Tag Archives: Free Speech

Freedom of speech according to Bishop Michael Ingham

Posted on by
10

From here:

If religious criticism is intended deliberately to offend, to vilify or to slander, it is not acceptable and I would be outraged. And not just for my own religious faith, but also for others’. I am not against satire. I am against hatred. If satire is intended respectfully to challenge or question a fundamental belief, or to expose the hypocrisy of the institution or its leaders, it is perfectly okay.

There is no unlimited right to freedom of speech and no absolute right to freedom. To exist, freedom needs self-imposed restraints, and democracy requires a consensus based on mutual respect. What we have in the Paris cartoons is a misuse of freedom…it is secular fundamentalism that insists on the right to cause offence in the name of freedom. Religious satire is not off-limits when it serves the public good by exposing hypocrisy and causing us to live up to our ideals in a better way, but when its purpose is deliberately to offend, how is that different from hatred?

Michael Ingham is in favour of satire and freedom of expression provided it is respectful and not offensive, thereby rendering it not free and not satirical. Additionally, satire has to serve the public good. Who decides this? In the absence of an ecclesiarchy, the state; welcome back to the Soviet Union.

In a similar vein, the imam pundit notes:

In a free society, people have the right to offend, but people do not have the right to incite hatred or to stereotype an entire community. When you depict Mohamed as a terrorist, 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide are considered terrorists, when 99.9 per cent of them are peaceful. We must use freedom of speech with responsibility. That is the price of keeping a civil society.

If the imam is correct and 99.9% of Muslims are peaceful (I have a suspicion that figure is too high), we are left with 1.6 million who are not only not peaceful but, since the context is terrorism, are terrorists; I don’t find that particularly reassuring.

The Anglican Church of Canada suppresses free speech

Posted on by
17

I used to leave comments on Anglican Journal articles but gave up doing so because they never appeared. I am not the only one: it seems that the ACoC can tolerate anything except disagreement.

The excruciatingly dull blog that exudes like a foetid ectoplasm from the Diocese of New Westminster expunged a dissenting view on St. Matthews Abbotsford:

Note on Another Matter:
nwanglicanblog received a lengthy response to a recent posting that comments on the move of the ANiC congregation in Abbotsford out of its former physical facilities. This response will not be posted on the blog as it reiterates familiar arguments and makes disparaging statements that do not contribute to the advancement of the Gospel.

Since the Diocese of New Westminster’s expertise lies mostly in the art of breaking up the Anglican Communion, it’s hard to see how it could harbour the conceit that it is, itself, in any way advancing the Gospel, especially since Michael Ingham went to some lengths to prevent one of the world’s foremost evangelical thinkers – J. I. Packer – from setting foot on any diocesan property.

I have been blocked from following the twitter feed from the Diocese of Niagara for fear, presumably, that I might make an unflattering remark about its contents.

Still, the Anglican Church of Canada does love conversation; just don’t question the tergiversations of its hierocracy.

We Con the World

Posted on by
2

From the Jerusalem Post:

The parody video “We Con the World,” which mocked the international media coverage of the Gaza-bound “aid” flotilla that was stopped by Israeli naval commandos, has been removed from YouTube, where it received over 3 million views since it went up on June 3.

In removing the video from on Friday, YouTube posted a comment citing copyright infringement concerns from Warren Chappel Music Inc., which owns the rights to the 1985 charity fundraiser song “We Are the World.”

Never mind, I happen to have my own copy:

[flv:https://anglicansamizdat.net/wordpress/videos/WeContheWorld.flv 480 360]

Barbarians inside the gates

Posted on by
4

As Malcolm Muggeridge noted:

So the final conclusion would surely be that whereas other civilizations have been brought down by attacks of barbarians from without, ours had the unique distinction of training its own destroyers at its own educational institutions, and then providing them with facilities for propagating their destructive ideology far and wide, all at the public expense.   Thus did Western Man decide to abolish himself, creating his own boredom out of his own affluence, his own vulnerability out of his own strength, his own impotence out of his own erotomania, himself blowing the trumpet that brought the walls of his own city tumbling down, and having convinced himself that he was too numerous, labored with pill and scalpel and syringe to make himself fewer.  Until at last, having educated himself into imbecility, and polluted and drugged himself into stupefaction, he heeled over – a weary, battered old brontosaurus – and became extinct.

Canada is busy breeding a league of barbarians in the University of Ottawa under the tutelage of Provost, Francois Houle. When Ann Coulter tried to speak at the University of Ottawa, she was greeted by the Nazi tactics of intimidation and mindless chanting – the book burning will begin soon. Imagine what would have happened if something really controversial had taken place – oh, right, nothing.

From the National Post:

“Since I’ve arrived in Canada, I’ve been denounced on the floor of Parliament — which, by the way, is on my bucket list — my posters have been banned, I’ve been accused of committing a crime in a speech that I have not yet given, I was banned by the student council, so welcome to Canada!”

The “accusation” of which Ms. Coulter speaks is a reference to an email she received from University of Ottawa vice-president and provost Francois Houle on Friday, warning her that freedom of speech is defined differently in Canada than in the U.S. and that she should take care not to step over the line.

Ms. Coulter said that letter set the tone for and encouraged the protesters. She said it’s well known on the campus speaking circuit that conservatives need to travel with security staff, as she did.

“I’m pretty sure little Francois A-Houle does not need to travel with a bodyguard,” she said. “I would like to know when this sort of violence, this sort of protest, has been inflicted upon a Muslim — who appear to be, from what I’ve read of the human rights complaints, the only protected group in Canada. I think I’ll give my speech tomorrow night in a burka. That will protect me.”

Alberta judge rules anti-gay letter not hate speech, overturns ruling

Posted on by
3

Rev. Stephen Boissoin published a letter that was ruled a “hate crime” by the Alberta Human Rights Commission. The ruling has been overturned:

EDMONTON – A Court of Queen’s Bench judge has ruled an anti-gay letter written by a former Alberta pastor in 2002 was not a hate crime and is allowed under freedom of speech.

Justice E.C. Wilson overturned a 2008 ruling by the Alberta Human Rights Commission that the letter by Stephen Boissoin that was published in the Red Deer Advocate broke provincial law.

At the time, the commission said it may even have played a role in the beating of a gay teenager two weeks after it was published.

The commission had ordered Boissoin to refrain from making disparaging remarks about homosexuals and to pay the complainant, former Red Deer high school teacher Darren Lund, $5,000 in damages.

Neither order can now be enforced, as Wilson declared them “unlawful or unconstitutional.”

You can read the entire letter here; it begins:

The following is not intended for those who are suffering from an unwanted sexual identity crisis. For you, I have understanding, care, compassion and tolerance. I sympathize with you and offer you my love and fellowship. I prayerfully beseech you to seek help, and I assure you that your present enslavement to homosexuality can be remedied. Many outspoken, former homosexuals are free today.

Instead, this is aimed precisely at every individual that in any way supports the homosexual machine that has been mercilessly gaining ground in our society since the 1960s. I cannot pity you any longer and remain inactive. You have caused far too much damage.

Darren Lund was a schoolteacher when he made the initial complaint; he is now  an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Education, University of Calgary where his speciality is social justice issues in schools and communities.

Lund is a bit of a misery: in the spirit of keeping Christ out of Christmas, he doesn’t like Operation Christmas Child because the help it provides to children is tainted with evangelism; and he believes 9/11 was by caused by a lack of respect for the religion – Islam – of “others”. Lund also appears to be a racist, since he subscribes to the canard that racism is the exclusive failing of white people.

Thus, he is quite at home preaching in the United Church of Canada  where he is wont to intone piously on “diversity” and critical approaches to counter racism, sexism, homophobia or other forms of discrimination and oppression.

Altogether, Darren Lund is a colossal bore.

The right-wing blog conspiracy

Posted on by
1

H/T Holysmoke

It’s rather quaint observing an establishment antediluvian attempt to explain the dangers of a burgeoning technological trend; here we have the Catholic Tablet bemoaning the unrestrained chaotic freedom brought to you courtesy of the Internet. No longer do we have to sit at the feet of the gibbering liberal elite for opinions: we can publish our own. It’s rather like being transported to the wild west brandishing a pair of colt 45s.

Of course, blogs are a paranoid, right wing, resentment-fed character assassination machine; and they are not balanced:

Voices from the lower depths.

Blogs – a corruption of web-log – were invented in America, where they still thrive, particularly among the political and religious right wing. What feeds the blogosphere’s paranoia is a sense of resentment that “they” – those in charge – are engaged in a conspiracy against “us” ordinary folk. The main media is regarded as part of that conspiracy, which is why the internet – cheap, unregulated and with unlimited capacity – has drawn the bloggers to itself. In Britain, too, there are Catholic bloggers, again often right-wing, polemical and vituperative. The targets in this case often seem to include The Tablet, in some sort of fantastical conspiracy with the bishops. Generally, blogs are far from an idealised forum for an exchange of intelligent ideas that would be constructive. More often they indulge in straight poison-pen character assassination without reference to any requirements of accuracy or balance.

Suing a blogger for libel can be a frustrating business.

I find that last sentence comforting.

Go away Galloway

Posted on by
1

The Post has a good perspective on Canada’s refusal to allow George Galloway entry:

It’s a mystery to me why anyone cares what George Galloway thinks, no matter what the issue. From what I understand, he’s a self-promoting British MP of no particular stature, who specializes in making inane remarks, the better to draw attention to himself. We have plenty of those in Canada, why import more from Britain?

I derive considerable satisfaction from observing Galloway’s frustration at the idea that he is unable to unleash one of his bombastic jeremiads within Canada. Nevertheless, even though the ostensible reason for his exclusion is his financial support of terrorist organisations, in the interest of free speech it might have been better to let him in and froth at the mouth for a while.

After all, the only person who would have listened is Jack Layton.