Free Speech or Revolution

Cultural, Premium POM

Islamophobia vs the Abuse of First Nations


During the French Revolution in 1789 the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen made it very clear that freedom of speech was an alienable right afforded to all. It specifically stated the following:

“The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.”

The right to free speech and expression is also recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It is without a doubt one of the most important methods by which citizens can articulate opinions and ideas without the constraints of censorship, social exclusion, or government punishment.

But how do we define the abuse of freedom of speech?

It is widely agreed that speech which incites violence and hatred would be considered an abuse of this right. But doesn’t this stand in opposition to the very nature of free speech? Yes, it does.

There is still a moral authority for all to use good judgement and temperament when considering the use of words and language in human communication. As an example, a case could be made that the title of this article is testing the waters on the abuse of free speech by suggesting that there could be a revolution if free speech is threatened or restricted.

Does this constitute an incitement of violence?

Depending on your political leaning a case can be made either way. This would suggest that human interpretation and emotional intelligence can play a huge role in how we make our determination of what is an abuse of free speech and what isn’t. But interpretation can be used as a scapegoat for the restriction as well.

As an example, here in Canada there is a motion being pushed through our legislative process called M103. This motion is about so-called Islamophobia. The pretext being used to get agreement on M103 is that there is a rising tide of hate speech and violence targeted against the Islamic community.

A few examples are used to prove this to be so, but ten times the amount of evidence is discarded as it would contradict the pretext and setting for the promotion of M103.

First, violence, abuse and open hate speech by those who support Islamic Sharia Law are ignored by the media and those in government wanting a quick agreement of M103. These supporters are aligned along the left liberal ideological spectrum.

Second, more wide spread acts of violence against other communities, such as the Jewish community, are completely ignored.

But lets not make this just about two of the worlds largest religions. The First Nations communities here in Canada have been subjected to an extreme amount of violence and hatred, more so than the small and growing Islamic community. This abuse started a long time ago and still exists today in the form of the racist and apartheid document called The Indian Act.

Nothing has contributed more to the degradation and humiliation of of First Nations people than The Indian Act. This one document, though amended a few times with minor changes, has been used to corral one large demographic of citizens onto reserves which serve the same purpose as the inner city ghettos in larger cities for those of colour.

The No-Go Zones which have developed in European cities will soon be coming to Canada and the United States if something isn’t done to stem the flow of mass migration from Islamic nations. These No-Go Zones will serve the same purpose for Islamic migrants as the inner city ghettos and reserves do for African Americans and First Nations people. Stating this fact is not an abuse of free speech. It is a moral responsibility based on the ideals of free speech to bring awareness and knowledge about the end results of government handouts to those who are now flocking and gathering around the cultural spigot.

The real hate speech and abuse of free speech is repeating over and over that we are all the same while encouraging a form of cultural segregation which enhances division and promotes resentment in oppositional populations. This sameness does set the stage for the application of freedom of speech abuse as it all but ensures verbal conflict amongst groups.

As an example, we are told that the Islamic religion fits into this cultural sameness while the government attempts to pass legislation which segregates it from the common law of the land which is shared. This corresponds to increased government handouts which are not given to all and adds to the growing resentment. This feeds the justification for the restriction of free speech.

Ironically, discussing the negative impact which The Indian Act has had on the First Nations people is also considered borderline abuse of free speech, even though the evidence is clear to those who take an interest in learning about the abuse and hatred directed at these citizens.

We blame them for the handouts much like we blame Islamic migrants now for getting handouts when they come here. There is a justification in this of course because the setup is so perfect that the reaction from the demographic which isn’t getting handouts is almost assured under such cultural and socioeconomic engineering and segregation. In almost all cases the demographic which isn’t receiving is being forced to carry the costs of the handouts, which amplifies the negativity further.

The divisions which form in the society are ignored and any attempt to discuss them or correct them is considered hateful and violent. The absurd nature of this mental conditioning is tantamount to the abuse of freedom of speech as it acts in reversal to what it states as its open objective. We are not all the same but we are manipulated and controlled the through the same means and tactics.

These obvious truths are becoming even more and more obvious to those who receive and those who are taken from. The differences between both can be put aside and alignment can be found for the greater good. Our differences should be celebrated through a means by which all are afforded access to the same level playing field where these differences can be matched against one another.

Handouts by a government which engineers demographics and manufactures cultural segregation must be avoided. These handouts do not level the playing field. They distort the purpose of human drive and motivation, leading to generations of dependent children who can no longer function in the real world of natural competition and personal growth.

How the free speech argument is being presented and sold is something of a red herring. We are caught in the simplified version of our responses while the root causes are never discussed. The manufactured argument is designed specifically for this purpose. The disproportionate application of free speech responsibilities within the cultural is another giveaway that something isn’t right.

We need to avoid getting sucked into these staged and rehearsed free speech battles and focus on where the real fight is taking place. Ending cultural segregation and promoting the balanced application of law for all citizens must be the driving factor which encourages transformation. As long as one group believes that they deserve special status and treatment over another group the battle to retain our inalienable right of free speech will be under threat.

Free speech for all or revolution will be the end result. Cultural segregation will end as all discover the common ground upon which the lasting ideals of liberty are found. Once this happens the ruling government will be faced with the harshest of reactions. This reaction should be avoided which is why sensible citizens are attempting to take back control of the gears and levers of government in nations all around the world. – JC

JC Collins can be contacted at

This article is copyrighted by POM Media©2017. As Premium content permission is not given to be copied and re-posted.