Blaming the Victim
Since when is criticizing Islam a crime? Since when was defending the rights of writers, journalists and artists to say, write and draw what they like a crime? You really do have to rub your eyes. These are not Saudi papers or the Tehran Daily News running these smears — they are allegedly "liberal" papers in an allegedly "liberal" country in an allegedly "liberal" democracy.
So much about the rottenness of a culture and a brand of politics can be told from the matter of whom people blame. Strong cultures which know themselves do not find it hard to discern the difference between a firefighter and a fire. Weak, confused and fearful cultures lack any such ability.
If someone carries out a terrorist attack, they worry: Is the attacker to blame or are the victims? When a country suffers an outrage, are the people who carried out that outrage to blame, or might it be the fault of the country which has been subjected to the assault?
After 9/11, there were infamous examples of people claiming that America had "brought it upon itself." The Cambridge classics professor, Mary Beard, writing in the London Review of Books, famously commented, "However tactfully you dress it up, the United States had it coming." People will remember the infamous Ward Churchill's claim that it was the people in the Twin Towers who were "little Eichmanns," not the people who flew the planes into those towers.
When whole countries get the blame for attacks on themselves it is bad enough. But infinitely worse – because there is none of the solidarity available with which a country can console itself – is when an individual is blamed for what has happened to him. In particular, when what happened was an attempt on his life – whether failed or "successful."
When the Dutch politician, Pim Fortuyn, was murdered just before the elections in 2002, it was claimed that he had "provoked" people. The same was said of Theo van Gogh when he was murdered on an Amsterdam street in 2004: people said that he had brought it upon himself or even, amazingly, planned his death this way.
Shortly after van Gogh's murder, Index on Censorship, an organization which – as it name suggests – ought to be opposed to the ultimate censorship, published a piece by one of its staff; he claimed that van Gogh was a "free-speech fundamentalist" on a "martyrdom operation," and guilty of an "abuse of his right to free speech." Who knew that we were all meant to be in lock-step? Could anybody tell us who the central committee members are, who might be able to let us know which opinions we are or are not allowed to hold and express?
The same was said of Theo van Gogh's film-making partner, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, when she had to go into hiding from people who wanted to kill her. It was said of the Danish cartoonist, Kurt Westergaard, after an axe-wielding Somali man broke into his house. It was said of Flemming Rose, and Lars Vilks, of Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali and many, many more. These were all people who either suffered violence or were threatened with violence. And all were treated by substantial numbers of commentators as being not victims but perpetrators. Not the ones who had suffered, but as the ones who had brought suffering down upon themselves. In each and every instance, there were prominent figures around in the media and politics who declared that all these people had been "provocative."
Now there has been an attempt on the life of Lars Hedegaard. On the February 5, this mild-mannered and scholarly journalist and historian was visited at his home in Denmark by a twenty-something, immigrant-looking youth, who fired at the 70 year-old's head. The first bullet missed; Hedegaard hit his assailant on the head, causing him to drop the gun. When the assailant picked up the gun and fired it again, the gun jammed and the would-be assassin ran away. He has not yet been found.
Then, of course, the excuses started. The attack was reported across the world's media. Prominent in the reports were claims that Hedegaard is an "Islam-critic." Others in the media, including the BBC, disgracefully reported that Hedegaard had been tried two years ago for hate-speech, but all failed to note in their initial reports that he had also been unanimously acquitted of this supposed offence. These journalistic slips were bad enough. Far worse was to come.
In a number of papers, particularly in the country which is swift becoming the home of the world's most illiberal media – Sweden – the stakes were raised higher. In their reports of the incident, the Swedish media referred to Hedegaard as an "enemy of Islam." Others referred to him in even more hostile terms.
You really do have to rub your eyes. These are not the Saudi papers or the Tehran Daily News running these smears – they are allegedly "liberal" papers in an allegedly "liberal" country in an allegedly "liberal" democracy. Perhaps, then, these people can answer something:
Since when is criticizing Islam a crime? Since when was defending the rights of writers, journalists and artists to say, write and draw what they like a crime? And since when did any self-respecting journalist take the view that the media's job should be to act as the scouting parties and after-the-fact-exculpators for anti-free-speech assassins?
