SUBSCRIBE
The Investigative Project on Terrorism
Mobile Site SEARCH
News

Reader comments on this item

The whole truth

Jun 30, 2011 12:16

The view that some people take is that this woman was being silenced by being asked to not speak in a certain month. The speaker was not asked to refrain from speaking she was simply asked to change the date. This sit he type of religious accommodation that is made and many institutes in order to respect people religion not stamp it out as some have suggested the school has tried to do with Christianity.

The argument that the deans should have been involved because people were publicly speaking out about the event on the internet is the same as saying they should have gotten involved to say this person could not speak. Both the speaking even and the students public opposition are freedom of speech and are protected as such. That is what this school teaches. That even though you are opposed to what is being said no form of speech should be stifled unless it is illegal.

People are offended by what was said by the students and students were offended by the speaker being able to speak in a month that is sacred to their religion. Neither of these are illegal and neither were stopped because they are both protected by the freedom of speech.

There are presentations put on all the time on campus about different cultures and offensive topics. The students have a right not to attend. There has been no formal protest with picket signs about a speaker the students simply voices their concerns. The school did what they were suppose to do in asking the presentation be moved from September to try and please all parties. The speaker would be allowed to speak and the students would not feel their religion was not being take into account.

I believe the school acted in the correct diplomatic manner and that no one was harmed in the process.

 

Shame on Academia

Submitted by A Holocaust Survivor, Oct 8, 2009 22:18

Could it be that Ms. Darwish's conversion to Christianity might have offended Muslim student, but they did not have the guts to come right out and say it, and instead used the ridiculous notion that she is unqualified to speak to an audience.

I am a Nazi concentration camp survivor and despite the fact that I am not a sholar, I frequently speak to large ( and small) audiences. The conclusion I draw is that I would not be welcome at Whiittier College to speak about the Holocaust because I am not a sholar.

And these students will one day be leaders in our society. God help us.

 

Article doesn't go far enough

Submitted by Whittier Law Student, Sep 23, 2009 16:29

It appears there is growing controversy surrounding both the event and now this particular article. From what I have gathered, this article and its author(s) are under attack by the Whittier school officials discussed in this article, accused of not seeking the proper avenue to voice their dissatisfaction and not showing due respect to the officials involved. While it's mind boggling to consider how exactly quoting the exact words that the school officials stated is offensive to them, let's consider their argument both in regards to the speaker and the article and see how it measures up.

The discussion between the school officials and the organizing group largely revolved around the issue of offensiveness. The idea that no one should be offended ever by anything is a silly rule that has permeated so-called schools of higher learning. It is a ridiculous task ask someone to consider everyone else's sensitivities toward certain issues and base our every action upon what could possibly be construed as offensive. This creates a situation where the mere proposition of talking to people becomes a nightmare as we must neurotically self-censor ourselves on any opinion that could be construed as offensive. However, for some this is less of a problem than others.

It is quickly becomes apparent to anyone who expresses a thought that goes against the majority that only a person whose ideas align closely with the common ideals will be immunized from the label offensive. For the rest of us, few as we are, our ideas must stay trapped within the confines of our minds. To express them is to be countered with condemnation not a rational argument. Hello Orwell's doublethink, goodbye free thought.

The article directly quotes Yildirim as deeming the message to be one of hate speech. This term is tossed around so loosely these days that has degenerated into a demonizing tactic used to vilify and condemn any critique of opposing thought. There is a world of difference between actual hate speech and the alleged hate speech within this speakers message. Hate speech must necessarily have no logical basis. It must be a purely emotional argument, the operant word "HATE" being the label for an emotion. Blacks are evil and scary because they have dark skin is completely different than saying because Sharia law was the operating law in the country where Dawrish's alleged atrocities took place and were sanctioned, a country so focused on human rights like ours should be rightfully critical of it. The first is an emotional argument based upon irrational fears, the second a critique of a popular but damaging belief system. It may be said that this woman is participating in hate speech toward a certain group of people that believe a certain way. But if that is true then no one would ever have any basis to be critical about ANYTHING someone else believed in without also participating in hate speech. If the school officials are promoting their feminist agenda (or merely ANY agenda, however wrong or right), and that agenda offensive to the beliefs of another group, then by their own very definition they are hate speakers.

The effect of this policy against offensiveness is to the detriment of society at large. It is not ideas that should be demonized, but rather it is the prevention of critical scrutiny that is necessary to expose hypocrisy and inconsistencies. And that is exactly what the school officials in this case are prohibiting when they make the claim that this article is in some way a violation of the Whittier honor code. They are afraid of having their hypocrisy exposed and shown for what it is, a blatant attempt at promoting their own agendas while subduing any that oppose.

While I care little for the speaker's message ultimately, the circumstances surrounding her appearance are telling about the intentions of the school officials and reflects a pattern in society that is undermining the rights of everyone.

Last, I do not agree with Mahlstedt's view that the school officials in question should have to support Darwish's message simply because of their affiliation with Feminism. I also think it is the wrong argument to pursue. It is obvious that their Feminist agenda is not about making perfect sense, let's not try to hold them to that as their entire foundation would crumble beneath them in result. Let's only hold them to moderating all group speaking engagements in similar regard, irrespective of their particular message and who it may "offend."

 

Dhimmitude in Our Midst

Submitted by man_in_tx, Sep 23, 2009 03:45

Amazing: The secular elite (whether in government, media, or the academy) have such a visceral animus towards Christianity that they would stamp out its every manifestation. Yet -- without the slightest twinge of guilt for their blatant hypopcrisy -- they gladly engage in coprophagia with every ridiculous dung-laced argument that the Islamists place on their plate. DHIMMIS!

 

Nonie Darwish: More courage than all the feminists combined

Submitted by PatriotUSA, Sep 23, 2009 03:18

Nonie Darwish is a hero in my book, all the way. She is a voice speaking in the wilderness about Sharia Law and the inhumane treatment it heaps upon the women of Islam. She has lived in it, watched it and has come to abhor it. I find it truly absurd that feminists of all stripes, liberal publications and websites seldom come to the defense of Islamic women, or condemn Sharia law. What should be their blue plate special is a tainted basket of political correctness and multicultutal toxic stew. While Ms. Darwish picks up the cross for women persecuted under Sharia law, the leftarded women refuse to rise to the ocacsion. Why? They are afarid they will be seen as attacking Islam, Sharia law and speaking out AGAINST such evil and stone age treatment of Islamic women. The liberals and feminists do not want to be in the glare of the spotlight of condemning Islam or the 'noble' culture of Sharia law. Why, they might be called out for being insensitive towards Islam, Sharia Law and not being oh so multicultural and politically correct. Nothing wrong with that. Nonie Darwish is willing to take them all on. The Muslim students, faculty and Islamic organizations that are alawys attacking her and her positions. These retards of the feminazi movement, the radical left KNOW that Ms. Darwish is right about all of this. She is one of the greatest champions for women's rights within the Islamic world.

Whittier College is almost acting like the other institutions of higher education that have come out against anyone who dares to sepak out against Islam, esepcially on behalf of Islamic women. Other colleges like East Tennessee State University, Uc Irvine, UC Berkeley, USF, Cal State Fullerton are becoming hotbeds of Islamic intimidation for anyone who dares to speak out against Islam, Sharia law and the way women are abused by such perverted and backwards institutions. People like Nonie, Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Andrew Bostom are our canaries in the coal mines. If we do not stop and listen to them, take a stand, then by the time the canaries have stopped singing, it may be too late for the rest of us. Nonie Darwish speaks for those women who have lost their voices and their lives to Islam and Sharia law. We MUST listen and act boldy. Ms. Darwish has set a fine example for us here and we owe it women all over the world supressed and persecuted under Islam to speak and take action. One thing we can count on, the feminists and liberals will not and that is why we must.

 

Comment on this item

Name (optional)
Email Address
Title of Comments
Comments:

Note: IPT will moderate reader comments. We reserve the right to edit or remove any comment we determine to be inappropriate. This includes, but is not limited to, comments that include swearing, name calling, or offensive language involving race, religion or ethnicity. All comments must include an email address for verification.

Click here to see the top 25 recent comments.

FEATURED MULTIMEDIA