You will recall that we discussed the story the other day of how an Anglican priest was viciously attacked by “asian youths” in Tower Hamlets in London. The BBC apologists that frequent this space immediately took issue with my suggestion that the “asian youths” were, in all likelihood, Muslims. They also cheered the BBC’s refusal to suggest that there may have been any Muslim involvement. But guess what – the BBC has now run a story entitled “Muslims denounce attack on priest”! Abdul Qayum, imam of the East London Mosque, also said: “Our congregation is united in condemnation. The imam described the attack as “cowardly and despicable.” Now naturally all condemnation of such brutality is welcome but isn’t it odd that whilst the BBC steadfastly refuses to suggest that Muslims may have been the perpetrators of this violence, it provides a soap-box for Muslims to make clear that they oppose all such attacks. The thing is that this same East London Mosque hosted Saudi cleric Abdul Rahman al-Sudais, who refers to Jews as monkeys and pigs and in 2004 was denied entry into Canada. It also has Muhammad Abdul Bari, the guy who believes the UK should adopt Islamic arranged marriages, as chairman. Moderation incarnate.
THOSE MYSTERIOUS YOUTHS – UPDATE.
Bookmark the permalink.
Spot the similarity between Hillhunt and John Reith’s attitude to criticism of Muslims. Appeasement is the way forward. Don’t stir them up.
Hillhunt | 16.03.08 – 8:19 pm
“rabid foaming about Islam frequently posted here”
Rabid foaming? Using emotive language to discredit critics of Islam is exactly what you are criticising them for, if you don’t like it why do it yourself.
Hillhunt again:
“there are many in the real world who have no compunction in stirring up tensions at the tiniest excuse, that something you want to encourage”
So don’t rock the boat? Afraid of a few tensions between the benevolent Muslims and the volatile rabid foamers at the mouth? Careful now, musn’t alienate the Muslims by stirring things up. John Reith agrees. Keep ‘em onside.
John Reith | 18.03.08 – 12:04 pm | #
“Now, when the authorities are trying to get ordinary UK Muslims onside in the struggle against Islamist extremism • how helpful are you being?……….”
Tread carefully, you mad rabid Islamophobes.
The Hamas charter, the PLO charter, the desire to destroy Israel, various other hateful edicts against women, death to apostates, fundamental hatred of Jews and Infidels at the very core of the religion of peace? They don’t really mean it. Ordinary Muslims, the everyday ones, realise, deep down, that they’re only joking from the pulpit.
But tread carefully, just in case.
John Reith suggests “Let’s equate it with ‘regarding all Jews as haredim and assessing Jewish culture solely in terms of somewhat strict Rabbinical teachings composed in Eastern Europe a hundred years ago.’ ”
Yes, those evil Jews of a hundred years ago, calling for world domination and death to the Muslims, we know they’re a million miles away, just like moderate Muslims, from secular Jews nowadays……………….apart from the cabals, lobbies and control of world finance, and loyalty to apartheid Israel that we know lies behind those secular rabid foaming at the mouth Jews. But we won’t mention that right now because we’re doing an analogy that is supposed to prove that ordinary Muslims are on our side.
John Reith again:
“This isn’t helpful in prosecuting the ‘war on terror’ or whatever you want to call it.”
Instead, the BBC implements tactics to ‘help.’ In the interest of harmony and cohesion, naturally.
Minimise acts of unpleasantness by the religion of peace. Don’t speculate, too inflammatory. On the other hand, do speculate about cabals lobbies and affiliations with Israel. Confine criticism of Islam to a tiny few extremists on the fringe, and don’t mention hate-filled calls for death to Jews spouted from many mosques and printed in myriad publications, and shown to multitudes on children’s television, and seen and believed by millions on Islamic websites.
John Reith again:
“…………….Taken all together, this site comes close to incitement to hatred.”
If you dislike incitement to hatred, why tolerate blatant anti-semitism on the part of Muslim imams and clerics that are the stock in trade of many Mosques. Your defense of ordinary Muslims includes “(they) seldom go to mosques.” What does that say? They’re O.k. if they’re not Muslims?
The BBC says ‘Ordinary Muslims are nice, and are not Muslims.’
The world has gone mad.
Sue:
Had been missing you, but this….
So don’t rock the boat? Afraid of a few tensions between the benevolent Muslims and the volatile rabid foamers at the mouth? Careful now, musn’t alienate the Muslims by stirring things up.
…just makes me sad.
What I also said was this:
Whilst the call for complete transparency on reporting of racial and religious conflict is a reasonable one, it’s also rational, and ethical, to avoid causing tension by publishing speculation which may yet turn out to be wrong.
Not the same thing, is it?
Hillhunt.
Hoped you’d got rid of me?
John Reith has accused me, Bryan and others time and time again of being part of a cabal. Is that acceptable? If you think that’s not speculation I don’t know what is.
It’s also not the first time John Reith has warned me that my complaints – that the BBC is demonising Israel and whitewashing Islam – are ‘not helping.’
Neville Chamberlain lives.
Sue | 21.03.08 – 7:06 pm,
Thanks for that comprehensive analysis of the sly methods of our resident Islamic/BBC propagandists.
And thanks for the chuckles.
Sue:
John Reith has accused me, Bryan and others time and time again of being part of a cabal. Is that acceptable? If you think that’s not speculation I don’t know what is.
Far be it from me to suggest that this blog is full of the wildest speculation, but it, um, is…
Not sure why Reith speculating is any more or less problematic than the usual haphazard assumptions that the BBC supports terror, anti-semitism, New Labour, gay militancy, the imposition of sharia and/or a hatred of people in cars.
The issue is not whether a lot of part-time opinionistas might hazard the odd guess but whether a professional news organisation should light a potential fuse under community unrest when it can’t be sure of its facts.
I would like to speculate that if you spent more time with your Poulenc and a lot less with la Phillips, you’d quickly regain that wit and warmth which characterised your earlier contributions.
.
A teen has now been arrested for this attack:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7306810.stm
I don’t want to be facetious but it’s notable that there is still no rioting, and even the Guardian thinks its readers should be informed of the speculation and debate around the motives for the attack:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/inayat_bunglawala/2008/03/jihad_or_alcohol.html
Hugh:
I don’t want to be facetious but it’s notable that there is still no rioting
Not facetious in any way, but who, exactly, was predicting rioting if the police made an arrest?
even the Guardian thinks its readers should be informed of the speculation and debate around the motives for the attack:
I’m trying hard not to be facetious but you’d be hard placed to extract that meaning from the Grauniad article you linked to.
It actually points out that the vicar’s wife and a colleague had both explained the attack in terms of drunkenness and criticised the Telegraph for ignoring this whilst concentrating on the Muslim angle.
Alcohol-fuelled antisocial incidents are worrying and reprehensible enough without being hijacked by those with a not so subtle anti-Muslim agenda of their own.
Time to walk your animal again.
.
Jihadwatch takes on the Rowntree Foundation (BBC-like) ‘multiculturalist’ appeasement of Islam in the UK, and the Daily Mail’s inaccurate categorisations:
‘UK study: Non-Muslims must do more to make Muslims feel at home’:-
“The witless Daily Mail headlines this piece “Whites ‘must do more to help Muslims feel at home’ says research group.” But what about white Muslims in Britain, like my old pal Yusuf Smith? Who will make him feel at home?
“This kind of stupid reporting just clouds the fact that Islam is not a race, and the problem of Muslim assimilation in Britain is not one of race, but of whether or not the Muslims there are willing to set aside Islamic supremacism, renounce all attempts to impose Sharia by violent or peaceful means, and work energetically to root jihadists out of their communities. But there is none of that in this report — the onus is all on the ‘whites’ to make them feel at home. The idea that many of them might not wish to feel at home, but to transform Britain into a place that is very like the place where they left, as many of them have openly avowed, never enters into the equation.”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/020409.php
hillhunt | 21.03.08 – 9:43 pm | #
“Not sure why Reith speculating is any more or less problematic than……”
The speculation we were discussing originated over the BBC’s reluctance to pinpoint (Muslim) the religion of the racist attacker when they happily speculate over sinister motives behind (Jewish) political funding, or Palestinian motives for targeting ‘settler movement’ students. But I used John Reith’s nasty innuendos about lobbies and cabals that time instead of going over all the other stuff again.
“the usual haphazard assumptions that the BBC supports terror, anti-semitism, New Labour, gay militancy, the imposition of sharia and/or a hatred of people in cars.”
Take your eye off the ball for a second and things revert to default. I admit failure to make any impact on an immovable object.
All my efforts at laying out my case, and I probably flatter myself, have merely resulted in coaxing you out of a worrying KKK fixation. And I may have spoken too soon about that.
You defend the BBC come what may. You don’t work for the BBC. You do this out of the goodness of your heart, not unlike our beloved headmaster, in fact.
Now, in the voice of Alison Steadman as Beverley, I have to say:
You know why I am here. You know why Bryan is here. You even know why Martin is here. But, Hillhunt, why are You here?
Sue:
Hillhunt, why are You here?
Because you’re all here.
.
Hillhunt: “who…was predicting rioting if the police made an arrest?”
Yes, it was hyperbole. However, I did take ‘lighting a fuse under community unrest’ to mean something more than harsh words. My point is that despite widespread reporting of this case and the potential Muslim involvement there have not, in fact, been any problems as far as I have seen
“It actually points out that the vicar’s wife and a colleague had both explained the attack in terms of drunkenness and criticised the Telegraph for ignoring this whilst concentrating on the Muslim angle.”
Yes, and in doing so also reveals that there is some debate. It refers to Phillips rather different take, for example (not, obviously, in flattering terms). Clearly it’s one sided. It’s a Guardian comment piece. It’s also right about the Telegraph’s report. However, it is yet another news organisation that doesn’t think these issues are simply off limits. The point is that there is good scope and evident use for an impartial take on this, and it would not be irresponsible to provide it.
“Time to walk your animal again.”
How did you know?
Hugh:
I did take ‘lighting a fuse under community unrest’ to mean something more than harsh words.
Me, too, but the widespread reporting of the Ainsworths’ conciliatory words and those of the local mosque probably ought to be taken into account.
Yes, and in doing so also reveals that there is some debate.
Between responsible. if over cautious, on one hand and the usual, inflamatory “Jihad in East Londonistan” from Ms Phillips.
Mad Mel’s take bears some examination. If anything, she demonstrates the dangers of jumping too fast on a handful of facts.
A day or so after the news broke, Mrs Ainsworth, the vicar’s wife, talked of drunkenness as the cause, as did a colleague of the vicar’s. Mel, who hadn’t talked to any of them, opted, conveniently, for Jihad.
Pissed-up kids or Islamic apocalypse. Which would you choose? Perhaps the BBC was right, waiting for further particulars…
.
Hugh, I notice that this was discussed after the evidence came out that the kids were pissed up. Not so sure this can be used as evidence of impartial reporting (I haven’t seen how the Guardian reported this previously though).
Hillhunt, if Mel P didn’t jump in without the facts, how would her book sales fare? After all, I’m sure having read her article, many thought ‘case closed’, given her confidence in the motivation.
Either way, I don’t think speculation was appropriate anywhere considering the limited information released by the police.
Hillhunt
Your presumption of madness in others I find particularly hilarious, and somehow, poignant.
For you to readily excuse violent behaviour through drunkeness in people, whether they are Muslims or not, may, for all I know, be an activity which you are personally very
experienced in.
George R, are you suggesting drunk people don’t get violent?
George R:
Specsavers for you, too…
Nowhere did I readily excuse violent behaviour through drunkeness. I pointed out that that was the motivation offered up by the vicar’s wife and a close colleague. I appreciate that many here would wish the vicar’s wife to be joining the Londonistan furore. Sadly, she offers a less exciting reason.
When you’re done with Specsavers, try English For Beginners.
What on earth does this actually mean:
“For you to readily excuse violent behaviour through drunkeness in people, whether they are Muslims or not, may, for all I know, be an activity which you are personally very experienced in.”
Hillhunt:
For meaning of words, I suggest a dictionary, and maybe a magnifying glass.
For your gratuitous insult of madness, I suggest an apology.
Alex:
Are you suggesting that Muslims don’t get violent?
George R:
It’s no so much the meanings of the words as the order you put them in…
Sorry for calling Mel mad. She’s just bonkers…
.
Ben / Hillhunt: In case there really was any doubt, I wasn’t suggesting that Mad Mel’s article was the model for the BBC to follow once I realised the Guardian piece by Inayat Bunglawala wouldn’t do. I think it might be possible to find some middle ground between those two for a news report.
Also, yes, the “widespread reporting of the Ainsworths’ conciliatory words” may well have helped prevent retaliatory attacks, you’re right – although they weren’t reported in the BBC pieces of course.
And that’s another point. Even accepting that the BBC should refuse to air the speculation of some (local churchgoers; not just Mel) that Muslims are to blame in order to prevent local friction, its reports would seem to do entirely the opposite. Just look at the latest:
“A 19-year-old man has been arrested in connection with a faith-hate attack on a clergyman…Officers are thought to be still hunting those directly behind the attack and they renewed an appeal for information.
Muslim leaders condemned the violence and labelled the three attackers “cowardly and despicable”.”
Because of the restrictions the journalist has placed on himself, the last paragraph on the face of it is a non sequitur. But, rather than think, ‘Well what about the Jews, Budists and Catholics, why haven’t they apologised?’, most readers are simply going to conclude Muslims were to blame and this was all about religion. It’s the same with the other reports from the BBC that I’ve read.
The only way I know that it’s just as likely to be down to drunk yobs rather than religious nutters is because I’ve read the Times.
Hugh:
I’m with you on the latest piece. It’s daft to quote the condemnation by Muslim leaders without context. I’m not sure the BBC is going to win the online equivalent of a Bafta on this one.
I’d walk the animal now. If I had one, and the landscape weren’t deep in snow.
.
Happy Easter.
Was the priest’s attacker a Muslim?:-
“Teenager charged over ‘faith hate’ attack on priest”
http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/content/towerhamlets/advertiser/news/story.aspx?brand=elaonline&category=news&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newsela&itemid=WeED26%20Mar%202008%2010%3A18%3A48%3A057
Well well, it turns out he was. Now, a tricky question for you:
Did the BBC know this nine days ago?
No, that’s not the interesting question. The interesting question is whether the BBC will report his religion if he is found guilty.
Well let’s jump off that bridge when we come to it, shall we?