Tuesday, June 26

In the U.K. you get fined or jailed for speech "critical" of a religion--unless you're Muslim

In the war zone formerly known as Great Britain, anyone who posts a single comment on social media that's even remotely critical of Islam can be fined or jailed for so-called "hate speech."

Yep.  The almighty "authorities"--politicians less honest than crooks--ignore rape gangs of Muslims preying on 14-year-old British girls, but will jail people for a critical remark they make about a protected religion (Islam).

So you'd think that to be logically consistent, if someone on an airplane went on a profanity-loaded five-minute anti-semitic tirade that had passengers in tears, by the "authorities'" definition that would qualify as hate speech.  So again, for consistency's sake the harasser should be either fined or jailed, right?

Well, if the offender was a native Brit, yes.  But if the haranging is done by a Muslim, no penalty at all.  Even more astonishingly, the excuse the guy used to get off free was that he'd been smoking pot during the Ramadan fast.  Here's the perp:
Shamraize Bashir, 34, made shocking anti-Semitic remarks on a flight last June
Shamraize Bashir, 34

Now, you don't live in the U.K. so you're certain this has no bearing on you whatsoever.  Unfortunately, it's coming here, fast.  The universities have been hugely pushing to only allow speech they like for years--and they don't like anything that remotely criticizes Islam or gays or liberals.  And in dozens of states they've persuaded spineless legislators to impose fines or jail for speech some political appointee deems "incorrect."  Which is always described as "hate speech," of course.

Oh, you say that couldn't possibly happen here?  That the First Amendment ("free speech") gives you the right to say what you want without penalty?  Sorry, you're wrong.  It's already happened here.  But it's being done by state "human rights commissions," not by the feds.

Now interestingly, in the entire history of this country it's been settled law that a state can't punish behavior that's allowed by the Constitution or by federal law.  So 30 years ago a federal judge would have slapped down any state that tried to criminalize speech, no matter how artfully, how cunningly, they did it.  But today federal judges aren't about to risk future promotions by making a ruling that would buck a "human rights commission."  So no one has slapped those states down yet.

Oh, you say you heard about a case just a couple of weeks ago in which the supreme court found in favor of a baker who declined to make a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding?  And you think that ruling means the point I just made is wrong?

If so you should read the actual written opinion instead of believing what you heard on CNN or MSNBC or any of the alphabet networks.  The decision for the baker totally ignored the real issue, and was made on incredibly narrow grounds having nothing to do with the baker's right not to be forced to violate his religious beliefs.

Of course this wasn't a free-speech issue, but the same legal theory applies to both cases:  As in the baker's case, state human rights commissions have levied fines against people for saying something the commission didn't approve of, despite the first amendment.  Exactly the same legal theory applies to both.  Federal judges have shown no interest in slapping down the states for fining either bakers or people saying things the commissions don't like.  QED.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home