Suicide bomber tasteless but not offensive
The media have just scored a serious own-goal and society has displayed its double-standards when Omar Khayam was returned to prison for his part in a demonstration against the publication of blasphemous cartoons depicting the prophet and his followers as suicide bombers. The young 22-year old had served a sentence for drug dealing and was released on licence, since it is customary in the UK that offenders only serve half the sentence given to them by court and are then paroled.
The prime minister stated that police would have the government's full support "in any prosecutions they mount", saying "it is very important for our overall good relations in this country that people understand there's no political correctness that should keep the police from taking whatever action they think is necessary and that is my position 100%." Hang on a minute.
What was the crime that this young man committed? Dressing up as a suicide bomber? It may be tasteless to do so and hurt the feelings of people, but seeing he didn’t carry a real bomb it sure wasn’t something they shouldn’t be expected to cope with if we’re talking about so-called freedom of speech and the right to satirise. Were not the cartoons depicting the prophet of Islam as a bomb-carrying fanatic equally tasteless? Did they not hurt the feelings of a billion people who love their prophet as dearly as their own parents or even more so? Khayam may have lacked the responsible maturity in failing to realise the sensitivities of people affected by the way he expressed his opinion, but can we expect a young fellow his age to act more responsible than many of the editors of European newspapers?
The cartoon printed in the Danish paper Jyllands-Posten was not an expression of freedom of speech, it was a deliberate attempt to provoke Muslims. The same paper had rejected cartoons making fun of Jesus on the grounds that they might offend readers. A cartoon depicting the Queen as an evil monster sending princess Diana onto her fatal final car journey would, I am sure, also be punished by the courts as disrespectful and offensive. Europe’s reaction to Muslim objections and protests following the anti-Muslim cartoons has only demonstrated what was already known to Muslims long ago: that there is a deep-seated hatred of Islam and Muslims in media circles who, probably for the benefit of their Zionist paymasters, want to demonise Muslims in the public eye. They consider it their right to poke fun at others, but lament when faced with a taste of their own medicine.
No amount of reasoning and debate can put the cat back into the bag or the genie into the bottle. The establishment have come out and shown their colours. Europe is a post-Christian club still defined by the attitudes of the crusades. Liberal secularists are no neutral do-gooders, they come from the same colonialist and xenophobic stable as their crusading ancestors. The crusades eventually failed and civilisation, from coffee to medicine and science, was finally allowed to enter Europe ending the tyranny of the Church. The new tyranny of the money changers whom Jesus threw out of the Jewish temples followed. If Muslims wake up to the fact that the whole power of Western nations is based on fictitious debt finance, Europe might once more see the light of civilisation.