Mark Steyn puts up a bit in McCleans, this norning, under tyhe header: “So what would it take to alarm you?”

Since Maclean’s got into a spot of bother with Canada’s “human rights” pseudo-courts, I’ve been pleasantly surprised by the number of our media confreres who don’t think it should be a “crime” for magazines to publish excerpts from books by yours truly. Nevertheless, in defending free speech in general, they usually feel obliged to deplore my exercise of it in particular:”Maclean’s published an alarmist screed by Mr. Steyn . . .” (The Economist)

“While the book may be alarmist . . .” (CFRB)

“Steyn’s argument is indeed alarmist . . .” (The Guardian)

And, oh dear, even:

“The fear of ‘a Muslim tide’ was alarmist . . .” (Tarek Fatah and Farzana Hassan in Maclean’s)

Okay, enough already. I get the picture: alarmist, alarmist, alarmist. My book’s thesis – that most of the Western world is on course to become at least semi-Islamic in its political and cultural disposition within a very short time – is “alarmist.”

The question then arises: fair enough, guys, what would it take to alarm you?

Sharia in Britain? Taxpayer-subsidized polygamy in Toronto? Yawn. Nothing to see here. True, if you’d suggested such things on Sept. 10, 2001, most Britons and Canadians would have said you were nuts. But a few years on and it doesn’t seem such a big deal, and nor will the next concession, and the one after that.

What Mark is suggesting is that despite winning the war, our sense of ;openminded fair play’ has us allowing the Islamic terrorists to win their goal of domination of western society anyway.  And you know what? He’s quite right.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,