Since London Bridge Attack, London Police Arrest More People For "Hate Crimes" Than for Terrorism

Tweet

Police "Hate Crime" Table, June, 2016

The London Metropolitan Police announced today that they had arrested 25 people for "hate crimes" since the London Bridge attack. That's far more than they have arrested for terrorism.

Indeed, they state that they have "increased the number of officers on the streets and in communities" for the purpose of identifying hate crimes, as well as directing more resources to encourage mosques and other Muslim bodies to report them.

They do not state the nature of these hate crimes, nor do they confirm that they were all or mostly directed at Muslims. Logically, they could be anything from yelling a racial slur at someone before beating them up to making a Muslim/goat joke on Facebook, or even merely claiming in public that, say, Islam is a dangerous and wicked ideology - the official position of this blog, by the way.

A few days after the Manchester attack, police broke up a garden party. A policewomen called in reinforcements (including a helicopter) after hearing an anti-Osama Bin Laden played on the stereo. Not an anti-Muslim song, but an anti-Bin Laded song.

Needless to say, this is more evidence that the official response to the recent terror attacks in the UK is more of the same thinking that brought on the bloody crisis in the first place - coddling hostile Muslim communities while attacking those who rightly perceive Islam as a threat.

It's as if after the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt had bragged about how many people he had arrested for harboring anti-Japanese thoughts.

Statement from Chief Superintendent Dave Stringer, Head of Community Engagement for the Metropolitan Police, about hate crime in the Capital:

“The Met is committed to tackling hate crime in all its forms.

“Year on year we are seeing an increase in all areas of hate crime. This is due to a range of factors - a growing willingness of victims to report hate crime, an overall improved awareness of staff in identifying these offences, and work with partners to support victims. However, we also know world events can also contribute to a rise in hate crime.

“Since Saturday evening's attacks, we have increased the number of officers on the streets and in communities to reassure local people that they are able to go about their daily lives in peace and without fear of harassment or intimidation. Dedicated ward officers have also made contact with their local places of worship to encourage them to report hate crimes and to reassure those who congregate there that the police will take these crimes seriously. The Metropolitan Police has made 25 arrests for hate crime offences since Saturday. 

“Following the terrorist incidents in Europe in recent years, we have anticipated that similar incidents in the UK may lead to a greater need to support those communities that are more vulnerable to becoming victims of hate crime, and we have taken action accordingly.

“We have increased the number of hate crime liaison officers who are a single point of contact for all those who need support after reporting a hate crime and we have introduced an Online Hate Crime Hub to tackle hate crime on social media.

“All hate crimes are reviewed by a Detective Inspector and the MPS has also increased specialist investigators within the 32 London borough community safety units by 30 per cent, with more than 900 specialist members of staff dedicated to investigating all hate crime and domestic abuse crimes.

“We have long since recognised the impact of hate crime on communities and the hidden nature of this crime, which remains largely under-reported. The MPS stands together with policing partners, colleagues and groups to investigate all hate crime allegations, support victims and their families, and bring perpetrators to justice.

“We would appeal to anyone who witnesses or suffers any hate of any type to immediately report it so that action can quickly be taken and catch those responsible.”

Hate Crime can be reported through 999 in an emergency, by dialling 101 in a non-emergency, directly at a police station, through the MOPAC Hate Crime app or through community reporting methods such as Tell MAMA, Galop, or the CST.

BREAKING: Canadian Parliament Passes Anti-Islamophobia Motion, 201 to 91

Tweet

Iqra Khalid: The smiling face of hate

Faith Goldy of Rebel Media quipped that Canadian Liberal MP, Iqra Khalid, loves her country of birth (Pakistan) so much, she wants to bring its blasphemy laws to Canada.

It was a foregone conclusion that the "anti-Islamophobia" motion - known to all Canadians as "M103" - would pass, but it is notable that it is still opposed my most Canadians. Speaking of Islamophobia, Canadian Liberals and even many Conservatives seem to be more afraid of losing political support from Muslims and their leftist allies than losing the support of ordinary Canadians.

Here's Goldy at Rebel Media:

And here's David Akin at the National Post:

MPs pass M-103 Thursday even as new poll says most Canadians would vote down anti-Islamophobia motion 

OTTAWA – The House of Commons voted Thursday afternoon to condemn “Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination” but the vote for the controversial M-103 was not unanimous. 

Liberals, New Democrats, and Green Party MP Elizabeth May were in favour; most Conservative and all Bloc Quebecois MPs were opposed. 

The vote was 201 for and 91 against. 

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Finance Minister Bill Morneau and four other cabinet ministers were absent. 

NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair was present — he voted in favour — as was interim Conservative leader MP Rona Ambrose, who was opposed. 

It was a free vote, meaning MPs did not have to follow a party line, and two Conservative MPs voted in favour: leadership candidate Michael Chong and Ontario MP Bruce Stanton. 

The motion was proposed by Iqra Khalid, a first-time MP representing a Mississauga, Ont. riding. In addition to the resolution condemning Islamophobia, it asks the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to study the issue of “eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia;” and calls on the federal government collect data on hate crimes for further study. 

“Our country is very diverse,” Khalid said after the vote. “I think that we need to continue to build those bridges amongst Canadians, and this is just one way that we can do this, by really understanding the issue and really listening to what Canadians have to say. I’m really looking forward to the track that the Canadian Heritage Committee takes on this.” 

Meanwhile a new poll released Thursday suggests that if the vote on M-103 was up to most Canadians, it would fail. 

Pollster Angus Reid Institute asked 1,511 Canadians, “if you were a a Member of Parliament, how would you vote on this motion (M-103)” and found that 42 per cent would vote against it; 29 per cent would vote in favour and 29 per cent were not sure or would have abstained. 

In debate earlier this week, Conservative MPs endorsed the sentiment but objected to the wording of the motion in the belief that it could lead to the suppression of speech rights. 

“The word ‘Islamophobia’ can be used to mean both discrimination against Muslims and criticism of Islamic doctrine or practice. It is important that we not conflate the two – religious people deserve legal protection, but religions do not,” Conservative MP Garnett Genuis said during a Commons debate Tuesday night. “People should not discriminate against individuals, but should feel quite free to criticize the doctrine, history, or practice of any religion.” 

Liberals, including Khalid, maintain that the motion would in no way infringe on speech rights and would instead be a powerful symbol of solidarity with Muslim Canadians. 

“Motion No. 103 serves as a catalyst for Canadians to speak out against discrimination and be heard where they may not have been heard before,” Khalid said on Tuesday. 

Khalid’s motion changes no existing laws nor does it create any new laws.
And yet, the Angus Reid poll finds that three in 10 of those surveyed believed Khalid’s motion is, in fact, “a threat to Canadians’ freedom of speech.” 

Angus Reid found male survey respondents strongly disapproved of M-103 while female survey respondents were split. Among men, 50 per cent would vote down M-103 while 27 per cent would vote in favour. Among women, 34 per cent would vote to reject, 31 per cent would vote in favour and 36 per cent were unsure or would abstain. 

The pollster ran the online survey from March 13 to March 17. A margin of error could not be calculated because the survey participants were not drawn from a random sample. That said, a random sample of 1,511 Canadian adults would produce a margin of error of 2.5 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Austrian Woman Denies Holocaust on Facebook. Police then Search Her House and Find Nazi Slogan affixed to Her Toilet. She is Fined $1,280 and Given a Suspended Sentence. However, Police Don't Release Her Name Due to the Country's Privacy Laws.

Tweet

"Excuse me, can we use your bathroom?"

Mahound's Paradise is not in favor of Holocaust denial.

We think it's ignorant, irrational and potentially hateful - if that term still has any meaning after years of abuse by the left.

But we also believe it's silly and dangerous to make it illegal.

Germany and Austria had a legitimate reason to censor pro-Nazi sentiments after the war, but that time has long past.

And of course, against the background of the Islamification of Europe, where a raid on literally any mosque would turn up nasty anti-semitic literature, and where Jews are being driven out of their neighborhoods not by Nazis but Muslims - who have in practice been enthusiastically invited in by European governments - prosecuting a naive, non-violent 53-year-old German woman for "pro-Nazi" sympathies is pretty misdirected and sick.

But what got me, of course, was the clincher: after the police search her house and charge her for a small sign displayed on her own toilet, they then do not release her name due to privacy laws.

From the Jewish Press, February 20:

Austrian Woman Fined for Denying Holocaust in Bathroom

A court in Feldkirch, Austria, on Friday fined a woman $1,280 and gave her a suspended jail sentence for calling the Holocaust “lies” and placing a pro-Nazi sign above her toilet, AP reported. The woman accused of “spreading lies” a German soccer club that commemorated the victims of Auschwitz on its Facebook page. Police then searched her house and discovered the sign in her toilet. However, according to AP, because of Austria’s privacy laws police did not release her name.

And here is the story in The Local:

'Hitlerine' who denied Holocaust given suspended jail sentence

A woman who denied that the Holocaust took place and displayed a sign over her toilet saying “This Hitlerine needs a clean latrine” has been found guilty of breaking Austria’s anti-Nazi law and given a seven month suspended jail sentence.

A court in the western city of Feldkirch in Vorarlberg also handed the 53-year-old a €1,200 fine.

The woman was charged after she criticized a Facebook posting made by a German football club commemorating the liberation of the Auschwitz death camp and paying homage to the victims. In a response, she accused the club of “spreading lies”.

An anonymous internet user tipped off the police, who searched the woman’s house and found the sign in the toilet.

It is illegal in Austria to praise the Nazi era or to deny its crimes.

The woman’s lawyer described her as a “simple housewife” who had never heard of Austria’s Prohibition Act.

The woman, who has not been named, said she regretted the comments she made online, and that she had been misinformed about the Holocaust after watching a TV documentary. She added that the sign in the toilet was “just a joke”.

Anti-Milo "Pedophile" Hit Piece Was From Never Trump PAC

Tweet

The left hates Milo Yiannopoulos. Many will do anything to stop him from writing and speaking, including using physical violence, as we saw recently in Berkeley.

I don't think anyone on the right hates Milo. A few do not like him. Some are uncomfortable with him. Many are skeptical or at least neutral.

However, there is a large contingent on the right that hates Donald Trump. Call them (as they like calling themselves), "principled conservatives."

A few days ago, some principled conservatives decided to get back at Donald Trump by trying to ruin the career of Milo Yiannopoulos.

That doesn't sound very principled or conservative, does it?

It doesn't even really make sense.

Or to put it more strongly: what sort of foul excuses for human beings would involve themselves in an effort as nasty and sick as that?

From Gateway Pundit:

On Sunday a #NeverTrump website called the Reagan Battalion released shocking audio of Milo Yiannopolous allegedly promoting sex with 13 year-olds. The audio was a clip from a 3 hour long podcast interview Milo had in early 2016.

Obviously, the Reagan Battalion was out to get Milo.

And they did.

Around noon on Monday CPAC announced Milo would no longer be speaking at their conference this year. [And later that day, Simon & Schuster canceled Milo's upcoming book Dangerous, even though it had been trending at #1 on Amazon through pre-orders.]

The Reagan Battalion – a group that pretends to be conservative – then gloated at the news that they had helped end Milo’s career.

The Gateway Pundit goes on to identify Reagan Battalion as a Never Trump PAC that served wholly or in large part to promote the Quixotic anti-Trump candidacy of Evan McMullin.

And indeed, the "About" tab on their Facebook page yields this URL:

www.stopdonaldtrumppac.com

Here is Reagan Battalion's gloat:

The blurb is telling. They don't even explicitly mention the "pedophilia" allegations. Instead they accuse Yiannopoulos of making "anti-semitic and hateful comments," and "spreading hateful views." In the manner of the most illiberal SJW they praise free speech but then claim that "hate, racism and intolerance" should not be given a "platform."

They might as well have put on their leather and bashed Milo's head in with a metal pipe.

But the last sentence reveals that it wasn't really about Milo after all:

This incident is proof that thorough vetting is required by conservative entities before they decide to elevate and promise (sic) people as conservative standard bearers.

