“Shaykh Khalid Yasin is an American Muslim teacher, extremely popular among young European Muslims. He has embarked on a mission to de-radicalise them.”
That’s what the BBC/RedRebel film on Geert Wilders told us (see yesterday’s post).
Just Journalism points out that Yasin was one of the preachers of hate exposed in the 2007 Dispatches documentary Undercover Mosque in which film is shown of him saying the following:
“We don’t need to go to the Christians or the Jews debating with them about the filth which they believe. We Muslims have been ordered to do brainwashing because the kuffaar they are doing brain defiling. You are watching the kaffir TV and your wife is watching it right now and your children are watching it and they are being polluted and they are being penetrated and they are being infected, so that you come out of the house and your children come out of the house as Muslims and come back as kaffirs.”
“This whole delusion of the equality of women is a bunch of foolishness…There’s no such thing.”
His claim that missionaries infected Africans with the AIDS virus, which I quoted yesterday, also appears in the Dispatches film. (A pdf transcript of Undercover Mosque can be read here.)
Channel 4 showed Yasin as he really is – a divisive conspiracy-believing radical who describes the beliefs of other religions as filth and refers to non-Muslims as kaffirs. On the other hand the BBC, in its eagerness to attack Wilders, broadcasts a film describing Yasin as a popular teacher on a mission to de-radicalise young Muslims. It almost beggars belief, but quite frankly nothing surprises me about the BBC any more.
UPDATE.There’s more on the Wilders film at Gates of Vienna, including a copy of a comprehensive letter of complaint.
Here’s a transcript of a 2005 programme about Yasin that was broadcast on Australia’s Channel 9. He’s a 9/11 truther, says homosexuality is “punishable by death”, and lies about his qualifications.
And some more background on Yasin here and here.
(Thanks to all in the comments)
It’s on Sun 20 Feb 2011, 18:00 BBC Two (Northern Ireland only)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00yrt35
I accept that it’s a tall order to push them into cancelling Grant, but I’m betting that this time the BBC have overstepped the mark with the ‘Jewish conspiracy’ behind Wilders claims made by Yasin on the Programme.
If enough people complain then someone at the BBC is bound to get queasy enough about charges of anti-Semitism to escalate this.
“The world’s most dangerous broadcaster”
(by Melanie Phillips)
[Opening extrtact]:
“I have only just caught up with the BBC1 documentary on the Dutch politician Geert Wilders that was transmitted on Tuesday evening. Did I say documentary? ‘Europe’s Most Dangerous Man’ was a vicious hatchet job that was a disgrace to journalism. More than that, it could be argued that by presenting Wilders as a latter-day Nazi who was likely to foment war in Europe between Muslims and non-Muslims, it was in effect inciting violence or the murder of a politician who is already under armed guard 24/7.”
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/6709665/the-worlds-most-dangerous-broadcaster.thtml
John Anderson – I believe one can write to any useful BBC idiot, no matter how senior, by putting a dot between the first name and surname and ending with
@ BBC dot co dot uk. I chastised Peter Horrocks, currently World Service head, with that address and I know at least that he received his chastisement because his assistant replied. the assistant to Steve Herrmann, BBC website Editor, did likewise when I chastised him for covering up the BBC’s cheerleading of the LibDems at the expense of the Consrvatives and Ros Atkins of World Have Your Say replied personally to my observation that he was about the only World Service journalist who deviated from his colleagues’ starry-eyed love affair with Egypt’s revolutionaries by posing tough questions to the Muslim Brotherhood.
I don’t believe there is much point in complaining via the “Complaints” website and being sent on a wild goose chase while they cover their collective butt. I think it’s more effective to hammer them personally with scathing but nevertheless polite criticism.
I intend to compose such a letter to Rupert Wingfield Hayes re his foul portrayal of Israelis as indifferent, greedy materialists and the Palestinian as noble activists:
Tel Aviv is like a new Miami but does it help talks?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11294445
But I have a dilemma here: do I address it rupert.wingfieldhayes@bbc.co.uk or rupertwingfield.hayes@bbc.co.uk ?
Probably the former. Well, I’ll try both.
Just gritted my teeth and sat through the one-sided rubbish they fed the public on Wilders. Propaganda aside, they can’t even get their facts right. At 13:45 minutes in, they have this to say re Wilders’ visit to Britain:
To prevent trouble on the streets, the visit was banned.
[Crap, the visit was banned because leftie Labour politicians, led by Jacqui Smith, made a decision to bow and scrape before Islam.]
But a year later, in March 2010, the British Government relented and allowed Wilders to make his appearance.
[Crap, he had to fight a legal battle to be allowed in; if they’d won, they would have kept him out.]
Hopefully the programme was so bad that only the gullible will have been taken in. Unfortunately there are many gullibles.
Besides B-BBC, many websites have torn it apart, as has already been mentioned. The Gates of Vienna, Melanie Phillips – even Harry’s Place, hardly a right-wing propaganda site.
Far from examining Geert Wilders’s policies, the programme thought denouncing him was simply a matter of calling him ‘Far-Right, Zionist and dangerous’ and the BBC must have agreed. So lazy.
They even weakend their own argument by unnecessarily drawing attention to the horrors of radical Islam. Several times.
If you’d never heard of Sheikh Khalid Yasin or Sheikh Ibrahim Mogra, and you were naive enough to think the Muslim Council of Britain was kosher, surely showing the murder of Theo Van Gogh, including footage of children taunting Jack Poelman, lauding the unattractive Martin Smith and showing the filmmaker’s pathetic pantomime pursuit of an interview with Wilders ought to have been sufficiently self defeating to have caused a raised eyebrow or two amongst the gullible.
Wilders and his party may have flaws, but their fear of radical Islam is not one of them.
Yet the BBC thinks that nasty film was worth putting out. Twice.
Sue, they’ll think it must all be true because it was broadcast on the BBC.
Actually the filmakers probably cribbed the frustrated interviewer angle from John Sweeney’s investigation of Scientology. But while the latter was definitely shady and threatening towards Sweeney, I doubt that these “rebel” filmakers would have experienced the same from Wilders and bodyguards. They were probably scouting for it, though.