British Moral Clarity

Rightly outlawing subversive speech

By Andrew R Quinio
Posted on 02/18/06

This week, the British House of Commons showed great resolve in the War on Terror. It was resolve that we as Americans can learn from. Parliament passed a bill that made it an offense to glorify terrorism. It was a clause defined in their version of the USA Patriot Act, and like the Patriot Act, it has come under considerable fire. The majority, however, was able to put its foot down and definitively declare that you cannot be Osama bin Laden’s cheerleader. Now it’s time for us Yankees to show the same clarity.

We would probably have a difficult time mustering the tact to outlaw the glorification of terrorism. We can’t even convince everyone that it is unacceptable to actually plan acts of terror over the phone. What hope would he have telling Americans that they aren’t allowed to shower our enemies with praise?

The terrorist glorifiers have basically been given a free pass in the United States. From Noam Chomsky and Ward Churchill all the way to our very own Snehal Shingavi, their dangerous statements have potentially fueled the certainties of Muslim extremists.

When Ward Churchill referred to the victims in the World Trade towers as “Little Eichmanns,” a reference to the Nazi technocrat and “Chief Executioner” of the Third Reich, Churchill could be held to the standard of the anti-glorification bill. It outlaws “Statements that are likely to be understood by members of the public as indirectly encouraging ... acts of terrorism.” What better way to encourage al Qaeda than to vindicate its actions and justify its targets?

During the week of 9/11, Bill Maher asserted that the hijackers were not cowards. Attributing any sort of bravery to the terrorists would be a glorification of their acts. Though Maher’s television show was eventually canceled, you can still see him spewing the same nonsense on talk shows or HBO programs.

Graduate student Snehal Shingavi commits the most obvious offense in the eyes of the anti-glorification law. He wrote in a February op-ed in the Daily Cal, “… it has become impossible any longer to be anti-war without also being pro-resistance.” He also compares the Iraqi insurgency to Thomas Paine and the American Revolutionaries. How much more glory could you give to terrorism? Maybe putting Zarqawi’s face on Mount Rushmore.

Even John Kerry could be prosecuted for stating that “there is no reason … that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women …” Kerry’s lies provide our enemies with additional false reasons to attack us, but that is apparently no reason to reprimand him.

Even if we could subject these apologists to the British bill, the ACLU would be present to act as their human shield. The ACLU makes no distinction between responsible criticism and subversive dissent. That is what makes the passage of the anti-glorification bill so admirable. Its existence makes a definitive statement that there is a clear difference between productive debate and harmful opposition. It holds responsible those who have blurred the line between the two. It further acknowledges what many liberals in America ignore, that some statements do indeed undermine the War on Terror. Hillary Clinton whined, “I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you’re not patriotic.” Debate and disagreement are not unpatriotic, but that does not mean that anti-Americanism does not exist. An anti-American and a responsible critic are two different kinds of people, but why should we have to tolerate the former to tolerate the latter, especially when the former is threatening the lives of Americans?

Similar legislation probably would not make its way through Congress anytime soon. The fear of being labeled as a MacCarthyite is stopping Republicans from holding extremists accountable for their comments. However, it is not inappropriate to hold people responsible for making statements that aid our enemies; to do so is absolutely necessary.

There is a major difference between questioning the war and cheering on those who aim to kill us. If America wanted to prosecute the terrorist cheerleaders, the ACLU and company would falsely accuse the country of trampling on free-speech rights. But once again, they refuse to see the dissimilarity between calling Bush a warmonger and threatening to annihilate those who insult Islam. If someone threatened to behead you for offending his religion, would you brush it off as a minor expression of free speech? The death of filmmaker Theo van Gogh has sadly taught us that words do have meaning and action. He was murdered by a Muslim extremist for making a movie that criticized Islamic society’s treatment of women.

Yet instead of going after subversive speech, some in America choose to go after “insensitive” and politically incorrect speech. Two student editors at the University of Illinois were suspended for reprinting the controversial Danish cartoons of Mohammed in the student paper. The staff apologized for reprinting the cartoons and is now conducting an internal investigation. What is there to investigate? It’s not as if the editors were planning to exterminate the Middle East. Again, there is a failure to make a distinction between what was subversive and what was not. Is offending a portion of the population with cartoons really more dangerous than encouraging the violent acts of terrorist insurgents?

If America were to outlaw the glorification of terrorism, mainstream liberals would have nothing to worry about. “Good Night and Good Luck” would still be playing in theaters and winning a handful of awards, but terrorist supporters wouldn’t be able to embolden our enemies with dangerous statements of praise. The problem is that liberals think the two are on equal ground.

Responsible dissent exists. Sedition exists. Yet we do not have to allow sedition to tolerate dissent. The British know this, and it’s time for us to follow their example.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot