Monday, February 20, 2012

There’s Always a “But”

Burka Vrijheid

As reported in the news feed a couple of weeks ago, An-Sofie Dewinter, the daughter of Vlaams Belang leader Filip Dewinter, caused a stir in Belgium by posing for an ad in which she wore a burka over her face while showing the rest of her body in a bikini.

Now she’s getting death threats as a result. Here’s a brief report from FOX News:

Belgian Politician’s Daughter Receives Death Threats After Posing in Bikini and Burqa

Death threats are being made against the daughter of one of Belgium’s leading politicians after she posed in an anti-Islam ad. An-Sofie Dewinter is pictured in the ad wearing a burqa and a bikini, donning the words “Freedom or Islam, you choose.”

Greg Palkot reported that her politician father, Filip Dewinter, said he’s not using her for campaigning purposes, but that this was her free choice. The 20-year-old model said she’s not worried about the threats, saying, “I don’t think they’re serious. I hope not.”

The accompanying video clip shows the talking heads on FOX discussing this incident. Mind you, these are the people who pass for conservatives on American cable news programs. Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video:

Notice how reluctantly the “conservative” pundits affirm this young woman’s right to express herself freely. Observe their lukewarm support for what she decided to do, and their obvious distaste for it.

Bill Kristol — a supposed “conservative” — could not bring himself to back a woman’s right to speak out against Islamic misogyny without following it with “on the other hand…”

Not to put too fine a point on it, these people are sniveling cowards.

They acknowledge that expressing opinions about Islam like Ms. Dewinter’s is “dangerous”. So why don’t they reserve their distaste and disapproval for the people and the ideology that make such expressions dangerous?

Why render any judgment whatsoever against the brave young lady who decided to speak out?

The Ranting ManWhat’s wrong with these people?

If these oh-so-refined pundits had even an ounce of courage, they’d do something similar themselves, and thereby demonstrate their commitment to preserving their most cherished American values and freedoms against the Islamic onslaught.

Which is exactly what An-Sofie Dewinter did.

“But no — that would be dangerous, don’t you know? Some deranged Islamic zealot might try to kill me if I did that!”

So they prefer to be just one more brick in the sharia wall, rather than stand up and say, “Tear down this wall!”

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

By the way — did you hear Bill Kristol defend the Mohammed cartoonists in that clip?

He was singing a different tune back in early 2006, while the Scandinavian embassies were being burned and the cartoonists fled into hiding. Almost all American conservatives were doing the same thing. They spoke about the Motoons back then the same way they’re talking about An-Sofie Dewinter now.

Distaste. Disapproval. Superciliousness. With just a soupçon of enlightened condescension.

Why the change of heart? If the Mohammed cartoons weren’t OK back then, why are they OK now?

One word. The same word that was used in the video clip above:


It was dangerous to support the Motoonists back in 2006, so the craven chickenhearts of American “conservatism” couldn’t bring themselves to do it. They supported freedom of the press, but

Now that the Mohammed cartoon crisis has receded into history, they feel safe affirming the rights of the Mohammed cartoonists — very, very retroactively.

Maybe someday it will also be safe, when enough time has passed, for them to proclaim their support for An-Sofie Dewinter. If they aren’t living as dhimmis under the World Caliphate by then, that is.

Until that day, it’s: “Naturally, we support her right to free speech, but…”

There’s always a “but”.


Anonymous said...

"What's wrong with these people?"
Perhaps they're afraid of getting death threats

doxRaven said...

Is this really 'mocking Islam', as one of the talking heads claims? Or is it highlighting a backward cultural practice that re-enforces a second tier status of women in many Islamic societies and increasingly seen in Western societies.

Why is it 'unwise' as claimed by another commentator in the video? Is it unwise because it can lead to repercussions? Is courage 'unwise'? Many a civil rights person had to make 'unwise' actions in order to make their point and advance civil rights. I don't want to mention any specific actions because I don't want to be disrespectful and make comparisons of specific actions with specific actions However, even though it may be politically incorrect to say, I am absolutely convinced that the fight against Islamic supremicism and antiquated Islamic cultural practices has the same moral substance as the fight for civil rights of the past.

There is also this case that can be brought into the discussion:
“The yellow rectangles on my eyes, mouth and sex organ resemble the censoring of our knowledge, expression and sexuality,”

Robert Pinkerton said...

The one person an addict must never offend, is his dealer. We in the West are addicted to petroleum. A large proportion of the purportedly available petroleum is under Islamic land.

Anonymous said...

I hear that one of recent major shareholders in Fox News is a member of the Saudi royal family. A simple and efficient way to make a news station reconsider its criticism of Islam.

Anonymous said...

"What's wrong with these people?" Yes, they are scared sh-tless of being threatened by Muslims. That is what they are about right now. However, I am afraid too. That is why I post anonymously. I have a feeling though that one fine day, the repressed feelings of fear and loathing by many Westerners are going to just explode on Muslims like a ferocious Category 5 tornado. Most men cannot keep emotions bottled up forever.

gsw said...

Actually, they are afraid of
a) getting death threats
b) getting dead
c) getting fired

Baron Bodissey said...

To the several people who brought it up --

Yes, of course these pundits are worried about getting death threats themselves. That was my entire point.

Unlike the young woman in Flanders, they lack the courage of their convictions. Unlike their forefathers, who risked their “lives, fortunes, and sacred honor” to protect their liberties, they are not even willing to face even modest danger to stand up for the freedoms that other people fought and died to provide for them.

Because let’s face it: Bill Kristol doesn’t really have much chance of getting a death fatwa for shaking his fist and saying, “Blast them! I support this woman’s right to express herself!” He’s not that big a deal from a Wahhabist’s standpoint; not like, say, Geert Wilders or Kurt Westergaard or Oskar Freysinger.

And An-Sofie lives in a much more dangerous environment than they do. France, Belgium, and the Netherlands are the most Islamized countries in Europe. Belgium is especially a hotbed of radicals, because the EU establishment made a tacit deal with the terrorists many years ago: you refrain from attacking us here in the capital of the EU, and we will allow you to plot your terror in Belgium and fundraise for it with impunity.

The Frankenstein monster is getting away from them now, of course; but it’s too late to backtrack.

Why don’t these talking heads in New York or L.A. have even a fraction of the courage that this slip of a Flemish girl has?

They’re Americans. They’re supposed to be willing to defend the rights of the oppressed and the downtrodden.

Times have changed, haven’t they?

Michael Servetus said...

I agree that these people are scared and can be called out as acting somewhat cowardly and un-American but one still must factor in that its one thing to be scared for no reason and another to be scared because you know you won't get any backing and support from your own. Furthermore to know that your government will not do anything to seriously protect you and prevent anything from happening to you and will actually make it hard for you to protect yourself. That is leaving aside the fact that this present government will more readily persecute and malign one of its own native born sons than prosecute the real enemy of its own "children". That is also leaving out the question of whether or not their employer who is now partly Saudi Arabian will turn on them. It just hasn't gotten to the point yet where people are willing to sacrifice themselves for no return.

Pierre_Picaud said...

Kristol does not deserve his father's name. Irving would not have stood for this for a second.

Truly are we now governed by men of bronze.

Baron Bodissey said...

Michael S. --

Everything you say can also be said about the Belgian government and its antagonistic relationship with An-Sofie Dewinter. Not only that, the Dewinter family has far less in the way of resources than the Kristol and Krauthammer families.

Belgium is at least as much in thrall to Arab petrodollars as the USA. And, unlike America, Belgium has no oil of its own whatsoever to use if the sheikhs turn off the spigot.

There is nothing in particular the Belgian government will do to stop the Dewinters from being harmed. And there are literally thousands of hateful mujahideen in Brussels and Antwerp ready to kill the Dewinter family.

