By Robert Spencer
Nude studies have been part of Western art from time immemorial, and have no intrinsic or inherent connection with lewdness or pornography. But the example of Michelangelo and everyone else goes out the window when it comes to appeasing Muslims. The principle is absolute: in Muslim countries, non-Muslims must conform their behavior to Islamic sensibilities. In non-Muslim countries, non-Muslims must conform their behavior to Islamic sensibilities.
In the invitation to the private art show the project sounded really good. It sounded as if something good was being done for artists. Marzahn-Hellersdorf Adult Education Centre is giving artists the opportunity to present their works to a wide public on the floors of the institution. Creatives are brought together with citizens and thus exposed to criticism much more directly than in a commercial gallery. This is how the municipality describes its art exhibition space programme. “Imaginative & colourful paintings and drawings” is the name of the current exhibition of the Berlin artist Susanne Schüffel.The show was supposed to open with a celebration on Friday evening. But the private show was not held; the artist had cancelled. She was allowed to show only some of her pictures. Six nude pictures had been removed a few days before. She is raging….
By DAVID SOLWAY
….Thus, such brawny Muslim organizations and their minions, initiating predatory defamation suits, are able to flaunt their thugismo with almost total impunity. The same applies to Muslims acting as individuals, whether lawyers, imams or students, amplifying the nuisance factor until it reaches untenable proportions. A human rights suit filed against publisher and journalist Ezra Levant by Calgary imam Syed Soharwardy for reprinting the Danish cartoons in his newspaper, The Western Standard, cost Levant 900 days of litigation, over $100,000 — and The Western Standard. This despite the fact that Soharwardy ultimately withdrew his complaint.
Similarly, a suit lodged by one Mohamed Elmasry, an adjunct professor at the University of Waterloo and president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, against Canada’s largest weekly, MacLean’s magazine, for publishing a book excerpt by Mark Steyn about the Islamic threat to the West, led to the predictable result. The suit cost the magazine $2 million despite an eventual acquittal. Nonetheless, it was mission accomplished for the Islamic machine: MacLean’s now steers clear of sensitive Islamic subjects. (See Levant’s Shakedown for an account of these travesties of justice.) Under the peculiar laws governing the status of Canada’s human rights commissions, neither of the plaintiffs had to cough up a cent, enjoying a free ride on the taxpayer’s dime.
Civil suits are adjudicated differently, but those without deep pockets — that is, most of us — have little incentive and less chance of carrying on the fight indefinitely against obscenely wealthy Islamic organizations or individual Muslims who go proxy for them. They are very sure of themselves, strutting about the halls of power and justice like milites gloriosi in pinstripes. Indeed, the legal profession is brindled with Muslim lawyers who know the law intimately and are comfortable deploying it against non-Muslims who offend them, offering their services to their co-religionist clients at a reduced rate or even pro bono. In consequence, the verdict is largely predetermined: win or lose, the defendant’s life is almost always ruined. In my friend’s case, the plaintiff demanded exorbitant punitive damages and legal fees, as well as an over-the-top, reputation-killing retraction. The option of rejecting so outrageous a settlement and pursuing the matter in court is both too costly and too risky for the defendant, since the juridical apparatus in this country is weighted against the dispensation of elementary justice. Welcome to the Great White North.
“Suing over the back-and-forth of public discourse,” Steyn writes, “turns the entire citizenry into an enfeebled child.…To litigate every offence is to give a not especially distinguished judiciary the power to micro-regulate social relations.” Steyn knows whereof he speaks for he is once again being sued, not by a Muslim for a change, but by climate “warm-monger” and false Nobel laureate Michael Mann. Levant is also back in court, being sued by a former plaintiff in the MacLean’s burlesque, one Khurrum Awan, who is not a putative climate specialist but an actual Muslim. At least he is sticking to the standard plot line. Levant had called Awan “a liar,” an epithet corroborated by the fact that Awan, as Steyn comments, had been shown in the original proceeding to have “been guilty of telling an untruth about one of the central facts in the case.” Awan complained that as a result of Levant’s ostensible slur, he has been “shunned by his friends.” This palpably nonsensical, self-pitying and surely non-justiciable bleat may cost Levant another $100,000 in Canada’s superannuated justice system. “This is called lawfare,” Levant explains on his blog. “Muslim extremists who enjoy Canada’s free speech for themselves, seek to take it away from their Canadian critics. Using our own laws.” Once again, mission accomplished. Awan had boasted after the original trial: “We attained our strategic objective — to increase the cost of publishing anti-Islamic material.”….
by EDWARD CLINE
….In its quest to criminalize speech that’s critical of all Islam-related topics, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)* endorsed the formation of a new Advisory Media Committee to address “Islamophobia.”
This past September, the OIC held “The First International Conference on Islamophobia: Law & Media.” The conference endorsed numerous recommendations which arose from prior workshops on Islamophobia from media, legal and political perspectives. A main conclusion was the consensus to institutionalize the conference and create an Advisory Media Committee to meet under the newly established OIC Media Forum based in Istanbul Turkey.
Note that the conference was not held to discuss the criminalization of “Judeophobia” or “Christophobia” or even “Atheistiophobia.”
Supposedly, the purpose of the conference was to support an OIC campaign to “correct the image of Islam and Muslims in Europe and North America.” By this, it means to whitewash the intolerant, violent and discriminatory aspects of Islam and Islamists. The OIC has launched a campaign to provide disinformation to the public, delinking all Islam from these undesirable traits and attacks all who insist on these truths, as bigots, racists and Islamophobes….
Its present goal is the international criminalization of all speech that “defames” Islam, which the OIC defines as anything that sheds a negative light on Islam or Muslims, even when it’s true (wrote Clare Lopez in American Thinker in 2011).
Its target is the West and one of its tactics is to accuse those who criticize Islam or its various interpretations as “Islamophobic.” It is attempting to pass the equivalent of Islamic blasphemy codes in the West, using accusations of bigotry to silence anyone who speaks the truth about Islamic terrorism or Islamic persecution of religious minorities.
The OIC wants enforceable laws passed in Western nations that complement its wish to criminalize speech regarding Islam. In practice, this would mean that only Islamic clerics and spokesmen would be allowed to say anything about Islam. And Muslims, treated as “victimized” minorities in those nations, would be free to persecute, murder, rape, and terrorize Jews, Christians, atheists and other non-Muslims with impunity and indemnity everywhere and any time they wished. As they do now.
Can such Orwellian laws be passed in this country? The existence of “hate speech” and “hate crime” judicial decisions in American courts has prepared the ground for them here. It was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who invited OIC members to a conference in Washington to discuss how American law can conform to U.N. Resolution 16/18 and the OIC agenda. What difference can it make to her if Americans are gagged and threatened with prosecution for speaking out against Islam or drawing to the public’s attention the gruesome facts of Islam in practice and in action?
Just remember, and to paraphrase that Orwellian warning: “Hate speech” is ”hate crime.” Just ask Audrey Hudson, the journalist whose home was raided by Federal and Maryland state law enforcement in search of evidence of her own “hate crime.”
And so began Hudson’s nightmare – held captive by armed agents of the U.S. Coast Guard, Maryland State Police and the Department of Homeland Security as they staged a pre-dawn raid in search of unregistered firearms and a “potato gun.”
“I think they found a great way to get into my house and get a hold of my confidential notes and go through every other file in my office.” – Audrey Hudson, journalist
But instead of taking the potato gun, agents seized unrelated government documents and notes from the former Washington Times journalist.
Agents took Hudson’s records during a search for guns and related items owned by her husband, a civilian Coast Guard employee. They also confiscated her legally registered firearms, according to court documents obtained by The Associated Press.
The lesson here is that a search warrant no longer is a protection against the depredations of any government agency that has the power to expropriate one’s property, or to intimidate anyone who has been critical of government policies, gaffes, failures and tyrannical behavior. Search warrants are now just a pretext to violate one’s person and one’s rights.
The barbarians and totalitarians inside and outside our borders are ready to ambush the First Amendment and render us helpless against their onslaught.
Filed under: Existential threats, Freedom of Speech, Islam, Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), Sharia Law | Tagged: Evil, freedom of speech, Islam, Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), sharia law | Comments Off
By Bruce Bawer
….Many European countries have been prosecuting anti-Islamic hate speech for some time now. But the ECTR’s report makes it clear that a number of highly placed people on the continent aren’t satisfied with the degree to which speech has already been stifled. (I’m not surprised at the participation of former Swedish PM Göran Persson in this perfidious project, but I didn’t expect to see former Spanish PM José María Aznar, whom I have previously admired, on board.) They’re determined to utterly eradicate unauthorized ideas from what they still plainly regard – despite the dismal health of several European economies, the floundering of the euro, and widespread doubts about the long-term sustainability of the union itself – as a European utopia in the making. Underlying this breathtakingly mischievous and arrogant enterprise, it would appear, is the conviction that if only you pass enough laws forbidding enough things, you can transform human nature itself: the report describes itself as seeking to “eliminat[e] racism, colour bias, ethnic discrimination, religious intolerance, totalitarian ideologies, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, anti-feminism and homophobia.” Not curb, mind you – eliminate. Of course, the only way to eliminate all those things is to eliminate human beings themselves. It was governmental goals on this screwy scale that steered Europe, in the previous century, into unspeakable totalitarian torment. You’d think European politicians would’ve learned – learned some humility, in any event, if not some respect for individual freedom. But no – the same imperial arrogance and blindness persists. Even as they think (or, at least, claim) that they’re formulating a way to protect Europe from totalitarianism, they’re trying to lead it on yet another forced march to that selfsame destination.