free speech
All posts tagged free speech
The Lecture by Emory University’s George Yancy which Wheaton College Doesn’t want the Public to Hear
Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois is supposed to be a ‘Christian’ school; albeit new evangelical. However, in September 2017 Wheaton’s Philosophy Department sponsored a talk by Emory University’s Dr. George Yancy on the subject “A Post-Racial America? White Gazes and Black Bodies.”
Photo by McKenzie Gallagher
There is a youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twoexLfmGSg&feature=youtu.be) that gives 16 minutes audio of Yancy’s lecture but it is such a gutter expletive-filled talk that it will not be included here. Honestly, any truly born again growing in the Christian faith person would have a hard time listening to more than two minutes at the most of Yancy’s lecture.
So, why mention Yancy’s foul-mouthed hate-filled reverse racist speech anyway? Well, Yancy’s talk reveals several points.
- It reveals how much further Wheaton College has drifted from the Word of God.
- It reveals that a person would not receive a solid Christian education from the Word of God at Wheaton.
- It reveals the moral qualities (or lack thereof) distinctive to George Yancy.
- It reveals what is taught in the philosophy departments at Wheaton and Emory.
- It reveals that Dr. Yancy has an anger issue.
- It reveals Dr. Yancy has a spiritual problem.
- It reveals what reversed racism sounds like.
- It reveals the low morals of the listeners when a professor from an ‘esteemed’ University uses words in a lecture that even a sailor would have blushed at fifty years ago. Here are some responses from those who went to this lecture.‘September 21, 2017
On Sept. 14, George Yancy, professor of philosophy at Emory University spoke in Barrows Auditorium about the idea of a “post-racial America.” His lecture, entitled “White Gazes and Black Bodies” was the first event in the philosophy department’s 2017-18 speaker series. Yancy is widely known for his 2015 opinion piece published in the New York Times entitled “Dear White America,” in which he asserted that American whites — whether intentionally or not — engage in racist acts daily as part of an inherently racist society. In the letter, Yancy asks white Americans “to speak to, to admit to, the racist poison that is inside of you.” Yancy covered similar themes in his lecture and sparked a variety of reactions on campus. The Record collected a few responses to the lecture.
Lillia Smith:
I am still wrestling with everything Dr. George Yancy explained and the event itself, which I mean in an incredible way. I left feeling frustrated that I have not been this uncomfortable and frustrated all along. Dr. George Yancy drew a beautiful parallel when he described that we are constantly striving to be anti-racist, but we will never “arrive,” just as we are constantly striving to be Christ-like, but we will never “arrive” there on this earth. To use Dr. Yancy’s words, we should be in crisis and should constantly be practicing double consciousness, which is only attainable through empathy.
Sadie Flora:
It was very eye opening and something I think everyone needs to consider. It really made me think how every white person is racist by association and put a desire in me to want to learn more from my black brothers and sisters.
Dr. Adam Wood:
Dr. Adam Wood
It’s obviously hard to be told that one is a racist. I’m a white American, so his message was partly aimed at me, and part of the message was, you’re a racist, Wood. It’s always hard to be told that you’re guilty of a sin … but as Christians, we’re told pretty constantly when we go to church and read our Bibles that we are guilty of all manner of different sins, so I think that’s a message that we should be open to.’ http://www.wheatonrecord.com/news/responses-dr-yancys-lecture/
8. It reveals that the parents who pay for this ‘Christian’ education do not know or care what their child hears or is taught.
Dr. Yancy, Wheaton College and those who heard him may think they got away with it but God has something to say concerning Dr. Yancy’s lecture and those who listened. Ephesians 4:29 Let no corrupt (bad, worthless) communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.
30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.
31 Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice
Then in Chapter 5 and verse 4 the Word tells the believer that one’s speech is not to be “Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting”.
Now, a few remarks about Yancy and the words he used in getting his point across. First, his words were corrupt or as Strong’s Concordance says ‘rotten, i.e. worthless (literally or morally):–bad’. Secondly, they were words that displayed a bitterness and anger of heart. Thirdly, Yancy’s words were filthy and foolish.
As for those who listened to Yancy’s lecture God’s Word says to the believer in Ephesians 5:6 Let no man deceive you with vain (empty) words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. 7 Be not ye (believers) therefore partakers with them. (Listening to Yancy and not reproving him is being a partaker) 8 For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light (A believer once spoke foolishly and perhaps filthy words but not now due to their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit).
So what ought to happen? George Yancy needs to repent and get saved and Wheaton College and those professors involved need to (1) repent and get saved or (2) if saved repent of allowing a man like Yancy speak on campus and (3) apologize to those who heard Yancy and explain Biblically why Yancy’s words were not those that a born again believer should use. Enough said!
‘LifeSite was not the only website blacklisted by its web host this week, with free speech social network Gab losing its web host Joyent late on Saturday and being given until just Monday morning to migrate to another host.
On Saturday, Gab claimed the blacklisting could leave the social network offline for weeks, and as of writing, Gab is currently offline.’ https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/10/29/christian-news-site-lifesite-blackhosted-by-web-host/
Who’s next?!
Australia seems to be in a rush to catch Europe and the UK in punishing people for speaking what they believe to be true. For example: ‘Television host Sonia Kruger has become a poster girl for Far-Right groups in Australia after a vilification complaint was made against her when she called for an end to Muslim migration.
The groups claim the case against Kruger is an attack on free speech, and believe she is being persecuted for speaking her mind when she said during a segment on Channel Nine’s Today program in 2016 that there was a correlation between the number of terror attacks in a country, and the number of Muslim people who lived there.
“Personally I would like to see [Muslim migration] stopped now for Australia. Because I want to feel safe, as all of our citizens do, when they go out to celebrate Australia Day,” she said during the segment.
Muslim man Sam Ekermawi filed a racial vilification complaint against Kruger, which the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal recently ruled will be given a full hearing.
What is unlawful vilification
Unlawful vilification is inciting hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of a person, or group of people, because of an attribute like their race, religion, ethnic origin, sexuality or gender identity.’ http://discriminationclaims.com.au/i-stand-with-sonia-tv-host-poster-girl-for-far-right/
This is the television spot that got Sonia into all this trouble.
Well, exactly what is vilification?
‘Definition of vilification
Vilification is inciting hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of a person, or group of persons, because of their race, religion, sexuality, or gender identity, by a public act.
Other definitions
Race can include a person’s colour, ethnicity or nationality, descent or ancestry.
Religion includes a belief system or the absence of a belief system.
Sexuality means heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality.
Gender identity means that a person identifies as a member of the opposite sex by living or seeking to live as a member of that sex, or is of indeterminate sex and seeks to live a member of a particular sex.
A public act is any form of communication to the public, such as speaking, writing, printing, displaying notices and messages on the internet and social media.
It also includes conduct observable by the public, including actions, gestures, wearing or display of clothing, signs, flags, emblems or insignia.
Incite means to urge on, stimulate or prompt action.
Hatred is an extreme or intense dislike or detestation.
Contempt is the attitude that someone is worthless or of little account, that involves looking down upon or treating that person as inferior.
Ridicule is to make fun of, deride or laugh at.’ http://discriminationclaims.com.au/vilification/
Now, consider the following which occurred under a Federal Labor Government in 2012.
‘ONE of the Muslim world’s best-known and most successful motivational speakers, Tareq Al Suwaidan, is about to start another tour of Australia, following a sell-out visit two years ago… His opening address, this Saturday, will be at the Robert Blackwood hall at Monash University in Melbourne, before further lectures in Melbourne and Sydney, finishing on June 18… Dr Suwaidan – who lectures in English in Australia – is a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Kuwait, and general manager of Al-Resalah (The Message), an Arabic language satellite TV station funded by Prince al-Waleed bin Talal of Saudi Arabia…. In an interview for Al-Quds, a TV station affiliated with Hamas, he said 10 weeks ago: “I can change the positions of some Westerners, but at the end of the day, power lies with the politicians, who are influenced by two things only: money and the media, both of which are controlled by the Jews. “So we must not rely on Western aid or on Western popular sympathy. These are minor things. We rely upon Allah and then upon our armed resistance in obtaining our rights.” He said his foremost cause is that of Palestine and Jerusalem. “The most dangerous thing facing the Muslims is not the (Arab) dictatorships. The absolutely most dangerous thing is the Jews. They are the greatest enemy.”‘ https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/go-to-monash-uni-for-another-lecture-on-the-enemies-of-allah/news-story/6342761cdc7724ed9ca0a3c32e78c897
Sadly, in Australia the freedom of speech is only for a few; so it seems.
The words Melbourne, Australia, and freedom do not seem to go together when it comes to standing for Israel against Islamic protesting against Israel.
‘Silence from us pesky Christians is what elites want.
We have no business putting forward an alternative vision for marriage and gender, we were told not once, but twice this week.
The new Australia they are trying to create excludes a Christian worldview from the public square.
First there was Labor Senate Leader Penny Wong asserting that separation of church and state meant Christians should stay out of the marria
ge and “safe schools” debates.
Really? Why should one group of Australians be disbarred from debate about laws which affect children and freedoms while other Australians are allowed to participate?
Separation of church and state is important but it was never designed to exclude religious people from public policy debates. Penny Wong should know better.
All Australians should be free to have their say on any issue – especially marriage and “safe schools”.
But it is frightening for free speech in this country that no-one pulled her up.
Media were quite happy to report her critique of ACL, but our reply was ignored.
Secondly, news broke at the weekend that the Australian Medical Association is campaigning to redefine marriage because it is a mental health issue.
Dr John Hayes kindly provided me a copy of this letter he has sent to a major newspaper.
Dear Sir,
The Federal AMA leadership has lost credibility by claiming that denying homosexuals the right to marry is detrimental to their mental health. This is pure spin and has no scientific basis. The truth is the AMA has capitulated to intense Media pressure from the Gay Lobby, led by former AMA president, Dr Kerryn Phelps, whose comment that “Christians now have nowhere to hide” is sectarian bigotry unbecoming of a former AMA president.
Ordinary AMA members were denied a vote on this issue, whereas in 2016, members were given a say and overwhelmingly rejected Euthanasia.
Regards,
Dr John Hayes, AMA member
I’ve met Dr Kerryn Phelps. We were on the ABC1’s Q&A program together. Off camera, we got along well despite our disagreement about redefining marriage.
Her comment at the weekend that “Christians have nowhere to hide” is a worry.
We need to be determined not to hide. This is a time to have courage and to speak up for the truth about marriage and why gender diversity in it matters.’ http://www.acl.org.au/why_we_need_to_speak_up_while_we_can?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=eNews%2023%20May%202017&utm_content=eNews%2023%20May%202017+CID_825f846005b996499a64ace7f659ec7f&utm_source=CreateSend&utm_term=Read%20Lyles%20blog
In Australia the left leaning ABC’s ‘…Q&A panellists launched into an emotive discussion around freedom of speech, largely powered by the absence of controversial anti-Islamic activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali who was due to appear as a member of Monday night’s panel.
While the exact “security concerns”, among other reasons, that led to Ms Hirsi Ali’s 
cancelled Australian tour remain unconfirmed, Federal Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg blamed it on the need to reform Section 18C to “protect and promote freedom of speech”.
“It is very regrettable people have sought to prevent her coming to Australia because they see her as the enemy of tolerance. I see her as an enemy of intolerance,” Mr Frydenberg said.
“Personally I don’t agree with everything that she has said about Islam but … she sends a very powerful message as well about how secular laws should be above Sharia law.
“My view is she would have received a lot of support here in Australia for airing what are somewhat controversial views. And she should be allowed to speak her mind and people who disagree with her should be able to challenge that. That’s the point of a free country like Australia.”
But Q&A host Tony Jones suggested the security concerns were exaggerated, citing a petition which expressed “disappointment” in response to Ms Hirsi Ali’s Australian tour that attracted fewer than 400 signatories.
Mr Frydenberg said he was “shocked” that the petition had garnered the support of psychologists, doctors, lawyers and community activists; all in agreement that she should not visit Australia and speak her mind.
Shadow Human Rights Minister Linda Burney said she found Mr Frydenberg’s comments “ironic”.
“It seems a little ironic that the party that was arguing against freedom of speech would propose it here tonight,” she said.
The Australian editor-at-large Paul Kelly agreed Ms Hirsi Ali’s absence was “a great shame”.
“I do think that the overwhelming majority of the Australian people would have been prepared to welcome her to this country. I am disturbed at the fact we have a petition signed by about 400 people, some of them quite prominent, suggesting that she should not come to this country.
“I think this is contrary to the fundamental values of Australian democracy.
“This is a courageous and inspiring woman. Now I don’t agree with all her positions, but she certainly raised fundamental questions about Islam which we should be prepared to debate as a society, debate and confront frankly.”
Former Danish prime minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt said freedom of speech should have no limits.
“Of course she should have the right to come to Australia to put her points of view across,” she said.
“This is what democracy is all about.”
While Nobel Peace Prize winner and social entrepreneur Muhammad Yunus said he agreed that everyone had the right to speak freely, he moved that there should be limitation when opinions were reduced to insults.
“You can come up with your opinion about certain aspects of Islam and so on. But that should not go into a level of inciting people, and kind of bringing intolerance into the discussion. The key thing is intolerance … You do it in a friendly way.
“Freedom of speech doesn’t give you the licence to insult somebody, cut down the respect and the feelings of other people.”
Ms Thorning-Schmidt argued that if freedom of speech was limited, it could silence people trying to bring about important social change.
“When women were fighting for their rights in the ’60s and ’70s, I think a lots of people thought they had a very insulting tone to some of the men they were fighting against,” she said.
“I think you have to use a language — not an insulting language if you can avoid it — but you can’t limit freedom of speech. But you can be responsible for how you use it … That’s what is lacking in the world.”’ http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2017/04/03/ayaan-hirsi-alis-absence-freedom-speech/?utm_source=Responsys&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20170404_TND
Is Ayaan Ali anti-Islam as much as she is pro-free speech and women’s rights? Australia has a very small percentage of Muslims but they carry a lot of clout and therefore people such as Ali and Gert Wilder receive death threats and much opposition when they come to Australia. So much for freedom of speech!
Much like the Gestapo’s power to render anyone an enemy of the state, the FBI has the
power to label anyone a domestic terrorist.
As part of the government’s so-called ongoing war on terror, the nation’s de facto secret police force has begun using the terms “anti-government,” “extremist” and “terrorist” interchangeably. Moreover, the government continues to add to its growing list of characteristics that can be used to identify an individual (especially anyone who disagrees with the government) as a potential domestic terrorist. For instance, you might be a domestic terrorist in the eyes of the FBI (and its network of snitches) if you:
- express libertarian philosophies (statements, bumper stickers)
- exhibit Second Amendment-oriented views (NRA or gun club membership)
- read survivalist literature, including apocalyptic fictional books
- show signs of self-sufficiency (stockpiling food, ammo, hand tools, medical supplies)
- fear an economic collapse
- buy gold and barter items
- subscribe to religious views concerning the book of Revelation
- voice fears about Big Brother or big government
- expound about constitutional rights and civil liberties
- believe in a New World Order conspiracy’ https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/the_fbi_the_silent_terror_of_the_fourth_reich
Here is testimony to the fact that California is truly the Land of Fruit and Nuts.
Canada: Parliament Condemns Free Speech
by Judith Bergman • November 10, 2016 at 5:00 am
- “Now that Islamophobia has been condemned, this is not the end, but rather the beginning.” — Samer Majzoub, president of the Canadian Muslim Forum. Majzoub is affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood.
- What exactly are they condemning? Criticism of Islam? Criticism of Muslims? Debating Mohammed? Depicting Mohammed? Discussing whether ISIS is a true manifestation of Islam? Is any Canadian who now writes critically of Islam or disagrees with the petitioners that ISIS “does not reflect in any way the values or the teachings of the religion of Islam” now to be considered an “Islamophobe”?
- The question, naturally, is whether Canada’s motion will be replicated in other parliaments in the West. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is particularly active in Europe, having opened a Permanent Observer Mission to the European Union in 2013.
- In what parallel universe can the efforts of the OIC to stifle free speech possibly be considered advancement of freedom of speech and religion?
- As the OIC steps up its media campaign and efforts in Europe, European parliaments are likely to experience initiatives like the petition in Canada. The European Union, for one, looks as if it would be to happy facilitate such a motion.”
“On October 26, Canada’s parliament unanimously passed an anti-Islamophobia motion, which was the result of a petition initiated by Samer Majzoub, president of the Canadian Muslim Forum.”
whatyareckon 