In this article, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Daniel Huff provide a compelling argument regarding radical extremists and their oppression of those who speak against them. They acknowledge that, even though religion is a sensitive issue to talk about, those who use it as a justification to commit violent acts must face the law. Their concern, however, is that those who speak out against them or their religion are always silenced or assassinated or intimidated by these individuals, and yet no action is taken against them. For instance, Theo Van Gogh was murdered in broad daylight on the streets of Amsterdam because he had criticized the way the Islamic religion mistreated women. Molly Norris was also intimidated into hiding and changing her identity because she received death threats based on her attempt to stand up and raise her voice against extremists.
The examples provided by the authors highlight a real indication of their arguments against extremism and the need for a federal law that will empower human activists. The need for a civil damages provision is also very critical in this scenario because it gives victims the power to speak up against fanatics in defense of their rights. It has already been established that Islamic extremists tend to threaten anyone who raises a voice against their religion or violent acts. Adopting the law would, therefore, be a good move because it would give them less power to do so and also subject them to legal action, thus reducing their control over those who cannot defend themselves.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The authors call on free speech advocates to take the stance of the abortion rights movement because these individuals were not intimidated into giving up. By the end of their fight, a law had already been implemented, making it illegal for people to threaten those who supported reproductive rights. Based on this, the authors call upon the government to institute laws that would be adequate to prosecute those who offer death threats as of the ways the nation can win the war against extremists. Maybe if the laws existed, Theo Van Gogh’s death would not have occurred, and perhaps the perpetrators could have been prosecuted as an example to others. Letting such acts go unpunished shows these individuals that they have every right to intimidate and kill those who speak up against their barbaric acts.
The only possible objections to their argument are that some people would argue that not all intimidation messages are death threats, and as such, it would not be prudent to enact such a law. Islamists may say that they are protecting their religion, and as such, their threats should not be considered as crimes because they also have a right to speak up.
The truth of the matter, however, remains to be that activists and free speech advocates need a voice and a protective act that would protect them against extremists as a means of fighting violent acts in societies.
