Luke Ford | No sacred cows.

Wiesenthal Center Denounces Attempt by Russian Rodina Party to Join Forces With Western European Neo-Nazis and Fascists

Posted on March 30, 2015 by Luke Ford

Jerusalem-The Simon Wiesenthal Center today denounced a Russian international conference convened by the Rodina party (the Russian National Patriotic Union) to establish a pan-European movement to lobby for Russia’s interests with the participation of West European neo-Nazis and fascists. In a statement issued here by its director of Eastern European Affairs, Dr. Efraim Zuroff, the Center harshly criticized the participation of German Udo Voigt of the extreme right National Democratic Party in addition to representatives of Greek Golden Dawn and the founder of the Italian Fascist movement Roberto Fiore, as well as representatives from extreme right-wing parties in Great Britain, Austria, Sweden, Belgium, Denmark and Spain.
According to Zuroff:
“How can Russia, which prides itself on its staunch anti-fascist tradition and its significant role in the defeat in World War II of Nazi Germany, permit such a conference to take place with the participation of some of the worst of Hitler’s heirs? Such behavior is the antithesis of the traditional Russian opposition to Nazism and fascism and is an insult to the memory of the Red Army soldiers who sacrificed their lives to defeat the Third Reich.”

Notice how the first instinct of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and of organized Jewry in general, is to hurl slurs (such as “Hitler’s heirs”) and to try to ban speech they don’t like.

The New York Times reported March 22, 2015:

ST. PETERSBURG, Russia — A motley crew of representatives of fringe right-wing political organizations in Europe and the United States used a conference here on Sunday to denounce what they called the degradation of white, Christian traditions in the West. Their hosts used the conference to advance Russia’s effort to lure political allies of any stripe.
Railing against same-sex marriage, immigration, New York financiers, radical Islam and globalization, among other targets, one speaker after another lauded Russia and President Vladimir V. Putin as a pillar of robust, conservative, even manly values.
Mr. Putin has for some time sought international influence by casting Russia as the global guardian of traditional mores. Yet the effort has acquired new urgency, as Moscow seeks to undermine support in Europe for economic sanctions and other policies meant to isolate Moscow over its aggressive actions against Ukraine…
Jared Taylor, who runs a website called American Renaissance, said the descendants of white Europeans risked being swept away by a wave of Africans, Central Americans and Asians. The United States, which he said worshiped diversity rather than Christianity, “is the greatest enemy of tradition everywhere.”

Jared Taylor writes:

On March 22, I addressed the Russian International Conservative Forum, held in Saint Petersburg. Its purpose was to provide a forum for politicians and thinkers united in their support of national traditions and in opposition to globalism. There was a strong sentiment throughout the meeting of support for Russian sovereignty and European national independence in the face of pressure from the United States. As Yury Luybomirsky of the Russian National Cultural Center explained at the beginning of the meeting, the goal of all the participants was “to preserve national identity and culture,” and that independence from outside pressure and influence was essential for that purpose.
This was not a meeting that went unopposed. Demonstrators protested outside the conference site, and the meeting had to end early because of a telephoned bomb threat.
The meeting may have been an unprecedented assembly of European “far-right” groups, including Forza Nuova (New Force) of Italy, the National Independence Party of Finland, the Attack Party of Bulgaria, Golden Dawn of Greece, the National Democratic Party of Germany, and the newly-organized European group, the Alliance for Peace and Freedom. These parties have been tarred with the extremist labels, but are all dedicated to preserving European and national traditions.
Russia was represented by such groups as the Russian Imperial Movement, New Russia, and the editor of nationalist magazine Russian Observer. There was also a contingent of Cossacks, dressed in traditional military uniforms. The Russians strongly supported the effort to establish autonomous regions in Eastern Ukraine.
There were at least 30 speakers, all of whom gave remarks of about 10 minutes each. Most were in Russian, but the conference provided headsets for simultaneous interpretation into English. Here is a sampling.
Georgios Epitideios of Golden Dawn pointed out that 10 percent of the population of Greece is now composed of illegal immigrants, and that a mass influx of foreigners jeopardized national identity. He denounced the Greek government’s efforts–including imprisonment of party leaders–to “exterminate our movement.” He said that Golden Dawn opposes European sanctions against Russia and noted the common orthodox faith of Greeks and Russians.
Mikhail Remizo of the Russian Institute of National Strategy emphasized that Russia and Bulgaria would never join the European Union, which is in favor of globalization and opposes “the national project.” He also noted that Chinese economic pressure can be added to American political bullying as a growing threat to European autonomy. He argued that a healthy middle class was vital to national identity, and that the post-crisis collapse of the middle class is a grave concern for all patriots.
Ironically, he said, nationalists fighting globalization must have a global strategy. By this he meant that those who believe in national identity must cooperate as widely as possible. It is the Right and not the Left, he added, that will fight the leveling forces of globalization and defend the traditions and culture of the West. He concluded by quoting Arnold Toynbee–“Civilizations are not murdered; they commit suicide”–noting that the West is approaching this point.
Sam Dickson from the United States also spoke, and introduced himself as a representative of the real Americans who believe in peace with all countries and who want to preserve our race and civilization. He began with the old proverb, “one hundred repetitions make one truth:” the defenders of the truth can be overwhelmed by repeated lies.
He argued that one of the current lies is that Russia is a danger to the United States. He pointed out that it shares no borders with us, and has never fought a war with the United States. Indeed, it was Vladimir Putin’s solution to the problem of chemical weapons in Syria that spared the United States the costs and the casualties of military operations against Syria. He also praised Mr. Putin for encouraging higher birthrates in the West, while American rulers work for our dispossession by promoting Third-World immigration.
Davidson Yukka of the National Independence Party of Finland pointed out that in some respects Russia is freer than any other country in Europe. Some forms of speech have come under attack in countries such as Finland, where it is possible to lose one’s job for criticizing homosexuals or opposing gay marriage. “The European Union is an idea that has failed,” he said, “but the politicians are still riding this dead horse.” He concluded that if our enemies abuse and denounce us it is because we are right.

When you compare the writings of Jared Taylor with the writings of Efraim Zuroff, who strikes you as more profound, more humane, and more right? To me, the answer is clearly Jared.

Posted in Fascism, Jared Taylor, Russia, Simon Wiesenthal | Comments Off

Efraim Zuroff: One man’s journey to the heartland of fascism

Posted on March 30, 2015 by Luke Ford

Efraim Zuroff is a Simon Wiesenthal Center Nazi hunter and historian.

For ethno-nationalists, Israel is a shining light of what a determined people can accomplish, but I guess if Jews develop an ethno-state, that’s a good thing, but if goyim attempt to similarly develop their own ethno-states, that’s bad.

