September 26, 2010

MOLLIFYING

Reading this new Mark Steyn makes me really miss being in the loop...
Mollifying Muslims and Muslifying Mollies

Posted by: Sarah at 07:53 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Sarah, I miss your comments on the news. I'm glad you linked to this piece. Although Molly Norris wouldn't like us, we can't let her be forgotten.

Steyn wrote,

But Molly Norris is merely the latest squishy liberal to learn that, when the chips are down, your fellow lefties won't be there for you.

Look at who is there for her. People like Steyn. Ironic, isn't it?

Posted by: Amritas at September 27, 2010 01:39 PM (5a7nS)

2 I love that he called Obama a "craven squish".  It made me giggle.

And that was a FANTASTIC article!  I agree wholeheartedly.  I can't wait till we get a MAN in office again, who'll look these evil killers in the eye and say, "Go ahead.  Make my day!"

Posted by: Deltasierra at September 27, 2010 10:20 PM (u2K2X)

3 I'll say the same thing I said on this on another site- I don't recall Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Irshad Manji going into hiding and changing their names.


Posted by: airforcewife at September 28, 2010 08:11 AM (uE3SA)

4 AFW, I don't know what you are trying to get at. That Molly Norris should have been courageous enough to retain her name and remain in the public eye? Yes, it would have been far better if Norris had been heroic, but I am hesitant to judge those who are in life-threatening circumstances, particularly since I myself use a pseudonym. I reserve my condemnation for Anwar al-Awlaki and those who agree with him.

Posted by: Amritas at September 28, 2010 11:31 AM (5a7nS)

5 I also don't think much of Irshad Manji. She wants Islam to revert to its "fun-loving roots". This is either an incredibly naive statement or something far worse. Read a biography of Mohammed to understand why.

Posted by: Amritas at September 28, 2010 11:42 AM (5a7nS)

6 I use an online pseudo as well, Amritas (although it's pretty easy to find out who I am in real life as well).  So it's not that I think people should never use a pseudonym.  Or that people should all be like Ayaan Hirsi Ali (there are many things Manji says I don't agree with, but I can't question her courage.  She regularly gets death threats and is often treated quite horribly by the Muslim community). 

My disagreement with Molly's particular actions is that she decided on a course of action that she should have 100% understood the ramifications of, and then first backtracked, then hid - and all the while has not seen fit to mention the differences in her safety levels between making fun of Islam and making fun of other religions.  Given the furor over the Mohammed cartoons, she could not have been so blind as to not realize what would happen.  Unless she is claiming a psychotic fugue or something. 

I get that she just wants it all to go away.  I do understand that.  But we don't always get the choice - we don't get to wish away diseases that affect us, we don't get to wish away personal hardships. 

Salman Rushdie was in hiding for years as well, but he continued to put out the very things he was in hiding for producing in the first place.  He is another person I do not always agree with, for that matter. 

I do have more of a point to this, but I'm having a hard time collecting my thoughts into something coherent at the moment.  I will do so later after a bit more coffee and probably a sandwich.    I did not want to give the impression I was ignoring valid points, though.

Posted by: airforcewife at September 29, 2010 01:10 PM (uE3SA)

7 AFW, you are now discussing some different though related issues. Your original comment came off as a criticism of Norris changing her name and hiding unlike Ali or Manji. Now you are also talking about the foolishness of Norris' actions. She was utterly naive. Her biggest mistake was backing down. Too late. At no point would I describe her as being heroic. And I do not know if I'd behave that much differently if I were in her shoes at this point. Terror and clear thinking often don't mix.

When I say, "Remember Molly Norris," I don't mean to make her a role model. Rather, I intend to make people think about free speech. What I think of Norris or Manji or Rushdie (not much) is irrelevant; what matters is that they have a right to free speech. Saying dumb things should not be a capital crime. Who is worse, the speakers or their would-be slayers? Let's not lose sight of who the real bad guys are and what their ideology is.

"For someone to feel they have to go into witness protection because of making such a mild gesture, frankly, is beyond appalling. Her freedoms and rights are being trampled on. We really can’t let this kind of thing stand or the fanatics will try to intimidate everyone to bowing before their faith."

- James Hudnall

Posted by: Amritas at September 29, 2010 03:25 PM (5a7nS)

8 Apparently, during the late 1930s there was considerable pressure on writers/journalists in Britain to avoid saying anything that might offend Nazi Germany. Winston Churchill spoke of the unendurable..sense of our country falling into the power, into the orbit and influence of Nazi Germany, and of our existence becoming dependent upon their good will or pleasure…In a very few years, perhaps in a very few months, we shall be confronted with demands” which “may affect the surrender of territory or the surrender of liberty.” A “policy of submission” would entail “restrictions” upon freedom of speech and the press. “Indeed, I hear it said sometimes now that we cannot allow the Nazi system of dictatorship to be criticized by ordinary, common English politicians.

Churchill’s concern was not just a theoretical one. Following the German takeover of Czechoslovakia, photographs were available showing the plight of Czech Jews, dispossessed by the Nazis and wandering the roads of eastern Europe. Geoffrey Dawson, editor of The Times, refused to run any of them: it wouldn’t help the victims, he told his staff, and if they were published, Hitler would be offended.

In my view, a very hard line should be taken against those who threaten Americans, including arrest for those within our borders, pressure for extradition or local trial for those residing in friendly countries, and Hellfire missile attacks (or whatever works best) for those being protected by rogue regimes. Obama, of course, is much more likely to focus on restricting the speech of Americans.




Posted by: david foster at October 01, 2010 03:34 PM (Gis4X)

9 David, you reminded me of this article by Iranian ex-Moslem Ali Sina:

Charlie Chaplin knew the great power of ridicule. A strong opponent of racism, in 1937 Chaplin decided to make a film on the dangers of fascism. As Chaplin pointed out in his autobiography, attempts were made to stop the film being made: “Halfway through making The Great Dictator I began receiving alarming messages from United Artists. They had been advised by the Hays Office that I would run into censorship trouble. Also the English office was very concerned about an anti-Hitler picture and doubted whether it could be shown in  Britain. But I was determined to go ahead, for Hitler must be laughed at.” (Charles Chaplin, My Autobiography, 1964)  

Just like in the thirties, today there are many useful idiots who defend Islam, apply censorship and try to silence its critics. These fools must be put to shame too.

Posted by: Amritas at October 02, 2010 01:56 AM (hBtE2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
50kb generated in CPU 0.05, elapsed 0.2152 seconds.
49 queries taking 0.1833 seconds, 206 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.