Tendance Coatesy

Left Socialist Blog

Channel Four Censors Jesus and Mo Cartoons in Deference to Mohammed Shafiq .

with 22 comments

Channel Four censored a Jesus and Mo cartoon last night.

“This is not about freedom of speech – this is about the behaviour of a parliamentary candidate”: Mohammed Shafiq from the Ramadhan Foundation says Lib Dem Maajid Nawaz has offended Muslims. Channel Four News.

What is the background to this censorship?

The Huffington Post says,

The row began when Quilliam Foundation’s Nawaz, whose think-tank was credited with Tommy Robinson’s departure from the EDL, tweeted a ‘Jesus and Mo’ cartoon, stating he was not offended by the content.

Nawaz has since said he has received “credible” death threats over the tweet.

The cartoon was the same as the one worn on t-shirts by the LSE Atheism society, who were told by the University to remove the t-shirts or cover them up when they hosted a stall at the university Freshers’ Fair.

Nawaz was challenged over the tweet by Shafiq, along with Muslim TV commentator Mo Ansar and Bradford Respect MP George Galloway.

Apprarently the two have kissed and made up (Liberal Voice),

Maajid Nawaz, the Liberal Democrat Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Hampstead and Kilburn and Mohammed Shafiq, member of the Liberal Democrats, have released a joint statement:

“We wish to make a statement about the recent concern expressed over issues related to conflicting views on depictions of Prophet Muhammad.

“We recognise that, when it comes to this question, some Muslims of various persuasions may take different views. However, we also recognise that there are many Muslims who have taken offence, and we assert that images of the spiritual leaders of all religions should be deemed to be respectful. We also respect the freedom of every member of the Liberal Democrats on either side of this debate who feels offended by tone or language to make representations to the Liberal Democrats as is their democratic right.

“We are both Liberals and support the principle of freedom of speech. But we also understand the importance of respect for others’ views and of moderation of language. In so far as this second principle of moderate language has been breached in the heat and passion of the current debate, we regret this and call for all those who have differing views to ensure that any debate which continues on this subject should use language and attitudes which conform to Liberal standards of respect and moderation.

“We now call on those on both sides of this argument to return to moderate debate, free of insult and threat and we do so because we believe this is in the interests of our Party, of the wider Muslim community in Britain and of the principles of peace to which Islam is committed.”

Maajid Nawaz, Liberal Democrat Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Hampstead and Kilburn.

Mohammed Shafiq, member of the Liberal Democrats.

Shafiq showed scant regard for freedom of speech on Channel Four.

He managed to say, in the allusive and imprecise way that is typical of Islamist bigots when they try to appeal to a liberal-minded audience, that nobody should be allowed to show images of the ‘prophet’ Mohamed.

On the basis of 21,000 people signing a petition calling for Mawaz to be removed a Liberal Demcorat candidate (a small number in the sum of things) he also mentioned that “Muslim leaders” were  having a special meeting with Nick Clegg today.

This, we learnt during the programme, had been changed.

It would be a talk with Paddy Ashdown (no doubt on the basis of his experience in the aftermath of the Balkans civil war).

In fact they have not been reconciled at all.

If Nick Clegg were hoping that a joint statement by the Liberal Democrats at the centre of the Prophet Mohammed cartoon row would defuse the situation, then he is going to be disappointed.

IBTimes UK has learned that Mohammed Shafiq – who led the campaign for candidate Maajid Nawaz to be deselected over a tweet about the cartoon – is to take part in a meeting with members of the Lib Dem leadership about the controversy on Wednesday.

Critics of Nawaz are expected to insist again that he should not be allowed to stand for the party in Hampstead and Fulham at the 2015 general election. The row ignited when Nawaz tweeted a link to a cartoon of the Islamic prophet Mohammed earlier this month. Shafiq and others claimed the cartoon offended Islam.

The renewed call for Nawaz to be dropped came just hours after he and Shafiq issued a joint statement designed to foster unity. Death threats against Nawaz had sparked a police investigation.

More on IBT.

We are concerned that Channel Four’s censorship is not yet worthy of the demands of Mohammed Shafiq.

A special committee of Islamic scholars should no doubt be set up to supervise the Channel’s output, and indeed all the media, to ensure that no Muslim is ever offended.

This will have to go!

home

More Jesus and Mo (while you’re permitted to look at it): here.

Meanwhile Maajiid Nawaz has made a dignified defence of his actions in the Guardian, “• Why I’m speaking up for Islam against the loudmouths who have hijacked it“.

22 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Well if it offends people then it should be censored to avoid offence shouldn’t it? I’m offended by the Labour party, can Channel 4 censor them? <<<< reductio ad absurdum

    Kevin Algar

    January 29, 2014 at 12:00 pm

  2. The whole thing is ridiculous.

    What was Channel Four doing, making this type, Mohammed Shafiq, look a complete and utter pillock?

    Showing Muslims baying at him at a public debate was obviously designed to make them all look bigots and fools.

    Andrew Coates

    January 29, 2014 at 12:34 pm

  3. This is important: Kenan Malik

    “Thank you @Channel4News you just pushed us liberal Muslims further into a ditch’. So tweeted Maajid Nawaz, prospective Liberal Democratic parliamentary candidate for Hampstead and Kilburn, last night. He had every right to be incandescent. Channel 4 News had just held a debate about the Jesus and Mo cartoons and about the campaign to deselect Nawaz for tweeting one of the cartoons, not finding them offensive. Channel 4 decided that they were offensive and could not be shown. It would have been bad enough had the channel decided simply not to show the cartoon. What it did was worse. It showed the cartoon – but blanked out Muhammad’s face (and only Muhammad’s face). In the context of a debate about whether Nawaz had been right to tweet the cartoon in the first place, or whether his critics were right to hound him for ‘offending’ Muslims, it was an extraordinary decision. The broadcaster had effectively taken sides in the debate – and taken the side of the reactionaries against the liberal.”

    “There can be no freedom of religion without the freedom to offend

    Freedom of worship is another form of freedom of expression – the freedom to believe as one likes about the divine and to assemble and enact rituals with respect to those beliefs. You cannot protect freedom of worship without protecting freedom of expression. Take, for instance, the Dutch populist politician Geert Wilders’ attempt to outlaw the Qur’an in Holland because it ‘promotes hatred’. Or the attempt by Transport for London to ban a Christian anti-gay poster because it is ‘offensive to gays’. Both Wilders and TfL are wrong, just as Channel 4 is wrong. Believers have as much right to offend liberal sensibilities as liberals have the right to offend religious ones. Freedom of speech requires that everyone has the right to cause offence. So does freedom of religion.”

    http://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2014/01/29/on-the-importance-of-the-right-to-offend/

    Andrew Coates

    January 29, 2014 at 1:19 pm

  4. […] Party nutter’s Comrade Blimpish rant, the person who by now must be his favourite blogger (Sorry Coatesy) responded. The Ipswich SWP’s Favourite Blogger stated that there is a section of the working […]

  5. Presumably, the Islamic forbidding of images of Mohammed has at its root the idea that people should not bow down before graven images, which is part of the Christian and Jewish traditions (and which is heartily ignored in various Christian churches), and could I suppose be seen as an attempt to pre-empt the rise of the sort of cult of personality that has specifically grown up in Islam around the Prophet. It is unusual for a cult of personality to be established without one’s being bombarded with images of the ganzer-macher, but I guess that it just goes to show that even the best-laid plans can go very wrong.

    Dr Paul

    January 29, 2014 at 4:42 pm

  6. I am not giving my opinion on the rights and wrongs here.

    But to call this censorship requires some qualifications, and a deeper look into the concepts. In fact, not to delve deeper really brings left socialism into disrepute. For example, channel four censor particular programmes or ideas for programmes all the time, it is part of the process of all the media. This is where informal censorship comes into the argument.

    Formal censorship tends to be laws passed by the state. But no matter how liberal the society informal censorship will still be prevalent. Ruling ideas of the ruling class are the ruling ideas etc etc. Who owns what etc etc. Who organises best etc etc.

    TV and the media is very sensitive to pressure groups, there are one or 2 lobby groups I could mention in this regard but will leave those to the decent imagination!

    Socialism In One Bedroom

    January 29, 2014 at 8:03 pm

  7. Dr Paul, you are quite right that the prohibition on graven images pre-dates Islam. Specifically I believe that the iconoclasm of Islam stems from the Byzantine Christianity which in the sixth century outlawed all figurative representations. No doubt this was to discourage paganism and idolatry. The Roman Church never felt the same way, as we know the history of art would be immeasurably poorer if it had done so. The Orthodox Church did reinstate images in the seventh century which is why they have a tradition of icons, which although figurative are not realistic at all. The Romans and the Greeks understood a lot about perspective and anatomy centuries before the West rediscovered it and I sometimes wonder how art would have developed if that knowledge had been retained. But then, either way we would probably still have ended up with Damien Hirst and his pickled sharks.

    Sue R

    January 29, 2014 at 9:50 pm

  8. This iconoclam is one reason why some people have argued that Islam is a sect of Christianity which split off from the main body pre-Nicean Council. The Nazerenes.

    Sue R

    January 29, 2014 at 9:52 pm

  9. As I understand the issue Sue R, the Catholic Church teaches that images are there to remind people of a particular Saint or event. Ian Paisley doesn’t agree and says that Catholics worship graven images.

    themadmullahofbricklane

    January 29, 2014 at 11:18 pm

  10. Whatever the origins of this ridiculous belief, it is surely not public television’s job to pander to these prejudices.

    Andrew Coates

    January 30, 2014 at 11:57 am

  11. George Galloway has waded into the row over a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed, tweeted by Lib Dem hopeful Maajid Nawaz, by vowing his party will fight him for the seat of Hampstead and Kilburn.

    He also dismissed the area’s Labour hopeful Tulip Siddiq as a “New Labour apologist” and criticised her family’s ties Bangladesh’s Awami League, the ruling party. The seat in north west London is held by Labour’s Glenda Jackson, by one of the smallest margins in the country – just 42 votes. Jackson will retire in 2015.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/29/galloway-maajid-nawaz_n_4687614.html

    Andrew Coates

    January 30, 2014 at 12:29 pm

  12. “by vowing his party will fight him for the seat of Hampstead and Kilburn.”

    I guess in a democracy these things are permitted.

    “it is surely not public television’s job to pander to these prejudices.”

    Public televisioon, how quaint!

    Socialism In One Bedroom

    January 30, 2014 at 2:29 pm

  13. Mad Mullah: I was giving a historical perspective. You mention Ian Paisley, the Puritans were also against ‘graven images’ and famously ‘stripped the altars bare’. The Protestant aesthetic is generally more austere, whilst the Catholic is heady and baraque. On holiday in Malta the other year, we went into the cathedral at Valetta, and my husband who has never been to a Southern Catholic country, felt quite queasy from the over-decoration.

    Sue R

    January 30, 2014 at 7:46 pm

  14. Part of Protestantism was a debunking of Rome’s predilection for icons and relics. I had a book — I passed it on to Terry Liddle, so it’s probably in the Conway Hall library now — about this. Some of it was hilarious, about the amount of wood from the cross held in various churches across Europe, ‘enough to build a sizeable boat’; vials of Christs’ blood; saints’ brains (sometimes duplicated, and one of which turned out to be a cocoanut); and so on. We’ve just had a news story about a vial of the last Pope’s blood, so it carries on. The smells and bells end of Anglicanism likes its imagery; visit the chapel in King’s College London for a very gaudy treat.

    But to return to my original point: what was, in its own way, a laudable attempt to prevent idolatory has become, in the Islamic tradition, a weapon in favour of a peculiar form of idolatory, that of the figurative idolisation of Mohammed. Whilst the Roman tradition loves its icons, images and relics, Islam loves its prohibition of the very same items; yet its a mirror image: both iconography and its prohibition serve the same purpose of enforcing religious conformity.

    Dr Paul

    January 31, 2014 at 1:59 pm

  15. Just a general point, it seems to me that every religion needs to distinguish itself from every other religion. Thus, in flowers are not allowed in Jewish funerals (stones are placed on the grave instead). To me this clearly seems to be an attempt to break with pagan ancestor/god worship where bouquets would be given to shrines. The whole dietary law thing (which Islam took over) is also a way of enforcing ‘apartness’. plus some animals were sacred to some gods. The pig was a representation of Orisis, so you can see why the Hebrews wished to ensure that their tribes did not visit temples for Orisis and eat pork. In the modern day, the rational behind these restrictions is often forgotten and more ‘reasonable’ explanations are offered up. You are right about ‘religious conformity’, although I don’t think we are seeing much agreement in the Muslim sphere at the moment. To outlaw images, does throw an emphasis on the word, and Protestantism has always been keener on the written word than Catholicism. Literacy was much more widespread in Protestant countries.

