Subscribe to Canada Free Press for FREE

Clash of cultures

an "anti-blasphemy" convention?!

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

Last week I read about an ancient arab saying: "a falling camel invites many knives". I don't know any statement that is more applicable to the West today than this. It is becoming more evident each day that the momentum in this so-called clash of cultures is with fundamental Islam and not with the West.

The most recent manifestation of this phenomenon is the proposal by the UN and agreed to by the EU, to establish an international "anti-blasphemy" convention. While the proposed convention is carefully couched in general terms, the unmistakable intention of it is to proscribe blasphemous statements or deeds, which today is something unique primarily to Islam, as other religions generally do not concern themselves with blasphemy to the same degree.

While a "convention" isn't exactly a law, it has the same effect as a law, as in the Geneva Convention, meaning that signatories to the convention that are in contravention are in effect breaking a law.

The fact that the UN is in the process of introducing this convention isn't surprising, nor is the EU's support of it. It represents a further capitulation to radicalism and violent actions, another new "peace in our time" moment for the West that will ultimately prove to be insufficient in stemming further demands that Westerners modify their behavior in deference to Islam.

The real goal of Islam was clearly stated by a "moderate" Muslim on July 2, 1998 in Fremont, California. In a packed banquet hall, Omar M. ahmad, Chairman of the board of the Council on american-Islamic Relations (CaIR), said, "Islam isn't in america to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in america and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth." It doesn't get much more straightforward than that. Incidentally, when Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum, quoted Mr. ahmad, he promptly denied ever making the statement.

Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the secretary-general of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), called upon European governments to enact legislation against "Islamophobia" and claimed that Muslims are being discriminated against, likening current events to "a new Sept. 11 against them".

Gee, Mr. Ihsanoglu, I don't know quite how to break this to you, but it isn't difficult being "Islamophobic" in the face of all the violence that is taking place in the name of Islam. I think it is only normal for people to feel fear, watching videos of hostages being brutally decapitated, while the participants chant "all praise be to God". Suicide bombings and planes flying into buildings also tend to make people nervous.

We in the west have a lot of "no-nos" when it comes to being critical of those who are different and we pride ourselves in our inclusiveness and tolerance of others. We have gone so far as to enact some really screwy laws that deprive us of the right to speak freely, lest we offend someone. These include hate laws that make it illegal to be racist or homophobic or to even deny that there was a Holocaust. I'm sure we, being the falling camel that we are, will find some method of accommodating Islam.

In fact, we're already voluntarily censoring ourselves so as not to inadvertently offend. Remember the Nike running shoes that had a squiggle on them that looked like the word "allah" written in arabic? Well, Nike voluntarily took those shoes off the market and to atone for their "sin", the company built a basketball court at an Islamic school in the U.S.

Then there's Burger King, who voluntarily took its ice cream swirl off the British market because some British Muslims felt the swirl also looked like the word "allah". and while we're on the subject of Britain, that country is no longer flying its own flag over its prisons, as it contains St. George's cross, which may be offensive to Muslims because it was used by the Crusaders. Don't forget the Kleenex boxes with Winnie the Pooh and his friend Piglet, which were deemed offensive to Muslims and ordered off the desks of British civil servants. Ditto for the Disney Piglet mugs, which might also be offensive to Muslims.

While we are twisting ourselves into pretzels in our efforts not to offend Muslims, the Muslim world doesn't seem to have a problem burning churches or foisting off blood-libels against Jews. In Saudi arabia newspapers routinely carry stories about how Jews kill Muslim babies so that they can make Purim cookies with their blood or that Jewish prostitutes are responsible for the spread of aIDS in Egypt. Irshad Manji, the apostate Muslim woman and author of the book The Trouble With Islam recalls how as a child in Egypt she was warned against taking candy from strangers, lest they be Jews attempting to poison her.

In Canada, Mohammed Elmasry, head of the Canadian Islamic Congress, is threatening to have The Western Standard charged with a hate crime for reproducing the cartoons that started this most recent round of strife. In an ominous statement referring to Denmark, Elmasry said, " we can't control what's in the press. If people do it, we have to live with the consequences." Those consequences include riots, mayhem and murder.

What Mr. Elmasry and most everyone else may have missed is that the Danish cartoons came about as a result of fear. a Danish author who was writing a book about Islam attempted to find an illustrator for the book and every artist he contacted turned the job down for fear of his safety. When he related his plight to the Editor of the Jylands-Posten, the editor wanted to test the veracity of the author's story by sending a call for cartoons illustrating the Prophet to 40 Danish cartoonists. Only ten of the 40 dared to submit their work.

One of our most precious freedoms is the freedom to say what's on our mind. Bit by bit that freedom is going the way of the dodo, as conventions, regulations and laws come into force around the world that limit what we can say and how we can say it.

More and more knives are coming out as this camel, which was once a strong and free society, continues its descent into ignominy. Who knows, in 20 years' time we might find ourselves in the Caliphate of ameristan. It's even possible that the head of the Supreme Islamic Court could then be Chelasy bin Clinton.