Mohamed Elmasry, national president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, has issued an odious news release regarding Maclean’s that, in my opinion, reeks of ignorance, clobbers different points of view, and is offensive in the extreme.
In expressing dismay at what he sees as slurs against a religion that he says is “demonized in the public square, in books, in the print and broadcast media, on movie screens, and increasingly in the Internet and World Wide Web,” Elmasry accuses all of Canada of extreme racism; he dismisses the many who have a different point of view from him, and imo have legitimate concerns about the role of the Human Rights Commissions and freedom of expression, “Islamophobes.”
Mohamed Elmasry, national president of the Canadian Islamic Congress,
has issued an odious news release regarding Maclean’s that, in my
opinion, reeks of ignorance, clobbers different points of view, and is
offensive in the extreme.
In expressing dismay at what he sees
as slurs against a religion that he says is “demonized in the public
square, in books, in the print and broadcast media, on movie screens,
and increasingly in the Internet and World Wide Web,” Elmasry accuses
all of Canada of extreme racism; he dismisses the many who have a
different point of view from him, and imo have legitimate concerns
about the role of the Human Rights Commissions and freedom of
expression, “Islamophobes.”
Elmasry (I’m not using the honorific here because he’s not a medical
doctor, and even if he were it would hardly be relevant to this
discussion) rightly, in my opinion, challenges Mark Steyn’s alarmist
arguments about Muslims. Good for him: challenges, counter-challenges
and reasonable free expression of opinion and thought are how things
work in an open society; that’s how we grope toward “truths” and toward
finding our better selves. But Elmasry — along with the lawyers
taking Maclean’s to court over Steyn’s writings — are seemingly not
interested in free speech or openness, judging by the following press
release, attached below.
Freedom of expression has been hard-won over thousands of years —
Socrates died for it. And religious censorship — such as that which
Elmasry advocates — has
been a blight on society for centuries. The third Ecumenical Council
decreed of the Nicene Creed of 381: “it is unlawful for any man to
bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different … faith as a
rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy
Ghost in Nicæa.”4 In 1529 the Roman Catholic church introduced its
Index Librorum Prohibitorum in 1529; it was a powerful tool used by the
Inquisition as it tried to prevent Galilleo, among others, from
spreading his
findings about how the solar system works (the Catholic church kept the
index around, astonishingly, until 1966 in various forms). Defenders of
freedom of expression include John Milton declared in 1644: “And though
all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play on the earth, so Truth
be in the field, we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting
misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew
Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?” Conversely, The
1787 First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States upholds
freedom of expression as well as press rights and remains the gold
standard in many countries. The French National Assembly declared in
1789: “The free communication of thought and opinion is one of the most
precious rights of man; every citizen may therefore speak, write and
print freely, provided he is responsible for the abuse of this liberty
in cases determined by the law.” And of course, there’s Article 19 of
the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, proclaimed
in 1948: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression;
this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and
to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and
regardless of frontiers.”
In Canada, as in most countries that try to be civilized, there are checks and balances and
judicial standards for hate speech; a court in British Columbia ruled on
just that topic early this week. Yes, certainly, we can do better.
But Elmasry has crossed the line in reiterating an overtly racist
example from America’s dark past and using it to describe Canada today.
We’ve come a long way since only male property owners could vote and
all manner of abuse was tolerated. The fact that Elmasry can fire off
his blunderbuss at every Canadian is proof of that.
Elmasry deserves to be challenged.
Here is my previous Townhall post on the issue. Here is a previous J-Source commentary, a reprint of an essay by Kelly Toughill that ran in the Toronto Star.
Here is Elmasry’s Feb. 7 08 press release:
1. HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONS? — MUSLIMS NEED NOT APPLY
[By Dr. Mohamed Elmasry]
=============================================================
In Mark Twain’s 1884 American classic, The Adventures of Huckleberry
Finn, an incident caused Aunt Sally to exclaim, “Good gracious! Anybody
hurt?”
“No’m. Killed a nigger,” came the answer.
“Well, it’s lucky,” Aunt Sally responded, “because sometimes people do get hurt.”
