I like to see people believing things and arguing for those things and standing up for what they believe. Especially if they risk prosecution for doing so. The protestors are standing up for the oneness of a compassionate and merciful God, for the clarity and purity of a true religion, for the existence of truth and the existence of virtue in a world mired in relativistic nonsense. Good. On. Them.
...Except when they destroy property and injure or kill people, that is not on.
I support the creators of the film 'Innocence of Muslims'.
There is a time for being polite; there is a time for not rocking the boat and not treading on toes and respecting other people's beliefs; and there is a time for 'Ecrasez l'infame!'. After the murder of Theo van Gogh, after the overreaction to the Jyllands-Posten cartoons, it is obvious that the only way to avoid de facto censorship for all of us is for Islam to be subjected to a tidal wave of mockery. The mockers need to be too numerous to kill: the mocked need to get used to it. The makers of the film, whether they intended to or not, are standing up for the Enlightenment virtues of freedom of thought and speech. Good. On. Them.
...Except for duping the actors, that was really low.
I don't like the fact that people in my country are being investigated by the police - that veiled threats are being made to take away their children - because of signs they have carried at a protest. I don't see how a sign reading 'Behead those who insult Islam' can be construed as incitement, considering it (a) doesn't name any specific individual (b) isn't addressed to anyone in particular (c) is exactly the same thing tens of millions of people (at a conservative estimate) are thinking and saying, so is adding a negligible atom of provocation to a pre-existing atmosphere. I wonder, has anyone ever been investigated in this country for carrying a sign reading 'Hang child molesters'? How are those two signs different? How many enemies of Islam have been murdered in this country lately*? How many child molesters?
Here is a t-shirt that Spouse of Clam won't let me make in RL, by the way:
I don't like the fact that someone in the Wossname administration apparently pressured Google to remove the video. If they were sincerely working for the introduction of Sharia in the United States, then that would be okay, I guess, though I wish they would have been upfront about their program with the voters. But they are not trying to suppress the film because they are standing up for the oneness of God, the honour of His Prophet, and the glory of Dar-al-Islam. And they are not standing up for the Enlightenment virtues that are what, for all its faults, distinguish our modern age from the age of the pogrom and the auto-de-fé. They are just being gutless, pathetic weasels.
It is worse if the midnight 'volunteering' of Nakouba to 'come down to the station and answer questions about parole violations' had anything to do with someone in the Wossname administration. Then they are being gutless, pathetic, dangerous weasels. Weasels whose vision of the future is a boot stamping on a human face forever. Screw them.
* That is, since the attack on the excursion train at Broken Hill, which doesn't count, since it was part of the 1914-1918 war.