Wouldn’t know if …

DISCLAIMER:  The following editorial cartoon contains satire, parody, exaggeration and uncensored imagery of balding public figures projected to be completely hairless about the north polar region by the year 2020.

It is not peer reviewed.  It makes no claims to absolute undeniable, settled truth, while it does depict a very plausible scenario wherein  catastrophic warming might cause pants to combust and hockey sticks to break spontaneously.

No actual polar bears were harmed in the production of this cartoon.

Free speech is the issue.  The answer to discomforting free speech is even more free speech.

Mann-Made-Warming

(Shamelessly filched from wattsupwiththat).

Insulting your intelligence …

The appointment of Tim Wilson to the so called Human Rights Commission is a good step, a voice, at last for free speech.

The big question is, will it be heard?

The commission’s president Gillian Triggs has warned Mr Wilson that the commission must speak with one voice and be independent of government. She would like to see section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act, which makes it an offense for you to insult my pommy origins but not to insult my intelligence, strengthened.

Section 18c should be repealed.

Speaking freely …

Freedom of speech has been in the news again this week as the Government gets ready to do something about the odious section 18c.

A couple of excellent quotes …

First, any commitment to free speech is a commitment to allowing people to say and write things you may not like, that you may detest, that you may disagree with and find offensive. If the words spoken are words we all agree with and find congenial, then there is no need for any commitment to free speech… Professor James Allan.

and

The Nazis did not flourish because they had too much free speech. They flourished because their critics had none. Andrew Bolt.

Gay Wales …

In the old fashioned sense. But in the new Wales one does have to be careful …

Newport shopkeeper told to remove ‘obey our laws’ T-shirt

9:08am Wednesday 29th May 2013 <HERE>

ARREST THREAT: Matthew Taylor and the T-shirt police have forced him to remove from display
ARREST THREAT: Matthew Taylor and the T-shirt police have forced him to remove from display

A NEWPORT shopkeeper has been forced by police to remove a T-shirt from his shop window because they felt it “could be seen to be inciting racial hatred.”

Matthew Taylor, 35, the owner of Taylor’s clothes store on Emlyn Walk in the city, printed up and displayed the T-shirt with the slogan: “Obey our laws, respect our beliefs or get out of our country” after Drummer Lee Rigby, 25, was killed in near Woolwich barracks in London last week.

But following a complaint from a member of the public, police came to his store and threatened to arrest him unless he removed the Tshirt from sight.

On liberty …

… jealously guarding the liberties bequeathed by the founding fathers and the English common law.

The Australian has published the very fine speech by Daniel Ward given at his graduation. Presently it is peaking out from behind the paywall <HERE>. I would urge you to read it while you may.

Some excerpts …

The danger is Australian lawyers will get comfortable with authoritarianism. There is a risk we will subconsciously make a thousand tiny concessions to illiberalism, and allow it to insinuate itself into our psyche. We might come to tolerate affronts to the rule of law. In short, commercial opportunity threatens to hypnotise us, turning us into well-meaning Manchurian candidates.

… mental gymnastics that can also lead to this …

In 2010, the University of Sydney Senate approved a document called “Harassment and Discrimination Prevention Policy and Resolution Procedure”. It purports to ban, across all areas of university life, something called “unlawful harassment”. The policy defines that term as behaviour that offends, insults, humiliates or intimidates a person, and could reasonably have been expected to do so. It goes on to identify the grounds on which it is forbidden to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate. These grounds include things like race, sex and disability.

Astonishingly, though, they also include the following: “political belief, lack of a political belief, lack of a particular political belief (including trade union activity or lack of it, and student association activity or lack of it), religious belief, lack of a religious belief, and/or lack of a particular religious belief”.

It is nothing if not comprehensive.

If university has become a place where we can’t offend people on the grounds of their political or religious beliefs, then God help us all (and of course I say that without wishing to offend any atheists). What has university come to, if a jackbooted socialist can’t go up to a Young Liberal and hurl all the abuse his limited imagination can muster? What has it come to, if we have to think twice before aping a former Labor prime minister and labelling our opponents “desiccated coconuts” or “mangy maggots”? Surely university is the last place in the country where we should see a policy like this. Because it is precisely the place where debate should be at its most vigorous and, yes, at times, offensive, insulting and even humiliating.

Good on ya, Daniel …

Underpants again …

As one commentator put it …

The idea that the Australian authorities, who had just been through a bruising public debate of mandatory Internet blacklists and lost, would attempt to smuggle a new set of blacklists behind the scenes, beggars belief

Totalitarian states block internet access, shut down certain sites and limit their citizens opportunities to know what is going on and it’s happening right here in Australia, right now …

The move is based on the use of Section 313 of the Telecommunications Act, which allows government agencies to ask ISPs for reasonable assistance in upholding the law, a mechanism which is also being used for the Government’s limited Interpol-based filter to block child abuse material. However, there appears to be no public oversight of the process, no appeals mechanism, and no transparency to the public or interaction with the formal justice system. A move by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission in April to block several sites suspected of providing fraudulent investment information has already resulted in the inadvertent blockage of some 1,200 other innocent sites.

(My emphasis.)

You can read the whole article <HERE>.

Hey, Frank …

If you can divert your attention for a few moments from sexual abuse by the clergy, and the disenfranchisement of the Falkland Islanders, how about sparing a few thoughts for Sanal Edamaruku. You will, no doubt recall … being infallible and all, that Sanal was charged with blasphemy by the Catholic Church in India. He earned this distinction by exposing the miracle of Mumbai as a plumbing problem.

For anyone unfamiliar with the miracle, it involved water dripping from the toes of a crucifix, the overwhelmed faithful were collecting the holy water in little bottles. Sanal located the source in a nearby washroom. A very similar problem has been dubbed the miracle of Dunalley.

Well, it’s been a year now since arrest warrants were issued. Sanal has been denied bail in advance. He remains free by keeping away from home. Perhaps you could pray for him or something

The pommy press …

Newspapers in the UK are facing new restrictions just as our press is. Not all of the papers are rushing to be fitted with their muzzle, more power to their elbows. The impetus for the changes comes from the phone tapping scandal. Lost in the process is the fact that phone tapping was illegal under existing laws and prosecutions are underway.

As Mick Hume observes in Spiked

hatred of the ‘popular’ press and the ‘mass’ media has always been a thinly veiled code for expressing an elitist fear and loathing of the populace/masses who consume them. Limiting the freedom of the press is about limiting what the people are allowed to see, read, and even think. The ostensible target might be Big Media, but the real one is the Big Public.