Over many years the BBC has influenced swathes of people, who quite rightly and naturally, feel a strong sense of injustice at what they have been shown. All the BBC has done is to report what is happening, is it not? They have seen something happening and said “Hey, look at that!”
A friend was travelling back from some far-flung trouble spot. Sitting next to him on the plane was a journalist-in-chief. “We’re covering this newly emerging trouble” he confided. “Why then, are you travelling home?” asked my curious friend. “Well, I’ve set them up and told them what shots I need, why would I stay?” was the reply.
BBC denies antisemitism and bias against Israel. Its case might look credible if it did something to redress the balance. The recent Panorama programme raised the question of Islam’s incompatibility with the west. It was a small start. Memorable images are affecting and bound to influence opinion, and perhaps a number of viewers began asking themselves some questions.
Awareness that this kind of exposure doesn’t help Islam’s public face explains why images of extremism in the film ‘Fitna’ were the focus of such strenuous efforts to suppress and condemn them.
Most of the virulent loathing expressed by Israel-haters demonstrates huge factual ignorance and misunderstanding by the public. The underdog theory falls apart when you know the geography, the stolen land theory falls apart when you know the history, and the deliberate baby-killing theory falls apart when you know the facts.
I believe there smoulders an undeniable suspicion and dislike of Jews in Britain, always ready to reignite at the smallest spark. But I wait for the day when the BBC commissions a programme, informative, educational and entertaining, that sets the record straight. I fear I’ll be waiting a very long time.
MPs need to be very determined and steadfast to get where they are, and no doubt high ranking BBC executives and commissioning editors do too, but they still need other people’s approval to keep them in power. They have deliberately or accidentally ‘set up the shots’ over many many years. Now the current is so strong, who is going to risk swimming against it?
Dong:
Which ‘brave’ Mainstream Media reporters do you suppose were on the ground in Gaza? None. Just Hamas-approved Agency stringers – and Al-Jazeera of course who also shill for Hamas. So in fact not one of these reporters had to ‘negotiate’ their environment – it was provided for them.
It was the Western MSM journos who should have DONE THEIR JOBS and tried to pull some objectivity out of this grand Pallywood operation. They failed miserably of course and fell for everything that was fed to them.
Philip 6:55
Spouting Hamas propaganda is what the BBC reporters see as “doing their jobs”.
“Britain is the least anti-semitic nation in Europe by a long long way Cockney | 20.02.09 – 11:22 am |
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/02/17/anti.semitism/
“London’s Metropolitan Police “report that since December, there have been four times as many anti-Semitic attacks as attacks on Muslims, even though there are seven or eight times the number of British Muslims as there are Jews,” said British lawmaker Denis MacShane, who chaired the country’s first parliamentary inquiry into antiSemitism”.
http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingworldnews/ci_11698329
“The trust said crimes included assaults, damage to Jewish property, threats, hate mail, verbal abuse and anti-Semitic graffiti.”
Not forgetting the comments after Howard Jacobson’s article in the Independent
“but it’s massively hypocritical for B-BBC to (rightly) criticise the flinging of public money and attention at blown up race issues elsewhere (“institutional racism” in the Met, “Islamophobia”, downplaying gypsy crime) whilst over-egging this one so spectacularly.
So you think antisemitism is a blown up race issue. Good for you. I’ll just carry on over-egging if that’s okay with you.
Bob, son of Bob | 20.02.09 – 11:43 am
“I have never encountered this in my life, apart from when muslims are involved.”
Oh well, that proves it then.
Better tell the Jews, of whom you’ve never heard a bad word, they’d better not do any of their dirty dealing when in uniform. Reflects badly on the whole school y’know.
Can’t believe Howard Jacobson misspelled ‘predaciousness’.
That marred my enjoyment of an otherwise excellent article.
Sue – Wow, you are touchy, I write a piece saying there is no general antagonism towards Jews from all the UK Christians I have ever known, and you fly off the handle because I point out that if you wear the hat and curls, you should be extra careful as you are openly declaring yourself a representative of your religion.
I have only had dealings with two Jews ‘in uniform’ as you put it. One was a private landlord who refused to return some money owed to me. He never said he would not return it, he just kept saying ‘come back next week’. This went on for months. He was rich and I was not. Was he a good ambassador for his religion?
