[ April 15, 2024 ]
Tom Blumer over at PJM has an extraordinarily good piece on the current debate on freedom in this country in the wake of the attempted jihad massacre at our free speech event in Garland, Texas.
Great stuff, well argued — elemental.
“The ‘Hate Speech’ Canard: Ticket to Tyranny,” By Tom Blumer, PJ Media, May 10, 2015
Pamela Geller exposes the totalitarian “human rights” enterprise.Story continues below advertisement
It’s impossible to overstate the importance of the ugliness Pamela Geller has exposed, and how grateful we should be to her.
Geller’s “Muhammad Art Exhibit & Contest” in Garland, Texas, on May 3, sponsored by her American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) and Jihad Watch, featured “about 350 entries depicting Muhammad” — in drawings and cartoons.
For this — creating drawings and cartoons — radical Islamists have declared that she and others associated with the event must die.
After numerous online and other Islamist death threats during the preceding week, two ISIS-inspired jihadists drove 1,000 miles from Phoenix to Garland’s Curtis Culwell Center hoping to carry out the demanded executions. Fortunately, thanks to a heroic police officer’s aggressive action, they were killed before they could carry out their plan.
As will be seen shortly, it is no exaggeration to say that long-established organizations in the international “human rights” community opposed the exercise of free speech embodied in that event, and believe that its sponsors and attendees deserve to be punished.
Elite U.S. reactions to Geller’s and her attendees’ near-death experience demonstrate just how far their campaign against so-called “hate speech” has progressed. The answer is, “farther than almost anyone might have thought.”
A much greater than expected swath of elite commentators and pundits on both the left and right clearly believes that Geller and event organizers — again, by exhibiting drawings and cartoons — provoked the attack. Many of them believe the event was an example of “hate speech,” and that it should not have taken place. Some have gone further, declaring that it should not have been allowed to take place. Those who truly believe in freedom should be thanking Pamela Geller for helping us identify genuine enemies who until now have cloaked themselves in respectability.
Sadly, the surface desirability of eliminating “hate,” especially in speech, is powerful.
After all, the great religions of the world – with the notable exception of certain far from minor strains of Islam — treat genuine hate as sinful. In Catholicism, hatred “(targeted) directly at the person … is always sinful.” Mahatma Gandhi, a Hindu, is credited with saying “Hate the sin, love the sinner.”
This nation’s Founders were religious too — and uncommonly brilliant. As they declared this nation’s independence from Great Britain, they, uniquely in human history, also declared that human beings’ rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, were God-given and not conferred by men or their governments. The Founders’ First Amendment-confirmed definition of “liberty” clearly includes the right to say, write, draw, or produce whatever one wishes. Given the intensity of political discourse at the time, it’s clear that they did not intend to carve out any kind of exception for “hate.”
The creation of the “hate speech” construct is irrefutably communist in origin, and goes back to the afternath of World War II:
… the introduction of hate-speech prohibitions into international law was championed in its heyday by the Soviet Union and allies. Their motive was readily apparent. The communist countries sought to exploit such laws to limit free speech.
[…]
The dominant force behind the attempt to adopt an obligation to restrict freedom of expression was the Soviet Union.
[…]
The states where criticism of totalitarian ideology was prohibited were the ones that internationalized hate-speech laws.
The initial Soviet-led efforts were too ham-handed and obvious for most of the rest of the then-free world to stomach. So, the definition of hate speech evolved:
… hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.
Now, “hate speech” is a tool to be exploited by the perpetually aggrieved. Note the definition’s obvious implication that truly hateful speech directed at anyone who is not a “protected individual” or in a “protected group” cannot be considered “hate speech.” People not in protected groups are also apparently not worthy of federal protection when violently threatened.
Unbeknownst to most Americans, the “internationalization” to which the excerpt above refers has left this nation as one of a very few without oppressive “hate speech” laws favoring “protected individuals or groups” on the books. This intensely frustrates the so-called “human rights” community, many of whose members believe that the U.S. is a haven for “hate” and must be ostracized by the international community until it falls in line.
