Guardian calls for free speech restrictions in wake of jihad murder of U.S. ambassador

The film is not really the point. It is a red herring. The film has been on YouTube since 2011. Someone was casting about for a pretext, and found one in this film. And so, we now see renewed calls for restrictions on the freedom of speech, just as I predicted when the stories of the embassy storming in Egypt and the murder of Ambassador Stevens first broke.

This is an increasing drumbeat on the Left. They can’t refute us, and so they have to shut us down. The odious thug Nathan Lean calls for censorship in the Los Angeles Times and now the Washington Post (I’ll get to it), and now Andrew Brown chimes in with the same call for authoritarian control of free speech. Andrew Brown has displayed his superior journalistic fairness and analytical skills in the past, when he equated me with the murderous jihadist Anwar al-Awlaki — as Cheradenine Zakalwe observes, “as if practising murderous jihad and merely describing it were morally equivalent.” The Guardian, true to form, denied me space for a rebuttal.

But in any case, the film is completely irrelevant. If it weren’t this, it would be something else.

“Libya: there is good reason to ban the hateful anti-Muhammad YouTube clips,” by Andrew Brown in the Guardian, September 12 (thanks to Islam Versus Europe):

I have just watched a YouTube video of clips from a film which, it is claimed, provoked the attack on the American embassy in Libya. It is impossible to completely authenticate them at this stage, or exclude the possibility the clips could have been doctored in some way by the uploaders. However, we do know that the film has been linked to riots in Egypt and the attack in Benghazi in which four embassy staff, including the ambassador, were killed. It’s a really nasty piece of lying propaganda: something which deserves to be called hate speech, since hatred is its wellspring and the propagation of hatred is its goal.

I haven’t seen this film. I don’t intend to do so. I don’t care what is in it. It doesn’t matter what is in it, because nothing in it could possibly justify murdering anyone. Andrew Brown calling for authoritarian censorship in the wake of that murder only reinforces the proposition that terrorism works, and violent intimidation gets you exactly what you want.

U.S. Embassy in Cairo deleting pro-Sharia, anti-free speech tweets
Hamas-linked CAIR: "The extremists who carried out these attacks deserve punishment, and the extremists who produced and promoted an intentionally inflammatory film deserve condemnation"
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint


  1. says

    WHy the dickens can’t our administration tell the world that films like _innocence of moooozlims_, like imams preaching that Jews are kin of apes and pigs, is protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution?

    The reason is because the Left hates free speech, unless it aids their own rise to power.

  2. says

    Aren’t people like Bill Maher glad that the core Christian texts tell us to seek peace and leave room for the vengeance of God, rather than taking it for ourselves.

  3. says

    The Grauniad never, but never, disappoints when it comes to groveling Dhimmitude behaviour.

    Quality article from Mr Brown here. Real quality.

  4. says

    The Guardian should close its Londonistan offices, fire all its non-Muslim British employees, and move all its operations from Londonistan to Riyadh. Or Doha. Or Dubai

  5. says

    There are already curbs in place. I am fuming that the historical series Islam:The Untold Story has been dropped by Channel 4 due to threats. This looked to be an interesting series judging by the first episode that was screened but now due to the abject cowardice of the powers that be, we will be denied the rest. Another victory for the Religion of Peace.

  6. says

    I wrote these comments at the Guardian in reply to Brown’s article. First, in reply to one of Andrew Brown’s comments:


    “No: the offence is not blasphemy but incitement to religious hatred. They can be distinguished quite easily.”

    Here’s some more text that could be construed as “incitement to religious hatred”…

    O ye who believe! surely, the idolaters are unclean. So they shall not approach the Sacred Mosque after this year of theirs. And if you fear poverty, Allah will enrich you out of His bounty, if He pleases. Surely, Allah is All-Knowing, Wise.

    Fight those from among the People of the Book who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor hold as unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have declared to be unlawful, nor follow the true religion, until they pay the tax with their own hand and acknowledge their subjection.

    And the Jews say, Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say, the Messiah is the son of Allah; that is what they say with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before them. Allah’s curse be on them! How are they turned away!

    (Quran 9:28-30)

    Not only incitement to hatred – but 9:29 may be understood as a clear incitement to violence too. Which I believe is illegal, under UK law…

    Just out of curiosity, would you also be in favour of making these texts illegal?


    And below, in reply to another comment:

    “Why do you choose to accept the version of the story that says Aisha bte Abu Bakr was 6 and not other accounts that say she was between 19?”

    Here is the Hadith of al-Bukhari, Book 7, Volume 62, Hadith 88:

    The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with ‘Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).

    About the Hadiths of al-Bukhari:

    Sunni Muslims view this as one of the three most trusted collections of hadith along with Sahih Muslim and al-Muwatta [1]. In some circles, it is considered the most authentic book after the Qur’an.

    So, what’s your basis for saying Aisha was 19? Anything more “authentic”??


    Both these comments were written under an old Guardian username, under which all my comments are pre-moderated. It was never published. Apparently on the Guardian, it’s now unacceptable to cite Quranic verses, as well as Hadiths. Is this the censorship they seek for those who “abuse their right of free speech”?

  7. says

    “I haven’t seen this film. I don’t intend to do so. I don’t care what is in it.”

    The “movie” looks like some junior high school project. NOT “high” school. JUNIOR high. This thing is so badly made, it’s so stupid. It’s even worse than “Land of the Lost” you used to watch when you were a kid. It is almost cartoonish.

    Which really speaks to the REAL reason for these riots. It sure as hell wasn’t this “film”.

  8. says

    Robert wrote: “I haven’t seen this film. I don’t intend to do so. I don’t care what is in it.”

    And, it’s true. The film is irrelevant. It was a pretext, the “dingus” that the “riot” planners searched for and found in the form of this film.

    I have watched this film, and Robert is missing nothing special. It is a kind of extended Saturday Night Live skit, which, while it exposes Mohammad as a mentally retarded but opportunistic thug, is pretty awful. The old Monty Python troupe, had it the courage to make a movie about Mohammad and Islam (as it had about Christianity and Judaism in “The Life of Brian”), could have done a far, far better job of mocking Mohammad and Islam and really enraged the “offended.” The film in question is just a piece of amateurish rubbish. I believe it was made on a budget of $50,000. All of which is not to say that the producer shouldn’t have been allowed to make it.

    That’s what they’re all howling for: censorship. That includes Obama and Hillary Clinton, besides the Islamists.

  9. says

    I can’t better the comment by Lokischild in the Guardian who puts it to the writer of the article:

    Andrew Brown.

    I cannot disagree too strongly with this article. Whether or not somebody has made a film depicting a version of events that you and others find offensive or distasteful is of no importance. What is important, not just to me but to everybody, is that some deranged bigot has decided that the existence of such a film can in anyway justify as much as a physical slap let alone the murder of people. The fact that the murdered people are not even involved with the film makes the crime even more offensive.

    There is no crime of blasphemy. No matter what is said concerning any religion, no matter how offensive the followers of that mythology might find it, religion is subordinate to the right of people to live their lives and speak their minds. Gods can look after themselves if they exist.

    To rush straight into print with a demand that such a film should be banned. To use a public media platform to justify the concept of blasphemy is cowardice in the face of murderous intolerance. As much as one might find the film offensive it is as nothing in comparison to the offence of murdering a man. For that reason the film must be kept available to anyone who wishes to view it and any pressure: political, social, academic, religious or whatever should be applied to bringing these offensive killers to justice.

    The obscenity is that anybody believes that they have the right to take life in such a way, not making a film that offends some people.

  10. says

    I looked at the comments in The Guardian earlier, and was pleasantly surprised that the majority were in strong disagreement with Brown and that many displayed a good understanding of Islam. I can only hope that this will lead to blowback of the kind which resulted from the West Midlands Police proposal to prosecuate Channel 4 over ‘Undercover Mosque’, when much of the UK MSM joined in a rare display of unity in support of Channel 4 against the WMP.