Doesnt the violent reaction to criticism of Islam validate the critics? Do these people comprehend what they write?

Posted by: Elric66 at February 5, 2008 8:39 AM

This then is another call to the battle ~ to those who have ears.

Posted by: undaunted at February 5, 2008 8:57 AM

Given the UK's just promulgaged uniform code of PC, after the EU and UN produced reams on the same subject, along with Canada's banal 'human rights' star chambers, and our university speech codes, combined with the legislation Conyers is proposing, I'd say you're right.

Posted by: Beagle at February 5, 2008 8:58 AM

Read the whole article folks. It is well reasoned and thought provoking. His assessment of human behavior is probably acurate and therefor frightening.

Posted by: old fogey at February 5, 2008 9:16 AM

Any "Hate Speech [thoughtcrime]" legislation passed in the U.S. should be constitionionally challenged in Federal Courts The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

Posted by: John C at February 5, 2008 9:23 AM

Very interesting article. I wrote something along the same lines yesterday:

http://theantisemitismwatch.blogspot.com/2008/02/tolerating-our-own-demise.html

Thanks for posting!

Posted by: Rachel at February 5, 2008 9:34 AM

things aint good in sweden!!! freedom of speech going down the drain fast
http://tundratabloid.blogspot.com/

Posted by: zionist122 at February 5, 2008 9:35 AM

We've seen strange things recently. Ham, legally, is becoming indistinguisable from a weapon or contraband. The Quran has handling rules similar to toxic waste.

But I, for one, welcome our new shrouded and hirsute overlords.

Posted by: Beagle at February 5, 2008 9:42 AM

Taking away my freedom of speech, regardless who I insult or upset, is the same as taking away my right to breathe. Enough said!

Posted by: CelticCoyote at February 5, 2008 9:46 AM

Good article, very thought provoking. Harris writes of the choices open to us all, but doesn't recommend one over the other.

Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at February 5, 2008 9:47 AM

In the US there is growing consideration for laws concerning "Thought crimes".

It looks like the term “thought police” just might take on a whole new and real meaning. This depends on what happens in the U.S. Senate after receiving House bill H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007.

This act (now S-1959 – Senate version) is now being considered by Senate committees and, if passed by the Senate and signed by the president, will become law. Common sense would indicate that something this vague and dangerous would not make it out of committee, but considering that the House passed it on October 23 with 404 ayes, 6 nays, and 22 present/not voting, I’m not holding my breath.

Posted by: miira at February 5, 2008 9:49 AM

OT

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/02/toxic-political-correctness-in-two.html#readfurther

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1034869_hospital_porter_fired_in_crucifix_row

[-]

Hospital porter fired in crucifix row
Neal Keeling
2/ 2/2008

A HOSPITAL porter has been sacked after a row over a crucifix being covered up in a prayer room.

Joseph Protano, 54, was suspended four days after the incident last month at Royal Manchester Children's Hospital, Pendlebury.

He has now been dismissed for gross misconduct, but intends to appeal.

Police quizzed him for four hours last month, on suspicion of religiously aggravated assault, but he was released without charge.

He denies the allegations and must wait to see if police take any action.

The row centres on a prayer room available to staff and visitors of all faiths at the hospital, which contains a Virgin Mary statue and a crucifix.

Mr Protano, a Roman Catholic who has worked two years at the hospital, entered the room when three Muslims were using it - two patients and a doctor.

An argument broke out after he asked them to remove a cloth covering the crucifix and statue and to turn a picture of the Virgin Mary face up.

He said he was unable to comment on his sacking as the police probe and his plans to appeal were ongoing.

But a friend said: "He was very shocked at the decision.

"He thinks he has been treated terribly.

"He loves his job and doesn't do it for the money - until recently, his employers were paying just £5.88 an hour.

"They are saying he should not have gone into the prayer room and it is alleged he used racist language, which he totally refutes.

"His pay has been stopped, even though he intends to appeal, and he has had to sign on for benefits."

The friend said Mr Protano went into the prayer room about six times a day to check the statue and crucifix were not left covered.

He said as a Christian, he felt it could be upsetting for visiting parents to find them covered up.

The case has angered many hospital staff, who think he has been treated unfairly.

