By Deborah Weiss Published in FrontPage Magazine 1/11/10 In his recently released book Banned in Britain, Michael Savage, an American conservative talk show host, reveals the sordid details that caused the British Labor Party government to ban him from the UK. In context, the ban constitutes part of a larger effort to restrict free speech in the West. One morning in May 2009, Michael Savage awoke and googled the news. There in bold headlines he read that he was forbidden to enter the UK, due to his “extremist views.” At first he thought it was a joke. But upon linking to the British Home Office website, he discovered its truth. A “name and shame” list had been posted of those prohibited from entering the country. The list included terrorists, murderers and Michael Savage.
The talk show host never committed a crime. He never applied to enter the UK, nor was his show broadcast there. The British government never warned him that he was engaging in problematic behavior, nor did it notify him after placing him on the list. He was not afforded due process or any process. Rather, the decision to ban Michael Savage was made by government authorities with no oversight, behind closed doors. They side-stepped laws and trampled on his civil liberties.
Banned in Britain explains how, through the Freedom of Information Act, Savage uncovered e-mails by British authorities who made the decision. The e-mails demonstrated that because most of the people on the list were Muslim, the government feared that radicals would falsely allege that the “unacceptable behavior” policy was specifically targeted at the Muslim community. Therefore, authorities sought a non-Muslim to place on the list in order to achieve “balance in exclusion cases”, or diversity in banning.
The Home Office’s prime researcher found no evidence that Michael Savage advocated violence, or that violence was ever committed as the result of his words. Nevertheless, then-Home Secretary Jacqui Smith used a collection of Savage’s sound-bites out-of-context to serve as the basis for his ban. She insisted that the talk show host sought to “provoke others to serious criminal acts and foster hatred which might lead to intercommunity violence.”
Savage wrote to the US State Department, the UK Home Office, and the British Prime Minister in an attempt to get his name removed from the “name and shame” list. Failing to get results, he subsequently filed a defamation law suit against the British Home Office and Jacqui Smith in her personal capacity. (Smith had resigned amidst allegations of corruption and financial impropriety unrelated to the Savage case).
Though most Brits had not heard of Michael Savage prior to his ban, his name is now likely a household word. The Secretary’s slurs made the American talk show host a target for Islamists. Therefore, after hiring body guards, Savage made numerous media appearances in Britain in order to plead his case.
America’s first amendment was not written to protect polite speech or politically correct speech. It was written, in part, to protect controversial, offensive, and cantankerous political speech. The speech in which Michael Savage engaged was legal in America. And though the UK has no first amendment, it purports to maintain freedom of speech and is signatory to treaties that promote it.
Free speech is not limited to the right to express one’s viewpoints. It includes the right not to be punished for expressing ideas contrary to those of the government. That means the right not to be libeled or slandered, not to have the government knowingly make false statements about you, or falsely attribute statements to you. It also means the right not to have the government ban you from the country as an alternative means of censorship.
Legal restrictions of free speech do not occur overnight. The process is gradual. First, self-censorship is encouraged, then “guidelines” are issued. Eventually, legal complaints lead to civil penalties, and finally criminal prosecution. Penalizing one man for asserting his free speech rights also has the effect of chilling the speech of others, who take heed of the consequences.
Across Europe, the progression is evident. Islamic blasphemy laws are being construed more broadly in countries that have non-Muslim majorities. In Canada, Human Rights Commissions regularly issue civil fines for “Islamophobic” speech or speech “likely” to cause hatred, even if no hatred results. To defend themselves, respondents must endure a punitive bureaucratic process, costing them inordinate amounts of time and money. In the Netherlands, Geert Wilders, Member of Parliament, will be placed on criminal trial January 20, 2010 for producing a short documentary on Islamic extremism, which allegedly constitutes “hate speech”. If convicted, he faces the possibility of jail. Ironically, Wilders, founder of the Party for Freedom, has been pushing for an international equivalent of America’s first amendment.
In the US, the signs are more subtle. Though America doesn’t exert police power to stifle speech, she may pass legislation, issue executive orders, or create a politically correct climate of intimidation. For example, the State Department, the National Counterterrorism Center, and the Department of Homeland Security issued memos to their employees discouraging the use of words ranging from Islamic terrorism to jihad. Politically correct double standards are applied to college campus speakers. Ahmadinejad is ok, but David Horowitz and Nonie Darwish are hate-mongers undeserving of a platform. The Fairness Doctrine looms large, threatening to shut down conservative talk radio since liberal talk radio cannot survive in the market place. Also, for the first time in history, the FCC has a diversity czar. He mandates private broadcasters to pay license fees that support PBS, doing indirectly what he cannot do directly.
Just this past year, DHS, the Missouri Information Analysis Center, the Maryland National Guard and Nancy Pelosi have all equated “right-wing extremists”, military vets, tea-partiers, and libertarian political groups, to threats normally associated with terrorists. Expressing fear of violence from those who espouse none, creates paranoia in law enforcement, who may respond with unfounded intimidation tactics. And in the UN, the United States in conjunction with Egypt, recently introduced a resolution that aspires to restrict criticism of Islam around the globe.
Under the facade of “sensitive speech” or “responsible speech” radical Muslims and the leftists who join them, seek the authority to limit the words and ideas of those with whom they disagree. Instead of winning the war of ideas in a fair fight, those in power seek to shut down the debate. After all, those who have weak arguments or false arguments must be unsettled by those who might win on the merits.
Those who benefit from restrictions on speech are those in power. Currently, that is the political left. Critical thinking serves as its enemy. Dissent is suddenly unpatriotic. Questions are discouraged. People assume they hold the right not to be offended. Expression of alternative viewpoints is precluded.
Academic institutions, once America’s shining example of intellectual diversity, now serve as leftist indoctrination centers. Worse, some national security threats can no longer be openly discussed by intelligence professionals. DHS whitewashes the problems. The media fails to report them.
Free speech serves as the foundation of free and democratic societies. Without free speech there can be no political opposition. Those who oppose government or mainstream views are oppressed, penalized, imprisoned, or even executed. All socialist, communist, fascist, and tyrannical regimes know that the first step in stemming political opposition to their power is to stifle free speech. The Nazis burned books, Stalin outlawed non-state controlled newspapers, and Iran is currently jailing those who peacefully protest June’s election outcome. In some American journalistic circles, terrorism seems less subject to criticism than objectively reporting its roots.
In western countries, free speech ought not be considered a privilege but a fundamental right. Its restriction doesn’t merely violate human rights, but additionally constitutes a national security risk. In order to secure America’s freedom, the public must be informed of freedom’s ideological threats. Intelligence must be permitted to discuss ideological motivations for terrorism. The media has a duty, not to be “sensitive” but to report accurately. Academia has an obligation to foster independent thought.
Banned in Britain is an easy, interesting, and enlightening read. Savage portrays his story in context of the increasing social, political and legal encroachments on western freedom of speech. Those who speak out with differing, conservative, or controversial viewpoints are incrementally being silenced. Now an American talk show host can be banned from the country that gave us the Magna Carta. Will the thousands of listeners who share his views be next?
____________________________________________________________________________________
Deborah Weiss, Esq. delivers speeches on Political Islam's Assault on Free Speech and is a regular contributor to FrontPage Magazine. www.vigilancenow.org
Read more ...
Much Ado About CAIR By Deborah Weiss Published December 24th, 2009 by FrontPage Magazine Is it a mainstream Muslim civil rights organization, an illegal lobbying firm, a terrorist front group or all of the above? In the eye-opening new book titled Muslim Mafia, former federal investigator Dave Gaubatz and Paul Sperry (author of Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington) provide an inside look into the controversial tax-exempt organization known as Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). In a brazen display of courage, Dave’s son, Chris, feigned conversion to Islam and loyalty to its radical tenets. After winning over the trust of CAIR’s top leaders and inner circles, Chris Gaubatz aka David Marshall became privy to the private meetings and secret documents of this notorious organization. Muslim Mafia tells the story of what Chris and his cohorts discover when they infiltrate the infiltrators.
During a six month sting operation, during which time he earned an award from CAIR, Chris was tasked with shredding confidential documents. But instead, he brought them home for examination. He taped conversations, researched court documents, and investigated the organization’s finances, goals, strategies and key players. What he found is both fascinating and frightening.
Muslim Mafia portrays CAIR as nothing less than America’s fifth column. It is part of a network of organizations including ISNA, NAIT, MSA, and others which front for the Muslim Brotherhood and conspire to incrementally Islamize the west. The Muslim Brotherhood’s goal is to sabotage the United States from within, and its main weapon is deceit.
The book demonstrates that CAIR is anything but a true civil rights organization. Rather, it constitutes a turnstile for terrorist-supporters and victimizes mainstream Muslims who seek its aid. It has penetrated major US institutions, derailed counterterrorism training programs, placed moles in law enforcement agencies, and advised mosque-goers to remain silent in the face of FBI investigations.
Sadly, political correctness in collusion with Islamic radicalism has weakened America’s national security. Indeed, some in the FBI notified CAIR in advance of its raids, rendering the raids useless. And until recently, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies employed CAIR to provide “sensitivity training” to their agents, teaching them how to refrain from offending terrorist suspects held in custody. Field agents complained that higher ups seemed more concerned about appeasing organizations with terrorist ties than actually investigating them.
Recently, in the largest terrorism trial in the US, where several defendants were convicted and sent to jail, CAIR and ISNA were named unindicted co-conspirators. Despite this, aspects of law enforcement persist in “Muslim outreach” to these same organizations.
Political correctness is also causing America to lose control of framing the issues for the war on terror. And generally, those who frame the debate win it. Yet, succumbing to Islamist propaganda, the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, and the National Counterterrorism Center have distributed memos to their employees dissuading them from using a host of words and phrases ranging from “jihad” to “Islamic terrorism”. If America can’t name her enemies and discuss them, neither can she produce a strategy to defeat them.
It is progress that the FBI finally cut ties with CAIR subsequent to the Holy Land Foundation trial. It is also encouraging that some Congressmen are calling for an investigation of CAIR. However, much work remains. Muslim Brotherhood fronts are still infiltrating other areas of society including corporations, banks, courts, academia and media. Their persuasion tactics range from political donations and carefully crafted public relations messages to lies, propaganda, economic boycotts, name-calling, bogus lawsuits and veiled threats.
For example, CAIR affiliates have managed to obtain congressional staff positions. CAIR still works closely with some congressional offices, drafting legislation and otherwise targeting key committees to influence policy. Among its goals are to strip America of her counterterrorism tools, eliminate immigration restrictions from high risk Muslim countries, outlaw profiling, criminalize criticism of Islam, abolish aid to Israel, and withdraw US troops from both Iraq and Afghanistan. Some politicians share CAIR’s anti-freedom and anti-national security sentiments. Others have been the recipients of purposeful disinformation campaigns by various Muslim Brotherhood front groups that pose as mainstream.
The Pentagon’s Muslim Chaplain program exemplifies another Muslim Brotherhood success story. It was started by Alamoudi, then-head of the Muslim American Society, while he simultaneously raised money for Al-Qaeda. The program provided the Pentagon’s stamp of approval to radical imams. Though Alamoudi now sits in jail, the program he started remains in place.
The Treasury Department and Wall Street are the next targets for Islamists. They are pushing for sharia-compliant financing, the instruments of which are precluded from dealing with alcohol, pork, and any business with Israel. Dispute resolution must be handled by sheiks who are expert in sharia law, rather than by the SEC. The goal is to create a parallel financial system at odds with American values and lacking government accountability. Worse, a portion of the earnings from sharia-compliant financing goes to “Islamic charities” many of which are questionable at best. Never-the-less, the Treasury Department offered its first course titled “Islamic Banking 101” earlier this year.
Allowing Muslims and others of all faiths to immigrate to America and enjoy her way of life is the American way. But America cannot allow her freedom of religion to be turned on its head and used against her. She ought not accommodate radicals who demand respect for the intolerant, attempt to reduce national security, restrict freedom of speech or ultimately seek the merging of mosque and state.
America must do more than merely defend herself from her enemies. She must be pro-active. America cannot wait for another 9/11 or until CAIR and other Muslim Brotherhood front groups achieve their objectives before learning their true motivations. She must act now before it is too late.
Muslim Mafia is a fascinating read which, at a minimum, raises critical issues that demand to be asked and answered. To support its claims, it details copious citations from court records, declassified FBI documents, interviews with government officials, counterterrorism expertise, and internal CAIR memos. Get the book and become informed. America’s freedom and national security depend on it.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Deborah Weiss, Esq. is a columnist for FrontPage Magazine. She delivers speeches and seminars on Political Islam's Assault on Free Speech at www.vigilancenow.org
Labels: radical Islam; CAIR; Islamism
Read more ...
By Deborah Weiss Published by the American Security Council Foundation The Muslim Brotherhood, a radical Islamist organization which originated in Egypt, has tentacles that reach around the globe. Its agenda is to establish worldwide sharia (Islamic) law. Because its tactics are largely non-violent and incremental, it operates under the radar and often goes unnoticed. Its plans are long term, but its adherents are patient. And make no mistake about it, it’s making inroads.
Now, evidence has surfaced demonstrating that the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) is at the nucleus of Muslim Brotherhood front activity in the United States. A recently published book titled, “Muslim Mafia”, written by former investigator and counterterrorism expert David Gaubatz and Paul Sperry (author of “Infiltration”,) reveals the shocking details of the undercover operation conducted by Gaubatz’s son.
After having assumed the role of an Islamic convert and winning the confidence of CAIR’s leadership, twenty-nine year old Chris Gaubatz aka David Marshall attained an internship at CAIR’s national headquarters where he gained access to private meetings and top secret records. He was assigned to shred boxes of documents, but instead brought them home for further examination. There, he discovered persuasive evidence that CAIR, ISNA and NAIT are part of the Muslim Brotherhood network.
Drawn from thousands of memos, emails and faxes, Muslim Mafia demonstrates that CAIR:
• supports organizations with terrorist ties (indeed the Justice Department designated CAIR, ISNA and NAIT as unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation trial, where several defendants were found guilty of funneling money to Hamas);
• overtly claims to cooperate with the FBI, but covertly advises Muslims to remain silent when questioned, thus obstructing investigations;
• builds unilateral “bridges” to law enforcement, the interfaith community and political circles in order to obtain information and cement relationships to provide itself with credence and possibly shield itself from investigation;
• is funded by foreign donors; and
• lobbies congress in possible violation to its IRS tax-exempt status and other US laws.
CAIR’s goals are:
• to support Palestinian terrorists;
• to eliminate aid to Israel;
• to abolish restrictions on immigration from high-risk Muslim countries;
• to desensitize Americans to creeping sharia;
• to dismantle America’s counterterrorism tools; and
• to infiltrate America’s government, corporate, media and academic institutions to gradually Islamize America.
In pursuit of these goals, CAIR’s primary arsenal is deceit. Though it purports to be mainstream, in reality, CAIR is a Muslim extremist organization. Abusing America’s freedom of religion and non-disclosure laws inherent in its non-profit status, CAIR conceals its donor base and operates to influence American policy by targeting key congressional committees including the Judiciary Committee, the Committee on Homeland Security, and the Intelligence Committee.
Taking advantage of America’s tolerant and trusting nature, CAIR uses public relations, propaganda and lies to convince the FBI, law enforcement and the public that it is nothing more than a well-meaning American-Muslim civil rights organization. Yet, Muslim Mafia tells a different story. It provides examples of how CAIR applies the tactics of pressure, persuasion, false claims of discrimination, economic boycotts and veiled threats to attain sway.
Unfortunately, political correctness has formed an unholy alliance with Islamism. Consequently, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies hired CAIR on the tax-payers’ dime to provide “sensitivity training” to its agents. There, agents learned how to handle terrorism suspects in a non-offensive manner. Instead of investigating organizations with terrorist ties, government and interfaith outreach efforts to CAIR and its affiliates had the effect of legitimizing America’s sworn enemies. Further, some FBI field agents protested that higher ups provided CAIR with advance notice of FBI raids to Islamist organizations, rendering the raids useless.
Fortunately, the FBI recently cut ties with CAIR. Additionally, the book Muslim Mafia has inspired some Congressmen to demand an investigation of CAIR. This is a commendable first step, but much more needs to be done. The FBI still collaborates with ISNA. Other law enforcement agencies still work with CAIR. Moreover, several congressmen accept campaign donations from CAIR leaders, speak at CAIR banquets, and work with CAIR on legislative initiatives.
Sadly, CAIR and its Muslim Brotherhood sister organizations are having an impact. For example, Alamoudi, once head of the Muslim American Society, started the Muslim Chaplain program at the Pentagon, all-the-while raising money for Al-Qaeda. Though Alamoudi now sits in jail, the program he commenced, which provides the Pentagon’s seal of approval to radical imams continues to this day.
Radicals have also been successful in pushing to have terrorists tried in civilian courts rather than military tribunals (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed), strong-arming corporations to remove from the market products that have allegedly offensive designs (Nike, Burger King, and others), and penalizing those in the media who are critical of radical Islam (Michael Graham WMAL was fired, and CAIR is suing Michael Savage). These are just a few examples of the myriad of successes enjoyed by non-violent Islamist organizations.
The next targets are the Treasury Department and Wall Street, where Islamists are advocating sharia-compliant financing. Sharia compliant instruments are prohibited from dealing with alcohol, pork and any business dealings with Israel. Disputes are resolved by sheiks who are expert in sharia law, rather than by the SEC. If successful, sharia compliant financing will result in the creation of a parallel financial system that lacks government accountability and contradicts American values. Worse, sharia compliant financing requires that a portion of earnings are donated to “Islamic charities” many of which are questionable. Despite this, the Treasury Department offered its first course titled “Islamic Banking 101” earlier this year.
Eight years after September 11, 2001, Americans and those they elected are still largely uninformed or misinformed as to the nature of her enemy in the War on Terror. We are fighting those who adhere to an ideology that is intolerant and anathema to freedom. Terrorism is not the cause of the problem; it is merely a symptom. The media, government officials, the intelligence community and the public had better wake up from their slumber before it is too late. It would behoove politicians of all stripes to set aside political correctness and learn the enemy’s playbook instead of refusing to read it. It is imperative to understand our enemy’s ideological and theological motivations if we are to successfully achieve a strategy to defeat him. Once we have a proper understanding of the threat and put ourselves on proper war footing, we can prevent tragedies such as the murders at Fort Hood and Binghamton University. We will understand the perils of trying the likes of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian court and refrain from making such grave errors. It is not un-American to protect ourselves from supremacist totalitarian ideologies, even when they cloak themselves in the name of religion. On the contrary, countering the efforts of CAIR and its Muslim Brotherhood network is the only way America can ultimately secure her freedom. Buy Muslim Mafia and become informed. You won’t regret it. America’s freedom and national security are at stake.
Labels: CAIR; radical Islam; national security; Muslim Brotherhood
Read more ...
A demand for 'Respect' Islamic Conference fosters drive for Shariah Article originally published in The Washington Times October 30, 2009 By Deborah Weiss The secretary-general of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) recently delivered a little-reported speech at the United States Institute of Peace. In it he demanded that the United States give the Muslim world "respect." But precisely what does he mean by that?
The OIC comprises 57 states with Muslim majorities, and is expected to expand to 60 states. It is the second-largest nongovernmental organization, surpassed only by the United Nations. It is without exception the most powerful Muslim organization in the world, often voting as a bloc on international issues.
In his claim to power, Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Insanoglu enjoys expansive authority to speak on behalf of the OIC, conferred to him by the OIC charter. He boasts of speaking as the voice of the Muslim world, representing 1.5 billion Muslims. "We have an edge on all Islamic movements, and enjoy respect from all of them" he noted.
Indeed, according to Mr. Insanoglu, the push for Shariah (Islamic) courts was a movement nobody paid much attention to originally. It was he who brought those pushing for this change into the fold, and now they are making great strides. Proud to credit himself with this accomplishment, Mr. Insanoglu boasted that Sheikh Sharif, the former head of the Shariah courts movement, is now president of Somalia and is supported by both the OIC and the United States.
In a mild-mannered voice, Mr. Insanoglu observed that we are moving toward a global world order. He believes a shift in power is inevitable within 10 years.
He asserted that the "root causes" of the conflict between the United States and the Muslim world are threefold. First, the Muslim world is disenchanted with America because of its support for Israel and because of Israel's "apartheid" policies and the resulting "indignities" Palestinians must endure. Second, when the United States withdrew from Afghanistan after the Soviet Union left, Muslims felt abandoned. Third, Muslims opposed the war in Iraq, and are angry because of subsequent Iraqi deaths and the abuse of Abu Ghraib prisoners.
Clearly laying out the "preconditions" for good U.S.-Muslim relations, Mr. Insanoglu demanded that these three "problems" be addressed "properly." Additionally, America must stop "infringing on the activities of the Muslim world" and change its mindset to stop perceiving Islam negatively. After all, the OIC can be a threat to the United States or a conciliatory force. The choice is in America's hands.
Mr. Insanoglu insisted that America and the OIC have more "mutual interests" than not. To demonstrate this point, he noted OIC's collaboration with the United States to combat malaria in Africa, and its interest in alleviating poverty and homelessness in indigenous lands.
Mr. Insanoglu is optimistic about improving OIC-U.S. relations. It was step in the right direction when President Bush proclaimed his respect for the Muslim faith and apologized for any bias against Muslims. It further helped that he appointed an envoy to the Muslim world. After all, the OIC welcomes any envoy - so long as he is Muslim - and has the ear of the president.
Now that President Obama sits in office, the OIC is especially hopeful. "The Cairo speech was historical, and addressed the Muslim world for the first time in a positive way." Mr. Insanoglu applauded Mr. Obama's good intentions. He hopes the intentions transform into policies, which will then lead to programs, making "the president's and the Muslim world's dream a reality." He looks forward to a new partnership with America and believes Mr. Obama's Cairo speech echoed the same sentiment.
A specific dream that Mr. Insanoglu says he shares with the president is that of a nuclear-free world. He emphasized that there should be "only one yardstick" in coping with problem countries that refuse to rid themselves of nuclear weapons.
Israel should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons, while other countries are requested to forgo theirs. If Iran has nuclear weapons, it should be honest about it.
But, Mr. Insanoglu was quick to add that "we shouldn't repeat the same type of mistake that we made with Iraq," when reports of weapons of mass destruction turned out to be erroneous. We must act slowly and cautiously with regard to Iran. In fact, the head of Iran's nuclear program is "a very intelligent, decent guy." Mr. Insanoglu knows this because the program head was formerly the secretary's assistant general of science and technology at the OIC for four years.
During the question-and-answer period, Mr. Insanoglu was challenged regarding the OIC's track record and positions on human rights and free speech. He argued that the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights, which restricted human rights to conform with Shariah law (in effect negating these rights), was "a long time ago." He suggested the audience review the OIC's new charter and its 10-year plan.
I did just that. Though the language has changed, the goals are similar. The OIC's documents indicate that it seeks increased power, Islamist supremacy, the denigration of Israel, restrictions on free speech, and the whitewashing of any connection of Islam to terrorism. The "joint efforts" are to boost the Muslim world only. There is no hint that the OIC intends to treat Christians and Jews who are persecuted by Muslims, as sudden equals.
The burden of attaining a "positive relationship" rests entirely in the hands of Western dhimmis who naively think capitulation will make their enemies like them more. And that, dear friends, constitutes the "respect" that the OIC demands.
Deborah Weiss is a lawyer and a columnist for FrontPage Magazine and American Thinker. She also gives speeches and seminars on the legal instruments used by radicals to stifle free speech. To schedule a seminar, contact info@Vigilancenow.org
Labels: radical Islam; Organization of Islamic Conference; sharia law; islamic Supremacy
Read more ...
CAIR Stoops To Yet Another Low
CAIR is using the Fort Hood massacre to promote a fundraiser. Excerpt from the CAIR letter below the fold, from this source: We need financial help to meet these crises and push back against those who seek to score political points off the Muslim community in the wake of the Fort Hood tragedy. Also note this paragraph: Our tone and immediate response is paying off. Major media acknowledged the strong statement that American Muslims issued condemning the Fort Hood attack. On CNN, Anderson Cooper reported that CAIR “reacted to the shooting spree, condemning the attack in the strongest terms possible.” ON MSNBC’s Hardball, Chris Matthews noted that CAIR was “quick to condemn the massacre.” The letter is signed by Nihad Awad, CAIR's National Executive Director.
Read the entire letter HERE. Be sure to check out the postscript.
May CAIR's resources be strained to the breaking point.
Labels: CAIR, Fort Hood
Read more ...
Obama’s Resolution to Stifle Free Speech on Islam – by Deborah Weiss Published by FrontPage Magazine, Oct 16th, 2009 On October 1, 2009, the Obama administration in conjunction with the Egyptian government, introduced an anti-free speech measure to the United Nation’s Human Rights Council (HRC). It was adopted the next day without a vote. Earlier this year, when the United States sought a seat on the HRC, it was a controversial decision. Many who found the HRC neither credible nor useful, opposed the move. Yet, others were more optimistic that America could change the HRC from within. Perhaps the U.S. could spur debate stemming from its opposition to China, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia on critical human rights votes. Little evidence suggests that Americans on either side of the aisle contemplated the US entering the ring and supporting the opposition’s anti-freedom measures. Yet now, the current administration has done worse: it’s leading the charge. The draft resolution, misleadingly titled “Freedom of Opinion and Expression” includes two troubling components. First, it calls on nation states to take “effective measures” to address and combat “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”. It expresses concern and condemnation of “negative stereotyping of religions and racial groups”. It further attempts to construe this as an international human rights law and obligation. Second, it recognizes the media’s “moral and social responsibilities” and the “importance” that its potential voluntary code of conduct could play in combating intolerance. This resolution appears to stem from, and constitute a step toward, the Organization of Islamic Conference’s resolution to “combat defamation of religions”. The OIC’s resolution would ban outright the “defaming” of religions, speech critical of religion (even if accurate), and open discussion about any negative consequences resulting from the implementation of religious beliefs (such as Sharia law). Though both resolutions mention “religions” generally, the context and references of the resolutions make them almost certain to apply only or disproportionately to Islam. Indeed, the defamation of religions resolution singles out treatment of Islam. Yet not surprisingly, the OIC has blatantly refused to curtail hate speech against Jews or Israel. Further, it is the nature of religion to include a component of exclusivity, thus making it impossible to express one’s theology accurately without making “defamatory” remarks against another theology. For example, merely preaching that Jesus is the son of God can be viewed as an inflammatory remark and an affront to Islam. Additionally, the wording of this resolution makes its violation subjectively determined and comes dangerously close to outlawing certain emotions, such as hostility toward Islam or Muslims. Critically important is the resolution’s attempt to internationalize norms on speech, potentially usurping fundamental constitutional rights. Strict constructionists of the US constitution view the constitution as “the supreme law of the land” (as the constitution expressly states), whereas those who view the constitution as “a living, breathing document” might not. But even under a strict construction, when the US signs a treaty, the treaty becomes binding on the US. Though this UN resolution does not constitute a treaty, it is fair to presume that because it is a US-led initiative, the US should be bound by it. Also problematic is the resolution’s attempt to make the restriction of free speech a human right. In fact, it is free speech that constitutes a human right and not its restriction. Ideologies, ideas and religions do not, and should not be afforded “human rights”. They should be fair game for criticism, analysis, open debate and discussion. Religions and ideologies cannot be “defamed”. Once ideologies are afforded protection from criticism, it is in direct contradiction to individual human rights. Moreover, some of the language in the resolution is vague and open to interpretation. Given the parties on the HRC who adopted it, a broad construction of speech restrictions is likely. It is no accident that countries which have no freedom of expression show support for this resolution. For example, Ambassador Hisham Badr from Egypt, in discussing his satisfaction with the resolution, stated that “freedom of expression…..has sometimes been misused.” He went on to imply that media which fails to comply with limitations on free speech are unethical. Pakistan Ambassador Zamir Akram, speaking on behalf of the OIC, confirmed that the resolution allows free speech to be trumped by the suppression of that which “defames” religion or expresses a negative stereotype of religion. He asserted that freedom of expression is important but this right carries “duties and responsibilities”, including the need to fight hate speech. He articulated the view that defamation of religion and negative stereotyping are forms of religious hatred. He made clear that in the OIC’s interpretation, such negativity applies not just to individuals, but to religions and belief systems, proclaiming that this constitutes a human rights violation. Jean-Baptiste Mettei from France, speaking on behalf of the European Union, appears to be in denial about the meaning and impact of this resolution. While prefacing his remarks with praise for the resolution, the French Ambassador then declared that human rights laws protect individuals in free speech and freedom of religion and does not protect belief systems. The EU summarily rejected the concept of defamation of religion, and expressly denounced the notion that the media has a moral and social responsibility to curtail speech. He argued that states should not interfere with the work of journalists, and acknowledged their right to editorial independence. As such, the EU could not support the restrictions on journalistic speech embodied in the resolution. In the past, when the US addressed international speech norms, it went out of its way to ensure that treaties by which it was bound would not restrict free speech or undermine America’s first amendment protections. But now, change has come. Arguably relinquishing one of America’s most fundamental freedoms, Obama is once again bowing down to the Muslim world. The interim ranking US diplomat, Douglas Griffiths explained, “[T]his initiative is a manifestation of the Obama administration’s commitment to multilateral engagement throughout the United Nations and of our genuine desire to seek and build cooperation based upon mutual interest and mutual respect in pursuit of our shared common principles of tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.” However, to the OIC, “respect” means the silencing of offensive speech against Islam. With all due respect Mr. President: the attainment of freedom and human rights is not tantamount to winning a popularity contest. And capitulation is not leadership. It is a sad state of affairs when France refutes major portions of a United States initiative because the initiative undermines fundamental freedoms. __________________________________________________________________________________ Deborah Weiss is an attorney and freelance writer. She gives speeches on Political Islam's Assault on Free Speech on behalf of www.Vigilancenow.org Labels: free speech, Islamism, radical islam
Read more ...
If you've read about my legal case, you'll know that I have recently suffered through a frivilous lawsuit brought by several Dallas-area Islamist groups. They attempted to harm me financially, while trying to remove my rights to free speech, free assembly and free press -- basically all of the main freedoms we cherish as Americans. My friend Paul Williams is going through something similar in Canada. Please read about his case below and help him in whatever way you can. Joe Kaufman -------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Tracy Hood - No Compromise News "AMERICAN JOURNALIST STRIPPED OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS" Next week, investigative journalist and author Dr. Paul L. Williams will be tried in a foreign court for his investigative work on reports of al Qaeda terrorists at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario. But he broke no American statute and his alleged violation of Canadian law took place not in Canada, but at his home in Pennsylvania. Williams got into a legal jam with the Canadians while discussing his book The Dunces of Doomsday on the nationally syndicated “Coast-to-Coast AM” radio program with George Noory. To make matters more bizarre, Williams had been advised by the Ontario Provincial Police to issue warnings to his fellow Americans about terrorist activity at the Canadian university that placed the lives of countless millions of Americans in jeopardy. The case is significant since it represents the first time an American journalist is being forced to submit to Canadian law. Williams has been stripped of his Constitutional rights and forced to deplete his financial savings to pay for his Canadian lawyers. “The matter would have gone away if I simply signed an apology,” Williams said, “but what kind of journalist would I be if I apologized for telling the truth?” He estimates that the cost of the lawsuit already has topped $500,000. Williams visited McMaster University in May, 2006 to verify accounts by Janice Kephardt of the 9/11 Commission, journalists Bill Gertz and Scott Wheeler of “The Washington Times,” former federal prosecutor John Loftus, and others, that the liberal Canadian university had harbored leading al Qaeda operatives, including Adnan el-Shukrijumah, Jaber A. Elbaneh, Abderraouf Jdey, and Amer el-Maati. The same sources testified that when the al Qaeda operatives left McMaster, “over 80 kilograms” (180 pounds) of nuclear material was reported missing. During his visit to McMaster, Williams says that he discovered an over-abundance of professors from terror-sponsoring countries within the university’s department of engineering. In the Division of Earthquake Engineering, he says, 9 out of 10 faculty members were from the Universities of Cairo and Alexandria. Similarly, Williams maintains the three McMaster officials, who head the College of Engineering and supervise the work at the reactor, all hailed from the University of Cairo. Jane Corbin of the BBC has reported that the engineering department at the University of Cairo remains under the control of the Muslim Brotherhood. Williams says that he and several of his associates, including a licensed private investigator, met with officials from the Ontario Provincial Police, who confirmed that McMaster has been under scrutiny for a long time; that many of the students have ties to radical Islam and terrorist organizations; and that Islamic members of the faculty have conducted clandestine meetings at an off-campus address in Hamilton. The officials in question - - Detective Constables Dennis Bryson and Tim Trombley - - were not available for comment. Williams insists that the problem at McMaster was evidenced by the fact that several of the terrorists who were taken into custody in the plot to kill the Canadian Prime Minister and to blow up Parliament were students at the school. Supporting Williams’s contentions, Hamid Mir, the only journalist to interview Osama bin Laden in the wake of 9/11, has testified on tape that Anas el-Liby, a founder of al Qaeda, attended McMaster and managed, along with other al Qaeda operatives, to steal 80 kilos of nuclear material from the poorly guarded facilities at the school. Jayne Johnson, a spokesperson for McMaster, declined to comment on whether el Shukrijumah and other al Qaeda operatives were ever students at the school. She maintained that such information was confidential. Peter Downward, the attorney representing the University says, "We regard Mr. Williams' allegations about McMaster as being on a par with UFO reports and JFK conspiracy theories. The notion that because there are people on faculty from Egypt that McMaster is then a haven for terrorism is not only logically offensive, it smacks of racism.” McMaster may get away with dismissing findings of lawyers, investigators from the 9-11 Commission, and international journalists as racist, logically offensive, and looney. However, the predominance of Muslims from terror sponsoring countries at McMaster and the lack of security at the reactor has been verified by independent sources, including Sean Michaels of GlobalTV-CA. Moreover, Ontario police officials have labeled the campus “a hive of jihadi activity.” In Canada, any person offended by a statement can file a lawsuit, and it remains up to the respondent to prove his innocence.
Read more ...
Any problems, please send e-mail to info@AmericansAgainstHate.org
|
