Monday morning side event at the OSCE in Warsaw. Criminalize Islamophobia, but don’t define it

We posted a video of Stephen Coughlin the other day here at Vlad, doing an intervention at the OSCE event in Warsaw last weekend, where he referred to another event which took place on Monday morning at a side event.

The clip of Maj. Coughlin at the OSCE putting on record the danger of the demand to criminalize “Islamophobia” without even defining it is here again for those that missed it:

And here as well:

Below, the event to which Maj. Coughlin was referring:

About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

10 Replies to “Monday morning side event at the OSCE in Warsaw. Criminalize Islamophobia, but don’t define it”

  1. / Can you define Islamophobia?

    1. Islamophobia does not apply to normal disagreements.
    2. It is Islamphobic to ask the question. (See the First Law)
    3. There will be no definition provided (see Second Law)
    4. We all know what Islamophobia means because any mischief violates the Three Laws.

    You know where humanity has gone with this…

    • No?

      1. A citizen may not blasphem or insult Islam or, through inaction, allow Islam to come to be offended.
      2. A citizen must obey fatwas given to them by Imams except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
      3. A citizen must protect their own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

      • The will of Allah is made greater than the Human in the Koran; The will of the State is made greater than the Human in the Human Rights Act, and the Physical Attributes and Excretions are made greater than the human in Identity-Politics.

        Some dictator always rises up and takes care of it for them.

    • Over and over again. And it seems no one will do anything until the cost of doing so contains a fair chance of lethality.

      To be more clear on that point, it isn’t that people won’t do anything until the cost of not doing so is very high, it’s stranger than that.

      It seems like people will not do anything to stop galloping irrational totalitarianism until the cost of acting may have fatal consequences to themselves.
      So odd!

      A few years ago, all of this could have been avoided by just reminding ourselves of our values and how we came to those values. Then Islamic demands would be, and should be the stuff of TV comedy.
      Instead, we are fining comedians for humour that fails the Marxist litmus test. A prelude to jailing them most certainly if history is any judge.

      By the time anyone does anything the cost will be so high that there is no escaping its damage.

      And yet it could have been essentially free only 15 or 20 years ago.

      • But when you say that you want to protect your own culture they say, “What culture is that? White culture? Do you want to protect white supremacy?”. Then the school teacher’s union and the Canadian Union of Public Employees spends a bunch of money to pay the guy for asking the disingenuous lie-packed questions, and on it goes.

        There’s no stopping it. A well trained Marxist of the Bill Ayers Norman Finkelstein school can come up with a vexing smart-ass answer to absolutely anything anyone has to say about anything. You can say that a lovely spring morning is nice and he’ll find a way to make you look wrong. That’s all they do. That’s what they are. Marxists dedicate their lives to fucking everything up for everybody else. I hate them…

  2. It seems to me that the question was phrased rather badly. – and that this poor phrasing is what made it possible to weasel out of answering it.

    There is a difference between the ‘common speech’ and ‘legal’ definition of any word. When something becomes entrenched in law, it must have a very rigid legal definition.

    Had the question been phrased something like: “We all know how the word Islamophobia is being used in our society today. However, would you please give us the exact phrasing you will use to define it as a legal term.” – it would have been much harder to shrug the question off and imply that those asking it are disingenuous or Islamophobes or both.

    • “We all know how the word Islamophobia is being used in our society today. However, would you please give us the exact phrasing you will use to define it as a legal term.”

      Now THAT is the question.

  3. Islamophobia is a false construct. As merely a “dislike of or prejudice against” Islam or Muslims, it is not even by definition a phobia. Phobias are characterized as “an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something”. Granted, if it is a high enough degree to which someone fears Islam, it could indeed qualify here as potentially “extreme”, however, there is nothing irrational in fearing Islam if you have access to the internet or are able to read.

    A couple of real phobias that are exacerbated by the actions of subscribers to the lesser Jihad might actually include Tyrannophobia and (unfortunately) Virginitiphobia.

  4. The left and the Moslems are going to fight tooth and nail to prevent their major weapon in the propaganda war from being taken from them. It they keep doing this long enough things will get desperate enough that Islam will be outlawed in most of the world.

    • And that is precisely what President Abdel al-Sisi is trying to get across to the cement-heads at the Al Azhar University. He has said that the world is learning to hate and fear Islam and that that’s not good for Muslims. He says that the Quran really does say to kill infidels and something has to be done about how they handle that fact. If Hillary gets in, Abdel will continue to be ignored. If Donald gets in, Abdel al-Sisi will become a household word.

      Abdel and I both agree with you. Given a little time the whole world will become the Central African Republic and Myanmar with a big “NO MUSLIMS ALLOWED!” sign at the border, unless they do something about their religion and do it now…

      As for banning Islam? I would start instituting that policy immediately. Why should anybody allow people to set up a place of worship that prays for the destruction of everybody else? Hell, no! You’d have to be stupid to allow that…

Leave a Reply

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