Monday, November 05, 2007

On Hate Speech

Right wing fundamentalist Christian preacher James Hagee got the kibosh for upsetting Muslims in Canada. I was curious about this James Hagee. I solicited some insight, some background. When you read the lunatic antics he performed on a Canadian television show it'll all make sense to you why so many in the West hate with such intense passion anything to do with these Right wing religious types.

November 5, 2003
Dhimmitude in Canada: watch your tone of voice there, buddy

"An American evangelist's television series on Islam in America was canceled by a Canadian station after the first program because Muslims complained his tone and demeanor was an incitement of hatred," according to World Net Daily.

Program Manager Rob Sheppard wrote "a letter of apology" to the Canadian branch of the Council on American Islamic Relations, even though there wasn't any incitement in anything pastor John Hagee actually said. "It was a tonal thing," Sheppard explained. "You could see what he was trying to do by his tone and body language. . . . I listened to the people who contacted us, and they perceived his tone to be demeaning. It is subjective, but there were a lot of people who contacted us who were upset."

Hagee has evidently had this kind of trouble before: "A program in which Hagee played video of Muslim imams in both the United States and overseas preaching hatred and violence against Jews and Israel upset Muslims and resulted in complaints filed with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the equivalent of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, or FCC."

Now let me get this straight. It is incitement to speak about Islam with a tone of voice that Muslims don't like? It is incitement to play a video of Muslim imams preaching hatred and violence? But does CAIR have anything to say about the imams themselves? CAIR's website features plenty of mechanisms for reporting discrimination and hate crimes, as well as for protesting against FBI investigations, but I never have found there any way for a moderate Muslim to report terrorist activity that he may witness at his mosque or Islamic center.

Also: so the imams preaching hate aren't shown, and Canadians aren't incited to rise up and form gangs of Canadian bullies to terrorize peaceful Muslims. But that wasn't going to happen anyway. The other effect is that Canadians who don't see these videos are that much less aware that there are Muslim imams preaching hatred and violence, and that some of them are quite close at hand. So they're that much less aware of the need to take legitimate steps to defend themselves against terrorism. But CAIR doesn't seem to be concerned about that.

Even worse: sailing by on Canadian television without any concerns about "incitement" was a "documentary series comparing the U.S. to the Hitler regime. [Canadian network] Vision's six-part series charged the U.S., in collaboration with its 'CIA-trained partner' Osama bin Laden, planned the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks as a pretext for attempts to gain world dominance. The U.S. is going about this, Vision said, in much the same way Nazi brownshirts torched the Reichstag, or parliament, in Berlin in 1933 and blamed it on Adolf Hitler's enemies to provide a pretext for a crackdown propelling Hitler into power."

This is not just Canadians modeling cringing, subservient dhimmitude, pulling shows because of their tone. This is Canadians acting as a mouthpiece for full-blown radical Muslim hate and paranoia.

Posted by Robert at November 5, 2003 12:16 PM
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/000056.php
Now let's be reasonable here. Hagee likely did use a tone of voice that alienated Muslim viewers.Canada is only a nation that accepts the concept of free speech up to a point. For example, the demonstration favoring Hizb'alla in Montreal is OK. Maybe some other things. but not hateful tones from Right wing Evangelical preachers who offend Muslims.

I get it.

3 comments:

Dag said...

I apologize for something significant here, and that is giving in to the need I have to moderate comments. I fear it deters at least some people from commenting at all, and it probably discourages some from returning to comment further when they find their comments not visible for hours or longer. I don't like moderating comments, and so far as I recall I have never yet deleted a comment or withheld one from our readers. I'm not concerned about anything people would write about me personally, but I have some regard for the rest of Humanity, and therefore I keep the option of moderating to refuse, should the need ever arise, speech that might endanger the innocent.

Yes, I do and have often in the past written outrageously obnoxious things about people I do not know personally; and I do so as they are pubic figures due the worst one can legally write about them. I do not however, write about the personal being of public figures, a fine distinction perhaps from the point of view of those I might write about.

There it is. I do what I think is better. I'm open to suggestions. If you leave one there's a good chance I'll let it go up like everything else.

for those upset with moderation, I can only beg your indulgence in this imperfect world.

Dag said...

I find myself in agreement with the above comment, for the most part, and throughout the course of my blog here over the past few years I refer not to Islamo-fascism or such euphemisms but to "fascist Islam." By tht I mean that Islam is a primitive form of fascism; and by fascism I offer thta the reader please search the archives for my in-depth and continuing critique of.

On that topic, I struggle against my days to produce a long work on the history of fascism from Plato to our benighted time. Installments on "Velvet Fascsism," now in the editing stage, are available at Covenant Zone. I hope to post them here in a better form soonish.

No, "Islamo-fascism" doesn't impress me either. Islam itself is a fascism.

Anonymous said...

Iron, not words.