Absurd attacks on the American people and the media regarding imagined racism only continues. Nat Hentoff reports that there was no free speech to be found at the February 21st meeting of the NAACP, not even for a former assistant national director.

“The meeting was held in the midst of a furor of protest by the Rev. Al Sharpton and other black public figures over a cartoon by the New York Post’s Sean Delonas showing a chimpanzee shot and killed by the police (as had just actually happened to a pet chimpanzee gone berserk). Said one of the cops: “They’ll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill.”

Interpreting this as a racist attack on President Barack Obama, NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous and its chairman, Julian Bond, had joined the angry chorus of protesters calling for a boycott of the New York Post, and the firing of the cartoonist and the paper’s editor.”

Mr. Meyers, previously an assistant national director of the NAACP, “and a widely publicized defender of the First Amendment, had publicly objected to “this exercise in sheer racial rhetoric,” adding: “Demagoguery is not the standard of effective leadership in addressing serious social justice issues.””

“Attending the NAACP’s annual meeting in the ballroom of the New York Hilton Hotel, Mr. Meyers rose following a member’s speech calling for a boycott of the New York Post but also of all the national enterprises of its owner, Rupert Murdock. At the microphone, addressing Chairman Julian Bond, Mr. Meyers began: “I wish to speak in opposition.”

“I do not recognize you,” Mr. Bond sharply cut off the NAACP’s former assistant director and personal assistant to Roy Wilkins. “Your views are not welcomed here.”

I’ve known Mr. Meyers for many years. We used to be frequent dissenters on the New York Civil Liberties Union Board. I have never seen him intimidated by anyone anywhere. Michael turned and continued to speak to the assembly. Mr. Bond cut off his microphone and summoned security personnel as the NAACP’s new president, the youngest in its history, Benjamin Jealous, sat silently. (He has pledged to make the association a regenerated force for social change, but apparently not internal dissent.)”

Have we forgotten that one of the key foundations of this country is the right to speak freely about all subjects, even those that make us uncomfortable, or is it just me?

Full article at http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/09/naacp-vs-free-speech/

Those in support of this resolution assure us that “they do not want to limit free speech but do intend to stop such expressions as the 2005 Danish cartoons disrespecting the Prophet Muhammad that ignited violent protests by Muslims around the world.” One might ask what the difference is between free speech and “such expressions”. Perhaps the OIC, which introduced this resolution, quite literally intends that only verbal speech should be allowed and all other mediums are off limits. I imagine that if this is the case they will soon introduce another resolution on oral utterances.

Moreover, a disturbing (the understatement of the year) consequence of such a resolution would be, as First Amendment lawyer Marc Stern pointed out, “If this approach to “defamation of religion” were to become a crime under international law (under the impetus of the U.N. resolution), “nations would be able to seek extradition and trial abroad of persons who make statements critical or offensive to one or all faiths anywhere in the world.”

“Already, for example, as Reuters reported last June, Jordan prosecutor Hassan Abdullat subpoenaed “11 Danes for drawing and reprinting” cartoons that offend Islam. The Danes were charged – in Jordan – with “threatening the national peace.” Under Jordanian law, Reuters reported, “reproducing images of the Prophet Muhammad inside – or even outside – the country is illegal under the Jordanian Justice Act.”

Certainly, any unbiased observer can see that A.) this resolution is not aimed at protecting religions per se but at protecting Islamic ideology which seeks dominance over the West, B.) it is ridiculous to claim that a resolution aimed at stemming any criticism of religion is not intended to curtail freedom of speech (religion has been, if not the most discussed topic –at least one of the most important – in the public sphere for thousands of years), and C.) some of the most important progress of civilization has been a direct result of criticizing religion (think the heliocentric system or the Protestant Revolution), so this can only hamper the progress of mankind.

It is sad that this abomination against liberty has not been better reported. Kudos to Hentoff!

I agree that the Left’s domination of the public sphere is enormously consequential and underappreciated, and in the long run, dangerous for democracy. With no legitimate outlets through which to express itself, the conservative movement will take on the character of an insurgency, in mentality if not in action.

However, the death of the Republican Party and the ideals it stands for has been heralded many times before, only for it to be resurrected again, as the cycle of American politics repeats itself. This is not Europe; the historical experience and political culture of the United States does not permit the inexorable leftward shift of other Western societies. The Democrats will eventually overreach and voters will elect an alternative. When this happens, no amount of spin or hostile coverage by the media will be able to stop it.

In the meantime, as Karl Rove eloquently put it, it is the duty of the Republican Party – indeed, the duty of all Americans – to support our leaders when we think they’re right, argue our case when their minds are open to persuasion, and oppose them when we think they’re in the wrong. Additionally, the Republican Party needs to go about rebuilding and preparing for future elections; we can thank God that the timing of our elections is dictated by law.

In the long run, the West will experience cataclysms that completely redefine politics. It is impossible to know what the cataclysms will be, or the shape of politics afterward, but we can be sure that it will look nothing like it currently does…maybe conservatism will gain a new legitimacy all around the world.

The press has done an awful job of reporting this story. They aren’t many articles on the story and for the most part the few stories that were written will be buried in the back pages of online papers. Of those articles, it seems there are two types, one which details just the facts and the other which doesn’t even attempt to remain objective and vilifies Wilders. A third type is absent, the one that cries foul against this attack on basic liberties.

A wonderful example of the non-objective reporting is entitled “Dutch court: prosecute anti-Islamic lawmaker” written by Mike Corder of the AP (since it is AP – it will most likely appear in most American, print news outlets).

The piece starts with the emotionally charged statement, “A right-wing lawmaker should be prosecuted for inciting racial hatred with anti-Islamic statements that include calling the Quran a “fascist book,” a Dutch court ruled Wednesday.” No discussion is given as to whether the book is, in fact, fascist in nature. The writer seems dismissive and there is no mention of alternative language which might aptly describe the book.

He then goes on to write, “In 2007, Wilders called for a ban on the Quran “the same way we ban ‘Mein Kampf.’” He said both Adolf Hitler’s work and the Muslim holy book contain passages that contradict Western values.” This, however, is not followed by any thoughts on whether the book actually does contradict Western values, why Western values might be important, or whether those who uphold Western values should be applauded as heroes and not portrayed as bad characters (possibly even criminals). Nope, not here.

The writer does mention that the Prosecutor’s Office previously stated they thought his film was “painful to Muslims” but not criminal. Guess what? Corder declines to mention the pain of Westerners as they see their culture -they have worked for millennia to perfect- be destroyed by the help of ungrateful (yes, ungrateful because it is this very culture which gave them the freedom of the press) journalists who know nothing of history and human nature.

Finally, three paragraphs later, the article mentions freedom of speech. But it is not the author’s words but a statement by Wilders himself that this is a “black day for myself and for freedom of speech.” Not surprisingly, Corders declines to discuss the issue.

He does throw in a nice comment about how Wilders has gained support, though. “Wilders… has built his popularity largely on tapping into fear and resentment among Dutch voters of Muslim immigrants.” Obviously, it is intended that we will view such support as illegitimate. It is the very bane of our tolerant society. Corders gives no thoughts on the reason that evolution endowed us with the capacity to be afraid, and how that might be a warning sign that we must change our behavior to survive.

Finally, and ironically, the article ends by comparing Wilders to a Nazi. Corders doesn’t mention the seeming absurdity of calling Wilders a Nazi for making statements about the fascist properties of Islam and about the similarity of Mein Kampf to the Quran. It would seem that Corders believes that his readers have such short attention spans that they don’t even remember what they read a few paragraphs before (but let’s be honest Corders writing is forgettable). No, we should just understand the Nazis equal evil, and since we have tagged Wilders as a being a Nazi (no explanation needed) he must be evil also.

As “the prominent lawyer” Gerard Spong sums it up, “This is a happy day for all followers of Islam who do not want to be tossed on the garbage dump of Naziism.” It sure is.

As it is written:

“I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,”’ Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t – till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’”
“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument,’” Alice objected.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be Master – that’s all.”
Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass