Stay Quiet and You'll Be OK
Muhammad Atta to passengers on 9/11
the truth has become an offense which is unprotected by free speech doctrines, which
instead protect the telling of lies. --Phyllis
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to
I may not agree with what you say,
but I would defend to the death your right to say it. - attributed to Voltaire
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right
to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell (1903 - 1950)
Universities are no longer
institutions of inquiry but ‘safe spaces’ where delicate flowers of
diversity of race, sex, orientation,
‘gender fluidity’ and everything else except diversity of thought have to
be protected from exposure to any unsafe ideas.
The degree of thought control, of limitations on freedom of speech and
expression is without parallel in the Western world
since the eighteenth
century and in some cases longer than that…
It seems to me it’s a very
dangerous situation, because it makes any kind of scholarly discussion of
Islam, to say the least, dangerous. Professor Bernard Lewis
The trouble with fighting for human
freedom, is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it
is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression
must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. --H. L. Mencken
Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right
of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a
redress of grievances.
-- The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
To sin by silence, when they
should protest, makes cowards of men. --Emma May Wilcox
Speech is the number one fight because without Freedom of Speech peaceful
men will have to resort to violence.
Whoever would overthrow the
liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech. --Benjamin Franklin
in Canada, truth and accuracy is no defense against charges
of “hate speech.” -Robert Spencer
One man’s “hate speech” is another
man’s lone voice crying out against oppression and injustice. -Robert
Enlighten the people generally,
and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits
at the dawn of day."
Be who you are and say what you
feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
– Dr. Seuss
There are people
out there without a sense of humour and they’re heavily armed.
Michael Palin former Monty Python Author about why he won't spoof Islam.
Geert Wilders on the Price of Speaking the Truth about
Geert Wilders After Being Convicted
of Hate Speech For Asking Who wants more Moroccans at a Rally
The Harassment of Robert Spencer for
The following video is an interview
with Mona Walker who left Islam and who tries to help other Muslims leave
Islam. She tells how non-Muslims in Sweden want to silence her.
Laws are being passed in the U.S. that threaten fee speech. Farrah
Prudence talks about that below.
One of the quotes above is
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to
This brings to mind an incident in England. A couple boarded a bus
with their autistic child. He cried on the bus so in order to cheer
him up the couple
sang him songs from the children's show, Peppa Pig. A Muslim
woman approached them and accused them of being irresponsible parents and
racists. The Muslim woman then complained to the bus driver that the
couple was racist. Apparently she felt their singing about a pig and
making snorting sounds was an attack on Islam since Muslims can't eat pork.
The bus driver asked the couple to get off the bus. When they said
they hadn't done anything wrong he said
"‘just get off the bus – it’s
not worth the hassle.'”.
Why did the driver side with the hijab woman? Because he was afraid of
the hassle that would ensue if he didn't. Maybe he was worried that
there were other Muslims on the bus or that the woman would file a complaint
against him, or she'd get other Muslims to board the bus and give him a hard
time. Who knows? The point is that the Muslim woman was able to
control the parents and get them removed from the bus. To a large
extent Muslims rule England. In another incident a man who wore a
pig hat was arrested. Another point is that the parents did not
do anything offensive but it didn't matter. There are plenty of Jews
who don't eat pork. They don't get offended by the mention of the word
pig or the sound of pig snorts. If there were Jews who did it's
unlikely they would complain to a bus driver and if they did I doubt any bus
driver would kick off the passenger for saying the word pig. With
Muslims though it's a different matter. Muslims are scary people who
carved a British soldier on the streets of Britain with machetes. You
don't want to mess with them. If that doesn't convince you that the
Muslims rule Britain take a look at this video of Muslims chasing British
Jayda of Britain First put on Trial for Criticizing Islam
The above video has been censored probably by the British
government. The last I checked the video I embedded below has not been
censored yet. I posted it on 12/9/2017. I found out about this
video because a British school boy was
suspended from school for mentioning
what it said about support for terrorism among British Muslims.
Prime Minister Victor Orban of Hungary speaks about the stifling of free
speech in Europe
When Oxford University press bans
the use of the words pig and pork you know who controls England.
Ralph Sidway wrote an article titled
Woman and Children First about the change that has come over Europe.
In the article he
Germany’s Cabinet on Wednesday
April 5, 2017 approved a new bill that punishes social networking sites if
they fail to swiftly remove illegal content such as hate speech or
defamatory fake news. Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Cabinet agreed on
rules that would impose fines of up to 50 million euros (53.4 million
dollars) on Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms.
tweet their opposition to the
construction of “refugee” centers in their towns receive
visits from police who threaten them with charges
of sedition. A Belgian who spoke out
about Muslim children in the city’s schools cheering the recent Brussels
three policemen to his door. And a London man who
tweeted about his decision to confront a Muslim over her views on
the Brussels attacks was
arrested, had his home raided, and all his computer equipment
seized. More well-known, Germany’s Chancellor Angela
Merkel was caught on an open microphone asking Facebook founder
and CEO Mark Zuckerberg to curtail speech critical of “the wave of Syrian
refugees entering Germany.”
When you can't criticize the people who oppress you, they control you.
criticism of Islam on
Facebook got a lacrosse coach in Maine fired.
Destiny Velez, Miss Puerto Rico
wrote that "All what Muslims have done is provided oil & terrorize this
country & many others!!!!"
She wrote in her twitter account that
"There's NO comparison between Jews, Christians & Muslims. Jews nor
Christians have terrorizing agendas in their sacred books."
Her Facebook and Twitter accounts were deactivated. Miss America
organization issued a statement announcing Velez's indefinite suspension
from her role as Miss Puerto Rico, given - it said - that her remarks went
against its values.
Facebook also censored
Nonie Darwish. She talks about it below.
Magdi Khalil is a human rights activists who speaks
out in defense of persecuted Christians in Egypt. His facebook page
was banned. In an article about his experiences with facebook he
As a researcher and human rights activist, I see, to my great amazement,
thousands of pages on Facebook full of hatred and incitement to violence
against Christians, Jews and women in the Middle East. However, these pages
are left undisturbed, while Facebook Administrators go after a human rights
activist for posts wrote in support of human rights and freedoms, and to
counter global terrorism which poses a threat to the whole world!!
Facebook censors conservatives.
Todd Starnes wrote how he was censored by Facebook. One paragraph of
his that was censored
“I’m about as politically incorrect as you can get.
I’m wearing an NRA ball cap, eating a Chick-fil-A sandwich, reading a Paula
Deen cookbook and sipping a 20-ounce sweet tea while sitting in my Cracker
Barrel rocking chair with the Gaither Vocal Band singing ‘Jesus Saves’ on
the stereo and a Gideon’s Bible in my pocket. Yes sir, I’m politically
incorrect and happy as a June bug.”
Facebook's censorship of critics of bad people is
likely to grow.
AP reported that:
“the European Union reached an agreement
Tuesday May 31, 2016 with some of the world’s biggest social media firms,
including Facebook and Twitter, on ways to combat the spread of hate speech
online.” Not only Facebook and Twitter, but also YouTube and Microsoft,
“have committed to ‘quickly and efficiently’ tackle illegal hate speech
directed against anyone over issues of race, color, religion, descent or
national or ethnic origin.
Not long after
this, in July 2016 youtube banned the following
video about Shariah as hate speech. Roaming Millenial made a video
about how youtube is demonetizing videos and censoring them. She also
talks about facebook. Her
presentation is below.
A couple of weeks
after I wrote the above paragraph a Muslim opened fire in a gay club in
Orlando and killed 50 people. Pamela Geller presented a lot of
information about the mass murder on her Stop the Islamization of America
Facebook page and Facebook responded by
deleting the page. After an outcry Facebook restored the page and
said it was a mistake. A few hours later,
her own Facebook account received a 30-day ban after she made a post
criticizing President Obama for his response to the Orlando shootings. Shouldn't murder by Muslims be met with free
speech about the Islamic threat instead of silencing those who report on it?
In an article titled The Urgent Case
for Legislation against Facebook and Google Pamela Geller
Just this week, Facebook launched its latest of many attacks on my news
It labeled my site as "spam" and removed every Geller Report post --
thousands upon thousands of them, going back years – from Facebook. It also
blocked any Facebook member from sharing links to the Geller Report.
Here is a video of people discussing how they've been
State that Islam condones oppression of the infidel and your facebook
account could be terminated. Post a video on youtube of Islamic mobs
attacking women and your youtube account could be terminated as well.
Hate speech by definition is any speech that reveals evil about a group no
matter how true that speech is because the result may be hatred of that
conducted a pre-dawn
raid on about 60 homes in July of 2016 rounding up residents accused of
posting xenophobic, racist or other “right-wing extremist” content to a
private Facebook group in violation of German laws against “hate speech.”
And the crackdown, while being touted by much of the media as targeting
“anti-Semitism,” appears largely focused on those who are critical of Islam
and the hundreds of thousands of Muslim migrants who have flooded into
Paula Deen has a cooking show and has
written a lot of cookbooks.. She was sued by a blackwoman for making
racist comments. Deen stated in her deposition that she had used the
"N-word" at times. Specifically, she recalled telling her husband
about an incident "when a black man burst into the bank that I was working
at and put a gun to my head. ... I didn't feel real favorable towards him.
Images of Muslims rape gangs and other muslim
atrocities and content containing those images are
blocked from facebook if facebook viewers report them en-mass as being
Those who speak up against the Islamic religion are accused of insulting an
ethnic and cultural minority. Salman Rushdie
“If people weren’t being killed right now, if bombs and Kalashnikovs weren’t
speaking today, the debate (about Islam) would be very different. Fear is
being disguised as respect.”
Rushdie added: “If people weren’t being killed right now, if bombs and
Kalashnikovs weren’t speaking today, the debate would be very different.
Fear is being disguised as respect.” He said that if he were threatened for
insulting Islam today, “these people would not come to my defence and would
use the same arguments against me by accusing me of insulting an ethnic and
Is free speech always a good thing?
What if people are saying things that are wrong? Shouldn't they be
silenced so they don't confuse people and lead them from the truth? A
major problem with that is who is to say who knows the truth and who
doesn't. Everyone believes that they know the truth but they disagree
with each other about what the truth is. They can't all be right.
Open discussion may lead both sides closer to the truth if their minds are
What if neo-Nazis want to speak or white
supremacists? Isn't Antifa right to violently silence them?
One problem with that is how do you know a group is
neo-Nazi or white supremacist. The left
paints a lot of conservatives who are not neo-Nazis as neo-Nazis in
order to discredit them. There is a lot of leftist
hate toward the right. You don't know what a group is unless you
hear their members speak.
What if free speech leads to hate? Shouldn't
hate speech be banned?
Speech that leads to hate isn't always bad. Lets
consider a situation not involving people to clarify the issue.
Supposing there were rabid rats spreading in a neighborhood. Would it
be wrong to report on the spread of rabid rats? Doing so could lead to
fear and hatred of innocent rats. If one did report on this wouldn't
it be better to say animals so as not to single out rats? What about
rabies, it is only a virus trying to reproduce. Is it fair to say bad
things about rabies? There are plenty of animals who do harmful things
who don't have rabies. There are plenty of viruses that make people
sick that aren't rabies. Isn't it unfair to single out rabies?
What if there were a Facebook page called "Stop Rabies in America".
Wouldn't that violate Facebook's policy of being hateful? Shouldn't
Facebook terminate that site?
If we want rabies to spread than
facebook should definitely terminate that site.
Geert Wilder explained how hate speech is
being used against those who speak the truth and not used against people who
engage in hate speech and hate violence. In the preface to Pamela
Geller's book, Fatwa he wrote:
The "hate speech" charge that has
been leveled against virtually all defenders of freedom in the West, and for
which I have been prosecuted in my own country, will always be used against
people who are defending the West - in order to please and appease Islam.
Its followers can
say whatever they want: "Throw gays from apartment buildings," "Kill the
Jews," "Slaughter the infidel," "Destroy Israel," "Wage jihad against the
West."Whatever their book tells them. But when we call attention to
what they are saying, we get charges of "hatred," "bigotry," "Islamophobia"
and the like.
Refugee children in Canada violently attack
Canadian children. If Canadian children attacked refugee children they
would be accused of hate crimes. When instead the parents of the
Canadian children complain they are labeled haters. A Canadian mother
"If our students, our kids
did that to these students, it'd be a hate crime. It'd be something bad.
Like, really, really bad. And, now that we're addressing this problem
because it's our children being involved, we're still the bad person. "
Here is a report by rebel media about what happened.
Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, 55, created a
film called "Innocence of Muslims," in which he showed events in the
life of Muhammad that enraged Muslims in Egypt, Libya and Yemen.
Muslims then attacked U.S. embassies on 9/11/2012 and killed U.S.
Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans in Libya. Eric
Holder's justice department opened up a criminal investigation. Was
the creation of this movie a criminal act? Should Mr. Nakoula be
punished for creating that movie? Isn't creation of a movie that
enrages Muslims against the United States counterproductive? Don't we
need their help against Al Qaeda? Doesn't this movie encourage them to
join Al Qaeda? On September 11 2012 and afterwards enraged mobs
shouted "Obama, Obama we are all Osama." Is that what the U.S. needs,
more Osama bin Ladins?
What about Australia, does Australia need more Osamas?
I don't know how to get hold of
movie but the trailer is embedded below.
The movie is a lot more
describing Islam than most people realize. Is it wrong to tell the truth if it is likely
that people will go on a rampage and kill others when they hear it?
One way to answer this question is to consider the consequences of silencing
those who speak the truth because it might offend radical Muslims. One
obvious consequence is that the radical Muslims will unimpeded in any evil
they might do. No one will be able to stop them because no one will be
able to say anything negative about them or about what they are doing.
Also when Muslim anger is appeased that encourages Muslims to be angry.
It shows them that they have everything to gain if they're angry. Another way to answer this is to ask if there were any good consequences of
the movie? The movie alerted people to the danger of Islam. It
may also have planted a seed of doubt in the minds of many Muslims about
their religion. The violent reaction to the movie in itself probably
made it clear that the movie's claims about Islam being a violent religion
are at least partly true. There are those who have said that Nakoula
should go to jail because his actions incited the Muslims and resulted in
the death of embassy personnel but did they? It turns out that the
attack on the Libyan embassy was planned in advance and was at least in part retaliation
for an American strike on a terrorist.
In the interview with NBC’s Ann Curry, Libyan
President Mohamed Magarief
said the film had been available on YouTube for months and the “reaction
should have been, if it was genuine, should have been six months earlier.”
"It's a pre-planned act of terrorism," Magarief said, emphasizing the video
had “nothing to do with this attack."
There is an important lesson here. The Islamic world
is a seething cauldron waiting for an opportunity to strike at the West.
It will always find excuses to strike the West. Silencing those who
speak the truth about Islam will not protect the West. That still
leaves the question of whether such a movie is productive or not.
It certainly didn't convince the mobs of Muslims shouting "we are all Bin
Ladin" that Muhammad was an evil charlatan and that they should abandon
their religion. The interesting question is did it convince anyone.
It exposed to people in the West just how dangerous and fanatic much of the
Muslim world is. That is an important lesson. Many people who
are not Muslim looked up the video and may have learned something about how
Muslims persecute Christians and how the Muslim police don't do anything
Robert Spencer gave a talk about the attack on Free Speech
in which he discussed the Obama administration's reaction to the movie.
His talk can be seen here.
The problem is that any actions
of self defense by the West incite the Muslim world. Obama asked
Google to remove Nakoula's movie and Google refused. Google did pull
it in India and Indonesia as well as in Egypt and Libya to comply with local
law. Obama and Hillary also appeared in an ad in Muslim countries in
which Hillary stated the the video was disgusting and reprehensible.
In order to calm the Arab world Obama gave a speech at the United Nations in
which he said:
"The Future Must Not Belong To Those Who Slander
the Prophet of Islam."
That certainly sounds like Obama plans to take action to
punish those who tell the truth about who Muhammad was. Nakoula was
arrested. People who speak the truth about Islam in America know that
they are in Obama's crosshairs. According to Judicial Watch under the
U.S. military handbook for troops deployed to the
Middle East orders soldiers not to make derogatory
comments about the Taliban or criticize pedophilia,
among other outrageous things.
better; the new manual, which is around 75 pages,
suggests that Western ignorance of Afghan culture—
not Taliban infiltration—is responsible for the
increase in deadly attacks by Afghan soldiers
against the coalition forces...
this year the Obama Administration changed the way
federal agents are trained to combat terrorism and
violent extremism by
eliminating all materials that shed a negative
light on Muslims. Under White House orders, the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) destroyed
instructional material that characterizes Muslims as
prone to violence or terrorism in a government-wide
call to end Islamophobia.
Obama practically every major federal agency has
been ordered to participate in Muslim outreach
initiatives, including the Justice Department with a
special program to protect
Islamic civil rights, Homeland Security meetings
with extremist Muslim organizations and the nation’s
space agency (NASA) with an unprecedented mission to
focus on Muslim diplomacy.
If you are
in the American military you cannot criticize Muslims When we remember
Voltaire's comment that "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who
you are not allowed to criticize" one can't help but wonder if we are ruled
by Muslims. Here is a brief talk by
An American soldier filed a lawsuit because he
says he was forced out of the U.S. Army for having anti-Obama bumper
stickers on his personal car, serving Chick-fil-A sandwiches at a party and
reading books written by conservative authors like Sean Hannity.
More seriously a marine was locked in a
psych ward for his postings on facebook. Since that case made
national news, Whitehead John Whitehead, president of the Rutherford
Institute and author of “A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American
Police State said he has received dozens of calls from other veterans with
their own horror stories of being detained under involuntary commitment
laws. About 20,000 of these type of detentions take place every year in
“Just over a Facebook post, in many cases,” he said. “I’ve had veterans call
me for just posting something, and then the FBI agents come to their door
the next day.”
“People are nervous they’re going to be harassed. We’re moving into a
censorship society. I see the cases on a daily basis.”
Hillary Clinton has been meeting with the
Organization of Islamic Cooperation as part of the Istanbul process.
Judging from the 2011 session I was partially able
to observe as a commissioner on the official U.S. Commission on
International Religious Freedom, the point of the Istanbul Process is
for the governments of the developed West give an accounting to the
governments of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Qatar, and other key
Muslim states on measures taken to stop American and other Western
citizens from disparaging Islam.
in 2011, the UN Human Rights Council
adopted Resolution 16/18, with the support of the Obama administration.
It called upon Western states to pass laws that would criminalize
"defamation of religion" – i.e.,
criticism of Islam.
Here is a trailer of a movie by Frank
Gaffney called Silent Conquest about the encroachment of Islam on Freedom of Speech in the West.
Pamela Geller held a contest for
cartoons of Muhammad. Two radical Muslims tried to massacre everyone
at the contest but a policeman shot them. Pamela received a lot of
criticism from the press for inciting the Muslims. Here is a video of
Jeannine Pirro responding to those criticisms of Pamela Geller.
Jeannine says in the video that
what Pamela did was probably a dumb move. I think it was a brave move.
Islam will win if people do not dare to criticize it. Pamela dared.
One of the most dangerous appeasement actions by the Obama
administration was the loosening of sanctions on Iran. When Israeli
defense minister Moshe Yaalon criticized the folly of the United States,
Secretary of State John Kerry called Prime Minister Netanyahu to
complain in an effort to silence Yaalon.
A very courageous former Muslim
by the name of Imran Firasat who lives in Spain made a movie about Muhammad the trailer of
which can be seen below.
The Spanish government informed him
that if he or Stand Up America Now who he collaborated with continue on and
release the film on December 14 2012 in Madrid Spain, then his residency
status will be revoked. He will be detained, locked in prison under the
excuse of being a danger to national security, then deported back to
Pakistan where he would be killed because he is facing a death sentence due
to his criticism of Islam.
Tommy Robinson is the co-founder,
spokesman and leader of the English Defence League. After Barack
Hussein Obama became president Mr. Robinson was denied entry into the U.S..
He came here in Sept. 2010 to speak at the protest against the Ground Zero
Victory Mosque, but was denied entry as soon as he landed at JFK. On
September 11th, this year, he came to NYC, using a borrowed passport, to
speak at Pamela Geller’s Stop Islamization of Nations (SION) symposium.
Below is Tommy’s speech:
Tommy Robinson was
arrested by the
British and placed in solitary confinement. A demonstration was held
on his behalf.
During the demonstration a speaker explained why Tommy was arrested:
“He has been arrested on the
basis that he was on his way to cause a public nuisance. He has been
charged for an alleged assault on the say so of one man, a known
Islamist Saiful Islam. The same man whose physical assault on Tommy was
recorded and seen by millions around the world and yet this man has
still not been arrested or charged.”
“He has been arrested on the basis that he was on his way to cause a
public nuisance. He has been charged for an alleged assault on the
say so of one man, a known Islamist Saiful Islam. The same man whose
physical assault on Tommy was recorded and seen by millions around
the world and yet this man has still not been arrested or charged.”
“He has been arrested on the basis that he was on his way to cause a
public nuisance. He has been charged for an alleged assault on the
say so of one man, a known Islamist Saiful Islam. The same man whose
physical assault on Tommy was recorded and seen by millions around
the world and yet this man has still not been arrested or charged.”
The speaker pointed out that people who were a real danger
to the public were given bail while Tommy was refused bail. What kind
of public nuisance does he cause? He participates in demonstrations
against the Islamization of Britain.
In January 2013, EDL Leader Kevin Carroll was
for comments he allegedly posted on Facebook. The comments in question, made
in response to a particularly graphic and unpleasant video about animal
dismemberment during halal
slaughter, were as follows:
“They are all ***king backward savages, a devil-spawned death cult
worshipping all that is unholy and barbaric, pure evil”
The police response was decisive. In Kev’s words, “…they swooped down on me,
blues flashing and sirens wailing — you would have thought I was a serial
killer or something. Right in the middle of the town centre!”
He was charged with “religious and racial hatred” and has been ordered to
report to a police station twice a week.
For a Facebook post.
Muslims have no compunction about
silencing those who criticize Islam or who even criticize them.
Raymond Ibrahim wrote about how some Muslims are
cutting the tongues of those who say things they don't want to hear.
Nonie Darwish gave a
talk about how Islam controls speech. One point she made that I
didn't know was that it is obligatory to slander those who Islam considers
its enemies. When Israel sent aid to earthquake victims in Haiti it
was obligatory for Muslims to slander Israel and say that they did it to
Pamela Geller put up ads in the New York City subway that
said In any war between civilized man and the savage supported the civilized
man defend Israel, defeat Jihad. Here is a video of her addressing the
MTA who were considering ad rules. She was telling them not to make
new rules that would block her ad.
The Detroit public system was
willing to put up the above ad
but unwilling to put up this one.
The Puget Sound Joint Terrorism Task Force for the U.S.
Department of State’s Rewards for Justice program put up ads on buses with
16 photos of wanted terrorists sandwiched between the taglines “Faces of
Global Terrorism” and “Stop a Terrorist. Save Lives.
Up to $25 Million Reward.” Most of those terrorists
pictured are Muslims. The Muslim Association of Puget Sound (MAPS)
demanded and held a meeting with the FBI, the U.S. Attorney’s office and a
member of the Department of Homeland Security. Jeff Siddiqui of MAPS said,
“I spoke with a number of people who were at this meeting in which they
discussed this bus ad and, as far as I can gather, everybody except for the
FBI agreed this ad was very damaging to Muslims.” Finally, he says the FBI
agreed to take the ads down. After the FBI decided to take the ads
down Pamela Geller
FBI is putting Americans at risk by submitting to the outrageous demands
of Islamic supremacists. It is not the fault of the FBI that the world’s
most dangerous terrorists are jihadists. That is the reality. You cannot
avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Capturing these mass
murderers is significantly more important than propping up the fictional
narrative of victimhood and the nonsensical hurt feelings. People are
being slaughtered every day in jihad attacks.”
In Holland Geert Wilders the leader of the Dutch
Freedom Party, who compares the Muslim holy book to Adolf Hitler's Mein
sparked government panic after saying on January 24, 2008 that he would release an anti-Islam film he created the next day. Dutch
police prepared for a weekend of riots and Mr Wilders was told by the
authorities that he would have to leave country. What's the point of riling
up Muslims in Holland to the point that they riot and destroy property and
perhaps kill people? Why create widespread panic with a film? Why put the
Dutch police and the Dutch people through this? He did
release the film.
This film is not Geert Wilders giving a speech about his opinions, it is
clips of Muslim preachers preaching hatred, terrorist acts by Muslims and
the Koranic commands that lead to them. If you do a search for Fitna
on the web you would expect it to be the first web page you find but it is
not. One finds either web sites that criticize it or web sites from
which the movie was removed. Youtube is one of the few web sites that
still post the film. If one views
that film on youtube
it becomes clear how important the warning of the film is to those of us who
are infidels. It should also be important to Muslims and encourage
them to reform their religion. Instead they threaten Geert Wilders.
Being friendly with Israel can get you in trouble
in Holland. Geert Wilder was
investigated by the Dutch secret police because he is friendly to
In July 2008 a Jordanian court summoned twelve European
citizens to answer criminal charges of blasphemy and inciting hatred. One of
those 12 was Geert Wilders for creating the film.
Stephen Brown wrote:
The subpoenas will be sent to the twelve Europeans
through their embassies in Jordan. If they do not appear within 15 days,
the Messenger of Allah group says it will seek international arrest
warrants through Interpol.
Europe’s appeasement is also evident in the second
part of Messenger For Allah group’s anti-blasphemy campaign. This part
calls for a commercial boycott of all Danish and Dutch products in
Jordan and of anything associated with the two countries, such as
airlines and shipping companies. ..
Dutch and Danish companies were instructed they could get their products
off the boycott list if they, essentially, betrayed their nations’
values and their countrymen. The affected companies, according to The
Jordan Times, were told to denounce the Dutch film and the Danish
cartoons in the media both in Jordan and in at least one publication in
their own country, support the Jordanian legal action taken against
Wilders and the Danish newspaper people as well as the creation of an
international anti-blasphemy law.
Several companies have already complied. When informed of the
stipulation that requires a denunciation be published in a Dutch
newspaper, a spokesman for a Dutch food company that exports to Jordan
said his company “…would print it if needed.”..
Only last week, Dutch and Danish companies
were told to put the boycott posters up in their own countries if they
did not want their products blacklisted.
The overall goal of the Messenger of Allah group’s legal and commercial
campaign against the two European states, it says, is the enactment of
“a universal law that prohibits the defamation of any prophet or
religion”, especially of the Prophet Mohammad. Islamic countries are
already pushing for such a law at the United Nations.
“The boycott is a means but not an end,” said Zakaria Sheikh, a
spokesperson for Messenger of Allah Unite Us. “We are not aiming at
collective punishment, but when the Danish and Dutch people put pressure
on their governments to support the creation of an international law, we
are achieving our goal.”
Well, there you have it. The Muslim organization wants Denmark and
Holland not just to muzzle themselves but to help it muzzle the rest of
the world as well.
Bazrafkan ran afoul of Danish authorities with a
blog entry printed in a December 2011 issue of the
Jyllands-Posten newspaper of
2005 Danish Muhammad caricature notoriety. Bazrafkan expressed being
“very convinced that Muslim men around the world rape, abuse and kill their
daughters.” Such abuse resulted “according to my understanding as a
Danish-Iranian” from a “defective and inhumane culture—if you can even call
it a culture at all.” Bazrafkan deemed Islam a “defective and inhumane
religion whose textbook, the Koran, is more immoral, deplorable and crazy
than manuals of the two other global religions combined.”
AS a result Firoozeh was convicted
in Denmark for denigrating a group of people based on their religion.
This conviction was
upheld by an appeals court.
There are efforts in the Western world to ban
hate speech against Muslims and to punish those who criticize Islam that are
so extreme that attempts are made to even ban words.
wrote in 2008 that:
During the past year, several federal agencies –
including the Department of Homeland Security, the State Department, and the
National Counter Terrorism Center – have declared a war on words.
Specifically, these agencies have issued memoranda discouraging their
employees from naming the enemy in the War on Terror. The prohibition
included words such as “jihad,” “Islamist,” “Islamofascism,” and
“caliphate,” among others.
Perhaps the reason for this war against speech is the desire to keep the oil flowing and
Muslim anger that could lead to riots, terrorist attacks and assassinations. Perhaps
another reason is the desire to end hate. Does banning speech against
Muslims help end hate? Will fewer people hate Muslims if they hear
less criticism of Muslims. Will fewer Muslims hate the non-Muslims if there
is less criticism from non-Muslims?
Hal Lindsay lost his job
with TBN because he pointed out that there are
109 verses in the Koran promoting violence toward the infidel and that when Muhammad was in Medina
and had an army behind him he promoted violence. He said the more knowledgable and devout Muslims become the more violent they become. He
argued that moderate Muslims were not practicing real Islam.
A video of an
interview with him can be seen here. What he said about the Koran is true.
There are 109 verses promoting violence toward the infidel. I've listed
some of them
here. Hal Lindsay's conclusion that the more Muslims believe this the
more violent they will become is a reasonable one. When he spoke about
this this was seen as provoking hatred of Muslims and his supervisor demanded to review all his scripts so she could censor them.
Lets assume that everyone who spoke the truth about
the contents of the Koran to the ignorant infidel was muzzled. People
would then not understand the roots of Islamic hostility. They'd be
more likely to blame the Jews since the Muslims blame the Jews. The
belief that the Jew is evil also comes from the Koran but people wouldn't
know this because it would be forbidden for anyone to say so. People
would conclude that the excuses the Muslims give for hating the Jews must be
the real reason for Muslim violence. If Muslims committed terrorist
acts against them they'd think it was the Jews fault. People would
become hostile to the Jews. Anti-Jewish sentiment is growing in Europe
on a massive scale. What if a terrorist act was committed by a Muslim
and those who reported on it left out that it was a Muslim who did it.
Then people again would blame the wrong people for the terrorist attack.
Hatred would be created but it would be created toward non-Muslims and the
victims of Muslim wrath. The Muslims would be able to act with
impunity because no one would be willing to recognize that they were
responsible and the increased number of terrorist attacks would increase the
hate. To the extent that people realize that Muslims are behind the
attacks it will increase hostility to Muslims and to the extend that they
don't it will increase the hostility to non-Muslims. This example
shows how attempting to muzzle hate speech can actually increase hate
If the assumption underlying muzzling hate speech,
that hate speech is wrong is correct than anyone who says anything bad about
anyone else is committing a crime. If a criminal held up a bank and raped the
female employees and then killed them, according to this logic no one has the
right to say that he did because that would create hatred toward the criminal.
According to this logic if someone reports the criminal to the police that person should be arrested for
creating hatred in the police. The result would be that innocent people
would be in jail and the criminal would go on to rob more banks, and rape and
kill more women. Islam teaches jihad toward the infidel. It
teaches it is OK to rape infidel women captured in war. The result of
stopping speech critical of Islam is similar to what would happen if those
criticizing the criminal were silenced, it would enable devout
fundamentalist Muslims to rape infidel women unimpeded.
These raping sprees are happening in
Earlier I mentioned how Geert Wilders is being silenced. He
created a powerful movie called Fitna
which juxtaposes horrific scenes of killings and destruction at the hands of
the Islamic terrorists with verses from the Koran and excerpts of incendiary
speeches by Islamic leaders that are used to justify such acts of terrorism.
There is nothing that is not factual in the film. The speeches are
real, the quotes from the Koran are real and the terrorist acts are real.
Secretary General Ban Ki-moon condemned the film saying that it traffics
in what he calls “hate speech” and “incitement to violence.” Nowhere
in that film is their hate speech or incitement to violence. In fact
the film is exposing hate speech and incitement and that hate speech and
incitement is not condemned by the U.N..
UN Human Rights Council passed unanimously a resolution proposed byEgyptandPakistanthat
calls for the policing of individuals and media reports for negative
statements about Islam.
Holland is slowly becoming Islamicized and radicalized. Holland is
slowly losing its freedoms, the right of free speech among them. It is
becoming a country where people are afraid to speak their minds because of
the Muslims. Perhaps the only chance the Dutch have is a crisis which forces
them to take firm action. Perhaps only when Muslims riot in the streets and
burn Dutch homes and blow up Dutch people will the Dutch become aware of the
threat that is in their midst. Perhaps that is the only chance that
Holland expel the growing extremist population that is slowly strangling it. Geert Wilders may be one of Holland's last remaining hopes to remain free.
Free Speech is threatened throughout Europe. Giulio
Meotti wrote a very sad piece about this called
speech is used to incite violence. Should neo-Nazis be allowed to incite
their followers? Should people like Khalid Muhammed a man who organized the
"million youth march" and who spouted hatred against whites and the Jews be
silenced? What about Arabic radio stations that preach hatred of the Jews?
Shouldn't they be silenced? When the Shah of Iran was in power
Ayatollah Khomeini distributed tapes inciting religious Moslems to overthrow
him. The Shah was overthrown, the Ayatollah became the leader of Iran and
the result has been a anti-western religious dictatorship. Should the
Ayatollah's tapes have been confiscated? Although there was not much
freedom of speech in Iran under the Shah there is even less now as a result
of the rise of fundamentalist Islam in Iran. Wouldn't the confiscation of
tapes been worth protecting the freedoms, however limited of Iranians under
the Shah? The state of Palestine is ostensibly being created to give more
freedom and self determination to Palestinians yet the Palestinians
Authority is also
attacking the right to free speech of its opponents. At the same time
it is producing TV shows
inciting Arab children to hate Israel. Shouldn't this be stopped?
Would it be better if only the "good" speech was allowed? Would it be
better if only speech that would preach brotherhood and harmony be allowed?
Would it be better if only speech that was constructive was allowed?
The danger of anti-incitement laws is that they can be
used to silence legitimate opposition to bad policies or belief systems.
The definition of incitement is twisted from meaning telling people to
commit violence to criticizing religion. If a person criticizes Islam
as violent and a Muslim preacher then preaches to Muslims to kill that
person, according to the new twisted meaning of incitement the person who
made the criticism is the inciter and not the preacher. In one example
of that Christians who criticized Islam during a Muslim gathering in
Michigan had rocks thrown at them by Muslims yet the Christians were
arrested. In a January 4, 2012
interview with the Berliner Zeitung and the Frankfurter Rundschau,
Manfred Murck, the director of the Hamburg branch of the German domestic
intelligence agency (the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (BfV)), said his
organization was studying whether German citizens who criticize Muslims and
Islam on the Internet are fomenting hate and are thus criminally guilty of
"breaching" the German constitution. ...In May, more than 500
Salafists attacked German police with bottles, clubs, stones and other
weapons in the city of Bonn, to protest cartoons they said were "offensive."
Rather than cracking down on the Muslim extremists, however, German
authorities sought to silence the peaceful critics of multicultural policies
that allow the Salafists openly to preach violence and hate.
In another example of the misuse of incitement law Imran Firasat the author of a
movie critical of
Islam was charged with
incitement to religious violence. One can view the movie by
clicking below, nowhere in the movie does Imran tell anyone to kill anybody.
Hate speech is used to silence the
truth but it isn't being used to protect the victims of hate. When a
New York mob of blacks
attacked a Jewish store in 2014 while yelling Heil Hitler there was no
charge of a hate crime or hate speech.
Perhaps a better way
to handle hate speech is with speeches encouraging tolerance. If the
inciters attempt to silence those who preach tolerance through violence than
they should be arrested and silenced themselves but only the individuals who
do so and not the group they belong to. Laws against incitement have been passed in Britain, Sweden, Israel and in Canada and I give
examples of negative consequences of this below. These negative
consequences have happened because any criticism of another person or group
can be construed as incitement. Anyone who advocates a policy that in
anyway inconveniences another group no matter how necessary that policy, can
be accused of incitement. When incitement becomes illegal, people can
punish and lock up those whose political opinions they don't like. Another
problem with incitement laws is that in practice they are applied
selectively. You rarely see radical Muslim or left wing inciters in Europe
being locked up for incitement. The
only case I am aware of in which a British Muslim faced jail for
incitement was that of Umran Javed who
was found guilty of soliciting murder when he called for the death of
Americans and Danes during a
demonstration in London in 2006 against
cartoons of the prophet Mohammed.
In England two Christian preachers
attempted to convert Muslims to Christianity by passing out Bible tracts in
a Muslim neighborhood.
Muslim Hate Crime is in Your Future, 6/6/08)
They were stopped by doing so with the excuse that doing so was a hate
This is in the context of many attacks on
vicars or churches by Muslims who are clearly intent on turning east London
into a no-go area for Christians."
On one occasion, youths shouted:
"This should not be a church,
this should be a mosque, you should not be here."
"I just walked away from it --
you are too frightened to challenge them. We have church windows smashed
two to three times a month. The youths are anti-Christian."
The Christians who try and convert
these Muslims from their violent ways are accused of committing a hate
As a result one side can
propagandize and brainwash freely while silencing the opposition with
Muslims in England have
been raping and trafficking young infidel girls.
Police arrest the victims. In
two cases fathers tracked down their daughters and tried to remove them from
houses where they were being abused only to be
arrested themselves when police were called. A victim of
Rotherham’s child sex abuse scandal confronted a man she says groomed her –
but was left shocked when she was the one
The woman was shocked when she saw the man walking
through the town’s centre on Friday and decided to challenge him over
the allegations.But she was tackled by two police officers and pushed up
against a wall during her ‘thuggish’ arrest, a witness has said.‘A
police van came and six male officers piled out. ‘Two of them dragged
her away, handcuffed her, put her against a wall and then shoved her
into the back of the van.’ A spokesman said: ‘The woman was
arrested on suspicion of racially aggravated public order offences.’
Thomas wrote in the
Telegraph, December 17 that Anjem Choudary doesn't get prosecuted for
hate speech. He wrote that Anjum marched down Brick Lane threatening
shopkeepers with 40 lashes if they didn’t stop selling alcohol. At the same
time he has gone on record, acclaiming Muslim gangs (who recently attacked
drinkers on London’s streets), as “fantastic”. Sean Thomas
Now, simple minded souls
might wonder whether Choudary was breaking the law here: isn’t it an
incitement to violence, when you praise vicious mobs as “fantastic”?
Isn’t it criminal, in some way, to menace shopkeepers with “40 lashes”?
Come to think of it, you might wonder why Choudary hasn’t been jailed
before, given his record. In 2003 he was investigated for organising
terrorist training camps. Around the same time he praised the 9/11
bombers as “magnificent martyrs”. A few months later he predicted
attacks on British soil. In 2005 he refused to condemn the 7/7
slaughters in London.
In 2006 he organised a protest outside the Danish Embassy in London
where, notoriously, the protestors carried placards saying “Exterminate
those who slander Islam", “Behead those who insult Islam”, and “Be
prepared for the real holocaust". Some might imagine this was clearly an
incitement to violence and racial/religious hatred, and worthy of jail
time – but no. Choudary received a £500 fine, but it was imposed because
he failed to inform police of the planned demo.
Mr. Thomas went on to give a long
list of people who have been prosecuted
for hate speech who aren't Muslim.
Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller are
banned from entering Britain because
they are accused of hate speech.
Another example of how incitement
laws are abused occurred in Sweden where Ake Green, a pastor belonging to
the Pentecostal movement was sentenced , to a month in prison, under a law
against incitement, after he was found guilty of having offended homosexuals in
a sermon (wnd.com 7/8/04). This is even though he ended his sermon with
these people who live under the slavery
of sexual immorality need, is an abundance of grace. We cannot condemn
these people. Jesus never belittled anyone. He offered them grace."
A young Somali journalist in Sweden named Amun Abdullahi got
herself in trouble with the politically correct elite by reporting the truth
about the radicalization of young Somalis in Rinkeby (a culturally enriched
suburb of Stockholm), where they were recruited for jihad by the Islamic
terrorist group Al-Shabab.
The treatment meted out to Ms. Abdullahi made her decide to move back to
Somalia. She acknowledges that Mogadishu is a dangerous place, but she considers
Sweden more dangerous, because “here
you cannot tell the truth.”She said Swedish journalists sit
around saying things like you can't report this, it's too sensitive, it might
affect the election.
State University has canceled an art exhibition about Arab terrorism and the
destruction of Jewish historical and religious sites, claiming it does not
"promote cultural diversity."
The ten-piece exhibit, by student Josh Stulman, was the result of years of
preparation. It was called "Portraits of Terror" and focused on
images of Palestinian terrorism, hate-propaganda cartoons printed in PA newspapers
and photos of Jewish holy sites destroyed by Muslims.
Just three days before the exhibition was to take place, Stulman received an
email from the School of Visual Arts saying that his exhibit on images of
terrorism "did not promote cultural diversity" or "opportunities
for democratic dialogue" and the display would be canceled, according to
the PSU Collegian newspaper.
that the exhibit does not promote cultural diversity is a way of saying that
people who see it might get hostile to Muslims. The statement that it
does not promote opportunities for democratic dialogue is absurd as such an
exhibit would certainly promote dialogue.
Advertisements that complain about
incitement are blocked if they are
incitement or expose Islamic violence. American Jewish Committee
director David Harris
revealed how a New York Times owned radio
refused an AJC commercial that said:
"Recently, The New York Times reported that in Saudi Arabia,
10th graders are warned of 'the dangers of having Christian and Jewish
friends,' and in Pakistan, a million children attending religious schools
are taught to "distrust and even hate the United States."
blocked a commercial trying to get help for the civilians being bombarded with
Palestinian Arab rockets in Sderot with the excuse that the ad didn't balance it
with discussion of Israeli military actions.
Harris said that
in the month before the Bloomberg radio news station rejected an AJC segment
citing hate literature in children's textbooks in the Palestinian Authority
(PA), Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Iran. So it's not just WQXR.
A favorite Palestinian Arab slogan at
demonstrations is "From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be Free".
From the river to the sea is from the Jordan river to the Meditteranean sea and
includes all of Israel. This is a nice sounding way of saying Israel will
be annihilated. You don't hear of Muslims being prosecuted for hate speech
for saying that. The areas controlled currently by Hamas and the
Palestinian Authority are as un-free as you can get. I just read how one
Palestinian who clicked like on a criticism of a Palestinian leader he saw on
arrested. Palestinian prisons are no picnic prisoners are found
dead in their Palestinian prison cells.
try and speak the truth about the Muslims find themselves accused of incitement
if they do. If they simply try and talk about Muslim incitement they are
not allowed even to pay for a forum to do so at least no by WQXR and the
Bloomberg station and one suspects by a lot of other radio stations who are
afraid of jeopardizing the flow of Arab funds and who are afraid of antagonizing
threaten free speech in England. According to (Banned in the. U.K.,
The British libel laws are so destructive that they affect writers and
publications who never set foot in Britain and never published there. They are
used effectively by Saudi billionaires who can afford the steep legal fees to
silence successfully writers and publishers around the world who attempt to
expose how the Saudis have funded and continue to fund the spread of Wahhabism,
Islamist radicalism, and indoctrination that leads to global terrorism.
In Britain an arrest warrant
was issued for blogger Lionheart for telling the world about Islamists in his
neighborhood (American Thinker, 6/9/2008).
A short film
about how Saudis silence their critics and attempted to silence Rachel Ehrenfeld
the author of Funding Evil can be seen on
Ehrenfeld couldn't even attend a meeting she organized in the U.K. on "How
to Combat Terror Financing" because if she went she would have been in
jeopardy because of British libel laws.Sheikh Mahfouz sued her for her 2003 book "Funding
Evil: How Terrorism is Financed — and How to Stop It." Rather than
contesting the case in Britain, Ms. Ehrenfeld she went to an American court. In
June, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously in her favor,
finding that if an American writer is sued for libel in a foreign court, that
person can appeal to an American court to request that a British decision not
be enforceable here. Ehrenfeld told Jamie
Glazov in a
Frontpage Magazine interview
Bin Mahfouz single handedly stopped all
American newspapers and publishers, not to mention individual reporters, from
covering him specifically, and most Saudi terror financiers, in general.
Apparently, through him, the Saudis have successfully imposed a wholesale
chilling effect on U.S. instigative reporting on Saudi terror financing...We are
at war with enormously wealthy and determined enemies. We should prevent their
use of their tremendous wealth to deprive American writers of their
constitutional rights to expose actions that threaten our safety and freedoms.
One of the most important foundations of American Democracy is freedom of the
press. Bin Mahfouz's libel suits are an important part of an enormous campaign
to severely curtail press and media willingness and ability to freely
investigate and report the great financial powers diligently working to destroy
our nation and indeed the entire Western civilization.
Few people have supported Dr. Ehrenfeld. She told Jamie Glazov that:
Apparently, Saudi influence on the media, politics and business interests
is so pervasive that only the most courageous and honorable, professionals,
colleagues and friends have stood by me. Others keep a silent distance--and
some even try to harm me.
Fear and perhaps bribes or a
combination of both appears to be affecting how judges rule in cases brought by
That may explain why
Ehrenfeld lost her appeal. The New York Court of Appeals ruled that it
does not have jurisdiction to protect Americans - on U.S. soil - from a foreign
defamation verdict. Of course it does. This is the kind of ruling
one would expect if the judge is scared or was bribed.
England which is full of Muslim
preachers who preach hate and who allows in members of Islamic terrorist
organizations sends letters to Israeli officials telling them they are not
Moshe Feiglin received such a letter from British Home Secretary Jacqui
Ironically, one of the four
examples of Feiglin’s “unacceptable” statements cited in Smith’s letter was
actually taken from the writings Claude Scudamore Jarvis, the British Governor
of the Sinai during the Mandate period. In an interview with Israel National
Radio’s Yishai Fleisher on Monday, Feiglin joked that he was being banned from
Britain for quoting a British official. Here is the letter Feiglin wrote
in response to this.
25 Adar I, 5768
March 3, '08
To the British Government
Border and Immigration Agency
Two months ago, I received a letter from your office in which you stated
that I am not welcome in your country. As I was under the impression that
the letter was a practical joke, I attempted to clarify its authenticity
before I replied. Now that I have ascertained that the letter is indeed
authentic, I wish to give you my reply:
I did not request entry into Britain and I have no immediate plans to do so.
It would be proper to investigate the reasons for this strange initiative
against a political figure in Israel . This initiative represents yet
another example of European interference in Israel 's internal affairs.
Being that infamous terrorists such as Ibrahim Moussaui of the Hizbollah are
actually most welcome in Britain , while I -- who have never harmed anyone -
am not, I conclude that your policy is to encourage and support terror.
As is clarified in your letter, the grounds for your decision is material
that I had written years ago citing the necessity to fight Arab terrorists
and my analysis of the culture from which terror grows. Among other facts,
you quote my article in which I wrote that "The Arab is not the son of the
desert, but rather, its father."
For your information, that quote was taken directly from the book "The
Desert Yesterday and Today" written by none other than British High
Commissioner of Sinai, Sir Claude Jarvis in 1938.
Considering the moral depths to which your nation has sunk, I find your
letter most complimentary. It is a great honor for me to join the
illustrious list of former prime ministers of Israel , Menachem Begin and
Yitzchak Shamir, who also received similar letters from your offices.
Appeasement of radical Muslims and their leftist allies is nothing new to
the British. TheUnited
Kingdom, a country that values its freedom
of speech so much that it consistently
lets Islamists protest chanting the vilest of expressions, has a long
history of silencing Jews. Whereas
free to chant “May Allah and Osama Bin Laden bomb you!”, “Nuke, NukeUKandUSA,
Blair and Bush you will pay!”, and “Europeis
the cancer, Islam is the answer!”, Israeli officials are frequently denied
visitors’ visas, threatened with arrest upon entry and worse.
The letter to Feiglin was far from the first time that British authorities
acted out against Israelis to mollify their homegrown Islamists. Former
Israeli Prime Ministers, Menachem Begin and Yitzchak Shamir, have also
received similar letters. Last
December, Public Security Minister Avi Dichter cancelled a trip toBritainover
fears he would be arrested for “war crimes”. Transport
Minister and former Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz, former IDF chief of staff
Moshe Ya’alon, and Major General Doron Almog have all encountered similar
problems. Almog had already
do fundraising for a handicapped services organization, when the Israeli
military attaché phoned him to tell him not to get off of the plane. Metropolitan
Police counter-terrorism officers were waiting in the airport to arrest him,
so Almog stayed on the plane for two hours until it finally headed back toIsrael.
Joe Kaufman wrote an article
Terrorizing Free Speech about a lawsuit filed against him because he wrote
Fanatic Muslim Family Day.
In an appeal for financial help mailed out by the David Horowitz Freedom Center
in February 2008, Kaufman wrote how a restraining order was issued against him
A hearing for the case was held on October 29th. We
arrived at 8:30 a.m. The court had difficulty finding a judge to hear
the case. The original judge the case was assigned to had recused
Why did the
original judge recuse herself? Fear? Kaufman wrote:
At 1:30 p.m., a judge was found... While
witnesses on the other side admitted under oath to not having any threats
aimed at them at any time from either myself or my fellow protestors, the
judge ruled that an extension to the restraining order was necessary.
I want to make it entirely clear to you and anyone who might read this: I
have NEVER threatened any of these groups in any way, shape or form. I
didn't even know the majority of the plaintiffs existed prior to the
who wasn't afraid to take the case made a ruling that the Muslims wanted.
Every day for the last six years, I have been working to
expose and shut down groups in America connected to terrorism overseas.
I have had many successes in this regard, but now I feel my work - work that
is of importance to our nation - is in jeopardy.
I used to believe that our freedoms as American citizens were
protected. Unfortunately, I have discovered, during this process, that
some judges want to limit our Constitutional rights.
University Press has agreed to destroy all unsold copies of a 2006 book by two
American authors, "Alms for Jihad," following a libel action brought
against it in England by Sheikh Mahfouz (New
York Sun 8/2/07).Phyllis
Chesler wrote an article in frontpagemagazine (The Legal Jihad is Already
Underway 8/14/07) about how people are being censored into silence.
British libel laws have not
been used to stopHawza Ilmiyya, a Shi‘i institution in London from
teaching that non-believers are filth. In fact despite revelations about
the school are not even going to stop the British taxpayer from help fund it (Do Conservatives
Openly Threaten Sitting Judges? FrontpageMagazine April 15, 2005 wrote:
When they can’t win a debate (can they ever?), leftists deploy what the
late novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand called "the argument from
intimidation." Instead of trying to refute the other side, they label
their opponents' position evil, attribute sinister motives to its adherents,
and charge that its proponents are encouraging violence.
Thus, the Left stridently maintains that proponents of immigration
reform are inciting violence against illegal aliens. Opponents of racial quotas
are "creating a climate of contempt" where hate crimes are more
common. Right-to-lifers are to blame for attacks on abortionists. The majority
of the American people who are unwilling to allow a runaway judiciary to impose
same-sex marriage on the nation were responsible for the death of Matthew
Shepard and every other act of violence against gays (including those committed
by other homosexuals).
In 1995, William Jefferson Clinton (never one to shy away from an
absurdity) suggested that the Oklahoma City bombing was in part the product of
conservative talk show hosts complaining about high taxes and excessive
regulation -- thereby promoting disdain for Washington.
Mireille Miller-Young, a teacher of
came across a pro-life display sponsored by the Christian
pro-life group Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust on March 4. She stole and
destroyed an anti-abortion sign and assaulting a teen girl who tried to retrieve
Daphne Patai, in her book
Heterophobia wrote how she was alarmed by the attack on free speech by
feminists. She wrote:
I find it frightening to see a society unleash against
its own citizens codes of speech and behavior that can ensnare anyone and
that often have as their underpinning nothing more than a woman's sense of
"discomfort" about certain words or action. ...to conflate much of
what today is labeled "sexual harassment" with serious forms of sexual
assault and abuse is to invite authoritarianism into our lives - the hand of
the state everywhere in the private sphere, until there is virtually no
private sphere left.
The large increase in Islamic populations in Europe
has resulted in an attack on free speech in many countries in addition to
Sweden. One example of this is the suspension of Robert Kilroy-Silk a
well known TV presenter (Israel
National News 1/11/04). An article of his appeared in the Sunday
Express on 1/4/2004. titled, "We Owe Arabs Nothing." The
from oil - which was discovered, is produced and is paid for by the west - what
do they contribute? Can you think of anything? Anything really useful? Anything
really valuable? Something we really need, could not do without? No, nor can I.
What do they think we feel about them? That we adore them for the way they
murdered more than 3,000 civilians on September 11 and then danced in the hot,
dusty streets to celebrate the murders? That we admire them for being suicide
bombers, limb amputators, women repressors?"
Pan-Arab media outlets, the Muslim Council of Britain, and other Muslim groups
reacted with outrage to Kilroy-Silk's article, and BBC hurried to take
Kilroy-Silk's morning TV talk show off the air pending an investigation of his
It has even been reported that Kilroy-Silk is facing a police
investigation over the issue. The Commission for Racial Equality (CRE)
has referred the article to the police to consider whether it might constitute
an offense under the Public Order Act. CRE Chairman Trevor Phillips said,
"Given the extreme and violent terms in which Mr. Kilroy-Silk has
expressed himself, there is a danger that this might incite some individuals to
act against someone who they think is an Arab."
Azzam al-Tamimi, of the Muslim Council of Britain, even said,
"There are suspicions that Kilroy's article is part of an intensive
campaign that started with the statements made by Ariel Sharon, the prime
minister of the Zionist entity, in which he accused Muslims in the West of
being behind growing anti-Semitism."
It should be noted, of course, that it was the European Union that
recently prepared a report on anti-Semitism indicating that Moslem and
pro-Palestinian elements are involved in most of the incidents. See "A Survivor
of Palestinian Tyranny, frontpagemag.com 10/13/04 ).
Colin Rose 53 years old, prison officer with 21 years'
of impeccable service was fired for making a joke on (11/15/03) about Osama Bin
Laden because it could antagonize the large number of Muslims in the British
prison and because it was considered racist to express hostility to Bin Laden.
Telegraph 2/12/2003) Writer Robert Locke recently warned that “free
speech may become illegal in England.” He focused specifically on the case of
Nick Griffin, “chairman of a small opposition party called the British National
According to Ilana Mercer:
Griffin is apparently facing trial for saying, “at a private
political meeting,” that “Islam is an evil and wicked faith. Unfortunately
for him,” Locke reported, “government thought police were watching, and
recorded him on video tape…
The Student Union of the School of
Oriental and African Studies of the University of London passed a motion
saying that peace requires the elimination of Zionism and racial
discrimination in all its forms, and condemning any form of Zionism on
campus. This motion was used for a long time to prevent the creation of an
Israel Society, even though Israeli and other students wanted one, on the
grounds that it would by definition be a racist society and racism is not
permitted on campus. Gavin Gross in an interview with Frontpage Magazine (UK
Student Warned to Stop Protesting Jew-Hatred 6/27/05) gave an example
of the selective suppression of pro-Israel speech by the SOAS:
the Students Union voted to
ban the Jewish Society from allowing Roey Gilad, political counsellor of the
Israeli Embassy in London, to speak on campus in February 2005 in a talk
entitled "New Opportunities for Middle East Peace", arguing that they did
not want to offer a platform to "racists", i.e. Israeli officials...
[I]n February 2005, a film called
"Jerusalem, the Promise of Heaven" was shown in the Students Union lounge,
which showed pictures of bearded Orthodox Jews praying in synagogue and at
Jerusalem's Western Wall, while the voice-over branded Jewish prayer rituals
"satanic" and stated that Jews had no ethics or morals. A copy of this same
film was found in the suitcase of Saajid Badat, a terrorist convicted in
the, along with his plans to blow up an airliner, and appeared in a picture
in The Times newspaper following his arrest.
The control of Muslims over non-Muslim
behavior in England has grown to the point where (The
Sun Online, 5/24/2006):
Workers in the benefits
department at Dudley Council, West Midlands, were told to remove or cover up
all pig-related items, including toys, porcelain figures, calendars and even
a tissue box featuring Winnie the Pooh and Piglet.
SHANGHAI -- Next month, China will ring in the
Year of the Pig. Nestlé SA planned to celebrate with TV ads featuring a
smiling cartoon pig. "Happy new pig year," the ads said.
This week, China Central Television, the
national state-run TV network, banned Nestlé's ad -- and all images and
spoken references to the animal in commercials, including those tied to the
Lunar New Year, China's biggest holiday.
The intent: to avoid offending Muslims, who
consider pigs unclean. "China is a multiethnic country," the network's ad
department said in a notice sent to ad agencies late Tuesday. "To show
respect to Islam, and upon guidance from higher levels of the government,
CCTV will keep any 'pig' images off the TV screen."
Bat Ye'or in her book,
Eurabia (p88), wrote about how the influence of the Organization of the
Islamic Conference (OIC) silenced pro-Israel voices in Europe. She wrote:
Intellectuals, writers, and clergymen who
dared to defend Israel were silenced and dismissed from their posts. Their
manuscripts and articles were refused by editors and publishers, frightened
by the OIC's threats and Palestinian terrorism. In private conversations
and correspondence with the author int eh 1980s, the eminent French
sociologist and Protestant theologian Jacques Ellul complained that his
articles were refused by many newspapers and even Protestant publications
because of his pro-Israeli position. William Nicholls, Professor Emeritus
of Religious Studies, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, suffered a
boycott for the same reason. Such cases were not exceptional, as
demonstrated by the present author's private exchanges with numerous authors
Phyllis Chesler wrote:
Expose the permanent Intifada against
Western Civilization and against the Jews and you will be sued and driven
into exile, as Oriana Fallaci has been, or sued and prevented from traveling
to certain countries, as Rachel Ehrenfeld has been. You will be sued and
silenced in all those places where you were once published, even lionized.
Dare to say that the torturer and genocidal tyrant, Saddam Hussein, is on
trial today only because of America and Iraq’s sacrifice and their bold
vision of democracy and you will be called a reactionary, a liar, a fool,
and the worse epithet of all: a conservative.
Lets play devils advocate and ask
whether it is so bad that the speech of the Israeli right is under attack.
The left advocates land concessions for peace. Certainly peace is more
important than land. Shouldn't those who might persuade the public
otherwise be silenced? Isn't suppression of speech worth the peace that
might descend on a region that has suffered war over thousands of years?
It seems obvious that the policies
advocated by the Israeli left are what is best for the region until one
considers the arguments of the opposition. One of the arguments is that
land given away for peace has become a base from which terrorist attacks are
launched at Israel. Another argument of the opposition is that the
increased strategic advantage the land gives the Arabs makes peace less
likely. These arguments would never be heard if the opposition was
Incitement laws can be used by the
regime in power to ensure that only they can incite. For example Gush
Shalom, (Bloc of Peace), posted an image on its web site (Oct-Nov 2000) of a
militant Barak standing on the bleeding bullet-ridden body of a Palestinian
child. One irony of this is at the time Barak was doing everything he
could to avoid the death of Palestinian children and was constantly
surrendering to Arab demands in the hope of ending bloodshed. It would be
far more accurate to have a picture of a militant Arafat standing on the
bleeding bullet-ridden body of a Palestinian child. Yet anyone who drew such
a picture in Israel is likely to be arrested for incitement.
Another country where free speech is
also silenced under the excuse of silencing incitement is Canada .
Mark Harding, was convicted in 1998 on
federal hate-crimes charges stemming from a June 1997 incident in which he
distributed pamphlets outside a public high school, Weston Collegiate
Institute in Toronto.
In one of his pamphlets, Harding listed
atrocities committed by Muslims in foreign lands to back his assertion that
Canadians should be wary of local Muslims.
The pamphlet said: "The Muslims who
commit these crimes are no different than the Muslim believers living here
in Toronto. Their beliefs are based on the Quran. They sound peaceful, but
underneath their false sheep's clothing are raging wolves seeking whom they
may devour. And Toronto is definitely on their hit list." In response to
Mark's noble efforts to warn about the dangers of Islam he was convicted of
promoting hatred against Muslims.
After losing an appeal to Canada's
Supreme Court on Oct. 17, Mark Harding must resume his sentence of two years
probation and 340 hours of community service under the direction of Mohammad
Ashraf, general secretary of the
Islamic Society of North America in Mississauga, Ont.
The cleric made it clear, Harding
recalled in an interview with WorldNetDaily (October 31, 2002), that during
the sessions nothing negative could be said about Islam or its prophet,
"He said he was my supervisor, and if I
didn't follow what he said, he would send me back to jail," recounted
Zachariah Anani, a
former Muslim terrorist who converted to Christianity and who now speaks
against Islam is under criminal investigation and facing possible indictment and deportation
for speaking out against radical Islam in Canada. Anani said
Islamic doctrine teaches the “ambushing, seizing and slaying” of
non-believers, especially Jews and Christians. He said Islam is a
religion that worships a god “who strikes with terror.” Anani said he isn’t
worried about being charged, because he only drew on facts from the Qur’an,
the Muslim holy book.
“What I said was fact,”
he said Friday. “I wasn’t talking about my own interpretation. I picked
facts derived from statements of the book.”
Anani has plenty to worry
about. Being truthful does not protect you against incitement charges. His
bio which I excerpt below is on the
3 terrorists web site. After he converted to Christianity:
he was harassed and persecuted.
He moved to the city's Christian sector, but the persecution continued. Even
his father hired assassins to kill him.
Finally church leaders convinced
him to leave Lebanon because his presence endangered others. In 1996 Anani
entered Canada as a refugee. It took another three difficult years before
his wife and three children could join him. After Anani debated with a
Muslim scholar in the United States, his family was attacked in Lebanon. Two
of his children required surgery.
Zak has been attacked numerous times for his faith as a Christian,
even in Canada.
When in Lebanon, he was nearly beheaded and was only saved when an
army patrol came by and the Islamist gang dispersed leaving Zak with a huge
wound on his neck. Zak nearly bled to death and was actually technically
dead for 7 minutes, before being revived.
In Canada, where he now lives, his house and car have been burnt,
his family attacked physically and Zak himself has been attacked.
Speaking out in a free country is sometimes not as safe as it should
There is a great deal of
incitement in the Koran against the non-believer but you'll never see
Canada attempt to silence Islam. So incitement laws will stop people
speaking out against the danger of Islam but will not stop Islam preaching
hatred of the infidel.
Free speech is under
attack in Australia. Recently Victoria passed new race and religion hate
laws. Daniel Nalliah and Daniel Scot of
Catch the Fire Ministries were tried under these laws and found guilty of
inciting hatred against Muslims even though transcripts of the seminar in
Melbourne show that Daniel Scot, was quoting verses from the Quran to make his
12/18/04). There sentence was overturned by a different judge but the
financial and emotional cost was very high and they still have to pay off
$150,000 in legal fees. The laws that were used against them have led to
many absurd situations in Australia.
Fear silences those who speak out against
Amina and Sarah Said were two beautiful
young women murdered by their father in Dallas Texas because they were not
Phyllis Chesler wrote:
The blogs and the local Texas
media (the Dallas Morning News) were all over this. Hot Air, Atlas Shrugs,
Jihad Watch, were too. The only national coverage of this story was
contained in the Washington Times. Why did the national and
international media so far shy clear of this story? ..Were they afraid of
being accused of “Islamophobia” if they reported the truth? Did they not
want to use the word “Arab” or “Muslim” lest they be attacked as “racists”?
In one pathetic example of
cowardice Scholastic Australia pulled the plug on
a children’s thriller called the Army of the Pure after booksellers and
librarians said they would not stock the book because the "baddie"
was a Muslim terrorist.According to The
This decision is at
odds with the recent publication of Richard Flanagan's bestselling The Unknown
Terrorist and Andrew McGahan's Underground in which terrorists are portrayed as
victims driven to extreme acts by the failings of the West.
The Unknown Terrorist
is dedicated to David Hicks and describes Jesus Christ as "history's first
... suicide bomber".
Underground, Muslims are executed en masse or herded into ghettos in an
Australia rendered unrecognisable by the war on terror.
manager, publishing, Andrew Berkhut, said the company had canvassed "a
broad range of booksellers and library suppliers", who expressed concern
that the book featured a Muslim terrorist.
"They all said they
would not stock it," he said, "and the reality is if the gatekeepers
won't support it, it can't be published."
Howard Rotberg is an author whose book was banned by
Canada's largest book retailer because of made up allegations. He told
Frontpage Magazine that
found myself in trouble for something that I was alleged to have said a
lecture, at a book promotion lecture at a branch of Canada's largest book
I have learned that the groups that
I always thought would protect authors in Canada, such as PenCanada, the
Writers Union, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Freedom to Read,
and others, only want to protect authors whose views fit their ideologies. I
am sad to say this, but it is true. Most fancy themselves as some kind of
"progressives" but their ideas on what constitutes a progressive are really
suspect. If a writer is pro-American or pro-Israeli, he or she is outside
their area of interest. Very few of these organizations would even answer my
emails. They wanted nothing to do with me, because I think they have
convinced themselves that the biggest threat to tolerance in Canada is
Islamophobia, and that any criticism of any branch of Islam, to these naifs,
is equivalent to criticizing all Muslims everywhere.
I have learned that many of those in the NGOs, the public sector unions (who
now dominate the Canadian labour movement), the schools and universities and
even many traditional Canadian churches (the ones that are in decline) all
want to fancy themselves "progressives", and rather than pay from their
pockets for social justice at home, the easier way to be progressives is to
criticize Israel. And how much easier is it to criticize some country or
group of people who won't threaten to chop your heads off for that
criticism. No matter what is done by the Palestinians or on behalf of the
Palestinians, I will be seen as a bad and intolerant guy by these
progressives for "hurting the feelings" of some Muslim somewhere.
Accordingly, I have been shunned by the very organizations and individuals
who claim to be furthering the right of freedom of expression and other
fundamental freedoms. So, for those of us who love our freedoms in Canada,
our first priority should be to expose those who claim to be progressive and
pacifist, but who ally themselves with Islamo-fascists who abuse their own
people and train their children to hate and to kill Jews, in Israel, and now
A key statement in the above paragraphs by Mr.
how much easier is it to criticize some country or group
of people who won't threaten to chop your heads off for that criticism.
While cowards in the non-Islamic world silence free
speech, heroes in the Muslim world speak out.Abdelkareem
Suleiman had the courage criticize Muslims on his web log while living in
Egypt.While blogging about Muslim
attacks on Christians that took place in Alexandria in October 2005, Suleiman
"The Muslims have taken the mask off to
show their true hateful face, and they have shown the world that they are at
the top of their brutality, inhumanity, and thievery.”
He also had the courage to
"Some may think that the actions of the Muslims does not represent
Islam and has no relationship with the teachings of Islam that was brought by
Mohammed fourteen centuries ago, but the truth is that their action is not
different from the Islamic teachings in its original form."
"professors and sheikhs at Al-Azhar (university) who stand against
anyone who thinks freely" would "end up in the dustbin of
Abdelkareem Suleiman was sentenced to Jail.His web log is www.sandmonkey.org.A petition seeking his freedom is online for those who wish to
President Obama pressured the
Egyptian military into removing Egyptian president Mubarak from power by
threatening to cut off U.S. aid. Now Muslim Brotherhood member Morsi is in
power, he has dismissed those in the military who were a threat to his position
and freedom of speech is being destroyed in Egypt. Raymond Ibrahim
described some of the attacks on the opposition media in Egypt. In
addition those who oppose president Morsi are being
Sayed Parwez Kaambakhsh's crime
was to have passed around a piece taken from a website questioning why Muslim
women cannot have multiple husbands in the same way as their menfolk can legally
take four wives.
Sayed Parwez Kaambakhsh, 23, who works for "The New World", a newspaper in
Afghanistan's northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif, was prosecuted for downloading an
article, apparently gleaned from an Iranian website, and distributing it to his
friends. The article questioned why Muslim women cannot have multiple
husbands in the same way as their menfolk can legally take four wives. For
this Mr. Kaambakhsh was
sentenced to death.
According to the Telegraph
The overthrow of the Taliban in 2001
brought a new era of media freedom in Afghanistan. Dozens of newspapers and
television stations have sprung up across the country. In practice, however,
the authorities are deeply suspicious of journalists and all media outlets
face pressure and harassment. Laws protecting the good name of Islam can
often be invoked to stifle press criticism.
Why not attack free speech when we know that
the speech is wrong? John Stuart Mill wrote an answer to that question in
chapter 2 of "On Liberty" an excerpt of which I quote below:
....The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is
that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing
generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold
it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging
error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the
clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision
with error...We have now recognized the necessity to the mental well-being of
mankind (on which all their other well-being depends) of freedom of opinion,
and freedom of the expression of opinion, on four distinct grounds; which we
will now briefly recapitulate.
First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we
can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility.
Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very
commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing
opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the
collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of
Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole
truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly
contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a
prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds.
And not only this, but fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be
in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the
character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession,
inefficacious for good, but encumbering the ground, and preventing the growth
of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience.
Suppression of free speech
allows a government to oppress a people without them even knowing they are
oppressed. Instead they will blame whoever their government wants them to
blame and will fight whoever their government wants them to fight. For
example Iraq blamed Kuwait for it's economic troubles. Iraq with all it's
oil could have been a paradise if it hadn't been exploited by the ruling
government of Saddam Hussein. His suppression of free speech enabled him
to manipulate Iraqis into invading Kuwait.
What if a speaker comes who himself silences free speech.That was the case when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came to
speak at Columbia on September 24, 2007.A former hostage of Iran, Barry Rosen, wrote
in the New York Post that:
Ahmadinejad is a reprehensible leader who violates free speech in his
own country and cracks down on those Iranians who attempt to open up his
He uses speech to spread
age-old anti-Semitic stereotypes in the Middle East, denying the existence of
Israel, and denies that the Holocaust ever happened…It's only when Ahmadinejad permits his own people to march and
speak freely, that I believe Columbia President Lee Bollinger would be
justified in giving the Iranian president an open forum.
Columbia invited Ahmadinejad
but retracted a speaking invitation to the
president of the Minuteman Project, a citizens' group that seeks to secure
America's borders from illegal immigrants.Columbia also bans ROTC from its campus.This is selective use of the right of free speech.
Cheol-Hwan Kang spent 10 years
in a North Korean prison camp, where he and his family were sent when he was 9.
He defected to South Korea in 1992. He wrote (Beyond Nuclear Blackmail, The
Washington Post 7/13/03):
warning, appeal or reason, any North Korean can be sent to a slave labor camp
for such "crimes" as reading a foreign newspaper, listening to a
foreign broadcast, complaining about the food situation or refusing an
arbitrary request from an official. Some 200,000 North Koreans are held in
these camps, in horrifying conditions of torture, harsh labor, hunger and
summary execution. In the past three decades, several hundred thousand North
Koreans have died in the camps... What the North Korean government fears
most is that its people will awake from their isolation and ignorance. That is
why it imprisons those who listen to foreign broadcasts.
North Korea tests their chemical weapons on such
prisoners. North Korea has become a nuclear threat to its neighbors.
Free speech could potentially undermine the North Korean regime and end
attempt to silence their critics with charges of racism and incitement.
Miss Fallaci wrote a book that is critical of Islam called the Rage and the
Pride. At a speech before the American Enterprise Institute (10/23/02?)
she said that critics have attempted to ban the book or have her arrested in
France, Belgium, Switzerland and Italy. The 72-year-old author described these
efforts as "intellectual terrorism." In her prime, Miss Fallaci
was famed as a belligerent journalist and argumentative interviewer, who had
unprecedented access to the world's most reclusive and wary leaders. A
partisan in the Italian resistance in World War II and a lifelong leftist, she
once became so disgusted while interviewing Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini
that she ripped off her head scarf and threw it in his face. The act of
defiance was considered an unpardonable sin in the ayatollah's
Iran. A lawsuit brought by the Movement Against
Racism and for Friendship Between People, a Muslim human rights group, is
demanding that the book be banned in France. In a ruling that may affect
her case, a French court acquitted best-selling French author Michel
Houellebecq of charges of racial insult and inciting racial hatred for calling
Islam the "dumbest religion."
Muhammad was "a merciless warlord, a
looter, a mass-murderer of Jews and a polygamist." He also called the
Koran "a book of incredible violence."Redeker also compared Islam unfavorably with Christianity and
Judaism and criticized the hostile reaction to a recent speech by Pope Benedict
XVI that seemed to link Islam and violence.Redeker wrote:
"Jesus is a master of love; Muhammad is
a master of hatred.Whereas Judaism and
Christianity are religions whose rites forsake violence and remove its
legitimacy, Islam is a religion that, in its very sacred text, as much as in
some of its everyday rites, exalts violence and hatred. Hatred and violence
dwell in the very book that educates any Muslim, the Koran."
afterward, Redeker began to receive death threats by telephone, e-mail and in
the Internet forum. The forum published photos of him, what it said was his
home address, directions to his home and his cellphone number.
He said that his
wife and their children had also been threatened with death. Asked to describe
the sort of threats he had received, Redeker said: "You will never feel
secure on this earth. One billion, 300,000 Muslims are ready to kill you."
Among the threats was one by a contributor to Al Hesbah, an Internet forum that
is said to be a conduit for messages from Al Qaeda and other jihad
impossible that this day pass without the lions of France punishing him,"
the Hesbollah contributor wrote. The contributor called on Muslims in France to
follow the lead of Muhammad Bouyeri, who murdered the Dutch filmmaker Theo van
Gogh after he made a film denouncing the plight of abused Muslim women.
send some lion to cut his head," the contributor said of Redeker, who was
described as a "pig."
Robert Spencer wrote
an article showing that the accusations made by Redeker are justified.
today, high school teacher Robert Redeker has been living in hiding for two
months. On September 19 Redeker published an op-ed in Le Figaro in which he
decried Islamist intimidation of freedom of thought and expression in the
West as manifested by the attacks against Pope Benedict XVI and against
Christians in general which followed the pontiff's remarks on jihad earlier
wrote, "As in the Cold War, where violence and intimidation were the methods
used by an ideology hell bent on hegemony, so today Islam tries to put its
leaden mantel all over the world. Benedict XVI's cruel experience is
testimony to this. Nowadays, as in those times, the West has to be called
the 'Free World' in comparison to the Muslim world; likewise, the enemies of
the 'Free World,' the zealous bureaucrats of the Koran's vision, who swarm
in the very center of the 'Free World,' should be called by their true
to Redeker's column, Egypt banned Le Figaro and Redeker received numerous
death threats. His address and maps to his home were published on
al-Qaida-linked Web sites and he was forced to leave his job, and flee for
his life. While Redeker e-mailed a colleague that French police have set
free the man they know was behind the threats to his life, Redeker recently
described his plight to a friend in the following fashion, "There is no safe
place for me, I have to beg, two evenings here, two evenings there... I am
under the constant protection of the police. I must cancel all scheduled
For its part,
Le Figaro's editor appeared on Al-Jazeera to apologize for publishing
British author Douglas Murray discussed the intellectual terror in the
Netherlands. Murray, who recently published Neoconservativism: Why We Need
It, spoke at a conference in Palm Beach, Florida sponsored by the David
Horowitz Freedom Center. He noted that the two strongest voices in Holland
warning against Islamic subversion of Dutch culture and society - Pim Fortyn
and Theo Van Gogh - were murdered.
most prominent voice calling for the Dutch to take measures to defend
themselves, former member of parliament Ayan Hirsi Ali, lives in Washington,
colleague in the Dutch parliament, Geert Wilders, has been living under
military protection, without a home, for years. In the current elections,
Wilders has been unable to campaign because his whereabouts can never be
announced. His supporters were reluctant to run for office on his
candidates' slate for fear of being similarly threatened with murder. Last
month, two of his campaign workers were beaten while putting up campaign
posters in Amsterdam.
In 2000, Bart
Jan Spruyt, a leading conservative intellectual in Holland established a
neoconservative think tank called the Edmund Burke Institute. One of the
goals of his institute is to convince the Dutch to defend themselves against
the growing Islamist threat. In the period that followed, Spruyt was
approached by security services and told that he should hire a bodyguard for
personal protection. Although he couldn't afford the cost of a bodyguard,
the police eventually provided him with protection after showing up at his
office hours after Van Gogh was butchered by a jihadist in the streets of
Amsterdam in November 2004.
Bridgit Bardot has been sued repeatedly
for her criticism of Islam in France. Jacob Laksin in an article
The War on Bridgit Bardot wrote:
In the 1960s, Brigitte Bardot was France’s national
icon, a pouty-lipped poster girl for the glories of her home country. So
it is sign of how radically times have changed that yesterday’s
silver-screen darling is today’s enemy of the people.
Bardot’s “crimes,” such as they are, are straightforward: She has
committed the sin of speaking frankly and unapologetically about her
country’s hostile Muslim immigrant population and – what is evidently
worse – questioning the compatibility of some Muslim religious practices
with Western society...
as France struggles to control a large (Muslims
make up nearly ten percent of the country) and increasingly radicalized
Muslim population critics of Islamism are finding themselves more
actively persecuted by national authorities than the Islamists
Oriana Fallaci wrote abook “The
Force of Reason” and was sued by Adel Smith the president of the Italian
Muslim Union and will be put on trial. (AGI
5/25/05) This book was written partly in response to threats she received in
response to her book the Rage and the Pride.
Saudis sued the Wall Street Journal to
attempt to silence the newspaper's criticism of Saudi Arabia. Trevor
Asserson, who specializes in defamation in the London law office of Morgan
Lewis & Bockius said that:
“Some Saudis appear to be using the U.K. as
a back door to silence their critics and repress free speech by threatening
litigation, persuading publishers to back down rather [than] face years of
expensive litigation—even if what they’re publishing might in fact be true.”
Rachel Ehrenfeld, author of
Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It was
threatened with a libel lawsuitbySaudi billionaire Khalid
bin Mahfouz. Rachel Ehrenfeld wrote: (The Saudi Buck Stops Here,
frontpagemag.com 3/3/05), that Khalid bin Mahfouz, who is named in all the
9/11 lawsuits, has threatened twenty-nine authors and publishers with libel
suits in U.K. courts. None apparently have gone to trial. Instead, the
defendants settled at an early stage because they could not, or would not,
endure a lengthy and costly lawsuit; they have capitulated, apologized,
retracted, and paid fines.
Robert Spencer wrote frontpage magazine that, the fine was
not £30,000, as Mr. Pipes wrote, but more than £87,000 and, with interest, has
since more than doubled, to over $180,000. She wrote:
More importantly, I neither paid a fine nor apologized, and do not
intend to do either.
I did not even acknowledge the British court or its jurisdiction, since I wrote
and published the book in the U.S.
I commend Mr. Pipes for choosing bin Mahfouz’ lawsuit against me as an example,
since bin Mahfouz has sued more than 30 other writers and publishers, including
many U.S. citizens and publications, all of whom apologized and paid fines…
Finally, in his conciseness, Mr. Pipes neglected to mention that I have sued
bin Mahfouz in U.S. Federal Court to protect my First Amendment rights. Winning
this case could discourage further Islamists lawsuits against the press.
Islamists clearly hope, as Douglas Farah notes, that lawsuits will cause researchers
and analysts to "get tired of the cost and the hassle and simply shut up.
In late 2003, after visiting the local
Islamic Society of Boston mosque in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Ahmed Mansour
and his wife emerged in what can only be described as a state of shock.
Mansour’s wife had attended a religious lesson and Mansour himself browsed
the literature on display. According to the affidavit of Dennis Hale (PDF),
Episcopal Lay Minister, Boston College Professor and founder of Citizens for
Peace and Tolerance, Mansour informed him that “both the religious lesson
and the Arabic newsletters inside the mosque were full of hateful references
against the West and Jews.” In particular, he noted that the mosque was
touting a fund-raising endorsement for their new mosque project featuring
infamous Wahabbi cleric and pitch-man for the Muslim Brotherhood, Sheik
Shocked to see that the poison he thought he had left behind, the poison he
thought was an ocean away but was following him to America, Mansour spoke
out about what he had seen.
As thanks for stepping forward, Mansour has found himself a defendant in a
wide-ranging defamation lawsuit, a lawsuit that has involved television and
print media outlets, activist organizations, and individuals — anyone, it
seemed, who had dared speak or repeat anything less than complimentary about
the Islamic Society of Boston.
Two weeks ago, the National
Post and I were served with a notice of libel by the Canadian branch of the
Council on American Islamic Relations, or CAIR. The Post and I are not
alone. Over the past year, CAIR's Canadian and U.S. branches have served
similar libel notices on half a dozen other individuals and organizations in
the United States and Canada. Each case has its own particular facts, yet
they are linked by a common theme: That we defendants have accused CAIR (in
the words of the notice served on me) of being "an unscrupulous, Islamist,
extremist sympathetic group in Canada supporting terrorism."
Celebrated author Mark Steyn
has been summoned to appear before two Canadian judicial panels on charges
linked to his book “America Alone." According to the New York Post (Canada's
Thought Police 12/16/07):
The book, a No. 1 bestseller in
Canada, argues that Western nations are succumbing to an Islamist
imperialist threat. The fact that charges based on it are proceeding
apace proves his point.
Steyn, who won the 2006 Eric Breindel Journalism Award (co-sponsored by
The Post and its parent, News Corp), writes for dozens of publications
on several continents. After the Canadian general-interest magazine
Maclean's reprinted a chapter from the book, five Muslim law-school
students, acting through the auspices of the Canadian Islamic Congress,
demanded that the magazine be punished for spreading “hatred and
contempt" for Muslims.
The plaintiffs allege that Maclean's advocated, among other things, the
notion that Islamic culture is incompatible with Canada's liberalized,
Western civilization. They insist such a notion is untrue and, in
effect, want opinions like that banned from publication.
Two separate panels, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal and the
Canadian Human Rights Commission, have agreed to hear the case. These
bodies are empowered to hear and rule on cases of purported “hate
Of course, a ban on opinions - even disagreeable ones - is the very
antithesis of the Western tradition of free speech and freedom of the
Indeed, this whole process of dragging Steyn and the magazine before two
separate human-rights bodies for the “crime" of expressing an opinion is
a good illustration of precisely what he was talking about...
The Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC),
which initiated the complaint against Steyn, has previously tried
unsuccessfully to sue publications it disagrees with, including Canada's
National Post. The not-for-profit organization's president, Mohamed
Elmasry, once labeled every adult Jew in Israel a legitimate target for
terrorists and is in the habit of accusing his opponents of
anti-Islamism -- a charge that is now apparently an actionable claim in
Canada. In 2006, after Elmasry publicly accused a spokesman for the
Muslim Canadian Congress of being anti-Islamic, the spokesman reportedly
resigned amidst fears for his personal safety.
Canadian Human Rights Commission is persecuting Steyn.
The complaint filed against Steyn points out he gave
a good review to a novel by Ferrigno called Prayers For the Assassin,
supposedly a "known Islamophobic book." In doing so, it is alleged,
Steyn violated the complainants' "sense of dignity and self-worth."
Prayers For the Assassin
is a darkly satiric and suspenseful actioner about a future
in which most of America is governed as an Islamic republic after a
terrorist nuclear attack and a brutal civil war.
Michael Mann was a climatologist who
was exposed when the East Anglia climategate scam was exposed. As
of this writing (Feb 2014) he is suing Mark Steyn for defamation.
the DC Superior Court, which let the suit
proceed, embraced this reasoning in its ruling.
The CEI Defendants’ persistence despite the EPA and other
investigative bodies’ conclusion that Plaintiff’s work is accurate
(or that there is no evidence of data manipulation) is equal to a
blatant disregard for the falsity of their statements.
In other words, Steyn’s evaluation of Mann’s scientific claims can
be legally suppressed because Steyn dares to question the
conclusions of established scientific institutions connected to the
government. On this basis, the DC Superior Court arrives at the
preposterous conclusion that it is a violation of Mann’s rights to
“question his intellect and reasoning.”
Mullah Krekar a Kurdish Mujahedeed who faces the death
penalty in Kurdistan told a Norwegian newspaper that:
"We're the ones who will change you . . . Just
look at the development within Europe, where the number of Muslims
is expanding like mosquitoes. Every western woman in the EU is
producing an average of 1.4 children. Every Muslim woman in the same
countries is producing 3.5 children." (italics added)
Steyn quoted Krekar
in Canada's McLean's Magazine and both are now getting sued for quoting
Krekar mosquito comments. You can't say what a Muslim said if it offends
other Muslims in Canada. (O Stalinoid Canada, American Thinker, 6/9/2008)
Ezra Levant was
persecuted by the Canadian Human Rights Commission for printing the Danish
cartoons about Muhammad. You can hear him defending himself against
this outrage by
clicking here. In his defence he makes what I think are profound
statements about free speech. Here is an interview with Levant and
Claire Lopez about a movie of theirs called Silent Conquest about the loss
of Free Speech in the West.
Most Canadians don't realize that
these Commissions and tribunals aren't "real" courts. They operate
outside the criminal justice system in an Orwellian world of their own.
To the CHRCs, traditional rules of evidence don't apply. Truth is no
defense. Commissioners can confiscate a defendant's computer without a
warrant. Defendants can be forced to apologize to their accusers, even
though the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that even convicted
murderers cannot be obliged to apologize to their victim's family; that,
the Court ruled, would be, "cruel and unusual punishment."
Incredibly, the CHRCs boast a Stalinist 100 percent conviction rate: no
one has ever been found "not guilty." Columnist David Warren's chilling
description of CHRC tribunals is impossible to improve upon:
"They are kangaroo courts, in which the defendant's right to due process
is withdrawn. They reach judgments on the basis of no fixed law.
Moreover, 'the process is the punishment' in these star chambers -- for
simply by agreeing to hear a case, they tie up the defendant in
bureaucracy and paperwork, and bleed him for the cost of lawyers, while
the person who brings the complaint, however frivolous, stands to lose
"That's why you go to an HRC: because your case is not good enough to
stand up in a legitimate court of law. And because you don't want to
invest your own time and money, but would rather the taxpayer provide
officers to do the paperwork, and pick up the tab. Instead, you want a
slam-dunk way in which you can victimize someone you don't like, by
playing the victim yourself, without any financial or legal
consequences, except to him. 'Human rights' commissions were designed to
provide just this service, for the use of persons who are both
litigious, and lazy."
Canadian Human Rights Commission dismissed a complaint about allegedly
Islamophobic articles that appeared in Maclean’s magazine—these included
reprinted excerpts from Mark Steyn’s book America Alone—because it lacked
jurisdiction over printed material. Below is an excerpt from the
statement by the OHRC, as reprinted in the National Post
April 10, 2008
While freedom of expression must be recognized as a cornerstone of a
functioning democracy, the Commission has serious concerns about the
content of a number of articles concerning Muslims that have been
published by Maclean’s magazine and other media outlets. This type of
media coverage has been identified as contributing to Islamophobia and
promoting societal intolerance towards Muslim, Arab and South Asian
Canadians. The Commission recognizes and understands the serious harm
that such writings cause, both to the targeted communities and society
as a whole. And, while we all recognize and promote the inherent value
of freedom of expression, it should also be possible to challenge any
institution that contributes to the dissemination of destructive,
are several problems with this statement. First of all no one is
arguing that it should not be possible to challenge other opinions, the
argument here is that the CHRC has no right to silence and punish people
with opinions it doesn't like. The second problem is that the opinions
that the CHRC considers destructive and xenophobic may not be, in fact one
could argue that warning of the dangers of extremist Islam is a very
constructive opinion that rather than being xenophobic shows love and
concern for potential victims of Islamic xenophobia and may help prevent the
spread of Islamic xenophobia through Canada..
Syed Mumtaz Ali, president of the Canadian Society of Muslims, argues that
freedom of religion implies the ability to be governed by one's religious
laws. From this he concludes that, in the spirit of "tolerance," Canada must
allow Muslims to discipline people who abandon the faith (worldnetdaily
8/6/2008). What kind of discipline would this be? All major
schools of Islamic jurisprudence stipulate that a sane adult male must be
put to death for abandoning Islam, though varying interpretations persist on
whether females should be killed or merely imprisoned. No human rights
commission is trying Syed Muntaz Ali.
A priest is being investigated as a potential criminal under a federal
"hate crimes" law for quoting from the Bible, and he's being targeted
using a Canadian provision under which no defendant ever has been
acquitted, according to a new report.
Pete Vere, a canon lawyer and Catholic journalist, has reported on the
prosecution of Father Alphonse de Valk, a pro-life activist known across
Canada, by the Canadian Human Rights Commission – "a quasi-judicial
investigative body with the power of the Canadian government behind it"
– at CatholicExchange.com.
"What was Father de Valk's alleged 'hate act'?" Vere wrote.
"Father defended the [Catholic] Church's teaching on marriage during
Canada's same-sex 'marriage' debate, quoting extensively from the Bible,
the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and Pope John Paul II's
encyclicals. Each of these documents contains official Catholic
teaching. And like millions of other people throughout the world and the
ages – many of whom are non-Catholics and non-Christians — Father
believes that marriage is an exclusive union between a man and a woman,"
Besides the complaints against the priest and Steyn, other cases already
have substantiated the Canadian precedent that Christian beliefs can be
evidence for convictions.
In 2005, a Knights of Columbus council was fined more than $1,000 for
refusing to allow its facility to be used for a lesbian "wedding," and
before that printer Scott Brockie was fined $5,000 for declining to
print homosexual-themed stationery. Also, in Saskatechewan, Hugh Owens
was fined thousands of dollars for quoting Bible verses in a newspaper
and London, Ontario, mayor Diane Haskett was fined $10,000 for refusing
to proclaim a homosexual pride day, Vere enumerated.
Bishop Fred Henry has described the situation as "a new form of
censorship and thought control." Those are the same words leading
Christians in the United States have used to describe the most recent
"hate crimes" plan before the U.S. Congress, which specifically targeted
for elimination criticism of alternative sexual lifestyles.
Vere also warned that in the Steyn case, the bottom line is that a
Canadian human rights tribunal now is "attempting to prosecute a case
against an American resident, based upon what an American citizen
allegedly posted to a mainstream American Catholic website. What passes
for mainstream Catholic discussion in America is now the basis for a
hate complaint in Canada."
But the United States is not immune to such work, either, he noted,
citing the New Mexico photographer fined $6,600 for refusing to meet the
demands of a lesbian to take pictures at a "wedding."
Also, California has set in state law a ban on introducing anything but
"positive" information about alternative sexual lifestyles, including
homosexuality, in its public school.
Aaron and Melissa Klein,
owners of the bakery, "Sweetcakes by Melissa" were fined $135,000 for
refusing to violate their Christian faith by creating a wedding cake for a
Brad Avakian, Oregon’s Bureau
of Labor & Industries Commissioner,
upheld the ruling that the Kleins have to pay the lesbian couple
$135,000 for a long list of alleged damages including: ‘acute loss of
confidence,’ ‘high blood pressure,’ ‘impaired digestion,’ ‘loss of
appetite,’ ‘migraine headaches,’ ‘pale and sick at home after work,’
‘resumption of smoking habit,’ ‘weight gain,’ and ‘worry.’ Give me a break.
In my opinion, this couple should pay the Kleins $135,000 for all they’ve
been through!” He continued: “Even more outrageous is that Avakian has also
now ordered the Kleins to ‘cease and desist’ from speaking publicly about
not wanting to bake cakes for same-sex weddings based on their Christian
Brendan Eich –
popular Firefox browser – committed the unpardonable sin of donating, years
earlier, $1,000 to California’s Proposition 8 upholding traditional
marriage. As punishment he was forced out as CEO of his company.
David Kupelian, in an article titled
Meet the New Fascists and Their Victims wrote:
what happened to Brendan Eich –
widely denounced as “fascist,” “totalitarian,” “mafia”-like and “gestapo”-like
– is not only not unusual in today’s America, it has become a routine
and disgraceful part of the normal warp and weft of our daily lives:
A year and a half later Eich still
can't find a job... Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton opposed gay
marriage, too. But in just five years, such opinions have become so
“unacceptable” that a tech genius is ostracized by his own industry.
You can be
fined up to $250,000 by the city of New York if you call someone who had
a sex operation from male to female a he and vice versa.
Jeff Jacoby wrote about how
the Islamic Society of Boston is suing those who are concerned about the
radicalism of its members. He wrote (A Radioactive Mosque 1/1/06):
more than two years, questions have been raised about just how committed
the Islamic Society really is to moderation and interfaith understanding.
Beginning with reports in the Boston Herald, news outlets,
citizen groups, political officials, and private citizens have been
pointing out disturbing signs of extremist "radioactivity" around the
Islamic Society and its leadership. To mention only a few:
The society's original founder,
Abdurahman Alamoudi, is now serving a 23-year prison term for his role
in a terrorist assassination plot. The Treasury Department identified him as
a fund-raiser for Al Qaeda, and he has publicly proclaimed his support for
two notorious terrorist groups, Hamas and Hezbollah.
+Yusef al-Qaradawi, who for several years was listed as a trustee in
Islamic Society of Boston tax filings and on the ISB website -- the ISB now
claims that was due to an "administrative oversight" -- is a radical
Islamist cleric who has endorsed suicide bombings and the killing of
Americans in Iraq. In 2002, he was invited to address an Islamic Society
fund-raiser, but had to do so by video from Qatar -- he has been barred
since 1999 from entering the United States.
Another Islamic Society trustee, Walid Fitaihi, is the author of writings
that denounce Jews as "murderers of the prophets" who "brought the worst
corruption to the earth" and should be punished for their "oppression,
murder, and rape of the worshipers of Allah." After
Fitaihi's words were reported in the Boston press, the Islamic Society
was urged to unequivocally repudiate them. It took
seven months before it
finally did so.
When Ahmed Mansour, an Egyptian-born Muslim scholar, examined the Islamic
library in 2003, he found books and videotapes promoting hostility
toward the United States and insulting other religions. Among the
publications on hand were several of those listed in the Freedom House
Individually, none of these points
proves that there is anything amiss with the Islamic Society of Boston.
Taken together, they give rise to obvious questions and concerns. Surely the
Islamic Society, which emphasizes its commitment to
moderation, tolerance, sincerity, and dialogue, should be at pains to
answer those questions and allay those concerns. Instead it accuses its
critics of defamation, and has sued many of them for -- of all things --
conspiring to deprive Boston-area Muslims of their religious freedom
Two Jewish students
received death threats after putting up pro-Israel posters in Belgium (www.haaretzdaily.com
The posters conveyed
messages such as
"Which was the first state in the Middle East which gave Arab women the
right to vote,"
"Terror attacks against civilians are an
The next morning, the two students received phone calls from
an anonymous caller who had a Middle Eastern accent, and threatened to
"We know who you are and where you live,"
threatened, in the call to Nicole.
"We also know that you have a
brother, as well as the license number of your car and the place where
you park it. If the flyer
isn't removed by the evening, we'll burn the car, and harm you and your
Benjamin, 22, received a similar phone call.
Soon after the two students received cellphone messages which cited their
addresses and their cars' license plate numbers. These messages conveyed a
new threat: the students were warned that "
we will burn the union of Jewish
students in Belgium building [UEJB]"
if the posters remain on the walls.
Speaking out against
Islam is risky. After the late Dutch sociologist-turned-politician Pim
Fortuyn sounded the alarm about the danger that Europe’s Islamization posed
to democracy, elite journalists labeled him a threat. A New York Times
headline described him as marching the dutch to the right. Dutch newspapers
Het Parool and De Volkskrant compared him with Mussolini; Trouw likened him
to Hitler. He was murdered by a man who said his views were dangerous.
Theo van Gogh was also murdered. He was the coauthor of the film "Submission" with Somali-born Ayaan
Hirsi Ali, a member of the Dutch parliament who had renounced the Islamic
faith of her birth.(
My Way News 11/2/04) Their film told the fictional story of a Muslim
woman forced into a violent marriage, raped by a relative and brutally
punished for adultery. This film enraged the Muslims of the Netherlands and
led to his murder even though it is based on similar stories that have
occurred in real life. The
murderer of Van Gogh explained that the killing was justified by Islamic law
that "instructs me to chop off the heads of anyone who insults Allah or the
prophet." What this means is that anyone who speaks the truth about
Islam must have his head chopped off according to Islamic law. After the
murder the daily, De Telegraaf, "Afraid of being called racist, we
have been so tolerant with regard to these religious fascists that they have
been allowed to merrily undermine the roots of our freedom."
24 hours after the
silencing of Van Gogh, Geert Wilders, a democratically elected representative
of the Dutch people in parliament received a note in his mailbox addressed
to him as "ugly dog". It told him he would soon be beheaded.
"Do not think
you are safe, because we will catch you and cut your ugly head off."
Wilders, who had been planning to form a party to tackle "the Islamic
problem" now also has 24-hour police protection. According to frontpagemag.com (Dutch
Outside parliament, a Dutch TV chat show
host has also been given protection. And the mayor of Amsterdam, Job Cohen
has also now been put on the hit list, as has the deputy mayor, fellow
Muslim Ahmed Aboutaleb.
In April 2013 the Kuwaiti Parliament
death penalty for those who insult Allah.
Muslims combined with multiculturalist ideology leads non-Muslim westerners
to silence criticism of Islam and to defend it.The Dutch police also
silence free speech in Holland. The day after the murder of Van Gogh, Chris Ripke created a mural which depicted an angel and the words, "Thou shalt not
kill". According to the Dutch Death article:
Ripke's studio is next to a mosque and an
imam lost no time in racing off to the police to complain that the mural was
"racist". Not only did the dhimmi Rotterdam police destroy Ripke's mural,
but they arrested television journalists filming it and erased their tape.
In January 2005, a high
school in Ijsselstein, Holland, ordered two students to remove patches of
the Dutch flag from their backpacks because the administration feared they
would provoke Moroccan students. Bans on the Dutch flag were already in
place at other Dutch schools (Banning
Patriotism, frontpagemagazine.com 4/25/2006) .
Perhaps no Western media
outlet has exhibited this habit of moral inversion more regularly
than the BBC. In 2006, to take a typical example, Manchester’s top
imam told psychotherapist John Casson that he supported the death
penalty for homosexuality. Casson expressed shock—and the BBC, in a
dispatch headlined imam accused of “gay
death” slur, spun the controversy as an effort by Casson to
discredit Islam. The BBC concluded its story with comments from an
Islamic Human Rights Commission spokesman, who equated Muslim
attitudes toward homosexuality with those of “other orthodox
religions, such as Catholicism” and complained that focusing on the
issue was “part of demonizing Muslims.”
In June 2005, the BBC
aired the documentary Don’t Panic, I’m Islamic, which sought
to portray concerns about Islamic radicalism as overblown. This
“stunning whitewash of radical Islam,” as Little Green Footballs
blogger Charles Johnson put it, “helped keep the British public fast
asleep, a few weeks before the bombs went off in London subways and
buses” in July 2005. In December 2007, it emerged that five of the
documentary’s subjects, served up on the show as examples of
innocuous Muslims-next-door, had been charged in those terrorist
The New York Times also
whitewashes Islam. Bruce Bawer wrote:
Witness Andrea Elliott’s affectionate three-part profile of a
Brooklyn imam, which appeared in the New York Times in March 2006.
Elliott and the Times sought to portray Reda Shata as a heroic bridge
builder between two cultures, leaving readers with the comforting belief
that the growth of Islam in America was not only harmless but positive,
even beautiful. Though it emerged in passing that Shata didn’t speak
English, refused to shake women’s hands, wanted to forbid music, and
supported Hamas and suicide bombing, Elliott did her best to downplay
such unpleasant details; instead, she focused on sympathetic personal
particulars. “Islam came to him softly, in the rhythms of his
grandmother’s voice”; “Mr. Shata discovered love 15 years ago. . . .
‘She entered my heart,‘ said the imam.” Elliott’s saccharine piece won a
Pulitzer Prize. When Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes pointed out that
Shata was obviously an Islamist, a writer for the Columbia Journalism
Review dismissed Pipes as “right-wing” and insisted that Shata was “very
media found out that Robert Spencer was giving a talk at the Catholic Men's
Conference in Worcester they encouraged Muslims to put pressure on the
Diocese of Worcester to cancel the talk which they did. Pamela Geller
tells the outrageous story below.
My book, "The Trouble with Islam," has put
me on the receiving end of anger, hatred and vitriol. That's because I'm asking
questions that we Muslims can no longer hide from. Why, for example, are we
squandering the talents of half of God's creation, women? What's with the stubborn
streak of anti-Semitism in Islam today? Above all, how can even moderate
Muslims view the Koran literally when it, like every holy text, abounds in
contradictions and ambiguity? The trouble with Islam today is that literalism
is going mainstream.
Muslims who take offense at these points often wind up reinforcing them in
their responses to me. I regularly get death threats through my Web site. Some
of my would-be assassins emphasize the virtues of martyrdom, wanting to hurl me
into the "flames of hell" in exchange for 72 virgins. Others simply
want to know what plane I'm next boarding, so they can hijack it. Somehow, I
don't feel the urge to share my schedule.
A few threats have been up-close and personal. At an airport in North
America, a Muslim man approached my traveling companion to say, "You're
luckier than your friend." When she asked him to explain, he turned his
hand into the shape of a gun and pulled the trigger. "She will find out
later what that means," he intoned.
But, for all of the threats, there's good news: I'm hearing more support,
affection and even love from fellow Muslims than I thought possible. Two groups
in particular -- young Muslims and Muslim women -- have flooded my Web site
with letters of relief and thanks. They are relieved that somebody is saying
out loud words they have only whispered, and grateful that they're being given
the permission to think for themselves.
password protected Arabic Web site, at the address www.barsomyat.com,
features pictures and information about Christians who have been particularly
active in debating Muslims on PalTalk.
page from barsomyat.com features a group of photographs of a Syrian Christian,
"Joseph," who now lives in Canada. Barsomyat.com's users have posted
personal information about Joseph, including his brother's parole status, and
make clear that they are actively trying to track down his current address.
also post explicit warnings to Joseph. One comment states, "Know, oh
Christian, that you are not far from us and you are under our watchful
eyes!" Another user remarks, "Laugh, oh Christian, and soon you will
see a big hit."
Paul, an Egyptian Christian and a theology student in America, said he believes
Joseph was targeted because he frequently engaged in debates with Muslims on
PalTalk. The Internet chat service attracts up to 3 million users a month, and
subjects range from movies to music to religion to adult topics - and some
Arabic-speaking users of PalTalk have reported that contentious debates between
Christians and Muslims are common in certain chat rooms... [M]any barsomyat.com
users expressed jubilation at the deaths.
user posted a photograph of Hossam Armanious and wrote, "This is a picture
of the filthy dog, curser of Muhammad, and a photo of his filthy wife, curser
of Muhammad. They got what they deserved for their actions in America."..
features not only photographs of the targeted Christians, but also attempts to
track down their addresses. A post about a Christian man whose computer was
apparently hacked to obtain his photograph includes the man's PalTalk name, his
real name, and the city where he resides in Lebanon.
barsomyat.com entry outlines the relations (both blood and marital) between
four Christians who are apparently PalTalk users, posts photographs of them,
and then states, "We have postponed publishing this information because
there is a lot more to be revealed when the time is right."
According to Maria Sliwa (Ignoring Muslim Murder
on U.S. Soil, frontpagemag.com 3/4/05)
A former Muslim from Egypt, who wouldn't give his name for this article for
fear of retribution, says he fled to America in 1992, after he was severely
beaten for converting to Christianity. He says he was threatened in 2001 when he
began discussing his faith with Muslims on PalTalk, a New York City-based
internet chat service. Though Saleh admits that his debates were often too
fervent on the net, he was shocked to find photos of himself and family members,
along with all of his contact information, on a radical Islamic website called
Gegadeath.com. Below Saleh's picture was a statement of warning. After he
appeared on Gegadeath, Saleh says he received numerous death threats on the
phone and quickly moved to another state.
Last month Ahmed Mohamed, 36, a former Muslim in Colorado, who converted to
Christianity, discovered that his photo and contact information were posted on
another radical Islamic website, Barsomyat.com, along with accusations that he'd
been debating Muslims on PalTalk. He says that since his information was posted,
he has received numerous threats on the phone, in person and in letters he has
received in the mail.
On March 6, Ahmed Mohamed, a convert to the Coptic Christian Church, who uses
the moniker "Ahmed_love_Jesus" on PalTalk received the following threat: (wnd.com
this, Ahmed_love_Jesus, we tracked you and being in America will not help you.
Your blood is lawful and we will kill you soon.
If you were with me I would have killed you.
I will know where you are and kill you someday.
Ahmed_Love_Jesus, by the life of your mother's [obscenity deleted], your blood
is lawful. We know where you are in America and we will slaughter you like the
lamb that you worship.
The address of Jeremy Reynalds was posted on the
Houston-based site Al Ansar by Muslims as well as a posting which offered
prayers to Allah that Reynalds' "fatty neck" would be delivered to
them, a reference to Islamists' common method of decapitation. (CAIR's War on National Review,
Graham explained that when a significant
minority of a group conducts terrorism and the general population of that
group does not denounce it, it is safe to conclude that the group promotes
He drew an analogy between Islam and the
"If the Boy Scouts of America had 1,000
scout troops, and 10 of them practiced suicide bombings, then the BSA would
be considered a terrorist organization," he said. "If the BSA refused to
kick out those 10 troops, that would make the case even stronger. If people
defending terror repeatedly turned to the Boy Scout handbook and found
language that justified and defended murder – and the scoutmasters in charge
simply said 'Could be' – the Boy Scouts would have driven out of America
When he was in danger of being fired he
wrote an article called The Tragedy of Islam which can be viewed by clicking
After he was fired he said:
"It appears that ABC Radio has caved to an
organization that condemns talk radio hosts like me, but has never condemned
Hamas, Hezbollah, and one that wouldn't specifically condemn al-Qaida for
three months after 9-11," he said. "As a fan of talk radio, I find it
absolutely outrageous that pressure from a special interest group like CAIR
can result in the abandonment of free speech and open discourse on a talk
radio show. As a conservative talk host whose job is to have an open, honest
conversation each day with my listeners, I believe caving to this pressure
is a disaster."
Muslim wrath may be the reason ABC fired Michael Graham. It is also the
reason that the Marriott hotel chain turned down a "terrorism" symposium.
After researching the matter, the
Marriott’s corporate office
supported the local decision and issued the following statement; “Due to the
high density of Muslim Students on campus, we’re afraid of the potential for
violent protests, injured employees and damage to the facility”.
Concurrently, another Marriott Hotel in the Washington area hosted CAIR’s
annual conference. Participating as a panelist at their gala, was an alleged
coconspirator of the 1993 WTC bombing. (Sleeping
with the Enemy at the Marriott) 12/3/05.
Chauncey Bailey of the Oakland Post was
working on a story about a bakery owned by the Bey family that was under
investigation by police in connection with assaults, a kidnapping, two
homicides, and a case of torture.A
handyman working for the Black Muslim Bakery in Oakland shot Chauncey Bailey
and killed him.
According to Lloyd Billingsley
the Bey family established what amounted to a miniature Taliban state.
They would shoot guns in the air and terrify the residents. Chris Thompson
black leaders alike have embraced Bey as a pillar of the African-American
community. Whether due to cowardice, ignorance, or Machiavellian realpolitik,
government officials and media outlets have chosen inaction and silence – a
choice with terrible ramifications for some Oakland residents."
Claire Lopez wrote in the Middle East
Times (5/1/08) that:
the White House announced that
government employees both at home and abroad must employ euphemisms such as
"violent extremists" or "South Asian youths" instead of "Muslim jihadis"
Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen, had a fatwa issued against her in
1993 after the publication of her novel Lajja (Shame), which depicted the
persecution of Bangladesh's Hindu minority. The Hindustan Times recently
reported that Nasreen "had to leave the country overnight to save her life
and his been on [the] run since then."
According to Bat Ye'or in
her book Eurabia, fear of Islamic terror is silencing those who would otherwise
support Israel. The voices of the large influx of anti-Israeli immigrants
are heard. As a result the population of Europe is being brainwashed
into hating Israel. The same fear that silences supporters of Israel
silences critics of Islam so that as Europeans are losing their freedoms their media
teaches them to blame Israel and the United States instead of the growing
Islamic threat in their midst.
Blasphemy laws are a way
to silence legitimate criticism of a religion. Critics of the blasphemy
law in Pakistan call it a tool in the hands of Islamic fundamentalists in their
effort to make the entire country Muslim. (WorldNetDaily reported
(6/2/07) how Masih,
a Christian from Chungi Amar Sadu in Lahore, was charged Sept. 10, 2005, with
blasphemy against the Prophet Muhammad, a charge that carries the death
penalty.Masih was outspoken against
incidents of rape committed against Christian girls, and is a Christian
himself. It is believed these were the reasons he was accused of blasphemy.
A fatwa was issued against
Salman Rushdie for writing the Satanic verses. Daveed Gartenstein-Ross in
an article (The Jyllands-Posten
cultural editor Flemming Rose decided, courageously, to publish
critical caricatures of Mohammad in response to the worsening climate of fear
overcoming European artists and writers who censured themselves due to the
threat of violent Muslim reprisals. Violent protests in which Danish embassies
were destroyed soon followed as did a boycott on Danish Goods by Islamic
countries. The Pakistani Jamaaat-e-Islami party offered a large
reward to anyone who killed any of the cartoonists. According to worldnetdaily 2/24/06) In Londonistan deranged
protesters carried posters reading: EXTERMINATE THOSE WHO MOCK
ISLAM and BE PREPARED FOR THE REAL HOLOCAUST (Cartoonish Dhimmitude
in America, Frontpage Magazine 2/8/2006)
Following the tumultuous events of this past week, Rose
remained entirely unbowed: “Apologizing would imply that if you intimidate us
enough we will follow your demands…This is blackmail. You cannot edit this
newspaper [Jyllands-Posten] according to mafia rules.”
He fully accepted his decision to uphold free speech
which might conceivably cost his life and the lives of the cartoonists whom he
in fact are now hiding for their very lives): “I do not regret it…It is a
bit like asking a rape victim if she regrets wearing a short skirt at a disco.”
European laws balance freedom of expression against other rights such as the
right to privacy and the right not to be offended. Therefore, European
countries have various laws prohibiting hate speech, religious denigration,
and racism. However, “almost absolute” freedom of speech, with exceptions
for incitement to violence and defamation of individuals, “makes America
unique.” Free speech is “not a balancing test” against the so-called right
not to be offended. Offensive speech is constitutionally protected if it’s
true or mere opinion.
noted that hate speech restrictions have not reduced violence. Indeed, riots
have always erupted in countries where hate speech, blasphemy laws and other
speech restrictions exist, but have been violated. Proponents of hate speech
laws claim that hate speech leads to violent acts, but there is no evidence
to support their claims. In countries where freedom flourishes, offensive
expression incites minimal violence.
right not to be offended” is the only right Rose believes individuals should
not have in a democracy. Freedom should be paramount.
The distressing reaction to this cartoon jihad by
most United States political and media elites has been one of craven, and
ill-informed dhimmitude. Pious pronouncements condemning the cartoons and their
publication have been issued across the political spectrum, from the State Department,
to the Washington
Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt, to conservative blogger Hugh
Hewitt. Mainstream television and print news media have declared,
uniformly, that they will not display the cartoons. Will these self-righteous
institutions and individuals remain unmoved even by appeals from those intrepid
secular Muslims, such as Ibn Warraq, who have embraced our uniquely Western
heritage, and are struggling to defend it? In Der
Spiegel, on Friday February 3, Warraq elucidated what is at stake:
The cartoons in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten
raise the most important question of our times: freedom of expression. Are we
in the west going to cave into pressure from societies with a medieval mindset,
or are we going to defend our most precious freedom -- freedom of
expression, a freedom for which thousands of people sacrificed their lives? A
democracy cannot survive long without freedom of expression, the freedom to
argue, to dissent, even to insult and offend. It is a freedom sorely lacking in
the Islamic world, and without it Islam will remain unassailed in its dogmatic,
fanatical, medieval fortress; ossified, totalitarian and intolerant. Without
this fundamental freedom, Islam will continue to stifle thought, human rights,
individuality; originality and truth.
Freedom of expression is our western heritage and we
must defend it or it will die from totalitarian attacks. It is also much needed
in the Islamic world. By defending our values, we are teaching the Islamic
world a valuable lesson, we are helping them by submitting their cherished
traditions to Enlightenment values.
Caroline Glick wrote about how
the West Caved in (Strong Leadership For Peace, Jerusalem Post 3/3/2006):
In Britain the media
refused to publish the pictures of Muhammad - out of sensitivity for Muslim
feelings, of course. The newspaper editor who published the pictures in France
was fired. In Norway, the editor who published the pictures was forced to
publicly apologize to Norway's Muslim leaders in a humiliating public ceremony.
Franco Frattini, the EU's Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security said
it would be useful for the press to "self-regulate" in attempting to
find answers to question of "How are we to reconcile freedom of expression
and respect for each individual's deepest convictions?"
And so, the European
reaction to the Muslim rampages has involved slouching towards the surrender of
their freedom of speech. Not only has Europe's appeasement of radical Islam not
protected its liberal values, it has undermined the democratic freedoms that
form the foundations of European culture. From a security perspective, the
consequence of the silencing of pubic debate on the challenge of radical Islam
is that Europeans are now effectively barred from conducting a public
discussion about the chief threat to their political traditions and physical
On Thursday, April 12, a gang of Somali thugs on a
downtown Oslo street attacked Kadra, a Somali woman who now lives in Norway,
and beat her senseless, breaking several of her ribs. They were enraged at her
for her recent statement that the Qur’an’s views of women needed reevaluation.
They also might have been angry because of her role in revealing the widespread
support among imams in Norway for female genital mutilation; Kadra exposed
their support for this horrific procedure using a hidden camera in a 2000
documentary for Norwegian television….
following Tuesday, two men in Mississauga, Ontario, attacked journalist Jawaad
Faizi, who writes for the Pakistan Post, a newspaper based in Mississauga. The
attackers told Faizi to stop “writing against Islam,” and particularly to stop
criticizing an Islamic organization, Idara Minhaj-ul-Quran, and its leader, a
Muslim cleric named Allama Tahir-Ul-Qadri.
Alexander Litvinenko, the one-time KGB agent who has lived in London with
his family for several years, died Thursday from poisoning by the radioactive
element polonium 210. He had been investigating the death of Mrs.
Politkovskaya. In a dramatic statement dictated from his hospital bed and read
outside the hospital shortly after his death, he accused the "barbaric and
ruthless" Mr. Putin of ordering his poisoning.
an expert on the Soviet Union told “Dateline”after the Litvinenko murder that:
"A message has been communicated to anyone who wants to speak out against
the Kremlin: 'If you do, no matter who you are, where you are, we will find
you, and we will silence you -- in the most horrible way possible.'
Nathan Thornburgh wrote an article for Time Magazine
about Russia. He wrote:
In a meeting at the Kremlin before I began
my trip, Putin's spokesman didn't even try to
deny that national news was slanted in the
government's favor. But he said the regional
media were thriving and independent. Study them,
he said, and "you will understand that this is
the freest country in the world."
I met journalists throughout my travels
and found the Kremlin's assessment disingenuous
at best. "In America, you are free to criticize
Bush," a television talk-show host told me in
his kitchen in Novgorod. "Me too. I am also free
to criticize Bush." He laughed. Then, not
smiling, he said, "I'm actually scared to be
talking to you. TIME magazine is far away. But
if I express my opinions, I'll have to face the
authorities — not Putin, but someone here on a
local or provincial level. I'll lose my job."
Another article in the same
issue of Time Magazine was written by Adi Ignatius. He wrote:
Dmitri Muratov also knows the
difficulties of life in the Putin era. A soft spoken, heavyset man whose
neatly trimmed beard is turning gray, Muratov is the editor in chief of
Novaya Gazeta, a Moscow newspaper, published twice a week, with a reputation
for pursuing tough investigative pieces. In the past seven years, three of
his journalists have been murdered; all were looking into corruption and
wrongdoing. After the third murder, Muratov decided to close the 14-year-old
paper to avoid putting any other journalist at risk. But his staff talked
him out of it. The paper is perpetually harassed by officials around the
country, but, Muratov notes with a weary smile, "we're still alive."
The last of Muratov's journalists to die, Anna Politkovskaya, was shot in
the elevator of her apartment building last year on Oct. 7. Alexander
Litvinenko, a former FSB officer turned government critic living in London,
accused Putin of sanctioning the killing. Within weeks, Litvinenko himself
was dead too, killed by radiation poisoning from a mysterious dose of
polonium 210. (Britain wants to charge a former KGB officer, Andre Lugovoy,
who has just been elected to Russia's parliament, with the killing. He
denies it, and Russian law prevents the extradition of Russian citizens.)
murder of anti-government journalist,
Magomed Yevloyev, in Ingushetia by police on
Sunday is just the latest indication that the Putin regime doesn't flinch to
eliminate dissent in all of its forms.
Magomed Yevloyev, a Web-site
publisher from Ingushetia, was abducted from a
commercial airliner by the police. The cops shot him
and dumped his body.
Two days later, TV reporter
Abdulla Alishayev was shot and killed in the nearby
"republic" of Daghestan. Russian government sources
Plus, a reporter and editor,
Milosla Bitokov, from the Karbardino-Balkar
"republic," was beaten so badly he had to be
hospitalized. But, given all the journalists Putin
has murdered since he came to power, a few broken
bones or a fractured skull hardly count.
The past year has seen an inspired stirring of
political opposition in Russia, as thousands of young and middle-class
Russians have poured out onto the streets to protest the country’s
regressive slide into authoritarianism under Vladimir Putin. For sheer
novelty and provocation, however, no protest action quite matched the
spectacle that took place this past February, when the members of all-female
punk rock band Pussy Riot commandeered the altar of Moscow’s main cathedral
and, clad in multicolored balaclava masks, proceeded to belt out a protest
song titled “Virgin Mary, Redeem Us of Putin.”
rare piece of political blasphemy, the song assailed the Russian Orthodox Church
for its uncomfortably close ties to the Russian president. That subservience was
exemplified by the Church patriarch’s devout assessment prior to the
presidential election this spring that Putin’s democracy-trampling 12-year rule
represented nothing less than a ”miracle
of God.” In mocking the Church, Pussy Riot’s lyrics proclaimed that the “head
of the KGB is their chief saint.”
Pussy Riot has been in prison since March (it
is July as of this writing) without a trial.
Free Speech in Venezuela
"We Want Freedom!" and waving Venezuelan flags, demonstrators
warned that President Hugo Chavez's plan to replace Radio Caracas Television
with a public-service station is part of a broad effort to silence criticism.
The banner that snaked through the streets read "Freedom of Expression,
SOS" in 10 different languages on May 21, 2007.
Free Speech in Cuba
Cuba brutally suppresses free speech. Jeff Jacoby
wrote an article titled
A Hero in Castro's Gulag with an example of this (Boston Globe 11/4/07).
Free Speech in France
Staff of the Satirical French
magazine Charlie Hebdo were murdered in France because of their cartoons
about Muhammad. Prior to those attacks they were targets of the
honor brigade an organized campaign to silence debate about Islam.
Free Speech in the USA
Wearing a shirt with a message is a form of speech. A man who was
wearing a pro-Trump shirt saved a baby from a locked car. A CNN owned
blurred out his shirt so that people couldn't read that he was
In an article titled Evidence Mounts of a Manufactured Border Crisis Roger
The Obama administration has been silencing the press and people hired
by the government about the immigrants flooding the country from Latin
America. Also making their way to our communities are unaccompanied
children and women with children who are being smuggled in by “coyotes.”
Many of these children become victims of sex or criminal abuse during the
journey. Facilities are becoming overrun with immigrants suffering from
mental, emotional, and physical illnesses such lice, scabies, tuberculosis
and chicken pox. In order to keep this information from the public, the
Department of Health and Human Services imposed a gag order so that the
staff at one facility couldn’t tell the press anything. Even a Congressman
was initially not allowed to enter a different facility, until he repeatedly
pushed for it.
Continuing their strong-arm tactics with the press, the administration
issued a series of rules for the media visiting Fort Sill: don’t record
anything, ask questions, or, in general, do the investigative work of good
journalism. In addition, pictures were to be provided afterwards for the
media’s use. One wonders how the media would have reacted had the Bush
administration put such restrictions on them during the aftermath of
Here is a message from Joseph Farah from July 2014 promoting a book about
the attack on free speech.
There's a war on free speech in America
I never thought I would see this day.
I remember when the First Amendment was sacred to the left-wing
progressives – or so they said.
But that's history.
Today, from the highest levels of government, including Barack
Obama's White House, to the grass-roots "progressive" activists,
freedom of speech is under constant attack:
• The IRS is targeting political "enemies" – like you and me;
• The Federal Elections Commission actually considered a plan to
eavesdrop on newsrooms, supposedly to learn about the process of
making news judgments;
• The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission gave an
interview explaining how his colleagues want to stifle freedom
of the press by alternative news outlets including the
"Shut Up, America," explains the game plan in detail. It's not
just restoration of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine." It's not just
the imposition of "hate crimes" laws meant to punish speech and
thoughts. It's not just tapping the phones of key journalists.
There's much more going on than meets the eye.
I want everyone in America to read this work so you can see what is
coming next. It's all laid out in one package. If you have a heart
for saving America from the thought police and a new era of
totalitarianism, you need this book.
Only a complete understanding of the strategy behind all of the
chilling developments you've been hearing about can avert disaster
for America. And that strategy is laid out brilliantly in
"Shut Up, America."
Jeremy Scahill above states that there is a war on journalism in these
countries. The Obama administration has
seized phone records of news organizations in order to find who leaked
them information. Jeremy makes a statement that George Bush, Obama's
predecessor was also against freedom of the press but gave no evidence
supporting that statement and I haven't heard any.
There are those who wish to silence people who don't
believe that man has a significant role in global warming. President
Obama told the Coast Guard that denying climate change is a
dereliction of duty.
There is also an
increasing demand for a change in history textbooks to downplay our
seven-century struggle against Arab occupation. The coat of arms of one of
Spain’s regions has been changed to erase a Moor head that has been in it
for centuries. There is mounting pressure for similar changes of potentially
offensive popular celebrations that commemorate famous battles between
Christians and Muslims during the 711-1492 period.
The internet is creating a free flow
of ideas all over the world. Free speech is a threat to repressive regimes
such as China which
are cracking down on the free flow of ideas on the internet. According
to an article in the Observer (Microsoft in Human Rights Row, 2/1/2004):
China is the world's most aggressive censor
of the internet. Websites are banned for using words such as 'Taiwan',
'Tibet', 'democracy', 'dissident' and 'human rights'. Amnesty has recorded
dozens of cases of political opponents jailed for circulating material
offensive to the Chinese government
China is thought to have 30,000 online
police monitoring blogs, chatrooms and news portals. The propaganda department
is thought to employ even more people, a small but increasing number of whom
are paid to anonymously post pro-government comments online. Sophisticated
filters have been developed to block or limit access to "unhealthy
information", which includes human rights websites, such as Amnesty,
foreign news outlets, such as the BBC, as well as pornography. Of the 64
internet dissidents in prison worldwide, 54 are from China. (Backlash as
Google Shores Up Great Firewall of China 1/25/2006)
A survey by the Committee to Protect
Journalists calls China's efforts to control its media "unique in the
world's history. According to the survey authors (U.S. Says
China Boosts Internet Monitoring, Excite News, 2/15/06)
have so many lines of communication in the hands of so many people been met
with such obsessive resistance from a central authority."
Words or phrases that can trigger pages to be blocked
or removed from search results:
Tiananmen Square massacre
The killing of hundreds, if not thousands, of civilians by the People's
Liberation Army in 1989
The exiled spiritual leader of Tibet, who is denounced as a splittist by the
government in Beijing
The nightmare of the Communist party, which has vowed to use force to prevent
A banned spiritual movement, thousands of whose members have been imprisoned
and in many cases tortured
The village where paramilitary police shot and killed at least three
protesters last month
China has blocked access to Google News and YouTube in
an apparent attempt to stop the spread of video footage
related the rioting going on in several cities in Tibet,
including the capital Lhasa. Demonstrations in the city
started on March 10, a day commemorating the anniversary
of a 1959 uprising against Chinese rule after which the
spiritual leader of the country, the
Dalai Lama, fled to India...
Foreign media have been banned from
Tibet, according to a CNN
video, which says the station has not
been able to send a team to report the news.
China's own press is run by the state.
China is blocking out the press because it doesn't want
their own people or the world to know the horrors of what they plan to
do to what's left of the people of Tibet.
Yahoo even helped the Chinese
hunt down Shi Tao, a reporter for a Chinese newspaper, Contemporary Business
News who they have imprisoned for 10 years. According to the LA Times (Just Following
Orders in China, 9/14/05)
crime consisted of e-mailing to a New York-based website information about a
secret directive his newspaper had received from the state propaganda
department telling it how to cover the 15th anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen
Square massacre. The security services were able to track him down thanks to
information helpfully provided by Yahoo's Hong Kong affiliate, whose e-mail
service Shi used...
Google, MSN and other Web search engines have agreed to block searches in China
involving words such as "Tibetan independence" or "human
rights." Bloggers can't post messages involving "democracy" or
other "dangerous" concepts. Rupert Murdoch's Star TV has agreed not
to carry BBC news or other information that the Chinese government might not
like. Cisco has sold Beijing thousands of routers programmed to monitor
Internet usage and flag for the secret police any "subversive"
There is a theory that greater access to information technology will further
freedom in China. The reality is that the communist oligarchy is adroitly using
the Internet to increase its level of control with the help of its American
Reporters Without Borders found a second case in
which Yahoo turned over heroic dissidents to the Chinese. It said it had
discovered that Yahoo customer and cyberdissident Li Zhi had been given his
eight-year prison sentence in December 2003 based on electronic records
provided by Yahoo. “How many more cases are we going to find?” it asked. (Another
Cyberdissident Imprisoned Because of Data Provided by Yahoo 2/8/2006)
filed a lawsuit against Yahoo because Wang
Xiaoning, her partner of 27 years, has been sitting in a Chinese prison since
September 2002. He is serving a 10-year sentence for using the Internet to
Yahoo! China pasted a "most wanted"
poster across its homepage today in aid of the police's witch-hunt for 24
Tibetans accused of taking part in the recent riots. MSN China made the same
move, although it didn't go as far as publishing the list on its homepage.
There is self censorship in the United
States by companies that do business in China.Google censors criticism of
China by WorldnetDaily, Taiwan has been virtually
wiped off the face of Google Earth maps in another form of appeasement to
have made similar accommodations for their Web sites in China. (Murdoch’s
Dealings in China: It’s Business, and It’s Personal By JOSEPH KAHN 6/26/07)
Matt Pottinger, a former correspondant for the Wall Street Journal in China
said that (said
“In Cuba and in China, journalists are often
jailed after summary trials and held in miserable conditions far from their
families. But the cruelty and injustice of imprisonment is compounded where
there is zero due process and journalists slip into oblivion. In Eritrea, the
worst abuser in this regard, there is no check on authority and it is unclear
whether some jailed journalists are even alive."
According to an article from Worldnetdaily, (Worldnetdaily (5/23/06),
Google rejects ads that do not fit its liberal world view or do not promote the
candidates it prefers for office.One
example of this was rejection by Google of an ad that criticized the far
James Damour was fired by Google for
stating opinions they didn't like. He speaks about this in the embedded
David Gudeman was another Google employee who was fired for stating
opinions they didn't like. He made the
mistake of doubting the claim of a Muslim employee of Google of being
targetted by the FBI.
Andrew Torba create a competitor to other social media so people could
have free uncensored speech. He was blocked in his efforts by the gatekeepers of
the internet and he tells about it below.
Youtube, which is now owned by
Google, banned the a video
titled The Violent Oppression of Women in Islam.
“Google quickly pulled the video of my talk [about radical Islam] at
Dartmouth,” writes Spencer, “although it did not meet any of their criteria
for deletion of offensive material.” Yet at the same time, search for al-Khattab’s
video “trying to raise money for a jihadist who has been convicted of
incitement to murder -- and you'll have no problem viewing that one at
Many controversial videos that I have linked to on
this site are no longer available. The reasons are not give
but it certainly is suspicious. It's unlikely that people voluntarily
removed all those videos. Sometime's people include content that belongs
to a news organization so it is possible but unlikely they were all removed for
Worldnetdaily has been censored from American and marine and navy
(CAIR's War from Within 3/9/04) tells how CAIR, the Council on American Islamic
Relations punished Captain Edwina McCall for speaking out in defense of
American policy in Iraq. According to the article Captain Edwina McCall,
a nurse who was due for a highest commendation medal for her service, argued
with people opposing the U.S. intervention in Iraq and supporting militant
Islamic goals on an internet discussion board. On December 4, 2003,
Ibrahim Hooper, the director of the Council on American Islamic Relations
(CAIR) faxed a letter to the office of Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld, writing, “It is my unfortunate duty to bring to your attention
bigoted anti-Muslim comments sent to our office by an officer in the U.S.
military.” ... He closed the fax by writing: “I respectfully request that
the extremist and Islamophobic views of this officer be investigated and
appropriate action be taken. ”
Captain McCall was escorted to headquarters at
Landstuhl Regional Medical Center to be informed that she could be facing three
charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The Army then
denied Captain McCall “all access to government-owned computers, to include
official business.” This affected her ability to make daily submission reports
to the Pentagon, a key component to her job.
The military is not the only institution that filters web sites based on
political opinion. Andrew Lampert a high school student found out that
conserative web sites were blocked from his school. A video of him talking
about it can be viewed
If DeWitt had to jump through all the hoops, over
all the obstacles, and experience the frustration of all the delays of getting
a permit, no permit was required for the counter-demonstrators, who assembled
across from the park, on the steps of Old City Hall, simply by showing
up. The official explanation was that since the counter-demonstrators
were not using the park, they could demonstrate without a permit. But
Berkeley’s own regulations for “street events” (Section 13.444.040-020
Definition D) pointedly say otherwise, especially since the
counter-demonstrators were in effect obstructing the sidewalk in front of Old
censors pages it doesn't like. Christian actor Kirk Cameron said
Facebook has blocked fans from posting any links to “Unstoppable,” an upcoming
faith-based movie, because the website is abusive and unsafe.
“We have been officially shut down by Facebook and unable to get any response
from them,” Cameron wrote on his personal Facebook fan page.
Web hosting sites sometimes stop hosting web pages when they receive complaints
from people who are offended about the content of sites.
Web sites that host material that others don't like may get hacked. Rachel
Alexander's online journal, The Intellectual Conservative was
hacked and the
hacking was traced to the
County Supervisor's office.
The Attack on Free Speech in Academia
In 2012 Lindsay Shepherd is a graduate student who showed a clip of Jordan
Peterson in a class to help with critical thinking. Jordan Peterson is
a professor who doesn't believe that people should be forced to use
transgender pronouns such as zhe to refer to other people. She was brought
before a university tribunal because someone in her class complained that
they were offended. She discusses her experience below.
Joshua Sutcliffe was
fired when he referred to a transgender in his class as a girl. The
27-year-old secondary school math teacher claimed he said ‘well done girls’ to
the trans teenager and a female friend when he spotted them working hard, but
apologised after being corrected. He sent a letter to the school’s head teacher,
calling their equality policies ‘totalitarian’. and wrote ‘I regret that our
relations have reached this point, but I feel I have no choice but to bring
legal proceedings against you .’
In the video below Ann Lieven speaks about how she made the mistake of
taking a gender studies class and what happened when she tried to give a
Liberal studies prof Michael Rectenwald, 57, said he was forced Wednesday to go
on paid leave. His crime? Rectenwald launchedan
undercover Twitter account called Deplorable NYU Prof on Sept. 12 to argue
against campus trends like “safe spaces,” “trigger warnings” policing Halloween
costumes and other aspects of academia’s growing PC culture. Here is a
video in which Dr. Rectenwald is interviewed.
Michael Rechtenwald in an interview with Frontpage Magazine
While Antifa, the “social justice” extracurricular infantry, burns down
campuses to prevent the airing of “dangerous” speech, the “social justice”
leftists seek safe spaces – not as protection from the violence of their
compeers, but from the so-called “discursive violence” of non-PC-left
speakers. Yet “social justice” ideologues undertake the most virulent forms
of libel and defamation when dealing with speakers who express views at
variance with their own.
The following two videos are shocking examples of the
attack on free speech in academia.
In the first video the provost of Brown asks the
students who appear to be sitting in his office if they can have a
conversation and the answer is no because he is a white heterosexual male
and white heterosexual males have been dominant. This victimhood game
is about blacks and gays transferring power to themselves.
One way to silence people is to
accuse them of creating a hostile environment.
Neetu Chandak a student at Cornell
expressed concern about the liberal bias of coursework at Cornell on Fox
In response she received threats and constant harrassment. One reason
this worried her was that the president of Cornell's college Republicans was
violently assaulted after Trump's election. Here is a video in which
she discusses the situation with Fox and Friends.
Professor Lamb was an enthusiastic and kind teacher who taught a politics and
religion class in which he encouraged students to present all points of view.
If the other point of view wasn't being presented he'd sometimes play the
Devil's advocate. One of those points of view was about false
allegations of rape. One student, Tania Mortensen denied that women every
lie about rape. She insisted that women must be believed. Two other
students, Michelle Gretzinger and Bonita Rai supported her view.
Mortensen, Gretzinger and Rai accused Lamb of sexual harassment. They
claimed that Lamb had created a "hostile environment" by challenging their
position and characterizing them as "man haters". When
their accusations didn't bring down Dr. Lamb, Gretzinger took
Dr. Lamb to court and accused him of raping her. During the case it became
clear that she was fabricating the charges and she lost. Despite that, the
University of Hawaii settled with her by giving her $175,000. The
University may have settled in order to avoid larger law suit costs but in the
long run this will only encourage more women to make more false allegations of
rape. Notice how Gertzinger who supported the notion that women don't make
false allegations of rape, made a false allegation of rape. The very
belief that she was angry at Dr. Lamb for denying she proved wrong by her own
False allegations of rape transfer big bucks to the
accusers but besides hurting the man they accuse they also hurt women in
general. Dr. Lamb who used to enthusiastically help both male and female
students in his class said that:
"I used to love to teach. Not any more. I used to love to interact with
students and stimulate them to think critically. Not any more. I used
to believe that university campuses promoted free speech an the truth. Not
any more. I sued to believe students when they would tell me things.
Not any more."
"I still avoid interacting with women I don't know and trust. I rarely
feel good about going to school. I still avoid meeting female students in
my office, unless I know someone else will be there. ..
False allegations of rape help some women financially
but besides hurting the man they accuse they also hurt women in general.
Dr. Lamb who used to enthusiastically help both male and female students in his
class said that as a result of this experience. Many faculty as a result
of Dr. Lamb's experiences avoid becoming advisors for female grad students.
Professor Laura Kipnis wrote an article about
paranoia in academia. Two students lodged complaints against Ms.
Kipnis, with the university's Title IX coordinator.
The Title IX coordinator’s job is to handle sexual assault and harassment cases,
so the implication here is that
merely disagreeing with a student is akin to creating a hostile work
According to a
report by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) “The
Department of Justice now interprets Title IX to require colleges and
universities to violate the First Amendment,”
DOJ flatly declared
that ‘[u]nwelcome conduct of a sexual nature’ – including ‘verbal conduct’ –
is sexual harassment ‘regardless of whether it causes a hostile environment
or is quid pro quo.'”
FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said: “The
Department of Justice has put universities in an impossible position:
violate the Constitution or risk losing federal funding.”
Don't like your fellow student? Mad at your teacher
for giving you a bad grade? Accuse them of saying something you don't
like of a sexual nature. Your university is obligated by law to
investigate them. Like a girl at your university. Watch out.
It things don't work out her way for whatever reason you could be in big
Federal mandated trouble.
On November 12, 2013, Amy Lacey, the principal of Texas’ Hempstead Middle
School, was placed on administrative leave and subsequently
fired when she made a simple request to students: speak English. Once
the gag order expired she explained that she didn't ban Spanish from school but
merely suggested that speaking English would help the children pass State exams
which are in English. “I think the public needs to know that in public
education there are only one or two district personnel designated to talk to
media,” she wrote in closing, “so any teachers that would have liked to speak on
my behalf were not allowed without risking their job status.”
George Will wrote an article titled
Gag U about how universities are shutting down free speech.
A Christian student is
suing Georgia Gwinnett College for not letting him share his faith.
Counsel Travis Barham said that:
"Students don't check their constitionally protected speech at the
campus gate. While touting commitments to "diversity" and "open
communications" Georgia Gwinnett College confines the speech of students to
two ridiculously small speech zones and then censors the speech that occurs
in those areas."
The atmosphere required extensive security -- which made me feel that
without it I would have been physically hurt at UC Berkeley. The first
statement from the Al-Jazeera representative to me was: “You are the most
hated woman in the Arab world.” The hatred was also felt from the far
leftist American audience...
There were screams from the audience: "Fascist," then "racist" then "Osama
Bin Laden is a CIA agent." The noise was getting louder and I could not
speak any more. I felt that even in America I am being silenced. My response
was: “Who will speak for women who are stoned and for Muslims terrorized in
radical Muslim countries? It is sad that I left oppressive Sharia Muslim
culture, where I had no freedom of speech, only to find myself silenced in
America, by groups who claim they are for free speech.”
The sad thing about this whole event was the feeling that radical Muslims
and their far Left supporters would rather never criticize Islamic culture
than stand up against the culture that flogs, stones, beheads and amputates
limbs. Not offending a religion has become more important to the far Left
(unless it is Christianity or Judaism) than human rights of Muslims and
victims of terror. Honor killing and female genital mutilation can be
tolerated -- but noone better dare utter the word "Islamo-fascism."
American universities are becoming tyrannical when it comes to Conservative
values and to Arab Americans who dare to speak out against the culture of
jihad. It does not matter how many people in my early life in Egypt suffered
from honor killing, female genital mutilation and oppression of women, I
must shut up on American campuses.
One way free speech is blocked is with the excuse of "security
concerns". That was how Ben Shapiro was blocked from speaking at
Dr. Alan Kors and Dr. Harvey Silverglate wrote a book about the attack on the right to free speech
in American Universities by the Politically Correct
Shadow University. Academicbias.com has posted an online video about
the subject called Brainwashing 101 which can be viewed by clicking
here. Students who have
spoken their minds have been harassed to the point where at least one took her
own life. (Academic With-Hunt
(frontpagemag.com 4/27/05) about the witch-hunt against Professor Bean.
On April 11, 2005, Jonathan Bean professor of history at Southern Illinois
University Carbondale (SIUC) received the college's "Oustanding Teacher
Award." Then one day he made the terrible mistake of assigning an
optional reading for his history class, a 2001 Frontpage Magazine report titled
frontpage magazine wrote that:
Last fall, Pace student Michael Abdurakhmanov tried to hold a
that can be viewed on
youtube). Hoping to show that Islam is home to moderates as well as
extremists, and that it is important to distinguish between the two camps, he
unexpectedly found himself beset by opposition. Muslim students angrily
rejected the idea. University administrators took an even
wrote about his
experience writing about the extremists and the moderates:
In recent weeks
in this space, I have chronicled the saga of an effort to answer that question.
It took the form of a 52-minute documentary I helped produce for the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting's "America at a Crossroads"
series. The film, entitled "Islam vs. Islamists: Voices from the Muslim
Center," features compelling stories of anti-Islamist Muslims who have had
the courage to stand up to co-religionists who are using faith to accomplish
political ends…The Public Broadcasting
Service (PBS) and its Washington flagship station, WETA, refused to air this
The rejection of this film shows the disturbing power of
radical Muslims. Professor
Aminah McCloud---a Nation of Islam associate and American Muslim
Council board member---was one of a five-member committee that “veted” (read,
“vetoed”) the documentary.
to producer Gaffney, the younger Eaton has “acknowledged” his father's influence---if so, a serious
conflict of interest. Maybe Eaton le fils worries that the film could indirectly
implicate his father, a.k.a. frontpagemag.com
In my own classes I see a real timidity and hesitation about
interpreting a text in the fear that the evidence which emerges may be
politically incorrect. These kids have been beaten into shape through the K-12
system and know better than to say anything untoward—or even to think it. The
University, far from opening their minds and encouraging critical thinking,
normally simply repeats the orthodoxies.
Tell us about "Brainwashing 101" and its sequel. What
responses were there to these films?
It's funny. We had a great response from the audiences who saw
the short films "Brainwashing 101" and "Brainwashing
201." Both films won awards at film festivals, and we got a great
reception from the students who got a chance to see them. Even a number of
professors were supportive.
But school administrators were another story. It is in their best interests to
limit the flow of information leaving campus to glossy admissions
brochures and warm-and-fuzzy alumni newsletters designed to encourage
graduates to open their wallets. Anything beyond that is a problem for
them, especially a film that exposes the dirty little secrets of higher
In producing "Indoctrinate U", we had the police called on us about
a half-dozen times. And when we were screening the short
film "Brainwashing 101" at
BucknellUniversity--my alma mater--the head
of security was brought in to threaten me with arrest in front of
an audience assembled to watch my film.
I never thought my own alma mater would try to shut down the career of one
of its own alumni. It was pretty eye-opening.
David Horowitz organized a Islamo Facism Awareness Week after which
leftists papered the campus of George Washington University with a flyer
headlined "Hate Muslims? So Do We" which was supposed to be a publication of the HorowitzFreedomCenter and the GWU students organizing the event. It said
(purportedly in our voice) "Your typical Muslim has: laser eyes, venom at the
mouth,…peg-leg for smuggling children and heroin."
Despite the obvious hoax, the campus left reacted with
sanctimonious outrage and were backed by the university president, who
condemned those behind the flyer in the harshest terms hinting they would be
expelled when caught. The story was picked up by the Washington Post and
other media. By Wednesday, however the authors, who had previously hidden in
cowardly anonymity, admitted they had had published the forgery to discredit
us. When the president of GW realized the perpetrators were leftists he
backed off entirely, letting the culprits crow and leaving the conservative
students who had been defamed without a campus defender.
David Horowitz wrote about the attempts to prevent Islamo-Facism week and to
silence those who would speak out against Islamo-Fascism with words such as
racist, homophobe etc.. ( frontPage Magazine
Vocabulary of War 10/19/07).
To be a successful in Middle Eastern Studies departments in the United States
you have to be anti-Israel (Frontpagemagazine
(3/11/05) about the silencing of Professor Klocek.
15, 2004, Klocek was strolling through the student activities fair
at DePaul’s downtown campus when he noticed a flyer showing Israeli tanks
destroying Palestinian homes. “It was very one-sided,” he explained, “and
I wanted them to think about the bigger reality.”
put on his professor hat and tried to do what teachers do: he tried to get them
to think. And that’s what has lead to his downfall.
the Students for Justice in Palestine
booth, Klocek engaged the students... Klocek either earlier or later in
the conversation said something to the effect of that while not all Muslims are
terrorists, all the terrorists currently operating in the world today are
He also said
is no Palestinian ethnicity and that the term really only became prominent in
media coverage in the last 20 to 25 years. There has been in various
forms a region—though not a country, and certainly not an ethnically homogenous
state—known as “Palestine” going back to the Ottoman period, but “Palestinian”
is more of a regional identification than an ethnic one. And while older
than two decades, its usage only became common in the 20th century.
days later, some of the students involved met with the dean and cried
racism. They asked for his head. They got it.
Professor Klocek was
suspended without pay. Joel Mobray wrote:
no current income and facing the possibility of losing the health insurance he
desperately needs for a serious kidney condition, he has decided to go public
with his fight. Klocek considers his case a matter of academic freedom;
the school insists it’s a health issue. The Muslim students who had the
20-30 minute run-in with him that precipitated his suspension charge racism.
An interesting aspect to this is that both statements the professor made have
been made by Arabs. In fact when he said that all terrorists operating
today are Muslims he was quoting the head of the al-Arabiya satellite
television network. The statement about the Palestinian identity has been
made by Zuheir Mohsein, a former member of the Supreme Council of the PLO in an
interview with the Dutch Daily Trouw on March 31, 1977. Zuheir Mohsein
There are no
differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all
part of one nation. It is only for political reasons that we carefully
underline our Palestinian identity, because it is in the interest of the Arabs
to encourage a separate Palestinian identity in contrast to Zionism. Yes, the
existence of a separate Palestinian identity is there only for tactical
reasons. The establishment of a Palestinian state is a new expedient to
continue the fight against Zionism and for Arab unity.
such quotes see the primer on the web
site of Americans For A Safe Israel. Klocek showed up at a press
conference bound and gagged to protest the violation of his rights.
DePaul university contends that Klocek's case "is not a case of
academic freedom, but a situation of inappropriate behavior outside the
classroom by a university employee.
one of their Professor's, Holocaust denier, Norman Finklestein is extremely
anti-Israel DePaul university has no problem with him. (Academic Witch
Hunt at Depaul Unversity 3/22/05)
To remedy the reputation DePaul University has of being
against free speech, President Rev. Dennis Holtschneider created a Free Speech
and Expression Task Force and charged it with creating a policy for free speech
that would hopefully rebuff any claims that DePaul isn’t a friend of the free
marketplace of ideas.
Nicholas G. Hahn IIIwas appointed to the
task force as the only conservative. After assisting to create guidelines he was
lectured by the University Diversity Council. He wrote in
Frontpage Magazine that:
I was told that skin
color mattered more than ideas in a discussion concerning free speech, and
that ideas which offended persons of color “silenced” them and thus
curtailed their free speech. I was told that the word “truth” is “offensive”
and would “alienate” members of the DePaul community. The idea that human
dignity is “God-given” was too “excluding.” Those who are excluded or
“marginalized” should be given a “third option” to express their feelings
because they may feel uncomfortable “speaking in a public forum or not
satisfied with walking away.”
A university, in other words, should make everyone feel as comfortable as
possible, perhaps a return to the Haight-Ashbury experience these professors
miss dearly––no disagreement, no argument, no reasoning, no thinking, no
responsibility. Their concept of “free speech” is meant to “protect those
without power.” This model of free speech, of course, is not free at all. It
is an ideological weapon which is regularly used to further the diversity
agenda. A model of “free speech” which involves controlling speech in order
to correct perceived injustices of the past is Orwellian to say the least.
After telling this story to
Frontpage Magazine Mr. Hahn was removed from the Free Speech and Expression
Task Force on the grounds that members of the Free Speech task force would be
afraid to speak if what they said might be published. Mr. Hahn wrote:
It was apparently inappropriate for me to hold
these individuals accountable for their ideas.
The November issue of New Voices reported that on
Sept 18, 02, The University of California at Berkeley’s student newspaper The
Daily Californian ran a political cartoon by award-winning cartoonist Darrin
Bell dealing with the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington.
The cartoon depicted two bearded men in robes and turbans standing beside a book
marked “flight manual.” They appear to have just materialized in hell, and
one excitedly proclaims, “We made it to paradise! Now we will meet Allah,
and be fed grapes, and be serviced by 70 virgin women, and…”
That same day over 120 protesters, who deemed the cartoon offensive to
Muslims, occupied the paper’s offices. They demanded representation on the
paper’s editorial board and refused to leave unless the paper agreed to print an
apology. The paper refused to apologize, noting in a statement that the
cartoon "falls within the realm of fair comment." Protesters had to be
arrested and removed by campus police. The next day, hackers posted a
false apology on the paper’s Web site.
student government senators, citing Bell’s cartoon, introduced a bill urging
the student government to make the rental rates it charges the newspaper for
office space contingent upon whether the publication takes actions to
“rectify its complete insensitivity to the needs of the campus.” The
student senate later dropped the bill’s rent provision, but passed a measure condemning
the paper for running the cartoon and calling for sensitivity training for its
At Northwestern, the student Objectivist Club held a bake sale for a
few hours before being told to shut down "or face the police,"
according to a report posted on the club's website.
The Northwestern student government put the group "under
investigation, which is chilling. ... They were on trial for having this,"
Mr. Halvorssen said. The group was found guilty of financial misconduct for not
having an approved cash box for a bake sale that netted a total profit of 39
The Objectivist Club was also found guilty of "ineffectual leadership,"
for not specifically stating that the bake sale was a political protest, and
the student government placed sanctions on the group.
Ruth Malhotra, a student at
Georgia Tech and chairman of the college Republicans has received rape and
death threats.One reason was she filed
against Georgia Tech for unconstitutional policies used to censor
activities such as those she and the College Republicans had undertaken. The
chief target of her lawyer, David French, was a speech code that prevented
"intolerant" activities, which Malhotra’s experience showed was
enforced selectively against conservative students.Peter Collier Making College
Comfortable For the Left (frontpagemag.com 3/31/04), in which he argues
that if he can't make left wingers uncomfortable they shouldn't be allowed to
make him uncomfortable either and lists what they have said and done at his
University that made him very uncomfortable.
Incoming freshman are warned by some Universities that hate speech won't
be tolerated etc.. This is another way of saying, watch what you say, if
we don't like it we'll call it hate speech and you won't graduate. Jay
Ellison, dean of students for undergraduates at The University of Chicago had a
“Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called
‘trigger warnings,’ we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might
prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual ‘safe
spaces’ where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with
In hundreds of campuses across the country, administrators encourage students to
report one another, or their professors, for speech protected by the First
Amendment, or even mere political disagreements. These
reports are reviewed by
Bias Response Teams.
Here is a video of Bernard
Goldberg speaking about media bias. If you see the light and become a
conservative reporter you become the enemy. There's a lot of fear about
speaking the truth.
union of the City University of New York known as the
Professional Staff Congress (PSC)
has a penchant for aiding and abetting terrorists and supporting political
causes with the member’s dues. Now determined to forever silence all
criticism, one of the prominent union big wigs has just filed a $2 million
lawsuit to shut down the one remaining gadfly, Dr. Sharad Karkhanis
Professor Emeritus from Kingsborough Community College who has been
tirelessly exposing the malfeasance of the PSC and the incompetence of its
leaders in his influential internet newsletter The Patriot Returns.
TPR has carefully documented
the PSC leadership’s pursuit of revolution instead of their jobs,
elaborating on their campaigns to devote more time and resources to future
global crusades. This includes such activities as mobilizing the membership
to protest the Republican Party at the Republican National Convention in New
York. Additionally, the PSC has passed a resolution sympathizing with Hugo
Chavez, sponsored a conference called Educators to Stop the War, calling for
teachers to develop an anti-war curriculum. The PSC leadership has organized
and funded New York City Labor Against the War and Labor for Palestine,
donated $5000 to support the legal defense of Lori Berenson, in prison for
helping Peruvian Marxist terrorists, and donated thousands to the defense of
Sami Al-Arian convicted of conspiracy to aid terrorist group Palestinian
Islamic Jihad. According to TPR, the PSC even hosts an “International
Committee” replete with a foreign policy spokesperson, who has issued public
statements against economic and military aid to Israel and a statement
condemning the war in Afghanistan, “joining in solidarity with the victims
of U.S. military power,” namely the Taliban.
approximately 1000 copies of the Berkeley? paper were stolen from their racks
following its publication of a paid advertisement by the libertarian Ayn Rand
Institute entitled “End States Who Sponsor Terrorism.” (The ad also ran
in the The New York Times and Washington Post.) The papers were replaced
with fliers that condemned the ad and Bell’s cartoon.
The Jewish Week
(7/25/03) wrote the following about the University of California at Berkeley.
Rachel Simon, the University of California at Berkeley, the epicenter of
vehement anti-Israel agitation, is a campus that makes apathy difficult for
a hurtful, hateful thing going on," said the junior English major.
"People who are in favor of the Palestinian movement are really
organizing. They're creating 'checkpoints' on campus, they call people
who consider themselves Zionists racists. They'll shout things like 'you
killed my sister.'
very uncomfortable being a Jewish student in Berkeley."
and their supporters are creating an atmosphere of intimidation on campuses
which frightens those who would speak out in support of Israel or who just want
to commemorate victims of anti-Jewish violence. In (2002) the Jewish
students of Boston University, held their annual commemoration of the victims
of the Holocaust but the pro-Palestinian agitators did not allow them to do so
in peace. They organized anti-Jewish demonstrations related to "Al Nakba" (The catastrophe of the birth of the modern state of Israel) and disrupted
the Jewish students' ceremony. A friend of mine said that she believes
these anti-Jewish demonstrations went on for an entire week and says they
created an atmosphere of intimidation of Jewish students. A Jewish
student there said she felt terrified by the hostile anti-Jewish environment on
Peace In The Middle East Rally was completely organized by the Hillel students,
mostly 18 and 19 years old. They spoke about their lives at SFSU and of
their support for Israel, and they sang of peace. They wore new Hillel
t-shirts that said "peace" in English, Hebrew and Arabic. A
Russian immigrant, in his new English, spoke of loving his new country, a haven
from anti-Semitism. A sophomore spoke about being here only one year, and
about the support and community she found at the Hillel House. Both spoke of
how hard it was to live as a Jew on this campus how isolating, how
terrifying. A surfer guy, spoke of his love of Jesus, and his support for
Israel, and a young freshman earnestly asked for a moment of silence, and all
the Jews stood still, listening as the shouted hate of the counter
demonstrators filled the air with abuse.
As soon as the community supporters left, the 50 students who
remained praying in a minyan for the traditional afternoon prayers,
or chatting, or cleaning up after the rally, talking -- were surrounded by a
large, angry crowd of Palestinians and their supporters. But they were
not calling for peace. They screamed at us to "go back to Russia"
and they screamed that they would kill us all, and other terrible things.
They surrounded the praying students, and the elderly women who are our elder
college participants, who survived the Shoah, who helped shape the Bay Area
peace movement, only to watch as the Hillel students were shoved against the
wall of the plaza by a threatening crowd...
As the counter demonstrators poured into the plaza, screaming at the Jews
to "Get out or we will kill you" and "Hitler did not finish the
job," I turned to the police and to every administrator I could find and
asked them to remove the counter demonstrators from the Plaza, to maintain the
separation of 100 feet that we had been promised. The police told me that they
had been told not to arrest anyone, and that if they did, "it would start
a riot." I told them that it already was a riot. Finally,
Fred Astren, the Northern California Hillel Director and I went up directly to
speak with Dean Saffold, who was watching from her post a flight above us. She
told us she would call in the SF police. But the police could do nothing
more than surround the Jewish students and community members who were now
trapped into a corner of the plaza, grouped under the flags of Israel, while an
angry, out of control mob, literally chanting for our deaths, surrounded us...
There was no safe way out of the Plaza. We had march back to the
Hillel House under armed SF police guard, and we had to have a police guard
remain outside Hillel. I was very proud of the students, who did not
flinch and who did not, even one time, resort to violence or anger in
retaliation. Several community members who were swept up in the situation
simply could not believe what they saw. One young student told me,
"I have read about anti-Semitism in books, but this is the first time I
have seen real anti-Semites, people who just hate me without knowing me, just
because I am a Jew."
Two years later in Nov. 2. 2004 a mob of Arab students at San Francisco State
University attacked a group of College Republicans on the San Francisco State
University campus during a "Turnout the Vote" event in front of the
campus student union building. (Jihad at San
Francisco State 11/8/04) 300
Palestinian, Arab, Muslim and radical leftist students surrounding the
club’s table being held back by 13 San Francisco State police
officers. The police officers were forced to surround the CR’s table both in
front and in back in order to protect the conservative students’ safety.
According to the article:
The General Union of Palestinian Students (GUPS) at S.F.State was staging this noisy
demonstration on Wednesday as a follow-up to their Monday afternoon attack on
the conservative students by calling for the complete removal of the Republican
Club from the SFSU campus. Flyers were even distributed all over campus that
bore inscriptions such as “Don’t Let the College Republicans Commit Racism and
Bigotry Against Arab Women.”
Kaplan wrote that the president of the college Republicans wrote:
“We don’t even deal with the Israel/Palestinian dispute that much in
our discussions and materials, We don’t even have any Jewish members as
far as I know, although we do promote a conservative political agenda.” Wray
also told me how a female member of the College Republicans received a threat
during the demonstration. “Watch what happens when the police aren’t around,
b---h!” he said someone menaced...Another member of the SFSU College
Republicans who was present at the demonstrations also told me he has received
death threats since the incident and wished to remain anonymous out of fear.
The head of the College Republicans at the University of California at Irvine
fears for her life because of death threats from Muslims following a decision
by the College Republicans to host a panel discussion about Islamic extremism
in which one of the sponsors of the event planned to unveil the cartoons of
Muhammad. (The Global Intifada, frontpagemag.com 3/10/05)
The New Anti-Semitism was a book I had to write. My people--western
intellectuals and academics, progressives--the "good" people--had
betrayed both the Jews and the truth. One could no longer reason with them. It was
as if they had been brainwashed. I am a psychologist. I do not say this lightly.
My book came out in the summer of 2003. Few feminists,
few liberals, and no leftists congratulated me on my truth-telling. On the
contrary, many stopped talking to me. The places that have reviewed nearly
every one of my eleven other books (often front page and positive reviews) did
not review it. I was not interviewed in the usual places. Reporters who wanted
to interview me were stopped at higher levels. In the fall of 2003, I
interested one such reporter in doing a story about the anti-Israel bias on
North American campuses. She too was stopped at higher levels.
In my opinion, American campuses have bred a new and
diabolical McCarthyism. Academics now have the right to teach brazen lies, and
they expect to be protected in the name of "free speech." Worse, when
an academic tries to teach the truth--the truth-- about Israel, or about
America, or about Jews, they will be ostracized, bullied, demonized, and
accused (by the new McCarthyites) of leading a McCarthyite witch-hunt against
left wing freedom of expression. This, in my view, is really the censorship of
any view that does not conform to a left-wing and anti-American view.
One way Muslims silence free speech is with
money.Worldnetdaily reported in
October (10/25/06) that the Center for Muslim Christian Understanding at the
University of Georgetown ( got $20 million dollars from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin
Talal.Prior to this donation, in order
to keep Muslim money flowing in, probably, Christian evangelical groups leaders
were told to leave the campus and not list Georgetown University as a site for
operations in the future.Intervarsity
Christian Fellowship and other Christian evangelical groups was banned (article in
irony of liberals’ opposition to free speech and expression hasn’t escaped
Tammy Bruce, a lesbian and former chairman of the Los Angeles chapter of the National
Organization of Women. In her outstanding book, The New Thought Police, Bruce
writes, “The Left implements speech and mind control because they know they
cannot truly persuade on the issues; silencing the opposition becomes their
One group that they managed to silence is
Repent America, a Philadelphia based Christian Ministry that evangelized at the
Gay Games.According to Worldnetdaily,
Police had warned the evangelists they would be arrested if caught
distributing literature outside of certain designated "free-speech
Why is a zone
free for one point of view and not the other?One possible answer is the police don’t want trouble and they think that
the Gays will violently attack the Christians.In a just and free society anyone who used violence would be arrested
not the people who speak what they believe to be the truth.The following is a paraphrased excerpt from
an article that appeared in (Cops Use Handcuffs to Choke Free Speech
7/4/07) about an incident in which an 18-wheeler tried to run over John Holman,
one of his fellow pro-life advocates. Holman jumped out of the way to avoid the
truck and was arrested for criminal trespass after he landed on a strip of
property the clinic claims to own, according to McTernan. They submitted a
video of the incident to authorities, and the charges were later dropped.Pro-life advocate, Ed Snell, was charged
with disorderly conduct after attempting to hand tracts to pregnant women who
were entering the clinic. The charges were later dropped."Ed was injured during the
arrest," McTernan said. "They ratcheted the cuffs on him real tight.
He took pictures after the arrest and you could see the marks and swelling
where they had cuffed him. He told them they were tight and they refused to do
anything.""The behavior of
the York city police and the DA office is frightening," McTernan told WND.
"In all of my travels, and talking to police as a chaplain, I have never
seen such disrespect for the law and such patronizing. They're pursuing
criminal prosecution on someone they know is innocent – in [Ferguson's] case,
because her beliefs are pro-life."
Two teenagers who had been given city
permission to write their messages protesting Democratic presidential nominee
Senator Barack Obama's support for aborition on public sidewalks during the
Democratic National Convention were shoved to the sidewalk cuffed and arrested
for doing that. One of them was lifted off the grounds with her arms which
were handcuffed behind her (wnd
8/29/2008). One wonders if the police were Obama supporters.
In addition to free speech zones that limit free speech to
certain locations, there are safe spaces in which free speech is curtailed.
In fact even
hand motions are curtailed.
Safe spaces are not safe if you have an opinion not deemed "safe".
Pro Trump students found that out what they were
booted by a "safe space" coffee shop.
a student responded to the
annual pro-homosexual 'Day of Silence,' which was being heavily promoted on his
high school campus, by wearing a T-shirt which expressed his religious
viewpoint that homosexuality was 'shameful.'
"Instead of allowing a differing viewpoint, school officials
pulled aside Harper, demanding that he change his expression or face
suspension. An assistant principal even suggested to Harper that he needed to
leave his faith in the car while at school, in order not to offend homosexual
students," according to McReynolds.
"Such a result clearly undermines basic Constitutional
protections," including free expression and religion, he noted.
"Incredibly, the federal courts in California upheld the school's
actions. In one of the most sweeping, speech-restricting opinions in recent
memory, Judge Reinhard of the Ninth Circuit baldly asserted that Harper's First
Amendment rights – undeniably strong under Tinker and other Supreme Court
precedents – were trumped by the need to protect homosexual students from an
opposing viewpoint. …"
"Not surprisingly, Judge Reinhardt's decision cited California's
''hate violence' educational statute, Cal. Educ. Code §§ 201, 220, et seq. as
justification for stifling a politically incorrect viewpoint – even though
there were no allegations of violence against Harper.
Elshinnawy, 75, and grandmother of three, was holding a sign: "Truth is
hate to those who hate the truth," before she was hauled off by police
officers. ((wnd.com 4/26/07).
1592 is a discriminatory measure that criminalizes thoughts, feelings, and
beliefs [and] has the potential of interfering with religious liberty and
freedom of speech," according to a white paper
submitted by Glen Lavy, of the Alliance Defense
Jacobs and Kimberly Potter observed in Hate Crimes, Criminal Law, and Identity
Politics, 'It would appear that the only additional purpose [for enhancing
punishment of bias crimes] is to provide extra punishment based on the
offender's politically incorrect opinions and viewpoints,'" said Lavy.
has been endorsed by majority Democrats on the committee, and already has 137
sponsors in the full House, making it possible it could be voted on in a matter
of days or weeks.
Laws have been passed in England that
pressure people to promote homosexuality. According to the
Daily Mail 10/24/07
Vincent and Pauline Matherick will this week have their
latest foster son taken away because they have refused to sign new sexual
equality regulations. To do so, they claim, would force them to
promote homosexuality and go against their Christian faith... Earlier
this year, Somerset County Council's social services department asked them
to sign a contract to implement Labour's new Sexual Orientation Regulations,
part of the Equality Act 2006, which make discrimination on the grounds of
Officials told the couple that under the regulations they would be required
to discuss same-sex relationships with children as young as 11 and tell them
that gay partnerships were just as acceptable as heterosexual marriages.
They could also be required to take teenagers to gay association meetings...
The Mathericks' case comes at a time when there is a
chronic shortage of foster parents, who work on a voluntary basis.
An extra 8,000 are needed to plug the gaps in the service.
Deming an associate professor of geology and geophysics at the University of
Oklahoma wrote an article in Frontpagemag.com
1/30/2004) West Side story is a great movie that attempts to show the
folly and tragic consequences of racism. Silencing that is silencing the
message of West Side Story. Yet the school approved a show called
"The Vagina Monologues" that stereotyped men and Christians in
a negative way since that is in line of the message they wish to indoctrinate
students with. There was no concern that the material of the show might
be inappropriate to minors even though in it a woman seduces a younger girl.
An article in
the Washington Times ("Tolerant Death Threats From the Academic Left"
1/5/04) tells the story of Tim Bueler, the founder of Rancho Cotate High
School's Conservative Club, who said he had received threats from other
students after writing an article for the club newsletter calling for a
crackdown on illegal immigration.
a telephone interview, Tim said he's been threatened at least three times by
Hispanic students who call him "white boy" and "racist."
One boy said he was going to "find someone" to beat up Tim.
two of those instances, Tim said two faculty members stood by and did nothing
to help him. Most recently, Tim said, he was confronted by a dozen Hispanic
boys, who blocked him from walking down the hallway.
said, 'You're a racist,' and I said, 'Are you guys going to let me
through?'" Tim said. "So I ducked into a classroom and told the
teacher what was happening, and said, 'Can you help me?' And she said, 'No. Get
out of here.'"
he said he was eating lunch in a classroom when about seven Hispanic students
surrounded him. Worried for Tim's safety, his father, Dennis Bueler, said he
asked for help from a teacher who was also in the room.
teacher told him, 'When you say things like that, you've got to expect that
things like this are going to happen. Why don't you go out the back
door?'" Mr. Bueler said in recounting the incident.
said teachers have also joined in the name-calling. One called Tim a Nazi,
while another described the club as "a bunch of bigots."
Schools in California, Colorado, and Arizona have banned the display of American
flags and patriotic clothing. School administrators claim that the
bans were put into effect to ease tensions between Hispanic and non-Hispanic
students during the immigration protests of March 2006 (issued a statement calling Sinclair's plan an
"abuse of the public trust." During an appearance on
Fox News’s “Dayside with Linda Vester,” Clanton explained that plans were
underway to protest Sinclair stations and boycott their advertisers.
MoveOn.org founder Wes Boyd said, “If they do air a partisan film, we'll
challenge the FCC and the licenses of the local stations that broadcast the
WorldnetDaily 10/13/04 (Stolen Honor Producer Predicts Kerry Apology):
FCC has received a letter from 18 Democratic senators urging an investigation
into Sinclair's decision, and the Democratic National Committee filed a
complaint with the Federal Election Commission, arguing Sinclair's broadcast
would be an illegal contribution to President Bush's campaign.
They filed no
such complaint about Michael Moore's anti-Bush film. According to
called the effort to stop airing of the film "out and out thuggery."
Kerry spokesman Chad Clanton issued a veiled threat to Sinclair on the Fox News
program "Dayside with Linda Vester."
think they are going to regret doing this, and they had better hope we don't
win," Clanton said...
has nothing but thugs out there," he said. "They can threaten, they
can coerce, they can cajole -- Can you imagine 18 senators demanding censorship
and getting away with it? If a single Republican anywhere attempted to do that,
the press would be apoplectic."
of the outrageous charges the Kerry campaign used to try and silence the voices
of the vets in Stolen Honor was that their documentary was an illegal campaign
contribution. If they had succeeded in convincing the courts to enforce
this charge than anyone who made a statement critical of a candidate could be
charged with making an illegal campaign contribution. Other tactics used
included (worldnetdaily 10/20/04, Wall Street Journal 10/23/04):
Sinclair broadcasting group, who the Kerry campaign were afraid would air the
documentary were sent a letter from Alan Hevesi, the Democrat comptroller of
New York on behalf of a retirement fund that holds 256,600 shares of the
broadcast company, warning the controversy could damage the investment.
critics suggest that Sinclair management is more interested in advancing its
partisan political views than in protecting shareholder value. They say Sinclair's
partisan agenda also risks alienating viewers, advertisers and
2) A Democratic
party donor, William S. Lerach, sent a letter to the news company calling the
broadcast plan "reckless," alleging insider trading by officers and
threatening a shareholder lawsuit. Media Matters, a liberal media
agitprop outfit, announced it was underwriting another shareholder suit and
demanded that Sinclair provide equal time to those with opposing views even
though the Kerry campaign had declined Sinclair's invitation to respond on air
and even though the federal "equal time" requirement vanished along
with the Fairness Docrine in the 1980s..
An article in
the Wall Street Journal (Sinclair and Watergate 10/23/04) discussed the
dangerous precedent set by the threats of shareholder lawsuits made by
the Democrats to silence the veterans.
astonishing here is that this legal-political double team has gone on with
barely a whimper of protest from the rest of the media. In fact, it is being
celebrated as a defeat for all of those right-wing scoundrels who support
President Bush. We understand that most of the press corps is liberal and
desperately wants Mr. Kerry to win. Editors and producers may let that distort
their coverage, but they usually aren't so blinded by partisanship that they
can't see their own self-interest.
that this trial lawyer-government precedent has been set, who's to stop it if
it next turns, as eventually it will, on the New York Times, or CBS? One of the
most important protections that a free press has is independent corporate
ownership, but what if the Nixon Administration had unleashed its lawyer
friends and government pension funds on the Times Company when it was
publishing the Pentagon Papers, or the Washington Post when it was digging into
Watergate? If the standard now is that stirring controversy is a fraud against
shareholders because it may cost ad revenue, a lot more media owners than
Sinclair are going to become political targets.
October 19, 2004, a movie theater in Jenkintown Pennsylvania, a suburban
borough just north of Philadelphia with a population of about 4500, was
scheduled to show the documentary Stolen Honor. This movie features the
testimony of Vietnam POW’s critical of John Kerry. However, after receiving threats of "civil
disobedience" (i.e. destruction of property and possible physical
intimidation), the owner of the theater canceled the showing. Eight days later,
another presentation of "Stolen Honor" scheduled in the Philadelphia
suburb of Blue Bell, PA. after the owner of the conference center received
later, another presentation of "Stolen Honor" scheduled in the
Philadelphia suburb of Blue Bell, PA. was cancelled after the owner of
the conference center received anonymous complaints. (Suppressing
Speech in an Election Year, Frontpagemag.com 11/1/04)
Christopher Ruddy, editor of Newsmax.com wrote how Newsmax then stepped
up to the plate. (Ruddy Analysis, Why Bush Won,
Though under incredible pressure from
every angle, from everything the Kerry campaign could throw at it,
Sinclair did air a few minutes of the 43-minute documentary as part of a
program. But the American public was deprived of most of the information
in the documentary.
At that point NewsMax stepped into the
breach. We decided that the public's right to know overrode the
intimidation tactics of the P.C. thought police.
In the end, NewsMax decided to air
"Stolen Honor." Last weekend, we aired the documentary several dozen
times across the nation, including 10 showings on PAX-TV alone. PAX
reaches almost 100 million American homes. We estimate that more than 5
million Americans saw "Stolen Honor."
"The Path to
9/11' was bwas a five and a half hour, two-night mini-series that aired
on ABC on the fifth anniversary of the attacks which depicted the real
history that connects the first WTC attack in 1993 and 9/11. Just
days before it aired the film was severely edited by Disney after
personal demands from Bill Clinton and members of his administration and
several senators and congressmen. The film, which was intended to be
rebroadcast every 9/11, has never been shown again and even the DVD has
not been released. John Zeigler
directed a documentary called
'The Path to 9/11’. (Visit the film's web site at
think that we should all learn a lot from this sad episode. Above
all else, we learned that when three forces that ought to be
unbeatable (free speech, the truth and the legacy of 9/11) go head
to head against blatant partisanship and news media/Hollywood bias,
that, unfortunately, the side of good gets run over by a Mack truck.
John Zeigler, a radio talk show host,
was fired for things he said on the air. He wrote a book called The
Death of Free Speech about his experiences and those of others who have
found themselves the target of self appointed "thought police".
Hertoghe, a reporter for the daily La Croix, wrote a book "La Guerre a
Outrances" about French reporting about the American war with Iraq and
concluded that French journalists were so biased that "readers can't
understand why the Americans won the war." According to the New York
So caught up were the reporters in the
wave of opposition to the war that "as soon as there were a couple of
wounded or dead, they were making comparisons to Vietnam and
French press unaminously ignored his book except for one small journal
that's given out free on the Paris Metro. There was one other French
paper that did not ignore his book which was Hertoghe's own paper tha
tfired him claiming that he'd damaged the paper's reputation.
consequence of left wing intellectual tyranny is the increase in power
of the extreme right wing as people react to it. Roger Cohen in an
article titled "Hitler Apologist Wins German Honor, and a Storm Breaks
Out" (New York Times June 21, 2000) wrote that:
In Germany and France, a conservative
reaction is evident against what the French call "the angelic left,"
which is accused of imposing a stifling political correctness on debate
and of backing a multicultural tide that will sweep away the European
addition Mr. Cohen writes that Mr. Haider has made a lot of headway in
Austria precisely by questioning the "intellectual tyranny" of the left.
A 74 year old woman
convicted of hate speech against Muslims in 2013 for a sign that
implied that Muslims today threaten Europe just as they did in 1683 with
the siege of Vienna.
The state prosecutor at Frank’s trial argued
that the woman's statement provoked a
“hostile attitude” towards all Muslims/Turks
and incited “hate.” Frank accordingly
satisfied the elements of
Section 130 of the German Criminal Code
against “Incitement to Hatred.” Among other
provisions, this section in its first
paragraph makes liable anyone who “in a
manner capable of disturbing the public
peace… incites hatred against segments of
Tammy Bruce, who has served in a leadership position at NOW, wrote a
The New Thought Police: Inside the Left's Assault on Free Speech and
Free Minds. She decries NOW as a foot soldier in the war against
free speech. "Ironically," writes Ms. Bruce, "it is the progressives
who, while seemingly committed to freedom of expression, attempt to
exact severe social punishments on anyone who espouses an idea or
opinion that challenges their status quo. After writing an OpEd
defending free speech and criticizing the left Tammy Bruce no longer
exists as far as the mainstream media is concerned. Tammy said:
I've found out what it's like trying to
get your message out when you are on the wrong side of an issue.
Michael Meyers a black columnist for the New York Post (7/15/02) wrote a
column about how he was ousted from the left wing New York Civil
Liberties Union (NYCLU). He wrote:
The "why" is simple: I insisted on
speaking my mind, which offended the "free speech" mavens. So I got
clobbered by insiders in a sneak contested election that fraught with
suppressed ballots and election irregularities...
The final straw...I recorded my dissent
to Lieberman's appointment as Siegel's successor, and accused the
liberals of racism for having passed over a better suited, more
articulate and smarter black woman candidate.
That charge of racism bristled, just
like my earlier insinuation that they weren't practicing what they
preach to others with respect to diversity -- since all of its officers
“What the Department of Homeland Security became under Janet Napolitano
is this monstrous surveillance and very intimidating group,”
said Rutherford Institute President John Whitehead, a constitutional
attorney for the past 40 years and author of “A Government of Wolves:
The Emerging American Police State.”
“I think originally there were
some good intentions with the Department of Homeland Security, but what
happened under President Obama is that it accelerated rapidly,”
Whitehead told WND. “I criticized George Bush’s policies. Under
President Obama, we’re zooming.”
Whitehead said the Napolitano legacy of reducing freedom is evident
across the board, starting in early 2009 when the department issued a
report listing returning soldiers as one of the greatest threats to
“Another program Napolitano set up is Operation Vigilant Eagle, which
is a surveillance system done on all returning veterans from overseas,
where they watch Facebook posts, text messages, emails of returning
veterans to see if they’re going to be disgruntled,” Whitehead said.
“There are quite a few disgruntled veterans. In fact, one that we helped
just filed a major lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security.”
“They arrived one day at his door, arrested him and actually put him
in a mental institution for his Facebook posts criticizing the
government. We got him out and then we sued the government,” Whitehead
Another outrage, according to Whitehead, is the harassment of
Americans living on or somewhat near our national borders with Mexico
and Canada. He said law-abiding citizens have been forced to hand over
their laptops while the government officials download the information.
The Rutherford Institute has also received reports of Americans being
removed from their cars and searched without probable cause.
These allegations, and criticism of drone use near the borders, come
as Congress hotly debate immigration reform legislation. Whitehead said
the problems he’s talking about have nothing to do with border security.
“The people coming over from Mexico are not coming over at
checkpoints. Incredibly stupid, and that’s where a lot of emphasis has
been placed,” Whitehead said. “Obviously, they’re not focused in the
right direction. They put drones on the border but the drones obviously
have not been very effective. In fact, what we found our about those
drones now, on the Canadian border, turned the drones in. They’re flying
inland, photographing and watching what American citizens are doing and
surveillance on American towns.”
Whitehead said that sort of activity will only get more common and
more intrusive until the American people stand up and refuse to accept
what he considers a major infringement on our constitutional liberties.
“Drones are coming in 2015. They’re going to be awesome. They’ll have
scanning devices, rubber bullets, sound cannons. They can look through
the walls of your home,” Whitehead said. “They’re just going to bypass
the Fourth Amendment, and they already are doing that.”
Rutherford Institute President John Whitehead, a constitutional attorney
for the past 40 years and author of “A Government of Wolves: The
Emerging American Police State”
spoke about the Department of Homeland Security.
Whitehead said the Napolitano legacy of reducing freedom is evident
across the board, starting in early 2009 when the department issued a
report listing returning soldiers as one of the greatest threats to
“Another program Napolitano set up is Operation Vigilant Eagle, which is
a surveillance system done on all returning veterans from overseas,
where they watch Facebook posts, text messages, emails of returning
veterans to see if they’re going to be disgruntled,” Whitehead said.
“There are quite a few disgruntled veterans. In fact, one that we helped
just filed a major lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security.”
“They arrived one day at his door, arrested him and actually put him in
a mental institution for his Facebook posts criticizing the government.
We got him out and then we sued the government,” Whitehead said.
Another outrage, according to Whitehead, is the harassment of Americans
living on or somewhat near our national borders with Mexico and Canada.
He said law-abiding citizens have been forced to hand over their laptops
while the government officials download the information. The Rutherford
Institute has also received reports of Americans being removed from
their cars and searched without probable cause.
These allegations, and criticism of drone use near the borders, come as
Congress hotly debate immigration reform legislation. Whitehead said the
problems he’s talking about have nothing to do with border security.
“The people coming over from Mexico are not coming over at checkpoints.
Incredibly stupid, and that’s where a lot of emphasis has been placed,”
Whitehead said. “Obviously, they’re not focused in the right direction.
They put drones on the border but the drones obviously have not been
very effective. In fact, what we found our about those drones now, on
the Canadian border, turned the drones in. They’re flying inland,
photographing and watching what American citizens are doing and
surveillance on American towns.”..
“Drones are coming in 2015. They’re going to be awesome. They’ll
have scanning devices, rubber bullets, sound cannons. They can look
through the walls of your home,” Whitehead said. “They’re just going to
bypass the Fourth Amendment, and they already are doing that.”
There is widespread suppression of free speech in Muslim countries.
Jamal Kashoggi the editor of Riyadh's Al Watan newspaper was fired in
May 2003 because he denounced religious intolerance and extremism in his
newspaper.(New York Post 6/12/2003)
posted pages on this web site with more information about Islam:
meaning the DVD would be
out.The Los Angeles
Times carried an informative story which you can read Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval had introduced a worldnetdaily The San Francisco government's
proposed resolution condemning Savage is just the latest in a major,
multifaceted – and largely unreported – effort both in and out of government to
transform American talk radio. The entire campaign, complete with details of
battles against Rush Limbaugh, Savage and other top talkers, is revealed
in-depth in WND's monthly Whistleblower magazine, titled