Friday, April 14, 2006

The EU's Speech Police

If some officials of the EU have their way, representatives of that esteemed body will no longer refer to Islamic terrorists as Islamic terrorists, to Muslim fundamentalists as Muslim fundamentalists, or to terrorist jihad as jihad.

These terms come with too much difficulty, it would seem.

So, the EU is considering the adoption of a "lexicon" through which to filter its information as it relates to Islam. Wiping away, if you will, some of those unpleasant smudges. From Reuters.

The EU official familiar with the "lexicon" review said the point of using careful language was not to "fall into the trap" of offending and alienating citizens.
Hmmmm. Who do you suppose he is referring to?
"You don't want to use terminology which would aggravate the problem," he said. "This is an attempt ... to be aware of the sensitivities implied by the use of certain language."

An initial paper on the issue is expected to be adopted in June. "It is to help us understand what we are saying and try to avoid making mistakes. It's for the self-guidance of EU institutions and member states," the official said.
Filip van Laenen writing in the Brussels Journal:
I have, however, a concrete question for the EU civil servants.

A few weeks ago, Abdul Rahman, an Afghan convert to Christianity was condemned to death by an Afghan judge on the basis of the following Quran verse:

They wish that you reject Faith, as they have rejected (Faith), and thus that you all become equal (like one another). So take not Auliyâ' (protectors or friends) from them, till they emigrate in the Way of Allâh (to Muhammad SAW). But if they turn back (from Islâm), take (hold) of them and kill them wherever you find them, and take neither Auliyâ' (protectors or friends) nor helpers from them. (An-Nisa 4:89)
What terms will the EU have us use when a similar case occurs in the future? Is this judge an “Islamic judge” or “a judge who abuses Islam”? And is An-Nisa 4:89 a “Quran verse” or “a verse that abuses the Quran”?
The practical outcome of all of this is that we will be, if such matters become fact, denied our right to the truth so that those deep-denial Muslims don't have to accept that Islam has a terrorist arm.

Who can benefit from this?

No comments: