Some Of The Pigs Are More Equal Than The Others

  Imagine with me if you will, the Republican convention is being held in some U.S. city.  As the attendees are entering the facility an outspoken liberal critic is seen filming everyone.  Security is informed of his presence and subsequently approaches him to inquire what he is doing.  He states angrily that he is filming all of the attendees and that anyone who speaks out against the Democratic party will be hunted down and killed.  Once the Organizers are made aware of these threats they inquire with the director of security, who informs them that he is not surprised.  Though the shocker comes when he lays the blame on the organizers for holding the convention in the first place and allowing people to say things which might offend or upset people who disagree with them.  After some disagreement the organizers decide that for the protection of everyone attending they should cancel the convention.

  In a country like the U.S., with our First Amendment protecting free speech, this story sounds very far fetched.  It is difficult for us to imagine such an improbable scenario playing out.  One in which the safety of individuals is threatened by someone who disagrees with them and then rather than apprehending this individual who has threatened innocent people, the authorities side with the radical and blame the convention holders for attempting to express free speech.  Those who are threatened are not the victims of silenced speech but the perpetrators of discrimination or harmful speech.  

  As unlikely as this might seem to us, this is exactly what occurred last week in London.  It is absurd to me that this type of intimidation is allowed to occur, while the man making those threats has not been apprehended or charged in any way.  The only difference between my fictional account and what actually occurred is the country where it took place and rather than the threats coming from a dissident political party member it was from an Islamic radical.  What, I must ask is the difference?

  Why should religious beliefs be placed in a separate category from every other ideology?  What is to become of the protections afforded by the freedom of speech if we allow that certain ideas are beyond criticism?  Who is to decide this? Why haven't there been people speaking out against the silence of free speech in a democratic country?   Why hasn't there been more coverage in the media?  No one at the secular conference was threatening anybody, at all.  Who is going to stand up and say the plain and simple truth? A basic fundamental human right is being stripped away right before our eyes all in the name of avoiding the offense of some group or idea.

  Most people don't condone violence, but the troubling trend comes in the form of the idea that we need to tiptoe around people who have strong religious beliefs.  This is idea is extremely flawed, it assumes that religious believers aren't bound by the same obligation to exercise judgement and restraint as the rest of us when the are offended.  Hidden deep within all of the talk about respect and tolerance is a mountain of fear and the tacit admission of a link between demands for censorship and silencing criticism with threats of violence.  

  As some might be prone to dismiss this as the fault of secular groups speaking out about Islamic barbarism, it would do us all well to imagine a time in which anyone who imagines verbal slights as a reason to threaten violence.  A pro-life group protests a family planning center to shouts of "We will kill you if you don't stop this picket".  An ACLU meeting is cancelled because some people think that it is an evil organisation.  Adding insult to injury the threats are not treated as the crime that they are and instead the free speech is silenced in order not to offend.  As unthinkable as these might sound today, they are no different in principle than what took place over the pond.  

  There is only one acceptable response if we are to see the upholding of that most supreme of human rights; outcry.  Call it what it is, intimidation and silencing through fear.  As any dog owner knows the dog who barks the loudest and threatens the most violently is really the least secure and most afraid.  Islamists know that their rhetoric doesn't stand up to a free exchange of ideas and so they threaten with violence in order to silence what would expose Islam for what it is, a fraud.