<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>FrontPage Magazine &#187; William Becker</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/author/william-becker/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 07:56:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>The American Library Association&#8217;s Stealth Jihad Against Free Speech &#8211; by William J. Becker, Jr</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/william-becker/the-american-library-associations-stealth-jihad-against-free-speech-by-william-j-becker-jr/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-american-library-associations-stealth-jihad-against-free-speech-by-william-j-becker-jr</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/william-becker/the-american-library-associations-stealth-jihad-against-free-speech-by-william-j-becker-jr/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2009 04:07:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[William Becker]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=25458</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Gross hypocrisy: attacking "banned books" while banning controversial speakers.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-25585" title="Book Burning" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Book-Burning.jpg" alt="Book Burning" width="485" height="447" /></p>
<p>Last month (September 2009), the American Library Association (ALA) sponsored  Banned Books Week, an initiative purporting to promote intellectual freedom,  which it defined as “the freedom to access information and express ideas, even  if the information and ideas might be considered unorthodox or unpopular.”  Yet even while it was busy promoting the  event to draw attention to “the harms of censorship,” it was immersed in a  separate stealth campaign to suppress intellectual freedom and to marginalize a  dissenting voice.</p>
<p>On July 12, 2009, Robert Spencer, the editor of  JihadWatch.com and author of the recently published “The Complete Infidel’s  Guide to the Koran,” was invited to join a panel forum at the ALA’s annual  General Meeting on the topic “Perspectives on Islam: Beyond the  Stereotyping.”</p>
<p>As he was leaving to catch a plane for the event, Spencer  learned that it had been cancelled.   According to reports he later read on the Internet, Ahmed Rehab, Chicago  executive director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), was  responsible for bringing about the cancellation.  In a letter to ALA, Rehab wrote:  “I ask you to rescind the invitation to Mr.  Spencer in order to maintain the  integrity of the panel and the reputation of the ALA.”  Mr. Spencer, he argued, offered “grotesque viewpoints that lie well outside the bounds of reason and  civilized debate.”</p>
<p>The reports were supported with press releases issued by  CAIR-Chicago admitting that it along with the Council on Islamic Organizations  of Greater Chicago (CIOGC), a coalition of more than 50 Muslim organizations,  the other ALA panelists and a number of librarians and academics pressured ALA  to drop Spencer from the conference.  The  press releases referred to Spencer as “Islamophobic” and one “who systematically  spreads fear, bigotry, and misinformation.”</p>
<p>By pressuring ALA, CAIR-Chicago, CIOGC and others had just  one objective in mind:  to deprive  Spencer (and ALA) of the freedom to present information and to express ideas,  even though the information he would be expected to present and his ideas might  be considered “unorthodox or unpopular.”</p>
<p>ALA maintains  an  Office for Intellectual Freedom.  As its  mission statement claims, “…[I]ntellectual freedom can exist only where the  freedom to express oneself and the freedom to choose what opinions and  viewpoints to consume are both met.”   That clearly was a principle the Islamic groups, by their pressure  tactics, threatened.  ALA should have  been prepared to defend itself against such a transparent assault on  intellectual freedom.  By challenging ALA  to cancel Spencer’s appearance, they achieved their objective, and ALA exposed  its support for intellectual freedom to be duplicitous if not entirely  fraudulent.</p>
<p>With its tough talk, ALA would be expected to have invited  Spencer to show up alone.  After all, the  panel topic referred to “perspectives” in the plural form, implying there would  be more than one perspective presented, presumably heterodox.  It also promised a discussion that would  reveal how Islam, as a culture, transcends the narrow perceptions some hold of  it.  Pulling Spencer’s appearance would  contradict ALA’s lofty claims and signal a surrender to the power of  censorship.</p>
<p>Yet surrender it did.   One might imagine that by cancelling the event, ALA was merely making a  politically expedient decision to avoid alienating local constituencies in the  Chicago region where it is headquartered.   But when Spencer asked to be reimbursed a paltry sum for non-refundable  airfare and lodging expenses he had incurred, ALA told him to take a hike.  His request for an apology was just  ignored.</p>
<p>Remarkably, when Spencer offered to eat his expenses if ALA  would simply invite him back to speak at another event, ALA’s attorney, Paula  Cozzi Goedert of the law firm Barnes &amp; Thornburg, accused him of attempting  extortion.  This from an organization  that seemed open to extortionist tactics.</p>
<p>After much legal haggling, ALA eventually agreed to reimburse  Spencer a small portion of the amount he claimed he was owed but refused to  admit it had made a mistake or to offer him an invitation.  This time, it was Spencer’s turn to reject,  and he did.</p>
<p>Spencer, of course, knows something about Islam’s <em>perspective</em> on free speech.  In his 2008 book “Stealth Jihad,” he pointed  to the efforts of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), whose  members include fifty-seven governments of Muslim-majority states, to craft a  “legal instrument” to fight “Islamophobia,” which means any criticism of  Islam.</p>
<p>This “legal instrument” is a call to arms to end what the OIC  refers to as “defamation of religions.” It has been adopted by UN Human Rights  Council resolutions and by the General Assembly.  Only the US and the EU have resisted  endorsement of it.</p>
<p>And it is not some fiction developed by <em>Islamophobes</em> who fear their cultural  values being attacked.  As the OIC’s 2009  Second Observatory Report on Islamophobia suggests,  it is an open work-in-progress:  “The perceived threat to freedom of  expression on the part of the US, the EU and other concerned countries constitutes an obstacle that can only be  removed through sustained and constructive engagement.”</p>
<p>In Spencer’s case, which as his attorney I sought to resolve  on his behalf, the threat to freedom of expression is not merely <em>perceived</em>, but is repugnantly  demonstrably real, just as it is in the case of Joe Kaufman, a writer for FPM  sued by various Islamic groups in Texas for defamation, a case that is testing  the power of the OIC’s “legal instrument” as the groups petition the Texas  Supreme Court to overrule the lower court ruling in Kaufman’s favor.</p>
<p>In the end, ALA not only failed to protect Spencer’s  intellectual freedom, it went out of its way to suppress it, showing complete  indifference to either the principle of intellectual freedom or the potential  damage to its own reputation, even knowing that this dirty episode would be  publicly aired.</p>
<p>As ALA’s attorney, Goedert, made sure to point out to me (as  though I were a first year law student), this isn’t a case of free speech under  the First Amendment, because ALA is not a government actor.  As a private institution, the First Amendment  has no power over it; ALA can censor whomever it chooses.  Goedart’s unapologetic statement impressed me  as somewhat breathtaking.  I can’t think  of a more embarrassing and shameful example of hypocrisy and moral apathy by an  institution that holds itself out as a champion of free speech.</p>
<p>Given the amount at stake and the limited reach of the panel  discussion’s influence, Spencer’s ordeal would be perhaps unsettling but  inconsequential if it didn’t involve the ALA, founded in 1876 in Philadelphia,  and whose members consist of America’s librarians, some of our most cherished  guardians of free expression.</p>
<p>And it would be perhaps unsettling but inconsequential if it  did not involve Robert Spencer, the target of frequent death threats due to his  candid and authoritative views on Islam and the Koran, making him the Salman  Rushdie of our time.</p>
<p>It might even be called unsettling but inconsequential if the  cowards who withdrew from the panel discussion were not so hostile to American  values and did not have a battle plan to shred the First Amendment.</p>
<p>As this article was being written, World Net Daily reported  that radio host Michael Savage’s invitation to an October 15 debate via video  hook-up to Cambridge University was cancelled one week before it was  scheduled.  Savage was to have argued  against political correctness.  As Bruce  Chapman, president of the Discovery Institute think tank, has explained  opponents of intelligent design theory, “They don’t allow a debate; they try to  stop it and the reason they try to stop it is because they don’t think they can  win it.”</p>
<p>That may be one probable explanation for the reaction by ALA  to Spencer’s appearance.  But it is also  likely that his case represents a broadside attack on freedom of speech and  intellectual freedom waged by Islamic apologists and abetted by America’s  liberal elite establishment.  The  cancellation of Spencer’s appearance based on ALA’s silent acquiescence to  outside pressure from those who seek to destroy intellectual freedom isn’t  inconsequential, and it is more than unsettling.  This is, as Spencer has characterized it, a  stealth jihad against free speech, which now claims the American Library  Association among the jihadists.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/william-becker/the-american-library-associations-stealth-jihad-against-free-speech-by-william-j-becker-jr/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>26</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 324/335 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-31 08:12:51 by W3 Total Cache -->