Category Archives: Censorship

The Muslims with No Name: Islamists Cover Up Their Existence in the Media

Posted on by
2

20130407_AP_SHSSSBy ANDREW E. HARROD, SAM NUNBERG:

As reported by U.S. News & World Report on April 4, 2013, the Associated Press (AP) has revised its definition of “Islamist” in the latest edition of the AP stylebook after the AP announced that it would likewise no longer approve of “illegal immigrant.”  This move, advocated precisely by a troubling Muslim group justifiably called Islamist in the past, shows once again how difficult it is for modern free societies even to identify their Islamist foes in the face of politically correct pressures.

Added to the AP stylebook in 2012, Islamist initially had the following entry: “Supporter of government in accord with the laws of Islam.  Those who view the Quran as a political model encompass a wide range of Muslims, from mainstream politicians to militants known as jihadi.”  The updated entry reads:

An advocate or supporter of a political movement that favors reordering government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam.  Do not use as a synonym for Islamic fighters, militants, extremists or radicals, who may or may not be Islamists.

Where possible, be specific and use the name of militant affiliations:  al-Qaida-linked, Hezbollah, Taliban, etc.  Those who view the Quran as a political model encompass a wide range of Muslims, from mainstream politicians to militants known as jihadi.

Ibrahim Hooper, national communications director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), praised “this revision” as a “step in the right direction” that “will result in fewer negative generalizations in coverage of issues related to Islam and Muslims.”  Hooper considered the “key issue with the term ‘Islamist’” to be “not its continued use,” but rather “its use almost exclusively as an ill-defined pejorative.”

Hooper had previously recommended on January 3, 2013, that the media “[d]rop the term ‘Islamist,’” which had “become shorthand for ‘Muslims we don’t like.’”  This term’s “almost exclusively pejorative context” has an “even more negative slant” when “often coupled with the term ‘extremist.’”  By analogy, Hooper rejected any hypothetical media references to the “‘Judaist government of Israel,’ the ‘Christianist leader Rick Santorum’ or ‘Hinduist Indian politician Narendra Modi’” when describing “those who would similarly seek governments ‘in accord with the laws’ of their respective faiths.”

“Many Muslims,” Hooper stated, who wish to serve the public good are influenced by the principles of their faith.  Islam teaches Muslims to work for the welfare of humanity and to be honest and just.  If this inspiration came from the Bible, such a person might well be called a Good Samaritan.  But when the source is the Quran, the person is an “Islamist.”

The “frequent linkage of the term ‘Islamist’” to various human rights violations was “strongly promoted by Islamophobic groups.”  This appeared to Hooper as attempts “to launch rhetorical attacks on Islam and Muslims, without the public censure that would normally accompany such bigoted attacks on any other faith.”  “Islam-bashers,” Hooper elaborated, “routinely use the term to disingenuously claim they only hate ‘political’ Islam, not the faith itself,” yet “fail to explain how a practicing Muslim can be active in the political arena without attracting the label ‘Islamist.’”

If retained at all by “media professionals,” Hooper recommended that “Islamist” appear only when a “group applies the term to itself,” analogous to the AP’s treatment of “fundamentalist.”  Absent such elimination or modification, “Islamist” entailed a “political and religious value judgment” that “is hardly fair or balanced.”

Hooper might well reject the “Islamist” label, for this term has in the past denounced CAIR in, for example, the Investigative Report on Terrorism (IPT)’s exhaustive 118-page report on CAIR.  IPT documents how CAIR, an unindicted co-conspirator in the successful 2008 prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development for financing Hamas terrorists, has its origins in American entities of the Muslim Brotherhood affiliate Hamas.  Accordingly, CAIR has an extensive history of apologizing for militant jihad and repressive sharia practices as well as CAIR functionary convictions for supporting Islamic terrorism.  Hooper himself has in the past stated that he would like to see the United States government become “Islamic” and implement sharia.
Read more: Family Security Matters

Andrew E. Harrod is a freelance researcher and writer who holds a PhD from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and a JD from George Washington University Law School.  He is admitted to the Virginia State Bar.  He has published various pieces concerning an Islamic supremacist agenda at the Middle East Forum’s Legal Project, American Thinker, and Faith Freedom International.

