Moe's Jihad continues… Cartoon Jihad continues, Litigation Jihad con….

Despite billions in aid our Pakistani “allies” are uncooperative:

blow mohammed

Mark Steyn:

“The Danish cartoons story was a test, and the civilized world failed it..”

…the western media have managed to produce a uniquely creepy synthesis of craven capitulation and self-serving pomposity. As the great Australian wag Tim Blair observed:

Journalists can spend entire careers mouthing off about their commitment to free speech without ever having the chance to properly demonstrate it. I once had a theory that the lack of repression in modern democracies drove journalists to invent McCarthyesque threats, so much did they crave an opportunity to stare down those who would silence them.

This story meets all the clichés of journalistic self-aggrandizement: “Sunlight is the best disinfectant”, “News is what someone doesn’t want you to put in the paper”. But it seems it’s one thing to “speak truth to power” when the power’s George Bush or John Ashcroft, quite another when it’s an Islamist mob coming to burn your building down. Needless to say, reflex blowhardism is so ingrained in the media class they couldn’t resist passing off their prioritizing of self-preservation as a bold principled stand. Or as Philip Lee, professor of journalism at St Thomas University in New Brunswick, put it:

“Freedom of the press means you can publish, or not. Not publishing is also an expression of freedom.”

Read it all>>

Demographic Death Watch:

Freedom of Speech goes under the bus

U.S. consponsors anti-free speech resolution at the UN

Thanks to Robert Spencer, Jihad Watch

Free speech death watch. The U.N. Human Rights Council approved the resolution, cosponsored by the U.S. and Egypt, yesterday.

It calls on states to condemn and criminalize “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.” It also condemns “negative stereotyping of religions and racial groups,” which is of course an oblique reference to accurate reporting about the jihad doctrine and Islamic supremacism — which is always the focus of whining by the Organization of the Islamic Conference and other groups about negative “stereotyping” of Islam. They never say anything when people like Osama bin Laden and Khaled Sheikh Mohammed issue detailed Koranic expositions justifying violence and hatred; but when people like Geert Wilders and others report about such expositions, that’s “negative stereotyping.”

And the worst aspect of this and all such measures is that the “Incitement” and the “hatred” are in the eye of the beholder. The powerful can decide to silence the powerless by classifying their views as hate speech. The Founding Fathers tried to protect Americans from tyranny by protecting free speech. Now our free speech is threatened, and tyranny will take advantage of that. But we still have the First Amendment, right? Eugene Volokh, in an excellent analysis of the resolution, explains why it isn’t that easy to dismiss this:

6. But why the fuss, some might ask, if we’re protected by the First Amendment? First, if the U.S. backs a resolution that urges the suppression of some speech, presumably we are taking the view that all countries — including the U.S. — should adhere to this resolution. If we are constitutionally barred from adhering to it by our domestic constitution, then we’re implicitly criticizing that constitution, and committing ourselves to do what we can to change it.
So to be consistent with our position here, the Administration would presumably have to take what steps it can to ensure that supposed “hate speech” that incites hostility will indeed be punished. It would presumably be committed to filing amicus briefs supporting changes in First Amendment law to allow such punishment, and in principle perhaps the appointment of Justices who would endorse such changes (or even the proposal of express constitutional amendments that would work such changes).

Atlas links:

Obama bastard:

Weasel Links:

Gateway Pundit:

Dumber than dirt:

3 thoughts on “Moe's Jihad continues… Cartoon Jihad continues, Litigation Jihad con….”

  1. Demographic Death Watch:

    Keysar’s still at it… (Sydney Mainly Halal)

    Why should polygamy be a crime?
    October 2, 2009

    In a liberal society such as Australia, it should not be a crime to have more than one wife, argues Keysar Trad.

  2. It should be made a crime because it causes more infections
    and diseases, and there wont be enough available women for
    many men and that will cause more envy, strife and fighting.
    also muslim reproduction is jeopardizing the liveability on
    the planet, they are responsible for over-population. (hindus too).
    Muslims outside muslim countries should be restricted to
    2 children per couple, if they want more let them go home
    and burden their own country.

Comments are closed.