Looks like the L3’s brilliant strategy to use the power of the State to nail Nick Griffin has worked about as well as all their other great ideas. Having spent years trying to deny Gruppenfurher Nick any kind of platform, the L3 have now decided to give him a chance to address the nation. Now even the BBC has to admit that one of the shocking charges against Nasty Nick is that he predicted that the London transport system would be attacked by Muslims from Yorkshire. Is a statement still ‘inflammatory’ when it’s an entirely accurate prediction of future events ?
The other half of their cunning plan is in falling apart too. After years of turning a blind eye to Captain Hook’s rantings, the government has finally taken action and, wouldcha’believe it, his case is up in court at the same time as Nasty Nick’s. It’s down south somewhere apparently - I’m not sure where, but I’m guessing it’s somewhere with really poor transport links, since that would account for the absence of soi-dissant anti-fascist protestors outside his trial.
Really, I have to ask, how would the L3 argue if they didn’t have moral equivalence ? The trouble is that there’s nothing actually equivalent in the treatment of these two beauties. On the one hand, the L3 – both inside and outside the justice system – are carefully parsing every word Nick Griffin ever said, trying to find grounds to be offended (“what exactly do you mean when you say you ‘would like two sugars’ ?”), meanwhile the L3 are bending over backwards to hide the sheer lunacy of Captain Hook’s rhetoric.
The real equivalence between these two is that one is being prosecuted for telling the truth about Islam and the other is being prosecuted for telling the truth about Islam. Both have, in their own way, contradicted the L3 line that Islam is a philosophy of fluffy bunnies and lovely rainbows.
It need hardly be said that these prosecutions are a dagger aimed at the whole concept of free speech, but there’s an even greater danger. Long before July 7 Nick Griffin was an L3 hate figure for predicting terrorist attacks on London by British-born Muslims, meanwhile MI-5 managed to miss the elephants in the room right up until they started exploding. The L3 claim we can’t let the BNP speak freely because that would create an ‘atmosphere of intimidation’, then they claim to be shocked that employees of the same State which persecutes a guy for predicting terrorism by home grown Muslims fail to detect a terrorist plot by home grown Muslims. What would the atmosphere have been like for someone in MI-5 who predicted these attacks in March 2005 ? More to the point, in the light of these prosecutions, what’s it like now for the guy who’s predicted the next strike ?
The other half of their cunning plan is in falling apart too. After years of turning a blind eye to Captain Hook’s rantings, the government has finally taken action and, wouldcha’believe it, his case is up in court at the same time as Nasty Nick’s. It’s down south somewhere apparently - I’m not sure where, but I’m guessing it’s somewhere with really poor transport links, since that would account for the absence of soi-dissant anti-fascist protestors outside his trial.
Really, I have to ask, how would the L3 argue if they didn’t have moral equivalence ? The trouble is that there’s nothing actually equivalent in the treatment of these two beauties. On the one hand, the L3 – both inside and outside the justice system – are carefully parsing every word Nick Griffin ever said, trying to find grounds to be offended (“what exactly do you mean when you say you ‘would like two sugars’ ?”), meanwhile the L3 are bending over backwards to hide the sheer lunacy of Captain Hook’s rhetoric.
The real equivalence between these two is that one is being prosecuted for telling the truth about Islam and the other is being prosecuted for telling the truth about Islam. Both have, in their own way, contradicted the L3 line that Islam is a philosophy of fluffy bunnies and lovely rainbows.
It need hardly be said that these prosecutions are a dagger aimed at the whole concept of free speech, but there’s an even greater danger. Long before July 7 Nick Griffin was an L3 hate figure for predicting terrorist attacks on London by British-born Muslims, meanwhile MI-5 managed to miss the elephants in the room right up until they started exploding. The L3 claim we can’t let the BNP speak freely because that would create an ‘atmosphere of intimidation’, then they claim to be shocked that employees of the same State which persecutes a guy for predicting terrorism by home grown Muslims fail to detect a terrorist plot by home grown Muslims. What would the atmosphere have been like for someone in MI-5 who predicted these attacks in March 2005 ? More to the point, in the light of these prosecutions, what’s it like now for the guy who’s predicted the next strike ?
No comments:
Post a Comment