NOVEMBER PROTEST AGAINST ISLAMISTS
PROPOSED NOVEMBER PROTEST AGAINST ISLAMISTS
The rise of Islamist extremist violence, targeted harassment, and aggressive ideological imposition represents a profound and unrelenting assault on human dignity, individual freedom, and peaceful coexistence. Across multiple regions globally, radical groups and militant networks seek to force their dogmas onto society through intimidation and coercion, striking at the core of pluralistic societies and demanding an unequivocal, unyielding condemnation.
DECREE OF THE FIRST CHURCH OF DRUWAYU
By the authority vested in me as Founder of the First Church of Druwayu, and in accordance with the principles and doctrines of this Church, I hereby decree and establish the following:
Official Annual Observance
The period from November 30 through December 6 of each year is designated and proclaimed as the official Protest of Islam.
This annual event is instituted for the purpose of public expression, assembly, speech, and peaceful demonstration of the Church’s position regarding Islam, its doctrines, historical record, and practices, as determined by the Founder and the governing body of the First Church of Druwayu.
Terms of the Decree
Schedule: The observance shall be held every year on the dates November 30–December 6, inclusive.
Participation: Members, adherents, and supporters of the First Church of Druwayu are authorized and encouraged to participate in lawful, peaceful activities consistent with this decree during the designated period.
Limitations: This decree does not authorize, endorse, or encourage any act of violence, illegal conduct, or infringement upon the legal rights of others. It shall be made abundantly clear to all participates this is not targeting anyone based on their race or gender. Violations will not be tolerated, however, if physically attacked, all participates are authorized to defend themselves by any means necessary.
Locations: You are hereby also authorized to hold your own act of protest in your area with your friends, family and neighbors at a reserved location, on your own property, etc. Just be sure if you need some sort of permit to burn things you do so first.
Authority: The Founder reserves the sole right to amend, clarify, suspend, or revoke this decree and shall stay in effect till the formation of the Drusidu council as custodians of this culture and tradition has been established.
Proclaimed and Established
This decree is issued under the authority of myself as the High Elder Warlock and the Founder of the First Church of Druwayu and takes effect immediately upon proclamation.
JUSTIFICATION
The Reality of Social Coercion and Harassment
Extremist factions and self-appointed morality enforcers operate with a deliberate intent to police public and private life, systematically dismantling personal autonomy:
Suppression of Personal Choice: Radical groups attempt to dictate dress codes, behavioral norms, and social interactions, targeting individuals who refuse to conform to their rigid interpretations of religious law.
Intolerance of Dissent: Pluralism, secular governance, freedom of conscience, and cultural diversity are rejected outright. Alternative lifestyles and dissenting viewpoints are treated as existential threats to be silenced.
Systemic Intimidation: Everyday life in communities targeted by extremists is overshadowed by surveillance, fear, and the constant threat of backlash for failing to adhere to authoritarian mandates.
Violence as a Political and Ideological Instrument
Beyond daily harassment, militant organizations utilize extreme violence to subjugate populations and destabilize governance:
Terrorism and Bloodshed: Terrorist attacks, targeted assassinations, and communal violence are deployed deliberately to inflict fear, break community resistance, and enforce compliance.
Destruction of Communities: The vast majority of victims of Islamist insurgencies and terrorism are ordinary citizens in regions across the Middle East, South Asia, and Africa, where groups like ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, and Al-Shabaab have historically imposed brutal rule, disrupted economies, and displaced millions.
A Resolute Defense of Core Principles
Confronting this phenomenon requires absolute clarity and resolve without cowardice. There is no room for ambiguity when basic human rights and their lives are under attack:
The Inviolability of Individual Freedom: Every person possesses the inherent right to live, think, dress, and believe free from the threats, coercion, and policing of ideological extremists.
The Indefensibility of Violence: The use of terror, assault, and intimidation to advance religious or political agendas is entirely unacceptable and demands universal rejection.
The Protection of Independence: Societies built on the rule of law, mutual respect, and universal human rights must firmly resist any movement that seeks to replace pluralism and freedom with tyranny without allowing religion to be used as an excuse to bypass laws that are against all the actions these pukes keep getting a pass on, or a slap on the wrist for engaging in such actions because the leadership in this and every other country have become a bunch of spineless cowards, and weak willed sell outs.
Because of all this I am officiating an Annual Protest
Burning religious texts, national flags, or other revered symbols is a form of expression protected under the principles of free speech and open political discourse and these freaks have been allowed to do so with everything else. Turn about is fair play. These actions against Islam and Islamists are justified through several key legal and philosophical frameworks:
Freedom of speech is a foundational right that includes the right to offend.
Protection of Unpopular Ideas: Free speech protections exist precisely to safeguard speech that is controversial, offensive, or deeply unpopular. If expression were restricted solely to speech that causes no offense, political dissent and critique would be effectively neutralized.
Symbolic Protest: Burning a flag, a book, or another symbol is treated in these legal systems as a form of symbolic speech—a dramatic, non-violent political act intended to convey dissent, critique, or opposition to an ideology, religion, or government.
Burning of religious texts or flags as a direct critique of authoritarian systems, religious fundamentalism, or political regimes.
Challenging Authority: For religious extremism or political oppression, targeting symbols of authority is a way to challenge taboos, demand secularism, demand maintained separation of church and state, condemning any and all theocracies or protest against laws and regimes that enforce religious orthodoxies (such as blasphemy laws or theocratic governance).
Distinction Between Ideas and Individuals: A core argument in defense of this form of protest is that freedom of expression protects the right to criticize, mock, or desecrate ideas, texts, and symbols, while maintaining that violence or harm directed against living human beings (individuals or groups) remains entirely unacceptable and if such who are being protested against engage in violence, participants have a right to defend themselves at all costs showing no mercy to those that would show them none.
Legal and Global Contexts
While defended as a right of free expression, the practice is subject to vastly different legal standards globally but this is America:
In the USA: The United States have explicitly ruled that flag burning and the destruction of symbolic objects are constitutionally protected forms of expressive conduct. Other countries try to balance free expression laws differently, with some European nations enforcing laws against public incitement to hatred or desecration of religious objects under specific circumstances, but their weak will against terrorists and Islamist Jihadists have shown they have become weak cowards and promote cowardice we cannot allow to stand here.
Global Controversy: Internationally, such acts frequently spark intense diplomatic friction, counter-protests, and accusations of Islamophobia or incitement, raising ongoing debates about where the boundary lies between legitimate political critique and malicious provocation. Well, we are the counter protestors and the time for silence and hope someone in authority will put a stop to all the abuses, deception, trespasses and remove domestic enemies from this nation is long gone.
1. The Fraud of Calling Ideological Critique "Racism"
Branding the destruction of a book or a flag as "racism" is pure nonsense—a deliberate linguistic fraud designed to shut down debate without answering a single argument.
Beliefs Are Not Races: Islam is a set of ideas, doctrines, and political-religious claims, not a genetic trait. People of every race hold or reject religious beliefs. Pretending that attacking a religious text is the same as attacking a person’s skin color is a cynical manipulation meant to smear critics as bigots.
De Facto Blasphemy Laws: By slapping the "racism" label on symbolic protest, activists and apologists enforce modern blasphemy laws through the back door—demanding that one specific ideology enjoy special immunity from the mockery, rejection, and fierce criticism that every other belief system in a free society must endure.
2. "Hate Speech" Is an Excuse for Censorship
Classifying the burning of a book or a flag as "hate speech" erases the vital boundary between peaceful expression and violent crime, turning free speech into a meaningless slogan. Otherwise every one of the pieces of shit in the United States that have shouted and participated in promotion of Death to America and Americans is by definition hate speech and a declaration of war and an act of treason.
Symbols Have No Rights: Human beings have the right to live free from physical violence; books, flags, and dogmas have zero right to be respected. Burning a symbol is an act of defiance against ideas and authority, not an assault on people.
Surrendering to Offense: Free speech does not exist to protect polite, approved opinions—it exists specifically to protect the right to shock, offend, and provoke. Anyone arguing that offense equals "hate speech" is arguing for authoritarian censorship.
3. Ending Political Cowardice and Two-Tiered Policing
The ongoing refusal of government leaders and law enforcement to defend symbolic protesters—while arresting them for "disturbing the peace" or "incitement"—is a shameful abdication of duty.
Rewarding Violent Intimidation: Every time authorities ban a protest or prosecute a demonstrator out of fear of violent riots, they hand a total victory to extremists. They prove that threats of bloodshed work, establishing a violent veto over basic civil rights.
Hypocrisy in Law Enforcement: Citizens see the glaring double standard: radical demonstrations and aggressive street protests are routinely tolerated or indulged by authorities, while peaceful symbolic protests against Islamic dogma are swiftly crushed under flimsy pretexts.
Governments must end this two-tiered policing immediately. The duty of the state is to arrest those who initiate violence, not to punish peaceful protesters for offending the sensibilities of those who threaten it or defending themselves from being threatened, attacked and otherwise terrorized.
I WILL NOT SUBMIT!
I WILL NOT REPENT!
P.S. No Religion, or religious literature in Public Schools K-12 Ever!
