DISQUS

unorthodox accounts are illegal. Students could be forgiven for asking: "Well if historians are so sure about the truth, why do they feel the need to jail people who disagree with them? Shouldn't the truth speak for itself?"

Ironically, in seeking to protect the truth of the Nazi crimes by stifling dissent, the Austrian laws are making the truth seem less credible.

is one of greater inclusion for immigrants, then I'm all for it. But I still take his comments to be a good deal less tolerant than suits my tastes.

Anyway, this conversation has been a pleasure for me too.

Apparently, Timothy B. Smith agrees with me that Dalrymple's view of tolerance doesn't exactly equal his - see his recent reply in the Cato Unbound conversation thread.

Cheers,
Tanner

or an Objectivist - politically speaking - would propose to do about it. Neither of us offers a political system that proposes to change cultural values. We would probably both say "prosecute those who use violence," and you might add "convert more people to Objectivism.” But I doubt that either of us would propose, “white people are better, close the borders!” as I get the distinct impression Dalrymple and his ilk would.

I don’t want to be accusable of ignoring the recent demonstrations against Danish newspapers, and so on. As regards those demonstrations, we can at least say that in Europe, by and large, they have been peaceful.

And to put them into perspective for a moment, pick a period in the US’s history when you imagine the country was most liberal. Is it immediately after the founding or perhaps right after the Civil War? Whenever it is, now that you’ve thought of it, imagine that a major newspaper in the Northeast publishes a picture featuring (please pardon the illustration) Jesus Christ in a bed with the covers up to his neck and a woman beside him, similarly positioned. Frankly, this is something that offends me deeply even to type, but I think the mental exercise is an important one.

Would it be even remotely surprising if – say – the South (or even the Northeast itself) then erupted in protests? The almost indisputable fact is that it would have – and as the result of an image that, in today’s America, would hardly cause a stir outside of Christian publications. Now, are you re-thinking your idea that the US was a mostly liberal nation during this time, or are you merely qualifying it with the thought that, “okay, but it’s possible to be a Christian country and a liberal country at the same time.”?

* * *

Sorry for the long comment. In conclusion, if I were to have my way, Europeans would (unlike Dalrymple) frame their comments in terms of, “Muslims should open their minds to the notion of a free press,” than – as they currently seem to be saying – “Europe must beware of Mohammedans in our midst, their culture will rot ours from the inside out!”

The first statement would find broad support even in Muslim Europe. The second statement strikes me as thoroughly bigoted, and ill-informed.

somewhere that just happens to have no Portugese food products on its shelves. But it's not "boycotting" Portugal per se. It's just not buying those particular products. And we're all sure that's legal.

For that matter, Carrefour, as a whole, isn't boycotting Denmark, as a whole. It's just not selling Danish products in some of its stores outside the EU. It would be impressive if the EU had a law for that - a law that says "a company may not refuse to display a country's goods on its shelves solely because of local hatred for that country."

Then again, we're talking about EU regulations here. So who knows but that some enterprising young bureaucrat didn't stick such a law in among the 10,000 pages or so that some commission enacted into law in any given month of the last few years.

their right to free religious expression (witness the controversy over Muslim girls’ head scarves in French schools.)

I think you're right that our different perspectives on Smith and Dalrymple's articles stems from the fact that you are an Objectivist. Your hunch about me, by the same token, is correct: politically, I'm a libertarian. I really wouldn't mind seeing thriving, vibrant "Muslim" culture in Europe for the next 1,000 years. In fact, I think they have every right to it. Head scarves, demonstrations (peaceful ones) against Denmark and all.

makes clear that Carrefour is only joining the growing "boycott" of Danish goods from its stores in Muslim countries. (Which I also think pretty cowardly but somehow more understandable from a business standpoint.)

I doubt that any of this is somehow "protectionism" in disguise. Carrefour has little to gain from favoring French products, unless it is itself a manufacturer of a large proportion of the French food products it sells.

this story indicates that only the Carrefour stores in the United Arab Emirates and Quatar have instituted this policy. . .

Odd that this French chain wrote their notice in English and Arabic (and not French). I know there are a good number of Muslims in France who can hardly read Arabic (although they might be better at English.)

treated. To me, that’s a significant difference. My sympathies are with Smith’s viewpoint.

I just think it's funny that in an essay by (I suppose) a libertarian about the decline of Old Europe, Dalrymple feels the need to say (at length), "and we've got to start proudly asserting our own, distinctly European culture, or these Muslims are just going to keep on becoming a bigger and bigger problem." (I'm paraphrasing now, mind you.)

I really don't think there's any other way to read Dalrymple's thought on the matter.

And it doesn't strike me as a very liberal way of looking at things. My feeling is rather that there is no reason Muslim culture can't contribute to Europe in its own right - undiluted, proud, and vibrant. No assimilation programs necessary. No need for bleach-blonding. Just Muslim culture, as it is. (Pardon the sweeping generalities.)

. . .conflict is the method in which [immigrants] will resolve their very different and entrenched conceptions about the way life should be lived. This is particularly true when immigrants are in possession, as they believe, of a unique and universal truth, such as Islam in its various forms often claims to be.

immigrants, particularly those of the Muslim persuasion.