I’ll know it when I see it.” – Judge Potter Stewart.
Imagine driving along in a perfectly healthy vehicle that has nothing wrong with it, except that the check engine light is constantly on. What use does this light really have? If you have something go wrong with your vehicle the warning light is already on, so it cannot tell you anything new until your vehicle started smoking on the side of the road. This is what Karl Popper noted as being the explanation that explains everything, being, “The Sharp Shooter Fallacy.” It would be like firing several arrows then proceeding to paint targets around them after, no matter what it looks like that is where you intended to hit, because the arrow obviously found its target.
Consider how this plays out in western society.
Speech is words that they will bend, freedom with their exception.” – Metallica, Eye of the Beholder.
Right now we are living in a culture where our rights end where people’s feelings begin,
and who knows how people feel one minute to the next? There are so many social issues, such as gun control, abortion, homosexual and LGBTQ discussions, and there are even more different ways to think and feel about these issues, and buzzwords like “xenophobe”, “Islamophobe”, or “homophobe” are always on tap ready to silence any objection, concern, or disagreement brought against these emotionally charged social issues—as though name calling was the end of the discussion, the critic no longer has a case now that he has been shamed into silence.
(Pierre Vogel, Islamic hate preacher.)
There are no clear definitions of these words and that is the problem. Take, for instance, “Islamophobe.” The Canadian government had a very difficult time drafting a meaningful anti-blasphemy/pro-Sharia bill (M-103) because they could not meaningfully define this word. It was practically vacuous. What does this mean? It means that there is a word coined by society which has no meaningful definition which could apply to anyone at anytime. Does someone count as an Islamophobe when they simply question Islamic doctrines and wonder about their internal inconsistencies, such as how the Qur’an, a supposed inerrant document, could not even get the nature of the Trinity right even though it had been well in use for several hundred years up until the point it was written? (Surah 5:116). Surely, wanting clarity does not make one a vindictive questioner of Islam. What if someone voiced concern over the fruits of Islamic activity which is supposedly generated by the Qur’an?
How can someone really be Islamophobic for wanting to know about the correlation between the Islamic verses of the sword and corresponding violence carried out in the world?
Atheists, like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins have not been at all shy in charging the Judaeo-Christian God with being a malevolent being based on troublesome verses in the Old Testament, nor has the village atheist in online discussion forums who readily shares/parrots their concerns. I have yet to see the term “Christian-phobe” gain the traction that Islamophobe has in western society. So, it seems we cannot adequately define the aforementioned term, thus. Unless someone can provide the necessary conditions, rather than pointing out pet instances of it being carried out,
it seems the term “Islamophobe”, like its counterpart words, like “xenophobe” are nothing more than catch all phrases which can encompass pretty much anything,
so long as someone is personally outraged enough. “Racism” is even a difficult word to really nail down, while manifestations of it are far more obvious than the topic word in question. If we see a black man being refused service in a restaurant due to his skin colour this would be an obvious case, unless he were refused service because he refused to put a shirt on.
What these buzzwords have become are really wax noses. They are so flexible that they can be moulded to fit any face that we put them on and when we treat words like this, they become no more useful than the targets we paint around arrows already fired.
Why I bring this subject up is because of a very personal experience of mine with the Canadian Forces recruiting in Edmonton Alberta. I was recently a candidate near approval for service in the Forces and I was going to get into intelligence, which makes the next part seem absurd.
Everything checked out, my physical, my background checks and I was even a previous member and would have been a recruit school bypass, I was ready to go. What happened? A recruiter found this very blog and read my article “Why I am and Infidel” and deemed it offensive and said it contravened the Canadian Forces harassment and discrimination policy. I will let the reader judge for themselves and links to both are provided at the end of this article, but the interviewing officer was completely unable to link my article to any specific point in the policy, and only said that it violated it.
The engine of my article was that ideas have consequences, and bad ideas have bad consequences,
and the way the ideas contained in the Qur’an play out when the rubber hits the road has no enviable results.
In any case, I was deemed inadmissible for entry into the forces for a year and at the end of said year I may reopen my file and kiss the emperors ring and recant all the nasty things I said about Islam in the article—which is more than unlikely.
But what is ironic is intelligence operators, my intended trade, need to be aware of socio-political issues in a region
which those in command positions should be aware of, yet here I was being told that is unacceptable.
What has happened to the military? I get it that a certain degree of dispassionate conduct is in order to hold certain types of jobs, but are members now prohibited from expressing reasonable views off base, so long as they do not proclaim the organization that employs them endorses their views? Will this type of censorship spill over from the public sector jobs into the private sector?
Clearly, what is going on is there is only one narrative so long as the left is in power in Canada and any expression to the contrary is off limits.
Why does the left have, as my questionable post states, “a sycophantic love affair with Islam?” As Robert Spencer notes in ‘The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Free Speech (and Its Enemies)’ is that
…the common denominator between the left and Islam is a shared taste for totalitarianism. Both parties want to stifle dissent, and in doing so, find themselves fighting the same foes.”
In other words, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Both Muslims and most Christians object to homosexuality, except a Muslim will throw a homosexual off of a building. But the left is all too happy to utilize Muslims in stifling the Christian voice, so long as that Christian or Conservative voice objects to abortion and other leftist agendas. Free speech is more and more under attack in Canada.
Now, the recruiter who was the bearer of ‘bad news’ yesterday probably saw that my views were not welcome in the Canadian military with how society has slipped and that he saw this as a chance to make me rethink a career in which my mouth may have gotten me into much more trouble after being sworn into the service, so no hard feelings. However, I hope that does not dissuade us from being outspoken.
I hope society keeps tipping over sacred cows and raising concerns with religion,
even my religion—which is obviously Christianity. We simply cannot have a society that learns and truly progresses unless we call each other out on erroneous thoughts, or to at least gain clarity on misunderstandings. Perhaps what happened was a valuable occasion for realizing what is going on in the west, right under our noses. As Peter Townsend notes, political correctness toward Islam is currently the biggest blindspot the west has and it needs to be exposed.
An outline of M-103, from Government of Canada Website:
• The government should recognize the need to “quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear.”
• The government should “condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination.”
• The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage should look at how the government could develop an “approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia” and collect data to “contextualize hate crime reports.”
• The committee should present its findings and recommendations to Parliament within 240 days.
Rejection letter from army, for said reasons:
Stefan Molyneux, on the importance of free speech.
More importantly, Hitchens on free speech.