Firstly, I am a huge critic of Islam especially being a person of Muslim descent. I am also a strong defender of free speech and human rights, including the right to criticize any religion a person or people may choose.
From all the observations I have made in the past few years of relations between the West and the Muslim world, I've come to realize the idea of "free speech" actually has different meanings in Western societies.
For a long time the West has argued that Muslims should be able to tolerate any forms of free speech, including insults at Islam and it's prophets. The reason behind all of this is that since the Western media has mocked other religions, Muslims must also accept their share of criticism.
The reality of the matter is far from this. By the publication of the controversial cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad in 2005, the Danish media was not really objective nor offered constructive criticism.
Many Western European countries defended this idea as "free speech" but ironically, some of these same countries have legal punishments for those who deny the holocaust.
I am no holocaust denier, but if I was it should not be anybody's business. Many defenders of silencing public holocaust denial usually do not come up with productive arguments. Instead when reminded of the fact that holocaust denial is clearly free speech, these people try to prove the holocaust actually happened, which is completely irrelevant in an argument discussing freedom of expression.
The most likely reason is that they really have no argument in favor of punishing holocaust deniers. It's also because on the other hand their arguments for insulting Islam and Muslims in the name of free speech is automatically killed.
Then there's also the difference between insulting and actual criticism. When it comes to Islam and Muslims, both are perfectly considered normal and a part of free speech. On the other hand, if anyone were to publish cartoons depicting Jews as terrorists or criticizing them, they usually get targeted for alleged "Antisemitism."
Instead of criticizing the lack of condemnation for Muslim actions in Darfur or the silence of many Muslims to the ways of their leaders and violent actions of their people, the Western press has counterproductive cartoons actually insulting a religion.
It's quite clear "free speech" has a different meaning in the West (including North America) than it actually tries to make it out to be. Free speech to them means the right to insult/criticize any religious or ethnic group as long as it's not the Jews or denying the holocaust.
Since this is what appears to be the case, Western governments should restrict freedom of expression all together depending on what/who is being criticized or mocked. Otherwise they should open up to free speech in all forms.
It should be noted that many people who defend holocaust denial as free speech are Jewish themselves. I met a man of Dutch-Jewish descent who defend this right. Famous Jews including Noam Chomsky have defended this right.
So in the end both the West and the Muslim world have blasphemy laws, the Muslim world with restricting criticism on Muhammad and Islam and the West with restricting criticism of Jews and/or denying the holocaust.
Free speech means criticizing anything you want as long as it's not the Jews.
Some of my important points on the carton controversy:
-They were wrong by all means. They did not offer constructive criticism but actually counterproductive insults.
-They only promoted ignorance of who the Prophet Muhammad was and stereotyped Muslims as a whole. This is really more or less promoting hatred against a religious group.
-The reaction to the cartoons was equally as bad if not worse. Muslims in their own countries are ready destroy their own infrastructure and attack their own police because of the publication of some cartoons. It's madness.
-Knowing the tension between the West and the Muslim world especially in the post 911 era, this was a completely irresponsible act of Western governments who allowed them to be published and actually defended them.
-Western governments have been pressuring Muslim governments to crack down on extremist groups in their countries, but publishing such provocative material and then defending it is like telling someone to restrain the lion from biting you while provoking the lion yourself. These cartoons only make it more difficult for Muslim governments to deal with extremism.
-Prosecuting and punishing holocaust deniers while defending anti-Islamic publications is clearly sending out the wrong message by Western countries who try to champion themselves as defenders of free speech.
-In encounters with anti-Islamic atheists, I've noticed they will freely criticize, insult Islam or Christianity in the name of free speech. But when it comes to criticizing Judaism, every religion must be criticized alongside it. Western atheists never publish criticism of Judaism individually. It's perfectly clear they do not live in a society of free speech and have a double standard around the idea itself.
-I may sound "antisemitic" to some. But the fact is I see America and Israel as the only hope for preventing the mullah regime of Iran gaining nuclear weapons which I will discuss in another post.
A dangerous nuclear arms race in Eurasia may be underway, and I feel only America and Israel can prevent that.
-I've always heard of Muslim hypocrisy coming from the West. But what I haven't heard is Westerners admitting the hypocrisy in their own so-called "free society" while many Muslims or people of Muslim descent such as myself publicly condemn the hypocrisy in Islamic societies.
-Until holocaust denial is legalized as free speech, there is absolutely no justification for publishing counterproductive cartoons or any kind of provocation directed against Islam and Muslims or any other religion for that matter.
No comments:
Post a Comment