-By Gary Krasner
A couple of weeks ago, George Clooney and his agent, CAA’s Bryan Lourd, circulated to the top people in film, TV, records and other areas, a petition which stated that they will stand up for freedom of speech not be intimidated into silence by the ruthless regime in N. Korea. It read in part:
This is not just an attack on Sony. It involves every studio, every network, every business and every individual in this country. That is why we fully support Sony’s decision not to submit to these hackers’ demands […] We know that to give in to these criminals now will open the door for any group that would threaten freedom of expression, privacy and personal liberty. We hope these hackers are brought to justice but until they are, we will not stand in fear. We will stand together.
No one in show business would sign it, despite Clooney saying that not doing so was tantamount to giving in to ransom.
The attack on Charlie Hebdo in France was not cyber. It was more serious. It was the murder of 12 journalists for exercising their freedom of speech. And while millions of people expressed solidarity with the slain journalists, and their right to speak freely, Clooney has been silent. No petition. No newspaper ad. No online petition.
But why? Clooney is involved in many causes. Freedom of speech is obviously one of them. And he owns a mansion in France, where Brad and Angelina were married on Aug. 23, 2014.
The answer is, because this time, the people exercising free speech were victims of Islamic ideology. And as Andrew C. McCarthy wrote Islamic doctrine forbids any form of caricature or mocking if its prophet:
It is forbidden to make pictures of “animate life,” for doing so “imitates the creative act of Allah Most High”; “Whoever makes a picture, Allah shall torture him with it on the Day of Judgment until he can breathe life into it, and he will never be able to.” (Reliance w50.0 & ff.)
And its not just that for Hollywood, Muslims are the new black–meaning that Muslims, warranted or not, are viewed by liberals as victims of the powerful Western, Judeo-Christian society. There is that for George–for Obama’s far left friend and supporter. But there’s also the fact that George Clooney married Amal Alamuddin, who identifies herself as a Druze–which is a branch Shi’i Islam. The Quo’ran is their “bible.”
Amal and her family are big supporters of Hamas. During the war last year, Amal predictably singled out Israel as the aggressor, writing:
“horrified by the situation in the occupied Gaza Strip, particularly the civilian casualties that have been caused, and strongly believe that there should be an independent investigation and accountability for crimes that have been committed.”
The marriage reinforces Clooney’s hard left, anti zionist views. “Politically Incorrect” wrote on August 13, 2014.
This marriage is happening for political reasons only. What does each get out of it? He hates America, capitalism, and everything associated with the west because of some guilt complex. He believes in and supports “fair share” socialism (for everyone else but him), pushes the “rich 1% are bad” (except for him) works to eradicate the Constitution (except for him), and works toward and supports global governance-as long as he’s a part of said global elite. This marriage, in theory, should do that for him. There is a reason she is a non-American, non-west Muslim. He so badly wants to be part of the progressive world elite, and she fits that mold. As for her, what does she get? A member of the Hollywood ruling elite who can use his power in Tinseltown to soften the Muslim extremist image while pushing the anti-Jew, anti-west hate to low info voters.
Liberals in show business are afraid of getting killed by Muslims, you see. And apparently they’ll defend–though not to their deaths–the rights of Muslims to kill them.
Given that liberals of the same bent run Hollywood, there likely would not have been any signers among them in a petition in support of Charlie Hebdo either. Except Bill Mahr.