Frank Gaffney Quotes

In September of 2005 a Danish Newspaper published some political cartoons showing the hypocrisy of some Muslims who use Islam to justify murder of innocents and terrorism. Months later, many in the Middle East protested vehemently and Muslim riots broke out and Danish boycotts ensued because the Prophet Muhammad's visage was depicted against Islamic tradition. Many Muslim leaders claimed that insulting religion was an “abuse” of freedom of speech including those from nations which regularly publish material that is virulent against Christians and Jews. Although France had a large Muslim minority, reaction of French Muslims was much more mild than that of Middle Eastern Arabs where the governments either encouraged the rioters or refused to take action to deter them from sacking Danish property.

Part of the right to freedom of speech is the right to criticize, disparage or insult. However, there are some people in the world who do not believe in freedom of speech or expression and not only believe that certain types of expression are blasphemous and sinful, but some believe that it is their religious duty to kill the blasphemer. In this case a film was made that was not only intellectually an attack on Islam but it was done in such a manner that most orthodox Muslims were insulted and offended that their Prophet and religion were both insulted in a blasphemous manner. It was a film that was very much in poor taste, insensitive and gross. In the Islamic world, some extremists use incidents that they call blasphemy to whip up large crowds who riot, destroy and in many cases kill innocent people who have nothing to do with the alleged blasphemy except that their employer might be a company in the same nation as the blasphemer. These fanatics also hold governments responsible for blasphemy if they do not violate their own laws and constitutions and interfere with their citizens right to freedom of speech and expression. For people like Bollinger, this raises a terribly difficult situation and as he points out in this quotations free speech can have serous repercussions almost anywhere in the world. Others observe that every time we even discuss the potential repercussions, the enemies of freedom of expression win, and have a chilling effect on the rest of the world. They urge ignoring the consequences and avoid rewarding the enemies of freedom by giving them an influence on our freedoms and practices.

They were protesting the arrest and imprisonment of a Blogger whose Internet views on Islamic history were deemed “holding religion in contempt” a crime in Egypt as it is in most Islamic Countries. See {585059}. The call for action by the United Nations was based on the fact that all member states of the UN have guaranteed to provide basic freedoms including the freedom of religion and the freedom of speech. However many Islamic nations have filed an “understanding: with the United Stations that are unknown to most people that says that nothing is required that would be against Sharia—Islamic Law which does provide the death penalty for heresy.

In September of 2005 a Danish Newspaper published some political cartoons showing the hypocrisy of some Muslims who use Islam to justify murder of innocents and terrorism. Months later, in January of 2006 many in the Middle East protested vehemently and Muslim riots broke out because the Prophet Muhammad's visage was depicted against Islamic tradition. Many Muslim nations started a boycott against Denmark. Many Muslim leaders claimed that insulting religion was an “abuse” of freedom of speech including those from nations which regularly publish material that is virulent against Christians and Jews.

In September of 2005 a Danish Newspaper published some political cartoons showing the hypocrisy of some Muslims who use Islam to justify murder of innocents and terrorism. Months later, in January of 2006 many in the Middle East protested vehemently and Muslim riots broke out because the Prophet Muhammad's visage was depicted against Islamic tradition. Many Muslim nations started a boycott against Denmark. Many Muslim leaders claimed that insulting religion was an “abuse” of freedom of speech including those from nations which regularly publish material that is virulent against Christians and Jews.

In September of 2005 a Danish Newspaper published some political cartoons showing the hypocrisy of some Muslims who use Islam to justify murder of innocents and terrorism. Months later, in January of 2006 many in the Middle East protested vehemently and Muslim riots broke out because the Prophet Muhammad's visage was depicted against Islamic tradition. Many Muslim nations started a boycott against Denmark. Many Muslim leaders claimed that insulting religion was an “abuse” of freedom of speech including those from nations which regularly publish material that is virulent against Christians and Jews. Westerners came to the support of Denmark. The United States which usually supports freedom of the press made this veiled criticism of the Danish Newspaper.

Danish fundamentalist Muslim Groups were demonstrating, protesting, and threatening Danes who wrote or published cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed. Other Europeans who had committed what Muslims thought to be blasphemy had been attacked and even murdered by Muslim fundamentalists. Led by Nasim Rahnama, some Danish Muslims, braved attack and possible death, and produced a petition of Muslims defending the right of freedom of publication. See {59932} & {59919}.

Singapore has three main ethnic groups, Malays—the indigenous people—Chinese, and Indians. The latter two groups have been more successful intellectually and commercially however the Malays are the largest group. There has been a history of resentment and discrimination as there has been in Malaysia and Indonesia. However, Singapore—under the leadership of Lee Kuan Yew—has minimized it and kept a lid on overt conflict and antagonism. However, he has restricted freedom of the press and freedom of speech to eliminate incendiary triggering incidents.

In September of 2005 a Rose’s newspaper published some political cartoons showing the hypocrisy of some Muslims who use Islam to justify murder of innocents and terrorism. Months later, in January of 2006 many in the Middle East protested vehemently and Muslim riots broke out because the Prophet Muhammad's visage was depicted against Islamic tradition. Many Muslim nations started a boycott against Denmark. Many Muslim leaders claimed that insulting religion was an “abuse” of freedom of speech including those from nations which regularly publish material that is virulent against Christians and Jews. Apologies were demanded from Rose.

This is a typical statement of human rights policy by many countries. Essentially, some controlling authority states that rights are guaranteed except when it is “dangerous” or contrary to the country’s “best interest”. Of course then anything the authorities want to censor is classified so that it is an exception. To be a right, it must be guaranteed even when hateful, insulting and/or dangerous.

This is a very important quotation. The reason is that the Secretary General of the UN backed off and did not support the absolute right of freedom of speech and expression. He favored allowing exceptions. In this case a film was made that was not only intellectually an attack on Islam but it was done in such a manner that most orthodox Muslims were insulted and offended that their Prophet and religion were both insulted in a blasphemous manner. It was a film that was very much in poor taste, insensitive and gross. One major difference between freedom of speech as interpreted by most countries and the United States is that most other nations do not allow and defend hate speech and material that insults a people or their religion or is blatantly blasphemous. The U. S. however protects anyone who blasphemously attacks anyone or any group for any reason. There are a few other nations that protect free speech absolutely but Germany, the United Kingdom, Israel, and India are considered major examples of democracy and freedom and yet they do not protect free speech absolutely. In most Muslim nations, whatever freedom of speech they might have does not apply to blasphemy where Islam is concerned. In most of the Arab nations, there is rank hypocrisy in that freedom of speech is tolerated and protected if there is a blasphemous attack on any other religion such as Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, or Bhai. This kind of difference on human rights between the U. S. and the UN causes many Americans to oppose the US participation in UN operated courts and projects to protect human rights. Few Americans would favor being a part of an international court system where an American could be convicted of blasphemy for what he had written or said. Essentially, the Secretary General has taken a stand against the United States Constitution and the values of most Americans and many other people of the world like Denmark, or Norway. Offensive and insulting speech is the only kind of speech that needs protection. If speech offends no one, there is no need for its protection.

For a corroberating quote see Quotation 644762