The Hatemobile

From Loonwatch:

A website I wish I had made. . .

. . . and, in fact, did.

A couple of years ago, when I had a lot of time on my hands, and the quantity of subject material was more manageable, I created a blog called The Mozlems Are Coming! I had intended to devote it to ridiculing the xenophobic conspiracy theory, forwarded by Spencer, Geller, Wilders and co., that there is a vast and ancient Muslim plot to conquer and subjugate non-Muslims everywhere.

I'm only slightly kidding.

Then, a combination of being busy, being lazy, the mushrooming of the Fear-O-Sphere genre, and the limited hit-count of this blog itself led me to put the project on hold indefinitely. It's something I regret. Since then, what used to go on in the darker corners of the internet has gradually moved into the mainstream, from the anti-Mosque protests in New York to the appearance of the many books penned by anti-Muslim wingnuts in hands of strangers I see on busses and trains. Before he spectacularly and gruesomely disproved every argument ever made about Scandinavians and racial profiling, Anders Breivik added his own 1500-page magnum opus to this growing body of hate literature.

For Spencer, Geller, et al to claim they weren't responsible is a bit like saying that Wagner wasn't responsible anti-Semitic violence. It's true, but he did inspire some people who were.

It is, therefore, regrettable that there aren't more people engaged in countering this burgeoning industry, whose intellectual products have already made a bloody imprint upon the world. Fortunately, a few brilliant people have stepped into the gap:


The site provides profiles regular updates on all the activities going in the Fear-O-Sphere, well-informed refutations of its (ahem) "scholarly" works, and unlike most political blogs (including and especially the anti-Islam ones), some healthy debate and disagreement in the comments, with regular contributions from a haters themselves.

I highly recommed the exposé on "Muslim Reformer" Wafa Sultan, one of the leaders of the cottage industry of Islam-Experts-With-Funny-Sounding-Names that professional hatemongers have come to rely upon.

None other than anti-Islam kingpin Robert Spencer himself has taken to flailing wildly at Loonwatch, calling it an "Islamic hate site." No comment from me is needed.

In summary: TheProudIslamist <3 Loonwatch.

Like it or not . . .

A company like Newscorp can turn anyone into a sensation, even a third-rate fearmonger like the zany Randroid proprietor of the blog "Atlas Shrugs." Salon.com's Jason Elliot lays out a neat summary of how the media giant has turned a relatively uncontroversial construction project into America's national anti-Muslim hatefest.

How the "ground zero mosque" fear mongering began

. . . In short, there is no good reason that the Cordoba House project should have been a major national news story, let alone controversy. And yet it has become just that, dominating the political conversation for weeks and prompting such a backlash that, according to a new poll, nearly 7 in 10 Americans now say they oppose the project. How did the Cordoba House become so toxic, so fast? . . .

Fortunately, this would probably never happen in Canada, because it is a better country.

I think.

Tales from the Fear-o-Sphere

Teh Mozlems are coming, teh Mozlems are coming!

From the unintentionally funny folks at FrontPageMag, and Pamela Gellar, the queen of cheap internet fearmongering, comes this lovely passage, as FPM's editor interviews Ms. Gellar about her new magnum opus about the Obama presidency:

FP: Tell us a bit about how anti-Semitism plays into all of this. We know Islam’s disposition to Jews and so, perhaps, Obama’s bullying of Israel is no coincidence at all?

Geller: Indeed Jamie, Islamic anti-Semitism is part of the Koranic imperative and the pervasive influence of Islamic Jew-hatred cannot be ignored when assessing the impact of Barack Obama’s early life experiences upon the later trajectory of his career. If a devout Muslim prays the obligatory five daily prayers, he will repeat the Shehadah*, the first chapterof the Koran, seventeen times; that chapter concludes with prayers that Muslims generally understand as asking Allah not to make the believer like the Jews (“those who have earned Allah’s anger”) or the Christians (“those who have gone astray”). The prayers generally conclude with the dua qunoot, a prayer that Allah’s wrath would overtake infidels.

Imagine the influence that all this – inculcating contempt for Jews and Christians seventeen times a day – might have on a young mind and a future president. Troubling psychological wiring might have been set in place for a lifetime.

Yet Obama has never spoken about the influence his early experiences with Islam had upon his mind and heart – in sharp contrast to others who were raised in Islam and left the faith. Obama would have had to make a decision to reject Islam.

If so, when did he make that decision? How?

Muslims who have left Islam are generally vocal about why they left: Wafa Sultan, Ibn Warraq, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Walid Shoebat, and others have spoken out fearlessly on these issues. Obama may not wish to engage in critiques of Islam, but if he left Islam, he must have very definite thoughts about it. And even if this is simply not an important issue to him, then he can still appreciate how important it is – knowing what he knows about Islam and apostasy.

Apostasy is punishable by death in Islam. Yet there have been no calls for Obama’s death from the Islamic world. Why is this? Islam gives no free passes.

That's right Pam, we're all in cahoots. Thank goodness someone is blowing the lid off this global conspiracy.