Police said a file had been passed to the Crown Prosecution Service to decide on any further action.

[-]

Posted by: Borg at February 5, 2008 10:01 AM

I could find no mention in that article about the corollary to freedom of speech and opinion, namely the responsibility of all citizens, without exemption, to restrain their objections to lawful means. Scorn and mockery are lawful, as are letters of condemnation, peaceful demonstrations, and so forth.

Effectively, we have a well defined sector of the population declaring their own conduct to be above the law, thus making the rest of us, de facto second class citizens. The governments we have voted for are too cowardly to enforce the law. Therefore they are stealing the liberty of the law abiding, in order to maintain a false veneer of peaceful co-existence. Their vanity is as breathtaking as their dishonesty.

Nothing promotes seething resentment and hatred so much as this craven surrender (by proxy) of other peoples fundamental human rights by politicians who have never been given a mandate to do so.

Posted by: Monty at February 5, 2008 10:40 AM

Also, citizens who object to this assault on their liberties should riot.

After all, we are being conditioned to view violent disorder as the most effective means to getting our way.

Posted by: Monty at February 5, 2008 10:43 AM

This author, Lee Harris, is an idiot. Do we consider the inevitable occurrence of tragic deaths resulting from traffic accidents & gunshots & decide to ban automobiles and guns? Of course not. And why, when he writes that, "else we must let the critics say what they wish, regardless of the consequences," are the only consequences he sees are negative ones? The biggest consequence of free speech, islamic reactions be damned, would be a overwhelmingly positive one: alerting the citizenry to the existential threat posed by islam.

Posted by: sheik yer booty at February 5, 2008 10:47 AM

From the article:

"If liberty of discussion threatened to incite men to violence, or caused them to take the law in their own hands, then the state, representing the general welfare and not merely its own selfish interests, had to curb this so-called liberty. Liberty yes, license, no. When preaching sermons about predestination becomes tantamount to shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, then such sermons must cease."

It's ironic, that the very thing discussed and decided on for Christian backed religious differences, is the very thing that needs to be addressed directly as it relates to Islam. The liberty of individuals to say and teach what they want.

It was decided long ago, that many things were not allowed to be said. Sedition, incitement to riot, and the like. Yet it is these very things that are at the core of the teachings of Islam currently being used to bludgeon us into submission.

I wonder how the imams would react, if collectively we were to say for example. "We will not permit people to criticize your religion, but you much not preach on those parts of your religion that that breed division. The word Jihad is not to be uttered, ever. Nor are the issues of Jews, Palestine, Christians, Dhimmi, Infidel, Kafur, and a whole score of other disruptive and "dignity" hurting teachings now in your Quran.

I suspect first shock, that someone would even question those teachings, and then indignation that they be compared to those painful, hurtful, dignity crushing cartoons.

The bottom line is that they have demanded at every turn concessions from us, while offering none of their own. It is high time we started pushing back and demanding from them, BEFORE we listen to a single one of their many trumped up grievances.

That would put the discussions off until long after the first snowstorm in Hades.

Posted by: Lorgan at February 5, 2008 11:20 AM

My reading of his position is somewhat different. Isn't he saying that none of the available options are pleasant, but caving to censorship is most unpleasant of all. Isn't he telling us that he thinks were in for a fight if we want to keep our freedoms?

What if the Canadian government actually thought that it could help matters by cracking down on writers like Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn, by fining them or by throwing them into prison, silencing those who have the courage to speak of Islam, while encouraging Muslim immigrants to feel that they can manipulate weak-kneed governments into stifling any criticism of their religion and culture? Obviously this naive approach would backfire disastrously, and would end by endangering the very domestic tranquility that it was trying to preserve.

Of one thing we can have no doubt: Short of a firing squad, there is nothing that the Canadian government can do that will have any effect on what Ezra Levant or Mark Steyn will say and write in the future.

To believe he favors censorship, wouldn't you have to think he didn't favor the original struggles for freedom of speech?

This is not a choice that the West has had to face since the end of our own furor theologicus several centuries ago, but, like it or not, it is the choice that we are facing again today.

