CAIR subsequently pressured the other panelists to withdraw, until finally, with Spencer the only remaining participant, the ALA canceled the panel. [Myra] Appel[, chairperson of the ALA's Ethnic and Multicultural Information Exchange Roundtable (EMIERT)] told [CAIR-Chicago Executive Director Ahmed] Rehab, according to sources close to the situation, that she wanted to disinvite Spencer, but would be accused of censorship if she did so. The indirect method was a face-saving solution. And then, according to CAIR, the ALA agreed to work with CAIR to "schedule a future event on the same topic as the canceled panel discussion."
It is disturbing to see the ALA acquiesce in CAIR's attempt to silence Spencer's perspective, and uncritically accept the organization's defamatory characterization of him as a "bigot" – a term CAIR officials throw at anyone who exposes the nature of their organization and who works to resist the advance in the West of the global jihad in all its forms. Most disturbing of all is the fact Appel and other ALA officials seemed unconcerned about CAIR's ties to Jihadist and Islamist organizations such as Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. And so they have set yet another precedent in which a group with numerous ties to terrorist and Islamist organizations determines what Americans will learn about Islam, jihad, and the terror threat.
I have written about ALA involvement with terrorism previously:
- "The ALA Supports Terrorists," 1 February 2009.
- "ALA Defends Book Confiscation Worldwide by Communist/Terrorist Regimes? SafeLibraries Asks ALA Councilor James Casey to Clarify Anti-American Stand," 28 June 2008.
- "ALA Opposes FISA; Joins Soros, ACLU, and PFAW to Restrict War on Terror," 10 June 2008.
- "Soros, the ALA, and Terrorists," 21 May 2008.
I did not write about the Robert Spencer snub, until now, because I did not know, until now, that the ALA may have actually committed censorship. As Mr. Emerson points out, this from the group promoting "Banned Books Week," which is used to convince people to voluntarily give up legal means to keep children from sexually inappropriate material in public libraries. See also, "Library Association Abandons Principle, Allows Censorship," by Muslims Against Sharia, Muslims Against Sharia, 22 July 2009 (where I got the photo above). And the ALA is seen as authoritative in local communities on setting local policy for access to inappropriate material by children—basically, anything goes (sample).
However, the Steve Emerson article puts the icing on the cake. Those statements by a renown terrorism expert represent the smoking gun.
It appears the ALA supports terrorism. It appears the ALA practices censorship. It appears the ALA practices censorship in support of terrorism. Inquiring minds want to know more.
I challenge the ALA to provide more information in response to Steve Emerson's report. I challenge the ALA to include Robert Spencer in next year's panel.