Islam Seeks To Eliminate Free Speech By Violence

[iris89]

Islam Seeks To Eliminate Free Speech By Violence

Yes, many in Islam have a lust for violence and look for the slightest thing to protest and commit violence over, and that is why Islam is responsible for 90 to 95% of the violence in the world today. Now they are seeking to eliminate free speech by hinting strongly at violence if it is not reined in. Note: they have actually committed violence with respect to implementing efforts to inhibit free speech in the Netherlands (Holland) where they murdered Theo Van Gogh, and in other countries. Now look at how they are attempting it in the USA:
[Item 1]"South Park" showed the Prophet Mohammed disguised in a bear suit. [source – retrieved from news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/19/sec....-on-south-park/ on 4/25/2010]
The radical Islamic Web site Revolutionmuslim.com is going after the creators of the TV cartoon series "South Park" after an episode last week included an image of the Prophet Mohammed in disguise.
Revolutionmuslim.com, based in New York, was the subject of a CNN investigation last year for its radical rhetoric supporting “jihad” against the West and praising al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Its organizers insist they act within the law and seek to protect Islam.
On Sunday, Revolutionmuslim.com posted an entry that included a warning to South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone that they risk violent retribution – after the 200th episode last week included a satirical discussion about whether an image of the prophet could be shown. In the end, he is portrayed disguised in a bear suit.
The posting on Revolutionmuslim.com says: “We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show. This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them.”
Theo van Gogh was a Dutch filmmaker who was murdered by an Islamic extremist in 2004 after making a short documentary on violence against women in some Islamic societies. The posting on Revolutionmuslim.com features a graphic photograph of Van Gogh with his throat cut and a dagger in his chest.
The entry on Revolutionmuslim.com goes on to advise readers:
“You can contact them [the makers of South Park], or pay Comedy Central or their own company a visit at these addresses …” before listing Comedy Central’s New York address, and the Los Angeles, California, address of Parker and Sloane’s production company.
Contacted by CNN, the author of the post, Abu Talhah al Amrikee, said that providing the addresses was not intended as a threat to the creators of South Park but to give people the opportunity to protest.
Over still photographs of Parker, Stone, van Gogh and others, the Web site runs audio of a sermon by the radical U.S.-born preacher Anwar al-Awlaki, who is now in hiding in Yemen. The sermon, recorded some time ago, talks about assassinating those who have “defamed” the Prophet Mohammed – citing one religious authority as saying “Harming Allah and his messenger is a reason to encourage Muslims to kill whoever does that.” U.S. officials say al-Awlaki is on a list of al Qaeda leaders targeted for capture or assassination.
The clip ends with a warning on a graphic directed at Parker and Stone, saying “The Dust Will Never Settle Down.”
Al Amrikee said the purpose of including the al-Awlaki sermon in his posting was to remind Muslims that insulting the prophet is a severe offense for which the punishment in Islam is death. He said RevolutionMuslim may hold protests about the show.
Calls to Comedy Central were not returned.
[Item 2] Following violent threats from a New York group called Revolution Muslim, Comedy Central opted to censor portions of a controversial 'South Park' episode featuring the Prophet Muhammad characterized in a bear suit. The show bleeped the words "Prophet Muhammad" and covered the character's face with a block reading "Censored." Fans were understandably disappointed, with some blaming the two men who created the show. [source – retrieved from www.popeater.com/2010/04/22/south-park-201-muslim-censored/ on 4/26/2010]

However, 'South Park' producers Trey Parker and Matt Stone pointed out in a statement Thursday that they had nothing to do with the censorship, saying it "wasn't some meta-joke on our part."
"In the 14 years we've been doing South Park we have never done a show that we couldn't stand behind. We delivered our version of the show to Comedy Central and they made a determination to alter the episode. It wasn't some meta-joke on our part. Comedy Central added the bleeps. In fact, Kyle's customary final speech was about intimidation and fear. It didn't mention Muhammad at all but it got bleeped too. We'll be back next week with a whole new show about something completely different and we'll see what happens to it."
Revolution Muslim alluded on its Web site earlier this week that the actions of Stone and Parker could earn them a fate like filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, who was murdered in Amsterdam in 2004 as vengeance for a film investigating the abuse of Muslim women in parts of Islamic society.
________________________________________
"We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show," the post reads. "This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them."

Abu Talhah al Amrikee, the author of the diatribe, told FOX, "It's not a threat, but it really is a likely outcome. They're going to be basically on a list in the back of the minds of a large number of Muslims. It's just the reality."

Though they claim the post was not a threat, the website posted the addresses of Comedy Central's New York office and the California production studio where 'South Park' is made.

The episode, which was the show's 201st, is not currently available for streaming. "We do not have network approval to stream our original version of the show," the creators wrote on SouthParkStudios.com. For those who did see it on-air, Muhammad appeared on-screen with a black box over him, since Muslims consider physical representation of their prophet to be blasphemous.

When the aforementioned bear costume is removed, it reveals none other than Santa Claus.

Comedy Central confirmed on Thursday that they had added more bleeps and were not giving permission for the episode to run on the show's website.

Comedy Central declined PopEater's request for comment on the situation.

[Item 3] Unfortunately, This is not something recent for Islam as Islam has been violent since its founding, for details see the facts below:

For details, go to, Blood, Blood, and More Blood, the Story of Islam at,

religioustruths.proboards59.com/i....read=1180019585

or

jude3.proboards92.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=islam&thread=202


To learn more, check out the following:

[1] religioustruths.proboards59.com/ An Educational Referral Forum

[2] www.network54.com/Forum/403209 A Forum Devoted to Exposing The False Religion of Islam

[3] jude3.proboards92.com/ A Free-Speech Forum For All

[4] www.freewebs.com/iris_the_preacher My web site.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

[iris89]

Islam Does Not Believe In Freedom of Conscience And Speech

Members of Islam seek to kill/murder others that put forth items they do NOT like, but they, themselves, put out some of the most nasty cartoons with respect others such as the Jews and Jesus (Yeshua) Christ and the Pope. They feel they have the right to put out very nasties with respect others, but even a mild cartoon with respect them is totally unacceptable and worthy of death. In other words, they care NOT for the rights of others and their feelings, but demand all do as they wish – how utterly unconscionable and bigoted. New here is a news article dealing with their fanatical disregard and hatred of others:

Bear-Suit Muhammad and the Wages of Cowardice
by David J. Rusin • Apr 28, 2010 at 11:33 am
www.islamist-watch.org/blog/2010/....es-of-cowardice
"Has South Park gone too far this time?" asks an article published on April 21, referencing the show's previous depiction of Muhammad in a bear costume. Just hours later, however, it became obvious that Comedy Central is the one that had gone too far — in kowtowing to radical Islam.
For the 200th installment of South Park on April 14, creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone penned a storyline poking fun at the now-familiar trend of censoring images of Muhammad — something that the series had experienced firsthand four years earlier. The new episode, titled "200," features perpetually mocked celebrities demanding that the kids track down the prophet, as they wish to steal his power to remain free of ridicule. The townspeople fear the consequences of Muhammad appearing in public, so he is disguised as a goofy-looking bear mascot.
What happened next illuminates the well-rehearsed procedure by which Islamist violence and Western cowardice combine to suppress speech, thus slowly paving the road to dhimmitude:
Step 1: Every now and then, Islamists use "education by murder" to mark, with blood-red lines, what will not be tolerated from non-Muslims, such as unflattering commentary about the Islamic faith or caricatures of its prophet. Examples include the 2004 butchering of Dutch provocateur Theo van Gogh and the 2006 orgy of violence sparked by the Danish Muhammad cartoons.
Step 2: Like clockwork, pusillanimous Westerners bow and scrape to avoid upsetting Muslims. From altering disaster films to removing museum art to canceling book launches, the capitulation often takes place without any direct prompting. A little murder goes a long way.
Step 3: If some free expression manages to survive Step 2, a not-so-subtle reminder of Step 1 is offered. The fringe group Revolution Muslim carried this out after "200," stating: "We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo van Gogh for airing this show." It helpfully included a photo of van Gogh's corpse and a sermon from terror cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. Comedy Central got the message. In April 21's follow-on episode, "201," the network placed black boxes over all images of Muhammad (even those in the bear suit), bleeped his name, and shamelessly censored a speech about intimidation and fear.
Step 4: "Mainstream" Islamic groups deny that the radicals of Step 3 have anything to do with Islam. Right on schedule, Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR donned his tinfoil hat and insisted that "most Muslims suspect [Revolution Muslim] were set up only to make Muslims look bad. We just have very deep suspicions. They say such outrageous, irresponsible things that it almost seems like they're doing it to smear Islam." Another case of "anti-Islamic activity," no doubt.
Step 5: The path is now cleared for many additional surrenders (Step 2) and threats (Step 3). As Eugene Volokh explains, "The consequence of [Comedy Central's] position is that the thugs win and people have more incentive to be thugs. … Behavior that gets rewarded gets repeated."
This is the way the Western world ends: not with a bang but a wimpishness.

Courtesy of Your Friend in Christ Iris89

To learn more, check out the following:

[1] religioustruths.proboards59.com/ An Educational Referral Forum

[2] www.network54.com/Forum/403209 A Forum Devoted to Exposing The False Religion of Islam

[3] jude3.proboards92.com/ A Free-Speech Forum For All

[4] www.freewebs.com/iris_the_preacher My web site.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

[iris89]

Islam For Hatred, but Definately Against Free Speach:

Islam spreads hate and a lust for violence, here are more proofs of this:

Jihad on Camera: Hatred at UCSD, Lars Vilks Attacked, by David J. Rusin • May 14, 2010 at 9:29 am

www.islamist-watch.org/blog/2010/....-vilks-attacked

Not long ago, some predicted that the newfound ease of recording and disseminating videos would keep Islamists on their best behavior during anti-Islamist events, thus bringing the familiar displays of hatred and thuggery to a close. Robert Spencer dubbed it the "YouTube effect," arguing that "jihadists, their allies, and their dupes have realized how bad they look when they try to intimidate and shout down anti-jihadists."

So much for that. If the numerous interruptions, all captured on video, of a February 8 talk at UC Irvine by Ambassador Michael Oren did not cast grave doubts on this theory, then two incidents from the past week certainly should. Big surprise: both occurred on campus as well.

The first was not a disruption, but a shocking admission from a Muslim Students Association (MSA) member at UC San Diego, following a lecture by activist David Horowitz on May 10 (video here). In the question-and-answer session, the keffiyeh-clad woman asked Horowitz to expound on "the connection between the MSA and jihad terrorist networks." He began with his standard riposte: "Will you condemn Hamas, here and now?" She refused to do so, leading to an exchange that ended with her coldly expressing support for genocide:

Horowitz: I have had this experience at UC Santa Barbara, where there were fifty members of the Muslim Students Association sitting right in the rows there. And throughout my hour talk I kept asking them, "Will you condemn Hezbollah and Hamas?" And none of them would. And then when the question period came, the president of the Muslim Students Association was the first person to ask questions. And I said, "Before you start, will you condemn Hezbollah?" And he said, "Well, that question is too complicated for a yes-no answer." So I said, "Okay, I'll put it to you this way. I am a Jew. The head of Hezbollah has said that he hopes that we will gather in Israel so he doesn't have to hunt us down globally. For it or against it?!"

MSA member: For it.

The second incident took place a day later in Sweden, at a lecture on free speech given by Lars Vilks, the cartoonist who was targeted in a recent murder plot for representing Muhammad as a dog. Vilks started by exhibiting "what some might deem offensive pictures of Christian symbols," according to one report. Naturally, no trouble there. But then he ran a clip from a film that depicts the Islamic prophet going to a gay bar — and chaos promptly erupted (video here):


When Mr. Vilks showed a scene from the film at Uppsala University in Sweden, a protester charged the dais and hit him, breaking his glasses. Police were forced to detain or pepper-spray some unruly members of the crowd as other protesters yelled "Allahu akbar" — "God is great."

Islamists labor to conceal their actual beliefs and darker tendencies, but sooner or later their true selves burst through. Such repeated failures may be the Achilles' heel of the stealth jihad.

Related Topics: Cartoons, Censorship, Demonstrations, Entertainment / Media, Free Speech, Lobby Groups, Schools (Non-Islamic) | David J. Rusin

It is obvious that even though Jesus (Yeshua) Christ is promanently mentioned in the Qur'an (a distorted writing that used the Bible as its basis) those in Islam lust for violence and embrace hate in contradiction to what Jesus (Yeshua) Christ said at Matthew 22:37-40, "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 And he said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the great and first commandment.
39 And a second like unto it is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
40 On these two commandments the whole law hangeth, and the prophets." (American Standard Version; ASV).

[iris89]

Evil Objective Revealed:
Defeating Nonviolent Jihad
A briefing by David J. Rusin
May 24, 2010
www.meforum.org/2661/defeating-nonviolent-jihad

David J. Rusin is director of Islamist Watch, the Middle East Forum's project dedicated to combating the infiltration of nonviolent radical Islam throughout the West. On May 24, he addressed the Middle East Forum via conference call on the subject of nonviolent jihad.
Mr. Rusin began his talk by pointing out that all forms of jihad against the West have a common aim: namely, the destruction of the liberal democratic order and the establishment of Shari'a law. Specifically, there are two types of such jihad: violent and nonviolent. Nonviolent (or "stealth") jihad attempts to insinuate Shari'a into Western society through, inter alia, the government, courts, and media.
According to Mr. Rusin, two distinct trends have emerged recently vis-à-vis the success of nonviolent jihad. The worrying trend has been the proliferation of censorship when free speech is vital to defeat radical Islam. Examples of such self-censorship include Comedy Central's removal of any image or mention of Muhammad in an episode of South Park, and the omission of any discussion of Islam in reports on the Fort Hood massacre, despite the fact that Major Hasan described himself on business cards as a "soldier of Allah."
However, Mr. Rusin pointed out that there has also been growing resistance to Islamization, particularly in Europe. For example, a referendum in Switzerland has led to a ban on the construction of minarets being adopted as part of the Swiss constitution. Although there has generally been a divide between the attitudes of the political elite and those of the ordinary people until recently, the mainstream parties are increasingly responding to concerns about Islam, as evidenced by the advance of legislation to ban niqabs and burqas, which constitute security threats and are symbolic of separatism, in Belgium and France.
Mr. Rusin concluded his talk by emphasising that while violent jihad can never be fully controlled by a counterterrorism strategy, nonviolent jihad can only make progress when we allow it to. Hence, though it can appear daunting to fight radical Islam in light of developments such as the Iranian nuclear program, nonviolent jihad can be fought by taking action even on a local level (e.g., complaining about indoctrination in schools).
Summary written by Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi

[iris89]

Members of Islam Are Against Free Speech - The Michigan State Example

GO, MICHIGAN STATE!
Very interesting -- the University is standing by their professor and not bowing down to special interest groups!


www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/wichman.asp
Professor Wichman E-mail
Claim: A Michigan professor sent an e-mail telling Muslim students to leave the country.
Status: True.
The story begins at Michigan State University with a mechanical engineering professor named Indred Wichman.

Wichman sent an e-mail to the Muslim Student's Association.
The e-mail was in response to the students' protest of the Danish cartoons that portrayed the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist.
The group had complained the cartoons were 'hate speech.'
============
Enter Professor Wichman.
==========================================
In his e-mail, he said the following:
===============================
Dear Muslim Association,
As a professor of Mechanical Engineering here at MSU I intend to protest your protest.
I am offended not by cartoons, but by more mundane things like beheadings of civilians, cowardly attacks on public buildings, suicide murders, murders of Catholic priests (the latest in Turkey), burnings of Christian churches, the continued persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt, the imposition of Sharia law on non-Muslims, the rapes of Scandinavian girls and women (called 'sleepers' in your culture), the murder of film directors in Holland, and the rioting and looting in Paris France.
This is what offends me, a soft-spoken person and academic, and many, many of my colleagues. I counsel you dissatisfied, aggressive, brutal, and uncivilized slave-trading Muslims to be very aware of this as you proceed with your infantile 'protests.'
If you do not like the values of the West - see the First Amendment - you are free to leave. I hope for God's sake that most of you choose that option.
Please return to your ancestral homelands and build them up yourselves instead of troubling Americans.
Cordially,
I. S. Wichman
Professor of Mechanical Engineering
=============================
As you can imagine,
the Muslim group at the university didn't like this too well.
They're demanding that Wichman be reprimanded, that the university impose mandatory diversity training for faculty,
and mandate a seminar on hate and discrimination for all freshmen.
Now, the local chapter of CAIR has jumped into the fray.
CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, apparently doesn't believe that the good professor
had the right to express his opinion.
==========
For its part, the university is standing its ground in support of Professor Wichman,
saying the e-mail was private, and they don't intend to publicly condemn his remarks.
============================================================
Send this to your friends, and ask them to do the same.
Tell them to keep passing it around until the whole country gets it.
We are in a war.
This political correctness crap is getting old and killing us.
==================
If you agree with this,
Please send it to all your friends,
If not, simply delete it.
GO, MICHIGAN STATE!
GO, MICHIGAN STATE!
Very interesting -- the University is standing by their professor and not bowing down to special interest groups!


www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/wichman.asp
Professor Wichman E-mail
Claim: A Michigan professor sent an e-mail telling Muslim students to leave the country.
Status: True.
The story begins at Michigan State University with a mechanical engineering professor named Indred Wichman.

Wichman sent an e-mail to the Muslim Student's Association.
The e-mail was in response to the students' protest of the Danish cartoons that portrayed the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist.
The group had complained the cartoons were 'hate speech.'
============
Enter Professor Wichman.
==========================================
In his e-mail, he said the following:
===============================
Dear Muslim Association,
As a professor of Mechanical Engineering here at MSU I intend to protest your protest.
I am offended not by cartoons, but by more mundane things like beheadings of civilians, cowardly attacks on public buildings, suicide murders, murders of Catholic priests (the latest in Turkey), burnings of Christian churches, the continued persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt, the imposition of Sharia law on non-Muslims, the rapes of Scandinavian girls and women (called 'sleepers' in your culture), the murder of film directors in Holland, and the rioting and looting in Paris France.

This is what offends me, a soft-spoken person and academic, and many, many of my colleagues. I counsel you dissatisfied, aggressive, brutal, and uncivilized slave-trading Muslims to be very aware of this as you proceed with your infantile 'protests.'

If you do not like the values of the West - see the First Amendment - you are free to leave. I hope for God's sake that most of you choose that option.

Please return to your ancestral homelands and build them up yourselves instead of troubling Americans.
Cordially,
I. S. Wichman
Professor of Mechanical Engineering
=============================
As you can imagine,
the Muslim group at the university didn't like this too well.
They're demanding that Wichman be reprimanded, that the university impose mandatory diversity training for faculty, and mandate a seminar on hate and discrimination for all freshmen.

Now, the local chapter of CAIR has jumped into the fray.
CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, apparently doesn't believe that the good professor
had the right to express his opinion.
==========
For its part, the university is standing its ground in support of Professor Wichman,
saying the e-mail was private, and they don't intend to publicly condemn his remarks.
============================================================
Send this to your friends, and ask them to do the same.
Tell them to keep passing it around until the whole country gets it.
We are in a war.
This political correctness crap is getting old and killing us.
==================
If you agree with this,
Please send it to all your friends,
If not, simply delete it.
GO, MICHIGAN STATE!
GO, MICHIGAN STATE!
Very interesting -- the University is standing by their professor and not bowing down to special interest groups!


www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/wichman.asp
Professor Wichman E-mail
Claim: A Michigan professor sent an e-mail telling Muslim students to leave the country.
Status: True.
The story begins at Michigan State University with a mechanical engineering professor named Indred Wichman.

Wichman sent an e-mail to the Muslim Student's Association.
The e-mail was in response to the students' protest of the Danish cartoons that portrayed the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist.
The group had complained the cartoons were 'hate speech.'
============
Enter Professor Wichman.
==========================================
In his e-mail, he said the following:
===============================
Dear Muslim Association,
As a professor of Mechanical Engineering here at MSU I intend to protest your protest.
I am offended not by cartoons, but by more mundane things like beheadings of civilians, cowardly attacks on public buildings, suicide murders, murders of Catholic priests (the latest in Turkey), burnings of Christian churches, the continued persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt, the imposition of Sharia law on non-Muslims, the rapes of Scandinavian girls and women (called 'sleepers' in your culture), the murder of film directors in Holland, and the rioting and looting in Paris France.
This is what offends me, a soft-spoken person and academic, and many, many of my colleagues. I counsel you dissatisfied, aggressive, brutal, and uncivilized slave-trading Muslims to be very aware of this as you proceed with your infantile 'protests.'
If you do not like the values of the West - see the First Amendment - you are free to leave. I hope for God's sake that most of you choose that option.
Please return to your ancestral homelands and build them up yourselves instead of troubling Americans.
Cordially,
I. S. Wichman
Professor of Mechanical Engineering
=============================
As you can imagine,
the Muslim group at the university didn't like this too well.
They're demanding that Wichman be reprimanded, that the university impose mandatory diversity training for faculty,
and mandate a seminar on hate and discrimination for all freshmen.
Now, the local chapter of CAIR has jumped into the fray.
CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, apparently doesn't believe that the good professor
had the right to express his opinion.
==========
For its part, the university is standing its ground in support of Professor Wichman,
saying the e-mail was private, and they don't intend to publicly condemn his remarks.
============================================================
Send this to your friends, and ask them to do the same.
Tell them to keep passing it around until the whole country gets it.
We are in a war.
This political correctness crap is getting old and killing us.
==================
If you agree with this,
Please send it to all your friends,
If not, simply delete it.
GO, MICHIGAN STATE!
GO, MICHIGAN STATE!
Very interesting -- the University is standing by their professor and not bowing down to special interest groups!


www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/wichman.asp
Professor Wichman E-mail
Claim: A Michigan professor sent an e-mail telling Muslim students to leave the country.
Status: True.
The story begins at Michigan State University with a mechanical engineering professor named Indred Wichman.

Wichman sent an e-mail to the Muslim Student's Association.
The e-mail was in response to the students' protest of the Danish cartoons that portrayed the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist.
The group had complained the cartoons were 'hate speech.'
============
Enter Professor Wichman.
==========================================
In his e-mail, he said the following:
===============================
Dear Muslim Association,
As a professor of Mechanical Engineering here at MSU I intend to protest your protest.
I am offended not by cartoons, but by more mundane things like beheadings of civilians, cowardly attacks on public buildings, suicide murders, murders of Catholic priests (the latest in Turkey), burnings of Christian churches, the continued persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt, the imposition of Sharia law on non-Muslims, the rapes of Scandinavian girls and women (called 'sleepers' in your culture), the murder of film directors in Holland, and the rioting and looting in Paris France.
This is what offends me, a soft-spoken person and academic, and many, many of my colleagues. I counsel you dissatisfied, aggressive, brutal, and uncivilized slave-trading Muslims to be very aware of this as you proceed with your infantile 'protests.'
If you do not like the values of the West - see the First Amendment - you are free to leave. I hope for God's sake that most of you choose that option.
Please return to your ancestral homelands and build them up yourselves instead of troubling Americans.
Cordially,
I. S. Wichman
Professor of Mechanical Engineering
=============================
As you can imagine,
the Muslim group at the university didn't like this too well.
They're demanding that Wichman be reprimanded, that the university impose mandatory diversity training for faculty,
and mandate a seminar on hate and discrimination for all freshmen.
Now, the local chapter of CAIR has jumped into the fray.
CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, apparently doesn't believe that the good professor
had the right to express his opinion.
==========
For its part, the university is standing its ground in support of Professor Wichman,
saying the e-mail was private, and they don't intend to publicly condemn his remarks.
============================================================
Send this to your friends, and ask them to do the same.
Tell them to keep passing it around until the whole country gets it.
We are in a war.
This political correctness crap is getting old and killing us.
==================
If you agree with this,
Please send it to all your friends,
If not, simply delete it.
GO, MICHIGAN STATE!

[iris89]

The Arabian Nights Affair – Just Another Example Of How Islam Is Against Freedom of Expression:

One Thousand and One (or Fewer?) Arabian Nights, by Ann Snyder • Jul 22, 2010 at 8:39 am

www.legal-project.org/blog/2010/07/one-thousand-and-one-or-fewer-arabian-nights

The tales that so captivated King Shahryar that he spared the life of Scheherazade have narrowly escaped their own demise (or at least expurgation). The L.A. Times reported that a group of Egyptian attorneys filed a suit aimed at banning completely or at least censoring supposedly offensive passages from a recent edition of the classic, The Arabian Nights. Fortunately, the prosecutor general of Egypt threw out that suit.

However, the group, Lawyers Without Shackles, has other works in its sights. According to the article, they are "determined to delete salacious passages from contemporary literature and cherished classics."

The group appears to be engaged in the same kind of Islamist lawfare tactics we have seen in the West, reportedly bringing lawsuits they have little expectation of winning. In both the U.S. and Europe, we have seen that threats of legal action can have chilling effects on free speech, effectively silencing it even when threats of violence have failed.

While the dismissal is a win for freedom of expression, it should serve as a reminder of what is at stake in the battle against Islamist lawfare. The movement will attack anything that doesn't fit its agenda. Even a classic piece of Arabic literature is not off limits. Their goal is a world in which minds are shackled, a world in which expressive activities are severely curtailed, and in which our human heritage (Muslim, non-Muslim; Arab, non-Arab) is purged of anything deemed to be "offensive." This is freedom of expression Islamist-style. This is what the Legal Project is fighting against. Join us.

To help us in this battle, stay informed by subscribing to our mailing list or attending our CLE, donate, or join our pro bono network.

[iris89]

It's Time to Fight Back Against Death Threats by Islamic Extremists
by Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Daniel Huff
Los Angeles Times
September 27, 2010

www.legal-project.org/790/its-time-to-fight-back-against-death-threats-by

Earlier this year, after Comedy Central altered an episode of "South Park" that had prompted threats because of the way it depicted Islam's prophet Muhammad, Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris proposed an "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day." The idea was, as she put it, to stand up for the 1st Amendment and "water down the pool of targets" for extremists.

The proposal got Norris targeted for assassination by radical Yemeni American cleric Anwar Awlaki, who has been linked to the attempted Christmas Day bombing of a Northwest Airlines flight and also to several of the 9/11 hijackers. This month, after warnings from the FBI, Norris went into hiding. The Seattle Weekly said that Norris was "moving, changing her name, and essentially wiping away her identity."

It's time for free-speech advocates to take a page from the abortion rights movement's playbook. In the 1990s, abortion providers faced the same sort of intimidation tactics and did not succumb. Instead, they lobbied for a federal law making it a crime to threaten people exercising reproductive rights and permitting victims to sue for damages. The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, or FACE, passed in 1994 by solid bipartisan margins. A similar act is needed to cover threats against free-speech rights.

A federal law would do two things. First, it would deter violent tactics, by focusing national attention on the problem and invoking the formidable enforcement apparatus of the federal government. Second, its civil damages provision would empower victims of intimidation to act as private attorneys general to defend their rights.
Such an act is overdue. Across media and geographies, Islamic extremists are increasingly using intimidation to stifle free expression.

In 2004, Theo van Gogh was butchered on an Amsterdam street in broad daylight for his film criticizing Islam's treatment of women. By 2006, it was reported that "dozens of people" across Europe were "in hiding or under police protection because of threats from Muslim extremists."

Some targets, including the coauthor of this Op-Ed, fled to the United States, where it seemed safer -- and so it is, for now. However, the stark truth is the United States was never immune and the situation is deteriorating.
In 1989, two American bookstores carrying Salman Rushdie's "The Satanic Verses" were firebombed. Spooked major chains took it off display. And there have been many more threats that received less publicity. Few have heard, for example, about Oklahoma atheist Sabri Husibi, who received death threats after writing a 2009 article critical of his former faith. His aged mother in Syria was warned she would never see him again. "Clearly shaken," he requested the paper that published his article clarify that he is critical of all faiths.

These kinds of threats have had a formidable chilling effect. Mindful of the retaliation others faced, Yale University Press, the Met, the director of the disaster epic "2012" and countless others have decided to preemptively censor themselves.

The kind of legislation we propose is essential if we are to win the war of ideas against extremists, who use threats to drive the moderate message out of public discourse.

Existing state laws prohibiting intimidation are inadequate. On the criminal side, the heightened standard of proof deters prosecutors from investing scarce resources. Explicit grounds for a civil action do not always exist, and damages can be difficult to quantify. By contrast, the FACE Act, which provides the model for the proposed legislation, lets victims opt for preset damages.

The "South Park" incident neatly illustrates the benefits. On April 15, following the first of a two-part episode mocking Jesus, Buddha and Muhammad, RevolutionMuslim.com announced that "[w]e have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh." The "warning" included the names, photos and work address of "South Park's" creators, a graphic image of Van Gogh's mutilated body and pictures of other targets of Muslim extremists. Overlaying this was audio of Awlaki preaching about assassinating anyone who defamed the prophet. Panicked, Comedy Central heavily censored the episode.

This rather obvious threat could not be prosecuted. New York Police Department officials explained it did not rise to a crime. Were the FACE Act applicable here, a civil suit would have been available, and precedent suggests it would have been successful.

In 2002, on very similar facts, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a civil award to abortion doctors who sued using the FACE Act. A fringe antiabortion group, ACLA, had in various public venues displayed "Wanted"-style posters bearing the names, photos and addresses of doctors who performed abortions. Their names were also posted on the Internet alongside a list of wounded and murdered doctors whose names were struck through. The 9th Circuit held that ACLA's activities constituted true threats unprotected by the 1st Amendment.

If we leave our artists, activists and thinkers alone to weather the assault, they will succumb and we will all suffer the consequences.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former member of the Dutch parliament, is a resident scholar with the American Enterprise Institute and the author of "Nomad: From Islam to America." Daniel Huff is director of the Middle East Forum's Legal Project.
Copyright © 2010, Los Angeles Times

[iris89]

Learn The Facts on Islam's Suppression of Freedom of Speech:


Two Decades of the Rushdie Rules
by Daniel Pipes
Commentary
October 2010
www.danielpipes.org/8913/two-decades-rushdie-rules

From a novel by Salman Rushdie published in 1989 to an American civil protest called
"Everyone Draw Muhammad Day" in 2010, a familiar pattern has evolved. It begins when
Westerners say or do something critical of Islam. Islamists respond with name-calling and
outrage, demands for retraction, threats of lawsuits and violence, and actual violence. In turn,
Westerners hem and haw, prevaricate, and finally fold. Along the way, each controversy
prompts a debate focusing on the issue of free speech.

I shall argue two points about this sequence. First, that the right of Westerners to discuss,
criticize, and even ridicule Islam and Muslims has eroded over the years. Second, that free
speech is a minor part of the problem; at stake is something much deeper – indeed, a defining
question of our time: will Westerners maintain their own historic civilization in the face of assault
by Islamists, or will they cede to Islamic culture and law and submit to a form of second-class
citizenship?

The cover of the book that prompted the Rushdie Rules.

The era of Islamist uproar began abruptly on February 14, 1989, when Ayatollah Ruhollah
Khomeini, Iran's supreme leader, watched on television as Pakistanis responded with violence
to a new novel by Salman Rushdie, the famous writer of South Asian Muslim origins. His book's
very title, The Satanic Verses, refers to the Koran and poses a direct challenge to Islamic
sensibilities; its contents further exacerbate the problem. Outraged by what he considered
Rushdie's blasphemous portrait of Islam, Khomeini issued an edict whose continued impact
makes it worthy of quotation at length:

I inform all zealous Muslims of the world that the author of the book entitled The Satanic
Verses – which has been compiled, printed, and published in opposition to Islam, the Prophet,
and the Koran – and all those involved in the publication who were aware of its contents, are
sentenced to death.

I call upon all zealous Muslims to execute them quickly, wherever they may be found, so that no
one else will dare to insult the Muslim sanctities. God willing, whoever is killed on this path is a
martyr.

In addition, anyone who has access to the author of this book but does not possess the power
to execute him should report him to the people so that he may be punished for his actions.
This unprecedented edict – no head of government had ever called for the execution of a
novelist living in another country – came out of the blue and surprised everyone, from Iranian
government officials to Rushdie himself. No one had imagined that a magical realist novel,
replete with people falling out of the sky and animals that talk, might incur the wrath of the ruler
of Iran, a country to which Rushdie had few connections.

The edict led to physical attacks on bookstores in Italy, Norway, and the United States and on
translators of The Satanic Verses in Norway, Japan, and Turkey; in the last case, the translator
and 36 others perished in an arson attack on a hotel. Other violence in Muslim-majority
countries led to more than 20 fatalities, mostly in South Asia. Then, just as the furor wound
down, in June 1989, Khomeini died; his death made the edict, sometimes inaccurately called a
fatwa, immutable.

The edict contains four important elements. First, by noting "opposition to Islam, the Prophet,
and the Koran," Khomeini delineated the wide range of sacred topics that may not be treated
disrespectfully without invoking a death sentence.

Second, by targeting "all those involved in the publication who were aware of its contents," he
declared war not just on the artist but also on an entire cultural infrastructure – including the
thousands of employees of publishing houses, advertisers, distribution companies, and
bookstores.

Third, by ordering Rushdie's execution "so that no one else will dare to insult the Muslim
sanctities," Khomeini made clear his purpose not only to punish one writer but also to prevent
further instances of ridicule.

Finally, by demanding that those unable to execute Rushdie "report him," Khomeini called on
every Muslim worldwide to become part of an informal intelligence network dedicated to
upholding Islamic sanctities.

These four features together constitute what I call the Rushdie Rules. Two decades later, they
remain very much in place.

The edict set several precedents in the West. A foreign political leader successfully ignored
conventional limits on state powers. A religious leader at will intervened directly, with little cost
or resistance, in Western cultural affairs. And a Muslim leader established the precedent of
applying an aspect of Islamic law, the Shari'a, in an overwhelmingly non-Muslim country. On
this last point: Western states have, at times, served as Khomeini's effective agents. The
government of Austria imposed a suspended prison sentence on a person who defied the
Rushdie Rules, while the governments of France and Australia brought charges that could have
meant jail time. Most strikingly, authorities in Canada, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Finland,
and Israel actually jailed Rushdie-Rule trespassers. It takes effort to recall the innocent days
before 1989, when Westerners freely spoke and wrote about Islam and related subjects.
The Rushdie Rules had an immediate impact on Muslims living in the West, whose outbursts of
insults and violence generated a newfound sense of power. From Sweden to New Zealand,
Islamists responded with joy that, after centuries on the defensive, Muslims had found their
voice and, from the belly of the beast, could challenge the West. Most of the violence that
followed was of the indiscriminate sort, on the model of 9/11, Bali, Madrid, Beslan, and
London, in which jihadists killed whoever happened to cross their paths;
TheReligionOfPeace.com documents on average five indiscriminate Islamist terrorist attacks per
day around the world.

Less common but more intimidating is the violence that targets those who defy the Rushdie
Rules. Let us limit examples of this phenomenon to one country, Denmark. In October 2004, an
instructor at the Carsten Niebuhr Institute at the University of Copenhagen was kicked and hit
by several strangers as he left the university. They informed him that he had read from the
Koran, which as an infidel (kafir) he had no right to do. In October 2005, Jyllands-Posten
editor Flemming Rose was threatened for having commissioned cartoons depicting Muhammad.
Two of the cartoonists had to go into hiding. One of them, Kurt Westergaard, subsequently
narrowly escaped physical attack inside his home. In March 2006, Naser Khader, an anti-
Islamist politician, was threatened by an Islamist who warned that if Khader became a
government minister, he and his ministry would be blown up.

The Danish experience is typical. According to the Wall Street Journal, "Across Europe,
dozens of people are now in hiding or under police protection because of threats from Muslim
extremists." Even Pope Benedict XVI received a flurry of threats in the aftermath of his quoting
a Byzantine emperor on the subject of Islam. In the Netherlands alone, politicians reported 121
death threats against them in just one year. The November 2004 execution on an Amsterdam
street of Theo van Gogh – a well known libertarian, filmmaker, talk show host, newspaper
columnist, and mischief-maker who had ridiculed Islam – traumatized his country and led to a
brief state of insurrection.

Westerners generally perceive this violence as a challenge to their right to self-expression. But if
freedom of speech is the battlefield, the greater war concerns the foundational principles of
Western civilization. The recurrent pattern of Islamist uproar exists to achieve three goals – not
always articulated – that go well beyond prohibiting criticism of Islam.

A first goal consists of establishing a superior status for Islam. Khomeini's demands for the
sacred trinity of "Islam, the Prophet, and the Koran" imply special privileges for one religion, an
exclusion from the hurly-burly of the marketplace of ideas. Islam would benefit from unique
rules unavailable to other religions. Jesus may be sacrilegiously lamthingyed in Monty Python's
Life of Brian or Terry McNally's Corpus Christi, but, as one book's title puts it, "be careful
with Muhammad!"

This segues to a second goal – Muslim supremacy and Western inferiority. Islamists routinely
say and do things more offensive to Westerners than anything Westerners do vis-à-vis Muslims.
They openly despise Western culture; in the words of an Algerian Islamist, it's not a civilization,
but a "syphilization." Their mainstream media publishes coarser, viler, and more violent cartoons
than anything commissioned by Flemming Rose. They freely insult Judaism, Christianity,
Hinduism, and Buddhism. They murder Jews just for being Jews, like Daniel Pearl in Pakistan,
Sébastian Sellam and Ilan Halimi in France, and Pamela Waechter and Ariel Sellouk in the
United States. Whether because of fear or inattention, Westerners assent to an imbalance
whereby Muslims may offend and attack while they themselves are shielded from any such
indignities or pains.

Should Westerners accept this imbalance, the dhimmi status will follow. This Islamic concept
permits "people of the book," monotheists such as Christians and Jews, to continue to practice
their religion under Muslim rule, subject to many restrictions. For its time, the dhimmi status
offered certain benefits (until as recently as 1945, Jews generally had better lives in Islamdom
than in Christendom), but it is intended to insult and humiliate non-Muslims, even as it exalts
Muslims' superiority. Dhimmis pay additional taxes, may not join the military or the government,
and suffer from encompassing legal disabilities. In some times and places, dhimmis could ride
on a donkey but not on a horse, wore distinctive clothing, and an elderly dhimmi on the street
was required to jump out of the way of a Muslim child. Elements of the dhimmi status have
recently been applied in such varied places as Gaza, the West Bank, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran,
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Malaysia, and the Philippines. Clearly, Londonistan and beyond are also
in their sights.

In turn, re-establishing the dhimmi status is one step toward the Islamist's third and ultimate
ambition, applying full Shari'a law. Closing down discussion of Islam paves the way toward this
end. Conversely, retaining free speech about Islam represents a critical defense against the
imposition of an Islamic order. Keeping our civilization requires open discussion of Islam.
The Shari'a regulates both private and public life. The private dimension includes such intensely
personal matters as bodily cleanliness, sexuality, childbearing, family relations, clothing, and diet.
In the public realm, the Shari'a regulates social relations, commercial transactions, criminal
penalties, the status of women and minorities, slavery, the identity of the ruler, the judiciary,
taxation, and warfare. In brief, Islamic law includes everything from toilet etiquette to the
conduct of warfare.

Yet the Shari'a contradicts the deepest premises of Western civilization. The unequal relations of
male and female, of Muslim and kafir, of owner and slave cannot be reconciled with equality of
rights. The harem cannot be reconciled with a monogamous order. Islamic supremacism
contradicts freedom of religion. A sovereign God cannot allow democracy.
Islamists all concur on the goal of applying Islamic law globally. But they differ on whether to
achieve this through violence (the preference of bin Laden), totalitarian rule (Khomeini), or by
politically gaming the system (the Swiss intellectual Tariq Ramadan). However done, were
Islamists to achieve a Shar'i order, they would effectively replace Western civilization with
Islamic civilization. In American terms, allowing the Koran to trump the Constitution ends the
United States as it has existed for more than two centuries.

The Muslim Council of Britain wishes to transform schools in the United Kingdom.

Accepting the Rushdie Rules, in other words, implies a process that culminates with full
application of the Shari'a. Were Khomeini to have his way, those of us who value Western
civilization could not argue against Shari'a. To understand the consequences of closing the
debate about Islam, note what appears to be an innocuous report published in 2007 by the
Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), a leading Islamist institution in the United Kingdom. Titled
Towards Greater Understanding, it advises British authorities on how to deal with Muslim
students in taxpayer-funded schools.

The MCB seeks to create an environment in schools in which Muslim children do not make
"inappropriate assumptions" that "to progress in society they will have to compromise or give up
aspects of who they are, and their religious beliefs and values." Toward this end, the MCB
proposes a jaw-dropping list of changes that would fundamentally alter the nature of British
schools, transforming them, in effect, into Saudi-like institutions. Some of its suggestions:

* Prayers: Provide (1) extra "water cans or bottles" for washing before the prayers and
(2) prayer facilities, ideally separate ones for boys and girls. Schools should also make
available "a suitable external visitor, a teacher or an older pupil" to lead the communal
Friday prayers and give the sermon.

* Toilets: Water available in water cans or bottles for cleansing purposes.

* Social customs: No pressure to shake hands with members of the opposite sex,
whether students or teachers.

* Scheduling: Vacation days for all on the two major Muslim holidays, the Eids.

* Holiday celebrations: Involve non-Muslim students and their parents in Islamic holiday
rituals. During Ramadan, for instance, all children, not just Muslim ones, should
celebrate "the spirit and values of Ramadan through collective worship or assembly
themes and communal Iftar (the breaking of the fast)."

* Ramadan: (1) No examinations during this month, "since the combination of preparing
for exams and fasting may prove challenging for some pupils" and (2) no sex education,
to respect strictures against sex during that month.

* Food: Provide halal meals. Permit students to eat with their right hands.

* Clothing: Accede to the wearing of hijabs and even jilbabs (a long outer garment down
to the ankles). In swimming pools, Muslim children should wear modest swimwear
(e.g., for girls, full leotards and leggings). Islamic amulets must be permitted.

* Beards: A right for male students.

* Sports: Sex-segregation where there is physical contact with other team players, as in
basketball and football, or when exposed, as in swimming.

* Shower rooms: Separate stalls needed, so Muslims are not subject to the "profound
indignity" of seeing or being seen in the nude.

* Music: Should be limited to "the human voice and non-tuneable percussion instruments
such as drums."

* Dancing: Excluded, unless it is done in a single-sex environment and does not "involve
sexual connotations and messages."

* Teacher and administrator training: Staff should undergo Islamic "awareness training"
so that schools are "better informed and have greater and more accurate appreciation of
their Muslim pupils' needs."

* Art: Exempt Muslim pupils from producing "three dimensional figurative imagery of
humans."’

* Religious instruction: Pictures of any prophets (including Jesus) prohibited.

* Language instruction: Arabic should be made available to all Muslim students.

* Islamic civilization: (1) Study the contribution of Muslims to Europe in history, art,
mathematics, and science classes and (2) emphasize common aspects of European and
Islamic heritage.

One response to the Muslim Council of Britain booklet.

The imposition, explicit or implicit, of Rushdie Rules would render impossible any criticism of a
program such as the MCB's. I could not write this article, Commentary could not publish it, and
you could not read it.

Overhauling schools is just one of a myriad of planned changes. Step by step, piece by piece,
Islamists wish to trump the premises of Western life by infusing its education, cultural life, and
institutions with a concurrent Islamic system that in time overrides secular institutions, until an
Islamic order comes operationally into being. Some changes are already in place and extend to
many aspects of life. A few pungent examples:

Polygamous marriages are valid under certain circumstances in the United Kingdom, the
Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, Australia, and the Canadian province of Ontario.

Muslim women-only swimming sessions exist in municipal pools in Washington State. Women-only classes are
being offered at Virginia Tech, a taxpayer-supported university.

Women can have their drivers license photographs taken wearing hijabs in three U.S. states.

If they work at IKEA or for the London police, women can wear branded hijabs provided by their employers.

Piggybanks have been banned as a symbol of saving at two major British banks.

"Any matter containing religious materials contrary to Islamic faith" may not be sent via the U.S. postal
system to soldiers serving in the Middle East.

Medical personnel may not eat or drink in the presence of Muslim patients or colleagues during the month of Ramadan in a Scottish hospital.

The City of Boston sold public land at a discount price to build an Islamic institution.

IKEA, the furnishings store, provides branded hijabs for employees in Great Britain.

These steps, large and small, toward Islamization undermine Western values and mores. They
are unacceptable:

Muslims are entitled to equal rights and responsibilities but not to special privileges.

They must fit into the existing order, not remake Western societies in the Islamist
mold.

Increasing freedom is welcome, regressing to the medieval norms of the Shari'a is not.

In retrospect, responses to the Rushdie edict among intellectuals and politicians in 1989 were
noteworthy for the support for the imperiled novelist, especially on the left. Leftist intellectuals
were more likely to stand by him (Susan Sontag: "our integrity as a nation is as endangered by
an attack on a writer as on an oil tanker") than were those on the right (Patrick Buchanan: "we
should shove his blasphemous little novel out into the cold"). But times have changed: Paul
Berman recently published a book, The Flight of the Intellectuals, that excoriates his fellow
liberals for (as the dust jacket puts it) having "fumbled badly in their effort to grapple with
Islamist ideas and violence."

At the time, François Mitterrand, the socialist president of France, called the threat to Rushdie
an "absolute evil." The Green Party in Germany sought to break all economic agreements with
Iran. Hans-Dietrich Genscher, the German foreign minister, endorsed a European Union
resolution supporting Rushdie as "a signal to assure the preservation of civilization and human
values." The U.S. Senate unanimously passed a resolution that declared its commitment "to
protect the right of any person to write, publish, sell, buy, and read books without fear of
intimidation and violence" and condemned Khomeini's threat as "state-sponsored terrorism."

Such governmental responses are inconceivable in 2010.

For every exercise in free speech since 1989, such as the Danish Muhammad cartoons or the
no-holds-barred studies of Islam published by Prometheus Books, uncountable legions of
writers, publishers, and illustrators have shied away from expressing themselves. Two examples:
Paramount Pictures replaced the Hamas-like terrorists of Tom Clancy's novel The Sum of All
Fears with European neo-Nazis in its movie version of the story. And Yale University Press
published a book on the Danish cartoon crisis without permitting the cartoons to be reproduced
in the study.

The reasoning of those who capitulate is as unexceptional as it is dismal: "This decision was
based solely on concern for public safety"; "the safety and security of our customers and
employees is a top priority"; "I feel real fear that someone will slit my throat"; "If I would have
said what I actually think about Islam, I wouldn't be in this world for long"; and "'If this goes
down badly, I'm writing my own death warrant."

Changes since 1989 result mainly from the growth of three isms: multiculturalism, left-fascism,
and Islamism. The multicultural impulse regards no way of life, belief system, or political
philosophy better or worse than any other. Just as Italian and Japanese food are both delicious
and filling, so environmentalism or Wicca offer equally valid alternatives to Judeo-Christian
civilization. Why fight for one's way of life when it has no claim to superiority over any other?
But perhaps one way is worse: if Western imperialism and the white race pollute the world, who
wants Western civilization? A sizable movement of left-fascists, led by Hugo Chávez, sees
Western power, which they call "Empire," as the world's main threat, with the United States and
Israel viewed as the chief offenders.

Islamism has grown spectacularly since 1989, becoming the most powerful form of radical
utopianism, forming an alliance with the left, dominating civil societies, challenging many
governments and taking over others, establishing a beachhead in the West, and smartly
advancing its agenda in international institutions.

The yin of Western weakness, in short, has met with the yang of Islamist assertion. Defenders of
Western civilization must fight not just Islamists but also the multiculturalists who enable them
and the leftists who ally with them.

Mr. Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum, Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the
Hoover Institution of Stanford University, and a columnist at National Review. He
delivered an earlier version of this text on receiving an award from the Danish Free
Speech Society.

Late Breaking Rushdie-Rule
Developments
by Daniel Pipes
October 1, 2010
www.danielpipes.org/blog/2010/10/late-breaking-rushdie-rule-developments

Several important developments took place right after my article, "Two Decades of the Rushdie
Rules," went to press,:

(1) Pastor Terry Jones of Gainesville, Florida planned to burn hundreds of Korans on Sep. 11,
but then submitted to pressure and canceled the bonfire. When his intention became
international news, it lead, according to established pattern, to unrest and threats in the Muslim
world and to at least 18 deaths (5 in Afghanistan, 13 in Kashmir). Under pressure from U.S.
government officials, Jones relented and did not burn Korans.

I argued in a column, "'Rushdie Rules' Reach Florida," that the novelty and significance of this
incident lies in the full weight of the U.S. government, from Barack Obama on down, bearing
down on Jones. In distinct contrast to Margaret Thatcher in 1989, when the Rushdie affair
broke, or Anders Fogh Rasmussen in 2006, when the Danish cartoon affair occurred, American
authorities took upon themselves the role of protectors of Islam and executors of the Shari'a. In
so doing, they extended the Rushdie Rules to the United States.

Mollie Norris' cartoon that ended her normal life and began her "ghost" existence.

(2) Mollie Norris, the cartoonist who devised "Everyone Draw Muhammad Day" went into
hiding. As her editor, Mark D. Fefer, at the Seattle Weekly put it,
You may have noticed that Molly Norris' comic is not in the paper this week. That's because
there is no more Molly. The gifted artist is alive and well, thankfully. But on the insistence of top
security specialists at the FBI, she is, as they put it, "going ghost": moving, changing her name,
and essentially wiping away her identity. She will no longer be publishing cartoons in our paper
or in City Arts magazine, where she has been a regular contributor. She is, in effect, being put
into a witness-protection program—except, as she notes, without the government picking up the
tab. It's all because of the appalling fatwa issued against her this summer, following her infamous
"Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" cartoon.

That "appalling fatwa" was posted in July by Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen who lives in
Yemen. He wrote:

A cartoonist out of Seattle, Washington, named Molly Norris started the 'Everybody Draw
Mohammed Day'. This snowball rolled out from between her evil fingers. She should be taken
as a prime target of assassination along with others who participated in her campaign. This
campaign is not a practice of freedom of speech, but is a nationwide mass movement of
Americans joining their European counterparts in going out of their way to offend Muslims
worldwide. They are expressing their hatred of the Messenger of Islam through ridicule
Katherine Kersten discusses the American response to this outrage:

Surely, you say, American journalists and media moguls—always staunch defenders of the First
Amendment—are proclaiming outrage and rallying round this young woman? On the contrary.
The media have largely been silent about her nightmarish plight. When the Washington
Examiner, an on-line newspaper in Washington, D.C., asked the American Society of News
Editors for a statement about Norris, none was forthcoming. Ditto for the Society of
Professional Journalists. This, despite the fact that the editors group's mission statement extols
"the First Amendment at home and free speech around the world," while the journalists claim to
stand for "the perpetuation of the free press as the cornerstone of our nation and liberty."
This incident suggests that Awlaki has the power to turn any American's life upside down by
simply uttering a threat against him. This is no longer a battle of giants, Khomeini v. Rushdie, but
of pygmies, Awlaki v. Norris. One can imagine the threats proliferating so that any person
critical of "Islam, the Prophet, and the Koran" will be in danger of having to "go ghost."

(3) Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Daniel Huff proposed an important reply to some of the wanton threats
against Americans in "It's Time to Fight Back Against Death Threats by Islamic Extremists," Los
Angeles Times, Sep. 27:

It's time for free-speech advocates to take a page from the abortion rights movement's
playbook. In the 1990s, abortion providers faced the same sort of intimidation tactics and did
not succumb. Instead, they lobbied for a federal law making it a crime to threaten people
exercising reproductive rights and permitting victims to sue for damages. The Freedom of
Access to Clinic Entrances Act, or FACE, passed in 1994 by solid bipartisan margins. A similar
act is needed to cover threats against free-speech rights.

A federal law would do two things. First, it would deter violent tactics, by focusing national
attention on the problem and invoking the formidable enforcement apparatus of the federal
government. Second, its civil damages provision would empower victims of intimidation to act
as private attorneys general to defend their rights. …

Existing state laws prohibiting intimidation are inadequate. On the criminal side, the heightened
standard of proof deters prosecutors from investing scarce resources. Explicit grounds for a civil
action do not always exist, and damages can be difficult to quantify. By contrast, the FACE
Act, which provides the model for the proposed legislation, lets victims opt for preset damages.

[iris89]

By, By Free Speech In America To False Religion:

Molly Norris Disappears From View
Her work won't be in Seattle Weekly anymore, or anywhere else.
A A A Comments (263) By Mark D. Fefer Wednesday, Sep 15 2010
You may have noticed that Molly Norris' comic is not in the paper this week. That's because there is no more Molly.

Molly Norris:

The gifted artist is alive and well, thankfully. But on the insistence of top security specialists at the FBI, she is, as they put it, "going ghost": moving, changing her name, and essentially wiping away her identity. She will no longer be publishing cartoons in our paper or in City Arts magazine, where she has been a regular contributor. She is, in effect, being put into a witness-protection program—except, as she notes, without the government picking up the tab. It's all because of the appalling fatwa issued against her this summer, following her infamous "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" cartoon.

Norris views the situation with her customary sense of the world's complexity, and absurdity. When FBI agents, on a recent visit, instructed her to always keep watch for anyone following her, she joked, "Well, at least it'll keep me from being so self-involved!" It was, she says, the first time the agents managed a smile. She likens the situation to cancer—it might basically be nothing, it might be urgent and serious, it might go away and never return, or it might pop up again when she least expects it.

We're hoping the religious bigots go into full and immediate remission, and we wish her the best.
[source - retrieved from www.seattleweekly.com/2010-09-15/news/on-the-advice-of-the-fbi-cartoonist-molly-norris-disappears-from-view/ on 10/08/2010]

[iris89]

Islamic Extremist Targets Facebook Users, by Daniel Huff
October 29, 2010

www.legal-project.org/866/islamic-extremist-targets-facebook-users

Court documents filed last week reveal Islamic extremists have obtained personal contact information on members of the defiant Facebook group "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day." Zachary Chesser, who provided the information, pled guilty to "communicating threats" and renounced jihad, but the damage was done. Prosecutors say he "seriously endangered the lives of innocent people who will remain at risk for many years to come."

This lasting effect makes it all the more frustrating that authorities did not charge him sooner. He had made very similar threats against the producers of South Park weeks before. The case highlights the urgent need for better legal tools to protect free speech from extremist intimidation.

On April 15, Chesser, acting through the website RevolutionMuslim.com, "warned" the creators of South Park that they would "likely" be executed for producing an episode lamthingying Muslim outrage over depictions of Mohammed. Chesser's post provided their photos and work address and included audio of radical cleric Anwar Al-Awlaki calling for the assassination of anyone who has "defamed" Mohammed. As was widely reported, Comedy Central, which carries the show, succumbed to the threat and heavily censored the episode. Nevertheless, Chesser was not charged. NYPD Commissioner Kelly called Chesser's posting a threat but said authorities did not believe legally it "rises to a crime right now."
Facing no legal consequences after his first success, Chesser turned the same intimidation tactics on a fresh target.

Facebook users, determined to defy the intimidation tactics that vanquished Comedy Central, had started the group "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day." The theory was safety in numbers. If thousands of people all committed to draw Mohammed on a single day, there would be so many potential targets fanatics would be unable to focus their retribution efforts effectively on any single one.
It failed because even though thousands of people joined the group, Chesser was content to start small.

In May of 2010, he obtained personal contact information on 11 members of the group and posted it to a jihadi website saying the data was "just a place to start." As before, he provided the addresses of his targets against the backdrop of Al-Awlaki's recorded sermon and examples of artists targeted for insulting Mohammed. He even proffered his own reflections on the propriety of executing them in accordance with Islamic law. Yet again, he was not immediately prosecuted.

Instead, he was finally arrested July 11th on independent charges of providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization. He was intercepted at Kennedy airport, with his infant son in tow, on his way to Somalia to join al-Shabaab and "engage in violent jihad."

It was only in light of this subsequent arrest that federal prosecutors felt comfortable characterizing Chesser's earlier activities as meeting the threshold for true threats in violation of federal law. On October 18th, they amended the charges against him to include the threats relating to South Park and Facebook. He pled guilty on all counts.

It seems prosecutors did not act earlier, because without Chesser's subsequent behavior, they did not have sufficient evidence of intent to threaten to meet the heightened burden of proof required in criminal cases. In the meantime, Chesser did deep damage to free speech rights.

US Attorney Neil MacBride warns Chesser's "solicitation of extremists to murder U.S. citizens … caused people throughout the country to fear speaking out – even in jest – lest they also be labeled as enemies who deserved to be killed."
This might have been avoided if Federal law provided the same protection to free speech rights that it already gives to abortion rights.

In the 1990's, abortion providers faced the same sorts of extremist threats that cartoonists and authors face now. In response, Congress passed the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) which not only prohibits threats against persons exercising abortion rights, but permits victims to sue for damages.
The provision for civil suits with preset damages is key. It empowers victims of intimidation to act as private attorneys general to defend their rights in a setting with a lower burden of proof.

Indeed, in a 2002 case with facts similar to the Chesser case, the Ninth Circuit found a fringe pro-life group had threatened abortion doctors by distributing their photos and contact information. The doctors had sued under the FACE Act and obtained a substantial jury award.

With only minor modifications, FACE can be expanded to cover threats against free speech. The original passed by solid bipartisan margins in both houses. All 10 federal circuit courts who have heard challenges to FACE have upheld it. To forestall any concerns regarding federalism or unintended consequences, Congress can include a sunset provision.

Had such a law been in place in April, Chesser's first victims could have immediately mired him in costly, time consuming civil litigation. The net effect would have been both to distract and deter him from making further threats and preparing for jihad. At least 11 Facebook users would "like" this.

Daniel Huff is Director of the Legal Project at the Middle East Forum and a former counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

[iris89]

Islamic Extremist Targets Facebook Users, by Daniel Huff
October 29, 2010

www.legal-project.org/866/islamic-extremist-targets-facebook-users

Court documents filed last week reveal Islamic extremists have obtained personal contact information on members of the defiant Facebook group "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day." Zachary Chesser, who provided the information, pled guilty to "communicating threats" and renounced jihad, but the damage was done. Prosecutors say he "seriously endangered the lives of innocent people who will remain at risk for many years to come."

This lasting effect makes it all the more frustrating that authorities did not charge him sooner. He had made very similar threats against the producers of South Park weeks before. The case highlights the urgent need for better legal tools to protect free speech from extremist intimidation.

On April 15, Chesser, acting through the website RevolutionMuslim.com, "warned" the creators of South Park that they would "likely" be executed for producing an episode lamthingying Muslim outrage over depictions of Mohammed. Chesser's post provided their photos and work address and included audio of radical cleric Anwar Al-Awlaki calling for the assassination of anyone who has "defamed" Mohammed. As was widely reported, Comedy Central, which carries the show, succumbed to the threat and heavily censored the episode. Nevertheless, Chesser was not charged. NYPD Commissioner Kelly called Chesser's posting a threat but said authorities did not believe legally it "rises to a crime right now."
Facing no legal consequences after his first success, Chesser turned the same intimidation tactics on a fresh target.

Facebook users, determined to defy the intimidation tactics that vanquished Comedy Central, had started the group "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day." The theory was safety in numbers. If thousands of people all committed to draw Mohammed on a single day, there would be so many potential targets fanatics would be unable to focus their retribution efforts effectively on any single one.
It failed because even though thousands of people joined the group, Chesser was content to start small.

In May of 2010, he obtained personal contact information on 11 members of the group and posted it to a jihadi website saying the data was "just a place to start." As before, he provided the addresses of his targets against the backdrop of Al-Awlaki's recorded sermon and examples of artists targeted for insulting Mohammed. He even proffered his own reflections on the propriety of executing them in accordance with Islamic law. Yet again, he was not immediately prosecuted.

Instead, he was finally arrested July 11th on independent charges of providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization. He was intercepted at Kennedy airport, with his infant son in tow, on his way to Somalia to join al-Shabaab and "engage in violent jihad."

It was only in light of this subsequent arrest that federal prosecutors felt comfortable characterizing Chesser's earlier activities as meeting the threshold for true threats in violation of federal law. On October 18th, they amended the charges against him to include the threats relating to South Park and Facebook. He pled guilty on all counts.

It seems prosecutors did not act earlier, because without Chesser's subsequent behavior, they did not have sufficient evidence of intent to threaten to meet the heightened burden of proof required in criminal cases. In the meantime, Chesser did deep damage to free speech rights.

US Attorney Neil MacBride warns Chesser's "solicitation of extremists to murder U.S. citizens … caused people throughout the country to fear speaking out – even in jest – lest they also be labeled as enemies who deserved to be killed."
This might have been avoided if Federal law provided the same protection to free speech rights that it already gives to abortion rights.

In the 1990's, abortion providers faced the same sorts of extremist threats that cartoonists and authors face now. In response, Congress passed the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) which not only prohibits threats against persons exercising abortion rights, but permits victims to sue for damages.
The provision for civil suits with preset damages is key. It empowers victims of intimidation to act as private attorneys general to defend their rights in a setting with a lower burden of proof.

Indeed, in a 2002 case with facts similar to the Chesser case, the Ninth Circuit found a fringe pro-life group had threatened abortion doctors by distributing their photos and contact information. The doctors had sued under the FACE Act and obtained a substantial jury award.

With only minor modifications, FACE can be expanded to cover threats against free speech. The original passed by solid bipartisan margins in both houses. All 10 federal circuit courts who have heard challenges to FACE have upheld it. To forestall any concerns regarding federalism or unintended consequences, Congress can include a sunset provision.

Had such a law been in place in April, Chesser's first victims could have immediately mired him in costly, time consuming civil litigation. The net effect would have been both to distract and deter him from making further threats and preparing for jihad. At least 11 Facebook users would "like" this.

Daniel Huff is Director of the Legal Project at the Middle East Forum and a former counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

[iris89]

Dutch MP to be tried for views on Islam

Party leader who made film linking Koran to Nazism accused of inciting race hate

By Vanessa Mock, Thursday, 22 January 2009 [source - retrieved from www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/dutch-mp-to-be-tried-for-views-on-islam-1488654.html on 12/03/2010] -


The Far-right Dutch politician who gained global notoriety with a film claiming links between the Koran and terrorism is to be put on trial for his public statements against Islam.

Geert Wilders, the leader of the extremist Freedom Party (PVV), said he was surprised that the Amsterdam Appeals Court is to allow his criminal prosecution for inciting hatred and of discriminating against Muslims by comparing their religion to Nazism.

"Mr Wilders' views constitute a criminal offence. [He] has insulted Islamic worshippers by attacking the symbols of the Islamic faith," the court stated, referring to his comparison of the Koran to Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf.

Mr Wilders, who sports a peroxide-blond shock of hair, said he was "stunned" by the judgment. "This was the last thing I expected. The fact that I can no longer speak openly but have to go before the court makes this a very black day, not just for me but for freedom of expression in this country," said the 45-year-old MP. "What I do is to express my opinion on behalf of half a million people who voted for me and who think it should be possible to criticise Islam. We are fed up with the 'Islamisation' of the Netherlands."

The politician is a household name in the Netherlands thanks to his frequent pronouncements on the country's Muslim minority and his calls to ban the Koran on the grounds of being "fascist". He became notorious last year after the release of his short film about the Koran, Fitna, which juxtaposed pages from the Koran with scenes of torture and violence, including the attacks on the World Trade Centre. The UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, called the film "offensively anti-Islamic".

The decision by the Amsterdam Appeals Court, the second-highest legal authority in the country, overturns an earlier ruling by the Dutch Prosecution Service, which last June dismissed hundreds of complaints against Mr Wilders on the grounds that his utterances had been made "in the context of public debate", a position that was endorsed by the Dutch Prime Minister, Jan Peter Balkenende, a Christian Democrat.

But yesterday, the appeals court argued that the criminal prosecution did not conflict with Mr Wilders' right to freedom of expression and said it based its decision on the standards set by the European Court of Human Rights. "This is my finest hour," said Gerard Spong, the lawyer who filed the complaints. "The American President Barack Obama said 'we are free in diversity' but you can't have diversity if you brand one group as extremists."

[iris89]

As Usual, Islam Is Showing Its True Anti-Freedom Hand and Their Ultimate Goal of World Conquest:

Police say they stopped terrorist attack over Danish newspaper's prophet cartoons; 5 arrested, by Jan M. Olsen, The Associated Press Dec 29, 2010 19:46:43 PM [source - retrieved from www.news889.com/news/world/article/162774--police-say-they-stopped-terrorist-attack-over-danish-newspaper-s-prophet-cartoons-5-arrested on 12/29/2010]

COPENHAGEN - Police in Denmark and Sweden said they thwarted a terrorist attack possibly hours before it was to begin, arresting five men they say planned to shoot as many people as possible in a Copenhagen building housing the newsroom of a paper that published cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

Four suspects were arrested on Wednesday in the suburbs of Copenhagen, including a Tunisian, a man from Lebanon and an Iraqi asylum-seeker. A fifth suspect, a Swedish citizen of Tunisian origin, was arrested in Sweden. The Danish intelligence service said it seized a submachine gun, a silencer and ammunition.

"An imminent terror attack has been foiled," said Jakob Scharf, head of the Danish Security and Intelligence Service, or PET. He said three of the men were arrested as they left a suburban Copenhagen apartment, "either heading out to carry out the terror attack or to do some kind of reconnaissance."

Scharf described some of the suspects as "militant Islamists with relations to international terror networks." He said more arrests were possible.

Authorities said the arrests followed months of surveillance. Anders Danielsson, the head of Sweden's security police, said officers followed a car rented by three of the suspects from Stockholm to the Danish border late Tuesday or early Wednesday.

"We knew that there were weapons in the car," Danielsson said.

Danish intelligence said the group had been planning to enter the building where the Jyllands-Posten daily has its Copenhagen newsdesk and "to kill as many of the people present as possible."

Scharf said the assault was to have been carried out sometime before this weekend, and could have been similar to the 2008 terrorist attack in Mumbai, India, that left 166 people dead.

"It is our assessment that the plan was to try to get access" to the newspaper office and "carry out a Mumbai-style attack," Scharf told reporters.

Danish Justice Minister Lars Barfoed said the plot was "terrifying" and "probably the most serious terror attempt in Denmark." Scharf, however, said there was no need to raise the nation's terror threat alert level.

Danish intelligence said it arrested a 26-year-old Iraqi asylum-seeker living in Copenhagen and the three Swedish residents who had rented the car: a 44-year-old Tunisian, a 29-year-old Lebanese-born man and a 30-year-old whose national origin was not immediately released. The Danish resident was arrested in a separate raid, in a different Copenhagen suburb, from the other three, Scharf said.

Police evacuated a two-story apartment block where the Iraqi lived and were investigating an unidentified suspicious item found there, said PET and one resident, Birhe Kristensen.

The four men face preliminary charges of attempting to carry out an act of terrorism. A custody hearing was scheduled for Thursday. Police in Denmark do not release the names of suspects.

In Sweden, police said they arrested a 37-year-old Swedish citizen of Tunisian origin living in Stockholm.

"I am shocked that a group of people have concrete plans to commit a serious terrorist attack in this country," Danish Prime Minister Loekke Rasmussen told reporters. "I want to stress that regardless of today's event it remains my conviction that terrorism must not lead us to change our open society and our values, especially democracy and free speech."

The alleged plot follows several attacks and threats connected to 12 cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad published by the Jyllands-Posten in 2005 as a challenge to perceived self-censorship. The cartoons also provoked massive and violent protests in early 2006 in Muslim countries after the drawings were reprinted in a range of Western media. Islamic law generally opposes any depiction of the prophet, even favourable, for fear it could lead to idolatry.

Zubair Butt Hussain, a spokesman for the Muslim Council of Denmark, called the alleged plot "extremely worrying."

The organization "absolutely condemns any act of terrorism regardless of the motives and motivations that may lie behind," Hussain said.

Kurt Westergaard, the artist who drew the most contentious of 12 cartoons, said the foiled plot was "a direct attack on democracy and freedom of press."

"We may not and won't let anyone forbid us to criticize radical Islamism. We may not be intimidated when it comes to our values," Westergaard told the German tabloid Bild.

In January, a Somali man broke into Westergaard's home wielding an axe and a knife but the artist escaped by locking himself in a safe-room in the house. In 2008, two Tunisians with Danish residence permits were arrested for plotting to kill him.

In September, a man was wounded when a letter bomb he was preparing exploded in a Copenhagen hotel. Police said it was intended for the Jyllands-Posten, which also has been targeted in a number of thwarted terror plots in Norway and the United States.

U.S. citizen Tahawwur Rana faces trial in Chicago in February in connection with the 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai and a planned attack on the Jyllands-Posten.

In 2008, the Danish Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan, was targeted by a car bomb that killed six people outside the mission.

The attacks and threats have caused concern and unprecedented security measures in Denmark, a country that prides itself on personal freedom and openness.

The JPPOL media group building, which includes Jyllands-Posten, is protected by metal fences and guards at all entrances. Mail is scanned and newspaper staff need identity cards to enter the buildings and the various floors.

Lars Munch, JPPOL chief executive, said his workers are worried.

"It is appalling for our group, for our employees and their families to see their workplace threatened," Munch said.

Hours after news of the arrests, Denmark's Crown Prince Frederik arrived at the JPPOL building for a previously scheduled engagement.

"I wouldn't stand here if it had been a threat against me," Frederik told Danish TV2. Asked whether he was afraid, the heir to the throne replied "no," before entering the building to attend a sports award ceremony.

Denmark, with an estimated 207,000 Muslims among its 5.5 million people, has a minority nationalist party that has helped impose curbs on immigration. An estimated 300,000 Muslims live in Sweden, a predominantly Christian but secularized country of 9.35 million people that doesn't have nationalist movements of prominence.

[iris89]

Islamist Are Determined To Eliminate Freedom of Honest Expression and Freedom of Speech -

Lessons From Denmark,
by Ann Snyder • Dec 31, 2010 at 1:01 pm

www.legal-project.org/blog/2010/12/appeasement-will-not-stop-islamists

Molly Norris was right, initially at least. The original idea behind "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" was simple. It was a message about the importance of solidarity in defense of something of great value—the cornerstone of our individual liberties—freedom of expression.

Comedy Central, Norris charged, had "cooperated with terrorists" when it censored an episode of South Park. If instead, everyone drew an image of Mohammed, Islamists couldn't possibly silence all of us. Her message echoed Benjamin Franklin's statement at the signing of the Declaration of Independence: "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."

Recent news reminds us that capitulation is a failed strategy. We need to stand together with those who value individual rights (Muslims and non-Muslims, alike) against the onslaught of Islamists who would destroy those very freedoms.

On December 29, 2010 police arrested five suspects in a terror plot apparently targeting the newspaper Jyllands-Posten. Over five years ago, the Jyllands-Posten published cartoons depicting Islam's prophet, Mohammed. The newspaper and the cartoonists have been the targets of numerous threats and thwarted attacks ever since. Interestingly, the worst violence actually followed an apology by Jyllands-Posten. An attempt to appease had failed. (Norris learned the same lesson after attempting to apologize. Radical cleric Al-Awlaki still called for her murder, and she was forced to "go ghost" when authorities were unable to protect her.) The death toll from the anger fomented over the cartoons is estimated at over 200 with many more injured.

But why, after five years, has this controversy not gone away? Perhaps the reason is that the cartoons are merely an excuse being exploited by Islamists as a justification for their actions.

According to Jakob Scharf, head of the Danish Security and Intelligence Service, in a press conference following the foiled plot, "Obviously, the cartoons have been used very efficiently by militant Islamist groups worldwide in targeting Denmark, specifically, and trying to explain why the violent extremism is necessary." Egyptian-born, Muslim journalist, Mona Eltahawy, agrees that the cartoons have been exploited for political ends. In an article criticizing Yale University Press' cowardly decision to pull images of the cartoons from what was supposed to be a scholarly exploration of the cartoon controversy, Eltahawy asserts that the cartoons were used by some to stir anti-immigrant sentiments and by "right wing" Muslims to "silence [other] Muslims and fuel anti-Western rhetoric."

It is precisely because the cartoons are simply today's excuse for an Islamist tantrum that appeasement cannot work as an effective strategy to stop future violence. You won't halt attacks by prosecuting politicians and journalists for saying things that might offend the Islamists or by settling absurd lawsuits. Islamists will simply trump up a new pretext tomorrow. Further, the strategy of appeasement has grave consequences beyond being merely ineffectual. By appeasing, we are, as Norris suggested, cooperating with terrorists.

By silencing critics or those who might offend, we weaken the resistance to Islamists and each time, hand them a mini-victory. By giving in to the demands of extremists, we give credence to the faulty idea that there is a monolithic voice of the "Muslim world," and that the Islamists speak for it. (This is the idea the OIC would like you to buy into. This self-appointed Muslim-Lorax audaciously claims to speak for the entire "ummah." If we are interested in hearing the voices--note the plural--of Muslims perhaps we should start by talking to a few of these individuals who signed a petition in support of Norris, South Park, and freedom of expression. ) Finally, by capitulating in the face of every threat or whimper, we show Islamists that their approach works. And, like a schoolyard bully or petulant child, they will use the same strategy tomorrow.

This is why standing together with all lovers of individual liberty and resisting Islamist pressure is the first step in diffusing the threat. Capitulation has failed. We need to recognize that now, or assuredly we will all lose our heads.

[iris89]

The Kevin Bacon of American Jihad
by Adam Turner
Pajamas Media
January 26, 2011

www.legal-project.org/1098/the-kevin-bacon-of-american-jihad

Be the first of your friends to like this.Revolution Muslim, a U.S.-based radical Islamic jihadist organization, has become the Kevin Bacon of Islamic fundamentalism. Whenever jihadist groups threaten free speech in America or Europe, you can bet an associate of Revolution Muslim is somehow involved.

During an 18-month period, eight of the 27 reported cases of homegrown terrorism saw U.S. terror suspects frequenting, blogging on, or directly linked to Revolution Muslim or a related group. The group's website was originally at RevolutionMuslim.com. When their service provider shut them down on November 5, 2010, they reconstituted at IslamPolicy.com. To date, the threats that have emanated from the Revolution Muslim websites have never been adequately legally addressed by the U.S.

Revolution Muslim's influence is most visible in three recent incidents where Islamic extremists threatened the free speech of artists, politicians, and even private citizens:

The "South Park" Incident

On April 15, 2010, Comedy Central aired the first of a two-part South Park episode featuring a character in a bear suit identified as the Islamic Prophet Mohammed. Zachary Chesser of Virginia, a member of Revolution Muslim, posted on the group's website that South Park's creators, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, had "outright insulted" Islam's religious leader. He continued:

We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show. This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them.

He also called for his supporters to "pay [Parker and Stone] a visit" and posted the addresses of Comedy Central's New York office, Parker and Stone's California production office, and a link to an article detailing Parker and Stone's home in Colorado.

In the following days, Chesser posted numerous additional comments and uploaded several videos and recordings, including one by Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born Islamist cleric currently hiding in Yemen, which further justified the murder of Parker and Stone. Panicking, Comedy Central censored part two of the episode by bleeping out language, including its criticism of censorship, a speech against intimidation, and every use of the name "Mohammed."

Nevertheless, this rather obvious threat was not prosecuted by state or local law enforcement officials. NYC Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said authorities didn't think it "rises to a crime right now."

Months later, on July 21, 2010, Chesser was arrested on independent charges for trying to board a plane to Somalia to join al-Shabaab, a brutal terrorist organization with ties to al-Qaeda. It was only months after that, on the eve of a plea agreement, that he was finally charged for making internet threats against Parker and Stone in violation of 18 U.S.C. 875(c). On October 20, 2010, Chesser pleaded guilty to a three-count criminal indictment.

The Molly Norris Incident

On April 20, 2010, partly in response to Comedy Central's self-censorship, Seattle Weekly cartoonist Molly Norris proposed an "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day (EDMD)." Her point? Freedom implies the right to criticize and caricature, and this freedom was now in jeopardy because a minority of Muslims believe the majority of non-Muslims can be easily intimidated.

Her idea caught on and pretty soon there was a Facebook page devoted to EDMD which over a hundred thousand people joined. That is when Anwar al-Awlaki issued a fatwa calling for Norris to be murdered. This fatwa prompted Zachary Chesser to gather personal information on at least eleven Facebook friends of EDMD and to post it on Revolution Muslim's website in a comment thread that also contained videos and discussion justifying punishing anyone who insults Mohammed.

Chesser characterized the information he provided as "just a place to start." According to federal prosecutors, the lives of the private citizens and Facebook users Chesser identified as EDMD supporters "will remain at risk for many years to come." Frightened by the threats, Molly Norris recanted and disavowed EDMD, but it was too late. On September 15, 2010, the Seattle Weekly informed its readers:

You may have noticed that Molly Norris' comic is not in the paper this week. That's because there is no more Molly. The gifted artist is alive and well, thankfully. But on the insistence of top security specialists at the FBI, she is, as they put it, "going ghost": moving, changing her name, and essentially wiping away her identity….

The Choudhry Incident

On May 14, 2010, Roshonara Choudhry, a British prize-winning student at King's College, London, stabbed former British MP Stephen Timms in London because he supported the Iraq war.

In interviews immediately following her arrest, Choudhry told police she resolved to strike Timms after viewing over 100 hours of video sermons given by radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, which she had found posted on Revolution Muslim and other websites. She began listening to the sermons in November 2009, and completed them just days before she carried out her attack.

After her attack, members of Revolution Muslim published praise of Ms. Choudhry as a "heroine" and expressed the hope "for her action to inspire Muslims to raise the knife of jihad against those who voted for the countless rapes, murders, pillages and torture of Muslim civilians as a direct consequence of their vote." The organization also posted a list of 383 British lawmakers who voted for the Iraqi war, accompanied by instructions on how to track these lawmakers' movements, as well as a link for buying a kitchen knife.

The British government demanded the website be taken down and on November 5, 2010, Revolution Muslim's website closed. Shortly thereafter the website resurfaced as IslamPolicy.com.

To defend free speech rights from intimidation by the likes of Revolution Muslim, the Legal Project has proposed the Defend Expression from Islamists (DEFI) Act. This legislation would make it a federal crime to threaten or use force against individuals exercising free speech rights.

A federal statute is both necessary and proper. Islamic radicalism is a national concern. Frequently, when Islamists threaten Americans they do so over the internet and from another state or country. At the same time, existing state laws are inadequate. The heightened standard of proof deters local prosecutors from investing scarce resources, explicit grounds for a civil suit do not always exist, and damages can be difficult to quantify.

Perhaps the most significant aspect of DEFI — which is lacking in criminal statues like 18 U.S.C. 875(c) — is that it empowers victims of Islamist threats to sue for damages. This provision transforms them from passive victims into private attorneys general to defend their rights in a setting with a lower burden of proof and preset damages.

One law, by itself, won't entirely halt groups like Revolution Muslim from threatening free speech. But it is about time we did something tangible to punish them for their threats. When Comedy Central was intimidated into censoring itself on American television, the federal government did nothing. When Molly Norris was forced to go ghost, the federal government did not pick up the tab. And when the Revolution Muslim jihadists inspired a British Muslim to attempt to assassinate a member of the British Parliament, and then threatened the lives of other British legislators, the federal government's sole response was allegedly pressuring Google to shutter the site.

Revolution Muslim simply changed its website name and migrated to another server, without any legal consequences for the true threats it made. This kind of appeasement should end, now.

The author is a former counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee for national security issues and is currently staff counsel for The Legal Project