Archive for the ‘Religion’ Category


#ConfessTheBand #Blasphemy #Islamism

Iranian Metal Band ‘Confess’ Arrested for Blasphemy.

confess iranian metalband

Being a bit of a Paul Simon, Gilbert O’Sullivan, Clive Dunn sort of a chap, I’ve often joked about how purveyors of Heavy Metal, Thrash Metal, Punk Thrash Metal, Goat Metal – and the many other divisions of the genre – should be arrested, tortured and put to death. I don’t really mean it. It’s a joke. A little harsh perhaps, but a joke.

My many friends who listen to and play this kind of


crap – in bedrooms and in bands – like to think of themselves as subversive. It’s something I’ve always chuckled at as an extension – possibly life-long – of teenage rebellion. Okay, you’ve got a job, kids and a mortgage now, so the Goth/Metal look just had to go, but hey, you’ve still got that air-guitar, right!

Now imagine living in a society where my harsh joke actually happens – arrest, torture, murder – at the hands of the state for simply expressing oneself through shit music. For writing bad lyrics – simple words – that seemingly threaten the powers that be.

How can this be?

Totalitarian states will always seek to control both free speech and freedom of association. It is in their nature to attack these twin pillars of liberty. Yet it is never sufficient to silence and isolate the intellectuals, the pamphleteers, the political opponents: to impose the will of the state it has to control popular culture, too, for it is freedom of expression through popular culture that will transform and encapsulate a complaint, a message, an ideology or even a revolution into a word, an image, a phrase, a lyric – a meme.

Strange Fruit, Solidarity, Che, Free Nelson Mandela, Pride, ‘V’, Nic Ut’s shot of Kim Phuc, naked and burning with napalm, Grandad by Clive Dunn.

Controlling the extremities of popular culture is essential to controlling the middle ground. With Lemmy in a prison cell, it forces Adele to be at least cautious with lyrics the state may deem offensive, off-message, or taboo. It was part and parcel of the targeting in the Sunni Islamist attacks on Parisians in January and November of 2015 – free speech, freedom of association, popular culture.

Here we see it expressed in the Shia Islamism of Iran with the arrest of two members of the metal band ‘Confess‘ [link to full story below]. It reminds us that the extremities of popular culture are a litmus test as to the condition of liberty in any given state. It needs to be cherished and protected – even if the music is shite.

My many friends who listen to and play this kind of shit – in bedrooms and in bands – like to think of themselves as subversive – it’s because they are.

Anvil Springstien.

Source: Article/Track/Interview @ Loudwire Magazine.

Note: Big thanks to the many emails pointing to the misspelling of the word ‘Shiite‘ in the title of this piece. In the UK, Shite is a form of shit (pronounced shyte).


#DawkinsTweet @RichardDawkins #FeministsLoveIslamists

Shit-Storm Richard

A brief look back at the devastation caused by the last few days inclement weather.

Here we have a satirical cartoon. If you haven’t seen it, stop reading and watch it now.


Good, you’re back. Welcome.

As a piece of satire, it is, quite naturally, offensive to some – especially the people, organisations, or ideas portrayed in the satire. Still, in a free society, there is little they can do beyond commenting on the offence taken, or defending their actions as portrayed in the satire.

Specifically, in this case, initially at least (it was published on a popular YouTube channel on the 8th January) they chose to do neither.

That is until public figure, renowned atheist and evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins, condoned the said satire through re-publishing it via his Twitter feed two days ago. One presumes he watched it, chuckled, then re-tweeted it.


Isn’t that what we all do?

Said public figure, Richard Dawkins – not the satire contained in the cartoon – is then attacked. Not physically, of course, but let’s just say there were sparks flying off more than a few keyboards. Fingers scorched. Nails undoubtedly chipped and broken. I truly dread the day Google perfects voice-to-text. We won’t be able to hear ourselves read – let alone be ripped off by tax-avoiding Multinationals.

Anyways, back to the weather. Dawkins tweets brief statements in response to the attack, as one does, mainly regarding the need to ridicule small elements of feminism that have supported Islamism (the satirical point of the cartoon). He then suddenly deletes his tweet after being informed that one of the protagonists portrayed in the cartoon (the feminist, Thingy Binx – sorry, I can never remember her first name?) had in the past been trolled and threatened online.

