| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
Or at least it shouldn't be. There are some terrific points made along these lines in "Nobody Is Murdered for Christian or Jewish Satire" in the Wall Street Journal letters section, July 26 (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist) -- and a letter from a Muslim reader who comes out decidedly against free speech:
In his letter regarding the controversy over cartoons offensive to Muslims ("Why We Don't See Islamic Cartoons," July 18) reader Shahid Kinnare asks each offending cartoonist to consider if "he could survive" if the subject of his work were changed to the Holocaust. The answer is yes. Although a cartoonist who produces a cartoon that uses the Holocaust in an offensive way would no doubt be harshly criticized, the cartoonist wouldn't be murdered and there wouldn't be riots by enraged Jews outside embassies. In fact, a number of newspapers recently reproduced, without incident, some despicable cartoons published in Iran concerning the Holocaust.Alan S. Ritterband
Philadelphia[..]
Letter writer Tom Lawrence's theory -- that the decision of Muslims to live in a Western society is theirs and, as a result, they need to accept the societal traditions of those countries needs close scrutiny in the context of the constitution of a democratic country. At stake isn't whether the decision of Muslims to live in a Western society is theirs but whether a Western society, such as the U.S., protects the religious rights of any group so that the citizens of that group have a right not to be offended by other groups.
B.K. Shah
Pearl River, N.Y.
Does anyone or any group really have a "right not to be offended"? This seems to be the implication, unfortunately, of "hate" laws in the West -- that an assault is somehow worse if someone is called a racial epithet in the course of being throttled. But of course offense is in the eye of the beholder. One person may be mortally offended by words that appear innocuous to another -- so who will be the judge? That is the key question. Does B. K. Shah want the U.S. government to set itself up as the arbiter of what is offensive to Islam? Or does he want some Muslim body to have that power? In either case, the unrelenting and unanimous practice among Muslims of labeling any honest discussion of the elements of Islam that jihadists use to teach violence and supremacism as "hate" will bear bitter fruit in this: if it indeed becomes illegal in the U.S. to say something that Muslims deem offensive, it will be impossible for us to speak about the jihad ideology and Islamic supremacism precisely as they are advancing here.
In America, I am allowed to insult whomever and whatever I like. Islam is no more immune from criticism or mockery than Christianity, Judaism or Scientology. In 1987, an "artist" (a term I use loosely) displayed a photograph "Piss Christ," depicting a crucifix in a glass of urine. There were many complaints and much negative press, but at no point did the artist need to fear for his life. Jews and Christians might not be happy to see their religious figures mocked, but they understand that in a free society such actions must be permitted.If Theo van Gogh had produced an anti-Christian or anti-Jewish movie, he would be alive today. If "Satanic Verses" had been about Judaism, Salman Rushdie wouldn't have spent years in hiding under a threat of death. So do not lecture me about "sensitivity" toward Islam until its followers are willing to demonstrate tolerance toward dissent.
Daniel Palmer
Evanston, Ill.
Posted by Robert at July 26, 2008 8:51 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
".....no one is murdered for Christian or Jewish satire........"
No. But, most assuredly, we are killed for BEING Christian or Jewish.
Posted by: n.a. palm![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at July 26, 2008 9:58 AM
In the religous villification laws in Victoria, Australia, members of a religion being offended or made to hate the speaker or made to fear others will hate them are not a problem. Only making other people hate members of the religion is villification. This would be reasonable if there was also a truth defence. Without the truth defence, telling people the simple truth about Mohammed and Islamic beliefs is considered villification. I think the drafters of these laws assume all religions are wishy-washy and fundamentally 'be good, be nice', and any religous disagreements are just tribalism.
The right to not be offended by other groups appears to be a fundamental islamic right - any group that offends muslims in a muslim majority society is subject to riots, false accusations of blasphemy, false imprisonment, vigilantee attacks, etc. That's the nature of being a dhimmi. Note also the muslim's right to not be criticised by others - criticising the majority opinion (even if the majority is both wrong and in breach of Islamic law) is a breach of the dhimmi status rendering the critic's entire community subject to attack with their goods forfeit to whoever can take them.
Posted by: davidp at July 26, 2008 10:04 AM
I would make a movie called 'Waiting for Typekey.com', but it would take too long...
Maybe Allah put a fatwa on this computer...
From above: Jews and Christians might not be happy to see their religious figures mocked, but they understand that in a free society such actions must be permitted.
It's more than just patience, Jews and Christians are by nature less likely to get violent over ideology. That's not to say that it does not happen, but compared to Islamic aggressions, Christians and Jews pale in comparison.
When Christians and Jews act up it is in spite of their religions, not 'because' of them. When muslims act up it is 'because' of their religion, not in spite of it. The 'because of' is what makes 'The Religion of Peace' a lie. Bush lied to the American people (and world) when he said that. The lie continues in various forms of government to this day, and will continue, even though the lie is pointed out every day, numerous times a day.
Who does the government think it is lying to? A bunch of saps? Lying to the American public in this manner is itself a hate crime against the public. Those who legislate 'hate crimes/speech' are themselves haters. Hypocrites', every one of them. Abusing the powers vested in them by the people. Dictators are in charge, and they are dictating. And they 'hate' everyone who disagrees with them.
Throw the bums out...no one for president, replace Congress and the Senate with regular people, not space aliens.
If we don't replace these PC infected people, we can expect more dictation, always a little stronger than the dictates before. Soon we will be dictated into slavery, a perfect opening for Islam to drive in wedges...and they have plenty of those...
at July 26, 2008 10:32 AM
Americans have to stand firm against any effort to take away the right of freedom expression which is firmly established in Article I of the United States Constitution. "Congress shall make no law abridging of speech,or of the press".
Their were hearings less than 2 years ago conducted by Dearbornistan's Congressman John Conyers in which there was and effort along with a bill introduced to not allow for specifically any criticism of Islam--fortunatley the bill never even made it onto the floor.
One can't help being concerned with government established organizations such as the Canadian human rights organization that was trying to prosecute a leading conservative news commentator for comments about Islam in Canada, or what has happened to the UN human Rights Counsel that voted to disallow any criticism of Islam as well.
Posted by: Mackie at July 26, 2008 10:36 AM
Correction above in first paragraph:
Article I of the United States Constitution. "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech,or of the press".
Posted by: Mackie at July 26, 2008 10:39 AM
I would add that Islam is no more immune from mockery than John Macain, Barack Obama, lawyers, the aclu, paris hilton, or any of a million and one other things.
The answer to speech you do not like is more speech.
Posted by: stickman at July 26, 2008 11:09 AM
It seems to me though that Islam is more offended by the truth, if someone were to say that mahomet was a space alien most mamotens would shrug such a comment off as coming from a loon. The comments that seem to rile them most are ones with some truth behind them, (pedophilia, banditry, mass murder, mercurialness)
Posted by: stickman at July 26, 2008 11:15 AM
What I find so baffling about the various "hate speech" and "hate crime" laws is that they are never applied against Islam, or its books, or its spokemen. Yet Islam is at heart one giant hate crime against humanity. The Koran and other "holy books" are crammed with hatred for non-believers. And all over the world, imams and Islamic media and websites spew forth more hatred. Why isn't the Koran banned, and the imams locked up, and the media shut down?
In Germany, "Mein Kampf" (a good translation is "My Jihad") is prohibited, but the Koran, which contains far more hate than "MK" ever did, is permitted. Why?
at July 26, 2008 12:08 PM
The First Amendment protects both statements of truth and statements of hate. So, when Islam is criticized or even severely mocked, such speech is protected by the First Amendment. If Muslims don't like this, too bad. This is America.
This could end, though, if Far Left judges are appointed to the bench because the law is whatever judges say it is, especially those on the Supreme Court. It's the Far Left that has given us multiculturalism, political correctness and speech codes, idiocies all, and inimical to the spirit of the First Amendment in sundry ways. But if Far Left loons are judges, they're just foolish enough to gut the First Amendment and do other silly things (such as find a right to gay marriage in the 1780 Massachusetts constitution, which happened a couple of years ago). The Democratic candidate for President in 2008 is a Far Left guy. The next President will appoint a hell of a lot of people to the federal judiciary, including two or three Supreme Court judges. Anyone who cherishes liberty should remember this come November.
