I don't like the idea that when immigrants move to a new country, the host countries must change their age-old cultures to conform to the beliefs and prejudices of the new arrivals. I mean, if the freedom of expression that prevails in Western countries is going to drive you to commit murder, then don't move to a Western country. If you intend to kill your own daughter for having premarital sex, because conducting 'honor killings' is the tradition in whatever hell-hole you come from, then this probably isn't the right place for you.
Except that convention is not an age old culture. Unless going deliberately out of one's way to offend is part of American culture?
I don't disagree with you, Yazata, but what Geller did is not a part of American society. Sure, free speech laws allow her to incite hatred and she does that very well and she tends to pop back up when she loses attention or the stage which she likes to inhabit, since even Jewish groups no longer wish to have anything to do with her because she is such a vicious character.
It wasn't freedom of expression that she is fighting for. It is a form of bigotry that she is able to maintain because of the free speech laws that she enjoys.
No one can agree with the very notion of people shooting others because of a cartoon. That said, America does not have a history of satire, like the French do. In fact, the media in the US is vastly different to what it is like in France, or other European countries or even in my own country, where lambasting one and all is common. The impression I have when I look at the things Geller was saying and doing leading up to this 'draw Mohammed' convention, is that she was deliberately yelling fire in a crowded theater and watching people trample over each other. She feeds off this sort of thing and always has. And Geller is not so supportive of free speech or freedom of expression when such freedom goes against her religious beliefs. At all and she incites violence against others who disagree with her, which in and of itself is against what I would deem to be Western ideology.
Aside from revulsion at what those two men intended to do, I am also repulsed by the hypocrisy of Geller and the deliberate viciousness with which she conducted herself prior to and after this shooting. As
Brian Levin notes, the only thing separating Geller and the terrorists who intended to shoot up that convention is violence. Had they camped outside that hall with signs saying death to Christians and Jews as a form of freedom of expression, Geller would not have been so free or happy about their exercising their right to free speech. Hence the absolute hypocrisy of her hate filled bigotry.
No one deserves to be shot for their religious belief or ideology. Even someone as repulsive as Geller and her incitement for violence against others. They would have done more damage to her and her horrid ideology if they had just ignored her entirely and frankly,
not given her what she desperately wanted.
There are two parties that are assuredly satisfied after the attack at the "Draw Muhammad Contest" in Garland, Texas on Sunday.
One is probably Pamala Geller, the organizer of the event and president of the American Freedom Defense Initiative. Geller has dedicated her life to vilifying Muslims. Under the protection of free speech, her organization sponsors the "Draw Muhammad" contest and routinely demonizes Muslims with billboards across the country.
The two gunmen/pawns played exactly into her divisive Islam vs. the West narrative and she responded the day after the shooting by saying: "This incident shows how much needed our event really was. The freedom of speech is under violent assault here in our nation. The question now before is -- will we stand and defend it, or bow to violence, thuggery, and savagery?"
The other group that must be pleased today is ISIS, whose followers, according toABC News, have been sending messages about the event in Texas, referencing Charlie Hebdo, and saying it was time for "brothers" in the US to do their part.
[...]
While they resort to different means, both the extreme anti-Islam movement and the violent Islamist movements self-servingly promote the belief that the future must involve a battle against one another to the death. Both claim to be victims of aggression by the other, and both are trying to convince the rest of us to join their war.
Was the shooting justified? Certainly not. It is repulsive. My biggest gripe with this is her hypocrisy and her feeding off this and calling for "war". It's obscene. What is going to happen if some hapless retard takes a gun and shoots up a Mosque because it is a "war"? She is deliberately adding fuel in the hope of a violent response and in doing so, deliberately endangered the lives of the police, and the people who went to that draw Mohammed convention (which frankly, is something I am still trying to wrap my head around).
No one is saying that free speech or freedom of expression is bad. But sometimes, when one goes out of one's way to offend and demean whole groups of people, some within that community will not respond with calm or ignore the offense and some will fight back with violence. This is exactly what has happened in Texas. The irony of the whole demand for freedom of speech is that Wilders, who was also at the event with Geller,
wants to ban the Quran - apparently it is only free speech for some, not all.
Freedom of speech needs to be protected. I just hate finding myself on the same side as someone like Geller in that regard. Makes me want to vomit.