The second was a Jew whose father in law was a multi millionaire who owned an office block which the son in law managed. I worked for someone who rented some other rooms. As I was the technical person in my office, I used to fix his computer for him FOR FREE in my own time. The company I worked for left. A year later I went back to ask to rent a room to store some boxes. Although he had about 40 empty rooms he would not give me a good price. I was in a hurry so I agreed to £15 per week. We agreed and the next day I went over to sign the agreement. Just before I signed he said, ‘and there is the service charge 1.50 per week’. A more honest person should have mentioned that during rent negotiations. I just said no and left. Was he, sitting there in his ‘uniform’ being a good ambassador for his religion?
You know more Jews ‘in uniform’ than I do. Do you really think these examples are inconceivable?
No Christian person has said any negative hateful things about Jews to me, as I said in my previous post, and the examples I give are from my own experience.
I am also good friends with other Jews who are honest and good people, so I don’t ‘lump everyone together’.
Grant and Philip
This is precisely my point. If there are no guts to stand up to Hamas it is much easier and risk-free to blame (and even, for moral comfort, convince oneself) that Israel is to blame for everything.
Dong 10:48
Spot on ! Typical BBC moral and physical cowardice.
Bob, son of Bob
I don’t know ANY Jews in uniform. Why would I?
I don’t think any Jew needs to be an ambassador, – unless you lump them all together.
Sue –
By the tone of your comments you write as if you are speaking on behalf of Jews. And yet you do not know any that are strict orthodox and wear the special hat all the time?
If that is the case, then I, who am not a Jew, have more experience of them than you do. Perhaps that’s because I lived in the middle of the orthodox Jewish community in Salford, Manchester, which I think is the second largest orthodox community outside London.
I have only stated the obvious – if you wear the attire of a religious group whilst pursuing your business affairs, you are presenting yourself as a representative of that group (yes, this does mean an ‘ambassador’ – see your post above), and you should therefore be extra careful to be honourable in your business dealings.
I fail to see how anyone can take offence at that.
Bob, son of Bob,
I haven’t been elected by anybody so I am not speaking on behalf of Jews, and if the tone of my comments makes you think I claim to do so, I apologise.
I speak for myself only. I support Israel and defend Jews against antisemitism which in my experience usually comes from ignorance and a willingness to perpetuate myths.
If you feel orthodox Jews take on ambassadorial responsibility by wearing the outfit, then surely they would represent only each other, not all Jewry.
I myself am not religious. I’m second generation British, brought up as British, and am as British as you are. In fact I’m just like you without the Christmas.
There are bad landlords of every shape and size, and meanies in all walks of life, likewise. I sincerely hope none of the Jewish ones do such things in the name of their religion.
If one was to generalise though, it’s strange, wouldn’t you say, that Jews have a reputation for being mean with money when philanthropy is more their thing; and I have a small nose.
Bob, son of Bob | 20.02.09 – 11:43 am and 10:47 pm,
I don’t doubt your sincerity when you say, “No Christian person has said any negative hateful things about Jews to me.”
But you should realise that when you advise Jews not to be identifiable as Jews when conducting business you are simply reinforcing the old anti-Semitic stereotypes. Why should a Jewish landlord who negotiates a tough deal be seen as a Jew first and not simply as a landlord? Also, by suggesting that Jews should hide their identity if engaged in such practices you are legitimising the anti-Semitism of some people, even though you don’t agree with it. You should note that requiring Jews to keep a low profile is the very first step on a slippery slope that in the past has led to unimaginable horrors against the Jews.
There is no doubt that there is a tremendous amount of latent anti-Semitism in Britain. And it emerges in all its vehemence whenever the Israelis (read Jews) dare to deal a decisive blow against those who would destroy them.
I haven’t had time to comment recently put I must just say how much I’m enjoying Sue’s posts. :+:
I’m enjoying much less Bob, son of Bob’s comments on Jews in uniform and the two bad experiences which both, purely coincidently I’m sure, involve rich Jews ripping off poor ol’ Bob (son of Bob). But Bob (son of Bob) can’t be an antisemite because he’s “also good friends with other Jews who are honest and good people”.
I’ve heard the same kind of stuff many times, and when I’ve revealed that I’m Jewish the response is, “Oh, but you don’t look Jewish!”
See Bob (son of Bob) I’m an undercover, plain-clothes Jew.
Ever been ripped off by a Scot, a Welshman or an Irishman, Bob?
I’ve lived in Spain close to twenty years now and barely a business or commercial transaction goes by without me feeling ripped off, or without some attempt by the other party to cheat.
Do I consider those mainly Catholic un-uniformed Spaniards (they don’t dress like toreros) to be bad “ambassadors” for their country?
You bet, but they, like the British Jews you say you know, don’t have to be “ambassadors” for anyone – they live in their own countries, mate.
As to the UK being the least antisemitic country in Europe; Rubbish! Whoever said that has never lived as a Jew, with or without uniform, in Italy. It’s probably the only place, with the exception of Israel, where instead of hiding the fact you can openly declare yourself as Jewish and be more accepted rather than less.
Since the machine-gun and grenade attack on the synagogue in Rome in 1982 in which a child was killed and thirty seven injured, the police have provided plain clothes armed guards outside and inside all Jewish community centres. Italians are rightly proud of having protected Italian Jews during WW2 and as far as I know Italy was the only country where during the recent Gaza incursion pro-Israel rallies were held without the violence and attempts at disruption that were seen in London.
Bio,
Thanks for saying you’ve enjoyed my posts. (Insecurity is my middle name.) Funnily enough, half the critical comments about me are addressed to David Vance!
I can’t help going hehe like Millie Tant does.
I’m plain clothes too; so embarrassing when the penny drops and someone realises that they’ve inadvertently dropped a clanger. The alternative is a badge, or maybe a yellow star?
Bryan,
Hi.
Hi Sue, hi Biodegradable.
I’ve also been busy lately. Read the Jacobson article through and some of barely-intelligible comments. Why are so many of these anti-Semites so stoopid?
sue, bob et al
This poll by the ADL examines anti-semitic attitudes in some European countries, including the uk. It seems to show a decline in anti-semetic attitudes in the Uk, but rises elsewhere; although the level is still startlingly high.
http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASInt_13/5465_13.htm
I think Bob is off beam with with his comments. Most people i’ve been shafted by are from my own ethnic group. I’ve had lots of dealings with orthodox jewish people, and the stereotype really doesn’t hold.
Bob, son of Bob, has a point, in my opinion. Hypocrites and bad apples of any religion are potentially bad ambassadors for their faith. That’s not bigotry or anti-Semitism; it’s normal human behavior, a natural reaction that we all have.
However, I got the impression that – and Bob the son can correct me if I’m wrong – his point was that he actually didn’t come away thinking that all Jews were cheapskates and weasels. But, it might be somewhat understandable if he did. Not that it would be correct to think that way, but these things do happen.
Before anybody starts throwing keyboards at me, consider this: How is this any different from so many people here (myself included) thinking that stopping and searching young black men in certain neighborhoods isn’t racist because most of the crimes in the area are done by them? How is this different from any of us feeling that black youth ought to behave and dress better if they don’t want us to think they’re potential criminals?
Bio: 1 25 pm:
Ever been ripped off by a Scot, a Welshman or an Irishman, Bob?
——————————
Eek!…wouldn’t it be more to the point to ask whether he had ever been cheated by an ENGLISHMAN? (I mean… assuming that Bob is English)
Why are so many of these anti-Semites so stoopid?
Bryan | 21.02.09 – 3:12 pm
Perhaps there’s a clue here:
“A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.”
– Douglas Adams
David Preiser (USA) | 21.02.09 – 4:24 pm;
Wise words. Perhaps Bob, son of can clarify what he really meant to say?
Bio: 1 25 pm:
Ever been ripped off by a Scot, a Welshman or an Irishman, Bob?
——————————
Eek!…wouldn’t it be more to the point to ask whether he had ever been cheated by an ENGLISHMAN? (I mean… assuming that Bob is English)
Millie Tant | 21.02.09 – 4:41 pm
I did assume Bob, etc. was English which is why I chose examples of “foreigners” because I got the impression that Bob (son of…) sees those Hassidic Jews as somehow not really English, or if you prefer, British even.
David Preiser (USA) | 21.02.09 – 4:24 pm
How is this any different from so many people here (myself included) thinking that stopping and searching young black men….
I won’t try to throw my new keyboard across the Atlantic Ocean but I will say why I think it’s different.
Stop’n’searching blacks is statistically justified.
A race issue? yes. A Racist issue? no.
Is questioning bushy-beards about terrorism justified?
Statistically? maybe. A phobia? no.
