John Simpson is asking the question that needs to be asked: how did the cartoon controversy develop into the cartoon war?
Simpson asks the question of how the Danish cartoons published on 30th Sept. 05 came to be so inflammatory in Feb 06. He claims to have the answer when he says that Egypt’s Foreign Minister was leading a campaign ‘As early as November’.
Well, that is so, but as so often with the BBC, it’s a fragment of the story which they care to admit, and think they’re blessing us with. It might be more accurate to say that the Egyptian came to head the campaign at that time.
Simpson ignores the fact that Islamic diplomats in Denmark were naturally much quicker off the mark than the ‘mild, distinctly moderate’ one in Cairo, following hot on the heels of popular demonstrations in Copenhagen. What’s clear is that this was a team effort. Do delegations set off to Cairo without an invite? Are their meetings with all the high-ranking people who count set up just like that? I don’t think so. By the time that the Egyptian foreign minister ‘spoke his mind’ the delegation was clearly poised to visit Cairo, with all its meetings arranged at the highest level. That is remarkable, and to some extent explains the gap of 5-6 weeks, which was no doubt filled with frenzied email networking. Even George Galloway would admit that getting access to Egypt isn’t all that easy(I think I even get the joke on this one- they’re not totally without a sense of humour out there).
It would further be ridiculous to suggest that the delegation itself emerged out of nowhere, and was not the fruit of much domestic Danish Islamic work. If you read the links to Islam online, a network blessed by Yusuf Al-Qaradawi himself, you will see that the aims of the Danish Imams and the actions of the diplomats are quite clearly in a kind of synchronicity. This is the Ummah they talk about, in action.
My point? The BBC is obscuring a vital element of how the cartoon story (fakes which demonstrated ‘the truth of Islamic misery in Denmark’, and all) came about- while they know full well the mechanics of the story. Even one of the headlines at Islam Online screams the truth: ‘Danish Muslims “Internationalize” Anti-Prophet Cartoons’- just at the time in November when Simpson claims that the mild mannered Egyptian Foreign Minister was apparently pioneering the cartoon cause. The bottom line is that Simpson accepts the Islamic thesis: ‘we must understand that many Muslims around the world feel increasingly beleaguered’. This, for the Beeb and its World Affairs Editor, trumps all. What a patsy.
Update 7/2: BBC begin to get the point- and guess who? It’s Paul Reynolds, friend of this blog, who gets it for them. However, although his account is accurate, he merely talks of ‘The finger of suspicion’ pointing at the delegation, and says ‘It might not have made much difference’ . Well, maybe, but there are many indications that they were pretty central to events. He also admits that the BBC showed the false cartoons in their reports, but fails to point out they actually reported them verbally as though they were real.
Meanwhile, the source of the photograph the BBC showed in their clips is revealed here.
Just a small tedious request to the siteowners. Any chance of getting the ‘other blogs’ links updated. Harry’s Place moved a year ago and Rotty Pups gotta new kennel. Some of the others look like they’re history.
Ta
Off-topic
BBC News has admitted to falling for one of the fake Muhammad cartoons.
CNN and Sky are as bad in this case. Both do not cover the duplicitous background of some Danish Muslims, the inclusion of the 3 false images in the portfolio of cartoons the Danish Muslims taken to Egypt, one being a photo taken at a French pig squealing contest! • CNN even did a piece covering the Danish Islamic community without mentioning these extremely germane facts.
None of these 3 stations covered the simple fact that pictorial representations, including cartoons of Mohammed, are quite common, even in the Muslim World. CNN and Sky have been cowed into not showing the very tame images, just like most of the UK press.
TV news is so superficial, little context and misleading coverage. At least of us use the web. Alas most still do not and their views are formed by what they get from the MSM.
Anon- it’s being updated, but there’s a reluctance to delete links that others put in (it’s a group blog, after all). The Rotty pup link will be updated, as will others, but it’s a wee bit fiddly when life’s busy, and we’ll get around to it in due course. The poor old Belmont club was virtually marooned at its fallback site for months, not that this was a good thing.
GT- that’s very much on topic, and shows that Paul Reynolds is a friend of this blog. In a muted way it vindicates all that we’ve been saying- but it sounds like an unwelcome afterthought for the Beeb.
So the Imam Laban in Denmark is a Palestinian an no doubt imported undr Denmark’s formerly liberal asylum policy – well they can see what they have sown.
I see the “suicide belt” boy in London is really a convicted drug dealer out on licence – no wonder the police tried to stop photographers taking pics in London
TV news is so superficial, little context and misleading
Yes but it fools noone. They omit so they can influence positively, but after 50 years of TV advertising viewers are in the main not fools – they infer the missing information.
Abraham Lincoln was right –
http://www.welt.de/z/plog/blog.php/the_free_west
http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/comment/vidino200602060735.asp
I am still deeply perplexed by the BBC’s (and other meejah outlets’) insistence that depictions of the Prophet Mohammed (as we must now call Him) are proscribed.
What about Bernard Brett’s Mohammed (Collins, 1972; ISBN 0001922459)?
Was there a similar fuss in 1972, I wonder? 🙂
Did anyone see the program on BBC4 last night abou the Paris riots? Three ‘youths’ were interviewed agains a backdrop of burning cars and factories. Ok: nothing new there except that one of them was called Mohammed AND his FACE was blurred out.
So is this some extension of the beeb’s cartoon publishing policy?
I suppose we will have to wait until Sports Night runs some reapeats of ’60s world championship boxing matches.
Paul Reynold’s article was nicely written. I think it summed things up nicely. It put both points of view and didn’t shy away from expressing the free speech argument.
Well done Paul. Finally some balance from the Beeb.
It is a conceit implying Mohammed was divine since noone knows what God looks like, but Mohammed was merely a man – to reproduce his image defines his ethnicity as an Arab when the aim is to make him international and divine
BBC
It is now 4 days since the demonstration. I am surprised that we have yet to be treated to an interview with a Muslim spokesman asserting that the publication of pictures of the demonstrators in the papers was an irresponsible act likely to reinforce Islamophobia and an abuse of free speech.
Oh s**t, now what have I done!!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
just choked on my cornflakes – the M word is mentioned on the front page!
Paul Reynolds articles – well written, balanced. and FINALLY somebody on the beeb mentions the fake cartoon and the danish imam tour.
well done Mr Reynolds.
Following the showing of the ‘Hitler in bed with Anne Frank’ cartoon last night on BBC 2s Newsnight programme, and the intriguing and mischievous justification from Dyab Abou Jahjah of the Arab European League, talking with Paxmann, they now have a splendid “Cartoon of the day” on their website
http://www.arabeuropean.org/newsdetail.php?ID=94
I wonder if we will see any protests & rioting in Europe?
OT: Last Night’s BBC News blog appears to have died about a year ago too.
Amusingly, the top story on the BBC’s news website at this moment is – you guessed it – “Papua ‘lost world’ yields new species”. It’s about how an international team of scientists have found some “new butterflies, frogs, and a series of remarkable plants”.
Yes, it is news. It is a nice story. I am sure that biologists and so forth are happy as clams. But judging by Google’s news aggregator it is not particularly newsworthy news; the story is dwarfed by the face transplant lady and is less reported than the story about the mock suicide bomber being a convicted drug dealer.
The BBC actually has a report about this, “Cartoon protester was drug dealer”, but it’s not on the front page.
NB Google news might be a load of rubbish. NB Even the UK version of Google news over-reports US stories (I don’t particularly care about George Bush’s 2007 budget or the bloody superbowl).
I wonder if we will see any protests & rioting in Europe?
John | Homepage | 07.02.06 – 9:57 am | #
I think that was rhetorical…….something to do with educational attainment and evolution
In a generally balanced piece, Mr Reynold’s article has one section which I feel is unbalanced and plain wrong:
“Officials fear Islamic radicals will exploit the issue, further justifying their case that the West is basically hostile to Islam.”
This choice of wording “justifying their case” implies that the radicals are right and that the West IS basically hostile to Islam. It should read:
“Officials fear Islamic radicals will exploit the issue, furthering their claim that the West is basically hostile to Islam.”
In politics words are deadly weapons.