Following the deletion, Dawkins then tweets (paraphrased here) that ‘no one should be subject to such threats and intimidation’, appealing to all and sundry ‘never to engage in such activity’.

Brilliant. Perfect play.

Considering he’s a history with Twitter, this looked like a professional team had been brought in.

Nevertheless, anyone who plays Call of Duty can tell you that no Battle-Plan, however good, will survive contact with the enemy.

‘Nice doggie… now, put the rabbit down’.’ ‘Grrrrrrrr.’

chanty binxFollowing this laudable appeal, his statements are pulled apart, dissected, rearranged and re-tweeted. Dawkins is then accused (without proof) of setting his ‘followers’ to harass and threaten the aforementioned individual. Supporters of Dawkins (don’t worry about him, he has loads) point out, to no avail, that the trolling of Ms Binx (Chanty! Yes, that’s it ‘Chanty Binx’!) occurred three years ago following a number of her online videos where she is seen to be loud, aggressive and obnoxious.

Yeah? So? What if she gets harassed online, again, eh, Mistah Big Noise Dawkins?

The attack on Dawkins continues unabated.

Crowds gather. Torches are lit. There are demands that he be reprimanded – or at least flailed publicly. Dawkins is almost instantaneously punished by the withdrawal of his invitation as keynote speaker at an upcoming north American conference, the ‘North East Conference on Science & Skepticism’.

Without contacting Dawkins, the NCSS released this statement (my emphasis):

The Northeast Conference on Science & Skepticism has withdrawn its invitation to Richard Dawkins to participate at NECSS 2016. We have taken this action in response to Dr. Dawkins’ approving re-tweet of a highly offensive video.

We believe strongly in freedom of speech and freedom to express unpopular, and even offensive, views. However, unnecessarily divisive, counterproductive, and even hateful speech runs contrary to our mission and the environment we wish to foster at NECSS. The sentiments expressed in the video do not represent the values of NECSS or its sponsoring organizations (sic).

We will issue a full refund to any NECSS attendee who wishes to cancel their registration due to this announcement.

The NECSS Team

‘What’s this all about, a cartoon?’ ‘Yes, a cartoon.’ ‘Hmmm, that sounds familiar?’

Okay, let us for a moment turn away from the uncomfortable fact that the people who are accusing Dawkins and his followers of online harassment are busy harassing Dawkins online. Let’s instead look at what everybody else seems to be avoiding: let’s look at the cartoon:

The cartoon states implicitly (Dawkins says this explicitly in his re-tweet) ‘This is what a minority of feminists think‘. It does this in order to take a satirical stab at events that have unfolded over the past few weeks. Specifically, in Europe, and culminating in the mass sex attacks in Cologne on New Years Eve. It is a response to multiple situations where purportedly we have seen feminists and people on the left (my supposed natural allies) defending the indefensible (at times pro-actively and at others through a deafening silence) rather than be seen as racist, islamophobic, or ‘punching down’ on a minority.

This in itself is worthy of the greatest ridicule and mockery. It is both regressive and damaging.

Okay, first things first: Facts. Did these events happen?


There was a deafening silence (and much confusion) regarding the handling of recent events in Europe. Following Cologne, a female German Mayor suggested western women could help themselves by ‘staying at arms length’ from people (Muslim men) who were patently organising sexual assaults.

Women were accused of dressing provocatively and encouraging sexual assault and rape.

Elsewhere, feminist Societies at British Universities, silent on Cologne, busied themselves opposing free speech and no-platforming feminist ex-Muslims whilst supporting the misogyny of Islamists – including gender segregation – and the banning of ‘offensive’ depictions of the naked body such as, would you believe, Michelangelo’s ‘Creation of Adam‘.

Police forces across Europe played down the extent of what had – and was – happening.

All of this allowed right wing nationalists and neo-fascists in Europe to take the lead and to denigrate minorities, immigrants and refugees, pushing for regressive policies such as mass deportations, whilst many on the left and feminism sat on their fat arses, scared shitless by their inability to respond appropriately and progressively to a mass influx of single, unaccompanied, unemployed young men from a war zone and hailing from a culture that holds a normalcy to the denigration, oppression and covering of women. A culture built upon a religion that replaces good and bad, moral and immoral (even virtue and sin) with Honour and Shame. A culture that quite openly sees the women who were attacked as shameful, and the men who attacked them as honourable.

The condemnation from feminism and the left that was so quick to materialise at the rapes and sexual attacks in Tahrir Square, for example, throughout the Arab Spring and after, was nowhere to be seen.

A bizarre mix of identity-politics, intersectionality, fear, confusion, dogma and yes, a desire to do good, led to a cultural relativism which in turn led to inaction, to paralysis. To an inability to produce, demand or even identify policy that would be both effective and progressive – whether on the streets of Europe or in its Universities.

Yes, yes, but… what about the cartoon itself?

Well, this brings us back to the initial ‘issue at hand’: did Dawkins re-tweet an abominable slight on women using rape as a joke that encourages death threats against an individual, or did he re-tweet a piece of satire.

Many supporters of Ms Binx, and those satirised, thought the former. I, and many others – feminists and people on the progressive left – do not.

For me, this has nothing to do with Dawkins per se – the actual issue at hand is the satirical content of a political cartoon coupled with the freedom to offend. What many saw as ‘stupid’, ‘offensive’, and ‘hate-speech’ that needed to be silenced, I saw as an excellent satire with a stunningly good tag. Let’s look at what they have done: The producers have conflated what are normally seen as polar opposites to show how a particular behaviour of one – either proactively or through inaction – can support, enhance, highlight or encourage the other.

This format typically leads to good satire.

That they did this using two ‘known’ characters in a ‘jolly duet’ is a ploy that is often used in satire and, indeed, was regularly used by Charlie Hebdo, specifically on some of their better covers:

635562506950226435-Charlie-Hebdo-L-Amour hebdo-exec untouchables

Satire is one of the greatest and most powerful weapons we have. Without the ability to ridicule, to mock, to offend, there is no such thing as free speech. Offence is the very basis of that free speech – and free speech is the foundation of the liberal state.

Political satire is literally a tool to offend. It is accessible, too. It just has to hold enough elements of truth to get its message across. It’s a satirical sketch, not some magnum opus. These people (Binx & Co) have never really met. They have never really sang a duet together. They merely ‘represent’ aspects of Feminism and Islamism in order to tell a story, to make a point.

The point behind this cartoon is valid. I got it. We may disagree as to its value regarding humour – you may not care for it, I do – the question is: was it wrong for Dawkins to retweet it? My answer to that is a definite ‘No’. Would I have retweeted it? Yes. It has satirical value. It has worth. But more than that, it contains within it the basis of liberalism – offensive free speech.

Questions, questions, questions.

The question is raised then, if Dawkins New Model Army were not busy piling faggots around the feet of Chanty Binx, and if the events that the cartoon attempts (well, in my opinion) to satirise had occurred, why would Dawkins be attacked (and punished) for re-tweeting it as an unnecessarily divisive, counterproductive piece of hatespeech?

Further, Why Dawkins? Why wasn’t the actual cartoon attacked?

Again ignoring the fact that Dawkins is now being harassed online for the unproven crime of harassing someone online, more and more this appears to be an attempt to silence both Dawkins and, via him, the cartoon itself. It parallels the regressive attacks by the authoritarian left on Charlie Hebdo.

Then, as now, it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of free speech and its intrinsic relation to offence – for without the ability to give offence, freedom of speech is worthless.

This misunderstanding has a real effect on policy decisions made by real people holding real power. In the past it brought killers closer to their victims whilst ceding power to the right. Now it is again empowering the right creating policies or calls for policies, here in the UK, Europe and the US, that will harm desperate refugees. People are being and will be physically hurt. Some of them lethally so.

This is not an online game of butt-hurt top trumps. It’s real life.

Yet regressive feminism, like its counterparts on the left, mirror religious dogma in that they seek to silence criticism. Rather than critically analyse, change and learn from its errors, all dogmas are forced to defend themselves, regardless of the truth elements contained in arguments against them. Hence the need and desire to openly punish a public figure like Dawkins: ‘maybe he’ll learn from this‘, was one response I read. Yes, maybe he’ll understand in future that his condoning a piece of satire that mocks and ridicules ideas that people hold dear will have consequences. How ironic then that these dogmas – from the left and 3rd wave feminism – will see people forced into the arms of the right, the segregationists, the nationalists, the isolationists and the fascists.

