From Reuters:
A judge has ordered best-selling writer and journalist Oriana Fallaci to stand trial in her native Italy on charges she defamed Islam in a recent book.
The decision angered Italy’s justice minister but delighted Muslim activists, who accused Fallaci of inciting religious hatred in her 2004 work “La Forza della Ragione” (The Force of Reason).
Fallaci lives in New York and has regularly provoked the wrath of Muslims with her outspoken criticism of Islam following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on U.S. cities.
In “La Forza della Ragione,” Fallaci wrote that terrorists had killed 6,000 people over the past 20 years in the name of the Koran and said the Islamic faith “sows hatred in the place of love and slavery in the place of freedom.”
Another victory for the leftist gold standard of “tolerance,” the great enemy of free expression and the rhetorical mechanism by which totalitarianism is practiced by academic elites and leftist ideologues (on the right, this same impulse manifests itself in appeals to decorum or properly “moral” speech—impulses regular readers of this site will recognize as frequent targets of my scorn).¹
Make no mistake, people: what you are witnessing here is a carefully crafted velvet insurgency, a diminution of freedoms on the part of leftist governments and judiciaries by way of gaining control of the parameters for acceptable speech and discussion.
We see this impulse spreading through Canada (where criticism of certain groups is considered “racist” and is prosecutable by law), and we see harbingers of that same impulse here in the U.S. in things like hate crime legislation and in our mindless cultural surrender to the execrable and anti-individualist “diversity” movement.
Where reasoned criticism is successfully cast as “hate” or “intolerance,” freedom is a moribund ideal; and I don’t know how much longer we in the US—with a lingering guilt over our own historical intolerances fueling a subsequent nonconfrontational desire to do right by the Other—can keep the relentless tide of PC sanctimony at bay.
****
related thoughts here (via Glenn, who adds an interesting thought of his own)
****
update: Rusty, the Qu’ran, toilet paper… Don’t ask.
****
update 2: Pandagon’s Jesse Taylor disagrees with me—noting that because the left is notorious for being hostile to religion, the ruling by the Italian judge, which would seem to privilege religion, cannot possibly be driven by the left intelligensia’s embrace of a “tolerance” doctrine of the kind I outline above.
Which, I’ll believe that when an Italian judge seeks to have an Imam arrested for, say, preaching jihad or advocating sharia law…
****
¹ In an earlier post I wrote that “in many ways social conservatismâ€â€with its desire to dictate “proper†or “decorous†speechâ€â€is simply dressing the PC-sensibilities of the left in the starched, high-collared clothing of neo-Victorian morality.” I include the excerpt here to make it clear that while “tolerance” and “diversity” as political doctrines have been institutionalized by the left, many on the right share the same impulse to define the parameters of “acceptable” speech. But to date, nobody is being prosecuted in this country for criticizing Christianity.
This is seriously scary stuff, and the most frightening element is how ‘in denial’ the Left is to what’s going on.
And “The Force of Reason” will be available in English some time in August, according to Amazon. Those interested may order now:
Scott: I’d agree. There are radical elements of the right that are into burning and banning certain books, which angers me greatly. Fundamentalist morons. But on the left we have the entire group, en masse, working to ban certain forms of speech, a whole host of words, anything Christian-related, and basically dissent itself.
The soviet system relied on the Gulags to keep dissenters in line. Socialism by its very nature cannot tolerate free trade, markets, or speech. Yet the left embraces nanny-state socialism in its every form and instance.
“Think like us, or else.”
Amazing. Sickening and amazing.
At bay? Surely you jest! We’re already awash in the flotsam and jetsam of PC’ness. The tide has already crashed over our heads.
Hell, I consider anything I do these days simply to be a last stand if only so I can die in peace knowing somewhere, I’ve pissed someone off.
Well, I was referring to keeping it legally at bay, esp. when compared to what we’re seeing in Italy and Canada and Greece…
And Calfornia. Don’t forget them!
Hmmm.