So, once again, tell me: why does this one young Flemish woman have so much more courage than the “conservative” apparatchiks of the American media?

Alan W. Wright said...

It's offensive, Liz???

You only wish you looked THAT good in a bikini!!!

Anonymous said...

I believe commenters here have overlooked something. Please note the crucial pejorative word "tacky" used by the woman interviewee on Fox News and the pained embarrassment of all, including her. It is a right-wing channel in a country of extreme public puritanism, feeding also mainstream feminism, in which a briefly-exposed nipple (Janet Jackson) on TV can cause public protest.

European women such as Belgians wearing bikinis and showing their womanliness for a political reason rather than for US product marketing are thus ungodly for the God of the Pilgrim Fathers of 1642.

Please recall the tens of millions of US Fox News viewers, also Christian Zionists by the way, for whom public female nakedeness is "immoral."

Anonymous said...


It's as if, when we speak, we need to hem and haw because everything we say has to first go through some social/media system for approval. There is a mass consciousness editing system that has been constructed. It is like a shadow government that we voted for with our silence. We are being very well trained to kept quiet.

Of course, real free speech means I give my opinion and I give it now, without being threatened physically or economically. And not walking on eggshells, not waiting for a stamp of media approval.

What if Rick Santorum said that, as president, he would close every project feigning political correctness and put the FBI and CIA on the job of protecting the eroding free speech of the citizens?

You Knew

Anonymous said...

Shameful! When was the last time Bill Kristol made even the tiniest protest about Muslim intolerance of Christians? He condescendingly poo-poo's Miss Dewinter's photo but utters not a word against the murders, rapes, assaults and the destruction of property committed against Christians throughout the Muslim world WITH government support and encouragement. Mr. Kristol, you sir, are a coward!

Nemesis said... raise some interesting points with this article. If I may use an analogy; Islam is like the bully in the kindergarten playground, a bully from a family background that instils in its children that violence and threats of violence will always win out over appeasement and cowardice. The bully soon realizes that his family utters wise words as he works his way among the young children in kindergarten cowering those who have yet to learn to stand up for themselves. In a way, what we are now witnessing within our 'conservative media' is that analogy in operation. Those who utter platitudes concerning the inherent violence that Islam so readily displays, have yet to learn to stand up for themselves.

I also note An-Sofie's response to the death threats as: "I don't think they're serious, I hope not!" What that response tells me is that she wishes to believe that Islam is not the threat that some people, and those death threats, are made out to be.

It is my experience that ALL death threats should be regarded as serious and action taken to increase the 'victim's' own security measures around their abodes, and those venues they may wish to visit. Situational awarness training is invaluable in this regard.

The concern of why so many in the media remain doubtful of Islam's true intentions and violent behaviour is, and this is my opinion, there has yet to be an event of such significance that it will cause the mask to finally slip from the face of Islam that will expose Islam's real purpose that no amount of appeasement from the Left, or so called 'conservative media', will be able to cover-up.

Michael Servetus said...

Baron you are correct. All things being equal one acted and the others did not. The reasons why those who did not stand up did so is beside the point that they noticeably did not. What i said was half offered as reasons operating behind the scene and shouldn't necessarily be taken as excuses or justification. But I also meant it as an indictment of the silent majority of conservative sheeple. Who would not lift one finger to help someone who took a decisive stand. Which takes away from any reason to do so in a risk calculation. Nevertheless what you have pointed out still stands. So i will have to say it all boils down to where the center of ones approval source lies.One of the overlooked benefits of bible believers is that they have an independence and alternative vantage point from which to evaluate things and from which to look for alternative authority, because the bible is a good book that alternative grounds is largely what is considered just and beneficient except according to the modern leftist atheist. Such a values system is not enslaved to the present fads of the day. I would guess that all bold leaders have a similar reason for their stances. One way or another they are not enslaved by the fear of man, as the scriptures say brings one into a snare. Believers in God have a reason to resist or to at least question the secular wisdom of the day as something that is fallible, even most likely depraved in some way or in the very least as potentially differing from the eternal wisdom of God, for as it is written the word.of the lord endures forever but all flesh is as grass and whithers. Also see John 12:42-43, Prov. 29:25, Luke 12:4, Gal 1:10, Psalm 19:7 , and tout will see there is something about the wisdom traditions of the holy scriptures of the bible does for us that no other education can. It make wise the simple. Forgive me Dymphna for this scripture referencing but it is the foundation upon which this house is built.

Hermes said...

The 20-year-old model said she’s not worried about the threats, saying, “I don’t think they’re serious. I hope not.”

She thinks that muslims are not serious. Well, this is the main problem with the westerners. They know so little about the true nature of Islam. No wonder that it is gaining so much ground in the west. May God protect her.

Chiu ChunLing said...

First I have to say...I think that, artistically, this could have been a much more striking image with a slightly different outfit and pose.

For the sex appeal, I would have gone with a black lace bustier and panties. I'm not saying I definitely would have gone for sex appeal, just that I would have used something other than that rather drab bikini. I also would have gone with a different pose, with the "Freedom or Islam, you choose" placards placed where they wouldn't be suggestive of censorship. Instead it could be like she was holding "Freedom" up over one hand, "Islam" over the other, with the "or" on or just over her forehead (like a headband). And "you choose" could be in an oval on her stomach.

Really my preference would have gone with one of those really great old-fashioned satin dresses trimmed with tons of lace and ruffles, because those are great and very figure-flattering. Some peek-a-boo cleavage and a slit skirt effect would be nice too (oh, and a nice brooch for focus). But that would lose the impact of having a lot of skin. I think that there is a valid need for skin to make the point.

Oh, but maybe going with lingerie rather than swim-wear would be taking it too far? Maybe a more stylish bikini but still definitely a swim...or even a sports bra and bike pants? But a lot of sportswear really is kinda tacky:p

Whatever, I wish I had been her photographer, there are so many fun things we could have tried. But that's water under the bridge. It's a striking image that makes an important point (though I definitely would have done those placards differently).

Anyway, second, I think she should have worked a gun in there somehow. There is no picture of a woman that cannot be made hotter with a well-placed weapon. Stiletto heels can kinda do this, but an actual stiletto works much better, and a stylish handgun always works with any outfit. It would be okay to leave the exact meaning somewhat ambiguous, too.

Chiu Chun-Ling.

Anonymous said...

"Snivelling cowards" is a bit of an overstatement. One can get terribly bored by women's 'right' to take their clothes off at the sight of a camera. A line needs to be drawn somewhere, but is it at the bikini or stark nekkid? Perhaps a nice skirt and blouse with the covered face might have made just as strong a statement whilst not boring people with the usual axhibitionism.

(Axhibitionism - undressed women with an axe to grind.)

Anonymous said...

I don't think a bikini, as worn by many of us each summer is 'axhibitionism'! And her body and pose are normal, she's not setting out to look extremely seductive. I think she made a good message for the freedom of normal, everyday women to enjoy a swimsuit.

laine said...

Realistically, there isn't much physical danger for an American conservative pundit expressing mild approval for Ms. Dwinter's efficient limning of the clash of cultures in a single image. No, these pseudo intellectuals are afraid to buck the political correctness enforced by the liberal self-appointed definers of what is intellectual and what is not. Jesus dunked in urine and the Madonna smeared with elephant dung is "art" or "political commentary", take your pick, whereas these conformist conservatives beat the libs to the punch by using the word "tacky" to describe the bikini-burka political statement. These same pusillanimous pundits undoubtedly did not criticize the desecration of Christian figures out of the same fear - that they would be lumped in with conservative "rednecks" and denied their fantasy ticket to intellectual salons. Along with their lib role models, they are mere pseudos, as true intellectuals have a coherent world view that does not invoke double standards, therefore Orwell, not Marx.

1389 said...

The "spin" in the Daily Mail article on this was just as bad - dissected here.