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.
Given such intense support on the blogs (not the MSM) I wonder how many concerned citizens would turn out for an organized demo against what has been seen from the ROP and what has not been seen from our spineless government and press? I would and I have never felt the need before.
Unbelievable that the HYS is still having technical difficulties!
spot on cartoon about the cartoon issue , posted on an israeli blog
http://www.israellycool.com/cartoon%20mohammed.gif
says it all really.
“A blanket boycott would not be fair.”
doesnt matter – it would send a message. dont fuck with us. we’re serious about free speech.
My amendment to the comment by Chillout above also applies to you, Archduke. Also, moderate your language.
Edited By Siteowner
Archduke – so you won’t buy bacon from a Muslim-owned store ?
If he doesn’t shove his ideology down your throat …….
I hope my local Muslim corner shop doesn’t refuse to sell Heineken and bacon to the Chavs.
They would be angry without their bacon butties and booze.
“A Belgian-Dutch Islamic political organization posted anti-Jewish cartoons on its Web site”…
This bothers me not on jot. In a way I hope Islamist and Islamic groups post cartoons about Holocaust denial; let them post as much obscene material as they wish. If, by their actions, they lift the veil on Islam’s endemic and visceral hatred of Jews, they will be doing everyone a favour – apart from themselves, that is.
They are not going to gain anyone’s sympathy by doing so – quite the opposite.
On the subject of the “piss christ”, I remember it being nveiled and I was pretty disgusted with it. However, I certainly don’t recall hysterical marches, media-sanctioned death threats and mobs of angry christians burning down government buildings…
It was an argument over public funding of “art” that took a specific position on religion, which might possibly have breached constitutional guarnatees on freedom of religion. Might. It was argued about, and decisions were reached. That’s what happens in a democracy, and our modern democracies owe most of their existence to protestant christians.
General note to commenters: some comments on this thread are getting near the boundaries. This site is not obliged to be a total free speech zone.
I don’t purchase anything from muslim-owned shops and haven’t done so for about a year-and-a-half since I read those peaceful words in the koran which called for people like me to be killed.
Whilst walking down Union Street in Aberdeen a few days ago, I espied a large middle-aged muslim male who turned off into one of the smaller streets. The figure entirely bedecked in black following about one yard directly behind him was, I assumed, his wife. Islam: religion of peace and respectful of women – yeah, whatever.
And when can I get my country back?
“My amendment to the comment by Chillout above also applies to you, Archduke. Also, moderate your language.”
apologies. i was using an americanism to make a stronger point, but i get your issue with. wont happen again. apologies if i offended anyone with my language.
regarding my slap across the wrists, about agreeing with boycotting all muslim businesses. what is interesting is where do those ideas come from?
is it a sense of helplessness in the face of the police not arresting anyone over the weekend? maybe.
and the double standards of the nick griffin trial? possibly.
and the manipulating of “have your say” or the comments about the cartoon issue by the bbc – yes, thats also something to do with it.
there’s a palpable feeling that the majority population in the uk just does not have power – that its out of control and has no vehicle to express majority opinion.
so , maybe i supported the above in jest, and maybe i am wrong. but it is interesting that such views are becoming actually acceptable. quite frankly, in the say the mid 90s, such views would be beyond the pale for most brits.
nowadays- i’m not so sure. and the worrying thing is that the likes of the bbc arent examining this. we’ve had 7/7 and then nothing but an islam love fest. its all a bit odd.
Archduke: I’ve not intention of stirring anything up but I simply think it’s down to “action and reaction”… There is the proverbial end of the straw and a lot of people are getting more than just outraged.
The clash of culture and lack thereof is imminent – this cartoon episode shows it.
By the way, there was an interesting panel-discussion on Fox News Sunday. A very angry Brit Hume rightly pointed out that there are no similar protests when something bad happens in the name of islam. Ain’t that the truth.
indeed that is the case. and i’m still waiting for the orthodox jew riots in response to some muslim cartoons.
or hindu riots in response to some piss take in South Park.
it doesnt happen.
we’ve had 7/7 and then nothing but an islam love fest. its all a bit odd.
Not at all. The C of E and the BBC have their “guidance” from the ruling regime which is terrified of losing control and is basically exhibiting that same “tolerance” that allowed the IRA to create “no-go” areas” in Northern Ireland until finally Centurion tanks had to be sent in.
This is Britain’s colonial past – find some local nabob and bribe him to keep his serfs under control and let him alone until finally he starts an insurrection and has to be put down with help from rival nabobs.
As the B-BBC reader who started this particular I am ASHAMED at the bigotry displayed.
For goodness sake’s people: WAKE UP.
We have to show that WE have the moral high ground, that moderate Muslims can live with us, MUCH MUCH more easily than they can live with the fundamentalist nutcases.
