Where do you draw the line?
Big Day Out has withdrawn the invitation to Beenie Man, which is the right thing to do.
Prior to that, No Right Turn blogged (as I did) that he did not agree with Charles Chauvel’s call to ban Beenie Man from entering New Zealand. He says:
In case Chauvel has forgotten, we are a country which supposedly respects freedom of speech. And that liberty applies to people we disagree with as well as those we like. The widely accepted limit on freedom of speech is “shouting fire in a crowded theatre”. While Beenie man’s music is hateful, like David Irving’s, it simply does not reach that standard. I am not denying the social consequences of his hate, but they are far too distributed and distant to provide a justification for censorship.
Now as I said, I agree with NRT that banning Beenie Man on the basis of some previous songs is inappropriate. But it has got me wondering – where do you draw that line, the so called shouting fire in a crowded theatre.
The lyrics to some of his songs have been criticized for inciting the murder of homosexuals, with lyrics such as, “I’m dreaming of a new Jamaica, come to execute all the gays”[17]. In “Mi Nah Wallah”, he says he would like to cut the throats of all gay men.[18] In “Bad Man Chi Chi Man” the lyric instructs listeners to kill gay deejays, and in “Han Up Deh”, the lyric suggests hanging lesbians with a long piece of rope.
Now since 2005 he hasn’t performed such lyrics. He claims that by homosexuals he meant pedophiles – old men picking up young boys. Personally I regard that excuse as disingenuous considering one of his lyrics is also about hanging lesbians. But the fact is he has not sung such lyrics or advocated such acts since 2005.
The question I ponder is, what if he still advocated such actions through his songs. Would that be sufficient reason to bar him entry?
I think of the comparison to David Irving, whom I also did not think should be banned. Irving is an anti-semite and a Holocaust denier. But he doesn’t actually advocate the executions of Jews. If someone actually did actively advocate the extermination of Jews, I would say that crosses the line.
Now likewise, if Beenie Man still actively advocated the murder of gays and lesbians, I think that would cross the line. There is a difference between mere bigotry and actual incitement to violence.
I’d be interested to hear NRT’s thoughts (and others) on where he thinks the line is. Of course to some degree the line might be like spam – hard to define, but you know it when you see it.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:59 am
Maybe Chauvel was singing the right song, he was just using the wrong lyrics?
Banning Beenie Man from NZ because of anti gay lyrics and suggesting certain types of people should be killed would by hypocritical considering what is said on some blogs and radio shows.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:03 am
We must not, under any circumstances, offend the sodomites, because they are the liberal elite.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:05 am
Here’s a (perhaps) more apposite comparison. Part of the Auckland Theatre Company’s 2010 season is “Romeo and Juliet” — which closes with a teenage suicide pact, and works through what would be considered statutory rape today (it’s very clearly implied in the text that Juliet is a minor and her marriage to Romeo is consummated), gang brawls with fatal consequences and general disrespect for civil and parental authority. Should the ATC make this an R20 show, or cancel it entirely, because it would “incite” teenagers to anti-social and self-harming behaviour? There certainly were people making just that argument when Baz Luhrman’s film adaptation was the surprise hit of 1996.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:08 am
I do agree with DPF. The rapper and Daving Irving should have been allowed to enter the country and have their say.
You either embrace freedom of speech or reject the notion altogether. The idea that you are for or against freedom of expression depending on the cause, is inmoral and repugnant.
Sadly, it is a mechanism used by liberals, lefties, and extremists around the world to advance their ideas at the expense of the more passive sectors of the population.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:08 am
He shouldn’t be banned from the country for his words – nor should anyone. But I like that Big Day Out dropped him from the line-up. Though that was probably just a smart move in practical terms.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Has anyone else noticed that the wikipedia entry looks very similar to Chauvel’s letter to Wilkinson?
The lyrics to one of his songs include: “I’m dreaming of a new Jamaica, come to execute all the gays”. In another, “Mi Nah Wallah”, he says he would like to cut the throats of all gay men. In “Bad Man Chi Chi Man” he instructs listeners to kill gay deejays, and in “Han Up Deh”, he advocates hanging lesbians, with a long piece of rope.
