Did Facebook Just Agree to Enforce Blasphemy Laws?

(Photo; Sean Gallup/Getty Images)

Clarion Project, by Meira Svirsky, July 13, 2017

Doublespeak is language that deliberately distorts or even reverses the meaning of words. For example, when critics of radical Islam expose this extremism for what is it, Islamists and their “progressive” enablers call them “Islamophobes;” when those who call themselves “social justice warriors” campaigning for tolerance exhibit just the opposite (i.e., intolerance) by shutting down any conversation with which they don’t agree; when others force their religious beliefs (i.e., blasphemy laws) upon others in the name of freedom of religion (as in Canada’s new motion against criticism of Islam); or when perpetrators of crimes frame themselves as victims.

Doublespeak often leads to doublethink, as George Orwell writes in his seminal novel Nineteen Eight-Four: “To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient.” In the novel, people explicitly learn doublethink due to peer pressure and a desire to fit in or gain status with in the “Party.”

With these definitions in mind, Clarion Project launches a week-long expose of some of the worst offenders:

A high-level Facebook executive met with the interior minister in Pakistan last week to discuss Pakistan’s demand that the social media platform remove what the Islamist country deems “blasphemous content.”

The fact the meeting took place at all speaks volumes about Facebook’s intent.

First, the tete-a-tete, the first-ever discussion on the issue between a senior Facebook exec and the Pakistani government, comes on the heels of the decision by a Pakistani “counter-terrorism” court to sentence a 30-year-old man to death for making “blasphemous” comments on Facebook.

Such an outrageous verdict should have caused any company serious about human rights to refuse to engage with such a regime. Even the fact that there exists such a law such a law that violates the basic — and what should be universal — right to freedom of speech should be reason to protest.

Yet apparently, business is business for Facebook.

Facebook has 33-million users in Pakistan. So not only did Facebook engage with the Pakistani government, they made assurances to the sharia-compliant country that they were committed to keeping their platform “safe” by “promoting values” that are in congruence with their “community standards.”

Facebook also committed to removing explicit, hateful and provocative posts that incite violence and terrorism.

In Pakistan, that means blasphemous content (as per Pakistan’s definition of blasphemy). Because in Pakistan, just the mere mention of blasphemy can incite mob violence and extra-judicial lynchings.

Pakistan is active in pursing internet service providers to convince them to make any criticism of Islam forbidden. In March, it convened a meeting of Muslim countries to discuss how they can shut down freedom of expression on social media with regards to blasphemous (read: anti-Islam) content.

As to how the meeting went with Facebook, Pakistani Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan said, “We appreciate the understanding shown by the Facebook administration and the cooperation being extended to us on these issues.”

So, when Facebook – which has a history of taking down material critical of Islamists — says to Pakistan it will remove “hateful and provocative” material, it is most likely doublespeak for “We will comply with Islam’s blasphemy laws.”

Unfortunately, compliance with – and even enforcement of—Islamist blasphemy laws has become an all-too-common fixture in the West.

In some cases, the West has simply bowed to Islamists under the threat of violence. After the Danish cartoon riots which spread across the globe and the Charlie Hebdo massacre, Western publications have demurred from publishing most any material deemed offensive to Islam.

Yet other examples are more insidious. Canada just passed a motion “condemning all forms of Islamophobia.” The motion, hailed as a “first-step” by its supporters, is dangerously close to and may even make illegal any criticism of Islam.

Europe, which has no bill of rights guaranteeing the freedoms enshrined in America’s constitution, has traditionally balanced freedom of expression with social concerns. In recent years, that balance has become defined through the relativistic morality of each country’s political climate, with freedom of speech in a serious decline due to pressure from Islamists and their “progressive” supporters.

If we intend to hold on to the freedoms we now take for granted in the U.S., pressure should be put on Facebook as well as any other company which exhibits compliance with sharia blasphemy laws. Otherwise, we will sadly see our rights slipping away as is the situation in Europe today.

Silencing Opponents Through Accusations of McCarthyism or “Islamophobia”

blasphemy

This tactic of accusing those concerned about threats to freedom of being themselves threats to freedom ought to sound alarm bells whenever it is tried.

CounterJihad, by Bruce Cornibe, October 14 2016:

One can see some similarities between the Cold War accusations of McCarthyism and false claims of Islamophobia today.  Then as now, it is possible to stifle the voices of those concerned about real threats to Western freedoms by claiming that those voices are themselves enemies of Western freedoms.   This is not wholly a partisan issue:  A Dutch woman with a leftist background, Machteld Zee, is among those sounding the alarm.  Zee has witnessed first-hand Sharia courts in the UK, the UK’s Independent states:

Machteld Zee, a legal scholar at Leiden University in the Netherlands, secured extraordinary access to the secretive courts, attending 15 hours of hearings at the Islamic Sharia Council in Leyton, east London, and the Birmingham Central Mosque Sharia. She was able to scrutinise more than a dozen cases, and interview an array of sharia experts including nine qadis – Islamic judges.

Some of the disturbing observations against women Zee noticed include:

A case where a woman who claimed to be married to a physically and verbally abusive man is told by a “laughing” judge: “Why did you marry such a person?”

A woman “ready to burst into tears” is sent away without an answer after saying that her husband took out a loan in her name on the day they married and is denying her a divorce until she gives him £10,000.

A married couple asking for advice on whether the woman had been religiously divorced from her former husband were told “the secular divorce counts as nothing”.

Is that the kind of justice those in the UK want for their women?  Islamic law and Western law are incompatible at the core – for instance, how women are routinely treated as inferior to men (Sahih Bukhari 1.6.301).  Zee exposes how some individuals are letting this Islamization to take place, Breitbart reports:

Interviewing the political scientist, Dutch journalist Wierd Duk noted that in Holy Identities Zee argues Islamic fundamentalists who share the Saudi regime’s goal of Islamisation are being helped by “useful infidels” — non-Muslim intellectuals, politicians, and opinion-shapers who don’t want to cause offence.

Zee replied: “Yes, leading multiculturalists actually believe that Muslims should be shielded from criticism because it would inflict psychological harm. Although there are many Muslims who find this view idiotic, others use it to call those who criticise Islam ‘Islamophobes’ and ‘racists’.”

We have been seeing that tactic in play throughout Europe, and as a result Muslim immigrant communities have overwhelmingly embraced leftist political parties. For example, an article from The Economist reveals how “One study in France found that 93% of Muslims voted for the Socialist, François Hollande, in the 2012 presidential election.” However, since many Muslims feel leftist parties aren’t satisfying their Muslim constituents enough, Muslim political parties are starting to emerge. We are seeing this phenomenon occur in the Netherlands with the Denk party breaking off from the Dutch Labour party. The two former Labour party members to start Denk are Tunahan Kuzu and Selcuk Ozturk – both with Turkish origins and accused of having connections with Turkish President Erdogan’s Islamist AKP party. Denk is so radical that it advocates for “Racism Police” to essentially censor speech that is against the Muslim immigrant community. Legal Insurrection reports on this blatantly anti-Western plan:

The party [Denk] wants stricter sentences for “racist and discriminatory behaviour”, and treat so-called offenders much like child molesters by listing them on a nationwide “Racism Register”. The Muslim-dominated party promises to create a 1,000-men strong force to go after “Dutch racists”.

Imagine being arrested for pointing out the Sharia values of some Muslim immigrants and how they’re incompatible with Dutch values. Truthful speech thus becomes racist. Legal Insurrection confirms the troubling trend we are seeing throughout the West,saying:

Denk Party stands in the tradition of George Galloway’s Respect Party in UK, a new mutant ideology taking root in Europe that fuses leftist “social justice” issues with political Islam, dipped in fierce hatred for Israel and Western heritage. Last month, the Denk Party attracted media attention when party’s leader and Dutch MP Tunahan Kuzu refused to shake hands with the visiting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netenyahu.

We are also seeing this same pattern happening in the U.S. with Islamist groups such as CAIR and ISNA exhorting their constituents to support Hillary Clinton for president. For Islamists in the U.S. they don’t necessarily need a separate political party when leftist Democrats further their agenda for them, such as: hindering counterterrorism measures, stifling Israel’s ability to effectively defend itself, and seeking to punish those who insult Islam (for a pertinent example, see Clinton’s support of UN Resolution 16/18). Furthermore, the Islamists have a sympathizer in Huma Abedin, one of Clinton’s top aides, to help advance the cause.

This tactic of accusing those concerned about threats to freedom of being themselves threats to freedom ought to sound alarm bells whenever it is tried.

***

download-16

Machteld Zee: “Islamization is Planned” by Vlad Tepes

A young Dutch political scientist is causing consternation among the bien-pensants of the multicultural Left in the Netherlands with her analyses of Islamization. Her impeccable liberal background and credentials make it more difficult for the establishment to discredit her.

Dr. Van Helsing has translated an interview with this iconoclastic young woman. He includes this introductory note:

Machteld Zee Ph.D. is a Dutch scholar who investigated sharia courts in the UK for her Ph.D. thesis. This interview was published in the Algemeen Dagblad, a nationwide Dutch newspaper, on October 4, 2016.

The interview is relevant for several reasons:

  • Very few non-Muslims ever have gained access to the world of sharia courts in the UK. She has.
  • The University of Leiden is fairly highbrow in the Netherlands, because it is not only one of the oldest universities. but also because the heir to the Dutch throne traditionally studies at this university (for example, our former Queens Juliana and Beatrix did, just like our current head of state King Willem-Alexander). The reputation of this university gives authority to her voice.
  • She has become a target of attacks by leftist apologists for radical Islam since she published her thesis. She could do with some positive publicity. Similarly, Islam-sceptics could benefit from her work.

The translated interview:

“Islamization is Planned”

Investigating Sharia

The Islamization of Europe follows a strategy, according to Machteld Zee in her book Holy Identities, which was published today. ‘Once you have knowledge of it, you understand what is going on.’

‘I discovered a comprehensive system of law that contradicts our secular laws.’

Investigating sharia courts

Machteld Zee (32), a Dutch political scientist from the University of Leiden, studied sharia courts in the UK and wrote her Ph.D. thesis on it in 2015.

She was one of the few outsiders who gained access to the sessions of these Islamic courts. 95% of the cases before these courts are divorce cases. Her investigations resulted in a pamphlet, Holy Identities.

‘If you compare the Netherlands in the 1980s with today,’ says the political scientist and law school graduate Machteld Zee, ‘you will see an increased influence of Islam everywhere. Saudi Arabia and other countries flooded the world with thousands of imams, Islamic text books, mosques and tons of money.’

Machteld Zee needed barely 150 pages to describe the background of Islamic fundamentalism, which is gaining ground in Western countries. Her book Holy Identities: On the Road to a Sharia State is an analysis of the problems of the multicultural society.

You say that conservative Muslims want to convince their fellow Muslims to embrace sharia, the religious law of Islam. These fundamentalists are being helped by ‘useful non-believers’, non-Islamic intellectuals, politicians and opinion leaders who don’t want to offend Muslims.

‘Yes, leading multiculturalists actually believe that Muslims should be shielded from criticism because it would inflict psychological damage on them. Although many Muslims consider this an idiotic point of view, others use it to call those who criticize Islam ‘Islamophobes’ and ‘racists’.

You described yourself as left-leaning liberal when you started your investigation on sharia courts in the UK. Now you warn against a lack of knowledge of and a lack of resistance against the advancing radical Islam.

‘I discovered a comprehensive system of law — far more systematic then I had expected — that contradicts our secular laws. Many Muslim women are locked into a religious marriage because their community thinks a divorce according secular law is insufficient. In these communities — Muslim communities — sharia law trumps secular law when it comes to marriage. Women have to ask a sharia judge or an imam to dissolve their marriage, for example when the husband physically abuses her. Even Dutch Muslim women travel to the UK to appear before sharia courts. It is a parallel society. I object to it because these practices go against women’s rights.’

You have analyzed the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood. It is a political and religious movement that aims for world domination, and is supported by lots of money from fundamentalist circles. The sharia courts are part of this project, you wrote.

‘That is why it is so important that we know what is going on. Authors that I studied for my investigation were generally benevolent towards sharia courts. It turned out, however, that none of them ever attended a session of such a court. They don’t know what is going on in these courts. Now they ask me to tell all about it. Women are advised by these courts to accept polygamy and to not file criminal complaints in case of domestic violence. Physically abusive fathers are given custody of their children. I have the impression that the tide of the public debate is turning now that these facts are becoming public. I hardly hear anyone pleading in favour of sharia courts anymore.’

In your book you call out the politically correct elites, who tries to cover up abuse within Islam and tries to downplay the threat of Islamic fundamentalism.

‘In the first place, I think I am reporting facts. Where I notice that influential Western intellectuals tend to discourage critics of Islam and help fundamentalists to isolate and ‘Islamize’ Muslim communities, that is a matter of fact. My book is a compact discourse that aims to bring its readers up to date on fundamentalist Islam.’

How do you see the future?

‘We will have to act more defensively and resist Islamization. We should not yield to demands that images of scantily dressed women in public have to be covered up, for example. Just say no. Citizens should not leave everything to the government. They can defend our beliefs and values themselves, too. Why does a college in The Hague decides to abandon the Christmas tree pre-emptively? Why is alcohol banned in places where Muslims show up? There is no need for that. We are doing it to ourselves.’

Do you fear criticism? Undoubtedly, you will be labeled as a right-winger.

‘I don’t experience that when I speak in public. Even a ‘leftist’ audience responds positively to my story. Right-wing? Come on, equal rights for women and resistance against representatives of a religion who make threats of violence — let’s call that common sense.’

Leftist George Soros Attempts to Shut Down Criticism of Sharia, Slander Experts

World Economic Forum, WEF, in DavosSoros can try to stifle opponents of Islamism, but he cannot suppress the truth about political Islam and its Sharia agenda.

CounterJihad, by Bruce Cornibe, Aug. 17, 206:

George Soros knows how to throw his money around in order to champion liberal-progressive causes.

We have seen how the Hungarian billionaire has contributed significant funds to immigration activist groups, LGBT organizations, the Black Lives Matter movement, and anti-Israel groups among many others.

Apparently, Soros is also trying to silence groups and individuals who speak out against radical Islam. The Daily Caller reports on how Soros’ groups are targeting the counter-jihad movement:

The 2011 document, entitled “Extreme Polarization and Breakdown in Civil Discourse,” is one of more than 2,500 files stolen from Soros’ Open Society Foundations and published online on Saturday.

It names prominent critics of radical Islam, such as Pamela Geller, Frank Gaffney, and Robert Spencer as targets for opposition researchers working on a project operated by the Center for American Progress (CAP), a liberal think tank that has received millions of dollars in grants from Soros’ groups.

In the memo, Open Society Foundations (OSF) executives lamented that progressive groups and members of the Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim, and South Asian-American (AMEMSA) community lacked “high quality opposition research” to combat “anti-Muslim xenophobia and to promote tolerance.”

To close that gap, OSF sought to provide a $200,000 grant to CAP, which was founded in 2003 by Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta.

The CAP project, called the Examining Anti-Muslim Bigotry Project, set out to engage progressives and journalists to raise awareness about the critics of radical Islam. In addition to Geller, Gaffney and Spencer, CAP planned to “research and track” the activities of David Horowitz, Daniel Pipes, Cliff May and Liz Cheney, the daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney.

“CAP’s first step will be to interview and engage journalists, researchers, academics, and leaders in the anti-hate movement who are researching and writing on Islamophobia, and to develop a roster of knowledgeable and credible experts to whom journalists and policymakers can turn for information,” it continues.

OSF did fund CAP’s project. Its 2011 tax filings show that it gave CAP the $200,000 grant as well as two others totaling $500,000.

This kind of targeting against counter jihad activism is typical knowing Soros’ efforts to flood Europe with Muslim refugees, and exhorting President Obama to support democracy in the run-up to Egypt’s 2012 Presidential election knowing the Muslim Brotherhood’s strength.

Soros likely views Islamists as key allies in changing the international power structure from being more nation-state oriented to becoming more globalist.

By supporting the ‘Islamophobia’ narrative – which seeks to ultimately silence opponents of Islamists – Soros likely sees an opportunity to quiet the opponents of not only Sharia but also multiculturalism.

Soros can try to stifle opponents of Islamism all he wants but he cannot suppress the truth about political Islam and its Sharia agenda even with his billions of dollars.

For leftists like Soros, their pact with Islamists is myopic at best – if they ever succeed at crushing their competition on the political right, they will have to deal with an emboldened political Islam that is extremely hostile to their liberal-progressive values.

It looks like Soros and other leftists will continue to try and purge the West of its Judeo-Christian foundation in favor of multiculturalism that gives way to an Islamic civilization rooted in coercion and extreme inequality of the genders. Soros may end up eating sour grapes in the end.

Canadian Marc Lebuis on the business of Islamophobia

3187833668

Center For Security Policy, by Frank Gaffney, June 1, 2016:

Welcome to Secure Freedom Radio. This is Frank Gaffney, your host and guide for what I think of as an intelligence briefing on the war for the free world. We don’t often get good news in that war these days, I’m sorry to say, but I am very pleased to be able to present a little bit, at least for the moment. And to call back to our microphones for that purpose a man I’ve come to admire greatly and who has been indispensable in bringing about this bit of good news. He is Marc LeBuis. He is the founder and director of Point de Bascule, or Tipping Point, a web-based, investigative magazine that you can find online. It’s based in Montreal, Canada. And this bit of good news comes there, from Canada, from Quebec province, specifically. And to talk a little bit about it, I’m delighted to say congratulations and welcome, Marc LeBuis.

MARC LeBUIS:

Well, thank you. And thank you for having me, Frank.

FRANK GAFFNEY:

So tell us about this development. Bill 59 is something that you’ve been warning about for some time. You’ve been working hard against. And I think as a result, in no small measure of your efforts, it’s come undone. Talk a little bit about what happened.

MARC LeBUIS:

Well, Bill 59, of course, is technically a censorship bill. And the current government in place, it’s called the Quebec liberal government, gave in after a lot of a backlash, the backlash against the bill would not die down. Now the entire civil society, I could say almost with just a couple of exceptions, have been opposing this bill systematically for months. It’s been almost a year that it’s been very actively pushed forward. And then, there’s the opposition to the bill, PQ Representative Agnes Maltais who stood technically almost alone, she is doing what I think in English we call a filibuster where she would systematically oppose the bill in what she called intelligent opposition. So out of sixty to eighty hours of debate over the bill, only one and a half articles out of something like twenty-five were read. They were systematically asking question. And Agnes Maltais basically got it. There’s quite a few politicians, they may participate in these types of debate, but sometimes they don’t really get it. Well, she did get it. She expressed a couple of weeks ago that she felt that this was, out of about twenty years of [UNCLEAR] as a politician, she felt that this was the most important and significant debate that Quebec has ever faced in terms of the danger that it was for democracy.

FRANK GAFFNEY:

This is so important. And Marc, I want to make sure while we acknowledge and express appreciation for this sort of Horatius at the Bridge in the parliament, Agnes Maltais, your own role in helping get that civil society engaged on this issue, understanding the implications of this censorship in the name of not offending Muslims was incalculably important. And you may not want to boast about it, but let me just say thank you to you specifically. I was struck by the minister of justice in Quebec, Stephanie Vallee, indicating that while this kind of regulation of so-called hate speech is adopted elsewhere, she said, quote, we’re not ready for that, unquote. So it doesn’t necessarily mean this is a commutation of sentence, maybe it’s just a stay of execution. But in that regard, Marc, talk if you would a little bit about how things seems to be developing in terms of trying to classify as racism so-called Islamophobia and what implications it might have.

MARC LeBUIS:

Well, there is – there is what we call now, what we’re noticing, a form of axis, I mean, Islamophobia bills or efforts or lobbies trying to push Islamophobia. We know that it’s happening all over the West. But there is a particular axis right now developing which we call the Paris-Brussels-Quebec-Ottawa Axis. There is now an organisation in – based out of Paris, led by a man by the name of Marwan Muhammad who’s very close to Tariq Ramadan, close also to organisations that are linked with Yusuf al-Qaradawi out of Qatar. And he’s also very, very close to not just Muslim Brotherhood operatives but also other Salafist-based Islamist operatives who are known to have radical views in France. And they’re working together with, for example, recently they have met very, very powerful lobbies out of Canada called the CAIR Canada or the new name, the NCCM, that they’re using, and they seem to be coordinating a lot of effort to push institutions and policies inside of Canada to be able to qualify or equate Islamophobia as a racism and this would be happening. What that means, it’s even worse than having a bill that would do censorship. It would take on the current laws on racism and just basically hook onto them or piggyback on them and then would be able to have the same effect in order to kill free speech, kill criticism of anything that’s related to Islamist activities in Canada and maybe in Europe.

FRANK GAFFNEY:

Now I know, Marc LeBuis, that you have been accused of being an Islamophobe, I certainly have, many of those we work with have. Just dissect for us this concept that this is in fact some sort of racism. There is no race. Islam is practiced by people of many different races. And what I think we all are concentrating on is not even Islam itself as much as it is the political, military, legal doctrine of shariah that its Islamic supremacist adherents are trying to impose on all of us. And if we were to accede to this idea that this is somehow a racist activity, where would a country like Canada find itself? Where would, you know, people like you who are warning about what’s coming if they’re not careful?

MARC LeBUIS:

Well, there definitely would be, even more difficult than it is now to be able to name the threat that we’re facing, specifically the jihadist threat. It would be extremely difficult to – notions of infiltration, and I’m talking about serious infiltration inside government agencies, when we would try to expose how certain lobbies, associations, or individuals are trying to penetrate a political party, a police force, or even a legal institution. It recalls –

FRANK GAFFNEY:

Or the government itself for that matter.

MARC LeBUIS:

Or the government itself. There’s this leader called Jamal Badawi out of Canada, and I think he’s very known in the United States, who basically, in an interview in the early 2000s said that we should – Muslims should penetrate government institutions, specifically become judges so they can use their own personal discretion in order to avoid applying legal references that will go against shariah. So he’s encouraging Muslims to enter and penetrate and infiltrate. Become lawyers, police officers, and any type of form of positions of power that allows them to have a certain amount of discretionary power.

FRANK GAFFNEY:

As you look at this effort on the part of the Islamists, these Islamic supremacists, to promote shariah, when you find yourself confronting these pressures, Marc, just as the takeaway from your efforts on Bill 59, what should all of us learn from it and take heart from?

MARC LeBUIS:

Well, on our part, I think having the information well-structured, intelligently put together, was able to help some of the people that are pushing these policies, some politicians that could understand what’s happening, to be able to be well-equipped to articulate a defence and even, sometimes, even be on the offensive. So documenting what these organisations are doing, quoting them, knowing exactly – and also, exactly like you said, the memorandum is a perfect example. There are so many plans out there to demonstrate that there is a coordinated effort to disrupt our civilisation, to change laws. There are plans out there that clearly express that.

FRANK GAFFNEY:

Marc, we have to leave it at that for the moment, but there’s so much more to talk about. I look forward to doing so with you and just want to say, hats off to you and all of those in Canada who have fought this important fight. We’ll talk with you again very soon. Next up, Kyle Shideler of the Center for Security Policy joins us. We’ll talk about how this problem is manifesting itself here thanks to our so-called friends, the Saudis, among others. That and more straight ahead.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

You Need to Know About Tom Perez: Likely Hillary VP Opposes First Amendment

Tom-PerezPJ Media, by Robert Spencer, April 26, 2016:

Could the next president of the United States be neither Clinton, Trump, Cruz, or Kasich … but Thomas Perez?

It’s far more likely than you might think. Even before any candidate definitively secures either party’s presidential nomination, 2016 is looking more and more like 1912 all over again.

In that fateful year, Theodore Roosevelt — after four years of bored retirement — decided that he wanted to be president again. However, Roosevelt’s handpicked successor, William Howard Taft, refused to yield. Because of the split, even though the Democrats’ dour, arrogant Woodrow Wilson won fewer popular votes than perennial failed Democratic candidate William Jennings Bryan did in 1908, Wilson won.

Roosevelt and Taft divided what would have been a comfortable winning tally for the Republicans. Today, the #NeverTrump and #OnlyTrump forces seem determined to replay that scenario.

Meanwhile, on the Democratic side, it could well be 1944 all over again.

That year, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was virtually assured of victory over the strutting New York prosecutor Thomas E. Dewey. The real race was at the Democratic convention — for vice president. Everyone knew FDR was gravely ill, and that the vice presidential nominee would likely become president sometime before the 1948 election.

Sitting Vice President Henry Wallace was ultimately cast aside in favor of Harry Truman, largely because Democratic Party leaders were alarmed at the prospect of a Communist sympathizer like Wallace becoming president. (How times have changed, at least in that respect.)

Hillary Clinton is 68, and beset by a persistent cough that she has never adequately explained. According to Ed Klein, author of Unlikeable: The Problem with Hillary, she also suffers from “blinding headaches, exhaustion, insomnia, and a tremor in her hands.”

If Hillary goes unindicted (as seems likely, given that the Justice Department has been hiring based solely on left-leaning ideology) for her mishandling of classified material on her private email server, the deep split in the Republican Party makes it likely that she will be the next president.

Unless her health prevents her from remaining in office.

Given her apparent health issues (and the fact that her rival for the nomination, Bernie Sanders, is 74 years old), the Democrats’ choice for vice president could be their most important since 1944.

If Clinton became unable to serve prior the election, the obvious move for the Democrats would be to promote her vice presidential nominee to the presidential slot — and it will not be Bernie. Hillary has not yet announced her choice, but one name that has been bruited about for months as one of her most likely running mates is Tom Perez, the secretary of Labor.

The notion that Perez, or whomever the Democratic vice presidential nominee turns out to be, could become president of the United States on January 20, 2017 — or sometime thereafter — is not just a remote possibility.

Americans who value freedom should find the prospects of a Clinton and a Perez presidency equally chilling. Clinton and Perez have a shared distaste for freedom of speech: Hillary’s implicit but unmistakable opposition has been abundantly documented, whereas Perez’s distaste for the First Amendment seems even starker. In July 2012, Perez — then the assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division, was asked by Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ):

Will you tell us here today that this administration’s Department of Justice will never entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes speech against any religion?

Perez could have simply answered yes, and maybe even cited the First Amendment. Instead, Perez refused to answer the question directly. Franks persisted, ultimately asking it four times.

Perez at one point responded that it was a “hard question.” He simply refused to affirm that the Obama Justice Department would not attempt to criminalize criticism of Islam.

As it turned out, the DOJ didn’t need to — due to Hillary Clinton’s advice. Clinton called for Americans to embrace “old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don’t feel that they have the support to do what we abhor.”

The mainstream media now marches in lockstep on this issue. Most Americans are too cowed to speak out against the advancing jihad and the accommodation of Sharia principles that are inimical to American freedoms, as they are afraid of being branded as “racists,” “bigots,” and “Islamophobes.” A Clinton-inspired culture of “peer pressure and shaming” is working beautifully to intimidate Americans. Many simply have adopted her values, now believing it’s morally unacceptable to oppose jihad terror and to speak honestly about its ideological wellsprings.

President Hillary Clinton — or President Thomas Perez — would only continue this trend, working to restrict the freedom of speech even further. Perhaps they would do away with their equivocating over the First Amendment and actually attempt to enshrine in law that disturbing yet increasingly popular slogan: “Hate speech is not free speech.”

The authority given the power to determine what constitutes hate speech would wield tyrannical control over the rest of us, able to work its will unopposed by criminalizing dissent.

The very real possibility that a new Democratic administration could enact hate speech laws that would effectively nullify the First Amendment, destroying the free society that the freedom of speech makes possible, makes the 2016 presidential election the most important of our age. And a terrible time for a split in the Republican ranks.

Also see:

The Death of Free Speech: The West Veils Itself

Gatestone Institute, by Giulio Meotti, April 26, 2016

  • The West has capitulated on freedom of expression. Nobody in the West launched the motto “Je Suis Avijit Roy,” the name of the first of the several bloggers butchered, flogged or jailed last year for criticizing Islam.
  • Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel, sided with the Turks. She condemned the German comedian’s poem, called it a “deliberate insult,” then approved the filing of criminal charges against him for insulting the Turkish president.
  • The West is veiling its freedom of speech in the confrontation with the Islamic world: this is the story of Salman Rushdie, of the Danish cartoons, of Theo van Gogh, of Charlie Hebdo.
  • Iran’s foreign minister, Javad Zarif, just released an interview with Italy’s largest newspaper, Il Corriere della Sera, where he suggested a kind of grand bargain: We Iranians will discuss with you our human rights situation if you Europeans suppress freedom of expression on Islam.

Last week, Nazimuddin Samad sat at his computer at home and penned a few critical lines against the Islamist drift of his country, Bangladesh. The day after, Samad was approached by four men shouting “Allahu Akbar!” (“Allah is great!”) and hacked him to death with machetes.

These killings have become routine in Bangladesh, where many bloggers, journalists and publishers are being killed in broad daylight because of their criticism of Islam. There is a hit list with 84 names of “satanic bloggers.” A wave of terrorism against journalists reminiscent of that in Algeria, where 60 journalists were killed by Islamist armed groups between 1993 and 1997.

But these shocking killings have not been worth of a single line in Europe’s newspapers.

Is it because these bloggers are less famous than the cartoonists murdered at Charlie Hebdo? Is it because their stories did not come from the City of Light, Paris, but from one of the poorest and darkest cities in the world, Dhaka?

No, it is because the West has capitulated on freedom of expression. Nobody in the West launched the motto “Je Suis Avijit Roy,” the name of the first of these bloggers butchered last year.

From Bangladesh, we now receive photos of writers in pools of blood, laptops seized by police looking for “evidence” and keyboards burned by the Islamists. We receive images reminiscent of the riots in Bradford, England, over Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses in 1989, ten years after the Ayatollah Khomeini had revolutionized Iran into a stronghold of Islamic extremism.

Yet the stories of these bloggers from outside Europe remain shrouded by a ghastly transparency, as if their death has been only virtual, as if the internet had become their grave, as if these fallen bloggers did not deserve the virality of social networks.

There is also the case of Raif Badawi, in Saudi Arabia, sentenced to 1,000 lashes, ten years in jail and a fine of $270,000 for blogging thoughts such as , “My commitment is…to reject any repression in the name of religion…a goal that we will reach in a peaceful and law-abiding way.” The lashing order added that he should be “lashed very severely.” In addition to that, Badawi’s human rights lawyer, Walid Abu al-Khayr, was sentenced on July 6, 2014, to 10 years in prison. He was accused of: “inciting public opinion,” “disobedience in matters of the sovereign,” “lack of respect in dealings with the authorities,” “offense of the judicial system,” “inciting international organizations against the Saudi kingdom” and, finally, for having founded illegally, or without authorization, his association “Monitor of Human Rights in Saudi Arabia.” He was also forbidden to travel for fifteen years after his release, and fined 200,000 riyals ($53,000) according to Abdullah al-Shihri of the Associated Press.

Also in Saudi Arabia, in a clear violation of international law, according to Amnesty International, on March 24, the journalist Alaa Brinji was sentenced to five years in prison, an eight year travel ban and a fine of $13,000 for a few tweets allegedly “insulting the rulers,” inciting public opinion,” and “accusing security officers of killing protestors in Awamiyya,” the kingdom’s eastern province where the oil fields and the Shiites are.

Unfortunately, Western governments never raise Badawi’s case when they visit Saudi Arabia’s rulers, and turn a blind eye to the way this country treats its own citizens.

Look also at what happened not in the poor and Islamic Bangladesh, but in the wealthy and secularized Germany, where a comedian named Jan Böhmermann mocked and insulted Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan on a television show. The prosecutor of Mainz just opened a case against Böhmermann under paragraph 103 of the German Penal Code, which provides up to years of jail for insulting a foreign head of state. Chancellor Angela Merkel sided with the Turks. She condemned the comedian’s poem, called it a “deliberate insult,” then approved the prosecution against him.

Meanwhile, the German public television station, Zdf, removed the video from their website, and Böhmermann raised the white flag by suspending his show. The comedian, after Islamist death threats, got police protection.

The West is veiling its freedom of speech in the confrontation with the Islamic world: this is the story of Salman Rushdie, of the Danish cartoons, of Theo van Gogh, of Charlie Hebdo.

Theo van Gogh (left) was murdered by an Islamist because he made a film critical of Islam. Salman Rushdie (right) was lucky to stay alive, spending many years in hiding, under police protection, after Iran’s Supreme Leader ordered his murder because he considered Rushdie’s novel The Satanic Verses “blasphemous.”

A few weeks ago, at Rome’s Capitoline Museum, a famous repository of Western antiquities, the government of Italy called for “respect” for the sensibilities of Iran’s Rouhani and placed large boxes over nude sculptures.

Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammed Javad Zarif, just released an interview with Italy’s largest newspaper, Il Corriere della Sera, where he suggested a kind of grand bargain: We Iranians will discuss with you our human rights’ situation if you Europeans suppress freedom of expression on Islam: “Human rights are reason for concern for everyone,” Zarif said. “We are ready to dialogue. We shall make our observations on alienation of the Muslim communities in many European societies, or how freedom of expression is abused to desecrate the symbols of Islam.”

And that is exactly what is happening right now — of course with no mention of how freedom of speech or human rights are abused in “many Muslim societies.” Or how violent repression there “is abused to desecrate the symbols of the free world.”

The Iranian ayatollahs recently added to the bounty over the head of Salman Rushdie. And as it happened with Saudi Arabia’s or Bangladesh’s bloggers, nobody in Europe protested and Mrs. Merkel has been willing to abandon the German comedian to the authocratic Islamist Turks.

In Pakistan, a Christian woman, Asia Bibi, is now fighting for her life in prison, where, condemned to death for “blashemy,” she is waiting to know her own fate. European public opinion, which is always generous in rallying against “the persecution of minorities,” did not fill the streets and the squares to protest Asia Bibi’s imprisonment.

Further, for Europe’s journalists and writers, it has become increasingly difficult to find publishers. This is true of, for instance, Caroline Fourest, author of the French book “Eloge du blasphème.” “The treatment of her work by the publishing industry shows how much has been lost” wrote the British journalist, Nick Cohen. “No Anglo-Saxon publisher would touch it, and only fear can explain the rejection letters.”

“No American or British publisher has been willing to publish the book” Mrs. Fourest told this author. “‘There is no market for this book’, I was repeatedly told, to justify their desire not to touch something explosive. It was an important project which Salman Rushdie tried to sponsor with his own publishing houses. It is alarming because more and more I see that my colleagues behave as useful idiots.”

Europe is also suppressing freedom of expression for the very few moderate Islamic voices. On January 31, 2016, an Algerian writer named Kamel Daoud published an article in the French newspaper Le Monde on the events in Cologne. What Cologne showed, says Daoud, is how sex is “the greatest misery in the world of Allah.” A few days later, Le Monde ran a response by sociologists, historians and anthropologists who accused Daoud of of being an “Islamophobe,” Jeanne Favret-Saada, an orientalist at the Ecole pratique des hautes études, wrote that Daoud “spoke as the European far right.” Daoud has been defended only by a few other Arab writers exiled in Europe.

The affair is the mirror of Europe’s forsakening freedom of expression: a great Arab writer expresses precious truths and the mainstream European media and intellectualism, instead of protecting Daoud while Islamists threatened him with death, press the novelist to choose silence.

Giulio Meotti, Cultural Editor for Il Foglio, is an Italian journalist and author.

Bangladesh PM: Kill Those Who Slander the Prophet

unnamed (8)

“If someone writes filthy things about my religion, why should we tolerate it? ”

BY CounterJihad · @CounterjihadUS | April 20, 2016

Committing the political sin of telling the truth about what she thinks, Bangladesh’s Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina responded to the machete-murder of atheists in her country by shrugging it off.  At least seven outspoken atheists have been chopped to death in public with machetes, shot with pistols, hacked with cleavers, and otherwise brutally murdered..  Several were killed in public, in daylight hours, with police seeming reluctant to seek out the networks responsible.

Security services claim that it is homegrown extremists, not al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups.  However, few arrests have been made.  Meanwhile, a “kill list” of academics, atheists, and outspoken “free thinkers” has been circulated anonymously.

Bangladesh’s government has the duty to protect its citizens from violence, but when asked about the matter Sheikh Hasina showed little interest in making it a priority.  Indeed, she seems to feel that the murders are just and merited in some sense:

“Everyone has to hold their tongue, has to maintain a level of decency in what the write. If they write something provocative and something bad happens, the government will not take responsibility… If someone writes filthy things about my religion, why should we tolerate it?”

The premier also said, “Recently it has become a fashion to call someone a freethinker who says nasty things about religion. I do not see any free thinking here. All I see is filth.”

While she also went on to add that “the government will also not tolerate those who attempt to kill someone just because of what they said,” she made no promises to take specific action.  The government’s clear lack of interest in devoting resources to tracking down and destroying these networks sends a clear sign of encouragement, which her remarks only worsen.

Bangladesh is responding to challenges to Islam in a familiar way.  Tolerating or encouraging vigilante violence against outspoken writers has been characteristic of Iran’s approach to “blasphemy” since it declared a death sentence on Salman Rushdie in the 1980s.  But this is not limited to Islamic-majority nations.  Many murders of cartoonists, newspapermen and filmmakers have occurred in Europe in the name of silencing any “blasphemy” of Islam.  Even in the United States, there have been repeated acts of vigilante jihad aimed at forcing silence on critics of Islam.

Islamic governments like Bangladesh’s have even pushed for an international norm that would create an exception to the human right of freedom of speech when it comes to criticizing Islam.  Their efforts at the United Nations, especially as part of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, are a threat to basic human liberties.  At this point, the members of the OIC clearly believe that they have successfully framed international law in such a way that it justifies their enforcement of anti-blasphemy laws. Unfortunately, increasingly Western governments seem inclined to go along with them.  We must stand together against these attempts to silence us.  Protecting our basic liberties is the reason that governments exist.  Any that surrender in this fight must be altered or replaced.

***

And now there is yet another deadly Machete attack:

Bangladeshi professor Rezaul Karim Siddiquee hacked to death, ISIS claim responsibility

download (4)A liberal university professor on way to work in northwestern Bangladesh was brutally hacked to death by machete-wielding ISIS militants near his home, the latest in a series of similar attacks on intellectuals and bloggers by the dreaded group in the Muslim-majority country. Rajshahi University professor AFM Rezaul Karim Siddiquee, 58, was attacked by motorbike-borne assailants within 50 metres of his residence in Rajshahi city as the militants slit his throat using sharp weapons and left him to die, police said.

“The miscreants attacked him from behind with machetes as he walked to the university campus from his home around 7.30 AM,” local police station in-charge Shahdat Hossain told PTI over phone.

He said the Professor of English literature died on the spot following which the assailants fled the scene. The body was found lying face down in a pool of blood, and according to an eyewitness, she saw two persons leaving on a motorbike from the spot.

US-based private SITE Intelligence Group said the Islamic State has claimed the killing. “ISIS’ Amaq Agency reported the group’s responsibility for killing Rajshahi University professor Rezaul Karim for “calling to atheism” in Bangladesh,” it said in a tweet.

Earlier, Rajshahi’s police commissioner Mohammad Shamsuddin told reporters at the scene that the “technique of the murder suggested it could be an act of Islamist terrorists.”

The professor’s neck was hacked at least three times and was 70-80 per cent slit, he said, adding that the nature of the attack shows it was carried out by extremist groups.

An investigation into the killing is on.

Meanwhile, angry students and teachers of the university rallied in the campus demanding immediate arrest of culprits.

Siddiquee’s colleagues said he was involved in cultural activities in the campus and used to play flute and sitar.

“He was not known for affiliation for any political party… He had a progressive outlook that might have earned him the wrath of reactionary (Islamist) forces,” professor of mass communication department of the university Dulal Chandra Biswas told PTI over phone.

Biswas said he believed the Islamists murdered Siddiquee to prove their existence in view of a massive anti-militant security clampdown in the region.

Two years ago, another Rajshahi University teacher AKM Shafiul Islam was similarly murdered. Though his murder was initially claimed by radical group ‘Ansaral Islam’, police later ruled out that possibility, saying he was murdered due to personal rivalry.

But some years ago, two more professors of the state-run Rajshahi University had been killed. There have been systematic assaults in Bangladesh in recent months specially targeting minorities, secular bloggers, intellectuals and foreigners. Last year, four prominent secular bloggers were killed with machetes, one inside his own home.