[Left: Does Dan Hodges think that we, or the Koran-burners, are responsible for events like this? Top: the extremely smug, extremely Islamic editor of the New Statesman. Right: Dan Hodges. A neo-colonialist Leftist who thinks that the Brown Exotic has no free will and isn't responsible for his actions - even when he blows innocent children up. We're to blame instead. The West is to blame. Zionists are to blame. Or the EDL and the Koran-burners are to blame. Just as long as the infantilised (by Leftists and himself) Muslims aren't to blame.]
“The kaffar, the disbelievers, the atheists who remain deaf and stubborn to the teachings of Islam, the rational message of the Quran; they are described in the Quran as, quote, “a people of no intelligence”, Allah describes them as; not of no morality, not as people of no belief - people of “no intelligence” - because they’re incapable of the intellectual effort it requires to shake off those blind prejudices, to shake off those easy assumptions about this world, about the existence of God. In this respect, the Quran describes the atheists as “cattle”, as cattle of those who grow the crops and do not stop and wonder about this world.” – Medhi Husan, editor, New Statesman
The degree of Leftist hypocrisy, the sheer patronisation of Muslims and Islam and the cynical and opportunist way he - or the Left generally - uses Islam and Muslims makes you feel physically sick.
There seems to be no limit to what Leftists (such as this journalist) will say and do to protect Islam and Islamism. They have gone so far, in their patronisation and opportunism that they simply can’t stop now. Things can only get worse. Just as they did in Iran in 1979 when Leftists first started being put up against walls and then shot by their ‘revolutionary’ Islamist friends.
Comments on the New Statesman article, 'If you burn the Koran, yes, you should go to jail', by Dan Hodges, 14th April, 2011. (Comments are in red.)
Sorry if that sounds a bit intolerant. Brashly illiberal. But these happy arsonists who think it's a giggle to torch a religious text and screw the consequences aren't averse to a bit of brash intolerance themselves. [Yes it does sound ‘intolerant’ and ‘illiberal’. But that doesn’t surprise me in the least. This is the Left we're talking about.
The Left was never tolerant or liberal in the first place. This article simply shows us how far the Left is willing to go to appease Islam and Islamism.
Yes, Leftists are tolerant - to the right people and the right groups. Yes it is also liberal - to the right people and the right groups.
The Left’s current recipients of middle-class Leftist patronisation are, of course, Muslims.
And who says that burning the Koran is ‘just a giggle’? This writer may think so; though millions of others throughout the world would also like to burn the Koran. Not for a giggle: because it's one of the most obnoxious, violent and intolerant books known to man. A book that justifies and encourages jihad against every non-Muslim on the planet. A book that encourages and justifies slavery on a massive scale. A book that belittles and ridicules every non-Muslim as ’cattle’ or as 'pigs and monkeys’ (see Medhi Hasan's quote) and as people who should either be killed or forcibly converted.
So this appeaser - this Leftist opportunist and cynic - thinks only good things about this book. Actually, he probably hasn’t read the Koran. His Leftism - therefore his opportunism and cynicism vis-a-vis Muslims and Islam - demands that he patronises not only every Muslim, but also their despicable holy book. And all for Leftism. Not at all for Muslims or Islam.]
Actually that's not right. It's not that they're averse to the consequences. They're all too aware of them. Social division and disorder are the ends, a box of matches, jerry can of petrol and Waterstone's discount card the means. [You may fart outside a mosque and a Muslim may bomb a nursery school. Should we be ‘averse’ to that ‘consequence’? Should we give in to every Muslim threat and every piece of Muslim blackmail - threats and blackmail which effectively demand that every non-Muslim in this country should be subject to sharia blasphemy law?
And here’s the New Statesman fully endorsing sharia blasphemy law. And completely giving in to Muslim threats and blackmail.]
At the weekend the BNP joined the list of those endorsing this particularly pernicious branch of DIY. The Observer was passed a video showing a "Sion Owens, 40, from south Wales and a candidate for the forthcoming Welsh Assembly elections, soaking the Quran in kerosene and setting fire to it". [Did this writer ever speak out against The Life of Brian? The ‘Piss Christ’ exhibition in London? Of course not. Christianity is a ‘white oppressor’ religion and a tool of ‘Zionist-crusaders’. It's not the religion of the Brown Exotic Oppressed (who are ripe for Leftist patronisation).
Did the New Statesman as a whole ever criticise the innumerable anti-Christian works of art over the last fifty years? The numberless academic works that not only criticised Christianity; but mocked it? What did it say about The Last Temptation of Christ? If anything - this Leftist rag would have praised it as a work of art. (I'm not saying that it isn't.)
Thus, again, Christianity isn't Brown and Exotic and thus not ripe for Leftist patronisation. The hypocrisy here is nauseating.]
The reaction from the Welsh police was swift: "We always adopt an extremely robust approach to allegations of this sort and find this sort of intolerance unacceptable in our society." [I believe that intolerance towards the intolerant - the Koran, Islamism, etc. - is not only acceptable: it's absolutely necessary.]
Owens was arrested, charged and subsequently released, though he was informed that "investigations were continuing and that "almost certainly other proceedings will ensue".
Good. Nicking Nazi pyromaniacs is what I want my police to be doing. It's what we all want our police to be doing, isn't it? [Yes; if you agree that it’s ‘Nazi’ to burn the Koran. What if you don’t? What if you think it's the Koran itself that's Nazi?
We all want the police to do exactly what we want them to do. So of course this despicable Leftist wants the police to be the enforcer of political correctness, Community Cohesion, Embraced Diversity and, basically, Islamophilia or Dhimmitude.]
Apparently not. According to Alex Massie in the Spectator, "even goons and other dreadful people have rights and these should include the right to burn books in their garden". And the Tory MEP Daniel Hannan believes that burning the Quran "makes you a dummkopf, not a criminal . . . Some other countries fight false ideas with the force of law. We should fight them with truth." [And, of course, Alex Massie can’t be right on this because he writes for the Spectator. And because he writes for the Spectator, he mustn't really believe in freedom. He must be saying what he's saying about burning the Koran because he’s a ‘Nazi’, or a ‘racist’, or a ‘Islamophobe’, or ‘far right’. Isn’t Leftist political thought so incredibly sophisticated?]
Actually Daniel, we should fight them with both. Think of a motive Those who defend Quran-burning on the basis of free speech miss the point. [The Leftist point?]
For a start, it's not free. It requires someone to go out, buy a book, buy petrol (not even cheap at the moment, never mind free), light it, film the whole thing and then distribute the proceedings to whatever little clique they call their friends, or more widely on YouTube or some other "social" medium. This is an overt, conscious action, motivated by malign intent. It is not the product of open, free-spirited discourse, but an aggressive, premeditated provocation. [What the EDL and the Koran-burners do is much, much worse than what Islamoterrorists do, or what the Islamists preach, of course. The EDL are just such a threat with their bombing campaigns and their threats to annihilate Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. But what I really hate about the EDL is how they want to enforce Christianity on everyone.]
Nor is it actually speech. It's not opening a dialogue or building an argument. Quite the opposite. It's a deliberate act of destruction; the destruction of a dialogue and argument constructed by others. If you don't like Islam, fine. Write a book about why. Don't burn one. [But ‘dialogue’ is just about forbidden by Leftists like this as well.
There is no debate between the counter-jihad movement and the Leftist enablers of Islamism. The Left believes in there being ‘no platform’ for all those who disagree with it. This isn’t just about this Leftist anti-free speech totalitarian being against book-burning. The Left has a No Platform Policy on all aspects of the counter-jihad movement - from its basic academic criticisms, to its demos, to its websites - everything!
This stuff about imprisoning book burners is just the beginning. In fact it has already gone way beyond imprisoning burners of the Koran. EDL members have had ten-year banning orders placed upon them which stop them from attending demos or even accessing EDL websites. Councillors and politicians, up and down the country, have called for the EDL to be banned outright. Every EDL demo faces a violent counter-demo from the SWP/UAF. Regional newspapers simply mirror these opinions and actions of far leftists without - sometimes - even realising they are regurgitating or mirroring far-leftist views and actions.]
Those who see the heavy hand of the law as a disproportionate response to this act of bibliophobia are themselves losing perspective. [The irony is that being a typical Leftist hypocrite, there will be many ‘right wing’ or ‘Nazi’ books he would love to burn. But he doesn’t need to. Leftists like him have "won the culture war" therefore they don’t need to resort to book burning. After all, he writes for a national magazine which has a known extreme Muslim as its editor. It’s all already going swimmingly for Leftists like this journalist. Burning books is just ‘crude and common’ - he’s got articles to write.]
It's not just the action, it's the consequences. We know what Quran-burning leads to. In the past couple of weeks it has resulted in innocent people being murdered and maimed. It's increased the threat to British and western troops serving overseas. It's boosted the Taliban and other terrorist organisations. [So the book burners are to blame for the psychotic nature of Islamists and other Muslims? What kind of perverse logic is that? Were we to blame for Hitler invading Poland?
The Left has already said, many times, that we were to blame for 9/11 (just as the Israelis are to blame for every sick act the Islamoterrorists carry out). Not only that: the InterFaithers actually apologise for being Islamobombed. Who are these people and why do they have these positions of power and influence in our society?]
If our laws do not exist to prevent people from deliberately engaging in actions and activity that incite others to murder, propagate international terrorism and lay the seeds of civil disorder, what are they for? [Are serial killers ‘incited to murder’? Are paedophiles incited to commit acts of abuse on young children? No? Then why are Muslims always incited, by us, to commit all manner of obscenities? Is it because the neo-colonist Leftists see all Muslims as children who are not responsible for any bad action they carry out - even the bombing of infant schools? This man should be tried for treason - only he’d love that. He’d become a true Leftist martyr.]
We have laws to protect a book's copyright. We have laws to protect the intellectual rights of the person who wrote and published it. But we shouldn't have laws to prevent that book being treated in a manner that leads to half a dozen people being decapitated? [Again, Muslims are never to blame for their own actions - but we are! They have no free will. Only we have free will. Such neo-colonialist crap about the Brown Exotic cannot only be the product of Leftist middle-class guilt.]
Hannan writes that anyone who burned a Quran would argue that they are "not to blame for any bloody consequences and, in a sense, this is true: any retaliation will be entirely the responsibility of its perpetrators". But the law does not hold to account solely those who perpetrate the final criminal act. That's why it's not just illegal to use a firearm, or drugs, but also illegal to supply them. [A person who sells drugs knows that the drugs he sells will be used and may cause harm. A person who burns the Koran may have no idea that some psychotic Muslim will blow up twenty people 1, 000 miles away because of what he did. This writer’s cause-and-effect lack of logic is staggering. Does he really believe that the burning of a Koran alone will be the sole reason why a Muslim will kill people in revenge? What about this killer’s religion? His prior Islamic actions? The religious environment he lives in? His view on previous infidel crimes? No Muslim ever kills just because of a single Koran burning. He kills because his religion has taught him that violence, within Islam, is absolutely acceptable and even pious.]....