Universal Censorship by Edward Cline
https://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/
Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch posted an interesting article about how a Pakistani UN member is proposing that a war on “islamophobia” be waged to eradicate this form of “hate speech” for good and forever and ever.
Make no mistake: by “defamation of religions,” the Pakistanis mean “criticism of Islam,” as neither they nor anyone else care when Judaism, Christianity, or any other religion is criticized. And make no mistake about another point as well: once anything — anything at all — is established as off-limits to criticism, you are not living in a free society, but in a tyranny, for those who adhere to the ideology that cannot be criticized can do anything they want to you and others, and you won’t be able to say a word about it. So what Pakistan is trying to do with this initiative is establish over the entire world the tyranny of Sharia and its blasphemy laws that forbid criticism of Islam.
Make no mistake: by “defamation of religions,” the Pakistanis mean “criticism of Islam,” as neither they nor anyone else care when Judaism, Christianity, or any other religion is criticized. And make no mistake about another point as well: once anything — anything at all — is established as off-limits to criticism, you are not living in a free society, but in a tyranny, for those who adhere to the ideology that cannot be criticized can do anything they want to you and others, and you won’t be able to say a word about it. So what Pakistan is trying to do with this initiative is establish over the entire world the tyranny of Sharia and its blasphemy laws that forbid criticism of Islam.
She also stressed the importance of countering “Islamophobia” and incitement to violence and hatred that is being witnessed in some parts of the western world by the negative depiction of Muslims.
One must ask oneself: Where and when have the “denigrators” of Islam run riot, attacked mosques, beaten up Muslims, raped Muslim women, or otherwise incited anti-Islam and anti-Muslim violence?
Of hatred of Islam there is aplenty, especially when individuals grasp the totalitarian nature of Islam and Sharia law; naturally they would hate Islam as much as they would Nazism and Communism. They do not want to live under it, nor do they want it next door in a submissive country like Canada. “Peace and harmony” are not analogous or equivalent to Islam’s 1400 year record, as Robert Spencer writes in detail in The History of Jihad.
Ambassador Lodhi also called for greater respect for each other’s religious beliefs, symbols and revered personalities.
The Express Tribune, on November 22, 2018, reported:
Pakistan informed the United Nations (UN) on Thursday of Prime Minister Imran Khan’s initiative for an international campaign against defamation of religions.
In a free society, which Ambassador Lodhi is certainly not proposing, “respect” for other religious beliefs would go hand-in-hand with the ability to criticize those other beliefs and the critics would not expect to be attacked or killed, and would not be. It is only in the suffocating miasma of politically correct speech, or PC, and fear of reprisals that criticism of Islam would be policed or outlawed. “Tolerance” of other religions is not “tolerated” by Islam. PC has made it possible for political leaders to evade openly criticizing Islam.
Lodhi’s proposal fits like a glove with aims of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) which is also to erase all criticism of Islam, by extorting Western governments to regulate any speech when its subject is Islam.
Wikipedia notes:
At the 34th Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers (ICFM), an OIC section, in May 2007, the foreign ministers termed Islamophobia “the worst form of terrorism.”
It isn’t the butchery of thousands by Jihadis that is regarded by the OIC as “the worst form of terrorism,” but rather pointing out that Mohammad was a rapist, a murderer, a thief, and a pedophile that is called “terrorism.” In fact, the butchery by islamist Jihadis is sanctioned by the OIC in conformance with the Koran, Hadith, and other Islamic texts.
The 11th Conference on Islamophobia in May of 2018 stated:
“Submitted to the Council of Foreign Ministers, the report aims to raise global awareness of how Islamophobia impedes Muslims’ coexistence with their host communities and
perils peace and harmonious togetherness in the world. No less malevolent than terrorism,
Islamophobia shatters the social, religious and cultural fabric of communities. Islamophobia
and violent terrorism are equally destructive, being intrinsically interrelated. More
terrorism generates more Islamophobia, in a reciprocal relationship. The less intense is Is-
Islamophobia, the less terrorism do we have.”
Not necessarily. Was Islamophobia responsible for the Manchester, Nice, or Berlin attacks? Far from hardly. Britain, France, and Germany have established police states that punish “hate speech” or “Islamophobic” statements in public.
“The OICI statement continues: In this 11th report we shall see that Islamophobia has exhibited a downward trend over the past year, amid disintegration of racist rhetoric that rode the wave of Trump’s presidency, and following electoral failure of several populist, right-wing political factions in Europe, particularly in France, the Netherlands and Germany. These major political changes were not without benefit to Islam and to Muslim populations in western countries. This phenomenon, the report demonstrates, has been diminishing considerably.”
He must be thinking: “Gee! Our campaign against freedom of speech must be working!” Maybe. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has formalized Sharia restrictions on speech, as reported by the Gatestone Institute:
In 2011, free speech and anti-jihad activist, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, was convicted by an Austrian court of “denigrating religious symbols of a recognized religious group” after she gave a series of small seminars: “Introduction to the basics of Islam”, “The Islamization of Europe”, and “The impact of Islam”.
No Muslims appear to have attended Sabaditsch-Wolff’s seminars. The court case against her came about only because a magazine, NEWS, filed a complaint against her after secretly planting a journalist at her seminars to record them.
Wolff was convicted of having said that Muhammad “liked to do it with children” and “… A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? … What do we call it, if it is not paedophilia?”
That is the kind of submission to Islam its advocates seek. It has reached a point now in the West that even inveighing against paedophilia – whether or not one is speaking about
| The “spiritual” founder of Antifa and friend of Islam |
Mohammad – will be considered a “hate crime.”
The ECHR appears to be advocating a permanent pussyfooting to avoid the truth that can only lead to total self-censorship and the total cessation of freedom of expression, as the proponents of global sharia law have been urging for years….
“… Mrs S. [Sabaditsch-Wolff] must have been aware that her statements were partly based on untrue facts and apt to arouse indignation in others. The national courts found that Mrs S. had subjectively labelled Muhammad with paedophilia as his general sexual preference, and that she failed to neutrally inform her audience of the historical background, which consequently did not allow for a serious debate on that issue.” [emphasis added…
“Untrue facts”? There is no such thing. The words are an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms.]
Judith Bergman, author of the Gatestone column, puts her finger on the phenomenon of the ongoing corruption and/or destruction of the concept of objective reality. “Facts” are a subjective “perception” of reality. This is a view of reality promulgated by Immanuel Kant.
He is one of the authors of today’s insanity, including the push for global censorship.
Comments are closed.
