Do we believe this? I don’t.
This page entitled “Should ‘anti-Islam’ cartoons have been published?” is an edited roundup of opinions sent in by readers of the BBC website. This is the style that the BBC used to have for all its Have Your Say pages until the organisation rather creditably changed to a lightly moderated forum style last year, in which posts can either be read in the order of most to least recent, or, crucially, in the order of most to least recommended.
So why is this page not an open forum? Well, it says “We are running this style of debate due to technical problems. We apologise to all our readers and contributors and will return to normal service as soon as possible.” The Pedant-General, he of Infinitives Unsplit, emailed me to say, “you must post something about this.” As it happens I had taken a hurried look at the page myself earlier and I confess that like the Pedant-General, I had thought cynical thoughts. But almost certainly it is true; there is immense public interest in this issue and so one would expect many people to be attempting to use the board, which might well cause technical problems.
So while I’ll accept the BBC’s explanation that there were technical troubles I am frankly sceptical when it says it “reflects the balance of opinion we have received so far.” It sure didn’t look like that on the open forum – which seems to be open again now.
As the Pedant-General says,
In the “recommended” section, not one of the first five PAGES of comments was anything other than wholly supportive of need to publish. The vast majority of the supportive comments were coherent and rational, where the vast majority of the Muslim complainants demonstrated that they had no concept of free speech. Many were of the form “Free speech does not mean freedom to offend or insult”. To which the answer is “Yes it is. That is exactly what it is”.
The current top comment has 1121 recommendations. For most of these debates the top comment has about a hundred.
In this post the Pedant-General points out that the Have Your Say homepage (NB: link will change) currently takes you to the edited roundup, not the open forum. I just checked. As of 6.21pm, he’s right. On the BBC news front page, too, the link that says, “Heated Debate – readers from Europe and the middle east react…”) again takes you to the edited roundup.
You can get to the forum if you go to the Have Your Say homepage then go via the quotes in the grey box on the top left – but there’s no indication to users who don’t already know that those quotes will take you to a forum. You know what I think? I think that the technical problems were real, but they came in very handy for the BBC. They’d rather unsophisticated, non-regular readers went to the edited discussion rather than the free-for-all.
The Pedant-General has more here (“Where is OUR spine, damnit?”) In this post he talks about the failure to report the context of the original publication. It has not been well reported – arguably it should reappear in pretty much every report – but to be fair it is mentioned in this Q & A.
Pity. The BBC showed half a spine in showing the cartoons on TV, albeit with a ridiculous dramatic reconstruction of an artist drawing them. (What was this, Crimewatch?) Half a spine is more than the British press showed.
Islam has really upset the apple cart and they are just a tiny percentage of the population. God help us when they`re 20%.
On a more positive note, I read in the Times that the angry Muslims plan to target the BBC, perhaps this will serve as an introduction to the real world for the Neo-Socialists who steal our money and turn it into Social Engineering.
“does anyone else get the strange feeling that we’re sleepwalking into something bigger than 9.11?”
According to an article in the French paper Le Figaro, the Iranian president Ahmadinejad believes in the imminent return of the hidden 12th imam and that it is the duty of the Faithful to hasten this event. Ahmadinejad’s contibution will be to nuke Israel and bring about Armaggedon.
This is not a joke! I can find the link if it still exists and if anyone should be interested and read French.
sin
“that the angry Muslims plan to target the BBC”
Biting the hand that feeds?
Maybe it’s because the BBC didn’t do what it was told and keep the manufactured balanced view on the HYS board.
What is the point of the Metropolitan Police? No image sums up Ian Blair’s police ‘force’ better than this one:
http://news.yahoo.com/photos/ss/events/wl/020106danishcartoons/im:/060203/ids_photos_wl/r2207633449.jpg;_ylt=AjzQ01PvU0bH4vmwkZpUfjblWMcF;_ylu=X3oDMTA5bGcyMWMzBHNlYwNzc25hdg–?sp=-1&lsp=6000
Perhaps the police officers were there to protect these weak and vulnerable persons from the odd harsh word (or, god forbid, a dirty look) cast in their direction?
But there was nothing on the BBC website • not even on the London regional pages.
Perhaps the marchers were BBC staffers ?
Rob
The people in the London pictures are entitled to freedom of speech, and I for one would much rather see them on the streets than in the backroom of a mosque where the Police daren’t enter, and the BBC daren’t film.
Give them enough rope though, and they will transgress the very laws which they seek to use to protect themselves from criticism.
It really does seem that there is one rule for them and one for us.
Disclaimer: I am neither a supporter or member of the BNP party or any other racist ideology, and I don’t give a damn about anyones skin colour, or ethnic origin.
The fact that you must add a Disclaimer tells us so much about modern Britain
It is remarkable how the BBC avoids any reportage of how the indigenous Danes are reacting. One would think that the entire nation is suffering from some enormous guilt complex, is stunned, and prostrate upon their knees offering apologies!
This is not the case, there is enormous anger and indignation brewing. According to AFP, a Danish deputy police director named Mogens Kjaergaard Moeller said that “We are aware that there are calls from several groups circulating, notably on the Internet, for protests.” Is this perhaps newsworthy, or is it something that the BBC would rather we did not hear about at all, in case it gave ideas for those similarly outraged.
Moeller is “watching” for large-scale protests in Copenhagen which could include torchings of the Koran on Saturday (February 4, 2006). We shall see, if anything does happen I doubt it will get any coverage.
I wonder why the BBC fail to link up with the possibility of massive anti-Muslim demonstrations in Australia, which saw thousands protesting against Muslim rape gangs in the Cronulla Beach area. What they require are dhimmies, and preferably mouth off like Jack Straw.
Has the possibility of counter-demonstrations of the public who are pro-publication and for tolerance been ruled out? A march for free-speech?
When you think of that recent example where the pc thought police interviewed a couple over their reluctance to associate themselves with gay literature at a Saturday fête, it really
is beyond comprehension that those marauding Muslim
thugs who
were yesterday baying for blood, massacres, slayings, annihilation, beheadings, further 9/11s and 7/7s following their oh so peaceful prayers on a Friday- were left alone by the police.
I defy anybody to take a long cool look at the race-hate messages we all saw yesterday and then think again on
the comment that “Islam is a wicked and vicious faith”
http://freespeechontrial.blogspot.com/
and realise that this minor political outburst resulted in prosecution for religious hatred! Astonishing! Yet I’m still hearing attempts by the BBC (right now Jonathan Dimbleby on radio 4) to relativise this and draw stupid analogies with the “intolerance” of a democratic political party. Surely this is like comparing a molehill with a mountain of hate.
the fact was that years ago before the Liberals and NuLabour started demolishing our traditions our laws and our country in the main we did not give fig what colour race creed or football team you were! Now we dare not say anything because WE get arrested not the minorities who break the laws of this land with impunity! The police have lost respect thanks to clowns like Ian Blair and Paddick and that twit Brunstom from North Wales (ooh I might get arrested by his boys for calling him a twit…).
Mick in the UK – inciting others to kill is not “free expression”. It is a crime, plain and simple. It is totally nuts that you can be questioned by the police for suggesting same-sex couples should not adopt children, but nothing happens when you exhort others to kill?
Well I am glad that Great Britain is not hosting the World Cup………….poor Germany !
Balance of opinion, like the rest of the mice that they chase in their heads, only seems to go one way.
http://no-pasaran.blogspot.com/2006/02/free-speech-not-worth-125-jobs-to.html
Free speech not worth 125 jobs to a beebster
How strange….. Newsnight isn’t available to watch online. Why could that be?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4681294.stm
The BBC considers that setting fire to the Danish embassy with reckless disregard for the lives of those inside, is a “protest against the publication of newspaper cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.”
These maniacs are going to murder someone and the BBC will happily plug the line that it is a protest. They are quite unbelievable.
Mr Momani will probably end up dead after posting pictures in a Jordanian newspaper, and asking…
“What brings more prejudice against Islam, these caricatures or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras or a suicide bomber who blows himself up during a wedding ceremony in Amman?”
He also said…
“Muslims of the world be reasonable,”
I don’t think they were listening.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4680948.stm
Mr Momani is a brave man, let’s hope he survives this ‘protest’
Newsnight now available, after third attempt to download. No doubt censored. Can anyone confirm that, or otherwise?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/default.stm
What would happen if someone displayed a placard saying “Kill muslims”?
that twit Brunstom from North Wales (ooh I might get arrested by his boys for calling him a twit…).
dave t
Think yourself lucky if you are only arrested. Don’t shoot, Sir Ian!
What would happen if someone displayed a placard saying “Kill muslims”?
Charlie Martel
With your moniker it would be well understood !
The BBC considers that setting fire to the Danish embassy with reckless disregard for the lives of those inside
The Syrian Govt seems to have laxer security than usual – funny, the Baathist regime has few friends – now it even shuns the Scandinavians……………talk about isolation Mr Assad !
How naughty – the Danish Embassy in Damascus represents Chile and Sweden also – now we have Latin America involved.
Can Polly Toynbee somehow introduce global warming into the cartoon debate?
Can Gavin Essler somehow blame racism and exclusion for the sorry state of Mulslim “tolerance”?
Is the Scandinavian social Model now in tatters? we must ask the anti Americans at the BBC?
And what of the very brave Hugh Punt and Steve Denis? can we expect thier cutting edge comedy to challenge the bigots of Islam??
Will Kirsty Wark be able to blame Boosh?
Scandanavians kept out of Iraq, can we implicate the neo cons?
Or……are a whole flock of Left Wing Chickens coming home to roost right in the underpants of Left Wing idology?
The BBC House is crumbling and I`m lovin` it
But perhaps I’ve missed a groundswell of anger and indignation against this attack on free speech.
Milhouse, you are not reading the right American blogs if you think the reaction to the cartoon jihad is “muted.” Read LGF, Michelle Malkin, Tammy Bruce, Judith Klinghoffer. They are all arranging “Buy Denmark” campaigns. Even Andrew Sullivan who isn’t all that conservative is outraged, and he has hundreds of thousands of readers.
I don’t read many Christian blogs but if they are not reacting all that strongly, it’s probably because the “freedom of speech” issue is often greatly abused in the US by the Gramscian crowd to attack and demonize their religion — and ONLY their religion.
I’m sure you’ll not be the least surprised that the great defenders of free speech in the US who stood up for “Piss Christ” a few years ago are all missing in action over this one.
Also an American newspaper did publish the cartoons, it was the New York Sun, a small conservative paper that also carries Daniel Pipes’s weekly column. Small potatoes, I know, but at least now we can look the Danes, the French and the Germans in the eye.
Susan,
I’m not surprised, but I can assure you I have equal contempt for the Christians who think silly `piss-christs` shouldn’t be allowed as I do for the Muslims who think certain cartoons shouldn’t be allowed. (That doesn’t mean I think either group shouldn’t have the right to protest…just not the right to repress)
Also, you said that: “the “freedom of speech” issue is often greatly abused in the US by the Gramscian crowd to attack and demonize their religion — and ONLY their religion.”
But weren’t the Danish cartoonists demonizing a religion also? Does that mean you think they abused freedom of speech also?
Not being confrontational, just confused how you can defend one instance of free speech attacking religion and criticise another.
Oh, I get it – Do you mean they abuse freedom of speech by only attacking Christians symbols and not Muslim ones? If so, I don’t think that’s abusing freedom of speech. It just means they have double-standards.
Millhouse, you misunderstood my post completely. I don’t care about Piss Christ, I only care about the hypocrisy and the double standards exhibited by those who defended it, but not the Danish cartoonists.
When I speak of “abuse” of the free speech arguments by organizations like the ACLU — I do indeed feel they abuse it by attacking only one religion but not any others. They are supposed to work for “free speech” for all — not just for Christian-bashers.
And often the ACLU does get incredibly picayune and petty and extreme about the causes they uphold — such as suing the City of Los Angeles because there was a depiction of a church on its official city seal (along with several other scenes, including a Classical goddess symbolizing something or other). The church was not meant as a religious symbol but merely a represenation of the historical fact that the city was founded by a Spanish priest. So we are not able to acknowledge our own history any more if it had religious aspects? The constant attacks on Christianity by the ACLU are presented under the noble aegis of fine-sounding principals like “freedom of speech” and “separation of church and state” but in recent years have been transparently about hating Christians and Christianity, not about defending noble secular principals.
A secular fundamentalist is just as bad as a religious fundamentalist IMHO.
A big battle like no prayer in publicly supported schools I understand and support, but attacking a city government for putting a historically important building on its seal?
Of course it goes without saying, while the ACLU was busy with its lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles, Muslim groups were allowed to come in and proselytize for their religion in some California publicly supported schools under the guise of “multicultural understanding.” The ACLU was approached about taking this case of blatant violation of our Constitution, but turned it down.
i thought this was hilarious.
“british police priorities”:
http://i1.tinypic.com/n4xnxx.jpg
thanks to drinkingfromhome…
millhouse :”But perhaps I’ve missed a groundswell of anger and indignation against this attack on free speech.”
go onto any American conservative blog, website or talk radio site and you’ll find the anger and indignation – in spades.
Now this is funny:
http://i1.tinypic.com/n4xnxx.jpg
And so true!
Susan,
I share your contempt for the hypocrisy of organizations such as the ACLU, but surely their hypocrisy is an example of freedom of speech, not an abuse of it?
By exercising free speech, they’re allowed to attack whoever they please (if non-violent, naturally…I’d extend non-racist, too).
I believe its a fundamental right of free speech to criticise religion, any religion, without running the risk of repression.
Which is why my blood is boiling right now at the (often) violent, threatening, pro-censorship reaction of most Muslims (especially British Muslims) to these cartoons.
So I didn’t misunderstand your post – indeed, I agree with most of what you’re saying on this particular issue.
You don’t agree with ACLU but, just like you would wish the Danish cartoons to be published, I assume you would never want the ACLU to be silenced or repressed, however much you disagree with them.
Susan, I’d like to link to that hilarious picture in my own blog. Do you know who made it, so I can give credit where its due?
Susan
the mistake often made by people of integrity is to project that integrity onto others. the aclu are not interested in an even handed approach to law and constitution, they are authoritarian socialists who disdain democracy. just like the BBC and the EU they do not seek to abolish the power structures but to inhabit them themselves. to be even handed in thier treatment of issues would ensure a level playing field for all partcipants in a debate, the last thing that the aclu wants. they want power, to get it they need people like themselves in power.we elect members of Congress and Parliament in order to protect civil liberties, we have no use for the aclu, or the pressure group Liberty. nobody elects them or holds them to account. the bastards are by thier very nature, undemocratic.
Cancel my last. Kudos to “Drinking From Home.” (The last few comments have only just become visible to me.)
The US would be better off without the (socialist) ACLU – full-stop!
I suppose you could be kind to the British meejah and claim that they are exercising their right to ‘free speech’ by not publishing the cartoons. They don’t have to publish them, after all.
If the government had ordered – via injunction or D-notice or whatever – the UK’s media not to publish, they probably would have published just to be bloody minded – or used actors, Sinn Fein-style. 🙂
Natalie, sorry, I don’t know. Somebody emailed it to me.
archduke:
admittedly, my statement of a lack of anger was mostly based on Conservative Christian sites, not solely Conservative.
It was quite unsettling when I found myself agreeing with Michelle `let’s intern everyone!” Malkin.
I felt rather unclean, actually.
Taol,
you’re right, the press don’t have to publish them at all.
Fortunately, our non-extremist Muslim values don’t compell us to start throwing grenades at them for publishing or not publishing what we want them to.
We mostly just come onto blogs like this and whine and debate.
Muslims should give it a go, they might find it a refreshing change to to writing death threats on placards.
I share your contempt for the hypocrisy of organizations such as the ACLU, but surely their hypocrisy is an example of freedom of speech, not an abuse of it?
Milhouse, I consider it an abuse of freedom of speech if they present themselves as great defenders of freedom of speech to donors and collect money on that premise. When in fact they are only defenders of freedom of speech for Christian-bashers.
But no, I would not be interested in shutting them down by any legal means. Shutting them down by opposing their blatant hypocrisy and drying up their donations — now, that would be a different thing all together.
millhouse – i’m in the same both. lefty, who opposed the Iraq war. Bush hater – usual deal.
had a damascus event when the 7/7 bombings happened.
you’re not the only one.
and as for the christian evangelicals in the states – well, they dont give a rats arse about persecution of Christians in modern Iraq or Egypt, and the Gaza Strip (where Palestinian christians are fleeing in droves). all they care about is “israel” cause that’ll give them the key to the “rapture”.
utter idiots who need a serious wake up call about what’s really going on in the world. long term – i see them as my friends, in the bigger fight against Islamism.
Susan,
understand what you’re saying about ACLU, but the example you gave seems tied up in the seperation of church and state legal headaches, so I won’t get into that.
So in by American legal standards, they could be abusing free speech by objecting to Christian symbols connected to the state, or they could be standing up for first-amendment rights.
I won’t get into that argument!
and as for the christian evangelicals in the states – well, they dont give a rats arse about persecution of Christians in modern Iraq or Egypt, and the Gaza Strip (where Palestinian christians are fleeing in droves).
Actually, archduke, they do. Christian evangelicals like Franklin Graham have long been supporting the persecuted Christians of Sudan for instance, even though Graham is a Baptist and most Sudanese Christians are Catholic or Anglican.
It’s the mainstream US churches like the Presbyterians who don’t usually don’t give a crap about persecuted Christians in Muslim lands.
However, it’s not good to generalize about even the mainstream Christians. I know that George Carey, ex-Archbish of Canterbury, has stood up strongly for the Pakistani Christians in the past, for instance.
MIllhouse,
I guess it is just a matter of degrees. I think it’s absurd for the ACLU to interpret our Constitutional prohibition on mixing church and state to the picayune level of abolishing Christmas trees in public schools and erasing pictures of historically important churches on city seals. I do think their stances on that issue are abusive. That’s an example of secular fundamentalism carried to the extreme.
Yes Susan but wasn’t it that weird woman in 1960 who pushed this secularist agenda to the S-C ?
Actually Americans have been asleep at the wheel for 40 years and let the Supreme Court legislate Socialism while Americans thought they were getting rich………………….in the next few years quite a few chickens are coming home to roost
If you haven’t already seen this, it’s quite funny.
http://www.hsite.co.uk/edy/docs/asylum.swf
Archduke, yep, you’re right…we’ve both been drawn into this den of right-wing iniquity because we secretly realise they *whisper it* might indeed have some good points about the true nature of Islam that’s growing within British society.
I even admire guys like Gary Younge (who would no doubt be despised on this website as a socialist oppressor blah blah blah), but I’m VERY disappointed with his reaction to this crisis.
He even compared the publication of the cartoons, as a kind of tipping point, to Apartheid repression in South Africa.
He said: “The inflammatory response to their protest reminds me of the quote from Steve Biko, the South African black nationalist: “Not only are whites kicking us; they are telling us how to react to being kicked.”
Completely inappropriate analogy, in my view.
He also said: “they are vilified twice: once through the cartoon, and again for exercising their democratic right to protest”
Actually, the ones who are being villified aren’t the ones who are protesting. Protesting is their right. The ones who are villified are the ones who are activly saying that we can’t say certain things (ie, trying to repress acceptable free speech) and the ones, more importantly, who are threatening and carrying out violence in the name of Islam.
Although, incidentally, I have conflicting views about the Iraq War. Not uniformly against it.
But that’s another story…
Anyway, I’m off to argue with someone about this in real life, and alcohol and possibly raised voices will be involved, so you’ll have to excuse me.
Yes Susan but wasn’t it that weird woman in 1960 who pushed this secularist agenda to the S-C ?
I presume you are referring to Madalyn Murray O’Hair, founder of the US athiest society? Now that is a weird case indeed — her son (an only child) actually became an evangelical Christian when he grew up!
I don’t think she was wrong about government sponsorship of prayer in public schools. But the other stuff is just ludicrous and extreme.
Millhouse wrote: “Anyway, I’m off to argue with someone about this in real life, and alcohol and possibly raised voices will be involved, so you’ll have to excuse me.”
So you’re not heading to the nearest mosque for a discussion? Good on you, mate – cheers.
roundup of event and the cartoons themselves here:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21127
if you ask me Millhouse, theres more and more on both left and right who are coming together because of the “cartoons”.
the last survey of Danes said that 87 per cent defended the right to publish – now that’s a huge majority. both left AND right.
i wish the dhimmi British press grew some balls for a change and just published them – in light of the threats to kill us all during those London Jihadi nutter protests.