The Strange Case of Tommy Robinson

Last week, British new media journalist Tommy Robinson (ne Stephen Lennon) was taken into custody and summarily sentenced to 13 months in prison while he was live streaming outside of the Leeds Crown Court.





There is considerable confusion about the matter.  Robinson has a history of being a soccer hooligan who became active in nationalist politics, with an animus against radical Islam. Robinson's arrest was while he covered a Muslim rape gang which groomed its child victims.

Because Tommy Robinson was weary of Islamic influence in the UK, it is easy to leap to the conclusion that a police state is trying to shut down a dissenting voice from elite internationalists.  It may well be that Robinson was taken in on suspended sentence for contempt of court regarding coverage of a gang rape case in 2017 that was escalated by being in a scuffle with police.  Robinson fears that his 13 month sentence will effectively be a death sentence due to Muslim gangs in prison.

Robinson's arrest seems kind of reminiscent of what happened to the LA videographer in the wake of the Benghazi attack in 2012.  Use trumped up charges on a small fry to politically placate.

What should be truly disturbing to all freedom lovers is the injunction that the judge, Geoffrey Mason QC, ordered an Orwellian media blackout, enjoining the British press from reporting on it until after the conclusion of the child grooming case.

[C] Judge Geoffrey Mason watching Tommy Robinson arrest, Leeds Crown Court

Several European Parliament Members have called Robinson a political prisoner and demanded his release. It is puzzling that the public can not be informed of someone who has been convicted of a crime. Are Star Chambers back in style in England again? In the past, the Star Chamber supposedly took on prominent people.  Is it now to enforce political correctness or PC dhimmitude?

Frederick Douglass on Freedom of Speech

Tim Fargo on the Freedom of Speech

On Obama's ICANN Internet Giveaway

Fighting for Gold Star Families Dignity

Republican Presidential Nominee Donald Trump (R-NY) has tried to capitalize on the veterans vote throughout the 2016 election.  Trump has scathed the Obama Administration for their failures to care for Veterans.  Trump has promised that Veterans will get the best care and be able to use Tricare at any hospital, not waiting for an appointment at a VA hospital.

That being said, Trump has a troubled history on the campaign trail honoring veterans.  Early in the Republican primary process, Donald Trump called Senator John McCain a loser because he was a captured Prisoner of War at the "Hanoi Hilton" during the Viet-Nam War. After coming under political fire, Trump half apologized and said that it was a misunderstanding. Sure. 

At the Democrat National Convention in Philadelphia, Gold Star parents Kzir and Ghizala Khan gave a presentation questioning Donald Trump's leadership.  Perhaps Democrats used the Khans as a shield against Hillary Clinton's Benghazi bungle in 2012.  Rather than letting grieving parents have their say and moving on, Trump led the charge of the Twitter light brigade against the Khans. 

Trump's continued attacks on the Khans brought out the VFW to step into their defense. Democrats certainly criticized Benghazi mother Pat Smith's emotional charges against Hillary Clinton, but the Democrat candidate wasn't stupid enough to lead the attacks. The counters to Pat Smith was about tone, not ad hominem attacks on religious piety or allegiance to America.

Ted Cruz on Civil Campaigning

Last week, Republican front-runner received increased scrutiny for hot tempered hustings and inciting violence at campaign rallies.  Trump had to cancel a big rally at the University of Illinois-Chicago for what he cited as safety reasons as infiltrated protesters and street rallies threatened to get ugly. But Trump has also repeatedly used incendiary insults regarding detractors and Trump has encouraged supporters to give detractors rough treatment.

Opposition antics do not just plague the Trump campaign but are handled in dramatically different ways.  On the eve of the Illinois primary, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) was heckled by a birther in Peoria. 

Rather than incite the crowd and gin up anger over the eligibility (non) issue , Cruz used civility and comedy to vanquish the opposition. 

This contrast revels character and inherent leadership styles. 

Speaker Paul Ryan has come out for civil campaigning, but it seems that the media and the unfocused angry voter continue to spotlight the Trump chaos circus campaign.

Ted Cruz on Freedom of Speech

French TV Weatherman Pulled Off Air for Questioning Climate Change

Philippe Verdier, a weatherman for France 2 was pulled off the air and told not to return to work for the foreseeable future after the publication of his book "Climat Investigation" (2015).  The timing of the Verdier book release is in the run up to the United Nations Paris Climate Change Summit in December 2015.

Verdier's book throws doubt into the findings of leading climate change scientists and politicians. 

For its part, France Télévision stated that its internal rules prevented anyone using their professional status to advance personal opinions.

This sort of heavy handed silencing of anthropogenic climate change is not surprising.  Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) has proposed using Racketeering investigations (RICO) against climate change opponents. A letter proposing this hardball tactic was signed by twenty alarmist scientists. Threatening RICO investigations uses lawfare to effective shut up critics.  So much for the First Amendment. 

h/t: Guardian 

On Being Offended and Campus Speech Codes

Welcome back to class, students! I am Mike Adams your criminology professor here at UNC-Wilmington. Before we get started with the course I need to address an issue that is causing problems here at UNCW and in higher education all across the country. I am talking about the growing minority of students who believe they have a right to be free from being offended. If we don’t reverse this dangerous trend in our society there will soon be a majority of young people who will need to walk around in plastic bubble suits to protect them in the event that they come into contact with a dissenting viewpoint. That mentality is unworthy of an American. It’s hardly worthy of a Frenchman.

 

Let’s get something straight right now. You have no right to be unoffended. You have a right to be offended with regularity. It is the price you pay for living in a free society. If you don’t understand that you are confused and dangerously so. In part, I blame your high school teachers for failing to teach you basic civics before you got your diploma. Most of you went to the public high schools, which are a disaster. Don’t tell me that offended you. I went to a public high school.

Of course, your high school might not be the problem. It is entirely possible that the main reason why so many of you are confused about free speech is that piece of paper hanging on the wall right over there. Please turn your attention to that ridiculous document that is framed and hanging by the door. In fact, take a few minutes to read it before you leave class today. It is our campus speech code. It specifically says that there is a requirement that everyone must only engage in discourse that is “respectful.” That assertion is as ludicrous as it is illegal. I plan to have that thing ripped down from every classroom on campus before I retire.

One of my grandfathers served in World War I. My step-grandfather served in World War II. My sixth great grandfather enlisted in the American Revolution when he was only thirteen. These great men did not fight so we could simply relinquish our rights to the enemy within our borders. That enemy is the Marxists who run our public universities. If you are a Marxist and I just offended you, well, that’s tough. I guess they don’t make communists like they used to.

Of course, this ban on “disrespectful” speech is really only illusory. The university that created these speech restrictions then turns around and sponsors plays like The Vagina Monologues, which is loaded with profanity including the c-word – the most offensive and disrespectful word a person could ever possibly apply to a woman. It is pure, unadulterated hypocrisy.

So, the university position can be roughly summarized as follows: Public university administrators have a First Amendment right to use disrespectful profanity but public university students do not. This turns the First Amendment on its head. The university has its free speech analysis completely backwards. And that’s why they need to be sued.

Before we go, let us take a few minutes to look at the last page of your syllabus where I explain the importance of coming to class on time, turning off your cell phone, and refraining from talking during lectures. In that section, I explain that each of you has God-given talents and that your Creator endowed you with a purpose in life that is thwarted when you develop these bad habits.

Unbelievably, a student once complained to the Department chairwoman that my mention of God and a Creator was a violation of Separation of Church and State. Let me be as clear as I possibly can: If any of you actually think that my decision to paraphrase the Declaration of Independence in the course syllabus is unconstitutional then you suffer from severe intellectual hernia.

Indeed, it takes hard work to become stupid enough to think the Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional. If you agree with the student who made that complaint then you are probably just an anti-religious zealot. Therefore, I am going to ask you to do exactly three things and do them in the exact order that I specify.

First, get out of my class. You can fill out the drop slip over at James Hall. Just tell them you don’t believe in true diversity and you want to be surrounded by people who agree with your twisted interpretation of the Constitution simply because they are the kind of people who will protect you from having your beliefs challenged or your feelings hurt. 

Second, withdraw from the university. If you find that you are actually relieved because you will no longer be in a class where your beliefs might be challenged then you aren’t ready for college. Go get a job building houses so you can work with some illegal aliens who will help you gain a better appreciation of what this country has to offer.

Finally, if this doesn’t work then I would simply ask you to get the hell out of the country. The ever-growing thinned-skinned minority you have joined is simply ruining life in this once-great nation. Please move to some place like Cuba where you can enjoy the company of communists and get excellent health care. Just hop on a leaky boat and start paddling your way towards utopia. You will not be missed.

                                                                                                                                                    

Professor Mike Adams is no stranger to controversy.  This tenured conservative professor ruffled the feathers  progressives by having the temerity to assert that marriage consists of one man and one woman.



Considering the ferocity of condemnation from his colleagues, it is a reminder that the Theory of Gender is all about intellectual totalitarianism transferred to the polity. It seems such elitists intellectuals are leaders of the idiot tribe, influencing the otherwise apathetic hoi polloi.

H/T: Mike Adams
        Townhall.com

Ted Cruz on Freedom of Speech

On First Amendment Prudence?

The "Draw Mohammed" event in Garland, Texas has provoked some mixed reactions in the media. Pamela Geller, the proprietor of Atlas Shrugged and co-founder of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, believes that speaking out against radical Islam through an event in Garland, Texas is properly exercising her Freedom of Speech.

Greta Van Susteran went "Off the Record" condemned Pamela Geller and the Draw Mohammed event as not being a prudent application of her First Amendment rights.



Some self censorship critics, point to Constitutional limits of Freedom of Speech.  Chris Cuomo got on his high horse regarding hate speech and kept pointing to the 1942 Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire Supreme Court decision about "fighting words".

But if one relies on the Constitution as being a "living document", one must read further high court cases.  to understand that "fighting words" limitations essentially now must be provocative personal epithets. For CNN commentators preening about their juris doctor degree, check Cohen v. California 403 U.S. 15 (1971) [the "Fuck the Draft" case] and Snyder v. Philips (2010) 562 USC ___ (2011) [Westboro Baptist Church protesting soldier's funeral],

It is ironic that there are elements in the media, which ought to revel in the First Amendment, that urge those who advocate unpopular opinions to be reticent about expressing their Freedom of Speech.  That's some freedom-- not!

It is ironic that there are elements in the media, which ought to revel in the First Amendment, that urge those who advocate unpopular opinions to be reticent about expressing their Freedom of Speech.  That's some freedom-- not!

Several years ago, after the Gabrielle Giffords shooting, there was an effort for encourage civic civility. Alas, that was a progressive ploy to stifle conservative dissent and was not reciprocated by the left.

The admonitions of today to be prudent when exercising free speech seem to show the inroads of cultural jihad.  One can not express Free Speech which a Muslim might find offensive. This can be considered soft tyranny or de facto sharia.  Should we acquiesce to such sensibilities now, consider how imams like Anjem Choudrey would handle such offensive speech. 

customer survey

Stephane Charbonnier on the Freedom of Speech

Stephane Charbonnier, Chief Editor of the French satirical magazine "Charlie Hebdo", was one of France's leading cartoonists who created under the pen name "Charb".   Charbonnier was also an outspoken advocate for free speech who fiercely defended his right to push material that others, particularly Muslims, deemed offensive. 

In 2011, Charbonnier invited the Prophet Muhammad to be a guest editor to Charlie Hebdo. This prompted a firebombing which destroyed Charlie Hebdo's offices and put Charb on an Al-Qaeda hit list. 

Stephane Charbonnier defiantly posing after Charlie Hebdo firebombing,  Nov. 2011

The three Islamic terrorists who brutally attacked Charlie Hebdo's offices on January 7, 2015 reportedly asked for Charb by name as they slaughtered twelve people. 

Some Muslim spokesmen justify a rabid response like the terrorist attack as Charlie Hebdo published pieces which were offensive to the Prophet Muhammad.  Bill Donahue,  President of the (American) Catholic League, condemned the killings but stated that "Muslims have a right to be angry" over Charlie Hebdo's provocative publications.

Many media outlets are quick to point out that Charlie Hebdo is a French satirical publication, which is true but is misleading.  This Charlie Hebdo massacre was an attack on Free Speech.  It was cultural jihad which is imposing tenants of sharia law (among which is to not to offend Muslims) on Western society.  This movement is being aided and accelerated by Political Correctness, which seeks to not  provoke favored minorities but is happy to taunt traditional mores.

The fact that many media sources were self-censoring about showing "provocative" Charlie Hebdo covers, but had no problems publicizing Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ" (1987) or Chris Orfill's depiction of the Virgin Mary covered in elephant dung (1996) shows the double standard from the supposed guardians of the First Amendment.

Such spurious self-censoring of provocative content towards a violent minority which seeks to apply sharia law is an early stage of dhimmitude.