Facebook’s War on Freedom of Speech

Facebook’s War on Freedom of Speech

by Douglas Murray
February 5, 2016 at 5:00 am

Facebook’s War on Freedom of Speech

 

  • Facebook is now removing speech that presumably almost everybody might decide is racist — along with speech that only someone at Facebook decides is “racist.”
  • The sinister reality of a society in which the expression of majority opinion is being turned into a crime has already been seen across Europe. Just last week came reports of Dutch citizens being visited by the police and warned about posting anti-mass-immigration sentiments on social media.
  • In lieu of violence, speech is one of the best ways for people to vent their feelings and frustrations. Remove the right to speak about your frustrations and only violence is left.
  • The lid is being put on the pressure cooker at precisely the moment that the heat is being turned up. A true “initiative for civil courage” would explain to both Merkel and Zuckerberg that their policy can have only one possible result.

It was only a few weeks ago that Facebook was forced to back down when caught permitting anti-Israel postings, but censoring equivalent anti-Palestinian postings.
Now one of the most sinister stories of the past year was hardly even reported. In September, German Chancellor Angela Merkel met Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook at a UN development summit in New York. As they sat down, Chancellor Merkel’s microphone, still on,recorded Merkel asking Zuckerberg what could be done to stop anti-immigration postings being written on Facebook. She asked if it was something he was working on, and he assured her it was.
At the time, perhaps the most revealing aspect of this exchange was that the German Chancellor — at the very moment that her country was going through one of the most significant events in its post-war history — should have been spending any time worrying about how to stop public dislike of her policies being vented on social media. But now it appears that the discussion yielded consequential results.
Last month, Facebook launched what it called an “Initiative for civil courage online,” the aim of which, it claims, is to remove “hate speech” from Facebook — specifically by removing comments that “promote xenophobia.” Facebook is working with a unit of the publisher Bertelsmann, which aims to identify and then erase “racist” posts from the site. The work is intended particularly to focus on Facebook users in Germany. At the launch of the new initiative, Facebook’s chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg, explained that, “Hate speech has no place in our society — not even on the internet.” She went to say that, “Facebook is not a place for the dissemination of hate speech or incitement to violence.” Of course, Facebook can do what it likes on its own website. What is troubling is what this organization of effort and muddled thinking reveals about what is going on in Europe.

The mass movement of millions of people — from across Africa, the Middle East and further afield — into Europe has happened in record time and is a huge event in its history. As events in Paris, Cologne and Sweden have shown, it is also by no means a series of events only with positive connotations.
As well as being fearful of the security implications of allowing in millions of people whose identities, beliefs and intentions are unknown and — in such large numbers — unknowable, many Europeans are deeply concerned that this movement heralds an irreversible alteration in the fabric of their society. Many Europeans do not want to become a melting pot for the Middle East and Africa, but want to retain something of their own identities and traditions. Apparently, it is not just a minority who feel concern about this. Poll after poll shows a significant majority of the public in each and every European country opposed to immigration at anything like the current rate.
The sinister thing about what Facebook is doing is that it is now removing speech that presumably almost everybody might consider racist — along with speech that only someone at Facebook decides is “racist.”
And it just so happens to turn out that, lo and behold, this idea of “racist” speech appears to include anything critical of the EU’s current catastrophic immigration policy.


By deciding that “xenophobic” comment in reaction to the crisis is also “racist,” Facebook has made the view of the majority of the European people (who, it must be stressed, are opposed to Chancellor Merkel’s policies) into “racist” views, and so is condemning the majority of Europeans as “racist.” This is a policy that will do its part in pushing Europe into a disastrous future.


Because even if some of the speech Facebook is so scared of is in some way “xenophobic,” there are deep questions as to why such speech should be banned. In lieu of violence, speech is one of the best ways for people to vent their feelings and frustrations. Remove the right to speak about your frustrations, and only violence is left. Weimar Germany — to give just one example — was replete with hate-speech laws intended to limit speech the state did not like. These laws did nothing whatsoever to limit the rise of extremism; it only made martyrs out of those it pursued, and persuaded an even larger number of people that the time for talking was over.


