The Attack on Free Speech

images/talk6.gif (22089 bytes)

 

Stay Quiet and You'll Be OK
Muhammad Atta to passengers on 9/11

Telling the truth has become an offense which is unprotected by free speech doctrines, which instead protect the telling of lies. 
--Phyllis Chesler

"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
Voltaire

I may not agree with what you say, but I would defend to the death your right to say it.
- attributed to Voltaire 

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."
- George Orwell (1903 - 1950)

Universities are no longer institutions of inquiry but ‘safe spaces’ where delicate flowers of diversity of race, sex, orientation,
 ‘gender fluidity’ and everything else except diversity of thought have to be protected from exposure to any unsafe ideas.
Mark Steyn
 

"If I hate what you say, I'll accuse you of hate."
-Canadian Human Rights Commissions nonstated policy.

The degree of thought control, of limitations on freedom of speech and expression is without parallel in the Western world
 since the eighteenth century and in some cases longer than that…
It seems to me it’s a very dangerous situation, because it makes any kind of scholarly discussion of Islam, to say the least, dangerous.
Professor Bernard Lewis

 

The trouble with fighting for human freedom, is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
--H. L. Mencken

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
-- The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

To sin by silence, when they should protest, makes cowards of men.
--Emma May Wilcox

Freedom of Speech is the number one fight because without Freedom of Speech peaceful men will have to resort to violence.
Pamela Geller

Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.
--Benjamin Franklin

When you hate the truth, then truth becomes “hate.” 
-- David Kupelian 

in Canada, truth and accuracy is no defense against charges of “hate speech.”
-Robert Spencer

One man’s “hate speech” is another man’s lone voice crying out against oppression and injustice.
-Robert Spencer

Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day."
--Thomas Jefferson

 Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
– Dr. Seuss

There are people out there without a sense of humour and they’re heavily armed.
-
Michael Palin former Monty Python Author about why he won't spoof Islam.

 

Geert Wilders on the Price of Speaking the Truth about Islam
 

Geert Wilders After Being Convicted of Hate Speech For Asking Who wants more Moroccans at a Rally

 

 

  

 

The Harassment of Robert Spencer for Hate Speech

 

 

The following video is an interview with Mona Walker who left Islam and who tries to help other Muslims leave Islam.  She tells how non-Muslims in Sweden want to silence her.

 

Laws are being passed in the U.S. that threaten fee speech.  Farrah Prudence talks about that below.

 

    One of the quotes above is "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."  This brings to mind an incident in England.  A couple boarded a bus with their autistic child.  He cried on the bus so in order to cheer him up the couple sang him songs from the children's show, Peppa Pig.   A Muslim woman approached them and accused them of being irresponsible parents and racists.  The Muslim woman then complained to the bus driver that the couple was racist.  Apparently she felt their singing about a pig and making snorting sounds was an attack on Islam since Muslims can't eat pork.  The bus driver asked the couple to get off the bus.  When they said they hadn't done anything wrong he said "‘just get off the bus – it’s not worth the hassle.'”.  Why did the driver side with the hijab woman?  Because he was afraid of the hassle that would ensue if he didn't.  Maybe he was worried that there were other Muslims on the bus or that the woman would file a complaint against him, or she'd get other Muslims to board the bus and give him a hard time.  Who knows?  The point is that the Muslim woman was able to control the parents and get them removed from the bus.  To a large extent Muslims rule England.  In another incident a man who wore a pig hat was arrested. Another point is that the parents did not do anything offensive but it didn't matter.  There are plenty of Jews who don't eat pork.  They don't get offended by the mention of the word pig or the sound of pig snorts.  If there were Jews who did it's unlikely they would complain to a bus driver and if they did I doubt any bus driver would kick off the passenger for saying the word pig.  With Muslims though it's a different matter.  Muslims are scary people who carved a British soldier on the streets of Britain with machetes.  You don't want to mess with them.  If that doesn't convince you that the Muslims rule Britain take a look at this video of Muslims chasing British police.

 

    



Jayda of Britain First put on Trial for Criticizing Islam


 

Prime Minister Victor Orban of Hungary speaks about the stifling of free speech in Europe

 

When Oxford University press bans the use of the words pig and pork you know who controls England.

Ralph Sidway wrote an article titled Woman and Children First about the change that has come over Europe.  In the article he wrote:

Europe’s ruling elite ..., in the very heat of the New Year’s Eve mass sexual assaults by Muslim migrants across Germany, ordered the media to cover up the incidents. 

 Germany’s Cabinet on Wednesday April 5, 2017 approved a new bill that punishes social networking sites if they fail to swiftly remove illegal content such as hate speech or defamatory fake news.  Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Cabinet agreed on rules that would impose fines of up to 50 million euros (53.4 million dollars) on Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms.

As if this isn't totalitarian enough, the widespread assault on free speech across Europe concerning the Muslim migrant invasion rivals anything under Stalin or Khrushchev:

Dutchmen who tweet their opposition to the construction of “refugee” centers in their towns receive visits from police who threaten them with charges of sedition. A Belgian who spoke out about Muslim children in the city’s schools cheering the recent Brussels attacks welcomed three policemen to his door. And a London man who tweeted about his decision to confront a Muslim over her views on the Brussels attacks was arrested, had his home raided, and all his computer equipment seized. More well-known, Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel was caught on an open microphone asking Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg to curtail speech critical of “the wave of Syrian refugees entering Germany.”

When you can't criticize the people who oppress you, they control you.

Posting criticism of Islam on Facebook got a lacrosse coach in Maine fired. 

Destiny Velez, Miss Puerto Rico 2015, wrote that "All what Muslims have done is provided oil & terrorize this country & many others!!!!"



She wrote in her twitter account that

"There's NO comparison between Jews, Christians & Muslims. Jews nor Christians have terrorizing agendas in their sacred books."

Her Facebook and Twitter accounts were deactivated. Miss America organization issued a statement announcing Velez's indefinite suspension from her role as Miss Puerto Rico, given - it said - that her remarks went against its values.

     Facebook also censored Nonie Darwish.  She talks about it below.

 

Facebook censors conservatives.  Todd Starnes wrote how he was censored by Facebook.  One paragraph of his that was censored was:

“I’m about as politically incorrect as you can get. I’m wearing an NRA ball cap, eating a Chick-fil-A sandwich, reading a Paula Deen cookbook and sipping a 20-ounce sweet tea while sitting in my Cracker Barrel rocking chair with the Gaither Vocal Band singing ‘Jesus Saves’ on the stereo and a Gideon’s Bible in my pocket. Yes sir, I’m politically incorrect and happy as a June bug.”

Facebook's censorship of critics of bad people is likely to grow.  AP reported that:

 “the European Union reached an agreement Tuesday May 31, 2016 with some of the world’s biggest social media firms, including Facebook and Twitter, on ways to combat the spread of hate speech online.”  Not only Facebook and Twitter, but also YouTube and Microsoft, “have committed to ‘quickly and efficiently’ tackle illegal hate speech directed against anyone over issues of race, color, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin. 

     Not long after this, in July 2016 youtube banned the following video about Shariah as hate speech.  Roaming Millenial made a video about how youtube is demonetizing videos and censoring them.  She also talks about facebook.  Her presentation is below.

 

     A couple of weeks after I wrote the above paragraph a Muslim opened fire in a gay club in Orlando and killed 50 people.  Pamela Geller presented a lot of information about the mass murder on her Stop the Islamization of America Facebook page and Facebook responded by deleting the page.  After an outcry Facebook restored the page and said it was a mistake.  A few hours later, her own Facebook account received a 30-day ban after she made a post criticizing President Obama for his response to the Orlando shootings.  Shouldn't murder by Muslims be met with free speech about the Islamic threat instead of silencing those who report on it?

     State that Islam condones oppression of the infidel and your facebook account could be terminated.  Post a video on youtube of Islamic mobs attacking women and your youtube account could be terminated as well.  Hate speech by definition is any speech that reveals evil about a group no matter how true that speech is because the result may be hatred of that group.

     German police conducted a pre-dawn raid on about 60 homes in July of 2016 rounding up residents accused of posting xenophobic, racist or other “right-wing extremist” content to a private Facebook group in violation of German laws against “hate speech.”

And the crackdown, while being touted by much of the media as targeting “anti-Semitism,” appears largely focused on those who are critical of Islam and the hundreds of thousands of Muslim migrants who have flooded into Germany.

Paula Deen has a cooking show and has written a lot of cookbooks..  She was sued by a blackwoman for making racist comments. Deen stated in her deposition that she had used the "N-word" at times.  Specifically, she recalled telling her husband about an incident "when a black man burst into the bank that I was working at and put a gun to my head. ... I didn't feel real favorable towards him.

Images of Muslims rape gangs and other muslim atrocities and content containing those images are blocked from facebook if facebook viewers report them en-mass as being malicious. 

Those who speak up against the Islamic religion are accused of insulting an ethnic and cultural minority.  Salman Rushdie said  that “If people weren’t being killed right now, if bombs and Kalashnikovs weren’t speaking today, the debate (about Islam) would be very different. Fear is being disguised as respect.” 

Rushdie added: “If people weren’t being killed right now, if bombs and Kalashnikovs weren’t speaking today, the debate would be very different. Fear is being disguised as respect.” He said that if he were threatened for insulting Islam today, “these people would not come to my defence and would use the same arguments against me by accusing me of insulting an ethnic and cultural minority.”

 

Is free speech always a good thing?  What if people are saying things that are wrong?  Shouldn't they be silenced so they don't confuse people and lead them from the truth?  A major problem with that is who is to say who knows the truth and who doesn't.  Everyone believes that they know the truth but they disagree with each other about what the truth is.  They can't all be right.  Open discussion may lead both sides closer to the truth if their minds are open.

   What if free speech leads to hate?  Shouldn't hate speech be banned? 

    Hate speech isn't always bad.  Lets consider a situation not involving people to clarify the issue.  Supposing there were rabid rats spreading in a neighborhood.  Would it be wrong to report on the spread of rabid rats?  Doing so could lead to fear and hatred of innocent rats.  If one did report on this wouldn't it be better to say animals so as not to single out rats?  What about rabies, it is only a virus trying to reproduce.  Is it fair to say bad things about rabies?  There are plenty of animals who do harmful things who don't have rabies.  There are plenty of viruses that make people sick that aren't rabies.  Isn't it unfair to single out rabies?    What if there were a Facebook page called "Stop Rabies in America".  Wouldn't that violate Facebook's policy of being hateful?  Shouldn't Facebook terminate that site?

    If we want rabies to spread than we should definitely do all the above.

    Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, 55, created a film called "Innocence of Muslims," in which he showed events in the life of  Muhammad that enraged Muslims in Egypt, Libya and Yemen.  They attacked U.S. embassies on 9/11/2012 and killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans in Libya.  Eric Holder's justice department opened up a criminal investigation.  Was the creation of this movie a criminal act?  Should Mr. Nakoula be punished for creating that movie?  Isn't creation of a movie that enrages Muslims against the United States counterproductive?  Don't we need their help against Al Qaeda?  Doesn't this movie encourage them to join Al Qaeda?  On September 11 2012 and afterwards enraged mobs shouted "Obama, Obama we are all Osama."  Is that what the U.S. needs, more Osama bin Ladins?

 

What about Australia, does Australia need more Osamas?

 

    I don't know how to get hold of Nakoula's movie but the trailer is embedded below. 

 

 The movie is a lot more accurate in describing Islam than most people realize.  Is it wrong to tell the truth if it is likely that people will go on a rampage and kill others when they hear it?  One way to answer this question is to consider the consequences of silencing those who speak the truth because it might offend radical Muslims.  One obvious consequence is that the radical Muslims will unimpeded in any evil they might do.  No one will be able to stop them because no one will be able to say anything negative about them or about what they are doing.  Also when Muslim anger is appeased that encourages Muslims to be angry.  It shows them that they have everything to gain if they're angry.  Another way to answer this is to ask if there were any good consequences of the movie?  The movie alerted people to the danger of Islam.  It may also have planted a seed of doubt in the minds of many Muslims about their religion.  The violent reaction to the movie in itself probably made it clear that the movie's claims about Islam being a violent religion are at least partly true.  There are those who have said that Nakoula should go to jail because his actions incited the Muslims and resulted in the death of embassy personnel but did they?  It turns out that the attack on the Libyan embassy was planned in advance and was at least in part retaliation for an American strike on a terrorist.

In the interview with NBC’s Ann Curry,  Libyan President Mohamed Magarief said the film had been available on YouTube for months and the “reaction should have been, if it was genuine, should have been six months earlier.”  "It's a pre-planned act of terrorism," Magarief said, emphasizing the video had “nothing to do with this attack."

There is an important lesson here.  The Islamic world is a seething cauldron waiting for an opportunity to strike at the West.  It will always find excuses to strike the West.  Silencing those who speak the truth about Islam will not protect the West.  That still leaves the question of  whether such a movie is productive or not.  It certainly didn't convince the mobs of Muslims shouting "we are all Bin Ladin" that Muhammad was an evil charlatan and that they should abandon their religion.  The interesting question is did it convince anyone.  It exposed to people in the West just how dangerous and fanatic much of the Muslim world is.  That is an important lesson.  Many people who are not Muslim looked up the video and may have learned something about how Muslims persecute Christians and how the Muslim police don't do anything about it.

Robert Spencer gave a talk about the attack on Free Speech in which he discussed the Obama administration's reaction to the movie.  His talk can be seen here.

 

The problem is that any actions of self defense by the West incite the Muslim world.  Obama asked Google to remove Nakoula's movie and Google refused.  Google did pull it in India and Indonesia as well as in Egypt and Libya to comply with local law.  Obama and Hillary also appeared in an ad in Muslim countries in which Hillary stated the the video was disgusting and reprehensible.  In order to calm the Arab world Obama gave a speech at the United Nations in which he said:

"The Future Must Not Belong To Those Who Slander the Prophet of Islam."

That certainly sounds like Obama plans to take action to punish those who tell the truth about who Muhammad was.  Nakoula was arrested.  People who speak the truth about Islam in America know that they are in Obama's crosshairs.  According to Judicial Watch under the Obama administration

a new U.S. military handbook for troops deployed to the Middle East orders soldiers not to make derogatory comments about the Taliban or criticize pedophilia, among other outrageous things.

It gets better; the new manual, which is around 75 pages, suggests that Western ignorance of Afghan culture— not Taliban infiltration—is responsible for the increase in deadly attacks by Afghan soldiers against the coalition forces...

Earlier this year the Obama Administration changed the way federal agents are trained to combat terrorism and violent extremism by eliminating all materials that shed a negative light on Muslims. Under White House orders, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) destroyed instructional material that characterizes Muslims as prone to violence or terrorism in a government-wide call to end Islamophobia.

Under Obama practically every major federal agency has been ordered to participate in Muslim outreach initiatives, including the Justice Department with a special program to protect Islamic civil rights, Homeland Security meetings with extremist Muslim organizations and the nation’s space agency (NASA) with an unprecedented mission to focus on Muslim diplomacy.

     If you are in the American military you cannot criticize Muslims  When we remember Voltaire's comment that "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize" one can't help but wonder if we are ruled by Muslims.  Here is a brief talk by  Sebastian Gorka on this.

 

An American soldier filed a lawsuit because he says he was forced out of the U.S. Army for having anti-Obama bumper stickers on his personal car, serving Chick-fil-A sandwiches at a party and reading books written by conservative authors like Sean Hannity.   More seriously a marine was locked in a psych ward for his postings on facebook.  Since that case made national news, Whitehead John Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute and author of “A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State said he has received dozens of calls from other veterans with their own horror stories of being detained under involuntary commitment laws. About 20,000 of these type of detentions take place every year in Virginia alone.

“Just over a Facebook post, in many cases,” he said. “I’ve had veterans call me for just posting something, and then the FBI agents come to their door the next day.”

“People are nervous they’re going to be harassed. We’re moving into a censorship society. I see the cases on a daily basis.”

Hillary Clinton has been meeting with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation as part of the Istanbul process.  Nina Shea wrote that:

Judging from the 2011 session I was partially able to observe as a commissioner on the official U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, the point of the Istanbul Process is for the governments of the developed West give an accounting to the governments of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Qatar, and other key Muslim states on measures taken to stop American and other Western citizens from disparaging Islam.

in 2011, the UN Human Rights Council adopted Resolution 16/18, with the support of the Obama administration. It called upon Western states to pass laws that would criminalize "defamation of religion" – i.e., criticism of Islam. 

    Here is a trailer of a movie by Frank Gaffney called Silent Conquest about the encroachment of Islam on Freedom of Speech in the West.

 

Pamela Geller held a contest for cartoons of Muhammad.  Two radical Muslims tried to massacre everyone at the contest but a policeman shot them.  Pamela received a lot of criticism from the press for inciting the Muslims.  Here is a video of Jeannine Pirro responding to those criticisms of Pamela Geller.

Jeannine says in the video that what Pamela did was probably a dumb move.  I think it was a brave move.  Islam will win if people do not dare to criticize it.  Pamela dared. 

One of the most dangerous appeasement actions by the Obama administration was the loosening of sanctions on Iran.  When Israeli defense minister Moshe Yaalon criticized the folly of the United States, Secretary of State John Kerry called Prime Minister Netanyahu to complain in an effort to silence Yaalon. 

     A very courageous former Muslim from Pakistan by the name of Imran Firasat who lives in Spain made a movie about Muhammad the trailer of which can be seen below.

 

    The Spanish government informed him that if he or Stand Up America Now who he collaborated with continue on and release the film on December 14 2012 in Madrid Spain, then his residency status will be revoked. He will be detained, locked in prison under the excuse of being a danger to national security, then deported back to Pakistan where he would be killed because he is facing a death sentence due to his criticism of Islam.

    Tommy Robinson is the co-founder, spokesman and leader of the English Defence League.  After Barack Hussein Obama became president Mr. Robinson was denied entry into the U.S..  He came here in Sept. 2010 to speak at the protest against the Ground Zero Victory Mosque, but was denied entry as soon as he landed at JFK. On September 11th, this year, he came to NYC, using a borrowed passport, to speak at Pamela Geller’s Stop Islamization of Nations (SION) symposium. Below is Tommy’s speech:


 

Tommy Robinson was arrested by the British and placed in solitary confinement.  A demonstration was held on his behalf.

 

 During the demonstration a speaker explained why Tommy was arrested:

“He has been arrested on the basis that he was on his way to cause a public nuisance. He has been charged for an alleged assault on the say so of one man, a known Islamist Saiful Islam. The same man whose physical assault on Tommy was recorded and seen by millions around the world and yet this man has still not been arrested or charged.”

“He has been arrested on the basis that he was on his way to cause a public nuisance. He has been charged for an alleged assault on the say so of one man, a known Islamist Saiful Islam. The same man whose physical assault on Tommy was recorded and seen by millions around the world and yet this man has still not been arrested or charged.”

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/337625#ixzz2ItkVIdax “He has been arrested on the basis that he was on his way to cause a public nuisance. He has been charged for an alleged assault on the say so of one man, a known Islamist Saiful Islam. The same man whose physical assault on Tommy was recorded and seen by millions around the world and yet this man has still not been arrested or charged.”

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/337625#ixzz2ItkVIdax

The speaker pointed out that people who were a real danger to the public were given bail while Tommy was refused bail.  What kind of public nuisance does he cause?  He participates in demonstrations against the Islamization of Britain.

In January 2013, EDL Leader Kevin Carroll was arrested for comments he allegedly posted on Facebook. The comments in question, made in response to a particularly graphic and unpleasant video about animal dismemberment during halal slaughter, were as follows:

“They are all ***king backward savages, a devil-spawned death cult worshipping all that is unholy and barbaric, pure evil”

The police response was decisive. In Kev’s words, “…they swooped down on me, blues flashing and sirens wailing — you would have thought I was a serial killer or something. Right in the middle of the town centre!”

He was charged with “religious and racial hatred” and has been ordered to report to a police station twice a week.  For a Facebook post.

   Muslims have no compunction about silencing those who criticize Islam or who even criticize them.  Raymond Ibrahim wrote about how some Muslims are cutting the tongues of those who say things they don't want to hear.  Nonie Darwish gave a great talk about how Islam controls speech.  One point she made that I didn't know was that it is obligatory to slander those who Islam considers its enemies.  When Israel sent aid to earthquake victims in Haiti it was obligatory for Muslims to slander Israel and say that they did it to harvest organs.

Pamela Geller put up ads in the New York City subway that said In any war between civilized man and the savage supported the civilized man defend Israel, defeat Jihad.  Here is a video of her addressing the MTA who were considering ad rules.  She was telling them not to make new rules that would block her ad.

 

 The Detroit public system was willing to put up the above ad

but unwilling to put up this one.

The Puget Sound Joint Terrorism Task Force for the U.S. Department of State’s Rewards for Justice program put up ads on buses with 16 photos of wanted terrorists sandwiched between the taglines “Faces of Global Terrorism” and “Stop a Terrorist. Save Lives.

Up to $25 Million Reward.”  Most of those terrorists pictured are Muslims.  The Muslim Association of Puget Sound (MAPS) demanded and held a meeting with the FBI, the U.S. Attorney’s office and a member of the Department of Homeland Security. Jeff Siddiqui of MAPS said, “I spoke with a number of people who were at this meeting in which they discussed this bus ad and, as far as I can gather, everybody except for the FBI agreed this ad was very damaging to Muslims.” Finally, he says the FBI agreed to take the ads down.  After the FBI decided to take the ads down Pamela Geller said:

 “The FBI is putting Americans at risk by submitting to the outrageous demands of Islamic supremacists. It is not the fault of the FBI that the world’s most dangerous terrorists are jihadists. That is the reality. You cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Capturing these mass murderers is significantly more important than propping up the fictional narrative of victimhood and the nonsensical hurt feelings. People are being slaughtered every day in jihad attacks.”

  In Holland Geert Wilders the leader of the Dutch Freedom Party, who compares the Muslim holy book to Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf, sparked government panic after saying on January 24, 2008 that he would release an anti-Islam film he created the next day. Dutch police prepared for a weekend of riots and Mr Wilders was told by the authorities that he would have to leave country. What's the point of riling up Muslims in Holland to the point that they riot and destroy property and perhaps kill people? Why create widespread panic with a film? Why put the Dutch police and the Dutch people through this?  He did release the film.  This film is not Geert Wilders giving a speech about his opinions, it is clips of Muslim preachers preaching hatred, terrorist acts by Muslims and the Koranic commands that lead to them.  If you do a search for Fitna on the web you would expect it to be the first web page you find but it is not.  One finds either web sites that criticize it or web sites from which the movie was removed.  Youtube is one of the few web sites that still post the film.   If one views that film on youtube it becomes clear how important the warning of the film is to those of us who are infidels.  It should also be important to Muslims and encourage them to reform their religion.  Instead they threaten Geert Wilders.

   Being friendly with Israel can get you in trouble in Holland.  Geert Wilder was investigated by the Dutch secret police because he is friendly to Israel. 

In July 2008 a Jordanian court summoned twelve European citizens to answer criminal charges of blasphemy and inciting hatred. One of those 12 was Geert Wilders for creating the film.  Stephen Brown wrote:

The subpoenas will be sent to the twelve Europeans through their embassies in Jordan. If they do not appear within 15 days, the Messenger of Allah group says it will seek international arrest warrants through Interpol. 

Europe’s appeasement is also evident in the second part of Messenger For Allah group’s anti-blasphemy campaign. This part calls for a commercial boycott of all Danish and Dutch products in Jordan and of anything associated with the two countries, such as airlines and shipping companies. ..

Dutch and Danish companies were instructed they could get their products off the boycott list if they, essentially, betrayed their nations’ values and their countrymen. The affected companies, according to The Jordan Times, were told to denounce the Dutch film and the Danish cartoons in the media both in Jordan and in at least one publication in their own country, support the Jordanian legal action taken against Wilders and the Danish newspaper people as well as the creation of an international anti-blasphemy law.

Several companies have already complied. When informed of the stipulation that requires a denunciation be published in a Dutch newspaper, a spokesman for a Dutch food company that exports to Jordan said his company “…would print it if needed.”..

 Only last week, Dutch and Danish companies were told to put the boycott posters up in their own countries if they did not want their products blacklisted.

The overall goal of the Messenger of Allah group’s legal and commercial campaign against the two European states, it says, is the enactment of “a universal law that prohibits the defamation of any prophet or religion”, especially of the Prophet Mohammad. Islamic countries are already pushing for such a law at the United Nations.

“The boycott is a means but not an end,” said Zakaria Sheikh, a spokesperson for Messenger of Allah Unite Us. “We are not aiming at collective punishment, but when the Danish and Dutch people put pressure on their governments to support the creation of an international law, we are achieving our goal.”

Well, there you have it. The Muslim organization wants Denmark and Holland not just to muzzle themselves but to help it muzzle the rest of the world as well.

 Firoozeh Bazrafkan ran afoul of Danish authorities with a blog entry printed in a December 2011 issue of the Jyllands-Posten newspaper of 2005 Danish Muhammad caricature notoriety.  Bazrafkan expressed being “very convinced that Muslim men around the world rape, abuse and kill their daughters.”  Such abuse resulted “according to my understanding as a Danish-Iranian” from a “defective and inhumane culture—if you can even call it a culture at all.”  Bazrafkan deemed Islam a “defective and inhumane religion whose textbook, the Koran, is more immoral, deplorable and crazy than manuals of the two other global religions combined.”

AS a result Firoozeh was convicted in Denmark for denigrating a group of people based on their religion.  This conviction was upheld by an appeals court.

   There are efforts in the Western world to ban hate speech against Muslims and to punish those who criticize Islam that are so extreme that attempts are made to even ban words.  Deborah Weiss wrote in 2008 that:

During the past year, several federal agencies – including the Department of Homeland Security, the State Department, and the National Counter Terrorism Center – have declared a war on words. Specifically, these agencies have issued memoranda discouraging their employees from naming the enemy in the War on Terror. The prohibition included words such as “jihad,” “Islamist,” “Islamofascism,” and “caliphate,” among others.

     Perhaps the reason for this war against speech is the desire to keep the oil flowing and fear of Muslim anger that could lead to riots, terrorist attacks and assassinations.  Perhaps another reason is the desire to end hate.  Does banning speech against Muslims help end hate?  Will fewer people hate Muslims if they hear less criticism of Muslims. Will fewer Muslims hate the non-Muslims if there is less criticism from non-Muslims? 

    Hal Lindsay lost his job with TBN because he pointed out that there are 109 verses in the Koran promoting violence toward the infidel and that when Muhammad was in Medina and had an army behind him he promoted violence.  He said the more knowledgable and devout Muslims become the more violent they become.  He argued that moderate Muslims were not practicing real Islam.  A video of an interview with him can be seen here.  What he said about the Koran is true.  There are 109 verses promoting violence toward the infidel.  I've listed some of them here.  Hal Lindsay's conclusion that the more Muslims believe this the more violent they will become is a reasonable one.  When he spoke about this this was seen as provoking hatred of Muslims and his supervisor demanded to review all his scripts so she could censor them. 

    Lets assume that everyone who spoke the truth about the contents of the Koran to the ignorant infidel was muzzled.  People would then not understand the roots of Islamic hostility.  They'd be more likely to blame the Jews since the Muslims blame the Jews.  The belief that the Jew is evil also comes from the Koran but people wouldn't know this because it would be forbidden for anyone to say so.  People would conclude that the excuses the Muslims give for hating the Jews must be the real reason for Muslim violence.  If Muslims committed terrorist acts against them they'd think it was the Jews fault.  People would become hostile to the Jews.  Anti-Jewish sentiment is growing in Europe on a massive scale.  What if a terrorist act was committed by a Muslim and those who reported on it left out that it was a Muslim who did it.  Then people again would blame the wrong people for the terrorist attack.  Hatred would be created but it would be created toward non-Muslims and the victims of Muslim wrath.  The Muslims would be able to act with impunity because no one would be willing to recognize that they were responsible and the increased number of terrorist attacks would increase the hate.  To the extent that people realize that Muslims are behind the attacks it will increase hostility to Muslims and to the extend that they don't it will increase the hostility to non-Muslims.  This example shows how attempting to muzzle hate speech can actually increase hate speech.

    If the assumption underlying muzzling hate speech, that hate speech is wrong is correct than anyone who says anything bad about anyone else is committing a crime.  If a criminal held up a bank and raped the female employees and then killed them, according to this logic no one has the right to say that he did because that would create hatred toward the criminal.  According to this logic if someone reports the criminal to the police that person should be arrested for creating hatred in the police.  The result would be that innocent people would be in jail and the criminal would go on to rob more banks, and rape and kill more women.  Islam teaches jihad toward the infidel.  It teaches it is OK to rape infidel women captured in war.  The result of stopping speech critical of Islam is similar to what would happen if those criticizing the criminal were silenced, it would enable devout fundamentalist Muslims to rape infidel women unimpeded.  These raping sprees are happening in Western countries.

   Earlier I mentioned how Geert Wilders is being silenced.  He created a powerful movie called Fitna
which juxtaposes horrific scenes of killings and destruction at the hands of the Islamic terrorists with verses from the Koran and excerpts of incendiary speeches by Islamic leaders that are used to justify such acts of terrorism.  There is nothing that is not factual in the film.  The speeches are real, the quotes from the Koran are real and the terrorist acts are real.  Nevertheless, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon condemned the film saying that it traffics in what he calls “hate speech” and “incitement to violence.”  Nowhere in that film is their hate speech or incitement to violence.  In fact the film is exposing hate speech and incitement and that hate speech and incitement is not condemned by the U.N.. 

    Alarmingly the UN Human Rights Council passed unanimously a resolution proposed by Egypt and Pakistan that calls for the policing of individuals and media reports for negative statements about Islam.

Holland is slowly becoming Islamicized and radicalized. Holland is slowly losing its freedoms, the right of free speech among them. It is becoming a country where people are afraid to speak their minds because of the Muslims. Perhaps the only chance the Dutch have is a crisis which forces them to take firm action. Perhaps only when Muslims riot in the streets and burn Dutch homes and blow up Dutch people will the Dutch become aware of the threat that is in their midst.  Perhaps that is the only chance that Holland expel the growing extremist population that is slowly strangling it.  Geert Wilders may be one of Holland's last remaining hopes to remain free.

Free Speech is threatened throughout Europe.  Giulio Meotti wrote a very sad piece about this called Europe's Witch Hunt.

What if speech is used to incite violence.  Should neo-Nazis be allowed to incite their followers?  Should people like Khalid Muhammed a man who organized the "million youth march" and who spouted hatred against whites and the Jews be silenced?  What about Arabic radio stations that preach hatred of the Jews?   Shouldn't they be silenced?    When the Shah of Iran was in power Ayatollah Khomeini distributed tapes inciting religious Moslems to overthrow him.  The Shah was overthrown, the Ayatollah became the leader of Iran and the result has been a anti-western religious dictatorship.  Should the Ayatollah's tapes have been confiscated?   Although there was not much freedom of speech in Iran under the Shah there is even less now as a result of the rise of fundamentalist Islam in Iran.  Wouldn't the confiscation of tapes been worth protecting the freedoms, however limited of Iranians under the Shah?  The state of Palestine is ostensibly being created to give more freedom and self determination to Palestinians yet the Palestinians Authority is also attacking the right to free speech of its opponents.  At the same time it is producing TV shows inciting Arab children to hate Israel.   Shouldn't this be stopped?  Would it be better if only the "good" speech was allowed?  Would it be better if only speech that would preach brotherhood and harmony be allowed?  Would it be better if only speech that was constructive was allowed? 

   The danger of anti-incitement laws is that they can be used to silence legitimate opposition to bad policies or belief systems.  The definition of incitement is twisted from meaning telling people to commit violence to criticizing religion.  If a person criticizes Islam as violent and a Muslim preacher then preaches to Muslims to kill that person, according to the new twisted meaning of incitement the person who made the criticism is the inciter and not the preacher.  In one example of that Christians who criticized Islam during a Muslim gathering in Michigan had rocks thrown at them by Muslims yet the Christians were arrested.  In a January 4, 2012 interview with the Berliner Zeitung and the Frankfurter Rundschau, Manfred Murck, the director of the Hamburg branch of the German domestic intelligence agency (the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (BfV)), said his organization was studying whether German citizens who criticize Muslims and Islam on the Internet are fomenting hate and are thus criminally guilty of "breaching" the German constitution.  ...In May, more than 500 Salafists attacked German police with bottles, clubs, stones and other weapons in the city of Bonn, to protest cartoons they said were "offensive." Rather than cracking down on the Muslim extremists, however, German authorities sought to silence the peaceful critics of multicultural policies that allow the Salafists openly to preach violence and hate.

 In another example of the misuse of incitement law Imran Firasat the author of a movie critical of Islam was charged with incitement to religious violence.  One can view the movie by clicking below, nowhere in the movie does Imran tell anyone to kill anybody.

 

Hate speech is used to silence the truth but it isn't being used to protect the victims of hate.  When a New York mob of blacks attacked a Jewish store in 2014 while yelling Heil Hitler there was no charge of a hate crime or hate speech.

Perhaps a better way to handle hate speech is with speeches encouraging tolerance.  If the inciters attempt to silence those who preach tolerance through violence than they should be arrested and silenced themselves but only the individuals who do so and not the group they belong to.  Laws against incitement have been passed in Britain, Sweden, Israel and in Canada and I give examples of negative consequences of this below.  These negative consequences have happened because any criticism of another person or group can be construed as incitement.  Anyone who advocates a policy that in anyway inconveniences another group no matter how necessary that policy, can be accused of incitement.  When incitement becomes illegal, people can punish and lock up those whose political opinions they don't like.  Another problem with incitement laws is that in practice they are applied selectively.  You rarely see radical Muslim or left wing inciters in Europe being locked up for incitement.   The only case I am aware of in which a British Muslim faced jail for incitement was that of Umran Javed who was found guilty of soliciting murder when he called for the death of Americans and Danes during a demonstration in London in 2006 against cartoons of the prophet Mohammed.

    In England two Christian preachers attempted to convert Muslims to Christianity by passing out Bible tracts in a Muslim neighborhood.  (A Muslim Hate Crime is in Your Future, 6/6/08)  They were stopped by doing so with the excuse that doing so was a hate crime.  This is in the context of many attacks on vicars or churches by Muslims who are clearly intent on turning east London into a no-go area for Christians."

On one occasion, youths shouted:

"This should not be a church, this should be a mosque, you should not be here."

Said Ramanoop,

"I just walked away from it -- you are too frightened to challenge them. We have church windows smashed two to three times a month. The youths are anti-Christian."

    The Christians who try and convert these Muslims from their violent ways are accused of committing a hate crime.

   As a result one side can propagandize and brainwash freely while silencing the opposition with anti-incitement laws. 

Muslims in England have been raping and trafficking young infidel girls.  Police arrest the victims.  In two cases fathers tracked down their daughters and tried to remove them from houses where they were being abused only to be arrested themselves when police were called.  A victim of Rotherham’s child sex abuse scandal confronted a man she says groomed her – but was left shocked when she was the one arrested.
 

The woman was shocked when she saw the man walking through the town’s centre on Friday and decided to challenge him over the allegations.But she was tackled by two police officers and pushed up against a wall during her ‘thuggish’ arrest, a witness has said.‘A police van came and six male officers piled out. ‘Two of them dragged her away, handcuffed her, put her against a wall and then shoved her into the back of the van.’  A spokesman said: ‘The woman was arrested on suspicion of racially aggravated public order offences.’

 The problem of incitement laws is discussed in an article titled A legal lesson from Down Under 10/27/05.

    Sean Thomas wrote in the Telegraph, December 17 that Anjem Choudary doesn't get prosecuted for hate speech. He wrote that Anjum marched down Brick Lane threatening shopkeepers with 40 lashes if they didn’t stop selling alcohol. At the same time he has gone on record, acclaiming Muslim gangs (who recently attacked drinkers on London’s streets), as “fantastic”.   Sean Thomas wrote:

Now, simple minded souls might wonder whether Choudary was breaking the law here: isn’t it an incitement to violence, when you praise vicious mobs as “fantastic”? Isn’t it criminal, in some way, to menace shopkeepers with “40 lashes”?
Come to think of it, you might wonder why Choudary hasn’t been jailed before, given his record. In 2003 he was investigated for organising terrorist training camps. Around the same time he praised the 9/11 bombers as “magnificent martyrs”.  A few months later he predicted attacks on British soil. In 2005 he refused to condemn the 7/7 slaughters in London.
In 2006 he organised a protest outside the Danish Embassy in London where, notoriously, the protestors carried placards saying “Exterminate those who slander Islam", “Behead those who insult Islam”, and “Be prepared for the real holocaust". Some might imagine this was clearly an incitement to violence and racial/religious hatred, and worthy of jail time – but no. Choudary received a £500 fine, but it was imposed because he failed to inform police of the planned demo.

  Mr. Thomas went on to give a long list of people who have been prosecuted for hate speech who aren't Muslim.  Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller are banned from entering Britain because they are accused of hate speech.

   Another example of how incitement laws are abused occurred in Sweden where Ake Green, a pastor belonging to the Pentecostal movement was sentenced , to a month in prison, under a law against incitement, after he was found guilty of having offended homosexuals in a sermon (wnd.com 7/8/04).  This is even though he ended his sermon with the statement:

"What these people who live under the slavery of sexual immorality need, is an abundance of grace. We cannot condemn these people. Jesus never belittled anyone. He offered them grace."

   Paul Belien, wrote an article in which he discussed what little protest their was of Ake's sentence. (The Darkest Corners of Our World?- Bush Can Start With Europe's Hate Crime Crackdown, VDARE.com 1/25/05)   He wrote:

The pastor's conviction prompted just one international political reaction. Vladimir Palko, the Interior Minister of Slovakia, Banning Patriotism, frontpagemagazine.com 4/25/2006)

A young Somali journalist in Sweden named Amun Abdullahi got herself in trouble with the politically correct elite by reporting the truth about the radicalization of young Somalis in Rinkeby (a culturally enriched suburb of Stockholm), where they were recruited for jihad by the Islamic terrorist group Al-Shabab.

The treatment meted out to Ms. Abdullahi made her decide to move back to Somalia. She acknowledges that Mogadishu is a dangerous place, but she considers Sweden more dangerous, because “here you cannot tell the truth.”  She said Swedish journalists sit around saying things like you can't report this, it's too sensitive, it might affect the election. 
 

 

   Internet sites with viewpoints that organizations object too are being blocked with the excuse that they are “hate speech” one example being the Penn State Bans Jewish Student's Anti-Terrorism Exhibit, 4/24/2006):

Pennsylvania State University has canceled an art exhibition about Arab terrorism and the destruction of Jewish historical and religious sites, claiming it does not "promote cultural diversity."

The ten-piece exhibit, by student Josh Stulman, was the result of years of preparation. It was called "Portraits of Terror" and focused on images of Palestinian terrorism, hate-propaganda cartoons printed in PA newspapers and photos of Jewish holy sites destroyed by Muslims.

Just three days before the exhibition was to take place, Stulman received an email from the School of Visual Arts saying that his exhibit on images of terrorism "did not promote cultural diversity" or "opportunities for democratic dialogue" and the display would be canceled, according to the PSU Collegian newspaper.

The accusation that the exhibit does not promote cultural diversity is a way of saying that people who see it might get hostile to Muslims.  The statement that it does not promote opportunities for democratic dialogue is absurd as such an exhibit would certainly promote dialogue.

    Advertisements that complain about incitement are blocked if they are against Muslim incitement or expose Islamic violence.  American Jewish Committee director David Harris revealed how a New York Times owned radio station, WQXR  refused an AJC commercial that said:

"Recently, The New York Times reported that in Saudi Arabia, 10th graders are warned of 'the dangers of having Christian and Jewish friends,' and in Pakistan, a million children attending religious schools are taught to "distrust and even hate the United States."

   WQXR also blocked a commercial trying to get help for the civilians being bombarded with Palestinian Arab rockets in Sderot with the excuse that the ad didn't balance it with discussion of Israeli military actions.

     Harris said that in the month before the Bloomberg radio news station rejected an AJC segment citing hate literature in children's textbooks in the Palestinian Authority (PA), Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Iran.  So it's not just WQXR.

A favorite Palestinian Arab slogan at demonstrations is "From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be Free".  From the river to the sea is from the Jordan river to the Meditteranean sea and includes all of Israel.  This is a nice sounding way of saying Israel will be annihilated.  You don't hear of Muslims being prosecuted for hate speech for saying that.  The areas controlled currently by Hamas and the Palestinian Authority are as un-free as you can get.  I just read how one Palestinian who clicked like on a criticism of a Palestinian leader he saw on Facebook was arrested.  Palestinian prisons are no picnic prisoners are found dead in their Palestinian prison cells.

   Those who try and speak the truth about the Muslims find themselves accused of incitement if they do.  If they simply try and talk about Muslim incitement they are not allowed even to pay for a forum to do so at least no by WQXR and the Bloomberg station and one suspects by a lot of other radio stations who are afraid of jeopardizing the flow of Arab funds and who are afraid of antagonizing Muslims. 

Incitement laws threaten free speech in England.  According to (Banned in the. U.K., frontpagemag.com 10/26/05):

The British libel laws are so destructive that they affect writers and publications who never set foot in Britain and never published there. They are used effectively by Saudi billionaires who can afford the steep legal fees to silence successfully writers and publishers around the world who attempt to expose how the Saudis have funded and continue to fund the spread of Wahhabism, Islamist radicalism, and indoctrination that leads to global terrorism.

In Britain an arrest warrant was issued for blogger Lionheart for telling the world about Islamists in his neighborhood (American Thinker, 6/9/2008).
 

   A short film about how Saudis silence their critics and attempted to silence Rachel Ehrenfeld the author of Funding Evil can be seen on youtube.  Rachel Ehrenfeld couldn't even attend a meeting she organized in the U.K. on "How to Combat Terror Financing" because if she went she would have been in jeopardy because of British libel laws.  Sheikh Mahfouz sued her for her 2003 book "Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed — and How to Stop It." Rather than contesting the case in Britain, Ms. Ehrenfeld she went to an American court. In June, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously in her favor, finding that if an American writer is sued for libel in a foreign court, that person can appeal to an American court to request that a British decision not be enforceable here.  Ehrenfeld told Jamie Glazov in a Frontpage Magazine interview (11/28/07) that:

Bin Mahfouz single handedly stopped all American newspapers and publishers, not to mention individual reporters, from covering him specifically, and most Saudi terror financiers, in general. Apparently, through him, the Saudis have successfully imposed a wholesale chilling effect on U.S. instigative reporting on Saudi terror financing...We are at war with enormously wealthy and determined enemies. We should prevent their use of their tremendous wealth to deprive American writers of their constitutional rights to expose actions that threaten our safety and freedoms.  One of the most important foundations of American Democracy is freedom of the press. Bin Mahfouz's libel suits are an important part of an enormous campaign to severely curtail press and media willingness and ability to freely investigate and report the great financial powers diligently working to destroy our nation and indeed the entire Western civilization.

   Few people have supported Dr. Ehrenfeld.  She told Jamie Glazov that:

Apparently, Saudi influence on the media, politics and business interests is so pervasive that only the most courageous and honorable, professionals, colleagues and friends have stood by me. Others keep a silent distance--and some even try to harm me.

    Fear and perhaps bribes or a combination of both appears to be affecting how judges rule in cases brought by Islamic plaintiffs.

     That may explain why Ehrenfeld lost her appeal.  The New York Court of Appeals ruled that it does not have jurisdiction to protect Americans - on U.S. soil - from a foreign defamation verdict.  Of course it does.  This is the kind of ruling one would expect if the judge is scared or was bribed.

    England which is full of Muslim preachers who preach hate and who allows in members of Islamic terrorist organizations sends letters to Israeli officials telling them they are not welcome.  Moshe Feiglin received such a letter from British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith. 

    Ironically, one of the four examples of Feiglin’s “unacceptable” statements cited in Smith’s letter was actually taken from the writings Claude Scudamore Jarvis, the British Governor of the Sinai during the Mandate period. In an interview with Israel National Radio’s Yishai Fleisher on Monday, Feiglin joked that he was being banned from Britain for quoting a British official.  Here is the letter Feiglin wrote in response to this.

25 Adar I, 5768
March 3, '08

To the British Government
Home Office
Border and Immigration Agency

Dear Sirs,

Two months ago, I received a letter from your office in which you stated that I am not welcome in your country. As I was under the impression that the letter was a practical joke, I attempted to clarify its authenticity before I replied. Now that I have ascertained that the letter is indeed authentic, I wish to give you my reply:

I did not request entry into Britain and I have no immediate plans to do so.

It would be proper to investigate the reasons for this strange initiative against a political figure in Israel . This initiative represents yet another example of European interference in Israel 's internal affairs.

Being that infamous terrorists such as Ibrahim Moussaui of the Hizbollah are actually most welcome in Britain , while I -- who have never harmed anyone - am not, I conclude that your policy is to encourage and support terror.

