Spanish government threatens Imran Firasat with jail if he released his history of Mohamed

This is from a direct email from Terry Jones’ organization. There is no link except to his general website.

December 8th, 2012
MEDIA CONTACT:  352-371-2487 or 352-871-2680 (Stephanie Sapp) or info@standupamericanow.org

The Innocent Prophet is due to be released on the 14th of December in Madrid, Spain.  Our representative for Stand Up America Now, Imran Firasat, has received word from the Spanish government informing him that if he or Stand Up America Now continue on and release the film on December 14 in Madrid Spain, then his residency status will be revoked.  He will be detained, locked in prison under the excuse of being a danger to national security, then deported back to Pakistan where he would be killed because he is facing a death sentence due to his criticism of Islam.

Again a government has backed down and given in due to the threats of Islam.  If we do not stand up and fight, also in the United States of America, we will lose our freedom of speech.  We cannot depend on the pro-Islamic Obama administration to protect our freedoms.   We must do that ourselves by standing up, by marching.  Let us join together. 

This is an absolute outrage that a western country, such as Spain, would deport someone knowing they are facing an immediate death penalty, detain him, or threaten him and his family.

Website:

 

About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic
This entry was posted in freedom of speech. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Spanish government threatens Imran Firasat with jail if he released his history of Mohamed

  1. Richard says:

    If this is true then things are moving towards a violent confrontation faster then was previously thought.

  2. Softly Bob says:

    Strictly speaking, on what charge can they arrest him and under what law could they deport him? Have laws been made that prevent the making of movies? People need to stand up. These are not real laws. They have never been officially declared by any Western parliament or senate. They are hypothetical laws, but many people are being punished on the strength of these hypothetical laws. Heads will soon roll, and faux-lawyers, pseudo-magistrates and corrupt police forces will be brought to justice by the will of the people.
    We need to fight now. The West is being eroded, not by Muslims and not by official statute, but by cowardly politicians and unelected bureaucrats who are taking us for a ride. In the end real justice just might prevail but only if we fight this crap now before it is too late!

  3. Martin says:

    OTLebanon’s Tripoli begins to look like Syria

    Two men were killed in the early hours of Friday morning and dozens more wounded in what residents and security sources say were the heaviest clashes this year between Lebanese gunmen loyal to opposing sides in Syria’s war.

    Tripoli is a majority Sunni Muslim city and mostly supports the Sunni-led uprising in Syria. But it also has an Alawite minority - the same sect as President Bashar al-Assad – and street fights between Sunnis and Alawites are common every time Lebanon gets dragged further into the crisis next door.

    The spark this time was the killing last week of at least 14 Sunni Muslim Lebanese and Palestinian gunmen from north Lebanon by Syrian government forces in a Syrian border town.

    [...]By Friday, 12 people had died in Tripoli and more than 100 had been wounded by rocket-propelled grenades, heavy machine guns and mortar bombs.

    http://en-maktoob.news.yahoo.com/lebanons-tripoli-begins-look-syria-142211953.html

    ==========================================

    Two Lebanese dead, 6 wounded in fresh Syria-linked clashes

    Two people were killed and six wounded in the north Lebanese city of Tripoli after midnight Saturday amid sectarian clashes linked to the conflict in neighbouring Syria, a security official said.

    Fighting with machine guns and rockets erupted between residents of the impoverished districts of Bab al-Tebbaneh and Jabal Mohsen, pitting Sunnis against Alawites belonging to the same religious community as Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

    The fatal shooting of two Jabal Mohsen men overnight broke a tense calm that had held since Friday morning, when the army deployed troops in restive areas of the port city as snipers held their positions.

    http://uk.news.yahoo.com/one-lebanese-dead-6-wounded-fresh-syria-linked-232357654.html

    =========================================

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOx-sMS0rJ4

  4. Richard says:

    What law did Obama use to arrest the other film maker? They will find something to arrest him on.

  5. Chris Jones says:

    Clever, isn’t it? Freedom of speech is generally limited when it is certain that the speech is going to result in violence and destruction. I don’t imagine there are too many places that will allow you to show a movie if it is absolutely known that there will be fires and explosions and deaths if you do. No way! But it’s not fair because they are the ones who are going to cause the violence. There they go with that human shield thing again, only in a different configuration.

    It would appear that the Muslims have found the secret to destroying what may be our most important asset – freedom of speech. We now have international blasphemy laws. They did it. They won.

    We will not begin to reverse this tortuous death until we learn, once again, how to hate…

  6. wtd2 says:

    Perhaps every blogger that is willing to fight to maintain freedom of speech should simultaneously release the film worldwide. Spain cannot arrest every blogger.

  7. Richard says:

    The first step is to forget white guilt over colonialism and start thinking about what is best for our nations, not what is best for the rest of the world.

  8. When*Pigs*Fly says:

    I had just reached the third comment and I was about to say “What, no off topic (or a multitude of on topic) videos from Martin and low & behold……..

  9. marc says:

    The superior non-muslim societies have absolutely NOTHING to gain from giving islam ANY respect or allowing ANYONE promoting islam into our society. We have NO obligation to drag our own society into trouble by allowing low-life muslims to enter. We have NO obligation to sort our THEIR problems, in THEIR countries. We should look after ourselves and do what’s best for US, no THEM. Ban islam, revoke citizenships of anyone found promoting islam, and clear out this scum-of-the-earth ideology!

  10. Paris Claims says:

    I am absolutely disgusted by islam. I cannot find the words to express my total and utter contempt for this foul belief system. However my feelings are even more extreme for these cowardly politicians who cave into demands and perceived demands from the bearded goat-humping savages who follow this “faith”

  11. wtd2 says:

    re: simultaneously release the film worldwide. Spain cannot arrest every blogger.

    Imran Firasat’s website mundoinislam.com posted the following update:

    ” Slightly delayed – The Innocent Prophet

    Given the delay . . .perhaps he would consider a massive viral release in the spirit of Gates of Vienna’s “Rosetta Stone” project. Utilizing the delay to have his work translated/subtitled into multiple languages including Arabic, Farsi, Russian and the Asian languages as well as the European languages prior to the un-announced release. Let this work flood the web in every conceivable language without prior notice by tilting the-power-to-censor away from all political levers. Islam has declared war under the umbrella of religion which it has used as a political sheild to protect it’s war stance. Flood the web in the form of a multi-lingual tsunami of information rendering that umbrella utterly useless.

  12. Eeyore says:

    Chris Jones:

    I suspect we have to remember something else. And that might be that violence is not the worst possible thing. I think in the west thanks to our vanquishing of so many common plagues of humanity we have set our sights on the abstract, even sometimes seeking to eliminate some of the basic characteristics of humanity itself that do not appeal to the narrative. (Vestigal communism perhaps?) so we have decided that violence is the worst outcome and anything to prevent it is worthwhile, leaving the door to extortion wide open by the barbarians.

    As much as I detest Islam and agree with you that to understand Islam is to despise and hate it, I don’t think that is necessary at all. I think one could merrily go about obliterating its beachheads and its soldiers while whistling a happy tune and never feeling a dark thought in your hearts so long as you understand that what you are doing is tantamount to cleaning your house or sweeping the street.

    What is needed is to remember that sometimes to preserve your own people, culture, history and values, you have to fight those who would destroy them,

    I really think it is this simple.

    “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
    Thomas Jefferson

  13. Richard says:

    Eeyore don’t forget that the west has been made causality adverse by the MSM, remarkably low causality rates are called unsustainable by the MSM. In Nam the total causalities for 10 years of war were lower then WWII’s 4 years of war, in the current war the rates of combat injuries are real close if not lower then the number of people injured and killed in training accidents.

    Every causality is a tragedy but when you are afraid to lose people you lose the war.

  14. George says:

    If we say that something has value, we must always be prepared to answer two questions: of value to whom or what, and for what purpose? Value always presupposes a valuer. It follows, therefore, that nothing can have value in or of itself, i.e., nothing can have intrinsic value. All values actually relate only to living entities faced with an inescapable fundamental alternative: to live or to die. For example, trees value light because light enables them to live and grow, and without it they would die; people value food for the same reason; rocks value nothing. But how can a living entity know what to value and what not to value, or to disvalue? In other words, what is a living entity’s standard of value, the standard in relation to which it can determine all its other values and disvalues? Well, because value is a corollary of a living entity faced with the fundamental alternative of living or dying, a living entity’s standard of value is its very life itself. It follows, therefore, that a living entity’s standard of value – its life – is also its highest, or principal, value, i.e., that value which all other values serve to promote. Plants and animals, which have no conceptual awareness of value, are genetically programmed to act to gain and keep values, but man is not. Man must identify his values and disvalues objectively (exclusively in accordance with facts of reality), by means of his reason – his faculty for rational thinking. Man’s reason, therefore is his basic means of living and prospering.

    In summary, values preserve, enhance or further a living entity’s principal value – its life; disvalues retard or negate it. And man – the rational animal – must use his reason if he is to identify objective values and disvalues and the means to gaining or keeping the former and avoiding or negating the latter. Once a man has made the fundamental choice to live, he acts morally when he acts to identify and gain or keep objective values, and immorally when he acts to thwart or negate them.

    However, if one is to act morally, i.e., in accordance with one’s rational judgement in the pursuit of one’s objective values, one must be free to do so. And in the context of a society of men, the only thing that can prevent a man from acting in accordance with his rational judgement is the initiation of force, or threat thereof, against him by other men. The principle of individual rights – an objective principle derived exclusively from facts of reality – recognises that a man’s life is his own and that if he is to live and prosper he must be fully free to act in accordance with his rational judgement. (Note here that individual rights are strictly rights to action, and not ‘rights’ to goods or services.) The principle of individual rights, therefore, forms the basis for banning the initiation of force from all human interactions. A proper society is one in which its members interact by trading values (material or spiritual) with each other on a voluntary basis and to mutual benefit. Such a society is properly governed only by a democratically elected government constitutionally limited in purpose and in function to the protection of freedom (freedom being the only requirement for the enabling of the full exercise of individual rights). A proper government protects freedom by using, or threatening to use, retaliatory force against those who initiate, or threaten to initiate, force against others. (In essence, a government’s right to the use of retaliatory force is the delegated right of the citizens governed.) It follows from this that the only legitimate laws enacted, implemented and enforced by government are those that protect the freedom of the individual to exercise fully his or her individual rights.

    Love is the emotional response to one’s highest values. If one’s highest values are objective, i.e., derived rationally from observable facts of reality, then one’s love for them is proper and appropriate. If, however, one’s highest values have no tie to the facts of reality and are actually objective disvalues, then one’s love for them is wholly inappropriate. For example, for a healthy young man to love his life is appropriate; but for a healthy young man to love the prospect of his own death more than his life, because he believes death is the portal to paradise, is wholly inappropriate. Similarly, hate is the emotional response to one’s highest disvalues. And if one’s highest disvalues are objective, then one’s hatred for them is appropriate; if they are not, then it is not. If something threatens to negate my highest values, especially my principle value (my life), then my hatred of that thing (that high disvalue) is appropriate. If, for example, I hate a man for holding irrational ideas that threaten, directly or indirectly, my highest values, including my life itself, then my hatred for that man is appropriate.

    I would further say that one’s emotional responses to values and disvalues, whether appropriate or inappropriate, are automatic and beyond volitional control. How one responds to one’s emotional responses, however, is clearly not. One may succeed in dissembling one’s appropriate hatred for a thing by whistling a happy tune, but one’s hatred for the thing is not thereby extinguished.

  15. Trish says:

    People think they can become famous by uploading some simple Movie Making software movie. Either islam is good or not you dont have any right to make troubles for others who are not muslims.
    By doing this you are disturbing the whole country’s security.
    for few Euro’s dont guide wrong please.

  16. George says:

    Every rights-respecting individual has an objective right to express fully and freely his or her thoughts and opinions on any subject or topic of his or her choosing, no matter whose feelings may be hurt or offended as a consequence and to whatever extent. It is the proper purpose and function of government to protect every rights-respecting individual’s freedom to exercise fully his or her objective rights, of which the right to freedom of expression is but one.

    If some people react irrationally to the rightfully expressed thoughts and opinions of others (whether those thoughts and opinions are objective or not) by violating, or threatening to violate, their lives and their rights to action, then they, and they alone, are responsible for their actions and should be dealt with summarily in accordance with objective law.

    Is Islam good or is it bad? And in relation to whom, and for what reason or purpose? What is your standard of the good ? And is it objective, i.e., derived exclusively from observable facts of reality? Here’s a clue: objective values are objectively good, and objective disvalues are objectively bad. Is Islam an objective value to anyone (the emphasis here being on the word ‘objective’)? For more clarity on the notion of value, have a read of the first paragraph of my earlier post.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>