Monday, January 31, 2011

Lars Hedegaar Acquitted of Hate Crimes.

Lars Hedegaard is a Danish writer who has been charged with what in our day is termed a "hate crime" against Muslims. He's one of many in the West that governments are attempting to silence individually, the result being that the general public is either afraid of government doing the same to them or that those who slavishly worship the state then have a "moral authority" to cite in support of anything the state claims they should support. In either case, fear of the power of the State reigns supreme. Some fear the fear, and others love it. In either case, fear of the State makes life simple: one knows where one stands in life. That knowledge, that security of knowing ones status and place in life, is satisfying to many. Certainty is appealing to many. Denmark, which has historically been what we would roughly deem to be a democracy, is not now a democracy. Instead, it is rule by "enlightened" elites. This is rule by Philosopher Kings, and many lap it up, such rule giving many all the comfort they want in a confusing experience of living rightly in a terrifying and dangerous cosmos. The State, ruled by an intellectual elite, enlightened people, demands of its citizens, that they conform to the elite vision of the Moral. From that point on, there is little use in concerning oneself with alternatives to the narrative of Force, of the State. One just gives up and lives within the confines of authority's pronouncements. John Milton puts it right in Areopagitica, (1644) in a different context but with the same kind of mind in mind: That there is nothing a man would rather give up to another than the choice of his religious beliefs. We called this right to decide for ourselves the important questions of nearly anything, "Freedom." But that was then, and even then, many didn't like freedom. Freedom means insecurity, doubt, even terror. "What do I believe?" and worse, "What if I'm wrong?" and finally, because it is difficult for many to live with doubt about the validity of the rightness of their own lives, all others must validate their beliefs by believing the same, by not raising doubts and therefore fears about the worth of ones moral: "Tell us what we believe and that such is right and good, and from there on we will never live in fear again. We will submit and believe in safety from then on." Such is life for most men, and for Muslims and others, it is all of Life. They submit, totally, and all is good, even unto death. Challenge that commitment to certainty and safety, and then we find believers going so mad that they blow up themselves and others in a state of rage. Questioning the narrative so deeply committed to is to bring down upon oneself the rage of True Believers. In Denmark, such happened to Lars Hedegaard. Here's what happened, briefly.

Diana West writes: Alyssa Lappen pulls it all together in an excellent piece at Pajamas Media:

In December 2009, Hedegaard remarked in a taped interview that a certain kind of domestic violence was peculiar to Muslim families (“they” rape their own children). He was charged as a common criminal. [3]

Denmark’s public prosecutor charged Hedegaard with racism for allegedly violating article 266 b of its penal code — a.k.a. the “racism clause” — which allows a prosecutor to infer criminal offense in any statement that he believes threatens, demeans, or ridicules anyone based on race, skin color, national or ethnic origin, religious faith, or sexual orientation. In other words, the law gives the prosecutor endless latitude to levy criminal charges over a wide range of easily misconstrued statements by or about almost anyone. [4]

Denmark, and other Western national governments, has imposed a "safety" on its people. Those who tamper with the safety are therefore "dangerous." We are all supposed to live with this Noble Lie of the Philosopher Kings for the sake of living rightly, that Islam is a religion of peace, and that all cultures are equally good in their own terms and so on. It is the safety of a certain Moral. If everyone at least pretends to believe the lie, then all is safe in the cosmos. Anything that goes wrong can be sorted out according to a pre-packaged lie, for example, that Muslim terrorism is a matter of rage against racism. There is a pat answer for everything that all must pretend to adhere to. It makes no difference if it is obviously stupid, the point is the Lie is the Safety. So, when a man like Lars Hedegaard speaks an obvious truth about Islam, he disrupts the safety of the elites in Denmark, prompting them to arrest him and put him on trial for disrupting the safety of the established public Moral. The Law is all about preserving the Lie for the sake of the people and the utopia of the Left Moral. Sense? Right and wrong? These things have nothing to do with the point of the Lie. It's all about not having to think about Truth. We can all get along so long as we all pretend to get along.

West continues to quote Lappen, in part:

And in May 2008, Gregorius Nekschot, a pseudonymous Dutch cartoonist, was similarly arrested and charged with discriminatory speech. In September 2010, Dutch prosecutors finally dropped charges against Nekschot (on the eve of Holland’s next travesty of justice). Despite a court order that he dismantle his personal website, Nekschot was victorious.


Then came five charges of hate speech against Dutch MP Geert Wilders. Prosecutors initially ruled that Wilders’ statements might hurt Muslim feelings but weren’t crimes. But in January 2009, Amsterdam’s Appeals Court reversed the finding and ordered prosecutors to proceed. [24]


Next up was Austria’s Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff — [....] In September 2010, Sabaditsch-Wolff learned she was accused of “defamation of religion” during a 2009 three-part seminar on “Islamization of Europe” for the Freedom Education Institute (FEI).


That same month, the European Union required member states to implement the “framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia,” a measure adopted on November 28, 2008, to combat “certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law.” This EU legal provision required all EU member states to comply fully by November 28, 2010, Sabaditsch-Wolff asserts, and to punish “intentional conduct” considered a pretext to target “a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin.” [30] Oblique or not, this means Muslims.

Most people believe what most people believe. It makes life easier. If one challenges what most people believe, one is likely to be friendless, to be seen as, at best, a crank, maybe as a lunatic, or even a criminal, as dangerous. That's not a career move most people would like. Those who see through the obvious lies often enough shrug it off as not worth the fight. Why bother going to gaol for a mere principle? Why cause trouble? Why upset anyone? Yes, Islam is a terrorism. Yes, anyone who looks into it knows this. But the government has decided to pursue a Lie for the good of all, and to provoke the government is to bring down harm on oneself for nothing more than principle. It's not worth the loss.

Today, Lars Hedegaard was acquitted of the charges against him in Denmark. Tomorrow someone else will be attacked for something similar.


By chance, an hour after posting the copy above I see this at Jihad Watch:

COPENHAGEN, Denmark, Jan. 31 (UPI) -- Accused terrorists planned to cut the throats of reporters at a Danish newspaper that printed Mohammed cartoons, police wiretaps reveal.

The men hoped to kill as many people as possible at Jyllands-Posten within 20 minutes, recordings made by the Danish security service PET and published Monday in the Ekstra Bladet newspaper show.

More at :


Jett Rucker said...

The same hate-speech laws used against your people were originally invented and used against people who utter truths about historical events such as the Holocaust. Historian David Irving was a guest in Austria's jails for over a year for just such an offense in 2004, as have others.

Do you want freedom of speech, or do you just want to be able to bash Muslims?

Dag said...

Ive met some very clever Holocaust deniers over the years, and they are able to convince some people that they have a right understanding of history, the Holocaust and beyond. Those who would ban Holocaust deniers are those who look at the whole of the population and distrust them, automatically assuming that too many are too stupid to refrain from believing there was no Holocaust, that the Jews are making it up for sinister reasons, and that doing such is grounds to fear another Holocaust. This is a case of the intelligentsia despising the masses, in some cases rightly so.

For the most part it seem to me to have little to do with the Holocaust and much to do with despising those who disagree. It's the Philosopher Kings I can't stand, firstly, and then come the jihadis and their masters, the Left dhimmi fascist followers. At that point, it's not a matter of opinion any longer but of fists and bricks.