Aside from the sources that reported these stories, the mainstream media largely ignored them all — of course.
5. France: Muslims sue satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo for blasphemy
An organization calling itself the League of Judicial Defence of Muslims (LDJM) has brought suit against Charlie Hebdo in the city of Strasbourg for its edition headlined: “The Koran is s–t – it doesn’t stop bullets.” They picked Strasbourg because, uniquely in the secular republic, it has a blasphemy law – a hangover of its periods of German rule.
This is not the first time Charlie Hebdo has offended Islamic-supremacist sensibilities. The International Business Times (which scrupulously avoids causing offense to the poor dears itself by punctiliously referring to Muhammad as “the Prophet,” although I doubt it would ever refer to “the Lord Jesus Christ”) reported:
In November 2011, the paper’s office in Paris was fire-bombed and its website hacked. The attacks were linked to its decision to rename a special edition “Charia Hebdo” (Sharia Hebdo) with the Prophet Mohammed listed as editor-in-chief. The magazine was attacked by hackers again in September 2012, after it published cartoons caricaturing the Prophet Mohammed.
The name of the group bringing the suit, however, is a misnomer. For in fact, no Muslims were actually harmed by Charlie Hebdo, and no Muslims need any defense from it. No Muslims were physically injured by its Qur’an edition or other issues mocking Islam and Muhammad; no Muslims lost their jobs; no Muslims were discriminated against or harassed. Some Muslims may be offended by the magazine’s poking fun at the Qur’an and Muhammad, but that is the price of living in a pluralistic society: everyone has to put up with people who have values and priorities that differ from one’s own.
Ideally, this can be done in peace, and without one group attempting to assert hegemony over the others. But that is exactly what the League of Judicial Defence of Muslims is trying to do: impose Sharia blasphemy laws upon the rest of France.
4. Dearborn: Muslim at city council meeting calls for Sharia patrols, restriction on free speech
Arab American News reported that at a Dearborn city council meeting last week, “a local Arab American took the podium to address concerns he had with the city.” After “referencing Prophet Muhammad and loudly chanting Islamic prayers,” this man “said that the city needed to monitor neighborhood parks around the clock because people have been using them to conduct sexual activities,” and,
also stated that there were magazines and newspapers at the public libraries and civic center that can “cause colossal damage to a child’s health,” asking the city to review and monitor literature before they are distributed.
In other words, he was calling for morals police akin to the Sharia police who make peoples’ lives miserable in Saudi Arabia, and for Sharia restrictions on the freedom of speech. The council members appear to have received this man’s appeals with some impatience. However, make no mistake: there will be many more incidents like this, with calls for the implementation of Sharia morals police and Sharia restrictions on the freedom of speech growing louder and more insistent. And then city councils and other governing bodies will be forced either to articulate and implement a defense of Western principles of free expression, or capitulate. Right now the latter looks much more likely.
3. Lawyers for Boston jihad murderer ask judge to lift his prison restrictions
The Associated Press reported Friday that “lawyers for Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev are again asking a federal judge to lift special restrictions that have been placed on their client in prison, saying they are impeding their defense.” Prosecutors counter that “the restrictions, known as special administrative measures, are necessary because of the suspect’s ‘commitment to jihad.’”
Indeed. Tsarnaev is manifestly dangerous. What’s more, he already gets catered halal meals (plus the Qur’an and other Islamic texts) in prison. But even all that isn’t enough, as far as his lawyers are concerned, and given the tendency in the mainstream media to blame the U.S. for jihad attacks, parroting the jihadist tendency to justify all their murders by reference to lists of grievances, maybe law enforcement authorities should just end this poor dear’s suffering, let him out of prison and issue an apology to him for offending Islam and thereby driving him to attack the Boston Marathon.
2. Media remains mum on Norwegian mass murderer’s claim he wanted to destroy counter-jihad movement
The Daily Beast noted on the same day that Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik had last month “released a letter to the international media indicating that he had intentionally portrayed himself as a counterjihadist and Zionist in order to trick the media into attacking these very people and to cover up his true allegiance to ‘nordicists’ and ‘ethnocentric nationalists’ (i.e. neo-Nazis).” Yet “in contrast with the heavily covered Playstation 3 letter, this prior one received little to no coverage in the American press beyond a Wall Street Journal article focusing on Breivik’s allegations of inhumane prison conditions.”
This universal silence from the same journalistic outlets that feared to reprint the Muhammad cartoons when they were the focus of international Muslim riots shows a pattern of capitulation to Sharia sensibilities. This silence on Breivik’s complete repudiation of what was universally described in the mainstream media as the cause and motive of his murders manifests the media’s sinister agenda: the objective was never to uncover the facts surrounding Breivik’s heinous murders. It was just to discredit the counter-jihad movement. And for that, Anders Behring Breivik has already served his purpose. At this point, he is no longer useful. He will only get publicity for his ridiculous eccentricities, such as demanding a Playstation 3, but not for anything that would contradict the mainstream media agenda.
1. New Jersey judge rules that the NYPD didn’t discriminate against Muslims with counter-terror surveillance
The news was not all bad. On Thursday in Newark, U.S. District Judge William Martini ruled that the New York Police Department was not guilty of discriminating against Muslims when it conducted surveillance of mosques and Muslims in Newark and elsewhere in New Jersey.
This lawsuit was a craven attempt to end NYPD counter-terror efforts – an effort that not coincidentally coincided perfectly with the Sharia provision forbidding criticism of Islam, particularly from non-Muslims. If this suit had succeeded, it would have given a green light to Islamic jihad activity, with the NYPD handcuffed and unable to do anything to stop jihad terror plots.
Judge Martini ruled in favor of common sense: “The police could not have monitored New Jersey for Muslim terrorist activities without monitoring the Muslim community itself. … The motive for the program was not solely to discriminate against Muslims, but to find Muslim terrorists hiding among the ordinary law-abiding Muslims.” AP suffered a blow with this decision as well: they disclosed the surveillance in order to bring an end to it. They failed.
One thing, however, is certain: Islamic supremacists and their allies in the mainstream media will try again, and again, and again, until they get the outcome they want, while free people stand by on the eroding bank of their freedoms and refrain from getting involved in anything “controversial.”