Still don’t get it?
Socialism is the natural home of the authoritarian.
Today’s example: Socialist Party activist Mel Gregson goes on ABC radio 774 this morning to complain that police protected anti-Islam protesters from socialist protesters wanted to confront them. She insisted police should get out of the way so that her protesters could decide who could meet and protest in public.
Interesting admission: she said the police standing between the anti-Islam protesters and the socialists had their faces to the socialists, which to me suggests exactly where they expected most of the violence to come from – a fact repeatedly glossed over in media reports.
Imagine such people with real power. Or just cast your mind back to any number of totalitarian regimes which preach that their moral self-righteousness trumps your freedom:
MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: The Race Discrimination Commissioner has described yesterday’s anti-Islam rallies around the country as ugly and disappointing…
TIM SOUTPHOMMASANE: These anti-Muslim protests represent a fringe of our society that’s seeking to promote hatred and division.
Wally the creep
Should a man with this record of dud assurances be a media pundit on Islam and a lecturer at Monash University’s Global Terrorism Research Centre?
[O]ne of the greatest problems of unrest within the Muslim community and one of the greatest causes of social problems that’s going to occur between the Muslim community and the wider community is a feeling of not being welcomed and a feeling of not belonging . That will only be exacerbated by this idea that you have to be essentially some white European from the 1950s or you have to subscribe to some set of values, which you probably subscribe to anyway…
[W]e’re finally maturing in the way we handle terrorism. Gone is the triumphalist rhetoric of the “War on Terror”, with its ridiculous promises of a terrorism-free world and the ultimate victory of freedom over tyranny. In its place is a far more sober, pragmatic recognition that terrorism is a perpetual irritant, and that while it is tragic and emotionally lacerating, it kills relatively few people and is not any kind of existential threat.
April 2013 (before it was known the Boston bombers were Chechen jihadists):
But it’s possible, too, that this reticence [of the media to blame Muslims] is a product of the very real suspicion that the perpetrators here are self-styled American patriots.
Nigeria’s Boko Haram group last month kidnapped more than 200 schoolgirls from a boarding school and its leader announced they were “slaves” he would sell….
As so often when Muslim terrorists strike, [Waleed] Aly was brought on by Channel Ten’s The Project to explain away our fears as “an expert in terrorism”.
“So who is this group exactly?” he was asked.
Not once in his answer did “Muslim” or “Islamic” pass Aly’s lips.
“They are a really, really hard group to define because they are so splintered and so diverse,” he said.
“What we do know though is that the broader movement is a terrorist movement and they’ve been wanting to overthrow the Nigerian government and establish a government of their own.
“But beyond that, this particular group, who have done this particular thing, it’s hard to identify who they are and they might just be vigilantes.”
ISIL is weak. I l know it doesn’t look like that right now, but it’s the truth, and they don’t want you to know it.
Waleed Aly himself rightly identified the Paris atrocity as an “Islamist terrorist attack”. It is not hatred to ask what this word ‘Islamist’ actually means.
He was also right to point out that ISIS wants to set non-Muslims and Muslims against each other. But this is not all ISIS wants, and saying this does not explain why they want it. It is not enough to say “ISIS wants to cause World War III,” for war is but a means to an end. This tactic is a symptom of a problem, not its root cause.
Asking hard questions is not evidence of lack of love. It is not victimizing Muslims to seek to understand the theology of the jihadis. Asking how and why ISIS makes use of the Qur’an or the model of Muhammad is not vilification.
These points are important because the feeling of being unloved by itself is not enough to turn so many young people into killers….
Hatred can fuel this war, but love alone will not put it out.
Furthermore, a danger with Waleed Aly’s rhetoric is that it could work as a wedge to separate love from truth, treating the two as strangers. It could be used as a pretext to censor those who ask the hard questions, on the grounds that this is unloving. In this struggle it is wrong to privilege either love or truth, for we will need both.