Guest
Contributor
Sherrie Gossett
Sherrie Gossett is Associate Editor of the Accuracy
in Media (AIM)
Report. [go to
Gossett index]
 Murder
They Wrote
Radical Islam eludes editorialists...
[Sherrie Gossett] 11/19/04
The Dutch
melting pot has turned into a boiling pot, as public indignation
rises
over the Amsterdam murder of filmmaker Theo
Van Gogh by a young Islamic radical. The morning of November
2, the killer emptied a clip into Van Gogh, and then used a knife
to almost sever his head. The killer also left a letter stabbed
into Van Gogh’s chest declaring Jihad on unbelievers generally
and Dutch politicians specifically.
Van Gogh was under
a death threat ever since he produced a 10-minute film called “Submission,” about
Muslim women who are the victims of domestic abuse.
Brought to the forefront are issues of race, immigration and
integration, radical Islam, and freedom of speech.
Should Islamist immigrants
be allowed “freedom” to
practice the tenet of Sharia law which states, “The penalty
for contempt of the Holy Prophet…is death and nothing else?” Clearly
the answer is no, and the most cursory examination of the question
reveals there are limits to freedom, especially license masquerading
as freedom. Freedom needs to be circumscribed by an assumed responsibility
to uphold the basics of civilized behavior. Where there is intransigence
on this point, a societal collision is bound to occur, but it
cannot fairly be said to be automatically the fault of the host
country.
Should Islamists in
the Netherlands_or the U.S. for that matter_be free to promote
the execution of gays and the beating of women?
Is it overreaction for Dutch leaders to worry about strategies
by Islamists to actively promote Jihad, the killing of Western
leaders, female circumcision and to portray unbelievers as “firewood
for hell?” At what point does tolerance of such intolerance
threaten freedom in society?
A Boston Globe editorial,
noting recent retaliatory attacks against Mosques and schools,
claims that “[J]ust below
the surface of Holland’s open society runs the molten lava
of xenophobic intolerance.” An L.A. Times article dated
April 18, 2004 said that the Dutch were casting a “harsh
eye toward immigrants.” The article also cited fears “that
the nation is failing at integration.” A Reuters analysis
piece dated November 3 noted a “rise in hostility to foreigners.” The
New York Times, in a slouchy November 5 editorial, opined, “The
problem is not Muslim immigration, but a failure to plan for
a smoother transition to a more diverse society.”
In other words, the
onus is on the Dutch government to do more to successfully
integrate Muslims. Had the Dutch integration
program met New York Times standards, then Mohammed wouldn’t
have tried to cut Theo’s head off. There’s no comment
about the “more diverse society” desired by radical
Islamists being one that makes room for execution of homosexuals,
circumcision of girls, and women receiving 100 lashes if they
lie to their husbands. The absurdity of so many editorials on
the subject is evident from the reticence to assign responsibility
for societal disruption to radical Muslims actually causing the
disruption.
The simplistic editorials also ignore a universal tenet of Islamism,
taught from Sudan to Sonoma, that Muslims should actively resist
all attempts at integration. Indeed such attempts are often portrayed
as a Western plot to usurp the latent power of Islam in the world.
Resistance to integration is accompanied by the teaching that
once Muslims are in a majority, the rule of the host country
needs to become an Islamic theocracy. The real problem is radical
Muslims who refuse to integrate and who support the breaking
of Dutch law in order to uphold their religious and cultural
values.
Meanwhile, Western
media often remain pitifully disinclined to criticize a religious
and pan-ethnic group ideology if it’s
not predominantly held by white people. Where are the editorials
urging Islamists to stop balking at integration? Where are the
editorials decrying the uncivilized teachings and behavior of
radicals?
Are we really to believe that all religious and cultural values
are equal including those which allow for rape victims to be
punished by being murdered? A willingness to accept all racial,
ethnic and religious groups as worthy of equality is not the
same as pronouncing all of their cultural norms as egalitarian
or even legally compatible with those in the West.
Integration and the
maintenance of civilized society is a complex two-way street,
and media should not treat as taboo core issues
related to either one. Public debate often rides on the rails
media have set down, and when the media are squeamish, evasive
and dishonest in reporting of destructive Islamist activity overseas
and in the U.S., we are on the fast track to a dangerous self-delusion
whose end will be as violent as Van Gogh’s murder. CRO
Sherrie Gossett is Associate Editor of the AIM
Report.
§
|
