“This Comment Has Been Removed”: Charlie Hebdo, The Guardian and Free Speech

Tobias Langdon


Liberalism is not so much an ideology as a psychiatric condition. How many ordinary Whites have been murdered, raped or injured for life by Third World immigrants in the past fifty years? Who knows? Who cares? Certainly not the Guardian. But dead left-wing cartoonists – now that is serious. In response to the massacre in Paris, the Guardian sternly and resolutely organized a conference of its finest windbags. This was the line-up:

At the We are Charlie event, organised in response to the attack in Paris that left 12 people dead, a panel of writers discussed why the French magazine had been targeted and how other publications should respond. Chaired by Guardian columnist the Rev Giles Fraser, it featured former Le Monde editor and Guardian leader writer Natalie Nougayrède, Observer columnists Nick Cohen and Henry Porter, cartoonists Steve Bell and Martin Rowson and Guardian writers Sunny Hundal and Shahidha Bari. (We are Charlie: ‘freedom of speech needs to be strongly defended’, The Guardian, 9th January 2015)

I count two non-Whites and at least two Jews, Giles Fraser and Nick Cohen. So the panel was chaired and numerically dominated by people from groups that don’t identify with or care about native White Europeans. When Cohen wrote about the Charlie Hebdo massacre in the London Spectator, he didn’t mention mass immigration once. But he did mention “white racists” and note that a “religion is not a race.” Plainly, then, he supports Britain’s “hate-speech” laws and doesn’t believe in free speech.

As far as I know, the panellist Steve Bell isn’t Jewish. He’s just a deluded White liberal who draws self-righteous and unfunny cartoons for the Guardian. His response to the disturbing reality of the Hebdo massacre was simple. He pretended that it wasn’t there. Laughter bends gun-barrels. The presence of millions of Third-World non-Whites in the West doesn’t matter, because liberals can magic their pathologies away with bad cartoons. That’s what Bell obviously thinks.

Advertisement - Time to SUBSCRIBE now!

He’s wrong. He’s also wrong to think that the Guardian supports free speech. That suggestion is a sick joke. Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons would be illegal in Britain under thought-crime laws that are fully supported by the Guardian and that ban free speech on race, religion and sexual orientation. The Guardian website routinely deletes comments that violate liberal pieties on race and sexual politics. After events like the London riots, messages like this pop up like mushrooms on a stump:

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn’t abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

Censorship is completely acceptable to the Guardian if it silences ideas that it disagrees with, no matter how factually based or rational.

And it certainly would be outraged if a British magazine published a cartoon that mocked the martyr-cult of St. Stephen Lawrence in the crude and scatological style of Charlie Hebdo. The Guardian would be apoplectic. It would take the lead in calling for the magazine to be prosecuted and the guilty parties jailed. The Guardian does not believe in open debate on certain highly important topics. When the Nobel laureate James Watson expressed heretical views on Black intelligence in 2007, the Jewish Marxist and Stasi collaborator Steve Rose sneered at “freedom of speech” and welcomed the witch-hunt that was pursuing Watson:

As for freedom of speech, these freedoms are and must be constrained. We don’t have the right to casually cry fire in a crowded theatre, or to use hate speech — at least in Europe, as opposed to the US. Watson’s now retracted remarks came into these unacceptable categories. So the repercussions are to be welcomed. (Watson’s bad science, The Guardian, 21st October 2007)

Seven years on, the Guardian hasn’t forgotten or forgiven Watson for his heresy. Recently it published an op-ed on Watson by Adam Rutherford, a biologist:

He may have unravelled DNA, but James Watson deserves to be shunned

This sounds awful: an 86-year-old hero ostracised for his views, shooed from public life by the people who walk in his scientific shadow. But it’s not awful. Watson has said that he is “not a racist in a conventional way”. But he told the Sunday Times in 2007 that while people may like to think that all races are born with equal intelligence, those “who have to deal with black employees find this not true”. Call me old-fashioned, but that sounds like bog-standard, run-of-the-mill racism to me. …

Like all contemporary biologists, my career is largely based on his work. The medal? If I could afford it, I wouldn’t want it. My field, human genetics, was founded by another racist, Francis Galton, who sought to demonstrate white British dominance over the colonies using biometrics. He gave birth to eugenics, an endeavour never realised in the UK, but that was broadly supported around the beginning of the 20th century across the political spectrum, from Churchill to Marie Stopes to William Beveridge. His and my alma mater, UCL, is currently thinking hard about how to scold his racism and continue to respect his scientific legacy, which is undeniable and unrivalled. The nicest irony is that genetics – the field he founded and Watson transformed – is precisely the subject that has singularly demonstrated that race as a scientific concept holds no water. … (He may have unravelled DNA, but James Watson deserves to be shunned, The Guardian, 1st December 2014)

Rutherford also works for the BBC, another committed enemy of speech that counters the leftist narrative no matter how well supported factually. He’s an intellectual pygmy whose delusions are matched only by his arrogance. Francis Galton and James Watson are great scientists. Adam Rutherford is a puppet of cultural Marxists like Stephen Jay Gould. Martin Rowson, another Guardian cartoonist, is another intellectual pygmy:

Don’t fool yourselves that this is about Islam. It was the Islamists’ secularist enemy Bashar al-Assad who got his thugs to break the fingers of the Syrian cartoonist Ali Ferzat four years ago. The Palestinian cartoonist Naji al-Ali was murdered in London in 1987 by a student who claims to have been a double agent for Mossad and the PLO. The British cartoonists’ names in the Gestapo death list were just another manifestation of how hateful laughter is to despots throughout history. Which is why, now more than ever, we mustn’t stop laughing at this latest bunch of murderous clowns to scorn. (Charlie Hebdo: We must not stop laughing at these murderous clowns, The Guardian, 8th January 2015)

Let’s unpick Rowson’s argument. The Paris gunmen can’t have been motivated by Islam because Bashar al-Assad is a secularist. In other words, unless all instances of censorship are motivated by Islam, none is. I think Rowson needs to take a course in elementary logic. He won’t, of course. He, Steve Bell and the other narcissistic windbags at the Guardian will continue to pretend that reality isn’t there and that their lunatic ideology isn’t responsible for what happened in Paris.

But it is. And it’s going to be responsible for the much worse things that follow. The lunacy of mass immigration is ending where any sane person knew it would end: in disaster.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks

Comments are closed.