The Islamic attack on free speech

The Erosion of Free Speech

By Janet Levy, | 7/3/2008

Although the headline of the June 8th article in the Daily Times of Pakistan read “Pakistan to ask EU to amend laws on freedom of expression,” the request from high-level government officials was in reality a threat. The six-person Pakistani delegation was set to deliver a warning that unless blasphemy against Islam stopped, terrorist attacks against European assets could escalate. Their cited example was the suicide bomb attack this June 2 on the Danish Embassy in Pakistan in which eight people died and 27 were injured as a result of possible renewed backlash to the 2005 publication of 12 editorial cartoons depicting the Islamic prophet Mohammed.

Islamabad informed the European Union countries that the backlash to perceived insults to the “religion of peace” could jeopardize “inter-religious harmony” and result in uncontrollable attacks on other diplomatic missions abroad. A high-level delegation representing the Pakistani government was to travel to Brussels to further warn EU officials of the liabilities of free expression.

This apocryphal grandstanding, in which Islamabad seeks to eradicate free speech and reclassify it as an offensive hate crime, is part and parcel of the insidious Islamic effort to establish a worldwide Islamic caliphate under shariah law. Paradoxically, in most of the Muslim world, the right of free speech is nonexistent. Verbal and physical attacks on non-Muslims are rampant, as is death for apostates, terrorism training for youth, hate indoctrination of non-Muslims in mosques and schools and the oppression of Christians, Hindus and Jews. But Muslims feel free to use democratic precepts in the service of their own radical ideology to, ultimately, overthrow liberty, eliminate individual rights and destroy freedoms in Western societies. They seek prohibitions on free expression to strengthen Islam, pave the way toward Islamization and keep the Western public ill informed and unaware of potential threats to the democratic way of life. By couching this effort as merely the elimination of offensive speech, they conceal their true goal of undermining the laws of Western societies, specifically the very foundation of democracy – free speech.

This goal was dramatically illustrated in March of 2008, when the 57 Muslim states that make up the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) struck a blow against free speech by successfully forcing through the United Nation’s Human Rights Council (UNHRC) an amendment to a resolution on Freedom of Expression. The amendment, requiring extensive changes to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, officially characterizes as abuse and an act of religious discrimination any criticism of Islam. It also calls for the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression to report any individuals and news media issuing negative comments about Islam.

In June, this limitation on free speech was further underscored when representatives of two non-governmental organizations sought to address stonings, honor killings and female genital mutilation sanctioned under shariah law. As part of the effort to mute criticism of Islam, the Egyptian UNHRC delegate demanded that the speakers be silenced, proclaiming, “Islam will not be crucified in this Council.”

Thus, banned from UNHRC sessions is criticism of shariah laws that oppress women, condemn homosexuals and threaten converts and non-Muslims. Also banned are statements against Islamic law-sanctioned child marriage, honor killings, the hanging of homosexuals and the murder of apostates.

The United Nations is not the only front where Islamic gag orders are in place. Canada’s Human Rights Act, which defines hate speech as any speech “likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt,” was used against Ezra Levant, the former publisher of The Western Standard, who was charged by the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission with offending Muslims by reprinting in 2006 the Danish cartoons of Mohammed. Thus, Canada is increasingly regulating opinion and making it a crime to hurt someone’s feelings. The right of free speech is being replaced by the right not to be offended.

Also in Canada, author Mark Steyn and MacLean’s magazine were charged by the Canadian Human Rights Commission of “spreading hatred and contempt” for Muslims by publishing in 2006 an excerpt from Steyn’s book, “America Alone.” The Canadian Islamic Congress filed a complaint with the commission, seeking to ban opinions such as Steyn’s that they deem “Islamophobic.” Steyn was charged with hate speech for using the term “Mohammedan” to describe Muslims and for failing to incorporate differing points of view in his writing. Although charges were dismissed in June this year, if they had been found guilty, financial penalties could have been assessed against MacLean’s, which would dampened opinion journalism throughout Canada. Yet, a Canadian investigator in the Steyn/MacLean’s case, when asked about the importance of free speech in his considerations, remarked, “Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value.”

In the United Kingdom, two Christian clerics were recently prohibited from preaching and handing out biblical tracts in a “Muslim area.” In an ironic twist, a Muslim police officer charged with upholding British law accused the ministers, technically agents of the Church of England, of perpetuating a hate crime by proselytizing. Thus, an officer charged with maintaining law and order in England prevented the preaching of the doctrine of the established faith of England. Curiously, this event occurred at a time in which the UK is accelerating the hiring of British police officers in Muslim areas in order to “build bridges” with the Islamic community.

Last month, when the Bishop of Rochester warned that Britain was developing “no-go zones” that are the exclusive province of Muslims, he was denounced as Islamophobic. His fellow bishops and government ministers denied the existence of such Muslim-only areas. The Bishop and his family were placed under police protection after receiving death threats at home warning that he would not “live long” if he continued to criticize Islam.

Yet, “no-go” zones do exist and are apparently being preserved by agents of the British state. They are areas where it is dangerous for non-Muslims to enter, as demonstrated in 2006, when former Home Secretary John Reid was heckled by Islamist Abu Izzadeen who cried, “How dare you come to a Muslim area.”

In January, 2007, the UK government again ignored its illustrious heritage of freedom of expression and undertook an investigation of a television broadcast of the documentary, “Undercover Mosque.” The program contained footage of radical imams in British mosques spewing hatred of Christians and Jews, advocating the subjugation and beating of women and praising Osama Bin Laden. Other footage included a Taliban who had killed a British soldier and Muslim clerics advocating Islamic supremacy, suggesting that homosexuals should be killed, calling for jihad and justifying the July 7th London bombings.

Instead of scrutinizing the mosques and calling for an end to such hateful and inflammatory rhetoric, British authorities, bowing to pressure from terrorist-sympathizing groups such as the Muslim Public Affairs Committee, the Muslim Council of Britain and others, denounced the program as “Islamophobic.” Local police solicited the services of the Crown Prosecution Services (CPS), which launched an extensive investigation of the network, scrutinizing 56 hours of media footage for possible prosecution under the Public Order Act of 1986: showing inflammatory material likely to stir racial hatred.

Eventually, the investigation concluded that, although the CPS believed that the editing process had “completely distorted” the sermons of the Muslim clerics, the police were advised to drop their criminal investigation due to insufficient evidence to substantiate charges of incitement.

Essentially, “Undercover Mosque” was an important story to potentially alert the British public to the threat of a fundamentalist ideology endemic throughout the British Islamic community. Unfortunately, it was discredited by the police who, in a misguided attempt to prevent Muslim backlash in the community, were placed in the untenable position of supporting radical Islamists and opposing British free speech.

Thus, as Islamic calls to prayer ring loudly throughout England from an ever-increasing number of imposing mosques, Christianity, individual freedom and the British identity are being marginalized while Islam is permitted free rein to fill the void.

Within the United States, important dialogue about the threat of radical Islam was silenced by the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department which issued a memo in May instructing bureaucrats on how to talk about the “war on terror.” The memo called for restrictions on terrorist-defining nomenclature in accordance with recommendations from American Muslims. Thus, definitive and descriptive words such as “jihad,” mujahadeen,” “Islamic terrorist,” “Islamist,” or “holy warrior” were to be avoided, even though Muslims and Muslim media worldwide use this very terminology.

The government memo also advised that the war on terror be renamed a “global struggle for security and progress.” This change, undertaken to avoid glamorizing the appeal of Islamist ideology and reduce terrorist recruitment, came about after the Secretary of Homeland Security solicited assistance from American Muslims. These newly proposed “speech codes” were advanced with the intent of eliminating the appeal of the virulent ideology of Islamism. Thus, the State Department and the DHS advanced the idea that terminology used by the government could fan the flames of radicalism, yet totally ignored the impact of violent rhetoric common in mosques across the country and on the Internet. Instead, the government focused on curtailing the speech of public servants charged with preserving our national security and accommodated the demands of Muslims. Lost was the opportunity for effective communication to inform and alert the American public of the Islamist threat.

Another instance of DHS curtailment and accommodation of Muslims, occurred when Muhammad Rana, a Pakistani Muslim and new DHS hire was being trained as an adjudication officer at the agency’s Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC). Rana participated in a seven week training course in which he claimed to have faced discrimination based on his religion and national origin. In a March 2005 complaint filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Rana said the instructional content of his classes contained “disparaging and factually inaccurate information about the Islamic faith and the Arabic people.” His in-class protests apparently prompted an instructor to recommend that Rana be investigated for possible terrorist ties. An administrative law judge ruling found that Rana had been subject to a hostile work environment and ordered $50,000 in compensatory damages, $6,195 in missed overtime, reimbursement for medical and prescription medication costs incurred as a result of the hostile work environment and, most significantly, the removal and destruction of and DHS memoranda regarding Rana’s potential ties to terrorist organizations. Ultimately, the course in question was discontinued by the DHS.

In these ways, our constitutional right to freedom of expression is being eroded and our democratic principles are being used against us to silence our concerns. With increasing frequency, free speech is being regulated, banned or categorized as a hate crime through intimidation tactics and apocryphal human rights concerns. We have come to the point where publishers have volunteered to pulp or alter the text of books to avoid lawsuits. Major newspapers freely chose not to publish the controversial Mohammed cartoons. Some organizations that have weathered costly slander lawsuits designed to silence them, have become cautious about weathering other suits that could cost them their insurance coverage.

None of this is coincidental. It is explained in “The Project,” a strategic planning document of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) written in 1982 but captured in a raid in Switzerland in 2001. It describes a long-term plan to take over the West, a roadmap to defeating the West through propaganda, infiltration and jihad using intimidation, subterfuge and influence operations. The MB master plan calls for Muslims to take advantage of constitutional freedoms and societal openness and seek employment in every sector of American society, including sensitive civil institutions, law enforcement, politics, the media and others. In addition to individual Muslims, many seemingly mainstream and “respected” U.S. Muslim organizations, some active in America since the 1960’s, are affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood and are actively involved in carrying out its mission of “destroying Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house so that Allah’s religion is victorious over all other religions.”

Thus, the very nature of our republic is being challenged by a redefinition of our First Amendment to appease the demands of Islamists seeking to destroy us. Sadly, as we accommodate the Islamists, we are capitulating to their violent ideology and discriminatory religious practices and losing our precious rights and freedoms. In this way, we become partners in our own demise and hasten the downfall of the free societies we profess to cherish in the West.

Janet Levy is the founder of ESG Consulting, an organization that offers project management, fundraising, promotion, event organizing and planning services for conservative political causes and issues related to terrorism and national security.

July 2, 2008 | 5 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

Leave a Reply

5 Comments / 5 Comments

  1. sunstartmf33



    The European Union member states face a new challenge today, one that transcends the traditional national security paradigm that separates internal and external threats. In a federation of states on a scale as large as the EU, the aim of promoting peace and stability is intertwined with the national interests of the member states and their ability to collaborate on ensuring the security of the larger whole.[37] The answer to questions about how to balance civil liberties with legitimate security concerns remains elusive.

    What makes a common policy so hard to achieve when it comes to the jurisdiction of the European Justice and Home Affairs Council is the fact that judicial matters and law enforcement policy remain national rather than transnational efforts.

    The independent framework for cooperation on justice and home affairs, set up with the Treaty of Maastricht in 1993, has remained intergovernmental; decisions must be unanimous, creating a situation in which negotiations often carry on for years and lead to complex legal restrictions. Even though the 9-11 attacks changed priorities and created the impetus for institutional restructuring, EU member states remain unwilling to surrender sovereignty over internal security matters.

    Another problem is that differing national judicial systems create structural disincentives to collaboration.[38] The upshot is that there remains significant, informal cross-border cooperation,[39] and, for that matter, informal intelligence collection and sharing. As long as the Constitutional Treaty—which would centralize the Justice and Home Affairs portfolios so that European Union institutions and law would become paramount to state law in these cases—remains un-ratified, this is not likely to change.

    The creation of the post of the EU coordinator for counterterrorism after the 2004 Madrid attacks was a step in the right direction, but the coordinator lacks the mandate and resources to span national boundaries. As Wolfgang Münchau, associate editor of Financial Times, has noted, “Terrorists in Europe think more European than many of Europe’s homeland security-related agencies.”[40]

    Ultimately, European states are responsible for their citizens. If individual states remain unwilling to cede certain aspects of their sovereignty to the kind of European institutions that could more effectively monitor Islamist activities across Europe, their ability to collaborate on security will suffer, and ultimately their security itself will suffer. In order for this process to move forward, the EU needs to begin a dialogue that addresses the security problems that arise from the Islamist community, rather than denouncing discussions of the problem as “Islamophobic.”

    Isn’t this beautiful? Christians Leaving Jesus for ALLAH? I wish I had written the script.

  2. Allah is a false god and Muhammad is a false prophet. Truth cannot be accepted by those who live in a lie. If you study all pagan states, in addition to Catholic states, FREEDOM OF SPEECH has always been oppressed throughout history. From religion to a secular democracy, the freedom to speak what’s on your mind has always been oppressed. It’s sad that we live in a societ of robots where people can’t relax and just be themselves without alcohol, drugs and parties attached – in which case, people’s true self often can come out when unhindered – it would be really nice if we could, while sober, let our true selves be expressed. But in today’s workplace, you have paranoid, man-hating women who are clearly whiners that just want to cause men trouble and men who often harrass women – and you have race wars, religious wars, and “Damn, you’re so ugly!” wars. Churches, Schools, jobs can often place restrictions on freedom of speech – I just say that if you can’t just joke around and be yourself and express yourself with a sense of humor – society has definitely taken a turn for the worst. As long as the sense of humor is clean and is not intended to insult and injure others, freedom of speech can be a lot of fun, but unfortunately we have a bunch of losers, especially in Islamic circles who can’t learn to laugh at themselves or have a sense of humor with a relaxed posture. I haven’t met too many Arabs who have a good sense of humor and they are often very militaristic in their approach with life – I just say – to hell with such losers – take a chance, learn to laugh at life and have a sense of humor and JUST BE YOURSELF because anything more than all you are is but a lie – the only truth there is to Islam is that Islam is a lie. It is only fitting that Islamists are trained to lie from birth to death – since their whole religion is a lie born of the father of lies. I kind of just laugh at Islam as one of the dumbest religions on planet earth.

  3. Larry:

    All mankind has the right to freedom and democracy, equality before the law, freedom of action, freedom of thought

    What a load of out and out Bull shit!!Most people given the choice would reject this premise.

  4. Larry Houle
    From Samson Blinded

    When hearing about democracy, my first thought is of Nazi Germany – it was perfectly democratic. Stalinist Russian and Saddam’s Iraq also come to my mind – they, too, were democracies, and the people overwhelmingly supported the autocrats. Currently, two thirds of Russians support Putin, who rooted out the early Russian democracy, stifled the media, and returned to the Soviet quasi-imperialist policy of stirring up trouble abroad to spite the imagined enemies: America and Western Europe. Is there a freedom to sell oneself into slavery? The people who democratically choose dictators – do they need democracy?

    Dictators come in various shapes, from Stalinist-type wolves to Ahmadinejad-type demagogue sheep who ostensibly do nothing but serve their nations. Bush’s re-election showed that Americans shrink from making hard choices just like everyone else. Faced with a debacle in Iraq, Americans chose the simplest approach – let it go on, do nothing, continue wasting lives and money. A few citizens insist on controlling the government while most are resigned to corruption, pork barrel spending, and government service to interest groups and corporate interests. Voter turnout in civilized countries hovers around 50% – most don’t care to vote. The lower classes vote more diligently because it’s attractive to spend other people’s money, and democratic decision-making is the perfect way to do that. The original democratic idea – that people decide how they live – turned into nonsense in huge countries where one’s voting choices are unlikely to specifically affect one’s own life. Statecraft is a complicated art. Faced with myriad policy choices, voters gladly pass the decision-making power to dictators who promise to solve the issues without bothering the voters. Putin is popular because he cleared the country of the Yeltsin-era bustle and eliminated choices. For the most part, citizens need democracy only to relay their responsibility for governance to a dictator.

    America’s stance on democracy is twofold. Idealists from the left and cynics from the Administration proclaim democracy a panacea to the world’s ills. Realists understand that democracy is a method of spreading American influence amenably to the affected locals and of undermining unfriendly governments. America never accepted the democratic choices of Soviet-era Russians or Iranians. In Afghanistan, America employed democracy to legitimize its protégé, Karzai while conveniently removing his opponents from the election race through intrigues. America tried democracy in Palestine and Lebanon to obtain the governments that would crack down on the insurgents, and was surprised that the world is less rational than taught in the Sherman Kent School: locals chose sound insurgency over weak and uncertain moderation. Americans moved to mitigate these errors with admirable speed, and started strengthening Saniora and Abbas to subvert the democratically elected Hezbollah and Hamas. Likewise in Ukraine, the United States staged and paid for the 2004 revolt against the pro-Russian presidential candidate. After subsequent parliamentary elections defeated the American protégé’s party, the US Administration agreed that he would dissolve the duly elected parliament and pledged $65 mil to cover the official cost of elections – that’s besides a lot more in campaign costs.

    Democracy stops after elections. The parliamentary majority seeks no consensus with the other parties, but enforces its objectives in an authoritarian manner. The parties that make it into the parliament shut the minor parties out through the election barrier without concern for the voters’ free expression. In Israel and Europe, 10-20% of voters are effectively disenfranchised because they vote for small parties that don’t overcome unwarrantedly high election barriers of 2-5%.

    People and governments are reasonable, and skeptical of democracy.

    American government erroneously urges democratizing Muslim societies. In those undeveloped societies, Islamists are the only opposition to corrupt regimes, and free elections invariably bring Islamists to power. Civilized countries like Iran eventually develop semi-secular alternatives to mullahs, while Palestinian peasants can only replace Islamists with a civil war between gangs. Democracy is a simple, self-evident form of government. Where it didn’t develop, it was for a reason. It is astonishingly arrogant on the part of US administration to imagine that in Iraq, Ukraine, Lebanon, or Palestine locals didn’t know about democracy but now, when taught, will embrace it. Most societies, especially poor, discontent, and fragile do not need democracy.
    Take Turkey where the popular approval ratings of America sunk to mere 2%. Would it be better off if democratic elections in Turkey bring Islamists to power? Is there a freedom to sell oneself into slavery? Who needs democratic elections which result in Islamist government that bans democracy? Yet America and the EU constantly criticize Turkish military for influencing the politics. A friendly military government is better than democratically elected Islamist government; if that’s not self-evident, learn it from the done deals in Lebanon and Palestine. A democratically elected Islamist government in Turkey – the seat of the caliphate and most prominent Muslim empire – would hold enormous credibility among Muslims worldwide. A strong, heavily militarized Islamic Turkey at Europe’s borders will repeat the Gates of Vienna scenario – defeated, yes, but at a great cost.

    The main peddlers of democracy in Islamic world are Western leftists who cling to the old socialist doctrine of destroying the old world and consciously building a bright future on its ruins. So far, they did well at making ruins. Islamic democracy is leftists’ best hope. What their darling Stalin didn’t achieve, democratically elected nuclear mullahs and Pakistani sheikhs can do. They can rip the Western world – not annihilate it, but inflict tremendous damage and possibly clear the scene for leftists to build a new, rationally designed West. Russian Bolsheviks likewise cooperated with Germany during the WWI. Socialists need devastation, and Islamic governments can deliver it.

    The West cannot uphold oppressive regimes in Islamic lands indefinitely. Foreign-sponsored regimes failed in Vietnam, Iran, Afghanistan and plenty of other countries. Common Muslims resent Western support for their oppressors. Nasser and Khomeini took power in two major Islamic states despite Western wishes. Foreigners cannot stem the tide of social changes. Whatever support is now offered to Mubarak, Muslim Brotherhood will come to power in Egypt. The problem is not democracy or absence thereof. The West must wage a three-pronged war on Muslims: a propaganda war against Islam (as the US fought communism in the minds of Soviet people), military containment, and economic boycott (Osama says the oil is underpriced, let him drink it; buy Russian oil).

    Any other policy would end up in Reconquista.

    Israel goes from one restructuring crisis into another. Socialism, successive waves of aliyah, near-bankruptcy in the arms race, ideological changes from mini-state in 1948 to mini-empire in 1967 to defeatism since the 1990s strain government’s credibility and make Jews doubt if the nation has any ideology to sustain statehood. Democracy is a comfortable order for established societies, but in times of crises, Romans appointed dictators. Voting for personalities invokes more responsibility than for parties; Israelis who vote for Kadima might not vote for Olmert. Strong presidential republic where the president is elected directly by public weathers crises better.

    Mass democracy, however, is inherently evil. Politically active, engaged populations seek to determine policies and control politicians, but such control is short-lived. People hate doing useless job, and the control of elected government soon proves useless. People hate responsibility, and political demagogues urge them to trust the government. When someone promises to care about you, and everyone around seems to concur, you also tend to concur.

    Small groups are still reasoning entities, but reason disappears from large populations. The major reason for that is the mob tendency of adapting to the lowest common denominator: people shrink from offending others, realizing subconsciously that that may be dangerous, and seek the common points with them. The common point is the lowest common denominator, and for the large country such denominator is really low.

    If the problems are both hard and not imminent, people prefer avoiding them. So, the sweetly talking demagogues are voted into the offices even though their promises are evidently absurd. “The dream of reason produces monsters.” Any candidate who tells the unpleasant truth to the mob has no chances of being elected.

    In the era of mass media, election campaigns are expensive. Grassroots financing is a fairy tale: once a candidate becomes widely known and his chances appear somewhat realistic, large donors flock to him. That is venture financing in political sphere: risks are large, but potential profits are staggering, as the first large donors would likely remain the new ruler’s closest confidants throughout his career. And so we saw German industrialists financing Hitler, and Jewish American businessmen – Obama. An honest candidate stands no chance of securing sufficient financing, as he is not sufficiently corrupt to shower his benefactors with government contracts and subsidies upon reaching the office.

    In large countries with the history of freedom, mass media somewhat check the corrupt and obviously wrong policies. The minuscule Israel with a history of socialist oppression is exactly the opposite. A few oligarchs who control Israeli media critically depend on the government for contracts, permits, and non-extradition. Israeli media are therefore completely subservient to the establishment.

    Democracy is a very accidental political system. It was never practiced on large scale in antiquity, but only in small cities where participatory democracy remains viable. In all cases, democracy quickly eroded into demagoguery, tyranny, and then monarchy. Modern states erroneously identified as democracies are actually republics, the difference being that some basic values in republics are closed to democratic discourse; on the other hand, even theocracy allows democratic decision-making on mundane issues while the core values are kept non-negotiable. Democracy gained popularity during the Renaissance when westerners marveled at everything ancient. Unlike the classic art, democracy remained popular because it allowed the ruling classes to rule as if by popular consent (manufacturing and twisting that consent) and provided academics with the opportunity to legitimately influence societies with social theories.

    There are three viable alternatives to democracy. Two of them are biblically sanctioned: anarchy and monarchy, while the third was employed by Jews throughout most of our history – theocracy. Anarchy operates as a network of townships bonded together by mutual defense agreements, common and criminal law. The legal system is kept to a minimum, and people are free to a high extent.

    Jewish monarchy is a constitutional one, where king is bounded by myriad restrictions. Short of a very bad king, such system is finely suited for opinionated Jews, whose perpetual debates and vacillations it crushes. If the king proves very bad, he can be removed both on religious grounds (as a traitor) or simply by the masses exercising their right of insurrection.

    Theocracy is also not bad. Someone like Ovadia Yosef, for all his shortcomings, won’t be a worse leader of Israel than Olmert or Netanyahu. At least, Rabbi Ovadia has Jewish ideas and convictions. Theocracy served Jews well for the nineteen centuries. It wasn’t perfect, but enough that it is workable.

    No realistically electable politician in Israel is better than Olmert. But there are viable forms of Jewish government better than democracy where the likes of Olmert would never succeed.

    I as you state invoke my rights of free speech, even if it might upset some readers: Your definition not mine.

    Do we not have a problem with Christian tourists in our land? The Jewish law, even Rambam the progressive thinker, categorically forbids “strange worshippers” from the Land of Israel. And don’t tell me that “worshipers of crossed planks” refers to some pagans rather than Christians; reserve that nonsense for your interfaith dinners.

    Fine, no religion for a moment. Those Christian tourists are direct descendants of crusaders, of Christian throngs who murdered us for fifteen centuries. The cross on their necks is the same one with which Franciscans forcibly converted our children, Inquisition burned the Marranos, priests led the pogrom mobs on our ghettos, and Christian armies annihilated us even in the twentieth century. Yes, in the early twentieth century, in Ukraine, more Jews were murdered at once than ever before the Nazis. And now Israeli government negotiates visa-free entrance for Ukrainians. We don’t want them here at all, not a single one. Let them repent first, stop desecrating our synagogues and cemeteries in Ukraine, stop attacking Jews there and disseminating anti-Semitism, let them return all Jewish real estate they looted after massacring us – and then we might talk about normalization. Instead, Israeli government allows commemorations of Ukrainian famine of 1930s. What next, are we going to shed tears over inflation in pre-Nazi Germany?

    Even for atheist Jews, is it not offensive that Christian tourists with crosses on their necks come here specifically to deny our religion? We detest anti-Zionists like Jimmy Carter coming to Israel, but those tourists reject the foundation of Zionism: Jewish faith. They go to Golgotha where their deity was executed – and they, all of them, believe it was executed by us, and that we Jews shouted, “Let his blood be on us and our children.” Before feeling sorry for Shulhan Aruch lambasting Christians, ask them first about the decuman wave of Jew-hatred in their own scriptures, which they are coming to our country to venerate. And yes, this is our country, not an “international enclave.” When they could, they razed our synagogues and yeshivas, and it’s unimaginable that now we allow their churches to dot our holy city. Still more obscene, Israelis sing “Jerusalem of gold” praising the Muslim gold domes and Christian bells’ chime. Even this is nothing compared to welcoming the high-ranking Germans with Israeli military (!) band playing Deutschland Uber Alles.

    Tourism is the source of income, that’s what you think? Better recall Voltaire, a wise anti-Semite who remarked correctly that should the Jews get their own state, they would sell it.

    More Jews were murdered in the name of Jesus than on the orders of Hitler – approved by Christian clerics. The Germans only carried the Christian ideas to logical conclusion. Up to then, royal defenders of Christianity only expelled us, but murder is more logical. It does not matter whether Jesus was a good Jew or the founder of the worst anti-Semitic movement ever. We detest Wagner’s music not on its merits (and it is very bad), but because Hitler loved it. Christianity is not a theoretical discourse to be judged on its merits, but a deadly practical weapon against Jews.

    Churches in Jerusalem are a celebration of Auschwitz.


    Larry Houle

    Freedom of speech and expression are unimpeachable human rights. We have the right to reason, to explore, to seek the truth of any question – total freedom of thought. To think and reason without fear of jail/death. No one has the right to threaten, coerce, intimidate anyone with torture, prison or death for freely expressing, views that they do not agree with – no matter how abhorrent those views.

    We have the right to challenge any ideology, government, leaders of any state, heads of any organizations, the tenets and beliefs of any ideology – religious or otherwise. The right to write any thought, read any book, pursue any intellectual enterprise in the arts, literature, sciences, paint any picture, draw any caricature no matter how offense.

    The right to change one’s religion without fear of death. The right to freely preach and practice non violently one’s religion without coercion or intimidation but with liberty and tolerance in any country. The right to explore the truth of any religious question, including the truth as to the origins, sources, and teachings of any religion. The unqualified liberty to question and descent from any religion and its teachings. The right to condemn all religious practices that violate human rights. The total and complete rejection of religious teachings of extermination, genocide, murder, terror, violence, hate, torture, cruelty, intolerance and bigotry. The right not to believe in God.

    All mankind has the right to freedom and democracy, equality before the law, freedom of action, freedom of thought.

    Freedom of speech, expression, press, democracy, can be bled to death not by a 1000 cuts. Just a few strategic stabs can leave our freedoms that tens of thousands of brave soldiers died defending bleeding slowly to death on the side of the road.