“We’re witnessing the return of blasphemy laws by the backdoor.”
Indeed. And increasingly, by the front door, as Western leaders continue to be cowardly as they are clueless.
“Boris Johnson and the liberal criticism of Islam,” by Brendan O’Neill, Spectator, August 7, 2018:
A truly bizarre thing happened yesterday: Boris Johnson was branded an Islamophobe and a bigot for writing in defence of Muslim women who wear the niqab….
He’s been slammed everywhere as a racist, a borderline fascist, a poundshop Mussolini who if he ever gets to No10 will declare war on Muslims and other minorities. What is the basis to these shrill and wilful misinterpretations of what he said? Because alongside defending women’s freedom to wear the niqab and burqa, he expressed distaste for these garments. And, as we now know, you’re not allowed to say anything even remotely critical about Islam or its practices these days….
The rash reaction to Boris’s comments, the depiction of him as a hard-right tyrant, confirms that it is now tantamount to thoughtcrime to say anything critical about Islam. To make any kind of moral judgement about Islamic practices, to question its beliefs or its prophets or its garments, is to run the risk of being branded an ‘Islamophobe’, a racist, a fascist.
We’re witnessing the return of blasphemy laws by the backdoor. Only now it isn’t the Christian God and Christian beliefs that are protected from ‘contemptuous, reviling, scurrilous or ludicrous’ commentary, as was the case under the old blasphemy laws; it is Islam. Slowly but surely, informally, through the sly and hyperbolic demonisation of anyone who has any issues whatsoever with Islam, we have erected a moral forcefield around this religion to protect it from criticism or scepticism. Old blasphemers against Christianity were denounced as ‘heretics’; new blasphemers against Islam are branded ‘phobes’.
That Boris can be so publicly mauled for defending Muslim women’s rights while also criticising certain Islamic views shows how chilled and unforgiving the public discussion of this religion has become.
It also points to a profound confusion about freedom and tolerance among the modern commentariat. They seem to think that society doesn’t only have a responsibility to guarantee freedom of belief to its citizens, but also that it must respect what its citizens believe. This is utterly wrong. In a free society, people must have the right to adhere to whatever religious or moral convictions they consider best, but the rest of us must have the right to criticise and even ridicule those convictions. That is freedom in action.
What Boris’s shrill detractors are really demanding is that he respect everything about Islam. That he be unquestioning towards this religion. That he celebrate it and love it, unconditionally. But why should he? His responsibility, as a politician, is to never interfere with people’s religious freedom; he doesn’t have to like people’s religious beliefs.
The attacks on Boris are a reactionary, illiberal assault on his right to be critical of certain aspects of religious ideology. People are not demanding that he support freedom of religion, because it is clear from his column that he already does. Rather, they are demanding that he bow and scrape before Islamic values and never criticise them again. This is a medieval demand, a war on heresy, dressed up as a progressive critique.
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
“Far-right poised for big wins in Sweden election”
https://www.breitbart.com/news/far-right-poised-for-big-wins-in-sweden-election/
Jenna Maria Dominguez says
Even the farthest right Swede is still well to the left of my position. While it may be a modest improvement for them, it is not enough to renew my faith in humanity.
gravenimage says
Glad to hear it, Flavius–and hope it helps.
J D S says
In the clothing market criticism of what a person wears might fly but in a world that is diverse as it is for someone to be criticized for saying something about what a Muslim wears or an individual in the darkest parts of a jungle is about as stupid and dumb as one can get……The west is losing its identity as fast as an Antelope speeds away as it is being chased by it’s foe who is trying to kill it.
Tony Holland says
Oh let us hope so,let us hope and pray that the “rightwing” (read patriotic) parties and movements throughout Europe continue to flourish and drive the truly dangerous braindead liberal lefties into history.
If I could be assured that BoJo was 100% anti islam,anti mussie and intended to crush their continued presence then I wouldn’t give a ‘stuff’ about his other policies, (except his Brexit support) I would say most ‘intelligent thinking’ people consider that the threat from the ‘subhumans’ which the survival of the West faces far exceeds any other political policy considerations, for if ‘they,the subhumans’ are not stopped then all other considerations are rather pointless as our civilisation will cease to exist anyway.
