Hold It! What Is All This Anthropogenic Global Warming Stuff Really About, Anyway?

The fabricated specter of man-made climate change is being used to terrify people into surrendering their Liberty. Read the hysterical BBC news item and all will be clear.

You May Have Heard What Has Caused This Phenomenon. Global Warming?? No. It’s Nutty Environmentalism That Is Killing The Caribbean

Here we have more irresponsible behavior from a major newspaper and who knows how much harm done as a consequence…. “Same old same old,” as the kids say.

Many Canadians Measure A Man’s Entitlement To Free Speech By The Correctness Of His Political Views

It’s amazing. Ezra Levant, a genuine victim of a misbegotten and out-of-control jurisprudential system, is hated by a substantial number of Canadians. Exactly what the objections to him are remains difficult to discern, but it certainly appears that his politics are considered so revolting that it is appropriate to muzzle and punish him.

Or is there something special, something irresistibly admirable, in Muslim assaults on Liberty?

Quoting Levant:

Western liberals find it easy to stand up to censorship and theocracy when they come in the form of old white Catholic priests, and the targets are secular hipsters. … (But) Liberal circuits overload when the theocratic misogynistic bigots are Islamic fascists.

Possibly Muslims in Canada are a privileged class of people whose sensibilities matter more to Canadians than those of any other identifiable segment of the population. If so, why?

Note that Levant and the magazine that published a chapter of a Mark Steyn book have been savaged for choosing to be represented by counsel before the Human Rights Commissions of Canada. Those summoned to explain their thoughts and motives to the authorities need not bring lawyers with them, so those that do and then complain about the expense are mocked as fake victims. Nonsense. Consider the consequences of losing your case before an HRC:

…a large fine, a lifetime order not to talk about “radical Islam” disparagingly, and be forced to issue an apology. If Levant does not comply with these orders, he could be imprisoned for contempt of court. (Source)

Those who enter the Star Chamber as defendants without professional legal advice are fools.

How do you respond to visceral, unreasoning hate? Levant:

Western liberal intellectuals should ignore me and my real or imagined flaws, and focus on the principles and precedents. They shouldn’t repeat the mistake that Canada has been making for thirty years, ignoring political censorship because it’s generally been racists who have been censored by the HRCs (Human Rights Commissions). Those cases set the precedents for my current problems.

There you have it: the reason why those who love Liberty are eager to defend people who make racist remarks, damn their neighbors for their ethnicity, preach hate and refuse to accept facts. If we do not protect speech itself, but discriminate according to our tastes, we can not have free speech.

When it became possible for Canada to punish speech and thought, and when hate crimes were defined in the USA, Liberty was dealt a fell blow. Racists were considered beyond the pale — not worthy of being granted free speech, and capable of committing thought crimes. That was a seismic error. All persons must be permitted to articulate their views, and no one can possibly break the law by thinking. When those eternal verities were denied, the Enlightenment was rejected. Rights became privileges for which the government issued licenses.

Follow this link to read all of Levant’s remarks.

Unfortunately the madness is spreading, and few have the courage to stand in its path. Sniffing out the areas of weakness and moral equivalency, the enemies of Liberty have made rational plans. It should come as no surprise to readers of the PenPo that the UN is involved:

Pakistan and the other nations that have banded together in the Organization of the Islamic Conference have been leading a remarkably successful campaign through the United Nations to enshrine in international law prohibitions against “defamation of religions,” particularly Islam.

“Absurd!” you say? Not at all. Wily, clever, and very effective. The General Assembly has long been a blatant enemy of Israel. The UN is the hopelessly corrupt outfit that wants to take over the internet, impose international censorship and send rapacious “peacekeepers” to selected trouble spots.

Add to the vicious bias of the UN General Assembly the inanities of legalistic repression of speech and thought, and you have an alliance for tyranny. Here is how the law is being subverted and made dangerous:

…”defamation of religions” is not about protecting individual believers from damage to their reputations caused by false statements but rather about protecting a religion, or some interpretation of it, or the feelings of the followers. While a traditional defence in a defamation lawsuit is that the accused was merely telling the truth, religions by definition present competing claims on the truth, and one person’s religious truth is easily another’s apostasy. “Truth” is no defence in such cases. The subjective perception of insult is what matters….

The West is under attack, and many within the walls of its citadel would enslave the minds of their countrymen. The outlook is bleak. Canada has joined the juggernaut to hell, the UN is a tool for villains from the seventh century, and Europe is sinking into Islamic stasis. As the poet said, “Not with a bang but a whimper.”

If you have the stomach for it, read the article from which the last two quotes above are taken.

A Fascinating Thesis

Sometimes events are right in front of you, and clear as can be, yet elude understanding. Stepping back — metaphorically speaking — one can try to put everything into context and grasp the obvious.

If you manage that, the revelation can be liberating.

Here are five videos that provide an opportunity to gain considerable insight into events of the past fifty years and more. Do look at them!

First, Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth.

A Principled Newspaper Would Be Humiliated To Be Taken To The Woodshed Like This By Anybody’s Weblog, But….

Here’s the full entry posted by a law professor:

JOE DAVIS WRITES THAT THE SATURDAY NEW YORK TIMES IS ALWAYS INTERESTING:

I used to particularly like the sat edition back in the old ‘paper’ days…they would often bury stories they really didn’t want to promote but felt they had to acknowledge there…so I was really interested to see how they would play yesterdays drama in congress which is hard to do without making the DEM leadership look bad but I can’t find anything on the web site…

Now they bury stories that they don’t want to promote in the Times political blogs! This shortstops the critics in the blogosphere, without exposing the Times’ subscribers to uncomfortable information.

UPDATE: Reader Christopher Fountain sends this story and writes: “It was on the last page of the 1st section in today’s paper version and a search online turned it up there,too. Notice the reporter doesn’t say who turned off the lights, cameras and mikes. For all Times readers would know, it was some kind of natural phenomenon.”

Huh. I searched “Pelosi” on the site and found the blog entry but not this story.

How the mighty have fallen.

What? You missed the GOP stunt after the Democrats (well, it was Pelosi, really) slammed the door on the offshore drilling debate? If so,catch up here.