Wednesday, July 27, 2011

If speech is suppressed, bullets may replace it

I think that is one lesson that should be learned from the Norway massacre. Public opinion polls in Norway reveal a great deal of dissatisfaction with the country's aggressive Muslim minority. But, outside the anonymity of a poll, you had better not say so.

Norway's penal code (Straffeloven, section 135 a) prohibits "hate speech" and defines it as publicly making statements that threaten or ridicule someone or that incite hatred, persecution or contempt for someone due to their skin colour, ethnic origin, homosexual life style or orientation or, religion or philosophy of life. So criticism of Muslims is illegal in Norway.

America's founding fathers gave Americans the First Amendment, which would have invalidated such a law in the USA, but there is no First Amendment in Norway and Norway's socialists have not been as wise as America's founding fathers.

So Anders Behring Breivik shot over 80 of the children of the Norwegian Leftist elite who passed the restrictive law concerned. See here.

It's a tragic day when bullets replace words but those who muzzle the words have to take some share of the blame. Trying to hold down discontent by suppressing expression of it is plain dumb -- but very Leftist.

14 comments:

A. Levy said...

Even in this socialist Twilight Zone, there is no escape from reality. There is only the price to be paid for failing to deal with it.

Anonymous said...

"Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay -- and claims a halo for his dishonesty..." --Robert A. Heinlein

Anonymous said...

"The only good bureaucrat is one with a pistol at his head. Put it in his hand and it's good-by to the Bill of Rights... --H.L. Mencken

Anonymous said...

Top-Down argument process is a ridiculous way to make policy. Do you really not see?

Step one: Form a solution based on your ideal view of the world. You think that by enacting decisions based on your ideal world that it will somehow make it that way? Wait.. how can applying a philosophy intended for a completely different world work? Can you take engine parts from a Japanese Car and use them in your Chevy? While the other side tries to fit some Fiat parts in instead? Note: I'm Not leftist... I'm only here to explain why your decision making process is warped and wrong. Lol (You're pathetic) Lemme take a wild guess... one of you will accuse me of being a liberal. Hey Good Job, you used your brain to assume something that may or may not be true based on what you want to believe. You want to believe I'm a liberal so you can use what I say against liberals and or argue that I'm a brainwashed leftist. How can you not see how dumb and illogical this pattern of thinking is? Oh yeah, you continually believe what you want to believe.

Step 2: Polarize the argument. Call leftist idiots. Don't even try to rationally debate. They're stupid idiots and they don't know what they're doing. You're literally grown up children having playground fights. You think that if you get the last word in you win... Hey here's an idea, spend more time actually working from the core issues in a problem and trying to figure out a way to resolve it instead of just applying your philosophy based on a completely different world and hoping things will go alright. Lol, you are all pathetic.

Step 3: Now that you have your solution in hand. Time to selectively choose facts that prove your point. You believe that you can choose a solution then prove why its right. Are you shitting me? Are you serious? Even your own God is laughing at you, he can't believe that you are so arrogant. So.. you pick a solution from a hat, then find facts about why it will work ignoring anything to the contrary or just rationalizing it away... "those facts aren't applicable!... its just leftist policy rearing its ugly head, inserting our superior way of thinking will fix it." Lol Lol Lol Lol You're Idiots. Plain and simple. Tell me why I'm wrong. Please. Let me laugh at you more.

Hank said...

How does one connect the image of this pathetic and helpless group to the image of their ancestors, the Vikings?

Anonymous said...

Look above and tell me if you've ever seen a better reason to stay away from hard drugs.

Anonymous said...

Typical leftist diatribe above stereotyping those he does not wish to have freedom of speech and a right to decide for themselves what the truth is. The truth is certainly not to be found in the ranting above.

I agree with anon 3:30 - if this is what drugs taken at university do to a young mind then stay away from them and the indoctrination of the left.

-btm

Anonymous said...

Someone has Daddy issues.

jonjayray said...

Some very obscure comments above

I have no idea of what a lot of them are talking about

Some of them sound like schizophrenic thought disorder to me

Maybe one lone nutter has done most of the comments

I might start a policy of deleting any comment that I don't understand

Anonymous said...

When we start using bullets, the surpression of free speech and other rights and liberties will stop.

Anonymous said...

You claim to have a doctorate in psychology yet you are trying to make a diagnosis over the internet Jon? Is that how a psychiatrists office works? Should I just email my psychiatrist that I'm feeling better? Is this how the world should work?

Anonymous said...

If only more actual Christians thought this way. It seems the view of Christianity has been completely warped over the years. In my opinion you can only truly understand the Bible is if you start from the bottom up to explain the teachings. Yes the teachings are good but mans fallible mind interprets them the way they want to without truly understanding their meaning.

That's right, some logical skeptic athiest guy is actually pro-bible. Who woulda thunk.

Anonymous said...

In a small Texas town, (Mt. Vernon ) Drummond's bar began construction on a new building to increase their business.. The local Baptist church started a campaign to block the bar from opening with petitions and prayers. Work progressed right up till the week before opening when lightning struck the bar and it burned to the ground.

The church folks were rather smug in their outlook after that, until the bar owner sued the church on the grounds that the church was ultimately responsible for the demise of his building, either through direct or indirect actions or means.

The church vehemently denied all responsibility or any connection to the building's demise in its reply to the court.

As the case made its way into court, the judge looked over the paperwork. At the hearing he commented, "I don't know how I'm going to decide this, but as it appears from the paperwork, we have a bar owner who believes in the power of prayer, and an entire church congregation that does not."

jonjayray said...

I do have a Ph.D. in psychology but that is bye the bye

The point is that a rash of unintelligible comments make it difficult for people interested in following the topic

I have always deleted comments irrelevant to the topic and will now do some more of that