What the cry-bullies don’t get about free speech

Julie Birchill coined the term “cry-bullies” to describe the hideous hybrid of victim and victor that characterises contemporary “progressives”. Fuelled by the poisonous ideology of “intersectionality”, which argues that everyone is merely an accumulation of either privileges or injustices, “social justice warriors” pose as victims (or claim to speak for them) while behaving like the worst bullies imaginable.

Thus, “anti-fascists” march in violent, black-shirted mobs, beating and harassing anyone who disagrees with them — which is exactly what the actual Fascists did. Like ideologues from the Inquisitors to the Communists, these shrill fascists with daddy issues, as Gavin McInnes calls them, believe that their cause is so noble that it licenses even the worst behaviour. When a “male feminist” physically attacks a woman, he tries to justify himself on the evidently absurd grounds that he is “defending women”.

As if “progressives” ever let absurdity get in the way of their self-serving witterings.

It’s a plain fact that the cry-bullies too often just don’t seem to even understand what they’re shrieking about. A number of polls have shown that people who espouse socialism are the least likely to be able to accurately describe it. If you’ve ever been hectored by a Sandernista claiming that “police and roads are socialist”, that’s painfully obvious. “Anti-fascists” never have any understanding of the actual doctrines or history of fascism, beyond “Hitler” (who wasn’t actually a fascist), and “anyone who disagrees with me”.

Another area where SJWs never let ignorance get in the way of yelling cretinous opinions is free speech.

Tiny-brained activists who burble ignorant platitudes like, “free speech comes with consequences”, scream like spanked toddlers when they are asked to face the consequences of their violent intimidation. Student feminist Madeline Ward who is, it will no doubt shock you to learn, studying art history and English literature, snivels that “the degrees of five young university students are on the line” as they face disciplinary action for leading a riot on Sydney University campus.

“Muh free speech!” blubbers the blubbery activist, demonstrating her ignorance of both free speech and the rules of the university she attends.

Ward and her coven of fellow fright-bats staged a violent tantrum which necessitated the riot squad, to try and silence a speech by psychologist Bettina Arndt. But the university has clear codes and policies, which prohibit Repeated and unreasonable behaviour directed towards a person or group of people that creates a risk to safety. This prohibited behaviour includes “verbal abuse or threats, including yelling, insulting or offensive language”. As video from the event shows, they did all that, with brass knobs on.

Even disregarding the university’s plain rules, these shouting, stamping toddlers just don’t understand how free speech works. Free speech means that you have the right to answer another speaker: indeed, Arndt specifically offered them the opportunity to do so, which they rejected. Instead, they violently pursued their openly stated intention of trying to stop her from speaking at all. Far from “expressing her opinions in a way that was respectful,” as Ward claims, she and her motley gang of vinegar-faced harridans and emaciated soyboys screamed obscenities in peoples’ faces, pushed and shoved, and flailed their flabby arms.

Rather than free speech, they were trying to enforce what is known as the “heckler’s veto”. The heckler’s veto, also called “verbal terrorism”, has been defined as calculated assault characterized by loud side-conversations, shouted interruptions, jabbered false facts, threats and personal insults.

As a matter of principle, trying to put over a heckler’s veto is not free speech: it’s antithetical to it. John Stuart Mill, the great philosopher of liberty, called it the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion. The mewling babies of progressivism have the right to protest a speaker, but they have no right to try and shut them down. The heckler’s veto is so antithetical to free speech, that the nation which has the most stringently codified protections of free speech, the United States, the law obliges the state to protect speakers from being silenced by “bellicose bystanders”.

Bargearsed feminist bigots and black-clad Antifa butterballs confuse their insatiable lust for authoritarian power for free speech. But they are not having their free speech constrained by anyone. They’re just being constrained from stamping all over the free speech of others.

And they don’t like that one little bit.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s