Posted on 08/23/2005 9:35:27 AM PDT by NavySEAL F-16
Michael Graham vs. CAIR
08/23 09:27 AM
Over at the homepage, Andrew McCarthy has a defense of Michael Graham, the ABC Radio talk show host who was fired for making the following comments:
Because of the mix of Islamic theology that rightly or wrongly is interpreted to promote violence, added to an organizational structure that allows violent radicals to operate openly in Islams name with impunity, Islam has, sadly, become a terrorist organization. It pains me to say it. But the good news is it doesnt have to stay this way, if the vast majority of Muslims who dont support terror will step forward and re-claim their religion.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations complained, and ABC fired Graham after they asked him "to retract those statements in a management-mandated, on-air apology. ABC Radio further demanded that I agree to perform what they described as 'additional outreach efforts' to those people or groups who felt offended," according to Graham. He refused.
This is not the first time CAIR has tried to silence a critic. Daniel Pipes wrote an article about a time when CAIR sued a critic and the lawsuit backfired. According to Pipes, CAIR's case collapsed after it dropped its objections to the following criticisms:
[CAIR is an] organization founded by Hamas supporters
CAIR was started by Hamas members
CAIR was founded by Islamic terrorists.
I fault Graham for a poor choice of words, but the role of violence in Islam is an important topic for debate and ABC Radio should not have fired him. Caving in to the likes of CAIR does not set a good precedent for others who want to publicly question the links between terrorism and Islam especially relevent given the new developments in the Iraqi constitution.
<expletive deleted>Islam!
I don't. It seems pretty gentle to me.
He could have said "Islam is all about violence".
But he still used the phrase "the vast majority of Muslims who dont support terror ".
I'm not sure that's a true description, but at least it's pretty tame language.
Michael Graham was right. I think it is a long overdue response to Islam's indifference to violence in the name of Allah. I have a friend who is a convert to Islam and she lives in North Carolina, she says that she has left the mosque several times when they hosted speakers that preached violence towards Americans.
Ok, I'll do this on a national forum...
"Radical Islam is an organized, violent, hateful-based terrorist movement."
"Stevie-D"; August 2005
So there...Fire me...
To me, this is just weasley. There was nothing wrong with Graham's "choice of words."
People should read the entire transcript of that broadcast. There would be no question about the evidence Graham marshalled to support his "choice of words."
Yes, his words were confrontational---because they confront the truth. But "poorly chosen"? No. Precisely chosen and backed.
Perhaps one can quibble about whether the evidence for Graham's statements supports his conclusions (words), but I'm wondering, if one does support the evidence, how should Graham have worded his conclusion so to avoid a "poor choice of words"?
If Islam, based on the evidence Graham marshalled, is indeed an organization that harbors, supports and provides "justification" for terrorism, how should he gone about conveying the conclusion that Islam, as an organization, is a terrorist organization?
Graham made perfectly clear that he was not saying that every adherent of Islam was a terrorist.
National Review set the precedent itself when it surrendered to CAIR without a fight earlier this year.
National Review Caves in to CAIR
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1387083/posts
The Truth About Islam... From the Book That CAIR Didn't Want to Be Sold!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1432014/posts
CAIR Fights to Block Sale of Book on Mohammed http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1375717/posts
There are several other threads on this issue.
Oh, here's a brain teaser.
Let's say I join an environmental group.
Over time the group's leaders begin to teach that the group's charter allows for and even encourages violent acts as a way of furthering the group's goals.
Some people in the group actually commit terrorist acts in the name of the group's charter. They are not condemned for doing so. Rather, they are glorified by the group's leaders.
In fact, the number of the group's members bent on committing terrorist acts is increasing over time. So is the lethality of their acts against innocents.
When the group's leaders are asked to reject the notion that the group's charter allows for and encourages terrorist acts as a way of furthering the group's goals, the leaders refuse to do so.
When the group's leaders are asked to take action to tell the group's members that terrorism in the name of the group's charter, or for the purpose of furthering the group's goals, is not acceptable, they refuse to do so.
In fact, the group's leaders affirmatively claim that there are at least some instances where terrorism in the name of the group's charter and goals is justified.
Moreover, when polled, a substantial and representative percentage of the group's members state that they believed particular terrorist acts (such as bombing the tube in London) were justified by the group's charter/goals and by the teachings of the group's leaders.
When some of the group's leaders and members state that terrorism is never justified by the group's charter or goals, those individuals are condemned by the group, ousted, shunned (or targeted for death).
I am not a terrorist.
I do not agree that my organization's charter or goals ever justifies terrorism.
However, at this point, I am a member of a terrorist organization.
Vice Islam for the environmental group and that's all Graham said.
I sent Michael Graham an e-mail last week asking if WMAL was going to fire him and received the following response.
CAIR WINS, FREE SPEECH LOSES, GRAHAM FIRED
The First Amendment and I have been evicted from ABC Radio in Washington, DC.
On July 25th, the Council on American-Islamic Relations demanded that I be "punished" for my on-air statements regarding Islam and its tragic connections to terrorism. Three days later, 630 WMAL and ABC Radio suspended me without pay for comments deemed "hate radio" by CAIR.
CAIR immediately announced that my punishment was insufficient and demanded I be fired. ABC Radio and 630 WMAL have now complied. I have now been fired for making the specific comments CAIR deemed "offensive," and for refusing to retract those statements in a management-mandated, on-air apology. ABC Radio further demanded that I agree to perform what they described as "additional outreach efforts" to those people or groups who felt offended.
I refused. And for that refusal, I have been fired.
It appears that ABC Radio has caved to an organization that condemns talk radio hosts like me, but has never condemned Hamas, Hezbollah, and one that wouldn't specifically condemn Al Qaeda for three months after 9/11.
As a fan of talk radio, I find it absolutely outrageous that pressure from a special interest group like CAIR can result in the abandonment of free speech and open discourse on a talk radio show. As a conservative talk host whose job is to have an open, honest conversation each day with my listeners, I believe caving to this pressure is a disaster.
I for one cannnot apologize for the truth and I cannot agree to some community-service style "outreach effort" to appease the opponents of free speech.
-- Michael Graham
Does CAIR disagree with that observation?
The First Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with the right of a private employer to dictate speech in a private workplace. By even suggesting this is a First Amendment issue, Michael Graham has proven himself to be a constitutional idiot.
I'm sure the ACLU will come to Michael defense, right? I think he should sue CAIR.
Example:
Salman Rushdie & girlfriend
Padma Lakshmi
Nothing has changed.
Jan 26, 1995
The Walt Disney Company announces that earnings have grown 31 percent in its fiscal first quarter. The company's investment in Euro Disney resulted in income of $27.9 million, reflecting a gain of $55 million from the sale of approximately 75 million shares to Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud.
In 2000:
Investment of $50 million in Walt Disney, operator of media networks, studio entertainment, theme parks and resorts, consumer products, Internet and direct marketing ventures.
The Walt Disney Company, through its subsidiaries, operates as a diversified entertainment company worldwide.
It operates in four segments: Media Networks, Parks and Resorts, Studio Entertainment, and Consumer Products. Media Networks segment operates ABC Television Network (ABCTN) and ABC Radio Networks (ABCRN). ABCTN broadcasts programs in dayparts, such as early morning, daytime, late night, prime time, news, children, and sports; and has 226 primary affiliated stations.
ABCRN produces and distributes various programs and formats, including ABC News Radio and other news network programming, syndicated talk and music programs, ABC Sports programming, and 24-hour music formats to approximately 4,800 affiliated radio stations.
Great post!
such a great post, you should take it and start a new thread with it---"Saudi Prince Owns Disney--No Wonder Graham was Fired!"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.