If a bad-apple orthodox Jew risks taking on an ambassadorial role, is it statistically justified? No. Is it a race issue? Yes. Why? Antisemistism.
It’s a tarring with the same brush issue. Is there any justification? If so, you risk getting tarred. If not, you shouldn’t get tarred; if you do, it’s prejudice
A black youth can dress differently, but he can’t turn white, (unless he gets some of what Michael Jackson has) and why should he? Unfortunately he bears the consequences of the sins of his brothers till the statistics alter.
A bushy beard wears his getup proudly as a symbol of ‘who he is”
Probably an orthodox Jew does likewise.
These relatively superficial yet symbolic things can actually be provocative, especially the burqua. Until circumstances change.
A black youth is more likely to have a gun, a bushy beard is more likely to explode. What is a Jew more likely to do? Be a bloody Jew. Oh yes, and support Israel.
Antisemitism has no justification, so statistics can’t change it.
Even if every single bad-apple orthodox Jew was scrupulously eliminated, and every single Jewish characteristic was ironed out and homogenised in the blender there would still be residual antisemitism. Oh yes, and even if Israel was wiped off the map.
I could Fedex you my old keyboard if you like, but would be a poor ambassador as it won’t type the letter ‘L’ . Can’t risk you jumping to the wrong conclusion about keyboards and Ls 😉
This is not hostile, it’s meant to be “reasoning,” and I do see your point, and hope I have addressed it and not something entirely different.
Sue and others
I must say I am puzzled by your reaction. I wrote a piece generally supporting the Jews, and I really was surprised when Sue responded by jumping in trying to twist what I said. However, she then wrote a more considered reply, but then others start jumping in where she left off.
I can only think that you have spent so much time defending yourselves against people that really hate you that you have become oversensitive to those who do not. Either that or you did not read my post properly.
David Preiser (USA) is the only poster who seems to have read my posts carefully, and everything he says in his post I agree with, but I do not want to thank him too much, lest he is condemned also by association with a new pariah. However, I have noticed from other stances he has taken, e.g. over golliwogs, that he is able to speak without feeling pressurised by anyone.
Bryan says:
But you should realise that when you advise Jews not to be identifiable as Jews when conducting business you are simply reinforcing the old anti-Semitic stereotypes. Why should a Jewish landlord who negotiates a tough deal be seen as a Jew first and not simply as a landlord?
Byan, re above comment:
1) I never said what you say I said • what can I say, except to refer you to my posts above?
2) You call the deal I described ‘a tough deal’. I call it tight and not remembering favours done. In other words, dishonourable behaviour. (When I was fixing his computer he had a much more friendly persona.) I really cannot understand anyone who tries to defend this kind of behaviour.
Bryan
There is no doubt that there is a tremendous amount of latent anti-Semitism in Britain.
I am sure that is correct, but not in the circles I move in, and I was just giving you some feedback – the same as Mr Levy was giving his feedback above:
We also have our friends in the Gentile world. More than is sometimes recognised.
Mr Levy | 20.02.09 – 10:39 am |
However, I am not sure the motivation of the BBC is entirely anti-Semitic. IMO it is more to do with being anti-the-successful-and-better than simply anti Jewish. The BBC were just as hostile to S.Rhodesia and White South Africa for also belonging to the same club.
Millie Tant
I am actually from a country which has been ‘obliterated’ by Lord Carrington and his friends. At the time it was top of the hate-list ahead of South Africa at position 2 and Israel at position 3. Now South Africa has gone off the list, Israel has reached the top. Britain is also on its own list.
Yes, I have been cheated by English people. Also, my partner worked for Jews (non-orthodox) and received excellent and generous treatment, and we remain good friends. Confusingly, I am more pro Israel than they are as they are quite liberal.
The point about the English people cheating me is that they are not saying ‘I follow God’s laws’ and ‘I am currently representing Jews’ by their dress when they do it.
It is like a British soldier in uniform. They represent the British army so they are told they have to be careful not to bring shame on the rest of the group they represent. A soldier in uniform brawling will get into more trouble than if he was brawling out of uniform.
Biodegradable:
Bob (son of Bob). But Bob (son of Bob) can’t be an antisemite because he’s “also good friends with other Jews who are honest and good people”.
Well, I also post under the name ‘Muslim Wars’ when talking about, er, muslim wars, and if you look at my post higher up (Muslim Wars | 20.02.09 – 10:46 am |) you will not find much antisemite feelings.
Correction to previous post – I meant ‘Sue’ not ‘David Vance’
caveman:
David Vance
The underdog theory falls apart when you know the geography
Yes, they never show a map on the BBC that shows Israeli lands next to Arab lands as it would show up just how preposterous is the idea that they need even more land.
caveman | 19.02.09 – 10:26 pm |
Biodegradable says:
But Bob (son of Bob) can’t be an antisemite because he’s “also good friends with other Jews who are honest and good people”.
Well, I (ie Bob, son of Bob) also post under the name ‘Muslim Wars’ when talking about, er, muslim wars, and if you look at my post higher up (Muslim Wars | 20.02.09 – 10:46 am |) you will not find much antisemite feelings.
I can only think that you have spent so much time defending yourselves against people that really hate you that you have become oversensitive to those who do not.
Bob, son of Bob | 22.02.09 – 10:19 am
“The Jews are a nervous people. Nineteen centuries of Christian love have taken a toll.”
– Benjamin Disraeli
Yes, I have been cheated by English people. Also, my partner worked for Jews (non-orthodox) and received excellent and generous treatment, and we remain good friends.
Bob, son of Bob | 22.02.09 – 10:22 am
Funny that. I’ve met a lot of non-Jewish people too who have had good relationships with Jews and won’t hear a bad word about Israel.
But it’s still the stories about the mean and crafty Shylock types that are trundled out as typical archetypes of Jews, even from the keyboards of people as well-meaning as Bob, son of Bob, alter-ego of Muslim Wars.
The point about the English people cheating me is that they are not saying ‘I follow God’s laws’ and ‘I am currently representing Jews’ by their dress when they do it.
Is that really what they say to you? Is it all really only about the way they dress, and what gives you the idea that they are representing Jews like me and Sue?
Or perhaps you expect more from them than you would from a person dressed in a completely neutral style, just like many people expect more from Israel than they do from any other nation in the world.
I think Bob misses the point here by instigating a slightly bizarre discussion about whether the Jews really are a bunch of crooks in comparison with anyone else… The point is that 99% of Brits, excepting Jews themselves and unfortunately Muslims, wouldn’t recognise the (fairly obscure literary and historical) stereotype and outside of Stamford Hill wouldn’t have the faintest idea of whether any given individual was Jewish.
What I certainly wouldn’t do is downplay the central point, that the demonisation of Israeli actions by the idiotic left creates a very real danger for British Jews as evidenced by the spike in anti-semitic “incidents” in January (although this has since subsided according to a police spokesman quoted in media reports which Sue ignores). The play that Jacobson specifically refers to was a case in point – I saw an interview with the bird that wrote it this weekend and awaited the explanation of the subtle ironies and carefully layered satire beneath the pretty crude face. Nope – it seems she’s just painfully thick and unable to get any further than the goodies v baddies approach to Middle East relations.
The key point I wanted to refute was the statement that Britain as a whole is a powderkeg of anti-semitism ready to explode which I found to be a pretty offensive and unfounded assault on myself and my countrymen, particularly in the context of B-BBC assaults (about 2 posts up) on other “race” issues. If graffitti is a serious incident I personally must’ve experienced 30 anti-black and Muslim “incidents” on walls and the back of pub toilet doors this weekend. If some imbecilic warblings on the indy website are serious incidents I dread to think what size of incident my muslim work colleagues and mates would find on B-BBC comments.
MWL:
In your interesting link to the ADL survey a short distance above, there is one question in the survey which I would like to point out is a bit loaded –
Do you agree with the statement:
The Jews are responsible for the death of Christ?
The question does not really distinguish between the Jews of 2000 years ago, and the Jews of today.
Therefore, if they wanted to be fair, they really should have followed it up by a second question as follows:
– and do you in any way blame the Jews who are living today for the death of Christ?
or
– and does this make you have bad or negative feelings towards them?
Alternatively, the question should have been phrases as:
-Do you think the Jews living today are responsible for the death of Christ?
I think they would have got a different result.
—————-
Cockney,
I said:
“I believe there smoulders an undeniable suspicion and dislike of Jews in Britain, always ready to reignite at the smallest spark.”
Your version:
“Britain as a whole is a powderkeg of anti-semitism ready to explode”
“which I found to be a pretty offensive and unfounded assault on myself and my countrymen.
Cockney, I AM one of your countrymen.
And if you call my words an assault, then don’t tell me to downplay swastikas.
I agree with you on everything else.
However, your version is subtly different because it implies that I have accused everyone in Britain of being a potential Nazi, whereas mine was intended to imply that I fear our citizens are potentially no different than prewar German citizens. I fear they could easily be persuaded by a million impassioned Annie Lennoxes to rise up, and attack my children.
Sue | 22.02.09 – 7:45 am |
A black youth can dress differently, but he can’t turn white, (unless he gets some of what Michael Jackson has) and why should he? Unfortunately he bears the consequences of the sins of his brothers till the statistics alter.
I take your point about bushy-beards, but I think we disagree on “stop and search”. I was talking more about hoodies than well-dressed black gentlemen. Most people here would be more suspicious of a couple of black youths in hoodies on a bus than of two of them in business suits, because of a general impression that the former are more likely to cause trouble. Even if they’re nice kids, they’re dressed to resemble a known problem group. But the kids who are stopped and searched aren’t stopped simply because of their skin color. They’re stopped because they’re dressed a certain way, and in a certain area.
I’m certainly not trying to say that anti-Semitism is mostly due to ill-behaved black hats, nor will it go away entirely if we all behaved like choir boys and girls.
What Bob, son of Bob, has done – as far as I can tell – is to highlight the idea that an entire group behaves the same way as a few bad individuals. I grant you that it’s not at all fair to compare greedy landlords with mass murderers, and that religion is the ultimate crutch for the latter but not the former. That’s where the anger at his comment is coming from, as I understand it.
But this is the problem with saying “Islam is evil” because a bunch of cavemen use Islam to justify their barbarity. The same barbaric behavior existed long before Mohammed. This theme keeps popping up in all these discussions, doesn’t it?
David Peisler (USA) What Bob, son of Bob, has done – as far as I can tell – is to highlight the (erroneous)idea that an entire group behaves the same way as a few bad individuals
Bob, son of Bob certainly did seem to encounter some pretty bad ‘representives’, if they were in fact representing Jews by their orthodox dress which seems to be disputed above, but he did point out that he did not in fact treat them as representative of the whole group – which someone else might have done.
It might be the case that if a Rabbi had said similar what Bob, son of Bob, had said in a synagogue, many would have nodded and said ‘disgraceful behaviour of those landlords, they are terrible ambassadors for our community’ – ie it is a question of who says it and where.
I have heard a mother calling her child all sorts of names but as soon as another parent joins in the mother immediately says how good they are.
The same applies to cars (the owner can rubbish it) and couples.
It is actually possible to have the following conversation:
‘My kid is a lazy lump of good for nothing’
‘Yes I agree, your kid is a lazy lump of good…’
‘No he isn’t! Who are you to call our kid?’
caveman,
I can’t argue with what you’re saying. The thing is, whether or not this was Bob, son of’s intention, it ends up being a will-o’-the-wisp argument. Arguing about whether or not a group is tainted due to the acts of a minority will only end up proving to defenders of the indefensible that some people just hate the group in question, full stop. This works for both Jews and Muslims. It takes everyone down a useless path, and preempts any discussion of why so-called “moderate” Muslims aren’t more vocal, and why Muslim immigrants are not expected to integrate at all, and are not encouraged to reach out to their new neighbors.
and are not encouraged to reach out to their new neighbors.
David Preiser (USA)
The words I would use are ‘completely banned’
I personally know a muslim who had a social invitation from a non-muslim family. At first the wife and kids accepted and were very excited. Then they told their husband, who was in Pakistan, over the phone. He said he would beat up the wife’s father when he returned if they went.
I also know personally of two other muslim families who became friendly with non-muslim people, then suddenly, without warning or any reason given, all contact was abruptly cut off.
In one of these cases, the boy who became friendly (aged 9) was sent to Pakistan for 8 weeks without his parents to stay with relatives. Sadly, he came back a different person; what his mother would no doubt call a ‘proper’ muslim.
Have you ever seen a car drive past with a mixture of non-muslim and muslim kids in? Integrating or even being friends is simply not an option for them. ‘The community’ will enforce this rule vigorously.
Muslim Wars | 24.02.09 – 12:32 pm |
I meant that they are not encouraged by the BBC. This is the very same BBC that will make programmes encouraging everyone else to reach out and tolerate Muslims. It’s part of the BBC’s remit to work for Social Cohesion, but they are unwilling and unable to do it properly.