Another cutting essay by Edward Cline.
March 2, 2012
By Edward Cline
Words. Angry words. And objects!
Wilfred Lawson as the butler, Peacock (The Wrong Box, 1966)
The line is from a comedy about plots and mix-ups to collect the proceeds of a tontine. Peacock was describing the farcical altercation between two aged brothers, the last surviving members of the lottery, which was actually a kind of a trust-administered survivorship insurance policy.
Angry words? Offending words? Dangerous words? Impermissible words?
But angry words, offending words, impermissible words, and even unspoken words, when it comes to Islam, Muslims, and politically correct speech and thought, are not the stuff of farce. They can be fatal, fatal to freedom of speech, fatal to its practitioners. And the First Amendment can no longer be relied upon to ensure one’s right to criticize Islam or Muslims or trump politically correct speech.
Readers are probably already familiar with the story in the Daily Telegraph and in other newspapers (and, needless to say, on the Internet). Gatwick Airport "security" guards wanted David Jones, a traveler, to admit he made an "offensive" remark and apologize for it. It is interesting that it was a Muslim "security" guard who demanded an apology for a remark not made to her but to another guard. She was not even present when Jones made it. So, the question also is, aside from the fact that this "security" let a veiled Muslim through without a check: Why wasn't she "offended" by the person who related the remark to her?
Put another way, if words can "hurt," why wasn't she hurt by the words of her colleague? Aren't words intrinsically "hurtful," no matter who utters them? These are rhetorical questions, of course, but the incident underscores the whole phenomenon of politically correct speech and its natural potential for abuse. There is no reasoning with Islam or with political correctness. David Jones learned that the hard way. Assertions made by Muslims are never to be questioned or held up for scrutiny.
There seems to have also been an element of racism in the security guards' treatment of Jones, as well. And it is precisely this kind of submission that Hillary Clinton wishes to impose on Americans via the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) and the UN. I must give David Jones credit for standing up to these distaff thugs, although it seems that, like many Westerners, he has inured himself to being treated guilty until proven innocent at police state check points.
As David Jones arrived at the security gates at Gatwick airport, he was looking forward to getting through swiftly so he could enjoy lunch with his daughters before their flight.
Placing his belongings, including a scarf, into a tray to pass through the X-ray scanner he spotted a Muslim woman in hijab pass through the area without showing her face.
In a light-hearted aside to a security official who had been assisting him, he said: “If I was wearing this scarf over my face, I wonder what would happen.”
The quip proved to be a mistake. After passing through the gates, he was confronted by staff and accused of racism.
Note that David Jones did not utter either the word “Muslim” or “Islam.” He was wondering outloud. He did not say, “I wonder why that Somali or Egyptian or Saudi or Jordanian or Pakistani woman is allowed to pass through wearing a hijab, while I, a Caucasian male, am forced to pass inspection?” No reference was made by him, either, to the woman’s race.
And guess what dimwit (or dhimmi) snitched on him to Gatwick Airport security.
He said that when he made his initial remark the security guard had appeared to agree with him, saying: “I know what you mean, but we have our rules, and you aren’t allowed to say that.”
The security guard apparently was not “offended” by the remark. He implied that women wearing hijabs regularly pass through without screening. That appeared not to concern him. But his mind had been captured by enforceable politically correct speech and behavior, that is, by wholly irrational rules, and off he went to report the “offensive” remark to others who would enforce the rules and confront the culprit with his offense.
By way of underscoring the phenomenon, here is a private anecdote from a British acquaintance about his own encounter with politically correct speech and its numerous enforcers.
Making logical observations in the UK is a dangerous pastime. There are more and more 'unwritten rules' governing how we should (or should not) express ourselves.
Just the other day, I was reprimanded by a colleague at work for talking about Koran burnings in Afghanistan. [Referring to the destruction of Korans on a U.S. base in Afghanistan, in which had been written messages by jihadists, surely an offense by Islam’s own rules.]
This colleague was not a Muslim, but was concerned that someone who might or might not be a Muslim could overhear what was being said and might be offended.
I proceeded to explain that I was not referring to the burnings of the Koran on a US base, but of the destruction of the Nasir-I Khusraw Foundation by the Taliban in 1998, where they destroyed by fire an entire archive of ancient Islamic literature, including a Koran that was over a thousand years old.
And if someone were offended, he could, in such a risky circumstance, resort to two actions: assault the offender, or turn to the authorities to have them assault the offender.
I was advised to cease and desist from any further discussion of burning the Koran, upon which I proceeded to be more creative, finally settling on discussing the use of pages from the book to wallpaper a pigsty using alcohol-based glue. At this point my colleague called me a racist and said he would report me to my manager (who was sitting nearby, quietly sobbing with laughter).
I then pointed out that racism was prejudice against a human genetic or ethnic group and that the last time I looked, paper books were not being considered a valid branch of the hominid genus. I also pointed out that the person he thought might be a Muslim was indeed of Asian stock, but was actually from the UK by way of British Guyana and was a protestant Christian, in which case my colleague was guilty of racial stereotyping.
My colleague walked away.
Article continues HERE.
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Another cutting essay by Edward Cline.