Posted by: Wellington at July 26, 2008 12:14 PM
"It's the Far Left that has given us multiculturalism, political correctness and speech codes, idiocies all, and inimical to the spirit of the First Amendment in sundry ways. But if Far Left loons are judges, they're just foolish enough to gut the First Amendment .... The Democratic candidate for President in 2008 is a Far Left guy. The next President will appoint a hell of a lot of people to the federal judiciary, including two or three Supreme Court judges. Anyone who cherishes liberty should remember this come November."
Posted by: Wellington
Very true and very frightening. And very good reasons for voting against BHO. Here's more. He's not only far-left, his voting record in the Senate if the farthest left of any Senator. His election, assuming he carries with him a Democratic majority in both Houses of Congress, will mean statehood for the District of Columbia, something the Democrats have been pushing for years, which would mean two more far-left Senators for the foreseeable future, and a Democratic control of the Senate much harder to dislodge. Other far-left boondoggles just waiting for a Dem. President and Congress are "slavery reparations" for blacks, and socialized medical care.
at July 26, 2008 12:47 PM
B. K. Shah asks if Western society "protects the religious rights of any group".
Huh?
Exactly what are the "religious rights" he's talking about? I personally think the First Amendment covers everything necessary: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Religion-wise: you can worship as you want provided you don't break other laws (no human sacrifices to Zuul; no Great Stone Pyramid without a building permit).
Free-speech-wise: I can say what I want regarding any religious practices: "The blood and body of Christ? Ick!" "You'd marry off a 9-year-old? Yuck!"
As far as a "right not to be offended"??? Government doesn't control what you think. You can choose to take offense at shoe ads; you can choose to take offense if your microwave makes your coffee boil over. "What you feel" is yours, not mine. You can also choose to sigh and roll your eyes and mutter about "stupid Infidels" and go on with your life if somebody draws a Mohammed-with-a-bomb cartoon. I can choose to grimace about the "Virgin-Mary-with-dung" picture and lament society's low standards, without calling for the artist to be executed for blasphemy, or for "inflaming religious sensibilities".
I am not at all sure where in this world Mr. Shah can go to find his desired guarantee of the "right not to be offended". It's certainly not in America. Can I buy you a ticket to elsewhere, Mr. Shah?
at July 26, 2008 1:09 PM
The practice of the Islamic Religion contains at its core, a conspiracy to kill Jews outright with delight, to kill all idol worshipers or non believers if they will not convert to Islam, and to kill, harrass, and subjugate Christians. This is basically the substance of their "evangelical outreach" program.
I can't believe that this is not against the law.
Posted by: Spot on
at July 26, 2008 2:06 PM
B K Shah might want to go to Ahmedabad - the scene of todays serial blasts - and put the same question to residents there. They'll probably pack him into one of those Mohammedan ghettos, where he can then either practice his Islam freely, if he happens to be Mohammedan, or get the royal Islamic treatment, if he happens to be a mere dhimmi.
What a maroon!
Posted by: Infidel Pride at July 26, 2008 2:26 PM
For virtually all strict Muslims, moving to the West is not an attempt to gain Western freedoms--although they certainly use them once here--but an act of Islamic colonization. They are completely aware and committed to this. Therefore, the seemingly rational argument that they should adopt our ways since they voluntarily moved here is nonsensical. It falls on deaf ears.
Posted by: Max Publius at July 26, 2008 2:50 PM
Throw the bums out...no one for president, replace Congress and the Senate with regular people, not space aliens.
- duh_swami
RIGHT! Anti-incumbent all the way in November (or sooner, if your state still has a nominating primary on the calender).
Only bad thing is it will take six years to clean out the Senate but we have to start somewhere.
at July 26, 2008 4:09 PM
The next President will appoint a hell of a lot of people to the federal judiciary, including two or three Supreme Court judges.
Posted by: Wellington
Voting against BHO won't accomplish much. The power is in the Senate. The next president, even if it's McCain, will have to appoint judges who can make it through the confirmation process. BHO could appoint liberal judges but they won't get through if conservatives stand their ground. The reverse holds true for McCain. He'd settle for half a loaf rather than leave a vacancy on the Supreme Court. And if Democrats get sixty seats, it won't matter anyway. They'll reject McCain-nominated judges that are deemed too conservative and the Obama nominees will sail through, no matter what the GOP does.
American voters have a history of ticket-splitting. Even if they decide they can't trust Obama at the helm, they'll still vote for liberals farther down the ticket.
Statehood for DC is also problematic. Even though BHO might support it, it requires super-majorities in Congress and ratification by three quarters of all states to become a reality.
Posted by: PMK at July 26, 2008 4:27 PM
Ebonystone wrote:
"In Germany, "Mein Kampf" (a good translation is "My Jihad") is prohibited, but the Koran, which contains far more hate than "MK" ever did, is permitted. Why?"
---That's because Hitler actually acted out his book. With the Koran, jihadists only..ah, well, they never, ah,....oh nevermind.
Posted by: Max Publius at July 26, 2008 6:23 PM
Tell that to Muslims.
Anyone who speaks a word against Islam gets put on a hit-list but several Jihadist organizations.
Posted by: AtheistAfghan at July 26, 2008 7:21 PM
As has been stated on other threads, hate speech and thought are subjective concepts.
Who and how do you know what is in someone's head. It is projection we are talking about. I say Islam is the enemy and am accused (hate crime) of wishing all Muslims ill. That is not what was said or meant. I had a completely different thought or emotion in me at the time the of the statement and there is no way that you would really know what it is. What really is happening is projection of their thoughts into the statement.
What complicates this further, deceit and ignorance muddies the debate further. Deceit by the Islam goons and their sock puppets to ignorance and assumption by the listeners. The truth however has one thing the others don't, the TRUTH.
John 3:19
. . . men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
يوحنا 3:19
. . . الرجل يحب الظلام بدلا من الضوء ، لأن أفعالهم هي ال
at July 26, 2008 7:24 PM
There are two expressions: to give offense and to take offense. The first refers to something that another might say to me. The second refers to my reaction to the other's statement. There is no law, nor should there be, about whether or not a statement is deemed offensive, since it is my choice as to what I do after another person stops talking. The "taking of offense" is my responsibility, not the person that made the statement. It entirely depends on me.
The problem with Islam is that it does not take responsibility for its own actions - it is always the other person's fault. Hence a man is not responsible for his lust, it is the woman that causes it by dressing provocatively. And so on.
The reason we allow hate crime laws in our respective countries is because we do not want to take responsibility for our own actions - we have become a society of victims. We want the government to stop the harsh language instead of controlling our own reactions. If we refuse to listen to the tripe put out about hate speech and hateful speech, we would be better off. You cannot legislate against stupidity.
Posted by: OolongChung at July 26, 2008 11:17 PM
I am offended by the ideology of Islam.
Posted by: Exposing Islam at July 27, 2008 3:21 AM
You seem to forget that its a crime punishable by prison in Europe to deny the holocaust and that Jlyand Posten refused to publish the holocaust cartoons.
Also their are laws against racist speech.
Pretty much destroys your "free speech" argument
Posted by: istanbulnotconstantinople at July 27, 2008 11:23 AM
This post by the hypocrite Robert Spencer is all the more funny because he has BANNED posters on dhimmiwatch who say things about him he doesnt like or expose his falsehoods.
LOL free speech for Bob the Papist is a one way street
Posted by: istanbulnotconstantinople at July 27, 2008 11:25 AM
Istanbul, you obviously know nothing about the spirit and letter of America's First Amendment, about its constitutional Bill of Rights. You are, doubtlessly, a totalitarian at heart. I feel sorry for your "collective rights" mentality, for your zeal to defend a brittle and irrational system of belief, your wretched Islam.
Posted by: John C at July 27, 2008 10:21 PM
(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.)