“Fascist” is usually thrown around as a slur, but I fail to see why it is inherently any less valid than any other form of government. Anthropologist Peter Frost writes: “Fascism is defined here in opposition to liberalism, the belief that individuals should be free and self-determining.”

If you ask Google, “Is Israel fascist?”, you will get over a million results. Here’s the first result, a book review of the 2013 book Goliath: Life and Loathing in Greater Israel:

Max Blumenthal’s sprawling portrait of contemporary Israel is far more a work of journalism than political theory. It largely avoids sustained argument or analysis, allowing its main points to be inferred through the words of Israelis and Palestinians and short contemporary or historical descriptions, presented in several dozen vignette-like chapters. This is nonetheless a bold and shocking book, presenting persuasively a major theoretical and polemical argument about Israel almost completely at odds with the image most Americans have of it.
In Goliath, America’s foremost partner in the Middle East is not the humanistic and ever resourceful “David” using guile to vanquish surrounding brutes, but a militaristic and racist state whose electoral majorities have set it on a trajectory towards fascism, if it isn’t there already. Even those generally well-informed about Israel and its occupation of the Palestinian territories will have their views challenged by Blumenthal’s sharp eye and deadpan factual presentations.

For many people, simply asking if Israel is a fascist state is an obscenity because the Nazis were fascist. But the Nazis also believed in gravity. Should Jews then deny gravity?

Efraim Zuroff writes: “This year marks the 25th anniversary of Baltic independence and more than a decade of full membership in the European Union and NATO. If the assumption was that those developments would cure Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonian society from the scourges of fascism, racism, and anti-Semitism, the events of the past month clearly show that these plagues have not been eradicated.”

Has racism and fascism been eradicated from the Jewish state or does that not matter?

“The first question in that regard is the legal status of these marches… Local courts decided to allow the marches on the basis of freedom of speech, and all attempts to have them banned, or at least moved out of the city center, including my appeals this year to the mayors of both Lithuanian cities, have not achieved any practical results.”

Great, another Jew against free speech.

You can tell he’s an insecure type by insisting on the title of “Dr” in front of his name, even though he is a PhD and not a medical doctor. PhDs don’t normally demand the honorific “Dr” in front of their names.

“Two dangerous themes were dominant in practically every event. The first was the open hostility toward local minorities – Poles, Russians and Jews in Lithuania, the latter two in Latvia and Estonia.”

Good thing you don’t find hostility to minorities in the Jewish state, right?

Haaretz in 2004: “Christians in Jerusalem want Jews to stop spitting on them.”

You won’t find any condemnation by the Simon Wiesenthal Center of this spitting by Jews on Christians.

I sometimes think what would I do if I had the opportunity to earn hundreds of thousands of dollars a year working for the Simon Wiesenthal Center churning out anti-Gentile propaganda. I hope I would have the integrity to choose poverty and truth rather than evil and wealth.

“The only good news was that for the first time since Faina Kukliansky assumed the post of Chairperson of the Lithuanian Jewish community, she issued a statement denouncing the march in Vilnius (after initially ignoring the one in Kaunas), and several community officials participated in our protest. There was only silence from the Jewish communities of Latvia and Estonia, as well as from the Israeli embassies in Vilnius, Riga and Helsinki.”

Perhaps the Jews who live in the Baltics see it as a bad idea to needlessly antagonize their neighbors who are only pursuing their ethnic self-interest akin to the ways that Jews often pursue their interests.

Posted in Fascism, Israel, Simon Wiesenthal | Comments Off

What’s With Latinos On Drugs Running Across Freeways?

Posted on March 30, 2015 by Luke Ford

I have this anecdotal impression of various young male latinos getting nailed running across freeways while high just as I have an anecdotal impression of Chinese students getting killed by blacks outside USC.

In both circumstances, I have the impression that the victims did not understand the danger they faced (for latinos, it was the power of the drugs, and for the foreign Chinese, it was not realizing how dangerous the streets are around USC).

From the Los Angeles Times: “A 19-year-old UC Berkeley student who went missing early Saturday near USC was struck and killed on the 10 Freeway, authorities said Monday after linking the two incidents.

Eloi Vasquez — whose disappearance spawned a city-wide search as his family pleaded for the public’s help — had been last seen leaving a fraternity party around 1:30 a.m. Saturday, but an hour after bidding his friends farewell, the California Highway Patrol said he tried running across the eastbound lanes of the freeway east of the Vermont Avenue exit.”

Posted in Latino | Comments Off

Are Whites Hopeless?

Posted on March 30, 2015 by Luke Ford

Keith emails: I am a white. Have read a little bit of white nationalism. But one thing has to be mentioned about why whites are experiencing predation against them by blacks. Its because over the centuries whites have been pruning themselves of their aggressive breeds through: needless wars, psychiatric confinement, and through the criminal justice system. You can trace this back to medieval europe when they had all sorts of strange punishments for relatively minor offenses.

And so if we look at why whites are being gradually exterminated and dominated by non-whites is because they have literally castrated themselves by locking up all their “nuts”.

Jews are socially dominant because they have a higher rate of mental illness among them. Jews are known for being crazy. There are statistics and old news articles from the early 1900’s that talk about jews having higher rates of mental illness. To be totally 100% sane means to be tame and docile. Crazy means untamed and there are different levels of crazy with some people being crazy but allowed to exist within society and some crazy people that are not allowed to exist in society.

If you look at south africa the black social class that is responsible for fostering a connection to the ancestors and thus a sense of ethnic identity are the schizophrenic shamans. But whites have been locking up their schizophrenics for centuries so it is not surprising they have lost a sense of kin-identity and a sense of connection to the ancestors.

Black people by white standards are literally crazy and mentally ill. However they are allowed to get away with it because it is considered part of their culture.

So I think what we are witnessing is just darwinian selection unfolding and their is nothing that can be done about it. When a race breeds itself to be a bunch eloi they should not be surprised when they become dominated by a race of morlocks(time machine reference hg wells). In other words the white race is hopeless. It does not make sense for a white to base his or her tribal affiliation based on their race. White people do not function as a tribe and those whites who treat the white race as their tribe end up getting attacked by other whites. So white nationalism is not rational. Race realism is rational but not white nationalism.

We shouldn’t be surprised when racial selection that occurred over the course of over a thousand years to make whites more tame and docile results in other ethnic and racial groups becoming dominant over whites or preying upon whites. It is nature. And what this also implies is that there is no hope for whites. You literally cannot fix something that is the result of over a thousand years of breeding selection. You just can’t. It’s like explaining to a rabbit that the wolf is the predator. What is the rabbit going to do about it?

>>And yet 100 years ago, WASPs ruled the world.

Well I think there is something to be said for whites using various institutions and social shaming in order to make their race more tame. That situation may not account for everything that has happened to us and nature is often nuanced and complex. So you do bring up a good point about WASPs having ruled the world 100 years ago. The British ruling class is known for being eccentric though and the British Empire provided an escape route for people who may have been rough around the edges.

I also read an article once that talked about how British psychiatry had a reputation for being slightly more lenient than American psychiatry. I just find it odd how we can discuss so much stuff like jews and blacks and social class and on and on and yet there is very little discussion among any of these race realist blogs about what impact psychiatry has had on our race. It’s as if we are supposed to treat psychiatry as some sort of unquestionable force of nature. But does an unquestionable force of nature one minute declare homosexuality a mental illness and the next minute say it isn’t?

Plus you have the world wars that destroyed many of our best warriors and our most nationalistic people.

But why did our global dominance end? I’m not sure the theory I proposed accounts for it entirely, I do think the theory I proposed has a lot to do with our current situation… but as to why our global dominance ended…

Part of it may have something to do with whites are uncomfortable with power for its own sake. The British needed some sort of “white mans burden” thing to justify having an empire. So even though they were “masters of the world” they were still operating according according to a servant ethic of needing to serve the world in some ways. They never valued themselves enough to be comfortable with simply being served by the world. So in a sense they were pursuing dominance from a domesticated standpoint and one cant hold onto power from that standpoint.

The idea above is basically something Ilana Mercer, the South African jewish lady who writes on the black issue, was talking about.

The idea of whites being committed though to a servant ethic ties into the domestication policies it pursues on itself, the ones I mentioned regarding psychiatry, incarceration, social shaming, sending the warriors to foreign lands, etc.

Whites are basically a slave race and it has revealed itself to be uncomfortable with holding power. And so it should not be surprised if someone who is comfortable holding power decides to hold onto power in its stead.

But how did this race come to power? I think the non-servile elements of the white race managed to achieve certain things despite the nature of the rest of the whites. But ultimately the bulk of the white race had its will made manifest and this is why we see whites being relegated to a humiliated sort of flunky status today. Because this is what whites want. This is why white people on the BBC are always traveling around helping Africans. They are flunkies. These people are not the master race (if there is such a thing).

I don’t foresee one race becoming dominant over the entire world though.

Posted in Jews, Whites | Comments Off

Jews, Judaism & Racism

Posted on March 30, 2015 by Luke Ford

Jazz musician and philosopher, the ex-Israeli Gilad Atzmon says:

Jewish power is the ability to silence criticism of Jewish power…

There is no doubt that Judaism, the Talmud and the Torah contain some devastatingly crude and even inhumane verses and teachings. And yet, traditionally Rabbinical Judaism was very effective in suppressing any manifestation of Jewish collective goy hatred. If Rabbinical Jews were supremacist, as some may forcefully argue, they were also timid. They segregated themselves and, largely kept their anti Goy attitude to themselves.

This changed radically with Jewish secularization. The Godless Jew transformed choseness into a form of a racially driven, tribal privilege. Yuri Slezkine in his invaluable book, ‘The Jewish Century,’ confirms that Jews were ‘Stalin’s willing executioners,’ in the Holodomor, the systematic deadly starvation of millions of Ukrainians in the early 1930s. The demography of the Spanish International Brigade is also revealing. 25% of the Brigade’s combatants were Jewish. Yiddish was the Brigade’s Lingua Franca. We have to ask what is it that motivated these young revolutionaries to fight Catholic Spain? Was it really a battle against Fascism, was Franco a Fascist? Why did they burn so many churches, after all, one would expect these Jewish revolutionaries to first combat rabbinical tyranny and the synagogues. Just a few years later, in 1948, the Nakba – once again, a collective of secular socialist Zionist Jews engaged in a systematic racially motivated ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

The Jews who perpetrated these colossal crimes against humanity were not rabbinical or religious; they were Godless and succumbed to left ideology…

For some time, France has been dominated by a forceful Jewish lobby (CRIF) that has been able to determine the boundaries of discussion as well as freedom in general. It is interesting to examine the treacherous role of the current socialist government in that respect. In some of my recent writing I argue that both Jewish and Left politics contain an element of animosity towards working class people. Jews are generally fearful of the Working Class because it is always that class that turns against them. The Left is also dotted with antagonism towards working people (those who are now reduced into a Workless Class), because of the embarrassing fact that the working people have never joined the promised revolution. In France we see a strong bond between the uniquely unpopular socialist government and a tribal lobby group that is concerned solely with Jewish interests. How embarrassing…

Jewish power is not a Zionist phenomenon. In fact, it is mostly sustained by the Left, by Chomsky type activists, Democracy Now and to a far lesser extent Norman Finkelstein whom I appreciate as an intellectual (though I hardly agree with him on anything). The tactic is obvious. We are pushed to operate within a given discourse that contains some clear boundaries. We are restricted by terminology that is designed to block real scrutiny of the most troubling issues and conceal the truth…

I think that belonging is inherent to human nature and it takes different shapes at different times. I believe that racism and nationalism have been replaced by ID politics. We are trained to talk ‘as a’- as a Jew, as a black, as a gay, as a disabled person, and the forms of these sectarian political structures are very interesting…

We always have to ask ourselves, who benefits? Don’t we want to be Americans or French again? Or do we prefer to operate within marginal sectarian cosmopolitan ID settings? I am not sure. Again, if health, education and labour are at the core of a healthy society, ID politics operates as a clear obstacle. It prevents us from dealing with ‘real issues.’ We discuss gay marriage and anti-Semitism instead of building factories, hospitals and schools…

It may be possible that Jewish power will be restricted in the near future. It may even be possible that some future Jewish suffering is inevitable and this is, of course, unfortunate. I am confident that the Jewish elite is not going to be affected by such circumstances. If anything, they will be the first to benefit from any such a development. Ask yourself how many Rothschild died in the holocaust? Would Israel have been established without the Shoah? Would the Jews be as powerful without the Holocaust? These are open questions and in order to understand Jewish power we must engage in these topics and grasp once and for all the sophistication of the Jewish tribal matrix, the way in which it evolves and so on…

Posted in Israel, Jews | Comments Off

Family Values

Posted on March 30, 2015 by Luke Ford

Tina posts: This is their way of dancing I guess. My daughter is half puerto rican and asian. And no way she is going to grind on her cousins like this. This leads to sexual intentions. My ex dance to this type of music with his cousins. I don’t like it when I see it. He told me when he was young, his cousin asked to suck his penis. Latino girls say this is ok and they do it to their family? Then go grind on your fathers then….it’s sad to see their own families grinding on eachother, and their excuse……”we’re brought up that way”. Any human being would know this is wrong.

Posted in Dance, Latino | Comments Off

A Great Testosterone Story

Posted on March 30, 2015 by Luke Ford

A friend says: I know this guy

Idiot liberal

He was talking about his father

His father went to the doctor

They diagnosed him with “too much testosterone”

So he started taking these pills

And the guy was elated because his father apparently stopped watching Fox News – which he used to watch fervently

And he turned into a liberal!!!

I don’t find that funny. I find it disturbing.

It’s very dystopian

He took the femininity pills and they emasculated him!!

Robbed him of his manhood and his rational will

Um it’s terrifying

And sad

People buy into that stuff

Who decides who had too much testosterone?

* A husband I know gets sick and his wife asks him, “Can you increase your disability policy?”

From a male perspective, women can seem terribly unromantic and pragmatic. They often don’t pause much before moving on to their next meal ticket.

I keep explaining to men, “Women aren’t bad because of their pragmatism. That’s just how they’ve evolved to survive, to deal with bigger dangerous men by trickery and deceit.”

* I wonder if God was sending me a message by giving me a traffic ticket last week outside the Museum of Tolerance? Perhaps the road I’ve been traveling on of late is the wrong one and I need to instead use my talents promoting diversity and multiculturalism?

* Why do people immediately assume I have lots to say about suicidal beta males like the German Wings pilot and German Wings pilot and Elliot Rodger types?”>Elliot Rodger types?

Posted in Testosterone | Comments Off

Black Guy Hates Free Speech

Posted on March 30, 2015 by Luke Ford

Barrett Holmes Pitner writes: Regardless of how repugnant we all may find the n-word to be, it should be clear to any rational person that this scandal isn’t about a black person saying “my nigga” in a rap lyric or even about a white youth saying it to his friends. This is about a group of youths gregariously chanting that those “niggers” should be hanging from trees. One usage expresses the support of murder, and one does not. This is how free speech transitions to hate speech and then to dangerous speech.

America needs to start a debate between free, hate and dangerous speech. Internationally this discussion has progressed further than here. In America the emphasis has been on hate crimes, which advocates for increased punishment for crimes perpetrated because of hatred of another’s race, religion or sexual orientation. Internationally the focus has shifted towards dangerous speech, which is a form of hate speech that clearly correlates to negative outcomes.

Susan Benesch, the Director of the Dangerous Speech Project in her paper, “Countering Dangerous Speech: New Ideas for Genocide Prevention,” says that “by teaching people to view other human beings as less than human, and as mortal threats, thought leaders can make atrocities seem acceptable — and even necessary, as a form of collective self-defense.”

The international emphasis of this discussion is centered around recent genocides and mass killings such as in Rwanda, Srebrenica and during the Holocaust; when the leaders of these atrocities publicized dangerous hate speech to disseminate ideologies of hatred to spur their followers to act, cow bystanders into passivity, and justify their crimes.

The hate speech used in these countries directly correlated to the commission of atrocities, and this discussion of dangerous speech could be beneficial in the United States. As a nation, America has tried to progress from the horrors of slavery, Jim Crow, lynchings and racial inequality while maintaining noble principles of free speech. Even now, the rather tepid addition of hate crime legislation constantly meets with resistance from many conservative lawmakers and parts of society. They argue a crime is a crime no matter its motives, and justice must be evenly meted by law enforcement. Coincidentally, the Department of Justice has just published its report finding that the Ferguson police department — and one would imagine many others in the country — is dangerously biased in its policing and treatment of its black citizens. It makes one wonder if any of the cops charged with protecting black communities were ever members of an organization or community that was comfortable referring to black Americans as niggers? The fraternity scandal demonstrates how racist, oppressive and dangerous traditions are still alive and well, and may contribute to the continued oppression of minorities.

Posted in Blacks, Censorship | Comments Off

Should Neo-Nazis Be Allowed Free Speech?

Posted on March 30, 2015 by Luke Ford

Thane Rosenbaum writes: All of us know, however, and despite what we tell our children, names do, indeed, hurt. And recent studies in universities such as Purdue, UCLA, Michigan, Toronto, Arizona, Maryland, and Macquarie University in New South Wales, show, among other things, through brain scans and controlled studies with participants who were subjected to both physical and emotional pain, that emotional harm is equal in intensity to that experienced by the body, and is even more long-lasting and traumatic. Physical pain subsides; emotional pain, when recalled, is relived.

Pain has a shared circuitry in the human brain, and it makes no distinction between being hit in the face and losing face (or having a broken heart) as a result of bereavement, betrayal, social exclusion and grave insult. Emotional distress can, in fact, make the body sick. Indeed, research has shown that pain relief medication can work equally well for both physical and emotional injury.

We impose speed limits on driving and regulate food and drugs because we know that the costs of not doing so can lead to accidents and harm. Why should speech be exempt from public welfare concerns when its social costs can be even more injurious?

In the marketplace of ideas, there is a difference between trying to persuade and trying to injure. One can object to gays in the military without ruining the one moment a father has to bury his son; neo-Nazis can long for the Third Reich without re-traumatizing Hitler’s victims; one can oppose Affirmative Action without burning a cross on an African-American’s lawn.

Of course, everything is a matter of degree. Juries are faced with similar ambiguities when it comes to physical injury. No one knows for certain whether the plaintiff wearing a neck brace can’t actually run the New York Marathon. We tolerate the fake slip and fall, but we feel absolutely helpless in evaluating whether words and gestures intended to harm actually do cause harm. Jurors are as capable of working through these uncertainties in the area of emotional harms as they are in the realm of physical injury.

Free speech should not stand in the way of common decency. No right should be so freely and recklessly exercised that it becomes an impediment to civil society, making it so that others are made to feel less free, their private space and peace invaded, their sensitivities cruelly trampled upon.

Posted in Censorship, Jews, Nazi, Thane Rosenbaum | Comments Off

Australia Must Have Zero Tolerance for Online Hatred

Posted on March 30, 2015 by Luke Ford

Link: Freedom of speech is the bedrock of any democratic society, however, freedom of speech is not the only right that we have: People also have the right to be free from racial vilification, bullying and abuse, writes Tanya Cohen.