If we are to recruit moderate Muslims to the cause, to show that free, peaceable law-abiding people of all creeds or none REALLY ARE welcome, we have to give absolutely NO opportunity for the nutjobs to undermine us.
The nutjobs are doing their best to make out that hatred of Muslims (not Islam – Muslims) is on a par with the institutional and state-sponsored persecution of the Jews in Germany in the late 1930s. I have heard MODERATE commentators on the moral maze discussing HMD (afraid I can’t recall name – didn’t have time to post on it) MAKE THIS EXACT COMPARISON. He was challenged with a direct question and answered directly.
This is what we are up against. this is what this is about.
By shouting “FREEDOM FOR MUSLIMS”, we are challenging the moderates to stand up to the nutjobs.
We have to give them such voluble support that they can see that it is safe to do so.
We also distance ourselves completely from the racist natives (BNP and worse) and show that the law-abiding silent majority in this country REALLY REALLY mean it: if you work hard and obey the laws of this land, you CAN make a success of yourself. THAT is what Free Speech allows. THAT is what we are fighting for.
Which do you think plays into the hands of Hizb?
“MUSLIMS OUT”
OR
“FREEDOM FOR MUSLIMS”
The response to a petulant boycott in Muslim countries is to show that we are not so petty.
GROW UP. THIS REALLY MATTERS.
Muslims have had plenty of opportunities to sort themselves out since last years suicide bombings. They haven’t. All we have had since is demands from them: piglet – St George cross – burger packaging and anything else percieved or imagined. Appeasment has to stop somewhere.
As the other great prophet once said,”It is like watching a nation buisily engaged heaping up it’s own funeral pyre”
I worry for the future of my children.
England, Netherlands, Sweden, Germany (Prussia) were the major Protestant Powers of the 17th, 18th and part of the 19th Century. They have become flabby and incoherent and divided and allowed a rabble of militant bigots to settle in their countries and seed their primitive fanaticism into the fabric of the nation.
The political elite is godless and narcissistic and cannot fathom the nature of the hydra they have unleashed – if you are looking for dragon-slayers you won’t find many in evidence in the usual places it seems.
Re: The Pedant-General in Ordinary.
You’ve pretty much summed up why I wouldn’t support a blanket boycott. It is not a civilised reaction.
Am I angry about the reaction to the cartoons by some protesters? Yes.
Do I support free speech wholeheartedly? Yes.
Do I worry that a significant proportion of Muslims don’t appear to share my support for free speech? Yes.
Do I aim my anger at Muslims in general (despite being an atheist who has problems with religion in general)…? No
Do I demand “my country back”? Woah there!! WTF is all this?!! I have a problem with any particular group being given privileged status but my redress to this situation is to demand equality of treatment not to hanker after some perceived utopia with whites “on top” as it were. I’m not accusing anybody on this thread of saying such a thing but think about what you are saying.
Know your enemy – the biggest weapon the BBC and the cowardly elements of the left have is that they can point to any reaction that even hints at intolerance or racism and cry “Rascist” and then dismiss any reaction to their own wrongdoing. If we are going to successfully take on this nonsense we must have cool heads.
The political elite is godless and narcissistic…
IMHO
Godless=GOOD!!!!
As I’ve said before, I believe God has no place in Government!! The problem with certain Western Governments is not their lack of a deity it is their spineless lack of conviction. If a society is to be secular (my ideal) it has to defend itself against religious self interest, not dismiss religion with one hand and then accommodate it with the other.
Simon,
I couldn’t agree more. This is after all a blog devoted to BBC bias. USS Neverdock is probably a more suitable place to discuss the ‘threat of Islam to the West’
JMHO,
I believe God has no place in Government!!
Then you are in error because if you prevent individuals from serving in government unless they are atheists you will have a truly unrepresentative governmental structure.
It would be preposterous to discriminate against individuals because they believe in God and you would end up with a situation like the German Democratic Republic and the Sozialische Einheitspartei Deutschlands………………..no wonder Great Britain is increasingly similar to Erich Honecker’s state
Rick,
I’m not going to presume to speak for Simon, but the separation of Church and State is undoubtedly a good thing.
I wouldn’t want a bishop as PM
There’s a difference between believing that law should be made on the basis of rational thought rather than religious dogma (not that the two are necessarily mutually exclusive) and banning all religious individuals from Parliament.
Surely this all comes out in the democratic wash – if somebody’s views derive from their religious beliefs and enough people are prepared to vote for them then who can argue.
The key point is that religion isn’t and shouldn’t be a defence against the application of the law.
John,
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”
It does appear that the IBC’s claim that Griffin and other guy are to be retried was a lie. AIUI there is a process to be gone through before a retrial can be embarked on. It hasn’t had time to happen. Meanwhile the IBC was furious at the wrong verdicts and needed some good news, so it simply invented some.
I’d love to be a fly on the wall at the meeting where the Social Engineering and Police Service, the Crown Prosecution Service and whoever else all get together to discuss the chances of a retrial succeeding.
As Muslims, completely unhindered by the “police”, riot and threaten death, massacres, and suicide bombs to everyone for insulting their [deleted] prophet, the full weight of the state will be in conclave trying to decide whether it should keep trying someone who had the bad taste to mention that Islam is a wicked and vicious faith.
Edited By Siteowner
I wouldn’t want a bishop as PM
Grimer | 06.02.06 – 12:18 pm | #
We’ve never had one and the Church of England bishops cannot stand for election nor can Church of England priests.
That is not the point and England does NOT have separation of Church and State nor does Denmark, in fact Denmark has a State-funded Church with a Govt Minister.
The fact is though I do not see why an atheist like Anthony Wedgwodd Benn is superior as a politician to Frank Field because one believes in Nothing and the other believes in God.
Well said Cockney.
Rick, you highlight a crucial misunderstanding of people who advocate secular government. My idea of secularism allows religious freedom but does not allow religion to be defended or enforced in law or to be used to form laws. I’m not talking about the laws against murder(there can be common human concensus that murder is wrong – God doesn’t have to tell us this), I’m talking about, say – sunday trading law (as one trivial example). I’m used to the comparisons with communism but I tend to think the problem there is that communist governments took the place of religion and did not allow dissent. A closer ideal in my book would be the constitution of the USA. The USA has many faults but despite being founded by followers of religion they made a very wise move when drafting the constititution by enshrining the freedom to worship but ensuring that state and church affairs were completely separate. I wouldn’t have a problem with a bishop in government as long as he was in government by free and fair election and the system of government ensured the separation of religion from state affairs. I’m not under any illusion that this situation exists in the UK.
I digress though – back on topic: doesn’t the BBC stink!
The fact is though I do not see why an atheist like Anthony Wedgwodd Benn is superior as a politician to Frank Field because one believes in Nothing and the other believes in God.
Once again – In my ideal secular state this comparison would be irrelevant. They would be judged on their skills and abilitys – a secular society that allows freedom of religion is the best place for this.
IMO of course.
That is not the point and England does NOT have separation of Church and State
I’m accutely aware of this point.
Try this from BNPtv (news you can trust) contrasting the police response to the muslim protest and that of the hunt protest and the BNP’s own candlelit vigil.
http://www.bnp.org.uk/news_detail.php?newsId=773
maybe give it a miss Simon
I’ll check it out Henry (just for curiosity’s sake) but I couldn’t do it now even if I wanted to because our work firewall blocks all political sites. In fairness, they that includes all the mainstream polical parties as well as the BNP SWP etc.
BBC gets through though 😉
I’m not talking about the laws against murder
ARev there laws against murder ? I thought it was a Common Law offence – aha I see now…..
Under English law, the Homicide Act 1957 was enacted as a partial reform of the common law offence of murder by abolishing the doctrine of constructive malice (except in limited circumstances) and by introducing the partial defences of provocation, diminished responsibility and suicide pact.
Well there you have it then Rick!
(I assumed there was but I didn’t look it up!)
Rob
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/…?sp=-1&lsp=6000
I think that the cartoon published today in the sun comes a close second
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,31-2006060042,00.html
i never thought in a million years that i’d end up agreeing with something the Sun said.
but that day has come. my how times have changed.
great cartoon by the way.
Have a butcher’s at this one: http://www.sacredcowburgers.com/fresh/showpics.cgi?islamist_hypocrisy
Thanks to Davids Medienkritik Blog.
Don’t forget that Islam is a religion which defines itself by hatred – no other religion talks of “Dar El-Harb” and “Dar El-Islam”
This is what they call Black-White Thinking and that is the thought-pattern of The Cult
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-cult_q9.html
http://www.bpd411.org/blackandwhite.html
At present Bishops are barred from standing for parliament because they have the automatic right to sit in (whats left of) the Lords. I would personally prefer to see the right and restriction both lifted – if a bishop wants to stand for parliament, whether as a bishop, or as a supporter of an existing party, that must be better than being a shoe in without an election.
I saw a suggestion some time ago that senior clerics of other faiths should get an automatic seat in the reformed lords, and that convinced me that a wholly elected second chamber was the only democratic way to go.
I should learn to type quicker if I want my comments be even slightly topical.
if a bishop wants to stand for parliament, whether as a bishop, or as a supporter of an existing party, that must be better than being a shoe in without an election.
Ridiculous. There are 113 Bishops and most should be made redundant. Political Parties should be banned as they are cartels and inhibit competition in the marketplace.
Elections should be annually as the Chartists demanded and all MPs should be subject to recall petition whereby 2000 voters can petition for a by-election at any time