Hmm, seems that Chauvel was so passionate about this cause that he copied from Wiki. Probaby had never heard of the artist or the music before stumbling across it on Wiki.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:17 am
Sadly, it is a mechanism used by liberals, lefties, and extremists around the world to advance their ideas at the expense of the more passive sectors of the population.
Ah yes, those lefty-liberals like Catholic League president Bill Donohue, who wanted the film version of ‘The Golden Compass’ suppressed as anti-Christian propaganda. Sorry, Manolo, but when it comes to trying to ban disagreeable speech it’s pretty hard to fit a cigarette paper between the loony left and the rabid right. Two faces of the same worthless “free speech for me, but not for thee” coin, as far as I’m concerned.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:18 am
Wouldn’t it be immoral and repugnant to deny “liberals, lefties, and extremists” the freedom to express their ideas?
Or do you think freedom of expression should be for the right and the left should shut up?
November 16th, 2009 at 9:20 am
“I do agree with DPF. The rapper and Daving Irving should have been allowed to enter the country and have their say.”
He’s not a rapper, he’s a Dee Jay (Jamaican word for MC).
@Hoolian – agreed, my guess is that most people moaning about him have only done a quick google, and in fact never listened to the offending tracks.
If chauvel thinks that this track: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NiH-LsShV0 is going to incite violence or hatred in NZ he’s dreaming….
I wonder if they made the same complaints about the Ali G movie…
or Buju Banton, Bounty Killer, Vybz Kartel, Lady Saw, Mavado, Busy Signal etc or those who run dancehall gigs every week in Auckland… I doubt it very much.
@ Pete George
“Wouldn’t it be immoral and repugnant to deny “liberals, lefties, and extremists” the freedom to express their ideas?
Or do you think freedom of expression should be for the right and the left should shut up?”
They should be able to express whatever they like. Where Chauvel crossed the line was in trying to get the man denied a visa to NZ for his views.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:21 am
“Sorry, Manolo, but when it comes to trying to ban disagreeable speech it’s pretty hard to fit a cigarette paper between the loony left and the rabid right.”
Absolutely. I never intended to exculpate the extreme right in my comment. The term extremist applies to both ends of the spectrum.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:28 am
I’m kind of sad that Beenie Man has been “disinvited” by the BDO. Wouldn’t it have said a lot if Beenie Man had found himself playing to an empty room? Wasted opportunity to hit the prick where he lives, IMO.
And Manolo: Thanks for the clarification. Thumb up, methinks.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:36 am
“Absolutely. I never intended to exculpate the extreme right in my comment. The term extremist applies to both ends of the spectrum.”
Except this isn’t what its really about. Its about big powerful government and small weak government. The left’s raison d,etre is big powerful government and totalitarianism. They lust for conformity, and the power to enforce it. Hence it is always the left who threaten freedom of speech.
The Human Rights Commission for example, exists because leftists seek to control speech and thought. It can prosecute anyone it likes, purely on the grounds that they might have said something “offensive”. It is founded in legislation that is repugnant to any true Conservative, but the left love every word of it.
Pete George for example spends all his time here attempting to categorize others as extremists who should be silenced. If I had the power I would dismantle the HRC in an instant, as I believe it is a grossly uncivilized and disgusting canker on our society.
I beseech you all, do not ever forget what anti-human deeds the left have committed in history, and to remember that they, with their poisonous belief in big government and control, are always only a hairs breadth away from doing it all again if we ever relax our guard.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:41 am
Maybe we should be asking Trevor Mallard whether he believes in hindsight that calling an openly-gay Cabinet Minister “Tinkerbell” was crossing the line.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:43 am
Craig said
Except that he would have played to a packed house. How many people actually listen to the lyrics of music performed at concerts? Half the time the sound is so poor you can’t make it out anyway.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:48 am
I don’t lust over any of those things, and I love freedom of speech.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:50 am
Funny, redbaiter only categorizes anyone to the left of him as an extremist.
Most governments seem to end up wanting big powerful governments. There don’t seem to be many turkey governments (left, right or middle) promoting small government christmas.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:02 am
Brian Smaller:
Well, one reason I’m not going to put my cash down to see any so-called “gansta rapper” is because you don’t need a vagina to decide that lyrically trashing women as whores doesn’t deserve your support. I’ll respect anyone’s freedom of speech, but that doesn’t require me to give them a living.
And it’s not as if misogyny, homophobia and glorification of criminality is exactly a deep, dark secret in hip-hop or dancehall circles. It’s the elephant in the room, and letting folks like Beenie Man spin themselves as martyrs to censorship doesn’t change a damn thing. Of course, I totally respect the BDO’s absolute and unconditional right to determine their own bill either way; but I’d rather have bigots in front of me, where they can be mocked, interrogated, shamed or just ignored.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:04 am
“I don’t lust over any of those things, and I love freedom of speech.”
Another thing that characterizes leftists is their use of language, most importantly the ability to profess to care about something and then set up an entity to deal with that concern, when the entity is most likely configured to achieve the opposite.
For instance the Bill of Rights and The Human Rights Commission have been set up purportedly to protect basics human rights and freedom of political expression, but in the hands of the left, they represent the most clear and present danger to our liberty today.
Leftists always say they want freedom of political expression, but their actions frequently demonstrate the opposite. Charlie’s little attack is only the tip of the iceberg.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:18 am
Craig – I agree with you, I just think that if he performed he would get a big audience because most kids who go to BDO probably don’t give a shit about the actual lyrics of any particular performer.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:18 am
“Speech codes” at Universities are another disgusting example of mainstream leftists assaulting freedom.
They set the tone and mood whereby students must think three times before making any utterance, and this fear of offending establishes an inimidatory administrative framework that leftists exploit to the full in their obsession with dominating the political debate.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:19 am
Red – same thing in the Major Hasan case in the States. People too scared to say what they think about a guy who all but had a neon sign above him saying “Jihadist”.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:19 am
I’m kinda proud, because I helped research and write that article when I was doing night shifts when I was at uni. He was stopped at Heathrow by police a few years ago, not because the government had intervened but because individuals and OutRage had complained to police that his lyrics constituted hate speech… the kind of which is a crime in Britain (But before y’all go off on one, it’s mostly been used against Muslim hate preachers, so don’t worry, it’s the right kind of prohibition you’re after).
http://www.petertatchell.net/popmusic/popmusicindex.htm
Elephant Man, Bounty Killer and Buju Banton and others came up against the same kind of stuff from Peter Tatchell and OutRage, but the agreements – broken, rescinded, reneged on, mended, whatever – tend to fall around the argument that if you want to play music that calls for the murder of a certain group, then that’s out of order. Which I’d agree with.
But they’ll sign any old crap to get themselves reinstated, and the the UK government won’t refuse entry to someone on those grounds, although they’ll ban Michael Savage. I suppose you’ve just got to vote with your feet or your wallet.
If someone wants to play, then that’s fine, let them in – I’d rather see them go through all the trouble of setting up a gig only to be told your views aren’t welcome here than give anyone the satisfaction of being stopped at the border on the say-so of an individual and shouting the discrimination line.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:28 am
The left’s attempts to shut down Glenn Beck have been a good illustration of the way they work.
False allegations of “racism” for example are a tool the left are always using, and they made such false allegations against Beck and managed to get many major sponsors to withdraw their support for his show.
So there we have another good example of the left’s operating model. The say they care about race, but their real motive is shutting down Glenn Beck.
“Glenn Beck must be stopped”- Kieth Olbermann.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:36 am
David,
To me it depends in large part on the audience involved. If the statement is made on an audience highly unlikely to be incited, then it’s not incitement.
To shout fire in any crowded space is likely to cause panic, but to scream “kill the gays” at the nice tolerant folks attending the BDO will certainly offend, but not incite.
But if it were said at a Destiny Church Rally, well…
November 16th, 2009 at 10:36 am
A Pyrrhic victory for the crybabies – just goes to prove that the Euphemism “Gay” for homosexuals is an oxymoron Sads would be a better one.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:36 am
I know few students who think even once before speaking.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:39 am
“People too scared to say what they think about a guy who all but had a neon sign above him saying “Jihadist”.”
Some people, and too many politicians.
That’s what the Tea Parties are all about. They’re not anti-Democrat or anti-Republican, they are anti incumbent, at last a rejection of the political framework thrust upon us over the last decades by political correctness and the Progressives in the broadcasting, political and academic arenas.
See how those who feel threatened use the same old tactics? The protestors are extremists (the favourite) or tin foil hat wearers, etc etc.
When they are not. They are just solid mainstream Americans at last speaking out against the crushing political weight of Progressivism, and most of all its repressive restrictions on political expression and freedom of speech.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:40 am
“I know few students who think even once before speaking.”
That is a lie. You enforced speech codes.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:42 am
No, it’s a joke.
I don’t recall doing so. When?
November 16th, 2009 at 10:49 am
Jacqui Smith, Labour UK, another odious left wing POS who abused her power to blacklist Michael Savage and prevent him from entering the UK.
The left- all for freedom of speech as long as it is first approved by them.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:50 am
It’s a joke too.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:51 am
“No, it’s a joke.”
Yes, I know its a joke on the surface, but its real intent is to absolve Ryann Sproull from any participation in or responsibility for the enforcement of speech codes on the University campus. In fact you were all for them.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:55 am
“It’s a joke too.”
Its fakery deceit, impersonation and cowardice. Proving everything I have ever said about you to be perfectly correct. An odious unprincipled sneaking slithering creep. You do not ever alter and thereby misrepresent what other posters have written. If you have a skerrick of morality that is.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:55 am
And are you going to tell me when or how, or just leave it as a vague unsubstantiated accusation?
November 16th, 2009 at 11:02 am
“And are you going to tell me when or how, or just leave it as a vague unsubstantiated accusation?”
Ryann, as editor of Craccum, you were in an excellent position to protest against University speech codes. Can you give me an example of when you did this? I do not believe you did, and this is tacit endorsement, for if anyone should be protesting for increased freedom it is the press.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:09 am
What did I misrepresent?
I guess you’ll answer that with another vague unsubstantiated accusation.
Talking about fakery and deceit, who are you trying to impersonate Red?
November 16th, 2009 at 11:09 am
Fair enough, Red. No, I don’t think I protested against university speech codes. I did get threatened with legal action for breaking them (publishing a racist letter to the editor) and wrote condemning the treatment of Jim Peron and David Irving (on freedom-of-speech grounds, not due to agreeing with anything they wrote or said).
What can I say, Red – it was a busy year. I could have done more, and I apologise for that.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:21 am
“What can I say, Red – it was a busy year. I could have done more, and I apologise for that.”
Well, that’s the point you see. Institutions that should be protesting these inhuman regulations and requirements are silent. The press has abandoned its traditional role and now sits in judgement with those who are the oppressors.
The greatest enforcers of political correctness are our media. Television, radio and newspapers, the very institutions who should be strongly opposed.
They even participate willingly in such odious examples of thought tyranny as “diversity training” courses and the like. If they are not against it, they are for it, and in being for it, they betray their profession.
Tell you what Ryan, I’ll withhdraw my allegations on the grounds that perhaps you were just too busy writing about other (more important) things to care about speech codes, and accept that your willingness to abide was not validation but rather enforced and involuntary acceptance.
“Talking about fakery and deceit, who are you trying to impersonate Red?”
I have never altered the text of any poster I have ever quoted. Go away you repulsive POS.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:28 am
I appreciate that, Red. It was less busy writing and more busy editing what other people had written and encouraging a group of volunteers to keep writing. I had very little time for writing myself.
I agree that the press is pretty tame.
November 16th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Glenn Beck is a joke, and you’re the butt of it. You and anyone else who buys that teary-eyed truth-seeker crap. He puts the WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH in Redbaiter, eh?
November 16th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
So far Gordon Campbell at scoop has written the only reasoned, researched article on the issue… worth a read:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0911/S00157.htm