Better Than Drudge

recent posts

about

Free Speech is Dead in England – Conquered by Islam
http://youtube.com/v/5PTBIGxJb5A

Could you imagine being brought up on criminal charges simply for debating religion with a Moslem? Well, that's exactly what happened to the two English Christians featured in this news report.

After Ben And Sharon Vogelenzang engaged in a debate about faith with an Islamic woman, the latter complained that she felt "offended" by their beliefs. This led to the arrest of the couple, who now face a criminal trial on December 8.

Sadly, this is not that unusual in the U.K., as numerous Englishmen have been arrested for "hate speech," specious "racial offenses" or some variation thereof. In fact, I will shortly post a second video about another U.K. Christian who was persecuted for expressing her beliefs.

This should serve as a shot across the bow to all of us. Make no mistake, unless something upsets the apple cart (which is likely), we'll see hate-speech laws in the U.S. in the not-too-distant future.

Oh, would anyone like to hazard a guess on whether or not the Moslem woman in this case was arrested? Well, I guess all offense is equal, but some is more equal than others.

Paging George Orwell.

Hat tip: Shaun, a frequent reader.

Posted in , , , , , ,

9 responses to “”

  1. yoyo Avatar
    yoyo

    I know, how scary is this? (Mind you the story is 9 months old) A very good reason for ensuring all relgious talk is NOT protected by any legislation

    Like

    Reply
  2. yoyo Avatar
    yoyo

    BTW, this old story is C*** if free speech in England was dead why would the head of the BNP be given full publicity on public media and the police stopped protesters trashing the BBC.

    Like

    Reply
  3. Matt Avatar
    Matt

    No, its a reason FOR all religious talk that otherwise doesn’t violate any other law to be protected. Just like ALL free speech. Sorry yoyo, we all know you have a deep seething hatred for everything that is good, righteous and praise worthy…but your hypocrisy apparently has no bounds. You are for free speech……just not speech that you don’t like. Sorry, you don’t get to have it both ways, you are either for free speech or you aren’t and you don’t get to pick and choose which speech you like. Cause that is the very definition of NOT free speech.

    Like

    Reply
  4. Walt Avatar
    Walt

    Subjective tolerance=bigotry

    Like

    Reply
  5. yoyo Avatar
    yoyo

    matt, you misread me, I am totally for free speech whoever says it, I am AGAINST special rules that make critising religion a crime. I am totally consistent on this topic.

    Like

    Reply
  6. Proud Black Woman Avatar
    Proud Black Woman

    The right to free speech and $3.75 will get you a small cappuccino at Starbucks!
    The value of free speech is based on a presumption that flapping your yap in a public forum (like this one even) will eventually bring action to your ideas. Well, guess what fellow citizens of this sacred (representative) democracy? Your representatives don’t care about what you think. They care about what you can buy. And more specifically, what you can buy for them.
    The voice of the people, so to speak, is never louder in the ears of a politician than the sound of money. We truly have the best government money can buy. The problem is that the average American can’t afford the price to buy into the game.
    So, free speech is what they give us instead of freedom. We get the unique opportunity to blither to an empty room. Do you think for one minute that your letter to your Senator gets the same attention the contribution of a corporation? Or, that public opinion has the same traction as the voice of a paid lobbyist; especially in a political environment where public opinion is shaped and issues set by the same power structure that is essentially buying off that senator you’ve been writing to?
    The right to free speech has become the same thing as your right to sing in the shower. Who cares?

    Like

    Reply
  7. Shaun Avatar
    Shaun

    That is a widely held cynical view(and I partially agree) but you also downplay the overall power of free speech. If free speech was impotent then why would so many countries outlaw it?
    “Do you think for one minute that your letter to your Senator gets the same attention the contribution of a corporation?”
    No, lets be realistic it doesn’t. However, lets take a look at the clamor raised over immigration reform. Several years back when the legislators were attempting to push their amnesty through, the grass roots caused such commotion that the movement failed. Big corporations would love amnesty but the little folk didn’t and they won. That was a bit over simplistic but it serves as in example.
    Shaun

    Like

    Reply
  8. Proud Black Woman Avatar
    Proud Black Woman

    Yes, nothing is ever 100%. Race, is and has always been, a major influence in this country.
    Amnesty, with respect to the question of illegal immigration, was never a concern to the corporations. All they cared about was cheap labor. Amnesty would actually work against that; as long as the borders remain open, there will always be a cheap labor pool.

    Like

    Reply
  9. Matt Avatar
    Matt

    No, you said you are against religious talk being protected.
    “A very good reason for ensuring all relgious talk is NOT protected by any legislation”
    Maybe you should master the English language a bit more before you open your mouth again.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a reply to Shaun Cancel reply