May 07, 2009

Importance they don't possess and attention they don't deserve

Two weeks ago, I wrote about Bruce Bawer, whom I had only then discovered:
I do not agree with every detail of Bawer's analysis [of the European Islam critics scene], for my taste he uses the epithet "fascist" a bit too liberally..., yet his is a refreshingly realistic view of the European status quo after all the chafing I did to myself writing about those shady appearances among European "Islam critics" (for example here, here and here) who are getting a free "God bless, he was a patriot" thrown after them on their way to hell by unsuspecting Americans. I haven't come across Bawer before and call me a bigot, but as soon as a writer thematizes his own sexuality (which will be INVARIABLY homosexuality) all alarm bells start ringing. I have a strong feeling that, if I dig deeper into the matter, he will emerge as just an upmarket version of pain-in-the-proverbial extraordinaire Irshad Manji and her ilk, who first and foremost see Islam as something that is raining on their homosexual love parade, as is Christianity, which they therefore hold in similar contempt, and who refuse to see that liberalism and secularism, both as "tolerant" towards Muslims and Muslim immigration as towards gays, are part of and not the solution to their problem.
Yesterday, he wrote at his blog:
Yes, “Dutch libertinism.” The words took my breath away. During the last few days (while, as it happened, I was visiting Amsterdam) I haven’t been able to get them out of my mind. For a self-styled anti-jihadist – who, by the way, I first met three years ago at the Pim Fortuyn Memorial Conference in The Hague – to refer in this way to a man who sacrificed his life for human liberty is, in my view, not only incomprehensible but profoundly despicable. This is, after all, precisely the sort of language that Dutch Muslim leaders hurled at Fortuyn during his lifetime. And in the present case the words were plainly aimed not only at Fortuyn but at me – a writer who, like Fortuyn, that great martyr for freedom, is gay.
The reason for this emotional turmoil? An acquaintance had stated that
Wilders stands for "Western values," while Fortuyn stood only for – get ready for this – "Dutch libertinism."
While that is certainly an unfair comparison and misguided assessment, I fail to understand the epiphanious quality this statement apparently had for Bower. And what does the fact that he (Bower) is homosexual have to do with anything here? Sorry to say he sounds just like another post-menopausal old queen for whom the world rotates around his dick sexual orientation, one of those who are claiming importance they simply don't possess and attention they don't deserve. Alas, they get it. For them, their sexual orientation, sex, is not just one of many aspects of human existence, it is the only, the defining, the identity-founding one and one can't help asking oneself now whether this defender-of-Western-values' loyalty to Pim Fortuyn would be quite that noticeable had the latter NOT been homosexual as well.

Seems I was right about that man, although the fact doesn't please me.