Sharia blasphemy laws and thought crimes


Winning entry from the Garland competition

Winning entry from the Garland competition

Two events in the past fortnight have demonstrated the West’s cowardly capitulation to threats of violence and the demands of political correctness, at the expense of freedom of speech and thought.

Firstly, in Garland, Texas, an exhibition of drawings of the Islamic ‘prophet’ Muhammad was attacked by gun-wielding jihadis, both of whom were shot dead, but not before they injured a police officer guarding the event. Secondly, on the other side of the globe, at the University of Western Australia, plans for a new economic research unit were scrapped when the proposed head of the centre was ‘exposed’ as someone with ‘controversial’ views on climate change.

Sharia blasphemy laws applied in Texas

In the United States of America, there is no law which prohibits the drawing of the ‘prophet’. That particular restriction is a tenet of Sharia law, which, the last time I checked had no application in the USA. The First Amendment right to freedom of speech has no caveat which carves out speech which might be offensive to a particular group of people. So it is extremely worrying that after this attack, the vast majority of the liberal-left media sought to blame the organiser, Pamela Geller, for ‘provoking’ the actions of Muslims.

Why is nobody worried that the actions of Muslims might ‘provoke’ Christians or other religious groups to violence? Maybe its because virtually no other religious group would ever allow itself to be provoked in such a manner. Only one group of individuals is so unstable that the slightest nudge (drawing a picture, say) causes disproportionate outrage, violence and murder.

Just to summarise:

  • barbaric acts of jihadi violence and torture by Muslims broadcast over social media on a daily basis: response from other religious groups is to do nothing;
  • drawings of the Islamic prophet: response from Muslims is attempted murder of artist and others at exhibition.

But don’t forget, Islam is the Religion of Peace™, right?

Even in the twisted reality of Islam, there is no comparison between the two. In fact, almost everything in the West is offensive and ‘provocative’ to Muslims – alcohol, pork, Jews, Christians, dogs… simply being non-Muslim is provocative to Muslims. So given the fact that almost anything non-Muslims do is provocative to Muslims, the only course of action is to carry on regardless, and expose Islam for the intolerant ideology it really is.

Here come the Thought Police

Here in Australia, we have recently seen an extraordinary example of censorship, thanks to the University of Western Australia’s cowardly capitulation to the mob. I should not have been surprised, given that this was the institution which harboured climate psychologist Stephan Lewandowsky for so long, giving him a publicly funded platform to vent his disgust at his ideological opponents in the guise of ‘academic research’.

The Australian Consensus Centre, an economic think tank, was pulled by UWA earlier this week when it was noted that Bjorn Lomborg, the economist who was to head up the centre, had expressed ‘contrarian views’ on climate change.

As readers of Climate Madness will know, Lomborg is essentially a warmist – he believes that manmade emissions of CO2 are a significant contributor to recent climate change – but has the audacity to question the efficacy of some of the plans to tackle it, such as carbon taxes and emissions trading schemes.

According to the thought police at the UWA, this was a thought crime of the worst order. Academics refused to work with him and his position rapidly became untenable. As The Australian reported yesterday:

[Vice Chancellor Paul Johnson] said many academics had complained about Professor Lomborg’s integrity in the area of climate change research and were concerned these ­alleged shortcomings might have extended into other fields examined by the Australia Consensus Centre. UWA’s decision to withdraw has been welcomed by the university’s student guild and other critics of Dr Lomborg’s writings on climate change.

In other words, Lomborg’s failure to toe the alarmists’ line on climate, to the letter, was sufficient justification for the ‘many academics’ at UWA to ostracise him to the point where the university had no option but to pull the plug on the whole plan. Utterly disgraceful and a victory for closed minds at the expense of free thought.

Lomborg sums it up well when he blames the university’s decision on:

“toxic politics, ad hominem attacks and premature judgment” and said the centre had been used as a “political football”.

These two unconnected but similar events demonstrate just how far the West is prepared to go to throw away the democratic freedoms, in particular the freedom of expression and thought, that millions over the centuries have died to protect.

Comments

  1. James Murphy says:

    I am still to see any mention, let alone media criticism, of the state-sanctioned ‘send us your best holocaust denier cartoon’ run in Iran a few months ago. I am still wondering what the ‘Max Brenner’ protesters, and the Greens would have to say about this… presumably it would be along the lines of “we should not judge what other nations do”, or some such.

    http://www.france24.com/en/20150202-iran-holocaust-denial-cartoon-contest-charlie-hebdo-cover-tehran

    Like

  2. luisadownunder says:

    In the US, the left libtards have felt emboldened because of the current POTUS who, firstly, convinced everyone he was a Christian but now has completely thrown off that risible cloak and revealed himself for who, and what, he is.

    As he can do no wrong (after all, much like Pope Francis and his capitulation to the UN and the whole anthropogenic global warming scam), the media, having no other Messiah to follow, are more than ready to accept that:
    a) the world is warming and it’s all our fault and,
    b) that Islam is a peaceful religion and it is only Christianity that is the annihilator of the ages and,
    c) that pissing on a crucifix is not only fine but laudable, however a drawing of the prophet mohammed is a justification for mass murder of their own citizens.

    God help us.

    Like

%d bloggers like this: