After years of millions of illegal immigrants arriving, by boat, trucks and aircraft, often carrying no documentation and launching fake asylum claims, Britain finally starts to get tough on them. Well, at least one of them...
Yes - Tommy Robinson, the leader of the English Defence League, was found guilty of travelling to the USA, while identifying himself using a friend's passport. This in order to stay for one day, to attend a rally in memory of the September 11 attacks, before heading back to Britain. Quite possibly the shortest voluntary stay for an illegal immigrant in the history of the USA.
Usually, the punishment for illegal immigrants, if any, is deportation - although Britain is known for rewarding them with large benefits - and when they're found guilty of holding false passports, the courts even allow them to retain their fraudulently-acquired flats. Not so for Tommy Robinson, however - for his troubles, he ended up getting a 10-month prison sentence. This, in Britain, is longer than the sentence for more than half of all burglars.
At the same time, the London rapper Dappy is in the process of being charged with three counts of assault, as well as affray, for an incident in which 2 girls were spat at, followed by 3 men sustaining serious facial injuries (one of whom had 9 teeth missing). Dappy is alleged to have committed both the spitting and the assaults...
It will be interesting to see what the British justice system regards as the more serious: causing serious facial injuries and lifelong damage, or entering another country illegally, for a period of one day, before returning.
But then, Dappy is no ordinary thug. In his own words, he said that the Guardian was his favourite newspaper. And in 2011, the Guardian was all-too-eager to repay him with a long interview, giving him some much-needed free publicity... Will we see them give similar red-carpet treatment to someone else falling foul of the law - Tommy Robinson? I won't hold my breath...
Lena Dunham talks here about her first time - and that it should be "with a great guy"...
Well, her "guy" (the one she's going to vote for, anyway) and his team sure look like they're "great" - at controlling what people write about him (and his opponent):
Is this Obama's "great" respect for free speech and the first amendment in action?
Update: A parody is already out... and contains more than 7 times the amount of comments as the original video!
Yesterday - on the 11th anniversary of the September 11th attacks, followers of the Religion of Peace went into its predictable mode of outrage following an obscure, low-budget film about the Islamic prophet Mohammed. It resulted in the death of Christopher Stevens, the US ambassador to Libya, and 3 other staffers.
To which the first response of the US embassy in Cairo was:
"The Embassy of the United States in
Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt
the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend
believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September
11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring
our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to
the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone
of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse
the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of
others."
Note - after murderous attacks by fanatical followers of Islam, the US government already lays the blame at the door of US citizens producing the aforementioned film. More - it declares that they have "abused" their first-amendment rights. Did it release such statements after "piss Christ" or similar offending of Christian beliefs?
But what was the film actually about? Turns out the 13-minute trailer for it is still on Youtube.
My initial impressions of it were as follows:
Low-budget? Yes
Blatantly fake shots of deserts and palm trees? Yes
Suitable for worst film of the week on TV? Yes
Making fun of Mohammed? Yes
Tackling the most-"controversial" bits of his life? Definitely
Showing him in any humiliating/gross scenes? Maybe 2 seconds - where he is shown near a woman's crotch.
Apart from these aspects, the film does actually try to tackle serious aspects of Mohammed's life - such as his 6-year-old bride Aisha, or another of his wives, Safiyya bint Huyayy, whose husband was killed by Mohammed's men - apparently in cold blood... Even if the film was not a great one - it was one that actually tried to tackle these subjects. Something that may well be a first in the history of cinema.
It didn't take long for the Guardian to get in on the action of bashing those who had "abused their right of free speech". So out came Andrew Brown, who even compared this low-budget production to films of terrorists chopping off peoples' heads:
"If jihadi videos are banned in this country, and their distributors
prosecuted, the same should be true of this film and for the same
reasons."
Apparently for some, it's too difficult to distinguish between glorifying homicidal maniacs and ridiculing them....
I wrote the following response to one of Andrew Brown's comments:
No: the offence is not blasphemy but incitement to religious hatred. They can be distinguished quite easily.
Here's some more text that could be construed as "incitement to religious hatred"...
O
ye who believe! surely, the idolaters are unclean. So they shall not
approach the Sacred Mosque after this year of theirs. And if you fear
poverty, Allah will enrich you out of His bounty, if He pleases. Surely,
Allah is All-Knowing, Wise.
