Je Suis Charlie hypocrites

hypocrite charlie

The Islamic terror attacks on French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo have rightfully provoked widespread condemnation. But many of those lining up to vocalise their commitment to free speech actually don’t really believe in it.

“Any society that’s serious about liberty has to defend the free flow of ugly words, even ugly sentiments,”pontificated a Guardian editorial within hours of the attack despite the paper’s editor, Alan Rusbridger, recently endorsing statutory state regulation of the UK press during the Leveson Enquiry. Now Nick Clegg tweets (in French, no less) his “attachement à la liberté d’expression”. Ed Miliband also banging on about “freedom of speech”. Three years ago both of them sought to implement state regulation of the press in this country.

But first prize for freedom of speech BS goes to French President Francois Hollande who claimed that free speech is a right “guaranteed and protected by the Republic” M Le President conveniently forgetting that Hara Kiri Hebdo was banned by the French government in 1970 for taking the piss out of Charles de Gaulle – the magazine changed its name to Charlie Hebdo in order to continue publishing.

All of these windbags believe the same thing that Islamic terrorists do – that ideas they disagree with should be suppressed. And claiming otherwise makes them hypocritical cunts.

Nominated by: John Milius’ Gun Cabinet

17 thoughts on “Je Suis Charlie hypocrites

  1. Can I now say…

    Lenny Henry is a NIGGER (and a mount Olympian cunt).

    before je suis hauled in front of a court for…speaking freely? Hypocrisy courses through the western world. Western hypocrisy is a cunt.

      • No there isn’t:-

        Free speech is the freedom to be a total cunt in your expressiions; written or verbal.

        Mind you, it also means that those who disagree with what you utter are equally free to announce to the world that you are an utter twat, in their opinion – and why.

        • Succinctly put.

          Freedom of speech is OK as long as its not you being called a cunt is 99.9999% of the world populations definition of free speech.

          And offence is not given, its taken.

        • You hear a lot about rights these days – my right to freedom of speech, my right to follow my religion, my right to be a 40 stone lard arse on benefits – but little about the responsibilities that go with it.

          Yes, you have the right to free speech but surely you have the responsibility not to behave like a cunt.

          I believe it was Voltaire (or was it Spider-Man?) who said ” With great power comes great responsibility.” Free speech is very powerful.

          Having said that Lenny Henry is a cunt which is disappointing as I used to like his sketch show in the early 80s.

          • Spiderman’s uncle wasn’t it? Anyway, good post CMC. You’re absolutely right, most people are quick to assert their rights, but hardly anyone thinks about the responsibilities that go with those rights.

    • I used to like Lenny Henry. Then he got old, and became a bitter, twisted, hypocritical cunt. He’s constantly whingeing about how there aren’t enough black/minority faces on television. And that the likes of Idris Elba have to got to the US to get television work. He forgot to mention though, the Idris got paid far more for The Wire, than he would have done if it had been a British show. And Idris himself has never complained.

      So, he whinges about Britain being racist, because he thinks there aren’t enough black faces on television. Then he goes on radio four and picks a production that doesn’t have a single white face. He did this knowing full well that he would be opening himself up to claims of racism. I think he did it to try to stop people calling him that. The fact remains though, that by ignoring a white person in the same way he claims black and minority people are ignored, he’s made himself a weapons grade hypocrite, and a cunt.

      • Lenny Henry makes himself look an arse when he goes on about racial stereotyping in Rising Damp (I always thought Don Warrington’s Philip was the smartest character), yet Henry was more than happy to play black caricatures: like that Barry White impression or the rasta who ate decondensed milk butties and went ‘Oooooookaaaaaay!’ Henry did plenty of that ‘Katanga Buana’ bollocks….
        If Lenny wants black faces on his telly then he should check out Crimewatch….

        • Funny you mentioned Crime watch. The similar programme in New Zealand has an unending show case of Maori mug shots. Of course, the Maoris are NZs niggers.

      • I seem to remember Lenny Hendrys act consisted of him reinforcing stereotypical black characters.