Here in Australia, it’s just common sense that freedom of speech doesn’t give anyone the right to offend, insult, humiliate, intimidate, vilify, incite hatred or violence, be impolite or uncivil, disrespect, oppose human rights, spread lies or misinformation, argue against the common good, or promote ideas which have no place in society. We all learned this in school, and it’s not something that’s even up for debate. Hate speech is not free speech, as the oft-repeated saying goes. Freedom of speech is something that comes with responsibility and it has to be balanced against other human rights, such as the human rights to dignity and respect. This is something that more or less everyone here agrees on, including libertarians. Journalists and human rights activists are the biggest supporters of our hate speech laws, but the laws have universal support among all sections of Australian society. Freedom of speech is a core Australian value, but it’s not the only value we have. As Australians living in a society built on diversity and multiculturalism, we simply refuse to tolerate any forms of racism or hatred. The need to protect vulnerable minorities from all forms of hate speech is something that practically all Australians firmly agree with (aside from a few racist bigots who want to incite hatred against vulnerable minorities as “free speech”, of course). Our courts have ruled multiple times that it doesn’t matter whether your statements are “true” or “balanced” or not – if the statements are likely to paint vulnerable minorities in a negative light and/or incite hatred against vulnerable minorities, then those statements are illegal in Australia, as they should be.

Our federal Racial Discrimination Act makes it illegal to say things which may offend, insult, humiliate, or intimidate vulnerable minorities. This law has been successfully used to convict right-wing hatemongers like Andrew Bolt. When the Abbott Government recently proposed watering down our federal laws against hate speech (they wanted to replace the words “offend”, “insult”, and “humiliate” with the word “vilify”), it outraged the entire country, and human rights groups like Amnesty International Australia and the Human Rights Law Centre launched a highly successful campaign to force the government to back down. Across the country, people held protests against the proposal to weaken our federal hate speech protections, and polls found that almost everyone in the country was staunchly opposed to any proposals to weaken legal protections against hate speech (according to one Fairfax poll, at least 88% of Australians agreed that it should always be illegal to offend, insult, or humiliate minorities, and all other polls showed similar results). Every single human rights group in the country spoke out against the proposals to weaken federal protections against hate speech, and even right-wing libertarians were outraged that anyone would propose watering down laws against hate speech. In the end, we won. Not only did the Abbott Government abandon its plans to weaken our federal protections against hate speech, but they recently announced that they would actually be strengthening legal protections against hate speech. The people of Australia successfully showed the Tony Abbott administration that we simply won’t stand for any attempts to water down laws against racial hatred.

Australia is fully dedicated to protecting the basic human rights of the most vulnerable and marginalised segments of society, including their rights to dignity, honour, respect, and non-discrimination, and their rights to not be subjected to hatred. Unfortunately, across the Atlantic, there is a web of hatred and intolerance being spun online – and this web is easily accessible to Australian citizens. In Australia, the Australian Human Rights Commission does its best to prosecute and remove all forms of hate speech on the Internet, and the Racial Discrimination Act can be used to seize anyone’s Internet records if they’re suspected of hate speech. But, in the US, there is no human rights culture whatsoever. To this very day, the US refuses to pass any kind of human rights legislation, and hate speech remains completely legal there. There are absolutely no laws of any kind against racial vilification in the US. To people in a human rights-based culture like Australia, this sounds hard to believe. After all, even our most dedicated free speech absolutists still firmly agree that racial vilification and incitement to hatred should always be illegal. Even George Brandis himself – the far-right ultra-libertarian who wanted to water down our federal hate speech laws – said that racial vilification, Holocaust denial, and offensive opinions which weren’t participating in a public discussion should always be illegal. George Brandis is by far the most extreme free speech fundamentalist in Australia, but even he agrees that racial vilification and incitement to hatred – including Holocaust denial – must always be legally punished. Brandis’s proposals were universally seen as recklessly removing all limitations on “freedom of speech” at the expense of vulnerable minorities, but they still included at least SOME limitations on racial vilification. In the US, there are no laws against any kind of racial vilification whatsoever. Racial vilification goes against the very core values of this nation, hence why it remains so highly illegal. Freedom of speech does NOT give one the right to oppose the values of the nation. Racism is NOT what modern-day Australia is all about, and it has absolutely no place whatsoever in modern Australian society.

There are two sides to the free speech debate in Australia: the people who believe that all offensive or insulting speech should always be illegal (the vast majority of Australians), and the people who believe that only racial vilification or incitement to hatred should be illegal (the far-right, ultra-libertarian free speech fundamentalists). There isn’t a single person in Australia who thinks that there should be NO legal restrictions on hate speech or vilification, so it’s hard for us to believe that, in 2015, there is actually an advanced country where hate speech remains completely legal. But it’s entirely true. In the US, there are no laws whatsoever against any kind of hate speech, and even the most severe forms of racial vilification and incitement to hatred are allowed. The United States even protects the right to advocate violence against vulnerable minorities as “free speech.” In fact, even hate speech which isn’t part of any kind of public discussion is protected as “free speech” in the US. This is absolutely unfathomable to Australians, as even ultra-libertarian George Brandis’s much-maligned proposal to weaken our federal hate speech laws still included protections against hate speech that wasn’t part of a public discussion. George Brandis himself said that, for example, posting Holocaust denial on the Internet or chanting racist slogans at sports stadiums would remain illegal under his proposals since they weren’t contributing to any kind of public discussion. Most Australians believed that George Brandis’s proposals went way too far in allowing racist hate speech, but his proposals didn’t go anywhere NEAR as far as what’s allowed in the US. In Australia, racist speech is never acceptable, even when it’s part of a public discussion – the Australian people made this very clear to Brandis. But, in the US, racist speech is ALWAYS allowed, even when it’s NOT part of a public discussion. Those racist chants by University of Oklahoma students would still be highly illegal under George Brandis’s ultra-libertarian proposals, but they’re actually completely legal in the US – and American so-called “progressives” actually AGREE that this kind of racial vilification should be completely legal. In fact, I’ve actually had “progressive” Americans tell me that Brandis’s outrageous proposals “didn’t go nearly far enough” in protecting “freedom of speech.” Yes, these people are genuinely considered “progressive” in the US. It absolutely boggles the mind how unbelievably backwards the US is when it comes to basic human rights.

