As threats to freedom of speech grow ever stronger, it’s very refreshing to see a robust defense of it from a Jewish journalist called Melanie Phillips. Far too many of her co-ethnics are shrieking on the opposite side, but Mel doesn’t mince her words as she opposes their totalitarian agenda.
Here’s an example of how she fights tirelessly for our traditional freedoms. A White woman called Lynette Burrows recently said on BBC radio that she did not believe homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children. A listener complained to the police and they “contacted” the thought-criminal to question her about her “homophobic” comments. This is Mel’s take on the story:
It is difficult adequately to express one’s shock and abhorrence – not at Ms Burrows, but at the actions and attitudes of the police. What kind of a society has this become where, if someone expresses an opinion which falls foul of politically approved doctrines, the police start feeling their collar? Freedom of speech is supposed to be the bedrock value of a liberal society. It should only be constrained in extreme circumstances where a crime may be committed, such as incitement to violence or encouraging terrorism.
How have we descended to this, that while crime and disorder rage unattended in our streets the police are making a priority of harassing people because of lawful opinions? The reason is that the police are now in helpless thrall to the “victim culture” agenda in which self-designated victim groups cannot ever be deemed to have done anything wrong, and so anyone who disapproves of them is by definition prejudiced.
Some of us would defend to the death the rights of gay people to live their lives free of oppression and harm. But some of us would also defend to the hilt the fundamental values of our society against those who wish to destroy them to further an agenda of licence, gross irresponsibility and nihilism. Those values to be defended include the freedom to voice an opinion and the freedom to tell the truth. (“Orwellian Britain”, The Daily Mail, 12th December 2005)
Still, fine words butter no bagels and it’s very easy to support someone you agree with. I’m also a bit worried about Mel’s phrase “freedom to tell the truth.” Who decides what the truth is? Can we safely leave that even to someone as wise and principled as Melanie Phillips? Well, let’s have a look at her record when her support for free speech is really put to the test – that is, when someone says something she doesn’t agree with.
Two years ago she had the chance to make a principled stand against a hysterical assault on free speech launched by the loudest and most powerful “victim group” of all: the ever-loveable, ever-unjustly persecuted race to which she herself belongs. You’ll remember that in 2004 Jews around the world were kicking up a fearsome stink about Mel Gibson’s film The Passion of the Christ. “It’s vilely anti-Semitic already!” they shrieked. “It vill incite murderous Jew-hatred! And pogroms! Next shtop Auschwitz!”
Well, Melanie Phillips went to see the film for herself and then rushed to her keyboard to put her free-speech principles into action:
As a Jew, I left the screening of The Passion in a state of shock. In the course of two hours, the ancient calumny fuelling centuries of Jewish persecution is boosted by the turbocharge of Hollywood’s most sophisticated form of emotional manipulation. After decades of decent Christian attempts to interpret the Gospels in a way that does not blame the Jewish people for the death of Jesus, this horrific film resurrects the core charge against the Jews of deicide. This is a film which unequivocally and deliberately presents the Jews as guilty of the most horrific crime in human history, killing the son of God. Whatever Mel Gibson’s intentions, this disgusting film leaves the Jewish people once again vilified, and the oldest hatred resuscitated. (“Mel Gibson’s Oberammergau”, The Daily Mail 27th February 2004)
And when it speedily became apparent that Gibson’s film wasn’t going to unleash a jackbooted tsunami of swastika-daubing anti-Semitism, did Melanie Phillips admit she was wrong and apologize for adding to the hysteria? Of course not: Melanie Phillips is Jewish and Jews don’t do “wrong” or “sorry.”
Then came 2005 – another year, another Jewish screech-fest. Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, was accosted by a reporter from his old enemy the London Evening Standard and compared him to a “concentration camp guard” despite knowing – “Oy vey! Such vicketness!” – that the reporter was Jewish. Can you imagine that? After all, has any Jew ever, in the whole history of the world, been a concentration camp guard or anything remotely similar? Surely not, because the mass media would tell us so as part of their never-ending mission to inform and instruct. Still, despite the vileness and historical dishonesty of Livingstone’s comparison, here was another chance for Melanie Phillips to stand up for free speech against the hysteria of a “victim group.” Remember her principle: Free speech “should only be constrained in extreme circumstances where a crime may be committed” – and clearly, Ken Livingstone had not committed or incited any crime.
So here’s a little of what Mel had to say about him:
... the Holocaust denial implicit in Livingstone’s deeply offensive comparison between the Standard journalist Oliver Finegold and a concentration camp guard ... Why exactly has London’s uber-pc Mayor so completely lost it? ... the left, of which he is such a shining ornament ... prompted a terrifying increase in anti-Jewish feeling ... In other words, it’s open season on the Jews ... not only suggested the journalist had been a German war criminal but merely dug himself even further into the hole after being told that the Finegold was Jewish. Holocaust denial and anti-Jewish offensiveness is in the political air that Livingstone breathes ... The Mayor of London is not fit for public office. (“Livingstone’s true colours”, The Daily Mail, 15th February 2005)
By Melanie Phillips’ own clearly expressed principles she should have disagreed with what Livingstone said but strongly supported his right to say it. Instead, like the Jewish hypocrite she is, she joined the hysterical “victim group” chorus calling for his resignation. And note her typically Jewish dishonesty over what Livingstone had actually said. He did not suggest that the journalist had been a “German war criminal” but compared him to a “concentration camp guard.” It is a matter of plain historical fact that Jews served as concentration camp guards under communism and it is clearly ridiculous to say that Livingstone was “denying the Holocaust”, but Mel is plugging the “Eternal Victim” line and doesn’t want history or a sense of proportion getting in the way.
Then again, maybe I’m being too harsh on her. After all, once is chance and twice is coincidence – it’s only the third time you know it’s enemy action. Mel had two chances to support the free speech of someone she disagreed with and failed miserably, so let’s see how she did with her third chance. In November 2005 the British historian David Irving was arrested in Austria to be put on trial for a speech he had made seventeen years before questioning the official history of Auschwitz.
This was a much more important story than the police merely questioning a “homophobe” for comments on the radio, and “the left” that Mel so despises was certainly buzzing with the news. Here’s a comment from one of its shining ornaments, a Jew who describes himself as a wavering “athiest” (sic) and a “rather liberal, tolerant person with chums from a wide range of cultural and religious backgrounds”:
Friday, November 18, 2005: David Irving arrested
Although I first found out on Jo’s Journal [a blog run by a Jewish lesbian NuLabourite], I haven’t got around to blogging about it (although I did help update the wikipedia article – Go team me!), I’m pleased to report that racist “historian” and and [sic] denier of the Shoah David Irving has been arrested in Austria, and could face 20 years in prison. Hurrah!
# posted by AnthroPax @ 17:54 3 Glorious Comrades! | T (0)
It’s no surprise to find a Jew who hates free speech and has “Glorious Comrades!” at work on Kikipedia, but if we apply Melanie Phillips’ own principle to what Irving said – “Free speech should only be constrained in extreme circumstances where a crime may be committed” – we can only conclude that she would be speaking up loud and clear in Irving’s defense. As I said, this was much more important than the radio “homophobe”, who was also explicitly named and supported by the Canadian Jewish journalist Mark Steyn:
Lynette Burrows has been investigated by police merely for expressing an opinion. Which is the sort of thing we used to associate with police states. Indeed, it’s the defining act of a police state: the arbitrary criminalisation of dissent from state orthodoxy. Hollywood stars are forever complaining about the “crushing of dissent” in Bush’s America, by which they mean Tim Robbins having a photo-op at the Baseball Hall of Fame cancelled because he’s become an anti-war bore. But, thanks to the First Amendment, he can say anything he likes without the forces of the state coming round to grill him. It’s in Britain and Europe where dissent is being crushed. (The Daily Telegraph, 13th December 2005)
So what have those stern defenders of free speech Mel’n’Mark said about David Irving as he faces the Goliath of the Austrian state? Well, thanks to the wonders of modern technology and the Jewggle search-engine, you can find out in seconds by scanning the contents of Mel’n’Mark’s websites. Here are the results:
Your search – site:www.melaniephillips.com "David Irving" Austria – did not return any documents.
Your search – site:www.steynonline.com "David Irving" Austria – did not return any documents.
Yep, Jew Mark Steyn and Jewess Melanie Phillips illustrate yet again the Eternal Truth: when “Vot’s good for us?” meets “Vot’s good for goys?” in the mind of a kike, it’s a knockout in the first second of the first round for the Yid Kid.