March for Free Expression

The next phase

Friday, March 24, 2006

Cartoons - The Last Post

When the cartoon row erupted, I revived an old blog and published all of the cartoons on it, under my own name. I am still publishing them there, under my own name. Not one of the pseudonymous or anonymous people accusing me of self-censorship or cowardice could say the same. Not only do I assert the right of the cartoonists to have drawn these or any other images, I have gone out of my way to make sure they are available in public.

To answer a couple of emails collectively, I don't care what MAC or anyone else says about this; I haven't even bothered to look. It became plain to me from talking with a couple of British Muslim journalists over the past few days that even the most secular, cosmopolitan British Muslim seems incapable, at the moment, of accepting that a display of the cartoons might not be a racist attack on them. That being the case, it had become clear that Muslims who agree with this campaign would have felt unable to attend the rally. That's why I have asked people not to display the cartoons and it is the only reason why.

Interestingly, while I have been the focus of a lot of anger from some Muslims over my stance on these cartoons, my first death threat came as a response to the post below, obviously from a non-Muslim.

To those who are annoyed, I ask what part of this did you not understand:
This will be a march in favour of free expression, not a march against Muslims

And so it is, and this is distorting the appearance of the campaign horribly, so we will move on.

100 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Paul sez:

Peter. To keep banging on about this not being a march against muslims adds nothing to the debate. I'd bet anything on the fact that very few people saw it as a march against muslims. What they saw it as - if you read the f**king comments, instead of just worrying about how to defend your ludicrous decision - was a march for freedom of expression. Like it says on the tin. Now, of course, it can't be called a march for freedom of expression - because it isn't. You'd do much better gaining sympathy and understanding by changing the name of the march to fit in with what you now want this march to be.

But what's most puzzling about your reaction to people's reactions is that you're somehow surprised. Or disappointed. What on earth did you expect? You've behaved like a fool. And a lot of people now think you're a fool. Accept it.

10:52 am  
Blogger Jew 90 said...

To those who are annoyed, I ask what part of this did you not understand:

"This will be a march in favour of free expression, not a march against Muslims"


I never considered it a march against Muslims. I always considered it a march for free expression. I'm annoyed because the organisers, have been pressured by people like the MAC to turn it into a march for free expression as long as you don't mention the Danish cartoons or Muslims.

This is a farce. Somehow you have managed to deliver victories to the Islamists, the extreme left and extreme right all at the same time.

I'm sorely disappointed.

10:55 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

An alternate reality:

Jerry Springer: The Opera. Massive protests. Christian groups calling for new legislation absolutely outlawing any lampooning of the Christian faith. Cinemas showing the Passion Of The Christ and Life Of Brian forced to close.

A march is organised, promoting free expression. It generates enormous interest amongst those who believe that - in a secular society - religion ought to have no sway over controversial artistic or satirical pursuits.

At the last minute, under pressure from Christian Voice, the attendees are asked not to mention anything that might be a sensitive matter for the Christians.

Voltaire and the other organisers: Would you attend my fictional march?

10:58 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Paul sez:

And what's really pissed me off about this decision is that you've insulted so many good people who just wanted to take part in something called a 'march for free expression' that actually lived up to its title. You insult them further by then suggesting that these good people are pissed off because they're being denied the chance to insult muslims. What a piece of work you really are.

11:01 am  
Anonymous publicansdecoy said...

>>this is distorting the appearance of the campaign horribly

You said it yourself.

On yesterday's post your head steward specifically said that he had no intention of ejecting anyone from the banner who displayed the cartoons. Will you confirm this is the case? Say yes, and this march has not strictly violated its principles.

There are a lot of people, myself included, who had no intention of coming along to the march for an anti-Muslim hate-fest. Nevertheless, if people wanted to show the cartoons we would not object, and would defend that right. Will this march still defend that right? You can condemn the reason in doing so (and you make fair points in doing this), but not the right. The last word must be an explicit statement defending the right. Come on, it's not difficult.

11:01 am  
Anonymous publicansdecoy said...

That should say "...had no intention of ejecting anyone from the march..."

I await an answer to my question keenly, as it is crucial as to whether or not you have directly contradicted the aims of the march, and thus whether I (and I suspect many other people) will still support this campaign and attend tomorrow.

11:15 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Look everybody, Peter is just trying to deal with the realities of the situation.

Whatever your axe to grind is, freedom of expression must be central to your arguments, otherwise you wouldn't be here.

Question is, do you want to genuinely protect these freedoms or just make an ideological stand that achieves nothing?

All those that were going to attend, should still attend because it is a start, a start that would not be happening without Peter's hard work.

11:19 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Paul sez:

"ideological stand"? This is getting more surreal by the minute.

People are upset because the march for freedom of expression is no longer a march for freedom of expression. The fact of being disappointed by that fundamental change is not altered one bit by the fact that Peter put so much work into getting it off the ground in the first place. Does it? No, it doesn't.

11:25 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"People are upset because the march for freedom of expression is no longer a march for freedom of expression."

The march is what you make it, your actions, statements and banners on the day. Do you think onlookers are going to examine the mission statement, no.

11:33 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wonder if any of the speakers can be contacted to encourage them to speak specifically about the cartoon issue, and perhaps display them as part of their talk.

I have a feeling the cartoon issue will become completely buried under a much more vague proclamation about freedom of speech/expression that - ultimately - will be meaningless since the best recent example worth protesting about has become a taboo subject.

It's even possible that it may get transmogrified into a 'free Hamza' style affair where supporting freedom of expression is confused with supporting freedom to incite hatred (something the cartoons steadfastly do not do).

I was 100% committed to attending. I'm now 50/50, and my interest is rapidly waning.

I have an idea for a banner/placard if anyone can make it at such short notice.

Get the cartoon from here: http://www.arabeuropean.org/newsdetail.php?ID=95
that was published in response to the Jyllands-Posten cartoons, and have it printed alongside the bomb/turban Jyllands-Posten one.

The slogan: "Both offensive. Neither censored."

11:38 am  
Blogger Theo said...

Can you please clarify on the front page, are people asked not to bring the cartoons or ordered not to bring them? Will stewards be instructed to confiscate them and what have the police decided based on the last few days?

You've had to make a balance based on alienating one part of the march and alienating another. I think the great majority of people can understand that but they feel that you've weighted it too far and now you've alienated more people than before.

There are a whole load of things you could do to make sure people dont see this march as racist, you could suggest banners that ridiculed the BNP and other right wing groups, you could have for example had a heart shaped Danish flag next to a heard shaped Islamic flag, or a crossed out BNP logo or a banner of religious figures from all beliefs but no, you've simply chosen to appease one group in the eyes of the vast majority of supporters of this march.

You can probably skip through a lot of the MAC site if you want but please take a look at this discussion and this answer to the letter writing (maybe ignore the guy at the top and go straight down to Theo's comment :P)

People are ready for this debate, they are fully aware that some people out there have not accepted that this isnt against Muslims, the whole point of this march was to explain that point and now you have said it should basically be postponed until they are 'ready'. Now is the time for this debate, next week there could be an emergency order in place that could take years to lift. Please concentrate on making this a racist/fascist-free march and not a completely sold out political correct march where you'll see banners insulting gays, Christians, Jews (to demonstrate free expression) while one group is very unfairly left out just because you're having trouble convincing a few people.

Yes I understand that you might be doing this just to lower the number of cartoon banners that show up so it becomes less biased, however you're going about that the wrong way. At least get people to post their banners in first so you can do a quota count - i.e x number of cartoons vs y number of other things.

At this point you have made it completely clear that the cartoons are banned, this will do more damage to the cause of free speech than anything else. Who is going to stand up and say "yes we have the right to insult people" now? You've marked this out as a center-march now anyone who does display the cartoons will be marked as far right.

You're the organiser of this march and its your job to make some tough decisions, you have two, sometimes extreme groups on both sides and there's no way you're going to be able to please them both in one day.

This whole thing reminds me of the BBC and their decision to show Jerry Springer the Opera. Why would they show a seemingly biased program against Christians? Because TV stations run one program at a time, that means sometimes you show Songs of Praise, sometimes you show Jerry Springer and sometimes (God forbid) you show Fame Academy, you cant please everyone at once otherwise all programs will turn into a gray politically correct mush where no-one can say anything vaguely controversial. what you can do is show one at a time.

People that you have appeased have been given an easy way out of making their decision. They needed to decide whether they truly believed in freedom of expression or they didn't, they clearly don't and that clearly means you had work to do to convince them. Taking the easy way out solves nothing and at the end of tomorrow what will have been achieved? very little.

The only other thing I can think of is that you have received death threats from extremists who have told you to make this statement, or you have insulted a friend who wants you to reverse your opinion.

As for the death threats from the other side, they are definitely a fascist element in this march and you have my, and everyone else's support in condemning them, had they turned up on Saturday there would have been unanimous condemnation and cooperation in getting them removed by the police, as is the case for extremists on the other side of the fence. You have 1000's of supporters so please ignore the idiots who are threatening you.

Again, people who were going to use this march as a platform against Muslims would have been booed off, now they will feel more motivated and may even grab a few confused supporters who have become disgruntled over this decision.

As I said before, please make it clear if this is a blanket ban or a request, what will happen if people draw their own cartoons?

The police, as ever, have to make decisions based on keeping the peace. I believe that this will now give them a full mandate to arrest anyone who even hints at these cartoons, before they had the protection of belonging to a march that was very clear in its policies, now they will be seen as vagrants, fascist elements and people coming just to stir up trouble while I believe they are mostly not.

If you wanted to say that you were not encouraging the cartoons but would not prevent them that would have been a good compromise, since this is very much a march for freedom of expression and some people wish to express themselves in this way, the way it is now it seems like not so mach free expression but forced censorship that will lead to no understanding between sides and only resentment.

Please plan this carefully, even if it means you only accept one cartoons banner held only by yourself or a delegate, or even if you welcome some of the cartoons but not others. What you have done is make a complete sweeping statement.

11:38 am  
Anonymous Bob said...

I said < http://bob.seldo.com/?p=29 > as Jyllands-Posten was was erupting, that to react as if the Muslim protests were about "freedom of expression" was a mistake. I think this furore shows that I was right.

These specific cartoons were objected to partly because they were representation of Mohammed (i.e. "blasmphemous") and partly because they were deemed racial or indiscriminately insulting (i.e. hateful). Perceived blasphemy-speech and perceived hate-speech were the targets of Muslim protests, not free expression as such.

Now I defend the right to criticise any religion wholeheartedly. I definitely want to be "blasphemous" occasionally. But I also want to make my valid criticisms in a way that is not dangerously ambiguous, as the Mohammed-with-bomb-on-head cartoon obviously was.

So holding up that specific cartoon as an icon of free expression is misguided; yes we have the right to make criticism of any religion, but this misses the point of the original protests. The question to answer isn't "Should we be allowed free expression?" -- it's "Was this hate speech?" Whether you think it bordered on hate-speech or doesn't at all, the fact remains that "free expresion" wasn't the target of protests, only "hate-speech", and we don't want to defend genuine hate-speech whatever your interpretation of the cartoons.

If you think a cartoon was "hateful" then don't make it your icon of free expression; if you think it is not "hateful" then explain why not, rather than simply repating like a parrot that we have the right to free expression.

11:39 am  
Blogger CM said...

Yes, yes, yes, but is criticising central tenets of Islam, drawn from the behaviour of Muhammad, many of which have a direct impact on non-Muslims, "an attack on Muslims"? If so, then freedom of expression means "upsetting" those Muslims who feel their religion and its founder must be above criticism and will be construed by them as an "attack".

11:42 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The march is what you make it, your actions, statements and banners on the day. Do you think onlookers are going to examine the mission statement, no."

Paul sez:

Onlookers be damned. Onlookers will be as perplexed as onlookers always are when marches and demonstrations take place. The 'noise' from this march would have been generated by the reportage after the event, by the people who took part in it, by other commentators. That 'noise' however is now going to come out sounding pretty hollow as a result of this decision.

The March for Freedom of Expression is already, in fact, now a bit of a laughing stock. And it's pretty hard to condemn the people who are doing the laughing.

11:42 am  
Anonymous peejay said...

"This will be a march in favour of free expression, not a march against Muslims"

I am not against Muslims. I am against Muslims who are against free expression. The point about free expression is that you can say things that other people find offensive.

People who don't get that don't get free expression.

I'm saddened that the clarity and effectiveness (and attendance) of the march will be seriously reduced by this about-turn. I will still be there, but my high hopes for achieving anything are seriously dashed.

Very much the wrong decision - there's still time to change your mind! I'm very grateful for your hard work in putting together the march - it's in your hands whether you save it and make the hard work worthwhile!

11:43 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Im sure you mean well, but this is a joke .

you seem to be so worried about upsetting muslims , what about the people like me who are upset that you cant mock religion or be critical without risking being murdered .

The cartoons , salman rushdie , theo van gogh ayaan hirshi ali there is a pattern of bully boy tactics coming from muslims .

and your march for free expression as just reinforced the censorship.

I did intend coming 150 miles to your march, I had friends coming from a muslim background .

we wont be coming now, we didnt personally intend carrying pictures of mohammed , but we wont be told not to carry them to a march "for free expression "

11:50 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The discussion sounds to me like the quarrel of the jews in Life of Brian.

Not living in the UK I wish the marchers good weather.

11:54 am  
Anonymous s c h w a r z said...

The publication of those cartoons is not an attack on Muslims any more than a cartoon of Tony Blair is an attack on British democracy; both are free exercises of satire within a country where freedom of expression is both legal and expected. Appeasing Muslim paranoia will do nothing but add fuel to BNP propaganda; a very worrying situation, and one which, by the sound of things you've already experienced in the form of a right wing death threat. Congratulations on a spectacular own-goal.

11:58 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Most of the foregoing posts may be summarised as:

"I don't really care about freedom of expression, I just want to be able to wear my nice new anti-Muslim cartoon t shirt that I bought on the internet for $14.95"

11:59 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The discussion sounds to me like the quarrel of the jews in Life of Brian."

"Quarrel of the Jews"? Which one is that then? Oh, do you mean the one that is more commonly - and less anti-semitically - referred to as "What have the Romans ever done for us?" You mean that one?

12:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Most of the foregoing posts may be summarised as:"

"I don't really care about freedom of expression, I just want to be able to wear my nice new anti-Muslim cartoon t shirt that I bought on the internet for $14.95"

What a disgusting, disingenuous and deliberate misreading of the previous posts. Don't be such a fucking idiot - and grow up.

12:02 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Paul,

All I can say is, in my opinion, turning up will achieve more than not.

12:03 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's worth reminding everybody, at this juncture, of a certain Mr. Salman Rushdie.

His death-sentence remains valid.

Perhaps some of the Muslim attendees or commentators might like to publicly decry and denounce this.

Cartoons aside, Mr. Rushdie remains the most iconic figure within the debate about freedom of expression.

I'm sure Theo van Gogh would be similarly iconic had he not died with a note pinned to his chest calling for Ayaan Hirsi Ali's death of course.

12:05 pm  
Blogger wardytron said...

I don't want to hear what people think about Islam or what they think about the cartoons - we've all made our minds up on that so there's no point debating it for the millionth time on this thread.

What I want to hear is for the organisers of the march to say that while they personally think it would be wrong to bring the cartoons, people who don't think it would be wrong can bring them, even if the organisers would rather they didn't. That's all.

12:08 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"All I can say is, in my opinion, turning up will achieve more than not."

Paul sez:

No, you see, what was so great about this march - as I and others keep saying - is that it was a march for freedom of expression. That was what was so fantastic about it. And now it isn't a march for freedom of expression. It just isn't - however much we try to understand Peter's decision or skirt around the issues or attempt to compromise or whatever. Call it by another, more suitable, name - be f**king honest about what it is.

So now that it isn't something that I subscribed to, made a donation to and signed a petition for - I don't want to come (and travel 150 miles). Why should I take part in something I no longer believe in? To what end? To make a hollow noise? It's not enough.

12:09 pm  
Blogger Anonymous said...

people aren't being asked not to mention the cartoons just not wave them in peoples faces...

12:18 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"What have the Romans ever done for us?"
Maybe it's called that way. It's just great parody how they get into arguing.
I don't see what should be anti-semitic in my post. But this seems to become a "What have the Romans ever done for us?" discussion between you and me and all those joining in and forgetting to set the clock to wake up tomorrow for the march ;-)

12:22 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"people aren't being asked not to mention the cartoons just not wave them in peoples faces..."

What have you missed about this? They've not been 'asked' not to do anything - they've been 'told'. Which, in other demonstrations and marches might not be so unreasonable. But in a March For Freedom of Expression it's just unbelievable.

And anyway - as we keep saying: I imagine very few wanted to wave or display any cartoons about at all. We're not annoyed because we're being denied the opportunity to insult Muslims - because we didn't want to insult Muslims in the first place. That was just Peter's patronising and wrongheaded assumption.

12:22 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Paul,

I know what you are saying, I do understand.

"To what end? To make a hollow noise?"

I am traveling a similar distance, to wave a danish flag about for a couple of hours because I want to show solidarity with Denmark, which because of the cartoons, is support for freedom of expression.

Hopefully there will be a sea of red and white flags caught on camera and reported. Hopefully a few more people will wake up to the threats we face.

Thats my end.

12:33 pm  
Blogger Theo said...

To people who have changed their minds about turning up: Please reconsider, I wrote a long post about why the cartoons should be allowed but that doesn't mean I think people should boycott the march because of the organisers decision. You still have a chance to bring banners explaining why the cartoons should be allowed, you can still have that happy feeling of knowing you have outraged someone simply by holding a banner saying "Freedom of Speech includes Freedom to Insult" or "Freedom to change religion" and this is absolutely, undeniably, the most positive outrage you can incite.

Its understandable that people would be insulted by these cartoons, although that doesn't make the cartoons wrong or mean they should be censored. However, its completely not-understandable that people would be insulted by the UN declaration of human rights, so keep your insults coming even if you don't use the cartoons. Please turn up to this march and make sure its remembered as a demand for freedom no matter how many people that insults.

12:44 pm  
Blogger Daffersd said...

"It became plain to me from talking with a couple of British Muslim journalists over the past few days that even the most secular, cosmopolitan British Muslim seems incapable, at the moment, of accepting that a display of the cartoons might not be a racist attack on them."

In which case they do not understand freedom of expression if they think that is racist, in fact they do not even understand the term racist and are wilfully misusing it.

It is the Muslims who are attacking freedom of expression, you can not get away from that fact.

As for hate speach, is it hate speach if you tell the truth, it seems that we are already there in Europe.

In all I would still go the march, but really, you just dug an even bigger hole...

12:51 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"All I can say is, in my opinion, turning up will achieve more than not."

The best argument so far. I guess the poster with the Danish flag and the Legopeople will do the trick anyway.

(And from tomorrow, the Danish flag will be called a provocation. )

12:52 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Voltaire has been played for a chump by MAC, and now they are trumpeting their success with a press release.

This has made an absolutel mockery of the march - a March for Free(ish) Expression (as long as it doesn't offend anyone).

Sickening.

1:00 pm  
Blogger Dan said...

Anon: What have you missed about this? They've not been 'asked' not to do anything - they've been 'told'. Which, in other demonstrations and marches might not be so unreasonable. But in a March For Freedom of Expression it's just unbelievable.

Peter Risdon: So I now appeal to people not to bring the cartoons on T-shirts or placards.

Doesn't "appeal" mean "request"? Isn't that asking, not telling?

And read Peter's statement again. There's no problem with Danish flags, banners saying "Lego of my Freedom!", placards stating "Free Speech?" with pictures of Danish Embassies being attacked, etc., etc.

Is the only way you can show your support for the Danish cartoonists right to publish to bring along the cartoons?

I'd like to think we had a bit more imagination than that...

But if you really can't think of anything else, re-read Nick Pullar's comment from yesterday.

Nick Pullar: As the Head Steward, I assure you all that no-one will be ejected from the March for ANY banner-related reason other than a banner which encourages violence. (This emphatically excludes the cartoons.)

Peter *asking* us to play nicely has *not* breached our right to free expression - has it?

1:10 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Two points about all this

1. One of the main defences of the Danish cartoonists was "If you don't want to see cartoons of Mohammed you don't have to look at them" (therefore it's your fault if you get offended). However if you put 'em on posters people WILL have to look at them, so that argument won't apply any more.

2. We don't own the cartoons and we can't control what they mean. Whatever you think of the cartoonist's motives, these images have taken on a life of their own - for example they are now being used by the BNP for racist propaganda. To try to ignore that aspect and insist on the purity of the original cartoons at this point is naive - like people who say the swastika is just an ancient sun symbol, therefore there’s nothing offensive about swastika flags

1:15 pm  
Anonymous publicansdecoy said...

ml1 - I find myself increasingly in accordance with you :)

The moment any of the speakers criticises the right to publish the cartoons may the moment for me to walk away tomorrow though.

Hope to see you tomorrow on the march and in the pub beforehand.

1:15 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"..by MAC, and now they are trumpeting their success with a press release."

So what. I checked THEIR banners and placards. Oh, my. Have look at them, too.

1:16 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now that my fury at the organisers' decision has subsided, I think that the march must still go ahead - with or without the cartoons on display.

Freedom of speech, I think we all agree, is still well worth standing up for - and we still have plenty of tools at our disposal to make our point.

We still need as many people there as we can to demonstrate how strongly we feel about this issue - failure to attend will show us to be apathetic and will only strengthen the arguments of those who want to destroy our hard-won liberties.

We can still make our point by waving the Danish flag, by attending with 'censored' banners, or proclaiming one of the many excellent slogans that have been suggested. Wearing gags for the duration of the rally will make a good point.

After all, this is a freedom of speeech rally, and the point is to show our solidarity in disagreement with those who are trying to censor us, not an excuse to verbally bash people.

We need the people who are undermining our cause to see that we are not racist and are civilised, but deserve to speak our minds, however unpalatable our opinions may be to them.

'I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.' No?

Gavin

1:21 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

… who fights against the Turks [Muslims] … should consider that he

is fighting an enemy of God and a blasphemer of Christ, indeed, the

devil himself…

Martin Luther (1483-1546)

E. Grislis, 'Luther and the Turks', The Muslim World, Vol.LXIV, No.3 (July, 1974), p.183.



Muslim society looks profoundly repulsive … It looks repulsive

because it is repulsive … A Westerner who claims to admire Muslim

society, while still adhering to Western values, is either a hypocrite

or an ignoramus, or a bit of both … Arab and Muslim society is sick,

and has been sick for a long time.

Connor Cruise O'Brian, The Times (London), May 1989

1:42 pm  
Anonymous Jensen said...

Don’t you see what you are doing???

You are making the satiric cartoons into racist cartoons by not allowing them – and thereby you are pleasing the fare right, the Islamist and the fare left – no one but the extremist are winners as the consequence of your decision!

You are polarizing instead of uniting – and that will just add fuel to every extremist fire – and slowly choke the moderate!

2:01 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Free speech, as long as you don't do anything to point out the many things wrong with Islam (such as being unable to tolerate dissent to the point of murdering anyone who disagrees, committing terrorist acts in pursuit of aims instead of trying by peaceful means, and being more offended by cartoons than the violence carried out in the name of your religion/God)

There is no question of racism either. Muslims are part of a religion not a race and it doesn't matter if they are white, black, brown or blue/red. Crying racism is just a way to try and stifle legitimate criticism.

2:01 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A very good point and one worth bringing to the rally:

'Don't stifle legitimate criticism by crying racism'

2:04 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh stop it Voltaire you absolute FOOL. Why oh why did you bring this up. I dont think people had intended to bring the bloody cartoons along anyway. And if they had it would have been obvious within the context of the march itself and would have made a valid point. If muslims are playing you for a handwringing fool over this and backing you into a corner alleging 'racism' you neednt have involved the rest of us. And as the organiser of course your identity would be out there anyway.

2:05 pm  
Anonymous s c h w a r z said...

But that's just what this U-turn is, isn't it? A hand-wringing liberal crisis of confidence brought about by talking to Muslim journalists who themselves have been bullied by extremists. How sad to have gone to the huge trouble of organising tomorrow's march only to wuss out at the 11th hour. I hope tomorrow's speakers aren't so pathetic in their condemnation of intimidation from the left, the right and religious zealots who should already be inside for threats to kill

2:44 pm  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

Well I gave money because I believed that our freedoms are under attack as a result terrorism, this is both the self censorship and the new limitations on free speech imposed by Blair - this includes the outlawing of glorification of terrorism.

This march now appears to be about the celebration of our freedoms, but not highlighting where they are being attacked, in fact one could get the impression that they aren't being attacked at all.

I fully endorse the effort to make this March not about Islam, but to completely remove all association with the cartoons is fool hardy. Surely we could at least put them up in a private for those people that wish to view them can exercise their RIGHT to do so? We don’t have to wave them around on banners to make our point.

I really hope that these speakers address the issues we have today, even if their banner does not. If all they can talk about is “the Iraq war is bad, bad Blair, bad Bush”, “leave poor warmongering Iran alone!”, “English and American imperialism is the root of all evil”, “Islam is a religion of peace, but the media is out to portray it in a bad light”, “freedom of speech includes glorification of terrorism, but not blasphemy” ... well I’ll be leaving the march and attempting to get my donation money back through the small claims court.

Lets hope that the 'Civility' lot, show a insufficient understanding of that concept and expose their rabid opposition to Western values. Let’s hope that large numbers of Muslims support our March opposing the ‘Civility’ lot. Lets hope that we give enough rope to the Islamists to wrap around there throat and hang themselves.

Then we can get back to being nice to each other and practising our different religions peacefully respecting the rights of the individual.

2:55 pm  
Blogger Theo said...

The whole point is that we support peoples right to speak even if we don't support what they say, that is the entire fundamental concept of freedom of speech and that is what this march is supposed to be about. The organisers don't need to support the cartoons, neither does any other group that turns up. However, they do need to support the right for those cartoons to be shown, if they don't support that right then they don't support freedom of expression and they are as bad as the BNP, who occasionally use freedom of expression as a tool to further their goals and then put it away when they're done.

Just make sure that anyone attending does support freedom of expression, they dont have to support any particular expression and they can feel deeply against a particular message or cartoon but they must support the right to show it, if not then they should be as unwelcome as the BNP.

Any idiot looking at the march should be able to understand that concept.

2:58 pm  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

Anonymous posters are an argument against free speech, especially when they use it to make accusations of cowardice.

Get an account people, its only takes a few seconds and your contribution becomes far more meaningful.

If you don't have an account because you think that the intelligence services cannot track you, you are sorely mistaken.

3:01 pm  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

Good god, check out their banners:

http://www.globalcivility.co.uk/Banners_08Feb06%5B1%5D.ppt

That's an awful lot of rope ...

How we can have a massive counter demonstration going on bashing freedom of speech, and not admit that some elements of Islam seek to Islamize our society and enforce their beliefs upon us forcefully ...

3:19 pm  
Anonymous polemicist said...

Voltaire said "It became plain to me from talking with a couple of British Muslim journalists over the past few days that even the most secular, cosmopolitan British Muslim seems incapable, at the moment, of accepting that a display of the cartoons might not be a racist attack on them."

In which case they are willfully choosing to misunderstand what constitutes racism.

It has become increasingly clear that the Islamic mindset does not accept free speech as a basic right as it comes from a different perspective which holds respect for "faith" above all else. I have commented elsewhere on the fallacy of claiming that "to criticise people's beliefs is wrong" and can only add that this standpoint does not support free expression and actually hinders the development of thought.

Rather than bending over backwards in a feeble attempt to encompass a few muslims who do not share the basic belief in free speech - it would perhaps be better if they were the ones who stayed away if they find free expression so offensive.

Furthermore the excuse that the cartoons have been used by the BNP is a weak argument in that they cannot alone hijack these for their own use. Remember it was the likes of Peter Tatchell who reclaimed the word "queer" from the far right to use it as an expression of gay pride and resistance. Similarly we should be able to use the cartoons as a weapon against both the Islamo-fascists and the far right of the BNP.

3:30 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well .... the Muslim Action Committee seem to welcome the decision. Their website is full of praise, and they've called off most of their counter demonstrations !

From their website:

'The Campaign for Free Expression was set up to defend the right to speak out, but ...now the organisers ...have taken a big step and done the right thing in telling people not to bring placards and t-shirts with the Danish cartoons on. (Mr Risdon) has also admitted he was mistaken in welcoming them in the first place. He said to us that he didn’t want the demonstration to be one in which Muslims couldn’t feel welcome and that would be humiliating and intolerable for them due to the presence of the cartoons.

Key to this process of discussions has been a Muslim speaker due to speak at the March for Free Expression... she spoke to Peter Risdon one of the co-organisers of the demonstration and he spoke to us. We encourage Peter to continue down this road of understanding the concerns of the (muslim) community and appreciating the need for civility. This is an excellent first step. '

There you go ... negotiation and flexibility, rather than confrontation, will sometimes have surprising outcomes, producing co-operation and understanding.

There's hope for this world yet!

And by the way, I don't want to be 'anonymous', my name's Muhayman, but this stupid machine won't let me register. So the only way I can post this comment is by being 'anonymous'

3:31 pm  
Anonymous Camel Jockey said...

As a American citizen residing here, I find it frightening just how much people here in Britain hate their country and its culture. For years you all have been systematically and institutionally brainwashed into believing the force-fed shame that you are all racist bigots, and thus have no real concept of defending your freedoms and your way of life from its enemies and its so called "moderates."

whilst I admire the political guts of the BNP,there is still a skeptical side that I reserve for them. But I am extremely interested in watching them take on the Marxist invertebrate rulers that are hell bent on trying to exterminate them. “The war on patriotism” that the political elite has declared on them seems to be playing in their favor, albeit in small but significant increments. Everytime the Muslims keep pushing, the BNP get a little stronger somewhere. Everytime spineless losers like Peter turn their backs on basic "liberal" values, the BNP get a little stronger somwhere..

The truth is, the BNP (recently) has never endorsed and encouarged its core supporters to march in this event under the banner of the 'BNP'. Civility is a human rights watch group for people who get no such protection from the millions of human rights watchdog groups advocating everyone else but people (like BNP supporters) with unpopular viewpoints..

Britain is a herd of 'sheeple' that follow their beloved 'tolerant' direction towards implosion. Your forced multicultural mission has created racial tensions never seen before, and thats because you do not encourage immigrants to assimilate into the culture that you are so ashamed of.. therefore you end up subsidising your own death warrant.
This is a trend that infects Europe as a whole.

If and when Europe surrenders and needs bailing out AGAIN, its leaders, waist deep in denial about its tolerant “path to national suicide,” may actually resort to strapping suicide bombs on themselves in defense of any possible salvation. I only wish I was joking.

3:34 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

TheFriendlyInfidel said...
"Anonymous posters are an argument against free speech, especially when they use it to make accusations of cowardice."

Paul sez:

Are you joking? As if your moniker - or the blog it links to - is any more illuminating than choosing to be known as 'anonymous'.

3:37 pm  
Blogger CarnackiUK said...

I was enthusiastic about this rally from the start and I'm also very disappointed by Voltaire's volte face and apparent attack of Chamberlainism. I am still going along though to show support for the Danes and symbolic resistance to Islamofascist intimidation. Anyone else who's having 2nd thoughts, please attend anyway. You might meet like-minded people and new groups and alliances will emerge.

Another example of Voltaire's baffling naivete is the inclusion of LGFWatch on the masthead. A bunch of rapid Osama groupies endorses the march? Great! What next - a Good Luck message from Bin Ladin himself read out in Trafalgar Square?

3:38 pm  
Anonymous Rastaman said...

When all those Muslims show up with all those offensive banners, and yes, I looked at them, does anyone really think there will be any doubt about this march being against Islamism?

They're killing themselves with those banners. Even showing up to protest the march speaks volumes.

I think the appeasement of the Muslim bullies is despicable, and I've said so repeatedly. Still, I would attend the march, shout right into the faces of the protesting Muslims, and HOPE I got arrested for it so I could sue the crap out of everyone possible.

Confrontations will probably happen, especially from the Muslims as they've amply demonstrated their love of violence. It will all play into our hands, not theirs, if it does happen. Keep that in mind at the march. There will be a lot more of you than of them.

3:40 pm  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

Hi Muhayman,

Welcome to the board. Glad to converse with someone literate.

Personally I'm not happy about this result. All that has happened is that the censorship has continued. Very few people have seen these cartoons, this is why the BNP can exploit them for their purposes.

I can understand the point of principle that you are trying to maintain, and in return I hope you can understand that I am angry of the misrepresentation of the Danish made by the Imams that invented the extra cartoons. By this logic they should be demonized as much as the original cartoonists, especially that they have now caught them on film discussing blowing people up.

It would have been my preference to display the cartoons in an enclosed space like a tent. Then each individual can choice whether they see these images, as is appropriate to a democracy, not a Islamic state.

I believe that this demonstration has become a farce.

3:45 pm  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

Paul sez, I can refer to you by name and address you.

I conceed to your point.

However I've made posts all over these boards, I am consistent (I hope) and you can locate any of my messages.

That is all I mean.

3:48 pm  
Anonymous Camel Jockey said...

As a American citizen residing here, I find it frightening just how much people here in Britain hate their country and its culture. For years you all have been systematically and institutionally brainwashed into believing the force-fed shame that you are all racist bigots, and thus have no real concept of defending your freedoms and your way of life from its enemies and its so called "moderates."

whilst I admire the political guts of the BNP,there is still a skeptical side that I reserve for them. But I am extremely interested in watching them take on the Marxist invertebrate rulers that are hell bent on trying to exterminate them. “The war on patriotism” that the political elite has declared on them seems to be playing in their favor, albeit in small but significant increments. Everytime the Muslims keep pushing, the BNP get a little stronger somewhere. Everytime spineless losers like Peter turn their backs on basic "liberal" values, the BNP get a little stronger somwhere..

The truth is, the BNP (recently) has never endorsed and encouarged its core supporters to march in this event under the banner of the 'BNP'. "Civil liberty" is a human rights watch group for people who get no such protection from the millions of human rights watchdog groups advocating everyone else but people (like BNP supporters) with unpopular viewpoints..

Britain is a herd of 'sheeple' that follow their beloved 'tolerant' direction towards implosion. Your forced multicultural mission has created racial tensions never seen before, and thats because you do not encourage immigrants to assimilate into the culture that you are so ashamed of.. therefore you end up subsidising your own death warrant.
This is a trend that infects Europe as a whole.

If and when Europe surrenders and needs bailing out AGAIN, its leaders, waist deep in denial about its tolerant “path to national suicide,” may actually resort to strapping suicide bombs on themselves in defense of any possible salvation. I only wish I was joking.

3:52 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"even the most secular, cosmopolitan British Muslim seems incapable, at the moment, of accepting that a display of the cartoons might not be a racist attack on them."

Tough shit. Is that not the ENTIRE point of free speech? Have you gone stark raving mad good sir? Are you similarly banning material that Christians or Jews would find offensive? No? That is truly odd...

If they cannot accept the principles of freedom of speech, THEY should be unwelcome at the march.

3:53 pm  
Anonymous True Liberal said...

Peter,

Should call this march the " March For Culturally Sensitive Censorship"

The truth about yourself is you are incapable of defending basic 'libertarian' values, because you compromise the basic principal in favour of not hurting anyone's feelings. You're a fraud and hypocrite to even organise such a event.

This is the suicidal direction of the totalitarian (but spineless) left who are the real and only fascists that govern rational debate.
Thats why the Political elite are so hell bent to help shove Islamo-fascism down our throats. There isn't much difference between the two of them.

Islamo-facists: will try and kill you for displaying the Cartoons.
Liberal-fascists: will try and stop ( and possibly arrest you) for displaying the cartoons.

I reckon its not even allowed for non-muslims to march in Trafalgar Square with out inviting the Muslims out. "We dont want to exclude anyone do we?"

4:24 pm  
Anonymous Basil said...

As one of the only infidels who has personally attended and protested against the raving fanatics at three of the most recent Trafalgar Square muslim protests, I admire your courage in publishing the cartoons.

As for "what part of xxx dont you understand"

favouring free expression means EXACTLY opposing anyone who wishes to restrict it.

Islamic sources cite Mohammed as a ruthless crusher of dissent. Ka'ab ibn ashraf - Abu Afak - Asma bint Marwan - Nadir, there's even quranic verses to support his execution - Abdollah ibn saad abi sarh, all killed in various grisly ways, except for the last who managed a stay of execution through family influence

The term "Muslim" at least suggests some kind of affiliation with these acts. We have seen the extent to which our submission is demanded from "Moderates" and "Extremists" alike

4:46 pm  
Blogger Juan Golblado said...

Peter, you have not yet told us what your relationship with the MAC is.

You neatly skirted around it by saying you don't know that they have said because you haven't looked at their website.

What about the MAC-supporting speaker they say you wanted to keep on board? ??

I take your silence as an admission that what the MAC say is essentially true. And I'm ashamed of you.

ML1, I was closer to you with what you said on HP, but this,

"Is the only way you can show your support for the Danish cartoonists right to publish to bring along the cartoons?

I'd like to think we had a bit more imagination than that.."

is bullshit.

Free speech is precisely something you DO, not something you talk about. Talking about free speech is just that, "talking about". Free speech is the speech itself. So let's not get funny, please.

The problem is this willingness, indeed keenness, to please Muslims on this issue as on so many others. Free speech is not about pleasing others, it is about accepting others.

WE WILL BE ACCEPTED!

5:13 pm  
Blogger the void said...

if the people who've made comments on this site are representative of the people who are going to attend tomorrow then i guess ive been proved right

i have rarely read such a consistant diatribe against an ethnic group since i last had the misfortune to read a bnp pamphlet

it seems that whatever you guys organising this event try and do the majority wish to turn it into a march against islam

as i warned you, that's how the far right work, and thats why this event is so misguided

5:23 pm  
Anonymous Mike said...

Islam is a religion, silly, not a race. You can't compare it to, say, Ashkenazi Jews who live in Europe who are the same ethnic group and therefore a race as well as a religion.

There is nothing racist about standing up against religious intolerance and discrimination. The far right aren't about to take over the country or anything like that either but there's nothing wrong about standing up against that form of political extremism either.

5:42 pm  
Anonymous publicansdecoy said...

Void,

Just yesterday you were saying that you now offer your support to the MFE, and now you come out with this latest diatribe. Which is it to be? Will you maintain a consistent viewpoint, or will you continue to vacillate in the hope of getting people to read and comment on the strange warblings at your own deserted blog?

5:48 pm  
Anonymous dweeb said...

"the void" apparently refers to between your ears. The comments here have not even been remotely anti-Muslim.

The reality we are given to work with is that the chief opposition to free expression is coming from Muslims and those wishing to placate them. That's life. Like it or not, those cartoons have become symbols of free expression, as only something banned for being offensive can be.

This has effectively become a march for freedom to express all but certain ideas. You're censoring the march, albeit just a little bit. The problem is, censorship is like feces in your soup - there's no such thing as a little bit.

5:54 pm  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

> i have rarely read such a
> consistant diatribe against an
> ethnic group since i last had the
> misfortune to read a bnp pamphlet

Twat, glad to see you've added a new word to your vocabulary 'diatribe', good we are making some progress.

