Well now, didn’t the Archdhimmi of Canterbury cause quite the media firestorm which his shilling for Sharia? It’s been good to see the near universal condemnation he has attracted, proving that the majority of people here aren’t prepared to see Islamic law given any form of equivalence with our own. But I note that the BBC leads with a piece in which Williams gets to “defend” his ineptness. Apparently on his website, Mullah Williams does his je ne regrette rien routine. He’s shocked, yes shocked, at the vehemence of criticism send his way. Good. I reckon the BBC is shocked as well.
But there were a couple of weasel lines inserted into this piece by the BBC. Consider this; “Islamic Sharia law is a legal and social code designed to help Muslims live their daily lives, but it has proved controversial in the West for the extreme nature of some of its punishments.” Sorry, but Sharia law may be legal in downtown Tehran where they hang the homosexuals and stone the adulterers but it sure as heck ain’t legal here. It is tolerated within the scope of English law, wrongly in my view. There is a big difference between something being tolerated and it being legal. Also, the author implies it is only we in the West that have an issue with Sharia. Really? I guess those tens of thousands of Somalians that flee their land to escape the Sharia Courts didn’t get that memo. As for the “controversial” aspect to it, isn’t that a tad of an understatement? Further, if only “some” of its punishments are extreme in nature, do we assume that the writer of this article thinks others form of Sharia punishment are OK? Also note how the Muslim Council of Britain – that vipers nest much loved by Al Beeb- rush to defend Mullah Williams. Why is this unrepresentative group given the chance to pose as the voice of British Muslims, when in fact many British Muslims want nothing to do with it?
The BBC article concludes with the Bishop of Hulme, the Rt Rev Stephen Lowe, saying that in Williams… “We have probably one of the greatest and the brightest Archbishops of Canterbury we have had for many a long day. He is undoubtedly one of the finest minds of this nation.” And on that note, the BBC items concludes. I’m in tears, aren’t you? Oh the injustice of it all. The Beeb must be so upset that their pal Williams has taken such a pasting in the past few days and it’s nice to see them doing their level best for him. Always fair and balanced, right?
“It’s been good to see the near universal condemnation he has attracted, […] But I note that the BBC leads with a piece in which Williams gets to “defend” his ineptness.”
So the BBC is attempting to show the side other sources aren’t and is giving the actual person involved a little time to explain further? That’s not bias – that’s good reporting.
Actually Newsnight didn’t do too badly last night. For once a real debate in which Dhimmis (in the welcome form of an articulate chap from the POlicy Exchange) was allowed to challenge Islamist claptrap and express the views that are shared by the majority of the people.
I am sure this was an aberration and we shall soon return to the PC Thought Control that is the trademark of the vile, extorting BBC.
But it was gratifying glimpse of what could be…
The overall impression I have of the BBC’s role in the ‘debate’ over the Archbishop and Sharia is:
1.)how no main BBC interviewers seem to be independently knowledgeable about Islam, Sharia law (or Jihad for that matter); they just ‘defer’ to the dhimmi, ‘multiculturalist Bishop Lowes, or to the Muslim Tariq Ramadan, who is banned from the USA. And because the BBC interviewer is insufficiently knowledgeable, he/she cannot challenge; but as the words ‘multiculturalist society’ and ‘tolerance’ are mouthed, the BBC is inclined to accept it all.
In asking that the BBC journalists become more independently knowledgeable about Islam, there is a
danger that they will just get a crash course from someone from ‘the religion of peace’, one of the 200 odd of the BBC Arabic TV service in the East Wing of Broadcasting House.
2.)how the BBC’s brand of ‘multiculturalism’ distorts any presentation of the issues; Prof. Roger Scruton talks of the repudiation of the idea of ‘nation’, in his book ‘The Need for Nations’:-
“This repudiation is the result of a peculiar
frame of mind that has arisen throughout the Western
world since the second world war, and which is particularly
prevalent among the intellectual and political élites. No
adequate word exists for this attitude, though its symptoms
are instantly recognised: namely, the disposition, in any
conflict, to side with ‘them’ against ‘us’, and the felt need to
denigrate the customs, culture and institutions that are
identifiably ‘ours’. Being the opposite of xenophobia I
propose to call this state of mind oikophobia, by which I
mean (stretching the Greek a little) the repudiation of
inheritance and home. Oikophobia is a stage through which
the adolescent mind normally passes. But it is a stage in
which some people—intellectuals especially—tend to
become arrested. As George Orwell pointed out, intellectuals
on the Left are especially prone to it, and this has often
made them willing agents of foreign powers. The Cambridge
spies offer a telling illustration of what oikophobia
has meant for our country.”
(Roger Scruton, ‘The Need for Nations’
Civitas, 2006).
There is a BBC presumption of equal ‘moral equivalence’ on any issue; UK history and culture receive no special place; often, quite the opposite.
Hornet,
Yes, I’m sure your are right. The BBC is good and kind and knows best. Of course they should give Mullar Williams his speak, but note how the article commences and finishes with excuses for dear Rowan. It’s bias alright, but you can’t see it.
A great Newsnight yesterday, Paxo allowed all the participants to put forward their opinions, the BBC did not allow any bias into the show and for once I was impressed, well done to the Beeb!.
You just have to see this bollcks to see the BBC thought Police in action.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7234870.stm
Note a few points. The BBC only refrers to Saudi Arabia in the “punishment issue”. So those homosexuals hung in Iran are a myth then BBC?
Best of all read the bollocks about being executed for converting ot another religion. He’s a snip
“….But Muslims can be executed for converting?
Apostasy, or leaving the faith, is a very controversial issue in the Muslim world and the majority of scholars believe it is punishable by death.
But a minority of Muslim thinkers, particularly those engaged with Western societies, argue that the reality of the modern world means the “punishment” should be left to God – and that Islam itself is not threatened by apostasy.
The Koran itself declares there is “no compulsion” in religion.
Egypt’s most senior cleric has faced a storm in the Middle East after floating some of these ideas but the debate may well continue for many generations to come….”
So you BBC morons YES most Muslim scholars think that the punishment for leaving Islam is DEATH. So why not state that more clearly?
Oh and why not Google the tosser that wrote the article. Interesting to see what comes about YET another limp wristed BBC type
http://rottypup.com/?p=802
Al-beeb would never be intellectually or morally capable of addressing the real issue that this debate should raise.
You might wonder if the Archbishop has ever heard of the concept of separation of religion and state?
In mature republican democracies such as France and the US, religion, as supported and funded by the state here, is actually against the law. What is in force in those countries is the protection by the law of the land for freedom of worship, with one important proviso — that no one should be forced to pay for a state creed, or any other belief system, and all its trappings such as monarchy, lords, and indeed, the office of the Archbishop, and of course might I add,the state supported bbc.
What we really need to prevent the sort of nonsense spouting forth from Lambeth is a written constitution and a bill of rights. This is a sadly missed aspect of democracy in our country and would insure real freedom and protection under the law of the land. But naturally that would mean the demise of al-beeb because no neurologically normal person would willingly pay for a state broadcasting fiasco.
“Islamic Sharia law is a legal and social code designed to help Muslims live their daily lives”
“Sorry, but Sharia law may be legal in downtown Tehran where they hang the homosexuals and stone the adulterers but it sure as heck ain’t legal here”
When the BBC used the word legal in that sentence I took it as meaning that it was used in the form of
“Of, relating to, or concerned with law”
rather than meaning
“permitted by law”
I think the end result of this Rowan Williams saga will be that the BBC will decide that it needs to portray Islam and/or sharia law in an even better light than it already does in future programming for the benefit of “social cohesion”. Perhaps they will come up with another “Don’t Panic I’m Islamic” programme.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3001102.ece
David Vance on Rowan Williams:
“The BBC article concludes with the Bishop of Hulme, the Rt Rev Stephen Lowe, saying that in Williams… “We have probably one of the greatest and the brightest Archbishops of Canterbury we have had for many a long day. He is undoubtedly one of the finest minds of this nation.” And on that note, the BBC items concludes. I’m in tears, aren’t you? Oh the injustice of it all. The Beeb must be so upset that their pal Williams has taken such a pasting in the past few days and it’s nice to see them doing their level best for him.”
