Sunday, February 17, 2008

Do You Believe Women Have the Right to Freedom of Speech?


Do you believe women have the right to freedom of speech?


I believe all people should have the right to freedom of speech.

However, I am curious as to why feminists Charles Moffat and Suzanne MacNevin should frame the question in a way to make it gender specific. Perhaps they feel that women should have free speech, but not men?

It is certainly not anti-feminists who are opposed to free speech. In fact, some of us are anti-feminist because we believe in preserving free speech. Feminism is the movement that wishes to make anyone speaking out against it guilty of hate crimes. Where Charles Moffat and Suzanne MacNevin get the idea that anti-feminists are against freedom of speech can only come from the projection of their own feminist evil desires.

Who was it that became famous for wasting $75,000 of taxpayer dollars by creating a report for the Status of Women Canada which recommended that websites who opposed feminism should be placed on a “Hate Watch?”

Hmmm… who was that again?

Oh yeah, it was the feminist professor, Pierrette Bouchard, from Laval University. Mzzzz Bouchard, great feminist “thinker,” does not believe in free speech. (I know, I know. “Feminist thinker” is an oxymoron).

The danger of such laws as feminists have put forward are that they outlaw the truth. Yes, that’s right. What “Hate Crime Laws” do is make the truth irrelevant and illegal.

Under Hate Crime Laws, if say, an incredibly intelligent anti-feminist should quote domestic violence facts which illustrate that women are just as violent as men, such as those put forth by Stats Canada (the Government) itself, the truth does not make you innocent of committing a Hate Crime. You see, Hate Crimes are designed so that anything which is said about the protected group must be stifled, because even the truth can cause ill feelings towards them.

But yet, this is what feminists are trying to do to an unsuspecting population. They are trying to outlaw the truth because they know they have been cooking the books and slanting their position to such an enormous degree that even a quick glance will reveal their dishonesty and unravel their totalitarian agenda. Feminism can’t handle the truth because there is nothing truthful about feminism.

It is truly staggering to see the backroom manipulations, from our own governments to the United Nations, all trying to get speaking out against the political movement of feminism to be declared a “Hate Crime.” If feminist theories are sound, they should stand up under intense scrutiny, don’t you think? What are they so scared of then?

On the subject of free speech and freedom of the press, I do, however, believe that there should be some regulation to impose some badly needed checks and balances.

Yes, yes. I know. That goes against my general libertarian ideals. But, media is somewhat unique in its function of maintaining liberty. In fact, the media is supposed to be mandated to help maintain liberty by continually questioning and highlighting various aspects of society.

The whole idea of free speech is supposed to be a check and balance within itself, and this is what it is supposed to mean in our constitutions. It works on a free market type of idea.

It was originally intended that there should be hundreds, if not thousands of ideas and viewpoints put forth to the people with free speech. If someone believes in an idea, he should be able to buy a printing press, set it up in his garage, and start speaking and spreading his ideas around. If his ideas are sound, they will rise in popularity. If his ideas are stupid, some other guy with a printing press will write about it and his ideas will fall in popularity. All along, free speech from multitudes of sources should theoretically self regulate itself.

What was never intended, however, was a media monopoly, as we currently have. Here in Canada, we have only two companies who own virtually all of the media. In the USA, there are five companies, I believe.

We might have multiple newspapers and multiple news channels on TV, but they are all owned by the same companies and they all spout forth the exact same message. This effectively destroys the part of free speech which is supposed to maintain liberty. Media is unique in the way that it is mandated to maintain liberty. The media has failed us horribly.

The way the internet is working, with thousands and millions of voices all competing with eachother is exactly how free speech is supposed to work.

It makes one wonder then, why those in government (ie. Nancy Pelosi) immediately charge forward trying to regulate free speech on the internet, often in the name of protecting political agendas such as feminism. The internet does not need to be regulated, it is self regulating just as free speech was intended to be. How come the government does not attempt to break the media monopolies to encourage more free speech? Rather, government is trying to stop the first breath of free speech we have heard in decades by trying to regulate the internet.

They are scared shitless of free speech.

They know that agendas like feminism are heavily based in Marxism and have been used against the people to socially re-engineer them.

They know that with free speech, these agendas will no longer be protected and permitted to go along unnoticed. There is treason afoot, and unregulated free speech from little ding dongs like me is fast revealing it. The millions of voices are getting louder and louder. Communist based agendas like feminism are coming under the microscope and are found to be lacking.

I don’t think there is any anti-feminist that is opposed to free speech. Quite the opposite.

But, I can see why feminists continually try to end free speech under the rubric of “Hate Crimes Legislation.” Feminism knows that if society is allowed to closely examine her silk panties, it will be discovered that they are soiled with skid marks.

Previous Index Next
…. \_/...........