Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Lefty racism

It’s not just us brutal Anglo Saxons you know…

Protest outside Muenster Town Hall

This weekend, I had the pleasure of visiting a friend in the historic city of Münster, Germany – a university town with 50,000 students and famous as the site of the Rathaus where the Treaty of Westphalia was signed ending the Thirty Years’ War in 1648.

What was not so appealing this weekend was the protest outside the historic Rathaus by a group of supporters of the Palestinians shouting quite frankly repulsive and anti-Semitic slogans while the Police looked on with cold eyes.

The rally had been called by the “initiative of the Friends of Palestine in Münster”. Bearing banners and pamphlets to express their protest the participants were mainly women with headscarves and children.

They also chanted slogans such as “child murderer Israel” or “mass murderer Netanyahu”. In a pamphlet stated: “We do not hate the Jews, but the terrorist state of Israel.”

On the opposite side of the street, under the arches, demonstrated a significantly smaller group of people for self-defense of Israel.

Heated verbal exchanges on the principal market (in the original German, translated into English by Google Translate)

It was quite clear to all concerned that the Police were not there to ensure the demonstrators didn’t get out of hand (as occasionally happens with environmental and Neo-Nazi protests in Germany), but rather to ensure that the demonstrators themselves were protected from the public at large.

Marcus, my host for the weekend, is an educated native German with a doctorate in physics who spends his summer vacations building village schools in rural India, so not exactly a little-Deutschlander, but he was outraged to the point of anger that the “…spectre of the anti-Semitism of the Nazi era…” (his exact words) should be displayed again on the streets of Germany.

I pointed out to Marcus that if the right to free-speech means anything, it means the right to make statements which others may find offensive and that there is no general right not to be offended.

“Quite correct”, Marcus said, “but if the protesters had been ethnic German’s rather than immigrants, then they would have been dragged away by the Police at the first anti-Semitic outburst” - this was in relation to an anti-immigration protest at the Münster Rathaus some months ago, which the police had broken up for exactly that reason.

“The police are afraid to intervene because they are Muslims” was Marcus’ final word on the matter.

Conservatives screwed Detroit, reason #12546

They can’t be serious, surely.

From our deep thinking and intellectual friends at Salon.com, an article with the fascinating title of Why the right hates Detroit.

As payback for the worldwide revolution symbolized by hot jazz, Smokey Robinson dancin’ to keep from cryin’ and Eminem trading verses with Rihanna, New Orleans and Detroit had to be punished. Specifically, they had to be isolated, impoverished and almost literally destroyed, so they could be held up as examples of what happens when black people are allowed to govern themselves.

This is where the writer drops into paranoia, fantasy and paranoia.

Back in Britain.

I have been back in Britain a few days (it feels like years), my impressions are….

“Evening Standard” on the late night-early morning train from the airport.

Weird article attacking “golf club Nazis” (for such clearly Nazi things as likeing Monty Python – no the article made no sense to me either). I have now remembered that this article was supposed to prove that “Citizenship” classes-tests should teach immigrants how to claim government benefits.  No I do not know why that is supposed to be a good (not a bad) thing  – or what it has got to do with Monty Python.

Odd letters to the editor saying they supported the government’s policy of reducing state spending (what reduction in state spending?) but wanted more spending on X, Y, Z – such as railways to places which already have railways going to them.

A big article on the “living wage” idea, which showed no idea of what a labour market is – and how trying to increase wages (with no increase in productivity) can only increase unemployment. But quoted various “leading conservatives” as being in support of the “living wage” concept, as a way of fighting the multinational corporations (why would a conservative want to do that?).

And an article by Mr Cameron on “keeping the spirit of the games alive” – but I could not bring myself to read it.

Back in Kettering told that Holocaust memorial day was used as an excuse for death-to-Israel speeches (killing six million Jews in the 1940s was wrong – but killing another six million Jews now would be good, because Jews are Nazis or something…. a bit like the golf club people?).

Visit London – go round bookshops. Leftist books are the ones pushed forward (on bits of board) or turned to face the customers. Pro free market books very rare in the London bookshops anyway. Do the shareholders in Waterstones, W.H. Smiths, and Foyles know that the staff (including the managers?) want them robbed and murdered?

And why do people employed in comfortable bookshops hate “capitalists” and “capitalism” anyway (it is something to do with the shareholders likeing Monty Python? or are they Jews? or perhaps they play golf?). Anyway the people in London appear to be very prosperious – try to force down “credit bubble city” thoughts….

