I am a woman of certain habits. I like the same breakfast everyday (raisin bran with blueberries and skim milk and one fried egg inside a toasted English muffin….for those of you who are curious), and I love to have my before-radio-show lunch while watching re-runs of Law & Order on television.
Yesterday, they played an episode which was timely, considering the recent Islamic terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India targeting innocents in general and citizens of Britain and America and Jews in particular – the latter who were tortured before being murdered in cold blood. Over 200 persons were murdered; about 400 injured. Nine of these Muslim terrorists were killed by Indian commandos. One has been captured and has given information about this highly organized conspiracy and its training roots in Pakistan.
For my purposes here…one ray of sunlight: All of the Muslim cemeteries have refused, according to a Wall Street Journal account, to bury these nine Muslim terrorists. How about that!
Now back to the parallel with yesterday’s Law & Order re-run. A Muslim- American is found dead…beheaded. It is all set-up to look like bigoted Americans killed him just because he is Muslim. It turns out, after a lot of posturing about prejudice against Muslims, that this man was killed by his own cousin: a bona fide terrorist trying to bring uranium into the U.S. to deploy in Manhattan to kill as many Americans as possible. The beheaded man was informing on his cousin and all of those in the neighborhood conspiracy. That’s why his own people killed him.
The Imam, the local religious leader, is lying to the police to protect the murderous cousin because they threatened to kill him if he didn’t. The Imam is measuring his importance to the community against his responsibilities to the laws of America — laws of decency and morality, really.
In a touching interaction between the Imam and the District Attorney, the DA asks the Imam if he is a Muslim first or an American first. The Imam struggles with that, saying that he has been working very hard to keep young people in his mosque from getting recruited into terrorism and he would lose that. The DA points out that the dead man’s wife lost everything. It is left there.
In court, the black defense attorney, playing into the “race card” questions the Imam about his client’s whereabouts during the murder. At first the Imam lies. Then he tells the entire truth: about the uranium, the murder, and the plot to decimate all of New York City. The murderer is convicted, but the Imam’s mosque is burned to the ground — retribution from some in his community.
There is a last minute angry exchange in Arabic as the murderer is removed from the court. The DA asks the Imam what they both said. The murderer said, “Burn!” To that, the Imam had replied, “I love America.”
To that “fictional” Imam and to those who run the Muslim cemeteries in India refusing to accept the bodies of mass murders my admiration, my respect, my appreciation, my prayers, and my hope that more will join you to “out” or “reject” those who perpetrate evil.TrackBack URI
Two year ago, a Danish journalist/cartoonist gave his political opinion with a newspaper cartoon that depicted a caricature of Muhammed, and there were death threats and rioting by those who described themselves as “offended.” The cartoonist was arrested on charges of discrimination against Muslims.
A Paris court also handed down a $23,325 fine against Brigitte Bardot, the former screen sex symbol and current animal rights campaigner. She was also ordered to pay $1,555 in damages to MRAP, a prominent French “anti-racist” group which filed a lawsuit over a letter she published in her animal rights foundation newsletter and which she also had sent to then-Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy. Evidently, she had criticized the Muslim feast of Aid-el-Kebir, which is celebrated by the slaughtering of sheep, and had expressed her concern that Muslim laws were beginning to dominate French culture and jurisprudence. French anti-racism laws prevent the incitement of hatred and discrimination on racial and/or religious grounds. Bardot had previously been convicted four times for “inciting racial hatred.” Her attorney said, “She is tired of this type of proceeding. She has the impression that people want to silence her.” No kidding.
English courts are now becoming a popular destination for libel suits against American authors. The cases have largely been brought against American writers and scholars for criticizing Islam or “naming names” of those who appear to support and fund terrorism. To avoid costly litigation, some American publishers are withdrawing the publication of those books. Unlike in American law, in Britain, the burden of proof in libel cases is on the author, since British law considers the disputed information as false until proven true.
Here in the United States, Senators Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Joseph Lieberman (Ind/D-CT) have introduced the Free Speech Protection Act of 2008, which bars U.S. courts from enforcing libel judgments issued in foreign courts against U.S. residents, if the speech would not be libelous under American law. The bill also permits American authors and publishers to countersue if the material is protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution. This legislation wouldn’t protect those who recklessly or maliciously print false information, but it would ensure that Americans are held to and protected by American standards.
According to Specter and Lieberman as quoted in The Wall Street Journal (7/14/08):
“The 1964 Supreme Court decision in NY Times vs. Sullivan established that journalists must be free to report on newsworthy events unless they recklessly or maliciously publish falsehoods. At that time, opponents of civil rights were filing libel suits to silence news organizations that exposed state officials’ refusal to enforce federal civil rights laws. Now we are engaged in another great struggle – this time against Islamic terror – and again, the enemies of freedom seek to silence free speech. Our legislation will help ensure that they do not succeed.”
The anti-free speech forces have accomplished a lot in Europe and in our own universities (with their tyranny of the “politically correct”). This is the time to draw that line in the sand.TrackBack URI