Saturday, September 18, 2010

Why Can't They Protect Molly Norris?

She isn't as famous as Salman Rushdie. She does not have the public profile of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. But Seattle Weekly cartoonist Molly Norris has joined their company. She has been targeted for assassination for having violated Sharia law. Links here and here.

As you probably know, Norris came up with the idea for an "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" as a way of asserting American first amendment rights. The idea produced a proliferation of drawings of Mohammed around the world.

When the news reached the American-born Islamic cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki, now living in Yemen, he responded by issuing a fatwa calling for her to be assassinated.

The FBI took the matter very seriously. So seriously that it put Molly Norris in witness protection, effectively erasing her identity. As the Seattle Weekly reported: "There is no more Molly."

It added that it will no longer run her cartoons. Not only has Norris lost her identity, but she can no longer work.

When Salman Rushdie was targeted by the Ayatollah Khomeini, he was put under police protection. The same happened to Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the Netherlands. When the Danish cartoonists were threatened, they also received police protection. Some of them suffered attempts on their lives.

None of them suffered the kind of draconian identity erasure that is usually reserved for mob informants.

Rushdie continued to write. Hirsi Ali continued her work. One of the Danish cartoonists was recently honored by Angela Merkel in Germany. Link here.

Moreover, Rushdie and Hirsi Ali could both resettle in the United States, one of the very few places on earth that still respects the rights to free speech.

Now the FBI has decided that that is no longer the case. But why could she not have been put in protective custody? Why should she suffer the ultimate indignity of being completely silenced?

As everyone knows, drawing a picture of the Prophet Mohammed is a capital offense in Islamic Law.

And yet, Molly Norris is not a Muslim. Nor were most of the Danish cartoonists. What does it mean when non-Muslims can be targeted for failing to comply with Islamic Law?

As James Taranto asks, where is President Obama on this issue? Link here. On Obama's watch, an American citizen has been forced to erase her identity becaue an Islamic terrorist has issued a fatwa in Yemen?

Taranto wonders whether Obama will be as vigorous in defense of the free speech rights of Molly Norris as he has of the rights of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf to build a mosque at Ground Zero.

And what does the Great Conciliator, Imam Rauf, have to say about Molly Norris? Shouldn't he make a public statement telling us whether he thinks that Sharia Law should trump the protections offered by the United States constitution?

On one score, Obama has already expressed an opinion of al-Awlaki. He has targeted him for assassination via predator drone. The Yemeni al Qaeda leader has been linked to the Fort Hood massacre and the Christmas Day underwear bomber.

Surely, al Awlaki is waging war against the United States. We all applaud Obama's good judgment in this case.

All of us except the American Civil Liberties Union, of course. The ACLU has chosen to defend al Awlaki. It has filed suit declaring that he is being deprived of due process of law.

Of course, the ACLU is defending al Awlaki on principle. We are now waiting it to denounce those who are depriving Molly Norris of her free speech rights and her identity.

31 comments:

Daran said...

When Salman Rushdie was targeted by the Ayatollah Khomeini, he was put under police protection. The same happened to Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the Netherlands.

Unfortunately many Dutch politicians, especially on the left, complained about the huge costs of the security, and she was forced to live on militairy base for some time. A common sentiment was that 'she brought it on herself, and should just shut up'.

Cowards one and all.

RayH said...

You ask a good question. I think a better question is why America doesn't make countries that harbor fatwa issuing thugs suffer some real consequences. Like destroyed military assets, command and control systems, port facilities, etc. After giving them ample time to turn the thug over to us of course; say about twelve hours from the time the fatwa was issued.

Proud Hindu said...

With freedom comes responsibililty.

Just as I would not walk through the roughest ghettos with a couple of hundred dollars in my back pocket at 1:00 in the night, similarly, I will not incite religious fanatics to violence.

I can't agree with tax payers' money going to protect these people. Would it go to protect me also if I did something like this?

I am not a follower of any 3 of the Abrahamic religions, I am a follower of a Dharmic religion. That being said, I respect anyone's right to worship as they choose and will also respect their sentiments by not insulting any of their icons.

At the same there are atheists in the world today who do not follow this protocol at all, nor should they have to because they are not a follower of any religion whatsoever.

I have no advise for them, other than, if you know that there are zealous fanatics out there - why bother? Why not just IGNORE them.
Afterall, the more attention we bring to their religion, the more people might actually want to look into it and join.