-------------------

* Actually, the Shehadah contains no such thing - it is simply the sentence "I bear witness that there is no God but God, and Muhammad is his Messenger." What Pam is refering to, in her pretense of expertise, is Surah Fatiha, whose meaning is certainly open to interpretation, but definitely not open to her interpretation.

Call it what it is

The above poster is a cartoon. Whether or not a small boy holding a teddy bear, casting a shadow forming the word "Gaza" was ever fired upon by an Israeli helicopter is irrelevant.

The poster makes no claims about Jews, or even about Israelis. It presents the conflict, however, as the David-and-Goliath struggle that it is, where a high-tech, multi-billion dollar army of occupation, motivated by a religious-nationalist ideology, seeks to crush the life of the native population.

When two Canadian universities banned the above poster from appearing on their billboards, the argument of one of them was:

"A poster from the campus group Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights has recently come to the attention of the Communications Office. All posters approved by the Communications Office must promote a campus culture where all members of the community can play a part in a declaration of human rights recognizing the inherent dignity and equal rights of all students. Consequently, we will not place this particular poster on our campus billboards."

In other words, because the poster was going to upset Zionists, it couldn't be displayed.

When the Muhammad cartoons were published in Canada, every wingnut came out of the woodwork to defend Ezra Levant. Despite my distaste for the man, I was with them, and not only because fining the man only increased his fame. When Geert Wilders produced his film "Fitna," I yawned, and wondered what the fuss was about. He has since become a hero amongst the usual anti-Islam types who style themselves "defenders of free speech."

Will they stand up for the artist in this case?

Don't hold your breath.

Oh, how it fills my heart with glee

Beware the Stealth Jihad!
(Ok, I'm kidding. But only a bit.)

This won't make much sense to those of you who don't follow the Fearosphere(TM) , but it had me giggling with glee:

Robert "End Muslim Immigration" Spencer and Charlie "Murdering Peace Activists is Hilarious" Johnson are having a little tiff. The bone of contention? Which one of them is really the fascist.

I can think of an answer to their conundrum!

Tariq Ramadan flattens Philippe de Villiers

Here's an entertaining exchange between Muslim academic Tariq Ramadan and conservative French politician Philippe de Villiers, on the French current events show Ripostes.



de Villiers believes that France's Muslim minority represents a threat to the Republic, and does not consider them to be truly "French." He goes from condescending and disingenuous to desperate and scatterbrained, ending the debate by grasping at ad hominem attacks against Ramadan.

De Villiers' arguments are prototypical of the "The Mozlems are Coming!" hysteria that seems to have gripped the much of the internet and the Western world, relying on isolated anecdotes, confusing Islam with the behaviour of certain Muslims, and holding them to a moral standard which he refuses to apply to anyone else - himself included.

It's in French, so if you don't understand the language, you should learn.

Them Mozlems is still a-coming! Episode 3

Though not usually as entertaining as the lunacy that is still largely restricted to the internet, today's National Post editorial has a lot between its lines.

"Like many other media outlets, the National Post editorial board believes Section 13(1) is an unjustifiable infringement on free speech. We have therefore endorsed a proposal by Liberal MP Keith Martin that 13(1) be stricken from the law books. As a result, we have drawn the ire of critics who claim we are attacking a crucial tool needed to fight hate. These critics include the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC), a leading advocate of powerful anti-hate laws."

I'm not a fan of restrictions on speech either. I'm actually quite willing to give every crackpot and hate-monger a soap-box if it means that I can keep mine. So far, so good.

"Earlier this month, members of this editorial board sat down with the CJC to discuss this issue. As expected, no one on either side changed their mind. "

As would be expected of passionate advocates of opposing ideas. Do you hear me? We disagree. Our disagreement was big, and strong! It was, like, THIS BIG! *stretches arms to show the bigness of the disagreement*

"But we were impressed to see the CJC. . . "

Surprise!

"acknowledge that, in certain cases, the current system had been improperly exploited to advance meritless complaints. We were also impressed that the CJC is mulling the possibility of endorsing changes to Section 13(1) that would require the attorney-general's approval before complaints could go forward."

More specifically, the CJC suggested a provision under Section 13(1) that would read:

C - The above provisions apply to, but are not limited to, vulnerable groups targeted on the basis of religion, race, gender, sexuality, disability, or age.
a) Except for Muslims.

Ok, maybe not. I am the biggest CanWest-Global hater I know, but at least the Asper rag is making some pretense at being consistent. What would the CJC say if this were a headline in Maclean's?

"The future belongs to Jews.

The Jews have youth, numbers and global ambitions. The West is growing old and enfeebled, and lacks the will to rebuff those who would supplant it. It's the end of the world as we've known it."

That's what Maclean's published, except that I've made two substitutions. See if you can spot them. Is this "hate-speech"? You could make an argument either way. Would the CJC call a complaint about it "improper exploitation of the system to advance a meritless complaint?" Unlikely, given that they would probably be the ones initiating it.

I'm willing to tolerate hate-mongering - in fact I'd rather it be done in public, where it can be properly mocked, then let it be driven underground where it will seek other ways of expressing itself. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to make an ass of oneself, so long as the freedom to point it out is equally preserved.

If we ARE going to have laws about it though, they have to protect everybody. If they don't, then they themselves become a form of unfair discrimination.