VIDEO: What if there's no "hate" in "hate speech"?

From Sky News Australia comes a sensible comment about the growing trend to characterize any remark -- any remark at all -- about some "oppressed minority" as "hate speech"? Rowan Dean says the far left may have finally pushed their anti-free speech agenda too far!

VIDEO: French finally starting to take the threat of Islamism seriously

For some weeks now, the country from which WWW draws the largest part of its readereship has been... wait for it... not the USA... not even Canada, but... here it comes... France! This is passing strange considering that we rarely post more than a sentence or two in the language of Molière. Could it be that the French are more attuned to (or care more about) Walt's warnings about the collapse of Christian civilization under the onslaught of Islamization being tolerated, or even perpetrated by our political and spiritual leaders?

Evidence that more and more Frenchmen and women are starting to say "Il a raison!" comes in the form of a Harris Interactive poll taken this week following publication of an open letter signed by a group of retired generals of the French Army, calling on Président Emmanuel Macron to defend patriotism.

The signatories condemned the "délitement" (disintegration) striking the country, and said they were "disposés à soutenir les politiques qui prendront en considération la sauvegarde de la nation" (willing to support policies that will take into consideration the safeguard of the nation). Now there's something you're not going to hear from generals of the AABC countries. Maybe the French generals are braver than ours, after all.

The letter provoked much soiling of shorts and related tut-tutting from the M Macron's government. Prime Minister Jean Castex condemned the letter and those who signed it "with the greatest firmness." But according to the poll, large numbers of French people agreed with the generals.

   

64% of those polled had heard about the letter, and 38% said they understood exactly what the generals were saying. 58% of the 1613 respondents said they supported the publication of the letter, and nearly half felt the army should intervene to guarantee law and order, even without being asked by the government so to do!

93% of those who identified as Républicains and 94% of supporters of Marine Le Pen's Rassemblement National (RN) thought that the laws of France no longer apply in certain places. 84% of polledthose asked agreed with the statement that violence was increasing day by day, (especially in the suburbs of Paris). 73% consider that France is disintegrating. 

According to the generals, France is sliding toward a civil war due to creeping Islamism and the government's failure to control mass migration and creeping Islamism in the country. Two days after publication of the letter, Mme Le Pen invited the signatories to "joindre à notre action pour prendre part à la bataille qui s'ouvre" (join our movement to take part in the battle which is opening).

Not everyone agrees with her. About a third of those polled agreed with her, with disapproval of her position running as high as 86% of the self-declared eco-wienies. But by supporting the military, Mme Le Pen has caused her star to rise even higher. With the next presidential election less than a year off, she has the declared support of 89% of RN sympathisers, and 40% of Républicains.

Meanwhile, the BBC reports that a court in Nanterre (in the western suburbs of Paris, where white Christians are almost an endangered species) has acquitted Mme Le Pen and Gilbert Collard, an RN colleague, of breaking hate speech laws by posting on Twitter three images of ISIS atrocities. The court found that while the pictures were violent they fell into the category of political protest, thus protected by the right to freedom of speech.

Mme Le Pen had called the trial "poltically motivated", and defended her "freedom to inform" with the images, "shocking as they are." The court found that the images had been posted by elected officials who had not tried to trivialise violence or "present violence in a favourable light."

Her lawyer Rodolphe Bosselut called the victory important because "freedom of expression has been recognised as complete for a top-ranking politician." That's in France, of course. Might be worth a try on this side of the Atlantic!

"I hate you for disagreeing with me!"

AUDIO ONLY: Mark Steyn, Lindsay Shepherd, John Robson heard by Canadian MPs; TV blacked out

I need to set this up for you and explain why there's no video -- only audio -- of most of yesterday's meeting of the Canadian House of Commons Committee on Justice and Human Rights. It appears that in Canuckistan, "human rights" does not include the right to say anything even mildly negative about Muslims or transexuals or anyone except straight white males. Nor does it include the right to have your testimony before a committee of parliament televised if, like our old friend Mark Steyn, you're a conservative who's expected to say something politically incorrect.

The background. The Committee has been holding hearings on the problem of "hate speech". In other words, they're study how to better censor the ideas and opinions of anyone the government doesn't agree with. Last week they gave Faisal Khan Suri, president of the Alberta Muslim Public Affairs Council, considerable time to whine about Islamophobic posts on social media, discrimination against followers of the "religion of peace", and so on ad nauseam.

After enduring a quarter-hour of this, Conservative MP Michael Cooper had had enough and took the witness to task, telling Mr Suri he should be ashamed of himself, and quoting (as he said later) "the words of a white supremacist anti-Muslim mass murderer in an ill-advised attempt to demonstrate that such acts are not linked to conservatism." The whitey in question was Brandon Tarrant, who murdered 50 Muslims in Christchurch, New Zealand, this spring.

Mentioning Mr Tarrant by name, let alone quoting from his online manifesto, proved to be a hyuge CLM (Career Limiting Move) for Mr Cooper. For his sins, he was immediately removed tom the Committee by Hon. Andrew Scheer, Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, and chief panderer of the Kuckservative Party of Canada. Clutching his pearls, the champion of the mushy middle said it was "insensitive and unacceptable" to quote the Christchurch shooter to a Muslim witness. Oh, the horror!

But the removal of Mr Cooper from the Committee wasn't enough for the Liberal and NDP (socialist) members. Yesterday, before more witnesses were called, they demanded that Hansard be amended to remove Mr Cooper's words, entirely, from the record of the proceedings. Flushed down the memory hole, as George Orwell would have said. The remaining Conservatives on the Committee, doubtless admonished by Mr Scheer not to be politically incorrect, caved.

Yesterday's meeting was to have been televised, so the viewers (Sid and Doris Bonkers) who follow Canada's CPAC channel could see and hear what Mark Steyn, Lindsay Shepherd and John Robson had to say on the subject of free speech. Click here to see what happened.

Sorry about using the word "see". You will only be able to see the first couple of minutes. After the Committee voted to expunge Mr Cooper's remarks from the record, a pinko -- sorry, NDP -- member demanded that the proceedings not be televised, after all. You can see and hear this shameful exercise in what progressives now call "deplatforming". After that, there's only audio. Shameful. But at least the voices of conservatism and common sense can still be heard. But for how much longer?

AfD parliamentarian's account blocked for anti-Muslim Tweet

Canada has its M-103 (full title: Motion 103), passed in March 2017 by the ruling Liberal Party in collusion with the pinkish NDP over the objections of the Conservative opposition. The brainchild of a Muslim MP representing a minority majority riding in the so-called Greater Toronto Area, it is (in theory) only a non-binding motion of the Canadian Parliament calling on the federal government to condemn Islamophobia in Canada. It also calls for the collection of data on "hate crimes" and a study on how racism and religious discrimination can be reduced. and collect data on hate crimes.

Although M-103 is only a motion, and doesn't carry the force of law, Canadian governments at all levels and the (((controlled media))) treat it as law requiring censorship of any negative reference to Islam or Muslims, particularly in connection with terrorist attacks or other crimes. This leads to such absurdities as the refusal of Canuck police to identify a man who, last month, walked into a bank in the Toronto suburb of Vaughan, with explosives strapped to his torso, demanding drugs and a telephone call to President Trump. See "Canuck cops cover up terror attack outside Toronto", WWW 15/15/17. The uncle of the now-deceased attacker said the man was an immigrant from Iran, and yes, a follower of the Prophet.

Citizens of more sensible nations [like the Excited States of America? Ed.] may laugh at the self-loathing of Canadians (see Further Reading, below), but the let's-be-nice-to-Muslims-and-maybe-they-won't-kill-us policies of other countries are even worse. Take, for example, Angela Merkel's Germany.

Walt trusts that his readers have not forgotten how, last New Year's and the New Year's before that, gangs of Arab and African yoofs -- Muslim asylum-seekers, "refugees" and other migrants -- rampaged through the streets of Köln (Cologne) and other German cities molesting, robbing and raping Aryan women. See "Happy New Year (II) ! 100s of 'Africans' detained in Cologne", WWW 1/1/17 and "Trump warns Germans after asylum-seekers' sex and crime spree", WWW 8/1/16.

This year, die Polizei decided to forestall the expected repetition of the Islamists' demonstrations of appreciation for their hosts' Willkommenskultur by issuing New Year's greetings in Arabic. "Peace on earth" and all that. This expression of brotherly love was met with responses of "Piss on you!" and others too vile to post in Walt's family-oriented blog.

Among those who thought this gesture of of accommodation was unnecessary and ridiculous was Beatrix von Storch, a prominent lawmaker with the nationalist Alternativ für Deutschland (Alternative for Germany) party, who Tweeted, "Do they think they will calm the barbaric, Muslim, group-raping hordes of men this way?"

No good deed goes unpunished, and no politicall incorrect Tweet goes uncensored in the Fatherland. Frau Storch's innocent question resulted in her Twitter account being blocked for several hours yesterday over a suspected breach of rules on hate speech -- Germany's much tougher version of Canada's M-103.

Inspektor Katzenjammer said this morning that his storm troopers ["officers", shurely! Ed.] were filing a criminal complaint to prosecutors over "suspected incitement". He did not say against whom the complaint would be filed. Walt suspects it will be against those who expressed outrage at the barbaric behaviour of the poor mistreated Muslims, not at the Muslims who provoked the outrage. Such is the strange death of European civilization.

Further reading: "5 decades of liberalism turns Canucks sour on themselves", WWW 28/6/17. Walt's Canadian buddy, Poor Len Canayen, fulminates about M-103, white liberal guilt, and why the Great White North isn't great or white any more.

Getting stoned is good for you, sez Muslim cleric

Brampton ON ain't what it used to be. When a couple of Walt's agents grew up there, it was a one-stop-light farming town northwest of Toronto, the font of all evil. It was a white community, where the Italian Catholic immigrants were considered exotic. There were a few Jews, but no synagogue. And certainly there was no mosque.

