I just can’t get over the utter sectarian crap, and borderline racism, written by two of the tabloid terrors, Bolt……..
It’s time we accepted the difficult truth: many of the Muslims we invite to live in Australia want to destroy us.
……..and Devine……..
It simply creates a vacuum for radical Islam to rush in and fill.
That these two have prime editorial space in any modern newspaper is an utter disgrace. Blot and Devine’s writings are dressed up in a fine cloak of hysteria topped off with a tinfoil hat.
You know, most of the time this is fun - fun countering the nonsense spun by these kinds of columnists, it’s almost a bit of sport - usually it’s not hard, there’s no intellectual mountain to climb or hard driving to be done, it’s always an easy downhill sprint with a tailwind, the weakness in their arguments are evident to anyone who does read them, but obviously their editors don’t really care about this, appearing to prefer a media life spent in the gutter with all of the other yellow journalists.
To claim that the goals of a multicultural and secular society are to blame for radical Islam is to ignore the greatest narrative of history, Imperialism. Most of what we see now is simple blowback for several centuries of political, cultural and social Imperialism by the two great Christian and English speaking powers, Great Britain and America, and what we’re really seeing daily in our media by writers like Bolt and Devine is just a running apologia for it.
But none of this is fun anymore, it’s deadly serious, Islam is just the latest whipping boy for a renewed and desperate Imperialism.
If this sounds like I’m blaming modern western society, well, yes I am. Sure it’s a complex thing, but why not play at the same simplistic game employed by so many of our intrepid Imam busters? If Bolt and Devine can blame multiculturalism and secularism for creating radical Islam, then I’ll blame western (read American and British) imperialism for creating many of the world’s despotic regimes and trouble spots and creating the same radicalism Bolt and Devine now use to attack two of the pillars of our recent cultural wealth.
Hell, It’s no coincidence that the origins of this radical Islam is dead in the middle of a region carved up and manipulated by the two powers over the last couple of centuries - not at the heart of our rich societies which were built on the principals of multiculturalism and secularism. When radical Islamists attack us on our trains and buses they are really attacking the Imperialism that has created the political, social and cultural distortions apparent in their own societies. For the last couple of hundred years Arab and Islamic societies have not been allowed to develop and evolve at their own pace, they have endured a regular series of geopolitical events, aided and abetted by us, that have fractured their natural histories and territories.
So instead of Bolt and Devine attacking the immediate problems brought on by the radicalised Imams and Muslims, they could do better by attacking the thing that created them in the first place, western Imperialism.
Elsewhere [note by Mark]: More at Liam’s, wbb’s, Catallaxy, Guido’s and Bolt Watch.
And this is better than Bolt or Devine?
Yes it is! It’s a defensible argument, and Phil’s making it clear that he’s simplifying as much as Bolt and Devine do - but unlike them, he’s doing so self-reflexively.
“Blot and Devine‚Äôs writings are dressed up in a fine cloak of hysteria topped off with a tinfoil hat.”
# A more accurate sentence I have not read. Well done.
Oh, and ‘Hear Hear!’
Substitute the word ‘Devil’ or ‘Communist’ for ‘Muslim’ and it reads just like the much lampooned hysterical tripe from earlier ages.
What is the pathology that demands an insidious enemy to always be conspiring against ‘good honest folk’?
Mark - I don’t think it is, but I suppose each is playing to their gallery. Miranda and Phil both have the same basic point - crackpot Islam (which predates the British empire by many centuries) and the West are an inflammatory mix.
Andrew, I certainly think the claim that “multiculturalism” is the problem is wrong.
Bolt’s column in particular is an absolute disgrace.
No, crackpot imperialism and developing societies are the real inflammatory mix. Most folk in the global south just want to go about their own business without the gringos telling them what to do.
Sectarianism never went away in Australia, it just followed different lines. Two generations ago, the group under the gun were the Catholics….they were supposedly disloyal to the point of treachery, they weren’t patriotically Australian (or British, which was probably even worse), they owed allegiance to a foreign power (the Vatican) and were generally not to be trusted, and to be outrightly devalued. Mick-bashing was considered common sport for much of our country’s existence.
Then it was (and to an extent, still is) Asian sectarianism…they’re not like “us”, they don’t like us, they’re not “real” Aussies etc etc. Even to the point of suspecting the “Japs” of still harbouring notions of imperialism and coveting our country’s collective ass - a particularly offensive suggestion to the Chinese immigrant population, for obvious reasons.
Now it’s the Muslims’ turn. They’re not like us, they can’t be trusted, they owe allegiance to a foreign power etc etc. Compare the rantings of anti-Catholics 70 years ago to the rantings of anti-Muslims now, and you’ll find such little dissimiliarity its frightening.
What’s worse than a deranged columnist though, is a thinly veiled racist justification for their actions on the part of our beloved leaders. The phrase, “War on Terror” gives it away - itself encouraging bigotry. You can’t have a war on “terror”. It’s like calling World War I the “war on trenches”. In this context, “terror” is code for “Islam”, and we all understand it. So why be surprised when raving nutters like Bolt, who must surely be abominable even to himself, get carried away and start wanting to rape and pillage Mecca?
Sectarianism is always deplorable, especially when, as you say Phil, it’s deployed in apologia for the sins of the apologists’ tradition and culture. It’s one thing to not accept that your own history is less than perfect, but quite another to blame those imperfections on another group.
What the real cause is, I suspect, is that many of the right-wingers currently blowing their trumpets hard and long about the evils of the Prophet and his followers are simply enjoying the chance of indulging in acceptable racism. They would have loved to say anti-Arab things in the past, but would have been rightly condemned for their views. But now all bets are off - they can let their paranoia and bigotry have free reign, and they are enjoying the chance to bash some other social group with seeming justification.
If Bolt and Co. were around three-quarters of a century ago, they’d be Catholic haters. Now the accepable vice is Muslim bashing. I suspect they just love to give others a fearful hiding, most likely in order to appease their own feelings of inadequacy. I’m no shrink, but such pathological dislike of others must surely signify some sort of unresolved issue.
But don’t worry, if your name is Abdul or you read the Qu’ran every night before bed. It’s just your turn. 50 years form now it’ll be someone else who feels the crucible of unreasonable hysteria surround them. With any luck, the nect mob to cop it might even have done something to deserve it.
And it appears that these columnists are becoming more inflammatory and their language is skirting some serious boundaries, if not already crossed over them. There could be some fallout.
I’m waiting for the day some poor brown skinned bastard gets it in the neck by some nutter stirred up by these tabloid shock jocks, and then at the trial claims “t’was the columnists wot made me do it guv”.
That’s a ridiculous quote from Bolt. Sensationalism at its worst.
Many of the Muslims? How many? Where on Earth is he getting his figures from? It’s completely impossible to substantiate such a claim.
And destroy who? Bolt? Employees of the Herald Sun? Australians? If he continues to carry on like this, the former might become quite understandable.
I think his comments are defamatory in a broad sense. Doesn’t Victoria have laws against this sort of thing these days?
Yeah, but I tell you what, wouldn’t Andy just LOVE some Muslim group taking him to court over his rantings? There’s two of his favourite hobby horses right there, Muslims and the vilification laws. He’d have a right field day, complete with frothing at the mouth and polemic delusions of grandeur. I’m inclined to want to deny him that stage, myself.
All you’d need is the Greens to find cause to file suit and he’d have a full house of cards to play Persecution Complex Poker with.
He could write a bok about it….maybe he could call it “12 and a Half Years Struggle against Greens, Logic and Sanity”.
Funny how Aborigines, Papuans, Maoris, Indians, Fijians, Zulus and Apaches haven’t been flying planes into buildings and detonating themselves all over the planet because of imperialist “blowback.”
Mmm. What is it the perpetrators of modern terrorism have in common? Colonialist past? Nope. Most of them are rich, educated brats. The Daddy of one of the London bombers bought little precious a new Mercedes Benz a few weeks before that sadly oppressed young man killed 57 people because of imperialist blowback. Maybe he wanted the SL model.
No, the perpetrators have one thing in common: Islam.
In the news today: UK Gay Leaders Receive Death Threats From Muslim Fundamentalists.
Also - a Religion of Peace exhibit from the epicentre of Islam (not the fringe):
Oh brethren in faith, morning has dawned upon all with eyes to see, without ambiguity or falsehood. It has become clear that the enemies of virtue, the marshals of licentiousness, and the heroes of sexual promiscuous pleasures have a most ill-fated hope and aspiration to export sexual diseases and vice in the form of a plague, which shall crush the fortresses of the Muslims… Oh Allah, liberate our Al-Aqsa Mosque from the defilement of the occupying and brutal Zionists.
- Dr. Abd Al-Rahman Al-Sudayis, Imam of Islam’s holiest mosques - Al-Haram in Mecca.
I’m guessing he’d cut off funding for AIDS research.
Al-Rahman has also called Jews “the scum of the earth” and “monkeys and pigs” who should be “annihilated.” He is not a marginal loon - marginal loons don’t win appointment to the clerical position he has.
Islam hates women, hates homosexuals, hates lesbians, hates freedom of speech, hates religious diversity, hates individualism, hates a secularised rule of law, hates multiculturalism. Ergo: hates our society and is very much geared to destroy it.
The Western left knows this but won’t admit it because to do so would destroy the very last elements of their culturally failing nihilism. They’d have to take sides, in other words. That they cann;t do. Except if it involves, say, a glamorous torturer like Che Guevara.
Incidentally, why is it OK for leftie bloggers to ridicule Scientology but a “disgrace” for Bolt to speak the truth about Islam? (Scientology is considered a dangerous cult in some European countries - I’ve never heard a leftist complain about this).
Why is it also OK for Phillip Adams to accuse the Pope of killing millions of Africans and ask “where are the bodies” re the Saddam Hussein holocaust, without criticism from the left?
If a major Western city is destroyed by an Islamist radiological or nuclear weapon, I rationally and sincerely believe that one of their cities in the Middle East ought to be nuked.
I‚Äôm waiting for the day some poor brown skinned bastard gets it in the neck by some nutter stirred up by these tabloid shock jocks, and then at the trial claims “t‚Äôwas the columnists wot made me do it guv.”
Most Australians are worried about the day hundreds “get it in the neck” because of someone like Melbourne’s Sheik Mohammed Omran whose response to the London bombings was to say the United States did it. We now know such denialism causes terrorism.
I find it disturbing that the Bracks-ian left in Australia defends human garbage like Omran while at the same time believing - almost like good sons of Osama - that columnists should face consequences for their opinions and critics like the Two Dannys should be jailed. What next, poofter bashing?
The left today is a sad, gentrified, cowardly voice.
Islam hates women, hates homosexuals, hates lesbians, hates freedom of speech, hates religious diversity, hates individualism, hates a secularised rule of law, hates multiculturalism. Ergo: hates our society and is very much geared to destroy it.
Replace the word “Islam” with “US fundamentalist Christianity” and the sentence makes sense.
If a major Western city is destroyed by an Islamist radiological or nuclear weapon, I rationally and sincerely believe that one of their cities in the Middle East ought to be nuked.
Lordy!
You’re making observa sound moderate, C.L.
CL, go tell it to the people in Omagh. I’m sure the Catholics bombed had stacks in common with the Catholic bombers.
You’re getting tired, and the Nuke Mecca shit just doesn’t wash.
I think the urge to apocalypticism is anything but rational.
Devine’s argument seems to be a riff on the “it’s all our own fault” theme:
“The increasing permissiveness of Western culture, coupled with a multiculturalism that encourages ethnic ghettoes, can only fuel the inner conflicts of alienated young Muslim men.
And with secularists hell-bent on removing any religious influence, no matter how benign, from daily life, it is no wonder that decadent displays in the Big Brother Uncut tradition now seem commonplace, and fashion increasingly aims to make little girls look like hookers. This is the view of Australian culture that causes traditional Muslims and Christians alike to pull away.”
i.e. they hate and despise us for our secular values, so we should all get religion. I thought that debate was long over. No kudos to Devine for this silly attempt to revive it.
I have a few doubts about this part of Bolt’s article, particularly the provenance of the quote:
I checked the IISNA site this week, and among the announcements of classes and prayers found this advice to a reader who’d asked if it was a sin to kill non-Muslims:
“In regard to non-Muslims who are at war with the Muslims and do not have a peace treaty with the Muslims or are not living under Muslim rule, then Muslims are commanded to kill them, because Allah says . . . ‘Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you.’ “
A Google search for the emboldened bit didn’t turn up anything at http://www.iisna.com/. Search the whole web and it turns up at http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=11406&dgn=4
IISNA links to this site via http://www.islamqa.com/. Bolt’s statement that he found it on the IISNA site strikes me as a little misleading to say the least. Of course you could still make the case that IISNA should drop the link and find an alternative source of Q & A advice for muslims.
Yeah, Gummo, Devine in the past has written about her desire for conservative Catholics and Muslims to live together in gated communities. Whatever.
If C.L. is considering investing in Sydney property, I imagine he won’t be joining the Devines there though.
CL. Nuke Japan?
This article by Irfan Yusuf is very much to the point:
Commented on this on BoltWatch yesterday.
Particularly revealing remark from Bolt - “First, we must be more wary about the dangers of importing cultures that clash with the one that has built this free, rich and democratic society.”
The ONE? Which ONE?
Oh, he’s lots of fun, is Bolt.
Thanks, Mr Lefty, I’ve updated the post with a postscript linking to your site and a few other relevant posts.
Are you related to our commenter Lefty Elitist btw?
“…several centuries of political, cultural and social Imperialism by the two great Christian and English speaking powers, Great Britain and America.” Examples, for America, please. And forget about “cultural & social” ones as well, because they are just the crap you make up when you can’t come up with something real - so no “Baywatch” & “McDonalds”, please. Real concrete examples, in the Middle East, of the USA exhibiting this:
“The policy of extending a nation’s authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.” (from Dictionary.com). Even the liberation of Iraq doesn’t bloody count!
And while you’re about it, some exposition (you know, example, facts, sources etc) on this:
“When radical Islamists attack us on our trains and buses they are really attacking the Imperialism that has created the political, social and cultural distortions apparent in their own societies. For the last couple of hundred years Arab and Islamic societies have not been allowed to develop and evolve at their own pace, they have endured a regular series of geopolitical events, aided and abetted by us, that have fractured their natural histories and territories.”
would be good as well. Because I’m afraid that you can’t just say it and hope it’s true. That is close to the greatest piece of nonsense passing as analysis I think I have ever read. What are the distortions we have created? What are the geopolitical events that are aided & abetted by us?
Are you reading Bolt & Devine, or studying them for lessons?
Thanks for proving my point, folks. Not one word of protest against Islamic hatred of gays - that is, the desire to slaughter them - or a single word in response to one of Islam’s most senior ‘clerics’ calling for a new Final Solution. Or a single syllable against a Roswellian ‘cleric’ in Australia blaming mass murder in the UK on Don Rumsfeld & co.
