From Prager University, here’s George Will in a very amusing video wherein he imagines the ideal PC universe:
It’s funny because it’s so true.
From Prager University, here’s George Will in a very amusing video wherein he imagines the ideal PC universe:
It’s funny because it’s so true.
It seems some politically correct Australian nanny-stater was upset over Senator David Leyonhjelm’s criticisms of multiculturalism and his defense of the natural right of all humans to voice those criticisms. An “activist” wrote to demand he stop, because multiculturalism was the law, so… shut up!
That’s the assessment of Charles Cooke, who also saw that “Big Brother” tweet from Police Scotland about which I wrote a few days ago. He notes that, while the police statement was offensive enough, the fact that 20,000 Scots signed a petition demanding a columnist be investigated for her annoying comments was downright disturbing. In Cooke’s view, it’s a sign of serious rot in the culture of liberty, itself:
In situations such as these, it is easy and tempting to blame the police for their excesses, and to contend with irritation that they should know better. And so, of course, they should. It is easy, too, to slam the British parliament for continuing to permit such behavior. And, of course, it should be so slammed. Nevertheless, the ugly truth here is that, like the Canadians and the Australians and the New Zealanders and pretty much every people in the world apart from the Americans, there is a significant contingent within the British electorate that believes that the state should punish people who utter words and sentiments that the majority dislikes. Of course the police are looking into the rude and the eccentric. Their employers want them to do exactly that, and there are no constitutional prohibitions to prevent them from doing so.
Cultures rot from the bottom up. In a democracy, the authorities come to reflect societal trends — both good and ill. How sad to see Adam Smith’s body decaying in the streets.
Cooke is right to remark on the difference between the political culture of the United States and its Anglospheric cousins when it comes to free speech, and it’s a fair observation to say we almost fetishize it. But alone among the UK and the it descendants, we assume that the right to speak one’s mind is a natural, unalienable right that is inherent in humans and preexists government. In that regard, we went beyond the 1689 English Bill of Rights, which grants rights via statute, and declared “life, liberty, and happiness,” to be rights superior to the law; that laws, indeed, are instituted to protect those rights. In Scotland and in the UK overall, the beliefs that gave rise to these rights seem to be fading in favor of a “right not to be offended.” (See also Australia, where a lesser commitment to free speech lead the prior government to try to use punitive fines to silence critics of a carbon tax.)
But I think Charles is too sanguine when he writes:
…like the Canadians and the Australians and the New Zealanders and pretty much every people in the world apart from the Americans, there is a significant contingent within the British electorate that believes that the state should punish people who utter words and sentiments that the majority dislikes.
Sadly, we have Speech Police, too; they generally, but not wholly, reside on the political Left. And it’s true that here, especially in an age of alternative media, they experience serious push-back from from defenders of the right to free speech. But they regularly try to punish “wrong” thought and words. Recall, for example the howling mob that went after Brendan Eich, then head of Mozilla, just because, years before, he had exercised his right to free speech to quietly donate to a group supporting traditional heterosexual marriage. Or the feminist banshees who attacked an astrophysicist for wearing a slightly tacky shirt, until he had to issue a tearful apology for his wardrobe.
“Ah,” you say. “It’s true their behavior was reprehensible, but surely the authorities wouldn’t themselves stoop to the level of the Scottish police!” Oh, no? Well, consider this:
Dig around, and you’ll find plenty more.
Our politicians would have been far less likely to attempt these and other speech-suppressing measures, if they didn’t think there was a significant number of people in favor of such things.
It may not be as advanced as in the UK, but the “cultural rot” Cooke wrote of is a danger here, too, and we need to always be on guard against it.
(1) Remember when I said it was “mostly” on the Left?
There’s a category here at Public Secrets called “cultural jihad,” referring to the efforts of Islamic supremacists to condition Westerners to accept sharia law through grievance mongering and the exploitation of our generally tolerant customs and multicultural guilt. Robert Spencer has called this the “Stealth Jihad,” while former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy examines it at length in his book “The Grand Jihad.”
In Europe, the process is farther along, now involving intimidation, violence, and even enclaves run by Islamic supremacists in which the police refuse to enforce the law. Hence the reason why, in the video below, British comic Pat Condell calls what’s happening in Europe “cultural terrorism.”
Pat really shouldn’t be so shy about his feelings.
NOTE: Keep in mind that when Condell refers to Islamic extremists as “the far Right,” he’s doing so in a European context, where “far Right” means “fascist.” In the US, on the other hand, I believe we’re coming to a more correct understanding — that “Right” means “limited government,” while Fascism is part of the statist, totalitarian Left. See Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism” for an excellent discussion.
via The Jawa Report
(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)
…by apologizing for a guest using the word “crosshairs.” I kid you not:
Click the image to watch the video, but here’s the transcript:
“Before we go to break, I want to make a quick point. We were having a discussion about the Chicago mayoral race. My friend Andy Shaw used the term ‘in the crosshairs’ in talking about the candidates. We’re trying, we’re trying to get away from that language. Andy is a good friend, he’s covered politics for a long time, but we’re trying to get away from that kind of language.”
Great. Let’s keep the false idea alive that violent (read: “Right-wing”) rhetoric was somehow responsible for an apolitical nut committing mass-murder at a Tucson shopping center. What’s next, John? Apologizing for showing Sarah Palin’s image, just in case the mere sight of her incites violence? Are you guys going to post a disclaimer with reruns of “Crossfire?”
Just when I thought my nausea-meter for political correctness couldn’t go any higher, CNN finds a way to red-line it.
A bit of humor to wash away the sour taste from those last videos: PJTV‘s Andrew Klavan pokes fun at mindless multiculturalism and political correctness by looking at the heretofore unknown sufferings of a religious minority right here in America: Satan-worshipers.
How true. It’s dreadfully insensitive of us to call Old Scratch evil just because he’s evil. We should instead say he’s “differently morally enabled.”
(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)
The British Nanny State strikes again:
Gingerbread ‘person’, the PC pudding: Now even biscuits can’t escape the politically correct brigade
In the nursery rhyme, the Gingerbread Man fled from the clutches of an old woman and her husband.
But now he has been cornered by an even more unforgiving foe – political correctness.
Council bureaucrats have stripped gingerbread men of their gender and renamed them gingerbread ‘persons’ on menus for 400 primary schools.
Parents in Lancashire were astonished when they discovered the change.
‘It is absolutely ridiculous,’ one mother said. ‘Someone has obviously taken the effort to change this and it is almost offensive.
‘I am all for anti-discrimination but this is a pudding. The gingerbread man is a character from a rhyme in a book, for goodness sake.’
Laura Midgley, of the Campaign Against Political Correctness, added: ‘It is totally ridiculous political correctness, nobody wants to talk about gingerbread people. They are what they are.
‘It is not just an innocent mistake. Whoever did it, I hope they will think long and hard about it.
‘If these sorts of things go unchallenged, they become the norm.’
The wording went out on the new autumn-winter weekly menu provided by the Lancashire School Meals Service.
Preston MP Mark Hendrick described the change as ‘daft’.
The outcry has since forced officials into an embarrassing U-turn.
Yeah. I bet they feel like they’ve had their heads bitten off.
There’s a great essay at Reason by Mark Goldblatt, who’s sick to death of Western society’s cowardice (disguised as “political correctness”) in the face of jihadist, fascist Islam:
I’ve had a couple of weeks now to think about [Allen] Ginsberg cursing out that cabbie, and cursing out Islam and Muhammad. You see, I live in Manhattan, three blocks from Times Square. As near as I can determine, I was walking with a friend about thirty feet from the car bomb on May 1st right around the time it was supposed to detonate. Except for the technical incompetence of a Muslim dirtbag named Faisal Shahzad, I and my friend would likely be dead now. Note the phrase: “Muslim dirtbag.” Neither term by itself accounts for the terrorist act he attempted to perpetrate; both terms, however, are equally complicit in it. It might have been a crapshoot of nature and nurture that wrought a specimen like Shahzad, but it was Islam that inspired him, that gave his fecal stain of a life its depth and its justification. Why is that so difficult to admit?
Read the whole thing. The closing line deserves a standing ovation.
(via The Jawa Report)
Political correctness has already gotten Americans killed. The refusal to identify Major Nidal Hasan as a jihadist driven by his devotion to Islam contributed to the deaths of 13 people at Fort Hood. Even when people thankfully don’t die in a terrorist attack, as in the Christmas Day attempt to blow up a plane over Detroit or the attempted car-bombing in Times Square this weekend, the media and American officials rush to direct the blame anywhere but where it belongs: Muslim terrorists waging war in the name of Allah – jihad fi sabil Allah.
At Pajamas Media, Roger L. Simon asks a question I’ve asked many times, myself: How on Earth can we hope to effective fight an enemy if we do not allow ourselves to bluntly talk about him and the ideology motivating him, or even to plainly name him at all?
It’s the jihad, stupid!
If you were listening to Geraldo on Sunday night (okay, I apologize), you would have thought the would-be Times Square bomber was either the illegitimate son of Timothy McVeigh or an evangelical minister overdosed on steroids looking for an abortion clinic. Geraldo was practically fulminating at the mouth — it’s a white man, it’s a white man — in nostalgia for the good old days when the true enemy was some evil Ku Kluxer waving his hangman’s noose.
Well, it wasn’t. At least the man currently under arrest, Faisal Shahzad, a Pakistani-American, is no evangelical Christian and wasn’t seeking vengeance against our federal government. I’m willing to bet right now he is a believer in jihad and, if he’s seeking vengeance against anything, it’s Western Civilization — our way of life.
Yet only months after the Ft. Hood massacre, our government and leaders refuse to name our enemy. In fact, as a recent PJTV video reminds us, they are running the other way. Words like “jihad,” “Islamic fascism,” etc. — the very ideologies cited by the 9/11 Commission as the causes of September 11 — have now been expunged from the lexicon of our government and even our military.
Times Square reminds us how dangerously self-destructive that is. Were it not for our concerned citizenry and smart law enforcement, our civilization would be on its way out. Many of our leaders are evidently ready to hand it over.
Until we rip off the blinders of political correctness and are honest with ourselves about the enemy waging war on us -Muslims waging jihad against infidels in obedience to the Islamic-supremacist imperative embedded in the Qur’an and the hadiths- we are fighting with one hand behind our backs and our eyes averted.
And many more of us will die needlessly because of it.
LINK: Mike Opelka on the media’s refusal to use the M-word.
For the last several days, Dutch parliamentarian and head of the Freedom Party Geert Wilders, who has to live in hiding because of death threats from Muslims, has been on trial in The Netherlands for exercising his rights to free speech by criticizing Islam and Muslim immigration to his country. He has been charged under laws against “inciting hatred,” which, in effect, criminalize thought and speech that deviates from a politically correct norm. At the opening of his trial, Wilders made a statement using truth as a defense and asking how a fact can be illegal:
Whether one agrees with Wilders or not about the problems and challenges posed by aggressive Islam (and I largely do), I should think everyone concerned with the fundamental liberties we consider unalienable would be worried by any attempt to punish a freeborn citizen for his or her opinions.
At Big Journalism, Rich Trzupek looks at the Wilders trial and what it says about the decadent state of Liberty in The Netherlands, where it is permissible to criticize Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, or any religion, but criticizing Islam is somehow “hate speech.” He offers two reasons: first, the dead hand of politically-correct multiculturalism, which declares all cultures of equal worth and free of criticism – unless it is Western culture being attacked. The second is simple fear: criticism of Islam can result in threats, violence, and even murder from Islamic supremacists.
Both are at play, along with a supine unwillingness to stand for those liberties the West has spent millennia building as a civilization, to declare their value and, indeed, their superiority, and to defend them against those who would hide behind them to advance their own illiberal, fascist agendas. In short, surrender.
The Wilders trial, taking place in a small corner of the world, should be something watched by all concerned for civil liberties.
LINKS: You can learn more at Defend Geert Wilders.
For several years now, Great Britain has been trying to deal with the growing radicalism in its Muslim population by bringing into government moderate Muslims who can advise the Crown as to the best ways to “reach out” and counter Salafist influence. Trouble is, the “moderates” they keep recruiting aren’t so moderate. Islamist Watch gives us two of the latest examples:
Not Jolly Good: Islamists in the UK Government
Is there any degree of radicalism that disqualifies someone from holding a sensitive government post in the UK? Probably. But it would be difficult to tell based on two recent stories.
First, Treasury official Azad Ali has begun advising the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) on combating Islamic extremism. Apparently his suspension earlier this year for blog entries steeped in — you guessed it — Islamic extremism presented no barrier to his joining the “community involvement” panel chaired by the CPS anti-terror chief. In addition to naming radical imam Anwar al-Awlaki, the email pal of Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan, as “one of my favorite speakers and scholars”…
Second, there is Asim Hafeez, the new “head of intervention” at the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism of the Home Office, where he is charged with “divert[ing] fellow Muslims from the path of violence.” However, Hafeez has been described by a knowledgeable colleague as a “hardcore Salafi,” one who follows a puritanical form of Islam. According to Harry’s Place:
A number of Hafeez’s talks are available online which appear to not only back up [these] accusations but also to suggest that Hafeez might additionally be a hard-line Islamist who wishes to replace the British constitution with “the Quran and the Sunnah.”
Do read the whole thing.
This is only the latest example of how, through a blind devotion to unquestioning multiculturalism and political correctness, we tie one hand behind our backs in our fight with the jihadis. For fear of seeming intolerant or bigoted against all Muslims (and for fear of angering those on whom we depend for our crack oil), we don’t dare inquire into what the people we want to place in sensitive positions might really believe. We turn a blind eye to the very real ideology of violent jihad, Islamic supremacism, and antisemitism that runs throughout the Qur’an, the hadiths, the writings of later scholars to the present day – the core of Islam, not a radical heresy or misunderstanding. At times, as at Ft. Hood, this leads to fatal results.
Do I think there are no moderate Muslims? Far from it. There are plenty who reject the jihad imperative and just want to live quiet lives among their neighbors. But there is a disturbingly large fraction who have taken Islam’s aggressive message to heart and support both the cultural and the violent jihad, seeking Islam’s eventual victory over Western civilization. We do ourselves no favors -indeed, we harm our own cause and that of genuinely moderate Muslims – by refusing to face head-on the ideological and theological challenges posed by Salafist Islam.
Screening for Islamist sentiments should be a basic precaution, hurt feelings be damned.
Andrew Klavan explains how:
Happy spots are people too, you know.
A Muslim traitor decides to wage jihad and murders 12 soldiers and civilians while wounding 30 others at Ft. Hood. What is the priority of the Secretary of Homeland Security? Could she be exploring the possibility of other Muslim-American soldiers turning on their comrades? Is she directing an investigation into jihadist penetration of the Armed Forces? No, she has something far more important to do in the wake of the worst terrorist incident on US soil since 9-11: making sure there is no backlash against Muslims.
The U.S. Homeland Security secretary says she is working to prevent a possible wave of anti-Muslim sentiment after the shootings at Fort Hood in Texas.
Janet Napolitano says her agency is working with groups across the United States to try to deflect any backlash against American Muslims following Thursday’s rampage by Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, a Muslim who reportedly expressed growing dismay over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Refresh my memory, but have there been any documented anti-Muslim incidents in the US in the last eight years? And I mean serious incidents, not the “Someone looked at me funny” encounters that CAIR likes to claim are “hate crimes.” Truth be told, Americans have been remarkably restrained. And yet Janet Napolitano sees it as her primary duty to worry about a “backlash” that has never materialized.
And isn’t that last quoted paragraph a peach? Hasan “…reportedly expressed growing dismay….” No, Mr. Associated Press Reporter, it was a bit more than that. Hasan attended a radical mosque, the imam of which was a spiritual adviser to three of the 9-11 hijackers. Major Hasan spread anti-American propaganda and defended suicide bombings. His fellow mosque-members described him as a typical fundamentalist who firmly believed that “jihad” meant fighting and killing. This wasn’t someone “dismayed” at a war, as if he were an average protester. This was a devout Muslim who felt it his duty to wage jihad fi sabil Allah – “war for the sake of Allah.” A duty that came before his oath of loyalty to his comrades and to the United States.
But rather than investigate the ideology that lead Major Hasan to commit treason, rather than take a long, hard look at the role Islam and the doctrine of jihad played in this, Secretary Napolitano worries about a backlash, transferring the onus of responsibility onto the true targets -us- and once again pandering to Muslim victim-hood: the threat as Napolitano sees it is from angry, irrational redneck Americans, not radicalized Muslims bent on jihad. It’s just this kind of political correctness, the kind that lead Hasan’s fellow officers to ignore the obvious signs of coming trouble for fear of being accused of “Islamophobia,” that got those people at Ft. Hood killed.
And until Janet Napolitano and the whole US government take off the politically correct blinders and deal honestly with the nature of the threat we face, we are running every day the risk of another Ft. Hood. Or London. Or Madrid. Or Bali.
Priorities, Madame Secretary. Priorities.
RELATED: Former US Army officer Ralph Peters is angry. Justifiably so. Dr. Rusty Shackleford points out that there is nothing sudden about Sudden Jihad Syndrome. In the peace-of-mind department, the threat from home-grown jihadis is growing.
(hat tip: Power Line)
Bill Whittle at Big hollywood asks a darned good question: Why is Rodney King famous and Kenneth Gladney unknown?
Here’s a better question: If Kenneth Gladney — a black American who was beaten when he went to protest ObamaCare — had been there instead to support President Obama and had been beaten up and called a nigger by Anti-Obama town hall protesters…
…Well, does anyone doubt he would have been as famous as Rodney King? Why is Kenneth Gladney ignored? And why did a black patriot who showed up in opposition to ObamaCare with an AR-15 have his face and hands edited out of the video that MSNBC used to create the belief that wild white mobs, enraged at the very idea of a black man in the White House, were waiting outside to lynch the “President of Color?”
The example of these two black patriots flies dead in the face of The Narrative. Well, what is “the Narrative?”
To find out the answer and see a related video, be sure to read the rest.