I was saddened very much by a letter in yesterday’s Sunday Times*, concerning the horrific judicial murder in Iran of a sixteen year old girl, Atefeh Rajabi, because, it appears, she annoyed the so-called judge at her so-called trial for the so-called crime of “acts incompatible with chastity”.
Googling for the story produced a number of supporting accounts, including this one at Iran Focus. Reports of the case were also highlighted by Amnesty International UK last Tuesday, 24AUG04. Later I read an article about it in The Sunday Telegraph, Death and the maiden in Iran*, by Alasdair Palmer.
As Palmer says, “can you imagine the response if a 16-year-old girl was executed for having sex in Texas?”, or for that matter in any number of countries around the world?
Which begs the question, given that the BBC’s much-vaunted Monitoring Unit at Caversham brings us news round-ups from radio, television and press around the world, such as this one from the Middle East, Press relief at Najaf deal, why haven’t they apparently picked up on the tragic case of Atefeh Rajabi? And if they have, why hasn’t it been investigated and reported by the BBC yet?
They can hardly claim they don’t have time to cover Atefeh Rajabi’s story when they find time to cover stories like, to pick an example from Sunday evening, Thai capital elects new governor.
Last year, the case of Amina Lawal, sentenced to death by stoning for adultery, under Nigeria’s Sharia law, was covered extensively by the media, including the BBC. I wonder why that case was different? Perhaps it was because her story caught on, so for any major broadcaster to ignore it would have looked rather obvious. Perhaps it was because her sentence was yet to be carried out (mercifully she was acquitted after her second appeal). Perhaps it was because there was more hope of sanity prevailing in Nigeria than in Iran.
I look forward to the BBC proving me wrong in this instance – the more light that is shone into dark corners, whoever those corners belong to, and however uncomfortable it is for them, the better.
Update: Iran Focus has a lengthy update to this tragic story, with more background material and a photograph of Atefeh Rajabi. Still no noticeable coverage at the BBC though – disappointing, especially since they were so quick off the mark to cover up their extended George Galloway promotion when that was highlighted on this blog.
* registration required – see www.bugmenot.com for login info.
Judicial and extra-judicial killings of girls and women are common in much of the world. Individual cases are seldom reported in Western media. Nor are they often reported in the local media. This particular incident may have received no or minimal “police blotter” coverage in the Iranian media. Or, the Monitoring Unit may have decided it was, sadly, so routine as to not merit processing.
Probably more to the point, though, is that the Monitoring Unit is not part of BBC News or under its management.
However, the story is obviously available, and BBC News should cover it. Perhaps if it spent less time reporting on Libyans winning singing contests it could free the necessary resources.
I was listening to the BBC World Service yesterday, and heard a discussion program on Darfur.
The discussion included calls from various people, one of was an African caller who suggested that if it were Muslims rather than Christians being slaughtered by the Janjaweed, the Arab world would be up in arms, as opposed to it’s current pro-Sudan stance.
Lyce Doucet and the panelist (a representative from an NGO I think) interpreted the caller’s comments as the reverse of what he actually meant
(That in itself is revealing).
When he corrected them (that he suspected tacit Muslim/Arab support of the persecution of Christians), Doucet swiftly moved onto another call and subject!
This story was covered on Dhimmiwatch ages ago. The mainstream news media is worthless, especially when covering Islamic affairs.
OT:
From the BBC Have Your Say section of the RNC:
“The protests are financial by Soros and other anti-Bush people. Go help us if Kerry is elected, it will be worst than Carter.
Jimmie, Chevy Chase, Maryland USA”
Gee, I wonder why they didn’t take a moment to edit this letter for clarity? The BBC does this ALL the time. They are also much more likely to post a left-leaning reply to a right-leaning letter than the other way around.
On the subject of what the BBC see fit to notice- this article about an American boy who shot his father dead during a divorce wrangle has been up for two days now. I’d argue that the hounding of a teenage Iranian girl in the courts of her own land is a lot more newsworthy.
Disfunctional USA trumps inhuman Iran any day it would seem.
ed,
I noticed that too. It’s not like they don’t have similar stories occuring in the UK every day too.
BBC caught inventing “news”.
Even the Entertainment section is shilling for Kerry!
http://audereestfacere.blogspot.com/2004/08/row-over-political-cash-tribute_29.html
“So one 22 year old “fan” objects to it and suddenly this is news? I don’t hear Mr Cash’s family objecting”
….
“Turns out Ms Siegal happens to be an “artist” as well as a Johnny Cash “fan”. She is also mentioned many times on that well known marxist shithole Indymedia”
To think you could go to jail if you stopped paying for this sort of biased trash!
Let’s not forget about the sexually frustrated smoking chimp in China:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3611666.stm
Obviously a bigger story than that girl in Iran who was hung from a crane for being uppity.
I’m slightly peturbed by the comparison with the Thai governer story. What is really more important globally, the governership of one of the world’s most populous cities (and one crawling with Brits)affecting millions or the extremely unpleasant killing of an individual according to the laws of her country? Do you want the BBC to go further down the ‘shock horror’ tabloid route?
As Milosovic defends himself at The Hague, a Ceefax headline states –
“McCain defends “unflinching” Bush”
obviously war criminals both!
McCain’s speech didn’t sound very defensive to me. (Though I suppose that goes for Milosovic’s attitude too)
Zevilyn: they’re all Muslims in Darfur, which may be why the panel was confused by the caller’s nonsensical point.
Sean: what makes you think the Beeb edit left-wing letters for clarity? Have you actually sent in a balanced sample of typo-ridden posts to HYS and observed this, or are you just making up nonsense? (‘I know all lefties are stupid, so the lefties at the BBC *must* need to edit their comments…’)
Rich:
“Do you want the BBC to go further down the ‘shock horror’ tabloid route?”
Umm, the BBC has certainly been willing to go down the ‘shock horror’ tabloid route when it came to the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. Over and over and over again.
Susan,
Do you not think that a supposedly liberating army committing atrocities on those it was supposed to be liberating (i.e. Iraqis conscripted to fight a hopeless war by the evil Saddam) was a bit more than ‘shock horror’?
There was also the wider perspective to consider in that it was inevitable that these actions would incite other Arabs against the US. Hypocritical certainly, but no less of a news story.
Against that, an unpleasant country unpleasantly executing one of its citizens according to its unpleasant laws isn’t that newsworthy outside of the ‘lets all gasp at the stone age freaks’ school of journalism.
Rich, I picked the ‘Thai capital elects new governor’ story for comparison simply because it was an international story of little note in the UK (or much outside of Thailand for that matter) that was given great prominence (with the ‘Thai capital elects new governor’ line as one of the top four stories highlighted on their Java news ticker) on the BBC News site at the time when I wrote my piece about Atefeh Rajabi.
No disrespect to Bangkok – but the election of a governor, who, as the article admits, “lacks the authority to make radical changes” is about as significant to the UK as the election of Ken Livingstone as Mayor of London is to the people of Thailand, i.e. not very.
There are lots of other examples you can pick if you prefer – the point is that the shocking murder of Atefeh Rajabi at the hands of the judiciary of a would-be nuclear state has gone largely unreported.
“There was also the wider perspective to consider in that it was inevitable that these actions would incite other Arabs against the US. Hypocritical certainly, but no less of a news story.”
Hypocritical indeed. The footage of Western hostages’ heads being cut off is not broadcast becaue it is shocking and might incite anger and hatred towards Muslims.
However the pictures of the late night shift’s illegal hijinks is repeatedly published in newspapers and magazines and shown on television *despite* its ‘shocking’ nature, the further humiliation of the victims, not to mention the fact that it might incite anger and hatred for America.
One can only conclude that the Western media wishes to discourage anger and hatred for Muslims and encourage anger and hatred for America….
It would of course have been perfectly possible to cover Abu-Ghraib without the pictures, just as it is possible to cover the beheading of hostages without pictures.
…or ideally cover the whole thing in full on the basis that those sitting on their suburban sofas pontificating on the rights and wrongs of war and international terrorism should know the full horrors of what they are opining about.
There was something scary about the furore over the release of pictures of US coffins coming home a few months ago. The idea that people should be asked to support a war whilst being sheltered from the fact that soldiers actually die is very worrying (as is the airbrushing of the thousands of underequipped Iraqi conscripts killed by the coalition). Equally those opposing the war should be confronted with pictorial evidence of Saddam’s mass graves.
“pictorial evidence of Saddam’s mass graves” in no way gets accross the brutality of the way they were murdered by Saddam’s regime.
Rich
In my opinion, the story of a teenage girl being executed for improriety and being upity is much more relevant and unsettling than the change in a governor of a Thai City. I do not think it will cause many Brits to change their holiday plans.
The story, to me, is newsworthy in itself, but for me it is even more relevant when the country is only one year away from developing nuclear weapons. The better UK media (i.e Telegraph and Times seem to have no problem picking up on relevant stories. The BBCs task, as a public service broadcaster, is to provide both sides of the story. Not the current lame stream of output.
Rich
The way the Abu Ghraib story was covered was sensationalist and trashy — you can’t put your nose up in the air and say that covering a young girl’s brutal execution for a trival “offense” is tabloid trash, while at the same time defending the Beeb’s trashy and sensationalist treatment of the Abu Ghraib story.
If you do, then you are just airing your prejudicies — no pretense of objectivity wanted or needed here.
I agree with Lee. I also think it’s really news when a country’s legal system allows this sort of thing to go on, even tending to encourage it.
Do US authorities get a pass when a story about their death penalties comes up? Don’t we hear endlessly about it when someone with an allegedly low mental age is put on death row?
I don’t wish to pile it on but consistency would put this story on the front page of the BBC website for a week in various boxes.
Ed,
They’re Arabs, BBC elitists EXPECT this sort of barabaric activity. It’s all part of the lefts innate racism, which is why they “project” it as a right wing problem (which is not to deny it exists there too).
“…or ideally cover the whole thing in full on the basis that those sitting on their suburban sofas pontificating on the rights and wrongs of war and international terrorism should know the full horrors of what they are opining about.”
I could certainly live with that. How about balancing the Abu-Ghaib story with Saddam’s home movies of goings on in his prisons? *That* would sure put things it perspective!
“The idea that people should be asked to support a war whilst being sheltered from the fact that soldiers actually die is very worrying”
The American military remembers all to well the use the anti-war Left made of returning dead. I must say that I personally had no problem with the picture – but I assure you coffins or no coffins Americans know very well that soldiers die.
“(as is the airbrushing of the thousands of underequipped Iraqi conscripts killed by the coalition).”
This ‘sporting’ attitude towards war – requiring one only to engage troops equal to your own – has always struck me as decidedly odd. I wonder what Clausewitz and Sun Tzu would have had to say about it? I am also quite aware that enemy soldiers were killed – in large numbers – but I don’t quite see how the Coalition became responsible for their lack of equipment and training….
Fair points all. On balance I’m prepared to agree that the execution was worth reporting on, in the context of more expansive comment on the brutality of Iranian law. I disagree that the sort of ‘human interest’ tear jerking crap that the Sunday Times (particularly) is prone to spouting falls within the remit of the BBC though.
Again, I personally believe given the amount of fictional death and destruction on TV that people are perfectly capable of dealing with uncensored images of war. Certainly all available evidence of Saddam’s atrocities should be available to voters.
Whilst I obviously don’t believe that war should be ‘fair’ I think it’s reasonable to consider that those conscripted into a dictator’s army (or even volunteering from the need for a job, national pride or propaganda) are not necessarily theselves the epitomy of evil and may very well form a similar demographic to the population requiring ‘liberating’.
it has not been reported by Caversham because it has not been reported in the Iranian Press, radio or tv
“Whilst I obviously don’t believe that war should be ‘fair’ I think it’s reasonable to consider that those conscripted into a dictator’s army (or even volunteering from the need for a job, national pride or propaganda) are not necessarily theselves the epitomy of evil and may very well form a similar demographic to the population requiring ‘liberating’.”
Yes of course, but what difference does this make when they are shooting at you? It’s not exactly practical to request information on political orientation and demography before opening return fire is it?
Surrender of course is always an option but I really would prefer that it’s the enemy that does the surrendering – chauvinistic as that may sound.
Hi Jaspreet – thank you for your comment – I take it that you have some connection with Caversham and/or following Iranian media. Do you know where this story has been reported and why it hasn’t been covered or investigated by the BBC, even in passing?
Thank you,
Andrew.
Roxanna said,
“I could certainly live with that. How about balancing the Abu-Ghaib story with Saddam’s home movies of goings on in his prisons? *That* would sure put things it perspective!”
But that’s not news! We all know Saddam was a bad man who ordered many attrocities to be commmited. Also, how would that balance it out exactly? Imagine this on the 10 o’clock news:
And now… Here are some pictures from abuses being carried out by guards at the Abu-Ghaib prison. *cue pictures* But don’t forget Saddam and his cronies used to do this sort of stuff all the time. *cue library footage*.
Brilliant so we have invaded Iraq to help these people out but actually all I’ve been shown is that we’re abusing people just as Saddam did. Maybe not to the same extremes but the abuse is still there.
Also Roxanna…
I don’t take your earlier point about how we’re not shown the footage of those hostages that are executed as it might shock. Just last night I saw the horrifying image of 12 hostages lying face down in the sand in their own blood having just been executed. I didn’t need to see them actually being killed, your mind can fill in the blanks. Similarly I remember the papers and tv showing just about all they could of the first american who was beheaded. It was terrifying.
The pictures from the prison had parts of them blacked out as well as they were too graphic to print. Your conclusion that through selective censorship (which I believe to not be true as outlined above) the Western media must be trying to encourage anger and hatred towards America is facile and lazy.
The reason the beheadings and other such executions are not shown is because it might make “non-Muslims” (oh how I loathe that term!) angry, and “incite racial and religious hatred”. But it’s alright to stir up Anti-American sentiment. That’s juts fine and dandy!
By sanitising the footage of the executions, Al Jazeera, the BBC, and many other media folks are effectively creating a market for hostage-takers.
The reason there are so many hostage taking incidents is because the media has made them a very worthwhile endeavour. By editing out the “nasty bits”, the BBC and co make terror much more marketable.
I agree with Zevilyn. Everything should be shown then voters know exactly what they’re dealing with and can direct their votes accordingly.
Roxana, I’m obviously aware that soldiers can’t take spur of the moment macro-political decisions when someone is trying to kill them. You refer to the ‘enemy’. My point is that when fighting a war of ‘liberation’ rather than a defensive war the enemy/downtrodden citizen to be liberated divide is extremely blurred. You can’t liberate someone who you’ve just killed. Just another consideration to add to the many many others……
“And now… Here are some pictures from abuses being carried out by guards at the Abu-Ghaib prison. *cue pictures* But don’t forget Saddam and his cronies used to do this sort of stuff all the time. *cue library footage*.”
That works for me. We could have some footage of the gang rapes, and then of people being fed feet first into shreaders, and then the amputations…
“Brilliant so we have invaded Iraq to help these people out but actually all I’ve been shown is that we’re abusing people just as Saddam did. Maybe not to the same extremes but the abuse is still there.”
To compare the sexual humiliation of a handful of prisoners to the systematic torture and murder of political opponents, ethnic minorities, Olympic athletes who didn’t perform as well as hoped, men, women and let us not forget ‘the children’ carries ‘moral equivalency to a new low.
Ah but PD, compare how quickly the murders of hostages disapear from the newscreens. Two, three days tops and the pictures and the story both vanish. Then compare the Abu-Ghaib story in which the pictures were released piecemeal over a span of weeks and which has been carefully kept alive for months – not only in its own articles but in countless references in completely unconnected stories.
“My point is that when fighting a war of ‘liberation’ rather than a defensive war the enemy/downtrodden citizen to be liberated divide is extremely blurred.”
Not at all. The downtrodden to be liberated are the ones not shooting at you.
Let us not forget the best defense is a good offense. The real reason for going after Saddam was to eliminate a supporter of international terrorism, and to put fear of Uncle Sam into the hearts of his fellow dictators and terrorism supporters.
Saddam was picked out of the innumerable possibles because his persistent failure to cooperate with the arms inspectors and obey UN resolutions gave a convenient causus belli. Unfortunately the UN doesn’t believe in enforcing its resolutions unless they are against Israel. And let us not forget several prominent members of the Security Council had important financial ties to Saddam’s regime.
So how long after they have been killed are news outlets meant to keep these hostage stories going for? If there aren’t any new developments then what is there to report that hasn’t been done so already?
The Abu-Ghaib story has developed over time. From when they were first discovered to the reports carried out in the US recently.
Also I did point out that these prison abuses were obviously not as bad as what went on during Saddam’s time.
The point I’m trying to make is that I want to see news, stuff that’s happening here and now. You want to make things fair and balanced by showing things that have happened in the past or by dragging out stories that no longer exist. This is not news! The BBC would really be failing us if it were to do that.
Rox,
You’re talking rubbish in my opinion.
The ones shooting at you are those most likely to be downtrodden as they’re the poor mugs pushed into the front line with kalashnikovs to get bombed from 20,000 feet.
I’m still undecided about whether the war was worth it until we see the medium term aftermath – maybe it will scare the hell out of other tinpot dictators and create a viable democracy – but with a little more preparation and a little less flag waving posturing we might have had less of the current carnage.
By the way, clearly the UN is as hopeless at enforcing it’s resolutions against Israel as it is the rest of them (and I suspect that were a French lead coalition of the willing to enforce them militarily the US might raise more than a dissenting voice).
I find the “spreading democracy” arguement for the Iraq war so lame it’s actually painful. If this were true then the US wouldn’t be quite so chummy with Saudi Arabia, no? Historically the US has always been more than happy throw money tin-pot dictators, Saddam included, even undermining democratic opposition to those said dictators. I’m sure I won’t have to list the many examples for you well informed people so lets just say Central and South America and leave it at that.
I find the “spreading democracy” arguement for the Iraq war so lame it’s actually painful. If this were true then the US wouldn’t be quite so chummy with Saudi Arabia, no? Historically the US has always been more than happy throw money tin-pot dictators, Saddam included, even undermining democratic opposition to those said dictators.
oops..
“Historically the US has always been more than happy throw money tin-pot dictators…”
Only when it is the least bad course of action available; such as when the alternative is backed by the Soviets.
No way Alan! That only accounts for Afghanistan, Cuba, and possibly a few others but certainly not every case. What about N.Ireland? Chile? Panama? El Salavdor? Honduras? Ecuador? Uruguay? Mexico? I could go on but I can’t be arsed.
Scratch N. Ireland from that list, I was trying to type two things at once. Although if was talking about the US supporting terrorism this would be applicable.
Although if we were talking about the US supporting terrorism then N. Ireland would be applicable, is what I meant to say.
theghostofredken, since when was Northern Ireland a tinpot dictatorship propped up by the US Govt.?
One could argue that the original Stormont government was tinpot after a fashion, but it wasn’t propped up by the US. Perhaps you mean the terrorists who were (and are) financed to a considerable extent by a small number of American individuals who manage to dislocate the romantic freedom fighter notion from the reality of dead-bodies and children growing up without their parents.
As for the other cases, if you can’t be bothered to list them or elaborate upon those you do mention, why should others bother to explain the historical background or alternatives – especially when we’re more than a little abeam from the original topic?
Alright Andrew, we’ll ignore the fact you deliberately ignored my correction to score a cheap point. We’ll just say the US had nothing to do with any of the countries I’ve mentioned and that very large American corporations, including those which make burgers and fizzy brown water, definitely did not give any money to the IRA with the knowledge of the US government.
PD, the uncovering of Saddam’s various nasty secrets is in fact an ‘ongoing story’ as more evidence is found – though one would never know it from the lack of coverage.
Rich: So I guess it’s better to leave ‘tinpot dictators’ in power since any attempt to overthrow them will inevitably hurt some of the downtrodden? And the current ‘carnage’ is being inflicted on the Iraqi people by the so-called ‘insurgents’ from other Arab countries who would rather see Iraq dead than democratized. Not to mention the carnage inflicted by Saddam – not of course that anybody cares a fig about that!
Ghostoffredken: please explain why MacDonalds or Coca Cola would want to support IRA? Exactly how was this advantageous to their business?
Oh please, theghostofredken – “we’ll ignore the fact you deliberately ignored my correction to score a cheap point” – I did not deliberately ignore anything – look at the timestamps – you make your Northern Ireland gaffe at 1.39pm I come along and read the comments a while later, I start to compose my response to you, I submit that response at 2.07pm, unaware that in the meantime you’d come along and posted your own correction at 2.02pm. Ever heard of things crossing in the post?
My best advice to you is simply to be careful and considered when commenting – the system on here is a bit like Arkwright’s till – it’ll have your fingers off just by looking at it – and there’s no way you can get anything back out of it afterwards, so it’s better to be careful in the first place.
Carefull! They have very good lawyers. I have no idea why they gave money to the IRA, perhaps some sort of misguided sense of Republicanism? Irish roots? Who knows..it’s true though.
OK then Roxanna, can you point me to the stories that have recently emerged (say the last month or two) with significantly new information on what went on during Saddam’s rule?
The reason I ask is that this blog is supposed to be about bias at the BBC but to be fair I get my news from a lot of souces not just the BBC and not just UK sources either and I can’t recall seeing anything recently in any of these places.
I do remember seeing a news item a few months back though which was quite powerful, showing mass graves that had been discovered where a whole village had been wiped out. It was on the BBC.
“Carefull! They have very good lawyers. I have no idea why they gave money to the IRA, perhaps some sort of misguided sense of Republicanism? Irish roots? Who knows..it’s true though.”
How exactly do you know that, Ghost? Where and from whom did you get that information?
Corporations exist to make money by selling their product. Countries in turmoil make very bad customers so Corporations are as devoted to ‘stability’ as the EU. This being the case I find it hard to understand why any corporation would bankroll a terrorist group. Prop up a dictator yes, support terrorists not likely.