Mollifying Muslims, and Muslifying Mollies

The folowing is an article by Mark Steyn on Islam and the West.  It is as perceptive and brilliant as ever. 

While I've been talking about free speech in Copenhagen, several free speech issues arose in North America. I was asked about them both at the Sappho Award event and in various interviews, so here's a few thoughts for what they're worth:

Too many people in the free world have internalized Islam’s view of them. A couple of years ago, I visited Guantanamo and subsequently wrote that, if I had to summon up Gitmo in a single image, it would be the brand-new copy of the Koran in each cell: To reassure incoming prisoners that the filthy infidels haven't touched the sacred book with their unclean hands, the Korans are hung from the walls in pristine, sterilized surgical masks. It's one thing for Muslims to regard infidels as unclean, but it's hard to see why it's in the interests of us infidels to string along with it and thereby validate their bigotry. What does that degree of prostration before their prejudices tell them about us? It’s a problem that Muslims think we’re unclean. It’s a far worse problem that we go along with it.

Take this no-name pastor from an obscure church who was threatening to burn the Koran. He didn’t burn any buildings or women and children. He didn’t even burn a book. He hadn’t actually laid a finger on a Koran, and yet the mere suggestion that he might do so prompted the President of the United States to denounce him, and the Secretary of State, and the commander of US forces in Afghanistan, various G7 leaders, and golly, even Angelina Jolie. President Obama has never said a word about honor killings of Muslim women. Secretary Clinton has never said a word about female genital mutilation. General Petraeus has never said a word about the rampant buggery of pre-pubescent boys by Pushtun men in Kandahar. But let an obscure man in Florida so much as raise the possibility that he might disrespect a book – an inanimate object – and the most powerful figures in the western world feel they have to weigh in.

Aside from all that, this obscure church’s website has been shut down, its insurance policy has been canceled, its mortgage has been called in by its bankers. Why? As Diana West wrote, why was it necessary or even seemly to make this pastor a non-person? Another one of Obama's famous "teaching moments"? In this case teaching us that Islamic law now applies to all? Only a couple of weeks ago, the President, at his most condescendingly ineffectual, presumed to lecture his moronic subjects about the First Amendment rights of Imam Rauf. Where's the condescending lecture on Pastor Jones' First Amendment rights?

When someone destroys a bible, US government officials don’t line up to attack him. President Obama bowed lower than a fawning maitre d’ before the King of Saudi Arabia, a man whose regime destroys bibles as a matter of state policy, and a man whose depraved religious police forces schoolgirls fleeing from a burning building back into the flames to die because they’d committed the sin of trying to escape without wearing their head scarves. If you show a representation of Mohammed, European commissioners and foreign ministers line up to denounce you. If you show a representation of Jesus Christ immersed in your own urine, you get a government grant for producing a widely admired work of art. Likewise, if you write a play about Jesus having gay sex with Judas Iscariot.

So just to clarify the ground rules, if you insult Christ, the media report the issue as freedom of expression: A healthy society has to have bold, brave, transgressive artists willing to question and challenge our assumptions, etc. But, if it’s Mohammed, the issue is no longer freedom of expression but the need for "respect" and "sensitivity" toward Islam, and all those bold brave transgressive artists don’t have a thing to say about it.

Maybe Pastor Jones doesn't have any First Amendment rights. Musing on Koran burning, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer argued:

[Oliver Wendell] Holmes said it doesn’t mean you can shout 'fire' in a crowded theater... Why? Because people will be trampled to death. And what is the crowded theater today? What is the being trampled to death?

This is a particularly obtuse remark even by the standards of contemporary American jurists. As I've said before, the fire-in-a-crowded-theatre shtick is the first refuge of the brain-dead. But it's worth noting the repellent modification Justice Breyer makes to Holmes' argument: If someone shouts fire in a gaslit Broadway theatre of 1893, people will panic. By definition, panic is an involuntary reaction. If someone threatens to burn a Koran, belligerent Muslims do not panic - they bully, they intimidate, they threaten, they burn and they kill. Those are conscious acts, at least if you take the view that Muslims are as fully human as the rest of us and therefore responsible for their choices. As my colleague Jonah Goldberg points out, Justice Breyer's remarks seem to assume that Muslims are not fully human.

More importantly, the logic of Breyer's halfwit intervention is to incentivize violence, and undermine law itself. What he seems to be telling the world is that Americans' constitutional rights will bend to intimidation. If Koran-burning rates a First Amendment exemption because Muslims are willing to kill over it, maybe Catholics should threaten to kill over the next gay-Jesus play, and Broadway could have its First Amendment rights reined in. Maybe the next time Janeane Garafolo goes on MSNBC and calls Obama's opponents racists, the Tea Partiers should rampage around town and NBC's free-speech rights would be withdrawn.

Meanwhile, in smaller ways, Islamic intimidation continues. One reason why I am skeptical that the Internet will prove the great beacon of liberty on our darkening planet is because most of the anonymous entities that make it happen are run by people marinated in jelly-spined political correctness. In Canada, an ISP called Bluehost knocked Marginalized Action Dinosaur off the air in response to a complaint by Asad Raza, a laughably litigious doctor in Brampton, Ontario. Had his name been Gordy McHoser, I doubt even the nancy boys at Bluehost would have given him the time of day. A similar fate briefly befell our old pal the Binksmeister at FreeMarkSteyn.com: In other words, a website set up to protest Islamic legal jihad was shut down by the same phenomenon. In America, The New York Times has already proposed giving "some government commission" control over Google’s search algorithm; the City of Philadelphia, where the Declaration of Independence was adopted and the Constitution signed, is now so removed from the spirit of the First Amendment that it's demanding bloggers pay a $300 "privilege" license for expressing their opinions online. The statists grow ever more comfortable in discussing openly the government management of your computer. But, even if they don't formally take it over, look at the people who run publishing houses, movie studios, schools and universities, and ask yourself whether you really want to bet the future on the commitment to free speech of those who run ISPs. SteynOnline, for example, is already banned by the Internet gatekeepers from the computers at both Marriott Hotels and Toronto Airport.

But forget about notorious rightwing hatemongers like me. Look at how liberal progressives protect their own. Do you remember a lady called Molly Norris? She's the dopey Seattle cartoonist who cooked up "Everybody Draws Mohammed" Day, and then, when she realized what she'd stumbled into, tried to back out of it. I regard Miss Norris as (to rewrite Stalin) a useless idiot, and she wrote to Mark's Mailbox to object. I stand by what I wrote then, especially the bit about her crappy peace-sign T-shirt. Now The Seattle Weekly informs us:

You may have noticed that Molly Norris' comic is not in the paper this week. That's because there is no more Molly.

On the advice of the FBI, she's been forced to go into hiding. If you want to measure the decline in western civilization's sense of self-preservation, go back to Valentine's Day 1989, get out the Fleet Street reports on the Salman Rushdie fatwa, and read the outrage of his fellow London literati at what was being done to one of the mainstays of the Hampstead dinner-party circuit. Then compare it with the feeble passivity of Molly Norris' own colleagues at an American cartoonist being forced to abandon her life: "There is no more Molly"? That's all the gutless pussies of The Seattle Weekly can say? As James Taranto notes in The Wall Street Journal, even much sought-after Ramadan-banquet constitutional scholar Barack Obama is remarkably silent:

Now Molly Norris, an American citizen, is forced into hiding because she exercised her right to free speech. Will President Obama say a word on her behalf? Does he believe in the First Amendment for anyone other than Muslims?

Who knows? Given his highly selective enthusiasms, you can hardly blame a third of Americans for figuring their president must be Muslim. In a way, that's the least pathetic explanation: The alternative is that he's just a craven squish. Which is an odd considering he is, supposedly, the most powerful man in the world.

Listen to what President Obama, Justice Breyer, General Petraeus, The Seattle Weekly and Bluehost internet services are telling us about where we're headed. As I said in America Alone, multiculturalism seems to operate to the same even-handedness as the old Cold War joke in which the American tells the Soviet guy that "in my country everyone is free to criticize the President", and the Soviet guy replies, "Same here. In my country everyone is free to criticize your President." Under one-way multiculturalism, the Muslim world is free to revere Islam and belittle the west's inheritance, and, likewise, the western world is free to revere Islam and belittle the west’s inheritance. If one has to choose, on balance Islam’s loathing of other cultures seems psychologically less damaging than western liberals' loathing of their own.