African Americans have come a long way since conversations like the
above reflected social reality, whether in fiction or fact. In fact,
one of “them” could soon become the Democratic candidate in the
upcoming U.S. presidential election.
Unfortunately, Muslims in both Canada and the U.S. have now replaced
Blacks as the number-one minority group being demonized in the public
square, in books, in the print and broadcast media, on movie screens,
and increasingly in the Internet and World Wide Web with the explosive
proliferation of single-focus sites and blogs where hate-speech is
still vastly unregulated.
And it gets worse. Laws are being changed almost daily in Western
industrialized countries to make sure that Muslims are not given their
full and equal rights and to curtail their access to redress and
compensation when open cases of discrimination and bias are made public.
Politicians who dare to suggest equal treatment policies for Muslims
pay a heavy political price. And recently our treasured Canadian value
– indeed, our official federal policy — of multiculturalism has come
under heavy right-wing challenges, just because it includes Muslims
along with everyone else.
Even the role of Human Rights Commissions, which were mandated both
provincially and federally to protect minorities against group
defamation, has been called loudly into question — only because
Muslims have tried to call upon them in a time of need.
When Muslim groups asked the Ontario government to extend the right to
use faith-based mediation and arbitration to resolve family matters —
as was granted previously to Jews and Christians — the government
withdraw that right from everyone, rather than extend it to Muslims.
All of the suspects being held for years without trial in Canadian jails, detention centres, or under house arrest, are Muslims.
Ontario Conservative leader John Tory lost his riding and his party
lost the last provincial election because he dared to promise an
extension of funding to all faith-based schools, a right still enjoyed
only by Roman Catholics.
In Quebec, the traditional policy of “reasonable accommodation” for
minorities has been negatively questioned in recent years, just because
Muslims have become a visible minority among Montreal francophones.
The smearing of a Canadian institution like our Human Rights
Commissions by Islamophobes who claim to be protecting “free speech,”
is a classic case of chopped logic. They seem to have forgotten that
reconciling two potentially conflicting legal rights that are also
human rights — the right to be free from group defamation and the
principle of freedom of expression — is not a new challenge, nor is it
an easy one.
The vast majority of Western countries now have laws prohibiting group
defamation. Many legal experts agree that defamatory speech should not
be classified as constitutionally protected speech; it does not merit
the respect of the First Amendment; and it should not be protected in
international law or under the constitutional law of most countries.
Professor Milton Katz of Harvard Law School calls defamatory speech “a
rotten fruit in the marketplace of ideas” which must be culled out
before it spoils the health of everything around it, and ends up in the
hands (or mind) of a naive consumer who hasn’t learned the difference.
Group defamation is a form of abuse directed particularly at a minority
community, or an individual belonging to that minority; it includes
defamatory utterances based on race, nationality, ethnic origin, sex,
and religion.
The inclusion of group defamation as a defined illegal act in Canada
dates back to 1934. Manitoba enacted a group libel statute and a cause
of action was filed against the Canadian Nationalist, which in its
October 30, 1934 edition published two articles: “The Murdering Jew,
Jewish Murder” and the “The Night of Murder. Secret Purim Festival.” An
injunction was issued against publishing further statements against
Jews.
Canadian human rights and criminal codes have since gone through many
changes to ensure that group defamation cases, such as the Manitoba one
of 1934 against Jews are fully addressed by the laws of the land.
Now, fast forward to 2007. Four Canadian Muslim law students launched
human rights complaints against Maclean’s Magazine with respect to its
October 2006 article, “The Future Belongs to Islam,” written by Mark
Steyn. The Canadian Islamic Congress acted as a facilitator.
The basic premise of Mr. Steyn’s article is that, just as the “white
man settled the Indian territory,” Muslims in the West are poised to
take over entire societies and the “only question is how bloody the
transfer of real estate will be.” Once the ominously predicted transfer
occurs, Steyn’s article implies, citizens will be subjected to
oppressive Islamic law.
The impending Muslim takeover is in turn attributed to immigration and
multiculturalism, which have resulted in Muslims flooding into Western
societies and enjoying far too much freedom of movement in them. The
flood, the freedom of movement, and the fact that “enough” Muslims
share the goals of terrorists – the imposition of Islamic Law – mean
that the Muslim takeover is inevitable.
On March 30, 2007, the law students met with Maclean’s senior editors
and proposed that the magazine publish a balanced response to Mr.
Steyn’s article from a mutually acceptable source. The response was
that Maclean’s “would rather go bankrupt.” No offer to consider a
reasonable proposal was made; hence their complaints to the Human
Rights commission to address their case of group defamation.
The Muslim law students are hoping that Islamophobes will not succeed
in abolishing the mandate of our Human Rights Commissions before they
can hear their case.
(Dr. Mohamed Elmasry is national president of the Canadian Islamic
Congress. He can be reached at np@canadianislamiccongress.com)
[node:ad]
Elmasry, Islamophobia and freedom of expression
Mohamed Elmasry, national president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, has issued an odious news release regarding Maclean’s that, in my opinion, reeks of ignorance, clobbers different points of view, and is offensive in the extreme.
In expressing dismay at what he sees as slurs against a religion that he says is “demonized in the public square, in books, in the print and broadcast media, on movie screens, and increasingly in the Internet and World Wide Web,” Elmasry accuses all of Canada of extreme racism; he dismisses the many who have a different point of view from him, and imo have legitimate concerns about the role of the Human Rights Commissions and freedom of expression, “Islamophobes.”
Mohamed Elmasry, national president of the Canadian Islamic Congress,
has issued an odious news release regarding Maclean’s that, in my
opinion, reeks of ignorance, clobbers different points of view, and is
offensive in the extreme.
In expressing dismay at what he sees
as slurs against a religion that he says is “demonized in the public
square, in books, in the print and broadcast media, on movie screens,
and increasingly in the Internet and World Wide Web,” Elmasry accuses
all of Canada of extreme racism; he dismisses the many who have a
different point of view from him, and imo have legitimate concerns
about the role of the Human Rights Commissions and freedom of
expression, “Islamophobes.”
Elmasry (I’m not using the honorific here because he’s not a medical
doctor, and even if he were it would hardly be relevant to this
discussion) rightly, in my opinion, challenges Mark Steyn’s alarmist
arguments about Muslims. Good for him: challenges, counter-challenges
and reasonable free expression of opinion and thought are how things
work in an open society; that’s how we grope toward “truths” and toward
finding our better selves. But Elmasry — along with the lawyers
taking Maclean’s to court over Steyn’s writings — are seemingly not
interested in free speech or openness, judging by the following press
release, attached below.
Freedom of expression has been hard-won over thousands of years —
Socrates died for it. And religious censorship — such as that which
Elmasry advocates — has
been a blight on society for centuries. The third Ecumenical Council
decreed of the Nicene Creed of 381: “it is unlawful for any man to
bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different … faith as a
rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy
Ghost in Nicæa.”4 In 1529 the Roman Catholic church introduced its
Index Librorum Prohibitorum in 1529; it was a powerful tool used by the
Inquisition as it tried to prevent Galilleo, among others, from
spreading his
findings about how the solar system works (the Catholic church kept the
index around, astonishingly, until 1966 in various forms). Defenders of
freedom of expression include John Milton declared in 1644: “And though
all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play on the earth, so Truth
be in the field, we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting
misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew
Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?” Conversely, The
1787 First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States upholds
freedom of expression as well as press rights and remains the gold
standard in many countries. The French National Assembly declared in
1789: “The free communication of thought and opinion is one of the most
precious rights of man; every citizen may therefore speak, write and
print freely, provided he is responsible for the abuse of this liberty
in cases determined by the law.” And of course, there’s Article 19 of
the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, proclaimed
in 1948: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression;
this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and
to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and
regardless of frontiers.”
In Canada, as in most countries that try to be civilized, there are checks and balances and
judicial standards for hate speech; a court in British Columbia ruled on
just that topic early this week. Yes, certainly, we can do better.
But Elmasry has crossed the line in reiterating an overtly racist
example from America’s dark past and using it to describe Canada today.
We’ve come a long way since only male property owners could vote and
all manner of abuse was tolerated. The fact that Elmasry can fire off
his blunderbuss at every Canadian is proof of that.
