Take A Walk On The Wild Side

'Martyrdom of St Lawrence' by Pellegrino Tibaldi 1592, Basilica, El Escorial

I am glad to say that common sense has prevailed in Britain by rejecting a draconian draft of the 'Racial and Religious Hatred Bill': Ministers proposed a compromise which they said ensured people could debate, ridicule or insult religions as long as they did not intend to stir up hatred, or were "reckless" about stirring up hatred. But MPs changed the wording of the government plans and backed peers by insisting the reckless behaviour should not be an offence.

The Reverend Richard Blyth, from Hither Green Baptist Church, in Lewisham, London, said the laws were both ludicrous and dangerous.

The already toned down compromise proposed that people can only be found guilty of the new offence if they intend, or are reckless about, stirring up religious hatred.

But Rev Blyth said: "The question of intent is discerned not by what the speaker says but by what the hearer deems that they heard. "Therefore it is possible for hearers who feel that they are insulted to go the police and say a particular speaker or group of speakers is trying to stir up hatred against them."

You gotta love the Brits. Throughout the entire debate everybody knows what everybody else is thinking, namely of the recent scenes played out in Denmark and Norway where Prophet Mohammed was subject to innocent mockery in certain caricatures; but nobody is saying it anywhere. Instead we learn about the difference of what a speaker says and a hearer hears - which btw is actually a brilliant distinction and probably much more effective than if called out by its name: MUSLIMS trying to carve out yet again some more special conditions on their quest to enact and enforce Shari'a laws. And you know when something is up, when such unlikely bedfellows come together:

On a day of unlikely alliances, the National Secular Society's Stewart Ware explained how he was able to make common cause with the evangelists. "We do not agree on many things but we do on this," said Mr Ware, 52, from Walthamstow, London. Surrounded by religious chants and songs, the campaigner against religious privilege confessed: "It is slightly odd and I won't say I enjoy it 100% but it's an experience. "It's basically about freedom of speech. No one has the right not to be insulted or offended."

Of course the Muslim brethren nationally and internationally don't see it this way at all. Not only do they lack any sense of humor whatsoever, but they also know only how to dish out but not how to take. Following the publication of the caricatures, riots broke out, boycotts were instigated, fatwas were issued calling for the death of the cartoonists - who are currently in hiding - and, most bizarrely, apologies were issued. The French thank Goodness, have said: "Up yours", and republished the cartoons. A very unusually brave, but nevertheless right move for a country who has problems of it's own dealing with the Muslim community. They were joined today by Germany, Spain, Italy, and The Netherlands who have reprinted the cartoons. Embassies are being closed because of it. But back to Britain:

Democratic Unionist MP Sammy Wilson proclaimed to cheers and hallelujahs how Christianity had spanned 2,000 years and did not need protection from Tony Blair or his new legislation. "People are queuing up to use this legislation to stop people preaching what they want," he said. His DUP colleague Willie McCrea declared: "I do not care what man says, I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ." He went on to lead the demonstrators in a chorus of Amazing Grace.

The inception of this proposed legislation came about in the wake of 911, during which the British Government, just like President Bush, rushed to push back on fears of growing discrimination against Muslims. This of course turned out to be the reverse.

And was of course before a much better and broader understanding of what our Islamofascist friends have in mind for our future. It is therefore not without irony, when the Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC) raised concern that religious minorities could find themselves the targets of prosecutions, under the plans, rather than enjoying extra protection from it, thus rejecting the home secretary's belief that the law change would help tackle religious extremists who preach against other religions.

Exactly, after all no one quite like our Islamofascists keep on preaching against other religions and the IHRC can't have that curbed can they. Also, giving a hint why such 'restrictions' might interfere with the bigger picture, the IHRC Chair Massoud Shadjareh said on Monday in a reaction to Hamas' recent election victory: “The international community must end this hypocrisy which has seen democratic governments in Algeria, Turkey, Chechnya, Iran and now Palestine bullied and threatened because the people dared to believe in and vote for Islam as a solution to their problems. The era of the international powers electing the governments of the world must finish.”

Yeah right - long live the era of Islam under Shari'a laws. Meanwhile the IHRC is back to daily business calling for a protest against Colin Powell attending a London Fundraiser for the Jewish National Fund.   

But I digress:

Ministers insist the new law would not affect "criticism, commentary or ridicule of faiths". Home Office Minister Paul Goggins has said: "It is about protecting the believer, not the belief."

He does not expect many prosecutions under the new laws, but said it was important for Parliament to send out a clear message. He said: "This will be a line in the sand which indicates to people a line beyond which they cannot go... "People of all backgrounds and faiths have a right to live free from hatred, racism and extremism." Religious hatred is defined in the Bill as "hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief" - showing it will also cover atheists.

Sounds to me that he is referring to Christian, Jewish and Budhist believers as well as those who 'believe' that God does not exist, all of whom clearly in need of protection from the Shari'a wielding Islamofascists, the only ones who go out and proclaim the right to kill people in the name of religion - I don't care on what pretext.

Oy, what a mess. Irrespective of the IHRC's motives, any such laws are bound to be abused by those who are most aggressive about their religious intolerance; Islamofascists who'd want to invoke this new law when seeing, hearing and construing insults to their prophet at every corner or when ever it might suit their political ends. But thank God democracy is alive and kicking in the country of old, and the error was detected on time and has now been corrected.

A series of speakers from politics, civil liberties groups and from the arts were in Westminster on Monday to voice their concerns the day before the bill comes back before Parliament for its second reading.

Liberty's Shami Chakrabarti brushed off Mr Goggins' reassurances saying: "In a democracy there is no right not to be offended. "Religion relates to a body of ideas and people have the right to debate denigrate other people's ideas." She said where people used religion as a proxy for expressing racism the existing race laws could be amended to encapsulate that.[...]

Author Ian McEwan said religions all thought they held "irrefutable beliefs" and only a secular society could ensure true freedom for them and for others' right to express criticism.

UPDATE: France Soir has fired its editor for publishing the forbidden cartoons. This is outrageous. The best round up is @ Michelle Malkin, who has been on this story from way back late last year.

More on the flaming row over the Danish caricatures of Muhammad @  Captain's Quarters, Fausta's Blog,  Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, Gates of Vienna,  Tammy Bruce, The Politburo Diktat, Gateway Pundit, Atlas Shrugs, The Big Pharaoh,  The Jawa Report , The Astute Blogger, Althouse, The Politburo Diktat, Harry's Place, In the Bullpen, Secular Blasphemy, Cold Fury, The American Thinker and Outside The Beltway

Comments

[Ima Blogger]

We'll be Drawing Old Muhammad on the Wall

(music: She'll be coming 'round the mountain,
http://www.niehs.nih.gov/kids/lyrics/mountain.htm)

We'll be drawing old Muhammad on the wall,
We'll be drawing old Muhammad on the wall,
For even Muslims must admit it,
You don't need a special permit,
To be drawing old Muhammad on the wall.

We'll be spraying old Muhammad on the wall,
We'll be spraying old Muhammad on the wall,
With graffiti that's persisting,
We will show that we're insisting,
On our right to spray the Prophet on the wall.

We'll be painting old Muhammad on the wall,
We'll be painting old Muhammad on the wall,
Now some claim that He's angelic,
So we'll paint Him psychedelic,
We sure hope He likes His pictures on the wall.

We'll be etching old Muhammad on the wall,
We'll be etching old Muhammad on the wall,
The time has come to make our stand
Or our rights they will get banned,
And we'll find ourselves lined up against the wall.

(If you like this, please re-post it elsewhere on the Internet.)

[Harris]

At least someone has to guts to stand up to the fucking islamist !!

[Liquid]

The fear behind the constant applications for legislation change in the west is that Islam cannot be scrutinized because it's been drilled into their psyche to never question the quran and they expect all the west to comply also under the "respect umbrella" They are quite aware that if they were to allow any examination to get too close to it's core that all hell would break loose within their "oppressed family unit" because without their intimidating sharia laws and their repetitious dictated brainwashing, muslims might then get the free opportunity to question and think for themselves. Islam will NOT have that! The quran will not allow it!

Remember that the quran itself was brilliantly designed to be confusing by it's own evil spirit, making it comparable to a black magic hat of a master illusionist. It's contradictions are there to allow each follower to pull out one thing *ie sura and teaching* and if that one thing doesn't work to their advantage it can be tossed aside and their hand that is quicker than the eye can then be allowed to pull out just the opposite if it can appease their motives. It's the same when it came down to the "no image* of Muhammed or the command to 'never question' the commands because 'allah always knows best' jargon. This was deceptively clever because with that in mind, one must never scrutinize it's authority and be in good standing with the faith and if allowed to do so it might find out the hidden filth! If a nonbeliever ever asks why is this allowed or why do they do this or that the usual response is always "Allah knows best" or "Muhammed says so" It becomes as monotonous as a 'simon says' game with each round forcing the inquisitive one to be eliminated.

So the problem today that the islamic community is having is that it knows that the gig is up. Too much of the islamic agenda is exposed and more and more people are more educated on what the teachings of the quran are and what is being taught inside the mosque (as they have been caught) and then the hatred is acted out by the extremist. So when we hear voices say "the clock is ticking" it applies to the time limit on both sides. Those muslims that are pushing for "special" treatment via the change of law and are clogging up court systems on their strategic path to dominate. Closing loop holes and creating new ones for their goals. It's equivelant to duct taping the mouth of free speech because freedom's tongue is a contributor; one that is unmasking the veil off of the camouflaged political movement that has been disguising as a religion since the days of muhammed.