by Roger Kimball
…In fact, free speech is like other freedoms: its victory is never permanent. Every generation must work anew to win or at least maintain it. As André Gide once put it, “Toutes choses sont dites déjà, mais comme personne n’écoute, il faut toujours recommencer.” The hard truth is that, with the exception of certain modalities of sexually explicit material, speech is much less free today than it was fifty or a hundred years ago.
What are the major threats to free speech today? Perhaps the overarching condition that threatens free speech is the spread of political correctness. This has sharply curtailed candor about all manner of contentious subjects. It is no longer possible, in polite society, to speak frankly about race, about differences between the sexes, or a hundred other topics — so-called “climate change,” for example, or the relationship between Islam and free speech.
It is extraordinary, is it not, that various Islamic groups, often with the collusion of Western politicians, including Hillary Clinton, are proposing to resurrect blasphemy laws , making it illegal — illegal — to “insult” Mohammed or criticize Islam? The end of their efforts is a “global censorship regime.” We’re not there yet, not quite, but we’re well on the road. One sign of the success of this campaign is the systematic reluctance of Western leaders to describe Islamic terrorism as, well, Islamic terrorism. The activities of the Islamic State, for example, are roundly, and fearfully, condemned, but in the next breath their homicidal savagery is delicately distinguished from Islam. They’re “not Muslims but monsters,” said Prime Minister David Cameron after “jihad John” beheaded a Brit, but a more candid man would have noted that the members of ISIS are monsters as well as Muslims.
It’s the same or worse in America, alas. After 9/11, President Bush assured the world that Islam was a religion of “peace,” ignoring the inconvenient fact that Islamic peace can be vouchsafed only when the entire world has been converted to that barbaric faith. At the end of the day, the options for non-Muslims are three: conversion, slavery (“dhimmitude”), or death. Which makes perfect sense in a religion whose very name means “submission.”
George Orwell was right when he observed that the first indispensable step towards freedom is the willingness to call things by their real names. The cause of freedom is not aided when a Director of National Intelligence says (and says with a straight face) that the Muslim Brotherhood is “a largely secular organization.” Nor is it aided when the U.S. President, his Secretary of State and other underlings lie about what caused the Benghazi massacre.
The triumph of political correctness has encouraged an epidemic allergy to candor. The hope is that the embrace of euphemism will alter not only our language but the reality our language names. And to a large extent, it is working. Unfreedom does not become freedom by calling it free, but the misprision can help spread and reinforce the fog of self-deceit. Terrorism committed by Muslims is not Islamic terrorism but “anti-Islamic activity,” A Muslim army officer who goes on a shooting rampage at Ft. Hood while shouting “Allahu Akbar” is guilty of “workplace violence” not slaughter undertaken to advance the cause of Islam, etc., etc…..
If you don’t have time for the whole thing, skip to Ayaan Hirsi Ali (at about the 12:26 mark), and Douglas Murray (at about the 28:55 mark), then skip to the end to hear the results.
by Majid Rafizadeh
Recently, Majlis (Iranian parliament), which is dominated by hardliners, has voted to ban vasectomies, permanent kinds of contraception, and impose restriction on women’s fertility. In addition, the bill bans advertisements aimed at promoting birth control. Any doctor, or woman, who violates the ban will be punished and prosecuted according to the new Islamist bill.
Since its establishment, the Islamic Republic has significantly exercised “biopower” (a term coined by the historian Michel Foucault) in order to control the population and particularly subjugate women to achieve the regime’s Islamist, religious, ideological, political, and economic objectives. According to Foucault, biopower is defined in The History of Sexuality as “an explosion of numerous and diverse techniques for achieving the subjugations of bodies and the control of populations.”
Under the new Islamist state, the Ayatollahs and ruling clerics utilized methods in order to control and exercise power over women to gradually take away their capacity to act in social affairs particularly by regulating their day to day activities, monitoring all their actions, as well as by having authority over their bodies.
For example, dress codes including (scarves, chador, etc) were imposed on women. Women could not wear what they desired out of the home. Women were encouraged to cover their bodies and dress more conservatively. And those who did not comply were laid off from work, fined, lashed, arrested, imprisoned, and attacked.
In addition, women’s bodies were predominantly defined by the Islamic Republic as a platform for satisfying their spouses. Women were banned from playing several sports. Instead, being a housewife and submissive was encouraged. The control of women’s bodies and their day-to-day activities were used as a formidable venue to subjugate, dehumanize, and sway women’s capacity in life.
On the other hand, what are the underlying reasons for the new restriction on women’s fertility under the Islamic law of Iran?
The fundamental reasons are political, ideological and religion-driven. The whole process of passing a bill to impose restriction on women’s fertility began by one man’s plan: Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei….
Under Erdogan’s Islamist AKP thugs, the murder rate for women in Turkey increased an unprecedented 1400%.
Now one of Erdogan’s boys has some orders for women.
Women should not laugh in public in Turkey, the Deputy Prime Minister has said in a speech on “moral corruption” in the country.
Bülent Arınç used a meeting for Eid al-Fitr on Monday to condemn perceived moral regression, consumerism and even excessive mobile phone use.
“She will not laugh in public. She will not be inviting in her attitudes and will protect her chasteness,” Mr Arınç said.
He called for Turkish people to rediscover the Koran and stop moral regression.
Targeting women once more, Arınç said women talk about unnecessary things on the phone.
“Women give each other meal recipes while speaking on the mobile phone. ‘What else is going on?’ ‘What happened to Ayşe’s daughter?’ ‘When is the wedding?’
Unlike AKP Deputy PMs who insist on babbling about what women talk about on the phone….
Bare Naked Islam