We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Two vile men prosecuted by an even worse bunch of thugs Two men have been convicted of thought crimes by the state for daring to express what they think. I very much doubt the Human Right Industry will rally to the defence of Simon Sheppard and Stephen Whittle because the two men in question are a couple deeply unappealing white racist scumbags.
Had they merely been scumbag imams preaching in a mosque rather than scumbag white males handing out leaflets and publishing a website, I wonder if the ‘head of diversity and community cohesion’ in Humberside would be crowing about the latest demonstration of the British police state’s ability to tell people what they can and cannot say? Just askin’.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Seems very similar to the Canadian HRC scandal.
“Had they merely been deeply unappealing scumbag imams…”
Balance, old boy. Balance.
Mark these words.
Lyrical terrorist(Link) on the other hand…
Nowhere can I see what these people actually wrote. The best we get is summaries like “The published material included images of murdered Jews alongside cartoons and articles ridiculing ethnic groups”, or conclusory statements like “abusive and insulting”and “racially inflammatory material”. Offensive? Probably, to most people. But unless they were actually urging people to cause physical harm to others this shouldn’t be a crime. No one has (or should have, anyway) any right not to be ridiculed or insulted.
Words to live by:
‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.’
‘ . . to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all . . . liberty . . .’
‘If there is any principle (of the Constitution) that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought, not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.
‘We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still.’
‘Books won’t stay banned. They won’t burn. Ideas won’t go to jail. In the long run of history, the censor and the inquisitor have always lost. The only weapon against bad ideas is better ideas.’
‘We are not afraid to entrust (the American) people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.’
llater,
llamas
Laird,
Should you desperately wish to see what the fuss is all about, I managed to find the site in question. (Ironic, isn’t it, that they’ve probably boosted this couple’s audience a thousandfold?)
http://www.heretical.com/ofarrell/index.html
I’ve only looked at a few of the articles. Boring stuff – not even anything I’d call seriously offensive unless you are the sort to take moronic schoolyard taunts seriously. Conspiracy theories about jews running the world, tales of foreigners committing crimes and getting away with it because of multiculturalism, the usual stuff about sending them back where they came from. Like I say, I haven’t done a complete survey, but I didn’t find any threats or calls to violence. Just low-grade Alf Garnett style racism, only not nearly so clever. How disappointing.
I looked it up out of principle, and in the hopes that somebody somewhere will register the surge in traffic and find it annoying or whatever. But I wouldn’t bother reading any more of it.
This pathetic site does absolutely nothing to promote racial hate. Nobody who wasn’t already a racist would take it at all seriously. On the other hand, I suspect the prosecution does quite a lot to support racism – and would expect to see the case cited as concrete proof of foreigner-controlled multiculturalism destroying English freedoms by racists all over the place. For years to come. Well done there to Adil Khan the “head of diversity and community cohesion”.
As I said earlier, it’s remarkably reminiscent of the Canadian HRCs and their attempted prosecution of the StormFront people. It’s hard to tell who the real Fascists are here.
Laird,
I found the site. But obviously linking to it has upset the Smite-bot.
So far as I can see, there are no calls to violence. But it’s a pretty crap site and I didn’t look at all of it.
I assume the rest of my comments will come through eventually.
Not at all, the real fascists are the ones using actually force to suppress views they dislike. A bunch of real thugs with real force stamping on couple wannabe losers.
Probably so, Perry. I suppose I was reflexively being cautious about my wording in case of legal comeback – using ambiguity to convey the intended message without being literal enough for an easy libel complaint. I’m so used to doing it elsewhere that I scarcely notice any more. A bit silly doing it on a post about free speech and censorship, isn’t it?
Although in retrospect I do think it works better to leave it to the reader to infer. You could think of it as ironic understatement.
I expected this post to be about Nick Griffin’s claim that ships carrying illegal immigrants to the EU should be bombed.
Richard,
He can say it if he likes. It’s not as if anyone with the bombers to do it would be likely to pay any attention to him. And anyway, some of us remember trying that general approach before. July 18th 1947 – the anniversary is coming up soon. The sea battle for the Exodus 1947. (I do try to remember when it comes round.) Not one of our Navy’s most glorious moments.
Last time it was tried, the publicity didn’t work out so hot.
This case is absolutely outrageous. It’s difficult to know where to start.
The more I hear about the contemporary British police and legal system, the more I despise them.
If anything, the people who brought this case are the real racists. They seem to believe all white people are so full of racism and hate that the rantings of a couple of guys on some obscure website will instantly result in anti-ethnic pogroms.
Finally, how many people were murdered/assaulted/mugged/burgled on Humberside during the police’s “… lengthy investigation …” of this case.
Robert, I’d like to make a point that may seem rather subtle: it is bad enough that even a few white people take these idiots seriously and use their words to justify some real physical violence. Words can do that, even when they do not explicitly call for violence, thus in principle qualifying for the protection of free speech. So the point to be made is rather different: we should prosecute actions (i.e. explicit violence), not words, no matter how offensive these words may be, and no matter how much they may implicitly encourage explicit violence. Hope this makes sense.
The reason incitement to violence is normally argued to be subject to restriction is to cover cases like the gang leader issuing orders to the rest of the gang to go hurt people, without actually doing so himself.
The causal link has to be very direct and unambiguous. It has to be such that you know saying it is almost certainly going to result in it happening, and precisely because you said it.
If I say “terrorists should all be shot”, I don’t expect anyone to pay much attention. And if somebody does think it a good idea and goes and shoots some terrorists, it would be largely the result of their own thinking on the matter. But if the army general giving orders to his troops says “terrorists should all be shot”, he’s more likely to be in trouble.
Many things we say and do result in what is often called “statistical murder”. If you allow less direct causation between speech and violence, we all become culpable for lots of things. And to selectively use such an argument against only those things you personally oppose is logically invalid.
If words in the Qur’aan encourage violence and murder, shouldn’t it be banned? I’d be most entertained to see the “head of diversity and community cohesion” try to get that one passed.
Sunshine is the best antiseptic.
It seems the answer is ‘No’.
Well, we wouldn’t want them to get more militant, would we…?
These two men from the York area (one a graduate of the University of York) claimed that mass killing of Jews by the National Socialists was a “hoax”, they claimed it never happened.
They also claimed various other things about Jews (the claims were, doubtless, false).
It was covered in the local newspaper in York (where I have just been for a few days).
However, no where did the press coverage say “and the leaflet suggested attacking Jews”.
If the (vile) leaflet did suggest this it is odd that the press did not mention it.