louis-smith-islam
Freedom of Religion

Louis Smith is threatened and suspended for mocking Islam, and Theresa May preaches tolerance, balance and responsibility

This wasn’t the first time that four-time Olympic medallist Louis Smith had been rebuked by his professional association British Gymnastics for breaching their Standards of Conduct. So when a video surfaced in which he was judged to be mocking Islam, it was determined that “a cumulative penalty was appropriate“, and this came in the form of a two-month suspension. No doubt British Gymnastics believes that Louis Smith is bringing his profession into disrepute by shouting ‘Allahu Akbar!’ and sniggering while his mate adopts the sajdha position and performs half a rakat. Louis Smith is an inspiration and role model to many thousands of people, young and old: what he says resonates; what he does influences. If Louis Smith MBE had mocked Our Glorious Dead by breaking wind over a wreath of poppies while singing ‘God Save The Queen’, British Gymnastics would also have moved to suspend as a “cumulative penalty”. He represents his country on the world stage: he has been appointed MBE for his athletic prowess. If he offends a constituency, that becomes the business of his professional body because it reflects badly on many, if not all. Immature actions have grown-up consequences.

This isn’t about Louis Smith’s freedom to mock Islam, but our collective prostration to the censorious cult of tolerance by which all public utterances are now subsumed to a new code of blasphemy and enforced respect which increasingly shields Allah, Mohammed, the Qur’an and mosques more than the names of Jesus and YHWH or the Bible and Church. It is ironic that Parliament, having legislated to abolish the crimes of blasphemy and blasphemous libel as they related to Christianity, is filling the vacuum with tolerance and respect for all things Islamic while turning a blind eye to those Muslims who threaten murder and called for Jihad against the apostate and the infidel.

Louis Smith was pilloried by Loose Women and apologised profusely. He disclosed that he’d received death threats, but they passed over that without smudging their lipstick. Instead, the self-righteous inquisition went on and on about his ‘racism’, shame and responsibility. His apology was good enough for some Muslims, who didn’t want him suspended, but not for the Muslim Council of Britain, who said it was no apology at all. They, too, uttered not a word about the death threats he’s received.

Enter Charles Walker MP, who made an impassioned plea to the Prime Minister during PMQs yesterday:

When people make fun of Christianity in this country, it rightly turns the other cheek. When a young gymnast, Louis Smith, makes fun of another religion widely practised in this country, he is hounded on Twitter and by the media and suspended by his association. For goodness’ sake, this man received death threats, and we have all looked the other way. My question to the Prime Minister is this: what is going on in this country, because I no longer understand the rules?

To which Theresa May responded:

I understand the level of concern that my hon. Friend has raised in relation to this matter. There is a balance that we need to find. We value freedom of expression and freedom of speech in this country—that is absolutely essential in underpinning our democracy—but we also value tolerance of others and tolerance in relation to religions. This is one of the issues we have looked at in the counter-extremism strategy that the Government have produced. Yes, it is right that people can have that freedom of expression, but that right has a responsibility too, which is the responsibility to recognise the importance of tolerance of others.

This is not remotely adequate. There is no ‘balance’ to find between freedom of expression and ‘tolerance’ in relation to religions. All gods, prophets, sacred beliefs and holy books must be subject to criticism, scorn, mockery and defamation. If they are not, we coerce the unbeliever to tolerate the intolerable; to respect that which is unworthy of respect because its precepts are repugnant, its prophets are false and its god is a myth.

Freedom of expression and freedom of speech are the philosophical progeny of freedom of religion. Where there is freedom of religion, there must be freedom from religion. When our mainstream media and political leaders demand obeisance to “tolerance in relation to religions” – meaning, of course, to one religion in particular – we must necessarily subsume the freedoms of speech and expression to the new sharia blasphemy code, which you breach it at your peril.

  • Martin

    The Asher’s Bakery judges were demanding tolerance for what they approved of whilst denying it to Christianity. Tolerance surely means allowing what you do not approve of.

    • Royinsouthwest

      If you allow what the Guardian does not approve of then you are guilty of a “hate crime.”

