Try a little thought experiment. What would have happened
in this country during the Cold War if the Soviet Union successfully
neutralized anti-communists opposed to the Kremlin's plans for world
domination?
Of course, Moscow strove to discredit those in America and
elsewhere who opposed its totalitarian agenda — especially after Sen.
Joseph McCarthy's excesses made it fashionable to vilify patriots by
accusing them of believing communists were "under every bed."
But what if the USSR and its ideological soul-mates in
places like China, North Korea, Cuba, Eastern Europe and parts of Africa
had been able to criminalize efforts to oppose their quest for the
triumph of world communism? What if it had been an internationally
prosecutable offense even to talk about the dangers inherent in
communist rule and the need to resist it?
The short answer is that history might very well have come
out differently. Had courageous anti-communists been unable accurately
and forcefully to describe the nature of that time's enemy — and to work
against the danger posed by its repressive, seditious program, the Cold
War might well have been lost.
Flash forward to today. At the moment, another totalitarian
ideology characterized by techniques and global ambitions strikingly
similar to those of yesteryear's communists is on the march. It goes by
varying names: "Islamofascism," "Islamism," "jihadism" or "radical,"
"extremist" or "political Islam." Unlike the communists, however,
adherents to this ideology are making extraordinary strides in Western
societies toward criminalizing those who dare oppose the Islamist
end-state — the imposition of brutal Shariah Law on Muslims and
non-Muslims alike.
Consider but a few indicators of this ominous progress:
•
In March, the 57 Muslim-state Organization of the Islamic
Conference (OIC) prevailed upon the United Nations Human Rights Council
to adopt a resolution requiring the effective evisceration of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Henceforth, the guaranteed right
of free expression will not extend to any criticism of Islam, on the
grounds that it amounts to an abusive act of religious discrimination. A
UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression has been charged with
documenting instances in which individuals and media organizations
engage in what the Islamists call "Islamophobia." Not to be outdone,
the OIC has its own "ten-year program of action" which will monitor
closely all Islamophobic incidents and defamatory statements around the
world.
•
Monitoring is just the first step. Jordan's Prosecutor General
has recently brought charges against Dutch Parliamentarian Geert
Wilders. According to a lawsuit, "Fitna" — Wilders' short documentary
film that ties certain Koranic passages to Islamist terrorism — is said
to have slandered and insulted the Prophet Mohammed, demeaned Islam and
offended the feelings of Muslims in violation of the Jordanian penal
code. Mr. Wilders has been summoned to Amman to stand trial and, if he
fails to appear voluntarily, international warrants for his arrest will
be issued.
Zakaria Al-Sheikh, head of the "Messenger of Allah Unites Us Campaign"
which is the plaintiff in the Jordanian suit, reportedly has "confirmed
that the [prosecutor's action] is the first step towards setting in
place an international law criminalizing anyone who insults Islam and
the Prophet Mohammed." In the meantime, his campaign is trying to
penalize the nations that have spawned "Islamophobes" like Wilders and
the Danish cartoonists by boycotting their exports — unless the
producers publicly denounce the perpetrators both in Jordan and in their
home media.
•
Unfortunately, it is not just some companies that are
submitting to this sort of coercion — a status known in Islam as
"dhimmitude." Western officials and governmental entities appear
increasingly disposed to go along with such efforts to mutate warnings
about Shariah law and its adherents from "politically incorrect" to
"criminally punishable" activity.
For example, in Britain, Canada and even the United States, the
authorities are declining to describe the true threat posed by Shariah
Law and are using various techniques to discourage — and in some cases,
prosecute — those who do. We are witnessing the spectacle of authors'
books being burned, ministers prosecuted, documentary film-makers
investigated and journalists hauled before so-called "Human Rights
Councils" on charges of offending Muslims, slandering Islam or other
"Islamophobic" conduct. Jurists on both sides of the Atlantic are
acceding to the insinuation of Shariah law in their courts. And Wall
Street is increasingly joining other Western capital markets in
succumbing to the seductive Trojan Horse of "Shariah-Compliant Finance."
Let's be clear: The Islamists are trying to establish a kind of
Catch-22: If you point out that they seek to impose a barbaric,
repressive and seditious Shariah Law, you are insulting their faith and
engaging in unwarranted, racist and bigoted fear-mongering.
On the
other hand, pursuant to Shariah, you must submit to that
theo-political-legal program. If you don't, you can legitimately be
killed. It is not an irrational fear to find that prospect unappealing.
And it is not racist or bigoted to decry and oppose Islamist efforts to
bring it about — ask the anti-Islamist Muslims who are frequently
accused of being Islamophobes!
If we go along with our enemies' demands to criminalize Islamophobia, we
will mutate Western laws, traditions, values and societies beyond
recognition. Ultimately, today's totalitarian ideologues will triumph
where their predecessors were defeated.
To avoid such a fate, those who love freedom must oppose the seditious
program the Islamists call Shariah — and all efforts to impose its 1st
Amendment-violating blasphemy, slander and libel laws on us in the guise
of preventing Western Islamophobia.
