By Ted Belman
Robin Shepherd contrasts the case of Gert Wilders being denied entrance into the Britain and Noam Chomsky being denied entrance into Israel.
-
Now, like the Israeli government, I believe it was a mistake to initially refuse Chomsky entry. Nonetheless, his consistent defamation of the State of Israel would certainly provide grounds for declaring him persona non grata. If ever there were a case for doing so in a western democracy, this was it. But, as I have said, I regard it as a mistake. By no conceivable yardstick of harm to the national interest, however, could Wilders have been banned from Britain. His case was about censorship and appeasement of militant Islam. Nothing more, nothing less. The national interest had nothing to do with it.
In the sharply contrasting reactions to what ostensibly looks like two similar cases, what we have here is a remarkably illustrative case study of how the dominant opinion formers in the western media view the world. Chomsky, an extremist who displays complete contempt for reasoned discourse and who provides succour to totalitarian movements and their apologists around the world, is hailed as a hunted hero: a dissident being oppressed in a manner which led the Times gleefully to report an Israeli writer as saying “we may be becoming fascists”.
The Times article in question opened by describing Chomsky as “a leading left-wing political thinker”. The BBC went further, admiringly describing him as “Renowned US scholar Noam Chomsky”. Wilders is always described as “far-Right” Dutch politician, Geert Wilders. The tone of articles about him is condemnatory; the subtext consistently portrays him as a racist with no place in polite society.
Such are the values and beliefs which guide the thinking of a liberal establishment in Europe which has a near monolithic dominance over the political mainstream. A storm in a tea cup involving one of their heroes on the Jordanian border is indignantly magnified into a grotesque example of the horrors visited upon a gentle and brilliant intellectual by an oppressive Jewish state. A flawed but brave Dutch politician, a genuine political dissident who faces the threat of death and jail for his views, is excoriated and branded a pariah even though he has no grudge against the state which denied him entry.
He got that right.
What flaws? That he does not change his socks often enough? Or that is he often late for dinner?
Oh, wait, I get it. Robin considers Wilders flawed for telling the aged that they will have to put off retirement because able-bodied muslims are sucking the country dry. Or the flaw of wanting to deport all the muslim criminals that represent 70% of the prison population. Or the statement that he did not give a damn about what muslim women thought about the veil, he was still going to bane it. Or that islam is trying to take over the world.
If speaking the truth is considered a flaw, then we all support this ‘flawed’ person and wish there were more like him. In fact there are only three people speaking on behalf of their governments/people whose hand I would deign to shake. Gert Wilders, Sarah Palin, and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman.
I cannot call them politicians because they are not a liars. We need to invent a new word to describe people like Wilders, Palin and Avigdor Lieberman who do not lie. Truthtion? Politruther?
P.S. Yamit, several times I have ripped Ted a new one, only to have him tell me I was mistaken. Considering the ‘passion’ with which I wrote, he was quite reserved in his denial. Lucky me. I would hate to be kick off this site because of the justified pique of the owner. Thank you Ted.
Here is the sentence where the word “abusive” was used.
What bothered me was that “abusive” is a perjorative term when used to describe the actions of a person. On the other hand if such a person attacks someone it might be said they are abusing that someone. From my point of view, it was a weird choice of word because it is thought legitimate to attack someone where it is not to abuse someone.
I should point out that Wilders never attacks Muslims. He only attacks Islam and the Koran. So Shepherd got that part right.
Abusive towards people who refer to Christians as monkeys and Jews as swine?
How inappropriate!
Hussein obama’s national security advisor Brennan referred to Jerusalem as al quds.
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/05/top-obama-officials-now-calling-jerusalem-al-quds-video/
Where did Robin Shepherd say Wilders was abusive? I did not read that anywhere in this article.
Sorry Ted the first time I read the article I missed the quote so I assumed it was your opinion.
I reread it just now and found it: apologies!!
First of all I didn’t write that article. Shepherd did. I disagreed with him on a number of points including the ones you attributed to me.
Also he said that Wilders was “abusive”. I totally disagreed with that characterization. Wilders was brave and truthful.
The reason I posted it was to stress Sheherd’s analysis of the media double standard. This is what I was referring to when I wrote “he’s got that right.”
Unlike Ted I WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORT THE INTERIOR MINISTRY IN BANNING CHOMSKY OR ANYOTHER ENEMEMY OF ISRAEL AND OR THE JEWISH PEOPLE. IF NOT THAT WHAT THE HELL ARE WE DOING HERE. YOU ARE SUCH A GROVELER BEFORE THE GENTILES. CHOMSKY IS LUCKY SOME GOOD JEW DOESN’T PUT HIM OUT OF OUR MISERY. LET HIM IN? FUCK YOUR LIBERAL FREE SPEECH. HIS FREE SPEECH KILLS JEWS IF NOT DIRECTLY, INDIRECTLY.
I TEND TO TAKE THE POSITION OF WHENEVER POSSIBLE DENYING ANY RIGHTS TO MY ENEMIES. Belman Have you no pride?