Pity you still don't understand that Muslims can described as a community but not an ethnic group.

... oh hang on ... maybe to you they are? Are you one of these Muslims like the Saudi's that see all the other Muslims in Africa and 'white' Muslims as apotates or infidels?

New tip, to the left of the Z key you will find a key with an up arrow on it. Give it a bash, if you can copy words, perphaps you can copy capital letters.

Others have given up on you on this blog, not me, I think that with training you could, could, flip burgers.

5:57 pm  
Blogger the void said...

i said i would offer cautiour support, that was until i found out the bnp were plugging it on their site

i think its been lost to the far right, im sorry, which ive consistantly warned against

i admire that someone finally put rastaman in his place, but i suspect he is the tip of the iceberg, given the anti-islamic ferocity of some of the anonymous comments, many of them made by people who are likely to be attending

for the record, it does not seem likely there will be an islamic counter protest from what ive seen, they seem to be taking the grown up way out and rising above it

in fact from viewing discussions that have been happening on some islamic forums it seems much more civilsed and moderate than many of those whove posted here

ive summed up how i feel on my blog should you care to look

6:03 pm  
Blogger the void said...

eth·nic (

Of or relating to a sizable group of people sharing a common and distinctive racial, national, religious, linguistic, or cultural heritage.

from dictionary.com

6:07 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi, just wondering if waving a Danish flag is acceptable? Will this be seen as provokative to Muslims and non-Danish Scandinavians? Will I be asked not to wave it? Where does the list of things that cannot be held in case they provoke people end? Can I eat a bacon sandwich during the march? Is it ok to expose my hair?

6:11 pm  
Anonymous publicansdecoy said...

It's on dictionary.com, so it must be true!

But I wonder why you chose not to highlight the dictionary.com definitions of 'racism', 'racialism' or 'racial discrimination', none of which mention religion at all?

6:25 pm  
Blogger the void said...

you arguing against a dictionary now, i used the definition that was relevant to my usage of the word, which was clearly correct

or perhaps youre right and the dictionaries wrong ffs

6:40 pm  
Anonymous publicansdecoy said...

Neither me or the dictionary is right or wrong. Dictionaries aren't infallible though. If, however, you feel that dictionary.com is right, do you accept its definitions of racism, and do you now accept that criticising people on the basis of their religion is NOT racism?

In one of your earlier comments you claimed the following: "does not seem likely there will be an islamic counter protest from what ive seen" Erm, the front page of http://www.globalcivility.co.uk quite clearly mentions that there will be a counter-demonstration in Birmingham tomorrow. Do you seriously expect me to believe you hadn't seen this, given your previous citations of that website?

6:47 pm  
Blogger the void said...

A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race

you may be interested in the notes

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=race
"Citing this and other pointssuch as the fact that a person who is considered black in one society might be nonblack in anothermany cultural anthropologists now consider race to be more a social or mental construct than an objective biological fact."

6:49 pm  
Blogger the void said...

i meant a counter demo at the square

6:50 pm  
Blogger the void said...

or would you prefer the oxfod english dictionary

race2

• noun 1 each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics. 2 racial origin or distinction: rights based on race. 3 a group of people sharing the same culture, language, etc.; an ethnic group. 4 a group of people or things with a common feature. 5 Biology a distinct population within a species; a subspecies.

— USAGE Some people now feel that the word race should be avoided, because of its associations with the now discredited theories of 19th-century anthropologists and physiologists about supposed racial superiority. Terms such as people, community, or ethnic group are less emotionally charged

6:56 pm  
Anonymous publicansdecoy said...

And yet the OED definition of 'ethnic' does not mention religion. Does the OED definition of racism specifically mention criticism of religion, then? No. Might I suggest that very few reputable dictionaries would, and I would certainly dispute any that did.

I think the dictionary you might find most useful for future comments is The Concise Voidian.

Selected definitions:

Right-wing: necessarily evil
Left wing - always the good guys
Right - Me
Wrong - you
Racist - Anyone I don't like
Black - White
White - Black

7:07 pm  
Blogger the void said...

you're now starting to lose the credibility i hoped you had.

i've posted many comments on this issue on several threads and been subject to some of the most vile childish abuse i've ever seen on the net

and now you choose to join in with a personal attack, presumably because i pointed out that your definitions of race and ethnicity are not necessarily the same as many other peoples

islam to many people is about more than just religion but cultural and historical heritage

id also point out that with the extremely rare exception almost all muslims in this country are 'ethnic minorities' so to attack islam on mass is basically attacking first, second and third generation immigrants, which is why many believe you to be racist when you pursue an anti-islamic line

some of the hate filled bile thats been pumped out by rastaman has led to a fairly reserved to the few muslims who have posted on this site, as have the continued personal attacks which seem to be your stock in trade when anyone makes a comment you do not agree with

this website has amply illustrated the point that we do have freedom of expression in this country, including the freedom to be as far as im concerned racist and highly offensive to the religions of others

it has also illustrated, by the constant personal attacks on those who disagree that there are few on here who genuinely respect freedom of expression and constructive discourse

this is why i have now made my position clear with regrad to this event, as i said so long ago it seems to be the march for (my) free expression (but not the people i disagree with)

sits back and awaits the inevitable slurs on my sexuality/prowess, accusations of stupidity, criticism of my writing style or punctuation and all the other crap ive put up with

7:22 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

> for the record, it does not seem likely there will be an islamic counter protest from what ive seen, they seem to be taking the grown up way out and rising above it.

First time for everything.

> in fact from viewing discussions that have been happening on some islamic forums it seems much more civilsed and moderate than many of those whove posted here.

Why do you read Islamic sites? Are you a Muslim? No? Then you must also read Sikh, Hindu and Buddhist websites? Yes? Which ones?

Or you just the archetypal far-left UAF-supporting, unthinking Islamophile I suspect you to be? Judging from your blog and posts, you are every bit the extremist (albeit of a different persuasion) you accuse others of being.

7:32 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Peter works for the state. He's property of the state. He's a state asset.

End of.

7:40 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Peter's capitulation only serves to emphasise that Islam represents the single greatest threat to freedom of speech.

His act of dhimmitude has completely neutered this demonstration.

:-(

7:43 pm  
Blogger the void said...

if extremism is about a society based on love, peace, tolerance and anarchy, rather than hatred, racism, war, fear and totalitarianism then i guess you could call me an extremist

ive been reading islamic websites because i became involved in this debate and i wanted to know what the general line of thought was from the other side of the perspective, as i would have hoped most of those on here have done (but i doubt it)

and also a couple of them have been kind enough to link to my original piece which i would say disproves all of those who claim that political islam is intolerant, as there is much on my website that would not sit well with traditional islamic values

7:46 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

> a society based on love...

Why don't you show a little lovin' towards the good people on this blog AND STOP CONDEMNING THEM ALL AS RACISTS?!

As has been pointed out time and time again - you do not truly understand what 'racism' means. For you it is nothing more than a convenient slur to be thrown at anyone who challenges your Utopian view of the world. It's third rate student politics.

Please, give it a rest.

8:03 pm  
Blogger the void said...

i have never accused everyone on this blog of being racist, far from it, i have accused people of being racist when they have clearly had what is in my view a racist opinion, which sadly does seem to be the motivation of many here

whilst i may not understand what definition of racist means the dictionary quotations posted above show that their is clearly a difference of opinion as to what can and cannot be categorised as racist

we may disagree on the definition of the word, however i am far from wrong in the eyes of the OED

i guess i could choose the word culturist or religionist

or perhaps i should stick to the catch all word

bigots

8:22 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whatever your axe to grind is, freedom of expression must be central to your arguments, otherwise you wouldn't be here.

The problem isn't OUR axe to grind, it's Peter's. Peter went political with all of this since day one. When he said "Fascists" weren't welcome, *SOME* people on the left and *SOME* muslims smelt the blood, they *KNEW* that Peter was yet another wooly liberal who just doesn't get what freedom of speech is all about. Peter is JUST the kind of person that Tatchell is critisizing. *SOME* liberals think they are all for freedom of speech and they normally get the picture. Then they speak to someone they want to please. The beard gets stroked. Then all of a sudden the "If's" and "but's" start flowing.

8:29 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

can somebody please tell me what dhimmi means? It's not in the dictionary, and it seems to be everywhere on this blog

9:24 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dhimmi: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi

9:41 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Info about dhimmi (Islamic apartheid) status;


http://www.dhimmi.com/dhimmi_overview.htm

10:19 pm  
Blogger Perry de Havilland said...

Freedom of expression means exactly that. If people want to wave pictures of the cartoons, well I have no problem with that as the forces of intolerance are going to claim this is just 'bashing the Muslims' regardless, so frankly who cares? I will be there are I for one will not be softly softly. I am done with making apologies for for being free and if some people don't like that, too bad. We need to be a whole lot less worried about pissing people off.

11:22 pm  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

> or would you prefer the oxfod
> english dictionary

You are pure comedy mate!

1:12 am  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

> ive summed up how i feel on my
> blog should you care to look

You are so funny, I've so enjoyed pulling the piss from you void, you just keep coming back for more.

I've no interest in you how you feel, nor has anyone eles. Perphaps your mother might be interested, 'cos I'm sure you've no girlfriend!

1:15 am  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

> sits back and awaits the
> inevitable slurs on my sexuality/
> prowess, accusations of
> stupidity, criticism of my
> writing style or punctuation and
> all the other crap ive put up
> with

I'd ruffled your hair if I met you, you can be so sweet!

1:17 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

With all love and respect to everyone, everything has to have a limit.

In the case of "expression", we are using gifts (i.e. the ability to speak, fraw, walk etc.) and these gifts have been given to us by our Creator and not everyone has been given these gifts. Some people, for example, cannot talk and others, for example, cannot walk.

To use these gifts in anyway which makes our Creator angry is a sign of deep ungratefulness, because any word of offense earns His Anger. Referring to someone as a "member of the Jewish race" is fine, but to call someone a "bloody Jew" is not.

The cartoons of the Holy Prophet (s) are offensive - and that is a clear fact.

So my advice to anyone that is given the good fortune to read this post is to acknowledge that "expression" is a gift which we have been given and if we use it in any way that makes the Giver angry, then we deserve His Anger and will suffer for it.

So feel free to express yourself, but just don't offend anybody - simple!

If, however, you feel that you should be allowed to see what you want and draw what you want and publish what you want, then know that you are very low in moral values.

4:07 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

With all love and respect to everyone, everything has to have a limit.

Yes and we think that limit should be way beyond offence. So you can keep whinging on about being offended all you want. No one here is listening.

We are not interested in making exceptions to our law, just to accomodate Islam.

We've been taking the piss out of Christian God botherers for ages.

People be taking the piss out of Islam for ages and you had better start getting used to it. If you don't like it, go and live in an islamic state and leave us alone, to live our lives and burn in hell afterwards.

God never gave us a free will. He didn't give us nothing, because he doesn't exist. That means, we have to defend out right to have a free will and a freedom of expression and speech, because YOU and YOUR kind ain't going to leave us with what we cherish in peace.

7:12 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

calm down guys. i think freedom of expression shud not give us the right too slander and abuse ppl. its like bullies in a playground. imagine if your son was disabled and the other cards held placards all day in the playground saying '___ Walks like a monkey' etc. also they draw pictures of this lad with rude ideas behind them. this lad finds it offensive. Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me. thats a load of nonsense. so as Non-muslims we must still accept that bullying muslims is wrong. We need SOME rules in this country...

8:03 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

People generally don't have a choice as to whether they are disabled.

Islamophiles are not disabled people. They choose to follow all of that hocus pocus just as some of them choose to violently threat the rest of us when we take the piss out of them for their actions.

8:27 am  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

> To use these gifts in anyway
> which makes our Creator angry is ...

Wow, did he/she drop you an email to tell you about being angry? You surely have a personal relationship with God if that is the case.

Ooooh. BTW I'm testing this out:

*-O))8-{>

When you cast your eyes upon it, have you sinned?

10:36 am  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

10:44 am  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

Void rides up to town of infidels looking for racists. He sees the a man I knows what to say:

"u r a racist BNP membr! RACIST!"

Strangely the man takes offensive and claims he is not racist. Void knows that denial is a sure sign of a true racist, and continues:

"U R A RACIST BNP LOVER! YOU WANT TO KILL ALL BROWN PEOPLE STARTING WITH MUSLIMS"

The man carmly explains, no, I'm not a racist, he is interested in what's going on in this ideology which isn't about race. He decides to start to ignore Voids outbursts.

Void, the underdog hero, knows what to do now, switch the back up plan!

"BIGOT! UR A BIGOT! BIGOT BNP LOVER! YOU WANT TO KILL ALL BROWN PEOPLE STARTING WITH MUSLIMS"

Void knows that he has made a lot noise and has done a good job at community relations, many people have stopped being racists, but are now bigots. He pads off of a chews on a bone.

10:51 am  
Blogger British National Party member said...

Anonymous wrote;

"Question is, do you want to genuinely protect these freedoms or just make an ideological stand that achieves nothing?"

Defending our freedoms is an ideological stand you muppet!

Though now, it is a case of recapturing our freedoms.

2:54 pm  
Blogger bobby said...

At last, the Prophet mohammed has his say... www.prophetmohammed.co.uk

11:57 am  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home