Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 11      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   Next   »
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,911
Reply with quote  #16 
Letter by 47 organisations against the SPLC:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/32160/47-nonprofits-warn-editors-ceos-youre-complicit-james-barrett?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_content=051717-news&utm_campaign=dwtwitter
http://lc.org/PDFs/Attachments2PRsLAs/2018/062118SPLCLetter.pdf
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,901
Reply with quote  #17 
I read the top (dailywire) link, and the in-depth Politico study linked by that in turn. There seems no doubt that the SPLC has been careless and even dishonest in some of its characterisations, and has greatly damaged its own credibility by its actions. Just the Nawaz case alone would put that beyond question. But whether the alleged 60-odd organisations will or will not launch an action remains to be seen, just as it does with Candace Owens (as far as I know), with whom you launched this thread. And, while the SPLC having gotten some things provably wrong does mean its word cannot be unquestioningly taken, it does not mean that it has got everything wrong.

Taking its list of anti-LGBT hate groups, the SPLC explains that most of these groups are included because of their continual peddling of entirely disproved allegations against LGBT people in general. The most prominent of these groups would seem to be the Family Research Council, represented by SPLC opponents as staunch defenders of Christian and biblical values unfairly targeted by the SPLC. So, do they fit the reasonable-seeming SPLC definition? It could have been tailored for them, they fit it so well.

I haven't looked at any of the others yet, but wouldn't mind betting that more than a few of them will also be, in fact, exactly what the SPLC has accused them of: dishonest whippers-up of hate against a particular group. The group being classified by sexuality rather than race or religion doesn't make such actions any less malicious, wrong and profoundly harmful, it just means that the hatemongers can (mostly) get away with saying things they would never dare to against any other grouping.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,911
Reply with quote  #18 
The accusations that these people "hate" gays, Muslims and minorities is manufactured purely for fundraising purposes by the SPLC. The people who have been defamed have no intention to hurt gays, Muslims or minorities. The White Nationalists, neo-Nazis, etc on the other hand are people who intend to hurt others, but so do black radicals and Islamists, who generally escape scrutiny for doing so.

Criticism of Islam, multiculturalism and moral relativism does not make someone "hateful". The goal of the SPLC is to shut down any debate in Cultural Marxist fashion. This has always been their aim from the start and has been widely adopted by media and corporate support for them.

The accusations levelled at such fine people as Lt Gen Jerry Boykin, Frank Gaffney, John Guandolo, Daniel Pipes, Pamela Geller, David Horowitz, et al are outrageous and should underline the true evil behind the agenda of the SPLC. In the UK, Hope Not Hate produced similar smears about people including Melanie Phillips with the whole "Islamophobia" myth being peddled about by the Left:
https://www.thejc.com/comment/leaders/hatred-not-hope-1.64028
https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/As-I-See-It-Confused-Jews-and-Islamophobia-phobia-438369

In fact, Phillips received death threats because of an article which slandered her:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1352024/Calls-Melanie-Phillips-killed-gay-rights-prove-societys-values-danger.html

What you need to get is that these smears have a serious impact that could form a plausible defamation case - the fact that people's reputations, livelihoods and even personal safety have been threatened. In a liberal democracy, nobody who isn't breaking the law has the right to be placed in danger from lawless vigilantes (which is what Antifa and their Islamist allies et al are).
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,901
Reply with quote  #19 
Sure. The Family Reserch Council wants to deprive gay people of their civil liberties, lock them up if they are caught having sex with each other, and subject them to torture to see if that will get them to change their ways (the torture of course is called 'therapy', which makes everything alright, and the fact that it has been shown not to work and to cause its victims immeasurable harm is all by the by). But they want to do these things out of their pure Christian love. It is quite wrong of the SPLC to call them a hate group when all they want to do is help, not harm. As far as I personally am concerned, though, I would greatly prefer it if their love could be directed elsewhere, since its results are indistinguishable from those of purest malice.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,911
Reply with quote  #20 
Hannah Scherlacher of Campus Reform tells how she was smeared by the SPLC:

Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,901
Reply with quote  #21 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidV
In fact, Phillips received death threats because of an article which slandered her:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1352024/Calls-Melanie-Phillips-killed-gay-rights-prove-societys-values-danger.html

What you need to get is that these smears have a serious impact that could form a plausible defamation case - the fact that people's reputations, livelihoods and even personal safety have been threatened. In a liberal democracy, nobody who isn't breaking the law has the right to be placed in danger from lawless vigilantes (which is what Antifa and their Islamist allies et al are).

