O’Reilly’s New Turban, Coulter’s Little Nazi
By Richard Davis (12/13/05)
If free speech were common stock, you would have dumped it long ago. Too much volatility, too many quarterly losses. Better to have your money in a nice PC hedge fund --big dividends and great long-range potential. Free speech, on the other hand, gets downgraded every week. Take the past week, for example.
In Denmark Muslims wanted to kill some newspaper cartoonists. In France they were after the hide of a Jewish philosopher. In America, fascists-in-training silenced Ann Coulter in Connecticut, while fascists-already-trained planned to shout out the president and his State of the Union message. And then there was some particularly disturbing news out of the Middle East, where free speech is as rare as a ham on rye.
Speaking at an Arab and World Media Conference in Dubai, Saudi billionaire prince al-Walid bin Talal bragged that a simple phone call to Rupert Murdoch caused Fox News Channel to alter its coverage of the riots in France. He wanted the characterization of the disturbances changed from “Muslim riots” to “civil riots.” His wish was Fox News’ command, and it took less than 30 minutes to effect the change, he said.
Only money buys that kind of clout, specifically, the millions the prince paid for a very substantial voting stake and a seat on the board of News Corp., Murdoch’s parent company of Fox. What insights on free speech can the prince bring to the board? In his kingdom, there is no freedom of speech whatsoever, or of the press or of anything else. Violators are beheaded. The prince has had nothing to say about that.
The Dubai conference was organized by the pretentiously (and some might say oxymoronically) named Arab Thought Foundation, whose board includes at least one member of the bin Laden family. In other words, your typical Muslim free speech advocacy group.
Al-Walid is probably best known for being rebuffed by New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani after 9/11 when Giuliani returned the prince’s $10 million donation after al-Walid suggested America got what it deserved. He’s been an outspoken critic of America and the coverage Muslims receive in the Western media.
To that end, al-Walid recently donated a half a million dollars to the Islamic grievance group CAIR, which tirelessly promotes Muslim victim hood in America and works to silence anyone critical of itself or Islam. It is a Saudi-backed organization with the Saudi understanding of free speech, though it is yet to receive approval for beheadings.
Fox hasn’t acknowledged or refuted al-Walid’s assertion, which isn’t a good sign. Free speech is not just about what you say. It’s also about what you won’t say because of fear or intimidation.
There’s no doubt al-Walid’s interference has compromised Fox. That is exactly what Al-Walid paid for -- de facto Muslim control over America’s only non-liberal TV news channel. Was Bill O’Reilly’s pro-Muslim coverage Monday night of the weekend disturbances in Australia just coincidental? No complaint from the prince on that segment. Maybe just a note of thanks.
You have to hand it to al-Walid. The prince has scored a major victory in Islam’s ongoing clash with civilization.
In Denmark a newspaper published cartoons that included likenesses of Muhammad, a no-no punishable by death in Islam. The requisite fatwas have been issued, and Muslims have taken to the streets as far away as Kashmir. The UN even stepped in to attack the newspaper for racism and Islamophobia. That’s the same UN that wants to take control of the internet.
In France, philosopher Alain Finkielkraut remains in isolation after giving an interview in which he pointed out that recent rioters were mostly blacks and Arabs and that Islam might have had something to do with their unrest. He was forced to offer a groveling apology for speaking the truth, but he might yet be brought up on charges of racism, provided he survives.
Ann Coulter’s experience at the University of Connecticut was certainly no shock. Free speech was banned from college campuses 30 years ago when the left gained supremacy (free speech is always curtailed when the left has control. When Berkeley became “Free Speech” Berkeley, it was effectively free of free speech.)
The typically slanted AP story on Coulter’s talk focused on the protestors, including the liberal hate group Students Against Hate, which promotes tolerance by demanding censorship, boycotts and what ever else you can think of against anyone who disagrees with them. One member explained that Coulter should be banned or at least shouted down because “she’s not going to promote the open-mindedness that we want to see.” And he said that with a straight face, too.
SAH held a counter event to “balance” Coulter. Following the dictates of liberalism -- all demonstrations are to include victim testimonials -- victims were paraded out to relate the horrors they experienced from unrestricted speech. One girl, Hana Kim, “cried as she recalled her experience hearing two young men express shock and disapproval in a loud conversation that a friend was dating an ‘Asian chick’.” My God, the humanity.
Another talked about “how he hid his homosexuality while at Uconn, afraid his fraternity brothers and family would shun him.” Though seriously victimized, this young man bravely managed to say, “Words are sharp tools and certain people like Ann Coulter use them to hurt people.”
You can’t make this stuff up. Those were the victims. One supposedly overheard a conversation; the other was afraid he might not hear one. For that, Coulter should be banned from speaking.
So just what is the appropriate punishment for saying “Asian chick” to a friend in a private conversation, or being accused of potentially not speaking to a closeted homosexual if he were to uncloset himself? Suspension? A little jail time? At the very least some sensitivity torture.
The president of SAH declared Coulter’s writings “blatant hate speech.” He was identified as Eric Knudsen, a “journalism and social welfare major.” Great. Just what American media need, another self-righteous liberal crusader who thinks he alone speaks for the social welfare of everyone else and that anyone who disagrees with him has no right to speak at all. He should provide some fair and balanced coverage of news events.
Unfortunately, his presidency of this neo-Nazi group will be a laurel on his resume. It reveals his leadership qualities and his devotion to civic causes, the favorite one of journalists today being the cleansing of public speech of any conservative contaminants. Good job, Eric. Welcome to the mainstream press.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Richard Davis
