If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we
don't
believe in it at all.
Noam Chomsky

During the Salman Rushdie crisis, many lectured the Muslims not get too
upset over words and like a parrot they kept repeating the old phrase:
"Sticks and stones may break my back but words will never hurt me". Not
true, words do hurt. This is why you have libel laws, censorships, and
numerous other legislations in place to prevent hurtful words being
published. One of the most eminent British Historian, David Irving, has
been
convicted for denying the holocaust back in 1989, and he faces a 10-year
prison sentence under Austrian law. Remember, it was the words of Colin
Powell, Bush, and Blair that incited the savage vulture like attack on the
dead corpse of Iraq. All proves that words do matter, they can hurt people
and it is too easy to lecture the voiceless victims to ignore hateful
words.

Everyone must have picked up the clear double standards by comparing the
conviction of David Irving, with the freedom of expression given to the
Danish and other European newspapers, to openly injure the feelings of
billions of Muslims. They do this regularly and the printing those
derogatory cartoons is simply the tip of the ice berg. Likewise, that
similar freedom is given to known racist individuals like Nick Griffin,
the
leader of the rightwing racist party (British Nationalist Party), to
incite
hatred and violence against the Muslims in particular. For sure, they have
incited many to commit acts of violence against immigrants, especially
those
with a different skin colour.

So, freedom of expression allowed for racist hooligans to the broadsheet
newspaper journalists but not for academics like David Irving. David
Irving
did not resort to offensive language like Salman Rushdie, nor did he
resort
to drawing vulgar cartoons of the Prophet of Islam to satisfy the appetite
of the anti-Islamic brigade. Neither has he ever incited people to attack
a
particular group of people. He may have differed with the official version
of Holocaust but he has never called for the targeting of the Jews, or has
been known to make disparaging comments about them. His work was based on
academic research; a genuine expression of a viewpoint; therefore it
should
have easily passed the free speech test. Other Historians are free to come
forward and prove him to be wrong and that would have made the case for
the
pro-Holocaust camp even stronger.

What is the real motive behind the vigorous censorship applied to this
issue
of holocaust? Why is it beyond the limits of free speech? Why Europe
cannot
tolerate constructive criticisms of Holocaust, which is far less than the
insults they throw constantly at Islam and Muslims day and night. While
Muslims do and can tolerate constructive criticisms but are not prepared
to
tolerate insults. Do you now see the contrast, who is tolerant and who is
intolerant?

The most startling hypocrisy is not the selective application of freedom
of
expression because we have all become used to this by now. We also
witnessed
the selective application of the UN resolutions for decades. The
astonishing
hypocrisy is that the real mass murderers sit comfortably in the White
House
and the Downing Street, after killing hundreds of thousands of innocent
civilians. While those who have used freedom of expression to express
their
viewpoint face the neo-inquisition. People are tried for words, while
those
commit mass murder roam free. The phrase should read: "Cluster bombs and
cruise missiles may only kill thousands but it is the anti-Zionist words
that will land you in trouble in the land of 'free' speech!"

Many of the commentators have already labelled the Muslims as the new Jews
of Europe but nobody dares to mention that the Jews have become the new
Church in Europe. In line with the notion of being God's chosen people,
the
Jews are sacred but not the Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims, even the native
Europeans and Americans are expendable for Israel. All because the blood
of
a Goy (Gentile), is not the same as a Jew, as expressed by the Jewish
Rabbis.

Now observe the connection between the Danish Cartoons and David Irving.
Flemming Rose, the cultural editor of Jyllands-Posten is a Jew, a
pro-Israeli Zionist, a known disciple of Daniel Pipes (Julius Streicher of
the neo-cons). Therefore, they have the free speech license to say
anything
they want. David Irving just happens to hold a viewpoint that opposed the
Zionist camp. Hence, it seems, the real test for free-speech is where your
opinion sits within the spectrum of Pro-Zionists to anti-Zionists. If it
is
in compliant with the pro-Zionist agenda, it has the free speech permit,
otherwise not.