Now who is being offensive?

The cartoon image on the left comes from Al Ahram, an Egyptian newspaper, which published this on 21 April 2001, though not in its English language edition.

.

The cartoon image on the right is from Arab News, of Saudi Arabia, published 10 April 2002. Interestingly, opinions supporting freedom of speech against Islam are absent in both papers.
.
This and other images depicting Jews, Americans or the west as being murderous, carrying out the 9/11 attacks and part of some insane conspiracy are a matter of course across the Arab world. Not only are these undoubtedly offensive to those portrayed, but are blood thirsty with violence – something that is comparatively rare in western newspapers. There are plenty more here and here.
.
So continuing that theme and following on from the protests and condemnations of governments of some predominantly Muslim countries, we now have armed thugs (Islamic Jihad and the Yasser Arafat brigades) surrounding EU offices in Gaza demanding apologies from the governments of Denmark, Norway, Germany and France, about the comic strips satirising Islam published in newspapers in their respective countries. They are threatening to attack civilians from those countries in Gaza if there are not official apologies.
.
Evil fuckers.
.
How dare they believe that the actions of privately owned newspapers are the business of the government or that doing violence to people who happen to come from the same place, is somehow a just reaction to being offended? Well, look at September 11 – that is how they believe it.
.
So are there double standards here? Not by the West – Christianity is satirised constantly in Western press, music and television. The BBC comedy Father Ted being one example, where priests are depicted as being incompetent, really stupid or drunk and lecherous.
.
The hypocrisy lies with the Muslim Arab world in particular which tolerates the depictions seen above - but then again, with total state control over media and education, any lies or slander about the rest of the world has little chance to be challenged.

.
EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson said that any trade sanctions against Denmark must be considered as sanctions against the whole EU, and that action will be taken at the WTO if WTO member states impose such restrictions. However, many of the states protesting are not WTO members, such as Saudi Arabia and Syria – they don’t have the rule of law to achieve membership, but others such as Indonesia and Malaysia do.
.
Charles Bremner, Paris Correspondent for The Times congratulates France Soir for having the balls to print all 12 of the Danish cartoons across two pages.

.
The online edition of the Spectator is publishing one of the images, but none of the British newspapers has the courage to do so, although plenty Daily Telegraph readers are encouraging it – you can understand the Telegraph’s editor wondering whether it is worth risking the lives of his staff for it, given London remains a high profile terrorist target. New Zealand newspapers have far less to fear, and I hope one prints them. In fact, I dare the NZ Herald, Dominion Post, the Press and the ODT to print them all.
.
The editor of the Danish Jyllands-Posten, Carsten Juste, apologised for the offence caused but is not saying sorry for the publication. “the dark dictatorships have won” he said.
.
No they have not.
.
The final words are an extract from France Soir, published in the Guardian. Don't let anyone tell you that French people can lack courage when their freedoms are fundamentally under attack.
.
“It is necessary to crush once again the infamous thing, as Voltaire liked to say. This religious intolerance that accepts no mockery, no satire, no ridicule. We citizens of secular and democratic societies are summoned to condemn a dozen caricatures judged offensive to Islam. Summoned by who? By the Muslim Brotherhood, by Syria, the Islamic Jihad, the interior ministers of Arab countries, the Islamic Conferences - all paragons of tolerance, humanism and democracy.
.
So, we must apologise to them because the freedom of expression they refuse, day after day, to each of their citizens, faithful or militant, is exercised in a society that is not subject to their iron rule. It's the world upside down. No, we will never apologise for being free to speak, to think and to believe.

.
Because these self-proclaimed doctors of law have made this a point of principle, we have to be firm. They can claim whatever they like but we have the right to caricature Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha, Yahve and all forms of theism. It's called freedom of expression in a secular country ...

.
For centuries the Catholic church was little better than this fanaticism. But the French Revolution solved that, rendering to God that which came from him and to Caesar what was due to him.”

.

Now it is time for the Muslim world which is so outraged personally to stop for a second, and instead of looking at themselves, shut up, listen and learn four points:

.

1. We in the West are not all Christians and most of us couldn't care less what religion you follow. It is your business, why not let whether or not we follow Islam (or any religion) be our business. With the exception of a minority of nutters, we don't want to convert you.

.

2. We in the West have limited the power of governments to regulate what is published in newspapers, since they are almost always privately owned and anyone can set up their own newspaper or magazine to spread the ideas they wish. Our governments have not got the power to interfere in the publication of a newspaper or the lives of our citizens unless laws have been passed, by democratically elected parliaments, to allow it. Politicians are subservient to the law - something that most of your societies do not yet have, where Kings and Presidents have unlimited powers.

.

3. We in the West do not fear Islam. Unlike your societies where Islam is taught from birth, and schools, media and publishing do not contradict it - ours lets people choose their religion or not to have a religion. Yes there are social problems involving crime and poverty, but you are not without those yourself - on average, people in our societies have higher standards of living and more ability to live life and be happy than those in yours. You may find a lot of it offensive, but you have no more right to tell others what to do, that we have to tell you. Ask yourself why you fear your religion being challenged - if you have been convinced of the wisdom and justice of Islam, why do you think that alternative views could change that? Are your arguments strong enough to stand scrutiny? Surely they must be!

.

4. We in the West get offended all the time, by different religions, politicians, businesses, individuals, and we do not resort to violence to respond to it. We have learnt that there is no right to not be offended. Many of us are offended by your traditions, and the stories and images portraying Europeans, Americans and Israelis in your media. We wont threaten violence against Muslims in our countries because your newspapers print such images, so why should you? Why are you so ready to use violence instead of engage in discussion?

.

I am so sick of religion - it IS the root of so much evil.

Abandon Saddam's trial - execute him

Elan Journo of the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) has proposed that Saddam's trial be scrapped, because it is manifestly injust.

.

His arguments are that Saddam is not like any private citizen, who has the right to be presumed innocent and for whom culpability for crimes should be proven objectively by a court. Saddam was a dictator, who was responsible for the tens of thousands of murders perpetrated by the regime he led - a regime that did not have the consent of the governed and granted no rights to them. Presuming him innocent is absurd, since he is indisputably guilty.

.

He also claims that the court is farcical, by giving Hussein a stage to condemn his political enemies, the USA and to encourage terrorist insurgency.

.

Journo suggests there be a public hearing to document the evil acts of his regime, and then he be summarily executed.

.

He also argues that the existing court is not much better than courts under Hussein's regime. Only members of Saddam's tribe were seen fit to judge him "Whatever the tribal group feels is just--regardless of evidence or logic--is just. A trial conducted on this premise is a repudiation of justice asan objective principle."

.

He is right - in fact a better (though not ideal) model for this is Romania, where the crimes of Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu were clear - and they were executed after a brief trial, when their crimes were outlined. Having been disposed of appropriately, Romanians could start picking up the pieces of their country.

.

Saddam Hussein is responsible for waging war against his own people, against Iran and Kuwait, and murdering and torturing political opponents. He is responsible for running a totalitarian dictatorship that ran roughshod over the rights of his citizens.

.

I oppose the death penalty - because I do not believe the state has the right to kill civilians when convicted of crimes - and because the state getting that wrong is a far greater evil than it letting the guilty go free.

.

Saddam Hussein is not a private citizen, he was a ruthless tyrant. There will never be any question of his guilt and the atrocities he is responsible for. He lost the right to live when he ran a state committed to brutal thuggery.

.

The United States should not support this trial and withdraw any assistance it has provided to it - no man with any sense of honour should be defending this thug.

.

Saddam should be executed, following a public hearing of evidence of those who were witness to the crimes of the regime - that deserves publicity and a reminder of the evil that has been overthrown.

Iraqi chemical weapons shipped to Syria before war?

Hat tip to Teenage Pundit for linking to an article at the New York Sun where former Iraqi general Georges Sada claims that Iraqi chemical weapons were flown to Syria in advance of the coalition invasion. His book “Saddam’s Secrets” makes the claim and he says that they need to be found. Syria did not sign the Chemical Weapon’s Convention, and has long been suspected of having chemical weapons.
.
The CIA has been unable to verify these claims, but they could explain why nothing was found in Iraq after the invasion. Iraq had chemical weapons, it used them at least twice, it was unlikely to have destroyed them. Both Iraq and Syria have been ruled by Baathist Party regimes, although they were not always allied – Hafez El Assad (former Syrian dictator) was no friend of Saddam.
.
Of course that, plus President George Bush’s declaration that the US is addicted to oil and needs to find alternatives to Middle East sourced oil (including biofuels and hydrogen), wont dent the left’s conspiracy theories that the Iraqi war was just to bolster the oil industry.

Insulting religions is a right

Yes it is.

.

Islam (Shia, Sunni), Judaism (Orthodox, Hasidic, Conservative, Reform, Karaite), Christianity (Orthodox, Catholic, Presbyterian, Anglican, Evangelical, Baptist, Methodist, Seventh Day Adventist), Hinduism, Shintoism and all other worshipping of the supernatural is the denial of the mind and offensive to me - and anyone of any faith who wants to persecute me because I am an atheist can get fucked - and I will use all reasonable means to defend myself against it.

.

The Koran, Bible, Torah, Shruti and other religious texts are books to me - stories, with no spiritual status. I have the freedom to burn them if I desire or throw them away in the rubbish. Fundamentalist Islam and the brainless drones that worshop Brian Tamaki are the same - much like the this-wordly religions of political fanatacism that Hitler, Stalin, Mao and others cultivated.

.

So go on, declare a fatwa on me.

.

Meanwhile, the House of Lords is earning its keep defending these freedoms. First it defeated the ID card bill, by insisting that it be explicitly voluntary. Now it has referred the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill back to the House of Commons, after removing the element that would have prohibited “insulting or abusive” speech against religions, and inserting “intent” as a critical part of offences under the Bill. What the Bill intends to do is to prohibit the spreading of hatred against religions, with the emphasis being to target Muslims and Christians who incite holy war against each other. In fact, a coalition of comedians, Christians, Muslims, libertarians, humanists and other atheists have been opposing the Bill.
.
Of course the Bill should be defeated. There is no right to “not be offended”. I find Islam and Christianity both quite offensive, and freedom of speech demands that you have the right to criticise or blaspheme against them. I think the world would be a better place without either religion, but that does not mean I want to do violence against those who believe or spread the beliefs. Far from it. I want to convince people that believing in ghosts who you should sacrifice your life to is at best a waste of time and energy, and at worst is self destructive, destructive to others and delusional. The age of persecuting people because of what they think of your religion belongs in the dark ages.
.
It is also encouraging that blogs on the right (Sir Humphreys and DPF) and left (No Right Turn) have both celebrated this. Like I have said before, I like Tony Blair a lot, but the insidious political correctness and willingness to override civil liberties short sightedly is a major drawback. Fortunately David Davis has confirmed the Tories opposed this move – though I wonder how much the Conservative party opposed it because it was a Labour bill, rather than any solid commitment to freedom – but it is at least a start.
.
An example is the dispute caused by the Danish newspaper which was blogged by DPF. The newspaper – Morgenavisen Jyllands- Posten - published cartoons depicting Muslim men wearing bombs instead of turbans. See them all here, and the response from the newspaper (in English) to criticism and the jihad placed upon them. One could hardly find a better example of the “Clash of Civilisations” predicted by Samuel Huntington in the early 1990s. Western liberal constitutional democracy vs. Islamic authoritarian theocracy.
.
Ambassadors and Foreign Ministers from predominantly Islamic countries have called for the Danish government to act against the newspaper. None of them understand that in the free world, governments do not censor on command, nor do they have the legal powers to do so. Constitutional democracies in western Europe have limits on the power of the executive and parliament – limits that leaders in Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan do not have.
.
It was also reported that in Belgium, a young Muslim immigrant published a poster of the Virgin Mary with naked breasts seen here, as promotion for a play . However, will Muslims see that in a predominantly Christian nation, this is not only allowed, but was even subsidised by the state (which, of course, I would oppose - Muslims shouldn't fund what is offensive to them through the state). The treatment of the Danish newspaper is akin to that of the Dutch artist who was murdered for publishing photos of naked women with words from the Koran on their backs, reported in the earlier story.
.
It is one thing to be offended, another thing to call for a boycott of a newspaper, but to boycott all of the goods from a country where a newspaper is published and demand that the government of that country do something – when it has no legal powers to act, and when doing so would be grossly offensive to THAT country’s way of life and culture, shows a primitive attitude to people, nations and culture. The newspaper is responsible, Danes are not, many Danes do not buy the newspaper, and the government has nothing to do with it. Government in Denmark does not control every aspect of your life, and does not have the power to do so – individual Danes act on their own volition, not as an amorphous unified whole. This is why far more people from the Middle East emigrate to western Europe than vice versa and why the standard of living in western Europe is higher than in the theocracies complaining about the cartoon. People in the west can be creative, productive, innovative and be free, without some mullah overseeing whether it is offensive or not.
.
More importantly, the violent reaction by a minority of Muslims (and the acquiescence by more) to anything which offends their religion is stone age barbarity – where there is no argument, just the gun. The use of violence to respond to an insult is the tool of the uncivilised thug.
.
Danes should remain defiant – what that newspaper is doing is fighting for the freedoms we all have to criticise religions. A freedom that much of the Islamic world does not have – because Islam’s defenders fear it. They fear reason, they fear the debate, the moral critique which comes from responding to other beliefs with talk and reason, not threats and bombs.
.
A clear message has to be given to Muslims and governments from Islamic countries – there is another way of looking at the world – one where there is a right to freedom of speech, including freedom to offend. Many of your traditions are offensive to us – we find your treatment of women to be degrading, treating them as less than men, and we find your intolerance of different points of view and different forms of cultural expression to be insulting to our intelligence.
.
Either the Islamic world catches up with the enlightenment and looks in on itself, or it will get offended time and time again – and if any Muslims take the law into their own hands in western countries, they can expect the consequences.

.

By the way, check out Ask the Imam website, with its proclamations of what is legal under Islam - don't be plucking those eyebrows now girls!

UPDATE: and good on The Whig for publishing these blasphemous images. I wonder if the Iranian Embassy will be asking Winston Peters as Minister of Foreign Affairs to act against the blog.

The End of Celebrity Big Brother UK

I am SOO bloody thrilled that George “I miss the USSR” Galloway got booted from Celebrity Big Brother here in the UK on Wednesday night. So did Dennis Rodman, although that is probably more because he blew up at Chantelle – the dizzy blonde Essex girl who I think will end up winning.

So the final is tonight, and in penance for my sin in watching such tripe, I wont be watching any TV after Saturday – as I am moving flats this weekend, from a furnished flat to an unfurnished bigger one with my girlfriend. As a result, I wont have a TV till the one I have ordered appears next weekend.

So, for Big Brother those that are left are:

Michael Barrymore: A rather sad and wornout man, who is obsessive about cleaning, cooking and keeping busy. He blows up about control over cigarettes, but generally has a heart of gold. You can see why he fled to NZ, and the British tabloid media will have another fieldday with him. He wont win, unless there are more older British viewers than I think.

Traci Bingham: Known for being a Baywatch babe, she studied psychology at Harvard, though it is unclear whether she graduated. She has been notable mainly for her Californian expressions of “loving” this and that, and “oh wow”, and for having big tits. She wont win because she is American.

Samuel Preston: Lead Singer of the band “Ordinary Boys”, who has come across as the young pretty nice guy. He hasn’t shown much else, other than defending Barrymore from an attack by Galloway, and his pent up sexual frustration with Chantelle. That is the main issue, as apparently his French girlfriend outside the Big Brother house is less than amused by him fondling Chantelle’s bum in the house. Having said that, he has a fair chance of winning – girls like him.

Maggot: A Welsh “hip hop artist” from the band “Goldie Lookin’ Chain” which is a piss take of gangsta rap – which is a good thing, since gangsta rap (or Negro chanting as Bob Jones calls it) is not music, but basically inane rhythmic poetry at best. Maggot isn’t the best looking guy, so he wont win, but he is largely a nice guy.

Pete Burns: Dead or Alive’s diva, who showed himself to be the bitchiest in the room, but also the person who was very WYSIWYG. You know where you stood with him, and he would get angry and then get over it. His appearance is notable for involving much cosmetic surgery, including lip enhancement which has gone horribly wrong (and which he is suing for), but also dressing rather spectacularly (and explicitly). Skirt which show half his bum cheeks off have been common. He claims to not be a transvestite nor transsexual, but that he simply likes wearing the clothes he wears – and that nobody criticises women for wearing trousers and shirts. He has been a polarising figure – many hate him for his cruel comments to many in the house, and for his possession of a monkey skin coat, others find him hilariously entertaining. There have been allusions to him having a beastly childhood, which could explain his character and nature, but he is definitely a star in his own right.

Chantelle Houghton (see pic): She describes herself as a bright (as in happy not intelligent), blonde bimbo. A Paris Hilton lookalike (largely by accident), she came across as being not very bright, but sweet and naïve. She acts very young, has the naivety of a girl ten years younger than herself, and is genuinely polite and thoughtful. She backed off Preston when it was clear he was worried about what his girlfriend would think, and she is the clear favourite to win. She is not famous for anything except this show – a nonebrity – she can’t sing, she can’t do anything besides look like Paris Hilton and say very ditzy things. Classic phrases like “what’s a gynaecologist”, “are you from Dundee” (to Maggot who is Welsh) .

So that is that – my money is on Chantelle to win. Britain loved Jade Goody, another nobody from Big Brother. A woman who has made a fortune being common, speaking explicitly and being ignorant (she once said “I thought Portugal was in Spain”). They will love Chantelle, she doesn’t make them feel stupid, she hasn’t done much – which most locals will relate to – and she is pretty and sweet, and not arrogant about it, which is hard to find unpleasant. She is sweet, but she isn’t special. She will make a small fortune out of doing nothing – that is way of culture today.

Those in NZ who care who wins can read it on the UK Channel 4 website.