Tuesday, July 10, 2012

550 The politics of Hate & Blasphemy laws: Andrew B. Adler back writing for a daily newspaper

The politics of Hate & Blasphemy laws: Andrew B. Adler back writing for
a daily newspaper

(1) When the Hating is done BY Jews instead of TO them: Andrew B. Adler
cf Amish, Innocence of Muslims and Pussy Riot
(2) Andrew B. Adler back writing for a daily newspaper, 8 months after
suggesting that Mossad kill Obama
(3) Shamir on Pussy Riot: Putin showed that 'hate laws' can protect
Christians - not only Jews and gays
(4) Innocence of Muslims "trailer" was post-dubbed; but no full-length
film was produced
(5) Cynthia McKinney: anti-Islamic hate film incited Benghazi protest
over Danish cartoons
(6) Innocence of Muslims and Pussy Riot are attacks on the sacred (of
others). Blasphemy as a Tactic - Thierry Meyssan
(7) Adler suggested Mossad assassinate Obama, so that successor would
help Israel obliterate Iran - Haaretz
(8) Under Israeli law, Adler could be prosecuted for inciting to
violence - Haaretz
(9) If Moslems did it, FBI would be raiding the office within seconds.
The Editor would be held for treason - Brigadier David
(10) Amish found guilty of Hate Crimes, for cutting Hair
(11) How the Justice Department Transformed an Amish Feud Into a Federal
Hate Crime
(12) Denmark's Hate & Blasphemy laws prohibit public acts which mock or
scorn a religion
(13) Yet Danish Government declined to prosecute newspaper for cartoons
ridiculing Mohammad
(14) French weekly publishes cartoons ridiculing Mohammad
(15) Front Page Magazine defends the Cartoons in the name of free speech
(but tolerance stops at Holocaust Denial)
(16) Christopher Hitchens: Religion should be treated with ridicule,
Hatred and contempt. Atheists mark Blasphemy Day
(17) Cartoons ridiculing Mohammad cf anti-Christian Monty Python film
The Life of Brian
(18) The Economist defends the Cartoons

(1) When the Hating is done BY Jews instead of TO them: Andrew B. Adler
cf Amish, Innocence of Muslims and Pussy Riot

Peter Myers, October 9, 2012

Andrew Adler, owner and publisher of the Atlanta Jewish Times, suggested
in a column of January 13, 2012
that Mossad "Order a hit on a president" in order to obtain a successor
who would help Israel obliterate Iran.

The Jewish Lobby - ADL, the American Jewish Committee - was quick to
distance itself from Adler, not wanting to be tarred with the
"Terrorist" brush.

Nevertheless, as a Haaretz article by Chemi Shalev argued (item 4),
Adler's views did not arise in isolation. He was part of a network of
extremist Jews and their supporters; Yitzhak Rabin was killed for a
similar reason and by a similar ideologue.

The United States now has the most draconian "anti-Hate" and
"anti-Terrorist" laws in its history. Yet seemingly these do not apply
in cases of incitement committed by Jews. Are they only directed at
Moslems and Christians? At opponents of Immigration and the Gay lobby?

Chemi Shalev wrote, "Under Israeli law, Adler could be prosecuted for
inciting to violence and could be sentenced to five years in jail".

Innocence of Muslims - the 13-minute trailer that upset Moslems around
the world - is a muckraking film without any merit. One does not need to
be pro-Moslem to see that it falls under the category of "Hate" media.
Yet Western leaders defended it, and only found a way to calm Moslem
sentiment by arresting Sam Bacile for an unrelated crime.

The same Western leaders turn a blind eye to Hate media ridiculing Jesus
Christ - such as the Monty Python "comedy" Life of Brian - and actively
supported Pussy Riot in their culture war against the things sacred to

Whereas no-one got prosecuted for these permissible kinds of Hate, a
small group of Amish now face long prison sentences for a "Hate" crime
of forcibly cut the hair of some other Amish.

Discussing Pussy Riot, Israel Shamir wrote an article in Counterpunch
noting that Putin had shown that 'hate laws' can protect Christians -
not only Jews and gays.

The Morning Star newspaper asked to publish the article too. But it was
taken down after the Jewish Left attacked it (item 3).

(2) Andrew B. Adler back writing for a daily newspaper, 8 months after
suggesting that Mossad kill Obama


Flowers heads to Reinhardt

by Andrew Adler

September 11, 2012

Sydney Flowers (third from right) signed a softball scholarship with
Reinhardt University during a ceremony held at Woodland High School.
Joining her Friday were (front row, l-r): Ansley Flowers, sister; Jordan
Flowers, sister; Stacy Flowers, mother; Andy Flowers, father; Avery
Flowers, sister; (back row, l-r): Jan Braselton, travel ball coach; Dr.
Billy Wehunt, Woodland's assistant principal; John Howard, co-athletic
director; Justin Dover, assistant coach; Glen Crawford, Reinhardt
University's head softball coach; Colman Roberts, head coach, softball;
Adrian Tramutola, co-athletic director. ANDREW B. ADLER/The Daily
Tribune News

Coach Glen Crawford is looking forward to adding “Flowers” to Reinhardt
University's softball landscape next season.

No, not the type of flowers that are ordered on Valentine's Day or
brighten someone's day. This particular type comes in the athletic form
of Woodland High School's Sydney Flowers. Flowers, who is the Lady
Wildcats' starting second baseman, officially became a Lady Eagle during
a signing ceremony held in the school's media center.

“Playing softball at the collegiate level is something I?have always
wanted to do since I?was a little kid,” said the Woodland senior who was
joined by coaches, friends and family members at the signing ceremony.
“Reinhardt is a great school. I'm very excited about playing there next
season. Now it's time to relax, have fun and enjoy the rest of my senior

Having coached Flowers since she was 8 years old, Woodland coach Colman
Roberts knows full well what type of player and person Reinhart and
coach Crawford is getting.

“She (Sydney) is a great kid and a leader on and off the field,” said
Roberts, whose 14-7 Wildcats will be hosting South Paulding today. “She
is one of those players that you are blessed to have on your team. It's
going to be sad not seeing her in the starting line-up next season. She
will be definitely missed.”

What is Woodland's loss though is Reinhardt's gain.

Flowers will be joining a Lady Eagles' softball team whose overall
record was 40-11 and Appalachian Athletic Conference (AAC) regular
season champions the past two seasons. Crawford, who Flowers describes
as “one of a kind,” was named AAC Coach of the Year in 2010 and 2011.
The Lady Eagles are currently 36-12 overall, 14-4 in the conference.

“One thing I've learned is that the best athlete to have on your team is
one who works hard in the classroom and who works hard on the field,”
Crawford said. “That's the type of person I?see in Sydney. She now has
the opportunity to be part of a winning tradition at Reinhardt.”

Flowers, known for her solid defense at second base is currently batting
.258, with 13 RBIs. She is the second Lady Wildcat to sign a softball
scholarship with Reinhardt this season.

Taylor Braselton, Woodland's starting shortstop, will also be a Lady
Eagle after signing a softball scholarship days earlier. ==


Daily Tribune News - Bartow County's only daily newspaper

(3) Shamir on Pussy Riot: Putin showed that 'hate laws' can protect
Christians - not only Jews and gays

From: Israel Shamir <adam@israelshamir.net> Date: 29 September 2012 19:33

Pussies Riot against Putin from London to Moscow

by Israel Shamir

I received a letter from the Arts Editor of the Morning Star asking for
my permission to re-publish my popular essay on the Pussy Riot:

Dear Mr Shamir

I'm the arts editor of the Morning Star newspaper (see
www.morningstaronline.co.uk) and we'd like to reprint an edited version
of your Pussy Riot article.

Would you please grant permission? Unfortunately, we run on a shoestring
so we're unable to pay a fee but I hope you will agree as it will bring
your challenging piece to a wider readership.

I'd be grateful for a swift response as we have a possible slot free in
next Saturday's publication.

With very best wishes
Clifford Cocker
Arts editor
Morning Star newspaper

I gave my permission immediately, and they published it – and took it
down in a few hours under pressure of the Jewish Lobby.

The Lobby had a good reason to object. In this article, I wrote:

“For much milder anti-Jewish hate talk, European countries customarily
sentence offenders to two-to-five years of prison for the first offence.
The Russians applied hate crime laws to offenders against Christian
faith, and this is probably a Russian novelty. The Russians proved that
they care for Christ as much as the French care for Auschwitz, and this
shocked the Europeans who apparently thought 'hate laws' may be applied
only to protect Jews and gays. The Western governments call for more
freedom for the anti-Christian Russians, while denying it for holocaust
revisionists in their midst.”

Actually, the Jewish angle to the PR affair is more than that: though I
did not find it necessary to mention in my article, the most outspoken
PR supporters and enemies of the Church in Russia, such as Viktor
Shenderovich, Igor Eidman, Marat Gelman, happen to be of Jewish origin.
None of them is a practicing Jew, but they apparently inherited their
hatred to the Church from their forefathers. All of them support Western
imperialism, as well.

Surely, there are many non-Jews who hate the Church, and there are many
descendants of Jews who came to Christ, but still the correlation can't
be denied. The British Jewish 'tribal or kosher' Marxists provide their
support, for, in words of Gilad Atzmon, “Jewish Marxism is very
different from Marxism or socialism in general. While Marxism is a
universal paradigm, Jewish Marxism is basically a crude utilisation of
'Marxist-like' terminology for the Jewish tribal cause.” Atzmon could
add they also support the Empire. Indeed they were on the watch; they
applied pressure to the Morning Star, and the British Communists
surrendered immediately.

They did not care that the attacks proceeded from Harry's Place, the
dirtiest Zionist leftist blog in Britain, wholeheartedly
pro-imperialist, viciously anti-Muslim, positioned against Iran and
Syria, violently anti-Russian, and surely anti-Shamir. Harry's Place
described me as “antisemite/Holocaust denier/Assange
collaborator/Lukashenko enabler/all-around slimeball Israel Shamir”. I
think of using it as my signature in future J.

They apologised to the readers in the following language:

A NUMBER of you have raised concerns over the decision to reprint an
article by Israel Shamir on the Russian band Pussy Riot that appeared in
the weekend's Morning Star.
The paper would like to reassure readers that the piece was syndicated
from Counterpunch in good faith without knowledge of the author's
We would like to reiterate the paper's commitment to publishing writers
who reflect and remain steadfastly committed to the values of
anti-racism, anti-fascism, international solidarity and social justice
that the paper has campaigned for ever since its establishment.
It remains guided by those goals and will seek in future, wherever
possible, to establish the full biography of writers before publishing
their work.
In the meantime the Morning Star would like to distance itself from the
opinions of the author of the piece, which do not reflect our position
or those of the wider movement.
We apologise wholeheartedly for any distress caused.

So many code-words to mask their weak knees. If they can't stand up to a
few Jewish Marxists, how can they stand up to real big capitalist enemies?

But I do not want to end on such a determinist note, condemning the Reds
and condemning the Jews. Despite all correlations, people are free to
think and to act. We have free will. Some of the strongest voices
against the PR outrage were Reds and Jews, or rather Russian leftists of
www.left.ru, some of Jewish origin and some not, all strongly
anti-Zionist (they even translated and published Israel Shahak). Here
are excepts from one of their texts, by Valentin Zorin. It explains well
the position of the Russian anti-imperialist Left which should
eventually influence the Western anti-imperialist Left and Right.

Pussies Rioting against Independent Russia, by Valentin Zorin (excepts)

(in Russian http://left.ru/2012/4/zorin215.phtml )

“…Not only their name (Pussy Riot) is in English. They talk as if they
translate from English. They use language of an Americanised native who
thinks and speaks the colonisers' language. Russia is definitely not a
colony of the Anglo-American Empire, at least it is not a colony yet,
but already we have colonised natives in droves, for colonisation is not
a single event but a lasting process…

The PR belong to bourgeois radical left paradigm adapted for the
colonised nations. Their roots are to be found in the early period of
the Cold War, when the US decided to use leftist ideology to fight
communism. Feminism, beatniks, sexual liberation, even civil rights
movement were sponsored by American state agencies and by private
interests. They developed gender studies, imported French
post-structuralism of Foucault and Derrida, and eventually exported
into colonised cultures.

For what reason? Just guess, which soldier would fight better for
Russia, one who believes in “God, King and Motherland” or one who thinks
that all these ideas (always excepting post-modernism and
post-structuralism) are just deliberate illusions created by the
authorities? Or make it easier: what would rather wear Russian marines
under their battledress in face-to-face combat, a cross or a politically
correct and gender-adjusted image?

I know, after asking this question, I'll be forever banned from entering
the Kingdom of the Leftist Heaven. A French maître of post-something
would sarcastically smirk, and ultra-conservatives would applaud, to my
chagrin. But this question allows to divine the meaning of the PR
affair, for the meaning is not in our hands, nor it is in hands of
Putin, neither of the Church. The Imperial Masters of Discourse rule
what is the meaning, while we can only understand it – or not. All
Western newspapers made it clear: “Putin versus PR; Putin persecutes the
PR, PR against Putin”. It was repeated by the colonial media in Russia,
by practically everybody of importance excepting such dyed-in-the-wool
fogies as yours truly.

Who made the PR so successful and famous, who secured their place in
history? Putin did. Putin is our alpha and omega. Please do not beat me!
It is not my doing, it is them, the Pussies! They did not ask the Virgin
to banish private property, dope traders, human traffickers, oligarchs,
bankers, police, Sixth fleet, me or anything else. They asked her to
remove a small unseemly guy named Putin from the Kremlin. Even if the
Pussies were mistaken, the State Department, Madonna, Mme Clinton and
Mme Merkel, the NY Times and the Guardian could not be wrong. They all
know that behind Putin there is a force that sets limit to Imperial
omnipotence and to the Masters' monopoly on the meaning of things.

Without Putin, i.e. without independent Russia blocking the road of the
Western Empire to full spectrum dominance, nobody would notice the
Pussies, or us, or even our biggest oligarchs. It is unpleasant to hear,
but we would become a remote and irrelevant province of the Empire, fit
for business or pleasure but of no political importance. We would become
eating and TV-watching nothingness. A small garrison of imperial
troopers would suffice to control us. But despite all Imperial efforts,
Putin still sits in the Kremlin.

What is the secret of his political longevity? Cruel repressions? But if
so, where are the martyrs? The only possibly political prisoner is the
oligarch Khodorkovsky. The second best, Udaltsov, never rated for more
than 15 days of detention. So perhaps the secret is – the silent support
of the masses that do not agree to sink in Nothingness?

There are many reasons to be disgusted by the Church, as she consecrates
capitalist violence. But if masses need it as “the heart of heartless
world” in order to survive, let it be. It is good. And if masses
silently support Putin, because there is no other force able to
withstand the assault of the Empire and of Nothingness, let it be. It is

And here a letter of an English reader reacting on the Morning Star

From Elisha Traven:

I don't agree with everything you write as I'm not always sure where you
are coming from. But writers like you need to be read over a period of
time and not continually picked up and criticised. If you don't like
what the cook has prepared then don't shout at him. There is no point.
Just leave the restaurant and find a place where the food and wine and
beer and clientele suit you. Let each writer be himself is my motto.
There are some who could do with being shot but where would this all end?

I was amazed to read in today's Morning Star that an article by you
which they had published on Saturday was not to their reader's liking.
They apologised to their readers and distanced themselves from the views
you expressed. Apparently they had lifted the article from Counterpunch
and had no idea who you were. Who do they think they're kidding? They
are either truly ignorant in regard to you which beggars belief. It is
just not a creditable defence. This newspaper is heavily involved in the
campaign for Palestinian rights. They would know the names of every
single child in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank such is their knowledge
of the situation out there.

You know what I mean. I have read extremely detailed news articles
published by the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign in their magazine. If I
am reading such a magazine then so are they. We get continued reports
from Palestine delivered to packed meetings here which are held all over
the country. Organised by every tom, dick, and harry socialist party.
They know you alright. They couldn't fail to know you because of your
strong support for the Palestinians. I'm not sure what is going on at
the Morning Star. They don't normally listen to their readers. They
preach the gospel according to Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin. You take it
as it comes. Delivered to the readers from on high.

I didn't realise you were living in Moscow. I know what you are saying
about the Russian press is true since I have read it over a period of
time through various sources. Translated or already available in
English. Like Moscow Times. They are running an orchestrated campaign
against the Russian state. It is not like the so called liberal
newspapers in Britain and America. They are connected up to the street
protest gangs and were delighted when large numbers of people
demonstrated last December and in March. Not only were the people being
egged on to cause a breakdown of social order by well known Russian
newspapers but radio stations such as Echo Moscow were part of that
criminal conspiracy too. I call it a criminal conspiracy because that's
what it looks like to me. I found the article you wrote about the PR
hooligan girls. The Morning Star has removed Saturday's digital edition
of the paper from its site altogether. Even though that breaks the
subscription agreement which is that they allow you to read the Morning
Star's previous digital editions of the paper. I think this is every
edition for the past two weeks or it might even be for a month. I agree
with you about PR.

Elijah Traven,


East Riding of Yorkshire

PS George Galloway of the Respect Party is MP for Bradford West which is
in south Yorkshire. He is well known for his strong support of the
Palestinian people. I'm sure you know of him. I salute you, Israel
Shamir, for your love of Russia and defence of their elected president.
You are a true and loyal servant of social democracy and the rule of law.

(4) Innocence of Muslims "trailer" was post-dubbed; but no full-length
film was produced


Mystery deepens over US film linked to Benghazi protests

Cast say they were misled as evidence suggests film was post- dubbed and
questions arise over funding and identity of director

Rory Carroll in Los Angeles

guardian.co.uk, Thursday 13 September 2012 00.14 BST

The anti-Islamic video that inflamed mayhem in Egypt and Libya and
triggered a diplomatic crisis is at the centre of a growing mystery over
whether it is a real film – or was ever intended to be.

Initial reports about The Innocence of Muslims being a $5m production
made by an Israeli-American director named Sam Bacile unravelled on
Wednesday as ruins of the US consulate in Benghazi continued to smoulder.

Bacile – originally described as a California-based Jewish real estate
developer – appeared to be a fake identity, and Hollywood could find no
trace of his supposed feature-length attack on the prophet Muhammad. The
blasphemous, 13-minute "trailer" posted online – a ramshackle
compilation of scenes which depicted Muhammad as an illegitimate,
murderous paedophile – was real, but there was growing doubt that a film

The puzzle left the US and Arab world confronting the possibility the
crisis was triggered, if not conjured, by a cheap trick. The one
undisputed fact was that in July a video in English was posted on
YouTube under the pseudonym "Sam Bacile". He entered his age as 75.

It comprised clumsily overdubbed and haphazardly-edited scenes. "Among
the overdubbed words is 'Mohammed', suggesting that the footage was
taken from a film about something else entirely. The footage also
suggests multiple video sources — there are obvious and jarring
discrepancies among actors and locations, " wrote Buzzfeed's Rosie Gray.

That analysis appeared to be bolstered when a statement in the name of
cast and crew was issued, distancing them from the footage. "We are 100%
not behind this film, and were grossly misled about its intent and
purpose. We are shocked by the drastic re-writes of the script and lies
that were told to all involved. We are deeply saddened by the tragedies
that have occurred." ...

(5) Cynthia McKinney: anti-Islamic hate film incited Benghazi protest
over Danish cartoons

From: Keith Lampe <us.exile.govt@gmail.com> Date: 17 September 2012 04:26

The Unspoken Truth Regarding the Killings in Libya

By Cynthia McKinney

Global Research, September 15, 2012

The unfolding situation in Libya is troubling, not only for the
bloodletting and carnage that is taking place, but also because of the
murkiness that surrounds the events themselves. I have several
observations and a few questions:

1. The scenario of an anti-Islamic hate film triggering a protest that
leads to violence replicates the events that took place in the initial
uprising in Benghazi in early 2011. At that time, the annual protest in
Benghazi against the anti-Islamic Danish cartoons was taking place. The
march was infiltrated by persons with an agenda, who used the event as
an opportunity to seize military equipment from the Jamahiriya
government and use it against the Libyan population. If it is known that
Muslim protest on the streets can be touched off by attacking the
Qur'an, then once again parties with another agenda can spark, then
infiltrate that protest and use it as cover. It worked before to launch
an entire chain of events in Libya, why not again? The reports on who
created and financed the film are very muddled.

2. Today, the Libyan/Al Qaeda/US/NATO/Israel government is bombing Sabha
and the black Libyan Toubu people who constitute a stronghold of the
vibrant Libyan resistance. Interestingly, no R2P is being invoked to do
so here, but could this be covertly directed against the Green
Resistance (self-described as well financed and ready to fight to the
last bullet, the last man, the last dollar)?

3. A video is available of the 12 September attack on the US convoy that
killed 2 US citizens and injured 14, indicating Day Two of an

4. There are photos published today of US special ops forces landing in
Libya. If true, is this to counter the Green Resistance, or springboard
into Egypt if need be, or worse? Foreign troops are in Libya already
securing oil platforms. What might this have to do with Iran? Libyan oil
was theorized to ensure oil to Europe in the case of a shutoff from
Iran. Does this have anything to do with the impending Netanyahu visit
to the US?

Every loss of life is tragic and that is why I oppose the current US
policy of killing. The US is currently regularly killing people in Asia
and in Africa. Taken to its extreme, the Obama Administration even
claims authority to kill US citizens on US soil!

'It Makes Me Sick': Actress in Muhammed Movie Says She Was Deceived,
Had No Idea It Was About Islam

(6) Innocence of Muslims and Pussy Riot are attacks on the sacred (of
others). Blasphemy as a Tactic - Thierry Meyssan

From: Israel Shamir <adam@israelshamir.net> Date: 20 September 2012 00:28

Blasphemy as a Tactic

By Thierry Meyssan

September 15, 2012 "Information Clearing House"


The circulation on the Internet of the trailer for a film, The Innocence
of Muslims, sparked demonstrations across the world and resulted in the
killing in Benghazi of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya and members of his

At first glance, these events can be located in the long line leading
from Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses to the burnings of the Koran by
Pastor Terry Jones. Nevertheless, this new attack differs from other
incidents in that the film was not directed at a Western audience but
instead was uniquely conceived as an instrument of provocation directed
at Muslims.

In political terms, the affair can be analyzed from two angles: from the
tactical perspective as an anti-U.S. manipulation; or from a strategic
one, as an anti-Muslim psychological attack.

The film was produced by a Zionist group composed of Jews of double
Israeli-American nationality and by an Egyptian Copt. It was completed
several months ago but was released at a calculated moment to provoke
riots targeting the United States. Israeli agents were deployed in
several large cities with a mission to channel the rage of the crowd
against American or Coptic targets (though not Israeli ones). Not
suprisingly, their maximum effect was attained in Benghazi, the capital
of Libya's Cyrenaica region.

The population of Benghazi is known to harbor particularly reactionary
and racist groups. It is useful to recall that at the time the cartoons
of Mohammed appeared in September, 2005, Salafists attacked the Danish
Consulate. In keeping with the Vienna Convention on diplomacy, the
Libyan government of Muammar al-Gaddafi deployed troops to protect the
diplomatic service then under attack. The repression of the riot
resulted in numerous deaths. Subsequently, the West, seeking to
overthrow the Libyan regime, financed Salafist publications which
accused Gaddafi of protecting the Danish Consulate because he had
allegedly been behind the cartoon operation.

On February 15, 2011, Salafists organized in Benghazi a demonstration
commemorating the massacre during which shooting erupted, an incident
that marked the beginning of the Benghazi insurrection that opened the
way to the NATO intervention. The Libyan police arrested three members
of the Italian Special Forces who confessed to having fired from the
rooftops on both demonstrators and the police to sew chaos and
confusion. Held prisoner throughout the war that followed, they were
released when NATO seized the capital and smuggled them out of the
country to Malta in a small fishing boat on which I was also a passenger.

This time, the manipulation of the Benghazi crowd by Israeli agents had
as its goal the assassination of the U.S. Ambassador, an act of war not
seen since the Israeli bombardment of the USS Liberty by the Israeli Air
Force and Navy in 1967. This constitutes the first assassination of an
ambassador in the line of duty since 1979. The act is all the more
grevious considering that in a country where the current central
government is a purely legal fiction, the U.S. Ambassador was not merely
a diplomat but was functioning as Governor, as the de facto head of state.

It should be emphasized that in the past few weeks, the highest-ranking
U.S. military officers have entered into open conflict with the Israeli
government. They have issued declarations signifying their intention to
halt the cycle of wars begun after September 11 (Afghanistan, Iraq,
Libya and Syria) and which, in light of the informal agreements of 2001,
will expand further (Sudan, Somalia and Iran). The first warning shot
occurred in Afghanistan, in August 2012, when two missiles were fired at
the parked plane of General Martin Dempsey, head of the U.S. Joint
Chiefs of Staff. This second warning turned out to be even more brutal.

If, on the other hand, we examine this affair from the viewpoint of
social psychology, the release of the film and its aftermath appear to
be a frontal attack on the beliefs of Muslims. In this regard, it is
similar in nature to the Pussy Riot episode trampling on the freedom of
religious practice inside the Orthodox Cathedral of Christ the Saviour
in Moscow and the mulitple performances of conceptual pornography the
group engaged in afterwards. These are operations geared to violate
societies that resist the project of global domination.

In democratic and multicultural societies, the sacred is seen as
belonging to and being expressed within the private sphere. But a new
collective space of the sacred has been in the process of elaboration.
Western European states have passed "historical memory" laws which have
transformed a historical event—the Nazi destruction of European
Jews—into a religious occurrence: the "Shoa" in Jewish terminology, or
the "Holocaust" as expressed in Christian evangelical parlance. Nazi
crimes are thereby elevated to the level of a unique event at the
expense of the victims of other massacres, including other victims of
the Nazis. Questioning the dogma, i.e. this religious interpretation of
historical facts, subjects one to criminal penalties, just as blasphemy
was punished in the past. Similarly, in 2001, the U.S., the European
Union member states and a number of their allies imposed by decree that
entire national populations must observe a minute of silence in memory
of the victims of the September 11 attacks. This ruling was underpinned
by an ideological interpretation of the causes of the massacre. In both
cases, having been killed because one was Jewish or because one was
American confers a particular status on these victims before whom the
rest of humanity must genuflect.

During the Olympic Games in London, both the Israeli and the American
delegations attempted to enlarge their sacred space still further by
imposing a minute of silence during the opening ceremony of the
most-watched televised event in the world, this time on behalf of the
hostages seized during the Munich Games of 1972. In the end, the
proposal was rejected, with the Olympic Committee holding instead a
separate ceremony. This is just a further indication of the effort to
create a collective liturgy legitimating the global empire.

The Innocence of Muslims serves both as a device to bring Washington
back into line at a moment when it may be stepping back from the Zionist
agenda and as a means to further advance it by attacking the religious
beliefs of still others who may resist it.

Translated from French by Michele Stoddard

(7) Adler suggested Mossad assassinate Obama, so that successor would
help Israel obliterate Iran - Haaretz


January 21, 2012

Uproar after Jewish American newspaper publisher suggests Israel
assassinate Barack Obama

Op-ed in Atlanta Jewish Times says the slaying of the president may be
an effective way to thwart Iran's nuclear program.

By Chemi Shalev

NEW YORK - The owner and publisher of the Atlanta Jewish Times, Andrew
Adler, has suggested that Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu
consider ordering a Mossad hit team to assassinate U.S. President Barack
Obama so that his successor will defend Israel against Iran.

Adler, who has since apologized for his article, listed three options
for Israel to counter Iran's nuclear weapons in an article published in
his newspaper last Friday. The first is to launch a pre-emptive strike
against Hamas and Hezbollah, the second is to attack Iran's nuclear
facilities and the third is to "give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad
agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for
the current vice president to take his place and forcefully dictate that
the United States' policy includes its helping the Jewish state
obliterate its enemies."

Adler goes on to write: "Yes, you read "three correctly." Order a hit on
a president in order to preserve Israel's existence. Think about it. If
have thought of this Tom-Clancy-type scenario, don't you think that this
almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Israel's most inner circles?"

Adler apologized yesterday for the article, saying "I very much regret
it; I wish I hadn't made reference to it at all," Adler told the Jewish
Telegraphic Agency. And in an interview with Gawker.com, Adler denied
that he was advocating an assassination of Obama. ...

The American Jewish Committee in Atlanta last night issued a harsh
condemnation of Adler's article, saying that his proposals are "shocking
beyond belief."

(8) Under Israeli law, Adler could be prosecuted for inciting to
violence - Haaretz


Jewish publisher is an idiot - but his hatred is shared by many

Andrew Adler's suggestion in the Atlanta Jewish Times that Israel
assassinate President Obama is a blot both on Israel and on American Jews.

By Chemi Shalev

January 21, 2012

Latest update 14:03 21.01.12

Like most of you, I have never met Andrew B. Adler, owner and publisher
of the Atlanta Jewish Times, but I think we can all agree that the man
is spectacularly stupid. In his contorted apologies he has described
himself, after all, as "an idiot."

The three or four infantile paragraphs of vile text that Adler published
in his obscure Atlanta newspaper last week, in which he suggested that
Israel consider assassinating President Obama, almost slipped under the
radar, but was picked up yesterday by Gawker.com, and is now going
viral. "A fool may throw a stone into a well which even a hundred wise
men cannot pull out", the saying goes, and it will indeed take a long
time and a great effort to undo the damage that Adler has wrought, in
one fell swoop, in defaming Israel by implying that it might, in
anyone's wildest dreams, consider such a kooky conspiracy; in staining
American Jews by appearing to supposedly represent their twisted way of
thinking; and even by undermining the institution of Jewish journalism
by exposing that it harbors such birdbrained bozos in its midst.

It is ironic that Adler's despicable diatribe comes against the backdrop
of a fierce blogosphere debate that flared up yesterday about the term
"Israel-firsters" and whether it is a legitimate critique or an
anti-Semitic slur. Adler, for his part, has provided an example of a
sub-specie of "Israel-firsters" that have not only lost track of where
their loyalties lie, they have gone off the tracks altogether. He has
pleased anti-Zionists and delighted anti-Semites by giving them the kind
of "proof" they relish for accusing American supporters of Israel not of
"double loyalty" but of one-sided treachery, plain and simple.

{photo of op-ed}
The op-ed in Atlanta Jewish Times.

Under Israeli law, Adler could be prosecuted for inciting to violence
and could be sentenced to five years in jail. ...

(9) If Moslems did it, FBI would be raiding the office within seconds.
The Editor would be held for treason - Brigadier David

Fwd: Atlanta Jewish Times suggests Israel assassinate Barack Obama
From: Brigadier David <bgjdavid@aol.com> Date: 23 January 2012 01:11
To: ReportersNotebook@yahoogroups.com

Can you imagine if this newspaper were the Atlanta Muslim Times, or the
Atlanta Arab News? The FBI would be raiding the office within seconds.
The Editor would be held for treason. Every person on the staff would be
arrested, the newspaper shut down, the building that housed the office
would be demolished, and every American news outlet would have this as
their leading story. But since this is a Jewish newspaper, the editor
gets off scot-free. There is no FBI raid, there is no arrests, no shut
down, no office building demolished, and not one word in the American
media. You have to go to the Israeli media to get the story. This is
what's called in America as the "Jewish Double Standard."

(10) Amish found guilty of Hate Crimes, for cutting Hair


Amish Sect Leader and Followers Guilty of Hate Crimes


Published: September 20, 2012

Samuel Mullet Sr., the domineering leader of a renegade Amish sect, and
15 of his followers were convicted on Thursday in Cleveland of federal
conspiracy and hate crimes for a series of bizarre beard- and
hair-cutting attacks last fall that spread fear through the Amish of
eastern Ohio.

The convictions of Mr. Mullet, along with several relatives and others
from his settlement who carried out the assaults, could bring lengthy
prison terms. The verdicts were a vindication for federal prosecutors,
who made a risky decision to apply a 2009 federal hate-crimes law to the
sect's violent efforts to humiliate Amish rivals.

Defense lawyers in the case and an independent legal expert had argued
that the government was overreaching by turning a personal vendetta
within the Amish community, and related attacks, into a federal
hate-crimes case. But the jury accepted the prosecutors' description of
the attacks as an effort to suppress the victims' practice of religion,
finding Mr. Mullet and the other defendants guilty on nearly all the
charges they faced of conspiracy, hate crimes and obstruction of justice.

The victims “simply wanted to be left to practice their own religion in
their own way in peace,” Steven M. Dettelbach, the United States
attorney for the Northern District of Ohio, said in a news conference
after the verdicts were announced. “The defendants invaded their homes,
physically attacked these people and sheared them almost like animals,”
Mr. Dettelbach said.

Mr. Mullet, 66, the founder of a community near Bergholz, Ohio, and 15
followers, including six women, were tried for their roles in five
separate attacks last fall, involving assaults on nine people whom Mr.
Mullet had described as enemies. The jury, which had no Amish members,
heard three weeks of testimony and deliberated more than four days
before reaching a verdict at midday on Thursday.

Although Mr. Mullet did not directly participate, prosecutors labeled
him the mastermind of the assaults, in which groups of his followers
invaded the homes of victims, threw them down and sheared their beards
and hair. Among the traditional Amish, men's long beards and women's
uncut hair are central to religious identity. ...

The testimony included an elderly woman's account of her terror as six
of her children and their spouses made a surprise late-night visit, with
the men holding down her sobbing husband as they hacked off his beard
and hair and the women cut her waist-length hair to above the ears as
she prayed aloud.

During the testimony, the 16 defendants, in traditional attire, and
their lawyers sat around four tables that took up half the courtroom. In
the gallery sat dozens of Amish supporters of the victims, including
several of Mr. Mullet's elderly siblings, who shook their heads as
witnesses described his unorthodox methods. Also in the gallery was Mr.
Mullet's wife, who sat impassively as a woman who used to live in
Bergholz spoke of how Mr. Mullet pressured her to come to his bed.

The stakes for the defendants were raised when federal prosecutors
stepped in to charge Mr. Mullet and 15 others, including several of his
children and other relatives, with federal conspiracy and hate-crime
charges that carry potential sentences of several decades. Judge Dan
Aaron Polster scheduled sentencing for Jan. 24.

The defendants did not deny their roles in the attacks, which were
carried out with battery-powered clippers, scissors and razor-sharp
shears that are designed to trim horse manes. Rather, the case turned on
the motives for the attacks and whether it was appropriate to make them
into a major federal case under a 2009 hate-crimes law.

To prove the most serious charges, the jurors had to be convinced that
the defendants had caused “bodily injury,” which could mean
“disfigurement,” and that the attacks were based mainly on religious
differences. Lawyers for the defense argued that cutting hair was not
disfigurement and that the attacks resulted from family and personal
differences, including a bitter custody battle involving a daughter of
Mr. Mullet's, as well as disputes over the “true” Amish way. ...

A version of this article appeared in print on September 21, 2012, on
page A14 of the New York edition with the headline: Amish Sect Leader
and Followers Guilty of Hate Crimes.

(11) How the Justice Department Transformed an Amish Feud Into a Federal
Hate Crime


Jacob Sullum | Sep. 21, 2012 5:04 pm

Yesterday Samuel Mullet Sr., the leader of an Amish sect in Ohio, and 15
of his followers were convicted of federal crimes in connection with a
series of bizarre beard- and hair-cutting attacks on other Amish with
whom Mullet was feuding. Why was this a federal case? Because Steven M.
Dettelbach, the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Ohio, argued
that Mullet picked his victims "because of" their "actual or perceived
religion." Specifically, Mullet had said the attacks (which he denied
ordering) were punishment for failing to respect his authority as a
bishop, including his excommunication orders against those he deemed
insufficiently pious. Federal prosecutors said that religious motivation
made the attacks hate crimes.

Is that really all it takes to make a federal case out what would
otherwise be run-of-the-mill state crimes (albeit with a quirky Amish
twist)? No, there are a couple of other elements that prosecutors had to
allege. Since the federal hate crime statute applies to offenses
involving actual or attempted "bodily injury," they had to argue that
shorn whiskers and hair qualify for that description—a bit of a stretch.
While it's true that such forcible makeovers are especially humiliating
for the Amish, who consider long beards on married men and long hair on
women religious requirements, this infliction of extra emotional
distress does not change the physical reality of the act.

The government also had to cite an "interstate nexus" to justify federal
prosecution. You might think that would be a challenge, since all of
these crimes occurred within a single state. But hey, look, Dettelbach
says: The "Wahl battery-operated hair clippers" used in the assaults
"were purchased at Walmart and had travelled in and affected interstate
commerce in that they were manufactured in Dover, Delaware." The
defendants also used "a pair of 8" horse mane shears which were
manufactured in the State of New York and sent via private, interstate
postal carrier to [a retailer] in Ohio for resale." They took pictures
of their victims with "a Fuji disposable camera from Walmart" that
"travelled in and affected interstate commerce in that it was
manufactured in Greenwood, South Carolina." They used "an
instrumentality of interstate commerce" (i.e., a highway) to reach
victims in Trumbull County, Ohio. (They never actually left the state,
but they could have.) The indictment also mentions a letter (carried by
the U.S. Postal Service!) that was used to lure one of the victims. An
embarrassment of interstate nexuses, in more ways than one.

