|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
The Jihad of the Word
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| The Jihad of the Word
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| Stonewall |
The Spectator
The Jihad of the Word
Melanie Phillips
Tuesday, 24th June 2008
The signs have been ominous for some time but now it has become clear beyond a doubt that those who tell the truth about Islam, Islamism or Islamist terrorism risk having their career, livelihood and maybe even their liberty placed in jeopardy – and all in the name of human rights. In Canada, the columnist Mark Steyn has been arraigned before a kangaroo court for the crime of publishing in Macleans magazine an excerpt from his bestseller, America Alone, in which he argues that demographic change is turning Europe Islamic. Led by the Canadian Islamic Congress, Muslims have taken Steyn and Macleans to a ‘human rights’ tribunal on a charge of ‘hate speech’, a totalitarian statute enforced by the Canadian Human Rights Commission (sic) who are in the business of destroying the freedom to voice perfectly legitimate – indeed, absolutely vital and important – opinions about the need to defend western society against Islamist attack. Bad enough that Islamists browbeat and threaten people who express such opinions. For a body such as the CHRC to do their dirty work for them and act as the enforcers of the jihad against free speech takes us straight into the nightmare landscape of Kafka. Read this article to get a flavour of the terrifying nature of these proceedings, the mixture of gross abuse of power, mad thinking and clownish incompetence which characterises totalitarian regimes and has been playing in a courtroom in downtown British Columbia. Perhaps the most chilling observation of all is this:
The Canadian Human Rights Commission, which enforces the act, has a record of conviction that recalls the awful efficiency of Soviet courts: In over three decades of existence, the commission has yet to find someone innocent.
This art
icle spells out in more detail how the Canadian human rights tribunals have been handed unfettered power to abuse power:
The human-rights tribunals are a censor’s dream. Under Canada’s human-rights act, commissioners can convict if they believe any published material is “likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt.” Since they are “remedial” institutions and not real courts, they need not follow strict legal procedures or grant traditional rights of the accused. No one goes to prison, but the panels can fine and silence people at will — and run up the lawyer bills for years. Truth is no defense, and commissioners are authorized to confiscate a computer without a warrant. Evidence can be woefully flimsy.
But this appalling development is not confined to Canada. A few days ago the UN decided to outlaw any criticism of Islamism – as defined by the Islamists themselves. Since they classify any criticism whatsoever of Islamist aggression as ‘Islamophobic’, this means that the UN will outlaw all such comment. As Jeffrey Imm has reported on CounterterrorismBlog:
On June 16, 2008 UNHRC president Doru Romulus Costea announced that criticism of Sharia law will not be tolerated by the UNHRC, based on the complaints and pressure by Islamist delegates to the UNHRC. In effect, the Islamist nations represented at the UNHRC have effected a Jihad against freedom of speech at the United Nations when it comes to criticizing Sharia or Islamic supremacist (aka Islamist) theocratic ideologies that threaten the freedom and lives of innocents around the world. This again demonstrates the key imperative of control for Islamists -- in this case in terms of controlling ideas, thoughts, and words of an international organization intended to promote human rights. Outgoing UNHRC Commissioner Louise Arbour subsequently raised concerns about debates on Sharia becoming 'taboo' within the United Nations group, stating that it 'should be, among other things, the guardian of freedom of expression.'
The UNHRC ban on debate regarding Sharia came as a result of a three minute joint statement by the Association for World Education with the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) to the Human Rights Council on women's rights and the impact of Sharia law. These NGOs sought to address international issues of violence against women, specifically, the stoning of women, 'honor killings' of women, and female genital mutilation, as a result of Sharia law.
The Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the Arab Republic of Egypt vehemently criticized this attempted NGO message, interrupting it via ‘16 points of order’, for an hour and twenty-five minutes per the IEHU. Jihad Watch provides a full transcript of the debate. The Egyptian UNHRC delegate claimed that silencing these NGOs was necessary to ensure ‘that Islam will not be crucified in this Council,’ but the fact is that Islamist forces seek to silence any debate on Sharia at all -- anywhere, any time.