Elmasry deserves to be challenged.
Here is my previous Townhall post on the issue. Here is a previous J-Source commentary, a reprint of an essay by Kelly Toughill that ran in the Toronto Star.
Here is Elmasry’s Feb. 7 08 press release:
[node:ad]1. HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONS? — MUSLIMS NEED NOT APPLY
[By Dr. Mohamed Elmasry]
=============================================================
In Mark Twain’s 1884 American classic, The Adventures of Huckleberry
Finn, an incident caused Aunt Sally to exclaim, “Good gracious! Anybody
hurt?”
“No’m. Killed a nigger,” came the answer.
“Well, it’s lucky,” Aunt Sally responded, “because sometimes people do get hurt.”
African Americans have come a long way since conversations like the
above reflected social reality, whether in fiction or fact. In fact,
one of “them” could soon become the Democratic candidate in the
upcoming U.S. presidential election.
Unfortunately, Muslims in both Canada and the U.S. have now replaced
Blacks as the number-one minority group being demonized in the public
square, in books, in the print and broadcast media, on movie screens,
and increasingly in the Internet and World Wide Web with the explosive
proliferation of single-focus sites and blogs where hate-speech is
still vastly unregulated.
And it gets worse. Laws are being changed almost daily in Western
industrialized countries to make sure that Muslims are not given their
full and equal rights and to curtail their access to redress and
compensation when open cases of discrimination and bias are made public.
Politicians who dare to suggest equal treatment policies for Muslims
pay a heavy political price. And recently our treasured Canadian value
– indeed, our official federal policy — of multiculturalism has come
under heavy right-wing challenges, just because it includes Muslims
along with everyone else.
Even the role of Human Rights Commissions, which were mandated both
provincially and federally to protect minorities against group
defamation, has been called loudly into question — only because
Muslims have tried to call upon them in a time of need.
When Muslim groups asked the Ontario government to extend the right to
use faith-based mediation and arbitration to resolve family matters —
as was granted previously to Jews and Christians — the government
withdraw that right from everyone, rather than extend it to Muslims.
All of the suspects being held for years without trial in Canadian jails, detention centres, or under house arrest, are Muslims.
Ontario Conservative leader John Tory lost his riding and his party
lost the last provincial election because he dared to promise an
extension of funding to all faith-based schools, a right still enjoyed
only by Roman Catholics.
In Quebec, the traditional policy of “reasonable accommodation” for
minorities has been negatively questioned in recent years, just because
Muslims have become a visible minority among Montreal francophones.
The smearing of a Canadian institution like our Human Rights
Commissions by Islamophobes who claim to be protecting “free speech,”
is a classic case of chopped logic. They seem to have forgotten that
reconciling two potentially conflicting legal rights that are also
human rights — the right to be free from group defamation and the
principle of freedom of expression — is not a new challenge, nor is it
an easy one.
The vast majority of Western countries now have laws prohibiting group
defamation. Many legal experts agree that defamatory speech should not
be classified as constitutionally protected speech; it does not merit
the respect of the First Amendment; and it should not be protected in
international law or under the constitutional law of most countries.
Professor Milton Katz of Harvard Law School calls defamatory speech “a
rotten fruit in the marketplace of ideas” which must be culled out
before it spoils the health of everything around it, and ends up in the
hands (or mind) of a naive consumer who hasn’t learned the difference.
Group defamation is a form of abuse directed particularly at a minority
community, or an individual belonging to that minority; it includes
defamatory utterances based on race, nationality, ethnic origin, sex,
and religion.
The inclusion of group defamation as a defined illegal act in Canada
dates back to 1934. Manitoba enacted a group libel statute and a cause
of action was filed against the Canadian Nationalist, which in its
October 30, 1934 edition published two articles: “The Murdering Jew,
Jewish Murder” and the “The Night of Murder. Secret Purim Festival.” An
injunction was issued against publishing further statements against
Jews.
Canadian human rights and criminal codes have since gone through many
changes to ensure that group defamation cases, such as the Manitoba one
of 1934 against Jews are fully addressed by the laws of the land.
Now, fast forward to 2007. Four Canadian Muslim law students launched
human rights complaints against Maclean’s Magazine with respect to its
October 2006 article, “The Future Belongs to Islam,” written by Mark
Steyn. The Canadian Islamic Congress acted as a facilitator.
The basic premise of Mr. Steyn’s article is that, just as the “white
man settled the Indian territory,” Muslims in the West are poised to
take over entire societies and the “only question is how bloody the
transfer of real estate will be.” Once the ominously predicted transfer
occurs, Steyn’s article implies, citizens will be subjected to
oppressive Islamic law.
The impending Muslim takeover is in turn attributed to immigration and
multiculturalism, which have resulted in Muslims flooding into Western
societies and enjoying far too much freedom of movement in them. The
flood, the freedom of movement, and the fact that “enough” Muslims
share the goals of terrorists – the imposition of Islamic Law – mean
that the Muslim takeover is inevitable.
On March 30, 2007, the law students met with Maclean’s senior editors
and proposed that the magazine publish a balanced response to Mr.
Steyn’s article from a mutually acceptable source. The response was
that Maclean’s “would rather go bankrupt.” No offer to consider a
reasonable proposal was made; hence their complaints to the Human
Rights commission to address their case of group defamation.
The Muslim law students are hoping that Islamophobes will not succeed
in abolishing the mandate of our Human Rights Commissions before they
can hear their case.
(Dr. Mohamed Elmasry is national president of the Canadian Islamic
Congress. He can be reached at np@canadianislamiccongress.com)
Deborah Jones
February 9, 2008
Seems Elmasry, an electronics
Seems Elmasry, an electronics professor at Waterloo University, gives all Canadian Muslims a bad name by using Canada’s human rights commissions to further the cause of Islam. Although Canada welcomes immigrants from around the world, when in Rome do as the Romans do. I’m surprised his masters at the University allow him to behave in such n irresponsible manner. What else does he teach his students besides electronics? A number of years ago I filed a complaint to the University respecting his racist views. Seems they are afraid of him too.
February 9, 2008
While Dr Elmasry’s ad-hominem
While Dr Elmasry’s ad-hominem characterization of free-speech defenders as “Islamophobes” is clearly over the top, many of the statements made on the other side, including some comments here on J-Source, seem likewise overstated. Even you, Deb, suggest that he is accusing every Canadian of racism – I see nothing like that in his statement: am I missing something? And I am absolutely certain that in saying he has “crossed the line” you don’t mean to suggest that he does not have the right to believe and say what he says.
I think–and I dare say you, Deb, would wholeheartedly agree–that there is a lot of fear of Islam (i.e., literally, “Islamophobia”) abroad in Canada today, and that a lot of it is fuelled by careless or prejudiced media reporting and commentary. The lines of legitimate expression are drawn on both sides of the field–by human-rights and hate laws on one side, and by the Charter’s “fundamendal freedoms” (clause 2b) on the other.
Both lines can be defended at once if those expressing their views do so with restraint and with a determination to show respect for their opponents. In this Maclean’s debate, I see failures to do that on both sides.
February 9, 2008
Before we grace Mark Steyn’s
Before we grace Mark Steyn’s inflammatory and inaccurate comments about Muslims with heavy-duty rhetoric defending him as an exemplar of freedom of expression, let’s examine what we are talking about.
It’s not freedom of expression.
Steyn is entitled to his opinions about Muslims or anyone else. No one is disputing that, including the four law students who are challenging Maclean’s. What they are objecting to is that he has gone too far, and is trying to rally public opinion against a Muslim threat that he has failed to document factually. This “moral panic” approach has been widely identified as one of the racist discourses in academic literature (Henry and Tator, Discources of Domination, 2000).
The issue is racism, not the freedom to say what you think.
Suppose we treat this as a case of libel against Muslims. If such a case ever got to court, the onus would be on Maclean’s to demonstrate that what Steyn said was well grounded in fact, or was fair comment (in which case it would have to show the facts upon which he based his opinion were true). In some courts, it could rely on the “responsible journalism” defence, which requires it to document how Steyn was diligent about checking out all sides of the situation before reaching his opinion.
Could Maclean’s do that? Has it so far even bothered to try? Its response — “we’d rather go benkrupt” — is the sort of thing that would do in any editor facing a libel suit. It would be evidence of malice.
The issue here is whether what Maclean’s printed was responsible journalism. Let’s deal with that, and not retreat to defend the highest hill, imagining that freedom of expression itself is under fierce attack.
That would only be creating our own journalistic “moral panic.” It would not help us sort out the issues at stake here.
February 13, 2008
Anyone who has actually read
Anyone who has actually read “America Alone” would be hard-pressed to say it is inaccurate. The copy I have before me is dutifully researched with sources in their usual places. Perhaps John Miller has the “Elmasry Notes Version”. Or perhaps he has just read about reading it…
I can’t believe that some still classify Islam as a race. I would think that Louis Farrakhan, Cat Stevens, any of the Saudi princes, Ayatollah Ali Hoseini-Khamenei, and Jalal Talabania would be shocked to discover they are all of the same race.
Islam is a religio-political project and is fair game for criticism, as is any other religio-political project. Perhaps your readers are familiar with the Republican party in the U.S.A, for example.
Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of this case would know that the Maclean’s
editor’s statement that he would go bankrupt was in response to the Osgoode Fours’ demand that he give up editorial control over their rebuttal, and also allow them to choose the cover art and the art within their piece; of course, their published rebuttal would be in addition to Maclean’s “goodwill” cash offering to their cause.
In Steyn’s book, the facts largely speak for themselves. Inflammatory? I would think so. Inaccurate? Not even close.
February 13, 2008
Ivor Shapiro – a phobia is an
Ivor Shapiro – a phobia is an irrational fear. Fearing Islam is quite rational if you are at all connected to the world. What part of the terrorism, Sharia laws, the violence visited upon gays in the Muslim world and all of their other dysfunction do you not get? Or better stated, that you don’t get it doesn’t mean that the rest of us that do are irrational. I can’t think of a more intolerant and violent entity in the world that is worse than Islam right now.
And, quite frankly the mainstream press under-reports the negative aspects of Islam and its threat to all of us with their cowering self-censoring pc behavior.
Anyone that qualifies free speech so that it won’t offend someone uses the same tactics as the intolerant Muslim fascists. Tolerance of intolerance isn’t a virtue. Nailing your mouth shut in view of today’s reality is just plain stupid.
February 13, 2008
As someone who has actually
As someone who has actually read Mark Steyn’s book, I can categorically state that Elmasry’s complaints are misrepresentations, when they are not outright lies. (John Miller, have you actually read the book?) While one might argue with the tone of the book ( Steyn can rarely resist excersising his particular brand of humour, i.e. calling Pakistan “Wackistan” [though mind you, wathing events unfold there makes it hard to criticise even that!]),the substance of it is something else. Most or all of the examples Elmasry gives in his complaints are printed completely out of context or have been deliberately rewritten so as to make them derogatory per se. Interestingly enough, several of the cited “inflammatory” examples from Steyn’s book are direct quotes from Muslim Imams, Muslim comedians, etc.
It’s interesting to note that Elmasry and his fab 4 have not seen fit to directly challenge the veracity of any of the statements in the book, but seek only to quash such statements, whether fact or no, from appearing in print.
If you wish, you can certainly argue against Steyn’s premise. Given what I see and read of the manifestations of Islam around the world,I for one think his book deserves serious attention. “By their fruits ye shall know them”, is appropriate here.
March 16, 2008
Paul Huedepohl does me a
Paul Huedepohl does me a disservice by assuming that I was basing my comments solely on Mohammad Elmasry’s press release. I, too, have read the full Maclean’s article by Mark Steyn. I guess we need to agree to disagree about its accuracy.
The most fundamental inaccuracy in it, in my view, is that Steyn blames a religion, Islam, for every socio-political act committed by Muslims, and assumes that all Muslims think and act alike. That fits most people’s definition of racism. He also ascribes all sorts of sinister motives to the simple demographic fact that the Muslim world is younger and more plentiful demographically than European whites. Does that mean Muslims are on the verge of conquering Europe, overturning European values and culture, and that this will be done in a bloodthirsty fashion? Come on. Really. Come on.