Britain's Students: The New Fascists?

A thought-provoking piece by Brendan O'Neill.

Perhaps you can read it if you think provoking thought is a good thing.

Though Brendan also does seem fond of being merely provocative.

And if you put something in a Daily Mail banner headline, you can forgive people who think you're now just Melanie Phillips in man drag.

Cuba: An Affront To LGBT Freedom Of Speech

Equality Forum, a national and international LGBT civil rights organization, calls on the U.S. State Department to allow Mariela Castro, a Cuban LGBT civil rights activist, to visit Philadelphia for Equality Forum 2013.  The State Department issued a visa to Ms. Castro to visit New York for U.N. meetings, but did not authorize Ms. Castro to travel to Philadelphia to participate in Equality Forum 2013 with Cuba as the Featured Nation.
“Over the past 11 years, Equality Forum has invited leaders of the featured nation to attend. For those who needed a visa, all past visas have been approved,” stated Malcolm Lazin, Executive Director, Equality Forum.  “It is shocking that our State Department would deny Ms. Castro travel to a civil rights summit – especially one held in the birthplace of our democracy that enshrines freedoms of speech and assembly.”
The daughter of Cuban President Raul Castro, Mariela is married and the mother of three children. She is the head of CENESEX, a Havana-based organization which campaigns for effective AIDS prevention as well as recognition and acceptance of LGBT human rights.  She has published 13 scholarly articles and nine books.  She is a vocal leader in fighting homophobia in Cuba and advocating for same-sex marriage...

From a statement issued by Equality Forum. 

O America - land of the free!
Once more the US State Department causes irony to die laughing.
This is so daft, even by their usual standards, I wouldn't be surprised if the ban is quietly overturned.

PS Here's something I wrote on how some American gay media covered Mariela Castro's visit to the US last year - with reports, but of course, centred around the "outrage" of right-wing Cuban-American loopy groups.
Dare I check today's coverage?

Update: Yup, the decision was overturned April 30th. 

Peter Tatchell: His Right To Write Rubbish

It's difficult to write about freedom of speech without falling back on the same tired old truisms/cliches.
Ah Voltaire! Ah Mill! Ah Twain! Ah Orwell! 
The First Amendment. 
"Don't shout 'Ice creams and choc-ices!' in a crowded theatre" etc etc.
Peter Tatchell seemed hellbent on proving this in a piece he wrote yesterday on Why Banning The Anti-gay Bus Advert Is Wrong.
"They are offensive but being offensive is not a legitimate basis for banning anything. In a free society there is no right to not be offended... Free speech is for everyone - even those with whom we disagree."
Thanks Peter, but I think we knew that.
However this is not about censorship or "freedom of speech".
Have Core Issues Trust been stopped from promoting their pernicious message in any other way?
Has the state stepped in to stamp them out?
How is hijacking public space with a commercial advert a victory for free speech?
Further a company like Transport For London should be free to choose which adverts they carry.
If Pink News or GT had been asked to run the "ex-gay" ad should they have meekly done so?
Of course not - it's a simple and uncontroversial editorial decision - as was TFL's really.
Just like New Statesman and The Guardian - two sites that ran Peter's piece - are under no obligation to run endless articles on the wonders of Neo-Liberal capitalism.
If Tatchell were continually heckled at a talk so as he could not speak would he be wrong to ask for them to shut up or leave (Chomsky does this, by the way, saying they should organise their own meeting).
If the BNP asked Peter to put a poster in his window would he do so?
For someone who talks so much sense, Peter Tatchell doesn't half say some rubbish sometimes.
Of course I'd defend to the death his right to do so.

Peter Tatchell: Insulting

'Insults are unpleasant, but should they be a crime? In 1994 I organised a small peaceful protest against Hizb ut-Tahrir. Members of this Islamist group had endorsed the killing of Jews, gays, apostates and women who have sex outside marriage. I displayed placards that documented the persecution of gay people by Islamist fanatics.
'I was arrested and charged under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 with behaviour that was deemed insulting and likely to cause distress. I fought the charges and won, but not before spending many hours in police cells and standing trial.
'This experience convinced me that Section 5 is open to abuse by over- zealous police and prosecutors. That’s why I am supporting today’s launch of the Reform Section 5 campaign. 'Spearheaded by David Davis, the Tory MP, it brings together an alliance that includes those who would otherwise be foes, such as the Christian Institute and the National Secular Society.
'We’ve sunk our differences to defend free speech. The open exchange of ideas — including unpalatable, even offensive ones — is the hallmark of a free, democratic society. The Section 5 ban on insults is a menace to liberty...'

