The main thing that the Jyllands-Posten incident was intended to do was to assert the right of freedom of expression as a way of defending that right, and they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.
Given the climate of abridgement regarding freedom of expression and civil rights generally in Britain and elsewhere, I can only offer my heartfelt thanks to not just Flemming Rose of Jyllands-Posten for publishing those aesthetically unremarkable cartoons and forcing this issue onto the front page where it belongs, but to everyone involved in this drama.
In other words I would like to thank not just those august Danes but also offer a hat-tip to the millions of screaming Muslim activists and blood curdling placard bearing demonstrators who underlined and put into bold what those Danes did, giving them publicity but above all proving their point. If you guys had not taken the bait hook, line and sinker, this would have been a non-event.
Yet now only the most gibbering purblind Chomskyite will claim that Muslim activists have not created a climate of fear and intimidation regarding what people can and cannot say about them, or that is it all about Israel (sorry, Palestine) and BushMcHitler. Without the help and support of all those guys in Kabul, London, Beirut, Cairo, Copenhagen and Damascus, this incident would have been a foot note rather than a global headline. As I have said before, with enemies like them, who needs friends?
We now have a powerful set of memes to use against the enemies of liberty, both domestic and foreign. I suggest we use them for all they are worth and assert our rights, continually pushing the boundaries just to defend what we have. Someone wants to curtail what you can say? Point out they are appeasing the guys with the signs reading “WE WILL BEHEAD ANY WHO INSULT ISLAM”.
We must also refuse to tolerate the intolerance that wraps itself in worlds like ‘respect’ and ‘acceptance’ because whilst we must tolerate our enemies provided they do not threaten us with force, we should feel no obligation to respect them or to accept their views any more than they must respect or accept us.
Tolerance for us however is non-negotiable and methinks it is time to stop being polite when we make that point .
Update: this is something these guys understand.
This must be used against the real enemy,ythe liberal left,who with the tenets of multiculturalism,political correctness and mealy mouthed habit of concealing problems,have brought us to this miserable pass.
This stick must be used against every Piglet banner,every Christmas suppressor,every “Only whites can be racist” promoter,every cultural relativist,every vandaliser of our heritage,must be made to see that this is their fault.”Lay the guilt trip on them” use the same slimey methods that the Liberal Left has used to put us down.
Islam has not moved from the position it has always held,a position well understood by our elites in the past,it is the new elites who have assumed the kneeling position on behalf of us all.It is that position which has emboldened Islamic fanatics to push even harder.
Absolutely. Here we are in the 21st Century and some old words still ring true:
Peace and friendship with all mankind is our wisest policy, and I wish we may be permitted to pursue it. But the temper and folly of our enemies may not leave this in our choice. … Thomas Jefferson
Yes yes yes. Something which has been overlooked as far as I can tell is the cringeing “but”:
“Yes, of course I support freedom of speech but the feelings of others must be respected.”
Nope, not at all. This is an absolutist matter. Freedoms of speech and expression are everything, there is no right, no freedom, not to be offended. Islam needs to be slapped in the face with depictions of its prophet every day until it concedes.
Im not sure its entirly fair to lay the blame for this onthe politians. They generally react to public opinion (or percieved public opinion) if they are too spineless to make the right if unpopular discissions. The media has huge power in this arena and the government is very vulnerable to them.
I think in the shorter term, this once again raises constitutional questions about our elected politicians and the positions they hold.
There has been a clear violation of interests in this issue by Jack Straw. By only serving his own interests in yielding to his constituents (which, as an MP, is probably not a bad thing), he has neglected the interests of the rest of the country and his position as Foreign Secretary. To go further, it could be said that he has abused his position of higher authority to try to influence somewhat.
How can we accept a Foreign Secretary who neglects his duties and office for the sake of a few votes at the expense of the rest of the country?
I am more certain now than ever before that Cabinet positions should be separated somehow from the positions of being Members of Parliament.
On another note, seeing as I’ve brought up this line of topic, did nobody else express concern about the level of political and constitutional knowledge amongst the public when ‘Sid’ the London bomber conveyed his video message?