Well, Brampton has changed. White folks are in the minority now -- not to say an endangered species! And mosques abound. One of them provides a pulpit [Is this right? Ed.] for Sheikh Faisal Hamid Abdur-Razak, who preaches a hellfire-and-brimstone version of Islam.

Sheikh Faisal is against sin, and in particular adultery and homosexuality. These are not regarded as serious sins by the "Christian churches". The former is winked at and the latter is effectively encouraged in certain "Christian" circles. But according to the imam, adulterers and gays should be put to death... preferably by stoning.



Yep, stoning is good for the Muslim soul, if not so good for the body. If you're a sinful Muslim and get stoned, your soul will be purified as the stones rain down on your head.

Some people -- perhaps even some Muslims -- would call Sheikh Faisal a raving loony, and his beliefs medieval and barbaric. But many Muslims -- perhaps a majority -- would agree with him.

In 2010, the Pew Research Centre published "Tolerance and Tension: Islam and Christianity in Sub-Saharan Africa" -- an extensive poll of the views of modern life held by people in Middle Eastern and African countries where Islam is the dominant religion. Here's a quote.

"The survey finds considerable support among Muslims in several countries for the application of criminal sanctions such as stoning people who commit adultery, and whipping or cutting off the hands of thieves. Support for these kinds of punishments is consistently lower among Christians than among Muslims. The survey also finds that in seven countries, roughly one-third or more of Muslims say they support the death penalty for those who leave Islam."

These opinions were expressed by majorities of Muslims in Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan and Nigeria.

What happens, Len wonders, when people who hold such views immigrate to the USA, the UK, France, Canada or the Netherlands? Do they change their beliefs? Do they make an effort to conform to the norms of the more civilized countries to which they come?

Sheikh Faisal, for one, seems to think we should accommodate him, not the other way around. And our wussy politicians let him preach this rubbish, because after all, it's a free country. And hate speech is only a crime for white Christians. Political correctness wins again!

Major victory for freedom of speech in Canada. (Americans, take note!)

Those who, like Walt, believe in freedom of speech can rejoice this weekend. At least in Canada, that is. [Paula D. writes: "Only in Canada, you say? Pity!"] The infamous Section 13 of Canada's Human Right Act, long criticized by free-speech advocates as overly restrictive and tantamount to censorship, has at last been repealed.

A private member's bill sponsored by Conservative Member of Parliament Brian Storseth was passed by the House of Commons recently, in spite of not having received the official endorsement of Steve "Stephen" Harper's Tory government. It duly worked its way through the Senate which passed it before going on holiday this week.

Thus Section 13, which allowed [encouraged, surely! Ed.] complaints to the Canadian Human Rights Commission for "the communication of hate messages by telephone or on the Internet" gets tossed into the dustbin of history... and not a moment too soon!

Mr. Storseth called the law a "flawed piece of legislation" and characterized the human rights tribunal as "a quasi-judicial, secretive body that takes away your natural rights as a Canadian."

"[Section 13] had actually stopped being used as a shield, as I think it was intended, to protect civil liberties, and started being used as a sword against Canadians, and it's because it was a poorly-written piece of legislation in the first place," he said.

Chief wielder of the "sword" was a champion of political correctness fittingly named Richard Warman. The barking mad human rights zealot who, since 2001, brought no fewer than 16 complaints under Section 13. Warman's frivolous and vexatious accusations were all funded by Canadian taxpayers, since the CHRC covers the costs of the complainant, even if the complaint is dismissed.

One person who found this out the hard way, as Agent 9 reminds us, is Father Alphonse de Valk, CSB, the founder of Catholic Insight magazine. In 2006 he got dragged into the war against the excesses of human rights commissions when the CHRC charged him with hate speech after a complaint (from "guess who?") about some writings critical of homosexual behaviour. He was eventually cleared of all charges but still had to pay 1000s of dollars in legal bills.

Producing and disseminating "hate speech" remains a crime in Canada, but regulating it will be left to the courts (as it was previously), not to human rights tribunals. But while anyone -- even a raving loony -- could file a human rights complaint, charges of "hate crimes" under the Criminal Code of Canada require the approval of the Attorney-General.

Also pleased with this unexpected victory for free speech and common sense should be Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant, who have been demonized for writing the truth as they see it. In "How 9/11 killed Canadians' appetite for human-rights speech codes", National Post columnist Jonathan Kay says that "confronting the human rights industry...wasn't just a matter of free-speech principle but a matter of civilizational self-protection. The average Canadian may not give a hoot about his freedom to use the N-word. But he'll be damned if he's going to let the government prevent him from saying what he things about burkas [sic] and terrorists."  

Further reading: "Father de Valk winner of CCRL award". The Catholic Civil Rights League (CCRL) assists in creating conditions within which Catholic teachings can be better understood, cooperates with other organizations in defending civil rights and opposes defamation and discrimination against Catholics on the basis of their beliefs.