He seems to be telling the West: "wake up, and smell the coffee. We're in a fight to the death for freedoms that we've had the luxury of taking for granted...and it's not going to be pleasant."

Posted by: RalphInfidel at February 5, 2008 11:23 AM

There is free speech in the West.

There is no free speech in Islam.

If free speech offends Muslims living in the West, they should move back to the Islamic state of their choice.

If someone kills another party because something someone said that offended them, they should be tried for murder.

Violent mobs should be dealt with as much force as necessary. The West does not accept mob rule.

Never submit.

Posted by: tanstaafl at February 5, 2008 11:36 AM

Given that the Islamic ideology, and its culture driven by the Qu'ran,and the hadiths continuously and aggressively advocate their religion towards all that are non-Muslim.

Given that many experts on Islam and its sharia law have determined that Islam is closer to 75 Pct. political rather than religious.

Given that its doctrines defy the rights of women, the human rights of freedom of expression and choice, the right to worship in their religion of choice, or no religion at all.

We have but no choice but to speak out and criticize it for what it is.--And because hundreds of thousands of Americans have made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of Our FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

Only a weak kneed fool (dhimmi) in Western society would cave to its will, which of course is driven by threats of violence.

We need more Geert Wilders,Ayaan Hirsi Alis,Ibn Warraqs,Wadi Sultans,Nonie Darwishs,Bat Yeors,Orianna Fallicis,Serge trifkovics,and a host of many more. We can add Stephen Coughlin,Mark Steyn,and of course our own indefatigable Robert Spencer to stand up to this ideology that breeds hate against all who are not Muslim,that breeds hidious and murderous demagogues,dictators all across the Middle East.

If you are a politician anywhere in the free world and you even dare to suggest not defending our rights to freedom of speech, than freedom loving people should with great determination chase you, and then shame you from office immediately!

Posted by: Mackie at February 5, 2008 11:38 AM

The author seems to imply that curbing or limiting free speech is allowable when that speech is likely to incite violence from those who are "offended" by it.
WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.
If Muslims are offended by a growing and widely held notion that its core tenets are incompatible with a free society and also incite violence against and dhimmitude among nonbelievers, then they can riot to their hearts content--and face the gas, the baton, the jail time, and the eventual deportation. Because all evidence points out that it is TRUE. You want to stop people from mocking your "religion?" Do something to dispel that notion by rooting out the terrorists hiding under your burkas by the millions. Preach tolerance of other faiths. You know, that stuff. Evil informed by stupidity is surely a new pox on this planet.

Posted by: JohnAdams at February 5, 2008 12:18 PM

I thought this was a very good article, that laid out the realities of our situation quite well. I think the point he's making is not pro-censorship, but rather he's stating that NOT censoring people may very well lead to violence. And that's not an opinion, that's a fact, as we've seen from the cartoon riots and the Pope's speech. The dhimmis who want to stifle criticism of Islam are right in that sense---you will be able to keep the pot from boiling over (for a while, at least) by surpressing free speech. The Soviet Union was certainly able to keep a handle on ethnic violence by implementing the might of the police state. The real question is: Are domestic tranquility and personal safety our highest moral aspirations, or are there perhaps some values that are more important?

Posted by: Boston Tea Party at February 5, 2008 12:37 PM

"If liberty of discussion threatened to incite men to violence, or caused them to take the law in their own hands, then the state, representing the general welfare and not merely its own selfish interests, had to curb this so-called liberty. Liberty yes, license, no. When preaching sermons about predestination becomes tantamount to shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, then such sermons must cease."
That may have applied to Christian Cassandras in their pulpits, but EVERYTHING imaginable and unimaginable sets off the righteous indignation of the Perpetually Offended Outraged People or, Muslims, if you like.

Posted by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah at February 5, 2008 12:52 PM

I'd prefer the critics to say what they wish rather than allow PC to grow even more. Should violence flare up the troublemakers are still outnumbered at this point-all that's necessary is the will to handle such troublemakers effectively.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at February 5, 2008 12:52 PM

Boston Tea Party:

I disagree with your analogy 100 Pct.

Posted by: Mackie at February 5, 2008 1:09 PM

Boston Tea Party:

I disagree with your analogy 100 Pct.

Posted by: Mackie

*****

I think you've been learning argumentation from Robert Spencer's critics. :)

Posted by: Boston Tea Party at February 5, 2008 1:28 PM

For freedom loving men and women, there really is no choice.

Posted by: MP at February 5, 2008 2:01 PM

"shrouded and hirsute overlords" ... and that's just the women!

Posted by: MP at February 5, 2008 2:03 PM

After all this time of them not even being able to name the enemy, which one do you think they would pick? Some day it will be illegal to say what you want. Blogs will be something of the past. Everybody will be walking on egg shells, scared to death to say or do anything that might be construed as "offensive".

Posted by: mrockroll1969 at February 5, 2008 3:11 PM

Boston Tea Party,

Getting rid of free speach is NOT an option. It never is. Yes, people will get hurt and killed if islam is critisized (people are getting hurt and killed from muslims anyway), but getting rid of free speach is wrong. We need more speach, not less. If you take away one thing that might "offend" somebody, then that will lead to more and more things being taken away. Where does it end? It doesn't. Ask the non-muslims living in muslim countries. They have to walk on eggshells everyday day of their lives, afraid to upset the pathetic muslims. I don't want to live like that, do you?

Posted by: mrockroll1969 at February 5, 2008 3:56 PM

JohnAdams,

100% true! You said everything I said, except way better. lol I shouldv'e read your post first.

Posted by: mrockroll1969 at February 5, 2008 4:03 PM

If liberty of discussion threatened to incite men to violence, or caused them to take the law in their own hands, then the state, representing the general welfare and not merely its own selfish interests, had to curb this so-called liberty. Liberty yes, license, no. When preaching sermons about predestination becomes tantamount to shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, then such sermons must cease.

No Koran for you!

Posted by: Engineer-Poet at February 5, 2008 4:10 PM

I just read the article. To quote it:

'In the bloody aftermath of the Regensburg Address, many journalists in the West assailed the pope for "causing" the mayhem and held him personally responsible for the death of a Catholic nun murdered in Somalia by Muslim fanatics. This attack on the pope was certainly unjustified, and yet, if we are completely honest with ourselves, we must recognize that there is a hard unpleasant kernel of truth in it. If criticism of Islam sets off riots and leads to the death of innocent people, then those who are prepared to make these criticisms must also be prepared to face the moral hazard they are running by doing so.'

What a mealy argument! I recognize no such "moral hazard". And how can the papal criticism be "certainly unjustified" unless there is no such thing as this so-called "moral hazard"?

Posted by: Tom Davis at February 5, 2008 4:17 PM

old fogey:

I read the article on Ezra Levant's site yesterday.

The thoughtfulness you praise is only a veneer of "balance" and "lack of hysteria."

The substance of the article, however, is scary: it advocates surrender to violence or threats of violence for the "good" of the community.
Harris is right about the evolution of the concept of "free speech"--and Levant is wrong. It was never a given at the beginning of English law, but a kind of rising promise embedded in the mirriad negotiations and struggles between the classes, groups, Church and King, traditions, old privilege and new ideas. Censorship was rampant; the 16th and 17th centuries were times of energetic opposition to the Oath of Allegiance, to the Act of Supremacy; it was a time of "covenants in dark corners" by dissenters, spied on and chased by the government, of hangings and burnings that have remained as exemplary acts of heroism in both the Catholic and the Protestant churches.
What matters is that today, in our kind of society, the liberty of conscience and expression is, if not transcendent and absolute, then at least fundamental, from which all other rights and freedoms follow.
I've got a few words in a couple of languages, some knowledge of things past and present, an aging laptop, and, with it and the help of my books, a bumpy yet exhilarating field of communication.
Harris thinks the state would know best when decing to curtail my liberties for the phoney "larger, society's good," a most dangerous concept and a sure avenue to totalinarianism.

Hell no.

