TOLERATING THE INTOLERANT: The Tipping Point of Multiculturalism

by LINDA GOUDSMIT

The good smith below makes some good points but it is pointless to argue for tolerance as such.  People will always find exceptions to such simple rules. In the end you have to argue for particular things to be tolerated or not tolerated.  You have to argue each case on its individual merits, not as an example of a generally applicable rule -- JR

The United States of America was founded upon the democratic principles of freedom, equality, justice, and upward mobility - the opportunity to assert power over oneself and determine one's own destiny. "Only in America" describes the wonder of upward mobility where success is determined by the individual not by the State. Unlike its English predecessor, American democracy guaranteed that in America it was not necessary to be born into wealth or born into the ruling aristocracy to achieve financial success or political power. The United States guarantees religious freedom to its citizens and further guarantees the separation of Church and State.

The United States of America is the greatest experiment in individual freedom ever created anywhere in the world. It has existed as the dream and beacon for freedom of oppressed people everywhere seeking refuge and safety from the tyranny of their own despotic governments. Since its inception the United States has welcomed freedom lovers who assimilate and embrace the United States Constitution, laws, traditions, and cultural norms through the process of legal immigration. We have been enriched by the contributions of legal immigrants in science, art, literature, music, medicine and every other sphere of American life. The combination of upward mobility and individual freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and incentivized by the opportunity for success produced the most powerful nation on Earth.

The history of immigration in America is the story of immigrants seeking refuge through legal immigration into the United States who assimilate and become part of the American dream - until now. America is currently under siege by immigrants with hostile cultural norms hoping to change American life rather than assimilate into it. Islam is on the march and hijrah, immigration jihad, is part of the plan.

Islam was not an issue for America in the time of President Thomas Jefferson. Islam was not an issue for America in the time of President Harry Truman. Islam is an issue for America now in the time of President Donald Trump because former presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush rebranded Islam as a religion of peace.lam is not a religion of peace like Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, or Judaism.  Islam is a unified socio-political system with a militarized wing, an educational wing, a religious wing, and enormous oil wealth. Islam is governed exclusively by religious sharia law. There is no separation of Church and State in Islam. The goal of Islam since the 7th century is the transformation of the world into an Islamic caliphate ruled by religious sharia law.  Islam is tyrannical in its demand for conformity to its barbaric sharia laws.  Islam is intolerant and recognizes sharia law exclusively.  Islam is a supremacist socio-political movement seeking world dominion not a religion of peace.  Islam is a threat to American democracy.

Historically the multiple cultures and people of the world were separated by physical and/or national boundaries. Wars were fought and boundaries changed but cultures and people with shared values shared their space. Immigration challenges societies with multiculturalism because immigration imports people with values and cultural norms unlike the host country. As long as the differences in cultural norms and values are secondary like foods, dress, holiday celebrations multiculturalism works. The difficulty arises when cultures with primary conflicting cultural norms and values attempt to occupy the same space in a country.

A society's primary values and cultural norms are reflected in definitions of mental health and mental illness specific to that culture. The definitions identify what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior and those values and norms are codified into laws that govern that society. Muslim societies governed by sharia law revere a father murdering his disobedient daughter as an "honor" killing. In Western society governed by secular Constitutional law a father murdering his disobedient daughter is an intolerable criminal offense punishable by imprisonment or death. Murdering an infidel, an apostate, a homosexual, or a disobedient wife are endorsed and rewarded by Islam. In Western societies all four are intolerable criminal offenses punishable by imprisonment or death.

The left-wing liberal apologists for Islam deny that irreconcilable differences exist among cultures and they are trying to persuade America that Islam, a supremacist socio-political movement is not a threat to democracy. The Leftists, using their politically correct moral relativism to justify tolerating the intolerable in America have reached the tipping point of multiculturalism by redefining treason as mental illness. Rebranding the threat does not make it any less threatening.

When definitions of mental health shift to accommodate political correctness and moral relativity society is pressured to tolerate the intolerable which threatens existing social norms and the laws that reflect them. In this circumstance mental health becomes politicized and can be used to defend the indefensible. When North Carolina psychologist tried to assert that an American jihadi was mentally ill the question becomes, "Mentally ill by whose standards?" The jihadi is considered a hero in Islam and a criminal in America. Western men and women who reject their Western cultural norms and embrace Islam and sharia law cannot be considered mentally ill if they embrace Islam. Their choices have consequences. They may renounce their Western cultural norms but must still be judged by them.

Apologists for Islam have curtailed their indefensible defense of Islam as a religion of peace and have launched a new campaign to present Islamic jihadi recruits as mentally ill. This new strategy was applied recently to defend jihadist Justin Sullivan in North Carolina. Reported by JihadWatch on June 28, 2017:

"Sison, a veteran federal public defender from Asheville, called one witness-a Durham psychologist who testified that Sullivan suffers from psychological problems that could spiral into full-fledged schizophrenia if does not receive adequate prison treatment or is housed with hardened inmates. Under questioning by Savage, Dr. Jim Hilkey said that during his 15 visits with Sullivan, his patient remained ardent in his Islamic beliefs and had not expressed remorse."

Cultural relativity whether accepted as normative or defined as mental illness is problematic because both create social chaos.

Consider a society of cannibals for whom eating human flesh is normative. If an American travels to parts of tropical Africa where cannibalism is the cultural norm or learns of cannibalism on the Internet and decides to cannibalize his neighbor should he be considered mentally ill and absolved of his crime? Should he be free to cannibalize people because he has embraced cannibalism and it is normative in tropical Africa? The problem with cultural relativity is that it only works in subjective reality. In the real world of objective reality cannibals cannot be tolerated in non-cannibal societies because accepting the hostile norms of the cannibals is an existential threat to the non-cannibals.

Perhaps the Leftists will defend cannibalism on the grounds of moral relativity or cultural relativity. Perhaps they will set up cannibal courts and establish a two-tier system of justice one for cannibals and one for non-cannibals.

Cultural and religious freedom guarantees cultural and religious tolerance but when tolerating the intolerable become an existential threat to society the tipping point of multiculturalism has been reached. Cultural relativity that posits all cultures are equal in value is diametrically opposed to civilized society, the rule of law, and the Constitution. Religious freedom does not require American society to import or support those who wish to transform American social norms rather than assimilate into American society.

There must be limits of tolerance in a tolerant society because tolerating the intolerable is the tipping point of multiculturalism. It is cultural suicide to tolerate the intolerable.

SOURCE





After G20 Riots, Germans Focus on Left-Wing Extremists: 'Just Like Neo-Nazis and Islamic Terrorists'

In the aftermath of the street violence that marred the G20 summit in Hamburg, debate has flared here over the left-wing extremist issue in Germany, with calls to shut down leftist cultural centers and establish a E.U.-wide database of left-wing extremists.

Among the tens of thousands of mostly peaceful demonstrators, extreme left-wing protesters looted shops, set cars and barricades on fire and clashed with police officers, resulting in an estimated 500 police officers and 200 protesters being injured.

Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere said the rioters were not G20 opponents but “despicable violent extremists, just like neo-Nazis and Islamic terrorists.”

“The brutality with which extremely violent anarchists have proceeded in Hamburg since Thursday is unfathomable and scandalous,” he told reporters, adding that “even more violent outbreaks of violence” may occur in the future.

Police arrested 186 people, and 51 currently face charges for breaching the peace, causing grievous bodily harm, damaging property and resisting police. They include Germans as well as citizens of France, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Russia, Switzerland and Austria.

Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union blamed a culture of silent tolerance of left-wing extremism.

After a meeting of the CDU presidency in Berlin, party general secretary Peter Tauber said it was “high time that all parties are positioned against the left-wing extremism.”

But Dietmar Bartsch, a leading candidate of The Left party in upcoming general elections, said the rioters “had nothing to do with being left-wing whatsoever.”

“The Left party stands for justice and solidarity,” he told the ARD public broadcaster.

Martin Schulz, leader of the center-left Social Democrat party (SPD), said there was no political legitimacy for the rioters’ actions. Reuters quoted him as saying their actions “had the characteristics of terrorism.”

Hamburg is known for its large left-wing scene. Police estimate that almost 1,100 left-wing extremists live in the city of 1.7 million people, and that more than half of them are potentially violent.

The G20 violence has led to fears that leaving the left-wing groups unchecked could lead to further problems.

“If a democratically fortified country like Germany is no longer able to invite international guests and organize conferences like these, then there is more danger than just a single conference,” German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier said during a visit to the city after the summit.

The concerns have stirred debate about long standing “autonomous centers” across Germany – places like the Rote Flora in Hamburg or the Rigaer Straße in Berlin, formerly abandoned buildings taken over by squatters who turn them into “cultural” centers and left-wing political meeting points.

They have been largely tolerated by cities’ municipalities, due to the mostly benign cultural and community activities held there. But the Rote Flora in particular now faces criticism for organizing the “Welcome to Hell” demonstration that kicked off the violence during the G20.

CDU lawmaker Stephan Mayer was quoted as calling for the forcible eviction of the inhabitants of the Rote Flora, while Federal Interior Ministry permanent secretary Günter Krings said Hamburg must “dry out the swamps” in those parts of the city where “lawlessness and contempt for the state prevail.”

Alice Weidel, lead candidate for the far right Alternative for Deutschland (AfD) party, went further, describing the centers as “terror cells.”

“Extreme-left anti-fascist groups, who are involved in the organization of criminal actions like in Hamburg, must be banned,” she said.

The events have also led to calls for a database to track left-wing extremists. SPD lawmaker Eva Högl called for a European-wide extremist database. Currently, only Islamist radicals and right-wing extremists are tracked at the federal level.

Högl’s view, expressed to the Rheinische Post newspaper, was supported by Justice Minister Heiko Maas, also a SPD member, who agreed with the idea of a left-wing extremist database.

He told the Bild newspaper that the violence at the G20 summit made it clear that “we do not have a sufficient database of the extremist scene in Europe.”

Countries should exchange data about those convicted of violent acts, Maas said, as many of the rioters in Hamburg had travelled there from other European countries.

Daniel Koehler from the German Institute on Radicalization and De-radicalization Studies said there were similarities between extremists – regardless of political end of the spectrum.

“They talk a lot about justice. They talk a lot about freedom,” he told NPR. “They want to change the society into a positive direction. They believe that they’re doing something good for humanity.”

However, he said, their actions can turn violent in a desperate, though misguided, step to achieve that goal, particularly when they don’t feel “part of a society.”

In its latest report on the defense of the country's constitution, the Interior Ministry estimated that in 2016, the number of violent left-wing extremists in the country increased by ten percent – to 28,500, of whom 8,500 were considered violent.

Europol’s most recent E.U. terrorism report noted a “sharp increase” in left-wing and anarchist terrorist attacks from 2015 to 2016, although it also determined that the “operational capabilities of the groups remained low.”

SOURCE





The Europe-wide assault on internet freedom

With clampdowns on Islamists and xenophobes, free speech online is under threat.

German police raided the homes of 60 people earlier this month. Had the police uncovered terror plots, or perhaps foiled a drugs gang? No. They raided the homes of people accused of publishing hateful posts on social media. This is fast becoming the norm in Germany, where under the ‘incitement of the people’ law 812 arrests were made between 2013 and 2016. In one case, a 62-year-old shop assistant from Berlin was convicted for sharing an anti-migrant Facebook post. The post consisted of a fictitious conversation, in which the question ‘Do you have anything against immigrants?’ is answered with: ‘Yes, a gun and hand grenades.’ She was fined €1,350.

