How life changed for the Westergaards

An article in the Guardian provides a depressing picture of what life is like for one of the Jyllands-Posten cartoonists because there are nutcases whose “ideologies” are tolerated largely without suspicion by society at large, and who make threats because of perceived insults to their “prophet”.

The Jyllands-Posten cartoonists were commissioned by that paper to provide cartoons of the Muslims’ fave big guy, and Kurt Westergaard has been living in fear ever since they were published. In fact, his life has changed dramatically.

Last week – and this is what has prompted the Guardian feature – his home was broken into and his life threatened by one of the followers of the man of questionable morals whom Muslims worship. He was still exercised by Westergaard’s representation of a man who may or may not have been meant to be Mohammed with a bomb in his turban. As often is the case when Muslims whinge, blogs such as this one make a point of showing their readers what the fuss is about, thus multiplying the numbers of pairs of eyes that get to see what it is the Muslims are getting so worked up about (it's notable that the Guardian doesn’t reproduce the picture, though – oh, no!).

The paper cites a scene in which Westergaard and his family were once unloading their luggage at a hotel, when “they came to the attention of two men and two women who were apparently of Middle Eastern origin”.

“May you burn in hell!” one of the men shouted at Westergaard.

“Can we talk about it?” the cartoonist asked.

“May you burn in hell,” the man repeated.

“Well, I guess we’ll have to talk about it in hell, then,” Westergaard finally said. When the police arrived five minutes later, the party of four was long gone.

This illustrates the unquestioning blindness of the “faith” of these crackpots, which would be a laugh if they weren’t often murderous psychopaths obeying what they perceive are the diktats of their loopy religion. One might have some sympathy with them if they could provide a decent argument as to why they feel they have a right to stamp on others’ freedom of expression.

Muslims and squiggles

Mad Muzzies are at it again, with more than 300 Arab and Islamic web forums complaining about a few squiggles. Yes, it's another cartoon. This time it's in Japan.

According to a story in Japan Today, Shueisha Inc., a Japanese publisher involved in the production of a cartoon called JoJo’s Bizarre Adventure (and its animation version), decided to suspend sales of some of the original comics and the DVD series yesterday, but said the material in it, showing a man reading a book, was not intended to be offensive.

Material like this is rarely intended to be offensive: it's sometimes intended to poke fun or satirise or just be amusing or diverting. Sometimes, as in the case of this one – which shows the baddy looking at the Koran as he contemplates assassinating the goody – a piece of fact taken from the real world is depicted as part of a storyline, in this case the Koran, which exists as a published work, as does the Bible, as do any number of editions of the complete works of Shakespeare and the latest Coldplay CD.

The perceived problem with this one seemed to be that it depicted Muslims as terrorists. Do terrorists not read books, and some of them the Koran? Don't perceived good people read pornography or material that religionists would find distasteful? Was this character, anyway, a terrorist, or just the villain you see in all comic books, whether it's the Joker or Lex Luther?

If the goody had the Koran in his hands, that would be OK, would it? You never know with these bleating whingers. Perhaps the goody would have to have a beard and be called Ali or Mahmoud rather than Nigel or Ron.

No, as with the cartoons that were published in 2005 in the Danish paper Jyllands-Posten, Muslims seem not to be enjoying their religion unless someone is perceived to be insulting it and they can then jump up and down and burn things and march about demanding people's heads be separated from their bodies.

A Shueisha official said it was "a simple mistake". "Neither the original comic nor the animation intends to treat Muslims as villains," he said. "But, as a result, the cartoon offended Muslims. We apologise for the unpleasantness that the cartoon may have caused and will carefully consider how to deal with religious and culture themes."

That's what the Muslims want. They won't be happy until anyone who ever contemplates publishing anything, anywhere has to have it vetted by some High and Most Eminent Fatwa Committee blessed by Almighty Allah.

Well they've certainly ensured that the entire world has seen something of this cartoon.

Tick-tock-tick-tock

Tick-Tock Muhammad: something
else to get Muslims jumping

We’ve all seen the “Turbomb” picture – the one that was published (among others) a few years ago by the Danish paper Jyllands-Posten and upset Muslims so much that they started killing people. Now there’s a new take on it.

The ESHE streetware clothing company in Australia has produced a series of images, including the T-shirt you see here (called “Tick-Tock Muhammad”), one called “Pedo Pope” and some wallpaper of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Muslims and squiggles, Part III

Motoons artist Kurt Westergaard has accused the BBC of appeasing Muslim sensibilities by refusing to air a recent interview with him.

According to a story in Britain’s Daily Mail:

It had been expected to go out on BBC World, the BBC News channel, across radio services and on its website. But the corporation has kept the report under wraps amid claims it is frightened that it will “inflame” Muslims around the world.

Mr Westergaard told the Daily Mail last night: “I am disappointed on behalf of the freedom of speech. Every time you are afraid I think you make a step backwards. That is depressing me.”

He compared the BBC’s behaviour with the way countries tried to appease Hitler before the Second World War and added: “If you have an appeasement policy towards the radical Muslims then you are on a very wrong way and you have to start marching backwards.”

A BBC spokesman said last night: “No decision has been made yet. As and when one is, it will be based, as always, on editorial merit.”

Westergaard was one of 12 cartoonists commissioned by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in 2005 to produce caricatures of the marauding Muslim “prophet”. Muslims say no image of Mohammed should be produced or shown. And by that they mean by anyone, not just Muslims, which is of course ridiculous.

Their fatuous response has led to far more exposure for the cartoons throughout the world – but for some reason they don’t see that. They prefer to march in the streets, threaten, set fire to things, kill and incite violence, thus spurring bloggers and other media to show the cartoons again and again.

You’ll see that we’ve found a rather nice way of showing the cartoons for your viewing and listening pleasure, set to the tune of the Danish national anthem.

Meanwhile, it remains to be seen whether the BBC does go ahead with the interview.

Wilders film: the backlash begins

The Dutch politician Geert Wilders's film Fitna was finally published yesterday – and today the backlash begins.*

Both Iran and Indonesia have condemned the film (it also gets honourable mention in this Philosopedia article), which intersperses footage of 9/11, 7/7, Madrid and other atrocities attributed to Muslim extremists – as well as images of beheading and stoning – with pages from the Koran, the Islamic holy book. It also shows how Islam condemns homosexuals and treats women.

"The film urges Muslims to tear out 'hate-filled' verses from the Koran," says this Reuters story, "and starts and finishes with a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammad with a bomb under his turban, originally published in Danish newspapers, accompanied by the sound of ticking." The story continues:

The image ignited violent protests around the world and a boycott of Danish products in 2006. Many Muslims regard any depiction of the Prophet as offensive.

Iran called the film heinous, blasphemous and anti-Islamic and called on European governments to block any further showing.

Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation and a former Dutch colony, also condemned the film.

The cartoon of the turban bomb (the so-called "turbomb") was one of several cartoons that appeared in the Danish paper Jyllands-Posten in 2005, and Muslims have created havoc over them ever since, leading to a number of deaths. Flags have been burned, buildings set on fire and Muslims have marched in city streets calling for the death of infidels, as well as the cartoonists.

The turbomb was the one that has been the most controversial. It is used at the beginning and end of Wilders's film, and now its author, Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard, is threatening to sue Wilders, because he didn't seek his permission to use the image, and it's been taken out of context.

__________
* The link above now takes you to a part of the LiveLeak site that explains that the film has been taken down. You can see the film by going to our later story, "Religious threats lead to self-censorship as Wilders film is dropped".

Muslims and squiggles, Part II

It's not certain, but seems likely. They're at it again, it seems, Muslims who don't like squiggles. Someone's let a bomb off near the Danish Embassy in Islamabad, killing eight people and hurting more than a dozen.

Threats have been made at other Danish embassies, too, according to this BBC report, since those 2005 Jyllands-Posten cartoons were republished in several newspapers earlier this year.

"The BBC's Barbara Plett in Islamabad says suspicion has fallen on al-Qaeda, as a video released by the network in recent weeks denounced the cartoons," says the story. It adds, "The cartoons, deemed offensive to Islam, led to worldwide protests when they were first printed in September 2005."

What these nutters don't realise is that, every time they protest, someone else, sometimes a newspaper, more often a blogger, reproduces one of the cartoons, and it's usually the one we have reproduced here: the one that's been dubbed the "turbomb".

If these Allah-soaked madmen stopped their mayhem, the cartoon issue might just go away.

How we ensure they're free to ensure we're not

More bemoaning of our gradual loss of freedom in Europe comes from Clifford D May, writing in Europe News. Free speech, he says, may end not with a bang, not even a whimper, "but with lawyerly assist".

"It was three years ago this month that the Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, published twelve editorial cartoons satirizing Islamist terrorism," he writes. "Some Muslim organizations objected. Protests were organized. Danish embassies in Syria, Lebanon and Iran were set ablaze. Dozens of people were killed. The cartoonists and their editors received death threats from such characters as Mahmoud al-Zahar, a senior Hamas leader in Gaza."

He goes on to analyse the Motoons affair, which most readers will be familiar with by now, no doubt, and then tells us that the United Nations General Assembly is

considering a resolution sponsored by the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). The ostensible purpose of "Combating Defamation of Religion" [. . .] is to stamp out "incitement to religious hatred, against Islam and Muslims in particular". As for other religions, rest assured this resolution will guarantee them as much protection and respect as Christianity, Judaism, Baha'i, and Hinduism now receive in Saudi Arabia, Iran or any of the other sponsoring nations.

But General Assembly resolutions don't have the force of law, do they? Well, no, says May, but they "provide diplomatic cover for tyrants eager to muzzle critics, and they are routinely cited by leftist 'human rights' groups and journalists as though they were international law".

And you can bet a pound to a penny that politically correct politicians and civil service do-gooders with too much time on their hands will find ways of using such resolutions to open the door ever wider to the creeping Islamisation that will soon gag us all.

Hang your head in shame, Ms Smith

“So let’s get this straight,” muses Melanie Phillips in today’s Daily Mail. “The British government allows people to march through British streets screaming support for Hamas, it allows Hizb ut Tahrir to recruit on campus for the jihad against Britain and the west, it takes no action against a Muslim peer who threatens mass intimidation of Parliament, but it bans from the country a member of parliament of a European democracy who wishes to address the British Parliament on the threat to life and liberty in the west from religious fascism.”

Yup. That’s about it, Mel.

She’s referring, of course (in an article that first appeared online in the Spectator), to the insane ban by an insane Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, on Dutch politician Geert Wilders’s entry into the UK to show his anti-Koran film Fitna to some members of the House of Lords who had invited him to do so.

“It is he, not them [sic], who is considered a ‘serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society’,” she continues. “Why? Because the result of this stand for life and liberty against those who would destroy them might be an attack by violent thugs.”

It will be interesting to see whether he carries out his threat to come to the UK, anyway. (See yesterday's posts on this sorry state of affairs here, here and here.)

Meanwhile, our friends over at MediaWatchWatch tell us that the Quilliam Foundation has issued a statement condemning the ban.

Maajid Nawaz, director of the Foundation (which describes itself as a counterextremist think tank), says, “Banning Geert Wilders from the UK is not the solution. Just as the ideas of nonviolent Islamist groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir should be tackled through debate and argument, so should those of Wilders and others.

“Freedom of speech should be protected – so long as people do not use this freedom to call for violence against others.

“Wilders has evidently been convinced by the words and actions of Islamists and jihadists that Islam is inherently violent and intolerant. We therefore challenge him to an open debate in which we will argue that Islam is not an inherently violent religion and that, contrary to what he apparently believes, Muslims are not a threat to Europe and its values.”

Ed Husain, the co-director of the Foundation, says, “Geert Wilders is undoubtedly an ill-informed, hate-driven bigot with many unpleasant views but he is not directly inciting violence. As a result, unlike in the case of Yusuf al-Qaradawi, I do not support the decision to ban him from the UK. By threatening parliament with a mob, Lord Ahmed [the Muslim peer who objects to free speech] is contributing to the negative portrayal of Muslims and their religion.”

An “ill-informed, hate-driven bigot”? You could almost say that about the New Labour politician – Jacqui Smith – who clearly doesn’t want people to discuss Islamic extremism within the hallowed portals of our legislature. She’s quite happy, as Melanie Phillips says at the top of this post, to allow marches in our streets by Islamic thugs (and one she didn’t mention was after the Jyllands-Posten Motoons row, when Muslims were openly inciting violence with their placards), but not to let a filmmaker show his work to our peers.

The disgraceful behaviour of these politicians is nothing short of disgusting.

In a Mail news story, meanwhile, there’s talk of a diplomatic row over the ban.

So there should be. Let Smith be hounded and vilified and embarrassed until she either resigns with her head hung in shame or resigns with her head hung in shame. Either will do.