Posts Tagged ‘Free speech’

Hmm. I don’t know what to think of this. I was surprised at how much I agreed with. I don’t agree with some of things he suggests towards the end, such as voluntary repatriation, but a lot of the stuff he says is fairly sensible, particularly with regards to the annoying, dangerous, cultural relativism of the left…

As I said, many of those Muslims in Europe would like to implement Shariah Law in our judicial systems. As you know, Shariah law covers all areas of life, from religion, hygiene and dietary laws, to dress code, family and social life and from finance and politics to the unity of Islam with the state. For some crimes, horrific, barbaric punishments are prescribed, such as beheading and the chopping off of opposite limbs. In Shariah Courts no woman may become judge. Shariah Law does not recognize free speech and freedom of religion. Polygamy and killing an apostate are ‘virtues’, but the consumption of alcohol is a crime. This is the sick Shariah Law in a nutshell, and it is unbelievable and unacceptable that the cultural relativists allow Shariah banks, Shariah mortgages, Shariah schools and unofficial — and in Britain even official — Shariah tribunals in Europe.

Ladies and gentlemen, these are of course shocking facts, figures and statements. However, they are not particularly surprising to anybody who has some knowledge of the Koran and knows who Muhammad was.

In this connection, ladies and gentlemen, allow me to very briefly discuss the essence of Islam, and let me come straight to the point: Islam is not so much a religion as, first and foremost, an ideology; to be precise, like communism and fascism, a political, totalitarian ideology, with worldwide aspirations.

Of course, there are many moderate Muslims. However, there is no such a thing as a moderate Islam. Islam’s heart lies in the Koran. The Koran is an evil book that calls for violence, murder, terrorism, war and submission. The Koran describes Jews as monkeys and pigs. The Koran calls upon Muslims to kill the Kaffirs, the non-Muslims.

The problem is that the injunctions in the Koran are not restricted to time or place. Rather, they apply to all Muslims, in any period. Another problem is that Muslims also regard the Koran as the word of Allah. Which means that the Koran is immune from criticism.

Apart from the Koran, there is also the life of Muhammad, who fought in dozens of wars and was in the habit of decapitating Jews with his own sword. The problem here is that, to Muslims, Muhammad is ‘the perfect man’, whose life is the model to follow.

This is why Jihadists slaughtered innocent people in Washington, New York, Madrid, Amsterdam, London and Mumbai.

Now is clear why Winston Churchill, in his book ‘The Second World War’, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Literature, compared the Koran to Adolf Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’. Now is clear why the famous Swiss theologian, Karl Barth, in 1936 said, and I quote, “It is impossible to understand national socialism unless we see it in fact as a new Islam, its myth as a new Allah, and Hitler as this new Allah’s prophet.” Now is clear why Heinrich Himmler was an admirer of Islam. And now is clear why President Obama, who last week, in Cairo, said that Islam has a tradition of tolerance, should be sent back to school.

Just like communism, fascism and nazism, Islam is a threat to everything we stand for. It is a threat to democracy, to the constitutional state, to equality for men and women, to freedom and civilisation. Wherever you look in the world, the more Islam you see, the less freedom you see. Islam is a threat to the Europe of Bach and Michelangelo, Shakespeare and Socrates, Voltaire and Galileo.

This was via GayandRight.


Read Full Post »

You may, or may not, have heard about the ongoing censorship row in Britain at the moment. Carol Ann Duffy (who is the awesome) is a very well-regarded poet, whose poems have been in exam anthologies for years. I studied her for G.C.S.E last year (not sure what the American equivalent exam is, but I was 16 at the time), and thought she was excellent. One of her poems, Education for Leisure, after being on the syllabus for three years – during which time it was studied by many for exams – has just been removed from the syllabus following complaints from three schools. Three! Never mind that the reason for those complaints is so ridiculous as to defy language (we’ll come to those complaints in a moment), but only three bloody complaints!

Furthermore, it was suggested by the exam board that the syllabuses (or syllabi) be destroyed, that’s how dangerous this particular poem is perceived to be! (That statement by the exam board conjured up easy images of Nazi censorship and book-burning, and was quickly qualified to mean something different).

Again, an example of an offended minority pushing their way of doing things – their way of thinking – onto a majority.

The main person behind the complaints is Pat Schofield, an external examiner at Lutterworth College, Leicestershire, who complained about the poem and who welcomed the decision to ban a poem she described as “absolutely horrendous”. She described the poem as “a bit weird. But having read her other poems I found they were all a little bit weird. But that’s me”. Well, yes, that is you, and it shows that you really are a Grade A pillock (Duffy in-joke!).

Duffy writes rhyming reposte

However, the real people to blame are the exam board, AQA, who caved in. A minority of pillocks, in apposition with an organisation afraid of – God forbid – offending people, is a dangerous thing at all times. In this case, pillock refers to three people who didn’t understand that a poem they thought was glorifying knife crime was in fact doing the opposite, and had been acclaimed for doing the opposite, for years.

Yet, it’s the same thing. Censorship. Restriction of freedom. Why? For the reason that she thought it was “a bit weird”. For the reason that she – and a minority consisting of two others – didn’t like it, and thus didn’t think anyone else should read it either. And the exam board gave in.

In other cases, “pillock” refers to the museums in my England who have covered up signs next to exhibits that offended a Christian fundamentalist minority. These signs in museums – hallowed (if that’s the right word to use) centres of learning and knowledge and wonder at the sheer sublime beauty of nature and history – were covered up because they dared to say that Darwin’s Theory of evolution by natural selection actually helps scientists know about the origins of life. Apparently, this isn’t a view shared by creationists…? 😛

We need to stop being afraid of the pillocks. I would fight for their right to be allowed to say such silly things – but there is no need to actually do what the idiots say. Their tactics are tactics of fear, and – quite often – we who are so afraid of causing offence to anyone, censor ourselves. We must not let such flagrant abuses of free speech and liberty persist.


Read Full Post »