"European culture leaders should smack down fanatical Islamists. Instead, they're bending over for them." Livingstone among them. From Bruce Bawer in Reason, with thanks to all who sent this in:
It's been a tough year for freedom of expression in Europe.On November 2, 2004, Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh was butchered in an Amsterdam street by Mohammed Bouyeri, a radical Muslim enraged over Submission, van Gogh's blunt film about women's subjugation under Islam. For many Europeans, the murder of one of the Netherlands' most outspoken public figures underscored the importance of protecting freedom of expression. ("Long live the Netherlands, long live free speech!" read one anonymous note placed amid the thousands of flowers and memorial tributes at the scene of the crime.) Many members of Europe's fast-growing Muslim communities, however—along with more than a few non-Muslims eager to keep the peace in an increasingly anxious and divided continent—draw a very different lesson: the need to curb freedom of expression out of respect for Muslim sensitivities.
The latter view was expressed succinctly by Copenhagen imam Ahmed Abu Laban, who charged that Submission had "crossed the limits of freedom of speech" and demanded "an open debate on these limits." Iqbal Sacranie of the Muslim Council of Britain agreed. "Is freedom of expression without bounds?" he asked. "Muslims are not alone in saying ‘No' and in calling for safeguards against vilification of dearly cherished beliefs."
These voices have not gone unheard. In the year since van Gogh's murder, the "limits" and "safeguards" called for by Laban and Sacranie have begun to be put in place. A brief overview:
• Many art curators—a breed that normally revels in provocation—have decided that provoking Muslims is verboten. In January, the World Culture Museum in Gothenburg, Sweden, took down a painting, Scène d'amour, described by its artist, Louzla Darabi, as a "response to Muslim hypocrisy about sexuality, above all women's sexuality"; in October, London's Tate Gallery removed John Latham's God Is Great, a work that incorporated copies of the Bible and the Koran. (Latham accused the gallery of cowardice.)
• Judges have done their part. In May, ruling on a petition by the Muslim Union of Italy, a magistrate in the northern Italian city of Bergamo ordered writer Oriana Fallaci to stand trial for vilifying Islam in her book The Force of Reason. (She had previously been acquitted on a similar offense in France.) In September, the European Court of Human Rights affirmed a Turkish court's conviction of a publisher for issuing a novel, Abdullah Riza Ergüven's Yasak Tümceler, that purportedly "insulted the Prophet and religion."
• Legislatures have taken action. In April, after virtually no public discussion, Norway's Parliament passed a law that punishes offensive remarks about any religion with up to three years' imprisonment—and places the burden of proof on the accused. Three months later, Britain's House of Commons approved a bill that would criminalize "words or behavior" that might "stir up racial or religious hatred." (On October 25, the bill's most restrictive provisions were rejected by the House of Lords—an ironic example of a non-democratically elected body standing up for democracy by rebuking a democratically elected body.)
Read it all.
Are Europeans wilfully blind or merely ignorant of the state of affairs? The barbarians are insiide the gates (of vienna) this time and its maybe too late to do anything about it? Even mighty Rome fell, so why should western civilization that Europe fathered be invincible?
Dhimmi watch is among the more depressing reads of my typical day. Yet, ignorance would be a greater tragedy still, hence I keep coming back.
"Dhimmi watch is among the more depressing reads of my typical day..."
-- from a posting above
That's why a there's-method-in-the-madness effort is made to enliven and amuse -- otherwise the website becomes one grim thing after another. Who could stand it?
Off topic but I am very curious. Does anyone have recent news from France? Is it still burning? I have been unable to find anything. I realize I am probably not looking in the right places so direction is most appreciated!
I served in the US Navy for 4 years protecting the rights of the American people. I gave the best years of my young life - 17-21, making sure that I paid my dues for being able to exercise my constitutional rights for the rest of my life.
Do I like it when people call me a warmonger? NO! Do I like it when people call me a zealot? NO! Do I like it when people say the US sucks ass? No, I want to beat their ass! BUT >>> I would rather be shot now than those people be restricted from saying what they want. I only have a few exceptions: If you openly condone & incite violent overthrow of the US & I'm within earshot, your ass is kicked. If someone is offended by your comments & they try to walk away so they don't have to hear it & you pursue them to persecute them; you deserve it if they attack you.
I believe in our freedoms very deeply, above all - our freedom to exist, and peacefully at that. I exercise my freedoms quite often when I feel the urge, like the freedom of speech now:
Mohhamed was a child raping, stealing, murdering, closet homosexual with a charismatic personality and a host of sloped forehead followers who were better at swinging a sword than a pen. Screw Mo, screw muslims, and screw their apologists! Ahh!! That felt good, I earned it!
Now: feel free to bash my Lord Jesus all you want. Really, go ahead. I helped pay for that right for you and I fully encourage you to express yourself. Just don't try to impose any backwards lifestyle on me and don't try to hush my free expression, because the right to bear arms is another freedom I believe in quite heavily! LOL!
Over the past couple of years I've educated myself on who our enemy is. Islamic Fundementalism. It's a shame that our politicians are so afraid to label the movement as such. But it's the political correctness thing. I've read Pipes, Spencer, Timmerman, Ye'or, Fallaci and others. When I mention some of these views to my circle of friends and acquaintances, they have no clew. They talk about the fifteen second sound bites which they recall from the news.
The battle is to make the masses aware. Ignorance, lethargy and silence will do us all in!
Il Toscano
Il Toscano, I agree with you. I will, however, make one "little tweak" to your comment above: Our enemy isn't Islamic Fundemetalism, it's Islam itself. Fundemental, liberal, moderate - whatever label you give it - is still Islam. The roots of which are so impregnated with seering hatred for humanity that any version of it must be destroyed.
I too am currently trying to cope with the problem of the "circle of friends". My best friend of 7 years is so convinced that Islam is "OK" because he has muslim friends who are "some of the nicest people he knows", that he labels me a zealot for being so against them.
My girlfriend of 4 years states that she "doesn't know why I keep reading this stuff and just upsetting myself". I asked her if she'd just prefer that I stick my head in the sand and ignore it and she said "YES!"
I find both of these situations so extremely troubling that I find myself praying a lot for a path of guidance to bring these 2 important people in my life to see the immediate danger we all face. You'd think WTC '93, 9/11, 7/7, or the countless innocents beheaded in Iraq would be enough but the apologist MSM in this country is earning every dhimmi penny it makes misleading the people. Sometimes I feel it's hopeless.
"convinced that Islam is "OK" because he has muslim friends who are 'some of the nicest people he knows'"
-- from a posting above
A significant problem. The failure to distinguish between, on the one hand, soft-spokenness and other outward and visible signs of politeness, as well as an eagerness to please, and the belief-system that animates, that gives meaning, that cannot be abandoned, that cannot not be defended. That friend of yours should, with his nice polite "Muslim friends," deliberately bring the conversation around to the history of Islamic conquest, or the behavior of Muhammad -- Aisha, Asma bint Marwan, the attack on the Khaybar Oasis, the decapitation of the prisoners of the Banu Qurayzah -- and see what then is the reaction? A Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde revelation. That is one more reason that large numbers of Muslims -- even one at a departmental meeting, if that department is, say, the history department, can prevent any serious and uninhibited discussion of how Islam should be taught, or certain subjects -- i.e. the Ottoman conquests and history -- are to be fairly and not tendentiously treated. As their numbers increase, the numbers of Infidels willing to challenge the received Muslim version of events will go down -- who wants to be an ogre, who wants to offend colleagues who are outwardly so personable? This is a growing problem. It is made worse by the naivete, for example, that narrow specialization, and monographism, encourages -- not my field, I don't presume to have an opiinion. University presidents will not intervene; they feel they "don't know enough" and do not want to endanger their own high salaries and perks by standing up for principle, and for teaching the truth -- why should they? What's in it for them?
And then there are the busy, busy law school faculty members, so solemnly involved in turning back the fundamentalist Christian tide, so completely unaware of something far far worse threatening the Constitution, and the polity, from boht within and without. And then there are the I've-Got-A-Bright-Idea-Boys, who think that Islam is a swell subjet to teach -- isn't "Islamic law," they argue, just the thing that should be taught in a law school, and shouldn't it ideally be taught by a Muslim? Answers: No, and No. It is theology, not law in any Western sense of man-made law, that can be modified over time, that has a history in which that law changes. And No, the best person to teach about Islam is almost never a Muslim, becuase the tradition does not allow for criticism, only for the apologetic mode (this is one of the things that Bernard Lewis, after a lifetime of dealing with the matter, has grimly but reluctantly concluded).
Those "nice Muslims" -- those Nice Guys will make us, the Infidels, Finish Last. And that should not be allowed to happen. Greater self-eduation can work to undo the easy damgae done when "niceness" becomes a substitute for, and even inhibits, analysis and understanding.
That's what's so wonderful about the various Qaradawis as well as the Bin Ladens. They don't mince words. They aren't "nice." They tell the truth. Listen to them. They mean what they say. The texts are on their side. Judge Islam on that basis. You wouldn't judge Soviet Communism by the existence of Sakharov or Yuri Galanskov or Andrey Amalrik or Natan Sharansky. Why do otherwise with Islam?
Andrey Amalrik - Will the Soviet Union Survive until 1984.
He wasn't that far out.
Will Islam survive until 2084?
"Will Islam survive until 2084?"
-- from a posting above
Will Western Europe, without being taken over completely by Islam?
'Iqbal Sacranie of the Muslim Council of Britain agreed. "Is freedom of expression without bounds?" he asked. "Muslims are not alone in saying ‘No' and in calling for safeguards against vilification of dearly cherished beliefs."'
Yes. Freedom of expression IS without bounds. That's what differentiates Western culture from yours, and if you don't like it, you can go back to the desert. This is *Europe*, you medieval savage.
Will Western Europe, without being taken over completely by Islam?
Yes, the tide may not be turning quite yet, but I can sense the groundswell. It's not going to be easy and I believe that the Chinese curse of "interesting times" are ahead.
But we will make our land safe for our children.
And if Islam can be persuaded to implode, their children as well.
Hugh, I think part of the problem is the excessive fragmentation and specialization of the modern world where no one feels compelled to deal with the larger issues of life, but rather are content to know oodles of facts about one tiny, specific area only. No one really wants to "deal with religion." We'd rather ignore it because we don't want to be forced draw deep conclusions about the meaning of our lives. If we stay busy, we won't have to think about it...any wonder Christmas is a mad rush of busy-ness?
Bloody well said Godefroi de Boulogne!
People either understand the concepts implicit in the phrase "freedom of speech", or they do not.
They are not difficult concepts.
Funny how the mohammedans rush to defend freedom of speech whenever anti-terror legislation is in the offing.
"....safeguards against vilification of dearly cherished beliefs."
What bullshit is this? Every time I open a newspaper, watch TV, or read a book, I find my own "dearly cherished beliefs" being trashed. Tough shit! Welcome to democracy Sir Iqbal.
"Is freedom of expression without bounds?"
No, try suing for defamation. Good luck pal!
"Muslims are not alone in saying ‘No' and in calling for safeguards against vilification of dearly cherished beliefs."
He is right about this. There are plenty of other dickheads calling for the same thing.
For fuck's sake, these clowns can (and do, at any mosque, any day of the week) vilify me all they like. I could not care less.