Arbour urged all those who understandably feel profoundly offended by its provocative message to restrict themselves to denouncing its hateful content by peaceful means.Err... so Louise, what are you saying? That the film accusing the Muslims of being violent savages is so terribly offensive to Islamic sensibilities that you thought it prudent to beg them not to respond with outbursts of violent savagery.
"We realise that it is utterly hateful and nasty, and not to mention in poor taste, to make a movie accusing Islam of being violent and barbaric and we beg our future keepers not to retaliate with violent or barbaric acts. Or at least, to only blow up and/or behead someone else."
This is something that comes up again and again with these people. The southpaws, commies and various stripes of internationalist socialist, seem to have not the slightest notion of their internal logical contradictions. It is why they are blind to irony and are mostly incapable of self-criticism. And, I suppose, why they are so sympathetic to the Islams, whose total blindness to the irony of their outbursts of violent savagery in response to any observation that they are somewhat prone to outbursts of violent savagery, has ceased to be even slightly amusing.
* ~ * ~ *
Did I ever tell y'all about the conversation I had with the pretty coffee coloured girl in Chapters in the Manulife Centre in Toronto one evening shortly after the Western Standard had published the cartoons? I was killing time before a movie, and thought I'd cause a little random trouble. I asked the girl (who I swear I didn't pick because of her colouring) if I could please have the latest issue of the Standard, since I had heard the controversial cartoons had been published in it and I wanted to see what all the fuss was about.
Now, I knew perfectly well that Chapters had "nobly" refused to carry that edition of the magazine on the grounds that it tended to offend "people". It had been announced in the papers that were carrying coverage of little else that week.
The girl said, rather awkwardly, "Well, ummm...we aren't carrying that this week."
I asked why not.
"Well, you know...you can't go around offending a volatile people", she replied with a hint of a you-know-what-I-mean wink.
"So, what are you saying? That Heather Reisman decided not to carry the magazine because she was afraid of offending religious sensibilities? or because she was afraid of being killed and having her businesses bombed?"
The girl got a kind of bunny-in-the-headlights look and stammered, "Hey that's my culture, you know..."
"Well, you're the one who just said that it is a culture of 'volatile' people and implied that they can't be trusted to behave in a civilized way."
I pointed to the "Christianity" section that was a busy purveyor of John Shelby Spong, Deepak Chopra, Joanna Manning and Tom Harpur and said that it was jammed from top to bottom with books that deeply offended my religious sensibilities, that insulted and degraded my religion and ought to be re-named the "anti-Christian" section, but that thought I was unlikely to be afforded the same kind of consideration, and I said that I wondered why.(I didn't wonder.)
Could it be, I asked, that the reason was not Heather's deep sensitivity to the religious beliefs of others, but rather was drooling cowardice?
"Why do you think your boss don't have any problem offending Catholics?"
Blinkblink went the big brown eyes...
"Because the Vatican doesn't issue fatwas."