Today Fri Sat
It is forcast to be Fog at 11:00 PM EDT on May 24, 2012
Fog
29°/18°
It is forcast to be Chance of a Thunderstorm at 11:00 PM EDT on May 25, 2012
Chance of a Thunderstorm
31°/19°
It is forcast to be Mostly Cloudy at 11:00 PM EDT on May 26, 2012
Mostly Cloudy
26°/16°

24 Comments

news

Rosie DiManno Weighs In On the Ground Zero Mosque, For Some Reason

20100911groundzeromosque.jpg
“Not near Ground Zero, you don’t!” Photo of an entrance to an Iranian mosque by Hamed Saber.


Some Torontoist readers might be wondering, “Wait, a Ground Zero mosque post? What does that have to do with Toronto?” This is a fair comment, so let us be clear: this is not really an article about the Ground Zero mosque (which is, of course, neither at Ground Zero nor a mosque, instead being a community center with a prayer room in a former Burlington Coat Factory, but we digress). This is an article about Rosie DiManno’s column in Saturday’s Toronto Star, wherein she argues that the Ground Zero mosque should not be built.
We are doing this because her article—written on the anniversary of 9/11, and it’s equal odds whether this is because DiManno thought writing a mosque column on 9/11 was amazingly clever or because it’s been two weeks since anybody first wrote the sentiments DiManno espouses, and it took her this long to come up with it herself—in addition to being chock-full of passive-aggressive defenses of the straight-up bigotry that suffuses much of the anti-mosque protest movement, is also terrible tripe. Torontoist have never really been great fans of DiManno, but even for her, this is a new low. Let’s read together!

From the moment they went up, so dizzyingly and dazzlingly far up, the Twin Towers were strutting symbols of American potency.

Twin Towers as unintentional but blatantly obvious penis metaphor count: 1.

Those colossi represented might and majesty and boldness

Unintentional penis metaphor count: 2.

the self-assurance of a 20th century superpower, rising from the racing heart of Wall Street, Mecca of money and enterprise.

You have to imagine DiManno sitting back at her desk, all pleased with herself. “Hey, guys! Look what I did! This is about a mosque, right? So I compared the Twin Towers to Mecca! Because this story is about a mosque! The only way I could improve on this is working in a turban somewhere. Or maybe a camel.”

And the cloud-thrusting Twin Towers

Unintentional penis metaphor count: 3.

The iconography of Sept. 11 was captured in that haunting spectacle. But there were so many images burned into memory — a falling man, leaping to his death from one of the flame-engulfed towers, the ash-covered fellow in a brown suit, still clutching his briefcase as he emerged from billows of debris, accordioned fire trucks, a tattered American flag planted in the wreckage.

In case you were not aware that 9/11 happened, DiManno prepares the Cliff Notes version for you. There are four more paragraphs of this. Most writers would say, “You know, it’s been nine years. Maybe people don’t need to be reminded of what happened on 9/11. Maybe, just maybe, they will remember the most important day of the last decade all by themselves.” But DiManno is not most writers.

Poll after poll has shown Americans are far from divided on the issue. Indeed, Americans are remarkably united. A Washington Post-ABC News poll released Thursday found two-thirds objected to the project, with 82 per cent of those saying their disapproval was based on the centre’s location.
To extrapolate from those figures, 200 million Americans can’t be broadly accused of Islamophobia.

Of course, at the same time the poll was released, information on the poll was also released which demonstrated that opposition to the centre was largely driven by Islamophobes: of the 66% of Americans who oppose the project, two-thirds of them have generally unfavorable views of Islam.
Now, granted, we had to use Google to find that widely-circulated blog post hosted by the paper which commissioned the poll, and that might have been too much work for DiManno. However, there’s really no excuse for her to not have simply taken a glance at the raw poll data, which shows quite clearly that 49% of Americans have an unfavorable view of Islam, 31% believe Islam to promote violence, and 26% are willing to admit they’re prejudiced against Muslims.

It is not Islam that’s being rejected, not Muslims. It’s the sensitivity of the venue, the belief that a Muslim centre two blocks from Ground Zero is a provocation to the sensibilities of Americans and disrespectful to the memory of the 2,749 who perished there.

DiManno here writes such a self-contradictory paragraph it’s a wonder she didn’t get whiplash. “It’s not Islam that’s being rejected—it’s just Islam right there. That’s two different things!” This is weasel writing of the highest order: DiManno wants to play bigot without having to actually get stuck with the label. If that happened, the Star might realize what a horrible person she is, and then fire her, and then she’d have to go work at the Post and spend all day sharing a desk with Christina Blizzard. (Actually, the idea of DiManno and Blizzard sharing a desk is sort of like imagining what happens when Lex Luthor teams up with the Joker.)
And of course DiManno never says outright that all Muslims bear collective guilt for the crime of a handful of fanatics. She just implies it.

Many have noted that the area beyond Ground Zero is hardly hallowed ground, with sleazy porn shops and tacky bars abounding.
There were no porn purveyors among the 19 hijackers of those four planes. It’s a stupid analogy.

It’s not an analogy at all, Rosie. Nobody is analogizing anything here except you, and we don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. Saying that the part of Lower Manhattan where the community centre would be built is not hallowed ground has nothing to do with the hijackers. Seriously, Torontoist has collectively examined this sentence over and over and we have absolutely no idea what DiManno’s point is. “Because the hijackers weren’t pornographers, that means the Ground Zero mosque can’t be built next to porn shops” is our best guess.

Americans have been endlessly lectured about Islamophobia. Repeatedly they’ve been told not to equate terrorism and the specific events of 9/11 with 1.5 billion Muslims around the globe. Overwhelmingly, they’ve heeded that call. They’ve not tried to outlaw hijabs worn by schools girls, as in France, or banned minarets, as in a canton of Switzerland.

“Twenty-eight percent of [American] voters do not believe Muslims should be eligible to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. Nearly one third of the country thinks adherents of Islam should be barred from running for President.”
Of course, what’s really impressive here is DiManno’s insinuation that past refusal to engage in bigoted politics somehow gives a country a free pass to do it. In RosieLand, everybody is expected to be at least, oh, 15% horrible. If you are only 10% horrible for five years, that means you can be 40% horrible immediately afterward! Because you’ve earned it! Of course, by this logic, DiManno will have to immediately stop being horrible and then live to one hundred and twelve to make up her current horribleness overdraft.

But there is a weariness with the religious continually intruding into the public realm.
While the U.S. has laboured to avoid perceptions of injustice towards Muslims — a difficult task when simultaneously combatting terrorism and waging two wars in Muslim lands — there’s been precious little regard for Western values in many Muslim societies.

This commences the third part of DiManno’s extended whine, which is that third world Islamic countries are repressive places so why does the West always have to respect religious freedom, huh? (This includes a complaint that the Dome of the Rock was built on top of the Temple Mount in 691 A.D., which was certainly not very friendly of Muslims, but then again going there opens up the whole Crusades thing.)
DiManno’s too petty by half to bother with the answer to that question, which is simple: people who live in liberal democracies respect religious freedom because that’s who we are and that’s who we choose to be. “We,” in this instance, includes a Muslim community that’s probably the world’s most prosperous, because the Ground Zero mosque issue isn’t about “us and them,” it’s about us and us.
Now, DiManno actually has a point when she says that Islamophobia doesn’t account for all opposition to the Ground Zero mosque. Probably it would have been a more compelling argument if it hadn’t been buried between 9/11 anniversary tragiporn and complaining that Saudi Arabian money built a mosque only two klicks away from St. Peter’s Basilica, which apparently offends DiManno because it falls inside the No Muslims zone. Maybe this is the start of a series of columns wherein DiManno explains where Muslims are allowed to build mosques!

That doesn’t make it a good idea. The symbolism is too arousing.

Unintentional penis metaphor count: 4.

Filed under: , , , , ,

Report error Send a tip

Comments

  • http://www.amoresplendidlife.com Richard Whittall

    File this under Joe Fiorito, Christie Blatchford, Margaret Wente. Idiot emotionalizers sell newspapers…

  • mark.

    I’m tempted to agree with Richard Whittall, except I don’t think they’re “idiots.” I strongly believe that many of these newspaper writers (not journalists) write articles that will get attention (reads and clicks for advertising, please their editors, owners, etc.) and do not truly believe what they’re writing. They’re not “idiots,” they’re very clever at selling newspapers.

  • http://undefined JDurbs

    Sure Ground Zero was hallowed, in some loose sense of the word. There was a Muslim prayer room on the 17th Floor of the South Tower of the WTC.
    Anyway, back to the point of the article. STFU, Rosie.

  • http://bit.ly/accozzaglia accozzaglia

    Rosie DiManno is the P.T. Barnum of Toronto’s “common sense” (read: “woodenheaded”) set. Christopher, I’m glad you brought up today’s 9/11 DiManno rant. I was confused, thinking, “Wait, what? You’re a Toronto columnist. Quit muddling in American affairs by echoing everything you can as easily hear from American networks.”
    She is her own cliché, having evolved her “narrative” style (in an opinion column, no less) absolutely none at all over these last twenty years. It’s as if as a writer (and person), she stopped intellectually and emotionally growing sometime during the Art Eggleton mayoralty, maybe earlier.
    I became aware of this from poring over microfilm reels going back to the early and mid-1990s for a major research undertaking of a triple murder event in 1996 and antecedent murder case in 1992. With murder cases, she is usually fond of stoning the suspects before they have been tried by the Crown and waxing maudlin for the victims (and their families).
    In hindsight, the only thing different about DiManno’s comments between that triple murder event and her usual fare was that she tore apart not the murderer (who was “a good Italian-Canadian boy from Woodbridge”, a fact she drummed to death), but the victims for being both sex workers and sexual minorities and getting what they deserved for being “deviant.” While he was on the lam, she spent most of her column inches on stigmatizing the victims.
    Early on in that research, I asked her by email whether she would be willing to expand on anything she remembered from when that event occurred.
    DiManno’s reply:
    “Since you state off the top that you don’t often read my column, I see no reason to share my thoughts on sex trade workers, all of which have already been stated in print. It’s a weird approach you have, I must say.”
    She didn’t expand on what that “approach” was or what was “weird” beyond disclosing that I wasn’t a regular follower. After that, it got me to read more of her drivel with mouth-breathing glee. It was a million brain-cell penalty where my only drooling consolation was verifying how she has written this weakly and with the tabloid depth of a Toronto Telegram for a very long time.
    She knows she’s a hack in every sense of the literary and journalistic meaning. She’s more than OK with that. It pays her salary and endows her with a name to be discussed around town. She is our very own Laura Schlessinger. Were the Toronto Star to drop her in some downsizing of print services, she would have nothing, be nothing, and be nowhere. I don’t think that her and her ink chum and blood sister Christine Blatchford at The Globe could even capitalize a successful brand for themselves — together or solo — were they both to leave their lofty broadsheet pedestals for something bigger. They serve too much of a purpose to be the socially-backward foils for a city-oriented newspaper and a city-national newspaper of record, respectively. Maybe if DiManno and Blatchford started a national pundit tag-team with a much bigger scope to capture Canada’s fringe elements who eat up their style, then possibly.
    Speaking of size envy . . .

  • http://undefined metabaron

    perhaps both sides – those for building the mosque and those against it should be more willing to make compromises. i am surprised that regardless if it should be built or shouldn’t not one of the imams or muslim clerics came forward that they are ready to talk this over. I fully support the building of the mosque – I just think both sides need to get some dialogue going. but then that would be too easy, no?

  • http://undefined soru

    I think, were it the case that the ground zero mosque controversy involved a mosque being built at or near the ground zero site, then, despite the principles of absolute religious freedom embodied in the US constitution, on pragmatic grounds a compromise might well be in order.
    Seeing as the issue is, in fact, entirely a fabrication by bigots, dupes of bigots and those who seek to manipulate bigots, then the scope for compromise is about the same as were I to demand you give me a million dollars for reading this post.
    Sometimes, half of one sides negotiating position is not a reasonable middle ground compromise.

  • http://bit.ly/accozzaglia accozzaglia

    For the record:
    1) Park51 is the name of the Muslim community centre at the core of this kerfuffle. It is not a mosque. It is not a house of worship. It is an open centre designed to serve the same community-oriented function as our own Miles Nadal Jewish Community Centre does at Bloor and Spadina or a flagship YMCA/YWCA centre.
    2) The vacant building in which Park51 is proposed is not in the World Trade Centre zone. It is not across the street from the World Trade Center area. It is two blocks to the north of and around the corner from the WTC’s northern boundary. An actual house of worship, St. Paul’s Chapel, is closer and also faces the WTC.
    3) Just today, St. Paul’s went on record supporting the development of the Park51 community centre.

  • http://undefined EricSmith

    She even gets the Swiss minaret ban wrong: it’s federal.

    There is no reason to talk about compromise in this case. The compromise is that these guys build their community centre, and the trouble-making crybabies who’re trying to talk the rest of us sensible people into thinking that the World Trade Center is some kind of a disputed holy site get to shut up and go home before I come find them.

    Seriously, I wish they’d go back to kooking out over fluoridation or something.

  • http://undefined EricSmith

    designed to serve the samefunction as … [the] Jewish Community Centreor a flagship YMCA/YWCA centre.

    With this kind of juxtaposition, it’ll only take the dim recollection of a Village People song for the bigoted loons to jump to the obvious conclusion: the Terror Mosk is a towel-head plot to turn our children into homo-semites!

  • rek

    “[They] do not truly believe what they’re writing.”
    There’s a word for that.

  • http://undefined joeclark

    I’ll be happy to sign on to that analogy if and only if there are no batshit Muslim restrictions on who can use the facility and how, e.g., girls in bikinis can swim alongside men in Speedos, there’s no separate women’s entrance for any function or purpose, and gay and lesbian couples can sign up for family memberships.

  • mark.
  • http://undefined rupert

    Disagree. To me it’s analagous to the German government building a new Polish consulate at Auschwitz. Sure, the current generation of Germans, and for that matter most of the WW2 generation, had no involvement in the Holocaust but they are still keenly aware of the symbolism and sensitivities around such things.
    Just because you have the right to do something doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.

  • http://bit.ly/accozzaglia accozzaglia

    How do you reckon?
    What have Muslim American citizen-ancestors now living in Manhattan and planning a community centre adversely done to the U.S. which would compare to latter-day German descendants of a totalitarian nation-state regime run by a dictator and supported by the organization of several hundred thousands of troops and special police?
    The correct answer is “nothing.”
    Your analogy presumes that Muslim Americans are not American, but descendants of an antecedent invasion force whose descendants are determined to create a beachhead on former enemy grounds. This is not the case, was not the case, nor was ever the case. To analogize otherwise, as you have done, is an act of historical recklessness.
    The analogy you present is also blind to the two prayer spaces that served their sacred daily purpose on both the 17th floor of the 2 WTC and between floors 106 and 107 of 1 WTC (i.e., Windows on the World), in which several people who were Muslim, some of whom were probably in either of these prayer spaces coming to terms with their imminent death, were killed either at time of jet impact or later when structural failure brought the buildings down.
    Your analogy smells funny like milk gone off.

  • http://bit.ly/accozzaglia accozzaglia

    On that first sentence, I meant to say “What have ancestors of Muslim American citizen-descendants now living in Manhattan and planning a community centre for their locality done to the U.S. which would compare to latter-day German descendants of a totalitarian nation-state run by a dictator and supported by the organization of several hundred thousands of troops and special police?”
    The corrections are noted in italics.