I didn't respond to the above originally, because it wasn't there when I first replied. I don't care for Melanie Philipps and particularly don't care for her dishonest and disingenuous use of the 'gay agenda' catchphrase. Why is it we never hear about the 'religious agenda'? While I regret the abuse she received, do not in any way justify it and would never dream of doing such a thing myself, my sympathy remains limited.

She admits that she knew this is exactly what would happen if she said what she did, but went ahead and said it. Which would be noble if she were defending free speech values at risk to herself, but I suspect she apprehends no real risk and actually did it in order to bait idiots into saying things she could then turn round and use against the general cause of gay rights.

For the second part, I do get that. And am no fan of lawless vigilantes whatever their cause and whoever they attack. But you can't claim the right to free speech even if opinions are controversial on the one hand, and then on the other hand say anyone pointing out the obnoxious activities of people and organisations you happen to sympathise with should be silenced, using the excuse that someone might be provoked to vigilantism.

If someone feels they have been defamed, there are legal remedies for that. And if all the accusations against the SPLC are justified, there is ample potential to completely destroy them through the courts. Which, if they are justified, is what ought to happen. Until it does, I will remain sceptical as to whether the complainants actually have something to complain about, or are just issuing threats and bluster to obscure the fact that, like the Family Research Council, they are exactly what the SPLC said they were.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,911
Reply with quote  #22 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter

I didn't respond to the above originally, because it wasn't there when I first replied. I don't care for Melanie Philipps and particularly don't care for her dishonest and disingenuous use of the 'gay agenda' catchphrase. Why is it we never hear about the 'religious agenda'? While I regret the abuse she received, do not in any way justify it and would never dream of doing such a thing myself, my sympathy remains limited.

She admits that she knew this is exactly what would happen if she said what she did, but went ahead and said it. Which would be noble if she were defending free speech values at risk to herself, but I suspect she apprehends no real risk and actually did it in order to bait idiots into saying things she could then turn round and use against the general cause of gay rights.

For the second part, I do get that. And am no fan of lawless vigilantes whatever their cause and whoever they attack. But you can't claim the right to free speech even if opinions are controversial on the one hand, and then on the other hand say anyone pointing out the obnoxious activities of people and organisations you happen to sympathise with should be silenced, using the excuse that someone might be provoked to vigilantism.


The fact that there are people who would dare send threats to Melanie Phillips, Maajid Nawaz, et al is precisely part of the problem. Or that Senator Cory Bernardi's office was trashed by leftist thugs two years ago (I had the privilege of meeting Senator Bernardi this year). The problem is that the Left rarely condemns and often excuses such abusive and violent behaviour from its own side, or outright denies things.

Quote:
If someone feels they have been defamed, there are legal remedies for that. And if all the accusations against the SPLC are justified, there is ample potential to completely destroy them through the courts. Which, if they are justified, is what ought to happen. Until it does, I will remain sceptical as to whether the complainants actually have something to complain about, or are just issuing threats and bluster to obscure the fact that, like the Family Research Council, they are exactly what the SPLC said they were.


Again. The SPLC has always pursued a radical Left agenda from the very beginning, and even its much-feted legal wins over actual extremist groups which earned them fame were arguably overrated as this argues:
https://www.city-journal.org/html/demagogic-bully-15370.html

But the point is, while it has always attacked the Right, it didn't start making up "anti-LGBT", "anti-Muslim", "anti-immigrant" and "anti-government" categories to put mainstream conservative organisations and individuals in, until they realised they could smear even more people in the name of making a buck and stuffing its treasury. That's how they operate, and even some liberals and leftists have criticised them for this. What is most disturbing is that despite this, the mainstream liberal media treats its pronouncements as though it were fact. In fairness, they're not the only ones because this is how the race relations industry operates - they need to manufacture and exaggerate claims of "racism" in Western society and smear people purely so that they can remain relevant, or seek money and power for themselves. Particularly sinister about the SPLC is that it is all about suppressing public debate without having any government mandate to do so whatsoever.

The fact the SPLC and Hope Not Hate would compile "anti-Muslim" list is not merely irresponsible, it's dangerous because the said defamed people are very likely seen as targets for Islamist violence.

Ask yourself if it's fair (since the Left likes to call itself the champion of fairness, equality and justice) that the SPLC has been allowed to amass enormous wealth on the back of its smear campaigns (through corporate and celebrity donations), while those it defame don't have the resources to fight back. Ask yourself if it's fair that the same defamed groups and individuals are forced to spend more on security as a result to credible threats to their safety.

What the SPLC have achieved with their "hate map" is that people like myself are more determined to support organisations that are under attack - Alliance Defending Freedom, Family Research Council, Center for Immigration Studies, Center for Security Policy, Clarion Project, et al. And I'm not alone.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,901
Reply with quote  #23 
Like I said, if people have been defamed there are remedies available at law. If instead of pursuing those remedies they just hurl back slurs in the other direction (which is all that seems to be going on right now), I've got to think that maybe they weren't defamed, that what the SPLC said about them was true.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,911
Reply with quote  #24 
Well many of the groups defamed are considering options at this moment, as I've posted above. You cannot defend the SPLC here and their outrageous slander campaigns against innocent people.

Then this:
http://gazette.com/editorial-challenge-the-splcs-hateful-hate-map/article/1628106

The SPLC's use of "anti-Muslim" as a smear against people who oppose radical Islam or whose criticism of Islam is comparatively mild typifies the Left's hostility to free speech and also the SPLC's links with CAIR, an organisation banned by the UAE as a Muslim Brotherhood front group.
 
It is of course no coincidence that CAIR has supported many of the Left's fashionable causes, such as Black Lives Matter and attacks on American heritage. We see similar from Muslim activists in Australia, who by no means represent the whole Muslim community.
 
This explains a lot about the Left's attacks on Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Recently, the leftist New York Review of Books ran a smear against those two as "native agents", typifying the postcolonial identity politics orthodoxy of the Left - namely any "minority" or non-white person who rejects identity politics and victimhood is some "Uncle Tom", an agent of colonialism or whatever else.
 
The pervasiveness of postcolonialism and identity politics on the Left has affected race relations in the US, Britain and Australia. Furthermore, it is this which is now being rapaciously exploited by Islamists to advance their long-term objectives both in the West and in the Islamic World.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,901
Reply with quote  #25 
I don't defend outrageous slander campaigns against innocent people here or anywhere else. But, as I've said more than once already, the innocence remains to be established, and those claiming to have been slandered have the remedy in their own hands. Nawaz took his, and rightly so. Will they?
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,911
Reply with quote  #26 
Meanwhile Daniel Pipes confirms the SPLC continues its defamation campaigns:
https://twitter.com/DanielPipes/status/1010670311782612992

Let the lawsuits begin. That the SPLC lists events related to its targets demonstrates callousness as this is an invite to violence from extremists.

As this article demonstrates, an organisation that claims Christina Sommers enables misogyny and that Charles Murray is a "white nationalist" is most definitely garbage. It was never, ever any good:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/the-southern-poverty-law-center-isnt-authoritative-its-garbage
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,911
Reply with quote  #27 
The American Left is itching for a return to the 1930s Spanish Republic. Congresswoman Maxine Waters, a notorious race-hustler, is a prime example:
https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/maxine-waters-political-violence/

The Far Left "news" platform Splinter News has run articles suggesting the same course against Trump and his supporters:
https://twitter.com/FarLeftWatch/status/1011586585228464133

Splinter News is owned by Univision, along with The Root magazine aimed at black American audiences pushing a similar Left line.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,911
Reply with quote  #28 
http://dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5891615/Left-wing-writer-warns-Trump-administration-opponents-carry-BOMB-ATTACKS-against-them.html

Splinter News' Hamilton Nolan has been criticised for his piece. While he did not explicitly instruct violence, he used past examples and said further violence was possible - he neither condemned nor discourage the use of violence in his article.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,911
Reply with quote  #29 
https://quillette.com/2018/06/28/free-speech-and-the-capitulation-of-the-splc/

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/southern-poverty-law-center-lawsuits-would-attack-free-speech/

Both Quillette and the National Review have articles questioning the prudential wisdom of suing the SPLC. However, there is the real problem that the SPLC, a non-government body, has made a concerted effort to undermine freedom of speech, freedom of association and diversity of opinion within America's borders and possibly outside of it too. An NGO doing this is potentially more dangerous than a government.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,901
Reply with quote  #30 
I read the thoughtful Quillette piece. Free speech is crucial to the functioning of a liberal democracy, and ought to be seen as a basic human right (as it generally is). But most would admit that it cannot be an absolute right. Defamation ought not to be protected, incitement to violence also should not be, and so on. Of course there are always grey areas and questions of definition, which ultimately courts have to resolve -- an opportunity not offered in the Nawaz case, as the settlement was prior to any hearing taking place.

My position though remains as it was before reading the article. If groups and individuals feel they have been defamed, they have every right to take action against the defamer. Until they do, it seems at least possible that they were not defamed, but rather perfectly accurately described, as in the case of the Family Research Council, which may not in its own mind be a homophobic hate group but would act in no way differently if it were. I regretted that the otherwise good article described this organisation as defenders of traditional morality, when that would mean traditional morality includes the spreading of deliberate lies and slanders harmful to an innocent group of people. What happened to commandment eight, or nine depending which flavour of the Decalogue you prefer?
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.