Free Speech in Decline in the West

It is back to school week and so it is an appropriate time to reflect with a certain degree of nostalgia on the good old days half a century ago or so when Western society, and universities in particular enjoyed the right of free speech.

How long will it be before this blog is shut down? I don't know; that is why I keep writing. I expect a long vacation at some point in the future and I can rest then.

Mark Steyn has a great piece out on the decline of free speech rights in the West in the decade since 9/11. The terrorists terrorized us and free speech died. Actually, one should not use the passive voice; it was murdered by politically correct, cultural Marxists out to undermine the foundations of our culture so we are softened up for the Revolution. Anyway, Mark reflects on how the jihad against Christianity and the political liberalism that came out of it is going these days:

Had John O’Sullivan and Kathryn Lopez chanced to be strolling by the Driftwood Beach Bar on the Isle of Wight when, in the course of oldies night, Simon Ledger performed “Kung Fu Fighting,” they would have had no grounds for complaint, even if he’d done the extended dance remix. However, the passersby in question were Chinese, and so Mr. Ledger was arrested for racism.

In such a world, words have no agreed meaning. “There were funky Chinamen from funky Chinatown” is legal or illegal according to whosoever happens to hear it. Indeed, in my very favorite example of this kind of thinking, the very same words can be proof of two entirely different hate crimes. Iqbal Sacranie is a Muslim of such exemplary “moderation” he’s been knighted by the Queen. The head of the Muslim Council of Britain, Sir Iqbal was interviewed on the BBC and expressed the view that homosexuality was “immoral,” was “not acceptable,” “spreads disease,” and “damaged the very foundations of society.” A gay group complained and Sir Iqbal was investigated by Scotland Yard’s “community safety unit” for “hate crimes” and “homophobia.”

Independently but simultaneously, the magazine of GALHA (the Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association) called Islam a “barmy doctrine” growing “like a canker” and deeply “homophobic.” In return, the London Race Hate Crime Forum asked Scotland Yard to investigate GALHA for “Islamophobia.”

Got that? If a Muslim says that Islam is opposed to homosexuality, Scotland Yard will investigate him for homophobia; but if a gay says that Islam is opposed to homosexuality, Scotland Yard will investigate him for Islamophobia.

Two men say exactly the same thing and they’re investigated for different hate crimes. On the other hand, they could have sung “Kung Fu Fighting” back and forth to each other all day long and it wouldn’t have been a crime unless a couple of Chinese passersby walked in the room.

If you don't think this is crazy, you must be missing something. The most important sentence philosophically in that quotation is the one I bolded: "In such a world words have no agreed meaning." Steyn's humorous stories have a philosophically serious point: in the absence of metaphysical realism, the nominalism of late modernity disconnects words from their referents and makes them susceptible to manipulation by the powers-that-be so that anything you say can be twisted into meaning whatever they want it to mean. Not only is truth no defense; neither is the actual meaning of words. You literally cannot know if you said something illegal until Big Brother informs you after the fact.

I started with a reference to universities. Here is an interview by Ezra Levant with the lawyer for the University of Calgary students who have been expelled for expressing their constitutional right to free speech because the bullies in the administration dislike the content of their ideas.

It is amusing that Canadian Association of University Teachers, the leftie union, thinks that Christian universities do not have academic freedom because you have to sign a doctrinal statement in order to be hired. They are fine with Canadian universities deciding after the fact whether what you said is illegal or not according to the latest version of group-think among left-wing faculty and administration members. That isn't incompatible with academic freedom at all.

If the CAUT really believed in academic freedom or free speech in general, they would be fighting the University of Calgary tooth and nail. And they would be up in arms about the angry Left physically preventing Ann Coulter from speaking last year at the University of Ottawa. But no - those atrocities are just fine. What we really need to be worried about is a few small universities where they still believe in God.

Dictatorship without the Dictator

According the this story in the New York Times, "Egypt Sentences Blogger to Three Years," an Egyptian blogger has been arrested, tried and sentenced to jail for criticizing the military.

"An Egyptian blogger was sentenced Monday to three years in prison for criticizing the military in what human rights advocates called one of the more alarming violations of freedom of expression since a popular uprising led to the ouster of President Hosni Mubarak two months ago."

This was not the expected outcome back on Feb. 11, when the NYT was hailing the ouster of Mubarak as a great victory for democracy. The mainstream press in the West has been extremely naive and irresponsible in the way that it has treated the whole series of revolutions in the Middle East. Change is not always for the better and taking power away from one powerful group and giving it to another in not necessarily progress.

The Obama administration has not considered US strategic interests, but has basically taken a hands off approach even in cases where Islamists are threatening to take power, such as Egypt and Syria. That is, it has been hands off except where, as in the case of Lybia, it has actually empowered the Islamists in their revolt. The lessons of Afghanistan in the Soviet era go unlearned.

The NYT story mentioned above has some very interesting fact deeper down in the story. Turns out this blogger is a Christian and pro-Israel. Now, I wonder who his arrest sends a chilling signal to. . . couldn't be a message from the Muslim Brotherhood to refrain from criticizing a shift in strategic alliance away from a pro-Western, peaceful relationship with Israel to a pro-Iran, antagonism toward Israel, could it? Oh, yes it certainly could.

Of course, the NYT is not going to warn against the danger of the gathering storm of war against Israel. But it doesn't have to connect the dots for anyone who is paying attention to the Middle Eastern strategic realignment now in process.

Appeaement Never Works: Free Speech is Basic to Western Culture

Western cultural elites do not understand what they are dealing with in radical Islam. They actually think appeasement will bring peace and good will. Appeasement does not work with fanatical, political movements that reject Christianity and Western principles of morality and justice. Appeasement only encourages and emboldens those who already think the West is so weak and hapless that a few good kicks will knock the entire structure down.

Rob Taylor writes in "The West Must Not Trade Free Speech for Islamic 'Good Will'":

In a stunning act of bipartisan moral cowardice, Harry Reid told the world that he’s considering a “probe” into the Florida pastor who burned a copy of the Koran, while Lindsey Graham announced his belief that Americans should give up their First Amendment rights to avoid offending Muslims. The irony that this shameful display happened on a show called “Face the Nation” was lost on the spineless appeasers who lack the dignity to feel ashamed when surrendering to barbarians thousands of miles away. In the wake of savages rioting in Afghanistan, two of our senior lawmakers are advocating the implementation of Shariah-like laws to protect one religious document above all others.

And what would we get in return? The “good will” of the Muslim street? The same “good will” displayed when Palestinians–who live off U.S. aid–danced in the streets after 9/11?

Why should we even want the "good will" of those who believe we are only fit to be their servants? How can rational bargaining with such irrational fanatics ever work? Or have we given up already? Are we merely managing our own decline? In many parts of Europe this is undoubtedly the case, but the US is too young and vigorous to give up now. I have to believe that America can do better than the likes of Harry Reid and Lindsey Graham.

Hopefully the Tea Party will take away Graham's Republican nomination next time around and after 2012 Harry Reid will no longer control the Senate. Will they be replaced by people who will stand up for freedom, justice and peace? Or will servile appeasers continue to multiply? We shall see.

Just to be absolutely clear: I repudiate as distasteful and unnecessary the burning of Korans. If all Reid and Graham said was that they abhor such and action and condemn Terry Jones, I would have no problem with that whatsoever. But when they are ready to take away American liberties and restrict free speech in order to placate violent, extremist, Fascists, then I have more of a problem with them than I do with either Terry Jones or the Islamofascists. Reid and Graham are United States Senators. They, at least, ought to know better.

University of California - Irvine Stands Up for Free Speech

The following video is long but you can get the main point by watching just the first few minutes. The Israeli ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, was invited to speak by the Political Science Department. This is one of over a thousand such academic events held every year in the university. But it was disrupted systematically by Muslim students shouting and trying to prevent the speech from going ahead.

This kind of hateful attack on free speech takes place routinely on American and Canadian university campuses. It is carried out by Muslim student organizations such as the Muslim Student Association and the tactics are those of the hard Left. These Muslims are aided and abetted by left-wing professors, students and administrators, who are not liberal and not committed to free speech or the concept of the university as a place for the civil exchange of ideas.

What this video shows, however, is the university exhibiting (for a change) a bit of spine and standing up to the barbarians. Watch for yourself and compare the civilized and principled deportment of the organizers, the representatives of the university and the ambassador to the wild, fanatical, irrational and hate-fueled strong-arm tactics of the protesters.



These young students were born in the United States. Their anti-Semitism and hard-left attacks on free speech come as much from the American Left as from their Muslim culture. Both the Leftist ideology and the Islamist ideology constitute a clear and present danger to freedom, democracy, the rule of law, the protection of minority rights and freedom of speech. We must stand against those who would undermine our political system and our culture of freedom. We must understand who they are and what they stand for and we must not allow them to portray themselves as liberal for they are illiberal and fascistic.

If fascism comes to the US, it will not come from the Tea Party or Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin, but from people like these doing things like this. Remember, universities are where we are supposed to debate opposing ideas. When this is no longer possible, then universities no longer exist and a significant bulwark against barbarism has fallen.

The Real Threat to Academic Freedom on Campus: It's Not What the CAUT Thinks It Is

If the CAUT was really interested in promoting academic freedom, (rather than doing the opposite by attempting to stamp out intellectual diversity by harassing small Christian universities), it might consider launching investigations into the shocking and Orwellian squashing of free speech at Canadian universities (that is, the publicly funded ones at which its members actually teach) through the use of unconstitutional speech codes.

Greg Halvorson at American Thinker blog explains how much of a threat speech codes are in his post: "Fighting campus speech codes with FIRE."

Speech-code. Sounds like something from George Orwell's pen or a Stephen King tale, but it's not. According to Adam Kissel, from the Foundation of Individual Rights in Education, two-thirds of college campuses enforce speech-codes, violating the First Amendment rights of their students. Thanks to FIRE, however, codes are being challenged, speech is alive, and awareness is being raised. While two-thirds isn't good, this is down from a shameful nine-tenths, and each day, with FIRE's help, administrators are relenting.

Kissel, at CPAC, explained how codes work. They're all about "diversity," demanding it at the expense of expression. If a student opposes Islam, say, or the homosexual lobby (prominent campus clubs), he can be hauled before a panel with expulsion authority. The affect is to chill speech, of course, but on a larger scale, to destroy education's true purpose.

If no one can be criticized because it may offend - if all it takes is "You annoy me!" to bring censure - this doesn't produce analytic thinkers but instead conformists desperate to "be liked." In place of a wholesome learning forum, colleges become homogenized vacuums in which censorship trumps debate.

But FIRE is fighting back. Here is how it states its mission on its website:

The mission of FIRE is to defend and sustain individual rights at America's colleges and universities. These rights include freedom of speech, legal equality, due process, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience — the essential qualities of individual liberty and dignity. FIRE's core mission is to protect the unprotected and to educate the public and communities of concerned Americans about the threats to these rights on our campuses and about the means to preserve them.

Here is an interview with Adam Kissel of FIRE in which he explains how conservatives are the most common victims on today's campuses when it comes to taking away rights to free speech.



The problem is that many people have confused left-wing, paternalistic, moralism and coercive political correctness for respect for individual human beings. Yes, academic freedom, freedom of thought and freedom of speech are under attack in today's universities. But it is not Christian statements of faith that constitute the threat: it is speech codes.

The hypocrisy of the CAUT is breathtaking. If they really care about open debate and freedom of investigation, then why not join with FIRE in the fight against unconstitutional, paternalistic, Orwellian speech codes?

The Voice of Freedom in Europe: Will it Be Silenced Forever?

Geert Wilders is on trial for utilizing his right to free speech by criticizing Islam for its violence, its threats to those who oppose it and its Islamic supremacist ideology. After a first trial fell apart, it has now resumed. The left-leaning elites who have ruled the Netherlands for decades are determined to silence him, but the people vote for his party in increasing numbers and his party now props up the ruling coalition. Here is the voice of freedom.

Leftist Hate Speech Compounds the Arizona Tragedy

Charles Krauthammer has the definitive statement on the reaction to the Tuscon shooting tragedy. He calmly dissects the true haters.

The charge: The Tucson massacre is a consequence of the "climate of hate" created by Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, Glenn Beck, Obamacare opponents and sundry other liberal betes noires.

The verdict: Rarely in American political discourse has there been a charge so reckless, so scurrilous and so unsupported by evidence.

As killers go, Jared Loughner is not reticent. Yet among all his writings, postings, videos and other ravings - and in all the testimony from all the people who knew him - there is not a single reference to any of these supposed accessories to murder.

Not only is there no evidence that Loughner was impelled to violence by any of those upon whom Paul Krugman, Keith Olbermann, the New York Times, the Tucson sheriff and other rabid partisans are fixated. There is no evidence that he was responding to anything, political or otherwise, outside of his own head.

A climate of hate? This man lived within his very own private climate. "His thoughts were unrelated to anything in our world," said the teacher of Loughner's philosophy class at Pima Community College. "He was very disconnected from reality," said classmate Lydian Ali. "You know how it is when you talk to someone who's mentally ill and they're just not there?" said neighbor Jason Johnson. "It was like he was in his own world."

His ravings, said one high school classmate, were interspersed with "unnerving, long stupors of silence" during which he would "stare fixedly at his buddies," reported the Wall Street Journal. His own writings are confused, incoherent, punctuated with private numerology and inscrutable taxonomy. He warns of government brainwashing and thought control through "grammar." He was obsessed with "conscious dreaming," a fairly good synonym for hallucinations.

This is not political behavior. These are the signs of a clinical thought disorder - ideas disconnected from each other, incoherent, delusional, detached from reality.

It should be noted in this connection that Krauthammer is a psychiatrist. Read the rest here.

Sarah Palin's statement on the topic was dignified, heartfelt, sober and articulate. Clearly she is one of the few adults in the room at this moment. Leaders show their true colors under stress and good leaders grow in stature when attacked. She says:

Like millions of Americans I learned of the tragic events in Arizona on Saturday, and my heart broke for the innocent victims. No words can fill the hole left by the death of an innocent, but we do mourn for the victims’ families as we express our sympathy.

I agree with the sentiments shared yesterday at the beautiful Catholic mass held in honor of the victims. The mass will hopefully help begin a healing process for the families touched by this tragedy and for our country.

Our exceptional nation, so vibrant with ideas and the passionate exchange and debate of ideas, is a light to the rest of the world. Congresswoman Giffords and her constituents were exercising their right to exchange ideas that day, to celebrate our Republic’s core values and peacefully assemble to petition our government. It’s inexcusable and incomprehensible why a single evil man took the lives of peaceful citizens that day.

