The killings and bombings in Norway

The killings in Norway – insane, and heinous and entirely evil would be wrong no matter who did them and no matter which political ideology they represented. There can be no doubt of that, and certainly no debate.

However, I would agree with Bruce Bawer when he states that this (hopefully) singular and evil act should not be construed as an excuse to avert our attention from the very real threat that Radical Islam poses to Europe, the entirety of western civilization, and indeed to the whole world. Bawer lives in Norway as an American expatriate and a gay man. He is in many respects, like myself, an unlikely convert to the values of classic liberalism. Indeed, he claims to still be a Democrat, but in any case, many would consider him a conservative. Labels aside (and I am not one to eschew labels as being entirely useless), Bawer knows of what he speaks and so I am linking to his article here. First, I quote:

“Those of us who thought, in the first hours after the blasts in downtown Oslo, that we were witnessing yet another act of jihad can be forgiven. In a way, it made sense. 9/11, London, Madrid, Beslan, Bali, Mumbai — why not Oslo? Then again…Norway, although a member of NATO with troops in Afghanistan and Libya, was not exactly in the forefront of the struggle to defeat jihad. On the contrary. Norway calls itself “the peace country.” For years, the Norwegian government and cultural establishment have striven to communicate to even the most extreme elements of international Islam that they want to be friends. They’ve shown their good faith in a number of ways:

They’ve made a great show of treating Jews very shabbily. Jostein Gaarder, author of the international bestseller Sophie’s World, published an op-ed a few years back declaring his contempt for Israel and the Jewish people. When Gaarder came in for some criticism, many high-profile members of the Norwegian cultural elite rushed to stand shoulder to shoulder with him. If the cultural elite in Norway is more anti-Semitic than its counterparts in any other country in Europe, it has a great deal to do with the recognition that the more you like the Jews, the more you’ll antagonize the Muslims.

They’ve been extremely gentle with Mullah Krekar, Norway’s resident terrorist. While some government officials have (admirably) labored to get the founder of Ansar al-Islam returned to his native Iraq, the system has repeatedly protected him, allowing him to stay in a very nice flat in Oslo, where he is supported by the state. Over the years the Norwegian media have churned out countless profiles of this murderous, child-torturing monster, invariably depicting him as a charming, grandfatherly type and allowing him plenty of space to bash the United States.

They’ve squelched criticism of Islam. In January 2006, Vebjørn Selbekk, editor of a small evangelical publication called Magazinet, reprinted the Danish Muhammed cartoons — and sent the Norwegian establishment into a tailspin. Politicians at the very highest level pressured Selbekk to apologize for his offense. He withstood admirably — for a while — but eventually buckled, and on February 10, 2006, appeared before a gathering of Norwegian imams and begged their forgiveness for having exercised his freedom of speech. Top government officials looked on in satisfaction, and a delegation led by a bishop of the Church of Norway traveled to Yemen to deliver the happy tidings of this capitulation to the theologian widely viewed as the closest thing to a Muslim pope, Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

They’ve dropped displays of Islamic totalitarianism down the memory hole. Two years ago, on two separate nights, a small army of Norwegian Muslim youths rioted in the heart of Oslo, turning a usually placid quarter into something reminiscent of Sarajevo or Beirut at their worst. The alleged motive for this explosion of violence was displeasure over the situation in Gaza; the real intention was to mount a display of power — to intimidate, and to communicate to Norway that their time had come, and that they had better be listened to with respect, or else. And in February of last year, another small army of Muslims, this time not rioting boys but sullen-looking men in long coats and full beards, gathered in downtown Oslo, in the same square where Vidkun Quisling once held his Nazi rallies, and listened with apparent pleasure while a young speaker named Mohyeldeen Mohammed threatened Norway with its own 9/11. Both of these events came and went, and the people who make decisions about this sort of thing plainly decided that it would be best to pretend that they had never happened.
They’ve openly supported terrorist groups. In the last few days, one of the major stories out of Norway has been the declaration by Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre of his country’s support for the effort by Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas to seek United Nations recognition of a Palestinian state. This stance scarcely came as a surprise, given the Norwegian government’s longstanding effort to “build bridges” to Hamas. It was Støre, after all, who — when a couple of dozen Western diplomats walked out on a rabid anti-Israeli speech by Mahmoud Ahmedinejad at the 2009 UN conference on racism — was the only Westerner who chose to stay and hear him out.

And the way they’ve talked to Norwegian Muslims about Islamist terrorism has been — well, consider this. A couple of years ago, when Jørn Holme, head of security services for the Norwegian police, showed up at a meeting sponsored by the Muslim Students Association, supposedly to discuss terrorism, surveillance, and the Muslim community, his main goal seemed to be to bond with the Muslims in attendance by putting down ethnic Norwegians (who, he said, were “too stupid to understand that there is no connection” between Islam and terrorism) as well as white American Christians (“In the United States in the sixties,” he told the audience, “blacks were raped by whites who went to church the next day”). Holme called the United State “human-rights-violation-country number one” and said that his greatest fear, when he contemplated a possible terrorist act in Norway, was that such an act would inflame anti-Muslim prejudice.”

Bawer goes on to state in his article that he fears that legitimate criticism of Islam may be squelched by this act of barbaric and delusional political violence. I wonder, reading his points above, what criticism there is in any case? However, his point is a good one. As hate speech laws proliferate in intensity in other places in the EU and in Canada (the circus of Section 13), these murders can only add to the anti-free speech project of the left. Bruce makes a good deal of other points and of course, has noticed that Anders Behring Breivik has mentioned his name, although with a certain amount of uncertainty as to his credibility as Bawer is gay. Of course, many of the people that I often read and admire for their uncompromising anti-Jihad stances are named in the pages of Breivik’s exhaustingly long “manifesto” which was apparently, often copied from the loony screed of the Unibomber with a few key changes to make it relevant to his own purposes. In any case, Bawer continues here…

“During those hours when we all thought this was a jihadist attack, one thought that crossed my mind was that this would change the political map of Norway. For years, the Progress Party, which is the second largest of Norway’s seven or eight major parties, has led the way in calling for more responsible policies on the immigration and integration of people from Muslim countries — and has been demonized as a bunch of right-wing extremist xenophobes who hate Muslims. I assumed that after this attack, Norwegians would vote in a Progress Party-led government in the next elections. Now it appears that the man who committed all these murders is a former member of the Progress Party and is, indeed, a right-wing extremist xenophobe who harbors (according to Dagbladet) a “violent hatred for Muslims” and multiculturalism, and who targeted the Labor Party youth camp because he blames the ruling Labor Party for the Islamization of Norway. Norway’s political future looks very different now, in short, than it did 24 hours ago.

It gets worse. Anders Behring Breivik, it turns out, was a frequent commenter at a website, document.no, that is run by a friend of mine in Norway, Hans Rustad, and that is concerned largely with the Islamization of Norway. Hans’s website is down right now — I don’t know why — except for a page on which he has posted a collection of all of Breivik’s postings on the site, going back to 2009. On September 14, 2009, he wrote: “Bawer is probably not the right person to work as a bridge-builder. He is a liberal anti-jihadist and not a cultural conservative in many areas. I have my suspicions that he is TOO paranoid (I am thinking of his homosexual orientation). It can seem that he fears that ‘cultural conservatives’ will become a threat to homosexuals in the future. He refuses therefore to take the opportunity to influence this in a positive direction. This seems entirely irrational.”

On October 31, 2009, he wrote that several things needed to be done in the next twenty years in order to prevent the Islamization of Norway, among them: “Initiate a collaboration with the conservative forces in the Norwegian church. I know that the libertarian forces in the European anti-jihad movement (Bruce Bawer among others, and some other libertarians) will have a problem with this, but conservative forces in the church are in fact one of our best allies. Our main opponents must not be jihadists but the jihadists’ facilitators — namely the multiculturalists.” And on November 6, 2009, he wrote: “It is tragicomic that an important NGO like Human-Etisk Forbund [the Norwegian Humanist Association] has been taken over by a cultural Marxist when it should be run by a liberal anti-jihadist like Bruce Bawer.”

