To err is human, to hate divine?

Well, it seems that this anarchist has pissed off some rather unsavoury licorice all sorts.

A newly popped up blog designed presumably for no other reason than to expunge their hatred of what they consider to be an invalid form of anarchism, has the audacity to state that free speech does not include hate speech, whilst at the same time describing me as an uneducated buffoon incapable of stringing a sentence together. Hypocrisy anyone?

But then, I suppose free speech doesn't become hate speech when you disagree with the other person and believe yourself to have the moral high ground?! Right guys. I couldn't care less what you call me, but the fact is, you've offended me, and by your definition, that's hate speech and it's oppressive. So either you lot aren't anarchists, or you agree with me, and hate speech does in fact include the RIGHT to offend another human being.

Further to their accusations that I am not a true anarchist, they request any personal information about me to be sent to someone I believed to be a true Anarchist and comrade (with whom I did not necessary agree with on everything, but supported on my blog anyway), @ndy, or Slack Bastard.

You accuse me of hate speech (whichby your definition) is coercive and removes the freedom of others, and yet at the same time, you request my personal information so that you may take away my privacy. Something, which I believe is totally unethical and un-anarchist in nature. A behaviour, which I would expect the State to engage in, not fellow political activists.

Perhaps that is my punishment for such thought crimes and thinking outside the square?

As for the rumours of my location - sure, I'm in Melbourne, I've been to protests in Melbourne, which have been documented on my blog. I haven't been to a climate change one, and had I, you can be sure I would have posted pics and a report accordingly. Shit happens, and I haven't kept up my blog for yonks. I haven't done any political activism, or even been posting regularly on the blog. Work's been HELL!

Am I at La Trobe? I sure was. I even ran in the elections, and I've even had some stuff published from the blog in the La Trobe magazine. The great thing about La Trobe (not just that it's an activist hub in Melbourne), but it's also got free internet access. If you're an anarchist, or just on the cheap, the library offers free internet, and no need for a student login. So head on over, I'm a cheap skate, they're open till 10pm on weeknights!

As for me being called a woman... well, I've been called worse :-)

So please, slander me with your hate speech all you want, but don't turn around and hypocritically tell a Neo Nazi that they are bigoted, hate filled people. At least a Nazi admits what they are.

More bad news for free speech - this time it's the "Cult" of scientology

Whoa. The bad news just keeps on keeping on, how's this for a hate crime?

UK teenager has been ordered to appear in court for using the word "cult" to describe the Church of Scientology. The 15 year old was served a summons by police when he took part in a demonstration on May 10 opposite the London headquarters of the controversial religion. Police confiscated the youth's placard with the world ‘cult’ written on it, the Guardian newspaper reports. The teenager is a member of the internet-based movement Anonymous, which has been banned by police from describing Scientology as a cult because it was "abusive and insulting".

"This barmy prosecution makes a mockery of Britain's free speech traditions”, said civil liberty group spokesperson Shami Chakrabarti.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=566612

Free Speech is hate Speech, it is the freedom to express your opinion even if it offends others. We don't need to defend free speech if people agree with you, you only need to defend free speech when someone doesn't agree with what you have to say.

On February 10, 2008, the self-named group "Anonymous" began with Project Chanology, with a mass protest worldwide against the Church of Scientology. Anonymous has an Anarchist structure as it lacks any visible hierarchy or leaders, instead relying on individuals to contribute to the group on their own.

http://www.prlog.org/10046797-internet-group-anonymous-declares-war-on-scientology.html

The group declared war on the church of scientology to end the financial exploitation of Church members and protecting the right to free speech, a right which they claim was consistently violated by the Church of Scientology in pursuit of its opponents.

Australian iron fist of the State suppress' dissenting views

It seems that Freedom of Speech has taken another blow, this time in the land Down under.

Melbourne University has demoted one of its most outspoken academics after a complaint against him by the State Government. Dr Mees said at a public forum last year that the authors of a 2007 report on privatisation were "liars and frauds and should be in jail".

"The university strongly supports and encourages the principles of academic freedom," Professor McPhee said.

Apparently, that academic freedom only applies when you're not on the payroll.

Professor Low has been in negotiations with the State Government over funding a research project into greenhouse gas emissions from transport. Mr Betts has agreed to be a partner in the application for funding.

Didn't you know, the defense of truth is no defense for the truth!

Without telling Dr Mees, the university also launched an investigation into whether he had damaged the university's reputation. The inquiry, conducted by Michael King of Monash University's law faculty, found Dr Mees had "brought the university into disrepute by making derogatory and insulting comments" about government officers.

Dr King found it did not matter whether Dr Mees' statements were true or not. "His defence of truth should be dismissed," says Dr King's report.

He rejected Dr Mees' defence that the comments were not "insulting or derogatory", that he spoke the truth, and that it was part of his duty as an academic to "expose corruption".

Dr Mees has since quit the university, and will give his final lecture next week. He has accepted a role with RMIT's planning department.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/uni-demotes-transport-dissident/2008/05/19/1211182704265.html

"I don't think we're in kansas anymore Toto". What is happening to our university system when our academics can no longer speak the truth about Government corruption?

