Irish Time

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

British Hate-Speech Hypocrisy & Disinformation






The considerable historical revisionism in Ireland, past and present is mentored illegitimate scholastic forgery of historical events. The illegitimate distortion of historical records, most notably in the instance of the Irish Holocaust has been achieved to such an extent, making it appear in a more favourable light for the British, that it may as well have been airbrushed from Irish history. Likewise in contemporary events such as the 1981 Hunger Strike that cost 10 lives, history is again being written by the victors with their mentored historical revisionism in Ireland.

 It is a serious crime to deny the Jewish Holocaust that cost more than 6 million lives in continental Europe but its encouraged and perfectly legal for the British and west British in Ireland, to deny the British Genocide and war crimes, that cost 6,257,456 lives in the Irish Holocaust.In attempting to revise the Irish past involving war crimes or crimes against humanity,the British techniques include presenting known forged documents, as in the instance of Parnell, Roger Casement to name just a few, while at the same time, they invent ingenious, implausible, reasons for distrusting genuine documentation.

 The British revisionists in Ireland to this very day, attribute their own conclusions to historical material and sources, while manipulating statistics to support their given point of view. The most important examples of illegitimate historical revisionism in Ireland, include Irish Holocaust denial and the colossal extent of Irish Slavery in ethnic cleansing conducted by the British, shipping hundreds of thousands on the original coffin ships, almost two centuries previously. Contemporarily, negationism is being practiced with regard to hstoriacl interpretation of the Hunger Strike and events of the 40 year war conducted by the British in Occupied Ireland. While some European countries have criminalized the negationist revision of historical events, the British sponsor many revisionist historians, particularly with regard to their war crimes in Ireland. The British momimize their criminal war activity in Ireland as a form of an Irish joke, to be encouraged with subtle irony.

 The article below deals with hate speech and the distortion of history, along with the negationism of historical war crimes.


 Hate-Speech Hypocrisy 

By William Saletan

 Jews have too much influence over U.S. foreign policy. Gay men are too promiscuous. Muslims commit too much terrorism. Blacks commit too much crime. Each of those claims is poorly stated. Each, in its clumsy way, addresses a real problem or concern. And each violates laws against hate speech. In much of what we call the free world, for writing that paragraph, I could be jailed.

 Libertarians, cultural conservatives, and racists have complained about these laws for years. But now the problem has turned global. Islamic governments, angered by an anti-Muslim video that provoked protests and riots in their countries, are demanding to know why insulting the Prophet Mohammed is free speech but vilifying Jews and denying the Holocaust isn’t. And we don’t have a good answer.

 If we’re going to preach freedom of expression around the world, we have to practice it. We have to scrap our hate-speech laws. Muslim leaders want us to extend these laws. At this week’s meeting of the U.N. General Assembly, they lobbied for tighter censorship.

Egypt’s president said freedom of expression shouldn’t include speech that is “used to incite hatred” or “directed towards one specific religion.” Pakistan’s president urged the “international community” to “criminalize” acts that “endanger world security by misusing freedom of expression.” Yemen’s president called for “international legislation” to suppress speech that “blasphemes the beliefs of nations and defames their figures.”

The Arab League’s secretary-general proposed a binding “international legal framework” to “criminalize psychological and spiritual harm” caused by expressions that “insult the beliefs, culture and civilization of others." President Obama, while condemning the video, met these proposals with a stout defense of free speech. Switzerland’s president agreed: “Freedom of opinion and of expression are core values guaranteed universally which must be protected.” And when a French magazine published cartoons poking fun at Mohammed, the country’s prime minister insisted that French laws protecting free speech extend to caricatures.

 This debate between East and West, between respect and pluralism, isn’t a crisis. It’s a stage of global progress. The Arab spring has freed hundreds of millions of Muslims from the political retardation of dictatorship. They’re taking responsibility for governing themselves and their relations with other countries. They’re debating one another and challenging us. And they should, because we’re hypocrites.

 From Pakistan to Iran to Saudi Arabia to Egypt to Nigeria to the United Kingdom, Muslims scoff at our rhetoric about free speech. They point to European laws against questioning the Holocaust. Monday on CNN, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad needled British interviewer Piers Morgan: “Why in Europe has it been forbidden for anyone to conduct any research about this event? Why are researchers in prison?
… Do you believe in the freedom of thought and ideas, or no?” On Tuesday, Pakistan’s U.N. ambassador, speaking for the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, told the U.N. Human Rights Council: We are all aware of the fact that laws exist in Europe and other countries which impose curbs, for instance, on anti-Semitic speech, Holocaust denial, or racial slurs.

We need to acknowledge, once and for all, that Islamophobia in particular and discrimination on the basis of religion and belief are contemporary forms of racism and must be dealt with as such. Not to do so would be a clear example of double standards. Islamophobia has to be treated in law and practice equal to the treatment given to anti-Semitism. He’s right.

Laws throughout Europe forbid any expression that “minimizes,” “trivializes,” “belittles,” “plays down,” “contests,” or “puts in doubt” Nazi crimes. Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic extend this prohibition to communist atrocities. These laws carry jail sentences of up to five years. Germany adds two years for anyone who “disparages the memory of a deceased person.”

 Hate speech laws go further. Germany punishes anyone found guilty of “insulting” or “defaming segments of the population.” The Netherlands bans anything that “verbally or in writing or image, deliberately offends a group of people because of their race, their religion or beliefs, their hetero- or homosexual orientation or their physical, psychological or mental handicap.” It’s illegal to “insult” such a group in France, to “defame” them in Portugal, to “degrade” them in Denmark, or to “expresses contempt” for them in Sweden. In Switzerland, it’s illegal to “demean” them even with a “gesture.”

Canada punishes anyone who “willfully promotes hatred.” The United Kingdom outlaws “insulting words or behavior” that arouse “racial hatred.” Romania forbids the possession of xenophobic “symbols.” Jews have too much influence over U.S. foreign policy. Gay men are too promiscuous. Muslims commit too much terrorism. Blacks commit too much crime. Each of those claims is poorly stated. Each, in its clumsy way, addresses a real problem or concern. And each violates laws against hate speech. In much of what we call the free world, for writing that paragraph, I could be jailed.

 Libertarians, cultural conservatives, and racists have complained about these laws for years. But now the problem has turned global. Islamic governments, angered by an anti-Muslim video that provoked protests and riots in their countries, are demanding to know why insulting the Prophet Mohammed is free speech but vilifying Jews and denying the Holocaust isn’t. And we don’t have a good answer. If we’re going to preach freedom of expression around the world, we have to practice it. We have to scrap our hate-speech laws. Muslim leaders want us to extend these laws.

At this week’s meeting of the U.N. General Assembly, they lobbied for tighter censorship. Egypt’s president said freedom of expression shouldn’t include speech that is “used to incite hatred” or “directed towards one specific religion.” Pakistan’s president urged the “international community” to “criminalize” acts that “endanger world security by misusing freedom of expression.”

Yemen’s president called for “international legislation” to suppress speech that “blasphemes the beliefs of nations and defames their figures.” The Arab League’s secretary-general proposed a binding “international legal framework” to “criminalize psychological and spiritual harm” caused by expressions that “insult the beliefs, culture and civilization of others." President Obama, while condemning the video, met these proposals with a stout defense of free speech.

Switzerland’s president agreed: “Freedom of opinion and of expression are core values guaranteed universally which must be protected.” And when a French magazine published cartoons poking fun at Mohammed, the country’s prime minister insisted that French laws protecting free speech extend to caricatures.

 This debate between East and West, between respect and pluralism, isn’t a crisis. It’s a stage of global progress. The Arab spring has freed hundreds of millions of Muslims from the political retardation of dictatorship. They’re taking responsibility for governing themselves and their relations with other countries. They’re debating one another and challenging us. And they should, because we’re hypocrites.

 From Pakistan to Iran to Saudi Arabia to Egypt to Nigeria to the United Kingdom, Muslims scoff at our rhetoric about free speech. They point to European laws against questioning the Holocaust. Monday on CNN, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad needled British interviewer Piers Morgan: “Why in Europe has it been forbidden for anyone to conduct any research about this event? Why are researchers in prison?

 … Do you believe in the freedom of thought and ideas, or no?” On Tuesday, Pakistan’s U.N. ambassador, speaking for the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, told the U.N. Human Rights Council: We are all aware of the fact that laws exist in Europe and other countries which impose curbs, for instance, on anti-Semitic speech, Holocaust denial, or racial slurs. We need to acknowledge, once and for all, that Islamophobia in particular and discrimination on the basis of religion and belief are contemporary forms of racism and must be dealt with as such. Not to do so would be a clear example of double standards. Islamophobia has to be treated in law and practice equal to the treatment given to anti-Semitism. He’s right.

Laws throughout Europe forbid any expression that “minimizes,” “trivializes,” “belittles,” “plays down,” “contests,” or “puts in doubt” Nazi crimes. Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic extend this prohibition to communist atrocities. These laws carry jail sentences of up to five years. Germany adds two years for anyone who “disparages the memory of a deceased person.” Hate speech laws go further. Germany punishes anyone found guilty of “insulting” or “defaming segments of the population.” The Netherlands bans anything that “verbally or in writing or image, deliberately offends a group of people because of their race, their religion or beliefs, their hetero- or homosexual orientation or their physical, psychological or mental handicap.”

