The Western Mien of "Holocaust Denial"

We Must Speak Up for Persecuted Christians in the Islamic World

by Michael Coren  

2 Dec 2014

Breitbart London

Just a few weeks ago Prince Charles, a man sometimes criticized for being too supportive and praising of Britain's Muslim community, made a passionate speech calling for the Islamic world to stop persecuting its Christian minorities. It was entirely coincidental but hugely significant that the same day of the royal statement, it was reported that a Christian couple had been beaten to death in Pakistan for allegedly defacing a copy of the Koran.

Whether they did such a thing is doubtful but, anyway, irrelevant. Only barbaric regimes and barbaric religions believe in killing people for marking inanimate objects.

The victims were a young couple, hoping to build a life for themselves even though their country, Pakistan, routinely persecuted Christians. As such they were moving into a new house and in clearing out the possessions of the family who had previously lived there they may have moved a box that contained a copy of The Koran. That's all. But it was enough.

First their legs were broken so that they could not run away. Then they were beaten to death. Then their bodies were burned beyond recognition. I wish I could say that this grotesque incident was unique or even rare; tragically it is not, and has been repeated and replicated in almost every country where followers of Islam form a majority of the population.

Fighting Yesterday's Battles

Moral Myopia Kisses Indignant Self-Righteousness

A heated debate has been raging over recent weeks in the NZ blogosphere. One left-leaning blog (some would say so left-leaning as to be lying on the ground) defended good old Mahmoud's rant at the recent UN Conference in Geneva to combat racism.

That great statesman who stands as a veritable colossus astride the world stage, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran used the occasion to denounce the state of Israel and Zionism as the essence of racism. Mahmoud is infamous for his denial of the historical existence of the Holocaust. He has also argued that Israel has no right to exist as a nation and, therefore, he wants to see it obliterated. In this view, he is not alone. It is held in common with most consistent Islamic adherents.

Writers at the blog Tumeke! have supported his remarks, agreeing that Israel was conceived in sin, theft, murder, and rapine. Moreover, since it was a state for Jews, by definition it represents institutionalised racism. Mmmm. One would have thought that Jews were found in many nations and amongst many races, as a universal religion tends to be. Really, the case would be more cogent if Israel were excoriated as "religist" or something like that. But, we digress.

So offended have been some bloggers that they have excommunicated Tumeke!, wanting nothing further to do with such extremism. But wait on--these earnest folk at Tumeke serve a useful purpose from time to time as foils to make sound and cogent arguments, do they not? Is it not useful at times to have a jester in the court?

But, allegations of racism and the monumental folly of denying the existence of the Holocaust aside, underneath there is a more serious issue at stake. What Mahmoud and his fellow travellers at Tumeke! are arguing is pretty standard stuff from an ethical perspective. They are proposing that an historical injustice has been committed with the formation of Israel in 1945 and subsequent years. They are arguing further that historical injustices must be removed and reversed. Therefore, Israel must be dismantled and the Palestinians put back or restored to a pre-1945 condition.

Now there is a plethora of groups, nations, peoples who would have a great deal of sympathy with this way of thinking. Displaced indigenous peoples the world over for one. ("We were here first and you took the land off us.") Aggrieved groups amongst Ukrainian, Irish, Scottish, Tamil and other people groups would also raise their hands.

We, for our part, have to agree that the creation of the modern state of Israel was more a manifestation of realipolitik rather than an application of the principles of international law. The continuing displacement of the Palestinian people is an injustice pure and simple. Zionist extremism and terrorism was just as evil as any other terrorism. If the UN insisted, for example, at the behest of Britain and the United States, that displaced refugees out of Afghanistan and other places should be granted a homeland north of Whangarei to the Cape in order to right the injustice of Islamic terrorism, and that all people currently living in Northland would have to decamp southwards upon command, most reasonable people in this country would regard that as an unlawful action.

But regrettably, such things happen in a fallen world. This is not to excuse the evil, nor disregard it. But, the attempt to turn the clock back and go back to the way "things were" is the height of folly and is a further wrong. You cannot do evil that good may come. You only create bigger and worse problems. The adage, "two wrongs do not make a right" is apt here. That is why Mahmoud is wrong, if not evil, in calling for the annihilation of the State of Israel. It is also why zealots in Israel who march into Palestinian villages and towns and push out Palenstinian families so they can occupy their "rightful" land are equally wrong.

In this fallen world there is no ideal restoration where all past evils are atoned for, and the afflicted perfectly restituted. The attempt to solve problems by reverting to an earlier time is naive folly. Rather, every generation, having inherited a set of circumstances (much of which may have been wrong and evil) is obligated to do what they can to apply the Law of God to their neighbours as they find them, not agitate to reverse the course of history back to an earlier time.

Rather than living in the past, all men are obligated not to steal, not to covet, not to kill their neighbours, now. These obligations apply across borders as well as within states. Surely, this is one of the most pointed lessons of the Parable of the Good Samaritan. After all, would not the Good Samaritan have had the opportunity to reflect upon all the historical injustices committed to and upon his people by the Jews, stretching back centuries, as he walked that day down to Jericho? But he chose to live in the present and fulfill his obligations to God and his neighbour, as he found him. This is what God requires. To do something else is sinful.

The naive and foolish attempt to reverse history and go back to an earlier time in the supposed attempt to right historical wrongs and remove injustice only serves to perpetrate yet more theft, killing, injustices, and evil. The cycle never ends, and becomes increasingly vicious.

The standard of Jerusalem flies above all people groups and nations. Our restitution, our healing, our salve lies in Christ, not in a vain attempt to right historical wrongs by reversing history. Our duty is to live with our neighbours as He has commanded. Therefore, the cup of cold water needs to be offered daily by Palestinian to Israeli, and by Israeli to Palestinian. All new "legalised" theft, covetousness, and murder must be laid aside. Those who break His Law must be restrained and duly punished for their evil doing. Make restitution wherever possible. But the attempt to punish present generations for the evildoing of former generations is the height of arrogance and folly. The attempt to rewind history is an act of rebellion against the providence of God Himself.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his camp followers, together with his Western liberal cheerleaders, want self-righteously to do evil that good may come. Zionists, in denying the God given right to Palestinians to live in peace, without being driven out of their homes and off their farms for the sake of a spurious historical "title" to their lands is theft pure and simple. They would sow to the wind: they, and their victims, would inherit the whirlwind.

Sauce for the Goose

Flies on the Wall in Ros Noonan's Office

Joris De Bres (Race Relations Conciliator) walks into the office of his boss, Ros Noonan, Commissioner for Human Rights. "Ros, we have a problem," he announced self-importantly. "Oh, Ok," said Ros. "At least it will give us something to do today. Things have been pretty quiet lately."

"Well," continued De Bres, "you know I am in trouble with McCully and the right wing fascists in the National Party over going to Geneva to the UN Conference on racism."

"Don't worry about that," interjected Ros. "I approved your trip. We can spin it as a demonstration of the independence of our office. It is vital to our human rights and constitutional fabric to have a Commission for Human Rights that is completely independent of the government, etc. etc. Besides, our friends in the Labour caucus have been banking political capital over the government's stupid boycotting of the UN conference. We had a little informal strategy session the other day. They were very pleased that we had decided to send you over. It really showed the up the racist fascist thuggery within the National caucus. A rather neat contretemps, was how Goffie and Kingsy put it. I said thanks, and reminded them that contretemps are my speciality."

"Ros, I appreciate your support. It has been the highlight of my otherwise lacklustre career to date to work with you. But, my spies tell me that this thing has legs. I mean McCully is mad--well, he is more mad than we thought, is what I mean. You know how he struts around parliament like a little Napoleon. Power has gone to his head and we all know there was nothing else in there to begin with, so it's having free rein. I am reliably informed that he has been discussing with Key that the contretemps is inexcusable. It is just too big a contradiction with the Government. I mean independence is one thing, but McCully thinks there is a conspiracy between ourselves and the Labour caucus. Apparently Key agrees. He thinks a suitably high profile sacking would take people's attention away from worrying about losing their own jobs."

"Well," said Ros, after a long thoughtful pause, "that's unfortunate. But it has been really great working with you. We did some good things while it lasted. Will you be wanting a reference?"

"No, no Ros. You don't understand. It's worse than that. McCully has told Key that you are the one who is the contretemps expert, and that we both have to go. And Key agrees, because he hates contretemps."

"Why didn't you tell me, you overrated obsequient," screeched Ros. "I'm your boss. You are supposed to protect me."

"Look," stammered De Bres. "I've got a plan. We've got to do something big and quick--something so big and compelling and public that they won't dare fire us. You know how you said that our finest hour was when we got our Labour colleagues to ban David Irving from coming to New Zealand. It was like the good old days, standing on the barricades. That horrid monstrous little creep who minces around the world denying the Holocaust--we stomped on him. I realised that day that we are people of destiny, Ros--and so did everyone else.

"Cullen bombasted on our behalf in Parliament. Clark exuded her inner beauty over banning the creep. Everyone loved us, especially the Jewish lobby. "

"Oh, no," groaned Noonan. "I had forgotten. Key is Jewish. How could you be so stupid as to go to that horrible UN Conference on racism. No wonder he's mad. It's contretemps every which way."

"Yes," purred the unctuous De Bres, "but I have not forgotten Key's Jewish connection. And that's why we can use our Irving triumph again, and relive the glory days. Key will really appreciate that--and he won't dare fire us, without being seen to be anti Semitic, which would drop his ratings in the polls to Goffie levels."

"I'll believe that when I see it," snapped Ros. "No-one could ever get as low as Goffie. He's a phenomenon in his own right. Ok, so what do we do? How about a big press release on Anzac Day reminding everyone that the Human Rights Commission struck a decisive blow for humanity by courageously working to have David Irving, Holocaust Denier banned from New Zealand, and that was our part in Hitler's downfall."

"No, that's too subtle for National party people. They would not be able to join up the dots. You know how ignorant they are of history. You do have a tendency, Ros, if I may say so, which in its own way is quite charming, to overrate our opponents. That is a mistake Helen (may she never die) avoided. She saw right through them because she could see there was nothing there. No, we need a new uber-obvious Holocaust Denier to ban--one who is a clear and present danger to our land. One so vile, so perverted, so anti-Semitic that John Key and everyone else will just love us for acting against him. "

"Yes, but who?" wailed Ros.

"Mahmoud, of course. He's the biggest Holocaust Denier the world has ever seen. He's full of racist hate. He's in the news. We will come out on Anzac Day (a nice touch, by the way) and call for the Government to ban him from New Zealand. It will take the wind completely out of McSilly's sails. And Key won't dare fire us, because people will think he harbours secret anti-Semite tendencies."

"Ban Ahmadinejad! What a fantastic idea", enthused Ros. "Yes, the little anti-Semite creep. I have really never liked him, you know. And he's Muslim. That's a plus--I mean, a minus. No-one likes them. Everyone will love a ban. And he's homophobic--so Labour will support us too. But hold on, I made a public statement the other day that there was nothing at all anti-Semitic at the UN conference--before I knew McStupid and Key were going to fire us. That's going to make a call for a ban on dirty Ahmadinejad a bit hollow."

"Ah, Ros. That's what makes you so fantastic. It's all about contretemps--and you are really good at that. You were making the perfectly valid point that after all the pro-semites walked out, the only people left were anti-semite ravers, who, of course, could not see their anti-semite forest for the trees."

"Joris! You are wonderful. You are so right. I really am good at contretemps."