The subjects covered in this blog include Slavoj Žižek, IQ tests, Chomsky, Tony Blair, Baudrillard, global warming, sociobiology, Islam, Islamism, Marx, Foucault, National/International Socialism, economics, the Frankfurt School, philosophy, anti-racism, etc... I've had articles published in The Conservative Online, American Thinker, Philosophy Now, Intellectual Conservative, Human Events, Faith Freedom, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), New English Review, etc... (Paul Austin Murphy's Philosophy can be found here

Thursday, 20 October 2011

The Islamists' right to live by sharia law against the ambassador's right to free speech

How perverse and how typically Islamist.

The Muslim students who attempted to stop the free speech of the Israeli Ambassador at the University of California, and thus our right to hear what he had to say, are declaring, in their blatantly hypocritical way, that they are the real victims of the denial of free speech.

There is a massive difference between the two cases, which these young Muslims, or their legal representatives, do not seem to have noticed.

The Israeli ambassador had a right to free speech.

His audience had the right to hear what he had to say.

The Muslim students, on the other hand, were using their free speech to oppose another expression of free speech.

This latter example of free speech can only be destructive or negative in nature.

If these Muslims ever had the power, a small taste of which they are no doubt getting in this case, there would be no free speech for anyone who was critical of Islam or Muslims and no real free speech for Muslims either. All Islamic/Muslim states have been - almost uniformally and for the last 1,000 years - against uncensored speech and against the uncensored written word.

Certain ‘freedoms’ have always been denied. No one has the right to scream ‘fire’ in a public area when there is no fire. Or at least the culprit would be prosecuted for such an action. Similarly, your freedom is limited to the extent you cannot punch me in the face - even if you have a reason for doing so. Similarly with these student Islamists. Their

right to drown out free speech

is overridden by the

right not to have one's opinions drowned out.

The first freedom, if it is a freedom, is completely negative and destructive. The second example is a positive and constructive example of the freedom of speech.

Why we should give these Islamist the ‘right’ to deny the free speech of the Israeli Ambassador I don’t know. But that’s how Islamists work. That’s what sharia law demands. Increasingly, Islamists are having more and more success in their attempts to Islamise non-Muslim cultures and societies. They must be defeated if true free speech is to be upheld.

Besides which, if these Islamist students were truly concerned about their own right to be heard, then they could have arranged their own meeting. This simply shows that it wasn’t their own freedom of speech that they were really concerned with. They were, in reality, simply hell-bent on stopping the Israeli ambassador from exercising his right and thus they were also attempting to deny the right of other Americans to hear what he had to say.

This is pure Islamism. So, in that sense, it should be no surprise. The sickening thing is, as usual, how these Islamist use and abuse democratic procedures, and civil rights jargon, to fight against democracy and against rights. The only rights an Islamist is truly concerned with are his or her right to be a Muslim and to live by sharia law. Once these basic or fundamental rights are established, then all other rights, outside sharia law, can go to hell. Which effectively means that all non-Muslims, such as the Israeli Ambassador, can go to hell too.

Because of these facts, these Islamists should not be be successful in this case.
The News Link:

No comments:

Post a Comment