Je suis Mila

A French teenager has been mobbed on Twitter, forced out of school and investigated by police for insulting Islam.

Fraser Myers

Fraser Myers
Staff writer

Share

A 16-year-old has become the most hated girl in France after she criticised Islam on an Instagram livestream. Mila (who can only be identified by her first name) is currently cloistered in her house, living under police protection, and is unable to return to school.

During her livestream, a Muslim boy asked her out in the comments, but she turned him down because she is gay. He responded by accusing her of racism and calling her a ‘dirty lesbian’. In an angry follow-up video, streamed immediately after she was insulted, Mila responded by saying that she ‘hates religion’. ‘The Koran is hateful… Islam is shit… Your religion is shit… I’d stick a finger up your god’s arsehole’, said the teenager.

The video went viral and was reposted on multiple social-media platforms. Before long, Mila was receiving death and rape threats, and her identity and school were made public. Her family and the local authorities have been unable to find her a school that will guarantee her safety.

The police opened two investigations in response to what has become known as ‘l’affaire Mila’. One, still ongoing, is into the death and rape threats directed at the 16-year-old. The other was into Mila herself, for ‘inciting religious hatred’.

The investigation into Mila has since been dropped. But that it was launched in the first place is nonetheless extraordinary. France, which usually takes pride in its tradition of secularism, effectively launched a police investigation into blasphemy. Five years ago, following the horrific slaughter of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, the French elite linked arms to declare ‘Je suis Charlie’ and vow to defend free speech against Islamist intolerance. Now the ‘secular’ French state appears willing to do the Islamists’ dirty work by punishing those who blaspheme against Islam.

Both #JeSuisMila (I am Mila) and #JeNeSuisPasMila (I’m not Mila) have trended on Twitter. Mila’s lawyer, Richard Malka, told The Times last week that, ‘No human-rights association has protested or expressed solidarity with the girl whose life has suddenly been plunged into hiding’. ‘It is the left that traditionally defends secularism in this country… It saddens me that it has not done so in this case’, he lamented.

Far from offering solidarity, many public figures have denounced the schoolgirl. Abdallah Zekri, director of the French Council of Muslims, when asked about the threat to Mila’s safety, said that she must ‘live with the consequences of what she said’ and that she has ‘reaped what she sowed’. (Zekri was forced to retract his comments after a public outcry.)

Initially, Mila’s main high-profile defenders came from the right. Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, leader of the right-wing Debout la France (France Arise) party, tweeted: ‘Shame on the prosecutor’s office which is treating the victim and her aggressors on an equal footing.’ Julien Odoul, of Marine Le Pen’s anti-Islam National Rally, tweeted: ‘Islam is a religion. Religion is an opinion. An opinion can be subjected even to the most insulting criticism. Without free speech, France would no longer be France.’

By contrast, justice minister Nicole Belloubet made the ludicrous and illiberal claim that insulting religion ‘breached’ France’s law on ‘freedom of conscience’. Embarrassingly for the minister, it was quickly pointed out that no such ‘freedom of conscience’ law exists. (Plus surely the concept of freedom of conscience permits blasphemy.) Belloubet later backtracked on her comments, saying that there is a ‘right to criticise’ religion, but not a ‘right to make threats’. Interior minister Christophe Castaner was then forced to clarify that ‘the offence of blasphemy does not exist in this country and it will never exist under the authority of this government’.

L’affaire Mila should have been clear-cut. This was a case of a 16-year-old schoolgirl expressing a blasphemous opinion. Her views should be tolerated in any country that upholds free speech. Free speech includes the right to mock gods, prophets and holy books.

But today, things are less clear-cut. The politically correct notions of ‘hate speech’ and ‘incitement to religious hatred’ have essentially revived old and draconian blasphemy laws in a new guise. The effect is exactly the same – the censorship of criticism of religion. And while the French state did not go so far as to prosecute Mila for blasphemy, an intolerant Twittermob was on hand to ensure she was punished for her wrongthink.

We need to stand up for free speech against both the state and the social-media mob. Je suis Mila.

Fraser Myers is a staff writer at spiked and host of the spiked podcast. Follow him on Twitter: @FraserMyers.

Picture by: Getty

To enquire about republishing spiked’s content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.

Comments

Willie Penwright

9th February 2020 at 1:43 pm

She should be offered political asylum in a country that hasn’t surrendered its rule of law to the Islamists – that would probably have to be China.

David Johnson

9th February 2020 at 8:04 pm

Bless.

tayixo tayixo

9th February 2020 at 12:39 pm

My real time work with facebook Im making over $2000 a month operating low maintenance. I continued hearing distinctive people divulge to me how an lousy lot cash they can make on line so I selected to research it…………….
Ⓡmore55.ℂℴℳⓇ
please don’t copy”Ⓡ” In Url Thanks

RuthG Arteaga

9th February 2020 at 10:37 am

I get paid over $98 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I just got paid $ 8460 in my mpreviousonth It Sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it….. Read more

vekibay vekibay

8th February 2020 at 11:16 am

you need a good online job so please visit this site….

  Ⓡmore55.ℂℴℳⓇ
please don’t copy”Ⓡ” In Url Thanks 

SNJ Morgan

8th February 2020 at 4:41 am

I can see the LGBTQWTF community rushing to her side her.

Just kidding.

New Darkage

7th February 2020 at 9:24 pm

What do ‘islamophobes’ actually have wrong about the Mohammedan effect on European civilisation!

Harry R

7th February 2020 at 6:14 pm

Odd how the school girl’s problem is described as her having criticised Islam and so flee into hiding because she’s angered people and can’t be protected whereas the real problem is the failure of the French state to respond to the threats of violence,rape and death she receives because people dislike what she said. Can none of those people be traced? Are the public figures, like the head of the French council of Muslims, who say she deserves the reaction allowed to just get away with a not very subtle incitement to violence? Either France believes in freedom of expression, excluding incitement to violence, or not.

michael savell

7th February 2020 at 5:34 pm

I cannot think as to why a country which is gradually losing it’s belief in GOD and all religions is so determined to defend Islam.Moslems should understand that there are questions about all religions,not just their’s that have not been answered.They must understand that they are not being targeted,they will not convert non believers by becoming aggressive but by their behaviour.

Alex Ander

7th February 2020 at 4:49 pm

If you jump into shark infested waters you’re going to get eaten, right?

This story is simply an illustration of the toxicity of social media, esp. when in the hands of people who are either emotional, immature, irresponsible, lack self-control…or whatever.

It’s a bit like the first time a teenager gets hammered and does something they massively regret. Social media is the same drug as booze & has the same results i.e. gets you in trouble with police if you misbehave

Jim Lawrie

7th February 2020 at 5:03 pm

Argument by analogy always exposes the propenets lack of a case and dishonesty.

She did not jump in anywhere. She spoke.
She was insulted. She spoke up for herself. You join in by calling her immature, stupid, emotional, out of control. And “whatever”. Brave, aren’t you?

She did not get drunk and do something stupid. She spoke. And you call for abstemiousness from social media. Anything, or anyone, else you’d like to ban?

Harry R

7th February 2020 at 6:23 pm

She just expressed a dislike for religion and in context of being pestered by a Muslim man on line she was specific about Islam. What’s wrong with any of that if that’s her view? She just expressed her view and threaten no one. The difference is that any criticism of Islam can generate an immediate plausible response of violence which itself provokes an over reaction from police etc just in case some idiot takes action. This gives Islamic activist bullies a special power they enjoy using as they consider fear of Islam equivalent to respect for Islam.

Jerry Owen

8th February 2020 at 10:49 am

She miss behaved… An odd take I had not considered!

nick hunt

9th February 2020 at 12:12 am

Appeasing, even defending the aggressors. As Thomas Sowell warned, the barbarians are inside the gates

christopher barnard

7th February 2020 at 2:42 pm

‘No human-rights association has protested’

Wrong type of victim, just like Rochdale and Rotherham.

Tom Beale

7th February 2020 at 3:19 pm

Humanists International have:
Humanists International’s Membership Engagement Manager, Giovanni Gaetani, commented:

“What is happening in France is terrible and cannot be underestimated. It is not acceptable that a teenage girl is under the protection of the police for merely having criticised one religion.

Giovanni Gaetani, Membership Engagement Manager of Humanists International

“It does not matter in which terms or how harshly she criticised it. In this regard, the accusations of ‘islamophobia’ or ‘incitement to hatred’ are false, as the Public Prosecutor concluded some hours ago. Mila did not attack any single person. She only criticised one specific religion.

“What is really at stake in the ‘Affaire Mila’ is the right to freedom of thought and expression, a value recognised not only by the French constitution, but also by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

“The French Government cannot be ambiguous nor shy in this regard, otherwise the message that it sends to religious fundamentalists is that they are allowed to violently limit the right to freedom of expression of others if they feel that their religious feelings are offended: this is not acceptable for an European liberal democracy in 2020.

“We unequivocally condemn the hateful messages and the death threats received by Mila, while blaming the initial clumsy reaction of the Minister of Justice and praising instead those who took a clear stand in defence of Mila, like Marlène Schiappa, French Secretary of Equality between women and men, and the Moroccan-born French journalist Zineb El Rhazoui.

“France is a secular country and it is important that we reaffirm one clear principle: that secularism is for the sake of all citizens, and that freedom of thought and expression are non-negotiable values.”

jmNZ

7th February 2020 at 2:30 pm

Macron, like Merkel and, yes, Johnson, are appeasers of the homicidal Muzzies.
They pursue this policy because they are subservient to the globalist banksters – and their main concern is to keep Sadist Barbaria on side.
Hence French, British and German populations and culture are being sacrificed to mediaeval barbarism for the sake of the Big Dinners brigade in their glass palaces in Brussels, Strassburg, Geneva, Vienna . . .

kim erswell

7th February 2020 at 1:06 pm

Having worked in middle east and having read the Koran, in the seventies and again several years ago I’d make comment on the virulence I found in my interpretation…Wisely, (but cowardly) I won’t as don’t want the police state at my door.

ZENOBIA PALMYRA

7th February 2020 at 1:09 pm

The Quran is a wicked and primitive book, despises women and is a manifesto for Arab cultural imperialism and extreme violence. I too have spent time in the Middle East and studied that religion.

ZENOBIA PALMYRA

7th February 2020 at 12:55 pm

As the recent train debacle illustrates, one Virgin is more than enough; why would we need another seventy-one?

alan smithee

7th February 2020 at 12:36 pm

Do you have to have purple hair to be a LBQT? The irony of it….seeing the woke crowd fighting amongst themselves.

ZENOBIA PALMYRA

7th February 2020 at 12:52 pm

‘The woke crowd’ — does that include everybody except you?

alan smithee

7th February 2020 at 2:27 pm

It obviously includes you judging from your rants.

Flossy Morris

7th February 2020 at 12:32 pm

I watched Mila’s video on YT. We will never know Mila’s exact reasons for making the video. She seems like she really wanted to get something off her chest as she says “I cleary said what I think about it” and that she wasn’t embarrassed by what what she had to say. On the other hand, we live in a pretty “selfie” age in which transmitting one’s thoughts to the world via social media is almost a part of existence for some people (he said ironically as he wrote this post) so you could also say “why make the video in the first place?” Only she will truly know her motivations.

Anyway, she said “Je déteste la religion” and “l’islam est une religion de haîne” (that was towards the end of the video when she admitted that she’d made a mistake saying the Koran was a religion of hate). She didn’t attack any Muslims themselves, only the people who accused her of being racist, some of whom may be Muslims, saying they were stupid because “you can’t be racist against a religion”. Seems fair enough, although it was bound to cause some push-back from people who hold religion dearly. Most, I would hope though, would defend her right to say “I hate religion” and get on with their day. One would hope that we do really live in a civilized society and we could ask Mila “why do you hate religion?” “Don’t you think it has some good aspects?” “How much have you thought about the role of forgiveness that certain religions believe in?” and so on.

However, that’s sadly lacking in certain quarters, especially the MSM. It seems that we have a short-termist addiction to offence (I say we, not everybody, obvs) and after one cycle of bitching and high blood pressure ends another starts and we can irritate each other and ourselves about the new “crises” or “controversy” to fill some sort of void in our lives. Others, myself included, are averse to speaking openly these days because I’m not a particularly confrontational sort. My fear is that while we’re busy arguing with each other, alienating and “othering” each other, the powers that be will be watching it all with glee and using it as an excuse to pass more restrictive laws to prevent us throttling one another. We’ll have proven ourselves unworthy of the hard-won right of freedom of expression.

There are obviously wicked people out there who wish people harm. I am guessing that Mila is not one of those people and the people who want to punish her and curtail her education on the assumption that they will be doing the world a favour if they do may do well to heed Nietzsche’s warning that whoever fights monsters must see to it that they do not become a monster themselves in the process.

Jim Lawrie

7th February 2020 at 1:03 pm

‘“Don’t you think it has some good aspects?” “How much have you thought about the role of forgiveness that certain religions believe in?”’ Those are not questions. They are an attempt to push her into altering her statement.
The role of forgiveness in Islam? You are an apologist.

Flossy Morris

7th February 2020 at 1:59 pm

Hello, Jim. Thanks for your reply.

First of all, I’m not au fait with the role of forgiveness in Islam. I did say “certain religions”, though. The role of forgiveness, for instance, in Christianity – the only religion I can claim to have a passing knowledge of – is very important.

They certainly were questions, whether they are designed as an attempt to push her to alter her statement or not. I would not attempt to do that and that was not the reasoning behind those radomly selected questions. If Mila ever got pushed to alter her statement, it would not be by me. The questions were an example of how a civilized and thoughful discourse might begin after Mila utterances as an alternative to the offence-taking and name-calling on social media. Asking a person to reflect on something is not pushing them to alter their statement or position.

I’m a little confused as to how you believe I’m an apologist – which I don’t think I am – when, on one hand, I was advocating constructive conversation and, crucially, on the other hand we don’t even know each other. I’d like to know how I’m an apologist if you’d be willing to explain. Given that I wasn’t defending Islam in the first place, seeing as I know little about it, I cannot claim to be an apologist for Islam.

Adamsson 66

7th February 2020 at 12:16 pm

Maybe Mr Robinson has a point

Geoff Cox

7th February 2020 at 12:11 pm

Islam is right about women.

NPC head explodes.

Michael Gilday

7th February 2020 at 11:42 am

When defending free speech, one must be careful of what is being defended. This to me girl was right in stating she was a lesbian, that is her right to make clear why she is refusing the advances of lad. The young chap initiated a response which without doubt was offensive as the girl was not being racist in anyway and then to call her a dirty lesbian was offensive. So, at this point free speech is on her side. Being a young adult with an immaturity which is obvious this girl responds rather than ignoring or reporting the lad, which ought to have been approach taken. But no, she then has a tantrum and wishes to return the insult thus escalating the level of abuse. “Hating religion” is a statement of fact, again no issue. But then she goes too far “the Koran is hateful… Islam is shit… Your religion is shit… I’d stick a finger up your god’s arsehole’, said the teenager.” This no longer is defendable as free speech as it simply becomes nasty and unnecessary. She shows simply that she is still immature and like many teenagers antagonistic.
The abuse she has received due to the exposure on a broader social media network, should obviously be investigated by police cautions and prosecutions where the vitriol is excessive be instigated. I think the social media sites ought to ban offenders also because unless action is taken this type of behaviour will continue to escalate.
It is not surprising her personal details are now available over the internet as a result. Again, she supposedly had friends at school and people know where others live, but this really brings into question at what age should people be able access social media sites.
What she ought to have done is carried on going to school and face up to these offensive bullies. She should have looked to her friends for support and knowing a lot of lesbians over many years I have never know any who are not capable of defending themselves. But with the recent record of violence in France towards anyone who slanders Islam not sure if those who hold extremists’ viewpoints would not follow through with their threats.
To conclude, as a supporter of free speech and someone who cares little about nob head opinions and behaviour, I would still say that there is no need to resort to insults and claim it to be our right to free speech.

Anna Bolick

7th February 2020 at 12:03 pm

“But then she goes too far “the Koran is hateful… Islam is shit… Your religion is shit… I’d stick a finger up your god’s arsehole’, said the teenager.” This no longer is defendable as free speech as it simply becomes nasty and unnecessary.”

Bollocks.

Ven Oods

7th February 2020 at 12:56 pm

Quite. Why wouldn’t it be defensible as free speech?

Michael Gilday

7th February 2020 at 3:26 pm

If everyone goes around throwing insults at one another then any capacity for a sensible discussion fails. How horrid a world would be if everyone thought insults were the only means of general discourse. Spiked has pointed out on more than one occasion the abysmal language used by many Remainers against those who chose to vote for Brexit. My argument above is clear, this girls attitude went from being correct to lowering herself to the same standards of the morons who were abusing and threatening her. Terry Christian took a similar tone of abuse towards Brexit voters and without a doubt it can be described as offensive. One should never lower oneself to their level. She would have been far better using other means to deal with these individuals. Muslims do not have the right to threaten people with hate crime. I think anyone who believes in any religion considering the origins of these beliefs date back at least to the peoples of the Neolithic if not the Mesolithic interpretation of the world around them. There can be no credibility between a world view from that period and that of today. But people do believe in these religions and equally have as much right to do so as do those that think it is a load of bunkum. A society is based on respect and we live in a society where free speech is a fundamental right. But debasing this with insults begins to threaten the standards of that right

Cedar Grove

7th February 2020 at 10:24 pm

It’s entirely defensible as free speech, which is often coarse, and limited as to vocabulary and gracefulness.

