Thursday, March 04, 2010

Does this insult, deeply offend and alarm?


If so, His Grace is on his way to prison.

And if not he, then what about Oliver Kamm of The Times.

And if not he, then the original artist Peter Brookes must certainly have drawn this cartoon with the intention to insult, deeply offend and alarm. Indeed, he disclosed later: “That got me into a bit of hot water, which I was quite glad about. (The Pope) said condoms were not the answer to the continent’s problems. To my mind that is completely ridiculous and so you make him look ridiculous. I have yet to do something that has caused a reaction that I have felt ashamed of."

The cartoon appears to have been designed to insult, deeply offend and alarm Roman Catholics especially.

Gratuitous offence is unnecessary, but in the realms of politics or religion, it should not be illegal. Not for the first time, His Grace finds himself agreeing with the National Secular Society. Their agenda may be odious and some of their members thoroughly repugnant, but they consistently highlight the absurdity of Labour's 'incitement to religious hatred' legislation.

It appears that Harry Taylor, a self-styled 'militant atheist', left some rather provocative cartoons in the prayer room of Liverpool's John Lennon airport. And he has been found guilty on three counts of 'religiously aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress'.

Apparently, it was the airport chaplain, Nicky Lees, who told of her alarm after finding the images, which reportedly depicted 'figures from Christianity and Islam, often in sexual poses'.

Ms Lees said: “I was insulted, deeply offended and I was alarmed.”

And so the 'militant atheist' is about to be incarcerated for offending her sensibilities.

How many times does it need stating?

It is so important to His Grace that it has featured prominently as his 'Bottom Line' since his blog was founded:

Freedom of speech must be tolerated, and everyone living in the United Kingdom must accept that they may be insulted about their own beliefs, or indeed be offended, and that is something which they must simply endure, not least because some suffer fates far worse.

The National Secular Society are right to observe that this represents a blasphemy law 'by the back door'. When Parliament abolished those which have served the nation for centuries, His Grace warned that another would emerge to fill the vacuum: the Republic of Ireland has shown the way.

Terry Sanderson, President of the NSS, said: “This is a disgraceful verdict, but an inevitable one under this pernicious law. It seems incredible in the 21st century that you might be sent to prison because someone is ‘offended’ by your views on their religion. The blasphemy law was abolished three years ago, but it lives on under the guise of religiously aggravated offences and is several times more dangerous.”

Indeed.

And yet there is something about this verdict which troubles His Grace. Jesus with an erection might deeply offend, yet the artist was not prosecuted. The desecration of the Bible might offend, but the artist was not prosecuted.

It is quite easy for any zealous adherent of any devout religion to come across an anti-religious cartoon, or even a reasoned but critical article in a reputable political magazine, and then decide, even years after original publication, to be insulted, deeply offended and alarmed.

And the artists and authors may not only have to endure the termination of their promising careers. But they may also now find themselves deprived of their liberty, imprisoned at Her Majesty's pleasure, and emotionally and mentally tortured.

Welcome to New Labour's New Age of Inquisition.

49 Comments:

Blogger Man in a Shed said...

Given that Liverpool Airport's strap line is "above us only sky" you'd think it would be a bit more friendly to extremist atheists.

4 March 2010 at 18:10  
Anonymous He's Spartacus said...

Your Grace, I am happy to republish the cartoon and join you as you languish at Her Majesty's pleasure.

4 March 2010 at 18:19  
Anonymous Stewart Cowan said...

Indeed, this is a New Age of Inquisition, but it is rather a sweet irony that the atheists which New Labour have encouraged are also getting into trouble.

Militant 'atheists'/humanists/secularists are a particularly nasty bunch and another irony is, due to their stupidity or blind indifference, they are aiding the destruction of the way of life which gave them the freedoms they have. Freedoms which the government is taking from them along with the rest of us.

They probably thought it was great when Labour MPs did a U-turn and voted to abolish blasphemy laws, only for new ones to be introduced at some stage to cover all religions.

These people are dangerously selfish and stupid.

4 March 2010 at 18:29  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

Your Grace’s ‘Bottom Line’, with its commitment to free speech, is wholly admirable but free speech can only thrive in a socially cohesive nation. Britain is no longer such a nation—just ask this lot, for example, what they think of free speech.

4 March 2010 at 18:33  
Anonymous Trencherbone said...

Freedom of speech includes the freedom to ridicule arrogant and ignorantcults - use it or lose it!

4 March 2010 at 18:35  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

I agree with your article.

The thrust of the criminal law is to shut down conversations on the issue of belief.

It has a chilling effect; how many priests today preach a sermon on homosexuality within a public place, such as a church hall?

And the priest who wants to but doesn't for fear of prosecution has imposed upon himself the worst form of oppression: self-censorship.

4 March 2010 at 18:42  
Blogger JPT said...

Infantile I think. But it should of course not be banned .

4 March 2010 at 18:51  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

And yet there is something about this verdict which troubles His Grace. Jesus with an erection might deeply offend, yet the artist was not prosecuted. The desecration of the Bible might offend, but the artist was not prosecuted.’

The reason why the artist was not prosecuted one needs to understand how this socialist Government thinks.

Article 34 of the Constitution of the 1977 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics states:

‘Citizens of the USSR are equal before the law, without distinction of origin, social or property status, race or nationality, sex, education, language, attitude to religion, type and nature of occupation, domicile, or other status. The equal rights of citizens of the USSR are guaranteed in all fields of economic, political, social, and cultural life.’

Article 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights (imported into domestic law through the Human Rights Act 1998) states:

‘The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.’

As you can see both articles are remarkably similar. When one group’s rights within the articles collide with another group’s rights, the State being the Referee is in a position to decide which group’s rights will win and which will lose. That is how the socialists use human rights to kill the rights of Christians in this country.

In other words, we have all been had by that creature called the Socialist.

And that is why I equate socialists with Nazis.

4 March 2010 at 19:00  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Looks like fair comment to me...

4 March 2010 at 19:39  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

When I first read about this I thought it was outrageous that this was even brought to court. It has taken 12 jurors to find him guilty, which is even more outrageous. From what I can gather, the room was a shared, multi-faith prayer room, so I am wondering if this has something to do with how it ended up in court; also it would be interesting to learn the make up of the jury.

What a sad state of affairs we have arrived at.

4 March 2010 at 19:59  
Blogger English Viking said...

Your Grace,

Linking to pictures likely to offend was unnecessary and gratuitous.

Let God reward those who blaspheme, according to their deeds. This is not the business of Government.

4 March 2010 at 20:35  
Blogger English Viking said...

Your Grace,

Linking to pictures likely to offend was unnecessary and gratuitous.

Let God reward those who blaspheme, according to their deeds. This is not the business of Government.

4 March 2010 at 20:36  
Blogger English Viking said...

Apologies for a double post.

4 March 2010 at 20:36  
Blogger Christabelle said...

The artist should be punished as this was a deliberately provocative thing to do. If I went into a gay bar and put up a provocative gay hating poster, I would probably be beaten up and then arrested for a hate crime. If an act like that deserves punishment, so does this artist. The present UK staus quo is that Christians are constantly told to be thick-skinned but other segments of society are indulged and allowed to be thinned skinned with every hyper-sensitive demand acquiesced to. A whiny victim mentallity gets results in progressive England. His Grace cannot expect Christians to toughen up when the rest of the populace is devolving into a bunch of whiny brats, methinks.

4 March 2010 at 21:41  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Remember when the first refuge opened up for abused women? The church was offended and accused them of breaking up marriages.

And you wonder why no one cares when you're offended?

4 March 2010 at 22:03  
Anonymous Happyness Stan said...

Your Grace’s ‘Bottom Line’, with its commitment to free speech, is wholly admirable but free speech can only thrive in a socially cohesive nation.

Yes, but we have a chicken and egg situation. Is it not the removal of the freedom of speech, one of the prime reasons why we no longer live in a socially cohesive nation?

A socially cohesive nation is a confident one. One of the many things the establishment fear is a confident peasant class. Which of course is 99.999% of the population as a whole.

A confident people are the last possible thing the ruling class wish to confront, especially during times of great change, such as these.

We have now lived through the longest period of peace in living memory. Which is why the establishment had to come up with a slightly different and reasonable less destructive plan. This especially after they finally put to bed their last extremely profitable Cold War one.

Therefore The Establishment have now inflicted on their own people, every other means available to them, to rapidly destroy their charges material, and spiritual hearts and minds.

We surly know, that there is only one type of war that has never ended, and long since began. Which is the war between US and THEM. It goes without saying that they are very much winning. While we are desperately losing this particular battle, every bit as badly as we lost all of the others.

However it will get much much worse then this, over the next few decades or so. In fact the establishment have hardly got themselves warmed up for The Final Push/Solution. While we the idiot class, are already terminally battle fatigued, impoverished, debt enslaved, depressed, marginalised, and ever more hopelessly divided.

We do indeed outnumber the proverbial them, by around half a million to one. However, what is the good of overwhelming numbers when the majority have little or no idea whatsoever who the real enemy is, or what their ultimate plans are?

Worse still. They have the power of infinite money, the combined forces of the entire MSM, and a large majority of the alternative media dividing and therefore subversively controlling all of the potential or otherwise opposition.

Worse still when someone takes the time to spell it all out, in as simple, and straight forward a manner as he can muster. No one takes any bloody notice, or starts talking about lizards, or tin hats, for some strange reason.

It goes without saying that the people count for as much today, as they did back in medieval times. Which is for little more then mindlessly powerless serfs, or prize lambs shortly bound for profitable slaughter.

The truth is the sheople will do what they can do. Which is absolutely nothing whatsoever to improve their individual or collective position, or prospects by themselves.

If there is hope at all, this is it.

However, history tells us that just before things get wholly dictatorial the puppet masters always murderously turn on their own puppets. This usually results in mass assassinations at the top, in true Stalinist tradition.

At some point at least one or maybe two of our political leaders will finally realise that they are themselves very likely going to be the next to be taken out, and then metaphorically or otherwise shot through the back of the head.

You never know some one at the BBC for example, or God forbid a leading minister, may start to spill the establishments beans, and finally start telling the whole truth for once.

No, OK that may be asking a little too much, but I am sure I have made my point.

4 March 2010 at 22:29  
Anonymous not a machine said...

We could have a trappist monk weakly waveing a large sausage at the labour government !

However on a more serious level , I dont think I am offended , cartoon ridicule has been around for some time , his holiness I doubt will be offended unless of course Mr Brooks is a practising Roman Catholic .
This does not distract from somthing more modern and dangerous that your grace eludes too in that this cartoon may be laughed at by many people , many people who will be ignorant and will thus aquiesce into comunal mocking , for they can no longer discerne why his holiness has a stance on sex as he does .

The errosion of the concept of defending the faith after 13 years of equality double speak , is not as some secualrists are speaking of an abyss that we should no longer be afaid of , after this goverment they must be cocker hoop about the churchs descendence into political correctness and its weakening message to society .

Can it really be that one of the best evangelical outreaches for some time (Alpha) is the picture of a person carrying a large awkard question mark! Does christianity not provide answers anymore ?

In the sense of the cartoon being offensive , it is perhaps our countrys lack of reverance and understanding of the christian faith that is more offensive than the cartoon , the cartoon is merely a symptom of a society casting a golden calf to dance hedonistically around in the absence of anything else .

perhaps a more apt one would be moses exiting no10 after lunch and smashing the ten commandments on the steps as he left , with a speech bubble saying "oh no not again !"

4 March 2010 at 22:34  
Blogger Theresa said...

I'm afraid I dont have very much sympathy for this guy. It reminds me of the pervs that would buy a porn mag and scatter the pages about our local schools. I think he's got a screw loose anyway.

Re censorship, I mostly agree with your grace's sentiments, but I do think there is such a thing as good manners and good taste in debate. I'm fed up with the constant crudeness that passes for polemical 'comment' in our society and I think the people that employ it should be challenged as to why they use it. If this guy had shown these images to people passing in the street he would have been arrested for lewd and libidinous behaviour; I don't see why it should be different because they are printed in a magazine or left in a church.

4 March 2010 at 23:02  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Happyness Stan (22:29)—Is it not the removal of the freedom of speech, one of the prime reasons why we no longer live in a socially cohesive nation?

I see the chicken and the egg from this angle. The UK population becomes increasingly Muslim; Muslims demand that their religion be immune from criticism; the ruling class (anxious to preserve the façade of a successful multicultural society) introduces hate crimes; and, with each hate crime, part of our freedom of speech is lost.

Europe is gearing up to suppress free speech, too. Following the Council of Europe’s Additional protocol to the convention on cybercrime, concerning the criminalisation of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature committed through computer systems, the EU has its own Framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia:

❛…this framework decision provides for the approximation of laws and regulations of the Member States on offences involving racism and xenophobia. Racist and xenophobic behaviour must constitute an offence in all Member States and must be punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties of a maximum of at least one to three years of imprisonment.❜

More free speech lost in the name of multiculturalism. With our freedom of speech a shadow of its former self, how can we hope to thrive as a nation?

4 March 2010 at 23:05  
Anonymous judith said...

My view - as an agnostic - of this action (deliberately placing puerile and offensive cartoons in a prayer room) is that it is bloody rude.

I am deeply interested in the 'why's and wherefore's' of faith and religions, and enjoy passionate discussion with believers and sceptics, but there is no need to be provocatively offensive.

4 March 2010 at 23:08  
Anonymous Kiwi said...

"It is quite easy for any zealous adherent of any devout religion to come across an anti-religious cartoon, or even a reasoned but critical article in a reputable political magazine, and then decide, even years after original publication, to be insulted, deeply offended and alarmed."
Is this now paving the way for prosecutions for those that published the 'Mohammed' cartoons? Alarming indeed!!

4 March 2010 at 23:52  
Anonymous William Wallace said...

People who distribute unwanted pornography should go to prison.

We have quite enough of that as it is without some crackpot atheist seeking sexual gratification in this way.

5 March 2010 at 03:37  
Anonymous S Lartius said...

Does anyone have/can point to descriptions of these cartoons? All I have found so far is the following:

[QUOTE]One image showed a smiling Christ on the cross next to an advert for a brand of "no nails" glue. In another, Islamic suicide bombers at the gates of paradise are told: " Stop, stop, we've run out of virgins." The images shown to the jury included a drawing of the Pope with a condom on his finger, and a picture of a woman kneeling in front of a Catholic priest captioned with a crude pun. In another image sausages were were labelled as "The Koran" [UNQUOTE]

Sound funny to me.

The only "line not to cross" that I can think of, is would you be horrified if a child saw it?

5 March 2010 at 05:47  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I blame God, he should return to a bit of Old Testament smiting, that would show em, no need for blasphamy laws just a few well directed thunderbolts.
Jobrag

5 March 2010 at 06:30  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Johnny Rottenborough @ 1833 says that free speech can only thrive in a socially cohesive nation, which Britain is no longer.

No less an authority than Gordon Brown may agree, in part and subliminally. Gordon now talks about 'our communities' rather than the 'British nation'. Just watch him very carefully, its a subtle but significant shift.

5 March 2010 at 07:40  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

I am reassured that Cranmer asserts the primacy of freedom of speech.

This country has a proud history of satire and with it the deflation of pomposity, the exposure of hypocrisy and the calling to account of the powerful. George Cruikshank, William Hogarth and more recently Scarfe, Steadman and the aforementioned Brookes were (are) masters of the art. The power of the brush can cause as much offence as that of the pen as the Danish cartoons demonstrate.

Religion deserves to be lampooned and ridiculed in part because its adherents invariably claim authority from their particular deity. As I understand the Pope is (your) god’s CEO on earth. He sets the policy having received orders from the chairman of the board. As these policies are often the consequence of prejudice, intolerance and inhumanity, they (and you) are a natural target for the satirist.

5 March 2010 at 09:40  
Anonymous It's faith, stupid said...

Mr Davis

What would it take to deflate your pomposity?

Perhaps a picture of an ape posting to a blog?

5 March 2010 at 12:00  
Blogger Preacher said...

It appears to me that if Mr Harry Taylor left the offending articles in the prayer room on purpose, he is either about ten years old in which case it's straight to bed with no T.V or if an adult? he needs therapy to assist him to mature mentally. Prison will only teach him not to make it so easy to be caught next time.

5 March 2010 at 12:06  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

"Perhaps a picture of an ape posting to a blog?"

Why not, don't see how it would bother any evolution accepting atheist though.

Why not just get an infinite number of apes with an infinite number of typewriters and give them an infinite amount of time, we would surely get a blog worthy post at some point.

I must say that I found the one with Jesus on the cross beside a billboard for No Nails glue most amusing though.

But yes, no real need to leave them in a prayer room, but then again no real need for a prayer room. I suppose it could just be called a quiet room and any and all can use it (non-religious included) for whatever prayer or inner meditation they want.

So no point in prosecuting, that's just stupid. But no real need on his part to actually do it in the first place, so people can treat him like the wally he is without resorting to the state coming in on the fray to hand out punishment.

5 March 2010 at 12:48  
Anonymous P. Burgess said...

Cranmer, you said "Their [The NSS] agenda may be odious....."

This is probably going to sound like a very naive question in present company, but I'd be interested to understand more about why you think their agenda is odious.

As I understand it, the NSS simply campaigns for a separation of religion and state. What can anyone, whether religious themselves or otherwise, have against that objective? Unless of course, their particular flavour of religion is the incumbent recipient of particular privileges that permit them to influence how we are governed, i.e. Christians in this country.

If Cranmer were a Christian living in Iran, perhaps he himself would be a secularist? Now there's a thought!

5 March 2010 at 13:53  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

It’s faith, stupid said “Perhaps a picture of an ape posting to a blog?”

The satire escapes me unless you are a creationist. The principles of evolution like those of gravity are well understood; don’t tell me that you are one of those that think “god” made us as we are and placed fossils in rocks just to fool us.

5 March 2010 at 14:45  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

P. Burgess said... “Cranmer, you said "Their [The NSS] agenda may be odious....."

I suspect that Cranmer only objects to the NSS because it is a forceful advocate of Gay rights.

5 March 2010 at 14:51  
Blogger Christabelle said...

I am Afro-British. Here is a nice English joke I was told by white kids when I was at school. "Why don't sharks eat blacks. Answer, they look like whale-poop." This is funny if you are white, but is this an example of free speech, or simply racial hatred? If you try to minimize and dismiss racial or religious hatred by saying 'just kidding', or 'free speech' I think you are, in fact, encouraging it. Wasn't it this kind of steady drip-drip-drip of hatred of a singled out group which led to the holocaust? I think His Grace is perhaps letting his latent anti-catholic feelings get the better of him in this case.

5 March 2010 at 15:14  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

Christabelle

You cannot choose your ethnicity but you do choose your religion.

Religion like politics is your choice so doesn’t get sensitive when people (like me) ridicule it. There is no hatred involved; this is an argument about ideas. Your god is no more likely to exist than the Yeti or Father Christmas and so I debunk the myths that support it and the people that propagate it.

5 March 2010 at 15:43  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

Typo corrected and post edited

Christabelle

You cannot choose your ethnicity but you do choose your religion.

Religion like politics is your choic, so don’t get sensitive when people (like me) ridicule it. There is no hatred involved; this is an argument about ideas. Your god is no more likely to exist than the Yeti or Father Christmas and so I debunk the myths that support it and the people that propagate them.

Freedom of speech is absolute requirement of a free, democratic society. Just kidding is a pathetic apology that does not excuse the insult that you received.

5 March 2010 at 16:02  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Would it be alright if this gentleman approached a nun on a bus and gave her this literature? Is that free speech or insulting behaviour?

Would it be alright if he approached a Rabbi on a bus and offered to buy him a bacon sandwich because they are tasty and the Rabbi believes in " a sky fairy"

Is that free speech or insulting behaviour?

5 March 2010 at 16:05  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Would it be free speech if someone was to knock on my door and tell me how I will burn in hell for my sinful behaviour?

Would it be free speech if a gay man was told by the head of a religious organisation that his actions are disgusting and he will be punished for all eternity?

Two sides, that's all i'm saying, two sides.

And Christabelle, do I think that comedians like Chris Rock should be banned from TV/Video for their clearly racist slurs and stereotyping against white people? Nope I actually find some of the humour amusing. Other white people may be offended but you need to remember that one of the rights of free speech is the right to be offended.

However the moment you limit anything then it ceases to be free speech, and this form of "free" speech is supported by poeple only up until they reach a point where something they are saying is being legistlated against, unfortunately by that point it is too late.

If you invite the wolves in the door don't be surprised by what they end up having for dinner.

5 March 2010 at 17:09  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Glovy: shut yer gob.

5 March 2010 at 17:31  
Anonymous William Wallace said...

Free speech is not licence.

To use a person's beliefs to gratuitously insult and alarm him or her is not free speech.

It is perfectly reasonable to say to a person that homosexual sex is sinful. There, I have said it.

5 March 2010 at 17:37  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

D. Singh said...
Glovy: shut yer gob.

Not a very adult response Mr Singh

5 March 2010 at 17:49  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Well he never has shown very adult actions.

William.

I am not sure how you can separate the two to be honest.

The religious believe that consenting homosexual sexual intercourse is wrong, and it is their right to think and voice it.

The consenting homosexual couple believe that there is nothing wrong with what they are doing.

Both are beliefs, how does one hold more sway that the other? Is it becuase one agrees with your beliefs and therefore must be right?

Nope, I say again it is your right to be offended and others right to offend, this cannot be legislated against as the end result of legislation of belief is a horrible place to be heading.

5 March 2010 at 17:55  
Anonymous William Wallace said...

Glovner

Well let me put it this way. I will not be entering my nearest LGBT counselling cooperative to leave obscene and insulting literature about homosexuals lying around.

5 March 2010 at 18:16  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

Graham Davis said, "You cannot choose your ethnicity but you do choose your religion.

Anybody who believes that does not know what religious faith is.

5 March 2010 at 18:43  
Blogger Christabelle said...

Graham, if you do not believe in God, that is fine. But why do you feel the need to ridicule and insult? Is that really an arguement over ideas or just being provocative? I believe people should be healthy, but I do not think ridiculing and trying to humiliate fat people is going to help anything. Anyway, I would not dream of being that rude and provocative. I think freedom of speech is great and I feel that if someone feels very strongly about the pope they can say it in many constructive ways. But in this case, the intention was to provoke rather than exchange ideas. It was a negative act, a stunt, and it got a negative reaction. Most of the time I do not respond when provoked because, as a Christian, I prefer to live and let live. However, if you go to the following website http://barnabasfund.org/ you will see just how persecution of Christians is widespread and growing in many parts of the world. Very sadly, this is starting to include the UK and so it is important to not let Christian bashing become part of popular culture, in my opinion.

5 March 2010 at 18:58  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Little Black Sambo

Brilliant!

He chose me. I never wanted Him.

5 March 2010 at 19:25  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

"It was a negative act, a stunt, and it got a negative reaction."

Exactly right and it should have been left at that, there is no reason for the courts to get involved and this sort of thing to be legislated against.

And most people wouldn't react to this type of goading because most people are rational peacable people.

But other people are not rational, should it be legislated against saying anything against islam because a small minority may act violently?

I say again, the moment you allow any free speech to be legislated against it can only end up coming back to bite you. You only say these thing now because the legislation is not against your beliefs, when it is though you will be up in arms, but by that point you would be guilty of allowing it to happen.

And I wish we could get away from this christian persecution nonsense. Maybe in other countries there is true persecution against christians where it is a minority religion. The only thing that is happening in this country is the special rights given to the christian beliefs are being challenged and removed. As a result christianity's ability to persecute freely is being taken away. Not before time too.

5 March 2010 at 19:35  
Anonymous Happyness Stan said...

I see the chicken and the egg from this angle. The UK population becomes increasingly Muslim; Muslims demand that their religion be immune from criticism; the ruling class (anxious to preserve the façade of a successful multicultural society) introduces hate crimes; and, with each hate crime, part of our freedom of speech is lost.

Well yes. Then this is a chickenS and eggS situation.

The establishment have a plan. the plan is to destabilise British and European society. So they do things, or allow things to happen that they know, ( as sure as eggs is eggs ), will undoubtedly destabilise it.

We are here because some one or some group of people with an almost infinite amount of covert influence and power planned very carefully to put us exactly where we are.

5 March 2010 at 22:24  
Blogger Theresa said...

Glovner,

Is this really a religious issue? If this guy had left pornographic material lying around in a public place other than a church wouldn't people be alarmed? If he kept on doing that, don't you think that he would come to the attention of the constabulary sooner or later? This is an issue of good old fashioned decency, and I think this guy is simply a perv hiding under the guise of a militant atheist. As such, you should be concerned about him, because he reflects on you. I take it that you don't have the same penchant for leaving porn lying around that he has..

5 March 2010 at 23:05  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

Some of the biggest idiots I know are white people, but anyways, these pictures were cut out of news papers so what would have been the situation if the paerboy had delivered the papers to the prayer room?

I have never heard such a load of crap in my life - but that's white folk for you.

6 March 2010 at 10:33  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older