The word “claim” is one of the BBC’s favourite words to cast doubt on someone’s opinion – this is a perfect place to use it.
Nick Sanford, Home Affairs spokesperson appears on BBC News 24 (10:19) talking about young Omar Khayyam, grinning and temporarily stepping outside of the BBCs normal practice of their descriptions of BEMs, “He’s quite a colourful character.” Main BBC News reader, concerned about the prospect of said Muslim drug dealer and wannabe suicide bomber going back to jail “does that mean he won’t be able to appeal again?” Sanford, still grinning, reassuringly, with a don’t worry look, “he will come up for appeal again”. The Liberal affectation of BBC employees is quite breathtaking!
Sorry, but did someone just say that Newsnight showed the cartoon of Hitler and Anne Frank?
Is it another one of those examples of “we’d never do anything to offend Muslims and Jews but we’ll offend the Jews because we know they won’t kill us” which the Independent on Sunday displayed to such great effect last weekend?
Must be.
TAoL,
Surely it’s not the publication of anti-Semitic cartoons in a news context which is offensive, but their existence in the first place. Showing these on Newsnight serves to highlight the obnoxious nature of extremist Muslim opinion. It would be far worse to pretend these didn’t exist.
Ashley Pomeroy writes:
“Amusingly, the top story on the BBC’s news website at this moment is – you guessed it – “Papua ‘lost world’ yields new species”.”
It’s also the front page story in today’s Independent. From what else would the BBC take its lead?
TAol
Yes, it was a “Jerry Springer moment”. Clearly, the BBC mantra they keep on repeating about freedom of expression, whilst being “respectful” and acknowledging “sensitivities” doesn’t extend to the Holocaust.
For that matter what about the stunning silence of all those “liberals” who uphold the ideals of the European Enlightenment and support freedom of speech, that fail to mention the current plight of the British historian David Irving. I understand he is still in jail for “saying something” a few years ago in a lecture or in some of his books. When I consider what has been said, and what has been written in the past few days, and that the police and CPS have done nothing, his continued imprisonment in an Austrian jail, despite the historical inaccuracy of his views, or, there insensitivity, strikes me as disgraceful and wrong. I don’t recall any BBC News reader, like the case of Omar Khayyam worried if he will be able to appeal. Voltaire would be turning in his grave!
Similarly, it is beyond me how on BBC2 Newsnight last night the Conservative vice-chair, Sayeeda Warsi (Muslim, but no Hirsi she),could say that Choudry the rabble rouser and Griffen were identical “Peas in the same pod” I think that was the expression she used. Once again molehills and mountains, or am I missing something fundamental in this clash of civilizations?
She also thought Griffin should be deported if you followed her words carefully……..even the Islamofascist in the studio accused her of being a National Front candidate
Rick
It is a conceit implying Mohamed was divine
True, he is not a Deity, but apparently he did ascend into heaven on a winged horse.
True, he is not a Deity, but apparently he did ascend into heaven on a winged horse.
Just trying to copy Elijah…..2 Kings 2
11 And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.
12 And Elisha saw it, and he cried, My father, my father, the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof. And he saw him no more: and he took hold of his own clothes, and rent them in two pieces.
Sorry, but did someone just say that Newsnight showed the cartoon of Hitler and Anne Frank?
Yes, the bold BBC Newsnight, fearless of any Jewish reprisals, broadcast the vile cartoon showing Hitler and Anne Frank. Needless to say the Danish cartoons were NOT broadcast.
showed the cartoon of Hitler and Anne Frank?
Yes – and it does nothing for Newsnight’s reputation – nor did the stunned”rabbit in headlights” performance of Paxman et al when faced with the bearded lawyer and Islamofascist
Just to reiterate, most B-BBCers last week were complaining that the BBC failed to mention the prevalence of this sort of anti-Semitic crap in the Islamic press. Now it’s been shown they’re being insensitive to Jewish feeling???
You’re talking b*llocks, the vast majority of Jews would want Muslim (or any other type of) anti-Semitism highlighted rather than swept under the carpet, as an illustration to left wing bleeding hearts of this creeping unpleasantness.
It’s not the showing of these horrific cartoons that’s offensive, it’s their existence in the first place.
i can see the Chief Rabbi calling for the burning of british flags, whilst the Israelis stop all trade with Britain and engage in a cartoon raged storming of the British embassy…
oh..wait. maybe not.
archduke,
They should. The only way to get a lefty to agree with you is to threaten them.
Cockney
Unfortunately there’s no equivalence in the display of offensive material.
The BBC displays fearlessly the Anne Frank cartoon on “Tonight” while tut-tutting about how offensive this is to the Jews. On the other hand it preens at its sensitivity in not being prepared to keep the Danish cartoons on display.
Why not just offend everybody by displaying on one page both a range of anti-semitic cartoons available from state-controlled media in the MidEast (and naming the source) together with the Danish cartoons? I don’t think the British Embassy in Israel will be much at risk from this. British embassies elsewhere in the region might feel more exposed. Actually this would be an excellent test of the effectiveness of Straw’s policy of dhimmitude since nothing happens in the MidEast without governmental approval/organisation and there is no such thing as a “spontaneous demonstration” from Morocco to Islamabad.
On BBC Newsnight the female Iranian journalist objected to the ‘Hitler and Anne Frank in bed’ cartoon because it was “sexist”, not that it was ‘Anti-semitic’.
Her sexist critique extended to Choudry himself, when she made the comment that he must have a mother, and that he should really talk to other Muslim women with the respect he shows her. I was waiting for Paxo to raise the question “What if his mother wears a veil, then this would explain his frustration and anger at seeing other Muslim woman being ‘disrespectful to the principles of Islam’, as Choudry put it. But he didnt.
She also said of the Danish Mohammed Cartoons” Its just (sic) another Salman Rushdie Affair” Why they had to have an Iranian journalist on beats me.
Yes, Sayeeda Warsi, threatened both Choudry and Griffen “To get off our Island”. Is she a Cameroon babe? It actually sounded quite harsh not even repatriation but banishment. Do the “new Conservatives” wish to banish these people from “our Island”? This sounds to me like a radical policy change; I thought they were watering it down. Perhaps Warsi is a loose canon, Choudry clearly ruffled her Muslim feathers.
We were told that individual BBC Newsnight journalists were named and threatened by the’protesting’ Muslims outside the citadel of White City. Was Paxmann one of them, this might explain his confused conduct?
paxman WAS one them. security has been beefed up. i read it a few days
Warsi’s “get off our island” put down to Choudrey was just sublime and has convinced me even more that i’ll be voting Tory at the next election.
i rather liked her no-nonsense approach in dealing with these Islamo-nutcases. we need more like her. people with spine.
newsflash: “M” word outbreak on the bbc front page.
http://news.bbc.co.uk
Choudrey is an honest man of faith, he knows his Koran back to front and he speaks the truth. People really are suckers to believe in “moderate” Islam.
The West is at war with Islam period.
Rick
I clocked your Elijah passage.The Bible is full of contradictions,however Christians are instructed to kill non-believers. They may have largely given up nowadays but they have happily slaughtered millions.
Then there’s the thorny subject of Jesus, man or divine?
As the Jews deny His divinity the Christians have been killing Jews since the year dot. The Holocaust is rooted in Christian Theology. Theologically mandated persecution gave rise to secular anti-semitism.
Jesus and Mohamed walked the earth when they thought it was flat and the wheel was space age technology. You got ill because of evil not germs.
however Christians are instructed to kill non-believers.
David Davenport.
The point I am making is that when the population BELIEVE the TRUTH of a proposition without EVIDENCE, eg unbelievers go to hell, Jews drink the blood of infants, Witches work with Satan,then they become capable of anything and believing anything WITHOUT PROOF.
All religions are predicated on blind faith, no evidence whatsoever is adduced for the various instructions.
The torturers in the Holy Inquisition were Popes bishops friars and priests.
John 15:6
If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.
Most modern Christians who go to church and Sunday school have never read the bible from front to end. The only way we are going to avoid annihilation is if the Muslims do the same with the Koran and ignore the instructions to kill heretics.
Don’t hold your breath.
Also Deuteronomy 13;12-16
The point I am making is that when the population BELIEVE the TRUTH of a proposition without EVIDENCE, eg unbelievers go to hell, Jews drink the blood of infants, Witches work with Satan,then they become capable of anything and believing anything WITHOUT PROOF.
That is also a lie, if ypu’re talking about Jews or Christians.
Save your simplistic moral equivalence mendacity for your fellow Lefties.
Historically there have been two groups targeted by the Church, Witch and Jew. Conservative estimates of witch burning is about 50,000 although many believe it to be greater. The blood libel against the Jews claimed many more. The crime of host desecration was a capital offence. The Cathers were wiped out.
The church did not officially condemn the use of torture until 1816
Papal Bull Pope Pius V11.
The only way we are going to avoid annihilation is if the Muslims do the same with the Koran and ignore the instructions to kill heretics.
You won’t find instreuctions to kill heretics in the New Testament, liar.
Historically there have been two groups targeted by the Church, Witch and Jew.
That is simply not true, if you mean Roman Catholic church where you say “Church.”
A wee historical digression here for the benefit of ill-educated Lefties:
Historically, the R.C. church has also
targeted Muhammedans, Jews, various East Asian and Western Hemisphere indigneous religions as well as … Protestants.
But so what? What do the sins of centuries ago have to do with the present?
And were the Muhammedans all nicey-nice back then? No.
Conservative estimates of witch burning is about 50,000 although many believe it to be greater. The blood libel against the Jews claimed many more. The crime of host desecration was a capital offence. The Cathers were wiped out.
Oh, I forget to include Cathers in my original list. Let’s all remember the Cathers.
Again I ask, were the Muhammedans all, ahem, saints back then? And what do the sins of the distant have to do with now, the present?
Sarge, should we hold you responsible for the sins of your ancestors?
Sarge, I don’t want to get into a theological debate with you – there are blogs if you want to take this line. You are in error.
The reference to Elijah was simply that Islam is a cut and paste religion using Judaism, Zoroastrianism, and Christian aspects to concot a devotion with Mohammed at its centre.
What you fail to recognise is that much of what you define as Christianity is post-Constantine when Christianity became the State Religion of the Roman Empire and ignores the fact that for 70 years after Christ’s death Christians worshipped in synagogues until Judaism expelled them; that Hellenic Christians were different from Jewish Christians.
You speak of “Jews” as if they are uniform and never have been, Sadduccees did not believe in Resurrection or Angels merely in temporal power for themselves; whereas Christianity is in the Pharisaic tradition. It is simply much more complex than Islam and not comparable; Judaism has one of the most sophisticated ethical systems around and 613 Commandments to define just how Orthodox a Jew might be in defining obeisance to G-d, but Christians get access through the Noachide Laws and without the ritual……………..
Islam is hostile to both: Islam has no baptism, no real ritual or conversion, it is fatalistic and without any great sophistication as Judaism.
You are anti-religion, that is a viewpoint, but do not distort Christian theology the Muslim fanatics do enough of that; and trying to tell me that gas chambers and the Catholic Church are partners is an insult to the thousands of Catholic priests killed at Auschwitz and basically the kind of sludge that gets dredged up from some very off sources on the Net.
The basic fact is that most people in the West have a consumerist approach to Christianity which is contrary to that in the Orthodox, Coptic or Chaldean Churches which have a claim to being even more “Christian” in origin and practice than the local presbytery in England or Germany or Spain.
The torturers in the Holy Inquisition were Popes bishops friars and priests.
Sarge
The Inquisition never existed in England; in Spain it was NOT under the control of The Catholic Church but the Monarchy………….
You have a bee in your bonnet and seem just as fanatical as Anjem Choudhury which is disappointing
“You won’t find instreuctions to kill heretics in the New Testament, liar.”
theres a bit of cannibalism though
John:
6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
Yes Archduke – now we get into Transubstantiation, Consubstantiation, and Presence in the Host…………….are you really sure you want to go down this path ?
Don’t forget to reference those lines to The Second Temple which was still operating under Sadduccee control at the time of The Last Supper and wherein animal sacrifice still took place