No, no and shamefully no, says Andrew Bolt
Following the horrific events in Paris there has been a massive amount of commentary on the West and its continual appeasement of Islam.
There is much agreement that the Western media, our politicians and the Left commentariat are in a continual state of dhimmitude, starting with the White House which issued a statement that the attacks in Paris on Charlie Hebdo were not Islamic followed by the obligatory “Islam is a religion of peace”.
These events clarify just how political correctness and timidity over the years has got us into this mess. Remarkably, a few months ago, Tony Abbott performed an incomprehensible back-down on his promise to scrap our anti-freedom of speech laws just at a time when our freedoms to express honestly held opinions are most under attack. This muzzling encourages precisely the very extremism that the political elites deplore and against which they all vainly protest.
Gerard Henderson is lucid as always on the successful aim of the terrorists:
The jihadists in our midst do not want to provoke us. Rather, they want to silence us — from winding back freedom of expression to changing foreign policy with respect to the Middle East and on to the eventual establishment of Sharia law …
Just as fear spreads, Henderson also calls out the stupidity of journalists who are more worried about the growth of right wing parties in Europe rather than the Muslim extremists with the Kalashnikovs who actually brutally kill citizens.
… on ABC radio’s The World Today, Australian-born journalist Annette Young, described a possible growth in support for the National Front, and its leader Marine Le Pen, as the “big worry” following the attack on Charlie Hebdo.
UK commentator David Aaronovitch raises a very clear point on the role criticism plays in the context of tolerance for religion:
The same tolerance that allows Muslims or Methodists freedom to practise and espouse their religion,” he wrote, “is the same tolerance that allows their religion to be depicted, criticised or even ridiculed. Take away one part of the deal and the other part falls too. You don’t like it, go somewhere else.”
AYAAN HIRSI ALI tells the ABC on ABC television what it is failing to do:
You are still continuing to self-censor because you have not published or republished cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. You have not honoured Charlie Hebdo the way they need to be honoured, which is they took a risk, they took a risk to stand up for the core values of Western civilisation. And you, the media, are letting them down. You have drawn and published caricatures of the terrorists, but you have not published caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad.
Brendan O’Neill spells out what freedom of speech entails and how it has been captured by the politically correct:
Tragically, many in the West, including those who call themselves liberal, had forgotten the importance of free speech, and the benefits of blasphemy itself, long before this week’s horrific assault.
Across Europe over the past 30 years offensiveness has been turned into a crime. In every European country, hate-speech laws have been introduced to control and punish the expression of certain beliefs.
…It’s just that where politicians think offensiveness is only an imprisonable offence, theCharlie Hebdo killers think it deserves capital punishment.
So the barbarism in Paris has not taken place in a vacuum. It occurred on a continent where anti-offensiveness is written into law and stamped into many campaigners’ hearts, and where liberals all too often side with the offence-takers over the offence-givers, the speakers or writers who have uttered the unutterable.
Incandescent with rage and frustration is MARK STEYN about useful idiots like President Hollande — and like President Obama and British PM Cameron — who claimed against all the evidence that “those who committed these terrorist acts have nothing to do with the Muslim religion”.
Yeah, right. I would use my standard line on these occasions – “Allahu Akbar” is Arabic for “Nothing to see here” – but it’s not quite as funny when the streets are full of cowards, phonies and opportunists waving candles and pencils and chanting “Je suis Charlie.” Because if you really were Charlie, if you really were one of the 17 Frenchmen and women slaughtered in the name of Allah in little more than 48 hours, you’d utterly despise a man who could stand up in public and utter those words …
They tested the foe again this week: They assassinated the senior editorial team of the only publication not willing to sign on to the official “No Islam to see here” line. And they were rewarded for their slaughter with the président de la république standing up in public insisting there’s “No Islam to see here.
And here to finish is an outstanding piece by Andrew Bolt that covers all the various points raised above and more. Unless something turns around, it would appear that things will only get worse:
The West’s political leaders have already told Muslim leaders they agree that mocking Islam is a sin, and have even passed laws — in France, too — making it unlawful.
They have attacked the very few journalists and politicians who dared warn against the Islamist threat.
Anything for peace, even if it means submission.
And for all the protests this past week, submission is what you must expect.
Yet another wonderful piece by Henry Ergas in today’s Australian:
The reality is that there is a problem with Islam. To say that is not to deny Islam’s immense diversity, impugn the millions of Muslims who abhor the horrors being wreaked in their name, or dispute the enduring value of religious faith in a secular age.
But it is undeniable that Islam’s distinctive features make it especially vulnerable to being used to incite religiously motivated violence.
Those features include the glorification of battle, with Mohammed mounting 65 expeditions against unbelievers in his decade-long rule in Medina, and personally commanding nearly half of them; the duty to wage jihad and “terrify the enemies of God”, fighting unbelievers until “the religion is God’s entirely”; the aspiration to impose Sharia law and restore the caliphate, an Islamic concept without parallel in the other Abrahamic religions; and the cult of martyrdom, with Mohammed himself being quoted as longing to be killed in jihad only to be resurrected and then killed fighting again.