It's better to leave well enough alone.

Regarding "fatwas". Islam is not a centralized religion. There is no "pope". Any backwaters Imam or his cousin may issue a "fatwa". It doesn't reflect on the religion as a whole, the culture or the particular country.

I am in favor of UN regulations to bring about the same laws in every nation across the globe. Stonings and beheadings have to go. Equal rights and education must be available to all.

It's a matter of educating and modernizing the masses.

Your rank and file Muslim does not support the fanatics.

We need to educate and modernize the rank and file so that they don't all under the sway of a smooth-talking fanatic.

Chuck Pelto said...

TO: All
RE: Well....

When the news reached the American-born Islamic cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki, now living in Yemen, he responded by issuing a fatwa calling for her to be assassinated. -- Stuart Schneiderman

....it's not called the 'Religion of Peace' for nothing.

However, it IS the 'peace of the grave' they're talking about.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The influence of the religion [Islam] paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world -- Winston Churchill, 1899]

P.S. Currently reading Sir Winston's account of the war against the [late 1800s] Mahdi in the Sudan. An interesting read for any professional soldier.

I can NOW understand how Kitchner wound up as the British Chief of Staff at the outbreak of WWI. Too bad he didn't fare as well then, as he had in Sudan.

Chuck Pelto said...

TO: Proud Hindu
RE: Well....

Just as I would not walk through the roughest ghettos with a couple of hundred dollars in my back pocket at 1:00 in the night, similarly, I will not incite religious fanatics to violence. -- Proud Hindu

....there's something of a 'difference' between going out of your way—walking through a rough part of town—and expressing your opinion from the privacy of your own home, vis-a-vis bloggin, or from your place of work.

Don't you think? Or maybe you don't.

On the other hand, if you wish to be a pacifist and let someone else threaten your life because they don't like what you say—or think—, you're welcome to become their slave, in due time.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[They can only take away those rights that you will not FIGHT for.]

Stuart Schneiderman said...

And there's a difference between walking through a rough neighborhood and just plain doing your job.

Now she can no longer do her job, and will thus not be able to make a living doing what she does best.

I agree with Chuck... people really need to get over their fear of Islam and stop blaming the victims of these fatwas.

We all know that any imam can issue a fatwa. We also know that al Awlaki is not just any imam. He is one of the leaders of al Qaeda. When he talks people mobilize to act out his decrees.

David said...

al-Awlaki has stated that the proper abode for Molly Norris is "hellfire." Hopefully, he himself will meet the business end of a Hellfire missile, very soon.

Obama should speak out on this matter: he should demand that the laws against making terroristic threats be enforced and, if necessary, strengthened...and he should apply heavy pressure to countries that harbor those who threaten American citizens. Of course, he will not do any of this.

It is far more likely that he will support the UN-recommended laws against "defaming religion" and seek to prosecute Americans whose speech is offensive to fundamentalist Muslims.

Chuck Pelto said...

TO: David
RE: Indeed

Hopefully, he himself will meet the business end of a Hellfire missile, very soon. -- David

And, if God wills it....and I have no reason to doubt that....the hellfire that lies beyond such a close-encounter.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[War is the remedy our enemies have chosen and I say we give them their belly full. -- General William Tuecumsah Sherman]

P.S. With a side order of pigs feet.

David said...

Linked at Chicago Boyz

Cane Caldo said...

Obama may not be a Muslim, but he is a Muslim sympathizer. I'm sure he think she went out of her way to antagonize Muslims, and so causing her some discomfort (stretching the word to its limits) will prove to be a "teachable moment".

I don't think Obama is a coward. He may have been born in the US, but he isn't an American by trade.

Chuck Pelto said...

TO: Dr. Schneiderman
RE: Protecting Molly

Mollyl had better learn to protect herself!

What's that old saying.....

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

It's the truth. I can attest to it.

So.....

.....how should Molly, or anyone else with a serious care for their personal and fillial safety do such?

Be prepared! -- Boy Scouts

[1] Got guns?
[2] Know how to use them?
[3] Got 'good neighbors'?
[4] Got a good, internally managed, i.e., NOT ADT or whomever who can be 'brought', household security system?
[5] Got—what we in the Army call—'Fighting Spirit'?

If you lack ANY of those, take measures to correct the deficiency.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[How do you stop Islamism? One well placed 'shot' at a time.]

P.S. Might help to slather the round with lard.....

History has shown, indirectly that such tends to diminish the 'enthusiasm' of Islamists to get themselves to 'paradise'.]

Chuck Pelto said...

TO: Cane Caldo, et al.
RE: Heh

If Obama isn't a Muslim. I'm not a born-again Christian.

I've seen to many 'indicators'—as we say in the Army—to convince me otherwise....at this point.

Maybe if he burned a Koran or used it as TP and said Mohammed was duped by Satan, I'd think again.

But his bowing and scraping to the Sheik of Araby, before any and all other leaders and his Freudia-slips are VERY interesting.

On the other hand, there's a video on YouTube that leaves one with the impression that both Barack and Michelle SAY he was born in Kenya.

Nto sure about the possibility of 'fixing' the Barack part of the 'confession'. However, any lip-sync with what Michelle is saying looks DARNED impressive. Wish I had that kind of capability.

I'll provide the link to the video shortly Right now I'm at the kitchen counter working off the iPad. Can't access the FileMaker Pro database where I hold such information.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Deeds not words. -- Motto 22d Infantry Regiment]

Chuck Pelto said...

TO: Dr. Schneiderman
RE: [OT] Heh

Could you please EXPLAIN to me why my post with the link to the YouTube item that seems to show the Obamas admitting to his being born in Kenya is NOT showing up here, in this thread?

I've posted it TWICE now and I've captured the thread immediately after posting. And the comment is IN THERE. However, after leaving the page and coming back to it again, the comment is 'GONE'!

Please explain.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....as long as no one suppresses it.]

Chuck Pelto said...

P.S. You used to call me 'paranoid'.... -- Billy Joel, Pressure

[A healthy sense of paranoia keeps a soldier alive on the field of battle.]

Stuart Schneiderman said...

I'm not sure why the video didn't show up. It appeared in the email that blogger sent me. Hopefully this link will help.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwhKuunp8D8&feature=player_embedded

The link that David Foster of Chicago Boyz put up seems to be working. To be honest I am a bit out of my element with some of these technical issues.

I agree with Chuck that Molly would do well to learn to protect herself. And I am reminded of the wife and daughters in Connecticut who were murdered while the police were staking out the perimeter of their house.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/shocking_testimony_reveals_police_32mOVk4qQsVZvBGXAEnHRP

While we agree that Molly should protect herself, still, she has, as David wrote on Chicago Boyz, effectively been silenced.

Would it not have been possible to assign a couple of body guards to protect her. If the FBI determined that a couple of body guards would not have sufficed, that says that they believe that there are large numbers of terrorists roaming free in the USA. And if that is the case, why does the FBI not know who they are? And why does it not stop them?

Proud Hindu said...

"We all know that any imam can issue a fatwa. We also know that al Awlaki is not just any imam. He is one of the leaders of al Qaeda. When he talks people mobilize to act out his decrees."

Are you kidding?! Rank and file Muslims do not mobilize in support of Al Qaida.

This woman's life is not in danger and I oppose my tax dollars going toward her "protection" when I know that American tax dollars would not go towards me, and ordinary middle class American, if I were to get on YOUTUBE and start bashing Islam's Prophet.

Chuck, our country has long been allies with Saudi Arabia and other Muslim majority countries and every President has done "business" with them, met with them, shaked their hands, bowed, whatever. The Saudi family buys tons of shares and stocks in American corporations and we are in like flynn with them in the oil business and it has been like this very decades.

If Obama were a devout and practicing Muslim he would not be engaging our troops in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He is not a Muslim and there are no signs indicating such. He is just a typical American President doing what they do best - politicking.

The history of the Abrahamic faiths have been a history of fanaticism, forced conversions, warfare, bloodshed, tribalism - all in the name of their Abrahamic "vengeful and jealous" god.

Thank God Buddhism is the fastest growing religion in the West today in terms of adult conversions.

The sooner we can transition from Abrahamic "religions" over to Dharmic wisdom traditions the better.

Chuck Pelto said...

TO: Proud Hindu
RE: [OT] BS

If Obama were a devout and practicing Muslim he would not be engaging our troops in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. -- Proud Hindu

Everything Obama has done with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan has been to the benefit of our enemies there.

Sorry you haven't noticed.

And, I suspect it has to do with something other than your lack of experience as a professional soldier of over 40 years experience. [Note: My 'experience' beginning in July 1970, when I enlisted.]

What's my point?

Three guesses....

....first two don't count.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Ignorance is a lack of knowledge. Stupidity is ignorance with pride.]

Chuck Pelto said...

P.S. Please tell US all how many times Obama has been to 'church' since his inauguration.

And what 'church' he has attended.

Chuck Pelto said...

P.P.S. We're talking....

....about what we in the Army call 'key indicators', here.

Stuart Schneiderman said...

In response to Proud Hindu, I did not say that rank and file Muslims would mobilize to carry out a fatwa issued by al Awlaki. I said that "people" would. I meant that some people would do so.

Clearly, the FBI thinks that there are people here who are ready to assassinate Molly Norris.

Unless you have better information than they do, I see no reason to doubt their opinion.

And if you were to utter some blasphemous remarks over Youtube and find yourself the target of an assassination attempt, I for one would be more than happy to see my tax dollars go to protect you.

Proud Hindu said...

"Please tell US all how many times Obama has been to 'church' since his inauguration.

And what 'church' he has attended."

No idea. Don't care. Do you know how many times he's been to masjid? And which one?

If my President can't be a Dharmi, then I'd rather she or he be an agnostic or even atheist, but what can I do? I'm living a land that has unfortunately adopted the 3 Abrahamic faiths has it's majority lunacy paradigm.

Mary said...

I think you will appreciate this post on Molly Norris by the good folks @ Gates of Vienna:

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/09/elusive-molly-norris.html

Proud Hindu said...

Mary, thanks for the link on Molly Norris. Just another attention whore. We Americans can be so damned tacky sometimes, I'm ashamed.

Definetly DO NOT want my tax dollars going to "protect" such a narcissist.

She's in her 50's anyway. Should've been done attention whoring by 30.

Chuck Pelto said...

TO: Proud Hindu
RE: [OT] You See What I Mean?

No idea. Don't care. Do you know how many times he's been to masjid? And which one? -- Proud Hindu

You just 'don't care'. In other words, you're fitting my working definition of something, being (1) ignorant and (2) "Proud" of it.

According to the reports I've picked up, he has not attended ANY church since being elected.

That was several months ago. He may have attended something SINCE then, just to cover his fourth-point-of-contact.

I have serious doubts he's attended any masjid. Or any other religious facility during a worship service.

Hope that helps....

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Ignorance is when you don't know anything and somebody finds it out.]

Proud Hindu said...

Chuck, is it important to you that politicians "attend church"?

If so, why?

Chuck Pelto said...

TO: Proud Hindu
RE: [OT] Heh....

....trying to change the subject?

It WAS about whether Obama is a Muslim.

Now, having shown credible evidence that he IS. You wish to go off on a tangent.

Very....uh....'progressive' of you.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....]

Proud Hindu said...

Please qoute me where I show evidence of Obama being a Muslim???

And my quetion still stands: is it important TO YOU that your President and/or other politicians go to church?

If so, why?

Chuck Pelto said...

TO: [Overly[ Proud Hindu
RE: Heh

I never accused YOU of doing such.

Rather, you're trying a more desperate attempt to change the subject.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Progressive is a one-word oxymoron.]

Chuck Pelto said...

P.S. In your Hindu theology, do you recognize Kali as a 'god' or 'goddess"? Do you recognize that entity AT ALL as a supernatural being?

Enquiring minds want to know.....

Chuck Pelto said...

P.P.S.....

Do you think the 'thuggie' worshippers of Kali were correct to 'kill' anyone who they encountered, in their worship of Kali?

You can 'whine' about the murderous nature of 'christians'. However, that sort of 'order' cannot be found ANYWHERE in the New Testament.

Or would you be so kind as to point it out to me.....

Proud Hindu said...

You are changing the subject here. First you say Obama is a Muslim and give evidence of his not attending Church since he's been in office as such. Then you say that you also don't know if he's attended mosque. So if not going to church makes him a non-Christian then doesn't not going to mosque make him a non-Muslim?

Kali this or that has nothing to do with whether or not you can figure out if Obama is a Christian or Muslim.

So.... back to the subject - what does it matter what religion the President or other politicians are or if they are even atheists? What does it matter?

Put down the sensimilia and stay on topic.