67 1 min 12 mths

In front of the French Embassy in London today, where muslims demonstrate their usual standards of self-awareness. Hot on the heels of yet more Islamic murder they gather to demand that we respect their values. Islam produces the whinest people.

No, I don’t respect their backward beliefs, and I don’t have to. We have free will and freedom of speech in advanced societies. So Abdul is bang out of luck because his values are incompatible with ours. So he will have to back down or leave.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

67 thoughts on “THAT’S A NO FROM ME

  1. Are protesters really being allowed to be right next to the embassy building? At this time?

    Are your police and Home Office complete idiots?

    Have they learned nothing over the past 20 years and more?

  2. “Are protesters really being allowed to be right next to the embassy building? At this time?”

    Police deemed the gathering unlawful and broke it up.

  3. We have free will and freedom of speech in advanced societies.

    I’m not fussed about pictures of a God but some find it offensive in the same way that some find the burnings of flags offensive, (which doesn’t particularly annoy me either).Because we have the freedom to do something does it then follow that we must do it and isn’t freedom to peacefully protest against something part of that freedom too?

    Are protesters really being allowed to be right next to the embassy building? At this time?

    ??

  4. tricky one
    facts
    1)
    95% of Muslims like 95% of whites respect the law and could in no way be described as criminals. ask any copper, look at any poll, there’s a hardcore 5% in any society/country that commit serious crimes and also happen to be repeat offenders

    2) Yes its freedom of expression to draw a cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb on his head

    Do we really need to provoke them , when 95% are not a problem ?

    interesting fact
    There is more violence, terrorist campaigns directed against abortion clinics in USA than there is Islamic fundamentalist attacks –

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

    so petem don’t play the holier than thou card , your kith and kin are just as barbarous when its comes to intolerance and taking offense as the murderous al-qaidi butchers
    and that’s a fact ( see above wiki )

  5. Paul –

    Because we have the freedom to do something does it then follow that we must do it ..

    That’s one of my lines. One correct answer is “yes”.

    When muslims or other zealots tell us that they forbid us from doing something because their backward beliefs forbid it then, yes, we must do it.

    We must do it loudly and repeatedly and shove it in their faces until they back down because our liberties to speak freely – which absolutely includes the right to mock, insult and offend – are incalculably more precious than their backward, intolerant ways.

    If they don’t like it then they can leave. Yes, that’s a reasonable, genuinely liberal response.

  6. It’s interesting that this group of people are offended enough by cartoons to demonstrate outside the French Embassy, yet they weren’t motivated enough by the beheading of a human being in the name of their faith to gather outside the Embassy to protest that real act of blasphemy.

  7. “It’s interesting that this group of people are offended enough by cartoons to demonstrate outside the French Embassy, yet they weren’t motivated enough by the beheading of a human being in the name of their faith to gather outside the Embassy to protest that real act of blasphemy.”

    Though one could make the case that the act of beheading has not been endorsed by the French government, while the cartoons have been. Had any government endorsed the beheadings and other murders then I’m sure there would have been a protest or two (though not necessarily by the same people).

  8. The cartoons weren’t endorsed by the govt. They weren’t produced, promoted or proselytised by the State. It was an individual decision taken in a class lesson by the teacher. The govt. has nothing to do with the showing of these cartoons unless you count their failure to outlaw them.

  9. no-ones cool with the beheadings, except the beheaders
    all the worlds gov’t have condemned them inc islamic countries
    some have added, stop provoking .. which i think is reasonable ..

    “We must do it loudly and repeatedly and shove it in their faces”
    words of an idiot !

  10. Nobody’s provoking them. They are choosing to be outraged because the French govt won’t give in to their demands to outlaw the production of images of Mohamed.

  11. There have been a billion shows mocking Christianity and Mormonism but I don’t see any beheadings in protest of them.

    Why the difference

  12. “The cartoons weren’t endorsed by the govt. They weren’t produced, promoted or proselytised by the State. It was an individual decision taken in a class lesson by the teacher. The govt. has nothing to do with the showing of these cartoons unless you count their failure to outlaw them.”

    I think they have gone further than simply not outlawing them, and Macron’s statements have been undeniably blunt. I understand the reason behind the tone but it has meant that their role has gone beyond passive defence of people’s ability to do this to outright support of them doing it.

    I for one don’t think they should be outlawed, though I am uncomfortable with the idea behind them. They are deliberatly provocative. They exist only to offend and provoke. Which is fine, and that should be acceptable in a free society.

  13. Macron has not defended the cartoons or their reproduction.

    I’m no fan of his but he did his job as the President of France. He defended and asserted the principles of the Republic. The existence of those principles allow people to draw cartoons and publish cartoons of religious prophets. That’s all there is to it.

    He actually appears to have matured these last few weeks, though not as much as his missus, obvs.

  14. petem you hate france and all it stands for except when it comes to bashing muslims- a republic, a large NHS, humanity driven, they got rid of the monarchy remember ..
    away with ya , not in the mood for your piety tonite ..lol

  15. Colm –

    She actually is a gilf. I wouldn’t say non.

    kurt –

    petem you hate france and all it stands for except when it comes to bashing muslims

    You couldn’t be more wrong, and France is not bashing muslims. I notice you lefty nutters never bash on backward, misogynist, intolerant Islam, by the way. That’s because you are all full of crap.

    If I hated France I wouldn’t have lived there. I love France and the French, so long as they are French. I spent years living in Spain, France, Italy and Cyprus, and their particular foibles are my favourite memories.

    France is your stupid brother. You dislike him until you have to straighten the tie of anyone who starts on him.

    And I want France to beat Ireland tomorrow.

  16. French goods are being boycotted in Arab countries, including so-called ally Saudi Arabia. And of course the boycott is being urged on in so-called Nato ally Turkey by the increasingly islamist Erdogan who has described Macron as mentally ill and claimed that French treatment of muslims is like German treatment of Jews. Erdogan’s hard-line reaction to the killing of the teacher two weeks ago may well have encouraged the attacks in France this week. Be sure that he has shed no tears.

    It’s high-time that Turkey was kicked out of Nato.

  17. Brendan O’Neill nails it here:

    “Many people should be taking a long hard look in the mirror today following this slaughter of Christians in Nice. The cynical demagogues of the Muslim world, in particular Erdogan in Turkey, have whipped up hatred for France over the past week, branding it a foul Islamophobic country simply because President Macron has promised to confront and defeat Islamist extremism. These people have helped to stir up the Francophobic jihad of which today’s attack in Nice is the latest bloody expression. And then there’s the political figures and opinion-formers in the West who responded to the beheading of Samuel Paty either by shamefully zipping their lip or by engaging in the contemptible apologism of ‘but’ – ‘Of course Paty shouldn’t have been murdered, but it is wrong to display caricatures of Muhammad’. These people, too, cannot be surprised that France is still under attack from regressive religionists, given they refused to defend France the last time it happened; given they have drifted dangerously close many times to suggesting that France brings these attacks on itself by permitting ‘Islamophobic’ speech.

    Unique among all forms of violent extremism, Islamist terrorism is always viewed as a response to a provocation. If Charlie Hebdo hadn’t published those cartoons, the massacre wouldn’t have happened. If Samuel Paty hadn’t shown kids a picture of Muhammad’s arse, he wouldn’t have become a target for attack. This is as morally degenerate as it would be to say that the Muslims massacred in Christchurch by the racist terrorist Brenton Tarrant brought it upon themselves by attending mosque – don’t they know that’s offensive to white-nationalist extremists? What will the unprincipled excuse-makers for Islamist violence, these people who genuinely believe that France’s ‘Islamophobia’ is a key reason 250 of its citizens have been slaughtered over the past five years, say after Nice? That an old woman going to a Christian church is a provocation?”

    The shameful silence on France

  18. Brendan O’Neill always gets it. You’d be astonished at the hate he attracts simply for being right and genuinely liberal.

  19. Brendan O’Neill always gets it.

    I wouldn’t say always. But he’s very sound on the islamist threat to our liberal societies. And on islamism’s useful fools who use the facile charge of islamophobia to shut down discussion of that threat.

  20. Brendan O Neill is an intelligent guy but not perfect, as his flawed support for the stupidity of Brexit shows.

  21. France will not have the will to stamp out the infection. There will be a cave in to come soon.

  22. kurt,

    95% of Muslims like 95% of whites respect the law and could in no way be described as criminals. ask any copper, look at any poll, there’s a hardcore 5% in any society/country that commit serious crimes and also happen to be repeat offenders

    If we talk about Muslims worldwide, (Muslim extremism varies from country to country), then I agree with you kurt that the majority of Muslims are peaceful. I’ve said this before. However, I’m not sure you’re 95% figure is factually correct.

    Yes its freedom of expression to draw a cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb on his head. Do we really need to provoke them , when 95% are not a problem ?

    If you’re scared to ‘provoke them’ kurt, then you don’t have freedom of speech.

  23. Seamus.

    Though one could make the case that the act of beheading has not been endorsed by the French government, while the cartoons have been.

    How have the cartoons been endorsed by the government?
    As far as I’m aware, the government just supporting free speech where the cartoons are concerned.

  24. Pete Moore

    France is your stupid brother. You dislike him until you have to straighten the tie of anyone who starts on him.

    He’s still a better cook, better looking, and gets more girls than you though.

  25. not scared to DaveA, just consider it undignified to attack people’s religion
    we’re better than that ..

  26. As always :

    Our house, our rules. Don’t like the rules, leave the house and go and live somewhere else.

  27. //I am uncomfortable with the idea behind them. They are deliberatly provocative. They exist only to offend and provoke.//

    Doe they though? There was at least an element of the idea, if not the central message, in the original Charlie cartoons that Islam in itself encourages terrorism – thus a bomb in Mohammad’s head. That’s a defensible notion and a cartoon is a neat way of communicating it. It could be said, most likely was, to be aimed at Islamic theology and not at yer average Muslim.

    Similarly, when the teacher displayed a cartoon in class he did so in the context of a lesson on freedom of speech. Maybe he was secretly taking a dig at the religion of some of his pupils, and it probably wasn’t the wisest choice of image to illustrate the point. As the school was in a generally Christian country probably a few scenes from the Life of Brian or that Christ submerged in urine would have been better.

    But they weren’t necessarily intended to provoke.

    Apart from that, as Pete says, sometimes a strong, broadly-based provocation is a good idea. If say, everyone were to display the M cartoon in his front window, the shock would sooner or later be over and the tolerance threshold would only go up. Leaving society free to carry on as normal without the fear of upsetting someone who probably makes a profession out of being upset.

    The nasty thing about the unfortunate teacher was not that there was one loon prepared to do the deed, but that some of his pupils reported his actions and identified him to his killer.

  28. One correct answer is “yes”.

    No problem, Pete. I’ll look forward to such liberal understanding the next time some malcontent sets a Union flag or Stars & stripes ablaze.

    Apart from that, as Pete says, sometimes a strong, broadly-based provocation is a good idea.

    Yes and no, Noel. There’s nothing wrong with being provocative constructively but I think that being deliberately offensive is a different matter. For me being deliberately offending someone is a small step away from this kind of thing:

    https://www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2018/07/11/news/calls-for-removal-of-offensive-ballymurphy-massacre-bonfire-slogans-1380288/

    The shock would sooner or later be over and the tolerance threshold would only go up.

    I think that an exceptionally niave comment.

  29. Muslims believe that images of the prophet Mohamed should not be made. That is fine and its perfectly proper for them to choose to follow those rules. Mohamed however is also a major world figure of influence just like Jesus Christ and his persona belongs to the world. If you are not a Mslim you shouldn’t be expected to follow the ‘forbidden image’ rules of that religion.

  30. I’m not arguing any differently Colm. I’m speaking of the gratuitous use of offence for the sake of offending.

  31. Agreed – But the latest waves of outrage in some parts of the Muslim world are purely over Macron defending secular free speech not engaging in anything being done by him or the French govt/state that could be considered gratuitously offensive.

  32. I agree Colm but I think that’s a different discussion from the one above.

    As a matter of fact,

    Paul McMahon, on October 29th, 2020 at 4:05 PM Said:

    These murders follow incitement by the likes of Imran Khan and Recep Tayyip Erdogan. They and their like must be declared persona non grata across the West.

    I actually agree with you on that

    I find myself in the rather unsettling position of agreeing with Pete.

  33. “Agreed – But the latest waves of outrage in some parts of the Muslim world are purely over Macron defending secular free speech not engaging in anything being done by him or the French govt/state that could be considered gratuitously offensive.”

    Except the fact that the French have criminalised other forms of speech, for example anti-Semitic speech. It is illegal in France to make derogatory comments about Jews but isn’t illegal in France to make derogatory comments about Muslims. Make derogatory comments about Jews and you get fined. Make derogatory comments about Muslims and the President of France will go on TV and defend your right to do it.

  34. thats the money shot
    bang on abiut yiddle diddles are you’re in trouble
    esp by petem as he’s a real fan of free speech only when it suits the agenda
    and is always blogging about anti-antisemitism
    opps my bad , only when the labour party is involved

  35. Seamus

    Except the fact that the French have criminalised other forms of speech, for example anti-Semitic speech. It is illegal in France to make derogatory comments about Jews but isn’t illegal in France to make derogatory comments about Muslims. Make derogatory comments about Jews and you get fined. Make derogatory comments about Muslims and the President of France will go on TV and defend your right to do it.

    Absolutely spot-on.
    When it comes to free speech, it’s either all ok, or none of it is.

  36. No there has never been a time or place when there are no restrictions on speech

    You don’t have any right to scream fire in a crowded theater or hijack on a plane midair when there is no hijacking

    You don’t have any right to trade or possess child pornography or snuff images

    You don’t have any right to ask people to murder others, ie what happened in Rwanda

    There are few if any absolutes in this world. The above are real restrictions on speech and no one decent will oppose any of them.

    There is almost always a line, and the only correct discussion is where that line should be.

  37. But doesn’t that then limit free speech to what is subjectively offensive or not?

    You may not find an image of a diety with a bomb attached to his head offensive but I suspect it would be a different matter were it an image of Christ and Mary Magdalene having intercourse or indeed someone burning a US flag?

  38. If you think that it is okay to say Muslims are terrorists, or make jokes about Muhammad, but it isn’t okay to say Jews control the world, or the Holocaust never happened, then you don’t believe in free speech.

  39. Seamus you are not often wrong but you are on this. Laws against ‘hate speech’ in France applies to speech against all faiths, not just The Jewish faith. It is simply not true to say you can incite against Muslims but not Jews.

  40. Seamus –

    It is illegal in France to make derogatory comments about Jews but isn’t illegal in France to make derogatory comments about Muslims.

    Nonsense.

    Even if it were true it would not justify the ritual slaughter of Christians and neither would it oblige me to respect their primitive beliefs. But it’s absurd to say that Jews in France may not be subject to derogatory comments.

  41. we really need to know the law on this
    i know pat is a constitutional expert in USA
    pat dya know the LAW on this European kerfuffle ? 😉

  42. Even if it were true it would not justify the ritual slaughter of Christians

    Absolutely no one is suggesting such a thing, Pete.

  43. No Paul? Many slyly hint at a justification. Not muslims of course, Lots of them are openly jubilant with every grisly murder.

  44. //But it’s absurd to say that Jews in France may not be subject to derogatory comments.//

    He didn’t say that. You can certainly make derogatory comments about, say, a Jewish paedophile, but I’d say you’d have a harder job getting away with saying nasty things about Jews in general, or even Judaism, that about Muslims or Islam. In France, it’s even illegal, or soon will be, to criticise specifically Israel’s actions, as that’s now officially anti-semitism and anti-semitism is an offence.

    Macron was to the fore in these recent moves, and his support for the measures to prevent criticism of Jews and Israel contrasts very strongly with his attitude to publishing the Mohammad cartoons. If, say, a far-rightwing journal had featured on its cover an ugly cartoon of Mohammad with all the stereotype Jewish features and remarks about money grabbing and controlling politics, etc., Macron’s – and conservative ATW’s, tune would be very different.

    No, a person should defy and ridicule all of them if he feels inclined to: Muslims, Jews, Christians and Ulster Free Presbyterians.

  45. Many slyly hint at a justification

    Do they? Who? How? Certainly not the people you’re discussing it with here?

    If, say, a far-rightwing journal had featured on its cover an ugly cartoon of Mohammad with all the stereotype Jewish features and remarks about money grabbing and controlling politics, etc., Macron’s – and conservative ATW’s, tune would be very different.

    Well said Noel. That is of course 100% correct.

  46. Noel –

    Let’s see again exactly what Seamus said:

    It is illegal in France to make derogatory comments about Jews ..

    That is the same as my description of what he said, that Jews in France may not be subject to derogatory comments. Now you say:

    In France, it’s even illegal, or soon will be, to criticise specifically Israel’s actions ..

    Not true. The law broadly equates anti-Zionism with anti-semitism. Let’s be honest, that’s true for most people who say that anti-Zionism is not anti-semitism. We know what “anti-Zionism” means in the mouths of many, principally those on the left. They just don’t have the balls to say that they want Israel destroyed and millions of Jews consequently wiped out.

    When these people say that it’s reasonable to call for the muslim world to be wiped out and populated with non-muslims then they will have a platform for their anti-Zionism, because they are equivalent positions.

    And the does not make criticism is Israel’s action illegal in France.

  47. If, say, a far-rightwing journal had featured on its cover an ugly cartoon of Mohammad with all the stereotype Jewish features and remarks about money grabbing and controlling politics, etc., Macron’s – and conservative ATW’s, tune would be very different.

    I’d hope so because they are clearly different things.

    One would be a cartoon of a long-dead warlord. The other would be designed to spread hatred of Jews today.

    No-one would suggest that a cartoon of Jesus Christ would be designed to whip up a hatred of Christians. Come on, these things are clearly different. Snap out of it.

  48. One would be a cartoon of a long-dead warlord. The other would be designed to spread hatred of Jews today

    You’re suggesting that comments about those from shithole backwards cultures who worship a moon God and long-dead warlord aren’t designed to spread hatred of Moslems?

  49. any chance of an open thread
    PM speaking now with his scientific advisors,
    Its lock down 2 we expect ..

  50. Paul –

    If you feel the bile rising against muslims because I point out that they come from backward cultures then you have a problem.

  51. Paul –

    That was your question.

    You’re suggesting that comments about those from shithole backwards cultures who worship a moon God and long-dead warlord aren’t designed to spread hatred of Moslems?

    Your own reaction is your answer. I trust that no-one reading my words in here will come to hate muslims because of them. If you are doubtful then I have a higher opinion of ATW’s commentariat than you do.

  52. Words designed to spread hatred, suspicion & fear aren’t dependent on their ability to do it. Thankfully those on ATW susceptible to such are a minority.

  53. The hypocrisy of Pakistan and Turkey is staggering. They attack France over cartoons and totally ignore China’s genocide against their Uigher co-religionists. The reason is that they have both taken the Chinese bribe money and are beholden to China for new infrastructure to prop up their tottering economies. And Turkey’s currency was only saved recently by massive Chinese loans.

    Imran Khan rightly accuses India for its appalling treatment of its Muslim minority, but says absolutely ***** all about China. Stinking hypocrisy.

  54. O//T
    Curious thing happened the other day
    A ups package got lost en route to Fox News this week
    And then an amazing thing happened they found the package
    But then another really strange thing happened
    The story just completely disappeared from Fox News
    It clean done gone vanished investigators are doing a room by room search over at Fox News
    In the hope they can locate the missing story .
    Funny how things turn out eh?

  55. Has Tucker gone into hiding? Where is Hannity? Where is Laura?

    It’s a conspiracy I tellya, they’ve been kidnapped by the MSM / Dems/ BLM / Antifa/ whatever.

  56. //The hypocrisy of Pakistan and Turkey is staggering. //

    BTW, did anyone see Mesut Özil’s comments on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Hardly had the shooting started and Turkey aligned itself, inevitably, behind Azerbaijan when Özil goes on a rhetorical rampage about Armemian war crimes and Azerbaijan only defending itself etc. What a puppet.

Comments are closed.