| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
My Human Events column this week concerns an advancing threat that most Americans have no idea even exists.
Freedom of speech is in imminent danger. Concerted attacks on it by the jihadist movement are increasing in number here and in countries that share America’s dedication to free speech.Mark Steyn, the author of "America Alone," is on trial in Canada for inciting hatred against Muslims in an article adapted from that book. Pakistan just asked the European Union to restrict freedom of expression so as to curb “offenses to Islam.” Finland recently gave a blogger 2 1/2 years in prison for “insulting Islam.” When Dutch police arrested the cartoonist Gregorius Nekschot, Amsterdam’s public prosecutor explained: “We suspect him of insulting people on the basis of their race or belief, and possibly also of inciting hate.” Against Muslims, of course.
Doudou Diène, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, recently came to the United States, where he held a hearing in Miami on Islamophobia and anti-Muslim discrimination. At the hearing he met with ex-Council on American-Islamic Relations operative Ahmed Bedier, who explained to him “how Islamophobia and anti-Muslim rhetoric by officials and pundits are contributing to hate crimes against Muslims across Florida.”I doubt that Ahmed Bedier could provide even one scrap of evidence for the assertion that there has been an increase of hate crimes against Muslims in Florida, much less show any causal link between statements by any official or pundit, and any of those hate crimes. But the most important aspect of this is the spectacle of an American Muslim activist meeting with a UN official who is interested in restricting freedom of speech in order to combat “Islamophobia.”
Spurious charges of “Islamophobia,” and false claims that hate crimes are being committed because of it, are being used to advance an anti-free speech agenda. Americans need to be aware of what’s happening, and resist it at every turn.
Jeremy Waldron, a legal philosopher, wrote in The New York Review of Books last month that “a liberal democracy must take affirmative responsibility for protecting the atmosphere of mutual respect against certain forms of vicious attack.” That means muzzling speech which the stealth jihadists consider such an “attack.” The New York Times recently quoted Waldron favorably, in a story that glided from the Canadian case against Mark Steyn to a discussion of Nazis and racial epithets, without a hint of the fact that what Steyn said was both factual and worlds away from Nazism or racism. What Steyn wrote was essentially a straightforward presentation of Islamic supremacist statements made by Muslims.
If that’s hate speech, so was reporting what Hitler said in 1935.
The problem with laws against “hate speech,” such as those in Canada under which Steyn is being prosecuted, is that “hate speech” is in the eye of the beholder. Our First Amendment isn’t designed to protect speech that is popular: that would make it redundant. Rather, it is designed to protect speech that is unpopular with any group, even the majority of Americans.
Laws against “hate speech” become weapons in the hands of those who wield political power, or who are jockeying for that power: they are weapons to silence their opponents. The Times will never tell you, of course, that there is a worldwide and ongoing movement by Islamic jihadists and their allies (and useful idiots in the media) to label all critical examination of Islamic supremacism as “hate speech.”
And who will be the chief beneficiary if they succeed? The Islamic supremacists, and only the Islamic supremacists. We will be mute and hence defenseless in the face of the jihadist onslaught.
Many times, groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations have classified true statements about Islam and jihad as “hateful.” Several years ago CAIR began a campaign against National Review magazine because of a biography of Muhammad the magazine was then advertising; CAIR did not specify that anything in the book or National Review’s advertisement for it was inaccurate though nothing was. This phenomenon has recurred several times since then. We are now in danger, under the guise of forbidding “hate speech,” of forbidding discussion of the reality of Islamic jihad at precisely the moment that Islamic supremacists are pressing forward as never before with their program of stealth jihad against the West.
Speaking out against British Columbia’s hate speech laws, attorney Roger D. McConchie noted correctly that “innocent intent is not a defense. Nor is truth. Nor is fair comment on true facts. Publication in the public interest and for the public benefit is not a defense. Opinion expressed in good faith is not a defense. Responsible journalism is not a defense.”
He is right, and that is why that law and all such laws are so pernicious.
It can happen here. We could lose the freedom to speak out against Islamic supremacism and jihad, and that will only enable the Islamic supremacists to advance farther into the heart of the West.
Huey Long is said to have remarked, “Fascism will come to America, but likely under another name, perhaps anti-fascism.” Now we are seeing just that: the anti-jihadists are called fascists, and are being silenced in fascist fashion, in the name of anti-fascism. It’s time to wake up.
Posted by Robert at June 17, 2008 10:26 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
One of the best smackdowns on the Canadian B.S. by Edward Greenspan, from Ezra Levant's Blog.
Posted by: Sounder![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at June 17, 2008 10:50 AM
It's very important for those of us who despise Islam as a belief system to understand that violence of any kind towards the person and/or property of Muslims in America would not only be morally and ethically unacceptable, but would also play into the hands of the Muslim-victim PR machine and have the unintended consequence of empowering Islam in the USA.
Posted by: Cornelius at June 17, 2008 10:51 AM
As an American resident in the Middle East for many years, I was disappointed - actually, astonished - at the number of American as well as other Western friends who leapt aboard the 'We can't offend Muslims' bandwagon, jettisoning free speech without a glance backward. Perhaps our freedoms should be earned by every new generation: If we paid something for the rights our ancestors fought for and won (and which some would so blithely abandon) we might accord them a higher value. Can't Americans see that rights gained under the civil rights movement, and now beginning to accrue from the gay rights movement, are inextricably linked to freedom of speech? And can't the French and the Dutch (and our northern cousins, the Canadians) see that circumscribing free expression endangers their secular states as they confront an implacable enemy - Islam and what Robert Spencer aptly calls the 'stealth jihad.'
Posted by: Doubting David at June 17, 2008 11:01 AM
One federal judge reasoned that "it is better to allow those who preach racial hatred to expend their venom in rhetoric rather than to be panicked into embarking on the dangerous course of permitting the government to decide what its citizens may say and hear."
We've come a long way since 1977, when the Supreme Court decided that Skokie, Illinois could not prohibit a Klan rally.
Posted by: PMK at June 17, 2008 11:08 AM
Cornelius,
At what point are we allowed to fight back? If resisting Islamic terrorists is going to feed into the Muslim-victim PR machine and will only empower Islam in the US then we have already lost. Their machine goes into high gear when we require they remove the face mask for a photo drivers license!
at June 17, 2008 11:14 AM
Doudou Dienne?
How could you omit his full honorific title? I don't think 'Deep' would like that.
Posted by: StephenA55 at June 17, 2008 11:34 AM
Here's an almost wistful story in Spiegel about how islam came to Germany:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,559927,00.html
Quotes:" In order to better understand the "Koran of the Turks," church reformer Martin Luther called for the printing of a complete Latin translation of the Islamic holy book in the Swiss city of Basel. In his treatise, "On the War Against the Turk," he didn't mince his words when summarizing his opinion that "the Muslim is possessed by the lying spirit" and "where the lying spirit holds sway, the murdering spirit is present as well." Although he granted that the Turk had a number of admirable characteristics, he opined that -- just like the Pope -- he was a "servant of the devil." For many years, Europeans widely believed that Islam was a Christian sect, the Koran was a Turkish bible and Muhammad was an epileptic, a swindler and a charlatan".
You can't imagine anyone getting away with such outspokenness in today's Germany.
On the other hand: "Islamic and Islamistic organizations have been established as interest groups and developed concepts for how devout Muslims can live in a non-Islamic country without neglecting, or even worse, betraying their beliefs. At first, they lobbied for prayer rooms, which were furnished as suitably as possible. Over the past few years, mosques and minarets have appeared in most large cities and in many small towns, clearly underscoring the Islamic presence in Germany. Religious communities have confidently selected names for their houses of worship like Fatih Mosque and Ayasofya Mosque, both of which are designations that recall the fall of Constantinople in 1453.
Muslims have achieved a great deal and changed a number of things (more...) that many Germans once took for granted. Nowadays, there are women-only swimming days for Muslims with female supervisors, where the pool windows are draped with heavy curtains to prevent outsiders from peering inside. Crosses have been removed from many hospitals and schools, and special Islamic prayer rooms have been introduced to factories and public buildings."
Posted by: Dunk at June 17, 2008 11:44 AM
After the past 2 and a half weeks of our friend Pamela's site Atlas Shrugs being hacked, she finally got back to normal yesterday, only to be shut down again today. There were also a number of other blogs 'like yours,' Mr. Spencer that have been shut down due to complaints by the jihadists or hacking. This may be a bit off topic with the Mark Steyn situation but it is still shutting down FREEDOM of SPEECH.
Posted by: abinitioadinfinitum at June 17, 2008 11:53 AM
The free West is not made up of petty dictatorships that destroy religious materials through religious censorship. Our ‘religious censorship’ is limited to not offending faith based expression, but it does not apply to mind and body controlling ‘religious’ cults.
Per Wikipedia: “Religious censorship is the means by which any material objectionable to a certain faith is removed. This often involves a dominant religion forcing limitations on less prevalent ones. Alternatively, one religion may shun the works of another when they believe the content is not appropriate for their faith. This type of censorship is common in several Middle Eastern countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran as well in many U.S. Christian communities, especially Evangelicals.”
How is ‘religious censorship’ by a minority to silence the majority beneficial to society at large? To “shun the works” is one form of censorship we all must live with. But to silence our freedom of expression with ‘religious’ censorship is a direct assault on our most fundamental freedoms by mind stifling dogma. This is completely against the letter of the law in our First Amendment, a travesty of justice against freedom of conscience, and destroys the most basic fundamental human freedom under our Universal Human Rights. To censor our right to examine, to question, to debate any subject, and especially one that wants to destroy our freedoms, does not benefit society at large, but must be fought. The Islamists who are angling with soft Jihad to silence any criticism of their dogmas, especially their Arab supremacist violent tenets against all humanity, should be censored on the grounds of religious freedom. The political world domination Cult of Islam is not protected by our religious freedoms. Jihad must be censored as a clear and present danger to our way of life.
What Islamists are demanding in their call to restrain our freedom of speech is unconscienable. Our freedoms are not subject to foreign hostile jurisdictions, nor are they bargainable. Either they accept our way of life as free human beings with certain inalienable human rights, or they are the enemy. When in history was censorship ever used to accommodate the enemy? Never.
at June 17, 2008 1:14 PM
All the "hate speech" and "hate crimes" business might be half-way acceptable if only the rules were applied fairly, i.e. against the murderous and hate-filled sermons of the imams and the mosques, and against the hate-filled Moslem "holy books". There's more hate on any given page of the Koran than in all the Mo-toons put together, or in Geert Wilders' films. Let's start by locking up a lot of imams and mullahs for long stretches first.
Posted by: ebonystone at June 17, 2008 1:59 PM
Check out the wonderful Patrick Condell on this issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUTFcgE1F7w
He talks of these cases against "hate speech" as being done with "the compacent connivance of a guilt-ridden, patronizing, liberal establishment of self-haters and handwringers who are so ashamed of their own culture they can't stop apologising...".
His conclusion is positive, though: that such ridiculous cases will only stiffen the resolve of those talking out in favour of robust free speech..
And his other 40+ vids also worth watching, many/most about Islam....
Posted by: Meeker at June 17, 2008 10:03 PM
"Can't Americans see that rights ........now beginning to accrue from the gay rights movement, are inextricably linked to freedom of speech?"
That seems like the stealth jihad to me, since much of the 'gay rights' movement is based upon lies and factual inaccuracies, such as "people are born gay". 'Gay marriage' is an oxymoron. Those who espouse the truths that homosexuality is neither healthy nor natural are called "bigot" and "homophobe". Gee, where have I heard that before?
Will this post be censored because it offends someone?
Posted by: lafn at June 18, 2008 2:51 AM
They should consider carefully... when people can no longer speak - they tend to act.
Posted by: Stefcho at June 18, 2008 4:31 AM
PMK: "At what point are we allowed to fight back? If resisting Islamic terrorists is going to feed into the Muslim-victim PR machine and will only empower Islam in the US then we have already lost. Their machine goes into high gear when we require they remove the face mask for a photo drivers license!"
RESPONSE: Fighting back does not entail committing acts of random violence against innocent Muslims. Yes, we fight the intellectual Jihad on a daily basis, exposing the theological and historical intolerance of Islam...yes, we fight the military Jihad in theaters where the fight is actually taking place (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc). But no, we don't emulate the behavior of Muslims by deliberately targeting non-combatants.
Posted by: Cornelius at June 18, 2008 9:27 AM
PS - Keep in mind, in the event of a mass terror attack on Muslims in the USA, it will be infidel society that will empower them....not the Muslims themselves. Laws could predictably be passed banning web-sites like this for "incitement"...and valuable resources will be diverted from the anti-terror fight so that mosques and other Islamic entities can be protected from further violence.
In short, a mass terror attack on Muslims in the USA would be catastrophic for the anti-Jihad.
Posted by: Cornelius at June 18, 2008 9:44 AM
Step Toward International Law Making Insults to Islam Illegal.
Jordanian courts aim to try Danish and Dutch citizens (not residing in Jordan) under Jordanian law. It began with a complaint about recent cartoons mocking Mohamed. “The Messenger of Allah Unites Us” campaign, headed by Zakariah AlShaykh lodged complaints about cartoons from Denmark and the Fitna Movie. Now Prosecutor General in Amman Jordan has registered the cases. The charges center around slandering Islam, slandering Mohamed, insulting the religious feelings of Muslims, and inciting racial and religious bigotry – plus charges related to publication and distribution of such materials via print and electronic media.
The most complete reporting on this is at http://www.factjo.com/ - a news site directed by the same man who heads the campaign – note that there are differences in the site's English and Arabic reporting on this (example: English: “immunizing religions against insult” Arabic: “making it illegal to insult Islam).
at June 18, 2008 7:29 PM
Gregorius Nekschot, Amsterdam’s public prosecutor explained: “We suspect him of insulting people on the basis of their race or belief . . .
...............................
Consider how insane this comment is. Race is intrinsic, belief certainly is not. Many beliefs are noble and life-affirming, many are anything but. "Beliefs" include Fascism, Stalinism, and the notions of the Ku Klux Klan. Are all of these "beliefs" to be protected from "insult"?
Ebonystone wrote:
All the "hate speech" and "hate crimes" business might be half-way acceptable if only the rules were applied fairly, i.e. against the murderous and hate-filled sermons of the imams and the mosques, and against the hate-filled Moslem "holy books". There's more hate on any given page of the Koran than in all the Mo-toons put together, or in Geert Wilders' films. Let's start by locking up a lot of imams and mullahs for long stretches first.
..........................
I still wouldn't condone "hate speech" laws, on principle, but you make an excellent point. Hard-line Islamic speech--calling for the murder of Jews, refering to Black people as slaves, condoning "honor killings", and comparing non-Muslims to feces--constitutes some of the most shocking hate speech you will hear anywhere today. Yet no one is proscecuting this hate speech--even when it represents a direct incitement to violence.
Instead, most bizarely, Mark Steyn has been cited for using hate speech--by *reproducing the hate-filled comments of Muslims themselves*, in order to critique them. The original quotes, apparently, were not a problem, but citing them constitutes "hate speech" against Muslims.
Absolutely insane.
Posted by: gravenimage at June 19, 2008 1:09 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)