StemCell Therapy

In January 2016, a 24-year-old woman in Mannheim, Germany was reportedly raped by three migrants. At first, she identified them to police as German nationals, later explaining her lie as reluctance to help fuel aggressive racism. Then, astonishingly, she wrote a letter of apology to her attackers in which she blamed her society for their crime, saying I wanted an open Europe, a friendly one You, you arent safe here, because we live in a racist society. You are not the problem. You are not a problem at all.

British political commentator Douglas Murray recounts this anecdote in his brilliant new book, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam. The victim, seemingly beset by a reflexive, socially entrenched fear of appearing Islamophobic, was willing to sacrifice justice to virtue-signalling. Such conduct is a microcosmic example of the bottomless white guilt that is crippling Europe.

Canada hasnt experienced the same migrant-related stressors as Europe, but that victims spasmodic recoil from perceived Islamophobia looks awfully familiar. Case in point: a fascinatingly logic-tortured June 9 Toronto Star columndevoted to Islamism exculpation, entitled Terrorists are misogynists first. In the piece, pundit Heather Mallick informs us that religion isnt terribly relevant in recent European attacks. No, the real problem is male misogyny. Mallick knows this because It is my job to see patterns in events. And we women see different patterns than men do. (Sigh. Mallick never speaks for me. I wish shed drop that we women shtick.)

In a recent column, Heather Mallick informs us that religion isnt terribly relevant in recent European attacks. No, the real problem is male misogyny

What is the pattern in events that Mallick sees? That all the killers are young males, with a narrow world view who suffer from status anxiety. The wanton spilling of blood is simply the way they display maleness. This is a simplistic theory cut from whole cloth. It completely ignores the role of ideology in terrorism, and the fact that millions of men have status anxiety but do not resort to terrorism to express it.

From the assertion that misogyny is universal, Mallick irrationally leaps to the conclusion that terrorism knows no particular race or culture. Look, she says, at the hateful men we have come to know: here, she lists four Islamist terrorists andfive North American, non-Muslim massacrists (only two of whom were motivated by misogyny), implying a general numerical equivalence. But her non-Muslim, North American massacrists were not associated with organized terror movements or with a specific ideology. And her non-Muslim, North American massacrists and their victims are statistically nugatory beside the vast human wreckage that has occurred as a result of individuals carrying out radical Islamists apocalyptic vision.

In a further attempt at moral equivalence, Mallick writes, Its of no interest to us whether were attacked by a mens rights advocate, the alt-right, a Muslim terrorist or an Irish one. But these are shamelessly misleading comparisons. IRA terrorism is not animated by gender bias, and was territorially and temporally constrained by political ends attainable through negotiation. Islamist terrorism is global and not open to negotiation. Mens rights advocate? A dreadful slur on a civilized movement. To my knowledge, no massacrist has ever cited encouragement to violence from any mens rights association.

Whats Mallicks solution? First, she thinks we ought to discard Muslim or Islamic as an adjective. (Obama and many other politicians have tried that, Heather. It didnt work.)

Whats Mallicks solution? First, she thinks we ought to discard Muslim or Islamic as an adjective. (Obama and many other politicians have tried that, Heather. It didnt work.) Because why single out Islam, when the misogyny of the Roman Catholic church is one of its pillars. Even if that were true (which I dont think it is), where is the organized terrorism or any terror perpetrated in Christs name that Mallicks reckless equivalency implies?

The column is a sad read, but emblematic of the desperation progressives feel when objective evidence contradicts their beloved multicultural theories, and the intellectual corruption to which they fall victim in their stubborn refusal to acknowledge reality. Mallicks jejune finale only plunges deeper into polemic bathos: Lets tackle misogyny at its source and find a way to raise boys to be more like the studious, gentle girls many of them have been told to despise.Lets, as in let us? As in Canada? Been there, done that, Heather. Any other brilliant suggestions for ending Islam er, I mean, status-anxiety driven terrorism?

All thats missing in Mallicks column is a sincere letter of apology to ISIL for the bad rap they are getting from people less enlightened than her. Regrettably, many Canadians think as Mallick does, or think they should. They need to read Murrays book and get woke.

National Post kaybarb@gmail.com Twitter.com/BarbaraRKay

Read the rest here:
Barbara Kay: The West's willful blindness to the threat of Islamist terrorism knows no bounds - National Post

This entry was posted on June 12, 2017 at 9:50 pm and is filed under Blindness. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed. |