Monday, 19 January 2015

fry the french flag for freedom of expression...



...but mind you observe all relevant european union health-and-safety regulations first.

yessir...if, as this article suggests, president hollande is seriously calling for the punishment of those who burn the french-flag, then the double-standard of his pretension to support free-expression is now flapping pathetically around in the wind above le palais de l'élysée, like a badly-soiled pair of his best french-knickers - and not least as a result of blow-back from his hypocritical, inquisitional purge of anti-jewish satirists, who can now find themselves hauled into court for merely blowing a raspberry in the wrong political direction.

so what is this offended little french prick going to do about the tricolour-trashers in niger?  send in the troops to teach them a lesson?  one would hope that's a conspiracy-theory too far...

...but nevertheless, this is not just fancy fascist talk from the precious parisian pillock, because under french law:
'outraging the french national anthem or the french flag during an event organized or regulated by public authorities is liable for a fine of €7,500 - and six months' imprisonment if performed in a gathering'
in fact, wikipedia goes on to explain:
'a july 2010 law makes it a crime to desecrate the french national flag in a public place, but also to distribute images of a flag desecration, even when done in a private setting'
now, as regular readers of these hallowed pages may have remarked, all forms of imagery are strictly prohibited here, except of course for the officially approved portrait of the profrite spark up! - as viewed in the left hand margin...

...however, vis-à-vis l'égalité...a couple of conscious cartoon ideas have cropped-up which i feel the urgent need to share:
  • a picture of a french newsagent's which shows a pile of charlie hebdo copies for sale on one side, and a heap of handy french-flag-packs, with accelerant and matches included, on the other
  • a drawing of first french political slag of the republic, actress julie gayet, with the tricolour stuffed up her poop-hole in the form of a free french suppository
that's right folks, only in france are you legally permitted to insult the arabs, the prophet, together with every follower of islam, or even depict a naked muslim woman being anally-assaulted by her own niqab...

...yet absolutely forbidden, upon pain of instant criminal prosecution, to depict the fucking fascist fanny-hole of a french-flag being 'desecrated'.

ooh là là...bit of a touchy old tart, françois "le fanatique" hollande - especially where it concerns the slightest disrespect for his silly sad shit-hole of a hypocritical republic...

alors...

vive la fraternité...

vive l'égalité...

vive la liberté (d'expression)...


17 comments:

the undilutable whiteness of being french said...

looks like the stupid french prig, hollande, is losing complete neo-colonial control of his evilly anachronistic francophone empire.

when will france grow-up and quit its totalitarian nineteenth-century attitude towards african and asian countries? when will france dump institutional racism as an official doctrine?

liberty, equality and fraternity for the french; repression discrimination and alienation for the blacks, browns and arabs - who, in social terms, will never truly be considered french.

maybe having now reached the 21st century, the french should change their national motto to:

"captivity, imparity, hostility"...?

the davy safety-clamp said...

all interesting stuff in these last two posts and comment threads, spark up - but are you going to condemn the murder of parisian cartoonists, shoppers, unarmed policemen, and an unarmed policewoman, or not?

spark up said...

@the davy safety-clamp

yes, davy, i deplore the murder of these parisian citizens in the name of islam, just as i deplore the murder of thousands-upon-thousands of middle-eastern and african muslims in the name of western democracy - and although i dislike religion intensely, because it restricts freedom of thought and therefore the development of individual responsibility, i also deplore the recent burning of churches and murder of their congregations in the name of islam, just as much as i deplore the absolutely wholesale destruction of mosques and the indiscriminate murder of their devotees during the iraq, syrian, afghanistan, and gazan wars, all in the name of democracy.

you see, as a westerner, i recognize that along with the great power of western democracy, comes the ultimate responsibility for all the extremism precipitated within its sphere of political control and influence - and this is why i prefer to concentrate criticism on my own western governments first and foremost; in fact, i do not believe that western democracies should be controlling other states in the middle-east and africa at all - since crude interventionist policies are fundamentally repressive and the prime provocation of religious extremism in regions directly under the western cosh, or that of its proxies.

indeed, it is the west's very own oppressive military intervention and promotion of hardline authoritarian, totalitarian and repressive régimes which triggers persecuted sections of regional populations to resort to extremist religious beliefs, such as islamism, and then once established, these extremist elements are easily manipulated, via sympathetic foreign intelligence agencies, or ambitious politicians within these hardline states themselves, to do the dirty-work of the rich and powerful - be they from israel, iran, the gulf-states, russia, or even the west.

extremist organizations are not only used by regional governments as instruments of repression against populations in africa and the middle-east, but are also used by our own governments to instil fear in domestic western democratic populations; both the woolwich and paris jihadists were taken off security-service watch-lists shortly before the respective attacks occurred - so it seems highly probable that someone within, or closely connected with, the cia is tipping-off jihadists and giving them the green-light to go into action.

the basic problem is that everybody is suffering from repressive government, with muslims afraid to criticize muslim leaders, and westerners afraid of to criticize western leaders, and as a consequence, muslims abroad tend to take out their frustrations on minority western groups, whilst westerners at home are prone to vent their frustrations on minority muslim groups, but what we must all remember is that extremists, whether they be islamists, western military, or european nazi-style thugs, are, either directly or indirectly, the business-end of cia-organized western repression, and extremely dangerous for the common citizen to censure or ridicule - primarily because the membership of any political or religious group is always converted to the cause by an irrational act of faith, thus ultimately quite impervious to the normal process of reason and debate.

the addiction of conviction said...

although not readily admitted, the unpalatable truth is that adherents of religions or political movements regard their own ideology or doctrine as superior to all others, which they hold in automatic contempt - and therefore anyone not of their own faith or ideological persuasion, including the non-religious and non-political, is deemed to be inferior.

injury plus insult equals critical instability said...

religious and political extremism must always qualify as legitimate targets for merciless satirical attack, but in the name of balance and consistency, every form of political and religious extremism should be criticized with equal rigour, including christian and western democratic extremism.

now, on account of an extremist islamist element within islam, charlie hebdo collectively denigrates every member of the muslim faith, yet despite a corresponding element of extreme zionism existing within judaism, this very same satirical publication signally fails to denigrate the entire membership of the jewish faith with an equally fanatic ideological vigour - in fact to further compound this ethical inconsistency, nor does charlie hebdo appear to be in the habit of condemning all westerners or christians as extremists, despite vicious military oppression of muslims by largely christian-populated western democracies, and thence arises charlie hebdo's integral hypocrisy; in common with christianity, islam branches into many diverse doctrinal schools, each with a vastly contrasting set of beliefs, yet charlie hebdo has ignored the reality that individual muslims have absolutely no control or influence over the way fellow muslims interpret the qur'an, nor the degree to which his brothers or sisters may be lured by fundamentalism - thus in iran and egypt, demonstrations against the charlie hebdo prophet-cartoons were held peacefully, whilst in niger, for example, the protests turned seriously violent.

spark up! is afraid to be explicit in stating that no subject, including the prophet of islam, should in principle be judged off-limits to political satirists, writers and artists - and given the cia's relentless campaign to cynically cultivate and then unleash fully-developed terror upon us, as so cruelly illustrated by the recent cia-licenced attacks in paris, i don't really blame him.


it's all a question of 'principle' and 'practice' - in principle there should be no limits placed upon freedom of expression, but in practice a reasonable person would not wish to ridicule en masse the already repressed followers of a religion, who as a matter of standard foreign policy, are routinely and indiscriminately being unjustly slaughtered, right across africa and the middle-east, by our western democratic forces and their regional allies.


of course, if the balance of global political power were completely reversed, and a powerful islamic hegemony were abusing its power by violently repressing christians, one could well hypothesize that graphically insulting images of the prophet would generally be considered less controversial - nevertheless, as matters stand, a cartoon-image which depicts a violent extremist prophet would never be viewed as appropriate, unless perhaps it incorporated the figure of jesus christ holding a sub-machine gun to the hi-jacked prophet's head...

...tragically, the satirical imbalance evident in charlie hebdo's treatment of muslims has made the callous cartoon-sheet a big propaganda target, and having deliberately left the security-door open for known jihadists to mount an attack, the covert cia terror-manipulators have been allowed to hi-jack charlie hebdo's negatively-charged narrative for their own ends, and ultimately upturn the whole international political ship into the raging waters of deadly war, unnecessarily.

sir ginstone lurchswill said...

we shall fight them in the funny papers

non-governmental death-squads said...

@spark up

extremist organizations are not only used by regional governments as instruments of repression against populations in africa and the middle-east, but are also used by our own governments to instil fear in domestic western democratic populations; both the woolwich and paris jihadists were taken off security-service watch-lists shortly before the respective attacks occurred - so it seems highly probable that someone within, or closely connected with, the cia is tipping-off jihadists and giving them the green-light to go into action.

yes, western governments deceitfully farm or contract-out their dirty-work to 'foreign' terror-cells, which western intelligence agencies manipulate by implanting agents provocateurs and by creating false identities on the internet - actors can easily replace key militants or activists, who then proceed to mislead and misdirect the whole group.

anti-establishment figures can be conveniently murdered by 'extremists' for supposed ideological reasons, and mass-attacks on the public tend to keep us all meek, quiet and gratefully submissive to our protectors - thus we are violently bullied into self-censorship whilst the state whistles-away blamelessly.

how awfully quaint (part one) said...

in the past, i have had the remarkably disturbing experience of defending sir trevor phillip's freedom of speech - even though the guy talks like a cunt, acts like a cunt, and has the rare distinction of being almost universally accepted as a cunt - and i've also defended his unworthy peers, john terry and jeremy clarkson, for exactly the same reason; now, today, in a fit of colour-blind consistency, i'm honour-bound to defend benedict cumberbatch - an actor for whom i've bugger-all interest, really.

tragically, mr blunderhatch has recklessly used the word 'coloured' instead of the more fashionable term 'black' to describe his fellow luvvies in the united kingdom - and must therefore immediately forfeit a glittering show-biz career, all accrued honour, and assume full blame for the atlantic slave-trade, the holocaust, the ever-extending evils of european colonialism, and the big obstinate pimple on diane abbott's otherwise flawless arse.

to his credit however, the rather posh public-school thespian did manage to mention, on prime-time american television, that these darker-coloured chappies have an unconscionably hard-time forging a career over here in badland britain, but generally find more success over in the good old united states - the land where dreams come true, especially if those dreams involve being unarmed and gunned-down by paranoid small-town cops.

luckily for mr golden-globes, show racism the red-card has only given him a yellow-card, and let him play-on.

personally, i feel that if 'coloured' is good-enough for sir trevor phillips and many older-generation african-caribbeans, then 'coloured' should be good enough for the coloured-pencil-sharpeners at show racism the red-card, and that mr ben should be left to warble-on in his fuddy-duddy pre-obama world.

interchangeable race-labels such as 'black', 'coloured' and 'negro' are all direct products of a racialized society ruled by a racist establishment, forever in the holy quest of jazzy new nicknames for those outta which it regularly wants to kick the shite, and in this kind of society, i'd be surprised, frankly, if there were many folks 'of colour' who really desire to be officially labelled at all - although i appreciate there's always gonna be a few hard-core race-addicts out there, who will wish to spend life wearing their skin as a colour-fast flag of oppression.

(continued below)

how awfully quaint (part two) said...

