Thursday, 13 September 2012

Comment is Free: if only. There's something specially repellent about leftists boasting of their commitment to free speech while practising its restriction or demanding its abolition, like the dhimmis at Harry's Place boldly proclaiming "Liberty, if it means anything, is the right to tell people what they don't want to hear" on their masthead while pre-moderating and deleting comments that step too far outside the parameters of approved thought. I suppose it must be the same psychological impulse that led all those Communist-led countries in Eastern Europe to include the word "Democratic" in their country's official name.
I have just watched a YouTube video of clips from a film which, it is claimed, provoked the attack on the American embassy in Libya. It is impossible to completely authenticate them at this stage, or exclude the possibility the clips could have been doctored in some way by the uploaders. However, we do know that the film has been linked to riots in Egypt and the attack in Benghazi in which four embassy staff, including the ambassador, were killed. It's a really nasty piece of lying propaganda: something which deserves to be called hate speech, since hatred is its wellspring and the propagation of hatred is its goal.

It is – obviously – blasphemous to Muslims. Less obviously, it offends against the central values of liberal democracy. The justification of free speech put forward by John Stuart Mill is that the remedy for bad speech is better speech. But this presupposes an interest in truth, and perhaps some agreed means of deciding on it. It's a system that breaks down when confronted with determined and malevolent liars.
Source: Guardian

The author is the same Andrew Brown who once compared the terrorist Anwar Al-Awlaki to anti-jihad activist Robert Spencer, as if practising murderous jihad and merely describing it were morally equivalent.

Note he uses the word "lying" or its cognates several times, without specifying what the lies supposedly are. Presumably, he means that some of the details of Mohammed's life are lies, but so little is known for certain about Mohammed's life (including whether or not he ever had one or is simply a fictional character) that there is no solid basis on which anyone could confidently say that any specific claim about Mohammed's life was a lie. Brown himself seems woefully ignorant about even the basic elements of the traditional Muslim biography of Mohammed as he apparently fails to recognise the woman, Khadija, who is portrayed in the film, as Mohammed's first wife, describing her only as "an older woman".
The film portrays Muhammad as a pathetic fraud, a child molester. He is an unwanted bastard at birth, and only gains his self-confidence after an older woman summons the cringing young man to her tent and pushes his head under her skirts where he nuzzles her crotch. When he emerges, he has seen visions.

Of course, by even making this demand in response to a jihad attack, Brown will only strengthen in the minds of Muslims the conviction that jihad gets results. Murder some people in the name of Islam and obliging leftists will then attempt to create an environment that is more favourable to Islam's continued fruition - or should that be Islam's continued putrefaction?


Anne said...

Actually, we know now that the Libyan attack was pre-planned, more related to freeing the Blind Sheikh than any YouTube vid. I'm not even sure about the Egyptian one anymore. Funny they were both on 9/11.

Hamid said...

Exactly which sections of the film trailer did not actually parallel realities of Islam and Mohammed???

Blog Archive

Powered by Blogger.

Blog Archive

Total Pageviews