What's Next? They Try To Extradite You For Being Gay Or Wearing A Miniskirt?
They really hate Western values, those Muslims. All that nasty, nasty freedom of speech -- freedom of speech that allows us bad, bad westerners to criticize or even parody the freedom-abhoring death cult that calls itself "the religion of peace."
The latest absurdity comes out of Jordan. Elizabeth Samson writes for the WSJ/Europe that a Jordanian court is prosecuting 12 Europeans for, well, for being real meanies when they talk or create work about Islam:
The prosecutor general in Amman charged the 12 with blasphemy, demeaning Islam and Muslim feelings, and slandering and insulting the prophet Muhammad in violation of the Jordanian Penal Code. The charges are especially unusual because the alleged violations were not committed on Jordanian soil.Among the defendants is the Danish cartoonist whose alleged crime was to draw in 2005 one of the Muhammad illustrations that instigators then used to spark Muslim riots around the world. His co-defendants include 10 editors of Danish newspapers that published the images. The 12th accused man is Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders, who supposedly broke Jordanian law by releasing on the Web his recent film, "Fitna," which tries to examine how the Quran inspires Islamic terrorism.
Jordan's attempt at criminalizing free speech beyond its own borders wouldn't be so serious if it were an isolated case. Unfortunately, it is part of a larger campaign to use the law and international forums to intimidate critics of militant Islam. For instance, in December the United Nations General Assembly passed the Resolution on Combating Defamation of Religions; the only religion mentioned by name was Islam. While such resolutions aren't legally binding, national governments sometimes cite them as justification for legislation or other actions.
More worrying, the U.N. Human Rights Council in June said it would refrain from condemning human-rights abuses related to "a particular religion." The ban applies to all religions, but it was prompted by Muslim countries that complained about linking Islamic law, Shariah, to such outrages as female genital mutilation and death by stoning for adulterers. This kind of self-censorship could prove dangerous for people suffering abuse, and it follows the council's March decision to have its expert on free speech investigate individuals and the media for negative comments about Islam.
...Amman has already requested that Interpol apprehend Mr. Wilders and the Danes and bring them to stand before its court for an act that is not a crime in their home countries. To the contrary. Dutch prosecutors said in July that although some of Mr. Wilders's statements may be offensive, they are protected under Dutch free-speech legislation. Likewise, Danish law protects the rights of the Danish cartoonists and newspapers to express their views.
Neither Denmark nor the Netherlands will turn over its citizens to Interpol, as the premise of Jordan's extradition request is an affront to the very principles that define democracies. It is thus unlikely that any Western country would do so, either. But there is no guarantee for the defendants' protection if they travel to countries that are more sympathetic to the Jordanian court.
You know, if Mohammed is as great and powerful as they say he is, what's with the guy not being able to take a little criticism? (Remind me to stay out of countries with extradition treaties with the primitive republic of Jordan.)
Anybody still doubt that they are trying to force shariah on the whole damned world?
Only thing I disagreed with in that article was this: "Jordan's attempt at criminalizing free speech beyond its own borders wouldn't be so serious if it were an isolated case." Frankly, I find it more than alarming that they would dare make even one attempt to enforce their laws beyond their own borders, applying it to people who are not Muslim and have never even set foot in their country.
And what the hell is with the UN? If religion becomes an excuse to violate basic human rights, what other excuse is next? How the hell can it be okay in the name of any reason to violate a human right and still call it a human right. They have become worse than worthless.
T's Grammy at September 10, 2008 5:18 AM
Proper response (which you'll never see):
"Any attempt by Jordan (or others acting on its behalf) to apprehend Mr. Wilders or any other non Jordanian for the so-called crimes of offending Islam will be treated as an act of war."
The UN is revealed for what it has always been - an anti-freedom organization that is for sale to the highest bidder.
US out of the UN NOW!
brian at September 10, 2008 6:00 AM
I rarely agree so wholeheartedly with brian, but on this issue I do.
