Thursday, 28 July 2016

No one has the right not to be offended

No one has the right not to be offended. This hard lesson must yet be learned it seems by the Media Diversity Institute, as reported by Breitbart, who want, amongst other things, a ban on Mohammed cartoons. For illustration, I suppose the sort of thing below as published by Charlie Hebdo is what they mean. 
I can't be bothered to read their rubbish. I know exactly what it will say; that some Muslims are frustrated and we should accept their murderous head chopping as the price of a diverse society. We've been here before. Evelyn Waugh featured a kind prison vicar called Prendegast in a novel, who arranged for a psychopathic carpenter convict to be given the use of a set of tools to aid his rehabilitation. He used the saw to detach the chaplain's head from his body. 

But since we can't reasonably expect this sort of Darwinian weeding-out to rid us effectively of all these well-meaning but gullible fools, we must all work to uphold free speech and democracy. And that includes publishing cartoons of Mohammed.


Dan said...

That brings to mind a practical joke I have had in mind for a while. It shall take the form of an art installation, and consist of large, framed, black-painted rectangles hanging in a gallery.

Each will have below it a fairly edgy title, on the lines of "Jesus Christ crucified in a dark cellar", "Napoleon Bonaparte shagging a chicken in the dark", and of course "The Prophet Mohammed photographed on a dark, moonless night".

This alone should be enough to get a protest from the usual suspects (although hiring some actors to dress up and protest about this ought to be considered too).

The kicker is that every so often, a couple of workmen will walk in, take down one picture and swap it for another one. This will carry on in the background to the protest about the picture of Mo, until said workmen apologetically swap out that picture for another one.

And so on, throughout the day. Cue protesters protesting about lots of things, including which picture is which.

plantman said...

I fear it will backfire. Sounds like Turner Prize material to me.

Barnacle Bill said...

Now we have the French media pledging not to name or display photographs of these Muslim attackers/terrorists.

Supposedly it is so as not to make "heroes" out of them. This is not really about that, it's the French MSM taking a leaf out of the Beeb's reporting handbook. See no Muslim, hear no Muslim, show no Muslim.

Well I do want to know who they are, names and photos splashed all over the place, it's not going to turn them into heroes in my eyes. Yet it may make the sheeple wake up to who is really killing them.

Dave_G said...


such policies make me laugh anyway.

The culprits are inevitable 'Mohammed' (or some derivative of) and bearded or ragheaded.

We could have a generic photo of one and no-one would be any the wiser.

The basic fact (i.e. that he was Muslim) stands, regardless of name or appearance.

Anonymous said...

Raedwald said:

'And that includes publishing cartoons of Mohammed.'

I'll tell you what really winds them up:



Anonymous said...

I understand that hackers have infiltrated Islamic web pages with Gay Porn, which is a good start.

DeeDee99 said...

It's an "I am Spartacus" situation.

The more pictures of Mo which are published in more publications, the harder it will be for the extremists to attack.

Unfortunately, Western Governments are appeasers and won't support the right to free speech or to offend members of the RoP.