Recently, there have been a number of high profile attacks on free expression by Islamists often supported by educational institutions and others.

What I find most absurd about it all is how the fundamental debate on Islam and free expression has become framed within a context of offence, racism and discrimination.

What has happened here in the west is that the Islamic movement’s inhuman, barbaric and medieval sensibilities and values are portrayed and excused as the offended sensibilities and values of all ‘Muslims’.

Islamist threats, violence and terrorism are tactics and pillars of the political Islamic movement, and have nothing to do with ‘Muslim sensibilities’. Whilst we are all offended at least some of the time (and very often by Islam itself), most of us – religious or not – Muslim or not – never resort to death threats and violence. If they were really people’s own sensibilities and beliefs, Islamic states and movements wouldn’t need to resort to such indiscriminate violence and to Sharia law.

Labelling it as people’s sensibilities is part of the effort to impose it from above in order to restrict rights and freedoms.

Moreover, saying certain types of expression is off-limits – however well-meaning – aids in its restriction.

In practice what this all means is not just that a UK student can no longer post a Jesus and Mo image on his Facebook page but that the victims and survivors of Islamism will find it all the more difficult to do the only thing they have at their disposal in order to resist.

So the next time you defend free expression and something as ‘trivial’ as a Jesus and Mo image remember that you are not only doing it for yourself but for the many languishing and resisting Islamism all over the globe.

Which makes your stand all the more important.

See you on 11 February.



  1. You know, acts of censorship often remind me of something, although fiction of course, Jean-Luc Picard said in the Star Trek: TNG episode “The Drumhead”:

    There is a saying… which many of us have heard since we were school children… “With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied — chains us all, irrevocably.” Those words were uttered by Judge Aaron Satie — as wisdom and warning. The very first time any man’s freedoms are trampled… we are all damaged. I fear… that today… on this starship… we are forging that chain.

    Despite being a TV show, I often find what Gene Roddenberry et al put into the show often applicable to real life and even Majel stated that Gene attempted to use the media to send a message to people. So, my assumptions that this passage is applicable to present day situation might not be too far off base. It really seems like Gene et al were trying to place a message with this brief speech they gave to the character of Picard, but instead of a starship, it is the planet earth.

  2. Nuke Mecca at full mass and turn that shithole in to a glass parking lot: PROBLEM SOLVED.

    The only good Arab is a … well you know where I’m going with that 😉

  3. The offensive objection offends me. I highly value free speech so I find any attempts to stifle it offensive. According to their own principle, they should cease their criticism at once. Due to the inability to consistently apply said rule, the only reasonable conclusion is to not use it as a reason for altering other people’s behavior.

  4. I would like a little consistency shown by those who stand up for the permanently offended. If you really want to get rid of something that is insulting to Mohammed and his beliefs when why tackle the very mild Jesus and Mo, why not tackle a piece of literature that says far worse things about Mohammed, namely Dante’s Inferno, which has Mohammed in the 8th circle of hell, split from chin to groin, signifying religious divisiveness?
    Surely that is far more offensive to people who believe in the likes of hell.
    Ban Dante’s Inferno!
    It’s offensive!

  5. What exactly does Islam teach about images of Mohammed? Is it that Muslims aren’t allowed to create or worship them, or is there a punishment for simply viewing the images?

    I just think if it’s the latter, it might be somewhat inconsiderate to put up an image of Mohammed where Muslims will have to look before changing the channel. Not that it justifies violent extremism or censorship.

      1. To whoever the web designer of this blog is, you need to raise the CSS value z-index up for youtube embeds.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.