I'm guessing that I'm the last blogger in Britain to post on the left's latest assault on free speech. There's something to be said for this approach, in so far as plenty of folks in the blogosphere seem to take The Matrix way too seriously. So, no, this isn't the blogosphere's Pearl Harbour, but let's not go the other way. Whatever the specifics of this case, there's something fundamentally repulsive about the idea that a Briton can only publish his work on the sufferance of the state.
Hey, even the left's usual sub-Marxoid fig leafs apply here. This is one guy, writing a blog. There's no 'imbalance of power', no one's being 'shut out of the debate', no one's lacking a 'right to reply' - on the contrary, it's the left that wants to outlaw whole areas of public debate.
Similarly, whatever may or may not actually happen to 'Lionheart', having activists in uniform carrying out the 'nice blog you've got here, pity if something was to happen to it' routine is not a neutral thing. These liberal thugs may not be able to get convictions, but they can still sure make life hellish for their victims.
There's an irony here too. When you think about it, Lionheart isn't being persecuted for anything he actually wrote. That might sound paradoxical, but remember that he's being harassed for supposed 'hate speech'. The content of the speech is irrelevant, except in so far as the usual suspects claims it incites hatred - a totally subjective standard. Meanwhile, over in Canada the Great Steyn is being hassled over accurately - but apparently offensively - quoting a Norwegian iman. In other words, 'hate speech' only becomes 'hate speech' when it's said by the wrong person.
These people would no doubt posture as determined opponents of 'prejudice', but consider where that word comes from - the pre-trial session in Roman courts where the rank of the contending parties was determined. We're supposed to be appalled by the idea of a court which bases its decisions partially on the social position of the accused, but flash forward 2000 years and now we have courts deciding that 'hate speech' depends on who's actually saying it. Is anything 'Lionheart' says about Islam really different from what the folks from 'Undercover Mosque' say ? Yet one is hate speech, while it's criticism of the other that counts as hate speech.
The left has gone one up on Humpty Dumpty - he only claimed words meant whatever he choose them to mean, but leftists claim the same words can mean different things depending on who says them. Whatever the ideological objections to the principle of 'hate crimes' laws, the reality is even worse. What we have is the law being used to victimise people not for what they actually say, but for the underlying position they take. It is literally thought crime.
Hey, even the left's usual sub-Marxoid fig leafs apply here. This is one guy, writing a blog. There's no 'imbalance of power', no one's being 'shut out of the debate', no one's lacking a 'right to reply' - on the contrary, it's the left that wants to outlaw whole areas of public debate.
Similarly, whatever may or may not actually happen to 'Lionheart', having activists in uniform carrying out the 'nice blog you've got here, pity if something was to happen to it' routine is not a neutral thing. These liberal thugs may not be able to get convictions, but they can still sure make life hellish for their victims.
There's an irony here too. When you think about it, Lionheart isn't being persecuted for anything he actually wrote. That might sound paradoxical, but remember that he's being harassed for supposed 'hate speech'. The content of the speech is irrelevant, except in so far as the usual suspects claims it incites hatred - a totally subjective standard. Meanwhile, over in Canada the Great Steyn is being hassled over accurately - but apparently offensively - quoting a Norwegian iman. In other words, 'hate speech' only becomes 'hate speech' when it's said by the wrong person.
These people would no doubt posture as determined opponents of 'prejudice', but consider where that word comes from - the pre-trial session in Roman courts where the rank of the contending parties was determined. We're supposed to be appalled by the idea of a court which bases its decisions partially on the social position of the accused, but flash forward 2000 years and now we have courts deciding that 'hate speech' depends on who's actually saying it. Is anything 'Lionheart' says about Islam really different from what the folks from 'Undercover Mosque' say ? Yet one is hate speech, while it's criticism of the other that counts as hate speech.
The left has gone one up on Humpty Dumpty - he only claimed words meant whatever he choose them to mean, but leftists claim the same words can mean different things depending on who says them. Whatever the ideological objections to the principle of 'hate crimes' laws, the reality is even worse. What we have is the law being used to victimise people not for what they actually say, but for the underlying position they take. It is literally thought crime.
No comments:
Post a Comment