Friday, 13 February 2009

It's not often I agree with Johann Hari ...

... the jumped-up, overwrought and tubby little poof. But today:

Here's how it happened. My column reported on a startling development at the United Nations. The UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights has always had the job of investigating governments who forcibly take the fundamental human right to free speech from their citizens with violence. But in the past year, a coalition of religious fundamentalist states has successfully fought to change her job description. Now, she has to report on "abuses of free expression" including "defamation of religions and prophets." Instead of defending free speech, she must now oppose it.


So he wrote an article about it.

An Indian newspaper called The Statesman – one of the oldest and most venerable dailies in the country – thought this accorded with the rich Indian tradition of secularism, and reprinted the article. That night, four thousand Islamic fundamentalists began to riot outside their offices, calling for me, the editor, and the publisher to be arrested – or worse. They brought Central Calcutta to a standstill. A typical supporter of the riots, Abdus Subhan, said he was "prepared to lay down his life, if necessary, to protect the honour of the Prophet" and I should be sent "to hell if he chooses not to respect any religion or religious symbol? He has no liberty to vilify or blaspheme any religion or its icons on grounds of freedom of speech."

Then, two days ago, the editor and publisher were indeed arrested. They have been charged – in the world's largest democracy, with a constitution supposedly guaranteeing a right to free speech – with "deliberately acting with malicious intent to outrage religious feelings". I am told I too will be arrested if I go to Calcutta.

What should an honest defender of free speech say in this position? Every word I wrote was true. I believe the right to openly discuss religion, and follow the facts wherever they lead us, is one of the most precious on earth – especially in a democracy of a billion people riven with streaks of fanaticism from a minority of Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs. So I cannot and will not apologize.


No, I don't think you should. Fuck them and the high horse they rode in on.

Cunts.

5 comments:

The Penguin said...

Fuck me, that twat writing something I agree with, must be a fucking freezing cold day in hell.

The Penguin

Obnoxio The Clown said...

Well, Britain has gone to hell in a hand cart, and it's pretty fucking nippy here ...

Anonymous said...

How repulsive to call a gay man a "poof." You should be ashamed of your bigotry.

Obnoxio The Clown said...

Really? None of the pooves I know have a problem with it, just like I don't have a problem with being called a "breeder" or someone who "rides the vanilla highway."

Either way, if I've offended you: go fuck yourself.

Roger Thornhill said...

I think there is little doubt that Mohammed was a thief, pirate, a rapist, a murderer and a commissioner of murder (see Ibn Hisham, al-Tabari et al).

Added to that he is DEAD, so how can he be "defamed" for crying out loud? Churchill was a drinker. Prince Charles is an adulterer. And? Go on?

This is all about power and control. Religion is usually about training people to be controlled - to submit. The UN appears to be in the process of being hijacked as a vehicle to further that aim.


This is why we need to always retain our sovereignty over and above the UN and why Religion should never be in control of the State.