The Attack on Free Speech

images/talk6.gif (22089 bytes)

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

   Is free speech always a good thing? 

  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'd release 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.

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.

   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 to reduce Muslim anger so they won't carry out terrorist attacks.  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.

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

   An example of how incitement laws can be 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)

   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.

   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.

   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.

    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.

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 defends he makes what I think are profound statements about free speech.  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 censorhip 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.

 

   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,"