Charlie Hebdo2a
Civil Liberties

Unbelievers and non-believers must be free to blaspheme with impunity

 

Our sufferings today are the prelude of those you, Europeans and Western Christians, will also suffer in the near future.. Your liberal and democratic principles are worth nothing.. you are welcoming in your countries an ever growing number of Muslims.. you are in danger.. Your values are not their values.. you will become the victims of the enemy you have welcomed in your home.

These are the prophetic words of Emil Nona, Chaldean Catholic Archbishop of Mosul, exiled in Erbil, having lost his diocese to Islamic radicals. We are in danger, he warned, though no Western bishop, archbishop, eminence or dean dared to repeat the admonition: no alarm was heard in Britain’s Parliament; no trumpet sounded in the pulpits of England.

We pray for our brothers and sisters throughout the Middle East, but then gripe about Ched Evans and gawk at Gogglebox. We read about the estimable works of Canon Andrew White, and by scanning his Facebook feed and following him on Twitter we feel participant and cooperative in his ministry, without moving from our armchairs or contributing a penny to his mission.

The heinous attack on the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo was foreseen long ago. Their offices had previously been firebombed; their editor and cartoonists already threatened for daring to poke fun at religion and religious leaders (that is, Islam and Mohammed). “I prefer to die standing than live on my knees,” said the magazine’s editor Stéphane Charbonnier. And so he did. RIP, Charb.

The vast majority of Europe’s Muslims will be appalled that the name of Mohammed is once again smeared with the blood of innocents. But these cartoonists were not innocent to the ‘real’ or ‘true’ Muslims who seek societal purity and theological perfection. “We have avenged the Prophet Mohammed,” the attackers shouted. “Allahu Akbar!” they cried, as they assassinated the creative heart of Charlie Hebdo and murdered two policemen en passant, one of whom was a Muslim named Ahmed Merabet. He died fighting for la liberté, shot in the head at point-blank range for the freedom of France. RIP, Ahmed.

The vast majority of Britain’s newspapers and TV channels have paid moving tribute to those who were massacred. Cartoonists have sketched their defiant tributes and declared eternal fraternité with their fellow creatives: the crayon is mightier than the AK-47. And so it should be in a liberal democracy which values its liberal and democratic values: there can be no artistic censorship, even for Mohammed. A free press must be free to speak the truth as it sees it, and cartoonists must be free to doodle their anti-Islamic illustrations along with their anti-Christian and anti-Jewish expressions of contempt. If an unbelieving cartoonist can’t blaspheme against religious belief without being stabbed, shot or beheaded, what karmic residue remains for the rest of us?

It is painful to read some of the tributes being paid to those who died for the cause of satire, and those police officers who died defending the satirists. But it is more painful to read government platitudes of the need for “respect”, and media assertions about the “unacceptable” lampooning of religion (ie Islam). “It is Channel 4 policy to never show these or similar cartoons,” they boast, seemingly oblivious to their censorious submission to sharia precepts of blasphemy. How can they not distinguish absurd religion from the devout religious? Is the belief in prophethood inseparable from believers’ piety toward their prophet? Is the choice to believe the Shahada as incontestable as being born with brown skin?

Why should they forbid the artistic satire of faith, as though we should all be compelled to kneel and bow to an abysmal array of illiterate prophets and defunct deities, without the freedom to distinguish religious truth from spiritual slander? If they can jape Jesus, caricature the Church, berate the Bible and parody the Pope, they must be free to ape Allah, mimic Mohammed and cuss the Quran. Some will think it awfully foul and hateful, if not bigoted and racist; others will call it critical and enlightened. But if we are not free to express religious hatred, our critical faculties are muted and we are not enlightened.

The theological claims of Islam are neither self-evident nor indisputable. If a Muslim is free to contend that pigs are dirty and Mohammed was perfect, a non-Muslim must be free to demur, and the non-believing cartoonist must be free to juxtapose a muddy Mohammed with porcine perfection. If a Muslim is free to proclaim that singing is sin and dancing is of the devil, the unbeliever must be free to pipe hymns of praise and dance like David danced – even on the roads around the local mosque. If that is taboo, then our expression is hampered, our creativity is suppressed, our literature abridged and our art sterilised to conform to precisely the sorts of medieval prejudices and prohibitions we have incrementally discarded through centuries of reformation and enlightenment.

If people of different faiths are to coexist peacefully and engage in the enlightened dialogue of conciliation, we must indeed be mindful of individual sensitivities and cultural differences. But respect for faith cannot be enforced where there is no belief. To insist that the unbeliever may not depict Mohammed, and to do so with a degree of inviolability verging on aggression, is to transgress a foundational principle of liberty. For if the unbeliever may not mock Mohammed, then the Muslim ought not to be free to refute the divinity of Christ. If criticising Islam is off-limits and Mohammed is to be immune from historical scrutiny, then so must be the truth-claims and prophets of all theistic traditions.

And that, of course, would be absurd. With the freedom to pursue goodness and praise God comes the freedom to seek corruption and engage in acts of cruelty, dishonour and wickedness. With the freedom to express gratitude and the essence of benevolence comes the freedom to scorn, condemn, insult and offend. With the freedom to follow Jesus and tread the holy path of salvation comes the freedom to revile the man called Christ, desecrate the altars of the mind and laugh in the face of those who waste their lives on parables, myths and sky-fairies. This is humanity in its diversity. To live these freedoms without slaughtering each other is the very essence of civilisation.

As our political rulers and religious leaders exhort us to “respect” Islam, and insist that the enlightened and “appropriate” response to the massacre of cartoonists is to be sensitive in the way we refer to Allah, Mohammed and the Qur’an, we must respond with an assertion of freedom – not to cause gratuitous offence, like shoving bacon sandwiches through the local mosque letter box, or burning a copy of the Quran in mindless protest against suicide bombings in Baghdad. To defend the freedom to publish offensive or blasphemous cartoons is to assert a fundamental value of liberal democracy.

Charlie Hebdo3

#JeSuisCharlie, we eagerly tweet to display our alliance of comradeship. But, for Allah’s sake, don’t share that hashtag unless you are really prepared to die for liberté, fraternité and solidarité. To die for one’s faith in Christ has become, sadly, a vocation of sacrifice for the many. The Charlie Hebdo massacre is meted out routinely if not daily upon Middle-East Christians and minorities in other Islamic countries. We now see that cartoonists are as vulnerable as Yazidis. We can’t say that Archbishop Amel Nona didn’t warn us.

  • IanCad

    That came from the heart YG. And with urgency and passion.
    It is the duty of every publication to print that picture of Mo. Unless of course their fear of being labelled “Islamophobic” outweighs all else.
    When your blood is up you are at your best.
    Thank you.

  • sarky

    For ‘respect for religion’, read ‘fear of religion’. Not a great place to be.

    • Martin

      Sarky

      Excuse me but do you not demand that your religious belief in Evolution be submitted to? When is anyone permitted to challenge it?

  • Dreadnaught

    It’s Religion Jim – but not as we know it.

    Bravo Cranmer for this defiant submission. Sadly the seeds of future distress have been long planted and will continue to threaten future generations of non-Muslims world wide.

  • tiger

    Strangely I made this point to Channel 4 on the 27th December in regard to a Rude Tube video on 26th mocking Christ and Christianity here is the email;

    I know the mocking of Christianity and Christ by the media in
    general in the UK is deemed “humorous” especially at Christmas, one of
    Christianity’s holy celebrations; mocking of a priest on a skate board
    with references to Jesus Christ.

    I also know the UK media is a great supporter of equality, especially of minority groups. So may I suggest that in the interests of this equality that we have equal
    mocking of the Prophet Mohammed and Islam. There must be material out there to squeeze in some wise cracks.
    There is no need to worry about any violent repercussions as our Prime Minister, many World Leaders and many main stream Muslims have given us the absolute assurance that Islam is a very peaceful religion.

    Hope to see some Islamic humour on E4 soon in the interests of equality and diversity.

    The reply;

    Thank you for contacting Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries regarding RUDE TUBE CHRISTMAS SPECIAL 2014.

    We are sorry to hear that you found content on Rude Tube to be offencive
    to your faith. Whilst we do appreciate that you find the use of such
    clips offencive, we are not obliged under the Ofcom code to obsure it.
    We have also noted and logged your other comments for the notice of
    those responsible for our programming.

    Thank you again for taking the time to contact us. We appreciate all feedback from our viewers; complimentary or otherwise.

    Regards,

    John Danielson

    Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries

    For information about Channel 4 have a look at our FAQ section at http://www.channel4.com/4viewers/faq

    • Politically__Incorrect

      Channel 4 is in the grip of Islamophobia-phobia as shown by its broadcast of the Islamic call to prayer during Ramadan. Its bias is so bare-faced as to make it look quite ridiculous. Don’t expect any balance from that channel.

    • grutchyngfysch

      “we are not obliged under the Ofcom code to obscure it”

      Fascinating – because unless your post excises other comments made, you didn’t ask for it to be obscured or taken down, only that Equality be practised in spirit and in truth!

      Also, Mr Danielson, if you are going to be handling viewer complaints, it may be worth knowing how to spell “offencive” [sic]. Unless this is some sort of newfangled postmodernist bollocks like “hym and hyr”.

  • len

    So many have died in two world wars to preserve our freedom from tyranny and to preserve our freedom of speech that we cannot surrender these values to a tyrannical religious system such as Islam.
    I hate blasphemy against our Lord Jesus Christ but freedom of speech is essential for the Gospel of Jesus Christ to be preached freely and without fear of repercussions.
    A courageous article Your Grace …

  • Politically__Incorrect

    There is a strange hypocrisy about our “liberal” society’s attitude to Islam. If you were protesting against the Islamisation of the West on the streets of Dresden a few nights ago then you were a racist, Islamophobic bigot. But if you draw and publish cartoons deliberately intended to mock, ridicule, and offend Muslims and their religion, then you are a free-speech hero. We are hearing a lot about preserving our “freedom of speech”. What commentators actually mean is our freedom to mock, ridicule and offend gratuitously. These so-called liberals, including the magazine itself, are not champions of free speech. They clearly have a left-wing agenda to wipe out religion of any faith. It’s a case of “freedom of speech provided you say the right things”.

    • Athanasius

      Time and place, Pol, time and place. Today’s not the time, however true what you say might be.

      • Martin

        Athanasius

        But today is the time, we cannot condemn the murderers and describe CH as mere victims. They had a weapon and they used it.

    • Dominic Stockford

      It is interesting that when the media itself is attacked their views change.

    • Uncle Brian

      What you’re saying, Politically Incorrent, is that you’re in favour of freedom of speech but only for people who agree with you, not for Charlie Hebdo, because you disagree with their “left-wing agenda”. You’re on the same side as the murderers, then.

      Je suis Charlie.

      • Politically__Incorrect

        “You’re on the same side as the murderers, then.”

        That’s a pretty nasty slur, and completely wrong. I feel an apology from you is in order for that. I am pointing out the hypocrisy of those who claim the magazine is an agent of free speech. The magazine has it’s own political agenda, they do not represent free speech for all, especially those on the right of the political spectrum.

        • Uncle Brian

          It’s not a slur and it’s not wrong. It’s a logical deduction from your own words.

          • Politically__Incorrect

            Where in my comment do I say I am “on the side of the murderers”? Your logic is fallacious and your conclusions are wrong.

          • Martin

            Brian

            Of course CH weren’t supporters of free speech for all, just for themselves. In the same way no Atheist is in favour of free speech if it contradicts his beliefs. Just look at the schools in the USA.

    • Dreadnaught

      … publish cartoons deliberately intended to mock, ridicule, and offend Muslims

      Nonsense!
      That Muslims choose to permanently to self identify as victims whatever the circumstances is their only form of justification not to disown the most extreme and obnoxious passages in the Koran. It’s their Ace in the Hole, every bloody time for doing nothing.
      Anywhere, where Islam is present there is a legacy and future of claimed ‘offence’ to be countered by divine authority to murder, rape, maim extort or otherwise dominate.

      You cannot ‘offend’ and ideology or a religion or a book; only those who wish to impose it upon you.

  • Dominic Stockford

    Fear of God, Yes.
    Fear of a religion, No.

    “Blessed are those who fear the Lord,
    who find great delight in his commands”

    Psalm 112:1

  • The Explorer

    If Christianity can be mocked, then so should Islam be. Or the reverse.
    I remember reading, back in the days of ‘Spitting Image’, that when there was a satirical depiction of God the Father and Christ, the majority of complaints came from Muslims. Their argument was that the sacred should not be mocked.
    It may be, of course, that they were not thinking of the Christian Christ, but of the Christ who is a prophet within Islam. In that sense, they may have simply been defending their own religion.

  • Uncle Brian

    Just seen this tweet by His Grace (on the home page, lower right): Shame on the BBC for illustrating #CharlieHebdo massacre by showing only anti-Christian and anti-Jewish cartoons http://archbishopcranmer.com/unbelievers-and-non-believers-must-be-free-to-blaspheme-with-impunity/
    When you think the BBC has sunk as low as it can get, it goes on and sinks lower still.

  • bluedog

    A fine post in response to a truly shocking event, Your Grace. The Left is shaken to the core, it appears. Having previously worked on the basis that Islam is their natural ally in the long march to demolish Christianity and introduce a secular paradise, the Leftists now confront the prospect of their own slaughter. Conversion to a different set of assumptions after such betrayal could lead to some remarkable changes, and there is none so zealous as the convert.

    • Johnny Rottenborough

      The idea was that the Right would have its nose rubbed in diversity (© Andrew Neather) and the Left would chortle from the sidelines. Back to the drawing board, comrades.

  • Johnny Rottenborough

    The vast majority of Europe’s Muslims will be appalled that the name of Mohammed is once again smeared with the blood of innocents

    In the eyes of Islam neither the journalists nor the policemen guarding them were innocent. Verse 33:53 of the Qur’an commands ‘You must not speak ill of Allah’s apostle’, and Muslims are also guided by the example of the Prophet when he was mocked by the poets Abu Afak and Asma bint Marwan: he had them killed.

    If people of different faiths are to coexist peacefully

    It’s called dhimmitude.

    • Johnny Rottenborough

      I have inadvertently approved my own comment. Apologies.

      • The Explorer

        I’ve done that a couple of times, and there doesn’t seem to be any way of deleting it.

        • Uncle Brian

          If you click on the down arrow that should do the trick. It’s worked for me on other Disqus-powered blogs though I haven’t needed it (touch wood) on this one yet.

      • Uncle Brian

        Please see my reply to the Explorer below.

    • Politically__Incorrect

      I am not convinced the majority will be “appalled”. Some will be, but I suspect the majority will at most be disquieted by the incident. I doubt you’ll see any mosques turning off their lights in protest. In general, they will leave the outpouring of hypocritical hysteria to politicians and the media

      • Johnny Rottenborough

        Disquieted that their coreligionists have whipped up support for the Front National. Where France leads, the rest of Europe follows. With any luck.

  • The Explorer

    In Malmo, I believe, Muslim youths have not adapted to Swedish dress codes for women. They commit rape as a religious/political act: to encourage Swedish girls to dress modestly. (84% of Swedish rapes, apparently, occur in Malmo).
    Islam assumes a Muslim social hegemony. That causes confusion for Muslim minorities within western societies. Adapt yourself to the host culture? Or start adapting the host culture to yourself: until the day when the forces outside the West can combine with the forces within to turn Dar al Harb into Dar al Islam.

  • carl jacobs

    Once again, the political significance of an act far outweighs the possibility of redress through the criminal justice system. Fear leads to radicalization when the Gov’t shows itself impotent to the threat. And the secular liberal establishment will show itself utterly incapable of responding. Who is dancing in the hallways right now? The populist nationalist parties all over Europe.

    The “Muslim majority” that is allegedly appauled by this crime had better stand up and act. They had better help root out and destroy this faction, because they have the most to fear from this attack. They will be caught in the undertow of a fearful over-reaction whether they are guilty or not.

    • Uncle Brian

      Elsewhere on the internet people seem to be taking it for granted that the Charlie Hebdo murders are bound to have the effect of boosting support for Pegida exponentially. We’ll find out soon enough.

      • carl jacobs

        How can it not? The Gov’t will talk furiously about “bringing the perpetrators to justice” (which in Europe evidently means a minimum sentence in a comfortable jail cell with a TV). Otherwise it will sit around with its collective thumb up its collective rectum. It won’t do anything effective because it’s ideologically incapable of doing anything effective. It begins with assumption that religion is incidental. It sees Islam as a means of demonstrating that religion is incidental. Its presumption must be that Islam is not the problem. People will notice.

        How long before the first Mosque is fire-bombed in retaliation? It will be the wrong Mosque and if will kill the wrong people. But that is soon coming.

        • William Lewis

          Already happening. Just what the extremists want too.

        • Coniston

          The real danger is that self-censorship in the West will increase and that any criticism at all of Islam will be denounced as ‘islamophobia’. If this continues, we are doomed. Would we have called criticism of Nazi Germany in the 1930s as ‘Naziphobia?

          • carl jacobs

            No, the real danger is a radicalized population that drifts into ethnic civil war. Do you remember Yugoslavia? That is what could happen.

          • Inspector General

            What will happen will happen Carl. It really is all in the lap of the gods…

          • Martin

            IG

            Gods? Surely the God who moves the hearts of kings has it well under control, else He isn’t God.

          • Inspector General

            figure of speech…

          • Martin

            IG

            And figures of speech often point to an underlying belief.

          • bluedog

            Inevitably. The Muslims won’t be ashamed or dismayed by this attack, but jubilant. But which Muslims? It is necessary to draw a distinction between Muslims within Europe and those outside. The Yugoslav civil war was characterised by active intervention from Turkey and Saudi Arabia in support of the Yugoslav Muslims. Will we see something similar as relations between the Muslims and non-Muslims of Europe continue to decline? The Saudis have spent forty years and billions of dollars on mosques, madrassars and schools in Europe, their networks are already in place…

    • Dreadnaught

      The “Muslim majority” that is allegedly appalled by this crime had better stand up and act

      And I thought you were a realist!

    • Shadrach Fire

      These gunmen are from the “Muslim majority”‘ If they don’t agree with it they are not Muslims who stand by the Quran.

  • David

    I am not at all convinced that the vast majority of Muslims “will be appalled” because the murderers are obeying the Koranic instruction to kill infidels. Violent jihad is their equivalent of peaceful Christian evangelism, the Great Commission. They may claim to be shocked but I doubt it. If they were appalled we’d see vast marches of Muslims in the streets of all the major western nations, but we don’t do we ?

    • A random passer by

      My thoughts exactly.

      Our leaders have invited the foxes into the hen house, and now express hurt surprise that the chickens are being slaughtered. But it was inevitable. This is Islam, this is how it’s worked for 1400 years, it’s not going to change any time soon. All Muslims are complicit, whether by direct action or tolerance of it.

      • dannybhoy

        There is a very big difference between what I as a Christian might personally be ready to endure for my faith, and what my responsibilitiesI as a husband, as a father, as a son, and as a citizen of a country which has given me so much, would require of me.

  • Shadrach Fire

    On Fox News last night I think, a former US military man and politician said that while these atrocities continue it was fatal to withdraw from the Middle East. What was more interesting was his attitude to Home Land issues. He said the US defeated the rise of Communism by the propagation of their own beliefs and anti- communist agendas and through relentless education they defeated the rising problem. He felt Islam should be dealt with in the same way.
    Whilst there are many that might say the purge on Communism was not good, it did do the job. Currently no one is prepared to fight Islamic principals for fear of offence and violence. The Christian Church should be doing more to promote the values of Christianity and the lies and deceits of Islam.

  • Today

    Mourning with France
    Praying with the world
    Hoping that something new may come from this grief, other than the age-old human ills of recrimination, revenge, and retaliation against the innocent

    JeSuisCharlie

    • Cressida de Nova

      Je Suis Charlie
      Vive La Liberte

  • SidneyDeane

    Cranmer
    Thank you for showing the cartoons and standing up for free expression, which the British media has outright refused to do.
    All these people tweeting #JeSuisCharlie or holding up signs bearing that phrase are only “Charlie” if they show the cartoons Charlie showed and which ultimately led to this disgraceful act. Otherwise, to tweet the above is completely vacuous.
    As much as this heinous crime itself I am as much sickened by the disgusting cowardice displayed by our media. Today journalists nationwide and all over Europe should have united in defence of free speech with the Mohammed cartoon brandished proudly on the front page.
    What an opportunity to stick 2 fingers up to the Islamists and stand up for our principles, principles which others died to give them and which they have shown they do not deserve. This generation has never yet before had to fight for its freedoms which were given to them on a plate. And look what we do when they are threatened.
    The next generation will not forgive us.

    • Politically__Incorrect

      We need to do more than fool around with cartoons. Immigration controls and a zero-tolerance of extremists would be a good start. Anybody associated with ISIL should be automatically deprived of British citizenship. We need decisive action, not gestures.

      • Already put one of the cartoons on my facebook page together with a link to the petition requesting several major news outlets including the BBC to publish these cartoons. Please sign it and share it if you haven’t already.

        JeSuisCharlie

        https://www.change.org/p/editors-and-journalists-around-the-world-publish-charlie-hebdo-s-mohammed-cartoons-in-solidarity-with-the-victims-of-censorship-and-violence

        • The link is also on my personal blog which you can get to by clicking my name.

        • Politically__Incorrect

          Sorry, Sister Tiberia, but I am not jumping on that bandwagon. I have no doubt that these murderers will soon end up lying in their own blood, and I, for one, will not shed a tear, as it will be a kind of justice for a wicked crime .

          But I have just been looking at some of the anti-Christian pictures published by CH, including the one about gay marriage where God is being sodomised by Jesus, who is himself being sodomised by the Holy Spirit. I will not laud such a publication as an icon of free speech. CH also raised a petition to get the Front Nationale dissolved, despite the party having widespread support in France. I’m not sure how that fits in with the concept of freedom of speech.

          • “God is being sodomised by Jesus, who is himself being sodomised by the Holy Spirit.”

            And we wonder why the Western world is going to hell.

      • SidneyDeane

        We need both.
        The ‘gesture’ symbolises that we are not afraid and we will not surrender. That is very powerful.

  • Lagos1

    We might be appalled at what happened in Paris. But please, lets not sanctify the work of Charlie Hebdo. It was crass and we would still be able to talk about freedom of speech and a free press without it.

    not to cause gratuitous offence, like shoving bacon sandwiches through
    the local mosque letter box, or burning a copy of the Quran

    Maybe you aren’t that familiar with Charlie hebdo cartoons then? To be honest, the Muslim stuff was mild compared to their depictions of Jesus etc.

    To defend the freedom to publish offensive or blasphemous cartoons is to assert a fundamental value of liberal democracy.

    No it isn’t.

    • “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” – from Evelyn Beatrice Hall’s biograpy of Voltaire, often misattributed to Voltaire himself. Frankly, however vile the cartoons, there is no human right not to be offended. And I stand with John Mortimer QC who said back in the 1980s:

      “I think causing offence is important and beneficial to humanity. People should be offended three times a week and twice on Sunday”

      • IanCad

        Good response Sister Tibs. Reasoned and dignified. I was blowing my cork.

      • grutchyngfysch

        The Voltaire paraphrase is nice, but does anyone actually believe it? How many people really would die for views they utterly oppose? Strikingly few, I suspect. Quite a few more will die for views they *hold* of course – which includes the view that Freedom of Speech is essential. I can easily conceive of someone being willing to die to defend their belief in that. But die for the sake of something obnoxious, even cruel? Almost certainly not.

        The difference is essential, since the Voltaire paraphrase aims for a universal that might be adopted in any place at any time (and so will almost certainly be adopted in neither) whilst belief in Freedom of Speech is particular and concretely located in a moral system. The Christian-rooted West will defend Freedom of Speech. I wouldn’t hold your breath for Sharia-dominated countries.

        • dannybhoy

          I tend to agree. I have as far as I remember never made fun of other people’s beliefs, but most certainly have I questioned beliefs that seem to me illogical or inconsistent. I have no problem people doing the same to my beliefs either, but it is the manner in which they are questioned that matters.

        • I’m the granddaughter of a man who made an inflammatory speech in the Polish parliament in the 1930s, at a time when most Western governments were looking to appease Hitler. I could tell you his name but the sad thing is that even most Poles wouldn’t recognise it. He was a member of the Polish Government in Exile, he lost everything he owned to the Communists after the war, never saw his wife again or his youngest son. He never regretted it. So if you wonder at whose knee I learned absolute respect for freedom of speech, wonder no longer 🙂

          • grutchyngfysch

            The Western governments of the 1930s do offer a valuable exemplum of the trouble with free speech: there was no particular absence of “free speech” in the West at that time – both for the opponents and advocates of facism. People could and did express a pretty wide range of positions publicly. That didn’t translate into meaningful action to preserve that freedom for others for quite some time – really until their own was threatened.

            My intention wasn’t to sneer at the idea of free speech, but to point out that it is not enough on its own, especially where it is merely a background assumption or a statement intended to shore up one’s own right to speech without much concern for others (actually, I’d put Voltaire historically close to that position, since the context of the paraphrase has more to do with his quite strident hostility to religion – whether he would, in the kind of Enlightened society he desired, have defended the rights of the religious is to my mind questionable).

            When defence of freedom of speech is rooted in an actual *belief* in that virtue, I have far more trust in it. There are individuals who demonstrate that – I’d cite Peter Tatchell as a standout example of someone who follows through on free speech even for his enemies – but they are fleetingly rare. You are right to be proud to be descended from one of them.

      • dannybhoy

        To “cause offence” is one thing, to attack/insult/ridicule is quite another. Almost the same as making fun of a dwarf with severe acne.
        Might be good for a laugh to some people, but incredibly hurtful to the dwarf..

        • Do you see a difference between an attack on an individual and an attack on a group belief? I read blogs all over the Internet, of many political and religious affiliations, and there’s a fair percentage of them I find offensive. And I thank God they’re out there being offensive. Because it’s the only defence against tyranny of any form that we have, the right not to be silenced.

          • dannybhoy

            I am simply saying that in my view it is wrong to make fun of an individual for things they can’t change, and also wrong to make fun/ridicule or mock religious beliefs that individual may hold dear.
            I can hardly deplore mockings and insults of our Lord and condone the same treatment of other people’s religious imagery. I disagree with many of the beliefs and practices of Islam, but I would argue on the basis of moral values and outworkings, not making fun of the person that inspires those beliefs.
            But obviously I also accept that there can never be an excuse for what these people did.

          • Dreadnaught

            wrong to make fun/ridicule or mock religious beliefs that individual may hold dear

            How very Oliver Cromwell(ian).

            They could of course change their religion but its a Pity that Islam forbids apostasy on pain of death

          • dannybhoy

            I never said he was perfick, Dreadnaught….

          • Dreadnaught

            HaHaHa – 🙂

      • Lagos1

        Except that I’m not claiming that there is a human right not to be offended. What I am claiming is that the idea that maybe we really shouldn’t be deliberately mocking and offending other people and deluding ourselves that defending such behaviour is necessary to both be outraged at what happened yesterday and support our freedom to express ourselves in a reasonable fashion.

        • Dreadnaught

          Those who choose to live amongst us must be prepared to accept our culture that is one of the most free on the planet. They need to forget demands for special privilege and accept to seek redress if due, under the rule of law and the justice system.

          • Inspector General

            Snag, old man. One would say with a minority of exceptions, the Chinese for example, the non white peoples are not racially up to it. Take the negro, where for many young males, time in prison is a right of passage…

          • Dreadnaught

            Could not agree to a statement based on such a biased generalisation. I was once a magistrate and can assure you that prison as a right of passage is not confined to any racial group. It all depends on demographics as to which group contributes more predominantly to the prison population.

          • Inspector General

            Don’t get this man wrong. He merely inspects the facts and reports. Blacks, including mulatos are over represented in British prisons for their population by 7 to 1 (7.1 to be precise last time he looked).

            Interestingly, the Asian men value mirrors British males at the moment, but one is sure you’ll agree that is nothing to be proud about…

          • Lagos1

            Culture is not a static thing and anyway, I don`t think any of us should simply accept those aspects of our culture that are contemptible. And don`t forget, it wasn`t so long ago that French society would have deplored the type of things that Charlie Hebdo has been publishing. And rightly so.

      • The Explorer

        My mother died of bowel cancer. Before her third and final operation, the surgeon said that if she emerged from hospital she would need a colostomy bag. I remember my father talking about it, and weeping. I was reminded of this years later when Dame Edna had a comic sketch about colostomy bags. My father, had he seen it, would have been offended. I doubt the effect on him would have been beneficial.

        • I do hear you, Explorer. But I also wonder just where one does start drawing the line, if it is to be drawn at all. No humour about death, because it might distress the newly bereaved? No bad romantic comedies for fear of upsetting someone newly separated? My father died of cancer – and one of the funniest films I ever saw – Blow Dry, with Alan Rickman – was on that subject. I think that in the end the only possible censorship of the individual distress is the off switch. There simply is no good answer. I wish there was.

          • The Explorer

            A paradox of free speech is whether it can be allowed to those who would abolish it. You make good points, and some gallows humour is vey funny. I think Mortimer’s statement is true in relation to puncturing self-importance, but I am not sure that it is universally applicable.

      • Dominic Stockford

        Jesus pointed out that the gospel is an offence to all unbelievers…

    • Uncle Brian

      Yes it is.
      Je suis Charlie.

      • Lagos1

        Then you need to not only explain why it so fundamental but you also
        have to account for why it is that so many liberal democracies have
        placed limits on freedom of speech in various forms. Indeed, there are
        already limitations on freedom of speech in the UK that would make the
        disappearance of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons in question seem trivial.

    • Dreadnaught

      No one, is as you say is sanctifying CH – Whats more offensive; a bacon sarnie in a Mosque or watching your countrymen having their heads carved off?
      Je Suis Charlie

      • Lagos1

        This article is. Whilst the murders yesterday were dreadful, the cartoons brought shame on our Western society.

        And frankly, the fact that you think it comes down to a choice between bacon sarnies in Mosques or watching your countrymen having their heads carved off is precisely the point of view that I disagree with. We could do without both.

        • Dreadnaught

          You need to sort out your priorities Pal.

          • Lagos1

            I would say that it is quite important right now for the West to avoid being suckered into the glorification of work that is quite frankly a disgrace.

          • Anton

            I have no wish to draw pictures of Mohammed. But I have every wish to be in a society where I am free to. And if that means that others do draw him then so be it.

          • Lagos1

            Well, the important thing for me is that I have every wish to be in a society where masked men don`t burst in offices and shoot workers at their desks.

            But it does seem that the general consensus agrees with you that we should really make this about defending the freedom to publish lurid pictures depicting Mohammed as a porno star. Unfortunately, this is probably where you will eventually lose the good will of the Muslim community in trying to stamp out the type of thing we saw in Paris. And frankly I`m also not too interested in defending behaviour that is not only crass but also wrong. After all, what is wrong actually has no rights.

          • Anton

            Not everything that is wrong should be illegal, though.

          • Lagos1

            Indeed. And nor should everything that is wrong be legal.

          • Anton

            “Well, the important thing for me is that I have every wish to be in a society where masked men don`t burst in offices and shoot workers at their desks.”

            Me too. I never voted for multiculturalism…

      • Martin

        Dreadnaught

        Actually they are sanctifying CH. And it is very sad that such a rag should be given such a position by these murderers.

        • Dreadnaught

          What is being sanctified is you right of freedom to speak without fear of reprisal.

          • Martin

            Dreadnought

            But the likes of CH would seek to restrict our freedom by mockery while they proclaim their own.

            Indeed, the Atheists seeks to restrict the Christian’s right to free speech all the time.

    • carl jacobs

      Lagos1

      It doesn’t matter what the nature of CH’s work might have been. The murders weren’t about his work. They were an attempt to carve out a privileged place for Islam by violence. They were a direct attack on Western culture. That is the only subject that should be addressed. To criticize his work at this time is worse than pointless. It can only be seen as a craven capitulation.

      The nature of his work can be discussed at some future point, but not now. Not when the blood is still fresh on the floor, and the killers are basking in the glory of the kill.

      • Lagos1

        No, when people are building an argument for resisting Islamic brutality by glorifying the freedom for the likes of CH to produce obnoxious material, this is precisely the moment to nip it in the bud.

        You cannot simply say that it doesn`t matter what the nature of CH`s work might have been because it clearly has a bearing on why CH was singled out for attack. And if the West gets suckered into defending it as part of a proud part of our so called Western Culture then we may end up finding that some Muslims will start thinking that these murderers might have had a point after all.

        So, sure, lets crush the perpetrators but lets leave out all this “right to offend” nonsense.

  • The Explorer

    His satire points at no defect,
    But what all mortals may correct;
    For he abhorred that senseless tribe,
    Who call it humour when they jibe:
    He spared a hump or crooked nose,
    Whose owners set not up for beaux.
    True genuine dullness moved his pity,
    Unless it offered to be witty.
    Those, who their ignorance confessed,
    He ne’er offended with a jest.
    From ‘Verses on the Death of Dr Swift’

  • Inspector General

    Dearly beloved, we are here today to say goodbye to a scurrilous anti Catholic rag, amongst the other things that it was. So goodbye then.

    Of course, none of the reprobates concerned deserved summary execution, but wait, what about multiculturalism?

    From Wiki, multiculturalism defined: “Multiculturalism is the cultural diversity of communities within a given society and the policies that promote this diversity. As a descriptive term, multiculturalism is the simple fact of cultural diversity and the demographic make-up of a specific place, sometimes at the organizational level, e.g., schools, businesses, neighborhoods, cities, or nations. As a prescriptive term, multiculturalism encourages ideologies and policies that promote this diversity or its institutionalization. In this sense, multiculturalism is a society “at ease with the rich tapestry of human life and the desire amongst people to express their own identity in the manner they see fit.”[1]”

    Yesterday, we were treated to some of that rich tapestry, by people expressing their own identity, and all too obviously, in a manner that they saw fit. Tapestries of course record everything, the good and the not so good. The Bayeux example has a fellow with an arrow in his eye. Could it be that far from a minority, a majority of muslims considered the killings to be one in the eye for the West. But they need not fear for the future of their impoverished culture. For Islam has been swiftly forgiven for yesterday, by our lefty politicians to whom multiculturalism is so dear. The forgiveness came pouring in as the shots rang out. Unasked for, and from their point of view, not needed, it is theirs for them to do what they will with it. Trample it into the ground we can expect.

    A magazine died yesterday. An unfortunate Marxist ideal did not, more’s the pity.

    • dannybhoy

      Multiculturalism denies the fact that people seek out their own kind. We’re tribal see?
      It seems to me that our UK multicultural model is being pushed towards the “separate development” model adopted by South Africa in the dying days of white rule..

      • Dreadnaught

        The British model of 4 nation multiculturalism is all there should be in these islands. The UK is not a vast, sparsely inhabited continent that can absorb immigrants from all the countries of the world and allow them to recreate their mini-homelands and ‘cultural’ practices.

      • Inspector General

        You’re not wrong there Danny. It’s going to be mutually agreed apartheid. Of course, the Reds will be against it, but by then, they’ll be a tiny minority and the Lib-Dems will be long defunct….

        • Please, Inspector. Ole’ Blowers is around and you’ll raise his blood pressure with such suggestions. Before you know it, he’ll be out of his sick bed, grabbing hunting hat and musket and rushing out the door in hot pursuit.

          Stop That Dodo
          Ernsty Mutley you snickering floppy eared hound
          when courage is needed, you’re ne’er around.
          Those medals you wear on your moth-eaten chest
          should be there for sniggering at which you are best.

          So stop the Dodo!
          Howww?
          nab him
          jab him
          tab him
          grab him
          Stop that Dodo now!

          You, silly, stop sneaking it’s not worth the chance
          you’ll be returned to the care home by the seat of your pants
          and Len, you invent me a thingamybob
          that catches that Dodo or I lose my Blog!

          Ernsty: “yeah yeah yeah yeah”

          (“Ernst ‘Wheezing laughter heeeheeeheeeheeheee!’ Blofeld”)

  • Inspector General

    Now, gather round chaps. Something important to say.

    When we get the four who did this, we must not execute them. Will repeat that, NOT execute them. Instead, we must incarcerate them for 25 years, where they can freely associate with other muslims in prison and be allowed to radicalise them at their leisure. Just think of the impression these notorious fellows will make on their own kind inside. Just think of the number of barking mad Arabs roaming the streets they could be responsible for over time. When they are let out, they can then train to be imams and could have their own mosque within a couple of years. They certainly deserve that, what! Justice is best served that way, sure you’ll agree.

    Right, as you were, and peace be upon the Prophet, naturally…

    #wearerightcharlieswhenitcomestojustice

    • chiefofsinners

      Delighted, Inspector, that you are without sin and therefore qualified to cast the first stone. Perhaps a little introspection is in order.

      • Inspector General

        No one’s stoning anybody, Chieftain. Rather dangerous thing to do, don’t you know, could kill somebody. No. One merely wags his authoritive and judgmental finger….

        (That’s not you Dodo, is it?…)

        • The Explorer

          That’s like asking, “Are you asleep?” You’re not going to get a yes.

        • carl jacobs

          There is no Dodo. ‘E’s passed on! This Dodo is no more! He has ceased to be! ‘E’s expired and gone to meet ‘is maker! ‘E’s a stiff! Bereft of life, ‘e rests in peace! If you hadn’t nailed ‘im to the perch ‘e’d be pushing up the daisies! ‘Is metabolic processes are now ‘istory! ‘E’s off the twig! ‘E’s kicked the bucket, ‘e’s shuffled off ‘is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir invisible!! THIS IS AN EX-DODO!!

          • Calm down, Carl.

          • carl jacobs

            Oh that’s right. He was a Norwegian Blue, wasn’t he? Not dead then? Just pining for the fjords, I suspect.

          • Hmmmm …. a parrot? A dead parrot? That suggestions enough to awaken his ghost.

        • Please, Inspector, Ole’ Blowers is around and you’ll raise his blood pressure with such suggestions. Before you know it, he’ll be out of his sick bed, grabbing hunting hat and musket and rushing out the door in hot pursuit.

          Stop That Dodo
          Ernsty Mutley you snickering floppy eared hound
          when courage is needed, you’re ne’er around.
          Those medals you wear on your moth-eaten chest
          should be there for sniggering at which you are best.

          So stop the Dodo!
          Howww?
          nab him
          jab him
          tab him
          grab him
          Stop that Dodo now!

          You, silly, stop sneaking it’s not worth the chance
          you’ll be returned to the care home by the seat of your pants
          and Len, you invent me a thingamybob
          that catches that Dodo or I lose my Blog!

          Ernsty: “yeah yeah yeah yeah”

          (“Ernst ‘Wheezing laughter heeeheeeheeeheeheee!’ Blofeld”)

        • chiefofsinners

          If we advocate executing the perpetrators we become like them.
          As William Cowper wrote:

          Thus says the prophet of the Turk,
          Good mussulman, abstain from pork;
          There is a part in every swine
          No friend or follower of mine
          May taste, whate’er his inclination,
          On pain of excommunication.
          Such Mahomet’s mysterious charge,
          And thus he left the point at large.
          Had he the sinful part express’d,
          They might with safety eat the rest;
          But for one piece they thought it hard
          From the whole hog to be debarr’d;
          And set their wit at work to find
          What joint the prophet had in mind.
          Much controversy straight arose,
          These choose the back, the belly those;
          By some ’tis confidently said
          He meant not to forbid the head;
          While others at that doctrine rail,
          And piously prefer the tail.
          Thus, conscience freed from every clog,
          Mahometans eat up the hog.

          You laugh — ’tis well — the tale applied
          May make you laugh on t’other side.
          Renounce the world — the preacher cries.
          We do — a multitude replies.
          While one as innocent regards
          A snug and friendly game at cards;
          And one, whatever you may say,
          Can see no evil in a play;
          Some love a concert, or a race;
          And others shooting, and the chase.
          Reviled and loved, renounced and follow’d,
          Thus, bit by bit, the world is swallow’d;
          Each thinks his neighbour makes too free,
          Yet likes a slice as well as he:
          With sophistry their sauce they sweeten,
          Till quite from tail to snout ’tis eaten.
          – a poem which he titled ‘Hypocrisy Detected’.

          • Inspector General

            Ah, they await a comfy gaol then. Three square meals a day and considerably more rights than us law abiding wretches. Such is man’s corruption…

          • chiefofsinners

            Apparently death was what they wanted, as they often do.
            Sorry not to be Dodo. You seek another.

          • Anton

            “If we advocate executing the perpetrators we become like them.”

            Really? May I remind you that the penalty for murder in Mosaic Law was execution?

          • chiefofsinners

            Really.

            “The law was given by Moses but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.”

            and
            “You have heard that it was said, ‘you shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,…”

          • Anton

            Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ but there is still the question of what laws Christians should lobby for in lands where they are permitted to be part of the political process. The only legal code ever given by God is Mosaic. Obviously it needs some tweaking for non-covenant nations post-crucifixion but its precedents involve divinely given wisdom.

          • chiefofsinners

            You oversimplify.

            God spoke first on this subject concerning Cain to protect him from being executed, saying Cain would be avenged seven times. Lamech picked up on this to defend himself saying “seventy times” and Jesus further expanded this principle when He tells Peter to forgive “seventy times seven”.

            God spoke next to Noah saying “Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.”
            But this principle was mitigated in the Mosaic law by the establishment of cities of refuge for those who had committed manslaughter.
            This law was given to Moses who had himself murdered and Egyptian. Rather than his life being forfeit, he became the leader of God’s people. David likewise was not executed for arranging the murder of Bathsheba’s husband. And Jesus prayed for those who crucified Him: “Father forgive them”.
            Protecting the public is necessary. Securely imprisoning murderers was not feasible in ancient Israel, but it is today. We should follow Jesus’ example and commit ourselves and others to Him who judges justly.
            Remember that these misguided brothers thought they were executing blasphemers, taking their justification from that same Mosaic law.

  • Linus

    Il est le guerrier des tueries inutiles
    Il est drogué
    de feu
    de sang
    de mort
    Il ne sait pas les caresses
    Il ne sait que la mort à donner
    Il est le guerrier des chemins déviés
    perdus
    tortueux
    qui se pose sur le rocher de la nuit
    Il reste là, assis, et ne songe qu’à tuer
    Il jouit
    de ses souvenirs ensanglantés
    Il est drogué
    à l’opium, à… À tout ce qui drogue
    Il n’est pas anxieux
    Il est vide
    vide de lui-même
    vide de lumière
    Il jouit
    de l’odeur du sang
    Il est peut-être une mauvaise prière
    Il est sans larme
    Il ne sait pas la douleur de mourir
    Il jouit
    de la vengeance
    Il se pose sur le rocher de la nuit
    Et les ténèbres le réjouissent
    Il ne porte pas de médaille d’honneur
    Pas plus qu’un cœur blessé
    Il n’a pas de foi
    Et pourtant il proclame la grandeur de Dieu
    Comme une chouette aveugle
    Il erre parmi les rochers de la nuit.

