Geert Wilders Defines the Issues: Free Speech & Civilization

Bare Naked Islam posted a video clip of Geert Wilders addressing the judicial panel of his retrial.  The video is in Dutch with English sub titles. 

    In this speech, Wilders asserts that the light of Western Civilization is being snuffed out by Islamization.  He also drives home the issue of freedom of expression.

"The lights are going out slowly all over Europe.  All over the continent where our culture flourished and where man created freedom, prosperity and civilization.  the foundation of the West is under attack everywhere.

    All over Europe the elites are acting as the protectors of an ideology that has been bent on destroying us four fourteen centuries.  An ideology that has sprung from the desert and that can produce only deserts because it does not give people freedom.

    The Islamic Mozart, the Islamic Gerard Reve, the Islamic Bill Gates; they do not exist because without freedom there is no creativity.

    With everything in me I believe the ideology of Islam is especially noted for killing and oppression and  can only produce societies that are b ackwaqrd and impoverished.

     Surprisingly, the elites do not want to hear any criticism of this ideology. My trial is not an isolated incident.  Only fools believe it is.  All over Europe multicultural elites are waging total war against their populations.Their goal is to continue the strategy of mass immigration, which will ultimately result in an Islamic Europe - a Europe without freedom: Eurabia.

    The lights are going out all over Europe.  Anyone who thinks or speaks indivdually is at risk.  Freedom-loving  citizens who criticize Islam or even merely suggest that there is a relationship between Islam and crime or honour killing must suffer, and are threatened, persecuted or criminalized.  Those who speak the truth are in danger. 

    The lights are going out allover Europe.  Everywhere the Orwellian thought police are at work, on the lookout for thought crimes everywhere, casting the populace back within the confines where it is allowed to think. 

    Chairman, members of the court:  This trial is not about me.  itr is about something much greater. Freedom of speech is not the property of those who happen to belong to the elites of a country.  it is an inalienable right, the birthright of our people.  For  centuries battles have been fought for it, and now it is being sacrificed to please a totalitarian ideology. Future generations will look back at this trial and wonder who was right.  Who defended freedom and who wanted to get rid of it.  the lights are going out all over Europe.  Our freedom is being restricted everywhere, so I repeat what I said there last year: It is not only the privilege, but also the duty of a free people - to speak out against any ideology that threatens freedom.

     Hence it is a right and a duty - and hence also my duty as a member of the Dutch Parliament - to speak the truth about the evil ideology that is called Islam.  I hope that freedom of speech will emerge triumphing from this trial.  I hope not only that i shall be acquitted, but especially that freedom of speech will continue to exist in the Netherlands and in Europe. "

My opinion is that Wilders is more relaxed and fluent in the retrial than he was in the first round.  He appears to sense impending victory. I suspect that he may have had some coaching.  This trial is likely to make history no matter what the outcome.

Sphere: Related Content

Free Speech Has No Future

Cass Sunstein: The Future of free Speech, serialized in Little Mag, should serve as a warning of things to come if Obamination remains in power or is succeeded by another Socialist.  

    Sunstein discusses the concept of public forums, finding them crucial to our form of government. He hints at considering the means of communication as a public good.  Its a long way from Hyde Park to the internet, but Sunstein wants to conflate them. Examine his central concern.

"In a system with public forums and general interest intermediaries, people will frequently come across materials that they would not have chosen in advance – and for diverse citizens, this provides something like a common framework for social experience."

    In a small village, a single newspaper may serve as the local news source. One church, one fraternity, one school, one theatre  and one coffee shop may give the villagers shared experiences. But the USA is a great nation, not a small village.  There are many different institutions and services.  There are numerous newspapers, radio and television broadcasters, with divergent points of view and market niches.

    Consumers can and do choose, and "birds of a feather flock together", that is the way nature works.  Once the nation stared at Chronkite or Brinkley, and soaked up the same lies together.  Now we soak up lies from many different sources.

"All too many people are now exposed to louder echoes of their own voices, resulting, on occasion, in social fragmentation, misunderstanding, and sometimes even enmity. Perhaps it is better for people to hear fewer controversial views than for them to hear a single such view, stated over and over again. I now turn to this issue."

    Does Sunstein want to force Liberals to listen to Rush Limbaugh and watch Fox News?  Yeah, right.  I have sampled Randy Rhodes, John Hightower, Larry King and others. They raise my blood pressure too much. Keith Olbermann would make my bladder burst. I'll continue to listen to Rush, Sean & Mark; if Cass disapproves, he can go to Hell.

"If greater communications choices produce greater extremism, society may, in many cases, be better off as a result. But when group discussion tends to lead people to more strongly held versions of the same view with which they began, and if social influences and limited argument pools are responsible, there is legitimate reason for concern."

    "Extremism in the defense of liberty..." What is the value in arbitrarily decreasing the intensity or changing the direction of our views? This is all about cementing Scialists in power.

"Consider discussions among hate groups on the Internet and elsewhere. If the underlying views are unreasonable, it makes sense to fear that these discussions may fuel increasing hatred and a socially corrosive form of extremism."

    Who is to judge what 'views' are 'unreasonable'?  Here come the thought police!

"This does not mean that the discussions can or should be regulated in a system dedicated to freedom of speech. But it does raise questions about the idea that “more speech” is necessarily an adequate remedy – especially if people are increasingly able to wall themselves off from competing views."

    What is the remedy?

"The basic issue here is whether something like a “public sphere,” with a wide range of voices, might not have significant advantages over a system in which isolated consumer choices produce a highly fragmented speech market."

    Should we be like a doctatorship with state run media feeding us a steady diet of propaganda? 

"The most reasonable conclusion is that it is extremely important to ensure that people are exposed to views other than those with which they currently agree, in order to protect against the harmful effects of group polarisation on individual thinking and on social cohesion."

    Yeah, that's the solution: remote controlled idiot boxes blasting opinions inimical to our own, holding us as a captive audience!

"For those who believe that the free speech principle has democratic foundations, and is not about consumer sovereignty, government regulation of television, radio, and the Internet need not be objectionable, at least so long as it is reasonably taken as an effort to promote democratic goals."

    The free speech principle is crucial to our form of government. Voters must be allowed to communicate relevant facts and opinion and debate them openly in order to make wise decisions on candidates and related issues. 

    In deprecating 'consumer sovereignty', Sunstein deprecates popular sovereignty as well.  The people are sovereign, we give limited power to the government for limited  amd well defined purposes.  The popular sovereignty and consumer sovereignty are inseverable; if either is lost, both are lost. We can not be free if artificially & arbitrarily deprived of choices.

    Sunstein advocaztes mandates & disclosure reports for broadcasters including: educational programming, closed captioning, free airtime for office seakers, coverage of local issues and allowing opposition views to be heard.

    He does not stop there. he advocates requiring web sites to provide links to web sites with opposing views and "allow competing voices to be heard".

    Adding insult to injury, Sunstein advocates 'voluntary self-regulation'.  The variety of competing viewpoints might be reduced by "a ‘code’ of appropriate conduct".   The code would include, allowing opposing views, avoiding 'unnecessary' sensationalism and offering arguments rather than quick 'sound-bytes'. 

    The 'code ' would be "encouraged but not imposed by government".  If the 'code' is not 'voluntarily' implemented, the government "might impose “must carry” rules on highly partisan Websites".  So much for 'voluntary self-regulation'.  When you urinate on my shoes and tell me "its raining", you insult my intelligence.

    The Unfairness Doctrine is rising from the dead, in a disguised and expanded form.  It is all about squelching dissent under color of improving social intercourse.  They might as well limit us to one political party for the purpose of promoting 'common experience'm unity & social cohesion.

    LibTards kvetch about 'balkanization' while practicing the politics of division: pandering to Mexicans, Queers, abortion fanatics & Islam and engaging in class warfare.  There is something rotten in Washington: Obamination. Wise up, rise up, speak out and turn them out in the next election cycle!

 

Sphere: Related Content

Free Speech vs Shielding Islam from Critics

Free Speech vs Shielding Islam from Critics The controversy over attempts to squelch "defamation of religions" is heating up. Individuals and organizations are speaking out. One of my Google Alerts  brought my attention to UN to consider anti-blasphemy laws proposed by the Organization of Islamic Conference, would make criticism of Islam illegal in America    at Saynsumthn’s Blog.

    The lead article, a press release from CFI,  is followed by a year old video clip of Christopher Hitchens and Lou Dobbs discussing the recent resolutions.  After that, we get down to business: a panel discussion on  the conflict between free speech and religious sensitivities.  The subject at hand is Islamic demands for legislation to shield their deen from criticism.  International PEN sponsored the event.

    Several participants are not native speakers of English and some of the concepts under discussion are not easy to express, so much of the discussion is difficult to listen to.  Half of one exchange  has been covered by several blogs including Front Page Magazine. Pakistan's Ambassador let fly with some heated remarks and hauled tail when a Canadian human rights advocate responded forcefully.  In my view, the Ambassador's rant deserves more scrutiny, which it will receive presently. [Superscripts in the text are linked to my comments. Use your back button to return to the text.]

    This video is huge. With a download speed of 52K,  it took a while to buffer and drained a great deal of memory. I foolishly clicked a link before rewinding to the interesting  part, and wound up repeating the process.

From the PEN American Center, United Nations Side-session Panel Discussion with Dr. Agnes Callamard, director, ARTICLE 19 (UK), Professor Tariq Ramadan (Switzerland), Mr. Budhy M. Rahman, program officer, The Asia Foundation (Indonesia); Moderated by Mr. John Ralston Saul, writer, president of International PEN (Canada).

 

International PEN and its national centers are extremely concerned about ongoing processes in the United Nations aimed at combating defamation of religions. We are also concerned about an initiative by the UN Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards, established in 2007 by the Islamic Conference (OIC) and a group of African countries, to draft a treaty that would ban religious defamation. Human Rights protect individual human beings, not institutions or religions. Criticism of religions and religious practices must be allowed, in particular when religions are viewed from a political point of view. As organizations representing writers, artists, and journalists of all faiths and none, we warn against any regulations prohibiting criticism of any religion or any set of ideas.

Against this background we have asked a group of high profile scholars, writers, and human rights defenders to join us for a side event in Geneva on the afternoon of September 16 in Room XXI of the UN Building.

    Each year for the last decade, the UN and its human rights  commission/council have debated and passed resolutions combating defamation of Islam/religions.  Those resolutions give immoral support to local blasphemy laws, which  facilitate oppression & persecution of minorities  under Islamic  regimes.  The OIC wants them to be given the force of law so that critics of Islam can be prosecuted in the West.  International PEN mentioned the Ad Hoc Cmte. which is working on a binding protocol to ICERD.  Not much is known about the cmte.'s work and most people are unaware of it. My series of blog posts on the subject, including quotes from and links to the available  documents, have been compiled into pdf files which you can download for study at leisure.

• Ad Hoc Cmte On Complementary Stds 125KB pdf compiled from several blog posts.
• Ad Hoc Cmte Draft Document 120KB pdf  containing Google's Translation of the French language draft plus links to references and blog posts.

[1:05:08]
Ambassador Zamir Akram, Permanent Representative of Pakistan to the UN, Geneva  says he needs more  than one minute.. two?  wanna limit my freedom of expression?  Plenty of opportunity to talk in this building.  But not before this meeting, which needs to hear from me because I speak not only for Pakistan but for the Islamic countries here.  The President doubts it. Gets three minutes; declares himself "coordinator of the OIC".  ,...

 I think what you have started here is an unnecessary debate because we in the Islamic world do not look at this as a debate between freedom of expression and freedom of religion.¹  We are not opposed to freedom of expression, what we are opposed to is the abuse of this freedom to insult a entire religious faith and belief system  as well as the followers of the faith.²  Let me say that we--what we are seeking is equal treatment for Muslims especially in  the West. And we believe that we are being denied this equal treatment because of double standards which Mr. Ramadan has also spoken about and we believe that this attitude on the part of the West is a example of sanctimonious arrogance. ³ 

    Laws in the West do protect religious beliefs and there are countries that have blasphemy laws in the West itself. I can give you the names of the countries that do have them: Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, Switzerland and I can tell you each and every article in their constitutions which gives them these laws on blasphemy.  The problem sir is also very apparent in the way that the West treats Muslims and the views and beliefs of Muslims and the way it treats for instance, antisemitism.  There are laws in Western countries that will put a person in jail for antisemitic statements or denying the Holocaust.⁴  

    That is a treatment that is not extended to Muslims in this part of the world.⁵  The facts speak  for themselves. We have before us the cartoon issue.⁶ We have before us the minaret--the ban on minarets in Switzerland.  The posters in this ban campaign showed minarets designed as missiles.⁷ The linkage to showing that Muslims are in a way people who resort to violence and are dangerous persons.⁸  There is this film by Geert Wilders called Fitna which equates our holy book the Qur'an with Hitler's Mein Kampf. Not a single verse from the Qur'an has been quoted to demonstrate that Muslims or our Qur'an or our belief promotes violence by Mr. Wilders.⁹  

    The ban on the burqa¹⁰, the ban on the mosque in Manhattan¹¹, and this 'burn a Qur'an day¹²'-- they are all manifestations of the same thing that is going on--that is taking place in the West¹³. Mr. Obama has taken a position against the burning of the Qur'an.¹⁴ And what has he been labeled as?¹⁵  A Muslim and he  himself is denying that he is a Muslim as if being a Muslim is a crime¹⁶. What if he is a Muslim?¹⁷  That is somehow--we feel that it is extremely offensive¹⁸.  

    There is racial profiling against Muslims¹⁹. Even if you are the most respectable person you are separated and you are put into a different pew when you are at an airport.  Everyone of your bags is opened; you are stripped down to your --your clothes are stripped off your body; these are the realities of treatment that is being extended to Muslims in the West today²⁰.

     So it is not about the defamation of Islam, sir, it is about the victimization of Muslims that has to be addressed and that is what we are seeking here.²¹ 

    We are being linked to terrorism whereas terrorism has no religion²²; there are examples of terrorists in every religious denomination.  The IRA were not Muslims, they were Catholics.  So -- and there are several other examples of terrorism that are [unintelligible] . Instead of promoting your view and other Western views; instead of promoting a dialog between Islam and other religious denominations os actually serving the cause of those who want to use religion and want to use this disinformation against Islam²³ to promote greater victimization of Muslims.  There is a failure and actually a refusal to try and understand what we are trying to say. [1:11:01 Interrupted by Raheel Raza]

 

 "Thank you very much. I am a Canadian of Pakistani heritage and I would like to totally rebut what the honorable Ambassador here has said. I have lived in the West for over 25 years, I don't know where he's been living, but I think Muslims have more freedom in the West than they ever have in many Muslim lands. When you talk about inter-faith dialog there is absolutely no intra-faith dialog going on between the Muslim communities and dialog is a two way street.  Mr. Ambassador, sir, I'm responding to what you said, so it is rude of you to get up and leave. However, I will say this for the rest of the audience here, that this is  absolutely unacceptable; I mean freedom of speech is the most important human right we have and I totally support freedom of expression even if it is against my faith.  When he speaks of  Geert Wilders, Geert Wilders has the absolute freedom to say what he wants; it doesn't affect me personally, and neither does it harm my faith.  The Western world, the Canadian Prime Minister and the American President were the first ones to condemn the burning of the Qur'an by the American Pastor Terry Jones. I would never have the freedom to stand up and speak as I do here in my own country of birth.  So certainly, when we are talking about equal treatment of Muslims in the West.  And also I would like to comment about Professor Ramadan spoke at length about western values--the western world; this is not a debate between  Muslims and the West and unfortunately that is what it comes down to that is being divisible  we are speaking here about human rights that extend to all faiths. And lets get over this victim ideology that we are Muslims and we are being persecuted and lets talk about the freedom of everyone in the room here today and lets get to the point of freedom of speech and freedom of religious expression.

1:13:22 Professor Ramadan answers some proceeding questions.  I am not able to transcribe his remarks, his mind and mouth are not in synch.\ and I can't type fast enough.  It is an important statement, which needs to be considered carefully and deliberately. Watch the gestures and expressions as you listen to his answer. He has  a recent op ed piece that may help to clarify matters.

---

 

1. The debate is crucial because the OIC is demanding international and national legislation to criminalize all questioning & criticism of Islam. Islamic law expressly forbids all negative expression about Islam, its deity, Profit & scripture. Violation is punishable by execution. In essence, they want that law extended to and imposed upon us.  The journalists seek to preserve the right of free expression, which is essential to the maintenance of cemocracy & liberty. Liberty can not be preserved if we can not issue warnings of threats to it. If we can't reveal the truth about Islam, we can't issue those warnings. 
   1. Acts entailing apostasy.
   2. Penalty.: scroll up to 613. 
      1. Application  to Non-Muslims: 
         1. o11.10 -5- or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam.
         2. o11.11 When a subject's agreement with the state has been violated, the caliph chooses between the four alternatives mentioned above in connection with prisoners of war (o9.14). 
         3. o9.14 When an adult male is taken captive, the caliph (def: 025) considers the interests (0: of Islam and the Muslims) and decides between the prisoner's death, slavery, release without paying anything, or ransoming himself in exchange for money or for a Muslim captive held by the enemy.
   3. Defamation of Religions UNHRC March 25 ’10  03/26/10  Details of the resolution and graph of the vote trend showing declining support.
   4. 4U.N. Bans Criticism of Islam: Pretext & Context  09/08/08  This post contains vital information about the documents which serve as a basis for the treacherous resolutions passed by the General Assembly & Human Rights Council. It also has a link to the prime source of UN resolutions. 
   5.  Ad Hoc Committee: New Resolutions  03/20/10  Competing Nigerian & American drafts in  pursuit of a binding protocol to ICERD for the purpose of outlawing these blog posts.
   6. Letter from OIC to Ad Hoc Committee 11/13/09  This is about the drive to criminalize criticism of Islam.
   7. Ad Hoc Cmte: Non-Paper  08/04/09  The cmte. President's outline of the program of censorship.
   8. AdHoc Cmte: Pakistani Submission  08/03/09  Detailed analysis of the OIC's proposal to censor critics of Islam.
2. Their scripture says that Jews "earned Allah's wrath" and "Christians went astray". It says that Allah, men and angels curse us. It describes us as the worst of living creatures. But we must not be allowed to reveal how their Profit married a six year old girl, murdered critics and was a terrorist. 
3. Is there a better example of hypocrisy? 
4. The U.S.A. does not have a blasphemy law, neither does it outlaw Holocaust denial.  We allow open debate.
5. Criminalization of Holocaust denial is not a service to a religion, it is an exaggerated and mis-applied fear of a Nazi revival.  Holocaust denial is not analogous to factual & rational criticism of Islam.  
6. The Motoons, like most good comedy, include an element of exaggeration. They reflect the fact that Muhammad was, by his own admission, a terrorist. Here is what he said:: " I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy)," and  "Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey. " The quotes come from Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220 & 1.7.331.
7. See the image and relevant quote at Andrew Bostom's  site. Erdogan said that the "Minarets are our swords".  
8. To the extent that Muslims are believers; to the extent that they implement Allah's imperatives they are dangerous and violent.  
9. Fitna involves several verses from the Qur'an which are documented here: Fitna: Supporting Documentation 03/27/08.  Those verses prove  clearly and beyond doubt  that Islam is intrinsically violent and aggressive, by design.
10. The burqa ban combines a tangential swipe of the cat's paw with a valid security interest. Anonymity can lead to impunity.
11. There are valid reasons for objecting to the mosque of triumph at ground zero. Even Tariq Ramadan agrees that the Park 51 project is an unnecessary provocation and insult to the surviving victims of the attack.  If built, it will serve as a psychological boost to the proponents of terrorism.
12. Besides being a tangetial attack on Islam, burn a Qur'an day served to raise public awareness of the content of that vile volume of lies & threats.  The books that were torn and burned were translations, not sacred books.  Only the Arabic text is considered sacred and authentic.
13. Growing  public awareness of the threats posed by Islam, both militant, demographic and political, is bringing about increasing resistance & objection to the spread of the war cult. 
14. President Obama condemned burn a Qur'an day.  He has not condemned Bible burning with equal intensity.  Neither has he vociferously condemned burning Christians and churches. His bias is evident.
15. President Obama was identified as a Muslim long before his condemnation of bun a Qur'an day. His Muslim father makes him Muslim by default. His expressed admiration for the Adhan is another marker.  His enrollment in primary schools as a Muslim  documents  the obvious.  His conmversion to  Christianity is an obvious political convenience.  His expressed "duty"  to protect Muslims from  negative stereotyping  stands outas clear evidence; it is not in his job description!
16. Is membership in the Mafia a crime?  Should membership in an  organized crime syndiicate be a crime? Moe began his criminal career with raids on camel caravans returning from trade missions.  He graduated to invading local Jewish settlements, then to invading nearby kingoms.  He sent extortion letters to his intended victims.  He said that the "keys to the treasures of the world" had been given to him. He told his companions: By Allah, I am not afraid that you will be poor, but I fear that worldly wealth will be bestowed upon you as it was bestowed upon those who lived before you. So you will compete amongst yourselves for it, as they competed for it and it will destroy you as it did them." He said" The spoils of war were not made lawful for any people before us, This is because Allah saw our weakness and humility and made them lawful for us.".
17. A Muslim President, when America is under attack and threat of attack by Islam, is an exemplar of treason, the equivalent of a Nazi President in WW2.
18. Clarify that; the pronoun refers to:
    
    1. the 'Muslim' lable
    2. the denial
    3. the implication that Islam is criminal
       1. does the implication belong to President Obama ?
19. Who hijacked those aircraft? Was it elderly Baptist widows? Who tried to blow up Times Square? Was it a middle aged Catholic?  Whp are the perpetrators of Islamic acts of terrorism?  When we hear hoofbeats, we look for horses, not unicorns.
20. Subjecting all passengers to intrusive searches is  time & money wasting idiocy.  The simple solution: exclude Muslims from  mass transit.
21. What is in the titles of the UN resolutions? "Combating defamation of Islam"..."combating defamation of religions". If the issue is 'victimization, why is that not reflected in the titles? 
22. Examine what Allah said:
    
    1. "We shall cast terror "
    2. "I will cast terror "
    3. "to strike terror"
    4. "Allâh brought them down from their forts and cast terror into their hearts, (so that) a group (of them) you killed, and a group (of them) you made captives."
    5. "Verily, you (believers in the Oneness of Allâh - Islâmic Monotheism) are more awful as a fear in their (Jews of Banî An-Nadîr) breasts than Allâh."
       1. Examine what Muhammad said: "I have been made victorious with terror"
       2. Examine what Brig. S.K. Malik wrote in "The Qur'anic Concept of War", a training manual for the Army of Pakistan. "Terror struck into the hearts of the enemies is not only a means, it is the end in itself. Once a condition of terror into the opponens heart is obtained, hardly anything is left to be achieved. It is the point where the means and the end meet and merge. Terror is not a means of imposing decision upon
          the enemy; it is me decision we wish to impose upon him."
23. Does anyone perceive the cognitive dissonance in this sentence?  Inter-religious dialog is a weapon against Islam?
    
    1. use religion
    2. use disinformation against Islam
       1. to victimize Muslims

Sphere: Related Content

Geert Wilders & Free Speech on Trial

Vlad Tepes published a video clip from the trial of Geert  Wilders.  Run time is only 4:41,  but the dialogue is fact paced, and the sub titles flash by rapidly.  On first viewing, I am not certain of the attitude of the  chairman of the bench.  It seems to be antagonistic, but there may be a subtext of  delving deeper into the issues.  It could also be some kind of perverse attack, like taunting a bull in the ring.  I need to replay the video.

    I discover on review that I misinterpreted the Chairman's opening comments. I thought he was closing the court to the audience for the duration of Geert's remarks, instead, he was directing them to let the Court depart first for security reasons.

    What is the big deal about debate?  Does the court desire to  engage Wilders in debate on the details of Islamic doctrine & practices to which he objects and which he exposed?  

    Why does Wilders declare that he has said all he has to say on the subject?   He stands by  his statements, but seems unwilling to give a detailed defense of them.  Have the judges, prosecution or defense considered the documentation I published?  Does the court expect the defense to prove every point?  Would they allow him to speak freely if he tried to offer proof?  

    It appears as though Wilders is wary of being entrapped; provoked to say something outrageous that the prosecution could seize upon to convict him.

Sphere: Related Content

Waki Paki Jurisprudence

Outlook India reports that the Pakistani jurist who ordered that Facebook be blocked has ordered the Foreign Ministry to direct the permanent Ambassador to the U.N. to submit a resolution complaining of the Everybody Draw Muhammad Day page on Facebook. The ban has been lifted, but could be reimposed at the next hearing June 15.

The article included these titillating tidbits from the order.

"The canons of Islam do not prohibit or limit any individual’s right to freedom of expression and speech.

Rather it emulates the phrase, ‘Your liberty ends where the nose of the other persons starts’, meaning thereby that any right to freedom of expression and speech of one person would not prejudice the right of self-respect and dignity of the other person," the judge said in his order.

"The core issue involved in the instant matter was the publication of blasphemous material which was viewed as a deliberate attempt to malign the very holy and sanctimonious stature of Prophet (Mohammed) and any regulation made for the protection of the deeply sensitive and emotional sentiments should not be viewed as (being) in conflict with an individual’s universally accepted rights of freedom, expressions and speech,"

The canons of Islam expressly forbid any negative expression about Islam, its doctrines and sanctities. We turn to Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 8 to view the penalty for apostasy. Apostasy carries a death sentence.

O8.1

When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.

O8.2

In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representive) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.

O8.7 lists a set of acts which entail apostasy. Items 4,5,6,7,14, 15, 16 & 19 are relevant. Saying anything negative about Allah, Moe and their system gets your head lopped off.

O8.7: Acts that Entail Leaving Islam

(O: Among the things that entail apostasy from Islam (may Allah protect us from them) are:

-1- to prostrate to an idol, whether sarcastically, out of mere contrariness, or in actual conviction, like that of someone who believes the Creator to be something that has originated in time. Like idols in this respect are the sun or moon, and like prostration is bowing to other than Allah, if one intends reverence towards it like the reverence due to Allah;

-2- to intend to commit unbelief, even if in the future. And like this intention is hesitating whether to do so or not: one thereby immediately commits unbelief;

-3- to speak words that imply unbelief such as ``Allah is the third of three,'' or ``I am Allah''-unless one's tongue has run away with one, or one is quoting another, or is one of the friends of Allah Most High (wali, def: w33) in a spiritually intoxicated state of total oblivion (A: friend of Allah or not, someone totally oblivious is as if insane, and is not held legally responsible (dis: k13.1(O:) ) ), for these latter do not entail unbelief;

-4- to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace);

-5- to deny the existence of Allah, His beginingless eternality, His endless eternality, or to deny any of His attributes which the consensus of Muslims ascribes to Him (dis: v1);

-6- to be sarcastic about Allah's name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat;

-7- to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it;

-8- to mockingly say, ``I don't know what faith is'';

-9- to reply to someone who says, ``There is no power or strength save through Allah''; ``Your saying `There's no power or strength, etc,' won't save you from hunger'';

-10- for a tyrant, after an oppressed person says, ``This is through the decree of Allah,'' to reply, ``I act without the decree of Allah'';

-11- to say that a Muslim is an unbeliever (kafir) (dis: w47) in words that are uninterpretable as merely meaning he is an ingrate towards Allah for divinely given blessings (n: in Arabic, also ``kafir'');

-12- when someone asks to be taught the Testification of Faith (Ar. Shahada, the words, ``La ilaha ill Allahu Muhammadun rasulu Llah'' (There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah) ), and a Muslim refuses to teach him it;

-13- to describe a Muslim or someone who wants to become a Muslim in terms of unbelief (kufr);

-14- to deny the obligatory character of something which by the consensus of Muslims (ijma`, def: B7) is part of Islam, when it is well known as such, like the prayer (salat) or even one rak'a from one of the five obligatory prayers, if there is no excuse (def: u2.4);

-15- to hold that any of Allah's messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent;

(n: `Ala' al-din' Abidin adds the following:

-16- to revile the religion of Islam;

-17- to believe that things in themselves or by their own nature have any causal influence independent of the will of Allah;

-18- to deny the existence of angels or jinn (def: w22), or the heavens;

-19- to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law;

-20- or to deny that Allah intended the Prophet's message (Allah bless him and give him peace) to be the religion followed by the entire world (dis: w4.3-4) (al-Hadiyya al-`Ala'iyya (y4), 423-24). )

Of course that could not apply to us kafiroon, could it? Chapter 11 deals with non-Muslim subjects of the Islamic state; O11.10 lists five acts which violate the treaty of dhimmitude, subjecting the violator to the death penalty. Of these, the fifth item is of interest to us.

-5- or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam.

Got a clue yet? The Jurist ruled that Shari'ah does not impair our right of free expression. Shari'ah explicitly contradicts his ruling. Sorry, Justice Chaudhry, you do not have a right to close off all expression that offends your tender sensibilities. You have a right to withdraw from the presence of the speaker, to change the t.v. or radio channel, or to point your web browser to a different web site. We have a Constitution which says that "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." [Emphasis added.] That Constitution is the supreme law of the land, it is superior to Shari'ah and to international law and to your vaunted U.N. resolutions. So, kiss off!

Some people lack extensive knowledge of the tenets of Islam. Some lack the ability and patience to vocalize their outrage. They express their negative emotion with art. Others like me have no artistic skill with which to express our outrage. We are limited to the written and spoken word as a means of expressing our outrage and sharing factual information with our fellows. American citizens have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to express what we know about Moe's War Cult. We will not be silenced.

Sphere: Related Content

Bashing Islam: Hypocrisy or Free Expression ?

Two Circles published a screed titled Hypocrisy in the guise of freedom of expression which accuses "the West" of hypocrisy.
After making it clear that the Facebook group "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day" is on their mind, they launch their argument.

The Western society has always claimed to be protector of Freedom of Speech. But is it Islam bashing in the garb of Freedom of Speech? Does the West really practice what it preaches? Before Freedom of Speech, the West used to lecture all Asian/ African countries about human rights. But when its own hypocrisy about human rights was exposed in Iraq and Guantanamo and in cases of illegal detentions, West’s human rights chants have reduced drastically.

In my country, free speech is one of our foundational rights, assured by the First Amendment to our Constitution. That right is essential to the establishment & maintenance of a free republican form of government. It is necessary that the citizens be free to name and shame both domestic and foreign threats to their liberties. We must have freedom of expression to alert others to approaching danger: any attempt to encroach on our liberties or the system which establishes & preserves them.

Much to the dismay of M. Zajam & other Muslims, the right of free speech includes Islam bashing, which is a coarse and imprecise way of raising the alarm of approaching danger. Personally, I prefer more refined and precise techniques, which involve exposing the dirty details of Islamic doctrine and practice . Both are allowed under our First Amendment's free speech clause.

There is no human right more essential than the right to life, which Islam denies with Moe's declaration that our blood and property are not sacred to Muslims (Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387) and its declaration of perpetual war against us (Surah At-Taubah 29). There is one way to alienate that right: by initiating aggression. When Iraq trained "the magnificent 19" at Salman Pak, casus belli was established. Holding prisoners of war at Guantanamo or anywhere else is not a violation of human rights. Declaring and prosecuting war on us is the violation of human rights.

Likes of Norris are nowhere to be seen or heard when Holocaust denier is jailed. Each European country has law against denying Holocaust. Did we have a page on Holocaust cartoons on Facebook, the ultimate place of liberty?

My country is not European. our system of laws is different from theirs. We do not outlaw Holocaust denial. I have seen that sort of cartoon and claims on Facebook.

Christianity, Judaism and Islam have recommended severe punishment for Blasphemy. But only Islamic connection makes it to headline. Even UN General Assembly has passed several resolutions which called upon the world to take action against the "defamation of religions”.

Islam has not been defamed, it is infamous, by design. Moe set out to build a reputation for barbarian rapine for the purpose of intimidating his intended victims (Surah Al-Anfal 57, Surah Al-Hashr 13).

Every community reacts in same way when their religious feelings are hurt. It is rightly so.

American Christians withstood such works of art as "Piss Christ" as well as numerous books and movies without rioting or murdering anyone. The U.N. resolutions mentioned above are not limited to cartoons, they condemn all criticism of Islam including blog posts and documentary videos.

Sphere: Related Content

State Department Principle: Hypocrisy

I have reproduced an excerpt from a speech delivered byHarold Hongju Koh. Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State to the Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law in Washington, DC on March 25, 2010. I have added emphasis to some crucial statements and intersperced my commentary.

When the Obama Administration took office, we faced two choices with respect to the Human Rights Council: we could continue to stay away, and watch the flaws continue and possibly get worse, or we could engage and fight for better outcomes on human rights issues, even if they would not be easy to achieve. With the HRC, as with the ICC and other for a, we have chosen principled engagement and strategic multilateralism. While the institution is far from perfect, it is important and deserves the long-term commitment of the United States, and the United States must deploy its stature and moral authority to improve the U.N. human rights system where possible. This is a long-term effort, but one that we are committed to seeing through to success consistent with the basic goals of the Obama-Clinton doctrine: principled engagement and universality of human rights law.

HRC members are elected to the council on a regional basis. The realities of geopolitics dictate the fact that the enemies of human rights will always have a majority on the council. Our side will continue to be out voted, no matter how we pursue our principles. Our engagement is ineffectual.

Our inaugural session as an HRC member in September saw some important successes, most notably the adoption by consensus of a freedom of expression resolution, which we co-sponsored with Egypt, that brought warring regional groups together and preserved the resolution as a vehicle to express firm support for freedom of speech and expression. This resolution was a way of implementing some of the themes in President Obama’s historic speech in Cairo, bridging geographic and cultural divides and dealing with global issues of discrimination and intolerance.

Harold Koh was referring to A/HRC/12/L.l4/Rev. which, contrary to his assertion, does nothing to support freedom of expression, which includes these expressions:

Recognizes the positive contribution that the exercise of the right to freedom of expression, particularly by the media, including through information and communication technologies such as the Internet, and full respect for the freedom to seek, receive and impart information can make to the fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and to preventing human rights abuses, but expresses regret at the promotion by certain media of false images and negative stereotypes of vulnerable individuals or groups of individuals, and at the use of information and communication technologies such as the Internet for purposes contrary to respect for human rights, in particular the perpetration of violence against and exploitation and abuse of women and children, and disseminating racist and xenophobic discourse or content;

In that context, "racism" & "related intolerance" are code words for criticism of Islam. The right to free expression can contribute to ending "Islamophobia"; yeah, right. "Promotion by certain media of false images and negative stereotypes" is a thinly veiled reference to the Motoons & Fitna. The resolution is, in reality, a demand for censorship.

We also joined country resolutions highlighting human rights situations in Burma, Somalia, Cambodia, and Honduras, and were able to take positions joined by other countries on several resolutions on which the United States previously would have been isolated, including ones on toxic waste and the financial crisis. The challenges in developing a body that fairly and even-handedly addresses human rights issues are significant, but we will continue to work toward that end.

How about the human rights abuses subsequent to the stolen election in Iran? What did you do about that in the council?

At the March HRC session, which ends tomorrow, we have continued to pursue principled engagement by taking on a variety of initiatives at the HRC that seek to weaken protections on freedom of expression, in particular, the push of some Council Members to ban speech that “defames” religions, such as the Danish cartoons. At this session, we made supported a country resolution on Guinea and made significant progress in opposing the Organization of the Islamic Conference’s highly problematic “defamation of religions” resolution, even while continuing to deal with underlying concerns about religious intolerance.

So you flipped three votes on the Defamation of Religions Resolution, big deal; it still carried a majority and it will continue to do so every year unless you can flip the votes of four OIC members. The American delegation recently submitted a draft proposal which they would substitute for the draft resolution before the Ad Hoc Committee for the Elaboration of Complementary Standards, which would amend ICERD to criminalize all criticism of Islam. I dissected that new draft in a previous blog post.

Where the OIC and its allies are concerned, religious intolerance is not a concern. Islam is extremely intolerant. Truthful exposure of the doctrines and practices of Islam are what they are concerned about. The Motoons depicted Moe as a terrorist, which he was, by his own bragging. Fitna exposed the connection between the doctrines enshrined in the Qur'an and the violence done by Muslim mobs after Juman Salat. Islamic law prescribes the death penalty for reviling Allah, Moe, and their war cult. A Muslim who does that, or who questions any Islamic doctrine is deemed an apostate subject to execution. Turn to http://www.nku.edu/~kenneyr/Islam/Reliance.html and read O8.2, O8.7 and O11.5. {Book O, Chapters 8 & 11}
They want to impose that law on us.

Sphere: Related Content

U.S.A. vs Durban Declaration

A press release distributed by Press Zoom appears to be taken from the records of the Third Committee, describing the debate and voting on several resolutions before the committee.

Those resolutions included the five-part draft text on global efforts for the total elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action ( document A/C.3/64/L.54/Rev.1 ), which was introduced by the representative of Sudan, on behalf of the Group of 77 and China.

