Some arguments don't need to be refuted, merely underlined. Chris
Huhne's ass
hattery is such an example. Except you have to read two of his articles to find some good places to break out the highlighter. Thanks to the untiring critic of the obsequious British left,
Styrer, for bringing these to my attention.:
OneTwo Some excerpts. Maestro, some highlighting music please.
Where does one start. Let's just begin with the fact that he selectively applies "freedom of speech" with regards to
Wilders and
Toben. The question must be asked, does
Huhne quake and wet himself at the thought of marauding Muslim mobs (all the while blaming his own culture for their hate) or does he secretly have some affinity for Holocaust deniers? Or perhaps both.
Huhne said this of
Wilders' movie:
In a civilised society, however, there has to be a dividing line between freedom
of speech and an incitement to hatred and violence. I carefully watched Geert
Wilders' film Fitna,
and in my opinion it crosses this line, and his own presentation would be just
as likely to cross this line if he entered the country. Fitna's shocking images
of violence and its emotional appeals to anti-Islamic feeling risk causing
serious harm to others
So Huhne is proposing that we censor images of violence perpetrated by Muslims so as not to offend Muslims? Or to keep them safe? Since when does obscuring the truth bring about a better world? I am curious, since Huhne watched the movie "carefully", where the emotional appeals are exactly? In fact Wilders makes little or no appeal. He merely quotes verses found in the Qur'an and places those next to acts of violence perpetrated by people who consider the Qur'an the inerrant word of God, and who cite these very verses as justification for their acts. Huhne is a bungling incompetent, perhaps going forward he could spare us his ill informed and idiotic anaylses.
There is no attempt to draw a distinction between radical Islamists and
moderate followers of the faith. The film is effectively a 16-minute incitement
to violence. No minority in this country – whether Asian, black or Yorkshiremen
– should be put in such a position.
There is no attempt to draw a distinction? What distinction is there to be made? The canonical texts of Islam are clear. The only distinction not made is that between combatants and non-combatants by the very suicide terrorists who perpetrated the acts highlighted in Fitna. Where are the Muslims who are condemning these tactics, and all jihad against infidels? The greatest scholars in Islam are reaffirming these passages, and jihad as a timeless struggle to kill or convert the Kuffar (infidels). There should be no distinction until Muslims make one for themselves and eschew violence, in all cases, against non-Muslims, gays, women, and any of their other attendant victims through the ages. The film is no incitement to violence, the verses it quotes ARE incitements to violence. The Qur'an IS an incitement to violence. The life of Muhammad is an example of and incitement to violence. Huhne is descended so deeply into self loathing that he feels a man who is stating that a hateful religion is in fact hateful needs to be censored for offending people of this religion.
In my view, there is a serious risk that Wilder's views could create substantial
harm to ethnic minorities in this country, and it is this prevention of harm
that justifies the restrictions to Wilder's freedom of speech. That is why (and
I say this rarely) the home secretary is right on this occasion.
Where exactly in the UK are minorities being persecuted or attacked? From all the reports I read, it is people from Muslim backgrounds that are committing the acts of violence. They are referred to as "Asian" in the media, to better obscure the ideological background, which encourages violence against non-Muslims. The violence includes
gang rape, and assorted other violence. The Muslim response? A Muslim news editor demands that the Asian/Muslim community be given the resources to tackle the problem "within the religion and culture of these communities themselves". As if their "culture" has done a good job of stopping violence. Let them police themselves so they can more effectivel use gang rape as a tool redress harmed "honor".
Huhne on Holocaust deniers (Gerald Frederick
Toben)? Well, now he is much softer:
We don't in this country tend to prosecute people for issues that we regard as
issues of freedom of speech
Oh really Chris? Even when that free speech posits that a minority of Brits (Jews) have conspired to defraud the world of money, based on an enormous hoax, concocted by a secret cabal of hook nosed Jews, with the complicity of all Jews, and blackmailing every government to comply? That doesn't count as inciting hatred? This is precisely what
Toben said. Here are his
comments in defense of Ernst
Zundel (virulent anti-Semite and Holocaust denier). Some highlights:
The world has known that the Holocaust Racketeers, the corpse peddlers and the
Shoah Business Merchants are not only ‘off their rocker’, but since Norman
Finkelstein published his book The Holocaust Industry, we know that these
people, according to Finkelstein, are also a bunch of criminals who have no
respect for the victims — Jews and Gentiles alike — as long as they can make a
‘fast buck’ out of it
And in the Iranian media he said that Israel was founded on the Holocaust
lie.
Wilders never called for violence and didn't attempt to incite violence, and has repeatedly repudiated violence as a solution. I say
Toben has the right to deny the Holocaust. As
Wilders has the right to criticize Islam. So the issue is, why, in his selective application of the right to free speech, does
Huhne choose to stand with Holocaust denying fascists, instead of anti-fascist liberal democrats?
Huhne is a miserable twat. Perhaps he can spare us sanctimonious self loathing diatribes in the future.
Posts