I’m disturbed that he could not understand the fundamental workings of our political infrastructure when he said something along the lines of “the British people have voted Tony Blair back in…”. How much further from the truth could he be? He failed to understand that the entire electorate does not get to choose its Prime Minister, yet this was his entire premise for choosing to murder innocent people, all of whom did not elect Tony Blair to be their Prime Minister! In the name of his fallible rhetoric, what an ignorant cunt he was…
These primitive inadequates need to be put back in their boxes too.
There’s something rather fishy here. Charles Clarke has used that phrase to give Muslims the same protection as Sikhs or Jews twice recently: just after the Lords’ amendments won the day in the Commons last week on the Dhimmitude Bill and also at the weekend, following the demonstrations in London, though I forget the exact context.
You know when something’s up, when something’s about to happen. The language of the left comes together on whatever the issue is, certain words and phrases are used more and more in discussion and interviews. Stand by for yet more preferential treatment for islam.
James, you make a very interesting point of constitutional principle. It is what we in the business world would know as good corporate governance. Just as stock analysts are not allowed to deal in the companies they opine on or disclose their involvement, so politicians who have particular constituency issues should, at the very least, disclose that.
But in a way such a law would be pointless. Jack Straw is pretty well known as a politician with a particular makeup in his parliamentary seat and has been an specular waste of space as Foreign Secretary. His only claim to regard is that he is not quite as terrible as that arch bum-kisser of tyrants, Douglas Hurd.
Here, here! Perry. I too salute Flemming Rose and I agree the cartoons, which are legal in all Western countries, should be run and run again and referred to.
These people aren’t even up to being Medieval yet. They’re still in the Dark Ages and their cultural imperialism is offensive to people who are 1400 years in advance of them. We thank them for illustrating the primitive nature of their religion so graphically and dramatically and we will hold it against them.
Thanks for the link, Pete_London. Now these little unflushable lumps of shit are trying to get pictures of Mohammad (piss be upon him) banned. I just don’t know why they think their stupid, primitive, absolutely ghastly “religion” takes precedence over the British electorate. Here’s what their spokesman – can’t be bothered to look up his name, but something Islamic, that’s enough – said: “The code was a voluntary code to ensure the media treated people with respect and called for that respect to be shown to Muslims, whose religion forbids any pictorial depiction of Muhammad.”
You can’t legislate respect, you stupid little dimwit!
Now here’s how this will play out. They won’t let it go. This is what they’re like. They get a little thing and they whine on and on and on and on and on until other people say, “Oh for Christ’s sake, OK if it will shut you up!” And they get another victory and walk away rubbing their hands.
I think there should be a nationwide discussion on whether Islam is actually a religion. Many claim that it is simply a very successful warrior cult.
I really think it is time for a programme of reverse immigration – if for no other reason than to force into their tightly closed little Islamic brains that we don’t want them anywhere near us.
This spokesman on Pete_London’s link said the cartoons were “designed to provoke”. Dear god, they still do not understand why the cartoons were published. They still think a Danish newspaper was seized with a sudden idea to insult their irrelevant religion. But we do, as Perry says, have to thank them for proving the Jyllands-Posten’s point so graphically.
ALL religions, by their very nature, are primitive.
Here’s one staunch non-dhimmi wading through all this “respect” that Tony Blair is knee deep in, telling it like it is.
A priest yesterday launched a pulpit attack on Muslims who disrupted a Mass at a Catholic school. Father John Gannon labelled parents who withdrew children from the service at staggered intervals as “extremists”.
Attendance of Mass is not compulsory for non-Christian pupils, so WTF is the issue here?
Father Gannon said the Campaign for Muslim Schools alleged pupils were forced to attend Mass and those who did not had to stand facing a wall. He added: “It is a waste of breath to refute this rubbish.”
Brian Fitzpatrick, chairman of St Albert’s parish council, said he was “appalled” by the protest.
He said: “It doesn’t matter if you are Catholic, Jewish or Hindu, you do not go into a place of worship and disrupt it. You don’t use children as a political stunt.”
Father Gannon added, “By their deliberate and sustained disruption it is clear that their intention was to show their contempt for the Christian faith.” Woo-hoo! Two can play at that game, eh, Muzzies?
The above is from The Daily Record via Laban Tall’s blog.
As the French satirical publication Le Canard Enchaîné puts it, freedom of press wanes only when unused.
