Free Speech Does Not Mean The Same Thing To Everyone

One of my favorite lines from “The Princess Bride” is “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” I think the time has come to understand that when you hear government leaders talk about the concept of free speech, not everyone who is using the term means the same thing..

In June I posted an article about how Muslims view free speech. I pointed out that Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has been working with the United Nations since 2005 to subtly change the definition of free speech. According to the OIC, all laws, including free speech laws, should be subject to Sharia Law. The law being supported in the United Nations by the OIC includes the statement “but not to criminalize speech unless there is an incitement to imminent violence.” This moves the focus away from what was actually said to any reaction to what was said. This means that any rent-a-mob can be called up claiming to be incited to violence by any statement. Therefore whatever was said was not covered by the concept of free speech.

Yesterday Townhall posted an article about a move in Canada to pass Bill 59, a bill that would grant the Quebec Human Rights Commission (QHRC) the authority to investigate so-called “hate speech”, even without a complaint being filed.

The article reports:

The Head of the QHRC, Jacques Frémont has already openly said that he plans to use such powers, “to sue those critical of certain ideas, ‘people who would write against … the Islamic religion … on a website or on a Facebook page’” according to Canada’s National Post.

The legality of the QHRC asserting jurisdiction over the entire Canadian Internet-using public is under debate, but the growing consensus in Canada appears to be that this bill is a step backwards.

In 2013, the Canadian parliament moved to end scrutiny of Internet speech by its Human Right Commissions when it abolished the infamous Section 13, of Canada’s Human Rights Act. The elimination of that odious and censorious clause followed a successful campaign given voice by Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant after the two were targeted for writings and publications which reportedly “offending” Muslims.

But like a zombie rising from the grave, the idea of censoring “blasphemous” speech, continues to come back, no matter how dead it may have appeared.

The OIC is behind the move to censor speech in Canada. It is important to remember that the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood is to institute Sharia Law worldwide–to put Muslims and non-Muslims under Sharia Law. When governments begin to made free speech laws that are compliant with Sharia Law (as an anti-blasphemy law would be), they are bringing their citizens under one aspect of Sharia Law. This is truly the nose of the camel under the tent.

Mark Steyn In Stoughton

Last night I had the privilege of hearing best selling author Mark Steyn speak in Stoughton, Massachusetts. The evening began with a few words from Rabbi Jonathan Hausman previewing some coming speakers and reminding us of some of the challenges we currently face as Americans. One of his memorable quotes was, “Jews learn from history that they do not learn from history.” When persecution of the Jews begins, bad things follow. He reminded us that the most persecuted religion in the world today is Christianity. Michael Graham, a radio talk show host and newspaper columnist, also made a few remarks. He reminded us that is is our job to stand up and fight for the things we believe in.

The title of Mark Steyn’s presentation was, “My Dagestani Brother’s Keeper, Jihad, Welfare and the Western Death Wish.”  He pointed out the pattern that has emerged in the major media reporting of the terrorist attacks in America and around the world. The reporting begins with the fact that the western friends of the terrorist or attempted terrorist are stunned by the fact that their friend has been involved in terrorism. That report is followed by utter bewilderment as to what possible motive the terrorist might have had. The next claim is that the terrorist attack is the work of a ‘lone wolf.’ It must be something of a shock to find out the their lone wolf was actually in contact with other lone wolves.

Mark Steyn pointed out that many recent terrorists were already being watched–the man who killed Drummer Lee Rigby in London was known to British authorities–he had been caught in Kenya three times attempting to get to Somalia. There were two anti-terrorism task forces monitoring Major Nidal Hasan before the Fort Hood attack. Just for the record, simply watching a terrorist does not seem to be a very effective course of action.

Mark Steyn also pointed out the similarities in the way western societies are subsidizing terrorists. The Tsarnaev family was collecting welfare at the time the brothers were constructing the bombs for the Boston Marathon. The British Imam Anjem Choudary, an outspoken supporter of worldwide Sharia Law, has stated that terrorists collecting welfare are simply collecting the jizya (money paid to Islamic rulers by dhimmis). The jizya is the tax dhimmis pay in order to show their submission to Islam. The Imam encourages the practice of collecting welfare while planning jihad.

The danger to western civilization that is becoming very apparent in Europe is the difference in birthrate between the native Europeans and the immigrating Muslims. In Britain, one out of ten British residents under the age of 25 is Muslim. The Muslims have a fertility rate of 3.5 versus the 1.3 fertility rate of the British. If you translate that into basic numbers, using 1,000,000 citizens are your sample group– the 900,000 British and the 100,000 Muslims will have the same number of grandchildren. In other words, the Muslim and non-Muslim populations will be equal in two generations. Those numbers do not even consider any conversions to Islam. The population shift currently taking place in Britain and in some parts of Europe is the fastest moving demographic population shift in history.

Western civilization is in peril. We don’t have the right to mistreat Muslims or consider them all terrorists, but we do have to act to protect ourselves. We need immigration policies that screen out potential terrorists, and we need to encourage assimilation into American culture. There is a difference between Western Culture and Eastern Culture. In the West, women have full rights and full citizenship. In the West, homosexuals are not hung for their homosexuality. In the West, we have the freedom to practice whatever religion we choose. We are in danger of losing those rights. The ideology that seeks Muslim imposition of Sharia Law is something the west must fight if we hope to survive. A worldwide caliphate would be a nightmare for everyone.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Some Perspective From Mark Steyn

Mark Steyn posted an article at today’s National Review about a request he had received asking him to write the forward to Geert Wilder’s book Marked for Death: Islam’s War Against the West and Me. Mr. Steyn’s first reaction to the request was to say no. He stated, “Mr. Wilders lives under 24/7 armed guard because significant numbers of motivated people wish to kill him, and it seemed to me, as someone who’s attracted more than enough homicidal attention over the years, that sharing space in these pages was likely to lead to an uptick in my own death threats. Who needs it? Why not just plead too crowded a schedule and suggest the author try elsewhere? I would imagine Geert Wilders gets quite a lot of this.”

He then rethought the issue. Later in the article he reminds us of the words of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who says:

…share the risk. So that the next time a novel or a cartoon provokes a fatwa, it will be republished worldwide and send the Islamic enforcers a message: Killing one of us won’t do it. You’d better have a great credit line at the Bank of Jihad because you’ll have to kill us all.

Mr. Steyn also comments on the basic culture of the Netherlands, home of Geert Wilders:

It is not easy to be Geert Wilders. He has spent almost a decade in a strange, claustrophobic, transient, and tenuous existence little different from kidnap victims or, in his words, a political prisoner. He is under round-the-clock guard because of explicit threats to murder him by Muslim extremists.

 Yet he’s the one who gets put on trial for incitement.

 In 21st-century Amsterdam, you’re free to smoke marijuana and pick out a half-naked sex partner from the front window of her shop. But you can be put on trial for holding the wrong opinion about a bloke who died in the seventh century.  

Please follow the link above and read the entire article. It is enlightening as well as humorous. As Americans we need to be aware of the negative impact embracing the concepts of Sharia Law can have on our society.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The First Qualification To Hold Office In America Ought To Be A Respect And Love For America

The Daily Caller reported today that Supreme CourtJustice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated in a television interview that when the people of Egypt write their constitution they should not look to the U. S. Constitution as an inspiration. She stated that the U. S. Constitution is too old and that there are more recent constitutions to use as examples.

The article reports:

Ginsburg, appointed to the Supreme Court by former President Bill Clinton, said South Africa’s constitution is “a great piece of work that was done” and cited other documents outside America’s constitution that Egyptians should read.

“Much more recent than the U.S. Constitution, Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” Ginsburg said. “It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights.”

Might I point out a few flaws in her logic. Under the European Convention on Human Rights, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff was sentenced to prison for stating an inconvenient truth about the founder of Islam (see rightwinggranny). In Canada, Mark Steyn was put on trial for stating something true about Islam in a publication. In both cases, the facts these people were citing were true–that was not the issue–the issue was that they were charged with hate speech for telling the truth. In America, we can still speak the truth without fear of arrest. What part of free speech does Justice Ginsburg not understand?

 

Enhanced by Zemanta