Not to be outdone, and quickly following in the steps of M. Kouchner, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the Turkish secretary general of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, weighed in by calling the ban an "example of growing anti-Islamic incitement in Europe by the extremist, anti-immigrant, xenophobic, racist, scare-mongering ultra-right politicians who reign over common sense, wisdom and universal values."
Let us set Mr. Ihsanoglu and his holy anger aside for a moment and focus on our own European yard.
Hypocrisy and bare-faced posturing have never been in short supply in our all-embracing, all-tolerant, all-accepting, all-democratic, but slowly all-rotting Europe, of course. The outburst, put forth by our European “leaders” over the Swiss referendum, starkly illustrated the deep gulf that separates most of our elected governments from the beliefs and preferences of the vast majority of European electorates.
Historically, this persistent divergence between what our governors believe to be correct and proper and what tens upon tens of millions of people believe flawed, unwanted, and, even, dangerous isn’t new; it is, however, a lot more dangerous and potentially disruptive now than at any time before. “Globalization” is opening new, surreptitious avenues into the heart of Nations. “Economism” has already dealt fatal blows upon political thought and social organization. And the multifaceted, egregious, multi-level campaign by “progressives” and others, demanding that Western countries assume self-flogging as their permanent means of redemption for past vices, has unhinged otherwise durable democratic systems the creation of which required rivers of blood and centuries of untold harship.
But, every coin has two sides. On the up side, today’s instant communication technologies and vast amounts of information available at one’s fingertips make bamboozling and classic political sophistry a lot less effective as tools of imposing “propriety” and “correctness” from above. Facts of the modern tech and communication environment favor the development of grass roots movements that our governors can ignore only at their peril. The “average” voter in reasonably advanced societies nowadays figures like a towering philosophe in comparison to the enfranchised person of a century ago.
Would we then, side, with M. Kouchner’s conclusions, and those of “proper” politicians like him, or should we rather side with the majority of Swiss citizens, who rejected the deep symbolism of the minaret -- political, social, historical, cultural -- taking root on their soil, soil which they have successfully defended against potential intruders, invaders, and enemies for centuries without firing a shot in anger, ever?
This is a remarkable, one-of-a-kind record that only fools and idiots would dare tweak with, especially under the forced outside demand to appreciate inherently hostile “otherness,” not to mention various treaties which, strangely, turn out to put the screws on those who write them and accept them, rather than those who know, cunningly, how to exploit them from a safe distance in order to promote their own longer term nefarious plans.
The success of the Swiss system suggests that, apparently, the Swiss know (and practice) something the rest of us don’t. And since most everything in this life, including political effectiveness, is judged by outcomes and not pithy sound bites like M. Kouchner’s, the Swiss seem to have the recipe down pat when the rest of us continue to writhe on the floor over how to accommodate the recently arrived, and uninvited, “other” that demands we adjust to its ways rather than the other way around.
Rational people, we are certain, would choose against M. Kouchner and his co-concerned again and again and again, given the opportunity. And M. Kouchner would be, naturally, “…a bit surprised,” again and again and again, since he’d be forced to confront the real trend instead of a media-driven, NGO-nurtured, and PC-flavored world of “tolerant” dreams.
If this exercise spoils the soup of “established trends” which -- again, rather strangely -- seem to be recognized and rehashed by only “opinion making” political and “leadership” minorities, then so be it.
And now a word for Mr. Ihsanoglu and the rest of Muslim dignitaries, who jumped to the opportunity to sock it to the Swiss.
We are all for reciprocity and happy co-existence.
Let minarets rise all over Europe while all the while Christian church steeples pop up throughout Muslim countries, including such bastions of fundamentalist fervor as Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Let minarets proliferate throughout Europe as soon as Mr. Ihsanoglu’s country agrees to demolish the minarets guarding one of the most sacred locations of Christendom, the church of Hagia Sophia and return it to the rightful jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.
Let minarets sprout throughout the Continent as soon as Muslim countries agree to aggressively hunt down, arrest, and hang those of their citizens who routinely butcher minority Christians as part of Islamic “justice;” burn their few places of worship; and preach jihad and suicide terrorism against all “crusaders” (read: Western nations).
And let minarets rise and shine everywhere in the Christian world as soon as a mass program of opening protected Christian seminaries, cultural centers, libraries, and university departments is implemented throughout Islamdom.
Here’s a memorable quote from Libyan leader Muammar Ghadafi, who said: “There are signs that Allah will grant victory to Islam in Europe without swords, without guns, without conquest. We don't need terrorists, we don't need homicide bombers. The 50+ million Muslims [in Europe] will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.”
Those who wish to oppose and defeat this future, please raise your hand.
The rest, please go join M. Kouchner for a seminar on how to oppose, and actively try to defeat, majority opinion bent on defending what we have in five star-certified Western democracies, which neither expect nor need the endorsement of countries that routinely shred every vestige of individual freedoms and protections.
Reality is always rude.