How I became a target for America's zealots (Euro-barf)

Wow. When just before 11 September this year, The Independent asked me to pen a response to the question "What has changed since 11 September 2002?", I had no idea what my musings would cost. I innocently – perhaps naively – wrote about what I think is the main change in America since that horrible day. I wrote about the suppression of public dissent and the erosion of civil liberties in the United States, which as I see it are among the most dire threats that country now faces. Little did I know that I was about to experience exactly how fearfully limited public debate in America really is.

Somehow, my expression of dismay was twisted in a highly selective retelling in the New York Post, a right-wing tabloid, as "an America-loathing diatribe. Little... in the foreign press outside al-Jazeera comes close to Roddick's viciousness". I was astonished to read that I was suddenly a supporter of terrorism and a hater of Americans and devastated at the idea that any American would assume that I was not outraged by the barbaric attacks of 11 September.

So let me just be absolutely clear about this – I hate terrorism and I hate terrorists.

I have a deep admiration for much that is American. My grandparents emigrated to America. My father was born in America. My daughter lives in America. I had assumed that my sorrow for 11 September went without saying. And I have repeatedly couched my criticism of President Bush in the context of this admiration. It's as though, as I leapt to America's defence, some people – perhaps rattled by a year of terrorism warnings and haunting memories – assumed I was going for its throat.

It didn't help that the Post, a bastion of right-wing simple-minded thinking, had deliberately and outrageously misrepresented my opinion. Somehow, my criticism of George Bush had been equated with a hatred of the country he leads, as if a leader and his country were one and the same, as if all Americans support George Bush without reservation or exception.

When I am feeling particularly generous, I suppose this is a simple misunderstanding by a few people who accidentally missed my point. But I also fear that perhaps this is the natural result of the atmosphere created when a sitting president tells his subjects that "you're either with us or you're with the terrorists".

Criticism of Bush, then, is tantamount to friendship with Bin Laden. The mind reels at the logic. Teddy Roosevelt must be spinning in his grave. He's the beloved American president who said: "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

None the less, I quickly learnt what abuse has been levelled at other people who have dared to criticise the Bush administration in the past 12 months. I hadn't realised just how brave other people had been to take even the most reasonable public stand against government policies with which they disagreed. Even though I wrote that I worried about the suppression of public dissent, I suppose I naively miscalculated my own entry into that arena. I admit that I was gobsmacked at the vicious, hateful, threatening messages directed at me after that essay appeared. It was comforting to know, however, that I was suddenly reviled alongside such admirable thinkers as Norman Mailer, Noam Chomsky, Erica Jong, Susan Sontag, Robert Fisk and Ralph Nader. Again, good company to find yourself in!

When the vitriol first started trickling in, I thought to myself: "Am I crazy? Was I wrong? Is this what you get for defending the Bill of Rights? Is there really something un-American about saying that the constitution is precious?" It was Kafkaesque – I was fighting shadows, trying to make a few strangers understand that they had been misled, that I didn't hate them, that I am anything but un-American.

It's as though these few people are so desperate to find an enemy at which to hurl the anger and hurt of 11 September that they are lashing out blindly. I just happened to have stepped in front of their fists. But most of the responses I got from those who were angry just seemed to get it all wrong:

"I think you're all goose-stepping Nazis deep inside. I know Osama and gang would never do you any harm – after all you are his breeding ground." As if a Nazi or an Osama bin Laden would argue for civil liberties.

"If you SO despise America, then take your shitty products and get the f*ck out! There is no need for us to shop for your filth if you are going to talk shit and lie about a country that made your fortune." As if I had said I despise America, and as if I'd made a fortune in the United States (hardly!).

Some were astounding, coming from self-proclaimed patriots and defenders of America:

"This lady should look at the laws imposed in the UK in WWII. When a country is under attack, they cannot be as open as they once were. Hopefully, we will have our liberties returned when the crisis is over. But I'm not holding my breath." As if the loss of basic freedoms warranted nothing more than an "oh well".

"Years ago, I discovered... that Anita is a 'watermelon' (green on the outside and red on the inside)."

"Going into a Body Shop is like stepping into a nouveau-hippy paradise. Pot-based lotions, hug-a-tree cleansers, you name it. It should come as no surprise that a retail equivalent of an Al Gore-Lenin merger is headed by a flaming left-wing communist."

"Anita needs reminding that the enemy thinks her products are sinful and would like to behead any one selling or using them."

This, apparently, is the calibre of conservative political discourse among my detractors.

But I have received far more letters of support than hate mail, almost all of it from Americans:

One read: "I am alarmed that George Bush is taking away our right to free speech in the guise of defending our country against terrorists. Just because Bush has said that 'you're with us or against us' doesn't make it so."

"I am a California human rights attorney and a customer of The Body Shop... I was pleased to read Ms Roddick's column, which I took as a call to defend what are usually regarded as America's finest values – freedom of speech and association among them – against the depredations of a power-hungry and opportunistic government. I did not take it as a condemnation of America, and I fail to see how any intellectually honest reader could have done so."

I quickly realised that a large number of Americans, if not a majority of them, feel much the way I do. But it is a vocal vigilante minority that is attempting to intimidate those with whom it disagrees, and it is able to do this with the encouragement of Bush, who – by equating dissenters with terrorists – has declared open season on anyone who disagrees with him.

Which, of course, proves precisely the point of my original article: the freedom to dissent is in danger in America. Maybe I didn't realise I was leaping into the fire, but I'm not sorry I did. As Günter Grass said: "The job of a citizen is to keep his mouth open."

What did we (in America) learn from September 11, 2001 and the deaths of 3,000 of our fellow citizens. I am tempted to admit: Absolutely nothing.

Among the many unlearned lessons of Day-Which-Will-Live-In-Infamy-II-- the necessity to control our borders, the need for a patriotic renewal and the importance of combating multiculturalism -- the most significant is the nature of Islam. You will note that I do not say militant Islam, or radical Islam, or Islamic extremism or other such weasel words – but Islam, period.

Every one of the hijackers who flew airliners into the World Trade Center and Pentagon were professing and practicing Moslems, as is Osama bin Laden. The Al Qaeda terrorist network, is based in Moslem countries and supported financially by the so called pious Moslem leadership of Saudi Arabia.

The overwhelming majority of Moslem religious authorities who have spoken out on the subject, including those at the main mosque in Mecca and Egypt’s prestigious Al Azar University, either endorse or rationalize acts of terrorism. On a day when Americans were incinerated or buried under tons of rubble, Muslims from Nigeria to Indonesia, celebrated in the streets.

Sept. 11 was one chapter in a 1400-year jihad. Every day, the World Trade Center massacre is reenacted on a smaller scale somewhere in the world. Jewish women and children are burned alive in a bus in Israel. A missionary is beheaded in the Philippines, gunmen shoot up a church in Pakistan (deliberately firing into the prostrate bodies of women trying to shield their children). Ancient monasteries and convents are destroyed in Kosovo. Women are sentenced to death for adultery in Nigeria, Hindus are murdered in the Kashmir. In Denmark, the Muslim community there has put a $30,000 bounty on the heads of Jews and those who support Israel. Nuns are beheaded in Baghdad, Christians in Sudan are forced into slavery, and in Britain, Islam openly states it is going to take over not only the UK, but the whole world -- and the beat goes on.
Genocide in the Sudan, ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, religious persecution in Saudi Arabia, calls for another holocaust in mosques from Mecca to Gaza, the imposition of Islamic law in Nigeria, forced conversions in Indonesia, synagogues burned in France, Jews attacked across Europe – these are everyday events, as Third World and much of the First slowly turns Islamic green.

Sadly our leaders, from President Bush on down, insist on peddling the absurdity that Islam is a religion of peace – a creed of kindness and benevolence tragically and inexplicably corrupted by fanatics.

Why is the leadership of the West reluctant to confront manifest reality? The reason lies partly with our absurd foreign policy. We have declared certain Moslem nations to be our loyal allies – including Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. We would not want to offend these dear friends by saying something unflattering about their bloody, butcherly, dark ages faith.

Americans are naturally benevolent. Most of us are taught from childhood that is religion is good (and it does not matter which religion). As long as little Johnny believes in God and goodness, it’s inconsequential whether he lights candles, wears a skull cap to services or prays in the direction of Mecca.

This works with every religion except Islam.
Consider the following: Of the three major western religions: one was started by a lawgiver who helped to free slaves; one by a man of peace; the last one by a man who loved war and having sex with children. Mohammed not only led men into battle, he enjoyed marrying girls as young as six years old (it is in the Koran). The essence of his message is sick and disgusting. A holy war where you slaughter your enemies, while at the same time encouraging followers to have sex with the children they capture (as he did) for the glory of Allah. He even advised his followers to negotiate false peace treaties in order to lull their enemies.

For almost 1,400 years, that has been the reality of Islam. Within a century after the death of Mohammed, Islam spread throughout the Middle East and across North Africa. It overran the Iberian peninsula and was finally stopped in southern France. It spread eastward as far as the southern Philippines. It was not propagated by fresh-faced young men knocking on doors and announcing: “Hello. I’m from your local mosque. Have you considered the Koran?” It was and is spread by force – conversion by the sword or death. This is still in practice today.

