Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Time Brings Submission Home

A Paris humor magazine called Charlie Hebdo last week produced an edition which was a satirical look at the Arab Spring, purporting to celebrate the victory of Islamists in the Tunisian elections. The cover depicted the prophet Mohammed saying "100 lashes if you don't die of laughter." Reaction from the religion of peace was quick in coming.

On Charlie Hebdo's website one humorless Muslim posted: "You keep abusing Islam's almighty Prophet with disgusting and disgraceful cartoons using excuses of freedom of speech. Be God's curse upon you." Islamists know that actions speak louder than words. So rather than wait for God's curse, the next day the offices of the magazine were firebombed. The premises were completely destroyed. The editor of the magazine said: "We can’t put out the magazine under these conditions. The stocks are burned, smoke is everywhere, the paste-up board is unusable, everything is melted, there’s no more electricity."

Just another day in Islamic paradise. But the story that brings the issue of submission to Islamic threats comes not from the Paris newspapers, which roundly condemned the attack. It comes from the Paris editor of Time Magazine. Like our own South Park, Charlie Hebdo is an equal opportunity offender. It has done similar "special editions" on Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and other lesser known sects. Nary a peep from Time. But when the magazine spoofed Islam (it called the special edition Charia Hebdo, a play on the word sharia), and got firebombed for its efforts, Time rushed to the defense of--the firebombers.

Just as many members of the Dutch press reacted to the murder of Theo van Gogh after his production of the anti-Islamist film Submission, Time has basically asked "what did they expect?" The conclusion of the press in the Netherlands then, like the conclusion of Time now, is that one should not make a film or publish a magazine that will outrage devout Muslims and put oneself in harm's way. Put simply, "you deserve it." Once again, vicious thugs are excused and the victims are blamed.

Time was not alone. In the British paper The Guardian, reporter Pierre Haski said: "Muslims in France feel discriminated against and unwelcome." And then came the excuse: "President Sarkozy's interior minister even called the growing Muslim population a 'problem' for France. Islam has become a cultural identity, a refuge in a troubled society where they don't feel accepted." And then he did the inevitable. He compared Muslims living in France today to Jews living in Germany during the Nazi regime. No hint of irony at all. Apparently the Jews were recently-arrived violent thugs who kept upsetting the peace and tranquility of the lovable Nazis.

Not to be outdone, Bruce Crumley of Time brings submission (the real meaning of the word "Islam") to America's shores from his perch in Paris. Says Crumley (as he wipes the spittle off his chin): "Okay, so we can finally stop with the idiotic, divisive, and destructive efforts by 'majority sections' of Western nations to bait Muslim members with petulant, futile demonstrations that 'they' aren't going to tell 'us' what can and can't be done in free societies?"

Now, for the excuse: "Because not only are such Islamophobic antics futile and childish, but they also openly beg for the very violent responses from extremists their authors claim to proudly defy in the name of common good. What common good is served by creating more division and anger, and by tempting belligerent reaction (emphasis added)?" Lacking the humor gene, much like the Islamists, Crumley then at least makes a half-hearted attempt at discussing the Charlie Hebdo satire issue itself. "The issue of Charlie Hebdo was coarse and heavy-handed--another stupid and totally unnecessary edition mocking Islam." Ergo, they got what they deserved.

Crumley opines that the firebombing was just the kind of angry response Charlie Hebdo was after in the first place. Yep, that's right. Obviously the magazine wanted its facilities burned to the ground. Its only disappointment was that there was no staff inside to be burned alive along with the building and its contents. At the same Time Magazine which gave a rave review to Broadway's production of The Book of Mormon, a play that satirizes the religion of the Latter Day Saints, there will never be heard a discouraging word about Islam. So far, we have not received any news reports about angered Mormons burning down the Time-Life Building or threatening the life of Time-Warner executives.

Lest you misunderstand Crumley's and Times' true feelings, he does go so far as to say "intimidation and violence must be condemned and combated for whatever reason they're committed." But he quickly follows that up with "the right to be obnoxious and offensive just because you can is infantile." You see, "baiting extremists isn't bravely defiant when your manner of doing so is more significant in offending millions of moderate people as well" (emphasis added). That's good logic. You deserve to be killed or your property burned to the ground by "extremists" because you have offended millions of "moderates."

