Who’s Got the “Phobia”?

As all conservatives know, those among us who are in favor of insane things like, say, traditional marriage between one woman and one man, can’t discuss it without being labelled a “homophobe” or as an “idiot” or a “bigot” who is “against two people being in love” or as people who are “trying to legislate an end to love”. It’s so ridiculous on its face that I actually heard Barbra Streisand utter that last one on Entertainment Tonight, the show that even liberals would admit makes Fox News Channel seem like a gorgeous light at the end of a pathetic liberal-filled tunnel.

If you’re a right-to-life advocate, you’re “against women’s rights” or “against freedom” or you’re a “religious freak”, or a “radical right-wing nutbar” or worse.

And if you’re against terrorism, you’re “a Republican”, a “war monger”, or (my favorite because they have no clue what it means but they think it’s a negative) a “neo-con”, and for that matter, you’re “against all Muslims and a pusher of the Christian religion who wants to launch a crusade against all of Islam and take over the world you imperialist pig, now good day sir!”

Below is an email exchange which starts as a totally unfair labelling and accusation leveled against me — and an ironic profiling, actually, as it seems to turn out — started in private of course, not on the discussion boards where it would expose the thinness of the argument and require some actual guts. But then it devolves into a quasi-threat. In this case I don’t know if the man is a liberal or simply anti-me. But he’s certainly at least anti-me. And I wonder if those who share his religion would condone his words, and would speak up if they did or didn’t.

The tactic being employed by the accuser is common — to instantly label me with an egregious slur — in this case as someone who “promotes Islamophobia”, which is of course a rank lie. Failing to recognize their own phobia and bigotry when it’s pointed out to them irks them no end, because they presumed to be the big moral professor and to sit me down and teach me a darn good lesson, Ã la John Kerry or many other sanctimonious liberal-lefties. So they turn their own imperfections against me and call me the very things that they are. It’s the old liberal standby, “I know you are but what am I?” approach to what for them passes as reasoned debate, which almost always follows with “you’re stupid!” before they trot off to start another yelling debate with what they hope will be a less capable opponent.

And when people begin their very premise with a bigoted lie, I instantly tune-out much of whatever else they blather about, since they’re obviously not intent on sticking to facts or reality, just on condescending vitriolic polemics in which they assume that I’m naive, and which they think I have a duty to darn well sit there and listen to it or read it. And if I argue back, then like children they resort to further lies and yelling in frustration because someone is threatening their game– and they don’t have the control.

That’s why the internet is so insidious to liberals. Conservatives can finally take the time necessary to get their point across, and liberals can’t stop them; and what’s worse, the good stuff we write and the, well, stuff they write stays around for a good long time, easily accessible to all for review.

But when the slurs and accusations get to the point where they get a little threatening, it really shows their desperation and reveals much about their true character which must at some point be a little embarrassing for them — and yet it seems not to be. How else could you read a sentence like, “I only wish that I could run into people like you and their bigotry in real life…“? It obviously raises the questions, Yeah, why didn’t you finish your sentence? What would you do to me if you ran into me in real life? — and I’m not sure I want to hear the answer, and that, of course, is exactly the effect they were going for.

What kind of tactic does that sound like to you?

___________

Why do you promote Islamophobia?

[Name of Muslim organization withheld by Joel], an organization which I represent has been practising Islamic-inclined arbitration for over 10 YEARS.

In that time, not a SINGLE decision has been petitioned in the courts. Not a SINGLE party has complained of coercion or voluntariness.

How could we make sure of this? Simple:

Our director is the Muslim Chaplain, [name of city withheld by Joel] Police Service. He is also a recipient of the Queen’s Golden Jubilee Medal for Community Service and member of Family Mediation Canada (FMC) and the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC).

So rather than be misled by the media and the opponents of the Shariah Tribunal concept who have suggested that this is still a proposal – realize that the truth is, its already being implemented without problem.

[name withheld by Joel]
Public Liaison Coordinator,
Youth Counselling Services
[name of organization withheld]

___________

We are the last ones who will ever be “mislead by the media”.

But thanks,

Joel Johannesen

___________

Greetings,

Thank you for your attempt at a reply to my claim.

You see, you did not demonstrate that you are aware that this type of arbitration is already going on. As I noted, your articles are totally ignorant of this reality.

So, you have been misled by your sources that are being promoted by the media.

In order to prove me wrong, you must show that you ARE aware of what is happening and I simply attempted to inform you of this.

Thanks again,

[name withheld by Joel]

___________

Hello:

Your first mistake was to level the accusation that we are “promoting Islamophobia”. That’s bigoted, insulting trash, and as even a rank amateur debater would know, such slurs have the effect of my immediately dismissing much of what you have to say thereafter; and shows that your aim is simply putting me on the defensive — and I refuse to succumb to that kind of sophomoric bullying. You shouldn’t have been so disrespectful as to say such a thing; and you should have already acknowledged your error, and apologized, as any fair-minded person would have, but you did not.

And yet you hold yourself out to be one who is seeking acknowledgement of reality and truth.

Your second mistake is writing things like: “As I noted, your articles are totally ignorant of this reality.” Care to point out what articles (plural), specifically, point to such “total ignorance” on our part? And then you say, indignantly, “So, you have been misled by your sources that are being promoted by the media.” Care to be more specific? In what articles (plural)? And what “sources”?

Even then, I am not obligated to “demonstrate” anything to you; nor am I required to do anything “to prove [you] wrong”; nor “show [you]” anything concerning anything at all. But nice try at once again trying to put me on the defensive.

And I am more than simply “aware of what is happening” as you so condescendingly put it, and that’s something you’d also acknowledge if you’d more properly informed yourse
lf and read more than three sentences of all the articles and posts that we as editors of our web site have written.

I am not “ignorant” of any thing you accuse me of, nor have I been “misled” by anybody .

But if you want to fire even more platitudes my way — or indeed insults (or what you call “simply inform[ing]” me) — feel free to waste even more of your time. For my part I’m pretty sure I’ve already devoted more than enough time with you.

By the way, you do realize we operate a discussion forum don’t you? Because I honestly wonder if you even have the right people in mind.

Thanks,

Joel Johannesen

___________

BLAH BLAH BLAH

The moment I saw your article, I knew I was dealing with the kind of bigotry I encounter all the time.

As well, you know nothing about debating. You should have replied to my point, which I made clear for you. All you could do is rant about how right you are even though the FACTS speak clearly against it. The cogency of my argument did not rest on my comment to you, it lay in the point that such arbitration was ALREADY taking place.

And you’re a journalist?

Look man, I think we can both just leave it at this since we’ll go nowhere fast. I think you’re a piece of shit for promoting hatred against Islam and Muslims. I only wish that I could run into people like you and their bigotry in real life…

Good riddance.

[name withheld by Joel]

[And my bolding]

___________

What article?

And please indicate exactly, precisely, where I’m promoting hatred against Islam.

And what would you do if you ran into me in real life? Please be specific.

And by they way, you’re the bigot, not me. But keep trying to convince yourself. It’s amusing to me.

Thanks,
Joel Johannesen

___________

[ Nothing thus far ]

___________

For the record, we have posted one article, an opinion piece, about Sharia law here, and it wasn’t even written by us — it was written by someone else. And it was really good — well reasoned and thoughtfully crafted. That’s why we posted it. It was opposed to the advent of Sharia law in Canada, but that’s OK isn’t it? I would venture a guess that many or even most Muslim women are against it too.

By Joel Johannesen

This editorial is posted at ProudToBeCanadian.ca. Here is the exact link to the editorial:
http://www.proudtobecanadian.ca/threads/showflat.php?Number=1375

• Author
• Recent Posts

Follow Joel

Joel Johannesen

Writer and Executive Editor for ProudToBeCanadian.ca.
PTBC was founded by Mr. Johannesen in 2000.

Contact Mr. Johannesen about this article using this form. Please refer to article's title.

FOLLOW @JoelJohannesen ON X!

Follow Joel

Latest posts by Joel Johannesen (see all)

• Say something. - Friday October 25, 2024 at 6:03 pm
• Keep going, or veer right - Monday August 26, 2024 at 4:30 pm
• Hey Joel, what is “progressive?” - Friday August 2, 2024 at 11:32 am