Free Speech Fanaticism (op-ed)
The French philosopher Volitare said, “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it.”
Earlier this year in France Muslim gunmen murdered 12 staff members of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo for publishing a caricature of Muhammad. (Any depiction of Muhammad is sacrilege according to Islam.)
These executions were condemned by Muslims world wide.
But moderate Muslim condemnation wasn’t enough for Pamela Geller, Executive Director of American Freedom Defense Initiative, she said, “After the Charlie Hebdo massacre -- and after the violent Muhammad [Danish] cartoon riots a few years ago -- there should have been cartoon exhibits all over the world, to show the Islamic jihadis that we will not kowtow to violent intimidation.”
So Geller and the American Freedom Defense Initiative sponsored the Inaugural Muhammad Art Exhibit & Contest. This event was to be held at the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, Texas.
Why this venue?
Because it hosted the “Stand With the Prophet in Honor and Respect” conference a week after the Charlie Hebdo massacre. The official purpose of this conference was to raise funds to build a center to train Muslims in the media and to teach them how to combat Islamophobia. But according to The Washington Times the event’s website stated, “This is not an event. It’s the beginning of a movement. A movement to defend Prophet Muhammad, his person, and his message.” The conference drew thousands of protesters, Geller included, because a suspected co-conspirator of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was scheduled to speak.
Geller chose this venue for the drawing Muhammad contest to counter this conference. Geller explained her event, “The cartoon exhibit will feature images of Islam’s prophet, both historic and contemporary, and speeches by leading voices of freedom and internationally renowned free speech advocates.” One of the free speech advocates she booked (to counter the previous controversial speaker) was Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilder, a politician that has campaigned to stop the Islamization of the Netherlands, to ban construction of new mosques, and compared the Quran to Mein Kampf (My Struggle by Adolf Hitler).
And as expected by the organizers of The Muhammad Art & Exhibit contest there was a planned attack. Texas police eventually shot and killed two gunmen that opened fired outside of the Garland venue.
After the violence Geller defended herself in Time Magazine. Her title: A Response to My Critics -- This Is a War. She wrote: We were aware of the risk and spent thousands of dollars on security -- and it paid off. The jihadis at our free speech event were not able to achieve their objective … And make no mistake: If it weren’t for the free-speech conference, these jihadis would have struck somewhere else -- a place where there was less security.”
Before the art Exhibit free speech was threatened by extremist and the contest was to defy intimidation, after the event, and two extremist are dead, Geller tells her critics, who accused her of instigating retaliatory violence, that this is war. (And all war is based on deception.)
Why are they blaming me? Geller asked innocently.
Is it possible she’s blamed because critics believe her fingers were crossed hoping violent defenders of Muhammad will take the sacrilege bait? This was an orchestrated battle plan by a General without an army, who risked the lives of police and security, just to proclaim her free speech conference prevented a terror attack somewhere else and saved lives. Geller’s proud that the “jihadis” didn’t achieve their objective. But maybe they achieved an objective only known to them. Maybe they believe the first step to converting the infidel is to make them fanatical.
Voltaire would defend to death the vocalization of thoughts he despised. Geller promoted the right to offend (The byproduct of free speech) hoping to cause the deaths of people she finds despicable.
First published in the New Pittsburgh Courier 5/13/15
Earlier this year in France Muslim gunmen murdered 12 staff members of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo for publishing a caricature of Muhammad. (Any depiction of Muhammad is sacrilege according to Islam.)
These executions were condemned by Muslims world wide.
But moderate Muslim condemnation wasn’t enough for Pamela Geller, Executive Director of American Freedom Defense Initiative, she said, “After the Charlie Hebdo massacre -- and after the violent Muhammad [Danish] cartoon riots a few years ago -- there should have been cartoon exhibits all over the world, to show the Islamic jihadis that we will not kowtow to violent intimidation.”
So Geller and the American Freedom Defense Initiative sponsored the Inaugural Muhammad Art Exhibit & Contest. This event was to be held at the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, Texas.
Why this venue?
Because it hosted the “Stand With the Prophet in Honor and Respect” conference a week after the Charlie Hebdo massacre. The official purpose of this conference was to raise funds to build a center to train Muslims in the media and to teach them how to combat Islamophobia. But according to The Washington Times the event’s website stated, “This is not an event. It’s the beginning of a movement. A movement to defend Prophet Muhammad, his person, and his message.” The conference drew thousands of protesters, Geller included, because a suspected co-conspirator of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was scheduled to speak.
Geller chose this venue for the drawing Muhammad contest to counter this conference. Geller explained her event, “The cartoon exhibit will feature images of Islam’s prophet, both historic and contemporary, and speeches by leading voices of freedom and internationally renowned free speech advocates.” One of the free speech advocates she booked (to counter the previous controversial speaker) was Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilder, a politician that has campaigned to stop the Islamization of the Netherlands, to ban construction of new mosques, and compared the Quran to Mein Kampf (My Struggle by Adolf Hitler).
And as expected by the organizers of The Muhammad Art & Exhibit contest there was a planned attack. Texas police eventually shot and killed two gunmen that opened fired outside of the Garland venue.
After the violence Geller defended herself in Time Magazine. Her title: A Response to My Critics -- This Is a War. She wrote: We were aware of the risk and spent thousands of dollars on security -- and it paid off. The jihadis at our free speech event were not able to achieve their objective … And make no mistake: If it weren’t for the free-speech conference, these jihadis would have struck somewhere else -- a place where there was less security.”
Before the art Exhibit free speech was threatened by extremist and the contest was to defy intimidation, after the event, and two extremist are dead, Geller tells her critics, who accused her of instigating retaliatory violence, that this is war. (And all war is based on deception.)
Why are they blaming me? Geller asked innocently.
Is it possible she’s blamed because critics believe her fingers were crossed hoping violent defenders of Muhammad will take the sacrilege bait? This was an orchestrated battle plan by a General without an army, who risked the lives of police and security, just to proclaim her free speech conference prevented a terror attack somewhere else and saved lives. Geller’s proud that the “jihadis” didn’t achieve their objective. But maybe they achieved an objective only known to them. Maybe they believe the first step to converting the infidel is to make them fanatical.
Voltaire would defend to death the vocalization of thoughts he despised. Geller promoted the right to offend (The byproduct of free speech) hoping to cause the deaths of people she finds despicable.
First published in the New Pittsburgh Courier 5/13/15
Comments
Post a Comment