Liberals are like balloons fit to burst from an overabundance of hypocrisy. Such pompous windbags will eventually deflate on their own but there’s no harm in helping the process along with a pinprick
By Faidhur Rahman Abdul Hadi, YP
Liberals so love to be hypocritical.
I’ve said this before but it bears repeating, if only to drive home the point that liberalism and hypocrisy, or sanctimony, go hand in hand.
One is certainly hard pressed to find a liberal who isn’t sanctimonious since the latter quality is essential in the enabling of the former.
Were such duplicity and double-dealing limited to just between them as liberals, with no consequence for our wider society, perhaps they could be let be.
There is, after all, the principle that one is free to decide what to do with one’s life, as long as it does not affect others.
But alas, such is not the case. Liberal hypocrisy has consequences that are real and affect us all.
Take the following other cases in point.
(1) Zakir Naik
First, there is of course, Zakir Naik, Muslim preacher extraordinaire.
The Malaysian gossip scene is abuzz with reports of the bunch of 19 who banded together to sue the Home Ministry regarding the preacher recently.
According to them, the government has failed to protect the citizenry from the “hate” allegedly being propagated by the “undesirable” televangelist, and are seeking a declaration that he is a threat to national security.
They want a ban to prevent him from entering the country, and for him to be arrested and deported immediately.
Muslim leaders were up in arms.
iPeguam, the legal arm of Isma, labelled the move an attempt at secularization, making the liberal ideology mainstream, and destroying the identity of Malaysians as a nation with dignity.
Perlis Mufti Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin questioned how exactly the preacher was a threat to national security. This was not answered in any way by the nineteen human rights ligitants.
Some encouraged dialogue between the 19 and Zakir Naik but this was turned down on the basis that doing so would be ‘sub-judice’, never mind the fact that courts encourage settlements as a matter of course even after legal suits have been filed.
Never mind too that the Malaysian Bar Council, to which one of the plaintiffs (namely Siti Kasim) belong, had previously stated “..our High Court recently decided that, as a matter of general principle, debates on important public interest issues should not be stifled or be readily sacrificed on the altar of sub judice”.
(In any case, sub judice is limited to cases tried by jury and since the jury system has been abolished, the principle is no longer in use.)
So the 19 insist on limiting the right of others to their freedom of religion and speech, while wanting their own rights to pretty much everything they can think of. Talk about having one’s cake and eating it.
(2) Milo Yiannopoulos
Then, there is the fallout from a video surfacing of Milo Yiannopoulos. The former darling of the conservative movements in the UK and USA had it all made, with millions of followers on Facebook, a job as editor at Brietbart News, a book deal with publishers Simon & Schuster to boot.
He even emerged from the recent leftist instigated riots at University of California Berkeley, where he had a speaking engagement, relatively unscathed.
But one fine day, a podcast surfaced in the media wherein he allegedly voiced support for sexual activities between young boys and men.
Then the sky came crushing down for the lad. He had to resign his post at Brietbart and his book deal got cancelled. Why?
It turns out, one vengeful 16-year-old Canadian liberal, ‘Julia’, couldn’t stand the fact that Milo was invited to speak before thousands of well regarded conservatives at the recently concluded Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in the US.
According to Julia, Milo isn’t really conservative material, but an “anti-liberal who has built his personal brand on anti-Muslim, anti-feminism, and general bigotry” and is in her opinion an example of where the conservative movement “shouldn’t go”
So she delved into Milo’s history, found something she thought the media could spin, pitched its worth to the media, and the media so spun. The rest, as they say, is history.
As for whether Milo really did advocate sexual activity between youngsters, that is open to intepretation, but it remains correct that whatever may be of his past advocacy, he was certainly not outed on it due to disgust with the same but rather, because of his thorn-in-the-backside-of-liberals status. This put paid to the altruism these sanctimonious sort claim to have.
(3) Amir Bahari
Much closer to home, there is also the recent case of Amir Bahari.
The KL lawyer, known for his involvement in conducting training courses for fellow legal practioners in the area of syariah law in particular, put forth his name as a candidate for the post of KL Bar chairman, believing that he could contribute better from the position.
Observing that many Malay Muslim lawyers didn’t like the fact that KL Bar events had alcohol served, he resolved to right this, if only to make the KL Bar more Muslim friendly.
Which is probably why he didn’t see it coming when leftist liberal Malay Mail Online seized on his platform by branding it an attempt at ‘Islamization‘.
Lo and behold, he was then predictably condemned by the liberal powers that be within not just the KL chapter of the Bar but within the wider Malaysian Bar itself.
Needless to say, his manifesto was torn into as well as torn apart by the liberal wolves sniffing blood. His candidacy was finished.
Liberals are bad news, period
But that is how liberals are. Hypocritical by their very nature.
Standards applicable on everyone else apply as such on everyone else but themselves. And their mischief is conducted to the detriment of others, by the way.
Even yours truly has had nasty brush with them when he wrote past articles critical of the Bar Council and reported on issues debated at past AGMs of the Malaysian Bar.
For his trouble he recieved no thanks but at least two letters reprimanding him over the same and warning him not to write anything criticial of the Bar again, or else.
Which is probably why yours truly can only shake his head in disbelief, if not outright puke at the hypocrisy shown by public statements issued by them declaring, among others, that freedom of speech “must be resolutely protected”.
Knowing as we do the extent to which hypocritical liberals are a problem, what are we do to regarding the menace?
Point out the hypocrisy for one, and make them lose their credibility over it. This is an effort that must be done continuously, for liberals do not rest from promoting their sanctimonious causes.
Another thing to bear in mind is to do all you can to protect yourself from the consequences of their hypocrisy. This can be done by taking appropriate precautions or if you are in a position to do so, shut them down.
Whatever it is, beware of the liberal. They are bad news.
- First published by Tanjak on 8 March 2017
You may be interested
Dialogue, not confrontation – YPYoung Professionals (YP) - Dec 24, 2017
PRESS STATEMENT By the Young Professionals (YP) We in the Young Professionals (YP) were taken aback to read the reply…
Hey, G25! Your hypocrisy on free speech is showing! – Aisyah OsmanYoung Professionals (YP) - Dec 14, 2017
By Aisyah Osman, YP As a member of civil society I feel compelled to respond to remarks reportedly made by…
Zamihan’s detention pursuant to Sedition Act against free speech – YPYoung Professionals (YP) - Oct 14, 2017
PRESS STATEMENT By the Young Professionals (YP) The Young Professionals (YP) read with much disquiet reports indicating the arrest…