'Sensitivity' can have brutal consequences
February 5, 2006
BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
I long ago lost count of the number of times I've switched on the TV and seen crazy guys jumping up and down in the street, torching the Stars and Stripes and yelling ''Death to the Great Satan!'' Or torching the Union Jack and yelling ''Death to the Original If Now Somewhat Arthritic And Semi-Retired Satan!'' But I never thought I'd switch on the TV and see the excitable young lads jumping up and down in Jakarta, Lahore, Aden, Hebron, etc., etc., torching the flag of Denmark.
Denmark! Even if you were overcome with a sudden urge to burn the Danish flag, where do you get one in a hurry in Gaza? Well, OK, that's easy: the nearest European Union Humanitarian Aid and Intifada-Funding Branch Office. But where do you get one in an obscure town on the Punjabi plain on a Thursday afternoon? If I had a sudden yen to burn the Yemeni or Sudanese flag on my village green, I haven't a clue how I'd get hold of one in this part of New Hampshire. Say what you like about the Islamic world, but they show tremendous initiative and energy and inventiveness, at least when it comes to threatening death to the infidels every 48 hours for one perceived offense or another. If only it could be channeled into, say, a small software company, what an economy they'd have.
Meanwhile, back in Copenhagen, the Danes are a little bewildered to find that this time it's plucky little Denmark who's caught the eye of the nutters. Last year, a newspaper called Jyllands-Posten published several cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed, whose physical representation in art is forbidden by Islam. The cartoons aren't particularly good and they were intended to be provocative. But they had a serious point. Before coming to that, we should note that in the Western world "artists" "provoke" with the same numbing regularity as young Muslim men light up other countries' flags. When Tony-winning author Terence McNally writes a Broadway play in which Jesus has gay sex with Judas, the New York Times and Co. rush to garland him with praise for how "brave" and "challenging" he is. The rule for "brave" "transgressive" "artists" is a simple one: If you're going to be provocative, it's best to do it with people who can't be provoked.
Thus, NBC is celebrating Easter this year with a special edition of the gay sitcom "Will & Grace," in which a Christian conservative cooking-show host, played by the popular singing slattern Britney Spears, offers seasonal recipes -- "Cruci-fixin's." On the other hand, the same network, in its coverage of the global riots over the Danish cartoons, has declined to show any of the offending artwork out of "respect" for the Muslim faith.
Which means out of respect for their ability to locate the executive vice president's home in the suburbs and firebomb his garage.
Jyllands-Posten wasn't being offensive for the sake of it. They had a serious point -- or, at any rate, a more serious one than Britney Spears or Terence McNally. The cartoons accompanied a piece about the dangers of "self-censorship" -- i.e., a climate in which there's no explicit law forbidding you from addressing the more, er, lively aspects of Islam but nonetheless everyone feels it's better not to.
That's the question the Danish newspaper was testing: the weakness of free societies in the face of intimidation by militant Islam.
One day, years from now, as archaeologists sift through the ruins of an ancient civilization for clues to its downfall, they'll marvel at how easy it all was. You don't need to fly jets into skyscrapers and kill thousands of people. As a matter of fact, that's a bad strategy, because even the wimpiest state will feel obliged to respond. But if you frame the issue in terms of multicultural "sensitivity," the wimp state will bend over backward to give you everything you want -- including, eventually, the keys to those skyscrapers. Thus, Jack Straw, the British foreign secretary, hailed the "sensitivity" of Fleet Street in not reprinting the offending cartoons.
No doubt he's similarly impressed by the "sensitivity" of Anne Owers, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, for prohibiting the flying of the English national flag in English prisons on the grounds that it shows the cross of St. George, which was used by the Crusaders and thus is offensive to Muslims. And no doubt he's impressed by the "sensitivity" of Burger King, which withdrew its ice cream cones from its British menus because Rashad Akhtar of High Wycombe complained that the creamy swirl shown on the lid looked like the word "Allah" in Arabic script. I don't know which sura in the Koran says don't forget, folks, it's not just physical representations of God or the Prophet but also chocolate ice cream squiggly representations of the name, but ixnay on both just to be "sensitive."
And doubtless the British foreign secretary also appreciates the "sensitivity" of the owner of France-Soir, who fired his editor for republishing the Danish cartoons. And the "sensitivity" of the Dutch film director Albert Ter Heerdt, who canceled the sequel to his hit multicultural comedy ''Shouf Shouf Habibi!'' on the grounds that "I don't want a knife in my chest" -- which is what happened to the last Dutch film director to make a movie about Islam: Theo van Gogh, on whose ''right to dissent'' all those Hollywood blowhards are strangely silent. Perhaps they're just being "sensitive,'' too.
And perhaps the British foreign secretary also admires the "sensitivity" of those Dutch public figures who once spoke out against the intimidatory aspects of Islam and have now opted for diplomatic silence and life under 24-hour armed guard. And maybe he even admires the "sensitivity" of the increasing numbers of Dutch people who dislike the pervasive fear and tension in certain parts of the Netherlands and so have emigrated to Canada and New Zealand.
Very few societies are genuinely multicultural. Most are bicultural: On the one hand, there are folks who are black, white, gay, straight, pre-op transsexual, Catholic, Protestant, Buddhist, worshippers of global-warming doom-mongers, and they rub along as best they can. And on the other hand are folks who do not accept the give-and-take, the rough-and-tumble of a "diverse" "tolerant" society, and, when one gently raises the matter of their intolerance, they threaten to kill you, which makes the question somewhat moot.
One day the British foreign secretary will wake up and discover that, in practice, there's very little difference between living under Exquisitely Refined Multicultural Sensitivity and Sharia. As a famously sensitive Dane once put it, "To be or not to be, that is the question."
© Mark Steyn, 2006
Which proves absolutely that the American and Christian hating people who infest our media are damn COWARDS...COWARDS...COWARDS....not worthy of any American watching the trash that they put up.
Countrymen (and leftists),that does say it all.
Perfectly framed. . .and kudos to Mark for his efforts to wake up all who suffer from the anestheisizing effects of political correctness; the 'weapon of choice' for the Left's culture war. . .
LOL! I've said it many times, but I'll say it again: Mark Steyn is brilliant.
Thanks for posting the entire article!
The real tragedy is not in the fact that only a small portion of Muslims sees Islam as a reason to their low lot in life. The real tragedy is that the West is chaining them into their reactionary doctrinal prison. Occasional reasonable voices from the Muslim world are not listened to, but we rather kowtow in front of imams. For example, why doesn't Finland throw [Muslims who advocate violence] in jail charged with advocating violence, and suggest that they listen to [Muslims who denounce violence]? I believe the answer can be found in the very ontology of "tolerance" and multiculturalism.
"Tolerance" is feeling superior for your goodness and ethical values. Since it is a form of superiority, it must be something that distinguishes the "tolerant person" from the majority of people. It must be an esoteric doctrine with complex rules, because otherwise there would be no need for diversity experts and consultants. Most people happily tolerate everything that makes sense and doesn't harm them or their environment. For example, the small islamic community of tatars in Finland has never caused any fear or passions in Finns. Because everybody agrees with tolerance like this, it is not good tolerance, since the purpose of "tolerance" is to distinguish the "tolerant" from other people. For this end, the "tolerant" will without exception choose something sick to tolerate. This way they can do something (= tolerate) that others can't. Most people are automatically excluded from the inner circle of tolerant people. When "tolerance" is clearly irrational, it needs enlightened high priests to instruct others.
If the tolerant people started to support the elements of Muslim world that are sympathetic to our values (individual liberties, human rights) they would have to admit that Western system is better than Islamic, and the Islamic system as it currently usually exists must change. This idea is naturally horrific to them, since the "tolerant" cultural relativism means that we must change and adapt. Everyone else is untouchable.
"Tolerance" is therefore mainly about the tolerant people and the problems that they have with themselves. Multiculturalism and its problems are a way for the "tolerant" to maintain a situation where their "tolerance" gets credit and it has a meaning. This means that if the object of tolerance is a group that deserves tolerance, everyone would tolerate it anyway, and tolerance could not be used for gaining points or making money. A "tolerant" person thus needs the world as it is now. Black people must be poor and criminal, and Muslims must be backwards and violent. The secular Islam is a direct threat to the tolerant Western person, since its spread would destroy the paradigms from which he gets his sense of superiority and in many cases his livelihood.
It is one thing that by sucking up to imams and appeasing terrorists and their supporters the Western elite destroys the unique society that the secular Christianity has built during the last few centuries, and leaves their children a world that is worse than the one that the silver spoon elite itself inherited. Another thing is that by supporting [Muslims who advocate violence] the Western world denies the moral standing for liberal Muslims and this way helps to keep a billion people chained to a cruel stone-age doctrine of life. A liberal Muslim considers the Western culture as an example to follow and tries to raise his own culture to the same level, but what is the Western reaction? "The Lord giveth, the Lord taketh, accept your place you little darkie." [1] We are doing fine, but our mental well-being requires that you are doing badly.
The whole cartoon battle is not the first and definitely not the last station on the trip to hell. It has been illuminating, since the question of what "real Islam" is like has been answered. Muslims riot, burn and threaten, and their highest authorities consider it to be justified. The Western elite follows the Muslim authorities, does not condemn Muslim violence and demands that Denmark should apologize. According to "real Islam" violence seems to be justified. The claim that "real Islam" is not a violent religion can be true only if the Western nations consciously support and understand "false Islam".
L