blasphemy laws and why we may be stuck with them

I wasn’t going to mention the Stephen Fry blasphemy case but now Richard Dawkins has jumped in on the issue. Dawkins of course wants the blasphemy law repealed.
My position on this is a bit complex. I believe that if you have a mono-cultural mono-religion society then you don’t need blasphemy laws. The reality is that we don’t have that type of society any longer. We now have a multi-cultural multi-faith society. In such a society blasphemy laws are an unfortunate necessity. Minority views do need to be protected. If they’re not protected you’re going to have trouble. That’s just reality. We have something even more difficult to deal with – a society divided not only on cultural racial and religious lines but even more bitterly divided on ideological lines. A multi-cultural multi-faith multi-ideology society is a society in which conflict is going to be continuous and bitter. 
We already have a society in which Christianity is under never-ending and vicious attack. Now increasingly we have each of a variety of religions, including atheism, in a state of permanent low-level war. We also have a society in which atheists like Dawkins are permitted to attack religion without limits. If there are no limits to the viciousness of the attacks it’s all going to end very very badly. Unfortunately I do think some limits are needed on the extent of the viciousness of the attacks. Did Stephen Fry cross the line? That would be for a court to decide.
Of course in an ideal world we would never have allowed our society to become a multi-cultural multi-religion war zone. But we did allow that to happen and one of the unfortunate consequences is that blasphemy laws may be required in order to dampen down the conflicts.
This is the world that liberals (like Stephen Fry) wanted. Now they have to live with it. If you want diversity you end up needing all sorts of intrusive and unpleasant laws, such as blasphemy laws. A diverse society will either destroy itself or it will become a police state. You can have freedom or you can have diversity. You can’t have both. We chose diversity.

exposing the crybullies

One of the more sinister developments of the past couple of years is the rise of the crybully. The crybullies are people who pretend to have been victimised and pretend to have been traumatised by this victimisation when in fact they themselves are the actual bullies.
We’re all familiar with this phenomenon from recent events on American university campuses, with students claiming to have been reduced to tears and claiming to have suffered damage to their mental health by having to listen to the opinions of evil white right-wingers. A recent post on OzConservative details one of the more extreme recent examples.
In fact of course these students (most of whom spend more time indulging in “activism” than actually studying) have not been the least bit traumatised. They have discovered a new and powerful weapon with which to crush dissent and silence any remaining vestiges of freedom of speech. All they have to do is burst into tears or claim to have suffered post-traumatic stress disorder or some such nonsense and they know that cowardly university authorities will cave in to their demands and prevent anyone from expressing opposing views on campuses. They are not victims. They are liars and they are bullies and they are determined to impose absolute uniformity of thought and speech.
If this was something that only happened on university campuses it would be bad enough but similar tactics are being employed in workplaces in the real world, in the mainstream media and in social media. It is a tactic being used to impose even more draconian limitations on freedom of speech on social media in particular. 
Of course the argument is often made, especially in the US, that social media is run by private companies so any protections in regard to freedom of speech do not apply. This is nonsense. If you run a social network you are establishing a public space and if you impose controls on freedom of speech then you are practising censorship. The internet is a public space. Those who control social media effectively control the internet. For such companies to impose censorship is in practice no different from the government imposing censorship.
The Social Justice Warriors are determined to control all public discourse. The crybully tactic is a terrifyingly effective tool that they are using with a great deal of ruthlessness.
To some extent this applies to the modern anti-bullying hysteria in general which can be employed for the same ends. It is a convenient cover for ever more sweeping hate speech legislation which means ever further limits on freedom of speech.
The crybully tactic needs to be exposed for what it is – another weapon with which to suppress any expression of dissent.

the thin end of the PC wedge

What’s worrying about the The Australian Communications and Media Authority’s recent action against Sydney shock jock Kyle Sandilands is not just that it’s yet another attack on freedom of speech. It’s the vagueness of the ruling, and the secretiveness of it. He’s been ordered “not to say anything that could be regarded as offensive or demeaning to women or girls.” Now what on earth does that mean? It sounds suspiciously like offensive or demeaning can mean anything this particular totally unnecessary bureaucratic waste of time wants it to mean.

The fact that The Australian Communications and Media Authority won’t reveal what it means adds to the suspicions.

Whatever this guy said is not worth yet more restriction on Australians’ freedom of speech. He might be an ignorant arrogant yobbo. But if we won’t defend his freedom to speak we will all lose. Freedom of speech must include the right to offend, otherwise it’s meaningless.

And it’s yet another yard of lost ground for defenders of freedom of speech. For defenders of freedom of speech everywhere, not just in Australia. The Thought Police operate internationally. If they get away with restricting freedom in one place they will use it to attack freedom somewhere else. Even the US with its constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech is not immune. If freedom of speech disappears in other countries the Thought Police will argue that the US is “out of step with the international community” and that Americans must accept limitations on this right as well. That “out of step with the international community” line is one of their favourite arguments to extend the global reach of Political Correctness.

It’s also one of their favourite arguments to extend other aspects of their political agenda. If they get abortion on demand or gay marriage in some places they then tell other people that they are now “out of step with the international community” if they don’t allow such things.

With the PC lobby you always have to beware of the thin end of the wedge.

censorship by stealth

The biggest peril to freedom of speech today comes from corporations that are willing to cave in to pressure from lobby groups and introduce self-censorship.

While it’s true that leftist governments, such as the current Australian government, are determined to do all they can to crush dissent and prevent freedom of speech the fact is that government censorship is at least relatively open and therefore easier to oppose.

Censorship by stealth in the form of self-censorship by media outlets is more insidious and much harder to fight against. And while the mainstream media has for decades been keen to toe the politically correct line the danger today is that the internet will go the same way.

This is a danger that conservatives have been slow to recognise. The left-wing bias of sites like wikipedia is potentially a greater threat than the left-wing bias of the dinosaur media like the New York Times, The Guardian and the Fairfax press in Australia.

An equally serious threat is that internet corporations, despite their brave talk on the subject of SOPA, will tamely submit to government censorship, or even the mere threat of it. The opposition to SOPA was driven mainly by the fear that it might cost them money. If it had been simply a matter of principle I seriously doubt that they would have cared.