“Crimethink” double standards: U.S. bloggers Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer banned from entering the UK..

share medium Crimethink double standards: U.S. bloggers Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer banned from entering the UK..

 Crimethink double standards: U.S. bloggers Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer banned from entering the UK..In Saudi Arabia, -
they have the Committee for the the promotion of virtue and the prevention of vice..

In Canada, -
they have the quasi-judicial Human Rights Tribunal..

In England, -
they have anti-free speech “Jihadist”, Home Secretary Theresa May

I subscribe to the Danish Free Press Society’s RSS-feed, – (in Danish), - which keeps me updated  about developments around the world. I highly appreciate this service, and here are  the latest headlines: 

Canada:
Hate speech provision in Human Rights Act struck down

EU:
 OIC – (Organization of Islamic Countries) – Opens Office in Brussels to Fight “Islamophobia” in Europe

U.K.:
Prominent / Controversial US bloggers, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer banned from entering the UK

Douglas Murray, whom I greatly admire, writes:

According to the Home Office, if you are a non-Muslim and you make the following statement, your presence will be deemed ‘not conducive to the public good’ and you will be barred from entering the United Kingdom:

“It [Islam] is a religion and a belief system that mandates warfare against unbelievers for the purpose for establishing a societal model that is absolutely incompatible with Western society. Because of media and general government unwillingness to face the sources of Islamic terrorism these things remain largely unknown.”

If, on the other hand, you are a Muslim and you say the following, then the UK government has no problem with you, and you can come into the UK to do a speaking tour:

“Devotion to Jihad for the sake of Allah, and the desire to shed blood, to smash skulls and to sever limbs for the sake of Allah and in defense of His religion, is, undoubtedly, an honor for the believer.”

A gross double standard over hate speech

Point is: What qualifies as “hate-speech” ? – and who’s to decide ?..

My personal opinion is very clear: I am completely against hate-speech laws, except for incitement to violence agaisnt specific individuals.

share medium Crimethink double standards: U.S. bloggers Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer banned from entering the UK..

7 Responses to “Crimethink” double standards: U.S. bloggers Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer banned from entering the UK..

  1. Hi Joern,

    Long time, no comment. Just got back from a two-week in E. Europe.

    Well, it’s pretty frightening to me. The side that tends to squeal incessantly about ‘Islamophobia’ (I wonder if in 1938 the Nazis would have accused the un-empathetic-of-that-ideology types of Naziophobia?) does all the real-world silencing. And this silencing comes in various ‘colorful’ forms. Sometimes it’s a knife in the chest as in the case of Theo Van Gogh courtesy of one of the perpetually offended. Or sometimes a well-meaning Western empathist who will deliver a metal slug into the brains of a person like Pim Fortuyn- of course to prevent the latter, permanently, from ever offending some of the perpetually offended. Sometimes marathon runners are blown to bits and sometimes embassies are torched over movies (whether the particular piece of film is with or without merit is besides the point). Normal people do not kill over books and films, no matter how objectionable (i.e. Lolita).

    What are the causes for this lethal-empathy syndrome we tend to find infecting some of our more progressive-minded peers? Why does it express itself with censorship and even violence at times (Pim Fortuyn)? Well, if you’ve gone to school here you are probably familiar with the standard, homemade post-colonial, white-guilt educational servings, which are always properly flavored with a hint of sadomasochism.

    Me, personally? I’m no fan of the EDL. Opposing Islamism is alright with me and I endorse it; but opposing conservative Christianity is also necessary. Some of these groups tend to be myopic and shrill, however. No fan of Geller -- too shrill at times. Spencer is more measured, more even, more intellectual, although, unfortunately, completely myopic about the dangers of conservative, literalist versions of Christianity. He is a very capable critic of Islam and shouldn’t be castigated for that, yes, but he never mentions the problems of conservative brands of Christianity and what those did when they had power (30 years war long ago, Catholic and Nazi bedfellowing and Jim Jones more recently). But again, I’m by no means a huge fan of either of these two persons. I like some of their stuff.

    But now isn’t all this besides the point? Some of these, gasp, ‘critics of pristine Islam’ may at times be over-the-top in their performances and sometimes they may even be too shrill -- or, if you’re on the other side of the aisle, perhaps you find them distasteful.

    But, again, isn’t all this besides the point? The strength of Western civilization arose from freedom of speech and the pursuit of knowledge (science, philosophy, art, literature, etc). When you undermine that essential pillar of Western thought, and hence, civilization, in order to appease those nice, hysterical empathetic types and their nice, hysterical (and sometimes lethal) objects/subjects of misguided affection, you undermine what comprises the strength and the very best of Western civilization.

    A book I cannot recommend enough is “The Tyranny of Guilt” by Pascal Bruckner.

    • Hi, -- thanks very much for your comment and highly valid points of view.

      “lethal-empathy syndrome” ? -- Ha, -- I like that, and this paragraph of yours deserves some emphasis:

      The strength of Western civilization arose from freedom of speech and the pursuit of knowledge (science, philosophy, art, literature, etc). When you undermine that essential pillar of Western thought, and hence, civilization, in order to appease those nice, hysterical empathetic types and their nice, hysterical (and sometimes lethal) objects/subjects of misguided affection, you undermine what comprises the strength and the very best of Western civilization.

      Sadly, the “progressive-minded”, with their “misguided affection”, as you so rightly put it, are leaving it to conservatives, and, unfortunately, Christian fundamentalists, to criticize Islam, and YES, I am 100 % familiar with “the standard, homemade post-colonial, white-guilt educational servings“. As for “which are always properly flavored with a hint of sadomasochism“, -- well, -- let me just think that over.. :)

      I can’t tell you how pleased I am, -- as an “Islamophobe”, -- to be in the good company of people like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins.

      Thanks also for the book recommendation.

      • Yes, I never understood the internal logic of the word ‘Islamophobia’ -- though I understand the covert purpose behind it. It taps into Western guilt in order to promote censorship of views critical of Islam. It is used both by the religious zealots and their useful idiots in the West to silence would-be blasphemers such as myself. It is used to make criticism of Islam a thought crime.

        But the logic makes little sense: fear of an irrational, xenophobic, misogynistic, fatalistic, warmongering and homicidal ancient desert death-cult cannot itself be irrational. If that were the case then criticism of fascism and Marxism-Leninism would be phobias as well. How can strong criticism of an ideology, religious or otherwise, be a phobia? We might as well scrap philosophy and literature then because these are disciplines -- just to name a couple -- that have tackled and wrestled with many ideologies over the centuries and not always in a pretty and friendly manner. So philosophy and literature must be some of the oldest ‘phobias’ around…

        I can see how we might be called (xeno)phobes if we criticize an ethnic group (Arabs, Jews, Eastern Asians) but most of us do no such thing. In fact, I ‘fear’, if we are going to use this cheap and childish word, white, blue-eyed, blond-haired Western Islamists just as much, if not more than I do bronze-colored Islamists. The ideology concerns me and is ‘frightening’ to me, whereas the various ethnicities involved are irrelevant. The same goes for blond-haired, blue-eyed Nazis who would scare the crap out of me if many of them were still around and in force. And the same goes for the most bleach-haired and melatonin-deficient Marxist-Leninist out there. Some ideologies are inherently fear-inducing because of the worldview they offer us. I can quote you countless passages from the Quran and the Hadith that venture far beyond the merely cringe-worthy into some of the territory of the adjectives I used above (xenophobic, violent, misogynistic, etc) but I suspect your eyes and ears have already been graced by many of these so I won’t waste your time.

        But how can criticism of an ideology be a phobia? It marries the followers of that ideology forever to the dogma itself so the two can never be divorced -- and if the latter is ever intellectually assaulted then the former must be under ‘attack’ as well. It immunizes that religion forever from any challenge and at the same time squashes any dissent. It is a clever conflation, I’ll give it that. But it is also false and sinister and it betrays a deeply intolerant and totalitarian vein…

        On the ‘intolerant’ and ‘totalitarian’: the purpose of the conflation itself mirrors the ideology almost perfectly because Islam itself is intolerant and totalitarian. Islam fancies itself as the Last Word of God; the final revision, the one that both amends and supersedes the other two from which it shamelessly plagiarized. It fashions its ‘prophet’ as an infallible more-than-human man (another primate who was merely a violent warlord, thief and pedophile in reality) and marks his words as the transcript of God Himself. It then segregates the world into two halves: the house of peace and house of war. Of course, the house of ‘peace’ are all peoples and territories that have been Islamized, in other words, sterilized from their own distinct cultures, worldviews, intellectual traditions and secular infrastructures and converted to the one true faith. The house of war is comprised of all those filthy kafirs who haven’t been converted yet (namely, everyone from Buddhists to Hindus to Christians to Jews to atheists to agnostics to you-name-it). Additionally, the house of war should be and will be sterilized in the doctrinal sense so there is no multiculturalism or multiworldviewism in Islam -- it’s all or nothing, it’s a winner-takes-all, proselytizing-with-violence-if-necessary kind of ideology. Hence, my ‘fear’.

        And, yes, I wish more liberals were like Harris and Dawkins (two men who I deeply admire), unfortunately, they are not. So I’ve kind of given up on liberalism. Now I guess I’m a left-leaning libertarian on the domestic-policy end and a neoconservative on the foreign-policy end.

        • You have great writing skills and your analyses are brilliant ! -- You state the damn’ truth, but that of course is considered disrespectful and intolerant, as well as a threat to social cohesian, by the I-am-better-than-you-you-are-a-racist club, and I’m not sure if the morality police, represented by Home Secretary Theresa May, would be amused.. -- You might even be banned from entering the U.K., should your true words hate-speech come to the attention of a wider public..

          Actually, I do meet liberals quite often who, like you and I, are disenchanted, if not outright pissed-off, with those “progressive-minded” apologetics. Many, however, are not very vocal about their sentiments, and intimidation and shaming no doubt are some of the reasons..

          Godless Comedian, Pat Condell, says:

          “Politically I used to always be on the liberal left because I used to believe in things like social justice, tolerance, respect; you know, the good things in life. I still believe in those things, which is why I’m no longer on the liberal left. I believe that, in aligning itself as it has so completely with the fascism of Islam and in colluding with an ideology that wants to victimise minorities and kill people for their lifestyle, the liberal left has lost its way, lost its moral authority and become a threat to our freedom”.

          Re: a left-leaning libertarian on the domestic-policy end and a neoconservative on the foreign-policy end.

          That is pretty much how I’d describe myself, and I believe the progressive-minded would be shocked if they found out how many more feel the same way. -If only people would have the courage to speak up.., and go against the intolerable political correctness.

      • That is a good point by Pat Condell. I believe in those things he mentioned too, so I suppose that’s why I’m so disappointed with some of the current intellectual trends in liberalism -- i.e. its love affair with some totalitarian elements in this world simply because they spite the face of the ‘evil old world’ (e.g. colonialism, WW2, etc.) they were ‘guilty of having been born in’. Like I hinted at earlier, this psychology stems from a latent guilt (usually expressed by and passed on at our hyper self-conscious universities) for historical crimes committed by the “West” and the need to atone for these by the compensation of extreme self-criticism even if this self-criticism mutates into a pathological self-loathing and even if all this ventures into the suicidal. It’s akin to inviting a saltwater crocodile into your bedroom in order to spite your domineering parents. Any way you cut it, it’s still dumb.

        Which is not to say that conservative intellectual trends are not stupid -- they can be and oftentimes are, but it seems like the few allies we have here in the States in this global fight against radical Islam are the Christian zealots which is not attractive to me. ‘Kicking the habit’ of Islam and replacing it with Christianity would be like kicking the habit of crack cocaine and substituting it with heroin. I would much rather that there were more liberal secularists like Harris and Dawkins out there who are not oblivious/empathetic of/to that particular threat AND at the same time cognizant of the general threat of all ‘infallible’ dogmas than the likes of Geller and Spencer (with all due respect) who are very capable critics of Islamism but completely myopic with respect to Christianity and others.

        But like I mentioned the last time we spoke, I resist political categories because they tend to be like straight jackets. I only say things like ‘left-leaning libertarian on domestic issues’ and ‘neoconservative on foreign ones’ for ease of frame of reference but in reality I’m quite eclectic in my disposition. I prefer to inform myself the best I can on any issue before taking a position on it that is not pre-determined by left-right spectrum straight jackets. I’m also of the opinion that an intelligent person will always leave the door open to new evidence and the opportunity for self-correction in one’s thinking. That is the beauty of science, isn’t it? Whereas with the political wingnuts, intellectual judgments boil down to ideology affiliation. That’s why you’ll hear leftists rarely -if ever- take ‘right’ on a particular issue and rightists rarely take go ‘left’ on the same.

        • akin to inviting a saltwater crocodile into your bedroom in order to spite your domineering parents!

          I say it again: I am deeply impressed with you analyses and I love the way you express yourself, i.e. sharp, witty, sober, balanced. You are very insightful, and if I had to guess your profession -- if you have one.. -- my guess would be psychologist, -- not that all psychologists are sharp, witty, etc, -- far from it, but.. let’s just say.. my kind of psychologist :)

          Re: ‘Kicking the habit’ of Islam and replacing it with Christianity would be like kicking the habit of crack cocaine and substituting it with heroin

          Well, -- yes and no, but I guess the reason why I don’t agree completely here is that I am Danish, and although Christianity still plays a role even in Denmark / Scandinavia, it is a minor role and not an “opiate” that presents any danger to us, unlike in the U.S. -- That of course also explains in part why few of us in this part of the world waste our time attacking Christianity. We just don’t have any serious issues, but the same cannot be said about Islam !! -- Like you I am very disappointed with the unholy alliance between liberals and Islam / muslims, but I keep telling myself that this alliance is not as strong as it seems, as many liberals lack the courage to say what they really think..

          Re: political categories

          You are quite right: it is a MAJOR problem that the majority of people on this earth do not think for themselves, but leave their “intellectual judgments” to ideology -- and religious -- affiliation. -- Intellectual judgments my bare !

          Hey, -- it is very uplifting “talking” to you, and I wish I could comment in greater detail, but truth is my sofa and my TV -- read: Le Tour de France is stealing my time this week.. -- It is an ongoing battle, but I am never offline for long..

          Ps. Should you feel like expressing yourself in an article / essay / blogpost, I’ll be happy to post it. You are my kind of guy !

  2. “Well, – yes and no, but I guess the reason why I don’t agree completely here is that I am Danish, and although Christianity still plays a role even in Denmark / Scandinavia, it is a minor role and not an “opiate” that presents any danger to us, unlike in the U.S. – That of course also explains in part why few of us in this part of the world waste our time attacking Christianity. We just don’t have any serious issues, but the same cannot be said about Islam !! – Like you I am very disappointed with the unholy alliance between liberals and Islam / muslims, but I keep telling myself that this alliance is not as strong as it seems, as many liberals lack the courage to say what they really think..”

    I am certainly not oblivious (unlike some of my more progressive friends) to which of the two is in actuality the more clear and present existential danger at this point. I am very familiar with the challenges offered by Islamism or literal-and-political Islam. What I meant to say is simply this: suppose Islamism is intellectually defeated in the near future -- then I wouldn’t wish THAT vacuum to be filled by another desert death-cult. That’s all I meant. But I am aware that Islamism is more of an immediate concern than Christianity. And I am aware that the constant equating of the two ignores this practical point.

    Now, of course there are still elements of Christianity which are cringe-worthy and threatening (Westboro Baptist Church, the Vatican aka ‘AIDS is bad but condoms are worse’, creationists, etc) but obviously the threat level is nowhere near the same. I am in agreement. I just wouldn’t want to see the vacuum of Islam filled by another mythology is all. I much rather see it filled by Enlightenment values, science, reason and secular humanism -- that’s all I meant.

    Enjoy the Tour -- hopefully a clean-er Tour! ;)

Leave a Reply