I gave (via video) a short speech in Melbourne this week supporting Andrew Bolt and the cause of free speech in Australia. It’s easy to defend Bolt: He’s a humane and civilized writer, and his prosecution is a disgrace.
John Galliano is a harder case. The celebrated Dior couturier would appear to be a visceral Jew-hater: He told Geraldine Bloch she had a “dirty Jewish face,” and two Italian women that their parents should have been gassed and that he loved Hitler.
Nonetheless, like this (Jewish) blogger, I don’t see why someone should be hauled into court for calling someone a “dirty Jew.” Had I been Mme Bloch’s “partner” (in Euro-speak), I would have slugged the rancid little toad. But I’m not interested in empowering the state to micro-regulate human conversation. France, in particular, could use a lot more honest discourse.
And, if the justification is pour encourager les autres, it doesn’t seem to be working — any more than the prototype “hate speech” regime of Weimar Germany did. Euro-leftists are ever more openly anti-Semitic, and liberal Jews get harassed in Central London. The ever more coercive enforcers of the Diversity Commissars will have no impact on those malign trends, except to ensure that no one gets to raise the subject in public with any honesty.
Galliano is an irrelevant drug-addled old queen, but the law under which he’s being prosecuted is a big part of Europe’s problems.
I love how the EU Charter says, "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression."
Then it body slams that sentence with this rambling mess, which should have been re-written as "We make it up as we go along":
"The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."
External Link
Keep hammering these idiots, Mark.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Had I been Mme Bloch’s “partner” (in Euro-speak), ..."
On a related note, Mark, that leaden "partner"usage isn't just Eurospeak any longer...it's infected most of the wire service writing, and is increasingly common in day to day business writing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Hate speech" laws aren't intended to stifle antisemitic speech, they're intended to stifle anti-antisemitic speech. Don't believe me? Look at how they're applied, not how they're sold.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse> "Look at how they're applied"
You might want to click on some of the links, which you clearly did not do before making your comment.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou are kinder to the 'rancid little toad' than I might be; and yet you are right. Unfettered free speech with the active participation of thoughtful and educated men and women (and not some rigid leftist diversity or 'equalities' board, as in the U.K.) is the best way to reach a civilized consensus on what is acceptable behavior and what is not.
Or perhaps that civilized world no longer exists or is even possible, in America or in the United Kingdom. Sometimes I wonder.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseha ha ha your funny, should be a comedian
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse