Monday 16 November 2009

Beenie Man ban “a victory for gay fascists over homophobic fascists”

Beenie Man is as popular with gay fascists as Bennie Hill is with feminazis.  Which is to say, not at all.  And when fascists feel offended, it always comes out in a ban, or a call for one.  Beenie Man’s Big Day Out appearance is the latest casualty since, as Lindsay Perigo describes, “in response to gay fascists,” Big Day Out organisers in Auckland have pulled Jamaican performer Beenie Man out of next year's event.

This represents “a victory for gay fascists over homophobic fascists,” says Perigo, “and the loser is freedom of speech and conscience.”

    “Apparently, Beenie Man's lyrics at one point included, ‘I'm dreaming of a new Jamaica, come to execute all the gays.’
    “Gaynz.com content editor Jay Bennie had called on Beenie Man to be axed from the line-up to send a message that homophobia was not acceptable in New Zealand.
    "I'd never heard of Beenie Man till now," says Perigo, who himself is gay. "Quite apart from such revolting lyrics—which are probably inaudible—I know I'd loathe his brand of headbanging anti-music. But in the spirit of Voltaire I'd defend to the death his right to perform it to consenting adults.
    "The Big Day Out website says while Beenie Man has renounced those sentiments, signed the Reggae Compassionate Act [!!] and promised to stick to 'peaceful and humanistic values' at Big Day Out, 'the depth of feeling and hurt amongst these groups has convinced us that for us to proceed with his Big Day Out appearances was, and would continue to be, divisive amongst our audience members and would mar the enjoyment of the event for many.'
    "One wonders what would happen were the homophobic misogynist Eminem the 'artist' in question," Perigo muses.

One might also wonder what might happen with all those attendees wearing Che Guevara shirts, unaware that their hero brought into being a New Cuba, in which he actually did execute gays. 

    "Big Day Out, of course, have the right to extend and revoke invitations as they see fit. But it's a shame they've succumbed to pressure from a group of toxic totalitarians who form a significant contingent of New Zealand's Politically Correct Thought Police, who won't be satisfied till they've criminalized 'offensive' and 'inappropriate' speech.
    "Bennie and Beenie are flip sides of the same coin. Both would benefit from a course of sensitivity-training in the spirit and practice of, ‘I disagree with what you say, but defend to the death your right to say it’,' Perigo concludes.”

Perhaps both Beenie and Bennie – or at least those who listen to both – could begin with this primer on some of the most basic propositions of free speech, which includes these two simple propositions:

  • Forcing ideas underground does not eradicate them, it incubates them. Bad ideas are anaerobic -- the oxygen of free inquiry kills them. Bad ideas can only be fought with better ones.
  • If you don't like it, then turn it off.

16 comments:

STC said...

I would have thought it perfectly acceptable for people to call on the organisers of the BDO to drop Beenie Man; in that way they are appealling to a private enterprise, which is more about customer satisfaction than fascism.

Where the line is crossed is when people ask for the Government to step in and ban something or prevent someone from entering the country based on their views. That said 'Beenie Man' has done more than just express dislike for gays, he has called for executing all gay people in a country with a record of terrible abuse against gay people.

If he were coming to give a free lecture at Auckland University expounding his views that would be one thing, but it is another to book him for entertainment. Good on the BDO for dropping this drongo.

Monsieur said...

Free-of-speech is a double-edged tomahawk.
Let me get this right.
If someone complains about someone who sings songs about "killing gays" then they are toxic totalitarians.
If someone complains about someone selling Che Quevara T-shirts then they are just expressing their opinion.

Sus said...

Mons, I think you missed this pertinent line:

"Bennie & Beenie are flip sides of the same coin".

Wouldn't you agree?

Sus said...

"I would have thought it perfectly acceptable for people to call on the organisers of the BDO to drop Beenie Man ..."

Absolutely, STC. The organisers of the BDO may please themselves whom they invite or disinvite to perform.

But the title of the post says it all. And free speech allows for the criticism of *both* parties. :)

goofey said...

Surely it's Jay Bennie's right to protest and ask BDO organisers top scrap (not ban) 'Beenie Man'. I mean, I remember a debate about this on NotPC about 'banning' Che t-shirts. Yet, in that case a number of people were supporting the Tomahawk Kid in his protest, but now it's "gay facists" and "banning". I'm sorry, but this appears to be a double standard. If not, please explain how it is not?

FreeSpeech Man said...

I think it was political pressure at first, useless Labour MP, Charles Chauvel, wrote a letter to Associate Minister of Immigration to request to decline Beenie Man's entry visa:

A letter to Kate Wilkinson

This is the heart of matter, which is political interference. It wasn't a market decision. This cannot be equated to the Hallenstein's use of Che's image, because there wasn't any political pressure being used at all. Tomahawk indeed tried to use the power of marketing persuasion first & foremost. Tomahawk didn't complain to a politician to exert pressure on Hallenstein or else.

So, can all of you daft commentators here, see the difference? If you can't then don't fuckn post piss take post, because it is a waste of space to reply to.

Monsieur said...

@ FreeSpeech: Criticism of a double standards is not taking the piss.

If Tomahawk Kid was justified in taking Hallenstiens to task about one of the images on their T-shirts.
Then Bennie must be justified in taking BDO organisers to task about one of their artist's lyrics.

If you want to divert the discussion to Chauvel's action, then that is another matter

goofey said...

FreeSpeech Man, I was unaware of the Chauvel letter. My response was simply based on Peter's post (which did not mention political interference) and seemed to me like a double standard when we compared to the post about Che t-shirts. I think the political pressure you mentioned was unnecessary.

By the way, there is no need to abuse people. I like to think of myself as a reasonable person; I am willing to listen to other views, and consider them. Swearing and abuse does not add weight to your argument, which is a shame, because you appear to have a valid one.

Elijah Lineberry said...

This is so silly - banning this negro performer for the content of his song lyrics.

"kill all gays they are poofy girly-men who want to root other men/rape lesbians because they are secretly gagging for it and want to know what they are missing" or sum such lyrics, from what I understand.

Gosh, apart from such comments being quite hilarious, you would have to be fairly feeble for such things to cause offence.

So yes, let's ban him! let's simply ban everyone we dislike to show what good people we are.

(Although I notice Chauval MP never wants to ban communists, trade unionists or others of that ilk from talking absurd, collectivist nonsense)

Tim said...

"If someone complains about someone who sings songs about "killing gays" then they are toxic totalitarians.
If someone complains about someone selling Che Quevara T-shirts then they are just expressing their opinion."

Monsieur, well put! This is exactly the sentiment I've been trying to get across in previous posts.

Anonymous said...

Marc Bolan (of T-Rex for those too young to remember) once sang "You won't fool the children of the revolution..." How wrong he was, the children of the left are easy game!

David S. said...

Beenie Man wasn't banned. The organisers of the event withdrew their invitation. Perhaps you should review the title of this post to reflect reality?

Julian said...

Monsieur, STC et al are correct. There is no issue here. A private organisation has withdrawn an invitation to a "musician", probably because they became aware that their clients would not appreciate either the "musician" or the attention that said "musician's" presence would draw.

People have voiced their opinion in exactly the same way that some of us did over the Che Guevara T-shirts. And good on them for that, although I care neither for the "musician" nor the groups that called for him to be uninvited.

Julian

Peter Cresswell said...

Yep, Julian, Monsieur, STC, Goofey David S. etc., you are quite right: appealing to the organisers of the BDO to drop Beenie Man is more about customer satisfaction than fascism. You're right. Perigo seems to have overlooked that Beenie Man hasn't been banned by govt, but pulled by the organisers.

And you're right too that someone selling Che Guevara T-shirts is expressing their opinion just as someone complaining about it is expressing their opinion. They both have a right to do so, just as we and their customers have a right to judge them for theirs.

Sean Fitzpatrick said...

That being said, what definition can we give to Chauvel's actions in asking for the visa to be turned down on the basis of Beenie Man's lyric? What does that tell us about Chauvel's attitudes on such things?

John said...

I think there is a bit of difference between basic free speech and direct calls for extremely graphic / violent torture-murders ... especially when the calls are carried out at alarming rates.



PS: Under your version of free-speech rules, how would ... say ... a mob boss that didn't kill people with his own hands, but called for the murders, have any criminal guilt?

Heck, did Hitler himself even kill any Jews with his own hands? Was not he guilty of 'speech' more than 'action'?? And though that is an extreme example, I think it helps make a point.