General Debate 03/04/11

An example of where the poison springs from. A report on the Bolt case from Tom Hyland, a far left repeater working for one of the most disgusting communist propaganda sheets in Australasia, The Melbourne Age

Media researcher and academic Denis Muller said the case will turn on what type of speech Justice Bromberg finds Bolt has engaged in. Justice Bromberg is likely to find in Bolt’s favour if he judges his words were fair political comment. But Bolt will lose if the judge finds he engaged in ”hate speech or fighting words”. But Dr Muller doesn’t believe that a decision against Bolt would be a blow to freedom of expression.

”I don’t accept that argument for one minute,” he said. ”Freedom on speech is a very important value in a democracy, but it’s not an absolute value. There are all sorts of circumstances where freedom of speech gives way to other interests.”

One thought on “General Debate 03/04/11

  1. From New Zeal – Trevor Loudon:

    “Responsibility to Protect” – The End of National Sovereignty As We Know It?

    Why Did U.S. President Barack Obama order a military attack on Libya? Why did he seek the permission of the United Nations Security Council, but not that of the U.S. Congress – as he is constitutionally obliged to do?

    Glenn Beck has explained President Obama’s decision to attack Libya in terms of the United Nations’ “Responsibility to Protect Doctrine” […]

    The United Nations reported in July 2009;

    The Obama administration is supporting moves to implement an U.N. doctrine calling for collective military action to halt genocide. In a week-long debate on implementing the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine, the U.S. joined a majority of U.N. countries, including Russia and China, in supporting implementation of the policy. The doctrine itself was approved in 2005 by more than 150 states including the U.S.
    The doctrine specifies that diplomatic options such as internal conflict resolution, sanctions, and prosecution by the International Criminal Court, should be used first. If they don’t work, then a multi-national force approved by the Security Council would be deployed.

    In other words, if the United Nations does not approve of a certain government’s behavior, and that government’s leaders will not respond to sanctions and the threat of prosecution, they will be attackeded militarily. […]

    “We can no longer hide behind state sovereignty.”

    Let that sink in reader. That is what this is all about.

    “Responsibility to Protect” means the end of national sovereignty. It mandates the surrender of any nation state’s legal authority over their own citizenry and armed forces to a supra-national body, with the power to sanction or destroy any deemed “rogue” nation – does Israel spring to mind?

    “Responsibility to Protect” – three little words, that should strike terror into the heart of every patriot in every free nation of the world.


Comments are closed.