    Sue R

    January 31, 2014 at 6:58 pm

  16. “But to call this censorship requires some qualifications, and a deeper look into the concepts. In fact, not to delve deeper really brings left socialism into disrepute.”

    Why didn’t you just type:

    “Hang on a minute while I find my book of lame attempts to defend the indefensible… it’s around here somewhere…” ?

    What ‘brings left socialism into disrepute’ is when it is a doormat or echo-box for aggressive theocratic nutters while claiming to stand up for freedom of speech, secularism, equality, tolerance etc.

    There is nothing admirable or principled or even-handed about caving in to intimidation in this way. You should be embarrassed about the ridiculous intellectual contortions you have attempted there.

    Lamia

    February 2, 2014 at 10:39 pm

  17. Lamia – Channel 4 turned down a programme called Parasite street (a sort of antidote to benefit street), about parasitic bankers. I hope you are as disgusted as me by this blatant act of censorship!

    “There is nothing admirable or principled or even-handed about caving in to intimidation in this way”

    Who said there was? But it isn’t the first time a TV channel has caved into lobby groups. But those tend not to get metioned on this site. The formula appears to be :

    If(story = Muslim involvement, go with story, don’t go with story)

    Socialism In One Bedroom

    February 3, 2014 at 1:36 pm

  18. “Socialism in One bedroom”: insofar as it’s possible to work out what you’re trying to say, only one conclusion is possible: you’re an idiot.

    Jim Denham

    February 6, 2014 at 2:12 am

  19. And this what I wrote on the decent Left,

    Sparks, flashes and damp squibs

    Andrew Coates reviews Nick Cohen’s What’s left? How liberals lost their way (Fourth Estate, 2007, pp400, £12.99)

    A good polemic hits hard and sends off sparks and Nick Cohen’s What’s left? has grander ambitions than most. He wishes to condemn today’s left and liberal opponents of the invasion and occupation of Iraq en bloc.

    In between Cohen links the murderous legacy of Stalinism, the bullies of the Workers Revolutionary Party, the ‘wilderness of postmodernism’, and the anti-globalisation campaigns’ ‘parochialism’. He finds the “stench of death” rising from Respect and the Stop the War Coalition, which have “gazed in the face of a global fascist movement [jihadist islamism], shrugged and turned away”.

    Like his Oliver Kamm the author discovers the merits of American neo-conservative foreign policy. It is a means to uphold universal human rights. Cohen singles out Marxism – for its attraction to the “utopian, the irreconcilable, the hate-filled and the grandiose”. He concludes that “there also needs to be a clean break with totalitarians, both totalitarian regimes abroad and the totalitarian left – if it still a left – at home” (p361).

    It is as a sweeping history of the 20th century left, and liberals (in his sense of middle-class progressives), that What’s left? first sticks in the craw. Cohen’s account of Stalinism and totalitarianism is callow. The intelligentsia’s fellow-travelling and the record of the British Communist Party during the 1930s overshadow his account – the “intellectual left swallowed outright lies” in its admiration of Russia. He claims that Trotskyist opponents of the Georgian dictator only believed that the wrong man (that is, not Trotsky) was in charge of the Soviet Union. Appeasers, numerous in his view in France, were socialist dupes out of sentimentality – as if the legacy of World War I, millions upon millions dead, had nothing to with their wish to avoid future slaughters. As they say: hindsight is such a blessing for those gifted with it.

    Above all Cohen skips over the strongly democratic strain on the left, including Marxists, intellectual or not, which was appalled at the crushing of democracy in Soviet Russia and consistently opposed fascism. Bertrand Russell’s early critical USSR reports had an impact on the left from the early 20s onwards. The Independent Labour Party contained many hostile to Stalinism from the beginning, and assisted their comrades, in, for example, Austria, when Dollfuss attacked them. Continental Marxists and social democrats, such as these Austrians, had never accepted any kind of authoritarian rule. Reflecting the attitude of the depths of the movement, the Marxian Victor Serge, who landed in the camps for his independence, wrote in 1933 his ‘profession of faith’. That is, his belief in the “defence of man: respect for the rights of every man, even class enemies”; “defence of truth”; “defence of thought”. Democratic Marxism was based on “freedom of thought, the root of these conditions”.1