Most, but not all, of those who wish to impose their totalitarian regime on us have been circumspect about their ultimate goals. One such exception is Tanya Cohen, who claims to have worked with a number of “human rights” groups.
The headlines and content of Cohen’s recent columns will quickly disabuse those who still hold the quaint notion that banning “hate speech” is merely a project designed to ensure that everyone is civil to one another.
Her April 18 entry, “It’s Time To Put An End To Anti-Choice Speech,” is a prime example. In Cohen’s version of a supposedly free society, lobbying for pro-life legislation, demonstrating at an abortion clinic, or even publishing a pro-life opinion on your Facebook page would be outlawed. In Ms. Cohen’s ultra-scientific opinion, such people are “spreading lies,” and must be stopped.
Banning any discussion of abortion’s morality, which if logically extended would drive Catholicism and many of the world’s other major religions underground, is just a start. In that same column, Cohen clearly is on the side of a professor she quotes who wishes to similarly squelch speech “for climate denialists” and even “the tobacco industry.”
Separately, we find that Ms. Cohen has advocated an online command-and-control regime in Australia about which George Orwell’s Big Brother could only have dreamed:
What I propose is something called a Human Rights Online Act. This Act would not only make it a severe criminal offence on the federal level to publish, distribute, promote, or access hate speech online, but implement a federal Internet filtering system to protect Australians from being exposed to hate sites run out of the US. The Internet filter should block access to all hate sites, and anyone who tries to access any hate sites should be sent to gaol (i.e., prison — Ed.) … anyone accused of offending, insulting, humiliating, or intimidating other people should be required to prove their innocence or be declared guilty automatically …
Cohen has also celebrated how “attempting to link Islam with terrorism, saying that gay marriage isn’t really marriage, or saying that trans women aren’t really women would get you charged with discrimination and/or incitement to hatred” is “one of the most admirable things about Europe.”
Those with totalitarian impulses have created the idea of “hate speech” out of thin air and have turned the entire idea of “human rights” on its head, transforming it into the tyrant’s ultimate tool.
Now we know, and must react accordingly.
Thanks, Pamela.
The Truth Must be Told
Your contribution supports independent journalism
Please take a moment to consider this. Now, more than ever, people are reading Geller Report for news they won't get anywhere else. But advertising revenues have all but disappeared. Google Adsense is the online advertising monopoly and they have banned us. Social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have blocked and shadow-banned our accounts. But we won't put up a paywall. Because never has the free world needed independent journalism more.
Everyone who reads our reporting knows the Geller Report covers the news the media won't. We cannot do our ground-breaking report without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the left's war on freedom. Our readers’ contributions make that possible.
Geller Report's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our work is critical in the fight for freedom and because it is your fight, too.
Please contribute here.
or
Make a monthly commitment to support The Geller Report – choose the option that suits you best.
Quick note: We cannot do this without your support. Fact. Our work is made possible by you and only you. We receive no grants, government handouts, or major funding.Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here.
Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here— it’s free and it’s essential NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America's survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.
Follow Pamela Geller on Gettr. I am there. click here.
Follow Pamela Geller on Trump's social media platform, Truth Social. It's open and free.
Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.
Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spammy or unhelpful, click the - symbol under the comment to let us know. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.
If you would like to join the conversation, but don't have an account, you can sign up for one right here.
If you are having problems leaving a comment, it's likely because you are using an ad blocker, something that break ads, of course, but also breaks the comments section of our site. If you are using an ad blocker, and would like to share your thoughts, please disable your ad blocker. We look forward to seeing your comments below.
21 Comments
8 years ago
Mocking mahomet, mahometanism and mahometans is good for our morale and bad for theirs. This is total war to the death, after all.
8 years ago
Reply to
Dexy
Amen!!, Islam ,Koran,the Hadith and Muslims insult the faith of Christians and Jews everyday they recite and teach their cultic doctrines ,but we do not fall all to pieces emotionally and become obsessive paranoidal, suicidal maniacs and jump up and down and scream Christophobia like they scream Islamophobia!!!if they can dish it out they had better be well prepared to take some heat for not only abridging the freedom of Constitutionally protected rights but also for their gross insulting denials of the Savior Jesus Christ and the denial of his cross and that mankind are sinners, Islam is such a heresy that it even denies original sin! hence their insults and denials of the cross of the Son.
8 years ago
We must say or do whatever that will get these muzzies out into the open, so they can be crushed like the murderous filth that they are! Then send the so called “moderates” back to their caves in the Middle East!
8 years ago
I’m going to imprison anyone I consider to be undemocratic.
8 years ago
Reply to
David Cameron
Don’t you mean
I’m going to imprison anyone I consider not be a demiRat. Voter fraud is too hard.
8 years ago
It needs be reiterated ,if only this time. that the claim of the far-left and some others that somehow Pamela Geller and the A.F.D.I provoked those two Muslims to violence by that Muhammad cartoon contest. That claim is an absurd folly. For many reasons. Two of which need to be restated. First, all that jihad shooting did was to show that that old saying must be true .Which is that “Evil is always looking for an excuse.” After all, the murderous jihad bombers who planted those bombs on that Boston street had and gave that they considered a “very good” excuse for the evil they committed. Second, those two Muslim could have chosen to stage a peaceful protest to that cartoon event. Instead they had chosen the violence of terrorism as the way to handle things. In making such a choice they showed their true colors. They were responsible for their own actions. Their choice of jihad violence says something about them. Likewise, their choice of jihad violence also says something about Islam.
8 years ago
Seems HATE SPEECH rules caught up with a on air reporter in Michigan
Detroit Reporter Tells Truth About Muslims in Michigan: Forced to Apologize
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/05/09/detroit-reporter-tells-truth-about-muslims-in-michigan-forced-to-apologize/
8 years ago
Reply to
Gail Combs
Careful, the reporter said the “largest Arab population” not “largest Muslim population”. There is a difference. There are Christian Arabs who are for the most part assimilated, excellent, successful US citizens. Islam is a belief system, not a race. I don’t think she should have apologized, but she might want to clarify that she is talking about Muslims, not Lebanese Christians who came here in the early 20th century to escape the Turks and their genocides.
8 years ago
Reply to
sandra schmidt
Middle Eastern Christians are not arabs by blood, faith or culture.
8 years ago
Reply to
Dexy
That isn’t true. “Arab” is a culture. Wherever Arabic is spoken is Arab. “Arab” is not a faith. I have Lebanese Christian Arabs in my own family and they refer to themselves as Arabs.
8 years ago
Reply to
sandra schmidt
They probably say that for expediency. Sometimes it’s easier to explain one is Arab, than it is to say Assyrian, Chaldean or whatever. Similar to Jews from Arabic countries, Christians have distinct heritage that is not Arab.
8 years ago
Reply to
SJS
Actually, the ME Greek Orthodox were the original Christians. Remember Paul preaching to the Corinthians? There are caves in Lebanon where the Rum (Ortho) used to hide out from their oppressors. They are considered Arabs, because after the followers of the pedophile overran the Levant they started to speak Arabic. Those that I know consider themselves both Arab and Christian.
8 years ago
Ms Cohen wants “attempting to link Islam with terrorism” to be a crime.
Let her start in Islamic Egypt:
“The Quran directly commands us to commit terrorism, so why are we afraid of it?”
Ragab Hilal Hamida, Egyptian MP, in the Egyptian Parliament, January 2006.
http://libertygb.org.uk/v1/index.php/news-libertygb/5789-ideology-of-killing
8 years ago
Reply to
Michael Copeland
Great link – thanks for sharing. Cohen is a twat – another wannabe tyrant masquerading as a human rights/social justice advocate! Clowns like her used to make my stomach churn in my old days at university. Rebel without a clue!
8 years ago
Re: “. In Catholicism, hatred ‘(targeted) directly at the person … is always sinful.’ Mahatma Gandhi, a Hindu, is credited with saying ‘Hate the sin, love the sinner.’ ”
There is a Hebrew phrase “sinat chinam” , baseless hatred.
This cartoon vengeance isn’t baseless so much as irrational and convoluted. Outlawing the drawing is presumably anchored in preventing idolatry. But have we not, in effect, idolized a mere mortal with this zealotry?
Tread carefully upon those eggshells to answer this.
If I were God, I would indict ALL Islamists as follows:
1) idolatry of Muhammad
2) exploitation of the human race
Pamela = Moses II?
Think about it.
8 years ago
And another thing — doesn’t Islam have any other prophets? The Jews had 55: 48 men and 7 women.
8 years ago
>” Those who truly believe in freedom should be thanking Pamela Geller for helping us identify genuine enemies who until now have cloaked themselves in respectability.”
Starting with the two recently-perforated dirtbags who drove from Phoenix, and including the whole phalanx of lamestream commentators of the left and right who have pooh-poohed her efforts.
8 years ago
I invite everyone, (but especially all you “mainstream” Muslims out there), to to take this little quiz. I even made it multiple choice to keep it simple. There are no wrong answers. Just be honest.
1. In your opinion, what should happen to anyone who insults the prophet?
a. Death
b. Nothing
c. Call them an Islamophobic racist to shut them up
d. Both A and C
2. Would you like to see the U.S. ruled according to Sharia law?
a. Yes
b. No
c. It already is
3. Is any criticism of Islam allowed, and if so, what are the parameters of that criticism?
a. No criticism is allowed
b. No criticism is allowed
c. Both A and B
4. Is everything in the Koran to be taken literally?
a. Yes, every last word is true and cannot be questioned or altered one iota
b. No, it’s the deranged ramblings of a delusional megalomaniac
c. Not all of it, only the peaceful parts. The violent sections are all out of context and don’t really mean what they say they do
5. What, in your opinion, should be the penalty for apostasy in
Islam?
a. Death
b. Nothing
c. Call them an Islamophobic racist to shut them up
d. Both A and C
6. Does Israel have the right to exist, and what should happen to the Jews living there if it doesn’t?
a. No, and all the Jews living there should be killed
b. Yes, they have a 3000 year old claim to the place, and have been running a prospering country there for over half a century. They also have the right to defend themselves
c. No, and they should be forced to live as dhimmis under Islam or deported back to their country of origin, if they have one
d. Yes, but they must allow an Islamic terror state to be established on their borders
e. None of the above
f. All of the above
7. Should women have their heads covered at all times when in public, even female children?
a. Yes, all women should be covered, regardless of age, up to and including the Burqa
b. No, women should not be required to be covered, especially children
c. Yes, but just the Hijab, not the Niqab or the Burqa, and only voluntarily and never for children
8. Do you agree with gender separation (at school or the Mosque, for instance)?
a. Yes, Allah says the sexes should not mix outside of family or marriage
b. No, boys and girls should be treated equally and allowed to pray and attend school together
9. What is the penalty for being gay under Sharia law?
a. Death by being tossed off a tall building, followed by stoning if he (or she) should survive that.
b. Nothing, it is perfectly acceptable to be gay and Muslim under Sharia law
c. Not allowed to watch the Tony awards
10. Should the U.S. be subject to Islamic blasphemy laws?
a. Yes
c. No
b. We already are
8 years ago
“Hate speech” is a childish, anti-Constitutional accusation. There is utterly no place for it in our system of Law. If someone libels, it will be proven but even if someone is unlikable, we don’t imprison someone for the “crime” of being unlikable in The United States of America.
Any punishment for “hate speech” is illegal because it is in direct violation of Constitutional rights.
