I am sure everyone at Biased BBC would like to say that they’ll make an effort to buy Danish in the light of the Islamic boycott of Denmark (and Norway, apparently). I plan to scout around for some Danish bacon… mmmm.
The BBC’s responsibility to report this news should extend to critically examining whether cartoons should merit an apology, just for depicting a religious icon in an unflattering light. But, even more, they should analyse the phenomenon of hatred based on such a flimsy pretext- for pretext is what it surely is. That’s why I was interested in DFH’s convincing observation about a BBC report using footage which included a fake cartoon of Muhammed as a pig. You’d have thought the BBC might have noticed (because aware of the backstory DFH outlines), and pointed out the fact that many out there are just propagandising. Would it be too much to point out in some way that the raid on the EU building was just a particularly egregious bit of propagandising by a group linked to Fatah, the losers in the Palestinian elections? BBC text report here.
UPDATE 17.45GMT Jan 31st: just a cut n’ paste from DFH this time (same post as linked above, worth revisiting). The BBC are wrong about the cartoons, and thus helping to spread propaganda. By any standards that’s terrible journalism, and a disservice to Europe. There is no Mohammed-as-a-pig cartoon amongst the ones involved in the controversy. Apology time, Beeb? These things can cause riots y’know.
Update 2 pm January 31.Rob Broomby on BBC Radio 4’s PM last night (and well spotted Eammon):
‘The blue touch paper had been lit by a series of cartoons published in a Danish newspaper in September. One portrayed the Prophet Mohammed with a turban shaped like a time bomb. Another showed him with a face of a pig.’
Wrong Rob. Very wrong. Now let’s have a report which answers these questions:
1.Why are Muslims spreading fake Danish cartoons?
2. Why did the BBC fall for the propaganda?
I’ve seen that particular piece earlier today. I wonder when / if we’ll see the (D)HYS results.
Not sure if anyone has noticed but it seems the Beeb have positioned the “In depth – Muslims in Europe” section on the Europe page on a permanent basis:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/default.stm
And in contrast:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4663280.stm
General disrespectful tone given to the section dealing with SAINT Thomas Becket, who is venerated by both the Anglican and Catholic churches. Note how they give no backstory whatsoever to the event (Henry II himself repented and paid a pilgrimage to the tomb later on) and treat a key figure in the Church of England in the same manner as Oswald Mosley!
But of course, who cares if they offend Christians (and possibly the Archbishop of Canterbury himself)?
I see the march of radical Islam marches on in Europe.
It’s philosophy of been able to say what they want under the aegis of their faith is juxtaposed somewhat by how they use character assassination, intimidation and finally fear in suppressing any valid criticism of their way of life.
Orgs such as the BBC have a duty in which to fight for the right of free speech.
Fighting for the side which is actively suppressing such a stance isn’t what I should expect in a free country and especially from a publicly funded one.
Silence from the pathetic Damien Hirst who stuck kitchen knives in the severed heads of a dozen bulls and called it “The Stations of the Cross”
Silence from the “brave” and “controversial” “artist” Andreas Seranno who put a crucifix in a jar filled with urine and called it “Piss Christ”.
Silence from the BBC who have used each and every opportunity to “challenge” Christian Belief.
Laugh in the faces of Socialists wherever you encounter them, they are Chicken Shit and always have been.
Let’s support Danish companies, people… Danish bacon (probably not eaten by muslims anyway), Carlsberg etc.
In the interests of balance, I thought it might be worth pointing this out on the site: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/beyond_belief/
The latest programme was, in my opinion, particularly well balanced. One extremist set against two moderates (one moderate to the point of utter reasonableness). The extremist got out flanked.
“Laugh in the faces of Socialists wherever you encounter them”
oh how i wish it were (just) a laughing matter!!
but the wretched two-(but multi-culturalist)-faced cowards are detroying our civilization – and some of us are forced to pay them to do it!
why can’t these hideously white bbc apparatchiks see the to me hideously obvious? or rather, why don’t they face it? deep down in their soul (or whatever trendy atheists have) they know the islam they turn a blind eye to is as deserving of challenge as any other religion ever was.
o, i forgot, they only want to challenge the assumptions of non-threatening, licence-paying “little england” while masquerading as if they were defending some great right to question perceived truth at fear-confonting, admirable personal risk
sorry
did not intend a gratuitous swipe at atheists
it’s the “trendy” part i really meant
i was thinking of andy roony’s (sp?) phrase concerning the left’s flirtation with atheism
O/t
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y61/Patsy271/whale_9984.gif
So they are boycotting Danish bacon in The Gulf……..
Won’t the BBC be screening “Jerry Springer The Opera Part 2” ? So we could miss the bit about Mohammed joining Jerry Springer in Hell ?
Haven’t they produced a Koran in Cockney or Patois ? I mean the BBC never quotes the Bible from the Latin Vulgate so why bother with Arabic ?
Maybe “Little Britain” could win a prize for a light-hearted look at Islam.
BTW. If the Koran reveres Jesus why do no Muslims ever complain about denigration of Jesus by the liberal media; or is Mohammed a god in himself ?
Let’s support Danish companies, people… Danish bacon (probably not eaten by muslims anyway), Carlsberg etc.
disillusioned_german | 31.01.06 – 1:43 am |
Hannen Alt
Tuborg
Holsten
I don’t know to take this, I am actually gobsmacked.
I mean for the crap we hear about not offending the minority faiths.
(Hey the oxygen thieves are voting on it later on today)
And the BBC in the name of comedy plays with fire;
>>”In the aftermath of the July bombings in London, Mischief decided to find out what post-suicide-bombs Britain would be like for a chap with a beard on his chin and a rucksack on his back.”>>”The BBC agree to commision Travels with My Beard. As my beard gets longer (thankfully I am blessed with hairy genes and the whiskers sprout readily) the funny looks on the tube and buses start multiplying. I can feel the lingering gaze of suspicion on the faces of my fellow passengers. This beard business is serious.”
So let me get this straight in the name of art, the BBC paid for a Asian guy to grow a beard and travel on the underground wearing a rucksack. Yup F-ing smart. (The fact that 53 died because of idiots who did just that last July ) I wonder how many people got really worried after that little stunt. But hey don’t worry. This governments going to vote today so we don’t upset the religion of peace anymore. Imagine the anger from the BBC never mind the BBC if we decided to start emulating the people who died at the Haij the other month. Now that really would be insensitive.
The BBC’s reporting of this has been disgraceful. On last night’s PM the story was clearly presented as a sort of Islamophobic attack by a nation (Denmark) which the BBC tells us has some very worrying right wing influences. So there it is. Denmark is racist and offensive. Free speech was not really mentioned in this report.
Oh, and one BBC reporter described one of the photos as depicting Mohammed with a pig’s face. We of course know this picture to be a fake, but I can imagine the BBC team wetting themselves to let us know about this one.
What proportion of BBC staff went to public school? They seem a posh lot to me and maybe that’s why they don’t really connect with the people and have the arrogance to suppose that they do.
Today.
Stourton interviews the editor of a Hamas newspaper and a representative of the Government of Israel.
Who comes off worst from Stourton? Need I tell you? It is just so depressing. Just for ONCE, couldn’t Stourton ask some hard questions of Hamas? Or are people like Stourton only too ready to believe the poison written by apologists for terror and would-be suicide bombers:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1697707,00.html
For anyone who wants to support our Scandinavian friends in a more extravagent way than suffering a pint of Carlsberg, I can strongly recommend a night at Nordic (just North of Oxford Street) or dinner at Lundum’s on the Brompton Road.
http://www.lundums.com/script/site/default.asp
http://www.nordicbar.com
Today (again)
Stourton, in the balanced approach that BBC presenters display only too well, tells us that “the plans of president Bush have virtually come to nothing”. Is that Stourton’s view? Or that of the BBC? Then we have Webb asking us whether, in his State of the Union address, can President Bush “rescue his second presidency?”
Says who?
I must admit to shouting at the television two days ago when I had the misfortune to watch BBC World reporting on the cartoon controversy.
The newsreader explained that muslims were angry because of a cartoon depicting Mohammed as a terrorist. Well, muslims may be upset at that one particular cartoon in the set but the real story is of course that offence was taken at all the cartoons.
No background was given as to why the Jyllands Posten had published the drawings. The story was presented as ignorant newspaper sets out to insult muslims. No reporting on the appearance of cartoons that have been touted as part of the set published but which are fakes. It was a disgraceful piece of reporting that left me seething.
It’s the total lack of background information or the deliberate omission of facts that make me despair of BBC reporting. Spit.
OT
Anyone prepared to grind their teeth and clench their fists for an hour can go to the ‘Have Your Say’ main page and scroll down to ‘Video: Watch Have Your Say’ where they will be entertained by Lyse Doucet – she of the grating voice – and a Hamas supporter who welcomes the existence of Jews in the Middle East as long as they forego the State of Israel and accept dhimmitude.
This aforementioned gentleman had the temerity to claim that Jews had always been treated well by his fellow Neanderthals. (Yeah, right. Apart from the frequent pogroms, oppression and dispossession of Jews by Arabs in virtually every Arab country where Jews lived.)
It’s extraordinary. He and his fellow travellers really do regard Jews as uppity niggers who’ve forgotten their place and had the cheek to turn a desolate wasteland into a blooming democracy and plant an Israeli flag on it.
If you can bear to watch the programme, it’s quite instructive.
Considering Denmark’s reputation for sexual libertinism, its Minister for Religion, and its promotion of pork products through state marketing companies; I should have thought these Muslims who chose to live in Scandinavia might have adapted to the local mores……………………..but more likely they were using some publicly-funded project to hide under black winding sheets and emerge periodically like banshees to wail at the indigenous population
It’s the total lack of background information or the deliberate omission of facts that make me despair of BBC reporting
A lie told often enough becomes the truth. —Lenin (1870 – 1924)
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it…………..The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” — Joseph Goebbels, German Minister of Propaganda, 1933-1945
http://www.makethemaccountable.com/
Reference Palestinian aid:
From this page: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4664152.stm
Scroll down and look at the table and pie chart (linked directly from here):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4664152.stm
Notice how the supposed EU total of aid (all in bold) is $200 million more than the US total. Look more closely — in the EU total, they have included the World Bank and UN relief (UNRWA) totals, organisations which as far as I am aware are not part of the EU! Take those two out, and the difference is $38 million. You must then ask yourself the question, of the other figures listed, how much of that also has nothing to do with the EU?
Come on, BBC — this is getting too easy!
err, sorry — here is the image: http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41273000/gif/_41273938_eu_us_aid2_pie416.gif
Further to last, even if I’m wrong and the relevant figures represent EU contributions via the World Bank and UNWRA, why are the equivalent US contributions not included in the US total?
bbc wakes up to the cartoon rage story , maybe because of this?:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4664398.stm
if only we had a politician with the backbone of the Danish prime minister, Anders Rasmussen:
http://www.ambottawa.um.dk/en/servicemenu/News/PrimeMinisterAndersFoghRasmussensNewYearAddress2006.htm
“That is why freedom of speech is so vital. And freedom of speech is absolute. IT IS NOT NEGOTIABLE”
OT
Can someone start asking questions about the Russian Govt influence in the UK please?
For example, how much money is given directly or indirectly to organisations such as Stop the War, or others that seek to undermine the British Govt?
http://www.stopwar.org.uk/new/involved/aboutus/committee.htm
Ismael Patel
Friends of al- Aqsa
Dr Ghaysuddin Siddiqui
Muslim Parliament
http://www.aqsa.org.uk/
Dr Ghayasuddin Siddiqui, chairman of the Muslim Parliament agreed: ‘We are part of [the British] community, and from our perspective Britain is the safest place on Earth. I don’t buy the argument that there is any threat from our community.’
february 2005:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1426502,00.html
5 months before the London tube bombings.
thanks archduke, most interesting reading…
i must say what ever happened to our North Korean friends now in residence in North London?
Have they been taking snaps of everything or money laundering as usual?
slightly OT
Was Simon Hughes the 3rd man in the Mark Oaten Love triangle?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4661602.stm
The Left gets out the onions to weep about “breaking up families”:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4663056.stm
A bit late, isn’t it? The left have used the state to break up families with gusto for the past 30 years! Have they realised their terrible error and repented, or is it just cynical politics? Hmmm.
No (D)HYS yet on the cartoons/muslim boycot?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/default.stm
From a statistics viewpoint, using a Pie Chart viewed from an angle is a bit ‘iffy’.
It’s distorts the chart and creates the illusion that segments in the foreground are larger than they actually are. Conversely, segments at the rear appear smaller than they actually are.
Oldest trick in the book…..
I’ll bet to my last quid that Anders Rasmussen is riding high in the popularity stakes at the moment (not that this will EVER get in the news).
Normally Danes seem very quiet on web-boards, I’ve seen loads recently and they’re all saying one thing. Danes are != Dhimmis.
OT
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/4665020.stm
What i can;t work out is: the govt says only 230 wounded.
but they also say the average is 4 british soldiers wounded per day.
that means: 2.5 years of being in Iraq.
912.5 days in Iraq or so.
Multiplied by 4 = 3650 british wounded soldiers.
so where on earth did the figure of 230 come from?
Rob -> Anders Rasmussen is fast becoming my politician of the year.
have a read of his new year speech to the Danish people.
http://www.ambottawa.um.dk/en/servicemenu/News/PrimeMinisterAndersFoghRasmussensNewYearAddress2006.htm
in Denmark, we have a healthy tradition of putting critical questions to all authorities, be they of a political or religious nature. We use humour. We use satire. Our approach to authorities is actually rather relaxed.
And to put it bluntly: it is this unorthodox approach to authorities, it is this urge to question the established order, it is this inclination to subject everything to critical debate that has led to progress in our society.
For it is in this process that new horizons open, new discoveries are made, new ideas see the light of day. While old systems and outdated ideas and views fade and disappear.
That is why freedom of speech is so vital. And freedom of speech is absolute. It is not negotiable.
“so where on earth did the figure of 230 come from?”
from that link:
“Some 230 British troops have been injured by ENEMY ACTION”
which means that the others were wounded in non-combat situations – accidents, sickness, stress in other words
OT
Can someone start asking questions about the Russian Govt influence in the UK please?
For example, how much money is given directly or indirectly to organisations such as Stop the War, or others that seek to undermine the British Govt?
Ian Barnes | 31.01.06 – 9:49 am |
Do you remember CND ?
Do you recall Campaigns against Cruise Missiles ?
Both lubricated with Soviet money
It’s up:
Will religious hatred law work?
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=881&start=0&edition=2&ttl=20060131104307
Check out the ‘recommended’ comments, the BBC won’t be liking this…..
Where is that list of Danish products so I can add them to my shopping list?
ritter-> http://www.danishfood.net/
An unusual statement from a modern British judge:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4663056.stm
“But the judge, Mr Justice Bean, said it was for Parliament, not the courts, to decide if the policy was desirable.”
Parliament deciding policy?! There’s a novelty.
Eammon: “Oh, and one BBC reporter described one of the photos as depicting Mohammed with a pig’s face.”
Nice one Eammon. I’ve updated my blog with a brief transcript of what Rob Broomby said on PM last night.
I am listening to the BBC WORLD SERVICE (Boston, MA, USA) on the Mohammed cartoon story. They are reporting that the Danish Government and newspaper have apologized for offending Muslims. They are also reporting that a major Danish dairy is letting 100 employees go because of the boycott. Still no background on why the cartoons were published in the first place or the fakes that blew the situation out of proportion.
The BBC is your enemy.
No need to say anything more.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4664408.stm
The BBC is asking for opinions on the Danish cartoons. For some reason they’re keeping it away from the (D)HYS section……
The BBC uses a family’s grief to push their anti-war line and withdrawal from Iraq:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4665620.stm
Strange, you never hear of families who say the West’s presence in Iraq is right, even when their son has been killed there. Are the BBC trying to imply that NONE of the 100 soldiers killed in Iraq believe this?
That is, none of the families of the 100 soldiers believe this, not the deceased soldiers themselves.
I echo the views of those contributors above who have bemoaned the lack of background to this story.
When Pope John Paul II was dying, regulars such as Christina Odone were heard on BBC stations talking about how nice it would be if the Vatican authorities were to reassess their attitude to abortion, contraception and sexual health.
Likewise, this is a wonderful opportunity for Islamic scholars and leaders to have a debate about their own faith and its place in the modern world.
Take the cartoon business. Here, we are told that any depiction of the Prophet is forbidden. Why? It just is. That is Islamic law.
To an outsider like me, this seems silly and reprehensible. Why should Muslims (or anyone else for that matter) be barred from depicting Mohammed?
Surely there are Muslims out there who want an open debate about their faith, Sharia Law, the Qu’ran? Is it really the case that 1.3 billion Muslims blindly follow the laws of their faith without question? Where are the dissenting voices?
The BBC should be at the forefront of this debate and it should be asking why Islam is seemingly so intolerant of and sensitive outsiders’ criticism.
The BBC has never stopped its reporters from making personal-observations-masquerading-as-news so why are they so pusillanimous on this issue?
The story barely warrants a mention on the website. Instead we are treated to this sh*t:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4665426.stm
Brilliant. The sodding Arab world doesn’t approve. Like, what a surprise.
This is a story that cuts to the heart of the BBC’s reason for being – it is about the issue of free speech, a fundamental right in our society – yet it seems barely interested.
Rant over.
bottom of this page
Danes face growing Muslim storm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4664408.stm
What do you think of the cartoons in Jyllands-Posten?
er, Dunno – cause the BBC have censored the pictures. Talk about China/Google – this is worse – I have to pay for this censorship!!!!
TAoL, really good post – I completely concur.