Richard Dawkins Rejects Free Speech and Academic Debate

Given some things Richard Dawkins has said recently, such as that an incident of ‘mild’ paedophilia that he experienced did no lasting damage then one might have thought that our movement could have an ally, or, in the very least, someone who would be willing to entertain the debate over the barbarity of sexual offence legislation even if he did not fully agree.

Unfortunately I have to report that is not the case. It is most ironic that the way I have found that out is from posting on an article he wrote entitled “Are there emotional no-go areas where logic dare not show it’s face?“. In it he speaks of the twitter storm he experienced from making the statement:

“Date rape is bad. Stranger rape at knifepoint is worse. If you think that’s an endorsement of date rape, go away and learn how to think.”

In it he points out that he has noticed how the subjects of rape and paedophilia are increasingly taboo. He states that nothing should be out of bounds for academic discussion. I quote him thus:

Nothing should be off limits to discussion. No, let me amend that. If you think some things should be off limits, let’s sit down together and discuss that proposition itself. Let’s not just insult each other and cut off all discussion because we rationalists have somehow wandered into a land where emotion is king.

Yes, let’s Richard. Except you don’t want to, do you? I posted my feelings about the witch hunt, to which one person replied and I replied back. Richard then deleted both my posts. Alas, it seems that Richard Dawkins is, like so many others in our society, a hypocrite.

I repost my original post here:

Richard, I just wanted to say that I think you are very brave to open up the possibility of debating ‘paedophilia’ and ‘rape’ as these have undoubtedly become very taboo. And when things become very taboo, certain little hitlers (or ‘feminazis’ in this instance) start getting up to all kinds of no good which they can do under our political correctness cloak of ‘you can’t say that’.

What you might not realise is how many lives have been destroyed by the current witch hunt. In the United States nearly a million men bear the scarlet letter of subhuman sex offender. They are prevented from going anywhere near places such as parks and schools. In some cases they are forced to wear massive GPS tracking devices to watch their movements. And what have they been convicted of? Are there really a million men who are pure evil? Hell no. Many are convicted of ‘thought crimes’ such as downloading child porn – thoughts should never ever be illegal. Others are convicted of so-called ‘Romeo and Juliet’ offences i.e. consensual sex with teenage girls/boys. This is, of course, named after the fact that Romeo and Juliet were 14 and 13 respectively in Shakespeare’s play, thus, in our loopy modern world his play is not really a love story but a story about two teenagers ‘raping’ one another. To top it all off, many are simply convicted as a result of false accusations, which given that no evidence is required to convict, is probably rather high.

The contradictions and insanity of sexual offence legislation have now got so extreme, that teenagers are now indeed charged with producing child porn of themselves. One boy in America even had the police take photographs of his genitalia after they arrested him for having taken photographs of his own genitalia – not only that – but they then wanted to inject him with some dangerous drug to FORCE him to have an erection so they could then convict him of child porn – such a conviction is, of course, effectively a death sentence. Recently we also saw a high profile case of a teacher, Jeremy Forrest, jailed for an entirely consensual relationship with an underage girl – who, exactly, do they think they are helping by jailing him, other than justifying their own fat salaries?

Of course, as usual, money does speak. So-called ‘charitable’ organisations like the NSPCC and ECPAT are really just dedicated to spreading propaganda and fear, thus getting more donations to spend on spreading more propaganda and lobbying our politicians to make the laws ever more restrictive. Even senior barristers like Barbara Hewson have pointed out what we are seeing today is a 21st century moral puritan movement and until there is significant resistance and a desire to expose these organisations for the puritanical lunacy that they are, the witch hunt will continue, the laws will continue to get worse. Already we see ‘Sexual Risk Orders’ being introduced in the United Kingdom which effectively end even the pretence of a trial: You are guilty because the cops say you are.

So to conclude: Yes we need to be able to have a real debate on this issue!

Unfortunately I don’t have the post of the radical feminist who responded to me, however, I do still have my reply to her post, which I will repost here (hopefully you can roughly guess the context):

I don’t know why you are carrying on down this line of claiming that ‘every child porn image is a child being abused’. I’ve already pointed out to you that children are arrested for sending child porn images of THEMSELVES. The concept of punishing someone for abusing themself is puritanical nonsense. Thus, your entire ideology is disproven. Possessing an image of a naked 17 year old is a heinous crime, possessing a video of a 2 year old being butchered to death is completely legal. This has nothing to do with protecting children – it’s about enforcing a puritanical anti-sex morality.

Regarding your second point, many cases are of 14 year olds having sex with 13 year olds. To give an example, one dude was jailed for FOUR years at the age of TWELVE (yes, TWELVE!) for touching a girls vagina. He was then released at 16 and has now been re-arrested for failing to register his change of address (part of the Sex Offender Registration requirements). He now faces another 4 years behind bars. In any case, I see no problem with any age difference. Why should two people, who are in love, be criminalised based on your arbitrary age beliefs?

Whilst you may think that accusing your opponent of being a ‘NAMBLA self-rationalising paedophile’ is valid. The reality is that all humanity works through selfishness, much of the time selfishness actually alines with altruism. However not always. In any case, if all human behaviour is selfish then the question becomes why are you a feminist? What is your selfish reason for being so? Why do you want to crash into peoples private sex lives, split up lovers and send them to jail?

Was I too ‘abusive’ in my posts? I don’t think so. I firmly believe he deleted my posts because of the political views they expressed, not my language. In any case, to suggest that any polarised discussion on a heated topic can be completely passive is absurd, especially one that has taken the lives of so many. To create a ‘politically correct’ climate of unheated debate is to turn public debate into discussions of celebrities and X-Factor – away from the real issues that concern us. Oh, but that’s what’s happened, isn’t it?

It’s worth ending this by looking at the few last words Dawkins made in his article:

And it is also deplorable that there are many people in the same atheist community who are literally afraid to think and speak freely, afraid to raise even hypothetical questions such as those I have mentioned in this article. They are afraid – and I promise you I am not exaggerating – of witch-hunts: hunts for latter day blasphemers by latter day Inquisitions and latter day incarnations of Orwell’s Thought Police.

Don’t worry Richard Dawkins, we’ll all be thrown into jail by Orwell’s Thought Police long before you are. Bet that makes you feel real happy.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Free Speech. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Richard Dawkins Rejects Free Speech and Academic Debate

  1. Alan Vaughn says:

    Excellent Post and I especially liked the last paragraph of your retort to the selfish femihag troll. And you are right, it wasn’t at all difficult to guess the context of her comment from your considered and most appropriate reply.
    You also state when introducing the story that among other things:

    Alas, it seems that Richard Dawkins is, like so many others in our society, a hypocrite.

    May I ask why you don’t seem to use anywhere on this blog, the more specific and recently introduced meme of paedocrite which is a more targeted adjective that identifies (generally male) hypocrites who loudly albeit, quite childishly: try to hide their own ‘paedophilia’ (or in actual fact are in most cases, only ashamed of their normal sexuality), by ridiculing or scapegoating others with the same (normal) sexual interests (in youth and beauty)?
    The term paedocrite fits Mr Dawkins like a tailor-made glove.

    • holocaust21 says:

      I’m aware of the term ‘paedocrite’ though I tend not to use it because I get the feeling no one else understands it outside of a determined few who follow theantifeminist’s blog. Having said that, there may be an argument to introduce it on some occasions but I think it needs to be preceeded (or superceded) with a definition.

      Also I’m not sure if it would quite fit in this context as I was referring to Dawkins hypocrisy over free speech rather than paedophilia specifically, though in most contexts on this site it probably would fit. However perhaps I’m just surprised that someone who might seem like an ally appears to be an enemy thus I don’t want to be too harsh!

      Most paedocrites would prefer to be more absolute in their vilification of other men as paedophiles. However, Dawkins admitted, of his own accord, that paedophilia being a taboo subject is a problem and that his own molestation experience did little harm. So he is a rather peculiar case in that he (claims) to see a problem with the anti-paedophile inquisition yet on the otherhand he doesn’t want to entertain the free speech of anyone who verbally tears it to pieces. Bizarre.

  2. Alan Vaughn says:

    Most paedocrites would prefer to be more absolute in their vilification of other men as paedophiles. However, Dawkins admitted, of his own accord, that paedophilia being a taboo subject is a problem and that his own molestation experience did little harm.

    And now he’s more-or-less back pedaling – almost denying that he said that, which is why I think the term fits him well. (A double hypocrite).

    So he is a rather peculiar case in that he (claims) to see a problem with the anti-paedophile inquisition yet on the otherhand he doesn’t want to entertain the free speech of anyone who verbally tears it to pieces. Bizarre.

    Indeed it (he) is rather bizarre, not to mention a big disappointment for you and for the rest of us really. Although you’re probably right – he doesn’t quite fit the bill, damn it… I still think he’s a paedoc!

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s