Senator Pauline O’Reilly of Ireland’s Green Party, in support of Ireland’s proposed Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences Bill 2022 said, “We are restricting freedom but we’re doing it for the common good . . . Yes, you have rights, but they are restricted for the common good.”
In defense of restricting speech, she further states, “When one thinks about it, all law and all legislation is about the restriction of freedom”. She appears to correlate the erection of a stop sign, or some other simple, elementary, protectionist law to furnishing government in determining, deciding, and resolving what it concludes as hate speech.
Despite the United States Supreme Court, under the auspices of the First Amendment to the Constitution, blocking attempts at restricting speech, the Biden Administration attempted to create the Disinformation Governance Board as a wing of the Homeland Security Administration. Nina Jankowicz, an American researcher and writer, had been tapped to lead the board. Vetted by detractors, it was learned how derisorily partial Jankowicz was to leftist causes and politics. In any case, the board, due to intense criticism, never materialized.
Canada, under the federally-merged Liberal and New Democratic Party, with legislative bills, like C-63, has endeavored to ratify the same measures. Many of these actions impose harsh limitations, restrictions, and boundaries on content in social media; in other words, where many, especially the youth, get their news, viewpoints, and opinions.
Referencing the “common good” component of Ms. O’Reilly’s quote, the ‘good’ is not common, but rather ideological. Legislation or laws passed within the ‘woke’ or “identitarian moralism” are wrought with the intent to create a sense of equity for specific groups while superficially neglecting the disadvantages these statutory rules place upon others or those external of the group. If the disadvantages are recognized and disapprovingly spoken about then that becomes hate speech.
As I wrote previously last year, “According to the Washington Post, climate change is elevating “hate speech”. While there is no universal definition of hate speech, if this was simply angered discourse, places like Phoenix, especially in the summer, would be a hate-filled habitat of horrors, or are the advocates insinuating, rather irrationally, that the heat of climate change is a different heat”.
In a Fox News Article, under the sub-heading “Possible link between climate change and ‘hate speech’”, it states:
“Delving more specifically into the data, the reporter (Washington Post weather reporter Amudalat Ajasa) cited the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research’s study, which found an "increase of hate speech of up to 22 percent on Twitter when temperatures are above 107 degrees Fahrenheit." Not only that but "extreme cold" coincided with a rise in "offensive tweets."
Contrary to what this reporter said, this is not a condition or circumstance of climate, but the continuing decay in people’s morals, manners, and mindset when the normal environment reaches its natural high and low points.
I can further report, without much remorse, that in recent days Sally Buzbee, The Washington Post’s executive editor has resigned and with circulation reduced by half the paper lost $77 million last year.
Naturally, as with most on the left, the constraint of speech is a desirable trait for the climate change hucksters. With everything progressive, they give rise to the earth as a victim and if you deny their claims, you have committed ‘hate speech’.
Everyone is offended by something - to them I say, the color of skin doesn’t matter, just the thickness of it.
Great to have you back where you belong