This is an unconscionable infringement on the freedom of speech, and an indication of the dismal state of affairs in England today: a conference on Sharia and human rights in a London university is canceled after an Islamic supremacist thug photographs and threatens the participants that he will kill them if they say anything he dislikes about Muhammad.
English authorities should have arrested this man and should be keeping him and the group he was with under close scrutiny. They should have provided police in sufficient numbers both to allow this conference to go on, and to protect the participants and their families, as well as to track down and prosecute the Muslim thug and his comrades. Yes, this would be a huge expense. It would also be a statement: that this kind of thuggery will not be tolerated, and the freedom of speech will be protected.
It was ironic that this happened at a One Law For All conference. One Law For All is the project of Maryam Namazie, who is just another kind of freedom-hating thug. Her opposition to Sharia does not stem from a commitment to genuinely free societies, for as a Marxist, although she may oppose those who behead people while shouting "Allahu akbar" and post the video to YouTube, she doesn't oppose those who enslave people in gulags and shoot them in the back of the head for being "enemies of the people." Her opposition to Sharia is not a fight for freedom; Hitler and Stalin fought each other, too, but that didn't make either one of them freedom fighters.
Indeed, Namazie has targeted those who are actually working to protect the freedom of speech and the principle of equality of rights of all people against Sharia and Islamization. She has libeled me and others with outright lies, which she refuses to retract, about what we have said and what we stand for. She has retailed Palestinian jihadist propaganda about Israel, claiming that it engaged in "genocide" in Gaza -- thereby spitting in the face of all genuine victims of genocide and advancing an antisemitic lie that was crafted in aid of the jihad against Israel.
And so one gang of thugs has targeted another. The freedom of speech should in all cases be protected, but the conflict between these Muslim thugs and Maryam Namazie's gang is not one between the enemies of freedom and its defenders. It's just a turf war.
"Islamist stops university debate with threats of violence," from the National Secular Society, January 17 (thanks to Pamela Geller):
A talk on sharia and human rights by NSS Council Member Anne Marie Waters' at Queen Mary University of London was cancelled at the last moment because of an Islamist who made serious threats against everyone there.Ms Waters was due to give a talk on behalf of the One Law for All Campaign on 16 January but before it started, a man entered the lecture theatre, stood at the front with a camera and filmed the audience. He then said that he knew who everyone was, where they lived and if he heard anything negative about the Prophet, he would track them down.
The man also filmed students in the foyer and threatened to murder them and their families. On leaving the building, he joined a large group of men, apparently there to support him. Students were told by security to stay in the lecture theatre for their own safety.
Jennifer Hardy, President of Queen Mary's Atheism, Secularism and Humanism Society, who organised the event said: "This event was supposed to be an opportunity for people of different religions and perspectives to debate, at a university that is supposed to be a beacon of free speech and debate.
"Only two complaints had been made to the Union prior to the event, and the majority of the Muslim students at the event were incredibly supportive of it going ahead. These threats were an aggressive assault on freedom of speech and the fact that they led to the cancellation of our talk was severely disappointing for all of the religious and non-religious students in the room who wanted to engage in debate."...
"..he will kill them if they say anything he dislikes about Muhammad."
And what if a muslim scholar says "something he dislikes" about Muhammad? such as..
"Al-Abyad (a demon) is the friend of the prophets and he is the one who went to the Prophet (pbuh) in the form of Gabriel (the angel)" Al-Qurtubi 242/19
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2011/10/muhammad-and-satan_24.html
"the majority of the Muslim students at the event were incredibly supportive of it going ahead. "
and they actually got to see Islam in action...
It is fascinating that when Islam clashes with the leftist groups who would always otherwise support the "poor, downtrodden, oppressed" Muslims, it is **ALWAYS** Muslim thuggery that wins out, as the others slink away in a whimper, or even voice tactic support (or refuse to call out and condemn) for the Muslim louts. Women's groups, racial minority rights groups and gay groups all come to mind...
I am shocked that no man in the audience took exception to the threat of murder. Are all Englishmen now just nancy-boys?
@Islam Machant
You are 100 % right.
This is beauty of left wing Islamist alliance I love
All the main left wing groups(feminist ,LGBT group,atheist, secularist , Pseudo human right group, Pseudo civil liberties groups ) will be destroyed by these Islamist before they will attack conservatives .
It is because these leftist will not hesitate to throw one of their own under the bus to appease the Islamist.
It as already been started in France,UK and Holland where these leftist are silencing gay right groups to speaks against Islamist
This has all the hallmarks of Anjem choudary and co.
They say that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality.
Let's see how many liberals Islam will change into conservatives...
"...majority of muslim students supported the event.." Of course they did! Never fails to amaze me when even the victims of muslim thuggery leap to the defense of muslims.
" This has all the hallmarks of Anjem choudary and co."
It certainly does.
Truth-telling, if it is something that reflects negatively on islam or muslims, is "blasphemy" as far as Islamic supremacists are concerned.
Ah, but this puts muslims in an odd place.
muslims, by using or defining negative as understood in the West, are actually acknowledging that the West has set the worldwide standards on discourse concerning moral behavior, and importantly that those standards are in fact the standards of muslims as well. And further that those standards are better than islamic standards
Otherwise, why wouldn't muslims be proud of Mohammed's character and past behavior if he is, in their view, the perfect man, Insaan-e-Kaamil. Shouldn't they be rejoicing in all of his behaviors especially his lusts; his sexual lusts, his lust of the property of others, his lust for vengeance? In the islamic view of reality, these things are worthy of imitation, a fact which muslims regard highly by doing just that, imitating their last "prophet."
And shouldn't muslims feel esteemed, certainly not offended, that we non-muslims are recognizing Mohammed's character if in fact his character and behavior are, as muslims believe, admirable?
Consequently there's no need for muslims to be angry when anyone, muslims and non-muslims alike, recognize that Mohammed did these things. muslims should justifiably take pride in their messenger.
But oddly they don't. muslims go wild when Mohammed's historically-proven character and actual behavior are exposed because it shows Mo to be a reprehensible individual, but only reprehensible when Western standards are used. His character in islamic eyes is perfect.
I suppose we should be flattered that when things really get down to the nub, even muslims KNOW that Mohommed was despicable, and that Westerns morality standards are superior. Otherwise why would muslims want to hide from sight so many of the anti-social traits of their prophet. They simply can't admit it - though they know it - because doing so would cause the pretend fantasy world that islam-is-perfect to come crashing down around their heads.
"the majority of the Muslim students at the event were incredibly supportive of it going ahead. "
Really? What did they 'really' do to support the event? Their own thug got away. They didn't do a thing! This was one hell of an opportunity to stand-up and fight for the freedom of speech. Well, it is expected the lefties give in to the thugs without raising a single decibel as long as the thugs are MoSlums.
This is exactly how England will go to Sharia inch by inch.
Shame on the organisers of the event!
I am shocked that no man in the audience took exception to the threat of murder. Are all Englishmen now just nancy-boys?
Yes.
The level of testosterone of an average Englishman is closely monitored and, if found too high, adjusted to the level approved by England treacherous ruling elites. All in order to ensure England's smooth transition from home of the English people to multi-kulti hell hole.
So they were marxists. That explains why they were such wimps. They only act in large groups. Since no individual stood up to the guy the group didn't stand up.
Pathetic.
Why do I suspect that the Leftists who sponsored this conference won't draw the appropriate conclusions from the circumstances of its cancellation? Because to do so would require a re-evaluation of their entire world-view. There's just too many sacred cows to shatter.
If "the majority of Muslims" supported the conference, why were TWO complaints all it took to cancel it??
Where were the human shields around the conference hall? Muslims believe that they will go to heaven if they sacrifice themselves for being "good Muslims"... so if they truly believe in free speech, and that Islam protects it, why weren't they prepared to sacrifice themselves for it, or do everything it took to make the conference go ahead?
Unless, of course, that "majority of Muslims" is like the majority of statistics - made up on the spot...
From the article:
"...a man entered the lecture theatre, stood at the front with a camera and filmed the audience. He then said that he knew who everyone was, where they lived and if he heard anything negative about the Prophet, he would track them down.
The man also filmed students in the foyer and threatened to murder them and their families."
Surely, surely, surely, every person in that audience, every person in that foyer, would be equipped with a mobile phone capable of taking pictures and recording audio.
What if every single person there who knew how to operate the video/ audio recording function of their phone had **recorded the thug**, and then turned copies of the recordings in to the police?
He ought to be identifiable.
And what on earth were Security doing? I assume they must have had *some* security arrangements. Not doing their job: the moment this thug started doing what he did, the moment the death threats left his mouth, he should have been surrounded by very large no-nonsense gentlemen, seized, and frog-marched off the premises. (If he had a mob of thugs backing him up outside, Reinforcements should have been called by whatever security and/ or police were on hand, and the entire *mob* could then have been detained).
If he's not a citizen, he should be charged for having made death threats, and - sentence served - deported to wherever in the hell-pits of Islam he came from.
If he was born in the UK, he should be charged for having made death threats and - sentence served - stripped of his citizenship and then deported to wherever in the hell-pits of Islam his family came from.
The conference should be held again, with a large contingent of security and police - including the dog squad - ostentatiously in attendance.
A hard-left female thug Namazie: totally evil toward Israel, and yet, totally cowardly and subservient before the Muslims! This is typical. Just ONE Islamist, armed with nothing but a camera, had swiftly forced a total unconditional capitulation of the entire unholy horde of the hard-left storm-troopers! And both hordes walk all over the lowly Londonistan, each keeping that disgraceful country in total obedience and servitude.
Ruslan Tokhchukov, EnragedSince1999.
it's an islamist victory. it's over and done with. the muslims involved in this incident, the one video taping, and the islamofascist gastapo waiting outside, now see that they've all but won. threaten, and the cowards will submit. and the police did nothing. NOTHING! more of the same is soon at hand because the islamists can carte blanche behave as they like. who will stop them? obviously no one. I have a very sick feeling about this. I'm actually even depressed.
Good point. Did any of the Commmie-Reds have the good sense to videotape the jihadi thug with their camera-phones?
Thank you Robert -
For coming up with the truth-quote of the day:
"It was ironic that this happened at a One Law For All conference. One Law For All is the project of Maryam Namazie, who is just another kind of freedom-hating thug."
So very true, thnx for reminding us.
Here's the part of your commentary that might be a starting point for further discussion about the way we think about defending our freedom, or the remnants of it that still hold:
"English authorities should have arrested this man and should be keeping him and the group he was with under close scrutiny. They should have provided police in sufficient numbers both to allow this conference to go on, and to protect the participants and their families, as well as to track down and prosecute the Muslim thug and his comrades. Yes, this would be a huge expense."
For sure, the huge expense would be the least of my concerns, though it might be wise for any CJ supporter to imagine this happening on a vastly wider scale.
Furthermore, my reservations concerning demands for strict law enforcement are not about the legitimate and perfectly justifiable call for the protection of citizens in and of itself. The devil, i.m.o, lies in the detail that's left unmentioned and therefore unexamined, which is the rather paradoxical, or should I say incommensurable, combination of two conflicting desires:
1) To uphold Western values of freedom and equality of all before the law.
2) To promote our current welfare state systems as the efficient and impartial agent to enforce freedom, protection and equal rights.
Anyone else here willing to examine the possible danger of putting too much trust in the very same bureaucracy which has been engaged for several decades now to practically enforce this Islamic epidemic upon us and our lands?
For more on the subject, see // my answer @Wellington // in a related thread.
Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag
As far as I'm concerned, what this Muslim did was an act of terrorism, and it should be treated as such. I'd like to hear what any commenters with legal background think would be the maximum attainable penalty. This is a major assault against our western democracy, and so should be met with the maximum possible penalty.
The consequence of spreading lies about Israel and Jews is NOTHING, while there are deadly consequence of telling TRUTH about Islamic supremacist ideology of hate of non-Muslims and history of Islam and Mohamed, an illiterate pedophile polygamist (who married Aisha, one of his 12 wives, when she was 6 and he was 51) and a murderer, responsible for a gruesome murder (by beheading) of 900 Jews from Medina.
Beheading and blowing people up with explosives are a rather powerful deterrent for speaking out truth about Islam and Mohamed. The woman Marxist whose conference was threatened by Jihadists should read Marx and Engels articles they wrote when reporting for major newspapers in the mid-nineteen century about Algerian and Turkish Muslims. Both of this founders of Marxism, which was distorted by the Bolsheviks, were staunch believers that hordes of Muslim Turks and Berbers are a major threat to civilization in which they believed.
Both Marx and Engels believed that British colonization of India and French colonization of Algeria were prerequisites for breaking up feudal land relations and establishment of capitalism and bourgeoisie necessary to lead to socialism.
The politically correct people need to learn about Islam before they are beheaded, courtesy of their tolerance of Islamic intolerance in our midst ;-)!
The bloodiest hands belong to the appeasers.
And so one gang of thugs has targeted another.
...................................
This should surprise no one. Communists and Fascists brawled in the streets of Weimar Germany, and Jihadists are attacking and killing each other in Somalia.
I'm sorry to hear about "One Law For All", though—from what little I had heard, I had thought this was a legitimate anti-Shari'ah group.
More:
The freedom of speech should in all cases be protected, but the conflict between these Muslim thugs and Maryam Namazie's gang is not one between the enemies of freedom and its defenders. It's just a turf war.
...................................
Still, British authorities should be protecting their freedom of speech. It may be Marxists today, but Muslims will use this vicious tactics against *anyone* who dares criticize them.