Free speech means literally anything you like

That’s its power

If you’re thinking of making an off-colour joke in modern Britain you’d be better off joining ISIS writes Douglas Murray in the Spectator. The point he makes is a good one. Whenever some idiot gets it into their head that it’s the right and proper thing to do to go and join an Islamist death cult in Somalia, Syria or Iraq – fully aware of the brutality that this will entail and of the innocents they may well be required hideously and ruthlessly to murder – we are expected to indulge them as hapless, brainwashed victims: nice, warm, caring, wouldn’t-hurt-a-fly types who were just led astray.

So says the wonderful James Delingpole at Breitbart. Source: Welcome to Modern Britain Where Sexism is a Greater Crime Than Violent Jihadism – Breitbart

Losing your job for making a bad joke or an off-colour joke, or even an offensive joke, is an act of oppression.

The holding of any opinion is explicitly protected by the law in England and in New Zealand. We can voice our opinion in public without fear of arrest or prosecution. Why? Because words cannot hurt us, though they may offend, sicken or disgust us if we let them. Nothing can disgust us unless we are disgusted.

Remember that we all have a right to free speech. If someone promotes a course of action or belief you find offensive, raise your voice against it. Don’t call the police or appeal to the Parliament to pass another law. Do it yourself: call for support, refute what they say with unassailable logic, destroy them with wicked humour.

Our opinion may be offensive, hideous or barbaric, but the law explicitly permits us to hold it. You may not like this, and that’s precisely why it’s been protected, because one day you will say something that others think abominable, but you will be safe.

We call it free speech. We are fortunate to have it. If you agree, thank a soldier.

Leave a Reply

11 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
5 Comment authors
Notify of
Yet another Richard

What was that piece of doggeral from primary school days

Sticks and stone will break my bones
But words will never hurt me.

Unfortunately it appears that it has been reversed in todays society.

Richard C (NZ)

‘Petition to Silence ‘Climate Change Deniers’ Gains Over 3,000 Signatures’

Written by Donna Rachel Edmunds, Breitbart London on 19 June 2015.

Can’t have free speech on Facebook now can we?

Richard C (NZ)

John McLean on the Pope’s encyclical:

‘The Pontiff Buys a Bridge’

“False prophets” and “false witness” of climate science – the downside of free speech.

And it was McLean, de Freitas, and Carter who ran foul of the Climategate journal gatekeepers.


There are several cases that I can think of where free speech is challenged by law: Michael Mann vs Mark Stein. Mann is suing Stein for “defamation” for $9 million. Steyn is counter suing for $30 million. This is essentially a free speech issue In Canada, if you suggest that the best people to raise a child are its biological parents and that the best structure for this is “traditional” marriage, you can be fined $10,000 and lose your job In Sweden, a man was given a suspended prison sentence for suggesting that the country’s rape epidemic might be something to do with the massive levels of immigration from countries where women are treated as second class citizens The suspended part was because it was a first offence. If he makes the same comments again the sentence will be custodial Ed Miliband, had he won the UK elections, was going to make “Islamophobia” illegal. Since technically a phobia is an irrational fear of something, I don’t really see how you can make this illegal. Last but not least, Holocaust Denial is illegal in many countries. As odious as I find the concept of… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”Ed Miliband, had he won the UK elections, was going to make “Islamophobia” illegal” That would have been problematic for the Tony Blair Faith Foundation: “Conflict in Iraq and Syria has seen ISIS seize vast territory. Charting the group’s rise, Peter Welby says that future dangers lie in the appeal to Islamists worldwide of their claims to a caliphate.” Gosh, Islamophobia. This must be prosecuted. Reaction to ISIS (enough to take military action against – or send military trainers) is fear of an Islamic caliphate, murderous of anyone against it in accordance with Islam – Period. >”technically a phobia is an irrational fear of something” Nothing irrational about fear of a murderous regime so no, not a phobia Andy. I guess the phobia arises when reaction to an ISIS-type caliphate is via the typical peaceful Islam-believer-next-door. Except a caliphate is, variously: Succession to Muhammad “successor to God” “successor of the messenger of God” “successor selected by God.” Ongoing since 632 Caliphate And unbelievers (infidel, kafir) are not acceptable in the caliphate: Islamic In the earliest recited verses of the Qur’an, such as Al-Kafirun, the term kafir simply divided the Meccan community… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Matt Ridley,

‘The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science’

“Rob Honeycutt [“Skeptical Science”] and his allies knew what they were doing. Delingpole points out that Honeycutt (on a different website) urged people to “send in the troops to hammer down” anything moderate or sceptical, and to “grow the team of crushers”. Those of us who have been on the end of this sort of stuff know it is exactly like what the blasphemy police do with Islamophobia. We get falsely labelled “deniers” and attacked for heresy in often the most ad-hominem way.”

Matt Ridley points out he is a lukewarmer and therefore not a “denier”.

Not in that camp so in terms of validity of the CO2 conjecture I’m happy to be labelled a denier, especially given the evidential justification at hand. But in the same camp re “Those of us who have been on the end of this sort of stuff”, at “Skeptical Science” in particular.

But point being, the MMCC/AGW blasphemy – Islamic blasphemy, “team[s] of crushers” identified by Matt Ridley. The case must be extremely weak if contra views, even of an individual, need to be crushed – by teams no less.

Richard C (NZ)

Ridley on the origin of the “Islamophobe” tag: Clearing the middle ground “Much of this climate war parallels what has happened with Islamism, and it is the result of a similar deliberate policy of polarisation and silencing of debate. Labelling opponents “Islamophobes” or “deniers” is in the vast majority of cases equally inaccurate and equally intended to polarise. As Asra Nomani wrote in the Washington Post recently, a community of anti-blasphemy police arose out of a deliberate policy decision by the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation:” The Washington Post article is this: ‘Meet the honor brigade, an organized campaign to silence debate on Islam’ By Asra Q. Nomani January 16 “You have shamed the community,” a fellow Muslim in Morgantown, W.Va., said to me as we sat in a Panera Bread in 2004. “Stop writing.” Then 38, I had just written an essay for The Washington Post’s Outlook section arguing that women should be allowed to pray in the main halls of mosques, rather than in segregated spaces, as most mosques in America are arranged. An American Muslim born in India, I grew up in a tolerant but conservative family. In my hometown mosque,… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)


‘Pope Francis’s Climate Encyclical: Help Poor People by Dismantling Industrial Civilization’

by Myron Ebell on June 19, 2015

The Vatican released Pope Francis’s encyclical on climate change, Laudato Si’, on 18th June. It is, in general, scientifically ill-informed, economically illiterate, intellectually incoherent, and morally obtuse. It is also theologically suspect, and large parts of it are leftist drivel, albeit couched in the vocabulary of Catholic social teaching.

At least Jorge Bergoglio is free to express his opinion.


“Francis’s thinking on these issues, as he makes clear in paragraphs 10-12, is based on the teachings of Saint Francis of Assisi (1181-1226). It isn’t until paragraph 82 that the Pope mentions the name of Jesus. Saint Francis took a vow of poverty, tried to live as simply as Jesus had lived, and founded the first orders of mendicant friars. This is the Pope’s starting point, but he fails to notice that his namesake had wealthy parents who didn’t require his care when they became old and sick, didn’t have children who needed to be fed, clothed, and educated, and relied for his sustenance on alms from wealthy people in a wealthy society.”

Richard C (NZ)

>”large parts of it are leftist drivel, albeit couched in the vocabulary of Catholic social teaching” Ebell: “The influence of Liberation Theology on the Pope’s thinking is obvious. Liberation Theology was strongest in Latin America, and its heyday was from the 1950s to the 1980s. Gustavo Gutierrez, one of its leading exponents, claimed that Saint Francis of Assisi should be the patron saint of Liberation Theology. Recently, a former general in Romania’s secret police during the Communist era said that the Soviet KGB created, directed, and funded the Liberation Theology movement.” More to it than that. Wiki: Liberation theology has been described as “an interpretation of Christian faith out of the experience of the poor… an attempt to read the Bible and key Christian doctrines with the eyes of the poor”,[1] or “the message of the gospels”, restored from “the first three centuries [of Christianity in which] it was…a pacifist…religion of the poor.”[2] Detractors have called it Christianized Marxism.[3] Vatican reaction Cardinal Ratzinger In March 1983, Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI), head of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), made ten observations of Gutiérrez’s theology, accusing Gutiérrez of… Read more »

Post Navigation