A perceptive reader picks up on this;
Nicky Campbell this morning gave a lot of airtime to the Ahmadiyya Muslim Association who are running an advertising campaign to lessen ‘Islamophobia’.This is of course hugely ironic because the Ahmadis are considered heretics by other Muslims and not Muslim…..only recently 100 of them were slaughterd in Pakistan by ‘real’ Muslims.
So we have to ask where lies the real violence and conflict?And then also ask why is it that Jewish schools need bomb proof windows, security fencing and security guards?None of these questions were raised by Campbell….but he did suggest that people’s perceptions of Islam were wrong…what they believed were acts of violence or bigotry carried out in Islam’s name were in fact the result of cultural traditions and practises.
This seems to be a recent theme on the BBC….Is it an editorial guideline to presenters to suggest this line in order to make people believe Islam is not to blame for many social ills?A recent report from Saudi Arabia on women’s oppression did not mention Islam at all.
In an interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali Emily Maitlis does not ask if culture is the cause of women’s oppression but states that it is…Homophobia, women’s lack of rights, violence to other religions are caused not by religion of Islam but by deep cultural conservatism…Islam is a mass of different Islams she claims (Islamically impossible…there can be only one Islam). But the culture is Islam…taken from Arab culture and turned into the word of God replies Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
Maitlis uncritically defends Islam and claims Hirsi Ali is fuelling anti-Islamic bigotry and the Far Right.
The BBC is playing a dangerous game promoting this religion and doing all it can to impede any criticism and indepth questioning of the religion, its origins, its real meaning and where it will lead us to should it take hold in this country.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali could wipe the floor with the pygmy Maitless a thousand times over. Her ability to answer any and every question thrust upon her, calmly, patiently and authoritatively never ceases to amaze me. Even when Maitless couldn’t wait till she had finished speaking before interrupting in that ill-mannered fashion.
Which she doesn’t do to left-wing interviewees.
Given what Ali has survived, an encounter with a pretentious high school girl like Maitless isn’t much of anything.
All of which leads to another observation: how come Ali doesn’t qualify for victim status? In almost every other context the BBC is happy to have designated victims babble on even about things they clearly know nothing about. How often have you heard some family member talking about the police totally got it wrong?
Now here’s a women talking about her own experiences, but Emily is on hand to tell her what she really experienced.
In the scheme of things I thought it was quite a mild show of BBC bias, but evident nonetheless, especially that absurd and obscene comment trying to equate M/s Hirsi’s views with those of the far right.
What kind of lectures did these bBc folk attend to get brainwashed en-masse with such bollocks? Does anyone have any information about the scale and structure of their “education” ? Emily obviousl believed that she had the total truth inside her head, even faced with the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. There just HAS to be a logical explanantion as to why these morons believe they KNOW the truth!
You (and others) seem to be misinterpreting the role of the interviewer; which is to posit the opposing view to that of the ‘interviewee’ so as to invite a response. That way you get to hear both sides of an argument and it’s left up to the viewer to form their own conclusions one way or the other. How else could you have an unbiased interview?
The general opinion here seems to be that Hirsi Ali won the ‘argument’ hands down… So what are you complaining about?
If that’s their role, Dez, the Beeboids certainly seem to have a highly selective way of performing it. You can’t claim they take the opposite view every time. We’ve seen them agree with their guests far too many times.
And what is your opinion of this particular interview with Emily Maitlis?
Fair do’s, if making such demands before expecting any reply it may be worth hearing your opinion on a few thousand examples of the BBC straying from its remit, that until now you have seemed curiously mute upon.
Otherwise it all sounds, well you know, a bit like you are of a mindset that believes only…
I was commenting on a post about Emily Maitlis and Ayaan Hirsi. You’d rather talk about something else? – go fiddle with yourself elsewhere. ;P
Tsk. Language like that and, like David Gregory, I do think I might be entitled to shake my head sadly and conflate one with all and decide that the whole BBC cause is so lost that it is no longer worth bothering with. Now, where is that DD mandate?
However, in the spirit of appreciating decent argument if presented, and cutting losses when finding it wanting, on an individual basis this is perhaps simply a good opportunity to leave you to yourself in future to present truly compelling arguments in the wilderness from your own words. If perhaps not in the way you intend.
My Site,
I apologise for my comment, which came across rather stronger than I meant it to. No excuses. Sorry.
Dez/Scott always waits to find the low hanging fruit. Dez/Scott knows that Gramscian BBC bias is pivotal to cultural Marxism rendering democracy a hollow shell in our country. ‘A land fit for perverts’ is what he wants Britain to be, and the type of punishment for those opposed that would sate the worst of sadomasochistic lust.
I note DP that Dez/Scott does not contest your point.
Dez, To your original point – misinterpreting the role of the interviewer.
Maitless tries to establish that misogyny, homophobia and other Islamic particularities are merely cultural, not Islamic.
She attempts to stop Ali from finishing her point, (that Indonesia is subject to Sharia, albeit in a milder form than in Saudi, and though it’s one of the Islamic majority states that is considered liberal, it’s also misogynist, etc. etc.) Will Maitless now have to to say that Sharia is unIslamic?
“What does Ali say to protesters in “Taria” square who are fighting for Western democracy?” Maitless asks, with a faraway dreamy look. She doesn’t know the difference between the Egyptians’ democratic aspirations and our own. Ali recounts that as soon as Mubarak stood down, Egyptian men told the women to go back home. Maitless says that was all about ‘education’. She believes that they can be “re-educated” and, abracadabra, misogyny, homophobia, antisemitism maybe, can be tidied up whereupon everyone can go off to “Taria” square’s coolest wine bar for a pint of bitter and some pork scratchings; in the name of the Koran, the prophet Mohhammad and Islam.
From here on in I agree that we got to hear Ali. Maitless seemed deflated.
I contend that she could have drawn Ayaan Hirsi Ali out more effectively without being combative. Why must the BBC defend Islam?
I can only repeat what I said above. This isn’t two people with differing view points arguing about who is right; but an interviewer challenging the interviewee to justify her beliefs. The subject of the interview was Hirsi Ali. Do you think she made some good points, do you think she was believable? You seem able to decide for yourself; so why isn’t everybody else?
I was familiar with Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s views so I can’t be certain what anyone new to her would have gathered from the interview, but Emily M appeared to represent the BBC’s benign view of Islam, which I think is deluded and unrealistic.
Incidentally, I’m curious about what you think of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and wonder whether you have seen her discussions with, for example, Tariq Ramadan.
There’s more than one way to challenge someone’s views, and It could have been done more intelligently and with a less transparent underlying agenda.
Andrew Marr, James ‘when we win the election’ Naughtie?
Thank you Dez, you are entitled to your opinions as is everyone else. I believe I am able to differentiate between someone playing devil’s advocate and the approach that emily took. My question was a serious one, in asking does anyone know what processes of indoctrination are taking place to influence these people. I would never seek to cast them in a stupid light, they are obviously very astute, knowledgable people, I just wondered whe they swallowed such nonsense and then tried to present it as fact.
Oh dear, Dez/Scott has just expressed views I was going to express myself (his first post in this thread, haven’t read the others yet).
The logic of Graham Duck’s comment is that at the end of an interview the interviewer has to say whether they agree of disagree.
Regardless of how evident it appeared to me at a couple of points the partisanship of Emily Maitlas, she gave M/s Hirsi her head and the interview was civil. On the scale of things it’s not too big a deal to me.
There have been enough times when I have watched some clearly rude, harrying biased BBC interviewer and was just yearning that the interviewee would go over and headbutt them, I didn’t feel a flicker of this watching this interview.
Unfortunately, I think this is another occasion where ‘Joe Punter’ would read the allegations of bias here, view the material concerned, and come out scratching their heads somewhat at the strength of reaction here.
If the Left were to attack the Islamic religion (in the same way that it attacks Christianity) as sexist, homophobic, and totalitarian, this would, at a stroke, undermine the cultural Marxism that has dominated the Western Left in the last 40 years. It would be the New Left equivalent of the Old Left having to admit (around 1989) that Socialism not only destroys freedom, but also creates the economic deprivation and inequality it is supposed to eliminate.
In other words there would be nothing of the Left remaining, except the self-interest of “Public Sector” attempting to increase their power and privileges at the expense of the liberty and prosperity of the “People” they are supposed to be serving i.e. the claim that Socialism (the creed of the BBC) is about equality would be dead as a doornail.
Students rioting because they have to pay for their higher education, or demonstrations by actors on the behalf of public subsidies for theatres, or BBC journalists telling us about the desirability of high taxes, would be exposed as people doing nothing more than seeking to freeload off the efforts of everybody else.
As a political creed the Left would be dead. All that would be left is the angry narcissism of teenagers. Adults would take the claim that the Left is about justice with about the same seriousness as they would take the lyrics of a pop song.
Islam is a natural totalitarian ally of the Marxist Left.
The BBC is playing a dangerous game promoting this religion and doing all it can to impede any criticism and in-depth questioning of the religion, its origins, its real meaning and where it will lead us to should it take hold in this country.
This paragraph sums up the problem we all face. Ayaan Hirsi Ali has been warning us all about the dangers of Islam for as long as I can remember and yet Maitlis makes the assertion that she is close to the BNP in her assertions. Truly incredible.
Given that Islam is the psychopath’s religion of choice and Arab Muslim countries have oodles of oil that we depend on, there is plenty of room for diplomatic humbug in our relations with Islamic countries. However, there is a difference between tactical two-facedness and being craven. We can still send subtle messages to the Arab world with a friendly smile on our face that if they want to push things with us we’ll bomb the living crap out of them, take their oil, and have them live as vassal states till they learn to be civilised – which means giving up the Satanic religion of Islam.
It finally proves one thing I have wondered for a while; how they can reconcile their ultrafeminism and ultrahomophilia against their ultraislamophilia which totally, and violently, contradicts the other two strands of their credo.
I did quite strongly suspect their love for all things Islam was the trump as far as they are concerned, and this proves it. I am of the belief that the average left-wingers, like the Beboids and Dezzie on here, are actually very dim as they can’t see how their mind-programmers have given them conflicting messages to push.
You’re absolutely right, Demon. With the Leftists/Beeboids we are not dealing with freethinkers, we are dealing with non-thinkers. Their intellectual development halted in their early 20s, when their often unashamedly Marxist tutors considered them sufficiently brainwashed to go out into the world as their little surrogate moles, & burrow their red path through the institutions. Without ever questioning their prescribed set of opinions. Total thought control.
Any person whose brain was still functioning would see the absurdity of the Beeboid’s cognitive dissonance. On the one hand, stridently feminist & pro-gay; on the other, stridently pro-Islam: a political ideology, masquerading as a religion, that is totalitarian, misogynistic & homophobic. With the Beeboids we’re not even dealing with idiots; we’re dealing with androids whose ‘thought processes’ are no more than a cultural Marxist reflex.
Their consistency of response is testament to the thorougness of the secure, smug, well-wined tutors at places like Balliol College, Oxford, & the LSE, who keep the assembly line full of young people whose intellectual curiosity was all but strangled at birth. Perfect recruits then for the land of Beeboid-Guardianista, where nothing is real.
You are making a huge mistake if you think that the left is totally unintelligent and that Beeboids are thick and incurious. They are by no means and that’s what makes them dangerous.
Maitliss knows exactly what she is doing – maintaining her high income. Where else can she do so little for so much cash?
The Cattle Prod of Destiny.
‘If he had a brain, he wouldn’t be a lefty.’
An extract from a quote of yours concerning Jeremy Hardy. I don’t have time now to expand my original post, but I will. Best wishes, Jarwill.
If we don’t learn we don’t grow 😛
I wasn’t disagreeing with you in the first place, Cattle Prod. I know the Leftists & their propagandists are lethal. I only have to look at my own area of north London to see the havoc cultural Marxism has wrought.
My original post was about young Leftists/Beeboids – the twitters that are force-fed opinions before having much experience of the world. They are the tools of the intelligent, but far from omnipotent, manipulators of the Left. Get nasty with them, like ‘Brillo Pad’ Neil did with Diane Abbott, & they start writhing. I’d like to see him, in a liverish mood, have a pop at Julia Middleton of Common Purpose. Or let Melanie Phillips work her over. It’ll never happen. The BBC is too close to CP.
At an Oxbridge college I watched students preparing for a demo, & was a little surprised at their parrotlike repetition of the party line. They were, in the main, studying politics & the slightly ‘softer’ subjects. They weren’t from the Maths Institute. These students had all been groomed by a Marxist brush, but I never considered them ‘thick’ – only misguided; their natural intelligence tampered with, & bent. They were also very ‘Hardyesque’ (Jeremy), with their distaste for anybody who opposed them.
I’m sure they are curious too, in a circumscribed way. They are curious about the wonderful ‘otherness’ of anybody not British, that’s a given. And they are interested in anything that paints white people in a bad light. They are not curious about what social engineering has really done to the UK, or the exponential collateral damage inflicted on us every day. They don’t want to hear it. These are the youngsters that will go into politics, teaching & the media. Already a part of their mind has been closed. They are the type who will seize upon a perfectly well integrated black person, & inform them that they are ‘oppressed’. And be mortified when that person tells them to ‘Fcuk off!’. They won’t confront Islam. The truth would rain on their parade. I don’t regard their ostrichlike behaviour as especially bright. Intelligent people are big enough to pursue the truth, even if it is initially unpalatable. Darwin felt great unease as his Theory of Evolution began to question his Christian faith. These youngsters get anything but a rounded education. They then pass on the same prejudices to another generation. As the late Bill Shankly said, ‘I did nae go to universitae, I had to use ma brains.’ I don’t know what Shanks would have made of a sociology tutor.
Further up the BBC food chain there are certainly cunning people, constantly fine-tuning their ‘chosen narrative’ by omission & selective reporting. That is a breach of their charter, & a dereliction of duty. But they get away with it because no even-handed debate with the heavy artillery of the ‘right’ – anybody who dissents – is ever really allowed. Hardly a sign of intellectual security. They exist in a pre-set closed circuit. Whenever an outsider goes off-message panic ensues. The BBC used to have sane people like Jeff Randall, but they’ve all been shown the door. Now it seems you have to be of the Beeboid ‘faith’ to gain admittance.
‘Mateless’ is a high-life careerist. The fairly recent picture of her with Mandelson, ‘The Leaning Tower of Hartlepool’, in all their finery at some glitzy event said it all. I doubt if she believes what she’s ordered to say, or cares for much other than her ascent up the greasy pole. But she’s cunning enough to keep taking the money.
The really smart trick of the BBC is getting us to pay for the destructive propaganda that is destroying the UK as a nation state. A scam of beautiful symmetry; worthy of an East German spymaster.
I do think there is a malign intelligence at the heart of the left wing. It is of Moriarty proportions as its only concern is to indoctrinate the gullible, like Dezzie above, and its aim is world domination using 1984 as its blueprint. Some people think it’s Common Purpose: I don’t know enough about CP to agree or disagree myself with that claim, but it does look a mite worrying.
I don’t know who these faceless “evil-geniuses” are but the people they put out to do their spadework, e.g. Maitless, are not exactly unintelligent in every way, but are not bright enough to be able to question the lies they are fed as truth. They cannot work out that holding totally conflicting points of view is not possible in a sane, rational human being.
As I put in another thread recently where the POVs of regular contributors was roughly 50-50 for and against a belief, there is more room for debate in this site where people are able to reach their own conclusions about subjects than there could ever be with people like Dezzie, or others with the BBC mindset, where you can predict with 99% accuracy his views on all the pet BBC subjects.
Their shared loathing of Judeo-Christian values with Islam trumps everything. Also, of course we know, that in practice, homosexuality and paedophilia is rife in Moslem countries.
Ivory Coast.
The very different roles of Christians and Muslims are mentioned here.
But it’s not an INBBC report:
“Ivory Coast: where Islamic and Western ‘interests’ meet.”
[Extract]:
“Ivory Coast (IC) is a nation on an ethnic-religious fault-line with a predominantly agrarian Muslim north and a predominantly urbanised, industrial and administrative Christian and animist south. Presidential aspirant Alassane Ouattara is an ambitious former Prime Minister and Northern Muslim who plays the race and religion cards for political gain. This has fuelled tensions and aggravated divisions during economically stressful times as IC has been struggling under the weight of decades of mass Muslim immigration. Ouattara has long sought the naturalisation of all immigrants which would mean an immediate Muslim majority in IC. Those who object to that outcome are labelled ‘Islamophobic’, ‘racist’ and ‘xenophobic’. Ouattara has the backing of Islamic states precisely because he is a Muslim prepared to play the Muslim-as-victim card for political gain.”
http://www.christiannewstoday.com/Christian_News_Report_5009.html
Even the Islamic Al Jazeera has this (without using the words ‘Christian’ and ‘Muslim’ 🙂 –
<!—->
Manufacturing Cote d’Ivoire’s ‘good guy’
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/04/201147101815313980.html#
The BBC’s unconvincing separation of Islam from anything to do with terror, violence or any unpleasantness at all reminds me of how some people describe themselves as anti-Zionist to sanitise their prejudice.
Hmmm so the BBC’s position is that you cannot criticise Islam but it’s now ok to criticise the cultures in which Islam is practiced. But according to the doctrine of multiculturalism – all cultures are of equal worth and cannot be criticised. So it looks as if the BBC is finally abandoning its support of the failed doctrine multiculturalism – so its progress of a sort. Now we just need the BBC and its libtard supporters to see Islam for the horror it really is.
Interesting point. I had overlooked how the inherent contradiction in post-modern relativism was coming back to bite them in the ass like that.
If you want to keep your sanity it is better to switch off the radio and television whenever politics or religion is being discussed.
Nothing seen or said corresponds to reality. I used to think they were all malevolent now I think they are insane.
Just where do they find these people like Maitliss and Bowen?
Always a bit nervous when tribal camps are established, but it does appear that one has to accept that like minds congregate.
In the BBC’s case, £4B and the opportunity for those who wish to (ab)use it to preach near unrestricted does have an obvious attraction to any who require a mechanism to bend others to fit their viewpoints. Usually one would not expect this to be most prevalent in the person ‘interviewing’.
And unique funding that makes the exception when it comes to market rate rewards adding the less than stellar influence of ratings into the information and education process.
I tend to prefer interviews to challenge for sure if necessary, but mainly be designed to shine more light. Some small minds in certain quarters seem to prefer the heat of petty point scoring exclusively. You don’t have to oppose, all the time, by default, to create a great interview.
Sadly, such dogmatic aggression is indeed what gets more rewarded and plays well to minority galleries these days, even if it actually adds to societal divisions over promoting understanding. Which kind of makes sense if you come to appreciate that coercion to another predetermined view is the aim.
The following should be required reading…
Question:
Are Muslims permitted to lie?
Summary Answer:
Muslim scholars teach that Muslims should generally be truthful to each other, unless the purpose of lying is to “smooth over differences.”
