Wilders, like Westergaard and the other Danish cartoonists, has been widely vilified for "seeking to inflame" the Muslim community. Even if this had been his intention, this criticism represents an almost supernatural coincidence of moral blindness and political imprudence. The point is not (and will never be) that some free person spoke, or wrote, or illustrated in such a manner as to inflame the Muslim community. The point is that only the Muslim community is combustible in this way. The controversy over Fitna, like all such controversies, renders one fact about our world especially salient: Muslims appear to be far more concerned about perceived slights to their religion than about the atrocities committed daily in its name. Our accommodation of this psychopathic skewing of priorities has, more and more, taken the form of craven and blinkered acquiescence.Unfortunately, Harris is right. And I'll plead guilty to being a craven coward.
About a year and a half ago, I felt forced to stop blogging after one of my posts (concerning an Islamist with a large UK following) resulted in ominous daily telephone calls from someone who made it plain they knew where me and my family lived. I took the implied threat very seriously indeed and so, rather than remove an individual post, I closed down my blog site (accidentally deleting my online archives in the process).
I like to tell myself that if I had been single and childless I wouldn't have acted the way I did, but I know in my heart of hearts that I wasn't just concerned about the safety of Mac and the boys, I was worried about my own safety, too. I live in a city with a sizable Muslim population and a significant Islamist presence.
Why did they pick on a low profile blog like mine? I don't know. Have other bloggers received similar phone calls? Once again, I don't know. What I do know is that had something happened as a result of my not acquiescing and removing the offending post, few people would have given a rat's ass about me and my family. That much was clear from the lack of response I got from those I tried to confide in.
I don't blame people for wanting to steer clear of trouble, I know I'd be very reluctant to get involved if other people (especially those I had only met online) were facing similar difficulties. Solidarity is only likely to be forthcoming in situations where people have little to lose by expressing it. When the stakes are high, it's every man for himself.
Anyhow, things have moved on since then. I moved my blog back to Blogger (minus the offending post) and the phone calls stopped a while back. As a result, I don't think I have cause to worry. I am, however, still embarrassed by the incident: embarrassed that I gave in to verbal intimidation; embarrassed that I confided my fears to others and embarrassed that I was naive enough to think other people might be interested.
Like I said, in such situations, it's every man for himself. I know that now and, as a result, I am much less likely to want to stick my neck out on certain issues. As I said at the start: Craven acquiescence - I plead guilty.
