'Tis sad but true. Liberal constitutional democracies are self-imposing policies against free speech and decreeing other restrictions on unalienable rights which were practices otherwise previously reserved to illiberal unconstitutional non-democracies from Bejing to Rayadh to Havana.

Mark Steyn comments from a personal level: recently the Canadian human rights system decided to judge whether to ban the magazine Maclean's from publishing excerpts of his latest book, America Alone. (Background here)

Since Maclean's got into a spot of bother with Canada's "human rights" pseudo-courts, I've been pleasantly surprised by the number of our media confreres who don't think it should be a "crime" for magazines to publish excerpts from books by yours truly. Nevertheless, in defending free speech in general, they usually feel obliged to deplore my exercise of it in particular:

"Maclean's published an alarmist screed by Mr. Steyn . . ." (The Economist)

"While the book may be alarmist . . ." (CFRB)

"Steyn's argument is indeed alarmist . . ." (The Guardian)

And, oh dear, even:

"The fear of 'a Muslim tide' was alarmist . . ." (Tarek Fatah and Farzana Hassan in Maclean's)

Okay, enough already. I get the picture: alarmist, alarmist, alarmist. My book's thesis — that most of the Western world is on course to become at least semi-Islamic in its political and cultural disposition within a very short time — is "alarmist."

The question then arises: fair enough, guys, what would it take to alarm you? The other day, in a characteristically clotted speech followed by a rather more careless BBC interview, the Archbishop of Canterbury said that it was dangerous to have one law for everyone and that the introduction of sharia — Islamic law — to the United Kingdom was "inevitable." No alarm bells going off yet? Can't say I blame you. After all, de facto creeping sharia is well established in the Western world. Last week, the British and Ontario governments confirmed within days of each other that thousands of polygamous men in their jurisdictions receive welfare payments for each of their wives. Still no alarm bells? I see female Muslim medical students in British hospitals are refusing to comply with hygiene procedures on the grounds that scrubbing requires them to bare their arms, which is un-Islamic. Would it be alarmist to bring that up — say, the day before your operation?

...Whether or not it's "alarmist" to ponder what those consequences might be, under Canada's "human rights" kangaroo courts it might soon be illegal. All Section 13 cases brought to the federal Human Rights Commission end in defeat for the defendant, so, if Maclean's fails to buck the 100 per cent conviction rate, it would be enjoined from publishing anything that might relate to the "hate speech" in question — in other words, we would be legally prevented from writing about Islam and the West, demographic trends in Canada, and many other topics.

Labels: activist courts, capitulation, dhimmitude, immigration, Islamic extremism, political correctness

Dhimmi (noun): A non-Muslim subject of a Muslim state ruled under Sharia laws in which the subject must pay a tax, or jizya, to enjoy the protection, or zimmi, of the state.

In other words, think of it akin to Mob protection money. 'Da boys will come by and collect their share in return for the family's protection -- it's protection from the very guys collecting the protection money, but in this case 'da boys is the state.

[UK Express Mail] HUSBANDS who bring more than one wife to Britain can claim extra benefits for them at taxpayers' expense.

Ministers have ruled that men in polygamous marriages can receive state handouts for each wife, including additional income support, even though bigamy is illegal in the UK. A review of benefit rules for such marriages concluded in December that allowing husbands to claim for their additional wives remained the "best possible" option.

The decision will chiefly benefit Muslim men, as Islamic law allows them to have up to four wives.

Multi-marriages are recognised by the Government – provided the weddings took place in countries where the practice is legal. But critics last night attacked the decision as "completely unacceptable" and warned it could lead to demands for other changes in British laws.

Corin Taylor, of the Taxpayers' Alliance, said: "British taxpayers are paying a record amount of tax so the Government has a duty to make sure that every penny is spent properly. Polygamy is not something which British law allows and British taxpayers should not have to pay for extra benefits for second or third wives."

Tory spokesman Chris Grayling said: "You are not allowed to have multiple marriages in the UK, so to have a situation where the benefits system is treating people in different ways is totally unacceptable and will serve to undermine confidence in the system. This sets a precedent that will lead to more demands for the culture of other countries to be reflected in UK law and the benefits system."
Precedent? You're not kidding, Buster. Welcome to the slippery slope of state-enforced "diversity."

Labels: dhimmitude, Islamic extremism, political correctness

Last month The Canadian Islamic Congress and some Canadian law students successfully pressed two of Canada's three human rights commissions to judicially review Mark Steyn's new book "America Alone: The End of the World as we Know It" and determine whether it violates the human rights of Canadian consumers (presumably, those who would purchase and read the book as those who have no interest thus cannot have their "human rights" violated).

Beyond the question of why does any nation need THREE human rights commissions, author Steyn ponders when it became that "the most fundamental 'human right' in modern Canada is apparently the right not to be offended."

Indeed. The notion offends my human rights. Whom may I sue?

Worse, the complaints against Steyn are not even for things he wrote, rather for things he quoted in print from others!

If you examine Dr. Mohamed Elmasry's formal complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission about my article, Grievance #16 objects to the following assertion:

"The number of Muslims in Europe is expanding like 'mosquitoes.' "
That claim certainly appears in my piece. But they're the words not of a notorious right-wing Islamophobic columnist but of a big­­shot Scandinavian Muslim:

" 'We're the ones who will change you,' the Norwegian imam Mullah Krekar told the Oslo newspaper Dagbladet in 2006. 'Just look at the development within Europe, where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes. Every Western woman in the EU is producing an average of 1.4 children. Every Muslim woman in the same countries is producing 3.5 children.' "
Given that the "mosquitoes" line is part of the basis on which the HRC accepted Dr. Elmasry's complaint of "Islamophobia," I'm interested to know what precisely is the of­­fence? Are Mullah Krekar's words themselves Islamophobic? Or do they only become so when I quote them? The complainants want a world in which a Norwegian imam can make statements in a Norwegian newspaper but if a Canadian columnist reprints them in a Canadian publication it's a "hate crime." It's striking to examine the Canadian Islamic Congress's complaints and see how many of their objections are to facts, statistics, quotations - not to their accuracy but merely to the quoting thereof. But, of course, they've picked the correct forum: before the human rights commissions, truth is no defence.
Read the rest.

Labels: academic bias, activist courts, political correctness

And, following along the lines of the post below this one...

[Fox News] A popular comic strip that poked fun at the Rev. Jerry Falwell without incident one week ago was deemed too controversial to run over the weekend because this time it took a humorous swipe at Muslim fundamentalists.

The Washington Post and several other newspapers around the country did not run Sunday's installment of Berkeley Breathed's "Opus," in which the spiritual fad-seeking character Lola Granola appears in a headscarf and explains to her boyfriend, Steve, why she wants to become a radical Islamist.

...Sources told FOXNews.com that the strips were shown to Muslim staffers at The Washington Post to gauge their reaction, and they responded "emotionally" to the depiction of a woman dressed in traditional Muslim garb and espousing conservative Islamic views.
There was also considerable alarm over the strip at the highest echelons of The Washington Post Co., according to the sources.

Lago said she flagged some of the syndicate's newspaper clients for two reasons: because of the possibility that the jokes about Islam would be misconstrued and because of the sexual innuendo in the punchline.

...The Aug. 19 "Opus" ended with a joke about the late Jerry Falwell. In that strip, Lola, fresh from a quest to become an Amish nudist, is doing yoga and talking to the penguin character Opus about who goes to heaven.

Ho hum. Just another case of Ye Ol' Media Double Standard.

It's reminiscent of the New York Times refusing to run the 2006 Danish cartoons based on their logic that news organizations "usually refrain from gratuitous assaults on religious symbols."

The day before that editorial the New York Times "ran a photo of Chris Ofili's dung-clotted "Holy Virgin Mary " in an Arts story by Michael Kimmelman, who [previously had] called the Danish cartoons "callous and feeble.""

Seriously folks, you can't make this up. The hypocrisy is so thick you could carve it like a Thanksgiving turkey.

Bash Muslims, and EVEN Islamic extremists at that? No can do. Bash Christians? No problem... perhaps because the Washington Post, New York Times and elitist hypocritical press know they don't have to worry about an offended Jerry Falwell disciple strapping on a suicide-bomb vest and detonating himself at the papers' HQ...

And that's all you need to know about who will be the victor in the long run in the war against Islamic radicalism, eh?

Labels: capitulation, media bias, political correctness

So typical... brought to you by Michelle Malkin.

File this under “No good deed goes unpunished” by the Religion of Perpetual Outrage:
A demonstration has been held in south- east Afghanistan accusing US troops of insulting Islam after they distributed footballs bearing the name of Allah.

The balls showed the Saudi Arabian flag which features the Koranic declaration of faith.

The US military said the idea had been to give something for Afghan children to enjoy and they did not realise it would cause offence.

The footballs were dropped from a helicopter in Khost province.

Some displayed flags from countries all over the world, including Saudi Arabia, which features the shahada, one of the five pillars of Islam - the declaration of faith.

The words, which include the name of Allah, are revered, and Muslims are very sensitive about where and how they can be used.
As we’ve learned from Rushdie Rage, MoCartoon Rage, Burger King Ice Cream Cone Rage, Koran Flushing Rage, Valentine’s Day Rage, Veil Rage, Pope Rage, Fallaci Rage, Miss World Pageant Rage, and Rushdie Knighthood Rage, they’re pretty damned “sensitive” (read: ready to riot) about everything.
Indeed.

Malkin points out that Robert Spencer, author and JihadWatch.org blogger, actually predicted back in 2006 that the balls would cause a problem.

Labels: Foreign Aid, Islamic extremism, political correctness, Saudi Arabia