Denmark: Another Theatre of War

"Fear played no role in our decision" Thus spake Morten Kirkskov, head of the dramatic department, when he announced the Royal Theater in Copenhagen would not perform a stage version of Salmon Rushdie's Satanic Verses.

But only six months after the Bataclan attacks in Paris, fear should have been a paramount consideration, and not just fear of upsetting Copenhagen's burgeoning muslim population, but fear of what would inevitably happen to Christians across the world, wherever followers of the 'religion of peace' reside. 

Fear of the riots and violence throughout Europe and in his own city, as these peaceful disciples of islam demonstrate their disapproval of art. 

Fear of the inevitable attempts to attack the production, it's actors and spectators, just as the workers at Charlie Hebdo had rightly feared.

And this is not only about what happens in 'other' countries, the Danish already know what cartoon rage leads to, when the pious are aroused from their peaceful slumber by the banshee wailing from their minarets and mullahs.

So Free Speech loses? 

Yes, but not because this production was shelved to save lives and property, but because the real reasons were hidden, denied and lied about.

We all suffer bullying at some stage in our lives, when a stronger person or institution, takes advantage of that strength to hurt or intimidate us, but it is not the act of being bullied that makes us victims, we become victimized when we are afraid to speak out and denounce the bully, it is then that the behaviour continues and increases.

Any responsible manager must take the safety of their patrons and the society in which they function, seriously, and if that means not staging a play like this, then so be it. But to not state why the decision was made is inexcusable: to pretend that criticism of islam has not become a de facto offence, even in the 'free' West, is duplicitous and cowardly.

Those who believe that, despite the inevitable loss of life, the play should have been staged anyway as a defence of Free Speech, might want to think again.

Imagine the play had been performed, the ensuing furore and mayhem would not cause outrage against the perpetrators but rather, as in Garland Texas, the victims would again be blamed for inciting muslims and insulting their prophet. The calls would not be for muslims to accept Western values, but rather for believers in freedom and democracy to adopt their heathen practices and prejudices, and abandon our faith in favour of their lack of it. 

In this world of the absurd, where criticising murder, rape, child molestation and slavery, is termed blasphemy, the pressure to enforce that version of insanity would grow exponentially.

In short, the end result would more likely be legislation to hasten the death of free speech, rather than defend it.

Our way of life is already scarred and damaged, but simply scratching those wounds risks mortally spreading the infection. It is more important now to choose which battlefield and where to deal with those who would cause such harm to us: the Muslim Brotherhood and it's myriad of associates and front groups; the well-meaning but mischievously naive liberals and the compromised and colluded Left.


But it gets worse because, as they were making their ignorant stand for self-censorship in one part of Copenhagen, just across town preparations are being finalized to stage a different art exhibition entirely, where muslim murderers of the innocent are portrayed as martyrs. 

So it seems this is not about denying freedom of expression, it's about taking sides.

And why are these alternative exhibition organisers not afraid that idealising such killers as representatives of a 'peaceful religion' will cause riots and more murders? 

Because World History shows, that the only people stupid enough to believe that islam is a religion of peace, are the ones about to fall victim to it's 'peacefulness'. 

France: Flames of coincidence or collaboration?

With only three weeks until Euro 2016 kicks off in Paris on June 10th the French police might rightly expect to be fine-tuning their emergency response procedures, gathering intelligence, and otherwise preparing for what will undoubtedly be a prime target for islamic terror.

They might not, though, expect to be caught up in running battles with, and attempted murder by, the very population that they may soon be defending with their own lives.

Since the revolution of 1789, the French have had a long and proud history of street protest and disruption, so it is no surprise that any attempt to reform their complex labour laws would inevitably fill the avenues and boulevards with angry and vociferous citizens and there is no need for conspiracy theorists to bother themselves with complex interpretations of recent events.

But there is a bigger picture here, and one that needs exposure.

As the first pieces of wreckage from flight MS804 are being recovered, the reason for it's demise is still unclear and may not even be terrorist related, but the fact that it was destroyed only three hours after leaving Paris, should at least remind the French of just what they are facing, and of the ruthless cruelty of those plotting against them.

We know that islamic jihad and the hard left are kindred spirits in their wish to destroy Western civility and tolerance, but could they really be in league to the extent that they would join in an operation to disrupt our security preparations and diminish our representatives' ability [I say this as a European], to defend us and save our lives?

The people of France should be asking themselves in whose interests these violent gangs are acting?

Let's take a quick 'What / If' scenario:-

Imagine that in one of these violent hotspots, a masked jihadi leaps from the crowd, then waving a machete and screaming ali akbar or (whatever it is they scream to their malevolent deity), he proceeds to hack and swipe at some bleeding policeman, before retreating among his fellow 'protesters'.

Would they feel threatened by his run towards them and part in horror, even assisting with his capture, or would they surround and shield him and assist his escape?

Only a fool would deny that numbers of the latter are active in these demonstrations.

In the same way that there were enablers of the previous fascist occupation of France, there will be those who, through fear or ambition, choose to aid and abet the current invasion, just as there will be those who won't.

Vive La Résistance

UK: the BBCs long road to mediocracy

When the BBC proudly announces that it has:-

• A new mission statement for the BBC: "To act in the public interest, serving all audiences with impartial, high-quality and distinctive media content and services that inform, educate and entertain."

We are bound to ask, so whose interests have they been serving all this time?

As a recipient of direct taxation, the Corporation has always been vulnerable to government interference and pressure, but since the Thatcher regime threatened it's survival, it's dismal decline has continued unabated.

The Falklands War, years of conflict in Northern Ireland, the destruction of British manufacturing, were all issues which it could not be seen to be impartial on, and was left in no doubt what was expected, and what the consequences of dissent would be.

For an organization which prided itself as a trusted provider of News around the world, the collapse of USSR was probably the last time that BBC had a clear purpose.

What we have now is a confused mouthpiece of government policy, a 'cultural icon' in a multicultural society, when most British people don't know what it means to be British any more.

Another laudable function of the new charter:-

• The BBC will be required to give "greater focus to underserved audiences, in particular those from black, Asian and ethnic minority backgrounds and from the nations and regions which are currently less well served".

This, at a time when each and every culture is represented on terrestrial and cable TV, satellite and on-line, as never before.

The irony is that those 'underserved audiences' are mostly watching their preferences elsewhere while the ones providing the licence fee are finding their own culture subsumed and subordinated for the benefit of a largely non-paying and non-existent viewer.

EU: Democracy in action

France rejects TTIP - for now at least.

Francois Hollande has made a fairly firm statement on the unacceptability of the expansion of US legislation, or lack of it, into Europe.

This comes less than three months after he urged Mr Obama to speed up the process, so what's changed?

Well, we now have more information about just how destructive to Europe this 'deal' would be, and President Holland is already about as unpopular as it's possible to be, so Democracy wins, maybe.

But this issue has raised some important considerations.

Firstly, TTIP is not yet gone completely, and there are many ways that a 'compromise' deal could be presented to fool the unwary into accepting the bulk of what has already been negotiated and we neither need nor want.

Secondly, the secrecy with which this monstrous manifest was compiled, proves that both parties knew it was little short of a criminal conspiracy and would be steadfastly rejected by the people of Europe, if it's contents were ever revealed.

Thirdly, Democracy is supposed to prevent things like this from happening at all, not be the last resort of defence against them, and we should wonder, if Hollande were not held in such low esteem by his electorate, would he have risked the displeasure of his American sponsors by coming out against the deal in this way?

Fourthly, and perhaps most importantly of all, would he have voiced his dissent if Greenpeace had not leaked details of what the EU were negotiating? I doubt it and this highlights just how ineffective Democracy is without freedom of information, investigation and exposure of wrongdoing, which used to be more succinctly called a free press, but we waved goodbye to that luxury some time ago.

So Democracy triumphs, sort of, but I guess any victory, however small, is to be welcomed.