Despite the fact that it dominated the airwaves all day yesterday, the subject of freedom of speech vis-à-vis Geert Wilders is by no means exhausted. Of all the coverage in the mainstream media, the BBC didn’t come out too badly. The best of a bad lot. Sky made a great fuss about airports, planes landing and Wilders on an escalator, but it amounted to little. What I saw of Channel 4 was pathetic. The BBC had the most memorable moment. It had to be Miliband, after condemning this vile hateful deliberately provocative film, with exquisite Comedy Timing, admitting that he hadn’t seen it.
Several things struck me about the whole media coverage fiasco.
1. Hardly anyone brought up Lord Ahmed’s disgraceful threat to mobilise ten thousand Muslims if Wilders was allowed in, and no-one at all alluded to him crowing about this ‘victory for Muslims’ to the Pakistani press.
2. All the people who were speaking in support of Wilders, Baroness Cox, Lord Pearson, and co., did so in the name of free speech; they were all
oh-so-careful to insist that they ‘did not agree with him’, giving the impression that they disagreed entirely with his views on Islam, rather than the more nuanced disagreement I assume they meant. (that the Koran should be banned altogether)
3. All this potential violence that is waiting to be unleashed. – Who by?” Is it to be “Islamophobic” violence against Muslims stirred up by the film, perpetrated by those violent Jews and gays? Or is it violence by members of the religion of peace, enraged at criticism of the very Jihadi extremists they are supposed to disapprove of?
The content of Fitna was repeatedly described as ‘shots of horrific acts of violence juxtaposed with selected Koranic verses’. “Revolting!” “Repulsive!”
In the light of the loudly proclaimed assurance by Lord Ahmed that every single word of the Koran has equal importance and is of vital significance, I can’t see many grounds for the oft heard claims that that the majority of Muslims are moderate, and that Islam is the religion of peace. Furthermore, footage of ranting mullahs and suicide bombers which furnished the most undeniable examples of incitement to hatred and violence in the film were largely overlooked.
4. As for Salma Yaqoob, the only member of last night’s QT panel who actually spoke up for Geert’s visit, (in the name of free speech, naturally,) and the member of the Quilliam Foundation, I think it was Maajid Nawaz, who spoke in a similar vein in another programme, I can’t help feeling that they were not being entirely honest. I suspect that if they hadn’t known that Geert Wilders had already been safely and securely sent packing, they would have been singing a different tune. But taking advantage of the moral high ground from a position of safety by pretending to be magnanimous wasn’t very convincing.
5. Have they banned Hizb-ut Tahrir yet?
Thank you
What they really think…
http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?t=21850
caveman | 15.02.09 – 10:55 am |
The BBC is the main force trying to set the agenda of egging them on and pointing out their grievances to them all the time, eg telling them all about the crusades. It is not helpful to tell an excitable group with a strange sense of honour that, according to the BBC version, we took their land off them. How do they expect a group with a medieval outlook to react? In a mature way?
I don’t see this kind of thing as the problem. It’s not like they shouldn’t do any history shows involving Muslims. It just shouldn’t be exclusively from the Muslim perspective. What I see going on is the continuation of the default position John Reith took here. I was one of those who had a short series of debates with him about the BBC only doing “Social Cohesion” in one direction.
I don’t even remember exactly what it was, but there was some public incident which sparked negative comments here, and JR came in with, “There you guys go again. We’re trying to calm things down, reach across the aisle, and you guys are screwing it up by complaining about Muslims.” Meaning that the BBC felt that the solution was to tell the public to stop complaining, rather than suggest that Muslims could become more tolerant of their neighbors. It was a constant theme, and the Wilders case is a perfect example. Although, this time it’s the government doing it, and for once the BBC is questioning that position.
But the thing is, they will do things like “White Girl” and “Don’t Panic, I’m Islamic”, but wouldn’t dream of doing a program where a Muslim female starts hanging out with and is ultimately redeemed by kuffirs. You’ll never see something that might be called “Don’t Have a Fright, I’m Hideously White”. The Beeboids honestly think the right idea is to tell everybody else to stop hating the Muslims, but they will not tell the Muslims they don’t need to hate everyone else. Social Cohesion is a two-way street, but the BBC has somehow failed to understand that.
The BBC has refused – or just been intellectually unable – to reach out to the Muslim community in important ways. If they don’t help to create an atmosphere where they can do a Pakistani Muslim version of “Goodness Gracious Me”, it will be one of the BBC’s greatest failures.
A full BBC webpage of political dhimmitude for B. Mohamed, an Ethiopian, whom the BBC wrongly describes as a ‘British resident’:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7891565.stm
A recent corrective from Richard Littlejohn:
“Actually, the case of Binyam Mohammed is deeply troubling – because he shouldn’t be our problem. Although he lived here for six years, he’s not a British citizen.
“In 2001, he decided to move to Afghanistan. We are told, laughably, that this was to help him come to terms with his drug problem. Most people seeking rehab would check in to the Priory, not fly to the heroin capital of the world. I suppose it makes a change from going to a wedding or taking a computer course.
He was arrested a year later at Karachi airport, trying to board a plane to Britain on a forged passport and taken into custody, ending up at Gitmo on terrorism charges. Oh dear, how sad, never mind.
“He’s an Ethiopian, who was resident in Afghanistan and travelling through Pakistan when he was lifted. So why are British MPs and British lawyers talking about his ‘release and return’ to Britain?
“It’s not as if we haven’t got enough home-grown jihadists of our own. The real scandal is that we are expending time and money even considering his case. It has no place in a British courtroom.
“If Ethiopia, Afghanistan and Pakistan don’t want him, he can stay at Guantanamo Bay – which, contrary to European jubilation, won’t be closing any time soon – until he can find another country stupid enough to give him house room.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1136904/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-Isnt-time-Golliwog-Squad-finally-grew-up.html
In contrast, before the BBC reports on his name, the epithet ‘far right’, not Dutch resident, is used to describe Geert Wilders elsewhere.
The UK’s Islam-appeasing Labour Home Secretary, Ms. J. Smith, having prevented the freedom of entry of a Dutch MP will be more than happy to approve these sorts of Islamic meetings in Britain:
‘Jihadwatch’
‘UK conference to “emphasise the need for all Muslims worldwide to struggle as much as they can for the sake of Allah (SWT) to implement the Shari’ah on the earth”‘
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/024855.php
The British Labour government (and the BBC) don’t want to disturb this Islamic normalcy here.
Presumably, this is the sort of Islamic ‘freedom of speech’ meeting which the Labour government wants to see in London.
And Dutch MP, Geert Wilders is banned from Britain, but Muslims like WAGDI GHUNIEM are not!
‘Harry’s Place’:
“Muslim Brotherhood leaders hold Hamas festival in London today”
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/02/15/muslim-brotherhood-leaders-hold-hamas-festival-in-london-today/
(As this Islamic meeting was in support of Islamic jihad Hamas, no negative comment can be expected from the BBC.)
David Preiser (USA):
I don’t see this kind of thing as the problem. It’s not like they shouldn’t do any history shows involving Muslims. It just shouldn’t be exclusively from the Muslim perspective. What I see going on is the continuation of the default position John Reith took here. I was one of those who had a short series of debates with him about the BBC only doing “Social Cohesion” in one direction.
Yes, I agree, I am not saying don’t teach history including the crusades, but we do seem to have a lot of programmes on the BBC and Radio 4 at present about the crusades. They do seem to like that period. And as you say, they seem to be from the muslim perspective. They also like focusing on black slavery. (Provided the slaves were owned by whites).
Were you living in England when you hade your debate with John Reith?
Regarding the Gitmo case ‘getting the red carpet treatment’ etc mentioned above.
I was listening to daytime BBC 24News a few days ago, and the newsreader said something like ‘He will have an interesting story to tell’
And the BBC obviously cannot wait to tell it.
No similar interest in Wilder’s tale though
caveman | 15.02.09 – 11:10 pm |
Yes, I agree, I am not saying don’t teach history including the crusades, but we do seem to have a lot of programmes on the BBC and Radio 4 at present about the crusades. They do seem to like that period. And as you say, they seem to be from the muslim perspective. They also like focusing on black slavery. (Provided the slaves were owned by whites).
I didn’t mean to imply that any BBC history shows were presented from a Muslim perspective. I meant that the Muslim perspective shouldn’t be the default viewpoint for any story involving them. I don’t object to presenting the viewpoint that the Crusaders were invaders of Muslim-controlled territory. It’s not worth really getting worked up about because everybody invaded everybody’s territory back then (except Jews, who weren’t allowed to own any at the time). Of course, that doesn’t mean the BBC should do a series entitled “The Crusaders: The Evil Migrants You Really Should Hate Instead of Muslim Migrants to Britain”. Artificially inflating the contributions of the Muslim world to modern knowledge is another story, though.
But none of this has any affect on the attitude of Muslims in Britain. Violent “youths” in Nottingham aren’t going to get all hyped up to go stab an old white woman and grab her purse after watching any of these programs. It won’t get their egos pumped up or anything. That kind of programming only pisses off the indigenous population. I know part of that is the impression that these shows indoctrinate children into having a positive attitude toward Islam, but it’s hardly the real problem in BBC programming.
The BBC constantly worries about allowing through anything that will offend Muslims. It’s not out of sensitivity to religion in general, because they allow every manner of awfulness about Christianity. Even if a Beeboid is harping on a particular belief that may be shared by both Christians and Muslims (i.e. Evolution), the disdain is expressed towards the Christians, and never the Muslims. When they censor themselves like this, they’re not showing their respect for an oppressed minority, but rather are tacitly admitting that too many Muslims are overly sensitive and slightly uncivilized. So they scold everybody else instead. This accomplishes nothing, and to me is evidence of the BBC’s intellectual failure. Not Muslim-friendly history programs.
Were you living in England when you had your debate with John Reith?
I have never lived there. Spent plenty of time, though never enough. I don’t remember if any of my discussions with JR took place during one of my visits. I don’t think so, but I’m not really sure.
David Preiser (USA) | 16.02.09 – 3:45 pm |
Violent “youths” in Nottingham aren’t going to get all hyped up to go stab an old white woman and grab her purse after watching any of these programs. It won’t get their egos pumped up or anything. That kind of programming only pisses off the indigenous population.
I think the main motive of the BBC in being over-respectful to Islam is because they like any group which is generally antagonistic to Britain.
If the muslims stopped being hostile and stopped wanting to make Britain an Islamic state, and if they supported peace and stability and quietly getting on and integrating, the BBC would lose interest in them.
Also, I think a lot of muslims will watch those crusades programmes and, when they do, the programmes will stir up feelings in them of wanting to seek ‘honour’ that, for them, comes from the military conquest of Israel.
But, as you say, not the yobbos.
PS there is a good debate currently
going on at http://www.telegraph.co.uk
see: Comments
Christopher Booker
Darwinism/evolution
– but, they take hours to put a post up and sometimes the site stops accepting posts for a while