The UN was a lofty idea, but it has become nothing more than pushy expensive League of Nations
lujlp at September 10, 2008 6:27 AM
This is terrifying. These 12 people will have to watch their backs for the rest of their lives. Forget travelling out of the country - who knows what other nations will honor Jordan's demand to arrest and turn them over for trial?
Beth at September 10, 2008 7:58 AM
Amazing how Jordan, and other Islamic countries constantly complain that the west is trying to push it's values on them, and then they turn around and attempt the same thing.
Brian....right on the money.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/assessmt/contributions2007.pdf - Guess who contributes the most to the UN?
wolfboy69 at September 10, 2008 9:49 AM
I'm none to fond of the U.N. myself, sometimes it reminds me of a very petty neighborhood association.
Sure they don't have legal authority...but they sure act like they do, and wish they did.
The only good thing about the U.N. is that it is useful for applying international pressures. However, we've seen in recent days how little that is really worth...Russia-Georgia, China & Human rights/tibet, etc.
The U.N. just isn't worth what it once was.
Moreover, I believe that it is moving in a direction that is repressive towards liberal democracy. It is no surprise that a middle eastern bastion of Islam should attempt to use the U.N. as a tool to silence criticism.
It is equally true that such an action invites FURTHER criticism.
It also provides ample reason, in tandem with the U.N.'s other activities and policies, for the United States to begin to disengage itself from the affairs of that organization.
We could do worse than to limit our diplomatic concerns to the issues of trade, labor, and environmental preservation & development.
We would then do well to open immigration for those seeking refuge from repressive religions in particular. What better protection for free speech than numbers of people who fear its loss above all else?
Who better to caution the nation against Islam than people who know its barbarisms first hand?
The U.S. MUST NOT retreat into isolationism, but we must ALSO retreat FROM international paternalism.
Robert at September 10, 2008 10:38 AM
Good point, Robert.
T's Grammy at September 10, 2008 11:29 AM
Among the defendants is the Danish cartoonist whose alleged crime was to draw in 2005 one of the Muhammad illustrations ...
This is far worse than just an assault on freedom of speech, it is a demand that non-Muslims adhere to Islamic strictures.
Within Islam, it is heretical to create images of Mohammed. That is wonderful; I am so very happy for Islam.
However, there is absolutely no reason, so long as we care a tinker's darn about freedom of conscience, or Muslims pay anything more than mumbling lip service to saying there is "no coercion in religion", for non-Muslims to observe Islamic strictures in any way, shape, or form.
This makes no more sense than the same court putting a lien on my house because I had bacon with my eggs this morning.
And, puhhhleass, do not abuse our ears with sanctimonious blather about respect for other "faith traditions".
If Islam is to be believed, as someone who finds organized religion to be hilarious where it isn't toxic, then that religion demands I be killed.
So, I shall give as I receive.
Note to Islamists getting ideas: I have an itchy trigger finger and drink lots highly caffeinated beverages.
Ordinarily, this is where the [/snark] tag would appear.
However, it was never on in the first place.
Hey Skipper at September 10, 2008 1:30 PM
Right on, skipper!
I'm extremely non-violent but I'll kick anyone's ass who tries to kick mine -- before they do. I don't believe in attack but I do believe very, very strongly in self-defense. Don't wait for no knight in shining armor to arrive. Protect yourself!
Look if one of their own blasphemes in their opinion, they can excommunicate (or whatever their particular brand of believing in fairy tales chooses to call it) said member and say you're not one of us, we disown you.
Someone who does not believe in their holy book is not bound to act by its rules. If they can't acknowledge that obvious truth, too bad, too sad, for them. They don't get to enforce it with the nonbelieving.
We need to stop catering to them in the name of peace, love and understanding and start protecting ourselves.
T's Grammy at September 12, 2008 9:29 AM
Leave a comment