A year after Hebdo and European leaders ramp up their suppression of free speech

The only reason that we know about widespread assaults on women across Europe on New Year's Eve is because a multitude of Twitter, Facebook and YouTube accounts revealed what the German police, political class and media wanted to suppress.

So now the suppression is being extended to cover social media as well.

The bizarre rationale used for this suppression was expressed by Ralf Jaeger, interior minister for North Rhine-Westphalia: "What happens ... in chat rooms is at least as awful as the acts of those assaulting the women".

Hopefully, citizens of Europe will soon ditch leaders with such distorted values.

France compromises freedom in the face of terror

It is a grievous failure of the state whenever liberty is compromised in the cause of safety.

The constraints on freedom of speech, assembly and association by the French government are betrayals of the most important principles. 

When these freedoms are exercised, all citizens have a clearer view of who they live beside and what may need to be done.

The search without warrant is a undesirable but minor extension of an existing power and, while we retain an open society, abuse by the state should be apparent. 

Ethnic profiling is a specious complaint made more and more frequently by groups (even in Australia). In effect, it is a demand that police ignore intelligence and refuse to act on information that an offender was "dark skinned" - or that the greatest terrorist threats correlate with the Islamic commitment (and indeed even with visitations to particular Islamic groups). 

All governments tend to act in the interests of the governors rather than the governed. 

European governments are showing a growing tendency to act on all sorts of supranational issues without democratic mandate. 

Democracy only constrains this when an active citizenry demands honesty, openness and freedom. 

We must remember that most European governments at this time, wish to conceal from the people that their immigration policies have combined with their anti-assimilation policies (misnamed as "multiculturalism") to turn many European suburbs into toxic ghettos. 

In these testing times, what we need, more than ever, is complete freedom of speech, assembly and association as well as complete honesty and openness from government.

As I write this, the coverup over the New Years Eve attacks near Cologne station is being revealed. Again the same pattern of denial - firstly of the facts - and then of the linkage to the policy of uncontrolled acceptance of huge numbers of young males from mysogynist cultures.

Merry Christmas 2015

“Noon”  One way to say Christian in Arabic is “Nasrani” - one who believes in Jesus of Nazareth.
The Arabic letter "noon" is being adopted by Christians in support of the Christian persecution occurring in the Middle East.

As we celebrate, don't forget Christians in peril around the world....

See:

• Lebanese TV Station Adds Arabic 'N' to Name to Protest Iraqi Christian Persecution
• This Is Not a One-Eyed Smiley Face, It’s a Symbol of Frightening Things Happening to Middle East Christians
• Last remaining Christians flee Iraq's Mosul

Sticks and stones can break our bones but words can never hurt us

In response to Steven Benko's Article: "What Charlie Hebdo says about laughter, violence, and free speech":
You say “Any whiff of censorship”.  Proposals in Australia from Finkelstein  read very similarly to Putins blogger laws.  Much more than a whiff !!!

You say “Most cherished beliefs and figures lampooned”. In Melbourne on Christmas eve, the "Life of Brian" was on National TV.   You would have to scrape the barrel to find someone threatening let alone harming for ridicule of Christianity.  Indeed, lifted academics do it all the time !  Do you remember “Piss Christ” exhibited by no less than the National Gallery in Melbourne.  The totally gutless art community would never try that with any other religion.

“Sticks and stones can break our bones but words can never hurt us” is not “odd advice”, but a sadly forgotten maxim attempting to make exactly the “Charlie Hebdo point” that there is no equivalence between verbal expression and physical violence.

The dangerous concept of “verbal violence” has become “accepted wisdom” in our society and is creeping into our laws.

The failure of intellectuals to see the dangers that they have unleashed through the rejection of the “sticks and stones” distinction is stunning:  If I feel hurt by your words, then my violent response is understandable. e.g. if a husband feels hurt by a wife’s dismissive comment, then a back hand across the mouth is understandable ? If a child, hits a child after being teased, it is understandable?  If a citizens hits a protester with a “hurtful” banner, it is understandable?  If a muslim sees a cartoon......

I would suggest that instead of learning from your daughter, you started to take responsibility for teaching her that violence is not an acceptable response to verbal inadequacy or a thin skin..... or she may grow up into a world, where speaking her mind may end her life.

You say "Laughter and violence have two things in common: first, they are both non-verbal; second, both occur when words fail".
Philosophy and stupidity have 2 things in common: the letter “s” and their prevalence in universities.

Parallelogram: Norway to Boston - There's no such thing as news, there's only opinion....

In "mainstream media", you'll see a lot of this ..... (original story link here)

...but not much of this.....

Ahmed Moor is a Palestinian-American graduate student of Public Policy at Harvard University. Norway's attacks reveal world of hatred Initial reactions to the attacks in Norway showed a "clash of civilisations" exists, but not in the way many understood. Last Modified: 24 Jul 2011 14:40 It is a credit to liberalism in Norway that the country's prime minister did not respond to the attack with fear or vicious speculation [EPA] The Norwegian terrorist who murdered more than ninety innocent civilians - many of whom were teenagers - did not act alone. Or rather, he acted within a cultural and political context that legitimises his fearful and hate-infested worldview. It is now clear that Anders Behring Breivik was exposed to large amounts of right-wing propaganda. This tragedy underlines the urgency with which normal people around the world must combat fundamentalist nationalists and chauvinists wherever they may be. But it also demonstrates the extent to which reactionary bigotry has infected mainstream thought. Many reacted to the news from Oslo with wide eyes and a pointed finger. The most animated reactionaries took to the pages of the New York Times comment section to issue sweeping proclamations about the Clash of Civilisations and something called "the cult of death". In many ways, readers were merely reinforcing the paper's woefully editorialised reportage. As Glenn Greenwald helpfully pointed out, the editors of the NYT - America's allegedly liberal newspaper - reserve the word "terrorist" solely for use in conjunction with the word "Muslim". When news emerged that the perpetrator of the murders - the terrorist - was a man whose religion and skin pigmentation closely resembled those of the editors of the NYT, the story changed. The terrorist became a deranged "Christian extremist" whose tactics clearly mirrored "Al Qaeda's brutality and multiple attacks".  In that way, the paper linked the terrorist with Muslims, despite his strong antipathy for them. Blame for the Western media's panting pursuit of a non-existent Muslim triggerman quickly focused on the feckless, credulous, overeager and inept source of the NYT's journalistic failure. Will McCants - proclaimed by one of his acolytes to be at the top of a "list of five terrorism experts you can trust" - was quickly discredited. In his defence, he only sought to affirm the confirmation bias that he and the editors of the NYT suffer from. The meme that underpins their worldview goes something like this: "Muslims are bad. When bad things happen, Muslims are responsible." This is a mainstream view in the US today; it cuts across party lines. blah....blah......blah.....blah..... foaming at the mouth and falling backwards.... The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy. (original story link here)

Ahm Maybeemuslim is a world citizen who identifies with whatever group provides the best credibility and fast track career options. Boston attack reveals world of hatred Initial reactions to the attacks in Boston showed a "clash of civilisations" exists, but not in the way many understood. Last Modified: 24 Jul 2011 14:40 It is a credit to liberalism in the USA, that the country's president did not respond to the attack with fear or vicious speculation The Chechen terrorist who murdered 4 civilians - one of whom was an 8 year old - did not act alone. Or rather, he acted within a cultural and political context that legitimises his fearful and hate-infested worldview. It is now clear that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was exposed to large amounts of muslim propaganda. This tragedy underlines the urgency with which normal people around the world must combat fundamentalist muslims and terrorist sympathisers wherever they may be. But it also demonstrates the extent to which cowering appeasement has infected mainstream thought. Many reacted to the news from Boston with wide eyes and a pointed finger. The most animated progressives took to the media to issue sweeping proclamations about the innocence of Muslims and something called "Islamophobia". In many ways, readers were merely reinforcing the media's woefully editorialised reportage. As Bill Maher helpfully pointed out, to a liberal professor attempting to equate the worldwide incidence of Muslim terror attacks with radicalism in other religions - "that's liberal bullshit, right there"". When news emerged that the perpetrator of the murders - the terrorist - was a man whose religion and skin pigmentation closely resembled those of so many previous Muslim fanatics, the story changed. The terrorist became just another "atypical" Muslim whose radicalism arose from resentment and deprivation caused by others - perhaps in this case "the ruthless displacement of Muslims" by Stalin (Perhaps, the east considers him part of thre general culpability of the west as well !). The common thread in the vast bulk of media coverage will be more desperate arguments attributing the motive of the terrorist to someone or something other than the ideology of islamofascism. Islamofascism hides within the religion of Islam just as other fascists hide within nationalism. But, whereas much of the press hysterically spreads blame for the violence a "right-winger" to every planetary conservative voice, acts of "islamofascists" are rarely linked with the ideology that spawned them.   The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily, but probably, reflect 5thColumn's editorial policy. This way we get to publish it under our banner without taking responsibility.

Scared western leaders deny fear motivates their sensitivity towards muslim icons

Politicians and leaders around the world are visibly intimidated by the violence of the muslim mobs whipped into a frenzy by a cartoon here or a YouTube clip there.

They then lie to their people by denying that their cowardice is motivated by fear.

If our leaders, with all the apparatus of the state to protect them, are scared, then it is no wonder that the ordinary citizen feels terrified to speak out.  It is the scared silence of the citizen that is the immense danger for society.

Politicians and leaders shout their condemnation of the speakers far louder than their defence of speech.

Offices are bombed, people are killed and our politicians all but say "Look what your speech caused."

The corollary of this is the unstated shared knowledge that a small proportion - but a large number - of muslims resort to violence quickly and easily, and openly oppose freedom, not only in their families and communities, but for all others.

"You should know this, so don't say anything that will excite them."

Politicians and leaders say they have equal sensitivity for all religious icons, and yet I remember a large number of direct attacks on other religions that did not elicit much interest - in fact politicians were sometimes the attackers.

A start of a collection from the sublime to the ridiculous, from the serious to the trivial....

Piss Christ exhibited by state funded galleries in the US and Australia.  No one killed, but there was protests and the work was vandalized a few times. Nevertheless, the New York Times reviewer thinks it is serious art and it made lots of money

Piss Mohammed ?  Would ANY gallery in the world display it ?  Would Christie's auction house sell it ?  Would New York times magazine review it as art ? I am even too scared to put a mock up of it on the page.....  Honestly, would you be courageous enough ?  Does this not say that the extremist are winning ?

Tod Sampson, advertising guru and panelist for popular Australian TV show Gruen Transfer, the thinks it is funny to sell T-shirts infer that "white" people make him nervous.	Which groups are privileged against such ridicule ? Christians make me nervous ?  Not likely to be a problem. Black people make me nervous ?  Aboriginals make me nervous ?  Most likely a lot of criticism. Muslims make me nervous ? An incitement to violence ?
The Book of Mormon (musical) reviewed by NPR as containing "unprintably blasphemous bit of faithful-baiting".  As it's performance was on at the same time as the "Innocence of Muslims" reaction, it has been cited in many articles and cartoons.	The Life of Brian ? Quite a bit of peaceful protest and criticism, but overwhelming international acceptance. The Book of the Prophet (the musical).   It is safe to imagine it. After all there is plenty of rich material in it for satire and send up ! But, do anything more than imagine ?  How long do you think you would live ?  Artists are as scared as I am, and continue to only pick on the "soft" targets.
Previous BBC Director General, Mark Thompson, openly admitted that different religions were treated with different sensitivities due to the threat of violence: ‘Without question, “I complain in the strongest possible terms”, is different from, “I complain in the strongest possible terms and I am loading my AK47 as I write”. This definitely raises the stakes.’	If one of the most respected world media organisations is intimidated, what chance has the average world citizen....
Parody of what look like Kung Fu monks where their pepsi has been inserted into their central iconography.	Parody of madrasah where inmates worshipped using Pepsi ..... Are you scared enough yet ? Or are you still trying to convince yourself that this is all because buddhists do not deserve respect, and muslims do ?
Pussy Riot walks to the front of a church during a service, puts on terrorist style balaclavas and takes over  invoked the name of the Virgin Mary, and urging her to get rid of Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and to "become a feminist".	Boy or girl band Pussy Riot walks to the front a mosque during a service, puts on  in terrorist style balaclavas and takes over invoked the name of the Prophet, and urging him to get rid of Ahmadinejad and to "become a feminist". Imagine a group of very brave girls or boys in ANY muslim dominated country OR almost any cowering free country doing this ? If they did would the music celebs support them from prosecution from "hooliganism" ? Do you seriously believe that they would have got out alive ?
-	-
-	-
-	-
- still looking around....  songs, cartoons, etc etc	-

In Victoria Australia, the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act (2001) makes it a criminal offence to "severe(ly) ridicule" a person because of their religion.  But it does not prevent the ridicule of the religion itself.  So you should be free to say what you like about the religion of mormons, islam, christianity, scientology, etc, but not to severely ridicule those who believe.

This creates a bind, because Islam itself can be read any old way like the bible.  It is really the huge number of fanatics themselves that make the religion so dangerous.  Thus the above law is so dangerous because, like the examples above, it is so selectively applied to stifle criticism of looneys.


If someone "severely ridicules" an obvious looney carying a placard saying "Behead

Moves are afoot to respond spinelessly to the above intimidation by criminalising ALL so called "blasphemy" or so called "hate speech".

Unfortunately many religious leaders have an obvious attraction to rolling back a couple of hundred years of the growth of freedom.