LATEST SHOW
Update on Assange, Bitcoin and abortion law
Get the podcast »
Categories: [ Censorship, Charlie Hebdo, Islam, Sherri Tenpenny, Vaccination ]
Left: Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, vaccine safety campaigner, Right: Charlie Hebdo Magazine cover ("The Koran is shit")
In today's show we look at two free speech issues which highlight a paradox in the discourse prevalent in modern democracies.
In France the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo's right to vilify Muslims is defended by the government and the media as an important and necessary bastion of free speech, while in Australia media hounds and lobby groups bay for the blood of an American osteopath who wants to come to conduct a lecture series about vaccine safety issues.
It appears indeed that "free speech" is only condoned these days if it serves the agenda of the rich and powerful.
Related Links
RECLAIM AUSTRALIA IS DOOMED
Although I agree with many of their ideas, the forces reigned against RAM are too great, violent, statist and reactionary for them to remain a non-political, broad based, multi-ethnic, community protest group for much longer. The Left and their Antifa nihilist fellow travelers are already pushing them towards the extreme Right, by calling them racists and Islamophobes and so on. Whilst the extreme Right have aligned themselves with RAM. With fascists of the Left and Right pressuring them they will not be able to remain beyond the Left-Right divide and will inevitably move to the Right - the extreme Right. Which is already happening. A development which will alienate decent Australians of all ethnic backgrounds many of whom currently support them.
The RAM leadership have already established open alliances with the Patriotic Front (the ape in the photograph is a Patriot Front supporter at a recent Richmond demonstration) Australia First and Golden Dawn, a Greek neo-Nazi party. Members of these collectivist groups are currently attending RAM demonstrations all over Australia.
There is a real need in Australia to establish a political movement beyond the Left-Right divide and their vested interests, a movement that questions the current direction Australia is heading i.e. the direction the Left/Right and their extremes would like to take it; that questions the efficacy of state sponsored multiculturalism, as opposed to a proper, non-discriminatory immigration policy; that questions the validity of political correctness; that is politically neutral, anti-war and pro environment; that is opposed to all collectivists ideologies (fascisms of the Left and Right); that would dismantle the power pyramids of corporations and banks and their ability to impact on government; that would dissolve all anti-terror laws and all laws that impose on the rights and freedom of the individual and the people.
(The ape in the photograph is a Patriot Front supporter at a recent Richmond demonstration)
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/reclaim-australia-rally-set-for-sydney-on-sunday-20150718-gifb9s.html
http://australiafirstparty.net/news/reclaiming-australia-queensland-senate-campaign/
By Eugene Donnini on 2015 07 26 - 15:36:56
From the entry 'Dylann Roof: soldier in a new race war or just a pawn in the game?'.
Hello there I am so thrilled I found your web site, I really found you by error, while I was searching on Digg for something else, Anyways I am here now and would just like to say thanks for a incredible post and a all round thrilling blog (I also love the theme/design), I don韙 have time to go through it all at the minute but I have bookmarked it and also included your RSS feeds, so when I have time I will be back to read a lot more, Please do keep up the great work.
By Prova a Adidas Neutro Originals Nizza Nero Giallo on 2015 07 20 - 08:41:30
From the entry 'Statism, the greater good and the big lie'.
I second Keith’s assertion that Mike Holt from Restore Australia is very much a fake. He bangs on about Halaal being a scam and money maker for Islam (and no I don’t support Halaal whatsoever), but makes excuses for its counterpart Kosher as being a somehow legitimate. Double standards? When I confronted him about this fact he went off on a convoluted tirade about Israel being some sort of “Bastion of Democracy” in the middle east…Really!, I will leave that one up to the readers to decide on. I found that MH came across as disingenuous to say the least.
By Citizen Scorn on 2015 07 19 - 07:33:43
From the entry 'Restore Australia!'.
Without doubt, TNR is one of the best, if not the best alternative news source on the net. Which doesn’t mean Herewood is always right. His job, I believe, is to present the facts as he sees them as an objectively as possible, without fear or favor. For this, he has my respect and support. But I believe he needs to be careful and to think a little deeper about the problems of “racism,” in Australia. He has labelled the Reclaim Australia Movement as racist. I’m wondering if his objectivity is a little weak on this point, a little without foundation.
Of course all political movements have its fringe groups and individuals. We make a distinction between, for example, a Muslim and a fundamentalist Muslim (Islamist), and by so doing we don’t claim that all Muslims are blood thirsty fanatics. If its good for the Muslims, then its good for RAM, which is bound to attract a few lunatics and real racists. But to brand the entire movement as “racist” is wrong; it is the same ploy that is used by the mainstream media and its left-wing, establishment Marxist boot boys.
One of the first things I noticed when i attended a RAM rally recently were the amount of non-white people in attendance, including Aboriginals. In fact the main banner of RAM contains an Australian flag and an Aboriginal flag. Speakers at their rallies have included Jews, Arabs, Indians, Aboriginals, Chinese and so on. What does this tell you? Is this really a fascist-Nazi-racist movement whose stated aim are the eradication and exclusion of other cultures, in place of some sort of Aussie white Reich, or is this just propaganda that is being propagated by the left for their own political interests. Consequently, we all know where the culmination of their politics have led, historically speaking, which are to the imposition of terror and dictatorships.
We can be thankful for small mercies, in terms of the Left, which today mostly tends to attract collectivists, establishmentarians and the privileged sons and daughters of the upper bourgeoisie, who seems to share one thing in common, nativity….
By Eugene on 2015 07 18 - 16:03:54
From the entry 'Dylann Roof: soldier in a new race war or just a pawn in the game?'.
Mike Holt from Restore Australia is very much a fake. He hasn’t even been citizen for but a few years. But, he makes out like he was born there. ALSO - this guy spent 30 years in Thailand working shady businesses. I would wager that his primary purpose in being an activist is that he wants to make money off selling merchandise.
By Keith on 2015 07 17 - 20:51:15
From the entry 'Restore Australia!'.
good to see you putting out some new shows heraward
freely the banana girl is to a certain extent a troll, as is her boyfriend durian rider. they have been trolling the fitness community on youtube for some time… and yes they are extreme but they are also trolls. They use their trolling to spread their message. currently, another dude called vegangains is trolling the fitness community as well.
i am a vegetarian, and it was seeing this documentary on the pork industry that started me on the vegetarian path. for anyone interested, its pretty off the charts disturbing and its australian as well. its pretty much made by dudes breaking into pork farms and filming what they find
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KArL5YjaL5U
Would the world be better if people cared where their food came from? probably, they might then care about other things too
do you become a better person if you dont eat meat? i feel like a better person mainly because animals aren’t being hurt because of me. i dont feel humans have to eat meat really… or at least not much. How can you watch that documentary on pork, know that that is pretty much whats going on and turn a blind eye to it? I think its basic empathy and just saying well ‘i like bacon so yeah’ is in my opinion wrong and i can see freleys point of view to an extent. In my opinion, at least these people believe in something. i see my money as my vote, henceforth im ethical as to what i do with it. free range eggs became mainstream for exactly this reason… although im pretty sure woolies and coles lobbied the state to change the definition of the word ‘free range’ at some point. I dont eat beef because the amount of resources that go into growing a cow are pretty crazy. Think about how much grass that cow needs to eat before it is harvested and how much space it requires. think of how many vegies you could grow in the same space with the same amount of water. lamb? comon, think about what your doing here… but that being said i think most vegans are total loons. People like freeley should be advocating for the destruction of lions and tigers, as lions and tigers murder other animals in truly horrific style. if we humans are smart enough to not harm animals, then we should be stopping the animals that harm other animals from existing. Freeley also kills birds when she flies in aeroplanes so she is a hypocrite.
feminism is one of the biggest problems in society today and although there is some valid historical basis to it, the liberation of the human female from their biology is in my opinion largely a product of the technological advance of humans. sufferagettes where never machine gunned on the streets, unlike the men that where drafted and sent off to war to die just a few years earlier. as technology has advanced, women have advanced as well, however now its going way too far and is pretty blatantly anti male in many respects. i view feminism in its modern context as a tool of the social marxists that really isnt doing society a great deal of good at this time. its screwing up gender dynamics and is wrecking women and men for each other. i see it as low frequency, lowest common denominator idiocy, just like a lot of the the race baiting ‘is this racist’ stuff getting around that is being perpetuated pretty much as a distraction, divide and conquer strategy by the power elite. idiots love this kind of bicker and beef… it would be funny if it wasn’t so serious
anyway
I agree with steven friar. gods a maniac
good show… keep making them
By r0Kb3B0p on 2015 07 14 - 21:05:32
From the entry 'Addictions, obsessions, fanaticisms and distractions'.
Really truthfull.
By OZE on 2015 07 07 - 16:56:36
From the entry 'Defending your personal health choices'.
Yeah sure authority aware.
By OZE on 2015 07 07 - 16:28:55
From the entry 'What is the future of Australia?'.
Stay tuned for more rules here as usually is the case!!!
By OZE on 2015 07 07 - 16:21:50
From the entry 'Mass media disinformation and brainwashing dissected'.
Almost two months since the last broadcast! How the hell can you expect people to donate when you don’t broadcast? Looks like the ship of truth has sprung a leak. This broadcast has been part of my life almost since its inception…it is one of the few alternative news sources that hasn’t gone off the deep end, by dilution credible information with crap e.g. Fairdinkum Radio and Info Wars…Pittard started FR with some incredibly interesting material, but then he flipped…Today he sounds like a fundamentalist preacher, the Christian equivalent to a Fanatical Islamist. As an atheist, I think he’s really ###### up a potentially good show. As for Info Wars, all they would have to do to improve is dump Alex Jones, what a shit-for-brains. I reckon Jones and Pittard are allowed to proliferate, because they’re so stupid and harmless. I suppose they have some entertainment value, and along with David Icke are living examples of how low the alternative media has sunk. Truth News Radio is, or should I say was, way ahead of them all ahead of them all in terms of credibility How sad that its come to this.
By Eugene on 2015 06 28 - 17:28:56
From the entry 'Introducing Internet.org: Mark Zuckerberg's free 'private' internet which will soon be rolled out to 4 billion+ people'.
Comments
Please review the Terms of Service before reading or responding to comments.
If Hereward believed in 100% speech, then he would have left everyone alone on his 9/11 forum.
There is a line to speech. What most are saying, without saying it now days is, they want their right to offend other people. Does Hereward call Jews “kikes” or Negro’s “nigger”? Or allow other people on his site to use those words? No of course not. There is no such thing as 100% “free” speech. If it were “free”, then we could say any and everything to any and everyone.
By Amazed on 2015 01 20 - 14:15:06
Amazed: Hereward isn’t saying anything here about 100% free speech, only pointing out that the people who rule have double standards: upholding the right of one group to freedom of speech, but not to another. Thus your argument is irrelevant to the subject. Unless you’re suggesting that because 100% free speech is undesirable (according to you), it’s ok for this situation to occur?
By zek on 2015 01 21 - 21:00:55
I think free speech implies that you have something to say, calling someone names isn’t free speech. Free speech is being free to question the dominant narrative. And we are certainly not free to do that. Anyone who questions the religion of climate change, or the six million Jews died in concentration camps argument are called a “deniers” and anyone who raises important concerns about Islam is called “Islamophobic, although their phobia (fear) may be justified. There are many other examples which are too obvious to mention. But you get the picture.
By Eugene Donnini on 2015 01 26 - 15:30:22
When you say “raising concerns” it sounds harmless enough, but you are implying that a whole class of people who make up 1.6 billion on this earth are somehow flawed or evil due to their religion. This is the epitome of intolerance. Many Muslims are intolerant also, agreed. Is the answer to then become intolerant of all Muslims?
By Hereward Fenton on 2015 01 27 - 10:55:44
I understand what you are saying, but I don’t think “raising important concerns” about Islam implies that I or anyone think that 1.6 billion Muslims are flawed or evil, but I certainly think there is evidence enough to demonstrate (by our standards at least) that their religion is definitely flawed and evil. I suggest you read the Koran and tell me how this medieval mind muck is of benefit to mankind in the age of quantum physics. One need only look at how most Islamic countries are governed, which, to my understanding of the word, are evil and backward. I think Muslims have a different understanding of the concept : “evil”...For example, the penalty for apostasy (changing religion or opting out of “the religion of peace” is death; the penalty for homosexuality is often death (beheading) torture, mutilation and or imprisonment; Women are often stoned or killed by their parents - usually father - for not wearing the veil; women are second class citizens; children as young as 6 can be married ( but its not OK to have sex with them until they are 9 ); women are stoned to death for adultery; thieves have their hands cut off, and any criticism of the Prophet is usually punished by intimidation, death or mass murder…and its all there in the Koran, page after page. Then we have the wholesale slaughter of villages in Africa, and terrorist attacks happening almost everyday in many Muslim and non-Muslim countries.Meanwhile, in WA, some self proclaimed Sydney cleric wants to build an “army” And if ordinary Australians express their concern when it starts to happen over here, they are branded as racists and homophobes. I don’t think so. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQ-cz9RN35k&x-yt-cl=84503534&x-yt-ts=1421
By Eugene Donnini on 2015 01 27 - 17:18:41
another good example of free speech being stifled was something that you touched upon in this episode, and that was the example of julian blanc being refused entry into the country.
this guy, mr blanc, posted some pretty stupid stuff on facebook, however im unsure as to whether he did anything that really justified him being refused entry into the country. apparently he advocated violence against women by posting a graph on fb that showed how abusive men control women and he had some gambit he was running that involved putting your hands around a womans throat. im not quite sure what that was all about, but the idea that you would be able to just romp around choking women without getting your ass kicked by white knights is pretty stupid. if the man was an abuser, then how did he get a visa? it doesn’t take much to get put on an assault charge, especially against a woman
ironically, some of his students where assaulted by feminazis in the protest against him
regarding islam, only one religion has a figurehead who was without doubt, a warlord. Most non mulslims who defend islam dont know anything about the religion.
Do you have any idea about the military conquests of the first muslims? Do you know about the verses in the koran that directly call for violence? Do you know how many men where decapitated by mohammeds army? do you know how many surrendered men or non combatants where decapitated by mohammeds army? how many women where raped? how many people enslaved or forced to live as second class citizens by the first muslims?
when you do an episode on this, please directly answer these questions
also, the charlie hebdo cover says, ‘massacre in egypt, the koran is shit’ it doesnt stop bullets’. it doesnt just say the koran is shit
By rattus rattus on 2015 01 27 - 17:51:15
Rattus, do you know about the military conquests of Christian nations, from the crusades through to the conquest of Mexico? Do you know about how the ‘Christian’ slave traders operated in Africa? Do you know what the ‘Christian’ French did in Indochina, or the ‘Christian’ English did in India, or the ‘Christian’ Dutch did in Indonesia?
I think maybe your education in these matters is a bit one-sided, in that you have read and absorbed only one polemical perspective and missed the forest for the trees.
If you’re looking for atrocities, look no further than Christendom.
As for the Charlie Hebdo cover, surely you understand that the headline is the main message conveyed? The headline says “The Koran is Shit” - a direct insult to Muslims. Imagine if a magazine had the headline “The Torah is Shit” - how long do you think such a publication would remain in circulation?
By Hereward Fenton on 2015 01 27 - 18:40:05
Free speech is free speech. If you believe in any restrictions on it, then you don’t believe in FREE speech. People often say, “I’m all for free speech but…” - there are no buts, it’s either free or it isn’t. Be honest, if you don’t believe in free speech, admit it. I’m not advocating either side of the argument here, just pointing out a fact.
By Zek on 2015 01 28 - 00:26:08
At least Christendom has modified its act…even the Pope calls for peace and reconciliation, admited the Churches complicity in past atrocities, apologized to the Jews and so on…
re free speech: I suppose Hereward needs to be very careful about what he says, and would be fully aware that his every word is being monitored by others. I think he does a great job and has on more than one occasion come very close to the edge. He’s also entitled to his opinion, and although I don’t agree with it at times, in my opinion, it doesn’t detract from the work he is doing.
By Eugene Donnini on 2015 01 28 - 06:51:17
Sorry guys, “homophobes” in my last post should have read islamophobes…sometimes my finger get a little ahead of my thinking!
By Eugene Donnini on 2015 01 29 - 12:56:08
Free speech of course is free speech, as ‘Zek’ opines. He is saying that ‘anything goes’.
On the other hand, some ‘anti-discrimination laws’ particularly in NSW Australia, make it unlawful to make any public statement that is deemed to offend persons who are, or who are reasonably believed to be, homosexual. This anti-free speech law was bought into existence by Ms Clover Moore and it was called the Anti-Discriminaiton (Homosexual Vilification) Amendment Act 1993. Read more about the nightmare this law can create, here: http://bernardgaynor.com.au/into-battle-backup-required/#comment-384568
This show by Hereward Fenton I found very mind-stretching and interesting. It was as if he was taking us on an inquiry together in order to discover a deeper truth. It discussed many aspects of free speech in the current climate of fear and loathing. There are several dictionary definintions of ‘paradox’. Here’s one definition that I think Mr Fenton had in mind:- ‘a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth’.
We can also say free speech is not free speech, in that most of us (except trolls) self-censor. Our empathy, if we have any, stops our speech from being free. This raises the question, what do we do about those without empathy, who are psychopaths or trolls, and actually get pleasure from using speech to attack and hurt people. In order to avoid laws that try to control what people can and cannot publicly say, one solution is to change our attitude, and cultivate tolerance and resiliance. This is based on the insight that mothers used to tell their kids who were bullied at school.
Sticks and stones
will break your bones
but words will never hurt you.
This little ditty reresents the opposite of what the vilification laws are about.
By Geoffrey McKee on 2015 01 30 - 20:52:48
Geoffrey, I’m inclined to agree with what you say, except that I wasn’t saying ‘anything goes’. I was only pointing out what free speech is, and that it isn’t what most people who like to think of themselves as liberal (or whatever) want it to be. They like to think they are open-minded and progressive, yet they support the assertion of authority over others.
If anyone can dictate what I cannot speak about, that sets a precedent. It means that no-one has freedom of speech at all. I don’t want to say nasty things about gays, for example, but if I support the idea of some body being able to stop others doing that, it would be hypocritical to then oppose that same body imposing other similarly arbitrary limitations on me.
Thus I am opposed to any limitations on speech (that is free speech!). It doesn’t mean I approve of any particular thing someone might say, but I do uphold their right to say it.
By zek on 2015 01 30 - 23:30:57
Free speech is one paradox to use Hereward’s word. Another paradox is freedom of choice. Hereward has touched on something here, I reckon, when it comes to exposing little children with jabs that cause some to have adverse affects incliding some reported siezures. The idea of ‘freedom of choice’ is treated as an article of faith by some people only when it suits them. Look at this comment on same-sex ‘marriage’ by Fairfax media columnist Clementine Ford (The Age, Feb 3, 2015). Quote, “The pursuit of marriage equality is vital, not least of which is because every Australian of legal age should have the right to embrace or reject it as they see fit and according to their own system of values.” So what happens if we replace the idea of ‘same sex marriage’ with “vacination’? An interesting mental excercise. . . . . .
By Geoffrey McKee on 2015 02 28 - 12:07:50
WELCOME TO ILLUMINATI GIVERS OF WEALTH AND POWER
Easiest Step to become a full member of the great brotherhood of Illuminati.
Are you a business man or an artist,Politicians,Student and you want to become big, Powerful and famous in the world, join us to become one of our official member today.you shall be given an ideal chance to visit the Satan and his representative after registrations is completed by you, no sacrifice or human life needed, Illuminati brotherhood brings along wealth and famous in life, you have a full access to eradicate poverty away from your life now. So contact Mr William Nelson .Via: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) ,call us on +2347034367718.Join us today and realize your dreams and aspirations
By WILLIAM NELSON on 2015 03 11 - 04:27:33
I agree with this site’s creator (Hereward Fenton Esq.) that a moderator is needed to delete frivolous or childish comments such as the one from ‘William Nelson’ above. Oh. . . I forgot . . that would go against freedom of speech. Yes, it is a paradox. Philosophers of course make it their business to untangle apparent paradoxes. Aristotle, 300 years BC grappled with such issues. He would solve the paradox by redefining virtue as a mean between two extremes. For example extreme free speech could be menacing and defamatory, and extreme lack of free speech could be caused by internal or external repression that hinders the human need to communicate and exchange ideas. So Aristotelian virtue relating to free speech would be represented by speech that sits somewhere near the mean between two extremes. http://www3.sympatico.ca/saburns/pg0730e05.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelian_ethics
By Geoffrey McKee on 2015 03 11 - 07:26:33
I don’t think there is a paradox. ‘William Nelson’ has freedom to make his own site, to speak in his own house, and in any public place or other people’s places where the people are willing to put up with him. That’s as far as it goes. It’s self-balancing. Hereward is paying for this place, not ‘William Nelson’, so Hereward decides what to allow and what not to.
Where it goes wrong is when people confuse things like ‘government’ with ownership. Government doesn’t own anything (except in the imaginations of its victims), but as long as people believe it does, this apparent paradox is perceived. If you insult someone in your house, they can leave. If you insult them in their house, they can tell you to leave.
By Zek on 2015 03 11 - 07:55:21
Sorry, I hit submit by mistake!
Where this goes wrong is when people think they have a right to stop someone saying something anywhere. That’s megalomania. I think that’s the root of the problem.
By Zek on 2015 03 11 - 07:58:23