The Year of The Inkifada

Back in Feburary, I vacillated between being for and against those cartoons. I was rather conflicted and confused.


Reason's blog Hit & Run links to an interview with the editor of the magazine responsible for the cartoons, Flemming Rose.
They exercept this interesting point from him -
I think the left has betrayed its own ideals in this case, because the publication of the cartoons is exactly about what the left has been fighting for in the past 150 years—free speech and the right to challenge religious authority and to challenge a religion that, in fact, favors the oppression of women. [Muslim extremists] do not accept the equality between the sexes. They do not accept equality from representatives of different religions. They specifically say, "Our religion is better and should have favorable treatment compared to other faiths."

But I think it has to do with the fact that the left—at least in Europe, I can't speak about the left in the United States—views the Muslims as the new proletariat. They're the new oppressed minority that they have to defend. It shortcuts all rational thinking. [Islamic radicals] can say and do almost anything, and it will be explained away by saying, "These people are victims."

It also has to do with the legacy of the Second World War and the Nazis and the establishment of the United Nations and the fact that it became taboo to speak about cultural differences in Western Europe because of the imperial legacy. It's very sensitive to be critical toward a culture. It's taboo, no matter how oppressive that culture might be in itself.

They left out the next 2 paragraphs -
It was once an underlying understanding in the West that when these immigrants come to our part of the world, they would become like us. If they just stay long enough, they will become like us. But that changed. OK, if they can't become like us, then we'll have to accept and acknowledge them as they are. And so the West developed this ideology of multiculturalism—that you have to accept and recognize any culture on its own terms, no matter how oppressive it might be.

The left is trapped in that position. It's very counterproductive toward the Muslim community, because by treating them like a weak, victimized minority, they in fact make it far more difficult to Muslims to integrate.

More on Dr Wafa Sultan

Arutz Sheva provides a download of her first english interview on the "Tovia Singer Show".
Have only listened to the start but if her previous interviews (and the death threats she's receiving) are anything to go by, this woman is perhaps even more dangerous to the radical Muslim world than the cartoons.

Wafa Sultan - Islamic Middle Ages Clashing with Modernity

I posted recently about Wafa Sultan, the Arab-American psychiatrist who dared to criticise Islam on Al-Jazeera.
There’s an interview with her in today’s New York Times.  
She says - Knowledge has released me from this backward thinking. Somebody has to help free the Muslim people from these wrong beliefs.
She is currently writing a book with the working title – “The Escaped Prisoner: When God Is a Monster”.
I’m really looking forward to reading it.

The Manifesto

We reject cultural relativism, which consists in accepting that men and women of Muslim culture should be deprived of the right to equality, freedom and secular values in the name of respect for cultures and traditions. We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of 'Islamophobia', an unfortunate concept which confuses criticism of Islam as a religion with stigmatisation of its believers.
We plead for the universality of freedom of expression, so that a critical spirit may be exercised on all continents, against all abuses and all dogmas."

Indeed we do.
Published yesterday in the French Charlie Hebdo.

All Things Beautiful has all the information, including profiles of the 12 signatories - among them Salman Rushdie and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

