Freedom of the press is now a moot point in Europe. Freedom of the press is related to the right to keep and bear arms: Amendments 1 and 2 of the U.S. Constitution.
If you don’t have the right to keep and bear arms, you don’t have freedom of the press. The state cannot protect you. It can only try to find your assassins.
Liberal democracy is committed to freedom of the press. Islam is not. Here is an editorial that was run in USA Today by a man identified as a teacher of Sharia law in Great Britain. This man has clearly set forth the principles of Islam as they apply to freedom of the press. He was given freedom of the press by USA Today. We read: People know the consequences: Opposing view. He took this opportunity to send us a message about consequences.
Contrary to popular misconception, Islam does not mean peace but rather means submission to the commands of Allah alone. Therefore, Muslims do not believe in the concept of freedom of expression, as their speech and actions are determined by divine revelation and not based on people’s desires.Although Muslims may not agree about the idea of freedom of expression, even non-Muslims who espouse it say it comes with responsibilities. In an increasingly unstable and insecure world, the potential consequences of insulting the Messenger Muhammad are known to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
Muslims consider the honor of the Prophet Muhammad to be dearer to them than that of their parents or even themselves. To defend it is considered to be an obligation upon them. The strict punishment if found guilty of this crime under sharia (Islamic law) is capital punishment implementable by an Islamic State. This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, “Whoever insults a Prophet kill him.”
However, because the honor of the Prophet is something which all Muslims want to defend, many will take the law into their own hands, as we often see.
Within liberal democracies, freedom of expression has curtailments, such as laws against incitement and hatred.
The truth is that Western governments are content to sacrifice liberties and freedoms when being complicit to torture and rendition — or when restricting the freedom of movement of Muslims, under the guise of protecting national security.
So why in this case did the French government allow the magazine Charlie Hebdo to continue to provoke Muslims, thereby placing the sanctity of its citizens at risk?
It is time that the sanctity of a Prophet revered by up to one-quarter of the world’s population was protected.
Here is the title of the editorial: Why did France allow the tabloid to provoke Muslims?
Got it? He blamed the French authorities for not passing laws against cartoons ridiculing Mohammed.
Such laws do not exist in Western democracies. But Sharia law exists. Editors had better get the message.
If you are an editor, and you run cartoons like this, carry a gun. Hire guards who carry guns. Arm your staff.
Europe will not allow this. There is gun control in Europe. Here is an article about AK-47’s in France. The article shows how easy it is to buy them in France. Then the article ends with this obligatory comment, which has nothing to do with France.
The issue has poignancy in the U.S., where Adam Lanza used an American-made semi-automatic rifle known as an AR-15 to kill 20 children and six adult educators in Newtown, Connecticut, in December 2012. The gun had been legally acquired.
Gun control is liberal, you see.
Sharia law is not liberal.
AN UNARMED POPULATION
It does not matter whether the French police catch the murderers or not. It doesn’t matter whether French politicians label them terrorists or not. It doesn’t matter how many vigils are held by voters. Four masked men with AK-47s have settled the issue. There will not be many more cartoons ridiculing Muhammad. If three more magazines do it, and three more AK-47 attacks follow, there will be no more cartoons. I don’t think it will take three more attacks.
(For the rest of my article, click the link.)