The Iron Fist of the State doesn't need to strike, it just needs to withhold capital.

Fight Corruption. EAT THE RICH!

Another Blow for Free Speech - Dutch cartoonist arrested for 'insulting people'

The Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy began after twelve editorial cartoons, most of which depicted the Islamic prophet Muhammad, were published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten on 30 September 2005. 5,000 Muslim immigrants living in Denmark took to the streets in protest over the cartoons. They were republished in a furter 50 newspapers across the world, resulting in worldwide riots.

Supporters have said that the cartoons illustrated an important issue in a period of Islamic terrorism and that their publication is a legitimate exercise of the right of free speech, explicitly tied to the issue of self-censorship.

They claim that Muslims were not targeted in a discriminatory way since unflattering cartoons about other religions are frequently printed, case in point- Christianity. In Brussels a young Muslim immigrant published a poster depicting the Virgin Mary with naked breasts. It depicts the virgin Mary with a howling child and a bowl of blood. She is barebreasted and is sitting next to a shield with the arms of Flanders. As a muslim immigrant Ben Chikha is allowed to use such images. Though the picture has drawn some protest from Catholics (sans riots) this artist has not recieved death threats, and is being subsidised by the Ministry for Culture. Sounds like a double standard to me!

The Latest in the Cartoon Saga -
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24665094/

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands - A Dutch political cartoonist was arrested this week on suspicion of insulting people because of their race or religion through his work, authorities said Friday. The cartoonist, who works under the pseudonym Gregorius Nekschot, was arrested Tuesday on suspicion of violating hate speech laws and held overnight before being released, a spokeswoman for his publisher Uitgeverij Xtra said.

She asked that her name not be used, and declined to give Nekschot's real name, because the cartoonist and publisher have both received death threats. Nekschot is known primarily for cartoons mocking Muslims and leftists, though the spokeswoman said he is a satirist who targets "any strong ideology." Amsterdam public prosecutor spokeswoman Sanne van Meteren said Nekschot remains a suspect in a criminal investigation.

"We suspect him of insulting people on the basis of their race or belief, and possibly also of inciting hate," she said.

Each is a crime punishable by up to a year in prison under Dutch hate speech laws — or two years for multiple offenses.

What have we come to when people are arrested for political cartoons?

Further Information:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/382
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy

Freedom to hate striked down

Recently, an Anarchist comrade's blog was pulled down. @ndy or Slackbastard.

http://www.slackbastard.anarchobase.com/

On April 8, Mathaba News Network demanded host of domain name anarchobase.com be shut down. The subject of their complaint was a post on @ndys blog. The blog post in question concerned the nature of the news service, and in particular the recent history of its owner, Adam Musa King. From what I have gathered, Mathaba hosted some information about the New Right, which is @ndys current pet hate. (which is his right and choice).

To cut a long story short, @ndy has called Muthaba.net owner Adam King a Fascist based upon the theory of guilt by association (assuming NR are fascists). Which is the right of @ndy to do, under Freedom of Speech. However, Mr King has removed the site through legal libel proceedings.

@ndys blog recently was totally removed from the internet by the host after rightful legal pressure as a result of his extensive vilification and defamation of others and from using a fake name to register his blog along with a PO box address.

Aparently, websites must be registered at a home address not a PO Box. Haha! Thats some fine anarchist work there @ndy! Which follows Anarchy Downunder's 9th Commandment - Don't get caught! We could all learn a thing or two on how to dodge the Authorities from this Australian Anarchist!

Although, I do have one thought for my Anarchist comrade. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to hate, as you have quite rightly exercised. However, one cannot demand freedom without first granting it to others. Something to think about anyway.....

Karma is a harsh mistress.

Free Speech or Hate Speech?

I wrote a post a little while ago about Free Speech, holding the party line and disgraced Professor Andrew Fraser making comments about different races, and since then I've come across another dishonoured professor.

"Harvard President Lawrence Summers was driven out of his university post in 2005 after he suggested at a conference that gender differences might account for an under representation by women in science, math and engineering."

The article from Real Clear Politics goes on to say....

"Summers, the Blasphemer was banished into the outer darkness. There's no debating that he was punished for saying something that made a special group feel bad -- the new blacklisting offense. To be called a sexist, racist or homophobe today is tantamount to being a communist sympathizer 50-60 years ago."

The question of whether hate speech is free speech has again arisen, this time in the Sunday Age, News Extra pg 20 "Race, Hate and DNA" on October 21, 2007. Nobel Prize winner Professor James Watson has stated in regards to Africans

"All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really".

However his comments were deemed so offensive that a sold out talk he was to give at the science museum in London was cancelled, stating

"We feel that Watson has gone beyond the point of acceptable debate".

So when do comments turn from free speech to hate speech? When is something someone says unacceptable, and who decides what speech is and isn't acceptable?

I personally know a number of anarchists who are strong anti-fascists and very anti- hate speech, which superficially seems reasonable. However, in keeping with anarchism and it's non-totalitarian nature, who are we as anarchists to decide what people can and cannot say? In fact, to pressure people or the state into censorship is anti-anarchist by its very nature. The reason is quite simple, to apply censorship is to apply rule over another, which by its definition, totalitarian.

