Islamic Appeasement Undermines Freedom Of Speech

Photos

Muslim protestors in Europe

see larger image

uploaded by djussila

Canada and its “tolerant” label are under scrutiny these days after Marius Grinius, representative of Canada to the United Nations office in Geneva, halted the arguments of an internationally established speaker as he was giving an address on anti-Semitism and its relation to Islamic doctrine. David Littman, former representative to Geneva for the World Union For Progressive Judaism (WUPJ) was cut short nearly three minutes into his speech after regarding the availability of two specific books, of which he and others deem to be anti-Semitic, that were obtainable on UN premises during a 56 member organization of the Islamic conference last December. Grinius defended his interruption, claiming that Littman was “off topic” as the council discussed human rights reports. Littman retaliated, saying that his proposal for a “universal condemnation” of anti-Semitism was fitting because the council was debating freedom of expression and hate speech.

Freedom of expression, especially in an organization such as the United Nations, is ever falling victim to the fashion of political correctness. And what is on the ’runway’ lately? Saying anything detrimental about the Muslims.

This train of thought isn’t really anything new. Criticizing Muslim doctrine has been taboo after the 9/11 attacks. You know, when Muslim extremists hijacked a plane and flew into the side of the World Trade Centre? The cause of this idea, perhaps, is that if people don’t acknowledge that Islamic doctrine has flaws - maybe these people will cease their jihad? Maybe these “extremists” are only lashing out at the world because they need our understanding and maybe, even our love? Perhaps, we are the real terrorists?

This theory is dangerous, extremely sarcastic, and simply nauseating. Cooperation cannot function if we censure subject matter, controversial or not, on behalf of a group of people. People need the power of debate and discussion if we want change, real change, for the better.

The true reason behind this new wave of thinking escapes me. Perhaps it is because I consider myself to be a fairly rationale person. But, not unlike environmentalism or any other far-left craze, it’s beginning to take control of our media, schools, and governments. Take example another Canadian, radio host Lowell Greene, who was chastised after posing the question to his audience whether there is something inherent in the Muslim faith that promotes violence and oppression of women. A justified question, considering the extreme rate of spousal abuse in Islamic and Arabic countries compared to western democracies. The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) was soon in denouncing it as a “uniformed and unfair” attack on the Muslim faith. It is to my understanding that freedom of speech covers all topics, including the ability to question religious doctrine. But where was the CBSC when the “atheist bus campaign” began to create controversy? Not a word. Political correctness is not only a fad, but a tool exploited by public officials to generate support for their agendas.

Politicians can be satirical cross sections of the poli-cultural mainstream. Politicians eat mainstream, live mainstream, and maybe even believe what they preach. Consumers of political correctness. Europe is fallen far into this downward spiral. It is unmentionable, often outright prohibited for people to criticize the Muslim faith. Dutch Politician and filmmaker Geert Wilders has been threatened with jail time and lawsuits over his documentary “Fitna” which demonstrated the violence of Islam. Wilders has outright been banned from entering the territory of the United Kingdom since February 2009. The British government, in a statement, said that “the government opposes extremism in all forms.” Yet the government didn’t see any problem letting in Ibrahim Moussawi, a member from the internationally recognized terrorist group Hezbollah, to give a lecture in England. Geert Wilders later remarked “make no mistake, my prosecution is a full-fledged attack by the left on freedom of speech in order to please Muslims.”

The United Nations was founded on the principal that the nations of the world could escape political ideologies and differences and cooperate mutually for the better of mankind. Left wing rhetoric is always constrained by the limits of reality. The UN demonstrates its own failure and hypocrisy when it censors the freedom of expression to protect the interests of a group of people. The United Nations have been recently considering a resolution banning the criticism of Islam. This declaration is being spearheaded by the 57 member organization of the Islamic conference including Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. A copy of the resolution noted “the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001." This ban came after a representative of the Humanist and Ethical Union denounced female genital mutilation, the penalty of stoning for adultery and child marriage as sanctioned by Islamic law. An organization with such a diverse group of members simply cannot function without freedom of expression. The UN, as incompetent as it is, at the very least stands for freedom of argument. If we cannot question religion, one of humanities most powerful implements, consider the United Nations a failed committee.

Undoubtably there is a growing rise in the appeasment of Islamic ideals and a decline in the significance of freedom and liberty. This trend is reaching critical mass in Europe and beginning to spill over in North America via the United Nations. As defenders of democracy we cannot allow this disturbing development to take control of journalists and governments in our nations. Political correctness is an illness, a contagion which excels on the lack of independent thought and freedom of expression. David Littman, after the interruptions at the UN in Geneva, noted “We're used to being interrupted. . . by Iran, Pakistan, and Egypt. But diplomats from democracies need to resist, not accommodate, the forces of censorship and intolerance.” Democratic nations challenging their own virtues by allowing censorship in the United Nations is dangerous and intolerable. The UN, the mass media and politicians cannot undermine their very principals for a group of individuals, or risk condemning our virtues into a tragic footnote in history.