This is all fascinating that Williams gets the pasting he deserves for opening his mouth without connection to his brain and then gets surprised when people call him on it and he produces weasel excuses for why he said it and his mates tell everyone that he’s really brilliant.
Compare that with David Vance’s own excuses:
The questions asked are here http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/5317609803633089194/#383528 on why Vance appears to support imprisonment without trial followed by extradition based on hearsay from a foreign government, and supports bugging the man’s conversations in jail even with his elected representatives and why he defames the accused man who is innocent in the eyes of the law and encourages others to do so.
Despite repeated requests Vance refuses to answer until eventually we get this:
”
You appear to think I am interested in the drivel you post. I’m not. I suggest a lie-down in a dark room for you – and watch the language on any thread I post or you’ll be moderated. Debate is fine, vulgarity isn’t. Got it?”
..in other words weasel words instead of explanation followed by a not-so-subtle threat of censorship – very much like the hard left weasels he claims to be against.
We have also had similar attacks against me for calling on Vance to explain himself. Which of course, he is too grand to ever do.
It’s difficult to know who is the greater moral and intellectual coward: Rowan Williams or David Vance. Its a tough call.
I think that these occasional episodes in which the people wax indignant against Islam are appropriate opportunities to further acquaint people with its unsavoury reality. Many are unaware of the significance of the word dhimmi, for instance, and now is an apt time to introduce it into their personal vocabularies.
Martin, you believe that article is biased for 2 reasons:
1.’The BBC only refrers to Saudi Arabia in the “punishment issue”. So those homosexuals hung in Iran are a myth then BBC?’ – No, you just can’t mention every case in every country. If it had mentioned Iran and not Saudi Arabia you’d be saying the same thing. If you seen the coverage of the reaction to Dr Rowan Williams’ comment you will see that it is the beheadings, flogging and amoputations that many people reject.
2. “So you BBC morons YES most Muslim scholars think that the punishment for leaving Islam is DEATH. So why not state that more clearly?”
You mean like this: ‘the majority of scholars believe it is punishable by death.’ This is in the first sentence. It is the line you managed to read and understand. No doubt you are complaining on behalf of all those poor morons who are unable to understand simple written English like yourself.
You believe the BBC is continually and blatantly biased, yet this is what you’ve got?
Although Americans are, on the whole, more religious than Britons, openly religious people are quite rare among our journalists. And that means that some questions do not get asked that should be.
For example, a Christian would almost certainly ask the Archbishop whether he thought the church should preach the Gospel to Muslims.
But I get the impression that no one at the BBC has even thought to ask that question. Or similar questions. Am I right?
Aussie Bystander,
It’s a tough call for you, but then again I imagine most things in life are like that for you.
[Misposted on general comment thread – should really be here.]
I can’t help thinking that perhaps something *extremely* newsworthy has happened behind the scenes and needs to be ‘buried’. The Archbishop comes to the rescue with a comment that seems totally out of the blue…
After the recent EU treatment of all things Lisbon Treaty-related (such as the shutting down of discussion reported by Daniel Hannan MEP) and its current passage through the lower house of Westminster, perhaps someone should investigate.
Maybe this is too conspiratorial, but watch out for any quick reaction from trolls or europhiles if a nerve is hit.
David Vance,
You’ve clearly hit a nerve with Aussie.
Keep at it.
If R.Williams does resign,as he should for not being a defender of the Christian faith, Nazir Ali knows what Sharia is all about, and unlike Mr. Williams, is prepared to oppose it in the UK, as they are doing in Australia.
“English law and the Shari’a”
http://www.archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/
But you’re forgetting something important d00ds.
That fuqqer who had his conversation bugged has been held without charge for over 3 1/2 years!
I agree. I saw a bit of Newsnight whilst I was waiting for the dog to come inside from doing his bidness.
The piece opened with the title (forgive me, I can’t rememeber the exact words), ‘A Big Fuss Over Nothing?’ or something along those lines, suggesting that the majority of the British population were morons and just didn’t get it (and if they’d only read the Guardian, listen to some Razorlight, Klaxons, Arctic Monkeys, Kaiser Chiefs or any of the other talentless, non-musical, posers that constitute 90% of the British Music Scene, then they might), but then went on to have the Beeboid, who produced the show in which Dr. Williams made a fool of himself, read out some of the more hilarious comments (‘Imam of Canterbury’ &c.), and some guy floating above what looked like an illuminated mosque talking about British resentment of Muslims since 7/7 (imagine that…), and a woman who’d written a book about Islam (which, in light of recent government proposals may need have its title changed) talking about Shar’ia in Canada.
But the report/piece/whatever it’s referred to in media-speak was pretty good, the basic crux of being that it should be one people, one law.
Then they went back to the studio with Jeremy Paxman, and I wanted to watch it, really I did, because I know Paxman has a reputation for being a hardass, but the first guest was Tariq Ramadan (Islam’s equivalent of that great Christian scholar, Billy Christmas), who’s a documented anti-Semite, Islamic Terrorist sympathiser and is renowned for bullshitting to kufir, which, when Paxman asked him about whether Shar’ia was inevitable in the UK, and he said no, that it stood a good chance of being a lie.
But up till that point, I thought Newsnight was very good. And that isn’t you understand, because it chimed with what I think, but because it seemed fairly balanced, i.e. non-biased.
This is getting beyond a joke now. David Vance – take your obsessive islamophobia elsewhere and let this blog get back to concentrating on genuine examples of BBC bias – of which there are many!
Well Aussie, has a point. I’ve seen manys a post on ATW where David will tell some ‘don’t dare to presume you will get an answer from me’, and words to that effect. If David is gonna call william on what he says, and call the BBC on what they say, then same rule applies, David or any of us should be called on what we say.
I am dumbfounded at the threat of censor ship due to bad language by David. I’ve had this out with him on a number of occassions. Particularly about one female American poster ‘writer’ whose language and inuendo are more than unladylike to say the least, and on other things too, to be told it was an adult site. Is this not an adult site?
C’mon now David, if we’re calling others on bias, lets not be biased ourselves – why don’t you answer auzzie?
Is this really an example of BBC bias? Or merely weak journalism? The two are not the same.
To suggest this is an example of institutional bias (along with other recent articles) is to suggest that the BBC has an internal agenda to push for the introduction of Sharia law in the UK. Which is plainly nonsense, and anyone who believes otherwise needs their head examining.
The BBC and the islamic extremists have formed an unholy alliance in the goal of creating legitamacy to the expanding islamic empire in Europe.
They have done this by championing and crushing debate on islamic immigration. The creation of a EU sperstate and turkish membership. And prefering multi-culturalism rather than integration.
“To suggest this is an example of institutional bias (along with other recent articles) is to suggest that the BBC has an internal agenda to push for the introduction of Sharia law in the UK”
No. The BBC has a stated aim of “social cohesion”.The bias lies in the downplaying or airbrushing out anything that might be deemed by the BBC as damaging social cohesion.
The bottom line is,the BBC is deliberately obscuring the full story.That Sharia courts have been operating in the UK for some time has been ignored by the BBC.It has taken the epic gaffe of Rowan Williams to bring even this much to public attention.
The ‘explanation’ of Sharia and its operation in areas such as India and Nigeria on the BBC website bends over backwards to be ‘fair’ to the application of such laws.
For example, the writer chooses to go out of his way to point out that ‘only’ 2% of Muslim men in India elect to be polygamists. Let’s translate that. The population of Inida is around 1.2bn. Muslims form 13% or so of the total. That means that there are probably at least 4m polygamous marriages (in Britain, there are around 14m marriages in total)- adding up to an awful lot of human exploitation and misery.
The article also says that Nigeria Sharia courts ‘may provide a quicker, more efficient route to justice than alternatives’. But at what price? There is nothing whatsoever about the impact on women.
This is what the respected Human Rights group observed in its interim report about Sharia laws in the proivinces which had adopted them:
Women have been especially affected in cases of adultery or extramarital sex, where standards of evidence differ for men and for women, and pregnancy is considered sufficient evidence to convict a woman. Judges have also failed to investigate allegations of rape made by female defendants in adultery cases. The imposition of Shari’a has corresponded to increased restrictions for women in their day-to-day life, affecting their freedom of movement and association as well as their style of dress. Women have been harassed by Shari’a enforcement groups, known as “hisbah,” set up by state governments. The hisbah have also carried out abuses against suspected male offenders, particularly those suspected of drinking alcohol.
The BBC: disingenuous apologists for the Islamist state subjugation of women.
Peter,
Well said. The outrage here has been the operation of Shar’ia courts, in clear abrogation of British law. That’s something the BBC has been curiosly mute about.
There is no such thing as integrationism under liberalism, as it would require illiberal measures to enforce, such as thre shutting down of mosques and the busing of school children all around cities to ensure all the schools receive a broad mix of pupils to facilitate integrationism.
Remember Ray Honeyford? He suggested the above and his life was ruined by the Stasi and Storm Troopers of PC: Ethnic minority interest groups.
The simplest solution to the whole mess is to restrict immigration. But that ain’t gonna happen with the way things are going. So this is how liberalism declines into tyranny.
i have to say that bbc’s mark easton was pretty gung ho last night representing the mainstream views.
some others such as toady and r5 have been their usual dhimi selves.
A of C was heard bleating that his tortured text didn’t mean that he was pro paralell legal systems. Easton said that in his view it clearly did say that. A of C was exposed as a dhimmi and trying to spin/lie his way out of the s***storm he created.
well done easton!
When it comes up on Listen Again, tonight’s “Saturday PM” article on this was a corker. First they led with the calls to resign (fair enough, although they did use a Sir Bufton Tufton layperson from the General Synod to provide evidence) and then they carried on with a barrister who has studied the Sharia system, clearly supports it and discounted one case that has been used in newspaper articles as “it was a Somali community court, not a Sharia court”. At no point was his view that parallel “community legal systems” are a good thing challenged, nor was any alternative point of view mentioned.
There’s something in this country that is at least as bad as Sharia law. Psychiatry. It relies on oppressive laws to abduct and abuse people for illnesses that don’t exist (to be ‘sectioned’).
You lot really are cracked.
Alright, the Archbishop has said something mildly controversial about integrating a few minor parts of Sharia law, which, I must admit, when taken entirely out of context, distorted and accompanied by stories about beheadings, lashes and stonings, becomes a bit more controversial.
But what the tits has that got to do with the BBC? They begin and end the “Archbishop defends himself” story with a defence of the Archbishop. Are you really surprised? Isn’t that less a case of fanatical pro-raghead lefty bias and more a case of being consistent to the theme? Is it that the BBC wasn’t hard enough on the Archbishop. Were they a little too neutral? Is that how they were biased, with neutrality?
All you lot ever seem to do is pick an issue that enrages you then try and fit some bias around it. If you’re going to do this petulant little right-wing circle-jerk of a job, at least try and do it well.
“All you lot ever seem to do is pick an issue that enrages you then try and fit some bias around it. If you’re going to do this petulant little right-wing circle-jerk of a job, at least try and do it well.”
You can blame Vance for that.
All you lot ever seem to do is pick an issue that enrages you then try and fit some bias around it.
Angry Young Alex | Homepage | 09.02.08 – 8:12 pm
How long have you been accessing this site? A day? Fifteen minutes?
“Alright, the Archbishop has said something mildly controversial about integrating a few minor parts of Sharia law”
“Mildly controversial”? Let us hope that the Archbishop never says anything controversial then.
What do you regard as controversial changing his name to Damian and conducting black masses?
Bryan:
How long have you been accessing this site? A day? Fifteen minutes?
A very long time, by the look of it.
.
I regard Williams as the Archbigot of Canterbury, bigoted against his own kind.
I just saw the funnniest thing on the BBC News homepage. Dunno the technical term for the tape thingy that runs along the top, but it says this:
Archbishop “overstated case” for Sharia law, Lord Carey says.
There’s a case for it? There ain’t no hope, there really ain’t with people like this in top positions.
