I seem to be caught at a loss for words more often than usual these days. This story leaves me almost speechless. What we have in this story is the coming together of two forms of totalitarianism. #1: The totalitarianism of the airport. Essentially, if you are in an airport attempting to board a plane, you can be detained at will. #2: The British (and increasingly American) totalitarianism of the religion of anti-racism. Now in Britain applied to Islam as if it were a race. This man merely made a quip indicating that a Muslim woman was receiving special security treatment, and he was expressly told by a whole bevy of guards that if he did not apologize to a Muslim security officer--called out of the woodwork so that she could be offended and be the recipient of his symbolic forced apology--he would not be allowed to board his plane. Eventually he agreed to a compromise suggested by the bullies surrounding him: That he admit that his comment "could" have been offensive to a Muslim. He kept reiterating that what he had said wasn't racist, but even that wasn't enough. If he didn't apologize, he was going to be detained by guards. He was told repeatedly that he couldn't say such a thing, that we live in such times now that such things cannot be said, and that he must apologize to a representative Muslim.
This is terrifying.
In America we already have totalitarianism #1 and some measure of totalitarianism #2. Would they come together in this way? What's the betting that something similar would happen to anyone who made a similarly mild and moderate comment in, say, JFK airport? I'd like to think it's no more than 50/50, but even those odds are too high.
Comments (17)
I would have forced the issue and not apologized.
Posted by Thomas | February 26, 2012 9:40 PM
I'm wondering if maybe he decided he was only acknowledging, under the proposed compromise (!!), that a Muslim "could" find it offensive, hence was only acknowledging the irrationality of Muslims. I suppose after being detained for an hour while your worried family waits for you, you'd try to find some way to be honest and also be released. Terrifying. It's like they went and found this Muslim security agent so he could be forced to kiss her shoes, metaphorically speaking.
Posted by Lydia | February 26, 2012 9:57 PM
The irony is delicious in a morbid kind of way. Hell bent on removing the last vestiges of Christianity existence, Liberalism will die under the rough justice of Islam.
Posted by Gino McCarthy | February 26, 2012 10:04 PM
Lydia, you said, "...hence was only acknowledging the irrationality of Muslims."
Do you mean that all Muslims, in virtue of being Muslim, are irrational?
Posted by Tod | February 27, 2012 12:47 AM
What "could be found offensive" by somebody somewhere is virtually unlimited. It is a irrational to insist that one must apologise for a remark that had no malice and wasn't even directed at the person who demands an apology.
What astonishes me is that anyone here at WWWW would be surprised by such an incident. This is an indication of the official mood in England now, and a only a form of 'reactionary totalitarianism' will counter it.
Posted by Alex | February 27, 2012 4:05 AM
Of course, totalitarianism #2 is the implicit reason for totalitarianism #1. In liberal society, we must all engage in the pretense that everyone is equally likely to commit an act of terrorism, whether they are 18-25 year old middle eastern men or 60 year old nuns. In order to make good on this pretense, we must subject everyone to humiliating body searches, scanners and harassment whether they are likely to be terrorists or not. The only alternatives are to either let the terrorists do their worst, or acknowledge the fact that muslim men are statistically more likely to be terrorists than any other demographic. Since liberal society cannot permit such hatefacts to be uttered in public, let alone granted a toehold in the space of reasons. And thus the totalitarianism of the airport, and egalitarian liberalism's inevitable outcome: screw everyone in order to marginalize no one.
Posted by Untenured | February 27, 2012 6:39 AM
Anti-racism only works by making whites into self-loathing little pansies. That psychology cannot last forever when whites notice that non-whites are allowed to be as racist as they want to be and start to yearn for the right to have basic group pride again. It's "racist" to be proud of what our white ancestors accomplished, despite the fact that we are toe-to-toe with the East Asians in civilization accomplishments and are no worse in our "group crimes" than any other group.
It's time to start using liberalism's moral relativism against it by encouraging the spread of ideas which destroy it. For example, Lydia, one of the reasons I am a firm advocate of Game being taught to ordinary, semi-clueless men is because it empowers them to fight back and kick feminism in the teeth.
Posted by Mike T | February 27, 2012 7:08 AM
The day that conservatives adopt the Marxists' fervor for overthrowing Liberalism is the day that Liberals will shudder in true terror.
Posted by Mike T | February 27, 2012 7:11 AM
Tod, I definitely think there are aspects of Islam as a set of ideas that are irrational, but that wasn't what I meant in the comment. I meant "the irrationality of Muslims in choosing to take over-the-top offense extremely easily." That seems to be a group trait statistically even if it is not true of every member of the group. Look at this guard! A perfect example. I suppose he should just be glad that she didn't say he should be sentenced to a public flogging.
Untenured, this is true,
But even more than that is true. They aren't even searching everyone. This whole incident points out that the woman with her face covered was allowed not to uncover it and to sail right through security. So there's a double standard *in favor* of Muslims, and now even to point it out by a non-Muslim gets him treated like a probable terrorist just because he made a "disallowed" remark. "You can't say that."
Posted by Lydia | February 27, 2012 8:43 AM
Well, Alex, I suppose Americans still have some vestiges of a notion of freedom of speech. What this man was essentially being told was that he was not allowed to make even the mildest comment about the special treatment afforded to Muslims.
I have a question: Was his comment officially illegal in England? Is it that bad? Could he be arrested and found guilty of something for, say, writing about the double standard he noted on a blog or saying it in a restaurant to a friend?
Or was totalitarianism #1 ("You're in the airport, so you are a completely helpless puppet and we can make you do anything we want") being used to _intensify_ totalitarianism #2?
Posted by Lydia | February 27, 2012 8:46 AM
Lydia:
I suppose because a Muslim security officer claimed to be 'insulted' after she was informed about the matter, there is a possibility that such a comment could be construed as an offence under the Public Order Act. This law contains the offences of inciting or stirring up racial hatred. It prohibits the use of threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displaying any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting with the intention of stirring up racial hatred or where racial hatred is likely to be stirred up.
How it could be proved, in this instance, that an intention to stir up racial hatred existed isn't clear. But if a Muslim affects to be 'insulted' by even an innocuous remark, then a likelihood of stirring up racial hatred seems to be indicated and proscecution might follow.
I don't believe Americans would suffer the presumption of guilt and attacks on free speech with the notorious apathy that prevails in the British Isles.
Posted by Alex | February 27, 2012 9:24 AM
If someone can just go and inform somebody about the comment after the fact and have him decide to be insulted, thus turning it into an offense against the law, that's the end to all free speech, even in private. One could say something in one's own home, have it reported to an unrelated Muslim who was nowhere around at the time, and be accused of a violation of "public order." I know I'm preaching to the choir, but that's crazy.
Posted by Lydia | February 27, 2012 10:11 AM
While the inadvertent use of words that are threatening, abusive, or insulting is not a criminal offence, someone disposed to misinterpret what has been said might affect indignation. Thus even an unwarranted complaint of racial insult could be enough to encourage the authorities to bully or at least to inconvenience the supposed 'offender'. (Which is what appears to have happened at Gatwick airport).
British police are usually eager to follow up any allegation of racial insult. Even a mere 'perception' of racial insult is enough to trigger police inquiries.
Posted by Alex | February 27, 2012 10:28 AM
What if the gentleman said he was offended that someone was offended at his unoffensive "quip", does that count? No, it's only tolerance if your part of the offended victim group.
@ Mike T I'm offended you called us white and not euro-american. We have a heritage to be "celebrated" too. (Gag).
Posted by michael henry | February 27, 2012 11:26 AM
Add that to the list of reasons for any sensible Brit to hate their police. Right after "punish property owners for acts of self-defense during a home invasion" and "coddle thugs who are caught trying to commit violent crime against the elderly."
Posted by Mike T | February 27, 2012 12:13 PM
We do, and the longer we denigrate whites who want to be proud of it, the more we risk white pride returning as a form of racial hatred instead of just pride.
Posted by Mike T | February 27, 2012 12:16 PM
As an Englishman I found this was a disturbing matter. I believe he called for the police and demanded that he be arrested if an offence had been committed and the police declined the invitation.
This was a smart thing to do. He should have refused to even talk to the airport staff and let them stew. The longer they detained him the more they were open to a charge of false imprisonment. Mind you this would take some nerve and he had his family to consider.
Now he should, but this takes money , sue the staff personally and the airport collectively for false imprisonment and threatening behaviour. The really disturbing aspect is that the Muslim who felt aggrieved was not present. Things here have to get a whole lot worse before they improve.
Posted by Dave s | February 28, 2012 1:55 PM