Last we heard from Andrew Sullivan, he was “hyping up the danger”:https://crookedtimber.org/2006/02/11/the-papers-continue-fatuous/ of clerical thugs being able to blackmail western democracies into dismantling themselves. I suggested that, insofar as civil liberties were being eroded, this was something elites in these countries were doing to themselves. Now I see that he’s come up with an example from (noted democracy) Russia of, in his words “How Muslim Blackmail Works”:http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/02/how_muslim_blac.html. One of Russia’s leading Muslim clerics said that anyone planning to turn out for a gay pride parade in Moscow “should be flogged”. The parade was canceled, and QED says Sullivan. Except that, as “Cathy Young argues”:http://cathyyoung.blogspot.com/2006/02/hyping-muslim-peril.html the news reports actually show a more complicated picture. The short version is that rather than being canceled in response to this pressure it was vetoed by the city government, and the muslim cleric was joined in his opposition to the parade by the Mayor, the local Russian Orthodox Bishop and others. Astonishingly, Putin’s Russia turns out not to be such a haven for free speech, civil society or popular dissent. Who’d have thought it?
{ 35 comments }
perianwyr 02.18.06 at 6:42 pm
If you’re worried about fundamentalism taking over, you’re 20 years too late.
Brendan 02.18.06 at 7:22 pm
‘Russia’s Chief Rabbi Berl Lazar has come out against a proposed “Gay Pride†parade in the capital, saying such an event “would be a blow for morality,†according to an InterFax report.
Rabbi Lazar said Thursday that any organization that forwards “sexual perversions†does not have a right to exist. He compared the offence that the proposed parade would have to observant Jews and all religious people in the country as akin to that felt by Muslims over the Prophet Mohammed caricatures depicted in European newspapers. “I would like to assure you, that the parade of homosexuals is not less offensive to the feelings of believers than any caricatures in newspapers,†he said.’
How ironic!
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/feb/06021706.html
In any case, as Cathy Young correctly said:
‘Moscow city officials meanwhile have said that a permit for the event has been denied. “Moscow authorities will not allow the conduct of gay pride in any form,†said Sergei Tsoi Thursday. “The Mayor of Moscow said firmly that Moscow government will not allow the conduct of gay parade in any form – neither open, nor indirect, and all attempts to organize non sanctioned action will be severely suppressed.‒
Raw Data 02.18.06 at 7:27 pm
perianwyr ,
Do you think that the poster is concerned about fundamentalism? I have read the post 4-5 times and all that I can get is that he thinks Sullivan is too concerned about clerical thuggery. But the example used to debunk him involves clerics and officials of an authoritarian state. Huh?
This post requires editing. It is poorly written and it it is difficult to grasp its meaning.
e-tat 02.18.06 at 7:54 pm
“If you’re worried about fundamentalism taking over, you’re 20 years too late.”
Correct, and on the wrong hemisphere. It’s Reagan’s clerical thugs who provide far greater wealth of examples.
One instance of clerical demagoguery in Russia hardly counts for anything. But how many instances can we find in the US? There must be dozens, from the recent creationists influence on school boards and Pat Robertson’s call to assassinate Chavez to Anita Bryant’s anti-gay campaign and Lord knows what else.
Kieran Healy 02.18.06 at 9:24 pm
This post requires editing. It is poorly written and it it is difficult to grasp its meaning.
Hey raw, this is the second time you’ve been around this week ragging on my writing in a pretty ham-handed way. Want to let us know what the motivation for the trolling is?
rollo 02.18.06 at 10:16 pm
“It is poorly written and it it is difficult to grasp its meaning.”
We are us.