The Women of Islam

All Things Beautiful quotes Wafa Sultan, an Arab-American psychologist and provides a link to an interview with her on  Al-Jazeera where she said -  The Jews have came from the tragedy (of the Holocaust), and forced the world to respect them, with their knowledge, not with their terror, with their work, not their crying and yelling. Humanity owes most of the discoveries and science of the 19th and 20th centuries to Jewish scientists. 15 million people, scattered throughout the world, united and won their rights through work and knowledge. We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people. The Muslims have turned three Buddha statues into rubble. We have not seen a single Buddhist burn down a Mosque, kill a Muslim, or burn down an embassy. Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people, and destroying embassies. This path will not yield any results.
The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them.
It's a pity the Irish Muslim women who appear on the Late Late show, etc sharing their religious experiences, refuse to acknowledge this fact.    
The transcript is available here.
Wafa Sultan is the real deal – you should watch the part where the Muslim cleric she’s on with dismisses her –
Wafa Sultan: I am not a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew. I am a secular human being. I do not believe in the supernatural, but I respect others' right to believe in it.
Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli: Are you a heretic?
Wafa Sultan: You can say whatever you like. I am a secular human being who does not believe in the supernatural...
Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli: If you are a heretic, there is no point in rebuking you, since you have blasphemed against Islam, the Prophet, and the Koran...
Wafa Sultan: These are personal matters that do not concern you.
Wafa Sultan: Brother, you can believe in stones, as long as you don't throw them at me. You are free to worship whoever you want, but other people's beliefs are not your concern, whether they believe that the Messiah is God, son of Mary, or that Satan is God, son of Mary. Let people have their beliefs.

Death in the name of Allah

is something that we witnessing more and more in recent weeks.
15 Christians churches were burned by Muslim cartoon rioters in Nigeria killing more than 15 people.
It just doesn't seem like ending anytime soon - and that is a truly terrifying prospect. If groups of Muslims, even in tiny numbers proportionally, continue to believe that violence is an acceptable response to things said about their religion in a cartoon, in a newspaper, in a country that is not a major world cultural leader - and will keep rioting with such intensity until they get their way. The real scary part is what is their way? What, exactly do they want the countries whose embassies they've attacked to do?

All Things Beautiful has a post entitled The Grave Injustice Of A Senseless Death Sentence about the murder of Father Andrea Santoro in Turkey last week.
Her musings about Turkey's continued discrimination of non-Islamic religions are worth thinking about as Turkey becomes closer to being a full EU member.
Fr Andrea Santoro died on his knees witnessing to the God of Love whom he believed to be incarnate in Jesus Christ. He may have displayed literature about that love in a language that Turks could understand. He, against all the odds, bravely worked and prayed in a provincial Turkish city, simply for the love of the people around him.

Has the time come for Turkey to shed her misplaced antique suspicion and fear of a reasonable liberty? Should Turkey now draw on the industry and experience of her wonderful expatriates around the world who have dynamically proved the potential of Turkey in art, commerce, cuisine, diplomacy, academia, the law, and indeed every kind of labor abroad in freer climates? Should Turkey draw on the great breadth of her history and open herself up to the reasonable norms – as expressed in the European Convention on Human Rights - of the societies whose friendship she now espouses?

She quotes the Sigmund, Carl and Freud blog -
We do not need to assure Muslims that we are caring. We do not need to bestow a status upon Islam that we not bestow upon other religions and other faiths. Muslims are not special and they are not deserving of special status.

Why? Because in a free society, we don't care about your beliefs. We do care about your actions and behavior. You are free to integrate and to assimilate into our society in whole or in part. We really don't care. Do not tell us we need to care about your beliefs and your concerns above all else and above our own beliefs. If you do try to make that assertion, you will soon be surprised at how easily you will be marginalized and resented- not for your beliefs, but rather, for your attempt to jump to the head of line. You are not more important than anyone else.

Mary McAleese, Al Gore and Speaking on Your Behalf

The Jeddah Economic Forum looked like the place to be this weekend.
Not only did our own Mary McAleese tell the world that we all abhor and condemn the publication of the cartoons, but Al Gore told the JEF that America Arabs had been "indiscriminately rounded up" and held in "unforgivable" conditions.
Captain’s Quarters has all the dirt on Gore. Who, not being a president, was thankfully not speaking on any country’s behalf. And was speaking through his hat.
Irish bloggers who are giving out about McAleese’s comments, which were spoken on our behalf –
Irish Eagle wants to know if there’s a poll – do we all abhor the publication of the cartoons? I certainly don’t and I have misgivings about them – namely should we go out of our way to annoy moderate Muslims? Where is that going to bring us in the War against Terrorism?
It goes without saying that we all abhor violence (doesn’t it?) but my father was saying that even on the Late Late on Friday it seemed that most supported the publication of the cartoons and the right to publish the cartoons.

Planet Potato says she does reflect the official Ireland stance - But I would expect that the President of our country would have had a better response prepared than the spineless response that was given - a response that panders to those who would dictate that because of "multiculturalism" we must adopt our own society so as to avoid giving offence to other cultures. I might give out, but I think the President reflected the words of Ireland inc quite correctly.
Unfortunately this is too true.

United Irelander says - Imagine then my surprise and outright disgust to learn that Irish President Mary McAleese, the woman supposed to represent myself and the Irish people, has actually come out and CONDEMNED the publication of the cartoons in question!...... Her comments are atrocious. Who the hell are this 'We' you refer to, Mary? How dare you tar all Irish people with your sad and pathetic views!I for one completely support the publication of these cartoons because I believe in freedom of speech. I am not a Muslim and have no desire to live my life based on Muslim laws. I have no problem personally with people poking fun at religion.

Little Green Footballs’ thread on the issue degenerates in to Irish stereotyping which is quite unfortunate.
This Saudi blogger was much impressed with McAleese.

Medh Ruane wrote about this trip in Saturday’s Irish Independent. It’s quite a good article apart from a lapse into some liberal brain disconnect - President Bush faked a commitment to women's human rights when he pretended to promote democracy with the Saudi elite. He even used the repression of women as a reason why he was waging war in Afghanistan and Iraq. So when PBS, the US TV station, decided to rerun Death of a Princess last year, Bush was able to silence American dissent for a few more months.
Is it just me, or does that paragraph smack of hysterical paranoia determined to never trust Bush, regardless of the facts?
Ruane goes on say –
And to her shame - ours also - Ms McAleese will not show solidarity with Saudi women, under the guise of protocol. She'll wear one of her amorphous Irish designer outfits and has actually agreed to having her Irish female companions wear abayas.
The only reason Saudi protocol 'allows' her to dress as a woman is that it never anticipated having a female Head of State. So McAleese is sending a symbolic message that oppressing women is a matter of culture, not human rights.
What if she made a symbolic statement instead - by wearing the abaya herself? Taking on the mantle of oppression literally would be totally respectful to Saudi protocol but would show that this woman, this Ms McAleese, prefers to abase her own status rather than prop up a system no decent citizen should support.
Protocol and the ability to protest are difficult aspects of the Presidency. That’s why Presidents get to make speeches.
It’s a pity McAleese brought up the issue of the cartoons in the context of speech that should have had better and more important soundbites, like the treatment of women, democracy and the importance of economic freedom.

