In a recent article for the hard left Guardian newspaper, liberal columnist Nick Cohen launched a vicious and unprovoked attack on UKIP leadership candidate AMD Waters. According to Cohen, Miss Waters is an ‘anti-Muslim’ bigot, someone who hates Muslims ‘because they are Muslim.’ Of course he offers no evidence for this slur, he doesn’t have to. Provided the correct slurs are deployed, the likes of Cohen will always have a platform in the left-wing media.
Waters is certainly a vocal critic of Islam, specifically in relation to child marriage, female genital mutilation, misogyny and homophobia. In Cohen’s world – the few hectares that lie between Broadcasting House and Guardian House – this stance makes her a ‘far right bigot.’
Cohen is nothing if not predictable. Thus, Donald Trump and Geert Wilders are also ‘anti-Muslim bigots.’ Why? Presumably because they dare to vocalise concerns that Cohen would prefer to remain unsaid. Ironically, Cohen’s own bigotry is so well established that he seems unable to discriminate between criticism based on documented evidence, justified criticism, and dislike which is based purely upon prejudice.
Waters has, he declares, joined ‘the white racist right.’ Dare to speak up against an expansionist and totalitarian ideology and you are a member of the KKK. So there you have it: the conclusion of the ‘enlightened’ liberal intelligentsia. Cohen and co never tire of this strategy – playing the man not the ball – precisely because they are unable to and indeed terrified of engaging in specifics. Smearing is that much easier.
Rambling verging on incoherent, Cohen’s article - lazy, sloppy and inflammatory – is interesting not for any analytical revelations it brings to the debate – there are none - but rather as an insight into the Liberal mind.
The journalist’s irrational ire is in fact nothing more than cowardice. For where Waters goes, Cohen and co fear to tread. The ideological difference between Nick Cohen and Anne-Marie Waters, is in fact not as great as the Guardian writer would have us believe. The UKIP leadership candidate merely vocalises what Cohen and friends dare not say in the ‘polite’ circles in which they move. It really is that simple.
In their impotence, writers like Cohen then lash out at those who are taking the space they themselves know they should be occupying. “If I’m not prepared to go there, then neither should you.” Call it guilt. After all, who amongst us likes to be reminded of our own cowardice, our own appeasement, our own impotency?
When people like Waters speak it reminds Cohen of his own deficiencies. Hence, the spiteful, vitriolic Guardian attack. Whether Miss Waters does or does not ‘like’ Muslims is immaterial to the debate in hand and Cohen knows it. Cohen’s aim is not to open debate rather to close it down, hence he plays the man rather than the ball.
Having subscribed to Liberal ideology all their lives, lauded and enshrined it, voices such as those of AMD Waters represent a very unwelcome counter measure to Guardian ideologues, who have, after all, staked their entire lives on a brand of politics that while it may thrill the establishment minority leaves the rest of the populace cold.
Seen in this light, Cohen’s vitriol suddenly becomes explicable. His reaction – petty, mean and scornful - the reaction of the appeaser, the collaborator, is simply the manifestation of moral and physical cowardice.
Exposing Cohen is child’s play: Ask him to name one – just one – critic of Islam who is not, in his opinion, an ‘anti-Muslim bigot.’ He won’t be able to. Which just about tells you all you need to know about Nick Cohen, Guardianista.