Can I say it any more plainly than that?
Susan Duclos can. Today she penned this incredible post that makes the issue crystal clear.
Today, posted by Deb Hamilton of Right Truth in Real Clear Politics is an article about the British blogger Lionheart. Lionheart is facing arrest if he returns to Britain. He is facing arrest for doing something and for doing it well. He has written about the invasion of his native land by Muslims. And he has called a spade a spade. And today WE DO NOT CALL A SPADE A SPADE. It is ABSOLUTELY FORBIDDEN TO CALL A SPADE A SPADE. Or to call the ISLAMIC MENACE an ISLAMIC MENACE.
God help us!
The Multicultural Thought Police ARE REAL, folks. THEY ARE HERE NOW. This is no longer some clever literary device, this is reality. HE IS FACING ARREST. For writing TRUTHFULLY about Islam.
Today it is Britain, but tomorrow it is us –“
Read it all.
This is no isolated incident, lest anyone think of calling it one.
Alyssa Lappen wrote this Pajamas Media piece two days ago describing how a known terrorist financier is using western libel laws to shut the mouths and stop the pens of writers who bring their activities – and those of the terrorists they empower – to light:
Intended or not, a narrow, technical New York Appeals Court decision on Thursday Dec. 20, 2007 produces that net effect. The ruling concerns jurisdiction in Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld’s suit against Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz, seeking a federal declaratory judgment against him to render unenforceable in the U.S. a U.K. High Court default “libel” decision. By implication, the New York Appeals Court ruling harms all publishers and writers in New York, the world’s publishing capital.
Shockingly, New York’s Court of Appeals allowed Mahfouz’ commercial actions (and any similar commercial actions of any other foreign terror financier and libel tourist) to subjugate Constitutional First Amendment rights to archaic commercial statutes.
Now, the U.S. Congress and New York legislators must swiftly enact new “long-arm” statues, suitable to our electronic age, before further damage to the U.S. Constitution ensues.
What the consequences might be if our legislators fail to act to correct this and other misguided rulings I will leave to the more legally-minded.
What is clear is that there is a consistent and concerted effort being carried out by the apologists for and enablers of Islamic terrorism to stop the spread of information about them, their activities, their beliefs, and their goals from being written about in the popular press.
Hate crimes laws, among other harmful side effects, enable this approach of legal strong arming by creating a mechanism through which terrorists and their sympathizers can eliminate the free speech rights of every one of us with no risk whatever to themselves.
Hate crimes legislation cannot be allowed to become the law of the land.
Though progressives and old-school liberals call such measures necessary to ensure equal protection under the law the outcome, as demonstrated in the two cases discussed above is anything but equal and anything but just.
Update: See comment 2 for a link to Lionheart’s post reporting the situation.