Fight those from among the People of
the Book who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor hold as
unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have declared to be unlawful, nor
follow the true religion, until they pay the tax with their own hand and
acknowledge their subjection.
And the Jews say, Ezra is the son
of Allah, and the Christians say, the Messiah is the son of Allah; that
is what they say with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who
disbelieved before them. Allah’s curse be on them! How are they turned
away!
(Quran 9:28-30)
Not only incitement to hatred - but 9:29 may be understood as a clear incitement to violence too. Which I believe is illegal, under UK law...
Just out of curiosity, would you also be in favour of making these texts illegal?
This comment was written under an old Guardian username, Falcon3, under which all my comments are pre-moderated. It was never published. I had also written the following as a response to another comment:
Why do you choose to accept the version of the story that says Aisha
bte Abu Bakr was 6 and not other accounts that say she was between 19?
Here is the Hadith of al-Bukhari, Book 7, Volume 62, Hadith 88: The
Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six
years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years
old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).
Sunni
Muslims view this as one of the three most trusted collections of
hadith along with Sahih Muslim and al-Muwatta [1]. In some circles, it
is considered the most authentic book after the Qur'an.
So, what's your basis for saying Aisha was 19? Anything more "authentic"??
This comment was also not published. Apparently on the Guardian, it's now unacceptable to cite Quranic verses, as well as Hadiths. Is this the censorship they seek for those who "abuse their right of free speech"? And what further action will they seek against such "thought criminals" in the future?
The likes of Terry Jones and Sam Bacile may at times seem unnecessarily offensive. But the likes of Andrew Brown and the Guardian moderators are, on the face of it, an infinitely bigger threat to the foundation of our societies.
A long time ago, back in 1997, a new Labour government came to power, bearing a slogan: "New Labour - New Britain". Its leader, Tony Blair, promised a new "Cool Britannia". Later, Blair vowed to "defeat" the "forces of conservatism". The 15 years since his election have taken the country on a long journey through rampant, deliberate and unprecedented levels of immigration, empowerment of Islamist groups, reducing the BBC to a propaganda station and a gradual battle with the country's own people and culture. And now, in the last few weeks, 5 stories emerge to illustrate the desirables, and undesirables, of this New Britain.
First, the undesirables - who are unwelcome in the New Britain:
1) John Tulloch: A July 7 2005 bombing victim, born to British parents, lecturing at a London university college - and facing deportation from Britain. His "crime" - being born in India, while it was still a colony. By a decades-old legal quirk, it meant he was ineligible for UK citizenship. So he was forced to hand back the passport he had "wrongly" received, and now faces possible deportation. Below is John Tulloch just after the 2005 terror attacks: (image from the Daily Mail website):
As a comment below the article shows, he's not the only one to face such an experience:
"I'm in a similar boat. We can't settle in the UK, where I was born 70 years ago, because my wife's a Kiwi and would be deported on my death. When she applied for UK citizenship, when we lived there, she was asked, by a Sikh official, if our marriage (at that time of 30 years; now 40, was one of "convenience." I kid you not." - protem, Burgundy, France, 3/9/2012 10:23
This implies that the visit to the Sikh official, culminating in his "perceptive" question, happened around 2002 - long after the "New Britain" revolution had started...
Some possible reasons, and ways Mr Tulloch could avoid being deported, are also mentioned in other comments:
"The problem is Mr Tulloch you were prepared to work in the UK, if you were a scrounger you would have a lovelly big and free house in London and never have to work again. Shame on this government." - jo-jo was a man, bahrain, 3/9/2012 5:02
"Yet if he had set off the same bomb that injured him he would be welcomed with open arms by the idiots in charge." - alzie, Cumbria ., 3/9/2012 10:28
"WHY IS HE FACING DEPORTATION? " Easy , I know why . It is because he is actually legitimately British , and as reported , born of British parents serving the country in a British colony , he has devoted his life to the education of others in this country , he also has paid his taxes and has no criminal record , thus he does not qualify to live in the cesspit of the world otherwise known as the UK. Oh, I forgot . . . . and suffered horrendous injuries and shock whilst going about his lawful business perpetrated by terrorists truly foreign to this country . Yup , obviously he must be the first out of the door so we can harbour and give succour unto illegal benefit scroungers , terrorists and honour bliar's human rights rubbish . We are trying to leave the cesspit so if he wants to come with us he is more than welcome . - Lara, London UK, 3/9/2012 5:21
Sadly, far-feched as these comments may sound, they allude to frequent events: wannabe terrorists, criminals and benefit receivers entering as illegal immigrants being given leave to stay - and often receiving British passports in the process. They are almost always never asked to hand them back, like John Tulloch.