The young man who provoked this response had called Mila filthy and a sinner for being a lesbian. That too has to be accepted – precisely so we can see the reality of such judgements, and perhaps question the wisdom of supporting them.

Jim Lawrie

7th February 2020 at 12:57 pm

She went “too far”. People like you always puke up a reason to join the mob and go after the weakest party in a dispute. How did you decide what is too far? Who gave you that power? Why do you join in with calling the young woman names?

Ed Turnbull

7th February 2020 at 1:12 pm

You’re a supporter of free speech? Really? I see little, nay *no*, evidence of that in your comment. All I say is equivocation. If ‘free speech’ means anything it means being able to say whatever you like – short of direct incitement to criminal activity – without threats from the government, the mob or bitter and twisted young muslim eejits. This young woman did *not* go too far in her characterisations of islam (views which I share, incidentally).

Those who respond violently upon hearing words denigrating a belief system bear the responsibility for their actions, accountability does not rest with those who uttered the words. Or are you suggesting that muslims have no agency and must, perforce, respond with violence and threats whenever anyone mocks or criticises their dark ages creed?

jessica christon

7th February 2020 at 1:36 pm

Voltaire said something like:

“I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.”.

Support for free speech which is conditional on the speech being inoffensive misses the whole point.

Ian Bradbury

7th February 2020 at 6:34 pm

Unpleasant speech should still be free. She wasn’t advocating violence against anyone, just expressing, admittedly rather crudely, her hatred of a belief system. A system, by the way, which advocates death for gay men.

David Johnson

9th February 2020 at 8:29 pm

“But then she goes too far”.
Seriously? Are you really saying that a world religion, boasting over 1.2 billion adherents, feels threatened by a few throw-away, admittedly caustic, remarks made by a 16-year-old schoolkid in France?
The film “The Life of Brian” was in many ways far more blasphemous and insulting of Christ, but despite the odd ritual protest and local ban, Christendom did not convulse into apoplectic threats and synthetic outrage towards its authors.
They lived and in some cases sadly died happily ever after, as it were.
So why can’t Islam accept that a democracy confers on its citizens not only the right to give offense but also to take offense?
Its ideological promotion of intolerance and illiberalism are anti-Enlightement aspirations it shares with the grievance-seeking Leftist woke cult.

a watson

7th February 2020 at 11:41 am

I wonder how the Labour party would have responded if this had happened in Britain. Presuming they weren’t party to any attempted cover up prior to the public being made more aware.

Danny Rees

7th February 2020 at 11:20 am

Will feminists speak out and condemn this as a case of male entitlement, misogyny and toxic masculinity?

A boy verbally abused a girl with disgusting insults because she turned down his advances surely are the most heinous examples of misogyny and male entitlement.

I suspect though feminists have and will stay silent.

On the same note though many who usually don’t give a stuff about misogyny and male entitlement will comment because of the religion/race of this boy.

Michael Lynch

7th February 2020 at 11:10 am

I think it’s a bit over the top to claim that she is the most hated girl in France! She has been hounded by the Twitter mob not the entire population. Twitter is a gossip shop populated by anonymous morons who are being lent power by idiots who care to take it seriously. It’s an aberration of the Internet and should be ignored by sensible people.

Jim Lawrie

7th February 2020 at 10:45 am

Former Socialist Party Presidential candidate, cabinet member and feminist Ségolène Royal said she should have shown more “respect, manners and knowledge” and should not be made into “a paragon of freedom of expression.”
Not once referring to Mila by name, but criticising “her” in terms of her education and intelligence, and refusing to discuss the matter of freedom of expression, citing the age of the of the young woman as an excuse. So at what age does one have the right to the protections of citizenship?

Tom Beale

7th February 2020 at 10:58 am

At 16 and in the face of being called a racist, filthy lesbian? It makes you want to smack your head into something hard!

