Blogs

Our Pussy Riot outrage is monumental hypocrisy

18 August 2012

12:11 PM

18 August 2012

12:11 PM

So, two years in prison for the members of Pussy Riot as a consequence of their foul and insulting behaviour inside a church. The western world is outraged and takes the severity of the sentence as evidence that Russia is a totalitarian state where everyone does as Putin wants. Thank God we’re not like that over here, huh? We live in a democracy where one is free to lampoon all religious belief without punitive action descending upon us by the state.

Which will be news to Andrew Ryan, among others – he was sentenced to 70 days in jail for setting fire to a copy of the Koran. And the two men who received one year in prison for spray painting a poppy, on the side of a mosque. And then there’s Abu Hamza al Masri, the hook-handed cleric, who is still in prison for having said stuff with which the majority of us disagreed. Accused of inciting racial and religious hatred he has now been in Belmarsh for EIGHT YEARS.

[Alt-Text]


And how about the naked rambler, kept in solitary confinement (largely) for six years simply for walking about with no clothes on?

Such monumental hypocrisy.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.


Show comments
  • rndtechnologies786

    Nice think.

  • rndtechnologies786

    Nice view.

  • Swanky Flanks

    Russia, which is to say Putin at this point, dislikes and will punish ANY behaviour that isn’t a genuflection to the state (which is to say, Putin, at this point).
    Putin is a KGB man of old and simply makes my blood run cold. He is as callous as they come. He is a killer, without principles.

  • http://twitter.com/kramekosum Kram Ekosum

    Admire your sense of liberalism as ever Rod BUT “Pussy Riot” can’t be compared to hard extremists and promoters of terrorism? I suspect most of their ire is directed at political oppression and the hypocrisy of the ‘established’ Church. This should not be classed as blasphemous or inciting religious violence. It has little to do with God himself; Pussy (like the majority of the Russian population) are not fervent believers! When poverty and HIV are rife it seems like a bizarre waste of resources….

  • lgeubank

    I can’t help but think that if the delinquents of “Act Up” who invaded and desecrated St. Patrick’s Cathedral in 1989 had received serious punishment fit for their crime, various bands of low-lifes wouldn’t be so anxious to invade churches today.

    Anyway, it’s nice to see that Russia is now a thoroughly modern Western nation. That is, it’s populated with self-absorbed, perpetually aggrieved, yammering nuisances like those of our own Occupy movement.

    Russian punks think like Occupy thugs: “We’re holier than thou, so we have a right to desecrate your church service.” Someone has to show such people that they’re not above everyone else, and that other people have rights.

  • Ali Buchan

    Why do you all rise to this incendiary kind of blog post. Just chill out. Rod’s bright enough to realise that there is hypocrisy everywhere, no matter where you look – it doesn’t, for one second, mean that those three members of Pussy Riot aren’t wrongly imprisoned, or that Putin’s regime -presumably, we can switch to ‘regime’ now – isn’t corrupt. Chill out, all of you…

    And ease up on the racism.

  • Anton

    Horrifying, I agree, all these awful punishments imposed on people who are not terribly well-equipped mentally, such as the pathetic mum with child on lap mouthing off about foreigners. As if people aren’t mouthing off about things on public transport up and down the land, every day of the week. A public order offence and a fine when it becomes more than an irritant is all that is required. But court, and all that media attention just for words.It’s not as though these poor people, irrespective of being caught in the glare of a mobile phone and posted on the Internet, are going to attract a large following, or start a movement. Not exactly conducive to community harmony but not terribly charismatic either. Or those weak-minded footballers…

    And even, if they are Einstein sound-a-likes with objectionable things to say, well bring on them. Nothing to be frightened of.

    P.S. And I am sorry for the Pussies about to be banged up. A public order offence. Fine or community service…

  • Marcus

    Rowan Laxton, remember him? What is he up to know? Has his career gone from strength to strength? He swore in a gym and was sacked and fined.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/sep/24/rowan-laxton-foreign-office

  • http://www.facebook.com/regvreynolds Reg Reynolds

    I don’t have a problem with them singing a protest song against Putin, but why did they do it in an orthodox church? They would never have done it in a Mosque. Which makes them faux, hypocritical protesters. Two years for bias and stupidity. Sounds about right.

    • Oedipussy Riot Rex

      …”faux, hypocritical protesters”. In this case, no it doesn’t. They were protesting against the close support that the Russian Orthodox church gives to Putin. And given that, why protest in a mosque?

  • Radford_NG

    19 Aug. c.2.00am.BST……….If aliens dressed in weird black clothes come around bothering you on a Saturday morning in the name of a book they claim to be the word of god as transmitted by an angel to their prophet shouldn’t you have the right to tell them to naff-off back to where they’ve come from………..Salt Lake City I think it’s called? Salt Lake City,Utah.

  • Hexhamgeezer

    Lucky for ‘Pussy Riot’ (shite name btw) they didn’t kick-off on a Croydon tram.

  • Sarah

    “which will be news to Andrew Ryan”

    1) There is a difference between revolting against your own culture and doing so against somebody else’s.

    2) There is a difference between mounting a protest against a powerful establishment majority and a protest against a powerless, unestablished minority.

    I know you know these things Rod. You’re only an iconoclast if you are telling the truth, otherwise you’re just a propagandist. Come on.

    • simone.s

      Sarah, the law should not treat people unequally. For instance, if someone burns a Koran, why is that different to burning a Bible?
      Yet we all know that the law does discriminate. Nobody is going to prison for burning a Bible.

      Islam, by the way, is not a “powerless, unestablished minority” religion. It is massively powerful around the world, and in the UK, it is growing fast, has a lot of influence, and practising Muslims will soon outnumber practising Christians.

    • MikeF

      1) No there isn’t – in a free society you have the right to say what you want about anyone or anything providing you don’t incite violence. The logic of your argument is that society should consist of a collection of ‘culturally defined’ communities whose members can only interact at political level with other members of the same group.
      2) Again no – the key thing is the form your protest takes. These women invaded a cathedral. The fellow Ryan simply burnt a copy of the Koran – a silly, exhibitionistic act but one that took place away from the presence of Muslims and in front of a group of sympathisers.

      • Barry

        “in a free society you have the right to say what you want about anyone or anything providing you don’t incite violence”

        Exactly – but it’s important that it shouldn’t take thin skinned people with notoriously short fuses into account .

        • Eddie

          Yep, and a lot of persons (self-appointed moral guardians or minority groups) who seem to dedicate their lives to being offenders as much as they can, seeking out offence in any joke or statement, deliberately trying to whip up trouble in order that they can wallow in their pity party endlessly, claiming the moral high-ground, and assuming that they are the final word on what is, or isn’t, offensive and ‘inappropriate’.
          Doesn’t only happen in race/religion cases either; a local surgeon recently had to apologise and beg forgiveness recetly because he wrote some obviously joking comments about (unnamed) patients online. It is as if a humourless puritan vice-and-virtue witch-hunting police now exists – which is very wrongly listened and deferred to by the powers that be who are too gutless to stand up to these twerps.
          What I find frightening (and offensive) is that so many people are evidently so completely lacking in a sense of humour, not to mention a sense of reality, that they read literally ‘tongue-in-cheek’ comments.
          We should not encourage the current propensity of many, often ignorant and unthinking, (and often self-declared members of minority ethnicities and religions, plus their wealthy white leftwing politically correct defenders) to take as literal truth remarks made in jest! This is a dangerous trend.

          • IRISHBOY

            More of the blindingly obvious from Eddie, but not so obvious that those who should be defending our freedoms ever notice.
            Were I to describe say Diane Abbott as a hypocrite over her, well, hypocrisy regarding private education, the presumption is that I’m actually being racist and merely using the hypocrisy line to encode my racism, when I am just pointing at her hypocrisy. But I suppose that mindset is something Lefties have in their misfunctioning synapses (one happy day, scientists will prove that socialism is actually a clinical pathology) as when they use words like progressive or fair, they actually mean totalitarianism.

    • Barry

      There are, I believe, over 2 billion muslims in the world, yet some of them choose to move here and claim protection from offence which is intended for persecuted minorities?

      Ridiculous.

    • Eddie

      Utter drivel Sarah – so Muslims are a ‘powerless, unestablished minority’ are they? Yep, I wake up every day thinking how powerless and unestablished Mohammed Al Fayad is as a Muslim…
      But even if you think that – it makes NO DIFFERENCE in law (or SHOULD make no difference) which ethnic and religious group (or which gender, nationailisty etc) you come from: the same law should apply to everyon, irrespective on whether or not theyr have become (rather patronisingly) the pet causes of the left, as Muslims have in the UK.
      The French do it better: no paqndering to Muslims there: everyone is equal under the law.
      Can you not see the utter hypocrisy and wrongness of your arguing for different values to apply to different people because of their race and religion, or how much power they have, or how ‘established’ they are.
      Speaking as the son of an immigrant here, I can speak on all such persons to say that what you are saying is complete and utter bollocks rooted in a cesspool of moral relativisim in which all ‘powerless unestablished’ minorities (ie Muslims and ethnics) don’t have to obey the law and should be let off when they break it.
      Sadly, idiots like you are in charge, spewing politically correct puke over our once-decent country: the reason why Sir Iqbal Sacranie, who in 1989 called publicly for the torture and murder of Salman Rushdie, was given a knighthood (for being ethnic and Muslim) and was never even arrested for his incitement to murder. The reason why a blind eye is turned to socalled honour killings’ too. The reaosn why half of science teachers in British schools are too gutless to state evolution as fact and are DISGUSTINGLY teaching ‘intelligent design’ (socalled) as an alternative to the truth of evolution through natural selection – because they don’t want to offend African Christian and Asian Muslims – oversensitivity to minority cultures ina very dangerous thing.
      We should all be equal under the law: the way you and fellow PC nutters argue against this shows your true authoritarian and hypocritical colours, methinks.

      • IRISHBOY

        Eddie – just to say that I really enjoy reading your stuff. Sometimes I’m too busy or depressed by the Lefties that I cop out, and I’m glad that the likes of you, Nicholas et al keep at it. Thanks.

        • DGStuart

          This ‘Eddie’ prick isn’t a ‘lefty slayer’ he’s a buffoon who would have this country a non Christian vacuum into which would gratefully slide the virulent strains of Islam, so don’t encourage the twat.

    • http://twitter.com/LaCatholicState la catholic state

      So Sarah…..what you are saying is…..protest against Christianity and that is free expression….but protest against Islam or any other religion and that is a hate-crime. I do believe Putin is a more just and honest person than that.
      There is a bigoted and discriminatory system against those of a Christian heritage in the so-called ‘superior’ West. And it must be adressed.

  • Trofim

    http://gawker.com/5935685/topless-femen-activist-takes-down-giant-cross-with-chainsaw-to-protest-pussy-riot-verdict-%5Bnsfw%5D

    The topless Ukrainian feminist protest group FEMEN have cut down a cross erected as a memorial to the victims of communism in Kiev, as a gesture of support for Pussy Riot. The first thing that went through my mind was health and safety. All that flowing hair.

    • AY

      yes that was EHS disaster – they were 3 full-grown adults there, and nobody took precaution. what marmosets they are.

      another blunder was, that they have sawn down the Catholic cross erected (sic!) there by the Ukraininan Uniate Church.

      but aside of that, it was allright.. yeah, I thought, if somebody could also saw down the minaret in my area.. with proper EHS support certainly.

  • Eli

    Old Captain Hook Hamza is not in prison merely for having “said stuff.” And he is being kept in Belmarsh as a humane alternative to a supermax prison in America, which is still capable, though not consistently, of distinguishing between incitement to violence and incitement to hate, between punishment as a deterrent to criminal behaviour and punishment as a means of thought-control. Including Hamza as an example of western hypocrisy undermines your thesis. The real hypocrisy of the western world is in its return to privileging certain classes in the name of human rights, to unequal treatment in the name of equality, to injustice in the name of social justice. Once capital punishment after due process for murder is regarded has barbaric, the barbarians have won, and we stand stand back to witness them call for and carry out the execution of blasphemers. The hate-speech crimes are a return to blasphemy laws. They protect not only religion, but government – the European Commission and Putin, who can take offense with the best of the pious.

    • rosie

      Blasphemy laws in England were not to protect God but the peace.

      • AY

        c’mon all you know about “God” was conveyed to you by people.
        name it “peace” or “God” – that doesn’t make it anything else but a narrative of clergy.

      • Eli

        No. Blasphemy protected the authority of the Church (and in England, the Crown which is Head of the Church.) True, the Church could whip up an outraged mob, rather as Islam can today. Stability, or “peace,” is always the pretext for the violent suppression of liberty. Stability is why tyrants are propped up by the west.

        • Eddie

          I suspect there will be many religious types in the UK (Christians, Muslims, Jedi) who will be looking with envy at the authoritarian theocracy in Russia, as they do at the vile Islamist regimes around the world.
          Pussy Riot were jailed because they were ‘motivated by religious enmity and hatred.’
          And the same people who are protesting about their arrest (leftwingers, feminists, the politically correct) cannot – or perhaps refuse to – see the irony in their supporting the persecution of those who dare stand up to religious demands for ‘special untouchable status’ in the UK, all whilst condemning the persecution of the same in Russia.
          Talk about inconsistent!
          Either you support the right to attack, criticise, mock, lampoon, satire, embarrass, hate and offend religions and the religious (like me) or you don’t. To change your opinion depending on which country such rights are expressed, is brazen hypocrisy of the first order.
          But then, many of these persons are religious types, so have centuries of experience in that (as do socialists and leftie activists, one has to say: no doubt leftie lawyers like Cherie Blair would support the Pussy Riot girls but would be eager to prosecute any persons protesting in a mosque in the UK in a similar fashion…).

          • rosie

            I hold to my original comment: blasphemy laws were enacted by secular people to keep the peace among easily excited religious people of all sects. Because indigenous christians are now held to be secular, there is no longer thought to be a reason for protecitng their sensitivites; while moslems in particular, but also sikhs and hindus on occasion, are still regarded with fear by the authorities and media alike. Hence the double standard whereby it is deemed OK to send up the prayer to the Theotokos in a great cathedral.

  • rosie

    It seems to me the Russians have got surprisingly quickly to the stage we were at when we were trying the Oz editors.

  • rosie

    It seems to me the Russians have got surprisingly quickly to the stage we were at when we were trying the Oz editors.

  • James R

    Cheer up Rod. Here’s some good news ; Around one in five rioters jailed after last year’s summer rampages have been tagged and let out of prison early, it has emerged.
    Of the 1,292 criminals given prison sentences by the end of June 30 this year two convicted robbers, 162 burglars, 44 thieves and 26 violent offenders were released early along with nine jailed for other offences.
    I understand they’ve all promised not to do it again..especially the 26 violent offenders.

    • Eddie

      Yep, James – and 0% of those blacks who wore face coverings when looting and rioting have been arrested or charged.
      Lesson learned: if you want to riot or loot, black up and wear a balaclava or other face covering – the police won’t even bother looking for you then, preferring as usual to go for the easy meat arrests of the retards who looted naked-faced in front of CCTV cameras.

  • http://twitter.com/LaCatholicState la catholic state

    Of course we don’t have freedom of speech in the UK. We have to be very careful what we say and to whom. So many people have been imprisoned for having an ‘unacceptable’ rant in public.
    Let us not dare to criticise Russia.

  • http://twitter.com/Simon_Gardner Simon Gardner

    What exactly is wrong with “hatred of religion” which seems to be part of the charge? It’s an emotion I wake up with every morning…

    • DGStuart

      And you are entitled to it. I bet you would be less sanguine though if the religious were to publicly and vigorously decry your lack of faith.

      • http://twitter.com/Simon_Gardner Simon Gardner

        They do. All the time. *shrug*

        • ARealWoman

          Mind your bra when you shrug, Simon. Wouldn’t want those false titties coming undone now, would we?

        • DGStuart

          No they don’t [shrug]

      • Eddie

        Not at all – in my experience, those who are atheists or agnostics are so used to sanconimous self-righteous ranters publicaly and vigorously decrying their lack of faith (which is, let us remind ourselves, belief in something without evidence) that they’re well used to it and rarely if ever complain.
        It is progress of a sort: most people accept scientific fact (the earh goes round the sun etc, evolution happened through natural selection; the world was not made in 6 days but is billions of years old) – so it’s only the hardcore nutters who believe the literatl truth of old bookd cobbled together by warlords or disciples in distant deserts many hundreds of years ago.
        But religious types…
        Religious types on the other hand, boosted by misplaced multiculturalism, want to make criticising, challenging, mocking, lampooning, decrying their religions – and the politically correct pandering (by lefties and those who mistakenly call themselves ‘liberal’) to Islam and any religion believed in my ethnic minorities.
        As Simon rightly says – hatred of a religion or other ideology is a human right – and looking at what religions make people do, hating them seems logical and to be recommended; laughing at them is essential!

        • Marythegirl

          So when you say that evolution happens through natural selection are you purposely avoiding saying evolution happens because of natural selection, or are you simply too coarse-brained to recognize the distinction?
          And I rather think you mistake what faith is: It is not belief without evidence, but the evidence for belief. And if, as you say, to hate is a human right, I wish you would tell us from what that right evolved? Molton rocks, perhaps, or salty water? What strange things the faithless believe.

          • Eddie

            Marythegirl – you’re on the wrong website. You obviously got lost – taking a wrong turn at hypocrisiy and delusion – and should instead be spouting faith-based sancitimonious drivel on ‘DeludedReligiousNutter dot com’.
            This discussion is not about evolution – which against the beliefs of the Church and Islam, has been proven as fact, with a huge fossil record, DNA proof and more evidence than for anything else in history. There is NO evidence for any religious being at all – to claim that there ius makes you absurd: the ontological argument (God exists because we have faith in him) is really of Bob Diamond or Bill Clinton standrad of prevarication and spurious semantics.
            Most Christians accept evolution through natural selection as fact: the evidence is just too huge for all but the most mentalist religious nuts in denial to deny.
            A tiny percentage of scientists disagree with this and believe in the lie of Creationism – a fantasy invented by those who find the truth too painful to believe.
            Most religious people I know have no problem accepting scientific fact and accepting the earth goes round the sun too, despite what the Bible and Koran say: anyone who reads those old books cobbled together in deserts centuries ago is an ass.
            And really, hate is a human right – and verily, religions are very well-practised in it (that, and torture, murder, sex crime, wars etc).
            By the way: according to the daft law against the incitement of religius hatred (which has never been used and probably never will be, and was only created by Labour to pander to Muslims and black African Christian nuts who votes for them), it ios not only those of religious faith who are protected – but agnostics nd atheists too, so watch what you say, honey, or you could be nicked!

            • Eddie

              Correction:
              anyone who reads LITERALLY those old books cobbled together in deserts centuries ago is an ass

            • Marythegirl

              Oh come on, Eddie. Surely you can do better than this? After all, I’m trying to engage you on an intellectual, scientific level, and all can muster are so many verbal farts and hoots. 
              The question to you is quite simple: as evolution is through natural selection as you say, what is the selection being made from? I mean, before you can make a selection you must have something to select from, right? So what is that, and where did it come from? Salty water? Molten rock? Pray tell, where is your scientific evidence? Do you have any? Or are you telling me that you actually believe that salty water or molten rock came from, oh, you know, nothing, and then proceeded to evolve into everything else? Of its own accord? Is our evidence such that we know salty water or molten rock is capable of such a thing, or is our evidence such that salty water and molten rock is not capable of such a thing? 

              • Tim Reed

                Here we go – the God of the gaps. Sigh.

                • Marythegirl

                  Ah yes, Tim. Just mutter “God of the gaps” while giving a little sigh and, hey presto, you’ve magically disposed of any need to engage rationally with those who would point out to all those with eyes to see just how bucknaked the emperor of scientism actually is. What sort of scientific evidence do you suppose could possibly fill the ontological and logical gaps that are being presented to your view here?But really? How can any biological difference that emerges between lifeform A and lifeform B be accounted the result of natural selection when it is precisely the difference that is naturally selected in the first place? Assuredly, if you don’t have a difference to begin with, then nature can’t select it, can it? And this is a matter of logic and ontology, Tim. Not some gap in your scientific understanding that could in principle be filled in with more natural “data”. 
                  Try address the actual question posed, why don’t you?

                • Tim Reed

                  Good heavens, so much lack of understanding about the concept of evolution. The differences that are ‘selected’ are present in the many small variations in a particular lifeform. If one of those variations (taller, faster, smarter etc) leads to increased survival, those with that advantage will be more reproductive, and that particular variation will become commonplace within the population. Give it a few million years, and different environments to which those variations will adapt, and you’ll have divergence. You seem to be confused about the term ‘selection’, as if this implies that there must be a selector – a guiding hand. The selection here is the competition to survive, and thus pass on your genes.

                • Tim Reed

                  …and you use the term ‘scientism’ as if science is some sort of belief system. Unlike religion, science MUST prove it’s way in the world. Without proof, all you have is belief.

                • Eddie

                  Exactly: which is why it is always absurd when those ‘of Faith’ (ie belief without evidence) and the flat-earthers who refuse to believe in the fact of evolution (and there is more evidence for evolution than for any historical event – WWII, the existence of Mohammed, anything) demand evidence from those who believe in empirical scienitific methd.
                  Ah they say, what anout the evolutuon of the eye (watch David Attenborough MarytheGirl and open yours to the truth); ‘ah they say’ but science can explain the how but not the why’ – so I point them in the direction of philosophy (not religion and magic).
                  No denier of evolution has the right to demand anything from those who quite rightly believe in the fact of evolution. They deserve no more of a hearing than some Indian guru who says he can turn eggs into gold.

                • Eddie

                  No Marythegirl – science is not naked, it has the wonderful clothes of evidence; belief in socalled Creationism or that any myth in old books in truth is the emperor who stands stark bollock naken here.
                  Your understanding of science Mary it utterly wrong and infantile. Anyone who cannot see the fact of evolution as a fact is an idiot. End of.
                  Now, Mary – you can try and argue that the sun goes round the earth (as stated in the bible and koran).
                  Do yourself a favour and get an education – just watching David Attenborough on TV will answer all your dumb questions.
                  Evolution is a fact, NOT a theory; evolution through natural selection is a theory accepted by the vast majority of scientists (except the Muslim and Christian creationist nutters who believe faith-based myths over evidence-based truth).

              • johan

                Mary the girl, you can’t be engaged on a scientific level.
                If you don’t accept evolution then you are non-scientific. What other bits of science don’t you beleive in? Chemistry? Carbon dating? Spectroscopy?

                • Marythegirl

                  You know, Johan, it always surprises me that there can be different types of ignorances. If I were to describe yours, I would say that it is an absolutely uniformed dogmatism masquerading as unassailable certainty about subjects it doesn’t know exist let alone understand. At one level I find people like you hilarious, at another, fabulously depressing.

              • Swanky Flanks

                MTG: I think you’ll find that verbal farts and hoots are what Eddie does best. Thinking and argumentation come a distant second. Common decency to other commenters is, of course, third.

            • DGStuart

              Why don’t you fuck off cretin. You are clearly some lame brain who is under the delusion that they are intelligent, but hasn’t the little bit of self awareness necessary to see how stupid they are. In addition to that you are a windbag.

      • Eddie

        Not at all – in my experience, those who are atheists or agnostics are so used to sanconimous self-righteous ranters publicaly and vigorously decrying their lack of faith (which is, let us remind ourselves, belief in something without evidence) that they’re well used to it and rarely if ever complain.
        It is progress of a sort: most people accept scientific fact (the earh goes round the sun etc, evolution happened through natural selection; the world was not made in 6 days but is billions of years old) – so it’s only the hardcore nutters who believe the literatl truth of old bookd cobbled together by warlords or disciples in distant deserts many hundreds of years ago.
        But religious types…
        Religious types on the other hand, boosted by misplaced multiculturalism, want to make criticising, challenging, mocking, lampooning, decrying their religions – and the politically correct pandering (by lefties and those who mistakenly call themselves ‘liberal’) to Islam and any religion believed in my ethnic minorities.
        As Simon rightly says – hatred of a religion or other ideology is a human right – and looking at what religions make people do, hating them seems logical and to be recommended; laughing at them is essential!

  • john woods

    Andrew Ryan has the wrong end of the stick here: we ought to be burning the mosques, not the korans. Those we can use for toilet paper AFTER we have burned down every mosque in Europe.

    • Sarah

      Why, does burning down places of worship give you splatter botty? Or make you cum?

      • john woods

        I don’t regard mosques as places of worship. Read “The Sword of the Prophet” by Serge Trifkovic

      • Eddie

        Does abusing and insulting half the world’s population because of their gender make you cum Sarah? Or is that the root of your issues in the first place? Envy is a terrible thing, innit?
        Oddly, while picking up on every post by a male of the species who you despise, you say nothing about what many men and women in those mosques would like to do to you: try Googling honour killings (10,000 a year in the UK), FGM, forced marriage etc: why do the politicallt correct always think they are being ‘liberal’ by turning a blind eye to such intolerance just because it comes from ethnics of a minority religion?

        • rosie

          FGM isn’t a religious practice but a cultural one, descended originally from the ancient Egyptians and practised most by people from that part of the world today.
          Just as head to foot veiling isn’t a religious practice but a cultural one, descended originally from the ancient Greeks and taken up by Arabs who were impressed by the Roman ladies doing it.

          • Eddie

            Yep, 100% correct – but try telling the local mullah that these things are cultural and were appropriated by religions…
            Look at TV footage of Egypt 30 or 40 years agao and you can see how radical literatlist Islam has been spread with Saudi money to Africa (and spreading south to Timbuktua and Nigeria now).

            • rosie

              Well, Eddie, I do tell my Indian, Pakistani, and Bangladeshi friends, and my Turkish and Syrian ones as well, to hang on to their national identities and not allow the Arabs to take them over. It is usually news to the young ones, but they listen with interest, and like my telling them their ancient civilizations are superior to the patriarchal desert ones. You should do the same with the men. No-one ever takes offence at having their nation praised over another – except the Guardianistas here.

      • http://twitter.com/dangroveruk Dan Grover

        Ahahahah fantastic. Please ignore Eddie – He’s just an angry, angry little man.

  • david

    usually agree with rod but this is just lazy relativism, it’s all the left ever does when faced with a choice it ducks it and simply states well the west once did this somewhere and then that makes everything auright. Just give your opinion on the issue…

    • simone.s.

      Disagree with you, David.
      There was a time when we had more freedom of expression here. We didn’t jail people for name-calling, for instance. We were entitled to take the moral high ground back then. But not now.

      Now we send kids to prison for posting drunken insults on Twitter.
      We destroy families by sending a family man to prison for 8 months for one drunken chant near a mosque.
      We haul a woman to prison for 5 months for being a bit outspoken about mass immigration. And on and on.

      These are speech offences that get you a draconian sentence, unheard of a few years ago.
      They set a very worrying precedent here.

      We no longer have the right to preach to the Russians about free speech.

      (Good blog, as usual, Rod.)

      • david

        i agree with you simone all this is patently true but it does not change the simple fact that russia and britain are two very different countries to live in when it comes to human rights. so drawing similarities and then suggesting that we are the same is i would suggest untrue. everybody is a hypocrite to some extent so it does not take much intellect to point this out.

        • AY

          all large Western states – and that includes Russia – are
          anarcho-totalitarian constructs powered by oligarchs, held together by
          political technologies, sharing similar problems.

          degradation of indigenous population, third world invasion, corporate greed, marxist savagery, islamization, lying MSM, corruption, crime, loss of national identity.

          in that we are really all together.
          every defeat of putin’s vulgar statism in Russia, is a hint how we can clean our stables here.

        • simone.s

          David, you’re right that Russia and Britain have very different records on human rights, but on this particular issue (aggravated public order offences) there are plenty of examples in the UK of harsh sentences and suppression of free speech.

          New Labour increased the sentences for these offences from 6 months custodial to 2 years.

          • simone.s

            I forgot to add that there is a massive 7 year maximum sentence under the public order act for “inciting hatred”.

      • david

        i agree with you simone all this is patently true but it does not change the simple fact that russia and britain are two very different countries to live in when it comes to human rights. so drawing similarities and then suggesting that we are the same is i would suggest untrue. everybody is a hypocrite to some extent so it does not take much intellect to point this out.

  • Stephanie

    More helpful than denouncing those who decry one injustice and not another is to start making a case and raising a fuss about the other human rights violations you perceive. It’s quite impossible to be aware of and be able to act on everything, everywhere; rather than critiquing those who are finally trying to right an injustice, you might simply draw others’ attention to the next important issue.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jules.evans.7 Jules Evans

    Inspiring stuff, as ever, Rod. Do you think they deserved two years in prison for singing an anti-Putin song in a church?

    • Ron Todd

      What would happen to a band singing an obscene anti government song in Westmister cathedral? In Blairs time people were arrested for less.

  • Eddie

    If a group of demonstrators in the UK had forced their way into a mosque and sung a punk song making their opposition to extremist Islam and its supporters clear, then:
    1) what would have happened? (arrests?charges?Prison sentences for inciting religious and racial hatred?)
    2) would those so-called liberals who are defending and supporting the actions of Pussy Riot be defending and supporting those demonstrating against the opression of Islam in a mosque in Britain?
    I suspect not!
    In fact, I know not – such demonstrators would be branded as racists and bigots for not saying how wonderful Islam is, and would be portrayed as nazis by the Muslim-hugging BBC)
    Shameless hypocrisy of the first order – but not unpredictable really.
    Russis is a vile country though – a nasty brutal dictatorship – always has been and always will be, before and after communism.
    Went there once… (Won’t happen twice…)
    (Of course, it helps that Pussy Riot are all-female so make the press in the West – if it had been men, they have got higher sentences and way worse prison conditions too; instead, the girlies are feminist heroines and are bound to cash in sooner or later on that – well, it’s better than doing what most Russian girls seem to do, whoring it around Western Europe and the Arab states…)

    • AY

      on abu hamza from wiki:

      1)Guilty of six charges of soliciting to murder under the Offences against the Person Act 1861;

      2)Guilty of three charges related to “using threatening, abusive or
      insulting words or behaviour with the intention of stirring up racial
      hatred” under the Public Order Act 1986,

      3)Guilty of one further charge of owning recordings related to “stirring up racial hatred”.
      4)Guilty of one charge of possessing “terrorist encyclopaedia” under
      the Terrorism Act 2000, s58. The charges under the Terrorism Act of 2000
      related to his possession of the Encyclopedia of Afghan Jihad and an Al Qaeda Handbook, and to propaganda materials produced by Masri.[

      which means –

      this individual is plain and simple, enemy combatant.
      philosophy is combat support.
      good soldier is not the strongest or best trained or armed, but the one knowing who the enemy is.
      to tell jihadis that the West is, we are the enemy – that was abu hamza’s function as ideologue.

      would you incarcerate Goebbels if he was available in 1945?
      in the end, he didn’t commit killings, he was just sort of, talkative crazy guru.
      but it took oceans of blood to defeat the evil he planted.

      don’t be naive Rod, – cost of abu hamza democratic freedoms would be – lifes of your compatriots.

      (no objections to the rest)

  • http://twitter.com/raymonddelauney raymond delauney

    You should be outside the Russiam Embassy demanding Putin’s authorities hand over the suspects the Met Police wish to interview in connection with the murder of Alexander Litvinenko. If the Pussy Riot trial outcome
    helps focus that demand alll well and good..

  • Steven

    Pussy Riot’s sentence is an injustice and so are the other ones you mention. In Scotland last December 2 teenagers (one 16 year old and an 18 year old) were given 3 year prison sentences for writing stuff on facebook….

Close