Shame on the British MSM.

The new pope hadn't even been elected for 5 minutes and they were completely beside themselves with Nazi allegations and Rotweiler analogies.

The RoP goes spastic and what do they print? Nothing, absolutely nothing.

And news just came in of the Religion of Peace's latest peaceful protest against a Danish embassy, and also against the Norwegian embassy in Beirut.

The more we see these images of faces twisted in hatred against the West the more I look forward to the day when I can drive from Tel Aviv to Kabul by way of Riyadh, yet still be in Israel.

Well, at least they didn't torch the Norwegian embassy in Beirut.

I don't know if this is available in English yet, but a danish hot dog salesman was attacked with a bat by two young men: "Danish swine! You're selling unclean meat!"

Such pathetic cowardice from the media, as well as most politicians. They're scared, plain and simple, that they will be violently attacked : so they self-censor and appease. What chance do we have against this extremist, violent and ambitious ideology with 'leaders' like this?

Wouldn't mind so much if I didn't have to endure the daily preaching of journalists about how bravely they are speaking 'truth to power', as well as the other nonsense they carry on with. And then there is the man of Straw, comfortably surrounded by 24 hour state of the art security while the rest of us get on with our daily lives on the front line, admonishing the brave ones for publishing some cartoons and sympathising with the 21st century's version of the barbarians.

Lesson learned by our enemy - their leaders and media are frightened by us and are prone to appease. Jihadists 1, West 0.

"Lesson learned by our enemy - their leaders and media are frightened by us and are prone to appease. Jihadists 1, West 0."

Yet western politicans and msm are not the only people in the west - a substantial proportion of the remainder may be more emboldened in their disrespect for Islamofascism and perhaps more suspicious and less willing to give benefit of doubt to the 'peaceful' claims of Islamic governments and Islamic people in general. Whether this may lead to more people in Europe being less likely to accept further restrictions on civil liberties remains to be seen. Considering, in addition, the recent economically self-punishing proposals of Iran, I'd say the score is 1-0 to us.

Considering, in addition, the recent economically self-punishing proposals of Iran, I'd say the score is 1-0 to us.

Oh I agree! I think there is no downside whatsoever to this particular culture war and we are in fact winning it hands down. The fact it is even drawing the appeasers in Europe and the USA into the open only makes this whole thing better.

In England, the score is Islamics 1 England nil. The press, save Charles Moore, makes me sick. The freest press in the world - ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. The most cowardly, craven, appeasing press in the world? The British mainstream media. When I read those cowardly editorials yesterday, about how they were bravely not running the cartoons as they are now old news, I almost threw up. And the BBC thinks all the thousands of people who wrote to [D]HYS condemning the religion of peace and recommending others who had written, are very naughty and uncivilised and have announced: This subject is now closed. Your licence fee at work. I strongly recommend violence against the BBC and all who sail in that stinking tub.

Perry, I would be interested in reading your reasoning.

As long as Tony Blair and his fellow Marxists are in office, England is not going to win this. I suspect that right now Blair is busy thinking up new laws to push through.

I’d like to apologise on behalf of South Africa. Mr Mbeki is no friend of free speech. If we can mock Islam the next thing you know criticising the government will not be condemned for being unpatriotic.

And the swedish embassy in Syria as well. This means war!

I will not be cowed by extremists and I'm just one man.
"They may take our lives, but they'll never take our freedom" Cheesy I know but quite apt I think.
I've made a button for everyone who wants it. check my site.

Burn, baby, burn. The more fanatical they get, the more they marginalise themselves to average punters in the West. Untapped popular support is political arbitrage. Cue the arbitrageurs.

Diss, your graphic is superb. Elegant and telling. As always.

Dissident Frogmann -

The graphic is perfect. Are you selling shirts?

Does anyone have links to anyone who is?

Wow!!!! In an official biography, published yesterday, Danish Queen Margrethe says:

She said: “We are being challenged by Islam these years - globally as well as locally. It is a challenge we have to take seriously. We have let this issue float about for too long because we are tolerant and lazy.

“We have to show our opposition to Islam and we have to, at times, run the risk of having unflattering labels placed on us because there are some things for which we should display no tolerance.”

“And when we are tolerant, we must know whether it is because of convenience or conviction.”

Tony Blair, are you reading this, you cowardly, spineless, foul little lump of product of the lower intestine? If you came near my cat, he would dig a hole and try to bury you.

Diss - I've just read what you wrote on your site and I agree. Let's pump up the volume on Denmark! I also agree that this is building up to being a defining moment.

Perry, I would be interested in reading your reasoning. As long as Tony Blair and his fellow Marxists are in office, England is not going to win this. I suspect that right now Blair is busy thinking up new laws to push through.

Blair is not England and the government is not England. The Guardian, to their credit, ran front page pictures of the most offensive placards at the demo and I do not think the 'man in the street' is under any misapprehensions whatsoever about what has just happened.

The job of the apologists for Islamic intolerance just got vastly harder and by any objective measure opinions even in spineless Europe have hardened visibly.

The enemy is out in the open, in our streets, and damn are they ugly. And moreover they are not attacking Israel (some foreign country who the Guardian says "do bad things") or America (some other foreign country the BBC says is run by BushMcHitler and "do bad things"), they are attacking tolerant non-colonialist non-military superpower non-zionist DENMARK and screaming that they want an Islamic veto over free speech in secular/Christian societies and they will kill anyone who upsets them. Holy.Fucking.Shit.

Frankly short of them calling for a ban on soccer, I cannot really think how the enemies of liberty could contrive to make themselves look less appealing and beyond the pale. Even the Islington Set are gagging over their cornflakes this time.

Sorry, but this is about as good as it gets. More and faster please.

I see Donald Rumsfeld has stood up to be counted:

MUNICH, Germany - — Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld pushed Saturday for unity in the fight against terrorism, telling a meeting of the world’s top security officials that “a war has been declared on all of our nations and on our people.” […]

“They seek to take over governments from North Africa to Southeast Asia and to re-establish a caliphate they hope, one day, will include every continent,” he said. “They have designed and distributed a map where national borders are erased and replaced by a global extremist empire."

(I got this off the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler.)

South Africa is not a free country. It's better than many, but press censorship is not unusual there, for all sorts of reasons.

In the West proper, complacency is very much an option. Anything else shows an exaggerated sense of the primitivists' power and importance. If the cartoons were banned, I would immediately start plastering them all over the place. But they're not, and they can't be, and to make a fuss simply gives the idea more credence than it deserves.

As for Gaza or Lebanon, the international relations are based on the fact that we are rich and powerful, and they are backward supplicants. If they want to drive Danes out of Lebanon or the EU out of Palestine, it's their loss. Sod them. They're like a toddler stamping his feet because Mummy won't tell off big brother. Hell, the Palestinian Authority is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the EU - if the EU left they'd wind up begging the Israelis for bread.

Count me in for complacency.

Speaking of freedom of speech, isn't the west a little hypocritical when David Irving is in jail for expressing his dubious views?

Is Simon Jenkins the ultimate Dhimmi?

To imply that some great issue of censorship is raised by the Danish cartoons is nonsense. They were offensive and inflammatory. The best policy would have been to apologise and shut up. For Danish journalists to demand “Europe-wide solidarity” in the cause of free speech and to deride those who are offended as “fundamentalists . . . who have a problem with the entire western world” comes close to racial provocation.

(...)

It is clearly hard for westerners to comprehend the dismay these gestures cause Muslims. The question is not whether Muslims should or should not “grow up” or respect freedom of speech. It is whether we truly want to share a world in peace with those who have values and religious beliefs different from our own.

What a tool.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-2025511,00.html

Speaking of freedom of speech, isn't the west a little hypocritical when David Irving is in jail for expressing his dubious views?

I completely agree that the pathetic David Irving (whom I have had the personal privilege of belting regarding an altogether different matter) should not be in jail just because he is a lying sack of shit, but if you think that because things are not perfect in the west it makes defending what we do have 'hypocritical', then I think you are both very much mistaken and have some rather strange reasoning, much as I think Andrew McGuiness is very much mistaken for his complacency.

Only a a few days ago, we came within a hair's breadth of making the Jyllands-Posten cartoons illegal in Britain under the incitement to religious hatred laws. If not for the Lord's amendments, it would now be illegal to hurt people's feeling on religious grounds.

"The job of the apologists for Islamic intolerance just got vastly harder"

Are you sure? Normally after a terrorist attack or some kind of extreme intolerance, the apologists just say "That's not the real Islam".

Now I don't know what the real Islam is, but until that is established the public are still going to be unsure about whats going on.

"That's not the real Islam".

Embassies burn, demonstrations occur across the world, but "this is not the real Islam". Sure.

People are stupid, no doubt about it, but not that fucking stupid. This time everyone but the irrelevent fucktard minority get the picture. Even the Euros are pissed. Yeah, I got to agree this has really has been a good thing: wake up time for the world.

Perry writes: "Only a a few days ago, we came within a hair's breadth of making the Jyllands-Posten cartoons illegal in Britain ...".

And the effect is exactly the same as if the bill had passed.

The British press have turned into collaborators in their own demasculisation.

This self-censorship was he exact point that motivated Mr Flemming Rose to call for designers to submit cartoons that his paper would publish. The whole thing was to illuminate the kind of self-censorship that is currently being practised with such unctuous self-congratulation by Britain's formerly free press.

A good catch over at the Belmont Club,

"Lizk said...

Why Denmark? Why now? Why are the demonstrations so well organized? Where did all the Danish flags appear from in the Palestinian Authority areas?
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/ notes:
"when the UN Security Council gets round to considering what form of sanctions to impose on Iran, guess to whom chairmanship of the Council will have passed. You’ve got it... plucky little Denmark.
Suddenly, the pieces fall into shape. The rumpus suddenly escalated, complete with fabricated offensive cartoons, to so enflame Muslim opinion that Denmark could be intimidated directly through a threatened Muslim boycott of its goods, or indirectly by the EU fearful of a wider boycott, into voting in favour of Iran."

12:06 AM

Mr de Havilland,
I am not afraid of the Islamic extremists,but I am frightened of our Quisling government,which as I write is probably working out who it can most easliy sell down the river to create the impression of having done something about this.
Judging by Blair's past record, he will support the side which screams the most and blows shit up,exactly as he surrendered to the IRA.
The police will be overjoyed with this outcome, as it allows threm to concentrate on crushing the middle classes and keeps them away from dangerous criminals.
My fear is if it came to "Hey Lads Hey",the people of Britain would be facing the forces of Blairitania as well as Islamofascists.

Sadly, what Ron Brick said.

Does anyone know if any US newspapers have run the cartoons? So far, I haven't seen any... If it's true that the U.S. media are not running these toons, then I must say these bastards are showing their true colors.

Support Denmark.

td

Perry: It's your blog & I'm grateful for your largesse in that I am able to post a comment or two.
However, I'm a little confused that Verity got her knuckles rapped for the "camel tick's fart."(?) remark but you call David Irving " lying sack of shit." He may well be, but so could SamJ deserve Verity's epithet.
But, as I said, it's your blog & yours are the rules; strange though.
American Conservative William Buckley's article is worth a a read at National Review Online..........& for those of us who enjoy "farts & shits" there is no finer uninhibited site than The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiller.

