by Daniel Greenfield
I wouldn’t even call this a post. He seemed to have set, probably, someone else’s image as his profile picture on Facebook. But CAIR is out hunting for heads and politically correct politicians are only too happy to comply.
HOUSTON (KTRK) — An HFD employee is under investigation and on administrative duty because of something he posted on his personal Facebook page.
The post is set to a backdrop of an American flag and reads, “Proud Infidel. F*** Islam and F*** Muslims.” It was posted to his timeline earlier this month, and at one point, it was even his profile picture.
When we brought it to the attention of the Houston Fire Department, Chief Terry Garrison responded with a statement, “As soon as I was made aware of the situation, I adopted a complaint on the matter, launching an internal investigation.”
“Your rights of freedom of speech and freedom of expression stop when you work for somebody, to the extent that there’s policies in place,” said KTRK Legal Analyst, Joel Androphy.
If we took Joel at his word, then freedom of speech would not exist for anyone except freelancers. His way of putting is certainly unnecessarily creepy. Employers can indeed fire employees for any number of reasons, depending on local laws, etc… However government agencies firing employees for their private views opens up a whole other can of worms as Christie found out when a NJ state employee who tore up a Koran in New York was temporarily fired over it….
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…..
By David Gelernter
To the Yale Muslim Students Association and its many sister organizations that have co-signed a letter protesting Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s lecture on Monday:
I love your new free-speech concept! Obviously this woman should have been banned from campus and had her face stomped in; why couldn’t they have just quietly murdered her in Holland along with her fellow discomfort-creators? These people are worse than tweed underwear! They practically live to make undergraduates uncomfortable. But let’s deal with the harsh realities. Your inspired suggestion, having Official Correctors speak right after Ali to remind students of the authorized view of Muslim society, is the most exciting new development in Free Speech since the Inquisition — everyone will be talking about it! You have written, with great restraint, about “how uncomfortable it will be” for your friends if this woman is allowed to speak. Uncomfortable nothing. The genital mutilation of young girls is downright revolting! Who ever authorized this topic in a speech to innocent Yale undergraduates? Next thing you know, people will be saying thatsome orthodox Muslim societies are the most cruel and benighted on earth and that Western societies are better than they are (better!) merely because they don’t sexually mutilate young girls! Or force them into polygamous marriages, countenance honor killings, treat women as the property of their male relations, and all that. Can’t they give it a rest? You’d think someone was genitally mutilatingthem.
We all know that Free Speech doesn’t mean that just anyone can stand up and start spouting. Would you let your dog talk for an hour to a Yale student audience? What’s next, inviting Dick Cheney? Careful study of contemporary documents makes it perfectly clear that when the Bill of Rights mentions Free Speech, it is alluding to Freedom of Speech for the Muslim Students Association at Yale. We all know that true free speech means freedom to shut up, especially if you disagree with your betters. And true free thought means freedom to stop thinking as soon as the official truth is announced by the proper Authorities — and freedom to wait patiently until then.
Now take this Ayaan Hirsi Ali. First of all, she’s a black woman, and they’re not quite ready for prime time, know what I mean? And she’s against the systematic abuse of women in Muslim societies. What about people who are for the systematic abuse of women in Muslim societies? Furthermore, she lacks “representative scholarly qualifications.” Want the whole campus flooded with quacks expressing their so-called opinions based on “experience” and “knowledge” instead of academic authority? And she’s Dutch. More or less. Enough said.
Thank you for protecting us from having to listen to uncensored ideas and make up our own minds, Yale Muslim Students Association. Or at least trying. We will treasure your letter and keep it under our pillows forever.
— David Gelernter is a professor of computer science at Yale University.
By Robert Spencer
….But his main estrangement from Islam happened when he compared the Quran with other religious books.
”Then I realized how Muhammad transferred some of the writings of the Torah and Bible to the Quran. I was so frustrated and angry. I could not live my childhood and youth properly because of him. So many people can’t live properly because of him. So many people are sufferers of his disasters. So many people know what’s right as wrong and what’s wrong as right because they think the darkness that he chose exists. Human emotions and human creations haven’t progressed in many ways because of him. I have found no disease, neither cancer nor AIDS, and no disaster more horrid than the effects of that religion. And at that moment, I decided to start a fight,” Dursun said.
Dursun also gave up his job as a mufti, which he carried out for 14 years, to dedicate himself better to his cause.
”I gave up my job to be able to fight. I was on top of my career. I was not an ordinary mufti. People knew and respected me. But I had to leave that job. Because I thought that if I was to fight, I could not do that with my current job because that would not be honest. I have always been consistent. I never want a difference between what I think and what I do.”
Dursun said that he first lost his faith in Muhammad, then he deeply thought about it, reading extensively in anthropology, and in a few years time he lost his faith in God, as well.
With these changes, Dursun’s father and brothers were gradually estranged from him.
Then he started writing. His first problem was that no media outlet or publishing house wanted to publish his articles.
In the preface to “This is Religion — Part 1,” he explained that period: “I tried so hard to publish these articles. I rang many bells. My attempts continued for months, if not years. They all turned me down. [These articles] daunted even people known as ‘progressives’ or ’intellectuals.’ Even when my most moderate articles were presented to them, some of them said, ‘They can stone us to death if we publish them.’ Some of them were even scared of being bombed, let alone being stoned. Some of them responded with the same rhetoric of tactician politicians: ‘We respect the religion. We do not support offending religious feelings.’
”Every time I was turned down, I thought: If they can’t risk offending feelings, how can struggle against darkness be possible? Can new steps in the field of civilization be taken without offending feelings? How can changes that aim to reach a more beautiful, civilized, and humane world take place without offending feelings? What novelty or reform has been introduced without offending feelings? Have human beings not offended religious feelings as they have changed themselves and the nature? I always thought about these questions. But still found no entrance to our ‘liberal’ (!) printed press.
”So before our country and the world, I would like to document this (situation) and blame the ’intellectuals’ who function as stern wardens that are not very different from the sovereigns of the oppressive regimes that they accuse and as taps that prevent water required for liberation from flowing,” Dursun said.
Finally, Dursun was able to find a magazine to publish his articles and then a publishing house to print his books.
Among the many subjects he wrote about were violence in Islam, Shariah law, the status of women in Islam, the private life of Muhammad, contradictions in the Quran, “Satanic verses” and the vengefulness of Islamists. He also focused on what he called “the unscientific and irrational matters in the Quran.” He wrote countless books and articles in the 1980s.
His son Abit Dursun said that every single article his father wrote fell like a bombshell. “My father heartily dealt with taboos that no one in Turkey had ever dared discuss,” he said.
Thus, Turan Dursun often received death threats and was exposed to verbal attacks.
”Even a fatwa requiring my father’s execution was proclaimed. Then the magazine for which he wrote made a call to all Islamic scholars to join a debate program on TV with my father. But none of them volunteered because they knew that my father was one of the most outstanding scholars of Islam, not only in Turkey but throughout the world. And my father was fearless,” said Abit Dursun.
Turan Dursun’s knowledge was great and so was his bravery. But he did not write to harm, coerce, destroy or kill anyone. He had a cause, which he believed was to enlighten and liberate people to create a better world, where freedom and humanity would prevail. And his only weapon was the eloquence of his pen.
But his opponents did not share the same human values. As if to prove Dursun right about the violence of Islamic teachings, they did not confine themselves to verbal or psychological attacks.
At age 56, Dursun was brutally assassinated by two gunmen in front of his house in Istanbul on September 4, 1990.
After Dursun’s murder, a book titled “The Holy Terror of Hezbollah” was found on his bed. Family members said that the book did not belong to Dursun and was left on his bed as a message by the people who entered their house….
….Dursun was killed years ago, but the silence and indifference of the West — the free world — in the face of Islamism remains deafening.
The term “Islamphobia” has been invented to muzzle the critics of Islam so that Islamists’ feelings will not be offended. Even genuine supporters of this term must be well aware of the fact that the slightest, mildest criticism of Islam can cause violent reactions from “peaceful” Islamists.
That is why Alan Dershowitz was so right when he said, “The threat or fear of violence should not become an excuse or justification for restricting freedom of speech.”
Why do we fear a violent reaction from Muslims if we make any substantial critique of Islam? Is Islam not a religion of peace, as many claim it to be?…
by Nonie Darwish
…Our culture’s suppression of speech is severely detrimental to the future of this country, which is on its way to embracing Sharia as just another set of laws that must be respected, since, as we are taught, all cultures and religions are equal.
It is high time for American leftist feminists to acknowledge the truth about Islamic oppression of women. Kidnapping of girls, sexual slavery, female genital mutilation, wife beating, legal discrimination against women in the courtroom and other forms of oppression of women, must never be tolerated under the excuse of cultural relativism.
The same leftists who ignore Islamic Sharia tyranny are also the ones who support anti-Semitism also spreading on college campuses. The offensive annual Israel Apartheid Week must end, otherwise pro-Israel students must be free to invite speakers to counter the anti-Israel propaganda.
Just in the last month, I was cancelled twice after being invited to speak on college campuses due to intimidation by leftists and Islamic groups. Muslim radical groups brag about our cancellation like a badge of honor, the same way the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt brags about silencing the opposition. Suppression of speakers who expose the atrocities of Islamic law has become a shameful chronic condition on American campuses. It is true that Sharia forbids the criticism of Islam, but we should never forget that the US Constitution does not.
The situation in America today is upside down, where we see the American Left tolerating Islamic intolerance and protecting Islam’s dirty little secrets from coming to light. We are not doing Muslims and Islam a favor with this cover-up and appeasement. Blatant atrocities against women by Muslims around the world must be exposed and rejected.
It is time for the West to condemn Islamic Sharia law by name.