Jesus ‘n’ Mo ‘n’ Charlie Hebdo

March 11, 2015 • 8:10 am

Today’s Jesus and Mo deals with the Islamic Human Rights Commission’s (IHRC’s) odious award of the 2015 “Islamophobe of the Year” title to Charlie Hebdo (see also the critical Spectator piece by Douglas Murray).


And indeed, as Mo notes, these awards are presented in a pretty lighthearted and humorous manner. Below is a video of the IHRC’s presentation of last year’s “Islamophobe of the Year” award to Barack Obama.  Really funny, isn’t it? I haven’t seen the video for the Charlie Hebdo award, but if they used humor to mock the slaughter of the magazine’s staff, I spit on the IHRC.

Watch this, please:

And here’s a paragraph from Murray’s piece:

But there is another reason why my laughter is lessened this year. Although I am assured that the laughter at the IHRC’s ‘ceremony’ in London on Saturday was as raucous as ever, this weekend the IHRC gave their international ‘Islamophobe of the Year’ award to the left-wing French satirical magazineCharlie Hebdo.  This might be thought laughable in any other circumstances.  The IHRC, one should remember, is a registered British charity.  But of course it is not very funny, because only two months ago another group of people who thought Charlie Hebdo is ‘Islamophobic’ went into the magazine’s offices and gunned down their journalists and cartoonists.  This is the way the pattern works now – the Islamic terrorists break through the front door with Kalashnikovs and then a whole network of fellow travellers try to sneak in through the back door and explain why the cartoonists and journalists might have had it coming.

54 thoughts on “Jesus ‘n’ Mo ‘n’ Charlie Hebdo

    1. And, those same people who shun “modernity” have no trouble using the internet and modern weapons. L

  1. To my eye this is sick – mocking the dead is unfair – they cant respond in kind.

    I’m glad to see ‘the author’ has not been cowered and hope the nutters cant get him too.

    This ‘award’ is beneath contempt, and I hope the charities commission looks into this.

    1. Just to be crystal clear, it is the award givers and their ‘friends’ I have contempt for, you and ‘the author’ are standing up for the right side.

    2. I don’t share the “mocking the dead is unfair” point of view. It makes no sense to me to withhold mockery simply because a person is dead. I use pretty much the same metrics for the dead as for the living.

      In this case I think the IHRC is full of shit and pretty pathetic, and that the Charlie Hebdo people clearly do not warrant criticism, let alone mockery, for being Islamophobes.

      But lets look at another example. When Christopher Hitchens said of Jerry Falwell on national TV, “If you gave him an enema you could bury him in a match box,” I judged that beautiful bit of mockery as right on target and eminently warranted. I’d go further and claim that Hitchens delivered a necessary public service.

        1. Just lazy typing AoS 😉

          I have followed him and your writings on the site – glad to see you came here too

  2. Taking the piss has a long and honourable tradition in the hadith. The slave-girl Barrah accidentally drank Mohammed’s urine from his underbed bowl one night. This had 2 consequences, 1 theological and 1 scientific. Fortunately, the Prophet reassured her that it stopped her from going to hell. And secondly, it relieved stomach pain. I am not making this up.

    And we know from the hadith that Mohammed’s urine was sweeter tasting than all the wells in Medina. Another theological superiority of Islam over Christianity: don’t take the waters, take the piss.

    Of the 73 sects of Islam, Mohammed claims only 1 will get to heaven. Let’s hope it’s the oh so funny IHRC to join Rowan Williams’ (shame be upon him) ‘light-hearted’ and definitely not apophatic God. Oh what laughs they’ll have shaking it to Karim’s groovy punk-Islam.

    Allele akhbar. x

      1. Maybe so. Why else would heaven be brimming with raisins and flowing water? Islam is a religion of pees. x

  3. Just a little too early in the morning for such a ridiculous video. I can understand why this group would be a charity. They certainly do need help.

  4. I didn’t sit through the whole thing, but from the early soundtrack it sounded like there was an audience of 4 ± 2. Not exactly a packed venue.

  5. Yet again it’s the fucking Spectator that steps up to the plate. Is there anything from any left wing sites about this? Or do I have to turn to political conservatives for a dose of reality? I do feel more and more like I’m being ‘mugged by reality’ on this issue.

    1. But reality (for the Guardian in particular) is too hard to acknowledge.

      Martin Rowson (after the Charlie Hebdo murders) : “Don’t kid youreslf that this has anything to do with Islam…”

      Kouachi brothers (minutes after committing multiple murders) : “Allahu Akbar. Now we have avenged our Prophet…”

      The level of denial is beyond absurd.

      1. Those murders were a kind of litmus test of how far the left will go to exculpate Islam – I cannot, literally cannot, think of a clearer modern example of religiously-motivated violence. If you can’t accept that religion motivated the Charlie Hebdo killers then the logical inference I draw is that you cannot accept that religion ever motivates violence – after all, if you reject a link between the two in that case, what would it take for you to accept that there was ever a link? This kind of denialism indeed goes beyond absurd into the realms of the surreal, although you need sometimes to step back and take in what apologists are actually saying to appreciate the true mentalness of it all.

        1. If you can’t accept that religion motivated the Charlie Hebdo killers then the logical inference I draw is that you cannot accept that religion ever motivates violence

          The logical inference I draw, at least if one wants to be logically consistent, is that you can’t believe religion ever motivates anything. I don’t think that’s an opinion most of them hold.

  6. Hey, wouldn’t it be outrageously hiLARious to give IHRC the award for violent extremist organization of the year? Ha! Ha! Ha! I slay myself!


        1. I think they should be up for the award – that video had an anti-Muslim effect on me. I’ve always been strictly anti-Islam.

  7. I think it bothers me more that there’s such a thing as an “Islamophobe of the Year” award to begin with. Who draws the line between:

    1. satirically ridiculing bigots who assume people called Ahmed are demons, and:

    2. cheaply trying to belittle critics of Islam while pretending to stick up for people called Ahmed?

    It seems to me that, without clear demarcation, this attitude would be hostile to anyone trying to point out the dangers and outrages of Islamic creeds and practices.

    1. That’s their tactic – chuck reasonable and unreasonable critics of Islam into the same pot to make sure they all emerge smelling the same.

  8. Ha, ha, ha … Charlie Hebdo wins Islamophobe of the Year award. These guys are a classy bunch, aren’t they? Why don’t they get together with the NRA and we could hear Charlie Hebdo jokes and Sandy Hook murder jokes all in one hilarious party!

  9. The idea that a human rights organisation only represents Muslims’ rights (or prioritize religion before human life) is in contradiction to the concept of human rights and equal treatment – I am not sure I see a clear difference between Muslims human rights organisations and the nonsense coming out of vile Muslim leaders…

    1. I suspect that it is using “Human Rights” as a pseudoindicator of something regarded as good, like (say) “Democratic” in “People’s Democratic Republic of Korea” and “Socialist” in “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics”.

      Sort of like the folks in Florida with that “don’t use ‘global warming'” stuff, too. The magical think that one has done something by simply labelling.

  10. I wonder what the significance of the “Guardians” title: MI5 to Blame for Most Things. I wonder if it’s a reference to the fact they got blamed for Jihadi John’s murders.

  11. I can’t help wondering if Charlie Hebdo might appreciate the irony. They have, after all, never been inhibited by considerations of ‘good taste’. Be interesting to see if they do something with it in their next issue.

Leave a Reply