Human rights groups, the UN, and the international community have demanded that the US pass laws against hate speech for several decades now, but the country steadfastly refuses to do so. There simply isn’t any human rights culture whatsoever in the US, and even America’s so-called “progressives” still seem to oppose the creation of anti-hate speech legislation, citing “freedom of speech.” In Australia, it would be absolutely laughable for someone to call themselves a “progressive” while opposing laws against hate speech. After all, even our far-right nationalists still support laws against hate speech. You simply cannot call yourself a progressive in Australia unless you support the outlawing of all un-progressive speech. One of the most fundamental goals of the Australian progressive movement is ensuring that anyone who voices un-progressive ideas is aggressively prosecuted, and this is something that all Australian progressives firmly agree with. But, in the US, “progressives” actually believe that hate speech and even severe racial vilification should be protected as “free speech.” In fact, even minorities in the US still tend to oppose anti-hate speech laws which are designed to protect them. I recently had an African-American tell me that it was “ridiculous” to prosecute people for making racist comments. Minorities in the US really don’t seem to understand the harmful effects that hate speech has on them and the very real danger that it places them in. To people in civilised countries like Australia, it’s just terribly sad to see how brainwashed the people of America have become. Americans have been conned into thinking that freedom of speech means the freedom to say anything (especially if you have money). They genuinely believe that freedom of speech gives people the right to spew hatred, racially vilify vulnerable minorities, argue against the common good, and oppose human rights. It’s profoundly sickening to anyone in a human rights-based culture like ours, but, to Americans, it’s perfectly normal, and there is unfortunately nothing that we can do about it. We’ll never be able to change the deeply backwards way that Americans (including American so-called “progressives”) think.

America’s refusal to crack down on hate speech – in clear defiance of international human rights law – makes it very difficult for other countries to protect human rights online. Civilised countries all have laws against online hate speech and government Human Rights Commissions to prosecute online hatred, but it’s little use when the US – which, unfortunately, still controls most of the Internet – refuses to protect basic human rights. Not only does America not have any kind of American Human Rights Commission to prosecute online hatred, but they don’t even have any kind of Human Rights Act making hate speech illegal in the first place (by failing to outlaw hate speech, the US is explicitly violating international human rights law). There are millions and millions of hate sites run out of the US, and Human Rights Commissions in civilised countries would seem powerless to stop them. Despite countless human rights organisations telling the US that it needs to crack down on hate speech – especially online hate speech – America continues to protect hatred and intolerance as “free speech,” which means that these hate sites are allowed to continue to spread bigotry and discrimination around the world with impunity.

Well, if the US isn’t going to stand up for human rights, then it’s time for civilised countries to take stronger measures to protect fundamental human rights online. What I propose is something called a Human Rights Online Act. This Act would not only make it a severe criminal offence on the federal level to publish, distribute, promote, or access hate speech online, but would also implement a federal Internet filtering system to protect Australians from being exposed to hate sites run out of the US. The Internet filter should block access to all hate sites, and anyone who tries to access any hate sites should be sent to gaol, much like people who access child pornography. In keeping with other human rights legislation in Australia – like the proposed Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill, which was unfortunately narrowly defeated by the efforts of the far-right – anyone accused of offending, insulting, humiliating, or intimidating other people should be required to prove their innocence or be declared guilty automatically, and this should also apply for anyone accused of publishing, distributing, promoting, or accessing online hatred. The principle of guilty until proven innocent is the only principle that really works when it comes to cracking down on hate speech, and every human rights group in Australia supported the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill declaring people guilty of hate speech until proven innocent (in fact, most human rights activists felt that the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill actually didn’t go nearly far enough). Ergo, I propose something like the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill be passed with special emphasis on combating online hatred. Someone needs to protect vulnerable minorities from being exposed to this toxic hatred, and, if the US won’t, then Australia needs to.

Internet filtering should not just filter out hate speech. It should filter out anything that violates human rights and/or poses a danger to society. Our Australian Classification Board bans any film, video game, book, or other form of media if it offends against community standards, contains content harmful to society, or is demeaning to human dignity. If a book, film, or video game contains content that degrades human dignity, then it therefore constitutes a violation of human rights, since human dignity is a fundamental human right that all civilised governments are tasked with upholding. Unfortunately, the Internet has made it difficult for the Australian Classification Board to do its job. In the US, the government cannot ban any movie, book, or video game, no matter how dangerous, harmful to society, or degrading to human dignity. As such, certain people have taken advantage of this in order to sell their disgusting products to Australia through a digital format, where Australian Customs will be powerless to stop them. When the Australian Classification Board banned the vile computer game Postal 2, the game’s distributors proceeded to set up an online store for selling the game digitally to Australian customers – and nothing could be done about it aside from prosecuting anyone who bought the game, which would be very difficult to do without comprehensive Internet filtering of the sort that I’m proposing. Thanks to the US and its lack of human rights legislation, not only does hate speech and vilification flow into Australia through the Internet, but so does obscenity, rape porn, gratuitous violence, and other filth that has absolutely no place in a civilised society.

Unlike in the US, Australia has human rights-based press regulation and rules about who can own media outlets, in order to prevent right-wing hatemongers from gaining too much influence. Freedom of speech should never allow anyone to oppose human rights or attempt to undermine progressive policies, and right-wing hate outlets like the ones run by Rupert Murdoch have been able to oppose progress and manipulate public opinion against the common good in this country for far too long now. During the Finkelstein Inquiry, Australian progressives and human rights activists unveiled rules that would require all blogs to register with the government. I believe that this proposed law should be revived as part of the Human Rights Online Act. All Australian websites should be required to register with the Australian Human Rights Commission in order to ensure strict compliance with human rights. If any websites contain content that opposes human rights, then they should be shut down immediately and their owners sent to gaol. In addition, all Australian websites should be required to promote human rights. Any website found to inadequately promote human rights should be shut down by the Australian Human Rights Commission, and the owner fined or sent to gaol. Like the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill, this would effectively shut down the Murdoch media empire and all other right-wing hate outlets.

Freedom of speech is the bedrock of any democratic society, and I cannot possibly stress enough how important it is that we have the inalienable right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is the fundamental right from which all other rights flow, and all societies need to uphold freedom of speech to the maximum possible extent. However, freedom of speech is not the only right that we have. People have the right to be free from racial vilification as well, and this also applies to the Internet. Hate speech online not only has the potential to devastate the most vulnerable and marginalised segments of our society, but it has also been proven to incite hatred, violence, and murder. When Frazier Glenn Miller shot up a Jewish community centre last year, it didn’t start with the shooting. Miller had been an active member of numerous online hate communities for years. The same goes for Anders Behring Breivik, who went on the deadliest shooting spree in recorded history, targeting minorities and “cultural Marxists” in Norway after being an active member of hate sites run out of the US (like all civilised countries, hate speech is highly illegal in Norway, but they are powerless to stop their citizens from accessing American hate sites). Acts of racial violence always start with words, and the only way to prevent them from happening is to crack down on all forms of hate speech. The people who promoted racist, Islamophobic hate speech online are every bit as responsible for the Norway massacre as Breivik himself was. The massacre in Norway is a strong warning for anyone who thinks that racial vilification is acceptable. Was it “free speech” when white supremacist terrorist Anders Behring Breivik killed 77 innocent people in Norway based on racial hatred? Was it “free speech” when Frazier Glenn Miller shot three innocent people to death at a Jewish community centre? Was it “free speech” when the Nazis killed twelve million people in concentration camps? The US might think so, but Australia certainly doesn’t.

