, his words ‘should not be regarded as carrying equal weight to those of experts such as Sir Brian Hoskins’.
Lord Lawson is, of course, not a scientist. But a great many people speak on the BBC on subjects in which they do not have any formal qualifications: Al Gore, for example. Or Rajendra Pachauri, a railway engineer by training, who now runs the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC). Neither does the BBC seem to be worried about non-scientists addressing scientific issues when it comes to such things as fracking or GM crops, on which any green activists are welcome to speak, however bizarre their scaremongering theories.
What Lord Lawson is, however, is chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), a think-tank that has no quarrel with the idea of global warming. Its aim is to appeal to reason, and to engage in mature argument rather than hysteria. Lord Lawson is advised by scientists who until recently included Lennart Bengtsson, a research fellow at the University of Reading. Professor Bengtsson was hounded off the GWPF board by his fellow scientists.
When people try to close down debate rather than engage with it, there is a pretty clear conclusion to be drawn: they lack confidence in their own case. The suppression of debate was shown again this week when Vladimir Semonov, a climate scientist at the Geomar Institute in Kiel, Germany, revealed that a paper he wrote in 2009 questioning the accuracy of climate models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was effectively censored by the scientist to whom it was sent for review. Their reasons for demanding passages be removed seems rather less than scientifically rigorous: one wrote that the offending material would ‘lead to unnecessary confusion in the climate science community’ and another said that ‘this entire discussion has to disappear’.
The process of peer review used in the scientific press is often held up as a mark of quality, which enables poorly conducted scientific research to be weeded out before it reaches the eyes of readers less qualified to judge the rigour of the work. This may to some extent be true, even if peer review failed to spot weaknesses in the now discredited Fleischmann-Pons cold fusion experiments of 1989 or stop the MMR scare.
But the peer review process is also open to abuse. Just as the social sciences became infected by political correctness 20 years ago, climate science has become governed by climatic correctness. To question the consensus that the world is facing fire and tempest as a result of anthropocentric global warming is, in the eyes of some working in the field, simply not allowable. That is something which was revealed in the Climategate scandal of 2009 when leaked emails from the University of East Anglia caught out scientists who had been withholding data, trying to keep rivals’ papers out of journals and in one case threatening violence against a sceptical scientist.
The BBC at first declined to go into the content of the emails, preferring to treat the story as a case of data theft. The fact that the emails contained material of extreme public interest seemed to count for nothing. The unknown individuals who leaked the emails can only dream of the hero worship afforded to Edward Snowden and Julian Assange; attitudes on the left towards release of information seem to swing dramatically depending on what information is being released.
The same is true of the BBC’s attitude towards balanced debate — something which is supposed to be guaranteed by its charter. The BBC has decided that it is allowable to debate such issues as whether benefit cuts are causing distress or whether sports-women are being discriminated against by male-dominated bastions — something the Today programme does virtually every morning. But dare to question whether it is wise for the country to embark on the economic experiment of abandoning fossil fuel on the back of some far-from-robust scientific models, and you will have to find another media outlet.
In apologising for having Nigel Lawson on to discuss climate change, the BBC has breached its charter » The Spectator
A World Stripped of Contraries
One of my favorite sections in The [Un]documented Mark Steyn (which I see is one of Politico's bestsellers this week) is entitled "Last Laughs", and deals with the ever more openly totalitarian ease with which everyone who matters in western society - from politicians to "educators" - is happy to ban opinions, attitudes, even jokes, all in the cause of regulating the new utopia. The more officially "tolerant" we become, the more intolerant we must be in enforcing it.
Older lefties can still just about pay lip-service to that apocryphal bit of Voltaire about disagreeing with what you say but fighting to the death for your right to say it - a line that used to appeal to the progressive's sense of self-inflating heroism. As I say in the book, nobody needs you to "fight to the death" for it: a mildly supportive Tweet every now and again would do. But among the leaders of tomorrow even these rote nods toward the "principle" of free speech ask too much. A fellow called Zach Traynor, exercising his "white privilege" from the cozily parochial confines of Dartmouth College, sums up what passes for current thinking:
Oh, no, wait, all those deeply-held cultural norms didn't prevent any of that at all. You'd be surprised how non-deeply-held most cultural norms are once push comes to shove. This Zach Traynor chappie seems entirely unmoored from any himself. But perhaps I underestimate "the power of social media". After all, it seems to be doing a grand job in persuading Canadians and Americans and Aussies and Frenchmen to take up head-hacking for the Islamic State. So who knows what it might accomplish if one were able to harness its awesome power in the name of unambiguous good - ie, "the prohibition of unambiguously destructive, hateful speech."
Personally, I like hate. I don't mean I hate Zach Traynor, although I do despise him - as the pampered beneficiary of a glorious inheritance too dim to understand what he's betraying. But as the years go by I am inclined to take Blake's view. That's Blake Shelton, judge of TV's "The Voice" ...no, wait, I mean William Blake, obscure dead guy, who remarked:
~Speaking of The [Un]documented Mark Steyn, Jonathan van Maren has a word to say about my new book, and about the strength of some of those "deeply-held cultural norms":
One of my favorite sections in The [Un]documented Mark Steyn (which I see is one of Politico's bestsellers this week) is entitled "Last Laughs", and deals with the ever more openly totalitarian ease with which everyone who matters in western society - from politicians to "educators" - is happy to ban opinions, attitudes, even jokes, all in the cause of regulating the new utopia. The more officially "tolerant" we become, the more intolerant we must be in enforcing it.
Older lefties can still just about pay lip-service to that apocryphal bit of Voltaire about disagreeing with what you say but fighting to the death for your right to say it - a line that used to appeal to the progressive's sense of self-inflating heroism. As I say in the book, nobody needs you to "fight to the death" for it: a mildly supportive Tweet every now and again would do. But among the leaders of tomorrow even these rote nods toward the "principle" of free speech ask too much. A fellow called Zach Traynor, exercising his "white privilege" from the cozily parochial confines of Dartmouth College, sums up what passes for current thinking:
This country has gone too far in allowing people to say whatever they want, and should curtail speech that is obviously harmful to society, such as hate speech.
Those in support of aggressive civil liberties will protest: What is stopping the government from moving past sensible restrictions on free speech, once they are in place, to something more Orwellian, as in China or other authoritarian regimes? At face value, this is a fair question, but given America's deeply-held cultural norms and the power of the Internet and social media, such a scenario is highly unlikely. We need only small but significant change to the freedom of speech in this country: namely, the prohibition of unambiguously destructive, hateful speech.
And obviously everyone can agree on what constitutes "hateful" speech, can't they? Some right-thinking chap from the Ivy League (Jonathan Gruber, for example - he seems to be available) could put his thinking cap on and draw up the "architecture" for such prohibitions. And then some disinterested bureaucrats could create an agency (perhaps headed by Lois Lerner - she seems to be available) to administer the new prohibitions fairly. And obviously "America's deeply-held cultural norms and the power of the Internet and social media" would prevent the new regime getting out of hand - in the way that Canada's deeply-held cultural norms and the power of the Internet prevented it prosecuting stand-up comedians for putting down lesbian hecklers homophobically, and Britain's deeply-held cultural norms and the power of the Internet prevented it cracking down on a bloke making disrespectful Nelson Mandela jokes, and Denmark's deeply-held cultural norms and the power of the Internet prevented it charging Lars Hedegaard for some private observations made in the privacy of his home about Islam's treatment of women...Those in support of aggressive civil liberties will protest: What is stopping the government from moving past sensible restrictions on free speech, once they are in place, to something more Orwellian, as in China or other authoritarian regimes? At face value, this is a fair question, but given America's deeply-held cultural norms and the power of the Internet and social media, such a scenario is highly unlikely. We need only small but significant change to the freedom of speech in this country: namely, the prohibition of unambiguously destructive, hateful speech.
Oh, no, wait, all those deeply-held cultural norms didn't prevent any of that at all. You'd be surprised how non-deeply-held most cultural norms are once push comes to shove. This Zach Traynor chappie seems entirely unmoored from any himself. But perhaps I underestimate "the power of social media". After all, it seems to be doing a grand job in persuading Canadians and Americans and Aussies and Frenchmen to take up head-hacking for the Islamic State. So who knows what it might accomplish if one were able to harness its awesome power in the name of unambiguous good - ie, "the prohibition of unambiguously destructive, hateful speech."
Personally, I like hate. I don't mean I hate Zach Traynor, although I do despise him - as the pampered beneficiary of a glorious inheritance too dim to understand what he's betraying. But as the years go by I am inclined to take Blake's view. That's Blake Shelton, judge of TV's "The Voice" ...no, wait, I mean William Blake, obscure dead guy, who remarked:
Without Contraries is no progression. Attraction and Repulsion,Reason and Energy, Love and Hate are necessary to Human existence.
