by Can I say it any more plainly than that?
Susan Duclos can. Today she penned this incredible post that makes the issue crystal clear.
Today, posted by Deb Hamilton of Right Truth in Real Clear Politics is an article about the British blogger Lionheart. Lionheart is facing arrest if he returns to Britain. He is facing arrest for doing something and for doing it well. He has written about the invasion of his native land by Muslims. And he has called a spade a spade. And today WE DO NOT CALL A SPADE A SPADE. It is ABSOLUTELY FORBIDDEN TO CALL A SPADE A SPADE. Or to call the ISLAMIC MENACE an ISLAMIC MENACE.
God help us!
The Multicultural Thought Police ARE REAL, folks. THEY ARE HERE NOW. This is no longer some clever literary device, this is reality. HE IS FACING ARREST. For writing TRUTHFULLY about Islam.
Today it is Britain, but tomorrow it is us –“
Read it all.
This is no isolated incident, lest anyone think of calling it one.
Alyssa Lappen wrote this Pajamas Media piece two days ago describing how a known terrorist financier is using western libel laws to shut the mouths and stop the pens of writers who bring their activities – and those of the terrorists they empower – to light:
Intended or not, a narrow, technical New York Appeals Court decision on Thursday Dec. 20, 2007 produces that net effect. The ruling concerns jurisdiction in Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld’s suit against Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz, seeking a federal declaratory judgment against him to render unenforceable in the U.S. a U.K. High Court default “libel” decision. By implication, the New York Appeals Court ruling harms all publishers and writers in New York, the world’s publishing capital.
…
Shockingly, New York’s Court of Appeals allowed Mahfouz’ commercial actions (and any similar commercial actions of any other foreign terror financier and libel tourist) to subjugate Constitutional First Amendment rights to archaic commercial statutes.
Now, the U.S. Congress and New York legislators must swiftly enact new “long-arm” statues, suitable to our electronic age, before further damage to the U.S. Constitution ensues.
What the consequences might be if our legislators fail to act to correct this and other misguided rulings I will leave to the more legally-minded.
What is clear is that there is a consistent and concerted effort being carried out by the apologists for and enablers of Islamic terrorism to stop the spread of information about them, their activities, their beliefs, and their goals from being written about in the popular press.
Hate crimes laws, among other harmful side effects, enable this approach of legal strong arming by creating a mechanism through which terrorists and their sympathizers can eliminate the free speech rights of every one of us with no risk whatever to themselves.
Hate crimes legislation cannot be allowed to become the law of the land.
Though progressives and old-school liberals call such measures necessary to ensure equal protection under the law the outcome, as demonstrated in the two cases discussed above is anything but equal and anything but just.
Update: See comment 2 for a link to Lionheart’s post reporting the situation.
Sorry, would have liked to read the peace at Real Clear Politics, but, (and I’m not the most patient, and their print is too small), I couldn’t find it. Gotta link guy?
I’ve lost (or never had) the Hamilton link. But I think this – http://lionheartuk.blogspot.com/2008/01/british-police-have-been-charged-with.html – may well be the original source of the matter.
Strident, even obnoxious, perhaps. But not criminal, IMO.
Wow! Thanks for the link, I read the post and some other stuff at the blog spot to get a feel for Lionheart’s perspective and my reaction was Wheewwwww, over-the-top! He’s a bit out there. It’s real obvious that this guy is in a state of terminal angst over the fact that his “England” has been given away by and through the Leftists Open Borders Policy, just as those politicians aligned with the Global Elites have done here in the U.S.
I agree that hate crimes laws are a slippery slope toward erosion of free speech rights. Worse, hate crime legislation taken with policies such as affirmative action erode the equal protections clause of the U.S. Constitution in such a manner that we now have classes of residents who are “more” equally protected than others. And I don’t think anyone can deny the fact that there’s been a serious dampening of public speech in the U.S.; certain topics at the office, at the local tavern and in restaurants where people meet and greet are simply off limits. Those limits are removed only for those in “teaching” type positions, such as at seminars, where they may espouse and express the Politically Correct views on such topics. Of course everyone listens politely and says nothing. There’s no doubt in my mind that none of this is going to get any better although I did read an interesting report about Hispanic gangs in L.A. directly targeting the indiscriminate killing of Blacks in the Hispanic gang controlled neighborhoods in an effort to drive them out of those neighborhoods. No mention was made of “Hate Crime” or racism, which lead me to wonder, “Does the passing away of the last White in America hearld the end of racism and Hate Crimes in America?” At this point, I’d be inclined to so believe.
As to the Lionhearts angst over losing his homeland I guess I’d have say that I can sympathise and empathise therewith having so mourned the passing of my own Texas homeland as it slips slowly into Atzlan Mexico. But, as I’ve grown older and greyer, I’ve come to realize that we’re all just sojourners here anyway and in the long run, considering that we’re no more than filler for a pine box, it really doesn’t matter. As passed the Apache this way, with the Comanche,and then the Spaniard, so shall pass the Anglo and then the “Mexican” and only God knows who else.
Glide, I’m still considering the demographic trend against Anglos, but I think that our days are numbered, both in Texas and in the world at large.
We simply aren’t interested in reproducing enough to keep our place in the world. It’s ironic in many ways, from our obsession with other people’s bodies and sex lives to the new Green movement of going childless to save Mother Earth.
Also, it’s certainly easier to have an abortion than to raise a child. Repetition of that self-centered choice may well play a part in our society’s ultimate end.