On Freedom of Speech and Islam

As everyone who pays attention to the news knows, throughout the world Muslims are protesting against the publication of satirical cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed. The protests have ranged from violence in Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Iran, and Denmark, marches in other nations, and primarily peaceful gatherings and protests in western countries such as Canada. This is very interesting considering that the cartoons were first published in Denmark in September of 2005, followed by publishing in Egypt in Al Fagr in October 2005 (to little outcry), and most recently in various European newspapers.

The fundamental issue, listening to the dispute between Muslims and those who are speaking for western civilization, is that there are three views:

• Freedom of Speech is absolute, even if it means you offend someone else's beliefs
• Freedom of Speech is nice-to-have, but it would be best if you censored yourself and avoid offending Muslim society
• Muslim law is paramount

The last of these is the view of the protesting Muslims, making statements like "You don't respect our religion" or demanding that western nations implement "a law committing the press and the media in the West that proscribes insulting our prophet"

The second of these is the pansy response, as can be found in the responses of the foreign ministers of Canada, Britain and the spokesman of the President of the United States. The speakers of these statements are either too terrified of the risk of speaking against Islam, or are trying to have it both ways, when it isn't possible.

The first of these is the correct view for the future of western civilization. As I have posited before, there is a fundamental dispute between Islam and the free democratic society that is western civilization. The separation of religion from the state as occurred during the Enlightenment was the step that allowed western civilization to create the idea of Free Speech. Islam has not had an "Enlightenment". There has never been a separation of mosque and state, and in many states they are one in the same (Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc). Islam claims to preach peace, but the displayed anger and hate for Jews, Christians and Hindus show that Islam has not yet developed a sense of fairness. Islamic scholars still speak of "the infidels" the way that the Catholic church did during the Middle Ages at the time of the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition. Western Civilization has overcome this view and provides for Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech. Muslim nations do not allow either of these in any sense of the word freedom. It is illegal to openly practice other religions in many Muslim countries.

Therefore, I have two messages for anyone who is offended by the publication of the Muhammed cartoons, or anyone who feels that western civilization should back down on questions of freedom:

• We, the citizens of the civilized free nations, will defend that freedom. If you don't want to live in a society that allows others free to offend your faith, perhaps you should live somewhere else.
• If you expect us to show more respect towards your faith, perhaps you should consider showing more respect for the faiths of non-muslims. We give you the freedom to practice your religion in our nations; perhaps you should consider reciprocating.

In the oft-attributed statement of Voltaire, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". This is a statement that all in the west should hold dearly to if we hope to maintain our free civilization.

Book Review #2

Our Culture, What's Left of It: The Mandarins and the Masses
by Theodore Dalrymple

I haven't even finished this book, but I couldn't resist writing a review already. This book is a collection of essays written by the author over the last 7-8 years. Dalrymple is a British physician who puts together very intelligent and insightful commentaries on our society and what is wrong with it.

More importantly, he identifies the causes behind the decline of western civilization, and how barbarism is winning out because the policies of socialist idealism have engineered this result. He also points out how the decline in the quality of literature and written thought have "dumbed-down" society. He compares literature from the 16th through 19th centuries to that of the 20th and shows that the latter-day writers who have been heralded by the elites of modern western civilization are anything but great thinkers.

While I am only perhaps a third of the way through the text, my favorite essay thus far is on the Frivolity of Evil in the modern world.

Book Review #1

Rescuing Canada's Right
by Kheiriddin and Daifallah

This book is a very good text into what Conservatives in Canada need to be doing to help create a climate in which Conservative majority governments are not just possible, but likely. This requires building the intellectual and public relations infrastructure to slowly change Canadian public mindsets. Some reviews state that this book is not strong on new ideas. They are correct. Most of these ideas have existed in part or in whole. However, these ideas were either identified individually, or in an American political context. The value of this book is that Kheiriddin and Daifallah provide a complete picture with a Canadian context.

The surprise (this book did not expect it) Conservative victory in the January 2006 election opens some doors to accelerate some of the Kheiriddin and Daifallah plan. Primarily this has to do with the ability of government to influence mindset. The Harper government should, in the interests of individual liberty and the future success of the Conservative Party, immediately act to:

• reduce the power of the CRTC (or get rid of it altogether)
• amend the broadcasting act to remove Sections 3(1)(d) and 3(1)(i)(iv) in the name of freedom of expression. These sections limit that freedom
  
• privatize the CBC
• eliminate government funding of left-wing think tanks and lobby groups
• eliminate government funding of socialist education programs

I would recommend to everyone to get this book.

On the Appointment of Emerson and Fortier

Methinks that many of the conservative bloggers have over-reacted quite badly to the appointments of David Emerson and Michael Fortier. Politics is not a pretty business, and the ideals that one proclaims in opposition can be very difficult to hold to once in power. Both Emerson and Fortier bring experience and knowledge to the portfolios they have been given. They also provide the government with representation for the cities of Vancouver and Montreal, which is important. I find the arguments from the idealist bloggers sounding a lot like the old Reform supporters...

This is a minority parliament. There is risk at every turn that the opposition parties could bring about the fall of the Conservative government. Therefore Mr. Harper must take action that may lead to potential growth for the Conservative Party in a future election.

Those people who have already voted Conservative probably won't change to vote Liberal/Green/NDP/Bloc because of these minor questions of floor-crossing and unelected cabinet ministers. Many cabinet ministers in Canada have been appointed from outside the House of Commons. Many senators have held cabinet posts in Canadian history.

Also, appointing Fortier to the Senate is not the end of the world. He has said that he will resign and run for a seat in the Commons during the next general election. Seems fair to me, considering that the next general election will very likely be within 24 months. Quebec could elect a senator for that seat at that time, as Harper has stated.

To those who think Harper and company should act like saints now that the Conservatives hold power had better be prepared for more things they don't necessarily like. But if you generally support the conservative cause, stop griping about it. Any bad press that conservative bloggers create for this government increase the likelihood that the Liberals will be able to recover and take power again, soon.