Quantcast
MobileRJ | RSS TwitterTwitter FacebookFacebook E-mail Alerts
Home manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

Opinion
Nov. 01, 2009
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

THOMAS MITCHELL: Sacrificing free speech won't appease fanatics

THOMAS MITCHELL
MORE COLUMNS

The founding principles of this nation are being challenged in the halls of the United Nations, where representatives of Islamic nations are clamoring for a resolution against defamation of religion. It is an ideological battle pitting free speech against those who wish to shield religions from criticism.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said as much.


Most Popular Stories
  • VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: What stops mass murderers? A gun
  • SHERMAN FREDERICK: Call evil by its rightful name
  • EDITORIAL: Terrorism on trial
  • EDITORIAL: A pre-9/11 approach to terror
  • LETTERS: Public-sector workers are still doing well
  • LETTERS: Harry Reid: Working hard for all Americans
  • EDITORIAL: 'That's the ticket!'
  • Our politicians are the greatest, all right
  • EDITORIAL: I believe in free speech, but ...
  • LETTERS: A giant octopus threatens rural Nevada




    • "The protection of speech about religion is particularly important since persons of different faith will inevitably hold divergent views on religious questions," Clinton said, quoted by The Associated Press. "These differences should be met with tolerance, not with the suppression of discourse."

    But she also said the United States is opposed to negative depictions of specific faiths. Which is it?

    Law professor and FindLaw.com columnist Marci Hamilton this past week called out the Obama administration for its willingness to compromise.

    Michael Posner -- the assistant U.S. secretary of state for human rights, democracy and labor -- worked with Egypt to draft compromise language for the U.N. resolution that condemns religion-oriented harassment and discrimination, making a fragile distinction from defamation.

    That compromise language "expresses its concern that incidents of racial and religious intolerance, discrimination and related violence, as well as of negative racial and religious stereotyping of religions and racial groups continue to rise around the world, and condemns, in this context, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence ..."

    What might constitute incitement? Speech?

    Like Clinton, it also "expresses regret at the promotion by certain media of false images and negative stereotypes of vulnerable individuals or groups of individuals ..." Danish cartoons?

    Professor Hamilton says the administration, instead of compromising, should have attacked the resolution head on, reminding the world what Americans think of militant Islamists who wish to destroy America and American values.

    "To take a position in favor of suppressing speech about religions -- especially at this time in history -- is to choose to put aside one of our most important weapons against death, oppression, and tyranny," she writes. "Offering a 'middle ground' cedes far more ground than the Islamic countries supporting the resolution -- especially those who are host to militant Islamicists yet fail to effectively combat them -- deserve on this point."

    If you thought the United Nations was hostile to free speech, check out our college campuses.

    A week ago, Geert Wilders, a Dutch lawmaker and outspoken critic of radical Islamists, spoke at two American universities, Columbia and Temple. At Temple, his security team cut short questions and escorted him away when the crowd turned ugly.

    Wilders lives under 24-hour police protection. He faces prosecution in his own country and was barred from entering Britain until recently.

    He was invited to Columbia by a campus Republican organization that felt obligated to apologize for Wilders' speech.

    "We didn't invite him to talk about his views on Islam," the Republican students wrote in a statement, noting that the club "does not in any way endorse" his views. "We find the fact that he spent so much of his speech talking about those views regrettable, but he did explain that those views play a part in his concern for free speech."

    In a Columbia campus newspaper, Adel Elsohly, a graduate student and adviser for the Muslim Students Association, penned an op-ed endorsed by a dozen student groups, including the campus Democrats club.

    Elsohly first makes the obligatory homage to free speech, but then writes, "Wilders' speech, while beginning as a discussion of free discourse, soon devolved into little more than an open, vicious attack on Islam and Muslims, claiming that the ultimate goal of Islam is to conquer the world and forcibly impose itself on the conquered."

    He concludes: "Don't we all deserve freedom from fear?"

    Freedom from fear? When, perhaps, there really is something to fear?

    In the Temple student newspaper a Josh Fernandez writes, "It's not that Temple students didn't want Wilders to exercise his right to 'tell people what they do not want to hear,' but they didn't want to hear hateful rhetoric, which -- instead of proposing a diplomatic solution -- proposed the eradication of a religious group."

    I can't find where Wilders calls for eradication. Containment, perhaps.

    He is known to launch into a Churchillian admonition: "We will never compromise on freedom. We will never compromise on liberty. We will never appease to Islam. We will never give in, never give up, never submit to totalitarianism again."

    Those words are not welcome on campus, where multiculturalism reigns, where any strong language is labeled "hate speech," even if it is true.

    The Obama administration should be more Churchill and less Chamberlain.

    Thomas Mitchell is editor of the Review-Journal and writes about the role of the press, free speech and access to public records. He may be contacted at 383-0261 or via e-mail at tmitchell@reviewjournal. com. Read his blog at lvrj.com/mitchell.

    Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

    Leave Your Comment 27 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

    John F wrote on November 02, 2009 09:38 AM: Atheist,

    Amen to that, brother!

    And I believe in G-d.


    Atheist wrote on November 01, 2009 11:36 PM: You could have made this article about free speech. Instead you made it a vicious diatribe against Islam and those liberals you love to hate. I agree that the United States should not support this resolution, but for very different reasons than you I'm afraid. I have the right to insult Islam (Its really stupid), but not because it is "dangerous" or because it threatens my beliefs. Conservatives insult Islam and believe they have the right to specifically because of those to reasons. Everything should be open to criticism, including Islam AND CHRISTIANITY because criticism allows for improvement. The painful irony is how offened Conservatives get by liberals who "want to take God out of America." They advocate the same oppresive theocracy as Iran. If I were to walk into a bar in Texas or speak at the RNC and yell, "I hate Allah, may all those who believe in him die a painful death" I imagine I would be met with cheers and applause. Too bad most Christians are to ignorant to know Allah is the same God as the one they make believe in. Honestly, I don't understand why conservatives don't embrace radical Islam. They have all the same moral beliefs (everyone who thinks differently or for themselves is going to hell) All they disagree on is rather or not Jesus is God. Can't you guys get past that to establish a global theocracy without homosexuals, taxes, and common decency?


    Me wrote on November 01, 2009 04:53 PM: Catcalling, booing, and heckling are free speech too. How is free speech diminished when an audience talks back to a speaker they find a jerk? Since when does free speech require an audience to remain silent while a despicable lout harangues them? Geert Wilders and his ilk don't get to use free speech as an inoculation against strong, vocal reactions against them. Wilders got to speak but so did his audience. Sounds like free speech all around to me! Everybody gets to speak his mind in this country, not just people standing at podiums.


    RBW wrote on November 01, 2009 03:29 PM: Free speech, who needs it. We have political correctness and that's all we need. The sacred cows among us must be protected at all costs so their fragile psyches aren't bruised. Who are the sacred cows? They are everyone who isn't a white, heterosexual, christian male. Its open season on those wretches,but everyone else must be protected even if it costs us our freedoms.


    Tom Melono wrote on November 01, 2009 02:40 PM: white bxixtch speak with forked tongue.


    boomer wrote on November 01, 2009 02:10 PM: what exactly is the difference between what Wilder accurately claims regarding Islam and what Wright preached from the pulpit our current President listened to for so many years. Surely Wilder has more facts to back up his claims than Wright has??
    PC and moral relativity is truly putting the future of our Republic at risk.


    Wendy wrote on November 01, 2009 01:56 PM: We have to take a hardline stance against the Islamic notion that un-Islamic speech should be banned and force used to curtail speech that threatens their religion. If we do not crack down on these nut jobs, they will take more and more. Give them an inch, and they take a mile. All Westerners need to stand together on this issue instead of trying to listen to these fanatics. There is nothing the Islamists are going to say which could possibly justify their position that the use of force against un-Islamic speech is morally right. They are radicals and they must be dealt with as such.


    patrick wrote on November 01, 2009 11:47 AM: freedom:

    Please review the holding quoted by Justice Harlan; it should tell you all you need to know about how the final arbitor of Constitutional Rights views your position.

    Focus on this language in particular:

    "or to prescribe the terms and conditions upon which they may come to this country"

    In order words, Congress may, consistent with the Constitution BAN all together the "rights" non-citizens who are permitted entry into this country can claim.

    This Dutch lawmaker COULD have been, according to this decision and the line of cases addressing the issue, prevented from speaking at all.

    Just saying...

    And Mr. Mitchell, its all well and fine to support those or treat as friends those that you admire, the true test of principles though is to support those people you don't otherwise agree with.

    I think your consistency on this issue is commendable, but I haven't seen you write in support of those who might be seen as less than savory; like for example the President of Iran, or the President of Venesuela.


    cousin b wrote on November 01, 2009 11:42 AM: Sorry, folks, just another staged Muslim boondoggle.

    Who in the world cares about free speech? Us, Canada, Europe, Israel and a few select others around the globe.

    Who gets into regular debates about free speech constantly? All the above.

    Who defends free speech and freedom of religion, even for those who preach hate and rhetoric if it stands with the truth and we decide for ourselves which we believe. Yep. Same folks.

    So, how pompous and hypocritical is it for Muslims, of all people, to call for this kind religious speech legislature?

    They just want to yank our chains while they cook up more mischief.

    Outspoken hatred of Judaism, Israel and Jews is so common in Muslim politics that it's practically a mantra. The constant public calls for the death of all Israelis and Americans is suddenly not a religious issue at all?

    Make Islamists agree to never defame Judaism again, just for starters.

    They will flee the UN in moments.


    those who vote decide nothing wrote on November 01, 2009 10:43 AM:
    those who count the votes decide everything.


    Read All Comments