Lots of students – perhaps this “education” thing explains a lot…..

Try to see the film “Zero Dark Thirty” in Kettering – but it is only on late at night in the cinema. So they can say that there is not much call for it? Something I have noticed before with non P.C. films – they are either not shown at all in the local cinema, or they are shown only once a day and an irritating time.

Notice that leftist newspapers (such as the “I”) still have special stands at the local supermarket or (like the ultra Keynesian “Financial Times”) are raised on boards to make them more visible than other newspapers. Why?

Leftist magazines also still pushed and non leftist ones not. Even “Time” magazine (which is not even a British magazine and has no British news in it) put in favoured position – for no reason.

British television and radio news (and television and radio comedy) scream, gag, slump to floor…….

Oh yes – I almost forgot…..

Hour long speech (loud enough to be a speech anyway) on the train to London from a young person who worked in the Cabinet Office (amongst other places) about how he went to see Barack Obama sworn in again – and had the words “Barack Obama” written into his flesh. Supposedly Comrade Barack is a great leader for “our people” (the gentleman had an English accent) and lots of words about Barack Obama’s skin colour (which was the same as that of the person giving the speech).

Does this chap understand that he is a racist? Or does he have some some sort of Frankfurt School way out of basic logic?

Anyway his friends seemed most impressed by his words. And he did make a couple of references to things other than Mr Obama’s skin colour. For example the importance of “networking” to gain money from the state (I suppose the word “networking” is a word that modern people use for “corrupt influence”) and how much money (1.2 million) a friend of his had raised for the Obama campaign.

Oh, of course, also how people joined the “public sector” to “help people”. The young gentleman was expensively dressed – so clearly the “public sector” (the taxpayers) have helped him, and his “networking friends”.

Conversation over

The comments to this entry are closed

I dare say.

I suspect that this being the ABC the comments were not quite what they anticipated.

H/T Andrew Bolt

Update:  If you are scratching your head in puzzlement, try here, here, here, and here.

 

Ken Livingstone

Has anti Jewish bigotry become mainstream amongst progressives in London? Jews are all rich are they? Money grubbers maybe? Tell me, do they make Passover bread with the blood of Christian children? Poison wells maybe? Or is that sort of claim still a bit extreme for the moment?

Pogrom anyone?

Why is Ken Livingston still a member of the Labour Party?

Unbelievable!

The Guardian’s CiF writer Lemn Sissay is advocating what can only be described as apartheid. Oh and he also launches into a deranged (and irrelevant) rant on gollywogs and refers to children as “resources”. It’s truly a class act!.

Shhhh, not so loud, someone may hear

Am I still allowed to discuss what I call the poisonous doctrine of multiculturalism?

This blog is based in Australia, and it has now been determined that, when discussing matters of cultural identity and multiculturalism, there are statements which may not be said, and tones of voice which may not be used, especially if the tone used is not sufficiently respectful, or if inferences can be read between the lines – yes, that’s right. It is not what is actually written, but what is also inferred by someone who may or may not share your opinion as to what you meant in not writing certain stuff……..

If anyone has doubts about the subjectivity of yesterday’s decision, they should read Justice Bromberg’s findings about how often a “reasonable reader” might have read the articles, and whether or not they would have done so with “analytical care”. He discussed how the “style and structure” of the articles “invite supposition” and, remarkably, said: “Language of that kind has a heightened capacity to convey implications beyond the literal meaning of the words utilised.”

I don’t know what comments you may leave here may mean in terms of the law as it may affect me. Be polite.

Ebony is from Byron Bay……

It is unlikely you will be able to appreciate the true resonance of these words. Byron Bay is a beautiful country settlement about 75 km south of where I am on Queenslands Sunny Gold Coast. Rural hinterland with areas of subtropical forest, everything wealthy celebrities would want with their multi million dollar beachfront properties, middle class green communes, and the uber privileged choosing an earth mother lifestyle. The place is country living for those who can afford to escape real country living. There are places there for the rest of us as well, but the image of the wealthy and privileged econuts dominates. And best of all? Nimbin is just a short drive away. When you truly need to purchase authentic organic goats milk soap while celebrity watching on the beach and sipping a delightfully crisp local chablis you picked up at this divine little vineyard you passed on the drive up, well, then Byron Bay is the place for you.

Anyway, if you might think the Australian race classification laws may be being scammed, well, who are we, as Australians, to comment?

Gollywogalypse

Jena Mason, 65, is accused of placing the controversial black doll on her window sill (a Gollywog) following an argument with her neighbour Stephen O’Donnell. Mr O’Donnell made a complaint to police after his wife Rosemarie, who is Jamaican, and their mixed race children were offended by her actions.

He said: “I am pleased the police are taking this seriously.

I’m not. For starters the cops ought to be looking into rapes, murders and stuff like that. You know crimes. Now obviously it was deliberately offensive but it is only PC culture that makes it so. As a small child I had a gollywog. I loved that toy and would really like to know where it went. So I’m a kid thirty years back and I’m out in my wellies with my Golly (and no I’m not shortening that because it is racist – I’m shortening for the same reason I’m “Nick” and not “Nicholas” – a term of affection – I loved that thing). Gollies have only been constructed as racist because it was decided they were. Like any symbol. A Swastika used to be a Hindu thing. Ain’t now is it?

The PC bunch assumed a child’s toy (my toy) was a racist icon. The display of such was probably a racist act but only because they invented the sin. They made it so.

As I said, I loved my Golly. I thought it a toy because it was. Even as a kid I didn’t think it a patronising representation of black people. Nick Griffin might think that. I didn’t, I don’t. You do wonder at the mindset. It is very similar.

It doesn’t see black people as people. I do. What is your major malfunction? Why do you need to demonise a toy that no one had a problem with until they were told they ought to?

And I am amused The Terriblegraph has to point out the white bloke and his Jamaican wife have “mixed-race children”. Well if they didn’t there would be one hell of a load of Barney Rubble at the divorce court.

The Fabian Window – why can most people not see evil?

If I was not so useless with computers this post would have a big picture of the Fabian Window with it. However, “radio has the best pictures” so I will do without a picture.

For many years I have been baffled by why people (especially British people) are unable to see the blatent evil of the “Fabian Window” – a stained glass window produced by the Fabian Society (a group of “reformist” British socialists founded in the 1880s – and which still exists).

Over the last year or so Glenn Beck has been pointing at it (from time to time), but if my experience (years ago) is anything to go by, the main reactions he will get will be either blank looks or knowing nods and “can you not see the humour – the irony….”

No I freaking well can not – to me it is an open statement of evil. And yet politicians after politician (including Mr Blair) have stood beside it with a little smile on their faces – as if it was just a jolly jape.

Still what am I ranting on about…..

The window shows some men (leading Fabians) heating up an object and hammering it – much like craftsmen in the Middle Ages, accept the object is THE WORLD.

They are subjecting the world to fire – and beating it with hammers.

Why?

To “make it closer to the heart’s desire” (the writing on the window says so) – they are prepared to fill the world with fire and hammer it (regardless of the cost in lives) to make it a different shape.

And under the world destroying (sorry “remaking”) we see leading Fabians, heads bowed in worship.

But not worship of God or even the personificiation of reason (or anything like that) – no they are bowing their heads in worship of books.

THEIR OWN BOOKS – a case of self worship (of treating their own products as divine).

And what books – things like the “Minority Report” (the publication on the Poor Law that helped set in motion the take over by the state of old age provision and health care – and crush mutual aid and free association). The government had called for an investigation of the Poor Law and various changes were suggested (that was the Majority Report – the report written by people who actually knew something about the subject), but that report was not what was followed over the following years.

What was followed was the “Minority Report” written by Fabians who knew nothing – apart from about their collectivist desires (their “heart’s desire”) and, of course, their vast knowledge of politics (of manipulating politicians, civil servants, and public opinion).

And this book (The Minority Report) is the LEAST evil of the books the Fabians are shown worshipping (the others are much worse).

And who were the Fabians at this time?

Mr and Mrs Webb – who wanted to turn cathedrals into “municipal offices” and who were soon off whitewashing the Soviet Union.

What is a few tens of millions of murders between friends? Nothing to get upset about.

“They did not know Paul” – oh yes they did, just as the New Dealers in the United States who tried to destroy the files of the old Russian Section of the State Department knew. If they did not know what the files contained (evidence of the terror famine and so on) they would not have been so determined to destroy them. People who went on the same trips the Webbs went on (including MM – then a socialist writing for the Manchester Guardian) pointed out that the Soviets were telling obvious lies – and that it was obvious (obvious to everyone with eyes in their head) what was going on – the Webbs DECIDED “not to know”.

But it does not stop here.

The other two leading Fabians (both, of course, in the Fabian Window) were H. G. Wells and George Bernard Shaw.

These are held up as great cultural icons – by every university (and every entertainment film and television show and …. set in the period) good and kind men, producing a new culture. For their goodness is as stressed as much as their works.

But what were they really like? What did they really believe in.

Well there was H.G. Wells (another so called “reforminst” who became an apologist for totalitarism) who was as much a racist as he was a socialist – all these teeming millions of “blacks, brown and yellows” they would have to be “got rid of” a “gas” could be used……

How amusing! It is all just “irony” – accept it is not.

And George Bernard Shaw – another totalitarianism supporting “reforminst”.

He wanted every human being to present themselves before a government board – and if they could not “justfiy their existance” (by the standards of G.B. Shaw of course) the government was to murder them.

Murder them. How is kill them all – just a jolly jape?

Not even Stalin or Mao went that far – this is more like Pol Pot.

And, no, the “cultured” Mr Shaw was not “joking”.

Any more than one goes to all the trouble of making a stained glass window (not an easy thing) just as a “joke”. Not without a basic truth behind the “look we are all dressed up funny – mocking this Christian nonsense” stuff.

Saying something with a smile and in a light tone should not get someone a pass – NOT IF THEY MEAN IT, AND THEY DID.

But I am wasting my time. Sadly I do that a lot.

If people can not see evil when it is presented right in front of them (as with the Fabian Window) then my words are not going to move them.

The left at work

Like all Anglophone countries with ethnic minorities these days, Australia has racial and ethnic classification laws. The newspaper columnist, Andrew Bolt, raised questions about whether people who have only fractional Aboriginal biological inheritance and are, apparently, indistinguishable from Europeans in appearance, should benefit from these laws, designed to make up for past and (presumably) current discrimination…..

Although he does not use these words, my paraphrase of them is – Are these laws being scammed?

Sigh,

So what happens? Yep, legal action.

To shut him up.

Apparently some European appearing Aboriginal benefiting from the system has had his feelings hurt.

This, as you can imagine, has the usual crowd crowing in joy. Standard reasons of course, after all, how dare a journalist express an opinion that goes against the current lefty orthodoxy? Bolt disapproves of race classification laws? “RACIST. HATE SPEECH. The man must be a NAZI, shut him up, quick.”

Anyway, I kept out of it pretty much – you tried reasoning with these people lately? – until I happened by Miss Eagles Network. Her attitude includes the standard caveats, “I am all for free speech within limits”, andfree speech has to be balanced with responsibility”. ie, she is not for free speech at all, but lacks the integrity or intellectual courage to admit it even to herself.

Anyway, there I left a comment, and got involved in a thread.

My final comment was mainly:

As to the other writings, what we see here are true believers in progressive liberalism, eager to impose political censorship, racial classification laws and inequality under the law, as well as demonstrating arrant racism, hatred of sex between racial groups and hate filled rants.

All in the name of tolerance………

Yet you imply that a free speaking and true believer in liberal democracy like Andrew Bolt has opinions comparable to NAZIsm? 

Really?

Just because he thinks your racial classification laws are being scammed?

Still waiting for a response.

Promoted to guest post

The following is a comment made by GW on this piece. Why here? I think it is worthy of being promoted, and it contributes to a minor theme we have had running here. Namely, that for the Democrats to claim to be the party of black minorities and civil rights is kinda like the NAZI’s promoting themselves as the party of Jewish tolerance.

  1. Through the mid-60’s, blacks did not vote as a monolithic group. Eisenhower received the majority of black votes during his campaigns in the 50’s. The change came about in the 60’s, as the “left” in America became ever more influenced by radical Marxist left. This from a post I wrote for Martin Luther King day expounds on this and the history of race in America that might throw some light on the issue:

    . . .

    - The Republican Party – the party of Abraham Lincoln – was borne in 1854 out of opposition to slavery.

    - The party of Jim Crow and the Ku Klux Klan was, as Jeffrey Lord points out in an article at the WSJ, the Democratic Party. And Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) [was the last] member of the Senate who was once a member of the KKK.

    - The 13th (abolishing slavery), 14th (due process for all citizens) and 15th (voting rights cannot be restriced on the basis of race) Amendments to the Constitution were enacted by Republicans over Democratic opposition.

    - The NAACP was founded in 1909 by three white Republicans who opposed the racist practices of the Democratic Party and the lynching of blacks by Democrats.

    - In fairness, it was the Democrat Harry Truman who, by Executive Order 9981 issued in 1948, desegregated the military. That was a truly major development. My own belief is that the military has been the single greatest driving force of integration in this land for over half a century.

    - It was Chief Justice Earl Warren, a former Republican Governor of California appointed to the Supreme Court by President Eisenhower, also a Republican, who managed to convince the other eight justices to agree to a unanimous decision in the seminal case of Brown v. Board of Education. That case was brought by the NAACP. The Court held segregation in schools unconstitutional. The fact that it was a unanimous decision that overturned precedent made it clear that no aspect of segregation would henceforth be considered constitutional.

    - Republican President Ike Eisenhower played additional important roles in furthering equality in America. He “proposed to Congress the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960 and signed those acts into law. . . . They constituted the first significant civil rights acts since the 1870s.” Moreover, when the Democratic Governor of Arkansas refused to integrate schools in what became known as the “Little Rock Nine” incident, “Eisenhower placed the Arkansas National Guard under Federal control and sent Army troops to escort nine black students into an all-white public school.”

    - The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was championed by JFK – but it was passed with massive Republican support (over 80%) in Congress and over fierce opposition from Democrats who made repeated attempts at filibuster. Indeed, 80% of the vote opposing the Civil Rights Act came from Democrats. Women were added to the Act as a protected class by a Democrat who thought it would be a poison pill, killing the legislation. To the contrary, the Congress passed the Act without any attempt to remove the provision.

    - Martin Luther King Jr. was the most well known and pivotal Civil Rights activist ever produced in America. His most famous speech, “I Had A Dream,” was an eloquent and stirring call for equality. If you have not read the speech or heard it, you can find it here. I would highly recommend listening to it. Rev. King was, by the way, a Republican.

    - “Bull” Connor was not a Republican. . . .

    Nothing that I say here is to suggest that racism and sexism could not be found in the Republican party or among conservatives at any point in American history. But if you take any period in history and draw a line at the midpoint of racist and sexist attitudes, you would find far more Republicans than Democrats on the lesser side of that line. And you would find a much greater willingness on the part of Republicans, relative to the time, to effectuate equality. That was as true in 1865 as in 1965 – and in 2011.

    Sometime about 1968, the far left movement emerged as a major wing of the Democratic Party. This far left wing hijacked the civil rights movement and made it, ostensibly, their raison d’etre. Gradually, the far left has grown until it is now the dominant force in Democratic politics. JFK, Truman and FDR would recognize precious little of today’s Democratic Party.

    The far left fundamentally altered the nature of the Civil Rights movement when they claimed it as their own. They imprinted the movement with identity politics, grossly distorting the movement’s goal of a level playing field for all Americans and creating in its stead a Marxist world of permanent victimized classes entitled to special treatment. The far left has been the driver of reverse racism and sexism for the past half century. That is why it is no surprise that, with the emergence of a far left candidate for the highest office in the nation, Rev. Jeremiah Wright should also arise at his side and into the public eye preaching a vile racism and separatism most Americans thought long dead in this country. Nor is it any surprise that the MSM, many of whom are of the far left, should collectively yawn at Obama’s twenty year association with Wright. Wright is anything but an anomaly. To the contrary, he is a progeny of the politics of the far left.

    The far left did not merely hijack the civil rights movement, they also wrote over a century of American history, turning it on its head. That is why Bob Herbert, quoted above, is able to wax so eloquently while spouting the most horrendous of deceits. The far left managed to paint the conservative movement and the Republican Party as the prime repositories of racism and sexism. The far left has long held themselves out as the true party of equality. They have done so falsely as, by its very nature, identity politics cements inequality. Beyond that truism, the far left has for decades played the race and gender cards to counter any criticism of their policies, to forestall any reasoned debate and to demonize those who stand opposed to them. They continue to do so through this very day. . . .


Can’t see how to embed this

Damn,

And she calls others damaged and racist?

Janeane Garofalo and her bigoted, ignorant and hate filled rant.

West Midland Police

Right-wing groups like the English Defence League are turning parts of Britain into recruiting grounds for Islamic extremists, police have said.

It’s the racism of the coppers and those who empower them to come out with drivel like this that sticks in my craw.

Are these guys really saying that that these poor muslims are incapable of radicalising themselves, for their own reasons, without whitey providing the impetus?

Is it true the West Midlands Counter Terrorism Unit believe that Muslims are incapable of acting of their own volition, instead being passive until acted on by others?

Damn it all to hell, evil as I believe many muslims to be at the very least I regard them as fully human, capable of making their own choices for whatever reason seems good to them, and perfectly able to choose between good and evil without the kufr forcing the choice on to them.

I might despise their belief systems, but I most certainly don’t despise their humanity, unlike these idiot plod.

And what feeds the EDL?

Thirteen long years of labour shitting on the very people who used to vote for them. People feeling isolated in their "own" communities, righly or wrongly,but some people feel that way.Social engineers. Islamic extremists protests. And basically no one willing to listen to their concerns,so eventually these groups form. Either way there is only one group who "feeds" both the Islamic extremists and the EDL,and that is the state.

Insanity knows no borders

You think it’s only in the UK? Try Western Australia.

Better a hundred violent crims go free than that one be described accurately.

Officers can no longer use details such as a suspect’s nationality, race or religion when seeking public help. Instead, they have been told to say if the person is light or dark skinned…

The Equal Opportunities Commission says the ban was introduced six months ago after complaints that using ethnic descriptions was racist…

(…)

One police insider said the policy had prevented the capture of suspects…

“There is a big difference between a dark-skinned person being Aboriginal or African. And if we are looking for an Asian person-of-interest it’s a bit narrow to describe them as simply having fair skin and dark hair.”

But Equal Opportunity Commission state commissioner Yvonne Henderson said using ethnic descriptions reinforced negative stereotypes.

“It can feed into prejudiced ideas in the community about which ethnicities are mainly responsible for criminal behaviour,” she said…

Ethnic Communities Council of WA president Maria Saraceni said the ban stopped police condemning everyone of a particular race in an area they were investigating.

Enlightenment civilisation: RIP

Catherine Heseltine, chief executive officer of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee, said burning the Koran was one of the most offensive acts to Muslims that she could imagine.

And arresting someone, anyone, especially a child, for expressing an opinion, regardless of how offensive, is one of the most offensive things that I can imagine. So, who’s offense is superior?

She said: "The Koran is the most sacred thing to over a billion Muslims worldwide."

And is nothing bar a load of drivel spouted by an evil megalomaniac to the rest of us.

Sacred? A meaningless term, signifying nothing. Allah? A figment of a moral cripples imagination.

Bob Badham, Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council cabinet member for education, said he had visited the school and believed the atmosphere was generally good among pupils. He added that he did not believe there was a "deeper problem" in the area.

Of course there’s a deeper problem in the area, a problem this fool closes his eyes to; a child has been arrested for exercising a right held by all freeborn British men and women, the right to dissent.

Religious bigotry: the law of the land.

To contact Councillor Bob Badham MBE, on this disgraceful matter. Remember, be polite.

Update:  My email.

I am writing about the matter of a child having been arrested for expressing an unwanted opinion.

I expect that you will receive abusive emails over this matter, but this will not be one such, and I hope you are able to take the time to consider the issues.

The report on the BBC web site quoted you as saying that you “did not believe there was a deeper problem in the area”.

This I see as a problem. I accept and acknowledge that Muslims see desecration of the Koran as offensive, but so what? They may have my sympathy, but there is no right in law not to be offended, and nor should there be. I am offended on a regular basis by otherwise legal acts and expressions of opinion I dislike, but I have such a deep love for our freedom and values that I would fight to protect the right of others to offend me.

I do not know the politics, views or motivations of this child, but I am offended to the very centre of my being that she could be arrested for exercising one of the core rights of our civilisation, the right to dissent.

In any society inoffensive speech needs no protection. However, if offensive speech is not protected then there is no freedom of speech, and this is the basis, the bedrock and the foundation, of all the freedoms we have and cherish. Unless you, and your fellow councillors, are prepared to condemn this child’s arrest and punishment I have to accept that you do not support the core values of Freedom of Conscience and Freedom of Expression.

If this is the case, I most certainly do believe there is a deeper problem in the area.

Regards,

%d bloggers like this: