Mona Altahawy appeared again on Q and A last night and lectured us on our record on human rights, among other things. As some tweeps observed it was a tad ironic for someone from Egypt to lob here and wag her finger at Australia on this issue.
That aside, she proved herself to be a real bigot, and a censorious one at that. Not surprisingly, she invoked that old "blame the white male" ploy so beloved by left-wing zombies. And, like they almost always do, she used it in a rant in which she was railing against "racism":
MONA ELTAHAWY: Well, you’re talking to someone who got arrested for spray-painting over a racist and bigoted ad in the New York subway and I’m going to stand trial very soon in New York soon for this and I - so I have many thoughts on this. First of all, in the United States, the people who go on the most about freedom of expression and it’s my right to say this and my right to say that are usually old, rich, white men who parade under the term libertarian. And what it ends up basically meaning is: I have the right to be a racist and sexist shit and I'm protected by the first amendment. And it’s utterly ridiculous. Because when you look - if you look at this ad that I sprayed over - now, I’m - I love the first amendment. As a US citizen, because I am Egyptian-American, I love the first amendment. I love that it protects freedom of expression and freedom of belief. But here is the thing: if a racist, bigoted ad is protected as political speech, which it was - the New York subway didn't want this very racist and bigoted ad but a judge deemed it protected political speech?
And what were the words that Mona the moaner felt so outraged by?
MONA ELTAHAWY: I can tell you because it - I mean it’s outrageous. It said: “In the war between the civilised man and the savage, always choose the civilised man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.” And I thought: are you fucking kidding me? In my subway? How can you put this up? And the subway - the subway authorities did not want this ad, because they said it was going to incite people and so they took it to the hate group and it’s been classified as a hate group by the - it’s the Southern Law Centre, right, Ken? Is that what they’re called?
In "her" subway ... liked she owned it!
Sure, the ad was provocative. But where did it refer to race? Islam is a religion, remember. And it wasn't even referring to that generally. It was attacking jihad specifically, implicitly condemning its employment of barbaric terrorism as a way to achieve its goals. Sounds pretty reasonable to me ...
But Altawahy the censorious bigot had to try to remove it from view. Then she had the gall to say she loves the first amendment! What a hypocritical pig.
Just reconfirms what I've long known about these malignant, marauding meat heads of the Left. Their definition of freedom of speech is the right to shout ... other people down.
One rule(unwritten) for them (but then they "own" a lot of public institutions anyway and are so game!)and the actual laws they've brought in for the rest of us!And don't they enjoy telling us so by their holierthanthou language!!ReplyDelete
This person is a total hypocrite,as her rant against old rich white males is as sexually repulsive as anything imagined to be based on race and made public in media
If there was any real justice in our courts, some rich old bugger(term of endearment from me)would take her on under Section 18C before the Brandis clauses bring some needed change!
What was nearly as awful as the Qand A panel was the usual Qand A audience who always somehow manage to be made up of "a balance" yet are always booing conservatives,thin on the seats of the panel though they be, and cheering the looney leftists whom Jones gives most seats to regularly..
Thank God only some other loonies watch it,but gosh we all have to pay for their indulgences with our taxes, so doesn't that give us some right of reply or appeal, something other than turning the arrogant idiots off!?
Disclaimer: info gleaned from here and Bolta's site as I wouldn't be caught dead watching anything other than dramas and house renos on "their" ABC!
Mona Eltahawy is not really to my taste but like most wingnuts you've missed the point she was making. She was NOT accusing all "rich white men" of being racist or being the sole repository of racism. What she was saying is plutocrats can afford lawyers and lobbyists to protect their own freedom of speech, while trampling on the freedom of speech of others. An entirely valid criticism if you look at how the First Amendment has been lawyered to death in the US.ReplyDelete
Of course when you hail the rich and powerful as being all good and virtuous, as you lot on the right are wont to do, then her point is easily missed.
Disclaimer: info gleaned from here and Bolta's site as I wouldn't be caught dead watching anything other than dramas and house renos on "their" ABC!ReplyDelete
You remind me of my brother in law, who spends half his time doing cash jobs to evade tax, and the other half of his time complaining about how "my taxes" fund the "left wing drivel" on the ABC. He gets his 'information', such as it is, from Andrew Bolt too.
And you probably get all your info from the ABC or the Age or SMH. Oh dear I got confused. Only lefties are permitted to sit in their little lefties vacuum the rest of us must diversify, broaden our minds, hear a variety of opinions (leftie opinions that is) Yadda Yadda YaddaDelete