It is a basic rule of life that if you reward bad behavior, you get more of it. Every time Muslims either commit violence or threatens it, we reward them by capitulating. Indeed, President Obama, Justice Breyer, General Petraeus, and all the rest are now telling Islam, you don’t have to kill anyone, you don’t even have to threaten to kill anyone. We’ll be your enforcers. We’ll demand that the most footling and insignificant of our own citizens submit to the universal jurisdiction of Islam. So Obama and Breyer are now the “good cop” to the crazies’ "bad cop". Ooh, no, you can’t say anything about Islam, because my friend here gets a little excitable, and you really don’t want to get him worked up. The same people who tell us "Islam is a religion of peace" then turn around and tell us you have to be quiet, you have to shut up because otherwise these guys will go bananas and kill a bunch of people.

While I was in Denmark, one of the usual Islamobozos lit up prematurely in a Copenhagen hotel. Not mine, I'm happy to say. He wound up burning only himself, but his targets were my comrades at the newspaper Jyllands-Posten. I wouldn't want to upset Justice Breyer by yelling "Fire!" over a smoldering jihadist, but one day even these idiots will get lucky. I didn't like the Danish Security Police presence at the Copenhagen conference, and I preferred being footloose and fancy-free when I was prowling the more menacing parts of Rosengard across the water in Malmö the following evening. No one should lose their name, their home, their life, their liberty because ideological thugs are too insecure to take a joke. But Molly Norris is merely the latest squishy liberal to learn that, when the chips are down, your fellow lefties won't be there for you.

Mark Steyn on Danish TV: European elites drew wrong conclusion after WWII

Mark Steyn, in an interview for Danish TV. The introduction is for about thirty seconds in Danish, and the rest is in English. By the way, if you have not read America Alone, you are missing a great book.

Blowing the Shofar at the Kotel on Yom Kippur

During the Mandate, in what was then Palestine, Jews were prohibited from blowing the shofar in the Kotel on Yom Kippur, as to not offend the Muslim population.

Jewish volunteers risking their lives and freedom smuggled shofars and every year and ensured the its sound was heard in the Kotel on Yom Kippur.

Here are some of the surviving volunteeers who blew the shofar at the Kotel telling us their story:

Mosque Shock: School Rocked by Field Trip Vid of Kids Bowing to Allah

Having worked in public schools, I remember the difficulties encountered by anyone who wanted to put a bulletin board with some religious images, or the complaints by teachers over a small Christmas tree on secretary's desk. Social Studies teachers had to bend over backwards when teaching elements related to religion. But all this began to change in the last decade when anti-religious criticism was allowed only when teaching Judeo-Christian topics. With respect to Islam, social studies textbooks had to be approved by Muslims who whitewashed any references critical of jihad or Islam. As chair of the social studies department, I was inundated with invitations to get free books, magazines and field trips that upon careful investigation, I found were financed by the Saudi embassy.

Here we have a video of a middle school in Massachusetts who did not do its homework. Watch it and imagine the same event taking place in a Baptist, Catholic or Jewish house of worship.

The rest needs no comment:

In the news...

Remember Pelosi promising to drain the swamps? Here is House Member Eleanor Holmes Norton making a fundraising call to a lobbyist. Listen to the recording and read the analysis of the laws broken.  The swamp if thriving.

Listen to Eleanor Holmes Norton's phone message.

French Senate passes ban on full Muslim veils

In a report from France, AP reports about France's senate passing a ban on veils and burkas that completely cover women's faces.

What caught my attention in this report was the need that this news agency had to insert commentary and moral equivalency. In particular, I was appalled by the following paragraph:

Many Muslims believe the legislation is one more blow to France's No. 2 religion, and risks raising the level of Islamophobia in a country where mosques, like synagogues, are sporadic targets of hate.

If the reporters would have done their homework, they would have mentioned that the "sporadic" attacks on synagogues, Jewish organizations and Jews wearing yarmulkes or stars of David, are in their vast majority perpetrated by Muslims.

My prediction is that if this law is declared constitutional, France will not enforce it.  As it is now in France, whole neighborhoods are closed to French non-Muslim authorities.  No French cop will dare to fine persons wearing face covering veils.  I write persons, because we don't know who is underneath a veil.  There were instances of terrorists and criminals attempting to avoid recognition by wearing Muslim garb that covers the face.

Memo to veil wearing Muslims around the world:  It is not mandatory to immigrate to the West.

Europe Reverts to Type: The EU's response to anti-Semitism? "No comment."

This article by Bret Stephens was published September 14, 2010, in the Wall Street Journal


If a top European mandarin mouths off about Jews and the rest of Europe's political class acts like it's no big deal, does that make them cowards, accomplices—or just politically astute? Probably all three.

Earlier this month, Karel De Gucht, the European Union's trade commissioner and a former foreign minister of Belgium, gave an interview to a Flemish radio station in which he offered the view that the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations were sure to founder on two accounts: first, because Jews are excessively influential in the U.S; second, because they are not the sorts to be reasoned with.

"Do not underestimate the Jewish lobby on Capitol Hill," Mr. De Gucht said, dispensing with the usual fine-grained, face-saving distinction about the difference between a "Jewish" and an "Israel" lobby. "This is the best organized lobby, you shouldn't underestimate the grip it has on American politics—no matter whether it's Republicans or Democrats."


Nor was that all the commissioner had to say on the subject. "There is indeed a belief—it's difficult to describe it otherwise—among most Jews that they are right," he said. "And it's not so much whether these are religious Jews or not. Lay Jews also share the same belief that they are right. So it is not easy to have, even with moderate Jews, a rational discussion about what is actually happening in the Middle East."

Here, then, was a case not of "criticism of Israel" or "anti-Zionism," the usual sheets under which this sort of mentality hides. Mr. De Gucht's target was Jews, the objects of his opprobrium their malign political influence and crippled mental reflexes. If this isn't anti-Semitism, the term has no meaning.

But perhaps it no longer does, at least in Europe. "I regret that the comments that I made have been interpreted in a sense I did not intend," Mr. De Gucht said, by way of non-apology. "I did not mean in any possible way to cause offense or stigmatize the Jewish community. I want to make clear that anti-Semitism has no place in today's world."

The comment admits of two interpretations: (1) that it is insincere, and therefore an act of political expediency; (2) that it is sincere, and Mr. De Gucht thinks that casually bad-mouthing Jews doesn't quite reach the threshold of "anti-Semitism"—defined, as the saying has it, as hating Jews more than is strictly necessary.

I suspect the latter interpretation, which has an old European pedigree, is closer to the mark. But whatever Mr. De Gucht's motives, the more interesting phenomenon has been the European non-reaction. "No comment," says a spokesman for German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle. "Our position on anti-Semitism is very clear but we have no comments on other people's statements," says a spokesman for Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini. "High Representative [Catherine] Ashton is confident [De Gucht] didn't mean any offense, and that he apologized," says a spokeswoman for the EU's High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. "He made personal comments for which he expressed his personal regret and there is no further comment to make," says a spokesman for the European Commission.

Now imagine that Mr. De Gucht had made analogous comments about Muslims: What would have been the reaction then? Actually, it's not hard to guess. For weeks, Germany has been in an uproar over a book by Bundesbank member Thilo Sarrazin that has unflattering things to say about Muslim immigrants and what they portend for Germany's future. I have no brief for Mr. Sarrazin (who also made a somewhat cryptic comment about Jews sharing "a particular gene"). But why has Mr. Sarrazin been forced to quit the Central Bank and is now being drummed out of his Social Democratic Party at the same time that Mr. De Gucht has been given a pass?

One answer is that there are about 1.5 million Jews in the EU today, as against some 16 million Muslims, and politicians are responsive to numbers. Fair enough. The other answer is that Europe—and not just Muslim Europe—is pervasively anti-Semitic.

If that sounds over-the-top, consider that last year the Anti-Defamation League conducted a survey of European attitudes toward Jews in seven different countries. Do Jews have "too much power in the business world"? In France, 33% said this was "probably true"; in Spain it was 56%. Were Jews to some degree responsible for the global economic crisis? In Germany, 30% thought so; in Austria, 43% did. A separate 2008 Pew Survey also found that 25% of Germans, 36% of Poles and 46% of Spaniards had a "very" or "somewhat" unfavorable opinion of Jews.

As part of his defense, Mr. De Gucht insisted he was only offering his "personal point of view," and not those of the European Commission as a whole. He shouldn't be so modest. He has his constituency. It's why he remains in office. It's why Europe's future is beginning to look increasingly like Europe's past.