I’m drinking this lovely scotch, neat if you must know, as a protest of red ufly socialist PC harbringerism.
S’thank you.
story
Italy…unfortunately…has way too many commies…and…too many leftist lunatic judges…same thing I guess
I agree with everything this woman says…Islam is an intolerant and hateful religion
I can’t think of an Islamic country…that would tolerate Christians…coming over in large numbers…openly practicing their religion…and living off the host countries social services…all the while…openly disrespecting that culture and refusing to assimilate…
But the issue here…is this fuck face judge…I guaran-fucking-tee u…he is a leftist asshole
How dare he haul a woman into court for what she said or wrote? Does freedom of speech mean nothing? And who does he think he is? Does he believe everyone has the right not to be offended?
Here is a judge…that will push and push his power down peoples throats…until he is killed
I see the following conversation taking place in Italia:
1st Italian: Islam is sometimes evil and oppressive.
2nd Italian: You can’t say that! POLICE!! Arrest this man! He defamed Islam!
1st Italian: But in some Islamic countries, you cn be put to death for preaching Christianity, Hinduism or Judaism.
2nd Italian: Well, we don’t allow that kind of hate. That’s why we’re better than them.
3rd Italian: ”Better” than ”them”?! You can’t say that! POLICE!! Arrest this man! He defamed Islam!
You can expect to see an deluge of such behavior as Islam swallows Europe in the next thirty years. Inevitably, it’s appearing at our gates.
The only consolation is that some of us United States won’t go quietly. I know I won’t. I’m not alone.
I suppose the Italians could always send somebody to the US to arrest her.
If her apartment building has a doorman, though, it might be difficult.
Some years ago, I was helping chaperone some teenage kids in Europe. Our hotel was invaded by a dozen big, strapping Italians who were Trouble. They felt completely free to harass our girls. Sort of a being-Italian thing. Being-Italian also means complete freedom to disappear when the portly, aging, but pissed chaperone shows up.
Indeed…what most ‘blame America’ leftists seem to not understand…or determined to ignore…is that this Islamic tide…is coming…no matter what…and if we want to keep a society that respects individual rights and other freedoms…then Islam is going to have to give a little…and come out of the middle ages…and be a little bit more reasonable in how it tolerates dissent…or gays…or women…or what have you
If they think they can move to the West…and slowly invade the place…and dictate what is allowed and what is not allowed…then we WILL have a Holy war…and the West WILL win
The one advantage that we have over them…is knowledge of things besides the Koran…
Thank God we have a guy like Bush in office…who will take the fight to them…instead of a Celebrity Coward like Clinton…more worried about what people think of him…than the common good
As a Canadian I am afraid freedom of speech is no longer valued in my country. We’d far rather have the cradle to grave security offered through a bureaucratically bloated medicare system than the freedom to speak our minds.
I’m sorry am I allowed to speak seriously?
No scotch for me, ed. In protest, (and long having abandoned Canadian whiskey) I’ve converted to good ol’ red state bourbon. With Coke, no Pepsi.
Time to circle the wagons Jeff, look at this freaking madness from the ever so asinine mind of one John Conyers-
H. Res. 288- (full text here)
So along with the Koran, you can go ahead and fluch the first amendment down the toilet as well…
What if someone uses a lit US flag to ignite a Koran at the same time that someone else uses a lit Koran to ignite a US flag? Just imagine the indignation that would flare up from all quarters to such performance art. Which pyromaniac has committed the greater sin or crime (since they aren’t synonymous—yet)? Better yet, what if we print the Koran on a large US flag. Would burning this Koranified US flag then be wrong in Mr. Conyer’s eyes?
All that stands between us and them is the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. It’s a shame the Constitution is more and more open to “interpretation.” Remember, as Justice Kennedy tells us, we have to look not to what the Constitution says, but to ”the overwhelming weight of international opinion…”
Europe descends further into authoritarianism
I thought the Europeans were so properly nuanced that this could never happen.
Holy. Freakin. Shit. (As Justice Scalia would say.) What the HELL does ‘treated with respect’ mean? ‘Crimes and ACTS’?! What the hell is an ‘act’? What in God’s name are ‘our friends and neighbors’, legally defined? Why, oh why must our government pass a bullshit resolution which ‘resolves’, whatever the hell that means, what the definition of ‘Islam’ is? How motherf*&^ing insane do you have to be before you write a law like that–it means everything and nothing depending upon the person interpreting it; it reads like a resolution from a G*()&mn high school model UN (or the European Union). Resolved: that mean people suck! Resolved: that we should visualize world peace! Resolved: that we should free Tibe–uh–oh, crap, wait a minute–scratch that.
Of course, Conyers is playing to his niche market of people who never matured past high school and honestly think that crap like this is the sort of stuff that government really should be doing. Like Kucinich and his bullshit ‘Department of Peace’ idea–one can only hope that our government (or the fourteen preening jackasses who now run it) isn’t actually stupid enough to pass it. I wouldn’t have thought so–but then, hitherto I wouldn’t have thought it was physically possible to be stupid enough to write (or to vote for the guy who would write) that resolution.
Say–I think I’ll start a religion with the seven Harry Potter books as ‘holy texts’, which finds the buying and selling of same by the unclean heathen of Amazon.com to be immoral, wrong, and–ah–’disrespectful’. What, you say? You’ve never heard of my religion? How dare you, sir, impose your dominant paradigm on me–minority being oppressed! Minority (of one–which is one hell of a minority) being oppressed! Oh, save me John Conyers!
I can’t imagine having the same standards for those (in the Muslim world) that defame Christianity and Judaism.
” we see harbingers of that same impulse here in the U.S. in things like hate crime legislation and in our mindless cultural surrender to the execrable and anti-individualist “diversity†movement.”
Actually I think Jeff is missing the boat here.
The anti-Islam defamation thing is being sold by leftists as part of the “diversity” movement, but there is a quiet understanding that the actual impulse is quite the opposite.
The purposes of the diversity movements don’t intersect the purpose of silencing criticism of Islam at all.
The dirty secret is that the european left has a very nuanced dialectic for taming Islam. To wit:
1. Islam is VERY violent and dangerous
2. SHUT UP, YOU’RE PROVOKING THEM, YOU IDIOT!
3. praise Islamists to the skies, lick their boots, cocks or whatever else. If they say that beating women is a man’s duty, then praise for that. Whatever! It doesn’t matter. DO IT!
4. MY GOD, DON’T YOU KNOW WHEN TO SHUT UP? SHUT THE FUCK UP! IF SOME VIOLENT GROUP SAYS “SHUT UP” THEN SHUT UP! DO YOU WANT TO TURN EUROPE INTO ALGERIA? THEN SHUT UP AND GIVE THEM WHATEVER THEY ASK FOR BEFORE THEY START BLOWING US UP!
5. As soon as there is no more unemployment and enough funding for (infinite) entitlements and education, then society will be saved, Halelluah, angels will sing on street corners and there will be no more honor killings or mass rapes, Praise Marx.
So that the attitude the Euopeans take toward America’s silly idealistic drive to improve the world and toward (idiots like) Orianna Fallaci (who don’t know enough to shut up!) You can’t expect the left to say that to them, freedom and stuff were great ideals when there was no danger, but that in the face of danger they’re just unimportant slogans and the only things that are important are avoiding violence in your own back yard, avoiding war and, most of all, getting impossible ideal raises in all entitlements, education and employment.
After all getting some impossible level of entitlements and employment and education is the left replacement for being saved by Jesus Christ.
These will cure all evils no matter how unrelated.
Honor killings, forced mariages, threats in families. Of course those will go away when there’s no more unemployment. Same with mass rapes.
But the left’s reaction islamists is give them WHATEVER they want PRAISE THEM TO THE SKIES (no matter what lies you have to tell to praise them) and SHUT UP, YOU’RE PROVOKING THEM, YOU IDIOT!!!!
Also they, when faced with someone like Orianna they have a deeply nuanced dialectic: MY GOD, DON’T YOU KNOW WHEN TO SHUT UP? SHUT THE FUCK UP! IF SOME VIOLENT GROUP SAYS “SHUT UP” THEN SHUT UP! DO YOU WANT TO TURN EUROPE INTO ALGERIA? THEN SHUT UP AND GIVE THEM WHATEVER THEY ASK FOR BEFORE THEY START BLOWING US UP! IT’S ALL YOUR FAULT!!!!
I know that was completely incoherent. But I challenge anyone to find the slightest difference between that insanity and the left’s way of handling Islamism.
Soon enough it will turn from prosecution to persecution. [Seque to Mel Brooks singing “The Inquisition”.] Uh oh, there’s some Santayana guy at the door asking if I remember him. I better get that.
Dude, Carlos Santayana?
In a disturbing development, both Reuters and Catholic World Digest report that representatives from Vatican City have expressed an interest in purchasing military hardware for defensive purposes.
This is thought to be in response to Italy’s caving into Islamist extremism and fears w/i Vatican City that the Italians would be unable to protect it.
“Pray, but Verify” is Benedict the XVIth’s motto.
Bumper: link, please?
Well, I made that story up in the hopes of ginning up an internet rumour and, perhaps, the sale of Patriot Missiles to the Pope to protect St. Peters.
I’ll go turn myself into the MediaSlander site – then strap myself to the rack and wait for Michelle Malkin to show up in something leathery and administer her special brand of discipline …
… just my luck, Hugh Hewitt will arrive instead.
Damn. The thought of an armed St. Peters Basilica and Vatican City has such a Crusades feel to it, that I couldn’t help but feel a frisson of excitement.
But the image of Malkin you just put in my head more than makes up for the insult. Thanks. I gotta go…
Some 80s comedian had a routine about Jews and Italians, how the Italian army was nothing to worry about, but you wouldn’t want to meet an Italian in a dark alley. With the Jews, it was the reverse.
Turing word = dhimmitude, as in what a coincidence, eh?
Dude, Carlos Santayana?
Good one, Gail.
George, one hopes…
Maybe it’s just my tendancy to be blind to the faults of my own, but I think one major difference between social conservatives form of “censorship” and that of the left, is that Social conservatives see far more concern with speech that has generally been considered explicit. Sexually explicit language, and vulgarity is the right’s concern. Where as the left seems to be concerned about the contents of the idea.
For not explicit speech, the right more tries to “combat” the idea with other speech, but trying to silence the speaker is more the domain of the left. To me, those two things are not equivalent.
Indy Star story
And, guys, the judge is a Republican.
Suck it. Suck it long and suck it hard you hypocritical shitheels.
Um, Sarcastro, did you read the article?
“Getting the judge’s religious restriction lifted should be a slam-dunk, said David Orentlicher, an Indiana University law professor and Democratic state representative from Indianapolis.”
America: A judge inserts his religious beliefs into a divorce hearing, and will be slapped down on appeal as soon as the court is done laughing.
Italy: A judge demands that a famous author stand trial because of what she wrote.
Do you understand the difference between a judge inserting his religious beliefs into a perfectly legitimate court proceeding, and a judge initiating a court hearing based on a law that is anti-freedom of speech?
And I’m curious to know why you think that Democrats, or independents, should not criticize illiberal actions by non-Republicans if it’s possible to find remotely similar behavior by Republicans? Do you really think that only Republicans should find the Fallaci trial repugnant?
Sarcastro likely came over from Pandagon, where Jesse, too, ignored my remonstrations to those on the right who act in a way that is similarly anti freedom and got caught up in the fact that I (correctly, in my estimation) identified the tolerance and diversity doctrines as the product of leftist thinking. One need not be a leftist to use the tools, of course—and in fact, one of the major concerns I have is that some on the right have already accepted as mainstream the anti-individualistic “diversity” industry.
