One of the glories of Western civilization is that speech has become the default method
of dealing with disagreements.
If we oppose a claim or an ideology, we oppose it with criticism or mockery,
not with torture or executions.
Historically, that’s pretty rare.
For much of human history, disputes about politics or religion or ethics were settled
with the rack or the guillotine or mob violence.
The New Zealand mosque shooter turned to terrorism because he believes that violence, not speech,
is the way forward.
Anders Breivik turned to terrorism because he believes that violence, not speech,
is the way forward.
A new generation of violent revolutionaries is emerging.
And the reason this is so terrifying is that when people are coming at you with violence,
it becomes much more natural to respond with violence.
For years, jihadis have been waging terrorist attacks around the world.
The world has been remarkably patient in response.
But I see people online every day calling for violent retaliation.
Now we have white nationalists waging terrorist attacks,
and I see people calling for violent retaliation against white nationalists.
We may be a couple of terrorist attacks away from a radical escalation in violence and terror.
I don’t want to see that.
I don’t want to see more people giving up on speech and turning to violence.
That’s why I’m always horrified when I see peaceful critics of ideologies
shut down and deplatformed after terrorist attacks.
Let’s look at an example.
The National Post reports:
Calgary university cancels event by ex-Muslim, citing sensitivity after New Zealand attacks.
Citing the recent anti-Muslim attacks in New Zealand, a Calgary university suddenly cancelled
an event by Armin Navabi, an Iranian-Canadian atheist activist who was scheduled to deliver
a talk critical of Islam.
“I’ve been deplatformed again,” wrote Navabi in a Wednesday tweet.
The event, scheduled for Thursday afternoon, was entitled The Case Against Islamic Reform.
Hosted as part of a speaker series organized by the Atheist Society of Calgary,
it was to be held at Mount Royal University.
Only two days before the talk, however, a representative from the school
informed the society that they were being denied space.
“In light of the shooting last week and the responses to the event we have received
from students and staff, we are going to have to cancel hosting your event with Armin on
campus on Thursday,” reads an email from the school’s interfaith coordinator since
posted to social media.
Notice the inconsistency.
There have been tens of thousands of Islamic terrorist attacks since 9-11.
How many times have you seen universities shut down Muslim events after jihadis
slaughter unbelievers in the name of Allah?
I’ve never seen it.
And I don’t think that universities should silence Muslims who have nothing to do with
terrorist attacks.
A Muslim who wasn’t involved in the attack and doesn’t support violence
shouldn’t be deplatformed.
And he won’t be.
But when a white nationalist opens fire at two mosques in New Zealand, not because he
hates Islam, but because he’s upset about immigration, a university on the opposite
side of the world shuts down an event with an ex-Muslim atheist—an ex-Muslim atheist
who wasn’t involved in the attack, doesn’t support violence, and certainly isn’t a
white nationalist.
In fact, Armin Navabi is precisely the sort of person who would have been targeted by
the New Zealand mosque shooter.
Hypocrisy at its finest.
The Atheist Society of Calgary has since said the cancellation was akin to acceding to the
wishes of the New Zealand gunman.
“(Atheist Society of Calgary) feels that to cancel this event communicates to terrorists,
in general, that these tactics will accomplish their objectives,”
they wrote in an online post notifying attendees of the cancellation.
Mount Royal University justified the cancellation by saying that the Friday murder of 50 Muslims
in two Christchurch, New Zealand, mosques “has had a large impact on many members
in our community.”
“We made this decision in light of that impact and we would absolutely have the speaker
come to our campus at another time,” they wrote in a statement sent to CBC Calgary.
So, when people like the Christchurch mosque shooter try to convince the world that we
need to stop talking and start killing each other, Western universities respond by agreeing
with the first part of his message.
They tell us to stop talking, not realizing that it’s not peaceful discussions that
lead to violence, it’s blocking peaceful discussions that leads to violence.
But here’s what’s most disturbing.
Former Muslims are in real danger.
If anyone gets to criticize Islam, former Muslims should get to criticize Islam,
because Islam calls for their violent deaths.
In a land governed by Sharia, Armin Navabi would be under a death sentence
simply for being an atheist.
But he’s not just an atheist; he’s also an ex-Muslim.
Muhammad ordered his followers to behead apostates.
And Navabi’s not just an ex-Muslim and an atheist; he also criticizes Islam.
Muhammad ordered his followers to execute critics of Islam.
So Navabi is under at least three Islamic death sentences.
Should he be allowed to question or criticize an ideology that calls for his violent death?
In a sane world, absolutely.
But here in the real world, the message to ex-Muslims is this: “Sorry, guys.
Even though you’re under constant threat of death, we can’t let you criticize the
ideology that calls for your deaths, because a white nationalist just opened fire at two
mosques on the opposite side of the planet.
And Muslim lives, unlike ex-Muslim lives, matter.”
That’s a pretty terrifying message.
So here’s the situation we find ourselves in.
Muhammad called for the violent subjugation of the entire world.
Some of his followers take those calls for violence seriously.
When jihadis obey their prophet and launch terrorist attacks against non-Muslims,
we’re not supposed to criticize Muhammad, because our criticism might lead
to an anti-Muslim backlash.
When white nationalists attack Muslims, we’re not supposed to criticize Muhammad,
because our criticism is supposedly what leads white nationalists to attack Muslims.
So, if Muslims kill non-Muslims, critics of Islam have to be silenced.
If non-Muslims kill Muslims, critics of Islam have to be silenced.
No matter what happens, critics of Islam have to be silenced—just like Muhammad demanded.
Pretty impressive that an illiterate, seventh-century caravan trader can get the entire world
to grovel at his dead feet like this.
But that’s Islam!