Free speech to address social problems? Is that important? Or should we be muzzled because it hurts someone ‘widdle feewlings’?
New PC legislation is being rolled out to pacify the eternal victimhood of a group who has cornered the market on the Left’s favorite strategy: pretend to be a victim and punish your rivals.
First let’s look at what it MEANS that free speech is being opposed:
Free speech is precious to us. It is the protection that lets us speak up when a Danish Cartoonist draws a picture of Mohammed that makes the world go crazy. (Freedom of the press would have been a good idea, too, but almost everyone was afraid to run that picture.)
Free speech is especially important in their addressing of IDEAS. Some IDEAS, for example, once attached themselves to Christianity, they were not intrinsic to Christian belief, and needed correcting. The Protestant Reformation and the following centuries led to many of Christianity’s core assumptions being challenged.
Some remained. Some were refined and made stronger and more clear. Others (indulgences, for instance) were jettisoned entirely. The faithful are actually challenged to question and see whether they have true teachers or false ones. So, challenging IDEAS and attacking people are obviously NOT the same thing.
(Even if it sometimes FEELS that way to the one holding those ideas. Isn’t that right, college snowflakes?)
Islam, however, does not WANT to be put through this questioning process. It wants to be exempt from the very process that refines and improves it. That ‘civilizes’ it.
Its spokesmen insist that it is above criticism either from within or without. And even more reasonable Muslims who embrace Western, Liberal freedoms, and WANT Islam to go through this refining process Tarek Fatah, for instance, are savagely attacked for their ‘anti-Muslim’ views.
Should Mr. Fatah (he lives in Canada) be able to warn us about situations like these, for instance:
We celebrate freedom of worship, but when that freedom makes forays into civil society, should we have something to say about it? You betcha.
Should we be scolded into silence about the content of a video like this one, or should it lead to a conversation about the true nature of Sharia and whether it’s compatible with our culture, or is it a cancer as dangerous as Nazism that we want to excise and oppose entirely?
(The clip, if it gets taken down, has a Muslim cleric of some sort explaining to his audience that according to Shariah, when men flood into a country, and conquer it, it is only natural that they get the locals as booty. Slaves. If you don’t need the slaves, you will have to set up markets to SELL those slaves.)
Should concerned westerners be allowed to discuss this? To object to it? If not, WHY not? The burden is on the censors to say WHY we should not be permitted an opinion on this.
When we see the word ‘Islamophobia’, according to someone who was there when the term was coined, what we’re really seing is this:
Islamophobia is a trumped-up term designed to further an agenda, as indicated by Abdur-Rahman Muhammad, a former member of the International Institute for Islamic Thought, who was there at the inception of the term:
This loathsome term is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics. Jihadwatch
Canada has already buckled to the PC pressures on a lot of fronts. They don’t have any absolute protections of free speech that would compare to the First Amendment. And so, the government is free to chip away at what they are and are not allowed to say.
That’s what makes their latest proposed legislation disturbing. It describes Islam as persecuted, and sets the table for it becoming a special victim group exempt from any critical speech.
The Canadian Parliament has passed an anti-Islamophobia motion on October 26, amid increasing attacks on mosques and Muslim communities in the country and throughout the world. The motion has received almost no attention from Canadian media outlets, to the dismay of the Muslim community living in the country.
According to reports, it took a while for the parliament to adopt the motion, which was brought up after 70,000 Canadian citizens signed an online petition condemning Islamophobia. The petition was launched on June 8, 2016 and was closed for signature on October 6, 2016.
“We, the undersigned, Citizens and residents of Canada, call upon the House of Commons to join us in recognizing that extremist individuals do not represent the religion of Islam, and in condemning all forms of Islamophobia” the petition read.
However, when the motion was brought to the parliament, Conservative Members of the Parliament prevented unanimous consent….
Liberal MP from Mississauga Centre Omar Algabra called Conservative attitude ‘troubling,’ saying that the motion was a non-partisan, positive and symbolic one. —DailySabah
The only upside in this would be to watch a Canadian judge’s head begin to smoke when presented a case where a homosexual and a Muslim disagree over who has the stronger claim to victim status, and therefore protection under law.