But the audience at last night’s debate was not part of any cynical, self-styled community group. They were young. They were mainly liberals. They were pretty cool. Some were painfully PC. And yet some of them — a significant chunk of them — cheered Bukhari’s explanation for the Charlie killers’ actions, and applauded his suggestion that my question must have been motivated by racism.
At Trinity College in Dublin.
There was a political context to their actions, he suggested, but the
media ignored it in favour of depicting the killers as ‘brown savages’.
Every time Bukhari mentioned Charlie Hebdo, he did so through gritted teeth, with a palpable sense of contempt; he spoke of Charlie Hebdo
in the same breath as ‘white supremacism’. In contrast, he talked about
the killers with what sounded a lot like sympathy, presenting them as
the aggrieved products of French militarism in Algeria.
In his warped worldview, it’s almost as if Charlie Hebdo
were the guilty party, a foul committer of Islamophobic speech crimes,
and the killers were the victims — victims of history, victims of
France, victims of prejudice, driven by political anger. The murdered
are the oppressors; the murderers the victims. Real
Mr. O'Neill, it's not 'as if'; he truly does believe that the murderers were the victims. And those PC-at-any-cost 'liberals' either agree, or would rather pretend to than not be seen as sufficiently sensitive. Because muslims are seen as victims, no matter what; same as a black speaking of whites as inferior beings and other racist crap insists "I cannot be racist, because I'm not white and have no power!"
Except muslims DO have power; not only the power to shut down opponents by having them banned from discussions, but by making people censor their own words and images because they fear being murdered by the 'victims'.
During my speech,
students had hollered ‘Shame! Shame!’ when I suggested that Robin
Thicke’s ‘Blurred Lines’ should not be banned on campuses. And yet they
listened intently, with soft, understanding, patronising liberal smiles
on their faces, as Bukhari implied that Charlie Hebdo brought
its massacre on itself. This is how screwed-up the culture on Western
campuses has become: I was jeered for suggesting we shouldn’t ban pop
songs; Bukhari was cheered for suggesting journalists who mock Muhammad
cannot be surprised if someone later blows their heads off.
Idiots who've been taught for years that western culture is horrible and racist, etc., therefore any criticism by anyone not part of it is automatically valid. And they REALLY get pissed when someone points out "So you're saying that people such as (in this case) muslims cannot be held to the same standards of self-control you expect from whites?"
It provided a glimpse into the inhumanity of political correctness. The PC gang always claim they’re just being nice; it’s just ‘institutionalised politeness’,
they say. Yet at Trinity last night I saw where today’s intolerance of
offence and obsession with Safe Spacing minorities from difficult ideas
can lead: to an agreeable nod of the head when it is suggested that it’s
understandable when poor, victimised Muslims murder those who offended
No, a PC student at such a prestigious college as Trinity is very
unlikely to kill you for being offensive. But if someone else does, they
won’t be outraged or upset. They’ll think you had it coming. Nice?
Polite? Please. Political correctness is murderous.
Yes, it is. The question is how many will die, in the end, because of it.