…
Following on from the posts by Natalie and Laban, I was interested to listen to the item concerning on Today this morning concerning the British doctor Humayra Abedin, who has been freed from family captivity and the prospect of a forced marriage by a court in Dhaka. There seems to be a missing word and it begins with M…..?
There’s an explanation:
“A person telling the truth is focussed on revealing information, whereas a person telling a lie is focused on hiding information, and patterns can be detected if you know what to look for.”
Lie detection expert Gary Meaker, advising on how to spot liars and their lies.
Begins with M… okay…
er….
Mugabe?
Marxist-Leninism?
Matalan?
Marshmallow?
Melanie Philips?
…
Megacephaly?
I love these games, but do you have to make them so difficult? Couldn’t you give us a clue David?
Well it’s clear that she herself isn’t muslim.
Just as a point of clarification, the doctor is not British – although the BBC have reported that she is. She has been working in Britain, but she is Bangladeshi. I’m not quite sure why the British authorities have got involved, although I have no objection to them using what influence they can to save her from what looked like pretty awful fate.
Newsflash!
Some Imams ‘biased against women’
Also in the news…
Bears defecate in forested areas
Pope Benedict discovered to have ‘religious views’
Link didnt work:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7783627.stm
Anybody notice the usde of the word “missing” in the headline to this item.
Missing – like the Lindbergh kid or Natascha Kampusch ?
Not kidnapped then, just “missing”.
PS: The BBC would identify anyone who has ever looked at a photograph of Big Ben or watched an episode of East Enders as “British”, regardless of where they come from or currently reside.
Except of course, if you are a disposessed white Zimbabwean farmer, in which case you are correctly termed the spawn of satan.
Although the BBC now makes a bigger thing of the Bangladeshi, Humayra Abedin, and forced marriage case, on this expanded webpage, the BBC STILL avoids the ‘M’ word:
“The fight against forced marriage”
What fight BBC? The BBC’s? What a sick headline.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7783351.stm
This case is merely a reminider of one massively expensive problem (economically, sociallly, culturally and emotionally) which Labour has imported and imposed on the British indigenous people through its stealth, mass immigration policy,and which continues. Vote Labour for mass immigration.
The Centre for Social Cohesion has this-
[Extract]:
“Gona Saed, director
of Middle East Centre for Women’s Rights, says:
‘There is suspicion of any outsiders. One very big issue around forced
marriage is Sharia law and marrying a non-Muslim. In Islamic Sharia
law a Muslim woman is strictly forbidden to marry a non-Muslim. For
example, if a girl falls in love with a guy at college and he is not a Muslim,
the family will object to the marriage, definitely. They will
probably force her to stop seeing him and marry someone else.'”
(‘Crimes of the Community’ a full 169 page report, available in pdf format)
Click to access CrimesOfTheCommunity.pdf
yup, noticed that too , this morning when driving into work on the Today programme.
in order to enlighten listeners on this curious attribute of British people they introduced a former forced-marriage girl went by the anonymous name of “Sophia”.
Is it because of the credit crunch that British people are forcing their daughters to get married?
I would have hoped that the Today programme would have educated me about this curious phenomenon.
Don’t forget the BBC recently did a series about ‘forced marriage’ claiming it was good for society. Note the BBC called it an ‘arranged marriage’ which of course is the very same thing.
For a Muslim girl to go against the wishes of her family would be intolerable and a snub so it’s as forced as can be.
I just wonder if two white Christian families tried to marry off two kids if Social services would get involved?
Just as a point of clarification, the doctor is not British – although the BBC have reported that she is. She has been working in Britain, but she is Bangladeshi.
Yes, I too have no idea what this story was about, other than the fact the BBC glaringly failed to use the M word, when it is that cult that imprisoned her.
I mean, 7th Century people living in 7th Century country treat person in a 7th Century way – it’s not exactly news is it? The fact that we’re importing droves of people from 7th Century countries is hardly news either, though news that the BBC tries to put a perverse positive spin on.
Come the revolution, and I fear it is coming much more quickly than the BBC brigade ever imagined…
Hugh: don’t be so down on the 7th century! After all, in 7th England the Venerable Bede invented punctuation, in 7th-century Spain Isidore of Seville compiled one of the world’s greatest encyclopaedias, in 7th-century Constantinople the Byzantines invented ‘Greek fire’, and all over Christendom monks were copying the ancient texts of Greek philosophy and Latin literature. Oh yes – and in 7th century Arabia, Muhammed was inventing jihad and imperialistic religious war. What’s changed?
George R | 15.12.08 – 6:16 pm
the BBC STILL avoids the ‘M’ word
Yes, and they betray a significant inconsistency too. No doubt the BBC defence to this would be that forced marriage is not limited to Musims but is a cultural phenomenon of the sub-continent, so the ‘M’ word isn’t strictly ‘relevant’. Yet on the news last night they highlighted a similar case, but made no bones about the family in that case being Sikhs!
ipreferred | 15.12.08 – 9:50 am
Well it’s clear that she herself isn’t muslim.
Shhhh. They shoot apostates, don’t they?
The real story here is surely that a british court, in a case regarding a foreign citizen in their own country, has imposed a judgement on a foreign court.
This is the kind of ‘imperialism’ that the likes of Liberty and the bbc would normally scream blue murder about.
Could we be seeing a clash of agendas? The story is being spun as some kind of women’s rights triumph. Hence no mention of the ‘M’ word.
‘m not quite sure why the British authorities have got involved, although I have no objection to them using what influence they can to save her from what looked like pretty awful fate.
Thats great. Now what the British authorities need to do is guarantee that the numbers of the good doctors ethnic bretheren increase no further in the UK. Otherwise the docs fate, one way or another, awaits us all right here at home.