It is chilling to read my own name in postings by this mass murderer. And it is deeply depressing to see this evil, twisted creature become the face of Islam criticism in Norway. Norwegian television journalists who in the first hours of the crisis were palpably uncomfortable about the prospect of having to talk about Islamic terrorism are now eagerly discussing the dangers of “Islamophobia” and “conservative ideology” and are drawing connections between the madness and fanaticism of Breivik and the platform of the Progress Party. Yesterday’s events, then, represent a double tragedy for Norway. Not only has it lost almost one hundred people, including dozens of young people, in a senseless rampage of violence. But I fear that legitimate criticism of Islam, which remains a very real threat to freedom in Norway and the West, has been profoundly discredited, in the eyes of many Norwegians, by association with this murderous lunatic.”

From A Double Tragedy for Norway – Bruce Bawer

Mark Steyn weighs in with wit (even under these circumstances) and characteristic aplomb, pointing out that in fact, no Muslims were killed so this particular form of Islamaphobia had some odd consequences:

“The mass murderer Breivik published a 1,500-page “manifesto.” It quotes me, as well as several friends of NR — Theodore Dalrymple, Daniel Pipes, Roger Scruton, Melanie Phillips, Daniel Hannan (plus various pieces from NR by Rod Dreher and others) — and many other people, including Churchill, Gandhi, Orwell, Jefferson, John Locke, Edmund Burke, Bernard Shaw, Mark Twain, not to mention the U.S. Declaration of Independence.* Those new “hate speech” codes the Left is already clamoring for might find it easier just to list the authors Europeans will still be allowed to read.

It is unclear how seriously this “manifesto” should be taken. Parts of it simply cut and paste chunks of the last big killer “manifesto” by Ted Kaczynski, with the occasional [insert-your-cause-here] word substitute replacing the Unabomber’s obsessions with Breivik’s. This would seem an odd technique to use for a sincerely meant political statement. The entire document is strangely anglocentric – in among the citations of NR and The Washington Times, there’s not a lot about Norway.

Nevertheless, Breivik’s manifesto seems to be determining the narrative in the anglophone media. The opening sentence from USA Today:

Islamophobia has reached a mass murder level in Norway as the confessed killer claims he sought to combat encroachment by Muslims into his country and Europe.

So, if a blonde blue-eyed Aryan Scandinavian kills dozens of other blonde blue-eyed Aryan Scandinavians, that’s now an “Islamophobic” mass murder? As far as we know, not a single Muslim was among the victims. Islamophobia seems an eccentric perspective to apply to this atrocity, and comes close to making the actual dead mere bit players in their own murder. Yet the Associated Press is on board:

Security Beefed Up At UK Mosques After Norway Massacre.

But again: No mosque was targeted in Norway. A member of the country’s second political party gunned down members of its first. But, in the merest evolution of post-9/11 syndrome, Muslims are now the preferred victims even in a story in which they are entirely absent. “

From here: Islamophobia and Mass Murder by Mark Steyn

And, with that I send my condolences out to Norway and to all of those people whose loved ones were killed or hurt. There is no redeeming value to this act, and I would hope that the narratives that it generates are not exploitative of those deaths, but that they instead shed light.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

In other news, on a more personal note, in case you wondered where I went I just moved, and am searching for a new place to live, and am “transitioning” again! This time possibly even, eventually to a new city, though time will tell. Everything is a bit chaotic for me, but it won’t be forever. So, I’ll not be able to post quite as much as I’d like I think, but I’m still around and will check in from time to time with new observations. Thanks to all who stop by to read!

Advertisements

Don’t those right wingers HATE transsexuals? And why it doesn’t matter when it comes to Free Speech

When it comes to light that I’ve made the switch, oh – not that one, but the apparently even more mind boggling and scandalous switch from left to somewhere on the right — my left leaning friends will always exclaim, “BUT THOSE PEOPLE HATE YOU!”

And, what they mean is, you’re a transsexual, those right wing people hate you! I remain calm and state that actually, I have not encountered that really, well, not as they imagine I have. However, I have to admit, after a sigh, that yes, I do see blog posts now and then that appear to indicate less than a — perfect understanding of transsexuality. OK, damn it, yes, even a couple of my favorite bloggers have expressed disgust and confusion, and condemnation, on a couple of occasions. Maybe, it is possible then that some of them do – hate me or hate what I am. However, I don’t know if I would take it that far, to “hate” — but certainly, a few are disapproving and have weird ass ideas about trans people.

Of course, since I’ve been transitioned for over 21 years, however one counts these things, I am possibly a bit less sensitive. I am a man first and foremost, although I got there in ways that most men do not. I am confident of my masculinity and manhood, even while remaining aware that I am different. And being different in and of itself is not so bad. After all, there are many things about me that are “different”. I am half American Indian, half Latino (Hispano) and even so – light skinned and with light eyes and even – when I leave it alone, light hair (before it grayed). I am a poet and punk and bohemian and I prize difference and individuality, even eccentricity. I mean, I’m not the run of the mill non-trans straight white male if there is such a thing. And, yes, I have nothing, against straight white males, I am often mistaken for one. And, I am — straight, or at least, heterosexual. So, I have grown a bit of a thicker skin over the years. Like most men, I’ve learned ya gotta roll with the punches and a “victim” attitude is not real manly. The majority of people don’t sympathize.

I am also aware that many kinds of people are confused by or are upset by me, not just the right. The left wants me to “queer gender” and just “queer” period. I can understand that my difference makes me “some kind of queer” but I also feel just like an average straight dude a lot of the time, and not queer gendered at all. And, for me, that works just fine. My life project is not to create a world without binary gender, and I actually have little interest in such a world. However, I certainly don’t mind if someone else feels “non-binary” or gender queer, but it could also be – that we are in two different worlds, even if in some ways, our worlds are related.

I have always been in awe of the ability of the human sexual imagination to create and generate possibility. So, I respect actually, the gender queers of the world. However, I also understand that all possibilities are limited by the actual world we inhabit of flesh and blood. For me, transsexuality is very much about flesh and blood.

I have radically altered, changed my biological sex, and for me, that transformation is the root of my understanding of transsexuality. Not so much an identity as a process, although the process does help to contextualize my identity as male. And, while it is an imperfect process and helps to create a complex identity, that male identity is also more coherent, than some give it credit for. Additionally, the process of sex change is again, simply a process and does not dictate politics. That process of sex change does not make one a Democrat or a Republican or a left winger or a right winger, it is not a cult or a political party. It is a sex change. (I’ve said this elsewhere, like in a book I wrote)

But that’s an aside… but it is by way of background to my perspective on this perplexing matter of allies and people who are, not necessarily allies. I can write more on this as the blog goes on, it is beyond a single entry.

What I mean to say mainly is this — it is true that sometimes, the people I otherwise agree with or even admire do not apparently understand or approve of transexual people. I was shocked today to see this post by Kathy Shaidle, someone I have featured here on Liberty Wolf. I was thrilled when Kathy noticed one of my first posts, one where I pulled a story about Johnny Rotten being an apparent Israel supporter from her blog. We both have at least a couple of things in common, we were punk rockers in a past life, and I can attest that the punk never really rubs off. And, we are both former leftists. But here she writes and quotes from a news story:

‘Human rights’ are crap, and transexuals are sick, lonely and confused
A renowned human rights lawyer allegedly pushed to his death under a Tube train was living a secret life as a transsexual escort.