32. Calls upon all States, in accordance with the commitments undertaken in paragraph 147 of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action,1 to take all necessary measures to combat incitement to violence motivated by racial hatred,
including through the misuse of print, audio-visual and electronic media and new communication technologies, and, in collaboration with service providers, to promote the use of such technologies, including the Internet to contribute to the fight against racism, in conformity with international standards of freedom of expression and taking all necessary measures to guarantee that right;

33. Encourages all States to include in their educational curricula and social programmes at all levels, as appropriate, knowledge of and tolerance and respect for all cultures, civilizations, religions, peoples and countries, as well as information on the follow-up to and implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action; [Emphasis added.]

Paragraph 32 quoted above is aimed directly at all criticism of Islam. Its practical implementation is best illustrated by the words of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

Reuters quotes U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon about Fitna:

“There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence,” Ban said in a statement. “The right of free expression is not at stake here.” [Emphasis added for clarity.]

The man chiefly responsible for enforcing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts that there is no right to tell the truth about Islam. Fitna is not hate speech nor is it incitement; it accurately depicts Islamic hate speech and incitement. The pending trial of Geert Wilders on charges of hate speech is a prime example of the violation of freedom of expression intended by the sponsors of this resolution.

Paragraph 33 encourages turning our schools into instruments of propaganda & indoctrination, bordering on proselytizing. It is impossible for an informed and rational person to tolerate or respect Islam because Islam is supremely intolerant and denies our rights and dignity in addition to declaring perpetual war against us.

Speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, the representative of the United States said his country was deeply committed to fighting racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance at home and abroad. Its founding commitment to the principle that all people were created equal was manifested in its own legislation and its work around the world. Among other things, the United States had, in October, presented an action plan during the meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee on the elaboration of complementary standards. [Emphasis added for clarity.]

The bold faced clause is composed of three code phrases for 'Islamophobia'. The preliminary meeting to prepare for the Durban II Racism Conference redefined racism to include criticism of Islam.

Emphasizes the urgent need to address the scourges of anti-Semitism, Christianophobia, and Islamophobia as contemporary forms of racism as well as racial and violent movements based on racism and discriminatory ideas directed at African, Arab, Christian, Jewish, Muslim and other communities; [Emphasis added for clarity, spelling original.]

Obamanation is "deeply committed to fighting" criticism of Islam. Their whining about freedom of expression is a smoke screen to cover their actual intent: to silence all criticism of Islam and the regime's Socialist agenda.

He said the United States had been unable to support the Durban Review Conference because it supported the 2001 World Conference, in toto. The United States was deeply concerned about hateful speech, but did not agree that the best way to combat such speech was by its prohibition. Rather, the United States believed an effective approach was based on three key elements, including robust legal protections against hate crimes, outreach to religious groups and vigorous defence of freedom of expression. It regretted having to vote “no” on this text and looked forward to working together with the international community. It remained deeply committed to ongoing, thoughtful dialogue on combating racism and racial discrimination. [Emphasis added for clarity, spelling original.]

"Hateful speech" is code for any negative expression about Islam, including Fitna: and the Danish Cartoons. Notice that the regime is concerned about the outcome: silencing all criticism, they seek an "effective approach", a method that will result in silence.

"Hate crimes": if any expression should be criminalized, that is the one. Assaulting, killing or harassing anyone is a crime, regardless of the victim's identity, religion, gender, etc. There is no group of persons more deserving of protection than any other.

"Outreach to religious groups" is code for pandering to Islam, submitting to its outrageous demands. Islam's most outrageous demand is that we submit and become Muslims. We might as well be bitten by Dracula and become vampires. Islamic law forbids any and all negative expression about Allah, Moe, the Qur'an & the laws they issued. If you doubt this, open Reliance of the Traveller to O8.7 and read the list of acts which entail leaving Islam, the penalty for which is death (O8.2). For the law's applicability to non-Muslims, see O11.10(5).

Far from being a saintly Prophet, Moe was a pedophile who married the six year old daughter of his best friend. He solicited the murder of critics. He was guilty of genocide; preaching and practicing it.

Far from being a "great religion of peace", Islam is a mercenary war cult, contrived for the purpose of enriching and empowering its founder by perpetuating war so that he could accrue the spoils.

Islam's objective in demanding blasphemy laws & censorship is to disarm us in the war of ideas so that, in the words of George Washington, "dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter".

If you are a lover of liberty and the rights ensured by the Bill of Rights, then do your part to preserve them by signing and propagating these petitions. Send their links to everyone you can hope to influence with an exhortation to sign and forward them.

• Free to Believe
• ACLJ
• International Qur'an Petition
  

Sphere: Related Content

First Amendment

By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle



Wake up, America



View at YouTube

I find myself amazed at the poor quality of education that $41,500 a year buys at Harvard Law School. You would think that for that amount of money they would at least teach the US Constitution. But it seems not to be the case, especially with one of their most famous graduates, Barack Hussein Obama, our current President.

I wonder what part of the First Amendment they did teach him or was he absent that day? For no person who has been taught the US Constitution would ever forget the words of the First Amendment:

"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."

Yet President Obama has chosen to ignore this and is pushing for full restrictions on our right to Free Speech:

The U.N. Human Rights Council approved a U.S.-backed resolution Friday deploring attacks on religions while insisting that freedom of expression remains a basic right.

The inaugural resolution sponsored by the U.S. since it joined the council in June broke a long-running deadlock between Western and Islamic countries in the wake of the publication of cartoons depicting the Muslim Prophet Muhammad.

American diplomats say the measure — co-sponsored by Egypt — is part of the Obama administration's effort to reach out to Muslim countries.

"The exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression is one of the essential foundations of a democratic society," the resolution states, urging countries to protect free speech by lifting legal restrictions, ensuring the safety of journalists, promoting literacy and preventing media concentration.

Not the sort of "outreach" the majority of Americans want. We like our Freedoms very much. Free speech is a protected right here in the US. Our own Supreme Court has affirmed the concept that "Even the most hateful and harmful speech is protected speech." (NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY v. SKOKIE, 432 U.S. 43 [1977])

Oh yes, we can say what we want about a religion without the fear of blasphemy laws. Oh happy day!

Mr. Condell need not worry about the United States losing our Freedoms soon. Not as long as Article VI of the Constitution is the law:

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Or in layman speak:

"This Constitution will be the hightest law in the land. No law or treaty can be written or ratified that would violate this Constitution."

This whole idea of forcing Islamic blasphemy laws came about because of the riots over the Danish Muhammad Cartoons, it is only fitting that this post on Free Speech end with these cartoons.

To Muslims around the world:

Feel free to riot. For that shows to us the true face and spirit of Islam. A backward cult suitable only for children and those with the intelligence of an imbecile.

The rest of us will just laugh at your ignorance and keep on speaking our mind!

Sphere: Related Content

Reject the Defamation of Religions Resolution!

Open Doors USA, an Evangelical Christian organization, has posted a petition urging United Nations member states to reject the annual Defamation of Islam resolution. I have endorsed their petition, whose text is reproduced below, and urge you to endorse, support and publicize it. For more information about previous Defamation Resolutions, see: UN Bans Criticism of Islam.

I affirm the universal human right to freely chose and express an individual’s religious beliefs.

Accordingly, I urge fellow Member States of the United Nations to focus on protecting the fundamental freedom of individuals to express their religion or beliefs and to oppose the so called “defamation of religions resolutions.”

These resolutions seek to criminalize dissenting ideas and peaceful expression of non-favored religious beliefs. The “defamation of religions” resolutions are in direct infringement of the guarantees to free speech and belief found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

For these reasons, I ask all Member States to vote NO on “defamation of religions resolutions.”

Sphere: Related Content

A First Amendment Hero!

By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle

Professor Indrek Wichman

He looks mild-mannered, not a man who would stand up to bullies and force them to back down. But Professor Indrek Wichman of Michagan State University, has become a Hero.

Now what would force this Professor of Mechanical Engineering to stand up for the First Amendment? Nothing less than a planned protest by the MSU chapter of the Muslim Students Union (MSU)

Members of the Muslim Student Association (MSA) at Michigan State University (MSU) didn’t know what they were getting into when they tried to suppress the free speech rights of Professor Indrek Wichman. On February 28, 2006 he read in the MSU student newspaper a call to protest the publication of the Muhammad cartoons. The article struck a raw nerve. He responded with the following:

Dear Moslem Association:

As a professor of Mechanical Engineering here at MSU I intend to protest your protest. I am offended not by cartoons, but by more mundane things like beheadings of civilians, cowardly attacks on public buildings, suicide murders, murders of Catholic priests (the latest in Turkey!), burnings of Christian churches, the continued persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt, the imposition of Sharia law on non-Muslims, the rapes of Scandinavian girls and women (called "whores" in your culture), the murder of film directors in Holland, and the rioting and looting in Paris France.

This is what offends me, a soft-spoken person and academic, and many, many, many of my colleagues. I counsel you dissatisfied, aggressive, brutal, and uncivilized slave-trading Moslems to be very aware of this as you proceed with your infantile "protests."

If you do not like the values of the West--see the 1st Amendment--you are free to leave. I hope for God's sake that most of you choose that option. Please return to your ancestral homelands and build them up yourselves instead of troubling Americans.

Cordially,

I. S. Wichman, Professor of Mechanical Engineering.

Some may say this reaction was a tad over-heated. But in a university environment, the more important question is: Were the statements accurate? It’s tough to argue with the validity of Professor Wichman’s factual assertions. And even tougher to demand that Wichman remain morally neutral regarding the examples of Muslim misconduct he cites.

For over three weeks Professor Wichman heard nothing about his email. But behind the scenes, the MSA had called in CAIR and had three separate meetings with the MSU provost. The MSA and CAIR both demanded that Wichman be censured, disciplined, enrolled in diversity and sensitivity training, and even “re-educated” on Islam.

To his credit, the MSU Provost did not cave in to the CAIR/MSA demands. On March 20, 2006 he wrote Wichman a letter saying that he strongly disagreed with the “intemperate tone” of his email. But he added that Wichman still had rights to free speech. From there, things got worse.

The MSU Provost told Wichman that if he continued to “harass” and “intimidate” the MSU MSA - while creating a “hostile intellectual climate” - then formal charges consistent with MSU anti-discrimination policy (ADP) would be filed by MSU against him. (emphasis mine)

On April 24, 2006 Wichman realized that the issue had not quietly gone away. He began receiving telephone calls and emails from local newspapers, AP, Reuters and other national and international outlets. CAIR and MSA, frustrated by the MSU Provost, had gone over his head and published a response, organized a press conference, and made a national/international press release.

CAIR and MSA’s public call upon MSU to take “disciplinary action" against Wichman’s “Islamophobic” email was a classic example of Muslim cowardice. Michigan’s CAIR Executive Director Mr. Dawud Walid said it was “unconscionable for a professor to use his university e-mail account to foster a hostile learning environment for Muslim students.” He added, “The University needs to take appropriate disciplinary action in this case to demonstrate through its actions that anti-Muslim bigotry will not be tolerated on campus.”

It should be noted that Mr. Walid has gone to court to argue for applying Sharia law in mid-Michigan. That serves to undercut significantly his stature as an opponent of bigotry towards minorities.

I sat down for a beer - I believe it was a Danish beer – with Indrek Wichman in April. When he said he meant to “protest the protest” of the MSA he really meant it. He helped form a conservative faculty group at MSU. The group serves to protest speech codes, invite conservative speakers to campus, and represent students and faculty whose rights are trampled by the MSU administration.

Indrek Wichman is not your typical college professor. He is a true First Amendment hero.

Meanwhile, Dawud Walid is still fighting to repeal the First Amendment and keep Muslims from being offended. He wants to replace it with Sharia law so Muslims can freely beat their wives and publicly execute homosexuals.

How is it that Muslims can say the most hurtful, racially insensitive, anti-Semitic rhetoric on US campuses without the administrations of those schools saying a word no, yet one lone professor on a campus writes an e-mail in protest of the barbaric practices of Islam, he is vilified and crucified? The behavior of the MSU in regards to Free Speech and other rights is well documented on the net. One just has to read Fousesquawk by blogger Gary Fouse to see what is happening at UC Irvine.

And it is happening at every college and university in the US.

What the MSU & CAIR are trying to do is first to stiffle free speech, then to impose Shar'ia Law on the US. Their counterparts have been very successful in doing this in Europe and Great Britain. But unlike those lost lands, the US has the Free exercise of Speech firmly written into the US Constitution. And there are plenty of court cases backing the right of Free Speech.

Slowly, on campuses, faculity are speaking out against the MSU. They are challenging their claims, and forcing the 1st Amendment down their throats.

I wonder what has taken them so long.

Sphere: Related Content