Ann Coulter Under Fire from Fellow Conservatives

And rightly so. She has been described as the Michael Moore of the conservative movement, always waiting and willing to throw the cheap shot.
Unlike Michael Moore however, I don’t know how well known she is in Ireland. Not very, I would think – I have yet to see any of her books in our book shops while I’m tripping over Moore’s.
I’m sure if I actually read her stuff on weekly basis I could find plenty I disagree with. Her recent comments calling Muslims “ragheads” are just stupid, low and bigoted. (She also had some other clangers in the speech, including fantasies about killing Clinton and a couple of Supreme Court justices)
Michelle Malkin has links to right wing bloggers criticising Coulter.
I find all this very interesting as I’ve just finished reading Malkin’s “Unhinged, Exposing Liberals Gone Wild”. I was really quite surprised at the amount of completely whacky things people inside the Democrat/Liberal movement have said, and are still feted and welcomed back into the fold. (The craziest to my mind, remains Cameron Diaz’s appearance on Oprah where she started tearing up over the Bush’s proposed plan to legalise rape – despite this not being part of any Bush campaign statement, or general principle of the Republican party)
It is a very healthy sign that so many conservative people are slapping Ann around the head (metaphorically!). It’s a pity that many of those listed in Malkin’s book don’t get a similar treatment from their fellow travellers.
Getting back to Coulter’s comments, this is a critical time for the West. In recent weeks the Arab Street has gone wild – burning flags, embassies, effigies, Danish Lego and anything else that might look like a cartoon. This is not a good thing.
Yes, we should have the right to say whatever we want about any religion, but more importantly we should have the right to say what we want and not get killed for it. I posted the infamous cartoons on this blog. I then changed my mind (but left up the cartoons as I think we need to see them to be rational and sensible in this debate).
One of the reasons I changed my mind is that famous Arab Street – if we truly want to fight terrorism, we should be willing to enter in a dialogue with those who disagree with us. Especially those that disagree with us in such an angry, all-encompassing obsession that has led to too many tragic deaths of innocent people. I’m not suggesting that dialogue or diplomacy will cure all terrorists – I still support the Iraq war. But hand in hand with what ever military conflict that becomes necessary, we must remember the ordinary people that we are fighting on behalf of – not just the free citizens of the West, but the hearts and minds of those who the terrorists claim to fight for.
It is too easy to simply throw our hands in the air in despair at the OTT actions of the Arab Street and decide that if they’re that mad anyway, why should we compromise our rightly valuable and cherished ideas of freedom and democracy.
Sister Souljah, a right wing American blogger that I have recently discovered puts it quite succinctly - this is not about whether or not someone has the right to say something; it’s about whether or not it is right to say.
There is nothing to be gained in further inflaming a vast group of people who are already feeling disenfranchised and at this stage are taken over by a fervent zeal and a mob mentality that seems to viscerally hate everything “we” stand for. Our task is to convince them. Not to intentionally anger them. The way we do things is already vexing enough for them – even simple issues like how women dress here are intensely contentious.
If we want to be safe from the threats of Islamic terrorism, suicide bombers, Bin Laden et al, have we not an obligation to work on convincing moderate Muslims that we genuinely care for them and their societies? That we want the best outcome for all – the continued security of our free societies and whatever arrangement that grants citizens of the Arab/Muslim world dignity and freedom. That democracy can work for them. That allowing women to drive cars will not be the end of the world. And that free society works when we all subscribe to some basic tenets of respect, equality, dignity and liberty.
Ann Coulter is not on the side of terrorism. These comments show that she not on the side of those fighting it either.

Those Cartoons, Again – Why I’m Changing My Mind

Some interesting posts around the place on the cartoons. While I posted them, I am starting to agree with the opinions below and don’t know now whether I should have.
Free speech does bring many responsibilities. Have we the right to blaspheme any religion?
The link from a cartoon to threatening another “real Holocaust” or a 9/11 stuck me as totally out of proportion and to me, those that made the link represent a scary and unreasonable threat to Western civilisation. I posted the cartoons to show that this hotheaded intolerance and quick resort to violence and violent threat was way out of proportion and completely unacceptable. But then Muslims believe that any artistic representation of the human form is forbidden, especially one of Muhammad.
What I now think I think is represented by the quotes below.

TKS @ National Review
After noting that my reaction is one of a man for whom the Muslim world starts at his doorstep and extends for hundreds of miles in every direction… while I am appalled by the violence and threats of violence by those who claim to be so offended, I have a hard time mustering much vigor for a defense of the cartoonists. Yes, they have a right to say it, but must we defend these cartoons as if they were a good thing? I don’t like Kanye West comparing himself to Christ, or Serrano’s “Piss Christ” art, or that idiotic Jesus-was-gay play “Corpus Christi”, or other efforts to poke at Christians’ sensitivities; I’m not sure why I should be cheering when someone else makes an effort to poke at Muslims’ sensitivities.
When I see someone creating a piece of art that offends me, what are my options? Let’s agree that killing him or any violent acts should be off the table. But I can protest, I can picket, I can urge others not to see or sponsor the work, and I can denounce the creator. Muslims ought to have these rights as much as we do.

