British Press Denies European Ruling: Quarter Pounder is more Offensive than Islamic Terrorism

I admit I’m taking *some* liberty with the title of my post. But it’s funny because, in essence, it’s true. The European Union attempted to pressure the British to deny the Islamic nature of most terrorist events. France caved into Islam a long time ago. They may have had the guts to force the Quarter Pounder to be renamed in order to protect French culture from the Americans who twice saved them during world wars, but they won’t defend France today from an Islamic conquest.

Enough of my going off on a tangent… The original article from The Gatestone Institute is all about the British Press standing up for truth against a European ruling aimed at denying Islamic terrorism: “This is the moment where hate speech laws become a greater threat to democracy and freedom of speech than hate speech itself. In France, Muslim terrorists are never Muslim terrorists, but “lunatics,” “maniacs” and “youths”. To attack freedom of the press and freedom of speech is not anti-hate speech; it is submission.

By following these [European Union] recommendations, the British government would place Muslim organizations in a kind of monopoly position: they would become the only source of information about themselves. It is the perfect totalitarian information order. Created to guard against the kind of xenophobic and anti-Semitic propaganda that gave rise to the Holocaust, national hate speech laws have increasingly been invoked to criminalize speech that is merely deemed insulting to one’s race, ethnicity, religion, or nationality. It is disturbing to wonder how long the EU will strongly engage its experts and influence to cut through existing legal obstacles, in a quest to criminalize any type of criticism of Islam, and to submit to the values of jihad.

According the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) — part of the Council of Europe — the British press is to blame for increasing hate speech and racist violence. On October 4, 2016, the ECRI released a report dedicated only to Britain. The report said: “some traditional media, particularly tabloids… are responsible for most of the offensive, discriminatory and provocative terminology. The Sun, for instance, published an article in April 2015 entitled “Rescue boats? I’d use gunships to stop migrants…” The Sun newspaper has also published inflammatory anti-Muslim headlines, such as its front page of 23 November 2015 which read “1 in 5 Brit Muslims’ sympathy for jihadis”, along with a picture of a masked terrorist wielding a knife… The ECRI report establishes a direct causal link between some tough headlines in British tabloids and the security of the Muslims in the UK.

In other words, the British press is allegedly inciting readers to commit “Islamophobic” acts against Muslims. ECRI considers that, in light of the fact that Muslims are increasingly under the spotlight as a result of recent ISIS-related terrorist acts around the world, fueling prejudice against Muslims shows a reckless disregard, not only for the dignity of the great majority of Muslims in the United Kingdom, but also for their safety. ECRI is basing its report on a recent study from Matthew Feldman, Professor at Teesside University. This study compiled anti-Muslim incidents before and after terrorist’s attacks. ‘In the seven days prior to the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris, where 12 people were killed, there were 12 reported (anti Muslim) incidents, but in the seven days following, there were 45. This pattern was similar in relation to the terror attacks in Sydney, in December and Copenhagen, in February.’

So, according to the ECRI and scholars of Teesside University, when Muslim jihadists murder people and the press reports that killers are Muslims, the press, and not Islamists, is encouraging “Islamophobic incidents” in Britain. According to ECRI Chair Christian Ahlund, “It is no coincidence that racist violence is on the rise in the UK at the same time as we see worrying examples of intolerance and hate speech in the newspapers, online and even among politicians.” [Yes, blame those reporting the truth – don’t blame the true facts – that the religion encourages jihad and terrorism. Learn nothing from Orwell's 1984.]

For the ECRI, the biggest problem is: “… where the media stress the Muslim background of perpetrators of terrorist acts, and devote significant coverage to it, the violent backlash against Muslims is likely to be greater than in cases where the perpetrators’ motivation is downplayed or rejected in favour of alternative explanations.” The report does not explain what could be “alternative explanations.” But we can find examples in French press: when a Muslim attacks a soldier and tries to take his gun, he is not an Islamist terrorist, but a “lunatic.” Such attacks by “lunatics” are very common in France. The French press downplays attacks by deciding not to name Muslim perpetrators: incriminating a “Mohamed” could, in the minds of French journalists, incite retaliations against Muslims.

In another example, Muslim gangs cannot be connected to any form of violence, so they become “youths.” In France, Muslim terrorists are never Muslim terrorists, but “lunatics”, “maniacs” and “youths.” [The French, and many others in Europe, are committing national suicide. The French, who value their culture so much that they fight off American cultural influence whenever possible (apparently a quarter-pounder is more offensive to the French than Islamic terrorism) have already caved in to the idea that the continent of Europe has a future dominated by Islam. Charles Martel is rolling over in his grave.]

“But that is France. In Britain, tabloids are not so polite, and they understand perfectly the intentions of the ECRI report: to ban the word “Muslim” when it is associated with “violence or terrorism.” The ECRI Report Marks a U-Turn in Free Speech This is the moment where hate speech laws become a greater threat to democracy and freedom of speech than the hate speech itself. Prohibiting journalists from naming “Islamic terrorism,” and encouraging them to hide the association of Muslims with terrorism, is an attempt to misrepresent the truth in the same way the former Soviet Union censored the truth.

Taking advantage of some real racist articles in tabloids — not many, because not many are quoted in the report — to attack freedom of the press and freedom of speech is not anti-hate speech; it is submission. The proof of submission lies in ECRI’s recommendations to the British government: “establish an independent press regulator”; “rigorous training for journalists to ensure better compliance with ethical standards”; “review the provisions on incitement to hatred with a view to making them more effective and usable”; “establish a real dialogue with Muslims in order to combat Islamophobia. They should consult them on all policies which could affect Muslims”; amending the Editor’s Code of Practice to ensure that members of groups can submit complaints as victims against biased or prejudicial reporting concerning their community”

By following these recommendations, the British government would place Muslim organizations in a kind of monopoly position: they would become the only source of information about themselves. It is the perfect totalitarian information order. If a breach of that kind would open in the future, no doubt all the lobbies would rush into the breach: political parties, Protestants, Catholics, Jews, multinationals, everyone. The British government did not fall into the trap, and firmly rebuffed ECRI’s demands. It told the European council body: “The Government is committed to a free and open press and does not interfere with what the press does and does not publish, as long as the press abides by the law.” [Kudos to British sensibility for once!]

“In Great Britain, and in all countries of European Union, anti-hate laws already exist. Created to guard against the kind of xenophobic and anti-Semitic propaganda that gave rise to the Holocaust, national hate speech laws have increasingly been invoked to criminalize speech that is merely deemed insulting to one’s race, ethnicity, religion, or nationality. These laws have also been invoked often by Islamists to sue against anti-Islamist speech (cartoons of Muhammad, blasphemy against Islam, etc.) as manifestations of “racism” — fortunately with little success. Most court cases that Islamists have initiated have failed because Islam is not a race.”

Read even more at the full original article here https://warsclerotic.com/2016/11/18/european-union-orders-british-press-not-to-report-when-terrorists-are-muslims/ In summary, the official European theory is that reporting the Islamic nature of a terrorist event causes a backlash against Muslims – and that the Islamic terrorism itself does not. Some theories are just wrong. Even in my own books, no matter how much evidence I had pointing in one direction, I was wrong about the significance of June 6. We all get things wrong sometimes. But my errors in timing the fulfillment of a prophecy won’t destroy a continent. European denial of Islamic terrorism (reminds me of Obama) is leading to cultural suicide for France, Sweden, Germany, Denmark, and many other European nations falling to the sword.

.