  2. This rubbish about “state regulation of the press” cannot be allowed to stand uncorrected – it’s a total fiction promoted by the Mail, The Sun and The Telegraph, so I’m copying and pasting my original response to this nonsense:

    While I’ve not yet found Rusbridger’s evidence, here are the pertinent recommendations in the Executive Summary to Part One of the Leveson Inquiry (screenshots of the actual document which I have in pdf form):

    http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j127/FredWestPatios/leveson_zps5de82a72.jpg

    You’ll notice how radically it differs from the blatant lies promulgated by the Mail, Sun and Telegraph. But then there has been a concerted conspiracy by certain sections of the media to wilfully misrepresent the facts regarding Leveson in order to suit the agenda of the papers in question – this is not a mere assumption on my part, I’ve actually compared media “reports” with what was actually said at Leveson. Very few newspapers indeed have reported the unbiased truth of the Leveson Report: more often than not, it’s just the usual ludicrous scaremongering lies.

    The recommendations (which are broadly incorporated into the Royal Charter) do not “regulate the Press” in way, shape or form. What is required is a mechanism to determine that SELF-regulation by the Press is truly independent and truly free of interference from Editors, politicians or any other powerful vested interests, which has always been the problem in the past. Unsurprisingly, the old PCC (recently rebranded as IPSO) which was so thoroughly discredited during the Leveson evidence was run by a small cabal dominated by Paul Dacre and lieutenants of Rupert Murdoch, as well as a couple of Murdoch/Dacre-friendly Tory peers. Paul Dacre who co-drafted the Editors Code is also Editor of the “newspaper” responsible for the most frequent transgressions of that code and, coincidentally, also dominates the PCC/IPSO. Is it any wonder then that the Daily Mail has never received any meaningful censure? If you had your house burgled, how would you feel if the policeman to whom you reported the crime, as well as the prosecuting counsel and the judge was the very same burglar? How confident would you feel about getting justice (or even a fair, unbiased investigation)..?

    When the tabloids (led by Dacre and Murdoch) complain that the Royal Charter will lead to “political interference” they wilfully neglect to report that the Charter contains mechanisms which make such interference absolutely impossible; they also neglect to say that the PCC/IPSO has always been – and continues to be – partly run by friendly Tory peers. The stench of hypocrisy is repugnant. And as for the lie that Leveson only came about because of the colourful private lives of Steve Coogan and Hugh Grant, that is equally disingenuous. There were hundreds of core participants to the Inquiry, and very few indeed were famous. Most were ordinary, blameless individuals wrongly identified, targeted and vilified by a feral, sensationalist tabloid press which regarded itself as above the law. There is a necessity for proper and proportionate redress when mistakes are made. It’s not about “state regulation” and it’s not about compromising “freedom of speech” or any other bullshit, despite what Murdoch and Dacre want you to believe.

    Despite their very vocal protestations, the tabloids have no interest in “freedom of speech” or the exposure of “public interest” scandals. They are engaged in a display of power designed to impress, intimidate and influence. And it’s the loss of this power and influence they fear, hence all the lying and desperate scaremongering in order to hang on to it.

    • Another aptly made point. The press espouse freedom of speech as long as it is only the press that can use it to bully and intimidate others to drive an agenda, usually political (Guardianistas and The Sun – this is you, cunts).

  3. Verbatim quote from Rusbridger’s evidence at Leveson:

    “If a ‘statutory’ response implies some form of state control, or licensing of journalists, we would oppose it”.

    I think this succinctly negates the OP’s bizarre idea that Rusbridger “endorsed” state regulation of the Press during the Leveson Inquiry. As the quote shows, he said the exact opposite. I suggest the OP should delve a little deeper in future, instead of cuntishly swallowing the lies contained in Daily Mail editorials.

    • I agree with the sentiment, Norman – but don’t forget that Charlie Hebdo’s circulation has increased by 940,000 since the shootings and it would be a monumental tragedy if that happened at the Mail.

      • True enough, Fred… The Mail would go on about it for years, decades… Just like The Express with Lady Di and Maddie McCann…

Comments are closed.