Once more, this is, in effect no different from The Hebdo affair – even the language from the left is similar: stupid, offensive, disgusting, juvenile, filthy, misogynistic, racist, islamophobic. All words, remember, that apologists for the Charlie Hebdo slaughter repeated ad nauseum. They victimised their targets, didn’t they. They crossed the line, didn’t they. Still, they were held accountable, weren’t they. Some people put them in their place. What did they expect? It was bound to happen. We expected nothing less. They went too far.

Even the fucking Pope, acting as an unrepentant apologist for Islamist murderers, reminded us that if you insult his mother you can expect to be punched in the face.

Yes, they deserved it really, didn’t they.

No. These were the anti-racists, the anti-sexists, the anti-Islamists, the anti-homophobes. Saying things that needed to be said in the only way they knew how to say it. Still, would they have deserved it had they been racists, sexists and homophobes? Of course not, for on their freedom lies yours.

The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.

H. L. Mencken

Strangely, the Islamists who slaughtered these wonderful people, these cartoonists, were French Islamists – they understood satire. It’s what the French do.

They killed them anyway.

Kind of ironic to imagine that the murderers who killed those cartoonists in Paris understood satire better than Dawkin’s current attackers – from their point of view they killed them for all the right reasons. They knew what they were saying. They killed them not because they didn’t get it. They got it, alright. They understood the satire. They killed them, anyway. They killed them because the humour of these cartoonists brought them shame by exposing truth. By killing them, these imbeciles thought they regained honour.

I’ve referenced the similarities to Hebdo throughout this piece. I need to do it once more in order to reiterate that every time we agreed with those who demanded the right to silence people, who demanded the right to no-platform people, who demanded the right to not be offended, who demanded the right to safe spaces, who demanded the right to not be micro-aggressed or triggered, who demanded the right to curtail freedom of speech… we brought their killers closer to them.

Anvil Springstien.

Wanna’ know more?: Further Reading/Watching/Stuff:

Kenan Malik on Free Speech and Offence:

The wonderful Sarah Haider on the Necessity of a Liberal Critique of Islam:

National Secular Society. Anne Marie Waters (2012) Sharia Law & Middle Class Feminism:

Muhammed Syed & Sarah Haider. The Humanist – Charlie Hebdo & the Erosion of the Liberal Left:

National Secular Society – The Islamophobia Delusion:

John Cleese on Political Correctness:

Michael Nugent on Satire:

Carol Hunt writing for the Irish Independent:

You Tube ‘Science & (fairly) Anti-Feminist Vlogger, Thunderf00t’s take:

Maryam Nawazi & Goldsmiths Student Union:

Clementine Ford on the attacks in European cities – a response to critics of feminist silence:

Nick Cohen writes in The Spectator – Charlie Hebdo – The Literary Indulgence of Murder:

Cathy Young – The Totalitarian Doctrine of ‘Social Justice Warriors’ [02/02/2015]:

The debate on the issue @ Patheos’ ‘Friendly Atheist:

Last but not least – if you only read one. read this: The Shame and the Disgrace of the Pro-Islamist Left, written by Jamie Palmer


charlie hebdo banner2

A Hard Lesson to Learn

‘One year on and they still haven’t learned their lesson.’ This is the message being sent by religious leaders to the survivors of the Charlie Hebdo attacks of last year.

Henry Samuel, writing in the Telegraph informs us that:Charlie Anniversary Edition

Anouar Kbibech, head of the French Council of the Muslim Faith, CFCM, said he was “hurt” by the [anniversary] issue while Abdallah Zekri of the Watchdog against Islamophobia group said it was “very violent and insulting towards religions”. Catholic leaders also expressed shock. Abbot Pierre Amar of Versailles said: “Among the dead were believers who were buried in churches. Victims’ families will be insulted when they see this caricature. I don’t understand, I’m speechless.

Hurt? Violent? Insulting? Speechless? Hardly. This lack of understanding regarding freedom of speech, freedom of expression, the freedom to mock ideas that others see as both harmful and beyond reason (or not) is merely an echo of last year’s papal forthcomings which informed the survivors of the cowardly attack that one should expect to be hurt if you go around insulting religion. Any religion.

Must Try Harder

Of course, for the fundamentalist the ability to take offence doesn’t stop at ink. Is that hair you are showing? Did you just smile? What was that you just thought? Come November’s other grim Paris anniversary will they be saying ‘Look, there they are, still laughing and drinking and joking and singing and playing music and prostituting themselves on the filthy streets of Paris. One year on and they still haven’t learned their lesson.’

Just how much more insulting to religion could these disgusting Parisians have been?

Oddly enough there doesn’t yet appear to be people dying in the streets following Charlie Hebdo’s portrayal of God as a killer, still at large. Perhaps attacking all Abrahamic religions in one go was a wise decision by the satirical publication, perhaps not – either way I need not wonder what would be happening this week had they portrayed the prophet Mohammed in such a way?


Interesting, then, isn’t it, that an image of Allah doesn’t stoke the ire in quite the same way that an image of a mere prophet does. Surely, in Islam, this behaviour would be classed as idolatry or shirk – an unforgivable sin in Islam if it remains unpardoned before death.

Still, idolatry, like all forms of blasphemy, are victimless crimes, aren’t they? Oh, wait…

Thus endeth today’s lesson.

Vive Charlie Hebdo! Vive la liberté

Anvil Springstien.

Share the fear – it dilutes it… No, really, it does [above images are facebook banner size]. Oh, and below, one of the best bits of satire you’re ever likely to see: “The Idiots Killed Me…” [by Dilem. Algerian Cartoonist. Credit: @DilemAli] Share this image at your leisure – no,  no, wait, sorry, no, don’t wait… share it now, make it viral. It’ll take ten seconds to put it on your facebook page or place it in a blog post. Do it. Let’s make people bored shitless by this image! “The Idiots Killed Me“:

The Idiots Killed Me

#ToryTown #MotherTeresa

This Just In…

[Click to Enlarge]

Mother Theresa

Original Source:

Loosely Related:

NewsGrab™ ©

Old Man on The Moon Advert ‘Faked’!

Foodbanks to get Child Snatchers!

Lord’s Rebellion.

Tory Turkey’s to have ‘Own Union’.

Austerity Deterrence.

NewsGrab Collected Werks

Anvil Springstien.


Added Bonus Content:

Christopher Hitchens on ‘Hell’s Angel’ Mother Teresa:


His book ‘The Missionary Position‘ (wiki-link) is available on Amazon here.

Interview: (.pdf) Hitchens on Mother Teresa. by ‘Free Enquiry‘ magazine.


#TysonFury #DonaldTrump #TrumpFacts

Honestly, I’m Busy

Yesterday I signed two petitions. I’m not normally one for petitions. Social media allows me to sign forty or fifty a day – more if I had anywhere near the time that the good people at Change.Org obviously think I have. I, however, being busy, use my signature rarely as, for good or ill, I hold the belief that by using it willy nilly I devalue its efficacy – its use as currency. I have no scientific proof that this is indeed the case. It could simply be due to an over-inflated sense of self-importance on my part. Perhaps I’m lazy? I’m not too sure? Like most people, some things I do with little or no thought. I simply believe this to be the case.

The two petitions I signed yesterday, I thought about long and hard. I signed them both even though I would disagree with the outcome of either, should they come to fruition.

The first petition signed was for the removal of World Heavyweight Champion, Tyson Fury, from his nomination as one of the twelve choices for the BBC’s ‘Sports Personality of The Year’. It’s an annual event of considerable import here in the UK which is ultimately voted on by the British public from an apostolic list contrived by some grey eminence in a back-office at Broadcasting House.

The second petition I signed yesterday was to ban the United States republican presidential candidate, Donald Trump, from ever alighting on these fair but damp and weatherbeaten shores.

As I write, the numbers who have also signed these petitions are at 132,000 and 515,000 respectively. In both cases, I believed it was the only way I could be part of a collective voice that showed my disapproval and disdain whilst positioning myself as far as is possible from the recent outbursts of either.

Hell Hath No Fury…

For Mr Fury’s part, following his recent and emphatic points victory over the great Wladimir Klitschko, he opined to anyone who would hold a microphone in front of him – which, believe me, was many – that the place of women was either in the kitchen making him a cup of tea, or on their back in the bedroom – presumably engaging in activities not entirely unconnected with satisfying more of his needs.

tyson fury

He further informed us that The End of The World is Nigh – well, almost nigh – explaining that it only took the acceptance of homosexuality, abortion and paedophilia before the Devil would return to signify the End of Days. As the first two abominations were already upon us, Mr Fury was awaiting the imminent legalisation of child sexual-abuse to complete the three-part Millenarian jigsaw and bring the whole apocalypse thing down around our heads. Horsemen, Angels of Death, Zombie Jesus with laser eyes, the lot.

Any day now, apparently.

When questioned by the massed ranks of the world’s press as to where this analysis had come from, they were informed that it’s ‘all there, in the Bible’. Specifically, ‘somewhere’ in the Bible. Of course, like most Christians who believe the Bible is the inerrant word of a God, Tyson Fury has obviously never read it, content to imagine that whatever he thinks of as a mortal sin must be in there ‘somewhere’. With little or no thought he simply believes this to be the case.

Bible Class

Yet the Bible says little regarding abortion or paedophilia, leastways not in the fashion that Tyson Fury believes: the Bible certainly condones and engages in the killing of foetuses and newborns as punishment; demands that toddlers be dashed to pieces; sends bears to kill insolent kids; asks that parents murder their children, or offer them for sex to rowdy mobs; implores child kidnap; child rape, child genocide and forced miscarriages; it even provides a recipe for a ‘bitter’ drink that may be given to a wife suspected of infidelity so as to abort the fruit of her womb and provide the added bonus of rendering her forever barren.

A bitter drink indeed. That’ll teach the Bitch to stay in the kitchen making the tea, or, at least, be on her back in the correct bed.

In Fury’s defence, there is – how many times do we have to be told – the injunction against homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Romans 1:26-28), but after reading the innumerable and insufferable nonsense portrayed as advice – supposedly from an all-wise deity rather than a middle-east version of a retard from Buttfuck, Alabama – it has to be asked why on earth anyone would take anything in this book at all seriously?

Still, one out of three, ain’t bad, eh, Tyson.

Fury has a loaded shotgun full of lunacy and he’s not afraid to give it both barrels – straight to his own head. Hard to imagine that his comments will be anything but detrimental to his career. I’m sure his sponsors, past and future, will be having similar thoughts.

Danger, Will Robinson!

A far more monstrous madness lies across the Atlantic where Donald Trump, as the whole world now knows, has called for Muslims (along with those thieving raping murdering Mexicans) to be collectively considered personna non grata, to be detained, marked, returned, barred, banned, beaten, and, where possible, killed.

trumpA presbyterian who knows little of religion, and is as equally skilled in foreign affairs, international relations and diplomacy as Tyson Fury, Trump has courted the traditional whack-job evangelical republican base by assuring them he has ‘drank the wine and eaten the little cracker’ of the Lord. Initially nonplussed, they have now seen his long-form concealed-carry permit, applauded his condemnation of the thousands of mythical New Jersey Muslims celebrating the fall of the Twin Towers, and have taken to him with a fervour that can only be described as messianic.

He can, it would seem, do no wrong, for even as Tyson’s star wanes with each opening of his mouth, Donald’s own rises. It would appear that the greater the stupid, the more the poll’s show him in the ascendent.

Trump, along with his followers, are beginning to build an impenetrable wall around his own form of idiocy that can only be shared by the illiterate, the ill-educated, the scared, the heavily armed, the easily led, the religious and the hard of thinking.

As each increase in stupid shows an increase in voter satisfaction, we enter a vicious circle where Trump is encouraged to turn up the stupid-dial way beyond eleven. Given a few short months, it is entirely possible that republican America will enter the primaries with what appears to resemble a two-legged copy of the British tabloid newspaper, The Sun – albeit with a hamster finely balanced above its red-top banner.

Praise The Lord!

Could the larger American public (no pun intended) vote for a man so imbecilic that even Danny Dyer could recently tweet: “Is it me, or is this geezer completely off his strange-looking nut?” (I hope Danny didn’t mind me correcting the grammar or adding the question mark), don’t worry, I have faith that they won’t.

I have faith that Trump and Fury, and their ilk, will be eaten by their own words – consumed by the very unreason and irrationality that presently propels them. I am also confident that my faith is stronger than either of theirs, for I have faith not in Goblins or Wizards or other Magic Men in the Sky – I have faith in free speech. This is why I hope these petitions will do little more than express the outrage, shock and sarcasm that many of us feel and wish to portray towards the nonsense spouted by people such as these.

Let Me Read You Your Rights

Am I offended by their bile? Of course, I am. I have the right to be offended. I do not have the right, or the desire, to not be offended. It is both their right to offer offence and mine to take it should I so choose – and respond proportionally within the realm of free speech.

Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist.

Trump And Fury have shown that free speech has its problems – it means that idiots, as well as clever people like you and me, can have their say – but these problems are all dealt with by the simple application of more free speech – not less. It is difficult to curtail the rights of the stupid to free speech, without inadvertently stitching our own mouths tightly shut. I’m sorry if people are offended by Trump or Fury’s comments. I am offended, too – tough. Develop a response, formulate an argument, speak out, write a letter, stamp your feet, march. Sign a bloody petition, for Christ’s sake!

 Just don’t sign one that demands that they shut up!

The criminalisation of speaking, as we see in some European countries with Holocaust denial laws, leads to the criminalisation of giving offence. The cry of ‘I’m offended’ should lead to discourse with the opposition, not force silence upon them – yet over and over again this is exactly how the taking of offence is now used – to silence the offending (or dissenting) voice – often with the accompanying convenience that the accusations of misogyny, racism, anti-Semitism and islamophobia can provide.

As we speak, (the God of good-timing shines upon me) the news feeds are reporting that Tyson Fury is being investigated following an accusation of ‘Hate Speech’ after further comments he made regarding homosexuality on the BBC’s Victoria Derbyshire programme: “We take every allegation of hate crime extremely seriously and we will be attending the victim’s address to take a statement.” said a spokesperson for the Greater Manchester Police.

We should be asking searching questions of Tyson – not turning him into a criminal for saying the same stupid and bigoted things – however confusedly – that all religions, and many religious people, think. There is an opportunity here to make Tyson, and people who like him, consider their views.

Still, that said, I sincerely hope that the Victim, especially after having to re-live the ordeal of listening to Tyson Fury – yet again – in front of the Police, is doing well and on the road to recovery. Apologies to all who have been triggered by my mentioning the word hate. I hope you all find your inner safe-space.

As for Donald Trump, well, that cunt can fuck right off!

Anvil Springstien.


Links & Sources:

Tyson’s interview with the BBC’s Jeremy Vine on BBC Radio 2:

The Bible on Stupid:

The Petitions:



“A BBC journalist has been suspended after saying that he was “ashamed” of his employer for including Tyson Fury in the shortlist for Sports Personality of the Year.”

Update: 12.30pm 11/12/2015:

Tyson Fury has been, thankfully, cleared by police over allegations of Hate Crime. What has this ‘accusation’ – and its subsequent dismissal, done to Tyson’s views? I imagine it has done nothing more than entrench them. Shame on the ‘accuser’, who, apparently, is no longer a victim.

#StopTheCuts #StormDesmond

Oh, My God!

Aided by Cameron’s cuts to Flood Defences, Clean Energy and Solar, Yahweh continues his campaign against Cumbria’s fascination with Homosexuality.


[Loosely related on this site: ‘Mountain Spirit Kills Wrong People’]


A collection of various UK press articles from 2007 to 2015 concerning Cameron’s flood defence cuts (2) and the belief that Yahweh has frowned upon Cumbrian Homosexuality and UK Gay Marriage in particular (7).

Risk of floods in England up due to cuts in government …

5 Nov 2014 – Risk of floods in England up due to cuts in government funding, say NAO … However, the NAO concluded spending on maintenance had fallen …

Half of flood defences at risk, watchdog warns – Telegraph

5 Nov 2014 – Half of Britain’s flood defences are at risk because of funding cuts but the … to inform homeowners living nearby, the National Audit Office has said. … TheGovernment made an extra £270 million available following the … Related Articles …up with the increased risk of flooding in the face of climate change.