Saving the tea ladies of the West


Of course we’ve always known that the more-transgressive-than-thou, libertarian free-spirits of the Aussie media are for the most part just conventional folks putting on a show.

But the word is now out: in support of decisions not to republish the famous Danish cartoons in their own papers, these people now whisper that they have, ah, families. Who would have thought?

More on the Aussies below. But it’s worth noting first that the fabled bohemians of the UK intellectual Right, though in much the same boat, have at least shown themselves to be slightly more inventive.

In explaining its decision not to publish the cartoons, the conservative UK magazine TheSpectator doesn’t mention families (registration required). (OK, this may be wise given the level of bonking that notoriously goes on there). Instead, the magazine editorial on the cartoons mentions its concerns about – would you believe – the tea ladies.

Thus the magazine takes to task those European publications who have published the cartoons, by charging that they have “not just put themselves at risk, but also their canteen staff…” (Emphasis added.) (The editorial also mentions concern for the welfare of classified advertising executives in the western media, but that is beyond funny.)

Of course, for moderate and secular Muslims facing Islamicist crazies in their own countries, this kind of thing from an influential Anglo publication like the Spectator is not all funny but very bad news indeed.

They now find out that many of those in the West who have been cheering them along as the great white hope of democratisation either

  • don’t actually believe in the principles that they espouse, or
  • do believe in them but are, well, sensible about the thing, old boy.

This was the point the Islamicists wanted to make above all in their well-orchestrated campaign, and of course they’ve made it exceedingly well throughout the Anglosphere.

For sheer good ol’ British hypocrisy though, the Spectator is hard to beat. In the same editorial in which it stoutly defends its own decision to be sensible and not publish the cartoons, it attacks bishops who it alleges have failed to assert Christian values in the face of a Muslim cultural onslaught; and police who it alleges have ‘bottled out’ of enforcing the law when it comes to Muslim protestors. Hey Spectator. Don’t bishops and policemen have tea ladies too?

Turning to the Aussie media, Gerard Henderson in the Sydney Morning Herald asserts that ‘the position taken by most media outlets in Australia, Britain and the United States makes sense’. According to Henderson, ‘at present, there is little point in publishing material that may be used by radical Islamists to stir animosity against moderate Muslims and the West.’

Little point? No point at all, really, provided of course that you can live with the betrayal of the moderate Muslims you claim falsely to be protecting. Some of these are quoted by Henderson himself in this very article, including the Egyptian Muslim journalist Mona Eltahawy, who wrote in the International Herald Tribune that she supported Jyllands-Posten’s right to publish the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad. This moderate Muslim said she found “the daily human rights violations of our [Muslim] dictators to be more offensive to the memory of the prophet’s life than a few cartoons could ever be”.

Muslim journalists like Eltahawy take real risks to express such opinions. But Henderson brushes aside such examplers, asserting simply that ‘it makes sense’ (that phrase again) for Western editors and producers ‘to come to a pragmatic judgement in this instance.’

Just writing this should make Henderson feel queasy. He would know that if you only stand up for your principles when they ‘make sense’, they’re no longer principles. And why is ‘this instance’ different? What happens next time? Cowardice (sorry: ‘pragmatic judgements’) tends to be habit-forming.

Henderson in fact proceeds to spell out the simple truth that ‘those who are employed by newspapers and television stations, or who operate websites, do not want to be attacked by angry mobs and suffer the possibility of beheading or another form of death.’

As he says, ‘Some have been honest enough to admit that intimidation was an important factor in their refusal to show their readers/viewers the alleged offensive drawings of the prophet.’

If they have been honest enough, it’s a pity Henderson spills so much fatuous ink trying to rationalise spineless timidity with the ludicrous proposition that it has something to do with protecting moderate Muslims. The opposite is the case, and for this we’re all going to pay enventually, one way or another, tea ladies and all.


5 Responses to “Saving the tea ladies of the West”

  1. Moderate Wombat Says:


    Further to your point, it pays to note that only in Denmark are true moderate Muslims coming out of the woodwork to loudly and clearly criticise their self-styled and less than moderate leaders and spokesmen. Only in Denmark have moderate Muslims defined “moderate” as a position devoted to the secular state and free speech, and opposed to the fundamentalism that is mainstream Islam, which with its literalist and absolutist relationship to the Koran, and its unconditional adulation of Mohammad is anything but moderate in any sense that is meaningful in a free, secular West.
    With so few exceptions, our journalists are dhimmis.

  2. stewie Says:

    ‘the position taken by most media outlets in Australia, Britain and the United States makes sense’.

    Hmmm… I suppose so- if you have no spine.

    Someone needs to simplify it for Henderson- Freedom of speech taken advantage of, a large number of Muslims protest after being worked up by a few clerics 5 months later, freedom of speech suddenly doesn’t include blasphemy- that is, against a faith that isn’t even traditionally European.

    What, it’s just a coincidence that there is serious discussion among the left of making blasphemy illegal following massive violence and threats of violence by a large number of Muslims?

    Henderson is a scared little man, but at least we know that if he needs to be converted to a more conservative or libertarian point of view, we only need to threaten to kill him… dirty, dirty dhimmi!

  3. La Illa Ill Wombat Says:

    Check out the shit Downer and Abbott came out with today. Downer says that the WOT is not a WOI. His reasons for this are even lamer. Meanwhile Abbott reckons that pro-Sharia muslims are Aussie after all, and makes a “conservative case for multiculturalism” in Quadrant.

    Maybe they thought that if Rudd and Beazly can play a “good cop/bad cop” game with the ROP, so can the Libs, only better…

    Abbott probably had to lose a drinking game to play the role of Lib token dhimmi.

  4. Ferinannnd Says:

    Млин, спамеры просто достали уже этим своим примитивом!

  5. shericopeland37282 Says:

    En cuanto a los Scripts, lo he consultado con Federico Hatoum ahora mismo y esta ha sido su respuesta: Come on

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: