How Kevin Myers is the Bill O’Reilly of the Irish media
Thursday, July 19th, 2007I don’t read Kevin Myers’ columns; not anymore anyway. The simple reason is that they generally provoke a deep-rooted rage in me due to their ignorance, simplicity and disconnect with reality or rationality. To my mind, this reaction is exactly what Myers aims for and as such I increasingly suspect that not even he agrees with most of what he says.
My fear is that his provocation for the sake of provocation, whilst entertaining to him and maybe others, only encourages the easily-led to agree with his broad, misguided and vague points or to rationalise their own bigotry through his.
Put simply he writes to anger those who think and comfort those who refuse to. He is Ireland’s answer to Bill O’Reilly, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and John Gibson and this article on Muslim fundamentalists is proof of such.
Let me go through the article to illustrate my point:
IT’S HARD to remember this now, but six years ago almost no one in the world could have believed it was possible to have a mass-suicide plot to bring about the death of thousands in the United States.
Innocent days: for suicide-killings are now 10 a penny in the West Bank, Afghanistan and Iraq, and even occur in Britain. The once universal taboo on self-murder, and the equally universal fear of death, are now apparently extinct across much of the Islamic world.
Not much to say about the first paragraph, I do have plenty with the second one, however.
Firstly, suicide-killings, or suicide-bombings have been a factor in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict since the early 1970s; 11th September 2001 did nothing to change that. It’s probably safe to say, also, that the only reason they are currently a factor in Afghanistan and Iraq is not because the terrorist attacks in New York encouraged terrorism there, but because poor US planning has facilitated them.
Secondly, on the issue of the taboo of death. Anyone who truly believes in their faith and truly believes themselves to be a committed practitioner of their faith would have no reason to fear death, indeed this fact is a central pillar of religions like Christianity. In other words, to say that it’s a universal fear is a complete and utter generalisation.
Thirdly, there are over 1 billion Muslim believers in the world today - Myers bases his assumption that the fear of death is extinct across the Muslim world on the fact that a tiny, tiny fraction of this population is willing to commit suicide for what they believe in.
This is the most dangerous factor of his entire article - the way in which he fails to distinguish Muslims from those who interpret Muslim texts in an extreme way.
Now most of us understand the warrior concept of almost certain death in battle. All cultures have revered those who were prepared to give their lives in a holy cause. Even when they are the enemy, we recognise and even admire those who are prepared to go to certain death fighting for what they believe in. The Waffen SS soldiers who freely sacrificed themselves for their Fuhrer were universally respected by allied soldiers; so too were the Japanese Kamikaze pilots, 2,000 of whom gave their lives in the service of their emperor. They were selfless warriors, who died attacking legitimate and purely military targets.
There are a two major generalisations in this paragraph.
For a start, it’s a complete generalisation to say that Waffen-SS soldiers and Kamikaze pilots were “universally” respected by Allied soldiers; in fact it’s not just a generalisation, it’s a baseless, unquantifiable statement which Myers has plucked from his own head. It’s also a complete generalisation to say that all of these pilots and soldiers were “selfless warriors” who attacked “legitimate and purely military targets” - many Waffen-SS soldiers, for example, are known to have been involved in rounding up innocent Jews for concentration camps, which few would describe as legitimate targets.
Study whatever fascist or totalitarian movement you like in world history. None has made a military virtue of killing children or young women; none has extolled the virtues of martyrdom in the course of such butchery. Just about every single taboo, both military and social, is violated in such operations: and only Islamicists could hail such deeds as pious. Such boastful, barbaric filth was beyond even the depravity of the Third Reich, or the wickedness of the Soviet Union: for these regimes kept their foul deeds secret, knowing that they were intrinsically shameful.
The line “only Islamicists could hail such deeds [as the murder of women and children] as pious” is especially worrying here as it again makes no qualification between those who have a fundamentalist interpretation of the Koran and those who do not.
This paragraph is also kind enough to ignore the fact that neither Hitler’s Germany or Stalin’s Russia ever made any distinction between man, woman or child when it came to the likes of the “inferior” Jew, slav or other and seems to imply that these Western animals had morals, unlike those fundamentalists in the Arab world.
Now all this would be depressing enough if it did not occur against a larger Islamic backdrop of denial and equivocation. Some 25pc of British Muslims believe that the London bombings which occurred two years ago on Saturday were the work of British intelligence; and most Islamic “condemnation” of Islamist terrorism invariably contextualises it, as if there were some logical or moral connection between holiday-makers in Glasgow airport being blown apart and events in Baghdad or the West Bank.
The way in which Myers quotes this unattributed figure is classic spinning - assuming it’s genuine it should be pointed out that when 25pc of a community says one thing it means that 75pc (three quarters) says otherwise. How this amounts to “a larger Islamic backdrop of denial” is beyond me.
The generalisations continue when Myers says that “most Islamic “condemnation” of Islamist terrorism invariably contextualises it” (as if context is a bad thing).
Firstly, Myers says “most” without even the slightest hint of research or fact to back it up and secondly he seems to try to equate contextualisation to justification.
Is it wrong to say that “these people did XYZ because they’re angry about the war in Iraq”? Of course not - you’re pointing out their probable motivation, you’re not saying they were right to act as they did on the basis of it.
So, is it very surprising that there has yet to be a major rally of British or mainland European Muslims denouncing Islamicist terrorism?
What, like this one in Scotland? In fairness that took place after the article was published, but the cogs were well in motion for its occourance and Myers, if he was paying any attention, would have known that.
So what next? I have absolutely no idea of the next depravity to be dreamt up by Islamicists. None whatever. My imagination, like yours, is not up to the task. Could it be the destruction by Islamicist nurses of a maternity hospital packed with infidel infants? Or is that too moderate?
Again, the lack of distinction between extreme and moderate - as if the entire Islamic community is currently brainstorming their next attack against the rest of the world. Or indeed that only those in the Islamic community is capable of atrocities on the epic scale seen many, many times before over many, many generations.
So now you know why I don’t read Kevin Myers articles - because if I did there’d be a hell of a lot more of these disgruntled responses on the site.
Blogs elsewhere
July 24th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
Excellent post. Can’t disagree with any of your points tbh.
July 27th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Yes But. The but is that there is little doubt that Muslim communities find it harder, for whatever reason, to integrate into their host communities. Perhaps they are more tenacious with their faith. Perhaps more steeped in their traditions. More proud of their dress or customs. I don’t know. Perhaps too that western host societies discriminate more against them than against other immigrants. Whatver the causes, there is a pattern in Muslim immigration to the west: they find themselves in tight knight communities; there emerges a divide between them and their hosts; and for all sorts of reasons they may end up with extreme attitudes towards their hosts. A Pew Global Attitudes survey in 2006 found that a majority of British muslims felt, to quote the Guardian, that “western populations as selfish, arrogant, greedy and immoral.” And only 17% believed that Arabs were involved in Sept 11.
My point is this: if it is the experience of our Neighbours that large Muslim communities develop a frightening level of mistrust of their hosts, to the point of dislike, and possibly hate, why then should we allow a similar problem to develop here?
Even when trust breaks down badly, a majority of Muslims will not commit horrid crimes. We saw North of the border, where Nationalist moral support for the IRA grew in the late 70s providing the IRA with a fertile soil in which to plant the loathsome weed of terrorism. That background support, the blind idea, the attitude that Seamas Heaney referred to as “whatever you say, say nothing”, is nothing less than a mandate for slaughter.
We will be no better at integrating our Muslims. We will support American foreign policy - as is our right - and we will be seen as mere “Westerners” like the rest, to be revile.
Why is this scenario so difficult to believe?
I would welcom Muslims if I thought there was a good chance of their successful integration - I have nothing against them (or anyone) racially or culturally. But given that I think we will fail to integrate them and thereby find ourselves in the same position as Britain and France, I say stop! Close the door. We have no obligation to sleep walk into the same nightmare that confronts our Neighbours.
July 27th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Correction to paragraph “Even when…”
Even when trust breaks down badly, a majority of Muslims will not commit horrid crimes. But the breakdown of trust can be an acquiescence to terror. We saw North of the border, where Nationalist moral support for the IRA grew in the late 70s providing the IRA with a fertile soil in which to plant the loathsome weed of terrorism. That background support, the blind eye, the attitude that Seamas Heaney referred to as “whatever you say, say nothing”, is nothing less than a mandate for slaughter.
July 27th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
So, Tomaltach, you’re saying we should stop all Muslims from coming into Ireland? (That’s actually another of Myers’ suggestions in another recent column, it should be noted).
So firstly let’s ignore the fact that 1) there are many Muslims living in Ireland already, 2) Irish people can be Muslims too and 3) discriminating against Muslims because they’re Muslims would actually give them valid reasons to dislike us.
Now Ireland, as Conor Lenihan has pointed out, is lucky enough to be in a position to learn from the mistakes of others. We’re not a country that’s historically used to immigration which has the bonus of allowing us to look to those near us for practical case studies. For that reason alone I think banning Muslims from Ireland is a moronic suggestion. (It’s also completely unenforcable, by the way.)
But let’s put that in another context - imagine if England banned Roman Catholics during the height of the troubles, or people with an Irish passport, just because a few with those attributes had committed crimes in the name of their religion or country. It would be unthinkable.
You ask “why should we allow a similar problem [as the one seen in the UK] develop here?” and your answer is that we should cut it off at the pass - to me that’s like using a nuclear weapon to get a stain out of your carpet.
But of course we shouldn’t allow a similar problem to develop here but the problem doesn’t arise from the Muslim faith itself, it arises from those who subvert it for their own aims. That’s made easier when you have the straw man of the Iraq war as a justification for hating Britain or America or whoever else but without it they’d find something else to hate just as much.
That is the stage that the State must target aggressively - it should make it impossible to see the country as an enemy of Islam (and most Muslims would realise this anyway, even if they disagree with our complicity in the Iraq war). You’ll never get them all, just like you’ll never convince every ‘Ra head that Unionists aren’t all UVF members, but if you remove as much passive support for them as you can, they’ll be the only ones to feel isolated and not from the country but from their own would-be communities.
July 30th, 2007 at 9:32 am
AM: So, Tomaltach, you’re saying we should stop all Muslims from coming into Ireland?
Yes, but slightly more nuanced: we should stop all Muslims coming to Ireland (as far as is feasable) unless we can demonstrate some mechanism which will prevent the kind of host v visitor conflict that has been seen elsewhere.
AM: So firstly let’s ignore the fact that 1) there are many Muslims living in Ireland already,
Not ignored but the number is small. Surely any potential problem gets magnified when you have the kind of numbers in Britain, or higher still, France.
AM: 2) Irish people can be Muslims too
True. I have no problem with the Muslim faith. My issue is with people from Muslim countries who carry a huge amount of anti-western baggage ( almost always with good reason, but that’s not the discussion)
AM: 3) discriminating against Muslims because they’re Muslims would actually give them valid reasons to dislike us.
Look, many countries set tight barries on entry. Perhaps the Roma hate us for sending them home. We cannot swing open our doors just because we think some group will be pissed off. We have to draw the line somewhere.
You mention us learning from others. But that’s precisely the nub of my position. I don’t believe we will. Learning from others is not an Irish forte.
And you say completely unenforceable. Not really. Most Muslims who come here aren’t coming from France or Britain. They are coming from countries where opportunity is far more limited, i.e the majority Muslim countries. We can and should limit most of our immigration to Eu countries. If our i mmigration needs require it then we cast our net wider still. But we can limit to any list of countries we like. I am convince that we can, if we like, severly limit the number of Muslims entering this country.
But the analogy with Britain and the Irish is flawed. Britain had 26000 troops in the Northern half of this Island. They had a pseudo military police force of another 15000. The terrorism problem was very much of their making (though responsiblity for the escalation in the 70s was not soley theirs). Back to the Muslims. We have no historic relationship with _any_ Muslim country and have every right to say, look, this integration thing doesn’t work.
So you argue “[the state] should make it impossible to see the country as an enemy of Islam”. But without specifying how. The crux of my support for the radical option of the ban, is that I have not yet heard anyone articulate a credible alternative that can prevent us from ending up like France or Britain.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Yes, but slightly more nuanced: we should stop all Muslims coming to Ireland (as far as is feasable) unless we can demonstrate some mechanism which will prevent the kind of host v visitor conflict that has been seen elsewhere.
According to the latest census statistics, almost 0.8% of our population follows the Islamic faith - that’s around the same percentage as seen in Scotland and Wales. To put that relatively small figure into some context, Catholicism takes up 87% of the pie all to itself - In reality the Muslim faith is now the third biggest single religion in Ireland.
Your idea of banning Muslims from Ireland is based on the fact that a tiny amount of those living in the likes of the UK are aggressively opposed to British (or even European) policy. As I said before, that would be like banning all Irish people from the UK and Germany because a tiny percentage of our population committed crimes in the name of their country.
Besides this, your idea of banning Muslims unless we can show there won’t be conflict makes no sense - how can you prove that in anything but practice? And hasn’t it been proved so far with the distinct lack of trouble caused by the Muslim population in Ireland today?
Not ignored but the number is small. Surely any potential problem gets magnified when you have the kind of numbers in Britain, or higher still, France.
As I stated already, in percentage terms we have a similar Muslim demographic to Scotland and Wales - Glasgow, as you know was recently the target of a suicide bomber.
The fact is that it only takes one person to commit a crime and if we work on your basis then the 30k Muslims already in Ireland should be watched very closely just because they’re Muslim.
The only way religious fundamentalism gets magnified in large numbers is if it’s allowed to by the “host” country.
True. I have no problem with the Muslim faith. My issue is with people from Muslim countries who carry a huge amount of anti-western baggage ( almost always with good reason, but that’s not the discussion)
But you’re making a rather huge assumption there that because some carry anti-western baggage, we must assume that they all do until they can prove otherwise.
Look, many countries set tight barries on entry. Perhaps the Roma hate us for sending them home. We cannot swing open our doors just because we think some group will be pissed off. We have to draw the line somewhere.
Far from a valid comparison. The Roma at the roundabout were sent home because they had no legal basis to remain in the country - it’s not like Ireland deported all Roma and there are still many more dotted around the island. The ethnicity of those living at the roundabout was inconsequential to the State’s reaction.
Now if someone else, who just happened to be Muslim, was found to be living in Ireland illegally then of course they’d be deported too. What you’re looking to do is deport people based on their religion alone and nothing else.
You mention us learning from others. But that’s precisely the nub of my position. I don’t believe we will. Learning from others is not an Irish forte.
Maybe we won’t but I’m not as cynical as you are about the whole thing. What you’re suggesting is that the Irish Government enact a law banning Muslims from entering Ireland, justifying it by saying “we don’t plan on paying attention to mistakes made by others but do plan on making them ourselves… so it’s best if you just don’t come here”?
And you say completely unenforceable. Not really. Most Muslims who come here aren’t coming from France or Britain. They are coming from countries where opportunity is far more limited, i.e the majority Muslim countries. We can and should limit most of our immigration to Eu countries. If our i mmigration needs require it then we cast our net wider still. But we can limit to any list of countries we like. I am convince that we can, if we like, severly limit the number of Muslims entering this country.
For a start we already have limitations on immigration from non-EU countries - work permits are required to work here or else asylum needs to be claimed.
Your argument is a blind one, however, because you assume that countries are either Muslim or non-Muslim. There are many catholics, Jews and other in the Middle East, and there are many Muslims in Africa, America and Europe.
The reason why it’s unenforceable is because passports don’t state the holder’s religion - that’s the only way you can stop people of a certain faith getting into the country.
But the analogy with Britain and the Irish is flawed. Britain had 26000 troops in the Northern half of this Island. They had a pseudo military police force of another 15000. The terrorism problem was very much of their making (though responsiblity for the escalation in the 70s was not soley theirs). Back to the Muslims. We have no historic relationship with _any_ Muslim country and have every right to say, look, this integration thing doesn’t work.
You’re just destroying your own argument here.
Britain had created a problem and had good reason to expect some Irish people to attack in response to it - Ireland has no problem and yet we should expect some Muslim people to attack anyway?
My comparison is a fair one - had Britain closed the door to Irish people because of the IRA there would have been uproar. The reason being that the IRA were a few thousand at most, while Ireland had a population of millions. Even at its most paranoid and war weary Britain realised this and realised it would just encourage people to hate them more.
The crux of my support for the radical option of the ban, is that I have not yet heard anyone articulate a credible alternative that can prevent us from ending up like France or Britain.
You keep speaking about France and Britain like there’s civil war there. Not to suggest that everything’s great - there’s a lot of alienation within the Muslim communities of both countries - but it’s not an unsolvable problem.
Perhaps the reason why you have not heard what you believe to be a credible alternative is because you’re thinking in terms of them v us - Muslims and non-Muslims. Any hope for avoiding unrest requires people to shake that concept first and foremost and the simple solution in my mind is to make Irish and newcomers who are Muslim aware of each other’s religions and culture so that Muslims don’t feel out of place and alienated for practicing their faith and Irish people don’t think of the as similar.
July 16th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
[…] course, such columns will offend people. They are designed to do so. Indeed, the fact that many people have been offended by what he said is, in the final […]