Some will respond that all religions go through periods of violence, usually in their infancy. Christianity had its crusades and Inquisition, its forced conversions and expulsions. The evil committed in the name of Christ happened centuries ago. The evil committed in the name of the Prophet is going on now, as you read these words. Of 22 conflicts in the Third World, 20 involve Moslems versus someone else. Coincidence? In his brilliant book, “Clash of Cultures and the Remaking of World Order,” Samuel Huntington speaks of Islam’s “bloody borders.”

There is no Methodist Jihad, no Jewish Hasidic holy warriors, no Buddhist monk wanting to have 72 virgins waiting for him after a suicide bombing, no Hindu holy men planning to kill, no Southern Baptist suicide bombers, no Mormon elders preaching the annihilation of members of other faiths.

Islam is a warrior religion – the perfect vessel for fanatics, the violence-prone, the envious and haters of all stripes. This is one reason why Islam is making so many converts among the peaceable denizens of our prison system.

Still, much of the West is addicted to a fairy-tale version of Islam. Christian and Jewish clergy fall all over themselves to have interfaith services with imams. Representatives of Moslem groups are invited to the White House. The president signs a Ramadan declaration. In California, public schools ask children to role-play at being Moslems. Our universities take carefully selected verses from the Koran and present them as the essence of the faith. All that’s needed is a Moslem character on “Sesame Street.” Look – it’s the Jihad Monster!
This perspective engenders a fatally false sense of security.

Imagine, in 1940, Winston Churchill taking to the airwaves to announce “Nazism is an ideology of peace which, regrettably, has been perverted by a few fanatics like Hitler and Goebbels. But most storm troopers and SS men are fine follows – your friends and neighbors.”
For the first thousand years of its history – from the death of Mohammad to the 17th. century decline of the Ottoman empire, Islam was an expansionist force. For the next 300 years, as the West rose to preeminence, Islam receded. For the past four decades – fueled by Arab oil wealth, a surplus population in the Middle East, the waning of the West and the rise of more virulent strains of the faith (Shiism, Wahhabism, Sunni fundamentalism) – Islam is expanding once more.

Due to Moslem immigration and aggressive proselytizing, Islam is being exported to the West. Moslem populations are burgeoning throughout Western Europe. (In southern France, there are more mosques than churches.) In Judeo-Christian America, Islam is the fastest growing religion. It is also spreading down the coast of West Africa, through the Balkans (after Serbia, Macedonia is the next target) and up from Mindanao in the Philippines.

Wherever it comes, Islam brings its delightful customs – child marriages, female circumcisions, rabid hatred toward Christians, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists and every other non-muslim, terrorism and support for terrorism and a virulent intolerance of other faiths.

Am I suggesting we declare war on over 1 billion million Moslems? The question is moot – Islam has declared war on the rest of the human race. When one side knows it’s at war and the other thinks peace and brotherhood prevail, guess who wins?

Ultimately, it is not about Jews in Israel, or Orthodox Serbs in Kosovo, or Hindus in Kashmir, Buddhists in Thailand, or Maronite Catholics in Lebanon, Taoists in China, or Christians in Sudan and Nigeria, but all of us. As Ben Franklin would have it – Either we will hang together, or surely we shall all hang separately

One of the "support from America" letters she quotes in the article:

My mind boggles so much more at this garbage than at any of the fallacies and self-aggrandizement in this kludge Anita Roddick calls an essay. How did the person who wrote this feel when his/her Congress told him/her that s/he can't get a group of friends together and buy political ads within 90 days of an election? How does that fit with "free speech" in his/her mind? We live in a nation now where you can put "virtual" child porn on the 'net but you can't pay for someone to say "Dick Durbin is really bad on abortion issues" unless tha government likes your timing, and this twit thinks G.W. is the problem! Never mind that none of the initatives by the administration that civil libertarians hate so much have anything to do with free speech. The last line really shows what's wrong: This person lives in a sound bite world and doesn't do any thinking for him or her self. The twit hasn't any clue that G.W. was talking to the leaders of other countries when he made the "us or them" declaration. And "Us" means America, not the Bush White House. And you know what? It is so. This is a fight over the existence of civilization and even about what that civilization will be like after the war is over. Every nation must choose a side, or Al-Qaida will choose for them.

Some folk are just usin' their brain as a paperweight, yaknowwhattamean?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

It's as though these people are desperate to find an enemy at which to hurl their anger and hurt