The Anchoress
Cooler heads must prevail - it would be a damn shame to lose the advances we have made with moderate Muslims because we have pushed too far. While I’m all for free speech, and was glad to see French editors stand up for it, I don’t know that I can support the few suggestions I have seen, here and there, for bloggers to create “more and better” Anti-Islam cartoons. For what purpose, to fan the flames? I’d like to see the Muslims learn to lighten up. That’s not going to happen if they’re being egged on. We’re in the middle of a very long “process” of trying to bring the Middle East and the Islamists into the twenty first century. They’re currently highly pissed off about fake cartoons. If we can’t get them to slow down and acknowledge that some of their own have had a hand in creating this unrest, is it the wisest thing to say, “hey, those were FAKE cartoons, but here’s some REAL ones for your to freak out over!”

My Friend Pat, via email (use the comments, man!)

Am not sure that you should reprint the cartoons. One of the things we ask for as catholics is respect for our religion and our traditions, not to have our noses rubbed in things that we find offensive. Yes, it happens, everyday in fact, and we do have to live with it and turn the other cheek. Sometimes that is hard, and we need to kick up a fuss when it reaches an extreme level. Piss Christ and the other display with cow dung smeared over a picture of Mary are two extreme examples of this. No, we don’t burn flags and threaten to kill people over it, but we do appreciate people who respect our traditions and beliefs, even though they appear bizarre to them. We rightly get angry with protestors who storm the altar and desecrate the Eucharist, something that is just bread to them. We believe  it to be more than bread, and request respect.
The difference between us and the Islamofascists is that we don’t expect the law to punish people who don’t respect our religion – we allow freedom of speech.
But just because we have legal freedom of speech does not mean that we should always practice it. Legally we can libel the dead, but respect generally mandates that we don’t. The Islamofascists who are storming embassies are crazies who think its ok to behead people on camera but who think the sky is falling down because of a cartoon. Yet, we have nothing to gain from showing that cartoon, and your showing it is mere provocation. Reprinting the cartoon is on a par with displaying a crucifix in a jar of urine. It may be crazy to protest a mere cartoon, but that is what all Muslims believe, not just the crazy ones.

From the Sunday Herald, on its reasons for not publishing the cartoons
The most pressing concern is that to publish would further inflame an already dangerous situation. So far, most Muslims have not taken part in protests and have not echoed the demands from a minority of extremists within their community. Further provocation – deliberate provocation – may push more towards extremism. Extending Muslim outrage to Scotland could have damaging consequences in a country where relations in our multicultural community have generally been good. There would have to be a robust moral argument for taking an action which could ramp up tensions and provoke further violence. There is also the potential threat of violence to the Sunday Herald itself and to its staff, a threat that has to be taken seriously.
…………….. The British Council of Muslims should respond by accepting it too holds a moral responsibility. It should condemn the extreme response by some in the Muslim community as deplorable; it should accept that freedom of speech is part of the cultural fabric of Britain and should work hard to convince its community that such liberty should work for all citizens.

And Mark Steyn on Sensitivity (Who I don’t fully agree with)
The cartoons aren't particularly good and they were intended to be provocative. But they had a serious point. Before coming to that, we should note that in the Western world "artists" "provoke" with the same numbing regularity as young Muslim men light up other countries' flags. When Tony-winning author Terence McNally writes a Broadway play in which Jesus has gay sex with Judas, the New York Times and Co. rush to garland him with praise for how "brave" and "challenging" he is. The rule for "brave" "transgressive" "artists" is a simple one: If you're going to be provocative, it's best to do it with people who can't be provoked.
…………………………..
The cartoons accompanied a piece about the dangers of "self-censorship" -- i.e., a climate in which there's no explicit law forbidding you from addressing the more, er, lively aspects of Islam but nonetheless everyone feels it's better not to.
That's the question the Danish newspaper was testing: the weakness of free societies in the face of intimidation by militant Islam.
One day, years from now, as archaeologists sift through the ruins of an ancient civilization for clues to its downfall, they'll marvel at how easy it all was. You don't need to fly jets into skyscrapers and kill thousands of people. As a matter of fact, that's a bad strategy, because even the wimpiest state will feel obliged to respond. But if you frame the issue in terms of multicultural "sensitivity," the wimp state will bend over backward to give you everything you want -- including, eventually, the keys to those skyscrapers. Thus, Jack Straw, the British foreign secretary, hailed the "sensitivity" of Fleet Street in not reprinting the offending cartoons.

International Day of Anger and Kevin Myers

Kevin Myers hits the spot perfectly in today's Irish Times - the international day of anger is not in reference to Myers frequent angry outbursts (which I unashamedly enjoy!) or the reaction of many of his readers but the call of Sheikh Yussef al-Qaradawi, head of the International Association of Muslim Scholars, for Friday to "be an international day of anger for God and his prophet".
Michelle Malkin has the details.

Myers =
Across the Islamic world, virulent anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism are cultural norms. But if obscure Westerners in an obscure newspaper in an obscure country (sorry, Denmark) even make an alleged sketch of Muhammad, people's lives are threatened, gunmen storm buildings, foreign travel for Danes is banned over much of the planet, ambassadors withdrawn, oh yes, and Bill Clinton - of course - appeases the mob.

I've seen the cartoons on the internet. They are innocent, even childish figures like those you could find in any comic, and upon which you could place any name. They are no more "Muhammad" than they are Eamon de Valera or Queen Victoria.

In any normal circumstances, I would love to publish one here - if only to show you what idiotic nonsense the current international outcry is. But these are not normal circumstances.

More on Demographics

If, like me, you like Mark Steyn, you'll like this.

If you don't, it's still an intersting and prescient read.

Since the president unveiled the so-called Bush Doctrine--the plan to promote liberty throughout the Arab world--innumerable "progressives" have routinely asserted that there's no evidence Muslims want liberty and, indeed, that Islam is incompatible with democracy. If that's true, it's a problem not for the Middle East today but for Europe the day after tomorrow. According to a poll taken in 2004, over 60% of British Muslims want to live under Shariah--in the United Kingdom. If a population "at odds with the modern world" is the fastest-breeding group on the planet--if there are more Muslim nations, more fundamentalist Muslims within those nations, more and more Muslims within non-Muslim nations, and more and more Muslims represented in more and more transnational institutions--how safe a bet is the survival of the "modern world"?

Is this question scaremongering? An overreaction? Or something we should think about with clarity and honesty?
The follies of multiculturalism for its own sake aren't discussed without the requisite meaningless drivel about tolerance. We are doing a disservice to ourselves and to those of non-traditional faiths, including fundamentalist Muslims who live here, by pretending differences in philosophies on how societies should be run, are excused under the guise of progressive lovey-dovey tolerance. Stoning women who have been raped and amputation instead of a fine are not facts of daily life that any Irish person would welcome.

Read Steyn's article - even you hate him.....

This is kinda gross so beware....

From the medical blog A Chance to Cut is a Chance to Cure comes a very good round up on a procedure that I first read about in a gynae reference book in the Rotunda library and I can still remember how stunned I felt.
I can understand how in some cultures (especially Muslim) how some women need it to literally save their lives but it's completely excessive for everyone else.
After I read about it, I asked a few classmates at coffee had they heard about it. (Yes, be glad you don't have morning coffee with medical students!) One American girl had through a friend of a friend who became a born again Christian and felt she needed it (it's not only associated with that anyway)
Which is totally beside, or even against, the point of chastity.
Anyway - read about it if you want - it's not really a suitable Christmas present despite the first woman interviewed in the article.

Amnesty transparency??

From Little Green Footballs - Amnesty head honchos contributed max amount to John Kerry's presidental campaign.
That's not very non-partisan, is it???

(not impressed with anti-Muslim vein of some of the comments on LGF - beside the point as far as Amnesty's bias is concerned)