Historiene om muslimer som tar anstøt av grisebilder i enhver form, er nesten for utrolige til å tro på. Noe i meg sier; dette må være overdrevet. Det må være en annen forklaring. Men sett at det ikke er overdrevet, sett at historiene er sanne. At det finnes sosiale miljøer hvor muslimer føler de er i sin fulle rett til å kreve støtende symboler fjernet? Da er de en slags «Sataniske vers» i miniatyr. For kuriøse til å bli tatt alvorlig, men likevel deadly serious.

Mark Steyn mener det. Han skrev tidligere om en liten britisk kommune som hadde en statue kalt Florentine Boar, villsvinet fra Firenze. Det trengte restaurering, men en eller annen muslim fant det støtende, og kommunestyret ville vise hensyn og fjerne det. Med de små skritt begynner demonteringen av det frie samfunn, skriver Steyn. Vi er redd han har rett.

When every act that a culture makes communicates weakness and loss of self-belief, eventually you’ll be taken at your word. In the long term, these trivial concessions are more significant victories than blowing up infidels on the Tube or in Bali beach restaurants. An act of murder demands at least the pretence of moral seriousness, even from the dopiest appeasers. But small acts of cultural vandalism corrode the fabric of freedom all but unseen.
…
Is it really a victory for «tolerance» to say that a council worker cannot have a Piglet coffee mug on her desk? And isn’t an ability to turn a blind eye to animated piglets the very least the West is entitled to expect from its Muslim citizens? If Islam cannot «co-exist» even with Pooh or the abstract swirl on a Burger King ice-cream, how likely is it that it can co-exist with the more basic principles of a pluralist society? As A A Milne almost said: «They’re changing guard at Buckingham Palace/ Her Majesty’s Law is replaced by Allah’s.»

By the way, isn’t it grossly offensive to British Wahhabis to have a head of state who is female and uncovered?

Forty years ago, Britain’s Islamic minority didn’t have the numbers to ban Piglet and change the Burger King menu. Now they do. What will be deemed «unacceptable» in the interests of «tolerance» in 20 or even five years’ time?

It has been clear since July 7 that the state has no real idea what to do to reconcile the more disaffected elements of its fastest-growing demographic. But at some point Britons have to ask themselves – while they’re still permitted to discuss the question more or less freely – how much of their country they’re willing to lose. The Hundred-Acre Wood is not the terrain on which one would choose to make one’s stand, but from here on in it is only going to become more difficult.

Making a pig’s ear of defending democracy