As is clarified in your letter, the grounds for your decision is material that I had written years ago citing the necessity to fight Arab terrorists and my analysis of the culture from which terror grows. Among other facts, you quote my article in which I wrote that "The Arab is not the son of the desert, but rather, its father."

For your information, that quote was taken directly from the book "The Desert Yesterday and Today" written by none other than British High Commissioner of Sinai, Sir Claude Jarvis in 1938.

Considering the moral depths to which your nation has sunk, I find your letter most complimentary. It is a great honor for me to join the illustrious list of former prime ministers of Israel , Menachem Begin and Yitzchak Shamir, who also received similar letters from your offices.

Sincerely,

Moshe Feiglin

 

    Dan Rabkin wrote that (Londonistan Rising, frontpagemag.com 3/27/08) :

Appeasement of radical Muslims and their leftist allies is nothing new to the British.  The United Kingdom, a country that values its freedom of speech so much that it  consistently lets Islamists protest chanting the vilest of expressions, has a long history of silencing Jews.  Whereas Islamists in Britain are free to chant “May Allah and Osama Bin Laden bomb you!”, “Nuke, Nuke UK and USA, Blair and Bush you will pay!”, and “Europe is the cancer, Islam is the answer!”, Israeli officials are frequently denied visitors’ visas, threatened with arrest upon entry and worse. 

The letter to Feiglin was far from the first time that British authorities acted out against Israelis to mollify their homegrown Islamists. Former Israeli Prime Ministers, Menachem Begin and Yitzchak Shamir, have also received similar letters.  Last December, Public Security Minister Avi Dichter cancelled a trip to Britain over fears he would be arrested for “war crimes”.  Transport Minister and former Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz, former IDF chief of staff Moshe Ya’alon, and Major General Doron Almog have all encountered similar problems.  Almog had already arrived in London to do fundraising for a handicapped services organization, when the Israeli military attaché phoned him to tell him not to get off of the plane.  Metropolitan Police counter-terrorism officers were waiting in the airport to arrest him, so Almog stayed on the plane for two hours until it finally headed back to Israel.

    Joe Kaufman wrote an article titled Terrorizing Free Speech about a lawsuit filed against him because he wrote an article titled Fanatic Muslim Family Day.  In an appeal for financial help mailed out by the David Horowitz Freedom Center in February 2008, Kaufman wrote how a restraining order was issued against him and that:

A hearing for the case was held on October 29th.  We arrived at 8:30 a.m.  The court had difficulty finding a judge to hear the case.  The original judge the case was assigned to had recused herself.

Why did the original judge recuse herself?  Fear?  Kaufman wrote:

 At 1:30 p.m., a judge was found...  While witnesses on the other side admitted under oath to not having any threats aimed at them at any time from either myself or my fellow protestors, the judge ruled that an extension to the restraining order was necessary.  I want to make it entirely clear to you and anyone who might read this: I have NEVER threatened any of these groups in any way, shape or form.  I didn't even know the majority of the plaintiffs existed prior to the protest.

The judge who wasn't afraid to take the case made a ruling that the Muslims wanted.  Kaufman wrote:

Every day for the last six years, I have been working to expose and shut down groups in America connected to terrorism overseas.  I have had many successes in this regard, but now I feel my work - work that is of importance to our nation - is in jeopardy.

I used to believe that our freedoms as American citizens were protected.  Unfortunately, I have discovered, during this process, that some judges want to limit our Constitutional rights.

Cambridge University Press has agreed to destroy all unsold copies of a 2006 book by two American authors, "Alms for Jihad," following a libel action brought against it in England by Sheikh Mahfouz (New York Sun 8/2/07).  Phyllis Chesler wrote an article in frontpagemagazine (The Legal Jihad is Already Underway 8/14/07) about how people are being censored into silence.

   British libel laws have not been used to stop Hawza Ilmiyya, a Shi‘i institution in London from teaching that non-believers are filth.  In fact despite revelations about the school are not even going to stop the British taxpayer from help fund it (Do Conservatives Openly Threaten Sitting Judges? FrontpageMagazine April 15, 2005 wrote:

When they can’t win a debate (can they ever?), leftists deploy what the late novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand called "the argument from intimidation." Instead of trying to refute the other side, they label their opponents' position evil, attribute sinister motives to its adherents, and charge that its proponents are encouraging violence.

Thus, the Left stridently maintains that proponents of immigration reform are inciting violence against illegal aliens. Opponents of racial quotas are "creating a climate of contempt" where hate crimes are more common. Right-to-lifers are to blame for attacks on abortionists. The majority of the American people who are unwilling to allow a runaway judiciary to impose same-sex marriage on the nation were responsible for the death of Matthew Shepard and every other act of violence against gays (including those committed by other homosexuals).

In 1995, William Jefferson Clinton (never one to shy away from an absurdity) suggested that the Oklahoma City bombing was in part the product of conservative talk show hosts complaining about high taxes and excessive regulation -- thereby promoting disdain for Washington.

    Mireille Miller-Young, a teacher of feminist studies came across a pro-life display sponsored by the Christian pro-life group Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust on March 4. She stole and destroyed an anti-abortion sign and assaulting a teen girl who tried to retrieve it.

     Daphne Patai, in her book Heterophobia wrote how she was alarmed by the attack on free speech by feminists.  She wrote:

I find it frightening to see a society unleash against its own citizens codes of speech and behavior that can ensnare anyone and that often have as their underpinning nothing more than a woman's sense of "discomfort" about certain words or action.  ...to conflate much of what today is labeled "sexual harassment" with serious forms of sexual assault and abuse is to invite authoritarianism into our lives - the hand of the state everywhere in the private sphere, until there is virtually no private sphere left.

   The large increase in Islamic populations in Europe has resulted in an attack on free speech in many countries in addition to Sweden.  One example of this is the suspension of Robert Kilroy-Silk a well known TV presenter (Israel National News 1/11/04).  An article of his appeared in the Sunday Express on 1/4/2004.  titled, "We Owe Arabs Nothing."  The article stated,

Apart from oil - which was discovered, is produced and is paid for by the west - what do they contribute? Can you think of anything? Anything really useful? Anything really valuable? Something we really need, could not do without? No, nor can I. What do they think we feel about them? That we adore them for the way they murdered more than 3,000 civilians on September 11 and then danced in the hot, dusty streets to celebrate the murders? That we admire them for being suicide bombers, limb amputators, women repressors?"

   Pan-Arab media outlets, the Muslim Council of Britain, and other Muslim groups reacted with outrage to Kilroy-Silk's article, and BBC hurried to take Kilroy-Silk's morning TV talk show off the air pending an investigation of his comments. 

   It has even been reported that Kilroy-Silk is facing a police investigation over the issue.  The Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) has referred the article to the police to consider whether it might constitute an offense under the Public Order Act.  CRE Chairman Trevor Phillips said, "Given the extreme and violent terms in which Mr. Kilroy-Silk has expressed himself, there is a danger that this might incite some individuals to act against someone who they think is an Arab."

   Azzam al-Tamimi, of the Muslim Council of Britain, even said, "There are suspicions that Kilroy's article is part of an intensive campaign that started with the statements made by Ariel Sharon, the prime minister of the Zionist entity, in which he accused Muslims in the West of being behind growing anti-Semitism."

   It should be noted, of course, that it was the European Union that recently prepared a report on anti-Semitism indicating that Moslem and pro-Palestinian elements are involved in most of the incidents. See "A Survivor of Palestinian Tyranny, frontpagemag.com 10/13/04 ). 

Colin Rose 53 years old, prison officer with 21 years' of impeccable service was fired for making a joke on (11/15/03) about Osama Bin Laden because it could antagonize the large number of Muslims in the British prison and because it was considered racist to express hostility to Bin Laden. (Daily Telegraph 2/12/2003)  Writer Robert Locke recently warned that “free speech may become illegal in England.” He focused specifically on the case of Nick Griffin, “chairman of a small opposition party called the British National Party.” According to Ilana Mercer:

Griffin is apparently facing trial for saying, “at a private political meeting,” that “Islam is an evil and wicked faith. Unfortunately for him,” Locke reported, “government thought police were watching, and recorded him on video tape…

 

    The Student Union of the School of Oriental and African Studies of the University of London passed a motion saying that peace requires the elimination of Zionism and racial discrimination in all its forms, and condemning any form of Zionism on campus.  This motion was used for a long time to prevent the creation of an Israel Society, even though Israeli and other students wanted one, on the grounds that it would by definition be a racist society and racism is not permitted on campus. Gavin Gross in an interview with Frontpage Magazine (UK Student Warned to Stop Protesting Jew-Hatred 6/27/05) gave an example of  the selective suppression of pro-Israel speech by the SOAS:

the Students Union voted to ban the Jewish Society from allowing Roey Gilad, political counsellor of the Israeli Embassy in London , to speak on campus in February 2005 in a talk entitled "New Opportunities for Middle East Peace", arguing that they did not want to offer a platform to "racists", i.e. Israeli officials...

[I]n February 2005, a film called "Jerusalem, the Promise of Heaven" was shown in the Students Union lounge, which showed pictures of bearded Orthodox Jews praying in synagogue and at Jerusalem's Western Wall, while the voice-over branded Jewish prayer rituals "satanic" and stated that Jews had no ethics or morals.  A copy of this same film was found in the suitcase of Saajid Badat, a terrorist convicted in the, along with his plans to blow up an airliner, and appeared in a picture in The Times newspaper following his arrest.

   The control of Muslims over non-Muslim behavior in England has grown to the point where (The Sun Online, 5/24/2006):

Workers in the benefits department at Dudley Council, West Midlands, were told to remove or cover up all pig-related items, including toys, porcelain figures, calendars and even a tissue box featuring Winnie the Pooh and Piglet.

   Even China a country that oppresses the Falun Gong and Christians kowtows to the Muslims.  The following is an excerpt of an item that appeared in the Wall Street Journal (Gordon Fairclough and Geoffrey A Fowler, Pigs Get the Ax In China TV Ads in Nod to Muslims 1/25/07) about the subject.

SHANGHAI -- Next month, China will ring in the Year of the Pig. Nestlé SA planned to celebrate with TV ads featuring a smiling cartoon pig. "Happy new pig year," the ads said.

This week, China Central Television, the national state-run TV network, banned Nestlé's ad -- and all images and spoken references to the animal in commercials, including those tied to the Lunar New Year, China's biggest holiday.

The intent: to avoid offending Muslims, who consider pigs unclean. "China is a multiethnic country," the network's ad department said in a notice sent to ad agencies late Tuesday. "To show respect to Islam, and upon guidance from higher levels of the government, CCTV will keep any 'pig' images off the TV screen."

   Bat Ye'or in her book, Eurabia (p88), wrote about how the influence of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) silenced pro-Israel voices in Europe.  She wrote:

Intellectuals, writers, and clergymen who dared to defend Israel were silenced and dismissed from their posts.  Their manuscripts and articles were refused by editors and publishers, frightened by the OIC's threats and Palestinian terrorism.  In private conversations and correspondence with the author int eh 1980s, the eminent French sociologist and Protestant theologian Jacques Ellul complained that his articles were refused by many newspapers and even Protestant publications because of his pro-Israeli position.  William Nicholls, Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, suffered a boycott for the same reason.    Such cases were not exceptional, as demonstrated by the present author's private exchanges with numerous authors and clergymen. 

   Phyllis Chesler wrote:

Expose the permanent Intifada against Western Civilization and against the Jews and you will be sued and driven into exile, as Oriana Fallaci has been, or sued and prevented from traveling to certain countries, as Rachel Ehrenfeld has been. You will be sued and silenced in all those places where you were once published, even lionized. Dare to say that the torturer and genocidal tyrant, Saddam Hussein, is on trial today only because of America and Iraq’s sacrifice and their bold vision of democracy and you will be called a reactionary, a liar, a fool, and the worse epithet of all: a conservative.

   Free speech on behalf of Israel is under attack outside of Israel and free speech against territorial appeasement of the Arabs is under attack in Israel.  The columnist Jonathan Rosenblum, wrote an article called, Welcome to 'democratic' Israel, where speaking your mind can land you in Jail.  In the article he argues that the way to reduce violence is not to silence people but rather to allow freedom of speech. An article by Steve Plaut about the subject, The Assault on Israeli Democracy, was published in the Outpost newsletter of Americans For A Safe Israel.  I have posted a series of essays on the frightening attack of free speech in Israel on the Assault on Freedom of Speech in Israel, web page. 

   Lets play devils advocate and ask whether it is so bad that the speech of the Israeli right is under attack.  The left advocates land concessions for peace.  Certainly peace is more important than land.  Shouldn't those who might persuade the public otherwise be silenced?  Isn't suppression of speech worth the peace that might descend on a region that has suffered war over thousands of years?

    It seems obvious that the policies advocated by the Israeli left are what is best for the region until one considers the arguments of the opposition.  One of the arguments is that land given away for peace has become a base from which terrorist attacks are launched at Israel.  Another argument of the opposition is  that the increased strategic advantage the land gives the Arabs makes peace less likely.  These arguments would never be heard if the opposition was silenced. 

   Incitement laws can be used by the regime in power to ensure that only they can incite.  For example Gush Shalom, (Bloc of Peace), posted an image on its web site (Oct-Nov 2000) of a militant Barak standing on the bleeding bullet-ridden body of a Palestinian child.   One irony of this is at the time Barak was doing everything he could to avoid the death of Palestinian children and was constantly surrendering to Arab demands in the hope of ending bloodshed.  It would be far more accurate to have a picture of a militant Arafat standing on the bleeding bullet-ridden body of a Palestinian child. Yet anyone who drew such a picture in Israel is likely to be arrested for incitement. 

   Another country where free speech is also silenced under the excuse of silencing incitement is Canada . 

Mark Harding, was convicted in 1998 on federal hate-crimes charges stemming from a June 1997 incident in which he distributed pamphlets outside a public high school, Weston Collegiate Institute in Toronto.

In one of his pamphlets, Harding listed atrocities committed by Muslims in foreign lands to back his assertion that Canadians should be wary of local Muslims.

The pamphlet said: "The Muslims who commit these crimes are no different than the Muslim believers living here in Toronto. Their beliefs are based on the Quran. They sound peaceful, but underneath their false sheep's clothing are raging wolves seeking whom they may devour. And Toronto is definitely on their hit list." In response to Mark's noble efforts to warn about the dangers of Islam he was convicted of promoting hatred against Muslims.

After losing an appeal to Canada's Supreme Court on Oct. 17, Mark Harding must resume his sentence of two years probation and 340 hours of community service under the direction of Mohammad Ashraf, general secretary of the Islamic Society of North America in Mississauga, Ont.

The cleric made it clear, Harding recalled in an interview with WorldNetDaily (October 31, 2002), that during the sessions nothing negative could be said about Islam or its prophet, Muhammad.

"He said he was my supervisor, and if I didn't follow what he said, he would send me back to jail," recounted Harding.

    Zachariah Anani, a former Muslim terrorist who converted to Christianity and who now speaks against Islam is under criminal investigation and facing possible indictment and deportation for speaking out against radical Islam in Canada.  Anani said Islamic doctrine teaches the “ambushing, seizing and slaying” of non-believers, especially Jews and Christians. He said Islam is a religion that worships a god “who strikes with terror.”  Anani said he isn’t worried about being charged, because he only drew on facts from the Qur’an, the Muslim holy book.

“What I said was fact,” he said Friday. “I wasn’t talking about my own interpretation. I picked facts derived from statements of the book.” 

Anani has plenty to worry about.  Being truthful does not protect you against incitement charges.  His bio which I excerpt below is on the 3 terrorists web site.  After he converted to Christianity:

he was harassed and persecuted. He moved to the city's Christian sector, but the persecution continued. Even his father hired assassins to kill him.

Finally church leaders convinced him to leave Lebanon because his presence endangered others. In 1996 Anani entered Canada as a refugee. It took another three difficult years before his wife and three children could join him. After Anani debated with a Muslim scholar in the United States, his family was attacked in Lebanon. Two of his children required surgery.

Zak has been attacked numerous times for his faith as a Christian, even in Canada.

When in Lebanon, he was nearly beheaded and was only saved when an army patrol came by and the Islamist gang dispersed leaving Zak with a huge wound on his neck. Zak nearly bled to death and was actually technically dead for 7 minutes, before being revived.

In Canada, where he now lives, his house and car have been burnt, his family attacked physically and Zak himself has been attacked.

Speaking out in a free country is sometimes not as safe as it should be.

   There is a great deal of incitement in the Koran against the non-believer but you'll never see Canada attempt to silence Islam.  So incitement laws will stop people speaking out against the danger of Islam but will not stop Islam preaching hatred of the infidel.

   Free speech is under attack in Australia.   Recently Victoria passed  new race and religion hate laws.  Daniel Nalliah and Daniel Scot of Catch the Fire Ministries were tried under these laws and found guilty of inciting hatred against Muslims even though transcripts of the seminar in Melbourne show that Daniel Scot, was quoting verses from the Quran to make his points (wnd.com 12/18/04).  There sentence was overturned by a different judge but the financial and emotional cost was very high and they still have to pay off $150,000 in legal fees.  The laws that were used against them have led to many absurd situations in Australia.

     Fear silences those who speak out against Islam.  Amina and Sarah Said were two beautiful young women murdered by their father in Dallas Texas because they were not Islamic enough.  Phyllis Chesler wrote:

The blogs and the local Texas media (the Dallas Morning News) were all over this. Hot Air, Atlas Shrugs, Jihad Watch, were too. The only national coverage of this story was contained in the Washington Times.   Why did the national and international media so far shy clear of this story? ..Were they afraid of being accused of “Islamophobia” if they reported the truth? Did they not want to use the word “Arab” or “Muslim” lest they be attacked as “racists”?

In one pathetic example of cowardice Scholastic Australia pulled the plug on a children’s thriller called the Army of the Pure after booksellers and librarians said they would not stock the book because the "baddie" was a Muslim terrorist.   According to The Australian 11/25/2006,

This decision is at odds with the recent publication of Richard Flanagan's bestselling The Unknown Terrorist and Andrew McGahan's Underground in which terrorists are portrayed as victims driven to extreme acts by the failings of the West.

The Unknown Terrorist is dedicated to David Hicks and describes Jesus Christ as "history's first ... suicide bomber".

In McGahan's Underground, Muslims are executed en masse or herded into ghettos in an Australia rendered unrecognisable by the war on terror.

Scholastic's general manager, publishing, Andrew Berkhut, said the company had canvassed "a broad range of booksellers and library suppliers", who expressed concern that the book featured a Muslim terrorist.

"They all said they would not stock it," he said, "and the reality is if the gatekeepers won't support it, it can't be published."

   Howard Rotberg is an author whose book was banned by Canada's largest book retailer because of made up allegations.  He told Frontpage Magazine that

"I found myself in trouble for something that I was alleged to have said a lecture, at a book promotion lecture at a branch of Canada's largest book retailer. ..

I have learned that the groups that I always thought would protect authors in Canada, such as PenCanada, the Writers Union, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Freedom to Read, and others, only want to protect authors whose views fit their ideologies. I am sad to say this, but it is true. Most fancy themselves as some kind of "progressives" but their ideas on what constitutes a progressive are really suspect. If a writer is pro-American or pro-Israeli, he or she is outside their area of interest. Very few of these organizations would even answer my emails. They wanted nothing to do with me, because I think they have convinced themselves that the biggest threat to tolerance in Canada is Islamophobia, and that any criticism of any branch of Islam, to these naifs, is equivalent to criticizing all Muslims everywhere.

I have learned that many of those in the NGOs, the public sector unions (who now dominate the Canadian labour movement), the schools and universities and even many traditional Canadian churches (the ones that are in decline) all want to fancy themselves "progressives", and rather than pay from their pockets for social justice at home, the easier way to be progressives is to criticize Israel. And how much easier is it to criticize some country or group of people who won't threaten to chop your heads off for that criticism. No matter what is done by the Palestinians or on behalf of the Palestinians, I will be seen as a bad and intolerant guy by these progressives for "hurting the feelings" of some Muslim somewhere. Accordingly, I have been shunned by the very organizations and individuals who claim to be furthering the right of freedom of expression and other fundamental freedoms. So, for those of us who love our freedoms in Canada, our first priority should be to expose those who claim to be progressive and pacifist, but who ally themselves with Islamo-fascists who abuse their own people and train their children to hate and to kill Jews, in Israel, and now worldwide.

   A key statement in the above paragraphs by Mr. Rotberg is:

how much easier is it to criticize some country or group of people who won't threaten to chop your heads off for that criticism.

   While cowards in the non-Islamic world silence free speech, heroes in the Muslim world speak out.  Abdelkareem Suleiman had the courage criticize Muslims on his web log while living in Egypt.  While blogging about Muslim attacks on Christians that took place in Alexandria in October 2005, Suleiman wrote:

 "The Muslims have taken the mask off to show their true hateful face, and they have shown the world that they are at the top of their brutality, inhumanity, and thievery.”

He also had the courage to write that:

"Some may think that the actions of the Muslims does not represent Islam and has no relationship with the teachings of Islam that was brought by Mohammed fourteen centuries ago, but the truth is that their action is not different from the Islamic teachings in its original form."

And

"professors and sheikhs at Al-Azhar (university) who stand against anyone who thinks freely" would "end up in the dustbin of history".

   Abdelkareem Suleiman was sentenced to Jail.  His web log is www.sandmonkey.org.  A petition seeking his freedom is online for those who wish to sign it.

    President Obama pressured the Egyptian military into removing Egyptian president Mubarak from power by threatening to cut off U.S. aid.  Now Muslim Brotherhood member Morsi is in power, he has dismissed those in the military who were a threat to his position and freedom of speech is being destroyed in Egypt.  Raymond Ibrahim described some of the attacks on the opposition media in Egypt.  In addition those who oppose president Morsi are being crucified.

    Sayed Parwez Kaambakhsh's crime was to have passed around a piece taken from a website questioning why Muslim women cannot have multiple husbands in the same way as their menfolk can legally take four wives.


Sayed Parwez Kaambakhsh, 23, who works for "The New World", a newspaper in Afghanistan's northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif, was prosecuted for downloading an article, apparently gleaned from an Iranian website, and distributing it to his friends.  The article questioned why Muslim women cannot have multiple husbands in the same way as their menfolk can legally take four wives.  For this Mr. Kaambakhsh was sentenced to death According to the Telegraph

The overthrow of the Taliban in 2001 brought a new era of media freedom in Afghanistan. Dozens of newspapers and television stations have sprung up across the country. In practice, however, the authorities are deeply suspicious of journalists and all media outlets face pressure and harassment. Laws protecting the good name of Islam can often be invoked to stifle press criticism.

Why not attack free speech when we know that the speech is wrong?  John Stuart Mill wrote an answer to that question in chapter 2 of "On Liberty" an excerpt of which I quote below:

....The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error...We have now recognized the necessity to the mental well-being of mankind (on which all their other well-being depends) of freedom of opinion, and freedom of the expression of opinion, on four distinct grounds; which we will now briefly recapitulate.

First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility.

Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.

Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds.

And not only this, but fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but encumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience.

    Suppression of free speech allows a government to oppress a people without them even knowing they are oppressed.  Instead they will blame whoever their government wants them to blame and will fight whoever their government wants them to fight.  For example Iraq blamed Kuwait for it's economic troubles.  Iraq with all it's oil could have been a paradise if it hadn't been exploited by the ruling government of Saddam Hussein.  His suppression of free speech enabled him to manipulate Iraqis into invading Kuwait.

    What if a speaker comes who himself silences free speech.  That was the case when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came to speak at Columbia on September 24, 2007.  A former hostage of Iran, Barry Rosen, wrote in the New York Post that:

Ahmadinejad is a reprehensible leader who violates free speech in his own country and cracks down on those Iranians who attempt to open up his repressive regime.  He uses speech to spread age-old anti-Semitic stereotypes in the Middle East, denying the existence of Israel, and denies that the Holocaust ever happened…  It's only when Ahmadinejad permits his own people to march and speak freely, that I believe Columbia President Lee Bollinger would be justified in giving the Iranian president an open forum.

    Columbia invited Ahmadinejad but  retracted a speaking invitation to the president of the Minuteman Project, a citizens' group that seeks to secure America's borders from illegal immigrants.  Columbia also bans ROTC from its campus.  This is selective use of the right of free speech.

   Cheol-Hwan Kang spent 10 years in a North Korean prison camp, where he and his family were sent when he was 9. He defected to South Korea in 1992. He wrote (Beyond Nuclear Blackmail, The Washington Post 7/13/03):

Without warning, appeal or reason, any North Korean can be sent to a slave labor camp for such "crimes" as reading a foreign newspaper, listening to a foreign broadcast, complaining about the food situation or refusing an arbitrary request from an official. Some 200,000 North Koreans are held in these camps, in horrifying conditions of torture, harsh labor, hunger and summary execution. In the past three decades, several hundred thousand North Koreans have died in the camps...  What the North Korean government fears most is that its people will awake from their isolation and ignorance. That is why it imprisons those who listen to foreign broadcasts.

   North Korea tests their chemical weapons on such prisoners.   North Korea has become a nuclear threat to its neighbors.   Free speech could potentially undermine the North Korean regime and end that threat.

    Muslims attempt to silence their critics with charges of racism and incitement.  Miss Fallaci wrote a book that is critical of Islam called the Rage and the Pride.  At a speech before the American Enterprise Institute (10/23/02?) she said that critics have attempted to ban the book or have her arrested in France, Belgium, Switzerland and Italy. The 72-year-old author described these efforts as "intellectual terrorism."  In her prime, Miss Fallaci was famed as a belligerent journalist and argumentative interviewer, who had unprecedented access to the world's most reclusive and wary leaders.  A partisan in the Italian resistance in World War II and a lifelong leftist, she once became so disgusted while interviewing Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini that she ripped off her head scarf and threw it in his face.  The act of defiance was considered an unpardonable sin in the ayatollah's Iran.     A lawsuit brought by the Movement Against Racism and for Friendship Between People, a Muslim human rights group, is demanding that the book be banned in France.  In a ruling that may affect her case, a French court acquitted best-selling French author Michel Houellebecq of charges of racial insult and inciting racial hatred for calling Islam the "dumbest religion."  

    Robert Redeker, was a French public high school teacher who wrote in the newspaper Le Figaro in September 2006 that (French Critic of Islam Flees Threats, The New York Times, 9/29/2006 ):

 Muhammad was "a merciless warlord, a looter, a mass-murderer of Jews and a polygamist." He also called the Koran "a book of incredible violence."   Redeker also compared Islam unfavorably with Christianity and Judaism and criticized the hostile reaction to a recent speech by Pope Benedict XVI that seemed to link Islam and violence.  Redeker wrote:

 "Jesus is a master of love; Muhammad is a master of hatred.  Whereas Judaism and Christianity are religions whose rites forsake violence and remove its legitimacy, Islam is a religion that, in its very sacred text, as much as in some of its everyday rites, exalts violence and hatred. Hatred and violence dwell in the very book that educates any Muslim, the Koran."

Immediately afterward, Redeker began to receive death threats by telephone, e-mail and in the Internet forum. The forum published photos of him, what it said was his home address, directions to his home and his cellphone number.

He said that his wife and their children had also been threatened with death. Asked to describe the sort of threats he had received, Redeker said: "You will never feel secure on this earth. One billion, 300,000 Muslims are ready to kill you." Among the threats was one by a contributor to Al Hesbah, an Internet forum that is said to be a conduit for messages from Al Qaeda and other jihad organizations.

"It is impossible that this day pass without the lions of France punishing him," the Hesbollah contributor wrote. The contributor called on Muslims in France to follow the lead of Muhammad Bouyeri, who murdered the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh after he made a film denouncing the plight of abused Muslim women.

"May God send some lion to cut his head," the contributor said of Redeker, who was described as a "pig."

Robert Spencer wrote an article showing that the accusations made by Redeker are justified.

    Caroline Glick wrote about the fate of Redeker and others in an article titled Our World: After the Muses Fall Silent (Jerusalem Post 11/20/2006).  She wrote:

In France today, high school teacher Robert Redeker has been living in hiding for two months. On September 19 Redeker published an op-ed in Le Figaro in which he decried Islamist intimidation of freedom of thought and expression in the West as manifested by the attacks against Pope Benedict XVI and against Christians in general which followed the pontiff's remarks on jihad earlier that month.

Redeker wrote, "As in the Cold War, where violence and intimidation were the methods used by an ideology hell bent on hegemony, so today Islam tries to put its leaden mantel all over the world. Benedict XVI's cruel experience is testimony to this. Nowadays, as in those times, the West has to be called the 'Free World' in comparison to the Muslim world; likewise, the enemies of the 'Free World,' the zealous bureaucrats of the Koran's vision, who swarm in the very center of the 'Free World,' should be called by their true name."

In reaction to Redeker's column, Egypt banned Le Figaro and Redeker received numerous death threats. His address and maps to his home were published on al-Qaida-linked Web sites and he was forced to leave his job, and flee for his life. While Redeker e-mailed a colleague that French police have set free the man they know was behind the threats to his life, Redeker recently described his plight to a friend in the following fashion, "There is no safe place for me, I have to beg, two evenings here, two evenings there... I am under the constant protection of the police. I must cancel all scheduled conferences."

For its part, Le Figaro's editor appeared on Al-Jazeera to apologize for publishing Redeker's article.

This weekend British author Douglas Murray discussed the intellectual terror in the Netherlands. Murray, who recently published Neoconservativism: Why We Need It, spoke at a conference in Palm Beach, Florida sponsored by the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He noted that the two strongest voices in Holland warning against Islamic subversion of Dutch culture and society - Pim Fortyn and Theo Van Gogh - were murdered.

The third most prominent voice calling for the Dutch to take measures to defend themselves, former member of parliament Ayan Hirsi Ali, lives in Washington, DC today.

Her former colleague in the Dutch parliament, Geert Wilders, has been living under military protection, without a home, for years. In the current elections, Wilders has been unable to campaign because his whereabouts can never be announced. His supporters were reluctant to run for office on his candidates' slate for fear of being similarly threatened with murder. Last month, two of his campaign workers were beaten while putting up campaign posters in Amsterdam.

In 2000, Bart Jan Spruyt, a leading conservative intellectual in Holland established a neoconservative think tank called the Edmund Burke Institute. One of the goals of his institute is to convince the Dutch to defend themselves against the growing Islamist threat. In the period that followed, Spruyt was approached by security services and told that he should hire a bodyguard for personal protection. Although he couldn't afford the cost of a bodyguard, the police eventually provided him with protection after showing up at his office hours after Van Gogh was butchered by a jihadist in the streets of Amsterdam in November 2004.

    Bridgit Bardot has been sued repeatedly for her criticism of Islam in France.  Jacob Laksin in an article titled The War on Bridgit Bardot wrote:

In the 1960s, Brigitte Bardot was France’s national icon, a pouty-lipped poster girl for the glories of her home country. So it is sign of how radically times have changed that yesterday’s silver-screen darling is today’s enemy of the people.

Bardot’s “crimes,” such as they are, are straightforward: She has committed the sin of speaking frankly and unapologetically about her country’s hostile Muslim immigrant population and – what is evidently worse – questioning the compatibility of some Muslim religious practices with Western society...

as France struggles to control a large (Muslims make up nearly ten percent of the country) and increasingly radicalized Muslim population critics of Islamism are finding themselves more actively persecuted by national authorities than the Islamists themselves.

     Oriana Fallaci wrote a book “The Force of Reason” and was sued by Adel Smith the president of the Italian Muslim Union and will be put on trial.   (AGI 5/25/05) This book was written partly in response to threats she received in response to her book the Rage and the Pride.

   Saudis sued the Wall Street Journal to attempt to silence the newspaper's criticism of Saudi Arabia.  Trevor Asserson, who specializes in defamation in the London law office of Morgan Lewis & Bockius said that:

“Some Saudis appear to be using the U.K. as a back door to silence their critics and repress free speech by threatening litigation, persuading publishers to back down rather [than] face years of expensive litigation—even if what they’re publishing might in fact be true.”

   Rachel Ehrenfeld, author of Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It was threatened with a libel lawsuit by Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz.  Rachel Ehrenfeld wrote: (The Saudi Buck Stops Here, frontpagemag.com 3/3/05), that Khalid bin Mahfouz, who is named in all the 9/11 lawsuits, has threatened twenty-nine authors and publishers with libel suits in U.K. courts. None apparently have gone to trial. Instead, the defendants settled at an early stage because they could not, or would not, endure a lengthy and costly lawsuit; they have capitulated, apologized, retracted, and paid fines.

   Robert Spencer wrote frontpage magazine that, the fine was not £30,000, as Mr. Pipes wrote, but more than £87,000 and, with interest, has since more than doubled, to over $180,000. She wrote:

More importantly, I neither paid a fine nor apologized, and do not intend to do either.
 
I did not even acknowledge the British court or its jurisdiction, since I wrote and published the book in the U.S.
 
I commend Mr. Pipes for choosing bin Mahfouz’ lawsuit against me as an example, since bin Mahfouz has sued more than 30 other writers and publishers, including many U.S. citizens and publications, all of whom apologized and paid fines…
 
Finally, in his conciseness, Mr. Pipes neglected to mention that I have sued bin Mahfouz in U.S. Federal Court to protect my First Amendment rights. Winning this case could discourage further Islamists lawsuits against the press.


 Islamists clearly hope, as Douglas Farah notes, that lawsuits will cause researchers and analysts to "get tired of the cost and the hassle and simply shut up.

Ahmed Mansour was expelled from Egypt's Al-Azhar university because of his moderate beliefs about Islam.  He came to the United States and one day visited a local mosque.  Martin Solomon wrote about what happened next.

In late 2003, after visiting the local Islamic Society of Boston mosque in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Ahmed Mansour and his wife emerged in what can only be described as a state of shock. Mansour’s wife had attended a religious lesson and Mansour himself browsed the literature on display. According to the affidavit of Dennis Hale (PDF), Episcopal Lay Minister, Boston College Professor and founder of Citizens for Peace and Tolerance, Mansour informed him that “both the religious lesson and the Arabic newsletters inside the mosque were full of hateful references against the West and Jews.” In particular, he noted that the mosque was touting a fund-raising endorsement for their new mosque project featuring infamous Wahabbi cleric and pitch-man for the Muslim Brotherhood, Sheik Yousef Al-Qaradawi.

Shocked to see that the poison he thought he had left behind, the poison he thought was an ocean away but was following him to America, Mansour spoke out about what he had seen.

As thanks for stepping forward, Mansour has found himself a defendant in a wide-ranging defamation lawsuit, a lawsuit that has involved television and print media outlets, activist organizations, and individuals — anyone, it seemed, who had dared speak or repeat anything less than complimentary about the Islamic Society of Boston.

 

Anti-CAIR does not have that kind of money but CAIR and other Arab propaganda organizations are well funded.  David Frum wrote about other attempts by CAIR to silence opposition and then proceeded to point out their terrorist connections (The Truth About CAIR and Terrorism 11/25/05, Frontpagemag.com):

Two weeks ago, the National Post and I were served with a notice of libel by the Canadian branch of the Council on American Islamic Relations, or CAIR. The Post and I are not alone. Over the past year, CAIR's Canadian and U.S. branches have served similar libel notices on half a dozen other individuals and organizations in the United States and Canada. Each case has its own particular facts, yet they are linked by a common theme: That we defendants have accused CAIR (in the words of the notice served on me) of being "an unscrupulous, Islamist, extremist sympathetic group in Canada supporting terrorism."

   Celebrated author Mark Steyn has been summoned to appear before two Canadian judicial panels on charges linked to his book “America Alone."  According to the New York Post (Canada's Thought Police 12/16/07):

The book, a No. 1 bestseller in Canada, argues that Western nations are succumbing to an Islamist imperialist threat. The fact that charges based on it are proceeding apace proves his point.

Steyn, who won the 2006 Eric Breindel Journalism Award (co-sponsored by The Post and its parent, News Corp), writes for dozens of publications on several continents. After the Canadian general-interest magazine Maclean's reprinted a chapter from the book, five Muslim law-school students, acting through the auspices of the Canadian Islamic Congress, demanded that the magazine be punished for spreading “hatred and contempt" for Muslims.

The plaintiffs allege that Maclean's advocated, among other things, the notion that Islamic culture is incompatible with Canada's liberalized, Western civilization. They insist such a notion is untrue and, in effect, want opinions like that banned from publication.

Two separate panels, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal and the Canadian Human Rights Commission, have agreed to hear the case. These bodies are empowered to hear and rule on cases of purported “hate speech."

Of course, a ban on opinions - even disagreeable ones - is the very antithesis of the Western tradition of free speech and freedom of the press.

Indeed, this whole process of dragging Steyn and the magazine before two separate human-rights bodies for the “crime" of expressing an opinion is a good illustration of precisely what he was talking about.
..

    Robert Spencer pointed out that Steyn was just stating facts and that the statements that he made that the Muslims found objectionable coming from him had already been made by other Muslims.

    Brooke Goldstein wrote in the American Spectator that:

The Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC), which initiated the complaint against Steyn, has previously tried unsuccessfully to sue publications it disagrees with, including Canada's National Post. The not-for-profit organization's president, Mohamed Elmasry, once labeled every adult Jew in Israel a legitimate target for terrorists and is in the habit of accusing his opponents of anti-Islamism -- a charge that is now apparently an actionable claim in Canada. In 2006, after Elmasry publicly accused a spokesman for the Muslim Canadian Congress of being anti-Islamic, the spokesman reportedly resigned amidst fears for his personal safety.

    The Canadian Human Rights Commission is persecuting Steyn.  The complaint filed against Steyn points out he gave a good review to a novel by Ferrigno called Prayers For the Assassin, supposedly a "known Islamophobic book." In doing so, it is alleged, Steyn violated the complainants' "sense of dignity and self-worth."  Prayers For the Assassin is a darkly satiric and suspenseful actioner about a future in which most of America is governed as an Islamic republic after a terrorist nuclear attack and a brutal civil war.

    Michael Mann was a climatologist who was exposed when the East Anglia climategate scam was exposed.  As of this writing (Feb 2014) he is suing Mark Steyn for defamation.  Robert Tracinski wrote:

the DC Superior Court, which let the suit proceed, embraced this reasoning in its ruling.

The CEI Defendants’ persistence despite the EPA and other investigative bodies’ conclusion that Plaintiff’s work is accurate (or that there is no evidence of data manipulation) is equal to a blatant disregard for the falsity of their statements.

In other words, Steyn’s evaluation of Mann’s scientific claims can be legally suppressed because Steyn dares to question the conclusions of established scientific institutions connected to the government. On this basis, the DC Superior Court arrives at the preposterous conclusion that it is a violation of Mann’s rights to “question his intellect and reasoning.”

 

Mullah Krekar a Kurdish Mujahedeed who faces the death penalty in Kurdistan told a Norwegian newspaper that:

"We're the ones who will change you . . . Just look at the development within Europe, where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes. Every western woman in the EU is producing an average of 1.4 children. Every Muslim woman in the same countries is producing 3.5 children." (italics added)    

Steyn quoted Krekar in Canada's McLean's Magazine and both are now getting sued for quoting Krekar mosquito comments. You can't say what a Muslim said if it offends other Muslims in Canada. (O Stalinoid Canada, American Thinker, 6/9/2008)

    Ezra Levant was persecuted by the Canadian Human Rights Commission for printing the Danish cartoons about Muhammad.  You can hear him defending himself against this outrage by clicking here.  In his defence he makes what I think are profound statements about free speech.  Here is an interview with Levant and Claire Lopez about a movie of theirs called Silent Conquest about the loss of Free Speech in the West.

 

 

 Kathy Shaidle wrote how:

Most Canadians don't realize that these Commissions and tribunals aren't "real" courts. They operate outside the criminal justice system in an Orwellian world of their own. To the CHRCs, traditional rules of evidence don't apply. Truth is no defense. Commissioners can confiscate a defendant's computer without a warrant. Defendants can be forced to apologize to their accusers, even though the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that even convicted murderers cannot be obliged to apologize to their victim's family; that, the Court ruled, would be, "cruel and unusual punishment."

Incredibly, the CHRCs boast a Stalinist 100 percent conviction rate: no one has ever been found "not guilty." Columnist David Warren's chilling description of CHRC tribunals is impossible to improve upon:

"They are kangaroo courts, in which the defendant's right to due process is withdrawn. They reach judgments on the basis of no fixed law. Moreover, 'the process is the punishment' in these star chambers -- for simply by agreeing to hear a case, they tie up the defendant in bureaucracy and paperwork, and bleed him for the cost of lawyers, while the person who brings the complaint, however frivolous, stands to lose nothing. (...)

"That's why you go to an HRC: because your case is not good enough to stand up in a legitimate court of law. And because you don't want to invest your own time and money, but would rather the taxpayer provide officers to do the paperwork, and pick up the tab. Instead, you want a slam-dunk way in which you can victimize someone you don't like, by playing the victim yourself, without any financial or legal consequences, except to him. 'Human rights' commissions were designed to provide just this service, for the use of persons who are both litigious, and lazy."

 

   The Canadian Human Rights Commission dismissed a complaint about allegedly Islamophobic articles that appeared in Maclean’s magazine—these included reprinted excerpts from Mark Steyn’s book America Alone—because it lacked jurisdiction over printed material. Below is an excerpt from the statement by the OHRC, as reprinted in the National Post April 10, 2008

While freedom of expression must be recognized as a cornerstone of a functioning democracy, the Commission has serious concerns about the content of a number of articles concerning Muslims that have been published by Maclean’s magazine and other media outlets. This type of media coverage has been identified as contributing to Islamophobia and promoting societal intolerance towards Muslim, Arab and South Asian Canadians. The Commission recognizes and understands the serious harm that such writings cause, both to the targeted communities and society as a whole. And, while we all recognize and promote the inherent value of freedom of expression, it should also be possible to challenge any institution that contributes to the dissemination of destructive, xenophobic opinions.

There are several problems with this statement.  First of all no one is arguing that it should not be possible to challenge other opinions, the argument here is that the CHRC has no right to silence and punish people with opinions it doesn't like.  The second problem is that the opinions that the CHRC considers destructive and xenophobic may not be, in fact one could argue that warning of the dangers of extremist Islam is a very constructive opinion that rather than being xenophobic shows love and concern for potential victims of Islamic xenophobia and may help prevent the spread of Islamic xenophobia through Canada..

     Syed Mumtaz Ali, president of the Canadian Society of Muslims, argues that freedom of religion implies the ability to be governed by one's religious laws. From this he concludes that, in the spirit of "tolerance," Canada must allow Muslims to discipline people who abandon the faith (worldnetdaily 8/6/2008).  What kind of discipline would this be?  All major schools of Islamic jurisprudence stipulate that a sane adult male must be put to death for abandoning Islam, though varying interpretations persist on whether females should be killed or merely imprisoned.  No human rights commission is trying Syed Muntaz Ali. 

Bob Unruh wrote in WorldnetDaily 6/5/2008 that:

A priest is being investigated as a potential criminal under a federal "hate crimes" law for quoting from the Bible, and he's being targeted using a Canadian provision under which no defendant ever has been acquitted, according to a new report.

Pete Vere, a canon lawyer and Catholic journalist, has reported on the prosecution of Father Alphonse de Valk, a pro-life activist known across Canada, by the Canadian Human Rights Commission – "a quasi-judicial investigative body with the power of the Canadian government behind it" – at CatholicExchange.com.

"What was Father de Valk's alleged 'hate act'?" Vere wrote.

"Father defended the [Catholic] Church's teaching on marriage during Canada's same-sex 'marriage' debate, quoting extensively from the Bible, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and Pope John Paul II's encyclicals. Each of these documents contains official Catholic teaching. And like millions of other people throughout the world and the ages – many of whom are non-Catholics and non-Christians — Father believes that marriage is an exclusive union between a man and a woman," he wrote...

Besides the complaints against the priest and Steyn, other cases already have substantiated the Canadian precedent that Christian beliefs can be evidence for convictions.

In 2005, a Knights of Columbus council was fined more than $1,000 for refusing to allow its facility to be used for a lesbian "wedding," and before that printer Scott Brockie was fined $5,000 for declining to print homosexual-themed stationery. Also, in Saskatechewan, Hugh Owens was fined thousands of dollars for quoting Bible verses in a newspaper and London, Ontario, mayor Diane Haskett was fined $10,000 for refusing to proclaim a homosexual pride day, Vere enumerated.

Bishop Fred Henry has described the situation as "a new form of censorship and thought control." Those are the same words leading Christians in the United States have used to describe the most recent "hate crimes" plan before the U.S. Congress, which specifically targeted for elimination criticism of alternative sexual lifestyles.

Vere also warned that in the Steyn case, the bottom line is that a Canadian human rights tribunal now is "attempting to prosecute a case against an American resident, based upon what an American citizen allegedly posted to a mainstream American Catholic website. What passes for mainstream Catholic discussion in America is now the basis for a hate complaint in Canada."

But the United States is not immune to such work, either, he noted, citing the New Mexico photographer fined $6,600 for refusing to meet the demands of a lesbian to take pictures at a "wedding."

Also, California has set in state law a ban on introducing anything but "positive" information about alternative sexual lifestyles, including homosexuality, in its public school.

And WND reported just days earlier when a verbal spat between two men on a street in Champaign, Ill., left the self-proclaimed homosexual facing no charges, and the other, an 18-year-old Christian student, facing felony "hate crimes" counts.

    Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of the bakery, "Sweetcakes by Melissa" were fined $135,000 for refusing to violate their Christian faith by creating a wedding cake for a lesbian duo.  

    Brad Avakian, Oregon’s Bureau of Labor & Industries Commissioner, upheld the ruling that the Kleins have to pay the lesbian couple $135,000 for a long list of alleged damages including: ‘acute loss of confidence,’ ‘high blood pressure,’ ‘impaired digestion,’ ‘loss of appetite,’ ‘migraine headaches,’ ‘pale and sick at home after work,’ ‘resumption of smoking habit,’ ‘weight gain,’ and ‘worry.’ Give me a break. In my opinion, this couple should pay the Kleins $135,000 for all they’ve been through!” He continued: “Even more outrageous is that Avakian has also now ordered the Kleins to ‘cease and desist’ from speaking publicly about not wanting to bake cakes for same-sex weddings based on their Christian beliefs.

   Brendan Eich – the tech prodigy who created JavaScript and co-founded Mozilla, maker of the popular Firefox browser – committed the unpardonable sin of donating, years earlier, $1,000 to California’s Proposition 8 upholding traditional marriage.  As punishment he was forced out as CEO of his company.  David Kupelian, in an article titled Meet the New Fascists and Their Victims wrote:

what happened to Brendan Eich – widely denounced as “fascist,” “totalitarian,” “mafia”-like and “gestapo”-like – is not only not unusual in today’s America, it has become a routine and disgraceful part of the normal warp and weft of our daily lives:

John Stossel wrote:

A year and a half later Eich still can't find a job...  Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton opposed gay marriage, too. But in just five years, such opinions have become so “unacceptable” that a tech genius is ostracized by his own industry.

    You can be fined up to $250,000 by the city of New York if you call someone who had a sex operation from male to female a he and vice versa.

Jeff Jacoby wrote about how the Islamic Society of Boston is suing those who are concerned about the radicalism of its members.  He wrote (A Radioactive Mosque 1/1/06):

 for more than two years, questions have been raised about just how committed the Islamic Society really is to moderation and interfaith understanding. Beginning with reports in the Boston Herald, news outlets, citizen groups, political officials, and private citizens have been pointing out disturbing signs of extremist "radioactivity" around the Islamic Society and its leadership. To mention only a few:

 

+ The society's original founder, Abdurahman Alamoudi, is now serving a 23-year prison term for his role in a terrorist assassination plot. The Treasury Department identified him as a fund-raiser for Al Qaeda, and he has publicly proclaimed his support for two notorious terrorist groups, Hamas and Hezbollah.

 

+ Yusef al-Qaradawi, who for several years was listed as a trustee in Islamic Society of Boston tax filings and on the ISB website -- the ISB now claims that was due to an "administrative oversight" -- is a radical Islamist cleric who has endorsed suicide bombings and the killing of Americans in Iraq. In 2002, he was invited to address an Islamic Society fund-raiser, but had to do so by video from Qatar -- he has been barred since 1999 from entering the United States.

 

+ Another Islamic Society trustee, Walid Fitaihi, is the author of writings that denounce Jews as "murderers of the prophets" who "brought the worst corruption to the earth" and should be punished for their "oppression, murder, and rape of the worshipers of Allah." After Fitaihi's words were reported in the Boston press, the Islamic Society was urged to unequivocally repudiate them. It took seven months before it finally did so.

 

+ When Ahmed Mansour, an Egyptian-born Muslim scholar, examined the Islamic Society's library in 2003, he found books and videotapes promoting hostility toward the United States and insulting other religions. Among the publications on hand were several of those listed in the Freedom House report.

 

    Individually, none of these points proves that there is anything amiss with the Islamic Society of Boston. Taken together, they give rise to obvious questions and concerns. Surely the Islamic Society, which emphasizes its commitment to moderation, tolerance, sincerity, and dialogue, should be at pains to answer those questions and allay those concerns. Instead it accuses its critics of defamation, and has sued many of them for -- of all things -- conspiring to deprive Boston-area Muslims of their religious freedom

 

Two Jewish students received death threats after putting up pro-Israel posters in Belgium   (www.haaretzdaily.com 12/27/02)

The posters conveyed messages such as

"Which was the first state in the Middle East which gave Arab women the right to vote,"

and

"Terror attacks against civilians are an abomination."

The next morning, the two students received phone calls from an anonymous caller who had a Middle Eastern accent, and threatened to attack them.

"We know who you are and where you live,"

 the caller threatened, in the call to Nicole.

"We also know that you have a brother, as well as the license number of your car and the place where you park it.  If the flyer isn't removed by the evening, we'll burn the car, and harm you and your family."

Benjamin, 22, received a similar phone call.

Soon after the two students received cellphone messages which cited their addresses and their cars' license plate numbers. These messages conveyed a new threat: the students were warned that "

we will burn the union of Jewish students in Belgium building [UEJB]"

if the posters remain on the walls.

   Speaking out against Islam is risky.  After the late Dutch sociologist-turned-politician Pim Fortuyn sounded the alarm about the danger that Europe’s Islamization posed to democracy, elite journalists labeled him a threat. A New York Times headline described him as marching the dutch to the right. Dutch newspapers Het Parool and De Volkskrant compared him with Mussolini; Trouw likened him to Hitler. He was murdered by a man who said his views were dangerous.  Theo van Gogh was also murdered.  He was the coauthor of the film "Submission" with Somali-born Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a member of the Dutch parliament who had renounced the Islamic faith of her birth.( My Way News 11/2/04)   Their film told the fictional story of a Muslim woman forced into a violent marriage, raped by a relative and brutally punished for adultery. This film enraged the Muslims of the Netherlands and led to his murder even though it is based on similar stories that have occurred in real life.  The murderer of Van Gogh explained that the killing was justified by Islamic law that "instructs me to chop off the heads of anyone who insults Allah or the prophet."  What this means is that anyone who speaks the truth about Islam must have his head chopped off according to Islamic law.  After the murder the daily, De Telegraaf, "Afraid of being called racist, we have been so tolerant with regard to these religious fascists that they have been allowed to merrily undermine the roots of our freedom."

   24 hours after the silencing of Van Gogh, Geert Wilders, a democratically elected representative of the Dutch people in parliament received a note in his mailbox addressed to him as "ugly dog".  It told him he would soon be beheaded. 

"Do not think you are safe, because we will catch you and cut your ugly head off." 

Wilders, who had been planning to form a party to tackle "the Islamic problem" now also has 24-hour police protection.   According to frontpagemag.com (Dutch Death 11/9/04)

Outside parliament, a Dutch TV chat show host has also been given protection.  And the mayor of Amsterdam, Job Cohen has also now been put on the hit list, as has the deputy mayor, fellow Muslim Ahmed Aboutaleb.

  In April 2013 the Kuwaiti Parliament approved the death penalty for those who insult Allah.

   Fear of Muslims combined with multiculturalist ideology leads non-Muslim westerners to silence criticism of Islam and to defend it.The Dutch police also silence free speech in Holland.  The day after the murder of Van Gogh, Chris Ripke created a mural which depicted an angel and the words, "Thou shalt not kill".  According to the Dutch Death article:

Ripke's studio is next to a mosque and an imam lost no time in racing off to the police to complain that the mural was "racist".   Not only did the dhimmi Rotterdam police destroy Ripke's mural, but they arrested television journalists filming it and erased their tape.

   In January 2005, a high school in Ijsselstein, Holland, ordered two students to remove patches of the Dutch flag from their backpacks because the administration feared they would provoke Moroccan students. Bans on the Dutch flag were already in place at other Dutch schools  (Banning Patriotism, frontpagemagazine.com 4/25/2006) .

    Bruce Bawer wrote an article in Frontpage magazine about the Western defense of Islam.  He wrote:

 Perhaps no Western media outlet has exhibited this habit of moral inversion more regularly than the BBC. In 2006, to take a typical example, Manchester’s top imam told psychotherapist John Casson that he supported the death penalty for homosexuality. Casson expressed shock—and the BBC, in a dispatch headlined imam accused of “gay death” slur, spun the controversy as an effort by Casson to discredit Islam. The BBC concluded its story with comments from an Islamic Human Rights Commission spokesman, who equated Muslim attitudes toward homosexuality with those of “other orthodox religions, such as Catholicism” and complained that focusing on the issue was “part of demonizing Muslims.”

In June 2005, the BBC aired the documentary Don’t Panic, I’m Islamic, which sought to portray concerns about Islamic radicalism as overblown. This “stunning whitewash of radical Islam,” as Little Green Footballs blogger Charles Johnson put it, “helped keep the British public fast asleep, a few weeks before the bombs went off in London subways and buses” in July 2005. In December 2007, it emerged that five of the documentary’s subjects, served up on the show as examples of innocuous Muslims-next-door, had been charged in those terrorist attacks...

    The New York Times also whitewashes Islam.  Bruce Bawer wrote:

Witness Andrea Elliott’s affectionate three-part profile of a Brooklyn imam, which appeared in the New York Times in March 2006. Elliott and the Times sought to portray Reda Shata as a heroic bridge builder between two cultures, leaving readers with the comforting belief that the growth of Islam in America was not only harmless but positive, even beautiful. Though it emerged in passing that Shata didn’t speak English, refused to shake women’s hands, wanted to forbid music, and supported Hamas and suicide bombing, Elliott did her best to downplay such unpleasant details; instead, she focused on sympathetic personal particulars. “Islam came to him softly, in the rhythms of his grandmother’s voice”; “Mr. Shata discovered love 15 years ago. . . . ‘She entered my heart,‘ said the imam.” Elliott’s saccharine piece won a Pulitzer Prize. When Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes pointed out that Shata was obviously an Islamist, a writer for the Columbia Journalism Review dismissed Pipes as “right-wing” and insisted that Shata was “very moderate.”

   There are many more examples in Bruce Bawer's article.

When the media found out that Robert Spencer was giving a talk at the Catholic Men's Conference in Worcester they encouraged Muslims to put pressure on the Diocese of Worcester to cancel the talk which they did.  Pamela Geller tells the outrageous story below.

 

     Irshad Manji in an article titled Challenging Islam is Risky (frontpagemag.com 11/4/04) wrote:

My book, "The Trouble with Islam," has put me on the receiving end of anger, hatred and vitriol. That's because I'm asking questions that we Muslims can no longer hide from. Why, for example, are we squandering the talents of half of God's creation, women? What's with the stubborn streak of anti-Semitism in Islam today? Above all, how can even moderate Muslims view the Koran literally when it, like every holy text, abounds in contradictions and ambiguity? The trouble with Islam today is that literalism is going mainstream.

Muslims who take offense at these points often wind up reinforcing them in their responses to me. I regularly get death threats through my Web site. Some of my would-be assassins emphasize the virtues of martyrdom, wanting to hurl me into the "flames of hell" in exchange for 72 virgins. Others simply want to know what plane I'm next boarding, so they can hijack it. Somehow, I don't feel the urge to share my schedule.

A few threats have been up-close and personal. At an airport in North America, a Muslim man approached my traveling companion to say, "You're luckier than your friend." When she asked him to explain, he turned his hand into the shape of a gun and pulled the trigger. "She will find out later what that means," he intoned.

But, for all of the threats, there's good news: I'm hearing more support, affection and even love from fellow Muslims than I thought possible. Two groups in particular -- young Muslims and Muslim women -- have flooded my Web site with letters of relief and thanks. They are relieved that somebody is saying out loud words they have only whispered, and grateful that they're being given the permission to think for themselves.

    Challenging Islam is also risky in the United States.  According to the New York Sun, (Christians on PalTalk Chat Service Tracked by Radical Islamic Web Site 1/31/05)  A radical Islamic Web site systematically tracks Christians on PalTalk.com.  According to the Sun:

The password protected Arabic Web site, at the address www.barsomyat.com, features pictures and information about Christians who have been particularly active in debating Muslims on PalTalk.

One page from barsomyat.com features a group of photographs of a Syrian Christian, "Joseph," who now lives in Canada. Barsomyat.com's users have posted personal information about Joseph, including his brother's parole status, and make clear that they are actively trying to track down his current address.

Subscribers also post explicit warnings to Joseph. One comment states, "Know, oh Christian, that you are not far from us and you are under our watchful eyes!" Another user remarks, "Laugh, oh Christian, and soon you will see a big hit."

Ahmed Paul, an Egyptian Christian and a theology student in America, said he believes Joseph was targeted because he frequently engaged in debates with Muslims on PalTalk. The Internet chat service attracts up to 3 million users a month, and subjects range from movies to music to religion to adult topics - and some Arabic-speaking users of PalTalk have reported that contentious debates between Christians and Muslims are common in certain chat rooms... [M]any barsomyat.com users expressed jubilation at the deaths.

One user posted a photograph of Hossam Armanious and wrote, "This is a picture of the filthy dog, curser of Muhammad, and a photo of his filthy wife, curser of Muhammad. They got what they deserved for their actions in America."..

Barsomyat.com features not only photographs of the targeted Christians, but also attempts to track down their addresses. A post about a Christian man whose computer was apparently hacked to obtain his photograph includes the man's PalTalk name, his real name, and the city where he resides in Lebanon.

Another barsomyat.com entry outlines the relations (both blood and marital) between four Christians who are apparently PalTalk users, posts photographs of them, and then states, "We have postponed publishing this information because there is a lot more to be revealed when the time is right."

   According to Maria Sliwa (Ignoring Muslim Murder on U.S. Soil, frontpagemag.com 3/4/05)

A former Muslim from Egypt, who wouldn't give his name for this article for fear of retribution, says he fled to America in 1992, after he was severely beaten for converting to Christianity. He says he was threatened in 2001 when he began discussing his faith with Muslims on PalTalk, a New York City-based internet chat service. Though Saleh admits that his debates were often too fervent on the net, he was shocked to find photos of himself and family members, along with all of his contact information, on a radical Islamic website called Gegadeath.com. Below Saleh's picture was a statement of warning. After he appeared on Gegadeath, Saleh says he received numerous death threats on the phone and quickly moved to another state.

Last month Ahmed Mohamed, 36, a former Muslim in Colorado, who converted to Christianity, discovered that his photo and contact information were posted on another radical Islamic website, Barsomyat.com, along with accusations that he'd been debating Muslims on PalTalk. He says that since his information was posted, he has received numerous threats on the phone, in person and in letters he has received in the mail.

On March 6, Ahmed Mohamed, a convert to the Coptic Christian Church, who uses the moniker "Ahmed_love_Jesus" on PalTalk received the following threat: (wnd.com 3/12/05)

Know this, Ahmed_love_Jesus, we tracked you and being in America will not help you. Your blood is lawful and we will kill you soon.

If you were with me I would have killed you.

I will know where you are and kill you someday.

Ahmed_Love_Jesus, by the life of your mother's [obscenity deleted], your blood is lawful. We know where you are in America and we will slaughter you like the lamb that you worship.

    The address of Jeremy Reynalds was posted on the Houston-based site Al Ansar by Muslims as well as a posting which offered prayers to Allah that Reynalds' "fatty neck" would be delivered to them, a reference to Islamists' common method of decapitation. (CAIR's War on National Review, frontpagemag.com 3/30/05).  

Michael Graham was fired by ABC radio for linking Islam to terrorism. (Talk Show Host Fired for Linking Islam, Terror, worldnetdaily 8/23/05)  

Graham explained that when a significant minority of a group conducts terrorism and the general population of that group does not denounce it, it is safe to conclude that the group promotes it.

He drew an analogy between Islam and the Boy Scouts.

"If the Boy Scouts of America had 1,000 scout troops, and 10 of them practiced suicide bombings, then the BSA would be considered a terrorist organization," he said. "If the BSA refused to kick out those 10 troops, that would make the case even stronger. If people defending terror repeatedly turned to the Boy Scout handbook and found language that justified and defended murder – and the scoutmasters in charge simply said 'Could be' – the Boy Scouts would have driven out of America long ago."

When he was in danger of being fired he wrote an article called The Tragedy of Islam which can be viewed by clicking here.

After he was fired he said:

"It appears that ABC Radio has caved to an organization that condemns talk radio hosts like me, but has never condemned Hamas, Hezbollah, and one that wouldn't specifically condemn al-Qaida for three months after 9-11," he said. "As a fan of talk radio, I find it absolutely outrageous that pressure from a special interest group like CAIR can result in the abandonment of free speech and open discourse on a talk radio show. As a conservative talk host whose job is to have an open, honest conversation each day with my listeners, I believe caving to this pressure is a disaster."

   Fear of Muslim wrath may be the reason ABC fired Michael Graham.  It is also the reason that the Marriott hotel chain turned down a "terrorism" symposium.

    After researching the matter, the Marriott’s corporate office supported the local decision and issued the following statement; “Due to the high density of Muslim Students on campus, we’re afraid of the potential for violent protests, injured employees and damage to the facility”.   Concurrently, another Marriott Hotel in the Washington area hosted CAIR’s annual conference. Participating as a panelist at their gala, was an alleged coconspirator of the 1993 WTC bombing. (Sleeping with the Enemy at the Marriott) 12/3/05.

 Chauncey Bailey of the Oakland Post was working on a story about a bakery owned by the Bey family that was under investigation by police in connection with assaults, a kidnapping, two homicides, and a case of torture.  A handyman working for the Black Muslim Bakery in Oakland shot Chauncey Bailey and killed him.  According to Lloyd Billingsley (frontpagemag 8/8/07), the Bey family established what amounted to a miniature Taliban state.  They would shoot guns in the air and terrify the residents.  Chris Thompson wrote that

"white and black leaders alike have embraced Bey as a pillar of the African-American community. Whether due to cowardice, ignorance, or Machiavellian realpolitik, government officials and media outlets have chosen inaction and silence – a choice with terrible ramifications for some Oakland residents."

   Claire Lopez wrote in the Middle East Times (5/1/08) that:

 the White House announced that government employees both at home and abroad must employ euphemisms such as "violent extremists" or "South Asian youths" instead of "Muslim jihadis"

   Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen,  had a fatwa issued against her in 1993 after the publication of her novel Lajja (Shame), which depicted the persecution of Bangladesh's Hindu minority. The Hindustan Times recently reported that Nasreen "had to leave the country overnight to save her life and his been on [the] run since then."

    According to Bat Ye'or in her book Eurabia, fear of Islamic terror is silencing those who would otherwise support Israel.  The voices of the large influx of anti-Israeli immigrants are heard.   As a result the population of Europe is being brainwashed into hating Israel.   The same fear that silences supporters of Israel silences critics of Islam so that as Europeans are losing their freedoms their media teaches them to blame Israel and the United States instead of the growing Islamic threat in their midst.

    Blasphemy laws are a way to silence legitimate criticism of a religion.  Critics of the blasphemy law in Pakistan call it a tool in the hands of Islamic fundamentalists in their effort to make the entire country Muslim. (WorldNetDaily reported (6/2/07) how Masih, a Christian from Chungi Amar Sadu in Lahore, was charged Sept. 10, 2005, with blasphemy against the Prophet Muhammad, a charge that carries the death penalty.  Masih was outspoken against incidents of rape committed against Christian girls, and is a Christian himself. It is believed these were the reasons he was accused of blasphemy.

    A fatwa was issued against Salman Rushdie for writing the Satanic verses.  Daveed Gartenstein-Ross in an article (The Jyllands-Posten cultural editor Flemming Rose  decided, courageously, to publish critical caricatures of Mohammad in response to the worsening climate of fear overcoming European artists and writers who censured themselves due to the threat of violent Muslim reprisals.  Violent protests in which Danish embassies were destroyed soon followed as did a boycott on Danish Goods by Islamic countries. The Pakistani Jamaaat-e-Islami party offered a large reward to anyone who killed any of the cartoonists.  According to worldnetdaily 2/24/06) In Londonistan deranged protesters carried posters reading:  EXTERMINATE THOSE WHO MOCK ISLAM and BE PREPARED FOR THE REAL HOLOCAUST (Cartoonish Dhimmitude in America, Frontpage Magazine 2/8/2006)

Following the tumultuous events of this past week, Rose remained entirely unbowed: “Apologizing would imply that if you intimidate us enough we will follow your demands…This is blackmail. You cannot edit this newspaper [Jyllands-Posten] according to mafia rules.”

He fully accepted his decision to uphold free speech which might conceivably cost his life and the lives of the cartoonists whom he commissioned (and in fact are now hiding for their very lives): “I do not regret it…It is a bit like asking a rape victim if she regrets wearing a short skirt at a disco.”

Mr. Rose wrote a book titled the Tyranny of Silence.  He gave a talk in which he said:

European laws balance freedom of expression against other rights such as the right to privacy and the right not to be offended. Therefore, European countries have various laws prohibiting hate speech, religious denigration, and racism. However, “almost absolute” freedom of speech, with exceptions for incitement to violence and defamation of individuals, “makes America unique.” Free speech is “not a balancing test” against the so-called right not to be offended. Offensive speech is constitutionally protected if it’s true or mere opinion.

Rose noted that hate speech restrictions have not reduced violence. Indeed, riots have always erupted in countries where hate speech, blasphemy laws and other speech restrictions exist, but have been violated. Proponents of hate speech laws claim that hate speech leads to violent acts, but there is no evidence to support their claims. In countries where freedom flourishes, offensive expression incites minimal violence.

“The right not to be offended” is the only right Rose believes individuals should not have in a democracy. Freedom should be paramount.

The distressing reaction to this cartoon jihad by most United States political and media elites has been one of craven, and ill-informed dhimmitude. Pious pronouncements condemning the cartoons and their publication have been issued across the political spectrum, from the State Department, to the Washington Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt, to conservative blogger Hugh Hewitt. Mainstream television and print news media have declared, uniformly, that they will not display the cartoons. Will these self-righteous institutions and individuals remain unmoved even by appeals from those intrepid secular Muslims, such as Ibn Warraq, who have embraced our uniquely Western heritage, and are struggling to defend it? In Der Spiegel, on Friday February 3, Warraq elucidated what is at stake:

 

The cartoons in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten raise the most important question of our times: freedom of expression. Are we in the west going to cave into pressure from societies with a medieval mindset, or are we going to defend our most precious freedom -- freedom of expression, a freedom for which thousands of people sacrificed their lives? A democracy cannot survive long without freedom of expression, the freedom to argue, to dissent, even to insult and offend. It is a freedom sorely lacking in the Islamic world, and without it Islam will remain unassailed in its dogmatic, fanatical, medieval fortress; ossified, totalitarian and intolerant. Without this fundamental freedom, Islam will continue to stifle thought, human rights, individuality; originality and truth.

 

Freedom of expression is our western heritage and we must defend it or it will die from totalitarian attacks. It is also much needed in the Islamic world. By defending our values, we are teaching the Islamic world a valuable lesson, we are helping them by submitting their cherished traditions to Enlightenment values.

   Caroline Glick wrote about how the West Caved in (Strong Leadership For Peace, Jerusalem Post 3/3/2006):

In Britain the media refused to publish the pictures of Muhammad - out of sensitivity for Muslim feelings, of course. The newspaper editor who published the pictures in France was fired. In Norway, the editor who published the pictures was forced to publicly apologize to Norway's Muslim leaders in a humiliating public ceremony. Franco Frattini, the EU's Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security said it would be useful for the press to "self-regulate" in attempting to find answers to question of "How are we to reconcile freedom of expression and respect for each individual's deepest convictions?"
 

And so, the European reaction to the Muslim rampages has involved slouching towards the surrender of their freedom of speech. Not only has Europe's appeasement of radical Islam not protected its liberal values, it has undermined the democratic freedoms that form the foundations of European culture. From a security perspective, the consequence of the silencing of pubic debate on the challenge of radical Islam is that Europeans are now effectively barred from conducting a public discussion about the chief threat to their political traditions and physical survival.

    The European Union advocates an exclusive definition of Jihad as "spiritual struggle" in public discourse in order not to offend Muslims (Andrew Bostom, Robert Spencer in an article about Islam’s silencing of critics wrote (frontpagemag.com 4/25/07):

On Thursday, April 12, a gang of Somali thugs on a downtown Oslo street attacked Kadra, a Somali woman who now lives in Norway, and beat her senseless, breaking several of her ribs. They were enraged at her for her recent statement that the Qur’an’s views of women needed reevaluation. They also might have been angry because of her role in revealing the widespread support among imams in Norway for female genital mutilation; Kadra exposed their support for this horrific procedure using a hidden camera in a 2000 documentary for Norwegian television….

The following Tuesday, two men in Mississauga, Ontario, attacked journalist Jawaad Faizi, who writes for the Pakistan Post, a newspaper based in Mississauga. The attackers told Faizi to stop “writing against Islam,” and particularly to stop criticizing an Islamic organization, Idara Minhaj-ul-Quran, and its leader, a Muslim cleric named Allama Tahir-Ul-Qadri.

Free Speech in Russia

    Vladimir Putin has been curtailing Russian freedoms.  Anna Politkovskaya was a Russian journalist who regularly reported on Vladimir Putin's undermining of press and other freedoms in Russia.  She is one of many who have been killed.  The Washington Times (11/27/06) reported that:

Alexander Litvinenko, the one-time KGB agent who has lived in London with his family for several years, died Thursday from poisoning by the radioactive element polonium 210. He had been investigating the death of Mrs. Politkovskaya. In a dramatic statement dictated from his hospital bed and read outside the hospital shortly after his death, he accused the "barbaric and ruthless" Mr. Putin of ordering his poisoning.

   Paul Joyal an expert on the Soviet Union told “Dateline”after the Litvinenko murder that: "A message has been communicated to anyone who wants to speak out against the Kremlin: 'If you do, no matter who you are, where you are, we will find you, and we will silence you -- in the most horrible way possible.' frontpagemag.com 10/23/2006).  

Nathan Thornburgh wrote an article for Time Magazine about Russia.  He wrote:

In a meeting at the Kremlin before I began my trip, Putin's spokesman didn't even try to deny that national news was slanted in the government's favor. But he said the regional media were thriving and independent. Study them, he said, and "you will understand that this is the freest country in the world."

I met journalists throughout my travels and found the Kremlin's assessment disingenuous at best. "In America, you are free to criticize Bush," a television talk-show host told me in his kitchen in Novgorod. "Me too. I am also free to criticize Bush." He laughed. Then, not smiling, he said, "I'm actually scared to be talking to you. TIME magazine is far away. But if I express my opinions, I'll have to face the authorities — not Putin, but someone here on a local or provincial level. I'll lose my job." ...

    Another article in the same issue of Time Magazine was written by Adi Ignatius.  He wrote:

Dmitri Muratov also knows the difficulties of life in the Putin era. A soft spoken, heavyset man whose neatly trimmed beard is turning gray, Muratov is the editor in chief of Novaya Gazeta, a Moscow newspaper, published twice a week, with a reputation for pursuing tough investigative pieces. In the past seven years, three of his journalists have been murdered; all were looking into corruption and wrongdoing. After the third murder, Muratov decided to close the 14-year-old paper to avoid putting any other journalist at risk. But his staff talked him out of it. The paper is perpetually harassed by officials around the country, but, Muratov notes with a weary smile, "we're still alive."

The last of Muratov's journalists to die, Anna Politkovskaya, was shot in the elevator of her apartment building last year on Oct. 7. Alexander Litvinenko, a former FSB officer turned government critic living in London, accused Putin of sanctioning the killing. Within weeks, Litvinenko himself was dead too, killed by radiation poisoning from a mysterious dose of polonium 210. (Britain wants to charge a former KGB officer, Andre Lugovoy, who has just been elected to Russia's parliament, with the killing. He denies it, and Russian law prevents the extradition of Russian citizens.)

     Stephen Brown wrote in Frontpage Magazine on 9/2/208 that:

 The murder of anti-government journalist, Magomed Yevloyev, in Ingushetia by police on Sunday is just the latest indication that the Putin regime doesn't flinch to eliminate dissent in all of its forms.

    Ralph Peters wrote that (New York Post 9/8/2008):

Magomed Yevloyev, a Web-site publisher from Ingushetia, was abducted from a commercial airliner by the police. The cops shot him and dumped his body.

Two days later, TV reporter Abdulla Alishayev was shot and killed in the nearby "republic" of Daghestan. Russian government sources blame "Wahhabis."

Plus, a reporter and editor, Milosla Bitokov, from the Karbardino-Balkar "republic," was beaten so badly he had to be hospitalized. But, given all the journalists Putin has murdered since he came to power, a few broken bones or a fractured skull hardly count.

Jacob Laksin wrote in July 24, 2012:

The past year has seen an inspired stirring of political opposition in Russia, as thousands of young and middle-class Russians have poured out onto the streets to protest the country’s regressive slide into authoritarianism under Vladimir Putin. For sheer novelty and provocation, however, no protest action quite matched the spectacle that took place this past February, when the members of all-female punk rock band Pussy Riot commandeered the altar of Moscow’s main cathedral and, clad in multicolored balaclava masks, proceeded to belt out a protest song titled “Virgin Mary, Redeem Us of Putin.”

  

 An increasingly rare piece of political blasphemy, the song assailed the Russian Orthodox Church for its uncomfortably close ties to the Russian president. That subservience was exemplified by the Church patriarch’s devout assessment prior to the presidential election this spring that Putin’s democracy-trampling 12-year rule represented nothing less than a ”miracle of God.” In mocking the Church, Pussy Riot’s lyrics proclaimed that the “head of the KGB is their chief saint.”

Pussy Riot has been in prison since March (it is July as of this writing) without a trial.

 

Free Speech in Venezuela

   Shouting "We Want Freedom!" and waving Venezuelan flags, demonstrators warned that President Hugo Chavez's plan to replace Radio Caracas Television with a public-service station is part of a broad effort to silence criticism. The banner that snaked through the streets read "Freedom of Expression, SOS" in 10 different languages on May 21, 2007.

Free Speech in Cuba

   Cuba brutally suppresses free speech.  Jeff Jacoby wrote an article titled A Hero in Castro's Gulag with an example of this (Boston Globe 11/4/07).

Free Speech in France

Staff of the Satirical French magazine Charlie Hebdo were murdered in France because of their cartoons about Muhammad.  Prior to those attacks they were targets of the honor brigade an organized campaign to silence debate about Islam.

Free Speech in the USA

    Wearing a shirt with a message is a form of speech.  A man who was wearing a pro-Trump shirt saved a baby from a locked car.  A CNN owned news station blurred out his shirt so that people couldn't read that he was pro-Trump.

 

 

    In an article titled Evidence Mounts of a Manufactured Border Crisis Roger Aronoff wrote:

The Obama administration has been silencing the press and people hired by the government about the immigrants flooding the country from Latin America.  Also making their way to our communities are unaccompanied children and women with children who are being smuggled in by “coyotes.” Many of these children become victims of sex or criminal abuse during the journey. Facilities are becoming overrun with immigrants suffering from mental, emotional, and physical illnesses such lice, scabies, tuberculosis and chicken pox. In order to keep this information from the public, the Department of Health and Human Services imposed a gag order so that the staff at one facility couldn’t tell the press anything. Even a Congressman was initially not allowed to enter a different facility, until he repeatedly pushed for it.

Continuing their strong-arm tactics with the press, the administration issued a series of rules for the media visiting Fort Sill: don’t record anything, ask questions, or, in general, do the investigative work of good journalism. In addition, pictures were to be provided afterwards for the media’s use. One wonders how the media would have reacted had the Bush administration put such restrictions on them during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Here is a message from Joseph Farah from July 2014 promoting a book about the attack on free speech.

There's a war on free speech in America


 
I never thought I would see this day.

I remember when the First Amendment was sacred to the left-wing progressives – or so they said.

But that's history.

Today, from the highest levels of government, including Barack Obama's White House, to the grass-roots "progressive" activists, freedom of speech is under constant attack:

 
    • The IRS is targeting political "enemies" – like you and me;

    • The Federal Elections Commission actually considered a plan to eavesdrop on newsrooms, supposedly to learn about the process of making news judgments;

    • The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission gave an interview explaining how his colleagues want to stifle freedom of the press by alternative news outlets including the DrudgeReport;

This book, "Shut Up, America," explains the game plan in detail. It's not just restoration of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine." It's not just the imposition of "hate crimes" laws meant to punish speech and thoughts. It's not just tapping the phones of key journalists. There's much more going on than meets the eye.

I want everyone in America to read this work so you can see what is coming next. It's all laid out in one package. If you have a heart for saving America from the thought police and a new era of totalitarianism, you need this book.

That's why I am reducing the price to just $9.95 for this hardcover work by Brad O'Leary. I wish I could give it away, but I can't.

Only a complete understanding of the strategy behind all of the chilling developments you've been hearing about can avert disaster for America. And that strategy is laid out brilliantly in "Shut Up, America."

Please get it today - while you still can.

Sincerely,



 

 

Free Speech in Mexico Somalia and the USA

 

Jeremy Scahill above states that there is a war on journalism in these countries.  The Obama administration has seized phone records of news organizations in order to find who leaked them information.  Jeremy makes a statement that George Bush, Obama's predecessor was also against freedom of the press but gave no evidence supporting that statement and I haven't heard any.

    There are those who wish to silence people who don't believe that man has a significant role in global warming.  President Obama told the Coast Guard that denying climate change is a dereliction of duty

Free Speech in France

 

 

Free Speech in Spain

     Isaac Barbero wrote that:

There is also an increasing demand for a change in history textbooks to downplay our seven-century struggle against Arab occupation. The coat of arms of one of Spain’s regions has been changed to erase a Moor head that has been in it for centuries. There is mounting pressure for similar changes of potentially offensive popular celebrations that commemorate famous battles between Christians and Muslims during the 711-1492 period.

Free Speech in South Africa

South African Radio Station Fined for Unflattering Mention of Islam

South Africa: SABC TV Journalist disciplined for blaming Islam for terror attacks
 

Free Speech and the Internet

    The internet is creating a free flow of ideas all over the world.  Free speech is a threat to repressive regimes such as China which are cracking down on the free flow of ideas on the internet.   According to an article in the Observer (Microsoft in Human Rights Row, 2/1/2004):

China is the world's most aggressive censor of the internet. Websites are banned for using words such as 'Taiwan', 'Tibet', 'democracy', 'dissident' and 'human rights'. Amnesty has recorded dozens of cases of political opponents jailed for circulating material offensive to the Chinese government

     China is thought to have 30,000 online police monitoring blogs, chatrooms and news portals. The propaganda department is thought to employ even more people, a small but increasing number of whom are paid to anonymously post pro-government comments online. Sophisticated filters have been developed to block or limit access to "unhealthy information", which includes human rights websites, such as Amnesty, foreign news outlets, such as the BBC, as well as pornography. Of the 64 internet dissidents in prison worldwide, 54 are from China. (Backlash as Google Shores Up Great Firewall of China 1/25/2006)  

A survey by the Committee to Protect Journalists calls China's efforts to control its media "unique in the world's history.  According to the survey authors (U.S. Says China Boosts Internet Monitoring, Excite News, 2/15/06)

"Never have so many lines of communication in the hands of so many people been met with such obsessive resistance from a central authority."

Words or phrases that can trigger pages to be blocked or removed from search results:

Tiananmen Square massacre
The killing of hundreds, if not thousands, of civilians by the People's Liberation Army in 1989

Dalai Lama
The exiled spiritual leader of Tibet, who is denounced as a splittist by the government in Beijing

Taiwanese independence
The nightmare of the Communist party, which has vowed to use force to prevent a breakaway

Falun Gong
A banned spiritual movement, thousands of whose members have been imprisoned and in many cases tortured

Dongzhou
The village where paramilitary police shot and killed at least three protesters last month

   

   In 2005, the Chinese government shut down over a quarter of the nation’s 573,755 websites.

InfoWorld reported on March 17, 2008 that:

China has blocked access to Google News and YouTube in an apparent attempt to stop the spread of video footage related the rioting going on in several cities in Tibet, including the capital Lhasa. Demonstrations in the city started on March 10, a day commemorating the anniversary of a 1959 uprising against Chinese rule after which the spiritual leader of the country, the Dalai Lama, fled to India...

Foreign media have been banned from Tibet, according to a CNN video, which says the station has not been able to send a team to report the news. China's own press is run by the state.

   China is blocking out the press because it doesn't want their own people or the world to know the horrors of what they plan to do to what's left of the people of Tibet.

  American companies such as Microsoft (Microsoft Bans 'Democracy' for China Web Users) and Google (referred to as "Gagged" by Michelle Malkin)  comply with these bans in order to get Chinese business (The Great Firewall of China 5/20/05).  Chinese dissident Zhao Jing's blog was removed from Microsoft's MSN Spaces on Dec. 31 2005 to comply with Chinese laws.  This is especially outrageous because Zhao Jing's blog is believed to be hosted in the United States (Microsoft blocks Chinese dissident's blog, WorldnetDaily 1/5/2006).

   Yahoo even helped the Chinese hunt down Shi Tao, a reporter for a Chinese newspaper, Contemporary Business News who they have imprisoned for 10 years. According to the LA Times (Just Following Orders in China, 9/14/05)

His crime consisted of e-mailing to a New York-based website information about a secret directive his newspaper had received from the state propaganda department telling it how to cover the 15th anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. The security services were able to track him down thanks to information helpfully provided by Yahoo's Hong Kong affiliate, whose e-mail service Shi used...

Yahoo, Google, MSN and other Web search engines have agreed to block searches in China involving words such as "Tibetan independence" or "human rights." Bloggers can't post messages involving "democracy" or other "dangerous" concepts. Rupert Murdoch's Star TV has agreed not to carry BBC news or other information that the Chinese government might not like. Cisco has sold Beijing thousands of routers programmed to monitor Internet usage and flag for the secret police any "subversive" sentiments.

There is a theory that greater access to information technology will further freedom in China. The reality is that the communist oligarchy is adroitly using the Internet to increase its level of control with the help of its American business partners.

   Reporters Without Borders found a second case in which Yahoo turned over heroic dissidents to the Chinese.  It said it had discovered that Yahoo customer and cyberdissident Li Zhi had been given his eight-year prison sentence in December 2003 based on electronic records provided by Yahoo. “How many more cases are we going to find?” it asked. (Another Cyberdissident Imprisoned Because of Data Provided by Yahoo 2/8/2006)

   Yu Ling filed a lawsuit against Yahoo because Wang Xiaoning, her partner of 27 years, has been sitting in a Chinese prison since September 2002. He is serving a 10-year sentence for using the Internet to advocate democracy.

    The Observers reported that (3/21/2008):

Yahoo! China pasted a "most wanted" poster across its homepage today in aid of the police's witch-hunt for 24 Tibetans accused of taking part in the recent riots. MSN China made the same move, although it didn't go as far as publishing the list on its homepage.

   There is self censorship in the United States by companies that do business in China.  Google censors criticism of China by WorldnetDaily, Taiwan has been virtually wiped off the face of Google Earth maps in another form of appeasement to Chinese tyranny. Microsoft, Yahoo have made similar accommodations for their Web sites in China. (Murdoch’s Dealings in China: It’s Business, and It’s Personal By JOSEPH KAHN 6/26/07)

   Matt Pottinger, a former correspondant for the Wall Street Journal in China said that (said that:

“In Cuba and in China, journalists are often jailed after summary trials and held in miserable conditions far from their families. But the cruelty and injustice of imprisonment is compounded where there is zero due process and journalists slip into oblivion. In Eritrea, the worst abuser in this regard, there is no check on authority and it is unclear whether some jailed journalists are even alive."

   According to an article from Worldnetdaily, (Worldnetdaily (5/23/06), Google rejects ads that do not fit its liberal world view or do not promote the candidates it prefers for office.  One example of this was rejection by Google of an ad that criticized the far left MoveOn.org.

Google Censors China Criticism

Google: Veterans Day 'too solemn' for logo

YouTube blocked video mocking Clinton administration

Bush labeled 'a--hole' in new Google bomb

Google goes ballistic after getting Googled

Google blocks ad for anti-Clinton book

Google money engine for Democrats only

Google: Big Media has higher quality

Google bars 'hate' sites' ads, but runs porn ads

Google 'miserable failure': It's Bush

   Youtube, which is now owned by Google, banned the a video titled The Violent Oppression of Women in Islam.    Robert Spencer wrote that:

“Google quickly pulled the video of my talk [about radical Islam] at Dartmouth,” writes Spencer, “although it did not meet any of their criteria for deletion of offensive material.” Yet at the same time, search for al-Khattab’s video “trying to raise money for a jihadist who has been convicted of incitement to murder -- and you'll have no problem viewing that one at YouTube.”

   Worldnetdaily has been censored from American and marine and navy personnel. (frontpagemag.com (CAIR's War from Within 3/9/04) tells how CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations punished Captain Edwina McCall for speaking out in defense of American policy in Iraq.  According to the article Captain Edwina McCall, a nurse who was due for a highest commendation medal for her service, argued with people opposing the U.S. intervention in Iraq and supporting militant Islamic goals on an internet discussion board.  On December 4, 2003, Ibrahim Hooper, the director of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR)  faxed a letter to the office of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, writing, “It is my unfortunate duty to bring to your attention bigoted anti-Muslim comments sent to our office by an officer in the U.S. military.” ...  He closed the fax by writing: “I respectfully request that the extremist and Islamophobic views of this officer be investigated and appropriate action be taken. ”

Captain McCall was escorted to headquarters at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center to be informed that she could be facing three charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  The Army then denied Captain McCall “all access to government-owned computers, to include official business.” This affected her ability to make daily submission reports to the Pentagon, a key component to her job.

  The military is not the only institution that filters web sites based on political opinion.  Andrew Lampert a high school student found out that conserative web sites were blocked from his school.  A video of him talking about it can be viewed here.

  Jonathan Tobin, in his article Freedom of Speech Denied in Berkeley, Chronwatch 12/1/04): frontpagemag.com 6/17/05) wrote:

If DeWitt had to jump through all the hoops, over all the obstacles, and experience the frustration of all the delays of getting a permit, no permit was required for the counter-demonstrators, who assembled across from the park, on the steps of Old City Hall, simply by showing up.  The official explanation was that since the counter-demonstrators were not using the park, they could demonstrate without a permit.  But Berkeley’s own regulations for “street events” (Section 13.444.040-020 Definition D) pointedly say otherwise, especially since the counter-demonstrators were in effect obstructing the sidewalk in front of Old City Hall.

In the United States Internet reporting is seeking a judgment of $165 million from Worldnetdaily is an example.

Facebook censors pages it doesn't like.  Christian actor Kirk Cameron said Facebook has blocked fans from posting any links to “Unstoppable,” an upcoming faith-based movie, because the website is abusive and unsafe.
“We have been officially shut down by Facebook and unable to get any response from them,” Cameron wrote on his personal Facebook fan page.

Web hosting sites sometimes stop hosting web pages when they receive complaints from people who are offended about the content of sites. 

Web sites that host material that others don't like may get hacked.  Rachel Alexander's online journal, The Intellectual Conservative was hacked and the hacking was traced to the County Supervisor's office.

The Attack on Free Speech in Academia

     The following two videos are shocking examples of the attack on free speech in academia.

 

 

     In the first video the provost of Brown asks the students who appear to be sitting in his office if they can have a conversation and the answer is no because he is a white heterosexual male and white heterosexual males have been dominant.  This victimhood game is about blacks and gays transferring power to themselves.

  One way to silence people is to accuse them of creating a hostile environment. 

Professor Lamb was an enthusiastic and kind teacher who taught a politics and religion class in which he encouraged students to present all points of view.  If the other point of view wasn't being presented he'd sometimes play the Devil's advocate.   One of those points of view was about false allegations of rape.  One student, Tania Mortensen denied that women every lie about rape.  She insisted that women must be believed.  Two other students, Michelle Gretzinger and Bonita Rai supported her view.  Mortensen, Gretzinger and Rai accused Lamb of sexual harassment.  They claimed that Lamb had created a "hostile environment" by challenging their position and characterizing them as "man haters".   When their accusations didn't bring down Dr. Lamb, Gretzinger took Dr. Lamb to court and accused him of raping her.  During the case it became clear that she was fabricating the charges and she lost.  Despite that, the University of Hawaii settled with her by giving her $175,000.   The University may have settled in order to avoid larger law suit costs but in the long run this will only encourage more women to make more false allegations of rape.  Notice how Gertzinger who supported the notion that women don't make false allegations of rape, made a false allegation of rape.  The very belief that she was angry at Dr. Lamb for denying she proved wrong by her own actions.

     False allegations of rape transfer big bucks to the accusers but besides hurting the man they accuse they also hurt women in general.  Dr. Lamb who used to enthusiastically help both male and female students in his class said that:

"I used to love to teach. Not any more.  I used to love to interact with students and stimulate them to think critically.  Not any more.  I used to believe that university campuses promoted free speech an the truth.  Not any more.  I sued to believe students when they would tell me things.  Not any more."

"I still avoid interacting with women I don't know and trust.  I rarely feel good about going to school.  I still avoid meeting female students in my office, unless I know someone else will be there. ..

 False allegations of rape help some women financially but besides hurting the man they accuse they also hurt women in general.  Dr. Lamb who used to enthusiastically help both male and female students in his class said that as a result of this experience.  Many faculty as a result of Dr. Lamb's experiences avoid becoming advisors for female grad students.       

    Professor Laura Kipnis wrote an article about sexual paranoia in academia.  Two students lodged complaints against Ms. Kipnis, with the university's Title IX coordinator.

The Title IX coordinator’s job is to handle sexual assault and harassment cases, so the implication here is that merely disagreeing with a student is akin to creating a hostile work environment.

    According to a report by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) “The Department of Justice now interprets Title IX to require colleges and universities to violate the First Amendment,”

DOJ flatly declared that ‘[u]nwelcome conduct of a sexual nature’ – including ‘verbal conduct’ – is sexual harassment ‘regardless of whether it causes a hostile environment or is quid pro quo.'”

FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said: “The Department of Justice has put universities in an impossible position: violate the Constitution or risk losing federal funding.”

     Don't like your fellow student?  Mad at your teacher for giving you a bad grade?  Accuse them of saying something you don't like of a sexual nature.  Your university is obligated by law to investigate them.  Like a girl at your university.  Watch out.  It things don't work out her way for whatever reason you could be in big Federal mandated trouble.

    On November 12, 2013, Amy Lacey, the principal of Texas’ Hempstead Middle School, was placed on administrative leave and subsequently fired when she made a simple request to students: speak English.  Once the gag order expired she explained that she didn't ban Spanish from school but merely suggested that speaking English would help the children pass State exams which are in English.  “I think the public needs to know that in public education there are only one or two district personnel designated to talk to media,” she wrote in closing, “so any teachers that would have liked to speak on my behalf were not allowed without risking their job status.”

    George Will wrote an article titled Gag U about how universities are shutting down free speech. 

    A Christian student is suing Georgia Gwinnett College for not letting him share his faith.  Counsel Travis Barham said that:

"Students don't check their constitionally protected speech at the campus gate.  While touting commitments to "diversity" and "open communications" Georgia Gwinnett College confines the speech of students to two ridiculously small speech zones and then censors the speech that occurs in those areas."

   Nonie Darwish gave a speech at UC Berkeley as part of Islamo-Facism Awareness week.  She wrote about the attempts to silence her (10/24/07).

The atmosphere required extensive security -- which made me feel that without it I would have been physically hurt at UC Berkeley. The first statement from the Al-Jazeera representative to me was: “You are the most hated woman in the Arab world.” The hatred was also felt from the far leftist American audience...

There were screams from the audience: "Fascist," then "racist" then "Osama Bin Laden is a CIA agent." The noise was getting louder and I could not speak any more. I felt that even in America I am being silenced. My response was: “Who will speak for women who are stoned and for Muslims terrorized in radical Muslim countries? It is sad that I left oppressive Sharia Muslim culture, where I had no freedom of speech, only to find myself silenced in America, by groups who claim they are for free speech.”

The sad thing about this whole event was the feeling that radical Muslims and their far Left supporters would rather never criticize Islamic culture than stand up against the culture that flogs, stones, beheads and amputates limbs. Not offending a religion has become more important to the far Left (unless it is Christianity or Judaism) than human rights of Muslims and victims of terror. Honor killing and female genital mutilation can be tolerated -- but noone better dare utter the word "Islamo-fascism."

American universities are becoming tyrannical when it comes to Conservative values and to Arab Americans who dare to speak out against the culture of jihad. It does not matter how many people in my early life in Egypt suffered from honor killing, female genital mutilation and oppression of women, I must shut up on American campuses.

One way free speech is blocked is with the excuse of "security concerns".  That was how Ben Shapiro was blocked from speaking at DePaul University.

 

   Dr. Alan Kors and Dr. Harvey Silverglate wrote a book about the attack on the right to free speech in American Universities by the Politically Correct establishment called The Shadow University.  Academicbias.com has posted an online video about the subject called Brainwashing 101 which can be viewed by clicking here.  Students who have spoken their minds have been harassed to the point where at least one took her own life. (Academic With-Hunt (frontpagemag.com 4/27/05) about the witch-hunt against Professor Bean.  On April 11, 2005, Jonathan Bean professor of history at Southern Illinois University Carbondale (SIUC) received the college's "Oustanding Teacher Award."  Then one day he made the terrible mistake of assigning an optional reading for his history class, a 2001 Frontpage Magazine report titled frontpage magazine wrote that:

Last fall, Pace student Michael Abdurakhmanov tried to hold a screening that can be viewed on youtube). Hoping to show that Islam is home to moderates as well as extremists, and that it is important to distinguish between the two camps, he unexpectedly found himself beset by opposition. Muslim students angrily rejected the idea. University administrators took an even wrote about his experience writing about the extremists and the moderates: In recent weeks in this space, I have chronicled the saga of an effort to answer that question. It took the form of a 52-minute documentary I helped produce for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's "America at a Crossroads" series. The film, entitled "Islam vs. Islamists: Voices from the Muslim Center," features compelling stories of anti-Islamist Muslims who have had the courage to stand up to co-religionists who are using faith to accomplish political ends…  The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and its Washington flagship station, WETA, refused to air this film.

    The rejection of this film shows the disturbing power of radical Muslims.  Professor Aminah McCloud---a Nation of Islam associate and American Muslim Council board member---was one of a five-member committee that “veted” (read, “vetoed”) the documentary. According to producer Gaffney, the younger Eaton has “acknowledged” his father's influence---if so, a serious conflict of interest. Maybe Eaton le fils worries that the film could indirectly implicate his father, a.k.a. frontpagemag.com 1/15/04) wrote:

In my own classes I see a real timidity and hesitation about interpreting a text in the fear that the evidence which emerges may be politically incorrect. These kids have been beaten into shape through the K-12 system and know better than to say anything untoward—or even to think it. The University, far from opening their minds and encouraging critical thinking, normally simply repeats the orthodoxies.   

   An anonymous European author wrote an article titled was asked by Frontpage Magazine:

Tell us about "Brainwashing 101" and its sequel. What responses were there to these films?

He responded:

 It's funny. We had a great response from the audiences who saw the short films "Brainwashing 101" and "Brainwashing 201." Both films won awards at film festivals, and we got a great reception from the students who got a chance to see them. Even a number of professors were supportive.

But school administrators were another story. It is in their best interests to limit the flow of information leaving campus to glossy admissions brochures and warm-and-fuzzy alumni newsletters designed to encourage graduates to open their wallets. Anything beyond that is a problem for them, especially a film that exposes the dirty little secrets of higher education.

In producing "Indoctrinate U", we had the police called on us about a half-dozen times. And when we were screening the short film "Brainwashing 101" at Bucknell University--my alma mater--the head of security was brought in to threaten me with arrest in front of an audience assembled to watch my film.

I never thought my own alma mater would try to shut down the career of one of its own alumni. It was pretty eye-opening.

David Horowitz organized a Islamo Facism Awareness Week after which leftists papered the campus of George Washington University with a flyer headlined "Hate Muslims? So Do We" which was supposed to be a publication of the HorowitzFreedomCenter and the GWU students organizing the event. It said (purportedly in our voice) "Your typical Muslim has: laser eyes, venom at the mouth,…peg-leg for smuggling children and heroin."  David Horowitz wrote:

Despite the obvious hoax, the campus left reacted with sanctimonious outrage and were backed by the university president, who condemned those behind the flyer in the harshest terms hinting they would be expelled when caught. The story was picked up by the Washington Post and other media. By Wednesday, however the authors, who had previously hidden in cowardly anonymity, admitted they had had published the forgery to discredit us. When the president of GW realized the perpetrators were leftists he backed off entirely, letting the culprits crow and leaving the conservative students who had been defamed without a campus defender.

   David Horowitz wrote about the attempts to prevent Islamo-Facism week and to silence those who would speak out against Islamo-Fascism with words such as racist, homophobe etc..  ( frontPage Magazine Vocabulary of War 10/19/07).

   To be a successful in Middle Eastern Studies departments in the United States you have to be anti-Israel (Frontpagemagazine (3/11/05) about the silencing of Professor Klocek.

On September 15, 2004, Klocek was strolling through the student activities fair at DePaul’s downtown campus when he noticed a flyer showing Israeli tanks destroying Palestinian homes.  “It was very one-sided,” he explained, “and I wanted them to think about the bigger reality.” 

 

He put on his professor hat and tried to do what teachers do: he tried to get them to think.  And that’s what has lead to his downfall.

 

Approaching the Students for Justice in Palestine booth, Klocek engaged the students...  Klocek either earlier or later in the conversation said something to the effect of that while not all Muslims are terrorists, all the terrorists currently operating in the world today are Muslims. 

 

     He also said that:

 

there is no Palestinian ethnicity and that the term really only became prominent in media coverage in the last 20 to 25 years.  There has been in various forms a region—though not a country, and certainly not an ethnically homogenous state—known as “Palestine” going back to the Ottoman period, but “Palestinian” is more of a regional identification than an ethnic one.  And while older than two decades, its usage only became common in the 20th century.

 

Eight days later, some of the students involved met with the dean and cried racism.  They asked for his head.  They got it.

 

    Professor Klocek was suspended without pay.  Joel Mobray wrote:

 

With no current income and facing the possibility of losing the health insurance he desperately needs for a serious kidney condition, he has decided to go public with his fight.  Klocek considers his case a matter of academic freedom; the school insists it’s a health issue.  The Muslim students who had the 20-30 minute run-in with him that precipitated his suspension charge racism.

 

An interesting aspect to this is that both statements the professor made have been made by Arabs.  In fact when he said that all terrorists operating today are Muslims he was quoting the head of the al-Arabiya satellite television network.  The statement about the Palestinian identity has been made by Zuheir Mohsein, a former member of the Supreme Council of the PLO in an interview with the Dutch Daily Trouw on March 31, 1977.  Zuheir Mohsein said:

There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all part of one nation. It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity, because it is in the interest of the Arabs to encourage a separate Palestinian identity in contrast to Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity is there only for tactical reasons. The establishment of a Palestinian state is a new expedient to continue the fight against Zionism and for Arab unity.

   For more such quotes see the primer on the web site of Americans For A Safe Israel.  Klocek showed up at a press conference bound and gagged to protest the violation of his rights.

klocek.jpg (5749 bytes)

   DePaul university contends that Klocek's case "is not a case of academic freedom, but a situation of inappropriate behavior outside the classroom by a university employee.   Yet one of their Professor's, Holocaust denier, Norman Finklestein is extremely anti-Israel  DePaul university has no problem with him. (Academic Witch Hunt at Depaul Unversity 3/22/05)

To remedy the reputation DePaul University has of being against free speech, President Rev. Dennis Holtschneider created a Free Speech and Expression Task Force and charged it with creating a policy for free speech that would hopefully rebuff any claims that DePaul isn’t a friend of the free marketplace of ideas.  Nicholas G. Hahn III was appointed to the task force as the only conservative. After assisting to create guidelines he was lectured by the University Diversity Council.  He wrote in Frontpage Magazine that:

I was told that skin color mattered more than ideas in a discussion concerning free speech, and that ideas which offended persons of color “silenced” them and thus curtailed their free speech. I was told that the word “truth” is “offensive” and would “alienate” members of the DePaul community. The idea that human dignity is “God-given” was too “excluding.” Those who are excluded or “marginalized” should be given a “third option” to express their feelings because they may feel uncomfortable “speaking in a public forum or not satisfied with walking away.”

A university, in other words, should make everyone feel as comfortable as possible, perhaps a return to the Haight-Ashbury experience these professors miss dearly––no disagreement, no argument, no reasoning, no thinking, no responsibility. Their concept of “free speech” is meant to “protect those without power.” This model of free speech, of course, is not free at all. It is an ideological weapon which is regularly used to further the diversity agenda. A model of “free speech” which involves controlling speech in order to correct perceived injustices of the past is Orwellian to say the least.

   After telling this story to Frontpage Magazine Mr. Hahn was removed from the Free Speech and Expression Task Force on the grounds that members of the Free Speech task force would be afraid to speak if what they said might be published.  Mr. Hahn wrote:

It was apparently inappropriate for me to hold these individuals accountable for their ideas.

  The November issue of New Voices reported that on Sept 18, 02, The University of California at Berkeley’s student newspaper The Daily Californian ran a political cartoon by award-winning cartoonist Darrin Bell dealing with the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington.   The cartoon depicted two bearded men in robes and turbans standing beside a book marked “flight manual.”  They appear to have just materialized in hell, and one excitedly proclaims, “We made it to paradise!  Now we will meet Allah, and be fed grapes, and be serviced by 70 virgin women, and…”

   That same day over 120 protesters, who deemed the cartoon offensive to Muslims, occupied the paper’s offices.  They demanded representation on the paper’s editorial board and refused to leave unless the paper agreed to print an apology.  The paper refused to apologize, noting in a statement that the cartoon "falls within the realm of fair comment."  Protesters had to be arrested and removed by campus police.  The next day, hackers posted a false apology on the paper’s Web site.

   Three student government senators, citing Bell’s cartoon, introduced a bill urging the student government to make the rental rates it charges the newspaper for office space contingent   upon whether the publication takes actions to “rectify its complete insensitivity to the needs of the campus.”  The student senate later dropped the bill’s rent provision, but passed a measure condemning the paper for running the cartoon and calling for sensitivity training for its staff.

Lee Kaplan wrote an article titled, Southern Methodist University.

At Northwestern, the student Objectivist Club held a bake sale for a few hours before being told to shut down "or face the police," according to a report posted on the club's website.

The Northwestern student government put the group "under investigation, which is chilling. ... They were on trial for having this," Mr. Halvorssen said. The group was found guilty of financial misconduct for not having an approved cash box for a bake sale that netted a total profit of 39 cents.

The Objectivist Club was also found guilty of "ineffectual leadership," for not specifically stating that the bake sale was a political protest, and the student government placed sanctions on the group.

   Ruth Malhotra, a student at Georgia Tech and chairman of the college Republicans has received rape and death threats.  One reason was she filed suit against Georgia Tech for unconstitutional policies used to censor activities such as those she and the College Republicans had undertaken. The chief target of her lawyer, David French, was a speech code that prevented "intolerant" activities, which Malhotra’s experience showed was enforced selectively against conservative students.  Peter Collier Making College Comfortable For the Left (frontpagemag.com 3/31/04), in which he argues that if he can't make left wingers uncomfortable they shouldn't be allowed to make him uncomfortable either and lists what they have said and done at his University that made him very uncomfortable.

   Incoming freshman are warned by some Universities that hate speech won't be tolerated etc..  This is another way of saying, watch what you say, if we don't like it we'll call it hate speech and you won't graduate.  Jay Ellison, dean of students for undergraduates at The University of Chicago had a much better message

“Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called ‘trigger warnings,’ we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual ‘safe spaces’ where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own,”

    In hundreds of campuses across the country, administrators encourage students to report one another, or their professors, for speech protected by the First Amendment, or even mere political disagreements. These reports are reviewed by Bias Response Teams

    Here is a video of Bernard Goldberg speaking about media bias.  If you see the light and become a conservative reporter you become the enemy.  There's a lot of fear about speaking the truth.

 

The faculty union of the City University of New York known as the Professional Staff Congress (PSC) has a penchant for aiding and abetting terrorists and supporting political causes with the member’s dues. Now determined to forever silence all criticism, one of the prominent union big wigs has just filed a $2 million lawsuit to shut down the one remaining gadfly, Dr. Sharad Karkhanis Professor Emeritus from Kingsborough Community College who has been tirelessly exposing the malfeasance of the PSC and the incompetence of its leaders in his influential internet newsletter The Patriot Returns.

TPR has carefully documented the PSC leadership’s pursuit of revolution instead of their jobs, elaborating on their campaigns to devote more time and resources to future global crusades. This includes such activities as mobilizing the membership to protest the Republican Party at the Republican National Convention in New York. Additionally, the PSC has passed a resolution sympathizing with Hugo Chavez, sponsored a conference called Educators to Stop the War, calling for teachers to develop an anti-war curriculum. The PSC leadership has organized and funded New York City Labor Against the War and Labor for Palestine, donated $5000 to support the legal defense of Lori Berenson, in prison for helping Peruvian Marxist terrorists, and donated thousands to the defense of Sami Al-Arian convicted of conspiracy to aid terrorist group Palestinian Islamic Jihad. According to TPR, the PSC even hosts an “International Committee” replete with a foreign policy spokesperson, who has issued public statements against economic and military aid to Israel and a statement condemning the war in Afghanistan, “joining in solidarity with the victims of U.S. military power,” namely the Taliban. 

   More recently, approximately 1000 copies of the Berkeley? paper were stolen from their racks following its publication of a paid advertisement by the libertarian Ayn Rand Institute entitled “End States Who Sponsor Terrorism.”  (The ad also ran in the The New York Times and Washington Post.)  The papers were replaced with fliers that condemned the ad and Bell’s cartoon.

The Jewish Week (7/25/03) wrote the following about the University of California at Berkeley.

For Rachel Simon, the University of California at Berkeley, the epicenter of vehement anti-Israel agitation, is a campus that makes apathy difficult for Jewish students.

"There's a hurtful, hateful thing going on," said the junior English major.  "People who are in favor of the Palestinian movement are really organizing.  They're creating 'checkpoints' on campus, they call people who consider themselves Zionists racists.  They'll shout things like 'you killed my sister.'

"It's very uncomfortable being a Jewish student in Berkeley."

   The Arabs and their supporters are creating an atmosphere of intimidation on campuses which frightens those who would speak out in support of Israel or who just want to commemorate victims of anti-Jewish violence.   In (2002) the Jewish students of Boston University, held their annual commemoration of the victims of the Holocaust but the pro-Palestinian agitators did not allow them to do so in peace.  They organized anti-Jewish demonstrations related to "Al Nakba" (The catastrophe of the birth of the modern state of Israel) and disrupted the Jewish students' ceremony.  A friend of mine said that she believes these anti-Jewish demonstrations went on for an entire week and says they created an atmosphere of intimidation of Jewish students.  A Jewish student there said she felt terrified by the hostile anti-Jewish environment on campus. 

   Even Jews demonstrating for peace with the Arabs are targetted.  The following is what happened at a Jewish demonstration for peace at San Francisco State University in May 2002, according to Laurie Zoloth, the director of Jewish Studies on campus.

Yesterday's Peace In The Middle East Rally was completely organized by the Hillel students, mostly 18 and 19 years old.  They spoke about their lives at SFSU and of their support for Israel, and they sang of peace.   They wore new Hillel t-shirts that said "peace" in English, Hebrew and Arabic.  A Russian immigrant, in his new English, spoke of loving his new country, a haven from anti-Semitism.  A sophomore spoke about being here only one year, and about the support and community she found at the Hillel House. Both spoke of how hard it was to live as a Jew on this campus how isolating, how terrifying.  A surfer guy, spoke of his love of Jesus, and his support for Israel, and a young freshman earnestly asked for a moment of silence, and all the Jews stood still, listening as the shouted hate of the counter demonstrators filled the air with abuse.

As soon as the community supporters left, the 50 students who remained  praying in a minyan for the traditional afternoon prayers,  or chatting, or cleaning up after the rally, talking -- were surrounded by a large, angry crowd of Palestinians and their supporters.  But they were not calling for peace.  They screamed at us to "go back to Russia" and they screamed that they would kill us all, and other terrible things.  They surrounded the praying students, and the elderly women who are our elder college participants, who survived the Shoah, who helped shape the Bay Area peace movement, only to watch as the Hillel students were shoved against the wall of the plaza by a threatening crowd...

As the counter demonstrators poured into the plaza, screaming at the Jews to "Get out or we will kill you" and "Hitler did not finish the job," I turned to the police and to every administrator I could find and asked them to remove the counter demonstrators from the Plaza, to maintain the separation of 100 feet that we had been promised. The police told me that they had been told not to arrest anyone, and that if they did, "it would start a riot."  I told them that it already was a riot.   Finally, Fred Astren, the Northern California Hillel Director and I went up directly to speak with Dean Saffold, who was watching from her post a flight above us. She told us she would call in the SF police.  But the police could do nothing more than surround the Jewish students and community members who were now trapped into a corner of the plaza, grouped under the flags of Israel, while an angry, out of control mob, literally chanting for our deaths, surrounded us...

There was no safe way out of the Plaza.  We had march back to the Hillel House under armed SF police guard, and we had to have a police guard remain outside Hillel.  I was very proud of the students, who did not flinch and who did not, even one time, resort to violence or anger in retaliation.  Several community members who were swept up in the situation simply could not believe what they saw.  One young student told me, "I have read about anti-Semitism in books, but this is the first time I have seen real anti-Semites, people who just hate me without knowing me, just because I am a Jew." 

   Two years later in Nov. 2. 2004 a mob of Arab students at San Francisco State University attacked a group of College Republicans on the San Francisco State University campus during a "Turnout the Vote" event in front of the campus student union building. (Jihad at San Francisco State 11/8/04) 300 Palestinian, Arab, Muslim and radical leftist students surrounding the club’s table being held back by 13 San Francisco State police officers. The police officers were forced to surround the CR’s table both in front and in back in order to protect the conservative students’ safety.

    According to the article:

The General Union of Palestinian Students (GUPS) at S.F. State was staging this noisy demonstration on Wednesday as a follow-up to their Monday afternoon attack on the conservative students by calling for the complete removal of the Republican Club from the SFSU campus. Flyers were even distributed all over campus that bore inscriptions such as “Don’t Let the College Republicans Commit Racism and Bigotry Against Arab Women.”

Lee Kaplan wrote that the president of the college Republicans wrote:

“We don’t even deal with the Israel/Palestinian dispute that much in our discussions and materials,   We don’t even have any Jewish members as far as I know, although we do promote a conservative political agenda.” Wray also told me how a female member of the College Republicans received a threat during the demonstration. “Watch what happens when the police aren’t around, b---h!” he said someone menaced...Another member of the SFSU College Republicans who was present at the demonstrations also told me he has received death threats since the incident and wished to remain anonymous out of fear.

    The head of the College Republicans at the University of California at Irvine fears for her life because of death threats from Muslims following a decision by the College Republicans to host a panel discussion about Islamic extremism in which one of the sponsors of the event planned to unveil the cartoons of Muhammad. (The Global Intifada, frontpagemag.com 3/10/05)

The New Anti-Semitism was a book I had to write. My people--western intellectuals and academics, progressives--the "good" people--had betrayed both the Jews and the truth. One could no longer reason with them. It was as if they had been brainwashed. I am a psychologist. I do not say this lightly.

My book came out in the summer of 2003. Few feminists, few liberals, and no leftists congratulated me on my truth-telling. On the contrary, many stopped talking to me. The places that have reviewed nearly every one of my eleven other books (often front page and positive reviews) did not review it. I was not interviewed in the usual places. Reporters who wanted to interview me were stopped at higher levels. In the fall of 2003, I interested one such reporter in doing a story about the anti-Israel bias on North American campuses. She too was stopped at higher levels.

 

In my opinion, American campuses have bred a new and diabolical McCarthyism. Academics now have the right to teach brazen lies, and they expect to be protected in the name of "free speech." Worse, when an academic tries to teach the truth--the truth-- about Israel, or about America, or about Jews, they will be ostracized, bullied, demonized, and accused (by the new McCarthyites) of leading a McCarthyite witch-hunt against left wing freedom of expression. This, in my view, is really the censorship of any view that does not conform to a left-wing and anti-American view.

 

   One way Muslims silence free speech is with money.  Worldnetdaily reported in October (10/25/06) that the Center for Muslim Christian Understanding at the University of Georgetown ( got $20 million dollars from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal.  Prior to this donation, in order to keep Muslim money flowing in, probably, Christian evangelical groups leaders were told to leave the campus and not list Georgetown University as a site for operations in the future.  Intervarsity Christian Fellowship and other Christian evangelical groups was banned (article in frontpagemag.com (3/4/04)

The irony of liberals’ opposition to free speech and expression hasn’t escaped Tammy Bruce, a lesbian and former chairman of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization of Women. In her outstanding book, The New Thought Police, Bruce writes, “The Left implements speech and mind control because they know they cannot truly persuade on the issues; silencing the opposition becomes their only recourse.”

    One group that they managed to silence is Repent America, a Philadelphia based Christian Ministry that evangelized at the Gay Games.  According to Worldnetdaily, 7/22/2006

Police had warned the evangelists they would be arrested if caught distributing literature outside of certain designated "free-speech zones."

Why is a zone free for one point of view and not the other?  One possible answer is the police don’t want trouble and they think that the Gays will violently attack the Christians.  In a just and free society anyone who used violence would be arrested not the people who speak what they believe to be the truth.  The following is a paraphrased excerpt from an article that appeared in (Cops Use Handcuffs to Choke Free Speech 7/4/07) about an incident in which an 18-wheeler tried to run over John Holman, one of his fellow pro-life advocates. Holman jumped out of the way to avoid the truck and was arrested for criminal trespass after he landed on a strip of property the clinic claims to own, according to McTernan. They submitted a video of the incident to authorities, and the charges were later dropped.  Pro-life advocate, Ed Snell, was charged with disorderly conduct after attempting to hand tracts to pregnant women who were entering the clinic. The charges were later dropped.  "Ed was injured during the arrest," McTernan said. "They ratcheted the cuffs on him real tight. He took pictures after the arrest and you could see the marks and swelling where they had cuffed him. He told them they were tight and they refused to do anything."  "The behavior of the York city police and the DA office is frightening," McTernan told WND. "In all of my travels, and talking to police as a chaplain, I have never seen such disrespect for the law and such patronizing. They're pursuing criminal prosecution on someone they know is innocent – in [Ferguson's] case, because her beliefs are pro-life."

      Two teenagers who had been given city permission to write their messages protesting Democratic presidential nominee Senator Barack Obama's support for aborition on public sidewalks during the Democratic National Convention were shoved to the sidewalk cuffed and arrested for doing that.  One of them was lifted off the grounds with her arms which were handcuffed behind her (wnd 8/29/2008).  One wonders if the police were Obama supporters.

    In addition to free speech zones that limit free speech to certain locations, there are safe spaces in which free speech is curtailed.  In fact even hand motions are curtailed. 

    Bob Unruh reported in Worldnetdaily 9/12/07:

  a student responded to the annual pro-homosexual 'Day of Silence,' which was being heavily promoted on his high school campus, by wearing a T-shirt which expressed his religious viewpoint that homosexuality was 'shameful.'

"Instead of allowing a differing viewpoint, school officials pulled aside Harper, demanding that he change his expression or face suspension. An assistant principal even suggested to Harper that he needed to leave his faith in the car while at school, in order not to offend homosexual students," according to McReynolds.

"Such a result clearly undermines basic Constitutional protections," including free expression and religion, he noted.

"Incredibly, the federal courts in California upheld the school's actions. In one of the most sweeping, speech-restricting opinions in recent memory, Judge Reinhard of the Ninth Circuit baldly asserted that Harper's First Amendment rights – undeniably strong under Tinker and other Supreme Court precedents – were trumped by the need to protect homosexual students from an opposing viewpoint. …"

"Not surprisingly, Judge Reinhardt's decision cited California's ''hate violence' educational statute, Cal. Educ. Code §§ 201, 220, et seq. as justification for stifling a politically incorrect viewpoint – even though there were no allegations of violence against Harper.

    wnd.com 5/25/06)

     Faith2Action, has launched a series of ads StopHateCrimesNow.com.

One, Arlene Elshinnawy, 75, and grandmother of three, was holding a sign: "Truth is hate to those who hate the truth," before she was hauled off by police officers. ((wnd.com 4/26/07).

"H.R. 1592 is a discriminatory measure that criminalizes thoughts, feelings, and beliefs [and] has the potential of interfering with religious liberty and freedom of speech," according to a white paper submitted by Glen Lavy, of the Alliance Defense Fund.   

"As James Jacobs and Kimberly Potter observed in Hate Crimes, Criminal Law, and Identity Politics, 'It would appear that the only additional purpose [for enhancing punishment of bias crimes] is to provide extra punishment based on the offender's politically incorrect opinions and viewpoints,'" said Lavy.

The proposal has been endorsed by majority Democrats on the committee, and already has 137 sponsors in the full House, making it possible it could be voted on in a matter of days or weeks.

   Laws have been passed in England that pressure people to promote homosexuality. According to the Daily Mail 10/24/07

Vincent and Pauline Matherick will this week have their latest foster son taken away because they have refused to sign new sexual equality regulations.  To do so, they claim, would force them to promote homosexuality and go against their Christian faith...  Earlier this year, Somerset County Council's social services department asked them to sign a contract to implement Labour's new Sexual Orientation Regulations, part of the Equality Act 2006, which make discrimination on the grounds of sexuality illegal.

Officials told the couple that under the regulations they would be required to discuss same-sex relationships with children as young as 11 and tell them that gay partnerships were just as acceptable as heterosexual marriages.

They could also be required to take teenagers to gay association meetings...

The Mathericks' case comes at a time when there is a chronic shortage of foster parents, who work on a voluntary basis.

An extra 8,000 are needed to plug the gaps in the service.

Professor David Deming an associate professor of geology and geophysics at the University of Oklahoma wrote an article in Frontpagemag.com 1/30/2004)  West Side story is a great movie that attempts to show the folly and tragic consequences of racism.  Silencing that is silencing the message of West Side Story.  Yet the school approved a show called "The Vagina Monologues"   that stereotyped men and Christians in a negative way since that is in line of the message they wish to indoctrinate students with.  There was no concern that the material of the show might be inappropriate to minors even though in it a woman seduces a younger girl. 

An article in the Washington Times ("Tolerant Death Threats From the Academic Left" 1/5/04) tells the story of Tim Bueler, the founder of Rancho Cotate High School's Conservative Club, who said he had received threats from other students after writing an article for the club newsletter calling for a crackdown on illegal immigration. 

In a telephone interview, Tim said he's been threatened at least three times by Hispanic students who call him "white boy" and "racist." One boy said he was going to "find someone" to beat up Tim.

In two of those instances, Tim said two faculty members stood by and did nothing to help him. Most recently, Tim said, he was confronted by a dozen Hispanic boys, who blocked him from walking down the hallway.

"They said, 'You're a racist,' and I said, 'Are you guys going to let me through?'" Tim said. "So I ducked into a classroom and told the teacher what was happening, and said, 'Can you help me?' And she said, 'No. Get out of here.'"

Earlier, he said he was eating lunch in a classroom when about seven Hispanic students surrounded him. Worried for Tim's safety, his father, Dennis Bueler, said he asked for help from a teacher who was also in the room.

"The teacher told him, 'When you say things like that, you've got to expect that things like this are going to happen. Why don't you go out the back door?'" Mr. Bueler said in recounting the incident.

Tim said teachers have also joined in the name-calling. One called Tim a Nazi, while another described the club as "a bunch of bigots."

   Schools in California, Colorado, and Arizona have banned the display of American flags and patriotic clothing. School administrators claim that the bans were put into effect to ease tensions between Hispanic and non-Hispanic students during the immigration protests of March 2006 (issued a statement calling Sinclair's plan an "abuse of the public trust."   During an appearance on Fox News’s “Dayside with Linda Vester,” Clanton explained that plans were underway to protest Sinclair stations and boycott their advertisers.  MoveOn.org founder Wes Boyd said, “If they do air a partisan film, we'll challenge the FCC and the licenses of the local stations that broadcast the film.

According to WorldnetDaily 10/13/04 (Stolen Honor Producer Predicts Kerry Apology):

The FCC has received a letter from 18 Democratic senators urging an investigation into Sinclair's decision, and the Democratic National Committee filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission, arguing Sinclair's broadcast would be an illegal contribution to President Bush's campaign.

They filed no such complaint about Michael Moore's anti-Bush film.  According to WorldnetDaily

Sherwood called the effort to stop airing of the film "out and out thuggery."

Yesterday, Kerry spokesman Chad Clanton issued a veiled threat to Sinclair on the Fox News program "Dayside with Linda Vester."

"I think they are going to regret doing this, and they had better hope we don't win," Clanton said...

"Kerry has nothing but thugs out there," he said. "They can threaten, they can coerce, they can cajole -- Can you imagine 18 senators demanding censorship and getting away with it? If a single Republican anywhere attempted to do that, the press would be apoplectic."

   One of the outrageous charges the Kerry campaign used to try and silence the voices of the vets in Stolen Honor was that their documentary was an illegal campaign contribution.  If they had succeeded in convincing the courts to enforce this charge than anyone who made a statement critical of a candidate could be charged with making an illegal campaign contribution.  Other tactics used included (worldnetdaily 10/20/04, Wall Street Journal 10/23/04):

1)  The Sinclair broadcasting group, who the Kerry campaign were afraid would air the documentary were sent a letter from Alan Hevesi, the Democrat comptroller of New York on behalf of a retirement fund that holds 256,600 shares of the broadcast company, warning the controversy could damage the investment.  He wrote:

"Some critics suggest that Sinclair management is more interested in advancing its partisan political views than in protecting shareholder value.  They say Sinclair's partisan agenda also risks alienating viewers, advertisers and regulators." 

2) A Democratic party donor, William S. Lerach, sent a letter to the news company calling the broadcast plan "reckless," alleging insider trading by officers and threatening a shareholder lawsuit.  Media Matters, a liberal media agitprop outfit, announced it was underwriting another shareholder suit and demanded that Sinclair provide equal time to those with opposing views even though the Kerry campaign had declined Sinclair's invitation to respond on air and even though the federal "equal time" requirement vanished along with the Fairness Docrine in the 1980s..

An article in the Wall Street Journal (Sinclair and Watergate 10/23/04) discussed the dangerous precedent set by the  threats of shareholder lawsuits made by the Democrats to silence the veterans. 

What's astonishing here is that this legal-political double team has gone on with barely a whimper of protest from the rest of the media. In fact, it is being celebrated as a defeat for all of those right-wing scoundrels who support President Bush. We understand that most of the press corps is liberal and desperately wants Mr. Kerry to win. Editors and producers may let that distort their coverage, but they usually aren't so blinded by partisanship that they can't see their own self-interest.

Now that this trial lawyer-government precedent has been set, who's to stop it if it next turns, as eventually it will, on the New York Times, or CBS? One of the most important protections that a free press has is independent corporate ownership, but what if the Nixon Administration had unleashed its lawyer friends and government pension funds on the Times Company when it was publishing the Pentagon Papers, or the Washington Post when it was digging into Watergate? If the standard now is that stirring controversy is a fraud against shareholders because it may cost ad revenue, a lot more media owners than Sinclair are going to become political targets.

   On October 19, 2004, a movie theater in Jenkintown Pennsylvania, a suburban borough just north of Philadelphia with a population of about 4500, was scheduled to show the documentary Stolen Honor. This movie features the testimony of Vietnam POW’s critical of John Kerry.  However, after receiving threats of "civil disobedience" (i.e. destruction of property and possible physical intimidation), the owner of the theater canceled the showing. Eight days later, another presentation of "Stolen Honor" scheduled in the Philadelphia suburb of Blue Bell, PA. after the owner of the conference center received anonymous complaints.

Eight days later, another presentation of "Stolen Honor" scheduled in the Philadelphia suburb of Blue Bell, PA. was cancelled after the owner of the conference center received anonymous complaints. (Suppressing Speech in an Election Year, Frontpagemag.com 11/1/04) 

   Christopher Ruddy, editor of Newsmax.com wrote how Newsmax then stepped up to the plate.  (Ruddy Analysis, Why Bush Won, Newsmax.com 11/4/04).

Though under incredible pressure from every angle, from everything the Kerry campaign could throw at it, Sinclair did air a few minutes of the 43-minute documentary as part of a program. But the American public was deprived of most of the information in the documentary.

At that point NewsMax stepped into the breach. We decided that the public's right to know overrode the intimidation tactics of the P.C. thought police.

In the end, NewsMax decided to air "Stolen Honor." Last weekend, we aired the documentary several dozen times across the nation, including 10 showings on PAX-TV alone. PAX reaches almost 100 million American homes. We estimate that more than 5 million Americans saw "Stolen Honor."

     "The Path to 9/11' was bwas a five and a half hour, two-night mini-series that aired on ABC on the fifth anniversary of the attacks which depicted the real history that connects the first WTC attack in 1993 and 9/11.  Just days before it aired the film was severely edited by Disney after personal demands from Bill Clinton and members of his administration and several senators and congressmen. The film, which was intended to be rebroadcast every 9/11, has never been shown again and even the DVD has not been released. John Zeigler directed a documentary called  Blocking 'The Path to 9/11’.  (Visit the film's web site at BlockingThePath.com. He said:

I think that we should all learn a lot from this sad episode. Above all else, we learned that when three forces that ought to be unbeatable (free speech, the truth and the legacy of 9/11) go head to head against blatant partisanship and news media/Hollywood bias, that, unfortunately, the side of good gets run over by a Mack truck.

   John Zeigler, a radio talk show host, was fired for things he said on the air.  He wrote a book called The Death of Free Speech about his experiences and those of others who have found themselves the target of self appointed "thought police".

    Alain Hertoghe, a reporter for the daily La Croix, wrote a book "La Guerre a Outrances" about French reporting about the American war with Iraq and concluded that French journalists were so biased that "readers can't understand why the Americans won the war."  According to the New York Post (1/3/04)

So caught up were the reporters in the wave of opposition to the war that "as soon as there were a couple of wounded or dead, they were making comparisons to Vietnam and Stalingrad. 

    The French press unaminously ignored his book except for one small journal that's given out free on the Paris Metro.  There was one other French paper that did not ignore his book which was Hertoghe's own paper tha tfired him claiming that he'd damaged the paper's reputation.

    One consequence of left wing intellectual tyranny is the increase in power of the extreme right wing as people react to it.  Roger Cohen in an article titled "Hitler Apologist Wins German Honor, and a Storm Breaks Out" (New York Times June 21, 2000) wrote that:

In Germany and France, a conservative reaction is evident against what the French call "the angelic left," which is accused of imposing a stifling political correctness on debate and of backing a multicultural tide that will sweep away the European nation state.

   In addition Mr. Cohen writes that Mr. Haider has made a lot of headway in Austria precisely by questioning the "intellectual tyranny" of the left.

    A 74 year old woman was convicted of hate speech against Muslims in 2013 for a sign that implied that Muslims today threaten Europe just as they did in 1683 with the siege of Vienna. 

The state prosecutor at Frank’s trial argued that the woman's statement provoked a “hostile attitude” towards all Muslims/Turks and incited “hate.” Frank accordingly satisfied the elements of Section 130 of the German Criminal Code against “Incitement to Hatred.”  Among other provisions, this section in its first paragraph makes liable anyone who “in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace… incites hatred against segments of the population.”

     Tammy Bruce, who has served in a leadership position at NOW,  wrote a book called The New Thought Police: Inside the Left's Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds.  She decries NOW as a foot soldier in the war against free speech. "Ironically," writes Ms. Bruce, "it is the progressives who, while seemingly committed to freedom of expression, attempt to exact severe social punishments on anyone who espouses an idea or opinion that challenges their status quo. After writing an OpEd defending free speech and criticizing the left Tammy Bruce no longer exists as far as the mainstream media is concerned.  Tammy said:

I've found out what it's like trying to get your message out when you are on the wrong side of an issue.

   Michael Meyers a black columnist for the New York Post (7/15/02) wrote a column about how he was ousted from the left wing New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU).  He wrote:

The "why" is simple: I insisted on speaking my mind, which offended the "free speech" mavens.  So I got clobbered by insiders in a sneak contested election that fraught with suppressed ballots and election irregularities...

The final straw...I recorded my dissent to Lieberman's appointment as Siegel's successor, and accused the liberals of racism for having passed over a better suited, more articulate and smarter black woman candidate.

That charge of racism bristled, just like my earlier insinuation that they weren't practicing what they preach to others with respect to diversity -- since all of its officers are white.

     A good article about News censorship is Newsrooms Believe in Free Speech on the Left

    “What the Department of Homeland Security became under Janet Napolitano is this monstrous surveillance and very intimidating group,” said Rutherford Institute President John Whitehead, a constitutional attorney for the past 40 years and author of “A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State.”

“I think originally there were some good intentions with the Department of Homeland Security, but what happened under President Obama is that it accelerated rapidly,” Whitehead told WND. “I criticized George Bush’s policies. Under President Obama, we’re zooming.”

Whitehead said the Napolitano legacy of reducing freedom is evident across the board, starting in early 2009 when the department issued a report listing returning soldiers as one of the greatest threats to American security.

“Another program Napolitano set up is Operation Vigilant Eagle, which is a surveillance system done on all returning veterans from overseas, where they watch Facebook posts, text messages, emails of returning veterans to see if they’re going to be disgruntled,” Whitehead said. “There are quite a few disgruntled veterans. In fact, one that we helped just filed a major lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security.”

“They arrived one day at his door, arrested him and actually put him in a mental institution for his Facebook posts criticizing the government. We got him out and then we sued the government,” Whitehead said.

Another outrage, according to Whitehead, is the harassment of Americans living on or somewhat near our national borders with Mexico and Canada. He said law-abiding citizens have been forced to hand over their laptops while the government officials download the information. The Rutherford Institute has also received reports of Americans being removed from their cars and searched without probable cause.

These allegations, and criticism of drone use near the borders, come as Congress hotly debate immigration reform legislation. Whitehead said the problems he’s talking about have nothing to do with border security.

“The people coming over from Mexico are not coming over at checkpoints. Incredibly stupid, and that’s where a lot of emphasis has been placed,” Whitehead said. “Obviously, they’re not focused in the right direction. They put drones on the border but the drones obviously have not been very effective. In fact, what we found our about those drones now, on the Canadian border, turned the drones in. They’re flying inland, photographing and watching what American citizens are doing and surveillance on American towns.”

Whitehead said that sort of activity will only get more common and more intrusive until the American people stand up and refuse to accept what he considers a major infringement on our constitutional liberties.

“Drones are coming in 2015. They’re going to be awesome. They’ll have scanning devices, rubber bullets, sound cannons. They can look through the walls of your home,” Whitehead said. “They’re just going to bypass the Fourth Amendment, and they already are doing that.”


Rutherford Institute President John Whitehead, a constitutional attorney for the past 40 years and author of “A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State” spoke about the Department of Homeland Security. 

Whitehead said the Napolitano legacy of reducing freedom is evident across the board, starting in early 2009 when the department issued a report listing returning soldiers as one of the greatest threats to American security.

“Another program Napolitano set up is Operation Vigilant Eagle, which is a surveillance system done on all returning veterans from overseas, where they watch Facebook posts, text messages, emails of returning veterans to see if they’re going to be disgruntled,” Whitehead said. “There are quite a few disgruntled veterans. In fact, one that we helped just filed a major lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security.”

“They arrived one day at his door, arrested him and actually put him in a mental institution for his Facebook posts criticizing the government. We got him out and then we sued the government,” Whitehead said.

Another outrage, according to Whitehead, is the harassment of Americans living on or somewhat near our national borders with Mexico and Canada. He said law-abiding citizens have been forced to hand over their laptops while the government officials download the information. The Rutherford Institute has also received reports of Americans being removed from their cars and searched without probable cause.

These allegations, and criticism of drone use near the borders, come as Congress hotly debate immigration reform legislation. Whitehead said the problems he’s talking about have nothing to do with border security.

“The people coming over from Mexico are not coming over at checkpoints. Incredibly stupid, and that’s where a lot of emphasis has been placed,” Whitehead said. “Obviously, they’re not focused in the right direction. They put drones on the border but the drones obviously have not been very effective. In fact, what we found our about those drones now, on the Canadian border, turned the drones in. They’re flying inland, photographing and watching what American citizens are doing and surveillance on American towns.”..

“Drones are coming in 2015. They’re going to be awesome. They’ll have scanning devices, rubber bullets, sound cannons. They can look through the walls of your home,” Whitehead said. “They’re just going to bypass the Fourth Amendment, and they already are doing that.”

       There is widespread suppression of free speech in Muslim countries.  Jamal Kashoggi the editor of Riyadh's Al Watan newspaper was fired in May 2003 because he denounced religious intolerance and extremism in his newspaper.(New York Post 6/12/2003)

   I have posted pages on this web site with more information about Islam:

·         Islam and Jihad

·         Creation of Paranoia

·         Creation of Delusion

   People who post web pages such as these often find themselves the target of Muslims who aggressively wage Jihad against authors of web sites they don't like. Militant Islam is a force against freedom and against free speech in the world. 

Here are additional pages on free speech.

Post-9/11: Protect the freedom to warn

http://eaglerising.com/34035/9-year-old-banned-from-wearing-make-america-great-again-cap-in-school/

 

 

 

 meaning the DVD would be out.  The Los Angeles Times carried an informative story which you can read Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval had introduced a worldnetdaily The San Francisco government's proposed resolution condemning Savage is just the latest in a major, multifaceted – and largely unreported – effort both in and out of government to transform American talk radio. The entire campaign, complete with details of battles against Rush Limbaugh, Savage and other top talkers, is revealed in-depth in WND's monthly Whistleblower magazine, titled

Table of Contents