Otoh, Ron Brick, the message from the Belmont Club makes absolutely no sense at all.

Why would the Palestinians, "British" Muslims, "Danish, Norwegian, French, Swedish" Muslims create mayhem do violence against Denmark and other countries - including in the Middle East? Why would they demonstrate in Lebanon, Syria and so on?

Surely you are not proposing that all this violence is in support of Iran?

The Arabs and the Iranians don't like each other, to put it mildly. The first thing any Iranian will make clear to you is, "I'm not an Arab". The feeling's mutual. I could be wrong, but I don't think they're going to patch up 1500 years of mutual contempt all of a sudden.

Charles Moore's observation that there suddenly seemed to be hundreds of Danish flags available throughout the ME is very interesting, though.

Does anyone know if there are plans for a pro-free speech rally? If so where and when?

Sad to say but the NY Sun, I believe, is the only US newspaper to have published the photos.

Verity never believe that kind of reasoning is alwys truth. Molotov-Ribbentrop and thousands of others.

Verity never believe that kind of reasoning is alwys truth. Molotov-Ribbentrop and thousands of others. -- lucklucky

Besides, the Arab Sunnis and Persian Shias have one common interest: the destruction of Israel. And since the Iranians have made several statements to the effect that they will destroy Israel if they get the Bomb, look at the situation from Riyadh's point of view.

1) The Shia Heretics get the Bomb, and Destroy Israel. The Sons of Pigs and Dogs die. And either the Great Satan or the Zionist Entity destroys them for the action.

or

2) The Zionist Entity of the Great Satan destroy the Shia Heretics as a religious, political or military force before they get the Bomb.

From the Sunni Arab leadership's point of view, worst case scenario is that one hated group is killed, and best case is that 2 go the way of the Dodo.

I can see why they would be trying to muddy the waters, and buy Iran time to finish the Bomb. Sunnis are no higher than #2 on Iran's "Use Nukes on Today" List, and they are betting that Iran won't get to, or past, #1.

Besides, I have never seen much evidence of rational thought coming out of the Sunni Arabs in my admittedly short life.

I second the question from free speech girlie. Is anyone organising a free speech demo?

Twould be a great thing to turn up for. Let's really bang the drum for this.

Verity,
"when the UN Security Council gets round to considering what form of sanctions to impose on Iran, guess to whom chairmanship of the Council will have passed. You’ve got it... plucky little Denmark."

It always pays to get the opposition on the wrong foot,when Denmark takes the chair,it will be discredited in the eyes of the Muslim word,the debate will be on the validity,authority and ipartiality of the chair of the SC.
That is quite some weight off Iran.

I hear you, Ron Brick and Eric Sivula. In a rational world, that would have undoubtedly have been a clever move.

But, come on! We are discussing the least rational, most excitable, most superstitious people in the world here. If what you say is correct, they would have to have planned this with malice aforethought and I just do not think they are capable of such subtlety.

Certainly, the presence of hundreds of Danish flags points the finger of suspicion, but I these people automatically think of flag burning when they are rioting mode. They love it. I certainly agree that they got them shipped out PDQ, but I do not believe it was with a long term strategy.

Also, the SC is the chief refuge of the whiners and seethers. Would they really want it discredited? Or is that too subtle?

If both you gentlement are right, I wouldn't be overwhelmed with amazement, but I still don't believe you are.

Verity, Joshua:

Thanks for the praise.

The tee-shirt production issue is a long unsolved one (probably as old as my Che Guevara with mickey mouse ears design). One day, hopefully, I'll find a way to market my goodies as a good capitalist. But for the moment, no luck. Sorry.

It wouldn't be that hard to make a rudimentary Danish flag at home, using some white cloth, wax and red food colouring. You wouldn't notice the difference on TV - it all burns the same way.

Regardless, these guys clearly have a lot of time on their hands.

And I hope that you are right, Verity. I would love for all of the foes of the West in the Muslim world to be as bright as sacks of camel dung, but I fear that is not the case.

I am just trying to envision how a smart person would use kitman. A smart, if not rational, Sunni Despot would play up this event. It lets him vent some of the "Arab Street's" rage at a new Western target. It earns him some credit with the rabid imams, who might be preaching that he is not worthy of ruling his little pile of sand. It allows him to paint himself as standing up to the Satans of the West without having to worry about a bombing. It allows the Despot to paint himself as a strong horse, and ease tensions in his own country. If you are cagey enough to survive as a Sunni Despot, you will see that play.

"If" it helps the Iranians get the Bomb, that also serves the Sunni Despot's ends. The heretics will get blown up by the Zionists or Americans before or after they kill Israel.

Encouraging the street to riot over Denmark is a safe bet for the Despot in any regard.

No nation has ever been served well by assuming that their foes are entirely stupid. So I do not assume that the Islamists are stupid. Irrational? Sure, but not stupid. And not all of our foes in the Muslim world are Islamists, some are various breeds of secular authoritarians. And besides, if you expect all your foes to collude against you, you will be better prepared when only *some* of them are working together. Right?

No US papers that I am aware of have run the cartoons. Reading the Sunday papers, you'd likely miss the issue entirely: the Sunday NYT gives the story 10 paragraphs at the bottom of page 5, while the front page consists of 6 articles: three features (Betty Freiden, diabetic brothers, and a rewards programs for school attendance), and three news stories (Iran, house demolition in New Orleans, and the daily things are going to shit in Iraq). The Sunday Chicago Trib buries the story at the bottom of page 9.

Oh, and Chelsea still sucks no matter the final score.

There has been an unexpectedly robust response to the cartoon affair here in France, ie in the heart of the axis of weasels. One of "our" most distinguished and erudite journalists, Alexandre Adler, said on national radio on Friday morning "Make no mistake about it: we are at war with Fundamentalist Islam. And who are we? We are those heirs of the Judeo-Christian tradition, those atheists who cling to Enlightenment values and the vast majority of European Muslims who would be the principal victims of this deadly ideology"

Where do all the Danish flags come from?

From the bloody TV crews

APL,
Probably,I wish we could prove it!

And what do you think about this twist?

Suggestions for Islamic Reform:

* Pipe in the Cartoon Network across Muslim countries. Once they get a dose of the Looney Tunes or Angry Beavers, they'll loosen up.

* Teach citizens to read and then let them read some science books.

* Ask them to explain how they can burn embassies and consulates over a cartoon but revel in raising their children as suicide bombers.

Welcome to Democracy Achmed.

Does anyone know if any US newspapers have run the cartoons?

I don't know about newspapers but they have been shown briefly on major network evening news shows. Also TV news people describe them in words; is this considered offensive to Muslims as well? :-)

I'm still hoping this is a minority view in Islam but my patience with them is wearing thin.

This is what we can expect from Blair's Storm Troopers if WE protest!

Ron Brick writes:

" This is what we can expect from Blair's Storm Troopers if WE protest!"

Thanks for the link - a timely reminder, indeed!

Rod Liddle has some interesting reflections on the subject of free speech in the Sunday Times today.

Mostly discussing the recent Nick Griffin case, he recounts an apparent confession by an officer of West Yorkshire police that the order to harass had come from 'on high' - and he clearly meant Westminster.

I think we must assume the same is true of the disgusting action taken against the hunt protesters and the complete, supine surrender to islamofascism displayed in London, last week.

It seems perfectly clear that at some point in the past few years we have crossed the borderline and now live in a police state, in which the police are under the direct control of the ruling junta.

Seasoned Class Warriors will, no doubt, say that much the same was true during the Miners' strike, but the degree and extent are quite different.

Yes, GCooper, I caught that, too. The police called on BNP activist Paul Cromie and seeing them coming, he had the prudence to switch on his tape recorder. As the police rifled through his things, one officer is heard to say: "“At the end of the day this whole thing should be . . . well, it’s very political. It’s not coming from senior police. It’s coming from much higher than that,”.

TBlair who set about turning Britain into a police state the minute he slithered under the door of Downing St. He and Cherie. That's why they had bully Alastair Campbell. His job was to frighten the press, and he did, and they allowed themselves to be faced down by a thug.

Now, eight years on, they're weeing their knickers at the idea of printing some highly innocuous illustrations of a religious leader from the Dark Ages. And, oh! he unctuousness of their excuses. Their lofty camouflage as "maturity". What they're really saying is: "We're frit."

I cannot say often enough how wonderful I think Mr Rasmussen is. He's a hero. He has stood by the free press although I am certain he has received probably hundreds of death threats.

And the brave words of Queen Margrethe. These people really are too fine. I am really, really glad that we paid them millions in Danegeld 600 or 700 years ago. They totally deserved it - just for being so bold.

The willingness of the government to trample underfoot the people of England,whilst grovelling to those who threaten us with death,makes it obvious that the Blair regime has a t some point given up on the people of this island and have decided to cultivate a new constituency.

I have to agree with Verity - the stark contrast between the bravery of the Danish position and the crawling, cringing, fawning of the British media and government is profound.

I've not very often had cause to feel truly ashamed of this country - but I do now. In fact I am disgusted by what so many of us seem to have become.

Ron Brick

The willingness of the government to trample underfoot the people of England,whilst grovelling to those who threaten us with death,makes it obvious that the Blair regime has a t some point given up on the people of this island and have decided to cultivate a new constituency.

Nope, wrong there Ron. There never was a day when the Blair regime had the interests of the people of England in mind. His aim has always been to destroy this country.

GCooper,
This is the left's baby,they have decided to elect a new people,they are not craven,theyare simply on the other side.

I'm a bit perplexed as to why so many people feel that it is inappropriate to offer any level of apology (not for "our" Danish free press of course) but for the fact that many Moslems are upset.

They are obviously freaking. And I am personally sorry (in an abstract way as I don't know any) that some sincere Moslems are upset.

Of course at the same time I would explain to them (as one explains to a cultural beginner) that it is our tradition to let everyone speak, even fools, and that they should get used to even more and maybe worse hurtful talk.

Why can't we do both?
1. Acknowledge their "pain"
and
2. Explain that they will probably feel even more pain, unless they accept that free speech is part of what we in the West do and unless they stop their provocations such as bombing trains, buildings etc etc.

It probably won't reach the true hard-core kooks but it may have some influence with the "moderates." It may not be effective but I can't see that it hurts.

As Bill Buckley suggest:

"Apologize for profaning Islam, but do not use language that conveys an apology for the laws of the land, which uphold a free press."

Pete,
I was giving him the benefit of the doubt,the only thing I cannot work out what is the reward for a man of his cupidity.

Interestingly,we talk about 7th century fanatics,but we never acknowledge this country is mis-governed by 19th century fanatical class warriors

Raw Data Complex,
Who is this "we",what the hell has any of this to do with this country?

We all seem to value free speech and agree that it is a fundamental basis of our freedom and society. The issue is no loger the content of what was published, but the appaling way in which Muslims reacted. They are free to disagree, another freedom that we provide for them, but no rational or sane person can believe that the cartoons are THS serious. They BURNED three embassies to the ground which are soverien soil of the contries in question. This could easily be construed as an act of war. It is insane! Lots of people have, in my opinion, very disturbed and insulting views but that is thier right! Calling for wide scale slaughter of non-Muslims on the basis of a couple of pictures which may brake some obscure law in a book written thousands of years ago is beyond any rationality. They live in our country and enjoy the freedoms we provide, with our soldiers blood and this is our repayment for it? Why are we kidding ourselves? These are dangerous people! It seems that the basis for this action must be dangerous as well. It is similar to someone knifing someone else for insulting them. None of us condone that, i hope? These people cannot be allowed to cause any more distuction and death because of the misguided beliefs

fh

RDC writes:

"I'm a bit perplexed as to why so many people feel that it is inappropriate to offer any level of apology (not for "our" Danish free press of course) but for the fact that many Moslems are upset."

What business is it of a Moslem in Syria, or Egypt, or anywhere but in Denmark, what is published in a Danish newspaper?

As for Moslems in Denmark, they have an easy remedy. Leave.

Pete_London - thank you very much! This demonstrates the level of hopeless ignorance and understanding of democracy even by muzzies who live in the democratic West. They just don't get it. You explain and explain and wait for a response, and they say "yes, but it is forbidden to depict the prophet". They are brainwashed from birth. By the time they are 10, their little brains are clamped shut. The more I read their moronic total misapprehension of the West, even by those living in the West and even after it is described for them in words of one syllable spoken v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y the more convinced I become that there can be no co-existence in one country under one law.

In the letter, the Danish imams, living in Denmark, think the prime minister was lying when he said he has no control over the press.

Raw Data Complex - or may I call you Bill Clinton? - explain why the Danes should apologise for someone else's ignorance. If people are ignorant, that is not the responsibilitiy of anyone except themselves and their parents. This letter was from a Danish imam who doesn't understand democracy or Denmark and is proposing to impose shariah law on the Danish press. Even more stupid is, he doesn't understand the character of the people he is living among.

And they are all like this. Even people you think are intelligent and worldly and have been educated in the West - underneath, if you get into a discussion, they all come up with exactly the same points some pig ignorant little peasant cooking over a camel dung fire would come up with.

And all those Islamics who marched in Britain, thinking they were like reeeeely reeeeely scareee - even though many were born in Britain, they do not understand British law. They went to school in Britain and they don't understand democracy. I have noticed this before among Islamics. Their little minds are totally shut. When you make your points, they nod, and then say something so stupid it beggars belief.

This makes the achievements of Aayan Hirsi Ali and Irshad (can't remember her last name) in Toronto all the more absolutely staggering. All this makes me realise how totally awesome these two are.

Pete_London, yes of course Tony Blair (and Cherie - she's a big part of all this) intended to destroy Britain from day one. It was obvious from day one for anyone with eyes to see.

GCooper: I was ashamed of the Septic Isle over 30 years ago when I decided that there were better places to spend my only life. The UK may have prospered since then, you might be inclined to believe. Better believe in the amount of debt per capita which will inevitably bring the house-of-cards crashing & civil strife you are just beginning to experience. All the warning signs have been ignored, you have imported problems with which you now cannot...or are too gutless to deal with. Only concerned with your rights & to hell with the responsibilities of protecting the brilliant heritage thousands of your forebears gave you.
Yes, there's good reason to feel ashamed for being led like sheep to the slaughter. Cry the bloody country.

I have realised an interesting and recuring theme. Al the muslims i have talked to are never willing to justify what they do. they inflict draconian and barbaric traditions on their offspring without thought. They have been brainwashed into blind obedience. They are all opposed to any form of sexual pleasure or expression for females at all. In many ways its unbelieveablt that the mothers would ever inflict that on their children. This brings up the next issue of the complete dominance of males in the islamic world. What is even more amazing is that female muslims stand up for the brutal treatment they recieve. It is a sad thought that such a large portion of the worlds population live like this

permanent expat - it's painful to agree that you are right. Britain has sold itself down the river. And has compounded it by voting for the Chocolate Orange Inspector as probably the next prime minister.

The only sane opposing voice in all this violence is Derek Davis, who ought to be leading the Tories. I don't believe the Tories will turn out to vote for David Cameron. Let us see what Derek Davis accomplishes. He is experienced and wily enough to know where the traps are. He is a worthy man to lead Britain, but the British themselves denied him this chance because they were in the mood for a Chocolate Orange Inspector.

Verily Verity, I was trying to suggest the non-apology apology in which the speaker expresses sympathy for the feelings/traits of another without taking responsibility...as one might offer "I'm sorry that you have hurt feelings" or "I'm sorry that your reading comprehension is low."

I agree with you entirely that there is no need -- quite the contrary -- to apologize for free press. But I can't see what is lost by offering sympathy for _their_ feelings, which are entirely _their_ responsibility.

We are indeed in a clash of civilizations and we should choose our battles carefully. I don't think that the cartoons offer strategic high ground from which to pursue a cultural war in which the ultimate struggle is for the mind of the Muslim moderate.

Raw Data Complex,
Do that and you will be sorry for ever and a day

Ron Brick,
What do you intend by "Do that and you will be sorry for ever and a day."
It's far too cryptic for this forum.

Bill Clinton - But I can't see what is lost by offering sympathy for _their_ feelings, which are entirely _their_ responsibility.

Because they don't understand the subtle distinction and it thereby loses its point? They think it's real? And ramp up to the next project?

Because drawing a line in the sand is the way people win, not by retreating by inches of amused subtlety?

You write: I agree with you entirely that there is no need -- quite the contrary -- to apologize for free press.

Uh-huh. Yet you're proposing it. What am I missing here?

RDC writes:

"I don't think that the cartoons offer strategic high ground from which to pursue a cultural war in which the ultimate struggle is for the mind of the Muslim moderate."

It would be very helpful if someone could produce credible estimates (a proportion would do) of these 'moderate' Moslems.

I'm sure they must exist (I'm equally sure many other Moslems would claim they are not Moslems at all), but when the views of 'moderates' are examined - one thinks of the mendacious toad, Sacranie - they really don't seem very 'moderate' at all.

When the much-vaunted 'Arab St' starts lynching wannabe suicide bombers and the psychopaths who hang teenage girls from cranes in the market square because they had the audacity to get raped, then I will start believing there is a substantial 'moderate' Moslem opinion.

Pending that, I'll continue to regard it as a mental illness and its adherents as no less in need of treatment than any other victims of a dangerous cult.

RDC,
Hardly,there are some smart folk on here.
I do hope you will say sorry for my offence at being threatened with death......while you are at it comiserate with me for not winning the lottery this week...oh and anything else I can think of?

From Spiegel Online : A German journalist, Jürgen Gottschlich, living in Istanbul (where I suppose it doesn't pay to be too contentious either) reports that "many Muslims are sick & tired of being unfairly labelled as bin Laden sympathizers"
I am sure they are, and quite rightly so. I am ready to believe, although I would prefer to be "res non verba" convinced, that many Muslims in the UK feel the same way. Should this really be the case, I am puzzled that they haven't kicked out the extremists & trouble-makers in their midst.....or have they become so "British" that they have also become sheep?

The problem with establishing the views of the moderate muslim is that whenver a group of muslims do anything, their leaders claim it is the action of a small splinter group.
Im afraid we have reached a watershead. We must now consider the actions of the islamic community the actions of the majority and act accordingly. I am afraid were that may lead up, but there comes a time when you must stand by your principles and fight for them if need be.

Here is a leader in today's Telegraph - admittedly only one paragraph because you can go and read the whole thing for yourself, but the money quote:

This newspaper has a deep regard for Islam, that purest and most abstract of the monotheistic faiths, to whose tenets we recently dedicated a series of colour supplements. We share the admiration of Rousseau, Carlyle and Gibbon for the Prophet, which is why, on grounds of courtesy, we have chosen not to cause gratuitous offence to his followers by reproducing the cartoons at the centre of this row.

The cartoons were so humourless they could almost have been Scandinavian - oh, wait a minute! Those people in northern Europe standing alone in defence of a free press? Certainly, if the cartoons had been in an English newspaper, they would have been wittier and more pointed. But, they weren't. And never will be. Because the Vikings aren't cowards and the English are. They allowed Tony Blair's government to take all their rights away from them, and they allowed a police state, where what strongman Tony Blair wants, happens policewise. One of the first things Anthony Blair did was, stop the police from swearing an oath of loyalty to the Queen - the Queen meaning the state. Didn't that alert anyone what he was up to?

It certainly alerted me.

Telegraph: You morons - do you think readers are so naive they don't know that you run "a series of colour supplements" not decause the editor had a rush of enthusiasm for kidnappings, beheadings, clitorectomies, hangings of homosexuals and stonings, but because the advertising department can make bags of money from Muslim countries swimming in oil and they sincerely believe they are buying influence and your advertising department has encouraged this? And then you delivered on it?

Interesting and disgusting that the prophet is capitalised, as though there has ever only been one and the reader will naturally be drawn to think of Mohammad instead of say, Richard Branson, who has certainly been a prophet of the future of air travel.

The Telegraph (thanks to Verity for the quote) says:

"...that purest and most abstract of the monotheistic faiths, to whose tenets we recently dedicated a series of colour supplements."

What utter, total nonsense. One can only conclude that the decline in education in this country has reached such a nadir that the editorial staff of the Daily Telegraph are - how can I best put this in a mild and understated way? - as thick as pigshit.

Churchill had the mark of Islam - he knew what it represented: a benighted, purblind curtailment of the human spirit.

A week after Michael Wharton's death and already the Telegraph has forgotten.

What vile, miserable, little people they are.

Is this the same Telegraph that Charles Moore writes for? (excuse the grammar.....I was so taken aback) With such colleagues perhaps he should find another berth. But then so what. Like the rest of the UK, most newspapers are at the hairy end of the lavatory brush.

purest and most abstract of the monotheistic faiths

Agreed, utter rot. Isn't Islam rather a mish-mash of Christianity, Judaism and pre-islamic Arabian religion, at least to the non-believer? And most abstract when it dictates every mortal thing? And Gibbon? I recall he admired this self-styled prophet for his, ahem, chutzpah. Gibbon didn't particularly care for religion, and there's a definite scoff, writing about the Battle of Tours, in his counterfactual "Perhaps the interpretation of the Qur'an would now be taught in the schools of Oxford, and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Muhammed."

John the Evangelist is far more abstract than the Koran, never mind Karl Rahner.

Indeed, the Song of Solomon is more abstract than the Koran, if we're going to have an Abrahamic pissing contest...

Having gone through three bottles of Optrex just to read this far on related threads-
I'm speechless!
Other than that ---
Go V&G!!

If you want abstract try Revelations.

Ian,

there's a definite scoff

Yes, but isn't Gibbon mocking Christianity as much as Islam in that passage--each for supposing itself other than an historical contingency.

For a summary of who has said what, (see my (very) embryonic blog)

Some surprising comments ...

Sometimes stuff happens that makes you sit up and re-evaluate your priorities. I think this is one of those moments.

Good to see that sexual equality has finally come to Islam - at least in some respects,

One of three veiled women - or at least people who appeared to be women - was seen writing placards and distributing them. Most were held by men who had also hidden their identity.

Of course, they could have learned from Michael Jackson and just be 3 men dressed up as women. Even Islam must have it's fair share of transvestites I would guess.

