Yesh Gvul
Courage To Refuse
Shministim
Pilots
Free The Five
New Profile
Refuser Solidarity Network


Name: Antony Loewenstein
Home: Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Comment Rules
About Me:
See my complete profile



Google
Web antonyloewenstein.blogspot.com
Sweat-Shop Productions
Sweat-Shop Productions
Sweat-Shop Productions



Blogs

Sites




Previous Posts



Powered by Blogger

 


Saturday, February 11, 2006

Making a clear choice

Conservative US commentator Andrew Sullivan publishes some "liberal" thoughts on the Danish cartoon controversy. Take this example:

"I'm honestly starting to suspect that, before this is over, European nations are going to have exactly four choices in dealing with their entire Moslem populations - for elementary safety's sake":

(1) "Capitulate totally to them and become a Moslem continent."
(2) "Intern all of them."
(3) "Deport all of them."
(4) "Throw all of them into the sea."

Such hysterical, racist nonsense may occupy the minds of supposed internationalists, but calmer heads must, and will, prevail.

5 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Aaron Lane said...
"It is perfectly clear that those comments were written not by Sullivan himself"

True.

"Why did you not make this clear in your post, instead of using murky word "published", which would lead any casual reader to assume that Sullivan had made the comments himself?"

True. Reading Sullivan's post also makes it clear that he completely agrees with the statements made. If anything, given that he characterises the words as coming from "the left" whereas he is from "the right", one can infer that he not only agrees with them, but endorses them completely because they are essentially the sort of idiocy eminating from conservative circles these days. There is no hint of disapproval in his post whatsoever.

"Also, it is obvious that the emailer made his comments with some flippancy."

False. There isn't a hint of flippancy, sarcasm, irony or whatever other tone you want to imagine. (Sheik Hassan Nasrallah's comments are just as "flippant" if one applies the same interpretative "rule".)

"Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, as making even more extreme comments, and his were made with the utmost seriousness, yet you refrained from making any criticism of him. Why do you continue to ignore Islamic extremism, while harping on about the most trivial examples of Western extremism? "

Everyone knows about Islamic extremism - the news is about nothing else. What does NOT get into the news (or at least doesn't get named as such) is the ideological and propagandistic drivel from the likes of Sullivan and still bigger fish: drivel and propaganda that serves one overriding purpose - to prepare electorates for human rights abuses at home and overseas and the destruction of entire countries in the name of "The Good". Put in context, Nasrallah has made inflammatory statements that have had very little effect in terms of relative death and destruction, whereas Sullivan & co. make ideologically prepatory statements for an Administration that, with full public approval thanks to his efforts, has destroyed two entire countries in the space of 5 years. Which would we be more concerned about?

Saturday, February 11, 2006 8:47:00 pm  
Blogger James Waterton said...

The intial incitement, "Progressive Atheist"? What would that be, then?

Sunday, February 12, 2006 4:33:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

James Waterton said...
"The intial incitement, "Progressive Atheist"? What would that be, then?"

That would be the cartoons which are nominally of Muhammad, but are of course, as everyone with a brain knows, really about spitting in the face of The Inferior Ones.

Sunday, February 12, 2006 2:04:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

HisHineness said...
"They're [the cartoons] about the fact that every religion is open to criticism. Why should Islam be raised on any special pedestal, immune from scrutiny?"

Crap. Good cartoon-work directs its attention at those at the top. Nasty and opportunistic cartoon-work picks on those at the bottom. Anyone can poke fun at authority, people and institutions in positions of power, and the values they hold. That's traditionally what political cartoons are about. This was not one of those times. This was originally about the singling out of a relatively powerless minority by a widely read right-wing Christian newspaper for "special treatment".

We now all know that the "free speech" ruse was just that: a ruse. Why? Because the very same paper refused to publish caricatures of Jesus. Why did the supposedly unbreachable wall of free speech crumble in that case? Simple: the paper didn't want to cause offense. By the paper's VERY OWN STANDARDS of decency it should have, in the case of the Muhammad cartoons, RESERVED the right to free speech in order to foster social harmony. But it didn't do this. It didn't apply its own stanards fairly and impartially. It singled out a marginalised group because it knew it could get away with it in the current climate (just as all unprincipled media entities do, from Sydney talk-back radio to the Saudi press).

Monday, February 13, 2006 1:44:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"So Islam shouldn't be placed under scrutiny by a bunch of cartoonists, simply because muslims are "powerless" and downtrodden?"

You write insightful critical pieces, you don't draw "ner ner dee ner ner" cartoons. The same goes for single mothers..... Unless of course your model of human decency is the schoolyard bully.

Tuesday, February 14, 2006 12:34:00 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home