In Saudi Arabia, -
they have the Committee for the the promotion of virtue and the prevention of vice..
In Canada, -
they have the quasi-judicial Human Rights Tribunal..
In England, -
they have anti-free speech “Jihadist”, Home Secretary Theresa May…
I subscribe to the Danish Free Press Society’s RSS-feed, – (in Danish), - which keeps me updated about developments around the world. I highly appreciate this service, and here are the latest headlines:
Douglas Murray, whom I greatly admire, writes:
According to the Home Office, if you are a non-Muslim and you make the following statement, your presence will be deemed ‘not conducive to the public good’ and you will be barred from entering the United Kingdom:
“It [Islam] is a religion and a belief system that mandates warfare against unbelievers for the purpose for establishing a societal model that is absolutely incompatible with Western society. Because of media and general government unwillingness to face the sources of Islamic terrorism these things remain largely unknown.”
If, on the other hand, you are a Muslim and you say the following, then the UK government has no problem with you, and you can come into the UK to do a speaking tour:
“Devotion to Jihad for the sake of Allah, and the desire to shed blood, to smash skulls and to sever limbs for the sake of Allah and in defense of His religion, is, undoubtedly, an honor for the believer.”
Point is: What qualifies as “hate-speech” ? – and who’s to decide ?..
My personal opinion is very clear: I am completely against hate-speech laws, except for incitement to violence agaisnt specific individuals.