The Erosion of Free Speech: the Global Islamist Attack
comment by Jerry Gordon
Janet Levy has an important message about how Islamists are encroaching our free speech rights and using our laws against us in this FrontPageMagazine article. She chronicles what has occurred with the Islamist assault on the republishing of the Danish Mohammed Cartoons, the OIC anti-Islamophobia resolutions in the UN General Assembly and the kerfuffle at the UN’s Human Rights commission in Geneva against my friend David Littman, and the recent spate of actions up in Canada against Ezra Levant of the Calgary -based Western Standard who dared publish those Danish Mohammed cartoons and the now dismissed complaints brought the Canadian Islamic Council against MacLean’s Magazine and columnist and Mark Steyn, author of “America Alone’ for publishing an excerpt from Steyn’s book.
We in the US have thought us immune to these Islamist assaults against our free speech. But then we have “Rachel’s Law” so named for courageous Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld and her fight against tourism libel used abroad by a Saudi terror financier against writers and publishers exposing Islamist assaults against free speech. Rachel’s Law was enacted earlier this year by the New York. The US version, the Free Speech Protection Act of 2008, is pending in Congress.
Last Friday, during a Victory Coalition call, I noted an incident concerning an EEOC administrative law ruling brought by a Muslim employee concerning a DHS counter terrorism course, that the complainant alleged was ‘hateful’ to both he and other members of the ‘ummah’.
Levy chronicles that episode as a cautionary tale that it can happen here. Here is the excerpt from her article that should concern all ACT members: Another instance of DHS curtailment and accommodation of Muslims, occurred when Muhammad Rana, a Pakistani Muslim and new DHS hire was being trained as an adjudication officer at the agency’s Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC). Rana participated in a seven week training course in which he claimed to have faced discrimination based on his religion and national origin. In a March 2005 complaint filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Rana said the instructional content of his classes contained “disparaging and factually inaccurate information about the Islamic faith and the Arabic people.” His in-class protests apparently prompted an instructor to recommend that Rana be investigated for possible terrorist ties. An administrative law judge ruling found that Rana had been subject to a hostile work environment and ordered $50,000 in compensatory damages, $6,195 in missed overtime, reimbursement for medical and prescription medication costs incurred as a result of the hostile work environment and, most significantly, the removal and destruction of and DHS memoranda regarding Rana’s potential ties to terrorist organizations. Ultimately, the course in question was discontinued by the DHS.
What Levy doesn’t realize is that the DHS ‘dhimmi’ behind the Rana episode is, according to Frank Gaffney, Jr. of the Center for Security Policy, about to be made the White House ‘privacy czar,’ Daniel W. Sutherland, head of the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. Sutherland was the perpetrator of the change in the ‘lexicon’ concerning elimination of terms like “Jihad”, “Islamists,” etc. Sutherland appointment to this White House post should come under scrutiny by concerned citizens and Members of Congress. Sutherhland is facilitating the objective of those unindicted co-conspirators in the re-trial this September of the Holy Land Foundation matter in the Dallas Federal district court like CAIR, MAS, ISNA and ICNA: adoption of shariah law and a worldwide caliphate ruled by a strong emir replacing our Constitutional form of government
by Janet Levy, FrontPageMagazine, July 3, 2008
Although the headline of the June 8th article in the Daily Times of Pakistan read “Pakistan to ask EU to amend laws on freedom of expression,” the request from high-level government officials was in reality a threat. The six-person Pakistani delegation was set to deliver a warning that unless blasphemy against Islam stopped, terrorist attacks against European assets could escalate. Their cited example was the suicide bomb attack this June 2 on the Danish Embassy in Pakistan in which eight people died and 27 were injured as a result of possible renewed backlash to the 2005 publication of 12 editorial cartoons depicting the Islamic prophet Mohammed.
Islamabad informed the European Union countries that the backlash to perceived insults to the “religion of peace” could jeopardize “inter-religious harmony” and result in uncontrollable attacks on other diplomatic missions abroad. A high-level delegation representing the Pakistani government was to travel to Brussels to further warn EU officials of the liabilities of free expression.
This apocryphal grandstanding, in which Islamabad seeks to eradicate free speech and reclassify it as an offensive hate crime, is part and parcel of the insidious Islamic effort to establish a worldwide Islamic caliphate under shariah law. Paradoxically, in most of the Muslim world, the right of free speech is nonexistent. Verbal and physical attacks on non-Muslims are rampant, as is death for apostates, terrorism training for youth, hate indoctrination of non-Muslims in mosques and schools and the oppression of Christians, Hindus and Jews. But Muslims feel free to use democratic precepts in the service of their own radical ideology to, ultimately, overthrow liberty, eliminate individual rights and destroy freedoms in Western societies. They seek prohibitions on free expression to strengthen Islam, pave the way toward Islamization and keep the Western public ill informed and unaware of potential threats to the democratic way of life. By couching this effort as merely the elimination of offensive speech, they conceal their true goal of undermining the laws of Western societies, specifically the very foundation of democracy – free speech.
This goal was dramatically illustrated in March of 2008, when the 57 Muslim states that make up the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) struck a blow against free speech by successfully forcing through the United Nation’s Human Rights Council (UNHRC) an amendment to a resolution on Freedom of Expression. The amendment, requiring extensive changes to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, officially characterizes as abuse and an act of religious discrimination any criticism of Islam. It also calls for the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression to report any individuals and news media issuing negative comments about Islam.
In June, this limitation on free speech was further underscored when representatives of two non-governmental organizations sought to address stonings, honor killings and female genital mutilation sanctioned under shariah law. As part of the effort to mute criticism of Islam, the Egyptian UNHRC delegate demanded that the speakers be silenced, proclaiming, “Islam will not be crucified in this Council.”
Thus, banned from UNHRC sessions is criticism of shariah laws that oppress women, condemn homosexuals and threaten converts and non-Muslims. Also banned are statements against Islamic law-sanctioned child marriage, honor killings, the hanging of homosexuals and the murder of apostates. (Continue Reading this Article)
July 3rd, 2008 at 4:12 • opinion • FrontPageMagazine • Janet Levy • the Rana DHS EEOC 'discrimination' case • Islamist assault on free speech in the West and US • 0 Comments •
Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of American Congress for Truth, Brigitte Gabriel or the Editor or the staff of American Congress for Truth. Any comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, harassing or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted at the sole discretion of the Editor. However, the fact that comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Brigitte Gabriel, the Editor or the Staff of American Congress for Truth.
No Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
You need an OpenID login to post a comment. Learn more about setting up an OpenID
You must be logged in to post a comment.
