Op de website van de Australian Libertarian Society verscheen onlangs een uitermate interessant artikel van Steve Edwards, de voortrekker van het Australische libertarisme, waarin hij suggereerde dat alle "Anti-Hate Laws" - i.e. alle wetten die de vrijheden beperken in bijvoorbeeld de strijd tegen onverdraagzaamheid - een communistische origine hebben. Edwards verwijst naar teksten van het "Sowjet Politbureau" en naar artikels uit de communistische grondwetten van o.a. de USSR, China, de DDR en Cuba, waarin tal van artikels perfecte copies blijken te zijn van onze "moderne" anti-haatwetten.
Ondanks het feit dat ik zijn tekst geslaagd vond - hij legt immers op exemplaire wijze de vinger op de wonde - en ondanks het feit dat ik zijn conclusie - de Westerse mensen moeten meer waakzaamheid aan de dag leggen in het beoordelen van zogenaamde "moderne wetten" - genegen ben, kon ik dat artikel toch niet helemaal onderschrijven. Ik heb dan ook van de "Australian Libertarian Societyé de kans gekregen om mijn reactie te publiceren op hun website naast het bewuste artikel "The communist origins of anti-hate laws":
The current campaign to introduce "anti-hate" legislation worldwide (especially to prevent "religious vilification") is a phenomenon that dates back to the 1960s, and even before. Unsurprisingly, these draconian attacks on free speech were pioneered by Marxist intellectuals and given practical application in the Soviet Union. In searching for the intellectual foundations of the anti-free speech movement, it is necessary to look back as far as the 1960s, and possibly before. Clearly, one of the most blatant intellectual attacks on free speech is the infamous essay "Repressive Tolerance", written in 1965 by the well-known German Marxist, Herbert Marcuse.
"Repressive Tolerance" is nothing less than the definitive blueprint for the "political correctness" movement that ails us to this very day. Adopting the Gramscian model of "hegemony", Marcuse eloquently argues for "intolerance" towards what he considers the "prevailing policies, attitudes, opinions", and for the extension of "tolerance" to those policies, attitudes and opinions he deems "outlawed or suppressed".
According to Marcuse:
Marcuse concludes:
During its 74 year reign as the greatest living (and mass-murdering) example of Marxism in practice, the Soviet Union had long enshrined the values of "repressive tolerance" in its legal framework. For example, Article 123 of the 1936 Soviet Constitution stated that "any advocacy of racial or national exclusiveness or hatred and contempt, is punishable by law". The 1977 Soviet Constitution went much further. Despite Article 50 guaranteeing "freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly, meetings, street processions and demonstrations", several other Articles eviscerated this "right". For example, Article 36 provides that "any advocacy of racial or national exclusiveness, hostility, or contempt, are punishable by law". More ominously, Article 52 states "incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited". Tyrannically, Article 39 of the Soviet Constitution proclaimed that "Enjoyment by citizens of their rights and freedoms must not be to the detriment of the interests of society or the state..." In fact, the Article 50 "guarantee" of "freedom of speech" was intentionally snuffed out by contradictory clauses in Articles 36, 39 and 52. Clearly, with the Left in control of the "Workers' Fatherland", Article 36 and other clauses were required to "protect radicalism on the Left against that on the Right", just as Herbert Marcuse and his Marxist associates had deemed necessary.
Astonishingly, this blueprint for "tolerant" tyranny (otherwise known as "Repressive Tolerance") is being followed almost to the letter in Australia today.In 2001, the Victorian parliament passed an Orwellian piece of legislation that adopts much of the Marxist/Soviet model of "repressive tolerance". Section 4 of that Act states the legislation will try to "maintain the right of all Victorians to engage in robust discussion of any matter of public interest or to engage in, or comment on, any form of artistic expression, discussion of religious issues or academic debate where such discussion, expression, debate or comment does not vilify or marginalise any person or class of persons". Notice the similarities with Article 39 of the Soviet Constitution where "enjoyment by citizens of their rights and freedoms must not be to the detriment of the interests of society or the state"? As with the Russian Bolsheviks, if you are deemed to be acting against the "interests of the state" or the vaguely-defined "public interest" in socialist Victoria, you will be labelled an "enemy of the people".
Notice also the Marcusian invoking of "marginalisation" of any "class of persons". Section 7 of the Victorian Act outlaws "racial vilification", while Section 8, sub-section 1 warns: "A person must not, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons, engage in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons." This has clear parallels with Articles 36 and 52 of the Soviet Constitution, which state respectively that "any advocacy of racial or national exclusiveness, hostility, or contempt, are punishable by law" and "incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited". Once again, we see that "incitement of hatred" or "contempt" are common themes in Marxist jurisprudence, serving as convenient reasons to expunge any notions of individual liberty from the Statute books.Incredibly, unlike the Soviet Union, the Victorian Act actually claims extra-territorial jurisdiction. Section 8 (2b) states, "For the purposes of sub-section (1), conduct may occur outside Victoria." Unlike Stalin, who called for "Socialism In One Country", Victoria has dictated "Socialism For All".
In eviscerating the right to free speech, several Western countries, including Canada, the UK and Australia, have departed from the freedom-loving path of the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution, which stipulates "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech", and instead followed the road to tyranny, a ruinous avenue already paved by the monstrous rulers of the Soviet Empire. By "granting" us individual rights with one hand and taking them away with another, many Western politicians are consciously or unconsciously declaring their allegiance to the Marxist model of "repressive tolerance", pioneered by Marxist intellectuals and given practical application in one of the most murderous tyrannies in human history.
Dit artikel van Steve Edwards verscheen in The Free State, alsook op de website van de Australian Libertarian Society.
Meer teksten van deze auteur op www.libertarian.org.au.
Ondanks het feit dat ik zijn tekst geslaagd vond - hij legt immers op exemplaire wijze de vinger op de wonde - en ondanks het feit dat ik zijn conclusie - de Westerse mensen moeten meer waakzaamheid aan de dag leggen in het beoordelen van zogenaamde "moderne wetten" - genegen ben, kon ik dat artikel toch niet helemaal onderschrijven. Ik heb dan ook van de "Australian Libertarian Societyé de kans gekregen om mijn reactie te publiceren op hun website naast het bewuste artikel "The communist origins of anti-hate laws":
It is to be told and understood that this kind of "repressive tollerance" has already been adopted for several decades in Belgium, Western Europe, a country which has never been dominated or threatened by communist influence. In Belgium this law is almost unanimously accepted by all "conventional" political parties (excluding the right-extremist Vlaams Belang Party) and its rule has never been criticized. In spite of his socialist origins (the promotor was the Belgian socialist MP Moureaux), this law has been adopted by a majority without precedent in federalist Belgium, including the support of the liberal PVV and PRL (liberal in the continental European sense, rather moderate libertarian in the Anglo-Saxon connotation). Recently in Belgium, the Ghent Court of Appeal has even condamned and disbanded the Vlaams Blok (the predecessor of the Vlaams Belang Party) based on this Moureaux (Anti-Hate) Law. This party was the biggest political formation in Flanders, one of the three Belgian federal entities. As president of the Belgian ultra-liberal thinktank "Nova Libertas", I cannot sufficiently emphasize the importance of reflexion on this subject. We believe that men are not equal, that "being discriminated", "being poor" or "being weak" must not be considered human achievements and that discrimination is a human right which reflects the absolute freedom of the individual. Therefor we can not accept these kind of laws and we will continue to fight them with all means within the law and by respecting the rule of law. For freedom of speech, too many blood has been spoiled, too many sacrifices have been made and too many good guys have died. Let's make sure that they did not die in vain nor that their heritage will be destroyed by leftist propaganda and libertarian naivity about their cause. Semper Vigilans!Kortom, ik steun de libertarische ideologie en vind ook dat waakzaamheid noodzakelijk is in onze voortdurende strijd voor het behoud van onze rechten en vrijheden, maar het zonder meer afschilderen van een welbepaalde legislatieve tendens in de Westerse wereld als "communistisch" lijkt mij iets te goedkoop en iets te eenvoudig. Wel dien ik op te werpen dat de angst voor het communisme diepere wortels heeft in de Angelsaksische wereld dan in continentaal Europa. Misschien dienen we deze frontale aanval dan ook te interpreteren aan de hand van de Australische - en dus Angelsaksische - achtergrond. Er kan echter geen twijfel over bestaan dat iemand discrimineren of beledigen een (mensen)recht is! De vrijheid van meningsuiting kan immers geen uitzonderingen of beperkingen hebben zonder in se afgeschaft te worden! Wat nu volgt, is het oorspronkelijke artikel.
The current campaign to introduce "anti-hate" legislation worldwide (especially to prevent "religious vilification") is a phenomenon that dates back to the 1960s, and even before. Unsurprisingly, these draconian attacks on free speech were pioneered by Marxist intellectuals and given practical application in the Soviet Union. In searching for the intellectual foundations of the anti-free speech movement, it is necessary to look back as far as the 1960s, and possibly before. Clearly, one of the most blatant intellectual attacks on free speech is the infamous essay "Repressive Tolerance", written in 1965 by the well-known German Marxist, Herbert Marcuse.
"Repressive Tolerance" is nothing less than the definitive blueprint for the "political correctness" movement that ails us to this very day. Adopting the Gramscian model of "hegemony", Marcuse eloquently argues for "intolerance" towards what he considers the "prevailing policies, attitudes, opinions", and for the extension of "tolerance" to those policies, attitudes and opinions he deems "outlawed or suppressed".
According to Marcuse:
Tolerance is an end in itself only when it is truly universal, practiced by the rulers as well as by the ruled, by the lords as well as by the peasants, by the sheriffs as well as by their victims." But the exploitative class structure of capitalist society prevents "universal tolerance", and as such, "tolerance is de facto limited on the dual ground of legalized violence or suppression (police, armed forces, guards of all sorts) and of the privileged position held by the predominant interests and their connections.Predictably, Marcuse contends that the "Right" (having now been designated the "oppressor") is deserving of "intolerance" and the Left of "tolerance"; as he continues, "a policy of unequal treatment would protect radicalism on the Left against that on the Right".
Marcuse concludes:
Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left.It must be noted that Marcuse almost certainly held these views well before his essay was published. As an associate of the neo-Marxist Frankfurt Institute of Social Research since the early 1930s, Marcuse was a prominent agent in that hotbed of cultural radicalism that inoculated the extreme Marxist views that constitute the cult of "political correctness" today.
During its 74 year reign as the greatest living (and mass-murdering) example of Marxism in practice, the Soviet Union had long enshrined the values of "repressive tolerance" in its legal framework. For example, Article 123 of the 1936 Soviet Constitution stated that "any advocacy of racial or national exclusiveness or hatred and contempt, is punishable by law". The 1977 Soviet Constitution went much further. Despite Article 50 guaranteeing "freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly, meetings, street processions and demonstrations", several other Articles eviscerated this "right". For example, Article 36 provides that "any advocacy of racial or national exclusiveness, hostility, or contempt, are punishable by law". More ominously, Article 52 states "incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited". Tyrannically, Article 39 of the Soviet Constitution proclaimed that "Enjoyment by citizens of their rights and freedoms must not be to the detriment of the interests of society or the state..." In fact, the Article 50 "guarantee" of "freedom of speech" was intentionally snuffed out by contradictory clauses in Articles 36, 39 and 52. Clearly, with the Left in control of the "Workers' Fatherland", Article 36 and other clauses were required to "protect radicalism on the Left against that on the Right", just as Herbert Marcuse and his Marxist associates had deemed necessary.
Astonishingly, this blueprint for "tolerant" tyranny (otherwise known as "Repressive Tolerance") is being followed almost to the letter in Australia today.In 2001, the Victorian parliament passed an Orwellian piece of legislation that adopts much of the Marxist/Soviet model of "repressive tolerance". Section 4 of that Act states the legislation will try to "maintain the right of all Victorians to engage in robust discussion of any matter of public interest or to engage in, or comment on, any form of artistic expression, discussion of religious issues or academic debate where such discussion, expression, debate or comment does not vilify or marginalise any person or class of persons". Notice the similarities with Article 39 of the Soviet Constitution where "enjoyment by citizens of their rights and freedoms must not be to the detriment of the interests of society or the state"? As with the Russian Bolsheviks, if you are deemed to be acting against the "interests of the state" or the vaguely-defined "public interest" in socialist Victoria, you will be labelled an "enemy of the people".
Notice also the Marcusian invoking of "marginalisation" of any "class of persons". Section 7 of the Victorian Act outlaws "racial vilification", while Section 8, sub-section 1 warns: "A person must not, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons, engage in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons." This has clear parallels with Articles 36 and 52 of the Soviet Constitution, which state respectively that "any advocacy of racial or national exclusiveness, hostility, or contempt, are punishable by law" and "incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited". Once again, we see that "incitement of hatred" or "contempt" are common themes in Marxist jurisprudence, serving as convenient reasons to expunge any notions of individual liberty from the Statute books.Incredibly, unlike the Soviet Union, the Victorian Act actually claims extra-territorial jurisdiction. Section 8 (2b) states, "For the purposes of sub-section (1), conduct may occur outside Victoria." Unlike Stalin, who called for "Socialism In One Country", Victoria has dictated "Socialism For All".
In eviscerating the right to free speech, several Western countries, including Canada, the UK and Australia, have departed from the freedom-loving path of the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution, which stipulates "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech", and instead followed the road to tyranny, a ruinous avenue already paved by the monstrous rulers of the Soviet Empire. By "granting" us individual rights with one hand and taking them away with another, many Western politicians are consciously or unconsciously declaring their allegiance to the Marxist model of "repressive tolerance", pioneered by Marxist intellectuals and given practical application in one of the most murderous tyrannies in human history.
Dit artikel van Steve Edwards verscheen in The Free State, alsook op de website van de Australian Libertarian Society.
Meer teksten van deze auteur op www.libertarian.org.au.
3 Reacties:
- At 17:58 Anoniem said...
-
Knap opzoekingswerk van die Steve Edwards. Het bewijst nogmaals hoe corrupt ons systeem in elkaar zit. Het is een schande.
Jouw visie komt dan weer overeen met die van mij. Alleen denk ik dat je die in het Engels niet zo goed verwoord hebt. Jammer. - At 13:38 Anoniem said...
-
Vincent, the idea that "Belgium" has "never been dominated or threatened by communist influence", simply assumes what is in issue. Where do you think people in Belgium got these ideas from? They do not come from the libertarian tradition. As a matter of the history of ideas, they come from the Marxist tradition. Apart from being the founding father both of international communism and of democratic socialism, Marx was also one of the founding fathers of the academic discipline of sociology. He has had enormous influence throughout the humanities in the western world. The universities are positively drenched in Marxist theory, and this flows, through their graduates, into the institutions that most employ arts graduates, namely, government.
- At 13:39 Anoniem said...
-
But Belgium is threatened by the influence of communism - the EU Constitution is itself a communist document that is almost identical in spirit and clause to the 1977 Soviet Constitution. Mikhail Gorbachev himself referred to the EU as "the new European Soviet".
Conservatives and Libertarians need to understand that these laws are communist by inspiration and application - this is not a relatively harmless trend, but part of a conscious effort to establish a marxist state. Anybody who supports "anti-vilification" laws is simply following a long-standing communist tradition...and they need to be reminded of this as often as possible.
Abonneren op:
Reacties posten (Atom)