The Muslims Keep Wanting To Gag Us

Two stalwart proponents of the "right" of Islam and its adherents everywhere to be free of the slightest whiff of criticism by anyone for any reason, Algeria and Pakistan, have reportedly taken the point in the never ending campaign to stifle free expression in the name of preventing something called "religious defamation."

Diplomats from these two notedly repressive states have been working the halls of the UN seeking support for a draft protocol which will lead to an international convention banning any and every word, drawing, or other expression which might be seen by some hypersensitive Muslim as somehow "defaming" some aspect of Muslim theology, history, current acts (including shooting people while shouting, "Allahu akbar!"), or any other whim of the putatively "offended" individual or group.

The reasoning propelling the quest is disingenuously disguised as an exercise in "human rights." The proponents of this Global Gag Order which include (surprise! surprise) the totality of the member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference allege that any "defamatory" expression impairs the "human right" of the believer to exercise his beliefs.

The effort currently underway in the UN General Assembly goes far beyond the previous exercises in passing non-binding resolutions over the opposition of Western nations, including usually but not always the United States. The goal is to enshrine protections for Muslims and Islam in the code of international law and thus personal conduct.

The OIC is plunging ahead with its new approach in order to ride the momentum started by the ill-advised, poorly thought through and generally dangerous Obama administration decision to cosponsor a semi-gag rule in the UN Human Rights Council along with Egypt. (Egypt is another state where repression is commonplace, persecution of religious minorities a daily fact of life, and where internal anti-"defamation" laws are routinely employed to silence dissent and suppress debate on policies both sacred and secular.)

The OIC pointmen are arguing that it is not so much that they are seeking to limit free expression but "to strike a balance between that right and respect for others." Right, dude, fer sure.

Given that international conventions are applied (at least most of the time) by national courts, there is no doubt the "balance" will be struck at vastly different points by different national judicial systems. This is another case where the differences will work not to the advantage of free expression but to its harm.

The use of the term "balance" as well as the invocation of the totem of "human rights" is a slick move by the OIC and its frontline workers. Both serve to undercut any resistance from the West by waving the magic wand of multi-culturalism along with that of cultural relativism. These two pernicious concepts provide extra grease on an already very slippery slope by inducing a sort of soporific head nodding of agreement among many of the Western elites, the chattering and academic classes in particular.

The US representatives at the relevant UN committees and bodies have, in the words of one, "been waging trench warfare" against the OIC measure. Still, given the slickness of the current packaging, the lengthy timeline involved, and related features, the measure has a good or better chance of ultimate adoption--provided the Muslims are persistent.

There is no doubt but the Muslims will be persistent. Alone among the major religions (and as far as the Geek can determine the minor ones as well) Muslims are so fearful as to the nature, basis, and character of their own faith; its historical record; and the actions of some of its present day adherents as to demand special protection, unique immunity, and international guardianship against the normal hazards of daily intellectual life. Only Muslims cannot take even the most legitimate and factually justified criticism.

Beyond being simply persistent, the Muslims can take comfort that the US population contains large and vocal factions ready, willing, and able to support suppression of expression in the name of religion. An example, an early harbinger of this is to be found in Nebraska.

True, the subject at hand seems far from free expression, but the distance is far, far less than first meets the eye. In the Cornhusker State, the elected University Board of Regents is considering the imposition of a ban on stem cell research far broader than either state law or federal regulation imposes.

The Board of Regents appear to be poised to prohibit any fetal stem cell research using any cell line other than the twenty-one authorized by that famed friend of untrammeled science, George W. Bush. The mere prospect of the restriction in free research has already hampered, even stopped the development of the regenerative science effort at U Nebraska. If passed, it will continue to do so--and probably have ripple effects which will ultimately serve to the detriment of every (non-athletic) department in the university.

The justification provided by backers of the Thou-Shalt-Not-Research measure maintain that they do not intend to restrict freedom of inquiry, but rather to protect the "human rights" of the fetus. They also aver that the scientists should be researching the potential benefits from adult stem cells.

The second point is well taken; scientists should not overlook nor ignore any line of inquiry. Similarly, good science should not and cannot be dictated by religious considerations of an admittedly emotional but yet highly abstract sort.

The ground truth is simply that freedom of inquiry and expression are a very basic human right. Arguably, these two constitute jointly the most powerful driving force in all areas of human progress from the hardest of hard sciences to the ineffable but central matters of ethics and epistemology.

There is a second ground truth in play here. Whether free expression or its twin, free inquiry, there are religiously driven opponents who will take the counsel of their deepest fears, their most hidden of insecurities, and act to suppress speech or inquiry which for whatsoever reason, true or false, good or bad, real or artificial which may cross the individual believer's mind.

Gag orders kill more than "defamation" or lines of scientific inquiry. Gag orders kill societies, nations, cultures. More, by giving expression to the deepest, darkest fears, and insecurities lurking in our midst, the gag order kills our essential humanness.