This is madness. But it is a madness that is spreading across Europe. And don’t be fooled into thinking we are not already in a similar situation in the UK. Over the past five years, 2,500 Londoners have been arrested for sending offensive messages over social media. Following the Finsbury Park Mosque attack, Richard Evans (whose father owns the van-hire company which the alleged attacker used), was arrested for allegedly posting on Facebook, ‘shame they don’t hire out steam rollers or tanks could have done a tidy job then’. Hateful and offensive? Of course. But should we really be imprisoning people for posting something that they would probably say down the pub anyway?

This censorship isn’t limited to Islamophobic or anti-migrant speech. For some reason European authorities have decided to take the fight against Islamist extremism to the internet, too. UK prime minister Theresa May and French president Emmanuel Macron recently announced joint plans for tackling extremist content online. They want to fine companies like Google and Facebook when they do not take steps to remove extremist content.

At a joint press conference, May said the UK was already working with internet companies ‘to stop the spread of extremist material that is warping young minds’, but that those firms must do more, and ‘abide by their social responsibility to step up their efforts to remove harmful content’. The EU is now threatening to introduce similar legislation. And the German Bundestag has already passed legislation that would fine internet companies up to €50million if they fail to remove ‘unlawful content’ within 24 hours.

Thankfully, the dangerous implications of curtailing internet freedom have not gone unnoticed. Max Hill QC, the UK counterterrorism legislation watchdog, has accused May of acting like a Chinese dictator. He told a conference: ‘I struggle to see how it would help if our parliament were to criminalise tech company bosses who “don’t do enough”. How do we measure “enough”? What is the appropriate sanction? We do not live in China, where the internet simply goes dark for millions when government so decides. Our democratic society cannot be treated that way.’

European leaders are deluding themselves if they think censorship will have any impact on terrorism, or any other hateful creed for that matter. Even on a practical level, regulation is pointless. Let’s say Facebook shuts down extremist accounts whenever it is alerted to their existence. It would take just minutes for that account holder to set up a new profile with a new name. Both Facebook and YouTube have more than one billion users, and on YouTube over 300 hours of video are uploaded every minute. You can introduce as many regulations as you like, but staying on top of all that internet content is an impossible task.

More crucially, removing offensive content, whether it be anti-migrant or pro-ISIS, won’t make those views disappear. It simply pushes the problem on to the Dark Web, where bigots can sound off uncontested and would-be terrorists can operate out of view.

In the UK we have suffered blow after blow these past few months, as terrorists have attacked us in Manchester and London. And, in the aftermath of each attack, politicians have blamed the internet and threatened greater online censorship. This seems to be their solution to both Islamist terror and the Islamophobic backlash they always presume will follow each attack. But the internet is just easy target: clamping down on online speech simply allows politicians to look like they are doing something.

That European leaders think the solution to ideas you detest is to censor them is deeply concerning. But this illiberal response is particularly misguided in relation to Islamist terrorism. In Theresa May’s speech after the London Bridge attack, she spoke of defending Western values. And yet, in the next breath, she laid out her plans to ‘regulate cyberspace’. Jihadism is a real threat to our freedom, in the most physical, brutal sense. But these political responses are a threat to our freedom, too. Giving government the power to censor extreme speech puts the liberty of everyone at risk.

If our leaders are serious about protecting Western values, then they should call off this European-wide war on freedom.

SOURCE






'You betrayed us': Conservative Jewish activist demands Yassmin Abdel-Magied apologise to Australia

She was given great privilege and opportunity in Australia but, in the Muslim way, she has shown no gratitude for that.  Instead she slimed Australia's war-dead.  Many individual Australians criticized her for that but there was no official comment about her or action against her. Had she mocked  something seen as holy in a Muslim country she would now be dead

A Jewish conservative wants polarising Muslim youth activist Yassmin Abdel-Magied to apologise to Australia for suggesting the nation has betrayed her.

Avi Yemini is incensed by the 26-year-old former ABC presenter's claims that she has been silenced, despite been given media platforms to air her views.

'We're sick of it. Please, if you're going to open your mouth it had better be for that apology you owe us. You owe the entire Australia,' he told his 79,454 Facebook followers. 'You betrayed us.'

'Didn't you leave, Yassmin? You're not the victim here. You were given more than 99 per cent of Australians and all you do is play the victim card. All you do is complain.

'Every chance you get, you put down our country and then you wonder why Australians are outraged by your comment.'

The conservative activist has even offered to take Ms Abdel-Magied to the airport as she prepares to leave Australia for London.

'In case her problem is transport, I'm officially offering Yassmin Abdel-Magied a ride to the airport,' he said. 'If it ensures you leave sooner.'

Yassmin Abdel-Magied says she feels betrayed by Australia and is 'exhausted' after a series of highly-publicised controversies

Mr Yemini also offered to help Ms Abdel-Magied draft an apology.

'Start like this: 'I'm Yassmin Abdel-Magied. I've got everything in this world. I love my religion, Islam. We're not all perfect',' he said.

"But I am sorry for betraying the Australian people. I am sorry. And I hope one day they find the room in their heart to forgive me for my disgraceful and despicable actions.' Maybe then, we'll be willing to listen to you again.'

Following a series of controversies, Yassmin Abdel-Magied declared Australia had stripped her of her free speech, even though she was the host of ABC program Australia Wide, appeared on Q&A and last year went on an $11,000 taxpayer-funded trip to the Middle East.

'I feel a little bit betrayed by Australia, because it's my country and these are my country people and it's my home,' she told Buzzfeed UK. 'And to sort of fight for your right to exist in your home country, it's exhausting. 'Where do you go that's safe if not your home?'

The polarising figure, who recently labelled herself 'the most publicly hated Muslim' in the country, said she felt Australians were only accepting of those who 'toe the line'.

She spoke of her fiery discussion about Sharia law with Tasmanian Senator Jacqui Lambie on Q&A in February, when she claimed that Islam is the 'most feminist religion'.

'I had toed the line for 10 years in the public eye… and for some reason I decided that at that point that if I didn't say anything, who would?' she said.

'If me as a young brown Muslim woman sitting there next to the politician, wasn't going to say to the politician, "hey, check yourself," who was going to do it on my behalf?'

Ms Abdel-Magied added: 'Freedom of speech doesn't really apply to the truth. For me that was my truth, but I wasn't really allowed to say it and people were very upset, so it's taught me a lot.' 

Meanwhile, the former ABC presenter revealed last week she was 'deeply and personally' affected by the Anzac Day post controversy. She sparked uproar in April with a Facebook message which read: 'Lest. We. Forget. (Manus, Nauru, Syria, Palestine).'

It triggered a social media firestorm, with her comments widely condemned as 'disrespectful' and 'despicable'. 

'Given that I am now the most publicly hated Muslim in Australia, people have been asking me how I am,' Ms Abdel-Magied wrote for The Guardian last week.

'What do I say? That life has been great and I can't wait to start my new adventure in London? ... Or do I tell them that it's been thoroughly rubbish?

'That it is humiliating to have almost 90,000 twisted words written about me in the three months since Anzac Day, words that are largely laced with hate.'

She quickly deleted her Anzac Day post and said: 'It was brought to my attention that my last post was disrespectful, and for that, I apologise unreservedly.'

Ms Abdel-Magied announced on Monday she was leaving Australia and moving to London as part of the 'Aussie rite of passage'.

The announcement divided users on social media, with one man unable to hide his delight at her decision. 'Best news of 2017! Be sure to insult the Queen and the royal family whilst you're there as well,' he said.

But one woman was more supportive: 'Good on you, Yassmin. Go where the work and inspiration takes you,' she said.

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

***************************