Posts Tagged ‘charlie hebdo’

Dreaded backlash ??

January 24, 2015

“What happens when those imported cultures involve more than mere fancy dress, when they arrive with their own power relationships, their own political ideologies and a parallel legal system, all of which is incompatible with Australian norms and traditions? What happens when new arrivals have no intention of relinquishing these features of their cultures and integrating into the mainstream? What happens when the intent is first to modify the host culture and, ultimately, to replace it?”

FRANK PLEDGE : The Left’s Unholy Alliance with Islam

.

Yet another clarification concerning the Islamisation of the West has developed in the recent “backlash” — yes, at last — with protests in Germany and Denmark in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo assassinations.

We might call it the ‘long feared backlash’ announced and dreaded by the sensitive “i’ll ride with you hashtag” Left and the ABC who announced their fear of the rise of the European right  as being a more dnagerous than plain good old Islamic fascist murder.

This backlash of anti-immigration protesters, who call themselves PEGIDA (Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the West) in Germany, apparently claimed simply that they wanted protection for German culture, and felt that asylum-seekers from Muslim regions were abusing Germany’s welcoming policies toward refugees.

The censorious commentators piled in.

“This is truly a vicious cycle,” explains Brian Forst, a professor of justice, law, and criminology at American University. “Anti-immigration sentiments aimed primarily against Muslims in the West breed alienation among Muslims, and alienation breeds extremism and acts of terror, which only aggravate anti-Muslim sentiments and behaviors…Terrorism succeeds when the victim reacts badly.”

Really? This is after the West has clamped down on free speech and where the media dare not utter a single truth, the truth that is standing in front of us in plain sight. 

In Aarhus in Denmark, where a similar protest took place, it was met with a predictably violent attack from the Left in the name, of course, of tolerance and diversity.

Police said about 200 to 300 people from Denmark, Britain, Germany, Sweden and Poland took part in what was billed as a “European counter-jihad meeting” to protest what they called the Islamization of Europe. They were met by a 10-times larger counter-demonstration by left-wing groups under the banner “Aarhus for Diversity.”
The anti-Islamic rally started with a moment of silence for the seven people killed by an al-Qaida-inspired gunman in France.

Both demonstrations were peaceful until a group of black-clad, mask-wearing youth from the counter-demonstration tried to break through police lines, but officers in riot gear held them back.
After the rally finished, protesters hurled rocks and bottles at a bus carrying the far-right sympathizers as police vans escorted it out of the city center.

The violent Left always reminds me of the excellent book by Nick Cohen I reviewed several years ago concerning the Left’s love affair with fascistic Islam.

Cohen’s message is blunt: the left, through its uncompromising hatred of America and self-loathing for Western democracies, has managed to back and support Islamic clerical fascism and other vile regimes around the world that would have been anathema to the left in earlier times

Throughout the book he asks why the left supports fascists ‘who believe in the subjugation of women, the killing of Jews, homosexuals, freemasons, socialists and trade unionists’. He asks … why Palestine is a cause for the liberal-left but not China, Sudan, Zimbabwe, the Congo or North Korea. In short, ‘why is the world upside down?’

So, is there not a clear choice: to shut up and say nothing, or speak up and be accused, incorrectly, of bigotry. Where is the balance?

Up until now, adding to the frustration and backlash, has been of course the obsequious nonsense about Islam being only a religion of peace that all our leaders sing out in unison, or perhaps Renaissance polyphony, at each and every atrocity. It is this dhimmitude and cowering that has produced the frustrated backlash, not the standing up to it.

Surely the claims of the protesters are understandable. It has been exactly what has been on the minds of most people in Western democracies for several years now and of course it is building.

The hardening of the voices against unreasonable demands on Western culture, whether through creeping sharia, the failure of so many to integrate, or the many international surveys showing persistent retrograde and intollerant anti democratic values held by often a majority of our new immigrants, can only get louder.

And the sooner the better. This can only be healthy for debate.

Advertisements

Are we really all Charlie?

January 10, 2015

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.

 UPDATE

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.