On and off, for a year or so.
And yes, I stand by my ‘mildly controversial’. He said certain parts of Sharia law should be included, not the hand-chopping or the rape-victim-stoning, just a few items of family and civil law to be settled by religious courts should all parties consent, for which there is already adequate provision in British law and a privilege which is extended to Talmidic law.
Besides, as a Briton born and bred I consider understatement a fundamental part of my speech, which unfortunately for the Anti-Aunty brigade means I agree with everything I criticise.
Peter | 09.02.08 – 5:30 pm | #
That Sharia courts have been operating in the UK for some time has been ignored by the BBC.It has taken the epic gaffe of Rowan Williams to bring even this much to public attention.
Not true.
Some time last year the BBC did an investigation into sharia courts already operating.
It’s being repeated Sunday. Details here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/law_in_action/7235428.stm
Alex – it’s David Vance who has shown an obsession with Islam/Sharia in the past few weeks, not everyone else. He IS using this blog to advance his own personal agenda – it’s obvious to all but a few.
David Vance:
“It’s a tough call for you, but then again I imagine most things in life are like that for you.”
No, I think you definitely win in this case. Rowan Williams doesn’t know he’s a pompous arse, whereas you actually make him look responsible and nuanced.
I can’t say I’m Bishop Weirdy-ap-Beardy’s greatest fan. I vehemently disagree with his remarks. But I get a sneaking suspicion the populace is letting the media (and that includes the BBC as well as many other outlets) whip us all up into a frenzy here.
A few years ago, as I’m sure we all remember, the Pope made a speech in which he quoted a Byzantine Emperor’s less-than-flattering views of Islam. Within hours the BBC and the rest of the media had effectively painted His Holiness as a wreckless hate-filled anti Muslim Bigot in the eyes of Joe Public.
As it happened, the Pope had gone on in that speech to mention how he did not condone those views, and the media had taken that little quote out of context and blown it out of all proportion. By the time anyone realised the truth the frenzy had commenced and the only thing to do was let it all calm down.
I have just read the Archbishop’s speech. I admit it casts a very flowery rose-tinted light on Sharia Law throughout. But at no point (and I have read it quite thoroughly) can I find the Archbishop actually saying anything to the effect of “we should introduce Sharia Law to the British legal system”.
Finally, the media seem perfectly content to let another point get ignored. The Archbishop’s speech was to a group of lawyers and was titled: “Civil and Religious Law in England: A Religious Viewpoint”.
In other words, what the hell do people expect a religious person to do in a speech with that title? Clash the symbols of secularism and call for the destruction of all religious buildings on the planet?
In other words, yes, Williams has well and truly put his foot in a big pile of the brown smelly stuff and should have known better. Sharia Law is not something we should ever allow in this country, full stop. But at the same time, I get the strong impression that the media is simply getting a kick (and I apologise for the unfortunate wording) out of crucifying him.
Correction: It’s “Civil and Religious Law in England: A Religious Perspective” rather than “Viewpoint”.
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
John Reith you tell us
That Sharia courts have been operating in the UK for some time has been ignored by the BBC.It has taken the epic gaffe of Rowan Williams to bring even this much to public attention.
‘Not true.
Some time last year the BBC did an investigation into sharia courts already operating.
It’s being repeated Sunday. Details here:’
Who asked the BBC for its opinion on this or any other matter? I’m well aware that the BBC has an opinion and is eager to offer it in exchange for the TV tax, but what evidence does anyone have that we are all waiting for what the BBC has to say?
John, please tell your employer to get some manners. Tell it to sell to willing customers only.
And John, if you had any self respect at all you wouldn’t get a wage selling to a captive audience who have to pay you whatever you manufacture. Perhaps you are unable to get a wage from any other source.
Before Al Beeb provides the Swiss-born Muslim activist, TARIQ RAMADAN, with even more overtime appearances on tv and radio to talk at us non-Muslims and anti-Islam British about the joys of Sharia law, all Al Beeb presenters should read this book:-
‘Brother Tariq: The Doublespeak of Tariq Ramadan’ by Caroline Fourest:-
“I get the strong impression that the media is simply getting a kick (and I apologise for the unfortunate wording) out of crucifying him.”
