The Cowardly Dhimmitude of Bruce Crumley

Thanks to Julia for alerting me to this vile little piece of dhimmitude in Time Magazine by Bruce Crumley. It has, expectedly, resulted in an onslaught about freedom of speech. Crumley clearly doesn’t understand that freedom of speech really does mean that you get to say things about people, their culture, customs and belief systems that may offend them and that you should be able to do it without being firebombed –  and that when they do resort to violence the appropriate response is a two-finger salute and dish out more of the same, just to drive the point home good and hard.

Yes, sure, free speech comes with consequences. People might not like what you say and they might respond in kind. That is fair enough. However, what Crumley and similar apologists for the religion of peace choose to forget is that Islam is a totalitarian ideology –  one that brooks no dissent, one that treats half of the population as second class citizens –  well, those that follow its creed. Those who don’t are treated as even lower. This is an ideology that dictates what people wear, how they interact with each other and what they may eat; it is misogynistic, intolerant and dogmatic. This is an ideology utterly opposed to any principles of personal liberty and pointing that out is a reasonable thing to do (one might even argue, a sacred duty) –  even if it does offend millions of people. Get used to it. Be offended. Too bad, frankly. There is no right not to be offended.

Charlie Hebdo engaged in some light lampooning –  something that the Catholic Church takes from the publication on a regular basis with barely a raised eyebrow. The response from the Islamists when Islam was the target was to firebomb the Hebdo offices. Now, one asks, whose fault is that? Crumley has an answer:

Okay, so can we 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? 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?

That’s right –  not the lunatics that threw the Molotov cocktails, but the publishers themselves. They were to blame. I guess in Crumley’s world, women who wear short skirts on a night out are asking for it. Yup, that’s right, he uses the “asking for it” rape defence.

And while we are at it, there is no such thing as Islamophobia –  this is in the long list of politically correct, puritan, Guardianesque made up ailments designed to vilify dissent. A phobia is an irrational fear or dislike of something. A dislike of Islam is not irrational; it is perfectly reasonable and logical.

That said, this moron then proceeds thus:

The difficulty in answering that question is also what’s making it hard to have much sympathy for the French satirical newspaper firebombed this morning, after it published another stupid and totally unnecessary edition mocking Islam.

The only stupidity here is Crumley’s. Has he not been following events in Tunisia? In the aftermath of their overthrow of a dictator, they hold free elections and then elect an Islamist party. They have, effectively, elected to replace one tyrant with another; one that, arguably, will be worse when it comes to personal liberties. The Charlie Hebdo lampooning was making fun of this absurd irony, so was both topical and relevant.

The Wednesday morning arson attack destroyed the Paris editorial offices of Charlie Hebdo after the paper published an issue certain to enrage hard-core Islamists (and offend average Muslims) with articles and “funny” cartoons featuring the Prophet Mohammed—depictions forbidden in Islam to boot. Predictably, the strike unleashed a torrent of unqualified condemnation from French politicians, many of whom called the burning of the notoriously impertinent paper as “an attack on democracy by its enemies.”

There are a couple of points to make here. Depictions of Mohammed are forbidden in Islam. The publishers of Charlie Hebdo are not in Islam, therefore, the proscription does not apply. And as for it causing offence –  well, diddums, frankly. Grow up. Get over yourselves. Some daft religion invented by a murderous medieval warlord isn’t something deserving of universal respect. If you want to practice his deranged teachings, go right ahead –  I for one will defend your right to do so –  but do not expect those of us who don’t follow it to pay any respect to it.

The other point is that this was an attack on democracy by its enemies. Islam is the antithesis of democracy –  and, more specifically, liberty. There is no reason to qualify the condemnation at all. This was a direct attack on liberty in general and freedom of speech in particular. Robust condemnation without any qualification at all is the right response.

Sorry for your loss, Charlie, and there’s no justification of such an illegitimate response to your current edition. But do you still think the price you paid for printing an offensive, shameful, and singularly humor-deficient parody on the logic of “because we can” was so worthwhile?

Yes, frankly. Standing up to these bastards, no matter what they do is always worthwhile. Lampooning their religion is a part of freedom of speech and we should always robustly defend it.

Why has Crumley not robustly condemned Hebdo’s “offensive, shameful, and singularly humor-deficient parody on the logic of “because we can”” attacks on the Catholic church? Surely that is just as bad? Or is it that we didn’t have enraged Catholics firebombing the offices of publications that say unpleasant things about their religion? That’s the thing about freedom of speech –  it is an equal opportunities offender. There is no reason why one belief system should be regularly lampooned and another treated with kid gloves. And, should all those robust defenders of free speech who are rightly roundly condemning the rank cowardice of this pathetic excuse for a journalist, include among their number some who are so enraged, so extreme and so unhinged that they decide to firebomb the offices of Time Magazine, can we argue with a straight face, that they asked for it?

So, yeah, the violence inflicted upon Charlie Hebdo was outrageous, unacceptable, condemnable, and illegal. But apart from the “illegal” bit, Charlie Hebdo’s current edition is all of the above, too.

Well, no, actually. Once again we see the politically correct use of the word “unacceptable” being wheeled out. Unacceptable by whom, precisely? I don’t find it unacceptable. What I find unacceptable is kowtowing to bullies. Nor do I find Hebdo’s satire condemnable. It is satire, that’s how satire works. It is topical and makes a point in a simple and mildly amusing manner. Sure, Crumley and his overlords might not like it. Others do. Tastes vary. That does not make it unacceptable –  and certainly not unacceptable in the same way as, say, arson is.

Bruce Crumley is a disgrace to his profession and given that journalists are somewhere between the dog turd and the pavement, that is some achievement. One of the things they should be doing –  loud and clear –  is defending free speech. But here we have a journo writing for a mainstream magazine effectively using the “she asked for it” excuse to justify cowardice in the face of violence.