http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2012/09/police-dhimmitude-in-oslo.html
Hat tip to Gates of Vienna.
When I watched this video, one phrase came to mind.
"Oh calm, dishonorable, vile, submission."
Those words, spoken by Mercutio in Romeo and Juliet, sum up the groveling for which we in the West have jostled each other to be the first or the most profusely apologetic whenever Muslims commit acts of violence in response to insults, be they real or perceived.
Mercutio, unaware that his cousin was already married to Juliet and therefore now related to Tybalt (Also unaware of the nuptials), uttered this phrase after witnessing Romeo speaking kindly to Tybalt, who has been insulting him. The doomed newlyweds had not made their families aware of the marriage. Thinking that Romeo was acting cowardly towards Tybalt, Mercutio is disgusted with Romeo's responses to Tybalt's insults such as "Though art a villein".
"What are you doing Romeo? You are making us look like a family of cowards!"
In the video in the link at top, a Norwegian police official sees fit to appear before a group of Muslim men and make it clear that he and his colleagues "reject" the film "Innocence of Muslims. I did not see anything in the translation that looked like and actual apology, but the point is the same - someone aggravates Muslims, and others have to step forward to placate them to prevent bloodshed and destruction of property.
The situation has become ridiculous. The Islamic mindset sees such acts not as conciliatory but as signs of weakness. The idea is that, by making it clear that they will kill people for saying things about their religion or prophet that they do not like, they can force others into silence or to be supplicants who beg for mercy. By doing so, they are effectively the conquering party.
In ancient Greece, it was understood that the side that requested a truce after the battle to recover the bodies of the slain was admitting to be the losing party. The winning side held the battlefield, so it was their decision to allow or deny the collection of the dead.
Every instance of apologies, disassociating from anti-Islamic drawings/movies/writings, or rejections of those acts brings us closer to a worldwide prohibition of any offensive speech. None of this endears us to the House of Islam. To the contrary, it emboldens them. They will still be able to denounce Christianity and Judaism, while we will face civil or criminal penalties for such actions - all this because we are afraid of their reactions.
I am not a Muslim, therefore their is no reason why I or any other non-Muslims cannot say or write anything derogatory about Mohammed or Islam. If the US adopts any legislation that prohibits such free speech or allows civil lawsuits due to such speech, there is no limit to what else can be prohibited.
I fear for the Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians who live in Muslim-majority countries and have to suffer the consequences of Islamic tolerance as a result of the film. If Russia* does not step in to protect these people, then she and/or other majority-Christian nations (Orthodox in particular come to mind) need to help evacuate them and give them new homes. It will be immeasurably better and appropriate to do so than to import hordes of Muslims into the same countries, where they will expect more apologies and proskenesis. It would be a sort of reverse of the uplift of the Ethiopian Jews; instead of bringing Jews back to their homelands, the minorities will be removed from their homelands.
Then we can close all of our embassies and other diplomatic offices in Muslim-majority nations. Let them go bananas among themselves.
-On my call for Russia to take the lead in protecting Christians and others in the Near/Middle East.
*http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2012/08/time-for-russia-to-protect-christians.html
The Hot Gates - 480BC. An event that was to determine what path much of the Western World would follow occurred as the Persian army threatened to overwhelm Greece in 480BC. The West today again faces both external and internal threats to its identity and existence.
Showing posts with label free speech. Show all posts
Showing posts with label free speech. Show all posts
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Monday, February 20, 2012
Bikini-in-Burkha/Hajib Photo Causes Fox Network to Vacillate
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2012/02/theres-always-but.html
The daughter of a Vlaams Belang politician (VG is a political party in Belgium that stands against the continued Islamization of Europe) caused quite a stir when she posed in a bikini while also partially covered in a burkha/hijab. I use both terms as the articles used the term burkha but I consider a true burkha to hide even the outline of a woman's head.
The stated purpose of the photo was to communicate the extent to which women are restricted in Islam. It is hard for Americans to understand how many in Europe feel about the mass-immigration of Muslims (We are being hit with an entirely different sort of mass-immigration in the US). I will avoid going into detail on the plight of indigenous Europeans as doing so would bring us off-topic. There are more than enough posts and articles on that subject that are readily available and easy enough to find if one has a computer.
I have to agree with the writer of the post in the above link. Fox news did a short piece on the fallout over the photo (Islamic run-of-the-mill death threats and such). Here we have a group of purported Conservatives, people who are supposed to stand for the principles germane to Western culture (Like the radical concepts of free speech and expression), and all I can find is confusion, vacillation, and weak-kneed comments. In the brief piece of the video that can be watched until it is cut off, one witnesses statements and facial expressions (Almost like rolling-eye types) that are clearly meant to indicate that the speakers feel that the young woman went too far or put too much effort into provoking the anger of Muslims. You get the idea that the speakers feel like they have no choice in defending her right to express herself, but that they really want to say that she should not have done it.
The act of this young lady should not be taken to be remotely comparable to the other extreme of which we never speak - the brutal subjugation of women in Islamic cultures. Western feminists, who gleefully reduce the position of the Western male whenever they can, seem to be perfectly fine with the actions of the Islamic man. (It is interesting yet ironic that the actions, sacrifice, and bravery of the former through the centuries was a major factor in preventing the latter from being able to also subjugate the Western woman and thus kept her free enough to destroy her protector.) Her act also should not be compared to the terribly provocative act of the cowardly Koran-Burning Pastor Terry Jones*. His was an act that was expressly designed to hit right at the heart of Muslim sensibilities and he knew that it would be highly likely to have terrible repercussions on Christians in the Middle East. This young lady did nothing of the sort; she challenged both Muslim women and men to consider the reality that, if they choose to reside in Europe, they must reconsider to what extent they will apply the minutiae of Islamic restrictions.
http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2011/10/koran-burning-pastor-terry-jones.html
While the Left repeatedly paints Fox as a far-right network, the fact is that they are barely right-of-center in their outlook. This is at least one way to understand how far gone our American Left really is.
Read the article and take a look at what is left of the video.
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2012/02/theres-always-but.html
As an aside, she is easy on the eyes.
The daughter of a Vlaams Belang politician (VG is a political party in Belgium that stands against the continued Islamization of Europe) caused quite a stir when she posed in a bikini while also partially covered in a burkha/hijab. I use both terms as the articles used the term burkha but I consider a true burkha to hide even the outline of a woman's head.
The stated purpose of the photo was to communicate the extent to which women are restricted in Islam. It is hard for Americans to understand how many in Europe feel about the mass-immigration of Muslims (We are being hit with an entirely different sort of mass-immigration in the US). I will avoid going into detail on the plight of indigenous Europeans as doing so would bring us off-topic. There are more than enough posts and articles on that subject that are readily available and easy enough to find if one has a computer.
I have to agree with the writer of the post in the above link. Fox news did a short piece on the fallout over the photo (Islamic run-of-the-mill death threats and such). Here we have a group of purported Conservatives, people who are supposed to stand for the principles germane to Western culture (Like the radical concepts of free speech and expression), and all I can find is confusion, vacillation, and weak-kneed comments. In the brief piece of the video that can be watched until it is cut off, one witnesses statements and facial expressions (Almost like rolling-eye types) that are clearly meant to indicate that the speakers feel that the young woman went too far or put too much effort into provoking the anger of Muslims. You get the idea that the speakers feel like they have no choice in defending her right to express herself, but that they really want to say that she should not have done it.
The act of this young lady should not be taken to be remotely comparable to the other extreme of which we never speak - the brutal subjugation of women in Islamic cultures. Western feminists, who gleefully reduce the position of the Western male whenever they can, seem to be perfectly fine with the actions of the Islamic man. (It is interesting yet ironic that the actions, sacrifice, and bravery of the former through the centuries was a major factor in preventing the latter from being able to also subjugate the Western woman and thus kept her free enough to destroy her protector.) Her act also should not be compared to the terribly provocative act of the cowardly Koran-Burning Pastor Terry Jones*. His was an act that was expressly designed to hit right at the heart of Muslim sensibilities and he knew that it would be highly likely to have terrible repercussions on Christians in the Middle East. This young lady did nothing of the sort; she challenged both Muslim women and men to consider the reality that, if they choose to reside in Europe, they must reconsider to what extent they will apply the minutiae of Islamic restrictions.
http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2011/10/koran-burning-pastor-terry-jones.html
While the Left repeatedly paints Fox as a far-right network, the fact is that they are barely right-of-center in their outlook. This is at least one way to understand how far gone our American Left really is.
Read the article and take a look at what is left of the video.
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2012/02/theres-always-but.html
As an aside, she is easy on the eyes.
Monday, January 16, 2012
White House Appears to put SOPA on HOLD
The Stop Online Piracy Act, which due to the broad powers it provided to companies, was the subject of significant opposition, including extensive petitioning. The White House indicated that it would not support this bill, at least in its current wording.
I had posted about this bill a sort while back, but my response paled in comparison to the extensive efforts of other bloggers and active citizens. SOPA simply allowed companies to take actions on their own (Like blocking suspected websites) that in any other situation would require a court order. I too support a means to stop the wholesale proliferation of piracy, but SOPA as it was written is not the way to address it. We can't have sites being blocked because they kinda, sorta, just might be posting or using copyrighted material, especially when the private entity is the one reaching out/or in and doing the blocking.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45998662
I had posted about this bill a sort while back, but my response paled in comparison to the extensive efforts of other bloggers and active citizens. SOPA simply allowed companies to take actions on their own (Like blocking suspected websites) that in any other situation would require a court order. I too support a means to stop the wholesale proliferation of piracy, but SOPA as it was written is not the way to address it. We can't have sites being blocked because they kinda, sorta, just might be posting or using copyrighted material, especially when the private entity is the one reaching out/or in and doing the blocking.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45998662
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)