Melanie Phllips has posted an interesting article here.
In it she praises an article at Harry's Place written by "Alan A" .
The Harry's Place article defends Melanie against the inference that she is as an anti-Muslim bigot that was made in an article about her (at Left Foot Forward) titled "Melanie Phillips is inspiration behind Tea Party anti-Muslim leader" (the "anti-Muslim leader" referred to is Pamela Geller).
Melanie's own article praises the Harry's Place article for defending her. However, there is a very strong irony about what Melanie has written, in that she is praising an article which actually defames Pamela Geller in the same way (only more openly and viciously) than the original article defamed both Melanie and Pamela. In fact Alan A states that Pamela Geller is a "lunatic bigot".
- The first article infers (rather than states openly) that both Melanie and Pamela are anti-Muslim bigots, without offering a shred of evidence against either.
- The second article claims Melanie is not an anti-Muslim bigot but states openly that Pamela is an anti-Muslim bigot, without offering a shred of evidence against her.
- The third article (Melanie's) praises the second article for coming to her defence, while ignoring the fact that the second article had made a far more openly offensive claim.
So who is going to defend Pamela Geller against the cumulative claims against her? The irony, sadly, is that it is not going to be Melanie Phillips.
The problem is that the stock response of any 'liberal' to people who are prepared to stand up to the threat of Islamism (as opposed to Muslims) is that they are 'bigots' or 'racists'. Just as there is no evidence that Melanie is a bigot or racist, nor is there any evidence that Pamela Geller is. In fact, the demonising of Pamela Geller by the main stream media is no different from its demonising of Israel. It all boils down to a combination of anti-semitism and dhimittude.
The other irony about Alan A's article on Harry's Place is that it begins with the words "I expect that Left Foot Forward will get into trouble for this [referring to the original] article." So the entire thrust of Alan A's article is that even implying that somebody is an anti-Muslim bigot without providing evidence is a serious offense. Yet, his own article explicitly calls somebody a lunatic bigot without providing evidence. You just could not make this stuff up.