Posted by: ovidius_naso at February 5, 2008 5:08 PM

The most thorough and thought provoking comments in a while! Excellent, folks. (and thanks!)
For the record I'm coming down on the side of Niemoller http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Martin_Niemoeller.jpg

Posted by: DaninVan at February 5, 2008 5:45 PM

The most thorough and thought provoking comments in a while! Excellent, folks. (and thanks!)
For the record I'm coming down on the side of Niemoller http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Martin_Niemoeller.jpg

Posted by: DaninVan at February 5, 2008 5:48 PM

Boston Tea Party,

Getting rid of free speach is NOT an option. It never is. Yes, people will get hurt and killed if islam is critisized (people are getting hurt and killed from muslims anyway), but getting rid of free speach is wrong.

Posted by: mrockroll1969

************************

Right, and I agree with you---I think you're missing my point, and what I believe is the point of the author of this piece. What he's saying is than in order for free speech and and a peaceful society to coexist, you need to have a population that has "signed on", in that they're not going to resort to violence when they're offended. He's saying that with the rise of the Muslim populations in the West, that situation is changing. When you have a significant part of the population that WILL resort to violence, then free speech and a peaceful society become mutually exclusive. When the dhimmis talk about the need for clamping down on "Islamaphobic" speech in order to prevent Muslim violence, they are, in essence, making an honest point. And you can concede that someone is being logical even if you don't agree with their point. If you had refused to print those Danish cartoons, you wouldn't have had riots and deaths. I think the author is saying that we in the West have become so soft and spoiled because our society has evolved to the point where free speech hasn't resulted in violence for centuries. With the Muslims, that may be changing. I didn't read it that he's advocating shutting down free speech---but we have to understand the score, understand our own values, and not live in a fantasy land about the repercussions. I fully support the artists and the publications of the Danish cartoons. But I don't want to pretend that there's no cost in this---innocent lives were lost. And if we have to debate the dhimmi anti-free speech people in the future, then we need to be honest and concede that their concerns about preventing violence are logical. We then need to be clear that we have values which we treasure more than peace, that there are things worth risking violence for.

And as I've said, if peace IS our highest value, then we can just accept a Soviet-style police state, where anyone can be hauled away in the middle of the night and sent to a gulag for "offensive" speech. That will do away with ethnic violence.

I really just read this piece as the author pretty much echoing Daniel Pipes' predictions for Europe: Islamification or Civil Wars, take your choice---but don't buy into the fantasy that free speech, a non-violent society, and traditional Muslim values can coexist together.

Posted by: Boston Tea Party at February 5, 2008 5:52 PM

Boston Tea Party:

Exactly, good analysis.

He's just facing reality that we're in for what could be a dirty, tearful, bloody mess; and that the alternative would be much worse.

Acknowledgement of the repercussions doesn't mean he's caving.

Posted by: RalphInfidel at February 5, 2008 6:24 PM

Good artice by Lee Harris. The threat to freedom of expression has been obvious since the Rushdie affair.

Harris offers no real solutions to the problem except an either or choice of eventualities.

The only way our culture can be maintained, is by acknowledging that Islamic culture is not compatible with ours. By making them live together in proximity, is asking for trouble.

We can use the same arguements that Harris says the authorities may use to restrict freedom - civil strife and loss of life. Restricting freedom of expression will eventually lead to civil strife and loss of life. It is therefore in the interests of all, that Muslim immigration is stopped, and then eventually reversed in a humane manner.

Posted by: DP111 at February 5, 2008 6:43 PM

Robert:
A tragic choice is coming down the pike, and I expect the uniform code of political correctness is in the offing.

Possibly, but it won't last long. U.S. politicians supporting curtailment of free expression will draw attention like the lone goat at a Taliban beer fest (if they had them). Not a pretty sight.

We don't have to put up with that kind of crap, no matter who comes up with it. No politician is that important.

Like the Koran, it's not negotiable, only more so.

Posted by: RalphInfidel at February 5, 2008 6:52 PM

Ralph Infidel & Boston Tea Party:

I still disagree with your analysis 100Pct.

And I will not waiver and I will not appease them by the suppression of any manner of free speech.

You give them an inch, they will then take a mile.

Posted by: Mackie at February 5, 2008 6:52 PM

Posted by: Mackie:

And I will not waiver and I will not appease them by the suppression of any manner of free speech.

Good. :)

You give them an inch, they will then take a mile.

Mackie, I don't want you to give an inch and I don't think Harris does either; that's the whole point. I admit, Harris has a bleak and roundabout way of getting to his point, but I don't think he's advocating what you suggest. Checkout his book, "The Suicide of Reason", when you get a chance.

Posted by: RalphInfidel at February 5, 2008 7:06 PM

Why is there even any question here?

That they even entertain kowtowing to theocratic lunatics is shameful and sucidal.

Posted by: profitsbeard at February 5, 2008 7:50 PM

O' Canada?

Posted by: awake at February 5, 2008 9:56 PM

U.S. politicians supporting curtailment of free expression will draw attention like the lone goat at a Taliban beer fest (if they had them).

Posted by: Engineer-Poet at February 5, 2008 11:14 PM

It is a proven fact that criticism of Islam leads to enraged Muslims committing violent acts. We all, including Lee Harris, can agree on that.

But to suggest that a possible solution is to ban criticism of Islam is, to put it bluntly, insane.

We should not be wondering even for a millisecond how we can avoid angering Muslims. We should instead be wondering how we are going to stop violent Islamic attacks. There are many suggestions for how to accomplish this; giving up our freedom of speech is not on the list.

Posted by: special_guest at February 6, 2008 2:30 AM

While it may not have involved 'cartoon riots', but we just witnessed a former President and first lady of the United States of America forced to 'curb' their speech in a political campaign.
I am no fan of theirs but the Jessie Jackson remark was an example of the kind of thing the islamists are doing.
Now I have seen and heard a lot of campaigns in my life and this is the first time I have ever seen such thought control happen.
Watch out for O his changes may be uglier than we think.

Posted by: Aunt Bea at February 6, 2008 1:34 PM

profitsbeard:
That they even entertain kowtowing to theocratic lunatics is shameful and sucidal

special_guest:
We should not be wondering even for a millisecond how we can avoid angering Muslims. We should instead be wondering how we are going to stop violent Islamic attacks.

I agree. Furthermore, you have to consider the effect of NOT criticizing Islam, which nobody did until AFTER 9/11 (and only very gradually even then!) They are enraged by our criticism and they are emboldened by our silence/appeasement. The downside is the same for both, so I'll go with challenging the beast rather than cower.

Posted by: TheVeiledThreat at February 6, 2008 6:17 PM

Boston Tea Party:

But I don't want to pretend that there's no cost in this---innocent lives were lost. And if we have to debate the dhimmi anti-free speech people in the future, then we need to be honest and concede that their concerns about preventing violence are logical.

Appeasement and pacifism can only work if Islam basically just wanted to coexist and were peaceful unless provoked. Since it doesn't and isn't, there is nothing to concede to the dhimmi anti-free speech people. I don't think you can even argue that more innocent lives are lost due to us offending Islamic sensibilities than to us being silent about Islamic supremacism. Lee Harris needs to consider those innocent lives that are lost due to silence.

Posted by: TheVeiledThreat at February 6, 2008 6:44 PM

VeiledThreat,

I don't think you really understand my point at all.

Point A: Muslims may very well react violently when Islam is criticized, and innocent lives may be lost.

THAT's my point. Do you dispute that?

OF COURSE I'M NOT SAYING THAT MEANS WE SHOULDN'T CRITICIZE ISLAM. I'm not saying we should curb criticism of Islam, and Ralphinfidel is not saying we should curb criticism of Islam. Simply pointing out the gravity of the situation is not advocating appeasement. It's a matter of steeling oneself for what may be ahead. I don't want to get too personal on Robert Spencer's website, but don't you think Robert understands and thinks about the fact that the lives of his family and friends (and his own) may be in danger because he writes his books? Does that mean he should desist from writing his books? Of course not, as he's a brave man and he's doing a great service to Western Civilization. But YOU HAVE TO DEAL WITH REALITY, and that's the reality, and you have to consider AND PLAN FOR all those eventualities. You can't win a war if you don't understand your enemy, and your enemy's likely reactions, and all the possible unintended consequences of YOUR ACTIONS. Willfull ignorance of the battlefield is not usually a character trait that successful military leaders have. To trivialize those concerns, or to pretend they don't exist is to divorce oneself from reality.

Posted by: Boston Tea Party at February 6, 2008 9:31 PM