    The stem of Cohen’s argument is that Marxist-influenced intellectuals (though not exclusively them) were rather pleased at seeing the masses shaped by such wise shepherds as Stalin. Others, such as Simone de Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre, acted from an instinctive opposition to reform, an “emotional need”, blinding them to ‘official communist’ and later Maoist excess. In doing so they were expressing contempt for the masses. They were driven by a politics of aesthetic snobbery, lampooned by John Carey, wishing to both isolate their high culture from the unwashed and to give the populace a good drubbing.

    Again, this argument-by-bald-assertion can be tempered by reading de Beauvoir’s autobiographical writings, Such as La force des choses (1963), describing the post-war questioning of Stalinist tyrannies, sympathy for the people, which the couple shared with Camus. It would be exhausting to go on much further. But to imagine that amongst those from a political current, Marxism, or other forms of democratic socialism, which grew with, and influenced the labour movement, nobody had grasped the “truth about totalitarianism” (that is, Stalinism) until Albert Camus, George Orwell, Hannah Arendt and Robert Conquest came along with a penetrating gaze (p29) is not only factually wrong, but insulting. There is one further distortion here, Hannah Arendt – whom no-one can easily claim for his or her side – was heavily influenced by the Marxist, Rosa Luxemburg, for her theory that the roots of totalitarianism lay entangled with imperialism. As well as Rosa’s sterling defence of universal liberty.2 And so it continues.

    The description of Saddam Hussain’s Iraq is, by contrast, solid and moving. Kan Makiya’s Republic of fear and his Cruelty and silence were, in the 90s, eye-openers. That the New Left Review crowd abandoned the Iraqi critic is hardly surprising. Some of them (and, I should add, a few of those whom Cohen admires were at one time in that circle) are remote from the democratic working class movement, with a matching influence to boot. That Tariq Ali has returned to the Fanonite admiration of the ‘violence of the oppressed’ (in this case issuing from the ‘green’ islamist east) of his youth merits every bitter word Cohen utters.

    Yet here too he over-eggs the pudding by side-swipes at French ‘theorists’. One of the major theorists, Jacques Derrida, was a doughty defender of human rights. It is easy to make fun of the convoluted translations of his concepts. However, born in north Africa, Derrida took a stand against terrorism and state repression in early 1990s Algeria. He signed, for instance, the appeal against the “recourse of armed violence to defend or conquer power, terrorism; repression, torture and executions, murders and kidnapping”.3 Derrida was a left progressive, whose belief in moral hospitality, and his defence of Marx (Spectres de Marx 1993) distance him by kilometres from such as the recently deceased Baudrillard, who displayed only nihilism after the attack on the twin towers.

    Turning to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, Cohen shows an increasingly shaky grip on the alternatives. Opposition to the war, would, he asserts, have “kept fascism in power” (p282). Its mass impact was motivated largely by fear, and it failed to “oppose fascism” (p284). Yet “a principled left that still had life in it and a liberalism that meant what it said might have remained ferociously critical of the American and British governments while offering support to Iraqis who wanted the freedoms they enjoyed” (p288).

    Firstly, principled opposition to the war was based on an equally ethical basis as those, like the leaders of the Euston Manifesto, who claimed that the moral claims of Iraqi victims overrode the state’s national sovereignty. In the Kantian terms of these writers, they were prepared to sacrifice autonomy, the right of a people to decide for themselves, to a superior cosmopolitan law, enforced by bombs and guns. In effect they were demanding that a modern version of a ‘universal monarchy’ of moral exactitude would be imposed – directly contrary to Kant’s own belief in voluntary federations between states.4 Defending those Iraqis who want liberty does not mean forcing an entire nation to be free by force of arms.

    Secondly, as ‘realists’ we do not need the tired cliché of ‘It’s all about oil’ to see that the interests and actions of the American hegemon and its allies are likely, to say the least, not to be best explained by the opinions of a few right-of-centre universalists. That an expansion of neoliberalism, which seeks the accumulation of wealth, may influence military actions. That enforcing overwhelming economic and military power (not to mention the corrupt companies in their train) is not good means to achieve a democratic end. Or that, as just about anyone who knew the region stated at the time, getting rid of Saddam from the outside would create in Iraq the charnel house we now see.

    What holds Cohen’s views together is a call to arms: we are confronting a new totalitarian menace. He endlessly repeats the same notes: that anti-semitism and conspiracy theories permeate the Middle East, that islamism is a “global fascist ideology” (p354), which is a “psychopathic totalitarian movement that will murder without limit for decades” (p359). ‘It’ is on the march. Psychopaths and killers there certainly are. But are all forms of islam islamist? What is there to bind the secular islam of many Bengali muslims, who believe in our common humanity, the right-of-centre Turkish Welfare Party, who are simply as reactionary as the Bavarian Christian Democrats, the mainstream Muslim Brotherhood, who wish to gradually abolish human sovereignty and rights and replace them with the vice-regency of god, with the jihadists of Al Qa’eda, who wish to murder even their co-religionists if they stray from their narrow path?

    Cohen attacks Marxism for ignoring the power of ideas. But he himself fails to grapple with the material force of religious-political ideology, to differentiate between distinct types. Suicide bombing itself is wrapped up in an alienating globalised culture, in which a return to simplicity, patriarchy and authority play a role and worshiping a just war in which murdering enemies (kafir) is praiseworthy, as if the planet is a battlefield. If there are some points in common between the ideas of Qutb, regarded as the founder of radical islamism – his loathing of the Jew, the communist, the crusader (not a fascist target, I think) and the secularist – there was no Nazi equivalent of the myth of the golden age of the just caliphs.5

    Finally, for the left it is surely important that democratic rights be considered as social as well as political. Labelling our opponents as totalitarians ignores class. Those forms of islamism that constitute a challenge to democratic socialism are wedded to exploitation and property. They are movements of pious islamic bourgeoisies. It is one of the delusions of the islamophiles that they imagine that a few phases about social justice, opposition to globalisation and ‘imperialism’ make them part of the great movement for human liberation that socialism has sprung from.

    In fact many on the left have rejected those who wish to be aligned with islamism. Leftist websites and journals have ferociously criticised Respect’s communalist alliance with islamism, as well as mocking Galloway’s antics. Cohen cites Mike Marqusee’s widely circulated critique of the STWC, but ignores the fact that Mike continues to attack the American occupation. Many others have followed this dual track.

    A central issue at the moment is to oppose potential American intervention in Iran, while supporting the opponents of the theocrats in Tehran. Another is the domestic cause of republican secularism – the best answer to religiously inspired political bigotry. None of which is helped by lumping ‘the left’ into a heap, or by standing aside, as does the Euston Manifesto (many of whose hands are less than clean with their implicit support for western militarism).

    What’s left? follows in the footsteps of the 1970s French nouveux philosophes, who wanted to clear out left complicity with the Gulag: that is, to unravel a complex network of affinities at one blow. The present pamphlet comes close to suggesting that the British left is largely made up of fools and knaves. A mix of ethical shoppers and those conniving with totalitarians. It is as if Cohen’s sparks were aimed at igniting a general conflagration to burn all of us up.

    Just as this never happened in France, where la nouvelle philosophie fizzled out, I suspect that What’s left?’s flashes will equally turn into a damp squib.

    Weekly Worker March 2007.

    http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/665/sparks-flashes-and-damp-squibs

    Andrew Coates

    February 6, 2014 at 12:57 pm

  20. I would reassess my relatively benign judgement of the Turkish Islamist Party.

    There were a lot of other (better) replies from the democratic Marxist left, to the Euston Manifesto from the left, including from Paul Flewers, and one in Chartist Magazine.

    Andrew Coates

    February 6, 2014 at 12:58 pm

  21. “Insofar as it’s possible to work out what you’re trying to say, only one conclusion is possible: you’re an idiot.”

    It was standard formula writing, you start with an If then you open a bracket and the first condition is returned if the if is true and the second condition is met if it is false. You then close the equation with brackets.

    So imagine:

    =If(Jim Denham = “Scum”, “Yes we all know that”, “You are not serious”)

    Socialism In One Bedroom

    February 6, 2014 at 8:17 pm

  22. Reblogged this on oogenhand.

    oogenhand

    May 14, 2014 at 12:27 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: