It’s almost unbelievable, but British novelist Ian McEwan could face charges for saying that he “despises Islamism.” A fellow novelist, Martin Amis, has already been accused of ‘racism’ and hate-speech for basically saying the exact same thing.
McEwan said that he “despises” Islamism because it wants to create a society he “detests.” He explained: “I myself despise Islamism, because it wants to create a society that I detest, based on religious belief, on a text, on lack of freedom for women, intolerance towards homosexuality and so on – we know it well.”
That makes sense, does it not? Don’t most Westerners “despise Islamism?” Don’t most of us believe that Islamists want to create a society we “detest?” A society that’s the opposite of our values and principles?
Since when is saying you despise extremists and intolerant people hate-speech? Since when is it racism?
Well, it isn’t anywhere, except for in the land of the politically correct: ”
“A dear friend had been called a racist,” he said. “As soon as a writer expresses an opinion against Islamism, immediately someone on the left leaps to his feet and claims that because the majority of Muslims are dark-skinned, he who criticizes it is racist. This is logically absurd and morally unacceptable. Martin is not a racist.”
Exactly. This happens all too often, and people fall for it, all too often. I’m not speaking about those who have some sense of common sense, but about those in high quarters of universities and governments, who seem to believe that as long as you don’t offend anyone, everything will be alright. But what about this o my politically correct friends: I am offended by the ideas and plans of Islamists. That’s why I speak out against them. I detest them and their views; I find them despicable and offensive.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