David Burgess, 63, who was also known as Sonia, offered his services on a website, where he advertised himself as a ‘pre-op’ transsexual escort looking for paid encounters with men.

As you can see there is a link there to a wrenching story about a trans woman who was murdered by being pushed underneath a train in the UK. This is apparently being investigated as a murder and a suspect, a young woman, is already in custody. The article refers to the trans woman as “he” and I was unsure as to whether she was transitioned or cross living part-time and still living as male, but – it does appear that she had transitioned (although relatively recently) and also– apparently, she was a secret prostitute or escort. The paper was simply being disrespectful and sensationalistic. Of course, sex workers or escorts/prostitutes are often killed and their lives are seen as next to worthless. This is true regardless of whether they are trans women or non-trans women.

What struck me about this particular post was that it appeared to be so callous about the loss of a human being’s life, someone who was apparently murdered. I was shocked that her death was not noted as being brutal and wrong, nd that she was simply written off as “confused”. As though transsexuals deserve to die if we are confused or lonely. This woman, no matter what one may think of her life or identity, was just murdered in a horrible way. She has friends and family, and I am stunned to see her death written about like this.

Certainly, this is what my dismayed friends on the left have been warning me about all along: “those people hate you!” You can’t be on their side, they hate you and — even, would sneer over your dead body if someone killed you for being trans. Or even if someone just killed you. They hate you that much. (it has not been established that Sonja was murdered for being trans)

Now, I know Sonja, was a Human Rights attorney, and maybe this explains at least some of Shaidle’s vitriol. While it looks as though she did some work for cases involving North Korea, work that is likely to be a very good thing — the association with Human Rights are often grounds for suspicion given the Canadian Human Rights Commissions and their attack on speech. I can well understand Shaidle’s dislike of Human Rights attorneys and the machinery of Human Rights activism. I mean, she has been brought before the Canadian Human Rights Commission for hate speech, and now, her husband is also being sued for his anti-Section 13 activism and the contents of his blog Blazingcatfur. His crime? He linked to the website of Mark Steyn. The story here: :

Richard Warman Sues Blazingcatfur for Linking to Mark Steyn

_______________________________________________________________________________

Now, Shaidle did not get pulled in for speech against transsexuals, like the remarks above. What happened was more of a confusing amalgam of weirdness from one former HRC employee named Richard Warman who is using Section 13 for all its worth. He’s also sued Ezra Levant, a Canadian publisher, for publishing the Danish Mohammed cartoons. He lost that one, but it was a long three year circus. Here from Ezra Levant:

The Circus of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Free Speech

That post is from 2008, but it is a detailed rundown of the effect of Section 13 and how some, like Warman, intend to use it to shut down diversity of opinion in Canada. And, when I say diversity of opinion, I mean just that.

While I find Shaidle’s remarks about the horrible murder of this transsexual woman in the UK hateful and wrong, I also will defend her right to state her beliefs in her blog, or to write them in articles, or to put them in emails to friends. While I disagree and am personally mortified, I also recognize that she has a right to her speech, just as I have the right to disagree on this blog. The remedy is not censorship but more speech. Otherwise, I have no illusion that my right to speech, might be curtailed as well at some point in the future, and maybe, right now if I was a Canadian.

Thankfully, I am an American, and I have the protection of the First Amendment. But, we live in times when the term is “hate speech” is increasingly used to shut people up in spite of that. When people are bullied when they express opinions not in line with certain sensibilities, right or wrong. There is always that threat that speech could be curtailed and on campuses, it is – often unconstitutionally. There are organizations like FIRE that fight that fight and usually win.

Recently, here in the USA, in another recent blog post, Shaidle also clued me into another interesting battle around speech. Radio show hot Dan Fagen was pulled off the air after Alaskan Senator Lisa Murkowski threatened him with legal action for “illegal electioneering” when he satirized her write-in campaign for Senator. Sarah Palin, in a recent Facebook entry, is taking up his cause. According to Palin, this type of on air satire is not electioneering but an exercise of free speech. She could be right, but Fagen was pulled off the air because lawsuits are costly and he is not on a radio station with deep pockets. Sarah Palin writes of this on her Facebook page here: Lisa, are you going to shut down my Facebook page for writing this? . I quote:

“Yesterday, Lisa Murkowski’s hired guns threatened radio host Dan Fagan, and more importantly, the station that airs Fagan’s show, with legal action for allegedly illegal “electioneering.” The station, unlike Murkowski, who is flush with millions of dollars from vested corporate interests, does not have a budget for a legal defense. So it did what any small market station would do when threatened by Beltway lawyers charging $500 to $1000 an hour – they pulled Dan Fagan off the air.

Does all this sound heavy handed? It is. It is an interference with Dan Fagan’s constitutional right to free speech. It is also a shocking indictment against Lisa Murkowski. How low will she go to hold onto power? First, she gets the Division of Elections to change its write-in process – a process that Judge Pfiffner correctly determined had been in place without change for 50 years. She is accepting financial support from federal contractors, an act that is highly questionable and now pending before the FEC. And today, she played her last card. She made it clear that if you disagree with her and encourage others to exercise their civic rights, she’ll take you off the air.

The concept of “electioneering” involves several issues, but typically refers to campaigning at the polls, which is appropriately banned. Under federal law, it can also mean paying for advertising on broadcast media during a federal election cycle, and it requires disclosures if done by groups and corporations. Fagan used satire to mock Murkowski’s write-in efforts and encouraged Alaskans to run as write-in candidates. That is not illegal. That is free speech.

Individuals like Dan Fagan have a fundamental right to speak their minds without threats from the incumbent Senator from Alaska. It is hard to find a constitutional right Americans cherish more than the right to free speech.”

_______________________________________________________________________________

She continues to say that Fagan has often insulted her and her family in the past, he is no friend of Sarah Palin. His remarks have been hurtful and possibly quite unfair, here:

“Dan Fagan has not always agreed with me, but I will gladly defend his right to speak freely on his radio show, which he has often used to criticize me. In fact, Fagan has actually used his radio show to attack and insult me, my husband, my children, and my family in just about every way possible. He was especially insulting to my son, who left for a war zone to defend Fagan’s right to attack our family. But when I was his governor, I never would have dreamed of threatening his right to free speech. I support him in this fight because this D.C. Beltway thuggery, as exemplified by Lisa Murkowski’s latest threat, is ruining our country.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

I agree with Palin that free speech must be defended in this country even if the speaker is someone we violently disagree with, or find personally hateful. Even if they insult your family, or — your manhood or womanhood. Because without free speech, the gates are opened for all kinds of governmental abuses and eventually the dumbing down of debate. As a writer, I understand the stakes are high. As a trans person and a member of at least two more minorities, I know that censoring “hate speech” will only work against my interests and even the interests of my group in the long run. It is all about who has the power and who gets to say something is officially off-limits, and that tends to shift with the winds.

I wish Kathy Shaidle’s husband all the best in fighting this suit, and I urge anybody who wishes to support her and her husband Arnie in this cause to contribute here: Contribute here and read his thanks ahead of time from Blazing Cat Fur

Maybe someday Kathy and I can talk about trans people and the whole kettle of fish can be sorted out in a different way. Or, maybe not. Maybe if I’m pushed into the path of a moving BART train she will sneer that at the time of my demise my bedroom was found to be a den of chaos, I was not working and died dead broke with a small three legged dog as my only companion, and of course, it should come as no surprise then that I was — transsexual!

However, let it be known even so that I was not a fan of the Human Rights Commission in Canada, and I am, in fact, quite suspicious of them here or anywhere they pop up. And, I sincerely hope that Canada rids itself of Section 13 before I get my dual citizenship (as a Canadian Native from my mother’s side, I’m eligible) and some loony uber-left feminist calls me a misogynist, woman hating, notorious gender queer hating trans man and hauls me in front of the Canadian Human Rights Commission for “hate speech”. Yes, that happens. The vitriol runs not only one way, but from the left as well. Why do you think I started reading right wing blogs? Hah.

Or, maybe, upon obtaining my Canadian citizenship, I will be hauled before the HRC for — linking to Kathy Shaidle!

Stranger things have happened.

Mark Steyn on Danish Television on Europe, Muslim Demographics, Islamic Radicalism

Here, an interesting recent segment taken when he was in Copenhagen to win the Sappho Prize, of Mark Steyn on Danish television being interviewed about Europe and demographics, the radicalization of native born Muslims in universities, the coming clash between the west and Islam in Europe that is already here and will most likely get worse… not cheerful stuff but important. Nice to see him out and about after taking a recent hiatus. I guess even firebrands like Steyn have to take a break once in awhile. He’s traveling a lot in Europe currently and giving speeches.

Mark Steyn Wins Sappho Prize in Copenhagen, “You’ll Have to Kill Us All”

Mark Steyn, Canadian humorist and polemicist and free speech crusader, has won the Sappho Prize in Copenhagen. Here, some photos from the awards ceremony and a recording of Mark’s speech with an introduction (that includes the inevitable cheesy lesbian jokes, all in good humor however) by Eva Agnete Selsing. Her introduction is bracing and fearless, and Mark’s speech is funny and as he builds, intense and fiery. Well, worth a listen… He states that his sense of humor is “not subject to state regulation.”

You’ll Have to Kill Us All!

And, from a report on Steyn’s speech by the International Free Speech Society:

That is Mark Steyn’s diagnosis of Western Civilisation anno 2010. And that the man knows what he is talking about became clear to everyone on this anniversary of the murderous attack in New York and elsewhere on 9/11 nine years ago. The same might be said of the other participants in this international conference –the Swedish artist Lars Vilks, the Norwegian-Pakistani comedienne Shabana Rehman, the Danish-Iranian actor, comedian and commentator Farshad Kholghi and the Dutch cartoonist Gregorius Nekshot.

Every one of these artists, comedians and critics had played the role of the little boy in Andersen’s tale. And they had all paid the price. Had anyone been in doubt, it sufficed to look around in the hall, where several officers from the Danish Security Police were posted.
America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It is the title of the book that gave Mark Steyn his international breakthrough. It describes a Europe that in the absolute autumn of its life can neither maintain itself demographically nor culturally and is therefore threatened by rapid Islamization.

Based as it is on dry facts and thorough research, the book has had a major influence on the discourse on Islam and multicultural society…

Steyn’s message in Copenhagen was far from uplifting.

Paraphrasing the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Lord Grey’s comment on the outbreak of World War 1, Steyn remarked: ”One by one the lights go out in Europe because those who have created the multicultural societies will not defend them.”
He went on to say that authors, comedians and everyone else that does not believe in a multicultural utopia are being persecuted and witch-hunted into silence. The Canadian authorities have even tried –in the best totalitarian tradition – to criminalize Mark Steyn’s jokes. Even his “tone” has been subjected to legal scrutiny…

Though the title of Steyn’s book refers to an America that finds itself increasingly isolated in its defence of Western values, things are far from ideal on the other side of the Atlantic.

Steyn noted that Obama has never criticized honour killings or other outrages taking place in the Muslim world. But if Westerners commit the slightest transgression – as is now the case with the mad priest in Florida who wanted to burn the Koran – he immediately feels called upon to issue an official condemnation. That is a disgrace, said Steyn, who could only express his contempt for Western governments that think Islam should be exempted from criticism.

Among the governments that in Steyn’s words compete to be “Islam’s most obedient ‘prison-bitch’” is the one in Sweden. That blue-yellow nation was horrified when one of its own sons drew the Muslim prophet as a dog. ”

From the article here: Humour Conference: It Takes Children, Drunkards and Death-defying Artists to Get the Truth.