Instead, the same old strategies.
I oppose Islamic homophobia, just as I oppose Christian homophobia. And anti-feminism for that matter. From anyone. And I oppose racism.
This is unworthy of you, C.L. Have you joined Rafe as an Inquisitor?
Geopolitical events - well, Tony, you could start with the carve-up of the Ottoman Empire into French and British spheres of influence. Or the Balfour Declaration. Or Napoleon’s invasion of Egypt. Need I go on?
Also - what Kim said. And I thought Luke hit the nail on the head too.
Aaaah, let’s see. I’m enjoying this simplistic thinking thing. Tony understands.
The times an technology made that one impossible, and let’s not forget the British could not fight several hundred million Indians so they walked away as losers. I think the British imperialists lost to Irgun terrorists in Israel as well. Last time I checked NZ had treaty and the Maoris are slowly reclaiming and making their heritage a central factor of NZ life. And in the other instances we wiped out many other native pops. through introduced disease, and superior firepower, ergo utterly defeated pops. with no chance of fight back. Most now live on reservations like animals in a zoo.
Now the Muslim families contain a far larger group as far as a belief system goes, it’s way easier for their greater political/social/cultural mass to throw up military and political wings with which to fight us, we can’t kill ‘em all you know, no matter how hard you try, and they now have many of the same technological tools we do plus the added advantage of a willingness to use the blunter instruments of suicide terrorism, this is a much harder force for western imperialism to defeat, and I suggest that we will not win but come to an accommodation or detente of sorts.
A case can be made for example that Hamas and Hizbullah have fought Israel to a standstill, and now has Israel turning on itself. And Hamas is now re-inventing itself as a serious political force in Lebanon, their long term strategy looks pretty effective to me. And no doubt there will soon be an accommodation made between tthem, or maybe already has been made.
All in all, we are fighting a futile battle, we cannot hope to defeat a complex culture comprising 1 billion adherents any more than the Protestants defeated Catholicism in Ireland, or the communists defeated the Catholic Church in Poland.
All in all, we are fighting a futile battle, we cannot hope to defeat a complex culture comprising 1 billion adherents
I take it you’re being deliberately simplistic there too, Phil. We should certainly not buy into “clash of civilisations” rhetoric and see this as a battle with Islam. Otherwise we go down the C.L. road. (Wonder where that is - possibly the Ho Chi Minh trail
)
Oops that should be Hamas in Palestine and Hizbullah in Lebanon. Sorry, moving too fast.
Or maybe the Road to Nowhere. Talking Heads reference, for those too young to remember 80s music goodness.
Yep very simplistic, taking the broader Huntington brush into account, their words, not mine.
Maybe they’d like to Bury Their Hearts At wounded Knee, for those even older.
While I endorse Mr Lefty; he, regrettably, does not appear to be an elitist. No relation… But the more ‘Leftys’ the better.
We’re witnessing the last dying convulsions of the corrupt and hypocritical multiculturist cult here.
Only the hard-core Left still believe in this sham, and their numbers are dwindling. Reality takes its toll.
The road you refer to is not mine, Mark. I said if the West was subjected to a nuclear attack, it could and should retaliate.
The ‘road’ would be the choice of Islamists - y’know, billionaire Osama and his Mercedes-driving victims of poverty and blowback.
You should try some Lithium sometime, EP.
You should try thinking sometime, SJ.
On this issue, denial is all that remains to the Left. Sooner or later, even that will be gone.
Phil: your reference to time and technology is spurious. The blowback doctrine is precisely founded on the idea that consequences NOW have resulted from circumstances THEN. ‘Then’ for Islamists partially refers to pre-modern events. Why aren’t the many angry and disaffected Aborigines in Australia detonating car-bombs throughout the country?
Because they’re not Muslims.
Your other references to “pops” living on reservations would be considered borderline racist amongst the proud pops of the Indian-American nations.
Last time I checked NZ had treaty and the Maoris are slowly reclaiming and making their heritage a central factor of NZ life.
Last time I checked, Maori pops hadn’t flown a 707 into the Beehive to effect this progress.
The truth is the left hates Islam even more than the right. But it’s their enemy’s enemy so it gets a pass. The Pim Fortuyns, van Goghs, Twin Tower “little Eichmans” and Tube infidels got what the left believes they deserved.
Nice touch too, that “brown” neck that gets it. Leftie trick #2: morph Islam from a religion into a race.
Retaliate? Who? Where? Where do you find this chimera of “The War on Islamic Terror”. Or do you just turn ‘em all into ghosts? And then ask questions.
‘Brown’ because there was a lot of mistaken identity after 9/11, Sikhs were bashed. Or is this just more collateral damage eh?
By the way, apologies to C.L and others I can’t continue this thread I’ve got to bed down now, 5:30 am start on the bike tomorrow morning, been chomping at the bit for a ride after all the TdF watching.
Ya’ll get the last word.
You’re no doubt right, Phil, since RWDBs never seem to require sleep.
C.L., for someone who’s often described as a moderate voice on the Right, you seem to have a monomania on the question of Islam. You make just about as much sense as Curtis LeMay.
Leftie trick #2: morph Islam from a religion into a race.
What? Codswallop. It’s the Bolts of the world who quite enjoy letting their racist sentiments out into the ether under the guise of the apparently more acceptable form of attacking a religion.
EP, dream on. All this nonsense is largely for domestic political consumption. RWDBs are akin to Lenin’s useful fools for their Howardian masters. Ranting and raving about multiculturalism actually turns off a lot more people than you might expect, since a very large minority of the Australian population were born overseas, or are children of those born overseas.
And what, may I ask, would you suggest as an alternative policy?
News just in that there have been explosions on three London tube stations and on a bus. There are no fatalities reported, and only minor injuries, which is extremely good news.
Monomania?
25 posts on my homepage at the moment.
Number even vaguely concerned with Islam or terrorism: 5.
And this is somewhat unusual emphasis for my blog.
Leftie trick #3 (the ‘Lancet Manouevre’): make up numbers.
Leftie trick #4: call those concerned with universal human rights “RWDBs”. (Five minutes later, denounce Howard’s weakness on human rights in the PRC).
BBC has a frequently updated newsblog here. It’s still not clear that any bombs actually went off, and they may have been hoaxes, or only the detonators went off but not the bombs. Which I presume means that the people can be arrested and questioned. Anyway, that’s good news from the casualty perspective.
Howard’s meeting with Blair has been interrupted. Howard seems to bring bad luck in his wake sometimes - wasn’t he in Washington on s11?
C.L. - were you proclaiming the impending death of civilisation as we know it every time an IRA bomb went off in the 80s?
And universal human rights wouldn’t particularly be furthered by dropping nuclear bombs on people.
It’s now becoming clearer that no bombs actually went off.
Monomania?
25 posts on my homepage at the moment.
Number even vaguely concerned with Islam or terrorism: 5.
And this is somewhat unusual emphasis for my blog.
Leftie trick #3 (the ‘Lancet Manouevre‚Äô): make up numbers.
What I meant, C.L., was that you seem to completely lose your grip on rationality and moderation and proportionality when Islam is discussed. I’ve noted that you’ve described it as an “evil” religion, if I’m remembering properly.
That is untrue and unhelpful.
In any event, I apologise if I wasn’t clear enough to get my meaning across in my earlier comment.
And quite contrary to Popper’s ideal of an open society, may I add?
As I understand Osama Bin Laden’s goals: one of them would be to increase the number of people who agree with CL.
In which case he and his supporters would lose. Don’t treat him like an oracle - he’s just a murderer living in a cave.
It wasn’t the IRA’s goal to end Western civilisation, Mark.
Again, there’s no response to the starting point of my hypothesis - a nuclear attack by Islamists on the United States. The critiques so far in this thread begin with a potential American response. Which, of course, is condemned.
Insofar as Islam is concerned, it’s my considered view that:-
a) allah is not Yahweh but a false god. Historically and theologically, this is more than defensible. Respect for individuals, always. But I owe Islam no particular deference whatsoever. Catholics say every Sunday: “I believe in ONE God.” Allah aint it.
b) it is a cult - history’s most successful. Like Scientology, it should be resisted in Europe. It’s rather more dangerous of course but Hubbard and Muhammed are a lot alike - except the latter was a man of tremendous violence and of at least worrying psycho-pathology;
c) it is an inferior culture whose growth in Europe will slowly strangle the mother culture of civilisation.
I’ve stated many times - not often enough recently - that I see the West’s nihilism (and the Western right’s utilitarianism) as causes attending the success of Islam. It’s not enough to be a ‘tolerant’ sophisticate - unless you’re willing to tolerate the marginalisation of what you believe in. Already we see an example on this blog with ominous talk of Andrew Bolt crossing “a line.” Is this the same left that spent four years comparing George Bush to Adolf Hitler?
Hey, why not report Bolt to Bjelke-Bracks’s special branch?
And if Bolt was muzzled, how long would it be before television programmes started to be censored, mardi gras shut down etc? Why not - these are highly offensive to Muslims?
So whose side are you on?
Call me immoderate as much as you like but the right is sounding the Churchillian warning these days and fairly: eventually, Westerners will have to choose. Nothing ‘apocalyptic’ about it either - this is already part and parcel of myriad decisions being taken in Western Europe. Religious symbols banned in France as a fig-leaf for banning Muslim sartorial religiosity. But the point is Christian symbols have been banned amongst the younger generation in the nation once called the ‘eldest daughter of the Church.’
And universal human rights wouldn’t particularly be furthered by dropping nuclear bombs on people.
Descendants of Tojo’s millions of victims - from Kokoda to Nanching - may disagree.
There’s nothing immoderate about what I say. From my undergraduate days till now I’ve always vigorously and impartially believed in the universality of human rights, and that as the only framework in which any kind of civilisational co-existence is worth it. Marcos, Noriega, de Clerk, the USSR - makes no difference to me.
Now the greatest bastion and guarantor of attaining universality - or what progressives used to call a ‘global village’ - is the West. The greatest threat to the village comes from Islam. I say it’s better for Islam to be smashed into shape than that freedom be bent out of its own. One hopes they’ll do it themselves, but I doubt it.
A Sabean Mandaean woman from Iran was nearly raped and was assaulted by Muslim men at the Curtin detention centre recently.
So it was the government’s fault. No doesn’t mean no when you’re a Muslim mob, apparently. You’re not even expected to be civilised. And that’s official.
This is how civilisations die.
And if Bolt was muzzled, how long would it be before television programmes started to be censored, mardi gras shut down etc? Why not - these are highly offensive to Muslims?
Most effort in the censorship stakes seems to be directed against Islamic bookshops at the moment, C.L. Just saying, since you worry about liberties like freedom of speech. A universal human right, as it were.
I’m not calling for Bolt to be censored. I’m just saying the guy’s an irresponsible populist.
Is this the same left that spent four years comparing George Bush to Adolf Hitler?
I have no idea, C.L., since I’ve never seen that comparison made. Oh, right, it must be THE LEFT. That vast left-wing conspiracy that seems to haunt the right’s imagination. But can rarely actually be pinpointed. Who’s made those statements?
It wasn’t the IRA’s goal to end Western civilisation, Mark.
Indeed it wasn’t, C.L. but IRA bombs caused many more deaths in Britain than the ones planted by Islamic terrorists.
But, I forgot, it’s the clash of civilisations.
I’ve stated many times - not often enough recently - that I see the West’s nihilism (and the Western right’s utilitarianism) as causes attending the success of Islam.
How strange. The “civilisation” that you laud is apparently already rotten to the core from nihilism and utilitarianism. And the one you deplore is winning. Whatever. This is ludicrous, C.L.
a) allah is not Yahweh but a false god. Historically and theologically, this is more than defensible. Respect for individuals, always. But I owe Islam no particular deference whatsoever. Catholics say every Sunday: “I believe in ONE God.” Allah aint it.
You should do some reading in the history of the characterisation of Islam by the crusaders, C.L. Very similar terms.
This is how civilisations die.
For a historian, C.L., you don’t seem to appreciate much about the longue duree when it comes to these matters.
I say it’s better for Islam to be smashed into shape than that freedom be bent out of its own.
Freedom?
Call me immoderate as much as you like but the right is sounding the Churchillian warning these days and fairly: eventually, Westerners will have to choose. Nothing ‘apocalyptic‚Äô about it either - this is already part and parcel of myriad decisions being taken in Western Europe.
What’s involved in this “choice”, C.L. Nuking people? Please explain.
I maintain that your rhetoric (”Churchillian” or otherwise) on this is utterly disproportionate to the situation, and your intolerance is worrying.
I’m going to sleep now. Goodnight.
C.L., quite a few of the people who died in the London atrocities were Muslims. Your fantasy of a homogenous “West” doesn’t exist. It never did, actually.
Your hypothetical - how would it work? Which city would you nuke? They’re mostly in states that are allied to America. In Iran? But the Shi’ites are Bin Laden’s enemies. How many innocents would die? Do you support the Israeli practice of “collective punishment”? Bulldozing the houses of people whose family member was a suicide bomber. Mortar attacks and targetted missiles hitting refugee camps? What would the consequences of such an attack be? Nice way to usher in WW3.
Of course, your scenario is apocalyptic. Start talking nuclear weapons and what else do you expect?
How, precisely, would your “retaliatory measures” solve the problem of political Islamism? I’d hate to see the blowback from your preferred solution.
CL, Woah, that is some serious ideological weakness on your part. Mark was right to point out that you are wearing no clothes.
Individuals are not subservant to culture, it is the other way around. Culture is an emergant property from the behaviour of individuals. It is a fluid and temporal property, not a permanent one.
Different cultures become ascendant at different times for permanent reasons, but again it is temporal, not permanent. The best way to ensure a culture’s vitality is maximum liberty and nation-state openness.
The national security state of constant fear, and closed borders we are moving to now effects both. We also have the mis-placed interference in culture by government. It is like economic protectionism, doomed to fail.
Bolt and Devine both represent the repugnant statism of a government unable to keep its hands off individual liberty, nor trusting the fluid growth of culture.
Mark, CL is not moderate. He is just EP with a bigger vocabulary.
Ah, the famous EP Manoeuvre! LP Leftie Trick #5: out of ammo so I’d better run off to an EvilPundit reference. If Captain America and oil can be worked into this thread my Leftie Trick #1 will start looking very solid as praxis.
Yawn.
The LP line seems to be this: insisting on universal human rights makes someone ‘immoderate’ and ‘intolerant.’
Still not one word about an Islamist nuclear attack on the West. (Widely considered more probable than apocalyptic). Not one word. Also not one word about the Iranian woman assaulted by a Muslim mob in Curtin. Not a one.
Interesting.
Words emboldened indicate additions to sustain argument:
How strange. The “civilisation” that you laud is apparently already rotten to the core from nihilism and utilitarianism. And the one you deplore is winning. Whatever. This is ludicrous, C.L.
You deplore it too Mark. You just can’t say so. I understand.
C.L., quite a few of the people who died in the London atrocities were Muslims.
100 per cent of the bombers, for starters.
CL, bah. Nice way to avoid the debate. Same way as you did when arguing over “generations”. You are big on rhetoric, incompetent in debate or discussion, and floundering when questioned.
Good old Mirandrew. Another column, another dogfight. Good on ‘em, I say.
This is what I wrote on John Quiggin’s blog yesterday about Devine’s amazing effort:
“Today is the 463rd anniversary of the establishment of the Inquisition, and Catholic Right bombthrower Miranda Devine has marked the occasion in truly fitting manner with her column in today‚Äôs Sydney Morning Herald, at http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/muslim-rage-burns-in-our-backyard/2005/07/20/1121539032464.html?oneclick=true
“Miranda‚Äôs argument is that the attraction of young Moslem men in Western societies to Islamo-fascism, suicide bombing and gang rape of non-Moslem women is an understandable reaction to the baleful consequences of the actions of secular liberals, feminists, etc., who have destroyed the “gender ettiquettes of the last one thousand years” and created a void of permissive moral nothingness which only Islamo-fascism is stepping in to fill. The solution, presumably, is to put the Christian Right back in charge of Western societies, put women back in the kitchen and queers back in the closet, restore the “gender etiquettes of the last thousand years” (which, let us not forget, included such enlightened practices as burning witches at the stake), and in that way ameliorate the alienation which drives basically decent lads like Bilal Skaf and the London train bombers to regrettable extremes.
“One of the unintended consequences of 9-11 and its aftermath has been the disruption of the misogynist unity ticket which had been formed during the 1990s by the Christian Right and Islamist conservatives on issues of gender, family, sexuality and reproduction. We had the bloc between the Vatican and the Islamists at the 1994 Cairo Conference on population. This was followed a few years later by the formation of a Catholic Right front group which placed me on its mailing list on the strength of a letter I wrote to The Australian, and from which I regularly received bulletins describing the heroic efforts of the Islamo-Catholic alliance to oppose population control policies based on enhanced access to abortion and contraception. Then, not long before 9-11, Devine‚Äôs co-ideologue and co-religionist Angela Shanahan wrote an anti-feminist spray in the Australian which expressed dismay at the influence of feminist values on the life-choices of young Australian women, and expressed admiration for young Moslem women whose more conservative life-choices she saw as the way of the future. 9-11 put an end to this sort of thing for a few years, but it seems as if Devine‚Äôs effort today might be a revival of the attempt to harness Silas the Psycho and Osama Bin Laden to the same anti-modernity chariot.”
I’ve always had a theory that the more extreme and vituperative the response to a particular idea or argument, the more it reflects the furious suppression (albeit sub-conscious) of a sneaking suspicion that the idea or argument in question might actually be right.
The response to Miranda on this occasion being a case in point, methinks.
Of course, Rob, such a theory can also be applied to Miranda’s responses to secularism, liberalism, feminism, environmentalism, critics of John Howard, opponents of the war in Iraq. . .
One small question: if this is a war, how come the world’s 1.2 billion Muslims aren’t already on the march? You know, because Islam is an inherently bad religion and all that and anyone who believes in Islam must, ipso facto, just be a terrorist in training.
Because that, CL and EP, is what I’m hearing you say. I’m not hearing you try to understand why a series of geopolitical events, combined with a religion that does indeed have an element of militarism, plus the disaffection of a group of young muslim men, has led to these bombings and attacks.
Oh, and why is it that people who bend over backwards to belittle women (EP?) and gays (CL - gay people are like people with down’s syndrome, anyone?) are so quick to point out that fundamentalist Islam is also not so great for women and gays? Pot, have you met the kettle?
It is absolutely a forgone conclusion that I have nothing but condemnation for anyone who thinks gayness or the very fact of being a woman is a basis for any sort of discrimination, physical abuse etc. Do we have to say this every time we have this discussion?
Obviously so.
It is not a forgone conclusion that anyone who believes in Islam does these things.
I personally extend the courtesy to all believers of all religions. I assume that they aren’t represented by the fringe elements. Christians, I believe you when you tell me that people who bomb abortion clinics aren’t representative. Muslims, I believe you when you say that you’re not all suicide-bombers in training.
Let me also point out that we do not have the moral high ground here, okay? There are 25 000 dead Iraqis as a result of the occupation of that country. Now, you can call that collateral damage or whatever, I call it 25 000 dead people. Terrorism is awful but so is 25 000 dead people. I can understand why people are angry about that!
I saw the news of the attacks last night and my heart sank. I don’t know how to fix these problems. But talking about nuking Mecca… Jesus. What a response.
Oddly enough, perhaps, Miranda doesn’t strike me as vituperative or extreme in her responses, Paul. She has very firm and right-wing views, to which she is perfectly entitled, and with which one can take issue or not, depending. But she in particular seems to trigger off a kind of hysteria among those who disagree with her - a hysteria which is directed at her, rather than her arguments. I’ve only quickly perused the comments on this post, but I’ve not registered anyone actually taking substantive issue with her arguments, as opposed to ideological extrapolations and righteous posturing. It’s almost as though the left were afraid of her.
Rob, I’m not sure what Miranda’s point is. Does making Australia more traditionally Christian (what she seems to be arguing for) make us safer against terrorism?
She seems to be calling for us to reject secularism. Which seems to be what the radical Islamists are saying also. Is Miranda agreeing with the fundies here?
Does she want young Christian women to don headscarves to avoid offending young Muslim men? Or just to stop wearing short skirts and cleavage-revealing tops? And I quote:
“And with secularists hell-bent on removing any religious influence, no matter how benign, from daily life, it is no wonder that decadent displays in the Big Brother Uncut tradition now seem commonplace, and fashion increasingly aims to make little girls look like hookers. This is the view of Australian culture that causes traditional Muslims and Christians alike to pull away.”
Well. Miranda’s right. If we all just go back to Church and girls started wearing more clothes and we all started praying to God, all those Muslim fundies will be happy. Her rhetoric is dazzling! Decadence causes terror! Of course.
It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with years or warfare and hatred building up in the middle east, nor the pervasive racism of western life, in which young muslim men are deeply mistrusted by the dominant culture.
She also toys with the idea that the girls raped by the muslim men ‘bought it upon themselves’ by conveniently echoing what the Imam said about girls dressing in a provocative way. Girls dressing like hookers indeed. The collapse of western civilisation can be directly attributed to teenage girls who dress in ill-fitting, revealing clothes. Oh, the fact that a public school might want to discuss whether saying a Christian prayer every day is appropriate.
And people accuse the left of pandering to fundamentalists…
Rob, perhaps there are rational grounds for being afraid of someone who seems to be arguing that if I get suicide-bombed on the 5:05 from Central to Park Road I’ve brought it on myself by my support for Enlightenment modernity, its application in Australian political institutions, and its corollaries such as gender equality and queer rights.
I do take substantive issue with her assertions that secular humanists, feminists, left-liberals, etc., advocate replacing traditional Judaeo-Christian morality with a moral and spiritual vacuum, or are responsible for the profusion of tawdry and exploitative popular culture (ever heard of consumer capitalism?). Perhaps I and others like me are at fault for assuming that, because this proposition is as self-evidently absurd to ourselves as the proposition that the earth is flat, we needn’t bother explaining it to others.
Kate, I think the point that Miranda is making is that our post-modern morality is both an affront and an invitation to young Muslim males. If you are brought up to think that women must go around covered from head to foot in back swathes to preserve their chastity and and fidelity - to preserve them from male carnality - it’s going to come as a bit of a shock to encounter the realities of contemporary sexual morality.
It seems strange to us that other cultures belive in things like no sex before marriage (however hypocritically that might be masked, as it used to be in ours) - but the reality is that it is the west, not the rest of the world, that is the odd man/person out in that regard. The response of the prohibitives, too often, will be that they’re just whores. Why else would they sleep with men they’re not married to? That, I think, was the point jo-anne was trying to make in her single intervention in the ‘Good News’ thread. I wish she had elaborated on it.
The confused response of sexually prohibitive cultures that find themselves, perhaps to their own surpirse, domiciled in sexualy libertarian societies creates a volatile dynamic. It will sometimes mean that adolescent boys, confused by their always tumultuous hormones, fed all too often by a diet of pornography, are led to criminal acts of sexual aggression. As are other males, of course. But there is not excuse in either case. But in the former, there is available a cultural excuse, if one wants to use it and can find anyone prepared to listen.
Today John Stone argues for an anti Islam immigration policy for Australia.
I really enjoyed the veneer of civility he attached to this policy, when clearly it’s the Muslim he has in his sights.
And I really enjoyed Billmon’s take on the twists and turns of this war against mildew. As I have stated in an earlier comment, technology allows for Al Qaeda to fight their fight in a different way.
Paul, Miranda’s principal argument is that the moral standards that have flowed from secular humanism are what Islamists find most vehemently abhorrent. The fact that she takes issue with them in a more restrained way in secondary. If a western non-Muslim were to say that women who dress provocatively invite their own rape, they would be crucified for it. But when a Muslim radical says it, the left’s eyes slide around it, and focus instead on the person that pointed out this most unwelcome fact, and demonise him or her (her in this case) for having done so. Devine’s arguemnt is much more subtle than you give it credit for being, IMO.
As I’ve said before, these - the radical imams - are the real RWDBs. If only the left could shed the scales from its eyes long enough to see who enemy really is.
Or Miranda could read a few Australian Criminology journals and look at some actual research about the social factors that have led to these rapes. I know one of the blokes who’s done the research. But it wouldn’t make for a sensationalist column.
The right seems to forget about its mantra of individual responsibility for crime, as well, and be very quick to pinpoint social and cultural factors when it comes to non-Anglos. However, this is not accompanied by any actual attempt to isolate those factors beyond wild speculation.
But in the former, there is available a cultural excuse, if one wants to use it and can find anyone prepared to listen.
Yes, and Miranda’s making it. She should be called as an expert witness at trials.