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.
Looks like a Dutch flag to me but do they care? We’re all “infidels” anyway.
The Dutch flag is striped horizontically whereas the French flag is striped vertically. See:
http://www.flags.net/FRAN.htm and
http://www.flags.net/NETH.htm
France has a vertical tricolor. I think that flag is an upside-down Dutch flag. Hey, they are all infidels anyway, what difference does it make?
Offensive Cartoons?
http://www.fotolog.com/tyke/
listening to PM – Met police spokesman said that they didnt know about the Friday demo in advance.
very alarming. i pointed out a website that announced it was going to happen – dated 31st Jan (Monday)
http://www.alghurabaa.co.uk/pr/danishdemo.htm
which says to me that if the Met police spokesman is telling the truth, then there is a serious disconnect within the security services of the UK.
alarming. very alarming.
Sarge,
Thanks for the definition. Presumably the legal question is what was the intent at the time the alleged offence was committed. In this respect Mr Khayam may regret his earlier newspaper interview:
“Khayam said that knowing people were offended by his outfit had no impact on him. He said: “I look to my intentions. My intentions were not to kill anyone.” Khayam said he was motivated to do what he did by the anger he felt at the cartoons.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=376284&in_page_id=1770
For God’s sake, even I knew it was happening on Friday. Everyone on this blog and other blogs knew it was happening on Friday.
I cannot believe the Met didn’t know. If they didn’t know why were all those coppers there?
There was a bit of CIA disinformation in the first Gulf War to the effect that the Allies’ bullets contained a little piece of pork embedded in them. The idea was that if you got shot, not only would you die, but the pork would ensure you didn’t go to heaven.
Anti-Muslim ammunition…you gotta laugh.
Rob -> my best guess – the cops arent allowed to monitor “islamophobic” or “hate” sites , as that wouldnt be politically correct
but those sites are the ones that track the islamist lunatics.
The fact we must face up to is that this “rally” was unauthorised and yet I thought all such things had to be cleared with the Met under Section 132 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act.
Then again the “Security” bods we have don’t seem to know what goes on anyway. With reports of Saudi Intelligence warning in Dec 2004 of a bombing in London, it seems strange than 3 months later security was relaxed.
I don’t think we need get too hopeful that the police will be much protection against future bombings or even riots – they seem to be much better at calling up people who are critical of gay rights on BBC radio when they harass them under Section 5 of the 1986 Public Order Act……………………..not that the events in London on Friday and Saturday had anything to do with Public Order…..
“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.”
I prefer to think that we have a politically-aware police force rather than a political police force; the police force does not operate in a vacuum, and has to be aware of the reception it is likely to get in the press and in the Commons etc. It’s a subtle distinction more of mindset than outcome. I do not believe that the average policeperson is any more or less or differently political than a normal person.
The consequences for the police force are always worse if it is too hard on crime rather than too soft, and I think the police would rather be grumbled at for something they did not do than damned for something they did. The only exception would be security for government ministers, in which case the more armed police and helicopters the better. The police force has always been a whipping boy for journalists, politicians and so forth because no-one particularly likes it, it doesn’t fight back, and it doesn’t feel pain. It is like the United States in that respect.
Take the typical inner-city riot. If the police becomes involved, the story in the media will be about how brutal racist police set out to genocide innocents. There will be statues and poems and films and books and thirty years from now the BBC’s “On This Day” segment will have a story about it. There will be marches and a public holiday.
If the police however does not get involved, the riot will probably be reported in the universal media equivalent of a fifty-word box at the bottom-right of page 8. As we have seen from Northern Ireland, even if you are killed in your home by a rampaging mob, it is sometimes better for all concerned if your death is buried away without fuss deep inside the newspapers, away from the front pages. Sometimes the law can simply cause a lot of fuss that does no-one any good.
Incidently, the “Are protests over cartoons justified?” thread has been re-opened by auntie Beeb.
Take the typical inner-city riot. If the police becomes involved, the story in the media will be about how brutal racist police set out to genocide innocents.
Not true. In Bradford they bottled up the rioters in Manningham but they should have been harder – even bringing in troops from Catterick to shoot those who blocked the doors of the Labour Club and set it alight with people inside, then attacked the fire brigade.
That required police from 5 counties for one relatively confined riot. The Police are not a “Service” rather than a “Force” and as such are a bit limp-wristed.
If you remove policing from the locality it must be armed and without roots locally it must act to suppress disorder and that requires much more force. Frankly, the police have lost control of the streets and are no longer trusted by the urban middle class who see them as ineffectual and basically incompetent.
Incidently, the “Are protests over cartoons justified?” thread has been re-opened by auntie Beeb.
Moriarty | 06.02.06 – 6:00 pm | #
I think the Peanuts Riots and the Doonesbury Torchings were just the beginning, and with Tom Cat fooling Officer Dibble it was clear that Wshington would erupt in flames as the Saudi Embassy was torched
Top Cat…………..and do you remember Mickey Mouse ? That must have really disturbed them in The Magic Kingdom in Riyadh
i cant believe this the bbc are alowwing the muslim to use a bbc web site as a spring board for a boycott of danish goods.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbreligion/F2213236?thread=2155929
When the Met refuse to move against criminals, it is worth remembering this….and how quickly they moved
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/492433.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/734667.stm
There will not be any prosecutions over this, as the terrorists….sorry, activists, who were holding the signs were masked.
That is the ‘out’ for the police.
If anybody listened to the 5Live interview with a representative from Hizb-ut-Tahrir you’ll know that the BBC line is already decided.
This is now a question of ‘Respect’.
That way nasty questions about other matters such as incitement, terrorism and fear can just be put down to abberations.
The BBC (and probably the rest of the British media) cannot afford for this to become a Freedom of Speech debate.
‘Respect’ now becomes one of those Orwellian words –
Respect = self-censorship.
That anti-muslim ammunition is actually not a bad idea if it gets causes these idiots to think that they might not get their 72 virgins if they get shot.
Listening to Radio 4s PM I was struck how the BBC have prejudiced any possible prosecution of this wannabe suicide bomber by broadcasting a pathetic apology from him. They have even interviewed potential witnesses, namely his friends, and broadcast further apologies from his MP, the “honourable” Russell Paul, who clearly co-drafted his statement. His comments are the clever sort of subterfuge that his defence counsel would have put together. Instead its as if we are hearing court plea-bargaining broadcast by the BBC in the very afternoon following repeated calls for his arrest in the House of commons.
Astonishing broadcasting ethics when you think of how the BBC went out of their way to persecute a political party, and facilitate the prosecution by the CPS of statements such as “Islam is a wicked and vicious faith”. BBC Journalists were instructed not to say anything that would prejudice “a retrial” last week, when there actually wasn’t a retrial. it was a BBC untruth, so as to dampen the victory against their original undercover story, a kind of legal soap opera ‘spoiler’ move.
So instead of BBC editors mulling over this fake suicide bomber, and deciding we had better not interview him as he is going to be prosecuted , they rush to his defence and give him maximum publicity. Personally, I’d like to hear a new “rubaiyat” of Omar Khayyam once he is behind bars, that is the time for such apologies and existential regrets-during his punishment! Even through the so-called apology he and his friends made political propaganda courtesy of the BBC knocking “Denmark” and accusing “it” of Blasphemy. Of course no interruptions from the “impartial” BBC interviewer, how can you blame an entire country of 5 million are you not incapable of distinguishing between what a broadsheet newspaper in a free country publishes and the entire population of that country?
Omar Khayyam claims the bombings of July 7th were “un-Islamic” and then he proceeds to dress up as an Islamic terrorist amongst his fellow hooligans and thugs, doh! Let a jury decide, not the BBC.
And as for “secular Europe” will somebody remind the BBC that the CDU “Christian Democrats” are in power in Germany- and that their ministers and media are not so pathetic, appeasing and apologetic as their British counterparts. Presumably the BBC think that political epithet means “secular”.
I knew I’d find it somewhere.
And now a word from the organisation that makes all this possible:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4685886.stm
paulc:
respect = fear
http://www.myblog.de/politicallyincorrect/art/2762265
http://www.myblog.de/politicallyincorrect
I understand from German media that Pakistani doctors are boycotting European pharmaceuticals………at least their patients now how a good reason why they are not getting them…….sounds much better than cost
No doubt those folks in Kashmir will no longer want Western aid………….
I just love these grandiose gestures – now tell us Muslims will refuse to come to Britain as asylum seekers…………
http://www.myblog.de/politicallyincorrect/art/2831296
US, German and Danish flags – that’s 3 NATO members…….Iran is a real lunatic asylum. If only we had a decent government in Britain in place of this group of 1960s deadbeats
If the police can shoot on sight a badly dressed Brazilian, why did they not shoot on sight the idiot in the suicide bomber vest?
Surly there was just cause.
“That anti-muslim ammunition is actually not a bad idea if it gets causes these idiots to think that they might not get their 72 virgins if they get shot.”
there is unfortunately a get-out clause – if you have committed yourself to martyrdom , and if you have done the pre-martyrdom ablutions (such as shaving off all hair), you are consider pure and “clean”. no amount of pig meat will change that, unfortunately.
John gave us R4’s perspective. As for myself, I am beginning to resent the discussions on BBC R5.
Today’s was a phone-in about tolerance in the UK.
I resent the way the BBC invites people like Moslem Civil Liberties Lawyer Saghir Hussein
http://www.stoppoliticalterror.com/index.php?pageid=59
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php4?article_id=7125
http://www.campacc.org.uk/281104.htm
Click to access 041029_ma_wshop.pdf
http://www.respectcoalition.org/?did=937
– a trained advocate • to be set loose, like an attack dog, on any caller with whose views he disagreed (and on some with views he might have agreed, if only he’d allowed them time to speak)
But there again, they are the ones who phoned in.
What I resent more is said Civil Liberties Lawyer, lecturing me that I have not seen what is in front of my eyes and I am a hypocrite for even thinking I saw it.
One caller talked of the BNP and other ‘far-right’ organisations, and how they are given more license than extreme Moslem groups (this is ascribed to racist attitudes in the media).
Nonsense.
Newspapers and Broadcasters are unfailingly hostile to the BNP and its ilk. The BBC itself has for many years consistently denied the BNP ‘the oxygen of publicity’ (Except when the publicity is bad). And the BBC has done so more effectively than ever it did for the IRA.
The result is the public never hears about BNP policies or statements, unless there is a possible prosecution in the offing**.
(Thinking about this, a case might be made that the BBC is persecuting the BNP)
Then in a similar theme, came the comparisons between the sentiments of the BNP and the placards of the Moslem Extremists, which called for massacres, beheadings and bombings. According to some of the callers, the BNP promotes the same, if not worse calls to hatred, but these never come to attention of the public, nobody is ever arrested.
The so-called comparison was cited as further evidence of ‘racist’ laws.
** Please note the above and consider the subsequent prosecution of ‘Nasty Nick’ et al.
On the other hand, another caller talked of the problems of hate messages defacing mosques. Victoria Derbyshire declared that this was frequently addressed by R5.
Well not in my hearing, Vicky dear!
Most of R5’s time is taken up telling the majority community how bigoted, how stupid it is and how it has oppressed Islam on a worldwide scale. The BBC can’t be bothered with a bit of graffiti on some building somewhere. There are much bigger fish to fry.
The telling points came when one ‘Francine’ (a fellow traveller, apparently with her own caravan) gave blanket approval to those in the demonstration carrying the placards. Her reasoning was that Bush and Blair, Lies, War on Terror, Iraq, WMD, yada, yada, yada… oh, make your own statement up; there is absolutely no possible way it could be as banal as ‘Francine’s’ effort (personally, I blame ‘care in the community’).
This was followed by another caller, who went so far as to attack the concept of Freedom of Speech: he complained that we ‘place more value on freedom of speech than we do on respect’.
Dictators down the ages would love this guy!
The message all through the programme was that we are hypocrites, we are intolerant, that Islam is a religion of peace that will bring a new ecumenical paradise and the ‘Vast Majority of Moslems’ (henceforth the VMM) disagrees with the carriers of those signs.
It seems the BBC believes that if it continues to spin this line, it will convince the people of Britain, despite the manifest evidence.
And even if you don’t swallow any of this, the underlying idea (if you’ll pardon the pun) is that this is part of a balance of respect; the offence given by the placards mirrors the offence given by the cartoons.
No.
I am not accepting the twist in the argument.
I don’t feel offended.
Living through the past decade, I have come to expect the howling mobs, the burning flags, the threats of bombs, the threats of decapitation, the promises to overthrow the state. I expect this, and more, and worse, from Islam.
BUT
The placards were a direct incitement to commit murder; they were threats and exhortations to kill, not an attack on beliefs.
I can recognise a crime when I see one.
John
Good perceptive insight on the machinations of the BBC in airing the fake suicide bombers apology. I can imagine legal buffs falling over themselves to get him off the hook, with the BBC only too glad to be able to say, “The suicide bomber has apologised”.
People must appreciate that all demonstrators and demonstrations have legal representatives present. The BBC shows the Police videoing demonstrators, but not the other way around, which always happens.
The legal eagles in the demonstration are there to film and tape any mistake by Police in order to prosecute THEM.
When demonstrators are arrested they have all the rights of the ordinary citizen, usually expressed as “Iwannasolicitorright”
Those who do not have deep pockets are offered the duty solicitor but these are generally regarded as Police stooges. What happens is that while the demonstrator is in the charge room, sorry, custody suite, the solicitors for the demonstrators are forming a queue in the front office waiting to be paired off with a client. They will be paid not by the demonstartor but by some organisation supporting them.
The general public do not know the lengths these organisations go to, they are a very well organised a well oiled machine. The Police and demonstrators know the rules and usually conform to the demonstration etiquette.
paulc,
sit back and watch the left and the muslims destroy each other. its the best show in town!
do not fear these Islamist morons, laugh at `em and move on.
Incidentally, a conviction for threatening behaviour will not get you behind bars, a £2 fine may be in order.
The satirist is not meant to take sides, his job is to point out that the Emperors have no clothes.
The instant you restrict what and who a cartoonist can lampoon out of “respect” you are no longer living in a free society.
i wonder if john simpson, or anyone else at the bbc would care to cover this particular news item:
http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2006/02/with-allies-like-these.html
probably not.
from The Spectator Website
Finally, A British Journalist With Courage – Trevor Kavanagh, One Of The Most Respected Journalists In Britain, On The Media And The Cartoons
read Trevor Kavanagh
Click to access 060206_Trevor_Kavanagh__The_Sun.pdf
Paulc….listening to a BBC phone-in makes you wonder if all in-patients have access to a phone. I am convinced many are in the asylum with the incoherent, sentimentalised twaddle they spout. It appears we have so many deranged people with nothing better to do than unload their psychological baggage onto the airwaves.
Radio 5 is Tabloid Radio
Biased BBC? I think this fits the bill.
I’ve been told that Nick Griffins will be on Newsnight tonight so it should be interesting.
dfh : 10% of the british population would be a daily circulation of around 6 million.
The apology gets such prominence at al-Beeb…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4686410.stm
…much more than the original offence did when it occurred.
Ah, Paul Henley again. He popped up on yesterday’s The World This Weekend with a splendid report from (“how white it is”) Copenhagen.
The Listen Again supercomputer can be found here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/worldthisweekend/
He is an ardent Europhile and frequently takes his soapbox with him when he reports for the BBC.
archduke – indeed. And as Scott Burgess pointed out on Saturday, Robert Fisk was trying to dismiss Jyllands-Posten as some pissy little rag with no circulation. That’s Robert Fisk, who writes for… er… The Independent.
Kavanagh had an article or two today but failed to point out the fake cartoons that have caused the upraor and the ‘spontaneous’ nature of the ‘where did all those Danish flags come from?’ Perhaps they were about to celebrate HM The Danish Queen’s birthday or something in Gaza as a thank you for all that lovely aid they get albeit without samples of bacon…
TAoL – I can’t take any more tonight – my blood pressure must be off the scale at the moment – but I’m sure Henley’s TWTW report was as full of crap as the one I heard. I’m going to listen to some Aretha and try to mellow out.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali interview (mentions the cartoon rage)
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,399263,00.html
i wonder if Question Time will EVER invite this unbelievably brave woman onto their panel.
“Ah, Paul Henley again. He popped up on yesterday’s The World This Weekend with a splendid report from (“how white it is”) Copenhagen.”
i heard that over the weekend and nearly choked on my cornflakes. it was unbelievably racist , pure and simple.
the double standards are incredible – it s like doing a report from Lagos and saying how “black” it is.
what the hell has skin pigment got to do with anything in this cartoon rage debate?
The BBC is your enemy.
Do all you can to destroy it.
If anyone is still paying the TV-tax, stop now. You are paying to harm you and your children.
Does anyone remember the Short Wave station “Radio Peace & Progress – The Voice of Soviet Public Opinion” ? It used to let the world know what the Politburo was thinking and pretend it was speaking for the Russian people………………………such is the BBC problem…………….it represents such a narrow clique but very few people outside its employees believe anything it says
rick -> yeah. remember it well. everything was hunky dory in the Soviet Union.
but the big difference with the islamists , is that the Soviets didnt have Communists on the street calling for the beheading of anyone who dared to draw a cartoon of Karl Marx.
I keep hearing the war in iraq is making more terrorist. Seems to me all you need to make more terrorist from this gutter cult is cartoons. Its time to start the real crusades and eliminate the brainless mob insects from our world.
[My deleting finger started to twitch at this comment, and the name the commenter has used. But it is sufficiently answered by other commenters below. – NS]
Edited By Siteowner
ten o’clock news : turns out that the “suicide bomber” at the friday demo was out on probation from a 5 year sentence for drug dealing.
maybe he got “islamified” in prison.
ten o’clock news – anti-semitic attacks.
interviews a rabbi who mentions “asian youths”, who attacked him.
and the next sentence, the bbc reporter mentions “far right” attacks.
the “M” or “I” word is never mentioned.
disgusting warping of the facts.
re above – the reason why i am objecting to the term “asian youth” is that it insiuates that somehow maybe Hindu Indians were involved in the attacks on Jews in Britain. It Beeboid political correctness they have , in the ten o’clock news , expressed a racist term – because they darent mention the M word – “muslim”.
sickening. utterly sickening. i dearly hope our Hindu and Sikh and Buddhist asian friends write in to complain about this.