The Coffee House Wall Write ruthlessly what you believe to be the truth, or else shut up!

7Mar/1277

Freedom of Speech – No limits?

I was sent a link to a page containing some disturbing images of Muslims exercising their freedom of expression in the UK. The disturbing element was that they were appearing to straightforwardly encourage and incite murderous violence against non-Muslims, and especially any who might criticise Islam.

It doesn't take much imagination to consider what would happen if British Christians were standing in the street with similar placards, indeed we know that Christians who are simply delivering leaflets in what police now call a 'Muslim area' are liable to be arrested for disturbing the peace. Take a look at these placards. They go far beyond what is lawful since they invite those who see the placards and have sympathy with them to slay, behead, butcher and exterminate those who are the object of their hate.

How is it that a sports presenter who happens to use the word 'coloured', a word which had been entirely acceptable not very long ago, now has to make an abject apology for an offense which was not intended and cannot seriously have been taken, while those who really do intend murderous harm to all those who disagree with them are given free rein to exercise their 'right' to threaten and abuse? Who among our political and social leaders benefits from allowing this situation of national self-harm to continue? At what point does a society have the right to protect itself from those wish it harm by the exercise of law, order and natural justice?

Is there a single MP who addresses these issues?

Comments (77) Trackbacks (0)
  1. I bet these madmen are members (painfully circumcised by their anguished expressions) of Hizb ut Tahir the Islamic extremist group which the simpering dhimmi Cameron promised to ban.

  2. “Is there a single MP who addresses these issues?”

    No. Not one. Not a single stinking one. Not one of those professional cowards and wankers that are elected again and again and again. The only single cure for the infestation that festers in parliament is to take every single MP out and [Moderate: Please don’t post things which will make me liable] them. In public. Now.

  3. Being too ugly and too lacking in charm or the ability to amuse to get a girl causes a lot of incoherent displacement activity.

    And if a group of indigenes were caught by Britain’s crack police forces carrying such signs and brought before Common Purpose British judges, they’d be banged up for life.

  4. “Slay those who insult islam” … “Butcher those who insult islam” … “Behead those who insult islam”.

    This effluent was deliberately imported to destabilise our ancient, orderly, inventive, civil society.

  5. I wonder where Rebecca West is. Still in prison for ranting on a bus? Has her son been returned to her?

  6. She is awaiting trial on 11th June accused of causing fear among the tram passengers while her little boy was sitting on her lap. She is no longer in prison. I think she was released before Christmas.

  7. Thank you, P from M. Has her son been returned to her? The little boy must be so destabilised, to be on a bus as normal with his mother, and the next minute be removed from his mother and put among strangers. Nightmare.

  8. Perhaps, Cameron is, how shall I put it without being libellous, just a b-boy!

  9. I am not sure who posted this but what an illuminating picture and article.

    Isn’t it appalling that we’ve allowed our innate fairness and decency to be so abused? As a believer in free speech, I don’t wish to see these gentlemen silenced however I cannot believe that we’ve allowed this travesty to occur.

    Uncontrolled immigration, wanton abuse of a good-faith student visa system, rapid admission to the electoral roll and citizenship hence powerful voting “lobby”, grotesque failure to repatriate illegal immigrants, “right” to State benefits, inherent hatred for the liberal UK lifestyle, aggressive suppression of rational debate on immigration levels by pejorative labelling, of current UK-citizens, as “racist” etc. Just a few of my favourite reasons for allowing this grotesque transformation of the UK.

    Does anyone really think these gentlemen really believe that their future is a smooth integration into British life? Their vehement protest is testament to their hatred of us: they are astute enough to realise, just like the IRA, that if they keep agitating then we’ll keep retreating and acceding to their demands. They will get their way, no doubt about it. The demographics are on their side and this is ably fuelled by persons unknown in our own establishment.

    What in the world possesses these left-leaning citizens who support the import of this voluble and hateful Trojan Horse into our peaceful society? What the heck to they think the logical outcome to be for them and their children? Do they really think it will lead to a happy-clappy Nirvana? Good God, those men above think we are scum and will forever treat us that way.

    Take for example the contrast between the aggressive, impassioned protest above and the absence of even a whimper of protest against the satanic, organised, Koran-fuelled abomination of Pakistani-British pedophile rings which prey on vulnerable, Caucasian female children. Not a soupçon forthcoming; they see nothing wrong: white girls are trash, excrement on their sandals.

    I detest this feeling of impotence: our elected politicians, at best, are wilfully deaf but more likely complicit in the transmogrification of what we hold dear. Likely supporters of our way of life e.g. Mr Farage are sidelined by institutional bias. I cannot see any possible peaceful denouement here. When push comes to shove will be able to preserve our way of life? Not a chance, slaves of the caliphate in the blink of an eye, we are too compliant and won’t even see it coming. Good grief, we can’t even preserve to CHW!

  10. The response is:

    Insult those who slay our people.
    Islam you will pay, Europe is on its way
    Mock those who butcher Christians.
    Exterminators you will pay, the West is on its way.

  11. Redneck “What in the world possesses these left-leaning citizens who support the import of this voluble and hateful Trojan Horse into our peaceful society?”

    A debased secular monochrome version of christian virtues that hasn’t the balls to stand up for itself. The kind that thinks turn the other cheek means bend over. They’re too stupid to understand that without a god, there’s no damned point in being “virtuous” for its own sake.

  12. or, come to think of it, the kind of virtue that says sod the effect on you, I’m ticking the boxes for my ticket to heaven.

  13. Well, Sarkozy, in a “Moi aussi!” moment, has announced that there are too many “foreigners” (read islamics) in France, which indicates that he is frightened of the way the voters are responding to Marine Le Pen.

  14. Does that explain why this site censored my post containing the n word? You are either in favour of free speech or you’re not.

    I am quite happy for the towel-heads to display these vile posters – as long as they are happy to be arrested and punished by the law of the land. Who knows if they will as the law where they are concerned has yet to be tested.

    Perhaps, as the law should be blind, the Police Farce might come out and state openly that they don’t have the nerve to try and arrest these scum – and therefore, neither will they attempt to stop the EDL and their fellow travellers responding in kind.

    The real problem is that these swarthy bigots are being allowed freedoms that are unavailable to us by default.

  15. Clear Memories writes: “You are either in favour of free speech or you’re not.”

    Do you think, then, that no one could suffer any harm from hearing any truth? Do you think a man should not impose limits on what he chooses to say in public?

  16. There was a time when the common law of assault and of seditious libel would be enough to set the limits on free speech. Now of course God knows who is going to be offended and “suffer any harm” from anything anyone says. Best to keep mum, eh, Publius?

    In the old days of course, Welshmen at least didn’t fear to threaten free-speaking Englishmen with assault with a leek (“Yes, if you can mock a leek, you can eat a leek. “) – but that is perhaps a whole other matter…

  17. Why go from one extreme to the other, Malfleur?

    I am responsible for this site and therefore must act responsibly. It is responsible of participants to appreciate that when they come to post. If you want to be able to post anything you choose without restraint then there is nothing stopping you creating a blog if you do not have one.

    I do not believe that you are unable to imagine what harm might be caused by irresponsible, and unrestrained expressions of personal opinions. Harm not to individuals only, but to causes and projects. I do not want this site becoming the same as many others on the internet, even as the Spectator Wall did in the end. If, for instance, it is someone’s opinion that violent harm should come to some group and they post that opinion here then they cause harm to the whole site, and to the reputation of all those who have posted here. It becomes just another site which can be properly ignored. I do not believe that the quality of posters already here deserves such a casual dismissal because of a few posts, and therefore I do believe it is necessary to be a ‘schoolmaster’ whether that is valued and appreciated or not.

  18. Malfeur writes to Publius: “Best to keep mum, eh, Publius?”

    Best, perhaps, to be prudent. And for those who are unable to be prudent, best to be guided by the prudent, no?

    That, anyway, is the traditional view. The modern view differs, I believe.

  19. Peter from Maidstone
    I think you meant to post on the weekly thread, not here, where my exchange is with Publius by way of comment on Clear Memories..

    On that thread however you are moaning about a SINGLE joke Peter – after allowing the incendiary photograph above (to which I have no objections)! I think, with sincere respect, you should keep a lower profile. Although I share your unhappiness with the daily news, I am glad to say that I have retained the Englishman’s most precious possession – his sense of humour.

  20. No, I’m not moaning in any sense, and not about a single joke either. And I am not going to keep a low profile on a blog which I am investing a lot of time in maintaining.

    I was speaking to a friend of mine a little while ago and he said that he had just heard that day that his family home had been blown up in Iraq by a bomb. Fortunately his family were out at the time. When Christians die in Iraq I generally know people who know those who have been killed and bereaved. I don’t find jokes about suicide bombers all that funny.

    I don’t think the photo I posted is incendiary at all. Why do you think it is? It is a necessary illustration for a conversation about how far the right to freedom of speech and expression goes. It is possible to have a reasonable conversation about issues such as this. We do not need to go out onto the streets precipitately. But we can consider the proper response to such actions by hostile groups in the UK. I hope that is the sort of thing that this site will accomplish.

  21. Of course it was an incdeniary photograph, P from M! A group of Stone-Agers (ugly, and with a criminal lack of dress sense) threatens our ancient right of free speech, for which people have died, and you are surprised that some Britons respond with strongly worded posts That means that this group of desert primitives have done what tens of thosuands died to stop the Germans doing.

    I’d like to invite all those handsome and beautifully tailored men in the photo to visit Texas this weekend. Dallas would be good.

  22. Oh, and they should remember to take their posters with them.

  23. Verity, there is no problem with strongly worded posts, but that does not mean that any and all language is permissible or prudent.

    Mere abuse is not ‘strongly worded’, it is just abuse. England doesn’t need people to be abusive, it needs people to respond practically, critically and in a considered manner so that things change.

    And there is no ‘ancient right of free speech’. Speech has always come at a cost. The trouble with the internet is that it is easy for people to exercise ‘free speech’ and leave others to pay the cost.

  24. Let us not forget that last week in Heathrow, the children’s author of Thomas The Tank Engine was physically detained … as in taken away and put in a room with interrogators … for joking to a security guard who had let a woman in a burqa and niqab (in other words, an unidentifiable ambulatory black blob in islamic attire) walk through airport security without proving that she was the person in her passport. He made a weak, anodyne joke and was taken out of the queue and put in a room for interrogation.

