UK press caving in under Muslim threat

[Adrian II]

These may not be the best or the worst of times, but we are certainly witnessing an interesting tale of two cities.

In Paris, Charlie Hebdo published a special issue this week about freedom of expression with lots of cartoons including the 12 Danish ones. They were given massive and visible police protection, but knowing CH, they would have published their special issue no matter how much or how little police protection they got.

In London, one paper after the other gives in to the demand of the authorities to keep a lid on the affair. Scotland Yard is warning editors that it can not protect them from Muslim killers, and no editor apparently has the guts to stand up for free speech. Papers are shredded, websites are 'cleaned', journalists dare only refer to the Danish cartoons in links to links to other peoples' links, making them look like naughty juveniles. The Blair government doesn't need any new laws restricting free speech, it seems they have already gone into effect.

Knowing the Brits, I believe this nonsense will not last long. When are we going to see the inevitable backlash, and what form will it take?

Link

[Navaros]

What are they gonna do, fight the Muslims? The Muslims won't mind if that happens. They are not going to backdown from any sort of fight. Stop insulting Islam, stop getting thrashed by Muslims. That's how it works.

[Duke Malcolm]

You say we should kowtow to the barbaric uncivilised will of a few muslims? I can't help but agree with Winston Churchill now...

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property‹either as a child, a wife, or a concubine‹must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science‹the science against which it had vainly struggled‹the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.

[BDC]

The British press doesn't need to insult Muslims to make them look bad.

They did it themselves last weekend.

[rory_20_uk]

What is really unsettling is although Churchill wrote that many years ago, nothing has appeaciably altered since then...

[Adrian II]

What are they gonna do, fight the Muslims?

No, just re-affirm the right to free expression. Muslims all over the world are fighting each other, trampling their onw kids and torching their own future. No need to give them a helping hand, is there?

[Watchman]

Churchill was also a very biased observer, and instrumental in the birth of just about the single most bitter grudge the Islamic world bears. Stuff him.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

I believe one student newspaper published them.
The editor lost their position and all but a miniscule number of copies were taken out of circulation.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Nations should be governed by grand, lofty ideas, not by shopkeepers.

[InsaneApache]

Churchill was also a very biased observer, and instrumental in the birth of just about the single most bitter grudge the Islamic world bears. Stuff him.

Yes the bastard refused to kowtow to Herr Schickelgruber and the hoards of darkness known as the National Socialists. For over a year the UK stood alone against the Nazis. Despite repeated attempts by Hitler and his henchmen to bomb and strafe the UK into submission they failed. All down to bloody Winston, what a prat. Yes indeed stuff him. Still, one has to wonder what sort of world we would live in now because of this idiot.

As for the UK papers getting silenced, why am I not surprised when we have the most illiberal, controlling governments that I can remember.

[Watchman]

Yes the bastard refused to kowtow to Herr Schickelgruber and the hoards of darkness known as the National Socialists. For over a year the UK stood alone against the Nazis. Despite repeated attempts by Hitler and his henchmen to bomb and strafe the UK into submission they failed. All down to bloody Winston, what a prat. Yes indeed stuff him. Still, one has to wonder what sort of world we would live in now because of this idiot.

I've seen it observed opposing Hitler was about the sole correct political decision he made in few decades.

Still, fine job mixing such utterly unrelated topics together. Sheer analytical brilliance.

Oh yeah, by what I've read ole Winston was not only a racist and imperialist of the fine old Age of Empire tradition, but also a pro-zionist. That's some objective commentator on Islam...

[Papewaio]

Yes the bastard refused to kowtow to Herr Schickelgruber and the hoards of darkness known as the National Socialists. For over a year the UK stood alone against the Nazis. Despite repeated attempts by Hitler and his henchmen to bomb and strafe the UK into submission they failed. All down to bloody Winston, what a prat. Yes indeed stuff him. Still, one has to wonder what sort of world we would live in now because of this idiot.

As for the UK papers getting silenced, why am I not surprised when we have the most illiberal, controlling governments that I can remember.

Churchill said the same things about Ghandi as he did Hitler. A broken clock can be right twice a day.

Churchill was the bulldog that was brought out to attack anything that moves. Be that Ghandi, striking workers or Hitler he all treated them the same.

Also as a military genius he fell far short. Gallopolli? North Sea debacle.

Churchill had many flaws and one of them definitly was as Watchman-san noted that he was a biased observor and I would add imperialist to boot.

He did go to the front after Gallopolli but it was more the case of being depressed then an act of contrition given his actions that followed later in his life.

However his flaws were outweighed by his ability to motivate a Britain that could quite easily have lost against an aggresive Germany. It was a very close call for Britain and they almost did lose early on. So for that the British should be happy. But it should not mean they lose perspective on who he wasn't just because of who he was.

[Marcellus]

No, just re-affirm the right to free expression.

I wouldn't say that the newpaper's right to freedom of expression is being threatened. If they want to publish the cartoons, they can. But I think they're just being sensible, and realising that these cartoons would upset a large amount of people in Britain without bringing any real benefit to anyone else. They can see that if they publish the cartoons, it would be detrimental to the country overall, and so they don't.

Just because I have the right to insult anyone I like under freedom of speech, doesn't mean that it is a good thing to do, and I most certainly have to do it to show that I have freedom of speech.

[Navaros]

No, just re-affirm the right to free expression.

Every time someone gets the "bright idea" to "re-affirm the right to free expression" by desecrating Islam, then Mulims are going to re-affirm their right to make sure that was a regretable decision.

[Duke Malcolm]

But muslims don't have the right to make sure that it was a regretable decision without illegal activities (unless the person reaffirming free expression is a product exporter to the Middle East, which is unlikely...)

[Navaros]

But muslims don't have the right to make sure that it was a regretable decision without illegal activities

Says who? The laws of evil secularist men?

The Muslims do not care about such laws, nor should they. That's what's so great, their faith & conviction is so strong that no matter who or how many tell them "no, that's bad, you're wrong, you can't do that!", they are just gonna keep on keepin' on.

[caravel]

Every time someone gets the "bright idea" to "re-affirm the right to free expression" by desecrating Islam, then Mulims are going to re-affirm their right to make sure that was a regretable decision.

No. I think you'll find that the Danes, the French and anyone else for that matter, has the right to piss all over yours or any religion while on their own native soil and there's not alot that you or your extremist chums can do about that, except make yourselves even more despised with impotent public ranting and flag burning.

[InsaneApache]

Was Churchill wrong though? Given what we have witnessed?

[Navaros]

No. I think you'll find that the Danes, the French and anyone else for that matter, has the right to piss all over yours or any religion while on their own native soil and there's not alot that you or your extremist chums can do about that, except make yourselves even more despised with impotent public ranting and flag burning.

On the contrary. They have already done much about it: sent a loud and clear message that the desecration of Islam will not go unanswered.

Everyone is going to think twice now before trying to desecrate Islam again.

Of course for those who "forget" that the desecration will be answered, I'm sure the reminders will be swiftly forthcoming in any future incidents.

[A.Saturnus]

What are they gonna do, fight the Muslims? The Muslims won't mind if that happens. They are not going to backdown from any sort of fight. Stop insulting Islam, stop getting thrashed by Muslims. That's how it works.

Yeah, mother of all battles and such. No, the last time Moslims thrashed anyone was probably Gallipoli, but they got thrashed regularly since then. Those Muslim fanatics are more like the annoying child that freaks out because the others kids don't want to play his game. We, the evil secularist men, want to stop those wackos before they piss off the until now self-restraint West so much that it goes into a red haze, lowers itself to their level and stuffs them down a well. And a few other that stand in the way. And, boy, they will mind that!

[Watchman]

The changes in the West involved distribution of ideas. Printing Press, a more powerful upper class to dethrone the royalty, then a more powerful middle class that demanded more rights to match their economic might.

Just for the record, the usual route was first absolutism that largely relegated the aristocracy to secondary importance save as a source of officers and cavalry soldiers, followed by eventual middle-class takeover by the merit of sheer wealth (the landed aristocracy was notoriously bad at actually making money). Where both monarchy and aristocracy were present, and the monarch was unable to assert himself over the aristocracy, the standard result was stagnation; as said, the landed aristocracy was notoriously poor at finances. For assorted reasons much of East and Central Europe followed that route, and according to some theories are still paying the bill.

At least as far as the Middle East and other oil-rich regions are concerned oil has to be among the bigger issues. Or to be more precise, its global importance which saw the local grabby elites left alone first by the colonial empires so long as the gunk flowed, and then the "global community" (such as it now is) so long as the gunk flowed. And the way the astronomical profits from the oil industry are near-exclusively splurged on the high living and tax-haven accounts of the upper crust; for comparision one of Saddam's preciously few good points was his willingness to invest some of his ill-gotten gains in stuff like public education and healthcare...

When you think about it, the model actually looks suspiciously like the pattern that led Eastern Europe into such trouble.

Naturally enough the Great Unwashed don't exactly like the situation, which is a boon for the militant clergy - all the more so as they're relatively safe from state violence, and instead need to be negotiated with.

Personally I think most of the MidEast dictatorships are on a road to general revolt. AFAIK the firebrand clerics consider their native overlords only a marginally lesser evil than the encroaching godless West, and would quite happily kick them down if they could (and put someone suitable, like some seriously hardcase reactionary old fart from amongst their number, into the empty space...). The practice of trading concessions to the radicals and letting them rage against the West when they feel like it is quite likely just stalling and will eventually become untenable; it is almost certain all such incidents only strenghten the radicals' position in the long run, and it is entirely possible the dictators will eventually find themselves with nothing more to sell.

Well, the mess might also collapse into ugly civil war too. Long-term dictators are often bad at giving up power and quietly slipping out of the back door when the fat lady starts singing.

Usually a good preventive medicine against popular uprisings is sufficient socioeconomical and political reforms to make the people reasonably happy and give them a "stake" in the existing state of affairs, so they no longer want to tear it down in hopes of building something better instead. Now, getting such moves through the sheer corruption and stubborn power-monopolizing of the autocratic elites is an entirely different matter...

[Papewaio]

It would be a lot easier if there was no oil... then they would have to either learn or work their collective butts off to create wealth.

So alternative energy sources could castrate the dictators of the middle east. It would also seriously hamper the clerics from having any wealth to wage war with. And it would then require the locals to learn if they wanted any wealth at all.

[Watchman]

Overly simplistic; although similar effects are most pronounced in Third World countries with suitably exploitable valuable raw materials (say, diamonds), they're no strangers to less 'fortunate' countries either. The world economy just plain is developed in such a way as to severely disadvantage the common folk and economies of the "developing world," in most cases at least partially as a legacy of the colonial period.

And remember, terrorism is the low-budget warfare method.

[Strike For The South]

All this for cartoons? Seems a bit over the top espacilly considering the goverment is now limiting what you can say. Why do we try to bend over baclwards for these people? We have to obey there laws and coustoms when we go over there or live yet its only a one way street. This is how the fanatics are going to win. By being able to inhibit the wests laws and us making them around that. Sad really

[makkyo]

In London, one paper after the other gives in to the demand of the authorities to keep a lid on the affair. Scotland Yard is warning editors that it can not protect them from Muslim killers, and no editor apparently has the guts to stand up for free speech. Papers are shredded, websites are 'cleaned', journalists dare only refer to the Danish cartoons in links to links to other peoples' links, making them look like naughty juveniles. The Blair government doesn't need any new laws restricting free speech, it seems they have already gone into effect.

I doubt it was the gov that was the real motive for not beating a dead horse with these pictures (origionally published in last September). Maybe some people recongize that a few pictures of 'ole Moe is not worth weeks upon weeks of riots and killings by angry Muslim radicals. They certainly have the right to publish them, but they also have the choise to not show them as well.