It seems safe to say that policing internecine squabbles among the Amish
was not the sort of thing members of Congress had in mind when they
voted for the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention
Act, the 2009 law that expanded the Justice Department's power to
federalize crimes motivated by bigotry. Among other things, that law
added gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability to the
list of victim selection criteria (which previously was limited to race,
religion, and national origin) and eliminated a requirement that the
victim be engaged in a "federally protected activity" such as voting or
education. The law was named after two murder victims who were targeted
because of their sexual orientation and race, respectively. The focus on
the murders of Shepard and Byrd as a justification for federal
intervention was puzzling, since state courts proved perfectly capable
of bringing their killers to justice. And as with state hate crime laws,
the federal statute essentially punishes people for their beliefs by
imposing extra punishment for crimes motivated by bigotry. But at least
these paradigmatic cases fit the conventional understanding of hate
crimes as attacks on despised minorities. Not so the assaults allegedly
ordered by Mullet, which were a far cry from beating a gay man and
leaving him to die or dragging a black man to death behind a pickup
truck—not just in terms of severity but also in terms of motivation.

By the legal logic applied in this case, any religious leader who uses
corporal punishment to discipline wayward followers is guilty not just
of assault but of a federal hate crime. Likewise a Hassid who slugs
another Hassid after getting into an argument about who the next rebbe
should be, two Catholics who come to blows over the merits of the Latin
Mass, or two Mormons who tussle after one condemns the other for
drinking caffeinated soft drinks. In each of these cases, the victim is
selected "because of" his religion in the same sense that Mullet et
al.'s victims were. Indeed, although the trial judge rejected the
argument that bringing this case violated the First Amendment rights of
Mullet and his co-defendants, they are effectively being punished for
their religious beliefs, since they would not have been prosecuted under
federal law if their motivation had been nonreligious. Under the Justice
Department's reading of the law, an assault is a hate crime if it is
driven by disagreements over religious doctrine but not if arises from
political, scientific, philosophical, or aesthetic disputes.

In what sense does federal prosecution amount to additional punishment?
The hate crime conviction carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment
(since it involves kidnapping—i.e. the forcible restraint of the
victims). The defendants were also convicted of conspiracy and
concealing or destroying evidence, enhancing the likelihood of stiff
sentences. The New York Times says they face the prospect of "several
decades" in prison. Under Ohio law, by contrast, aggravated burglary and
kidnapping are first-degree felonies carrying penalties of three to 10
years. Furthermore, Ohio prisoners can hope for parole, which is not a
possibility in the federal system.

But why choose? Several of the same defendants were also charged with
burglary and kidnapping under state law, and thanks to the doctrine of
"dual sovereignty" they can be punished for those crimes as well, even
though the underlying actions are the same. Dual sovereignty also means
they could be acquiited in state court, then tried again in federal
court (or vice versa), notwithstanding the constitutional ban on double
jeopardy. This case illustrates once again how the 2009 hate crime law
enhanced the Justice Department's already broad power to federalize what
used to be considered state offenses, thereby impinging on state
authority, triggering serial prosecutions, and arbitrarily meting out
extra punishment based on political considerations.

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine and a nationally
syndicated columnist.

(12) Denmark's Hate & Blasphemy laws prohibit public acts which mock or
scorn a religion



Denmark prohibits hate speech, and defines it as publicly making
statements by which a group is threatened (trues), insulted (forhånes)
or degraded (nedværdiges) due to race, skin colour, national or ethnic
origin, faith or sexual orientation.[20]

This page was last modified on 18 September 2012 at 22:26. ==


In addition to its hate speech law, Denmark also maintains a blasphemy
law of comparable overbreadth. Section 140 of the Criminal Code punishes
“any person who, in public, mocks or scorns the religious doctrines or
acts of worship of any lawfully existing religious community …”.

(13) Yet Danish Government declined to prosecute newspaper for cartoons
ridiculing Mohammad



Richard N. Winfield*

World Press Freedom Committee


An earlier version of this article appeared in Communications Lawyer,
Vol. 24, Number 1, Spring 2006

In March 2006 Denmark's chief public prosecutor, Henning Fode, confirmed
an earlier decision that the Danish Government would not prosecute the
newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, for publishing the now-notorious cartoons of
the Prophet Muhammad. The announcement underscored the decisive role
that Denmark's hate speech and blasphemy laws played in the controversy.
The fact that Denmark, like some other western European nations,
maintains these laws raises fresh questions about their utility and wisdom.

Hate Laws Ensnare Government

After Jyllands-Posten published the twelve cartoons in September 2005,
local Muslim groups protested directly to the newspaper's editors to no
avail. Up to that point, the controversy, although heated, pitted only
the Muslim groups against the newspaper. The government was not
involved. But that state of affairs could not persist.

The government could not avoid becoming entangled because Denmark has on
its books a broadly worded hate speech law. Section 266(b) of the
Criminal Code punishes “any person who, publicly … makes a statement …
insulting or degrading a group of persons on account of their race … or
belief … .” A person convicted under this provision was liable to be
fined or imprisoned for up to two years. The government thus possessed
explicit legal authority to try and convict a news organization which
published words or images allegedly insulting or degrading to adherents
of Islam.

In addition to its hate speech law, Denmark also maintains a blasphemy
law of comparable overbreadth. Section 140 of the Criminal Code punishes
“any person who, in public, mocks or scorns the religious doctrines or
acts of worship of any lawfully existing religious community …”.
Offenders may be imprisoned up to four months. Public prosecutors were
thus specifically empowered to prosecute any news organization which
published copy mocking or scorning Islamic doctrines or acts of worship.
Whether or not they chose to prosecute, the government officials were
inescapably thrust into the vortex of the Prophet Muhammad cartoon

Role of European Court

Statutes similar to Denmark's that criminalize hate speech and blasphemy
are commonplace outside the United States. Indeed, the European Court of
Human Rights considered the Danish hate speech law in Jersild v. Denmark
and wrote approvingly of its application. Jersild, a television
journalist, produced a documentary broadcast featuring a controversial
interview with three disaffected young Danish men who called themselves
Greenjackets. The Greenjackets made highly abusive, racist and
derogatory statements about dark-skinned immigrants. Jersild's purpose
in broadcasting taped excerpts from the interview was a serious one,
i.e., to provide a realistic picture of the social problem of ethnic hatred.

Jersild was convicted by Danish courts for aiding and abetting a
violation of Section 266(b). The European Court found that Jersild's
rights of free expression, as guaranteed by Article 10 of the European
Convention on Human Rights had been violated. The three Greenjackets
were convicted under Section 266(b) and, although they were not parties
to the Jersild proceedings, the European Court approved their
conviction, stating “There can be no doubt that the remarks of which the
Greenjackets were convicted ... were more than insulting to members of
the targeted groups and did not enjoy the protection of Article 10 ... "

The European Court, moreover, seems more than tolerant of blasphemy
laws. In part, this may stem from the fact that the Court balances two
European Convention guarantees of comparable weight, Article 10 (freedom
of expression), and Article 9 (freedom of religion). In two cases, both
involving cinema images extremely offensive to adherents of the
particular religion, the European Court found that censorship by the
member states did not violate Article 10. The European Court recognizes
that in such politically sensitive areas as religion and morals, there
is no pan-European consensus. For these areas, the European Court defers
to the member states, which are accordingly granted a wide margin of

More recently, however, the European Court on October 31, 2006 found
that a journalist's satirical and political attack on a prominent
religious leader was not offensive to the faith of the latter's
co-religionists and was protected by Article 10. The Court, accordingly,
did not extend a margin of appreciation to the member state.

Inescapably into the Fray

The fact that the Danish Government possessed powers under the hate
speech and blasphemy statutes meant that the ready availability of
powerful criminal remedies transformed a rancorous private exchange into
a politicized governmental issue. The protagonists were no longer the
newspaper and the Muslim groups; the government and many of the 200,000
Muslim residents of Denmark quickly became the protagonists. The fact
that the two statutes were on the books meant that the Government could
not avoid deciding whether to prosecute the newspaper.

In the Prophet Muhammad cartoon situation, not surprisingly, the Muslim
groups, having been rebuffed by Jyllands-Posten, filed a criminal
complaint against the newspaper. The availability of the two laws and
their invitingly broad language undoubtedly encouraged the Muslim groups
to file.

What confronted the regional public prosecutor was a politically toxic
choice: favor the Muslim groups or favor the newspaper – and the great
majority of Danes. The laws permitted no other alternative.

We know that in January 2006 the regional public prosecutor discontinued
his investigation and chose not to prosecute. Senior officials in the
Government, including Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, summarily
rejected appeals by the Muslim groups. Ambassadors to Denmark from ten
Muslim countries and the Palestinian representative in Denmark failed as
well to convince the government to file criminal charges against the

The Muslim groups viewed the decision as an official and hostile act of
the Danish Government. We should condemn the violence of the ensuing
protests. However, one must acknowledge that the initial protests flowed
inexorably from the fact that the Government had explicit statutory
authority to prosecute. Had Denmark lacked the power to prosecute, i.e.,
if Sections 266(b) and 140 did not exist, the Danish government could
not have been held responsible. Whether the decision not to prosecute
and the confirmation of that decision by Henning Fode in March were
influenced by political consideration is another question. Regardless of
what decision it made or the reasons why, the government became
needlessly involved by possessing the explicit power to criminalize
offensive expression. ...

In the Prophet Muhammad cartoon controversy, Denmark found that its hate
speech and blasphemy statutes were laws of unintended consequences: they
imposed on its government a burden that was both unnecessary, unwise and
disastrous. In its efforts to maintain a legal arsenal enabling it to
censor racial or religious insults, Denmark paid a very steep price.
Without the laws, the controversy would likely have remained local, non
governmental and containable. The very existence of the laws caused a
local controversy to metastasize into a global religious-governmental
crisis. ==

An earlier version of this article appeared in Communications Lawyer,
Vol. 24, Number 1, Spring 2006, “An Editorial Controversy Metastasizing:
Denmark's Hate Speech Laws” by Richard N. Winfield. Copyright 2006
American Bar Association, Reprinted with permission.

(14) French weekly publishes cartoons ridiculing Mohammad


Sep. 20, 2012 - 07:28AM JST


A French magazine ridiculed the Prophet Mohammad on Wednesday by
portraying him naked in cartoons, threatening to fuel the anger of
Muslims around the world who are already incensed by a film depiction of
him as a womanizing buffoon.

The French government, which had urged the magazine not to print the
images, said it was temporarily shutting down premises including
embassies and schools in 20 countries on Friday, when protests sometimes
break out after Muslim prayers.

Riot police were deployed to protect the Paris offices of satirical
weekly Charlie Hebdo after it hit the news stands with a cover showing
an Orthodox Jew pushing the turbaned figure of Mohammad in a wheelchair.

On the inside pages, several caricatures of the Prophet showed him
naked. One, entitled “Mohammad: a star is born”, depicted a bearded
figure crouching over to display his buttocks and genitals. ...

The posting of a short film on You Tube last week that mocked Mohammad
as a lecherous fool has sparked protests in many countries, some of them

The U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were killed in an
attack in Benghazi, and U.S. and other foreign embassies were stormed in
cities in Asia, Africa and the Middle East by furious Muslims. Afghan
militants said a suicide bombing that killed 12 people on Tuesday was
carried out in retaliation for the film, which was made with private
funds in California.

The furor has emerged as an issue in the U.S. presidential election
campaign and sparked a wider international debate over free speech,
religion and the right to offend. Many Muslims consider any
representation of Allah or the Prophet Mohammad blasphemous.

“We have the impression that it's officially allowed for Charlie Hebdo
to attack the Catholic far-right but we cannot poke fun at fundamental
Islamists,” said editor Stephane Charbonnier, who drew the front-page

“It shows the climate - everyone is driven by fear, and that is exactly
what this small handful of extremists who do not represent anyone want -
to make everyone afraid, to shut us all in a cave,” he told Reuters.

One cartoon, in reference to the scandal over a French magazine's
decision to publish topless photos of the wife of Britain's Prince
William, showed a topless, bearded character with the caption: “Riots in
Arab countries after photos of Mrs Mohammad are published.”

Charbonnier said he expected to double the usual 35,000-copy print run
to meet demand.

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius criticised the magazine's move as
a provocation.

“We saw what happened last week in Libya and in other countries such as
Afghanistan,” Fabius told a regular government news conference. “We have
to call on all to behave responsibly.”

A Foreign Ministry spokesman said France was closing its embassies,
consulates, cultural centres and schools in 20 countries on Friday as a
“precautionary measure.”

Charlie Hebdo has a long reputation for being provocative. Its Paris
offices were firebombed last November after it published a mocking
caricature of Mohammad, and Charbonnier has been under police guard ever
since. ...

(15) Front Page Magazine defends the Cartoons in the name of free speech
(but tolerance stops at Holocaust Denial)


Charlie Hebdo Prepares For Violent Backlash

Posted by Joseph Klein on Sep 20th, 2012

France is now facing the prospect of a violent backlash following the
publication of controversial Prophet Mohammed cartoons by the satirical
weekly magazine Charlie Hebdo showing the Prophet Mohammed naked. Trying
to head off a firestorm not only in the Muslim world but also within the
large Muslim population living in France, French officials condemned the
publication. Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, for example, said that
while he respects the right of free expression he sees “no point in such
a provocation.”

Mindful of the violence against U.S. embassies and consulates which has
swept the Muslim world in the wake of the anti-Muslim video produced in
the United States, the French government is taking no chances. It will
close twenty of its embassies in Muslim countries this Friday, in case
the Friday prayers turn into an orgy of violence whipped up by fanatical

The French magazine's editor, Stephane Charbonnier, told reporters that
the pictures will “shock those who will want to be shocked.” He is
deliberately poking a stick at a rattlesnake, not worried about the
venomous consequences that will inevitably ensue. He should be worried
in light of the fact that the Paris offices of his magazine were
firebombed last year after it lampooned the Prophet Mohammed on its
front page.

However, the increasing calls for restrictions on free speech as a
result of such offensive cartoons or videos are far more offensive than
the speech itself. To be sure, there are limits. Speech that clearly
crosses over the line from permissible provocative expression to direct
incitement to imminent violence can be restricted. But the exceptions to
the inalienable right of individuals in a free society to express their
point of view, no matter how offensive, must not be allowed to swallow
the right itself. Emotional pain or hurt feelings are too subjective a
standard to use in regulating speech.

No group can become the arbiter of what is or what is not acceptable
speech based on whether it hurts their feelings or shows disrespect for
their faith and beliefs. Their threat of violence if they don't get
their way would give them a “heckler's veto.” Instead, as Supreme Court
Justice Louis Brandeis advised, in one of his famous opinions back in
1927, “If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and
fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy
to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”

The real danger coming out of the recent episodes of Prophet Mohammed
caricatures is to give the Islamists more ammunition in their campaign
to clamp down on speech they claim “defames” their religion and
constitutes Islamophobia. They demand tolerance and respect for Islam,
but in many countries with Muslim majorities there is no tolerance or
respect for other faiths. In some cases, churches, synagogues, Hindu
temples etc. cannot even operate openly.

About Joseph Klein

Joseph Klein is a Harvard-trained lawyer and the author of Global
Deception: The UN's Stealth Assault on America's Freedom and the new
book, Lethal Engagement: Barack Hussein Obama, the United Nations &
Radical Islam.

(16) Christopher Hitchens: Religion should be treated with ridicule,
Hatred and contempt. Atheists mark Blasphemy Day


A Bitter Rift Divides Atheists


Dianna Douglas/NPR

Stuart Jordan, science adviser to the Center For Inquiry, with the
painting Jesus Does His Nails by Dana Ellyn, on display at the Center
for Inquiry. Jordan says he would prefer that atheists and secularists
not be associated with such artwork.

October 19, 2009

Last month, atheists marked Blasphemy Day at gatherings around the
world, and celebrated the freedom to denigrate and insult religion.

Some offered to trade pornography for Bibles. Others de-baptized people
with hair dryers. And in Washington, D.C., an art exhibit opened that
shows, among other paintings, one entitled Divine Wine, where Jesus, on
the cross, has blood flowing from his wound into a wine bottle.

Another, Jesus Paints His Nails, shows an effeminate Jesus after the
crucifixion, applying polish to the nails that attach his hands to the

"I wouldn't want this on my wall," says Stuart Jordan, an atheist who
advises the evidence-based group Center for Inquiry on policy issues.
The Center for Inquiry hosted the art show.

Jordan says the exhibit created a firestorm from offended believers, and
he can understand why. But, he says, the controversy over this exhibit
goes way beyond Blasphemy Day. It's about the future of the atheist
movement — and whether to adopt the "new atheist" approach — a more
aggressive, often belittling posture toward religious believers.

Some call it a schism.

"It's really a national debate among people with a secular orientation
about how far do we want to go in promoting a secular society through
emphasizing the 'new atheism,' " Jordan says. "And some are very much
for it, and some are opposed to it on the grounds that they feel this is
largely a religious country, and if it's pushed the wrong way, this is
going to insult many of the religious people who should be shown respect
even if we don't agree with them on all issues."

Jordan believes the new approach will backfire.

A Schism?

Jordan is a volunteer at the center and therefore could speak his mind.
But interviews for this story with others associated with the
Washington, D.C., office were canceled — a curious development for a
group that promotes free speech.

Ronald Lindsay, who heads the Center for Inquiry, based in Amherst,
N.Y., says he didn't know why the interviews were cancelled. As for the
art exhibit and other Blasphemy Day events the group promoted:

"What we wanted were thoughtful, incisive and concise critiques of
religion," he says. "We were not trying to insult believers."

But others are perfectly happy to. New atheists like Oxford biologist
Richard Dawkins and journalist Christopher Hitchens are selling millions
of books and drawing people by the thousands to their call for an
uncompromising atheism.

For example, Hitchens, a columnist for Vanity Fair and author of the
book God Is Not Great, told a capacity crowd at the University of
Toronto, "I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and
contempt, and I claim that right." His words were greeted with hoots of

Religion is "sinister, dangerous and ridiculous," Hitchens tells NPR,
because it can prompt people to fly airplanes into buildings, and it
promotes ignorance. Hitchens sees no reason to sugarcoat his position. ...

Paul Kurtz founded the Center for Inquiry three decades ago to offer a
positive alternative to religion. He has built alliances with religious
groups over issues such as climate change and opposing creationism in
the public schools. Kurtz says he was ousted in a "palace coup" last
year — and he worries the new atheists will set the movement back.

"I consider them atheist fundamentalists," he says. "They're
anti-religious, and they're mean-spirited, unfortunately. Now, they're
very good atheists and very dedicated people who do not believe in God.
But you have this aggressive and militant phase of atheism, and that
does more damage than good."

He hopes this new approach will fizzle.

"Merely to critically attack religious beliefs is not sufficient. It
leaves a vacuum. What are you for? We know what you're against, but what
do you want to defend?"

The new atheists counter that they believe in reason, science and
freedom from religious myth. And, as Lindsay, who replaced Kurtz, puts
it: "We take the high road, the low road, country roads, interstates,
highways, byways, — whatever it takes to reach people."

(17) Cartoons ridiculing Mohammad cf anti-Christian Monty Python film
The Life of Brian


The Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy began after 12
editorial cartoons, most of which depicted the Islamic prophet Muhammad,
were published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten on 30 September
2005. The newspaper announced that this publication was an attempt to
contribute to the debate regarding criticism of Islam and self-censorship.

Danish Muslim organizations that objected to the depictions responded by
petitioning the embassies of Islamic nations and the Danish government
to take some form of action in reaction. Some Islamic organizations
filed a judicial complaint against the newpaper which was dismissed in
January 2006. The cartoons were reprinted in newspapers in more than 50
other countries over the following few months, further deepening the
controversy, although the bulk of the reprints took place after the
large scale protests in January and February of 2006.

Four months later, in late January and early February of 2006, Muslims
held protests across the Islamic world, some of which escalated into
violence with instances of police firing on crowds of protestors
resulting in a total of more than 100 reported deaths,[1] including the
bombing of the Danish embassy in Pakistan and setting fire to the Danish
Embassies in Syria, Lebanon and Iran, storming European buildings, and
burning the Danish, Dutch, Norwegian, French and German flags in Gaza
City.[2][3] Various groups, primarily in the Western world, responded by
endorsing the Danish policies, including "Buy Danish" campaigns and
other displays of support. Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen
described the controversy as Denmark's worst international crisis since
World War II.[4]

Critics of the cartoons described them as Islamophobic or racist,[5] and
argued that they are blasphemous to people of the Muslim faith, are
intended to humiliate a Danish minority, or are a manifestation of
ignorance about the history of Western imperialism.

Supporters have said that the cartoons illustrated an important issue in
a period of Islamic terrorism and argued that their publication is a
legitimate exercise of the right of free speech, explicitly tied to the
issue of self-censorship. They argued that Muslims were not targeted in
a discriminatory way, since unflattering cartoons about other religions
(or their leaders) are frequently printed.[6] ...

The 12 cartoons were drawn by 12 professional cartoonists in Denmark,
most of whom regularly drew political cartoons for Danish newspapers.
Four of the cartoons have Danish texts. One deliberately evades the
whole problem, depicting a school child in Denmark named Muhammad, not
the prophet Muhammad. One of the cartoons is based on a special Danish
cultural expression, and one includes a Danish politician. ...

[edit] Comparable incidents

The following incidents are often compared to the cartoon controversy.
For a more complete listing of incidents please see, Freedom of speech
versus blasphemy

The Satanic Verses controversy (novel, 1988, global)
Life of Brian (film, 1979, United States and Europe)
Mohammad, Messenger of God (film, 1977, United States, Libya, UK and
Gregorius Nekschot (cartoons, 2008, The Netherlands)
Innocence of Muslims (film, 2012, United States)
Charlie Hebdo (cartoon controversies, 2011 and 2012) ...

This page was last modified on 21 September 2012 at 15:24. ==

(18) The Economist defends the Cartoons


The limits to free speech: Cartoon wars
Free speech should override religious sensitivities. And it is not just
the property of the West

Feb 9th 2006
from the print edition | Leaders

No comments:

Post a Comment