  • Royinsouthwest

    I vaguely remember seeing a few months ago a television programme that looked back at social changes in Britain, or perhaps it was just Wales, and it mentioned controversy in Aberystwyth when the film “the Life of Brian” first came out. The programme mocked the councillors for their “intolerance” in wanting to ban the film. Thank God (or thank somebody or other) for the “fact” that we are so very much more “tolerant” today!

    • magnolia

      A truly bumptious film, with about two good jokes, lots of padding, and a markedly tasteless, trite, and disrespectful finale.

      It must be truly terrifying for them when those involved in the film try explaining to Jesus after they have died how it was only against false religious practice. I don’t think He will be impressed with their casuistic arguments.

      • The Explorer

        As I’ve said before, it would have been instructive to actually crucify one of those involved in the finale, and to see how long he kept singing ‘Always look on the bright side of life’.

  • Busy Mum

    “Oh, that we might foresee a little the great danger that hangeth over our heads! For though the Turk seemeth to be far off, yet do we nourish within our breasts at home, that which may soon cause us to feel his cruel hand and worse, if worse may be: to overrun us; to lay our land waste; to scatter us amongst the infidels, the enemies and blasphemers of the Son of God!” John Foxe AD1566

  • Fred

    The powers that be in all the British major political parties believe that the majority of Islamic migrants into this country will see the (secular/ humanist/ atheist) light and dissipate into wider society contributing to our culinary breadth as they progress. This ideology guides every press release and every politicians speech. Yet it does not even vaguely connect with the observable reality of Islam in our country and others.

  • Dreadnaught

    The world is in denial over the enormous power being exerted by political Islam over all aspects of 21st Century living. It has an unyeilding grip on media both mainstream and social emboldened by the onesided (naturally) philosophy of political correctness much loved by the ‘you know it makes sense’, ‘moral’ Left. Not the far-Left, not the extreme-Left not even the extreme-far-Left unpatriotic, self-hating, sorry for everything our ancestors did Left; just the warm, cuddly jam for everyone, Cumbya Left I seriously loathe.

  • B flat

    Honesty is a cherished item, and has rarity value in politics. At least Teresa May admits that the Government has not found the balance between freedom and tolerance. However, these are put in false opposition, precisely to confuse those who are not rigorously clear thinkers. The salami tactics of the cultural marxists won this battle some years ago, and Islam is only a weapon they are employing, underestimating its inherent destructiveness. Islam will operate to their annihilation much more successfully than to that of Christianity, which will survive the present destruction of its culture.

  • CliveM

    Tolerance? What sodding tolerance? What we see is fear. We now have a faith group, surfing the tide of violence and political AND judicial cowardice. The British Council of Muslims may claim to condemn Islamic inspired violence, but they let the threat of it further their agenda.

    We have the creation of a group with special status, willing to at least give silent assent to violence, it must stop.

    • Jon Sorensen

      “What sodding tolerance?”
      So true, There is no tolerance of female imams or bishops these days…

      “We have the creation of a group with special status”
      So true. Muslims get tax breaks, special treatment and seat at the upper house.

      Upvoted!

      • The Explorer

        “There is no tolerance of female imams or bishops these days.”

        Can you name me a time when there WAS tolerance of female imams? In fact, can you name me a time when female imams existed?

        • CliveM

          Explorer I’ve blocked him, so all I can see is others response to him. I’ve not missed his witless comments.

          • Jon Sorensen

            Interesting that CliveM has blocked his ears. It’s so much easier to talk to people who already agree with you.

        • Jon Sorensen

          “In fact, can you name me a time when female imams existed?”
          2 seconds of googling gives you answers:
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_as_imams

          • The Explorer

            Your source says that women can lead women-only congregations, but that if a woman leads a mixed group in prayer the prayer of the men is invalid.

          • Jon Sorensen

            Scroll down to “Mixed-gender congregations” section, it shows some examples. You quoted Imam an-Nawawi, others disagree. Just like in Christianity Islam has many sects and leaders.

            But you are right. It is rare, almost non-existent. We need more tolerance rather than fatwas.

  • Stig

    Tolerance should cut both ways. It is Christian to be endlessly tolerant. It is Satan who fosters intolerance and discord. Muslims who come to a Christian country must learn tolerance, and the intolerant stance of some in government is not helping.

    • Jon Sorensen

      I believe the Bible teaches that everything goes according to God’s plan, even what Satan fosters. I agree that the UK is a Christian country, but there seems to very little Christian tolerance towards non-Christians, female bishops, LGBT etc. Muslims just seem to be better in intolerance.

      • Stig

        That of course is our failing. We should be tolerant of others even if we don’t approve of their lifestyles. The only lifestyle we have control of is our own, and we don’t always do it very well. After all, we are all sinners. It is hypocritical to pick on other people’s sins to condemn when we are sinners ourselves. Splinters and logs in the eye come to mind. In Ephesians Ch 1 Paul writes about all of creation being brought into union under Christ. Until that happens there will be disputes; Christ’s rule will bring all of that to an end.

      • Dominic Stockford

        It is not intolerant to say that someone’s lifestyle is an offence to God.

        • Jon Sorensen

          I agree that we should have the freedom of speech. My problem is when Christians *act* to actively discriminate.

      • Royinsouthwest

        There is a difference between intolerance and disagreement. The first is not compatible with a free society and a free society cannot exist without allowing the second.

        • Jon Sorensen

          Disagreement is ok. Actively discriminating minorities is not ok. If intolerance leads to action it becomes not ok.

  • shields Allah, Mohammed, the Qur’an and mosques more than the names of Jesus and YHWH or the Bible and Church

    The College of Policing’s hate crime guidance deals exhaustively with anti-Semitism, with anti-Muslim hate crime and with anti-Sikh hate crime but—as far as I know, not having read all 132 pages—makes no specific mention of Christianity. The lesson would appear to be that communities with a reputation for obstreperousness receive special consideration. The Christian community, with its reputation for tolerance and leaning over backwards, receives its just reward: zilch. The prize for Religion Least Likely to Survive in a Multicultural Society goes to… Christianity!

    • Dominic Stockford

      Interestingly I have still not received the advice which the Met Police say has been sent to all churches in London.

  • len

    If you want to look at the core beliefs of Islam and Christianity look at their founders Jesus Christ and Mohammed.
    Jesus Christ advocated Love peace and non violence, Mohammed death and destruction.

    ‘The world’ respects [and fears] those who appear to be the most powerful, the most violent, the most threatening and Islam is that religion.

    Christianity is from another world ,entirely super natural.

    Islam is from’ this world system’ and appeals to those who would enforce their religion on others.

    • Jon Sorensen

      “Jesus Christ advocated Love peace…”
      I think he said “I did not come to bring peace” which he could have done…

      • Old Nick

        Two swords do not make a razzia

        • Jon Sorensen

          But Christians always bring more than two swords…

          • Old Nick

            I recommend to you the book of G. Caspary on Origen and the Two Swords pericope. How many razzias did Jesus lead.

          • Jon Sorensen

            Gaspari advocates a spiritual authority of the Church as a partial solution to Luke 22:38. This is what Church fathers advocated, but Jesus did not. This is typical chruch self-promotion eisegesis pretending to be exegesis.

            “How many razzias did Jesus lead.”
            I’m not worried about Jesus team of 12. I’m worried about his modern followers.

      • carl jacobs

        Heh. A fine job ripping that verse out of its context, Jon.

        • Pubcrawler

          He’s good at that, at least.

          • Jon Sorensen

            Funny how people who cry “out of context” never claim what the “real” context is. As if Jesus actually came to bring peace…. but he didn’t as we see.

        • Jon Sorensen

          Here is the context of it:
          32 “Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven.
          33 But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.
          34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
          35 For I have come to turn “‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
          36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’
          37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
          38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
          39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.

          It still says in context that he did not come to bring peace, even when he could have.

          • carl jacobs

            The Lord Jesus did not come to bring peace between men. The sword He refers to is the sword of division that naturally occurs when men follow Christ over other men – in this case, family. Ask the Jewish convert about that circumstance. Why does this occur? Because a servant is not greater than his master. They hated Him. They will hate us.

            The Lord Jesus instead came to bring peace between God and men.

            Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Romans 5:1

            Because we are now justified (past tense) we have peace with God – the peace that can never again break out into open warfare. The wrath of God against man has been turned aside. It’s about God and not men.

          • Jon Sorensen

            I agree with your “sword of division”. So how did I exactly take it out of context?

            Romans 5:1 does not say “The Lord Jesus instead came to bring peace between God and men.” Jesus will send people to hell. If that is your “peace” I’m not buying that exegesis

            “They hated Him”
            You bought into your own propaganda. Jews did not hate Jesus. Remember they thought Christians just invented the whole Jesus story.

            “They will hate us.”
            This is Christian martyr complex. Be nice to people and they don’t hate you.

            “the peace that can never again break out into open warfare”
            You should read Revelation!

          • carl jacobs

            You should learn some Christian Theology before you try to argue about it.

            In the first place, I didn’t bring in my own propaganda. Neither did I display a martyr complex. I quoted Scripture without citing it.

            Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. John 15:20

            In the second, place I deliberately submerged the whole discussion of Election. That doesn’t change the truth of what I said. It simply qualifies it.

            You removed the verse from context by equivocating on the word “peace”. You imposed your own understanding on what it would mean for Christ to bring peace. He didn’t come to bring the Eschaton to this world.

            Personally, I don’t care what you will or won’t buy. What I said is true. You can receive it or not as you see fit.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “I didn’t bring in my own propaganda”
            yes you did: “They hated Him”. Find out what Jews actually said and wrote about Jesus

            “Neither did I display a martyr complex.”
            Yes you did: “They will hate us”. Christians are not hated as a group.

            I didn’t equivocating on the word “peace”. You claimed “Jesus Christ advocated Love peace and non violence” to which I responded in the same meaning of peace. You introduced a new meaning by “peace between God and men”.

            “You imposed your own understanding on what it would mean for Christ to bring peace.”
            Is this even an argument? As if you would not impose your own understanding. LOL.

            “He didn’t come to bring the Eschaton to this world.”
            You imposed your own understanding on Eschaton while Jesus said “there are some standing here who will not taste death”…

            “What I said is true”
            You should read Jewish writing to understand what they thought of Jesus…

    • pascal78

      Well said Len. Why are we so scared of a bizarre belief system dreamed up by an illiterate immoral Arab ? Just because they will murder those who expose their ridiculous teachings?

    • DP111

      If you stated this truth in a public place, Plod will arrest you for maligning and slandering the Religion of Peace.

      A judge will then pass sentence, that you attend a mosque, and learn about the beautiful Religion of Peace.

  • IanCad

    “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.”
    Thomas Jefferson.

    It’s coming. It’s coming.

  • magnolia

    I thought it would be interesting to name all the public figures and sports stars who have mocked Christianity with no societal pressure to issue a grovelling apology. Leave that to Jesus in the Last Judgement for that person, we believe. But then I realized that the list was far far too long. Not just because those who are three generations ago culturally influenced with some moral (rootless) compunctions feel they can mock their “own” religious far-background, but also because all other religions can do it with impunity too, and the atheists, wiccans, Luciferians, Satanists and pagans to boot.

    Christians are uniquely insult-able it seems.

    What is so unique about Christ and His Disciples?

    Well, we know, it is because Christ and Christian discipleship uniquely irritates the powers of Darkness in a way nothing else does, and those used by those powers temporarily or more permanently show predictably consistent nastiness.

    • Royinsouthwest

      You forget that is is also OK to insult Jews, provided you call them Zionists. Just ask Corbyn and Shami Chakrabarti for confirmation.

  • David

    Increasingly sharp social divisions, if not very worse, are the inevitable result of the gutless politicians and judiciary refusing to defend our traditions of free speech, democracy, free thinking and freedom of conscience, which should be applied EQUALY across all theological and philosophical positions.
    The resentment is growing daily and I expect unpleasant backlashes.
    Moreover the disdain of the judiciary for The People, just expressed in the judgement regarding the Brexit matter, proves how far removed the establishment is now from feeling the heartbeat of the nation.
    Civil unrest grows closer day by day.

  • magnolia

    On the wider topic of Freedom and Christian politics I hope His Grace will be happy if I post this interesting link on the Brexit Battle which so many of us care so deeply about:

    http://prophecytoday.uk/comment/editorial/item/519-brexit-battles-begin.html

    I think it is thing of great wonder how the prophetic Christian community is virtually unanimous on this.

    • dannybhoy

      Good website that Magnolia, I just signed up.

      • chefofsinners

        Not for me the people who think God makes announcements on the running of our country through modern day prophets. Israel was a theocracy. Different times.

    • David

      Thanks for the website Magnolia, I’ve joined.

    • I’ve signed Thank you.

      The conniving old judge Baron Thomas is a staunch remainer by the look of things, who according to the Express: “It has emerged Baron Thomas of Cwmgiedd – the UK’s Lord Chief Justice – was a founding member of the European Law Institute, which says it works towards the “enhancement of European legal integration”.”
      ” Baron Thomas set up the European Law Institute, which carries out research about EU law, alongside Liberal Democrat MEP Diana Wallis who is now its president.”
      Seems like a case of perverting the course of true democracy to me. We might just as well become a dictatorship then if this is upheld in the supreme court.

      http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/728460/Article-50-three-judges-blocked-Brexit

      • Merchantman

        You have a point. We are torn between the rule of law and the people’s wish to make a seismic shift in the way how and by whom we are governed. The real test will come with the supreme court ruling. My guess is anyone’s guess how that will go. As Judges are appointed by the Crown, are they about to undermine the royal prerogative when they deny the Queens minister the right to sign treaties? Are we aping the US system and about to have Parliament required to ratify all treaties? Or even have the people vote on the appointment of judges? It seems to me these are a huge questions nobody but euro-republicans want asked.
        I reckon we are still British though and that’s what this is about.

      • chiaramonti

        Absolute rubbish. All the court did was to rule, in accordance with constitutional principle, that the PM cannot behave like a latter day Henry VIII or Charles I. The royal prerogative is essentially a hangover from medieval days and cannot be used to alter domestic law. Parliament is sovereign; only parliament can alter domestic laws which protect our rights. What’s the problem with that? Remember, we fought a civil war to make that very clear.

        • Merchantman

          When the courts overturned the law of blasphemy against Jesus Christ they entered a whole new arena and seem to have never looked back. The courts have assumed the mantel of harbingers of change which is not their place. They are seemingly abusing their power on too regular a basis. Lots of people agree.

        • Anton

          The constitutional position is complex. But the question that matters is: What is the point of a Referendum?

  • Demon Teddy Bear

    I’m pretty sure that all the atheists drowning Twitter in bile and hate towards Christianity will not fear the lightest censure.

  • Shadrach Fire

    The UK and much of the World is in the hands of the Devil. He causes people to think that his ways are reasonable and therefore should be followed. But that is far from the truth. Each and everyone believes their thoughts to be right. The Christian is cowering in the shadows.
    Enough! The spirit filled born again Christians who know what is good and right by the power of the spirit and the word need to make themselves heard without fear of embarrassment. Otherwise the word of the Lord and his Light will go dim whilst the enemy continues with his irresistible delusion of truth.

    The tide has to be turned. Who will make that stand.

    • pascal78

      Who indeed? Pope Francis? No chance.

      • Dominic Stockford

        He’d have to be a Cxxxxxxxn to do that.

    • David

      Well said !
      Archbishop Welby isn’t going to stand in the gap, that’s for sure as he’s a secularist at heart it seems.

    • Merchantman

      Well said. Who will make that stand? That is the question. I mean Paul was banged up and beheaded; is that what it takes?

  • dexey

    Theresa May was a lot firmer about FIFA and poppy wearing footballers but FIFA won’t be pronouncing Jihad and bombing us for our wrong beliefs, will they?

  • IanCad

    On the bright side; there is still at least one MP who demonstrates good sense: Charles Walker MP.
    How many others like him? Fifty; or maybe a few more?
    The more I see of Theresa May, the more I think she’s got to go.

    • Royinsouthwest

      If he wants to get on in his career in this parliament he will have to learn to be more like Keith Vaz.

    • chefofsinners

      Not fifty. There are seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.

      • Pubcrawler

        Not in the Lower House, though.

      • IanCad

        Probably most of them are in America where they will vote for Donald Trump. Very few in our fair land.

  • Mark

    It was a scandal that the aspect of the death threats was virtually ignored by everyone, and it seems completely ignored by May in her answer. She has shown her achilles heel here and has done the country no favours whatsoever.

    • Busy Mum

      Yes. Death threats don’t tie in with the religion of peace narrative. Either a peaceful religion does not make death threats, or else a religion that makes death threats is not peaceful. Teresa May will stick with the narrative because it’s easier to do that than receive a death threat.

    • Royinsouthwest

      Death threats don’t seem to count as “hate speech,” at least not in this instance. Evidently what constitutes hate speech depends on the race or religion of the person making the threats and the person receiving them. So much fro equality under the law.

      • The Explorer

        Maybe the definition of what constitutes hate speech needs updating. After all, if you say you want to kill someone you are are arguably expressing hatred of that someone.

        • Dreadnaught

          If Hate Speech is anything or anywhere, look no further than the Koran.

  • Dominic Stockford

    Her answer demonstrates that while she may attend church, she clearly isn’t a Christian.

  • John

    Had Louis Smith defecated on a cross in public he would no doubt have got the Turner Prize for it and landed a co-commentator’s job at the BBC. Now though, he’s probably got round the clock armed police protection in case Ahmed the suicide bomber knows his address. Welcome to the land of hope and glory, mother of the free.

  • The Explorer

    Western wuss culture seems to assume that because “Your sins are forgiven you” applies in Christianity, the same principle must apply elsewhere. Not necessarily so.

    Louis’ apology may be abject enough to mollify Guardian readers and other Western PC types, but whether it will be enough to placate Muslims remains to be seen. Repenting of the thought is one thing, but to have had the thought in the first place may still require punishment.

    The British teacher in Sudan who misnamed a teddy bear apologised profusely for her error. But the apology was not enough, and she was saved only through heavy diplomatic intervention. In the interim, if I remember right, a nun paid the price when her church was firebombed.

  • Inspector General

    He’s in great danger…

    #JeSuisLouis

    MCB Deputy Secretary General Dr Omer El-Hamdoon, if you are following the infidel Cranmer’s blog: Islamophobia is not only acceptable, it is welcome, and the country is sliding to the right on it. And there is nothing you can do about that and neither can the Government. For while men’s hearts remain free of Islam, they will think as they will.

    We, sir, are born free in England. And a jolly good thing that is!

  • jsampson45

    “all gods…must be subject to…” Only if they are all false. Your grace, what are you, an atheist?

    • Inspector General

      Steady on, old chap. That’s classic rhetoric Cranmer is using. A dying art, needs to be revived, you know!

      • jsampson45

        If that is rhetoric, perhaps better not. I am not Einstein, but others might be confused too.

        • Inspector General

          Not at all. Cranmer is a leader, and those led will understand…

          • jsampson45

            This should be a private blog, then.

          • Inspector General

            One is under the illusion it IS a private blog. If it isn’t, don’t spoil it…

    • Richard

      So a true God can’t defend himself. Isn’t much od a God then

      • jsampson45

        I suppose the stock comment on this would be that God is patient. He is waiting for us to change our ways.

  • chefofsinners

    Anyone would think God couldn’t defend Himself.

    • Pubcrawler

      He has a subservient staff to do that for him. Peacefully, of course.

    • Anton

      I am told by a Jewish friend that “Allah-u-akhbar” sounds like the Hebrew for “Allah is a mouse”.

  • chefofsinners

    Anyone fancy burning an effigy of a Catholic? Oh, lots of us. Er, that’s fine then.

    • Pubcrawler

      You’ll be in Lewes on Saturday then?

      • chefofsinners

        They have renamed it Louis.

  • chefofsinners

    Lewis’ punishment for this dreadful crime? Two months without being allowed to wear a leotard.
    Anton – any thoughts on whether this fits with Mosaic law?

    • Anton

      Mosaic law prohibits cross-dressing (Deut 22:5). Is this one of those ‘moral’ laws that make good precedent today?

      • chefofsinners

        I have nipped back in time, using my Leotardis, and had a word with Moses.
        The period of two months corresponds to the two tablets of the law, which expressly forbids filthy Lycra.

  • Pubcrawler

    Ah, freedom of speech. Or perhaps better, freedom to be outspoken. The Greeks had a word for it, dontcha know. Bit harder to spell than ‘democracy’, which might be why you don’t hear so much about it.

  • David

    Theresa May’s response is indeed not “remotely adequate”. As a minimum she should be slating those who issue death threats and criticising the Muslim Council for ignoring such utterances. By failing to do this she encourages more outrages. She should also be pressing the police most vigorously to do their duty, and investigate and arrest all those who issue threats of violence. Or is she along with many of the cultural and political elite still labouring under the total misapprehension, at least publicly, that our tolerance will somehow with time magically transform them into law respecting, free speech loving democrats ?

  • Aljo_C

    Why is mockery of religion unacceptable, but mockery of someone’s deeply held political convictions perfectly acceptable?

    • Anton

      Quite; and why are certain faith systems whose sacred books command bellicose political actions judged exclusively as religions rather than as subversive political movements?

  • chiaramonti

    Well, I suppose that means no more repeats of Father Ted? Oh, I forgot, it’s OK to mock Christianity, especially Catholics.

  • saintmark

    It’s quite simple I fail to understand why politicians can work it out, if something is beyond your control i.e. parentage, race, disability, physical looks etc, you should not be mocked or criticised; if it’s your choice i.e. religion, political belief, lifestyle, then you can be criticised. If it is a choice you should be able to verbally defend the choice you make.

    • Merchantman

      Nothing to see here- it’s just the establishment showing us they have no backbone. They are more or less permanently intimidated by the unholy alliance of the religion of peace and LGBT and are desperate to accommodate and won’t give protection to their own people. So far they have sacrificed Christianity, the unborn, traditional marriage, Freedom of Speech and the Referendum result is in their grasp.

    • Ted Tokyo

      Or another way to put it, “people have rights; ideas don’t”

  • DP111

    “A society that cannot defend its children has no future”

    However villainous one may think Putin is, he is absolutely right
    here: the massive influx of Muslim migrants in Europe has caused a
    “dissolution of traditional national values,” and indeed, “a society that cannot defend its children has no future.” That’s the United Kingdom, with its massive Muslim rape gang activity that
    authorities feared being called “racist” and “Islamophobic” if they
    stopped, and Austria with its release of the Muslim migrant who raped a
    10-year-old boy — indeed, the illness has overtaken all of Europe’s political and media elites.

    https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/11/putin-hits-europe-for-letting-muslim-migrants-get-away-with-crimes-a-society-that-cannot-defend-its-children-has-no-future

  • DP111

    WikiLeaks CONFIRMS Hillary Sold Weapons to ISIS… Then Drops Another BOMBSHELL!

    Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, is a controversial character. But there’s no denying the emails he has picked up from inside the Democrat Party are real, and he’s willing to expose Hillary Clinton.

    Now, he’s announcing that Hillary Clinton and her State Department were actively arming Islamic jihadists, which includes the Islamic State (ISIS) in Syria.

    Clinton has repeatedly denied these claims, including during multiple statements while under oath in front of the United States Senate.

    WikiLeaks is about to prove Hillary Clinton deserves to be arrested

    http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/wikileaks-confirms-hillary-sold-weapons-isis-drops-another-bombshell-breaking-news/#ixzz4P27dAT7L

    So Obama’s America has been complicit in the mass murder, beheadings and crucifixions of Chrisitians and Yazidis.