Turns out that for Islamofascists and their Brit cop fellow-travelers, the “out of context” defense means they incited only Muslims.
In January this year, a TV documentary broadcast recordings of Muslim preachers in Brit mosques inciting:
Sedition: The overthrow of the Brit democracy and sovereign and its replacement by an Islamic dictatorship over native Brits (the preachers call us Kuffaars).
Treason: Praising the Taliban for killing British soldiers.
Murder: Of apostates, homosexuals, Jews and Brits.
Sexism: Stating that women should be treated as inferior beings
Pedophilia: Advocating men marry prepubescent kids.
Child abuse: Advocating the beating of 8 year old girls who refuse to wear veils.
The cops where most of these crimes were committed ruled these statements were “taken out of context”, tried (and failed) to bust the TV station, and ended up asking the TV regulators sanction it. They left the hate-preachers unmolested (but presumably continuing to molest).
In English usage, “out of context” means the offending statement was subordinate to another one that negated it. For example, the preacher who told men to marry prepubescent kids would need to have said something like this:
“Some British Muslims say ‘it’s right to marry prepubescent girls’. But it isn’t, since a) it’s wrong, b) it hurts the kids, and c) it’s illegal.”
But the TV program doesn’t show any hint of such qualifications, and the cops have produced no evidence of them.
So we must assume cops and preachers use a special, Islamofascist, definition.
A report today provides this:
A Muslim terror suspect living in the UK has publicly praised the insurgents who are battling British forces in Iraq and Afghanistan…
In a debate on al-Jazeera television last month, he declared: “There are no real men except for the people of Islam. Look at the people who give reason to hold the head of Islam high.
“In politics they are the masters. In the battlefield they are the masters. They are the ones who rub in the mud the nose of the occupation forces in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Palestine, throughout the world.”
He also contrasted Islamic extremists with pro-Western secular leaders in the Middle East, who, he said, “should be placed in public squares so that people can hit them with their shoes and spit on them”.
Challenged about his outburst, al-Sibai insisted he was speaking as a political analyst, rather than glorifying the insurgents. He claimed his words had been “mistranslated and taken out of context”.
Dismissing the mistranslation defense (since he doesn’t provide an alternative), this can only mean that he thinks that the context al-Jazeera is outside the context of living:
…with his wife and five children in a £600,000 four-bedroom housing association home in a fashionable area of Hammersmith, west London.
That must be because only Muslims listen to al-Jazeera, whereas Hammersmith is mostly non-Muslim.
The West Midlands cops must use the same rule, reasoning that since only Muslims listen to the preachers’ incitements, that places these statements outside the context of Brit society.
The problem is the men listening to this hate speech can’t carry out the recommended behaviors inside their mosques, since they don’t contain Brit soldiers, women, small girls, Jews, gays, Kuffars, etc for them to kill or otherwise victimize.
They have to go outside the mosque to follow their preachers’ advice.
And that’s against the law except in the area of the West Midlands cops.
The Brits may survive this (my ellipsis):
The police decision to complain to Ofcom about a controversial Channel 4 documentary raises “serious questions about media freedom”, the Tories said yesterday.
(The Tory spokesman) wrote: “This decision raises serious questions about media freedom in Britain, and about whether public authorities tasked with upholding the rule of law are now, as a matter of policy, giving special assistance to those who seek to undermine the rule of law, and the pluralist, liberal, democratic culture which both underpins it and guarantees community cohesion.
“As you know, the decision has caused widespread concern.
“It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that this is a politically motivated referral, driven by the mistaken belief that the best means of dealing with separatist extremists is to appease them.
“If so, this referral is likely to encourage extremists, discourage moderates, damage public confidence in the CPS and West Midlands Police, compromise media freedom and undermine the Government’s stated community cohesion policy.”
Not exactly a call to arms, but there’s a chance these creeps may be busted
But don’t hold your breath, and make sure you, your loved ones, and your money, stay well away from the West Midlands.