Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Wednesday, February 22, 2006

Free Speech

What exactly are the limits of free speech?

Many Muslims are convinced that there is a double-standard in the West: while Holocaust denial and hate speech are illegal in some countries, making fun of Mohammed is not.

A recent LA Times editorial says that the Austrian laws against Holocaust denial are counterproductive:

Free speech, even if it hurts
# Protecting the rights of a Holocaust denier ultimately protects us all.

By Michael Shermer, MICHAEL SHERMER is the publisher of Skeptic magazine, a monthly columnist for Scientific American and the author of "Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It?"

That Irving has been, and probably still is, a Holocaust denier is indisputable. In 1994, I interviewed him for a book on Holocaust denial, and he told me that no more than half a million Jews died during World War II, and most of those because of disease and starvation. In 2000, Irving lost his libel suit in Britain against an author, and the judge in the case called him "an active Holocaust denier … anti-Semitic and racist." And in April 2005, I attended a lecture he gave in Costa Mesa at an event sponsored by the Institute for Historical Review, the leading voice of Holocaust denial in the U.S. There he joked about the Chappaquiddick line and, holding his right arm up, boasted: "This hand has shaken more hands that shook Hitler's hand than anyone else in the world."

The important question here is not whether Irving is a Holocaust denier (he is), or whether he offends people with what he says (he does), but why anyone, anywhere should be imprisoned for expressing dissenting views or saying offensive things. Today, you may be imprisoned or fined for dissenting from the accepted Holocaust history in the following countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Lithuania, New Zealand, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Switzerland.[...]

Austria's treatment of Irving as a political dissident should offend both the people who defend the rights of political cartoonists to express their opinion of Islamic terrorists and the civil libertarians who leaped to the defense of University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill when he exercised his right to call the victims of 9/11 "little Eichmanns." Why doesn't it? Why aren't freedom lovers everywhere offended by Irving's court conviction?

Freedom is a principle that must be applied indiscriminately. We have to defend Irving in order to defend ourselves. Once the laws are in place to jail dissidents of Holocaust history, what's to stop such laws from being applied to dissenters of religious or political histories, or to skepticism of any sort that deviates from the accepted canon?

No one should be required to facilitate the expression of Holocaust denial, but neither should there be what Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis called the "silence coerced by law — the argument of force in its worst form."

Call David Irving the devil if you like; the principle of free speech gives you the right to do so. But we must give the devil his due. Let Irving go, for our own safety's sake.

His arguments are eloquent, and as a believer in free speech I am sympathetic. (Even Deborah Lipstadt, the Holocaust researcher who won a lawsuit against Irving, does not believe that he should be in jail.)

However, to give a famous example, free speech does not give you the right to yell "Fire!" in a movie theatre. Incitement to violence is not covered under free speech.

There are serious Holocaust researchers who cast doubt on certain details. Some "facts" about the Holocaust have been shown to not be true by real historians. As in other cases, one must apply a reasonable standard for the intent of the speaker when determining whether his words are meant as a call for truth or a call for genocide.

It is a reasonable assumption that the people who deny the Holocaust happened are the people who most want it to happen again. As such, their denial is nothing more than window dressing for their desire for a world that is Judenrein.

The cartoons of Mohammed were in no way, shape or form an incitement to violence against Muslims. The only violence that occurred in the wake of the cartoons were by Muslims, not against them.

The level of offensiveness should not affect free speech. If speech is restricted by how much people are offended, then everyone has veto power over everything. The intent of the offender is all that matters, not the thinness of the skin of the offended.

The line is still blurry between free speech and incitement, but the editorial above didn't even consider the possibility of Holocaust denial as incitement to rid the world of Jews. And that is the fundamental issue that needs to be addressed.

More pragmatism from Hamas

This animation was on Hamas' website: (hat tip LGF)

It is interesting how Muslims use the Crusades as a club to beat the West with. I wonder how tolerant they would be if prominent leaders would claim that they were a myth created to justify Islamist expansionism and warmongering.

Today's Palestinian Police Phunnies XXIV

Soccer Dad asks a good question from me: what exactly is this military exercise that Palestinian "policemen" are doing?

This other picture, however, gives the answer:

Obviously, because of how inconsistently their paychecks have been arriving, they are starting a circus! This will help cheer up the poor Palestinian Arab children and will of course be underwritten by the EU.

The circus will show Palestinian Arab policemen doing death-defying acts, and the part that makes it interesting is how often death wins! I'm sure that AbbaGav can give a more detailed description of this circus...

The money source fallacy

I've been seeing news stories that seem to suggest that the reason why the West should continue to fund the Palestinians in the wake of the Hamas victory is because if we don't, Iran and Saudi Arabia will.

This makes no sense. While in a very broad outline, Western money has some strings attached to ensure that the money ends up going towards specific programs, in the end all it does is free up money for Palestinians to blow up Jews.

And the idea that somehow Western money influences the Palestinians to have more Western attitudes is simply false. After all, they still elected the party of suicide bombers. One lesson of the cartoons is that you cannot buy respect from those who are pro-terror - Denmark was the most tolerant and pro-Palestinian Arab nation in Europe, and now their flag is burned in every Muslim capital.

Hamas is firmly tied to Iran ideologically, and no amount of Western money will change that. And Iran will fund Hamas regardless.

In the end, it is Western money that funds Saudi Arabia and Iranian-sponsored terror anyway. If we are going to use our economic might to make a difference, it needs to be against the true monetary sources of terror - the Saudi-funded madrassas, the terror "charities," Iran. Any other plan is just playing games and congratulating ourselves that we added an extra step in the inevitable money trail from our pockets to those who want to kill us.

Mrs Naeem, a 37-year-old social worker at the Islamic University in Gaza City and a mother of four, is one of six women elected to parliament on the Hamas ticket in the Islamist party's landslide victory last month....

Women played a crucial role in getting out the vote for Hamas, knocking on doors and often getting a sympathetic hearing. Hamas's strategy to build political support through its social programmes - the provision of health clinics, nurseries and food for the poor - sealed the loyalty of many Palestinian women.

Shortly before the election, Hamas launched a women's armed wing and pictured its members brandishing guns and rocket-propelled grenades in its campaign posters. But the women MPs say their priority is reform, not armed struggle.
[...]
Many of the male leaders of Hamas favour the extension of sharia to cover civil as well as criminal codes. Some have said they want to segregate schools, others favour a ban on the sale of alcohol. They also want to see women dress in accordance with Islam.
Mrs Naeem says changes should come only after Hamas has taken time to explain the benefits of religious law. "Our sharia is great if it's practised according to its values. It's not like they say about only cutting off hands," she said.
"It's not going to be forceful but anybody who believes in the religion has to be educated in it. At the end, what matters is fighting corruption, not what people wear."
Then there is an issue unlike any other. The most controversial of the newly elected Hamas women is Miriam Farhat, known as the "Mother of Martyrs" after losing three sons fighting Israel. Her campaign video included a scene of her bidding a son goodbye before he died killing five people in a Jewish settlement. Mrs Farhat said later that she wished she had 100 sons to sacrifice as "shaheeds" - Muslims who die in a holy war.
Mrs Naeem, who named her youngest child after a Hamas leader assassinated by Israel, says there is nothing illegitimate about suicide bombers. "[The Israelis] bomb our neighbourhoods with high explosive. What kind of weapons do we have against F16s?" she asked. But would she encourage her own 16-year-old son to die killing Israelis? "Yes, as soon as his homeland calls for it. I am preparing him to be a shaheed," she said.

How pragmatic and forward thinking!

Dhimmi Carter says to give Hamas lots of money

Another predictable idiotic op-ed piece by Jimmy Carter supporting terrorists in the name of democracy.

Don't Punish the Palestinians

[...]
The role of the prime minister was greatly strengthened while Abbas and Ahmed Qureia served in that position under Yasser Arafat, and Abbas has announced that he will not choose a prime minister who does not recognize Israel or adhere to the basic principles of the "road map." This could result in a stalemated process, but my conversations with representatives of both sides indicate that they wish to avoid such an imbroglio. The spokesman for Hamas claimed, "We want a peaceful unity government." If this is a truthful statement, it needs to be given a chance.

During this time of fluidity in the formation of the new government, it is important that Israel and the United States play positive roles. Any tacit or formal collusion between the two powers to disrupt the process by punishing the Palestinian people could be counterproductive and have devastating consequences.

Unfortunately, these steps are already underway and are well known throughout the Palestinian territories and the world. Israel moved yesterday to withhold funds (about $50 million per month) that the Palestinians earn from customs and tax revenue. Perhaps a greater aggravation by the Israelis is their decision to hinder movement of elected Hamas Palestinian Legislative Council members through any of more than a hundred Israeli checkpoints around and throughout the Palestinian territories. This will present significant obstacles to a government's functioning effectively. Abbas informed me after the election that the Palestinian Authority was $900 million in debt and that he would be unable to meet payrolls during February. Knowing that Hamas would inherit a bankrupt government, U.S. officials have announced that all funding for the new government will be withheld, including what is needed to pay salaries for schoolteachers, nurses, social workers, police and maintenance personnel. So far they have not agreed to bypass the Hamas-led government and let humanitarian funds be channeled to Palestinians through United Nations agencies responsible for refugees, health and other human services.

This common commitment to eviscerate the government of elected Hamas officials by punishing private citizens may accomplish this narrow purpose, but the likely results will be to alienate the already oppressed and innocent Palestinians, to incite violence, and to increase the domestic influence and international esteem of Hamas. It will certainly not be an inducement to Hamas or other militants to moderate their policies.

The election of Hamas candidates cannot adversely affect genuine peace talks, since such talks have been nonexistent for over five years. A negotiated agreement is the only path to a permanent two-state solution, providing peace for Israel and justice for the Palestinians. In fact, if Israel is willing to include the Palestinians in the process, Abbas can still play this unique negotiating role as the unchallenged leader of the PLO (not the government that includes Hamas).

It was under this umbrella and not the Palestinian Authority that Arafat negotiated with Israeli leaders to conclude the Oslo peace agreement. Abbas has sought peace talks with Israel since his election a year ago, and there is nothing to prevent direct talks with him, even if Hamas does not soon take the ultimately inevitable steps of renouncing violence and recognizing Israel's right to exist.

It would not violate any political principles to at least give the Palestinians their own money; let humanitarian assistance continue through U.N. and private agencies; encourage Russia, Egypt and other nations to exert maximum influence on Hamas to moderate its negative policies; and support President Abbas in his efforts to ease tension, avoid violence and explore steps toward a lasting peace.

Carter is so incredibly willfully blind, so unbelievably wrongheaded as to make it remarkable to conceive that he was once President of a great country.

Is he completely unaware that Abbas is also the leader of Fatah, which is responsible for scores of terror attacks? Is he clueless about the Palestinian Arab "policemen" who are nothing but terrorists in uniform? Does he really consider money that others pump into the Palestinian economy for free "their own money?" Can he really believe that after seeing the lies of the PA over the past decade that the "peace process" has any value to anyone? Can he not read the Hamas charter in black and white? Why does he believe an anonymous Hamas spokesman who doesn't even say anything remotely peaceful over the explicitly anti-semitic and genocidal statements of Hamas in Arabic?

Perhaps the most clueless and dhimmified part of the article is the part that is unwittingly bigoted towards Arabs. Yes, Jimmy Carter is a bigot against Arabs. He holds them to a much lower standard than human beings , and he justifies their terrorism as a natural part of their personalities. How else can he say that withholding money from them is an incitement to violence? What exactly is the genetic psychological condition that Palestinians evidently have that means that if we don't do what they want, they are justified in killing Jews?

No, according to the liberal mindset typified by Dhimmi Carter, all of their violence is our fault. Somehow when the Mafia threatens violence when they don't get their "protection money" it is a crime, but when Hamas does exactly the same thing it is reason to bow before Allah and submit to an Islamic 'ummah.

And now Hamas doesn't even have to make that threat explicit. President Jimmah will do it for them, in the pages of the Washington Post.

Wine and cheese

From Denmark:

Kosher Wine and Cheese.

Haveil Havalim #58 has arrived

The grand-daddy of Jewish blog carnivals is back with HH58 hosted by Soccer Dad himself! Lots of new (to me) blogs to check out and a great job, as always.

He was nice enough to link to this article of mine.

If you haven't yet seen this weekly collection of the best of the J-Blogosphere, read it now!

Insane Muslim Protesters of the Day

In my previous posting, I reproduced a sign from some New York City protesters that appear to show death threats against people who have upset Muslims.

The sponsors of that poster are from the "Islamic Thinkers Society" whose webpage is currently down. But thanks to Google's cache, we can find a lovely recent picture of a protest by these people in Europe, threatening to "butcher" anyone who disagrees with them:

It also shows them threatening the US recently at Ground Zero, with the picture of an Islamic flag over the White House:

Islamist supremacism and death threats in NYC

The insane Muslims are in the US as well:

The pictures that I recognize on the placard are Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a critic of Islam who helped make the film about women in Islam called Submission with Theo Van Gogh who was murdered because of it; and Flemming Rose, who published the pictures in Denmark. (The picture on the right, Michael Leunig, is a different story and it is very unclear why he is being targeted - he penned a cartoon comparing Israel to Nazi Germany which was not published in Australia and someone else submitted it to Iran's Holocaust cartoon contest under his name.)

Look carefully at the pictures: they have what appear to be gunshot wounds drawn in to the foreheads of Hirsi and Rose:

So, in the United States, today, Muslims apparently threatened to assassinate people who disagree with them.

And if you are unclear as to what these people ultimately want, just have a look-see at this lovely sign:

TORONTO -- A student newspaper at Canada's largest university is drawing criticism for publishing a cartoon depicting the Prophet Muhammad and Jesus embracing.

The University of Toronto student union says it's received several complaints about the Strand, published by Victoria College.

The cartoon, submitted by a student, was published Wednesday alongside an editorial addressing the debate on whether to publish controversial Danish cartoons that have sparked protest around the world.

It depicts a man resembling Jesus embracing another figure with his back turned with a turban and a tattoo of a crescent moon and star.

Student union president Paul Bretscher says the editors should pull the cartoon and issue an apology.

The part that bugs me about this story isn't the absurd political correctness, the abject dhimmifying of the Student Administrative Council at the U of T, or even the fact that the cartoon is not very funny or illuminative.

The part that bugs me is that many newspapers are picking up on this story without a single one printing a copy of the actual cartoon - one that doesn't even show Mohammed! (This one came from the student newspaper itself.)

The mainstream news media in North America is showing complete and utter submission to the threat of Islam, which means that it is no longer the place to get news.

Cross-burning in Iran

Iranian Sunny Muslim protesters burn a cross during a demonstration against the publication of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad outside the Danish embassy in Tehran, on Friday Feb. 17, 2006. The drawings, first published by a Danish newspaper, sparked at times violent protests in Muslim countries. (AP Photo/Hasan Sarbakhshian)

Well, well. It sure appears like they are attacking one of the religions they claim to respect.

UPDATE: On the hypocritical front:

Tehran, Feb 17 (ISNA)-Iran's Judiciary first deputy highlighted that Iran knows insulting religious beliefs as a prosecutable charge in internal and international courts and to the rich texts of Islamic resources, internal and international laws, this matter can be investigated and charged.

The Arab Parallel Universe

I just stumbled onto a brilliant set of posts by Sandmonkey and his commenters, which together explain Arab actions with a small set of rules.

The term APU, or Arab Parallel Universe, was coined by Jeffrey to describe the phenomenon where Arabs never lose wars - they either win, become an Arab Champion or are heroically martyred.

Egyptian Sandmonkey followed up with his own set of 7 Rules of the APU, which are as hilarious as they are accurate. In short:

1) Arabs never make mistakes, and they rarely lose wars.
2) The Zionists and the Americans are always to blame for everything that is wrong in the APU.("Drug use rise in Egypt? Israel is shipping drugs free to Egypt to destroy our naïve helpless youth! STD levels rising? STD & HIV infected Israelis moussad girls who come here to infect our virile Egyptian men with AIDS are to blame. The Egypt air plane that captain Batouty committed suicide with and plunged in the ocean? The Americans shot it down.")
3) If there is any credit at all that can be contributed to Arabs in any way, they will take it. ("Even though this whole 911 thing was a jewish conspiracy anyway, if it turned out that arabs were behind it, then u have to admit that it was greatly planned and flawlessly executed and that its good to give America a lesson every now and then.")
4) Good leadership is inversely related to how US-friendly a leader is!
5) Any media that is not the official state-owned media is filled with Zionist, Jewish, American, Christian, imperialist, anti-arab influences and they LIE ALL THE TIME!
6) There is really no need for elections in the APU, because Presidents and rulers are presidents and rulers for life.
7) The only viable alternative candidate to the current leader or president is this current leader or president’s son.

It is worth reading the whole thing.

More recently, another commenter Elengil posted a beautiful additional rule:

Collective punishment is wrong. But only against us. If we decide to collectively punish you, then that's ok because you all deserve it. But don't you dare generalize all of us, no matter how much we generalize you. Oh and by the way, an attack on one Arab country is an attack on all Arab countries.. but please don't assume that means an attack BY one Arab country means an attack by all Arab countries cause that would be a logical falacy. Somehow.

So remember:
Generalizations of us by you: Wrong
Generalizations of you by us: Right

And don't you dare criticize our violence, cause then we'll kill you, and that'll just prove how peaceful we really are! Take that you american and zionist pig-dogs and your Democratically elected leaders that we hate and have caused the world to turn on you. But don't you dare criticise *our* democratically elected terrorist organization, because they were elected, so you have to like them, no matter how much we hate your democratically elected leaders - it's right to assume that the whole of America supported everything Bush stood for since as many as 50% voted for him, but it would be wrong to assume that every Palestinian supports everything Hamas stands for since only around 80% voted for them."

Very well said!

technorati tags: apu, arabs, cartoons, sandmonkey

Insane Muslim Protester of the Day

Today's nutcase comes from Hong Kong.

And as a bonus, here is an incoherent letter to the editor in a Bangladeshi newspaper:

Curtail freedom of speech!
Mohammad Abdul Hannan, University of Dhaka

Desecration of the religious icon of Islam can in no way be justified on the pretext of freedom of speech, for freedom of speech is meant for serving the greater interest of mankind. But this publication of cartoon on the prophet of Islam has undermined humanity as a whole and just added fuel to the fire of continued clashes between Muslims and Jews as the Muslims perceive that the disgraceful portrayal of their prophet was masterminded by the Jewish high command. In the last few weeks the world has become turbulent with protests being carried out by Muslims all over the world. The protest in some places claimed innocent lives as the law enforcing agencies intervened to control the height of the flame of the agitated Muslims. The UN Secretary General as well as the world community has already called upon the governments to tackle the violent protests.
Now the west should realise what harm they have done to the world in the name of so called practice of freedom of speech. They have increased the already existing hatred in the Muslim mind for the west manifold which permanently ensures the making of harmony among the religious races totally impossible. I request the world community particularly the westerners who claim to be the exponents of democracy and freedom of speech to take lesson from the consequences of this callous act and apply sense of proportion about the practices that have the potential to create controversy and fracas.

In other words, when we act like animals, it's your fault. Islamist logic in a nutshell.