"Christians should leave their religious beliefs at home or accept that a
personal expression of faith at work, such as wearing a cross, means
they might have to resign and get another job, government lawyers have
said."
The official reason for such a statement:
"James Eadie QC, acting for the government, told the European court that the
refusal to allow an NHS nurse and a British Airways worker to visibly wear a
crucifix at work “did not prevent either of them practicing religion in
private”, which would be protected by human rights law."
Is that really so? Will we now then see the government ban the Muslim Burqa and Hijab from its offices - on account of such a ban "not preventing Muslim women from practicing religion in private"?
To see how such a proposition would sound in reality, let's make a very slight change to the original sentence:
"Hindus should leave their religious beliefs at home or accept that a
personal expression of faith at work, such as a 'Bindi' on the forehead, means
they might have to resign and get another job, government lawyers have
said."
Or
"Muslims should leave their religious beliefs at home or accept that a
personal expression of faith at work, such as wearing a Hijab, means
they might have to resign and get another job, government lawyers have
said."
What would the reaction be to such a sentence being uttered by a government representative? Accusations of hate? Bigotry? But apparently, it's perfectly ok to say something similar about Christians...
The lawyer also mentioned the following:
"Government lawyers also told the Strasbourg court that wearing a cross is not
a “generally recognised” act of Christian worship and is not required by
scripture."
For many Christians, wearing a Crucifix is an important part of their faith - and something they have done for most of their lives. Whereas in Islam, many women do not wear the Hijab or Burqa. So who's to say that the Crucifix "is not a generally recognised act of Christian worship" - but that the Hijab is an act of Muslim worship?! Naturally, the ever-unbiased British justice system is assumed to be the best judge of that!
3) Last but not least, those protesting against the radical Islam which has become so prominent in the New Britain. They came last weekend to Walthamstow in London, to protest against the attempted enforcement of Sharia law in the area. The reception by radical Muslim and "anti-racist" groups such as United Against Fascism was predictable. What was new, however, was the type of treatment meted out by the police, meant to be protecting their right to democratic assembly and protest. Among the incidents (from Gates of Vienna):
A man bleeding from deep gashes to the head (believed to have
been inflicted by Muslim protestors) in clear view of dozens of
officers, offered no medical aid, not even basic first-aid.
A
heavily pregnant woman kettled in and detained with the others and
released only after dark. (There were reports that she had been
vomiting, having being denied access to water and toilet facilities for
many hours .)
People forced to remain on their feet for eight hours or more.
Water and toilet facilities agreed by the police only after angry and vociferous protests from the crowd.
People complaining to police officers of chronic pain due to not being able to relieve themselves.
Others,
unable to contain themselves any longer, forced to endure the
humiliation of urinating or defecating in full sight of the crowd, in a
busy public place.
Searching of individuals taking many
hours longer than necessary, with only a handful of officers deployed
for the task, whilst dozens of others sat on the kerb drinking water or
stood idly chatting.
Individuals who, having been searched and found clean, were arrested, handcuffed and put into police vans.
Reports of women left by the police in unfamiliar locations in dead of night.
A compilation of video footage, put together by Vlad Tepes, can be seen here.
All this leading Paul Weston, leader of the British Freedom party and ex-candidate for MP of Westminster to conclude:
"Freedom of Assembly and Freedom of Speech died in Walthamstow on September 1st 2012".
So is freedom of speech another of those "undesirable" traits of New Britain?
Taking the places of the undesirables in the New Britain are the desirables. Those wanted, supported and, by many on the side of the new regime, even celebrated:
1) Those in Walthamstow protesting against the anti-radical-Islam protesters:
While the English Defence League are the undesirable "racists", these are the "anti-racist heroes" protesting against them. No doubt the "Islam" that they want to "dominate" would be every bit as respectful of (what's left of) British culture as the powers-that-be in Britain are respectful of Islam, today... or would it?
2) Earlier this summer, the East London rapper Dizzee Rascal performed at the Olympics opening ceremony:
At 0:20 of the video, he sings, in front of the Queen, dignitaries from around the World, and a worldwide audience of around a billion people, the memorable line:
"And all I care about is sex and violence..."
With the London riots, carried out by "youth" in large part listening to artists such as Dizzee Rascal, only a year old, this seems to have been a fitting line to summarise the defining values of the New Britain.
So, with these flag-bearers of the New Britain in mind, perhaps there is a way to ensure that the 7/7 victim John Tulloch stays in the country? Perhaps if he was a rapper glorifying violence, or an Islamic supremacist Jihadi wannabe, he would not be now facing deportation?
First my comments were put up for pre-moderation. Now it looks like, despite my best attempts to stick within their rules, I've been banned from Harry's Place altogether. 2 of my comments on their "Christians" thread did not even make it past pre-moderation. Only the last one I had saved on my computer - a reply to sarka - so I will repost it here. The topic concerns a young Pakistani-Christian girl accused of burning a Quran, and comparisons between this case and Pussy Riot's trial in Moscow for breaking into a cathedral to play a concert.
Sarka's original reply to me was here:
Green Infidel:
If a group of Muslim (or of Muslim background) women went into a mosque,
and cavorted a bit chanting a ditty that went “Oh Allah, oh for the
sake of Ayesha, drive out (insert name of political leader in Muslim-maj
state), and may crap fall on the head of (insert name of leading imam),
oh we are feminists for Allah! etc etc…” Then THAT would be a sort of
equivalent. An EDL group rushing into a mosque in shoes and chanting.
“Allah Allah, who the fuck is Allah?”, would NOT be an equivalent.
As far as I know, all the convicted Pussy Rioters are at least vaguely
Russian Orthodox Christian by background (none are of other faiths by
background, anyway – I am sure if one had been Muslim, or Jewish by
background we would have heard about that!), and they made reference to
RO cultural traditions – as being their own, Russian traditions – in
their statements.
To which I replied (banned by HP):
@sarka - what does "their own traditions" mean?! Did the families of Pussy Riot go to church - or were they perhaps a small part of the vast Soviet state apparatus that was, among their other activities, persecuting the Church? That makes a slight difference - for the latter, making fun of religious symbols is something that's likely been practiced for most of their lives... so how exactly would doing so in adulthood be "radical" in any way?! And would you say the descendants of Soviet security forces sending priests to Gulags also share Russian "Orthodox tradition" - and if they acted disrespectfully to Orthodox beliefs, that it would be comparable to people who were once Orthodox doing the same?!
If PR were once Orthodox then the above of course does not apply. But I'm still not sure how it would be any more acceptable - personally as a Catholic, if anything, I would find it more offensive if those from a Catholic background acted disrepectfully towards their former religion than the likes of Ian Paisley. After all, they should know better!
"Acting disrespectfully" is the operative phrase here - PR did not merely criticise Orthodox belief. They went way above that, invading the sacred area of a church to do something seriously offensive to Orthodox believers.
(by comparison, in the case in Pakistan, it is only alleged that a young girl who may have Down's Syndrome did something in any way comparable)
Apparently this was too much for HP's rules - but Sarka, if you're out there - this is my reply. Any on-topic replies posted here will not be removed!
On Sunday, the 2012 London Olympics drew to a close. 2 weeks earlier, the opening Ceremony was a feast of multiculturalism on steroids. And now, in the Closing Ceremony, the song was played that encapsulated the spirit of the Games - and perhaps the ideals of much of Britain's population. That song, of course, being John Lennon's "Imagine"...
Below are the full lyrics:
Imagine there's no heaven It's easy if you try No hell below us Above us only sky Imagine all the people living for today Imagine there's no countries It isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for And no religion too Imagine all the people living life in peace You, you may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one I hope some day you'll join us And the world will be as one Imagine no possessions I wonder if you can No need for greed or hunger A brotherhood of man Imagine all the people sharing all the world You, you may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one I hope some day you'll join us And the world will live as one
The ideas expressed in these lyrics are a large source of what has driven Britain to adopt the multi-cultural, "progressive" form it has today.
John Lennon was among other stars such as Crowded House, the Spice Girls, One Direction, Eric Idle from Monty Python and many others... however, perhaps Professor Green and his hit "Jungle" could have also been included to showcase the wonders of Britain's type of multiculturalism in practice? He raps, after all, about Hackney - an area very close to the Olympic Stadium. Below is the video:
The recent bout of Guardian censorship continues on an article by Mehdi Hasan, as what must be one of the most complete rebuttal comments ever published at the Guardian is deleted - after receiving more than 1600 recommends...
For those not familiar with Hasan - he is a smooth-talking British journalist who up until recently was the editor of the New Statesman.
(one of the two leading British news magazines). And someone who was
also exposed as being not-so-smooth in his other incarnation - as a
Muslim talking to his fellow "brothers":
The main premise of his point - there in the name of the link :)
Mehdi Hasan denied being an "Islamist", and instead wrote to complain about how he was stereotyped because of words "taken out of context".
The third comment of the thread was by quizborg, citing Hasan's earlier offending words (something Hasan failed to do), and posing to him some difficult, but polite, questions... However, after many other comments asking Hasan to answer quizblorg's points, the Guardian moderators had their own answer - to delete quizblorg's comment...
Fortunately, Harry's Place managed to get a copy of the comment,
so it is not wasted but can instead serve to remind us of the two-faced
nature of Mehdi Hasan, as well as the increasingly desperate measures
the Guardian are resorting to.
Pasted below in full is quizborg's deleted rebuttal to Hasan:
Mehdi
I absolutely agree with you that there is a disturbing
phenomenon of nasty and bigoted comments being posted in the comments
box of any piece about Muslims or by a Muslim writer
There is
world of difference between that – which should be condemned – and the
proper criticism of writers who are Muslim, who themselves express
sometimes horrific political views, or use offensive rhetoric. Such
revolting rhetoric should be opposed, always.
You don’t quote from the ’selectively edited speeches’ that you gave. You should.
This was what you said:
““The
kaffar, the disbelievers, the atheists who remain deaf and stubborn to
the teachings of Islam, the rational message of the Quran; they are
described in the Quran as, quote, “a people of no intelligence”, Allah
describes them as; not of no morality, not as people of no belief –
people of “no intelligence” – because they’re incapable of the
intellectual effort it requires to shake off those blind prejudices, to
shake off those easy assumptions about this world, about the existence
of God. In this respect, the Quran describes the atheists as “cattle”,
as cattle of those who grow the crops and do not stop and wonder about
this world.””
Not only did you use the offensive term
‘kaffar’. You said that people who were not Muslim were ‘people of no
intelligence’. Imagine somebody saying that about Muslims -you would
object, and rightly so.
You went on to say:
““In
Islam, to believe is to know. To disbelieve is not to know. That is
what it fundamentally comes down to; it [to disbelieve] is to remain
ignorant; to cover up knowledge. After all, what is ‘kaffar’? Kaffar
comes from the root word which means to cover up, to conceal. The kaffar
is the one who covers up that knowledge which is clear. The French
orientalist scholar Lamens [?], he once wrote that the “Quran is not far
from considering unbelief, disbelief as an infirmity, as an illness, as
a disease of the human mind”. Subhanallah. Non-Muslims point this out
to us.””
What is the ‘context’ within which that is acceptable?
You also said that Muslims needed to improve their standard of
education, and were praised for saying this by your defenders. But you
made this point in the context of … Muslims needing to “outthink” Jews!
”
Our Jewish brethren who we spend so much time fighting and arguing
with: 12 million Jews in the world and 150 nobel prizes to their name.
All Israel’s top 6 universities feature in the top 200 universities on
earth – none of the Muslim world’s top universities feature in top 100
or 200 universities in the world and then we wonder why we are losing
battles – we are not being out-fought we are being out-thought. We are
not underarmed. We are undereducated.””
This was a comment about conflict – battles, arms – with those you think are in conflict with Islam.
The most worrying part of your speech was when you praised the Supreme
Leader of Iran – a Shia religious authority – for his supposed
opposition to nuclear weapons. Is it not worrying that a political
editor of a national newspaper should take the statements of a religious
leader as ‘gospel’, so to speak. It implies that you believe that Iran
is not really building nuclear weapons – and that, I think, is actually
your view. You’re free to hold that view, but to do so on religious
grounds is worrying:
““Ayatollah Khamenei has issued a
fatwa saying the stockpiling, the production, the use of nuclear weapons
us forbidden under Islam. Spot on. Islamic Republic of Iran. The fatwa
of the Supreme Leader.””
The other matter of concern is
that you have shown a readiness to attack others who draw attention to
Islamist hate preachers. Remember this piece?
In it, you attacked the anti-extremists of Quilliam for their report on
hate preaching and extremism on the Islam Channel. You denied it
existed. However – tellingly – you then went on to attack the Islam
Channel itself – because it had broadcast a preacher who had said nasty
things about Shia Islam, your own sect. The Islam Channel was later
censured by OFCOM for precisely the offences that you denied it was
guilty of.
There are other points to make briefly. Lady Warsi
is a politician. She has a close relationship with somebody who was
active in Hizb ut Tahrir. Frankly, if there were a Tory with a close
relationship with a BNP activist, you’d attack them, and rightly so.
They’d probably resign. Similarly, Lord Ahmed, whose record speaks for
itself. Yet, he has been let back into the Labour Party, recently.
Frankly, if these problems are not addressed by us, then the field is
left clear for the BNP and the EDL, and the nastiest people in the
comments box.
The new Egyptian president, Mohammed Morsi, of the Muslim Brotherhood, last week became the latest commentator at the Guardian. With this, came another example of censorship at the Guardian website. (for an earlier case, see here) But was it the Guardian moderators, or Morsi himself (or one of his staff) responsible this time?
"Social justice, freedom and human dignity are our basic slogans..."
"We Egyptians, Muslims and Christians, are harbingers of development and civilisation and we will remain so."
"we will work to have a system of Egyptian values, especially in the area
of freedom and human rights, and women's and children's rights, and to
remove all forms of discrimination."
"Therefore, say with me together my beloved people, by our will and our
unity and our love for each other, we will be able to make a great
future."
Soon enough, in the comments section, PeterNW1 linked to a post by the (US-based) Egyptian Coptic blogger Raymond Ibrahim, who'd found a snippet by President Morsi from six months back:
According to the popular Egyptian website, El Bashayer, Muhammad Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood presidential candidate, just declared that he will "achieve the Islamic conquest (fath) of Egypt for the second time, and make all Christians convert to Islam, or else pay the jizya," the traditional Islamic tax, or financial tribute, required of non-Muslim "dhimmis."
In a brief report written by Samuel al-Ashay and published by El Bashayer on
May 27, Morsi allegedly made these comments while speaking with a
journalist at the headquarters of the Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and
Justice Party, adding "We will not allow Ahmed Shafiq or anyone else to
impede our second Islamic conquest of Egypt."
The original article on elbashayer.com can be seen here. The Google translation contains this fragment:
Mohamed
Morsi Alastbn candidate for the Brotherhood, Egypt Amusliman it would
open for the second time and enter all the Christians in Islam or to pay
tribute.
and
Mursi said the second is the conqueror Mohammed Morsi and me Cisgelh history.
The journalist said: What do you think voting in the cluster given by the Copts for the team Shafiq.
Mercy replied, saying: They have to know that the opening is coming and Egypt will be Muslim and they have to pay tribute or migrate as one who left.
Although, as all Google translations, it's not 100% perfect, the context seems clear enough. According to Morsi, Christians in Egypt will have 3 choices: convert to Islam, pay a tribute or leave Egypt.
Another user, "Hereslookingatyou", responded to PeterNW1's post, accusing Raymond Ibrahim of being an "Islamophobe", and saying that the accusation at Morsi was a "lie". As a response, I wrote the following comment, under my long-time Guardian username:
This paying of the jizya issue has already been discredited.
Where
exactly?! Can you provide details or is this another ad hominem
fallacy? e.g. "Raymond Ibrahim is a horrible Islamophobe and therefore
everything he says must be wrong".
Raymond Ibrahim is a
well known Islamaphobic writer whose article are often published on
vehemently anti Muslim websites such as the David Horrowitz center
website. It's a lie and you've been bandying this about quite a bit.
Err, the original source (of Ibrahim's article) is elbashayer.com, not Raymond Ibrahim - and the Google translation does indeed suggest that Mohammed Morsi, the new president of Egypt, said that Christians in Egypt should "pay a tribute". And there's nothing to suggest that elbashayer.com in Arabic is an "Islamophobic" website. So,
looks like Mohammed Morsi, who a year ago in a BBC interview said that
the Muslim Brotherhood "wouldn't put up a candidate for president", is
making false promises again - either to the English or Arabic-speaking
public. Deal with it.
The following day, the comment had 50 recommends - then disappeared...
Below is a screenshot of the comment:
The next picture shows the comment, with the previous comment visible:
The final screenshot shows the comments page after the deletion:
Did the post - consisting of a citation of another website, and recollection of Morsi's past statements - contain "hate speech", or anything else which would break the Guardian's community standards?
PeterNW1's comment (about Morsi suggesting Christians should pay the Jizya) is still visible on other threads. Which begs the question - was my comment deleted by a Guardian moderator (surely extreme, even for them?) or did Morsi himself, or one of his staff, take it upon themselves to re-edit the comments in such a way that "inconvenient" comments ceased to exist?
And if so, what might that imply for the future of Egypt?
With strict English laws on trial by jury (which, btw, the BNP seems not to have grasped), comments on newspaper websites were usually banned prior to today, so that users' opinions would not influence jury members who may be reading the articles. However with today's verdict, the kid gloves were off, and commentary articles were in full swing.
One such article was on Guardian's comment-is-free, promising much hard work for the moderators.
The comments section didn't disappoint - and included this from one user, speculating on a possible source of inspiration for the grooming gangs:
What would the Guardian moderators do? Show some steel? Or bury their heads in the sand, as per the usual? The answer came swiftly - a removal of the "unacceptable" comment. "Mohammed did" now being 2 words banned from the Guardian.
But speculating on another religious figure being gay - Jesus - is a subject perfectly OK for an article in the same newspaper...
This despite the consummation of Mohammed's marriage to Aisha at age 9 being widely-accepted - yet Jesus as a homosexual being a form of speculation highly offensive to most Christians.
Such are the double standards of the newspaper for whom "comment is free... but facts are sacred".
Anders Breivik - a man with anti-Islam views, decided to kill many people. Not Muslims - but the youth wing of the Norwegian Labour Party, who he regarded as the enablers of multiculturalism... Labour Party youth with placards like this...
Yet surely nobody in their right minds, in a democratic Western society, would deny these youngsters the rights to display their viewpoints? Just as nobody would see them as anything other than young people of a high calibre and potential, contributing to discourse in a democratic state. And many may yet have "changed sides", following in the footsteps of the likes of Paul Dacre, the editor of the UK's Daily Mail. In fact, if you look at the history of "right-wingers" in Europe and North America, you will find many former leftists - who may have wanted to take part in such a youth camp, at some stage in their life.
All this is key to a democratic society. And what Breivik wanted to destroy. While personally, I'm not convinced as to why Breivik did what he did, some theories are that he wanted to scare people away from attending left-wing camps. Whatever the reason, he did not respect his opponents' right to a democratic viewpoint - the bedrock of a democratic society...
Recently, he is not the only individual to have shown such a lack of respect for freedom of speech...
Dutch and Austrian judges have been all to happy to also join in this "crusade", with Geert Wilders and Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff being dragged through the courts, and Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff forced to pay a fine of 480 Euros for the "crime" of referring to the Islamic prophet Mohammed as a paedophile - for having sex with Aisha when she was 9, and he was a fifty-something... yet it was Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff who had to make a statement distancing herself from Anders Breivik!
Moreover, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton joined forces with the Organisation of the Islamic Conference to attempt to compel UN members “to take concrete steps to combat intolerance, negative stereotyping and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief”... surely nothing wrong with that?
Well, that will depend on what those in charge would consider to be "negative stereotyping"... The bottom line - from resolutions such as this to trials like those of Wilders and Sabaditsch-Wolff is a very short path. Which is why documents such as the First Amendment to the US constitution are vital to our societies - societies in which both the critics of Islam and the Norwegian Labour Party Youth can freely express their viewpoints. Anything else - and we're well on the road to a totalitarian state.
So, when it comes down to the philosophy inspiring the massacre, who is Anders Breivik closer to? And who should be distancing themselves from his actions? Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff? Or Hillary Clinton?
Warriors against freedom
Yes, there is a worrying trend happening in Europe right now. But it is not the trend of opposition to Islam - something that has been in existence since the days of Winston Churchill, and long before... rather, it is the trend of an increasing lack of respect for freedom of speech that is the biggest danger to the foundations of our society. A trend that Anders Breivik fully embraced. But one that is almost fully ignored by our media...
Err, the original source (of Ibrahim's article) is elbashayer.com, not Raymond Ibrahim - and the Google translation does indeed suggest that Mohammed Morsi, the new president of Egypt, said that Christians in Egypt should "pay a tribute".
And there's nothing to suggest that elbashayer.com in Arabic is an "Islamophobic" website.
So, looks like Mohammed Morsi, who a year ago in a BBC interview said that the Muslim Brotherhood "wouldn't put up a candidate for president", is making false promises again - either to the English or Arabic-speaking public. Deal with it.