Gee, who do you think they're really talking about there?

They couldn't touch Trump. He won, after all. So in a kind of hissy fit, they decided to go after Milo in an attempt to prove their stupid point about Trump.

Somehow, I doubt Ronald Reagan would have thought very much of Reagan Battalion or their tactics.

And by tactics, I mean lynching people.

But then, maybe I don't understand principled conservatism.

In Pakistan, the Bloggers are Disappearing

Tweet

Waqas Goraya, Salman Haider and Asim Saeed have reappeared

Mohammed Hanif is a Pakistani-born journalist and novelist, and a regular contributor to the New York Times op-ed page. He is a self-proclaimed "moderate Muslim," although his self-deprecating, often ironic style makes one skeptical of taking anything that he says about himself at full face value. He currently lives in Pakistan, having returned to the country of his birth in 2008. There, as Hanif himself points out, being declared an apostate or blasphemer can in effect be a death sentence. When others compared him to Salman Rushdie, he shrugged it off, claiming that he wasn't brave enough.

I highly recommend reading some of his opinions.

The following, published in The New York Times yesterday, is a relatively straight piece. It details how dissident Pakistani bloggers are disappearing in the hundreds - almost certainly kidnapped by the authorities. Many of them have subsequently reappeared, but in Hanif's words, they are changed...

The Disappeared, Pakistan

By Mohammed Hanif, February 6, 2017.

KARACHI, Pakistan — Every few weeks I get a phone call or text message informing me that yet another journalist, political activist or someone hyperactive on social media has gone missing. From past experience I know that they have most likely been picked up by one of the secret agencies. I also know that when they return they’ll be changed people.

When they disappear, they are opinionated and noisy; they believe their 800-word op-ed or their Facebook post or the poem that went viral will change the world. When they return, they have become the sort of people who will say, it was nice knowing you, why don’t you shut up and go away?

It’s as if they weren’t abducted by the state and kept in a dungeon or a safe house, probably interrogated, in some cases tortured, and always threatened. It’s like they went to some rehab program from which they have come back fully reformed and compliant.

In the past year, hundreds of political activists in Karachi have been picked up, and some renounced their loyalties upon their return. They leave the country if they can; otherwise, they try to become unquestioning citizens. Maybe they are right. What good has ever come of talking about state abduction and torture and solitary confinement?

A number of character flaws can make you a missing person. Maybe you have not cursed India enough for its atrocities in Kashmir. Maybe you belong to a religious militant group. Maybe you are too fond of questioning the army’s role in the country’s affairs. Maybe you criticize the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, a grand network of roads and bridges that is supposed to transform our fortunes. Or maybe you just protest too much about other missing persons.

Five social-media activists disappeared recently. They were little known outside their own social-media bubbles. They were gone for almost three weeks, and during their absence, a slew of tweets and pro-army Facebook pages claimed that some of them had been posting material that insulted our religion.

Blasphemy is a killer charge. Any word or action that is seen to cause offense to any religious group — in fact, anything construed as insulting a religious figure — can make you an open target for religious zealots. Calling someone a blasphemer is a blood sport.

Pakistan’s interior minister went on record to discourage such accusations against the five missing activists. But these charges have built-in momentum. Once accused of blasphemy you can’t really ward that off: How do you defend yourself against a charge that can’t be repeated in public? What exactly is it that you didn’t do?

Imagine getting released after a few weeks in a dungeon and re-entering the world only to see people on national television demanding your head and religious parties on street corners waiting to lynch you. First, you were disappeared by the state; then when you are released, you feel forced to disappear from public life.

It’s not just that the state is stifling dissent; it’s also making everyone wonder: Have I crossed the line? Where was that line? How come that other person crossed every line of decency and still has a TV show?

And it’s not only the state and its intelligence agencies waging war on common sense; the media and other civil institutions are as well.

Aamir Liaquat Hussain, one of Pakistan’s leading television preachers, has turned into a political analyst and in a series of nightly programs, accused the missing activists of having committed blasphemy. Then he said they had defected to India. Then he singled out a number of Pakistani journalists who had spoken out for the missing, and accused them, too, of blasphemy. Mr. Hussain has worked for almost all the major channels, usually as one of their top earners. He puts lives in danger, and media owners bid for him.

ARY Network, a Pakistani TV station, recently lost a libel suit in Londonbrought by a rival it had accused of committing blasphemy and being an Indian agent. Its defense in court: Nobody really takes our TV anchor seriously.

Never mind that when one journalist accuses another of blasphemy, he only exposes himself more to being targeted for the same thing.

A journalist friend recently told me about being picked up and taken to a safe house for a so-called debrief about his work. Three good, patriotic men from an intelligence agency told him they knew everything about his children’s school, his wife’s job, his father’s career. He was told that there were two kinds of troublemakers in this country: foreign agents and fools.

“We have seen your bank accounts and you are nobody’s agent. You appear to be a mere fool,” they told him. The message was clear: Stop being a fool. We know which school your kids go to.

I submitted an Urdu translation of one of my novels to a leading publisher a while ago. Through a mutual friend I was asked to change a few things, just to be on the safe side. Nothing was specified. I respectfully inquired what bits I should change. You are intelligent enough, I was told; you live here, you should know.

That’s the scary part, I don’t really know if I am intelligent or a fool.

Mohammed Hanif is the author of the novels “A Case of Exploding Mangoes” and “Our Lady of Alice Bhatti,” and the librettist for the opera “Bhutto.”

Canadian "Islamophobe" Arrested for Online Hate Speech Was in Fact Just a Sarcastic Liberal

Tweet

Hermit Spirit's final tweet

This absurd story could not have been invented, even as parody.

In the wake of the attack on the Quebec City mosque, Canadian authorities are going into high gear to monitor and in some cases arrest those who engage in anti-Muslim "hate speech" online. Canada is already problematic when it comes to free speech, but it looks like things are going to get worse.

Apparently, the Montreal police force is hiring 55 more staff members, in part to police online activity.

On Wednesday, Antonio Padula, 45, got into a twitter fight on the subject of the Quebec City attack, refugees and Islam in general. Later that night, police arrived at his home to arrest him.

Padula was charged with "uttering threats to an individual" and "public incitement of hatred against an identifiable group."

A number of his tweets included references to killing Muslims.

The Crown actually opposed his release on bail but the judge released him anyway, on the condition, among other things, that he wouldn't use the internet. Theoretically, he could receive up to seven years in prison.

Most accounts claim that Padula had an incredulous and shocked attitude throughout the proceedings.

I don't blame him and here's one reason why: If you look at the content of the offending tweets and the context of the full fight, it's very clear that Padula was taking a "pro-refugee" position and arguing against one or more "Islamophobes."

When Padula referred to "killing all refugees at the airport, " "killing innocent Muslims while praying" and so on, he was sarcastically characterizing the alleged views of his opponents!

This would be utterly obvious to anyone even a tad on the brighter side of your average Canadian secret policeman.

Here are some of the tweets:

Padula is a liberal, who from the look of his tweet stream (which is still up), gets into the usual arguments all the time about fake news, Donald Trump, refugees and so on. And he makes the usual liberal accusations against his opponents - they're racists, homophobes, warmongers, etc., This time, when he got into the Twitter argument  with the "Islamophobe" person (that guy could have been me!), he was quick to characterize the person's views (it's not clear how seriously) as potentially murderous.

Too quick.

Now he himself is charged with being a murderous Islamophobe.

As a Catholic, I don't believe in Karma, so I'm going to resist the temptation to mention Karma here. I have seen no evidence that Mr. Padula has ever defended criminalizing "hate speech." Rather, he seems to be in favor of free speech. Or as he put it on twitter a few days ago:

Everyone has the right to be a racist pr*ck.

Mahound's Paradise wishes him well.

Jared Wyand's Last Tweet

Tweet

Twitter just suspended Jared Wyand. It looks like it's probably a permanent ban.

The above was his last tweet.

Irony.

Here's what Wyand wrote on Gab about the suspension:

Now, I wasn't a follower of Wyand and I only vaguely knew his name. I gather that along with the righteous (to me) anti-Islam stuff, there was also unfortunate (to me) anti-Jewish/anti-Zionist conspiracy stuff.

Apologies to Wyand if I am mischaracterizing his views.

But what his particular political views are is beside the point.

The concept of freedom is speech has an ambiguous status among Catholics. I would be the first to acknowledge that we have no absolute God-given right to it, at least in the philosophical or abstract sense.

But that doesn't mean it shouldn't generally or usually be strongly supported, especially now, whether in the political sense represented by the First Amendment, or the social sense exemplified by the American tradition of basic tolerance for those who think or speak differently.

That tradition is of course largely dead.

And if you are among those who helped to kill it or are doing your best now to give it the coup de grace, take the "em" off of Wyand's F-word, above and add a "you" to it. 

Happy Friday

Obama Signs Executive Order Banning Fake News

Tweet

The headline of this post is of course a fake news headline. I made it up.

I want to say "fooled ya!" But I probably didn't.

In fact, though, I took the post's header photo from a real fake news story titled "Obama Signs Executive Order Banning the Pledge of Allegiance in Schools Nationwide." It appeared on the real fake news site abcnews.com.

Yes, there is such a thing as real fake news.

As opposed to fake fake news.

Fake news has recently been a burning topic in the media. Even Obama referred to it.

He really did.

It's been identified as a kind of scourge and perhaps the reason why Trump won the election.

Trump voters rely on fake news, you see. Most of us are rural and only got internet hookups a few years ago. Plus it's difficult to operate a computer or at least check sources while clinging to a bible in one hand and a gun in the other.

With me, it's a cocktail and a cigar but still.

Speaking of fake fake news, the whole controversy is actually almost entirely fake.

J.E. Dyer of the conservative website Liberty Unyielding analyzed one of the most prominent fake-news-is-a-scourge stories (from Buzzfeed) and found that if you actually looked at the examples discussed, virtually all of them were cases of perfectly ordinary interpretation or opinion, not fake news in the sense of abcnews.com.

And yes, they were mostly examples of conservative interpretation or opinion.

Now that many sources within the "mainstream" media have been exposed by Wikileaks as clandestinely collaborating with one side in a political election, there's already a counterattack against the rival "alternative" media. And that counterattack is based on lies.

Not interpretation or opinion but lies. Read the Dyer piece or the recent article by Paul Crookston at National Review which comes to essentially the same conclusions.

Is fake news, even real fake news, destroying the integrity of our democracy (or at least what's left of it)? No, but you are very often being lied to.

And not by abc.news.co, whose entire site is one big wink (or at least you'll recognize it as one big wink if you have even slightly more sense than, say, your average Hamilton chorus member).

You know who the liars are.

Don't be fooled.    

Last of the Bimbocans: Hilary Duff Apologizes to Everyone She May Have Offended

Tweet

The actress and singer Hilary Duff went to a Halloween party dressed as a sexy pilgrim. Her companion went as an Indian.

An American Indian of course. And by the way, I'm using the term "Indian" over the more politically correct "Native American" because I think it's annoying and perhaps even discriminatory to saddle an ethnic or social group with a two-word name. Multi-letter acronyms are of course also okay.

If that offends you, that's weird since you're the one who wants to impose on Native Americans a name half derived from a 15th century white Catholic colonialist.

But to get back to the issue at hand, doesn't a Pilgrim-Indian couple symbolize intercultural peace or understanding or something?

No (they explained). It's offensive!

Pussy Panic obviously goes out of her way not to offend people.

Why is it offensive (it's natural to ask)? The only answers I've seen are:

1. Dressing up as as an Indian is intrinsically offensive.
2. Anything publicly Indian is verboten given the current controversy over the Dakota Pipeline.
3. Dressing up as a Pilgrim-Indian couple is offensive because the Pilgrims oppressed the Indians.

The first two are of course insane. As far as 3 is concerned, as a descendent of Pilgrims, I am greatly offended and consider it a Violation of the Terms of Service of, you know, life.

Just kidding. I don't like the Pilgrims much either. Weren't they Lutherans or something?

There is a movement afoot that asserts that dressing up as any "oppressed minority" (the list varies), even in the most neutral, tasteful or respectful manner, is wrong. This is because wearing such a costume illegitimately "appropriates" the culture.

That claim is even more insane.

Since when was merely wearing a costume appropriating anything?

But, for the sake of argument, let's grant the premise. The irony of course, is that the cultures that Thou Shalt not Appropriate tend to be the cultures that Thou Wouldn't Want to Appropriate in a Million Years anyway.

I already know how to play lacrosse.

Okay, that was a low blow, I apologize to all the Native American Nobel Prize winners.

Okay, okay, just kidding, just have some liquor and calm down.

Members of my culture (English WASPS) can handle our liquor very well, thank you. That's because we're all alcoholics.

I'm on my fifth cocktail already.

We're like the Irish but with more money.  

Here is a Native Americans who is not a costume:

And here is the cover from Issue No. 4 of Redskin (1950):

The irony here is that that short-lived "racist" comic treated Indians as, well, people - people who were sometimes heroes as well as villains. Sitting Bull isn't kidnapping the blonde. He's rescuing her. (The "red-devil" is the hook to get boys and girls to buy the mag. Anyway, boys often identify with misunderstood heroes.)

Redskin's Sitting Bull wasn't a victim.

The current haterati-approved view is that the only good Indian is a dork carrying a protest sign.

And they call us racist.

Haterati: the class of people who claim that anyone who disagrees with them on certain points of culture, politics or religion is a hater. 

Here is Hilary Duff's Instagram apology:

See, some non-Indians are also not Nobel prize material.

And here (WARNING: PG Photo below) is a picture of Hilary Duff as a sexy pilgrim, engaging in a sexy quasi-lesbian pose with another sexy pilgrim.

As far as I know, Hilary Duff is not a lesbian. Therefore, by engaging in a quasi-lesbian pose, she is illegitimately appropriating lesbian culture. Or so it would seem. If not, why not?

There is no answer. Or, rather, the answer is this: Rule No. 1, we make the rules, hater.

And why aren't the descendants of the first settlers upset that she is appropriating their culture (in a mini-skirt, but still)?

Sorry to be so flippant. Let me spoil things by ending on a serious note: Why does mainstream American culture appear to believe that donning an Indian costume for Halloween is far more offensive than a weak gin and tonic?

For Drawing This Cartoon, Prominent Jordanian Satirist was Arrested, Then Someone Walked Up and Shot Him in the Head

Tweet

Translation (from The Clarion Project):

In Green: In paradise… 

Allah: “May your evening be joyous, Abu Saleh, do you need anything?” 

Jihadist: “Yes Lord, bring me the glass of wine from other there and tell Jibril [the Angel Gabriel] to bring me some cashews. After that send me an eternal servant to clean the floor and take the empty plates with you.” 

Jihadist continues: “Don’t forget to put a door on the tent so that you knock before you enter next time, your gloriousness.”

Nahed Hattar was a well-known and successful agnostic of Christian origin. Jordan is one of the few majority Muslim countries where that's okay. Or at least sort of okay, as long as you don't push things too far. Apparently, he did.

The cartoon was posted on Hattar's anti-ISIS Facebook page, and then later taken down. The idea is that Jihadists see themselves as above Allah and would try to order even him around in heaven.

But many Muslims saw the cartoon as blasphemous in and of itself - his Allah, parting the curtains of a heavenly harem, looks a bit like that famous Monty Python version parting the clouds. And how dare anyone joke about Allah being ordered around - even if the point of the joke was to make fun not of Allah, but of those committing murder in his name.

After the government authorities announced an "investigation" into his cartoon and then charged him with "instigating strife," Hattar turned himself in.

A few weeks later he was assassinated in broad daylight in front of the Jordanian Supreme Court.

Security forces arrested the gunman, who was apparently an imam.

This is Nahed Hattar before he "blasphemed" Allah.

This is Nahed Hattar after he "blasphemed" Allah.

And here's a charming video of people frantically trying to revive Hattar as his blood drenches everything - on the steps of the Palace of Justice in one of Islam's most "moderate" countries.