But then, had Sarcastro acknowledged any of those things, he would have been able to use the “hypocritical” tag that progressives like to fall back on these days. And of course, the “shitheels” thing was simply how one treats strangers when one is a progressive and he decides he is addressing a group of (likely) conservatives. It’s part of the sophistication and nuance dealie they got going.
Joel B —
Combatting speech with other speech is certainly the way to go. But outlawing speech based on a personal interpretation of what is “decent” and then trying to extend that ban outward can be just as dangerous.
For fuck’s sake – the boy is being raised Wiccan and sent to Bishop Chatard High School.
from which we learn this:
Bishop Chatard High School, the archdiocesan secondary school of the North Deanery parishes, exists to develop the academic, spiritual, physical and social potential of its students within a community rooted in the Gospel and Catholic teachings, traditions and moral values
Odd choice for a Wiccan, considering the following:
The school, btw, is a private school with tuitiion of around $8,175 for non-Catholics, non-Catholic in the sense of ‘those who’s weekly church contributions help us with our budget’.
which is to say that the Judge, in a fit of Maude Flanders’s like concern, thought of the child.
in the good sense.
Sarcastro,
Why do you suppose that every Republican would agree with one dumbass judges obviously unconstitutional ruling? Here in CA we’ve had a judge forbid a parent from teaching her child Christianity. That stupidity was also eventually overturned. That’s what appeals courts are for.
You should also take Floyd’s excellent points to heart.
Why do you suppose that every Republican would agree with one dumbass judges obviously unconstitutional ruling?
Funny, that’s exactly what I thought when I read Jeff’s little stock diatribe about “the left” using restrictions as a means of gaining power. Why the fuck would anyone with a brain think that the entire left, “en masse”, as BLT in CO put it, would support an idiotic ruling like this one?
The answer to this question, in my estimation, is that no one does think that, including Jeff. What Jeff thinks is that the uber-leftist PC bogeymen who live in his paranoid fantasy world are useful rhetorical clubs with which to bash the left and make sure to keep alive in the minds of his oh-so-freedom-loving readers the cliched specter of overzealous PC-ness leading to Orwellian speech restrictions… since, of course, “the entire group” supports such restrictions anyway.
PC is annoying. Even as a liberal, I can’t stand PC. Most of my liberal friends can’t stand PC. Most of the ones who like PC are sheltered peacenik yuppies who wouldn’t be able to organize an effective movement if their aim was to convince people that the sky is blue. Jeff knows this, because Jeff is too smart not to know this.
I don’t think that every individual on the left believes in or supports this ruling. I do, however, believe that leftist identity politics, which is tied irrevocably to multiculturalism and to the elevation of the group above the individual, is the philosophical undergirding of rulings that claim to be legislating against hatred and intolerance, but yet are actually legislating against criticism and discussion.
I think that should be clear in what I wrote.
You write, “Most of the ones who like PC are sheltered peacenik yuppies who wouldn’t be able to organize an effective movement if their aim was to convince people that the sky is blue. Jeff knows this, because Jeff is too smart not to know this.”
This is patently absurd. Having spent many years inside an academic culture whose very being thrives on this worldview, and having watched as the “diversity” movement has become a cottage industry inside the workforce, the courts, etc., I can say with confidence that people like you who claim to hate PC can begin fighting it by recognizing the ideological impulse behind it, rather than getting caught up in a defensive posture just because it happens to spring from the politics of the left.
As I mention in my post, we’ve already started to see many instances of this thinking creeping into established law and policy; in Canada, the situation is becoming quite dire. So as I see it, you have two choices: fight against it, or stand by with your hands over your ears and pretend it doesn’t exist—all the while shouting that it is but a figment of the imagination of your own stock bogeyman: the unnuanced conservative unthinkingly beating his rhetorical drum and calling for an uprising against a problem that doesn’t exist.
Combatting speech with other speech is certainly the way to go. But outlawing speech based on a personal interpretation of what is “decent†and then trying to extend that ban outward can be just as dangerous.
I agree with you, and this is the most contentious aspect of law, where to draw the line, if there should be one (which I believe can be appropriate).
At the same time however, advocating Hedonism through publications speaking of it’s enjoyableness it “evolutionary” design etc. I guess I don’t so much have a problem with that. Having explicit photographs etc. that’s where I don’t have a problem saying not “First Amendment Speech.” Unfortunately for me, I don’t see my position winning out in the near future.
bang
Rise up!
bang
Up Rise!
bang
Rise Up!
bang
Up Rise!
bang
Rise Up!
bang
Up Rise!
bang
Rise Up!
bang
Up Rise!
bang
Rise Up!
bang
Up Rise
bang
Rise Up
bang
it exists. Rise up.
I do, however, believe that leftist identity politics, which is tied irrevocably to multiculturalism and to the elevation of the group above the individual, is the philosophical undergirding of rulings that claim to be legislating against hatred and intolerance, but yet are actually legislating against criticism and discussion.
In other words, sometimes leftist philosophy goes too far and, due to its radical hyper-rationalist misinterpretation by certain individuals, becomes a force for precisely the opposite of its original intent? Well, color me shocked and awed.
But let’s be clear: when you wrote “what you are witnessing here is a carefully crafted velvet insurgency, a diminution of freedoms on the part of leftist governments and judiciaries by way of gaining control of the parameters for acceptable speech and discussion.”, you weren’t trying to say that leftist philosophy undergirds occasional (or even frequent) judicial overreach; you were trying to paint the PC movement as a conscious attempt by the left to reduce freedom for the sake of freedom-reduction. That’s the difference between a solid, reasonable, probably very correct, critique of the excesses of leftism (or any other political movement), and pure partisan hyperbole designed for no other purpose than demonization one’s political opponents.
Incidentally, there’s no eye-covering or sticking of head into sand on my end; I do understand the point about extreme leftist philosophy that you were trying to make, along with the left-bashing. There’s no question that your criticisms have a small element of truth, because you’re right in saying that the potential exists for exactly what you claim to fear to come to pass (i.e. Orwellian speech restrictions). Where you step a long way over the line is in two ways:
1) Presenting this eventuality as not just the possible result of self-righteous naivete run amok, but as an original goal, a primary motivating factor, in the PC movement.
2) Portraying this behavior as somehow representative of any but the most extreme elements of the left (or even, really, the right).
If you’ve spent most of your adult life around leftists academics, and still refuse to admit that most PC types are just well-intentioned and egalitarian, rather than coldly calculating and power-hungry, AND that they are a significant minority, then I see no problem with calling bullshit on your “velvet insurgency”.
1) I didn’t say this wasn’t an originary goal of some in the PC movement, though I believe those whose philosophy it is would put a different spin on it than I have. I simply said that not everyone who adheres to the precepts of the corresponding movements engendered by the philosophy (be they on the left or right) are doing so with malice, or even any kind of structural awareness of the problems that necessarily crop up when the philosophy begins to be applied to legal thinking and cultural design. That it is anti-freedom and totalitarian is my interpretation of it.
2) I think the intentional pursuance to its logical extremes of such a philosophy is limited to committed leftist ideologues(and, on the right, to moral scolds and a handful of religious extremists). Unfortunately, many of those people gravitate toward the academy, which sets the agenda for a good deal of leftist political thinking. By design, then, it has made its way into left-liberal thinking. I wouldn’t say the leftist intelligensia who pushes this agenda believes it a “conscious attempt by the left to reduce freedom for the sake of freedom-reduction.” I suspect they consider it a way to deconstruct Enlightenment thinking and to affirm the contingency of values in order to affect a radical egalitarianism that diminishes the power of the haves and extends the powers of the have nots (to characterize their way of thinking in very broad strokes). So a case can be made that THEY believe they are actually increasing the freedoms of the dispossessed. But the logical outcome of such a philosophy of expediency and balkanization is, in the long run, to impinge upon the freedoms of everyone.
You can call bullshit all you want. But I’m going to call it like I see it.