Someone could try telling Magdi Abdelhadi of the BBC.
Abdelhadi has an opinion piece in which he attributes the cartoon situation to three factors:
‘1)the rise of violent political Islam
2)America’s war on terror
3)modern transnational media.’
So it’s one part bad muslims, one part bad America, and one part neutral (I suppose).
Well, curious. I thought that ‘America’s’ war on terror was contingent on a certain act of Islamic violence. (maybe it shouldn’t have waited that long, but it did). I mean 9/11, of course.
Setting that aside though, the BBC’s analysis overall is really short on a factor they know very well to have been at play: that is the agitation of muslim clerics. Abdelhadi should know a lot about this because he did the BBC’s profile on one of authorities which received a delegation which publicised the cartoons in the Islamic world: Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi. For an expert on Islam and the Sheikh, it’s curious the BBC’s man thought this irrelevant. He mentions ‘diligent’ internet activism, but not the actual delegation, which was received by ‘Arab League Secretary Amr Moussa, Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Sheikh Mohammad Sayyed Tantawi, and Sunni Islam’s most influential scholar, Yusuf al Qaradawi’ (The Counterterrorism blog) .
The interesting part about the BBC’s role in all of this is that, in the reports that initially heralded the cartoon controversy as it re-emerged over that last week or so, they included the three ‘extra’ cartoons that the delegation used to arouse anger- cartoons which had nothing to do with Jyllands-Posten. (see The Counter-terrorism blog for more detail, as linked above) The cartoons were presented in a booklet, according to this account, which brought to mind DFH’s excellent screen grab from a BBC report. I wonder if the BBC didn’t in fact have the inside track on this delegation, either directly or more likely though their link-up with Al Jazeera. (for those wondering about the BBC’s recent decision to launch an Arabic channel in competition, I would say that this doesn’t mean the BBC is any less involved with Al-Jazeera, but that it is trying to diversify its role in the region)
I’d argue that this link up is actually deeply undermining any sense of the BBC’s objectivity. In order to have the opportunity to interview the likes of Al-Qaradawi they have to accept that what they get from their Islamic sources is reliable, when it isn’t. This was a major gaffe, not least because the defusal of the situation could have been achieved by pouring scorn on the whole train of propaganda which was clearly at work, of which the BBC’s faked cartoons were the best evidence. So far as I am aware the BBC have not apologised or even recognised their mistake, if it can be called that, or analysed the part the fakes have had to play in the events that have transpired. No doubt they’ve merely been basking in the pathetic Jack Straw’s approval of their peep-show approach. Oh, and no doubt Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi’s.
Update: I’ve just discovered this post from Michelle Malkin which includes a partial transcript of an Fox interview with the leader of the delegation mentioned above. Reading this, I find Abu Laban- no relation to the B-BBC blogger that I’m aware of :-)-, who was the leader of the Danish Imam delegation that the BBC seems keen to avoid mentioning, concluding a dialogue thus:
‘Jonathon Hunt: So, you want a new set of rules for the way Western Europe lives?
Imam Ahmad Abu Laban: Yes.’
And this is interesting, because see how Magdi Abdelhadi finishes his report:
‘part of the Western consensus is that poking fun at religious figures is acceptable.
It seems that some Muslim activists living in Europe are determined to redefine the boundaries of that consensus.’
Seems as though the BBC know all about it. Mmmm. They’re just telling us in their own ‘balanced’ way.
Jim Naughtie was indeed induced into a good `ol splutter by a Muslim Lunatic this morning, more I felt because of the horrible realiztaion that Powell was right and that the Left have spent the last fifty years dancing around a bonfire of Western enlightenment.
What the above omits and the BBC neglects to mention is that Islam is a totalitarian creed which is religious and political simultaneously.
If you recall what Jesus answered [Matt 22:21] Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s. it was possible to respect a secular authority and still revere God…………….Islam was a bedouin religion designed to hold together the Arab tribes and made power monolithic – the Divine Right of the Tribal Chief in Perpetuam………………
That is why it is fanatical religion integrated with social structure and political power – it is resisting being disentangled because it is a complete mind-control in all aspects of life – it is not what Westerners call a religion but an all-embracing control system like Communism.
The hidden debate going on in Western government and Military circles is, ” How far should we interfere in these religious wars?” Bearing in mind that politicians have the next election always in view and the military are concerned to win not lose a war, the debate is heated to say the least. Liberal twittering count for nothing when strategy decisions are being made.
Cartoons merely reinforce the Muslim view that the authors and the culture they present(predominately Christian) have only had a partial revelation of Gods word.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4684474.stm
“Prophet Muhammad” – note the capital P.
oh dear.
and the guy who dressed as a suicide bomber?
—————————
One protester, who dressed as a suicide bomber, has said he made “no apologies”.
Speaking to the Daily Express newspaper, Omar Khayam, 22, from Bedford, said he wanted to highlight “double standards”.
—————————
so, let me guess this straight. you are protesting against the depiction of Mohammed as a terrorist with a bomb in his turban.
and therefore you dress up as a terrorist , while your friends wave “kill kill kill” placards, just to show us how peaceful islam is.
mmmm… ok.
Is it just me or are the amateur deconstructions of Islam getting a bit tiresome. There’s been 1,500 years worth of development (or lack thereof in some cases) of Islamic theology which has resulted in some exceptionally diverse beliefs, so I’m not convinced the whole thing can be encapsulated in 200 words by some bloke with a broadband connection and a few dubious web links.
Surely Muslims can believe what they like as long as they respect UK law if over here and international law/diplomatic convention if abroad. If they can’t manage that (whether because it conflicts with their interpretation of Islam or otherwise) they should face the consequences – unwatered down by political correctness.
SiN – perhaps he was spluttering because Bakri was being so “unsophisticated” and deviating from the agenda, i.e.
i) stick to the line that they are all innocent victims
ii) harp on about Western Imperialism to tug at leftist heartstrings and their guilt bladders
iii) Avoid the whole “massacre all infidels” bit
iv) Avoid hysterically blaming the Jews for every disaster and problem in history.
Bakri has set back the cause of the Ummah by at least three, four days with his performance. The Beeb will have to write another 40 magazine articles about how great Islam is to repair the damage.
On a lighter note, our favourite site of equivocation has given us the “party line” from the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_4670000/newsid_4679000/4679018.stm
It’s the usual Newswatch mix of half-truths, evasions and downright distortions.
Here are some highlights:
“We have Jews understandably distraught at the desecration of their cemeteries or synagogues who see the BBC’s reporting of the BNP and the broadcasting of BNP Party Election Broadcasts as the source of the problem.”
Er, are all desecrations of Jewish cemeteries carried out by white fascists? So Jews don’t believe that Muslim extremists carry out these vile acts too?
“Nothing is censored. Nothing can be proscribed.”
Complete and utter lie.
“But in practice we operate within limits”
Ah, that’s more like it!
“No one has made an artistic case for the publication of the cartoons in contrast to the well made case for Jerry Springer the Opera”
Er, so what? Completely irrelevant. The issue was about self-censorship, which the BBC, ironically, has practised with entirely predictable thoroughness. And “Jerry Springer, the Opera” was “artistic”?!!!
On the decision not to publish the cartoons:
“it does seem to have chimed with the majority of our audience and with, for example, the Muslim Council of Great Britain who have recognised the distinction between publishing to provoke and reporting to inform.”
interesting that they should juxtapose the “majority of our audience” with the “Muslim Council of Great Britain”. Interesting also is whether they mean their UK audience or the International one, i.e. including their arabic and other Muslim news outlets.
Regarding prosecutions remember that it is not the Police who decide whether a prosecution takes place, this power was withdrawn from them after the Brixton riots and the Scarman report. It is the Crown Prosecution Service who decide using the 50% rule. Namely if there is a 51% likelihood of a conviction then proceed to court. If there is only a 49% likelihood of conviction there is a get out clause .i.e. prosecute in the public interest.
Many charges are difficult to prove to the high standards required in a criminal court, particularly conspiracy which is notoriously weak and a gift to the defence.
Personally, I would have thought photographic evidence of a person holding up a sign saying “Kill all who oppose Islam” would be quite strong.
Means Rea or guilty intent has to be proven. The prosecution has to prove what was in someones head at the time. i.e. what his thoughts were. that is not an easy task and stated cases have to be taken into account.
in tehran , the mobs have attacked the AUSTRIAN embassy.
obvious case of flag mixup there.
That is because the I.A.E.A. is based in Vienna………………….
Time for the UNO to protect its agency the IAEA………..
It looks like the Islamic Republic of Iran is finally going to crumble
From
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_4670000/newsid_4679000/4679018.stm
“The BBC’s guidelines on religion also commit us to “reflect an awareness of the religious sensitivity of references to, or uses of, names, images, the historic deities, rituals, scriptures and language at the heart of the different faiths and ensure that any use of, or verbal or visual reference to them are treated with care and editorially justified. Examples include the Crucifixion, Holy Communion, the Koran, and the Jewish Sabbath”.
But
“No one has made an artistic case for the publication of the cartoons, in contrast to the well made case for Jerry Springer the Opera.”
So art trumps sensitivity
“Nor is the BBC in the business of provoking parts of its audience for the sake of it,”
Unless we do it artisticly
But aren’t cartoonists artists?
And aren’t we told that art is by its nature provocative which was one of the reasons used to justify the Jerry Springer opera?
BBC, you confuse me.
Sarge
“Means Rea or guilty intent has to be proven”
From reports of the trial of the BNP two the judge seemed to be telling the jury that the case rested on whether the defendants actions were likely to inflame rather than whether they were intended to.
In a nutshell – the BBC’s response reminds me of a vulgar ventriloquist act…..
Sarge,
Also think back to the guy who drove off the road and caused a major rail smash a few years back. He’s doing time for manslaughter but no attempt was made to prove intent, just recklessness.
Of course all these cases deal with white defendants where a different standard of law prevails. You’re probably right in that the CPS won’t prosecute.
Victoria “dunce” Derbyshire today allowed her phone-in to be conducted on an entirely false premise,namely that the cartoons equated with people calling for the death of those who had offended Mohammed.This is entirely false.The cartoons are legal.To incite people to murder is not.Of course all of her guests were muslim,apart from a retired Met officer who was very much on-message,naturally.
irish times editor has called for all irish newspapers to publish the cartoons on the front page on a single day.
radio phone ins in ireland are along the lines of “we supported the palestinians , and this is the thanks we get?”
major sea change in attitudes.
no links yet.
I too am deeply confused by David Jordan’s article.
“No one has made an artistic case for the publication of the cartoons in contrast to the well made case for Jerry Springer the Opera,” he says.
He’s correct though the illustrators, had anyone in the BBC bothered to seek their opinions, might have made a strong case or two. But the artistic merit of the cartoons is not, and has never been, the central issue here.
Most of the arguments in favour of publication have centred around the right to freedom of expression and the right to criticise and even ridicule aspects of organised religion.
And it so happens that Jerry Springer: The Opera has been cited repeatedly because it is an example of how the BBC has – through art – knowingly offended religious groups in the past. FtR, I fully supported the BBC’s decision to baoadcast and I still do.
Indeed, the BBC’s head of arts commissioning said at the time: “We’ve been after Jerry Springer for quite a long time because it felt so fresh and modern, cheeky and witty.”
The Danish cartoons were “cheeky and witty” – and some of them had important political messages too. But I guess those messages have been lost now.
TAoL
And in that lies the answer.
The BBC should publish the cartoons in the Arts section. With a clear concience.
“The BBC’s guidelines on religion also commit us to “reflect an awareness of the religious sensitivity of references to, or uses of, names, images, the historic deities, rituals, scriptures and language at the heart of the different faiths and ensure that any use of, or verbal or visual reference to them are treated with care and editorially justified. Examples include the Crucifixion, Holy Communion, the Koran, and the Jewish Sabbath”.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,1695265,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4161901.stm
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=506&forum=16
http://www.mediawatchuk.org/newssnippets/April2005.htm
Have a look at this link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4684474.stm
‘Punished and executed’
One protester, who dressed as a suicide bomber, has apologised “wholeheartedly” to the families of the 7 July bombings in London.
Omar Khayam, 22, from Bedford, said it was not his aim to cause offence.
Now compare this:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-2027300,00.html
A man claiming to be the demonstrator, Omar Khayam, a 22-year-old part-time student from Bedford, told a newspaper that he made no apologies wearing the outfit. Describing it as “just a little jacket which you put gadgets in”, he said: “I didn’t go there to cause any harm. I went along just to attend a protest. Did I say ‘Kill Jews’? No. Did I have racist signs on me? No. So why this reaction?”
Maybe Mr Khayam has changed his mind in the last 24 hours or so, and his BBC quote is the most recent. But if so it clearly wasn’t his first reaction.
The clue to Mr Khayam’s “apology” can be found at the end of this article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4686410.stm
“He said Mr Khayam was “very, very ashamed” of his actions and hoped that it would be the end of the matter.”
In other words, everyone now knows who he is and the police might even arrest him, one day.
As for the police, apparently a “team” investigating the protests is up and running:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4684474.stm
The headline should read “Police demo whitewash ‘will be swift'”. The question I want answered is why was the police presence at this demo so pathetically inadequate that no arrests could be made for blatant incitement to murder, and who made the decision to limit that presence. Whoever made that decision should be fired.
so, in other words, PC Plod is only now considering an investigation after hundreds of protest letters and some leaning on by Downing Street.
A police source said: “The hardliners would have loved nothing more than to provoke violence outside the embassy.”
so, in other words, the police wimped out of enforcing the law.
funny how they werent so “softly softly” with the pro-hunting lobby.
John Simpson weighs in:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4685886.stm
“How did a series of not particularly well-drawn or funny cartoons, published on 30 September in a Danish newspaper, produce such anger in Europe and the Middle East four months later?”, he asks. It doesn’t look as if he knew why the drawings had been produced in the first place, and the rest of the article drips with essence of fob.
let me guess.. and before i even read the link above.
he never mentions the fake cartoons and the danish imam tour.
Cockney says:-
“There’s been 1,500 years worth of development (or lack thereof in some cases) of Islamic theology which has resulted in some exceptionally diverse beliefs, so I’m not convinced the whole thing can be encapsulated in 200 words by some bloke with a broadband connection and a few dubious web links”
Er, Cockney, that 1500 years (rounded up) of development has culminated in a threat to western civilisation orchestrated by some blokes with broadband connections, and some dubious (in your eyes) derivative theology. Some blokes here think those blokes there are bloody dangerous.
read the simpson article.
i was right. he didnt.
“in much the same way, we should not think the entire Muslim world is in flames about it.”
protests throughout the middle east, iran, afghanistan, sudan, indonesia, thailand, london, new zealand.
oh right. its just a small matter. nothing to worry about.
“But we must understand that many Muslims around the world feel increasingly beleaguered.”
beleaguered about what exactly Mr Simpson? the terrorist attacks? bin Laden? the beslan massacre?
oh no – just some cartoons.
LMO
“Of course all of her guests were muslim,apart from a retired Met officer who was very much on-message,naturally.”
He wasn’t on-message, he simply explained how the management were on-message, and worried about the effects of any actions on their career paths.
Another Muslim guest said…
“We disagree with the protestors, and we are going to organise a demonstration in a few weeks……………………….about the cartoons.”
