On the off chance that you did not know it, the nation of
New Zealand contains more sheep than human beings. If you did not know it
already, you would have suspected as much when you saw the New Zealand Prime
Minister react to a terrorist attack on a mosque by donning a hijab and
projecting weakness and cowardice.
One Masha Gessen, in The New Yorker, declared that Prime
Minister Jacinda Ardern had set a new global standard for how to react to
terrorism. The solution, Gessen explained, was not war, was not fighting, was
not justice, but was… you guessed it… empathy. And refusing to name the
terrorist or vowing the least retaliation.
As you probably know, Ardern is the mother of a baby. She
was pregnant when the New Zealand sheep population went to the polls to elect
her. As we should know by now, research had demonstrated that a pregnant woman’s
brain rewires itself in order to enhance its capacity for… you guessed it…
empathy. Because when you are bringing up an infant, one that cannot articulate
needs, you do best to have an enhanced capacity for empathy. It makes perfect
sense.
In truth, Ardern, who was widely praised for bringing her
baby to the United Nations meeting last fall, is not bringing up her baby. She has offloaded the
responsibility to her husband, a man whose brain, the research shows, did not
rewire itself during her pregnancy. Of course, no one blinks as this derogation
of maternal responsibility, but ought we not at least to ask what happens to
these babies who are deprived of maternal care?
But, we will not ask the question, because New Zealand has
just shown us how not to respond to terrorism. For her part Gessen thrills to
the prospect that Ardern did not put forth any warrior rhetoric. And what
exactly were you expecting from a young mother anyway? Ardern's perspective comes straight out of the nursery.
She writes:
Ardern
has resisted war rhetoric. Since the modern era of terrorism began, on
September 11, 2001, world leaders have responded to terror by promising
vengeance and waged war, rhetorically and militarily. George W. Bush set the
tone, with a statement on the morning of the World Trade Center
attacks: “Make no mistake. The United States will hunt down and punish those
responsible for these cowardly acts.” He elaborated in a televised address later
that day. “Today, our fellow-citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came
under attack,” he said. He named the emotions evoked by the chaos in lower
Manhattan: “disbelief, terrible sadness, and a quiet, unyielding anger.” He
pledged war. “A great people has been moved to defend a great nation,” he said.
“Our military is powerful, and it’s prepared. . . . America and our friends and
allies . . . stand together to win the war against terrorism. . . . America has
stood down enemies before, and we will do so this time.”
Unfortunately, this is a hopeless muddle. Gessen seems
incapable of distinguishing between a mass murder committed by a lone wolf
madman and an attack orchestrated by an international terrorist organization.
If an organized conspiracy attacks you, keeping silent is the last thing you
want to do.
If she herself had been capable of thinking, Gessen would have
drawn distinctions between, say, al Qaeda, the ISIS killers in Paris, the
Palestinian terrorists and the Anders Breivik. Let’s see, when Palestinian terrorist murders an Israeli
citizen, do you really think that the best reaction is weakness?
The Ardern approach, lauded by Gessen, involves ignoring the
perpetrator. In truth, this is not overly new. It was adopted by the weak and
cowardly Obama administration. Whether with the Boston marathon bombing, the
Ft. Hood massacre, the San Bernardino killing or the Orlando killings, the
Obama administration had no time for the murderers. It preferred to tell people
not to fall prey to Islamophobia. You see, its enemy was not Islamist
terrorism, but thought crimes. Did that reduce the number of terrorist attacks?
Ardern,
on the other hand, immediately showed that
she had no time for the perpetrator of the mosque shootings. “Many of those who
will have been directly affected by this shooting may be migrants to New Zealand;
they may even be refugees here,” she said. “They have chosen to make New
Zealand their home, and it is their home. They are us. The person who has
perpetuated this violence against us is not. They have no place in New Zealand.
There is no place in New Zealand for such acts of extreme and unprecedented
violence.”
So, Ardern stood up for Muslim refugees. She has no
awareness of what is happening in Europe, in the crime sprees and the rape
culture and the No-Go zones that are infesting that continent… all the result
of unlimited migration.
Gessen, in her muddled way, seems to believe that the best approach,
when your nation is under attack—because many of the terrorist incidents she
exposes are attacks on a nation—is the ostrich policy. You put your head in the
sand and pretend it did not happen.
These
phrases are remarkable for what they do not contain: a promise to find the
perpetrator and bring him to justice; any attempt to degrade him; any
recognition of his desire to be seen, recognized, and fought. The opposite of
terror is not courage, victory, or even justice, and it is certainly not “war
on terror.” The opposite of terror is disregard for the terrorist.
And, let’s not forget, Ardern was also widely praised for
donning a hijab, an instrument of female oppression, in order to show sympathy
and empathy for her nation’s Muslim community. Why not normalize female oppression
in the name of girl power?
The Gateway Pundit has some choice words about the hijab
(via Maggie’s Farm):
That
same day New Zealand women are being encouraged to wear the Islamic head covering on Friday in sympathy
with Muslims in the wake of the mass shooting at two Christchurch
mosques last Friday that killed 50 and wounded dozens.
The
campaign was dubbed #HeadScarfForHarmony and encouraged non-Muslim women to
wear hijabs.
This is
how the female leaders and females in the media show their solidarity with
Muslims in New Zealand — bowing to Sharia law and submitting.
Yes, indeed, bowing to Sharia law and submitting. Because no
one can really avoid the message that Ardern was sending: saying nothing and
adopting the hijab signified submission to Islam.
Many Muslim women saw it that way and were horrified:
Muslim
women in Iran, Saudi Arabia and other nations under Sharia law are oppressed
and are forced to wear the Islamic head cover.
One
Iranian woman who’s fighting against Iran’s dictatorship was furious over the
#HeadScarfForHarmony campaign and expressed her anger over it in a tweet.
I am an Iranian woman who fights for my
basic rights under the Islamic regime tyranny and you are all partners of this
atrocious crime.
still, We are the ones who pay the price for all the stupidity of this world.#headscarfforharmony
still, We are the ones who pay the price for all the stupidity of this world.#headscarfforharmony
Many of us lost everything, some even
their lives & freedom bc of hijab! U wear it 1 day like it's just some
piece of cloth & think its empowering when u re only normalizing rape
culture & oppression of millions of women all over the globe! #headscarfforharmony
#freefromhijab
So, the New Zealand prime
minister has given aid and comfort to Muslim misogynists. And she has shown,
with her pathetically weak response to the tragedy why nations are loath to put
women in positions of power.
5 comments:
What is it about what George W. Bush said post-9/11 that wasn’t true?
Does that mean any woman that chooses not to wear it on the national Day of whatever can be singled out as a bad thinker? How handy
Jacintha Arden wails and weeps.
Last year, a British backpacker in New Zealand was murdered by her date. This is how New Zealand's PM reacted, and one wonders why a Prime Minister would have to react at all, but here we go:
"From the Kiwis I have spoken to, there is this overwhelming sense of hurt and shame that this has happened in our country, a place that prides itself on our hospitality, on our manaakitanga, especially to those who are visiting our shores.
"So on behalf of New Zealand, I want to apologise to Grace's family," she said before pausing and looking down.
"Your daughter should have been safe here, and she wasn't, and I'm sorry for that," she continued, with an audible catch in her throat, seemingly near tears.
Dixit Jacintha. https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2018/12/watch-prime-minister-jacinda-ardern-chokes-up-while-apologising-to-grace-millane-s-family.html
Manaakitanga stems from the Maori culture. 'The traditional value of manaakitanga in Māori culture has had a positive influence on the unique Kiwi-style hospitality that makes a New Zealand visit memorable.' Btw, this concept also elevates the host, according to the New Zealand Tourism Board.
I get the distinct impression from Ms Arden that it is all very well that unpleasantries like murders and terrorist attacks happen in the rest of the world, but New Zealand is better than that. She literally said the latter.
Being peaceful is lovely. Just lovely.
If everyone else is also peaceful, and has no interest in harming you or taking your possessions, or otherwise interfering with your life and your liberty.
We know from sad experience that that is uncommon. To presume we are all of the same philosophy and follow the same rules is both arrogant and foolish - "I think (X) and so must EVERYone"; search the alleged entertainer Madonna and her responses to public violence for examples.
No, the truth is revealed in experience. A strong and violent defense of one's freedom by whatever means is available gives us the luxury of being magnanimous, gracious, and civilized toward those not disposed to do us harm.
Men who vote for women to lead them are digging their own graves.
Post a Comment