He's not saying Hate is "good", only that it's "necessary to Human existence". The freedom to hate is part of what makes us human, and what makes us free, and therefore "without Contraries is no progression" - which is why those places most advanced toward Zach Traynor's utopia (American college campuses, say) seem most stagnant. I wouldn't necessarily want to argue that Jian Ghomeshi, the impeccably liberal, progressive CBC radio host of plonkingly correct attitudes Tweeting out his support for #EndViolenceAgainstWomenDay all year long while cheerfully punching their lights out in his apartment every night, is a testament to the strain of living under such a regime, but the strange, increasingly vicious urge to ban, silence, forbid, exile, obliterate even the mildest disagreeement that now characterizes "liberal" institutions such as the academy suggests that the formal proscription of "hate" only leads it to find other outlets. The world Traynor's generation is ushering in will be be bloodier than one of Mr Ghomeshi's dates.~Speaking of The [Un]documented Mark Steyn, Jonathan van Maren has a word to say about my new book, and about the strength of some of those "deeply-held cultural norms":
On the announcement by Ontario school boards that in conjunction with newly imposed "Gay-Straight Alliance" clubs, they would be holding a "National Day of Pink," Steyn's sarcasm turns acidic. "Er, I don't think I have a lot of choice on that front, do I? 'For schools holding Anti-Bullying events in April, you still have time to order [pink] shirts at a discount.' That's great news! Nothing says 'celebrate diversity' like forcing everyone to dress exactly the same, like a bunch of Maoists who threw their workers' garb in the washer but forgot to take the red flag out."
Diversity, as it happens, is where Steyn says "nations go to die." Canada is one example. "If local Mennonites or Amish were segregating the sexes and making them enter by different doors for religious services in a Toronto grade-school cafeteria, Canadian feminists would howl them down in outrage," Steyn points out. "But when Muslims do it they fall as silent as their body-bagged sisters in Kandahar."
The entire book is a roller-coaster ride of ridicule and fiercely sharp analysis. Mark Steyn is one of the few commentators that can turn his pen, which often doubles as a harpoon in his hand, to almost any topic, intelligently lampooning his subject while not losing sight of the bigger picture.
A World Stripped of Contraries :: SteynOnline
Diversity, as it happens, is where Steyn says "nations go to die." Canada is one example. "If local Mennonites or Amish were segregating the sexes and making them enter by different doors for religious services in a Toronto grade-school cafeteria, Canadian feminists would howl them down in outrage," Steyn points out. "But when Muslims do it they fall as silent as their body-bagged sisters in Kandahar."
The entire book is a roller-coaster ride of ridicule and fiercely sharp analysis. Mark Steyn is one of the few commentators that can turn his pen, which often doubles as a harpoon in his hand, to almost any topic, intelligently lampooning his subject while not losing sight of the bigger picture.
A World Stripped of Contraries :: SteynOnline
Last month, backed by its major shareholder New York hedge fund GoldenTree Asset Management, Postmedia added to its stable of CAPP-promoting opportunities with its purchase of Sun Media and 175 more newspapers and websites across Canada (link is external), including the 24 Hours daily.
Just another day of tarsands-friendly media concentration in your backyard.
Fun story :
Seven years ago, Texas Governor Rick Perry was pushing to build the Trans-Texas Corridor, a quarter-mile-wide swath of truck-only toll lanes, railway lines and multiple traffic lanes rolling from Mexico to the Oklahoma state border. The prime bidder was Cintra SA, Macquarie Infrastructure Group's partner in the Ontario Highway 407 ETR (link is external) 99 year lease, of which Australia's Macquarie is the largest shareholder.
To many Texan ranchers and farmers, Perry's superhighway just looked like a royal pain in the *** and opponents of privatizing roads came out against it in the thousands.
All up and down the proposed route, ads and editorials critical of the proposal ran in the local newspapers. Macquarie bought those local newspapers out. All 40 of them (link is external).
Just another day of tarsands-friendly media concentration in your backyard.
Fun story :
Seven years ago, Texas Governor Rick Perry was pushing to build the Trans-Texas Corridor, a quarter-mile-wide swath of truck-only toll lanes, railway lines and multiple traffic lanes rolling from Mexico to the Oklahoma state border. The prime bidder was Cintra SA, Macquarie Infrastructure Group's partner in the Ontario Highway 407 ETR (link is external) 99 year lease, of which Australia's Macquarie is the largest shareholder.
To many Texan ranchers and farmers, Perry's superhighway just looked like a royal pain in the *** and opponents of privatizing roads came out against it in the thousands.
All up and down the proposed route, ads and editorials critical of the proposal ran in the local newspapers. Macquarie bought those local newspapers out. All 40 of them (link is external).
Yeah...God forbid we have a variety of political opinion on the airwaves.
The thing about "progressives" is they have their heads so solidly rammed up their own rectal orifice that they do not understand how dangerous to all liberty they are........
And this has exactly WHAT to do with free speech??