Jim Lawrie

7th February 2020 at 11:14 am

She was criticised for saying that blacks and Arabs and Muslims were not to her taste.
No-one should have to justify turning someone down, far less come up with reason that are “acceptable”. When Royale criticised young Mila, she was saying that these reasons are not acceptable, and therefore accepting that the young woman is obliged to justify her decision.

Perhaps Mila ought to apply to The USA for political asylum.

Michael Lynch

7th February 2020 at 11:13 am

The irony, of course, is that if she had had a pop at a White working class bloke then she would be being hailed as a heroine by the very same mob.

Jim Lawrie

7th February 2020 at 3:30 pm

No doubt Michael. I suspect she herself may be working class. Compounded by lesbianism.

Jim Lawrie

7th February 2020 at 3:47 pm

the article is here https://www.lefigaro.fr/vox/politique/affaire-mila-l-ineptie-coupable-de-segolene-royal-20200203

It ends thus;

– In this matter there is one victim, Mila, and many aggressors. Doubts about whose side some would take have been dispelled. We will even wager that the electoral gain the cowards hoped for will not materialise, and that this will instead be the clarion of a republican revival. –

Geoff Cox

7th February 2020 at 10:35 am

I don’t read this (yet) as a win for Islam. The article says:

“The police opened two investigations in response to what has become known as ‘l’affaire Mila’. One, still ongoing, is into the death and rape threats directed at the 16-year-old. The other was into Mila herself, for ‘inciting religious hatred’. The investigation into Mila has since been dropped.”

So, the Police respond to all the fury and say they will investigate both sides, but then drop to case against the girl, but are continuing their case against the other threats – though presumably not the Muslim boy as he is not being reported as issuing threats.

So the Muslim boy and the gay girl are equal in this respect. The difference though is that Mila has been outed, but as far as I can see the “Muslim boy” has not been.

The cowardly twitter mob are doing the rest.

Jim Lawrie

7th February 2020 at 11:23 am

The French political establishment sided with the Muslims and encouraged the investigation and furore by inventing false charges and having a go at 16 year old Mila. They did not take on Imams who said she deserved what has happened to her. It is a victory for them because the message is clear – Do not do this or this is what happens, and we will lend moral support and our encouragement to the Muslim mob.

Geoff Cox

7th February 2020 at 12:08 pm

I’m still not sure. If they are still investigating the threats, surely they are the Muslim threats?

Jim Lawrie

7th February 2020 at 3:32 pm

This is not a spat within the narrow confines of police procedure.

Ed Turnbull

7th February 2020 at 10:34 am

The response of the French authorities to this incident has been appalling and, I suspect, arises from a position of cowardice. They either fear that, if unchecked, continued criticism of islam will inspire the lumpen proletariat to initiate a pogrom against the poor oppressed muslims. Or, more likely, and based on observation of past events, if they don’t crush any negative comment about islam the snowflakey – but oh so violent – adherents of the ‘religion of peace’ will set parts of France ablaze.

No idea or belief should be exempt from scrutiny, criticism or mockery – not islam, not Christianity, not the worship of Great Cthulhu. In fact, given a choice between being a mohammedan or a Cthulhu Cultist I’d opt for the latter. I always try to go for the lesser of two evils. 🙂

Cedar Grove

7th February 2020 at 9:59 pm

I was reading Lovecraft ( & “The Love of Ruins”, a critical analysis of his work), just this morning, so it’s serendipitous that you’ve brought him into the conversation.

Dominic Straiton

7th February 2020 at 10:22 am

And so as usual the peacefulls aren’t peaceful. Quelle surprise.

Jim Lawrie

7th February 2020 at 10:02 am

The French government’s willingness to invent charges against her means that far from fulfilling their duty to defend and protect her, they were willing to throw her to the Muslim mob. Cowards at every level.

That mob does not think a Western woman has the right to turn down a Muslim man.

Mind Wizard

7th February 2020 at 9:54 am

The relative silence of the Left on this issue is telling. People who would have absolutely no hesitation in defending vulgarly expressed attacks on the beliefs of conservative Christians become at best silent when the target is Islam – and, at worst, they actively support the silencing and punishment of the ‘transgressor’. The right to be critical of any idea, even if that criticism is expressed in the most vulgar terms, is where freedom of speech begins. The failure to unequivocally defend Mila’s right to express an opinion is a disgrace, and the refusal to condemn the French Council of the Muslim Faith, whose representative Abdallah Zakri said that Mila had “asked for it” (that is, the threats of rape and death), is a betrayal of everything that makes liberal democratic societies different from their repressive Islamic counterparts.

Jerry Owen

7th February 2020 at 9:07 am

Another fine example of when minority interests meet and clash .. Islam wins yet again!

Finbarr Bruggy

7th February 2020 at 8:56 am

As Muslim communities grow in number and continue to self-ghettoise, lead parallel lives, use parallel courts and tune into satellite programs from their home countries, assimilation is a pipe dream. We need to think about deporting those we can legally deport starting with Abdallah Zekri.

Jim Lawrie

7th February 2020 at 11:32 am

We can make legal the deportation of whoever we want because we were never part of the decision to allow these people coming into our country. The decision to do so has had to be given a veneer of legality by the further imposition of overarching courts based on foreign soil and laws. None of this was voted for by us.

a watson

7th February 2020 at 12:02 pm

Seconded.

K Tojo

7th February 2020 at 8:28 am

In 1943 Noel Coward wrote a satyrical song called “Don’t let’s be beastly to the Germans”. It may seem quite tame but at the time it was banned by the BBC in response to “public demand” apparently.

It occurs to me that Coward’s song could be adapted to fit the affronted identity group of your choice:

Don’t let’s be beastly to the […]
When our victory is ultimately won,
It was just those nasty […] who persuaded them to fight
Let’s be meek to them
And turn the other cheek to them
And try to bring out their latent sense of fun.
Let’s give them full air parity
And treat the […] with charity,
But don’t let’s be beastly to the […].

Roger Jago

7th February 2020 at 9:00 am

KTOJO Your skit on an old song reminded me of the Vera Lynn song we school kids all sang in the air-raid shelters; modified somewhat from her prediction:
“There’ll be mosques all over, from Lands End to Dover, tomorrow just you wait and see
There’ll be strife and slaughter, Sharia ever after , cause we were brainwashed with pc…….(and so on)

Chester Minnit

7th February 2020 at 8:23 am

” she has ‘reaped what she sowed’” (Abdallah Zekri)
Doesn’t that speak volumes? Sure, he had to retract it but that doesn’t stop it being his opinion.
She also has an opinion, but it’s only the Muslim’s view that’s should be tolerated? Seems to be the way of things these days for any minority.
Can we please restore some perspective? We either have free speech or we don’t. Can’t we accept that being offended is not fatal and it doesn’t give you extra rights.

Ven Oods

7th February 2020 at 1:00 pm

“Sure, he had to retract it but that doesn’t stop it being his opinion.”
Many people nowadays seem to feel obliged to retract what they think or say. It’s not a good look.

Jerry Owen

7th February 2020 at 8:22 am

‘Dirty lesbian’ ..isn’t that homophobic?
The irony is that his God would presumably like what she offered to do seeing as she is so young, she offered him a favour!

Ed Turnbull

7th February 2020 at 10:15 am

It is indeed ‘homophobic’. But in the intersectional hierarchy gays – particularly white gays – rank several tiers below the poor oppressed muslims.

nick hunt

7th February 2020 at 10:57 am

I’m curious about said hierarchy in the case of the Muslim father in Birmingham, now being prosecuted for pulling his 9-year old son out of LGBT lifestyle lessons. At some point soon the incompatibility of Islamic culture and the liberal-leftist project must become obvious to even the most delusional leftist bigot or bureaucrat. They’ll then have to switch Prophets or dump both Karl and Mohammed, realising that only the western culture they hated believes in and defends human rights and freedoms.

Philip Humphrey

7th February 2020 at 8:03 am

Funny how the “wokes” that go on about religious hatred often have no qualms about being vile to and about Christians, especially evangelicals and Catholics who take their faith seriously. Can’t help suspecting that their policy is one of divide and conquer, they have equal contempt for all people of faith and it’s just a tactic. They’ll turn on the Muslims when they finish with the Christians.

Ed Turnbull

7th February 2020 at 10:22 am

Actually I don’t think the woke will turn on muslims when they’re done with Christians, it’s more likely to be the other way round. We saw this in Iran following the 1979 revolution – the leftists who’d supported an abetted the Ayatollah’s rabble were among the first to be disposed of once the Islamic revolution had been achieved. The woke have yet to learn the lesson: when you sup with the Devil always use a long spoon, but learn it they will.

Plus, muslims are predominantly ‘brown’ and thus islam is viewed (by the woke) as a race. As it’s a non-white race its member can only ever be the oppressed, never the oppressors, thus they accrue more victim points. And that keeps them at, or near, the top of the intersectional hierarchy.

Linda Payne

7th February 2020 at 8:00 am

More and more I am hearing people say ‘you have to be careful what you say these days’, rather than offering support and solidarity to people like Mila so many are retreating and giving away their freedom of expression

Ven Oods

7th February 2020 at 7:58 am

“death threats over religious slights isn’t a part of European culture”

Well, not for the last couple of centuries in Britain, and the last couple of decades on the island of Ireland.

Ven Oods

7th February 2020 at 8:00 am

Should have been a response to Jessica Christon below.

ZENOBIA PALMYRA

7th February 2020 at 1:13 pm

Human beings are as likely to resort to physical violence over dynastic, tribal, racial, economic or political issues. Most wars in history have emphatically not been caused by religion. Having said that, Islam remains a vile Arabian death cult.

jessica christon

7th February 2020 at 6:27 pm

@VO, I agree, and that is what I meant. I’m out of (realistic) ideas on what to do about it though. The other ideas I have wouldn’t make me many friends, not even in here. 🙂

Cedar Grove

7th February 2020 at 10:14 pm

To be precise, Ven, the last person executed for heresy in England was in 1612. Some prejudices remained thereafter, but violent sanctions didn’t.

Wales had only a couple of executions for wrong-think. In Scotland, the last person executed for blasphemy died in 1697. Ireland is different, as you note.

brent mckeon

7th February 2020 at 7:01 am

“He responded by accusing her of racism and calling her a ‘dirty lesbian’.- why is that not bigoted hate speech and being acted upon? Plus he started it and is left out of the outrage, please explain why.

Ven Oods

7th February 2020 at 7:57 am

Skin colour and protected status?

Tom Beale

7th February 2020 at 8:30 am

Because in the grievance heirachy Islam trumps homophobia and in fact all others. Under the banner of Islam you are free to preach hate against all other religions and lack of religion, homosexuals, freedom of speech other than that you are benefitting from while preaching this hate, the inferiority of women etc etc. If Europe rolls over and gives in on this battle of ideas (and France would usually be your best hope not to) it will end very badly.

ZENOBIA PALMYRA

7th February 2020 at 12:53 pm

France has already given in if you look at their Arabo-Islamic population and recent terrorist atrocities. There is no way Islam should be allowed on European territory.

jessica christon

7th February 2020 at 5:59 am

I read “inciting religious hatred” in this article to mean inciting hatred *from* religious groups; death threats over religious slights isn’t a part of European culture, yet we have it because of the doctrine of multiculture.

Also, the French leaders and others who joined them in that march were never “Charlie” as we all knew at the time, and this Mila thing only shows up just how ‘progressively’ worse it’s got even since then. We also already knew that the establishment were cowards in the face of Islamic outrage, threats and even actual violence; don’t think for a second that the fallout of this would be any different if it happened in Britain. So apart from my sympathies for Mila and hopes for her safety, sadly there’s nothing new here.

Jim Lawrie

7th February 2020 at 10:42 am

I think the French government going on the attack against this 16 year old is a new departure.

ZENOBIA PALMYRA

7th February 2020 at 12:56 pm

Yes, it is a new level of dhmmi complicity and cowardice engineered by thicko liberals like Segolene Royale, who is an Enarque functionary with very little grey matter between her ears.

jessica christon

7th February 2020 at 6:18 pm

@Jim, I can accept that; although I think it belongs under the umbrella of “cowardice” and it all fits the schema, that part is probably is a brand new low.

Still, the French aren’t in as dire a situation as we Brits because at least they can vote for Marine Le Penn. They toyed with that idea last time and then chickened out, but at least they have that option. We’ve got no one.

Brandy Cluster

7th February 2020 at 5:56 am

Why do they dip their fingers into the sewer that is Twitter? Time to GET A LIFE.

Ven Oods

7th February 2020 at 8:00 am

Most still can’t spell ‘consequences’.

Tom Beale

7th February 2020 at 8:23 am

she is 16 Brandy

Brandy Cluster

7th February 2020 at 11:17 am

Nearly old enough to vote, then.

Jim Lawrie

7th February 2020 at 11:16 am

You are deflecting by using the medium as an excuse for sitting on the fence.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register now.