You are sending a link to...
Victoria, Australia: 3 Men Charged With "Religious Vilification" After Presenting Dramatic Reminder That Islam Teaches Beheadings and That Some Muslims Do As They Are Taught
They belong to a group known as the "United Patriots Front" who are not known for temperance or subtlety.
Some background, to know why these three blokes have been hauled into court and accused of "religious vilification".
Early in October 2015, after the Bendigo town council had - in the teeth of a good deal of public opposition and protest - approved the building of an enormous new mosque in the town, these three men - Blair Cottrell, Christopher Short, and Neil Erikson - got together outside the council buildings on a Sunday afternoon and staged the mock beheading of a dummy, in order to publicly remind people of one of the nastier aspects of Islamic teaching and - past and present - practice, going all the way back to Mohammed himself who oversaw and approved of mass beheadings of captives, and all the way forward to the present day, whether it be Islamic State, or the beheading of Lee Rigby in London, or the state-approved beheadings in 'Chop Chop Square' in Saudi Arabia every Friday. As the Quran says in chapter 47, verse 4 - "Therefore, when you meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks..." (Yusuf Ali translation). Unfortunately Cottrell and co did not, so far as I know, include this verse - which is one of those traditionally invoked by Muslim beheaders - as part of their clumsy attempt at consciousness-raising.
At the time, after carrying out this confronting bit of street theatre, they explained that the dummy represented "the innocent being mercilessly slaughtered by the faith of Islam". They also explained that they were reacting not only to the approval of the Mosque but to a young Muslim's shooting murder of non-Muslim police accountant Curtis Cheng in Parramatta only a few days prior to their protest. (One may note, by the by, that that young Muslim assassin had obtained his weapon at a mosque and had gone straight from the mosque to the location where he carried out the murder; which goes rather a long way toward explaining just why sane and rational and decent ordinary people might feel just a little uneasy about having yet another mosque in the neighbourhood). One newspaper's account of the proceedings may be read at the following link:
Anyway, our three political dramatists were promptly charged with "religious vilification and behaving in an offensive manner in public", and appeared in court in Melbourne a couple of days ago, at which the usual collection of Useful Idiots got up on their hind legs and shrieked with rage. As reported by Cameron Best for the ABC the other day.
"United Patriots Front Members' Court Appearance Sparks Rally in Melbourne".
'About 50 anti-discrimination activists (who presumably are not the least bit repelled by the real live beheading videos gleefully circulated by Islamic State and any number of other jihad outfits, nor by the bloodthirsty Quran verse I quoted above, nor by the goings-on in Chop Chop Square in Saudi Arabia, nor find it at all disturbing that, five years ago, in a Mohammedan display of rage in central Sydney that was got up to "protest" the making of a very primitive but nevertheless essentially truthful film about Mohammed the warlord's bloody rise to power, a small Mohammedan child was seen parading about with a large placard proclaiming "Behead Those Who Insult the Prophet" - CM) have staged a protest outside the Melbourne Magistrates' Court as three members of an anti-Islam group appeared on religious vilification charges.
It is, apparently, "religious vilification" if you, being an Infidel, publicly "show and tell" - in a manner indicating not approval but disapproval - that Islam commands and permits beheadings and that many Muslims in many times and places have carried out and are still carrying out beheadings in accordance with that teaching. - CM
"Blair Cottrell, Christopher Shortis, and Neil Eriksen of the United Patriots Front (UPF) group have been charged with religious vilification and behaving in an offensive manner in public.
'The charges relate to a mock beheading staged during protests against a Bendigo mosque in 2015.
'Police surrounded the co-accused as they left the court, to prevent contact with the protesters.
'Outside the court, Shortis said that beheading the effigy was an example of free speech.
Their legal team would do well to get in touch with Rev Dr Mark Durie and equip themselves with all the texts - from Sira, Hadiths and Quran - that have inspired Muslim beheaders down through the centuries, as well as with passages from many gleefully-boastful Muslim historians who delight in cataloguing the mass beheadings of subjugated infidels, large numbers of those being unarmed women and children. Which is more offensive, the court should be asked - this picture of a group of infidels drawing attention - by means of street theatre using a plastic knife, a dummy and some fake blood - to a practice explicitly taught by the Quran and practised by many Muslims both in the past and present, or... the practice itself.. (cue the opening seconds of the Islamic State video representing the ritual beheading of 21 unarmed and peaceful Coptic Christians in Libya)? - CM
"We will fight those charges vigorously and, not only that, lawfully", he said. "It was a dramatic, dramatised political statement showing the very practices that exist in Islamic countries today.
"Am I saying that every Muslim is capable of this thing? No, I'm merely attacking the theology of Islam".
'Debbie Brenna from the "Campaign Against Racism and Fascism" group said that the mock beheading was an extremely racist stunt.
Really? What is "racist" about drawing attention to a historic fact, abundantly documented, and to the fact that the founding texts of Islam and the sacralised example of Mohammed establish beheading as an approved method of killing off those who resist or oppose Islam, those who refuse to Submit? Islamic State - and any number of other jihad outfits - are proud of the beheadings they carry out. They skite about them. They put up photos on the internet of their little jihadis-in-training holding up severed heads by the hair. An American journalist, held captive for some time by a Taliban group in Pakistan, observed that the toddler son of one of his captors used to watch... beheading videos! Not Teletubbies, or Playschool, but ... live footage, real footage, of screaming, gurgling, terrified humans having their necks sawed through by allahu-akbaring mohammedans with knives. But, it seems, to be aware of this, to connect it to the 'instruction-to-behead' that is right there in the Quran, is.. "racist!" - CM
"That speech is not tolerable", she said.
"We say that's nothing to do with free speech - it's everything to do with hate speech".
Okay, I see, miss. You are totally on board with the Islamic blasphemy law; anyone who speaks negatively in public about any aspect of Islam, anyone who dares to imply that practices such as beheading might just possibly be wrong and evil and cruel, is committing "hate speech", and must be silenced and punished. Only grovelling agreement, approval, or silence, as regards any aspect of Islam whatsoever, is acceptable to you. I suggest you move to Islamic Pakistan, Miss Brennan; you'd fit right in, you're a well-trained Dhimmi and, frankly, well on your way to sticking your nose to the ground and your tail in the air and warbling the shahada. - CM
"We see a very real threat (so do we, madam, so do we; we who do not intend to Submit see the mortal threat posed by the global Jihad, and by the sharia assassins - swarming out of the mohammedan fifth column now established within the Lands of the Infidels - who have been very busy even within the gates of the West, murdering, or attempting to murder, or openly threatening to murder, any non-Muslim at all who dares to so much as draw a picture of Mohammed, let alone publicly discuss, describe, expose or criticise or - horrors! - make fun of any of the many elements of Islamic doctrine and practice that are, from an infidel point of view, downright evil. - CM), and we are here to stop it... and not allow them their hate speech".
'The matter has been adjourned until May".
I would like to ask Ms Brennan whether she will applaud if Isamic Pakistan, obeying the blasphemy law of Islam, executes a Catholic Christian woman, Asia Bibi, for having 'blasphemed' against Mohammed. Does Ms Brennan agree that Asia Bibi's stated preference for Jesus, rather than Mohammed, constitutes forbidden "hate speech", and that Asia Bibi richly deserves to die? And I would like to ask her whether she thinks the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists also deserved to die, and whether she regrets that the Somali Muslim, with his axe, who broke into the home of the elderly Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard, he who drew the memorable "Turban-bomb Mohammed" cartoon, did not succeed in chopping Mr Westergaard to bits with the axe. And whether she approves of the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, and the death threats issued against Robert Redeker, Taslima Nasreen, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and is sorry that so far the assassins have not been able to hunt down these wicked, wicked people to punish them properly for their insults against perfect, wonderful, beautiful Islam. And whether she was pleased when she heard about the murder of Theo Van Gogh, he who had the gall to help Ayaan Hirsi Ali make a little film discussing and exposing the sacralised misogyny of Islam. - CM