Freedom of Speech?

So Big Brother Blunkett wants to outlaw anti-religious speech now? Hmm…….

I swear, that fucker will have us goose-stepping down Oxford Street next…..

Racially inflammatory speech is already a legal no-no which on reflection is using fascism to fight fascism. Sure, I don’t particularly like it when someone uses the words “nigger”, “paki”, “spic”, “honky” etc, especially when malice is intended, but if freedom of speech isn’t defended for those cunts who would misuse it, can one really have the nerve to call it free speech?

The veto against anti-religious speech is doubly stupid. Whereas race/colour are intrinsic aspects of one’s physiology, religion is basically proto-philosophy which one can accept or discard. Sure, one can be brought up with a religious structure and whatnot, but once one reaches some semblance of maturity, any decision to continue or cancel belongs to the specific individual raised under such a structure; it’s only a person’s thinking – or lack of such – that determines the road they ultimately walk down.

Furthermore, will this mean that it’ll become a cardinal offence to speak out against Catholic priests who fuck their young charges or their spineless, morally-repugnant colleagues who cover up said activities? Hell, soon it’ll be taboo to speak out against arranged marriages, “honour” killings and even psychotic hook-handed clerics wishing death upon the Great Satan that is the West…of course now, those cunts will be most likely allowed to carry on regardless, with the blessings of the societies whom they seek to undermine and destroy…..

What did this nation do to deserve a power-mad totalitarian tosser like Blunkett? Oh yeah, I forgot…..

First ID card proposals and now this….

A sensible politico wouldn’t even give this issue time of day. A sensible politician (oxymoron?) would realize the inherent beauty of free speech paradoxically derives from its inherent ugliness. A devoutly-churchgoing, fire-n-brimstone, BNP voter should have every right to call me a “dirty, godless, nigger atheist” and I’d have every right to call said person “a deluded, Bible-thumping, Hitler-rimming cunt”. All it takes is some common sense – if someone rips into your creed or colour then don’t just stand there and take it!

Free speech can be used to defend as well as offend….

….because liberty is a two-edged sword after all….


This entry was posted in Civil Liberties, News, Racial Issues, Religion, Slave Britannia, Society. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

9 Responses to Freedom of Speech?

  1. cearrdorn says:

    I believe strongly in freedom of speech.
    I do also believe that racial slurs can have the concordant effect of shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre in some instances, the ultimate litmus test used by the courts in the US for ages. I believe that if you want to organize a group and have a rally, and do things in such a way that you’re only bringing like to meet like, it’s acceptable. (even if the product of such an event is ignorance and hate.)
    I don’t think religion follows the same riverbed of social response in the majority of cases, except for Islam. Islamic militants treat their religion like their racial identity, and any attempt to disparage it is quickly met with violent retort. In fact, they are more likely to forgive a racial slur than a religious slur. So again, ‘westerners’ must digest this. However, there is no true compromise in Islam. The ultimate objective of the faith is to bring it, by whatever means necessary, to the world. It is both a blueprint for faith, and a blueprint of society in the eyes of the faithful. As long as those two things remain constant, our free society is in danger from groups who use our own freedoms against us. Hence the spawn of this type of religious appologist crap.
    I don’t think we should roll over and restrict speech to keep the ‘entire’ peace. I do think regulating its use is acceptable, as has been the primary response of most US courts for the past few hundred years. I’m aware that the UK views things dramatically different, and I hope that the multi-party system over there will favor real freedoms, and not more big brother.

    • MRDA says:

      “Islamic militants treat their religion like their racial identity, and any attempt to disparage it is quickly met with violent retort. In fact, they are more likely to forgive a racial slur than a religious slur. So again, ‘westerners’ must digest this.”
      Whether or not Islamic militants treat their religion like the colour of their skin, doesn’t make such a perception truth. Reality isn’t defined by idiotic militants who call their skin colour “islam” and their religion “brown”.
      The presence of black – as well as Middle Eastern – Muslims, particularly the truly racist Nation of Islam group ought to alert people to the fact that this is anything but a race issue….
      I’m curious as to what instances you find regulation of speech to be acceptable, beyond blatant threats and the “shouting “fire” in a public theatre” scenario….

      • cearrdorn says:

        Note: What follows is an attempt to explain the idea of inflammatory, and are NOT views held by the author. – This is for people who read this and don’t know me. 🙂
        If for instance, one was to practice free speech by pulling a stunt similar to what they had Bruce Willis do, and clap on a sandwich board with “I hate Niggers” on it and start walking around Harlem, I think that would be something that should be stopped, because in that instance, that one person’s freedom of speech endangered the public immediately, as well as themselves.
        However, if the same person was to post flyers with similar tripe notifying others of an assembly, thusly organizing a lawful assembly for a peaceful demonstration. I think that should be allowed, regardless of how anyone feels about their message. I think this the litmus test in this instance is that it gives both the government and the community time to formulate a response, instead of setting a match to a room full of gas fumes.
        As for the race/religion thing, I agree, but unfortunately, it’s such a touchy subject with the more militant groups in the religion of Islam, that they usually don’t share the same understanding of distinction. I seriously doubt most black men would die for other black men just because they were black and wanted to forward the black cause. I sure as hell wouldn’t do it for any white person I wasn’t blood kin to. 🙂 Islam is a different kettle of fish, with people willing to martyr themselves left and right (in the case of palestinians especially) just to end up on a hero poster. That’s retarded to me.

  2. staxxy says:

    hmmm. This is really interesting from the world view perspective. I wonder how many *other* countries this is happening in.

  3. ghostdog_ says:

    Frankly, instead of restricting free speech, the government needs to encourage freedom of thought. Ironic really.

  4. kasku says:

    What a shame, though, that there are people who use their right of free speech to say such awful things in the first place. Just goes to show how many incredibly stupid fucking idiots there are in the world, but that doesn’t surprise me. I reckon I’ve met most of ’em. 🙂

    Let’s get married. xxxx

  6. Pingback: Hypocrisy & Halal V: Poppycock! « MRDA's Inferno

Leave a Reply