International human rights law (the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination) makes it very clear: all nations are required to outlaw all forms of hate speech, including any ideas based on racial superiority or hatred. The United Nations has emphasised many times that cracking down on online hate speech is a crucial aspect of the battle against intolerance in the modern era, and the UN requires all nations to prosecute online hate speech along with all other forms of hate speech. Online hatred is a scourge that threatens to tear apart the very fabric of our beautiful and harmonious multicultural society. We cannot force the United States to respect basic human rights – after all, not only does the country still refuse to ban hate speech, but it also still doesn’t even have universal healthcare – but we CAN take a stand against online hatred in our own country. While it’s important to oppose Internet censorship and ensure that any measures to crack down on online hate speech do not interfere with legitimate freedom of speech, Australia cannot continue to stand by while an ocean of online hatred from the United States continues to flow into this country.

Online hate speech coming from the US does affect Australians, including the most vulnerable and marginalised members of Australian society. Recently, a disgusting American neo-Nazi website called The Daily Stormer published a series of articles racially and religiously vilifying Muslim Australian human rights activist Mariam Veiszadeh, and encouraging others to do the same. Mariam Veiszadeh is a human rights activist and lawyer who has been at the forefront of expanding Australia’s legal protections against hate speech, and she does not hesitate to take to court anyone who spouts racism, Islamophobia, or other forms of hate speech. But, since The Daily Stormer is a US-based website, the site took full advantage of America’s lack of human rights laws, saying that there was “absolutely nothing that Mariam can do” to stop them. That same website has published numerous articles racially vilifying other Australians, including Jews, Arabs, Pacific Islanders, Indigenous people, and more. But even that is nowhere near as bad as sites like Chimpout, an American website dedicated entirely to mocking and celebrating the deaths and murders of innocent black people (including Indigenous Australians). The content on Chimpout is some of the most vile, extreme racial hatred and vilification imaginable. Users of the site will post news articles about, for example, black babies being killed, and they will celebrate those murders as “niggers being made good” (in the view of the site’s users, “the only good nigger is a dead one”). When a Torres Strait Islander woman in Cairns killed her eight children, the site’s users celebrated it and said that she was “doing a huge favor for Aussie taxpayers.” Can anyone with a conscience honestly believe that this sort of behaviour is acceptable? Can any sane, reasonable individual honestly believe that this sort of vile, hateful, inhuman filth has any place whatsoever in society? This sort of disgusting vilification may be acceptable to Americans, but it’s DEFINITELY not acceptable to Australians.

Hate speech – whether in real life or on the Internet – has absolutely no place in Australian society, and it has absolutely no place in any modern democracy, for that matter. Laws exist to enforce acceptable behaviour and, if something is unacceptable to the vast majority of the population (which bigotry certainly is), then there is absolutely no logical reason why it shouldn’t also be illegal. Bigotry is illegal for the exact same reason that robbing a bank is illegal: it is completely unacceptable behaviour. Freedom of speech does not allow anyone to say things which the vast majority of people find to be completely unacceptable. Bigotry may be acceptable to Americans, but it is most certainly not acceptable to Australians. Freedom of speech should never be a license to hurt people, to undermine progress, to abuse human rights, or to be a right-wing bigot. It’s time for the Australian Human Rights Commission to begin filtering the Internet to protect Australians from the insidious online hatred that flows like an ocean out of the United States. There can be zero tolerance for intolerance, and human rights institutions in this country must be willing to go to any lengths in order to combat the toxic forces of hatred and bigotry. Hateful, hurtful, insulting, or offensive speech can never be “free” when one considers the devastating cost it has on society and on its victims. Hate speech certainly isn’t “freedom” to Indigenous Australians and other highly vulnerable, marginalised members of our society. Rather than silencing dissent, outlawing hate speech assists dissent and prevents the bullying of groups into silence. Hate speech is itself a form of censorship, as it silences the voices of minorities – marginalized groups who are already widely denied a voice in society. Minorities cannot speak out freely when they are bullied and intimidated into silence by hate speech. Hate speech harms minorities not only mentally, but also physically as well. Research has shown that bullying causes brain damage, and speech can do real physical harm. Hate speech also incites others to physically attack minorities, who already face high rates of violence.

As a member of Australia’s Jewish community and a descendant of Holocaust survivors, I can proudly say that Australia’s Jewish community has played the single largest role in passing and expanding hate speech legislation in Australia, and Australia’s Jewish community also played the single largest role in forcing the Abbott government to back down when it recently tried to weaken our federal hate speech laws. The changes to federal hate speech laws were staunchly opposed by every single human rights group and minority advocacy group in Australia, but Australian Jewish groups definitely played the largest role in making the Abbott government abandon its plans to weaken our federal hate speech laws. In fact, The Times of Israel actually ran an article titled “Australian Jews block change in local race-hate laws“. Without the immense pressure from Australia’s Jewish community, our hate speech laws would have been watered down like Brandis wanted them to be. I am immensely proud of the fact that Australia’s Jews have been at the forefront of protecting and promoting human rights in this country. The Online Hate Prevention Institute (OHPI) – which works to combat online hatred in Australia and abroad – is staffed entirely by Jewish Australians. Without Australia’s Jews, hate speech legislation in this country would not be anywhere near as strong. In fact, it might not even exist at all. The Jewish role in human rights activism is a source of immeasurable pride for me.

