The student newspaper at my alma mater, The Columbia Spectator, printed an op ed by the Muslim Student Association (MSA) chapter graduate adviser. The op ed entitled, “ Wild, Wild Wilders,” by Adel Elsohly conveys a morally relativistic argument that “freedom from fear” is as important as “free speech." Columbia University College Republicans had invited Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders to speak and according to Elsohly he engaged in “hate speech against Islam.”  The subtext of “Wild, Wild Wilders” by Elsohly is:

Wilders’ speech, while beginning as a discussion of free discourse, soon devolved into little more than an open, vicious attack on Islam and Muslims, claiming that the ultimate goal of Islam is to conquer the world and forcibly impose itself on the conquered.

Of interest were the campus groups that endorsed her view including Hillel, a campus Jewish organization, the Hindu Students Association, and the Sikh Students Association. All three of these groups are targets of Islamic Qu’ranic hatred cited by Wilders in his Columbia speech. Groups that you would expect to support the MSA graduate adviser view included the African Students Association, Ahimsa, Club Bangla, Club Zamana, the Columbia University College Democrats, the Native American Council, the Organization of Pakistani Students, the SIPA Arab Student Association, and Turath.     

Here is Elsohly's logic that seduced non-Muslim groups of kafirs-unbelievers to sign on to this act of campus Dhimmitude:

In addition to referring to Islam as a religion of violence and the “enemy of free speech,” Wilders called for an end to cultural relativism. In short, he would have us all give up not only our right to practice our religions but also our ability to see value in cultures that do not adhere to his perspective. In one fell swoop, Wilders called for Western culture to be the standard by which all other cultures measure themselves. By demanding that residents of Western societies simply assimilate, Wilders only contradicts his ultimate goal of providing civil liberties and freedoms to those who live under his jurisdiction.

Maintaining that he is a friend to Muslims, Wilders claimed during his speech that his central goal in demonizing Islam was to urge everyone to stand up against the religion and not the practitioner. However, by necessity, this can only mean standing up against the people, since without followers an ideology has no need to be opposed. It was at this point that the line between freedom of speech and hate speech intent on inciting fear of Islam and Muslims within the greater community was crossed.

Today we call on everyone, not as Muslims, members of a cultural group  or a University, but as humans, to ask him- or herself with all sincerity: Don’t we all deserve freedom from fear?

So there it is ‘freedom from fear’ trumps “free speech,” according to Elsohly.

That is also dangerous as one commenter, “Menckenlite” made note:

It is illogical to say that Wilders "would have us all give up not only our right to practice our religions but also our ability to see value in cultures that do not adhere to his perspective." Criticizing religion is protected speech and does not deny free practice of religion. Opposing such speech is censorship.
Saying "the line between freedom of speech and hate speech intent on inciting fear of Islam and Muslims within the greater community was crossed," makes no sense. Hate speech is protected speech. How is Wilders' intent established? Denying hate speech is promoting censorship. Freedom from fear is not a right. People who give up their freedom for security deserve neither. Equating speech with suicide bombers, beheading nuns for criticizing religion shows how distorted the minds of liberal college students are these days. Passing a course in logic should be required for participation in public discourse.

Bravo to “Menckenlite.”

In a companion news story in today’s Columbia Spectator, “Dutch Leader Tests Free Speech,” the CU College Republicans defended bringing Wilders to speak at alma mater:

“CUCR invited Geert Wilders not because of his views, which the club does not in any way endorse, but rather because he is one of the more prominent victims of free speech limitation in Europe and in other parts of the world,” the Republicans wrote. “As anyone who has studied the history of free speech knows, its defense lies not where mainstream views are voiced but rather among those who hold unpopular, offensive, or extreme views.”

But the Spectator news piece erroneously reported Wilders being cut off in mid-speech at Temple University where he had spoken the previous day in Philadelphia:

Wilders’ appearance at Columbia came one day after he spoke at Temple University, where his speech was cut off midway through and his invitation officially rescinded due to student protests. At Columbia, few protesters stood outside the International Affairs Building, where several police officers guarded the doors. Only one poster could be seen, reading “No to racism, no to Islamophobia, stop Geert Wilders’ Euro-fascism.”

“Columbia students, passionate as they are, have an admirable respect for dialogue and CUCR believes that is exactly what took place last night,” the Republicans stated. “The students, instead of shouting down Wilders like those at Temple did on Tuesday, expressed their passionate views regarding Wilders through thoughtful questions and constructive inquiry.”

Colleague Lori Lowenthal Marcus who had witnessed Wilders’ appearances in Philadelphia including the Temple U event sent me an email noting the error:

Geert Wilders’ speech was not cut short at Temple. The Q and A section was truncated because one student insisted on giving a speech instead of asking a question and then the students got angry when the speaker was cut off.

It was left to “Menckenlite” in a comment on this Columbia Spectator news story to set the record straight about the threat posed by "freedom from fear,” promoted by the MSA op ed:

“We are fundamentally accepting of freedom of speech, which is not denied in Islam,” said Adel Elsohly, a graduate adviser to the MSA of Columbia. “What are denied are hateful and derisive comments.” The popular conception of support for free speech is to support speech that you like and to oppose speech that you do not like. Isn't that the standard which Elsohly promotes? That is not free speech but support for friendly speech. The idea of free speech is to protect speech that you hate. Elsohly opposes free speech by his  own words.

"Elsohly argued that 'freedom from fear' is just as important as freedom of speech, but added that the MSA chose not to protest the event in order to underscore its commitment to First Amendment principles." Under what system is "freedom from fear just as important as freedom (sic) of speech?" Without free speech all other freedoms disappear. The First Amendment does not apply to Columbia as a private institution.  Elsohly shows he is clueless about that distinction.

Sic Gloria transit Columbia in the wake of Wilders appearance there.  Whoever “Menckenlite” is deserves accolades for their telling criticism of MSA sophistry at alma mater.

Apostate Mohammed Asghar, co-founder of Former Muslims United has the last word: