This book sounds amazing!

Suicide Pact: The Radical Expansion of Presidential Powers and the Lethal Threat to American Liberty Hardcover – November 18, 2014

Very good article on discrimination in academia against social conservatives.

– The Washington Times – Monday, March 23, 2015

First the case of: Teresa Wagner

Teresa Wagner recently notched a victory at the U.S. Supreme Court, but she can be forgiven if she doesn’t exactly feel like a winner.

Her lawsuit against the University of Iowa College of Law, in which she accuses the school of denying her a promotion over her conservative beliefs, has dragged on for six years. The case has taken a toll on her family and her finances, and she is running out of money to pay her legal bills.

Ms. Wagner is still working at the university, although no longer as a part-time legal writing instructor. In November, she was reassigned to the library after she told university officials that she found a supervisor rummaging through her backpack.

“She’s working in a stack of books in the main library basically, with no interaction with people at all,” said her attorney, Stephen Fieweger.

The Supreme Court’s March 9 refusal to hear the university’s appeal ensures Ms. Wagner a new trial after the first one, in 2012, ended in a hung jury. Her chances look good, given that jurors from the first trial told The Des Moines Register that they agreed she faced political discrimination but were uncomfortable finding a former dean personally responsible.

Still, even if Ms. Wagner prevails at trial and conservatives win the battle, there is little doubt they are losing the war. Those in the trenches say the assault on conservative ideas in higher education continues despite high-profile legal victories by academics over viewpoint bias.

Ms. Wagner was easily identified as a conservative, having worked for the National Right to Life Committee and the Family Research Council. When she filed her lawsuit against the University of Iowa in 2009, only one of the 50 faculty members at the law school was a Republican.

She said she was rejected for a full-time post as a writing instructor in 2007 even though her credentials — she had worked as a trial lawyer and as an instructor at George Mason University law school — were clearly superior to those of the relatively inexperienced recent law school graduate who was hired instead.

A faculty review committee had given her a “very enthusiastic” recommendation, but the faculty voted against hiring her. Ms. Wagner later learned that the opposition was led by law professor Randall Bezanson, who was known for his articles “advocating a pro-choice viewpoint on abortion,” according to her lawsuit.

An associate dean, Jonathan Carlson, wrote an email to Dean Carolyn Jones before the vote expressing concern that the faculty would oppose her “because they so despise her politics.”

Attorneys for the university argue that she made blunders during the job interview, although the videotape of the interview has been destroyed. Over the next two years, she was rejected three times for a position as an adjunct professor.

“I will say that everyone in that jury room believed that she had been discriminated against,” Carol Tracy, the jury forewoman, told The Des Moines Register after the first trial in November 2012.

Ms. Wagner expects to release a book this year describing her experience as the plaintiff in Wagner v. Jones, which she said deals in part with “what a hardship this can be when you encounter employment discrimination based on your moral convictions.”

“The first [aspect is] the personal story is what happened to me, my kids and my family,” she said in a radio interview last week with Family Research Council President Tony Perkins. “The second aspect is the exposure of illegal wrongdoing not just in higher education but in legal education, and the irony in that. These are the very people who are entrusted to teach the First Amendment, and yet they are violating it.”

Despite the trial’s personal and professional cost, she said, she is determined to go forward, in large part because of her children. “Unfortunately, we’re seeing much, much more of this, and I think that means we might be obligated to stand up to it because a factor in my decision to file a complaint was my children,” Ms. Wagner said. “If I encounter this type of discrimination, I can hardly complain if they do if when I encountered it, I gave it a pass. This type of practice tends to just get worse if people get away with it in the first instance, and we have to think about the future of this country and about our own children.”

Then the one of Mike Adams:

Mr. French scored an enormous win a year ago in his defense of Mike Adams, the conservative sociology professor who was awarded a promotion, a raise, $50,000 in back pay and $710,000 in legal fees in his seven-year fight against the University of North Carolina-Wilmington.

“For me personally, yeah, the costs were certainly very great, and it was obviously very stressful and my hair turned gray and all,” Mr. Adams said. “But the fact of the matter is when you’re doing it, you don’t know that. So you’re actually making a series of decisions. And so when people thank me for what I did with my case, I sometimes explain to them that it really wasn’t as difficult as it seemed from the outside because we were actually just making a series of decisions.”

Would he do it again? Of course, he said, but taking universities to court isn’t enough. He said conservatives need to make “a bigger play” by founding and taking back institutions of higher education from the dominant liberal culture. …

“We need our own universities because the fact of the matter is we’re battling against extinction.”

Schools where conservative thought flourishes include Chapman College in California, Colorado Christian University, Gordon College in Massachusetts, Grove City College in Pennsylvania, Hillsdale College in Michigan and Wheaton College in Illinois, but they’re badly outnumbered, Mr. Adams said. … The ultimate solution lies in changing the culture, he said.

… In the meantime, he said, the legal challenges play vital roles.

“It only takes a few incidents to send a message to professors to watch what they say. What we’re trying to do with the litigation is send a message back to universities: Watch who you fire,” Mr. French said.

By Neal Larson*

It was in the summer of 1993, enduring the sweltering humid Philadelphia heat, I wanted to punch him in the face. My missionary companion and I were doing the Lord’s work — or at least I was — and I couldn’t stand him. In fact, being around him all day every day had made every one of his facial expressions annoying. He’d leave toast crumbs in the butter and his dirty laundry lying around. Hearing him breathe was infuriating. In reality, he was no more or less annoying, I guess, than anyone else, but I had had my fill after a few months of his 24/7 breathing, toast-crumb, presence.
A twinge of that annoyance born of overexposure bubbled up this past week listening to Hillary Clinton handle (sort of) questions from reporters about her email scandal. It wasn’t even that she was lying. Of course she was lying. She’s Hillary Clinton. The lying comes with the Clinton brand. It was something else.
For months she’s stayed in the shadows while she charts some kind of pathway back to the White House. I was fine with her absence, but it didn’t make this heart grow fonder. Not at all. That monotonous cadence of her less-than-feminine voice laced with a potpourri of condescension, contempt, and the indignance that she even has to answer to the questioning unwashed masses, all scraped across my eardrums like fingernails on a chalkboard. Horrific auditory flashbacks of the 1990’s splashed images of pantsuits and flabby thighs across the canvas of my assaulted mind and had me begging the Creator to spare us from the next 18 months. Heaven forbid four years. Eight? Just take me now.

(continues here)

“Just take me now” – priceless

*Neal Larson of Idaho Falls is a conservative talk show host on KID Newsradio 590am and 92.1fm, and also at “The Neal Larson Show” can be heard weekday mornings from 8:00 to 10:00. His email address is

Christian children’s worker ‘sacked for telling gay colleague: God doesn’t condone homosexuality’ launches unfair dismissal claim

Sarah Mbuyi (devout Christian) has launched claim following her “dismissal for gross misconduct “

Her crime? Having a decent mind about sexuality and talking about her beliefs with a coleague.

From the

Belgian-born Miss Mbuyi claims that in January last year, a colleague raised the issue of what the Bible teaches on homosexuality.

She alleges her co-worker felt unhappy the Church did not allow her to marry her female partner, and said that she thought God condoned homosexuality.

Miss Mbuyi explained: “When I said ‘No, God does not condone the practice of homosexuality, but does love you and says you should come to Him as you are’, she became emotional and went off to report me to my manager.”

At an internal disciplinary hearing on January 8, Miss Mbuyi was confronted with her colleague’s allegations including that the woman had taken offence at being give a Bible as a gift by Miss Mbuyi.

She was dismissed for gross misconduct by nursery directors who are said to have told her that she had breached the equality policy of the nursery. [Surely that means only people who think like pigs are equal – or something…]

At the tribunal, it is expected she will argue she has the right, under EU law, to enter into conversations with adult co-employees subject to the normal principles of engagement in speech. [Not anymore. Because with LGBT pigs in society, there is no such thing as democracy or freedom or having the most basic fundamental rights.]

Miss Mbuyi claims that she had previously discussed matters of faith and religion without any offence being taken, the Christian Legal Centre (CLC) said.

Saying that her disciplinary hearing was “hopelessly one-sided” [I can just imagine the insanity of this hearing] Miss Mbuyi added: “It is obvious that we live in a climate where being Christ-like-following the Bible as much as we can-and being open and honest about that, is a problem now.” [Having a decent and healthy mind about sexuality and relationships has been effectively made into a crime – even if liberals don’t admit it.]

Andrea Minichiello Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre, said: “Sharing Biblical truths out of genuine love for colleagues is being outlawed in the workplace by an oppressive ‘cultural correctness’. [“Cultural correctness” only if you mean this nasty homosexuality agenda pushed by LGBT pigs.]

“There is a culture of fear which shuts down freedom of speech and the expression of faith.

“It’s indicative of the sad state we’re in that we’re using EU Law in Sarah’s case because she was prevented from living out her faith in a country which once led the world in freedom and justice.” [Nice appeal to national pride, but the sad truth is that the UK has a history of brutal violence and oppression internally and externally – and unfortunately, as we can see, it continues the pattern.]

Article by Twitter: @K_Schallhorn – Alessandra’s comments in square brackets

  • George Washington University’s student government is considering a bill that would mandate “LGBT trainings” (homosexuality agenda down everyone’s throats) for student groups. If they try to opt out, they the GW LGBT pigs want these groups destroyed.

A conservative student organization at the George Washington University (GW) has been targeted as a “hate group” by other organizations and GW students after asking to be exempt from LGBT sensitivity training.

GW’s chapter of Young America Foundation—an organization that advocates individual freedom, a strong national defense, free enterprise, and traditional values—has said that they would hope to receive a “religious exemption” from a new student government bill that would require all student leaders to participate in mandatory LGBT-issues trainings, according to the Hatchet, GW’s student newspaper.

“Mandated training is not really being very tolerant of all religious beliefs,” Emily Jashinsky, the YAF chapter’s president, told the Hatchet. “The way that people who are deeply Christian behave is for a reason, and if you’re training them to change that behavior, there’s obviously a problem with that.”

Jashinsky, a senior at GW, is also a correspondent for Campus Reform. She told the Hatchet that her organization, which is primarily made up of Christian and/or conservative students, is very inclusive of LGBT students and considers the group a “safe space.”

Since the Hatchet article was published on Thursday, the organization and students involved have faced extensive backlash from the school community.

A statement from GW’s Allied in Pride, an LGBT advocacy organization, labeled YAF as a “hate group” and called for the university to defund the student organization.

“If GW YAF refuses to participate in safe zone trainings that are aimed at increasing safety and understanding, then they should be considered a hate group, and thereby, be revoked of all funding from the Student Association at The George Washington University,” Allied in Pride said on their public Facebook page. “The Young America’s Foundation is a political organization, not a religious one, so they cannot seek a religious exemption. And their refusal to use preferred gender pronouns should be considered an act of violence and a violation of the non-discrimination clause required in all GW student organizations’ Constitutions.”

[Obviously what the Allied in Perverted Pride student group didn’t say is they are also a political organization and what they are clearly doing is trying to shove their disgusting political agenda down every student’s throat in the university – when they clearly should have no authority nor any basis to do so.]

Allied in Pride also criticized the YAF chapter for inviting former-Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) to speak on GW’s campus. According to Allied in Pride, the YAF chapter invited Santorum the day before “Trans Day of Visibility” which “underscores [YAF’s] intolerance and pattern of hate.”

Amanda Robbins, the vice president of GW’s YAF told Campus Reform in an exclusive statement that it’s because of groups like Allied in Perverted Pride that free speech is being compromised on campuses across America. [And she is right. Not only free speech, but a healthy and wholesome view of sexuality and relationships.]

“The atmosphere on GW and other campuses has become increasingly caustic for conservatives and those that hold traditional viewpoints to profess and live out their values. Last spring, we attempted to sit down with the Office of ‘Diversity and Inclusion’ after our pro-life display was vandalized and they continually deflected to speak to us,” Robbins said. “If GW hopes to truly create an environment where all views and backgrounds are valued, they will host sensitivity trainings for all groups that have been subject to intolerance or at least exempt religious and conservative groups from this mandated training.”

GW students have also attacked the YAF chapter on social media, calling for the defunding of the organization and comparing the student organization to ISIS. Students have also called the group a “cancer,” “hypocritical bigots,” “ignorant,” and “cesspit of intolerance.”

According to the Hatchet article, student senators have said they will not allow organizations to opt out of the training.

The GW administration did not respond to a request for comment from Campus Reform.

Here are several of my tweets concerning the Charlie Hebdo affair and the many fundamental issues it touches upon. I’ve been sad about so many horrible things happening in our world that the Charlie Hebdo incident just highlighted for me in such a stark way.

So let’s all be Charlie if we must, but let’s be real: L’ennemi est chez nous…

We should refuse to be the Charlies our leaders want us to be- read why… @IndyVoices @guardian @BBC

Read the rest of this entry »

As I had said in a recent post, I’ve so busy reading so many great tweets (phrases and pictures) and articles and comments on the Charlie Hebdo affair, that I had no time left to say much. So many wonderful discoveries. I wanted to list some of the best ones here for future reference. See my previous post for more:

Charlie Hebdo – The ever fascinating utterly complicated issue of freedom of speech

GregJ says:

Two hours of watching American reality TV, and one can understand why fundamentalist Muslims consider the West to be toxic and evil. And no, I am in no way ignoring the great evils of groups like ISIS, but only making the point that Honey Boo Boo, our strip mall culture of materialism=happiness, our soulless value system of killing unborn children and mouse click available pornography as “free speech”, is what so many millions of Muslims see and will lend their support to oppose, any way they can. The world is flat and they have seen us poison our own societies and want none of it in theirs.

The Charlie Ideology

by on • 8: 18 UTC

Faster than you can say “manufacturing consent”, “Je suis Charlie” has become another “Yes we can!”, a slogan for the self-herding masses, an opiate for the iPhone generation. If that wasn’t clear when it became the Facebook meme of the decade, it sure as hell should be obvious now, after Hollande, Cameron, Merkel and Petro Poroshenko locked arms with Sergei Lavrov, King Abdullah of Jordan, Mahmoud Abbas and yes, Benjamin Netanyahu on January 12, in one grand imperial Chorus Line of the Willing. The only ones missing from the “Je suis Charlie” cavalcade were the Pope, Bush (any one would do) and Bono. (continues…) has some very interesting articles by the way

« Le 11 septembre français », revue de presse et décryptage de l’entreprise de propagande médiatique en marche

Finally, finally, finally – a social conservative guy (Bill Jack) in Colorado had the very bright idea to walk into a homosexual agenda bakery and ask for a few cakes with some anti-homosexual agenda messages on them. He was refused service. He lodged a complaint. Liberals are going bezerk saying that no one should be compelled to bake a cake with a message they don’t like, you must have a right to discriminate! Yes, those liberals that were screaming to fine, jail, and destroy anyone, especially Christians, who would not submit to their nasty homosexuality “wedding” farce and provide their services to this end in other bakeries, wedding photographer services, you name it. Complete hypocritical flip.

Here’s a recap on what I had said before regarding these cases – search my blog for more.

Question of the day:

Two lesbians walk into a Christian bakery and demand that the baker bake a cake saying 2+2=5.

If Winston, the baker, refuses, should he be fined thousands of dollars for not submitting to the demand of the two lesbians? Should the two lesbian women hold up four fingers of their hand and ask repeatedly how many fingers they are holding up? Should Winston be forced to close down his bakery is he refuses to answer 5? Should he be tortured until he replies 5?

In what kind of a society can two lesbians use the power of the state to coerce a decent human being to state that 2+2=5, because  no one can refuse their demands, no matter how deformed, dysfunctional, or unethical?

Wiser social observers in our society have realized some time ago that so-called anti-discrimination laws and rules are being used to shove the liberal homosexuality agenda down the throats of social conservatives in the name of progress and civil rights. I simply do not understand how these cases can be framed as discrimination from a legal standpoint. The provider is refusing to provide service because they would be serving a destructive political and social agenda. These are freedom of conscience cases, much more than freedom of speech. Everyone has a most fundamental right to discriminate based on sexual ideology and behavior. On a completely unrelated note, did anyone get the license plate of that giant truck carrying away all of our liberty?

Lastly, if we are all equal before the law, there is no such thing as special, arbitrary “protected” categories – as when some people have the protection of a law, and others don’t.

The most surprising bit about this case, aside from the fact that finally a socon got up and fought back, is that ADF, yes ADF, is defending Azucar! Hah! I want to see them entangle these stupid “non discrimination” bodies in their decision, whichever way they decide. And hopefully we’ll finally be able to use the outcome to show: a) how destructive and farcical these “sexual orientation discrimination” laws are and push for their repeal, b) how hypocritical liberals are regarding fundamental rights of conscience, religion, and speech.

Update Jan 25, 2015

Look at what a smart set of questions by a commenter elsewhere:


- Jan. 23, 2015 at 3:19pm

Is it the word “HATE” that makes the message hateful?

What if he wanted a cake that says “God hates Broccoli” ? Would that be hate speak against vegetarians or just agreeing with GHW Bush?

What if the cake said “God does not condone a gay lifestyle” ? Would that be hateful, or just an interpretation of the bible?

How about “God strongly dislikes homosexual behavior practiced by people he otherwise loves” ? Is that hateful?

I support the business owner in both cases to not want to create the cake with the theme as requested. If the offended person wants to raise a stink and call for a boycott, that is okay too, but the government needs to stay out of the cake making business.

Goes right to the heart of the question about “criminal” speech – especially the stupidity from liberals to want to categorize viewpoints they disagree as “hate speech”. Loved it.

And there was this below. I’m not a lawyer so I can’t agree or disagree, but I thought it was interesting as well. If he is right, then this case is looking better and better.

US Navy EOD Vet

- Jan. 23, 2015 at 7:27pm

The Supreme Court has consistently held that the message itself is irrelevant. The act is protected. That’s why flag burning and the KKK burning crosses is allowed. Their message is repulsive to most, but it’s still protected. Same for this case. Under the Colorado law, the message doesn’t need societal approval in order for a business owner to have to comply, it’s the act of requesting it that is protected. That’s why I warned people about the first case, the gay couple who sued to have a business owner comply with their request. People who supported them must have thought the law only applies to “approved” messages or symbols. As the Supreme Court has said, it does not. It applies to all.

I would think Vet above is wrong (different issue) because the bakery case is not about the govt censoring an individual. It’s about a person asking another person to say something in a business service transaction. The message is relevant, or it should be relevant if it isn’t.

Excerpt from:

Charlie Hebdo Attack in France Right on Time for New Controversial Anti-terrorism Law

by Scott Creighton

Last month, a new anti-terrorism bill went through the French parliament which many fear will change the landscape of the internet in that country as well as threaten all sorts of dissenters with all sorts of unconstitutional measures.

The translated version of the bill can be found here.

During the afternoon, Bernard Cazeneuve refused any change in his position, and all alerts coming from the civil society. The Bill was voted with all its dangerous provisions: ban from leaving the country, creation of individual terrorist enterprise offense, administrative blocking of websites, substantial changes to the criminal procedure beyond terrorist actions.

Even worse, the French Senate commited a serious violation of the equality principle before criminal law by reintegrating into the Bill the Article 4 concerning the glorification and provocation to terrorism into the press law of 1881 unless it is commited on the Internet. In the spirit of the Minister and few senators, the Internet is a danger in itself that needs derogatory measures: the vote of this amendment introduces a serious inequality between the Internet and other medias, a serious confusion between mean and content. This inequality has already been condemned by the Constitutional Court2. La Quadrature

And another view of this contentious law:

Anti-terror laws have been used in various countries around the world to prosecute individuals for their speech about unpopular ideas. In the United States, the prosecution of Tarek Mehanna—a young Muslim who translated and posted material referred to by prosecutors as “Al Qaeda propaganda”—involved the use of conspiracy and so-called “material support” laws. In Ethiopia, anti-terror laws have been used to silence journalists and are currently being used to prosecute the dissident Zone9 Bloggers. And the list goes on.

France’s attempt to “cleanse” the Internet of terrorist content isn’t a first in the EU either. In 2012, a leaked document showed that the European Commission sought to make use of private Internet companies to remove terrorist content, without oversight or accountability. EFF

Some of you may recall, right here in the states even directly after the attacks of 9/11, the USA Patriot Act was meeting with serious resistance both in congress and in the general public, including various news publications.

Suddenly there was the anthrax attacks. The “terrorists” once again displaying the worst timing, decided to sent anthrax to offices of congressmen and journalists who OPPOSED the Patriot Act. The bill was quickly rushed through and signed in the aftermath.

Turns out, the anthrax came from a DoD contractor and not Saddam as we were told. The story quickly dropped off the radar as more and more evidence showed it was a false flag attack designed to generate an atmosphere in which no one could possibly vote against the bill.

This French bill apparently went into effect on the 1st of this month. Or it’s about to be signed into law. Whatever the case may be, anyone posting information about this event which calls it into question, in France or elsewhere, will now be subject to having their website blocked by the French government. And this highly public trip down the streets shooting Ak-47s and tossing flashbangs will certainly provide ample justification for doing so.

What tawdry manipulation. Hundreds of thousands of people holding up little pens in a demonstration chanting support for free speech while simultaneously creating a fascist state with no civil liberties? That is particularly sad.

I don’t know much about either the cartoons published by Charlie Hebdo or the shows by this controversial black performer called Dieudonné. But people haven’t even gone back home from the historic march and the govt is wasting no time in trying to get Dieudonné sentenced and condemned. For which crime? Freedom of expression the government doesn’t like.

The French govt has asked that an investigation into the controversial black performer be made – the accusation? “Incitement to terrorism” because Dieudonné  said that after the attack he felt like “Charlie Coulibaly” – and that is criminal speech according to the govt. Now that’s hypocrisy.

Dieudonné  loves to provoke the French and it would be magnificent if he were imprisoned for his speech while the French were hysterically declaring their love of freedom of expression. Many of his shows have been censored by the French govt and he is still being prosecuted for criminal speech by the government for past declarations.

In addition, Dieudonné  said he did go to the historical demonstration on Sunday. He qualified it as “a magical moment like the Big Bang”, “comparable to the crowning of Vercingétorix”.


I don’t know, but it seems Dieudonné  is much more intelligent than this trash of vile racism and sexism and anti-religionism that was the Charlie Hebdo – but then I remember reading mentions that  Dieudonné  hates Jews, Israel, whatever, so who knows.

[ADDED:] These articles and comments seem to confirm the above – the profound quality different between the grotesquely trashy Charlie Hebdo, voice of the French elites “sclérosées”, and Dieudo:

Comment on Le Parisien :

Tout simplement c’ent grotesque, c’est que Dieudonné a dit, n’a rien pour inciter à la violence. Ce qui s’est passé à Paris est inhumain, une barbarie, mais l’hypocrésie des politiciens, le double discours… comme si les morts français étaient plus importants que les morts par milliers dans le reste du monde et c’est ça qui fait qu’on se sent comme un “Charlie Coulibaly”, d’un côté révolté par cette barbarie…mais aussi laissé pour compte quand les autres ont été victimes d’actes terroristes. Ceux qui nous sentons aujourd’hui “Charlie Coulibaly”, aujourd’hui, nous voulons la paix, car la guerre, la haîne c’es trop dur… Le monde a besoin de paix, mais les politiciens français ont choisi le camp de l’affrontement contre tous ceux qui n’auront pas mis sur la hierarchie des souffrances, celle de la Shoa en premier et celle de Charlie Hebdo en deuxième et le reste, celles des noirs, celles des autochtones, celles de arabes, loin derrière… Non, c’est M. Valls qui fait l’appologie de la violence, de la guerre, de la confrontation… Une chance que j’habite finalement dans un pays beaucoup plus tolérent que la France, et j’en suis très heureuse.

[ADDED Jan 13 – 2014:]

The New Yorker has an article on Dieudonné that tells of some of his excesses:

“Dieudonné plays a game of deliberate ambiguity,” says Damien Glez, a writer and cartoonist from Burkina Faso who has written about Dieudonné for Jeune Afrique, a francophone magazine published in Paris. “He is using a lot of the language and metaphors of old-fashioned French anti-Semitism before a young audience that does not have a very developed idea of anti-Semitism. They don’t know who Robert Faurisson is. And then you take this into the banlieue, where many young people feel oppressed by Islamophobia and angry and frustrated about the Palestinians. And everything is ambiguous and mixed together: anti-Zionism, anti-Semitism, and anti-system anger. Humor and hatred. The resentment of the Le Pen right and the anger of the recent immigrants of the banlieue. Even the gesture of the quenelle is ambiguous.”

This gesture, which Dieudonné began using a few years ago, is not, strictly speaking, a Nazi salute—rather than raising a stiff right arm up in the air, he points his arm down, and then places his left hand on his right shoulder. In his video “Hollande” he calls the quenelle a signal of “faith and courage,” and attributes its meaning to his encounter with a young, white seventeen-year-old cancer victim, who performed the quenelle in front of an M.R.I. machine and onstage with Dieudonné.

“It’s a gesture of the free man in front of the system of his jailers,” Dieudonné said in a video made last September after the minister of defense, Jean-Yves Le Drian, disciplined two French soldiers for doing the quenelle. “We piss on your institutions, Monsieur Le Drian, we shit on your government and on your Republic and on your shitty democracy. We are for a coup d’état, done by farce, by non-violence, by the quenelle,” Dieudonn&#233 said. What he didn’t explain is that the soldiers had been photographed while making the gesture in front of a synagogue. Many of Dieudonné’s followers have connected the quenelle to his anti-Semitic rants: several have posted pictures of themselves doing it in front of Holocaust monuments and even in front of the entrance to Auschwitz.

To me, doing this “satirical” salute in front of anything related to the Holocaust is really pushing it in terms of offense, but I also think some of the Charlie Hebdo pornographic cartoons about religions are profoundly offensive (in addition, specifically because they are pornographic, that is the main vehicle for offending the concept of religion, and pornography is horrendously degrading and offensive).

And that’s the problem with free speech. In the end, we see that the powerful always find a way to defend themselves from being publicly insulted and degraded, and the powerless are the endless targets of the same. Dominant narratives and ideologies are considered sacred, questioning and marginalized ones must be silenced. The justification keeps being labeled differently throughout history, but it’s all the same, whether heresy, blasphemy, hate speech, un-patriotic speech, pro-terrorist speech, etc.

However, if these expressions à la Charlie Hebdo or à la Dieudonné or many others are then used to justify the institution of laws taking away our most basic civil liberties, such as freedom of expression, information, religion, and assembly, then the world has learned nothing – and it becomes clear that the modern world has invented a new form of government: a dictatorial form of democracy. You vote (in mostly irrelevant ways) but you are not and you cannot be free. By law.  For your own good.

[Jan 14, 2015] Le Monde reports on speech crackdown in France – govt pursuing 50 ppl for their speech this week

Some were told to appear before the police while three were arrested – put in prison, censored, and punished for their speech. Seriously, what hypocrisy.

Seules cinq condamnations ont pour l’instant été prononcées, et les peines sont très lourdes.

La plus sévère concerne un homme de 34 ans qui, après un accident de la circulation à Haulchain (Nord), s’en est pris, le 11 janvier, aux policiers en défendant les attentats : il a été condamné à quatre ans de prison ferme. L’apologie du terrorisme n’était toutefois qu’une circonstance aggravante : il avait refusé de se soumettre à l’alcootest, était en récidive et l’accident a causé des blessures involontaires.

Deux autres lourdes peines ont été prononcées à Orléans et à Toulon le 12 janvier — un an de prison ferme, avec à chaque fois huit à neuf mois avec sursis — ainsi que deux rappels à la loi à Saint-Etienne le 11 janvier, et la veille à Courbevoie (Hauts-de-Seine). Ces deux derniers concernent des hommes qui hurlaient dans la rue, mais sans viser personne en particulier. L’un d’eux avait lancé « je suis fier d’être musulman, je n’aime pas Charlie, ils ont eu raison de faire ça ».
En savoir plus sur


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 87 other followers