To give offense - or not?

While Westerners are falling all over themselves to censor cartoons and anything else that any Muslim anywhere on the globe might deem offensive, two TV broadcasts to the Muslim world are fearlessly exposing controversial Islamic texts.

Raymond Ibrahim explains that Life TV, an evangelical Arabic satellite station, has two weekly programs, one hosted by Coptic priest Fr. Zakaria Botros, the other by ex-Muslim Rashid. Both programs ask uncomfortable questions about Islam and Mohammed; a number of Muslim countries, including Saudi Arabia, ban the station and it is frequently condemned on al Jazeera.

The broadcasts, which are viewed by millions of Arabic-speaking Muslims, caused an uproar at the start; Al Qaeda put a $60 million bounty on Zarakia's head. Life TV responded by providing even more anecdotes discrediting Mohammed. So how is all this being received? "Needless to say, Life TV's hosts ... are hated by Muslims around the world. But to the careful observer, the outrage appears to be subsiding, ostensibly replaced by apathy - that is, the default strategy when threats and displays of indignation fail."

Ibrahim concludes that "one need not agree with Life TV's tactics or evangelical mission to appreciate the lesson it imparts: Muslim outrage - as with all human outrage - is predicated on how well it is tolerated. Continuously appeased, it becomes engorged and insistent on more concessions; ignored, it deflates and, ashamed of itself, withers away."

Too bad no one pays any attention to these guys.

Geert Wilders on trial

The blasphemy trial of Geert Wilders in the Netherlands may have been postponed until June. In the meantime, the 4 judges have refused to allow all but four of his 18 requested witnesses. The only good news here is that one of the four is Wafa Sultan. She doesn't usually take much nonsense from anybody. (Here's my review of her recent book.)

UK commentator Pat Condell has made this video, which I thoroughly recommend if you want to understand why this trial is so important. (Thanks to Jihad Watch.)

Another book bites the dust

This time, it's a German mass-market crime novel about honor killings, in which one of the characters makes a crude reference to the Koran. For fear that this reference might offend Muslims and lead to violence, the Droste publishing house in Dusseldorf has cancelled its contract. The book had been scheduled to appear in September. (Thanks to Jihad Watch.)

What's in a phrase?

The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has for years been trying to gain international acceptance for the concept of 'religious defamation': that freedom of speech cannot be used to scrutinize or criticize a religion (Islam).

Having joined the UN Human Rights Council, the United States sponsored a resolution on freedom of speech that aimed to find a compromise between the Islamic nations and the West. That resolution just passed unanimously. Egypt, a country notorious for suppressing free speech, was the co-sponsor.

According to the CNS News report: "The resolution drops the phrase 'religious defamation' but refers to “negative racial and religious stereotyping,” and condemns any advocacy of “religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.” It urges governments to “address and combat such incidents,” in line with their obligations under international law.

Anne Bayefsky, in her analysis, criticizes the Obama administration for 'backing calls for limits on freedom of expression.' She says that 'other Western governments ... watched the weeks of negotiation with dismay as it became clear that American negotiators wanted consensus at all costs.'

Indeed, the 'compromise' language looks like it creates the proverbial hole big enough to drive a truck through. Such an outcome is definitely not in the U.S. interest.

Finnish dhimmitude

A court in Finland, an EU member state in good standing, has ordered Finnish politician Jussi Halla-aho to stand trial for blasphemy and incitement of an ethnic group. His transgression: posting an entry on his blog calling Mohammed a pedophile for marrying a 6-year-old girl and consumating the marriage when she was 9. (The account of this marriage comes from reliable Islamic sources.)

The EU prides itself on standing for Western values; does anyone remember what those values are? Freedom of speech or freedom of religion, anybody?

(Thanks to Jihad Watch.)

An international First Amendment

A response to the travails of Geert Wilders and others, the International Free Press Society is launching an initiative for an 'international First Amendment' tomorrow in Washington, DC.

Throughout Europe, hate speech restrictions are being used - not to silence Islamists spewing hatred of Christians, Jews, democracy and anything Western - but to silence people who want to draw attention to what the Islamists are saying. Such a global campaign would push back against the efforts of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) to impose Islamic blasphemy laws on the rest of the world. (Thanks to CNS News.) It would also strengthen First Amendment protections in the United States - and, if only in theory, offer an alternative to the many people through the Muslim world who suffer from free speech restrictions.

The UN, blasphemy and free speech

Late last month, the UN's Third Committee, which handles human rights issues, passed a resolution criminalizing expressions deemed to be 'defamation of religion,' with special concern for Islam. Unsurprisingly, the resolution was submitted by a caucus of Islamic nations, supported by human rights defenders Venezuela and Belarus. The resolution will come to the main body of the UN General Assembly for a vote later this month, where it is expected to pass. Then, in principle, UN member states are supposed to amend their criminal codes accordingly.

It turns out that the resolution is actually watered down from the text that was submitted last year. However, this time it would then be sent to the second World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance - Durban II, the anticipated antisemitic hate fest. (If you want more information on Durban II, go here.)

A growing number of legal scholars argue that the decisions of international conferences like Durban II can be incorporated into international law, which then can be enforced by the International Criminal Court (where the United States is not/not a member). 'Stand-up comics and philosophers might find they're unable to cross international borders for fear of being arrested and remanded for trial in Jordan or Malaysia.' (Dutch parlementarian Geert Wilders is already facing this problem for his film Fitna.)

Will it actually come to this? Optimists argue that the vote in favor of the resolution is weaker than it was last year. It would also be nice if the United States (which has refused to participate in the planning meetings) and other Western countries would follow Canada's example and refuse to attend Durban II, thus for once sending a clear message about support for free speech and freedom of religion, and against incitement to hatred and mayhem.

For a witty, incisive blast in favor of free speech and exposing politically-correct and mind-numbing speech codes from one of the 'stand up comics and philosophers' who has already been put in front of Human Rights Commissions in Canada, see columnist Mark Steyn's latest piece here.

Blasphemy in the Netherlands

Dhimmi Watch reports that the Dutch government just voided a blasphemy law dating back to the 1930s - which sounds like good news. It did so at the insistence of the Dutch parliament, after political cartoonist Gregorius Nekschot became the subject of a criminal investigation and was arrested on hate crime charges last spring.

Unfortunately, the government wants to replace the old law with anti-discrimination legislation that is even more likely to stifle freedom of speech and religion. The proposed legislation introduces the concept of 'indirect insult' and expands an existing law which protects people on the basis of race, age, disability and sexual orientation to include protection on the basis of religion or 'conviction.' People could be sentenced for up to 12 months under this proposed law, as opposed to 3 months under the scrapped blasphemy law.

This situation is a perfect demonstration of the danger of 'demopathy": when people twist and abuse Western rights until those rights are completely subverted.

Wafa the wonderful

Wafa Sultan, an Arab-American psychiatrist, doesn't seem to know the meaning of fear. Her outspokenness against various aspects of Islam on Al-Jazeera several months ago brought her a harsh condemnation from Sheikh Al-Qaradawi, considered the spiritual leader by many Muslims. She's been in hiding since, but has now given an equally outspoken interview on Al-Hayat TV in Cyprus. See the clip here. Note how she describes the way in which negative words and thinking warp and diminish people; it helps to explain the happy lynch crowd killing the young Iraqi girl, as reported earlier.

Wafa Sultan deserves a Medal of Honor - too bad that her bravery and intelligence pass virtually unnoticed in the United States.

Turkish blasphemer in Saudi Arabia

See Dhimmi Watch for a report on the efforts by the Turkish president and prime minister to rescue a Turkish national who, while in Saudi Arabia, was accused of blasphemy and sentenced to death. His accuser, an Egyptian neighbor, has disappeared.

Fitna the Movie - an Update

Robert Spencer has just written an excellent piece on FrontPage outlining what he thinks will be the strategy of Islamic governments (led by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which represents more than 50 of them): defining free speech at the United Nations to prohibit anything deemed critical of Islam. Both UN Secretary-General Ban ki-moon and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, have voiced their sympathy for this approach. Lest you dismiss the UN as completely toothless, may I point out that the United States turns to the UN for agreement on, for example, what constitutes terrorism. (See my April 5 entry for the EU's acquiescence on this issue.) Here's the link to his article; http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=E9ADC8C1-A7D1-4318-B36C-AA6AC5784BA8. And this link contains a copy of the movie itself: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020472.php. By the way, a Dutch judge recently declared that the movie had not incited hatred; here's that story, thanks to Jihad Watch.