Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Enabling Muslim Terrorists

Australia's Sydney Herald columnist and blogger Andrew Bolt explains why a smart, independent, and accomplished woman "has a point when she says Islam is violent and a threat to a liberal society."

Bolt uses a news story and his commentary to make the woman's point.

Bolt tells us Somali-born Ayaan Hirsi Ali will arrive in Sydney amid tight security. He intersperces excerpts from a report in (italics) with his commentary.

Now Bolt's column:

The Somali-born Muslim - who fled to The Netherlands, became a Dutch citizen and renounced her religion - has been under 24-hour guard since the murder of film-maker Theo van Gogh in November 2004 by a Muslim extremist in Amsterdam…

Van Gogh’s film Submission, which examined the oppression of Muslim women, was written by Hirsi Ali. His killer, Mohammed Bouyeri, left a five-page death threat addressed to her, pinned to the filmmaker’s chest.
But apparently local Muslim spokesmen think the real problem is what she says, rather than the threat to her life from bigots when she says it:
However, University of Technology Sydney Islamic law lecturer Jamila Hussain said Hirsi Ali’s ideas were extreme and stigmatized Muslims.

“I think she’d be better staying where she came from,” Ms Hussain said...
Actually, it’s such comments by Muslims who should know better which so stigmatize their community.

Even when such “leaders” claim Hirsi Ali stigmatizes them as violent and anti-liberal, they confirm there is in fact something to fear:
Nada Roude, of the NSW [New South Wales]Islamic Council, said Hirsi Ali’s comments on the prophet Mohammed were a “no-go zone"…

“There have to be boundaries in how far you go in respecting other’s beliefs. The reaction from the community is likely to be quite worrying.”...
Instead of seeing the “quite worrying” likely response from Muslims here to the exercise of free speech as the real problem, Roude quite typically reverses the blame, and claims the real problem is actually the woman who has had to live under police guard for four years.

[Hirsi Ali is]not a victim, after all.

No, the victim is the Muslim community whose more extreme members have given her such reason to fear for her life, and whose leaders so often refuse to defend her right to speak, to visit and to live unmolested. Victimhood is once more triumphantly claimed by people who should instead examine their own illiberal culture. (emphasis added):
Ms Roude said there seemed to be a double standard about who was allowed to visit Australia, particularly as Hirsi Ali’s visit appeared to have the potential to incite hatred.

“Muslims are not treated the same,” she said. “There are a set of rules for one community and another for the rest of the community. Anyone who causes harm to our society because they have the right to express their opinion is not welcome.”
Translated? Shut up and you’ll be safe. Criticise Islam, and the consequences be on your head. No matter what we do to you, we are the victims.

This is mad.

Consider: of the three people mentioned above - two Muslims and one non-Muslim - only one needs constant security.

Who, then, is the true victim? Who has more to fear?


Anonymous said...

Typo - it's spelled "enabling" isn't it?

JWM said...

Dear Anon,

It sure is "enabling."

I've fixed it.

Thank you for pointing out my error.