As for the Police worrying about starting a riot.
The BBC says there were no more than 30 protestors, so it should have been easy for the Police to nick ’em.
some very good thinking here
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/
Omar Bakri Mohammed, the radical Muslim cleric, has said the cartoonist behind caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed that have sparked outrage across the Arab world should be tried and executed under Islamic law.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=XPGQVI4P3NRT3QFIQMFCFGGAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2006/02/06/ucartoon.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/02/06/ixportaltop.html
Interesting to see that the Beeb still give a platform to Mr. Bakri – no surprise though.
just caught this on samizdata.net – call for a free speech rally in trafalgar square , sat 11th feb
http://www40.brinkster.com/freebritain/
no word yet on whos behind it.
Ian Collins on Talk Sport today annoyed me when he agreed with a caller about boycotting all Danish goods (Ie blame, and punish the entire Danish nation), but said we can’t blame all Muslims because of the hotheads.
I find it refreshing when John Simpson pops up. Nice to know that he does some work to justify the half-million a year it costs to keep him afloat – taxfree.
Maybe he should look up this site for some REAL info about how all the synthetic Muslim brouhaha started :
http://counterterror.typepad.com/the_counterterrorism_blog/2006/02/more_lies_from_.html
http://counterterror.typepad.com/the_counterterrorism_blog/2006/02/the_danish_cart.html
Even the Guardian comments on the tightly-organised “spontaneous” rioting in Beirut :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1703235,00.html
The BBC is no longer a reliable source of world news. It o longer chases down the facts, and its analysis stuff is heavily skewed. Thanks a bundle, Mr Simpson – as World Affairs Editor you have helped wreck the BBC’s reputation.
And now he has the gall to describe the Muslim response to the cartoons as “mostly non-violent”. The man is a flaccid joke.
Anonymous
Dangerous driving is an offence under the Road Traffic Act, driving off road onto a railway line is rather self evident, and for the prosecution to lose such a case will mean the prosecutor losing his job.
BNP is subject to other guidelines. Special Branch was formed to counter the Fenian threat (N.Ireland) who were bombing the mainland in Victorian times. One of the job requirements for a special branch officer is to be able to read and write shorthand. This is because SB is used to infiltrate organisations, including Universities (there is one on every campus) to find out what people are saying. Its a free country, you can say what you like but it will be written down and may be used in a court against you. The legislation used against BNP was specifically drafted to be all encompassing, i.e. no loopholes and is (relatively) easy to prove.
From The Spectator Website
“Liberty” webpage – as of 00:00 Monday, NO COMMENT / NEWS RELEASE ON CARTOON JIHAD – where’s Chakrabarti when free speech is under attack, defending terrorists again…?
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/
tells you all you really need to know about the state of play.
“Man of Straw” gets his cartoon, courtesy of Jawa:
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/JackStraw-appease-in-our-time-cartoon.jpg
On religion, let us not forget that the faithful are looking forward to and anticipating Armageddon. Such a glorious catastrophe will vindicate the righteous and the NB’s (non-believers) will be in for a right royal smacking. For Christan’s it will mean the return of Christ to Earth to rule over us and for Muslims, er, just ruling over us. NB’s need not worry about which faith will be the new world religion as they are not part of the deal.
Holy warriors such as Osama bin Laden have only limited objectives, no Jews or yanks in Saudi Arabia, he is so rich he wants for nothing but many suicide bombers are dirt poor. This is something Muslims cannot fathom. How come the dirty infidel dogs in the West who are corrupt immoral contaminators of filth, live like royalty? To them 2+2=5 They are the righteous and pious so to them should go the rewards, but then they see their future in paradise is not on this earth but elsewhere hence their readiness to turn themselves into bombs. Many Muslims see Westerners as a corrupting influence on their children and they worry a lot about this particularly womens fashion. Allah takes a great deal of interest in what women are wearing.
If the police had started arresting people at that demo and sparked a full scale riot, you can be sure that the political and media establishment would be hauling them over the coals so hard and so fast that they would regard the days of the Lawrence enquiry as positively halcyon.
Policing of large scale protests has to have this element of pragmatism. Preserving public order must be their first priority during such incidents and this certainly would not have been achieved if they had waded in with arrests.
I’m not sure the Mr Khayam’s apology has been made for fear of arrest. Is it actually illegal to dress up as a suicide bomber?
What interests me more is the reason why Mr Khayam had, if you’ll forgive the use of a Christian metaphor, such
an apparently Damascene conversion regarding his apologetic attitude, or initial lack of it. Who leant on him? I suspect that when he got back home his friends, family and/or religious seniors pointed out to him the error of his ways.
I suspect this because I do actually believe that there is a silent majority of muslim opinion in this country that is “moderate” and generally happy to muck along in a secular society despite the occasional provocation.
Reanna writes:
“Is it actually illegal to dress up as a suicide bomber?”
‘Threatening behaviour’ should cover it.
If a group of white men wearing such a vest were to congregate in Beeston or another “ethnic” area, how long do you think it would be before the police arrived to remove them ?
“If the police had started arresting people at that demo and sparked a full scale riot, you can be sure that the political and media establishment would be hauling them over the coals so hard and so fast that they would regard the days of the Lawrence enquiry as positively halcyon.”
which means we now have a political police force, rather than a politically-blind police force that applies the law equally to ALL citizens, irrespective of what the media or politicans say.
this is a serious matter , for the equal application of the law is a fundemental cornerstone of British civil society and democracy.
case in point: the met police turned up in riot gear for the hunt protestors. clearly a political decision -they wouldnt get hauled over the coals for whacking a fox hunter on the head.
I hope they used sniffer dogs on the ‘suicide bomber’, but that probably infringes his religious beliefs that dogs are unclean.
I’ be very interested to know if the Police actually bothered to verify that he didn’t have a bomb.
he was questioned apparently – but they didnt take his name & address down.
GCooper & Reanna
The full charge heading is: threatening behaviour WITH INTENT to cause offence. The mumbled apology screened of the fake suicide bomber seems to indicate he has been leaned on big time, either by his mum and dad, as naughty boys are, or/and his imman, his fellow congregation and last but not least Islamic lawyers who will point out in mitigation that he didn’t really INTEND
to offend
anyone. Easy. Know the charge and torpedo the prosecution.
R4 ‘Toady’ was a hoot this morning.
Leader of al-Muhajiroun, Omar Bakri Mohamed was screaming “Exterminate! Exterminate!” down the telephone to Naughtie who couldn’t believe that months of BBC work in building up the ‘religion of peace’ was being shattered with every utterance from this rabid islambat. Chances of Omar Bakri getting another invitation to appear on the Beeb? Nil.
Have a listen if you missed it:
“Execute? but shurely you’re the religion of peazzz zz zz zzz zz”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today4_cartoons_20060206.ram
Oh how I chuckled.
“Exterminate!, Exterminate!”
Religion of Peace: In Pictures
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/4686346.stm
SiN – Chakrabati said something along the lines of “we (Liberty) are right behind you (Islam) but this isn’t the right way to go about it” or something similar. Sorry, but I cannot recall where I saw the quote – in a news report somewhere. Nothing about it on Liberty’s website, nothing at all on the biggest issue in British and European politics and one which is fundamentally about liberty.
Of course, it depends on whether you view Liberty as a pressure group about, well, “Liberty” or you view it as the standard left-wing pressure group.
Ritter – isn’t the photo being burned in picture 7 a dutch flag? The caption is “Danish flag burned” but the Danish flag doesn’t have a blue stripe…
Anyway, the whole section is a misnomer. Described by the BBC as “protests” they are of course violence and expressions of hatred to anyone with two eyes in their head.
that looks like the french flag.
funny how danish flags are suddenly “available” in these places. do they have danish flag shops over there or something?