(continued from above)

writer, bonnie greer, and show racism the red-card have both had a profitably self-publicizing pop at poor old-fashioned ben, and so i reckon we must thank him for flushing out those in the professional race-industry who prefer to quibble about the wording on the label of the can, instead of worrying about the nasty 'white' worms wot have gotten inside and cannibalized the vulnerable human contents; whilst we're squabbling over what or what-not to call it, racism still flourishes, and captains of the race-industry get their cool percentage of the spoils.

of course, race-people like bonnie greer and show racism the red-card are desperate to undermine anyone who - in their self-interested view - irrationally decides to destabilize institutional racists, because without an ever-renewing, ever-lasting well of ever-challengeable racists, bonnie and co would have no job, and nothing to write-on about; in fact, if these race-guys had done their 'job' properly, they would have condemned, not congratulated, cumberbatch for suavely gliding over the icy race-issue, as he did, in embarrassment, obviously uncertain whether to say 'black' or 'coloured' before the tribally-enured american audience, obviously completely unaccustomed to debating real race-shit, and they would have condemned him for then moving so swiftly onto the solid celebrity-sanctuary of discussing transatlantic acting-trade differences, as he did - but on the contrary, they would have congratulated cumberbatch on his provocative use of a trigger-word, in protest, which dumps us straight back in the lynching-fifties and sixties, as obama has done, so deftly, so successfully, so masterfully, ensuring his one great and historic legacy for mankind, racism.

show racism the red-card...?

...why not show it the door?

these are touchstone-words, just as the cartoon of the prophet is a touchstone-image - whilst there is still racism, there will always be reaction, yet when we have peace, there will be just indifference.

they're awkward, cumbersome, loveless, these compulsory political words - and no matter how much you dress them up, they will always imprison you.

i know why the old-'uns persist obdurately in using the old-terms - because the more words change, the more they mean the same fucking old thing.

pc fuckoff (part one) said...

@how awfully quaint

hello-ello...do i smell the stench of a well-staged theatrical set-up here?

mmm...given the evidence that director, shop-steward, and veteran equal rights monitor, lenny henry, uses the same acting-stable as mr bumbapatch...

...and that blunderhatch probably had his unconditionally profuse apology carefully drafted-up well in advance of even entering that chat-show studio...

...i must duly conclude that this incident was nothing less than a professionally choreographed publicity-scandal - and false-flag flap...

ermmm...all-in-all, i consider the actor to be a great deal more politically-aware than he is being painted - since he clearly hesitated before committing himself to the infamous phrase, and then practically swallowed the 'offending' word itself - but of course i must unconditionally defer to those far more conscious than myself for a final judgment on the matter.

full-marks for getting it in there tho', son - the issue's front page news again. bloody-well tried.

(not that i really give a flying-dog's doo-doo about actors' employment opportunities, you realize)

...however, in the case of the bonnie greer woman and show racism the red-card, i'd say the following: both definitely guilty of deliberate and malicious distraction and subtraction from the higher cause of securing equal opportunities for our darker-skinned colleagues.

mmm...of course, it goes without mention that far stronger language and action would be required to effect any visible colour-change in the ranks of this police force.

(continued below)

pc fuckoff (part two) said...

(continued from above)

...and as for puffed-up new-labour propagandist, sir trevor trimlips - supporter of britain's most unwanted war-criminal and de facto unelected president, tony blair - i hear he is about to be shoed-in as the bbc's 'obama'...

...the first black chairman of the board of governors, whose appointment will be hailed as a triumph for racial equality in the media etc etc...but will in reality change bollock-all and just lure lenny's rude campaign-craft onto the sand-banks - whilst the british colonial government station continues, as normal, blind to british bombs and brutality, to pump-out the most hideous racially-slanted political disinformation and bare-faced lies, crassly covering-up the deaths of darkies at home and completely failing to even cover the permanent programme of genocide of african and other non-white peoples, as it progresses unchecked and unabated across the globe. clever little cunts the cia.

...so not only will tony blair carry-on dictating his evil foreign and domestic policy to the incumbent prime minister and the leader of the opposition, he will soon have the main government mouthpiece under his total control. god-damn labour and ed miliband - how on earth will anyone ever trust them again whilst they harbour britain's worst war-criminal in recent history.

by-the-way, after the 2005 riots in france, phillips le pompous was invited to advise the frog government on equality, and in september 2007 was decorated with the chevalier de la légion d'honneur, but judging from the recent bloodbath in paris, his expert intervention did bugger-all good, and in light of this compelling evidence, i can only surmise as to the fraught and bitter race-war which, thanks to monseigneur trev's inspirational touch, shall immediately break out in the bbc upon his indecently over-fanfared accession to the high communications table...

...and ermmm...leaving you with a final thought for the day - which would you consider more offensive? the phrase "you black cunt" or "you coloured cunt"? i must officially refer this matter to show racism the red-card for a definitive ruling - and then adjust my language accordingly...

...nevertheless, i'd wager that, if, on that fateful day, john the terrible had shouted the latter abusive variation at antonio birdinhand, anton would likely have pissed his pants laughing, and then been stretchered off the pitch.

evening gentlemen

old ma cleanspeak said...

one might well presume that how awfully quaint has perchance had the good fortune to have been speaking to those 'older generation' afro-caribbean folks, who deem it proper and polite to use the word 'coloured' as a self-description when finding themselves in mixed-race company - 'black' being to them somewhat radical in nature.

'coloured', if memory serves one right, was a racial label which was given, by 'white' folks, to we african-europeans, african-americans, and africans, whereas 'black' was a race-label which african-americans were eager to bestow upon themselves, in a notional attempt to achieve nomenclatural parity with the section of the community classed as 'white' - however, in practice, one cannot honestly discern which of the two politically-mandatory, artificial name-tags is the more demeaning...

...and oh dear, is not mr pc eff-orff getting ever longer-winded and less-amusing as each year grinds excruciatingly by...?

...but yes, sir trevor phillips, was not he the rather scary-sounding black-man who, once-upon-a-time, was in the useful habit of presenting local news items on the london weekend television channel...?

...and with all due respect to the british parliament, the british judiciary, the british civil service, and the british broadcasting company, one can but ask the following simple question:
when black people come across a huge great pile of steaming white shite, pray why is it that one whatless pillock always wants to climb right up to the top of it t'raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaasssssssssssssss?

mr ben blunderhatch - equity member said...

all terribly embarrassing of course...but lenny's got everything sorted now...he drafted up a new script that should steer me clear of trouble...it's real criss:

"mi niggaz back in the united kingdom ain't gettin' proppa respeck bro"

dr w trash-tongue said...

racism is a nonsensical non-scientific construct - and it should therefore come as no great surprise that the congenitally deformed lexicon, born of this socio-political fraud, provides no useful or accurate global function when applied to actual-life description of individuals.

can't say fairer than that, really.

dame diana double-dollop said...

totally 'off-topic'...but, notwithstanding his full-on feminist commitment to the 'stop page-three campaign', i must seriously object to ed miliband's proposed big-tit-tax - as it unfairly targets big tits.

the racks inspector said...

@dame diana double-dollop

more jobs for the boys, eh?

miss construde grail said...

three cheers for ben rumbasplatch.

the diverse nature of british society is definitely not reflected in british television drama and film...but then to be honest, our ethnic, sexual and religious diversity is not properly represented in british creative arts and culture as a whole.

take the field of public sculpture, for example...

...only the other day, i found myself forced to forbid my own children from 'playing snowmen' down the local park, due to their institutionalized insistence on constructing pure white male snowpeople like everyone else - it really was a diversical disgrace, i looked around at the unplanned blizzard of frozen figures and noticed, to my complete horror, that there was not a single black one, and none with knockers on.

my god, what kind of a world are we bringing our babies into?

now, it's not that i'm against snow-art per se, because given an appropriate level of diversity regulation, i'm pretty sure that this form of recreational activity could eventually evolve as an ideal mechanism for bringing our communities closer together in a more tolerant multi-cultural society - so theoretically speaking, and organized under the right conditions, i would rate this strangely uniting diversion, this snow-building business, as a worthwhile, fulfilling way of chilling, which could ultimately promote peace and harmony in our free-time...

...as opposed to watching the deviant drunken fight-fest, eastenders, of course, which just teaches us how to cheat, rob and murder each other - gangland-style.