This is of course merely the latest demonstration that the UN is now simply a club of tyranny. But the really frightening thing is the almost total indifference to these developments by the western media. So quick to take up the cause of free speech when the protagonists are the enemies of the west, they are all but silent when the freedom to speak in defence of western values is snuffed out. That of course is because the freedom of speech lobby marches behind the banners of ‘human rights’ and minority victim culture which, despite their mind-bending self-designation as ‘progressive’ attitudes, constitute nothing other than a full-out onslaught against western values by cultural Marxism -- now marching shoulder to shoulder with the Islamists in their common cause to destroy the free world. Their ranks include a distressingly large number of useful idiots, who for a variety of reasons – posturing vanity, conformist inanity, shallow ignorance, careerism, fear, whatever – are helping to further the jihad against the free world, which is predicated upon precisely this kind of cultural and moral confusion.
From the fatwa against Salman Rushdie and the burning of his book to the murder and mayhem unleashed over the Mohammed cartoons, it has long been clear that dictating what can and cannot be said is a key salient of the Islamist onslaught. It is thus of the utmost importance that freedom of speech is upheld. But both in the Rushdie affair and over the Mohammed cartoons, alas, much of the free world capitulated and even bought into the rhetoric of Islamist suppression, blaming both Rushdie and the cartoons for stepping over a permitted line. The same kind of people are now turning on Mark Steyn. But he has not stepped over the line. He is trying to hold it. The Canadian thought-police who would bring him down will surely bring the rest of us down with him.
As the pressure group Liberty and its latter-day prophet David Davis prance about Britain with their preposterous assertion that extending detention for terror suspects will destroy ancient liberties, we might well ask why not a peep has been heard from them about these recent developments and the real threat to freedom from the jihad of the word.
The Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP. All Articles and Content Copyright ©2007 by The Spectator (1828) Ltd. All Rights Reserved
The Spectator |
|
|
| Jazzy |
Yes, this points out a very dangerous double standard.
If I had my druthers, I would eliminate all religion, but that never works. People are drawn to it like moths to a flame - look at what's going on in China now with the resurgence of Christianity.
Religion almost always equals a repression of freedoms, and the first one to go is usually freedom of speech. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Jazzy
Yes, this points out a very dangerous double standard.
If I had my druthers, I would eliminate all religion, but that never works. People are drawn to it like moths to a flame - look at what's going on in China now with the resurgence of Christianity.
Religion almost always equals a repression of freedoms, and the first one to go is usually freedom of speech. |
Maybe someday our Court will decide what freedom of speech really means. |
|
|
| Jazzy |
| It is very PC and I suppose fasionable to "respect" Islams generally repressive tendencies. Why is that? Why do we have respect ideologies that cause so much suffering and pain? |
|
|
| its-just-a-ride |
We dont have freedom of speech in the UK. If the government decides something is against their best interests they are legally allowed to enter any news agency and kill the story.
It was the fucking New Labour tossers that set up this Hate Speech law a few years ago. Nobody in their right mind wanted it. There were protests but it went ahead. The bill was passed in order to arrest Islamic fundamentalist preachers that were celebrating or encouraging terrorism but now, as with all these terror laws, it is being misused.
Its that old quote..."I don't agree with a word you said, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." |
|
|
| Jazzy |
| But incidents like the Danish cartoon debacle go far beyond simple freedom of expression. In that case, a number of shit-stirring clerics got a LOT of Muslims all riled up over nothing and it led to violence and bloodshed. The question is where to draw the line between freedom of speech and speech which is calculated to incite disorder. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by its-just-a-ride
We dont have freedom of speech in the UK. If the government decides something is against their best interests they are legally allowed to enter any news agency and kill the story.
It was the fucking New Labour tossers that set up this Hate Speech law a few years ago. Nobody in their right mind wanted it. There were protests but it went ahead. The bill was passed in order do arrest Islamic fundamentalist preachers that were celebrating or encouraging terrorism but now, as with all these terror laws, it is being misused. |
We have 'Freedom of Speech' but we are taught that the Constitution is a "living document" and can change at the whim of 5 Justices on our Supreme Court. That has led to it's natural progression of a huge, powerful, unconstrained National Government. Freedom of Speech can change as can all the amendments or anything else in the Constitution that the Government wants to change. And we will accept that because we are taught to do so. And, we feel damn good about it too.
So, we are not far behind you and our Courts may even find comfort in your having no "freedom of speech"...
"It's not really that big of a deal, look at the U.K.. They are doing just fine."
We deserve to see that line written in a future majority opinion from our Supreme Court. We might as well make our 'Slavery' official. |
|
|
| Jazzy |
| You'll never change that, Stonewall. Every generation reevaluates it's social mores and reinterprets it's "holy" books. You might as well complain about the weather. |
|
|
| JTProcess |
Stonewall needs to get back to his Xbox
 |
|
|
|
|
|
