Friday, January 04, 2008

First They Came for the English Bloggers

I have said a number of times that what I do here would be illegal in some countries in Europe, and that a European citizen doing what I do can be arrested there.

Britain is such a country. Its recent laws concerning the incitement of racial and religious hatred have made illegal much of what is published in the Counterjihad blogosphere.

And now the first British blogger is about to face the Multicultural perp-walk.

Lionheart is a well-known patriotic blogger in England, and is on our blogroll. He is currently outside the UK, and has been informed that he will be arrested for stirring up racial hatred as soon as he returns home.

Here’s what he has to say about it:

The cultural weapon in the hands of the modern Jihad within Great Britain, silencing the opposition using our own laws against us — The Dumb Filthy Kaffir’s as the Moslem would say to his children behind closed doors.

What has become of my homeland, the land my forefathers fought and died for on the battlefields of the world when one of their children is forced into the position of facing years in prison for standing up for what is right and just within British society.

At least my words of truth have obviously now reached people’s eyes and ears, with the powers that be now intent on silencing me — Third World Tyranny in a supposed 21st Century democracy!
- - - - - - - - -
[…]

Who have I killed, who have I threatened to kill? No one, all I have done is written about my reality on a computer screen, and now I face going to prison in my own country for standing up for myself and others.

What has happened to those who threatened my life or who have killed my friends — NOTHING — This is British justice in the 21st Century — Shove your British Labour justice because it is worthless to the Englishman whose country this is, whose country you have destroyed.

Keep an eye on Lionheart’s blog, because he will be posting there concerning the progress of his case. If you’re a blogger, please post about this to help give him as much publicity as possible.

Writing letters to Her Majesty’s ambassadors might be a good idea. I’m going to look for a comprehensive list of contact emails, phone numbers, fax numbers, and addresses.

Britain’s anti-incitement laws are well-harmonized with the Framework Decision, which means that the rest of the “provinces” of the EU will have the same laws on the books when the Lisbon Treaty goes into effect and the legal systems are standardized.

This is just the beginning.

And don’t think that the United States is immune. There are people working diligently right now to get laws through Congress which are almost identical in wording to those used by the EU.

The First Amendment has become all but meaningless in the last two decades. We are at the mercy of nine old men in black robes who sit in summary judgment on our freedoms.

The election of a Democrat as President along with a Democrat Congress could topple freedom of speech here as surely as it has been toppled in England.


Hat tip: JEH.

97 comments:

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

That, my friends, is real fascism. Not some bogeyman, some imagined threat, but a real, genuine fascism that distracted the world with scary stories about phantom nazis while it inserted itself into the political infrastructures of europe. The worst part is, we believed it. Every last word. The obsession with the nazi past and the bogus threat of neo-nazis blinded us to the threat we faced. In the last decade any voice raised against the rise of the EU was met with cries of "we bring peace!" as the EU claimed to have prevented a return to the "petty nationalism" of the early 20th century, as if mere national confidence were enough to start wars.

Of course the atrocities of the past have to be studied so we can learn not to do them again. As many have said through the ages, ignore the past and you doom yourself to repeat it... but, by the same token, it is impossible to prevent others repeating that past if you are not looking at the present too. The dictum meant us to glance over our shoulder at what came before and make note of it, not that we should walk backwards.

Sodra Djavul said...

And of course, little or no interest over at the "counter-jihad" blog LGF.

Asleep at the switch, or busy high-fiving CJ to actually understand that these European fascists they've made their bed with have completely fooled them.

Of course, I'm sure Oyvind Strommen, now a registered LGF contributor, approves of this threat of incarceration.

How pathetic.

Well, I intend to fight even if they don't. I'm writing the British ambassador this weekend. Maybe not much else I can do, but still...

- Sodra

paul a'barge said...

England has never had Freedom of Speech.

Also, things are no where near as bad here in the USA. I would remind you that nothing is quite as unattractive as hysteria.

Also, we're not going to crumble if the worst happens and DHIMMIcRATs sweep the elections. If that happens, your worries about our economy will overshadow any First Amendment concerns.

cf said...

Yes, you hurt your argument terribly by the hysterical comments about the First Amendment at the end.

Homophobic Horse said...

Well, this is it.

An aphorism: "In a socialist society facts are not permitted. Facts havea certain value and can make people unequal. For that reason there shall be no facts."

David M said...

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 01/04/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

xlbrl said...

The shows true enemy is liberalism, not Islam. Thomas Paine, who knew Islam very well, explained to us that evils, like poisons, have their uses, and there are diseases which no other remedy can reach. Islam reveals the great damage we have done to ourselves through liberalism.

Baron Bodissey said...

Paul and cf --

You are quite right that things are not as bad here. But 10 years ago in the UK free speech was not that different than it was in the USA. Things can change very quickly.

What is dangerous here is the utter disregard for the Constitution, which now means what the nine old men in DC say it means. For example, I refer you to Kelo,or campaign finance laws, or affirmative action laws (now renewed with a 25-year sunset, thanks to our friend Sandra Day O'Connor), or the abortion decisions. The justices have twisted the Constitution into a pretzel to ram these things through.

If Scalia were to die next January and Hillary were to appoint his successor, "hate speech" restrictions might well pass constitutional muster. Conyers and CAIR have been working on them for several years.

This is not an absolutely insane fancy; it's quite possible.

Which is what I meant in my post.

And the Republicans are only a hair's breadth better. Consider McCain on the First Amendment or Giuliani on the Second.

We are no longer a nation under the rule of law. This has been true at least since Lyndon's time, and probably all the way back to FDR.

We are ruled by a presbyter of judges, and their feelings determine the outline of our liberties.

Annoymouse said...

This stems from the perverted issue of so called ‘hate crimes’. Violent crimes for the history of mankind has been the outward expression of hatred. One does not murder and rape that which they love. The problem is is that it has evolved into a get whitey law. It is what it has always meant for, to stop white hatred and white identity and isolationism. Look at the Jena 6. Hate crimes can only be committed by Caucasians and people of color or of foreign origin, especially the third world. None can be considered racists by this, the largest hate group in the world, western liberalism.

Take Mark Steyn, he is being persecuted for his comments against the jihadists and what is ironic, his most intemperate remarks are those that quote directly Imams and other Muslim leaders. National Review Online has taken up this cause with great ferocity.

“First they came for the redneck trolls, and I did not speak out because I was not a redneck troll. Then they came for the male chauvinist pigs, and I did not speak out because I was not a male chauvinist pig. Then they came for Mark Steyn, and I did not speak out because I was not Mark Steyn...”

Gabriel Hanna said...

And of course, little or no interest over at the "counter-jihad" blog LGF.

Asleep at the switch, or busy high-fiving CJ to actually understand that these European fascists they've made their bed with have completely fooled them.

Of course, I'm sure Oyvind Strommen, now a registered LGF contributor, approves of this threat of incarceration.


Both neo-Nazis and nanny-state socialists can be against free speech. We've already seen what Nazis do.

Oyvind Strommen is dead on about Vlaams Blok. That doesn't have anything to do with Lionheart.

Annoymouse said...

There are commercial forms of attacks on free speech as well. The web content filtering software Websense filters out the Gates of Vienna but not MoveOn.org. Go figure.

Sodra Djavul said...

Both neo-Nazis and nanny-state socialists can be against free speech. We've already seen what Nazis do.

Oyvind Strommen is dead on about Vlaams Blok. That doesn't have anything to do with Lionheart.


Simply claiming someone is a Nazi does not a Nazi make. Oyvind Strommen is absolutely wrong about the Vlaams issue, as he is about a number of other issues. He is about as diametrically opposed to the counter-jihadi cause as one can be, and he is still regarded with honor simply because he tows CJ's party line.

And of course it has everything to do with Lionheart. Oyvind Strommen and his ilk would see the same censorship applied to their political opposites as this EU law is now doing to Lionheart.

Just ask him if the political party should be banned.

That speaks volumes.

- Sodra

Annoymouse said...

I posit that the very concept of a hate crime embodied in law is an abrogation of the 1st amendment. If I am bludgeoning someone to death, does it matter that I call them a nappy hedded ho in the process? Everything else can be considered violence or the destruction of property.

Ed Mahmoud said...

No, we still have the First Amendment. But if Hillary Stalin-Clinton wins this year, and takes office next year, she will probably have an even larger Congressional Demonratic majority. Combined with the Republicans who are weak on conservative/constitutional principals, like the author of the McCain-Feingold act, the two women senators from Maine, well, a President Clinton will have a near filibuster proof majority in the Senate.


Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Anthony Kennedy have already expressed an opinion that international law and precedent should be used to adjudicate SCOTUS decisions. Ginsburg was the chief abortion rights litigator with the ACLU, a communist front organization set up to use our own Constitution to destroy this country as a capitalist constitutional democratic republic. More ACLU lawyers would probably be nominated and confirmed to the SCOTUS. Hillary and Congress would then be free to pass unconstitutional laws, and if they have a majority of fellow travellers on the Court, unconstitutional laws will be ruled constitutional.

Hillary will almost certainly want to shut down conservative talk radio, as it provides an alternative to the liberal leaning newspapers and televison news reporting. Blogs could be next.


I hope that the American people will be smart enough to reject Hillary or Obama, because if the Demonrat Party, now an ideological descendant of the Soviet Communist Party through Henry Wallace and the unsuccessful 'Progressive Party' split in 1948, and later through Progressive Party volunteer George McGovern taking control of the party machinery in 1972, gain control of all three branches of the Federal government this country will be in serious trouble.

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

England has never had Freedom of Speech.

Either you are foreign and don't know, or you are a product of the comprehensive education system. Either way I can't precisely fault you for saying what is perhaps one of the most ignorant statements I have heard all year, but I do want to correct you.

We do have freedom of speech. Our freedom of speech was guaranteed along with all our other rights by Magna Carta, which required the monarchy to respect the ancient freedoms of the pre-existent anglo-saxon polity. The Bill of Rights set this freedom in stone. NEither of these facts are tought in schools. The constitutional documents of the United Kingdom have been suppressed for over a century, with the constant refrain that we have an "unwritten constitution", or that we have an "institutional" government, both of which are frankly a load of tosh. What we don't have is a document calling itself a constitution; we still have constitutional documents.

Freedom of speech, the right to bear weapons and the freedom to move anywhere within the Kingdom without interference by agents of the king are our guaranteed rights, confirmed in multiple treaties between the monarchy and the people, but they have all been overridden and ignored by successive governments because the people have not even heard about them, or the documents that guarantee them, for the last century.

Annoymouse said...

The elites believe that they can control the beast. All they need is a little time. They will coddle them to their bosom and protect them from those horrible men. They have learned to protect the weak from those horrible men and eventually, the children of the beasts, weaned from the government teat will sit on the lap of their mothers, the nanny state, and together they will rule by force of numbers and those horrible men will breed no more. In this way Hispanic Catholics will share cause with secular elite for the purpose of building the socialist state. Muslim fascists will play their part as well. It is necessary to break a few eggs to make an omelet.

Ed Mahmoud said...

Why the dig at the Catholic church? The Right Reverend Rowan Williams is a far bigger toady to Islam, than almost any other Christian leader.

How dare those power hungry fools seek to silence me or anyone else like me from speaking the truth for the sake of our children, grandchildren and the future of our homeland, who do they think they are, they are nothing more than mere men like the rest of us, just in positions of power over us that they totally abuse against us, look at the treason that has happened within Brussels by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, handing over the Sovereignty of our Nation into foreign hands - Treason is the only word for it yet no one is arresting them, no they are arresting me for writing a few words of truth on a blog.

You cannot hide from you actions within the Catholic Church.

Ed Mahmoud said...

Annoymouse- The Hispanic Catholics who came to this country fleeing Communism, like the Cubans, and many of the multi-generational ones who have found a middle class existence, don't vote Democrat automatically. Of course, illegals, who don't respect our laws, will tend to gravitate to the party offering the biggest handout.


El Paso County in Texas, 90% Hispanic, went for George W Bush when he ran for re-election as governor of Texas.



They are very much like the blacks, who also have leaders who are more concerned with their personal enrichment and power than the well being of the people they purport to represent.

Annoymouse said...

Ed

I am not digging on the Catholic Church in any way. I do find it ironic that here in America that the secular/atheistic liberals are inviting all of Latin America to the USA who are predominately practicing, breeding Roman Catholics. As a Christian I have more kinship with Catholics than devoted atheist socialists but that it the nature of this conflict of civilizations. Find a common cause from without your country and use that power to reinforce your sides argument. Divide and conquer.

Ed Mahmoud said...

THE head of the worldwide Anglican Church, the archbishop of Canterbury, will reportedly mark the third anniversary of the September 11 attacks by praising Islam in an address from the pulpit of an Egyptian mosque.
Rowan Williams had accepted an invitation to speak at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, considered by many to be the Muslim world's most important centre of learning, Britain's Sunday Times said today.

He would speak of the common ground between Christianity and Islam with their shared inheritance as "children of Abraham", the report said.




Dhimmi Watch

Sarah D. said...

Did he get a letter or something? I don't see anything about it in that blog post.

Ed Mahmoud said...

annoy mouse- talking about Lion Heart's gratuitous swipe at Roman Catholicism.


No need for it. The CoE is going dhimmi faster than about any Christian church I can think of. Not sure if he is CoE, Lionheart may be a more Bible based Christian, which is fine, but Labour's embrace of Islam seems to have little to nothing to do with any Christian church.

El said...

i have to sound a note of caution here. we do not yet know the specifics of the charges due to be brought against lionheart. furthermore, we only have his word that the current state of affairs is as described on his site. of course i am not suggesting that he is deceiving us, but until there are more concrete developments, is it not rather too early to be discussing this in such apocalyptic tones? the preparation the baron speaks of in terms of letter-writing campaigns, etc., is all to the good, but i am not sure the roof is coming down just yet.

i yield to no one in my contempt for the stuffed shirts of the EU and their desperate muslim brown-nosing initiatives. but the picture of the muslim woman as a skeleton with a bomb representing her unborn child is rather off-colour, is it not? are all muslim women undead breeding machines whose children will want to kill us? the demographic peril that islam presents us with is something that i have written about myself, as have many others in far more public forums than GoV, without being thrown into prison. are there any lines that should not be crossed in this debate?

the picture on lionheart's website is akin to wartime propaganda (think of the tentacles of the japanese octopus reaching across the whole world), and such propaganda is an essential part of fighting a war. but lionheart does not have the authority to declare war, and must expect conflict with the state if, however unwittingly, he seems to be doing so.

given my own biases on this subject, i hope nothing comes of the charges and lionheart remains at liberty to continue blogging. but even i get a bad whiff of something looking at that picture. are there any regular readers of GoV who have not caught a glimpse of something murderous and malevolent inside themselves in the face of what we are opposing? i certainly have, and i am not ready to embrace it just yet, something i think i would have to do to remain nonchalant about that picture.

i cannot help but think of the hijabbed muslim woman who used to work in a post office i went to in london. she was friendly, always smiling, perfectly pleasant. lionheart wants me to look at her as a lich bent on destroying us via differential reproduction. i am not prepared to go there yet. there will be plenty of opportunity to jump into the abyss later. why go now? is the water so warm in there?

Annoymouse said...

ED
I am not digging on the Hispanic either for that matter. I live on the border in San Diego and lately American tourists have been getting robbed and raped by Mexican police officials. Our government is ashamed of our wealth and dare not stand up for US citizens. There is a war at the border. A real war where men with assault rifles are in control of what used to be US sovereign territory. US government agencies are pulling back because the situation is no longer tenable. How this is supposed to relate to the thread at hand, free speech, is that western governments have made it their job to protect the third world from the predations of free men in the place of their birth. They call this nativism. If you can deconstruct that term it would say everything as to why this is germane to this thread. Our elected leaders have a radical vision of what the new world order is going to be and us traditionalists, with our command of the facts and command of the language are making it hard for them. That is why they are inviting illegals who are less politically active into the USA. There are too many chiefs and not enough Indians.

Ed Mahmoud said...

No doubt, the Demonratic party welcomes citizenship for illegal aliens for the same reason they want to give the franchise back to convicted felons. More votes for the Dems.

Same reason they favor motor voter, and striking down ID requirements to vote: Voter fraud favors the Dems.


Bob Dornan lost his House seat because of voter fraud, mostly illegal aliens voting. The Washington state governor won her race by voter fraud.

Annoymouse said...

“are all muslim women undead breeding machines whose children will want to kill us?”

It would sure seem so. If I do not speak for the state then I must be silent? I like the cartoon. I like all cartoons. It is reality that is offensive to my senses. What is it about free speech that you find so abhorrent?

I had to fess up to the reality that those who say they are at war with us are at face value at war with us. I do not like the idea. Ten years ago I thought we were all building a great new beautiful tomorrow but now realize that we must give up our vision of the future or go back to basic principles and fight for that vision. In short, I decided not to give up.

Sodra Djavul said...

El,
I suppose it all depends on your own moral tipping point that must be crossed prior to engaging in resistance.

It is a proven fact that third-world immigrants to the Western world are breeding at a faster pace than native Westerners. That is a demographic ticking bomb, unless of course you aspire to live in a third-world nation centuries of their kind have passed on to the modern world.

So what would it take before you're ready to take action? Due to the very clear demographic shift apparent in the last 50 years and the subsequent birth rates any meaningful resistance to this Balkanization must occur, and must occur soon, if it is to be successful.

As we have seen in recent demographical studies, second and third generation immigrants feel much more closely attached to their ancestral homes, religions, and customs than even those fresh off the boat.

Just because the woman in the hijab smiles at you in the bank does not mean her grandchildren would balk at enslaving your own under an Islamic-based society, if not a full-blown Caliphate.

I have come to the conclusion that Islam has no place in the Western world. It has never been associated with any good introduced into the Western world, and I personally feel it is fundamentally incompatible with democratic rule. There isn't a single Islamic nation on earth, even the more progressive ones, that I would consider a fantastic place to live and raise children.

And they've had centuries to build their own failed civilizations.

In my opinion, conflict is inevitable, it's only a question of when, of what scale, and what the balance of power the battlefield will take when it does. This isn't just a personal hunch - this has been the case throughout ALL of recorded human history.


- Sodra

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

El, yes, it is propaganda but if you hadn't noticed we're already at war, it just hasn't escalated to the point of warfare between states.

I understood that picture to represent the timebomb of muslim demographics. The "other" bomb.

More to the point you seem to have missed the fact that simply saying this, putting up a picture like that, is now illegal in this country, it now carries criminal penalties. Facing criminal charges for saying something, not even incitement to violence, but simply that muslims are dangerous... there's no way to spin that as a "lets wait and see" thing. It's wrong. The state has no business regulating what a man might say.

I can't help but speculate, if it were a jew in the picture, instead of a muslim, would they be signing a contract for him at the BBC already?

psorene said...

Thank you for highlighting this. I have put it on my site - www.anorak.co.uk.

Natalie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
TC said...

I've written an entry in German on my blog and kicked it over to the biggest German bloggers.

bottehond said...

Art. 9 of the Declaration of Warszaw by the top of European governments , may 2005:
"We strongly condemn all forms of intolerance and discrimination, in particular those based on sex, race and religion, including antisemitism and islamophobia. We affirm our determination to further develop, within the Council of Europe, rules and effective machinery to prevent and eradicate them. We will also further implement equal opportunity policies in our member states and we will step up our efforts to achieve real equality between women and men in all spheres of our societies. We are committed to eradicating violence against women and children, including domestic violence."

Also: The EU is preparing laws to make islam- critics punishable.

I said it many times: Europe is under direct threat of being islamized, on one hand because of constant muslim- pressure, on the other hand by our governments dhimmitude.

Maybe the States should grant all European islam-critics political asylum. Ayaan will not be the last.

Zonka said...

I have a post up about it here, where I also tries to collect links to everybody covering this story, so if you're covering this story on your blog please visit the above link and leave a link to your blog. The more the better so that we can show that it is not just a few bloggers that stand behind Lionheart and the Freedom of Speech.

bottehond said...

If a continent forgets it's own great thinkers it sooner or later will be overrun by intellectual and ethical mediocrity and thus will loose focus, eating it's own children in favour of a cuckoos-young.

Schopenhauer:
Consider the Koran, for example; this wretched book was sufficient to start a world-religion, to satisfy the metaphysical need of countless millions for twelve hundred years, to become the basis of their morality and of a remarkable contempt for death, and also to inspire them to bloody wars and the most extensive conquests. In this book we find the saddest and poorest form of theism. Much may be lost in translation, but I have not been able to discover in it one single idea of value."

El said...

annoymouse:

i do not find free speech abhorrent in the slightest. i find attempts to undermine it disgraceful and alarming, and sympathize greatly with all those who think the gloves need to come off completely, right now, including yourself. strategically, i can see no flaw here. but lionheart's characterization of muslim women, and your approval of it, suggest that the complete dehumanization of muslims for propaganda purposes is something that you now consider morally acceptable. is this a correct appraisal? i should point out that this is not a loaded question. i am not trying to take any moral high ground here, i am simply interested in people's attitudes in this respect. let me reiterate that i hope that the charges awaiting lionheart are dropped.

sodra:

i agree with every word of your analysis, though i would point out that i have not suggested not taking any action. it doesn't come across very well on blogspot, but i am the el ingles who wrote the danish civil war published on GoV a few weeks back. i think you will agree it is not an essay written by someone who advocates inaction. again, i ask, non-rhetorically, are we now ready to characterize civilian women as being undead beings intent on outbreeding us? feel free to argue that it is a strategic necessity. i am just surprised at the speed of this train we are on, and am interested in exploring the issue further.

archonix:

you are undoubtedly correct in characterizing the conflict we are engaged in as some sort of war, and my understanding of the pictue was essentially the same as your own. if it had been a jew in the picture, killing children for their blood, on a british muslim website, would you favour prosecution? again, not a rhetorical question. sorry to keep saying that, but nuances are easily lost online.

as for whether putting up that picture is now illegal in the UK, we shall have to see. lionheart has yet to actually be charged, and if charged will have to be convicted. the whole process will undoubtedly be extremely unpleasant for him at best, and intimidate others.

if a british muslim man were found beaten to death with the words 'muslims go home' scrawled on his body, what would our reaction be? if we are in a war, and are happy with sub-human characterizations of all muslims, period, would it not be hypocritical of us to do anything but rejoice? after all, if they are sub-human and we are at war with them, the only good muslim would be a dead muslim, no?

again, i claim no moral high ground of any sort. i am interested in people's attitudes, that is all. please do not try and convince me that islam is a threat! i have known that for a long time!

bottehond said...

@ el


At war? Yes, Ayaan says we are and we should be very grateful for this brave woman to point out to this obvious truth that (almost) no-one dares adress.

But at the same time we are in a civil war against appeasing westerners who are after our guts, too.

So, we are basically fighting on two fronts.

If you have read about that UN resolution, accepted because the OIC kept pushing for it?

"The resolution goes under the innocuous title "Combating defamation of religions" – but the text singles out "Islam and Muslims in particular". It expresses "deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism"."

Let us hope that the story of David and Goliath is not just an allegory.

Annoymouse said...

El
“strategically, i can see no flaw here. but lionheart's characterization of muslim women, and your approval of it, suggest that the complete dehumanization of muslims for propaganda purposes is something that you now consider morally acceptable”

Cartoons, particularly political cartoons, are over the top by nature. I see worse in the editorial pages everyday. I don’t know much about Lionheart personally but I’d imagine he is not that good of an artist. I suspect that this is something that invoked an emotional chord with him… something symbolic, something that embodies ones personal fears in a non-verbal form. He thought enough of the cartoon to share it with us and perhaps to provoke our emotions. It is clear in this light that he has succeeded in awakening something in you. When it is time to fight back, do we begin the fight using our fists or do we first use our voices to raise a call? How do we define that which we are at war with? Are they just a bunch of nice folks who have been led astray by a minority of radical religious fanatics? If we can’t put our finger on what it is we abhor than we stand no possibility of standing against it. You call this propaganda but I say that it is merely shaping the intellectual battleground. I do not seek to demean or dehumanize the jihadists. I believe that their illiberal actions have done enough to that effect. I cannot speak in dispassionate terms of what I think of the jihadists. I believe that they are parasitic to the west. I believe they are like an opportunistic disease. I believe that all western liberal rights are at stake. If it were not for jihadists would so much of the world economy be bent towards the purposes of armies and security? I think not. Would I be required to remove my shoes and denied water during air travel? I think not. I am not worried that I might disturb the sensibilities of the jihadists. That their mothers and daughters are called upon by allah to breed armies whose sole purpose is to ensure my destruction and for the destruction of my way of life, of the western institutions and traditions, the heritage that we might leave our children and grandchildren. We are at war and I will call the jihadists anything that might make them ask: Why do they hate us so much?

George Bruce said...

El, you said, "i am not prepared to go there yet. there will be plenty of opportunity to jump into the abyss later. why go now? is the water so warm in there?"

Twenty or forty years ago, simple and relatively painless adjustments to immigration policy could have prevented this problem. However, no one was "prepared to go there yet" and politicians of the day had interests to serve and votes to curry. Future problems would be left to the future.

Today, much stronger measures are absolutely necessary, but no one is "prepared to go there yet." There is still a future to which the problems may be passed.

Tomorrow, Christian Europe may find itself locked into a war of extermination or slavery. Will you be prepared to go there then?

Cobra said...

Just wait for the demsheviks to win the Presidency in November and we will all see what happens here in the ol' USA.....

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

Okay, look, El, you can chracterise a movement without characterising the individuals within it. The demographic problem is real, there's no denying it, and that image gets it across in a profound way. It doesn't demonise muslim women, it highlights the problem of demographics. The collective womb of islamic society is a ticking time-bomb. If anything it's a demand that we do something for the women trapped in that society, because they're as good as dead right now.

I have seen people charged under this act and face massive fines simply for doing something as innocuous as asking a muslim woman to take off her veil, or asking groups of muslim men to disperse from their property. This is "racial hatred", it's been going on for several years already. I'm not sure if they received prison sentences but that doesn't matter: criticism of Islam has been equated with racist agitation for several years now. The difference in this case is that nobody actually said anything to a muslim, simply about one.

if a british muslim man were found beaten to death with the words 'muslims go home' scrawled on his body, what would our reaction be?

Frankly it's a stupid question. War does not automatically equate to inhumanity. We did not characterise the germans as sub-human during our wars with them, we did not characterise the French as su-human during the various wars we had with them, even when Napolean was in charge (in fact he was often called a great man for his leadership skills). We British do not do that sort of thing, by and large, and I will thank you not to imply it again. We are not characterising Muslims as subhuman, merely their ideology as incompatible with western culture and traditions.

So, if a man is murdered then his murderers should be prosecuted, and it's as simple as that. It's apples and bananas, anyway since we aren't talking about murder, we're talking about a blog that points out the bad things about Islam. It doesn't, as far as I can see, say anything about killing muslims or anything, it just says that Islam has a lot of problems. This, according to the law, is "racial hatred" and has been for about a decade now, with plenty of successful prosecutions against people who dared to criticise the religion of peace. I think he will have a hard time in court, I pray he's vindicated but I suspect he will be characterised as a nut and a lunatic fringe nazi type. His religious affiliation will be brought into the matter, the fact that he doesn't trust Muslims will be brought into the matter. He will be accused of plotting to murder them. The initial charge is of course brought under the aegis of racial hatred because that is what has been claimed against him, but all of these other things will be used to paint a picture of a religious lunatic intent on murdering our peaceful islamic brethren...

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

To answer the other question, no, prosecution would not be my first choice. Of course the image is completely different (more violent for one) but, even so, editorial cartooning - even bad editorial cartooning - is not sufficient grounds to arrest and charge people. Ever. If it were brought as supporting evidence in a murder case then there would be a point to its use - it would provide circumstantial evidence of the creator's hatred of jews in support of other primary evidence. A cartoon by itself means nothing.

livfreerdie said...

Therein lies the rub. To change or amend the US Constitution legally it requires a percentage of state legislatures or Congresspersons to initiate the "convention". The very ones who can change or amend are the ones blocking such a change. We are up against the monied elites, Dem, Rep, Ind, whatever. Any other way to end "the long train of abuses" is, Constitutionally, illegal. Sedition and treason are the tools with which the elites can hang us , one by one or all together, the latter being more problematic for them.

Tom

TC said...

I got PI on board:

http://www.pi-news.net/2008/01/lionheart-loewenherz-2008/

bottehond said...

Well done, TC.

C.T. said...

El,

In their own words:

"In 1974, former Algerian President Houari Boumedienne said in a speech at the U.N.:

'One day millions of men will leave the southern hemisphere to go to the northern hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.'"

FORCEFUL REASON
Fallaci issues a wake-up call to Europe.
National Review, May 4, 2004

www.nationalreview.com/comment/vidino200405040834.asp

TC said...

We should write a letter to the British Ambassador:
http://transatlanticconservative.blogspot.com/2007/12/bloggers-of-world-unite.html

eatyourbeans said...

Somebody asked whetherthe complete dehumanization of muslims for propaganda purposes is something that you now consider morally acceptable

It was OK to depict the Krauts as giant murderous apes, the Nips, buck toothed yellow monkeys. You got to turn up the heat under the arses of decent peaceable people to get them in the mood.

Annoymouse said...

A book, a theology and a political system hundreds of years old is a guiding principle that will withstand the test of time. It is a complete system of living that is ABSOLUTELY intolerant of any other competing version of life. That is Islam. Freedom is such a fragile thing because it dilutes the interests of its recipients. Freedom fosters diversity but not by suckling a self-serving parasite does it survive. One cannot be mesmerized by the clever dualities of Islam that are designed to rent reason asunder. It is a cheap charlatans trick and can be deconstructed easily by history and results and statistics. Individualism does not pull together armies, allah does. But collective will and pride in our cultures’ accomplishments can provide the cohesion necessary regardless of religious, economic, or political philosophies only if Westerners can stop hating the minor differences of their fellow peers. When no one will answer freedom’s call we will hear instead the call to prayer five times a day. Eagles don’t flock but when they band together their talons bring fear and respect.

Zenster said...

Britain is such a country. Its recent laws concerning the incitement of racial and religious hatred have made illegal much of what is published in the Counterjihad blogosphere.

Sadly, Britain's descent into dhimmitude will probably have to serve as an object lesson for the remaining Western world.

Annoymouse: This stems from the perverted issue of so called ‘hate crimes’.

Absolutely. "Hate crimes" and "hate speech" are an outgrowth of both special interest groups and once-entrenched prejudices within our own law enforcement communities. If constitutional law was properly enforced, there would be absolutely no need for "hate" enhancements of any sort. Unfortunately, it is going to be extremely difficult to remove these unequal applications of the law.

El: i yield to no one in my contempt for the stuffed shirts of the EU and their desperate muslim brown-nosing initiatives. but the picture of the muslim woman as a skeleton with a bomb representing her unborn child is rather off-colour, is it not?

El, have you ever bothered to take a look at what passes for political cartoons in the MME (Muslim Middle East)? Try searching for the Iranian holocaust denial cartoons sometime. Our Islamic enemies have already dehumanized us Infidels far beyond even the most depraved depths we might ever reach in our wildest nightmares. Muslims flying fully loaded passenger jet airliners into occupied skyscrapers pretty much confirms that notion, does it not?

As Sondra Djavul notes:

Just because the woman in the hijab smiles at you in the bank does not mean her grandchildren would balk at enslaving your own under an Islamic-based society, if not a full-blown Caliphate.

We no longer have the luxury of distinguishing between so-called moderate Muslims and their radical co-religionists. The moderates within Islam have had over SIX LONG YEARS since the 9-11 atrocity to cleary distance themselves from the radicals yet the numbers of them actually doing so are negligible. Not "small", not "difficult to measure" but NEGLIGIBLE. As in: OF NO CONSEQUENCE. This is not to dehumanize them but to dismiss them from all further consideration so that we can get about to the true task at hand, which is the destruction and permanent eradication of Islam from this earth.

Any so-called moderates do not wield sufficient influence to steer Islam away from its military collision course with the West. Far too many of them are content to sit on the sidelines waiting to side with the stronger horse once it emerges. That reticence to join the battle makes those moderates OUR ENEMIES. They are insufficiently dedicated to the true cause of peace for them to be regarded as anything but malingering terrorists who simply want to avoid being recognized as such. A Spanish journalist once said:

At some point, silence is no longer consent but to remain silent becomes a lie.

With their deafening silence, moderate Muslims have become a mass of liars who only serve to distract the West from its necessary goal of crushing Islam. These moderates work as useful idiots for the radicals by inspiring compassion and humanity in Western minds where none should be found. Islam has absolutely no compunctions about destroying every single artifact of Western civilization. Notre Dame’s incredible Rose Window would be nothing more than a bull’s eye for target practice. Our Constitution and Library of Congress would make a roaring bonfire. The paintings of Europe’s old masters would be slashed to ribbons and Mount Rushmore would be blasted into rubble like the Bamiyan Buddhas.

As Wafa Sultan noted, this is not a “clash of civilizations”, it is the clash of modern culture against a barbaric and dark-ages mentality that seeks to destroy centuries of hard-won progress in the name of glorifying their bloodthirsty murderous deity. The West must overcome its squeamishness with respect to the levels of destruction and savagery that will be required in order to permanently dismantle Islam. No trace of it can be allowed to remain as it will only spawn yet more of its Neanderthal terrorist thugs.

Islam does not intersect or converge with Western civilization at any point, not even tangentally. It is the diametric opposite of liberty and individual freedoms that we currently enjoy. Imagining that there is room for both to somehow coexist side-by-side is not just a fool’s errand, it directly serves the cause of Islam by deluding oneself into believing that Muslims have any intention of sharing their world with non-believers. Nothing could be farther from the truth and the moral relativism of multiculturalist liberals is rapidly becoming outright treason against those who wish to live in a free world.

Always On Watch said...

After receiving an email from Lionheart, I, too, have posted on his plight. And WC and I discussed it at the top of today's radio show, too.

Next week, we hope to have Lionheart on for the full hour of the show, information about which is at my web site.

Homophobic Horse said...

Moral relativist: Well if it's true for them who am I to tell them they're wrong?

Reply: What's true for you?

Moral Relativist: ..

whiskey_199 said...

This action is why I am fundamentally pessimistic about Britain, the Scandanavian countries, the Netherlands, Belgium, and a few other countries.

PC-Multiculturalism has it's dead hand on the throat of the people. Moderate, open dissent such as Lionheart will be muzzled and someone WILL come out of yob-chav culture to act as the new Napoleon.

France, Italy, Germany have their own problems with noxious PC as does the US (witness PC Obama) but less than Britain. Which is ashamed of their own heritage.

I think Britain IS a lost cause, but not France. Or Ireland. Or Germany. Or even Italy.

Leadership matters. The habits of the people matter. Independence of and from the state matter. French and Italians have low regard for their state apparatus, wisely, and tend to ignore the summons and proscriptions of the elites because they know them to be nothing more than crooks, liars, gangsters, and cheats. The very efficiency and honesty over generations of British, Dutch, and Scandanavian governments have led people to actually trust them.

Dangerous.

Kirk Parker said...

El,

Aren't you being a bit too literalist here? The cartoon is saying something about Muslim Reproduction Rates. It's just a bit hard to find a picture of an abstract concept, that's all.

And for all you know, your friendly Muslim woman at the Post Office is infertile, so this cartoon couldn't even apply to her if taken literally.

Henrik said...

He should apply for political asylum in some relevant country (like Denmark), for he's now a refugee for his political work.

This is the kind of people the asylum system was originally designed to protect.

I hope it would generate some press if the system would be used for its original purpose. And *from* a Western country, imagine that...

bottehond said...

Dude, that is the best post I have read in months.
Congratulations. The Danes are the pride and hope of Free- Thinking Europe.

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

No chance. Schengen and Prüm and the arrest warrant that will be along shortly all combine to make safe residence in any EU member state completely impossible for exiles from another EU member state. Even if the Danish police refuse to arrest him they won't, under Prüm, be able to stop a foreign police squad crossing the border to carry it out. And as a last resort the Euro Gendarmerie can just go in and shoot him or something.

Homophobic Horse said...

Archonix: Yah, you wanna combine this with biometric ID cards - to ensure there is nowhere to run. That's what the future looks like.

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

And they call us fascist...

Henrik said...

Graham, that's another two good reasons that Lionheart *should* apply, one of them specific to Denmark:

1) To deal with the Schengen extradiction problem Lionheart could explicitly request the Danish government to violate that clause in order to protect his political freedom. That would cause a very interesting dilemma for the Danish government, which i is both very pro-freedom and pro-EUSSR.

2) We have four op-outs (Wikipedia article here ) of 4-5 areas of EUSSR coorperation. These are likely to be put up for referendum later this year, and we could use some help to defend the opt-outs and at the same time humiliate the EUSSR fanatics.

El said...

i will ignore the repeated attempts to convince me that islam is bad, a threat, a demographic threat, a human disaster, inimical to western freedoms, etc. etc. i have not suggested otherwise, and have already stated that i agreed with the analysis in sodra's initial response. i also wrote a 10,000 word essay, kindly published by the baron here, which can be found and read by anyone sufficiently interested in my positions. it is called the danish civil war, and was put up about six weeks ago, i think. i have already asked people to stop telling me how bad islam is for just this reason, but many seem to go onto autopilot as soon as any dissenting voices are raised on any subject at all. calm down people, you're preaching to the choir.

george bruce:
your reply is good-natured, which i thank you for. i agree with what you say, but must point out to you that you have not the slightest conception of my actual positions. you seem to be conflating the dehumanization of muslim women with taking a robust stance against islam. one does not necessarily entail the other. when i say 'i will not go there yet', i am referring to the depiction of muslim women as ghouls. which part of this indicated to you that i opposed the stronger measures you correctly suggest are necessary?

graham dawson:
your claim that one can characterize a movement without characterizing the individuals in it is a partial truth at best. where would the character of the movement come from if not its members? leaving that aside, you are quite mistaken in claiming that the picture, which you incomprehensibly refer to as a cartoon, does not demonize muslim women. look at the hands, graham, they are the hands of a skeleton. it is a portrayal of an undead creature, which makes your claim that 'If anything it's a demand that we do something for the women trapped in that society' seem rather absurd. or do we draw them as ghouls because we care so very, very deeply?
had you examined the picture more carefully in the first place, you would have appreciated why i asked my 'stupid' question (thank you for your restrained choice of words, you could have been far crueler). one cannot argue that we are at war with an entire community, which we consider it acceptable to utterly dehumanize, then turn around and say that of course people attacking them should be brought to justice. this is the height of disingenuousness. if we're at war, and they are beasts at best, why not just exterminate them all? do you really not feel any tension in this position?
'We British do not do that sort of thing, by and large, and I will thank you not to imply it again.'
save your faux outrage for the easily impressed, graham. you're not the only british person on this board, and some of us feel less of a desire to idealize ourselves in this manner. we've stuck it to the natives in just about every corner of this planet, and i would be greatly surprised if there wasn't the odd bit of dehumanizing involved. if we did a world tour through the former british empire together, would you wager we wouldn't encounter anyone who thought their people had ever been dehumanized by us? i'll take that bet.
in addition, i would appreciate some links to the 'plenty of successful prosecutions against people who dared to criticise the religion of peace.' i have done so myself, fairly viciously, under my own name, in print, in a university paper at a prominent university, fairly recently, and not a thing happened.
i share your concerns about islamization, graham, to an extent you might not believe, but i must suggest you take another look at that picture and ask yourself if it is what you characterized it as, or what i characterized it as, and whether there is not a tad more substance to my concerns than you initially thought.
eatyourbeans:
'It was OK to depict the Krauts as giant murderous apes, the Nips, buck toothed yellow monkeys. You got to turn up the heat under the arses of decent peaceable people to get them in the mood.'
excellent point, and one i was thinking of bringing up myself. my question to you would be: are we already at that point? and would you condone similar levels of violence directed at muslims in europe, say? britain, if you prefer (americans don't spell it 'arse' ;) ). again, just a straight question, no trapdoors...
zenster:
'Sadly, Britain's descent into dhimmitude will probably have to serve as an object lesson for the remaining Western world.'
quite possibly, though the swedes also impress in this regard.
'El, have you ever bothered to take a look at what passes for political cartoons in the MME (Muslim Middle East)?'
yes.
'Our Islamic enemies have already dehumanized us Infidels far beyond even the most depraved depths we might ever reach in our wildest nightmares. Muslims flying fully loaded passenger jet airliners into occupied skyscrapers pretty much confirms that notion, does it not?'
quite possibly. are all muslims to be treated as the enemy then, without distinctions? i fear it may come to this, and i will not shy away from it if it does. but are we REALLY there already? let me state for the record that i consider your scepticism about 'moderate' muslims to be well-advised and well-argued.
'This is not to dehumanize them but to dismiss them from all further consideration so that we can get about to the true task at hand, which is the destruction and permanent eradication of Islam from this earth.'
gosh. i would love nothing more than to wake up tomorrow morning and discover that islam had fallen down a deep hole, never to emerge. but your 'true task' would, however it were accomplished, involve the deaths of hundreds of millions of people and make world war 2 look like a walk in the park. this is keyboard courage, hard to congratulate you upon.
whisky_199:
'French and Italians have low regard for their state apparatus, wisely, and tend to ignore the summons and proscriptions of the elites because they know them to be nothing more than crooks, liars, gangsters, and cheats. The very efficiency and honesty over generations of British, Dutch, and Scandanavian governments have led people to actually trust them.'
this is a fascinating point, surely worth expanding if you were so inclined. faith in government is so pervasive in the UK, it is hard to convince otherwise intelligent people that things COULD go wrong as long as we have a government.

1389 said...

I republished this article here and here, in both cases with a prominent link to go back here for the comments.

Thank you for posting this.

Lionheart said...

Thank you 'Gates of Vienna' for posting an excellent article on my plight and all the words of encouragemnt in the comments section are good to read.

Today it is me - Tomorrow it is you.

This is all of our fight, its just the handcuffs have been pointed at me personaly.

This is a fight we can win because there are millions of us around the world who have had enough of this Islamic war that is being waged against us, our societies and our culture, and we have had enough of our leaders who are supporting them for their own greedy selfish agendas.

Our children and grandchildrens future's now hang in the balance.

We fight or we give in!

The British motto is 'No Surrender'

The Moslems started this with me and i never rolled over, my blog became my response, now my government has started on me, and i am ready and willing to do what needs to be done.

The whole world is now watching.

We lose and i end up locked away for many years.

We win and we enlighten millions of innocent people to the threat they are asleep too.

On an individual level, where do you stand?

are you ready to stand and defend our freedoms by supporting me, (that support is a concious decision in your heart and in your mind) and my freedoms or will you chose to ignore it and leave it to others.

The clash of civilizations is upon us and 'Gates of Vienna' along with every other anti-Jihad blog out there are a part of the clarion call to warn the masses.

LGF is a dead site because his motives and intentions are wrong, he is full of pride and thinks he owns the monopoly of the movement.

No one owns this movement because what is unfolding is about each of us, our children, our grandchildren and our futures.

That is no way to 'think' about what we are doing and trying to achieve with our blogs and those that use the blogs to educate others.

Who does he think he is?

There is a new wave of people coming and those who stood their ground in the recent debate about what was right in the new climate we are now in are the foundation, the cornerstone of the true anti-Jihad movement and this site is a part of that.

God bless you 'Gates of Vienna' and all of your readers.

'No surrender' and we long for the day when the dust of war settles for our children or childrens children.

I rest in the knowledge that "Though I walk through the Valley of Death I shall fear no Evil, because you are by my side, thy rod and thy staff they comfort me"

Lionheart

p.s I was not criticising the Catholic Church, i have nothing against the Church or its people, if you read my glog you would know this, i was criticising Tony Blair and his actions.

El said...

lionheart,

can you give us the details of the charges you are to face? everything still seems a bit mysterious...

though i have expressed some reservations about some of the stuff on your site, i am behind you all the way and hope you get off. do you have any idea what sort of legal representation you will be able to get? if you are setting up a legal defence fund, let us know, i will certainly donate.

down with islam, the religion of death, obscurantism and people that go boom!

heroyalwhyness said...

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...
No chance. Schengen and Prüm and the arrest warrant that will be along shortly all combine to make safe residence in any EU member state completely impossible for exiles from another EU member state.. .


I'd not heard of Prüm before - is this it? http://www.libertysecurity.org/article1186.html

The world is literally spinning off it's axis to appease this monster!

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

El, you're confusing community and ideology.

I shall lay it out with the cry of the yellow-bellied racist: I have lots of muslim friends. Or at least a few. I attended university in Bradford, where half my classes were made up of muslims. I live in an area where a lot of muslims also live. The people are human, the political ideology to which they are attached is inhuman. As a rule my experience with muslims is that syrian muslims are nice, pakistani muslims are simply not to be trusted without evidence of their sincerity and Moroccan muslims are either trustworthy from the moment you meet them or are fanatics who are simply not worth getting to know. I've not met many arabs but the ones I have met have been, to put it mildly, not the sort I would let my hypothetical daughter go out with. Nevertheless they're all human. The fact that they are muslim provides a general guideline to how they might behave but I am usually willing to assume the best, even though I'm prepared for the worst.

I don't particularly trust Anglicans either, but that's because I am one, so I know what they're probably going to be like.

I certainly won't deny that there are plenty of times when the British empire was inhumane toward its subjects, but I wouldn't say they were dehumanised. They were treated like crap, but they weren't called less than human. Their culture was denigrated as inferior but they weren't called inferior people. There is no contradiction in saying this; a culture, an ideology, is not the same thing as the person that lives in that culture and subscribes to that ideology. You might call it semantics. I happen to believe that there can be a difference between what we think of individuals and groups of people and what we think of the ideology.

I don't feel any particular guilt for those actions, either, if that's what you're trying to provoke. Why should I? I wasn't around. I take what I can from it and I move on.

I did not, for reference, call the image you just mentioned a cartoon. I was referring to your hypothetical cartoon of a jew eating babies on a muslim site.

The image in question, since you want to focus on it again, is not of A WOMAN, it is of a concept, illustrated with a monstrous conception of a female that includes visual cues linking to the popular western anthropomorphisation of Death (cowled head, skeletal form etc) along with the image of a "womb" that is a bomb. It is trying to transport an abstract concept through a medium that is ill-suited to transporting that abstract concept, and it is trying to do it in a visually shocking and attention-grabbing way. It works, I think, because it provokes an initial reaction of shock and horror. It is not about muslim women, it's about muslim demographics, and that becomes obvious once you examine it for even a moment.

How would you have got that across? An essay is fine for people who are willing to sit down and read it, but if you want to quickly get an idea into someone's head you have to use a powerful visual image that hooks into subconscious archetypes. Few things are more powerful in the western mindset than the concept of death, and that concept of death coupled with a mockery of the concept of childbirth is a very powerful and impactive image that is guaranteed to provoke a very powerful reaction.

Which is the entire point, really.

Taking this, then, my statement that murderers should be brought to justice in accordance with the law is entirely logical. The assumption that my rejection of ideology automatically means rejection and dehumanisation of individuals who subscribe to that ideology, and that my declaration that we are at war means the same dehumanisation, is simply daft. That's not an ad hom, it's a statement of fact; the idea is, in my opinion, daft, illogical and without merit. Now you're obviously a smart man, you come across as intelligent and qitty, but there's nothing that stops a smart man coming up with a daft idea now and then. We've all done it.

From what you've written I get the feeling you're from closer than I'd initially assumed (your spelling says American or possible European with American influence), so apologies for that assumption. Yet, even so, it's obvious that we're culturally very different from each other regardless The Britain I inhabit is culturally different from the one you presumably inhabit. I've noticed this at a very crude level across that old north/south divide, but it crops up everywhere these days. Perhaps the difference is that I was not raised to apologise for things beyond my control. I can't speculate on that.

I will probably have to accept that you and I see this image differently. Your caution toward this matter is, on reflection possibly a wiser approach but at the same time I am unwilling to take to it myself, because my reading of this man's site has not provided evidence of anything other than a genuinely sincere attempt to provide information about his experience with Islam.

Again I think it worth pointing out, and on this we obviously agree, that prosecuting someone simply for something they said goes beyond any accepted definition of justice.

heroyalwhyness: yes, that's the one. At the moment it only applies to a half-dozen member states but the Lisbon treaty "harmonises" such things, so it'll apply EU-wide very soon.

Lionheart said...

El - "Mysterious"

What are you implying?

http://lionheartuk.blogspot.com/2008/01/my-british-legal-representative.html

Annoymouse said...

“we've stuck it to the natives in just about every corner of this planet, and i would be greatly surprised if there wasn't the odd bit of dehumanizing involved. if we did a world tour through the former british empire together, would you wager we wouldn't encounter anyone who thought their people had ever been dehumanized by us?”

Well there it is; guilt. Can we be as introspective with Islam? We should overlook the head cutters and snuff films and all of the gory infamy of Muslims because we Westerners have not evolved enough? We have not become better people over the centuries, not enough that we should feel that it is okay to impugn those who hold onto a 6th century quaintness. The type of quaintness that kills girls for not wearing burkas or throws homosexuals off of cliffs or flies airplanes into buildings. This is a deep ideology and not a mere inconvenient series of horrific events. This is what Islam brings to the modern world. I am not willing to commit suicide because Western Society has gone through some spotty times. Try that with the rest of the third World, I am over your guilt. I wish you were.

marginalizedactiondinosaur said...

Simply claiming someone is a Nazi does not a Nazi make.

too true these days anyone who doesn't want their country over run with immigrants is ok to brand a nazi.

if we did a world tour through the former british empire together,
You would find that in zimbabwe some are calling for the evil British to return, course for some reason that will not get a lot of airplay. Doesn't fit the commie political correctness that MSM's are overly endowed with.

El said...

graham:

i still do not quite see how one can condemn an ideology without also condemning, in some fashion, the people who adhere to it. it is not, after all, as if ideologies just float around, unmoored from any human substrate. however, i am prepared to accept that we can legitimately disagree on the subject, and daft is a much gentler word than stupid, which was nice.

much depends on how you see that picture. for all my vast antipathy towards islam and, therefore (to be consistent), many, though not all, muslims, i must look at it somewhat askance. if your interpretation is genuinely different, that is fair enough. given that my question about the murder was predicated on my interpretation of the picture as dehumanizing, i can see that it would not make sense to you. such is the back and forth of debate on subjects such as these.

my spelling is the bastard offspring of both sides of the atlantic, which might have fooled you. i was not trying to evoke guilt in you for the deeds of the british empire. it's not like you were responsible for any of it.

lastly, i note that the police have not taken the decision to charge lionheart with anything. there's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip, as they say. my caution in this respect, surely, was justified.

lionheart:

the nature of the charges the police were considering was not clear from your post, presumably because it was not yet clear to you. that's all i was saying. keep us informed about your defence.

annoymouse:

well-named you are, sir. it is indeed annoying that you keep fulminating at me about the hideousness of islam when i have pointed out TWICE that such ranting is unnecessary, as i am of exactly the same mind on the subject. i believe i also made reference to two occasions on which i set these opinions down in words, once on GoV (where i made recommendations draconian enough to remove me forever from polite society in the UK), once in a university newspaper. should i take out a full-page ad in the new york times? or just get a propeller-driven aircraft to fly past your house pulling behind it a banner saying 'el ingles hates islam'?

'We should overlook the head cutters and snuff films and all of the gory infamy of Muslims because we Westerners have not evolved enough?'

a ridiculous straw man. read what i write.

'I am not willing to commit suicide because Western Society has gone through some spotty times.'

neither am i. read what i write.

'I am over your guilt. I wish you were.'

why is a british person acknowledging some of the unpleasantness of the british empire assumed to be a cowering, blubbering, advocate of dhimmitude? this baffles me. i must refrain from debating with you further until you demonstrate an interest in paying attention to what people say. i will charitably assume that you are so filled with frustration over islam that it just bubbles out over anyone unfortunate enough to say anything you don't agree with. i am not unfamiliar with this feeling, but if i can control it, you can too.

i await with some trepidation the next installment of 'but el, islam is so terrible, because...'

and down with islam, religion of blood, destruction, and people throwing rocks at the devil.

bottehond said...

@ Lionheart


We have linked to this article on some major blogs in the Netherlands.

If there is anything we can do for you (and ourselves that is), please notify us.

Henrik said...

I think we should inform Journalists Without Borders primarily, then also Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. This event should be on record with them.

One more idea: Someone took initiative to attack a good bloke for expressing his love for his culture and his tradition. Would it be possible to figure out who exactly that is? It'd be interesting to report that person (or institution) for treason, if appropriate British laws exist.

We did that with the imams who triggered the Muhammad crisis.

Henrik said...

Here's the guy who took the move against Lionheart:

The arrest has been ordered by DC Ian Holden, whose contact details can be found in Bedfordshire Police complaints procedure:

Bedforshire Police

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

i still do not quite see how one can condemn an ideology without also condemning, in some fashion, the people who adhere to it.

Not universally. I can disagree with them without condemning them and I can condemn them without dehumanising them.

We agree on a lot of other things.

One thing that's worth noting is that the police have no choice but to investigate a complaint when it's made. It's not known whether they'll actually bring charges but the mere fact that someone can be investigated for this... eh...

I am an idealist. Comes from being so young.

Henrik said...

"i still do not quite see how one can condemn an ideology without also condemning, in some fashion, the people who adhere to it."

We'd better be able, for how else can we debate the merits and fallacies of any ideology, hoping to make people ditch the bad ones and embrace the useful ones?

I can't condemn people, on principle. Only any bad ideas they propagate or actions they carry out. We're all humans. Some, unfortunately, seem very confused about what brings benefit and what causes suffering.

Annoymouse said...

El,
Your point is well taken. Perhaps I have been beating a dead horse. I should have stuck with the guilt aspect without reselling the ‘Islam is bad’ meme but I think it is insightful to compare Western Societies guilt for actions over the centuries verses Islam’s antipathy for actions of long ago, yesterday, and tomorrow. The Arab mindset embodied in Islam creates a culture that seems to thrive on casting shame on others while dissembling about its own shortcomings. This aligns very conveniently with Western guilt. Although one might appreciate that Western Societies have evolved more humble and introspective, this quality is seen as a weakness by Arabs and they spare no opportunity to exploit it.

It seems that the only thing that we disagree about is whether or not it is beyond the pale to make political points using a political cartoon.

First of all, let us consider the caption: “The Other Islamic Bomb”. I Googled this and the phrase “The Islamic Bomb” is so common that there are books and web sites of the same name and it is clear that the term has found its way into the modern lexicon. So at first the cartoon is a play of words. You mention that you have a problem with the graphic being referred to as a cartoon. The American Heritage Dictionary gives us this definition: b - A drawing representing current public figures or issues symbolically and often satirically: a political cartoon. I suppose that it would have been more proper to call it a “political cartoon” but for brevities sake a cartoon will do.

I enjoy cartoons as I have stated before. Some are down right damning to me but I appreciate them for the artfulness of their message. Speaking of cartoons, Muslims believe that those who create cartoons, publish cartoons, or post and discuss cartoons that they believe are an insult to Mohammad or Islam disserve to be put to death. Is this how you feel as well? I kinda doubt it, but you seem to have taken personally something that was meant to be more intellectually provocative than it is meant to be an existential threat to the object of the satire. In the end this whole thread has been about freedom of speech and I still have the lingering feeling that you don’t get it. That you believe the thin skinned sensitivities of certain ethnic groups trumps public discussion and debate. I hope I am wrong.

Annoymouse said...

Oh yeah,
but el, islam is so terrible, because...'

Annoymouse said...

El,
Seriously though, could you add some perma-links to your two other posts... I'd like to read them.

El said...

annoymouse:

you are a different person in that post. certainly the guilt issue is one that plagues our societies in a wider sense. in fact, many seem to revel in a sense of guilt, whereas, as you point out, guilt is a stranger to out enemies. this is not a good situation, and will have to come to an end one way or the other.

no, of course i don't think people should be put to death for cartoons, any cartoons, least of all the mohammed cartoons. i think, to be blunt, that muslims are, AS A GROUP, a bunch of mad medieval nutters who need to be fought in whatever manner is necessary to keep islam at bay, and they will receive no succour from me. i too was fuming over the idea of charges being levelled at lionheart, but stopped to reconsider in a different light, as i do not yet believe we are so far gone that the police are marching around the UK to islam's tune. they have not picked his name out of a hat. despite that, i reiterate that i hope no charges are brought.

as for the sensitivities of muslims trumping public discussion and debate, not in a million years, and if muslims in the UK don't like it, they can sod off (is this expression allowed?) back where they came from.

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/11/danish-civil-war.html#readfurther is the link to my essay. the rest is not available online, but this is all you need to know where i'm coming from.

i will cancel the plane.

in general:

i am intrigued by the disagreement over whether one can hate an ideology without, at least to some extent, hating its adherents. it seems like a very christian thing, hate the sin, love the sinner. not being a christian, i feel consistency demands that i despise muslims who want to overthrow, say, the british government and replace it with shari'a. and i do, and would happily see them turned into dogfood. do others see them as people who are merely confused and waiting for some guidance? surely not.

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

El - you may have nailed it. I am a christian.

The idea that you can hate a movement and sympathise with its individual members isn't that new. Many muslims simply don't know better and for the most part that's what I assume - that they don't know better. I utterly despise the ones that know they are wrong and carry on regardless and, as time goes by, there will be more who know they are in the wrong and carry on. What I don't do is assume that they all know. Their culture informs them and if their culture is all they have experience then they are, by that virtue alone, less to blame for their actions until they are exposed to the truth of what those actions ultimately entail.

The only problem with my point of view here is the Islamic practice of "honourable lies" and taqqiya. It throws a spanner in the works of christian morality which simply isn't designed to counter people who will consistently lie to your face about their goals and aims.

Lionheart said...

Thanks bottehond and everyone else who is in support.

This is a fight for everyone its just my neck is on the chopping block.

Lets see if they can chop it off, or whether we turn the tables.

God bless

Lionheart

john said...

Things are going to get much worse. Believe me, I know. And it will come to the US and the rest of the West.

I have seen and experienced first hand the hate, violence and lies that are as much a part of Islam as the Quran and the PBUHs.

Kactuz
http://www.kactuzkid.com

Read about the lies I have seen:
http://www.kactuzkid.com/lies.html

Read about how Islam destroys our liberties:
http://www.kactuzkid.com/liberty.html

Henrik said...

Lionheart, this is stuff that cost me quite a bit of sleep last night. People I've warned against the direction of the EUSSR and earlier considered me a bit sensationalist react with statements like "What?? This is a serious problem!"

While I'm quite safe here in Denmark, the similar upcoming EUSSR legislation got me worried for the future. It could be exploited to scare any form of dissent into the ground, unless we stand up to it now.

Am also upset that we can't be told the exact details of what passages are to be considered criminal. This is another typical ploy of totalitarian regimes - and you may also want to revisit Kafka for the effect this can have on the human mind.

Anyone set up a newsletter for updates on this? I'll post articles about it on EuropeNews as they fit into the mix.

Homophobic Horse said...

"Am also upset that we can't be told the exact details of what passages are to be considered criminal."

It's still very early days Henrik, I'm sure they'll tell Lionheart soon enough, only if they don't can we call it Kafka-esque.

But imagine this combined with ID cards.

Darrin Hodges said...

Australian readers, contact a British consulate in your state and protest against this outrage.

British consulates in Australia

U.K. TODAY. said...

RE LIONHEART; I hate to break this to you old bean but on your return to blighty our prime minister and his circus act have chosen YOU to be their test case, in an attempt to silence the Indiginous populations of this country and their growing dissention to the perils of Islam, through the wonders and technology of the internet.

The case could drag on for years!!.

They will quite likely waste substantial ammounts of tax payers money in trying to prove a point. Their point. Their (Big Brother) Orwellion 1984 point.

Bedfordshire?. Strong muslim population?.
On your return, remember only 3% of our Countrymen are Cult of Islam followers. That should be the percentage on any public jury. Do not let ANYONE fob you off with more.
The wording on your charge sheet?. Islam, in its own wording "Is not a race" Therefore "Race hate" crimes are on thin ice, thus afford debate on technicalities. Enlighten your brief as such!!!.
Finally; Do the rank and file population of England know enough about the reasons for your blogs???. Tell them of your fundemental beliefs and worries, show them what, why and how.

Enlighten YOUR peoples and this foul government will not succeed in getting their charges to stick with a gallon of superglue.

Remember NICK GRIFFIN?. The BRITISH people wont have it. For the majority of them too, they detest this insipid, bankrupt government.

Zenster said...

archonix: The only problem with my point of view here is the Islamic practice of "honourable lies" and taqqiya. It throws a spanner in the works of christian morality which simply isn't designed to counter people who will consistently lie to your face about their goals and aims.

I wonder if most people have even a remote conception just how serious of a deal-breaker taqiyya is.

TAQIYYA DAMNS ISLAM

Taqiyya makes it impossible to ever have the least assurance about anything to do with Islam. Any reform could just as easily be illusory than genuine. Any treaty could be hudna instead of a lasting peace. Any Muslim who rejects taqiyya is an apostate or heretic. The vast majority of Muslims, therefore, subscribe to taqiyya and simply can NEVER be trusted. This is why Islam must be destroyed. Not contained. Not crippled. Not curtailed. Not banned but eradicated from the face of this earth. There can be no compromise on this issue. To paraphrase American Chief of Staff, G.C. Marshall:

No compromise is possible and the victory of democracies can only be complete with the utter defeat of Islam's war machine.

For Islam, this entire conflict is an all-or-nothing proposition. The West has yet to understand this. We continue to think that some sort of peaceable coexistence can be arranged with people who want nothing less than the complete and total subjugation of this world's population. We live in dar al harb and—so far as Islam is concerned—"peace" has absolutely nothing to do with anything about this. The only "peace" that Islam holds in store for us the the "peace of the grave".

Note to Lionheart: Please pay close attention to what U.K. Today has posted above. His words contain some vital legal distinctions that you will want to make clear in court should you be required to testify about your published work.

I also urge you on the strongest possible terms to print out typical Islamic cartoons such as those in the 2006 Iranian Holocaust denial competition. These should be presented in court in order to make the judge and jury aware of how vile Muslim portrayals are of Israel and the West. I will attempt to email you a file I have of them. They make your particular one look like Bonzo Dog.

Henrik said...

Tons of documentation exists to prove that they're the racists, not us. One of my favorites is this pamphlet:

Roots of Palestinian Nazism

It not only claims, it proves, that there's a direct link from Nazi antisemitism to the Palestinian variety.

This whole thing reminds me of the closing chapter of Lord of The Rings:

After having faced and gotten rid of the most insane evil ever concieved, Frodo and his merry friends return to their cozy Shire, only to find it being run by a gang of thugs pretending to be 'Gatherers and distributors', who in their rouge violation of private property wrecks havoc in the cute little country.

Sometimes Islam seems to be just the fever indicating a much deeper disease: The lack of understanding of our culture and history. The Lionheart blog certainly hits right home here, which I rather like.

We should use our flags more, too.

Henrik said...

Oops, the link above should be named 'Roots of Palestinian Nationalism'. Sorry for the Freudian slip...

Baron, got your fix-kit at hand?

john said...

Lionheart,

You must be honest, always. You must tell the West (and Muslims too) the things they dont want to hear.

Read the Quran, ahadith and early biographies of Mohammad. They are very clear about Islams idea of the proper relationship between Muslims (conquerors) and non-Muslims (dead or subdued). Islamic writings are full of hate and violence. I have been deleted on Muslim sites for just posting passages from their own writings.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if a person were prosecuted for saying that Islam calls for hate and violence against non-Muslims (it does, in many many places) and that Mohammad attacked caravans and villages 26 times, murdering his oponents, looting, torturing, enslaving and even letting his men rape. Dont blame non-Muslims for saying this. These were written by the friends and followers of Islams prophet --- and, of course, Muslims dont want to talk about this.

I have visited hundreds of Islamic websites and I can say with absolute certainty that none of them are honest about their religion. They all omit details or twist facts -- or lie.

The hate and violence we see today is just Muslims doing what Islam teaches and what their dear prophet did -- but our PC leaders and foolish media are afraid of hurting their sensitive feelings.

All we need is one leader. Just one man that will go on TV and tell the truth. We need a man that will stand up to an Imam on national TV and ask him about the vile things Islam teaches and the evil deeds of Mohammad. Where is our Churchill?

Good luck to you. Be strong.

John Kactuz
www.kactuzkid.com

"Radical Muslims kill, Moderates make excuses"

PS: dont expect any help from the government, media or academia. They are immoral cowards.

Baron Bodissey said...

Henrik --

No, I think it's better just to leave it. If I deleted it I would just have to move it further down. Your correction is right below it; should be no problem.

Besides, some mistakes are truer than the truth.

;)

USpace said...

We can't stop, WE MUST NOT STOP fighting for Free Speech and Justice! We will fight for Lionheart!

The 'Bushies' would never advocate these legal shenanigans but some of the PIAPS people and Dhimmicrats do and would.

This 'Racial & Religious Hatred Act' is a load of crap. Hopefully it will be scrapped someday when the lawyers start being pressured to use it against Islam's obvious and much more virulent hate speech.

This planned arrest is terrible news for Lionheart, Britain and the world.
Probably the Luton Pakistani Muslim Heroin and crack gang (which is also involved with forcing non-Muslim teen girls into sex-slavery) who he has helped expose pressured the dhimmi pigs to arrest him.

Too many in the dhimmidiot government in Britain are pathetic and corrupt.
The EU is showing itself to be very evil in practice as well as most misguided and extremely stupid and ignorant of reality.

This suppression of free speech will actually cause more violence and hatred of course.
This case will also serve to educate the masses even more about the evils of Sharia and the importance of standing up to Islam.

This must be made very public, we should all tell all our friends about this. Spread the word! God bless Lionheart, I believe he will prevail.
The lawyers on the Right MUST be supported to start fighting this BS more.

Both 'The Left' and 'The Right' should be ticked off about this.

We should tell all the Radio Gods about this. Maybe they'll rant about it on their shows.

.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
outlaw most bloggers

license all the rest
monitor their writing

.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
eliminate FREE speech

the truth may not be spoken
if criminals are exposed

.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
outlaw self-defense

exposing violent crimes
shall be deemed hate speech

.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe loves
corrupt politicians

offer immigrants welfare
get their votes to keep your jobs

.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
be traitorous garbage

just destroy your country
screw your great-granddaughter
.

http://lionheartuk.blogspot.com/

http://haltterrorism.com/

http://absurdthoughtsaboutgod.blogspot.com/

:)
.

USpace said...

And furthermore, the evil forces are after Lionheart because he helped the cops put a drug dealer in prison, then they started sending him death threats and then the cops wouldn't help him.

Local bloggers blogging locally all over the world generally are going to face much more danger because they will always be in their foe's backyard reporting on everything they do and driving them mad for revenge.

He's not just writing about Islam encroaching on Europe and the UK. He's writing about what a very wealthy and well connected Pakistani Muslim organized crime family is up to in Luton.

We can't stop, WE MUST NOT STOP fighting for Free Speech and Justice! We will fight for Lionheart!


absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
ignore creeping sharia

don't believe Jihadists
want world domination
.

Memories of the Willow Tree said...

Has anyone actually verified Paul's story? I hope this is true or we're all gonna end up looking like idiots.

I am currently researching this case and hope to get to the bottom of this.

But think about it this way. Anthony Bennett has made no public announcement regarding this case, Bennett is obsessed with a d-list celebrity Barrymore and has allegedly been handed Paul's case yet says nothing publicly? Put it this way, would you chase a d-list celebrity's case or would you throw your whole life behind one of the most groundbreaking cases that has ever been seen in recent British democratic history? Anthony Bennett's silence is odd? Plus no web page? mention in the news (even local news), no address in House of Commons (Bennett is a local politician). There is no mention of Bennett's connection with Paul anywhere on the web apart from blogs regurgitating 2nd/3rd hand news. Doesn't anyone find this odd?

Jenn of the Jungle said...

I told my not so political husband about this. He's a Londoner. He almost turned green. See he hadn't really believed me when I said his country was going to poop in a hand basket.

And no, we are NOT immune, through the ACLU and like groups under the guise of political correctness we are but a few steps behind England.

bottehond said...

@ jenn of the jungle


Why don't you show him this and ask him to spread the word?

youtube.com: what the west needs to know about islam.

That's the way it has to be done, because NO european government or their statesponsored media will inform its' people about the deatcult. We will have to do it ourselves.

1389 said...

Here's a promo and links to the two upcoming net radio shows featuring Lionheart. Put your ears on, and feel free to call in:

Lionheart Interview 1/17/08 Political Vindication Radio, and 1/18/08 The Gathering Storm

Note that the date of the interview on The Gathering Storm has been changed from 1/11/08 to 1/18/08.

Øyvind Strømmen said...

"Oyvind Strommen and his ilk would see the same censorship applied to their political opposites as this EU law is now doing to Lionheart."

Actually, I am very much against legislation limiting free speech; including "hate speech"-legislation. I have even stated so repeatedly. Many places.

But then, I knew already that truth does not matter too much to all posters on this site.