This game of blaming the victim, of smearing the person who has suffered a grievous abuse, has gone on long enough. As Pim Fortuyn said just before his assassination: "it has to stop." But it has not stopped. It has gone on as a cowardly media in our cowardly culture has gone on and on trying to blame the firemen for starting the fire, so scared are these "brave" media of the sight of flames.
There is, however, a rare piece of good news in Europe. Lars Hedegaard is once again fighting back. It was announced last week that he is going to sue the Swedish media for libel. I hope – along with all decent people who believe the media should be more than the warm-up and PR wing of the jihad – that he takes them to the cleaners.
Reader comments on this item
|Media [39 words]||James Horn||Feb 20, 2013 13:57|
|Standing up to Tyranny [357 words]||Elliott||Feb 18, 2013 19:27|
|Time for change [191 words]||Sharon Klaff||Feb 18, 2013 14:29|
|Stand by. I will blame some victims. [222 words]||Kaz||Feb 18, 2013 12:39|
|↔ Not all is lost. [57 words]||Gerry||Feb 18, 2013 20:42|
|A libel lawsuit as an answer to the PC-enforcers [187 words]||Dcdoc||Feb 18, 2013 11:44|
|Where the Left and Islam agree [251 words]||Edward Cline||Feb 18, 2013 07:47|
|↔ What about the West's responsibility? [267 words]||Noevil9||Feb 20, 2013 18:02|
|↔ Reply to Noveil9 [294 words]||Edward Cline||Feb 21, 2013 18:06|
|Role reversal [265 words]||logdon||Feb 18, 2013 05:56|
Comment on this item
by Burak Bekdil
Where Turkey stands today is a perfect example of how, when Islamists -- mild or otherwise -- rule a county, even the most basic liberties are systematically suppressed.
"A climate of fear has emerged in Turkey." — Hasam Kilic, President, Turkey's Constitutional Court.
The prosecutor demanded a heavier penalty for the victim than for her torturers.
The European Commission identified government interference in the judiciary and bans imposed on social media as the major sources of concern regarding Turkey's candidacy for full membership.
by Khaled Abu Toameh
To understand what drives a young Palestinian to carry out such a deadly attack, one needs to look at the statements of Palestinian Authority leaders during the past few weeks.
The anti-Israel campaign of incitement reached its peak with Abbas's speech at the UN a few weeks ago, when he accused Israel of waging a "war of genocide" in the Gaza Strip. Abbas made no reference to Hamas's crimes against both Israelis and Palestinians.
Whatever his motives, it is clear that the man who carried out the most recent attack, was influenced by the messages that Abbas and the Palestinian Authority leadership have been sending their people.
by Richard Kemp
Would General Allen -- or any other general today -- recommend contracting out his country's defenses if it were his country at stake? Of course not.
The Iranian regime remains dedicated to undermining and ultimately destroying the State of Israel. The Islamic State also has Israel in its sights and would certainly use the West Bank as a point from which to attack, if it were open to them.
There can be no two-state solution and no sovereign Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan, however desirable those things might be. The stark military reality is that Israel cannot withdraw its forces from the West Bank.
Fatah leaders ally themselves with the terrorists of Hamas, and, like Hamas, they continue to reject the every existence of the State of Israel.
If Western leaders actually want to help, they should use all diplomatic and economic means to make it clear to the Palestinians that they will never achieve an independent and sovereign state while they remain set on the destruction of the State of Israel.
by Louis René Beres
The Palestine Liberation Organization [PLO], forerunner of today's Palestinian Authority, was founded in 1964, three years before Israel came into the unintended control of the West Bank and Gaza. What therefore was the PLO planning to "liberate"?
Why does no one expect the Palestinians to cease all deliberate and random violence against Israeli civilians before being considered for admission to statehood?
On June 30, 1922, a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States endorsed a "Mandate for Palestine," confirming the right of Jews to settle anywhere they chose between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. This is the core American legacy of support for a Jewish State that President Obama now somehow fails to recall.
A sovereign state of Palestine, as identified by the Arabs -- a Muslim land occupied by "Palestinian" Arabs -- has never existed; not before 1948, and not before 1967. From the start, it was, and continues to be, the Arab states -- not Israel -- that became the core impediment to Palestinian sovereignty.
by Timon Dias
It looks as if this new law is meant to serve as a severe roadblock to parties that would like to dismantle the EU in a democratic and peaceful way from within.
A rather dull semantic trick pro-EU figures usually apply, is calling their opponents "anti-Europe."