Bevan 02.19.06 at 1:45 am
So what is the post’s message, then, Kieran? Best I can make of it is something like: those Islamist clerics aren’t so much worse than our own kind. Even if it were true (is that what you are arguing, Kieran?), is the message then ?…
1. No stone throwing in a glass-house neighbourhood.
2. Islamist muftis aren’t really violence-inciting thugs, just misunderstood, garden variety spiritual pastors.
3. It’s all politics.
4. Andrew Sullivan backed the invasion of Iraq.
6. Putin is no democrat.
7. Gays are really touchy.
8. All of the above.
soru 02.19.06 at 2:42 am
One instance of clerical demagoguery in Russia hardly counts for anything. But how many instances can we find in the US? There must be dozens, from the recent creationists influence on school boards and Pat Robertson’s call to assassinate Chavez to Anita Bryant’s anti-gay campaign and Lord knows what else.
Is it possible you are more familiar with reports of such events in the US, and so suffering from observer bias?
Dan Simon 02.19.06 at 3:44 am
Is it your expectation, then, Kieran, that upon further investigation the Danish embassy in Beirut, the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus, the Italian consulate in Benghazi, Libya, several churches in Nigeria, a newspaper office in New Mexico, various American-owned businesses in Peshawar, and the EU offices in Gaza will all turn out to have been attacked by Russian Orthodox clergymen protesting gay pride parades?
And that the BBC, CNN, most American newspapers, two British magazines, a Norwegian magazine, a French newspaper, the largest bookstore chain in Canada, and the government of Sweden, among many others, have chosen to constrain their behavior in deference to devout followers of the Russian Orthodox faith, and their delicate sensibilities regarding gay pride marches?
Or is this one of those arguments-by-isolated-anecdote-claiming-to-refute-a-massive-body-of-data, along the lines of, “it sure is cold today–that global warming stuff must be a lot of baloney”, or “look at this lovely picture of American soldiers playing catch with a happy little Iraqi boy–what’s all this nonsense about Iraq being awash in anti-American insurgency?”
I’d hate to think of a Crooked Timberite stooping that low–but gosh, it sure looks that way.
Alex R 02.19.06 at 7:35 am
Kieran’s argument in this post seems exceedingly straighforward to me: If you’re looking for evidence that Muslim fundamentalism is a uniquely anti-liberal force in the world, capable of causing liberal democracies to become less liberal, the cancellation of a gay pride parade in Russia is a really bad example, primarily because Russia is not terribly liberal with or without Muslims.
Now, is that so hard?
albert 02.19.06 at 9:57 am
Dan-
Your post raises the ‘stupid or deceitful’ question.
Sullivan argues Muslim clerics threaten wetern values. Kieran shows evidence that other clerics threaten western values. Hence, Sullivan’s islamophobia is not uniquely justified. No need to refer to the rioting, it’s a different and only tangentially related issue. It confuses the logical case, see?
Raw Data 02.19.06 at 12:14 pm
Alex R.
Then why didn’t Kieran simply say that? Your simple explanation (assuming its accuracy) would prove my point that his post was poorly-phrased.
(In fact, however, I don’t see how your explanation would nullify Sullivan’s point as Muslim clerical thuggery was still a factor though Sullivan could be certainly criticized for ignoring Russian Orthodox Church thuggery.)
Btw, I am maiking this point because I like CT and I’d like to see it maintain a high standard and it won’t do so unless readers point out when it is flailing.
Raw Data 02.19.06 at 12:28 pm
The larger issue is of course Kieran’s contemptuous way of phrasing the issue…that Sullivan is ” hyping up the danger of clerical thugs being able to blackmail western democracies into dismantling themselves…”
Does he really think that there is no danger from Islamic radicals? It would seem that the lack of re-publication of the cartoons is ample proof that he is wrong and that they are already happening.
If his point is merely that Sullivan has used a poor example, OK. But he obviously believes something else…perhaps that Islam is a religion of love and frank discussion?
Brendan 02.19.06 at 3:09 pm
Dan
in an earlier post, Andrew Sullivan, apparently approvingly, quoted from a correspondent who seemed to be implying that he would like to see ‘genocide’ of all Muslims in Europe (I’m putting inverted commas round that word only because i’m not sure if the word ‘genocide’ can be applied to members of a religion. The precise phrase, I believe, was ‘push them into the sea’).
His moral opinion is worthless.
Incidentally, I don’t know about your country but in my country I don’t know of a single example of a Muslim riot (protest, yes, riot, no). Christians, on the other hand, riot all the time.
What’s your point?
Likewise, I live in a country which has just passed a law making it illegal to ‘glorify terrorism’ and which has some of the most draconian and insane libel laws in the world. It also has far stricter censorship in general than France or Germany (in matters of sex etc.). There is also increasingly outrageous examples of Government censorship here and here. There is definitely a threat to freedom of expression in my country, but it doesn’t come from where you seem to think it comes from.
Incidentally, few people have the balls to actually come out and say it but there seems to be a tacit assumption amongst the ‘western civilisation under threat’ mob that the Mohammed cartoons have been ‘censored’. In fact, by putting in ‘mohammed cartoons’ into google images will quickly show, the cartoons are easily available for anyone to see, and always have been. (and, as long as the internet exists, always will be. The threat of ‘censorship’, in the sense that someone might not actually be able to see the cartoons, is zero and always has been).
abb1 02.19.06 at 3:20 pm
You stupid trolls. Did Muslim clerics blackmail Russia into cancelling gay pride parade in Moscow or not?
Dan Simon 02.19.06 at 3:21 pm
Sullivan argues Muslim clerics threaten wetern values. Kieran shows evidence that other clerics threaten western values. Hence, Sullivan’s islamophobia is not uniquely justified. No need to refer to the rioting, it’s a different and only tangentially related issue. It confuses the logical case, see?
Does the existence of a severe cold snap show that fear of global warming is “not uniquely justified”? Is the mass of scientific evidence on the subject “a different and only tangentially related issue”?
One individual anecdote hardly makes the case that “other clerics threaten western values”–let alone that “Muslim clerics” don’t. If you’re going to refute Sullivan’s overall point–as opposed to his particular example in this instance–then you’ll have to do better than that.
Dan Simon 02.19.06 at 4:02 pm
Incidentally, I don’t know about your country but in my country I don’t know of a single example of a Muslim riot (protest, yes, riot, no). Christians, on the other hand, riot all the time.
Indeed they do riot a great deal in Northern Ireland. If I lived there, the rioting would disturb me greatly. And if I thought any of it would have the slightest effect on me here where I do live, I would be at least somewhat worried. Fortunately, though….
Likewise, Muslim riots in foreign countries would be of little concern to me, if I didn’t see a disturbing trend of people here, where I live, acceding to the wishes of those foreign rioters–apparently in the hope of staving off similar violence here.
There is definitely a threat to freedom of expression in my country, but it doesn’t come from where you seem to think it comes from.
I know respect for democracy is highly unfashionable in many circles, but I’m simply not as concerned about freedoms being curtailed by democratic action in a functioning democracy as I am about freedoms being curtailed by threats of violence emanating from foreign radicals and their small coterie of local allies. For starters, I trust the entire population of the country where I live–indeed, the entire population of just about any country–to be more moderate in its curtailment of freedoms than a foreign radical movement that answers only to its own leaders and dogma, not to any entire population. Secondly, in a democracy one can always try through argument to convince one’s fellow citizens to restore lost freedoms through the democratic process. Winning back one’s freedoms from a violent foreign-based radical movement, on the other hand, is a process that’s far more difficult, complex and painful. Best, then, not to lose them that way in the first place.
abb1 02.19.06 at 4:39 pm
Why don’t you cut the crap, Dan, you’re not that stupid.
Brendan 02.19.06 at 5:17 pm
To begin with: the Muslim rioting DOESN’T affect me, or anyone I know, or anyone anywhere near where I live. But I know plenty of people who have been affected by the ‘Troubles’ and the poisonous affect that sectarianism has had near where I live.
‘freedoms being curtailed by democratic action in a functioning democracy.’
Yeah…er….but surely if you don’t have any freedoms any more then your democracy isn’t functioning?
Incidentally, forgive me if I’m wrong but the thrust of your post would seem to be that we shouldn’t really bother that much about the State taking away our freedoms because it might (or might not) give them back at some indeterminate point in the future?
rollo 02.19.06 at 6:49 pm
abb1 takes all the fun out of it.
But you could argue from a wider perspective – that there is a prejudicial need to paint Muslims and Islam as uniquely and dangerously violent and intolerant – by people whose own faiths and cultural bigotries are just as dangerously violent and intolerant.
You could say that the ostensibly rational efforts at establishing that perception are duplicitous and saturated in covert self-interest.
You could say that it’s not only understandable but that at times it can be admirable for the abused to become disruptive.
You could say that the so-called “clash of civilizations” being so fervently touted by the increasingly strident erstwhile home-team has been reduced to the level of a scrim of feral shoats viciously competing for a half-starved sow’s withered teats in the mud and muck of an abandoned paddock.
Dan Simon 02.19.06 at 7:09 pm
To begin with: the Muslim rioting DOESN’T affect me, or anyone I know, or anyone anywhere near where I live. But I know plenty of people who have been affected by the ‘Troubles’ and the poisonous affect that sectarianism has had near where I live.
I agree that sectarianism in Northern Ireland has been the cause of enormous misery. Indeed, violence and threats from sectarian groups have unquestionably undermined freedoms in Northern Ireland. But I doubt that anyone commenting on Crooked Timber–or just about anywhere else, for that matter–would deny or downplay that concern, local as it is. On the contrary, it’s long been a major international issue, despite its relatively local effects.
On the other hand, threats and violence from radical Islamists appear to be changing the behavior of press organs, corporations and even governments all over the world–yet Kieran has pooh-poohed them as “a lot of posturing”, and ridiculed the idea that “some clerical thugs are so awesomely powerful that they are in a position to destroy the institutions of western democracy”.
Incidentally, forgive me if I’m wrong but the thrust of your post would seem to be that we shouldn’t really bother that much about the State taking away our freedoms because it might (or might not) give them back at some indeterminate point in the future?
Not quite–it’s that in a functioning democracy, the state will not be permitted to take away more freedoms than the public at large considers tolerable. And they are ultimately a better judge of which freedoms are necessary, which ones preferable, and which ones superfluous than any subset of them–let alone a radical foreign religious movement.
Brendan 02.19.06 at 7:40 pm
‘it’s that in a functioning democracy, the state will not be permitted to take away more freedoms than the public at large considers tolerable.’
Ah now we get to the nub of the matter. This issue is quite important, actually. The point here is quite simple, but frequently not understood (especially by Americans). It’s this.
There are many things that are essential to a democracy, and by definition elections (even free and fair (i.e. no vote rigging)) can only be one of those things. Why? Because in a true democracy you have to have a choice between genuine options, and you have to be well informed about these options.
For example: look at elections that were probably free and fair in the broadest sense of the word, but no sane person would view as being democratic in the true sense of THAT word. The Nazis held plebiscites or referenda on various issues (for example the Anschluss). The Nazis probably rigged these, but that doesn’t really matter. They would almost certainly have gotten their majorities whether they rigged the vote or not.
So: it wasn’t vote rigging that was the problem. So what was it? The problem was: the absence of a free press. No free press, no free press debate, and an absence of vital information, as to the possible benefits or otherwise of the various actions proposed by Hitler.
So: in a situation of press censorship, or lack of information, you can’t have a genuine choice, and so any elections held on that basis are automatically not democratic in the true sense of that word.
Dan Simon assumes that democracies are ‘self-regulating’, and that’s true….but only in a situation where there is a free press, access to relevant information, and a genuine debate. But THEN he says that state should be allowed to curtail that debate, and censor information.
BUT BY DEFINITION ANY ELECTION HELD ON THE BASIS OF CENSORED INFORMATION AND A STIFLED PRESS WILL BE INVALID.
In other words, when you lose your freedoms, you will tend to lose them permanently, because the democracy can no longer ‘right itself’.
You want an example? Look at Putin’s Russia. Look at Berlusconi’s Italy. Are political parties banned? No. Are the elections rigged? Of course not. Are there political assassinations? No. Are there concentration camps, gulags, a secret police? Don’t be ridiculous.
But are these states actually democratic, in a meaningful sense? Berlusconi (and Putin) control the media (Well Berlusconi controls almost all the media but he’s going for the rest.) There is rampant political corruption, and at the top levels, merging of organised crime with the apparatus of the state. The opposition is weak, splintered, and provides no meaningful alternative to the increasingly autocratic leaders.
In short, Berlusconi and Putin are, in embryo, paving the way for a new form of government: not totalitarian or authoritarian (in the 20th century style) but not democratic either. Instead it’s a kind of media-ocracy, or oligarchy, where real power is kept well away from the masses and behind closed doors.
In a state like Berlusconi’s Italy or Putin’s Russia, the state can no longer ‘right itself’ (think of the metaphor of the ship): things have gone too far. Only radical change will bring democracy back to these countries.
And what is the real problem, the source problem of these countries? The state has too much control over the media, there is too much censorship, and, despite what you say, despite the formal process of democracy, the ship of state can’t right itself because there can’t be any genuine debate about these issues…because Putin and Berlusconi control the debate, because the Russian people and Italian people let them take their freedoms away to begin with.
And the moral is: despite the fact that a state is ‘democratic’ it’s much safer just not go give your freedoms away to begin with.
Cos you might not be able to get them back.
Dan Simon 02.19.06 at 7:42 pm
You could say that it’s not only understandable but that at times it can be admirable for the abused to become disruptive.
You could, of course–but then someone might remind you just what kind of “disruptive” activity you were calling “admirable”. And then, if you had any shame at all, you would feel obliged to crawl away with your tail between your legs, and refrain from commenting any further on this topic.
Dan Simon 02.19.06 at 7:56 pm
Brendan, this discussion is getting a little off-topic, but on the basic point, I actually agree with you: a large amount of freedom of political expression is a sine qua non for democracy. And although I’m not very familiar with press conditions in Russia and Italy, I’ve heard enough to have my doubts as to whether Russia still qualifies as democratic on that score. (I’ve heard nothing to imply anything so severe about Italy, though. Have many newspapers been effectively shut down by the government there, for instance?)
Of course, that’s why I’m concerned about intimidation of the press by threats of violence from Islamist radicals. The anti-“glorification of terrorism” law in Britain is certainly disturbingly broad and vague, and I’d worry about it, too, if I thought it was likely to be imitated anywhere else. But there’s still enough freedom in Britain (as well as where I live) for citizens to object in public to such a law, and if enough do so, then the law will inevitably be repealed.
How, on the other hand, do ordinary citizens repeal the death threats issued against writers and journalists judged to have been insufficiently “respectful” towards Islam?
jet 02.19.06 at 8:45 pm
We need a modding system here, because dan simon and brendan need to be modded way up for that great exchange.
rollo 02.19.06 at 11:22 pm
Before jet and d. simon “mod” me “way down” allow me to say that I am capable of near-total all-consuming shame but feel none when confronted with partial and misleading propaganda masquerading as evidence for which I purportedly should. And though I though I may have been born with a tail it seems to have been removed without my knowledge or permission some time ago. Rather like my foreskin.
And allow me, Mr. Simon, to remind you that when I use the term “abused”, as you damn well know, I’m talking about the murder of women and children, and the destruction of the homes of the innocent, and countless undeserved acts of degradation and humiliation, of which these somewhat trivial imagistic slaps are simply the latest in a long bloody line.
Matt 02.19.06 at 11:50 pm
Brendan,
While I mostly agree with you here, I’d like to point out that political assassinations, rigged elections, and the banning of political parties are all quite common elements of Putin’s Russia, and have been since the begining of his time in power. They are not used in every case and on a nation-wide level, but it’s pretty well documented that all of these tactics are used fairly regularly.
Dan Simon 02.20.06 at 1:14 am
when I use the term “abusedâ€, as you damn well know, I’m talking about the murder of women and children, and the destruction of the homes of the innocent, and countless undeserved acts of degradation and humiliation, of which these somewhat trivial imagistic slaps are simply the latest in a long bloody line.
Actually, I don’t give a tinker’s crap what you mean by the term “abused”. What I care about is that you used the terms “understandable” and “admirable” to describe “disruptive” behavior which is most definitively neither understandable nor admirable–even if performed by the most “abused” people on earth (not that it is, mind you).
The behavior you find so “understandable” and “admirable” only increases the tally of abuse in the world. It simply has no mitigating features. You should be ashamed and embarrassed to be defending it–end of story.
rollo 02.20.06 at 3:10 am
The almost-never-ending tale continues.
Though Dan, you’re free to cover your eyes or look away if you want.
What I’m defending isn’t rioting or the tenets of Islam or the prejudices and bigotries of the imams, or any of the other bugbears and shields you’re holding up.
What I’m defending is honesty.
When I say “at times it can be admirable for the abused to become disruptive” I mean exactly that.
It’s placed in opposition to your implied statement that any disruption is always wrong.
It is not a defense of all disruption anywhere anytime, or even the specific disruptions that are the subject here. It’s a refutation of your position much more than a defense of anyone else’s.
I have to agree that the violence that’s occurring increases the “tally of abuse in the world”.
A most instructive example from American history – the Hatfield-McCoy feud – was just such a tally, blood-soaked and tragic, with its cause, real as it was, lost in the eye-for-an-eye and more and worse that became a way of life for the two families and their communities.
So-called hillbillies are caricatures now, and one of the last minorities it’s permitted to ridicule, but these were real people, and the tally of loss and pain they suffered was much too long.
One way to have ended it would have been the unilateral victory of one side or the other. Another would have been the extinction of both. As it was it seems the two sides fought themselves into exhaustion over three generations.
That seems an unlikely outcome of the “clash of civilizations”.
What seems more likely is the extinction of one side or the other, or both. Injustice will win no matter what in all three of those scenarios.
In order for justice to prevail we’ll need honesty; and justice begins with comprehension, which is a kind of understanding.
abb1 02.20.06 at 3:13 am
…threats and violence from radical Islamists appear to be changing the behavior of press organs, corporations and even governments all over the world
I wish that were true – in the way radical (and non-radical) civil rights activists changed the behavior in the US, but unfortunately the press, corporations and governments are as racist, condescending and hostile towards Muslims and Arabs as ever.
Brendan 02.20.06 at 3:33 am
‘While I mostly agree with you here, I’d like to point out that political assassinations, rigged elections, and the banning of political parties are all quite common elements of Putin’s Russia, ‘
Well that’s not my understanding. In 2002 a law was passed that prevented the formation of ‘extremist’ political parties but to the best of my knowledge it hasn’t been used. Putin doesn’t (again to the best of my knowledge and after a quick google search) ‘ban’ political parties. Instead they are legally harassed, but let’s live with our eyes open for a second shall we? Putin’s a bastard, but that doesn’t mean that his opponents are saints. His political opponents tend to be other oligarchs, and while it’s true that these prosecutions have political motivations, allegations of corruption (etc.) might well be true as well .
As for assassinations (outside Chechnya) again, my understanding is that that’s not Putin’s style. There are a lot of assassinations in Russia of course, but they tend to be carried out by the mafia, with the state turning a blind eye, not directly by the State itself.
Again it’s true there were a few allegations of vote rigging at the last elections, but not substantiated onces. In any case, Putin would almost certainly have won anyway so it really doesn’t matter.
What Dan Simon overlooks of course, is the extent to which Putin has used ‘Islamic Fundamentalism’ (ie in Chechnya) as an excuse for removing basic civil liberties and freedoms. And as long as the public remain frightened (and ignorant) they will tend to go along with this.
Something that is doubtless being watched closely in Washington and London.
Finally: ‘But there’s still enough freedom in Britain (as well as where I live) for citizens to object in public to such a law, and if enough do so, then the law will inevitably be repealed.’
Actually laws are very very rarely repealed in Britain (or in the US for that matter) as a direct result of street protests. The last one I can think of was the poll tax, but that took more than just protests, it took riots (and the political situation was VERY different then: the Thatcher government was dying, and the opposition was comparatively strong: moreover, the Labour Party was still strongly committed to civil liberties in those days, not something its bitterest enemy would accuse it of nowadays).
Moreover, there are far more restrictions on freedom of assembly and free speech (in public) now than there were then. For example, it is now illegal to ‘take part in an unauthorised demonstration within one kilometre of the Palace of Westminster, even if they are simply standing on their own, neither posing a threat nor inconveniencing anybody else.’
So: ‘a nurse protesting against pay and conditions outside St Thomas Hospital on the other bank of the Thames would be breaking the law unless authority had been obtained in advance from the police.’
There are many other laws now on the statute books that are similarly authoritarian.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/12/12/do1202.xml&DCMP=EMC-new_12122005
(finally it should be noted that the reason that the UK and even Italy are not (yet) as bad as Putin’s Russia is because of EU human rights legislations, which Blair and Berlusconi at least have to pay lip service to, in a way which Putin doesn’t).
J Thomas 02.20.06 at 3:34 am
The behavior you find so “understandable†and “admirable†only increases the tally of abuse in the world. It simply has no mitigating features.
I take it you would have been a Tory if you were in north america in the 1770’s.
Or maybe you’re not talking about ‘disruption’ but about some specific idea in your own head.
`I don’t know what you mean by “glory”,’ Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don’t — till I tell you. I meant “there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!”‘
`But “glory” doesn’t mean “a nice knock-down argument”,’ Alice objected.
`When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
Matt 02.20.06 at 9:04 am
Brendan,
The Moscow Times documented, in very great detail, that there was extensive rigging of the election when Putin gained his first full term so as to avoid a run-off. (Too big of a hurry now to find the link, but you can probably find it from the Moscow Times web pages.) There was good reason to think that the last big Duma elections were messed with so as to keep the SPS and Yabloko just under the 5% level needed to get Duma seats, too. Regional elections are pretty much all conceded to be fraudulent, always in favor the the Kremlin-backed candidate, so I really think you just don’t know the issue well here. There have been many political killings in Russia during Putin’s time-not all obviously directed from the Kremilin, but some possibly so, and none solved in a way that anyone there believes. (An example- one of the heads of the “Liberal Russia” party killed just when he starts to be annoying. It’s blamed on the mafia, and maybe that’s right, but certainly the Kremlin wasn’t very eager to have it deeply or seriously investigated. Finally, as to political parties, look in to the on-going fun with the National Bolshivik Party, which has been banned at several times recently and also had it’s members jailed and beaten by Kremlin-backed gangs of young thugs. So really, I think you’re just not fully up on the evidence here. All this is going on, even if not on a massive scale.
james 02.20.06 at 12:08 pm
There is a long established double standard that this site uses in comparing the actions of Christians and Muslims. I have come to realize it is not due to actions of either group or their religious beliefs. Christian organizations are seen as local political advisories. As such they must be combated at every possible tern. Muslim organizations are seen as either a minority group in need of protection or as a foreign culture not to be judged by the values of the local mores. This divergence in view does tend to color any dialog about either group.
J Thomas 02.21.06 at 9:34 am
I suddenly realised — you mean people here think of christian organisations as local political *adversaries*! Now it makes sense.
So I disagree. It’s only the christian organisations that are organised as anti-US that are adversaries. Quaker organisations for example tend to be accepted as friends or at least neutrals. Habitat for Humanity (which I think does accept nonchristians) is not an adversary. Etc. It’s mostly fundamentalist christian political groups who have political goals that are in the nation’s worst interest that behave as adversaries.
Muslim organisations in the USA are minority groups that typically need some protection. If at some time they get so strong that they’re effectively lobbying for money to get israel dismantled and nukes for palestine, then they will be adversaries. (And of course before then, but the point is right now they’re no threat.) And foreign cultures that happen to be muslim need to get treated as foreign cultures, of course.
It looks to me like this doesn’t color the dialog. It more removes some of the coloring that’s present in some other places.
Comments on this entry are closed.