    So yes, that people are allowed to stand on the public street and threaten death to the owners of these islands is incendiary from two points of view. First, those who caefully crafted the posters threatening death to Britons, and second, those who didn’t arrest them for incitement to violence.

  25. It’s not incendiary, unless you want to define how you are using that term. It is something that should make people angry and want to address the situation, but the idea that people will respond in a way that they cannot control is not realistic at all. Posting abuse isn’t an appropriate response, indeed it is a response that probably groups like this would be happy with. Finding out the legal situation, petitioning people, contacting the local press, over and over again, is probably the appropriate response.

    A website full of abuse will achieve nothing, indeed it will be irrelevant to the present struggle.

  26. Re “ancient right of free speech” … Yes, P from M, it did indeed come at a cost, but we’ve had it for a long time and now it is being slipped out from under the indigenes, while still being accorded to aggressors from overseas.

  27. When have we had an absolute freedom to say anything in any situation or circumstance? We never have had such a freedom.

    And freedom of speech comes at a cost. It should not be wasted in abuse.

  28. P from M, I have the greatest respect for you and am grateful that you set up this blog so eptly and so quickly.

    I do have an answer to your questio above, but I’m not going to trivialise this very fine site by picking nits. I think we are all glad to be here and availing ourselves of your hospitality.

  29. The last thing I want to be doing is arguing about the limits of speech on this site, since I have had to very rarely moderate any posts at all, and the exclusion of trolls has been a sound move I think. Let us continue as we generally have been.

  30. The wider question is what what is one supposed to do if one relinquishes effective control of the borders and deliberately or otherwise allows the country to be filled with disparate groups who do not agree on the basics. Liberal democracy seems to require a common agreement about the basics. Absent that common agreement, does liberal democracy remain possible?

  31. “Liberal democracy seems to require a common agreement about the basics. Absent that common agreement, does liberal democracy remain possible?”

    Simply put, no.

    To expand, the politicians that brought this about neither value nor want true liberal democracy. They are full of good words about liberal democracy but their actions speak louder and otherwise and they are not being properly held to account for it.

    Further, common agreement requires both consent and the common law. The government does not govern with consent. It no longer represents the people but acts mostly in response and conformance to a higher government, the EU, whilst pretending otherwise. The common law has been spurned since New Labour took power in 1997 if not before.

    The ancient ideals and freedoms of, at least, the English, have been trampled on for quite some time. We as a people are not here to be controlled by government, whether it is local, Westminster or the EU. Our government forgets, and/or deliberately disregards, that they should represent the people and govern only with the peoples consent. “The right thing to do” has no relevance to that. “What the public want” is a deceitful boast unless evidenced by an elected manifesto pledge or a referendum.

    All of our politicians, in government and opposition, are getting an easy ride from the press as they continue to cement their unaccountable power over us.

  32. I have been wondering if it would be possible and useful to create a parallel Parliament that represented the people?

    Elections could be held in constituencies. There could be primaries and no political parties. Those who were not British citizens could be excluded from voting. I wonder if it would be possible to achieve a de facto legitimacy. It might be possible to use and develop methods of voting that were not as difficult to organise as public polling booths. I am thinking of larger constituencies, with fewer Representatives. Maybe delegated Representatives as well. Something that had the legitimacy of large scale support, perhaps with a limted set of mandated issues to consider rather than trying to duplicate a bloated bureaucracy.

    We see today that even 80% of Lib-Dem voters believe that family immigration should be tightened up. But will anyone in Westminster listen.

    It would be possible to develop new methods of debate, to include a component of the popular vote in all such Parliamentary deliberations. It could be restricted to England.

    Is there a rich patriot who would fund me to develop the necessary systems?

    The trouble with UKIP, it seems to me, is that it has the appearance of looking outward to obtain independence from Europe, whereas the real oppressive force is domestic. We need to regain our liberties here in England. The real enemy is the Westminster Parliament itself which no longer represents us.

  33. All this Muslim stuff might look like a diversion, but I’m afraid of what the general population might be capable of ‘in extremis’ – which would open the door for the EU to march in and to take over (if they have two beans to rub together to pay for the petrol)

    It’s a bit like Paxo wandering around India in clouds of self-delusion. The leftists that are fomenting the trouble live in an intellectual bubble. They don’t understand that their mischief can have physical consequences. Like this Syria business. Encourage the indigenes to have an uprising and then wring your hands when they start getting killed. I think that it is highly irresponsible behaviour of the ‘means suits the ends’ mindsets of these people. And the jokers with the beards and the placards are just another ploy in their nasty little game. Until it stops being a game …

  34. P from M and Nicholas … brilliant, both.

    All this is deliberate, and I have always thought so. It was too abnormal to be a mistake. I always thought that the muslims, who have absolutely nothing to offer any developed society, and the Africans, likewise, were brought in specifically to be destabilisers and … a diversion … while the schools took over the children.

    The muslims and the blacks are there to take the focus off what is happening in schools and in government. It would be easy, although expensive, to inform the muslims in an orderly fashion, of when their street was subjec to being cleared of welfare dependents and the denizes repatriated. Yet they’re all still in Britain , and breeding. And corrupting indigenous children. They are changing the nature of British streets and towns which were ancient and comfortable.

    Why?

    Don’t ask. Because if you ask, you are a racist and the police will start keeping an eye on you.

    It cannot be a mistake that in any photo of schoolchildren, including the latest with the God-awful David Cameron, the third worlders are always the focus. Not our little British school children.

    P from Maidstone’s notion of a parallel Parliament is very clever. Is it do-able? Given that the police are all Common Purpose and can break down the doors with jackboots any time?

  35. P from M – “The trouble with UKIP, it seems to me, is that it has the appearance of looking outward to obtain independence from Europe, whereas the real oppressive force is domestic.”

    I think this is the key sentence and as soon as I read it, I realised that the EU is the veil … the cunning disguise. The malignity is not in Brussels where we can, if we choose, command our own destiny by refusing to go along, or leaving. The malignity is among the ruling elites, under which I include town councillors, the police and all the hundreds of special committees and quangoes that no one voted for and which operate in the dark.

  36. On a thread whose theme is: are there limits to freedom of speech one finds a caution against discussing – the limits to freedom of speech.

    Hm. Ok.

    Of course the same contradiction goes on in the Beeb, often getting itself in a twist for instance when trying to deal consistently with what may be said by and about Muslims on the one hand and Christians on the other; different rules of course, a confusion generated in my view by a lack of principle.

    Some comment very much in point can be found on Front Page Magazine where, commenting on the DG of the Beeb, the poster, Bruce Bawer, writes:

    “…Another point that was important to Thompson was that, as he put it, “for a Muslim, a depiction…of the Prophet Mohammed might have the emotional force of a piece of grotesque child pornography.” He added that “secularists” fail “to understand…what blasphemy feels like to someone who is a realist in their religious belief.” I would humbly submit that Thompson himself fails to understand something rather important – namely, that when the head of an outfit like the BBC starts thinking and talking in such terms, he has become nothing more or less than a sharia puppet.”

    The whole article can be found at:

    http://frontpagemag.com/2012/03/07/therell-always-be-an-england/

  37. Re the photo … S O S! Call the fashion police! Call the barbers!

    FASHION NOTES. I don’t want to be demonstrated at by ugly men who have no sense of colour coordination and don’t know how to pull a look together.

    Not one of those in the pic would arrest the attention of a photographer or a passerby, even. They should work on a look, and then stick with it.

    If they were from a desert country, at least they would have been wearing keffyahs, which have a glamour and style all their own. They are versatile. Alas, these demonstrators are from the sticks and look like sandhill billies.

    Kill the beards, fellas. Very 8th Century. Also, you need to eat less and exercise more. No offence, but no one pays any attention to beardies or rotund people’s opinions, except other fat people like Julia Middleton, Jacqui Smith and so on, and they’re already on your side.

    Your message is comical enough, but you’re not getting the laughs. You need better writers and you need to put more effort into your presentation. High cheekbones work. Chubby faces just don’t.

  38. Malfleur writes:
    “On a thread whose theme is: are there limits to freedom of speech one finds a caution against discussing – the limits to freedom of speech.”

    I believe the tread title was a quesion, no? Hence the question mark.

    Nor have I seen a caution here against discussing the limits to freedom of speech. Where was that?

    The only caution I have seen is against discussing any subject with foulmouthed vulgarity.

  39. Verity 9th, – 02:28

    Very different style from your usual; I admire your vorsatility.

    And… ridicule is often the best form of attack.

  40. Publius writes in response to Clear Memories comment “You are either in favour of free speech or you’re not.”

    “Do you think, then, that no one could suffer any harm from hearing any truth? Do you think a man should not impose limits on what he chooses to say in public?”

    The full and proper meaning of ‘free speech’ is in my judgment much misunderstood, as is evidenced in the above sentence; where it referees to ‘harm’ and ‘truth’, free speech in its most simple form is the right to express a thought, a belief or opinion even though it might offend all and sundry and as such has nothing directly to do with truth or untruth.

    The question should a man not impose limits on what he chooses to say in public; the short answer to this, has to be ‘it depends on the circumstances’, if one were the only non Muslim faced with a group such as in the above photograph, then it might well be wise to keep ones own council.

    But in the same circumstance if there were a strong police presence with a senior officer present, then one would be well within reason to express any strongly held opinions to that officer.

  41. I would like to set a little competition — or opinion poll — on the three most successful mass consumer inventions/products of all time.

    I am going to nominate blue jeans. I don’t think I’ve seen a news photo of anywhere in the world where there aren’t people walking around in jeans. At first it was young people’s garb … and I guess the oldies we see wearing them today got the habit 40 or more years ago. Yet the young today haven’t stopped wearing them.

    On thing I have always thought … barring the actual elderly, everyone looks good in a pair of jeans.

    Any other suggestions for the most successful consumer products of all time?
    More ideas?

  42. Verity says

    “I would like to set a little competition — or opinion poll — on the three most successful mass consumer inventions/products of all time.”

    Inventions-The printing press.

    Pruduct-Tooth paste.

  43. No, no, David O! Personal things that swept the world is what I was referrring to.

    Denims were made in France (Nimes, as it happens, which is why they were labelled “DeNimes”) and sent to the West Coast of the US, to the gold-mining communities because denim is so sturdy. Before that, gold prospectors and miners were wearing normal trousers, which were more expensive than denim and, if washed, didn’t try quickly, or shrak, and the fabric was much more fragile and if you were working among rocks, it would get torn. Denim is practically indestructible.

