A trainee at Clifford Chance has embarrassed his firm by posting a 21 minute rant on YouTube seeking to explain the Paris murders.

Aysh Chaudhry spends his working day churning documents in CC's M&A dept and, it seems, his free time recording inflamatory videos. Saying that he is addressing the "events in Paris that have taken place over the last few days" he lambasts moderate Muslims for allowing their minds to be "colonised" and claims that Islam is superior to Western ideology. He suggests that these attacks might not have happened had the West not "killed our people and raped and pillaged our resources". And he repeatedly refers to his audience as "brothers and sisters" and to non-Muslims as "kuffars". All it needs is a wall hanging and a Kalashnikov.

    How it didn't look*

Chaudhry (who interned at Slaughters, White & Case, Freshfields and BLP, all of whom will be thanking their lucky stars that this isn't their problem) pulled the video once Legal Cheek got wind of it. But by then the damage had been done. Clearly Choudhry is legally entitled to express these views, although it's hard to see how he can do so with a straight face while being employed by a law firm in the Little Satan.

CC generally comes down pretty hard of this sort of thing. Last year it disciplined a trainee for making a drunken remark about doing people over for money. But Chaudhry wasn't discussing anything to do with his job, so he appears to have escaped censure by the firm. A spokeswoman for the firm said that "the views expressed in this video are personal and not those of Clifford Chance. The firm is committed to establishing an inclusive culture where people with diverse backgrounds and views work effectively together and feel confident to develop their potential. We ask our people to at all times consider how their personal conduct and actions may affect those around them, their professional reputation and that of the firm."

However the firm's Paris office will be particularly displeased. One of its partners recently had to apologise after calling a trade unionist a jihadist and a terrorist. No doubt he'll find someone on his payroll recording this sort of video absolutely HILARIOUS...
 
* Not Aysh Chaudhry, obviously

 

Have your say.
The RollOnFriday Firm of Year 2015 survey is now open, and so is the survey for in-house lawyers.
 
Tip Off ROF

Comments

Anonymous 16 January 15 07:54

Typical another CC trainee cocks up. Posting this kind of thing is exactly the sort of thing that can damage a firms reputation & is grounds for termination. This bile is so much more destructive than some drunken trainee. CC should be ashamed.

Anonymous 16 January 15 08:02

Here we go another CC trainee makes a fool of himself. Sadly this is par for the course for Clifford Chance. They’ve always been the least picky MC about trainees. Their response utterly missed the point.

He attempts to explain the murder of 17 people by making glib and offensive comments about non-muslims. He also used an incredibly offensive slur.

He was also moronic enough to post it online. This is far worse than the previous CC trainee who was disciplined for being filmed saying something inappropriate when he was drunk.

Show him the door.

Anonymous 16 January 15 08:33

........but this might make him a very popular lawyer in the firm's Saudi office, at least with the more traditional Muslim clients. That's the reality of a global law firm, it overlaps many different cultures and views. A CC lawyer doing a video saying democracy was a terrible idea would also cause offence and be lampooned in the UK, but they would be highly popular with the firm's Chinese clients.
A tough one for global firms to handle and raises the question: what really are a law firm's values?

Anonymous 16 January 15 08:37

Quite a few people rejected for TCs by Cliffords commenting on this article by the looks of things...

As for this pillock, wonder why they haven't fired him?

And RoF, why no credit to legalcheek for this scoop? Although legalcheek didn't name the trainee, they went for the much subtler approach of declaring they had agreed to keep him anonymous and then providing every detail necessary to google him immediately. RoF, you're losing your touch.

Anonymous 16 January 15 08:45

What an utterly and wholely inappropriate response from CC's "spokeswoman" How on earth does "establishing an inclusive culture" align with supporting a member of staff whose comments and language are offensive and racist.

Anonymous 16 January 15 09:18

why should he get fired for voicing his opinions? I thought this was a free society. That means anyone can say what they want. Or are you against freedoms of speech

Anonymous 16 January 15 09:30

So thats what an apparently moderate Muslim really believes. Good to know.

As to CC, a gutless craven bunch. I know its hard to get rid of a trainee but if you cant do difficult then your place on our panel is unlikely to survive next years review. We prefer to instruct lawyers with backbone.

Anonymous 16 January 15 09:32

Speaking as a non-Muslim and person of no faith, who managed to actuay watch the video, I am incredibly surprised that ROF can get away with this 'article'. A few sentences pieced together from a 21 minute video. I watched it and thought that the comments, though said passionately, were logically delivered. He didn't explain some sort of justification for the attack - he quite openly condemned the use of such violence. ROF this is a BS character assassination and the saddest bit is that they know it. Not even capable of locating the video to get their facts straight. He escaped the censure from the firm because, no doubt, they must have seen the video and taken the sensible view that the man didn't incite hate, he didn't condone violence, he didn't justify or explain the attacks and didn't do anything illegal. His message was to tell the Muslim community (who, by the way, mayalso quite sensitive about this topic - not that anyone cares) to stay strong and stick to their beliefs and not to feel as though they have something to apologise for. How anyone can argue with that is beyond me. I'm happy to help answer any questions relating to the video itself and how some of these quotes were used. I can see how this article might be quite useless in explaining the real facts.

Anonymous 16 January 15 09:41

RoF specifically pointed out that he hadn't done anything illegal. And some of his points may be valid. But the tone, timing and language were all deeply unfortunate. He should know that recording something like this would be bound to embarrass his firm. Idiot.

Anonymous 16 January 15 09:47

To the user who said I'm happy to help answer any questions relating to the video itself and how some of these quotes were used.

Why should we take your word for it when you ask us not to take RoF's word for it? Surely if the video was not that bad it would not have been taken off. A guilty move if ever I've seen one.

Anonymous 16 January 15 09:49

[i]I know its hard to get rid of a trainee but if you cant do difficult then your place on our panel is unlikely to survive next years review. We prefer to instruct lawyers with backbone. [/i]


Yeah everyone really believes you're not a competitor's trainee at all, oh no.

Anonymous 16 January 15 09:53

I've watched the video & hopefully the person above (9.32am) above will be able to agree with what I say:
Aysh not only lambasts muslims who have apologised for the murders (which is correct in so far that it is insulting to ask an entire religion to apologise for the acts of some lunatics) BUT he also lambasts muslims who have condemned the murders. Now that is worrying. What is wrong and "un-Islamic" about condemning the murder of innocent people.

Yes, they were wrong in publishing the cartoons in my opinion, but this did not warrant death.

Anonymous 16 January 15 09:55

I understand that he specifically mentioned in the video that Mohammed would not be ridiculed in an Islamic state. How does supporting the formation of a state that applies strict Sharia law to all its citizens square with his tolerance of non-muslims?

Anonymous 16 January 15 09:56

As a muslim I would never use the term Kuffar towards my non-muslim friends/colleagues. End off. He is a foolish man, but I hope he becomes more tolerant now rather than forging a stronger "Us vs Them" mentality.

Anonymous 16 January 15 09:57

1. He doesn’t condone the attack. He isn’t saying muslims shouldn’t condemn it. He is saying that muslims shouldn’t have to condemn it. That is something everyone should be able to agree with.

2. He isn’t endorsing hate or violence and therefore has not doing anything illegal.

3. For those calling for him to be sacked: Firstly, please consider whether there is a legal and rational basis for his dismissal. Secondly, please think about how his dismissal would fall within the principles of Clifford Chance as per their comment on the article (which, by the way, is the same principles many international law firms should, and probably would, have).

4. For those debating his use of the word “kuffar” – think about the wider topic here as opposed to whether you are offended by the use of a word which was probably not used with racial intentions (I say probably not because, as a reasonable person, I think he is entitled some benefit of doubt).

5. Please focus your discussions, as intellectuals, on the wider topic instead of him as a person/employee of Clifford Chance. It has nothing to do with the message he is portraying. He could easily have been an employee at Freshfields, Linklaters, etc. or even at KPMG or Accenture. It is irrelevant.

6. For those wondering why the video was taken down – maybe he just didn’t want to face more of the ABUSE you are giving him. I do wonder whether people would be as interested in hearing the message if they read it in an article or if it was a radio broadcast. My guess is probably not.

Anonymous 16 January 15 09:57

[quote] [i]I know its hard to get rid of a trainee but if you cant do difficult then your place on our panel is unlikely to survive next years review. We prefer to instruct lawyers with backbone. [/i]


Yeah everyone really believes you're not a competitor's trainee at all, oh no. [/quote]

Competitor? I think they work at Bond Dickinson...

Anonymous 16 January 15 09:58

[i] I understand that he specifically mentioned in the video that Mohammed would not be ridiculed in an Islamic state. How does supporting the formation of a state that applies strict Sharia law to all its citizens square with his tolerance of non-muslims? [/i]

In an Islamic state higher positions of governance would be reserved solely for muslims. Also the Jizya (non-muslim tax).

Anonymous 16 January 15 10:01

Looks like the Call of Dawah force is out here today, cutting and pasting posts from Legal Cheek to support Aysh. Or is it Aysh himself? Perhaps the latter.

Anonymous 16 January 15 10:02

What an extremely cheap and bigoted attempt of an article. The conclusions being drawn both here and on the original legal cheek post are beyond belief. I would kindly advise my shallow minded readers and commentators to get off their high horses, put down that copy of the daily mail for just one moment and address what the real issues are.

Firstly, for all the rhetoric being pushed around regarding the importance of freedom of speech vis a vis the reaction this item has received, if anything, exposes the hypocrisy of the concept. The individual was expressing an opinion on an issue. The outrage shown by intellectually castrated opinions in response to the fact that this individual "dared" to have an alternative view on an issue clearly proves how selectively the the concept is applied.

Drawing you're conclusion on a nine second clip, of a 20+ minute video would naturally leave you missing the message. When you combine this with a default sceptic outlook, preconceived notions of hate, anger and negative emotion, you'll inevitably spurring out circular and illogical fallacies.

Moreover, to attack the profession of the individual, rather than address the message being conveyed (the hypocrisy of free speech) is unwarranted and had no relevance. The opinion was expressed in a private capacity, not in the name of a law firm. To equate ones career with inflammatory terms such as 'Islamist, jihadi and terrorist' I would argue is libellous, slanderous and indeed defamatory.

Anonymous 16 January 15 10:07

Gutter journalism at its best.

There is no relationship between his views on the world and his ability to perform at work. However legalcheek and RoF have decided to create the connection in a cheap move to enhance their online readership and further their morally bankrupt agenda. All at the expense of an individual expressing his views within the framework of the law.

Absolutely no regard for how this could impact on this chaps career. Its sickening.

Surely people will see through this attention-seeking piece of nonsense.

Jog on Friday.

Anonymous 16 January 15 10:12

To the people who are saying that Aysh is supposedly a victim of ‘western double standards’ on freedom of speech because he (presumably) got in trouble with his firm over a YouTube video? Have you forgotten that freedom of expression is a right granted by the state to citizens and not by anyone else.

Has he been arrested and taken in for questioning? Will there be a trial and then go to prison? No? Then it seems to me like this man has not has his right to freedom of speech violated in any way by those who grant that right. As a private citizen, he has every right to express his opinions about religion and events in France, as long as he doesn’t preach hate, which he clearly doesn’t in the video.

Nevertheless, as a trainee in a MC firm, which represents clients from all cultures and religions, he has a professional obligation to avoid exposing the firm to any controversy. He is of course free to say or think what he likes, but only in private settings where the reputation of his firm will not be jeopardized. YouTube is not a private setting.

Surely he can't stay. Imagine having to work with him knowing that all he sees in you is "Kuffar".

Anonymous 16 January 15 10:16

Did ROF just cut and paste its old CC trainee story? I see we still have the 21 comments from last time around...

Anonymous 16 January 15 10:21

@10:02
"libellous, slanderous and indeed defamatory"
Really? All of those things? It rather undermines whatever you're trying to say if you don't understand the words. I do hope you're not a practising lawyer.

Anonymous 16 January 15 10:23

From the guy who watched the video:

The 'lambasting' point has been portrayed in such a way to make it sound like Muslims shouldn't condemn what happened. That's not what he said at all. He was merely stating that the attacks shouldn't be condemned just because you are Muslim. Which is correct. The attackers were not the same class of muslim as the rest of the world. I don't condemn paedophila because I'm human. I do it because it's sick. he was passionate but certainly not wrong.


As for the other question directed at me - when you are being abused in the press with publishers like legal cheek and roll on Friday trying to ruin your life, you tell me you wouldn't want to limit the unfair damage your reputation faces.

To the individual wondering why I'm more credible than ROF - Ive seen the source and they haven't. I'm just as impartial as the author. I think that as far as credibility goes, I win. Although it doesn't take much to beat ROF on that front.

Anonymous 16 January 15 10:34

@ Anonymous 10:23.

He seems to suggest that muslims should not condemn the attacks at all because this is the "un-Islamic" response. I agree with you that no-one should be asked to condemn such acts. But Aysh went further & was quite inflammatory in my opinion.

With regards to the video, the damage is done. If he was worried about being misquoted etc. then why not keep the full video up and make sure misquotations etc. are not possible. The fact that it has been removed smells of guilt.

You may have seen the source, but you are presenting a one-sided view on it. That has been made possible by the fact that the video has been removed.

Anonymous 16 January 15 10:46

I really do hope he gets the boot, if just for the sake of his fellow CC employees. Imagine working with such a pinhead on a daily basis...

Anonymous 16 January 15 12:08

People speak about free speech and people should have the right to express their views but then when a muslim comes out with his opinion you condemn him? How hypocritical

Roll On Friday 16 January 15 12:16

His right to say what he likes is very important. It is what Paris is all about. It sounds from those who have watched the video that he didn't say anything particularly objectionable at all. So hopefully he will keep his job.

(He still is deluded however to believe in any God.
Islam is morally wrong and sexist to the core but that's another issue).

Anonymous 16 January 15 13:00

We have instructed Clifford Chance in the past. We won't again. Regardless of whether this video is offensive or not, it is a matter of judgement. And a matter of judgement for Clifford Chance to have recruited and retained him.

Anonymous 16 January 15 13:44

And to think just a few weeks ago The Law Society was still in the process of advising lawyers on how to conform to Sharia law in the UK. Things are getting pretty mixed up in the legal world in London.

Anonymous 16 January 15 14:30

He is free to express his opinion within the law. CC are free to choose whom they wish to employ. QED.

Anonymous 16 January 15 16:24

finally, someone that works in the City & isnt afraid of speaking the truth, well done mate!

Anonymous 16 January 15 16:24

This is brilliant!! Haha! Nice to see some trainees still have a backbone. And good on cc for supporting his right to free speech. A lot of comments made on her are from blatant closet racists!

Roll On Friday 16 January 15 16:40

To those resorting to mocking the individual, I highly doubt that you have even watched the full 21 minutes of the video. However, your comments are doing extremely well in proving his point regarding the "freedom of speech" fallacy. He did in absolutely NO WAY condone the attack in his video, rather he stated that all Muslims shouldnt have to rush to apologise on behalf of those that had committed the murders. The very same way all Christians are not expected to be apologising for the actions of the Klu Klux Klan. He did in no way incite violence of any sort, but then again, you wouldn't even know because you probably havent seen the video but feel the need to throw in comments asking for him to be sacked? Why exactly should that be the case if he has not done anything illegal? Rather, just voiced his view? To those saying that he deserves to be dismissed from his workplace without even watching his video beyond the 9 seconds, on what basis do you say this if you haven't even heard him out properly?
How about, instead of sitting behind a screen trying to destroy someones career, we all grow up a little bit and to those that disagree with him, his name is up there, I'm very sure he wouldnt decline to have intellectual dialogue with you if you ask.

I do have to say, kudos to CC for having lawyers with a backbone and a voice.

Anonymous 16 January 15 17:09

Ash you're clearly posting the supportive comments. They're exactly the same as the rubbish you posed on Legal Cheek. Pack it in. It's pointless. Your career in the city is finished.

Roll On Friday 16 January 15 17:15

I saw the video - these untruths are being written by the person in question/his friends. It was despicable - worse, I fear, than actually its summary in the article. The Clifford Chance trainee actually attacks Muslims who would criticise the actions of the murderers in Paris. He openly supported their cause. In my view, watching it at the time, I found it to actually be stirring up hatred towards the West, and at times encouraging further attacks, whether or not that was his intention.

I have to say, it does him absolutely no favours to have created multiple accounts supporting himself. It is obvious. The posting style (complete with poor grammar and syntax) is obvious.

Anonymous 16 January 15 17:16

This had nothing to do with his role as a trainee lawyer until LegalCheek and RoF decided to get a few hits out of trying to torpedo this young man's livelihood and career.

It's not at all surprising to see the bunch calling for him to sacked when he has done nothing illegal. He's interned at top firms (Slaughters, White & Case, Freshfields, BLP) and landed a TC at CC - he's obviously incredibly bright and obviously going to be someone to compete with within the industry in the future. A prime candidate for insecure peers to want to knock out of the race it seems.

Anonymous 16 January 15 17:38

No one has suggested that he's not bright, nor that he's somehow deficient at his job. The suggestion is that he posted someinsensitive and stupid remarks on a very public forum which he must have known would have embarrassed his firm.

Good on CC for keeping him, sure. It's not a hanging offence. But he should have been given a serious dressing down for airing his views in such an inflammatory and public way. As a poster above commented, YouTube isn't exactly a private conversation with friends.

Anonymous 16 January 15 17:46

I have never come across such arrogance and ill informed diatribe. He is suddently the saviour of Muslims? He clearly has too much time on his hands.

Anonymous 16 January 15 17:56

He says Muslims should not condone the attack (which you would do anyway as a decent human being, Muslim or not). Is that not saying he thinks terrorists did nothing wrong? He said 'we would not be where we are' if 'Muslim lands' were not 'raped'...as if that justifies killing innocents today. Even assuming he is right (to be clear, he is not) Why should current generations pay for older generations' misdeeds? His argument is idiotic.

Anonymous 16 January 15 18:36

@ Maria
I've watched the video and Aysh not criticses muslims who have apologised for the murders (which is 100% correct in my opinion) BUT he also berates muslims who have condemned the murders. What is "un-Islamic" about condemning the murder of innocent people.
Can you be truthful and admit that he did indeed berate ordinary muslims for condemning the murders. This is why he derserves the boot!

Anonymous 16 January 15 19:13

This is absolutely disgusting. When he refers to "our people" who exactly does he mean and why isn't be over in their superior civilisation living with "his" people?

CC will cravenly duck the issue of course but if one of their trainees posted a video with a message of "I really hate niggers and pakis" you can bet they'd be out the door (and rightly so). It must be nice for this clown's colleagues to go to the office each day knowing one of their comrades hates them, hates their way of life and thinks they are doomed to burn in hell. Quite team building.

If I still worked their (I'm not a lawyer or anything or someone with an axe to grind against CC) I'd go round to his office and wring his stupid neck.

Anonymous 16 January 15 20:11

Some of you have an axe to grind. It's clear that his views are not the views of those who work at CC. I doubt he will find much support for his views at CC.

Anonymous 16 January 15 20:11

I agree. It's truly awful that he condemns people who criticised the attack and shocking that CC defended him. They won't be so happy when this appears in the FT, Telegraph or Mail. I''d bet my bottom dollar that the've received plenty of emails about it.

Anonymous 16 January 15 21:33

Wait, so the man in the video calls for intellectual dialogue & incites NO violence whatsoever & receives backlash left, right & centre but the person in the comment a few above mine is free to say that he'd "wring Aysh's stupid neck"? Smells like double standards in here, just a little bit.

Anonymous 17 January 15 00:03

He's done nothing wrong. CC picks the best trainees. His CV is flawless. The fact he feels the need to say something after the Paris attacks shows you his leadership skills. He could be a partner someday. If I was CC id keep him on. He's like the drunk Oxford guy he's what the industry needs. NORMAL PEOPLE. Not deceitful muppets who'd backstab you any moment. And don't tell you the truth. The French partner who called someone a terrorist should have been sacked. But let's pick on a trainee. Aysh is more of a man than any of you spineless coffee sipping bald headed coin counting arrogant non-religious jealous scheming lawyers.

CC won't sack him he might not be retained after training...but his career in the city isn't over. CC picks the best Trainees!

Roll On Friday 17 January 15 00:06

We didn't even need to put the sorting hat on this one when he arrived at Hoglaws school of magically increasing fees - SLYTHERIN!

Anonymous 17 January 15 09:32

They'll probably use his transferable skills to drive up targets and billing. Let's face it who would want to argue with him.

Anonymous 17 January 15 09:39

He could get a job in a local authority and be a lawyer there. They would give him a room to make his films, counselling for his feelings and promotion because they are scared of him.

Anonymous 17 January 15 14:03

Hi Aysh - quick q, can the Zoroastrians have Iran back? Sure you have the freedom of expression to ask for "muslim" lands back (itself a foolish comment). But I'm now exercising my right to ask for "non-muslim" lands back. Fair?

Anonymous 17 January 15 17:20

Sack him. No ifs no buts sack him. That video shows you all you need to know about his mentality. Just because you have good grades and work experience is no guarantee of how you'll perform in a law firm. Firms need to consider integrity, loyalty and propriety as well and not pick every posh twat who applies.

Anonymous 17 January 15 17:55

I've never seen a more blatant example of the protagonist of the article rabidly attempting to defend himself in the comments section.

Your career is toast mate. Go and practise with "your people", as you so inclusively describe them.

Anonymous 18 January 15 14:40

[i] The fact he feels the need to say something after the Paris attacks shows you his leadership skills.[/i]

What kind of a stupid comment is this Aysh? I didn't know leadership skills included being racist. It is SO obvious that it is you/one of your muslim mates. The fact that you said we're all apparantly "arrogant non-religious jealous scheming lawyers" again proves how intolerant people like you are. As if being a just being muslim is a one-way ticket to heaven and 90 virgins. Surely you have to be a GOOD person as well? Can a non-religious person not have morals also?

Anonymous 18 January 15 20:50

"Can a non-religious person not have morals also?"

No. We're kuffars. It makes no difference; hellfire will burn us whether we have "morals" or not. Duh.

Wot r u? Some sort of moron?

Roll On Friday 19 January 15 13:23

There's a division of opinion on here as to whether the content of the video was inflammatory/racist/other, or whether this chap was just telling it how he sees it. I haven't seen it. Surely one of the best excellent CC or other MC trainees who frequent this webbo must have had the foresight to have the audio track transcribed for posterity and/or use in future litigation? If so, please message me with a link to where I can download a copy. Ta!

Anonymous 19 January 15 13:48

To anonymous user
18/01/2015 14:40

I have no idea who aysh is... but you cant deny the leadership skills can you? and how was his rant racist? why so quick to take offence?
this has nothing to do with morals... I can confirm Clifford chance are not sacking him he is being kept on. Unlucky guys. So many people on here working for Bond Dickinson. GL CC have the best clients.

Anonymous 19 January 15 22:24

So ironic that he rejects freedom of speech as "the values of the kuffar", but is favourably impressed by the "confidence" of those don't apologise for Guantanemo Bay. The honest truth is that the only value he consistently promotes is his own narcissism / "leadership." So definitely partner material.

Moussa (Moshe) of the Banai Israel.

Anonymous 20 January 15 13:06

Absolutely disgraceful that he has not lost his job and CC is setting completely the wrong example and should be ashamed.

Anonymous 20 January 15 20:18

I find that offensive. You should be sacked for that comment. If that's a typical product where do I sign up? MC training contracts anyone?

Anonymous 21 January 15 00:43

Should Aysh Chaudhry be fired by Clifford Chance? Choose one option.
(1) No - calling people "kuffar" is part of free speech..
(2) No - it would be "racist" of the "kuffar" to fire someone who says "kuffar".
(3) No - the "inclusive culture" at Clifford Chance should include the word "kuffar".
(4) No - providing Clifford Chance also let people use words like "n****r" and "s*nd j*ckey".
(5) Yes - of course they f*cking should, are you kidding?

Anonymous 23 January 15 09:54

I have seen the video and he did not incite hatred or violence. He is clearly not an extremist and should be congratulated for expressing an opinion. Lawyers should not be conformist, billable hour drones. CC have handled this reactionary media storm very well.

Anonymous 23 January 15 15:15

I have never commented on a ROF article before, but some of the comments to this article have compelled me to do so. I have never been so appalled or ashamed by some of the disgusting racist comments that members of my profession have expressed on here which are racist and hateful. I always thought that members of my profession were educated and reasoned thinkers who would not resort to such reactionary narrow-mindedness. Clearly I was wrong.

Anonymous 23 January 15 16:58

I believe that in a week in which the oil price gyrates wildly at the death of the Saudi King, while the Euro printing presses start furiously working - Clifford Chance has taken an entirely logical financial decision. "Two fingers up at Paris / Best not upset Dubai" - Firm's don't get to Clifford Chance's size by observing a high moral ground.

If you've not seen it - Do watch the film, 'Four Lions' - http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi1479252249/ Exercise 'free speech' and laugh at idiots like this!

Anonymous 23 January 15 17:53

I wonder whether it is in fact the case that CC didn’t dare fire him, for fear of retaliation.

If we start yielding in front of the Islamists - Like many elements of the US media recently did, e.g. refusing to show the cover page of 'Charlie Hebdo's post shooting edition - Then we are losing the war to protect free speech.

Anonymous 23 January 15 22:21

What a loathsome hypocrite: he lambasts other "brothers and sisters" for being too apologetic about Islamist terror, but when challenged about his own poxy YouTube video he immediately offers a "grovelling apology".

Clearly, he doesn't just lack a sense of common decency. He doesn't have any balls or a spine either!