Burning Books NEVER Justifies Violence

As you might have heard, a sketchy pastor from a podunk parish down in Florida has captured the world’s attention with his threat to burn a pile of copies of the Quran on the anniversary of 9-11.

Most Quran barbeque recipes call for mesquite and a dash of adobo

Much has been made of this small church’s plans – Pastor Terry Jones has been villified by everybody from Sarah Palin to Barack Obama as a racist, a hypocrite and an incendiary element that risks setting relations with the Middle East ablaze.

“This stunt the’s pulling could greatly endanger our young men and women who are in uniform," warned President Obama. “It’s a recruitment bonanza for Al Qaida. You could have serious violence in places like Pakistan and Afghanistan.”

This is all well and good – I’m certainly no fan of book burning and have no desire to encourage extremist Muslims to retaliate through violence. I don’t support Pastor Jones in any way...

Except all of this media backlash against him has kind of left a bad taste in my mouth. Why? Because it’s completely missing the point.

Terry Jones is being labeled a bigot and a racist and all he’s threatening to do is burn a bunch of books. Meanwhile, extremist Muslims throughout the world are already rioting, burning American flags and threatening to commit murder and bloodshed in retaliation – and nobody’s saying a Goddamn thing.

And it’s the same as bloody normal, isn’t it? We westerners instantly vilify anybody who offends the sentiments of outraged Muslims, but seem to fall remarkably silent when Islamic extremists commit even more heinous offences in the name of the ‘religion of peace.’

The way Obama addressed the whole Quran-burning issue is indicative of his true motivation – he called for Pastor Jones to call off the bonfire because it risked sparking violence in the Middle East (in fact, it already has.)

There’s a word for that. It’s called appeasement.

Pastor Jones is a bonehead, don’t get me wrong. He’s no doubt a bigoted little idiot and I’m not defending his idiotic actions. Yet he has the right to burn those books – this is America, where freedom of speech is ingrained in the very fabric of our society. We shouldn’t have the President of the United States dictating an individual’s freedom of speech based on threats of violence from abroad.

Seriously – the bad guys here are the Muslim extremists. The issue here is not that a bigoted little preacher is burning books, but that a conglomeration of AK-47 wielding fascists think this justifies murder and mayhem. It doesn’t. It’s wrong. It’s offensive – far more offensive than the scent of smoldering paper.

Muslims extremists burn American flags like nobody’s business (seriously, the dude who imports them to the Middle East must be raking in a fortune.) Yet you don’t see outraged ‘patriots’ threatening to machine-gun mosques or behead imams to retaliate against the destruction of this American icon.

Somebody even pointed out that if an Imam threatened to burn a pile of Bibles, you wouldn’t have the same reaction.

You might have protests – perhaps even a couple of individuals doing something dumb – but you wouldn’t have widespread threats of violence and murder. You wouldn’t have people burning the Saudi Arabian flag in the streets. More likely, you’d have a bunch of Christians being offended – but willing to stand for it because ‘freedom of speech’ is more a part of the American religion than Christianity is.

So whatever you think about this Quran-burning brouhaha, let’s remember that the real bad guys aren’t the ones pouring the lighter fluid over the books, but the ones who think such an act justifies any form of violence.

Western governments can’t afford to appease extremists any longer. If violence kicks off because of Pastor Jone’s bigoted little demonstration it says more about the intolerance of Islam than it does about America – and it would even inspire me to consider lighting up a copy of the Quran myself.

Should there be a 'ground zero' mosque?

There's a debate raging in New York City at the moment. It's regarding plans to build a Mosque just steps away from 'Ground Zero' - the site of the former World Trade Center that was obliterated by fundamentalist terrorists in 2001.


To be honest, I totally understand the uproar.

I remember arriving in New York for the first time in 2001 - finding a city utterly in shock. 9-11 was when the impact of terrorism was brought brutally home to Americans in a manner unprecedented before or since. It was difficult not to feel resentment and outrage towards Islam, especially when the news channels showed Palestinians dancing in the streets in celebration, and even 'moderate' Muslims arguing that "America has brought this on itself."

That's a quote from Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf by the way - the man slated to be the new Imam of the 'Ground Zero Mosque.'

Ultimately, though, there are several reasons I think the 'Ground Zero' mosque should go ahead.

Primarily, the fact that this mosque will not be built on 'Ground Zero.'

It will actually be located two blocks away, on the site of a building that was damaged by falling debris on 9-11, but not destroyed by it. It's uncomfortably close, I'll agree - but where exactly does the 'Ground Zero' perimeter end? What is an 'acceptable distance' from the site of the disaster to build a mosque? Manhattan's not a large island, so carving out an arbitrary 'no mosque' zone is difficult.

Secondly, because the building site is privately-owned and building the mosque is privately-funded.

I'm enough of a capitalist to argue that the 'outraged public' has no right to dictate what can and can't be built on private property. Sure, there are zoning laws - but a mosque isn't exactly the same as a strip-club or liquor store (and I don't think Joe Sixpack should be dictating where those can and can't be built, either.)

Thirdly, there's that little thing called the 'First Amendment.'

America was founded on the notion of freedom of religious expression - and it's unconscionably unconstitutional for the 'outraged public' to dictate which houses of worship get preference in their neighborhood. If they'd allow a church, but ban a mosque, then they violate everything the Founding Fathers fought for.

And finally, with the economy the way it is, I don't think New York City should turn down millions of dollars of private investment.

The mosque means revenue for the city and for the construction industry. Ultimately, that's why New York Major Michael Bloomberg approved the move - because he's a pragmatist and a businessman at heart (and runs New York like a private business.)

That all being said, I'll admit that I don't like the idea of this mosque one little bit.

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf might be hailed as a 'moderate' Muslim, but he's made some very sketchy comments in the past regarding America and 9-11.

I also think the furor this has caused will reflect negatively across the world.

Because conservatives expressed so much outrage, Islamic extremists are undoubtedly going to view the mosque as a 'victory' against the 'evil America.' In their eyes, Rauf is building a testament to the Islamic faith just steps from where 3,000 people were murdered in that faith's name.

This is why I understand the outrage, and aren't as willing to dismiss the anti-mosque conservatives as 'bigoted' or 'ignorant' as many on the left-wing do. I completely understand why they're so opposed to this mosque - and while I'll stand up and defend its construction, part of me secretly wishes they'd succeeded in not letting it be built.

Orwell's Britain? Britain bans controversial talk show host

British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has made public Britain's 'shit list' - a catalog of those banned from entering the United Kingdom because they engage in "the sort of behaviour Britain is not prepared to tolerate."

Amongst the sixteen listed names were radical pastor Fred Phelps, Ku Klux Klan 'wizard' Stephen Donald Black and Muslim activist Clarence Reams (now known as 'Abdul Ali Musa.')

As disgusting and unlikeable as most of these characters are, the existence of this list is deeply troubling...

It's understandable to ban somebody for past crimes (like Artur Ryno and Pavel Skachevsky, two Russian skinheads convicted of murder) or their involvement in criminal conspiracies (like American neo-Nazi Erich Gliebe.)

But when it comes to Smith's decision to ban inflammatory American talk-show host Michael Savage (whose real name is, highly appropriately, 'Wiener') it opens up a whole different can of worms.

Now I'm not defending Savage. He's a disgusting, radical, reactionary idiot with a trigger-happy tendency to shoot his mouth off without consulting his brain first.

His ill-considered opinions on autism ("In 99 percent of the cases, it's a brat who hasn't been told to cut that act out") and homosexuality ("They should get AIDS and die, the pigs. How's that?") have made him a polarizing figure even amidst the media circus that is conservative talk radio.

But as despicable, hateful and ignorant as Savage is - he's just a guy. A loud, obnoxious, offensive guy who's done nothing legally wrong (polluting the minds of 8.5 million listeners isn't a crime.)

[And as unlikeable as he is, he wrote The Taster's Guide to Beer: Brews and Breweries of the World, so he can't be all bad. - Editorial Bear]

Banning him from the UK is nothing short of 'thought control' - another example of Britain's unwillingness to tolerate any free speech that violates the sanctity of what's deemed 'politically correct.'

It's similar to the recent expulsion of far-right Dutch MP Geert Wilders - who offended the British government with his documentary linking the Qu'ran to terrorism.

Wilders hadn't done anything technically wrong - the British government were simply unwilling to entertain him because he dared to speak out of term about the UK's 'elephant in the living room' - the tight-knit Islamic communities which bred the suicide bombers of 2005.

Somewhat coincidentally, most of the 16 names on Jacqui Smith's 'shit list' belong to Muslim extremists - preachers who spread messages of hatred in mosques, fostering violence and terrorism within the Muslim community.


It's commonly accepted that the offensive, but largely inconsequential idiot Michael Savage was only added to the list to appease the Muslim community - making them feel like their extremists and militants weren't the only ones targeted for a ban.

But the problem with that 'justification' is that it capitulates to the Muslim community's stranglehold on free speech in Britain. Look at some recent examples:

• In 2005, when Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published controversial cartoons of Mohammad, the British press were intimidated into not printing the cartoons for fear of 'offending' the Muslim community.
• In 2008, when Sherry Jone's novel 'The Jewel of Medina' was due to be published, Random House were threatened with violence by the Muslim community, who resented the novel's portrayal of Aisha, Mohammad's wife. The book was canceled.
  
• In 2008, when two church workers were handing out leaflets in a largely Muslim area in Birmingham, a Police Community Support Officer threatened them with arrest for committing a 'hate crime' by promoting their community church.

It seems the fundamental philosophy of 'free speech' is only valid if that speech doesn't offend the Muslim community - who are notoriously thin-skinned.

In fact, the fear of 'Islamophobia' - or offending the Muslim community - is so great in Britain that police officers turn a blind eye to very clear 'hate speech' committed by Muslims themselves - arguing that the Police would be accused of 'Islamophobia' if they reacted.

For example, in the 2005 protests against the Jyllands-Posten cartoons, Muslim demonstrators dressed up as suicide bombers and lifted placards urging people to 'Behead Those who Insult Islam!' The police, in attendance at the demonstrations, did nothing.


There's a very clear double-standard in Britain regarding 'free speech.' It's only 'free' if it's deemed acceptable, inoffensive and politically correct (conversely, nobody wants to upset the Muslim community by objecting to anything they say.)

That really isn't 'free speech' at all.

I'm incredulous that we turn a blind eye to people waving placards promoting the decapitation of Danish cartoonists - yet we ban a man from entering this country for daring to say: "I think Al-Qaida terrorists need to be forcibly converted to Christianity ... It's the only thing that can probably turn them into human beings."

I don't like Micheal Savage. I don't agree with the bile he spews. It terrifies me that he's got a weekly audience of 8.5 million, absorbing his ignorant diatribes...

But the fact is, Michael Savage's rants are entirely inconsequential compared to the words of the extremists and hatemongers we tolerate in Britain.

Savage doesn't promote suicide bombing or murder. He's not calling for a 'jihad.' He's just a loudmouthed, arrogant little man who likes the sound of his own voice. In that respect, he's little different to George Galloway (except people actually listen to Savage.)

I hate every word that Michael Savage says - but doesn't he still have a right to say it?

Or, more importantly, don't people in the UK have the right to hear it? How can we ban Savage's angry rants as 'offensive,' yet condone demonstrators waving placards that warn: "Europe, be prepared for the real Holocaust."


The real problem is that Britain has never actually made a commitment to 'free speech.' It's not cemented in our national identity like the First Amendment in the United States. In fact, we British - net-curtain twitchers that we are - simply adore the opportunity to shut people up.

But we're continuing to march down a very dangerous route. Banning extremists and hate-mongers is one thing, but banning angry, impotent self-publicists like Michael Savage is something else entirely. It's a further step towards a muzzled media, in which independent opinion is ruthlessly suppressed.

George Orwell might have got the date wrong, but who says 1984's never going to happen?