So beware, American Spectator, National Review, Weekly Standard, Commentary, Reason, etc. You have been warned. If you slip from discussion of Islam into satire of any kind, you are in serious danger of violence from Muslim "extremists" standing up for their "moderate" brethren. And even worse, you are in serious danger of Time Magazine editorializing that you deserved it. FYI, the title of the Time article is "Firebombed French Paper Is No Free-Speech Martyr." The online version indicates it was originally entitled: "Firebombed French Paper a Victim of Islamists or Its Own Obnoxious Islamophobia?"

24 comments:

Tennessee Jed said...

well, so much for free speech, I guess. Actually, I can't help but agree that the question "what did they expect" actually is valid. Where Time, and other liberal soppish publications go wrong is in their conclusion that the violent reaction of Muslims to any perceived slight is somehow justified misses the mark by about a mile.

By way of comparison, a white person strolling through the Bronx at night alone can be rightfully accused of terminal stupidity and invite jokes claiming they had appear to be either terminally stupid or have a death wish. While the above may be true, it in no way justifies mugging or killing on the part of the violent perps just because they are minorities who have been discriminated against in the past.

The only thing we know for sure is that liberal publications will base their thinking on any given subject on how it will negatively impact their political enemies.

Koshcat said...

After watching this for many years, I have come to one single conclusion: the idea of a peaceful, moderate Moslem is a myth. There is stronger evidence of the existence of Bigfoot.

Since they don't exist, there is nothing to offend ergo keep at them and support those who do. They are snakes biding their time to strike. It is time to draw them out of their den and show the world their true colors.

Tennessee Jed said...

Koshkat - I honestly don't have enough data to say that for certain. I actually know some Muslims. They are as nice as can be, and are very "Americanized" so to speak.

I have no idea whether I'm correct or not, but suggest that there is a large group who are swayed by fundamentalism, the kind taught in the schools. Don't know what the percentage would be, but plenty of people, for sure. Likewise, there is probably a larger group who, though not willing to participate themselves, openly or secretly sympathize with the so called "radical fundamentalists."

I suspect that there may be a significant group of live and let live types in America. However, just like a conservative actor in Hollywood, they have not the courage to decry the violence perpetrated by the fundamentalists for fear of becoming targets themselves. As I say, this is based as much on intuition and common sense than anything else. Of course, because of the freedoms historically enjoyed in this country, it makes it that much harder for us to catch moves being made by jihadists located within the United States.

T-Rav said...

That comparison to Jews in Nazi Germany is--unfortunate, shall we say. Accurate, though. As you may know, every time the Nazis passed a new discrimination law, the Jews would respond by torching thousands of cars throughout Deutschland. Oh, and they also smashed the offices of newspapers who dared to speak out for the Nazis. They were also known to kill German nationalists on occasion.

So it's really very similar, you see.

Tam said...

T-Rav...yep, and the OWS is just like the TEA Party.

LawHawkRFD said...

Tennessee: I agree that speaking out is taking a risk. But America became a great nation starting with the Patriots speaking out against the king. Sometimes going into harm's way is not only brave, but necessary. I know what you mean about walking through the South Bronx at night, but it's an imperfect analogy. One should be able to do that without risking life and limb, but it's not necessary. Free speech, on the other hand, is as necessary to the functioning of the American body politic as oxygen is to the human body. As I've pointed out before, the Constitution was designed to protect unpopular and even hurtful speech. Popular speech doesn't need protection.

LawHawkRFD said...

Koshcat: I've addressed that issue before, and I sympathize with what you're thinking. But I have to disagree to a certain extent. There are many moderate Muslims in America. But I see it as the same problem as moderate Germans during the rise of Nazism. There's a time to be moderate, and a time to speak out boldly. By going about their ordinary lives ignoring the growing radicalization of their fellow Muslims, American moderate Muslims are doing themselves and their nation a great disservice. They are, by their silence and inaction, encouraging the growth of jihadism in America, even though they would not choose it themselves. It isn't enough to be quiet and live a moderate Americanized form of Islam when all about them there is growing fundamentalist Islamism. When large bodies of those moderate Muslims speak out in favor of mutual tolerance and against dhimmitude, I will relax a bit. But right now, I see moderate Islam as an enabler of radical Islam.

LawHawkRFD said...

Tennessee: I didn't see your comment before responding to Koshcat. I agree with what you're saying completely. The problem isn't really that there are no moderate Muslims in America--there are many. But their silence is deafening in the face of jihad, and their unwillingness to speak out in large numbers tends to indicate that many of them really do see attacks on radical Islamism as an attack on Islam in general. If I can distinguish between attacks on the Aryan Church and attacks on Christianity in general, they ought to be able to do the same with the Muslim Brotherhood and Islam in general. Except in rare, isolated instances, I just don't see that.

LawHawkRFD said...

T-Rav: Sadly, a lot of people would take what you're saying seriously if you said it in the HuffPo. They have no sense of history, and have been completely infected with the doctrine of moral relativism. There's a reason why sensible Jews use the expression "never again." America should adopt its own version: "Not even once." Satirizing and condemning the jihadist tendencies of elements of global Islam via free speech may be dangerous, but it's a vital necessity if Western civilization is going to survive.

LawHawkRFD said...

Tam: Exactly. Drawing equivalencies while ignoring facts is a tool of both the left and radical Islam.

T-Rav said...

LawHawk, that's very true. Personally, I would rather not draw satirical pictures of Mohammed or anything--not because I have any respect for him, but because I would just as soon not get my head cut off. But it may become a necessity, just to make a point to the Islamic world. You cannot demand that people who are not part of your religion must play by your rules, especially when the penalty for dereliction is death.

Libertarian Advocate said...

Bruce Crumley: The American Intelligentsia Elite's very own Chamberlain.

Bruce: How did it feel flushing the last vestiges of your magazine's credibility down the loo?

LawHawkRFD said...

T-Rav: And most importantly, their rules (sharia) are not our rules (the Constitution).

LawHawkRFD said...

Libertarian Advocate: Well said, though I probably would have chosen Benedict Arnold. Time has sunk to a level almost as bad as its little brother Newsweek (aka Weaknews.

AndrewPrice said...

Sorry I'm late.

This is both shocking and yet completely expected. It's shocking they would think like this and cave in to Islamic terrorists. That will only encourage them to continue things like this until they control exactly what Time and others journalists can write about Islam.

On the other hand, I've come to expect this kind of cowardice mixed with bravery only when there's no risk, from our media.

KN@PPSTER said...

"as [Crumley] wipes the spittle off his chin"

Spittle? I think it was something else. Just sayin' ...

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: So true. Jihadists are like angry dogs--they smell fear and it just enrages them further. Crumley is one of those who think that if they try to mollify the beast, it will eat them last.

LawHawkRFD said...

KN@APPSTER: LOL I was going to use a different word, but I don't think the word shittle exists.

BevfromNYC said...

LawHawk: I applaud you that you can even READ anything from Time. I gave up in 2008 when they got all weak-kneed and tingly over Obama. I gave up on Newsweek when their editor compared Obama to God. Too bad they didn't compare Obama to Allah...

rlaWTX said...

I also applaud Lawhawk for having the strength to read that junk... Thanks for taking one for the team!

And they're all idjits.

Joel Farnham said...

LawHawk,

I am wondering if any moderate Muslims understand that the continued silence is what is hurting their religion?.... at least with conservatives.

Patti said...

i've tried to articulate my BLECH in three comments now. #fail

everyone is fair game concerning free speech, EXCEPT for muslims. this should be concerning for everyone, ESPECIALLY muslims.

but, that's not the climate of the world we live in today, so watch your step or face the fire-bomb next.

tryanmax said...

So, let me get this straight, then... Might doesmake right?

Gosh, I'm so confused.

LawHawkRFD said...

tryanmax: Let me clear up that confusion. Might makes right, but only if the ones with the power aren't American, Christian or Jewish. But then I suspect you already knew that. LOL

Post a Comment