<?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; Freedom of speech</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/tag/freedom-of-speech/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 16:20:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>Even Bill Clinton Thinks that Obama&#8217;s Abandonment of the Internet is a Bad Idea</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/even-bill-clinton-thinks-that-obamas-abandonment-of-the-internet-is-a-bad-idea/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=even-bill-clinton-thinks-that-obamas-abandonment-of-the-internet-is-a-bad-idea</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/even-bill-clinton-thinks-that-obamas-abandonment-of-the-internet-is-a-bad-idea/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Mar 2014 02:46:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[The Point]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom of speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ICANN]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=221710</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The United States has been by far the country most committed to keeping the Internet free. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/barack-obama-bill-clinton-cb62832651557e7f.jpg"><img class="alignnone  wp-image-221714" alt="barack-obama-bill-clinton-cb62832651557e7f" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/barack-obama-bill-clinton-cb62832651557e7f.jpg" width="442" height="326" /></a></p>
<p>Is <a href="http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=229718">there anyone who actually thinks </a><a href="http://washingtonexaminer.com/bill-clinton-defends-american-control-of-internet-domain-name-system/article/2546105">it&#8217;s a good idea?</a> I haven&#8217;t seen many defenses of it in the usual places.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m sure Think Progress and Media Matters are doing their best, but it seems like even the e-left is enthused by the idea of letting a bunch of dictatorships determine freedom on the internet.</p>
<blockquote><p>Former President Bill Clinton presided over a star-studded panel Friday evening, voicing his preference that the United States maintain control of the Internet&#8217;s domain name system, which will soon be ceded to an international body.</p>
<p>&#8220;Whatever you think our country has done wrong, the United States has been by far the country most committed to keeping the Internet free and open and uninterrupted,&#8221; Clinton said at Arizona State University.</p>
<p>The former president expressed concern over the United States&#8217; recent announcement that the Internet domain system, currently controlled an agency of the Department of Commerce, will soon be ceded to an international agency that will be assembled after negotiations.</p>
<p>Added Clinton, &#8220;We&#8217;ve kept the Internet free and open, and that&#8217;s a great tribute to the United States.&#8221;</p>
<p>Wales, who said denying access to the information of the Internet was akin to a human rights violation, said he frequently tries to explain to citizens overseas why American control of the system was not a bad thing.</p>
<p>&#8220;There is the First Amendment in the U.S., and a culture of free expression,&#8221; he said.</p></blockquote>
<p>And a lot of people on the left aren&#8217;t crazy about that. Obama, who has become the first leader in nearly a century to lock up a man for making a politically incorrect film, certainly isn&#8217;t a fan of free speech.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s a little ironic that Bill Clinton is making that speech considering his role in the CDA. If Janet Reno had gotten her way, the open internet wouldn&#8217;t exist.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/even-bill-clinton-thinks-that-obamas-abandonment-of-the-internet-is-a-bad-idea/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>We Can Have Gay Rights or Freedom of Speech</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/we-can-have-gay-rights-or-freedom-of-speech/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=we-can-have-gay-rights-or-freedom-of-speech</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/we-can-have-gay-rights-or-freedom-of-speech/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Dec 2013 15:14:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[The Point]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom of speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gay rights]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=213680</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[When the left talks about tolerance, it means intolerance.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/mouth-taped-censorship.gif"><img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-128564" alt="mouth-taped-censorship" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/mouth-taped-censorship-300x203.gif" width="300" height="203" /></a></p>
<p>What do a reality show star, a cakemaker and a photographer have in common? They&#8217;re all victims of a political system in which the mandate to not merely recognize gay marriage, but to celebrate it, has completely displaced freedom of speech.</p>
<p>The issues at stake in all three cases did not involve the Orwellian absurdity of &#8220;Marriage Equality&#8221;. The cases of a Christian cakemaker and a Christian photographer whom state courts have ruled must participate in gay weddings or face fines and jail time were blatant violations of both Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion in the name of outlawing any dissent from gay marriage.</p>
<p>That is why Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty was suspended. Robertson, unlike Bashir, didn&#8217;t take to the air to make violent threats against an individual. He expressed in plain language that he believes homosexuality is wrong. And that is something that you aren&#8217;t allowed to do anymore.</p>
<p>The left sneers that A&amp;E isn&#8217;t subject to Freedom of Speech because it&#8217;s a private company. And they&#8217;re right. But then they insist that a cakemaker and a photographer aren&#8217;t protected by Freedom of Speech or Religion because they&#8217;re private businesses.</p>
<p>In their constitutional universe, companies have the right to punish speech in the name of gay rights, but not to engage in protected speech in dissent from gay rights. And that&#8217;s exactly the problem. It&#8217;s not just gays who have been made into a protected class, but homosexuality itself. To dissent from it is bigotry that you can be fired for, fined for and even jailed for.</p>
<p>Gay rights were not settled by legalizing gay marriage. We are facing an ugly choice between freedom of speech and gay rights.</p>
<p>In these three cases, gay rights activists have made it clear that we can have one or the other. But we can&#8217;t have a country where we have both gay weddings and people who disagree with them.</p>
<p>And that&#8217;s unfortunate because even the most generous interpretation of the benefits of two men marrying each other would struggle to prove that it is more beneficial to a society than the ability to speak your own mind and to practice your own religion without being compelled to violate it.</p>
<p>If we have to choose between gay rights and the First Amendment, the moral arc of the universe that liberals like to invoke so often will not swing toward the bullies who insist on dealing with their self-esteem problems by forcing everyone to consent and approve of their lifestyle.</p>
<p>Gay marriage was sold to Americans by cunningly crafted &#8220;gay families&#8221; on popular sitcoms. Now Americans are discovering that real gay activists aren&#8217;t friendly people who just want to make jokes between commercial breaks, but are neurotic and insecure bullies who attack others from behind the safety of the politicians that they bribed with the massive disposable incomes that comes from not having families or long-term relationships.</p>
<p>Most Americans still believe that homosexuality, adultery and a range of other deviant sexual behaviors are sins. They also, like Phil Robertson, believe that disapproving of a behavior does not mean rejecting the person. That&#8217;s where they part company with gay activists who are unable to tolerate Phil Robertson as a person if they are also unable to tolerate his opinion of their sexual habits.</p>
<p>The American tolerance for things like homosexuality comes from a mindset that is a lot closer to Phil Robertson than it is to Barack Obama. It&#8217;s that very Phil Robertson attitude which allows Americans to disapprove of homosexuality, while accepting that homosexuals should have spaces for expressing their need for political identity ceremonies. That tolerance led to civil unions and then gay marriage. And that tolerance has been woefully abused.</p>
<p>Americans are far more tolerant of sexual misbehavior than they are of people trying to take away their civil rights. And that is something that gay rights activists need to consider carefully.</p>
<p>American tolerance for homosexuality is not a blank check. It&#8217;s not the &#8220;progressive&#8221; endgame that the left believes it is in which tolerance for a thing is mistaken for the Stalinist willingness to punish dissent from that very thing.</p>
<p>When ordinary Americans talk about tolerance, they mean tolerance. When the left talks about tolerance, it means intolerance.</p>
<p>Now the gay rights movement, which is just another pimple on the bony arm of the left, is showing its true colors. It is showing that its calls for tolerance are really mandates for intolerance.</p>
<p>It isn&#8217;t looking for public spaces in which to be gay, but the elimination of public and even private spaces that reject homosexuality. It&#8217;s not gay rights that we are talking about, but gay mandates.</p>
<p>If Americans are forced to choose between Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion and gay rights; gay rights activists may not like which way they will vote.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/we-can-have-gay-rights-or-freedom-of-speech/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>89</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;Obama Rodeo Clown Incident Illustrates Nation’s Continued Racial Divide&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/obama-rodeo-clown-incident-illustrates-nations-continued-racial-divide/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=obama-rodeo-clown-incident-illustrates-nations-continued-racial-divide</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/obama-rodeo-clown-incident-illustrates-nations-continued-racial-divide/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Aug 2013 16:09:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[The Point]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom of speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Washington Post]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=200881</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This isn't a racial divide. It's a power divide. It's about who has it and who doesn't. The rodeo clowns don't. Obama, the Kansas City Star and the Washington Post do.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/rodeo-clown-obama.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-200886" alt="rodeo clown obama" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/rodeo-clown-obama-256x350.jpg" width="256" height="350" /></a></p>
<p>That&#8217;s not an Onion headline. That&#8217;s a Washington Amazon Post headline. It doesn&#8217;t even appear to be an op-ed. The liberal media cannot be parodied, because like the USSR&#8217;s Pravda, it overshoots all parody with unintentional self-parody.</p>
<p>A WaPo ex-ombudsman wrote that the only problem with the Bezos Washington Post is Jennifer Rubin. Sure, get rid of Rubin to make more room for quality journalism like this piece by WaPo clown Philip Rucker about the nation&#8217;s racial rodeo clown divide.</p>
<blockquote><p>As some people at the Missouri State Fair see it, the rodeo incident last weekend in which a ringleader taunted a clown wearing a mask of President Obama and played with his lips as a bull charged after him was neither racist nor disrespectful.</p></blockquote>
<p>The Washington Post however sees it as racial. Their only basis for that claim is the clown supposedly playing with the lips of his mask. Of course playing with your lips is also a classic comedy gag.</p>
<p>But at this point racism is a tautology. The answer is always racism. And the proof can always be found somehow, somewhere.</p>
<blockquote><p>A three-minute amateur video of the rodeo act was picked up by news outlets worldwide. Democratic and Republican elected officials in Missouri quickly condemned the incident, saying it was offensive and inappropriate at a taxpayer-funded event with children in attendance. Asked about it Wednesday, a White House spokesman said that it was not one of Missouri’s “finer moments.”</p></blockquote>
<p>A liberalism that plans sex ed for elementary schoolers thinks a clown in an Obama mask is somehow inappropriate for children. Maybe if he gay-married the bull, they could have gotten behind it.</p>
<p>Remember when a Bush spokesman said something negative about Bill Maher&#8217;s praise for terrorists and the media melted down in shrill hysterics about freedom of speech?</p>
<p>Nope. Gone now.</p>
<blockquote><p>There is a long history of mocking politicians at rodeos, and clowns have donned masks of other presidents as part of their acts. But James Staab, a political science professor at the University of Central Missouri, said last week’s incident “goes beyond the pale — they’re talking about physical injury and racial stereotypes.”</p></blockquote>
<p>Ah. Beyond the pale.</p>
<p>Except<a href="http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2534201?slideout=1"> that  &#8220;physical injury&#8221;  was on</a> there before. So James Staab is a shameless liar. But then he&#8217;s a liberal PoliScy professor, so I repeat myself.</p>
<blockquote><p>T.J. Hawkins rolled out the big inner tube, and the bull lowered his head, shot forward and launched into the tube, sending it bounding down the center of the arena. The crowd cheered. Then the bull saw the George Bush dummy. He tore into it, sending the rubber mask flying halfway across the sand as he turned toward the fence, sending cowboys scrambling up the fence rails, hooking one with his horn and tossing him off the fence.</p></blockquote>
<p>Yael T Abouhalkah, the Kansas City Star&#8217;s clown who helped kickstart the rodeo clown Jihad, repeated the same lie in his column that there was no violent implication.</p>
<p>There was more of a violent implication in 1994. If a dummy in Obama mask had been set on by a bull, every liberal from here to Kansas City would be screaming in an uninterrupted hysterical fit about racism.</p>
<p>&#8220;The Wednesday crowd at the fair, which lasts 11 days in remote Sedalia, was overwhelmingly white,&#8221; Philip Rucker writes, scrambling for racism material.</p>
<p>Missouri is 84 percent white. Sedalia is 5 percent African-American. How could the crowd not be &#8220;overwhelmingly white&#8221;?</p>
<blockquote><p>The Wednesday crowd at the fair, which lasts 11 days in remote Sedalia, was overwhelmingly white. Some vendors played right-wing talk radio from boom boxes at their tents. One vendor sold “rebel pride” hats emblazoned with Confederate flags for $8 each.</p></blockquote>
<p>And that&#8217;s Philip Rucker&#8217;s climactic piece of evidence in this clown show. A guy selling confederate flag hats. Clearly the entire fair is racist. But wait&#8230; there&#8217;s still more proof.</p>
<blockquote><p>To Beam, the racist element of the rodeo act was obvious. “If you’re a white man in a black mask in a former slaveholding state with a broom lodged in your rectum and you’re playing with your lips, you will be confused with a racist,” Beam said. “Had I been black, I would’ve been scared for my life.”</p></blockquote>
<p>Beam could be confused with an idiot. But that&#8217;s it folks. If you make fun of a black politician in a state, then you are a racist and about to lead a lynch mob.</p>
<p>In the 1800&#8242;s, Pettis County, in which Sedalia is located, had less than 2,000 slaves. So now its rodeo clown shows need a federal monitor appointed by Obama to make sure no rodeo clowns make fun of him.</p>
<p>This isn&#8217;t a racial divide. It&#8217;s a power divide. It&#8217;s about who has it and who doesn&#8217;t. The rodeo clowns don&#8217;t. Obama, Philip Rucker, Yael T Abouhalkah, the Kansas City Star and the Washington Post do.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/obama-rodeo-clown-incident-illustrates-nations-continued-racial-divide/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>13</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Seattle Bans the Word &#8220;Citizen&#8221; Because it Might Offend Non-Citizens</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/seattle-bans-the-word-citizen-because-it-might-offend-non-citizens/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=seattle-bans-the-word-citizen-because-it-might-offend-non-citizens</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/seattle-bans-the-word-citizen-because-it-might-offend-non-citizens/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Aug 2013 17:06:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[The Point]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom of speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political Correctness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[speech codes]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=199226</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Government workers in the city of Seattle have been advised that the terms "citizen" and "brown bag" are potentially offensive ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/flaming-bag-head.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-199227" alt="flaming bag head" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/flaming-bag-head.jpg" width="400" height="300" /></a></p>
<p>When Seattle one day gets around to banning all words, because language is inherently offensive to the illiterate, and everyone is reduced to communicating with grunts and emphatic gestures, an era of true tolerance and nomadic lifestyles will be upon us.</p>
<p>For the moment, we have to <a href="http://www.jammiewf.com/2013/hilarious-seattle-wants-to-ban-brown-bag-as-potentially-offensive/">make do with small victories</a> of tolerance <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/02/seattle-officials-call-for-ban-on-potentially-offensive-language/">like outlawing &#8220;Brown Bag&#8221; and &#8220;Citizen</a>&#8220;.</p>
<blockquote><p>Government workers in the city of Seattle have been advised that the terms &#8220;citizen&#8221; and &#8220;brown bag&#8221; are potentially offensive and may no longer be used in official documents and discussions.</p>
<p>KOMO-TV reports that the city&#8217;s Office of Civil Rights instructed city workers in a recent internal memo to avoid using the words because some may find them offensive.</p>
<p>&#8220;Luckily, we&#8217;ve got options,&#8221; Elliott Bronstein of the Office for Civil Rights wrote in the memo obtained by the station. &#8220;For &#8216;citizens,&#8217; how about &#8216;residents?&#8217;&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>For Office of Civil Rights how about 1984&#8242;s Ministry of Truth. Or the USSR&#8217;s Department for Agitation and Propaganda or China&#8217;s Chinese Central Propaganda Department.</p>
<p>We&#8217;ve got options.</p>
<p>But it&#8217;s offensive to call an agency that exists to violate civil rights, the Office for Civil Rights.</p>
<blockquote><p>In an interview with Seattle&#8217;s KIRO Radio, Bronstein said the term &#8220;brown bag&#8221; has been used historically as a way to judge skin color.</p>
<p>&#8220;For a lot of particularly African-American community members, the phrase brown bag does bring up associations with the past when a brown bag was actually used, I understand, to determine if people&#8217;s skin color was light enough to allow admission to an event or to come into a party that was being held in a private home,&#8221; Bronstein said.</p></blockquote>
<div>It&#8217;s currently in use by black people as a color test. See Colorism. Banning people from using a word that is not in any way offensive because some black people use it as a color test is offensive.</div>
<div></div>
<blockquote>
<div>According to the memo, city employees should use the terms &#8220;lunch-and-learn&#8221; or &#8220;sack lunch&#8221; instead of &#8220;brown bag.&#8221;</div>
</blockquote>
<div></div>
<div>Or alternatively, they could use &#8220;Bronstein Sack&#8221; in place of the euphonious &#8220;lunch and learn&#8221;. Or &#8220;Sack of Bronstein&#8221; in commemoration of the man who taught us that brown bags are racist.</div>
<div></div>
<blockquote>
<div>Bronstein told KIRO Radio the word &#8220;citizen&#8221; should be avoided because many people who live in Seattle are residents, not citizens.&#8221;They are legal residents of the United States and they are residents of Seattle. They pay taxes and if we use a term like citizens in common use, then it doesn&#8217;t include a lot of folks,&#8221; Bronstein said.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div></div>
<div>Like Democratic voters.</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/seattle-bans-the-word-citizen-because-it-might-offend-non-citizens/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>149</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Allowing Muslim Violence to Determine Permissible Speech</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/allowing-muslim-violence-to-determine-permissible-speech/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=allowing-muslim-violence-to-determine-permissible-speech</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/allowing-muslim-violence-to-determine-permissible-speech/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 09 Dec 2012 18:39:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[The Point]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom of speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[innocence of muslims]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=168614</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The "Innocence of Muslims" case marked the first time in the United States in nearly a century that a man was imprisoned over the hostile reaction to his speech. The precedent for that had already been set with the Koran burnings and the Mohammed cartoons, but for the first time the United States acted on the concept that the outcome of speech determines its protected nature.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/allowing-muslim-violence-to-determine-permissible-speech/3qxhm1-3/" rel="attachment wp-att-168619"><img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-168619" title="3qxhm1" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/3qxhm1-450x252.jpg" alt="" width="450" height="252" /></a></p>
<p>The &#8220;Innocence of Muslims&#8221; case marked the first time in the United States in nearly a century that a man was imprisoned over the hostile reaction to his speech. The precedent for that had already been set with the Koran burnings and the Mohammed cartoons, but for the first time the United States acted on the concept that the outcome of speech determines its protected nature.</p>
<p>That is the important point that Nathaniel Sugarman makes <a href="http://www.legal-project.org/3648/fatal-attraction-us-flirts-with-international">in his article on the UN assault on the American Bill of Rights</a></p>
<blockquote><p>Resolution 16/18 calls for criminalization of &#8220;incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief,&#8221; and it &#8220;condemns&#8230; any advocacy of religious hatred against individuals that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.&#8221; At first glance, this language does not seem restrictive; even in the U.S., incitement is not a protected form of speech. The issue is the respective ways in which the U.S. and the OIC define &#8220;incitement.&#8221; U.S. Courts use a content-based test to determine whether speech is incitement.</p>
<p>Brandenburg, which is still the law, ruled that in order for speech to be unprotected as incitement, the speech must (1) intend to produce imminent lawless action, and must be (2) likely to produce such action. In other words, there is both a subjective and objective prong, both concerning the speech itself. By contrast, the OIC endorses a &#8220;test of consequences,&#8221; which punishes speech based not on its content, but based on the result. This is a completely subjective test, and fails to consider the words uttered by the speaker, focusing only on the reaction of others. How would this play out in practice? Violence claimed to be in response to cartoons of Muhammad, could, under the OIC&#8217;s definition, retroactively define the cartoons as incitement.</p></blockquote>
<p>What this really does is make Muslim violence into the arbiters of what legal and illegal speech is, retroactively. Hate crimes have already moved us all too close to adopting a standard in which the perception of speech determines its legality, but the Islamic effort moves us beyond mere perception into consequence, acting as a kind of Felony Murder rule for speech in which the actions of a hostile third party in antagonism to that speech, rather than in cooperation with it, determines its legality. And all that is needed to suppress any speech is for a hostile and violent reaction to take place in its aftermath.</p>
<p>Speech then becomes subject to mob rule and terrorism becomes the determinant of permissible and impermissible speech.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/allowing-muslim-violence-to-determine-permissible-speech/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>20</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Robert Spencer, Nonie Darwish, Raymond Ibrahim at University of California Irvine</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/frontpagemag-com/robert-spencer-nonie-darwish-raymond-ibrahim-at-university-of-california-irvine/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=robert-spencer-nonie-darwish-raymond-ibrahim-at-university-of-california-irvine</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/frontpagemag-com/robert-spencer-nonie-darwish-raymond-ibrahim-at-university-of-california-irvine/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2012 04:39:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Frontpagemag.com]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[blasphemy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom of speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jamie glazov]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nonie Darwish]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Raymond Ibrahim]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[robert spencer]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=167961</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A panel of scholars sheds light on "Freedom of Speech vs. Blasphemy in Islam." ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2012/jamie-glazov/robert-spencer-nonie-darwish-raymond-ibrahim-at-university-of-california-irvine/pc/" rel="attachment wp-att-167968"><img class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-167968" title="pc" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/pc-269x350.jpg" alt="" width="269" height="350" /></a><strong>On Nov. 26, 2012, Robert Spencer, Nonie Darwish and Raymond Ibrahim gathered at the University of California Irvine to discuss <em>Freedom of Speech vs. Blasphemy in Islam</em>.</strong> <strong>The panel was moderated by Frontpage editor Jamie Glazov.</strong> <strong>Watch the whole 5-part series below:  </strong></p>
<p><strong>Part 1:</strong></p>
<p><iframe src="http://blip.tv/play/AYOKqTQC.html?p=1" frameborder="0" width="400" height="300"></iframe><object style="display: none;" width="320" height="240" classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0"><param name="src" value="http://a.blip.tv/api.swf#AYOKqTQC" /><embed style="display: none;" width="320" height="240" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://a.blip.tv/api.swf#AYOKqTQC" /></object></p>
<p><strong>Part 2:</strong></p>
<p><iframe src="http://blip.tv/play/AYOKp0wC.html?p=1" frameborder="0" width="400" height="300"></iframe><object style="display: none;" width="320" height="240" classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0"><param name="src" value="http://a.blip.tv/api.swf#AYOKp0wC" /><embed style="display: none;" width="320" height="240" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://a.blip.tv/api.swf#AYOKp0wC" /></object></p>
<p><strong>Part 3:</strong></p>
<p><iframe src="http://blip.tv/play/AYOKqR8C.html?p=1" frameborder="0" width="400" height="300"></iframe><object style="display: none;" width="320" height="240" classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0"><param name="src" value="http://a.blip.tv/api.swf#AYOKqR8C" /><embed style="display: none;" width="320" height="240" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://a.blip.tv/api.swf#AYOKqR8C" /></object></p>
<p><strong>Part 4:</strong></p>
<p><iframe src="http://blip.tv/play/AYOKrHMC.html?p=1" frameborder="0" width="400" height="300"></iframe><object style="display: none;" width="320" height="240" classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0"><param name="src" value="http://a.blip.tv/api.swf#AYOKrHMC" /><embed style="display: none;" width="320" height="240" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://a.blip.tv/api.swf#AYOKrHMC" /></object></p>
<p><strong>Part 5:</strong></p>
<p><iframe src="http://blip.tv/play/AYOKrW0C.html?p=1" frameborder="0" width="400" height="300"></iframe></p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank">Click here</a>.  </strong></p>
<p><object style="display: none;" width="320" height="240" classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0"><param name="src" value="http://a.blip.tv/api.swf#AYOKrW0C" /><embed style="display: none;" width="320" height="240" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://a.blip.tv/api.swf#AYOKrW0C" /></object></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/frontpagemag-com/robert-spencer-nonie-darwish-raymond-ibrahim-at-university-of-california-irvine/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>World Leaders Rally for Blasphemy Laws</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/andrew-harrod/world-leaders-rally-for-blasphemy-laws/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=world-leaders-rally-for-blasphemy-laws</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/andrew-harrod/world-leaders-rally-for-blasphemy-laws/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:39:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Andrew Harrod]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[blasphemy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[european union]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom of speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United Nations]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=145247</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[But a few courageous voices condemn the global assault on free speech. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/534248_408834099172020_837931714_n.gif"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-145281" title="534248_408834099172020_837931714_n" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/534248_408834099172020_837931714_n.gif" alt="" width="375" height="255" /></a>In response to the <em>Innocence of Muslims</em> global controversy, <a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2012/andrew-harrod/turkey-pm-pushes-international-blasphemy-laws/">Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan</a> called for recognizing “Islamophobia as a crime against humanity” and “international legal regulations against attacks on what people deem sacred.”  In the statement&#8217;s wake, the number of political leaders around the world openly musing about restrictions on anti-Islamic speech has only increased.</p>
<p>Erdoğan’s Turkish compatriot, <a href="http://www.oic-oci.org/page_detail.asp?p_id=58">Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu</a>, secretary general of the <a href="http://www.oic-oci.org/home.asp">Organization of Islamic Cooperation</a> (OIC), a grouping of 56 Muslim-majority states (including Turkey) and the Palestinian Authority (PA), said on <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/19/us-protests-religions-blasphemy-idUSBRE88I1EG20120919">September 19, 2012</a> that the international community should “come out of hiding from behind the excuse of freedom of expression” used by Western countries against a decade-long campaign by the OIC to effect universal blasphemy laws.  Ihsanoglu described the “deliberate, motivated and systematic abuse of this freedom” as a threat to global security. The Human Rights Commission of the Saudi Arabian-headquartered OIC, meanwhile, called for the halting of “growing intolerance towards Muslims” and for “an international code of conduct for media and social media to disallow the dissemination of incitement material.”</p>
<p>That same day, Ihsanoglu’s counterpart at the United Nations, <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/19/us-protests-un-idUSBRE88I1CW20120919">Secretary General Ban Ki-moon</a>, decried at a news conference the making of <em>Innocence of Muslims</em> as a “disgraceful and shameful act” that represented an abuse of “freedom of expression…a fundamental right and privilege.”  Using “freedom of expression to provoke or humiliate some others’ values and beliefs” was not worthy of protection. Rather, Ki-moon indicated that such freedom only deserved protection when “used for common justice, common purpose.”  Like Erdoğan’s previously analyzed bizarre understanding of intellectual freedom, Ki-moon would apparently allow majorities to prohibit an individual’s expression deemed not serving a “common” collective goal, a fundamental inversion of the traditionally recognized need to protect minority views in a free market of ideas.</p>
<p>Rounding out the number of international organizations now apparently ready to implement the medieval-sounding idea of blasphemy laws, <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/organizations/a/arab_league/index.html">Arab League</a> Secretary General <a href="http://www.crcica.org.eg/cv_nabil_elaraby.html">Nabil al-Araby</a> stated at league headquarters in Cairo, Egypt on <a href="http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/arab-league-eyes-blasphemy-bill-syria-solution">September 19, 2012</a> that the league, the OIC, the European Union (EU), and the African Union (AU) were about to formulate an international agreement penalizing blasphemy.  Indeed, the next day, al-Araby, Ihsanoglu, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/ashton/about/cv/index_en.htm">Catherine Ashton</a>, and AU Commissioner for Peace and Security <a href="http://au.int/en/dp/ps/commissioner/biography">Ramtane Lamamra</a> issued a <a href="http://ansamed.ansa.it/ansamed/en/news/nations/spain/2012/09/21/Islam-Arab-League-EU-AU-speak-against-religious-hatred_7508756.html">joint statement</a> on the eve of Muslim Friday prayers, which was designed to quell further violence resulting from <em>Innocence of Muslims</em> and the subsequent publication by the French satire magazine <a href="http://www.bivouac-id.com/billets/les-nouvelles-caricatures-de-charlie-hebdo/"><em>Charlie Hebdo</em></a> of cartoons mocking Islam’s prophet Muhammad.</p>
<p>“While fully recognizing freedom of expression,” the <a href="http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/132512.pdf">statement</a> stressed the “importance of respecting all prophets, regardless of which religion they belong to.”  The statement added to its respect for a prophet pantheon the declaration that the “anguish of Muslims at the production of the film insulting Islam, posting of its trailer on the internet and other similar acts, is shared by all individuals and communities who refuse to allow religion to be used to fuel provocation, confrontation and extremism.”  The statement also professed a desire to “ensure that the recent events do not undermine the relationships of trust and respect we have built up over so many years among our peoples, communities and states,” citing amiable relationships perhaps previously unnoticed by many Europeans. In an act of moral equivalence between filmmakers and rioters/terrorists, the statement then proclaimed that the “international community cannot be held hostage to the acts of extremists on either side.”  The four officials then concluded by stating that they “reiterate our strong commitment to take further measures and to work for an international consensus on tolerance and full respect of religion, including on the basis of UN Human Rights Council resolution 16/18.”</p>
<p>This last reference to resolution 16/18 is a red flag to anyone concerned about the implications of “respect of religion”  according Islam for freedoms of speech and religion.  As <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/defending_free_speech_leaves_top_obama_department_of_justice_official_speechless.html">this author</a> and others have analyzed, resolution 16/18 is the latest incarnation of the previously mentioned OIC efforts to effectuate international blasphemy laws.  Although watered down by American diplomatic efforts from its original OIC formulation, the resolution in its present form still contains ambiguous phrases capable of justifying Islamic restrictions on free expression.  Indeed, the report by the Italy-based news organization <em>ANSAmed</em> on the statement said that it “stressed the organizations’ engagement in promoting anti-blasphemy measures within a UN resolution on human rights.”</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/andrew-harrod/world-leaders-rally-for-blasphemy-laws/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>311</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Charlie Hebdo Prepares For Violent Backlash</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/joseph-klein/will-charlie-hebdo-face-violent-backlash/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=will-charlie-hebdo-face-violent-backlash</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/joseph-klein/will-charlie-hebdo-face-violent-backlash/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Sep 2012 04:40:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Joseph Klein]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cartoon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Charlie Hebdo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[France]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom of speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mohammed]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=144826</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A French magazine takes a stand for free speech even though its Paris offices have already been firebombed.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/o-CHARLIE-HEBDO-570.gif"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-144828" title="o-CHARLIE-HEBDO-570" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/o-CHARLIE-HEBDO-570.gif" alt="" width="375" height="245" /></a>France is now facing the prospect of a violent backlash following the publication of controversial Prophet Mohammed cartoons by the satirical weekly magazine Charlie Hebdo showing the Prophet Mohammed naked.  Trying to head off a firestorm not only in the Muslim world but also within the large Muslim population living in France, French officials condemned the publication. Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, for example, said that while he respects the right of free expression he sees “no point in such a provocation.”</p>
<p>Mindful of the violence against U.S. embassies and consulates which has swept the Muslim world in the wake of the anti-Muslim video produced in the United States, the French government is taking no chances. It will close twenty of its embassies in Muslim countries this Friday, in case the Friday prayers turn into an orgy of violence whipped up by fanatical imams.</p>
<p>The French magazine&#8217;s editor, Stephane Charbonnier, told reporters that the pictures will &#8220;shock those who will want to be shocked.&#8221;  He is deliberately poking a stick at a rattlesnake, not worried about the venomous consequences that will inevitably ensue.  He should be worried in light of the fact that the Paris offices of his magazine were firebombed last year after it lampooned the Prophet Mohammed on its front page.</p>
<p>However,  the increasing calls for restrictions on free speech as a result of such offensive cartoons or videos are far more offensive than the speech itself.  To be sure, there are limits. Speech that clearly crosses over the line from permissible provocative expression to direct incitement to imminent violence can be restricted.  But the exceptions to the inalienable right of individuals in a free society to express their point of view, no matter how offensive, must not be allowed to swallow the right itself. Emotional pain or hurt feelings are too subjective a standard to use in regulating speech.</p>
<p>No group can become the arbiter of what is or what is not acceptable speech based on whether it hurts their feelings or shows disrespect for their faith and beliefs.  Their threat of violence if they don&#8217;t get their way would give them a &#8220;heckler&#8217;s veto.&#8221; Instead, as Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis advised, in one of his famous opinions back in 1927, &#8220;If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.&#8221;</p>
<p>The real danger coming out of the recent episodes of Prophet Mohammed caricatures is to give the Islamists more ammunition in their campaign to clamp down on speech they claim &#8220;defames&#8221; their religion and constitutes Islamophobia. They demand tolerance and respect for Islam, but in many countries with Muslim majorities there is no tolerance or respect for other faiths.  In some cases, churches, synagogues, Hindu temples etc. cannot even operate openly.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/joseph-klein/will-charlie-hebdo-face-violent-backlash/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>21</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Freedom to be Silenced</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/the-freedom-to-be-silenced/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-freedom-to-be-silenced</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/the-freedom-to-be-silenced/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Sep 2012 04:55:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[apology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[blasphemy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom of speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hitler]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[muslim brotherhood]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=143896</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The government must choose between defending American values and defending Muslim values. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/2012-09-14t143859z_103747116_gm1e89e1qss01_rtrmadp_3_film-protests.gif"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-144415" title="2012-09-14t143859z_103747116_gm1e89e1qss01_rtrmadp_3_film-protests" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/2012-09-14t143859z_103747116_gm1e89e1qss01_rtrmadp_3_film-protests.gif" alt="" width="375" height="250" /></a>In March 1937, the State Department apologized on behalf of the United States to Adolf Hitler for comments made about him by the Mayor of New York City, Fiorello LaGuardia.</p>
<p>“In this country the right of freedom of speech is guaranteed by the constitution to every citizen and is cherished as a part of the national heritage,” James C. Dunn of the State Department said. “This however does not lessen the regret of the government when utterances either by private citizens or by public officials speaking in an individual capacity give offense to a government with which we have official relations. I very earnestly deprecate the utterances which have thus given offense to the German government. They do not represent the attitude of this government toward the German government.”</p>
<p>75 years later the great tradition of American diplomats apologizing to mass murderers for the American tradition of freedom of speech remains alive and well.</p>
<p>The first response from the U.S. Embassy in Cairo was to apologize for “those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton joined in saying, “The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.”</p>
<p>Following the same script, Obama said, “Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths.  We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.”</p>
<p>Even in the face of the brutal murders of its own people, the State Department was relentlessly holding to the line that freedom of speech must take a backseat to respect for Islam. As documented in Frank Gaffney’s pamphlet for the Freedom Center, “<a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2012/frontpagemag-com/the-muslim-brotherhood-in-the-obama-administration/">The Muslim Brotherhood in the Obama Administration</a>,” the Obama Administration collaborated with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation in its attack on freedom of speech by internationalizing Islamic blasphemy laws.</p>
<p>As discussed in, “<a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2012/frontpagemag-com/the-muslim-brotherhood-in-the-obama-administration/">The Muslim Brotherhood in the Obama Administration</a>,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton helped the Organization of Islamic Cooperation assemble a blasphemy resolution that both Islamists and their Western useful idiots could agree on. Resolution 16/18 of the United Nations Human Rights Council, a body whose members consist primarily of repressive dictatorships, was a revised version of the OIC’s usual “Blasphemy against Islam” resolution ushered through with the support of Hillary Clinton and the Obama Administration.</p>
<p>Resolution 16/18 criminalizes incitement to violence and some have already suggested that any act that is offensive to Muslims and can result in Muslim violence constitutes incitement to violence. Under this definition, Muslim mobs decide what speech is free and their actions will in retrospect lead to legal action against a writer, a cartoonist or a filmmaker for driving them to riot, burn and kill.</p>
<p>Hillary Clinton’s statements after the attacks reflect the language of Resolution 16/18, affirming an official distaste for blasphemy against Islam as part of America’s tradition of “religious tolerance.” Obama’s statement used similar language, thereby marginalizing freedom of speech by depicting it as a form of religious intolerance.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/the-freedom-to-be-silenced/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>70</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Future of Freedom of Speech in America</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/the-future-of-freedom-of-speech-in-america/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-future-of-freedom-of-speech-in-america</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/the-future-of-freedom-of-speech-in-america/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 Sep 2012 23:16:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[The Point]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[death to america]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom of speech]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=144013</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Accept that we are part of a global society and that a billion Muslims get a vote on what we can and cannot say. Laws can no longer be adapted to individual nations, but must reflect global concerns and a global consensus. Freedom of speech may be an American approach, but it is no longer feasible in a global connected society.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/freespeech.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-144340" title="freespeech" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/freespeech-300x264.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="264" /></a></p>
<p>As the Death to America riots continue to unfold, four approaches are evolving toward the future of freedom of speech in America.</p>
<p>1. Accept that we are part of a global society and that a billion Muslims get a vote on what we can and cannot say. Laws can no longer be adapted to individual nations, but must reflect global concerns and a global consensus. Freedom of speech may be an American approach, but it is no longer feasible in a global connected society.</p>
<p>2. Apologize for freedom of speech without actually outlawing it, but while still asking people to avoid speech that may cause violent offense. This is the middle ground that integrates the first option without outright violating the Bill of Rights. This is also the current Obama approach.</p>
<p>3. Treat freedom of speech, regardless of how offensive, as hallowed and worth dying for. Americans killed in speech riots are martyrs to that freedom of speech and their deaths will one day convince the entire world of the value of freedom of speech and the open marketplace of ideas.</p>
<p>4. Stop treating provocations as a legitimate reason to debate free speech. When countries or groups want to begin a war, they will choose a provocation to justify the attack. Muslims routinely choose some form of religious blasphemy which they pick out and promote and then riot over. The issue in those cases is not freedom of speech, just as Saddam Hussein did not invade Kuwait because some Kuwaiti leader said something about his mother.</p>
<p>Attacks on Americans should be treated as attacks, not as reactions to something else, as the left would like us to do. It doesn&#8217;t really matter what the violence is motivated by, a brief review of the Muslim world shows that it is always violent and that mobs will fight over anything from a teddy bear to beards. Sunnis and Shiites have spent over a thousand years killing each other over a right of succession that stopped mattering thousands of years ago.</p>
<p>Debates over the cause of the violence play into the hands of the violent by allowing them to define the terms on which the violence happens and then to demand appeasement. This is a loser&#8217;s game and if we play it, then we lose.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/the-future-of-freedom-of-speech-in-america/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>11</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>World Community Takes On &#8216;Islamophobia&#8217;</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/bruce-bawer/battling-islamophobia/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=battling-islamophobia</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/bruce-bawer/battling-islamophobia/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Sep 2012 04:20:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bruce Bawer]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom of speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islamophobia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jagland Report]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Racism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United Nations]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=143493</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Orwellian mischief from the European Union and United Nations.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Picture-17.gif"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-143552" title="Picture-17" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Picture-17.gif" alt="" width="375" height="251" /></a>Want to see just how far our lords and masters are willing to go in appeasing Islam?  Take a gander at a recent report entitled <a href="http://www.osce.org/odihr/84495"><em>Guidelines for Educators on Countering Intolerance and Discrimination against Muslims: Addressing Islamophobia through Education</em></a><em>.  </em>A joint product of the Council of Europe, UNESCO, and something called the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (otherwise known as OSCE/ODIHR), this document was put together in consultation with “education experts, teachers, civil society representatives and governmental officials” around the world.  I will call it, for short, the Jagland Report, after Thorbjørn Jagland, the ambitious Norwegian politician who, as head of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, was chiefly responsible for awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama, and who, in his current capacity as Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, is one of the report&#8217;s three signatories.  Given that he is a classic example of the slick, phony European technocrat <em>par excellence </em>– like Dominique Villepin in France and Zapatero in Spain – it is perfectly appropriate to affix his name to this slick, phony masterwork of bureaucrat-speak.</p>
<p>I have written previously about the <a href="http://www.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/var/storage/rapports-publics/074000509/0000.pdf">Obin Report</a>, a detailed study of French schools produced in 2004 by the French education ministry.  That report boldly identified Muslim students and their parents as causing crucial problems in France&#8217;s schools, problems that affected every aspect of education: Muslim students refused to read literary works that their religion considers salacious or blasphemous; they would not brook accounts of history that differed from what they had been told at the mosque; they demanded Muslim menus in cafeterias; and so on.  Among the report&#8217;s conclusions was that Muslim students tormented their Jewish classmates to such an extent that it was impossible for the latter to get an education in France.  The Obin Report, in short, made it plain that discrimination against Muslim students was not a major problem in French schools – but that discrimination <em>by </em>Muslim students is nothing short of a crisis.</p>
<p>The French report was a brave statement of the facts, set forth in clear, straightforward language.  (The report was so brave, in fact, that the government shelved it at first, only to release it officially after it had been leaked onto the Internet.)  The Jagland Report is both its stylistic and moral opposite.  Take, for example, the very first sentence of the foreword:</p>
<blockquote><p>Promoting mutual understanding and respect for diversity, along with countering all forms of intolerance and discrimination, must today, more than ever, be absolute priorities for the international community, in order to maintain peace and stability at both the global and regional levels.</p></blockquote>
<p>The entire report is written in this kind of prose.  Indeed the whole thing reads as if it were designed to be the quintessential example of everything George Orwell complained about in his landmark <a href="https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm">essay</a> “Politics and the English Language.”  As Orwell pointed out, prose like this, consisting of long series of abstractions strung together in familiar ways, is generally perpetrated by people (or committees) who are setting forth a “party line”: “Orthodoxy, of whatever color, seems to demand a lifeless, imitative style.”  The problem with such prose, as Orwell stressed, is not just its lifelessness, however, but the insidious purpose that usually underlies this lifelessness – namely, a determination to avoid facing up to ugly realities.  (“The great enemy of clear language,” Orwell noted, “is insincerity.”)</p>
<p>Later in the foreword to the Jagland Report comes this sentence: “The attitudes and tensions that lead to inter-communal conflict are often deeply rooted in stereotypes and misconceptions, and one of the most pressing contemporary challenges is to promote knowledge about, and understanding of, different cultures. Educators play a fundamental role in meeting this challenge.”  Note the unspoken assumptions here: first, that tensions between Muslims and others in the West are, in large part, the result of “stereotypes and misconceptions” about Muslims; second, that if non-Muslims come to know about and understand Islam, the “conflict” will disappear.  This claim, which is repeated again and again in the Jagland Report, is, needless to say, contrary to the experience of many non-Muslims, who have discovered that the more they learn about Islam, the more deeply they are concerned about it.</p>
<p>Not surprisingly, the Jagland Report avoids mentioning the origins of the term “Islamophobia,” which was cooked up by the Muslim Brotherhood as a means of shutting down legitimate criticism of Islam.  In addition to using this term, the report also approves of the expression “anti-Muslim racism,” which, it says, “places the issue of intolerance against Muslims in the broader framework of racism and implies the racialization of a religious category. The term stresses the multi-dimensional aspect of intolerance against Muslims, which can be based on factors beyond religion.”  The purpose of this sheer gobbledygook, of course, is to legitimize the idea that criticism of Islam – a religion – can be considered racism.  Later on, in a reference to the danger of “driving racist views underground,” the report explicitly affirms that “Islamophobia” is a form of racism.  (At the same time, curiously, the report stresses the importance of communicating to students that Islam isn&#8217;t a skin color – that, in other words, Muslims come in all hues.)</p>
<p>One of the Jagland Report&#8217;s major emphases is on the need to recognize “the universal human rights and fundamental freedoms of others.”  What it avoids mentioning is that Islam itself, as stated unambiguously in the <a href="http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/cairodeclaration.html">Cairo Declaration of Human Rights,</a> rejects the very concept of “universal human rights and fundamental freedoms.”  The Cairo document, issued in 1990 in response to the U.N.&#8217;s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, repeatedly makes it clear that if any supposed right or freedom is contrary to sharia, that right or freedom is illegitimate, period.  The Jagland Report dwells at some length on the question of rights, providing a list of “basic human rights principles relevant to preventing intolerance and discrimination against Muslims,” including “the equal dignity and rights of all human beings,” “non-discrimination, including on the basis of religion,” “equality of all before the law,” and “freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief.”  It is interesting to note that every single one of these principles is utterly contrary to Islamic “principles.”  Indeed, there is no hint in the Jagland Report that much of what it describes as “Islamophobia” is, in fact, a matter of non-Muslims reacting to manifestations of Islam&#8217;s utter <em>rejection</em> of the concept of universal human rights and fundamental freedoms.</p>
<p>The Obin Report devoted considerable attention to the refusal of Muslim parents to allow their children to participate in various activities, such as school trips and swimming classes: they considered some of these activities to be a violation of girls&#8217; “modesty” and rejected others simply because they didn&#8217;t want their kids getting too friendly with infidels.  The Jagland Report brings up this matter too, but approaches it from an entirely different angle: for example, if Muslim parents refuse to let their daughters take co-ed swimming classes with boys, the report makes it clear that the school, not the parents, should be regarded as intolerant because it has failed to “tailor” its swimming program to those parents&#8217; demands.</p>
<p>The Jagland Report offers plenty of recommendations.  It counsels that “school policies and practices should be set up, in partnership with communities and parents, to prevent and counter discrimination against Muslim students.”  It recommends “textbook revision” to eliminate material that might give offense.  It instructs schools to “monitor” students&#8217; expressions of “prejudice.”  It calls for the formation of “focus groups” in which students are encouraged to talk about the “climate of tolerance” in their school, these discussions being “moderate[d]” by “an experienced person, for example, someone from a nongovernmental organization dealing with discrimination and intolerance.”  The report, after serving up a pro forma acknowledgment of freedom of speech, goes on to maintain that certain forms of speech are simply not “appropriate or acceptable in a school classroom.”  So can it be ruled “inappropriate” simply to state the facts about Islam?  (By the end of the report, one gathers that the answer is yes.)</p>
<p>The report further calls for “portrayals of Islam and Muslims” to be “accurate, fair and respectful.”  But how can portrayals of certain aspects of Islam, such as the death penalty for apostates, be both accurate and “respectful”?  The report stresses the importance of discussing “issues where misunderstanding is especially acute, such as the role of women in Islamic societies.”  “Misunderstanding”?  Are we to understand that the message being sent to educators here is that the unpleasant facts about women&#8217;s second-class status under Islam are <em>not </em>to be acknowledged in the classroom, and that students who express concern about sexual equality in the Islam world are to be disabused of their “stereotypes and misconceptions” and, if they persists in their error, are to be regarded as intractable Islamophobes?  (In any case: do you notice that when you add up all these recommendations, the picture that results is reminiscent of nothing so much as a Maoist re-education camp?)</p>
<p>Although the Jagland Report pretends to be all for inclusion and integration, it gives its full support to Muslim demands for differential treatment.  It insists, for example, that schools bend to demands for such forms of “religious accommodation” as “prayer rooms, holiday issues and school or sports uniforms that accommodate the need for modesty.”  (Note, by the way, the report&#8217;s use of the word <em>modesty: </em>by using the word in this sense, it implicitly accepts the Islamic view that females who don&#8217;t wear hijab are immodestly dressed.)  The report also approves of schools granting “exemptions” to Muslims in regard to such things as “religious holidays, non-obligatory religious teaching, participation in class camps and excursions, and clothing restrictions.”</p>
<p>Finally, the report urges teachers to “provide information” to students “on Muslim artists, writers, politicians and scientists that disproves the negative stereotypes held about Muslims.”  Writers?  Salman Rushdie, anyone?  Are teachers allowed to mention the many artists and writers in today&#8217;s Muslim world who have been imprisoned, tortured, even executed for crossing the line?  Surely not.  No, let&#8217;s not look at the hard facts – let&#8217;s not try to figure out why the numbers of scientists, Nobel Prize winners, patents, translated books, decent universities, and so on in the Muslim world, relative to the rest of the planet, are all stunningly low.  Let&#8217;s not have an open, honest classroom discussion of the ways in which Islam stifles scientific inquiry and free literary and artistic expression alike.  Let&#8217;s just play pretend.</p>
<p>Reading through this mind-bogglingly Orwellian document, one finds oneself wondering continually: How can these people bring themselves to put their names to this disgraceful document?  Do they fully understand where they&#8217;re taking us with this sort of thing?  Do they not grasp that what they&#8217;ve produced here is a set of directives that has nothing whatsoever to do with combating intolerance but everything to do with adapting schools in the non-Muslim world to sharia norms?  Indeed, virtually all of the examples of supposed intolerance that the report offers up are not examples of intolerance but, rather, of a failure on the part of non-Muslims to shift quickly enough into submissive mode when Muslims come a-complaining.  The basic message of this “report” is that when it comes to Islam, the last thing non-Muslim educators should do is to educate – instead, they should replace the grim facts about Islam with pretty lies, and condemn truth-telling as Islamophobia while training students to be craven dhimmis.</p>
<p>In short, a mischievous, mendacious piece of work – yet another thing for the reprehensible Thorbjørn Jagland to be ashamed of, were he capable of shame.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank">Click here</a>.  </strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/bruce-bawer/battling-islamophobia/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>110</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Judgment Day for &#8216;Pussy Riot&#8217;</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/volpe/judgment-day-for-pussy-riot/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=judgment-day-for-pussy-riot</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/volpe/judgment-day-for-pussy-riot/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2012 04:22:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Michael Volpe]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom of speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Human Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pussy riot]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Putin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trial]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=140368</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Three courageous anti-Putin feminist punk musicians await their fate in a Moscow court.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Picture-21.gif"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-140373" title="Picture-2" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Picture-21.gif" alt="" width="375" height="255" /></a><strong>To read the profound and moving translated closing statements of the three members of the Russian feminist punk band Pussy Riot, <a href="http://nplusonemag.com/pussy-riot-closing-statements">click here</a>.</strong></p>
<p>With <a href="http://nplusonemag.com/pussy-riot-closing-statements">closing statements complete</a>, all that’s left is the verdict in the trial of the all-female Russian punk rock band Pussy Riot, which has captivated the world and again put Vladimir Putin’s tyrannical machinery on full display for the whole world to see.</p>
<p>The three women &#8212; Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, 23; Ekaterina Samutsevich, 29; and Maria Alyokhina, 24 &#8212; are accused of donning ski masks and performing a concert that mocked the Orthodox church, religion, and Vladimir Putin from inside the confines of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, a crime in Putin’s Russia. The story gained world-wide attention when the prosecutors sin the case stated their intention to seek three years in prison for each of the accused.</p>
<p>The trial wrapped up last week and the verdict is due later this week. Each of the three defendants took the stand in their own defense as part of the defense’s closing argument. They often gave impassioned speeches. One band member referred to the world-wide attention in her own closing arguments. “The whole world is saying that we are not guilty. They talk about it at concerts, on the internet, in the press and in parliament. The whole world is saying ‘they’re not guilty!’” said Ekaterina Samutsevich.</p>
<p>At other times, the proceedings took on a &#8220;Braveheart&#8221; like quality, with the ladies believing their trial served as a larger referendum on freedom and liberty in Russia.</p>
<p>&#8220;This is a trial of the whole government system of Russia, which so likes to show its harshness toward the individual, its indifference to his honor and dignity,&#8221; said Nadezhda Tolokonnikova in an impassioned statement. &#8220;If this political system throws itself against three girls, it shows this political system is afraid of truth.&#8221;</p>
<p>Celebrity singers from all around the world have spoken out against this case and in solidarity with the three Russian singers. Last month, Sting issued this statement:</p>
<blockquote><p>It’s appalling that the musicians from Pussy Riot could face prison sentences of up to seven years in jail. Dissent is a legitimate and essential right in any democracy and modern politicians must accept this fact with tolerance. A sense of proportion – and a sense of humor – is a sign of strength, not a sign of weakness. Surely the Russian authorities will completely drop these spurious charges and allow the women, these artists, to get back to their lives and to their children.</p></blockquote>
<p>Madonna referenced the case during a concert in Moscow late last month. During a performance, she wore a punk rock outfit, turned around, and revealed the words, “Pussy Riots” on her back. She then told the crowd, “I pray for their freedom.”</p>
<p>The court is in an unusual pause. Rather than issuing the ruling immediately, the judge in the case decided to wait until Friday August 13 at 3PM Moscow time to issue the ruling.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/volpe/judgment-day-for-pussy-riot/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>15</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Political Persecution of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/ned-may/the-political-persecution-of-elisabeth-sabaditsch-wolff-3/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-political-persecution-of-elisabeth-sabaditsch-wolff-3</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/ned-may/the-political-persecution-of-elisabeth-sabaditsch-wolff-3/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2011 04:33:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ned May]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[european union]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom of speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Muhammad]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=114362</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The verdict is delivered.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div id="attachment_114364" style="width: 385px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/FPM-ESW03-1.gif"><img class="size-full wp-image-114364" title="FPM-ESW03-(1)" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/FPM-ESW03-1.gif" alt="" width="375" height="253" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Photo credit: Aeneas </p></div>
<p><em>Editor’s note: The following is the third installment of a series of articles following activist Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff’s battle against her own government, as they proceed to prosecute her for disseminating the truth about Islam. Click the following to read </em><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2011/11/30/the-political-persecution-of-elisabeth-sabaditsch-wolff/"><em>Part I</em></a><em> and </em><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2011/12/01/the-political-persecution-of-elisabeth-sabaditsch-wolff-2/"><em>Part II</em></a><em>. </em></p>
<p>When court reconvened in February, events moved swiftly to a close.</p>
<p><strong>Judge: </strong><em>The integration of Muslims is surely a question of particular public interest — you are allowed to be critical — but not incitement of hatred</em></p>
<p><em>[judge states the permitted utterances]</em></p>
<p><em>The language used in the seminars were not inciting hatred, but the utterances regarding Muhammad and pedophilia were punishable.</em></p>
<p><em>“Pedophilia” is factually incorrect, since pedophilia is a sexual preference which solely or mainly is directed towards children. This does not apply to Mohammad. He was still married to Aisha when she was 18.</em></p>
<p>The verdict:</p>
<p>On the count of “incitement to hatred”: <strong>Not guilty.</strong></p>
<p>On the count of “denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion”: <strong>Guilty.</strong></p>
<p>The defendant was sentenced to pay a €480 fine.</p>
<p><strong>Judge: </strong><em>Did you understand the sentence?</em></p>
<p><em>[discontent in court]</em></p>
<p>The judge second-guessed the Qur’an, noting that Aisha was 18 years old when Muhammad died, which is factual, based on the hadith. The fact that he did not divorce her after she reached her majority proved that Muhammad had no exclusive desire for underage girls; he was also attracted to somewhat older females. Therefore he was not a pedophile.</p>
<p>By implication, of course, the child marriages that are so prevalent in fundamentalist Islamic countries cannot be legally categorized as “pedophilia” either.</p>
<p>Elisabeth said: “This is a sad day for my daughter and all girls.”</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">————————————————</p>
<p>By the time the verdict was handed down, it had become obvious that the court was absolutely determined that Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff must be found guilty of <em>something</em>. The playing of the tapes — which showed that many of the recorded statements that had been used against Elisabeth had in fact been uttered privately — made the prosecution realize that the original charge would never hold up. To attain the desired outcome, the judge added a second charge of her own devising. A juridical move of this sort would have been unimaginable (and illegal) in the United States and many other countries, but it is quite legal in Austria.</p>
<p>The charge on which Elisabeth was eventually convicted was ludicrous on the face of it. Not only did she never say that Muhammad’s actions constituted “pedophilia”, but Muhammad’s actions — which were undisputed by the court — included having sex with a nine-year-old girl. <em>If</em> she had said what she was accused of, it would have been nothing more than the simple truth, and unexceptional from the standpoint of any normal person.</p>
<p>But the folks who run the Austrian system of “justice” are not normal people. They concocted the absurd rationalization that remaining married to the little girl past the age of 18 meant that Muhammad did not exclusively target children with his sexual attentions; hence he was not a “pedophile” by the strict psychiatric definition. Thus Elisabeth was wrong, even though she did not say it, and even though no ordinary citizen would disagree with her if she <em>had</em> said it.</p>
<p>Interestingly enough, this farrago of justice was made possible by the recognition of Islam as a state religion in 1912 through the law <a href="http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&amp;Gesetzesnummer=10009179">Islamgesetz</a>, which had as its<a href="http://www.integrationsfonds.at/fileadmin/Integrationsfond/5_wissen/Islam_Reader/Islamreader_Zsfg_E_Bearbeitung.pdf">primary purpose</a> the full integration of Bosnia-Herzegovina into the Austrian Empire. When Austria lost Bosnia in 1918, the law became irrelevant, but it has remained on the books until this day.</p>
<p>What might the long-term consequences of the verdict? As <a href="http://www.europenews.dk/">Henrik Ræder Clausen</a> <a href="http://europenews.dk/en/node/40340">wrote at the time</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>Fortunately law is logical, and thus one can rightfully deduce some consequences from the verdict:</p>
<p>1. It can constitute a criminal offence to use a label wrongly, even if that usage is in line with how it is applied by the general public.</p>
<p>2. The judge takes it as proven that Muhammad had a lasting sexual relationship with a minor. Strangely, she considers it an illegal denigration to apply the label ‘paedophilia’ to this behaviour.</p>
<p>3. As the law is only concerned with “Religious teachings”, rather than “Founders of religion”, “Behaviour of religious persons” or similar things, this verdict must imply that the life and conduct of Muhammad — including his sexual conduct — constitute an integral part of the “Religious teachings” in Islam. This interpretation is in line with Qur’an 33:21 and fundamentalist readings of Islam.</p>
<p>4. Under Austrian law, Islam has a remarkable degree of protection from criticism, and this verdict extents this protection to Muhammad, who is now protected from criticism. Other religions, say Buddhism, do not enjoy a similar protection of their teachings or founders.</p>
<p>[…]</p>
<p>That the example of Muhammad is used to justify child marriages even today is a fact that seems to have escaped the attention of the judge. Reports about child brides and their aged husbands now routinely appear in the Western press, but even though we hear these stories over and over, few seem willing to stand up for the rights of these minor girls. Even the sheikhs, the persons learned in Islamic law, do not take action or in any way use their authority to stop child marriages.</p>
<p>That the life and example of Muhammad in its entirety should constitute “Religious teachings”, protected from criticism under Austrian law, is a notion so absurd that it cannot be permitted to stand.</p></blockquote>
<p>The precedent established by Elisabeth’s case would imply that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritzl_case">Josef Fritzl</a>, the Austrian man who began sexually abusing his daughter when she was 11, fathered her children, and kept her a prisoner for 24 years, <em>was not a pedophile, because their incestuous relationship continued after the victim was 18.</em></p>
<p>Was this what the judge intended when she handed down the verdict in Elisabeth’s case?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/ned-may/the-political-persecution-of-elisabeth-sabaditsch-wolff-3/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Islamophobia: A License to Kill</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/dgreenfield/islamophobia-a-license-to-kill/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=islamophobia-a-license-to-kill</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/dgreenfield/islamophobia-a-license-to-kill/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2011 04:30:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Charlie Hedbo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom of speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islamophobia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrorism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=112045</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Legitimizing Muslim grievances legitimizes Muslim violence.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/timothy-allen_massacre-insult-islam.gif"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-112088" title="timothy-allen_massacre-insult-islam" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/timothy-allen_massacre-insult-islam.gif" alt="" width="375" height="250" /></a></p>
<p>Once upon a time when newspaper and magazine offices were torched for offending a powerful group, the rest of the press would rally behind them. But when Charlie Hedbo, a French satirical magazine decided to put out an issue dedicated to Islam with a cover of Mohammed declaring, &#8220;100 lashes if you don&#8217;t die laughing,&#8221; and received a very special burning &#8220;Letter to the Editor&#8221; from the country&#8217;s &#8220;Religion of Peace,&#8221; the American press lined up behind the firebombers.</p>
<p>Christopher Dickey, the Paris Bureau editor at Newsweek suggested that the far right was probably behind it because it had the most to gain from the attack. Dickey was unable to accuse Hedbo, a left-wing magazine, of being a member of the far-right, so he did the next best thing by diverting attention from the perpetrators and transforming Muslims into the victims of a far-right conspiracy.</p>
<p>Newsweek&#8217;s response showed that the second most pernicious thing about the Islamophobia myth is that even when Muslims are the perpetrators, they are still the victims. Moments after an attack takes place, the press rushes out editions worrying that the murder or attempted murder of innocent people by Muslims will cause Islamophobia.</p>
<p>Whether it&#8217;s the mass murder of 3,000 people or another in a long series of assaults on freedom of speech in Europe, the villains are always critics of Islam and the victims are always Muslims.</p>
<p>However Dickey was a moderate compared to Time&#8217;s Paris Bureau chief, Bruce Crumley, who charged that Charlie Hedbo was a victim of its own &#8220;obnoxious Islamophobia&#8221; and accused it of wanting to be burned down. Crumley&#8217;s article tossed aside freedom of speech in the name of France&#8217;s five million Muslims who feel stigmatized by Islamophobia.</p>
<p>Islamophobia is one charge that the editors of Charlie Hedbo are immune from. If they had been afraid of Islam, the way that Time and Newsweek editors are, they would have never run an issue dedicated to mocking Islam. But then Crumley isn&#8217;t really saying that Islamophobia is a bad thing. The thrust of his reasoning is that it&#8217;s a good thing. It&#8217;s good to be afraid of Islamic violence because it makes us more sensitive to Muslim concerns.</p>
<p>If the French had taken a few lessons from CNN and Comedy Central and American newspapers who didn&#8217;t dare print the Mohammed cartoons, if they had accepted the &#8220;Gift of Fear&#8221; that is Islamophobia, they would be a more peaceful and tolerant society.</p>
<p>Crumley&#8217;s piece demonstrated that the most pernicious thing about the Islamophobia myth is that once it is used to legitimize Muslim grievances, it is then used to legitimize the violent Muslim response to those grievances. Once you accept that Islamophobia is a serious problem, you have taken the first step to justifying violence as a response to that problem.</p>
<p>That is how it began in Israel, once the narrative of Muslim suffering under the &#8220;occupation&#8221; was accepted; Muslim terrorism became legitimized as a resistance to the occupation. Once you accept that Muslims in France have been marginalized by an Islamophobic society, then criticizing their religion marginalizes them further and justifies their violent response.</p>
<p>The charge of Islamophobia turns Charlie Hedbo into the new Israel, occupying Muslim sensitivities with tanks made of cartoons and barbed wire fences made of words. Once the occupation is defined, then resistance is justified&#8211; and the charge of Islamophobia becomes a license to kill.</p>
<p>Even organizations dedicated to freedom of the press make their ritual obeisances to the Islamophobia myth.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/dgreenfield/islamophobia-a-license-to-kill/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>113</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Backlash Against Goldstone</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/alan-m-dershowitz/the-backlash-against-goldstone/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-backlash-against-goldstone</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/alan-m-dershowitz/the-backlash-against-goldstone/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Apr 2010 04:03:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Alan M. Dershowitz]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bar mitzvah]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Board]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[board of deputies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chief rabbi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[citize]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Colonel Richard Kemp]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[enormous damage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom of speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[God]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[grandson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[group]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jewish authorities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jewish leaders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[matter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Michael Lerner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mitzvah]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[personal attack]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rabbi Goldstein]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[report]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Richard Goldstone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Richard Goldstone--author]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[right]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[South Africa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[state of israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Synagogue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tikkun]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=59263</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[South Africa's Jews protest the author of the notorious anti-Israel smear.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/richard-goldstone.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-59270" title="richard-goldstone" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/richard-goldstone.jpg" alt="" width="375" height="375" /></a></p>
<p>So now it turn out to be Richard Goldstone&#8211;author of the notorious Goldstone report&#8211;who is politicizing his grandson&#8217;s bar mitzvah.  Jewish authorities in South Africa didn&#8217;t &#8220;ban&#8221; Goldstone from the synagogue at which his grandson was being bar mitzvahed, as Goldstone and his supporters had alleged.  A small group of protestors had said they would exercise their right of expression to picket Goldstone.  Though they clearly had the right to do so, most Jews in South   Africa and elsewhere&#8211;including me&#8211;were uncomfortable with the idea of picketing a grandfather attending his grandson&#8217;s bar mitzvah.  It was Goldstone who decided not to attend and instead to publicize the matter.</p>
<p>The South Africa Board of Deputies have now persuaded the protestors to pick a different time and place to show their disdain for Goldstein.  The matter should have been put to rest, with Goldstone quietly attending the bar mitzvah.  But Goldstone won&#8217;t let it go.  He has attacked the Chief Rabbi of South Africa, who was instrumental in working out a compromise where the protests would be called off and Goldstone would agree to meet with Jewish leaders.  Goldstone escalated the dispute by writing a letter to the local newspaper complaining that,</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;the Chief Rabbi would so brazenly politicize the occasion of my 13 year-old grandson&#8217;s bar mitzvah to engage in further personal attacks on me.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>But it was Goldstone who brazenly politicized the bar mitzvah by mischaracterizing the Chief Rabbi&#8217;s statement and using it as an excuse to continue the controversy about the bar mitzvah.  The alleged &#8220;personal attack&#8221; by the Chief Rabbi consisted of a statement that every synagogue:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;should welcome in a tolerant and nonjudgmental way all who seek to enter and join in our service and pray to God.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>The Chief Rabbi also exercised his own freedom of speech to express his opinion&#8211;an entirely accurate one&#8211;that the Goldstone report:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;has unfairly done enormous damage to the reputation and safety of the State of Israel and her citizens.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>Was the Chief Rabbi obligated to remain silent about the report until the bar mitzvah is over?  It would have been irresponsible of Rabbi Goldstein to say nothing in the face of the evil represented by the Goldstone report and its biased authors.  Is it not enough that he curbed those who wanted to protest in front of the synagogue?  It is Goldstone who is <span style="text-decoration: underline;">using</span> his grandson&#8217;s bar mitzvah as a shield against legitimate criticism, just as he has used his &#8220;jewishness&#8221; as a shield against criticism of the Goldstone report.</p>
<p>Goldstone has not complained about another group of rabbis who have politicized his grandson&#8217;s bar mitzvah in an effort to <span style="text-decoration: underline;">support</span> the Goldstone report and its mendacious conclusions.  A group of rabbis, many of whom have long records of anti-Israel activism, authored a &#8220;Rabbinic letter&#8221; to Goldstone congratulating him on his grandson&#8217;s bar mitzvah and using the occasion to make virulently anti-Israel claims, including the blood libel that Israel deliberately targeted innocent Palestinian civilians without any military purpose.  These ignorant rabbis, most of whom I am sure never read the 500 page report, went out of their way to &#8220;affirm&#8221; the &#8220;findings&#8221; of the Goldstone report, despite the fact that virtually every credible academic who has studied the report has found its findings to be unfounded and false.</p>
<p>These bigoted rabbis, who have no expertise in military matters, are prepared to contradict the military expertise of one of the world&#8217;s most experienced counter insurgency military experts, Colonel Richard Kemp, who said,</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;I don&#8217;t think there has ever been a time in the history of warfare when an army has made more efforts to reduce civilian casualties and deaths of innocent people than the IDF [did] in Gaza.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>Goldstone of course refused to consider Kemp&#8217;s testimony and has characterized it as irrelevant to the report&#8217;s findings.</p>
<p>These &#8220;rabbis for Hamas&#8221; have no shame and no credibility.  They exploit their rabbinical status to support any conclusion that undercuts self defense Israeli actions without regard to the evidence and without regard to the truth.</p>
<p>Not surprisingly, the worst of these rabbis (and that is saying a lot), Michael Lerner, after attempting to politicize the bar mitzvah by offering his anti-Israel synagogue for the event, has decided to honor Richard Goldstone with Tikkun Magazine&#8217;s &#8220;Ethics Award.&#8221;  I guess all it takes to be honored by Tikkun is to pass Lerner&#8217;s litmus test of lying about Israel.  That&#8217;s Lerner&#8217;s definition of &#8220;ethics.&#8221;  There are some good people on the advisory board of Tikkun Magazine.  They now have an obligation to reconsider their membership unless they wish to be associated with a rabbi who is prepared to accuse Israel, in the absence of any evidence, of deliberately setting out to murder Palestinian civilians without any military purpose.</p>
<p>Let Richard Goldstone enjoy his grandson&#8217;s bar mitzvah without anyone politicizing it, but let every thoughtful person study the Goldstone report and refuse to remain silent about its bias, its lies, its damage to the peace process and its dangers to Israel&#8217;s security.  Richard Goldstone should not use his grandson&#8217;s bar mitzvah to selectively silence rabbis who disagree with his report, while encouraging rabbis who agree with it to use the bar mitzvah as a sword against the report&#8217;s critics and as a shield against legitimate criticism.  His grandson deserves better.</p>
<p><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/alan-m-dershowitz/the-backlash-against-goldstone/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>14</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>John Samples and Ilya Shapiro: Free Speech for All &#8211; Cato Institute</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/jlaksin/john-samples-and-ilya-shapiro-free-speech-for-all-cato-institute/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=john-samples-and-ilya-shapiro-free-speech-for-all-cato-institute</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/jlaksin/john-samples-and-ilya-shapiro-free-speech-for-all-cato-institute/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:18:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jacob Laksin]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[advocacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[american democracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cable]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cable tv]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[candidate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cato institute]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[citizens united]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[current secretary of state]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[decision]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defeat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DVD]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fall]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Film]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[First Amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Free Speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom of speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[group]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ilya Shapiro]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Samples]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[movie]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ms. Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[political advocacy group]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[presidential candidate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[presidential contest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[problem]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[republic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Secretary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[secretary of state]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shapiro]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[state]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TIME]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=47279</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Will the Supreme Court&#8217;s Citizens United decision destroy American democracy? You might think so given the responses of its critics. The Citizens United decision, far from signaling the fall of the republic, strengthens the First Amendment and freedom of speech.Let&#8217;s start with the facts of the case. Citizens United, a nonprofit political advocacy group, produced [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Will the Supreme Court&#8217;s Citizens United decision destroy American democracy? You might think so given the responses of its critics. The Citizens United decision, far from signaling the fall of the republic, strengthens the First Amendment and freedom of speech.Let&#8217;s start with the facts of the case. Citizens United, a nonprofit political advocacy group, produced a film called &#8220;Hillary: The Movie&#8221; about the current Secretary of State, who at the time was a presidential candidate. The movie did not reflect well on Ms. Clinton but did not explicitly advocate her defeat in the 2008 presidential contest. Citizens United planned to show the film in theatres, sell it as a DVD, and make it available on-demand on cable TV. The group also planned to run ads marketing the movie.What could be the problem with Citizens United&#8217;s plans? Supporters of Hillary Clinton would not like the movie, but the First Amendment protects all speech, especially criticism of powerful political figures.</p>
<p>via <a href="http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11159">Free Speech for All | John Samples and Ilya Shapiro | Cato Institute: Commentary</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/jlaksin/john-samples-and-ilya-shapiro-free-speech-for-all-cato-institute/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Geert Wilders: Freedom on Trial</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/frontpagemag-com/geert-wilders-freedom-on-trial/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=geert-wilders-freedom-on-trial</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/frontpagemag-com/geert-wilders-freedom-on-trial/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jan 2010 05:08:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Frontpagemag.com]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[answer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[blindfold]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[centuries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conquest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Consequence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[continent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[country]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Crime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[day]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[decision]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defendant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dutch]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dutch freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dutch mp]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[duty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[enforcers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[few minutes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[free people]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Free Speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom of speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[freedom party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[future generations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Geert Wilders']]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hatred]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Heart]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[heart and soul]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[heritage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[History]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ideology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[insulting islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intention]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[islamic extremism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islamization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jail time]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jansen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[kind]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lady justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[man]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mister]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MP Geert Wilders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[muslim populations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Muslims]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[netherlands]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nothing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[odds]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[outcome]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[outspoken critic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[price]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pvv]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[request]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[right]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Saudi Arabia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scene]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sentences]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sharia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[small group]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[soul]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Speaker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Subject]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the Netherlands]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Thomas Jefferson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United Kingdom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[use]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=47077</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Dutch politician goes on trial for insulting Islam.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-47085" title="wilders" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/wilders.jpg" alt="wilders" width="490" height="327" /></p>
<p><em>It’s the kind of scene one might expect to see in a hard-line Sharia court in Saudi Arabia: a man facing trial for the putative “crime” of insulting Islam. But the defendant in this case is Dutch MP Geert Wilders and the ominous setting for his trial is none other than his native Netherlands. This week, Wilders, the leader of the Dutch Freedom Party (PVV) and an outspoken critic of Islam and Islamic extremism, went on trial on politically loaded charges of inciting hatred and discrimination toward Islam. The outcome of the trial, which could yet result in jail time or a financial penalty for Wilders, will reveal just how far Europe’s multicultural enforcers are willing to go to silence free speech in order to appease the continent’s increasingly restive and radicalized Muslim populations. In his remarks from the trial, reprinted below, Wilders offers a powerful statement about the stakes involved: nothing less than freedom itself.</em> – <em>The Editors</em></p>
<p><em>*<br />
</em></p>
<p><strong>Wilders: </strong>Mister Speaker, judges of the court,</p>
<p>I would like to make use of my right to speak for a few minutes.</p>
<p>Freedom is the most precious of all our attainments and the most vulnerable. People have devoted their lives to it and given their lives for it. Our freedom in this country is the outcome of centuries. It is the consequence of a history that knows no equal and has brought us to where we are now.</p>
<p>I believe with all my heart and soul that the freedom in the Netherlands is threatened. That what our heritage is, what generations could only dream about, that this freedom is no longer a given, no longer self-evident.</p>
<p>I devote my life to the defence of our freedom. I know what the risks are and I pay a price for it every day. I do not complain about it; it is my own decision. I see that as my duty and it is why I am standing here.</p>
<p>I know that the words I use are sometimes harsh, but they are never rash. It is not my intention to spare the ideology of conquest and destruction, but I am not any more out to offend people. I have nothing against Muslims. I have a problem with Islam and the Islamization of our country because Islam is at odds with freedom.</p>
<p>Future generations will wonder to themselves how we in 2010, in this place, in this room, earned our most precious attainment. Whether there is freedom in this debate for both parties and thus also for the critics of Islam, or that only one side of the discussion may be heard in the Netherlands? Whether freedom of speech in the Netherlands applies to everyone or only to a few? The answer to this is at once the answer to the question whether freedom still has a home in this country.</p>
<p>Freedom was never the property of a small group, but was always the heritage of us all. We are all blessed by it.</p>
<p>Lady Justice wears a blindfold, but she has splendid hearing. I hope that she hears the following sentences, loud and clear:</p>
<p>It is not only a right, but also the duty of free people to speak against every ideology that threatens freedom. Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States was right: The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.</p>
<p>I hope that the freedom of speech shall triumph in this trial.</p>
<p>In conclusion, Mister Speaker, judges of the court.</p>
<p>This trial is obviously about the freedom of speech. But this trial is also about the process of establishing the truth. Are the statements that I have made and the comparisons that I have taken, as cited in the summons, true? If something is true then can it still be punishable? This is why I urge you to not only submit to my request to hear witnesses and experts on the subject of freedom of speech. But I ask you explicitly to honour my request to hear witnesses and experts on the subject of Islam. I refer not only to Mister Jansen and Mister Admiraal, but also to the witness/experts from Israel, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Without these witnesses, I cannot defend myself properly and, in my opinion, this would not be an fair trial.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/frontpagemag-com/geert-wilders-freedom-on-trial/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>44</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Victory for Free Speech in Texas</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/robert-spencer/victory-for-free-speech-in-texas/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=victory-for-free-speech-in-texas</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/robert-spencer/victory-for-free-speech-in-texas/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jan 2010 06:19:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Spencer]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arlington texas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[article]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attempt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bodyguard]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Campus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[College]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[college campuses]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conservative voices]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cynical attempt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dallas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dallas area]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Horowitz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dutch politician]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom of speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fundamental right]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Geert Wilders']]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[global assault]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guard]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[human rights activist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[infidels]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[initial decision]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intimidation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[islamic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[islamic circle of north america]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[islamic groups]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[islamic organizations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[islamic society]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[January]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Joe Kaufman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[magazine writer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[man]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[North America]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[petition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[politician]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[standstill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[suit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supremacism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Texas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[texas supreme court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the Netherlands]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tommy Trojan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Ironically]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[victory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[violence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[writer joe]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=46636</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[But the war to defend it is just heating up.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-46638" title="judge-gavel" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/judge-gavel.gif" alt="judge-gavel" width="450" height="266" /></p>
<p>In a major victory for the increasingly embattled freedom of speech, the Texas Supreme Court has just denied a petition by the Islamic Society of Arlington, Texas and six other Texas-based Islamic organizations to review their case against human rights activist (and FrontPage Magazine writer) Joe Kaufman. The case has already gone against the Islamic groups in the initial decision as well as on appeal, but they seem determined to silence Kaufman, and could conceivably try now to take the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The suit itself is a manifestation of the global assault on free speech that is picking up steam more quickly than ever now, with conservative voices shouted down and physically threatened on college campuses, and warriors for free speech such as the Dutch politician Geert Wilders facing trial for exercising this fundamental right.</p>
<p>The Islamic groups’ suit against Kaufman is a cynical attempt to silence him and prevent his dissemination of truths about them that they would prefer unwary Infidels didn’t know – specifically, the terror ties of Islamic groups in the U.S. Ironically, however, none of the groups that sued Kaufman were actually mentioned in the article they claimed libeled them. Kaufman explains: “In October 2007, I had a lawsuit and a restraining order brought against me by seven Dallas-area Islamic organizations, who objected to an <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=28292">article that I had written for <em>FrontPage</em></a>. Not one of the groups was mentioned in the article. It was concerning information I had personally discovered linking the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) to the financing of terrorism abroad. My allegations regarding this were and are backed up by irrefutable proof.”</p>
<p>As frivolous as their charges against Kaufman manifestly were, their implications were ominous. Leftists and their Islamic supremacist allies, unable to refute the evidence and arguments their opponents present, are resorting to intimidation both legal and physical. While Kaufman has been harassed in the courtroom for over two years now, conservative speakers at campuses all over the country routinely face the specter of being physically attacked simply for expressing views out of sync with politically correct dogma. Speaking at the University of Southern California on November 4, 2009, David Horowitz noted that this was a relatively recent development: “It used to be a pleasure for me to speak on a college campus like USC.  I can remember the days when I could stroll onto the USC campus and walk over to the statue of Tommy Trojan where College Republicans had erected a platform for a rally to support our troops in Afghanistan after 9/11 at which I was to speak.  Now, however, I can’t set foot on this campus – or any campus – without being accompanied by a personal bodyguard and a battalion of armed campus security police to protect me and my student hosts.” He said this while protected by a bodyguard and twelve armed campus security officers.</p>
<p>Both of these forms of intimidation are being directed now at Geert Wilders, the Dutch Parliamentarian who produced the film <em>Fitna</em>, which shows how Islamic jihadists use violent passages of the Qur’an to justify violence and supremacism. For this and other alleged acts of “hate speech,” Wilders goes on trial in the Netherlands on January 20, for charges including having “intentionally offended a group of people, i.e. Muslims, based on their religion.”</p>
<p>It is a sad day for the freedom of speech when a man can be put on trial for causing another man offense. If offending someone were really a crime warranting prosecution by the civil authorities, the legal system would be brought to a standstill. But of course what Dutch authorities and Muslim groups in the Netherlands really want to bring to a standstill by trying Wilders is his truth-telling about the nature of Islamic jihad and Islamic supremacism – an honesty that has made his party one of the most popular in the Netherlands. The trial is an attempt by the nation’s political elites to silence one of their most formidable critics.</p>
<p>Wilders delineates the implications of his trial: “On the 20<sup>th</sup> of January 2010, a political trial will start. I am being prosecuted for my political convictions. The freedom of speech is on the verge of collapsing. If a politician is not allowed to criticise an ideology anymore, this means that we are lost, and it will lead to the end of our freedom. However I remain combative: I am convinced that I will be acquitted.”</p>
<p>Even if he does prevail, however, Wilders is still not free. “I would not qualify myself as a free man,” he has explained. “Four and a half years ago I lost my freedom. I am under guard permanently, courtesy to those who prefer violence to debate.”</p>
<p>Will American defenders of the freedom of speech also soon have to be under permanent guard, and spending thousands of hours defending themselves in court from frivolous charges that are intended only to silence them? We have already started down that road. Joe Kaufman has won another victory this week, but the Islamic supremacist machine in the United States has by no means given up its larger jihad against free speech and free thought. Those who are determined not to be silenced must settle in for a long, hard fight.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/robert-spencer/victory-for-free-speech-in-texas/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>33</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Iran’s Resurgent Revolution – by Ryan Mauro</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/ryan-mauro/iran%e2%80%99s-resurgent-revolution-%e2%80%93-by-ryan-mauro/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=iran%25e2%2580%2599s-resurgent-revolution-%25e2%2580%2593-by-ryan-mauro</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/ryan-mauro/iran%e2%80%99s-resurgent-revolution-%e2%80%93-by-ryan-mauro/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Dec 2009 05:12:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ryan Mauro]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ahmadinejad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ali khamenei]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ali Montazeri]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ashura]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[authority]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ayatollah Hussein]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ayatollah Khomeini]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ayatollah montazeri]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Basiji]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[beginning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brutal suppression]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[canon law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Challenge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[clerics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[critic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[day]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[death]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[December]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[demise]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fatwa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom of speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Grand]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[grand ayatollah]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Holiday]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[home]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[human rights abuses]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[independent source]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iranian government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islamic  Republic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kerman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[khamenei]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[leader]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mosque]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[opposition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oppressive regime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[position holder]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[post]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Khatami]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[religious authority]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[religious conviction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shiite]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shiite islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[source]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tehran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[underlings]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=43633</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The death of dissident cleric Ayatollah Montazeri energizes the democratic opposition.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-43634" title="iran-protests-supporters-005" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/iran-protests-supporters-005.jpg" alt="iran-protests-supporters-005" width="587" height="390" /></p>
<p>On December 19, one of the Iranian government’s most prominent critics, Grand Ayatollah Hussein Ali Montazeri, <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/20/world/main6001318.shtml">passed away.</a> His demise may yet portend the beginning of the end for Iran’s oppressive regime.</p>
<p>The regime may have been relieved that this independent source of religious authority and popularity among the people would no longer be around, but the Shiite holiday of Ashura fell on the seventh day following his death. The rallies mourning Montazeri combined with the Ashura celebration, creating a storm of anti-regime activity that only brutal suppression can contain.</p>
<p>Ayatollah Montazeri was a ferocious critic of the regime and advocate of ending clerical rule in government. Clerics, Montazeri believed, should serve as advisors to elected rulers. He wanted freedom of speech and assembly, and became particularly incensed in recent months over the fraudulent re-election of Ahmadinejad and widespread human rights abuses. His ardent opposition to the regime made him a hero among the people, despite his original role in bringing Ayatollah Khomeini to power and founding the Islamic Republic.</p>
<p>This year, he even issued a <em><a href="http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/3412.htm">fatwa</a></em> declaring the regime illegitimate and listed various transgressions committed by Khamenei and Ahmadinejad and their underlings, including hurting Shiite Islam by misrepresenting it. The <em>fatwa </em>even said that by breaking the “contract” with the people, “the people may remove the position holder from his post,” a not-so-subtle endorsement of overthrowing the government. He followed that up with an even bolder challenge to the regime: a declaration that Khamenei lacked the religious credentials to be a source of canon law and did not have the authority to issue <em>fatwas</em>.</p>
<p>Montazeri’s religious credentials as a Grand Ayatollah made such statements deeply unsettling for the regime. Originally, he was so adored by Khomeini that he was appointed as his successor. However, moral and religious conviction led Montazeri to disqualify himself from this post by speaking out against Khomeini’s massacres and human rights abuses. He even called on Khomeini to stop trying to export the Islamic Revolution by supporting terrorists and militias, and urged him to lead by example instead of force.</p>
<p>In 1989, Montazeri was placed on house arrest and the regime began trying to marginalize him. The current Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, was chosen to succeed Khomeini, even though he lacked the religious qualifications and Montazeri’s education dwarfed his. Montazeri has thus been able to speak with greater authority than Khamenei, especially as Iran’s economy and human rights situation spiraled downhill. Following the June “election,” a <a href="http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-seven-point-manifesto-of-the-iranian-resistance/">Seven-Point Manifesto</a> was spread about Iran listing the demands of the opposition for democratic reform called for Montazeri to replace Khamenei as Supreme Leader until the constitution is changed to reconfigure the government.</p>
<p>The death of Montazeri couldn’t have come at a worse time for the regime. The opposition had already been gearing up for massive demonstrations during the Ashura holiday, knowing that the regime could not ban gatherings on that day. The mourning that followed his death led to growing expressions of discontent that extended into Ashura, creating momentum that only gunfire and violence could stop from spreading to every street.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><img class="size-full wp-image-43636 aligncenter" title="ra2411909504" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/ra2411909504.jpg" alt="ra2411909504" width="399" height="265" /><em>Voice of the people: Montazeri&#8217;s death has galvanized Iran&#8217;s opposition.</em></p>
<p>It became clear immediately following Montazeri’s death that the opposition was energized. On the day before Ashura, about 50 members of the Basiji <a href="http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/27/iranian-militia-halts-speech-by-former-president-in-tehran-mosque/">stormed</a> a mosque where former President Khatami, a critic of the regime, was speaking and ended the presentation. It is said that the attack happened as Khatami tried to equate the uprising of Imam Hussein, who Ashura honors, with the opposition movement fighting for freedom. To make things even more offensive to the regime, this took place at the home mosque of Ayatollah Khomeini.</p>
<p>The regime eventually had to ban public mourning of Montazeri, leading to ongoing clashes. People in Tehran were seen having their Iranian flags confiscated for removing the religious symbols in them and were arrested for wearing black to honor him. On December 21, one woman walked up to the Basiji militiamen blocking access to Montazeri’s home and <a href="http://www.worldthreats.com/?p=1957">ripped</a> up a photo of Khamenei, knowing she would be beaten and arrested. The next day, in Kerman Province, protests went to a scheduled public hanging of two alleged robbers and <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8426683.stm">freed</a> them. They were recaptured later, but this is a very aggressive challenge to the government.</p>
<p>Opposition forces claim that at least four protestors have been shot and killed, including the <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6968798.ece">nephew</a> of Mir-Hossein Mousavi, the man on the losing side of the rigged election. Hundreds of thousands are demonstrating in Iran’s major cities, chanting “death to the dictatorship” and making direct attacks on Khamenei. Video and photos <a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2009/12/iran-more-video-footage-from-protests-surface-2.html">leaking</a> out show large pillars of smoke over Tehran from the mass use of tear gas to stop the demonstrations from spreading. Regime forces even <a href="http://ncr-iran.org/content/view/7617/1/">ran over</a> two protestors—twice.</p>
<p>The clashes with the security forces are getting longer and more vicious. <a href="http://ncr-iran.org/content/view/7611/1/">At least</a> ten motorcycles used by the forces are <a href="http://ncr-iran.org/content/view/7616/1/">said</a> to have been set ablaze in Tehran, along with a state building, police van, a Basiji outpost, state-owned banks and a vehicle used by the Revolutionary Guards. The windows of the Oil Ministry have reportedly been broken. Reports say that there have been numerous incidents where the Basiji have arrested a protestor only to have the crowd fight back and free them. Some police officers are said to be refusing orders to attack the demonstrators.</p>
<p>Ayatollah Mehdi Karroubi, another man who competed with Ahmadinejad for the presidency and has rankled the regime by reporting systematic rape and torture and demanding full rights for women, boldly <a href="http://beltwayblips.dailyradar.com/story/iran-s-government-will-not-last-says-mehdi-karoubi/">predicted</a> recently that the current regime “will not last” its entire four year term. Based on the demonstrations going on today, Karroubi may be right.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/ryan-mauro/iran%e2%80%99s-resurgent-revolution-%e2%80%93-by-ryan-mauro/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>19</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Free Speech on Trial &#8211; by Robert Spencer</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/robert-spencer/free-speech-on-trial-by-robert-spencer/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=free-speech-on-trial-by-robert-spencer</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/robert-spencer/free-speech-on-trial-by-robert-spencer/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Dec 2009 05:12:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Spencer]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[absurdity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Amsterdam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attempt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[backdrop]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[district]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dutch politician]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[egypt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Europe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[expression]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fitna]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[framers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Free Speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom of speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Geert Wilders']]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[global jihad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[government organization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[group]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hatred]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[incitement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[islamic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[islamic texts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[January]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jihad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Muhammad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[offensive statement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[organization of the islamic conference]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[political convictions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[political elites]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[politician]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[power]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prosecution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[resolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[responsibility]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[someone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[speech laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supremacism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the Netherlands]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united nation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[verge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[victim status]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[West]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=42029</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Geert Wilders is a test case for freedom.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-42032" title="geert_wilders" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/geert_wilders.jpg" alt="geert_wilders" width="450" height="519" /></p>
<p>Free speech goes on trial in the Netherlands on January 20, when Dutch politician Geert Wilders appears before the Amsterdam District Court on charges of having “intentionally offended a group of people, i.e. Muslims, based on their religion,” as well as having incited to hatred and discrimination.</p>
<p>What did Wilders do to warrant such charges? He told the truth about the global jihad and Islamic supremacism, and their roots in Islamic texts and teachings, in his film <em>Fitna</em> and elsewhere. But nowadays truth-telling is at such a premium that those who still dare to engage in it are threatened, harassed and prosecuted.</p>
<p>But Wilders is defiant: “On the 20<sup>th</sup> of January 2010, a political trial will start. I am being prosecuted for my political convictions. The freedom of speech is on the verge of collapsing. If a politician is not allowed to criticise an ideology anymore, this means that we are lost, and it will lead to the end of our freedom. However I remain combative: I am convinced that I will be acquitted.”</p>
<p>The very idea of trying someone for offending someone else is absurd – especially when the offended group is known to traffic in the PC multiculturalist coin of wounded feelings, so as to gain the political power that comes from victim status. That the Amsterdam District Court would aid and abet this absurdity and obvious manipulation unmasks the Wilders trial – even before it starts – as what it really is: an attempt by the nation’s political elites to silence one of their most formidable critics. The one who has the power to decide what is an actionable offensive statement or prosecutable incitement has the power to control the discourse – and that’s what the prosecution of Wilders is all about. If offending someone is a crime, can those who find hate speech laws offensive bring suit against their framers?</p>
<p>The action against Wilders is taking place, moreover, against the backdrop of the 57-government Organization of the Islamic Conference’s ongoing efforts at the United Nations to silence speech that they deem critical of Islam &#8212; including “defamation of Islam” that goes under the “pretext” of “freedom of expression, counter terrorism or national security.”</p>
<p>If they succeed in doing this, Europeans and Americans will be rendered mute, and thus defenseless, in the face of the advancing jihad and attempt to impose Sharia on the West &#8212; in fact, one of the key elements of the laws for dhimmis, non-Muslims subjugated under Islamic rule, is that they are never critical of Islam, Muhammad, or the Qur’an. Thus this prosecution in Amsterdam not only aids the advance of Sharia in the West, but is itself an element of that advance.</p>
<p>The stakes are so high in the Wilders case also because the OIC has a new, powerful ally as it moves against the freedom of speech. In October the Obama Administration actually co-sponsored an anti-free speech resolution at the United Nations. Approved by the U.N. Human Rights Council, the resolution, cosponsored by the U.S. and Egypt, calls on states to condemn and criminalize “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.”</p>
<p>Echoing Obama’s stated determination to combat “negative stereotyping of Islam” in the United States, the resolution also condemns “negative stereotyping of religions and racial groups.” This is, of course, an oblique reference to accurate reporting about the jihad doctrine and Islamic supremacism &#8212; for such reporting, and not actual negative stereotyping or hateful language at all, is always the focus of OIC complaints.</p>
<p>Last year the Secretary General of the OIC, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, issued a warning: “We sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed” regarding free speech about Islam and terrorism. And he reported success: “The official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware of the sensitivities of these issues. They have also started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked.”</p>
<p>For the first time, an American President has bowed to the OIC’s demands and taken cognizance of that “responsibility.”</p>
<p>But Geert Wilders, and all those who stand with him, have a responsibility, too. We have a responsibility to bear witness to the world that the freedom of speech is a cornerstone of any free society, and that once it is gone, there is no defense against tyranny, no safeguard against the encroaching power of a protected class against whom there is no appeal, and from whose rulings there is no dissent. If Geert Wilders is found guilty, tyranny and authoritarianism will have won a huge victory in Europe, and in the world in general.</p>
<p>The stakes are as high as they can possibly be. Geert Wilders must prevail. If he does not, Europe, and America, and the world, are in for a long, dark night.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/robert-spencer/free-speech-on-trial-by-robert-spencer/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>51</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 2026/2359 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-31 12:50:40 by W3 Total Cache -->