It’s illegal to “insult” such a group in France, to “defame” them in Portugal, to “degrade” them in Denmark, or to “expresses contempt” for them in Sweden. In Switzerland, it’s illegal to “demean” them even with a “gesture.” Canada punishes anyone who “willfully promotes hatred.” The United Kingdom outlaws “insulting words or behavior” that arouse “racial hatred.” Romania forbids the possession of xenophobic “symbols.” What have these laws produced? Look at the convictions upheld or accepted by the European Court of Human Rights. Four Swedes who distributed leaflets that called homosexuality “deviant” and “morally destructive” and blamed it for AIDS.

An Englishman who displayed in his window a 9/11 poster proclaiming, “Islam out of Britain.” A Turk who published two letters from readers angry at the government’s treatment of Kurds. A Frenchman who wrote an article disputing the plausibility of poison gas technology at a Nazi concentration camp. Look at the defendants rescued by the court. A Dane “convicted of aiding and abetting the dissemination of racist remarks” for making a documentary in which three people “made abusive and derogatory remarks about immigrants and ethnic groups.”

A man “convicted of openly inciting the population to hatred” in Turkey by “criticizing secular and democratic principles and openly calling for the introduction of Sharia law.” Another Turkish resident “convicted of disseminating propaganda” after he “criticized the United States’ intervention in Iraq and the solitary confinement of the leader of a terrorist organization.” Two Frenchmen who wrote a newspaper article that “portrayed Marshal PĂ©tain in a favorable light, drawing a veil over his policy of collaboration with the Nazi regime.”

 Beyond the court’s docket, you’ll find more prosecutions of dissent. A Swedish pastor convicted of violating hate-speech laws by preaching against homosexuality. A Serb convicted of discrimination for saying, “We are against every gathering where homosexuals are demonstrating in the streets of Belgrade and want to show something, which is a disease, like it is normal.”

An Australian columnist convicted of violating the Racial Discrimination Act by suggesting that “there are fair-skinned people in Australia with essentially European ancestry … who, motivated by career opportunities available to Aboriginal people or by political activism, have chosen to falsely identify as Aboriginal.” My favorite case involves a Frenchman who sought free-speech protection under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights: Denis Leroy is a cartoonist.

One of his drawings representing the attack on the World Trade Centre was published in a Basque weekly newspaper … with a caption which read: “We have all dreamt of it ... Hamas did it”. Having been sentenced to payment of a fine for “condoning terrorism”, Mr Leroy argued that his freedom of expression had been infringed. The Court considered that, through his work, the applicant had glorified the violent destruction of American imperialism, expressed moral support for the perpetrators of the attacks of 11 September, commented approvingly on the violence perpetrated against thousands of civilians and diminished the dignity of the victims.

Despite the newspaper’s limited circulation, the Court observed that the drawing’s publication had provoked a certain public reaction, capable of stirring up violence and of having a demonstrable impact on public order in the Basque Country. The Court held that there had been no violation of Article 10. How can you justify prosecuting cases like these while defending cartoonists and video makers who ridicule Mohammed? You can’t. Either you censor both, or you censor neither.

Given the choice, I’ll stand with Obama. “Efforts to restrict speech,” he warned the U. N., “can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities.” That principle, borne out by the wretched record of hate-speech prosecutions, is worth defending. But first, we have to live up to it.

 William Saletan's latest short takes on the news, via Twitter:

No comments:

FriendFeed

IrishBlog

Twitter follow

THE WIND THAT SHAKES THE BARLEY IN IRELAND - SHARE

Share/Bookmark

Facebook Badge

Facebook

BOBBY SAND'S COMRADES TORTURED AGAIN OCCUPIED IRELAND

BOBBY SANDS COMRADES TORTURED AGAIN OCCUPIED IRELAND -http://... on Twitpic

Fwicki

Fwicki - RSS Management, Multimedia Data Portals, Syndication Consulting Services

YouTube

Friendconnect

javascript

Subscribe

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

networkedblogs

Search This Blog

Loading...

AllVoices

Iraq Death Estimator

Iraq Deaths Estimator

ShareThis

NEWS you WON"T find on the BBC

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails

BlogCatalog

Music Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory

theBestLinks

Watch favourite links

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails

Slashdot

Subscribe to updates

Share on Friendfeed

FriendFeed badge

Irishblogdirectory

Irish Blog Directory

My Headlines

Subscribe Now: Feed Icon

Newstrust

irishblogs

Irish Blogs

Subscribe Now: Feed Icon

Subscribe via email

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

My Headlines

My Headlines

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    My Headlines

    Ireland Headline Animator

    Slashdot

    PLEASE RE-TWEET THIS BLOG !

    My Headlines

    Newstrust

    Follow Blog

    IrelandYouTube Headline Animator

    Subscribe Now: Feed Icon

    TweetIt

    My Blog List

    Followers

    Blog Archive