China analyst Gordon Chang, author of “The Coming Collapse of China,” discusses Chinese Communist Party paid propaganda in American news outlets, how Beijing interfered in the U.S. elections, and why China is building a massive DNA database of people all over the world.
Freedom of the Press
All posts tagged Freedom of the Press
1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind
The above Scripture would be offensive, I suppose, to those who were involved in those acts. However, should one be silenced from quoting that Scripture in public because they someone may be offended from what God’s Word says?
The UK government seems to be kowtowing to Islam when it comes to what may or may not be printed in the press concerning Islam. For example, ‘The press regulator guidelines on Islamophobia were leaked this week and reveal a serious threat to press freedom when it comes to Islam related issues.
Newspapers and magazines are regulated by the Independent Press Standard 
Organisation (Ipso) which was set up in 2014 following the phone-hacking scandal. For months, Ipso has been working on a project to draft guidance for journalists on how to report on issues connected with Islam and Muslims. Drafts of this guidance were leaked to the thinktank Policy Exchange which has issued a report about the revelations.
Miqdaad Versi’s influence
Miqdaad Versi is a prominent member of the Muslim Council of Britain. He has made it his personal mission to complain about so called ‘Islamophobia’ in UK media. He has issued multiple complaints to Ipso and frequently obtains corrections or apologies. In one case he succeeded by complaining to Ipso in getting mainstream newspapers to issue an correction stating “We are happy to make clear that Islam as a religion does not support so-called honour killings.” This correction notice is actually false. At the very least, there are many Muslims who would disagree with it. Backing in Islamic texts for killing someone who has apostatised is found here. Will Heaven cites a national newspaper editor as confirming that he frequently corrects stories when Versi complains about them as this will put a stop to a deluge of emails which will follow if no correction is published.
It turns out that Versi is a member of the group which has been drawing up the new guidelines about Islam and Muslims. This means that he will soon be complaining to Ipso about stories he objects to, using guidance which he helped to draft. In other words, someone with a vested interest has helped draft the guidance which he will later use for his own ends. Will Heaven explains that in the commercial sphere this is known as ‘regulatory capture’ which means that he will be able use his own rules to his own advantage.
Versi is an activist who wants to dictate what the media can and cannot say about Islam. He controls the Muslim Council of Britain’s ‘Centre for Media Monitoring’ which issues reports about supposed ‘Islamophobia’ in UK media. There is a serious question to answer as to why Versi was involved in drawing up Ipso guidelines at all?
The proposed guidance
A key paragraph in the proposed guidance is the following:
“Journalists should be aware that their content can have an impact on the wider community and on how minority communities are treated. Inaccuracies and insensitivities can damage communities and prevents their accurate representation. They can also contribute to members of communities feeling divorced from, or misunderstood, by the media. Finally, inaccuracies and unbalanced coverage can work to increase tension between communities, which can make harassment more likely.”
Is it really the fault of journalists if minority communities are badly treated or harassed? I am all for accurate reporting, but who defines what is ‘sensitive’? Assuming it is accurate, would it be insensitive to report that a terrorist attack was carried out by a Muslim who explicitly stated he was inspired by the Qur’an and the example of Muhammad?
Then who defines ‘unbalanced’? The media can be accused by every campaign group and political party in the country of being ‘unbalanced’. For one thing, they focus much more on negative news than positive news. Is that something a regulator should interfere with though? Where will this lead to in terms of press freedom? What happens when the regulator complains that your reporting is ‘unbalanced’? Does that sound like a free country?
If the media worries about causing offence then we do not have a free press. It is already the case, as the Casey Review pointed out, that too many public institutions shy away from tackling Islam related issues for fear of being branded ‘Islamophobic’. If the press also felt constrained then we could have been living in a world in which there was no reporting about the ‘Trojan Horse’ affair in Birmingham, or of Islamic rape gangs which has at least led to convictions and girls taken out of shocking abuse.
Who are ‘experts’?
Another disturbing warning in the guidance is the following:
“Identifying the ‘right’ person to speak to can be extremely challenging and journalists should be aware that individuals and organisations may have different interpretations of a particular belief.”
“Does the person you are speaking to have the relevant expertise?”
Clearly there will be different interpretations, but does that mean that one cannot state what the Bible or the Qur’an clearly say? Who decides ‘expertise’ in this context? Perhaps it will be someone who doesn’t agree with that interpretation?
An earlier draft talked of ‘representativeness’ rather than ‘expertise’. Policy Exchange point out that this is a frequent complaint of Miqdaad Versi and the MCB who want the exclusive right to determine who represents Muslims in the UK. This kind of argument can also be made in terms of ‘expertise’. Ipso appears to be openly facilitating this agenda from the MCB and Miqdaad Versi. This is in spite of the fact that the government does not engage with the MCB because of concerns about its association with extremism. This does not bode well for freedom of the press.
Defining ‘Islamophobia’
Versi is a vocal supporter of the proposed APPG definition of Islamophobia. I have warned about the dangers of this definition for free speech here. Several other advisors to Ipso on the guidance have also publicly supported the APPG definition. Whilst the government has rejected this definition, it seems that Ipso is moving down this line in providing guidance which can be used to censor criticism of Islam.
A chilling effect
There is already a ‘chilling effect’ reported by editors and journalists in relation to how they report about stories that touch on Islam and Muslims. Will Heaven is right to note that “there is a degree of self-censorship going on” when it comes to Islam. Some of our top investigative journalists have been labelled ‘Islamophobic’ for their reporting on rape gangs for example.
Ipso is moving in a disturbing direction. It appears to be aiding and abetting an activist agenda to protect Islam and Muslims from offence. Is this an appropriate role for a press regulator? Furthermore, they have accepted Miqdaad Versi and the MCB as the representatives of Muslims in the UK – a very dubious representation. Are there Christian representatives, or for that matter Jewish, Hindu or Sikh representatives? And would Jews, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, or even Muslims want to be represented by one particular group, let alone individual?
Religious thought police
Trevor Phillips, former head of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, wrote the foreword to the Policy Exchange report. He is scathing in his criticism of Ipso, arguing that it is: “putting a veto in the hands of self-appointed community spokespeople, or ‘media monitors’ – in effect a religious thought police, which might not seem out of place in Turkey or Saudi Arabia, but which should have no function in the UK.”
He continues:
“What is most worrying is that, increasingly, those charged with the responsibility to resist this creeping censorship and disguised segregation are quietly surrendering to its advocates. In many cases the reason is a fear of ‘causing offence’. Yet, the job of a journalist is to tell the truth irrespective of the feelings of those involved, if there is a public interest. But increasingly, the words ‘public interest’ are being read as ‘opinion of a well-organised, well-funded, persistent and ruthless lobby.”
Press freedom is about to fall
Philips concludes: “If we give way to the demands being made, the only people who will find themselves silenced will be those who want to tell the truth.”
The freedom of the press is under threat from Muslim activists who want to control what is said about Islam. Ipso, the press regulator, is capitulating to their demands. Unless things change, press freedom is set to fall. Truth will be the victim.’ https://christianconcern.com/comment/islamic-thought-police-target-the-press/
Australia will be voting the 18th May, 2019 for a new Federal Government which means also a new Prime Minister. Bill Shorten is the leader of the Australian Labor Party and is seeking the PM position after being the leader of the opposition for six years.
Now, the main purpose of this article is what Bill Shorten said in the third PM debate. 
‘Mr Shorten then surprised by arguing strongly for religious freedoms, before adding he doesn’t believe in Hell.
“People should be free to practise their religion,” Mr Shorten said.
“… Mr Morrison is right. It’s a contractual negotiation at one level, but I’m uneasy about where that debate’s gone.
“On one hand, I think Israel Folau is entitled to his views. And he shouldn’t suffer an employment penalty for it … But I also think that we’ve got to be mindful about the other side of the equation.
“People putting out on social media that if you’re gay you’re going to go to Hell, I get that’s what he genuinely believes.
“I don’t think if you’re gay you’re going to go to Hell. I don’t know if Hell exists actually. But I don’t think if it does that being gay is what sends you there. So I am uneasy.”’ https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/election-2019/2019/05/09/no-need-to-get-nasty-pm-and-labor-leader-trade-policy-blows-in-final-leaders-debate/
So, Bill Shorten doesn’t believe in Hell but he does claim to be a Christian. ‘“I am a Christian and a supporter of marriage equality under the law”. – Bill Shorten’ https://www.eternitynews.com.au/archive/kind-christian-bill-shorten/
What is scary in what Shorten and the present Prime Minister say is that they believe in religious freedom but if your religious beliefs are verbally voiced, such as Israel Folau’s were, then that can be hate speech. PM Morrison said “Free speech is one of our fundamental freedoms, so is religious freedom. I feel this very strongly. I mentioned it in my maiden speech to the Parliament. If you’re not free to believe, what are you free to do in this country?”
“Freedom of speech is important, but we have to exercise it responsibly and exercise it in a society such as ours with civility and due care and consideration to others.”
Now, what did Israel Folau say? 
To a Bible-believing Christian all Israel did was quote the Bible and say what it means and that is, those that commit such sins will not go to Heaven! However, it must be admitted that those words would not go well with those committing those sins. For instance, Alan Joyce of Qantas Airlines (which is also a sponsor of the team Israel plays for) is a Sodomite and he personally took offense. Does that mean Israel doesn’t have the liberty to say what he believes? Joyce as head of Qantas had plenty to say when Australia was getting ready to vote for so-called same-sex marriage. Even though Joyce’s words offended many who did not hold his view he had the freedom to state what he believed. The same should be for Israel Folau!
But, my point in all of this is Bill Shortens statement ‘I don’t know if Hell exists’. Therefore, let me seek to show that according to the Bible there is a place of torment waiting for unrepentant sinners.
First, what makes mankind different from all other creatures? Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. That statement carries a lot with it which would take more time than we have here but one thing it is saying is that man is eternal. No other creature is said to be in the image of God other than mankind! It is this God of which it is said in Isaiah 57:15 For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity…
God is eternal and mankind will live eternally with Him, which is called ‘eternal life’ or live that which is called the ‘second death’ in Revelation 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
Some will argue over interpretations but taking the PLAIN SENSE of Scripture certainly makes COMMON SENSE. Paul declared we are to be “comparing spiritual things with spiritual” which is Scripture compared with Scripture.
In concluding, there are at least three things that stand out here.
- Both men seeking the office of PM say they are Christians. PM Morrison is a member of a Pentecostal church and Shorten of an Anglican church. Pentecostals historically have believed in a real hell but contemporary Anglicans perhaps not so much. Nevertheless, whether one believes or does not believe there is a real hell doesn’t do away with the reality of such a place.
- Freedom of speech should not even be questioned in a free society! Whether one’s speech, written or verbalized, disagrees with another person’s lifestyle or beliefs shouldn’t restrict one’s freedom of speech!
- It seems that the stimulus for freedom to live less moral lives, such as men having sex with men, has an impact on many other things including the freedom of speech.
‘Mr Dreyfus has confirmed that if Labor is elected to government he will be considering
imposing a general standard for speech that infringes anti-discrimination law.
Under Labor’s proposal, advocates of same-sex marriage would be empowered, for example, to take legal action under 18C-style laws if they felt offended or insulted by those who publicly defended the traditional definition of marriage. Those at risk would include priests, rabbis, imams and other religious leaders who publicly oppose same-sex marriage.
Labor’s 
proposal also opens the prospect that debate over the cost of the National Disability Insurance Scheme could be truncated because of the risk of litigation by those who might feel offended or insulted.
Mr Dreyfus outlined Labor’s thinking during a panel discussion on Wednesday last week with Liberal backbencher Tim Wilson, hosted by the Jewish Community Council of Victoria.
In the video of the event, Mr Dreyfus said a Labor government hoped to consolidate all federal anti-discrimination legislation and would consider whether there should be a general standard for the type of speech that would attract liability under that law. At the moment, separate federal laws make it unlawful to discriminate against people because of their race, age, sex and sexual orientation, disability and indigeneity.
When Mr Dreyfus was asked by an audience member if section 18C should be extended to cover gender and disability, he said Mr Wilson had reminded him of the “failed project which I hope to return to of consolidating the five anti-discrimination statutes when we are next in government”.
“One of the things we’ll be looking at is this very point of whether or not we should set a standard about speech generally,” Mr Dreyfus said.
“I want to have standards set in a community which respect the dignity of every Australian. I think it’s very important and something to be fought for.”
When asked yesterday about his remarks, Mr Dreyfus said Labor would never support changes to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.
“The consolidation of discrimination law was a policy of the Gillard Labor government,” he said. “My discussion of this issue last week was clearly hypothetical, and is not relevant to the current proposed changes to section 18C which will do nothing but weaken protections against racial hate speech in this country.”
Labor’s proposal has come to light at a time when the Australian Human Rights Commission is dealing with a surge in complaints by those claiming to have been offended and insulted under section 18C. Section 18C makes it unlawful to do anything that causes people to feel offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated because of their race, colour or national or ethnic background.’ http://freedomwatch.ipa.org.au/
James Kunen (pictured left) is the author of the following.
“At noon on January 20, Inauguration Day, Donald Trump placed his grubby little hand on the nationally treasured, leather-bound Bible that had belonged to Abraham Lincoln – a holy Bible, if ever there was one – took the oath of office, and became the 45th president of these United Sates.”
And thus it came to pass – the sardonic prediction published in the Baltimore Sun on July 20, 1920, by H.L. Mencken, perhaps America’s most enduringly famous journalist:
“As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”
Well, he’s here. And where does that leave me? I have felt, since the die was cast on election day, like a stranger in a strange land, no longer at home in my country. How could millions of people vote for this guy?” For more of this (if you can stomach it) go to: http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/world/2017/01/23/why-i-marched-against-donald-trump/
James Kunen is typical of those on the “deplorable” “grubby” left who are paid to write “deplorable” “grubby” material for “deplorable” “grubby” organizations. The photo below shows Kunen marching with those who are the true “grubby” “deplorables”. In fact, these “deplorable” grubby” demonstrators should be thankful they live in a country where they can wear their “deplorable” pink caps, march with other “grubby” “deplorables”and write “grubby” articles. America, where even the “grubby” “deplorables” are allowed free speech! May God bless America and its new President!
The REAL Deplorables
This cartoon infuriated the PC Police and they sought to punish its creator. Well, Brendon O’Neill puts his slant on the whole thing and it is worth a read. Only a small portion is given here to hopefully intice you to click the link and then enjoy (depending on where you stand on the PC Police).
“What could a trendy, tattooed, godless leftie in the hippest bit of Melbourne possibly have in common with an Isis-admiring Muslim who thinks it wouldn’t be all that bad if Melbourne went up in flames? Humourlessness. An urge to burn anything irreverent that irritates him.”
“With its urge to save women from saucy mags, Muslims from images of Muhammad, and indigenous people from confronting cartoons, the well-educated, white PC elite rehashes Victorian attitudes to blacks and ladies and posits itself as mender of their shaken self-esteem. You wanna see racism? Don’t look at a Leak cartoon — look at the paternalism of those who want to scrub out Leak cartoons.” http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/08/leakphobia/
The PC Police only desire to limit those who disagree with them. Others please write, draw cartoons and say whatever comes to your demented mind.
Is Freedom of the Press under seige?
With an election only months away here in Australia is this a tactic that might benefit the Labor Party?
whatyareckon 