When Muslims Assassinate

danish_cartoon_protest

Political Islam, By Bill Warner:

When Muslims assassinate Kafirs who offend Islam, they are following Mohammed’s perfect example.  Any Muslim is permitted to carry out the death sentence, vigilante justice. This is why there was an attempted assassination at Pam Geller’s Garland, TX event.

But what is the perfect Sunna on assassinations? There are five examples of Mohammed ordering people to be murdered because of what they said about him. There was a Jewish poet, an Arab poetess, dancing girls who sang satirical songs, a tribal chief who was planning to fight Mohammed and another Jew who offended Mohammed.

So the next time a Kafir who offends Islam is killed, it is because of Mohammed’s standing orders.

Half of Democrats, A Third of Republicans Want to Ban Hate Speech

screen-shot-2014-04-21-at-2.27.23-pmTruth Revolt, by Mark Tapson, May 21, 2015:

A new poll by YouGov shows just how far toward totalitarianism Americans are slipping:

A’s latest research shows that many Americans support making it a criminal offense to make public statements which would stir up hatred against particular groups of people. Americans narrowly support (41%) rather than oppose (37%) criminalizing hate speech, but this conceals a partisan divide. Most Democrats (51%) support criminalizing hate speech, with only 26% opposed. Independents (41% to 35%) and Republicans (47% to 37%) tend to oppose making it illegal to stir up hatred against particular groups.

As Charles C. Cooke notes at National Review’s Corner,

It’s important to note here that “stir up hatred against” does not mean “instruct a crowd to kill” or “explicitly incite violence against.” Both of those things are already illegal under the Supreme Court’s 1969 Brandenburg standard. Rather, it is a fancy way of saying “be really mean to.”

Back to YouGov:

Support for banning hate speech is also particularly strong among racial minorities. 62% of black Americans, and 50% of Hispanics support criminalizing comments which would stir up hatred. White Americans oppose a ban on hate speech 43% to 36%.

Unlike much of the rest of the developed world… the United States does not make it a criminal offense for people to make statements which encourage hatred of particular groups. For example a prominent British columnist, Katie Hopkins, is being investigated by the police for referring to African migrants crossing the Mediterranean as “cockroaches.”

Cooke again:

You will note that Hopkins did not threaten African migrants, and nor did she ask her readers to meet her the next day and embark upon a violent crusade. She merely said horrible, uncouth things. In America, she would have been absolutely fine. In England, she can — and may — be prosecuted under the Public Order Act.

Should Americans wish to become more like the British, they would have to do no less than to repeal the First Amendment.

The fact that even more than a third of Republicans would be in favor of repealing the First Amendment in order to criminalize offensive speech is alarming, to put it mildly.

Also see:

AFDI-Free-speech-ad-800x548

Critics of Islam Continue to Face Threats

"All is forgiven. I am Charlie." Cover of the Jan. 14 edition of Charlie Hebdo featuring the Prophet Mohammed. Photo: Twitter.

“All is forgiven. I am Charlie.” Cover of the Jan. 14 edition of Charlie Hebdo featuring the Prophet Mohammed. Photo: Twitter.

by IPT News  •  May 19, 2015

French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo suspended a journalist who received death threats for writing articles critical of Islamist radicalism, according to Le Monde and reported by Daily Mail. In a move that many view as hypocritical, the magazine called columnist Zineb El Rhazoui to a preliminary dismissal hearing.

According to the French-Moroccan writer, Charlie Hebdo‘s management is seeking to punish her for being outspoken about the direction the magazine has taken since the Islamist terrorist attack at the magazine’s office which killed 12 people.

“I am shocked and appalled that a management that has received so much support after the January attacks could show so little support for one of its employees, who is under pressure like everyone in the team and has faced threats,” Rhazoui told Le Monde.

Rhazoui and her husband, Moroccan writer Jaouad Benaïssi, were subjected to death threats from Twitter accounts claiming affiliation with the Islamic State. Photos of Benaïssi and his workplace were published along with suggestions on how to kill the couple.

Thousands of people on social media expressed their disapproval of the magazine’s action on social media, including other Charlie Hebdo writers, accusing the magazine of blatant hypocrisy.

“…It is nasty and unfair to call a disciplinary meeting for a member of staff who is still suffering incredibly…It is paradoxical that the magazine receives prizes for freedom of expression while disciplining a journalist whose life is under threat,” writer Patrick Pelloux said.

Furthermore, senior Charlie Hebdo cartoonist Renaud Luzier – who drew the front-page cartoon of the prophet Mohammed for the magazine after the terrorist attack – has resigned citing personal reasons. He asserts that his resignation was mainly a result of personal difficulties ensuing after the terrorist attack and the trauma of losing his friends and co-workers. Luzier claims the decision has nothing to do with internal divisions at the magazine following Rhazoui’s suspension.

Meanwhile, a suspected jihadist standing a criminal trial for planning a robbery and possession of firearms is accused of discussing plans to attack Dutch politician Geert Wilders. According to Dutch intelligence, the suspect returned from fighting in Syria’s civil war.

These developments show that people, from writers to politicians, critical of Islamism and radical extremism continue to be threatened with their lives.

Also see:

Jihadophobia

AP Photo/Binsar Bakkara

AP Photo/Binsar Bakkara

Breitbart, by Daniel Akbari, May 15, 2015:

I’m stunned by how Americans panic when they are threatened with the label “Islamophobe.” They become terrified, their judgment gets clouded, their insight is crippled so that they cannot pause for a moment to ask themselves what Islamophobe means. For Americans, being called an Islamophobe is in the same category as being called homophobic, racist, or sexist. The term Islamophobia has successfully silenced many voices and created an atmosphere in which people deliberately self-censor.

But people should not surrender freedom of speech – the right that Rep. Daniel Webster (R-FL) said was the most important right of all – in response to propaganda. The goal of propaganda is to provoke an emotional response, but Americans deserve a strongly reasoned argument – a reason that makes sense – to give up their freedom of speech. Unfortunately, the mainstream media and even academia have created a culture of shallowness that stops Americans from thinking profoundly when it comes to controversial issues. In the culture of shallowness, people are unable to analyze things deeply, they just look superficially.

The term Islamophobia is the perfect example of this culture of shallowness at work. Breaking Islamophobia down into two separate words, Islam and phobia, enables us to cut through that culture of shallowness. Both Islam and phobia have simple meanings that are easy to understand if used separately. “Islam” is a religion, it is a set of ideas and rules derived from Islamic authoritative sources: the Koran, Hadith, and the consensus of Islamic scholars over the last 1400 years. “Phobia” is a fear that “is in no way justified by reality.” Since phobias are irrational they are considered a psychological disorder. On the basis of the offered definitions, the term Islamophobia means a fear of Islam that lacks a rational basis.

Islam, as a religion, has been subject to different interpretations. The interpretation that is consistent with the authoritative Islamic sources generates sharia and commands jihad. However, there is a broad spectrum of interpretations, some close to the true understanding of Islam and some considered heretical. Being afraid of the fundamental and traditional Islam from which sharia and jihad are spawned is not irrational. In this regard, calling somebody an Islamophobe is tantamount to calling them a Jihadophobe or Sharia-phobe. The fear of jihad and sharia, for those who know them, is a rational fear, it is not a phobia.

Numerous Koran verses explicitly command jihad. Some of the most famous are surah nine of the Koran 9:5,29,73 verse 5, the Verse of the Sword, verse 29, jihad against People of the Book, and verse 73 jihad against hypocrites and unbelievers. Sharia comes from surah 5: 44-48, among others, and tells Muslims they are unbelievers if they do not judge by what Allah has revealed. Sharia is simply the rules for how to practice Islam, formulated by scholars from the Koran and Hadith. For an explanation of the qualification of scholars and how they formulate sharia see Chapter 2 of my latest book, Honor Killing.

The propaganda machine that tars people with the label Islamophobe never dares to discuss the teachings of the authoritative Islamic sources. When they call someone an Islamophobe, it has nothing to do with Islam– they take advantage of the culture of shallowness to make people think the speaker is somehow opposed to Muslims. If they were honest they would say “Muslimophobe.” But who is a Muslim? Many people who come from Islamic countries or have Islamic-sounding names might not be Muslim at all. Many do not practice or even believe in Islam. In the United States, people have come from all parts of the world, including Islamic countries. America has never been against immigrants – against flesh and blood – it is opposed to the ideas that destroy freedom.

As a sharia lawyer, someone who truly understands Islam and sharia law, I know firsthand that living under sharia law is something to be feared. Why Americans have become so shallow and superficial that they do not bother to take the time to question new terms like Islamophobe stuns me.

Daniel Akbari is certified by the Iranian Bar Association as a Number One Attorney, is admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of Iran, and is the author of two books:HONOR KILLING: A Professionals Guide to Sexual Relations and Ghayra Violence from the Islamic Sources and New Jihadists and Islam.

Beheaded Christian Doesn’t Regret Faith

Political blogger Pamela Geller, American Freedom Defense Initiative's Houston-based founder, speaks at the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest, which is sponsored by the American Freedom Defense Initiative, in Garland, Texas May 3, 2015. REUTERS/Mike Stone

Political blogger Pamela Geller, American Freedom Defense Initiative’s Houston-based founder, speaks at the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest, which is sponsored by the American Freedom Defense Initiative, in Garland, Texas May 3, 2015. REUTERS/Mike Stone

Daily Caller, by Pete Hoekstra, May 15, 2015:

Only among the U.S. media would such a headline make sense.

Radical Islamist terrorists armed with AK-47s attacked hundreds of people at an event in Garland, Texas that sponsored a Muhammad cartoon exhibit and contest. The Associated Press headline that ran on countless websites and newspapers across the country declared: “Activist: No regrets about cartoon contest ended by gunfire.”

What’s next? “No apologies from Jews for inciting Holocaust?” or “No remorse from child aboard bus when bomb exploded?” Since when did it become acceptable, no less headline news, to blame the victim?

Apparently it started when violent Islamists and their sympathizers declared anyone who disagrees with them as Islamophobes subject to death for violating Sharia law. It became much safer and more politically correct to accept their bullying rather than to challenge them.

Numerous moralizing lecturers in the fourth estate piled on free speech activist and writer Pamela Geller for exercising her First Amendment rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution by hosting the event in Texas.

The Washington Post ran with the headline “Event organizer offers no apology after thwarted attack in Texas.”

The New York Times editorialized that Geller “achieved her provocative goal in Garland — the event was attacked by two Muslims who were shot to death by a traffic officer before they killed anyone.”

Bill O’Reilly said on his Fox News Channel program: “Insulting the entire Muslim world is stupid.” He added that Geller hurts the cause of attracting the support of moderate Muslims in the war against jihadists in countries like Jordan and Egypt. Muslims in those countries are already fighting a life and death battle against ISIS and al Qaida, and let’s not be so vain to think that it’s because of whether or not they like us. They do it to stay alive and preserve their children’s future.

Do O’Reilly and writers at the AP, The Washington Post and The New York Times still think that appeasing fanatical jihadists will lessen their hatred of the West and stop them from murdering innocent men, women and children of different faiths?

Been there, done that. It didn’t work.

President Obama tried it in Cairo not too long after his inauguration in 2009. With the Muslim Brotherhood invited to sit in the front row, he told his audience that “I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition.”

The administration then banned the use of such words as “Islamic terror” from the White House in a see no evil, hear no evil approach to the building threat.

The outcome? Islamist terrorists have since turned Libya into a chaotic lawless state, ISIS continues to control large swaths of Iraq and Syria, al Qaida owns the Arabian Peninsula, and individuals and groups worldwide – including within the United States – are pledging solidarity with ISIS.

It’s grand Theatre of the Absurd when elites target the First Amendment rights of fellow citizens as opposed to condemning a movement that sees mass murder as a rational response to objectionable caricatures.

Also see:

Fox News Lets Sharia (Donald) Trump Freedom of Expression

My Winning Mohammad Contest Drawing

By Andrew Bostom, May 14, 2015:

Last week Fox News’s Sean Hannity was uniquely supportive of journalist/activist Pamela Geller, hosting her on his show 5 nights in a row (including one evening with guest host, Eric Bolling). Ms. Geller remains underISIS death threat for conducting a thoughtful Garland, Texas event upholding freedom of expression in defiance of Islamic Sharia totalitarianism, enforced by would be mass murderous jihadist attackers, who were fortunately slain by an intrepid policeman. (The Garland event can be viewed in full here; and its 30 minute highlights, here). Earlier this week, Hannity courteously provided Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders, featured at the Garland free speech conference, aforum to explain his views.

Sadly, Hannity’s humane behavior was the exception at Fox News, and he was apparently forced to abide Fox News’s Sharia-complaint ban on actually showing the Garland conference’s liberty-affirming symbol—courageous ex-Muslim artist Bosch Fawstin’s brilliant drawing (shown above), which garnered first prize at the exhibit. Megyn Kelly, who conspicuously distanced herself from the conference organizers, also towed the Sharia-complaint line. Despite Kelly’s “passionate” rhetorical endorsement of free expression, she never displayed Fawstin’s drawing, emblematic of the craven hypocrisy decried in Robert Tracinski’s cogently entitled analysis, “Mohammed Cartoons: If You’re Not Publishing, You’re Pretending.” Jeanine Pirro stepped all over her Saturday evening (5/9/15) monologue warning of the threat of Sharia supremacism by concluding that the Garland event was a “dumb move,” segueing into an utterly uninformed, rather hostile interview of Geller, and kowtowing to Fox’s interdiction on display of the Fawstin drawing.

Worse still were Fox News’s “sorry seven” (a composite of hosts/guests), whose sniping, ignorant, and cowardly commentary was summarized in a series of extracts by Brendan James. The Fox News statements of Donald Trump best illustrate this toxic genre of sheer idiocy and cowardice—the latter made all the more despicable by the phony bravado with which it was conveyed.

I watched Pam Prior [sic], and it looks like she’s just taunting everybody. What is she doing? Drawing Muhammad and it looks like she’s taunting people…what are they doing drawing Muhammad? Isn’t there something else they can draw? They can’t do something else? They have to be in the middle of Texas and on Muhammad? You know, I’m one that believes in free speech, probably more than she does. What’s the purpose of this? She’s taunting them…I don’t know, maybe she likes risk. What the hell is she doing?

Overall, Fox News’s coverage of the Garland free speech conference was appalling—it amounted to journalistic dereliction of duty, indeed malpractice, for willful sins of commission and omission. I have elaborated on this depressing phenomenon at these blogs (here; here; and here), and yesterday (5/13/15) in an interview with Tom Trento, who attended and scrupulously recorded the entire Garland event. Please watch our interview embedded below, starting at 13:40.

See more videos with Tom Trento here: theunitedwest

VIDEO: Geert Wilders on Hannity

P1040295

By Pamela Geller, May 13, 2015:

Watch. this. now.

Geert Wilders, a member of the Dutch Parliament, was the keynote speaker at our Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest. He discussed with Sean Hannity his desire to plan to follow up on our event with a “Draw Muhammad” contest in the Dutch Parliament at The Hague.

Sean Hannity said last night that champions of free speech are refusing to back down after being accused of provoking radical Islamists to attack the Muhammad cartoon contest in Texas.

One of the speakers at that event, Dutch politician Geert Wilders, is planning to stage a Muhammad cartoon expo in the Dutch Parliament.

Hannity asked Wilders if he is anti-Islam

“Well, I’m certainly not anti-Muslim, but indeed I believe Islam is a threat to our civilization,” Wilders replied. “I believe that our country is based on values that are based on Christianity and Judaism, and that Islam is really a threat to our freedom.”

Wilders explained why people are offended by a Muhammad cartoon.

“For more than 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, Muhammad is a kind of role model, he’s an example,” he stated. “That’s why every time somebody depicts or mocks Muhammad, Muslims get angry.”

In responding to a question Hannity asked about Muhammad’s life, Wilders said that Muhammad was a “terrorist.”

“He’s certainly not a role model to so many Muslims,” Wilders said. “Muhammad, as a matter of fact, was a terrorist. He was a warmonger. He beheaded Jewish tribes … I believe that if Muhammad would be alive today, he would be tried and convicted of terrorism.”

Wilders remarked that people shouldn’t be intimidated by Muslims who are offended by the Muhammad cartoons.

“If our reaction is that we should not make more cartoons or not accept them, the terrorists will win,” Wilders said. “So we have to give them a signal that terrorism does not win. We will not be intimidated.”

He added that is the reason why he presented the idea of a Muhammad cartoon expo in the Dutch Parliament.

“I want the Dutch Parliament to expose exactly the same exhibit—not to provoke, but to show the terrorists that if you make an attack, we will give you 10 times more cartoons of Muhammad,” Wilders stated.

Watch more in the video above.

***

Also see Pamela Geller’s archives: http://pamelageller.com/category/afdi/afdi-muhammad-art-exhibit-and-contest/

“Protocols of the Elders of …Islam”, Really?

512R2aJ0iLLFormer New York Times reporter David K. Shipler’s new book, “Freedom of Speech: Mightier Than the Sword” has a chapter called “Protocols of the Elders of Islam” in which he impugns the work of Stephen Coughlin on the Muslim Brotherhood’s Memorandum of Understanding. You really have to hear this:

Frank Gaffney and Stephen Coughlin discuss on Secure Freedom Radio:

Islamists Hack Another Secular Writer to Death in Bangladesh

Ananta Bijoy Das

Ananta Bijoy Das

by IPT News  •  May 12, 2015

For the third time this year, Islamist radicals in Bangladesh hacked a secular writer to death in public.

Four masked men chased down Ananta Bijoy Das Tuesday morning as Das left his home in Sylhet. They hacked him with machetes after running him down.

“Ananta died on the spot,” Metropolitan Police Commissioner Kamrul Hasan told theDaily Star. “Ananta was an organiser of local progressive publication outlet Jukti (logic) and a relentless writer on science.”

Das was 31.

On March 30, Oyasiqur Rahman Babu, 27, was murdered on his way to work. Like Das, Babu’s writings criticized religious fundamentalism.

Roy an BabuOn Feb. 26, American citizen Avijit Roy was killed, and his wife severely injured, when attackers jumped them at a book fair. Roy had been threatened for his writings against religion, including his statement that religious extremism is like a virus: “if allowed to spread [it] will wreak havoc on society in epidemic proportions.”

An al-Qaida branch claimed credit for Roy and Babu’s murders.

A fourth secular activist, Ahmed Rajib Haider, was attacked and killed in February 2013.

Das, Babu and Roy were part of a movement, Shahbag, which advocated the death penalty for Islamist leaders convicted for murders and other attacks at the end of the 1971 war that saw Bangladesh break away from Pakistan.

An official with the Islamic Circle of North America, Ashrafuzzman Khan, was convicted in October 2013 in connection with the kidnapping and murder of 18 intellectuals at the war’s end. He remains in the United States.

In a posting Monday that turned out to be his last, Das lashed out at police over their failures to stop the attacks on Roy and Babu even though officers were nearby. “Later the police claimed there had apparently been no dereliction of duty. One would love to know what their duty was,” he wrote.

He called them “paper tigers when women were being molested one by one before an audience of thousands at the new year celebrations.” When protests resulted, “the police pounced on them, injuring university students with the butts of their guns and their boots. Here too I was told that the police had not abandoned its responsibility. But I’m very keen to know what the real responsibility of the police is.”

Das, along with Haider, Roy and Babu, died because his opinions were deemed unacceptable to some of Bangladesh’s radical Islamists.

But this is an international phenomenon that shows no sign of waning.

Last week in Texas, two radical Islamists tried to massacre people who attended a cartoon exhibit and contest involving the Muslim prophet Muhammad. And, of course, 12 people were gunned down at the offices of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in January by two brothers who boasted they had “avenged the prophet” by slaying those who dared to publish his caricature.

See Something, Say Something about Jihad

sharia1 (1)CSP, May 11, 2015:

Secure Freedom announces the launch of our new CounterJihad campaign with an ad calling for free people everywhere to speak their minds about the encroachment of Islamic law, known as shariah.

With jihadists on the march worldwide – including here – truth-tellers about Islam’s anti-constitutional shariah doctrine should be commended, not slandered.

Two armed jihadists were shot dead before they could murder proponents of free speech meeting in Garland, Texas. After the attack, some commentators have taken to blaming its targets, claiming they are “racists,” “bigots,” and “Islamophobes” who provoked the Islamic supremacists by drawing pictures of and denouncing their prophet Mohammed.

It is not racism or bigotry, let alone an unfounded fear of Islam that prompts courageous freedom fighters like Pamela Geller and Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders to defend our civilization against those determined to destroy it. They are willing to challenge a threat to freedom of speech that not just Islamists but others, including Hillary Clinton, insist must be accommodated.

So join the CounterJihad and stand up for the freedoms that make America, and all of our allies in the free world, beacons of liberty to oppressed people everywhere.

CounterJihad is a combination of education, advocacy and action designed to stop the spread of The Global Jihad Movement (GJM). Muslims declared holy war, jihad, on non-believers long ago. They have been killing, enslaving, torturing and putting more territory under their dominion every day. It is long overdue for the free world to stand up and fight back.

We call our enemy the Global Jihad Movement because regardless of how they name themselves, they share a common goal: The global supremacy of Islam. We advocate harnessing the full range of powers of the United States and our allies including Military, Diplomatic, Intelligence, Cyber and Economic forces. We must also champion and promote the power of our culture which values individual liberty and government by man-made, not religious law.

The GJM comprises two identifiable and mutually-supporting lines of endeavor: Violent Jihad and Civilization Jihad.

Violent Jihadists include al Qaeda, the Islamic State (IS), Boko Haram, Hamas, Hezbollah and any of their ideological comrades who fly the black flag of jihad. The Violent Jihadists ply their deadly trade all around the world. The alliance between IS and Boko Haram creates a trans-continental Caliphate in the Middle East and Africa and it is expanding daily.

They are Hostis Humani Generis, Enemies of all Mankind, and we must defeat them.

Civilization Jihadists, as they refer to themselves, use a term coined by the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) to denote a stealthy jihad in its pre-violent stage of societal infiltration. They include the MB and its many associated organizations and front groups, such as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and others who follow the same ideology as the violent ones, but use covert means to advance it.

The Civilization Jihadists comprise perhaps an even more dangerous threat to US national security interests, culture. They convert and indoctrinate new generations to become the next violent jihadists, and they finance, and provide political cover for their violent brethren. They infiltrate in seemingly innocuous ways and use our own freedoms to advance their agenda of Shariah law and the eventual creation of Islamic states where democracies now exist.

Victory over the Civilization Jihadists requires government and citizens working together to counter the threat.

  • We must counter their lawfare by enshrining the supremacy of US laws
  • We must end government outreach to jihadist groups of all types
  • We must declare the Muslim Brotherhood, and affiliates, terrorist groups
  • We must investigate and close radical mosques that preach jihad
  • We must stop the infiltration of groups that promote Shariah

Join us in the CounterJihad to Secure Freedom for ourselves and our posterity.

The lengths we will go to for free speech

20150504001128911016-original
CSP, by Clare Lopez, May 11, 2015:

Beyond the sheer act of defiance in the face of tyranny that was the recent “Draw Muhammad” contest in Garland, TX, a deeper benefit is emerging: the swirl of controversy that erupted after two Muslim terrorists drove all the way to Texas from the Muslim Brotherhood-linked Islamic Cultural Center of Phoenix, intending to commit mass murder, is forcing us to consider what exactly it means to ‘defend free speech.’ And what we want it to mean…or are ready to accept that it should mean. Most Americans have no trouble defending the First Amendment – in the abstract, anyway. But now that defending the right to defy Islamic blasphemy laws comes with specifics like an art contest, with actual drawings of Muhammad, and prize money offered by the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), and event organizers like AFDI co-founders Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, and death threats—now some aren’t quite so sure anymore that this is the kind of free speech or these exactly are the free speech champions they had in mind.

So, there are the artists and cartoonists who draw images of Muhammad: the Albanian-born ex-Muslim Bosch Fawstin (who won the AFDI contest), the Swedish artist, Lars Vilks, and the Danish cartoonist, Kurt Westergaard. And there is the Dutch political leader, Geert Wilders, who made a film that criticized shariah-sanctioned abuse of women. Danish journalist Lars Hedegaard is a free speech advocate who has been critical of Islam, too. These (and many more, including Americans who increasingly are labeled ‘Islamophobes’) are the champions of free speech who actually create the material shariah would label ‘blasphemous’ (essentially for daring simply to depict Muhammad in an image or criticize anything about Islam at all). Many have been targeted for death by the enforcers of shariah.

Then there is the Jyllands-Posten Danish newspaper that published Westergaard’s drawings and the satirical Parisian magazine, Charlie Hebdo, that generally takes swipes at everyone and everything, including Islam. These and a host of online sites (including this one) posted the articles and cartoons and images, thereby incurring the murderous wrath of shariah-adherent Muslims, whose doctrine and law explicitly enjoin them to attack such media and their staffs with intent to kill.

And finally, there are those like Pamela Geller who display and encourage and feature such material, whether in city bus ads, transit stations, or at the recent contest in Garland, TX.

The question that so many of the wobbly set now seem to be stumbling over is, At which point in the free speech process – creation, publication, or public promotion – does it become ‘provocation’ that ‘goes too far’? Does it ever? Is it even possible for speech to be ‘too free’—in America? Why is the abstract defense of free speech and the First Amendment so laudable, but when the abstract takes form in ways that boldly challenge Islam’s attempts to silence those who criticize, when the abstract is personified in a Fawstin, a Geller, Hedegaard, Vilks, Westergaard, or Wilders, then it’s called ‘incitement’ that ought to be toned down? If not their statements, then what would be an acceptable demonstration of defiance against Islam’s blasphemy codes? That is, if defiance itself isn’t just a bit too much these days…

The point is that unless we champion and defend the actual people who are the physical embodiment of those abstract principles we all claim to cherish, the principles won’t stand a chance.

My Winning Mohammad Contest DrawingBosch Fawstin’s winning drawing of Muhammad was neither crude, nor grotesque, nor tasteless. It was, in fact, the perfect depiction of the principle at the center of contention: the right to freedom of artistic expression. If the conquered civilizations of the Afghan Buddhists, Byzantium, Middle East Christianity and Judaism, Hindus, and Persians teach us anything, it must be that even the most determined defense over a span of centuries may not suffice to save a people targeted by Islam; anything less, never mind actual passivity in the face of jihad aggression, will lead inevitably to subjugation.

Some would say that Pamela Geller pushes the edges of the envelope. To the extent that this is true, it is because it is always out at the edges, at the frontiers, that the ghazi – the warriors of Islam – have probed and tested the defenses of their targets for any weakness. If no one confronts them at the frontier, they push onward, inward, to the soft centers of society. Those hardy defenders who hold firm out there on the frontiers stand between civilization and barbarism.

By all means, we need to have this discussion. Long overdue, actually. But let us understand that the debate is not about the principle of free speech, per se: we agree on that pretty unanimously. Rather, it’s about how far we are willing to go to support those who put that principle into action against an enemy that would shut it down completely if not stopped.

Also see:

SNL Sketch Effectively Mocks Fear of Drawing Mohammed

draw mohammedCSP, by Fred Fleitz, May 11, 2015:

Last Saturday, Saturday Night Live (SNL) did a skit that addressed the controversy stemming from the Garland, Texas “draw Mohammed” contest.
The sketch was a gameshow based on the game Pictionary in which one contestant is instructed to draw something and his teammate tries to guess what the drawing is.  Two contestants were so afraid when asked to draw “The Prophet Mohammed” that they left the paper blank.  Another teammate ultimately guesses what the drawing was supposed to be based on their fear of drawing it.

SNL deserves credit for taking on how the global Jihad movement is trying to use violence to curtail free speech.  This sketch broke with the mainstream media’s focus on attacking Pamela Geller, the sponsor of the “draw Mohammed” contest, for holding an event it claims was too provocative and “hate speech.”  By running a sketch in which the characters feared for their lives if they drew Mohammed, SNL portrayed what this controversy is really about and a side of it that some Americans probably had not heard about.

Although it conveyed an important message, the SNL sketch was cautious.  Clearly the show’s producers and actors were afraid to draw Mohammed and found a way to satirize this story without doing so.  While this is a shortcoming, the sketch effectively depicted the threat to free speech by the global Jihad movement and may help encourage more discussion about this threat.

“Stay Quiet and You’ll Be Okay”

My Winning Mohammad Contest DrawingBy Mark Steyn, May 9, 2015:

As we mentioned a week ago, I’m none too well at the moment, and it so happens my preferred position in which to write causes me severe pain – which is presumably some kind of not so subtle literary criticism from the Almighty. But I’m back, more or less, with lots to catch up on. There were two big elections in recent days, with dramatic results: in Alberta, the Tories were wiped out; in Scotland, the Labour Party was slaughtered; in England, the Liberals were crushed. Strange times.

I’ll have more to say about the elections in the days ahead, but for now let me offer a whole-hearted good riddance to Ed Miliband, the now departed Labour leader who, in a desperate last-minute pander, offered to “outlaw Islamophobia“. That was the British political establishment’s contribution to a rough couple of weeks for free speech, culminating in the attempted mass murder in Garland, Texas.

That’s what it was, by the way – although you might have difficulty telling that from the news coverage. The Washington Post offered the celebrated headline “Event Organizer Offers No Apology After Thwarted Attack In Texas“, while the Associated Press went with “Pamela Geller says she has no regrets about Prophet Muhammad cartoon contest that ended in 2 deaths“. The media “narrative” of the last week is that some Zionist temptress was walking down the street in Garland in a too short skirt and hoisted it to reveal her Mohammed thong – oops, my apologies, her Prophet Mohammed thong (PBUH) – and thereby inflamed two otherwise law-abiding ISIS supporters peacefully minding their own business.

It’ll be a long time before you see “Washington Post Offers No Apology for Attacking Target of Thwarted Attack” or “AP Says It Has No Regrets After Blaming The Victim”. The respectable class in the American media share the same goal as the Islamic fanatics: They want to silence Pam Geller. To be sure, they have a mild disagreement about the means to that end – although even then you get the feeling, as with Garry Trudeau and those dozens of PEN novelists’ reaction to Charlie Hebdo, that the “narrative” wouldn’t change very much if the jihad boys had got luckier and Pam, Geert Wilders, Robert Spencer and a dozen others were all piled up in the Garland morgue.

If the American press were not so lazy and parochial, they would understand that this was the third Islamic attack on free speech this year – first, Charlie Hebdo in Paris; second, the Lars Vilks event in Copenhagen; and now Texas. The difference in the corpse count is easily explained by a look at the video of the Paris gunmen, or the bullet holes they put in the police car. The French and Texan attackers supposedly had the same kind of weapons, although one should always treat American media reports with a high degree of skepticism when it comes to early identification of “assault weapons” and “AK47s”. Nonetheless, from this reconstruction, it seems clear that the key distinction between the two attacks is that in Paris they knew how to use their guns and in Garland they didn’t. So a very cool 60-year-old local cop with nothing but his service pistol advanced under fire and took down two guys whose heavier firepower managed only to put a bullet in an unarmed security guard’s foot.

The Charlie Hebdo killers had received effective training overseas – as thousands of ISIS recruits with western passports are getting right now. What if the Garland gunmen had been as good as the Paris gunmen? Surely that would be a more interesting question for the somnolent American media than whether some lippy Jewess was asking for it.

As for the free-speech issues, some of us have been around this question for a long time. I wrote a whole book about it:Lights Out: Islam, Free Speech And The Twilight Of The West – well worth a read, and I’m happy to autograph it for you. On page 123 I write about Jyllands Posten and the original Motoons:

The twelve cartoonists are now in hiding. According to the chairman of the Danish Liberal Party, a group of Muslim men showed up at a local school looking for the daughter of one of the artists.

When that racket starts, no cartoonist or publisher or editor should have to stand alone. The minute there were multimillion-dollar bounties on those cartoonists’ heads, The Times of London and Le Monde and The Washington Post and all the rest should have said, “This Thursday we’re all publishing the cartoons. If you want to put bounties on all our heads, you’d better have a great credit line at the Bank of Jihad. If you want to kill us, you’ll have to kill us all…”

But it didn’t happen.

The only two magazines to stand in solidarity with the Danish cartoonists and republish the Motoons were Charlie Hebdo in Paris and my own magazine in Canada, Ezra Levant’s Western Standard. Ezra wound up getting hauled up by some dimestore imam before the ignorant and thuggish Alberta “Human Rights” Commission whose leisurely money-no-object “investigation” consumed years of his life and all his savings. But he was more fortunate than our comrades at Charlie Hebdo: He’s still alive.

In Copenhagen, in Paris, in Garland, what’s more important than the cartoons and the attacks is the reaction of all the polite, respectable people in society, which for a decade now has told those who do not accept the messy, fractious liberties of free peoples that we don’t really believe in them, either, and we’re happy to give them up – quietly, furtively, incrementally, remorselessly – in hopes of a quiet life. Because a small Danish newspaper found itself abandoned and alone, Charlie Hebdojumped in to support them. Because the Charlie Hebdo artists and writers died abandoned and alone, Pamela Geller jumped in to support them. By refusing to share the risk, we are increasing the risk. It’s not Pamela Geller who emboldens Islamic fanatics, it’s all the nice types – the ones Salman Rushdie calls the But Brigade. You’ve heard them a zillion times this last week: “Of course, I’m personally, passionately, absolutely committed to free speech. But…”

And the minute you hear the “but”, none of the build-up to it matters. A couple of days before Garland, Canadian Liberal MP (and former Justice Minister) Irwin Cotler announced his plan to restore Section 13 – the “hate speech” law under whichMaclean’s and I were dragged before the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission and which, as a result of my case, was repealed by the Parliament of Canada. At the time Mr Cotler was fairly torn on the issue. We talked about it briefly at a free-speech event in Ottawa at which he chanced to be present, and he made vaguely supportive murmurings – as he did when we ran into each other a couple of years later in Boston. Mr Cotler is Jewish and, even as European “hate” laws prove utterly useless against the metastasizing open Jew-hate on the Continent, he thinks we should give ’em one more try. He’s more sophisticated than your average But boy, so he uses a three-syllable word:

“Freedom of expression is the lifeblood of democracy,” said Cotler, who was minister of justice under Paul Martin.

“However…”

Free speech is necessary to free society for all the stuff after the “but”, after the “however”. There’s no fine line between “free speech” and “hate speech”: Free speech is hate speech; it’s for the speech you hate – and for all your speech that the other guy hates. If you don’t have free speech, then you can’t have an honest discussion. All you can do is what those stunted moronic boobs in Paris and Copenhagen and Garland did: grab a gun and open fire. What Miliband and Cotler propose will, if enacted, reduce us all to the level of the inarticulate halfwits who think the only dispositive argument is “Allahu Akbar”.

Alas, we have raised a generation of But boys. Ever since those ridiculous Washington Post and AP headlines, I’ve been thinking about the fellows who write and sub-edit and headline and approve such things – and never see the problem with it. Why would they? If you’re under a certain age, you accept instinctively that free speech is subordinate to other considerations: If you’ve been raised in the “safe space” of American universities, you take it as read that on gays and climate change and transgendered bathrooms and all kinds of other issues it’s perfectly normal to eliminate free speech and demand only the party line. So what’s the big deal about letting Muslims cut themselves in on a little of that action?

Why would you expect people who see nothing wrong with destroying a mom’n’pop bakery over its antipathy to gay wedding cakes to have any philosophical commitment to diversity of opinion? And once you no longer have any philosophical commitment to it it’s easy to see it the way Miliband and Cotler do – as a rusty cog in the societal machinery that can be shaved and sliced millimeter by millimeter.

Do what the parochial hacks of the US media didn’t bother to do, and look at the winning entry in Pam Geller’s competition, which appears at the top of this page. It’s by Bosch Fawstin, an Eisner Award-winning cartoonist and an ex-Muslim of Albanian stock. Like many of the Danish and French cartoons, it’s less about Mohammed than about the prohibition against drawing Mohammed – and the willingness of a small number of Muslims to murder those who do, and a far larger number of Muslims both enthusiastic and quiescent to support those who kill. Mr Fawstin understands the remorseless logic of one-way multiculturalism – that it leads to the de facto universal acceptance of Islamic law. All that “Prophet Mohammed” stuff, now routine even on Fox News. He’s not my prophet, he’s just some dead bloke. But the formulation is now mysteriously standard in western media. Try it the other way round: “Isis News Network, from our Libyan correspondent: Warriors of the Caliphate today announced record attendance numbers for the mass beheading of followers of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ…”

On Fox the other day, Bill O’Reilly was hopelessly confused about this issue. He seems to think that Pam Geller’s cartoon competitions will lessen the likelihood of moderate Muslims joining us in the fight against ISIS. Putting aside the fact that there is no fight against ISIS, and insofar as the many Muslim countries in the vast swollen non-existent “60-nation coalition” are going to rouse themselves to join the fight it will be because the Saudi and Jordanian monarchies and the Egyptian military understand it as an existential threat to them, put aside all that and understand that Islamic imperialism has a good-cop-bad-cop game – or hard jihad, soft jihad. The hard jihad is fought via bombings and beheadings and burnings over barren bits of desert and jungle and cave country in the Middle East, Africa and the Hindu Kush. The soft jihad is a suppler enemy fighting for rather more valuable real estate in Europe, Australia and North America, so it uses western shibboleths of “diversity” and “multiculturalism” to enfeeble those societies. And it does so very effectively – so that when a British soldier is hacked to death on a London street in broad daylight, you can’t really quite articulate what’s wrong with it; or that, upon the death of the ugly king of a state where Christianity is prohibited, the Christian ministers of Westminster Abbey mourn his passing; or that, when Australians are held siege in a Sydney coffee shop, the reflexive response of progressive persons is to launch a social-media campaign offering to battle Islamophobia by helping Muslims get to work; or that, when violent Muslims stage their first explicit anti-free-speech attack on American soil, everyone thinks the mouthy free-speech broad is the problem. This soft jihad goes on every day of the week, and Bill O’Reilly doesn’t even seem to be aware that it exists.

So on the one hand we have Pamela Geller. On the other we have Francine Prose, a former president of PEN and one of those dozens of novelists who’s boycotting the posthumous award to Charlie Hebdo. I’ve never read one of Ms Prose’s books, so this piece by her in The Guardian was my first exposure to her, er, prose:

The narrative of the Charlie Hebdo murders – white Europeans killed in their offices by Muslim extremists – is one that feeds neatly into the cultural prejudices that have allowed our government to make so many disastrous mistakes in the Middle East. And the idea that one is either “for us or against us” in such matters not only precludes rational and careful thinking, but also has a chilling effect on the exercise of our right to free expression and free speech that all of us – and all the people at PEN – are working so tirelessly to guarantee.

This is a writer? This dessicated language is how Ms Prose deploys the tools of her trade? It isn’t a “narrative”, it’s real life.That’s real blood of real writers all over the Charlie floor – and it’s not all “white European” blood, either: it includes people with names like “Mustapha Ourrad”, Charlie‘s copy editor. Surely he’s a fitting victim for Ms Prose as she goes around “working so tirelessly”? But no. The Prose “narrative” is too simple for complicating factors like blokes called Mustapha for whom the point of living in western societies is to live all the freedom of those societies.

If you make the concessions that Francine Prose and Michael Ondaatje are implicitly demanding, what kind of art remains? There was a big fuss a few weeks ago when Steve Emerson said on Fox News that Birmingham, England was a Muslim no-go zone, and the BBC gleefully mocked him because it’s only 28 per cent Muslim or whatever. That 28 per cent is pretty spectacular in just a couple of generations. How long before it’s 40 or 50 per cent? So, if, circa 2030, you’re a PEN member in Birmingham and you want to write a novel about your turf, it will necessarily involve a consideration of the relationship between an ever more Islamic city and what remains of its non-Islamic elements.

But Islam is telling you that subject’s closed off. Not long after 9/11, some theatre group in Cincinnati announced a play contrasting a Palestinian suicide bomber and the American Jewish girl she killed. Local Muslims complained, and so the production was immediately canceled – because all the arty types who say we need “artists” with the “courage” to “explore” “transgressive” “ideas” fold like a cheap Bedouin tent when it comes to Islam. The Muslim community complained not because the play was anti-Muslim: au contraire, it was almost laughably pro-Palestinian, and the playwright considered the suicide bomber a far more sensitive sympathetic character than her dead Jewish victim.

But that wasn’t the point: the Muslim leaders didn’t care whether the play was pro- or anti-Islam: for them, Islam is beyond discussion. End of subject. And so it was.

So what kind of novels will PEN members be able to write in such a world?

Can Islam be made to live with the norms of free societies in which it now nests? Can Islam learn – or be forced – to suck it up the way Mormons, Catholics, Jews and everyone else do? If not, free societies will no longer be free. Pam Geller understands that, and has come up with her response. By contrast, Ed Miliband, Irwin Cotler, Francine Prose, Garry Trudeau and the trendy hipster social-media But boys who just canceled Mr Fawstin’s Facebook account* are surrendering our civilization. They may be more sophisticated, more urbane, more amusing dinner-party guests …but in the end they are trading our liberties.

A final cartoon from Bosch Fawstin:

1281

“Stay quiet and you’ll be okay:” Those were Mohammed Atta’s words to his passengers on 9/11. And they’re what all the nice respectable types are telling us now.

[*His Facebook page is back now.]

Also see:

And more videos have been added to my collection including Jeannine Pirro’s 5/9 great open on free speech but disappointing disrespectful interview of Pamela Geller.

The Art of Politics

garland-shooting-450x338Frontpage, by Dawn Perlmutter, May 8, 2015:

The American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) and Jihad Watch co-sponsored the ‘First Annual Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest’. The contest was a response to the Charlie Hebdo Massacre where jihadists murdered twelve people in the Paris offices of the satirical magazine. It was organized in the same spirit as the Je Suis Charliedemonstrations and artists from all over the world who drew cartoons in support of free speech and freedom of the press. Many of the political cartoons reacting to the massacre included cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. Similar to many other art contests, entries were submitted online for cash prizes with the winning entries appearing on the sponsor’s websites. The exhibit was held on May 3rd at the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, Texas, which was chosen because it was the site of the “Stand with the Prophet” conference that denounced ‘Islamophobia’ shortly after the Charlie Hebdo massacre.

Co-sponsors Pamela Geller, president of AFDI, and Robert Spencer, Director of Jihad Watch, spent 10,000 dollars on extra security for the opening of the exhibition. During the event two gunmen, Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi of Phoenix, wearing body armor and carrying assault rifles pulled up to the event in a car. They immediately got out and began shooting at a police car wounding a security guard. A traffic officer working after-hours as security for the event armed only with a service pistol shot and killed them – demonstrating the saying ‘Don’t mess with Texas’. Investigators searched the suspects’ vehicle for explosives and detonated the vehicle for precaution.

Elton Simpson linked himself to the Islamic State, aka ISIS, in a tweet posted just before the attack. The Islamic State subsequently took responsibility for the attack broadcasting on its Al Bayan radio station that “two soldiers of the caliphate” carried out Sunday’s attack and promised the group would deliver more attacks in the future. ISIS also threatened to kill Pamela Geller:

“The attack by the Islamic State in America is only the beginning of our efforts to establish a wiliyah in the heart of our enemy. Our aim was the khanzeer Pamela Geller and to show her that we don’t care what land she hides in or what sky shields her; we will send all our Lions to achieve her slaughter. ……We have 71 trained soldiers in 15 different states ready at our word to attack any target we desire. Out of the 71 trained soldiers 23 have signed up for missions like Sunday, We are increasing in number bithnillah. Of the 15 states, 5 we will name… Virginia, Maryland, Illinois, California, and Michigan. The disbelievers who shot our brothers think that you killed someone untrained, nay, they gave you their bodies in plain view because we were watching.”

In the face of the Islamic State’s frightening death threats against Americans, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer have been vilified in the press instead of being hailed as brave defenders of freedom. The rhetoric is getting uglier every day. CNN’s Alisyn Camerota cited critics who said there was a “fine line between freedom of speech and being intentionally incendiary and provocative.” MSNBC’s Chris Matthews accused Geller of provoking the violence, “I think [Geller] caused this trouble, and whether this trouble came yesterday or it came two weeks from now, it’s gonna be in the air as long as you taunt.” Surprisingly Bill O’Reilly accused Pamela Geller of provoking the violence that occurred in Texas. His May 5th talking points commentary titled ‘Defeating the Jihad by Not Being Dumb’ referred to the American Freedom Defense Initiative as “the anti-Muslim group who ignited the situation”

In an interview with Megyn Kelly, O’Reilly said “So they wanted to defy the fear the jihadists have imposed on the world?” O’Reilly asked…..”But there’s always cause and effect,… this is what happens when you light the fuse — you get violence.” That is the same argument the left wing media used when they accused O’Reilly of inciting the murder of abortion doctor George Tiller. Obviously Bill O’Reilly has been drinking the left’s Kool-Aid. In addition to blaming the victims the media continues to pejoratively characterize the event as Anti-Muslim, controversial and provocative because depicting the Prophet Muhammad is considered blasphemous, irreverent and sacrilege. Although there is an abundance of sensitivity in not offending Muslims, there are no outcries when the sacred in Christianity is desecrated.

The few reporters that defended the event argued that art that offends Christians does not provoke the same outrage by the press or violence by worshippers. Piss Christ, the 1987 photograph by the American artist Andres Serrano depicting a crucifix submerged in a glass of the artist’s urine is often cited as the classic example of art that insults Christianity. It is both an actual and symbolic desecration of the sacred in Christianity. Adding insult to injury, it was the winner of a National Endowment for the Arts sponsored competition making it government sanctioned defilement.

Almost 30 years later desecrating a cross escalated from a photograph to performance protest artists mimicing shoving a crucifix into their anuses in the middle of Vatican square to simulate anal sex to protest the Popes religious morals. If you have not read about that protest art performance it is probably because CNN and MSNBC do not report when Christians are offended. Political correctness has created a cult of victimhood that has programmed the media to diminish Christian and anti-Semitic so called protest art while reporting any and all incidents of what Muslims find offensive.

There are many more examples of provocative, offensive and incendiary art and art exhibits that are not criticized because they support liberal agendas. Similar to the Muhammad Cartoon contest, many art exhibits are organized on line around a political theme. For example ‘Artists Against Police Violence’is a blog run by a small group of self-described artists-activists of color who are calling all artists across the U.S. and the world to rise up against anti-Black police violence. They have created an online space “featuring graphics and artwork to be used for communities against police murders of Black people”. Artists Against Police Violence state on their website:

“We strive to feature and generate a diverse collection of hi-res images to empower families, protests, social media, the streets and beyond. When the language that white supremacy and anti-Blackness have given us fails, we must rise with our broken tools and forge a new visual language toward accountability and justice….In light of the upcoming protests across the country, we are calling all artists across the US and the world to rise up against anti-Black police violence. ….With that in mind, we also acknowledge that the way police officers terrorize Black communities is not limited to extrajudicial killings, but include sexual violence, the violence of the medical establishment, and the violence of the prison industrial complex. …Police and prisons play essential roles in enacting, compounding, and colluding with the abuse, incarceration, and gender and sexual violence targeting Black women (trans women in particular)”

This online art exhibit is controversial and provocative. In fact it can be described as having the potential to incite protesters to commit violence against police who it claims murder and rape black people. The political message behind the Draw Muhammad Cartoon event was the protection of free speech. The political message of the Artists Against Police Violence exhibit is to empower people to rise up against alleged police violence for accountably and justice. While Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer are labeled Islamophobes and anti-Muslim for organizing an art exhibit to protect free speech, political correctness prohibits anyone from labeling the artists-activists Against Police Violence as racists, black supremacists or as an anti-government hate organization. When the cause is liberal it is not inflammatory they are just artists.

The line between art and protest is often blurred in what is referred to as performance art, performance protests or guerrilla actions. It is perfectly acceptable to desecrate churches, Christian and Jewish religious objects, interrupt traffic, and spew hatred as long as it is in the name of feminism, anarchism, socialism or Islam.

An interesting example of liberal bias is the only group that was not targeted by Western media for insulting Islam. FEMEN, founded in 2008 in the Ukraine and currently based in Paris, is an international feminist protest organization that became known for organizing topless protests on women’s issues. Their mission is “fighting patriarchy in its three manifestations – sexual exploitation of women, dictatorship and religion” and resulted in protests against both Christian and Islamic religious institutions. The self-described “sextremists” have staged protests at the belfry of Saint Sophia Cathedral in Kiev and at Saint Peter’s Square in Vatican City.

Three topless FEMEN activists used a chainsaw to cut down a large wooden crucifix near Maidan Nezalezhnosti in Kiev in support for the Russian group Pussy Riot. Topless Femen activists dressed as nuns to counter Catholics against same-sex marriage march in Paris. The topless activists wearing nuns habits had “In Gay We Trust” and Fuck G-d written on their bare chests. During a Pro-Life demonstration in Madrid, Spain FEMEN activists were holding crosses sprayed with red paint and had ‘abortion is sacred’ written on their naked chests. Three FEMEN activists went to Vatican square and wearing only black ankle boots, leather miniskirts, and flower garlands in their hair, dropped to all fours and began mimicking putting crucifixes in their anuses simulating anal sex. Written on their backs was ‘Keep it Inside’ indicating that the Popes activities should stay within the papal enclave in Rome. Where is the outrage? Blasphemy only makes the news when Muslims are offended. There are no limits to insulting Christianity.

FEMEN also staged a topless protest at the 2012 Summer Olympics in London to draw attention to what they call “bloody Islamist regimes” taking part in the Olympics. Two topless women were painted with the slogans “Olympic shame” and “No Sharia”. Imagine if Pamela Geller had done that instead of a cartoon contest. On April 4, 2013 FEMEN activists staged protests in various European cities in what they dubbed “International Topless Jihad Day” in support of a young Tunisian activist named Amina Tyler, 19, who received death threats for posting topless pictures online in which “F–k your morals” and “My body belongs to me and is not the source of anyone’s honor” were written in Arabic on her naked chest and stomach.

Women demonstrated in support of Tyler in several European countries outside Tunisian embassies and mosques including in front of the Ahmadiyya-Moschee in Berlin. They protested topless with writing across their chests with slogans such as “No Sharia” and “No Islamism” and held signs that read “Naked Freedom,” “No Masters No Slaves,” and “Free Amina.” They also burned the Salafist Black flag in front of the Great Mosque of Paris. There were a few accusations of Islamophobia to which Inna Shevchenko, leader of FEMEN France tweeted “I’m not an Islamophobe but a religiophobe.”

That is why FEMEN receives positive press from the Western liberal secular media. If you are hosting an online Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest fighting for free speech you are an Islamophobe. If you are a naked beautiful feminist burning the Black Salafist flag in front of the Grand Mosque of Paris fighting against patriarchy then you are a freedom fighter. These double standards are part of a brilliant strategy of symbolic warfare designed to silence free speech, incite protests, promote Muslim and black victimhood and suppress criticism of jihadists and anti-police groups.

Also see:

Brad Thor in Defense of Pamela Geller: Islam Needs More Direct Challenges, Not Less

The Blaze, by Brad Thor, May 8 2015:

One of the best articles I have ever read about how political correctness has completely caved to fundamentalist Islam is “Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks“ by Sam Harris. I was reminded of this article in the wake of all the criticism Pamela Geller, rather than the Muslim terrorists shot dead outside her event in Garland, Texas last Sunday, has received this week.

What I have found particularly galling is the torrent of “She has a right to free speech, but…” coming not just from the left, but also from the right.

Critics – including most of the media – claim that what Geller did was provocative. They never stop to note, as Harris put it, “The point is not (and will never be) that some free person spoke, or wrote, or illustrated in such a manner as to inflame the Muslim community. The point is that only [emphasis added] the Muslim community is combustible in this way.”

Photo: Shutterstock

Harris goes on to say, “Muslims appear to be far more concerned about perceived slights to their religion than about the atrocities committed daily in its name.”

This goes to the heart of  Geller’s event in Garland and what I see not as a provocation, but as a challenge.

Unlike Judaism and Christianity, Islam has not undergone reformation. While the majority of Islam’s adherents operate beyond a seventh century interpretation of Muslim doctrine, millions do not.

It has long been my assertion, particularly in the absence of any Islamic reformation, that those who are “technically” perverting the Muslim faith are not the fundamentalists, but rather the moderates. This is a reality successfully leveraged by fundamentalists to both silence, and sadly, woo otherwise peaceful Muslims to their cause. Simply put, moderates don’t have a contextual leg to stand on when confronted by their fundamentalist co-religionists. This is why what Geller is doing is so important.

Non-Muslims cannot bring about the much-needed Islamic reformation, only moderate Muslims can do that. But they’re not out in the streets rallying and marching against the fundamentalists and jihad. Why not? Because they’re terrified – and rightly so.

Islamic fundamentalists murder people for being gay; they murder children for going to school; they murder men and women for having an affair; they murdered a filmmaker for exposing Muslim domestic violence; and they routinely murder people for leavingIslam. It is highly likely that they will attempt to murder anyone trying to reform Islam.

But despite a litany of barbarism, the West refuses to intellectually confront the ideology fueling Islamic supremacy and its attendant acts of horror. Worse still, the West has carved out a protected space in the public square that indemnifies the Islamic faith from having to answer for the barbarism committed daily in its name. We have been so hobbled by political correctness, that even face-to-face with the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks we were more concerned with not offending peaceful Muslims than in calling out their passive complicity in their co-religionists’ actions. This must end.

It must end before there is another Garland, another Fort Hood, another July 7, 2005 or another Sept. 11, 2001. We must challenge the Islamic faith and Muslims worldwide to be worthy of their standing in the 21st century. If yours is truly a religion of peace, then prove it. Reform the Muslim faith so that those who would do violence in the name of Islam are the ones who no longer have any leg to stand on.

You – the world’s moderate Muslims – know who the fundamentalists are, where their mosques and madrassas are. Drive them from your midst. Refuse to fund their jihadism. Refuse to afford them a place at your table or any semblance of honor in your nations. It is a task only you are capable of. If you truly seek peace, only you can bring it about.

Now, will pointing this out pique moderate Muslims? Perhaps, but that can no longer be our primary concern. The inability of Islam to police its own is one of the gravest problems facing the world today. Change is hard, it can also be deadly for those committed to that change, but the time has long since passed for good Muslim men and women to stand up and say, “Not in my name. Not any longer.”

And it is only by publicly and unrelentingly challenging Islam that the door to reform will begin to open. But if Pamela Geller, a free woman in a free nation, cannot openly challenge Islam, how can we ever expect moderate Muslims in their countries to do so?

Brad Thor is the No. 1 New York Times bestselling author of “CODE OF CONDUCT.” Visit hiswebsite. Follow him on Twitter: @BradThor. And on Facebook.