A Melanie Phillips blogpost on the Spectator website which referred to the "moral depravity" of Arab "savages" is being investigated by the Press Complaints Commission.
The online comment piece, headlined "Armchair barbarism", focused on media coverage of the murder of five members of a Jewish family in the West Bank settlement of Itamar by Palestinian militants earlier this month.
"The moral depravity of the Arabs is finding a grotesque echo in the moral bankruptcy and worse of the British and American 'liberal' media," wrote Phillips.
"Overwhelmingly, the media have either ignored or downplayed the atrocity – or worse, effectively blamed the victims for bringing it on themselves, describing them as 'hard-line settlers' or extremists.
"To the New York Times, it's not the Arab massacre of a Jewish family which has jeopardised 'peace prospects' – because the Israelis will quite rightly never trust any agreement with such savages – but instead Israeli policy on building more homes, on land to which it is legally and morally entitled, which is responsible instead for making peace elusive. Twisted, and sick."
The column, which also referred to coverage of the murders by CNN, the BBC and the Guardian – part of the group that publishes MediaGuardian.co.uk – prompted two complaints to the press watchdog, one of them from Engage, a group promoting Muslim engagement in British society.
Phillips apparently forgot that we are not permitted, even in a free society, to say anything bad about Islam.
We are not permitted to question how peaceful Islam is--even when hordes of its adherents appear to believe that it is not only "OK" to kill innocents in the name of their vicious god, it is a moral imperative to do so.
And, lest you take such riduculous prohibitions unseriously, there is always some "peaceful" Muslim group somewhere who will file the appropriate complaint with the appropriate politically correct organization in the oh so politically correct western democracies. Even the UN has proposed a resolution that would criminalize opinions that differ with the Islamic faith:
Though it is written tongue-in-cheek in the language of human rights and of opposition to discrimination, thenonbinding U.N. Resolution 62/154, on "Combating defamation of religions," actually seeks to extend protection not to humans but to opinions and to ideas, granting only the latter immunity from being "offended." The preamble is jam-packed with hypocrisies that are hardly even laughable, as in this delicious paragraph, stating that the U.N. General Assembly:Underlining the importance of increasing contacts at all levels in order to deepen dialogue and reinforce understanding among different cultures, religions, beliefs and civilizations, and welcoming in this regard the Declaration and Programme of Action adopted by the Ministerial Meeting on Human Rights and Cultural Diversity of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, held in Tehran on 3 and 4 September 2007.
Yes, I think we can see where we are going with that. (And I truly wish I had been able to attend that gathering and report more directly on its rich and varied and culturally diverse flavors, but I couldn't get a visa.) The stipulations that follow this turgid preamble are even more tendentious and become more so as the resolution unfolds. For example, Paragraph 5 "expresses its deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism," while Paragraph 6 "[n]otes with deep concern the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001."
You see how the trick is pulled? In the same weeks that this resolution comes up for its annual renewal at the United Nations, its chief sponsor-government (Pakistan) makes an agreement with the local Taliban to close girls' schools in the Swat Valley region (a mere 100 miles or so from the capital in Islamabad) and subject the inhabitants to Sharia law. This capitulation comes in direct response to a campaign of horrific violence and intimidation, including public beheadings. Yet the religion of those who carry out this campaign is not to be mentioned, lest it "associate" the faith with human rights violations or terrorism.
The author of the above piece (Christopher Hitchens) goes on to note, "The useless and meaningless term Islamophobia, now widely used as a bludgeon of moral blackmail, is testimony to its success."
But the truth is that "Islamophobia" is not a phobia at all-- it is a completely rational fear of an insane and irrational force that seems to be sweeping the world. Being afraid of the so-called "religion of peace" after the innumerable acts of violence, terror and depravity committed in the name of Allah worldwide is not exaggerated; not inexplicable; and most certainly not illogical.
Being afraid of Islam as it undermines freedom of speech and thought, as well as and other critical values of Western civilization, is far from a phobia--it is a natural response to the sad reality Islam as it is practiced in much of the Middle East and around the world.
What the UN (and the Islamic world) would like to mandate is a sort of meta-Islamophobia--an Islamophobicphobia, to be precise; or, as I would define it, " an exaggerated, usually inexplicable and illogical fear of mere criticism of Islam, as well as a pathological reluctance to hold it to account for the actions and behavior of its followers."
There is much written both in the Middle East and in the West about the proposition that Islam is "under siege" and that hatred of Islam is a rising concern. Complaints agaiso nst individuals like Phillips are getting all too common. The delicate sensibilities of Muslims are tuned into any possible affront or mockery to their religion, that they appear to be unable to appreciate that killing people indiscriminantly in the name of Allah and for Islamic motives is becoming a real problem all over the world.
This has been happening frequently and those those who decry this reality, or prentend that it doesn't exist are not only reluctant to admit that the wave of terror and irrational hatred sweeping the world is specifically associated with the religion of Islam; they simultaneously blame the victims of the terror and the objects of the irrational hatred as the one's responsible for its existence.
Islam and its teachings are frequently given a free pass by both the left and the submissive media. Shouts of "God is Great" that precede each atrocity apparently have nothing to do with what is written in the Koran.
It is getting harder and harder to keep a straight face as the knee-jerk denial and sanctimonious utterings of organizations like CAIR and UN "human rights" committees fill the news media on a daily basis with their attacks on anyone who criticizes Islam, even as their own institutionalized anti-semitism becomes more and more blatant.
Islamophobia? Anyone who by now has not realized that Muslims, by reason of their deafening silence alone, have given carte blanche to the fanatics in their midst, is either completely out of touch with reality, or living on another planet (e.g., planet Hollywood, or planet Obama).
Muslims in Europe claim they are justified in rejecting Western society for a variety of reasons:
(1) oppression;
(2) poverty;
(3) the Iraq War (and now the "Libya War" will undoubtedly produce the same result in the end); and/or
(4) the institutionally "racist" culture of the West, which "forces" Muslims to accept the values of the countries they choose to imigrate to.
It is interesting to watch as Muslims seem to expect that those countries should be forced to abandon their own traditions and adopt Muslim values instead. Multiculturalism, of course, is on their side in this bizarre sense of entitlement....which is exactly why all of a sudden we are seeing multiculturalism being rejected in Europe for the leftist scam it is (see here and here for further discussion of how the left has aided and abetted Islamic fanatics by making it easy for them to undermine western values and institutions--hell, the left sees them as an important ally in that regard).
So, let me say for the record that I utterly reject being labeled as "Islamophobic". Rather, I have a healthy, rational fear of a religion that aggressively seeks either my submission or death.
I have a healthy fear of a religion that regularly inspires the decapitation of babies and hides behind children so they they can kill with impunity.
And, of course, I have a very healthy respect for people like Melanie Phillips and Mark Steyn (who can testify to the PC insanity as it is practiced by our neighbors to the north). Phillips' blogpost accurately highlights not only the barbarism and moral depravity of the heinous murders and their celebration by members of the "peaceful" religion in by Gaza residents; she also clearly denounces the timidity of the media in their reporting of the incident so as to downplay the Islamist depravity and emphasize the notion of how Israeli settler's "deserved" it.
In other words, Phillips captured the moral depravity of not only the Islamic terrorists who think murdering babies and children in their sleep is justified; she also captures the moral depravity of the left's apologists for their behavior.
Melanie Phillips is being persecuted for speaking truth.
The word "Islamophobia" is bandied around as if it were somehow a complementary concept for Muslims, similar to what "antisemitism" is for Jews.
This is objectively not the case.
There has been no wholesale exploitation or abuse of Muslims anywhere in the world--except by other Muslims (Saddam and the Taliban come to mind; as well as all the other oppressive regimes in the Middle East). There has been no genocide of Muslims--except by other Muslims (consider Darfur; consider what Al Qaeda did to Iraqi civilians; what the Taliban is now doing in Pakistan; what Shia are doing to Sunni and vice versa). There have been no systematic outrages perpetrated on the people of Islam--except by other people of Islam. Palestinians suffer (and have suffered) more at the hands of their "sympathetic" Muslim brothers in other countries of the Middle East--none of whom can be bothered to allow them to live in their own countries except in "camps" (several generations of Palestinians have now lived in sordid and primitive conditions in Lebanon and elsewhere because of the "generosity" and "support" of their Muslim brothers).
And further, if you are someone who believes Israel has oppressed the Palestinians; consider just for a moment the fact that the poor Palestinians would much rather kill Jews and each other than work to better their own lot in life--even after they have been finally given their own territory (see here also)
Let me be clear that I am not saying that real Islamophobic behavior cannot be the result of projection or paranoia on the part of some individuals or groups. For it is the case that ANY CONVENIENT GROUP MAY BE USED TO PROJECT ONE'S OWN UNACCEPTABLE FEELINGS ONTO. Historically, the Jews have been the recipients of such pathology fairly frequently; but they are hardly the only group that has had to deal with it.
The leaders of Islam, however, seem to be suffering from a case of "victim envy"; for all intents and purposes desirous of acquiring the label of victim even as they go around victimizing the rest of the world with their suicidal rage; and even as they plan the final solution for the demonized Jewish population.
Objectively, there is just no case at all to support the idea that other groups are systematically or institutionally "projecting" their own unacceptable feelings or acting out toward the muslim population at large; nor are the scant number of individual cases of prejudice very compelling either; despite the unbelievable rhetorical flourishes of the left and other Islamic radical apologists. On the contrary, there is much evidence to suggest that the world is trying its best (perhaps trying too hard) to be decent and give as much leeway to muslim anger as is possible; and is even bending over backwards to make sure muslims understand that they are being treated equally, or even more equally in some cases, with all other religions and groups.
When "Islamophobia" is used as a bludgeon to accuse and attack anyone who makes the mildest criticism of Islam--no matter how well-meaning that criticism may be--the attack becomes yet another psychological projection by Muslims that deflects their own sense of shame, humiliation and inferiority and helps them to believe that such feelings would go away if only they got some respect.
Unfortunately for them, their historical shame and humiliation; as well as their medieval cultural and religious backwardness must be confronted and their behavior must change before they can be an effective part of the modern world. If it were not for the fact that oil happens to be found in that part of the world, I seriously doubt that Islam or Arab culture would have any impact on the world today; and the rest of the world could comfortably watch as their culture continued on its rush toward primitivism and obsolescence.
In the end, both antisemitism and the accusations of Islamophobia are parallel symptoms of a single disease that is running rampant in Islamic countries and among those raised in a religion that thrives on hatred and violence, but somehow manages to believe in its heart that it is loving and peaceful and following the will of God.
As Phillips astutely observes, this is "twisted and sick" and no amount of PC sunshine can change that fact.
No comments:
Post a Comment