For years, the Western world has listened aghast to stories out of Iran, Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern nations of citizens being imprisoned or executed for questioning or offending Islam. Even the most seemingly minor infractions elicit draconian punishments. Late last year, two Afghan journalists were sentenced to prison for blasphemy because they translated the Koran into a Farsi dialect that Afghans can read. In Jordan, a poet was arrested for incorporating Koranic verses into his work. And last week, an Egyptian court banned a magazine for running a similar poem.Alone among these nations, the United States still protects the right of free speech even if the speech is offensive to one group or another. Other countries would do well to emulate our example and realize that there is no right to not be offended. At least as long as the Supreme Court still recognizes the First Amendment.
But now an equally troubling trend is developing in the West. Ever since 2006, when Muslims worldwide rioted over newspaper cartoons picturing the prophet Muhammad, Western countries, too, have been prosecuting more individuals for criticizing religion. The "Free World," it appears, may be losing faith in free speech.
Among the new blasphemers is legendary French actress Brigitte Bardot, who was convicted last June of "inciting religious hatred" for a letter she wrote in 2006 to then-Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, saying that Muslims were ruining France. It was her fourth criminal citation for expressing intolerant views of Muslims and homosexuals. Other Western countries, including Canada and Britain, are also cracking down on religious critics.
Perhaps the next time that certain leftists are trying to tell Americans how vile we are in comparison to other countries, they could pause a bit and be thankful that we still have the First Amendment.
8 comments:
...the United States still protects the right of free speech even if the speech is offensive to one group or another.
On paper, yes, but Don Imus, for one, would disagree strongly, I suspect, when it comes to how the protection is applied.
And colleges have campus speech codes that protect certain groups and shut down dissent or disagreement with certain points of view. For example, try writing a paper in favor of concealed carry permits, or opposing abortion. If you are lucky, you won't be expelled immediately if you agree to go to counseling.
Drudge is carrying an NYT story this morning that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg thinks we should be influenced by foreign judges. Alito, Thomas, Scalia, and Roberts have always opposed this view, but then nobody will ever confuse Ginsberg with a Construcitnist.
One world, one world government...
"try writing a paper in favor of concealed carry permits, or opposing abortion. If you are lucky, you won't be expelled immediately..."
Then it shouldn't be hard for you to provide evidence of exactly that. Please do so, least we recognize you as someone woefully ill-informed, and spreading misinformation.
Or is it just something you "heard", made up, or "believed"?
"Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg thinks we should be influenced by foreign judges."
And listening to the opinion of people with a different culture is bad because... ?
Your prejudices might be shattered? You might learn something? Why exactly? What are you so afraid of?
Well, then do we accept the reasoning that allowed a German police official to threaten a suspect with injury and possibly death because we are not afraid of being influenced by foreign courts? Or shall we emulate the legal principle of Germany, again, that the government has the power to determine the legitimacy of religions.
Or that in Britain there is no establishment clause and everyone is taxed to maintain the Church of England? Also in Britain that the political parties are required to have certain percentages of its MPs match some quota? Justice Scalia addressed this issue recently and pointed out that in matters of treaties and trade agreements they are required to consider the interpretation of foreign courts but when it came to statute and constitutional issues then citing such sources revealed an intent to change the Constitution extralegally without having to go the messy political process of amendments and statute to do so.
Listening to other cultures is probably ok but being influenced by them is neither smart nor practical considering that the basis for constitutional order throughout the world is simply predicated on a different rationale than the US.
Jaw Bone,
In France you are guilty until proven innocent. Are you OK with that world citizen?
I'd much rather my laws to be written by legislators that are American and I want the judges that interpret them to be guided by The Constitution, not with notions from other nations where the people may have no real say in the laws of their land or may even be very much opposed to their own laws as they are currently written, enforced, or not.
Jaw Bone,
Are you really sure you should try to take CDR J to task with this remark?
"Then it shouldn't be hard for you to provide evidence of exactly that. Please do so, least[sic] we recognize you as someone woefully ill-informed, and spreading misinformation".
Well, we recognized YOU, Jaw Bone, of doing just that very thing you accuse CDR J. and in the process revealing to all that you are shamelessly hypocritical.
Go to Betsy's post titled, "When the quids and quos are in the public". In the comments you have failed to cite evidence contrary to Ronald L. Trowbridge's statement that along with slimy linkages between union bosses and politicians, "the Employee Free Choice Act, popularly called the card-check bill, which would eliminate secret union ballots."
Well where is your evidence refuting his claim? Where is your link? Pat Patterson has also schooled you here on the subject but I especially like that the Chicago Tribune article has the title, "Under Tyranny of Everyday Hypocrisy". It is as if they knew you would be yapping about the story!
Come to that thread and read my links in the comments so that you may soon stop being "woefully ill-informed, and [can stop] spreading misinformation". I'm not going to make any promises about whether or not we can help you with your hypocrisy though.
Post a Comment