August 20, 2003
SPEAK NO EVIL
Wasn’t it us Right Wing Death Beasts who were meant to be silencing debate? The left is moving in on our turf! Mark Steyn reports:
Chris Kempling is a high-school teacher and a Christian conservative and he likes writing letters to his local newspaper. In one of them he said that "homosexuality is not something to be applauded."
The regulatory body for his profession, the British Columbia College of Teachers, suspended him for a month without pay for "conduct unbecoming a member of the college" ...
In Sweden, meanwhile, they've passed a constitutional amendment making criticism of homosexuality a crime, punishable by up to four years in jail. Expressing a moral objection to homosexuality is illegal, even on religious grounds, even in church. Those preachers may not be talking about how gays are evil this Sunday. But they might do next week, or next month. As in Ireland and British Columbia, best to be on the safe side and shut down all debate.
Anyone sense a trend here?
Why, yes. Yes we do. Here’s Natasha Stott Despoja urging a non-debate on the death penalty:
It's a dangerous debate to reopen, and the Prime Minister knows that. I urge the Prime Minister to reconsider that position.
Certainly people have strong views, but it is not time for the debate, not in this heated environment, and it is certainly not time for us to consider or to ever bring back capital punishment. I think that would be an incredibly retrograde step for our community.
Phillip Adams is another debate refusenik:
A public already panicked by the war on terror will be conned and wedged into a debate that we don't need to have – and shouldn't be having.
Phil? Shut up.
UPDATE. Include Michelle Grattan and Robert McClelland in this debate about not having a debate:
Posted by Tim Blair at August 20, 2003 01:01 PM
Howard's contention that there should be a debate about the death penalty - which is both a federal and state matter - looks, on one reading, reasonable enough, because it is always hard to argue against "debate". But it's a bit like the debate about Asian immigration. It can quickly get out of hand and take the community to places it is better not to go.
There are some issues that should not be driven by popular majority opinion, and capital punishment is one.
McClelland accuses Howard of breaking a convention observed by major political leaders, federal and state, to prevent this debate breaking out: "Howard is irresponsible in suggesting this is a legitimate topic of debate."
Ugh. Ugh. Ugh.
I see the tranzis have seized upon a(nother) perfectly respectible movement for liberty and turned it to the service of creating a dystopian hell-state. Which isn't suprising, since it's perfectly obvious the tranzis don't actually give two-thirds of a fetid rat's ass about gays. Gays are just a tool in their evil schemes. As are the vast majority of their special multi-culti classes.
Will these intrepid gov't officials be going into the mosques to make sure muslims are following the law? I doubt it....
Don't y'all know that we are all just dumb hillbillies who need to be led to the rightous path by those who are much smarter than we are- why not a triumvirate of enlightenment, led by Tashie Twat-Displayer, Bob (Cap'n Planet) Brown and the Phat Phuck?
No need to think or debate- our leaders KNOW what's right.
I wonder how the Swede's will handle it if an Imam is brought under charges of denouncing homosexuality...
These peopel don't seem to know the difference between attacking homosexuality and attacking gays. If they are so sure that they are right, they don't need all these puritanical laws to stop the debate.
All anti-discrimination legislation should be repealed NOW.
In the words of Tracey Chapman:
"If not now, then when?"
I oppose the death penalty in all circumstances, but I can't think of a better time to be debating why. We live in a year of cold, mindless, vicious mass killing, why isn't now the perfect time to ask whether the state should be allowed to kill in cold blood as well?
There are some issues that should not be driven by popular majority opinion, and (fill in the blanks) capital punishment is one.
So much for democracy...
And so much for the DEL tag working in this comments section.
The proles might get uppity, don't ya know. Can't have that. Bad form. (Hrrrrmph)
Anti-death penalty types the world over have no choice but to oppose debate, because they know they'd lose.
"Free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master." - Unknown
whether the state should be allowed to kill in cold blood as well?
Ah a perfect comparison. Perhaps a reference to Truman Capotes's masterpiece, "In Cold Blood". If you haven't read it...do. You'll learn that some scum deserve to die for the unrepentant crimes...and their executions are not in cold blood.
McClelland accuses Howard of breaking a convention observed by major political leaders, federal and state, to prevent this debate breaking out.
A convention? Why weren't us voters told about this?
'There are some issues that should not be driven by popular majority opinion, and capital punishment is one.'
High-handed, self-serving, sanctimonious garbage.
Heads right up their proverbials.
Circulation and readership way down around their ankles.
There's only one thing the population at large should no longer concern themselves with.
Not that they ever did.
I am always reminded of the movie THE BUCCANEER (with Yul Brenner as Jean Lafitte when I see stuff like this. During a scene the British are trying to talk him into aiding their planned attack on New Orleans (war of 1812) His 2nd in command Dominic You is countering and belittling each of the offers being made which brings about this exchange:
British Captian: "Perhaps I was mistaken. I understood Mr. LaFitte was in command in Baratavia?"
LaFitte: "If your offer is good it will stand up under fire."
This sums up the whole problem of the left in general. Debate is stifled because their arguements can't stand up under fire.
This is the left vs terror, this is Islam in Saudi Arabia, this is North Korea and Iraq and the old Soviet Union, the Nazis, Napolionic Europe and every other dictator.
None can win the arguement of the people on the merits thus debate ends.
The censorship that the left opined about decades ago is now practiced by them because it is a means to advancing their cause, just as arguing for the end of it decades ago was their true reason for the same.
In American universities the left uses terms like "multicultural" and "diversity" to narrowly limit debate to approved leftist dogma. If you're a white male conservative on a college campus you'd better not be naive enough to believe that "multicultural" includes you and your beliefs. Just ask Cal Poly student Steve Hinkle.
When death row is converted to a home for the elderly with hospice and you have a shitload of over 75 years old no parole lifers all demanding state of the art medical care at the expense of the taxpayer (and getting it), because at their advanced ages you cannot release them from prison due to the fact they will be unable to care for themselves, which we all know would be cruel and inhuman, then you'll have the debate.
You will never be able to limit the level of care these inmates will receive due to litigation and socialism.
Eventually to keep the system from going under as the no parole lifers and old timers start gobbling up resources in the form of expensive medical resources you will resort to releasing them earlier, much, much, earlier. Then you'll have the debate.
Mike Hunt you are a bad bad man. Heh. Whatta name, huh?
"Mike Hunt you are a bad bad man. Heh. Whatta name, huh?"
We're on to you, My...
Roger: html tags are restricted in the comments by a Movable Type plugin called Sanitize. It prevents all sorts of mischief. The allowed tags are a href, b, em, strong, i, blockquote, and I think a couple of other standard formatting tags.
"I wonder how the Swede's will handle it if an Imam is brought under charges of denouncing homosexuality..."
Well, well-known anti-semite and 'Protocols'-fan Ahmed Rahmi, founder of Radio Islam got sent to jail for violating the act, so it is indeed applied to moslems at times. Still, it's an amazingly stupid and dangerous law, especially as it just keeps expanding, and expanding, and... The slippery slope is very real indeed, at least when you are dealing with the Left combined with that never-dying pet of theirs - thought-crime legislation.
great movie, p ingemi! charleton heston as andrew jackson...
maybe all these lefties looking to squash debates are actually manchurian candidates put forward by the vast right-wing conspiracy...or the illuminati
Anyone see the hatchet job on Bridget Bardot in the saturday "Review" section of the Australian? (Lifted from the "Sunday Times", I believe). The item went on to say what a nasty fascist old boot Bardot had become, based on her current book in which she questions the value of importing large numbers of xenophobic rapists from North Africa into France. She was bound to cop a bigger kicking than usual, being a bit of a lefty in the past, and may even face charges over "inciting hatred". Funnily enough the acts of sexual violence, theft and general bastardry didn't generate any hatred, just these events being described in print.
The left don't want to debate anything that they know they are wrong about; they will never admit to being in error.
In Sweden, meanwhile, they've passed a constitutional amendment making criticism of homosexuality a crime, punishable by up to four years in jail.
With something that harebrained (and I support gay rights), it won't be long until they want to ban criticism of their government like France bans criticism of their president.
Is oppostion to the death penalty a "left" thing?
Good thing I don't live in Sweden because I think men using the orifices intended for evacuation as if they were for procreation is disgusting, dangerous and an obvious perversion. What's to debate?
no, not at all tom; but opposition to even listening to opposing views points seems to be.
rightyho then. i better remember to start carrying the party line a little closer then. I've been letting the left down i think, what, with my lack of antisemitism, hostility to censorship, opposition to the death penalty.....
Clearly you have. Either that, or you've followed in Horowitz' footsteps and haven't realized where you are quite yet...
tom, i'm fairly rightwingdeathbeast, and i oppose the death penalty. for me it flows logically out of my opposition to abortion. however, i have no trouble with our soldiers doing their job with deadly efficiency. it's fun to be human, no?
Damn you RWDB's! The first time one agrees with me and its based on a fundamentalist religious doctrine, rather than any sort or rational argument.
Nope. Antisemitism and communism are to the left what the KKK and Strom Thurmond are to the right.
opposition to abortion automatically means i'm a religious fundamentalist? geesh...
Why is the verbal, or written, expression of an opinion to be feared? Personally, I find various Islamists' sites on the Web revolting and deranged in the opinions expressed. However, I'd never join in a call for these sites to be banned. I'm not afraid of the expressing of these views, even when they are advocating having someone like me killed.
I'd rather have opinions out in the open where you can see what you're up against than underground where you can't check up on them.
If it's a site advocating the killing of some group of people, having it out in the open is an opportunity for law enforcement to know who to watch.
If the site is not advocating a crime, like murder, it could be used to help you hone your arguments if you dislike what they advocate. It's not to be feared and run away from if you dislike what they say.
"There are some issues that should not be driven by popular majority opinion"... and we will bloody well decide what they are.
I see no lack of logic in my support of the death penalty and opposition to abortion
The 5th Amendment to the US Constitution: "No person,... shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process"
with due process, the government may certainly deprive you of your liberty & property, and also may deprive you of your life.
those on death-row have had DUE PROCESS, a fetus has not.
I also base my argument on who is the one making choices & who is paying the ultimate consequence of those choices.
Like Philip Adams, Natasha, etc, I'm strongly against the death penalty, but I realize that this probably a minority opinion in Australia.
However, commentary from the above that includes such gems as "debate we should not be having" etc is just plain wrong and arrogant. These are the people representing my side of the debate? Sheesh.
My universal translator automatically converts "this is not the time for debate" to mean "shut up, you ignorant yokels and leave the thinking to us". It's usually right about that sort of thing.
FYI, Evil Pundit, that quote is from the excellent computer strategy game "Alpha Centauri". In the game, it's a cautionary quote from a fictional UN Commissioner. Of course, if it's a stirring quote from the UN supporting unettered freedom of speech then it's obviously got to be fictional. (I only wish I was being sarcastic.)
This is a perfect example of what is wrong with parts of the Left. They think that the Australian public is at any one time so paralysed by fear and anger that they are unable to have a rational debate about issues. It is up to the left to make the 'rational' decisions.
I used to be a bit like that myself. I grew up. What excuse do Natasha, Phil, Michelle, et al, have?
They're elitist dickheads with foreheads the size of an Edsel grille.
Here's a competetion - where does this come from?
"In accordance with the principle of popular sovereignty, Australians should strive for a more open and direct democracy ensuring that the people are the rulers and not the ruled. We support enhancing public participation in the political system by way of establishing regular elections, and referenda and plebiscites, including those initiated by the citizens themselves."
Excuse me, that's an American car. They'll have none of that.
How about asses the size of this Politburo favourite?
When Philip Adams and Natasha Stott-Despoya and a whole lot of limp-dick lefties get together to discuss ideas, it is called "MASS DEBATING"
i thought that was vatican II?