No such bill of grievances
Hitchens notes a difference between Mumtaz Qadri, and Paul Foot and Nelson Mandela.
A decision to resort to violence was not something to be undertaken without great care—and stated in terms that were addressed to reasonable people. From his prison cell, Nelson Mandela had joined the great tradition of the French philosophes, of Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, of Marx and Engels in 1848, and of Jawaharlal Nehru in the 1930s—of men and women who felt the historic obligation to make a stand and to define it.
In other words, to give reasons.
Now look at the grinning face of Mumtaz Qadri, the man who last week destroyed a great human being. He did not explain. He boasted. As “a slave of the Prophet,” he had the natural right to murder Salman Taseer, the governor of Punjab, not even for committing “blasphemy” but for criticizing a law that forbade it for Muslims and non-Muslims alike. And this sweeping new extension of the divine right to murder not only was not condemned by the country’s spiritual authorities; it was largely approved by them. No argument, no arraignment, no appeal—permission to kill anybody can merely be assumed by anybody, provided only that they mouth the correct incantations.
The incantations create the permission – it’s the ultimate speech act.
This is only one of the many things that go to make up the hideousness of Islamic jihadism, but I believe that it has received insufficient attention. Amid all our loose talk about Muslim “grievances,” have we even noticed that no such bill of grievances has ever been published, let alone argued and defended?
Well I’ve been paying attention to this. I paid attention to it in the aftermath of the London bombings, when there was indeed a good deal of vacant talk of “grievances.” I pointed out that a grievance is only as good as it is. Qadri had a “grievance,” and it was an absolutely shitty grievance. It was beneath contempt. He was aggrieved that Taseer would offer compassion to Aasia Bibi, and that he would urge reform of the blasphemy law. He was aggrieved that Taseer was less eager than he was to persecute or kill people for the crime of not being Muslim. His grievance was not legitimate.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Wayne de Villiers, Ophelia Benson. Ophelia Benson said: No such bill of grievances http://dlvr.it/D77sB […]
Someone posted this on RichardDawkins.net
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IhfV59bzdI
It’s difficult to watch, but it shows the pseudo-grievance is no different to the grievances of the Nazis. It’s pure hatred.
That’s scarry stuff, Egbert! Hard to watch? How about impossible?! A few minutes was all that I could stand. There must come a time when liberal freedoms are stretched beyond breaking point. I can understand freedom, so long as we are having a conversation, but what if one side wants to bring all conversation to an end? Don’t we say, then, that this is not something covered by freedom of speech? Like electing a government which brings elections to an end?
I agree Eric, it’s a political meeting with revolutionary and violent aims. That’s more than enough to start putting a stop to all this. Unfortunately, I think the government simply fails to comprehend the danger of Islam, some action is required by them before it is too late.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaagh!
Get him away from me!!
Great post. If I could just pettily nit-pick a bit, I think it sounds better if you say that the Hitch “contrasts” Qadri to Mandela rather than saying he “compares” him. There are too many lazy buggers out there who’ll just skim that first line and think that Hitchens is making an equivalence between the two.
If it is so obvious to us, it can hardly be less obvious to our governments who have more information than we, not less. The question is why do they do nothing unless terrorist violence is actually perpetrated?. It seems so much of the effort is expended in entrapment of jihadi wannabes, while seditionists like these guys are able to operate openly. Perhaps the security services really are on top of this, but taking the performance of the RCMP the last few years as a guide, we’d be better protected by the Keystone Cops
Good suggestion, Mr Gronk, thanks.
Are you going to round up Tea Party advocates as well? Arrest members of the Communist Party U.S.A.? Or did you mean something else by “putting a stop to all this”?
Tulse,
This was in the UK, but I’m pretty sure America still has sedition laws (even if ours have been recently scrapped).
Egbert, do you really think the comments reach the legal definition of sedition? They are disgusting and illiberal, but I really doubt they are technically illegal, in the UK or the US.