The sinister reality of a society in which the expression of majority opinion is being turned into a crime has already been seen across Europe. Just last week, reports from the Netherlands told of Dutch citizens being visited by the police and warned about posting anti-mass-immigration sentiments on Twitter and other social media.


In this toxic mix, Facebook has now — knowingly or unknowingly — played its part. The lid is being put on the pressure cooker at precisely the moment that the heat is being turned up. A true “initiative for civil courage” would explain to both Merkel and Zuckerberg that their policy can have only one possible result.

Douglas Murray, a British writer, journalist and commentator, is based in London, England.

 

 

Zionist Groups Seek to Suppress Pro-Palestinian Transit Ads in Vancouver

.

Zionist Groups Seek to Suppress Pro-Palestinian Transit Ads in Vancouver
 [Notice how any criticism of Israel is seen as an incitement to hate. By that reasoning, any Indian demands for land claims settlements implies criticism of Whites and might lead to hatred, In like a dirty shirt, threatening a lawsuit and lobbying hard to suppress criticism of Israel, as usual are organized Jewish groups, among the most persistent censorship and thought control groups in Canada: “Jewish groups in Vancouver say they are considering suing TransLink for accepting controversial political advertisements showing the “disappearance of Palestine due to Israeli occupation over the past 66 years. … Jewish leaders including Mitchell Gropper, chair of the Jewish Federation of Greater Vancouver, called the ads a provocative attack on Jewish people that will incite hatred. “This is a grave concern to our community at large, because the ads make use of the buses unwelcome and unsafe,” Gropper said, noting that terrorist attacks in Israel often target buses.
‘I don’t think I’ve ever seen ads on our TransLink system that attack a section of our society. If the transit system will be used to attack Israel and the Jewish people, who is next?’
Gropper, a Vancouver lawyer, said his group went to the “highest levels” of TransLink and argued the Palestine ads should be rejected, but they were told TransLink must accept the ads for legal reasons. … In 2006 TransLink lost a decision to the B.C. Court of Appeal, after trying to refuse political advertisements from the B.C. Teachers Federation of Students. TransLink’s policy of rejecting partisan ads and campaigns likely to cause offence or controversy was overturned.

In the decision, Madam Justice Prowse wrote that B.C. Transit and TransLink ‘sought to prohibit political advertising precisely because it was political. Their aim was to prevent the appellants from exercising their right to freedom of political expression, although they were content to entertain commercial expression.’
The ad campaign cost $15,000 and will remain in place for four months. The wall mural, which debuted at Vancouver City Centre station on Tuesday, drew curious looks from transit users, with many pulling out smartphones to snap a photo.” (Vancouver Province, August 28, 2013 )
Ironically, the man organizing the ad is Jewish. In the utterly ethnocentric view of the Jewish lobby groups, any criticism of Israel is an attack on Jews. Canadians must find their voice and insist we have the right to criticize ANY nation — Israel, Red China, North Korea, Iran, the USA, ANYONE.
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION]
[Editor’s Note: This is one front page story that caught me off guard. I never expected the Zionist media to give it such coverage but for some as yet unknown reason they’ve decided to do just that. It’s one helluva bonus for the Palestinians and for all their supporters worldwide who’ve been doing their utmost to draw the world’s attention to their plight over the past 66 years. Please pass this story to all you can.]
‘Grave concern’ over transit ads
JEWISH GROUPS: Palestine poster campaign described as an attack on Israel, Jews
by 
SAM COOPER – THE PROVINCE
Jewish groups in Vancouver say they are considering suing TransLink for accepting controversial political advertisements showing the “disappearance of Palestine due to Israeli occupation over the past 66 years.”
On Tuesday, a group called the Palestine Awareness Coalition announced the launch of 15 bus posters and a large mural in a central Vancouver SkyTrain station, that depict the territory of Palestine steadily shrinking into the state of Israel in a succession of dated maps.
Marty Roth – a 79-year-old member of the coalition group behind the ad – said they have already won a victory over groups that tried to “suppress” the ads.
“This will be controversial with a number of traditional Jewish organizations that have tried to suppress the ads,” Roth claimed. “But TransLink has refused to agree with them, because these are educational ads that are well within national advertising guidelines and the Canadian Charter (of Rights and Freedoms).”
Roth said, as a Canadian Jewish man, he believes Israel is unjustly oppressing the people of Palestine and his group wants to educate the Canadian public about the conflict.
But Jewish leaders including Mitchell Gropper, chair of the Jewish Federation of Greater Vancouver, called the ads a provocative attack on Jewish people that will incite hatred. “This is a grave concern to our community at large, because the ads make use of the buses unwelcome and unsafe,” Gropper said, noting that terrorist attacks in Israel often target buses.
“I don’t think I’ve ever seen ads on our TransLink system that attack a section of our society. If the transit system will be used to attack Israel and the Jewish people, who is next?”
Gropper, a Vancouver lawyer, said his group went to the “highest levels” of TransLink and argued the Palestine ads should be rejected, but they were told TransLink must accept the ads for legal reasons.
The Province sought interviews with TransLink officials but were referred to a prepared statement, which says TransLink sought a “third-party legal opinion” with said the Supreme Court of Canada decided TransLink must run ads such as “Disappearing Palestine” under the Canadian Charter.
Gropper said his group has retained a lawyer with a different opinion, and that suing TransLink is one strategy that is being considered in a response to the ads.
“TransLink has said the law requires them to publish these ads but that is certainly not the case,” Gropper said.
The Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center in Toronto issued a statement saying the group is “disturbed to learn about TransLink’s agreement to run historically distorted anti-Israel advertisements.”
“While Israel and the Palestinian Authority are currently engaged in peace negotiations to resolve their differences and reach a two-state solution, TransLink will be running ads that are provocative and incite hatred and contempt,” said group president Avi Benlolo.
In 2006 TransLink lost a decision to the B.C. Court of Appeal, after trying to refuse political advertisements from the B.C. Teachers Federation of Students. TransLink’s policy of rejecting partisan ads and campaigns likely to cause offence or controversy was overturned.
In the decision, Madam Justice Prowse wrote that B.C. Transit and TransLink “sought to prohibit political advertising precisely because it was political. Their aim was to prevent the appellants from exercising their right to freedom of political expression, although they were content to entertain commercial expression.”
The ad campaign cost $15,000 and will remain in place for four months. The wall mural, which debuted at Vancouver City Centre station on Tuesday, drew curious looks from transit users, with many pulling out smartphones to snap a photo.
One woman, who declined to give her name, stopped to examine the ad. She said, while she wasn’t well-versed in the issue, she believes the ad should fall under the category of free speech.
Mohammed Hamid, 45, was one of the many transit users who stopped to snap a photo on his phone. Hamid is from the Middle East and is familiar with the various aspects of the issue being brought up by the ad.
He doesn’t believe the ad was malicious in anyway, but instead, was glad to see it drawing attention

Conservatives drop immigration committee witnesses after complaints of ‘disgusting’ website

Conservatives drop immigration committee witnesses after complaints of ‘disgusting’ website

 

“We’ll plug our ears because we don’t want to hear what you have to say” — the New Openness of the Canadian Political Class

 

Twice in one week, Canadian officials behaved like bratty children. The Harper government ostentatiously directed our diplomats to walk out of he UN General Assembly prior to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahme\adenijad’s speech earlier this week. What is the point of having a place to meet the leaders — like them or not — of the world but then refuse to listen? This childish behaviour reminds one of the bratty kid who plugs his ears and chants and makes noise when another child is speaking.

 

Then, on Wednesday the Conservatives, under Opposition pressure, pulled two of their witnesses, a Montreal husband and wife team who run an immigration reform website. The Canadian Press (September 26, 2012) reported: “The Conservative government pulled two of its own witnesses from an immigration committee at the eleventh-hour Wednesday, calling material on the group’s website disgusting and un-Canadian. Although the witnesses — Madi and Julien Lussier of the Canadian Immigration Forum — were not publicly listed by the committee, they had been scheduled to appear at its first meeting of the current parliamentary session. NDP and Liberal MPs immediately balked at their presence as soon as they arrived at the committee, pointing to elements on the group’s website that they called shocking. Several MPs on the committee are immigrants.

Sections of the site include one on so-called “Chinafication” and “Arabization.” There is also a video interview with Canadian white supremacist Paul Fromm and several from a conference of the “racialist” group American Renaissance.

The site is called the Canadian Immigration Report, with the subtitle: “The impact of immigration and racial diversity on Canada and Canadians. A survey on the site asks how long immigration to the West should be halted.’If you want to protect and preserve Canada, stop immigration for at least 50 years,’ Madi Lussier wrote in a comment posted last month.”:

 

The main problem seems to be that MPs didn’t like what they thought were the couple’s views. That should be irrelevant. MPs MUST hear what Canadians are thinking, not just the immensely selfish and greedy and self-interested immigration lobby (immigration lawyers, social workers, ESL teachers, business leaders seeking cheap labour and high unemployment to keep wages down, and a few who dream of replacing the European founding/settler people of this country with others

The Canadian Press account continued: ” NDP MP Jinny Simms said she was appalled by what she saw on the website…. About 15 minutes later, the Lussiers were told by a committee aide that they would not be appearing that afternoon. Madi Lussier, who is undergoing cancer treatment, ripped off a wig she was wearing and waved it at the committee. She yelled “Shame!” as they walked out the door.

The Lussiers conceded their views might not be in the mainstream, but said the committee members behaved like cowards for not at least hearing them out. They argued their website features a range of views on immigration. ‘Is Canada going to look the way it does now in 150-200 years? Will the values of gender equality still exist? We don’t know,’ Julien Lussier said outside the committee. ‘Will the value of respecting homosexuals, environmentalism and democracy exist when the majority won’t be of European origin?'”

And, then, he final insult of this disgraceful episode. The Lussiers were disowned by the MP who invited them and we, the European  founding/settler people of this great Dominion are lectured on what it means to be Canadian by a newcomer from Taiwan: ”

Conservative MP Chungsen Leung’s office had put forward the names of the Lussiers as witnesses. He said that a constituent had told him that the Lussiers were lawyers and he was unaware of what was on their website. ‘The views stated on this website are disgusting and anti-Canadian. I am outraged by them,’ Leung said. ‘I have asked the Clerk that these witnesses be pulled. If they do appear, I intend to tell them the views on the website are abhorrent and un-Canadian.’”

Mr. Leung’s party leader, the Prime Minister, is a huge fan of Israel:”Israel’s values are our values,” he says. In the face of large numbers of illegal immigrants from East Africa, the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has stated that these illegals threaten to dilute the Jewish nature of the State of Israel. Fair enough. Then, why should it be reprehensible, “un-Canadian”  in the words of Chungsen Leung, to not want to see the replacement of the European founding/settler people of this country?

The Regina Leader Post (September 28, 2012) reported:; “In an interview with Postmedia News, Julien Lussier admitted he and his wife’s opinions on immigration are ‘quite avant-garde,’ but that dismissing them so abruptly was unfair.

‘Immigration is public policy. If we can’t talk about our public policy, we have no right criticizing a country like China for shutting down free speech,’ he said.

As for his views on immigration, he said he believes ‘poaching”‘ the best and the brightest from developing countries is unfair to those emerging nations and Canada should not accept any refugees.

Launched three years ago, the website features original content as well as links to both mainstream and alternative media articles. Included are original interviews with white supremacist Paul Fromm and American writer Tito Perdue, the latter of whom is quoted saying ‘the civilizations that black people alone have created … generally turn out to be a kind of hell on earth.'” This was the sixth time they had been scheduled to appear.

It’s almost boring to have to repeat but I am not and CFIRC is not “white supremacist.”  That is a discussion stopping smear, a term of abuse. White supremacists insist on imposing “White”  standards on the world — like, say, imposing our values on the role of women by force of arms in Afghanistan. We have no such imperialist goals. We are White Preservationists who wish to preserve our people’s position in the land we build, no more, no less.

Here the actual audio proccedings of the committee as they decide not to hear the Lussiers.       http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=m0GKZEt0pqg