What’s Wrong with the World

This is how it begins.

Lefty acquaintances keep assuring me that the sort of multi-culturalist censorship that now prevails in Canada & the EU could never happen here - 'cause we've got the 1st Amendment!

And all the while, they push for Supreme Court justices who can be counted on to "interpret" the 1st Amendment into...shall we say...submission?

"(I suppose PETA would, if they wanted, be able to walk about and distribute pamphlets on the alleged cruelty of Muslim slaughter techniques, for example)"

Don't bet on it. PC MC does not merely discriminate against Christians -- it tends to throw all liberal causes under the bus when it comes to "respecting" Muslims: feminism, gay rights, animal rights, the rights and causes of non-Muslim ethnic minorities.

Islam has become the #1 Cause of the world, and Muslims the #1 Ethnic Minority of the world. This is in great part because they tend to blow things up (and threaten to do so), while other activist groups don't.

It is also because of the crucial function of the dogma of Reverse Racism in the PC MC paradigm: when PC MCs look at Muslims, 98% of the time they will see a Brown Person with the additional spice of Third World Culture. Because of Reverse Racism, Muslims enjoy the baseline prejudice of favoritism in contrast with the self-critical denigration of white Westerners.

This dogma of Reverse Racism, through the tactics of thuggery practiced by Muslims (both the Bad Cops among them who explode, and the Good Cops who like smiling snakes speak of "dialogue" sophistically fused with various forms of smooth deceit), has morphed in the years since 9/11 into the catapulting of Muslims into the privileged position of the #1 Ethnic Minority of the World, whose grievances matter the most to the West above those of all others -- whether white, brown, black or yellow, whether Christian or liberal atheist.

In this Dearborn context, Arab Christians have become the "Honorary Whites" -- as all non-Muslims of the world are -- thereby vulnerable to the dogma of Reverse Racism.

Hesperado, my guess is that attempting to convert Muslims to Christianity is a much more hot-button issue than my (purely hypothetical) example of a PETA complaint against Muslim slaughter. After all, conversion from Islam is punishable by death. My guess is that police would let the PETA people (if there were any) wander where they would until and unless they got complaints, and that having rounded up the Christians and thus proven their dhimmitude where it really counts they might not get complaints.

But I admit that I would find it interesting to know what other ad hoc groups are roaming freely about the festival. Presumably they would be Muslim-friendly groups. Perhaps people advertising really pretty burqinis? :-)

It may be that the lawyer has a list and is keeping it under his hat for springing in court in the course of the suit. Or it may be that there aren't a whole lot of other groups that actually do wander about presenting literature. But generally leafleting and tract-passing on public sidewalks have indeed been regarded as protected speech under the 1st Amendment, and it cannot possibly be a coincidence that the group being thus restricted is a group passing literature likely to offend Muslims. I only hope that there _are_ a number of other groups wandering about so that the lawyers for the Christian group can make their case in court really forcefully.

I think Hesperado is right that in the West the Muslims are the favored *cause celebre* among the aggrieved and downtrodden clans of the world. I had not really thought of them as numero uno before but they lead the pack in so many ways. And they know how to milk that pious dignity thing, too, regardless of its authenticity. Seems to work wonders.

Aside from obvious causalities such as the nature of Islam itself, Arab directed petrodollars, politically lobotomized liberal whites, etc., there is also the matter of balancing, so to speak, the oppression of Arabs by the State of Israel. I suspect this is no small compelling motive for those who carry water for Muslims colonists in the West and support them *with increasing defensiveness*, even in the face of box cars of evidence that tells us the game plan and end plan of Islam and its adherents.

When the victimized darlings of liberalism have been used up, they themselves will be the victims. That tipping point seems to be visible on the horizon.

Steve Burton writes above.

This is how it begins.

Begins?

If one, instead of amusing oneself with Mark Steyn’s entertainment columns, had paid attention to others, more serious, courageous and concerned (Lawrence Auster comes to mind) one may have had a chance to wake up to the reality that “it” began quite a few years ago in America. It is not Europe alone.

T. Hanski,

Hasn't Steve posted several comments indicating that Mr. Auster's work is valuable and that he benefits from reading it? I am curious how anyone could give Mr. Burton a fair reading and leave your previous comment?

At tot he subject at hand, I am at a loss as to how far things will have to go before the enlightended people of the West come to grips with the fact that not everyone is pacified through there awe of our way of life and not everyone plays fair.

Jay

Oh, and forgive the typos. A wife, three young children, and my dog are all urging me to join them for dinner. ;-)

Jay

Jay Watts,

In my European eyes had Steve Burton really benefitted from L. Auster writing he wouldn't have wasted so much good ink defending Mark Steyn from the just criticism of L. Auster.

Ah, typos...At least you have a good excuse. Not so with me.
My regards to you and your family. And the dog, of course.

Hello WWWW'ers --

Lefty acquaintances keep assuring me that the sort of multi-culturalist censorship that now prevails in Canada & the EU could never happen here - 'cause we've got the 1st Amendment!

Well never say never, but I do indeed say it's much less likely to come to the US. 1st amend. jurisprudence is in a reasonable state where the most serious threats come from the right -- e.g. pornography and flag burning.

I don't know what to make of this post. It's a link to jihad watch post that recapitulates press releases from the group's lawyers and contains a single link to a world net daily article. Personally I'd wait for some more objective sources before reinforcing your priors, Steve.

E.g. here's a quite from a Detroit paper:

"We have Christian and Muslim groups that have information booths (at the festival)," said Fay Beydoun, the executive director for the American Arab Chamber of Commerce in Dearborn, one of the groups organizing the event. Arabic Christian Perspective is welcome to rent a booth as well, she said, but the group has not contacted her organization.

http://www.detnews.com/article/20090617/METRO/906170360/1409/METRO/Christian-group-sues-Dearborn-over-Arab-festival-access

So who knows whether Christians were actually singled out -- maybe just folks who didn't rent a booth were. Unclear.

And all the while, they push for Supreme Court justices who can be counted on to "interpret" the 1st Amendment into...shall we say...submission?

Oh dear! Nutty talk! Is that what goes on here?

Can we get a single opinion by a left-leaning SCOTUS justice, or a SCOTUS nominee, or how about even an opinion by someone on a short list of nominees by a D pres., that shows a willingness to bend a 1st amend. case in favor of Islamic-based speech suppression?

I hihgly doubt you have any basis whatsoever for making such an assertion, but would be itnerested to be proven wrong!

I'm not _at all_ sure I shd. bother talking to "Catchy," but as you can see, the point is that they *aren't supposed to have to have a booth*. Get it? And they never did in the past. There are *public sidewalks* we're talkin' here. They used to just walk about passing out Christian tracts. In my long-ago fundamentalist days, I spent time doing what was then called "street evangelism" myself. Walked around passing out tracts and chatting to people sitting on benches in the park. In the U.S., you do not have to have police permission to do this. You do not have to do it from a booth. You do not have to have a special location. You do not have to rent a booth. And the fact that an Arab festival was going on (on public streets) never in the past made any difference to this perfectly normal free exercise of religion and freedom of speech. The quotation from the Detroit News article is _totally irrelevant_ to the issue of the lawsuit.

T. Hanski, I think Steve's point--and an important one--is that it's so far unusual (I can't think myself of another case offhand, though I may be forgetting) in the U.S. for the police themselves to try to restrict or limit speech deemed offensive to Muslims. To the extent that this happens (and if I'm forgetting previous incidents, they can just be figured in here), it presents a challenge to the claim that the 1st Amendment is a block to absolute American dhimmitude of more or less the sort we see in the UK and elsewhere. So this is news, and the fate of the federal court case here will be of more than passing interest. And while in one sense "it" began, yes, some time ago, in another sense this particular event is the kind of thing that shd. make Steve's lefty friends sit up and take notice. Though it probably won't.

Lydia,

Yes, I was arguing more from the perspective of the dhimmis placating Muslims, rather than from the Muslim perspective. Muslims would of course feel more hostile toward Christian evangelizers -- particularly Arab "traitors" -- than toward PETA folks. The PC MC dhimmis just have this anxious need, ill-informed through their Islamic illiteracy, to make Muslims feel mollified in general, as I explained.

The PC MC dhimmis more likely than not don't even know about the Sahih Muslim hadith ("If a [Muslim] man changes his religion, kill him"), and if someone informed them, they'd have several back-up measures by which to obfuscate the force of it -- not the least of which their ignorance of the fact that in Islam the Sunna is as important as the Koran. They also wouldn't know that in Islam Shirk ("associating partners with Allah") is a crime worse than murder (cf. Ibn Kathir's tafsir) and that the divinity of Jesus, as well as the Trinity, are understood to be in fact Shirk.

Incidentally, you were right to catch "catchy" in his misunderstanding up above: indeed, the generous allowance of providing special booths for the Christian Arabs fits in with the Islamic attitude of imposing dhimmitude -- i.e., keeping the People of the Book "in their place" in various ways while they are under the "protection" of the Maf -- er, I mean, the Muslims (as adumbrated in the Pact of Umar, where Christians and Jews must "behave" by riding low donkeys and not high horses, walking on the sewage gutters of the streets, moving out of the way when a Muslim approaches, not building new churches, not repairing old churches, etc.).

Ms. Lydia,

Police doesn’t act in vacuum, but in an atmosphere reflecting political and ideological realities characteristic of the times. So, unless I am very mistaken, the “it” S. Burton has in mind is not simply the unconstitutional actions of the Detroit police, but an insidious, creeping process that makes such actions (and quite a few other instances of American constitutional rights violation regularly reported at, for example, Jihad Watch) conceivable.

I share your doubt that "Steve’s lefty friends" should sit up and take notice. Still, I know about some cases leftist did so – and not in America alone.

"but as you can see, the point is that they *aren't supposed to have to have a booth*. Get it?"

1. Those were the facts as alleged by their attorneys and world net daily. That's not objective info. in my book. 2. I didn't see where anyone even in the linked press release claimed only Christians were asked to have a booth before disseminating materials, despite the fact that people are claiming the organization and police targeted Christians specifically.

But if the facts are as alleged this may well be a 1st amendment violation for the reasons you mention. And it's one I would expect the courts to deal with appropriately as they tend to here in the US but not in Canada or the UK.

Perhaps you or Steve Burton would care to support the assertion that there are desired leftist justices for SCOTUS in the US who bend 1st amendment law to favor Muslim anti-free speech sensibilities. I'd settle for someone who was merely nominated, or on a short list of nominees. I'd also be curious to hear about a federal appeals circuit court justice who exhibited 'leftist dhimmitude' with respect to 1st amend. jurisprudence.

My impression is that this isn't a problem in the US outside the minds of certain conservatives. The greater threat to free speech here still comes from the right.

My impression is that this isn't a problem in the US outside the minds of certain conservatives. The greater threat to free speech here still comes from the right.

You haven't been on the campus of an American public university lately.

catchy rejects the report of William Becker, attorney for the Arabic Christian Perspective group, in which he wrote:

"my client, Arabic Christian Perspective (APC) was denied its request for a temporary restraining order, which would have prevented the City of Dearborn from restricting APC's First Amendment right to distribute its Christian material on public sidewalks adjacent to the annual Arab International Festival"

and

"Meanwhile, because they are not subject to the court order, numerous other groups, including Christian groups, are milling about the Festival distributing their material and conducting various types of transactions."

and

"The Festival offered APC a booth to give out their material, and Dearborn police gave it the option of two locations, one of which was in the center of the Festival and where APC could reach large numbers of people. APC chose that location and operated there for awhile until the same police officer who had given them the option told them to move to a remote location on the outer east end of the Festival, where they see few passersby."

Why would the attorney for the case publish a report of the situation containing false claims? Granted, a lawyer has to sell his case, but these particular claims seem easily verifiable or easily disproven. If claims like these were false, they would be found out, and would jeopardize his case and his reputation. It makes no sense.

catchy rejects World Net Daily as a source, but there's also the Detroit Free Press:

http://www.freep.com/article/20090618/NEWS02/90618059/1004/Judge++Group+can+t+roam+with+literature+at+Arab+festival

Here's how I see it: Muslims in the US will get along fine and may even get special exemptions like the ones you talk about above until they go against the gay rights crowd. At the point, I see an Epic Fail on the fundamentalist Muslims' horizon. So, I don't think we have to worry about the Islamization of America--once they attack gay marriage or there are hate crimes against American gays, I suspect they will very quickly lose their special status in the minds of the Invisible Committee who decides what things are and are not PC. (Of course, the counter is that when blacks and Hispanics voted in favor of Prop 8, no ire was directed to them, but it was, in fact, directed entirely towards the Mormons. Arguably, this could happen with Muslims as well, but I think the fact that they are primarily a theistic religious group, rather than an ethnic group, will work against them.)

It still is terrible when any group is denied its fundamental rights, however.

I should say: a _little_ ire was directed towards blacks and Hispanics by Jon Stewart of The Daily Show. But that didn't last long. (Also, there were lots of protests against Prop 8 in West Hollywood, but for some reason none in South Central LA. I have no idea why, since people in West Hollywood were extremely supportive of it.)

But thing is, Bobcat, that does not seem to have played out that way in Holland. Holland is _super_ gay-friendly, yet its Islamicization proceeds apace. I think it's Rotterdam that has a very strong Muslim presence now. And there's Geert Wilders dragged into court for insulting Islam. The neo-cons in the U.S. (if you'll excuse that term as shorthand) try to do a lot with the business about how Islam is dangerous for homosexuals and so forth, but it never gets them anywhere at all, so they might as well drop the attempt to appeal to the PC crowd.

You haven't been on the campus of an American public university lately.

The disputed claim was specifically about leftist PC SCOTUS judges who compromise 1st amendment law out of PC sensibilities for muslims. I say there's no evidence for Steve Burton's cherry bomb and his comment misrepresents something the US should be proud of vs. CAnada or the UK -- our left is much more firmly committed to free speech.

As for PC campus administrators, I agree they often pose a problem for free speech. But they are not in the courts and don't pose as big a problem in the US to free speech as posed by the right.

Why would the attorney for the case publish a report of the situation containing false claims? Granted, a lawyer has to sell his case, but these particular claims seem easily verifiable or easily disproven. If claims like these were false, they would be found out, and would jeopardize his case and his reputation. It makes no sense.

It's not unusual for an attorney to release spin to the public and unfortunately the threat of a 'damaged reputation' often isn't much of a deterrent. Esp. an attorney from the Thomas Moore Law Center.

In any case, I was just waiting to hear more about the facts of the case before putting this into some 'leftists support PC free speech exceptions for angry muslims' meme.

Is it usually considered legal to tell citizens of a city that they can't enter an entire five-block area of public sidewalks during some sort of festival being held in that neighborhood if (and only if) they intend to pass out leaflets? Sounds highly improbable to me. Since it appears that the festival is open to the public--you don't, apparently, have to have a ticket you purchase, and I don't see how you _could_ have to have a ticket since it's being conducted in a five-block area of public streets--they can't tell these Christians that they can't walk in there. And that fits with the lawyer's statement in one release that his clients can _attend_ the festival but simply have been told they can't pass out literature while walking around. But in that case, obviously what's being restricted is the literature-passing per se, which on public streets sounds to me like a clearcut First Amendment case. I don't see how it could be otherwise.

Is it usually considered legal to tell citizens of a city that they can't enter an entire five-block area of public sidewalks during some sort of festival being held in that neighborhood if (and only if) they intend to pass out leaflets?

I have no idea. Honestly. What's your explanation for why other Christian groups were allowed to have booths at the festival?

I appreciate your initial analysis, but my suggestion is to look at a court opinion or reasonably lengthed article before jumping to conclusions. At least that's what I intend to do.

I'd have to know more about the similarities between The Netherlands and the US. For instance, what sort of reaction does the Catholic Church get when it espouses it's views on homosexuality, as opposed to Muslims?

What's your explanation for why other Christian groups were allowed to have booths at the festival?

Mine is that Arab Christians are the group the Muslims find most objectionable, and either certain Muslims in key places put up a stink, or PC dhimmis dimly recognize this and wanted to placate Muslims, or both.

What's your explanation for why other Christian groups were allowed to have booths at the festival?

Wait a minute. This isn't about having booths at the festival. This is about _wandering around freely_ at the festival. I'm sure I already explained this to you. The APC was offered a booth, though later the booth was moved to a less desirable location. That's not the point. They were never confined to a booth before. Nobody's questioning that Christian groups are "allowed to have booths." The problem is that this particular Christian group isn't wandering around freely. Now, their lawyer does say that other Christian groups have been allowed to wander around freely. I don't know if you're starting to believe him now and are asking me for "my explanation," but his explanation seems perfectly plausible: The other Christian groups didn't prenotify the police of their intention to be there and hence weren't told by the police, "No, you have to stay at a booth." Simple. In fact, presumably that's why the APC's lawyer intends to tell them in future years not to notify the police ahead of time, because this is treated like asking for permission even though no permission is required. How much clearer does it have to get?

Bobcat, I'm a bit of a cynic. I suspect the Catholic Church in Holland (in Holland itself, per se) isn't all _that_ loud in condemnation of the homosexual agenda. But I'm not sure what the comparison would show. The main thing, relating to your initial conjecture, that I would take Holland to show is that Islam's teachings on homosexuality do not seem to be slowing down the dhimmitude.

Lydia, your analysis based on the lawyer's press release is crystal.

To sum up, you don't really know, but suspect, based on the lawyer's say-so, that no other groups were denied the right to pass out leaflets. Further, you suspect, but don't know, that requiring groups at a festival to use a booth vs. passing out leaflets violates the 1st amendment.

Since you're not in possession of objective info. or relevant case law, what can I say except 'I wouldn't jump to conclusions were I in your shoes.'

Similarly, your claims that lefty groups like PETA wouldn't have been similarly targeted, and Steve Burton's comments re: SCOTUS justices who lean left, are just rank speculation.

But why am I somehow challenged to come up with an "explanation" for their giving Christian groups booths? I mean, let's start with the fact that the city would probably have _preferred_ not to be sued for violating the 1st Amendment. So they even offered ACP a booth. They think that makes them look good. But when the group got in touch with the police again this year, obviously someone in the police department thought, "Darn it. Why should they just be wandering around like that? Who knows what might happen? Why can't they just have a booth and do it there?" From the Muslim perspective, this is less offensive because the evangelization attempt is controlled in a limited area, especially if the area isn't especially desirable. They take what they can get for the nonce.

Hi, catchy - I owe you a response. I'll try to find time tomorrow.

Preview: the American left is but a tentative pre-echo of the international left. And the international left is uniformly hostile to freedom of speech, whenever it becomes the least bit inconvenient to the multi-culti agenda.

But why am I somehow challenged to come up with an "explanation" for their giving Christian groups booths?

You'll have to pardon me, Lydia. I glanced back and realized that question was based on a careless reading of one of your sentences.

Btw, I hope I've addressed your strongest pt.s where relevant. Tends to make for more interesting convo. I encourage same.

Preview: the American left is but a tentative pre-echo of the international left. And the international left is uniformly hostile to freedom of speech, whenever it becomes the least bit inconvenient to the multi-culti agenda.

Get real! You're never going to get around to defending that gargantuan thesis, Steve!

And since you won't find the time, I can take a pot shot -- it's totally false with respect to US leftist legal theorizing.

I know pre-echoes are faint, but the ACLU doesn't sound like that and I've been listening.

our left is much more firmly committed to free speech.

Talk about unsupportable theses! You should probably restrict your claim to the same one you challenged - perhaps leftist SCOTUS justices are firmly committed to free speech; but the "left" in general is absolutely against it - just witness our recent President co-opting ABC to push his health care reform without allowing any airtime for counter views. Or the "equal airtime" legislation the left is pushing so that liberal talk radio has to be forced on thepublic since they wouldn't listen to it any other way. Or the general MSM leftist bias in just about everything they report. Free speech my a$$.

catchy, why does the ACLU spend more time and effort fighting Judaeo-Christian intrusion re: church-state separation, than they do Islamic intrusion? What would the difference between these two religions be in the ACLU philosophy?

Hesperado -- it's kind of a dumb question isn't it? THere are at least 50x more Christians in the US than Muslims. So of course the ACLU spends more time on CHristian intrusion on Church-state separation.

But you're misinformed if you think the ACLU favors Islam crossing the church/state separation but not Christianity.

The ACLU is the least understood organization by the right in this country. I think the 2nd is now that Latino group that Sotomayor belonged to.

Talk about unsupportable theses!

Maybe so, but I didn't promise to support it today and I won't!

For once, I reluctantly take the side of the evangelists. Normally, I tell these bible-pushers that I want nothing to do with them. If they persist I either retaliate by insulting their beliefs back, or by asking the bus driver to throw them off the bus for persistently harrassing another passenger.

But in this case, this is too much! These Christians have the same right peacefully to offer their literature as the Nazis did to march in Skokie, Illinois. I don't care for either Nazis or bible-pushers, but the real issue here is the Constitution.