AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: Mark Steyn: EU STILL Tone Deaf On Islam
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Aparantly, the EU Weenies still haven't mannaged to "Get It" even yet! Amazing! Perhaps they should heed the novelist's saying that "A falling camel attracts many knives." And clearly Europe is showing the Islamic world that they are indeed falling and weak. Appeasement is the LAST thing that they should be doing here.

Will they learn? Will they finally get their "collictive" acts together? I'm sure that they will. But clearly they don't yet believe that the Law Of Diminishing Returns has been reached as of yet. Too bad, because I can see that they are in deep, deep trouble. And the longer they take to "get it", the more costly it will be for them, in all aspects of the spectrum. Sigh,............................



Toon-deaf Europe is taking the wrong stand

February 12, 2006

BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST



From Europe's biggest-selling newspaper, the Sun: ''Furious Muslims have blasted adult shop [i.e., sex shop] Ann Summers for selling a blowup male doll called Mustafa Shag."

Not literally "blasted" in the Danish Embassy sense, or at least not yet. Quite how Britain's Muslim Association found out about Mustafa Shag in order to be offended by him is not clear. It may be that there was some confusion: given that "blowup males" are one of Islam's leading exports, perhaps some believers went along expecting to find Ahmed and Walid modeling the new line of Semtex belts. Instead, they were confronted by just another filthy infidel sex gag. The Muslim Association's complaint, needless to say, is that the sex toy "insults the Prophet Muhammad -- who also has the title al-Mustapha.''

In a world in which Danish cartoons insult the prophet and Disney Piglet mugs insult the prophet and Burger King chocolate ice-cream swirl designs insult the prophet, maybe it would just be easier to make a list of things that don't insult him. Nonetheless, the Muslim Association wrote to the Ann Summers sex-shop chain, "We are asking you to have our Most Revered Prophet's name 'Mustafa' and the afflicted word 'shag' removed."

If I were a Muslim, I'd be "hurt" and "humiliated" that the revered prophet's name is given not to latex blowup males but to so many real blowup males: The leader of the 9/11 plotters? Mohammed Atta. The British Muslim who self-detonated in a Tel Aviv bar? Asif Mohammed Hanif. The gunman who shot up the El Al counter at LAX? Heshamed Mohamed Hedayet. The former U.S. Army sergeant who masterminded the slaughter at the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania? Ali Mohamed. The murderer of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh? Mohammed Bouyeri. The notorious Sydney gang rapist? Mohammed Skaf. The Washington sniper? John Allen Muhammed. If I were a Muslim, I would be deeply offended that the prophet's name is the preferred appellation of so many killers and suicide bombers on every corner of the earth.

But apparently that's not as big a deal as Mustafa Shag. When Samuel Huntington formulated his famous "clash of civilizations" thesis, I'm sure he hoped it would play out as something nobler than shaggers vs. nutters. But in a sense that's the core British value these days. If it's inherent in Muslim culture to take umbrage at everything, it's inherent in English culture to turn everything into a lame sex gag. The "Mustafa" template is one of the most revered in the English music-hall tradition: "I've been reading the latest scholarly monograph -- 'Sexual Practices of the Middle East by Mustapha Camel.'" If they wanted to appease the surging Muslim demographic, the British could conceivably withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan but it's hard to imagine they could withdraw from vulgar sex jokes and still be recognizably British. They are, in the Muslim Association's choice of words, "afflicted" with shag fever.

In theory, this should have been the perfect moment for Albert Brooks to release his new film ''Looking for Comedy in the Muslim World.'' Instead, life is effortlessly outpacing art. Brooks had an excellent premise and, somewhere between studio equivocation and his sense of self-preservation, it all got watered down, beginning with the decision to focus the plot on a trip to India. Which is a, er, mostly Hindu country. But the Arab world refused to let Brooks film there, and, even if they had, he'd have been lucky to get out alive. Needless to say, the movie doesn't mention that. So a film whose title flaunts a bold disdain for political correctness is, in the end, merely another concession to it.

You can't blame Brooks, not in a world of surreal headlines like "Cartoon Death Toll Up to Nine" (the Sunday Times of Australia). Instead of ''Looking for Comedy in the Muslim World,'' the Muslim world's come looking for comedy in the West and doesn't like what it's found. If memory serves, it was NBC who back in the '70s used to have every sitcom joke about homosexuality vetted by a gay dentist in New Jersey. Apprised of this at a conference on censorship, the producer of "The Mary Tyler Moore Show" remarked, "You mean there really is a tooth fairy?" Alas, the Islamist Advisory Commission on Quran-Compatible Humor will be made of sterner stuff, and likely far more devastating to the sitcom biz.

And the good news is that that body's already on its way. The European Union's Justice and Security Commissioner, Franco Frattini, said on Thursday that the EU would set up a "media code" to encourage "prudence" in the way they cover, ah, certain sensitive subjects. As Signor Frattini explained it to the Daily Telegraph, "The press will give the Muslim world the message: We are aware of the consequences of exercising the right of free expression. . . . We can and we are ready to self-regulate that right."

"Prudence"? "Self-regulate our free expression"? No, I'm afraid that's just giving the Muslim world the message: You've won, I surrender, please stop kicking me.

But they never do. Because, to use the Arabic proverb with which Robert Ferrigno opens his new novel, Prayers for the Assassin, set in an Islamic Republic of America, "A falling camel attracts many knives." In Denmark and France and the Netherlands and Britain, Islam senses the camel is falling and this is no time to stop knifing him.

The issue is not "freedom of speech" or "the responsibilities of the press" or "sensitivity to certain cultures." The issue, as it has been in all these loony tune controversies going back to the Salman Rushdie fatwa, is the point at which a free society musters the will to stand up to thugs. British Muslims march through the streets waving placards reading "BEHEAD THE ENEMIES OF ISLAM." If they mean that, bring it on. As my columnar confrere John O'Sullivan argued, we might as well fight in the first ditch as the last.

But then it's patiently explained to us for the umpteenth time that they're not representative, that there are many many "moderate Muslims.''

I believe that. I've met plenty of "moderate Muslims" in Jordan and Iraq and the Gulf states. But, as a reader wrote to me a year or two back, in Europe and North America they aren't so much "moderate Muslims" as quiescent Muslims. The few who do speak out wind up living in hiding or under 24-hour armed guard, like Dutch MP Ayaab Hirsi Ali.

So when the EU and the BBC and the New York Times say that we too need to be more "sensitive" to those fellows with "Behead the enemies of Islam" banners, they should look in the mirror: They're turning into "moderate Muslims," and likely to wind up as cowed and silenced and invisible.
They'll devise a law that says you cannot ridicule religion,then of course we all know it will only mean Islam.

I think all free people should publish photos of Mohammad screwing his 6 year old wife,the more they protest the more photos we publish and if they want a real war,let's get it over with because my position is I do NOT respect their prophet and never will.

I won't be intimidated by the threats of the neanderthals.
Well-written. I think most liberals actually agree with the conservatives on this matter, because we too believe censorship is bad.

Though, I have to say the Clash of Civilizations certainly is proving to be more epic than riots over cartoons...
How wimpy do they view God anyway that they feel it is their responsibility to protect His honor?

My view of God is,His integrity is His,unassailable by we pipsqueaks,I have no desire or ability to even dream of defending such. He is capable,he did after all make the universe.
I meant to say 'liberals' and not 'Muslims'. I'm not a Muslim. S6 Just in case anyone noticed.
Anonymous24 Wrote:I meant to say 'liberals' and not 'Muslims'. I'm not a Muslim. S6 Just in case anyone noticed.

I don't consider you a real Liberal either.
I should point out that, as far as the article indicates, the recommendations of this commission would be voluntary. There might be issues with creating another pointless commission, but so far this doesn't look like censorship.

I will be the first to decry it though if it does turn out to be censorship.
Liberal belongs to the Left, John. You are a libertarian!
Anonymous24 Wrote:Liberal belongs to the Left, John. You are a libertarian!

If you are using the French historical definition, then Yes I am a true radical. However, "left" is now reserved for the Collectivist way of thinking today. And as a true Liberal, in the Classical sense, I am an indivudualist. True, it now fits within the Libertarian movement, it is not a real Libertarian, whatever that means.

What is know as today's modern "so called" liberals is really "friendly fascist", or Fascism with a smiley face. If you believe in more government control over industry or other means of production, and heavy regulation, then you are, by definition, an Fascist. Because that is what Fascism is.
Democrats and Republicans are both heavily fascist, then. Democrats believe the government needs to control people's money. Republicans believe the government needs to control people's behavior. Which is more fascist? The answer: neither.
Anonymous24 Wrote:Democrats and Republicans are both heavily fascist, then. Democrats believe the government needs to control people's money. Republicans believe the government needs to control people's behavior. Which is more fascist? The answer: neither.

Fascism may mean many things to many people, but in fact it is quite simple to understand. Unlike Socialism, which is a system that "Ownes" the means of production, Fascism only wishes to heavily "control" and "regulate" that same means of production. All the rest is just fluff, and can be found with other systems.

and I find your description of both parties to be over simplistic and not accurate.
Well, I find your description of the Democratic party as being 'fascistic' to over-simplistic. I was simply playing along. S6
Anonymous24 Wrote:Well, I find your description of the Democratic party as being 'fascistic' to over-simplistic. I was simply playing along. S6

Most people who are Democratic party members are really Federalists, in that they like a strong Federal state. However a minority of the members, and the ones who are driving the leadership, are Collectivists. Some of them are outright socialists, but most of the rest, perhaps 80 % or more are quite simply Fascists. They would make business heavily subservient to the state, which would be them of course, and keep them in line, leaving them alone so long as the toed the party line.

I am a dedicated Anti-Collectivist, so naturally I oppose them totally. I Dispise ANY form of Collectivism, and that includes Fascism. I believe in Individual Liberty, Free Trade, Small Government, and the sanctity of Private Property. That is why I am a True Liberal, because I believe in Liberty. The rest of these "so called" liberals do NOT believe in Liberty, and are, by default, not liberals.
Maybe socialism is a good thing?

S1
Back on track:

So -- Perhaps I was wrong, and so were others: These cartoons aren't a trigger to start a European comeback against Islam.
Anonymous24 Wrote:Maybe socialism is a good thing?

S1

Really? And I assume that you are displaying your sense of humour?
Gunnen4u Wrote:Back on track:

So -- Perhaps I was wrong, and so were others: These cartoons aren't a trigger to start a European comeback against Islam.

Bump.
Gunnen4u Wrote:
Gunnen4u Wrote:Back on track:

So -- Perhaps I was wrong, and so were others: These cartoons aren't a trigger to start a European comeback against Islam.

Bump.

Hey! Who's thread IS this anyway?

Ok, you are right. I'll step off my soapbox, if you will get off yours.
John L Wrote:Ok, you are right. I'll step off my soapbox, if you will get off yours.

Fair Deal, I am done filibustering that one.

So, from all of this, I wonder what the next European "out-reach" or act of resistance will be. I am willing to wager its something a bit more magnified, but what?
Anonymous24 Wrote:Though, I have to say the Clash of Civilizations certainly is proving to be more epic than riots over cartoons...
"Epicity" depends on civilisations. :lol: Shock
Pages: 1 2