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.
The British press and media are a disgrace.
I spit on Straw and his spineless Dhimmittude, which IMHO amounts to treachery.
As an Atheist I am appalled by the Beeb’s double standards and cowardice.
can anyone remind me – what is exactly about Islam that i should be “tolerant” about or i should have “respect” for.
to me Islam is as close as you can get to Nazism. why should i tolerant a totalitarian ideology that thinks its just fine to stone to death anyone who converts from Islam to Christianity?
i’m utterly lost on this “tolerance” issue.
It seems the Metropolitan Police are not being completely supine over the cartoons issue:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4676524.stm
They arrested two people for carrying leaflets including these cartoons. Thank goodness they weren’t judgemental and arrested the people carrying peaceful protest banners such as “Kill all who oppose Islam”.
Does anyone take the Met seriously any more? Ignoring blatant criminal activity (incitement to murder) and with a Chief Constable who is trying to win Social Worker of the Year 2006.
I was very young during the ‘Salman Rusdhie affair’ (I’m 27 now), but I clearly remember nutters in the street burning books and screaming their support for Rushdie’s death.
Why am I supposed to respect this type of behaviour? If I went out and started burning the Koran and screaming death to Abul Hamza, I’d be arrested in minutes.
Grimer
It’s because the law is no longer something to be upheld in itself, under which we are all equal. You only have to listen to Ian Blair and just about any other senior policeman now to realise that “the Law” is a subjective thing, to be applied or not according to which alleged victim group you belong to.
the cops said:
“They were arrested to prevent a breach of the peace”
which in fact they were doing. the two idiots who turned up with mohammed cartoons , in the middle of all that shit , would have caused a riot -if not a lynching.
the cops were doing the right thing.
stopping an outbreak of violence. that is all – much as it looks crazy, and upside down.
spin spin spin
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4678264.stm
bearing in mind that “have your say” had an overwhelming majority in favour of the cartoons…
Archduke,
I have been trying to post on this all day but Blogger is down.
GRRRRR….
I totted up the comments here. Scores on Doors are:
No – shouldn’t publish – they are offensive: 13 comments
Yes – crucial issue of freedom of expression: 12 comments
Freedom of Speech comes with Responsibility not to offend/Heinz Kiosk We are all guilty/fence sitters: 12 comments
This is so completely out of whack. NOT ONE OF THESE COMMENTS GIVES THE CONTEXT OR REASON WHY THE CARTOONS WERE PUBLISHED.
Hello, Don’t judge the presbyterians so quickly. There is a general ‘disconnect’ in most of the denominations between liberals and conservatives.
Many denominations have protested against attacks of Christians but they have blamed Israel and not Hamas. However, that could change….
Hamas election results have impacted here resulting in various degrees of “watchfulness”…as did the DC sniper attacks and 9/11 etc.
As far as immediate impact on Americans, alot of that has to do with what part of the country you are in…immediacy to large groups of muslims, 9/11 etc.
Most of believe in freedom of religion so the reaction to cartoons may reflect this, even so after “Not without my daughter,” and the hostage taking in Iran etc.=wariness.
We are a continent so different groups across the country may not have ‘coordinated’ response yet.
Big discussion of Civil Rights era and Japaneese internment camps, as well as safety of troups is a factor in response.
However, many Americans are researching Koran on their own. Islam will continue to come under increased scrutiny.
I am a child of missionaries raised in Middle East and from my personal experience, the Islamic grip is all encompassing but not tight in all areas. One on one conversations with local arab residents reveal a picture that is not different from that of Soviet Union in cold war….”it is not that we have no curiosity about Christianitym the west or other cultures, it is that we have a secret police to deal with.”
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article343291.ece
Does anyone take the Met seriously any more?
It has become a “Political Police” serving the needs of The Home Secretary and NOT the people of London
Nancy–“it is not that we have no curiosity about Christianitym the west or other cultures, it is that we have a secret police to deal with.”
This is exactly the same message I have from my university contacts with Nottingham muslims. There is such a thing as a moderate muslim, its just that there are too many extreme muslims that have entered the country unchecked within the last 8 years to make their contribution to the debate heavily diluted.
The secret police in the UK are local Imams. Dissenters families are threatened, a very sad state of affairs.
I have a slogan for us:
“Freedom for Muslims”.
It’s not just non-Muslims we are fighting for. This repression affects moderate Muslims FAR more that it affects non-Muslims.
FREE SPEECH FOR MUSLIMS!
In any counter demo, we must show that we are on the side of the majority: we must show that we will support the moderates if they can summon the courage to stand up.
First the pusillanimous Jack Straw and now the police, in explaining why they made no arrests on friday, have made it abundantly clear. If a protesting group (plumbers, for example, or young men said to be of mediterranean appearance) is aggressive, violent and numerous enough, it need have no fear of arrest by the terrified authorities. Pensioners barracking in a half-empty Labour Party conference hall, especially if solitary and infirm, may expect the full weight of the law to descend on them
The Pedant General in Ordinary wrote:
“I have a slogan for us:
“Freedom for Muslims”.
It’s not just non-Muslims we are fighting for. This repression affects moderate Muslims FAR more that it affects non-Muslims.
FREE SPEECH FOR MUSLIMS!
In any counter demo, we must show that we are on the side of the majority: we must show that we will support the moderates if they can summon the courage to stand up.”
This a very good idea – it is actually a rallying call that many on the left could rise to also.
But I suspect such a rallying call would not appeal to many who contribute to this comments board as from what I’ve gathered many of them believe Islam to be “a bad religion” and that there are no “moderate muslims” or that if there are they too are “bad people” like the extremists. You only need to read the postings of many of them over the past few weeks.
Sometimes the posts on the B-BBC have valid points, especially about the failure of many on the liberal left to address the distasteful parts of Islam – but any valid points are lost in the thinly disguised bigotry about another religion. Most people who consider themselves neither left nor right might agree with some of the sentiments experessed by some of the posters but the thinly disguised bigotry and intolerance would put them off – and the right wonders why the general population finds them distasteful.
British politics has become crowded in the centre ground precisely because of extremeist and dogmatic views from both the left and the right do no appeal to the population at large. Those of you that think Tony Blair is a dangerous leftie (even crypto communist) only prove my point further – the general population may see him as untrustworthy, egotistical etc but they would not see him as left wing. It is only the posters on this forum with their relative position on the political spectrum (so far away from the general population) that see Blair as a dangerous leftie.
Rant over 😉
I still think the rallying call is a good one.
david davis : “no tolerance” for cartoon protestors in london.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4682262.stm
archduke
Note how the BBC chose the least offensive placards and slogans – the famous photo, the one with the two police happily escorting a maniac displaying “Kill all who oppose Islam” was mysteriously not on show.
Last night on Radio 5 they had a phone-in on this matter – some girl/woman called in saying how Mohammed “united the tribes” (??!!) and was “infallible” and such an important figure greater than any other………….
I wonder if she had learned that by attending some Muslim girls school and reciting throughout her 14 years in school
Iqbal Sacranie was just on TV with Dimbleby avoiding a straight answer to a straight question – anti-Semtic cartoon s in Arabic newspapers and placards inciting murder in London did not inspire him to condemn
eggball scrawny? no surprise there so. funny how a representative of 2 PERCENT of the population seems to pop up all the time.
when was the last time Richard Dawkins or the Chief Rabbi or maybe the Catholic Church, appear on Question Time?
sunday am: andrew marr points out that the independent on sunday has published a cartoon – an anti-semtic arab one. marr says something along the lines of “we have no jewish groups going around threatening to behead someone”
I’ve just been on the BBC website – you might already have noticed, but while you can still get to the original Have Your Say on the issue via the two quotes in the box next to the header for what I can only describe as the fake version, the thread has now closed for comments.
Moral cowardice from the BBC.
danish embassy in beirut has been torched:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4682560.stm
jim muir tries to make excuses.
I’ll say it again: how can you report deliberate arson, in flagrant disregard of the safety of those people in side, as ‘protest’? It suggests an organisation which is completely amoral.
BBC ‘Group Bash’ going on on R5.
Editor of german newspaper that published cartoons, Morritz(?) Schiller (der Spiegel?) getting rubbished by RoP activist (and comedian)Iaki Nawaz, anti-war protestor, Maya Evans
RoP representative first claimed the cartoons were ‘racist’, but as soon as it was pointed out that ‘muslim weekly’ printed anti-semitic cartoons, he turned his argument on its head.
General result – the RoP was provoked and insulted and the media should be ‘Friends’ (while still being ‘critical’)
Oh a wonderful time.
German editor says cartoon of Muhammed with bomb in turban was a political cartoon, saying islam is an aggressive religion, the RoP representative said that’s great coming from a country which just murdered 6 million jews(then he asks for a “time out” so that people can show ‘proper respect for each others views’).
You couldn’t make it up!
(on second thoughts – this is the BBC)
Lurker:
“It is only the posters on this forum with their relative position on the political spectrum (so far away from the general population) that see Blair as a dangerous leftie.”
Bollocks. Blair is a totalitarian. That makes him left wing. Far “Right” groups are not actually “right wing”. They usually have markedly distributive/socialist economic views.
“Left” and “Right” are now completely meaningless as you need two dimensions to describe your views: social freedom and economic freedom. Socialists want to have complete social freedom but with no (individual) economic freedom. This position is not logically or practically coherent.
Blair, whilst very very approximately in favour of economic freedom, has no concept of social freedom under the rule of law.
Back on Topic:
“But I suspect such a rallying call would not appeal to many who contribute to this comments board as from what I’ve gathered many of them believe Islam to be “a bad religion” and that there are no “moderate muslims” or that if there are they too are “bad people” like the extremists.”
Which is why “Free Speech for Muslims” must be the rallying cry: it will demonstrate if the moderates DO exist and are willing to join us.
Under the international law so beloved of the BBC and their ilk, Syria should now be regarded as beyond the pale. Will they be treated as such? Wot! When Syria is one of the few remaining holdouts of terrorist supporters for the likes of Galloway to visit?
I STILL have seen nothing in the liberal press/BBC about the well reported ‘the Danish Imans faked extra cartoons to stir things up even more’ meme…..Goebells would have been proud of this lot – then again the fanatics DID learn a lot from the Nazis when they supported them during the War. Remember the Muslim SS Division anyone? The Grand Mufti was an Honourary SS General!
Amazing how many people from left and right whinges at the BNP yet forgets that the Muslims in many ways were and remain as fascist as they and the Nazis were/are.
Just reading Die Zeit – apparently the children’s author who was writing a book on Mohammed and could not get illustrators has now published his book complete with illustrations
It was quite unsettling when I found myself agreeing with Michelle `let’s intern everyone!” Malkin.
Milhouse: naughty! Michelle gets more than enough racist and sexist hate mail without you implying she is a fanatic. She is actually quite moderate compared with some and her book on Internment during WW2 is a best seller and has been supported by many historians (as well as being slagged off by the usual left wing -Hitler was an arse but Stalin/Che/Mao/Pol Pot loved his Mummy and is soooooo misunderstood – school of historians)
I accused this comments thread of being hysterical yesterday. I take it back. I don’t share all the views of the commenters on this site but I sure has hell share the view that free speech is something that should be defended AT ALL COSTS.
What we are witnessing in reaction to this legitimate expression of free-speech is truly sickening and frightening.
Jack Straw is a cowardly bastard for his spineless pronouncements on the subject. I would probably be regarded as left of centre for my views on this board but what sets me apart from most of the “left wing” opinion expressed in the media is that I’m not afraid to defend free-speech and expression when the people I’m offending threaten to kill me. Everyone who is happy to defend attacks on Christianity (as I am) but who condemns criticism of Islam (out of fear – plain and simple) should be ashamed of themselves.
Henry – I’m sorry for the nazi gibe yesterday. My views about the BNP are unchanged, but you’re right, I don’t know you. To be honest with you I have a friend who lives up in Leeds. I know him well, we’ve been on holiday together, his kids play with mine. He supports the BNP. I don’t like the fact he does and I think he is wrong but he’s not a nazi. I’ve asked him about the BNPs policys and fitness for government etc but, to be honest it doesn’t matter. We all know all the BNP are not about to snatch the reins of power and all they can hope to acheive at the moment is get a voice on local councils and maybe run on some contested seats in parliament and my friend is voting for them to protest at what he sees as lacking in the other parties. Personally I wouldn’t vote for this organisation EVER but if decent people are voting for them then it shows that something is seriously wrong with the other parties at the moment. Seeing how poorly free speech is being defended at the moment I’m beginning to see a reason why.
Jack Straw is a cowardly bastard…..
That is the long and short of it irresective of situation
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/02/04/do0402.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2006/02/04/ixopinion.html Charles Moore points out the facts about the additional cartoons pushed by the Danish Imans….wherefore art thou Beeb?
Ive just heard the most anti-Danish report on the BBC yet. http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/worldthisweekend/
It sounded like the reporter was in Gaza or the West Bank and the Danes were the new Israelis. The Muslim youth interviewed threatened that Copenhagen will soon be like Paris or Sydney. To my ears the Imam preaching in English (sic) in Copenhagen sounded like Goebbels. Naturally, those patriotic Danes who are angry and demonstrate are now classified as “neo Nazis”
bbc q&a on the cartoons:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/4677976.stm
doesnt mention one absolutely crucial aspect – the danish imams who went around the middle east whipping up hysteria with 2 extra fake cartoons.
Simon – i’m left of centre, and even i voted BNP in the Euro elections. yes, more out of protest. but for me to end up voting for fascists says a lot about the sorry state of british politics nowadays.
Not printing the cartoons in UK papers is hailed as good sense. More like grovelling actually, or maybe just plain fear. Intimidated, cowed and humiliated they pat each other on the back to keep their spirits up. I too have noticed how technical difficulties such as missing soundtracks or the wrong video clip pop up when a un-BBC like world view news snippet is due to be aired.
Why is Mohamed referred to as “The prophet”, we don’t say Jesus Christ the son of God (May His Father bless his little cotton socks) do we. So why this kowtowing to a foreign deity? Unfortunately liberals and conservatives have agreed on “tolerance”, especially for people of faith. aka Paxman, don’t mock someones faith. Maybe this is because you cannot have a rational argument with someone of faith, so you just have to give up, but if we tolerate Islam, why then don’t we tolerate those people who have faith in Witch Doctors, who carve up young boys for the “magic”. Answer, some things are intolerable, so as long as we tolerate shouted threats and abuse from those living amongst us then we will continue to live in fear. The same fear that was on Jack
Straw when he made his “Munich” mealy mouthed apology.
Cheers Simon
Open honest debate, by people with differing views, speaking freely is the way forward. Pity the BBC don’t understand that.
My favourate plackard from fridays demonstration was: BBC=British-Blasphemic-Crusaders. LOL
False prophets in sheep’s clothing
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,,1702531,00.html
Typical Liberal-Marxist waffle in The Observer editorial, faced with threats of beheading, killing, annihilation, burning of embassies, “serious debate …needs to take place within European countries” Let’s talk and hug….. “Yet we should not confuse the offence caused to fellow-citizens who are Muslims with the violent response of groups which have a completely different purpose behind their protests” Lo and behold The Observer thinks that the reason they might be doing this is because they are unrepresented:
“It is a bit rich to lecture a minority community which feels it has no voice about the primacy of freedom of speech. Violent protesters rush to fill the silence with their bitter denunciations.”
No voice, no representation? I see more Muslims on TV and hear them on radio than I care to mention, it’s a media circus! I’m sick of the so called Muslim “Uncle Sams”, those ennobled (Sir Iqbal Scrawny, ok, he wanted Rushdie dead, but let’s turn a blind eye to that past remark Sir, so too Bungawala, former Bin Laden enthusiast, ok we will ignore that faux pas- welcome friend into the inner circle of the BBC studios. I’m sick and tired of witnessing the oily and greasy pole of affirmative action made MPs, (Shahid Malik, rabble rouser, demo thug at the English Northern riots in 2001), the similar pole for Muslim lords and ladys, and Muslim advisors to the Mayor of London (who cant even speak proper English! Since when has affirmative action considered such trifles?). All of these types appear regularly on the BBC and try to present a normal picture of holier than thou Islam, figureheads who are not the same vulgar sort we saw in London the other day clamouring for beheadings, dressed up as suicide bombers, or with children with “I love Al Qaeda” hats on. Our very own studio trained Muslims are not the same as the two British Muslims who were recruited by Hamas and became suicide bombers in Israel, not the same as the 7/7 bombers , not the same as the 21./7 bombers, nor the shoe-bomber, etc., etc., etc., see chronological list at http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ But what does The Observer suggest today “We should not get confused” Yeh yeh, bla bla…. Islam is a religion of peace.
It really is impossible for these people to grasp the meaning of “When in Rome do as the Romans do.” They think it somehow nasty and imperialist. This absolutely doesn’t mean “When in Rome do as the Barbarians do”, but IMHO Europe is going that why right now. It is debating its own demise with the enemy. These ineffectual liberal post-Marxists are caught like rabbits in some crazy obfuscating pluralistic Weltanschauung.
It’s clearly post-Marxist, because they are quite incapable of digesting the European tributaries of classical German Idealist philosophy that led to Marx and scientific materialism. Theology was well and truly usurped it fed back into all of the European countries. Who talks of opium these days, or the Socialsts condemmed as the “infidel” in Victorian England? No, nowadays, it’s one of respect, and pc tip-toeing around, less I offend you old chap.
I don’t hear the typical reservations of the BBC that they accord terrorists, sorry, “militants”. I’m missing “so called blasphemous” cartoons, or “the alleged blasphemous cartoons” pray tell me who is the actual judge here? Who is the potter? Which door do they go through? They were published in Denmark and are not considered illegal.
Look at the Christian Socialist Blair, “we don’t do religion” said his press spokesman AC once, but clearly he does. And cheeky Paxman ought not to have asked him on BBC if he prays together with George Bush. Have you ever heard Blair assert Christian values above and beyond other religions, No. He doesn’t do it, somehow his religious views are always cleverly situated beneath the universal tent of Abrahamic brotherhood. The Dummy he is (should that be Dhimmi?) has admitted to carrying a copy of the Koran around in his trouser pockets.
We should be seriously worried by this. Our leaders are incapable of saying this is Rome, this is how we do things, do as we do! In short, it exemplifies the limp wrested approach that confronts us, indeed, the pathetic response of The Observer editorial today, amplified in countless BBC studios. (The Today programme regularly apes the structure of the Independent & Guardian headlines)
Its almost a linguistic parody of an object by Rene Magritte, when we read “This is not a clash of civilisations. We are all Europeans and our common security depends on co-operation and understanding.”
Well, I don’t see very much co-operation with our Danish brothers and sisters right now, I only here rebukes and criticism for free speech. A European thing, that the Islamic world doesn’t have. I only here the talk of appeasement and accommodation- “Let us talk and see if your Barbarian styles can be co-opted in Rome”! ” “We don’t really want to offend your Barbarian ways here in Rome!” “Will you accept our apologies Mr & Mrs Barbarian for what was said in Rome?”
Who is talking about military alliances right now? Who mentions the mysterious NATO, their embassies has been attacked, ambassadors are being summoned right, left and centre, economic war has been declared! It seems that Islam even has the capabilities of undermining the very essences of European alliances. I was led to believe (in part by the BBC) that only the devious Russians and the ideology of communism was capable of sowing such bitter confusion at the height of the cold war, creating disunity amongst allies, creating fissures, turning one country against another, spreading unbelief and atheism, undermining our core European values. Reds under the beds. It appears that the evil empire of Islam with its 20 million party members has taken its place. Mohammed is really the prophet Lenin in sheep’s clothing. Where are the European intellectuals who have the gall to say on BBC Mohammed isn’t a prophet he is an impostor?
sorry for rant, but notice others have here
And yet another wasted complaint to the BBC! Sunday’s World This Weekend (R4) not only included the interview with Moslems in Denmark, described earlier by John, but followed it with an interview with a Moslem spokesman and then another with the Minister for Pusillanimity, Jack Straw.
There was not a single interview with anyone opposed to the appeasement of Islamism and barely a mention in passing of today’s statement by David Davis.
Twice this week, R4’s flagship lunchtime news programme has pursued this course – interviewing only those either on the Islamist activist side, or those who seek to appease their terrorism (intellectual and literal). Complaints are taken by an out-sourced call centre and logged. It is claimed that programme staff get to see them. No doubt this give them something to laugh about as they cluck around the water cooler, discussing today’s leader in the Independent.
Perhaps the greatest irony is that featured on the BBC’s website’s complaints page is a quote from BBC Chairman, Michael Grade: “The real test of any organisation is how it deals with complaints from the public.”
Well, Mr Grade, I can help you with that test. From out here, this is how it looks. The BBC receives complaints, ignores them and carries on doing what its metropolitan liberal elite staff want to do, regardless.
And that is why the BBC has to go. It is incapable of reform, impregnable to change – an utterly unreasonable tax levied on the British public, used for the promotion of a single point of view.
Donald Rumsfeld : we must prevent the rise of a “global extremist islamic empire”
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5623
Why is Mohamed referred to as “The prophet”, we don’t say Jesus Christ the son of God (May His Father bless his little cotton socks) do we. So why this kowtowing to a foreign deity?
ALL Deities are “foreign” by definition……although pre-modern times Englishmen were convinced God was looking after them – might well be true considering how they have survived their own folly.
Mohammed was a johnny-cum-lately who tried to usurp Judaism by contriving his own theology with himself as the central figure no doubt to usurp the role of Jesus Christ – the fact is that Jesus was literate, educated, and did not need to plunder caravans, attack other villages, nor build a harem – nor did he say that whatever he did had the Blessings of God –
Jack Straw is a made-up name for someone of prbably UKrainian or Lithuanian Jewish heritage who represents Barbara Castle’s old constituency with a 25% Muslim bloc which controls his ward party and worked nicely to stop a candidate like Craig Murray, ex-Ambassador in Uzbekistan from getting anywhere in standing against him. Straw denies his origins to ingratiate himself…….everywhere
Donald Rumsfeld : we must prevent the rise of a “global extremist islamic empire”
I would have more confidence of success without Rumsfeld
yes indeed Rick – but i just wanted to point out the language now being used by Rummy. maybe the penny has dropped in the white house in the wake of the cartoon rage issue.
and i just wanted to readers to compare Rummy’s language with limp-wristed Man Of Straw.
Archduke posted the following comment.
BBC News has already misrepresented its readers’ opinions on the Muhammad cartoons.
BBC Radio 4’s TWTW: I gave up listening after ten minutes, so an anti-dhimmi may have been allowed to speak later in the programme. But what I heard in the first ten minutes was utterly depressing.
Paul Henley in Copenhagen. Firstly he talked about recent fighting between the far right whites and what he called the “sons of immigrant families” in Denmark. Later, he spoke to a “Muslim demonstrator”.
Henley cannot use the M word to describe people who fight. No problem with people who demonstrate peacefully. We’re back into “people of Mediterranean appearance”, “plumbers” and “south Asians” territory again, where people who follow Islam cannot be associated with any bad deeds. A world where Christian schoolgirls’ heads just fall off.
But what struck Henley was “how white” Copenhagen is. There must be reason for this – and then he proceeds to tell us.
Henley tells us about the “unashamedly racist” party which is part of the government coalition and the strict immigration laws. He interviews an opposition member who tells us how bad it all is.
One Danish ‘ordinary member of the public’ says it is all “very sad”; another worries that what happened in Australia may happen in Denmark. Then they played a clip of a Danish Imam banging on about “no compromise” – in English, strangely.
Afterwards, an interview with an expert on ‘contemporary’ Islam: expert says we should try to understand more about Islam. Dogs and pictures are bad. Et cetera.
The message from the BBC appears to be this: the debate is not about defending the right to offend but about trying to avoid causing offence. If we all understood Islam a little better, things like the cartoon furore would never happen; and if Denmark (and other Western countries) didn’t have such strict immigration laws, all this violence and anger could have been avoided.
Nary a word from a Dane (or anyone else) who strongly supports publication of the cartoons on principle; nary a word from anyone condemning the hysteria and over-reaction from Muslims; nary an even mildly critical word about the authoritarianism, dogmatism, militancy, medievalism and fatalism of Islam. No dissenting voices whatsoever.
Feeble.
Given their past record, and their huge investment in the Middle East, could the BBC have followed any other course than the curtailment of free speech and sympathetic reporting of the extremist, fascistic response?
Listening to Jack Straw on the radio at lunchtime, he could have been Neville Chamberlain or Lord Halifax. We are doomed to learn the same hard lessons concerning the appeasement of totalitarianism.
Oops. Apologies to GCooper, who has already made the points I have just made – and in fewer words!
“But what struck Henley was “how white” Copenhagen is.”
Vintage white liberal opinion. He would die rather than walk around Delhi or Cairo and be “struck how dark” it is. So what if Denmark has an overwhelmingly white population? Would Denmark be a better place if 5%, 10% or 20% of its population were non-white? Honestly, why does it make any difference at all?
But what struck Henley was “how white” Copenhagen is. There must be reason for this – and then he proceeds to tell us.
but the Copenhagen Schools are not
I am now more than ever convinced that the BBC could do much more to make our Muslim residents feel more at home with mainstream society.
It is time for female newsreaders to stop wearing short skirts and plunging necklines and to attire themselves in hijab, jilbab or even full chadoor. We see so few male newsreaders sporting a full beard and since James Robertson Justice I have seen few actors with such an appendage.
There should be much more modesty in productions like Big Brother and soaps like Eastenders should stop showing alcohol and have them meeting for coffee in the local “Community Centre” at the mosque.
Today on Radio 4 someone called Matthew Bannister rabbited on abouit cartoons with some academic from Canada trying to get him to say how immigrants should change the prevailing culture and when the academic failed to concur, he implied the culture evolved as with gay rights (which seems to be a BBC obsession).
Now could he explain which part of gay rights is most appealing to the “Muslim Community” ?