It seems to me that the gross difference in treatment of the hunting protesters and the Islamist protesters must lead to the final and total loss of trust in the police. They are apparently now unarguably the military wing of Nulabour. I suggest they should be referred to as the 'blueshirts'.

I sincerely hope that the armed services have not been indoctrinated. We need a fall back solution.
Arrest the Blairs, both of them for treason.

An observation; Will those newspapers that have started to refer to Mohammed as the 'Prophet' Mohammed now start referring to 'Our Lord, Jesus'?

An anecdote; the chatter amongst my fellow office-workers has finally moved away from Big Brother to the Cartoon Wars. This is the forst time i can remember a political story being discussed earnestly since 7/7. Excellent news.

However, one of our (rather delicious) young graduates kept referring to Mohammed as 'the Prophet Mohammed, Peace be upon Him'. I asked her why she referred to him in such a way, given that given she is about as Muslim as Jodie Marsh.
He reply was shocking. She read Political History at a London University and they teach their students always to refer to Mohammed in this way. It hadn't even occurred to her how ridiculous she sounded.

John Rippengal

Two quick things:

I listened to Ian Collins' current affairs phone-in show on TalkSport while working this morning. A 63 year man called in and described how his car was surrounded and attacked on Marylebone Road on Friday, with racist and religious threats made. He called the police but as soon as the operator realised that muslims were attacking the car she said there was nothing they could do. He protested, said he was petrified and they're threatening to kill him. She said 'I'm ending this call now' and the phone went dead.

Following this a producer at TalkSport got onto the Met but only managed to get a pre-prepared statement from them. It states that anyone can make a complaint about the nature of the protest on Friday. Ever so helpfully, it explains you can go into any police station or approach any police officer on the street (what's one of those?) to do this. The statement adds that all complaints will be investigated fully.

So there you go. In effect the Met has admitted that when muslim men dress as suicide bombers and hundreds of placards threatening murder are flaunted under the noses of the Met, nothing will be done unless complaints are received. Criminal, threatening behaviour is given a free pass because of who is doing it.

Ian Blair must go. His force were nothing more than accomplices to the demonstrators on Friday. He has not only allowed the Met to become politicised, he has played an active role in making it happen. Can anyone doubt he was appointed specifically to do this? Even the ranks of the terminally dim and unaware were appalled by the inaction of the Met.

Can demands for information be made under the Freedom of Information Act concerning the policing of the demonstration? I'm thinking of instruction from the Home Office and Blairs office down the ranks. I'm not too familiar with the working of the FOI but although I know that requests can be made can I also assume that 'for security reasons' I'll receive back a blank sheet of paper? Any thoughts?

Pete,
Your account does not surprise me. Hitler had his Blackshirts and his Brownshirts. Blairs have their Blueshirts. You had better be careful what you say if you live in Britain; I don't.

Your account does not surprise me. Hitler had his Blackshirts and his Brownshirts. Blairs have their Blueshirts. You had better be careful what you say if you live in Britain

I think you have this quite the wrong way round. The threat to liberty is in this case not the government, it is a bunch of neo-fascist religious extremists bent on imposing their sordid will upon the nation. Just as the Nazis did not speak for all or even most Germans, so the lunatic fringe of Islam does not not speak for all or even most Moslems, BUT in each case they demonstrate a confidence and determination that the other side(s) lack, and this is often enough to swing it.

Continuing to demonise the state when the true threat comes from organisations which don't like our state and indeed exploit weakness in it is only going to distract attention from the real issues.

EG

Oh there you are Euan, defending the state true to form. I'll take it you're happy to have a politicised police force then. One which cracks the skulls of pro-hunting protestors, one which questions an elderly couple for 80 minutes for wishing to leave pro-Christian literature in a town hall next to existing pro-homosexuality literature and one which arrests a man for calling a police horse gay.

I'll believe that Friday's demonstrators represent the 'lunatic fringe of Islam' when the rest of them offer counter demonstrations. Don't you think that much-trumpeted 'decent majority' of muslims are proving to be pretty damned elusive in reality? Where the hell are they?

Same old Euan, always credulous.

As usual, Laban Tall gets to the heart of the matter.

Eursoc(Link)

"Much of the outcry involved the police's decision not to arrest those marchers carrying signs which were clearly incitement to violence. The police did, reportedly, caution several passers-by who complained about the hate march. Indeed, the police arrested two men on Friday - both of whom were counter-protesting by handing out leaflets.
Some reports suggest that the men - neither of whom is British - were carrying illustrations of Mohammed. If this is the case, then yes, they needed locked up both for their own safety (the idiots)"

Id love to know more about those guys, maybe buy em a beer or 2.

For those steaming up with indignant rage, take time to read this interesting post from the MPAC(Link) home page. It may surprise you.

The real tragedy is the police's refusal to arrest the demonstrators. By their pathetic and cowardly action they harm the many Muslims in this country who found this rabble equally abhorrent.

Pommygranate - Yes, I have noticed The Telegraph at least is now referring to the prophet Mohammad. Either The Times or The Guardian - can't remember - capitalises the P. As this thing escalates, I guarantee they will start adding PBUH. It won't matter because the Muslims have already triumphed and are the boss of the British press. Who cares how much further they abase themselves?

The always charming and rational Omar Bakri is calling for "the cartoonist" to be executed. Don't these people do anything except issue threats and work themselves up into a moronic lather? He kept referring to "the cartoonist" apparently unaware, after five months, that there were 12 bloody cartoonists - the ignorant nit. I have a strong suspicion that he cannot read English.

Mass reverse immigration,please. All those who came forward angrily to protest the primitive behaviour of their co-religionists can stay. Oh, wait a minute ...

Continuing to demonise the state when the true threat comes from organisations which don't like our state and indeed exploit weakness in it is only going to distract attention from the real issues.

So let me get this straight... the state, who a few days ago came within a hairs breadth of passing a law that would have made Samizdata publishing the 'Satanic Cartoons' and about 20% of the comments written here in the last week illegal because they said nasty things about Islam and stirred up religious animosity, this same state is NOT a threat to our freedom of expression and liberty? In effect you are saying just because the state tried to do what the Muslim protesters were demanding (i.e. make 'doing a Jyllands-Posten' in Britain illegal), we should not feel the state is a threat to our freedom of expression?

As disingenuous as ever Mr. Gray

pommygranate writes:

"...they harm the many Muslims in this country who found this rabble equally abhorrent."

Forgive me, but I find it impossible to take anything the MPAC says as representative of anything at all but a small caucus of Moslem opinion.

Neither do I find your reflexive use of the term 'many Muslims' at all reassuring. As I said earlier - how many? We simply have no way of knowing. And the mere fact that Birmingham or Halifax aren't actually on fire this afternoon is no guide at all.

As we know from experience of the 1930s, fanatics can gain power if majority opinion, while not being exactly fanatical itself, is broadly in sympathy.

In such a perilous situation as we appear to be in, we need reliable information - not pious platitudes and the sort of reassurances offered by the very liberals who created this mess in the first place.

To w.ks@mac.com who sent me an email asking if I would accept anti-semitic cartoons to "even things out" - you Muslims have an extremely short attention span and I am assuming this is a genetic defect from marrying your first cousins since the dawn of history.

This has been addressed about 572 times over the last couple of days. Yes. We would accept anti-semitic cartoons in the name of free speech, although they would sicken us. We have seen the disgusting anti-semitic cartoons that are regularly published in that haven of civilisation, the Middle East. We have seen drawings of pigs and money with Jewish facial features. We have seen the cartoon of the Israeli prime minister eating an Arab baby. Offensive, but in the same way a young child will be offensive, thinking it's being rather clever.

Why don't you trawl through the internet and see some really offensive cartoons of the Paedophile Mohammad? There are some truly funny ones. Contact me by email if you want addresses where you can see these for your viewing pleasure.

GCooper - read the comments section. There are the ususal rants about 'death to the infidel' but the vast majority express anger and horror at the demonstrators.

What is interesting is that there is a total lack of understanding that freedom of speech means freedom to offend.

I suspect that part of the problem for most people on this site is our lack of knowledge about these mysterious 'moderate Muslims'. Reading their websites can at least give you some flavour (and assuming that it's probably the more radical ones that comment on websites)

pommygranate - re the MPAC link - colour me surprised. Is it just a cunning ploy or do you think they mean it?

I'll take it you're happy to have a politicised police force then.

If you had a choice between that and theocracy, which would you pick?

And there's no point retorting that what you want is a liberal small state system, because that isn't on the table and it isn't going to be. Of the available options, which is the worst?

this same state is NOT a threat to our freedom of expression and liberty? In effect you are saying just because the state tried to do what the Muslim protesters were demanding (i.e. make 'doing a Jyllands-Posten' in Britain illegal), we should not feel the state is a threat to our freedom of expression?

Hardly. Again, which is the BIGGER threat, do you think? It's necessary to deal with the most immediate danger first.

Furthemore, it would be sensible to distinguish between the threat posed by the state per se and the threat posed by the political ideology that happens to form the current government - the two are not the same.

EG

Perry will probably reprimand me again, but I found this quite cheering: (Link)

This too (Link)

pommygranate writes:

"There are the ususal rants about 'death to the infidel' but the vast majority express anger and horror at the demonstrators."

Oh, I grant you there are some. But that isn't what I was asking, is it?

Until and unless there are some practical demonstrations that mainstream Moslem opinion in the UK is anti-islamist (and, yes, we've had all the 'why should they?' arguments, I know) then I'll remain unconvinced that we have any idea of the truth.

If 'moderate' Moslem opinion is as you seem to be suggesting, why is it that there isn't a single Islamic nation on Earth with what one might fairly describe as a Western-style open government? And, please, don't even think of suggesting Turkey.

Why assume that the majority of Moslems in this country, given their druthers, wouldn't support just the sort of system their co-religionists have created everywhere else?

Actually, GCooper, there is Malaysia. Common law, open courts, freedom of religion as in, on Fridays, the traffic police turn a blind eye to triple parking outside the mosques, even when it inconveniences other traffic. OTOH, on Sunday, they are equally myopic to triple parking and parking up on curbs outside the churches. Christmas day is a public holiday and Muslims in the office shake your hand and wish you "Happy Christmas". Christmas decorations go up in the stores for a few days. Chinese New Year is also a holiday, and Muslim co-workers offer "Gong Xi Fa Cai" to their Chinese colleagues.

I have been reading discouraging news, though. The new prime minister seems to be taking the country into a less secular mode and some MPs are calling for their primitive sharia to replace Common Law. But as of now, it's the Islamic Republic of Malaysia but it's a very relaxed Islamic republic.

Actually, GCooper's point about "given their druthers" is interesting.

GCooper - you're making a quantum leap. My point was simply that if you read the Muslim websites, the vast majority seem to think the demonstrators a bunch of nutters.

Hardly. Again, which is the BIGGER threat, do you think? It's necessary to deal with the most immediate danger first.

Wrong, because it is in fact the same threat. Muslims in Britain cannot force me to change what I do on Samizdata. They can threaten me (and they have) but I am willing to take my chances. However intolerant Muslims have a much better chance of stopping me doing thing they do not like if they can get the state to threaten me (i.e. pass a law) on their behalf because the state has more power at its disposal. They very nearly got their wish a fe