The Antics Of A Decadent Dhimmi British Leftist

Christina Patterson complains from the pages of The Independent that she was smeared as an anti-Semite. Curiously enough, she evokes a response of commenters who display the lowest and vilest forms of Jew-hatred, together with slanders, lies, fabrications and blood libels. On her part, she uses many fig-leafs to hide her venom:


1) Self-Victimization:  
"A quick check online (but not on the Goldman Sachs message boards) established that he (Simon Wiesenthal) was also involved in the capture of Franz Stangl, the commandant of the Treblinka death camp, and Hermine Braunsteiner-Ryan, who had ordered the torture and murder of thousands of women and children at Majdanek, and Karl Silberbauer, the Gestapo officer responsible for the arrest of Anne Frank. Wiesenthal died five years ago, at the age of 96. Just, perhaps, before he could hunt me down, too."


2) A bit of frivolous British sarcasm: 
"Its last press release, before the one in which I star, was headed "Wiesenthal Centre Welcomes Rejection by Budapest Court of Libel Suit by Convicted Nazi War Criminal Against its Chief Nazi-Hunter Dr Efraim Zuroff". Personally, I think I'd put that in my Top Ten Unsnappy Headlines With Way Too Many Capital Letters of 2010, to be unveiled on my new website, Fishbowl Hackney, but style, it's clear from the cake stands, fig baskets and salt and pepper shakers in the online store of the Simon Wiesenthal's "Museum of Tolerance", isn't anyone's top priority."


3) Jews flooded me with letters of support (variant of "My Best Friend is Jewish"): 
"In my email inbox, however, I was Julian Assange, and with almost as many offers of what we might politely call marriage. Some of them, or at least some of the messages of support, were from people called Solomon, Symons or Greenfeld. Some were from some of my Hasidic Jewish neighbours. Some of them wanted to meet me, to tell me more about the pressures of living in a community that "survives because of the virtual imprisonment of its participants". Fearing discovery, they, at the last minute, didn't."


4) And the last, a classic of our times: Criticism of Israel, to mask anti-Jewish rhetoric and to signal to the crowd the way forward. Anti-Semite rats come out of their holes as if lured by Hamelin's pipe: 
"It doesn't matter if a UN report says that Israel's raid on a Gaza-bound flotilla "betrayed an unacceptable level of brutality". It doesn't matter if its soldiers use weapons banned by the Geneva Convention. It doesn't matter if they use a nine-year-old child as a human shield. It doesn't matter if its citizens raze homes and build new ones on someone else's land. Or if they destroy their neighbours' crops and treat them like criminals. It doesn't matter what they do. "We stand," says the Wiesenthal website, "in solidarity." And we know what they call those who don't."


Now, what did poor Christina do to get so smeared? Indeed, she asks rhetorically (exposing us further to her antics):
"Is it my style that the Wiesenthal lot don't like? My prose style, or the hairstyle in my photo? It is, to be honest, rather hard to work out, because next to a photo of me – looking, no doubt, just like Hermine Braunsteiner-Ryan – they've simply chucked a chunk of text from a column I wrote in July. The column was about the limits of multiculturalism. In it, I criticised the bad manners of some of my Hasidic Jewish neighbours and, much more importantly, certain practices, in different religious communities, which conflict with some of the values in British society – free speech, sexual equality, gay rights, the rights of children not to be mutilated by their parents – that have been hardest won. The bad manners, I argued, were the acceptable face of multiculturalism. Some of the practices weren't."


Let's have a look at said column. It doesn't take much effort to find the content Miss Patterson wanted to write about, and the rest which is a big fig leaf. This is what she wanted to say:

"But there's one thing I will never accept. In the next few weeks, between 500 and 2,000 British schoolgirls – yes, British schoolgirls – will be sent abroad, ostensibly on holiday, and taken to the home of a woman who will, using an often dirty razor, and no anaesthetic, slice off their labia, and clitoris, and then, using sewing thread or horse-hair and an often dirty needle, stitch their vaginas closed. Sometimes, the girls faint. Sometimes, they die. But the people who do this to them (in East Africa and India and Pakistan and the Middle East) believe that it's what God wants. They believe that it promotes "cleanliness" and "chastity". Oh, and men's sexual pleasure. But not, for obvious reasons, women's.

Female circumcision has been illegal in Britain since 1985. Since 2003, it has also been illegal to take girls out of the country to have them "cut" abroad. The maximum penalty is 14 years. So far, there have been no prosecutions. Not a single one. I don't care if evidence is difficult to get, and I don't care if parents think they're doing the right thing for their children, and I don't care if it's a "sensitive" issue. This is a total and utter disgrace. Parents are being allowed to mutilate their children, and the institutions in this country are doing sweet FA.

There is, I'm sure, nothing in the Koran to indicate that hacking off a girl's labia is an all-round great idea, just as there's nothing in the Torah to say that Volvos should always be driven with a mobile phone in hand, and goyim should be treated with contempt. People will believe what they believe, but a civilised society will have laws to indicate what is acceptable in that society and what isn't, and it will act on those laws. A properly civilised society would also ensure that children are not subject to the crazed whims of their parents, and hived off into "faith schools" where they're taught that the world was created in seven days, or that they need special gadgets to switch on the lights on a Saturday, or that women who show their face are sluts." 


But because in Dhimmi Britain stating so bluntly would be labeled as bigotry, and the Left is politically allied with the Muslims, she uses the Jews as a fig leaf, to appear even-handed: astutely, she takes the place of a British woman ranting about foreigners, which seems acceptable as one of many eccentric characters in the rainy island, and is sure to garner her support. Again, wink-wink, nod-nod, the commenters are free to pour out their venom.
But in doing so, the central message, Female Genital Mutilation, dissolves. A typical example of British moral cowardice, trying to save her skin while at the same time looking elegant.