The Erosion of Free Speech
simple_...@yahoo.com
Although the headline of the June 8th article in the Daily Times of
Pakistan read “Pakistan to ask EU to amend laws on freedom of
expression,” the request from high-level government officials was in
reality a threat. The six-person Pakistani delegation was set to
deliver a warning that unless blasphemy against Islam stopped,
terrorist attacks against European assets could escalate. Their cited
example was the suicide bomb attack this June 2 on the Danish Embassy
in Pakistan in which eight people died and 27 were injured as a result
of possible renewed backlash to the 2005 publication of 12 editorial
cartoons depicting the Islamic prophet Mohammed.
Islamabad informed the European Union countries that the backlash to
perceived insults to the “religion of peace” could jeopardize “inter-
religious harmony” and result in uncontrollable attacks on other
diplomatic missions abroad. A high-level delegation representing the
Pakistani government was to travel to Brussels to further warn EU
officials of the liabilities of free expression.
This apocryphal grandstanding, in which Islamabad seeks to eradicate
free speech and reclassify it as an offensive hate crime, is part and
parcel of the insidious Islamic effort to establish a worldwide
Islamic caliphate under shariah law. Paradoxically, in most of the
Muslim world, the right of free speech is nonexistent. Verbal and
physical attacks on non-Muslims are rampant, as is death for
apostates, terrorism training for youth, hate indoctrination of non-
Muslims in mosques and schools and the oppression of Christians,
Hindus and Jews. But Muslims feel free to use democratic precepts in
the service of their own radical ideology to, ultimately, overthrow
liberty, eliminate individual rights and destroy freedoms in Western
societies. They seek prohibitions on free expression to strengthen
Islam, pave the way toward Islamization and keep the Western public
ill informed and unaware of potential threats to the democratic way of
life. By couching this effort as merely the elimination of offensive
speech, they conceal their true goal of undermining the laws of
Western societies, specifically the very foundation of democracy –
free speech.
This goal was dramatically illustrated in March of 2008, when the 57
Muslim states that make up the Organization of Islamic Conference
(OIC) struck a blow against free speech by successfully forcing
through the United Nation’s Human Rights Council (UNHRC) an amendment
to a resolution on Freedom of Expression. The amendment, requiring
extensive changes to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
officially characterizes as abuse and an act of religious
discrimination any criticism of Islam. It also calls for the UN
Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression to report any individuals
and news media issuing negative comments about Islam.
In June, this limitation on free speech was further underscored when
representatives of two non-governmental organizations sought to
address stonings, honor killings and female genital mutilation
sanctioned under shariah law. As part of the effort to mute criticism
of Islam, the Egyptian UNHRC delegate demanded that the speakers be
silenced, proclaiming, “Islam will not be crucified in this Council.”
Thus, banned from UNHRC sessions is criticism of shariah laws that
oppress women, condemn homosexuals and threaten converts and non-
Muslims. Also banned are statements against Islamic law-sanctioned
child marriage, honor killings, the hanging of homosexuals and the
murder of apostates.
The United Nations is not the only front where Islamic gag orders are
in place. Canada’s Human Rights Act, which defines hate speech as any
speech “likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt,”
was used against Ezra Levant, the former publisher of The Western
Standard, who was charged by the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship
Commission with offending Muslims by reprinting in 2006 the Danish
cartoons of Mohammed. Thus, Canada is increasingly regulating opinion
and making it a crime to hurt someone’s feelings. The right of free
speech is being replaced by the right not to be offended.
Also in Canada, author Mark Steyn and MacLean’s magazine were charged
by the Canadian Human Rights Commission of “spreading hatred and
contempt” for Muslims by publishing in 2006 an excerpt from Steyn’s
book, “America Alone.” The Canadian Islamic Congress filed a
complaint with the commission, seeking to ban opinions such as Steyn’s
that they deem “Islamophobic.” Steyn was charged with hate speech for
using the term “Mohammedan” to describe Muslims and for failing to
incorporate differing points of view in his writing. Although charges
were dismissed in June this year, if they had been found guilty,
financial penalties could have been assessed against MacLean’s, which
would dampened opinion journalism throughout Canada. Yet, a Canadian
investigator in the Steyn/MacLean’s case, when asked about the
importance of free speech in his considerations, remarked, “Freedom of
speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value.”
In the United Kingdom, two Christian clerics were recently prohibited
from preaching and handing out biblical tracts in a “Muslim area.” In
an ironic twist, a Muslim police officer charged with upholding
British law accused the ministers, technically agents of the Church of
England, of perpetuating a hate crime by proselytizing. Thus, an
officer charged with maintaining law and order in England prevented
the preaching of the doctrine of the established faith of England.
Curiously, this event occurred at a time in which the UK is
accelerating the hiring of British police officers in Muslim areas in
order to “build bridges” with the Islamic community.
Last month, when the Bishop of Rochester warned that Britain was
developing “no-go zones” that are the exclusive province of Muslims,
he was denounced as Islamophobic. His fellow bishops and government
ministers denied the existence of such Muslim-only areas. The Bishop
and his family were placed under police protection after receiving
death threats at home warning that he would not “live long” if he
continued to criticize Islam.
Yet, “no-go” zones do exist and are apparently being preserved by
agents of the British state. They are areas where it is dangerous for
non-Muslims to enter, as demonstrated in 2006, when former Home
Secretary John Reid was heckled by Islamist Abu Izzadeen who cried,
“How dare you come to a Muslim area.”
In January, 2007, the UK government again ignored its illustrious
heritage of freedom of expression and undertook an investigation of a
television broadcast of the documentary, “Undercover Mosque.” The
program contained footage of radical imams in British mosques spewing
hatred of Christians and Jews, advocating the subjugation and beating
of women and praising Osama Bin Laden. Other footage included a
Taliban who had killed a British soldier and Muslim clerics advocating
Islamic supremacy, suggesting that homosexuals should be killed,
calling for jihad and justifying the July 7th London bombings.
Instead of scrutinizing the mosques and calling for an end to such
hateful and inflammatory rhetoric, British authorities, bowing to
pressure from terrorist-sympathizing groups such as the Muslim Public
Affairs Committee, the Muslim Council of Britain and others, denounced
the program as “Islamophobic.” Local police solicited the services of
the Crown Prosecution Services (CPS), which launched an extensive
investigation of the network, scrutinizing 56 hours of media footage
for possible prosecution under the Public Order Act of 1986: showing
inflammatory material likely to stir racial hatred.
Eventually, the investigation concluded that, although the CPS
believed that the editing process had “completely distorted” the
sermons of the Muslim clerics, the police were advised to drop their
criminal investigation due to insufficient evidence to substantiate
charges of incitement.
Essentially, “Undercover Mosque” was an important story to potentially
alert the British public to the threat of a fundamentalist ideology
endemic throughout the British Islamic community. Unfortunately, it
was discredited by the police who, in a misguided attempt to prevent
Muslim backlash in the community, were placed in the untenable
position of supporting radical Islamists and opposing British free
speech.
Thus, as Islamic calls to prayer ring loudly throughout England from
an ever-increasing number of imposing mosques, Christianity,
individual freedom and the British identity are being marginalized
while Islam is permitted free rein to fill the void.
Within the United States, important dialogue about the threat of
radical Islam was silenced by the Department of Homeland Security and
the State Department which issued a memo in May instructing
bureaucrats on how to talk about the “war on terror.” The memo called
for restrictions on terrorist-defining nomenclature in accordance with
recommendations from American Muslims. Thus, definitive and
descriptive words such as “jihad,” mujahadeen,” “Islamic terrorist,”
“Islamist,” or “holy warrior” were to be avoided, even though Muslims
and Muslim media worldwide use this very terminology.
The government memo also advised that the war on terror be renamed a
“global struggle for security and progress.” This change, undertaken
to avoid glamorizing the appeal of Islamist ideology and reduce
terrorist recruitment, came about after the Secretary of Homeland
Security solicited assistance from American Muslims. These newly
proposed “speech codes” were advanced with the intent of eliminating
the appeal of the virulent ideology of Islamism. Thus, the State
Department and the DHS advanced the idea that terminology used by the
government could fan the flames of radicalism, yet totally ignored the
impact of violent rhetoric common in mosques across the country and on
the Internet. Instead, the government focused on curtailing the speech
of public servants charged with preserving our national security and
accommodated the demands of Muslims. Lost was the opportunity for
effective communication to inform and alert the American public of the
Islamist threat.
Another instance of DHS curtailment and accommodation of Muslims,
occurred when Muhammad Rana, a Pakistani Muslim and new DHS hire was
being trained as an adjudication officer at the agency’s Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center (FLETC). Rana participated in a seven week
training course in which he claimed to have faced discrimination based
on his religion and national origin. In a March 2005 complaint filed
with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Rana said the
instructional content of his classes contained “disparaging and
factually inaccurate information about the Islamic faith and the
Arabic people.” His in-class protests apparently prompted an
instructor to recommend that Rana be investigated for possible
terrorist ties. An administrative law judge ruling found that Rana
had been subject to a hostile work environment and ordered $50,000 in
compensatory damages, $6,195 in missed overtime, reimbursement for
medical and prescription medication costs incurred as a result of the
hostile work environment and, most significantly, the removal and
destruction of and DHS memoranda regarding Rana’s potential ties to
terrorist organizations. Ultimately, the course in question was
discontinued by the DHS.
In these ways, our constitutional right to freedom of expression is
being eroded and our democratic principles are being used against us
to silence our concerns. With increasing frequency, free speech is
being regulated, banned or categorized as a hate crime through
intimidation tactics and apocryphal human rights concerns. We have
come to the point where publishers have volunteered to pulp or alter
the text of books to avoid lawsuits. Major newspapers freely chose not
to publish the controversial Mohammed cartoons. Some organizations
that have weathered costly slander lawsuits designed to silence them,
have become cautious about weathering other suits that could cost them
their insurance coverage.
None of this is coincidental. It is explained in “The Project,” a
strategic planning document of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) written in
1982 but captured in a raid in Switzerland in 2001. It describes a
long-term plan to take over the West, a roadmap to defeating the West
through propaganda, infiltration and jihad using intimidation,
subterfuge and influence operations. The MB master plan calls for
Muslims to take advantage of constitutional freedoms and societal
openness and seek employment in every sector of American society,
including sensitive civil institutions, law enforcement, politics, the
media and others. In addition to individual Muslims, many seemingly
mainstream and “respected” U.S. Muslim organizations, some active in
America since the 1960’s, are affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood
and are actively involved in carrying out its mission of “destroying
Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house so
that Allah’s religion is victorious over all other religions.”
Thus, the very nature of our republic is being challenged by a
redefinition of our First Amendment to appease the demands of
Islamists seeking to destroy us. Sadly, as we accommodate the
Islamists, we are capitulating to their violent ideology and
discriminatory religious practices and losing our precious rights and
freedoms. In this way, we become partners in our own demise and hasten
the downfall of the free societies we profess to cherish in the West.
üDoug±Ç
news:1617b0f0-6df6-47a1...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
source:
http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID=1CAC2897-674D-44AB-ADF4-BA77930F421E
Although the headline of the June 8th article in the Daily Times of
Pakistan read “Pakistan to ask EU to amend laws on freedom of
expression,” the request from high-level government officials was in
reality a threat. The six-person Pakistani delegation was set to
deliver a warning that unless blasphemy against Islam stopped,
terrorist attacks against European assets could escalate. Their cited
example was the suicide bomb attack this June 2 on the Danish Embassy
in Pakistan in which eight people died and 27 were injured as a result
of possible renewed backlash to the 2005 publication of 12 editorial
cartoons depicting the Islamic prophet Mohammed.
************************
Excellent article as always Simple. Of course, more than few people
would prefer your right to post such articles eliminated.