IsraPundit

WE'VE MOVED! IsraPundit has relocated to www.israpundit.com. Click here to go there now.
News and views on Israel, Zionism and the war on terrorism.

February 06, 2003

Inequality before the law (Ted Belman)

Liberals' double standard

As kids, we have all considered what would happen if an unstoppable object hit an unmovable wall. We never found out. A similar conundrum exists in determining the supremacy of values between two mutually exclusive ones.

When Salmon Rushdie published Satanic Verses, the Mullahs of Iran issued a fatwa against him, putting a price on his head for allegedly impugning Islam. The West was outraged but not so much as to do anything about it. In the ensuing debate, the West argued that free speech was important and must as a result not be curtailed. Islam argued that free speech was important (because of its power) and therefore must be curtailed and controlled. Both societies recognized the importance of words.

In liberal societies where nothing is sacred except free speech, the courts have allowed flags to be burned and religious symbols to be denigrated all in the name of the sacred right of free speech. Many argue that this outcome is due to the liberal’S destain for patriotism and Christianity.

Just recently in Cincinnati, a tour of a play, entitled “Paradise”, was cancelled after complaints by CAIR. It seems that the play follows the lives of Ayat al-Akhras, a character modeled on the 18-year-old Palestinian suicide bomber who blew herself up in Jerusalem last March, and one of her victims Rachel Levy, a 17-year-old Israeli high-school senior.

According to the New York Times, Dabdoub (who attended the Play) alleged that the play stereotyped Muslims when it showed the Palestinian girl putting on a head covering (a hijab) before she set out to explode herself. "Why are we focusing on this? What is the message? To promote hatred?" he told the Times.

Laura Ingraham in an article entitled First Amendment Fraud in Cincinnati contrasted this with what happened three years ago when the Brooklyn Museum of Art showed a painting of a black Virgin Mary smeared in elephant dung
When then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani clashed with the Museum over funding, Manhattan's cultural elite rushed to the museum's defence. First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams stepped in on behalf of the museum and immediately enlisted the support of groups like the New York chapter of the ACLU, activists like actress Susan Sarandon, and the editorial boards of most national newspapers. "There's a simple solution for those who object to the exhibition: Don't go to see it," sniffed an editorial in the Los Angeles Times”.

[In this instance] There was nothing like the outrage expressed when the Brooklyn Museum was under fire. Where is Floyd Abrams? Where is the ACLU? Where is Sarandon?

Of course theirs [liberals outrage] is a transparently selective outrage. Artistic expression that denigrates American symbols (the flag dunked in a toilet) or Christianity (the crucifix dipped in urine) is celebrated, protected and paid for by taxpayers. But artistic expression that sheds light on modern day evil (suicide bombing) by a politically trendy group (Palestinians) is trampled upon. First Amendment crusaders are either absent or offer only a mild rebuke to Cincinnati for caving in to outside pressure. More to the point, in Brooklyn Museum case, Giuliani did not try to shut down the exhibit entirely. He just didn't want the taxpayers to pay for it. In Cincinnati, we see a case of what most liberals would consider real-life censorship.

Message to Christians: if you're offended, get over it. Message to Muslims: we feel your pain, and we'll make you feel better, even it requires censorship.
When the police raided the Finsbury Mosque in London, the Muslims were concerned to know whether they took their shoes off when inside. Can you even imagine a church being raided and Christians showing concern whether the police took their hats off. And I'm not kidding.

Oriani Falacci in her Sermon for the West put it this way
the West does live in fear. People are afraid to speak against the Islamic world. Afraid to offend, and to be punished for offending, the sons of Allah. You can insult the Christians, the Buddhists, the Hindus, the Jews. You can slander the Catholics, you can spit on the Madonna and Jesus Christ. But, woe betide the citizen who pronounces a word against the Islamic religion.
Why? Why? Why?

While fear is a part of it, I rather think that the Left prefers to give American institutions or the establishment, a hard time and gets no pleasure from doing it to the third world. The Left always attacks America and supports the enemies of America.

At least we know that the First Amendment Right is subservient to the inviolability of Islam. The unstoppable right gives way to the unmovable Islam.