I took took the time to read it, and Fisked the details below the article.
I have gone over the OHPI’s report. One of the chief mistakes in the report that I can see straight away, is the treatment of Islam (and its followers), as being the adherents to an ideology that is ”just like any other religion”, this is a fallacy. Philosopher Sam Harris has is it correct in his demonstrating the differences between belief systems that fall under the umbrella of ”organized religion”, with his comparison of Thai kick boxing to badminton. Both are classified as a ”sport” but the comparison between the two ends there. One is a high contact sport, the other is obviously not.
The report’s drawing of a distinction between Islam and ‘political Islam’ is itself, a western concoction, a fallacy, a meme that satisfies well meaning folks who desperately want to disprove 1400 yrs of historical evidence to the contrary. I confronted the OIC sec-gen, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu face to face during his Q&A in Helsinki, and as someone who represents 57 Muslim and/or Islamic states, rejects any kind of separating of Islam into ”moderate” or ”Islamist” camps. As a matter of fact, he stated he doesn’t know what ”Islamism” is. Islam is Islam, and to the extent of outside non-Islamic influence, determines the moderation of anyone said Muslim group or society.
The OHPI’s report attempts to differentiate between ”vilification of Muslims” and defamation of religion, then it goes on to record activities such as criticism of Halal certification as de facto examples of ”vilification”, though the people speaking out against halal, do so, mostly from the justified fear that the proceeds go to fund the jihad. Also, the examples used (pictures) simplistically depict (much like the OIC uses in on its own ”Islamophobia” watch site) anti-Muslim sentiment, void of any context of why these people perceive Muslim immigration as a de facto threat. I’m reminded as to how the media/think tanks regularly depict Israeli sentiment vis-a-vis the Palestinians, without providing a scintilla of context.
Average citizens spotting massive transformations of their local areas and their way of life, want to put a stop to what they see as their justifiable fears, Islamization, this is something that OHPI’s report could never accurately relate, because it would then cease to being a report on ”Muslim vilification’. It would be condemned by the OIC as ”Islamofauxbia”. No doubt there are many who cross the line in rudeness, and support of physical violence is never to be condoned, but there are many aspects of Islamization that has to broached, that would fall under the rubric of your over simplified and expansive label of ”vilification of Muslims”.
All ideologies run the gambit of the public market place of ideas, and yes, Islam as is Christianity, are not above being made fun of, and yes at times mocked (the OHPI might call it ‘vilified’, but so it goes with subjective labels). What the author(s) of the report does, is to take us back centuries, to pre-enlightenment days, where the rights of the gods were of more value than the rights than man.
What the report proposes, is anti-free speech in it’s darkest form, and will only serve to empower those who seek to control debate. The best disinfectant is the light of day, not less discourse, but more of it. This I fear will only be used by those who seek to gain most from our ignorance and western values of fair play. Islam is not here to ”co’exist” but to dominate. Anyone will be hard pressed to find any example of Islam in retreat outside of military defeat.
As for Halal, those filing the report have no way of knowing whether Zakat money, which flows outside of Australia, is heading towards the jihad or even funding Hamas against Israel. All of these Muslim organizations, like CAIR in the US, are money laundering organizations. I will lay odd that the “Islamic Council of Victoria” is either an MB entity overtly, or by predominance of staffing. The MB are everywhere. It’s a major scam.
The authors of the report are more than prepared to define for the rest of us what ”hate” is. I know it when I see it, but people expressing their great dislike for Islamization, and for Muslims who remain silent about the fence goal posts being moved in their favor at the expense of the non-muslim majority, being labeled as ”haters” is immensely counterproductive. Being anti-sharia is by definition being anti-Muslim….you can’t separate the two.
I can’t see any difference with what the OHPI is doing, with that of the OIC, which seeks to determine for the rest of us what can and cannot be said without their approval about Islam. As far as I’m concerned, as long as someone isn’t advocating violence, the market place of ideas is the best place to battle things out. Equating anti-semitism with ”anti-Muslim hate” is unfortunate,there a clear examples of people stepping over the bounds, into the realm of the rude, but that shouldn’t be used to equate it to antisemitism. Many ex-Muslims would most definitely disagree with OHPI on that score. We do not need anymore dictatorial mindsets in the fray.
Critics of Islam/Islamization base their opposition exclusively on what Muslims say and do, not on their racial group. It’s all about their ideology and how they act upon it, or don’t act upon it. Understanding the mindset of the adherents to a highly utopian, totalitarian, messianic ideology, cannot be, should not be, branded with the ‘racism card’, especially when we generalize with Christian Europe, that it holds for an example, deep seated antisemitic views.
The mad rush to equate critical views of Islam and Muslims, with classic Christian antisemitism, is ludicrous, dangerous and will only serve to advance the goals of those pushing for islamization of Europe and the US. If only these same voices promoting such hysteria would take the same amount of energy and devote it to highlighting classic pre-Nazi Islamic antisemitism which Andrew Bostom has been at the forefront in exposing, we would be that much better off.