Michael Coren Interviews Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff Free Speech Heroine
Thanks to Egbert for the link. This is important, because it is essential – it is vital! – that people have the right to criticise Islam, to tell the truth about Islam. We have to put a stop to the abridgement of freedom of speech when it comes to Islam. Mohammed had sex with a little girl, after all. That’s the simple truth. Some people think that that’s just fine, so other Muslims also marry little girls. But that’s not okay, and we have to have the right to criticise this, and where the right to free speech is taken away as it was for Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, then we need to call foul!
Categories: Islam, Islamism, Racjonalista, Respect for Religion, Sharia Law (Blasphemy), Theocracy
It’s sometimes hard for us to agree to defend the freedom of certain rights like speech, especially when it comes from people connected to or with hate-groups (like she’s supported and happy for the support of Geert Wilders, right-wing with some views that I would never endorse), not from not wanting to defend it on principle, but from the message of what is being said. I admit, I find it rather easy to let my dander down knowing the rough outline of the semantic category that speech belongs to, but you are right that we must defend it.
I think the court is trying (too hard) to create a constraint of ontology over “the truth about Islam” and “someone’s opinion about the truth of Islam”, and it is truly remarkable that they go down this path (that the words “Having something with children” is that much different from the facts about the subject). I know that Austria and Germany have a, err, ‘special’ relationship with the freedom of speech given their recent history and hate-groups after it (which I’m sure they feel this case has some tinge of color on it), and I’m sure this is what is at play here; they are terrified to let even more hateful ghosts come back and haunt them.
Take the case to the UN Human rights council and I’m pretty sure it gets overturned, and hopefully the Austrian government will abide by that, but right now I’m as appalled as most other people about this (disregarding the fear of what content is presented; all content must be allowed to be stated; offence is all too often a problem for the gnosis of the offended)
Well, hey, Alexander, I don’t know a lot about Wilders, but, whatever his particular views, he has a right to express them, and if there wasn’t so much emphasis on censoring what people say about Islam maybe even Wilders would be more measured in his approach. Islam is asking for and receiving special treatment, a respect it does not deserve, and censoring what is said about it is not only a serious violation of freedom of expression, it is also dangerous, because it puts Islam in a particulary powerful position with respect to other world views, which we can criticise at leisure.
The word ‘vital’ is completely correct, I see freedom of speech as vital to prevent tyranny. With the introduction of hate speech laws here in Britain (why were they introduced?) Freedom of speech, and our entire ideas about freedom are in peril.
It is rather wonderful that America has a constitution that protects free speech. But hold on, things are not so clear cut. There is the matter of the patriot act, and the growing pressure from the UN to adopt a resolution banning criticism of Islam.
It really is a matter of urgency that we don’t allow ourselves to be silenced.
Absolutely, and I – like so many others – would fight to the death (probably figuratively speaking, but you never know) to defend his right to it, I’m just saying that sometimes it is, hmm, not hard, but perhaps a challenge to our framework of thought when you disagree with the opinion.
One place in this debate I saw an emphasis on truth, that we can’t outlaw speech just because it is the truth, and I feel that this is how many people view it, too, however, it must be pointed out that the freedom to tell *lies* is equally at stake, and *this* is the bit that I at least have a modum of irritable intellectual syndrome about, especially in public discourse. Does the freedom of speech protect your right to cheat and lie and deceive as well? Yes. And I don’t like that part of it, but I’d sooner swallow that bitter pill rather than choke to death on not having that freedom at all.
As for Wilders, I only know the controversy which shouldn’t have any bearing on the principle at stake, I think we all agree on that.
I’m pretty sure appealing to the UN won’t be necessary as the European courts should already overturn it. Or at least, I think they should, it’s a ridiculous verdict.
By the way, even though I didn’t know anything about her political leanings beforehand, the betrayed herself nicely when she started talking about “leftists”. It’s such a handy way to tell you’re dealing with a far right winger.
Labels labels labels. It’s good, is it, to stick people in their little boxes with instructions on the outside that tell you how to ‘deal’ with them?