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
“‘US wants terrorists to stay in Idlib; just imagine what Pompeo would say if they were in Oregon'”
https://www.rt.com/news/437524-idlib-terrorists-pompeo-syria/
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
“Czech Prime Minister: ‘Illegal Immigration Is a Threat to European Civilisation’”
https://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/09/03/czech-prime-minister-illegal-immigration-threat-european-civilisation/
StellaSaidSo says
He is absolutely right, of course. But I would substitute ‘uncontrolled’ for ‘illegal’, since even the illegals are legal, according to Merkel et al.
gravenimage says
+1
Gary says
I would substitute “Uncontrolled”…”Illegal” for ANY muslim immigration whatsoever.
Clive Stephen Delmonte says
It’s a dire situation indeed in which I find myself having to support Mr Johnson.
StellaSaidSo says
I hear you, Clive Stephen Delmonte. Clever and amusing though Boris undoubtedly is, he is nevertheless a shameless political opportunist.
Noel says
Stella – at least his is not afraid to have a non-groupthink opinion. Theresa May is afraid of her own shadow.
Buck Tucker says
I think the best analogy is that we are in a return to the dark ages. Basically what the dark ages did was erase every advancement that had been made on earth from the preceeding millenium and it brought mankind back to the caveman days. There are many that have been predicting this for a long time, we still have a ways to go but the rejection of criticism in favor of dogma is a sign of whats coming.
eduardo odraude says
The so-called European Dark Ages were arguably caused not by the Germanic invasions of classical civilization, but by the collapse of interaction between Europe and the Middle Eastern and North African centers of Christian civilization. And why did the interaction between Europe and the rest of the world fall into such decline back then? Because of the jihad conquests of the seventh century. The Muslims took North Africa and the Middle East by the sword. Europe as a result could no longer ply the Mediterranean for trading purposes to anything like the same extent, because of Islamic piracy. Europe lost access to papyrus from Egypt, and that loss was one cause of the decline of European literacy. Because of the jihad conquests, Europe to a large extent lost economic and cultural access to the main centers of its own classical and Christian civilization, which centers were not in Europe itself. By contrast, when the Germans earlier sacked Rome and took over classical civilization, they adopted Rome’s values, its educational systems, its culture, its hierarchies and administrative structures. The Germanic tribes did not destroy classical civilization, as historians have sometimes claimed. To a large extent the Germans assimilated themselves to the Roman way. It was Islam, rather, that isolated European civilization and caused it to fall into a backward state.
eduardo odraude says
Oh, dear. I apologize. I seem to have criticized Islam. I meant to turn off all critical faculties vis-a-vis Islam, but I forgot.
gravenimage says
True, Eduardo. The decline began with the barbarian invasions and internal weaknesses in the Roman Empire, but the kiss of death was the Muslim conquest of the Mediterranean.
A fine book on the subject is Henri Pirenne’s classic 1939 book “Mohammed and Charlemagne”.
Brian hoff says
Islam only came 350 year after the fall of the wrstern roman empire.
Wellington says
But the end of the western half of the Roman Empire in the late fifth century, per the Pirenne thesis, as eduardo aptly argued, was more of a technicality than anything else. If Pirenne was correct, the great destroyer of ancient civilization was not the Germanic tribes but rather the Mohammedan hordes.
gravenimage says
It is difficult to name a single date for the fall of the Roman Empire, since it was a grim process, rather than a single act. Rome was sacked by the Visigoths in 410, but largely recovered. Probably a more salient date would be 476, when Odoacer deposed the Emperor Romulus.
Even then, though, Roman law and culture continued in much of the former Empire, if in a rather decayed form.
Even more importantly, the Byzantine Empire was the direct successor of Rome in the east–indeed, Muslims referred to the Byzantine Empire as “Rome”.
The first Muslim conquests began in the Levant–Roman Syria–in 634. They would soon sweep across the Christian Magreb–North Africa–as well; which had been the bread basket of Rome.
Muslims began invading Europe proper with Spain in 711, followed by southern France, Sicily, and southern Italy.
Soon Christian Europe lost most of her access to the Mediterranean, and this was when there was not just a decline in Roman civilization, but the Dark Ages began in earnest.
Islam extinguished the light of civilization everywhere it touched.
Luckily, brave men did stop Islam’s march, including at Poitiers.
Europe essentially turned north in her focus. European civilization began her regeneration with Charlemagne not long afterwards–but progress came in fits and starts, with several successive collapses.
She would not regain the level of civilization she had achieved in Rome for a thousand years–not until the Renaissance.
It was, notably, at just around this time that Western Europe really began to gain ground against the depredations of Islam. In 1492, Spain regained her freedom, after 700 years of grim struggle. In 1571, the Battle of Lepanto saw the final full scale naval battle, with a victory against the Mohammedans. And Muslims would not threaten Western Europe proper again after being turned back at the Gates of Vienna in 1683.
But Muslim depredations continued elsewhere, with the terrible conquest of Constantinople and then the Balkans and Greece.
Muslims also continued to raid the coasts for slaves and booty, ranging as far north as England, Ireland, and Iceland.
The period when Islam was least a threat to us was from the defeat of the Barbary Pirates in the early 18th century, when the Mediterranean was free for navigation for the first time in a thousand years. Greece and the Balkans soon regained their freedom, as well.
Then too many of us forgot the terrible threat of Islam–we forgot what a monster it was, and began foolishly allowing Muslims into our civilized lands.
“Brian hoff”–really, “DefenderpofIslam”–is the result of this foolishness. He has openly said that he wants to see barbaric Shari’ah law in the free West.
He is apt to see that this will not happen without the same spirit of resistance that the civilized world has faced down Islam before. More people, slow as it may be, *are* waking up to the threat of Islam.
gravenimage says
Good post, Wellington.
Carol the 1st says
The Byzantine and Persian Empires had been very weakened by wars with each other and then the Black Plague struck and their populations greatly decreased, Then Islam came along. Dr. Warner says recent evidence uncovered in the Mediterranean reveals the consequent collapse of sea trade led to the Dark Ages:
Why We Are Afraid, A 1400 Year Secret, by Dr Bill Warner
mortimer says
ISLAM DOES NOT DESERVE TO BE SHIELDED FROM ALL CRITICISM.
Here’s why Islam SHOULD be criticized:
1 No Golden Rule 2 No free speech 3 No democracy 4 Jihad – holy war of supremacism 5 Honour killings 6 Taqiyya – sacred lying 7 Taqlid – group think 8 Circular reasoning 9 Misogyny – repression of women 10 Rape of kafirs as jihad prizes 11 Genocide 12 Ethnic cleansing 13 Al-Walaa wal-Baraa – Islamic apartheid 14 Torture 15 Plundering 16 Cruel and unusual punishments 16 Backwardness – stagnation 17 Violence against women 18 Slavery 19 Discriminatory Sharia law 20 Hatred of the arts 21 No music 22 Pedophilia disguised as child marriage 23 Fifty generations of cousin marriage and genetic defects 24 Cruelty to animals 25 Extortion tax to humiliate disbelievers 26 No historic basis 27 Anti-intellectual obscurantism 28 FGM 29 Arab racism 30 Theocratic totalitarianism 31 Vigilantism 32 Amoral, opportunistic character of Mohammed that all Muslims must imitate 33 Hatred of non-Muslims as an essential doctrine 34 History of Islam includes the genocidal murders of 270 million non-Muslims in Islamic holy wars, terrorism, persecutions and enslavement directed against non-Muslims. 35. Holy books of Islam contain more calls for violence than all other foundational religious texts.
LR says
Mortimer,
That is a good nifty list…I will use it…
mortimer says
The UK left has made an UNHOLY ALLIANCE with the Muslim Brotherhood for votes.
The UK left is defending the INDEFENSIBLE 7th-century, misogynistic DEATH CULT of Islam.
It is UNCONSCIONABLE to defend the BRONZE-AGE AMORALITY of Islam. Islam fulfills the criteria of a thought-control and information-control CULT.
Islam is in fact MANY CULTS IN ONE …
-a death cult, a rape cult, an honor-killing cult, an extortion cult, a plunder cult, a censorship cult, a misogyny cult, a lie cult, a pedophilia cult, a sadomasochistic cult, an obsessive-compulsive cult, a supremacism cult, a Jew hatred cult, a Christianophobia cult, a male chauvinist cult, an inbreeding cult, an obscurantism cult, a superstition cult, a personality cult, a cruelty to animals cult, a group-think cult, a suicide cult.
This intolerant, backward, evil ideology cannot be defended by a moral person.
Guy Forester says
The reason Mr. J got criticized is he used that evil word, “choice.” His statement implies that if a woman has the right to CHOOSE to wear a niqab or burka, she also has the right to CHOOSE NOT TO wear said symbol of submission. See why he is now pilloried? In Islam there are only three choices, submit to Allah, submit to dhimmi status, or die.
LR says
Guy,
Important point…Thanks for noting that…
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
Countries that have any pretensions to holding free speech sacred should completely ban the ideology of Mohammadism – for only one reason. And that one reason is that Mohammadism prohibits, on the pain of death, all criticism, including constructive criticism, of Mohammadism, even for those who do not subscribe to the ideology.
Mohammadism should be banned for this reason *alone*.
No idea or ideology should be permitted to breath in a free state when one of its dictates is to disallow criticism of itself.
eduardo odraude says
Free speech rights are there to protect “offensive” speech. After all, speech that offends no one needs no protection.
b.a. freeman says
U are correct, eduardo. in fact, it’s leftist racism; they are the noble white protectors of the poor put-upon folks of the brown people’s religion, islam. the left have controlled education for many decades, and they stopped teaching both critical thinking and the history of their own nation decades ago. as a result, the majority of people coming out of the indoctrination centers don’t understand what freedom is, and consequently, how to protect it. it sounds noble to a simpleton (or to a graduate of an indoctrination center, who was never taught any differently) to silence those who verbally attack people of an unknown religion (because islam *is* almost completely unknown to non-muslims), so “hate-speech” and “hate-crime” laws, which prohibit and punish nebulously-defined actions for which there are already far more specific proscriptive laws, sound like a societal good. the left, who invented these monstrosities, know very well that they are bulls**t covers so that anybody can be attacked and imprisoned by the State at any time for any reason, *because* they are nebulously defined. and since most people don’t understand that a republic can only stand when most of its laws are respected and obeyed by almost everybody, they don’t understand that the intent of these “laws” is the undermining of the canon of law so that *nobody* respects any of it. the end of that path is rule by fiat rather than rule by law. star chamber, anybody over there in UKistan? it’s coming to your borough soon!
Rick Oneil says
The KKK ain’t even close to the level of evil that is Islam, but try to run for office if your a member of the clan as opposed to a muslim
mortimer says
Yes, Rick, do not leave out KU KLUX KORBYN the staunch and open ANTI-SEMITE who prays with the Muslims in HONOR of the SUICIDE BOMBERS!
The KKK lives in the LABOUR PARTY. They have declared that MUSLIMS ARE THE MASTER FAITH.
mortimer says
Brendan O’Neill of the Spectator has taken a courageous stand to defend the right to criticize a RELIGION … that right is one of the MOST PRECIOUS rights that Western people ever fought for.
The point is this: after fighting for HUNDREDS of years to LIBERATE THEMSELVES from the BONDAGE OF RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE and PERSECUTION for HERESY … WHY IN HEAVEN’S NAME do the LEFTARDS now want to RE-INTRODUCE the sort of BLASPHEMY LAWS that our forebears fought against?
And why in heaven’s name do the LEFTARDS want to SHIELD 7th-century, vicious, misogynistic, intolerant, backward ISLAM FROM CRITICISM.
What about Islam does the LEFT ADMIRE??? Name ONE thing in Islam that the Left wants besides CENSORSHIP ?
The LEFTARDS have made an UNHOLY ALLIANCE WITH ISLAM for votes!
Schmegel says
The “Left” doesn’t admire anything about the Islamic religion. You are not alone on this site for having no understanding of “left-wing” and “right-wing”. You repeat the myth of an alliance between the Left and Islam, yet you express admiration for author of this article:
“Brendan O’Neill of the Spectator has taken a courageous stand to defend the right to criticize a RELIGION”
Brendan O’Neill, you might be surprised to hear, is a Marxist. He may be a Trotskyist “libertarian Marxist”, but this should still make you pause for thought and consider that things are more complex than you think.
gravenimage says
“As we now know, you’re not allowed to say anything even remotely critical about Islam or its practices these days”
………………………
Boris Johnson is spot on here.
David says
When Boris’s comments were first published back in early August, our appalling Prime Minister, Theresa May, demanded that Boris apologise because his comments had “caused offence”. When he refused to apologise, the Conservative party announced it was going to instigate disciplinary proceedings against him and there were even claims he could be sent for “diversity training”. However, when it became clear that the general public overwhelmingly supported Boris, the Conservative party went very quiet on the whole subject. Theresa May has not repeated her call for Boris to apologise and has not mentioned the subject since. Furthermore, we have heard nothing further about disciplinary proceedings. Even The Guardian or other left-wing media have not brought this subject up again. Why? Because they know it would only add to Boris Johnson’s popularity and improve his chances of ousting the boring mediocrity Thereas May.
infidel numero uno says
Good post, David.
LR says
Well, good for them. The ‘general public’ needs to keep speaking up in support of free speech, and the good in their culture here.
bobo says
You need to understand the ROOT reason for this.
Totalitarian Atheism aka Marxism = Antichristian
Islam = Antichristian
If you are a Marxist you are never going to oppose Islam because you know
they are your attack dogs when it comes to dealing with Christianity in
ways you are too afraid to do yourself. Muslims are really the slaves
of atheists, but they both seek the same agenda, to destroy all Christian
civilization and morality worldwide.
infidel numero uno says
Can it be there is a sliver of hope for Sweden. Bravo for Boris!
Walter Sieruk says
The real reason the people are not “Allowed to say anything even remotely critical about Islam or its practices those days” is because Islam in based on powerful feeling and strong emotions and not on reason or logic. In the light of criticism, Islam is a very weak and fragile religion. Therefore many Muslims will have a strong emotional outburst if anything that is said critical about Islam , no matter how mild that criticism might be . Therefore Its not a good idea to engage on a reason discussion based on logic and reason about Islam with a Muslim .For many Muslims are so emotion- filled that they will not respond to reason They will not be interested in using logic on the subject of Islam. So emotional and non-reason based many Muslims are that they might even react on violence at even some criticizer of Islam.
When it come to Islam and lack of either logic or reason many Muslim have in regard to it concerning their religion the wisdom printed by Benjamin Franklin in his periodical POOR RICHARD’S ALMANACK does ,very much , apply to this topic . For in that publication it informs the reader that “To see by the eye of faith is to shut the door of reason.”
Carolyne says
While still Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton attended a conference in Istanbul on this very subject; how to stop criticism of Islam. One can assume that had she become President, we would not be allowed to even see such a forum as this one, much less speak out against the evils of Islam.
LR says
Carolyne,
The President can’t just shut down blogs, or websites, or newspapers because they feel like it. And we need to keep it that way.
Garfield says
I am re reading George Orwells 1984….to stay current.
Lydia Church says
islam is evil.
That sums it up.
And I will say that until I’m dead.
FYI says
islamic mob: oh allah,the infidels are insulting islam again..they are insulting our incredibly holy “prophet”,the most perfect man that ever lived{the al insan al kamil}
allah:what are they saying?
islamic mob: they say our “prophet” was a mass-murderer and had a 9 year old wife.
allah.But that’s TRUE about my “prophet”…Abu Dawud 4390… and Aisha was his “wife”
So what?
islamic mob:but allah ..they said our “prophet” was a ..Smelly Stinky Pants
allah:WHAAAT?Now THAT I will not forgive.You can break all of God’s commandments as far as i am concerned and, amazingly enough, be rewarded in my arabic speaking-only paradise for doing so,
but nobody ..NOBODY…calls my “prophet” Mr Smelly Stinky Pants.Punch those infidel-looking people over there.Let’s blame them for it:by projecting our anger onto others it solves the problem doesn’t it?
isalmic mob; But allah…they are elderly Buddhist monks and some innocent Hindus..
allah;Hindoos Schmindoos.Who the hell cares?in the absence of any Jews and Christians they’ll have to do.All infidels look the same to me.
It’s a shame that Geert Wilders cartoon competiton was canceled;I was SO looking forward to seeing if my entries would would win.Hey check out this one I drew …of our “prophet”:look at all the Stink Lines…ahahaa.