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

Friday, 21 October 2011

The words “converts must die” aren’t hate speech in Sweden

Sweden has just witnessed one of the worst and most extreme displays of dhimmitude that I've knowledge of. On Swedish radio (15th September), a Somali-born Swedish imam said that ‘converts [from Islam] must die’. That’s as near as you can possibly get to being a straightforward incitement to murder. (Just as the Ayatollah Khomeini’s fatwa against Salman Rushdie was an explicit call for murder.)

Not only all that. The radio presenter ‘reminded’ the said imam that ‘they were in Sweden’; as opposed, I suppose, to Somalia or another Islamic state. That riposte didn’t change a thing in the imam’s mind. After all, Allah’s law - sharia law - is universal in jurisdiction. Thus the imam said that the ‘same rules apply’ even in Sweden.

The most depressing aspect of this, though, was the Swedish Chancellor’s response to this broadcast (as well as to a website’s transcription of the imam’s words). The Chancellor argued, or said, that it was ‘not hate speech’. That’s right. Not hate speech. The Chancellor’s reason for this judgement seems to have been that because the radio presenter of the programme (in which the imam uttered his hate speech) ‘protested against what the imam said immediately’, that somehow negated its hateful nature. What? How’s that? The presenter’s response, even if live, is irrelevant to the statement ‘converts must die’. This is a logical and even legal non sequitur. How can a challenge, even if immediate, stop the utterance from being, well, an example of hate speech? I don’t get it. Not only that. The radio presenter’s immediate response to the imam didn’t even inspire him to backtrack a little. Far from it. On being told that he lived in Sweden, the imam simply said that ‘the same rules apply here’. The arrogance of this man! The dhimmitude of the Swedish Chancellor.

The Case of Danny Parker

It is worth bearing mind here that an EDL supporter, Danny Parker, received an eight-month prison sentence for chanting ‘Muslim bombers off our streets’. Incredible!

‘Converts must die’

is not hate speech. Yet

‘Muslim bombers off our streets’

is hate speech.

The former calls calls for murder whereas the latter speaks out against murder. Yet it was the latter which was classed as ‘hate speech’.

I am absolutely convinced that if a member of a right-wing group in Sweden, or another European country, had called for Muslims - even ‘Muslim bombers’ - to be murdered, that he would have been immediately charged with ‘hate speech’. Yet this obnoxious imam got off scot-free.

It seems that apart from the immediate response of the radio presenter, the fact that the hate speech ‘was based on personal faith’, and that ‘the ceiling is pretty high when it comes to that kind of statement’, then that made the statement perfectly acceptable. At least this was what Marcus Agnull, of the Swedish Chancellor’s office, argued (or stated). This simply means that because the hate speech ‘converts must die’ are justified by - and faithful to - a ‘personal faith’, to Islam, then that makes the words OK. This shows us how simplistic many people’s views of religion, and therefore Islam, are. You can legally call for murder, but only if that call is in tandem with a ‘personal faith’ or religion. That will make the hate speech somehow legally acceptable. (Though does it stop it from being hate speech?)

So that’s why all the violence and hatred of Islam is accepted - and even justified - by so many leftists and liberals! It’s because all that violence and hatred is part of a ‘personal faith’ and this, miraculously, makes it OK. Such extraordinary dhimmitude!
The News Link:

No comments:

Post a Comment