    Who would have thought that these cheap, practical men’s trousers invented around 1848 would have become not only a worldwide rage, but one that won’t go away?

    For an item of cheap and staggeringly popular mass consumption, the only similar unlikely product I can think of is Coca-Cola, which is readily available in corner stores and supermarkets from Tokyo to Tierra del Fuego, overtaking local popular drinks.

    That’s why I asked. I wasn’t looking for staggering inventions, which I can think of myself … cars, the internet, cameras, blah blah blah.

    Just these unlikely items which mysterious popular appeal that won’t go away and still make staggering amounts of money. Can anyone think of any others, just for fun?

    With respect, the popularity of toothpaste isn’t surprising.

  44. David Ossitt (19.50) writes to Publius:
    ‘The question should a man not impose limits on what he chooses to say in public; the short answer to this, has to be ‘it depends on the circumstances’, if one were the only non Muslim faced with a group such as in the above photograph, then it might well be wise to keep ones own council.’

    It looks as though your only test is your personal safety. Rather a base standard, don’t you think? But of course the answer you have given is the modern answer.

  45. Publius.

    “It looks as though your only test is your personal safety. Rather a base standard, don’t you think?”

    Not at all, after all discretion is the better part of valour, only an imbecile would put himself or another’s well being at risk, however as I pointed out if one can reasonably expect not to be physically attacked or to be protected from such attack then speak your mind.

    There is nothing base about that.

  46. David Ossitt. I do not care for your language. Nor do I propose to bandy words with someone who so clearly misses the point.

  47. Re the photo above, I can only add, “Call the fashion police STAT!”

    Slay those with criminally inept tonsures!

    Butcher those whose colour coordination offends the fashion pantheon of Chanel, Dior and Karl Lagerfeld! (Hint: black and brown together … no.)

    Butcher those who wear silly knitted hats!

    Behead those who mock milliners!

  48. What I would like to know is where and when this even took place? What happened to those who were displaying what would appear to be illegal signs? How do we register the fact that we feel abused, fearful, and offended so that an offense can be regstered?

  49. P from M … I think I see a hint of one of those ridiculous fluorescent yellow jackets the police wear these day to the far left of the photo, so probably at some legal demonstration in England, although I thought threatening murder was against the law. Frank P can tell us if those signs were a criminal offence.

    Was there any date on the film?

  50. Peter … where can we email you?

  51. Publius.

    “David Ossitt. I do not care for your language. Nor do I propose to bandy words with someone who so clearly misses the point.”

    Publius, please will you help me to better understand, precisely what part of my posts hold the language that you do not care for, exactly what has caused your belligerence?

    What is the point that am I missing?

  52. Thanks, Peter. I’ve forgotten what motivated me to ask, given what’s going on over on the other thread, but now we’ve got it.

  53. Another lurid fragment from The Spectator … worth reading only for the comments of Rhoda K and Strapworld, who I wish would come over here … although not at the cost of abandoning their posts as warriors on the gruesome Speccie.

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/7705568/the-role-of-baroness-ashton.thtml

  54. I had the odd experience recently of posting on Nick Cohen’s Spectator blog. He had an article criticising the BBC’s CEO for kow-towing to Islamic threats when it came to religious “insults”. I wrote in basically agreeing and pointing out how we were expected not to point out what Mohammed actually got up to (as attested to in the Islamic scriptures – Koran, Hadith and the original biography of Mohammed). I listed a few of those matter of factyl – leaving out the worst. So I just mentioned: slaughter of POWs, torturing prisoners for information on hidden treasure, enslavement of people, ethnic cleansing… I think that was about it.

    Did my post appear on Cohen’s blog? Er – no!

    This just underlines what a hall of mirrors we live in these days. You can’t even agree with someone who is criticising the BBC with being soft on Islam.

  55. Peter from Maidstone

    When I emailed the picture to you that you have published above (together with eight others, depicting similar alarming scenes), I requested that you make a post of them, submitting both text from myself and including the comments from an ex-colleague who sent them to me. You chose to publish only one the photos then added your own post with different copy.

    Fair enough – as owner and editor-in-chief of the blog you are entitled to do that, as I agreed to submit to your editing rights at the outset of this project.

    However the point of me forwarding the pictures was to draw attention to, in particular, this paragraph from my old comrade at arms:

    “These pictures are of Muslims marching through the streets of London during their recent ‘Religion of Peace Demonstration.’ They were held on 11/11/11 (Remembrance Sunday) and there was a complete news blackout on reporting these demonstrations. If you weren’t there, you would never know.”

    I thought the date and occasion were particularly significant and the depictions the more obnoxious in light of them; seems you did not – as you comment above as follows:

    March 10th, 2012 – 19:20

    “What I would like to know is where and when this even took place? What happened to those who were displaying what would appear to be illegal signs? How do we register the fact that we feel abused, fearful, and offended so that an offense can be registered?”

    At least part of the answer to your question was contained in that email.

    Moreover, I started my (notional) post with this caveat and request:

    >”The Religion of Peace”

    An old colleague of mine forwarded these pictures, can anybody confirm whether or not that these are genuine pictures – or ‘photoshopped’.<

    [The message from my friend was as follows]:

    "CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS

    IS THIS WHAT FREEDOM OF SPEECH MEANS ?

    Pictures from London — this is beyond scary…

    Makes you wonder doesn't it. Can you imagine having a Christian demonstration against Islam in an Islamic country?

    View the pictures below and decide how you really feel about the future of the Western World."

    [plus the paragraph quoted above containing day date time and place, then as a postscript after the nine photos – this]:

    Why would anyone think that we should be at war with such nice, peaceful Muslims.

    These angry, hostile people have stated that England will be the first country they take over.

    These pictures were not shown on TV or Newspapers – there was a ‘D Notice' placed on reporting them. "

    Pass this on to everyone you know who values their freedom …… after all this is what our Soldiers are fighting for which includes their democratic right to demonstrate."

    Verity's question at 19:54 10th March is also answered in that email/post.

    I'm a little puzzled Peter. I wonder whether you would like to explain?

  56. Btw Peter, I only raise it here as you did respond to my email. Again – your prerogative, but as I said – puzzling,

  57. Peter
    Sorry – typo omission in postscript at 02:06 I meant say “as you did NOT respond to my email”, of course.

  58. Frank P @ 02.01

    Interesting.

    *****

    I would also like to say that I found your response to Redneck on
    March 10th @ 22:47 on last week’s Wall the measured and thoughtful voice of the old England I value.

  59. Hi Frank

    I misunderstood your email. Sorry. It came through as a complete jumble of text in all different fonts and sizes and all I saw was a request to make something of it. So I did. I didn’t see clearly enough what you wanted done. I didn’t intentionally not post anything, rather I undrstood you to be telling me to post the picture and say something.

    Since it came through as so difficult to read it would probably be best if you emailed the text that you wanted to post, as previously, in a straightforward email, and then provided a link to the site where you wanted a picture taken from.

    Best wishes

    Peter

  60. Hi Frank, there is nothing going on, so nothing puzzling. I have been and am pretty busy and so I guess I assumed that posting the picture you send with some comment was the response you were looking for.

  61. Peter

    Oh … really? I didn’t suggest that ‘something was going on’ I just wondered why you had missed two of the most important parts of my post; not even attributed it as a ‘hat tip’ and then raised a question later in the commentary which was already answered in the copy I submitted.

    My point about ‘photoshopping’ was important; I noted that in all nine photos,
    the slogans on the placards seem to have been written in the same marker; this could of course have been been because they were prepared by the same person, but I wondered whether some wag of a techie had jazzed them
    up a bit, with some photoshop artwork and whether any of the savvy posters here could opine.

    And the ‘differences in text sizes’ seemed to be no problem when I pasted them into my comment at 02:01 above. Your response to my concern seems a trifle disingenuous, if you don’t mind me saying so. I know you don’t approve of my occasional coarse lapses into Anglo-Saxon; were you trying to tell me something?

  62. Frank, please don’t accuse me of dishonesty. You sent an email which was formatted in such a way that it looked like you had just cut and pasted from a web page and it had become a mess. I saw you say ‘Please make something of this’. So I did. At no time did I understand that you had written any content yourself, as I did not try and read it all since it was difficult to reconstruct. I went online, found other sites that had the same image, and wrote something. I thought that was what you wanted.

    If it had come through as a straightfoward email I would have understood that you were providing content to be uploaded, as I have done without editing on all the previous occasions. But it didn’t come through to me like that. It came through like a page copied from somewhere else whose formatting had collapsed.

  63. I hear what you say, Peter.

  64. I think we all need to remember that most of us all are mostly all singing off the same hymn sheet, and myself included, need to try to assume the best of people, not the worst.

  65. Indeed so.

  66. Snopes reckons that the photo shown above was taken in London in February 2006.

    http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/muslimprotest.asp

    Here are some photos of the scum that disrupted last year’s rememberance day service.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1328703/Two-faces-Armistice-Day-Boy-brimming-pride-fanatics-burning-hate.html

    Here are some more photos of islamic enthusiasts in London on 11/09/11, the 10th anniversary of 9/11, burning the Stars and Stripes outside the American Embassy.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2036172/9-11-memorial-events-London-protesters-burn-American-flag-outside-US-embassy.html

    Yes, as somebody else asked recently, “Ten years after 9/11 where are the vast majority of moderate muslims?”

  67. Frank’s forensic observation that all the threats were written with the same marker in the same hand is interesting. This wasn’t ad hoc, but a organised event with tasks handed out. Tightly managed.

    Where was it, Frank? I am assuming that they, inexplicably, had a permit to demonstrate as I caught the grim fluorescent of a cop’s jacket … meaning police time was wasted so this effluent could insult the country that is affording them a police service as well, to be sure, as”benefits” (stupid word … “the lunacy of charity” is what it is) as they don’t look employable and a licence to offend sensitive citizens with their primeval ugliness.

    All their cases should be, in a world not governed by the over-ambitious, self-congratulatory moron Dave, reviewed. In fact bother with a review? If they are not contributing to the economy, they and their wives and their grim sons and their daughters with ricket should be shipped out stat.

  68. David M (EC), buried in one of those linked stories was this:-

    “A small group of Muslims staged a counter-demonstration nearby, holding up placards reading ‘Muslims Against Extremism’ and ‘If You Want Sharia, Move To Saudi’. Abdul Sallam, 41, who was waving a sign that read ‘Keep The Silence’, travelled down to London from his home in Glasgow to show the strength of his feelings. He said: ‘I’m a Muslim. What they’re doing is bringing shame on all Muslims.This is not part of the teachings of Islam. Islam is all about peace, but what they want to do is hate other people. Islam teaches you that when you see anything bad or evil, you should speak out against it. If the moderate Muslims all came out and spoke out, that would defeat them. I am proud to be British. I love my country. All these people are doing is breaking Britain apart.'”

  69. Nicholas, re Abudul Sallam, who travelled down to London from Glasgow, his heart is in the right place (“This is not part of the teachings of islam. Islam is all about peace”), but he is incorrect.

    This belief system is styled “the religion of peace” because the plan is, once the entire world is dominated by allah, there will be peace.

    Abdul Sallam seems to be a very nice, man, but the philosophy behind islam is that only when the whole world worships allah will there be peace. In other words, when islam is the boss, everyone can stop fighting.

    It’s important to be aware of this point because it is too easy for ignorant people to be beguiled by the “the religion of peace” label without understanding what it entails.

  70. David M (EC) 14:45

    Many thanks for those links, the remainder of the photos that I forwarded to Peter are among them. I should have consulted Snopes, which is an excellent site, I use it often when stuff is sent to me , but I was raising the issue here for an airing, anyway, so I guessed somebody would have more gen – just keeping the plates spinning. :-) Didn’t realise the Daily Mail had given it all such an airing either; good on ‘em!

  71. My short and uncontroversial post of 02.30 still has a sign up on it in my screen saying “Your comment is awaiting moderation”. Is there a problem?

  72. Just to break the roadblock apparently occasioned by Malfleur’s post above of 12 March, 18:54 pm.

  73. Just think, if mohammad had been born today, there would have been no islam! Western medical scientists have invented ways to control epilepsy 40 or 50 years ago.

  74. I lived in the Middle east for ten years – from 1983 until 1993 – and during that time feel that I developed an honest assessment of Islam. I would like to give you some information about Islam that may surprise you and urge you to look beyond the mainstream media. In fact, if you can find the time for it, to read the Qur’an yourself.

    There are two fundamental concepts that cause the misunderstanding of Islam. One is that it is a religion in the sense that other religions are – like being a Christian and a Jew. Two, that its religious book is likewise similar to the books of other religions – like the Bible and the Torah.

    To help you understand better consider the following three things about Islam.

    One – the belief that the religion of Islam has been hijacked by extremists. This is what non-Muslims naturally assume because they think that all religions have fundamental elements that are the same. The reason they are so confused is that most don’t realize the difference between the Qur’an and every other religious book they are familiar with.

    The Christian bible is a collection of writings from various authors written over many years. It is full of parables, advice and dreams, all collected and put in one book. It’s the same with the Jewish Torah. Even those in the West who are neither Christians or Jews are still familiar enough with these religions to know this much, and therefore they assume the same is true for the Qur’an.

    But the Qur’an is only one book, written by one man in his own lifetime. It is meant to be taken literally and it is not full of symbolism or vague analogies. It is mostly direct commands. Of course, the Qur’an contains contradictory statements just like other religious books but the Qur’an itself provides the reader with way to know what to do with the contradictions. It is explained in the Qur’an that if you have two passages that contradict each another then the one written later supersedes the one written earlier. Most Westerners are unaware that the peaceful, tolerant passages were written early in Mohammad’s prophetic career. According to the Qur’an those passages have been abrogated by later, more violent and less tolerant passages. So, when westerners hear jihadists quoting violent passages from the Qur’an and then peaceful Muslims quoting peaceful passages, they interpret that the way they would if someone was quoting the Bible or the Torah. They think to themselves, “Oh, there must be many different and contradictory passages in the Qur’an in much the same way there are in other religious books, so Muslims can pick and chose what they like to justify whatever actions they want to take.”

    But the Qur’an is nothing like that. There is no picking and choosing. It says very explicitly and in no uncertain terms that a Muslim must not alter or ignore any part of its very clear and direct message, or they will burn in a fiery torment forever.

    Two – that for Muslims the striving to institute worldwide Shari’a law is a religious duty. Many people do not realize how politically oriented Islam is at its core. In fact, Islam is less of a “religion” than it is a “religious ideology”. It includes a mandatory and highly specific legal and political plan for the whole society, Shari’a

    There is no separation between the religious and the political in Islam. Rather, Islam and Shari’a constitute a totalitarian means of ordering society at every level including ritual worship, transactions and contracts, morals and manners, beliefs, and punishments. In the Qur’an Allah makes it clear that man-made governments – such as a democracy – and the concepts of free speech, such as criticizing the Qur’an, are abominations and must be eliminated.
    The modern expression “creeping Shari’a” is used to describe the slow, deliberate and methodical rise of Islamic law in non-Muslim countries. Official Shari’a courts already operate in the United Kingdom, handling cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to domestic violence. Attempts to introduce Shari’a in the legal system in Germany, Sweden and other European countries are ongoing. While Shari’a already has a foot in our door in the matter of minor disputes like inheritance and domestic violence it should concern you that Shari’a commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped, that husbands be allowed to hit their wives, that an injured plaintiff be allowed to exact legal revenge – literally an eye for an eye, that a thief must have a hand cut off, that homosexuals must be executed, that unmarried fornicators should be whipped, that adulterers to be stoned to death, that apostates be killed, that death be ordered for Muslim and non-Muslim critics of Muhammad, the Qur’an and even Shari’a itself, and that it commands an offensive, and aggressive jihad.

    As written in the Qur’an Shari’a is the law of Allah. Any other form of government is a sin. It is the duty of every Muslim to keep striving until all governments have been converted to Shari’a law.

    Three – that Muslims are allowed to deceive non-Muslims if it helps Islam. There are two forms of lying to non-believers that are permitted under certain circumstances, Taqiyya and Kitman . These circumstances are typically those that advance the cause Islam – in some cases by gaining the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them. For non-Muslims these principles are another surprising concept of Islam. While most other religions speak highly of truthfulness the Qur’an instructs Muslims to lie to non-Muslims about their beliefs and political ambitions in order to protect and spread Islam. There are many examples of today’s Islamic leaders saying one thing in English in the western press and then saying something entirely different to their own followers in the Arabic a few days later. Deceiving the enemy is always useful in war and Islam considers itself at war with the non-Islamic world until the whole world follows Shari’a law. All non-Muslims living in non-Islamic states are therefore enemies, so deceiving enemies is totally acceptable – even encouraged – if it helps the goals to spread Islam. As an example, the Islamic American Relief Agency was seemingly raising money for orphans but was, in fact, giving money to terrorists. The deceived good-hearted westerners – more commonly referred to as infidels – were giving money to organizations that were actively killing westerners. Do the research yourself, this is not an isolated case, there are hundreds.

    Muslims worldwide often declare that Islam is a religion of peace but what does that really mean? It is easy for a Muslim to quote a peaceful verse from the early parts of the Qur’an while, by following the principle of Taqiyyah, neglecting to mention the fact that it has been officially abrogated by later, more violent verses. According to the Qur’an the world will only be at peace when Islam and Shari’a reign in every country – and never until then. This is why every Muslim can truthfully say that Islam is a religion of peace. If any of these points took you by surprise then it is most probable that there is much more you still don’t know. The fact is whether you like it or not this subject will affect you in the near future so take the opportunity to inform yourself now – before it is too late.

    References
    The Qur’an on Abrogation
    Sura 2:106 – We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that we bring forth one better than it. Do you know that Allah is over all things competent?

    Sura 16:101 – And when we substitute a verse in place of a verse – and Allah is most knowing of what he sends down – they say, “You, O, Muhammad, are but an inventor [of lies].” But most of them do not know.

    Sura 17:86 – And if We willed, We would surely do away with that which we revealed to you. Then you would not find for yourself concerning it an advocate against us.

    The Qur’an on Taqiyya and Kitman

    Sura 16:106 – Establishes that there are circumstances that can “compel” a Muslim to tell a lie.

    Sura 3:28 – This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to “guard themselves.”

    Sura 9:3 – “…Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters…” The dissolution of oaths with the pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture. They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway.

    Sura 40:28 – A man is introduced as a believer, but one who must “hide his faith” among those who are not believers.

    Sura 2:225 – “Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts”

    Sura 66:2 – “Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths”

    Sura 3:54 – “And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers.”

    The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means deceit. If Allah is deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also 8:30 and 10:21)

    Taken collectively these verses are interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be “compelled” to deceive others for a greater purpose.

  75. Perhaps the answer is to arrange a protest meeting with all the placards carrying the messages we see above on one side and similar messages, but aimed at islam on the other. As the police approach, you show the pro-islam side. As they walk away to show the pro non-islam side. They would then have to define which slogan they were arresting you for and in court demonstrate the difference between the two that was sufficient to warrant arrest. Simples!

  76. Dennis Woodbury @ March 19th

    “…the Qur’an is only one book, written by one man in his own lifetime”.

    Your post was brought to mind, and my own comment somewhere that islam was more of an political ideology than a religion and should be constrained accordingly since it was not part of the settlement in England at least during the Enlightenment that led to politics and religion being largely separated in public life, when I listened to Robert Spencer speaking on Front Page Magazine about his new book “Did Muhammad Exist?” at:

    http://frontpagemag.com/2012/04/06/sharia-in-america-on-the-glazov-gang-1/

    1. Spencer questions whether Mohammed exists on the grounds that for 60 years after the Arab conquests started there are no references either to him or to Mohammed, the koran or islam either by the conquered peoples or the conquering Arabs “in any surviving documents, monuments or anything”; and,

    since the standard story is that they came out of Arabia with the koran in their hands and the name of Mohammed on their lips and that was the impetus for the conquest,

    2. Draws the conclusion that Mohammed did not exist but had to be invented along with a political ideology to justify its conquest ex post facto in the way in which all the other competing power centres in the region that the Arabs were colonising had their “narratives” justifying their power.

    “Islam is a political system first and foremost and is a construct of an empire that was trying to create a religion…”.

    I think this could be a very fruitful source which should first be examined and then, if found to be convincing, should be used on all possible occasions to counter islamicist propaganda as it aims to destroy the ideolgical foundation of islamic imperialism.


Leave a comment

No trackbacks yet.