It seems a new strategy has arisen from Muslims tied to Saudi Arabia, the same group of people who brought to you 9/11, to destroy the west: the pecking to death by ducks strategy, whereby the "political correctness" and "sensitivity" memes of the liberal left are used as a crowbar to beat Western Civilization to death.
Case in point: Muslims Offended by British Flag, where the director of the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding uses political correctness to state that the British Flag's use of the Cross of St. George is an offensive and insensitive reminder of the Crusades.
Case in point: British Dhimmitude Watch, where Piglet is banned from the council office at Dudley Council, West Midlands, U.K., because it represents a pig--which may be offensive to the Muslim staff.
Case in point: CAIR Day in Tampa, where the Tampa Tribune bashes readers for reacting negatively to "burka-clad women"--which immediately sets up the "political correctness force field" around any discussions regarding burkas (such as wondering if those women would choose to wear a burka or not), since asking the question could simply be western "rubes" not understanding the sophisticated "otherness" of muslim culture.
I have nothing against the religion of Islam. Trust me when I state that matters of faith must necessarly be a personal choice between oneself and one's God or Gods or lack thereof.
However, what we have here is a conflation of two ideas which has resulted in a rather awkward situation, one where political correctness (and our desire to get along with people we may not necessarly understand) is now being used against us to deconstruct our Western society--to the cheering of many on the Left, who have been trying to do this for years with less success.
The first idea, of course, is that muslim religion and Arabic culture co-mingled. I used the statement "muslim" above when I properly should have used "Arabic"--however, because they have been co-mingled, we read things like "Muslims seek better ties" and "Sharing Muslim culture", when it is Arabic culture which we are discussing. Islam is a religion--and while it influences the culture of Arabia just like Christianity influences the culture of the United States--the culture (wearing burkas, being offended by Piglet, claiming the flag of Great Britain is offensive) is Arabic, not Islamic.
But by co-mingling these two, Arabic cultural features (such as repressing women, honor killings, using suicide bombers against a civilian population) wind up receiving some of the "protection" we in the United States often provide subconsciously to items of faith. Instinctively most of us in the United States back away from questioning articles of faith (such as the belief in a monotheistic trinity, or in the holiness of the Torah)--and by placing Burkas (and the implicit repression of women) on the same level of the Torah makes this cultural feature "untouchable" as an article of religious faith rather than as a cultural mechanism of the repression of women.
The second idea is much more incidious, and that is the multicultural idea of the equivalency of cultures. At one level there is a certain equivalency, of course: picking between Chinese and Japanese food, or between Arabic or Persian rugs, or between Italian food or American food is a matter of personal preference. Architecture is similar: the Moorish constructed palaces in Spain sit side by side with the Catholic constructed Cathedrals as representations of the architectual skills and construction know-how of each of the different cultures, and the different choices they made.
However, there is only so far this equivalency can be taken. There are some absolutes that we can establish by which we can measure a culture: some ideas which are clearly superior to other ideas. Treating women as equal to men in areas of law is clearly superior to treating women as cattle. Treating all men as free and equal (classical egalitarianism--or rather, meritocratic egalitarianism) is clearly superior to handicapping some because they prove to be superior in their own mental or physical capabilities (enforced equality), which is clearly superior to inequivalency in law through heredity (racial laws or right of birth). Allowing all men the right to participate in the political process (democracy or republicanism) is clearly superior to only allowing those who are special via right of birth to participate in the political process (monarchy).
To suggest that the repression of women is simply a "cultural choice" in the same way as choosing one's food or the style and cut of one's clothes is to make a complete mockary of the advances of Women's Rights through the 50's and 60's. Yet Multiculturalism essentially makes that equivalency, as if a woman being beaten half to death by her Arabic husband because she showed her face in public simply choose the culture in which she lived in.
When we make these two errors: when we assume cultures are equivalent--as if the woman above just made an informed cultural choice rather than is a victim of spousal abuse--and when we conflate Islam with Arabic Culture--we set ourselves up with the hard choice of either having to raise some taboo subjects, or to have our own way of life torn apart by a thousand paper cuts.
Odd isn't no outcry against images of dogs, which are considered FAR more unclean than pigs by a factor of 7