There are two forms of lying to non-believers that are permitted under certain circumstances, taqiyya and kitman. These circumstances are typically those that advance the cause Islam – in some cases by gaining the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/011-taqiyya.htm
Many believe (BBC Newspeak) that religious element is only one tentacle of Islam which should be view as an absolute totalitarian movement very much like communism or fascism but worse and therefore it is a mistake to view or describe Islam as just a religion
Islam Not BBC (INBBC) and its Islamic Republic of Islam of PAKISTAN, without Islam!
Please tell us, INBBC whether your report is about the justified fear of Islam. INBBC, you have not mentioned the elephant in the room in Pakistan:
“Pakistan MP Sherry Rehman on fears for her safety”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12991421
As someone has already noted elsehere, a “phobia” is an irrational and unfounded fear of somthing. Islamophobia? There is nothing irrational or unfounded as to our views of Islam, but the very expression has already judged it is so. I guess we are Beebophobic then?
INBBC censors out ISLAM as cause of ‘anti-Americanism’ in the Islamic states of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
INBBC gets AHMED RASHID (handily placed in Washington!) to emphasise how strong the ‘anti-Americanism’ is in those countries, but he doesn’t mention Islam as the cause. In fact, of course, there is no criticism, no mention of anti-infidel ideology of Islam.
“Anti-US sentiment is ‘rife’ in Afghanistan and Pakistan”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13001640
Question for Islam Not BBC (INBBC):
Where is the long article –
‘Anti-Afghanistan, anti-Pakistan sentiment is ‘rife’ in US’?
And, of course, we are spared any details of the ‘anti-United Nations’ Islamic jihad massacre, (as censored by pro-Afghanistan, pro-Pakistan, but anti-American INBBC).
The ‘Wall Street Journal’ has this though:
What Happened When A Muslim Mob Attacked U.N. Staff In Mazar-e-Sharif
I heard the Nicky Campbell call-in and his interview with the guy from the Ahmadiya Muslim Association on his Breakfast Show with Shelagh Fogarty before.
As always NC put the case from both sides, albeit with a detectable air of disdain for Islamist callers that creeps in from time to time, which I think is very healthy. The BBC has a duty to impartiality to serve British democracy, ergo it has a democratic duty of bias against terrorism and tyranny and those who support it.
I was very suspicious of the ‘moderate Muslim’ bonafides of NC’s Muslim guest until Douglas Murray came on and vouched for him, then went on to make excellent points about the Jihadist extremism that exists in mainstream Islam.
An Islamist caller came on protesting that Nicky Campbell makes out the only religious violence is caused by Muslims but there was religious violence between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland for 30 years. Nicky Campbell rebutted that as tribal not religious. ‘The IRA never said they were killing in the name of the Catholic Church’.
Within the constrains of working for the BBC I assert extremely strongly that Nicky Campbell does a fantastic job and his ‘bogeyman’ status here would leave the neutral observer completely bewildered.
I don’t think most on here regard Campbell as a particular bogeyman – there are too many other, more appropriate, candidates. I have seen him in the past, though, coming across as fairly biased but not as extreme as many other Beboids.
But it’s good that where someone on here thinks a Beboid is being unfairly attacked that they defend him/her as strongly as you have Mr Campbell. It shows that we have different opinions and are not afraid to express them, which sets us aside from Beboids.
To counter Islam Not BBC (INBBC)’s anti-Christian, pro-Islam propaganda:
“Burning Half a Million Korans”
(8 min video)
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_display.cfm/blog_id/33784
This is a brilliant video. Well done.
I’ve a better, less provocative, but more amusing idea.
Hire a hacker to create a virus that downloads korans onto muslim PCs (they’ll be the angry ones) and doesn’t stop until the media is full. Then give the chap in charge of the PC the option to delete them.
They’ll be deleting their own heritage …