Category: free speech

Is RRW a suspicious web site? Ask Janet Napolitano.

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

Talk radio and conservative blogs — and even the mainstream media — have been abuzz with reports and commentary on a paper from the Department of Homeland Security, “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” You can see the whole thing here.   

I’m not going to do a thorough commentary on the thing; many others have covered it, including Power Line. I want to point out how the government is targeting people like me and Ann, who have done nothing but exercise our free speech by writing this blog.  A disclaimer at the beginning says that the government has no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are planning acts of violence. (Unlike leftwing ones such as radical animal-rights and environmentalist groups, which actually have carried out such acts.) But that’s okay, it’s the possibility that counts. Here’s one:   

Rightwing extremists were concerned during the 1990s with the perception that illegal immigrants were taking away American jobs through their willingness to work at significantly lower wages.  

A pretty good perception, seeing that it’s backed up by academic studies like this one from the Center for Immigration Studies. (That’s just one of many.) Here’s their disclaimer; are you convinced that anti-immigration groups are not being monitored?    

Debates over appropriate immigration levels and enforcement policy generally fall within the realm of protected political speech under the First Amendment, but in some cases, anti-immigration or strident pro-enforcement fervor has been directed against specific groups and has the potential to turn violent.
 
This isn’t too serious a threat, though: 
 
DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremist groups’ frustration over a perceived lack of government action on illegal immigration has the potential to incite individuals or small groups toward violence. If such violence were to occur, it likely would be isolated, small-scale, and directed at specific immigration-related targets.  
  
Another potential threat comes from Americans who “perceive recent gun control legislation as a threat to their right to bear arms.” They’re stockpiling guns and ammunition. No, really? Why would anybody feel threatened by gun control legislation? Check us off on that, Janet; we perceive that threat too.   

  

Then there are the New World Order paranoids. DHS is a little behind the curve on what the perceived threat is. Many of us are deeply concerned about the apparent willingness of the Obama administration to cede parts of our sovereignty to world bodies, and the eagerness of some judges to apply foreign laws and legal decisions to domestic cases. Pretty extremist stuff, to want American judges to follow the American Constitution rather than Zimbabwe’s, huh?    

Okay, I’ve gotten off the main topic. Just wanted to make sure Ann and I got on the list, if they’re making a list. When I was on the radical left a long time ago, the FBI had a file on me; I got it through a Freedom of Information Act request in the 1980s. Will I get a new file now?     

Wall St. Journal: Aid to Africa an unmitigated disaster

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

The weekend edition of the Wall St. Journal carried a lengthy article entitled, “Why Foreign Aid is Hurting Africa.”    I don’t know what the fallout has been for reporter Dambisa Mayo but if it was anything like Irish Times writer Kevin Myers last summer who said much the same thing, the poor reporter must be under heavy fire as I write.

Here are just a couple of paragraphs that will be sure to inspire you to read the rest:

Giving alms to Africa remains one of the biggest ideas of our time — millions march for it, governments are judged by it, celebrities proselytize the need for it. Calls for more aid to Africa are growing louder, with advocates pushing for doubling the roughly $50 billion of international assistance that already goes to Africa each year.

Yet evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that aid to Africa has made the poor poorer, and the growth slower. The insidious aid culture has left African countries more debt-laden, more inflation-prone, more vulnerable to the vagaries of the currency markets and more unattractive to higher-quality investment. It’s increased the risk of civil conflict and unrest (the fact that over 60% of sub-Saharan Africa’s population is under the age of 24 with few economic prospects is a cause for worry). Aid is an unmitigated political, economic and humanitarian disaster.

I wonder how Kevin Myers finally made out after the attacks on him, our coverage of Myers was here and here.

Come to think of it, Myers was a wee bit more graphic then the Wall St. Journal.  Here is Myers:

Sorry. My conscience has toured this territory on foot and financially. Unlike most of you, I have been to Ethiopia; like most of you, I have stumped up the loot to charities to stop starvation there. The wide-eyed boy-child we saved, 20 years or so ago, is now a priapic, Kalashnikov-bearing hearty, siring children whenever the whim takes him.

Do-gooders beware, too much aid can be a bad thing for the human spirit.

Dutch court decision for freedom of speech could help Geert Wilders

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

In a hopeful decision, reports the Dutch news service NIS, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands…

produced an important ruling in principle in favour of freedom of speech. The highest court of the Netherlands acquitted a man of insulting Muslims although he dubbed Islam a tumour.

The man in question isn’t Geert Wilders, though the decision will obviously affect his case. A district court and an appeals court had found the man guilty. Here is how the court differentiated between insulting Islam and insulting Muslims:

The Supreme Court acquitted a man who in November 2004 stuck a poster in his window with the text: ‘Stop the tumour that is called Islam’. While people may not insult believers, they can insult their religion, according to the Supreme Court. “The sole circumstance of offensive statements about a religion also insulting its followers is not sufficient to speak of insulting a group of people due to their religion.”

The decision doesn’t automatically get Wilders off the hook.

The case was about Article 137c of the Criminal Code, which makes offensive statements about a group of people an offence. It was not about incitement to hatred or discrimination, the Supreme Court stressed.

Party for Freedom (PVV) leader Wilders, meanwhile internationally known for his struggle against Islam, will be tried for insulting Muslims as a group. The court that will handle his case will have to take yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling into account.

Originally, the Public Prosecutor’s Office (OM) did not want to prosecute the MP, because it did not consider any of his statements a punishable offence. But in January, an appeal court in Amsterdam ordered the OM to change its mind.

As well as for insulting Muslims, Wilders will also be on trial for incitement to hatred and discrimination against Muslims. When the Wilders case will come to court is not yet known.

Distinguishing between insulting Islam and insulting Muslims is a fine point but an important one and I didn’t realize the Dutch law made that distinction. A small opening for free speech.

Hat tip to Jihad Watch. Our posts on Geert Wilders and freedom of speech are here.

Comment worth noting: Criticism of Muslims not allowed in Australia

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

BL, who has commented here before, wrote this interesting comment in response to my post, The heart of a refugee and the culture of violence:

I have commented previously about how my city (Sydney, Australia) has had problems with Middle Eastern Arabs. I don’t know how or where we lost our freedom of speech but it seems that it is increasingly difficult to freely express our opinions and/or concerns. When you cut through all the politically correct nonsense you are left with the truth, which is they are not the same as us. Some races are predisposed to certain tendencies and characteristics. In the case of Muslim Arabs, they are naturally aggressive and violent. The Muslim Arab community in my city have been here for decades and for as long as I can remember, they have always been a menace to this city and this hasn’t changed one bit. If anything, I would say that it has gotten worse and will only progressively get worse as we allow them to manipulate our free society to their will.

“Many of the Vietnamese who came here in the 1970s and 1980s were traumatized too, having lived through a war, a communist regime, often prison camps, and harrowing escapes. But their culture and their resulting characters didn’t lead them to express their trauma in violence”.

For me, this is very fitting as I am in fact a Vietnamese Australian. It seems that, in Australia at least, ethnic Australians such as myself are more open about their true feelings and will voice their concerns more liberally than our fellow Anglo Australians. This maybe attributed to the fact that they may not want to be tagged as racist, which is a fair reason. Such is the dilemma of our free society where you are damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

If the current trend to disallow criticism of Islam in some Nations spreads globally, then Muslims will certainly exploit this and we will see their hypocrisy and true intent. A small minority of courageous people such as the people here at RRW and Jihad Watch are aware of their hidden agenda (although it really isn’t hidden when their intent is clearly stated in the Koran) and are expressing their concern. If only this concern was shared among the ignorant in our society because it will only take a majority to cut through all the political garbage that is littered all over this issue.

I will do my part to protect and preserve our beautiful Western Society by spreading my concern to my fellow peace loving Christians. I can only hope and pray that more people will see through the politics and rise up to tackle this issue head on

Crowd of conservatives cheers Geert Wilders in Washington

~ Ann Corcoran ~ Leave a comment

Update March 2nd:   You can watch the whole event yourselves on Youtube, go to Jihad Watch here and then follow links to Atlas Shrugs for more on this historic evening.

 

Ann and I had a great treat last night. We went into Washington along with my husband to hear Geert Wilders speak and joined hundreds of fans of free speech in cheering him for his courage and conviction in standing up for western civilization. The event was at the same site as CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) but not of CPAC, as the organizers of that event show remarkably little interest in jihad and matters of free speech that involve Islam. It was sponsored by the David Horowitz Freedom Center,  Atlas Shrugs, Jihad Watch, and Dr. Andrew Bostom.

We’ve seen Wilders on TV and on the Internet, but we wanted to see him in person. And it was worth the long drive and the parking hassles. He is very elegant and very tall, and imposing in a soft-spoken and genial, even sweet, way.  It is awful to realize that he is under a double threat — death threats from jihadist Muslims, and an upcoming prosecution for hate speech from his own Dutch government.  He lives under constant guard. How he can be so calm under those conditions is a mystery; I noticed the same thing about Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Wilders’s main message was that western civilization is better than other ways of life and we need to defend it. But not only are Europeans not defending their own culture, but they define as hate speech attempts to contrast it favorably with, say, Islamic culture. He quoted Ronald Reagan’s speech at the British Parliament in 1982, where he spoke of communism as the evil empire and said it’s important not to avoid threats but to face up to them (I’m writing this from memory; the words are not exact).

I’ve read a number of accounts saying that Wilders wants to ban the Koran, and pointing out the inconsistency of this with his stated support of free speech. Even conservatives fall for this. I knew they were idiots, and of course Wilders made it clear that he is simply pointing out that under the Netherlands’ hate speech laws (or are they EU laws? I’m not sure), if Mein Kampf can be banned then the Koran should be banned too. He is completely opposed to all hate speech laws, and wants for the whole world the kind of protections for speech that we enjoy under our First Amendment. (At least we enjoy them as of today; who knows what is coming down the pike?)

Wilders referred to his exclusion from the U.K. and said he was thankful for our immigration officials. He said he feels at home in the United States.

Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs spoke of how Wilders’s cause is also our cause; her account of the event is here, with a picture of the crowd. Also Robert Spencer and Dr. Andrew Bostom had good things to say. And Fitna was shown — Wilders’s short film that got him into all this trouble in the first place. For some reason I had never watched it in its 16-minute entirety; it’s quite stunning and if you haven’t seen it I recommend you click on the link.

The room was jam-packed and apparently many were turned away. Security was supposed to be tight and we saw some people being wanded, but somehow we were just waved in. Maybe it’s obvious how wholesome and innocent Ann and I and my husband are. There were a lot of young people in the audience, CPAC attendees most likely, and they were very responsive to Wilders’s speech, cheering and booing loudly at every appropriate moment. (Jay Nordlinger has noted that hissing is a leftist thing (last item, here,) and I’m glad to say there wasn’t a hiss to be heard, only hearty boos at, for instance, Wilders’s mention of the U.K. government refusing him admittance.) 

Robert Spencer has an account of Wilders’s appearance before the National Press Club earlier yesterday. Our previous posts on Wilders are here. And an interesting article about Wilders’s place in the political world is here. The authors seem to be far to the left and misrepresent him in many respects, especially in calling him tied to the “far right” and misinterpreting his call to ban the Koran, but provide a lot of information so I’m putting in the link. I think they believe it quite damning to associate him with “neo-conservatives.”

Last, here is a link to the Geert Wilders Defense Fund. Wilders’s court case in the Netherland will cost him big bucks. If he loses he will go to prison. I can hardly think of a worthier cause to support. Think of it this way: Every dollar you give is a vote for western civilization.

Update: More accounts at Atlas Shrugs from people who attended.