Thursday, February 09, 2006
Socialsit Workers Party take on Cartoon
We're in deep shit from the muslims - we have produced a graven image of Mohammed - we're in real bollocking trouble, oh fuck.
What's the SWP's take on this - this is an organisation glories itself in socialism and atheism.
The cartoons are racist.
What is the threat of Islam - the eradication of western european enlightment ideoleogies, they are atheist and anti-Allah. Socialism is seen as the greatest form of evil by Islam - it defies the existence of God / Allah. We are going to have our balls cut off and charcoal roasted.
The Christians, Muslims and Jews have one thing in common they hate socialists, we are fucking bollocksed if these sanctimonious and pompous gits get any power.
What does the Socialist Workers Party say:
"This is not about “freedom of speech”. It’s not about a “war of civilisations”. It’s about racism. Anyone who doubts that need look no further than the right wing Danish paper that commissioned the notorious anti-Muslim cartoons last September.
It would have us believe it was all for a noble principle of “freedom of speech”. Oh, really? This is the same paper, Jyllands-Posten, which:
* Campaigned in 1984 to censor an artist who produced an erotic image of Jesus.
* Refused three years ago to print a cartoon because the editors said it would provoke an outcry among Christians. "
Hang on a minute, who said anything about free speech. The cartoons are an affront to muslims anyway.
As for racism, yep many people who worship in this religion are non-european; likewise Christians - no doubt Father Ted would affront many in Manilla - I believe that non-European christians outnumbers Europeans.
Socialist organisations have stood on a platform anti-clericism; but the SWP takes a different stance - there is something very New Labour about its ideology.
The article continues
"No brave commitment to freedom of speech there. That was only invoked, cynically, when the editors chose to target Muslims, not for debate about religious views, but with bigoted caricatures that imply every Muslim is a terrorist.
One rule for the majority, another for Arab, Asian and African immigrants. There’s a word for that – it’s called racism.
And the same scapegoating, masked by the same hypocrisy about freedom, is oozing from the other right wing papers in Europe that have leapt to give these racist images a wider circulation.
The French paper France-Soir claims it is committed to freedom of expression. But not, it seems, for Muslims.
The same paper supports the French government’s ban on young Muslim women wearing headscarves in school. What’s “tolerant” or “liberal” about that?
As for those who claim it is impossible to be racist against Muslims because Islam is a religion “not a race”, consider the followers of the Jewish faith.
If a paper reprinted a cartoon depicting a Jewish person in the manner of Nazi propaganda in the 1930s, every liberal paper and commentator would rightly slam the racism, rather than denouncing Jewish people and anti-racists for being outraged"
The article is full of non-sequitiurs, the controversy has mentioned nothing about it infringing free-speech but the offence the cartoons have caused, this is fair enough.
The jews, however, have been brought into the debate - this does not add up - for once they are not considered culpable, but the SWP wants to bring them in, nevertheless.
"If a paper reprinted a cartoon depicting a Jewish person in the manner of Nazi propaganda in the 1930s, every liberal paper and commentator would rightly slam the racism, rather than denouncing Jewish people and anti-racists for being outraged"
Have not these cartoons produced worldwide outrage; the writer of said article must have been to clown school at some point.
And if you want a laugh
"The same paper supports the French government’s ban on young Muslim women wearing headscarves in school. What’s “tolerant” or “liberal” about that?"
So the SWP support proscription that all young Muslim should wear headscarves?
I can recall SWP railling against its male membership for telling women what to wear.
Well that headscarf bullshit is exactly that!. No man, no religion or political organisation has the right to tell women not to wear. Yep, in France they are imposing a ban, but we know, they know and the SWP knows the author of such edicts.
Need I see more.
What's the SWP's take on this - this is an organisation glories itself in socialism and atheism.
The cartoons are racist.
What is the threat of Islam - the eradication of western european enlightment ideoleogies, they are atheist and anti-Allah. Socialism is seen as the greatest form of evil by Islam - it defies the existence of God / Allah. We are going to have our balls cut off and charcoal roasted.
The Christians, Muslims and Jews have one thing in common they hate socialists, we are fucking bollocksed if these sanctimonious and pompous gits get any power.
What does the Socialist Workers Party say:
"This is not about “freedom of speech”. It’s not about a “war of civilisations”. It’s about racism. Anyone who doubts that need look no further than the right wing Danish paper that commissioned the notorious anti-Muslim cartoons last September.
It would have us believe it was all for a noble principle of “freedom of speech”. Oh, really? This is the same paper, Jyllands-Posten, which:
* Campaigned in 1984 to censor an artist who produced an erotic image of Jesus.
* Refused three years ago to print a cartoon because the editors said it would provoke an outcry among Christians. "
Hang on a minute, who said anything about free speech. The cartoons are an affront to muslims anyway.
As for racism, yep many people who worship in this religion are non-european; likewise Christians - no doubt Father Ted would affront many in Manilla - I believe that non-European christians outnumbers Europeans.
Socialist organisations have stood on a platform anti-clericism; but the SWP takes a different stance - there is something very New Labour about its ideology.
The article continues
"No brave commitment to freedom of speech there. That was only invoked, cynically, when the editors chose to target Muslims, not for debate about religious views, but with bigoted caricatures that imply every Muslim is a terrorist.
One rule for the majority, another for Arab, Asian and African immigrants. There’s a word for that – it’s called racism.
And the same scapegoating, masked by the same hypocrisy about freedom, is oozing from the other right wing papers in Europe that have leapt to give these racist images a wider circulation.
The French paper France-Soir claims it is committed to freedom of expression. But not, it seems, for Muslims.
The same paper supports the French government’s ban on young Muslim women wearing headscarves in school. What’s “tolerant” or “liberal” about that?
As for those who claim it is impossible to be racist against Muslims because Islam is a religion “not a race”, consider the followers of the Jewish faith.
If a paper reprinted a cartoon depicting a Jewish person in the manner of Nazi propaganda in the 1930s, every liberal paper and commentator would rightly slam the racism, rather than denouncing Jewish people and anti-racists for being outraged"
The article is full of non-sequitiurs, the controversy has mentioned nothing about it infringing free-speech but the offence the cartoons have caused, this is fair enough.
The jews, however, have been brought into the debate - this does not add up - for once they are not considered culpable, but the SWP wants to bring them in, nevertheless.
"If a paper reprinted a cartoon depicting a Jewish person in the manner of Nazi propaganda in the 1930s, every liberal paper and commentator would rightly slam the racism, rather than denouncing Jewish people and anti-racists for being outraged"
Have not these cartoons produced worldwide outrage; the writer of said article must have been to clown school at some point.
And if you want a laugh
"The same paper supports the French government’s ban on young Muslim women wearing headscarves in school. What’s “tolerant” or “liberal” about that?"
So the SWP support proscription that all young Muslim should wear headscarves?
I can recall SWP railling against its male membership for telling women what to wear.
Well that headscarf bullshit is exactly that!. No man, no religion or political organisation has the right to tell women not to wear. Yep, in France they are imposing a ban, but we know, they know and the SWP knows the author of such edicts.
Need I see more.
I have a stinking cold
I have a stinking cold.
It's 1.00 am and Grolly is going flippity-floppity around the house in his flip-flips, the bugger must think he is on some Californian beach! He is clearing his throat in that rather raucous that would cause offence in the least polite company. He is also blowing some things snot and grolly out through his nose as a whale blows out water.
It's fucking hell and I wish he would go home
It's 1.00 am and Grolly is going flippity-floppity around the house in his flip-flips, the bugger must think he is on some Californian beach! He is clearing his throat in that rather raucous that would cause offence in the least polite company. He is also blowing some things snot and grolly out through his nose as a whale blows out water.
It's fucking hell and I wish he would go home
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Decline and fall
We are at the Event Horizon of the decline of Western Europe - it's going to be fairly big - it happened to the Chinese in the nineteenth century - I guess that is the only empire that could be compared with Western Europe in terms of its economy, political system and culture. Western Europe is suffering similar humiliations, decadence and decline. We're buggered. The United States is ok; it's accross the pond, 10 - 15 years time we'll be fighting over ownership of a potato. In terms of natural resources, we are as poor as Japan and the government is flogging all the national assetts as if they were shoddy goods at a car boot sale. We're bollocksed. It's a really rich irony that after been 150 years in decline but change, the Chinese are reviving their empire. I think that I shall learn Chinese - they are on the whole a cultured people who make good food and really good computers.
Grolly disrupts my sleep again
I've got a stinking cold; it started yesterday. It was not helped by Grolly who came into the house around the 12, he had one of his mates with him. I was subjected to the usual flippity-floppity sound of his flip-flops going up and down the stairs. The final straw came when another one of his mates was shouting up at his window in his own language at around 1 am - the ear plugs went in at this point.
Went to work with my head full of cold.
Came back with even more cold.
12 midnight - Grolly makes his entrance - flippity flop around the house and then a huge clearing of his throat. Why does he not fuck off back to his own country to do that!
Went to work with my head full of cold.
Came back with even more cold.
12 midnight - Grolly makes his entrance - flippity flop around the house and then a huge clearing of his throat. Why does he not fuck off back to his own country to do that!
Thursday, February 02, 2006
Jihad Burger Anyone?
I have been listening with interest about certain European newspapers publishing cartoons of Mohammed. Under Islamic law it is forbidden to produce a graven image of the prophet let alone satirise him. Well, that's what has happened. I feel a diplomatic rift coming on. Muslims are quite annoyed about this. Their indignance, however, is not entirely their monopoly. Christian organisations are not happy with the Christ has been portrayed - it seems that the there are certain Christians are prepared to wage a holy jihad on people who take the rise out of Christianity:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/features/story/0,11710,1103245,00.html
The Blair Administration failed to deliver legislation that would censor writers and comics in their portrayal of religions. This would mean that comedies like Father Ted would not be approved for broadcast. Fellini's Roma would be taken off the shelves in video and dvd shops. The Rev Ian Paisley would no longer be a figure of fun.
I am of the view that certain religions carry far too much power and that certain followers can be dangerously pompous - what happened on 9/11 in the US and the UK certainly proves this point. What has been going on in Ireland also proves this point.
People have spirituality hijacked by these religions - religion is the Crack-Cocaine of the masses!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/features/story/0,11710,1103245,00.html
The Blair Administration failed to deliver legislation that would censor writers and comics in their portrayal of religions. This would mean that comedies like Father Ted would not be approved for broadcast. Fellini's Roma would be taken off the shelves in video and dvd shops. The Rev Ian Paisley would no longer be a figure of fun.
I am of the view that certain religions carry far too much power and that certain followers can be dangerously pompous - what happened on 9/11 in the US and the UK certainly proves this point. What has been going on in Ireland also proves this point.
People have spirituality hijacked by these religions - religion is the Crack-Cocaine of the masses!
