Sunday 11 December 2016

'Je Suis Charlie' didn't last very long, did it?

Published 10/05/2015 | 02:30

He's a very naughty boy: Monty Python's Life of Brian, but would the The Life of Ahmed ever get released?
He's a very naughty boy: Monty Python's Life of Brian, but would the The Life of Ahmed ever get released?
Obesity is a self-inflicted wound

Picture the scene - a bunch of comedians decide that the life story of Mohammed is utterly ludicrous so they make a pastiche of his legend, calling it The Life of Ahmed, about a goat herder born in Mecca in the year 570.

  • Go To

Poor old Ahmed just wants to get on with his life without any hassles, but the universe has decreed that he is doomed to spend his days being confused for the bloke who was born in the shed beside him.

Would it ever be released? Would the producers and actors ever be able to walk down the street without fearing for their life? Would the Western intelligentsia describe The Life of Ahmed as a brilliant and brave piece of religious satire? Or would they condemn the film-makers for spreading hate speech against Muslims?

In the wake of the attempted massacre in Texas last Sunday, when two would-be jihadists were stopped by a quick thinking cop with a good aim, we're meant to believe that the organiser of the event, Pamela Geller, brought the attempted assassination on herself.

Gellar is no Monty Python. In fact, she manages to make people on both sides of the political divide uncomfortable, but her 'Mohammed Art Contest', which offered $10,000 to the winner (drawn by a former Muslim, so that's the 'racist' argument out the window, then) has ripped open the scab created by the Charlie Hebdo massacre.

That jihadists want to kill Geller is no surprise. After all, blaming a Muslim terrorist for wanting to kill anyone who offends them is a bit like blaming a wasp for stinging you - it's what they do. But the rest of us, who actually live in the 21st Century, have no excuse for defending the murderous actions of Medieval savages.

The devil is in the details, of course, and we have a craven and complicit media to thank for how the debate has been framed.

Just like the aftermath of Charlie Hebdo, we've had an abundance of chin-strokers coming out of the woodwork to justify and explain the 'hurt feelings' of Muslims and how, really, we shouldn't be shocked that some of them tried to kill everyone who attended Sunday's event.

Well, call me old fashioned, but I reserve the right to be shocked, and furious, when a group of people think murder is an acceptable response to a cartoon.

We should all reserve the right to be filled with a furious contempt at those Western Quislings who somehow think Geller is the problem, rather than the gunmen.

We see this cowardice even in the way RTÉ news presenters refer to Dutch politician Geert Wilders as 'far right', while referring to 'The Prophet Mohammed.'

Wilders is not 'far right' and Mohammed is not our 'Prophet'. He should only ever be referred to as 'the Muslim Prophet', but in the race to be seen as tolerant, we engage in falsehoods and subtle propaganda.

The uncomfortable fact is that fundamentalist Islam is incompatible with Western values. That's not racist, but I certainly make no apologies for being a cultural supremacist - our way of life is infinitely superior to that in Muslim countries.

Don't believe me? Well, just take a look at migration patterns - how many Westerners are running to the Middle East for a better life?

When did we become so morally bankrupt that we see nothing wrong in blaming the victims of Muslim violence for bringing it on themselves?

After all, 'victim blaming' is the latest cri de cœur from liberals, who correctly insist that no woman should ever be blamed for being sexually assaulted. But that sensitivity doesn't extend to a show-off like Geller, who spends her life under armed guard.

Of course, the chattering classes will continue to demonise and slur those with the courage to openly insult Islam, yet at the same time they will enjoy religious satires like The Book of Mormon and see no irony.

There's no crime in being wrong, but being a hypocrite is simply unforgivable.

Maybe it's easier to tell a convenient lie than utter an awkward truth.

Btw ...

The recent WHO report into European ­obesity rates predicts that we will become the fattest nation in Europe within the next 15 years.

Obesity, like alcoholism, is now seen as something you can 'catch', rather than it being something you develop and control yourself.

One Irish medic has even gone so far as to say that our obesity 'epidemic' is going to result in a health crisis which is 'worse than cholera or AIDS.'

Really? If you go to your doctor, which diagnosis would scare you the most - having cholera, having AIDS or being too fat? Obesity, like alcoholism, is a problem with self control and is a self inflicted wound. That's not to belittle anyone who struggles with either condition, but nobody makes a grown adult eat more than they should, and nobody makes us drink more than we should.

As an acquaintance - a recovering alcoholic - put it: "When I went to AA, I was told that I had a disease that was as bad as cancer. My mother died of cancer, and you can't cure cancer from will power, but you can quit drinking if you want it badly enough."

No doubt he is guilty of offending drunks everywhere. But he also spoke the truth.

Indo Review

Read More

Promoted articles

Editors Choice

Also in Life