Wednesday, February 13, 2008

TWO HUDNAS--Or, How to Preserve the Light of Liberty

Great news from Ezra Levant:
Today Syed Soharwardy told the Calgary Herald editorial board that he is withdrawing his human rights complaint against me that he filed two years ago when I published the Danish cartoons of Mohammed. (Seriously, if you haven't done so, you've really got to look at his hand-scrawled complaint here. I know dyslexic ten-year-olds with ADD who are more coherent.)

If he's really withdrawing the complaint, this is the first I've heard about it; and when I spoke with my lawyer this afternoon, the complaint was still proceeding against me.
It might be a lie -- it wouldn't be Soharwardy's first, but then again, lying to an infidel newspaper isn't immoral to someone like Soharwardy. It's called taqqiyah.

But even if Soharwardy withdraws his complaint against me, an identical complaint filed by the Edmonton Muslim Council still proceeds.

So why would Soharwardy do this -- and why now?

The answer lies in another Arabic word: hudna. A hudna isn't a peace treaty. It's a temporary truce called by a Muslim warrior who's losing in battle.

(the left's response to this resounding victory for freedom of speech: see here)

For the second 'hudna' we need to proceed to Berkeley, California, where the 'Peace and social justice' warriors of the left have capitulated.

Like Soharwardy, they simply withdrew because they couldn't deal with the consequences of the 'principled' stance. But they haven't given up their ideological agenda. Far from it. As Don Surber notes:
They called individual Marines “uninvited and unwelcome intruders.”

However, Berkeley refused to apologize.

That’s unacceptable and it means that Berkeley still hates our troops.

Look, it is OK to oppose the war. Hershel “Woody” Williams, one of the Marines who received the Medal of Honor for heroism at Iwo Jima, opposes the war.

But Berkeley went beyond hating the war to hating the Marines.

I say the entire city because it elected that council.

The hatred for the Marines — and the country — is evident. Consider the words of Jodie Evans, a Berkeley yoga studio owner who co-founded Code Pink.

“We want voters to be able to decide … just like they have a say whether a liquor store or porn shop opens near a school,” she told the San Francisco Chronicle.

Except, I am guessing the porn shop would be approved.

These two examples are typical of the two-pronged ideological attack on free speech in the west. The one thing that free people have going for them in this battle, is that the intolerant cowards and pimps who are leading this attack on freedom of speech, also do not want to have to deal with the consequences of their behavior. As one of the intellectually gifted leaders of Code Pink said recently (can't find link, unfortunately so I have to paraphrase),"we are exercising our free speech rights and don't expect to be discriminated against because we believe this way." (UPDATE: thanks to Larry D in the comments, here is the quote I was looking for: from Xanne Joi, "I was under the impression that we have the right of free speech," said Xanne Joi of Code Pink. "To me, I thought free speech meant you get to say what you want without recrimination.")

Obviously a case of "free speech for me, but not for thee"; and at the same time, the very idea that someone should disagree with them and make their little lives the least bit uncomfortable is clearly (to them anyway) a violation of their freedom. Give me a friggin break.

Finally, what is the lesson of these two hudnas which represent a victory for free speech? I think Mark Steyn has it exactly right:
Following the arrests of three Muslims for plotting to kill Kurt Westergaard, the cartoonist who drew Mohammed wearing a bomb turban, the Danish media have today republished the offending illustration.

Good for them. The minute it became clear that violence and intimidation were the response the western press should have said: Okay, you want to kill one of us, you'll have to kill us all. The Danes have now taken an important stand against Islamic encroachments on freedom of expression.

In Canada, by contrast, the state hauled the only publisher of the cartoons, my old boss Ezra Levant, into one of its thought-crime courts at the behest of a raving incoherent imam. And all the jelly-spined squish of a Minister of Justice has done is issue lamely evasive talking points. Nonetheless, the imam has now folded, and is calling (insofar as I can follow him) for the matter to be settled according to Gene Autry's Cowboy Code or some Islamic understanding thereof. Ezra is going on the offensive.

The lesson is, if you face down these bullies, you can win and stop the lights going out on liberty. But you won't get much help from your government. [emphasis mine]

And it doesn't matter if the bully is dressed in pink and call themselves righteous; or if they run around in black and call themselves religious. Stand up to their bullying, and don't let them get away with it.

And, in solidarity with all those who believe freedom of speech is inviolate:

No comments: