Post by Flash on Aug 4, 2007 17:14:01 GMT -5
New South Wales Government Selective On Free Speech
Radio Broadcasters Targeted for Politically Incorrect Comments
By Chuck Brooks, 3/13/2005 10:19:52 PM
It was humorist Will Rogers who said: "I don't make jokes. I just
watch the government and report the facts."
Today government is no less a joke, but serious people have ceased
laughing.
Instead of prioritizing the exigencies, down here in the antipodes,
the New South Wales Government places every authentic and immediate
human problem on the "back burner." Crime, street-violence, drug
addiction, chaotic classrooms, and ethnic tumult, sundry anti-social
behaviors like prostitution, public drunkenness and obscenity saturate
with all their insalubrious spillover effects.
This doesn't mean the state is not otherwise fully preoccupied,
dotting every "I" and crossing every "T"; shoveling paper up one side
of the landscape and down the other, going for "process," ignoring
"results"; peeking into every cranny of human consciousness and 're-
educating" the recalcitrant. Or preferring to "shoot fish in a barrel"
by going after easy target "straw men," like Sydney radio broadcasters
John Laws and Steve Price, for the impertinence of acting as though
they were free men living in a free society. Their "sin?" Making
amusing comments on microphone about that most protected of all
categories in Australia today -- after koala bears -- ultra-sensitive
homosexuals.
There are no collective rights to anything. Whatever homosexuals,
feminists or any other "class" might claim for themselves, their
"protection" and "feelings" do not take precedence over the primacy of
individual "freedom of speech"; which serves as the flying buttress
propping up the entire edifice of human liberty. At least that is the
case in a truly free society.
But, according to the nameless and featureless tyrants of the
grievance industry, in the Orwellian-sounding New South Wales
Administrative Decisions Tribunal, freedom of speech, press,
broadcasting and religion are all to be trumped; by any oddballs and
sissies proclaiming hyper-sensitivity and hurt feelings in the rough-
and-tumble of societal existence.
Why should broadcasters Price and Laws be required by authoritarian
asses to "promise" not to "vilify, make vile, and defame" homosexuals?
And why should they be required to place "apologies" for their
outrageous utterances in major newspapers when -- by any objective
standard -- they never committed such slanders in the first place. And
even if they did -- so what? Well, the "so-what" is the absence of a
First Amendment guarantee of free speech in Australia -- or any
British Commonwealth nation. Commenting jocularly on air about "a
couple of Poofs renovating in their undies" is not hate
speech, not "fighting words"; it causes no ripples of individual or
social harm. And why would the appellation " poofs" be viewed as
"vilification," any more than the loaded-word "Gay" can automatically
be viewed as "glamorization" of that lifestyle -- or as simply a "card
stacking" bon mot neologism designed to turn the sow's ear of sodomy
into a silk purse. Both words are perfectly acceptable, if one freely
chooses to accept them as part of one's nomenclature ... and, again,
if one lives in a truly free society.
The Tribunal says Laws and Price did not "incite severe ridicule" --
but were "capable" of doing so. Well, the Tribunal is "capable" of
ratiocination, but has elected not to implement such a thought
process. All men are "capable" of rape; so does that mean every male
must issue an apology in advance to womankind, and put adverts in
newspapers promising not to act on their capabilities? I'm surprised
the Tribunal, in its insouciant disregard for the ancient rights of
Englishmen -- including those here in the antipodes -- didn't order
the two broadcasters to wander down Oxford Street -- the main
thoroughfare for homosexual perambulation in Sydney -- in "undies "
made of sackcloth.
The Act's provisions against defaming a sexual category (not quite as
ridiculous --and ominous-- as found in Canada, but much more
threatening than Hawaii's posturing Hate Crime Law of 2001) sets
limits to what can be said or done in public.
Of course, this ACT does not, in any way, limit the public spectacle
of Mardi Gras. And the gross vilification of Christians, Catholic nuns
and the explicit defamation of certain categories of individuals and
groups which are precisely the targets of obscene hatred by
"exhibitionist" types: namely, the "young poofs ... renovating
[society] in their undies" that the two broadcasters were discussing
in another context.
Why is the expression "queer," as in "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy,"
viewed as not vilifying homosexuals, but the word "Poof" is so much
more scarifying, insensitive and discombobulating -- according to the
"back-room boys" of a faceless and busy-body bureaucracy?
Why is it that this Tribunal of Torquemadas has not demanded
retribution for the disparagement and "vilification" of the "straight"
community predicated upon the very idea of just such a television
presentation?
A program that suggests that heterosexuals are somehow deficient in
their genetic and cultural accoutrements as to be something less than
a form of ubermenschen -- "supermen," which is a category reserved for
the more sophisticated and superior homosexual male lifestyle. Truly,
"the love that dare not speak its name," now shouts it from the
rooftops -- and the message from the Anti Discrimination Tribunal is
that no one best get in the way as the members march en masse to their
Gadarene destination.
And why is it that the complainant to the Tribunal is at perfect
liberty to uncharitably gloat:
"What a way for a man like John Laws to go down -- he has been
publicly screwed by a poof."
That comment is objectively offensive -- in its ugly sexual imagery --
to Mr Laws, the #1 radio presenter in Australia. Is that not ridicule,
pouring salt in the wounds, adding insult to injury? (Jackels and
hyenas always exult at the packs' capacity to occasionally put a
couple of teeth marks upon a lion.) Why isn't such language employed
by the complainant proscribed by these bureaucratic whiz kids? And why
should such a person even have "standing" to sue when the two
supposedly vilified homosexuals -- "Baz and Was" -- are completely
silent in the matter? If one ridicules Herr Hitler and National
Socialism in New South Wales Government, may one anticipate being
hauled before a star-chamber inquisition and sued by a hyper-sensitive
neo-Nazi Party member, #098746, from Dusseldorf?
It appears that under the strictures of the busy-body "Nanny State,"
sauce for the goose, as well as the gander, doesn't apply; not to
"unprotected" categories of humanity -- like those exercising their
individuated free speech. "All are equal but some are more equal than
others," quote George Orwell, and the "anti-discrimination" (sic)
Tribunal obviously agrees.
The Gauleiters in the Anti Discrimination Tribunal say "The Tribunal
recognized a person's right to express concerns about television
content " as long as one doesn't go "further than that." And what is
their definition of "further than that? Is it prescribed or proscribed
in the Parliamentary legislation of the land? No, it is whatever this
un-elected mob say it is. The very essence of Fascism.
If there are "things" which one can't say anymore "and get away with
it," as the aggrieved grumbler says, does he mean the word "Poof,"
which he used with impunity and immunity -- or is it only
Heterosexuals who can't "get away with it" today?
The bellyacher says "I may be an old queen, but John Laws has been
crying like an old princess." Surely this is an example of lese
majesty vilification and slur on the Australian monarchy. When can we
anticipate the Anti Discrimination Tribunal bringing action on behalf
of the Royal family? Oh, I see, that "Queen" has none of these phony
and newly minted prerogatives, in the Brave New World of The Peoples
Republic of New South Wales.
So you see, not all the insane are ensconced only at the Manoa campus
of University Hawaii.
Chuck Brooks, a former resident of Hawaii and talk show host, now
lives in Robina, Queensland. He can be reached via email at
mailto:chuckbroo...@hotmail.com
HawaiiReporter.com reports the real news, and prints all editorials
submitted, even if they do not represent the viewpoint of the editors,
as long as they are written clearly. Send editorials to
mailto:Ma...@hawaiireporter.com
hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?49db1220-f2b8-4b9b-9a48-c7b75465...
Radio Broadcasters Targeted for Politically Incorrect Comments
By Chuck Brooks, 3/13/2005 10:19:52 PM
It was humorist Will Rogers who said: "I don't make jokes. I just
watch the government and report the facts."
Today government is no less a joke, but serious people have ceased
laughing.
Instead of prioritizing the exigencies, down here in the antipodes,
the New South Wales Government places every authentic and immediate
human problem on the "back burner." Crime, street-violence, drug
addiction, chaotic classrooms, and ethnic tumult, sundry anti-social
behaviors like prostitution, public drunkenness and obscenity saturate
with all their insalubrious spillover effects.
This doesn't mean the state is not otherwise fully preoccupied,
dotting every "I" and crossing every "T"; shoveling paper up one side
of the landscape and down the other, going for "process," ignoring
"results"; peeking into every cranny of human consciousness and 're-
educating" the recalcitrant. Or preferring to "shoot fish in a barrel"
by going after easy target "straw men," like Sydney radio broadcasters
John Laws and Steve Price, for the impertinence of acting as though
they were free men living in a free society. Their "sin?" Making
amusing comments on microphone about that most protected of all
categories in Australia today -- after koala bears -- ultra-sensitive
homosexuals.
There are no collective rights to anything. Whatever homosexuals,
feminists or any other "class" might claim for themselves, their
"protection" and "feelings" do not take precedence over the primacy of
individual "freedom of speech"; which serves as the flying buttress
propping up the entire edifice of human liberty. At least that is the
case in a truly free society.
But, according to the nameless and featureless tyrants of the
grievance industry, in the Orwellian-sounding New South Wales
Administrative Decisions Tribunal, freedom of speech, press,
broadcasting and religion are all to be trumped; by any oddballs and
sissies proclaiming hyper-sensitivity and hurt feelings in the rough-
and-tumble of societal existence.
Why should broadcasters Price and Laws be required by authoritarian
asses to "promise" not to "vilify, make vile, and defame" homosexuals?
And why should they be required to place "apologies" for their
outrageous utterances in major newspapers when -- by any objective
standard -- they never committed such slanders in the first place. And
even if they did -- so what? Well, the "so-what" is the absence of a
First Amendment guarantee of free speech in Australia -- or any
British Commonwealth nation. Commenting jocularly on air about "a
couple of Poofs renovating in their undies" is not hate
speech, not "fighting words"; it causes no ripples of individual or
social harm. And why would the appellation " poofs" be viewed as
"vilification," any more than the loaded-word "Gay" can automatically
be viewed as "glamorization" of that lifestyle -- or as simply a "card
stacking" bon mot neologism designed to turn the sow's ear of sodomy
into a silk purse. Both words are perfectly acceptable, if one freely
chooses to accept them as part of one's nomenclature ... and, again,
if one lives in a truly free society.
The Tribunal says Laws and Price did not "incite severe ridicule" --
but were "capable" of doing so. Well, the Tribunal is "capable" of
ratiocination, but has elected not to implement such a thought
process. All men are "capable" of rape; so does that mean every male
must issue an apology in advance to womankind, and put adverts in
newspapers promising not to act on their capabilities? I'm surprised
the Tribunal, in its insouciant disregard for the ancient rights of
Englishmen -- including those here in the antipodes -- didn't order
the two broadcasters to wander down Oxford Street -- the main
thoroughfare for homosexual perambulation in Sydney -- in "undies "
made of sackcloth.
The Act's provisions against defaming a sexual category (not quite as
ridiculous --and ominous-- as found in Canada, but much more
threatening than Hawaii's posturing Hate Crime Law of 2001) sets
limits to what can be said or done in public.
Of course, this ACT does not, in any way, limit the public spectacle
of Mardi Gras. And the gross vilification of Christians, Catholic nuns
and the explicit defamation of certain categories of individuals and
groups which are precisely the targets of obscene hatred by
"exhibitionist" types: namely, the "young poofs ... renovating
[society] in their undies" that the two broadcasters were discussing
in another context.
Why is the expression "queer," as in "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy,"
viewed as not vilifying homosexuals, but the word "Poof" is so much
more scarifying, insensitive and discombobulating -- according to the
"back-room boys" of a faceless and busy-body bureaucracy?
Why is it that this Tribunal of Torquemadas has not demanded
retribution for the disparagement and "vilification" of the "straight"
community predicated upon the very idea of just such a television
presentation?
A program that suggests that heterosexuals are somehow deficient in
their genetic and cultural accoutrements as to be something less than
a form of ubermenschen -- "supermen," which is a category reserved for
the more sophisticated and superior homosexual male lifestyle. Truly,
"the love that dare not speak its name," now shouts it from the
rooftops -- and the message from the Anti Discrimination Tribunal is
that no one best get in the way as the members march en masse to their
Gadarene destination.
And why is it that the complainant to the Tribunal is at perfect
liberty to uncharitably gloat:
"What a way for a man like John Laws to go down -- he has been
publicly screwed by a poof."
That comment is objectively offensive -- in its ugly sexual imagery --
to Mr Laws, the #1 radio presenter in Australia. Is that not ridicule,
pouring salt in the wounds, adding insult to injury? (Jackels and
hyenas always exult at the packs' capacity to occasionally put a
couple of teeth marks upon a lion.) Why isn't such language employed
by the complainant proscribed by these bureaucratic whiz kids? And why
should such a person even have "standing" to sue when the two
supposedly vilified homosexuals -- "Baz and Was" -- are completely
silent in the matter? If one ridicules Herr Hitler and National
Socialism in New South Wales Government, may one anticipate being
hauled before a star-chamber inquisition and sued by a hyper-sensitive
neo-Nazi Party member, #098746, from Dusseldorf?
It appears that under the strictures of the busy-body "Nanny State,"
sauce for the goose, as well as the gander, doesn't apply; not to
"unprotected" categories of humanity -- like those exercising their
individuated free speech. "All are equal but some are more equal than
others," quote George Orwell, and the "anti-discrimination" (sic)
Tribunal obviously agrees.
The Gauleiters in the Anti Discrimination Tribunal say "The Tribunal
recognized a person's right to express concerns about television
content " as long as one doesn't go "further than that." And what is
their definition of "further than that? Is it prescribed or proscribed
in the Parliamentary legislation of the land? No, it is whatever this
un-elected mob say it is. The very essence of Fascism.
If there are "things" which one can't say anymore "and get away with
it," as the aggrieved grumbler says, does he mean the word "Poof,"
which he used with impunity and immunity -- or is it only
Heterosexuals who can't "get away with it" today?
The bellyacher says "I may be an old queen, but John Laws has been
crying like an old princess." Surely this is an example of lese
majesty vilification and slur on the Australian monarchy. When can we
anticipate the Anti Discrimination Tribunal bringing action on behalf
of the Royal family? Oh, I see, that "Queen" has none of these phony
and newly minted prerogatives, in the Brave New World of The Peoples
Republic of New South Wales.
So you see, not all the insane are ensconced only at the Manoa campus
of University Hawaii.
Chuck Brooks, a former resident of Hawaii and talk show host, now
lives in Robina, Queensland. He can be reached via email at
mailto:chuckbroo...@hotmail.com
HawaiiReporter.com reports the real news, and prints all editorials
submitted, even if they do not represent the viewpoint of the editors,
as long as they are written clearly. Send editorials to
mailto:Ma...@hawaiireporter.com
hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?49db1220-f2b8-4b9b-9a48-c7b75465...