Dear Mr Choudary

Just as one Englishman to another I thought I’d write you this little note to clear up the little misunderstanding that you seem to be labouring under. I hope you don’t mind my pointing this out, that’s something that we English tend not to do. We usually assume that everyone already gets and understands the rules that govern us all in common.

You’re quoted in this morning’s newspaper:

Radical preacher Anjem Choudray has criticised the magazine’s controversial cartoon front cover of the Prophet Mohammed as “an act of war” and warned there will be “repercussions”.

I’m sorry but this really isn’t an act of war. It’s called “free speech” and it’s something that we’re generally keen on. In fact, we English are so keen on this idea that we even extend the right to it to Frenchmen.

Get over it.

Yours,

Tim Worstall

43 thoughts on “Dear Mr Choudary”

  1. Of course, one of the down sides of free speech is that Mr Choudray has also the right to say what he likes, but then others have the right, some might say duty, to make as much mock of his pronouncements as we wish.

  2. Bloke no Longer in Austria

    “Goebbels was in favour of freedom of speech for the views he liked as was Stalin… Whatever happened to them?”

    Even Stalin wasn’t immortal. Although his spirit lives on in the columns of Teh Grauniad.

  3. Goebbels was in favour of freedom of speech for the views he liked as was Stalin… Whatever happened to them?!

    Pretty much everybody, Andy included, is in favour of freedom of speech for the views they like. It’s freedom of speech for views you find abhorrent (not just merely disagree with) that is the distinguishing feature.

    I don’t find the CH cartoons funny (but then I’m not French) and I can see why a Muslim would find the particular “a star is born” cartoon gratuitously offensive. But that really doesn’t count – I’m not personally offended by them. Nor does Ritchie, or even Mr Hudson’s tl;dr extravaganzas.

    Maybe I’m just too liberal …

  4. Sadly, Britons have become much less tolerant of free speech over the last 30 years. The malign leftist influence over much of Academia and the Media has led to the severe restriction of free speech on University campuses and on broadcast news and opinion pieces. Feminism too believes that hurt feelings trump freedom.
    Fuck ’em all, I say.

  5. I wonder if ‘Andjob would care to comment on how ridiculous his religion has become?

    Saudi cleric issues fatwa on snowmen

    Religious leader Sheikh Mohammed Saleh al-Munajjid forbids building of anti-Islamic idols that might resemble human beings, after winter storm in north of country.

    Munajjid had some supporters however. “It (building snowmen) is imitating the infidels, it promotes lustiness and eroticism,” one wrote

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/12/saudi-arabia-snowmen-winter-fatwa

  6. The problem is the political classes have been tiptoeing around their multicultural electorate so much they have forgotten the underlying principles of liberal democracy. Fuck all of them.

  7. I must say that, in all my experience of my and other people’s oddities, fetishes and even perversions, I’ve never come across anybody inspired to lust by snowmen.

    Rule 34 says snowmen porn must exist (unless I have just invoked Rule 35), but you’d expect them to be, well, more attractive that the usual two blobs and some decoration?

  8. Jonathan,

    “Sadly, Britons have become much less tolerant of free speech over the last 30 years. ”

    Have they? Torquay council banning life of Brian, blasphemy law suits against Gay Times? The trial of Lady Chatterley’s Lover? The Lord Chamberlain’s Office having power over what plays could be shown? Donald McGill being brought up in front of magistrates on obscenity charges? The butchering of Enter the Dragon? The banning of The Good Son?

    We had plenty of censorship in the past, just people were offtended about different things.

  9. Tim A,

    Yes, Britons have become far less tolerant of free speech. We used to have loads of censorship, yes, but the public tended to dislike it so people were constantly fighting against it — which is precisely why we now have much less. But now we have less censorship, people are pushing for ever more of it.

    The law is more liberal now. The public, far less.

  10. @Tim Almond – “Have they? ”

    Pretty much what Squander Two said.
    I’m not talking about State censorship here but individuals attitudes towards freedom. I genuinely believe that many more people, especially younger people, don’t believe in free speech, or if they do it’s of the ” I believe in Free Speech but….” category.

  11. Purge the Uni’s of all non-science courses. That is where leftists get the biggest bang for our bucks–poisoning adolescent rebellion with their crap. The young are often dumb and its time to stop the left steering that (usually) transient dumbness in their direction. Given the propaganda of leftist shite that has been spread by leftist graduates to every area of Western society –thro’ the media and “public” institutions mainly–it is hardly surprising that free speech and freedom in general has list of allies that is growing thin.

  12. S2,

    “Yes, Britons have become far less tolerant of free speech. We used to have loads of censorship, yes, but the public tended to dislike it so people were constantly fighting against it — which is precisely why we now have much less. But now we have less censorship, people are pushing for ever more of it.”

    What people? By what measure? We can find people, especially in the Guardian and the Daily Mail that want more censorship, but how many people do they represent? And can we measure that against people 30 or 40 years ago?

    I’m not saying everyone’s a liberal, by any means. I think there’s probably overwhelming support for bans on poppy burning. But I think that would have been the same 30 or 40 years ago.

    Jonathan

    I think young people have generally always been worse in regards to free speech than older people in some areas. They probably want things to be more liberal in certain areas (like sex), but young people generally see rasher, more simplistic solutions to problems than old people who are more relaxed and like to say things like “hmmm… it’s a bit more complicated than that”.

  13. Choudary said “ridiculing” Mohammed is attacking his personality, and said these actions are “extremely serious”, adding that if the “act of war” was to be tried in a Shariah Court it would carry capital punishment.
    In which case he just has to file the complaint with one of the UK’s Sharia law courts. Job done.

  14. Post Rotherham I would like to here Choudary’s take on whether what happened in Northern cities has a direct link to his prophets taste for the sexually under aged.

  15. Could one of you Brits kindly answer me this: in the current circumstances, and given MR Choudray’s reaction to the killings, are his words not incitement to murder?

  16. SE has it. Belief in free speech is the belief in other people being able to say things you don’t like.
    Today pee only seem to understand their own right to say what they want. For example, why would we want to ‘purge’ anything?

  17. Tim,

    > What people? By what measure?

    Fair enough. I don’t have stats. I do think students are an indicator, though, and they have gone from being radical free-speech absolutists and agitators to being at the forefront of calls to ban nasty words.

  18. I’d prefer not to have to endure what this piss-pot says, but have to accept his right to say it.

    I’d prefer not to have to see women draped in tents and men wearing pyjamas on our streets, but again, accept their right to do so (subject to eg airline check in and court appearances).

    What I do emphatically object to, however, is that many of these “preachers” and assorted hangers on seem to be permanently on certain benefits that require them to meet conditions and confirm this in interviews (when it seems to me they are clearly not entitled – eg job seekers allowance). That needs to be stopped.

  19. Paul,

    > Could one of you Brits kindly answer me this: in the current circumstances, and given MR Choudray’s reaction to the killings, are his words not incitement to murder?

    Well, this is the thing, isn’t it? This is exactly why the Government are trying to change the law to ban speech like that: because it is a call to murder, but not quite explicitly so. The current law needs a speech by itself to be an explicit incitement to violence. People like Choudary get around this by giving speeches that, given knowledge of their wider context, will certainly be interpreted by their followers as incitement to violence but are not quite technically legally so.

    Radical cleric Mr Choudary said “ridiculing” Mohammed is attacking his personality, and said these actions are “extremely serious”, adding that if the “act of war” was to be tried in a Shariah Court it would carry capital punishment.

    [Got that, guys? Capital punishment. Nudge, nudge.]

    “It’s not just a cartoon, it’s insulting, it’s ridiculing, it’s provoking,” he said.

    The lecturer in Shariah law, who was arrested in September as part of an investigation into Islamist terrorism, added: “These things always have a history of coming back and biting them. People are not going to forget. Muslims will never forget what these people did.

    [You hear that, guys? This will come back and bite them. Somehow. Nudge, nudge.]

    “And I’m sure there’s someone somewhere who will take the law into his own hands. It’s inevitable.

    [As per previous instructions. You know the drill.]

    “There will be repercussions. I think there will be someone somewhere who will retaliate.”

    [Who’s on the rota for this week?]

  20. Earlier today Dieudonné was arrested for tweeting “Je suis Charlie Choulibali* (or whatever his name was).

    And in one fell swoop Dieudonné shows the hypocrisy of the free speech state. These frogs have forgotten the goosy – gander sauce that is the basis of the enlightenment that they claim paternity of.

    (For information, Dieudonné is an unfunny humorist, holocaust denier, anti semitic prat. But that’s beside the point.)

  21. For information, Dieudonné is an unfunny humorist, holocaust denier, anti semitic prat. But that’s beside the point.

    Quite. What a waste of bloody time that march was.

  22. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2909068/It-s-tragic-fellow-British-Muslims-turning-backs-freedom-writes-YASMIN-ALIBHAI-BROWN.html

    In related news, Yazzer (‘liberal’ muslim and leftist nutjob) writes a book criticising the veil and finds her Muslim friends are not pleased:
    “If you are a Muslim, you follow Islamic rules without question. Are you even a Muslim?”

    Presumably including the rules that say that a Muslim can lie to an infidel (Qur’an (9:3)) and should not take an infidel as a friend [Qur’an (3:28)].

  23. Presumably including the rules that say that a Muslim can lie to an infidel (Qur’an (9:3))

    There’s the nub of the problem. If the other party won’t respect the deal, why should I deal with him? (And then he goes to court for discrimination.)

    And if you are a petty crim (as most of the shooters were) what better excuse than to convert to Islam to justify robbing or killing or supplying drugs to an infidel?

  24. So Much for Subtlety

    Theophrastus – “In related news, Yazzer (‘liberal’ muslim and leftist nutjob)”

    She should have that put on her business cards. She doesn’t get this liberty thing either:

    Liberty to speak one’s mind, for example, should not be abused; public discourse is expected to be within bounds of decency and respect; and liberty to behave however we wish should not mean that we allow ourselves to sink into licentiousness and excess.

    But then she always was very dim. A walking reprimand to anyone who supports Affirmative Action. I notice that she does not condemn those people who have spent a life time criticising White people, especially males, for contributing to the climate of hate against the West. You know, people like her.

    I love the fact she thinks she is such a special snowflake:

    To many such believers, my mind is too free.

    It is rare I will say this, but she makes the Islamists look smart. At least they have considered another point of view once upon a time.

  25. So Much for Subtlety

    This is how much we have lost this battle:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/11343571/Charlie-Hebdo-Will-Marine-Le-Pen-destroy-fragile-France.html

    Over in this country, Nigel Farage was denounced for referring to a “fifth column” of Islamists undermining European civilisation. But he nevertheless felt he could say it.

    It is a bad thing that Farage felt he could say the blatantly obvious? Even if it wasn’t, how is it a bad thing that Farage can say whatever the hell he wants?

    This is the Telegraph. Now the Guardian for older people of course. But still.

  26. Even if it wasn’t, how is it a bad thing that Farage can say whatever the hell he wants?

    Ah, but he’s supposed to be playing the humorous semi-outsider, to convince us all that we might, just, possibly, be allowed to join the club if we were really, really good. He’s not actually supposed to be breaking the club’s rules.

    And he has been told that, numerous times. He just ignores it or makes fun of it.

  27. Bloke in France:

    “There’s the nub of the problem. If the other party won’t respect the deal, why should I deal with him?”

    Exactly so.

    Islam is not only a religion but also a political ideology. Unlike Christianity, Islam does not recognise the existence of a secular sphere. All law and all governance should follow the holy texts. The nation-state has no place in sharia, because what matters is the ummah. Islam aims to be a trans-national, totalitarian theocracy. Moreover, Islam permits no textual criticism of the sacred texts, it has had nothing comparable to the Christian Reformation, and it has made no accommodation with either modern science or liberal democracy. And it enforces orthodoxy and punishes apostasy by death. Anyone brought up as a Muslim will have a mind-set deeply influenced by these principles, which govern the minutiae of daily life. Some may later reject (some of) them (like Yazzer); but they are likely – unless they are particularly courageous – to continue to act as if they believed them (like Yazzer).

    Contrast this with the major Christian denominations, where the Reformation, liberalism and science have encouraged practising Christians to take a ‘pick ‘n’ mix’ attitude to doctrine, so that (for example) many Catholics use contraception despite Papal prohibition. Moreover, Catholics frequently criticise their own church in a way that is almost inconceivable for Muslims to criticise Islam or their Islamic sect, which means that many if not most Muslims at least tacitly subscribe to the subordination of women, the punishment of homosexuality, lying to infidels, the hatred of Jews…etc

    In the West, religion is largely relegated to the private sphere. In the Islamic world, religion governs both the public and private sphere. Christianity is a religion; Islam is both a religion and a political ideology.

    Essentially, some cultures are largely incompatible, which suggests reduction of immigration from such cultures and (where minorities are large and unintegrated into the host society) voluntary repatriation schemes. The sooner the UK and the West realise this, the sooner they can take appropriate action.

    PS Just in case any of our resident/visiting dhimmis accuse me of ‘racism’, I would point out that I have no objection to highly-skilled immigration from compatible cultures (Hindu, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist etc) whatever the colour of their skin. I am a cultural incompatibilist, not a racist.

  28. So Much for Subtlety

    Theophrastus – “PS Just in case any of our resident/visiting dhimmis accuse me of ‘racism’, I would point out that I have no objection to highly-skilled immigration from compatible cultures (Hindu, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist etc) whatever the colour of their skin. I am a cultural incompatibilist, not a racist.”

    There is no such thing as a compatible culture. Unless they are German or perhaps Swiss. There are only more dysfunctional cultures. Even one Cypriot is one too many.

    And if that is racist, well, so frickin’ what? Nick Griffin might have been a racist. Well, OK, he was an is. He killed precisely no one. Unlike our more vibrant brethren.

  29. It would be interesting to ask Mr Choudary whether he would support the actions of Abu Taleb, Mohammed’s uncle and guardian. When Mo first started preaching, the elders of the Arab tribes came round to complain that he was insulting their religions, and asked that he be handed over to their tribal justice. Even though Abu Taleb was not a Muslim, he refused. He did ask Mo to moderate his insults, but Mo refused, and Abut Taleb continued his protection. When Abu Taleb died, Mo had to flee to Medina to escape justice, where the Jews of Medina took him in and sheltered him.
    (He had them all executed later for being insufficiently loyal when the neighbouring tribes angry at his banditry besieged the city.)

    The question is, do Muslims think Abu Taleb should have handed Mo over, or stopped him preaching that the other gods were false idols? Should people be allowed to insult religion or not? Should Islam be allowed to insult idolatry?

    I don’t suppose it would make any difference, but it would be fun to watch.

  30. Pingback: British Blogging | Longrider

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *