“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”
One of the most disturbing trends among what passes for conservative intelligentsia these days -is their embrace of writers as “brave intellectuals” who bear absolutely no resemblance to what a really brilliant man looks like. Whenever I hear someone quote Mark Steyn-I know two things right away. The person quoting him has a really shallow and superficial understanding of the issues involved. Second, the article that is quoted from will be the complete opposite of the real truth. ( There will be no links to Mr. Steyn-I don’t link to idiots).
And so it is with one of Steyn’s latest missives-a repeat performance by him in embracing one of the truly evil forces that have arisen in our times. In a recent column in the amalgamation of bad writing, the National Review, these days,-Steyn has decided to throw his lot in with Geert Wilders. Wilders, for those who don’t know, is an opportunist, leader of the ultra-right-wing Freedom Party in the Netherlands, who has taken extreme positions on immigration and Muslims in the Netherlands. Steyn-being the inferior judge of character that he is would have you believe that Mr. Wilders is some sort of victim. He is nothing of the kind.
Far-right extremist parties are on the rise in Europe these days, doing what far-right extremists have done throughout the previous century: Offer no solutions to problems, but make damn sure you know who is to blame for it. Mr. Wilders’s party is only one of many anti-immigrant and anti-Islam groups gaining ground in northern European countries previously known for their liberal social attitudes. To hear Steyn tell it -the problem is all the Muslim’s fault-and the fault of the Dutch for ever letting them in in the first place. Steyn believes that Wilders is simply a champion for freedom-he’s not. He’s just a man capitalizing on the fears of his countrymen, solely for his own personal gain. The issue -that Steyn ignores is that at its heart, Wilder’s message is completely at odds with that of a nation that prides itself on freedom of religion. That Islam has its flaws -well, that is not anything new. For that matter, evangelical Christianity has its flaws too.
But the fundamental issue that Wilders, and by extension Steyn, ignores is that Wilders cannot undo the past. The Muslims are in the Netherlands-and unless Wilders can find a way to turn back the hands of time, they are staying. They are not going anywhere. The challenge is to integrate them into Dutch society. To expose violent Islamist ideology is essential; to attack Islam and the Koran is dangerous stupidity that weakens the civilization Mr. Wilders claims to defend. Plus, from where I sit-it’s a slippery slope to single out one particular religion. How easy would it be for him to substitute “Judaism” for the word “Islam”. Steyn claims Wilders does not do that-I submit to you Steyn lost the ability to make the distinction a long time ago.
Now Steyn believes that Islam is different because it’s an ideology. I don’t understand the distinction-all religions are ideology-Christianity as practiced by some of its more strident members is equally an ideology, which contributes little to American or European society as a whole. The point remains that if a nation is committed to protecting free speech and religion, it has to take the high ground and deal with the issues in a far more adult manner than Wilders seems capable of. For Steyn to defend Wilders is the height of hypocrisy. I guess Steyn is completely incapable of seeing the irony, if not hypocrisy, for Wilders to presenting himself as a champion of free speech given that he has openly called for banning the Koran.
Now don’t get me wrong-I’m no fan of Islam. And I don’t particularly appreciate how they treat women, and I hate seeing hijabs and all the other clothing accouterments. But it’s more than a little necessary to guard against that rage spilling into something deeper and more dangerous. On the whole, in countries that value individual rights, it’s no different from banning other religious apparel pieces, like, say, the Yarmulke. Most reasonable people would agree there is no ingrained right to do that.
What Steyn continues to ignore is that free speech is not consequence-free speech. Wilders has brought much of his trouble on himself by crossing the line from criticizing the radical elements within Islam to insulting one of the world’s largest faiths. If Mr. Wilders were to confine his remarks to those Muslims who do harm freedom of speech by disobeying Dutch law- using violence against critics and apostates, he would have a valid point. Mr. Wilders, however, refuses to make such fine distinctions. Steyn, being the useless sleazeball that he is-appears also incapable of making the distinction. It’s an important one-and Steyn’s refusal to recognize it is what makes him the worthless piece of shit the hack writer that he is and has always been.