There is a bittersweet irony that the strength of the American spirit shines brightest in times of tragedy. We saw that in Arizona. We saw the tenacity of those clinging to life, the compassion of those who kept the victims alive, and the heroism of those who overpowered a deranged gunman.

Like many, I’ve spent the past few days reflecting on what happened and praying for guidance. After this shocking tragedy, I listened at first puzzled, then with concern, and now with sadness, to the irresponsible statements from people attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event.

President Reagan said, “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.” Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election.

The last election was all about taking responsibility for our country’s future. President Obama and I may not agree on everything, but I know he would join me in affirming the health of our democratic process. Two years ago his party was victorious. Last November, the other party won. In both elections the will of the American people was heard, and the peaceful transition of power proved yet again the enduring strength of our Republic.

Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions. And after the election, we shake hands and get back to work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas. But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.

Martin Knight points out that by their own standards, the Left is apparently trying to have Sarah Palin killed:

But from Paul Krugman of the New York Times drawing a direct causal link between Sarah Palin’s innocuous graphic targeting vulnerable Democrats (including Giffords) to defeat at the polls and the shooting, to Michael Daly of the NY Daily News asserting in his article headline that “Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ blood Is On Sarah Palin’s Hands …“ to Markos Moulitsas’ obviously gleeful “Mission Accomplished, Sarah Palin” tweet, and Wolf Blitzer giving serious air time on CNN to the idea that the attack on Gabrielle Giffords was as a direct result of Sarah Palin’s rhetoric in opposition to the Obama agenda, there seems to be a concerted effort in the “mainstream” media to try and convict Sarah Palin of Jared Loughner’s actions.

Already, in the comments sections of the New York Times, New York Daily News and numerous other “mainstream” newsmedia outlets’ websites, liberal commenters are calling for Sarah Palin’s arrest and the seizure of her assets. Others are darkly hinting that she should be made to “suffer” the same fate as Rep. Giffords - for which they hold Palin responsible - with not much condemnation from other liberal commenters.

Which is what leads me to believe that this isn’t the typical liberal leap to reap a political benefit from others’ personal tragedy, but using the same logic as used by Markos Moulitsas, Paul Krugman, Michael Daly et al. an attempt to pre-justify an attack on the lives of Sarah Palin and members of her family. According to liberal journalists and bloggers, Sarah Palin - via her uniquely incendiary murder-inducing rhetoric - is personally responsible for Jared Loughner’s attack on Rep. Giffords.

Well then, what could be more incendiary than asserting that one is directly responsible for the death of a 9 year old girl, the death of a Federal Judge and the shooting of a Congresswoman in the head? By their own logic, this would certainly lead to an individual - convinced by Daly, Moulitsas et al that Sarah Palin has gotten away with murder - purchasing a gun, leveling it at Sarah Palin, perhaps when she’s at a book signing, or lounging at the pool with her husband and children, and opening fire.

I would certainly hope that this is not what Michael Daly, Markos Moulitsas, Paul Krugman, Jane Fonda, etc. are hoping for deep down. But given their own presumably sincere belief that “reckless” political speech leads to violence, and given the unseemly speed with which they have recklessly decided to heap responsibility on Sarah Palin with no facts to back them up and many to count against them, I am forced to conclude that they are, at best, neutral, and at worst, desirous of Sarah Palin being subjected to serious (even fatal) bodily harm.

Fortunately, it appears that the Left's attempt to politicize this tragic event is not working. Less than a third of Americans are buying the left-wing spin that it is the fault of conservatives for opposing the left-wing agenda for the country. The Left would exploit this event for its agenda on limiting free speech, demonizing the right, pushing gun control and diminishing the political threat they clearly see Sarah Palin as posing to their agenda. But thankfully the public is not buying what the Left is peddling.

A Ray of Light in the British Darkness

These are dark days for Christianity in the United Kingdom. A liberal Catholic hierarchy at odds with the pope makes the Catholic faithful restless. The Church of England is in decline under the dithering leadership of a liberal who refuses to face up to the fact that his liberalism is going to destroy any chance the Communion had of holding substantially together. Only smaller, ethnic churches are growing and they fly under the radar. In public life multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and atheism drive public morals lower and lower. Christians are being arrested for witnessing to their faith. Homosexuals and jihadists have more rights than Christians. You can be arrested for political incorrectness as defined by the far left. Economically, Labor has nearly destroyed the economy and politically even the "Conservatives" won't question EU membership even as the EU idol itself begins to totter.

No, things are not well. Every year that goes by Britain seems less and less like the glorious Britain that gave the world so much and more and more like the fringe of an undemocratic, fiscally leaky, ahistorical Europe on the verge of collapse. Only the prospect of the EU as a "United States of Europe" playing a leading role on the world stage sustains hope in the breast of European secularists. As this idol topples, however, expect complete and utter cultural collapse as the ruling class has nothing left but nihilism. And without creature comforts deriving from economic prosperity, nihilism is no fun.

Yet, in the midst of all this gloom, every once and a while a ray of light breaks through and the spirit of old, Christian England shines through briefly. So it was recently in a courtroom in Birmingham where a conservative, old-school judge ruled against the incipient police state and in favor of individual liberties and freedom of speech and religion. As Virtue Online reports:

An autistic Christian street preacher who was handcuffed and arrested for speaking out against homosexuality and many other sins has been awarded £4,250 in damages following a court case against West Midlands Police.

In a case backed by The Christian Institute, Birmingham County Court ruled on Wednesday that PC Adrian Bill committed assault and battery against Mr Anthony Rollins when he handcuffed him unnecessarily.

The court also ruled that Mr Rollins was wrongfully arrested, unlawfully detained and his human rights to free speech and religious liberty were infringed. The court ordered the police to pay Mr Rollins' legal costs.

Civil liberty

Mr Rollins suffers from Asperger's syndrome - a disorder that causes difficulties in social interaction. He was represented in court by Hugh Tomlinson QC, a respected civil liberty lawyer and joint author of the leading practitioner textbooks on human rights law and on civil actions against the police.

On 24 June 2008 Mr Rollins was preaching from the King James Bible in Birmingham city centre. He expressed his Christian belief that homosexual conduct is morally wrong.

A member of the public, Mr John Edwards, objected to Mr Rollins' message and shouted "homophobic bigot" before calling 999 and asking for the police. Two officers arrived on the scene and PC Adrian Bill arrested Mr Rollins without further inquiry. Handcuffs were placed on Mr Rollins even though he was calm and compliant.

Charged

Mr Rollins was detained at a police station for over three hours. He was never interviewed for his version of events. He was charged with a breach of Section 5 of the Public Order Act - a law that has been criticised by Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights for jeopardising free speech. The charges were later dropped before trial.

Mr Rollins made a complaint about the police action to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, but they failed to uphold the complaint. In a civil action supported by The Christian Institute, Mr Rollins sued West Midlands Police for wrongful arrest, unlawful imprisonment, assault and battery, and infringement of his human rights. He won on all counts.

"He won on all counts." How sweet is liberty! But even better than the outcome, which is a matter of simple English justice, is the bluntness with which the judge upbraided the sleepy, spineless, politically correct but legally incorrect police:

Giving his ruling the judge, Lance Ashworth QC, criticised the arresting officer, PC Bill. The judge said PC Bill had made the arrest "as a matter of routine without any thought being given to Mr. Rollins' Convention Rights [to free speech and religious liberty]." The judge said PC Bill's decision to arrest Mr Rollins showed "a lack of thoughtfulness".

Self-important

The judge also said that PC Bill's demeanour in the court was negative and evasive. He added that the police conduct was incompatible with Mr Rollins' human rights to free speech and religious liberty.

The judge also criticised Mr Edwards, the man who originally phoned the police. Mr Edwards had appeared in court as a witness for the police. The judge said: "I was not impressed by Mr. Edwards as a witness. He struck me as a man, full of his own self-importance, who in the witness box relished the attention and greatly embellished his evidence." The judge added that "in every respect where his evidence is at odds with the evidence of other witnesses I reject it".

Mr Rollins told the court how it felt to be arrested, handcuffed and marched away by the police. He said he felt "anxious, shocked and very humiliated". Mr Rollins told the court that he tried to talk to PC Bill following the arrest, but was told to "shut it, you will get your say in the police station". However, he was never interviewed.

The arresting officer was "PC Bill." You just can't make up stuff like that.

What the police did was not unusual for contemporary Britain, but the police are not used to running up against Judge Lance Ashworth. Their illiberal, illegal, politically-correct mockery of enforcing the law ran into a judicial buzzsaw this time. But they will be back. There are not many Judge Ashworths left on the bench. Most are liberal judicial activists who are determined to extinguish English liberty in pursuit of their dream of Marxist equality.

But for one glorious day, a ray of light from the past broke into plain sight and it was enough to sustain hope in the breast of a freedom-loving man for a lifetime. God bless the good judge. The God who raises up the weak and casts down tyrants knows who belongs to Him.

Canadian University Administrators Teach a Dangerous Lesson: Violence Works

I missed this excellent editorial by Charles Lewis in The National Post about 10 days ago entitled "Mob Rule on Campus." He notes the decline of the liberal commitment to free speech on Canadian university campuses:

If a mob disrupted a pro-choice speaker at a Canadian university, chances are the protesters would be removed. If a mob disrupted a pro-life speaker at a Canadian university, chances are the speech would be cancelled.

One kind of speech is free in Canada; another kind isn't. Speech broadly characterized as "left-wing" a.k.a. "progressive"--e. g., pro-choice, anti-Israeli, anti-capitalist -- is protected even at its extreme. Speech broadly characterized as "right-wing" a.k.a. "reactionary" -- pro-life, pro-Western, pro-Israel--isn't protected, even when it's moderate.

That "left-wing" speech is protected more rigorously than "right-wing" speech is hardly in dispute. David Frum noted it recently by contrasting York University's warm reception of suspended U.K. parliamentarian George Galloway with its cool reception of the scholar Dr. Daniel Pipes. From pro-life university students arrested (Carleton) to Israeli speakers de-invited (Ehud Barak, Benjamin Netanyahu), examples abound. University of Ottawa provost Francois Houle became a bit of a joke for lecturing Ann Coulter, the outspoken American commentator, about visitors needing to conform to the superior civility of law-abiding Canadians, just before a mob prevented Coulter from speaking, while the Ottawa police looked on. . . .

Protecting free expression on the left but allowing its suppression on the right would be unacceptable even if "left" were, in fact, "progressive" and "right" were, in fact, "reactionary," for the Charter guarantees free speech, not progressive speech, and any society that allows the disruption of reactionary speech is no longer free. The equation isn't even accurate, though, for nowadays the right tends to be "progressive" and the left "regressive." But never mind. This only adds insult to injury.

All this is old news, although we should never get used to Leftist violence against conservatives on university campuses. It is a sign of the decline of civility and, indeed, of civilization itself. But what I want to focus on is Lewis's explanation of how this works:

Why are we doing it? First, because these days the left is violent, the right isn't, and it's easier to protect free speech against peaceful protests than violent ones. Second, because the centre-left, in charge of both universities and the justice system, has a soft spot for the far-left from which free-speech deniers are launching their forays. Centrists and extremists of the left are kin under the skin. Left-centrists embrace illiberal institutions from "human rights" tribunals to affirmative discrimination, just like the far-left. While the centre-right is embarrassed by its far-right cousins and disowns them, the centre-left tries to find excuses for the black sheep of its own ideological family.

True-blue conservatives have no trouble arresting neo-Nazis who threaten violence, but lib-left peace-mongers find it hard to arrest neo-Red Guards. It's simpler to silence protested speakers. No wonder the left's book burners are emboldened. When they riot, their opponents are read the riot act. Fertilized by the warm manure of left-wing culture, flowers of hideous hues bloom in the groves of academia, from anarcho-terrorist black to eco-fascist and Islamist green, while helpless taxpayers and hoodwinked philanthropists fork over fortunes to the gardeners.

Lewis has put his finger on two key issues here, besides the hypocrisy of the Left in not policing its extremists. First, the lesson that has been publicly demonstrated very clearly before the world is that "violence works." Violence works in the decadent, late modern West because the political class no longer believes in anything - not even liberalism. To call Allan Rock a political liberal is a joke. He will not stand for individual liberty if it costs him anything.

This leads to the second point, "the center-left is complicit in the actions of the far left." Now, it must be pointed out that given the craven left-wing tendency to bow to the demands of jihadists, it is clear that the center-left is willing to give in to whomever employs violence relentlessly. But it likes giving in to socialists/anarchists, whom they openly admire and with whom they share many ideological affinities.

The spiritual emptiness at the heart of the ruling class in today's decadent West is the root cause of the decline in free speech in Canada. There is a void there just waiting to be filled by something. The Marxists sense it. The Islamofascists sense it. The actions of university administrators make it obvious.

We Christians must make filling that void with a personal commitment to Jesus Christ through evangelism, apologetics and public witness our highest priority. In so doing we can serve our Lord and benefit our family, our country and our civilization. The alternative to revival is a descent into chaos, violence, war and continued cultural decline.

German Reporter Claims Jesus Taught Violent Jihad in Wilders Interview

In the wake of Angela Merkel's recent comments about the failure of multiculturalism, an actual debate has broken out in Germany about the issue of Islam. So Der Spiegel decided to interview Geert Wilders, who is currently on trial for saying what everyone knows to be true, but is afraid to say out loud, in the Netherlands.

All this is background. What I want to point out is the following passage. Note clearly the reporter's quotation from the Gospel of Luke:

SPIEGEL: You compare the Koran with Hitler's "Mein Kampf." Have you read "Mein Kampf"?

Wilders: Yes, but not in its entirety. The Koran has, in any case, more anti-Jewish passages. In principle, these are concoctions with a totalitarian approach, which allows no room for other opinions. Fascism, communism and Islam adhere to the same principle.

SPIEGEL: Your own principle is apparently this: The more drastic the comparison, the more headlines it generates.

Wilders: I don't need headlines. For me, it's the truth that matters.

SPIEGEL: The truth is that you are dividing Dutch society: Here in The Hague, nearly half of the residents come from immigrant families, and many of them are Muslims. And you are calling for the Koran to be banned?

Wilders: "Mein Kampf" is banned in our country. But the Koran is worse in terms of inciting hatred and violence. If my left-wing friends were consistent, the Koran would have to be banned.

SPIEGEL: Are you familiar with this quote from the Prophet? "But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to be their king, bring them here and slay them before me"?

Wilders: I have read many such passages.

SPIEGEL: The Prophet cited in this case was Jesus, from Luke, Chapter 19, Verse 27. Do you admit that there are also calls for violence in the Bible?

Wilders: There are brutal passages in the Old Testament; the New Testament takes a more moderate approach. But a key difference between Christianity and Islam is that Muslims believe that the Koran contains verbatim the word of God; it is written in the imperative. This precludes a comparison with Christianity.

It is too bad that Wilders was suckered in because of his lack of biblical knowledge. He should have pointed out that this was spoken by a character in a parable told by Jesus, a parable that had a point that entirely unrelated to a call to violent jihad. This was a mangling of Scripture by quoting an isolated statement out of context.

He should have pointed out the dishonesty of the reporter's claim that this was a call to violence by Jesus. Is German higher criticism now presenting Jesus as a ruthless, violent nationalist or something? I thought the German Christian attempt to do this in the 1930s had been declared a failure.

A first year Bible college student who used the NT in the way this supposedly educated reporter did would be in big trouble. But this kind of systematic deception is not something the editors of Der Spiegel are ashamed of, apparently, because they have left this interview up on their website.

The palpable hostility and ritualized contempt dripping from the words of this smug and self-righteous politically correct reporter is unbelievable. He even begrudges Wilders state protection against Islamic assassins thus implying that he would like to see Wilders killed instead of having his free speech protected. What a coward this reporter reveals himself to be. I suppose he hopes to be killed last.

The Best and Worst Political Ads of 2010

As election day in the US draws near and the American people prepare to render a verdict on Obama's agenda to make the US into a European style social democracy, it is appropriate to reflect a bit on one of the concrete blessings of liberty: free speech. This particular freedom is under severe attack in Europe and Canada, where I live. With creeping socialism comes limits on the speech of citizens according to the class prejudices of the bureaucratic, ruling class.

But election ads reveal a vibrant, loud, decentralized, free democracy at its rollicking best - and worst. Human nature is not always pretty; where there is liberty there is bound to be overstatement, insults, pettiness, stupidity and impoliteness. So be it; let the people separate the wheat from the chaff for the only alternative is to let tyrants do it for them.

Toby Harnden, a Brit, has two posts listing the top 20 best and worst political ads of the 2010 campaign with part 1 here and part 2 here. I have selected my top five plus one extra with a twist.

First, the ad that sealed the election for Jack Conway's opponent, his now famous "Aqua Buddha Ad" attacking the faith of Rand Paul. Lesson: Don't mess with Aqua Buddha!



Second, the Taliban Dan ad that backfired on Alan Grayson, quite possibly the most obnoxious and offensive member of the House of Representatives. He literally cut and pasted from a speech by his opponent, Dan Webster, to make Webster appear to be saying the exact opposite of what he actually said. But there was no need for a politically appointed body to stop Grayson; the people of Florida's 8th congressional district appear poised to take care of Grayson themselves on Tuesday.



This ad from a Democratic candidate who knows he is losing is a fitting symbol of the whole Democratic campaign this year. He is like a wayward husband pleading with his wife to take him back and give him just one more chance. But I think she has had enough and he knows it.



Christine O'Donnell is probably going to lose in Deleware, but this ad is creative and focuses on the issues. If only she had the political smarts of some of the other Tea Party candidates, this would be a competitive race.



Dale Peterson lost his bid for Ag Commish in Alabama, but his ad is a classic. If I had a million dollars that I didn't know what to do with, I'd be tempted to run this ad in the 25 most liberal districts in America non-stop for the last few days of the campaign just for the spectacle of watching the New York Times and the rest of the liberal media sputter in rage and spit in condescension.



Every election we hear the same old refrain about how this is the nastiest election ever. Well, Reason.tv blows that idea right out of the water with this hilarious ad from the election of 1800. In their own words, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams go at it.



(HT: Joe Carter at First Thoughts)

NPR is Not Liberal: It is in the Grip of Hard Core Leftists Who are Determined to Stamp Out Free Speech

The firing of journalist Juan Williams by National Public Radio in the US has unleashed a firestorm of protest that has untied conservatives and many actual liberals (as opposed to socialists in liberal clothing) in protest against this unjust and disgraceful action.

If you are unfamiliar with the basic facts of the story, you can go here or here to get them.

In a column in the Washington Post entitled "Juan Williams, truthful dissident," Reuel Marc Gerecht writes:

Did journalist Juan Williams, who was fired Wednesday by NPR, show unacceptable insensitivity or unforgiveable stupidity when he expressed anxiety about Muslim airplane passengers during an interview with conservative TV host Bill O'Reilly? Free speech shouldn't guarantee immunity from the standards of basic decency, but Williams's comments were hardly a firing offense. We would all be better off -- Muslim Americans first and foremost -- if we could have a more open discussion about Islam, Islamic militancy and what Muslims, here and abroad, think it means to be Muslim.

I wonder if it ever occurs to the deep thinkers on the Left that their supposed "defence" of Muslims as a certified victim group actually hurts Muslims? If they ever did realize the damage they were doing, would they care? Gerecht again:

This friendly approach is probably, unfortunately, counterproductive. So far, it's unlikely that Muslim self-criticism -- our ultimate salvation from Islamic holy warriors -- has improved under Obama. Judging by the satellite channel Al-Jazeera, a vibrant hodgepodge of all things Arab, the opposite current, fed by Western self-doubt, appears to be gaining force. By being nice, we suggest that nothing within "Islam" -- by which I mean the 1,400-year-old evolving marriage of faith, culture and politics -- is terribly wrong. By being kind, we fail to provoke controversy among Muslims about why so many Muslims from so many lands have called suicide bombers against Western targets "martyrs" and not monsters. Worst of all, by being considerate we fail to echo the great Muslim dissidents, deeply religious men such as the Iranians Abdolkarim Soroush and Mohammad Mojtahed Shabestari, who see that something has gone very wrong within their country and their civilization. The president would do well to be more nuanced in his outreach to the Muslim world, giving more sustenance to those who see its systemic problems.

Gerecht is right to suggest that the liberal approach - embodied by the Obama administration and the EU - is not working to get Muslims to be more self-critical. It is only empowering and emboldening radicals. Gerecht is also right in pointing out that we are not doing anything to empower or support the Muslim dissidents who bravely speak out against Jihad. Look at the totally passive and servile approach taken by the Obama administration to the unrest in Iran. The message was clear: you try to overthrow the mullahs and you are on your own. They might as well take the Statue of Liberty down, crate it up and ship it back to France. Even France is showing more spunk these days than the US

Juan Williams has had a long and distinguished career as a journalist for the Washington Post, as a news analyst at NPR and as the author of several best-selling books on the African-American civil rights movement. The attempt to silence him by the powers that be at NPR appears to arise from NPR's hatred of Fox News. Even Williams, a liberal, has been astonished that it has been liberals who have tried to silence and smear him while conservatives have stood up for him and defended his right to speak freely. And so another liberal is mugged by reality.

The last word goes to Juan Williams, who explains how he feels about the whole situation on the Fox News Network.

Islam, Religious Freedom and the West

Andrew McCarthy points out that the assault on free speech by Muslims is a threat to the freedom of the West in an article entitled "The Wilders West."

For a prosecutor, it was a simple matter of cause and effect. First, I showed that the “Blind Sheikh,” Omar Abdel Rahman, called for acts of violence: He admonished Muslims that Allah commanded them to slay non-believers and precisely quoted Islamic scriptures to back up that admonition. Then I showed that Muslim terrorists responded to these scripturally based exhortations by plotting and carrying out terrorist acts.

For this, the Clinton administration presented me the Attorney General’s Exceptional Service Award, the Justice Department’s highest honor. For doing exactly the same thing, the justice department of the Netherlands presented Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders with an indictment.

I got the pretty glass eagle for the mantelpiece, and the Blind Sheikh got sent to prison. Wilders, by contrast, got to stand in the dock while the global Islamist movement got to savor the possibility of something far more valuable than a trophy: a white flag draped over the shriveling remains of free speech. Wilders has been acquitted, but his trial was nonetheless damaging to what remains of the Western tradition of free discourse and inquiry.

But is there really a threat to freedom of speech and ultimately freedom not to be Muslim? McCarthy again:

When it comes to Islam as a category of speech, there is no doubt that our current government reflects the transnational progressive consensus: that the Western tradition of critical examination must give way to the Muslim tradition of submission. This is why when jihadists attack, the self-loathing elite’s response is to wonder what we did to offend them. It is also why when Muslims rioted over harmless cartoon depictions of their warrior-prophet as a warrior-prophet, the State Department’s harshest condemnation was reserved not for the marauders but for the offending newspaper. It is why Yale University Press would only publish a book about the cartoon controversy after the author agreed to purge from its pages the cartoons themselves. It is why the Washington Post just spiked a “Where’s Mohammed?” spoof in which the prophet nowhere appeared — and, by this craven act, validated cartoonist Wiley Miller’s point about Western timidity.

At least Mr. Miller is around to tell the tale. Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris had to go underground for merely suggesting an “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” — as Mark Steyn observes, even being a good lefty who never followed through and tried to disavow the whole business didn’t help her. The threat whose name must not be spoken was too much. On the FBI’s advice, she disappeared without a trace, much to the relief of her former employer, the Seattle Weekly.

Islam does not seek freedom of all religions. Its goal is world domination and the suppression of all rival religions and political systems. The reason for this is that Islam is not simply a religion as "religion" has come to be defined in the West. It is both what we call a religion and also what we call a political philosophy. So it is an alternative both to Christianity, Judaism, paganism, Hinduism, Buddhism etc., on the one hand, and also to liberal democracy, on the other.

There can be no doubt that Islam and Western religion/Western political institutions are incompatible unless the Muslims immigrating to the West accept that Islam here can only be a religion and not a political system. The West is divided into two groups: a left-wing elite that is willing to let Islam be a political system as well as a religion and a conservative majority that is only willing to accept Islam as a religion, not as a political system. The flashpoint is the attitude toward Sharia Law. Sharia Law is incompatible with Western culture and that is the point at which the battle must be joined.

The Fate of Europe Hangs in the Balance: Wilders, Free Speech and Islamic Political Power in Europe

Geert Wilders is on trial in the Netherlands for daring to criticize Islam. But the trial is not going well for the leftist, ruling elite. The prosecutors are recommending to the judge that the charges be dropped. Reuters reports:

Prosecutors asked a Dutch court on Friday to acquit anti-immigration lawmaker Geert Wilders of charges of inciting hatred and discrimination against Muslims.

The new Dutch minority government, made up of the Liberals and Christian Democrats which took office on Thursday, is reliant on support from Wilders' anti-Islam Freedom Party.

Prosecutors, who had already called on the court to drop a charge that Wilders insulted Muslims by comparing Islam to Nazism, said his comments were aimed at Islam and not Muslims as a group. They said he had the right as a politician to make statements about perceived problems in society.

"Wilders does not often refer to Muslims, but Islam. Criticism of a religion is not punishable," prosecutors Birgit van Roessel and Paul Velleman said.

They added that, although several statements by Wilders incited discrimination against Muslims, they could not be adjudged as criminal since he made them as a politician in the context of a public debate.

Well, that sounds like common sense. So why did Wilders end up in court in the first place? Why don't we let someone who ought to know explain the answer to that question? Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a former Dutch parliamentarian and a fugitive from Jihad who now lives in the United States. She writes in an article entitled: "In Holland, Free Speech on Trial:"

How is it possible that a mature European liberal democracy is prosecuting an elected member of parliament for his political opinions on the most pressing issue of the day—namely, Islamic fundamentalism? There are three main reasons.

First, there is the matter of traditional politicians' discomfort with Mr. Wilders. Historically, the Netherlands has insisted on the idea of "consensus." Though on paper this means compromise, in practice it has meant conformity of thought and a refusal to rock the boat on controversial issues.

No issue has tested this comfortable consensus more than the ascent of Islam, first presented by immigrants from Morocco and Turkey in the 1960s and 1970s, and then by asylum-seekers and refugees from various Muslim countries beginning in the 1990s. Most elites responded by preaching "tolerance." Give Muslim immigrants benefits and wait until they voluntarily integrate, their argument goes. Even if that process would take generations—even when it became apparent that some Muslims practiced female genital mutilation and honor killings, and imams openly urged their congregations to reject Dutch culture and law—citizens were not to criticize Islam.

A growing segment of the population—including Mr. Wilders and me, when I was a member of parliament from 2003 to 2006—doubted this facile and dangerous idea of "tolerance." This upset politicians, professors, journalists and other opinion-makers who tried to make us untouchables.

There were exceptions: Brave people in media, business and even in the military supported me politically, often behind the scenes. Still, I eventually left the country due to a combination of frustration with the campaign of ostracism and the extreme threats I faced from Islamists who wanted to kill me. Mr. Wilders, however, endured.

The second reason Mr. Wilders is on trial is the electoral power of Muslims in the Netherlands' four major cities. During local elections in March 2006, Muslim immigrants for the first time acted as an unofficial power bloc that could make or break a major Dutch party.

The supposed victims of Dutch discrimination were now a force to reckon with. Thus, major parties including Labor and the Christian Democrats—dominant since World War II—now support policies like increased immigration from Muslim countries and welfare benefits for Muslim voters. And they turn a blind eye to the implementation of informal Shariah law, particularly concerning the treatment of women.

Third, there are the efforts of countries in the Organization of the Islamic Conference to silence the European debate about Islam. One strategy used by the 57 OIC countries is to treat Muslim immigrants to Europe as satellite communities by establishing Muslim cultural organizations, mosques and Islamic centers, and by insisting on dual citizenship. Their other strategy is to pressure international organizations and the European Union to adopt resolutions to punish anyone who engages in "hate speech" against religion. The bill used to prosecute Mr. Wilders is the national version of what OIC diplomats peddle at the U.N. and EU.

The implications of this trial are enormous. In the short term, it could bring the simmering tensions between Holland's approximately one million Muslims and the 1.4 million voters who elected Mr. Wilders to a boil. The Netherlands has seen its share of Islamist violence before and could well see violent confrontations again.

On a more fundamental level, this trial—even if Mr. Wilders wins—could silence the brave critics of radical Islam. The West is in a war of ideas against political Islam. If free speech is not protected in Europe, we're already losing.

All three of these reasons are hugely important, but I just want to point out that number two might well mark a watershed. This is the first time I have read that that Muslims have actually used the political clout derived from their tendency to congregate in sections of major European cities to become a voting block to push their agenda. I have read plenty of predictions that this is bound to happen sooner or later, but it marks a significant new phase in the Islamization of Europe.

Carleton University Admits to Censoring Minority Opinion

This will be an interesting court case. Carleton University had practically pleaded guilty to violating its own policy of academic freedom and the Charter-guaranteed right to free speech via its official spokesman. Oh and they also admit lying to mislead the public. Heckuva job there Jason!

From the Lifeline website comes a press release which includes the following:

Carleton’s director of communications Jason MacDonald told media Monday, in comments published by major media such as the National Post, that the group was denied the space because “student groups are not normally permitted use of the Quad for displays.” He stated that, “in addition,” there were concerns about the content of the group’s display.

Today, however, the student group issued a press release saying that Carleton was “misleading the public” by suggesting that the pro-life students were asking for special treatment in the use of the public area.

In the release, club president Ruth Lobo said she found it appalling the university would “mislead the public by making the arrest look like we violated university policy instead of what it really was: that Carleton censors opinions on campus thereby violating their own policy of academic freedom.”

When LifeSiteNews questioned MacDonald on his previous remarks, he admitted, “The real issue was the nature of the content.”

“Our goal was to balance the desire to allow the Carleton Lifeline group to exercise its right to free speech by offering them a room to set the GAP up in and a table in the galleria to make students aware of the exhibit and direct them to it should they desire to see it,” he added.

Club vice president James Shaw responded to MacDonald’s admission, saying that the group is “astonished that the university admitted to censorship.

Shaw is not the only person astonished by this turn of events. Count me astonished too. In case you don't trust the student prolife group to quote the university official accurately, here is a quote from a story by reporter Doug Hemstead in a secular media outlet. Hemstead concludes his story by noting:

But university spokesman Jason MacDonald said Carleton was simply trying to find a balance between those who are and those who aren't offended by such graphic displays.

"Those types of displays aren't permitted in the quad," said MacDonald. "This particular display has been found by courts and human rights tribunals in other jurisdictions to be offensive."

"We have to balance their rights to free speech with the rights of the community," he said.

Where do these people get the idea that they can censor whatever they want in an effort to moderate extreme opinions? How can they not understand that this totally destroys the point of a free and open society? How can they think that Human Rights Commissions' prejudices have to act as ballast on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Do we only have freedom of speech for what the majority doesn't find "offensive?" Do I have the right to have the owners of billboards with pornographic pictures advertising things arrested because I find them offensive? Or do I just need a big enough mob which agrees with me?

Canada Loses the Right to Free Speech: Tyranny Rules

Watch this shocking video.

This is not Nazi Germany. This is not Stalinist Russia. This is not Castro's Cuba. It is Ottawa, Canada in 2010.

Students are denied their constitutional rights and arrested by the police for attempting to speak out against abortion in a way the officials of the university deemed too upsetting for university students to see. Academic freedom is only for the politically correct; it is not for minority views.

Watch the students confront the police with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and argue logically for free speech and totally stump them. They have no answers or arguments - just guns. The brave young woman doing the talking is a 4th year human rights major. She obviously learned too much!



Let us pray for Canada.

Too Upsetting to Be Seen? The Double Standard of the Left

In an earlier post I discussed the horrifying eco-fascist snuff film which featured blowing up school children in the most graphic way for declining to join in the 10:10 carbon reduction program. James Delingpole has a humorous (if that is possible) take down of this revolting piece of propaganda on his blog entitled: "10:10: Who are YOU going to kill to help save the planet?"

But now we have a story about Carleton University refusing pro-life students permission to set up public displays of pictures of abortion on campus. Click here to see Canadian students being led away in handcuffs for attempting to exercise their constitutional liberties and rights in public. In denying their right to free speech, the Leftists who run the university claim that people have a right not to be upset.

So people have a right not to be upset when it comes to abortion. Bloody, graphic pictures are out. But when it comes to Mother Gaia blood and gore are definitely A-OK with the Left. As usual the Left has a double standard.

We can take away several points from this comparison. For one thing, the abortion pictures have shock value and they work, which is a good reason for supporting the Genocide Awareness Project and Carleton Lifeline. The rage on the Left is not caused by a soft-hearted concern for the vulnerable. No, they oppose it because it exposes the ugly truth. Secondly, the Left is not committed to supporting free speech, which means they are undermining the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They are a menace to a free society and the fact that they control many Canadian universities is a scandal.

Let no one doubt that the threat to the right to life, free speech and an open society comes not from the right but from the Left.

Are Muslims Human?

Well, I think they are and most of the conservative commentators on the Ground Zero Mosque and the Koran burning story think so too. But do left-wing, Western elites think Muslims are human? Jonah Goldberg lays out the problem.

. . . it isn’t fair to hold people legally accountable for the evil or misguided deeds of others.

And the same basically goes for Jones. His plan to burn the Koran was stupid, irresponsible, and repugnant, but it’s not his fault that there are a significant number of Muslim men who are not only ready but eager to riot and kill in response to insults to Islam.

If you deny this, you are basically denying the humanity of Muslims. We take it as a given in this country that not only are all men created equal, but that each individual is responsible for his own actions. Each man and woman is a captain of his or her own self.

To say that Muslims have no choice in the matter, that they must act like animals, is to say that they are animals. If you tease a bear and he kills you, your stupidity is to blame. If you tease a man and he kills you, the murderer is to blame.

Mark Steyn agrees that something is out of whack here:

Take this no-name pastor from an obscure church who was threatening to burn the Koran. He didn’t burn any buildings or women and children. He didn’t even burn a book. He hadn’t actually laid a finger on a Koran, and yet the mere suggestion that he might do so prompted the President of the United States to denounce him, and the Secretary of State, and the commander of US forces in Afghanistan, various G7 leaders, and golly, even Angelina Jolie. President Obama has never said a word about honor killings of Muslim women. Secretary Clinton has never said a word about female genital mutilation. . . . But let an obscure man in Florida so much as raise the possibility that he might disrespect a book – an inanimate object – and the most powerful figures in the western world feel they have to weigh in. . . .

When someone destroys a bible, US government officials don’t line up to attack him. President Obama bowed lower than a fawning maitre d’ before the King of Saudi Arabia, a man whose regime destroys bibles as a matter of state policy, and a man whose depraved religious police forces schoolgirls fleeing from a burning building back into the flames to die because they’d committed the sin of trying to escape without wearing their head scarves. If you show a representation of Mohammed, European commissioners and foreign ministers line up to denounce you. If you show a representation of Jesus Christ immersed in your own urine, you get a government grant for producing a widely admired work of art. . . .

So just to clarify the ground rules, if you insult Christ, the media report the issue as freedom of expression: A healthy society has to have bold, brave, transgressive artists willing to question and challenge our assumptions, etc. But, if it’s Mohammed, the issue is no longer freedom of expression but the need for "respect" and "sensitivity" toward Islam, and all those bold brave transgressive artists don’t have a thing to say about it.

The contrast between what happens when someone insults Christ versus what happens when someone insults Mohammed is so striking that it cries out for explanation. What is the view of Muslims held by these left-wing advocates of political correctness? They seem terrified of Muslims as if Muslims were collectively insane and unable to control themselves and therefore likely to lash out in anger in an uncontrollable rage at the slightest provocation. But is that really what Muslims are like?

Goldberg notes that US Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer has hinted that burning the Koran (or any criticism of Islam perhaps) might not be constitutionally protected speech:

When Supreme Court justice Stephen Breyer was asked in an interview about Koran-burning, he brought up former Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’s famous comment that the First Amendment “doesn’t mean you can shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. . . . Why? Because people will be trampled to death. And what is the crowded theater today? What is the being trampled to death?”

Steyn draws the logical conclusion from Breyer's remarks:

This is a particularly obtuse remark even by the standards of contemporary American jurists. As I've said before, the fire-in-a-crowded-theatre shtick is the first refuge of the brain-dead. But it's worth noting the repellent modification Justice Breyer makes to Holmes' argument: If someone shouts fire in a gaslit Broadway theatre of 1893, people will panic. By definition, panic is an involuntary reaction. If someone threatens to burn a Koran, belligerent Muslims do not panic - they bully, they intimidate, they threaten, they burn and they kill. Those are conscious acts, at least if you take the view that Muslims are as fully human as the rest of us and therefore responsible for their choices. As my colleague Jonah Goldberg points out, Justice Breyer's remarks seem to assume that Muslims are not fully human.

Muslim reaction to Mohammed cartoons or a Rushdie novel or a Comedy Central sketch is not an involuntary spasm of panic; rather, it is a species of bullying, an attempt to get one's own way by using violence in a calculated manner. It is more like the popular stereotype of what the Crusades supposedly were like than the historical Crusades were!

As Steyn goes on to point out, Breyer's reaction actually encourages anyone who is aggrieved and angry to resort to violence because it appears that to do so will be effective in coercing Western liberal elites to bow to your wishes. Appeasement is the method of a decadent, dying culture.

All human beings are created in the image of God and have free will, conscience and the ability to make moral choices. Muslims, no less than anyone else, should be expected to control their anger and refrain from using violence to intimidate their critics. The rule of law applies to all - certainly in Western countries built on constitutional guarantees of free speech and freedom of religion. Those who treat Muslims as rage-filled children who cannot be expected to control themselves are not friends of Islam or of Muslims and they are not tolerant and respectful of the other; actually they are the worst sort of patronizing, cowardly, snobs.

Inman Rauf's Protection Racket and Freedom of Speech

I predict that Inman Rauf's comments on Larry King Live the other night will prove to be a turning point in the Ground Zero Mosque controversy by turning public opinion firmly against the project and requiring Rauf and his shadowy financial backers to back down. For the record, he said:

Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf, the self-professed bridge builder “devoted to peacemaking,” is now claiming that the Muslim world will erupt in violence if he withdraws his plan for the Muslim community center and mosque he intends to build right near Ground Zero.

Rauf told Soledad O’Brien on CNN’s “Larry King Live” that:

If we move that location, the story will be that the radicals have taken over the discourse. The headlines in the Muslim world will be that Islam is under attack.

Rauf went on to say that the violent reaction in the Muslim world could be worse than it was to the Danish cartoons depicting Prophet Muhammad in a negative light.

O’BRIEN: But the controversy itself–
RAUF: So the Cordoba house —
O’BRIEN: –though, right, isn’t that causing to some degree an instability and a risk, a risk of safety? I mean, there’s an address now that has become the flash point for a lot of anger. Isn’t that a risk to Muslims and Americans?
RAUF: There is a certain anger here, no doubt. But if you don’t do this right, anger will explode in the Muslim world. If this is not handled correctly, this crisis could become much bigger than the Danish cartoon crisis, which resulted in attacks on Danish embassies in various parts of the Muslim world. And we have a much larger footprint in the Muslim world. If we don’t handle this crisis correctly, it could become something which could really become very, very, very dangerous indeed.

Instead of trying to calm down the Muslim world, whatever the ultimate fate of his prized project turns out to be, the bridge builder warns us that we better do things his way or there will be security risks for the United States and Americans abroad.

Inman Rauf is playing the oldest game in the books; you would think he was raised in Chicago. "Listen, I'm really sympathetic and I'd like to help you out. But you know there are some crazy guys out there and they hurt people. If you could just help me out a little, I could take care of those guys for you. Nice little G-20 Western democracy you have here - it would be a shame if anything happened to it."

On the other hand, Reuters reports that Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany, is to present an award to Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard despite threats from barbaric Muslims who talk openly of violence and murder. Merkel's comments (at the end of this quote) should be a lesson to appeasing, cowardly, leftists in the US:

Organizers of the M100 Media Prize to be awarded at Potsdam near Berlin said the cartoons had "triggered an international controversy about freedom of speech and sparked worldwide, partly violent demonstrations of Muslims who felt insulted."

Most Muslims consider any depiction of the founder of Islam to be offensive, and the Danish cartoons portrayed Mohammed with a turban shaped like a bomb. At least 50 people died in ensuing riots by enraged Muslims in the Middle East, Africa and Asia.

Westergaard stood by his work "invoking the right to freedom of speech," said the M100 prize committee, praising the Dane's "courage to stand by these democratic values and defend them, notwithstanding threats of violence and death."

The Organizers issued a statement from Merkel saying that, at a time when Germany is marking 20 years of unity after the fall of East Germany's communist regime, her country was "still conscious of what the lack of freedom implies."

That is the message we need to hear. Freedom of speech is essential to democracy, which is why Islamists hate it so passionately. When ever one of these controversies arises (and they seem to be arising every other day lately) the focus needs to be on Muslim violence and the need for Muslim leaders to unequivocally condemn such violence if they want to be taken seriously in the public debate on religious freedom.

The Florida pastor who threatened to burn the Koran has flushed out the hypocrisy of leaders like Obama and Bloomberg, who appeal to the principle of religious freedom when it advances the interests of Muslims and then do a 180 degree turn about when the principle of religious freedom appears to go against Muslim interests.

Those who argue, like General Petraeus, that Pastor Jones' actions imperils troops in Muslim countries are simply acting in a cowardly fashion. It isn't one little congregation in Florida that Islamists object to: it is America and the ideals upon which it was built. And to imagine that the West can ever do enough to appease Islamists so they won't attack us anymore is ridiculous. If we don't stand for free speech and freedom of religion, including when Islam is ridiculed or attacked, then we are not standing for truth and right.

Islam, Free Speech and the Ground Zero Mosque

Further to the previous post, I want to call attention to Mark Tapson's timely reminder of recent Islamic attacks on free speech with his post "Top Ten Islamic Victories Against Free Speech." The Ground Zero Mosque controversy is not occurring in a vacuum. It is occurring in the context of a broad-based assault on Western freedom that takes many forms and uses many different strategies. It is difficult not to interpret opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque in the light of what has been happening in the past few years in the US and Canada and over the past 50 years in Europe.

If it were not for this context, the appeal to religious liberty for Muslims would make more sense. But if the goal of Islam is to abolish religious freedom, why should they be allowed to fight to conquer us under the cloak of religious freedom? Put bluntly, they don't deserve religious freedom until they are willing to extend it to apostates, women, minorities in Muslim countries etc.

Tapson's Top Ten are:

1) Obama Sends an Envoy to the OIC

2) The Obama Administration Abolishes Any Discussion of Islam and Terrorism

3) Comedy Central Ridicules Every Religious Figure Except Muhammed

4) Publishing Houses Censor Themselves

5) Geert Wilders Goes on Trial for Speaking the Truth

6) The Danish Cartoon Riots

7) Hollywood Complicity

8) Bush Avoids Language Offensive to Our Enemy

9) The Invention of “Islamophobia”

10) Ayatollah Khomeini’s Death Fatwa Against Salman Rushdie

In the light of these capitulations to Islamic Supremacist by the Ruling Class, it is not surprising that the people are restless and upset. If it were not for Yale University Press bowing to Muslim threats of violence and not publishing the Danish cartoons in a book about the Danish cartoons or Hollywood changing the identity of the terrorists in the movie made of Tom Clancy's The Sum of All Fears from Islamic terrorists to Neo-Nazi terrorists, then people might be more willing to believe that the proposed mosque is really about tolerance and co-existence. The Ground Zero Mosque controversy is much more complicated than just a simple case of religious freedom.