Censorship

After Copenhagen: The Myth of Civilized Censorship

Hate speech laws legitimize violence against those who offend

|

LiveLeak screen capture

The two recent acts of censorship-by-murder in Europe—first at the offices of Charlie Hebdo in Paris, and then at a free-speech debate in Copenhagen—have put the continent's political classes in a pickle.

For as much as European rulers want to, and do, condemn the brutal actions of these Koran-thumping offense-takers, the fact is they also share something in common with them: a devotion to shushing and sometimes punishing those who offend people's sensibilities.

There's only so much distance the elites of Europe can make between themselves and these cartoonist-loathing shooters. For while our elites might not summarily execute people for the crime of being offensive, they do arrest them, and put them on trial, and occasionally jail them. All of which are acts tinged with menace, underpinned by the threat of violence, where it's understood by all that if any of these offense-givers were to dodge arrest or jump jail they could be restrained by force. It isn't only Islamo-censors who use violence to silence—all censorship, by its nature, is violent.

The awkward fact of a shared outlook between the opinion-forming set and the killers of cartoonists surfaced once again following the shoot-up of a debate about Islam and free speech in Copenhagen at the weekend.

The smoke from the gunfire had barely disappeared before cagey columnists were saying that if we don't want to get killed then we should stop offending people. A writer for the Guardian said Copenhagen should remind us of the "obligations…upon those who wish to live in peaceful, reasonably harmonious societies"—primarily the obligation to "guard against the understandable temptation to be provocative," especially by publishing Muhammad-mocking cartoons. Shorter version: to avoid being shot, zip your lip. The Guardian writer is effectively doing the shooter's dirty work for him, spelling out in words what the shooter said with bullets: if you offend, you might die, so don't do it.

Another Guardian columnist said the peoples of Scandinavia should now "step back from their principles"—their "strong belief in the moral imperative of free speech"—and "show more of the pragmatism for which Denmark is also famous." In short, Denmark and its neighbour nations should do what the shooter wanted them to: ditch that pesky principle of free speech, that old right to provoke, and instead erm and ahh before saying or showing anything edgy.

These responses to Copenhagen, this effective aiding and abetting of the shooters' profoundly illiberal message by the supposedly liberal commentariat, echo some of the grislier responses to the Charlie Hebdo massacre. There was the infamous Financial Times column that slammed the "editorial foolishness" of Charlie Hebdo (apparently the cartoonists brought their murders on themselves), and the New Statesman screed against "free-speech fundamentalists" who stupidly say "Je Suis Charlie" when the fact is we all know there are free-speech lines that "cannot be crossed." It sounded almost like a threat, an echo of the sentiments of the Charlie Hebdo killers themselves: "Cross the line and you'll regret it…"

Charlie Hebdo

So twice now, the great and the good have condemned the actions of offense-killing gunmen while at the same time embracing and spreading the moral message behind these actions: the idea that there's a line that shouldn't be crossed, things that shouldn't be said, and principles that should now be ditched. In essence, liberal observers have made themselves willing participants in acts of terror, behaving as the propagandistic spokespeople, or at least as media echoers, for the misanthropic, intolerant, censorious killers.

These creepy commonalities between small gangs of killers and whole layers of respectable society reveal that these attacks may not be as alien to our way of life as some would have us believe. In fact, the two shooting sprees can be seen as simply a bloodier expression of something that's now depressingly mainstream in Europe: the idea that it's bad to give offense—so bad that you can be punished for doing it.

The massacre at Charlie Hebdo and the shooting in Denmark didn't happen in a vacuum; they happened at a time and on a continent where offensiveness is an actually punishable offense.

So in France in the six weeks since the Charlie Hebdo massacre, far-right ideologues have been arrested for the crime of anti-Semitic speech, and three people who wrote homophobic tweets have been convicted of committing a hate crime. In Copenhagen just four months ago, an art exhibition was cancelled on the basis that it was racist: the Danish penal code forbids any speech that threatens or simply insults or degrades a group on the basis of its race, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, or faith. Was it the Koran that gave the Copenhagen cafe shooter the idea that any slur against his faith was an intolerable crime, or was it the insult-punishing law of the land in which he was born and brought up? His own nation sent him the message that anyone who degraded his faith deserved to be punished.

Across Europe, a glut of hate-speech laws now control what people can say and write. Over the past 30 years, everywhere from Britain to France to Finland, laws have been passed forbidding the insulting or ridiculing of religious folk, women, ethnic minorities, gays, and others. These laws don't only punish those who shout the word "Nigger!" or "Faggot!", which would be bad enough; they punish people for their actual moral and political convictions.

Like the Swedish pastor given a one-month suspended prison sentence for expressing his belief that homosexuality is a "tumour" on society. Or Brigitte Bardot, arrested and fined five times in France for describing Islam as barbaric. Or the novelist Michel Houellebecq, dragged to court in France for describing Islam as "the stupidest religion." Or the far-right British politician given a suspended eight-month prison sentence for expressing his disdain for Britain's immigration policy and using the word "darkie" to describe foreigners. Or the Swedish artist sent to jail for six months for producing paintings that mocked black people.

It's the return of the mindset of the Inquisition, of the old, rotten idea that those who offend orthodoxies, in this case PC, may be punished, sometimes severely. Maybe the Charlie Hebdo and Copenhagen killers were mind-warped by the online ravings of some extremist finger-wagging imam from the Middle East—or maybe they imbibed the thinking of their own societies, of the laws in France and Denmark, which remove the liberties of those who insult Muslims and other groups, and turns these insulters into criminals, outcasts, moral lepers. These killers can be seen, not so much as an invading foreign strain of intolerant Islamism, but as the militant enforcers of the now mainstream European creed of offense-avoidance and criminalization of hate and ridicule.

Some will say: "But our censorship is more civilized than theirs. We don't kill, we just arrest and fine or imprison those who misspeak or misthink." Please. What underpins the state's ability to criminalize and in some cases incarcerate those who give offence? Force does; violence does; it's the knowledge that anyone who refused to pay his fine or serve his prison sentence for the crime of saying what he thinks would be made to do so by the enforcers of the state's will. Censorship is inherently threatening. It is never civilized. In fact, it's the antithesis of civilization, for it calls into question the ability of the public to judge for itself which ideas are good and which are bad and it elevates, with menace, tiny cliques of people into the arbiters of what may be thought and said.

To rebuild freedom in Europe, it isn't enough condemn the actions of small groups of gunmen. We must also dismantle, piece by piece, the vast legal structures and censorious culture that empower the offense-takers, making them believe they have the right to silence and punish those who criticize them and to live in a safe space, an anti-social bubble, in which a cross word is never uttered. Let's invade their safe space. Let's burst their bubble. Let's challenge the idea that words of any kind—be they gratuitously offensive or just morally dubious—should be the business of either the state or Islamo-murderers.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

253 responses to “After Copenhagen: The Myth of Civilized Censorship

  1. Well said.

    1. Some of them there rabble-rousers should definitely zip their lips. Especially those misguided and irresponsible folks who disseminate that “parody” material of the devil among the masses. Here in America, we are creatively finding ways to zip lips when the wrongful “satires” get out of hand and cross the line into something that isn’t just for fun. It’s okay on late-night television where we can blip out some of those foul words, but none of them there emails under fake “parody” impersonation names. The European nations can look to our great leadership as a model when they get serious about clamping down on some of that “free speech” baloney. See the legal documentation of one of our real good criminal satire cases at:

      http://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

    2. Brendan seems to insist on missing the obvious. Denmark and many other European nations are attacking and killing Muslims in Iraq and other countries. I’m not convinced the terror actions were motivated by a hatred of ‘free speech’ or a devotion to the Koran. The obvious answer to me is that this was a counter-attack, just the kind one would expect in an asymetric war.

      1. so you dont find any import to the targeting of a newspaper and a free speech convention? dont those engaging in asymetric war concern themselves with targets having military value?

        1. “dont those engaging in asymetric war concern themselves with targets having military value?”

          Since when? If you follow the news, you’ll read of Palestinians lobbing rockets at Israeli kindergardens. Terrorists avoid military targets almost by definition. A newspaper or a convention make excellent terror targets. They are soft targets and striking at either is almost guaranteed to generate headlines.

          1. They are soft targets and striking at either is almost guaranteed to generate headlines.

            Pretty much any target that terrorists attack that involves killing people is guaranteed to generate headlines.

            Have you actually studied the details of the Charlie Hebdo shooting, along with Jyllands-Posten, and others on Al-Qaeda’s hit list, and the reasons Al-Qaeda claimed to put them there?

            There’s “missing the obvious” and then there’s “keeping it too simple”. Terrorists can have multiple motives for killing people, and it doesn’t always have to be everyone’s favorite.

            1. “Have you actually studied the details of the Charlie Hebdo shooting, along with Jyllands-Posten, and others on Al-Qaeda’s hit list, and the reasons Al-Qaeda claimed to put them there?”

              No I haven’t actually studied any terrorist attack. But I have read scattered press reports and comments over the years. Within days of Denmark’s announced participation in the war last summer, jihadists were threatening action against Denmark. If you agree with Brendan that it’s hatred of free speech among jihadists that is so important, then make your case. I’ve yet to see a convincing one.

              1. No I haven’t actually studied any terrorist attack. … If you agree with Brendan that it’s hatred of free speech among jihadists that is so important, then make your case. I’ve yet to see a convincing one.

                As an alternative, I suggest using google and looking into the matter yourself. Otherwise, if you find that prior beliefs based on old news, and arguments from ignorance are sufficient for you to understand a subject, then far be it from me to raise your standards.

                1. ” I suggest using google and looking into the matter yourself”

                  I don’t think google is much help with this question. They tend to prioritize exactly the same kind of views presented in this article. More obscure jihadist websites that may help to put the jihadist’s motivations in their own words often don’t show up in google searches, at least on the first dozen or so pages.

                  If you have any insight on the issue that you think might enlighten me, then by all means put it out there. There’s no need to shy away from raising my standards. You may even convince me that understanding jihadist motives second hand, through the mouths and pens of their implacable enemies is the best we can hope for.

                  1. Actually, I’ve already googled it to my own satisfaction, but I really not interested in correcting your ignorance. If you’re not willing to do the work yourself, then I have no sympathy for you.

                    1. Glad to here that you’re satisfied. I remain unsatisfied.

                      I am also sad to hear that you have no sympathy for me.

                    2. If you remain unsatisfied due to your ignorance of the facts, then I have already suggested a remedy.

                      If that remedy doesn’t suit you, then perhaps you should learn to be satisfied with your ignorance.

                      After all, knowledge is power, and if lacking the facts really bothers you, then you’re really only an internet search away. In terms of acquiring knowledge, it’s always better to work than to beg.

                    3. “if lacking the facts really bothers you”

                      The lack of facts does bother me, and the lack of reference to Denmark’s war against Muslims in the article is what motivated me to comment here in the first place. If you have anything to add other than expounding on my personal failings, then let’s hear it. I welcome your contribution. What has given you this feeling of satisfaction you speak of?

                    4. I’m surorised nobody has mentioned FuckDuckGo.

  2. I think Muhammad is fantastic. There is only one God and his truth is written the Koran. And this – ^~^ / – is not a depiction of Mohammed beheading an enemy. I’m not being sarcastic. I truly sincerely believe all of this. Really.

    1. You will be killed last.

      1. But make no mistake, you will be killed!

  3. To appease murderous invaders, Denmark has to act like they have no balls? That’s a new twist on “Dane-geld”…

  4. Forget it, Brendan. It’s Europetown.

    1. Spelled EwwwwTown.

  5. OT: So The Free Beacon wastes no time trying Ron Paul’s Osama quote to Rand Paul with this lovely headline:

    Senior Rand Paul Confidante Posits Insane 9/11-Related Conspiracy Theory

    1. They’re as scared of RP winning the primary as Denmark is of muhammadans.

      1. Yep. I sure do wish Ron would just shut the fuck up, though. He’s gotta understand that all his baggage is gonna hurt Rand.

        1. Yeah, I kinda hate to say it, but…

          Ron, STFU – for teh children Rand’s and OUR sakes.

          1. I understand the sentiment, but I’m certain previous statements and “guilt by association” smears could (and will) be dredged up.

    2. “Matter of fact, can’t you just see the difference that might have occurred. Ya know, they knew where Bin Laden was. I don’t think they really wanted to catch him because he was used as the excuse for us, you know, invading various countries and building up the military,” Paul said on Scott Horton’s radio program.

      It’s very cynical but not really insane.

      1. It is not something one says on the radio if one is interested in supporting their son’s presidential aspirations.

        1. At this point, Rand is just a long-shot loonie anyway. Being related to Ron at all is two strikes right there and Rand’s inability to stay away from the “evil homos are destroying humanity” whackadoos is doing far worse to his image than anything Ron can say.

          1. Have you ever said anything that made sense?

            1. It’s very cynical but not really insane.

              You mean like that?

              You seem to be extra contrarian today, did you just put your dog down or something?

            2. HP, Rand may make the first round of primaries, but he’s not going to be the candidate. He’s thrown his lot in with the extreme socons (even appearing in a vitriolic anti-gay documentary) regardless of whatever cherries he picks of the libertarian idea bucket.

              1. From Right Wing Watch

                Porter, who was a longtime Religious Right activist and radio host until she lost her program due to her increasing radicalism only to re-emerge as an anti-abortion activist and right-wing social media entrepreneur, has brought together a who’s who of hardline anti-gay activists, members of Congress, and presidential hopefuls for her film entitled “Light Wins: How To Overcome The Criminalization Of Christianity.”

                Among the participants are Rep. Steve King, Rep. Trent Franks, Rep. Louie Gohmert, Rep. Tim Huelskamp, Sen. Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee, David Barton, James Dobson, Mat Staver, Phyllis Schlafly, Scott Lively, Alveda King, Brian Camenker, Frank Pavone, Robert Knight, John Stemberger…

                1. SM, so the word of one whacko is sufficient to disqualify a candidate? You are delusional.

                  1. “… so the word of one whacko is sufficient to disqualify a candidate?”

                    Big, it could be sufficient in the minds of far too many impressionable voters.

                  2. It’s called “guilt by association”. Of course, that means that all human beings are unfit for office…

                    Don’t use logic here, you’ll just hurt your brain.

                    1. ace, at least three people on that list that includes Rand have advocated – openly and proudly – legally executing people for being gay. Most others advocate or accept the idea of using the force of law against LGBT people. Is that the company a Champion of Liberty really keeps?

                  3. Big T, this isn’t an isolated incident. Rand routinely makes the rounds with the far right extremists – far too often to be dismissed as pandering.

                    It’s not being “disqualified”, it’s taking an extreme position that will turn people off. I think that most Americans can be considered “conservative” in the sense that any sort of extreme ideology – whether they agree with the ideas behind it or not – turns them away. Even if most people really don’t like gays all that much there aren’t enough people out there a)who’ll buy into the fundamentalist paranoia Rand associates with or b)really believe Rand is a champion of liberty while giving his name and voice to those who advocate using the apparatus of state to further their agenda against certain people. Even if he were the candidate it’ll be a glaring contradiction that will hurt his candidacy.

        2. If Ron Paul’s first priority was ever anybody’s presidential aspirations, he wouldn’t be Ron Paul.

          1. A very good point.

            1. Principle over principal, or something?

      2. Very crazy theory. We should really ask George W. Bush what he thinks of it. Oh, wait, someone already asked him about bin Laden’s whereabouts back in 2006. He said: “He’s just a person who’s been marginalized…. I don’t know where he is. I really just don’t spend that much time on him, to be honest with you.”

        Apparently Bush and Paul agree that Bush wasn’t very interested in catching bin Laden.

        1. Making Bin Laden the focus of our strategy would have been foolish. It would have distracted us from fighting the active terrorists and would have provided the Taliban with a daily reminder of their success as long as he was at large. Bush’s comment was rational.

          1. Our government could have focused on multiple targets instead of ignoring one for a while.

        2. If they had a 1000 people looking for him around the clock and considered him the biggest threat to America it would have been foolish of him to say anything other than what your quote said.

  6. Besides the free speech aspects, these incidents also show how harmful gun control can be.

    1. No, they show the need for MOAR GUN CONTROL.

      Cause, clearly, the issues is not ENOUGH gun control, since someone still got a gun and killed people.

      Well, someone who’s not a government official, Brave Defender in Blue, military person, or VIP who we like.

      1. What if he’s got a pointed stick?

        1. Pointed stick? Oh, oh, oh. We want to learn how to defend ourselves against pointed sticks, do we? Getting all high and mighty, eh? Fresh fruit not good enough for you eh? Well I’ll tell you something my lad. When you’re walking home tonight and some great homicidal maniac comes after you with a bunch of loganberries, don’t come crying to me!

        2. what about diesel fuel and nitrogen based fertilizers. mix them together and you can blow up a whole city block – can buy both of them easily anywhere in Europe. With them you can kill many more people than you ever could with a gun.

          Guess gun control really stops anything right???

          1. You’re that scary kid in elementary school who knew how to make a pistol out of brass pipe and a rubber band, aren’t you…?

            1. Pop Tarts were far too simple and wimpy for when Jeffrey wanted to make his point.

    2. Yeah, Denmark in theory allows self defense by just enough force to repel your attacker. The language of the law is vague, and essentially leaves it up to you to provide evidence that the level of force you used was necessary.

      Danish law also forbids you to have on your person (and in many cases, in your home) any reasonable tools for self defense, in a situation where your attacker has a weapon.

      It’s interesting to note that apparently the weapon the murderer in this case used, was stolen from a branch of the Danish military.

      1. “It’s interesting to note that apparently the weapon the murderer in this case used, was stolen from a branch of the Danish military.”

        Clearly the solution is to make it illegal to steal form the military, Holger.

        1. Actually, a recent update specifies the branch as the Danish National Guard, and most likely the gun was obtained in a home robbery. DNG members keep their service weapons at home.

          I’m guessing this will result in DNG weapons having to be kept at central locations.

          1. “I’m guessing this will result in DNG weapons having to be kept at central locations.”

            I think that’s likely.

  7. “It’s the return of the mindset of the Inquisition, of the old, rotten idea that those who offend orthodoxies, in this case PC, may be punished, sometimes severely.”

    OK, I’d like to say at least this much in the Inquisition’s favor – not so much the Spanish version (whose procedure was fatally flawed), but the Roman version.

    The Roman Inquisition would proceed by formal procedures, even allowing some right of defense, as opposed to whacking people at random.

    And they punished people for holding what were considered *false* views; they didn’t simply ban all views which were offensive, which casts a much broader net.

    Then there’s this:

    http://politicalquotes.org/node/43919/2030

    1. Plus, everyone expects the Roman Inquisition.

      1. You know who else expected inquiries from Rome…

          1. no, her kid sister

        1. Scipio?

        2. Julie…t?

      2. *narrows eyes*

  8. They are not the same. The killers in France and Denmark were murderous evil fanatics. The elites who responded to their actions by telling people to stop offending Islam are cowards. They are people who utterly lack any kind of personal integrity or moral courage. That is something quite different from the murderers.

    1. Sonofabitch. I agree with John for once.

      1. I think he might feel worse about that than you do, PB.

    2. AFAICT, these censorship laws in Europe were adopted in good faith by people who had seen organized violence in the 20th C. & believed that such violence could be nipped in the bud by preventing persons from conveying to each other negative evaluations of groups of persons. The fear was not that those offended would act on their offense, but that spreading the negative opinions would lead persons to violence based on those negative opinions. So, like, “Jews are bad, huh? Then we’d better kill them.”, rather than, “We’re bad, huh? Let’s kill the people who said that.”

  9. Fuck the Muhammedins, fuck the Europeans, fuck Ohio, fuck California, fuck your mom, and fuck YOU.

    1. Ohio? The rest I totally get, but…

      Ohio?

      1. I think he meant “fuck THE Ohio”.

        1. Oh, that’s cool, then.

      2. EDG Reppin’ always says “Fuck Michigan”, cause he’a a Buckeye. I lived in Ohio twice, and I ain’t no Buckeye, so….

        It’s all in good fun 🙂

        PS FUCK YOU AGAIN!

        1. It’s not even Friday and you’re inviting a slap.

    2. “Fuck ME?!? Hey Vonnegut, do you read lips? FUCK YOU.”

      (hangs up)

      1. “Next time I’ll call Robert Ludlum!”

        1. “Whoever did write this doesn’t know the first thing about Kurt Vonnegut!”

          1. “Please, try to understand. I don’t have the background for this. I mean, the high school I went to, they asked a kid to prove the law of gravity, he threw the teacher out the window!”

            1. “The football team at my high school, they were tough. After they sacked the quarterback, they went after his family.”

              1. “When you go jogging, do you leave pot-holes? When you make love, do you have to give directions? At the zoo, do the elephants throw YOU peanuts? Do you look at a menu and say ‘OK’? Well, now, you can eat all you want, because at Thornton Melon’s “Tall & Fat” stores, we’ve got you covered.”

    3. Said in Riley Freeman’s voice:

      Look, Fuck you
      Fuck the plane you flew in on
      Fuck them shoes
      Fuck those socks with the belt on it
      Fuck yo gay ass fairy faggot accent
      Fuck them cheap ass cigars
      Fuck yo yuk-mouth teeth
      Fuck yo hair piece
      Fuck yo chocolate
      Fuck Guy Ritchie
      Fuck Prince William
      Fuck the Queen
      This is America
      My president is black and my Lambo is blue, nigga
      Now get the fuck out my hotel room
      And if I see you in the street I’m slappin’ the shit out of you

  10. In a decade or less, a lot of Western Europe will be under Islamic law. I wonder which will be the first to fall? France, England, Sweden? Italy may be in the running now.

        1. My senses are working overtime.

      1. Though not completely.

        ‘There are now estimated to be no fewer than 85 Sharia courts across the country ? from London and Manchester to Bradford and Nuneaton. They operate mainly from mosques, settling financial and family disputes according to religious principles.’

        1. If all parties agree to recognize and use these courts, then I’m OK with this.

          1. Call me cynical, but I have a sneaking suspicion that “voluntary” is not always completely legit when it comes to Sharia courts.

            1. Wait – what?

              The HELL you say!

            2. Funny, I have the same feeling about pretty much every court in pretty much every jurisdiction. I’m not advocating Sharia law, but I’d say that most Sharia courts are a lot more voluntary than every traffic court in the U.S.

          2. A court for “financial and family disputes” only is kind of like People’s Court.

            As long as they don’t have real legal power.

        2. Sharia does not apply to non-Muslims, even in officially Muslim countries.

          1. BS- watch what happens to a woman walking around in western dress (a skirt and top with high heels perhaps) in Iran or Saudi Arabia, She would be either raped or arrested ( then raped) faster than you would ever imagine.

            Where do you get such truly stupid ideas???

            Only in America are people basically able to dress and act in anyway their culture or religion dictates with a minimum of interference by others or the government.

            1. Except for sagging pants. And some idiot is working on a yoga pants ban. Also t-shirts that express dangerous ideas, like wearing a shirt that demonstrates that a robot can carry a gun when you go through airport security.

              Muslim laws may apply generally in Muslim countries, even to non-Muslims. Or maybe not. But in a country with a secular, civil legal system, a Sharia court tends to be a form of voluntary arbitration. If it goes beyond that, yes, it could be a problem. Can you show me a few cases where it has, so we can get on that?

          2. Sharia does not apply to non-Muslims, even in officially Muslim countries.

            First of all, sharia tells Muslims exactly how to treat non-Muslims. The jizz tax is a sharia mandate.

            Secondly,

            Pew Research (2013): According to an interpretation of this study, approximately 45% of Sharia supporters surveyed disagreed with the idea that Islamic law should apply only to Muslims.
            http://www.pewforum.org/upload…..report.pdf

            And furthermore:

            Economist (Pew 2013): 74% who favor Islamic law in Egypt say it should apply to non-Muslims as well.
            http://www.economist.com/blogs…..iadolikeit

      2. They’ve already taken over complete sections of cities in all of the countries I mentioned, except for Italy, but millions of Syrian refugees are flowing into Italy and ISIS is right behind them, having already sent in lots of plants among the refugees.

        I at first thought that England would be the first to fall, then Sweden, now I’m leaning towards France. I mean all that would have to happen is for one of them to climb up on the Eiffel Tower and hoist the ISIS flag and Hollande would be on national TV in five minutes, wearing a burqua and announcing the surrender.

        1. “Millions”? Thousands at best. Also, please describe exactly what “taken over” is supposed to mean.

          1. I actually meant Libya, not Syria.This article is saying that 200,000 more may be on the way.

            Libya refugees heading for Italy

            There are entire sections of London and France, to name only 2 countries where it’s happening, that are referred to as no go zones because the Islamists have basically taken them over and set up their own shariah zones.

            Sweden is experiencing similar situations. They have no interest in assimilating into the new country, they only want to transform it.

            Tell me how that isn’t happening?

            1. Again, Sharia does not apply to non-Muslims – and it doesn’t replace existing law.

              And if you think Europeans are going to put up with such “transformation”, you haven’t been paying attention to recent politics.

              1. Bull shit it doesn’t – once it Muslims become a majority they try to impose it on everyone in the municipality.

                1. Again, Sharia does not apply to non-Muslims – and it doesn’t replace existing law.

                  Again it does and most muslims believe it does. Sharia actually differentiates between muslims and non-muslims but that doesn’t mean it has no applicability to non-muslims. That includes wide support for stoning adulterers and cutting off hands of thieves, regardless of the offender’s religion.

                  Go to Waziristan and fuck a tribesman’s wife, see whether or not they apply sharia or common law in dealing with you.

                  Pew Research (2010): 82% of Egyptian Muslims favor stoning adulterers
                  70% of Jordanian Muslims favor stoning adulterers
                  42% of Indonesian Muslims favor stoning adulterers
                  82% of Pakistanis favor stoning adulterers
                  56% of Nigerian Muslims favor stoning adulterers
                  http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/0…..hezbollah/

                  NOP Research: 68% of British Muslims support the arrest and prosecution of anyone who insults Islam;
                  http://www.cbsnews.com/stories…..2011-04-06

    1. Hmm, do we think this will make Europe cheaper or more expensive to travel to? I haven’t decided if I’m in favor of the Islamofascismisation of Europe yet.

      1. I’m not sure Islamofascism and jesse.in.mb could coexist, if you get my drift.

        1. Whatever. I got laid in Malaysia without incident and they arrest the opposition party leader there on the regular for sodomy charges.

          1. International man of mystery!

            Out of curiosity, what the hell were you doing in Malaysia?

            1. Whatever the hell he wanted to, by the sound of it.

            2. what the hell were you doing in Malaysia?

              The natives.

              Seriously though, a friend of mine is Malaysian (of Chinese descent), but mostly grew up in CA, she still has family there and she knows I like to travel so she invited me along. We did KL, Melakka and an island resort. And her aunt fed us durian, which I was unable to swallow without a beverage assist.

              1. Is that that smelly fruit? (The durian.)

                1. It sure is. When I was in Kuala Lumpur, I was going to get one, then I found out that I couldn’t even bring it into my hotel.

                  1. I have an ex from there. They sure do eat, well, anything.

                    1. They sure do eat, well, anything.

                      Most of the food I had there was incredible. Roti canai (flatbread), the curries, street vendor noodles, teh tarik (pulled tea) were particular favorites. When we went to my friend’s aunt’s house for dinner they put in a special effort to fuck with me and my friend’s tall, gangly white fianc?.

                      Hot pot dinner with unspeakable things bobbing into and out of view, crabs boiled in BBQ sauce, and durian.

                    2. The food is great. I ate satays by the dozen and liked pretty much everything. It was sorta like a combination of Thai and Indonesian food.

                      I also had Sugar Coke there for the first time in years (before Mexican Coke was generally available in the U.S.). Drank that by the liter.

                2. I see what you did there.

                  Yeah. It actually tastes vaguely like custard and has a creamy texture, but smells variously like stinky feet or stinky cheese depending on the variety and one’s preferences in feet and cheese.

                  Also, it is a big spiky fruit that falls on people’s heads.

                  1. I ain’t eating anything that the Bizarre Foods show guy won’t eat…

                    1. Did you see his show in Taiwan? He met his match at Dai’s House of Unique Stink (the literal translation) in a couple of her rather disgusting stinky tofu dishes.

                      The first one he popped a bite in his mouth and promptly spat out, declaring that was the first thing he’d ever put in his mouth that he couldn’t swallow.

                      Game for more torture, he sampled the second dish, which made him gag so bad he accidentally swallowed it.

          2. they arrest the opposition party leader there on the regular for sodomy charges.

            Nobody believes it, of course. It’s just the most heinous thing they can come up with. It doesn’t help his case that, while his views on homosexuality are pretty archaic by US standards, he might as well be a member of PFLAG by theirs.

      2. I think it will mean that no one will want to travel to Europe.

        1. Exactly. So I need to plan to travel while flights are empty but before they start cutting routes. I wonder if there’s a blog someplace with a list of opportunistic airfares for people who don’t mind moderate amounts of social upheaval.

          1. I think you have just found a business opportunity, jesse!

          2. You missed your opportunity to fly into the Sergey Prokofiev International Airport.

            1. I probably would’ve gone, but that jumped above “moderate amounts of social upheaval” faster than I could’ve made travel plans.

      3. How expensive is it to travel to Syria or Lybia or Iraq?

        1. It probably costs a lot more to get back out.

      4. Hmm, do we think this will make Europe cheaper or more expensive to travel to? I haven’t decided if I’m in favor of the Islamofascismisation of Europe yet.

        Cheaper fiscally, but at the cost of your soul (Christian if appropriate, cultural/heritage if otherwise).

    2. That will be in 2022 in France. It’s all written here.

      1. As a monolingual American I feel othered by that link.

        1. Moi aussi.

    3. I don’t believe that. I think more likely is that in a decade or so Muslims will suffer from mass deportations from Europe.

      Even in France, they are only 7% of the population. They are no more than single digits everywhere. Sorry, but minorities don’t win clashes of civilizations. Minorities get deported or exterminated.

      1. Why do so many people have this weird fantasy about Muslims taking over Europe? It’s like they’ve never studied even the slightest European history.

        1. I don’t get it either. And they act like Europeans are not having kids at all. There are still young people in Europe, not as many as there are in some Muslim countries, more than enough to, when paired with modern technology, deal with any Islamic threat.

          Numbers don’t mean what they once did. The most advance nation is the nation that wins any struggle.

        2. You don’t have to fantasize about it when you can actually watch it happening.

          1. Have you actually ever been to Europe? Known Europeans? Because the average European is not like their politicians, just like the average American is not like their politicians. The idea that extremely tribal Europeans with very nice countries will just lie down and let that all be ruined is, frankly, ludicrous.

            All this hysteria about Europe is more wishful thinking than anything else.

            1. No, I haven’t been there yet. Planning a trip to Germany in the near future.

              And yes, I know some Europeans and have most of my life.

              For the lub of bejeebus, you really think I want Islamists to take over Europe? That’s too fucking funny.

              I may be over hyping it some and being overly cynical, but there is a real problem and it needs to be dealt with before it does get out of control.

              1. I think your cynicism and worry will be alleviated after you go. If you are going to Germany, I suggest a few days in Munich. It’s beautiful and very pleasant. No Muslim no-go zones as far as I could see, and I got shown around by a native who is a friend of the family. Make sure you go see the river surfing, it’s super cool.

                1. Munich might be one of my favorite cities. Especially during Oktoberfest.

                  1. +1. Spectacular city and really cool people.

                  2. +1 ein prosit.

                2. I’ll be going to Berlin to visit my daughter-in-law. My number one top thing to do is visit a beer hall and drink those giant mugs of beer.

                  Not sure how far Munich is or if we’ll have the time to go there or not. I would love to see parts of Bavaria and definitely some castles too.

                  1. Berlin is neat but I vastly prefer Munich (though I did watch the 2014 World Cup Germany/Brazil game, where Germany crushed Brazil, about 500 feet from the Brandenburg Gate). Also the beer halls with huge beer mugs is a much more Bavarian thing, meaning you’d want to go to Munich for that as well. Neuschwanstein and Hohenschwangau are pretty neat castles but they’re two hours outside of Munich and the lines are long as fuck (so go early if you want to do that).

                    1. Northern and Southern Germans are very different people.

                      The north is protestant and Prussian, much more serious and stern.
                      the Southern is/was catholic and much more congenial and fun loving.

                  2. Beer halls are in Munich or Bavaria in general (but not everywhere in Bavaria, in W?rzburg they drink wine). They don’t have them in Berlin. Munich is a longish drive from Berlin but doing 200 km/h in a BMW on an Autobahn was nice.

                  3. I have lived in (northern) Bavaria – it’s the best part of the country IMHO. If you want authentic oompah Deutschland, it’s the place to go. Berlin, not so much.

            2. European here, Dane in fact, and Episiarch is right that the regular European folks are annoyed.

              But they’re also politically impotent and handicapped by a century of leftist indoctrination.

              They’ll complain right to the end, but ultimately will do very little, and just peacefully board the boxcars. Just look at WW2.

            3. No, the avg. American is like politicians, except for 1 thing: the desire to be a politician.

            4. The idea that extremely tribal Europeans with very nice countries will just lie down and let that all be ruined is, frankly, ludicrous.

              All this hysteria about Europe is more wishful thinking than anything else.

              I’m in Europe no less than twice a year as my wife is Dutch. Aside from my wife’s inexplicably libertarian family, most people there feel there is an obligation to accept these people for who they are and no mere minority support the wide application of hate speech laws to silence criticism of Islam or the cultural backwardness of those immigrants. Yet paradoxically those same people will privately express their fear and/or disdain for the muslims that live across the street from them.

              Multicultural fallacies are a sickness of thought, a sickness that has infected the mainstream of western European societies. Whatever the US’s immigration problems supposedly are, I know we can’t possibly have it worse than Europe in terms of the quality of people immigrating to their shores.

      2. They won’t even put up a fight. 10% of the total population will be more than enough when the natives won’t even put up a resistance.

        1. That is ludicrous Hyperion. People don’t willingly let others kill them. That is not how it works.

          Muslims are making themselves the enemy of humanity. If they continue down this road, they will end up being wiped off the earth. There may be a billion Muslims but there are five or six billion of everyone else. And the world isn’t going to die or become Muslims.

          1. What are they going to do, John, fight off the Muslims with kitchen knives and pitch forks? They have no weapons.

            1. What are you talking about? They have tons of weapons. And moreover, gun control doesn’t work. Once people decide they want weapons, they will get them. The only reason they don’t have them now is because they don’t really want them.

              Lastly, Muslims are small minorities. When the nationalist parties take over these governments, and they will, the police and army will provide plenty of arms to exterminate or depart the Muslim populations.

            2. The rulers of Connecticut think the peons don’t have weapons either. They’re wrong.

          2. How was millions of people lured onto boxcars during WW2? With the promise of cake?

            Europeans complain, but do nothing.

            A century of leftist brainwashing, following centuries of being slaves to royalty will do that to you.

            1. Not to mention suicide by political correctness.

              Some Danes actually laid flowers where the murderer was finally taken down by the police.

              http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indla…..141812.htm

          3. “People don’t willingly let others kill them” have you looked at what is happening in Iraq & Syria & Libbia & Egypt. people are being killed by the thousands and not in PC ways either and very few are standing up to them.
            it only takes a few to rule many look at how far Germany once got and Japan controlled China at one time and China then as now outnumbered Japan by the millions. I find that the more that people are used to being ruled by others then new rulers makes little difference to them that is why for now anyway America is still one of the last hopes since most Americans still believe in self rule.

      3. Sorry, but minorities don’t win clashes of civilizations.

        As you point out above though, this isn’t a clash.

        We have murderous barbarians and a population so enlightened and virtuous that they would stop their own advocates from preventing their execution.

        I could certainly see a few nations polarizing in opposite directions and a Civil disruption of the EU.

        Germany, England, Sweden could end up free of Muslims the way the North ended up free of upstart racist slave owners.

        1. It is about to become a clash of them. The elites only get away with this shit because most people don’t feel in danger. No one other than Jews or the odd trouble maker really has to worry too much about it. That is slowly changing. When it does, the population will turn on Muslims and either expel them or murder them.

          Muslims are going to end up paying an enormous price for allowing the political elites to egg on their sense of entitlement and victimhood.

          1. I think Europeans are way more pacified than what Americans are. And they are all completely disarmed now. So yes, I fear for Europeans that they are going to pay a very heavy price for their complacency and letting their governments disarm them.

            Now, the USA is a completely different story. They try to pull that shit here and they’ll face a heavily armed populace who will not hesitate to send them all to get their free 72 virgins.

            1. Even if they are, that just means it will take more to get them agitated. And gun control is no more effective than drug control.

              Moreover, the Europeans still have democratic governments. If the population demands something be done, you will see a rise of far right parties who will take over and do something. You don’t need an armed populace when you own the army and police forces.

              To believe what you are saying, you have to believe that Europeans are somehow different than any human who has ever existed and are happy to die. Sorry, not buying it.

              1. I really do expect to some extent to see Europe moving away from the destructive politically correct policies and moving further right even as the USA is still moving to the left and more towards the policies that are starting to destroy Europe. If that doesn’t happen, then I hope they like their new Islamofascist masters.

                1. This is the more likely scenario. When Islamofascism gets to be seen as too dangerous the public will put in place some very reactionary governments. Civil rights will suffer – and most libertarians will be against the new restrictions – and could result in vigilante justice.

            2. nah. it’s about proximity.

            3. Have you seen the stats on the estimated numbers of illegally owned firearms in Europe? The numbers are surprisingly high.

              Again, you have a cartoonish view of what actual Europeans are like, and if you go there for a visit I think that’ll change pretty fast.

              1. they are, however, all bitches and punks- but not the good kind. they will make the furthest left american defend Bush and Nixon to the death.

          2. When it does, the population will turn on Muslims and either expel them or murder them.

            Sure, but just like my example, there are plenty of nations that will be unable/unwilling to liquidate a portion of their workforce and otherwise logistically shed themselves of them. Even England or Germany isn’t just going to beam them all back to the ME.

            1. Mad,

              I am pretty sure they can find other ways to run clean their streets and run their kebab shops. Europe doesn’t need the labor anymore.

            2. If they really wanted them that badly as workers & yet feared them, they would enslave them.

        2. Um, the Mongolians destroyed the Han Chinese- the majority.

          history does not side with you.

          1. That was before firearms. Different world now.

            1. um… no. cannon and firearms existed then. As did crossbows and catapults, etc.

              The romans were a minority that destroyed majorities. the greeks. Hm… the american colonists. it’s a long and impressive list.

              1. Yeah, we forget about that group of hillbilly snipers who took down the greatest army on earth.

              2. Maybe there is some other Mongol invasion of China, but the one I know about was in the 13th Century. And that was before cannons were not invented until the 14th Century in China and they didn’t become practical weapons until later.

                Beyond that, early cannons, fire arms and bows are not the same thing as modern repeating firearms and modern military technology.

                Yes, it is true a small force can beat a larger one, if it has better technology, that isn’t going to help the Muslims since the Europeans own all of the technology.

            2. It was also before politically correct bullshit. The Chinese didn’t get sit there and say ‘come on in Mr. Kahn, we have some nice benefits for you! We’re sure you’ll enjoy your stay. Oh, and btw, we’ve disarmed the citizenry for you in advance’.

              1. Hyperion, the PC bullshit is a luxury afforded to people who don’t think they are in danger. Once the danger becomes apparent, it will get thrown over the side.

                1. I hope so, we’ll see. Countries like Sweden, for example have gone so far overboard with the bullshit that they’ve completely jumped the shark. It’s not going to be easy to reverse that.

                  1. Countries like Sweden, for example have gone so far overboard with the bullshit that they’ve completely jumped the shark.

                    I don’t worry about a country like Sweden. If the order went out the ‘Muslim 5%’ *could* be dealt with in short order.

                    IMO, the problem lies with the EU or an EU-wide ‘mandate’. None of these countries will openly slaughter muslims in the street. And if you magically transplant all the muslims from the UK to Bulgaria, the country becomes like 30% muslim, Denmark and/or the Netherlands are, no so dramatically, but similarly situated.

                    And while the UK could, conceivably, forcibly evict all it’s Muslims, Bulgaria could hardly do similarly. Moreover, in light of the EU an eviction from the UK means little if the Dutch and the Bulgarians can’t similarly evict you.

                    I don’t mean to say violent overthrow is inevitable, just that something has to give.

                    1. Don’t talk toss. You really think the UK could throw about a couple of million people who were born there?

              2. “With the help of Chinese engineers, they gradually developed the techniques to take down fortifications. Islamic engineers joined later and especially contributed counterweight trebuchets, “Muslim phao”, which had a maximum range of 300 meters compared to 150 meters of the ancient Chinese predecessor. It played a significant role in taking the Chinese strongholds and was as well used against infantry units on the battlefield. This eventually would make troops under the Mongols some of the most accomplished and most successful besiegers in the history of warfare.”

                It’s all been an islamic conspiracy from the start!

                1. I blame the collapse of Mohists.

                  1. + one thousand blessings upon those to whom you owe filial piety.

                  2. Jessie,

                    Have you seen “Battle of the Warriors”?

                    http://www.dailymotion.com/vid…..shortfilms

                    Warning: Don’t expect a happy middle or ending.

    4. Not a decade but in 30 years yes, for sure. The demographics are fairly undeniable.

      I’ll go with Holland.

      1. Yes, the demographics are stacked against the Euros. They simply are too lazy and selfish to have kids. And the muslims are multiplying fast.

        1. In 2008 England became the most crowded country in the most crowded continent. 420 people per square km. England is slightly smaller than Louisiana and has 56 million people. We don’t need more people, nothing to do with selfishness or laziness.

        2. In 2008 England became the most crowded country in the most crowded continent. 420 people per square km. England is slightly smaller than Louisiana and has 56 million people. We don’t need more people, nothing to do with selfishness or laziness.

  11. Seems like there’s been a rash of articles lately on placing some blame anywhere but on the shoulders of murderers. What gives?

    1. Politically correct bullshit, that is the problem.

    2. YOu can’t say anything bad about brown people on Reason Spencer.

      1. No. it’s not racism. It’s a need, I think, to co-opt tragedy to prove a point. It’s shallow. It’s poor form.

        1. Yeah, that is part of it. They have this compulsive need to show how everything makes the point for Libertarianism. Well, not everything does.

          Islamic terrorism presents a real problem for Libertarianism. The easy answer is to just arm the populace. That certainly helps limit the damage from these kind of attacks but it won’t stop them since the people who do them want to die and cant’ be deterred.

          The problem is Reason Libertarians are fervent believers in the Gospel of open borders and assimilation. So a group that doesn’t want to assimilate and worse still wants to take over everywhere they go, is something they can’t really account for.

          1. Maybe. I think they all understand the danger inherent in freedom. I don’t think they’d discount that.

    3. Seems like there’s been a rash of articles lately on placing some blame anywhere but on the shoulders of murderers. What gives?

      The blame for the murders rests squarely where it should.

      The point of the article is that, even without the murders (or in light of them, paradoxically), there’s still plenty of cowardice and oppression going around.

      And I could understand how someone might consider cowardly oppression to be considered a greater moral wrong than murder.

      1. but that’s hindsight bullshit that can be traced back generations. “If we didn’t do this, they would never have been able to do that.” etc. The offense stands, like the cheese, alone.

        Cowardly oppression is a great moral wrong- but one cannot (should not?) tie it to another crime to treat it as anything other than what it is. It’s a cheap trick that I do not want (to want me).

        1. but that’s hindsight bullshit that can be traced back generations.

          Said Spencer IV to Spencer III about some libertarian legal fight that was actually lost circa Spencer I.

  12. criminalization of hate and ridicule

    “Thought-Crime”: Coming soo to a jurisdiction near you.

  13. whats the purpose of free speech laws if your not going to allow free speech?

  14. For as much as European rulers want to, and do, condemn the brutal actions of these Koran-thumping offense-takers, the fact is they also share something in common with them: a devotion to shushing and sometimes punishing those who offend people’s sensibilities.

    They also share a desire to conquer western society through politically subsidized multiculturism. For different reasons to be sure.

  15. Whenever someone is convicted of giving offense in one of these countries ten or twenty thousand people should show up in front of the city hall holding signs saying exactly what the offender said. If they don’t they soon won’t be able to utter a peep of protest.

  16. Some folk do not wish to be free, and will fight tooth and nail to stop others from being free as well. This includes leftists, race-baiters, the Gaystapo, SoCons, and Muslims, among others.

  17. Has any non-white, non-male, and/or non-heterosexual perpetrator of a crime against a white, male, heterosexual ever been charged with “enhanced” penalties under hate crimes laws?

    The world does not need “hate crime” laws. A crime is a crime, no matter what the physical or mental aspects of the victim and perpetrator are.

  18. my roomate’s aunt makes $68 every hour on the computer . She has been fired from work for six months but last month her check was $20790 just working on the computer for a few hours.?????? http://www.jobsblaze.com

  19. Six months ago I lost my job and after that I was fortunate enough to stumble upon a great website which literally saved me. I started working for them online and in a short time after I’ve started averaging 15k a month… The best thing was that cause I am not that computer savvy all I needed was some basic typing skills and internet access to start…
    This is where to start???.

    ????? http://www.netpay20.com

  20. “Censorship is inherently threatening.”

    Yes it is, and once we go down that path, the offences become an endless road to nowhere. We will inevitably expand the offences to the flavor of the decade and we will continue to go down the path until we are all mute.

    “The world does not need “hate crime” laws.”

    Me thinks so too @Galane. We could definitely start with that bubble.

  21. my roomate’s step-sister makes $62 /hour on the laptop . She has been without work for five months but last month her income was $20670 just working on the laptop for a few hours….. ?????? http://www.jobsblaze.com

  22. my roomate’s step-sister makes $62 /hour on the laptop . She has been without work for five months but last month her income was $20670 just working on the laptop for a few hours….. ?????? http://www.jobsblaze.com

  23. Hate speech laws legitimize violence against those who offend

    Hate speech laws constitute violence against those who offend. All legislation, good or bad, is necessarily enforced by violence.

  24. I will be interested in more similar topics. i see you got really very useful topics, i will be always checking your blog thanks.
    GTA 5 Game PC
    GTA 5 Game PC Cheats Download
    Great post i must say and thanks for the information. Education is definitely a sticky subject. However, is still among the leading topics of our time.

  25. Thanks for sharing…
    http://gta5gamepc.com
    http://gta5gamepc.com/how-to-a…..wnload.php
    I found your blog very informative thanks for sharing it.

  26. I will be interested in more similar topics. i see you got really very useful topics, i will be always checking your blog thanks.
    http://wrestlemaniaresult.com/
    http://wrestlemaniaresult.com/…..-hd-video/
    Great post i must say and thanks for the information. Education is definitely a sticky subject. However, is still among the leading topics of our time.

  27. Valuable and inspiring. Great post i must say and thanks for the information. I appreciate your post and look forward to more.Thanks a lot for sharing this amazing knowledge with us.
    Brock Lesnar vs Roman Reigns Match WrestleMania 31 Result
    This site is fantastic. I always find great knowledge from it.

  28. Hey Valuable and inspiring. Great post i must say and thanks for the information. I appreciate your post and look forward to more.Thanks a lot for sharing this amazing knowledge with us

    Wrestlemania 31 Brock lesnar Theme song

  29. Thanks for sharing such a great post i must say and thanks for the information. Education is definitely a sticky subject. However, is still among the leading topics of our time.
    voyance gratuite en ligne
    voyance par telephone sans cb

  30. Valuable and inspiring. Great post i must say and thanks for the information. I appreciate your post and look forward to more.Thanks a lot for sharing this amazing knowledge with us. This site is fantastic. I always find great knowledge from it.
    Watch Extreme Rules Live
    Watch Extreme Rules Live 2015 John Cena vs Rusev

  31. I will be interested in more similar topics. i see you got really very useful topics, i will be always checking your blog thanks.
    Mothers Day 2015 Quotes Sayings Poems
    Happy Mothers Day 2015 Love Quotes
    I will be interested in more similar topics. i see you got really very useful topics, i will be always checking your blog thanks.

  32. I must say you, this blog is awesome. I am addicted to it now. Please also have a look on my blog.
    Happy Friendship Day 2015 Quotes SMS for Girls
    Friendship Day 2015 Romantic Quotes for Girls
    Thanks for sharing

  33. Fitoor is an upcoming Bollywood Indian movie
    sanam re movie download in hd
    fitoor movie 2016
    great article

  34. Her article is very unique.. interesting , let alone be the object in it is so beautiful.. i like it
    Ipl 9 Season 2016 Prediction Matches

    Sultan Box Office Collection Prediction

  35. Her article is very unique.. interesting , let alone be the object in it is so beautiful.. i like it
    FanBox Office Collection Prediction

    22nd Gima Awards 2016 Full Show

  36. Her article is very unique.. interesting , let alone be the object in it is so beautiful.
    Independence Day 2016 Wishes Images

    CBSE Result 2016 Via SMS Official Site

  37. Great post. Thank for sharing

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.