Cartoon Inquisition
Matt Welch | January 13, 2008, 8:27pm
Remember the Intoonfadah? When a Danish newspaper's publishing of cartoons mocking Muhammad led to a not-so-spontaneous display of cartoon violence and western journalistic cowardice? Though a very precious few U.S. publications (including this here blog) dared to run so much as an excerpt from the deadly caricatures, Canada's redoubtable conservative mag the Western Standard stepped right up. As a result, appallingly, former Standard publisher Ezra Levant has been hauled into court on charges abusing the human rights of Muslims.
Check out Levant's blog for video of his chillingly banal interrogation late last week by the Alberta Human Rights Commission, and also for his full-throated fuck-you to any authority that would prosecute his free speech. Excerpt from that:
When the Western Standard magazine printed the Danish cartoons of Mohammed two years ago, I was the publisher. It was the proudest moment of my public life. I would do it again today. In fact, I did do it again today. Though the Western Standard, sadly, no longer publishes a print edition, I posted the cartoons this morning on my website, ezralevant.com.
I am here at this government interrogation under protest. It is my position that the government has no legal or moral authority to interrogate me or anyone else for publishing these words and pictures. That is a violation of my ancient and inalienable freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and in this case, religious freedom and the separation of mosque and state. [...]
For a government bureaucrat to call any publisher or anyone else to an interrogation to be quizzed about his political or religious expression is a violation of 800 years of common law, a Universal Declaration of Rights, a Bill of Rights and a Charter of Rights. This commission is applying Saudi values, not Canadian values.
Previous reason commentary on the Danish cartoons can be found from Tim Cavanaugh, Brian Doherty, Cathy Young, Nick Gillespie, Julian Sanchez, and Michael Moynihan, for starters.
Dave | January 14, 2008, 12:41am | #
Hello, my Yankee friends!
Just wanna make a couple of points FYI, ‘k…
These so-called “human rights” commissions aren’t part of the Canadian justice system at all. They’re rogue moonbat extremist activist bodies which have morphed via leftist interference into the fascist, politically correct kangaroo “courts” they are today. Originally they were mandated to merely act as sort of an arbitrator/mediator for folks who thought they’d been wronged in stuff like housing and employment, etc. Today they’re acting like the kids in “Lord of the Flies”, as y’all can see very well. It’s like the Ninth Circuit Court, but without any legitimacy whatsoever under the law and the constitution. It’s run by mostly brain-dead moonbat activists like the dummy woman in the video.
There’s also no provision in the Canadian Constitution Act, Bill of Rights, nor Charter of Rights and Freedoms for such a commission as we see them acting today.
These commissions have operated for too long under the radar (and still are) of the MSM and the Canadian People. But this is going to change, and start changing… a couple of days ago. The MSM is mostly silent, but I doubt they can ignore this for too long.
Just like the ACLU and the Ninth Circuit Court and other leftist bodies and “judges” and so on in America, these commissions actually violate Canadians’ rights at the pathetic, petulant behest of extremists representing, mostly, GLBTs and Islamoimperialists. There’s no trial. Evidence is irrelevant. Facts are irrelevant. Constitutional rights are irrelevant. All that matters to these left-wing fascists of the commissions is that a special, favored-by-the-Far-Left group member has claimed that someone “hurt his feelings” or something… and then the accused is summarily found guilty and ordered to pay thousands of dollars to the complainant. Holy shee-it, that sounds like a bloody jizya (the tax Muslims make dhimmis pay)!!!!
I can assure you, as a member of the party that governs my country today, we Conservatives don’t want these commissions taking away our right to freedom of expression and other rights. We want them abolished. We have made it clear to the Prime Minister and our MPs. Many, many, many people, including Americans, are donating money to Ezra’s legal fund.
This is a critical crossroads in Canadian and human liberty history.
And, don’t forget, the same liberal fascist forces that affect Canada affect America as well. And the entire Free World.
Therefore Ezra Levant is essentially making the first stand, taking a leadership role…
We must follow Ezra. We must also fight tyranny and evil as he is.
Sic semper tyrannis!
Let’s roll!
NP | January 14, 2008, 2:29pm | #
Ali,
If you had allowed yourself to be a little more objective, you would've noticed that the only information Greenwald provides to support his description of Levant as a "pernicious commentator" is that the Canadian is a "neoconservative who publishes
Western Standard, a typical warmongering, pro-Likud journal -- a poor man's
Weekly Standard for Canadian neocons." Given Greenwald's rep as a left-leaning commentator and his propensity to label as anyone who dared support the Iraq war as a neocon, those of us who had not heard of Levant before and are able to think critically would not have taken Greenwald at his word.
I do understand your stance on the fragile symbiosis between Muslims and freedom of speech, but I also think it's important to recognize a few points here. One, keep in mind that articles and posts like this one are meant less for Muslim immigrants than for our fellow Western citizens, commentators and intellectuals who somehow try to justify the bigotry, intolerance and crimes of Muslim extremists. The most disappointing aspect of the Danish Intoonfadah was the sheer cowardice and betrayal of so many members of our Western society who cried "Well, they asked for it" before defending, if at all, the right of the cartoonists to engage in satire, however crude and offensive it may be.
Two, the attempt to accommodate--if I may call it that--other cultures often backfires, as can be observed from the French riots and the growing presence of Muslim extremists in Britain. Yes, do try to be patient and understanding with the immigrants, as it will take a great deal of time and effort for them to assimilate. But we should
not back down in our defense of free speech rights, even when the form of suppression--the law, in this case--is admittedly less extreme than violence. We need to communicate to the immigrants respectfully but also firmly that no matter how much we disagree with the content we do not support suppression of free speech in any way, and that the majority of Western society are considerate of the beliefs of others, including theirs.
Which brings me to the final and related point: It is rather patronizing to say that non-Western immigrants need our cues and instruction if they are to understand the virtues of free speech. I know this was not your intention, but again we need to make it clear that freedom is universal, that non-Western immigrants deserve and share their share of responsibility for freedom, and that no freedom is possible without freedom of speech. Indeed I don't think it's a mere accident that Muslims in the U.S. have the better track record of assimilation than their European counterparts, and I'd bet that a lot of this fortunate state of affairs has to do with our strong First Amendment rights.
So spread the word and welcome them, let them think for themselves, and be willing to commend them when they're right, but also criticize them when they're wrong.
SuprKufr | January 14, 2008, 3:52pm | #
Ali apologizes:
I really do not want to put myself in a position to defend the Quran, because I do not want to.
If I were in your position, I wouldn't want to either. It's hard to defend evil, and yet that's the position you're in. Talking about the details of what the Koran says is the LAST thing that a Muslim wants to do. Taqiyya to the rescue? Not for you. You'd rather avoid the subject altogether and I understand completely.
Why not just ditch that bullshit religion of yours? Are you afraid of what your more devout Muslim brothers might do to you if you did? If you de-converted, and they came and killed you, then their action would be Islamic whereas yours would not be. Your prophet said so, and you know it.
But, regarding the Bible, for example is there any commandment against spying?
Is there any commandment against child abuse in the Bible? Of course not! In fact, there are verses which encourage child abuse. I'm not a Christian, so I'll probably agree with all your criticisms of the Bible.
But this isn't about the Bible, right? You're just trying to change the subject.
Anyhow, my point is not to justify the Quran's stance. I just wish to show that SuperKufr's position that Islam is worse than other religions is baseless.
That's some ripe Islamic bullshit right there.
1. How many battles did Jesus Christ fight? How many battles did the Muslim prophet Muhammad fight?
2. Where does the Bible state that all non-Christians should be subjected to conversion, the Christian equivalent of dhimmitude, or fighting?
3. Where does the Bible hate on some Jews like the Koran does?
4. Where does the Bible mandate the death penalty for apostates?
Islam delenda est.
SuprKufr | January 14, 2008, 6:10pm | #
NP,
Since you're clearly not going to be convinced by any argument
Wrong. I'm not going to be convinced by any illogical, irrelevant, and poorly-supported argument.
You yourself distinguished between the two types of jihad, and I don't see the first "greater" kind as much different from the Ten Commandments.
You're trying to change the subject again. I'm not a Christian. I think the Ten Commandments (you have to specify *which* Ten Commandments!) suck. Whether or not they suck has no bearing on whether or not jihad or Islam sucks. Islam sucks irrespective of the Ten Commandments. Furthermore, it is the lesser jihad that bothers me the most. It is the means of the imperialistic impulse within Islam. It also results in murders every day.
Again the important point here is that the nature of any religion depends on how it is interpreted.
I have addressed this point and you don't seem to have grasped it yet. There is no interpretive tradition in Islam. This is a huge problem!
Would you argue that Islam based on such interpretation is still an evil religion?
If Muslims are able to interpret away everything that I think is evil, then no, I would not argue that Islam is evil. But such interpretation is not itself Islamic. Lax muslims are NOT practicing Islam, because there is no interpretive tradition in Islam. This is a huge problem!
And even if you say yes, telling Muslims that their most fundamental beliefs are evil and primitive will not help them develop a liberal, secular outlook on life. That's the point I wanna make.
I disagree. I think there should be more shame and opprobrium heaped upon Muslims for the primitive and barbaric beliefs that are inherent within Islam. I think that is what will inspire them toward reform. Not appeasement and accommodation toward evils such as slavery, murder, and subjugation of women. Appeasement and accommodation of those practices is telling people, "Hey, that's a-ok that you have slaves and beat your women and kill people!" Islam is a loser's religion.
And BTW I don't answer rhetorical questions.
That's why I said that my questions were NOT rhetorical. Namely:
1. Islam is the worst religion in the world. There is nothing good in it. Do you disagree? (yes/no)
2. Do you think that slavery should be allowed to persist in order to respect the religious sensibilities of Muslims? (yes/no)
Just answer "yes" or "no" to each. It should be easy. But it won't be easy ... not for you. I can tell that it's still a difficult struggle for you.
Islam delenda est.
NP | January 14, 2008, 8:36pm | #
Ali, Yr welcome.
J sub D, I thought SuprKufr was a newcomer. Maybe I should read the threads more often so I can know which posts are worth responding to.
SuprKufr,
Unlike many H&Rers I do believe in debate and not making others look like morons, so I'll respond to your last post despite your unwillingness to reflect on your positions critically.
First, I don't know why you thought I was trying to change the subject. I didn't say or mean to imply that you're a Christian, nor did I claim that the Ten Commandments should have any bearing on the morality of jihad or Islam. That's a lot of straw you seem to be burning there. The only reason why I mentioned the Ten Commandments is because you yourself made comparisons between Christianity and Islam in your earlier post with respect to, among other things, treatment of Jews and the death penalty for apostates. BTW, I didn't specify which Commandments I was referring to because you should've been able to figure that out based on your knowledge which you're certainly not shy of flaunting. (You do know which ones mention adultery and stealing, right?)
You keep claiming that there is no interpretive tradition in Islam. Even if we grant that your claim is true (it's not--again just look at tolerant Muslims in much of India, South Asia, or for that matter here in America), your claim would apply only to Islamic
culture, not the
religion itself. If you don't understand this distinction then it is you who don't grasp this important point. It is simply wrong to claim that Islam does not allow any tolerant interpretation just because some Salafi scholars support slavery and a small segment of the Islamic world still practice it, even though the vast majority of contemporary Muslims agree that there is no place for the abhorrent institution in the modern world. Interpretation
does matter, and as you reluctantly acknowledged Islam based on tolerant interpretation cannot be described as inherently evil.
Finally I didn't answer your questions last time because they're absurd on their face, but I'll give you my answers just to show they're far from "a difficult struggle" for me. The first question: Are you kidding me or something? There are currently at least 20 religions in the world with at least 200,000 adherents, not to mention all the minor religions. You really think you or I know enough about all of 'em to rate one in particular as the worst? 'Nuff said. As to whether there's anything good in Islam again it depends on how one interprets it. If one takes the "greater"-jihad view then he'll find good in Islam. If not then I think it's safe to say that he's most likely an Islamic extremist and that he should be watched and avoided at all costs.
Now on to the second question. If you'd read my earlier comments (and now this post), you would've noticed that I'm strongly against compromising freedom just to respect the sensibilities of Muslims or any other group. And I discussed and objected to the very appeasement and accommodation policies that you mentioned. Now let me stress this: It is possible to retain our values and oppose appeasement and accommodation
without being unduly confrontational. Constructive dialogues are difficult if not impossible without respect on both sides, and again attacking a sacred cow without showing the least bit of respect is not a very smart tactic if you want anything like religious reform to take place.
SuprKufr | January 15, 2008, 9:52am | #
NP,
Thank you for your respectful tone. I really appreciate it. Weaklings like joe don't believe in open exchange of ideas or challenging their own beliefs. (J sub D is currently emulating joe with his desire to mock rather than debate.) Any moron can stand up for what they believe or mock someone they hate. It's much, much more difficult to accept contradictory evidence and decide that it is true. I can see that you're willing to make such a difficult step. Unlike what you think about me, I'm willing to take that step, too.
First, I don't know why you thought I was trying to change the subject. I didn't say or mean to imply that you're a Christian, nor did I claim that the Ten Commandments should have any bearing on the morality of jihad or Islam.
I don't think that you were implying that I was a Christian. I do think, however, that I respected Christian ideas, and that's precisely why you brought it up. It's a common tactic to use evil things in the bible to try to mitigate the evil things in the Koran or the Hadith. Unfortunately for you, it doesn't work that way. Just because slavery is permitted in both the Old Testament and the New Testament does NOT justify the fact that slavery is halal as per the Muslim prophet Muhammad's keeping of slaves and his being "a perfect model of conduct". Slavery is wrong, period. And that's why I think you're changing the subject to bring up the Bible: what the Bible says is irrelevant when discussing the merits (or lack thereof) of Islam.
The only reason why I mentioned the Ten Commandments is because you yourself made comparisons between Christianity and Islam in your earlier post with respect to, among other things, treatment of Jews and the death penalty for apostates.
I did that to destroy the argument that "the Bible is just as bad as the Koran". The Bible is bad, and the Koran is worse. We can do this by exploring the depth and breadth of the evil verses in each of them. Sometimes I have to convince you *why* an argument is wrong to get you to drop it. Just saying, "You're changing the subject" isn't always effective, as I'm sure you have noticed by now.
You keep claiming that there is no interpretive tradition in Islam. Even if we grant that your claim is true (it's not--again just look at tolerant Muslims in much of India, South Asia, or for that matter here in America),
You are confusing the presence of lax Muslims with the presence of an interpretive tradition. Lax Muslims are Muslims who look at Islamic law and then decide that they will NOT follow certain parts of it. Islamic law hasn't been changed or interpreted -- it's merely being ignored.
Finally I didn't answer your questions last time because they're absurd on their face
I don't think my questions are "absurd" in the sense that they are nonsensical. I think you call them "absurd" because they offend your sensibilities. There is nothing absurd about asking you to name the good things you see in Islam, for I see *nothing* good in Islam. How did you answer that? Let's see:
The first question: Are you kidding me or something? There are currently at least 20 religions in the world with at least 200,000 adherents, not to mention all the minor religions. You really think you or I know enough about all of 'em to rate one in particular as the worst? 'Nuff said.
No, I'm not kidding you. Please list for me the good things that you see in Islam. If you're interested in me explaining why I think Islam is the worst, then I'll be happy to explain it.
As to whether there's anything good in Islam again it depends on how one interprets it. If one takes the "greater"-jihad view then he'll find good in Islam. If not then I think it's safe to say that he's most likely an Islamic extremist and that he should be watched and avoided at all costs.
So the good things are ... ?
If you'd read my earlier comments (and now this post), you would've noticed that I'm strongly against compromising freedom just to respect the sensibilities of Muslims or any other group. And I discussed and objected to the very appeasement and accommodation policies that you mentioned.
I'm glad to hear that.
Now let me stress this: It is possible to retain our values and oppose appeasement and accommodation without being unduly confrontational. Constructive dialogues are difficult if not impossible without respect on both sides, and again attacking a sacred cow without showing the least bit of respect is not a very smart tactic if you want anything like religious reform to take place.
It seems like the values you're standing up for here are the values of being "constructive" and not being "duly confrontational". How is this different from being accommodating and appeasing toward vile Islamic practices? For instance, I insist that slavery must end everywhere, right now, without exception. I am completely intolerant of it. If that offends a devout Muslim's religious beliefs, then am I failing to be "constructive" and also being "duly confrontational" by making insisting on such? This is the heart of our disagreement. You think we should play nice whereas I think we should be harsh and uncompromising towards evil, regardless if it is found in Islam. The reason why I think your way sucks is because I think devout Muslims will see it as accommodation and weakness. And they would be right.
Islam delenda est.
NP | January 15, 2008, 6:50pm | #
SuprKufr,
I don't think you understand what I mean by being "unduly confrontational." I called your questions absurd in my earlier post not because I wanted to avoid the subject but because no sane person (including myself, I hope you've already noticed) would excuse or tolerate slavery under any circumstances. Slavery is wrong,
period, and if some Muslims or any other subgroup say they reserve the right to practice it because their religion or ideology permits or calls for it, then we should tell them firmly and unequivocally that no one, in any nation or culture, has the right to slavery and that they must end the practice immediately. Failure to do so would indeed be accommodation and appeasement, and here confrontation would be indeed unavoidable, however civil we try to be in our approach.
You also said that I didn't list any good things about Islam. I did, when I argued that the "greater"-jihad view of Islam can be a force (no pun intended) for good. Again interpretation matters. You'd be right in saying that
jihad has been used and interpreted by many Muslims in a military sense, but other Muslims take the "greater," spiritual view, citing the hadith that says, "We have returned from the lesser jihad [force] to the greater jihad [spiritual growth]."
And more and more Muslims are speaking out against the lesser jihad, slavery, female genital mutilation, and other evils that have been committed under the name of their religion. What we must not do--and this is what I mean by an unduly confrontational approach--is to tell these Muslims that their
entire religious system is evil. This is not appeasement; we are not sacrificing our values and still rightly condemning the abhorrent practices. Yes, let's not avoid confrontation and criticism when they are called for, but at the same time let's not insult Muslims as a whole group when they are trying to come to grips with the modern secular world.
That's what I'm trying to argue, and I hope it will make you reconsider your Islam-delenda-est approach.
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
