Don't you think that this is getting rather silly

It appears that my post, ‘Here Piggy Wiggy’ has caused a little bit of a rumpus. It was, as can be seen, an impotent and mildly satiric scream against the madness of United Kingdom officialdom. The focus of my despairing rage was those officials who, in a desperate attempt to curry favour with whoever they are currently bending over for come up with absurd and self destructive rules and regulations. Regulations which, over a period of time chip away at our societies self-confidence . The case in point was about the refusal of the British education authorities to accept a new version of ‘Three Little Piggies’ for prize citing amongst other reasons that they had,

"concerns about the Asian community and the use of pigs raises cultural issues".

What do they mean by Asian? Not the Chinese, not the Buddhists, not the people of Indo-China, nor indeed the Hindus, no for them it is obvious that Asian is used as a dishonest and inaccurate cover word for Muslim. Now I do not know personally any Muslims who would demand though that is not to say that there are none. Indeed I know plenty of Muslims who would be happy if these restrictions were put in place, but they are too polite and reasonable to demand such things of the host culture. It is merely our own idiocy at stake here.

So I was somewhat annoyed that when my post was cross posted over at the Brussels Journal that my jokey pay off line was altered by its editors from,

“Oh for pities sake. Wake me up when they have gone”.

Referring to the mad bureaucrats to,

“Wake me up when the Muslims have gone”.

Now that was attacking a different target, and not the point of my rather frivolous piece. And I have let him know that I am unhappy about the change, but it is up thee now and I shall not demand it comes down due to the response it has gathered.

Stephen Pollard, a man I know and like has launched into the line with an intemperate attack on the BJ over on the Spectator blog.

The Brussels Journal is a site which many American conservatives read about matters European. Unfortunately, [m]any otherwise well informed American conservatives get their information about Europe - specifically, the influence of Islam in Europe - through a site which views Islam itself as a cancer to be fought and which regards an Islamic takeover of Europe as something which has effectively already happened.

This distorts so many Americans' outlook, seeing Europe as essentially written off to Islam. The Brussels Journal should be seen for what it is: a hard line anti Muslim propaganda sheet. [...] [I]t's one thing dealing with facts and rational analysis. It's quite another when pernicious sites like the Brussels Journal tar all Muslims with the same extremist brush and distort the news to portray Islam itself as destroying our
society rather than Islamic extremists. [...]

Yes, we in the West need to be relentless in defending Western values and free speech in the wake of Islamist demands. And it's liberals of all people who ought to be in the front line of that fight, defending those with lifetyles and attitudes which Islamists would kill.

But we need to be just as relentless in remembering what those values are, one of which is tolerating those of a different faith, when their faith does not impinge on our values. And it isn't Muslims who have sought to ban the story of the three pigs - it was 'brain-dead white "liberals" '. Sentences like Wake me up when the Muslims have gone and the attitudes they reveal are the mirror image of the Islamists' own prejudices, and have no place in a proper defence of Western values.

He has been followed by his stable mate Clive Davis,

I second Stephen's remarks about that nasty, pseudo-respectable piece of work known as The Brussels Journal. I dip into its pages now and then, just to see what the conspiracy theorists are up to. Two questions arise from all this: why do so many American conservatives enjoy wallowing in the web site's xenophobic, end-of-Europe drivel? And how on earth did the Journal's editor, Paul Belien, become an adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute?

What I find interesting is that after Pollard’s piece was flagged up on the Journal two things have happened, firstly the BJ has received staunch defence in the comments section, secondly, and I may be wrong here, I do not have a cached version of Pollard’s original piece, but I think, and yes I have had my suspicion supported by others, that he has introduced a paragraph or two of self defence,

Now I can hardly be accused of ignoring the threat to the West of militant Islam. I am regularly attacked by the likes of the MCB and the MPAC as an Islamophobe for highlighting instances of Islamism on the rise. I am very concerned by the influence and reach of Islamism in Europe and write about it here all the time.

But it's one thing dealing with facts and rational analysis. It's quite another when pernicious sites like the Brussels Journal tar all Muslims with the same extremist brush and distort the news to portray Islam itself as destroying our society rather than Islamic extremists.

I would be interested in whether this is indeed a self defence ‘stealth edit’ or merely my, and others memory being false. Dunno.

However their of course, as with so many things history here. Pollard is the President of the Brussels Think Tank, The Centre for the New Europe. A think tank that was founded by one of the editors of the Brussels Journal, Paul Belien, who writes regularly in the American media, due in part to his being a fellow of the Hudson Institute. That smarts.

Belien and the BJ have far greater impact in the US than Pollard and the CNE.The issue notwithstanding, and in point of fact I support Pollard's attitude towards the Piggy case and British officialdom, I suspect that this unseemly little spat has much more to do with personal difference than with whether or not the BJ unfairly targets a religion and exacerbates a pre-existing problem.