03
Jul

#DI: How one man’s Hope is so often another man’s Hatred

Without the light of scrutiny enabled by free discourse, democratic politics becomes little more than an exercise in wishful thinking

Without the light of scrutiny enabled by free discourse, democratic politics becomes little more than a dangerous exercise in wishful thinking

An article indicating that The Discourse Institute’s work has come to the attention of a purportedly anti-extremism organization in Britain, called Hope Not Hate, has been published on their website today.

The piece specifically references the 3-5 year exclusion order against entering Britain applied by the Home Secretary Theresa May last week against two US anti-Sharia activists.

Since the formal incorporation in September 2011, of the four years of effort expended by our network of academics, lawyers and desk officers in the cause of European free speech reform, the nature of our institute’s work has been public knowledge: something entirely in accordance with our commitment to full transparency.

In addition, details of all the media and formal appearances by our institute’s director, George Igler, have been fully obtainable on our own websites, that of others, and on YouTube; which is why the rather sensationalist tone used by the blogger behind Hope Not Hate, as if he were leaking the discovery of some classified secret would be quite risible, were it not for the fact that the issues under discussion were so deadly serious. (The full text of the speech our director gave in New York last year, can be read here.)

In contrast to his organization’s only recent discovery of our own work, Nick Lowles’s efforts have been the subject of very extensive study by our researchers for some considerable time.

A Council for European Discourse (CED) report on the UK’s rape-gang epidemic, currently being authored on the request of members of the US House of Representatives, highlights in particular the climate of fear generated among police officers and social workers created by UK bodies like Hope Not Hate, which has permitted the systematic sexual torture of British children for over twenty years.

Though we cannot comment on active European free speech crises in which our activity, the Discourse Defence Network (DDN), assists, we would in this case now continue to direct potential donors towards Geller and Spencer’s own fundraising efforts; and no longer ours, as the legal matter in question is currently proceeding entirely to our satisfaction, and we are confident that Theresa May’s monstrous decision will be resoundingly overturned quite soon.

To be clear however, our contact details are freely available, and we would have happily confirmed the veracity of any of the few factual details in Mr Lowles’s piece; about which we were not consulted, and to which we offered the immediate opportunity of a comment/reply when its existence was brought to our attention.

Nevertheless, to address directly the charge of extremism through guilt-by-association implicit in the article, to our knowledge neither of the two people under discussion has ever methodically sawn the head off of someone who holds the faith with which they disagree.

This photograph available for nearly a year on the Atlas Shrugs blog forms the centrepiece of today's "revalations" - offending islamophobic beverage on table in front of our director

The photograph available for nearly a year on the Atlas Shrugs blog which forms the centrepiece of today’s “revelations” – offending ‘islamophobic’ beverage on table in front of our director

In our view, without these two Americans’ efforts to highlight the doctrinal excuses given by psychopaths like the alleged Woolwich killers Michael Adebelajo and Michael Adebowale, who do genuinely believe that their religious convictions entitle them to behave in this way, many European citizens would be entirely ignorant of them.

Such citizens would therefore be unable to make the informed decisions about their countries’ futures upon which functioning free democracies depend.

The fact that the foreign policy objectives of David Cameron’s government are to arm and equip precisely the Salafists who recently decapitated Bishop Murad of the Syrian Catholic church, a scene of horror whose recent effect on British public opinion is second only to Fusilier Rigby’s own killing on May 22nd; makes the Home Secretary’s exclusion order a self-evidently political one, entirely in keeping with the cynical utilization of the tools of her office to protect a fragile coalition government.

Though some people certainly find disagreeable the manner in which Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller conduct their activism, our democracies simply cannot function without precisely the freedoms which allow them to do so. The two go hand in hand.

Moreover, The Discourse Institute does not cherry-pick free speech cases based on any political objective, we observe what we call the Discourse Criterion. We intentionally and specifically highlight examples where, instead of protecting the speech rights of those who receive credible threats of death against themselves and their families for expressing views, established civil rights charities ignore them while publicly funded authorities actively collude in their persecution.

The views in question however, are functionally irrelevant to us, as our sole agendum of concern is protecting the mechanism of free speech, as the means through which freedom of conscience enables critical inquiry. Which constitutes the greatest single historical gift given by the European continent, to the entirety of the human race.

However, it is not we who have created the modern playing field in which the freedom of speech of Islamists in the EU is promoted, while that of their opponents is derided and repressed.

The fact that the United Kingdom is now a state which does its utmost to protect the safety of those who incite bigotry-based murder, even as it threatens prosecution against others who publicise examples of blood-curdling incitement against children that it refuses to pursue; is again, something for which the responsibility does not lie at our door.

To be clear, our view is that the personally held faith of Islam is entirely compatible with Western life. The Sharia conventions of Salafism however, are fundamentally at odds with the West’s core value of freedom of conscience. But once more, it is not we who have determined these factual realities.

Nevertheless, as mature 21st century Europeans we have chosen the path of facing up to them, as the only rational means of ever navigating through these contemporary issues, to policy solutions which will ultimately serve the interests of the greater public good.

The problem which lies with choosing “hate” as a parameter by which you limit acceptable political discourse however, is the same one that the nation states of the EU are now encountering in seeking to make differing matters of opinion subject to the criminal law.

Different people have different views. Tautological, but nevertheless true.

Historically slavery was first abolished in the world by Britain, this happened chiefly because some people, far from the majority at the time, hated it. Capital punishment ended up being abolished in the UK, primarily because in 1965 chiefly bien-pensant opinion, hated it. Why was the Conservative government roundly beaten by Tony Blair’s New Labour in 1997? Most voters then, hated it. But for each of these examples, obviously there were equally strongly held opposing views: as this is the fundamental nature of all subjective truth claims.

These invariably to one person hold one unequivocal meaning, whilst at precisely the same time, hold a diametrically opposite meaning to another person. And to pretend otherwise out of some sort of rainbow-skipping delirium is to be an imbecile.

Simply, Geller and Spencer are not the salivating extremist monsters that some would seem so laughably obsessed with portraying them as being; probably as a result of making a jolly good living while doing so. On the contrary Pamela is an absolute dish, and anyone who hasn’t heard Robert’s “Goodfellas” impression simply hasn’t lived.

Hope Not Hate really should stop playing silly buggers with the most precious freedom upon which all of our liberties depends. If I’d have known that Nick was going to have kittens over a gin and tonic, I would have stayed further and had another. As I recall the ones in the Stockholm Grand Hotel were rather good.

George Igler, on a fundraising tour for the CED’s “Never Shall Be Slaves” free rape-gang victim assistance initiative, speaking today from Toronto

It is this sort of infantilist understanding of human nature as espoused by Hope Not Hate, that maintains that the only acceptable way that people who know that the police are enabling, and politicians are studiously ignoring, the brutal and purposeful sexual parasitism of their pre-pubescent daughters should have of expressing their fury, is presumably through the making of cucumber sandwiches.

Or perhaps Nick Lowles’s solution to the working class rage articulated at Britain’s street grooming rape-gang epidemic, which finds its manifestation chiefly in the phenomenon of the English Defence League, is the proposal to hit the matter hard, and to hit it fast, with a major, and we mean major, leaflet campaign?

With Hope Not Hate’s permission we at The Discourse Institute will make no apologies for taking the more politically nuanced view that there can be no ethical or social harmony in a multicultural society, if some believe that they are entitled to cut the heads off of those with whom they disagree; while others maintain, that they have the moral right to silence and intimidate those who wish to talk openly about this issue.

Particularly when those with the courage to do so risk their lives and the lives of their families, in a way that people who are merely in the professional business of pretending to confront extremism, cannot even begin to imagine.

 

UPDATE: We have been informed that Hope Not Hate is now fraudulently claiming that we are fundraising for Mr Spencer and Ms Geller. This is a libel being perpetuated by Nick Lowles’s publishing of emails from which the dates have been deliberately removed.  All the legal documents in our possession clearly attest to our unfunded case, prepared June 24th the day before May’s exclusion order, being suspended before the US citizens’ own decision to proceed independently.

To reiterate there has never been any professional relationship between The Discourse Institute and either of these US activists whatsoever, something which they will both readily confirm. Again any such assertion is a plain lie. We do not have the resources to prioritize anything other than European free speech interests: Theresa May’s decision being one such concern until the July 1st crowdfunding effort in the US, to which we clearly direct all inquiries in the above article as a result of Mr Lowles’s tedious falsehoods, made this redundant.

All further questions in this regard should be directed HERE. Thank you.

The Discourse Institute
The Discourse Institute
for European free speech reform