PDA

View Full Version : Do you really live in a free society?



Shitoryu Dude
9th July 2003, 05:27
Recently in Canada a couple things surfaced in the news that pressed home that free speech does not exist there. First, a group suggested that men's rights groups be shut down and prosecuted as a form of hate speech. Only women's rights are politically correct enough to be protected. Shortly afterwards the Canadian version of the FCC ordered a Vancouver radio station to stop carrying the Tom Leykis show because of "stereotypical" speech about women. Women are a protected class in Canada and you can't say anything negative about them on the airwaves. Bashing men is perfectly acceptable because as we all learned in Women's Studies men are the root of all evil and need to hated, despised and emasculated and eventually exterminated to make way for a grand society of mean-spirited, unhappy, delusional lesbians who read cosmo and wished men acted stereotypically gay like they do on TV when they watch Sex in the City.

In many places in Europe your rights to speech are even more limited. Anything associated with Nazism is basically illegal. You cannot even trade in war souveniers. Discusssions on the holocaust are pretty much illegal unless it parrots the version of it put forth by the Jewish survivors.

Japan does not let you see police reports. And if I remember right, gaijin are not allowed to defend themselves against Japanese attackers.

Free speech in the US is under constant attack by both sides of the political spectrum. The left wants everything PC dumbed down so you remain ignorant, the right wants anything that disagrees with the bible removed from public thought so you remain ignorant. While you can still pretty much say anything, hold any opinion you want, and pretty much do as you please, a lot of people want to take that away from you.

Your thoughts? Any other additions to the list?

:beer:

Striking Hand
9th July 2003, 05:44
No, we don't live in a free society and I don't that there ever was a society that was truly free.

"Freedom & rights" are an illusion fed to people by their goverment to keep their mouth shut and them in line.

How much "Freedom & rights" we get depends on the goverments desire to control us, and will change as situations require.

As once was put well in a book:
"Taxation is like milking a cow. You want to get the most milk with the least amount of moo."

And perceived rights and freedoms are methods to prevent said "moo".

Markaso
9th July 2003, 06:49
Free??? No, nothing is free. eventually we pay for everything in one way or another.... Are we really given freedom ...... no. Someone is always there watching ...... ready to charge us. I believe we live in a censored Free society. Freedom of speech is only that until it pisses someone off. Yeah you can say what you want but ......... someone is there.

Goverment .........Well...... we do elect them, at least in the States, sort of. :idea: Are we not really censoring ourselves?

spartanmachine
9th July 2003, 07:12
Great thread Harvey. It's funny how some people are fascist when it comes to someone saying something they don't want to hear. The men/women crap is one of the most pervasive in our society at the moment. Funny how feminists, in all their rage for equality, forgot what it meant to be repressed and now quite simply want that same thing for men.
I once took part in a discussion here on the holocaust where I was just stating some different views than what everyone is quick to follow and I was looked at as a nazi who was spreading hate. I believe this is something we have to be really careful in being able to seperate, what we don't want to hear from what is hate.
As for a free society, I believe we are to a point and that point is sometimes too close to our freedom being removed.

CKohalyk
9th July 2003, 07:29
Originally posted by Shitoryu Dude
Bashing men is perfectly acceptable because as we all learned in Women's Studies ...

Just out of curiosity Harv, have you ever taken a Women's Studies class? Or read a book on gender, or feminist theory?

Anyways... I hear what you are trying to say and I don't think ANYONE lives, or can live in a free society. A society is bound by rules, and you have to give up certain things to be a part of one. It's all about priorities, what you are willing to give up in exchange for something else. Everybody has to make sacrifices for the whole, and everybody has a different sense of that boundary when they feel their "rights" are being infringed upon.

And I wholeheartedly agree that certain parties take it all too far, whether they be the religious right(let's specify which right we are talking about here), extremist feminists (there are such things as non-extremist feminists), or fundamentalist terrorists (Islamic, Leftist, Christian, or Sikh etc. take your pick).

Thus is the nature of extremism. Education can help but...

Do you think it'll ever change?

joe yang
9th July 2003, 08:09
Every society is always a trade off between liberty and security.

A. M. Jauregui
9th July 2003, 09:31
CK has it right on the money so to speak.

Reminds me of the following phrases (paraphrased):

We have freedom through rules (limits).
What is freedom in American? A statue on Ellis Island.

Good points though Harvey.

joe yang
9th July 2003, 10:05
The Statue of Liberty, from the finale of Planet of the Apes, is on Liberty Island. Ellis Island is where they shot the opening scene of Brother from Another Planet. It can get confusing! :D

A. M. Jauregui
9th July 2003, 10:10
That will teach me about posting past my bed time. Thanks Joe.

kage110
9th July 2003, 12:05
I am really echoing what others have already said - that basically there is no such thing as free speech or a free society.

Our media is not free, it is controlled by businessmen who's emphasis is on selling papers not reporting the 'truth'. These same businessmen (and let's face it most are men not women) have their fingers in other pies and will report news that supports these interests and the interests of their cronies. The politicians aren't interested in free speech if it means that they are unlikely to get elected or get that fat cheque from one of their campaign contributors. And to crown it all most of us aren’t interested in hearing the truth, we would rather hear a version of the 'truth' that backs up our own position.

This means that the radical feminists, the die hard male chauvinists, the ardent environmentalists, the compulsive consumers, the fat cats and the hard-done down-and-outs aren’t interested in hearing what the other side has to say, even if the ideal path for civilisation is some middle route. Then again, those that preach the middle path don’t want to hear if something radical needs to be done.

On one hand I deplore the lack of truth and information out there but on the other hand I do not want to hear the Nazis weren’t as bad as they are made out to be. Based on all the evidence I have heard/seen/read, they were. That doesn’t mean that other groups haven’t been just as bad but that is a separate issue.

Freedom of speech is fine if your world view is the accepted version of events, it is not so good if you oppose the mainstream. Censorship can be a form of suppression but loudly proclaiming your freedom to say what you believe - even if it is offensive to others or isn’t backed up by any amount of reasonable evidence - is oppression as well. Tolerance and reasoned discussion should be the norm but so often it is not so no large society in existence today (or quite probably that ever existed or ever will exist) is really ready for true freedom of speech.

Don’t know who gets to determine who gets to say what mind you – if I did I could probably become world leader and tell you what you are all allowed to say! Now there is a thought…:rolleyes:

Martin Adil-Smi
9th July 2003, 12:26
I suspect the problem with this question is definitions.

What I mean is that what maybe "free" is not necessarily a "freedom".

Having said that, society does place constraints on us; laws and taxes etc.
Our upbringing influnences who we are today - so is our thought even free, or are we a product of our conditioning?

And what would it mean if we were all truly "free"? To be completely unbound to do as we will. It may be argued that conscience is an inhibiter to "freedom", and witout where would we be. I strongly suspect that anarchy would prevail.

I for one am happy in my own little locked cell!

Shitoryu Dude
9th July 2003, 14:36
Not only have I read the material for a "Women's Studies" class, I have been subjected to "sensitivity training" numerous times as well as read the literature and speeches put forth by a variety of authors and professors on the subject. I have also been subject to numerous "discussions" with deliberately ugly, Hillary Clinton in her youth, types who had been well indoctrinated in the PC science of hating men.

Women's Studies is really quite interesting in its use of non-facts, invented statistics, character assassination, legal persecution, censorship, coercion, media manipulation, and blind hatred.

:beer:

Shitoryu Dude
9th July 2003, 14:44
My original thought on all of this is that many of these "rules" are extremely subjective and unneeded. Canada does not need laws to protect speech for and against the sexes that are unequal, it is political machinations at work. Anti-Nazi laws do nothing other than try to deny the past. Holocaust laws do nothing but limit rational discussion of a subject for political reasons. Laws that keep the police inviolate from public scrutiny show a massive mistrust by the government.

None of those laws or practices are needed for any reason. Many of them are recent for the sole purpose of controlling how you think. We should question any and all laws that have the purpose of limiting speech or thought. Nor should we stand still for having our governments conceal basic information from us for no reason.

You can just call me an activist.

:beer:

kage110
9th July 2003, 16:55
My original thought on all of this is that many of these "rules" are extremely subjective and unneeded. Canada does not need laws to protect speech for and against the sexes that are unequal, it is political machinations at work. Anti-Nazi laws do nothing other than try to deny the past. Holocaust laws do nothing but limit rational discussion of a subject for political reasons. Laws that keep the police inviolate from public scrutiny show a massive mistrust by the government.

None of those laws or practices are needed for any reason. Many of them are recent for the sole purpose of controlling how you think. We should question any and all laws that have the purpose of limiting speech or thought. Nor should we stand still for having our governments conceal basic information from us for no reason.

Harvey,

I share your concern in many ways - but not all.

You say that Canada doesn't need laws to protect sexual equality? Good thing too but here in the UK the law makes the sexes equal but practice shows that this is not the case. Woman are still paid less than men in the same job and there are all sorts of opportunities that are not really open to women despite what the law says. Sometimes you need to force people to act in an equal fashion even if that can sometimes seems as if you are discriminating in favour of certain groups of people. Some people do end up hijacking the legitimate concerns of the the 'oppressed' groups so that you get the likes of the radical feminists who don't want equality with men but want to dominate them. Nasty and oh so much a repeat of history.

Anti-Nazi laws - what are they? If this means that you can't belong to a Nazi party or actively express Nazi ideals then is that really a problem? The Nazis certainly didn't stand for freedom of speech and action! If that means that you can't even talk about the reality of the Nazi regime and the era in which it existed then that is wrong because you then run the risk of forgetting and denying the past and risking repeating it over again. We do not need more totalitarian regimes of any flavour in this world.

Holocaust laws - Do these meant that you aren't allowed talk about the Holocaust or does this mean that you are not allowed to deny it? In my view every child should be made to view the film footage taken by the Allied troops when they first encountered the Concentration camps and every child should be made to read about how the Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and other 'undesirables' were treated and how they were killed as this is the only way we have a hope of preventing it happening again. Unfortunately it does happen all the time (Rwanda, the Balkans, Iraq, the Congo...the list goes on) so we are not doing too good a job are we?

What is there to dispute about the Holocaust? Was it 6 million Jews that died or was it only a million? Does it matter? Does it make it any better? There is no way any rational, intelligent, educated person can deny its existence and it is a terrible situation that countries feel the need to have a law to stop people denying it because that does happen.

However I do agree with you that governments in many countries (yours and mine included) are introducing laws which make the govenment and its agencies less accountable and limit the freedom of the population to access the truth about their government's actions or voice its opposition and concern. This is not a good thing and does not bode well for the future. Just to labour a point, I believe Hitler did something along these lines before he enacted the Holocaoust...

Orwell was right.

Shitoryu Dude
9th July 2003, 19:01
The point is that the government does not need to tell you how to think. If it does profess that it needs to ensure that people "think properly" then you have a real issue on your hands. There is only one politically correct view of WWII and holocaust - best make sure you parrot it in public or you will be slandered beyond belief and in some places subject to legal action. The correct position is that the holocaust was the worst example of human hatred and genocide ever and only jews were persecuted (ever). This also excuses any jew ever from having to account for the atrocities committed by Israel because they have put a guilt trip on the rest of the world for not stopping Nazi Germany. Never mind that others have done far worse in the 20th century for less. Go talk to survivors of Stalin's or Pol Pot's purges - purges which killed many millions more than Hitler ever dreamed of doing.

There are various studies that show that the "wage gap" between men and women doesn't really exist, but that isn't the point. The thought police in Canada are enforcing a political agenda of thought control against men based primarily on PC "feminism" which has the expressed purpose of making men the underclass.

Free speech does not exist in many of the places that claim to support it.

:beer:

Tamdhu
9th July 2003, 22:11
All I can say Harvey is I'm with you all the way. The Thought Police mentality is bleeding its wormy way into all sorts of areas. I agree with practically everyone that it's not nice to hate Jews, preach Nazi ideals, or to stare at a woman's breasts without at least acknowledging her eyes first, ; ) but I disagree that these things must be mandated at the State level.

A liberal (as in Liberty) society is one in which you are free to fail as well as succeed, to be a Nazi or a Knight in shining armour.

In a neo-fascist 'mean people suck' Lord of the Flies bumper-sticker society, every failure is the direct responsibility of someone else who has succeeded. Hating, making fun of or in some cases not actively fawning over certain social groups is punishable by fines, jailtime or worse, and behaving like a knight in shining armour will earn you dirty looks from girls who then assault you with a tirade about how they can open a door just as well as you can, and so on.

It hasn't gotten that bad yet, but it's gone a lot further than most realize. Bad seeds have been planted with the usual good but short sighted intentions.

kage110
10th July 2003, 12:17
The point is that the government does not need to tell you how to think. If it does profess that it needs to ensure that people "think properly" then you have a real issue on your hands. There is only one politically correct view of WWII and holocaust - best make sure you parrot it in public or you will be slandered beyond belief and in some places subject to legal action. The correct position is that the holocaust was the worst example of human hatred and genocide ever and only jews were persecuted (ever). This also excuses any jew ever from having to account for the atrocities committed by Israel because they have put a guilt trip on the rest of the world for not stopping Nazi Germany. Never mind that others have done far worse in the 20th century for less. Go talk to survivors of Stalin's or Pol Pot's purges - purges which killed many millions more than Hitler ever dreamed of doing.

If that is the way it is then I agree with entirely. We shouldn't have people, or governments, telling us how to think but unfortunately we are often not educated well enough in many instances to be able to think for ourselves. Everyone should learn about the Holocaust (as an example) so that they know what was done, by whom, how and why so that they can have an informed opinion on the events rather than being told to parrot the acceptable line. This goes for everything we do or have done.

One of the most frustrating things that I learned in my life is that a group of oppressed people move somewhere else and oppress the inhabitants of that new area. It is happening now in Israel but it happened in the past when my people, the Scots, were forced out of their lands by oppressive landowners (aided and abetted by government troops) and them went to places such as Canada, the USA, Australia and New Zealand and proceeeded to murder the native inhabitants and steal their lands - exactly the sort of persecution they were fleeing from back home.

I agree with when you say that the Holocaust shouldn't excuse Israeli behaviour now and unfortunately I feel that is used to do just that. There were many other mass murders carried out as you mentioned but there is a difference between them (as well as similarities) and what happened under the Nazis. You find very few people who will stand up to support Pol Pot and, especially in North America, you will find very few who stand up and say that Stalin had the right idea but you do get people standing up to say that the Nazis weren't as bad as they are made out to be and that the Jews are over exagerating.

The other key difference is that under the Nazis mass murder became an industry with huge amounts of logistical planning, complex transportation system and huge 'factories' designed to turn out dead bodies and a whole range of spin off 'industries' from the manufacture of soap (from ashes) and lamp shades (from skin) to the collection of gold (from teeth). Added to that was the slave labour and execution once a worker was past their 'use-by date', not to mention the systematic medical experimentation that went on on (sub)human subjects. Stalin did place people in work camps but some did come back from them 're-educated'. Stalin and Pol Pot made a huge effort to eliminate opposition to their power base but the Nazis were trying something else again.


There are various studies that show that the "wage gap" between men and women doesn't really exist, but that isn't the point. The thought police in Canada are enforcing a political agenda of thought control against men based primarily on PC "feminism" which has the expressed purpose of making men the underclass.

Maybe they are but I would find them very suspect. I will ask the underpaid women in my office whether they think there is a wage or opportunity gap.

I can't really comment on the 'thought police' but if that is what is happening I agree with you and share your worry.

Interestingly enough someone here on e-budo wrote that he was planning to move to Canada as it was a freer society that in the UK. He made particular mention of the fact that here you can get yourself into trouble by taking pictures of your child in the bath or by videoing them in a school play. All this because of an irrational fear of peodohiles behind every bush. It has got to the stage now where a man is unlikely to go to help a crying child because of the fear that someone will claim that they attacked the child or are abducting them. Shear madness resulting in the breakdown of what we call 'society'. Might as well take drugs!


Free speech does not exist in many of the places that claim to support it.

Add democracy to that list.