Islam, Free Speech and Questions for Jacob Van De Visser
This is a response letter to the above article’s author
Now Jacob I hope you see this. This is not a personal attack, and I in no way want to stamp out your voice or make it illegal for you to share your opinions. I am not a journalist, I am not a “skeptic Youtuber”, I am not in the media. I am merely a fellow citizen who is coming to you with honest questions.
Firstly I will state that to maintain a civilisation it requires vigilance and above all sacrifice.
It may require you to be passionate about something that is more grandiose than your mere mortal life. Your spec of existence in this universe.
A great lie that has been sold to my generation is that there is nothing that we need to defend. Nothing that we need to sacrifice. Nothing greater than us and our ambitions. That we should live lives of consumerism, personal pleasure and debauchery all while tolerating everything and everyone and refraining from stepping on their toes. We have been lead to believe that there is no precious inheritance that needs to be conserved, extended and built upon.
We have been told that all of the good that has been crafted with the blood of our forefathers will just lay untarnished without us polishing it. In ‘The West’ this fire has faded and we have become hedonistic narcissists who are blind to the darkness encroaching around us.
We are a generation that feels free from the need to defend our freedoms. We have become lazy. Pathetic. Inarticulate in the defence of the liberties gifted to us.
Our ancestors fought and died with more vigour, more passion than we could ever hope to emulate. All I wish to do is hold a torch to their sacrifice with a sliver of their courage and maybe, just maybe make them proud.
On speech restrictions
The reason I so vehemently oppose your suggestion Jacob, the reason for which I wish to defend freedom of speech is because freedom of speech is how people debate, defend, criticise, satirise and insult ideas. Freedom of speech is how people of differing views settle their opinions in a civilised society.
As if that wasn’t enough I was born to a German father and a Kiwi Mother in the Great White north of Canada. Oh so tolerant Canada. Now you will know that those 2 countries have installed ‘Hate Speech laws” specifically “anti-Islamophobia laws” or as I call them in their true form “Anti-Blasphemy laws” as in the case with Canada’s recent M-103 motion. Now that’s two of my countries of origin and heritage who now have a noose around neck of freedom. I will not let my home of New Zealand regress further into totalitarianism.
Those who call for the end of free speech do so thinking it will be them or those who think like them will be in power, making the decision on who gets to speak and who does not. Think that through Jacob, when you set this precedent what happens when those in power do not agree with you anymore but you’ve just removed your own capacity to criticise them.
Can I ask you a few questions Jacob? In your article you do not state as to why you think criminalising islamophobia is a good thing besides protecting people’s feelings. Why do you think feelings should be protected by law? Why would you be willing to put a group of people up on a pedestal above the rest of us, untouchable? Would you support protecting Christians or Jews feelings with law, and if not why not?
Why would you propose putting the gun of the state against the heads of your fellow countrymen for their jokes, thoughts and opinions? Are you willing to kill for the crime of criticism? Do you honestly believe that criminalising bigotry or “hate” towards one sect of society will stop it? Has criminalising Drugs stopped drugs? Has criminalising guns or drunk driving or tax evasion stopped any of the latter?
No of course not.
The law is an opinion with a gun. It is the be all end all and once you have “hate speech” laws they are near impossible to revoke.
When you curtail speech as you put it Jacob. When you shut down differing or dissident opinions with violence (be it the violence we see from Antifa activists or the violence of the state enforcing law) you lose the argument. You are actively stating that there are no more words that you can use to defend your position and so you revert to violence to enforce your opinion as ‘the final opinion’ much like Islam enforces itself as ‘the final religion’.
As clique as it is Jacob the road to hell is paved with good intentions and while protecting the feelings of a minority may seem like a ‘good intention’ to you I cannot concede that creating “hate speech” laws is anything but Orwellian.
Once you set the tone of the conversation to violence there is only one response you will get. Reconquista.
P.S. If you do see this Jacob I would love to have a discussion about this issue and your positions on it. Do get in touch.