Phyllis Chesler writes here at NewsReal Blog:
On February 24, 2011, the distinguished Lars Hedegaard, the President of the Danish Free Press Society and the International Free Press Society, [and Jesper Langballe, a member of the Danish Parliament] will stand trial for telling the truth about Islamic gender apartheid. (…)
Please note: Islamists did not launch their legal prosecution. Their own countrymen, in the language of “political correctness” and in the guise of opposing “hate speech” did so. (…)
According to Mohamud and Winkel Holm, both MP Langballe and Lars Hedegaard have long ago “emphasised that they did not intend to accuse all Muslims or even the majority of Muslims of such crimes.
This has made no impression on the public prosecutor.”
So why do we insist upon using that unwieldy formula, “not all Muslims…”?
Everyone who goes to the trouble of uttering the painfully obvious and obligatory “not all Muslims” line gets persecuted and prosecuted anyway — in Mark Steyn’s case, for the very article in which he used the words, “not all Muslims;” in fact, the Muslims who took him to court specifically objected to Steyn’s “sarcastic tone” while employing it. You see, he was being insufficiently respectful when excusing them from their own crime-in-progress.
As you can see from that last tortured sentence, writing about the battle against stealth jihad is difficult enough without handicapping ourselves, a la “Harrison Bergeron”, to appease unappeasable enemies.
And this goes to the media/Democrat reaction to the Giffords:
An army wouldn’t (well, until recently) let its enemy tell it what kind of ammo it could use.
Why are we allowing our enemies to do so now, when the ammo is language?
As one emailer wrote me yesterday, by trying to tell us how to speak, “The Left is putting down a slave rebellion by shaming the slaves.”
Remember: back in the day, we didn’t declare war on “some Germans.”
From now on, just start saying “Islam” and refuse to employ the other twisted locution.