Sorry…got outa bed on the wrong side! I support her comments on free speech though I do think her support for the English Defence League is at best misguided as they are a racist organisation trying (but failing) to hide that fact.
Mohammed had sex with a little girl
Yes, he did. MOHAMMED HAD SEX WITH A LITTLE GIRL. He also LIT A FIRE ON A MAN’S CHEST to make him say where the town treasury was, forcibly “married” a woman the same day he murdered her husband and brothers, set ambushes, had revelations as expedient, blamed Satan when he wanted to change Allah’s mind, and rode on a winged horse. Only the last gives him credibility as a man of god, all the rest is true.
A number of comments have indicated reservations about Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff’s association with far-right groups, such as the English Defence League, with which no right thinking person should associate themselves. That’s why I was tempted to leave out the word ‘heroine’ from the title of this piece. However, it was in the original, so I left it as it is. Still the point remains. A person who expressed a view about Islam was convicted of a hate crime.
Lots of people defend Islamist extremists by pointing to what is called “Islamophobia” and other prejudices that Muslims have been made to suffer. Well, I think right-wing opposition to Islam is fuelled by the same kinds of thing. If we make it impossible for people to discuss Islam reasonably and critically without prompting this kind of official response, then anti-Islamic sentiments will take more extreme forms.
I should add that I’m not sure that Islamist violence can be sourced to Islamophobia. It seems to me that there is something instrinsic to Islam that enables and even encourages a minority of Muslims to be violent, and to seek to spread the religion of Isalm by violence. But I do think that the more people are singled out for opprobrium because of their anti-Islamic views, the more extreme form those views will take. In the give and take of criticism and counter-criticism matters will take care of themselves, but if there can be no give and take, if this give and take is censored or self-censored, then only the extremists will be expressing a concern about Islam that many others feel, and that is not healthy by any standard.
How would the Austrian legal system have ealt with this?
http://islam-watch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=935:pakistani-settler-in-spain-asks-government-to-ban-the-quran&catid=103:islam
I should add that I’m not sure that Islamist violence can be sourced to Islamophobia.
You mean that Islamist violence is probably not a reaction to Islamophobia? Indeed, I think it’s the other way round: Islamist violence has provoked a backlash against Muslims. And I suppose that European governments are terrified that the backlash will escalate into riots and pogroms, far-right extremism and so on. It’s a pity that instead of encouraging common sense and open discussion they seem to have opted for oppression, thus playing into Islamist hands: less freedom of speech, more Shariah law. And what of the many Muslims who want to get away from all that?
Please, please, please, everyone, read ‘The Democratic Contradictions of Multiculturalism’ by Jens-Martin Eriksen & Frederik Stjernfelt (Telos Press). I am reading it now, and am finding it a wonderfully intelligent, perceptive and fair-minded analysis of precisely the issue involved in Sabaditsch-Wolff’s case.
Thanks for the recommendation, Tim. The following may be a short introduction to Eriksen and Stjernfelt:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/page/jens-martin-eriksen/culturalism-culture-as-political-ideology
Gordon, precisely my point. I think by refusing to have open discussion about this, it has driven concern about Islam into right fringe movements, and made what they call “communal violence” in India much more likely. It’s a foolish short-sighted strategy. Instead of providing conditions for what should be an open discussion, government are driving discussion underground, scarcely the richest soil for it to grow in.
Ian, that is truly an eye-opener. Of course, this man is not the only one who is saying things like this. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, Nonnie Darwish are all saying, essentially, that Islam is a dangerous political ideology, and needs to that extent to be surpressed. If there are religious elements in Islam they have to be separated from the political fascism. Instead, what we see is the blossoming of political Islam practically everywhere, and very little courage (and it will take a lot of it) amongst Muslims to challenge the violent tendencies in their communities, tendencies which any but the blind can read in the pages of the Qu’ran.