Peter Tatchell writing for The Times' Thunderer.
The full version of this article can also be read on Peter Tatchell's website.

• Reform Section 5 campaign.

Freedom Of Speech: A Bad Ad For God

Below is the Westboro Baptist Church's predictably charming statement marking the Supreme Court holding up their first amendment right to freedom of speech.
Fagburn agrees with the ruling - that freedom of speech also means freedom of hate speech.
I kinda agree with much in this piece in the LA Times; The Right To Be Vile.
One thing it doesn't cover is when does something like this - serial picketing of funerals with offensive placards and chants - become harrassment; if a work colleague or neighbour calls me "fucking faggot" every day that's not protected as a freedom in the UK or the US, surely?
Whatever, the God Hates Fags guys and gals are such a bad ad for the anti-gay Christian Right, I say let them do some more damage to themselves.
Talking of ads and god... The British Humanist Association has just started an ad campaign running on buses and billboards across the UK; "Not religious? Say so on this year's census form."
It's been banned outright by CBS Outdoors - the company that owns advertising space in UK railway stations.
The BHA poster will still run elsewhere, but this one is also a censored version.
The Committee of Advertising Practice told them the original had the potential to cause "widespread" and "serious offence".
The offending slogan? "If you're not religious, for god's sake say so."
Which surely means they found the word "god" offensive.

Ann Widdecombe On Dale McAlpine: No Offence

Is it worth even documenting that Ann Widdecombe has used her column in the Daily Express to defend some homophobic Christian crank?
"The best outcome of the police arresting a street preacher called Dale McAlpine for saying that homosexual acts are sinful (no more than the teaching of most major religions) is not the compensation of £7,000 which they have now been obliged to pay him but the issuing of guidance to police telling them that the right to free speech means the right to express unpopular views..."
Much of what Widdecombe argues today are such bland truisms that Fagburn finds himself agreeing with her.
"In a free society a person should even be able to call for the outlawing of homosexual acts, zero immigration or women not allowed to work and meet with raised eyebrows rather than handcuffs and the cells. What we once would have regarded as cranky we now regard as criminal. If anything shocks us there is an immediate call for a law against it..."
Yes, there have been a couple of Christian nutters being visited by the police after doing something "allegedly" homophobic - but Widdecombe must be aware that if a complaint is made against someone then the police have a duty to talk to both parties.
Dale McAlpine was charged under the Public Order Act with using "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress."
He was shouting/preaching/being annoying in a west Cumbrian shopping centre, and told a passing shopper homosexuality is a sin.
A Community Support Officer went and had a quiet word, and they got into a lively discussion.
You can watch Dale McAlpine being spoken to and arrested thanks to the Christian Institute.
The Crown Prosecution Service dropped the case.
That's what the CPS is there to do; if someone from the police service has acted overzealously or been a bit daft.
It's only worth wibbling on about in print if you have a hidden agenda of trying to portray Christian bigots as a persecuted minority, as Ann Widdecombe does.
The mendacious ballroom dancing batty old witch - no offence.

Thought For The Day: Salman Rushdie

"I think that we live in a very timid age, and part of our timidity arises from our unwillingness to offend people. And as a result there are whole tribes of people now who define themselves by their offendedness. Who are you if you are not offended by anything? You're nobody, you know? Or even worse, you're a liberal. I just think that whole business of defining yourself by anger is very problematic, and then the fact that we all bend over backwards not to induce that anger becomes very often also a problem, and a kind of cowardice if you like. I think we just need to live in a more robust society in which people say things that other people don't like. And the answer to that is not to throw a bomb at them, but to say 'I don't like that much' and get on with the next business."

Salman Rushdie, Open Book.
I should make it clear that I find a lot of things Salman Rushdie has said offensive, but I like this quote very much.