OK, I’ve come up with the brilliant plan to get rid of the Muslim threat to Europe, and it’s a whizzer. It is a continuation of my two previous posts, The Problem With Islam and The Forever Wars. If you haven’t read them, let me suggest that you do, as they contain the evidence for issues discussed or claimed below.
As we know, ISIS cuts the heads off of prisoners and burns them alive and chops off hands and feet and the like. I read a couple days ago that Marine Le Pen, a candidate for the French Prime Minister, is going to be prosecuted, not for cutting someone’s head off, but for the heinous crime of … showing pictures of what ISIS has done. Seems like the French authorities think the French people are not adult enough to look at such pictures.
As I discussed in “Forbidden Words“, this is cultural suicide. According to the European elite, Europe is not even rated PG-13, the US movie rating for a show you have to be thirteen years old to watch. I guess they’ve decided that the whole continent is rated “G” for “General”. Can’t show or say anything that is inappropriate for children.
Well, perhaps that is appropriate, given their childish attempts to stop people from saying anything that might be offensive to anyone anytime anywhere. Take France as the poster child for this. Here’s what you can’t say in public, from the usual font of misinformation:
Article 24 prohibits anyone from publicly inciting another to discriminate against, or to hate or to harm, a person or a group for belonging or not belonging, in fact or in fancy, to an ethnicity, a nation, a race, a religion, a sex, or a sexual orientation, or for having a handicap. The penalty for violating this prohibition is up to a year of imprisonment and a fine of up to €45,000, or either one of those, as well as the suspension of some civil rights in some cases.
But wait, it gets better. Not only can’t you say those things in public, you can’t say them in private either, viz:
France’s penal code forbids any private defamation of a person or group for belonging or not belonging, in fact or in fancy, to an ethnicity, a nation, a race, a religion, a sex, or a sexual orientation, or for having a handicap (Article R. 624-3). The penal code forbids any private insult toward a person or group for belonging or not belonging, in fact or in fancy, to an ethnicity, a nation, a race, a religion, a sex, or a sexual orientation, or for having a handicap (Article R. 624-4). The penal code forbids any private incitement to discrimination or to hatred or violence against a person or group for belonging or not belonging, in fact or in fancy, to an ethnicity, a nation, a race, a religion, a sex, or a sexual orientation, or for having a handicap (Article R. 625-7).[2]
OK, so in France you can’t publicly incite someone to discriminate against or hate some ethnicity, nation, race, religion, sex, or other protected group.
And even privately you can’t defame or insult one of those protected groups, or incite people to violence against a protected group.
Now, this is true for both speech and writing. Given all of that, what do you make of the following anti-Semitic statement?
“And for the evildoing of those of Jewry, we have forbidden them certain good things that were permitted to them …
Do I hear echoes of European history there? That sounds pretty much like hate speech, calling all Jews evildoers … How about this one?
If only the [Christians and Jews] had faith, it were best for them: among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors.
“Perverted transgressors?” Moi? I’m pretty sure my sorry corpus just got defamed or insulted, hard to tell which, probably both.
Now, I’m sure some folks have recognized these as quotations from the Koran. Let’s take what is perhaps the clearest example of hate speech in the Koran, the Apostate verse. This verse is the reason that Ayaan Hirsi Ali has to live with bodyguards. This verse is the reason that Muslims kill the Baha’i. This verse is why Salman Rushdie was sentenced to death. Here you go, roll the tape …
Qur’an 5:33—The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;
The Koran is telling people to do the very same brutal and bloody things that Marine Le Pen can’t even show photos of … how on earth is that not public hate speech and incitement to violence of the vilest kind?
So my plan would be that in every country in Europe, someone should bring a criminal case of the People vs. the Koran for hate speech. Might as well get some mileage out of those insane laws … and here’s the beauty part.
Don’t indict the Koran as a whole. Instead, identify the precise Suras (verses) of the Koran that have been quoted by Bin Laden and ISIS and such to justify their bestiality. Bring the case against just those specific verses. That way, you can prove that people are currently following that hate speech when they commit their crimes against humanity. This will distinguish dangerous hate speech from e.g. the Bible saying that people who wear cotton-wool blend socks should be killed … and yes, it does say that, go figure.
(The other good news is that people who wear cotton-wool blend socks are not a protected class, so that Bible verse is safe from the speech police … but I digress … )
Or how about indicting the Koran verse that says that Muslim men can beat their wives? The results of that particular bit of hate speech are visible around the planet. Seems like you’d start out with all the European women on your side if you brought that legal case.
Heck, since “sex” is a protected group you could bring up every verse that is used by Muslims to condemn women to second-class status. Those are all clearly hate speech under many European laws.
Now before you bring it up, I doubt very much that many European judges have the albondigas to actually rule against the patently obvious hate speech in the Koran.
But good heavens, think about the possibilities for publicity about these very pernicious verses! Think about the joy of watching the legal system twist and turn to avoid the obvious!
Given that there are a number of countries that have the same kind of “hate speech” laws that France has, and given that you can bring a separate suit for each offensive verse, consider how much sunlight could be brought to this ugly part of Islam.
Now, unlike many of my brilliant ideas, here’s the thing—this one could actually work. All that is needed are some lawyers willing to file such suits … anyone have ideas about who might be interested?
Sunshine today. Weeds in the garden beckon, my gorgeous ex-fiancee is fighting the green menace as I write, but the chair in the sun is calling too … believe I’ll just sit down for just a minute and think it over …
A marvelous world to all,
w.
Skating Under The Ice 
Willis, you are so right on this one: here is another example of “hate speech” http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/03/09/dan-savage-melania-trump-is-ugly-on-the-inside/
That should be prosecuted as well. I am afraid that this tactic by the left will tie up anyone that will try to start a lawsuit like you proposed ( and in many other areas as well) to completely ham string the Trump administration, Sad ,
oh we still have snow, so the weeds can wait although I have to start pruning my grapes and fruit trees soon.
LikeLike
asybot, all of this applies ONLY to Europe, because here in the US we have freedom of speech. Unlike Europe, there is no such thing here as “hate speech”, and I’m damn glad that is true.
w.
LikeLike
“Unlike Europe, there is no such thing here as “hate speech”
Give it time as the liberals are already working on this and if the next president is a Democrat, well……
I get the impression from news articles that hate speech in Europe primarily applies when it goes against Muslim “refugees” and other minorities. Don’t see it being applied as in this example and if someone tried it I’m sure that the laws would be modified pronto. Amazing how European politicians, probably because they live in such sheltered sanctuaries, don’t even recognize what is going to happen to them.
LikeLike
I was born (1945) in South London and am an indigenous Brit owning property there. I won’t go there anymore because I simply would not integrate. I live 250 miles away from that infestation and not far enough away from other such cities. I am wary of certain nationals from my 7 years in the M. East…they are on Trumps list largely plus a few others.
Apart from wishing the worst on those who promote PC, the BBC for one, I think our last chance to save ourselves from Europe and its baggage is Brexit. The main hope being that others in the EU follow…as naive as that might sound? Europe has caused us major problems on two earlier occasions. I dread the next because we may have both internal and external wars to fight…simultaneously pretty much!
Permanently positioning armed police and military on our streets and elsewhere tells it all. I’d like to say the EU doesn’t know its dead yet.
LikeLike
EU is now considering a “multi-speed Europe”. It has always been that way; rules are for small members only, when a big member (France, Germany) runs afoul of a rule, they get an exception or the rule (3% deficit) is canceled. Germany contributes to Greek pensions, and so does Slovakia whose pensions are half of Greek ones.
LikeLike
Colin: “I think our last chance to save ourselves from Europe and its baggage is Brexit.”
And it’s not even guaranteed yet because of the wrangling with unelected House of Lords:
“although the House of Commons passed it, the unelected House of Lords rewrote it to demand guarantees for EU citizens already living in Britain and a “meaningful vote” on the final deal.”
Looks like your upper “leadership” is a part of the “resistance” and that in addition to the grief that the EU will attempt to put on GB as punishment.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-12/what-comes-next-as-may-prepares-to-trigger-brexit-quicktake-q-a
LikeLike
Unfortunately, it is not true on American colleges campuses, which are dominated by the Left and its incessant campaigns of pandering to one class of ‘victims’ after another, by punishing ‘hate speech’. They may have no Constitutional grounds, but the old Soviet tactic of ‘re-education’ is alive and well there.
Your idea of turning victimization on its head by identifying specific Koranic verses as ‘hate speech’ is ingenious, and it might be interesting—even amusing—to try it on a few campuses. You’d probably get kicked off, or maybe just kicked. You’d certainly get the Islamic front groups, like CAIR, on your case.
David Horowitz’s organization is actively trying to counter the Islamicization (and anti-Semitism) on colleges, so they might be willing to give your idea a shot.
/Mr Lynn
LikeLike
A nice idea, after the two previous excellent articles. It seems to me that real defendants would be needed, so: imams and others who quote these verses in public; and publishers of the koran, perhaps (here the aim could be, not to censor, say, dear old Penguin Classics’ translation, but to require a strong disclaimer be included).
LikeLike
It will be difficult to find courageous plaintiffs, especially if they have to fund their own protection and lawyers. We need an organisation.
LikeLike
In the US, when we had the problem of the KKK, we didn’t ban their speech, we jailed them for their actions.
In Europe, they won’t do much of anything about actions, but think that banning speech solves the problem.
I can understand why this was attractive in Germany after WWII to try and kill of the Nazi groups, but history since then (in many parts of the world) has shown that banning speech isn’t a long-term solution. The Government isn’t powerful enough to really ban all speech on a topic (even the Soviet Union wasn’t powerful enough), the speech just goes underground.
It’s far better to have people speaking honestly than saying one thing (or remaining silent) while privately saying (or thinking) something else.
If you can talk about a subject, you have a chance of convincing someone they are wrong. If they get punished for talking about it to people who disagree with them, they end up only talking to an echo chamber where everyone agrees and reinforces their thinking.
LikeLiked by 1 person
An argument could be made for treatment of ANY Islamic to be the same as that of any KKK member or Nazi. Tolerance if they are law abiding, but certainly NOT deserving of any respect even by association. In debates with liberals some headway might be made with this type of comparison since they are such haters of those groups.
LikeLike
Anyone involved in bringing such a case would immediately have an Islamic state death sentence imposed on them and their families. And who would have the guts to try or prosecute such a case?
Of course the left who campaigned for these laws and then passed these laws would literally fight you on the streets and in the courts as well. I think the lawyers prosecuting such a case would also get sick and tired of moving house and home to try and protect themselves and their families.
Remember Bill Leak had to live a precarious existence in hiding for just drawing cartoons and many of the staff of “Charlie Hebdo” paid with their lives for just drawing cartoons. Again just think what would happen if you tried to prosecute offending parts of the true word of Allah in the courts. Remember how the gutless hypocrites later marched under the banner of “Je Suis Charlie”? What a load of sanctimonious BS.
LikeLike
ngard2016 March 11, 2017 at 10:43 pm
Hey, I posted my cartoons of Mohammed at the end of my first post on the subject, I’m doing my part. Somebody has to speak up. I’m just pointing out a way that we could determine which are the real Satanic verses … or at a minimum bring it to the forefront.
Thanks,
w.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Willis I respect you and your opinions, but you don’t have the profile of the Hebdo staff or Rushdie or a Bill Leak or Hirsi ali or her friend the murdered Dutch gay politician etc etc. All these people have suffered for their principles and at least 13 of that group have been killed by Muslim fanatics.
Trust me I don’t know the answer to this unique problem either, but I think a restriction on Muslims entering western countries would have to be a good first step.
LikeLike
ngard2016 March 11, 2017 at 11:49 pm
I published cartoons of Mohammed. Other people have advised me to be cautious, because anyone on this planet doing that is taking a risk. Cartoons of Mohammed have already caused a war involving hundreds of deaths. I am assuredly concerned for my well-being. I can assure you I thought long and hard before publishing them. However, I felt I had to do my part in this fight. The rest of my part in the fight against Muslim violence and intolerance are the posts that the cartoons accompany, working towards both understanding and lessening this longstanding fight between Islam and the West..
You, on the other hand, didn’t do a damn thing in opposition to the Islamic madness. You haven’t taken even the slightest chance. In addition to sitting on the sidelines in terms of actual actions, you don’t even have the albondigas to sign your real name to your words, you’re hiding under your bed afraid to identify yourself … and now you denigrate the actual risk I’ve taken because unlike some cartoonists, I haven’t “suffered for my principles”, and because unlike people that you obviously think highly of, I haven’t been “killed by Muslim fanatics”?
Really? I gotta get killed by some Islamic extremist before you’ll respect me? That’s your reason for dissing me?
You say “Trust me” … so far, I trust you to make me laugh.
However, if you want to start over and leave out the puerile insults, I’m more than happy to talk about ideas. It’s what I do.
Sadly but optimistically,
w.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Willis I’m sorry I’ve upset you so much. I didn’t intend to doubt your courage and I certainly don’t want you to suffer in any way for your opinions. I think I’ll leave it there for a while.
LikeLike
I don’t think ngard2016 intended any insults. As I read his comment, he was simply pointing out that as a cartoonist you don’t have the public prominence of others, so don’t automatically come to the attention of the Islamist fanatics. But even so, you’re more daring than I am.
/Mr Lynn
LikeLike
ngard2016 March 12, 2017 at 1:07 am
ngard, I appreciate your comment.
It took me a long time and much thought to screw up the courage to actually publish the 12 cartoons of Mohammed. Remember that the last time someone published 12 cartoons of Mohammed, it led to over 200 deaths. Tends to make a man a bit cautious.
So I was shocked by your comment.
I was serious, however, when I said that:
You are indeed more than welcome here, and thank you for coming back to straighten this all out. As my mom used to say, “It’s not whether you spill the milk that counts. It’s whether you clean it up”. You cleaned it up honorably and with both a good spirit and a good style, as a gentleman does.
Best wishes and thanks,
w.
L. E. Joiner March 12, 2017 at 9:29 am Edit
Thanks, Mr. Lynn. See my reply to him just above.
w.
LikeLike
@ Willis,
You can say anything you want, it’s a free country.
Just don’t say it while standing next to me 🙂
LikeLike
I may have missed it but what are the specific restrictions on depictions of Muhammed? I’d speculate that since depictions are prohibited that there are no accurate images. So no one really knows what he looked like?? If I take an image of Charlie Brown and label it Muhammed, Am I also guilty? (excepting violation of copywrite policy)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hirschi’s gay boyfriend? FYI: That would be Theo van Gogh – he was murdered by a islamic fanatic but he certainly was not gay. Maybe you are referring to Pim Fortuin. He was shot by an animal protection fanatic.
Who has already done his time and is running free again. And not because he has shown remorse by the way.
On the contrary.
LikeLike
I don’t think that you can prosecute the Koran, anymore than you can prosecute the Bible. But in Europe (and in Australia) you can prosecute anyone who offends or insults on the basis of race, religion. etc. But the politically correct only go after conservatives, never a minority group, except for Jews.
LikeLike
Thanks, Robber. If you can’t prosecute the Koran itself, surely you can prosecute the publishers of such hate speech …
w.
LikeLike
Some of the many feminists and social justice types that bailed out of the U. S. A. when Trump was elected must have landed in France. Where else?
They should certainly jump on this idea. They also likely have lots of money and, perhaps, even security and/or secure living quarters.
I feel you are a little behind the herd on this issue. Surely the lawyers will be filing the proper papers soon, if they have not already done so.
Okay, sorry — back to my tent.
LikeLike
Pingback: The Forever Wars | Skating Under The Ice
Been following your treatment of a sorely overlooked topic. I’m sure that no matter how hard you try to approach the subject matter, anything that’s said that is critical of the movement of Islam will not be welcomed.
Just look at the pantheon of pagan deities that Mohammed had to choose from: Bēl, Bēl-Šamīn, Abgal, Aglibol, Wadd, Yaghūth, and, of course, Allah. And those are just the male deities. So why choose Allah? Could it have anything to do with honoring his father, Abdallah, conjugated from Abd-Allah, or “Slave of Allah,” one of those pagan deities that were once worshipped in Arabia?
The only minor point I’d object to is to say that Islam is at war with the West; I think of it as being at war with civilization. Just project what would happen if their fantasy was realized and a worldwide caliphate was established. What would happen to so-called reasonable or moderate Muslims in places such as Singapore or Malaysia? Can one imagine their society left untouched by the caliphate’s drive for purity? Just picture a worldwide autocratic theocracy gradually crushing the spirit out of humanity, where the squalor of the medieval period would be the new norm.
LikeLike
Some in the UK are trying to have the Archbishop of Canterbury ( CEO of C of E) prosecuted for hate crime, after displaying ‘unfriendliness’ to Brexiteers and suggesting that they are populist fascists. Somehow I don’t thin all the police forces tracking down hate crime are going to follow the rules and accept third party accusations without evidence. They will only do so for anti-theotherside reports.
By the way, did you know that the bloke selling diesel trousers keeps popping up whenever bloggers try to scroll down?
Suggest you buy a bullet proof vest after all this logical honest opinion.
LikeLike
Well, when I was growing up in the 50s I well remember the pictures of the liberation of Belsen where they used bulldozers to ‘bury’ the poor souls killed by the N*zi regime. Unfortunately, these pictures were well after the event but we hoped it would prevent history being repeated. It might have helped if the obscenity of the concentration camps had been publicised earlier, and the French attitude (and that of many other western Governments) seems to be to ‘protect’ their populous from the horrors that is war – and especially those of ISIS. Sanitising those horrors is a sign of a lack of sanity.
LikeLike
Some thoughts from another anonymous and not very courageous guy:
– some of them mutilate their girls
– some of them treat women poorly under the shield of their ‘law’
– some of them come to us and profit from the protection of our law but don’t respect our law
This makes me angry. These are barbarians. They want to bring us back to the seventh century.
They probably never subscribed and kept to the Geneva Convention and don’t care about democracy or human rights.
I propose a one strike law.
Come here. You’re welcome. Integrate. Work. Show respect to women and gays, and atheists, whatever.
If ever you put your religion above our law, you and your family are sent back.
LikeLike
Heck I forgot to write about the no-go areas in european cities.
LikeLike
I think there’s a big problem with (the german word) ‘Sippenhaftung’ which dict.cc translates as ‘kin liability’:
I see a muslim women with a girl kid. I don’t know whether she endorses genital mutilation or not. I don’t know whether she endorses bombing her neighbours or not. But I don’t trust her.
That’s Sippenhaftung. A pity. I’m sorry, I’d have it differently but it’s out of my hands.
LikeLike
taz1999 March 15, 2017 at 11:05 am
There is no prohibition in the Koran of images of the Prophet, and in fact there are images from the early years. Back then nobody thought anything of it.
Somewhere in the following millennium or so, a prohibition emerged as a consensus. But it has no historical support.
As to labeling Charlie Brown as Mohammed … depends. But you’d be ill-advised to take an image of Snoopy and label it Mohammed, because Snoopy is a dog, and dogs are unclean to Moslems. So doing that would be the same as calling the Prophet a dog … an act which is not conducive to a long lifespan in Islamic countries.
w.
LikeLike
Pingback: Bright Line Distinctions | Skating Under The Ice
This is OT but pertinent to the discussion. The recent activity of the Turkish President wanting to have political rallies of Turks in Holland and other places seems to indicate that these people did not emigrate from Turkey to become part of Europe – they have colonised Europe.
LikeLike
Thank, Old Woman. Sadly, that’s far too common. They want to move there not because they like it but because they’d like to change it.
w.
LikeLike
I think they already have, Willis. Whether is it beyond repair is another question.
LikeLike
Pingback: The UN Condemns Freedom of Speech | Skating Under The Ice
Pingback: Trademarked Hate Speech | Skating Under The Ice
Pingback: Can The Truth Be “Racist”? | Skating Under The Ice
Pingback: An Open Letter To @elonmusk | Skating Under The Ice