I notice that Coren gets to mention the media bias against the religion he holds dear Christianity, especially Catholicism. He complains that, in Europe, “Christianity is routinely mocked and abused.” Coren should note that his right to freedom of speech allows him to write the most objectionable praise for Catholicism and the Catholic Church:
“There are some people who complain that it is has never been so difficult to be Catholic, but we need to remind ourselves that the chalice is half full rather than half empty. We have had two of the greatest popes in Church history, and a new generation of archbishops across North America in particular who are precisely attuned to the new orthodoxy and to the pressures of the contemporary world.”
http://www.catholicregister.org/columns/item/13837-cardinal-collins-suited-to-lead-church-against-its-detractors
“two of the greatest popes in Church history”: how hyperbolic.
Well, now here’s another example of the growing absurdity here in Britain:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9105788/Fireman-Sam-creator-detained-at-airport-for-veil-comment-at-security-gate.html
Veronica. Of course, it is true that in Europe Christianity is routinely mocked and abused — as it should be, I would add. But I don’t want Christianity to be able to be mocked and abused without being able, at the same time, to mock and abuse Islam. The implication of the differential (as well as deferential) treatment of Islam is that in some way Islam is and should be above criticism. This is the first stage of what could be a public shift in religion from the abused to the protected religion, and I don’t think we want to see that. Atheists should insist on the equal right to mock Islam. Indeed, in my view, Islam is far more mock-worthy than Christianity. And the continuing theme of the new atheism, mocking and abusing Christianity, is a sign of cowardice, I think, and it needs to change.
Egbert, this Telegraph story is very worrisome. Everyone should have to give evidence that they are in fact the people they claim to be. No one should be able to pass through customs and immigration anywhere without showing their faces. This is madness, and even more mad that someone who makes that perfectly reasonable comment should be treated in the way that Jones was. Shocking, indeed.
Jerry’s posted an interesting interview with Mark Thompson (BBC director general) of relevance to this topic:
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/guest-post-the-bbc-and-free-speech/
Eric
I agree with you. I think people should be free to mock any religion they want. However, the Sun logo on the video and Coren conducting the interview, make my hackles rise. If Coren and his buddies had their way, Catholicism would be the ruling religion in Canada and the US.
Catholicism is not mocked and abused routinely enough, and the big media fuss about Toronto/Canada getting a new cardinal (Thomas Collins) is a disgrace. Collins’ response in an interview where he was asked a question about, “the sexual abuse of children by clergy, and the Church’s response to it” should make that obvious.
http://canadianatheist.com/2012/02/26/a-conversation-with-thomas-collins/
While I’m definitely concerned about the special treatment given to Islam, I need to pick my battles, and my battle is with the Catholic Church and with apologists like Michael Coren.
As Eric says, it’s madness, but if we’re prevented from having a debate because certain ideas or religion are too special to be criticized, then where do we end up? It’s simply bonkers to compromise on free speech in this way.
Well, Veronica, I agree. I find the role that Catholicism is increasingly playing very troubling, but I also think that Islam is a developing in a disturbing direction as well. I have room for two battles, I think. I don’t support Michael Coren in his Catholic triumphalism, but I agree with him that Islam should not be shielded from criticism. But he should just shut up about Catholicism and persecution. That’s a joke. The only reason Catholicism is widely criticised is because it is continuously trying in intrude itself in other people’s lives. Until they learn that no one except they and a few other religious nuts takes their claims about natural law morality seriously, they’re going to have egg on their faces, and deserve it. Actually, the slogan under the screen “The right to offend” is what Coren is complaining about regarding what he calls persecution of Catholics. He should try to be consistent.
Don’t worry, I haven’t lost my deep concern about the increasing weight of the Catholic Church in public discourse. I would like to start a movement to have the nunciature in Ottawa closed down, on the principle that it is wrong for the Canadian government to receive official representation from a religion. Either that, or tax the Catholic Church and its institutions, as outposts of the Vatican state. Catholics can’t have it both ways. They can’t be both a religion and a state. Same with Islam. It’s got to revise its religion so that it does not require Sharia. If it can’t do that, then it is a permanent threat to democratic polity.