When Brigitte Gabriel was only 10 years old, militant Islamic terrorists attacked her home in Southern Lebanon, destroying her home and seriously injuring her. She lived with her family in a 10 x 12 foot bomb shelter for the next 7 years as terrorists destroyed her beloved country. Ms. Gabriel now stands as a strong, clear voice against radical Islamic terrorism with her organization ACT for America, the largest national security grassroots organization in the U.S. composed of over 750,000 members and 1,000 chapters. She has written two New York Times Best Selling books and appears regularly on Fox News Channel, CNN, and MSNBC as a guest analyst. As one of the foremost terrorism experts in the world, Ms. Gabriel has addressed the United Nations, members of both the British Parliament and the U.S. Congress, the Pentagon, the Joint Forces Staff College, the U.S. Special Operations Command, the U.S. Asymmetric Warfare group, the FBI and others.
However, not everyone agrees with her clear anti-terrorist message, mislabeling it as “hatred.” Specifically, the Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled ACT for America a “Hate Group.” While true hatred means the emotion and actions of terror and murder, SPLC’s rubric for hatred includes some true hate groups, (like the KKK) alongside groups with whom the SPLC simply disagrees (like the Family Research Council).
By confusing the concept of “disagreement” with “hatred,” the SPLC seeks to vilify those who support traditional marriage or raise awareness about America’s national security with respect to radical Islam. While radical Islam seeks to murder Christians, Jews, and gays, a hatred extending to whole groups of people which should qualify as a true hate group, only those communicating the truth about this ideology have been vilified as the “haters.”
Among their criticisms of Gabriel’s work, opponents consider her views as anti-Muslim, Islamophobic and racist. Yet, Gabriel distinguishes between Sharia-adherent Muslims who model their lives after Mohammed’s example of rising to power through violence and murder and those who are not.
Ms. Gabriel also advocates for stopping Sharia law from being used in the U.S. court system because it allows for domestic violence (men can beat their wives), honor killings (murdering those who dishonor the family or convert to another religion) and supports female genital mutilation (the cutting of the clitoris of young girls). The reality of Sharia law and its implicit potential for human rights abuses can be difficult, even uncomfortable to fathom, but this unfortunate reality cannot be minimized or ignored.
Brigitte Gabriel’s experiences in combination with reason and evidence, have uniquely qualified her to speak with clarity on the issue of radical Islamic terrorism. In recent years, there has been a popular stream of thought emphasizing experience as the only qualifier for speakers. For example, only women can speak about women’s issues because they “know” how it feels. Only certain ethnicities are qualified to speak about race or only those affected by gun violence can speak about gun laws. By this standard, Brigitte Gabriel who was seriously injured by terrorists and lived in a bomb shelter for 7 years should be one of the most qualified to understand the real issues at stake with regard to radical Islamic terrorism. Yet, her critics have hypocritically disqualified her experience because they disagree with its implications.
Many, if not most of those critical of Brigette Gabriel’s work, have never lived, or better yet “survived” multiple years of systemic terrorism. Those who live in a relatively quiet and peaceful country cannot fathom the difficulties, hardship, pain, or raw horror of living in a war-torn country.
Ms. Gabriel’s treatment by critics is reminiscent of the character named Moshe the Beadle in Elie Wiesel’s Holocaust memoir, Night. In his book, Wiesel recounts how this poor man disappeared, experienced the horror of the Nazis, escaped and returned to their town to warn others. But rather than heed the warning, the people called him a radical, and ostracized him as a lunatic.
Because the truth, the real truth, can be so overwhelming that people would rather vilify the messenger than accept the message. They prefer to take the battery out of the smoke alarm than put out the fire.
Brigitte Gabriel’s message, which speaks to the reality of Islamic terrorism, must not be wished away, or ignored. She stands as a messenger with a difficult message and should be commended for her courage to speak. We, in turn, should have the wisdom to heed her warning.
Image Credit: ACT for America website
Originally published on Patriot Post, March 29, 2018
Can the government force you to speak a message it chooses? Can the government force you to speak a message contrary to your beliefs? Can the government force you to advertise for something you oppose? These are the deepest questions surrounding the Supreme Court case NIFLA v. Becerra, which delivered oral arguments on Tuesday.
The case involves a California law which forces pregnancy centers to advertise for the abortion industry. It began in 2015 when California enacted the Reproductive FACT Act, a law requiring pregnancy centers to post disclaimers regarding either their unlicensed status or referring clients to an abortion clinic. Supporters of the law included pro-abortion advocates such as NARAL Pro-Choice California and Planned Parenthood. This case, however, does not only apply to the abortion issue. At its root, the case will decide whether the government can force individuals to speak the government’s “favored” messages and if the government can weaponize the law to advance a specific political message through forced advertising.
The law targets both licensed and unlicensed pregnancy centers which face steep fines for non-compliance. It requires licensed pregnancy centers (those licensed to provide medical services such as ultrasounds and pregnancy tests) to post the following:
“California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services (including all FDA-approved methods of contraception), prenatal care and abortion for eligible women. To determine whether you qualify, contact the county social services office at [insert phone number].”
Unlicensed pregnancy centers which provide counseling services, and material support such as diapers and baby formula must post a disclaimer (in print, online and at their physical location) that they are not a licensed medical facility and have no doctor on staff. This notice must appear in 48-point font in up to 12 languages depending on the county. This forces pregnancy centers to speak a government-mandated message, which violates the Free Speech clause.
Yet, Planned Parenthood, in their amicus brief, argues that the law regulates “professional” and “commercial” speech “to further the State’s interest in ensuring that women seeking reproductive healthcare services have necessary and accurate information about, and access to medically accepted options.”
The state assumes, by conjecture, that women who receive services from pregnancy centers are being misinformed in their options, without objective evidence that this is actually the case. In reality, pregnancy centers discuss all options with their clients: parenting, adoption and abortion, as well as the physical and psychological ramifications of each. In addition, pregnancy centers offer post-abortive counseling for those who choose abortion.
By compelling pregnancy centers to advertise for abortion, the law actually limits choices for women. In reality, “pro-choice” really means pro-(only one) choice. The abortion industry does not seek to give women multiple options, but only one option, abortion. But if you are only given one option, is that even considered a choice?
In addition, Planned Parenthood’s brief notes that “professional speech” or “commercial speech” must be regulated by the state for the welfare of the people. This begs the question, “Is the general welfare of the people harmed if a woman chooses to not have an abortion?” Probably not. Yet the general welfare of the abortion industry, which financially profits from a women’s “right to choose,” is harmed because they just lost a customer.
Secondly, pregnancy centers aren’t commercial enterprises. They aren’t selling anything. They are non-profits that give counseling, pregnancy tests, diapers and baby wipes away for free. The pro-abortion side argues that even though pregnancy centers offer services pro-bono, they are still participating in a transactional relationship. Yet if anyone should be regulated for commercial speech defined by making a “transaction,” shouldn’t it be the billion dollar a year abortion industry?
In addition, the law regulates content and viewpoint, discriminating against those with whom it disagrees. By doing so, it attempts to silence those with a minority message. The Reproductive FACT Act does not regulate the “professional speech” of the abortion industry. It does not require abortion clinics to display referrals to pregnancy centers. Rather, it specifically targets pro-life pregnancy centers by forcing them to post a disclaimer which violates their deeply held religious beliefs.
Ultimately, the case decides the future of free speech. Michael Farris, CEO, President and General Counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom who argued the case before the Supreme Court notes, “…this case is a direct assault not only on free speech in the pro-life context but all free speech. If the government can force you to give a message that is contrary to what you believe, there is no limit to that principle. And it’s extraordinarily dangerous.”
The Court is expected to issue a decision by late June.
Originally published on Patriot Post, March 22, 2018
Image credit: zimmytws/BigStock