THE BATTLE BETWEEN POLITICAL CORRECTNESS AND SECURITY

The intellectually dishonest movement of political correctness creates a paradox. Do we tolerate the intolerant or do we not tolerate the tolerant?

News item:

Denmark has introduced new immigration laws that will make it more difficult for Muslim clerics and other religious leaders to enter the country.

The new rules are designed in part to deter Islamic clerics from establishing Islamic communities in Denmark and instead encourage Muslims to integrate into the broader society. The rules however, would apply to any religious group...

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Danish Prime Minister, said yesterday: "Access to obtaining a Danish residence permit for foreign missionaries has been too easy up until now.

"That is why we now put forward new requirements for residing in the country, like the demand that imams and others have an education and that they be financially self-sufficient."...

Peter Skaarup, a spokesman for the DPP, said: "In theory, these rules concern all clerics from all religions. But in practice, they target the imams."

I've been bothered for some time by the question of why we feel we must tolerate those who do not tolerate us. And I suppose this news out of Denmark reframed the question for me and allowed me to further develop my thoughts.

First let us look at what Denmark is doing. They are raising the standards by which one qualifies for entry under a so-called "religious visa". Why are they doing that? The article clearly states the reason..."to deter Islamic clerics from establishing Islamic communities in Denmark and instead encourage Muslims to integrate into the broader society".

But then the article goes on to say "The rules however, would apply to any religious group..."

Such disingenuousness does not become Denmark.

The DPP spokesman says they are targeting Imams. So why the clamp down on all religious groups? Are the Danes suddenly under attack by Southern Baptists and Anglicans who seek to overthrow the Monarchy? Have the Roman Catholics or Hasidic Jews declared holy war against the Scandinavian peoples?

No...what is at work here is Political Correctness. That's my view.

The PC movement says one may not attribute an unflattering trait to a sect or group of people. One may not generalize. Me...I find that to be hogwash.

The fact is that it is the radical Islamists who are fomenting terror and violence against the West. It is a fact that these acts are frequently the result of calls of Jihad from Isalmic clerics, although sometimes from those without such titles, a la Bin Laden. It is a fact demonstrated in spades in countries like France and The Netherlands that muslim immigrants are less likely to assimilate than other categories of immigrants.

It seems to me the sane and economical approach would be to focus the effort on the problem.

Let's look at this question from a different angle.

A longstanding bit of American folklore says that upon his arrest Willy Sutton was asked "Why do you rob banks, Willy?"

To which Willy replied - "Cause that's where the money is."

This was Willy's "Duh" moment...

But consider if Willy had applied Politically Correct Think to his career as a bank robber. Under PC Think, Willy would know that the overwhelming preponderance of money is in the Banks but would not be allowed to target banks in his quest for money. Under PC Think, Willy would have to systematically rob every building on the street.

Given Willy's objective is to obtain large amounts of money consider the resource costs associated with this inane approach. Allowing for 20 establishments along main street, Willy's costs associated with planning, casing, and rehearsal have just gone up twenty fold.

If we assume that on average the bank holds 1000 times the cash of the average other establishment, Willy's average "take" is reduced by over 95%.

Now in fact it may be true the other establishments may not be so well guarded as the Bank...and Willy's average risk factor per heist actually decreases. But it will not decrease to such an extent that the risk-to-reward ratios come anywhere near what they were when only robbing banks - since, as we've already established - the banks hold so much more money than any other establishment.

Well...Willy knew that. And he wasn't subject to those who worry that his singling out of banks would somehow be an affront to the banks. After all, as he said with startling clarity...that's where the money is.

Which brings me back to the PC law passed in Denmark which requires Denmark to expend the same resources on Buddhist monks or Hari Krishna as it does on Jihadist Islamic clerics. At some point we need to ask ourselves "at what point does political correctness become more expensive than we can justify?'

In my view it already is.

If, while driving down the road I hear an odd grinding sound coming from the right front area of the automobile whenever I brake, logic says I will inspect the brake on the right front tire. PC Think obligates me to inspect the brakes on every tire, and to select a random starting tire every time so as not to offend the right front tire.

So I return to the paradox. Under PC Think we are required to either tolerate the intolerant or do not tolerate the tolerant. Because PC Think will not allow us to craft logical laws that targets the problem areas. PC Think does not allow us to tolerate the tolerant while not tolerating those who are intolerant.

The Danish law proves that outright. The DPP spokesman's comments support the truth.

Instead of imposing a tax on the group from which the problem demonstrably arises (the right front tire, in this case), we must impose the same tax on the three unoffending tires (not to mention ourselves) as well. This defies logic. But it somehow makes some people feel good.

Under the Danish approach if I create the 1st Church of Internet Communion and declare myself its priest, I will pay the same annoyance tax trying to get into Denmark as any Muslim Imam even though I have not once demonstrated my religion to be a threat to the ruddy cheeked people of the great white north. So, I am annoyed, but only equally so as Imam Bob from Iran.

Why should that be so? Why not, instead, target those from Iran, or the mid east or (enter name of appropriate subset from Venn diagram here) who have something in common with Imam Bob. After all, if they get annoyed in the same way, perhaps they are in a position to apply a bit of peer pressure to the Jihadists who have caused this mess in the first place.

Me...I'd rather have the resources targeted where probability says they should be, and let the chips fall where they may. And if I'm going to through additional resources at it, those resources go toward efforts to better identify which from the targeted group are the greatest threat, and which are no threat at all.

In other words if I'm looking for money, well, you'll find me at the bank...preferably the biggest bank.