Search Results

QUESTION ASKED: At What Point Is Islamist Rhetoric a Crime?

Jim Geraghty:

Yesterday on Twitter, Sam Hooper gave me a little grief – perhaps deserved – for my comments on the day’s Three Martini Lunch podcast generally supportive of U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May’s proposal of new measures in response to the recent Islamist terror attacks.

Hooper asked, “should someone be arrested for saying ‘I want to overthrow the US government and establish an Islamic state?” Not for actually doing it, mind you, but merely for saying the words. Are saying those words aloud a crime? If so, aren’t we getting unnervingly close to the concept of “Thought Crimes”?

It’s fair to ask that question; it’s entirely possible that my perspective on terrorism right now is emotionally clouded by the thought of those ten children, and 22 people overall, went to an Ariana Grande concert one night and never came home. Indeed, it would be odd and unnerving and inconsistent with our traditions of free expression to arrest and imprison someone for the mere expression of the thought.

(On the other hand, if you’re going to have a hate crime law the way the United Kingdom does, it’s pretty ridiculous to not apply it to someone who’s preaching violence against infidels.)

But when we’ve witnessed and endured Islamist terror attack after Islamist terror attack in one Western city after another, isn’t it fair to ask how many who call for an Islamist overthrow of the government and imposition of Sharia law are truly harmless?

This is a gray area for liberal (in the classic sense) governments. But perhaps it would clarify our thinking if we imagined what steps would be permissible and advisable if parts of the Islamic world were at actual war with the West — which they are.

MARK BAUERLEIN: No Guilt This Time. “Which brings us back to Donald Trump. Why do people hate him so? Because he won’t accept this appointed condition. He has no white guilt. He doesn’t feel any male guilt, either, or American guilt or Christian guilt. He talks about the United States with uncritical approval—’America First’—and that’s a thought crime in the eyes of liberals.”

He rejects their assumed position of moral and intellectual supremacy. Which is both fair, and painful, because that position has always been a lie.

BRIAN LEITER IS UNHAPPY: Thought crimes watch: comparing trans-racialism to transgenderism verboten! It’s a feminist journal, so I love his reference to “whatever passes for peer review” there. Ouch! Plus:

Apparently the “harm” to Prof. Tuvel of a public apology by the majority of the editorial board of the journal that published her article was outweighed by the “harm” of her thought crime to transgender people. (Addendum: no thought crime is complete without a public letter of protest. What is chilling about this is that instead of this campaign of vilification of a junior faculty member and demand for “retraction” of her article, someone could have written a response piece and sent it to the same journal. But this is obviously not a scholarly community, but a political one. Those familiar with the history of 20th-century Marxist movements will recognize what’s going on here, and it isn’t a happy sight.)

Well, leftist autophagy isn’t an entirely unhappy sight. (Bumped).

A REAL “UP YOURS” TO TRUMP: Obama taps Harvard for new “War on Men” Czar.

College men, meet Mia Karvonides, your new worst nightmare.

Currently she’s the head of the “Title IX and Gender Equity” office at Harvard University, charged with ensuring there is no safe space for men anywhere at Harvard.

For example, recently Ms. Karvonides helped persecute the members of the men’s soccer team for their “thought crime” of (privately, in a document circulated only amongst themselves) evaluating members of the women’s soccer team based on their sex appeal. (For critical takes on the persecution, which included the cancellation of the rest of the men’s soccer season based on events that had occurred years earlier, see Breitbart, Legal Insurrection, College Fix, Daily Caller, Total Frat Move, and Reddit.)

Intent on taking this “War on Men” national, President Obama and his minions have engineered the appointment of Ms. Karvonides, effective Jan. 17, to serve as the federal government’s top official in charge of enforcing Title IX against all colleges and universities, according to a Harvard Crimson story broken about 5 p.m. (Eastern time) today: “Title IX Officer Mia Karvonides to Leave Harvard.”

Under the direction of Ms. Karvonides soon, in the immortal words of David Burge, all college students born with the shame of having a penis — not just those at Harvard — may have new hope of being reeducated not to be a man.

Trump should just fire her and let her fight him in court if she wants. As one of my law professors said about the big case on Presidential removal power, Humphrey’s Executor, the name of the case tells the real story.

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON ON THE GREAT REGRESSION: “Today, it seems that Orwell’s 1984 would better have been titled 2016,” VDH writes:

Orwell was wrong only on his dates. Had he entitled his novel 2016, we would immediately have recognized his parallels to the present “overseas contingency operations,” “violent extremism,” “undocumented immigrants,” and “man-caused disasters.” The campus diversity czar is our Big Brother. Imagining that all lives matter is a thought crime. Due process on a campus today is counter-revolutionary, and proper sexual congress among students is to be scripted as a politically correct act, as if we were all Orwell’s Winston Smith and Julia. Is the Junior Anti-Sex League with its red sashes far behind?

As the London Guardian lamented on Sunday, “Goodbye to sex: a short and heartfelt eulogy.”

Hey, the Washington Post wasn’t kidding when at the start of 2009, via their then-owned magazine Newsweek, they declared “We Are All Socialists Now” – evidently, they didn’t realize (or care) that the result would be something akin to East Germany, albeit with Justin Bieber and the Kardashians for entertainment, rather than ‘60s London with socialized medicine and the Beatles. (Or Sweden and Abba for that matter.)

GAWKER IS BANKRUPT, AND NOW LIBERALS ARE PRETENDING TO CARE ABOUT FREE SPEECH:

Take the illiberal New York State Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman, a proponent of censorship who is considering using racketeering charges against global warming skeptics. A government official who wants to punish people for thought crimes now has the temerity to talk about freedom of the press. Gawker, by the way, once favorably wrote about arresting climate change deniers. Unlike Michael Mann and Bill Nye and a bunch of AGs, there are those who believe political speech should be protected, and yet also that media organizations should not be immune from the law.

It’s worth once again pointing out that the trial was okayed by judge, the verdict was rendered by a jury, and the decision was upheld by a circuit judge. In no sense does this suit fall under the concept of “frivolous.” Yet liberal writers do not like the outcome mostly because Thiel is politically unacceptable to them and because they don’t like that he was driven by revenge.

Read the whole thing.

OH, THAT DEATH OF THE GROWN-UP: The New Thought Crime: ‘Adultism.’

WHEN WITCH HUNTS ARE LED BY WITCHES: How free speech became a thought crime: A chilling warning after feminists hound a Nobel winner from his job for ‘sexism.’

JOHN FUND: The Rudy Gotcha Game: The Double Standard For “Perceived Thought Crime.”

HOW BUREAUCRATS THINK: Thought Crime: UK Leadership Wants To Ban Predicted ‘Extremists’ From Social Media, TV, Events. The way they handled the Rotherham rape scandal should give you some idea of what that will involve.

Say, did any of the officials responsible for Rotherham get prosecuted for anything? . . .

SCOTT JOHNSON: “There is a disturbing undercurrent in Obama’s campaign-style speech on behalf of Obamacare at the White House today. Obama never credits opponents of the law with the substance of their criticism. He does not attribute decent motives or good faith opposition to them. Rather, he treats them as ‘wreckers’ (as they were deemed in the Soviet Union) guilty of destructive thought crime.”

Hey, as I wrote back in 2010, “They’ll be going after ‘hoarders and wreckers’ next!” Can I call ’em, or can I call ’em?

AT POPEHAT: Pax Dickinson: Thought Crime, Public Shaming and Thick Liberty in the Internet Age. Mostly I’ll note that going after people’s jobs is often lefties’ first resort.

WAS THE CANNIBAL COP convicted of a thought crime?

JOHN KASS: City Hall turns chicken sandwich into thought crime. “So if a business owner makes public his personal views, it won’t be the public that decides whether to patronize the establishment. Instead, politicians will decide for us and swing the government hammer to knock the business down. The message from Chicago’s City Hall is simple: Speak out of turn and we’ll crush you.”

See, I support gay marriage — though I think it should be arrived at legislatively, not through judicial fiat — but the thuggish behavior of gay-marriage supporters is a real turnoff. There’s a good chance it will inspire a backlash.

UPDATE: Reader Nick Osborn writes: “New Chicago civic motto: Clinging bitterly to gun control and religious bigotry.”

AUSTRALIA VS. ANDREW BOLT: “Andrew Bolt has been dragged before a judge and accused of thought crimes against the high church of political correctness.” I’m betting on Bolt.

“THOUGHT CRIME” LEGISLATION comes to America.