The subjects covered in this blog include Slavoj Žižek, IQ tests, Chomsky, Tony Blair, Baudrillard, global warming, sociobiology, Islam, Islamism, Marx, Foucault, National/International Socialism, economics, the Frankfurt School, philosophy, anti-racism, etc... I've had articles published in The Conservative Online, American Thinker, Intellectual Conservative, Human Events, Faith Freedom, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), New English Review, etc... (Paul Austin Murphy's Philosophy can be found here.)
This blog used to be called EDL Extra. I was a supporter (neither a member nor a leader) of the EDL until 2012. This blog has retained the old web address.

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

Thursday, 2 December 2010

“Allah is Mohammed’s Imaginary Friend” – Free Speech Campaign


INTERNATIONAL CIVIL LIBERTIES ALLIANCE


By Aeneas • on December 1, 2010, from International Civil Liberties Alliance

The following is a joint project initiated by Vlad Tepes and Gates of Vienna.

Freedom of speech can not be granted. It can only be taken. Take it now.

Joint project: Vlad Tepes and Gates of Vienna. Please grab the image from this post below, and use.

Text below is from GOV:

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 gates of vienna discussed the issue for a while and devised the following response:

This became a Vlad-Baron joint venture, with Vlad doing the video and the talking, and GOV 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.

No comments:

Post a Comment