The once "Great" Britian is now willingly subserving themselves to Islam...Mark Steyn talks about how the Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (a liberal bastion), has banned Winnie the Pooh's pal Piglet because his mere existence may offend Muslims:
...as we know, Muslims regard pigs as "unclean", even an anthropomorphised cartoon pig wearing a scarf and a bright, colourful singlet.
Cllr Mahbubur Rahman is in favour of the blanket pig crackdown. "It is a good thing, it is a tolerance and acceptance of their beliefs and understanding," he said. That's all, folks, as Porky Pig used to stammer at the end of Looney Tunes. Just a little helpful proscription in the interests of tolerance and acceptance.
How about a little tolerance of someone else's belief, my Muslim friend? Or are yours the only feelings that matter? Would you deny the whole world the adventures of Christopher Robin because the existence of a pig may offend you? I guess you would...
...these little news items that pop up every week now are significant mostly as a gauge of the progressive liberal's urge to self-abase and Western Muslims' ever greater boldness in flexing their political muscle.
Well put. That's why we must avoid like the plauge any politicians whom proudly flaunt the title of "progressive", for this is the world they wish to lead us towards...
Is it really a victory for "tolerance" to say that a council worker cannot have a Piglet coffee mug on her desk? And isn't an ability to turn a blind eye to animated piglets the very least the West is entitled to expect from its Muslim citizens? If Islam cannot "co-exist" even with Pooh or the abstract swirl on a Burger King ice-cream, how likely is it that it can co-exist with the more basic principles of a pluralist society?
Tha's the point - Islamists do not believe in a pluralistic society, and those whom believe there is a compromise position with them are sadly deluded...
But at some point Britons have to ask themselves - while they're still permitted to discuss the question more or less freely - how much of their country they're willing to lose.
Don't worry, aren't they passing a law to prevent this very type of discussion right now in England under a "hate-crimes" statute? With this type of thinking, the last days of the West really may be upon us...
Need more proof? Now the question is, should Britian change their national flag because it may remind some of the Crusaders of the 12th century? I kid you not; after all, some Muslim prisoners took offense at their guards sporting the Union Jack:
Chris Doyle, director of the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding, said Tuesday the red cross was an insensitive reminder of the Crusades.
"A lot of Muslims and Arabs view the Crusades as a bloody episode in our history," he told CNN. "They see those campaigns as Christendom launching a brutal holy war against Islam.
"Muslim or Arab prisoners could take umbrage if staff wore a red cross badge. It's also got associations with the far-right. Prison officers should be seen to be neutral."
Doyle added that it was now time for England to find a new flag and a patron saint who is "not associated with our bloody past and one we can all identify with."
How fast will Britian cave? And is the government's policy of dhimmitude in line with the thoughts of the average Brit? Could they have changed so much in the last half-century?
Link to Steyn via LGF: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=17757_Steyn-_In_a_Pigs_Ear&only
Link to flag story here at CNN: http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/10/04/britain.redcross/index.html
2 comments:
This is the same country that 40 years ago banned A.A. Milne's Noddy and Bigears because the baddies in the books were golliwogs.
So, what's new?
I'm Offened, That their Offened.
Post a Comment