 

None Dare Call It Islamism

Posted on by
1

islamist-450x252By Daniel Greenfield:

The Associated Press, after putting up a brief defense of the English language, ceded the term “gay marriage,” then “illegal immigrant” and finally “Islamist.” The left has a long history with political language and the media, so these latest triumphs were only a matter of time.

“Don’t tell me words don’t matter,” Obama once said, while insisting that they meant the opposite of what we thought they meant. The left believes that words matter because they allow people to communicate the wrong sort of ideas. Change the words and you change the ideas.

Islamism is one of those ideas. The idea is that people ought to live under Islam. This was thought to be a bad idea, back in those dark days before we learned that Islamism is as American as Mom, Other Mom and Apple Pie.

Now we know that Islamism is actually the best defense against Islamism so long as it’s the good kind of Islamism that involves terrorist groups winning elections and shooting their people in the streets instead of the bad kind of Islamism which involves terrorist groups shooting people in the streets without first running for office.

The Muslim Brotherhood used to be the bad kind of Islamists that set off bombs and shot people in the streets, but then they disavowed violence, ran for office, shredded what was left of the law and began torturing and killing their opponents who protested the shredding.

Opponents of Islamism, the word not the idea, warn that if we associate Islamism with Islamist terrorist groups, then Muslims will get the idea that Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood are the same thing. The only argument that they present in favor of them not being the same thing is that the media always calls the Muslim Brotherhood a moderate group. And if they’re a moderate group, they clearly can’t be torturing and killing their opponents, even if the same news stories that call them moderate also report that they are torturing and killing their opponents.

Read more at Front Page

Related article

CAIR tells School: Don’t Criticize Hamas and the Taliban

Posted on by
Reply

Islamist Watch,  Mar 18, 2013 

by Marc J. Fink:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has called for called for a Justice Department civil rights investigation against a small-town Washington teacher for “racism.” Her offense? According to Brigitte Gabriel of ACT! For America, “during a class on bullying, she referred to Hamas and the Taliban as examples of organizations that use violence to bully people.”

In a statement, the teacher said:

I explained to [the students] that I was not talking about Muslims and Arabs in general, but groups that chose to impose their will by training people to intimidate and kill other people. … It is related to a state mandate that public schools teach students about bullying and not allow it.

CAIR’s attack against the teacher is specifically aimed at the education system, threatening to constrict the capacity of our youth to comprehend the world. The implications of an education system dominated by the Islamist group are dire and in direct conflict with the American way of life.

Hamas Deliberately Targets Children. In 2011, the terror group launched an anti-tank missile directly at a yellow school bus. A 16-year-old boy, the only passenger on the bus, was critically wounded. The driver had just dropped off 30 other students. The New York Daily News called the attack “subhuman.”

86

The Taliban Regularly Stone Women to Death. In 2010, ABC News reported on a video showing a woman stoned to death by the Taliban. Below is an unedited, graphic video of the horrific crime.

 

The Islamist Group CAIR Has Penetrated Deep Into America.

CAIR has penetrated areas far from traditional Muslim population centers such as Dearborn, MI and Northern New Jersey. CAIR's latest assault is against a teacher in Concrete, WA (A pin), an isolated town 100 miles from Seattle.

CAIR has penetrated areas far from traditional Muslim population centers such as Dearborn, MI and Northern New Jersey. CAIR’s latest assault is against a teacher in Concrete, WA (A pin), an isolated town 100 miles from Seattle.

A rally in support of the teacher will take place Tuesday, March 19 at 7:30 p.m. at the Concrete Assembly of God, Concrete, WA.

 

Related articles

Facebook’s “Accidental Mistake” and Free Speech in the Arab World

Posted on by
Reply

FB censoringby Khaled Abu Toameh

Many Palestinian journalists, and those in the Middle East, are forced to use Facebook to publish what their own media will not accept. But the problem becomes worse when Facebook itself starts removing material that bothers dictatorships and tyrants. One can only hope that the same Facebook employee who “accidentally” removed the article will make the same mistake and and close down the accounts belonging to terrorist organizations and their leaders. It is the duty of Facebook and Western societies to side with those seeking freedom, and not to be complicit in suppressing there voices.

“All censorships exist to prevent anyone from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions. All progress is initiated by challenging current conceptions, and executed by supplanting existing institutions. Consequently, the first condition of progress is the removal of censorship.” — George Bernard Shaw

Earlier this week, Facebook closed down this writer’s account for “security reasons,” arguing that he had posted an item that violates its terms of use.

Twenty-four hours later, Facebook issued a “sincere apology” and said that a member of its team had “accidentally removed something you posted on Facebook. This was a mistake.”

Although Facebook did not say which “problematic” item had prompted it to take such a drastic measure, apparently it was referring to an article that had been published by Gatestone Institute: The Palestinian Authority’s Inconvenient Truths.

Facebook’s move came at a time when Arab dictatorships in general, and the Palestinian Authority in particular, have been cracking down on Facebook users.

During the past year alone, a number of Palestinian journalists and bloggers were arrested by Western-funded Palestinian Authority security services in the West Bank for criticizing the PA leadership on their Facebook pages.

Among those detained was Esmat Abdel Khaleq, a university lecturer in journalism. She was held in detention for two weeks for posting comments on her Facebook page that allegedly insult Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

Many Palestinian journalists, and those in the Middle East, are forced to use Facebook to publish what their own media will not accept. The media in the West Bank is mostly controlled by the Palestinian Authority, which has repeatedly demonstrated a large degree of intolerance toward any form of criticism. The same applies, of course, to most Arab dictatorships.

Arab governments have obviously become wary of the use their critics are making of Facebook to air their grievances and opinions. In some countries, including the Palestinian Authority, intelligence services have set up special teams to monitor Facebook and other social media networks in search of critics and “dissidents.”

But the problem becomes worse when Facebook itself starts removing material that bothers dictatorships and tyrants.

One can only hope that the same Facebook employee who “accidentally” removed the article will make the same mistake and close down accounts belonging to terrorist organizations and their leaders.

Take for example, the account of senior Hamas official Izzat al Risheq, or the numerous accounts that promote hatred and violence and are openly affiliated with terrorist and jihadi groups.

All one has to do is log in to these accounts, especially the ones in Arabic, to see how most of them are engaged in all forms of incitement.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

Related articles

Video: Free Speech vs. Anti Blasphemy: The Frontline Battle of 2012

Posted on by
4

The David Horowitz Freedom Center held its 17th Restoration Weekend November 15 – 18, 2012 at The Breakers Hotel in Palm Beach, Florida. Here is the panel discussion on Free Speech vs. Anti Blasphemy:

 

Robert Spencer:

 

Pamela Geller:

 

Deborah Weiss:

 

Brooke Goldstein:

 

Question and Answer:

New Movie Documents Islamist Threat to Free Speech–and Obama’s Support for It

Posted on by
6

New York: On September 25, 2012, President Obama astonished many Americans by declaring, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” This is a sentiment espoused by radical Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the Taliban and al Qaeda. Worse yet, his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, revealed the lengths to which the Obama administration is prepared to go to enforce this view when she told the family of a former SEAL killed last month in Benghazi that the producer of a video she falsely claimed precipitated that attack would be “arrested and prosecuted.” He was subsequently taken into custody and remains in jail.Now, the powerful documentary SILENT CONQUEST explains why these affronts to the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of speech are not isolated incidents. Rather, they are part of an ominous pattern of Team Obama’s submission to the stealthy Islamist effort to enforce in this country the supremacist doctrine known as shariah and its prohibition of any expression that “offends” Islam or its god, prophet or followers.The film features interviews with U.S. and foreign legislators, journalists, national security and other experts and Muslim, former Muslim and non-Muslim activists including:Best-selling author Mark Steyn; Rep. Allen West, Member of Congress; Geert Wilders, Member of the Dutch Parliament; Baroness Caroline Cox, Member of the British House of Lords; ACT! for America founder Brigitte Gabriel; scholar and author Daniel Pipes; American Islamic Leadership Council founder Zuhdi Jasser; former Muslim and author Nonie Darwish; former Defense Department official Frank Gaffney; Lord Malcolm Pearson, Member of the British House of Lords; Naser Kader, Member of the Danish Parliament; author and financial terrorism expert Rachel Ehrenfeld; author Pastor Mark Durie, as well as others.

SILENT CONQUEST offers a frightening insight into the extent to which Europe, Canada and the United Nations have already succumbed to the restrictions of shariah blasphemy laws. Its stark warning about the Obama administration’s substantial efforts to accommodate them here, as well, is a wake-up call for every American.

The documentary was produced by Sanctum Enterprises, LLC.

For a limited time, SILENT CONQUEST can be viewed for free online at silentconquest.com.

For more information about the film and its subject matter or to arrange interviews with the film’s featured authorities, contact David Reaboi of the Center for Security Policy at 202.431.1948 and dreaboi@centerforsecuritypolicy.org or media@www.silentconquest.com.

 Frank Gaffney:

As Americans go to the polls, many factors may influence how they vote for  president. Among those — if not pre-eminent among them — should be the kind of  country they want to bequeath to their children. It is unlikely that most voters  would knowingly and deliberately opt for a candidate who appears determined to  make the United States a nation that does not respect and safeguard our most  foundational constitutional right: freedom of expression.

It may seem unbelievable that anyone running for the presidency would even  consider such a betrayal of the oath of office governing that position, let  alone work toward that end. Yet, as a new film, “Silent Conquest,” makes clear,  President Obama, from his first months in office, has been enabling in this  country an insidious effort by Islamic supremacists to keep us from engaging in  speech, videos, training or other forms of expression that offend Muslims, their  god, prophet and faith.

The documentary opens with Mr. Obama’s astounding pronouncement at the U.N. General Assembly on Sept. 25: “The  future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” This  sentiment could have been expressed as easily by the Muslim  Brotherhood, the Organization of Islamic  Cooperation (OIC), the Taliban  or al Qaeda. Unfortunately, it is but one of  many manifestations of an Obama policy approach that has brought U.S. diplomacy  and government practice into closer and closer alignment with the demands of  Islamists that such “slanders” be prohibited and criminalized.

Consider a few of the other examples “Silent Conquest” itemizes with help  from an array of U.S. and foreign legislators, analysts in national security and  other fields, and Muslim and non-Muslim activists (this columnist among  them):

The Obama administration co-sponsored in  March 2009 a resolution in the U.N.  Human Rights Council that basically endorsed the unacceptability of any  expression that offends Islam.

In Cairo in June 2009, Mr. Obama declared, as part of what Mitt Romney and  others have called his “apology tour”: “I consider it part of my responsibility  as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam  wherever they appear.”

In July 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton launched with  the OIC the Istanbul  Process, a multilateral effort to find ways to accommodate Muslim demands for  restrictions on free speech. On that occasion, she declared that among other  means put in the service of this dubious objective would be “old-fashioned  techniques of peer pressure and shaming.”

Mrs. Clinton evidently has  found such methods inadequate. In the aftermath of the murderous attack on our  diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, she joined Mr. Obama and others in  insisting — despite abundant evidence to the contrary — that it had been  precipitated by a “disgusting and reprehensible” act of free expression, namely,  a video denigrating Muhammad produced by a California man. According to Charles  Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods, one of the former Navy SEALs killed while  heroically defending the CIA’s annex and his comrades, Mrs.  Clinton told him that the government was going to “arrest and prosecute” the  filmmaker. Shortly thereafter, the American who had given offense was indeed  taken into custody and will remain there, at least until after the election.

Then there’s this, just in: The man selected to perform the investigation  into the Benghazi debacle for the State Department — whose results will only  become available after Nov. 6 — seems committed to the Shariah blasphemy agenda  as well. As reported by syndicated columnist Diana West, in the course of his  Oct. 23 appearance on a panel at Washington National Cathedral titled “The  Muslim Experience in America,” retired Ambassador Thomas Pickering “made an  ominous call for ‘strong efforts  to deal with opinion leaders who harbor  [anti-Islam] prejudices, who espouse them and spread them.’” He went on to  endorse the characterization of another panelist, Islamist apologist James  Zogby, who claimed “the racism [of U.S. soldiers] was really intense.” Mr.  Pickering even seemed to suggest that the U.S. armed forces are “the enemy.”

Read more at Washington Times

Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy  (SecureFreedom.org), a columnist for The Washington Times and host of Secure  Freedom Radio on WRC-AM (1260).

Anti-Islam film prompts Saudi call for net censorship body

Posted on by
1

The US consulate in Benghazi in flames after the attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens Photo: REUTERS/Esam Al-Fetori

The Telegraph: By Christopher Williams

Saudi Arabia has called for a new international body to censor the internet, in
the wake of the anti-Islam YouTube clip that recently sparked violence in the
Middle East.

In a submission to forthcoming international talks on internet governance, the Gulf state said “there is a crying need for international collaboration to address ‘freedom of expression’ which clearly disregards public order”.

During the controversy over a 14-minute clip posted on YouTube and purportedly a trailer for a feature film called “The Innocence of Muslims”, Google resisted pressure, including from the White House, to remove it.

“This video – which is widely available on the web – is clearly within our guidelines and so will stay on YouTube,” Google said last month.

The Saudi government has now told the World Telecommunications Policy Forum, a UN body, that the incident was “an obvious example” of the need for greater international cooperation to restrict content online.

“Any reasonable person would know that this film would foment violence and, indeed, many innocent persons have died and been injured with this film as a root cause,” the Saudi submission said.

The amateurish clip, produced on tiny budget by Nakoula Nakoula, a 55-year-old Egyptian Coptic Christian resident in the United States, depicts the Prophet Mohammad as a fool and sexual deviant.

In the uproar surrounding it, there were violent protests in across the Middle East and North Africa, coinciding with an attack by extremists on the American Embassy in Benghazi. The Ambassador, Christopher Stevens, and three other officials were killed.

Following the attack Google did restrict access to “The Innocence of Muslims” clip in Egypt and Libya on account of “the very difficult situation”, but maintained its refusal to delete it. The governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan meanwhile ordered internet providers to completely cut off access to YouTube.

The Saudi government called for greater international cooperation to censor such material at the source, comparing it to outlawed content such as images of child abuse and malicious software.

“This behaviour, along with other malicious and criminal activities such as child pornography, identity theft, spam, denial of service attacks, and malware aimed at destroying or crippling businesses, inter alia, must be addressed by states in a collaborative and cooperative environment and strongly underscores the need for enhanced cooperation,” it said.

The submission highlights increasing interest in internet governance discussions from nations that do not share Western liberal values, as access to and the influence of the web grows.

Related articles

The Rutherford Reader Under Assault

Posted on by
Reply

By Justin O. Smith:

Once again ‘The Rutherford Reader’ is under assault by Leftists,
islamofascist sympathizers and the Associated Press over its defense of our
First Amendment from Sharia Law corruption and infiltration of our legal system. The Associated Press sinks to desperate tactics by going back to 2010 and quoting an unintelligent Melissa Eads (Kroger corporate office) as saying ‘The Reader’ was removed from their stores due to a pattern of “hate rhetoric”; she actually said “hate-speech”, which she was at a loss to define when asked. And now, Sara Mitchell and others are attempting to have ‘The Reader’ removed from other locations.

Using the term “hate rhetoric” illustrates that whoever wrote the AP article did not have a good grasp of the English language, could not understand sentences structured around facts and had never read the Western classics of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle; by the same token, Sara Mitchell’s and her accomplice’s actions make it obvious that they do not want to live in a society ruled by freedom of thought, opinion or speech.

I was one of the first to speak out against the vandalism and burning of the Columbia, TN mosque in 2008, however, just as neo-nazi white supremacists would trample on the Civil Rights of peoples of color and reduce them to second class citizens if they could, or just as the New Black Panthers state “we need to kill a whole lot of white babies” and have no qualms disenfranchising whites, so too would Muslims foist the same on all Americans, by eradicating free speech and religious freedom as it has typically existed from our nation’s founding, until the past four decades and especially since 2008; Islam and Sharia represent something much worse than nazifascism as they now stand, which is the reason I write often about Islam’s perverse nature, its incompatibility with democracy and the U.S. Constitution and the need to
halt all Islamic immigration to the U.S. immediately due to Muslims often stated
goal of subordinating and subjugating the entire U.S. under Sharia law
dominance. I simply oppose any attempt to legitimize illiberal, unConstitutional
and anti-Freedom ideologies within these United States!

Islam and Sharia law are more cruel and more steeped in fascist tenets than America’s white supremacist movements or Hitler’s 1940s brand of fascism, within a simple added religious context; so many of the Greatest Generation died fighting this very sort of totalitarian ideology all across Europe…Aren’t Islamic atrocities just as horrible as those perpetrated by the Nazis?…CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood have already insisted on applying Sharia concepts within our state governments and public education system, and Muslim sympathizers like Mitchell, unless they are Leftists too, do not understand that fully applied Sharia law incorporates much more than prayer, food or hygiene rules; Sharia law always becomes an instrument of murder and totalitarianism!

Worship however you desire. Worship trees, goats, earthworms… or Allah…or Jesus Christ… or Buddha… but do not try to force me to worship as you or to submit in any manner to your religious doctrine. Not Christianity… not Hinduism… not Buddhism… Only Islam tries to force itself on others wherever it appears! While I am aware of some peaceful Muslims who truly worship only according to the Abrahamic passages they have stolen from Judaism and Christianity, give me a hundred thousand Buddhists or Sikhs at America’s shores over one Muslim any day!

Has America fallen to the point where only a few lucky
elitist arbiters from the political Left get to decide what is “free speech” and
what is not?

Even the Obama administration is now advocating limits on free speech. We heard Secretary of State Hillary Clinton state that no one should denigrate or insult any religion after our U.S. Ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens was murdered during a planned assault, that UN Ambassador Susan Rice still describes as a “spontaneous protest” over a U.S. made film insulting Islam. As of December 2011 and in contravention of the U.S. Constitution, Clinton has been supporting the UN Resolution 16/18 that criminalizes criticizing Islam in any nation that signs it, and yet, all America regularly witnesses Christianity assaulted, denigrated and insulted in the vilest of manners without any ensuing riots, mayhem and murder occurring (Remember the crucifix in the jar of urine displayed at the Smithsonian and called art?) The Islamic nations simply have not entered the 21st century and are far from civilized.

Whether or not one agrees with any of my positions or those of my esteemed colleagues and the editors of ‘The Rutherford Reader’, our articles are nearly always full of information and facts that the liberal “mainstream media” refuses to address, especially anything relating to Islam, Sharia law and islamofascist tactics or Muslim inspired terrorism in America. From the liberal press perspective, anything that tears apart the fabric of Judeo-Christian principles helps in their battle to fully abrogate the U.S. Constitution and usher in an “elite” Leftist authoritarian government, in which all these little Red-Diaper Doper Babies, such as foot-soldiers like Mitchell, think that they will be a part of that “elite”… probably just described Mitchell’s and accomplice’s fantasy. However, despite their efforts, I will continue speaking and writing the truth, even should there come a time the government calls my words “a crime”… It is my God-Given Right!… And the Truth shines like a Light in the darkest of nights!

People such as Mitchell and others serve Political Correctness and a Leftist agenda, and as lackeys of Islam and the Left they must stick to a script slyly imposed upon them through indoctrination and their own weak minds. How fearful they must be of looking the Truth in the face and denying facts; they are afraid of not being sufficiently aligned, obedient, servile, and thus risk “moral” exile as imposed by immoral socialist societies who blackmail their citizens. They would rather sell their souls to the Islamists and Obama’s Progressive Communists than take a risk, show courage and Live Free! “The secret of happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom is Courage,” said Pericles.

Kaye and Pete Doughtie, editors/owners of ‘The Rutherford Reader’, fight the fascist tactics of the New Left and Islam fearlessly with intelligence and knowledge, as myself and millions of others across Our Beloved America stand with them and refuse to endure such despotism or submit and remain silent in the face of this new combined and growing Left-Muslim fascist movement. And, anyone even remotely considering removing ‘The Rutherford Reader’ should look deep within their own world view… their own souls… to remove ‘The Rutherford reader’ would be a betrayal of every good and decent principle that built this nation… anyone removing ‘The Rutherford Reader’ does a great disservice to the Freedom-Loving People of Rutherford County, the State of Tennessee and these United States!

What Orwell Can Tell Us About the Liberal Appeasement of Islam

Posted on by
Reply

Posted by Daniel Greenfield:

Suppose there were a worldwide movement which openly proclaimed its goal of taking over in your country and every country with the purpose of imposing its system on every human beings on earth. Also suppose that this movement had carried out murders and terrorist attacks in your own country, that members of this group promoted violence while gaining political influence. Suppose also that is was highly unfashionable and politically incorrect to speak out against them.

I am not speaking of Islam here, but of Communism. The current wave of censorship and denial toward Islam is not a new development. It is rather a very old one. Islamophobia, like Red-Baiting, is a political term that serves the function of cutting off any discussion of the subject. It precludes any listing of the facts or debates on the issue, by declaring it to be off-limits. To raise the issue is to expose yourself as a bad person whose ideas are unacceptable for public distribution.

When George Orwell was struggling to find a publisher for Animal Farm, he was repeatedly turned down on the grounds that the book would offend the Soviet Union. One publisher wrote to Orwell that he had been dissuaded from publishing the book by an important official in the Ministry of Information (an agency that would become the Ministry of Truth in his novel, 1984) who had told him that publishing such a book would be ill-advised at this time. That official was, incidentally, a Soviet spy.
The publisher went on to say that the book might be acceptable if it applied generally to dictators, but not specifically to the USSR. Finally the publisher added, “It would be less offensive if the predominant caste in the fable were not pigs. I think the choice of pigs as the ruling caste will no doubt give offence to many people, and particularly to anyone who is a bit touchy, as undoubtedly the Russians are.”
Change around a few names and this is exactly the rejection letters that courageous books critical of Islam have received. It’s fine to make general criticisms of religious fanaticism, so long as those criticisms are universally applied, and do not offend those touchy people who religious fanaticism occasionally expresses itself in dangerous ways.
In a generally deleted preface to Animal Farm, Orwell wrote, “The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary. Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. Anyone who has lived long in a foreign country will know of instances of sensational items of news — being kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that ‘it wouldn’t do’ to mention that particular fact.”
There are quite a few sensational facts and news items that are kept out or minimized in our own media because it would not do to mention them. There are rarely any government officials dictating this censorship, certainly in the United States there are no legal codes that make it mandatory, but this censorship is voluntary. It consists of people censoring themselves, of publications censoring people out of fear of violence, of publishers who feel that this is an ill-advised time to stir up tensions and of a larger body of liberal thinkers who feel that we should sympathize with Islam and ignore any of its violent and supremacist activities.
Read more at Sultan Knish

Conservative’s Anti-Jihad Subway Ad Leads to New Policies: NYC Authority Can Now Ban Ads That Could ‘Incite or Provoke Violence’

Posted on by
Reply

By :

The epic battle between American Freedom Defense Initiative executive director and blogger Pamela Geller and The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) culminated with a court decision that forced the transit authority to permit the display of controversial ads about radical Islam. But the story didn’t end there. As TheBlaze reported this morning, Geller’s case caused the MTA to rethink the manner in which it handles First Amendment issues, leading to the adoption of some potentially-controversial measures.

(Related: Read TheBlaze‘s initial report about the MTA’s changes here)

On Friday, TheBlaze spoke with a spokesperson who confirmed some of the details surrounding the case, while clarifying the new changes that passed on Thursday. As noted, one of the emergent provisions that was added into the public company’s advertising standards in the wake of the Geller debate allows the MTA to deny ads it believes could incite violence (this was not mentioned in the press release the agency put out about the changes).

As previously noted, a document, reflecting yesterday’s changes, was provided by the MTA to TheBlaze this morning. It highlights the transit authority’s advertising standards and reads, in part, “The licensee (‘advertising contractor’) shall not display or maintain any advertisement that falls within one or more of the following categories.” One of the category sections reads:

The advertisement, or any information contained in it, is directly adverse to the commercial or administrative interests of the MTA or is harmful to the morale of MTA employees or contains material the display of which the MTA reasonably foresees would incite or provoke violence or other immediate breach of the peace, and so harm, disrupt, or interfere with safe, efficient, and orderly transit operations.

It is the portion presented in bold that is new to the regulations. It’s inclusion is interesting for a number of reasons. On the surface, it appears oddly placed in the list of grievances that could lead to the banning of an advertisement. Furthermore, there is some ambiguity regarding what led to the inclusion of the “violence” reference in the first place.

Read more at The Blaze

Related articles