Category Archives: Right wing

Danish paper rejected Jesus cartoons

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that first published the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that have caused a storm of protest throughout the Islamic world, refused to run drawings lampooning Jesus Christ, it has emerged today. The Danish daily turned down the cartoons of Christ three years ago, on the grounds that they could be offensive to readers and were not funny.

In April 2003, Danish illustrator Christoffer Zieler submitted a series of unsolicited cartoons dealing with the resurrection of Christ to Jyllands-Posten. Zieler received an email back from the paper’s Sunday editor, Jens Kaiser, which said: “I don’t think Jyllands-Posten‘s readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them.”

Guardian, 6 February 2006

Hitchens defends cartoons provocation

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Ex-leftist turned warmonger Christopher Hitchens writes: “… there is a strong case for saying that the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, and those who have reprinted its efforts out of solidarity, are affirming the right to criticize not merely Islam but religion in general…. if Muslims do not want their alleged prophet identified with barbaric acts or adolescent fantasies, they should say publicly that random murder for virgins is not in their religion. And here one runs up against a curious reluctance.”

Slate, 4 February 2006

Mad Mel on cartoons controversy

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“With holy war declared openly upon the west, with death threats being issued against cartoonists and editors, with Danes, Scandinavians and other Europeans being hunted for kidnap and in fear of their lives, with blood-curdling intimidation, with mob demonstrations, calls to behead westerners and rallying cries for ‘holy war’ by Islam against Europe, the governments of Britain and America are busy prostrating themselves before this terror, apologising for ‘causing offence’ and blaming the victims of this assault; while their intelligentsia earnestly debates whether it is wrong to insult someone else’s religion, for all the world as if this were a university ethics seminar rather than a world war being waged by clerical fascism against free societies and with people in hiding and in fear of their lives for having exercised the right to protest at religious violence and intimidation.”

Melanie Phillips exercises a responsible and calming influence on the situation.

Melanie Phillips’s Diary, 4 February 2006 

‘We’ are quite distinct from Muslims, Telegraph asserts

Posted on by Bob Pitt

“Muslims who choose to live in the West must accept that we, too, have a right to our values, and to live according to them. Muslims must accept the predominant mores of their adopted culture…. Those Muslims who cannot tolerate the openness and robustness of intellectual debate in the West have perhaps chosen to live in the wrong culture.”

Thus an editorial on the Danish cartoons controversy in the Daily Telegraph, 3 February 2006

Note the familiar use of “we”, evidently referring to the white majority community. “We” are to be distinguished from Muslims, who are presumably to be categorised as “them”. Muslims are instructed that they “must accept” the dominant non-Muslim culture, and are told that, if they refuse to do so, they should go back where they came from.

The Guardian is much more measured: “Yesterday’s acquittal of two British National party officials on race hatred charges for attacking Islam – and the triumphalist scenes as the two freed men emerged from court – are part of the context that must be weighed in asserting any right to publish cartoons that offend Muslims. So too is the political situation in Denmark itself, where the cartoons were first published, and where a large and strongly anti-immigrant party provides part of the parliamentary coalition supporting Denmark’s centre-right government. What is the message that is being sent, both in the BNP acquittal context and in the Danish context, by insisting on publishing such images? Those questions cannot be ducked – and nor can the answers.”

Editorial in Guardian, February 2006

Muslim terrorists organising in British prisons, Mad Mel claims

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Quoting a Daily Mirror article, Melanie Phillips tells us “this is what’s going on in Belmarsh prison where a number of Muslim Brotherhood terror suspects are being held”:

“Violent Islamic extremists are terrorising inmates at Britain’s toughest jail with an iron fist as they trawl for al-Qaeda recruits. The gang of thugs – known as The Muslim Boys – intimidate frightened inmates at Belmarsh into joining their faith, beating those who refuse their bullying demands. Some bloodied victims have been slashed by razor blades attached to toothbrushes. Others have had boiling water hurled over them. Prisoners say they are in fear for their lives.”

Melanie Phillips’s Diary, 31 January 2006

Er … except that the Muslim Boys have nothing to do with the Muslim Brotherhood. They’re a criminal gang based in South London. But, what the heck, they both have the word “Muslim” in their name, so there can’t be that much difference can there, Mel? And it goes without saying that they all have links to al-Qaeda.

Government defeated on religious hatred bill

Posted on by Bob Pitt

The government has suffered two shock defeats over attempts to overturn Lords changes to the controversial Racial and Religious Hatred Bill.

In a blow to Tony Blair’s authority MPs voted by 288 votes to 278 to back a key Lords amendment to the bill. Analysis of the division list showed the prime minister voted in the first division but not in the second, which was lost by one vote.

Shadow attorney general Dominic Grieve said the defeats were “a victory for Parliament”. He branded the bill a “foolish manifesto commitment” introduced to “appease” some minority groups [read: “Muslims”], and which had “threatened freedom of speech”.

Mr Grieve said in multicultural Britain people had to accept that freedom of speech may mean people could be offensive to them, as well as vice versa. He said: “This (bill) was completely contrary to our national tradition of free speech.”

BBC News, 31 January 2006

No doubt the fascists will be cheering. The acceptance of the Lords amendment means that it will be virtually impossible to mount a successful prosecution for inciting religious hatred. All the BNP needs is an acquittal at Leeds Crown Court, and it will be able to celebrate a double triumph.

Danish paper sorry for Muhammad cartoons

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Denmark’s largest selling broadsheet newspaper last night issued an apology to the “honourable citizens of the Muslim world” after publishing a series of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad that provoked protests across the Middle East. In a lengthy statement the editor-in-chief of Jyllands-Posten admitted that the 12 cartoons, one of which depicted Muhammad wearing a bomb-shaped turban, had caused “serious misunderstandings”. Carsten Juste said: “The 12 cartoons … were not intended to be offensive, nor were they at variance with Danish law, but they have indisputably offended many Muslims, for which we apologise.”

Guardian, 31 January 2006

Robert Spencer reports this under the headine “Danish newspaper caves to Muslim intimidation”.

Dhimmi Watch, 30 January 2006

And the fascists chime in with a report headed “Denmark on Islamic jihad list”. They suggest: “Perhaps this is just a taster of things to come, an opportunity for Muslims to test the backbone of western governments and opinion formers, a ‘recce’ mission to see just how far the Muslims have to push before the west gives way.”

BNP news release, 31 January 2006

‘The legacy of jihad’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

Jamie Glazov:  There are scholars and critics amongst us who argue that the terrorists have exploited and hijacked Islam to serve their own violent ends. In their view, Islamist terror is a perversion of the true Islam. What do you think?

Andrew Bostom:  This is ahistorical prattle, which unfortunately appears to have been accepted by President Bush and his key advisers…. Furthermore, in a recent speech President Bush insisted that the “ideology” of the most notable Muslim terrorists, who he maintained “distort the idea of jihad,” is “very different from the religion of Islam” and indeed “exploits Islam to serve a violent, political vision.” The President’s even more specific and assertive comments regarding jihad were a profound disappointment. Indeed, such words could have been written and uttered by the most uninformed, or deliberately disingenuous apologists for this devastating, and uniquely Islamic institution, well over a millennium old, and still wreaking havoc today.

Front Page Magazine, 30 January 2006

Religious hate bill changes urged

Posted on by Bob Pitt

A coalition of politicians, writers and artists is trying to persuade ministers to accept changes made by peers to the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill. The bill will return to the Commons on Tuesday after being substantially amended in the House of Lords.

BBC News, 30 January 2006

See also “Atkinson in last-gasp bid to bury religious hate bill”, Observer, 29 January 2006

Needless to say, these democrats are not worried about the clause in the government’s amendment that recognises the right to incite hatred against religion, which could strengthen the hand of the BNP. Rather, they support the Lords amendment that would restrict the offence of inciting religious hatred to “threatening” words and behaviour and would moreover require the prosecution to prove intent – which would, of course, destroy the possibility of ever securing a conviction.

How to become a ‘national treasure’

Posted on by Bob Pitt

OutrageA Guardian piece on Peter Tatchell quotes right-wing columnist Peter Hitchens paying tribute to him as “a man of great physical and moral courage, honesty and personal rectitude, superior in every way to the run of politicians”. It continues:

“Such praise must make a welcome change from what Tatchell endured in the past. First, there was the name-calling – ‘pervert’, ‘loony’ and ‘homosexual terrorist’. Then the death threats – he still sleeps with a fire extinguisher next to him in case of arson. And finally, the wholesale condemnation, in 1994, of Outrage!’s threat to out the Bishop of London. Tatchell then was ‘pernicious’ and ‘vile’, a ‘hysterical self-publicist’ and ‘hypocrite’, guilty of organising a ‘witch-hunt’. Rehabilitation began when Tatchell attempted a citizen’s arrest on Robert Mugabe. Suddenly, he was lauded as ‘a man of principle’ (the Daily Telegraph), who ‘may call himself a queer, but he’s got a real man’s courage’ (the Mail).”

And Tatchell appears to have drawn the obvious conclusions. If you’re a gay rights activist campaigning against the Anglican Church and other establishment targets, favourable coverage will be restricted to the liberal media. However, if you concentrate on attacking black Africans, Palestinian Arabs and, in particular, Muslims – the Tory press, who welcome such contributions to their own racist agenda, will treat you like a hero.