If Mark Steyn wrote about Muslims breeding like mosquitos rather than quoting an Imam who used that phrase, I would shun him. Human beings do not "breed like mosquitos" or "infest like vermin" as some anti-Semites have said about Jews. Yet the mosquito quote, magically removed from its quotation marks and attributed to Steyn, forms one of the complaints against him and Maclean's.
Lets say I was arguing that all Jews and blacks should be deported or sterilized, and then quoted Canadian Nazi Terry Tremaine saying something like "All Jews and blacks should be deported or sterilized." (Tremaine has indeed argued similarly, although the above is not a direct quote. Pretend it is). Were someone to then argue that I was being racist, it would not be a refutation to say that I was merely quoting a racist, because it is a standard use of quotation marks to "support the arguments of the work in which [the quote] is being quoted".
And indeed, the quotation at issue occurs at the very end of "The Future Belongs to Islam". It sums up and concludes the argument that goes before:
"We're the ones who will change you," the Norwegian imam Mullah Krekar told the Oslo newspaper Dagbladet in 2006. "Just look at the development within Europe, where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes. Every Western woman in the EU is producing an average of 1.4 children. Every Muslim woman in the same countries is producing 3.5 children." As he summed it up: "Our way of thinking will prove more powerful than yours."
...which argument is indeed that Muslims are a threat because they are out-breeding whites. Nor does the fact that its an Imam being quoted get Steyn off the hook, any more than finding a Jewish Nazi to deny the Holocaust for me would make me any less a Holocaust denier.
Quit hiding behind your quotes, Mark!
23 comments:
Just replace the word "Muslim" with "Jew" in that piece by Steyn and you have the rantings of a paranoid, conspiracy nutcase that would have been quite appropriate for an editorial in the Völkischer Beobachter.
I don't have a problem with arguing that certain beliefs and practices in Islam are incompatible with democracy, equal rights and the public operations of a secular and liberal society and have to be vigorously opposed. But those liberal principles are all things Mark Steyn seems to hate as well, so what choice is he leaving us when we try to determine what's motivating him except to conclude that he's a bilious chauvinist and bigot?
...and a ponce?
Ah, Jonathon's back. I expect BCL to engage comment moderation shortly.
Moderation will be on and off today. Remember, if you sign a name the stupidity bar gets alot lower.
Remember 9-11. Ordnance on target is the right response. You kill one of us and we kill a thousand of you.
BCL, this "I define and judge the words I write and read" schtick you're on is looking a tad Aspergery, at best.
It's sorta like the kid who doesn't leave his room and convinced he can play Stairway better than Jimmy Page.
TCO,
I was having trouble with one or two anonymous weirdos who were leaving dozens of messages. As it is now, I don't think I've moderated any signed messages. Feel free to have at it.
William, your comment is most obscure.
Say what you will about Steyn but your logic, again, in this post makes no sense.
Steyn quotes what, for him, would appear to be someone on the opposing side making the argument about "breeding like mosquitos". He's using his opponent's words against him: i.e. "see this is what the enemy is saying...beware!".
So to use your analogy, if you were already a Holocaust denier it would be like quoting someone in the Jewish Defense League rather quoting someone who is another denier.
Big difference.
Are you folks OK with polygamous marriages, like the ones those fellas in Toronto are practicing?
Are you OK with other aspects of sharia which is effectively being practiced in Europe, and now increasingly in Canada as well?
Do you agree with the basic tenets of strict whahabbi rule which dictate that no part of a women's body can be seen in public (that tenet being that a women is a powerful sexual object, such that she invites rape by other men if even a bit of her skin is showing)?
If you don't, are you "Islamophobic" or bigotted, or are you simply in fundamental disagreement with the values of a belief system which you do not share and do not wish to see become part of our western society?
If you think the 'wrong" answer to these questions is an attack on "brown people" (as I've heard it described on this site before), does your position change with respect to "white" muslims, such as those in a significant part of Russia and Bosnia ect, who are also experiencing a wahaabiest movement within their muslim belief systems?
And if so, why?
And if not, wouldn't you agree that this is an issue about belief systems and what beliefs we espouse as a western culture, and not about race as alleged by many on the left?
If you still think it's about race, can you please explain why other religions practiced by cultures that are not principally white (much moreso than Islam, which has many white followers as described above) such as Hinduism, are not receiving the opposition in our culture?
Could it be that Hindus do not take violently radical positions that are incapable of integration into our society?
Again, in other words, isn't it about the belief systems?
One final one:
Isn't branding legitimate concerns about radical belief systems, "racist", a tactic to shut down legitimate debate by stigmatizing an opposing viewpoint (ie fascist), and doesn't that tactic tacitly, if not explicitly endorse those radical beliefs?
In an effort to engage in honest debate (rather than demonization of the opposing side) I look forward to an honest attempt to answer the above (ti-guy excepted of course, I'll expect the standard f*&^ you from him).
If the following statements are true:
"Virtually no woman was wearing a burka in Saudia Arabia in the 1960's, but now all woman must wear one or else be in danger of corporal punishment"
and,
"In Europe the percentage of the population wearing burkas, and practicing other strict forms of wahabiest doctrine has increased by ____ percent and continues to increase",
if those statements are true, isn't the impact of the rise of wahabiest doctrine (which encapsulates beliefs very different from our own) on European culture a legitimate topic for examination?
“I guess when you hate the USA as much as the left does, ..”
When comments are made that Mr. Harper’s policies are exactly the same as the Bush administration. The Cons go ballistic and totally disagree with the analogy. I’m confused; if they worship the US then they should feel proud their leader is compared to the Bush administration not ashamed.
Whether or not Mr.Steyn believes in the words he quoted, it is important to be factually correct even when ons is quoting. So the assertion that every Muslim woman in the E.U. produces 3.5 children is a falsehood which should not be propagated by Mr.Steyn. According to recent demography from the U.N., Muslim immigrant birth rates are falling in the E.U. and, perhaps most significantly, the birth rates drop to the normal levels of the population within two generations. So whether the Imam was correct [which he isn't] is irrelevant since both in the Arab world and in the E.U. fertility rates are dropping. So there is little fear of a cultural annexation from Islam in the near future.
Heh. Connie dunderheads and their ill-informed blather.
Kudos to Raphael for zero-ing on a matter of factuality, an obstacle to considered opinion the robber baron's catamite is rarely ever burdened with.
I'll repeat what I've said elsewhere, and which is born out by endless documentation....you can establish an entire career out of fact-checking and correcting the unlettered Mark Steyn.
Last thing...don't you Connies think it's odd for someone to take the rantings of an Islamofascist seriously? Or is the issue really that you all do take the Islamosfascists seriously? If the latter, I can only imagine Osama Bin Laden nodding approvingly.
Folks like Rapheal with their "it'll level out in two generations" have their head in the sand.
Oh, really?
According to the 2005 Census for England, Muslims constitute 2.97% of the religions. Some epidemic.
If you want to complain about a religion, those secularists sure are on the rise! 9.1 million and growing with "no religion".
From an anthropological perspective Liberals are more of a "band" than a tribe, typified by tenuous attachments and caring only about their cut of the "loot" rather than any ideology, religion, or benevolent intentions.
Not Biff,
Would they be more like the Beatles or the Stones, then?
Van Halen. With Sammy Hagar.
An out of date stat that wouldn't factor in recent immigrants (which is the whole point), to name but one big problem with your little citation - but there are so many,
vs,
hundreds of pages of facts cited and sourced by Steyn,
and the liberal chooses the single out of date, inherently unreliable stat.
I guess that's what happens when your entire world view is framed by a simple binary, reflexive "whatever conservatives say, the opposite must be true" mentality.
An out of date stat that wouldn't factor in recent immigrants
Are you asserting a relevant number of Muslim immigrants have arrived in the past two years which would in any way change that pathetic statistic?
hundreds of pages of facts cited and sourced by Steyn,
Name one. Cite one single link for me.
and the liberal chooses the single out of date, inherently unreliable stat.
I'm not a Liberal. I just can't abide incoherent arguments based on erroneous demography assertions.
I guess that's what happens when your entire world view is framed by a simple binary, reflexive "whatever conservatives say, the opposite must be true" mentality.
Check out my blog, sherlock, and don't quit your day job to become a detective.
Name one. Cite one single link for me.
Don't be ridiculous. Righties don't respond to inquiries.
In any case, it's futile. These days, you can find a documented source to back up anything you assert, and if you're indifferent to issues such as authority or evidence (as all rightwingers are, especially unlettered ones like Mark Steyn, who, I wouldn't doubt, cites Victor Davis Hanson because he doesn't know the difference between classical studies and military history), you can assert whatever the hell you want.
BCL states"
Were someone to then argue that I was being racist, it would not be a refutation to say that I was merely quoting a racist, because it is a standard use of quotation marks to "support the arguments of the work in which [the quote] is being quoted".
You're getting downright nutty BCL.
You are being disengenuous and flighty to boot. Sadly, wiki is the best source you can refer to in support of your moonbat supposition.
And please don't raise your nonsense again about how authors can plagiarize themselves as I can only handle lunacy in small doses.
- Paul S
Post a Comment