Even if we did crucify him would that insure us against the creep of Sharia? No it wouldn’t. We must introduce a sane immigration policy.
interesting to ponder on the opposite of Xenophonia, for which an earlier poster coined the word ‘Oikophobia’.
I’ve often thought that the root problems are indeed decades of suicidal tendencies of so many of our so called intellectuals to leave no stone unturned in this work of cultural self destruction.
can you really blame the Islamists in eggimg on our own cultural suicide to further their aims- aims which are firmly rooted in the Qu’ran?
In Australia, for exammple which DOES not have a millenium of western culture behind it, Islamists have made little inroads. Perhaps it is because they can not play the “destroy your own culture card and accept Islam as its worthwhile replacemen”.
Apart from the awful treatment of Aboriginals, Australia has little “imperialist” history to be ashamed of and a culture of Guilt cannot be spun to achieve shame to benefit the encroachments.
Aussie bystander,
If criticising a church leader who endorses Sharia Law in the UK is deemed unreasonable, I pray God I continue to be very unreasonable. Your comments here are consistently detached from reality and provide some entertainment. But don’t overdo your comedy routine as it does become a tad dull after a while.
BBC Website this morning:
“BBC News religious affairs correspondent Robert Pigott said it was “pretty inconceivable” that Dr Williams would resign.”
So that is bloody that then. End of story.
They do not report any longer, the opinions of their own creatures are the news too.
Who elected Mr Robert Pigott?
Who has he spoken to?
How many people has he spoken to?
Has he spoken to anyone except his cronies and people in the pub?
How has he come to this conclusion?
What qualifications on this subject has he got?
Who appointed him to this job?
What political affiliations has he got?
Has he taken a bung for saying this? There is no current law that stops him doing so.
We should know if he has personal interests in this story?
.
The fig leaf given to Mr. R.Williams by elements of the BBC (and others) to justify his musings about having elements of Sharia law operating in the UK, is that it ‘opens up a debate’.
So, will the BBC (and others) now ‘open up a debate’ about restricting Muslim immigration into the UK, in view of this?:-
“Minister warns of ‘inbred’ Muslims”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3342040.ece
Hi,
I’m not planning on getting particularly involved in a debate here, since I’m sure my employer precludes me from being taken seriously (I’m not as eloquent as Mr Reith), but I really wanted to have my say on this subject.
I have worked in BBC news for over two years – not as a journalist, admittedly, but certainly closely WITH journalists. Not one of my colleagues agree in any way with what Williams has said, but a lot of discussion (my god, what looong discussions) about how to report this independently have taken place almost hourly. The story itself is Williams’ comments about Sharia law, not the viability of Sharia law, as so many of those unbiased blacktops have reported.
With that in mind, several pieces regarding criticism of him have run on the Beeb so it is perfectly acceptable for an article to appear with Williams defending himself.
Do licence fee payers really want the BBC spreading fear and hatred about Muslims? Reporting only the worst aspects of their religion as well as the facts?
When people sit on either wing – left OR right – they will see bias in neutral reporting. But that’s a wider discussion, of course. In this case, the ‘right’ will see the BBC supporting Sharia law and defending Williams by giving him a platform, and the ‘left’ will say the BBC were irresponsible to run images of amputees and floggings on the 10 o’clock news.
I usually enjoy this blog – have even agreed with it a couple of times – but this story is just another case of engineering bias. Which seems to have increased of late.
An annoying American view: as an occasional visitor to this site, I’d just about given up on it — seemingly ravaged and wrecked by Andrew Bowman, to be written off as just another weak attempt to arrest Britain’s dismal decline.
FWIW — and yes, many will say, nothing — Mr Vance seems to have lots of the right stuff, judged by the buttock-clenching and white knuckles now in plain view.
What’s wrong with an agenda to jostle your craven Establishment into contact with reality? Those who believe Williams and the BBC are both unfit for purpose have every right to say so, and to act on it and hold accountable those they believe are responsible.
If the thought of direct democratic action makes some here uncomfortable, jolly good, go eat crow.