Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Allah the Imaginary

An EDL protester was recently fined £200 for “making offensive comments about Allah” during a demonstration in Leicester. Even though police officers and the EDL were the only ones able to hear what he said, the prosecution said people were “likely to be offended” and the police were “likely to have been alarmed”. His words were considered “threatening, abusive or insulting” and likely to cause “harassment, alarm or distress”.

The convicted man said he did not think he would offend anyone.

But suppose he had intended offense? Why is that a legal issue?

Why is offending someone the sole basis for prosecution in countries that supposedly uphold civil liberties for their citizens?

Vlad Tepes and I discussed the issue for a while and devised the following response:

Allah? Imaginary!

(Click to enlarge)

This became a Vlad-Baron joint venture, with Vlad doing the video and the talking, and me doing the image and the spelling — a win-win for everyone.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

“Allah is Mohammed’s Imaginary Friend”

We are launching a new protest campaign that aims to drive a wedge into the thin crack between leftists and the Muslims.

We’re going to do this with this image [point at it], and the slogan: “Allah is Mohammed’s Imaginary Friend”.

We aim for protesters to get arrested for having a picture that shows Mohammed talking to a giant bunny.

In fact, participants must insist on being arrested, and on being tried.

By doing this we proclaim our fundamental rights, which were not granted to us, but were always ours, and are only now being taken away by the tyranny of state power.

These rights include the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the freedom of religion — including the right to have no religion at all.

We will go to jail for saying that Allah is imaginary.

We will say nothing about Muslims being violent.

We will say nothing insulting at all, only that their god is imaginary. If someone chooses to be insulted by this, that is his decision.

Any atheist has the right to say what we say. It is one of our fundamental freedoms.

Vlad suggests that people download the image from his site and make T-shirts for themselves and friends, for placards, signs, posters, etc.

At demonstrations, participants should chant the slogan while waving a card or sign.

And everyone should stick to the slogan, and not be sidetracked into calling Muslims “thugs” and so on, because that just supports the idea that we are evil insulting people.

Stick to message, and go to jail for saying that Allah is imaginary.

Simple, yet effective.

Even the most diehard leftists will choke hard when they are forced to condemn us as “racists”.

Muslims will be offended, of course, and that will serve as grounds for our arrest.

This will only serve to emphasize that all speech that does not agree with the Koran and the hadith and the sunna of the prophet is offensive to Muslims, and must be prohibited.

And the fact that our governments prohibit it means that they are enforcing full sharia upon everyone, not just on Muslims.

Which is a violation of our rights, the same rights that our government claims to protect when they arrest us for saying that Allah is Mohammed’s imaginary friend.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Vlad’s video about Allah the Imaginary is below the jump, to foil the Blogger Bug:


Richard said...

If this catches on it will be a brilliant civil disobedience campaign, one that will cause a lot of people to stop and think about when/if the British Government actually arrests and tries people for wearing the shirts or carrying the placards.

Vlad Baron I salute you, if my meds would allow me to drink I would lift a glass to you.

Mother Effingby said...

Simple, brilliant. You guys live dangerously.

Greg said...

Now hold on -- didn't Richard Dawkins publish a book that stated that God (and Muslims claim they worship God) does not exist, that he is a figment of the believer's imagination?

Why has he not been arrested, tried, and convicted under this same law?

scherado said...

I agreeeeeee. BRILIANT!!

filthykafir said...

Bunny's gotta lose the basket; otherwise I predict the whole plan will blow up in your faces. :-)

Zilla said...

Although we are not being arrested in the US yet, I think this is a great idea for Americans too, because we've being forced into dhimmitude and a lot of us don't like it.

gsw said...

After that poor pensioner was fined 800€ for 'offending' an extremely noisy neighbour, I have given this some thought. The only possible defence I can envisage in countries already bowing to the threat of "civil unrest for non-compliance to shari'ah" is to appeal to the very laws being implemented.

Since I have a secular-humanist belief system, which states not only my disbelief in gods in general but my very specific belief in the non-existence of allah, I am offended by statements made referring to the "deficiency of female intelligence" and that those with a secular-humanist belief system are "animals and worse".
Claiming that these insults are backed by the statements of a man - dead for 1400 years - who supposedly heard it from an angel that a non-existent god sent is contrary to my secular-humanist belief system and therefore unacceptable and offensive.
As proved by the legally accepted belief system Buddhism, the invocation of a deity is not necessary for the validity of the belief system.

Anonymous said...

can anyone advise me what the original picture was all about? some kind of TV show?

Baron Bodissey said...

lbertarian --

The photo is from the movie Harvey, which came out in 1950. It starred James Stewart, who played a man who appeared normal except for the fact that he had a giant rabbit named Harvey as an imaginary friend.

That's Jimmy Stewart in the picture wearing the turban. Needless to say, the turban was not part of the original photo...

Waes Hael said...

Good idea, but I wonder how many people have to get arrested for the establishment to realise they are taking away our rights and freedoms.

How free should freedom of speech be?

Anonymous said...

I like it, but am afraid it might be a wee bit to esoteric to really catch on.

Dag Reidar Bye said...

" Greg said... 3 Now hold on -- didn't Richard Dawkins publish a book that stated that God (and Muslims claim they worship God) does not exist, that he is a figment of the believer's imagination?

Why has he not been arrested, tried, and convicted under this same law?"

Because he would be able to defend himself in such a way that those hate laws would become totally foolish.

There are no one who arrest, or charge, those who sell the Divine Comedy by Dante. There is Muhammed living in eternal torment, in the most central parts of hell, and Dante actually says that Muhammed is one of the most evil men who ever lived.
That is hate speech, but if an ordinary worker is saying precisely the same, by using words in a different style, by using a different form, this man will be dragged to the court. Dante is after all "a very important piece of high minded literature, propagated by professors, and people who have 15 years with university education, are member of the same lodge as we are, who have an impressive social network, are members of the Ministry of Arts and Science..." ...and so on.

Zenster said...

spackle: I like it, but am afraid it might be a wee bit to esoteric to really catch on.

However reluctantly, I must agree. Still, like the proverbial busload of lawyers at the lake's bottom, it's a good start.

Clearly, more abject ridicule is required but it is also the main issue of contention.

Something like see-through burqas, lacy niqabs, transparent veils and other ways of lampooning Islam's most prized forms of repression would be a lot more productive.

Such cerebral approaches, as that of the "imaginary friend", manage to skirt the law, which is the entire point, but do not have the visceral punch needed to deliver enough ridicule and humiliation.

The point does remain that it is the corrupt Western legal systems which need challenging and this measure does address the matter at least to some extent. The best we can hope for is that some other genius will see this approach and use it as a springboard for something even more effective.

Anonymous said...

thank you for the explanation. I am as appreciative of Jimmie Stewart as anyone, but I wonder how many others are or will be asking the same question. Witty, yes, but also a tad dated for today's audience.

Melykin said...

Does anyone have a link to the actual words that Lee Whitby was fined for saying? Just curious

pst314 said...

I liked Harvey a lot better: He never told me to kill anyone and he always knew where the best bars were.

(Quibble: That's a publicity photo. Harvey never actually appears during the movie...at least I'm 99.9% sure of that.)

Unknown said...

This is what Islam doesn't want you to know
And here