Goddess

https://cpj.org/2013/02/attacks-on-the-press-journalism-and-religion.php Here is an article that can help clarify the issues.

Enjoy your day

In a nutshell here is exactly what I'm saying: Sharia law states that Islam is never to criticized and their prophet is never to be insulted and that the penalty for such is death. This is in conflict with Western values of freedom of speech and freedom of the Press. Muslims all over the world are trying to get this particular Sharia law in place and they are being aided by cowardly politicians and apologists who feel that caving in to Muslim demands for this Sharia law is the best way to prevent future killings. This is affecting the Western freedoms of speech and freedom of the Press. I have provided many examples of both the threats and the actual killings taking place all over the world. I have provided examples of writers and media having to defend themselves in court and against death fatwas for writing disparagingly about Islam or their prophet You refuse to acknowledge any of this. Which is fine. But you are wrong.

See? You are not following anything here. Or you are deliberately moving the goalposts. I didn't say journalists are backing off "due to the case against Ezra Levant". I said journalists are backing off because they are getting sued, getting hauled into tribunals, and getting killed for saying anything remotely disparaging against Islam and political leaders are not sticking up for freedom of speech and freedom of the Press because everyone is afraid of Muslim reprisals. This is happening in ALL PARTS OF THE WORLD. I have put forth - The Charlie Hebdo massacre The killing of Theo Van Gogh the rioting and killing by Muslims in many countries after the Mohammed cartoon fiasco The death fatwas against Salman Rushdie and Hirsi Ali and other members of the press/writers many individual cases of journalists having to defend freedom of speech in the face of Muslim terrorizing politicians in many countries suppressing the Press by restricting what they can say, even down to which words are phrases are no longer acceptable, because they fear Muslim reprisals You keep judging whether Islam is attacking freedom of speech or not by whether there is success in the courtroom. You're an intelligent person - I don't understand why you can't see that whether a case is won or lost in court, freedom of speech and freedom of the Press is under attack by Islam. I don't understand why you refuse to understand that journalists, writers, media etc - in light of all the things in the above list - feel in danger and that Islam is attacking the value of freedom of speech and why they are sounding the alarm. Despite the evidence already provided and the invitation to read an in-depth book about it all, you remain purposely unconvinced that Islamic violence is affecting freedom of speech and the freedom of the Press in any way. Or maybe you just don't believe that death threats from Muslims are anything to worry about, I don't know what your reasoning is, so I really dont' know if there is anything that will make you see that lawsuits, death threats and actual killings by Islam are affecting Western freedoms. I think it's really sad when people like you let a religion cloud your thinking so much that even death threats and killings mean nothing to you.

No, you won't ever get it - because you believe Muslim rights come before certain other rights, which western society has already determined should come before any religious rights. It's okay that you disagree, but you're wrong.

While I understand this type of reasoning, I'm wondering how many children a man can take to bed before it's called pedophilia? I always thought it was one. It should be one.

Actually, your 2 minutes of research - which was basically you googling to find an opinion that agreed with you on the case - was inadequate. There's a whole other side to that case which you will not ever agree with because you personally put a higher value on Muslim sensitivities and Muslim religious beliefs than you put on human rights. Not COULD - it is. Muslim sensitivities are not just costing money to defend in courts (which by the way - these things have all been settled years ago - now we are actually debating AGAIN whether disabled people can have guide dogs in taxis) they are also costing lives - Islam kills those who don't bow to their sensitivities - the Hebdo massacre, Theo Van Gogh, mass rioting and bombing and killing innocent people because of a Mohammed cartoon etc. The message to the West is: insulting the prophet or talking disparagingly about Islam is punishable by death in Islam and that threat IS - not COULD - affecting freedom of speech.and jurisprudence. What part of "We don't have to adhere to Muslim religious beliefs" do you not understand? How many hard-fought for human rights have to go before you and the Muslims are happy? Journalists all over the world are sounding the alarm on this and you disagree. That's fine. But you're wrong. It's very difficult for you to grasp other perspectives and the bigger issues at stake because all that is important to you is Islam''s rights. You put a far higher value on religious rights than there should be.

Actually, I don't continue to insist that this case illustrates my point, I haven't mentioned it even once since then. YOU, however, keep holding it up in every post like Aha! I win! How about this: I'll give you that one, okay? Mostly because it would take too long to go over the entire case with you and you've already decided that your 2 minutes of research was enough. What about the rest of them? What about all the other ones that we're not going to have time to discuss or cite? I noticed you keep holding that one cse up, while completely ignoring everything else.

More apologist blathering. Why do you only pick one word in a sentence and not quote the whole sentence or address the argument? Your quote: You deny homophobia in Islam My actual sentence: You deny homophobia in Islam but ( (I meant by, not but, BTW) stating that "Well! Many Christians, Jews, atheists, etc (pick any group) are also homophobic!" Nor do you quote the explanation: With that logic it could have just as easily been said in the 1930's "There is no anti-semitism in Germany because some Americans and Englishmen and Canadians are also anti-semitic." No, darling......you just did that yourself.

I wanted to comment on this statement, as well, but i had to do something else for a bit. To say that Ezra Levant was not limited in his speech, is Islamic deception. Of course he was. He was hauled before a tribunal and it cost him over $100,000 and it cost the taxpayers probably more. Even though he won, journalists are thinking twice about what they write about Islam for fear they also will be hauled in and not everyone has a spare $100,000 sitting around. Many journalists are now using weasel-y words to give vague reports on Islamic activities, such as the above apologist statement - "someone" was offended. That "someone" is Muslims. Freedom of speech does not mean journalists and writers must be afraid to name the actual perpetrators of the war on freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not include caving into Islamic threats to kill anyone who writes unflattering things about Islam, as is happening in Europe after the Denmark cartoon fiasco and the Charlie Hebdo massacre. Folowing these events and the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, a lot of organizations in a lot of countries have made rules for what journalists and writers can say - there is a list of words and phrases that are not allowed to be written about Islam and are subject to possible prosecution. At least four books detailing the financing of terrorism have been blocked in Britain. Partly because the publishers do not want to become the next Charlie Hebdo or Theo Van Gogh.. This is why the discussion on Islam and the war on freedom of speech is much more complex and warrants more than just a cite or two to comprehend the full picture. Apologist brains stop at "Levant won his case, therefore Muslims are NOT attempting to bring in Sharia." End thought process.

You haven't debunked anything. It takes more than 2 minutes or 5 minutes or one blog post to comprehend what all was involved in those cases and it also takes a mind not blinded and shackled by Islam, which you clearly do not possess.

And I've debunked your apologist agenda.

This is partly why I didn't want to provide tons of incidents of freedom of speech being attacked for Michael - because you two "de-bunk" each detail in each case and refuse to look at the whole picture - that Muslims and their apologists all over the world are working to eliminate freedom of speech. The Press are alarmed about this - you are not. You insist nothing is happening - everyone look away, nothing to see here. The usual moral equivalency games come up over and over You deny homophobia in Islam but stating that "Well! Many Christians, Jews, atheists, etc (pick any group) are also homophobic!" With that logic it could have just as easily been said in the 1930's "There is no anti-semitism in Germany because some Americans and Englishmen and Canadians are also anti-semitic." Frankly, I've known you for about 10 seconds and enjoyed none of them so I don't take my homework assignments from either of you.

I have consistently said that Muslims are trying to impose Sharia law restrictions on freedom of speech. I have consistently said that freedom of speech is under attack. I have showed you exactly where it is under attack. The fact that Muslims sometimes FAIL in their attempts does not mean they are not TRYING to accomplish imposing Sharia on the West. This is the last time I'm explaining the flaw in your thinking. If you don't understand it yet - it is deliberate. That you refuse to actually investigate - is your own fault. You haven't debunked anything - you've given your own special Islamic spin and parsing of words on cases without actually investigating them. I read as many blogs, articles, books on these cases as I could find. I'm not going to go into your fake "de-bunking" because you are firmly of the opinion that Muslim wants, needs, desires and preferences should replace Western freedoms. Muslims come first to you - there is nothing that will change your mind.

It's pretty obvious that apologists for Islam are working hard in Canada - even here some have already given up the rights of disabled people to have guide dogs in favour of Muslim sensitivities. It makes me wonder what other rights these apologists are willing to sacrifice to Islam. When horrific terrorism takes place and hundreds of innocent lives are lost, if forced they will say simply "I condemn this." But the worst of their name-calling, insults, moral equilency games and parsing of words are reserved for those who dare to criticize Islam. But please, continue to tell us that you're not an apologist, when you can't even bring yourself to admit that freedom of speech is under attack in all parts of the world due to Islamic influence.

I have proved it - Muslims all over the world - including Canada - are attempting to force Western countries to abandon freedom of speech and adopt Sharia laws regarding punishments for criticizing Islam. You and Michael asked for proof - I've provided many cases. That you refuse to accept what your favourite religion is doing, is not my problem. Don't worry, though - lots of other people are still fighting for your right to ignore and excuse what is plainly in front of your face, while you and your fellow apologists for Islam are fighting for Sharia and for everyone else to have less freedom of speech - especially when it comes to criticism of Islam.

Calling people apologists is "just an attempt to shut down speech you don't like" but journalists, reporters, citizens, blogwriters being hauled into tribunals all over the world, killings and bombing by Muslims who are outraged by criticism of their religion - does not constitute an attack on freedom of speech? You realize that even though he won - freedom of speech was still attacked, right? Or is that too confusing for your apologist brain? Your above statements are classic apologist for Islam. Freedom to criticize religion has been an accepted part of freedom of speech for many years. Why are Muslims attacking it now and trying to force Sharia law - which states any criticism of Islam should be punished. Yup - you're a total apologist.

Judges across Europe routinely give the perpetrators of "honor Killings" not heavier sentences because of them being premeditated, but lighter sentences because their crimes are not crimes at all in Muslim culture. But even this isn't enough for apologists for Islam - in 2007, Norway's most celebrated lawyer proposed that punishment for honor killings should OFFICIALLY be set lower because "we are doing the Muslim man a disservice; he acts in accordance with his own sense of honor and we call this dishonorable. This is arrogance - we should not expect the Muslim to conform to OUR society's norms, we should be striving humbly and respectfully to understand HIS society's norms." Women's rights, gay rights and Jews are at great risk of losing hard-fought for rights all over the world, due to Muslim pressure and again - apologists for Islam.

Yes, nothing has been debunked. I know some of you don't like Ezra Levant (he's not my favourite person either) but the human rights case against him for reprinting the Mohammed cartoons (which caused widespread Muslim rioting and killings in Denmark and all over the world) was totally bogus and another incident of Muslims demanding Westerners adhere to Sharia law. The complaint was brought up by Syed Soharwardy, an imam in Calgary and founder of the Islamic Supreme Council in Canada. Soharwardy first went to the police, insisting they arrest Levant for printing the cartoons. Interesting that despite living in Canada for over 20 years, Soharwardy expected the Canadian police to act like their counterparts in Saudi Arabia. When the police refused, Soharwardy then went to the Alberta Human Rights Commission. Even though media is banned from these tribunals, Levant did bring a video camera and taped the whole proceeding, posting the video of the interrogation on line. In February 2008 - Soharwardy tried to withdraw his complaint, claiming that he previously did not appreciate the importance of free speech. But in an interview with the CBC later, Soharwardy revealed the true reason he wanted to drop the complaint - he didn't want Levant to be a martyr for freedom of speech. Also in an interview with Licia Corbella of the Calgary Herald, Soharwardy revealed that it was HE HIMSELF who wanted to be the hero and martyr and that when things turned out differently, he wanted to back off. Levant charged that Soharwardy wanted to see Canada under Sharia law. Soharwardy denied this but in 2004 he made this statement - "Sharia cannot be customized for certain countries. These Universal, divine laws are for all people in all countries at all times." Later, he charged that Corbella had "misread" his statements. Corbella wrote, "Soharwardy is a charmer. He convinced me that I must have misread his comments. But relistening to the tape of our interview and rereading his original texts, one thing is clear - He cannot be believed." The trial cost Levant over $100,000, and of course it cost us - the taxpayers. Welcome to soft jihad. The Mark Steyn case was similar. A journalist who wrote for MacLean's magazine, he had written an article about Islam for the magazine. Complaints were filed in both Ontario and BC by Mohammed Elmasry, the head of the Canadian Islamic Congress. The complaint was dismissed in Ontario but a show trial went ahead in BC. Petti Fong of the Toronto Star reported mostly on a Muslim woman in the audience who "began weeping quietly as comments from readers of the Islam article were read." Should Steyn be held responsible for these reader comments? The woman's husband argued that "free speech is not the only issue that mattered here." Clearly Muslim tears trump freedom of speech. In the end. BC also dismissed the charges but it was only because Canadians, alerted by the blog, made clear their outrage at this abuse of power. I find the Muslim assault on free speech - in a democratic country to be very disturbing. Especially when Dean Steacy - the investigator for the Federal Commission dismissed the question of freedom of speech considerations by saying, "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value." These are not the only cases of Muslim outrage in Canada and certainly not the only ones in the world. Muslims are hauling reporters, journalists, blog-writers and average citizens into tribunals and demanding police act on their complaints - all over the world. So, ya, despite what apologists like Dia and Michael say - the Muslim attack on freedom of speech and democracy is not HORSESHIT.

And I specifically stated to you that the issue is far more involved and covers too many countries and too many avenues - media, arts, authors, theater, banking and financial industries - for you to get a clear picture of what's going on in the brief cites you demand. Remain deliberately oblivious. You're a big proponent of censorship, that much is obvious.

**sigh** You've totally missed the point - that every time Muslims push for Sharia law or push for governments to take Sharia action on situations like silencing media, the arts, authors, etc - that is the West capitulating our freedoms in deference to Islam and Sharia. Here is a case from Greece that went all the way to the European Human Rights court: https://www.asil.org/ILIB/european-court-human-rights-rules-against-use-sharia-law-inheritance-dispute-december-19-2018 Here's an article of instances where Sharia law has been applied in Canada: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/life-under-sharia-in-canada/article743980/ https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2018/10/europe-wades-further-into-sharia-law/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/free-speech-sharia-european-court-of-human-rights-ruling/ I'm sure this won't satisfy you because you will not reflect on what these things mean in a global sense and I'm not going to re-write Bawer's book and copy all his research just for your amusement. I've provided the cite - if you choose not to read it or educate yourself, that's your choice. His cites are all listed in the back of his book for each chapter. This is a common tactic for apologists of Islam - demand that each case in the world be cited so that you can discount and excuse them one by one, thereby deliberately missing what is going on WORLD WIDE - which is Muslims and their apologists are petitioning courts and bringing court cases to every country demanding that Sharia laws - regarding treatment of women, treatment of gays, treatment of apostates, silencing of any criticism of Islam in the media or arts - are adhered to. There is a lot of people risking their lives to keep Sharia out of Western democratic countries and a lot of people have died trying to keep democracy free of Islamic religious influence. Why not read what happened to people like Theo Van Gogh, Pim Portuyn, the Charlie Hebdo massacre, etc. read about the riots after the mohammed cartoons in Denmark and the court cases it spawned afterwards. Read about the bizarre steps European governments are taking to avoid riling up their Muslim populations and how this is affecting the every day life of Westerners. Read about the governmental agencies that have clamped down on the media by disallowing certain words and phrases to be used to avoid Muslim backlash. (1984 - very Orwellian - there's a reason why Muslims are to be called "Asians" now and "jihadists" and "Islamic extremism" are no longer phrases that should be used......) I've done all the research and to demand that it be boiled down into a few cites of court cases here and there, will not change your opinion. There's a LOT going on in the world - democracy is in peril, freedom of speech is in peril - and your choice is be deliberately oblivious to it all, in favour of feel-good articles that stroke your multicultural ego. Edit to add this article which I have already posted here once: http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1811460,00.html

The potential for women to be abused and their rights to be trampled on is much greater with Sharia councils. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-37838496 https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/mar/01/inside-britains-sharia-councils-hardline-and-anti-women-or-a-dignified-way-to-divorce

And what happens if/when the Justice Minister of a country is Muslim? Muslim politicians in many countries of Europe are eroding freedoms - freedom of speech being the big one right now. Some are not (some are like Hirsi Ali and stand firm for Western freedoms) but even many non-Muslim politicians are caving to Sharia law when it comes to freedom of the press and jurisprudence.

Are you really unaware that Islam has been setting up and demanding Sharia courts in countries all over the world - even here in Canada? Are you really unaware of what Sharia law entails? Sincerely, educate yourself. You would have to read Bawer's book - that I suggested and cited - to get the full picture - it has TONS of documented proof. I doubt you will do that, of course. It' doesn't flatter Islam and exposes how country after country has capitulated to Sharia law in response to Muslim demands. Here's another from the book - In February 2008 Britain capitulated to Sharia law in a remarkable way by declaring that the marriages of individuals with multiple spouses would be recognized for purposes of welfare disbursement. Muslim men with more than one wife would be allowed to collect additional state benefits. Polygamy by non-Muslims would continue to be a crime, but polygamy by Muslims would be rewarded. (This policy is already in place in Ontario, BTW.) The discussion before about whether Muslim cabbies should be made to take riders with seeing-eye dogs - that's Sharia law. How far do you want to bend to that - I ask because you were one of the ones who agreed that Muslim cabbies should be allowed to refuse rides to handicapped people who rely on dogs? Some cabbies are already not allowing anyone in their cab who is transporting alcohol - another Sharia no-no. What if Muslim cabbies start not allowing women in short skirts or tank tops to ride? Or any woman in general? What about unmarried couples? Gay couples are already being denied rides. After taxis, why not buses, trains and planes? This is all Sharia law. It has been said that communism's role as a threat to Western freedoms has been replaced by Islam. Fortunately, you are a straight man - your freedoms will disappear last. Right now, Jews, gays and women in all countries are losing freedoms at alarming rates.

More and more courts in Europe are making decisions based on Sharia, and - it is not looking good for women. How could it? Sharia law does not recognize the equality between the sexes - women and non-Muslims get the short end of the stick. Here's just one case from Germany: In March 2007, Christa Datz-Winter - a family court judge in Frankfurt refused to expedite a divorce between a Moroccan-German woman and her Moroccan husband who had repeatedly beaten and threatened to kill her. Datz-Winter argued that the woman should have been prepared for such treatment, since her husband's religion granted him the right to use corporal punishment. Der Spiegel reported that this was just one "in a chain of horrific rulings in which German courts have taken Sharia into account". Seyran Ates, a Berlin lawyer who fights for the democratic rights of Muslim women in the face of efforts to keep them trapped in Sharia said she was "almost grateful that Datz-Winter grounded her ruling so explicitly in the Koran because it exposes an undercurrernt that already exists in our courts, whereby tolerance for Muslim intolerance has led to a parallel sharia-based legal system."