Correction, we meant “Certain moron Muslim’s hate crimes.” The morons are radical Muslims whose hate results in crimes against humanity. The reference here again is to the Garland, Texas event put on by Pamela Geller which supposedly instigated two passionate young Muslims to attempt mass murder. By some lights of the right and left somehow Geller instigated such a reaction. We have posted previously about the matter but these excerpts from two articles that came our way today deserve note.
From Ben Shapiro writing at Patriot Post: Shut Pam Geller Up, or We Will All Die
Geller, the narrative goes, should never have encouraged people to draw Muhammad because it was “provocative.” To which the answer should be: So what? Women attending school in Afghanistan “provokes” radical Muslims into throwing acid on their faces, but that does not mean that women should not go to school in Afghanistan or be condemned for doing so.
Geller, the narrative goes, made Americans less safe by provoking radical Muslims, as though Muslims have no responsibility to act like decent human beings — as though, faced with the prospect of a cartoon of their prophet, Muslims have no choice but to grab guns and go a-huntin’. But that’s nonsense. What truly spurs radical Muslims into violence is the well-evidenced belief that if they kill enough Muhammad cartoonists, soon people will stop drawing cartoons of Muhammad.
We would add that by the logic of some of Geller’s critics, gay rights marchers in this country are provocateurs of the Muslim defense of propriety. Heaven forbid someone act provocatively in our culture. They and Geller must stop such provocations less they be killed by Muslim extremists and endanger others .
Of course such is not the way of the Western world, and such intimidation by Muslim extremists should not be submitted to. It can be appropriate to demonstrate that it will not be and Geller’s statement was mild, much less than everyday Muslim “critiques” of Christianity. One cannot test the right to do something here or challenge malcontents by not ever doing anything to offend them particularly if what is claimed to be offensive is not illegal or by cultural standards here inherently objectionable. Saying you reserve the right to do something but shave all manner of conversation and inquiry in order to placate a belligerent means they are in charge.
Retired Judge John Donald O’Shea, who is a regular columnist for The Argus and The Dispatch, contributed one of his well thought out commentaries about the matter today — Don’t make Geller villain in Texas attack. Excerpt:
But what I find utterly insane is at the same time radical Muslims would criminalize Geller’s right to free speech, they themselves are exercising their right to free speech in calling for her assassination. And in the view of some Americans, Geller has suddenly becomes the “villain.”
Two assassins traveled 1,000 miles to kill her, and deny her her constitutional rights to life, liberty and free speech, and she is portrayed as the villain! If Geller is against global jihad, given the beheadings of Christians, and the kidnappings, rapes and forced-marriages of young girls being perpetrated by people calling themselves “Muslims” in the name of Islam, maybe she has good reason. And don’t forget: they already tried to exterminate her, and have issued a new “fuqua,” calling her a “swine,” and promising to kill her — as well as anyone who gives her a platform.
R Mall
