I am angry. No, let me start over with the right wording to express what I feel at this very moment. I am absolutely livid to the point of being genocidal. You might think of this as nothing new. In a way, you are probably right. I get angry easily. The extent to which some people anger me merely by existing is enormous. But people are never born this way.
There has been a lot of stir around Europe and the United Kingdom over Muslim idiots trying to force what are termed anti-blasphemy laws into their societies. And rightfully so. The very concept of an anti-blasphemy law is antithetical to the concept of democracy. It is as ridiculous and disgusting as the idea of a law making it illegal to burn yourself to death in order to protest the way in which your kind is being treated. But here is the thing. Australians disgust me. They disgust me to a degree that can only be explained by decades of living as a marginalised minority (a true minority group, not one that proclaims itself to be one) amongst them. So when Gabriel Buckley tried to tell me that laws making it illegal to create a hateful atmosphere towards the autistic were but a step away from anti-blasphemy laws, his mere existence became offensive to me.
Ideas do not have rights, Gabriel. That is the basis on which people are upset, angry, and in many cases frightened by anti-blasphemy laws. If someone wants to parody my story concept of Odin being like a chief immigration officer in a universal highway between worlds, that is their prerogative. They might even point out funny things about this concept that I had not previously thought of, so good luck to them. All I would ask of them is that they invest enough thought into their parody or satire to make it a good one.
But you see, Gabriel, people have rights. They might be subject to negotiation in order to prevent conflict between one another. For instance, the right to as much freedom as science can grant from starvation and preventable disease is a right I would die for, but the right to reproduce freely comes a very distant second to that one. I hope it surprises you, then, that the concept of a one-child policy, however it may be enforced, appeals to me very much. But here is the thing. I consider it a right to live in a world where open aggression against people on the basis of characteristics they cannot help is illegal. That is, I believe that people who differ from the expected norm for whatever reason have the right to never suffer aggression from others based on that difference from the expected norm. A right that I use the words “cold, dead hands” quite frequently when I describe the conditions under which I would give it up.
So when I say that “charity” solicitations featuring puzzle piece symbols should be illegal, I want my full meaning understood. I have a right to live my life without ever having to see puzzle pieces and “waaaah people are autistic let’s make them not so” ads ever again. I do not merely hate the puzzle piece. In previous postings, I described how the mere sight of it sent me into convulsive, shaking states where I was about to punch the bejesus out of the person I was trying to explain my offense at it to. These feelings, physical reactions, and emotional states can be fairly compared to the states Jewish or Cambodian folk feel when confronted with symbology of the Nazis or the Khmer Rouge. That you consider outlawing these symbols “just a step from” anti-blasphemy laws make you the kind of person my grandfather participated in an organised fight to prevent from coming into power in Australia.
I really could stop my whole statement right there and be done with it, but because I am the type of guy to keep kicking when the victim is at death’s door, I am going to explain a few things for the benefit of idiots who might vote for you.
I left Queensland (or Cuntsland as I like to call it to certain related individuals’ faces) in October of last year for a number of reasons. Foremost among which was that in the wake of being told that the reason I was stuck on the margins of Australian society in general is because I am autistic, I was being marginalised even further by Queensland as a society. Even applying for what was then termed “social housing” in Queensland brought responses that make me want to kill everything in Queensland.
Just by reading what you have written about your so-called “smaller government” platform, I can tell that you think everyone is wondrous and happy in a rural hick fukktard haven like what I like to call Cuntborough. Well, maybe that is the case for hick fukktards who do not have working brains. But for people who are hard-wired to think differently from the rest, it is hell. It is like being stuck watching a film that completely encircles you, where all that the people one can see say to each other is a repetition. You are not familiar with this quote, so I will share it here both for the benefit of my audience and idiots like you:
Lies are all Humanity knows / for if they spoke the truth it would show / that they are nothing but a shadow of each other
—Esoteric, Bereft
Queenslanders are fundamentally incapable of seeing themselves as they really are. They spit their own diseased tiny minds back and forth at each other, learning less than nothing in the process, and even getting that little bit wrong. So to see someone campaigning to represent them when that someone cannot even tell the difference between outlawing criticism however informal and outlawing harmful speech that worsens the health of its victim should not surprise anybody.
People love to repeat that bigger is not necessarily better, and in that much, they are correct. Big cars, big boats, big planes, they are all harder to steer into the right direction. But the opposite also applies. Smaller is not necessarily better, either. Small populations mean poorer service. Small staff levels mean longer waits for service. Small libraries mean less information. And in a world where the planet will at best be able to provide a less than a third of the present Human population with a modest but comfortable standard of living at the end of this century, small amounts of laws are a recipe for disaster.
But this is getting away from the point proper. In places like the USA, ever-increasing amounts of laws are getting more and more specific about acts that are disallowed, and the penalties for them. To transplant them into Australia, it prompts questions concerning the viability of your professed “smaller” law approach. These questions include, but are not limited to:
- Should it be legal to murder a woman solely because she offends your male viewpoint of how she should live her life? If not, should the perpetrator face harsher penalties for having murdered her? If not, why not?
- Should it be legal to hurt, murder, or otherwise cause pain to a member of an actual social minority? If not, explain why the perpetrator should not face a harsher penalty, including in some cases death.
(The above question is pertinent to me, Mister Buckley. I doubt you know this, being a Queenslander in favour of less laws, but a social minority means a group of individuals with distinguishing physical, linguistic, or cultural characteristics that they can help no more than the colour of their eyes. Membership in an actual social minority is involuntary. To make this point clear, a black Muslim in Australia is an actual social minority on the basis of being black, but not on the basis of being a Muslim. Get how this works yet?)
- Should it be legal to enjoin a social minority from protesting their discriminated status to the public, in direct contravention of their legal right to do so? If not, what penalties should there be for people who do, in fact, enjoin a social minority from protesting their discriminated status to the public? Because I can assure you that both have happened, and in the latter case, the perpetrators have escaped without so much as a slap on the hand. This does not happen in far-off places like Russia or Brazil. It is happening in Australia.
- Why is it apparently legal for a mob of filthy, clearly in need of treatment and deprogramming towelheads to march in a public place proclaiming that people who “insult” the imaginary towelhead in their sky should be beheaded? Why is it not legal for people with varying mental illnesses and/or neurochemical imbalances to retaliate by mobbing them in and telling them “not another step”?
- Why is it legal for businesses to advertise and solicit donations on the behalf of organisations whose avowed mission is to exterminate me and my kind?
Why do I get the feeling that you will conflate a demand for answers to all of the above questions with support of anti-blasphemy laws. Well, given that a favourite song of mine, one I compose writings to, is titled Banner Of Blasphemy, I welcome such a strawman argument from you. It will accomplish nothing other than proving what I have said about you thus far to be correct.
Before my present living situation blew up into a cesspit of hostility, one of my neighbours said to an acquaintance who was planning to move to Queensland that the problem with Queensland is it is full of Queenslanders. If a person who believes as you do that making it illegal to treat the autistic in the like-shit fashion I have been documenting for years is just a step away from anti-blasphemy laws, then you have proven he was understating matters.
Edited to add: I often make reference to a grandfather who served in the Second World War as part of the Australian army. I often say that I believe he would be shocked and disappointed by what the country he fought on behalf of seems to have turned into. This is because from what little I understand of his life’s story, he is the relative I feel I have any understanding of. As a rule, I do not regard any of the Prime Ministers that have been in power during my lifetime as having been worthy of fighting for, with perhaps the sole exception of Julia Gillard because of her ceasing to talk about implementing what is now called DisabilityCare and actually doing something about it. There were five Prime Ministers during World War II, but I will not presume to say what I think my grandfather might have thought of any of them. Largely because I never have been able to know either of them, the Prime Ministers or my grandfather. The latter of which burns in my mind like acid. The point to all of this, Mister Buckley, is that were I not 4-F, there is no way in any time or sphere that I would willingly fight for the kind of society you seem to aspire to bring us. Nor, I suspect, would anyone who gave their time to make clear to the Australian government why their “let nature take its course” approach to disability has never been acceptable.