Verity –
How very true. The dogs now have another bone – whoops, was that offensive? Ah well.
Now some bloke called Saddiqi wants the Press Complaints Commission code of conduct altered to prevent the publishing of images of that prophet fella – to ensure the media treated people with respect … eh? Not one newspaper in Britain published the cartoons. How stupid can people be?! And is ‘respect’ the only reason why they want that code of conduct altered? Well no, there’s also the fact that islam forbids any pictorial depiction of Muhammad.
Verity, you’re right. Reverse immigration now – for extreme fucking stupidity! These people just don’t have the brains to operate in an advanced society.
They will get their legislation prohibiting free speech that may criticise any part of Islam UNLESS there is a huge demonstration that the British public have had enough; they have had it right up to the eyeballs with these pathetic primitive monkeys. Even if there may be some dodgy characters at the Trafalgar Square rally scheduled for Saturday nevertheless there needs to be solidarity (remember Solidarity?) and a huge turn out to ram it home to those worthless poltroons of NUlabour. Make it clear — “Don’t even think about any such legislation”. And there should be a clear message about the current totally untrustworthy politicised police.
Pete_London says: “These peopole just don’t have the brains to operate in an advanced society.” That is absolutely the case.
They can be depended upon to inevitably, after much deliberation, make wrong judgements. They constantly jump to lunatic conclusions that only the demented could dream up. They are unable to follow an argument. They just nod, minds glued shut, while other people are talking, waiting for their turn, and then they say something of such towering idiocy, it takes the breath away. How many times has it been written that the Jyllands-Posten put out a call for the cartoons because the author of a children’s book about Mo couldn’t find an illustrator and Flemming Rose bravely decided to address the issue of self-censorship? How many times has this been re-iterated?
And they are still running around the streets with their hair on fire claiming it was a deliberate insult to their leader. They are so self-absorbed, in the manner of small children, that they do not understand, cannot conceive of the notion, that the world spends 24 hours a day not thinking anything about islam at all. Their immaturity would be laughable were it not so dangerous.
On the contrary Pete -London,they do have the brains to operate in an advanced society,they are running rings round blair’s government of lawyers.
They know exactly how to put forward a banning project to attract the wandering eye of our jackdaw politicians.
It has to be remembered that ZaNulabor is beholden to the Muslim vote in many inner city areas,since our masters are not afraid of offending us but wetting themselves to please their new masters,what do you think the outcome will be?
Re. the update, I am most impressed by those New Yprk Post journalists and I am disappointed that our lot seem so limp-wristed by comparision. Sometimes I think that without blogs like this to show that the “bulldog breed” are not a thing of the past I would just have an stroke from sheer frustration.
I know that Perry has taken the view that the Saturday demo is to be avoided, because of BNP associations.
Perhaps this should be rethought.
I’m think that a significant bunch of people holding “NOT the BNP yadda yadda” banners would differentiate us sufficiently?
Pete_London: Peoples’ feelings can be respected, but that does not mean peoples’ feelings can dictate what is and is not published. It is not as if these images are being beamed into Muslim homes on purpose to rile them or waved gratutously about.
It should be made very clear that what we are talking about is a synthetic, man-made ‘rule’ that has no basis in reason, nor even in the Koran. I has been cooked up by beards as another form of control of their obedient masses. If their religion forbids the publication of images of Mahommed, then they can desist for themselves. It is their religion, but it is not the religion of billions of other people.
It should be made clear that Mohammed is a Muslim prophet, and is not “The Prophet” and there is no proof beyond that individual’s testimony that he was the final prophet (convenient).
It might also be consdered that as we are repeatedly called “Infidel”. I mention this as Muslims are hell-bent on re-branding the Abrahamic legacy. They consider Abraham as a Muslim, along with Moses, Jesus and all the other figures. Jews have strayed, as have Christians, with the Koran abrogating all previous revelations (well I never). Maybe Abraham can be called “Muslim”, but then surely that means “Muslims” must be classified as “Mahommedan” to differentiate them?
Yes, obviously it is the Muslim vote that occupies damp airheads like Jack Straw, who never had the faintest
concept of what loyalty to one’s country is anyway. That’s a legitimate point.
But this constant kowtowing to Islamic riffraff – by which I mean 99.555% of them – is also a condescending recognition that the Islamics are over-emotional, stupid and childlike and will behave inappropriately if not indulged. Everything we have witnessed during the last few days has been infantile “acting out”. This is recognised by the deadheads in the cabinet
I firmly believe that this appeasement will continue unabated until the camel’s back is broken (combined with ever increasing taxation).
Then you will get a mass backlash. A public unleashing of many years worth of pent up frustration.
There have already been several incidents and *hints* that this is the natural conclusion of events.
And it will be messy.
The Dude
I share Perry’s alergy to the BNP and perhaps the banana peel potential for the editor of Samizdata does suggest prudence (blimey, I used the word prudence and samizdata in the same sentance!) rather than potentially providing socialist authoritarians a chance to catch him in the same photo as national socialist authoritarians.
I on the other hand do not run a high profile blog and have made a habit of turning up to BNP events and heckling both the BNP and their SWP counter-protesters. It is simply irresistable fun and I love having all my enemies in one place!
Look for a tweedy gent making loud intemperate remarks… that will be me.
A good slogan if you do want to show up is:
FREE SPEECH FOR MUSLIMS
That way it is clear that the planned Hizb counter-demo lot are a bunch of nasty extremists as well…
I’m sorry Perry but I can’t agree with you here.
It is difficult to reconcile this with Libertarian beliefs but, basically, we must not tolerate their intolerance. The Islamic religion is a memetic virus, an indoctrination policy. Muslims indoctrinate their children to believe utter bullshit and they have many many children. The vast majority of them don’t call for bombings or blow things up, they just quietly grow nin numbers and form functional ghettoes and then all of a sudden they all ‘feel offended’ and call for the removal of freedom of speech.
They are outbreeding us and their culture is effectively a non-integrational one, so they do not ‘merge into’ British culture, instead they coalesce like oildrops in water and form islands of discontent. They congregate in regions and tend towards a hierarchial/familial organisation system so they vote as a bloc. These two factors allow them (or anyone who follows the same pattern) to punch above their weight politically in a regionally-based system.
We must not stifle their speech but their invasive and destructive culture must absolutely be stifled, immediately, because it does not threaten our society with force but rather it is a force.
Their schools must be abolished. Muslim schools systematically discriminate against girls, and in state schools teachers are advised not to ‘pressure’ muslim girls to work when their parents clearly have other ideas for them. This all must be abolished. Muslim girls who are being held back at school must be removed from their parents.
The Islamic Religion does not have any respect for democracy, freedom of speech or freedom of worship. Repeated calls from Muslims from ALL levels demand special treatment, protection and the curtailing of our rights.
There is a fundamental incompatibility between western freedom and the islamic faith. We must recognise this and not merely treat it is a ‘religion’ because religion is somehow special (‘it’s protected because I and many many other people believe in this dude in the sky who says it’s okay’ wtf?) It must be treated as an ideology, much like communism.
This is the new cold war, and this enemy has no governments to engage with diplomacy, no cities to threaten with nuclear weapons, no arms race to lose, no territory to take. At least Communism was recognised as being just a theory!
They are the fifth column. They must be destroyed utterly.
We should probably get on about raising OUR birthrate too. (Not to get ridiculous about it or anything…)
At the end of the link you give the ex Editor in Chief of the “New York Press” (Mr Siegel) makes a good point.
“under new OWNERSHIP and management” (my emphasis) he wishes the newspaper all the best.
For the first time in my life I have come upon a workers walk-out that has the deliberate intention of bringing down the company (as opposed to the unintended effect of harming the company – as most strikes do) that I can support.
What the workers are saying is that you (the owners and management of the New York Press) have urinated all over decent principles – so go and produce your own newspaper (or get some “yes men” to produce the newspaper).
No “picket line” or other system of threats – just “we do not wish to work for you anymore, see how you do without us”.
Hopefully the New York Press will go bust soon.
Meanwhile perhaps people in New York should consider buying the New York Sun (although I know nothing of this newspaper other than that it printed the cartoons).
In Britian none of the national newspapers have printed the cartoons.
Roy Greenslade (in the Daily Telegraph) suggested that might be because there are so many Muslims in the distribution system – and the newspapers feared retaliation. The distibution sytem is another mess (at least R. M. is talking about distributing his own newspapers and cutting these little mafia type groups out).
Still the (Rupert M.) owned “New York Post” has not printed the cartoons either.
So what was that from the Post about going against the “Liberal” strangle hold on the American newspaper market?
There is a market here (sales of newspapers), but all the main newspapers in the United States and Britian do not care.
THEY DO CARE ABOUT MAKING MONEY (they would rather be “respectable”).
It reminds me of the publisher (a Mr Miller – an official at one of the main New York publishers of the day) who turned down F. A. Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom” (and convinced other publishers to do so – till Mr Crouch at the University of Chicago Press refused to play ball) whilst snearing that the book would “sell very well” (as if that was a crime).
Why would a publisher want to publish a book that would “sell very well”?
No – much better to publish leftist books that pile up in book shops for years till they either sold for next to nothing or are pulped (in spite of vast efforts to promote these works). A few of these leftist works do sell (after massive promotion efforts), but most sink without trace.
And then people ask why publishers and book chains get into financial trouble.
Hopefully the “respectable” (i.e. cowardly P.C. newspapers) will all go bust.
Not over just this issue of course – but because this is their attitude when dealing with every matter.
“We must be responsible” – i.e. “we must be arseholes”.
“to assert the right of freedom of expression as a way of defending that right”
Rosa Parks was right to provoke trouble by refusing to go to the back of the bus.
“I really think it is time for a programme of reverse immigration,” writes Verity.
Perhaps you should elaborate on what exactly you mean about that.
I’ll post this in the thread about the university newspaper in Wales as well, but here’s a link to a cool story about a professor in Nova Scotia who has refused to comply with his university’s ban on publicly displaying the cartoons.
The main thing that the Jyllands-Posten incident was intended to do was to assert the right of freedom of expression as a way of defending that right, and they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.
Negative. The main thing that the Jyllands-Posten incident was meant to do was to gravely insult Muslims. It was meant to provoke a response by mocking the most important human being in history to 1.2b people. The attacks were not clever, intelligent, or funny, they were crude and stupid and designed to provoke a response.
Well, they got one.
Kim du Toit nailed this:
Here’s a clue for the clueless: symbols have meaning, and carry an emotional impact far beyond their intrinsic value. So if you mess with them, you should expect a reaction: sometimes violent, sometimes extreme, and always hearfelt[sic].
The issue isn’t free speech – no one’s arguing that the papers have no right to publish these cartoons – and the issue isn’t violent reprisal – no one’s arguing that, either – the issue is common courtesy and good manners. Whatever things we should rightly say and do against Muslim terrorists, none of that justifies mocking Muhammad. And when Muhammad is mocked, expect Muslims to be angry, and rightly so.
– Josh
Wrong. Dead wrong. Thousands of muslims have already gone public saying that free speech should not extend to cover this. Turkey and Syria and Libya recalled their ambassadors because Denmark refused to “punish” the paper.
Since when has burning an embassy been an appropriate response to “bad manners?”
WAKE UP!
Verity: Why do you persist in insulting children?
Joshua beat me to it.
No it is not. The issue is establishing yet again that freedom of expression does indeed mean freedom to insult.
As one of the Samizdatistas once said (I forget which), he could never respect a flag he could not burn. For example your national flag may be a sacred icon to you just as the image (or lack thereof) may be a sacred matter to a Muslim, but that is precisely why I might want to burn it/mock it to make a point about how I feel about how the government of (insert nation here) acts or how groups of a certain religion use force either directly or via the state to repress what they do not like.
A pretty girl going out in a short skirt might provoke a reaction too, but does that justify rape? Some Muslims would argue that it does I fear. I say no, just because someone is provoked, it is incumbent on them, not the ‘provoker’, not to react with violence unless the provocation itself is an act of violence.
Common courtesy and good manners are social things, but prohibiting a person by law from provoking you (either by banning short skirts or images you disapprove of) has nothing to do with common courtesy and good manners, it is simply about imposing your will on others by force.
permanent expat – OK. I give up. I’m baffled. When did I “insult” children?
wild pegagus – in other words, you are saying that Islamics are so infantile that they cannot control their tempers and understand that they live in a diverse world? Isn’t that a little insulting?
wild pegasus: [i]”Here’s a clue for the clueless: symbols have meaning, and carry an emotional impact far beyond their intrinsic value. So if you mess with them, you should expect a reaction: sometimes violent, sometimes extreme, and always hearfelt[sic].”[/i]
The clueless people are those who are brainwashed into attaching emotional value to a symbol far beyond its intrinsic value and produce a violent and sometimes extreme reaction like some Pavlovian dog.
Verity: You keep comparing them with Moslem bigots……………oh, never mind. LOL
This why the earlier equivalence of a girl in a short skirt is more appropriate. To be truly human one must rise above the bestial nature and not allow excuses that provocations bring to cloud moral truth, even provocations from unworthy and malicious sources. One can explain reactions to provocations without accepting them as tolerable or forgiveable in this life. It sorrow me to saythat more than most religions Islam is used as an excuse to remain morally undeveloped in much the same ways secular societies often use nationalism. To indulge in evil because something is heartfelt is an excuse, not a justification.
Farah Godrej,
THat is a profound observation.
Right.
Interesting that while many of us campaign for free speech, much of our MSM is using that very same notion of free speech to restrict their reporting of events and avoid issues.
They can honestly say they fully believe in free speech because they have the freedom to give just a limited and uneven view. Free to not report, if they choose.
Muzzies have the freedom to call for mass deaths and the end to free speech, while our newspapers and broadcasters have the freedom to avoid facing the facts or telling it like it is.
Ever felt you were between a rock and a hard place?
Pete_London reminded me of something:
As in “I an not a racist but ..blah … blah”
Remeber how the lefties used to go wild whenever people used that form of words to deny the bleedin’ obvious.
Now the same people are saying “I am not against freedom of speech but …”
What hypocrisy!
de Havilland:
No it is not. The issue is establishing yet again that freedom of expression does indeed mean freedom to insult.
I don’t think it is, because no non-Muslim European is saying, “Yes, we should use the government to stop the publication of these cartoons.”
Verity:
wild pegagus – in other words, you are saying that Islamics are so infantile that they cannot control their tempers and understand that they live in a diverse world?
Let me try to analogise: you publish a half-dozen cartoons in the most widely read paper in Italy (whatever it is) showing the Virgin Mary being sodomised by dogs. Catholics worldwide throw a fit in response.
No one’s saying that the Catholics have a right to respond violently. But I’d hardly call it “infantile” for Catholics to be gravely insulted by this kind of cartoon. No less for disrespectful images – or any images, unless I’m mistaken – of Muhammad.
TimC:
The clueless people are those who are brainwashed into attaching emotional value to a symbol far beyond its intrinsic value and produce a violent and sometimes extreme reaction like some Pavlovian dog.
Does the irony of criticising symbols while using written language strike you in the least?
– Josh
Not so. That is exactly what we came within a whisker of seeing in Britian had the unammended version of the ‘Hate’ bill passed only a little more than a week ago. Had it passed in the government’s original prefered form, publishing the ‘Satanic Cartoons’ on Samizdata would be illegal right now. The threat is clear and present and it is coming from people like Tony Blair and Jack Straw
The timing of this could not have been better.
“The issue is establishing yet again that freedom of expression does indeed mean freedom to insult.” PdH
Agreed. And we behave insultingly at our peril. Often it is in our own self-interest to hold our tongues, or stay our hand on the keyboard. But it must always be our choice. But it is our right to behave insultingly and rudely to other people if we wish to do so. We may lose our job, our friends and the goodwill of our neighbours, or the workmen may walk out of your house, but it is our choice. People are smart enough to know this basic fact of being a human.
Talk of legislating on this issue is in itself grossly insulting.
I agree with Farah Godrej — that religion stopped progressing in the medievel ages. I wonder how long will Islam survive once the world runs out of oil or when an alternate fuel source is discovered. Honestly can’t think of a single Islamic state which has a constructive contribution to the world economy or the global culture. The rest of the world tolerates their barbarism because they own oil. If Islam doesnt change or if the moderates continue to pander to the extreme elements, the religion will die as soon as the global dependance on oil declines