You said the Wilders Trial reminds you of justice in your country of origin, Iran. Is that not somewhat exaggerated?
“The Netherlands, of course, is not comparable with Iran, but it's about perception. If you cannot say that Islam is a backward religion and that Mohammed is a criminal, then you are living in an Islamic country, my friend, because there also you cannot say such things. Here I'm free to say that Christ was a faggot* and Mary was a whore, but apparently I should stay off of Mohammed.”
(*Judging from the routine taunts of Muslim youth to ethnic European males on the streets of Amsterdam at night, the word "flikker" seems to be one bit of Dutch every immigrant picks up instantly.)
What the Wilders prosecution, the Danish cartoons, the Canadian "human rights" suits against Ezra Levant, Maclean's and me and many other ostensibly minor news stories all have in common is one consistent underlying principle - that Islamic law now applies to all.
If a Muslim doesn't want to show representations of Mohammed, good for him. But why can't Yale University Press?
If a Muslim doesn't want Winnie-the-Pooh's pal Piglet on his desk, go for it. But why can't a lapsed Anglican working for a British municipal council?
If a Muslim wants to fast during Ramadan, fast away. But why does a Brussels cop or a Scottish hospital worker have to ease up on the donuts?
And it's intentional. If you can't say things that offend people of a certian religion, guess what? You're living under the rules of their religion.
1 comment:
A resounding yup. Free speech should be defended vigorously, regardless of offense.
It's one thing to request more accurate or polite speech, especially for speech issued in an official capacity. It's quite another to make certain kinds of courtesy mandatory throughout a nation.
Post a Comment