Been away all day so just catching up! Was interested to read that the BBC’s Kommissar General Mark Thompson has admitted that the broadcaster has to tackle Islam differently to Christianity and is reluctant to broadcast jokes about it. In other words, the BBC is dhimmified, prepared to set a different standard for Islam and back away from any critique of the ROP. Not really a surprise, and we have frequently discussed how this policy manifests itself day in day out. But perhaps the more salient point is that given Thompson’s admission of bias in favour of Islam, how can the BBC continue to allege it is impartial?
NOT ALL RELIGIONS ARE EQUAL
Bookmark the permalink.
Mr Vance writes;
” But perhaps the more salient point is that given Thompson’s admission of bias in favour of Islam, how can the BBC continue to allege it is impartial?”
Well they could change the B in bBC from British to Bradford. Or they could go the whole hog and just rename themselves the MCB.
David Vance:
they can still be impartial when they are disbanded altogether.
Earlier today I had the misfortune to listen to Simon Mayo and Ricky Gervais cackling as they recalled the occasion when RG made fun of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his faith in God.
Couldn’t help but think whether they (Mayo in particular) would have found a similar attack on an Imam (or similar) quite as funny.
Pounce, Ha Ha. That would be honest rather than impartial; which would be a step in the right direction. Or in the left direction. Onwards and downwards. The march towards dhimmitude, all pretence of impartiality left behind.
Left, right, left, right, left right behind.
glj: Of course they wouldn’t. They’d end up with Fatwa’s on themselves.
A lesson, please:
England sanctified sharia by giving the muslim community sharia courts, yes? But how can sharia courts implement sharia law in Britain – what happens in a judgment, say, when they proclaim, “He petted a kafir dog! Cut off both hands at the wrists..”
An exaggeration (I hope
🙁 ) but they cannot cut off anyone’s hands and not come under British law. Or a stoning or a lashing – how does this work?
“Dominic Grieve, the shadow home secretary, said: “If it is true that these tribunals are passing binding decisions in the areas of family and criminal law, I would like to know which courts are enforcing them because I would consider such action unlawful. British law is absolute and must remain so.”
I found this in the Times, and it is what I am asking. How can this law be enforced?
In the US the Indians (our kind of Indians, not yours) have soveriegnty – a nation within a nation. But tribal powers are limited; law breakers are subject to the state, though they have their own police force. Whites (or blacks or yellows) are not allowed on the reservation.
It’s difficult to accept Mark Thompson’s defense that the BBC needs to be more sensitive about Islam than it is about Christianity because it’s a minority religion.
Mohammedans are equally sensitive in countries in which they are the majority, if not ruling class. The idea that they’re sensitive because they’re the minority doesn’t add up.
However, maximum points to Thompson for saying outright that they haven’t integrated. And he didn’t even say it’s because of nasty bigoted white Christian Britons.
He loses half of those points, though, for lying through his teeth that a show which criticized Islam would be broadcast if it was of sufficient quality, and that no religion is off limits.
It simply isn’t true. Otherwise, there would already have been a few jokes on air, and Muslim bad guys wouldn’t be erased from TV scripts. If we’re to take Thompson at his word, then all it takes to make a show of sufficient quality to broadcast is to substitute animal rights activists for Mohammedans. Yeah, right.
Spooks had lots of muslim badies.
Mark Thompson’s and the BBC’s preferential treatment of Islam derives from the ideology of ‘multiculturalism’.
One of the most intelligent critiques of multiculturalism is still this article by Paul Weston of over a year ago:
‘Multiculturalism -Merits and Debits’
[Extract]:
“Until very recently British politicians and journalists were forever eulogizing on the merits of a multicultural society. They told us how enriching it was and how we should celebrate our vibrant diversity hitherto unavailable in the racially stale and homogenous West. However, despite these outpourings of praise verging on the messianic I have yet to hear any of them elaborate on the concrete positives of multiculturalism. Just one instance would suffice but multiculturalism’s adherents prefer to praise in the general rather than the specific. As such they are just words with no meaning and no intention of meaning, other perhaps than that of deliberate subterfuge.
“After the July 2005 bombings of London’s transport system two lone voices miraculously came to the fore to gently propose that multiculturalism as preached in the UK was more divisive than inclusive. Fortunately, these voices belonged to non-white immigrants and were therefore listened to and reported on rather than being shouted down with the inevitable charge of racism.”(Paul Weston).
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/british_renaissance/blog/2007/05/28/multiculturalism__merits__debits
I have an idea for a show! The love affair and marriage of sixty two year old Mohammed to the love of his life, Aleia, the six year old bride, who vame to the wedding bed with her dolly.
High quality for sure! BBC could lift the story right out of the koran for historic accuracy.
I was amazed yesterday to hear the World Service broadcast a factual and revealing portrayal of Christians in India being attacked and brutalised. But I soon realised why there was no attempt at obfuscation here, no distortion and omission of inconvenient facts: the attackers were Hindus, not Muslims. I paraphrase:
The murder of a Hindu holy man resulted in a pogrom against Christians. Books were burned and people forced to renounce Christianity. A girl was dragged from her home and gang-raped because her father refused to renounce her faith.
Throughout the Muslim world, from Gaza to Lebanon to Indonesia and from Pakistan to Iraq, Muslims are attacking and murdering Christians, destroying their churches and forcing them to flee their homes. But in all the years that I have been listening to the World Service, I have never heard a BBC reporter present the unvarnished truth about a Muslim attack on Christians such as the report on the Hindu attack. As regulars on this blog know very well, the main tactic is to avoid all mention of the fact that the attackers are Muslims.
For some time now there has been no doubt that the BBC is riddled with sympathisers of radical Islam who will do anything they can to minimise and hide the crimes of Islam. This was highlighted today by the stark contrast in the way in which the BBC reports on Hindu violence. Of course, there is also a great deal of strife between Hindus and Muslims in India. This no doubt affects the BBC’s attitude to Hindus, so besotted is the BBC with Islam.
This is a very timely post, David Vance. Over on the BBC’s World Have Your Say blog last night they were discussing whether it’s “time for Christians to defend themselves.”
http://worldhaveyoursay.wordpress.com/2008/10/15/on-air-is-it-time-for-christians-to-defend-themselves/
They can’t see the absurdity of the question. How do Christians, as a small minority in Muslim countries, defend themselves against oppression, dispossession and brutal attacks? But one organisation that Christians really can start defending themselves against is the despicable, pro-Islam BBC.
betyangelo | 15.10.08 – 11:23 pm
Followed by
The Jewel of Medina, The Aftermath.
or Towering Inferno 2
Before anyone accuses US Native Americans (the term long preferred over “Indians”) of racial discrimination, please note that while tribes have the theoretical power to bar non-tribal members from reservations, in practice they never do. I have personally been on several reservations and the worst I have suffered is the inability to get a drink with dinner because various Tribal Councils, such as that in Cherokee, North Carolina, sensitive to high rates of alcoholism, ban alcohol from their reservation.
Kommissar THOMPSON will be politically comfortable in enforcing on the British people, the European Union’s diktats on Islam:
“The EURABIA Code – 2008 Updates” (by Fjordman):
[Extract, opening paragraph]:
“My essay The Eurabia Code was published in 2006, inspired by Bat Ye’or’s groundbreaking book Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis. I have chosen to reproduce The Eurabia Code almost unchanged in my upcoming book Defeating Eurabia, but will include some updates. What has happened since 2006 is that European leaders are increasingly open about the idea of enlarging the EU to include the Arab world, although they do of course not present this as surrendering the continent to Islam. This hasn’t been a total secret previously • in 2002 Louis Michel, the then Belgian minister of foreign affairs and today a member of the European Commission, told the Belgian parliament that the EU will eventually encompass North Africa and the Middle East as well as Europe • but why go public with this now? My theory is that EU leaders consider their people to be defeated and irrelevant. After the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty/European Constitution, the people no longer have a say and can safely be ignored. They have held us in contempt for years and no longer care to hide this. We are sheep and constitute no threat while they must continue appeasing the Muslims.”
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3590
Yes Bryan
any chance the Beeb will run this story or better still spin it as an act propagate by Hindus
from CNN, October 15:
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) — The number of Christian families who have fled the northern Iraqi city of Mosul in the past week has reached 1,350, authorities said Wednesday.
Nineveh Deputy Governor Khasro Goran said the new numbers were provided by the provincial city’s office of immigration and displaced persons.
The families fled, reportedly frightened by a series of killings and threats by Muslim extremists ordering them to convert to Islam or face possible death, Iraqi officials said.
Fourteen Christians have been slain in the past two weeks in the city, which is located about 260 miles (420 kilometers) north of Baghdad.
whitewineliberal | 15.10.08 – 11:08 pm |
Spooks had lots of muslim badies.
Not lots, surely. Maybe three in 60 episodes? But when there are Islamic bad guys, there is usually an innocent, moderate Muslim trying to intervene, or escape from nasty foreign influences. Or they’re just not domestic ones, which makes it easier.
When the Evangelical Christian murdered abortionists, was there a trendy vicar trying to talk him out of it? When an Evangelical Christian assassinated a Muslim cleric, was there a “good” Christian provided as balance? What about when it’s Israelis? No scripts were changed lest they promote the idea that all Israeli actions are nasty and devious, or that all Evangelical Christians aren’t dangerous nutters?
I see the BNP is running with the Thompson story
http://www.bnp.org.uk/2008/10/shock-horror-we-do-treat-islam-differently-says-bbc-boss/
Lots of fruity comments:
“The BBC is the classic example of the mess that is created when the gutless middle class are left to their own cowardly devices.”
“The BBC hasn’t been impartial since the mid 60’s!”
“the indigenous, JudeoChristian majority are treated as second class citizens in OUR OWN country!
This story is a disgrace and it shows just how Dhimmitude has taken root in our government, establishment and of course our media – especially the publically funded BBC.”
“Burka Blessing Cowards.”
“It is a supreme irony that all those left-wing media types who claim to take such pride in challenging accepted norms, and provoking controversy, have suddenly turned into lilly-livered quivering cowards when it comes to any criticism or satirical comment about Islam.”
Not much I could disagree with there.
As long as the big parties (and their freinds at the BBC) ignore and denigrate the very real anguish and pain being felt by indiginous working class people, the BNP is gonna prosper.
I live on a council estate in Salford, and I’ll tell you this; the people round here are angry and resentful about and feeling powerless and ignored, but they’ll never vote Tory as long as they’ve got holes in their arses. The BNP will fill the void.
It seems The Guardian agrees:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/13/thefarright-creditcrunch
“Don’t let the BNP break through.
The far right is in position to prosper if Labour fails to address its traditional supporters’ grievances”
A surprising number of the comments say much the same thing. Maybe even the left are starting to ‘get it’ regarding Islam and mass immigration. Not the snivelling, sycophantic dhimmis at the BBC though.
why on earth is the bnp using the (already fairly meaningless) term judeochristian? are fair few of these are in fact holocaust deniers. i mean, i can kind of see why american politicians use that word, but the bnp?
James:
there are more anti-semites in the Labour and Tory parties – and the BBC – than the BNP.
If Hitler had claimed that Mein Kampf was dictated to him by God, would the BBC now refuse to braodcast anything critical of National Socialism?
‘Cranmer’ has:
“BBC: Islam should be treated more sensitively than Christianity”
[Extract]:
“Yet Mr Thompson insists that the BBC would broadcast programmes that are critical of Islam ‘if they were of sufficient quality’.
“And therein lies the unattainable prerequisite. For this ‘quality’ would have to conform to all the BBC’s self-imposed, politically-correct red tape about ‘respect’, ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’, not to mention its responsibility to preach the gospel of relativism and pluralism. And so nothing critical of Islam, the Qur’an, Allah or Mohammed will ever be broadcast by the BBC, for to do so would offend, divide, incite, cause civil strife, and endanger the peace and security of the realm.”
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2008/10/bbc-islam-should-be-treated-more.html
(Thanks to ‘Geoff’,General thread,6:04 am.)
“Before anyone accuses US Native Americans (the term long preferred over “Indians”) of racial discrimination, please note that while tribes have the theoretical power to bar non-tribal members from reservations, in practice they never do.”
Hi David:
I beg to differ, as I live in New Mexico, a state with large Indian nations – Apache, Navajo, and the various pueblo Indians. Signs posted at the borders proclaim no entry except by invitation, no pictures, etc… It isn’t racism. They are preserving heritage, and they don’t like tourists treating them like critters in a zoo. I don’t blame them at all. You cannot compare the east coast Cherokee, who have lost their culture to tourism, to the western native Indians, there is absolutely no comparison AT ALL. Nor has the sacred Indian bullshit anything to do with reality, i.e., dream catchers, etc…Indians are the biggest litterers on the planet!!
Also reality, is that nobody substitutes Native American for Indian, not even Indians.
You had dinner on a reservation – at a casino? I don’t doubt you – but this would be on the east coast, where as I said they have had their culture redifined by white fans of “Dances with Wolves”, i.e., the sacred Indian bull shit, unless of course you were at a casino, but there likker flows freely.
I have been to the pueblo on feast days, by invite, but for the most part – 99.99999% – folks of any color, even red of another tribe, are discouraged from entering tribal lands except on tribal business. You just are not welcome unless invited. White women married to native men are welcome to live with their native husbands on the rez, However, native women who marry non native men, white black or green, are NOT. They are preserving their heritage and languages by these decrees, and that is their right as a nation within a nation.
betyangelo | 17.10.08 – 3:24 pm |
I grew up in the next state over, right in the middle of two reservations. Your comments pretty much match my experience.
If we’re honest, the only reason white people ever wanted to go to the reservations at all was to buy kachina dolls, squash-blossom necklaces, and tax-free cigarettes. Nowadays it’s that plus gambling.
Hey Dave P:
Thanks for having my back! I know so many who have moved here, particularly from Cali, who were so excited to add the “Native American” to their list of social experiences, and who since reality set in, feel bewildered, even duped, still looking for “real Indians”.
The one who slept a drunk off in our barn left a lit cigarette and burned it to the ground.
But, this is America, and people love their sacred Indian bull shit, and the Indians make money. “shrug”
I think it’s a minority thing.
Muslims are a minority in this country so it’s a bit more off to pick on them, whereas the Church (with a capital C) is the establishment and thus fair game.
I don’t think that philosophy is necessarily fair, though.
magic dave | 17.10.08 – 6:36 pm |
Muslims are a minority in this country so it’s a bit more off to pick on them, whereas the Church (with a capital C) is the establishment and thus fair game.
I don’t think that philosophy is necessarily fair, though.
It’s not only unfair, but a false premise. Muslims are equally sensitive – if not more so – in places in which they are the absolute majority. It’s nothing to do with religion, but with the culture from which this mindset derives.
Other minority groups in Britain don’t seem to have the same problems. There’s a reason for that, one which Mark Thompson actually mentioned the other day when giving your “minority” excuse”: the majority of them integrate. Mohammedans, not so much. They don’t want to, and because of happy multi-culti policies, they don’t have to. Rather, society has to dramatically adjust to them. Curiously (actually, not), Muslims in the US don’t have quite the same isolation as they do in the UK and Europe. And we’re all supposedly much more racist than the UK and Europe, right? Immigration policies and geography has a lot to do with that, of course. The US media has nothing like the same gag order as the BBC, yet there are no massive protests, or an increase in anti-Muslim violence. Not a bit. Muslims are even more of a minority here than in the UK, so using Mark Thompson’s logic they ought to be even more sensitive. Why aren’t they? Integration, combined with the reasons they’re here in the first place.
Muslims are not more sensitive simply because they’re a minority religion. Complete smokescreen. Their sensitivity is not our fault.
When I see a Muslim version of “Goodness Gracious Me”, I’ll change my mind.
By censoring in this way the BBC has effectively killed satire.
One thing that has been noticeable in recent years is that the BBC’s comedy output has become more and more bland.
The decline of British satire has been bought about largely by the BBC.
It is increasingly common to see jokes made on US TV which the Beeb would never dare broadcast (South Park and Family Guy for example).
Why don’t you read what he actually said you narrow minded muppet.