I’ve dedicated my life to promoting and defending human rights in Australia. I’ve worked for Amnesty International Australia, the Human Rights Law Centre, the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law, and the Human Rights Working Group of the Greens NSW. I know human rights very well. As any human rights activist can tell you, hate speech is violence, and verbal violence can be even more harmful and dangerous than physical violence. It also tends to lead directly to physical violence. Hate speech kills people, just like climate change denial and spreading false information about medicines does. We don’t allow people to spout lies about vaccines and most people also agree that we shouldn’t allow people to spout lies about climate change, so why should we allow people to spout lies about vulnerable minorities? Speech has consequences, and nobody should be allowed to say things which are simply wrong. When the Abbott government was trying to water down our federal laws against hate speech, it was widely said that watering down the hate speech laws would lead to race riots and even genocide. To quote the great human rights activist Tim Soutphommasane of the Australian Human Rights Commission, “genocide begins with word”. This is entirely true, as genocide has always started with hate speech, from the Holocaust to Rwanda. Right-wing bigots simply cannot be allowed to undermine social cohesion and manipulate public opinion against the common good. When the general public is exposed to dangerous ideas like the kind spouted by right-wing bigots, the results can be nothing short of catastrophic. Tim Soutphommasane and other human rights activists have repeatedly expressed their desire to launch a major crackdown on online hatred, but nothing really significant has actually been done so far. If Australia doesn’t stop the plague of online hatred from entering this country, the consequences could be fatal for our multicultural society. If one wants to see what could very well happen if online hatred is not stopped, look no further than the Holocaust. We simply cannot allow history to repeat itself. Hate has consequences, and the only way to stop those consequences from happening is to crack down as hard as possible on all manifestations of hatred, along with all other content that’s harmful to human dignity and to society.

Like all democratic rights, the right to freedom of speech comes with significant responsibility and has to be balanced against other rights. Nobody has the right to spread lies, falsehoods, or misleading information. The right to accurate information – and the right to be fully informed – are needed in order to fulfill democratic duty, and spreading misinformation can be very dangerous (just ask the countless people who have died thanks to anti-vaccine propaganda, or the countless people who have died thanks to the gun lobby’s propaganda in the US). This is perfectly consistent with libertarian principles, as withholding information or spreading misinformation manipulates free choices and therefore subverts liberty. As any human rights lawyer could explain, the human right to freedom of speech must be balanced against other human rights, including the human rights to protection from vilification, libel, slander, propaganda, misleading information, incitement, insult, offense, hatred, discrimination, and so forth. Freedom of speech is also never a license to oppose human rights. You cannot oppose racial equality, you cannot support Israel’s oppression of Palestinians, you cannot oppose marriage equality, you cannot support laws that curtail civil liberties, you cannot oppose a woman’s right to have an abortion, you cannot support inhumane treatment of refugees, you cannot oppose liberal democracy, and you cannot support the death penalty, to name just a few things. A society based on fundamental human rights has absolutely no place for anyone who opposes these fundamental human rights.

The United States has no human rights culture whatsoever, so they don’t have laws against any of these things. Australians should be extremely thankful that we do not share the same values as the bigotry-supporting, human rights-opposing United States. Under Brandis’s ultra-libertarian, free speech fundamentalist proposal, ONLY incitement to hatred would be illegal, which most Australians (especially human rights activists) thought weakened our hate speech laws far too much. But, in the US, there aren’t even any laws against incitement to hatred. In fact, there are no laws against racial vilification whatsoever. The main concern about George Brandis’s proposed amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act was that his amendments might allow certain racist comments to be made if those comments were made as part of a “public discussion”. In the US, however, ALL racist comments are allowed, even when they’re NOT made as part of any kind of public discussion. For people in a civilised country like Australia, that sort of thing is just unimaginable.

Can you even IMAGINE the massive outrage that would ensue if a politician ever proposed completely abolishing all racial vilification laws in Australia? They would lose their job instantly, and they would become the single most hated person in the country. In fact, George Brandis became the single most hated person in Australia when he proposed merely WATERING DOWN our federal hate speech laws and his proposal was universally seen as a horrific attack on the basic human rights of minorities, so it’s hard to imagine just how hated a politician would be if they actually proposed completely abolishing all hate speech laws in Australia. That’s not something that anyone in Australia would ever even consider. In a human rights-based culture like Australia, you have freedom of speech, but you cannot use your freedom of speech to harm people or to harm society. You cannot offend or insult people, you cannot promote unacceptable ideas, you cannot say things which aren’t constructive, you cannot oppose human rights, you cannot incite hatred or violence, you cannot argue against the common good, and you cannot say things which simply aren’t true. All rights are bordered by other rights. This is the core of Western Enlightenment thinking. When it comes to balancing freedom of speech against other human rights, the Internet should be no different. Our hate speech laws exist to protect the most vulnerable and marginalised members of our society, but, by failing to filter the Internet – thus allowing vulnerable minorities to be exposed to online hate speech from the anti-human rights US – we are failing in our human rights obligations.

Multiculturalism is one of Australia’s greatest success stories. But, for far too many people, racial vilification remains a sad reality – especially online. Under international human rights law, Australia is required to vigorously prosecute all forms of hate speech, including online hate speech. But, at the moment, Australia is not doing nearly enough to truly fight against online hatred. It’s time for us to strongly consider Internet filtering to crack down against online hate speech. Human rights groups like Amnesty International have endorsed Internet filtering as an effective way to combat online hate speech (so long as those Internet filters are not abused to restrict legitimate freedom of speech on the Internet). Australia’s very own Human Rights Law Centre has repeatedly stated that Australia needs to block access to hate sites, but that Internet filtering should never be used in order to curtail freedom of speech online. Obviously, it’s important to ensure that any Internet filtering does not interfere with freedom of speech online, as Australia needs to staunchly oppose all forms of Internet censorship. However, hate speech is not free speech, and it’s not protected by freedom of expression. Freedom of speech should never be something that hurts people. Australia needs to strongly protect free speech online while actively prosecuting hate speech online.

Human rights organisations in Australia have long complained that we need to pass and enforce much stricter legislation against online hate speech. Currently, we are failing to truly fight against online hatred, and this is damaging our international human rights reputation. Countries like the UK and France are much more stringent in protecting human rights online. Failing to adequately filter and prosecute online hate speech means that we are opening the doors to all manner of racial violence and perhaps even genocide. The only way to get rid of hatred and intolerance is to vigorously and aggressively prosecute all manifestations of hate speech. If Australia is truly serious about being a modern, advanced liberal democracy that genuinely respects basic human rights, fundamental civil liberties, and essential individual freedoms, then it’s time to get serious in our fight against hate speech and other human rights abuses on the Internet. The time to start seriously protecting human rights on the Internet is right now. Not only do we need to protect the most vulnerable and marginalised groups from being exposed to online hatred, but we also need to prevent the general public from being exposed to it as well. When right-wing hatemongers are allowed to manipulate public opinion against the common good, things like the Cronulla rioting – or, even worse: the Holocaust – can and do happen. Every genocide in history has started with hate speech, from the Holocaust to Rwanda to Srebrenica. Do we really want history to repeat itself right here in Australia? If not, then it’s time to seriously start cracking down on Internet hatred, along with all other human rights abuses on the Internet. If we don’t, the consequences could be even worse than any of us could possibly imagine.

Posted in Australia, Censorship, Jews | Comments Off