However, what happens when something is said that is totally abhorrent to you as an individual? I've stated that anarchists shouldn't engage in censorship, but what about the State? Is it OK for the Government to engage in censorship? The answer unfortunately, is no. We shouldn't have censorship. For the answer we need only look to Channel nine last night and the "Great Debate". Mr Howard decided he didn't want the worm, and thus the feed to channel nine was cut. Ray Martin was even heard to say during the coverage

"So much for free speech in Australia".

Herein lies the problem; one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Everything is open to personal views, and to give an individual control over the information provided to the general public (censoring) will always be biased. The problem lies in where to draw the line. Drawing the line at hate speech might be acceptable for some, but the thin edge of the wedge is that even mainstream information is then subject to censorship by the whims of the State.

Anarchists more than any other group should advocate free speech (including hate speech) to provide the masses with more accurate information in which they can decide for themselves. Considering the fact that the comments by Professor James Watson are self-evident hate speech, let people decide for themselves. THIS IS ANARCHY!

Hate speech in its most basic form runs parallel with anarchist dogma. If anarchy was to "rule" the country, each person with their own ideas and agenda would be free to speak their mind and subsequently offend (which by it's definition is hate speech).

So the next time someone says something you think is "inappropriate" congratulate them for not being tools of the state. In fact, encouraging free speech in all it's forms, and you'll be encouraging the Anarchist way of life.

References:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/09/larry_summers_the_thought_poli.html
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/minisite/election_article.aspx?id=307689&sectionid=6046&sectionname=minisiteelection

The Individual or Organisational Culture?

Free speech is a term all political activists endeavour

to own in the moral high ground stakes.

I've noticed how the White Nationalists, Supremacists, Nazi's and extreme Right use the sacred defence of "Freedom of Speech" to defend their views and ideology. They are not alone in their quest to push their own agenda through such a defence. The Pro-life and Christian activists also complain about their lack of ability to speak out about their views in such a polarised society, and the hard ugly truth is, whether you agree with them or not, they do have the right to an opinion, and the right to express that opinion. The question is, when and where do they have the right to express said opinions? Their homes? Workplaces? Public forums? or not at all? I came across an interesting example where un-popular politics meets the culture of the organisation.You may or may not recall a man named Andrew Fraser, who was a Professor of Law at Macquarie University in 2006. He was forced to retire after making comments about an ethnic hierarchy in Australia. While i do not condone what was said, what has primarily fascinated me about this case, were not comments themselves, but rather WHEN and WHERE they were said. Prof Fraser wrote an email to his local paper The Paramatta Sun. The email was sent from his professional account at the university with (I'm assuming) a university signature at the bottom, and was published with those details. Subsequently, after a long and arduous process, Prof Andrew Fraser was forced disgracefully into retirement, which superficially, may seem like a good thing.

However, fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

The truth of the matter I'm afraid, is that the disgraced Professor didn't hold the party line. He didn't put the organisational culture ahead of his personal beliefs. I know most of you reading this will be thinking - so? I agree with the university in this instance. Ultimately, what it boils down to, is what happens when the organisational culture doesn't agree with what you have to say, or what i have to say? What happens when we don't hold the party line? (Both within work hours and outside of work hours).

Generally, a bureaucracy is based on merit, but is commonly "corrupted" by other systems of power. The result is that most bureaucracies seethe with rumours, power plays, upheavals, takeovers and changing organisational structures. Bureaucratic elites like to collect information about workers, from personal details to comments on job performance. This information can be used to control the workers. On the other hand, information about the elites is not made available to workers. In other words, surveillance is natural to bureaucracies, and much of it is targeted at workers.

Bureaucratic elites have considerable power and, as usual, it tends to corrupt. When possible, elites give themselves high salaries, plush offices, grandiose titles and special privileges. They can exercise power by supporting workers who support them personally and by penalising those who criticise or just annoy them. They can foster fear by intimidating subordinates. They can create havoc through reprimands, demotions, dismissals, restructuring and a host of other mechanisms. Just about anyone who has worked in a bureaucracy has a good idea of the sort of problems that can arise.

A bureaucracy is not a free society. There are no elections for top offices. There is little free speech, and there is no free press for opponents of the current elites. Open opponents of the ruling group are likely to be harassed, demoted or dismissed. This is exactly what happened to Prof Andrew Fraser, and I too have suffered and continue to suffer discrimination in my workplace based on my anarchist ideas and agenda. I consider what happened to Prof Fraser akin to the frog in the boiling water syndrome, the slow boil akin to our slow erosion of freedom of expression. So again, i ask you when and where do ALL OF US have the right to express our opinions? Our homes? Our workplaces? Public forums or not at all?

References:
http://news.csu.edu.au/director/features/society.cfm http://www.culturejamforlife.com/free_speech/free_speech_pro_life.htm http://slackbastard.anarchobase.com/?p=375 http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/counterpoint/stories/s1424337.htm http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/98il/il05.html