Bjørn Stærk blog - Believe what you say, say what you believe

Rune Kristian Viken, Oslo | 2006-02-12 14:33 | Link

Great article, Bjørn!

As some readers of this blog may know (Well, Bjørn knows), I used to run a BBS back in the '90s. It was called "Arcade's BBS". Freedom of speech was strongly supported - and the few limits I imposed were on direct personal attacks, plus spamming.

We had the usual revisionists and other crazies posting their views. The revisionists were fun. I invited them to debate it. At first their arguments were quite difficult to reject (due to me not having heard them before) - but after using some lexicons and using maths to calculate ppm for Zyklon-B's lethality and so forth .. it was easy to disprove them. Then we discovered nizkor - and it was even more fun discussing with them.

My idea back then was quite simple. The only way to get to openly and freely discuss something - is to allow all views.

According to various news reports, muslims are frustrated about the european censorship when it comes to holocaust denial. Bwah! Just avoid discussing it in france and germany and they should be perfectly safe (I think?). Don't expect mainstream press though. The entire case for holocaust denial is ridiculous. "The Leuchter Report" has been debunked so well that it's laughable that anyones believes in it.

Now onto the case in point. The cartoons. Personally I'm willing to offend for freedom of speech. I've been on stands with Hedningesamfunnet on Karl Johan in the late 90's, making fun of christianity. It was quite obviously not as fun as earlier - as fewer people were enraged.

I think it's time to pull another stunt. We should start baiting both christians and muslims on stands. They should get shoved into their faces what their religions actually say. We should show the contradictions between Shi'a and Sunni variants. We should show them how the so called "hadith's" contradict how muslim practice their faiths. We should show them the double-morale of the muslim world.

And hey - we should show them that this is what we've already done to christianity.

Mats, Oslo | 2006-02-12 14:41 | Link

Bjørn wrote: In fact, unless you're willing to defend the speech rights of Holocaust deniers and Islamists, you have not understood freedom of speech. If you say "I think it should be legal to express all views, except those I personally find offensive and dangerous", how are you any different from the censors of earlier generations?

I'm allowed to agree, right? I really like your opinion on this. Here's a quote you may have heard before:

When they came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Bjørn Stærk | 2006-02-12 14:53 | Link

Rune Kristian Viken: I think it's time to pull another stunt. We should start baiting both christians and muslims on stands. They should get shoved into their faces what their religions actually say. We should show the contradictions between Shi'a and Sunni variants. We should show them how the so called "hadith's" contradict how muslim practice their faiths. We should show them the double-morale of the muslim world.

Right, but then you're making a statement you really believe in. Sure, go ahead. This would be a good thing for freedom of speech. Making deliberately provocative statements you don't believe in, and then apologizing when you discover that people really were offended, is not.

OEK | 2006-02-13 14:38 | Link

As you say, we should not provoke just for the sake of provoking. Still, we should support laws that allow equal rights to all opinions, even the ones we don't agree with. Pragmatically, how would you go about selling the case for full freedom of speech in Norway?

Mark, Bellevue | 2006-02-13 16:41 | Link

"Here's the deal: unless you know the price of offensiveness, and are willing to pay it, you should stay away from the front lines."

Well, in a real society where information is imperfect, this seems to me to be a pretty high bar to have to clear. This certainly hasn't been true in the US for quite some time; and, IMHO, ought not to be. It is well established in the US - and, btw; It is understood in the US that free speech rights must be secured in the most broadly understood sense. Free speech means nothing unless it is secured on behalf on even the most craven, thoughtless, base, venal and irrational. It cannot be the case that every time someone would like to opine that it potentially takes on the dimensions of some moral crusade. I think you have a very unhealthy society if the most ordinary among us feels compelled to continuously self censor what occurs to them.

Taco | 2006-02-13 18:06 | Link

Bjørn: As a dutchman, I'm trying to figure out where Pim Fortuyn, Ayaan Hirsch Ali or Theo van Gogh fit in in your line of thinking.

"There are some people we can rely on to hold the line, who will not give in to guilt or pressure. They're the ones who genuinely believe the stupid, offensive things they say. There are some people we can rely on to hold the line, who will not give in to guilt or pressure. They're the ones who genuinely believe the stupid, offensive things they say. Racists, Holocaust deniers, Islamists."

"Leaving the job of being truly offensive to the idiots is also a better way to promote freedom of speech."

We Dutch people were depending on Fortuyn, Hirsch Ali and van Gogh to hold the line (or in Ali's case, are), so I guess they fit in nicely amongst Racists, Holocaust deniers, Islamists and the very stupid.

Then comes the whole thing about the price of free speech, which baffles me too. Fair enough that there is a price to pay as in 'free software' (nice one) and I agree that there are many shades of gray. But, it's getting very clear that there are pitch dark blacks, too. Do you really want to say that 'it all depends' when people get killed because they made a film that offended some people? Is this a price we should even consider paying? The price has increased A BIT, indeed.

There is a limit to the responsibility one has for ones actions. Causing an effect does not necessary makes one responsible for that effect. If a girl with nice legs is wearing a mini-skirt, she should expect to turn some heads, she can, however, not be held responsible for the actions of some maniac that rapes her. Or does that all depends on the price she is willing to pay for wearing mini-skirts? Or maybe she's to blame because she should not, as OEK put's it, "provoke just for the sake of provoking"?

Bjørn Stærk | 2006-02-13 19:04 | Link

OEK: Pragmatically, how would you go about selling the case for full freedom of speech in Norway?

For my part, by regularly reminding people of why this is a good thing.

Mark: I think you have a very unhealthy society if the most ordinary among us feels compelled to continuously self censor what occurs to them.

You misunderstand. I'm saying you shouldn't deliberately provoke people just for the sake of promoting free speech, unless you know exactly what you're doing. Want to promote free speech by offending people? Fine, but prepare yourself for the fact that people will be offended, and hurt, and disappointed, and angry. If you're aware of this and don't mind, go ahead, but Vebjørn Selbekk wasn't. He - and I suspect many bloggers - thought this was some kind of abstract game, where you make purely symbolic statements of solidarity, detached from real life. And that is bad strategy.

Saying things you really believe in is a better strategy, because we're more prepared to defend our own ideas, even when others find them offensive.

Taco: We Dutch people were depending on Fortuyn, Hirsch Ali and van Gogh to hold the line (or in Ali's case, are), so I guess they fit in nicely amongst Racists, Holocaust deniers, Islamists and the very stupid.

Nah, the line has been pushed further on some issues than on others. Like I said, you don't have to be an idiot to offend people, (though it really helps). But if you want to promote freedom of speech, the way to do it is by affirming the rights of the worst and most offensive form of speech you're willing to accept. Anything less offensive then follows by implication. I am not willing to even discuss the idea of banning blasphemy, I will not encourage people to consider the idea. So I go straight for the extreme cases. If somebody really wants to argue for censorship, they must first convince me that it is acceptable at all. Then I'll listen to what they have to say about blasphemy.

Then again, to argue that Islam is a terrorist religion, and not just a religion that has terrorists in it, is an idiotic idea, one I'm opposed to and one most of those who have posted these pictures are opposed to. So the same argument applies, just compensate for a much smaller degree of offensiveness.

Do you really want to say that 'it all depends' when people get killed because they made a film that offended some people? Is this a price we should even consider paying?

Yes. Or are you saying that van Gogh should have given in to the threats? The price of speech should be as low as possible, but at the same time, unless there are people among us who are prepared to pay any price, we'll lose it all to the first armed maniac who comes along. Until we eradicate violent Islamism, Europeans have a choice: Hold on to our values and risk death, or give them away and live. The alternatives suck, but they're not going away in the near future.

Mark, Bellevue | 2006-02-13 19:15 | Link

I don't think have I misunderstood. I think Vebjørn Selbekk is entitled to his "clever by half" cluelessness. With regard to free speech, we are entitled to play the role of "the sorcerer's apprentice". We are entitled to society's forebearance. We are entitled to society's securing our life and liberty. This is our birthright. Some things become (or ought to become) historically "frozen". There is nothing grey about which side of the street we drive on. Some things are, and ought to be, binary. Analogously, you seem to be suggesting that its OK to revisit the boundaries over and over again. My pardon if I have misunderstood but this is what I take to be the thrust of your point.

Bjørn Stærk | 2006-02-13 19:55 | Link

Mark: I think Vebjørn Selbekk is entitled to his "clever by half" cluelessness.

Sure he has the right. I just think he harms the cause of free speech by blundering about this way. Same goes for anyone who has charged into this mess without taking the time to learn what they're doing, what they're fighting for, and who they're fighting against.

Analogously, you seem to be suggesting that its OK to revisit the boundaries over and over again.

I'm not following you. I'm saying there shouldn't be any boundary been acceptable and unacceptable speech. I want us to end this whole debate once and for all, say "there will be no censorship".

Mark, Bellevue | 2006-02-13 20:38 | Link

"I just think he harms the cause of free speech by blundering about this way."

I don't think he has. I think he has given us a salutory lesson in what's at stake. Again, free speech counts for nothing if its not to be all-too-typically human in our varying degrees of thoughtlessness. Again, with imperfect information, how am I ever to know with certitude, in my role as a private citizen, or in my role as a newspaper publisher, whether I'm about to cross some line between bracing, challenging tweaking to trammelling on somebody else's most profoundly held beliefs? It's not possible; and its not a burden that I should have to assume at the cost of my life.

"I'm not following you. I'm saying there shouldn't be any boundary been acceptable and unacceptable speech. I want us to end this whole debate once and for all, say "there will be no censorship". "

I stand corrected.

Graham, Woodinville | 2006-02-13 20:52 | Link

The proof that there should be no censorship is the Muslim view of Europe's laws on Holocaust denial. In the light of the defense of the cartoons they now view the countries that have made holocaust denial illegal as hypocritical. I think they are right.

I realized these Holocaust denial laws were a slippery slope when they were passed; I just wasn't sure how it would play out. Now I know that they will become the wedge for more censorship of ideas at the behest of offended groups. What's the answer? Repeal the censorship laws, develop a thick skin and be prepared to defend your ideas using the same free speech tools they are attacked with. Mockery of extreme ideas is also a great antidote to their widespread dissemination and acceptance. Just don't burn and butcher. Adherence to that lowers the bar so that people don't have to be as afraid to speak their minds, however poorly thought out their ideas/motivations may be.

Taco | 2006-02-13 22:26 | Link

ME: "Is this a price we should even consider paying?"

BJØRN: "Yes. Or are you saying that van Gogh should have given in to the threats?"

No. I say that politicians, by means of or our security forces at last resort, should have shielded him from having to pay that price. When it comes to defending our rights, it should be them biting the bullets, not civilians. That there are enemies of free speech is no surprise, but I do expect our politicians to protect it at all costs instead of dragging their sorry asses around the Middle East to apologize. I do expect that our police forces round up all extremists that are walking around with death-lists. I do expect diplomats to respond fiercely when our embassies are burned to the ground. I do expect you to be bewildered and asking yourself 'has it really come to this?'. If they don't and you don't, then I do think that asking "Are we losing our freedoms?" is not a poor question at all. And I do think it can be answered squarely. Are our politicians willing to defend our freedoms, yes or no? It sometimes is that simple. Asking Vebjørn Selbekk to know the price of offensiveness is ridiculous. He could not have foreseen this. Neither could you. Should we all hire a risk management agency to evaluate our words before we press 'publish'? And what happens when you find yourself at the front-lines without you signing up for that? Does that mean you're on your own and you're not entitled to have some professionals dragging you out? My point: no matter if you know what you're doing, you're still should be protected. We pay taxes for that.

You say: "To learn the price of speech it is not enough to consider the law, you need to look at social pressure, the threat of being ridiculed and ignored and told you're a dangerous idiot if you say the wrong things." That's all fair enough. Stupidity is a crime. But, should one really consider lunatic reactions like the one we are dealing with right now. Getting fired is one thing, getting killed another. You call it 'a stunt', while I thought that it were just harmless, silly cartoons.

You say : "European Muslims may not agree with this, but they'll respect our argument. They'll see that it is not our intention to persecute Islam, that we do not hate or fear the regular Muslims who live among us. They'll see that we're honorable people who believe differently. And they'll gain an insight into what freedom of speech is about." It must be nice to be an optimist. I'll hope I can share that with you one day.

Finally there is still this : "There are some people we can rely on to hold the line, who will not give in to guilt or pressure. They're the ones who genuinely believe the stupid, offensive things they say.". I'm sorry, but I still feel that second sentence is very offensive.

Zoe E. USA | 2006-02-14 17:33 | Link

Bjorn:

"In fact, unless you're willing to defend the speech rights of Holocaust deniers and Islamists, you have not understood freedom of speech."

Holocaust Deniers disqust me and Islamists even more so, but once you start denying the right of some to speak and not others then the rights of ALL are denied.

For me the free speech line is crossed not when someone says, "I hate them", it is, "I hate them, now lets go and kill them."

Bjorn, I will still take exeption to your use of the word Islamophobe, however. Out of a strange coincidence, Robert Spencer at jihadwatch.org had an interesting take on the use of the word today....be sure to scroll up if you are interested in reading it.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/010217.php#comments

Bjørn Stærk | 2006-02-14 20:05 | Link

Taco: I say that politicians, by means of or our security forces at last resort, should have shielded him from having to pay that price.

We don't disagree about that at all. But the state isn't always there to protect us. We will never be fully safe against a dedicated, armed maniac. There will always be death threats, and ways of carrying them out. Then it is up to us. That is why I want everyone to keep in mind that there is always a choice. If we rely on the police to be everywhere, we will be free only to the extent that there is a policeman on every streetcorner.

Asking Vebjørn Selbekk to know the price of offensiveness is ridiculous. He could not have foreseen this.

I'm just talking about having the common sense to realize that Muslims will feel hurt when you imply that they believe in a terrorist religion. And I think you're missing my point. This is not about right or wrong as such, it was not wrong of Selbekk to publish these pictures because he didn't know what he was doing. It was foolish. Counterproductive.

I'm sorry, but I still feel that second sentence is very offensive.

The "stupid, offensive" refers to extreme cases. Not mentioning them to imply that neo-Nazi's are equivalent to Islamophobes, but because I believe you do more for freedom of speech by defending the speech rights of neo-Nazi's than by posting anti-Islamic cartoons you don't believe in. It is a better tactic. No confusion about ulterior motives, and a much better illustration on what freedom of speech is all about.

Zoe E: Out of a strange coincidence, Robert Spencer at jihadwatch.org had an interesting take on the use of the word today....be sure to scroll up if you are interested in reading it.

Is it the word Islamophobe itself you want to remove, or do you just believe that Robert Spencer isn't one? If it's the latter, I'll listen, (just remember I've never called him an Islamophobe). If it's the word itself you want to eradicate, why? Are you saying it is not possible to have an irrational fear of Islam?

Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2006-02-14 21:49 | Link

Can I say you are SON OF BITCH using my right to free speech ??

Can I deny the holocaust in Germany or Austria under free speech ??

What a bunch of hypocrites !

Sandy P | 2006-02-14 21:56 | Link

Here's an interesting thesis to pick apart since a lot of you are closer to it than we are:

http://www.dailypundit.com/2006/02/denmark_under_attack_the_root.php

Denmark was selected for attack because it is Europe’s anti-Islamist pace-setter.

Taco | 2006-02-14 23:21 | Link

Ex-Christian, now Muslim: "Can I say you are SON OF BITCH using my right to free speech ??"

Yes, you can. At least on your own website, but I think that Bjørn doesn't mind providing you with some bandwith.

Ex-Christian, now Muslim: "Can I deny the holocaust in Germany or Austria under free speech ??"

I'm not a lawyer, but you probably can't. However, I, and probably most people here, think that you should be allowed to deny whatever you want.

Ex-Christian, now Muslim: "What a bunch of hypocrites !"

That doesn't make much sense after what I just said, but you're allowed to say it anyway.

Bjørn: I'm still trying to get your point. Sometimes I think I get it, the next time I don't. You're a brilliant thinker, I'm not. But I pride myself in thinking that I'm a good reader and that I can understand almost anything if I just read it often enough. I think we agree on most things, but sometimes you're getting a bit hard to get. I'm trying to picture things, while you're keep dragging things into the abstract (it'a almost like you're a computer programmer ;-). This certainly has is values and I have to admit that I'm sometimes more occupied with the next election campaign. It suites you well, I guess, but it can be bit confusing. So here you might be right: The Muhammed pictures got us all confused. Still, you've not convinced me that Vampus doesn't have a good cause. Either I'm not the reader I thought I was and my opinion should be discarded or you have to write another entry on this matter to make your point clearer. Or both, ofcourse.

kim sook-im | 2006-02-15 09:54 | Link

Shaloooom wa Salaaaam alaykum Ya Ex- Kkkristian
Salaaam wa rahmatullah wa barakatuh !

Mundhu muddah taweelah lam ushahiiduka !(long time no see ;)

Yes you are free to call me a BITCH per your freedom of speech ...but just don't say that to me in person cos i'll sure as hell slap the shit out of you and claw your eyes out ;)!!!.........and don't forget what I can do with mah trusty little Ginzu Knife underneath mah cherry blossom chaddor....i'm just itching to use it on a muslim rapist ;)

Hmmmmmmm oooops may the Virgin Mary forgive me for such a wicked outburst!........and now I am almost certain Bjoern is going to classify me as a bona-fide Islamophobe !

Coming back to you Mr. Ex Kkristian....what is this about you wanting to deny the holocaust. Well as you probably know Islam is synonymous with Nazism. That wicked Cult that has brain washed you is really TheoNazism dressed up with the crude fineries of a 'religion'.

Nazis and muslims adore a Cult figure. Nazis and muslims kill dissenters/apostates, Nazis and muslims both denigrate women and their role in society.Nazis and muslims engage in totalitarian control of their members.

Nazis and muslims have expansionist/hegemonistic goals..nazis dream of a pan europe under Nazis, muslims dream of a pan Caliphate world wide under Shariah and the lists of eerie similarities goes on and on.

Nazis and muslims hate jews. Nazis and muslims both kill Jews ERGO IT IS JUST LOGICAL THAT MUSLIMS (LIKE NAZIS) WILL ATTEMPT TO DENY THE HOLOCAUST !

.....also , i understand that your father and mother are both jewish, hence your denying the holocaust will make you a hypocrite ...ya moonafiq !!! :)

Ukhtak Ayesha Nyanyaponika Kim

Stuart, New York | 2006-02-15 16:04 | Link

I think people need to keep in mind the difference between law and manners. In a free society, just because you are allowed to do something doesn't mean that you SHOULD do it. But by the same token, living in a free society also means that there are going to be rude and heedless people, which means that the rest of us just have to put up with it.

What gets my goat is that certain people want to impose their views on the rest of us, whether or not we subscribe to them. I would like to think I am a decent enough person not to deliberately insult someone else's deeply held beliefs, but that's an issue of my being polite and considerate. The other person doens't have the right to force me to do things his way.

With regard to the ex-Christian's comment: living in America, my instinct regarding freedom of speech is that prohibitions on any kind of speech (other than direct incitement to violence) are anathema - freedom of speech means nothing if it doesn't include freedom to say things that are disgusting to many people. So if it was up to me (which it isn't), I'd get rid of the European laws against denying the Holocaust. If people want to say stupid and hateful things, they have a right to say it, peacefully. But ex-Christian, that also means I have the right (should I so choose, which I don't) to say bad things about Muslims, Mohammad, abu-Bakr or anyone else - and you would have to put up with it just as I would have to put up with people denying the Holocaust or praising Hitler.

Although I don't think the laws against Holocaust denial are wise, I do understand the reason many European countries have them - Europe has a pretty sordid thousand-year history of murdering Jews, which ended in the Holocaust. With that sort of history I understand the perceived need to be vigilant against action that could lead to a repeat. And there is a pedagogical aspect of the Holocaust, too: it stands as an object lesson as to what happens when people - any people, not just Jews - are hated for their ethnic background. But I am still of the view that on balance it's better to let people say what they want, and subject their views to criticism or ridicule, than to suppress them. After all, discrediting Holocaust deniers is far more effective when their statements are disproved in open discourse than when their statements are never disproved at all because they are prohibited from making them.

Finally, ex-Christian, are you prepared to denounce the unbelievably disgusting anti-Jewish hatred that is regularly fomented in the Arab and Muslim press? If you're not, don't call other people hypocrites.

Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2006-02-15 18:56 | Link

Re: Stuart, New York | 2006-02-15 16:04 |

But ex-Christian, that also means I have the right (should I so choose, which I don't) to say bad things about Muslims, Mohammad, abu-Bakr or anyone else - and you would have to put up with it just as I would have to put up with people denying the Holocaust or praising Hitler.
======================

Thanks for the long answer.

We, muslims dont expect everyone in the world to love and respect our holy figures, we dont impose our values and taboos on anyone, but as you have the right to free speech, we too have the right to respond.
You cant just call your neighbour's wife a ' bitch' and expect your neighbour to do nothing ! can you ? I dont think anyone has any right to ' offend'.

________________

After all, discrediting Holocaust deniers is far more effective when their statements are disproved in open discourse than when their statements are never disproved at all because they are prohibited from making them.
====================

I could not agree more.

________________

This ' unbelievably disgusting anti-Jewish hatred that is regularly fomented in the Arab and Muslim press ' is just a MYTH. what we have in our muslim media is anti-zionist hatred which is very justified in the light of what the zionist criminals are doing in Palestine which put to shame all the crimes commited by the nazis.

How can you believe this myth when the personal advisor to Morocco's king is a jew ??

How can you believe this myth when 2 MPs in Bahrian parilament are jews ?

Maybe you ought to listen to the other side of the story, maybe have a chat with an arab or a palestinean, and before I go shall I post some examples of very disgusting anti arab, anti muslim hate which is reguaraly printed in Israel ?

Maybe a quick look at this link will help:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/palestinians.html

Sandy P | 2006-02-15 19:31 | Link

Oyvind's in the news biz, yes?

I hope he can get them printed.

But from what I've been hearing from your unelected leaders today, the lights are slowly going out over there.

This will do nothing, attacking the religion v. attacking their followers are 2 different things.

Sandy P | 2006-02-15 19:35 | Link

--we dont impose our values and taboos on anyone, --

1500 years of history says otherwise.

Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2006-02-15 22:13 | Link

Sandy P | 2006-02-15 19:35 | Link
--we dont impose our values and taboos on anyone, --

1500 years of history says otherwise.
======================

What do you exactly mean ? I converted to Islam willingly, no one forced me.

If you are fair reader of history you will realize how tolerant Islam was comparing with other religions.

You need just to go to the middle east to see very ancient churches are still standing until this very day, standing as great witness to the great tolerance of Islam.

Sandy P | 2006-02-16 03:27 | Link

Too bad we can't say the same for the statues.

So, remind me again how many churches there are in the magic kingdom?

Sandy P | 2006-02-16 03:29 | Link

Wait until we start demanding the right of return.

kim sook-im | 2006-02-16 14:12 | Link

What do you exactly mean ? I converted to Islam willingly, no one forced me.( sorry can't believe you...muslims are permitted to lie for islam, so you are lying just to white wash islam. If you were not lying, then it means you have poor judgement and enjoys inflicting more suffering on yourself with the sadistic rules and regulation of a cult that feeds on fear and terror..........it's a psycho-genic flaw in some members of the human species and you're a good example :) !

If you are fair reader of history you will realize how tolerant Islam was comparing with other religions.

( and you can say that with a straight face !?...darling have you been drinking 6 shots of taquila or vodka that make you say such ridiculous things . Tolerance is not in the vocabulary of isssslam....)

You need just to go to the middle east to see very ancient churches are still standing until this very day, standing as great witness to the great tolerance of Islam.

( oh yeah, and they are dilapidated and falling apart , since no new bldng permits are allowed. Sure the churches are standing but the humans that once worshiped in this churches have been beheaded and murdered and persecuted and liquidated by the tolerant and peaceful religion of eeeeeeeklam)

Sister Supaporn Duangprapha Kimsookboon

Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2006-02-16 14:36 | Link

RE: Sandy P | 2006-02-16 03:27 |
So, remind me again how many churches there are in the magic kingdom?
------------------
Sandy P | 2006-02-16 03:29 |
Wait until we start demanding the right of return.
==========================

the right of return !! wake up and have some coffe ! Muslims there are the indiginous natives who were christians and then converted to Islam WILLINGLY.

Let me ask you who should return to Indonesia, Malaysia, Syria, Iraq..etc muslims there are natives to the land, what happened is just they dumped the pathetic religion which worships a man and converted to the only one true religion of Islam.

kim sook-im | 2006-02-16 15:10 | Link

in malaysia many chinese and indians are coerced into islam via economic pressure and government incentives.

Malaysia is a supposedly secular country , but not all malaysians are equal, courtesy of the religion of tolerance = eeeklam

So once again Ex kkristian is lieing through his teeth.

Sandy P | 2006-02-16 18:49 | Link

--wake up and have some coffe ! Muslims there are the indiginous natives who were christians and then converted to Islam WILLINGLY.--

Too bad we can't go back and ask them or Charles Martell.

I thought everything is Allan's will, so how could they choose willingly?

Sandy P | 2006-02-16 18:51 | Link

Didn't answer my question, how many churches in the magic kingdom?

Nice job on what the muslims are doing in Bosnia to my churches, BTW.

Sandy P | 2006-02-16 21:27 | Link

http://www.brucebawer.com/

'Splain away, guys.

...At his side, accepting his act of contrition on behalf of 46 Muslim organizations and asking that all threats now be withdrawn, was Mohammed Hamdan, head of Norway’s Islamic Council. In attendance were members of the Norwegian cabinet and the largest assemblage of imams in Norway's history. It was a picture right out of a sharia courtroom: the dhimmi prostrating himself before the Muslim leader, and the leader pardoning him – and, for good measure, declaring Selbekk to be henceforth under his protection, as if it were he, Hamdan, and not the Norwegian police, that held in his hands the security of citizens in Norway....

Herbie, NY NY | 2006-02-17 14:05 | Link

Ah yes the religon of peace and tolerence how could I have missed it before:

"17/02/2006 - 11:12:51
A Pakistani cleric offered a 1.5 million rupee (€28,000) reward and a car for anyone who kills the cartoonist who drew Prophet Mohammed."

http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=173063192&p=y73x63898

Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2006-02-17 17:22 | Link

RE: Sandy P | 2006-02-16 18:49 |
Too bad we can't go back and ask them or Charles Martell.
========================

Why not ask for MUHAMMAD AL FATEH who conquered your eternal capital in Europe ( Constantinople and made it Islamic FOREVER ! ISTANBUL ! :))))

__________________

I thought everything is Allan's will, so how could they choose willingly?
====================

Because it is Alla's will, he made them choose willingly:

http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2005-08/28/article03.shtml

Herbie, NY NY | 2006-02-17 17:41 | Link

My view comes down to this: speech, no matter how replusive should be allowed and protected. except for one possible exception: the urging of violence. If you are not willing to support that proposition you should be escorted out of Norway promptly to where you came from. As a pracical matter that would mean that most Moslems would be asked to leave

Bjørn Stærk | 2006-02-18 09:20 | Link

Sandy P: http://www.brucebawer.com/ 'Splain away, guys.

Explain what, Bawer's imagination? To see Selbekk's apology in terms of dhimmitude is fantasy. Does he believe that Selbekk saw it that way? On what basis? And what about the local Muslims, did they see this as the apology of a dhimmi, or as merely an apology? Again, what does Bawer know that others don't? It would be courteous to dedicate at least a paragraph to justify his choice of words, Bawer offers none.

Yes, Norwegian leaders have acted despicably, he gets that right. But then it's back to fantasy land:

"Swedish foreign minister Laila Freivalds, who, responding on February 9 to a Muhammed cartoon in the newspaper of the right-wing Swedish Democratic Party, didn’t just call for "responsibility" but enforced it, sending the Security Police to close down the party website."

Oh my God! The Security Police knocked on the door! "We're here to confiscate your servers. It is a matter of national security."

But what happened - according to what I have read, and Bawer does not link to any article saying otherwise - Säpo merely encouraged Levonline to close the site. They appear to have done this by telling Levonline that the site would expose the company to danger. This is bad, it is even a threat to freedom of speech, but it is not "sending the Security Police to close down the party website."

Minor detail? Perhaps, but these kind of exaggerations have become typical of Bawer's writings on Islam. They reduce his value from that of an independent thinker with an unusual perspective on Europe (which he often is) to just another pundit. A pundit with other views than the mainstream Norwegian media, but no more careful with facts.

Cosmophant | 2006-02-18 22:31 | Link

Zoe,

Bjorn does not want to hear a single word about Islam being a "terrorist religion". Then he'll pull the Islamophobe card. I suggest that you just ignore him. The reason for his behaviour is that he's socialized in a very left-wing country. It's a typical multiculturalist leftist knee-jerk reaction.

You will find that moderate political commentators that are not so heavily multiculturally left-leaning as Bjorn, have an all different take about it.

Andrew Sullivan:

But it is a complete delusion to believe that the major source of our problem today is something called "Islamophobia." No: the problem is terrorism and tyranny propagated under the banner of Islam. Without that, no Danish cartoon could have been conceived of, let alone published. That is the real and far more blatant blasphemy. If 10,000 angry Muslims had marched in London after the bombing of a major mosque in Iraq, I'd be impressed. But they didn't. Until they do, the West has nothing to apologize for. The Muslim world needs to take the beam out of its own eye, before it removes the speck from the West's.
http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/02/moderate_islam.html

Here's a small account of something that happened almost forty years ago. It suggests that the rioting over cartoons is not simply a function of today's more extremist Islam, but something integral to Islam itself.
http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/02/ever_thus_.html

Now we know that Bjorn will claim he's to the right in politics (a common delusion among people growing up in environments as Bjorn's). And he will make up some reason for not labelling Andrew Sullivan as an Islamophobe, because Bjorn knows that would reveal him as the left-winger he really is. But who can take Bjorn seriously any more?

Bjørn Stærk | 2006-02-18 23:14 | Link

Cosmophant: moderate political commentators that are not so heavily multiculturally left-leaning as Bjorn

*rotfl*

Now we know that Bjorn will claim he's to the right in politics (a common delusion among people growing up in environments as Bjorn's).

*muwhaha*

that would reveal him as the left-winger he really is

Okay, hang on a second while I pick myself up from the floor, and try to stop shaking ..

.. still trying ..

.. nope, not working ..

*MUwhahaha*

ahem

*rotfl*

*whop* *whop* *whop*

But who can take Bjorn seriously any more?

Well you've certainly convinced me. And I suggest anyone else who found this convincing take your advice to ignore me. I know I'll stop reading me any time now. You've so totally busted my "reputation" and "integrity" it's a wonder this blog hasn't spontaneously self-combusted already.

(But knowing myself for the dishonest and hypocritical scumbag I am, I'll probably just be reminded of some silly quote or other and go on as before.)

Job | 2006-02-19 01:05 | Link

Anyone who inches away from your narrow-mided hardcore 'hate the barbarian wog'line, and dares to think outside of your tiny box gets one of your 'not good enough to be a fascist' tickets.

So don't come back.

Start a private 100% true hate the wog blog where all three of you can sit and shit together without being interrupted by leftists, multi-cultis, dhimmis, and any other new label you feel like inventing. Enroll Ann Coulter.

In the months to come, more and more people and sites are going to be disappointing you by waking up and moving along instead of staying stubbornly psycho-rigid - you've always been in the minority, as bigots are, and you are convincing us all less and less. You live in Disneyland.

Of course, this is a free society, and you have every right to express your dumbness to its full, and we have every right to mock you for it.

Watch 'Why We Fight' - a 2005 BBC / Arte documentary - another view on the need for 'endless war'. Worth watching unless you're afraid of changing your mind.

OEK | 2006-02-19 05:30 | Link

Taking a wide view, these seem to be our challenges regarding Islam:

1) Terrorists that are either motivated by or hiding behind the religion (I don't know which). Normally concerted police work would do the trick, but how do you stop a fanatic? The threat of imprisonment may be enough to stop rational citizens from considering an extremist career, but the nutcases the hard cases. I suggest we take (reasonable) security precautions,and try to use our intelligence agencies to predict attacks, but in the end, if we want to keep a free society we should accept that if people really want to hurt us they will have a good chance of doing so.

2) Divine right-fuelled dictatorships, where much of the people seemingly never question authority, no matter how inbred, inscrutinable or insane. Of course, it might be that this is just silence for fear of the secret police. Still, how do you topple a dictator like that?

3) Integration. While we don't necessarily need to have the immigrants adopt OUR values as such, we need them to adopt the values that are imperative to a free society. By all means, wear burquas, write angry letters to the editor about declining sexual moral, but don't threaten violence to silence your opponents. Ideally, we should have a society that is so focused on the important parts - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - that the individual opinions of the people in it doesn't matter much.

4) A puzzling wish on behalf of politicians and opinion makers to bow to Islamic mores. In my opinion, if you take offense at something, it's your own responsibility. If someone prints something you don't like, don't read their paper. If the likeness of your prophet offends you, you are in bad luck - considering the near-infinity of the universe, somewhere random collections of particles will be Muhammed-like at any given time.

5) Reformation. Even if Muslims are peaceful, non-dictatorial, integrated and not given special treatment, we would all be better off by having them enligthened. Essentially, anyone who believes things that are not true is going to spend his time and resources in ways that are not good for society. He should have the right, of course, but all education brings external benefits. We should all strive to help each other see the light of reason.

Zoe E. USA | 2006-02-19 17:20 | Link

Cosmophant:

I object to Bjørn's use of the word mainly because he has bought into a deliberate mis-information campaign designed by Muslim groups who use it to discredit ALL critizism of Islam whether valid or not.
He is not the only Westerner to do so, many have...especially in the EU. But does Islamophobia really describe someone who might be possibly anti-Islamic or a critic? I think not.
If he wants to use the word he should direct towards the ones who are truely phobic, It is the appeasers of Muslims.

Bjørn:
I am not trying to insult you, although I think you may feel that I have. I just want you to really think about it.
You have mainly focused your writing on 'freedom of speech.' A very noble pursuit, however, you need to shift that a bit and take a good look at what Muslims are actually doing around the globe.
Muslims literally around the world are currently terrorizing the West not with bombs, but now with their violent demonstrations and protests. What are they saying really? That we insulted their prophet...surely, but it is not also a warning that we in the West better behave or else... That has been very clear to me...what about you?
At what point will YOU become an Islamophobe?
I assume the death threats against the cartoonists and editors have not done it.
I assume the riots in France have not done it.
I assume that the death of Theo Van Gogh did not do it.
I assume that the 9/11, 7/7, 3/11, Bali bombings, Beslan school children murders have not done it.
I assume that Muslims carrying signs that say, "Behead those who insult Islam" in England or that "Islam will dominate!" in America has not done it either.
You can argue all you want that Islam is not a terrorist religion, but what you can't argue is that Muslims are terrorizing.

Cosmophant | 2006-02-19 17:30 | Link

In my last paragraph I made a few predictions about the way Bjorn would answer. And he fulfilled every expectation!

1. "Now we know that Bjorn will claim he's to the right in politics"

The suggestion that Bjorn is to the left in politics is answered with a *muwhaha*. I take it that he hereby wish to indicate that the suggestion is so ridiculous that it's laughable. So even if it is not explicitly stated, it must count as a rather strong claim of being a right-winger (unless he's completely beyond left and right and belong to the muwhaha-wing).

For any external observer though, it is clear that Bjorn is to the left of Andrew Sullivan. But since Bjorn likes to pose as being right of the centre, he very wisely ignores the existence of Andrew Sullivan in his answer alltogether.

Maybe we get a serious answer from Bjorn this time, where he actually addresses his position, as compared with Andrew Sullivan's. I predict that Bjorn will bring up something about wanting lower taxes and therefore claiming to be to the right of center, and I'm sure he will mention his support for the invation of Iraq. But these are minor issues. On the top of the agenda today are cultural issues, and culturally Bjorn is to the left. We are truly in the middle of the clash of civilizations, but Bjorn has got his leftist blinkers on, and he's blind to what's really happening. He thinks he's taking the honourable and balanced position, but he could only think so by being blinded by false doctrine. Bjorn ought to read Andrew Sullivan.

2. "And he will make up some reason for not labelling Andrew Sullivan as an Islamophobe"

So I knew Bjorn would find a way to not having to label Andrew Sullivan as an islamophobe. It turns out that he chose to ignore Andrew Sulivan altogether. Very cunning, Bjorn.

3. "But who can take Bjorn seriously any more?"

This was not meant as a prediction, but Bjorn fulfulled it anyway by acting as a clown.

Cosmophant | 2006-02-19 17:48 | Link

Zoe E: I object to Bjørn's use of the word mainly because he has bought into a deliberate mis-information campaign designed by Muslim groups who use it to discredit ALL critizism of Islam whether valid or not...
If he wants to use the word he should direct towards the ones who are truely phobic, It is the appeasers of Muslims.

Yes, that's exactly how it is.

Andrew Sullivan again, describing those real phobics:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2035815,00.html

A. Sullivan: The reasons given are conventional enough: the press doesn’t want to inflame matters further; the cartoons are indeed offensive, and no editor has to publish images that would appal readers; reprinting would merely play into the hands of extremists, and so on.

The one argument you haven’t heard is the one you hear off-camera. Many editors simply don’t want to put their staffs at risk of physical danger. They have “offended” Muslims in the past and learnt to regret it.

This is the reality we live in today. Andrew Sullivan sees it clearly. He's always been a very clear-sighted observer. Bjorn Stark is completely blind to it, he's fighting windmills.

Cox&Forkum has a great cartoon about such phobia:
http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000773.html

Bjørn Stærk | 2006-02-19 17:59 | Link

Zoe E.: he has bought into a deliberate mis-information campaign designed by Muslim groups who use it to discredit ALL critizism of Islam whether valid or not

And you know this how? I notice a lot of explanations being proposed around here about how I arrived at certain views. There are two ways to arrive at such an explanation. The first is to ask. The second is to look at the public record, ie. the archives in this blog. Nobody has ever done the first. And I don't think they're doing much of the second either, or they'd not be so misinformed. Of course, I don't expect anyone to take the time to do that, why would they? But then you should also refrain from stating so certainly that you know exactly where and when I went wrong.

I'll give you one clue, and if you really think this is important you can go through the archives and see it happening: I began using the word Islamophobe despite the way Muslims and multiculturalists abuse it, and because of my daily interaction in my blog with Islam critics at various levels of hysteria, anger and ignorance. But of course, why isn't important, only what. So how about simply taking my views as they are? They're wrong, or they're right, and in either case the "why" is a distraction.

You can argue all you want that Islam is not a terrorist religion, but what you can't argue is that Muslims are terrorizing.

Some Muslims support terrorism, most do not. Some are a major threat, most are not. And since Islam is what Muslims believe and do in the name of Islam, it follows that the Islam of some Muslims is a terrorist religion, a major threat to the West, but in the case of most Muslims it is not. All this is so obvious that I'm only restating it for the millionth time so you'll know exactly what I believe about Islam, and have been saying for some time now. Does this qualify me as a multiculturalist and a leftist?

Cosmophant: I take it that he hereby wish to indicate that the suggestion is so ridiculous that it's laughable.

Very observant of you. But you're doing a poor job of ignoring me. Make up your mind. Stay and feed my ego by proving every bad thing I've said about the right, or leave me to squirm in the knowledge that I am being ignored by one of the greatest minds of our generation.

On the top of the agenda today are cultural issues, and culturally Bjorn is to the left.

Whatever. I see myself as very much on the right, but if you want to call me a "leftist" for deviating from the narrow path, go ahead. Like I've said before, ideologies are for followers. I walk my own way.

Cosmophant | 2006-02-19 19:18 | Link

Bjørn Stærk: "I see myself as very much on the right"

LOL!

He he, it's great fun to read your comedy. I think I'll hang around.

"Very much on the right" - oh, that's such a good one. If you had said something like "I'm to the right of centre" then at least you would have been credible, and you wouldn't have appeared as mentally blocked from reality. But now you claim to be "very much on the right". That's just too funny.

PS. Are you still ignoring Andrew Sullivan? He's like the most famous blogger in the world, in case you didn't know.

Mark Amerman | 2006-02-20 09:22 | Link

An apparently random sample of ordinary educated muslim
opinion from Egypt.

Quote:

"The real discussion started once one of us wondered what will
happen to the country when Mubarak dies. My friend and co-worker
Hady (all names changed of course) immediately predicted that
the Muslim Brotherhood will start a revolution and take over
Egypt, which seemed to be the consensus among the rest of the
co-workers. Ok, no problem there; it’s a plausible prediction,
nothing to get worked up about. That is until Hady smiled this
really mischievous smile and in utter glee said "and when that
happen, haha, all the Christians in Egypt will get what’s coming
for them. They will be killed on the streets baby!", and then
started laughing. Three of my co-workers laughed with him, but
I didn’t."

[and]

So I simply asked him : "why are you so afraid of them?"

He replied : "Huh? What are you talking about? Who am I afraid
of?"

I said: "The Coptic Christians. Why are you so afraid of them?
I mean, if you hate them so much it must be for a reason. It
must mean you are afraid of them or something they do or represent."
I then took a dramatic pose and continued, "So what are you so
afraid of Hady?"

Hady, slightly offended, replied: "I am not afraid of no
Christians. I am just stating the obvious. That’s what Islam
would dictate us to do if we lived in a truly Islamic country."
To which I quickly replied: "So what is Islam so afraid of?,"
which drew a rabble of shock from people around us and immediately
antagonized Hady : "Watch what you are saying. Islam is not afraid
of them and neither are we!"

"So why would you be so gleeful at the thought of them killed
and slaughtered?"

See http://egyptiansandmonkey.blogspot.com/2005/04/religious-tolerance-in-egypt.html

Mark Amerman | 2006-02-20 09:45 | Link

And what, by the way, did the nazis think of christians?
(Seeing as they've already been brought in, somehow,
into the discussion)

Hitler (December 13, 1941), quote:

"The war is going to be over. The last great task of our
age will be to solve the church problem. It is only then
that the nation will be wholly secure.

"I do not care about doctrine, but I won't tolerate it if
some fat priest concerns himself with things of this
earth. The way we must destroy organized mendacity is to
make sure the state is absolute master. When I was young,
my position was: dynamite. It was only later that I understood
that this sort of thing cannot be rushed. It must rot away
like a gangrened member. The point that must be reached
is to have the pulpits filled with none but boobs, and the
congregations with none but little old women. The healthy
young people are with us..."

"Hitlers Tischgesprache," Picker, p. 154 ["The Nazi Years:
A Documentary History," edited by Joachim Remak, p. 105]

and

"...Who is there among us who does not, deep in his heart
-- provided he can still feel with his blood -- have a profound,
a strangely haunting snese of shame when, walking through the
german countryside, before the panorama perhaps of snow-covered
alpine mountain tops or in the midst of the somber Westphalian
heath, he comes across a picture of the crucified Jesus.

"The gods of our ancestors look different. They were men and
had a weapon in their hand, symbolizing the attitude to life
that is innate to our race -- that of action, that of a man's
responsibility for himself. How different the pale crucified
one, expressing, by his passive attitude and by his decided
look of suffering, humility and an extreme of self-surrender,
both qualities which contradict the basically heroic attitude
of our race..."

"Das Schwarze Korps", June 8, 1939, p.13 ["The Nazi Years:
A Documentary History," edited by Joachim Remak, p. 103]

kim sook-im | 2006-02-20 11:00 | Link

Bjoern states for the billionth time:

' Some Muslims support terrorism, most do not. Some are a major threat, most are not. And since Islam is what Muslims believe and do in the name of Islam, it follows that the Islam of some Muslims is a terrorist religion, a major threat to the West, but in the case of most Muslims it is not. All this is so
obvious... '

But let us allow your statement to simmer a bit and let us derive a rather interesting corollary thus:

'Some Nazists support terrorism, most do not. Some are major threat, most are not. And since Nazism is what Nazists believe and do in the name of Nazism, it folows that the Nazism of some Nazists is a terrorist religion, a major threat to the west, but in the case of most nazists it is not, All this is so obvious.......

Perhaps one may wish to ruminate on this corollary equivalency...

Among Nazists you find your Herr Schindlers

Among Muslims you also find your Sai'd Abdul Schindlers

Not all nazists are bad, some are just nomanal nazists , some are just born into circumstances, some are coerced into the system by virtue of birth, nationality and sociocultural circumstances, but Nazism is Nazism

really Bjoern ....do you have supporting figures, charts, surveys , reputable sociocultural, sociological datae to substantiate this sweeping statement on muslims and Isssslam. As you know i do not have a bone of contention with any religion at all , least of all with islam and I am sure you will definitively concurr that I - a non-islamophobic person - finds that statement rather naive much less generalized , perhaps out of wishful thinking rather than from compulsion to white-wash evil as leftists are so wont to do in this day and age.

Check out these links for eerie similarities between islam and nazism:

http://www.forward.com/issues/2001/01.11.09/oped1.html

http://www.afsi.org/OUTPOST/96JAN/jan7.htm

Clyde | 2006-02-20 14:39 | Link

Ah, but WILL the European Muslims accept your argument? The behavior of the mobs in the streets seems to refute that. And their behavior is getting results, by intimidating the Europeans from exercising their free speech rights. If you're too cowed to say something, you're no longer free.

Ultimately, it comes down to this: Is is possible for the traditional European societies to co-exist with the Muslim immigrant societies that are growing rapidly in their midst? I've made the cuckoo's egg analogy before, where the cuckoo bird lays its eggs in another bird's nest and lets the other species of bird raise the cuckoo chicks, which then kick the parent birds' real chicks out of the nest to die.

And if something really IS dangerous, than fear of it is not a "phobia," it's completely rational.

Bjørn Stærk | 2006-02-20 15:41 | Link

Clyde: Ah, but WILL the European Muslims accept your argument? The behavior of the mobs in the streets seems to refute that.

"Refute"? I don't see how, (perhaps you mean "illustrates that your argument does not apply to everyone", but then I'd like to learn which particular "mobs" you're thinking of). And who are the "European Muslims"? Do they have a leader who speak for them, or do they perhaps all have the same beliefs? If not, we should not talk of them as a unity.

I believe that if we phrase the argument for freedom of speech as "we let our beliefs be insulted by people who despise us, because we believe it is the right thing to do", instead of "see how we mock your prophet! deal with it, you're in the free world now", reasonable mainstream Muslims will disagree but respect our position as one that is not motivated by hatred of Islam. This would be a good thing, unless we really are out to provoke Muslims, not to protect our freedoms.

I've made the cuckoo's egg analogy before

Analogy does not an argument make.

And if something really IS dangerous, than fear of it is not a "phobia," it's completely rational.

Yes, but even when something is dangerous, it is possible for our fear of it to take irrational forms. There are clearly a lot of ignorant people who will believe nearly any nasty thing they hear about Islam, and who will go to extreme lengths to fight it. Fears that are not grounded in reality are not rational, => these people have an irrational fear of Islam, or what I call Islamophobia. This is so obvious I'm curious why everyone gets so upset about it. What we disagree about is who and how many this applies to, not that there is such a thing as Islamophobia.

Cosmophant | 2006-02-20 20:23 | Link

Bjørn Stærk: "I see myself as very much on the right"

Hi again, Bjorn!

If you see yourself as very much on the right, then you should be able to say in what ways you are to the right of Andrew Sullivan.

That's a fair question isn't it? Andrew Sullivan is a moderate, i.e. he's in the centre. No wait, in fact he might be to the left of the centre, since he endorsed John Kerry for president. Still, is there anyway in which you are to the right of Andrew Sullivan? Or is it more fair to say that you are to the left of Andrew Sullivan?

Herbie, NY NY | 2006-02-21 15:07 | Link

Bruce Bawer at Partisan Review looks at the ticking time bomb of Europe’s unassimilated fundamentalist Islamic population:
* * *
Even as the violence rises, intellectuals enamored with multiculturalism blame it on everyone but the criminals:

In September 2001 * *( * Dagbladet reported that 65 percent of rapes of Norwegian women were performed by "non-Western" immigrants–a category that, in Norway, consists mostly of Muslims. The article quoted a professor of social anthropology at the University of Oslo (who was described as having "lived for many years in Muslim countries") as saying that "Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapes" because Muslim men found their manner of dress provocative. One reason for the high number of rapes by Muslims, explained the professor, was that in their native countries "rape is scarcely punished," since Muslims "believe that it is women who are responsible for rape." The professor’s conclusion was not that Muslim men living in the West needed to adjust to Western norms, but the exact opposite: "Norwegian women must realize that we live in a multicultural society and adapt themselves to it."

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=3608_tolerating_intolerance

Sandy P. | 2006-02-21 19:45 | Link

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

I'm behind the times:

Godspeed, G'Kar.

Andreas Katsulas, 59, a character actor best known for his role as G'Kar on the syndicated television series "Babylon 5" and for playing the one-armed man in the 1993 film version of "The Fugitive," died of lung cancer Feb. 13 at his home in Los Angeles.

Bjørn Stærk | 2006-02-21 22:28 | Link

Sandy P: Andreas Katsulas, 59

Yeah, I heard. They will both be missed, Katsulas and G'Kar. Somehow I always expected they'd be back in a follow-up series.

Cosmophant | 2006-02-21 23:18 | Link

More insightful analysis of the nature of Islam by Andrew Sullivan:

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/02/sistani_moderat.html

Sistani, Moderate

The Ayatollah Sistani has been perhaps the most stabilizing force in Iraq these past few years. I've praised him often; some have suggested he be offered the Nobel Peace Prize. He is often presented as the very model of a modern mullah, open to separation of mosque and state. Still it's very useful to see what he actually believes on his own website. He believes, for example, that he must not touch a non-Muslim. We are unclean. There is a short list of things regarded as unclean, and, if you are not a Muslim, you are on that list: urine, feces, semen, a dead body, blood, a dog, a pig, alcohol and the sweat of an animal that doesn't eat the right things. Oh, and you.

This website is useful for us to understand better why Islam - not just radical Islam - finds modern pluralistic societies so difficult to tolerate. The West's view is that all humans are equal in their political and civil rights. Islam's view is that non-Muslims are on a separate plane: beneath them. Hence their insistence that the West now comport to Islam's rules with respect to what we can and cannot say and publish in public. We keep saying we must avoid a "clash of civilizations" and no sane person would want one. But that clash has already occurred - within our own civilization. And we're slowly surrendering

Any comments, Bjorn?

Stuart | 2006-02-22 14:27 | Link

Cosmophant, I'd be more interested in ex-Christian's comments on that than Bjorn's.

Herbie, NY NY | 2006-02-22 16:29 | Link

Is this true?

Norway's largest newspaper, VG * * * yesterday printed a cartoon * * * comparing Israel's policies to the Holocaust. In a page two commentary, journalist Svein Røhne compared Israel's decision to withhold money from the now Hamas-controlled Palestinian Authority to "the actions of a certain master race." Cartoonist Roar Hagen illustrated the piece with a cartoon showing the Security Wall with the inscription: "Arbeit macht frei," the same as on the Auschwitz extermination camp during WW2. This happens at the same as Hamas is cooperating with Iran, whose president recently called for "wiping Israel off the map." A senior representative of the Norwegian Ministry for Foreign Affairs has just visited Tehran for "dialogue." * * * VG have not printed the Muhammad cartoons because this could "inflame the situation," but are brave enough to print this cartoon. They have also not voiced any opposition to the outrageous new Discrminination Act, which stipulates that Norwegians are guilty of discriminating against Mulim immigrants until proven otherwise
http://jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/

Susan | 2006-02-22 16:46 | Link

Cosmophant, I'd be more interested in ex-Christian's comments on that than Bjorn's.

------------------------------------------------
He'll say that Sistani is a Shiite and thus not a practioner of "real" Islam, of course.

You guys have a lot to learn.

kim sook-im | 2006-02-24 12:14 | Link

Susan,

you will find this article interesting: this is what a practitioner of 'real' islam does LOL.

http://www.hvk.org/articles/0802/67.html

( real life horror story of Hindu woman and Muslim man ... That night I came to know what a sick religion Islam was.)

Sister Prasad Meenachi Bhagavatam
Non-islamophobic specialist in islamofascism

Mark Amerman | 2006-02-25 03:41 | Link

Kim, although the story you tell above is no doubt true. It's
certainly not true of everyone. In college I had a good friend,
a man from Iran, who was married to an american woman. I thought
they had a good marriage, in fact I enjoyed being around both of
them.

Some of the few things he told me about his childhood surprised
and shocked me, such as the fact that unlike him his mother and
sisters were uneducated and spent it seemed most of their time
cooped up in their home barely interacting with the outside
world.

Despite our different backgrounds it amazed me how it seemed
that I recognized and could understand this person from the
first moment I met him. This is a pattern I think I've seen
again and again. People despite different backgrounds seem
much alike. There is a core of humanity, good and bad, that
is not touched by all the different cultures that mankind
can conceive.

Kim, I do not know how much personal interaction with muslims
you have had. Possibly you know this already. But there is
a danger that a person might ascribe to strangers an inhumanity
that simply isn't there.

The hard thing to wrap one's head around is that every terrible
thing that people do is something you and I are latently
capable of. Not that we have ever done so or ever will or
possibly would ever do in any circumstance -- but if we were
a little bit different, then we might do so.

When we look at muslim extremes we're exploring the worst side
of human nature -- our own nature too. Not that you or I or
anyone we know is guilty of these things but that if we were
but a bit different we could be.

By no means does this mean I think that human cultures or
individual are equal or of the same value. In fact given that
we are so close to such savagery, it seems all the more important
that we condemn and fight it as effectively as we can.

Mark Amerman | 2006-02-25 03:44 | Link

Quote:

"As was the case 70 years ago, every Jew today is a target for
our enemies, who shout from every soapbox and prove at every
opportunity that their goal is the annihilation of the Jewish
people. From 1933-1945, the enemy was Nazi Germany. Today, the
enemy is political Islam. Its call for jihad aimed at annihilating
the Jews and dominating the world is answered by millions of
people throughout the world.

"Among the lessons of the Holocaust, there is one that is almost
never mentioned. That lesson is that it is possible, and indeed
fairly easy to exterminate the Jews. The fact that the Holocaust
happened proves that it is absolutely possible for the Jewish
people to be wiped off the map - just as Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad and Hamas leader Khaled Mashal promise.

"The story of Ilan Halimi's murder at the hands of a terrorist
gang of French Muslims brings to the surface the various pathologies
now converging to make the prospect of annihilating all Jews seem
possible to our enemies. First, there are the murderers who took
such apparent pleasure and felt such pride in the fact that for
20 days they tortured their Jewish hostage to death.

"This makes sense. Anti-Semitism in the Muslim dominated suburbs
of Paris and other French cities is all-encompassing. As Nidra Poller
related in Thursday's Wall Street Journal, "One of the most
troubling aspects of this affair is the probable involvement of
relatives and neighbors, beyond the immediate circle of the gang
[of kidnappers], who were told about the Jewish hostage and dropped
in to participate in the torture." "

See http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1139395477657&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Susan | 2006-02-25 20:36 | Link

Mark Amerman,

We in the "Islamophobic" world have known about the anti-Semitic attacks on Jews in France for years now. We've watched for years how those who have warned of it have been shouted down, deemed "racist", suppressed, etc. for trying to point out what was happening.

Now it comes to a head, a case so awful that no one can hide it, and the multi-cultis bleat, "oh, we were wrong, the Muslims do kill Jews after all."

Today we warn of the sexual attacks on non-Western women by Muslims -- we get the same treatment from the usual multi-culti suspects. We're wrong, we're "racist", the Western sluts are bringing it on themselves, the figures on rapes are lies, et cetera.

History repeats itself?

kim sook-im | 2006-02-26 18:54 | Link

Mark,
thanks for the comment. Will get back to you later.Your position is that of a rational humanist...very nice...but not a good pose when facing down an ancient evil.

check out : http://www.wfafi.org/

and http://www.wluml.org/english/index.shtml

shukran
Sister Meenachi Bhagavatam
non islamophobic islam critic

i wonder if ex christian will have the balls to comment on these links,naaah, he done lost those thingy's long ago when he had it hacked off as a prerequisite of self mutilation to join the cult LOL

kim sook-im | 2006-02-27 14:46 | Link

o.k. Mark,

the nice muslim individual you met with his american or western wife is just an isolated example. This is evidence of the resiliency of the innate goodness of a human being even when tainted with the evil of Islam.

However 'una golondrina no hace la primavera'....one swallow does not a summer make '..the example of a woman's experience i cited in my previous post is more typical of the norm rather than exception.

Here are more convincing evidence of misogyny in islam notwithstanding christiano-phobes cunning diatribe and proclaimation about how warm and wonderful islam is and how foolish finnish females are 'rushing' to embrace their torturers and violators in an islamic prison LOL.

http://www.islamreview.com/nazaninpetition.htm ( help nazarin, who is condemned to death by the wicked mullahs of iran for being a rape victim )

http://www.islam-watch.org/SyedKamranMirza/honor_killing.htm ( essay on honor killing, is it islamic )

http://www.terrorismunveiled.com/athena/2004/11/honor_killings__1.html ( honor killings up close and personal)

http://www.secularislam.org/women/dont.htm ( honor killings, yes it is islamic , don't apologize for it )

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2004/04/26/ftburn26.xml&pos=portal_puff3&_requestid=25966 ( burned alive...honor killing in muslim societies)

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=020205 ( honor thy father.....or else ! honor killing among muslims living in the west )

http://www.islamamerica.org/articles.cfm/article_id/84/ ( women , sharia' and oppression, essay by a muslim women )

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/004135.php ( muslim honor killings , rise in europe ... a lesson for the US with large muslim immigrant influx )

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/001085.php ( Toronto, Canada....muslim father killed his 5 yr old daughter ...religious honor killing !)

Takk,
Sister Meenachi Bhagavatam

Thomas | 2006-02-27 19:20 | Link

You know nothing about France except what your told in the media and your hate-sites. The boy was murdered by psychotics whose first idea was to steal money. The false anti-Jew campain is delibrate profiteering by media and Jewish interests. The riots in French cities in novembre were not Muslim riots as told in the American press and TV. They were serious indication of frustration by French youth against bad elite government. It was no good to burn cars, but the governement don't listen for many years. All French people know this except a few mad haters.
Now politicians want to do like Blair and Bush, become more repressive.
Americans too are mostly fine people. When will good Americans protest against your own bad government? Many millions of very poor, few jobs exept for military, and insane foreing policy.

Instead of hating and killing Muslim people, clean up your own yard.

Stuart, New York | 2006-02-27 23:38 | Link

Thomas, I hope you're feeling pretty foolish now that pretty much all of the French govt and intelligentsia now agree that this was an anti-Jewish crime, and there was even a rally against it. In terms of the money, the fact is that the criminals took a Jewish person because they thought "Jew = money" -- which is itself an anti-Jewish stereotype. Yes, Thomas, there is some anti-Jewish sentiment in France - it's there today and has been there for a thousand years. Denying it won't help it go away. Exposing it and denouncing it might.

It never ceases to amaze me how many Europeans and how many French are so insecure that no matter what happens they have to attack the US. France is a great country in its own right -- that doesn't mean it doesn't have problems, but work on your own issues instead of telling the US to shut up. The US isn't without its problems, but they are differnet from France's. Many of France's problems aren't problems in the US because the issues were handled differently in the US - e.g. immigration. (The same is true in reverse as well - some of the things that could be improved in American society are not problems in France, such as obesity). In other words, Europe should just start behaving like adults and stop wallowing in their inferiority complex - putting other people down doesn't make them greater. Our host on this site, Bjorn, put it best in a post he put up a couple of years back; the post was about Norway but it could have been about almost any Western European country: he referred to

a central attribute of Norway's (and perhaps the world's) relationship with America, a combination of awe and disgust, often displayed simultaneously, as done by Aftenposten.
My solution: First, admit to ourselves that the US is a great culture, with great art, learning and science. Second, to stop being so damn preoccupied with it and start building our own, even greater culture. Not just so we can win a pissing context. Not a culture defined against whatever the Americans do, while copying them badly, but one that learns from what Americans do right, ignore all the rest, and politely try to outperform them at their own game. Embrace the America dominated global culture with all the awe it deserves - then set about to improve it.
Isn't that a better project than to defensively try to "protect" something we can't define against something we can't resist? Isn't it better to try to be great ourselves than to nervously search for confirmation that they're not? Worth a try.

Believe me, most Americans would much rather have Europeans as partners than the way things are now - the constant childish hectoring just makes Americans tune it out, so that the louder the Euros yell and stamp their feet the less attention Americans are likely to pay.

Thomas | 2006-02-28 00:38 | Link

I said Americans are mostly good people, I know many. Why are good people letting their money taken for war by a bad government and not spent it on repair Nouvelle Orléans or help schools or poor people.

Intelligentsia are not always right in France, ther is media pressure to make this anti-Semite crime. The governement want to become more repressive so they agree. Anti-Semite exist in France, but not great number. The problem is delibrately made huge by media and profit Jewish interets and Israeli interests. Street knows that the boy was not hate-race crime, it was started robbery crime. Now tonight, one more crime the same in Alsace - no Jew involved, no cry at all from media. Man is still dead.

Read French papers if you want to know about France and French problems. US media dont' report them right. You have slant.

Susan | 2006-02-28 02:01 | Link

Thomas,

An EU commission report found a couple of years ago that most of the anti-Semitic violence being committed in France and other parts of Europe is being done by Muslims.

The report was suppressed because it didn't show what the EU elite wanted it to: that the attacks were being done by white neo-Nazis.

Sandy P | 2006-02-28 02:24 | Link

Thomas, we spend at minimum $450 Billion to $750 Billion a year on schooling.

As to NOLA - it won't look the same and it won't be as big, but it'll be there.

Even better, it broke open that ghetto and quite a few have a new view of the world.

Our "poor" people are living our 1970s middle-class lifestyle.

The Heritage Foundation mined the 2000 census. Very interesting.

Sandy P. | 2006-02-28 02:30 | Link

Few jobs, Thomas? 5% unemployment rate and few jobs?

NOLA's looking for a lot of help.

Stuart, NY | 2006-02-28 03:27 | Link

Thomas, I'd suggest you lay off the stuff about media manipulation by Jewish and Israeli interests. It makes you sound anti-Semitic. Control of the press by Jews is an old canard. You should know better.

Stuart, NY | 2006-02-28 03:29 | Link

Oh, and good people voted for the current American government. And if the current rate of incompentence continues, the American people are not likely to vote for an encore in the next election. But it's a free country, you see: we get the government we vote for.

Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2006-02-28 08:32 | Link

Re: Stuart

You are so concerned about one jew who was killed in france by a gang of criminals but not concerned about the crimes the JEWS themselves are comitting RIGHT NOW in Palestine against the palestineans !

It only shows pathetic moral bankrupcy.

Thomas | 2006-02-28 13:58 | Link

Stuart NY

I dont' know about USA, but today it is very easy to be told you are anti-Semitic in France. I am not. But if you are critic of Israel, valide comments are dismiised with anti-Semite label. It is unfair and untrue.

Also, canard implies false statement, a lie. The truth is French media especially TV is very slanted to protect Jewish interest, much more than for Muslim. I live here, I know this. I saw yesterday a TV discussion with a writer (intellectual) who say that there is media pressure to make Ilan murder look like an anti-Semite crime. But police do not believe that.
There was a politician (Bernard Kouchner) who has international reputation and two responables for Jewish organisations. The writer was lynched, with the host particpating. Ther are many other examples.

That is not anti-Semite speech, it is so. All Muslims in France feel that, and also many people, non-religious.

kim sook-im | 2006-02-28 15:46 | Link

Christianophobe/buddhistophobe/hinduphobe above wrote :

It only shows pathetic moral bankrupcy.
========================================

now look who's talkinga bout moral bankrupcy LOL.
In order to refute Christiano-buddho-hindu -phobes hysterical and patently false accusations against the jews I refer you to the following article:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0502/mideast_facts.asp

Gracias,
Sister Rebekka Kim
Kibbutz Kfar Aza

Stuart | 2006-02-28 15:46 | Link

Hey, ex-Christian, if you keep making comments like that you're forfeiting the ability to use the dodge you used up above about distinguishing "jews" from "zionists." Nice try, though.

And Thomas, if you honestly think that the publishers of Le Monde, Le Figaro, L'Express and dozens of other news outlets are in thrall to Jews - especially given their positions on things like the Israel-Palestine issue - then, as we say here in New York, I've got a bridge to sell you.

I can see that the sickness that has afflicted Europe for the past thousand years is still there. What makes it worse is the denial.

kim sook-im | 2006-02-28 16:03 | Link

To further refute the bald face lies and pathetic disinformation coming from Christianophobe and his con-frere Monsieur Thomas, I refer you to this:

http://www.hebookservice.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6805

This book is a unique guide to the bloody teachings and history of Islam, and to the Crusades that still stand today as the Western world's most sustained and successful defense against the warrior hordes who were inspired by those teachings. Exposing myth after myth of the "Islam means peace" establishment, Spencer (director of JihadWatch.com and the bestselling author of Islam Unveiled and Onward Muslim Soldiers) here tackles all the hot-button issues regarding Islam and the Crusades.

Sister Meenachi Bhagavatam
bona-fide non islamofibic islam critic

Sandy P. | 2006-02-28 16:25 | Link

Via Instapundit:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2058502,00.html

We should fear Holland’s silence
Islamists are stifling debate in what was Europe’s freest country, says Douglas Murray

Sandy P. | 2006-02-28 17:41 | Link

Sometimes I think it's in their genes.

SO grateful mine got out when they did.

Edward Blunt | 2006-02-28 18:27 | Link

If I've followed the exchange correctly, it seems that Thomas lives in France and disagrees with your point of view about the dangers of Islam in France, and its portrayal in the Western media.

Within a couple of paragraphs, he is now being slated as a Jew-hater, tainted apparently by centuries of endemic discrimination. You also seem to imply that the USA is free of it, or at least that particular variety of narrow-mindedness.

I am based in the north of France, and watch daily news on French, Belgian, US and UK channels. Although Thomas is taking a risky stand, I have to say that there is some truth in what he says. French TV media do display an ultra-sensitive and protective reactivity in matters pertaining to Israel and the Jewish identity. It is of course easy to find historical reasons for this in Europe, and particularly in France.

However, Thomas's point seems to be that the French media do not apply the same standards to reporting on Muslim matters as they do to Jewish/Israeli matters. Living in France myself, I confirm his point of view. Ordinary French people would also, mostly, agree.

To quickly label him in the same category as ex-Christian is not only short-sighted, it also reveals a form of the bias you claim to hate.

Stuart | 2006-02-28 20:58 | Link

Edward, I was in Paris last month with my daughter for five days - my first visit ever to France - and had a marvelous time. I noticed no hostility to me as an American whatsoever, and so far as I was able to tell, Jews in France had no problems either. This was of course a brief visit, but I was pleasantly surprised at how friendly the Parisians were to me as a non-French-speaking American. (I did learn enough while I was there to get directions to the restrooms, though!!)

However - and this is a big however - I do keep up with a fairly diverse reading list, mainly online. I don't speak French, so my reading is in English. That means I do occasionally get to read the European press, but only the English language version where it's available. But I do read it. And honestly, I didn't see any particular bias in favor of Jews or Israel. If anything, where Israel is concerned there seems to be almost reflexive pro-Palestinian feeling, which as an American really jumps out at me from the European press because the pro-Palestinian slant is much less present in American reporting.

What I suspect is really going on with Thomas, and to some extent with you, is that people have set up in their minds that the relevant comparison point for how Muslims or Arabs are viewed is how Jews are viewed. And it's simply not a relevant comparison. The Jewish experience and history in France is totally different from the Muslim/Arab experience. And it's different in kind, not just in degree, and not just in length of sojourn. I understand why Muslims make that comparison - they have something of an obsession with Jews and Israel - but plain old French people shouldn't have that comparison. The relevant comparison for how Muslims or Arabs are treated in France should be other immigrant groups of similar historical standing and level of assimilation. Jews ain't it.

So using how Jews are treated as some sort of reference point relative to Arabs - which is what Thomas was doing - is simply not a good comparison. And to suggest that Jews somehow dominate the French media, when it's perfectly obvious that if they did the French media would be very pro-Israel, which it's not - does carry with it the odor of that old canard about Jews controlling everything, right out of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I didn't call Thomas a Jew-hater, if you were paying attention, but I did tell him that he needs to be careful about making charges about Jews and the media because that sort of stuff has anti-Semitic overtones. History lurks, you know.

I'll take your word for it that the French media are a bit touchy when it comes to reporting news about Jews, almost as if it's a hot potato. If that's true, there are very good historical reasons for that, right? That's a very different thing than saying that Jews have some sort of special influence over the media in France. And it certainly has nothing to do with how issues relating to Muslim residents of France are reported.

Susan | 2006-03-01 04:20 | Link

The truth is French media especially TV is very slanted to protect Jewish interest, much more than for Muslim. I live here, I know this. I saw yesterday a TV discussion with a writer (intellectual) who say that there is media pressure to make Ilan murder look like an anti-Semite crime. But police do not believe that.
There was a politician (Bernard Kouchner) who has international reputation and two responables for Jewish organisations. The writer was lynched, with the host particpating. Ther are many other examples.

So sorry. I guess we got things confused with the last time Jews were being murdered in Europe by a hostile invading culture, and the way the Europeans looked away then and pretended not to notice.

Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2006-03-01 10:50 | Link

RE:
Stuart | 2006-02-28 15:46
Hey, ex-Christian, if you keep making comments like that you're forfeiting the ability to use the dodge you used up above about distinguishing "jews" from "zionists." Nice try, though.

======================

I am not at all distinguishing between jews and zionists, the zionists who are killing the palestineans in palestine everyday are JEWS, aren't they ? or are they DOG-EATING KOREANS ?

If the jews themselves make palestine a ' jewish ' state, why you want it a zionist one? why you want to make the word JEW a holy one ? I know why, because the jews who run the media in the west indoctrinated the masses to believe so.

Let us name things as they are, the JEWS of palestine are criminals, killers and barbarians.

Not only that, some jews in Europe are even worse, they are voting for the NAZIS:

The Jews who voted for Le Pen

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=160403&contrassID=2&subContrassID=15&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

Edward Blunt | 2006-03-01 13:20 | Link

Stuart

Unfortunately I really don't have time for an extended discussion. I respect your point of view. However, I'm sure that you're aware that reading translations of French editorials from time to time does not give you the same perspective on French culture as actually living here or being a French citizen, as Thomas probably is.

The horrifying torture and murder of Ilan Halimi has certainly shocked France deeply. The French police have declared that they believe that this was primarily a 'fait crapuleux', which literally translates as 'villainous fact', colloquially, an act by crooks, or a crime motivated by greed. The horrifying element is the protracted period of torture to which the victim was submitted, and this can only be, and is, attributed to a frightening descent into the depths of human barbary. In fact, the leader of the gang, Youssouf Fofana, styled himself, in English, as the Brain of the Barbarians.

The gang made several failed attempts to commit other, similar, crimes. They used a young woman as bait, seducing young men into meetings where they were captured and threatened with violence or death unless they arranged for ransom to be paid. On several occasions, the money part of the operation failed. The young woman herself is the one who came forward when Ilan was found and the affair made public, and explained the gang's methods to the police.

These facts alone are terrible enough. All of the members of the gang are French, although there seems to be some doubt about the 'Brain', who is presently being extradited from the Ivory Coast. Some of the gang are from Muslim families, there seems to be no doubt about that. Some of them are of Christian descent, such as Fofana's right-hand man, whose family is Portuguese.

What has appeared in the later development of the case is that the affair is being presented, particularly in the US media, but also now in France, as a deliberately anti-Semitic hate crime perpetrated by Muslims. This is entirely different.

In an article quoted by Mark Amerman earlier in this thread, the Jerusalem Post claims that the motivation for Ilan's torture/murder was uniquely the fact that he was Jewish, although of course he was himself French. The Jerusalem Post also states, without any confirmation whatsoever, that members of the neighbourhood were invited to participate in the torture of Ilan Halimi, also because he was Jewish. This throws a terrifyingly paranoid light on the whole affair, as I'm sure you can appreciate.

None of these motives for the gang's actions have been advanced by the police, although according to 'La Croix', 'la justice a retenu l’hypothèse de motivations à caractère antisémite dans l’instruction' - 'the Court has retained the hypothesis of motivations of an anti-Semitic nature in the preliminary investigation'. A hypothesis is not a fact.

The President of the Republic, Jacques Chirac, and the Minister of the Interior, Nicolas Sarkozy, as well as a large number of important public figures, have made public statements to the nation and to the Jewish community declaring their distress and rejection of anti-Semitism. This is laudable, of course, but there is no proof whatsoever that the crime was indeed anti-Semitic, although the victim in this case was Jewish. Their statements are rightly seen as reinforcing the fear of the Jewish community, and the sentiment of injustice in the Muslim community, who are singled out by the media as muderous fanatics. Also, there have been several instances over the last few years of clearly racist murders (mostly by French police) of young Muslims, who were guilty of little more than what the French call 'le délit de sale gueule' - meaning 'the crime of having a filthy face'. There were no public declarations or apologies by French politicians in these cases, although they were mentioned in news broadcasts. This is perceived as injustice.

Perhaps this is what Thomas was trying to explain. It's unfortunate that when a person gives an opinion that does not meet with your favour, he or she is quickly labelled as an anti-Semite. If the judicial system of a European nation does not agree with your interpretation of a situation, apparently, it's because Europeans are genetically anti-Semitic.

This sort of attitude sets communities against one another, and this is the last thing we need.

If you're interested, I can send you references to other articles on the affair from French newspapers. Remember though that the written Press is different from the visual media.

Stuart, NY | 2006-03-01 17:32 | Link

Edward, please re-read what I said above. I wasn't accusing Thomas of being an anti-Semite. To quote what I said above:

people have set up in their minds that the relevant comparison point for how Muslims or Arabs are viewed is how Jews are viewed. And it's simply not a relevant comparison. The Jewish experience and history in France is totally different from the Muslim/Arab experience. And it's different in kind, not just in degree, and not just in length of sojourn. I understand why Muslims make that comparison - they have something of an obsession with Jews and Israel - but plain old French people shouldn't have that comparison. The relevant comparison for how Muslims or Arabs are treated in France should be other immigrant groups of similar historical standing and level of assimilation. Jews ain't it.
So using how Jews are treated as some sort of reference point relative to Arabs - which is what Thomas was doing - is simply not a good comparison. And to suggest that Jews somehow dominate the French media, when it's perfectly obvious that if they did the French media would be very pro-Israel, which it's not - does carry with it the odor of that old canard about Jews controlling everything, right out of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I didn't call Thomas a Jew-hater, if you were paying attention, but I did tell him that he needs to be careful about making charges about Jews and the media because that sort of stuff has anti-Semitic overtones. History lurks, you know.

I recognize an anti-Semite when I see one. Thomas isn't it. And I'm pretty careful about these things precisely because overusing an accusation ends up diluting it (here in the US, the charge of "racism" has in many cases become something of a frivolity because there is a certain group of partisans who use it to describe anyone who disagrees with them politically. That sort of use of "racism" is damaging because it makes it so much harder to deal with REAL racism when it shows up. The charge of "anti-semitism" also shouldn't be used indiscriminately for precisely the same reason). But people might not be thinking through the implications of what they are saying, in terms of how it could be read. There's a lot of history and a lot of water under the bridge, in France and in much of the rest of Europe, that should counsel people to be a bit more judicious in the way they choose to express their views. References to Jews and the media SHOULD be something people are careful about because of history. Not, of course, that I'd advocate killing cartoonists or anything......

As for the Halimi case, my understanding (and I'd have to go back and find my sources on this one) is that this was the third similar killing this year, and that the ethnic-hatred motive was in each instance downplayed. This one was particularly brutal, so this is where people drew the line. If I wasn't at work now I'd go dig up the sources I read. I can tell you it WASN'T the Jerusalem Post, though. I haven't read JPost in a couple of months.

Ex-Christian, on the other hand, appears to be in need of some serious pharmaceutical or psychological help.

Sandy P. | 2006-03-01 19:34 |