Free Speech is “frightening”, causes “open season on Muslims”

Once again we can see that Mohammedan agitprops have the full support of leftist enablers in their quest to remove freedom of speech to enforce the shari’a. But this one didn’t get her way, at least not this time.‘Open Season on Minorities’ After Press Regulator Permits ‘Offensive’ Criticism of Islam

‘Open Season on Minorities’ After Press Regulator Permits ‘Offensive’ Criticism of Islam

The press regulator has said a columnist is not guilty of “harassment” and “discrimination” for writing an “offensive” articlecriticising Channel 4 News for using an anchor in a Muslim headscarf on the night of an Islamic terror attack.

The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) ruled that former Sun editor Kelvin MacKenzie was “entitled” to give his opinion and newspapers may “engage in discussion, criticism and debate about religious ideas and practices”.

However, “victim” and Channel 4 journalist Fatima Manji said that the ruling was “frightening” and signals it is now “open season on minorities and Muslims in particular”, adding there should be “limits” to free speech.

Her colleagues at Channel 4 agreed.

Update:

The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) ruled that former Sun editor Kelvin MacKenzie was “entitled” to give his opinion and newspapers may “engage in discussion, criticism and debate about religious ideas and practices”.

This a clear victory for free speech, which should be applauded and defended everywhere in the West. We do not need to agree with anyone’s opinion, but free speech is a hallmark of our democracy.

However, “victim” and Channel 4 journalist Fatima Manji said that the ruling was “frightening” and signals it is now “open season on minorities and Muslims in particular”, adding there should be “limits” to free speech.

This deceitful nonsense that Fatima Manji is spewing is what is really “frightening,” and far too common. The ruling by IPSO is not “open season on minorities”. Which other minority group does anyone routinely hear complaining collectively about some “phobia” and challenging free speech? Free speech is antithetical to the tenets of Sharia, which Islamic supremacists have been diligently attempting to impose upon the West through all kinds of means: intimidation, claims of victimhood, accusations about racism, and the bogus “Islamophobia” narrative.

In the West, it is permissible to offend, and Muslims are also permitted to respond, instead of creating unwarranted public scandals and/or initiating Islamic lawfare against the West. Not every Muslim adopts this “Islamophobia” nonsense, either. This victimology agenda was fully exposed by a former imam and member of the International Institute of Islamic Thought, Abdur-Rahman Muhammad.

kevin-mckenzie

“‘Open Season on Minorities’ After Press Regulator Permits ‘Offensive’ Criticism of Islam”, by Liam Deacon, Breitbart, October 20, 2016:

More below the fold.

In other news:

Migrants Smash Up Deportation Centre, Protest for 11 Hours on Roof

Mohammedan migrants (invaders) Smash Up Deportation Centre, Protest for 11 Hours on Roof

Over 20,000 Underage Migrants Arrived in Italy this Year

Over 20,000 Underage Migrants (savages) Arrived in Italy this Year

Mr. MacKenzie’s column had argued that it was not “appropriate” for “a young lady in a hijab” to be “on camera when there had been yet another shocking slaughter by a Muslim” – the Islamic State truck attack in France that killed 80 people.

“Would the station have used an Orthodox Jew to cover the Israeli-Palestine conflict? Of course not,” he added.

He was careful not to blame Ms. Manji personally, but accuses Channel 4 of playing “TV games” and said that, in his view, Islam is “clearly [a] violent religion”.

Fact.

The columnist later insisted his criticism was “reasonable”, described the hijab as a “religious statement”, and said it would be unlikely a Christian would be allowed to wear a cross prominently on television.

Which is a shame. Because America was founded on Judea-Christian values, not Mohammedanism.

Speaking on Radio 4 this morning, Ms. Manji said she does indeed “wear the headscarf as a symbol of [her] religious faith” but dismissed questions about such symbols in public life as a “manufactured debate”.

Not manufactured. The hijab is an in-your-face manifestation of Islamic supremacy.

In relation to the wearing of a Christian cross on TV, she said: “I respect individuals’ choices, and in particular respect individual women’s choices.”

No Mohammedan respects “individual women’s choices.” That’s just not in their DNA.

“I respected people’s journalism when they’re interested in telling the truth – something Kelvin MacKenzie has not been interested in,” she added, continuing:

“Freedom of speech is my bread and butter, and I exercise it every day and I fought for other journalists who are silenced around the world to have that same right.

Right: Mohammedans should be free to spread their vile lies against all other religions and groups, but don’t you dare criticize Islam and Muslims. Know your place, kafir!

“I am happy for people to ridicule me or offend me. I am not happy for people to incite hatred against me and that is what happened here,” she said.

Any criticism of Islam and Muslims is “inciting hate”. This is Mohammedan perfidy and bigotry on display.

The journalist claimed she was “worried for [her] safety” after the article was published, that “measures” had to be “put in place”, and someone on a BBC debate had said she should be “lynched”.

No Muslim got lynched, no Muslim was harmed no matter how many kafirs the Mohammedans murdered in the U.S. Fact.

However, Ms. Manji also found huge support after the controversy blew up in July of this year, with around 1,700 people complaining to the regulator about the column.

There you go. Dimbulbs and bleeding hearts outnumber the skeptics,

In its ruling on Wednesday, IPSO wrote: “While the columnist’s opinions were undoubtedly offensive to the complainant, and to others, these were views he had been entitled to express. The article did not include a prejudicial or pejorative reference to the complainant on the grounds of her religion.”

The regulator also ruled the article was not in breach of the harassment or accuracy clauses of the code. They recognised the matter was sensitive, they said, but was a subject of a legitimate public debate.

The finding continued: “The columnist’s view that Islam is ‘clearly a violent religion’ was a statement of his opinion. This view, however extreme or offensive to many, did not raise a breach of Clause 1.

“The suggestion that the complainant was a ‘pawn in this TV news game’ was clearly conjecture, and underlined that the author’s criticism was directed at Channel 4 and not at the individual newsreader.”

The ruling also insisted: “It should not be interpreted as preventing such criticism merely because, as is inescapable, many individuals subscribe to that particular faith.

“Were it otherwise, the freedom of the press to engage in discussion, criticism and debate about religious ideas and practices, including the wearing of religious symbols while reading the news, would be restricted.”

And that’s the heart of the matter. 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *