“Global Civility” Against The Fuggly Truth

UK cops: Muslimas who joined Islamic State won’t be charged with terrorism if they return

Mark RowleyThis is a good, far-seeing, wise decision from Judicious Britannia. After all, what possible harm can three schoolgirls do in Britain? Who ever heard of a female jihadmartyrdom suicide bomber?

“UK police say 3 schoolgirls who went to Syria won’t be charged with terrorism if they return,” by Jill Lawless, The Associated Press, March 10, 2015: (JW)

LONDON (AP) — Three British schoolgirls who traveled to Syria to join the Islamic State group won’t be prosecuted for terrorism if they return, a senior British police officer said Tuesday.

UK Muslim group seeks to brand depictions of Muhammad as “hate speech”

Truth is the new hate speech.

Allah is with those who are steadfast. The UK dhimmies will be the first to implement “global civility’ laws against its citizens. The audacity of Muselmaniacs knows no bounds. Too funny that nobody is even asking how the Brits could ever live in harmony  without “global civility” being imposed on them.

drawmuhammadfinal700“Hate speech” is in the eye of the beholder — it is whatever the group in power to doesn’t want spoken about or known. It is the powerful silencing dissent and challenges to their hegemony. If this initiative gets any traction, it will be a new indication of who has the real power in Britain.

Show that you won’t give in to violent intimidation. Get tickets to our Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest here.

“Muslim Action Forum Seeks to Brand Depictions of Mohammed as ‘Hate Speech,’” by Allum Bokhari, Breitbart, March 10, 2015: (JW)

The Muslim Action Forum (MAF), a group that describes itself as “working on the front line to deal with affronts to global civility” has announced a legal and political strategy to have depictions of the prophet Mohammed banned in the UK. And according to a press release published on the group’s website last week, the group will work towards its goal via a combination of litigation and lobbying MPs.

MAF want depictions of Mohammed to be defined as a “hate crime” that is “perpetrated on the 3 million Muslims in the UK and 1.7 billion Muslims worldwide”. In addition to their litigation strategy, MAF say they will seek to amend existing legislation and present a Private Members Bill to Parliament that promotes the idea of ‘Global Civility’ in order to achieve their objectives.

“Global Civility” is a word you’re likely to hear more of in the future. It was the slogan of the Muslim activists who marched on Downing Street last month in order to protest the new depictions of Mohammed that appeared in Charlie Hebdo, the French satirical magazine that became the target of Muslim terrorists in January.

The demands for censorship are not restricted to cartoonists. MAF’s website also maintains a list of “uncivilized expressionists”, who they define as people who suffer from a “psychological disposition of the human mind which insults and maligns others without care or consideration of consequences.” Their examples include Salman Rushdie, author of The Satanic Verses and the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. 

The National Secular Society is urging MPs not to cave in to MAF’s demands. Stephen Evans, the group’s Campaigns Chairman said: “We trust all prospective MPs will appreciate that there is no homogeneous ‘Muslim community’ and reject such unreasonable demands to undermine everybody’s fundamental rights and freedoms. Free speech is the bedrock of liberty and a free society – and integral to combating the spectre of Islamism. Now more than ever we need to preserve and strengthen freedom of expression, not capitulate to extremist demands.”

The news has also triggered concern in the grassroots atheist community. Chris Moos, a campaigner who recently faced attempted censure by the London School of Economics for wearing a T-shirt depicting a Jesus and Mo cartoon, explained the importance of religious satire. “Satire is a very good way of getting people to engage with a topic”, Moos said. “There are few things more effective than laughing at those in power, or satirising their power structures. It’s why dictatorships and tyrannies always censor the activities of comedians and satirists”.

Like most would-be censors, the Muslim Action forum don’t understand the Streisand Effect, a digital-era concept that describes how censorship backfires. Simply put, the more you try and stop people spreading information – or cartoons, in this case – the more they will do so. People don’t like being told what to do, and in the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo and Copenhagen attacks, defiance is rightly seen as more important than “civility”.

Of course, the idea of “Global Civility” has allies in the progressive media. A few days after the Copenhagen attacks, the Guardian’s Hugh Muir urged western societies to “guard against the ‘temptation to be provocative”, and reminded his readers that although free speech ‘must be defended’ (by shutting up, if I follow Muir’s argument correctly), there are also ‘other obligations to be laid upon those who wish to live in harmonious, peaceful societies’….

4 thoughts on ““Global Civility” Against The Fuggly Truth”

  1. Would a slightly brown object bobbing up and down in the bottom of my toilet be classified as a depiction of Muhammad?

    1. That could be – but this begs the poit: what exactly is ‘a depiction of the islamic proft’ mohammed? Seeing that no living person has seen him and there’s no paintings or drawings of him passed down from when he (supposedly) existed.

      If I draw a cartoon of Jihad John – muslims will become frothy and say I’m drawing a picture of their Clayton’s** idol mohammed.

      Hmm, the lawsuit would be interesting!

      ** (the idol you gave when you’e not having an idol.)

  2. “UK Muslim group seeks to brand depictions of Muhammad as “hate speech””

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/05/cal-poly-free-speech-under-attack-in-academia

    Everyone should watch the last 8 min of this video.

    Last 2 questions.

    Super answer by Robert Spencer.

    158.23 demonizing of the opposition in all spheres that is a huge threat the society that has been a source of great prosperity and great human flowering for a couple of centuries now.

    158.42 only one view is allowed I know that and only one perspective is acceptable and that is a symptom of the problem I am discussing.

    158.55 ponder what might happen if you have a point of view that is one that is not allowed. Do you really want to be in that situation?

    15.10 or all points of view were not allowed and ideas would live and die on the basis of their truth not on one who found it acceptable of or not acceptable.

    99.9% certain that none of the views I represent are discussed or even considered acceptable to be discussed at this or any other university in this country

    200.40 and I do not believe that any one of who have read my books would honestly be able to say that there is anything hateful or inaccurate.

    200.28 in the mean time I know that the ideas I represent are not acceptable at universities and the ideas I represent are true. That is a bad ??

    NEXT question about hate speech:

    200.37
    She: we came to the conclusion that there is a difference between free speech and hate speech
    She: hate speech is not freedom of speech

    RS: what is hate speech?

    She: one that harms or threatens without any factual content, without expressing any valuable idea

    RS: who decides?
    Who is the arbiter?
    Concept of hate speech is a tool in the hands of the powerful to silence the powerless.

  3. There are depictions of him in the Middle East.. All this ”you can’t draw big bad Mo” is just another part of their history revision.. You could draw or sculpt Mo until about two hundred years ago.

Comments are closed.