  • http://undefined rupert

    Congratulations, it’s no mean feat to restate my argument while completely misunderstanding it.
    You ask “What have ancestors of Muslim American citizen-descendants now living in Manhattan and planning a community centre for their locality done to the U.S. which would compare to latter-day German descendants of a totalitarian nation-state run by a dictator and supported by the organization of several hundred thousands of troops and special police?”
    The answer is that both groups are innocent of wrongdoing, and yet in the minds of many survivors and families affected by 9/11 and the Holocaust respectively, their cultural iconography and symbols are painful reminders of those events. Why would it be such a hardship for the Islamic group to recognize that and change their plans, while at the same time continuing to build the bridges that polls indicate are clearly needed between American Muslims and much of the US population?
    It’s not about right or wrong, it’s about simple kindness. Cultural sensitivity is a two-way street.

  • http://bit.ly/accozzaglia accozzaglia

    This is perhaps because I find your argument flawed.
    Maybe it’s forgotten by the many now trumpeting the “No Mosque on Ground Zero” refrain that this wasn’t some American victimization where all 2,976 (or higher) victims were eligible to carry a U.S. passport. As it is frequently argued by media pundits now, one might believe that this only impacted American citizens. An immensely diverse mix of nationalities, classes, and belief values made up the people who went to work or travel that day and never made it home, and this is a point which should not be lost in the din of American exceptionalism (of a notably Judeo-Christian timbre).
    The sensitivities of an outspoken opposition (I question whether actual families of all the victims opposed to Park51 constitute a majority, but for sake of our discussion, let’s say it is a majority) are noted. But to try to countermand the very first pillar of the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights is an act of tyranny by the majority. “Cultural sensitivity” consequently becomes code for the detrimental discrimination of a class under marginalization by an antagonistic body.
    As for Americans in opposition to Park51 whose connection to the events on September 11th, 2001, did not involve a loved one or colleague (and particularly those who’ve never been to New York, nor ever intend to visit), their objections to Park51 and to Muslim Americans generally are noted for the record. As with the highly unpopular desegregation enactments a half-century ago, in which a majority of Americans through wide swathes of that nation were revolted by the idea of Jim Crow being quashed federally, a tyranny of majority has no place in the rule of law when the rule of law is to uphold the fundamental tenets of the constitution upon which it is founded.
    And that is where, in American parlance, the buck stops.

  • http://robsonian.tumblr.com/ Robsonian

    Bring back Di Manno watch.
    Rosie, STFU – GTFO.
    That is all.

  • http://undefined Solex

    @Richard Whittall: Fiorito is not as half of a gadfly as the others mentioned. His article on the Air Show was a breath of fresh air, and one that was sorely needed. The others….well they’re full of shit as we all know they are.
    @rupert: What accozzaglia said, 200X.
    As for Rosie…chalk up another reason not to read the Star that much, or at least, her portion of it.
    @joeclark: I hate to say it, but what the Muslims do there is none of anybody’s fracking business but their own. It is still a place of religious worship, after all. Also, what you just said (‘e.g., girls in bikinis can swim alongside men in Speedos, there’s no separate women’s entrance for any function or purpose, and gay and lesbian couples can sign up for family memberships’) means little or nothing in the current debate.

  • http://undefined rek

    Taliban and Al-Qaeda membership accounts for less than 0.003% of the total Muslim population.
    (Based on: 1.5 billion Muslims, 1,000 Al-Qaeda members, and 36,000 Taliban members.)

  • http://www.torontoist.com David Topping

    Fiorito deserves defending, I agree. Maybe not for that Air Show piece, but in general.

  • http://undefined EricSmith

    By those figures, trained airplane pilots bear more proportionate collective guilt for the September 11th attacks than Muslims do.

    One might hope that popularizing this comparison would shut certain people up, but they’ll just wave their hands and claim that 1.5 billion Muslims are insufficiently anti-terrorist — as if you could even check.

  • http://bit.ly/accozzaglia accozzaglia

    His byline photo should try to look a little less dour, which would probably go a long way to evince that he’s not all doom and gloom. Honey, not vinegar.

  • Anonymous

    this article was wholly satisfying to read… torontoist is now on my daily lookaround