    Fawzieh Rahgozar, traduction Leili Anvar, publié dans Guerre à la guerre, Collection Poés’idéal, 2014

    Je suis Charlie

  • CliveM

    Four cartoonist and two Police officers died yesterday. They died because some people wanted to leave a message to wider society. That message is, do as we want or we will kill you.

    I have never read the magazine in question. Today I don’t care that it was blasphemous. I do care that a Muslim group, think they can dictate to me through the gun what I am able to say or think. For that reason we have to defend the right to be offended, because otherwise none will be free.

    • Dominic Stockford

      But only (some of) those who follow the Islamic faith are (currently) trying to dictate by the gun…

      • CliveM

        Agreed, which is why I said ‘Muslim group’ not simply Muslims.

      • CliveM

        My major reservation however is this, I suspect that their isn’t much of a threat to the people offending my beliefs, so I don’t really need to worry about not being offended! However those who did the shooting, I suspect, will find less in the press to offend them.

      • Dreadnaught

        But only (some of) those who follow the Islamic faith are (currently) trying to dictate by the gun…

        Especially In:
        Afghanistan

        Kenya

        Somalia

        India

        Iraq

        Yemen

        Philippines

        Pakistan

        Libya

        Syria

        Nigeria

        Mali

        France

        Algeria

        Gaza

        Australia

        Bosnia

        UK

        Thailand

        USA

        Canada

        Jordan

        Holland

        Belgium

        Russia

        Germany

        Egypt

        Spain

        Israel

        Indonesia

        I know for certain there are more but even so, if you join the dots you may come to the common denominator – Islam. The basic problem is very clear. It is that millions of people in the Islamic world do not believe in free speech, freedom of religion, democracy, a secular state, free enterprise and human rights.

        http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/christianattacks.htm

        • Dominic Stockford

          All Muslims are not terrorists.
          Muslims are not all terrorists.
          These recent terrorists are however, all Muslims.
          The link is therefore the religion they follow, even though not all who follow it agree with them.
          Discuss, fairly and rationally.

          • Dreadnaught

            It is completely rational. No one has blamed Muslims as individuals but without them collectively, the global Islamic Jihad would not exist.
            Of course not all muslims are terrorists – but most terrorists are Muslims. But what is a terrorist? They don’t regard themselves as ‘terrorists’ but jihadists and justify their actions from texts in the Koran.

            You don’t want to see the bigger picture. Every Jihadi started off as an anonymous non-threatening Muslim until Islam, not Westerners, ‘radicalised’ them. Not many Westerners in Somalia now are there?

          • Dominic Stockford

            Now reply again, and assume that I have had at least one death threat from Muslims because of my theological position and outspokenness about the danger their religion poses. Because I have.

            That is what I mean by rationally – without assuming the questioner approves of their evil religion.

          • Dreadnaught

            Assume or Accept your situation? If you have had death threats I assume it has been reported to the police and is a serious concern. The malaise that religious and political leaders seem stricken is that they are unwilling to accept that the Koran and to a lesser extend the Hadiths and Sunnahs, lead Islamic thought and behaviour.

            It is the Koran that has to be changed to expunge the exhortations to violence and the cult figure of someone called Mohammad to be debunked and redefined for the maniac he allegedly was.

            This proposal is rational – if unlikely to happen, because the West, its politicians and religious leaders allow it to root in its soil without understanding or restraint. No other religion is causing so much mayhem in the world as Islam and its Muslims.

          • Dominic Stockford

            1. The matter, when it was, how it took place, and the like, is my business. I would prefer not to be lectured as to how I may have dealt with it, given the circumstances are unknown to you.

            2. Islam causes extreme world-wide physical mayhem, as well as leading people down a spiritual blind-alley. other religions also misbehave – causing physical violence as well, and leading down the same spiritual blind-alley though not to the same geographical extent (I’m to sure whether how widespread something is lessens the effect or the wrongness though).

            3. It is interesting that the Pope(s) love to cosy up to the ‘leaders’ of all other world religions, including Muslim ones. He is appearing to be as blind to the reality of this false religion as the political leaders.

          • Dreadnaught

            Hardly a lecture to show a little concern from a stranger to a stranger.
            ‘Shrug’

      • Only some? It doesn’t take many….One .762 high velocity round through the liver can spoil your whole day……

        • Dominic Stockford

          There are maybe 50,000 Muslims in this country who would, if given the chance, act in this way. But that also means that there are over 2,500,000 who would not.

          • You make my point very well. I don’t know where you get 50,000 from, but that at least 100 times as many activists as the IRA

            The ‘fundamentalist’ Muslim will kill you for criticising Muhammed. The ‘moderate’ Muslim will shake his head and say he disapproves, but will then add that you should not have criticised Muhammed.

            Where do we go from here?

          • Dominic Stockford

            2.7 million Muslims in this country, at least – probably over 3mill by now, but…, of whom 2% have been judged (by interview and reliable polling methods) to be prepared to do the same themselves, if the opportunity arises. That gives about 50k. In this country.

            However, the remainder contain good friends of mine – even if I strongly oppose their blind-alley of a faith.

    • dannybhoy

      I’m going to move that around a bit.
      I disapprove of this kind of “satirising” that pokes fun at deeply held convictions using cartoonery.
      I think there is a case to be made that people despite knowing how seriously many Muslims take their faith. acted provocatively. Indeed we in the UK have laws against inciting racial and religious hatred. This perception of insult and outrage will not stop, and if we are going to uphold the right of satirical magazines to insult religious beliefs, then we must expect devout or extremist Muslims in our Muslim communities to add this to their list of grievances.
      I think we are majoring on the wrong issue..
      What we really should be doing is encouraging religious debate and argument, in the same manner that Christianity is debated.
      Secondly I think we should toughen up on making clear what we will and won’t accept in our society.
      Clearly marked Halal meat, no concessions for prayers or not serving pork or alcohol.
      Not allowing schools or even local councils to be hijacked for extremist purposes, and an insistence on the supremacy of the British rule of law, with no concessions made to Shari’a.
      There should be more deportation without fear or favour, for extremists or preachers of extreme views ,and the death penalty for those who commit acts of terrorism like this one in France.

      • carl jacobs

        DB

        I am an unapogetic Creationist. People mock and insult me for it all the time on this board. There was one poster (the late lamented Corrigan) who would respond to my posts by saying “He’s a Creationist.” So what? How does that hurt me? Why should that be illegal? What would we do without the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Why, atheists would have to come up with a whole new meme.

        Don’t worry about degrading a person’s ideas or beliefs. Worry about degrading the person.

        • “Don’t worry about degrading a person’s ideas or beliefs. Worry about degrading the person”

          This
          Carl, you’ve managed to say in a sentence what I’ve been trying to find a way to say all day. Thank you.

        • dannybhoy

          I’m a creationist too (just not sure about the young earth bit)
          “Don’t worry about degrading a person’s ideas or beliefs.”
          So if I understand you correctly, you don’t think that this kind of mockery of the person who is the object of, or inspiration of a faith encourages more ridicule or contempt within society?

          • Dreadnaught

            And what did the ever appeasing HMG do? – made Rushdie’s detractor-in-chief Iqbal Sacrainie, a Knight of the Realm.

          • dannybhoy

            I remember years ago when Radio 5live was worth listening to, that gentleman was often featured on Nicky Campbell’s current affairs programme (which really was pretty good).
            So in thrall were they to the idea (if not the practice of) multiculturalism they gave him a devout Muslim, a devalued “Honour” by the hand of a ‘kuffar’ monarch…

          • carl jacobs

            DB

            I reacted negatively to both “Life of Brian” and “Passion of the Christ.” Both movies offended me if for very different reasons. Should those movies not have been made merely out of respect for my tender feelings? My offense at POTC was visceral if theological. What offended me was the RC content in it. Would that offend RCs? No. So why should my offense be dispositive?

            Offense is an impossible standard. You have no idea who you will offend before the fact. And there is no objective standard by which offense may be determined. It’s a completely subjective standard determined by each viewer. The only reason people are worried about Muslim offense is that it is often accompanied by the sound of AK 47 bolts being pulled back. So in this case, ‘respectful courtesy’ becomes craven appeasement.

            My offense isn’t reason to kill. Your offense or his offense isn’t reason to shut me up.

          • dannybhoy

            I’m not disagreeing with you Carl. But the possibility of offence is far greater in a multicultural society like those in western Europe, where authorities insist that all religions and cultures are of equal value, and all must be “accommodated.”
            Most “ordinary folk” know that’s not possible, and sadly it is most “ordinary folk” who one way or another pay the price for their leaders’ idiocy and appeasement .
            As I said history shows that Muslims are most likely to be intolerant of criticism and have radically different values to the “Christian” West. Yet Western leaders insist on accommodating Islam whilst also paying lip service to our Western right to free speech; even if it means those same Muslims will be insulted.
            That’s illogical. That’s stoopid.

        • Shadrach Fire

          I did not know that Corrigan had passed away. A register of regular commentators might be useful so that we can be of support to one another.

          • dannybhoy

            with provisos yes, that’s a good suggestion.

          • carl jacobs

            Shadrach

            No he just stormed off in a huff. He didn’t die. I was referring to his status as a commenter here.

  • Je ne suis pas Charlie.

    I am Stephen.

    I have published enough elsewhere on line and under my own name about the mass murdering antichrist psychopath false prophet Muhammad to get myself killed, read Act chapter 7 especially the last dozen verses to find out why I was willing to do this well before yesterday’s events.

    I am very sorry about the murder of some left wing God hating atheist journalists yesterday, although not quite as sorry as I was about the 100 agriculture students who were murdered in their beds in a night attack by Boko Haram in Nigeria a year ago. I wish the attack had not happened. But I hope that some of their fellow lefties and secularists may begin to ‘get it’ about the monster they and their Andrew Neatherite compatriots have invited in ‘to rub the right’s noses in it’. But not much hope.

    BBC radio 4 was in full ‘religion of peace-don’t let the FAR RIGHT make gains from this’ mode this morning with Islamist professor Mona Siddiqui peddling soft soap about dear, sweet Muhammed on ‘phwoart for the day and Jim ‘I HATE intelligent design!!!’ Nauchtie giving an easy ride to a French lady who said that ‘France’s 6 million Muslims aren’t going to stand for this (blaspheming The Prophet’).

    Our ruling elite still claims that Islamophobia is the real problem. The concept that maybe there is a divinely causal relationship between our cultural rejection of Christianity and what is happening simply does not compute with them. And if it did, they would do what he Sanhedrin did to Stephen as we read in Acts ch 7 ‘..they stopped their ears, shouted at him, and ran at him with one accord…’

    ‘There was an old lady who swallowed a spider to catch a fly……’

    There is a hypothesis that explains the alliance between the left and Islam. But I fear people won’t like it…….but it has considerable explanatory power.

    • Inspector General

      Sterling post, Hayes. The blasphemers got what was coming their way. No tears shed by this man. Just surprise at the audacity of their demise…

      • I’m not saying that anyone got what they deserved. As a sinner myself, I pray and beg the Deity that none of us gets what we deserve.

        • Inspector General

          “…got what was coming their way” was the observation. No mention from this man of deserving to die…

          • Understood my friend, it is so easy to be misunderstood……one more reason why charity is so necessary between us sinners.

    • dannybhoy

      Well said Stephen. Pretty much my own take on the situation. There is a great hypocrisy taken hold of our nation’s movers and shakers and manipulators…

  • Old Blowers

    Mr Hussain, as glowingly referred to by Blair’s mouthpiece charity competely misses the nail on the head with his multi-culti hammer by bashing our thumbs…”

    Charlie Hebdo: We cannot let the Paris murderers define Islam”

    My dear propagandist, you must perfectly well know that Muhammed defined Islam and that is the elephant in the blogosphere! Nice try Ed lad.

    His proof is like the proof of evolution. The proof is in the rocks. How do we know? because of the age of the fossils. But how do we know the age of the fossils? Well, by the fossils being found in the rocks, silly.

    Muhammed speaks the words of Allah…How do we know…Because Allah says so.How? Through the words of Allah!!! Simples *

    صرير

    * (arabic for ‘squeak*) giggles

    The problem is that prophet muhammed was so good at playing good prophet, bad prophet simultaneously, whether verbally or by deed, that no silly b*gger who reads his tosh has a clue what to do at any given moment.

    Christians know that Christ lived by His words and deeds and these judge us continually, as pointed out so lovingly to us by our atheist ‘brethren’ that soujourn at this blog.

    Muslims have no such perfect role model, as it appears it depended on which side of the hay pile muhammed got up from that morning, that determined ‘Allah’s’ will that day.

    Please Ed Hussain, sling your hook elsewhere, we have a GE coming up and your early fray into delivering lies and deceit to the british populous aint appreciated here.

    Tell Blair creature to rot in hell..Best Wishes old fella

    Blowers.
    posted from sick bed

    • carl jacobs

      Blowers! You old unregenerate Arminian! We’ve missed you!

      • Old Blowers

        Carl, you old dyed in the wool calvinist. As a throughly discredited and reprobate pervy pop star used to say.GOOD TO BE BACK, GOOD TO BE BACK . HELLO HELLO. GOOD TO BE BACK!

    • Inspector General

      Saints be praised! He’s alive…

      • Old Blowers

        barely, you old reprobate…Must be the request by that lovely old chap, Norman Yardy, for a bit of divine assistance. Much appreciated Norman old boy.

        Blowers

        • Inspector General

          “Barely” Eh ?
          In that case you don’t mind if your memorial service goes ahead anyway {AHEM}

          • Old Blowers

            As long as they don’t make you my eugoogooliser at my funeral! *Chortles*

          • Inspector General

            Look old chap, we can’t let your passing, whenever it is, go unmarked. Get onto Cranmer and arrange for someone to inform him of the day. Matron, for example. You are a fine Briton, Sir. One of the best. You deserve full honours at that time when it comes.

          • Old Blowers

            Mrs B reckons I’ll be lucky if I get her to stump up for an Ikea flat pack coffin!!!

          • Old Blowers

            ps

            I’ll probably just end up in several Lidl heavy duty refuse sacks, tied together with duck tape, DIYer, she ain’t. *Giggles*

          • Shadrach Fire

            I reckon you will be around till the Rapture. No need of a coffin then. LOL

    • Bless your Protestant heart, ‘Capn’ Badback Blowers’. Good to hear from you. Happy Jack has missed you. Get well soon. Hope you’re enjoying the odd bed-bath from Nurse and keeping your pecker up – so to speak.

      • Old Blowers

        jack. would you have that dastardly ducks blog address, that carl states in now deceased, so i can look at pics of young duckling.

        lost my xp and repair only corrupted my profile so lost all bookmarks.

        bless you lad

        Blowers

        • Bless you for your interest, Blowers.

          Click on Happy Jack’s profile and there should be a link to it there. (It’s the little round grey circle next to ‘Cloud Nine’.) Jack will ask said ‘Dastardly Duck’ to post some more pictures in the next few days.

          http://httpwwwmreman.blogspot.co.uk/

          • Old Blowers

            Seen it and left comment.Ta.

            Think the crazy duck has Automatonophobia.

            Asked me to assure him I wasn’t a robot.

            *humungous chortles and guffaws*

      • Cressida de Nova

        The Islamists have booby trapped Ernst’s commode…Pass it on!

        • OMG …. Bring your hose and Happy Jack will bring his sword.

    • Shadrach Fire

      Blowers,
      So pleased to see you back and able to get at your keyboard. We have all been praying for your speedy return to health. Further, it’s great to have someone comment with a thread of sense.
      Bless you Bro.

      • Old Blowers

        Shadrach

        Nice to feel well enough to have the desire and energy to type…Was uttery shattered by ill health.

        “Further, it’s great to have someone comment with a thread of sense.” Well those RC’s do ramble on a tad!!!*Chuckles*

        Bless you.

        Blowers

        • Cressida de Nova

          Welcome back Ernst. Congratulations on your conversion…good to see extreme unction has brought about your recovery…that or matron’s enema threats:)

          • Old Blowers

            SILENCE, FOWL TEMPTRESS!!!*chuckles*

    • len

      Get well soon Blowers .God Bless.

      • Old Blowers

        Nice to hear from you Len.

        Love in the Lord

        Old Blowers

    • Pubcrawler

      Blowers, this long-time reader and occasional commenter is delighted to see you back with us. And judging by the comments from those of many traditions that don’t always agree, it’s clear that Jn 13.35 applies here.

      Pip!Pip

      • Old Blowers

        Thank you, dear boy.

        Nighty night you all.
        Daughter having driving test tomorrow morning and old Ernsty needs his peeps before either consoling or congratulating offspring. Needy children!!! *giggles* .

        Blowers over and out

    • dannybhoy

      I’m sorry you remain in a bed of sickness, but as many are praying for you I’m sure that will change.

      Your health, not your sick bed.
      “The problem is that prophet muhammed was so good at playing good
      prophet, bad prophet simultaneously, whether verbally or by deed, that
      no silly b*gger who reads his tosh has a clue what to do at any given
      moment.”
      Wha he did do is make it quite clear that Islam was to conquer by the sword rather than evangelism. Probably because the sword brought faster results..
      That there are conflicting messages within the Koran might explain why some Muslims prefer to keep it simple and wipe out anyone who disgrees with their version of the faith..
      Islam remains a montheistic faith which has not yet experienced a reformation like Christianity. Until it does critics should keep a low profile.
      Including satirical magazines. They should concentrate on insulting religions that don’t bite back….

  • I might have posted this before, but it bears repetition.

    One of the most shocking experiences of my life was in 1976 when as a 20 year old student I was in conversation in my hall of residence with an older Iraqi doctor. He had been on military service (conscripted) with Saddam’s army on a campaign against the Kurds. One night he was woken by two Kurdish men with guns pointing at him. They had just killed the hospital guards. Killed them.

    They demanded penicillin for their wounded. He said ‘my friends, lower your rifles. I will give you all the medical supplies we have. We should not be fighting you, we are fellow Muslims’. And he did so and they left.

    Shocked as I was by this account, what happened next was unforgettable. His countenance and voice hanged as he spat out the words ‘But If they had been JEWS, I would have died rather than give them one tablet of medicine!’. He absolutely meant it.

    I had no idea what to say, I think I said nothing. Salih Muhammed was a regular guy, a ”moderate’ Muslim, doing research in a university medical school. That is the unguarded view of a moderate Muslim.

    Wake up sheeples.

  • PS Ian Hislop my man, take bloody good care of yourself and the team at Private Eye. And Nigel Farage, get an armed police guard or at least a stab vest please.

    • Anton

      Has the Eye (re)published cartoons of Mohammed?

      • Mallalah Yusufzai hadn’t either, nor those 200 girls kidnapped into sex slavery in Nigeria a year ago….

  • This shows really that secularism can not ward off and hold back the
    strong tide of Islam that is spreading throughout Europe and the
    deluded nutters it brings with it who radicalise the young, the
    drop-outs, druggies and the naïve fools.

    This is what multiculturalism and open boarders brings in a secular state,
    it provides an opportunity for the religion of ‘peace’ to manifest
    itself and thrive as per the Quran.

    We need to control our borders and bring back the death penalty (but not
    broadcast it for them to become ‘heros’ dying for their ideology) for
    those committing acts of terrorism as well as be able to deport
    suspected terrorists and ensure their return is thwarted through
    technology (DNA and iris ID) before things get any worse here.

    Every newspaper should publish the cartoons on the same day as a stand
    against this evil.

    • dannybhoy

      Marie,
      I agree with everything you say except your last sentence!

  • Old Blowers

    Having read the MSM reporting on paris shootings, blaming the west for failing to integrate muslims supposedly into western societies, please read the heartfelt responses by the vast majority of the public to this drivel and know that we are not fooled by the two faced crap from politicians, MSM or muslim mouthpieces regarding what has happened.
    Utterly head buried in sand reporting!!! Change is a coming, whether political parties lib/lab/con like/want it or not.

    You can fool the public some of the time.. blah blah blah.

    It helps no one to lie about the truth and not see that ‘moderate’ muslims are producing these extremist jihadi’s and NOT extremistist families producing these culture hating nutjobs. This is the dilemna and the british people see it and know it despite what politions say.

    Perhaps moderate is a deluded interperatation of a person that seems subdued rather than freed by his beliefs to their extremist offspring hence the anamoly.

    Blofeld

    • IanCad

      Couldn’t rest, got up to listen to the radio; had to have one more click on HG’s blog, and! look who’s back!!
      God bless you Ernst, and may He keep you well.
      I will sleep much better now.

      • Old Blowers

        “Ian Son, we live in a world that has walls and those walls need to be guarded by men with Wit. Who’s gonna do it? Uncle Albert?

        I have a greater responsibility than you or others can possibly fathom. People weep for Corrigan and curse Old Ernst; they have that luxury. They have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Corrigan’s departure from the blog, while tragic, probably saved souls and that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to RC’s, saves Souls and Crannies sanity.

        People don’t want the truth because deep down in places they don’t talk about at Vatican fund raising parties, they want Blowers on that wall, they need Blowers on that wall.

        We use words like faith, sacrament, tradition. We use then as the backbone of a life trying to defend something. People use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to people who rise and sleep under the blogket of the very freedom of pithy wit I provide and then questions the manner in which I deliver it in song or prose.

        I would rather people just said “thank you,” and went on your way.

        Otherwise, I suggest that they pick up a Bible and watch reruns of ealing comedies, listen to hours of round the horn and the goon show and stand on post. Either way, I don’t give a damn .” *Humungous chuckles and guffaws*

    • Blowers Jack has an urgent message from a brave undercover agent, Ms Cressida de Nova. Having decoded it, it reads:

      “The Islamists have booby trapped Ernst’s commode…Pass it on!”

      Jack assumes she means pass the message on – not the commode.

      • dannybhoy

        Will someone second that motion?

        • Old Blowers

          *chuckles*

          Dannybhoy

          Do remember the law after Newtons 3rd Law

          Law of Motion – 4th Law

          “Loose Motion cannot be Slow Motion”

    • The Explorer

      Hello Blowers. Having recently returned myself, good to see you back as well. You can’t keep a good man down. (MInd you, that’s the essence of the Christian story.)

      • Old Blowers

        God Bless old boy

    • Shadrach Fire

      If a Muslim is considered moderate, they are not a Qumran believing Muslim.

      • Old Blowers

        Dear boy. A ‘moderate muslim is merely one that refuses to share his true thoughts with you, hence why all these extremists come from ‘charming’ moderate families that express shock and horror that poor abdul could be so brainwashed…the seeds are planted at home with private discussions we ain’t privy to, that lead young abdul to see his family as ‘we must keep it to ourselves’ people whose true opinions will be forced into the open by their brave holy action against the infidel society they find themselves in.

        After 7/7 Mrs B was informed by a moderate muslim at work that ‘WE’ (presumably excluding themselves) had brought this on ourselves.

        Were there not ‘moderates’ dancing in the streets in arab countries after 9/11. Crises in the west derived from devouted followers of an arab chancer who shall not be named (Moses was a prophet but BBC etc refuse to call him the prophet Moses), seem to bring an unveiling of their true feelings…then the western press immediately presents the ‘muslim victimhood’ statement and all is forgotten and/or ignored by the west and our lickspittle political chancers.I SEE NO SUCH SIMILARITIES WITH OTHER RELIGIONS SUCH AS HINDU, BUDDHIST, JEW, WICCAN, CHRISTIAN, JEDI OR SCIENTOLOGIST GIVING LIFE TO A THRIVING TERRORIST NETWORK EXCEPT ONE ‘PEACEFUL’ RELIGION THAT CANNOT BE NAMED

        It is a confrontation waiting to happen in our country, unfortunately and we ain’t the instigators. London appears to believe IT AND IT’S CULTURE COMPLETELY REPRESENTS ALL OUR COUNTRY THEREFORE IT is England but it is NOT!!

  • Ivan M

    There seems to be something weird about these Ayrabs. On the one hand they allegedly acted with military precision in executing their evil acts. But on the other in their getaway they act like something out of a bad French movie I saw some years ago. Dropping their IDs, robbing a petrol station and now getting holed up in the countryside.

    • Anton

      And Clouseau is after them…

  • Another trending tag on Twitter today – #jesuisahmed – in memory of Ahmed Merabet, the dead policeman who was shot in the street outside the Charlie Hebdo offices – asnd who was a Muslim.

    “I am not Charlie, I am Ahmed the dead cop. Charlie ridiculed my faith and culture and I died defending his right to do so. #JesuisAhmed”

    Also food for thought

    • dannybhoy

      Achmed died doing his job. Upholding French law, and is to be commended for that.

      • Dreadnaught

        Achmed died doing his job.
        And no doubt his death will be used as a propaganda ploy to protect French Muslims by distancing them from the atrocity. I wonder though how many silently condone the attack just like the odd-ball Inspector Gadget of this parish did here yesterday.
        We should not forget all those Iraqi soldiers and policemen, not so long back, stripped and marched through the desert to be slaughtered by their fellow Muslims, albeit by Muslims of a different mindset.

        • dannybhoy

          We have to accept that there are Muslims who make the attempt to fit in to society. We know for example there are Muslims quietly converting to Christianity under threat of death.
          So in that context Achmed had chosen to be a policman, and whatever his own attitude to Charlie Hebdo -(and I doubt very much Achmed was defending Charlie’s right to diss the founder of his faith), Achmed was playing his part as a policeman and deserves commendation.
          There was a case in Israel recently….
          l http://www.timesofisrael.com/death-toll-rises-to-five-in-har-nof-synagogue-terror-attack/

          • Dreadnaught

            If it came to the crunch and there was an Islamic call to armed insurrection to overthrow French (or anywhere) society from within is what troubles me. Could I trust to a Muslim backlash to put nationality before religion and defeat it?
            If Christians were behaving in this way, the voice of opposition and direct action would be coming from other Christians loud and clear.

          • dannybhoy

            “Could I trust to a Muslim backlash to put nationality before religion and defeat it?”
            No you couldn’t, because devout Muslims do not owe allegiance to nation states ruled by men -unless they also be devout Muslims, Islam teaches loyalty to the “ummat al-Islamiyah.”

          • dannybhoy

            “Could I trust to a Muslim backlash to put nationality before religion and defeat it?”

            No you couldn’t, because Islam teaches loyalty to the “Ummat al-Islamiyah” (Islamic Nation) not a nation ruked by men (especially unbelievers!)
            That’s why we saw posters like this in the UK..

  • Dominic Stockford

    The liberal media have begun their apologetic for Islam already.

    “This is not about Islam, it is about power. We should laugh them into the dustbin of history” (Heard on BBC Radio 4 this morning, being quoted approvingly.

    This of course, we all know is working so well in the world. Not taking them seriously in Afghanistan lead to many of our troops dying. Not taking them seriously in Iraq and Syria lead to many of our troops dying, and an entire area in foment. And in Nigeria, where 2,000 non-muslims were murdered in the last couple of days by Boko Haram, once again the ||western elite do not take these Muslims seriously.

    Well. maybe they’ll take them seriously when we are over-run, like half of Nigeria now is.

    • The Explorer

      The laughing is one silliness (with, as you say, the death of our troops as the result). The dustbin of history is another. It’s a long history. Islam has impacted significantly on Europe for the last 1400 years. Look at Cyprus, Rhodes, Malta, Istanbul, the Balkans…

  • len

    It seems there is something intrinsic within Islam that can (and does )
    lead to acts of violence.We in the West are told by our leaders that
    Islam is ‘a religion of peace’ but this does not sit well in view of the
    acts that are carried out in the name of the Islamic god ‘Allah’.

    So
    what is the truth about Islam? I believe we need to examine Islam its
    origin and its intentions to get a deeper understanding of Islam.

    So here seems to be a place to start;

    http://www.allaboutmuhammad.com/life-of-muhammad.html

    • Dreadnaught

      It seems there is something intrinsic within Islam that can (and does ) lead to acts of violence.

      Its called the Koran; backed up with the Hadith and the Sunnah and cult worship of Mohammad.

    • Shadrach Fire

      His Grace pointed me to a book when I stated we needed a clear exposition of what the Quran says. The trouble is as stated earlier is that Muhamid play good prophet and bad prophet all at the same time. Also, what he said later, overrides what he said earlier and the violent stuff comes toward the end.
      Thanks for the link.

  • Anton

    “Non-believers must be free to blaspheme with impunity”.

    Charlie Hebdo is not quite Private Eye; it has previously published a cartoon of the Holy Trinity in which the Three are engaging in anal sex with each other.

    Where and why are the limits?

    • dannybhoy

      That’s my point.
      Why are people here supporting the right of Messieur Hebdo (décédé) to insult blaspheme even, religious figures and concepts? We might have to accept that it happens, but to champion it?!

      • carl jacobs

        DB

        You will search in vain through my posts for that little “I am Charlie” tag line. I’m not going to write it. But this isn’t about CH’s blasphemies. This is about Islamists attempting to control the place and presentation of Islam through violence and murder. The message is “You write and say what we tell you, or we will kill you.” That message will be received very clearly by far more than just the dead of this particular magazine.

        Don’t focus on the target. Focus on the message.

        • dannybhoy

          ” But this isn’t about CH’s blasphemies. This is about Islamists
          attempting to control the place and presentation of Islam through
          violence and murder.”
          I already made that distinction here and on other blogs in recent years.

          • carl jacobs

            Then you should understand that the choice of CH as the target is arbitrary. We shouldn’t be talking about his work like it was provocative. We shouldn’t be talking about the content of his work at all. It’s not relevant.

          • This

            It’s not about Charlie Hebdo, and whatever vile or inane cartoons they published, and who they offended. It is about the right of people to speak their mind, in speech, word and art, and not to be forced to silence because someone is offended by it. There’s plenty of British publications that are easily as bad – Viz being an obvious example. I looked at it as a student because housemates had copies, it was offensive. I’ve never seen a copy as an adult. But if free speech means anything at all, it is the right of someone else to tell me something I don’t like, and not to be told to shut up. I can refute what he says, laugh at him in my turn, or even shout back. What I can’t do is ask for him to be silenced, because I don’t like what he says. Because then someone else has the right to silence me for what I say, and I have no right to protest it.

          • dannybhoy

            We agree Sister. But we don’t run the country. Those who champion multiculturalism and equality and inclusion and diversity do, and their current position vis a vis Islam is untenable.

          • And there I would not disagree with you. I think our current system regarding multiculturalism and immigration is an unmitigated disaster (and as you know, I’m an immigrant’s daughter, and my father thought it was a disaster too, But I digress). Had Muslim protestors stood outside Charlie Hebdo with some posters depicting the cartoonist and editor in the nude and doing something unspeakable with a goat, I would have considered the response as vile as the original cartoons, but I would have defended their right to do it.

          • dannybhoy

            I have nothing against immigrants in reasonable numbers (yes I know, define “reasonable”).
            As a Christian though I believe that “a house divided against its self cannot stand” and the more diverse and even anti Christian the sources of immigration the more we wash away the foundations of our own culture..
            In the past and despite what some assert, immigration was mainly from other Christian nations usually fleeing persecution and in quite small numbers too. They and Jewish immigrants have indeed contributed to our own nation. I believe it takes a long time to truly become accepted, often after several generations or/and serving the country in the military or similar.
            You can’t have a stable society when one component has amonst its number those who bear animosity or hatred towards that host culture and seek to change it.
            That’s the bottom line.

          • carl jacobs

            Ya know Sister T

            What Carl says is completely right

            People have found that statement to be generally applicable in all areas of life.

            😀

          • Dreadnaught

            Just out of interest ‘Charlie Hebdo’ is a fictional character not a real person.
            Further out of interest the two sieges are playing out live on tv channel France24 in English.

          • carl jacobs

            Dreadnaught

            I thought as much but I didn’t know. I also thought it might have been a pen name for a real person. Thanks for the info.

          • dannybhoy

            “We shouldn’t be talking about the content of his work at all. It’s not relevant.”
            Yes it is relevant! for all the reasons I have listed.There are two principles here at odds with each other.
            The democratic secular Western concept of freedom of speech, and the Islamic principle of submission to the will of Allah.

      • Dreadnaught

        You are condemning Cranmer for publishing CH’s depiction of Mohammad then.
        Tyranny begins with burning the printed word; have you forgotten Crystal Nacht and Pol Pot’s Year Zero or Mao’s Red Guard?

        • dannybhoy

          I’m not condemning. I’m disagreeing with his argument.

          • Dreadnaught

            And if some Jihadi guns him down he asked for it did he?

          • dannybhoy

            “And if some Jihadi guns him down he asked for it did he?”
            Where on earth are you getting this garbage from??
            I am not defending an extremist’s right to gun anyone down.
            For goodness sake, how many times does it need to be said?
            I am anti extremism. I would not be unhappy if the murderers were shot, as I see no point in an expensive trial.
            (I’ve already said all this!)
            I am also pointing out that there is a conflict of beliefs in Western societies, and that this freedom to insult or blapheme is not being well received by devout/extremist Muslims living in the West with our governments’ blessing..
            I’m not excusing the reaction, just pointing out the paradox.

          • Dreadnaught

            I never once thought you were trying to defend the indefensible.
            You said Lampoonery in MC society is ‘asking for trouble’ and if some Muslim decides to become a Jihadi because of Cranmer’s publication of something purporting to be Mohammad causes him/her deep offence, then in your own words, ‘trouble’ however it is delivered is only to be expected or as the Muslim would say ‘Islamic justice’. What you should be saying is ‘if our freedom to speak or act within our law and culture is incompatible with your sensitivities, then go to another Islamic country where you feel more comfortable’. Or words to that effect.

            What is it the bible says;’ If thine eye offend thee; pluck it out’?

            We as a host nation have first call on what accommodation we make to immigrants who wish to import and then impose their own standards and beliefs on the host culture. That’s why there are no Churches or bibles allowed in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.

          • dannybhoy

            “We as a host nation have first call on what accommodation we make to
            immigrants who wish to import and then impose their own standards and
            beliefs on the host culture. That’s why there are no Churches or bibles
            allowed in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.”

            Again I am not disagreeing. But that is your personal position as it is my personal position, but it is NOT the position of our democratically elected government!

          • Dreadnaught

            Then we have to convince them or change the Government – ‘they work for you’ – so they say. I know I am not the only person who expects change to the staus quo; far from it.

          • dannybhoy

            Join UKIP.

          • Je ne suis pas Charlie either.’
            I’m all for freedom of expression, but the vileness of those cartoons is not the expression of that freedom, but the abuse of it, whether the object is Mohammed or the Lord Jesus Christ.
            I notice that the freedom to offend others that has suddenly become so precious, has not extended to Oldham Athletic Football Club, not does it extend to street preachers who take a stand against homosexuality.
            But the true and living God does not need humans to avenge Him. He can do that perfectly well by Himself.

            ‘He who sits in heaven shall laugh
            [not with the God-haters, but at them]; the LORD shall have them in derision. Then He shall speak to them in His wrath and distress them in His deep displeasure. Yet I have set My King upon My holy hill of Zion”‘ (Psalm 2:4-6).
            There is a world of meaning in that little word “Yet.” Yet, despite all that secularists and/or religious extremists can do, in spite of violence or scoffing, despite all that the haters of the true God can do, Christ is reigning and will do so until His enemies become His footstool.
            Christ, who endured all the violence and viciousness of men on earth is now exalted at the Father’s side and is far above all that man can do against Him. Our job is to proclaim Him and warn the unbelievers that they urgently need to repent (vs. 10-12).

          • dannybhoy

            Well said Martin. We are to suffer persecution.
            Not endorse it.
            Of course the Lord will triumph, but we as saved sinners should seek to dissuade the unsaved from blasphemy or anything which confirms them in their rebellion.

        • Martin

          Dreadnaught

          And tyranny also exists in the mockery of those you seek to silence.

          • carl jacobs

            Mockery cannot silence. Hence my point about being mocked for being a Creationist. Let them laugh. They laughed at Noah. Truth is stronger than mockery.

          • Carl. when they mock your beliefs they mock you. However, the cartoon of the Trinity engaging in anal sex is more than a personal affront to Christians. It is a direct insult to God. You think He sits by and nods sympathetically and appreciates free speech? He gave us freedom. He hasn’t given us liberty without restraint.

            “Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.”

            The bible teaches Christians to bear such mockery as the behaviour and attitude of the fool, the wicked, the hater of knowledge, the proud and the unteachable. It portrays the mocker as one who makes a conscious decision to side with evil because of a spirit of disobedience, lack of discernment and an absence of faith.

            It also teaches us God permits it for a time but it has consequences in this life and the next:

            “They mocked the Lord’s own messengers, made light of his warnings, derided his prophets, until at last the Lord’s anger was roused against his people, past all assuaging.”

          • dannybhoy

            Well said Jack.

          • carl jacobs

            Jack

            when they mock your beliefs they mock you

            This is precisely what I deny. I am not the sum total of my beliefs.

            the cartoon of the Trinity…

            God is not damaged by that cartoon. Truth is not injured by that cartoon. The Elect will not be deceived by that cartoon. And whose responsibility is it to deal with those who mock God? Mine? I think not. So what has all this to do with the attack in France?

            What should be done about those cartoons, Jack? Should we go into the office and kill people? You will say “No.” So then how is the mocking content relevant to the dead bodies in France?

          • Carl, the purpose of Jack’s comment was to suggest that God will not permit Himself to be mocked indefinitely.

          • carl jacobs

            Jack

            And you are absolutely correct. We do not therefore conclude that we should legally suppress all forms of mockery against that which we hold sacred. Correct? Because there are people on this thread who are suggesting we should restrict mockery on the basis of the offense it must cause.

          • dannybhoy

            That’s me and I stand by it. As Christians we have two areas of responsibility,
            1)To abide in Christ and be salt and light in this world.
            2)To be good and responsible citizens in our society.

            So how can we champion the principle of supporting blasphemy or mockery?
            And linked to that, how can we draw the Muslims or any other adherents we meet closer to our Lord by supporting the mockery of faith by non believers??

          • carl jacobs

            DB

            How do you get from “I refuse to make blasphemy a crime” to “championing the cause of blasphemy”? You can oppose it without calling the police.

          • dannybhoy

            ??
            Evidence please.

          • carl jacobs

            DB

            I was offended by “Passion of the Christ” because I considered it blasphemous. It denigrated both the person and work of Christ by its functional deification of Mary. So, according to your position, I should be able to get legal redress. Now RCs will rush to deny what I have said. But that doesn’t matter. I am the standard and their doctrine is inherently blasphemous to me. My offense carries the field. You are now in the interesting position of advocating that a RC should be legally punished for stating sound Catholic doctrine.

            Of course, I could oppose Romanism with Scripture instead of rushing to the police – my offense notwithstanding. This is my point. Not every offense requires redress by the Law. You don’t throw Dreadnaught in prison for laughing at me when I say Genesis is history.

            Of course, there is also the offense of supporting ManU. Now that should be actionable.

          • dannybhoy

            I worked alongside Christian Yanks in Israel, Switzerland, Holland, and of course England.
            Lovely, kind, and open hearted people.
            No real understanding of the Mother country’s cynical or sardonoic humour.
            Inclined to be over-earnest, over/unquestioningly patriotic, but great fun with that real “Can do” mentality.
            I love them!

          • That’s a doctrinal debate within one Christian faith. Whatever you might say about the film (and Jack notes you have plenty to say) it did not mock God or make fun of Christ.

            Differences in doctrine can, as you suggest, be discussed and rationally considered by reference to scripture (well, up to a point with some). So, we can argue about whether this film did, in fact, functionally deify Mary and whether, in fact, it was blasphemous.

            What would say if a film was released depicting Jesus engaging in a homosexual orgy with the Apostles and ‘supernatural’ scenes of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit doing likewise?

          • grutchyngfysch

            “What would you say if a film was released depicting Jesus engaging in a homosexual orgy with the Apostles and ‘supernatural’ scenes of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit doing likewise?”

            Vengeance belongs to the Lord. He shall avenge Himself in His own time and by His own judgement, and there is no power that exists in heaven, earth or hell which is able to restrain Him.

            I know His command to me: He commanded me to love my enemies and to repay good to those who wish me evil. “But Mr Fysch,” you may say, “this film is offensive to *God*, never mind you!”

            No, it is not. This kind of blasphemy is never aimed at God – it is aimed at us.

            Do you see the films mocking Thor and Odin as effete southerners? What about the cartoons of Quetzalcoatl being plucked like a chicken? Or the scurrilous poetry that insinuates the illegitimate relationship between Anubis and Thoth?

            The Trinity is mocked only because the Trinity is believed in. Pharaoh scorns the God of the Israelites because he despises the Children of God – never does he imagine that God will answer him.

            So love and forgive those who seek to offend your most dearly held beliefs, and trust in the Lord to vindicate His Name.

          • Difficult. I dissaprove of crude insult and mockery, although I confess I have employed such tactics myself ( it is SO hard to avoid laughing at Darwin and his monkey Dawkins). And think about Elijah taunting the Baal priests!

            But I want free speech to proclaim the Gospel and to criticise its opponents. It seems logical therefore that I should, as a Christian, insist on free speech for all. And as my speech will offend secularists and Muslims, it seems that if I insist that the State guarantees my free speech, it must guarantee theirs too.

            Free means free. Those who despise and reject Christ will meet Him yet, to give account. If the price of my liberty to say that is filthy ‘art with a capital F’ like Piss Christ, Last Temptation, Jerry Springer the Opera, and Charlie Hebdo’s blasphemous antichristian cartoons, then so be it.

          • dannybhoy

            “But I want free speech to proclaim the Gospel and to criticise its
            opponents. It seems logical therefore that I should, as a Christian,
            insist on free speech for all. And as my speech will offend secularists
            and Muslims, it seems that if I insist that the State guarantees my free
            speech, it must guarantee theirs too.”

            But historically we are a Christian country and it is because of the influence of Christianity that we have become a country that attracts so many many people from Eastern Europe, from India, from Muslim countries, from African countries.
            People forget that! Happily. Because they are either embarrassed or annoyed by it.
            We sent missionaries out all over the world. Bibles too.
            So let’s get this in perspective.

            British Governments have replaced Christianity with Humanism.

            Yet they continue to support a monarchy whose current Queen is Head of the Church of England, and who attend big ceremonies in Christian Cathedrals and Abbeys.
            So why are we now fighting to justify the freedom to share our faith?
            You don’t know?
            I’ll tell you.
            It’s because they don’t want to offend other faiths.
            Especially Islam because Oslamic nations are known to be very intolerant of Jews and Christians, and because Arab nations have oil and buy our military gear and lots of London..
            So when UK subjects are beaten or imprisoned in Saudi for drinking, having sex, being gay, holding Christian services or having a Bible in public.
            our British government ISN’T going to stick up for you, and it ISN’T going to support evangelism in our own country, because some people don’t like it.
            Islam is antithetical to Christianity, but Christians don’t bite so they lose freedoms whilst Islam demands them.

          • I hear what you’re saying danny. I believe the west is doomed because we knew, but rejected, Christ. Subject of my Kindle novel ‘Darwin’s Adders: A Chronicle of Pagan England 2089.’

            I support UKIP but its a lost cause. The west will fall.

          • dannybhoy

            Well, you know that as Christians we can’t give up. I know that politics isn’t the answer to the ills of our nation, but it does have some very good ideas, so I shall continue doing what I can, because as a citizen that’s my responsibility.
            And as a Christian I honestly believe that unless the Lord has implemented the endgame programme, then we can keep crying out to Him for revival.
            As I mentioned there are quite a few Muslims turning to our Lord, as well as people from other backgrounds, there are churches that are enjoying a time of blossom and fruitfulness, just not so much the old established denominations.

          • Agreed danny.

          • “We do not therefore conclude that we should legally suppress all forms of mockery against that which we hold sacred. Correct?”

            Well, is it correct?

            This isn’t about our personal feelings being offended. We believe the God we worship is God and we know from scripture that man’s rebellion has temporal consequences for the common good. A state’s responsibility is to promote the common good. Jack isn’t personally bothered by being mocked for his beliefs. Indeed, we are told this will happen and far worse. However, persistent, wilful, deliberate expressions of contempt for God affects us all in one way or another.

            The cartoon depicting the Trinity engaged in homosexual sex went too far. Surely there’s some better balance between freedom of religion, freedom to worship and free speech?

          • carl jacobs

            Jack

            Now you are arguing a different position than DB. He wants a blanket prohibition. He hasn’t quite thought through to realize that one man’s blasphemy is another man’s sound doctrine.

            You on the other hand want to embed Christian understansings of blasphemy into law. But not so far as to trigger doctrinal fights between Christians on the issue. And you want some kind of gracious threshold (that you set) before things become actionable. The whole concept is arbitrary. You say…

            The cartoon depicting the Trinity engaged in homosexual sex went too far

            According to what?

            The issue with this attack is ownership. It’s an assertion that Muslims own Islam and you can’t present it in any way that violates their ownership. Your plan isn’t any different in essence. You just think it’s more reasonable because you consider yourself more reasonable.

          • Hmmm ….

            This isn’t about Jack and what Jack considers reasonable at all. Admittedly, it is about the Christian faith and his conviction that it represents the Truth. He also believes scripture indicates that offending God has repercussions for a society. What scuppers it is Christian’s cannot agree on its bottom-line doctrines and teachings.

            You’ll say: Muslin believe the Islam is the Truth. So they do. And Islam represses and persecutes in the name of Allah and Muhammad in nations where it has power. Now it is bringing the fight to the West. Hence the liberal West’s drive to promote freedom of religion and freedom of worship that sets no boundaries on insults and free expression. We think it will lead to greater tolerance. It doesn’t. In the West, the multi-cultists avoid insulting Islam so as not to be ‘Islamophobic’ or ‘racist’. And others stay silent through fear.

            Jack does want to embed a Christian understanding of blasphemy into law. Why? If for no other reason out of respect for God. The thresholds can be set through an exploration of what Christians hold as direct, gratuitous insults to our Creator. Why would the whole concept be arbitrary? Agreed, the current condition of the Christian faith is appalling. You’ll counter with: according to Jack. You’ll ask: what would be blasphemy?

            You don’t think the cartoon depicting the Trinity engaged in homosexual sex went too far and ask according to what? Are you serious?

            Blasphemy is defined as: the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God, to religious or holy persons or things, or toward something considered sacred or inviolable.

            “The issue with this attack is ownership. It’s an assertion that Muslims own Islam and you can’t present it in any way that violates their ownership. Your plan isn’t any different in essence. You just think it’s more reasonable because you consider yourself more reasonable.2
            Jack wouldn’t fundamentally disagree with this statement other than to say from Jack’s perspective its not about ‘ownership’ but about Truth and the implications for a society to condone obscene insults to God.

          • The Explorer

            ‘Matthew ‘ 12:36. “There is not a thoughtless word that comes from men’s lips but they will have to account for it on the day of judgement.”

          • Except gratuitous insulting God is not thoughtless. It’s probably the gravest offence man can commit …. just not the most obviously harmful.

          • The Explorer

            Thoughtless in the sense of not having due regard for the consequences? Rather than unintended?

          • Jack had in mind the cartoon depicting the Holy Trinity engaging in homosexual sex – not someone swearing.

          • The Explorer

            A picture is worth a thousand words. Isn’t the stress on rebellious/blasphemous thoughts, rather than how exactly they are expressed?

          • dannybhoy

            ” Truth is not injured by that cartoon. The Elect will not be deceived by that cartoon. And whose responsibility is it to deal with those who mock God? Mine? I think not. So what has all this to do with the attack in France?”

            “We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.”
            1 John 5:19 English Standard Version Anglicised

            From a human pov God IS insulted

            Truth is hindered.
            And our responsibility IS to stand up for our faith.

          • carl jacobs

            Truth is never hindered. God cannot be stopped from achieving His purposes. Every evil that man intends will ultimately work the will of God. And, yes, it is our duty to stand up for truth. What has that to do with legally suppressing mockery?

            What you are trying to do is make offense legally actionable. That makes the Law turn upon an unknowable subjective standard that is unique to each person. I will say it again. I was viscerally offended by “Passion of the Christ.” What legal redress should I receive? None. I am quite able to respond without resort to the Law. If I should threaten to shoot someone over POTC, should I therefore receive some sort of legal remedy for my offense so I won’t shoot someone? No. But that is what is being suggested.

            That attitude implicitly legitimizes the use of violence.

          • dannybhoy

            I can only assume that our differences of culture and idiom are making it difficult for us to comprehend each other….
            Out of Christian love for you as a brother in the Lord shall I run through it again point by point, or is there someone out there who understands what I am saying (Politically Incorrect? – Jack?) who will take up the baton for me?

          • dannybhoy

            As I told you earlier I’m a creationist with reservations. No one apart from Sidney mocks my views.
            Are you perhaps being the tiniest bit paranoid?

          • Martin

            Carl

            But mockery can silence, it takes a certain level of confidence to stand up to those who mock.

          • Dreadnaught

            Lampoonery is asking for trouble in a multicultural society.

            So that’s freedom then is it – capitulate to the bully? Live in perpetual fear? Whatever happened to ‘Publish and be damned Sir!’

          • dannybhoy

            It died a while ago Dreadnaught..

          • Dreadnaught

            When it starts to resemble North Korea you will have made your point.

          • Martin

            Dreadnaught

            Not a quote of me, but there are limits beyond which the bully is the one who lampoons.

      • len

        We must champion free speech but there must be some sort of self censorship (which I believe can can only come from within a Christian culture)
        I would not put the cartoon of Mohammed on twitter because I do not want to lampoon other cultures but I will criticise them if I feel so moved to do so…

        • Dreadnaught

          That’s your right – but self censorship is what the BBC and MSM engages in and its destroying freedom.

        • dannybhoy

          Quite right len, but do we draw a Muslim to Christianity by championing another non Christian’s right to insult the founder of his faith -or ours?
          Debate, criticism, scorn.. I have no problem with that for myself, but in regards to other people’s beliefs I personally show repect even if I’m disagreeing or questioning.
          Lampoonery is asking for trouble in a multicultural society.

          • Politically__Incorrect

            I suspect we are all being side-tracked slightly by this business of cartoons. I am not convinced that cartoons are the only reason behind the current outrages. I think that certain warped minds are using it as a pretext. I have no doubt that muslims would find many of the cartoons offensive, just as Christians find the anti-Christian cartoons gisgusting. However, it must take a particularly psychopathic mind to convert that offense into the human carnage we have seen.

      • Politically__Incorrect

        “Why are people here supporting the right of Messieur Hebdo (décédé) to insult blaspheme even, religious figures and concepts?”
        In my opinion it’s a mixture of raw emotion and the fact that some haven’t thought through what they are actually supporting, plus a bit of herd instinct. Personally, although I am disgusted at the murders, I cannot see CH as an icon of free speech, especially as it tried to silence it’s own political opponents.

        • dannybhoy

          Yay!!
          Despite my apparent inability to clearly express my opinion on the issue, some sensible people are deciphering my argument..
          Thankyou!
          “And let us not be weary in well doing (or perhaps even arguing a point): for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.
          Galatians 6:9 KJV

  • Dreadnaught

    All Jihadis (both sites) are dead and those hostages alive released.

  • Politically__Incorrect

    Just read on the DT that the Kouachi brothers and the 3rd terrorist are dead. What makes me even happier is that the hostages have been freed. Thank God for that.

    • dannybhoy

      Yes indeed, but what this shows is how vulnerable western liberal democracies to attacks from within.
      Just imagine the situation if les résidents de banlieues had organised themselves in support….

      • bluedog

        Next time, they maybe will.

        But where did the weapons come from? How many more AK47s are there in France and where? Why did the Couachis head for the Forest of Retz? What have they hidden in the caves there? The good thing about an event like that in Paris is that the communications traffic between would be jihadis spikes upwards as they consider their own options. This generates invaluable intelligence. The French already have a massive problem with nearly 1000 zones sensible where the police can only go in strength. At some point the Muslims will try and use the political system to create a legitimate enclave under sharia. This will further inhibit the ability of the French police to act. The real question is whether any Islamic governments are involved in networks connected to the Couachis.

        Of course, this is not Islam and could never happen here.

        • dannybhoy

          I’ve been arguing for a few years now that it would not be at all difficult to bring chaos to this nation of ours and break into an army base for weaponry. To launch a number of coordinated attacks to totally paralyse the police…

          • bluedog

            Dannybhoy, this communicant doesn’t share your concerns.

            In the first instance all jihadis seem to be trained on ex-Soviet weapons and making the switch to NATO weapons requires them to retrain. Where do they do that? Then there is the logistical issue of ammunition, and they probably have caches of short-cased 7.62 ammo for the AK 47s and stocks of RPGs. So switching to NATO weapons means they have to rebuild their stocks of munitions too. The Middle East is awash with AK 47s, and there may even be factories hidden within Muslim communities making the weapons in the West, probably quite easy with computer controlled machine tools. Taking on the British army requires a high degree of operational planning and the cost-benefit simply doesn’t stack up.

            If you look at the progress made by Muslim settlers in manipulating the system in their favour, it is hard to see the benefit to them of launching a guerrilla war. At present they will simply be wiped out.

            First, they need to consolidate their position geographically so that they can demand and implement sharia within a discrete area. In this context, the plans being floated for regional cities to have elected mayors seem to be utter folly. What happens if the Muslims take control of Birmingham, for example?

          • dannybhoy

            I take it you’re either military or ex miltary? That’s a good point about the AK 47, but ultimately it doesn’t matter whether they’re getting supplied here or overseas. It doesn’t matter whether they simply seek acts of terrorism or perhaps a hostage attack on a high profile group like a government minister or members of the royal family. It would still be relatively easy to paralyse our transport system, incapacitate the infrastructure, massacre people indiscriminately. If they concentrated their efforts on our leadership and police force, then what happens?
            Why do you think ISIS beheads, mutilates, rapes etc? It’s to terrify ordinary people and make them compliant.
            That could happen here or most anywhere in Europe..

        • The Explorer

          As I understand it, in some of these zones they have bazookas, and the police can’t go there at all. It has to be the paramilitary. with armoured cars. And then only if it’s something like the murder of Ilan Halimi, tied to a tree and set on fire.

    • Pubcrawler

      So, they got their martyrdom. I hope it was messy and hurt lots.

      • Politically__Incorrect

        With these three “martyred” and Abu Hamsa behind bars for life, at least there is a bit less scum in the world tonight.

  • Inspector General

    Capital news. One hopes the three were shot down like dogs.
    Now comes the retribution to be taken on the Islamic community…

    • dannybhoy

      “Now comes the retribution to be taken on the Islamic community…”
      That’s an observation or an endorsement?

      • Inspector General

        Both hopefully. The mass arrests and deportation orders to come, old chap. Show these unfit examples of humanity the door…

        • dannybhoy

          You are indeed incorrigible!
          I’m an old bloke of 68. I wish that we were able to return to a homogenous society like wot I wos brung up in.
          But it isn’t going to happen, and there are now plenty of immigrants who have made their home here and are proud to be British!
          (whips out comb and paper to play national anthem)
          So lets politely show the door to those who dislike our way of life,
          to those who would change our way of life,
          to those foreign thieves, rapists, murderers an ne’er do wells who only seek our love and understanding,
          but tp those who contribute who like us and our funny ways, willing to defend our Septic Isles we must extend the hand of friendship, respect and acceptance….
          (That’s what UKIP stands for incidentally)

          • Inspector General

            Yes, that’s it. We need to show some bone. Keep the whip hand. One does believe UKIP will deliver that.

          • dannybhoy

            That’s right Inspector.
            I would like to see the UK join an economic club based on the old Commonwealth countries (whom we should never have abandoned)
            whilst retaining a tight hold on immigration control and a real drive to encourage home grown talent into the professions, trades and services that we currently rely (and poach) from other countries..
            Do I hear a “Huzzzah!”

          • Inspector General

            Vote for Danny !!!

          • Pubcrawler

            Huzzzah!

          • Athanasius

            I’m sure they’ll deliver it to Nigel’s colleagues in the City

          • Inspector General

            Leave the City alone. We depend upon it for our prosperity…

  • dannybhoy

    Now here’s something all you ” Je suis Charlie Hebdo” bhoyos could really get your dentures into!
    “A respected rights activist in Saudi Arabia, Badawi first got into legal
    trouble with the Saudi government after he started the Free Saudi
    Liberals website in 2008, which included a forum for users to discuss
    religion.”

    http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/08/middleeast/saudi-arabia-activist-flogging/
    Now any of you wanting to get up a petition to send to the Saudi Embassy, I’ll sign it!
    Anyone willing to organose a demo outside the Embassy and get your photo taken (they do you know, both sides) I’ll come and support you.
    (And I mean that most sincerely folks!)

  • len

    I don`t know if I am understanding this correctly but it seems some communicants are advocating saying anything you like in the name of’ free speech?.’
    This would be like acting like someone with no’ filter’ on their speech and whatever comes to mind they would speak outright?. Try walking into a pub tonight with that in mind and see what reaction you get?.
    As for mockery not affecting Christianity ?…well it might not do so for established believers but what about the lost ?.The assumption that all called to be Christians will get there anyway(regardless ) leaves the possibility of some of ‘potential believers’ being lost in the name of freedom of speech for those who wish to inflict whatever comes to mind on the rest of us?.

    We might well use a Bible verse to illustrate the responsibility that comes with freedom of speech;

    “I have the right to do anything,” you say–but not everything is
    beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”–but not everything is
    constructive.

    • dannybhoy

      Another sound comment.

    • Dreadnaught

      An individual’s freedom to speak openly about anything or anyone carries with it the responsibility of place and context. We now have hate speech laws that facilitate the assumption of guilt by accusation before innocence, and the accused has to prove his case before a court. None of this was needed as we had laws of slander and libel and sometimes words are
      spoken in the heat of the moment and regretted instantly and that would have been an end, yet –

      Quran (5:33) – “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement”

      Quran (8:12) – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”

      No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle. It is tracts such as this which gets a free ride because it is in a so called Holy Book – spoken aloud it would indeed be Hate Speech and Incitement to commit an act contrary to common law.

      For my two-pennorth, Muslims have to reject the hundred and sixty odd verses like this and re-print the damned thing if they want to live amongst us peacefully. There’s no way I will be coerced in to respecting this as a religion or valid philosophy until then.

      • len

        Indeed…. if one found a manual for terrorists it would be the duty of those in power to examine it and to ban it if the said manual encourages terrorist acts.

  • bluedog

    Your Grace, when will they learn?
    ‘Mr Hollande says ‘these fanatics have nothing to do with Muslim religion’.
    Your communicant now re-affirms his belief in the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny and Father Christmas (Santa to our American friends).

  • Inspector General

    France has 6 million muslims. Think of that as 6 million members of the early NAZI party. History records German NAZI supporting women being appreciative of their Jewish doctors and dentists, but remember what the Islamic high command did as soon as they achieved power…

  • The Explorer

    I vaguely remember a review of an interview with one of the ‘Spitting Image’ puppeteers in the wake of the God/Jesus episode. Asked why he didn’t do something similar about Muhammad he said something about Muslims being a persecuted minority, and not wanting to add to their victimisation. The reviewer had a different explanation: he was simply too scared. (This was well before 9/11, but must have been post Rushdie.)
    I have no problem with his being scared; he had every reason to be. (The Danish cartoonists are still under police protection to this day.) But I do have a problem with fear masquerading as compassion.

    • bluedog

      In that case, Mr Explorer, you have a problem with the Western political elite.

    • dannybhoy

      But they won’t own up to being afraid, and I’m quite sure that some are already are being employed as “useful fools.”

  • The Explorer

    When I watched ‘Question Time’ last night, the reason fro the attack was firmly focused on cartoons of Muhammad. (Dimbleby even quoted the BBC policy re non-representation.)
    But when I first read news about the killings, it was maintained that the magazine had done a satirical portrait of the IS leader. IS, apparently, had threatened to attack France, and the magazine had mocked its failure to do so; rather suggestIing that the magazine invited the response it got.
    This part of the story seems to have subsequently died. It was either untrue; or it does not suit the narrative that has since developed.

    • The Explorer

      Cancel that. A magazine cover showing a fundamentalist threatening to attack France has been shown on BBC News at 10.

  • What should now happen is a commission of enquiry into Islam, its nature, goals and tendencies and its implications for the west given mass Muslim immigration.

    But this would imply that our leaders might have been blind, foolish or wicked to have encouraged mass immigration and multiculturalism. They might even find evidence that Christianity had been good for our society’s development and health.

    They’d rather die than concede this. The facts suggest that both the Crusaders and Enoch Powell were right.

    Just listening to the radio news-The BBC/Guardian is already gearing up against the threat of the Paris murders stoking Islamophobia, which for our rulers is the real problem.

    If only the dead jihadis could send a message back from Allah’s residence, but see Luke’s Gospel 16:19-31. When its too late to repent, its too late, for nations as well as individuals.

    • bluedog

      One reads that the thinking man’s black woman, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, is about to publish a book in which she sets out proposals for the reformation of Islam. As an ex-Muslim, Ayaan will have some relevant ideas that would be of value to any commission of enquiry. The University of Oxford runs a course on Comparative Religion, but may prefer not to get involved.

      In the 1970s a Pakistani general SK Malik wrote a book called The Quranic Concept of War. In this book, the word of the prophet, who was scarcely a man of peace, is for the Muslim to strike at the soul of the enemy as commanded by Allah himself. Apparently the best way to strike at your enemy’s soul is through terror. This communicant is prepared to believe that we kuffars are the enemy, largely because the Islamists keep telling us that this is so.

      Now we may have seen the use of terror in Pakistan’s relationship with India, where it was repeatedly alleged that the Mumbai hotel massacre was a black-op by the Pakistani secret service, the ISI. The extraordinary scale of that operation does suggest the backing of a state, and the hotel is owned by a Parsee family, a sect sometimes described as Indian Jews, although they are not. Compare Mumbai to what has happened in Paris with just three jihadis, apparently sponsored by Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsular, but not by Islamic State. This may be significant and points to some sort of testosterone fuelled competition between AQ and IS to show street cred and win recruits. Importantly, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is currently unwell, and being geriatric like most Saudi monarchs, may shortly expire. As it is widely believed that both AQ and IS are backed by Gulf identities, it could also be that the Paris massacres are ultimately related to the Saudi succession.

      As the immediate descendants of Ibn Saud finally die off, the possibility arises of a War of the Cousins in Saudi Arabia as various princely factions battle for the throne. The prize is great, conferring control over the oil, the financial resources and the holy places of Islam. The prospect of a brutal civil war in Saudi Arabia has considerable appeal to this communicant. The downside would be that the West is a pawn in the game, and a field of manoeuvre where matters can be resolved by righteously killing the kuffar, rather than by risking the lives of the ummah.

      • All of this is highly credible Bluedog. It has been clear to all but the blind for some time that Gulf States are behind much of this, specifically the war to depose Assad (‘Arab Spring’ MFHA). Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, as was bin Laden. It is also clear that our leaders are quaking in their boots scared [email protected] to criticise Saudi Arabia because of (A) oil and (B) lucrative defence and luxury goods sales. And because, as I think you suggest, that the current Saudi rulers might be replaced by something even worse.

        Wasn’t it Lenin who said ‘When the time comes to hang the capitalists, they will sell us the rope.’ And probably lend them the money to buy it too, call it economic growth.

        What bothers me most is that IS and AQ with Saudi backing appears to be planning to take Jordan next, and after that the final assault by the new Caliphate to destroy Israel.

        We know what happens then.

        Meanwhile our leaders’ main concern is to ‘prevent an Islamophobic backlash’ by which they mean stop people thinking about what Islam really is and what its goals are.

        I see the mercy of God in all this. As the End approached, the Sovereign Lord is helping us to clarify our choices. ‘False prophets will deceive many…by their fruits shall you know them.’

        • bluedog

          Yes, SH, it is an ostrich-like exercise to worry about an Islamophobic backlash. A classic case of putting form before substance.
          Nothing the political elite can do will stop an educated, critical-thinking and well-informed population from reaching their own conclusions. Electoral unease at the consequences of Muslim settlement is running at very high levels, and understandably so. If the current political class cannot bring themselves to address the issue of Muslim settlement and influence, a political leadership will inevitably emerge that does. The longer the current politicians ignore community concerns, the greater the force of the popular anti-Muslim response. There appears to be no possible prospect of reconciliation between the British and the resident Muslims, mistrust seems set to continue and deepen.

    • Dominic Stockford

      The Front national have been banned from the “Unity” march in Paris – thus making it a “Division March” (given how high they are riding in the polls there) – only they (the politicos) too full of their own importance to notice what they’ve done.

      • dannybhoy

        The polticos are running scared, and situations like this point out the weakness of the political mindset. So convinced are some that their solutions are best, that they will find ways of deceiving or conning the people so as to impose those solutions or experiments (in this case multiculturalism) whilst the vast majority remain sceptical at best and uneasy most of the time..
        Then when things start to unravel, the politician runs for cover…

  • Dominic Stockford

    An excellent article here from Reformation21:

    “The recent terrorist attack in Paris highlights perhaps the great political dilemma of the current age, that of Western freedoms being used to destroy Western freedoms. But perhaps just as importantly, its target was perfectly chosen.

    Democracy requires more than the legal right to vote. It requires the freedoms to own property, to travel, to speak one’s mind, and to litigate to protect oneself. It thus requires the social institutions and customs which can sustain and support these things and also an underlying sense of community in which these individual rights take shape and have meaning. Indeed, classic liberal freedom assumes the idea of the nation state.

    In the nineteenth and the twentieth century, national identity gave an otherwise disparate group of people from different classes and ethnicities a larger common context, history, and purpose which ameliorated the differences. Thus, in Britain one might vote Labour but accept that, when the Conservatives won the election, they had the right to govern until the next election. Something deeper than political ideology bound people together. The nation state was not a sufficient precondition for Western democracy but it was arguably a necessary one.

    The situation today is different. The nation state is under huge pressure. Mass immigration, the worldwide economy, the rise of militant forms of Islam allied to a deeply anti-Western political imagination, and the availability and speed of communication have all served in different ways to undermine it. The West’s self-confidence that it is the meaning of history is gone. More significantly, the shared sense of identity, the communal structures and the traditional processes by which liberal democracy thrives have all gone or are being rapidly redefined or eroded. And, of course, it is the very freedoms of the West which provide the context for their destruction at the hands of its enemies.

    Then, there is the ideological quandary in which the Left now finds itself. Militant Islam represents everything the historic Left should despise: a patriarchal feudalism which treats women like chattels and uses the full force of law against homosexuals. But Islam also represents the repudiation of the West, especially of America. It also draws its strength from being able to play the ethnicity card. Not all Muslims are people of color but the majority are, making criticism of Islam vulnerable to accusations not only of Western imperialism but also racism. This is why some on the bien pensant Left have taken the view that the French satirical magazine was asking for it, because it had a track record of lampooning Islam and Muslims. That is hate speech, though not as harmful or indeed as hateful, as putting a bullet through somebody’s head.

    Given all this, it makes perfect sense that the enemies of democracy and classic liberalism would strike at a satirical magazine. Satire has often been the first and most discerning enemy of power and tyranny which is why it is so hated by the powerful and the tyrannical. And it is also thrives upon the most basic of liberal freedoms, that of speech. Think of Karl Kraus and his satirizing of the Nazis. Think of those who in the West today are most subversive of politically correct pieties: is it not the great satirists who simply refuse to allow the great and the good to take themselves seriously without challenge?

    Those who think the satirists had it coming are correct but not in the way that somebody who keeps crossing a busy road with their eyes closed is headed for an accident. They had it coming because satire – one group poking fun at another – lies at the heart of what it means to be free in a democratic society. And that is what the Islamic militants and, sadly, the illiberal voices on both the Right and, particularly these days the Left, hate more than anything else.”

    • dannybhoy

      I agree with the analysis except the penulimate paragraph.
      “Satire has often been the first and most discerning enemy of power and
      tyranny which is why it is so hated by the powerful and the tyrannical.”
      Satire is contextual and relies on a shared worldview for appreciation.
      I have no problem with satire in regards to my world, but it doesn’t work in a multicultural society.

  • The Explorer

    As with other western nations, the French are a conquered people. Charlie Hebdo had forgotten this fact, and was getting uppity. The attack was a reprimand: a reminder to the French of their dhimmi status. (Well, perhaps anticipating history just a little.)

    • Dreadnaught

      Explorer your response is exactly what terrorism is designed to achieve – defeatism in the enemy – but you and they are wrong. The fight has yet to begin.

      The Hebdo attack was not some sort of knee jerk mob driven act of random violence; it was carefully chosen in the knowledge that the West values freedom of expression.Such an attack it was known would attract maximum publicity to recruit furtherance of attacks to come and the long term objective of Sharia compliance in the West. It was a message not only for the French but the rest of the world.

      The Kosher deli atrocity was featured to inspire more hostility against the Jews as a race; a guaranteed ‘vote’ winner to stimulate wider anti-Semitic activity for
      whatever purpose as long as it propagates fear and unrest.

      • The Explorer

        Dreadnaught,
        Have you ever heard of irony? I’ll spell it out for you : it means saying the opposite of what you really think. In that sense, ‘1984’ is an ironic book. It posited a future that Orwell hoped would never happen, but was a warning of what COULD happen unless prevented.

        • Dreadnaught

          There was nothing ‘ironic’ in what you said – what was in your mind is impossible to read. If you fancy yourself as another Orwell – I suggest try harder.

          • The Explorer

            Let me express it unironically, then. Wake up Europe! If you haven’t heard about dhimmitude, this is what it could mean for you. I’d have thought I’d made enough comments elsewhere about the need to resist Islam for my ironic intent to be apparent. The Orwell reference, by the way, was an example: not a comparison with myself.

          • Dreadnaught

            The Orwell reference, by the way, was an example: not a comparison with myself.

            I was being ironic.

          • The Explorer

            Nice one! I’d say you and I disagree about Christianity, but are in agreement about the need to resist Islam. I hope we can leave it at that.

          • Anton

            Dreadnaught, I read Explorer’s original comment as irony. Are you suggesting I was in error, or perhaps over-educated compared to your good self?

        • len

          It would seem that some have used Orwell`s 1984 not as a warning but as a blueprint ?.

          • The Explorer

            That is the fatal flaw in irony: it can be taken literally! Let your yea be yea and your nay be nay is a surer path. It’s the one I try to follow most of the time.

  • Anton

    On this thread below I pointed out that Charlie Hebdo has previously published a cartoon of the Holy Trinity in which the Three are engaging in anal sex with each other.

    What should the law be and how should Christians respond?

    Not everything that is wrong should be illegal; I suggest that the correct Christian response to that Charlie Hebdo cover would have been to jam Charlie’s switchboard indefinitely, and other wholly legal but inconveniencing actions against Charlie collectively without vindictive action against individuals. If God wanted more than that, He is perfectly capable of direct action. And if we were too apathetic to arrange that, we really shouldn’t complain.

    Muslims have a different tradition, of course…

    • Lagos1

      Blasphemy against Christianity should be made illegal. This should be distinct from Islam (which should be covered through general public decency law).

      And you are right, Christians should have taken more action against Charlie Hebdo. Perhaps if we had, they might have moderated things in general and what happened may not have come to pass.

  • The Explorer

    Peter Hitchens points out that Charlie Hebdo had petitioned for the banning of the French National Front Party. Mock it, certainly. But ban it?

  • Anton

    Those who warn about Islam are tired of being told that they preach hate when the real preaching of hate is done inside the mosques.