Gregory Rodriguez, in an oped in the LA Times today
, defends censorship. It's the right thing to do when the 'victim' or parody causes violence and threatens violence against the perpetrator. He justifies this by social etiquette( "Social etiquette dictates that we don't discuss religion or politics at a dinner party for fear of giving offense or inciting argument."), fear of violent retaliation ("While you have a right to yell obscenities at the jerk who cut you off on the freeway, you would most likely hold your tongue if you suspected the jerk would pull out a gun.", and "Editors may think twice about the importance and newsworthiness of stories and opinions that are likely to provoke vehement reactions from ethnic, racial or religious groups in their audience.") He further equates the censorship of Muslim parody with universally recognized limits on speech (..rules against shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater.) Worse of all, he implies censorship is necessary in a multicultural society ("After all, Denmark is a remarkably homogenous country, new to the multicultural realities that immigrant nations such as the U.S. and Britain have known for years.")
Doesn't this sound like taqiyya? Making unfair comparisons, changing the subject, declaring facts, such as the 'required' censorship in a multicultural society, and complete omission of the core tenets of Islam, which drives the violence - jihad, singular Islamic world goal, kill, convert or subjugate infidels. This absurd assumption that Islam deserves not just equal respect as other religions, but special privileges is truly the hallmark of a pusillanimous dhimmi (PD)
puhweeh! What is the stink coming out of the LA Times? Smells like rotting brains.