Ricardo J Gonzalez for a Better America

Michelle Malkin, conservative blogger and commentator, is declaring a Jihad against scarves. The AP reports that Dunkin' Donuts pulled an online ad featuring celebrity Chef Rachael Ray because of Ms. Malkin's complaint that the scarf resembled a Keffiyeh, which she describes as "Hate Couture". The company responded by pulling the ad and apologizing.



I'm not even sure where to begin with this one. Malkin seems to be dedicating a bit of time to this issue, and on her website she has a page dedicated to shaming celebrities wearing these Keffiyeh's. In some cases it seems justified, such as with Ricky Martin incident, where he was found with one inscribed with the words "Jerusalem is Ours" written in Arabic. It is not a big leap to say that this particular case is referring to the rallying cry of many terrorist organizations, as Ms. Malkin claims. What really irks me about this entire situation, is not that she's attacking people like Martin, who ignorantly display slogan's they probably didn't understand. I have taken up the same issue with people wearing Ché shirts in the past. What bothers me is not that she would take issue with these symbols of hate, which she would be correct in doing, but that she would go out of her way to mis-categorize and convert a traditional Arabic headpiece, into a symbol of terrorist support. I can't think of a clearer example of someone's prejudice and bigotry finding fire where there is no smoke. The logic that leads to the conclusion that Malkin comes to can only look something like:

1. Some terrorists wear Keffiyeh's.
2. Rachel Ray wore a Keffiyeh
_____
Thus, Rachel Ray supports terrorists.

which is akin to claiming that anyone with an Asian symbol tattoo, must be a supporter of the Triads. What's next, is she going to accuse algebra teachers of being terrorist supporters? Certain symbols do have meanings, and to and it is important that people understand them because what to you might be a "Cool symbol" to others might be an endorsement of genocide, or hate. One of the wonderful things about freedom of speech is that it allows us to call people out who are knowingly, as is usually the case with swastikas for example, or unknowingly, as is probably the case with Ricky Martin, using these symbols to further messages that we find distasteful. But with the Dunkin' Donuts example it's simply not the case. The case is that Malkin is manufacturing controversy where none exists, most likely to try and find out how much power her pulpit holds.

The immediate submission of Dunkin' Donuts to this bullying is just saddening. If the keffiyeh had hidden messages supporting terrorists like Ricky Martin's did it would be one thing, just as if she had been wearing an armband with a swastika, but in it's current state the only thing that Dunkin' Donuts was guilty of was of a cosmopolitan fashion sense. If the company wants to take an active stance on national political issues, like it has with illegal immigration, they have just missed an excellent opportunity to say "we do not agree with the fear-mongers' suggestion that the use of Arabic fashion implies a support for terrorist extremists".