I note that a court in Tajikistan has convicted a local BBC reporter of spreading banned Islamic propaganda despite international pressure to acquit him. Tajikistan has been clamping down on the press this year as it tries to defeat a growing Islamic insurgency which has threatened to destabilise the former Soviet state. Naturally, the BBC doth protest his innocence.
BBC REPORTER CONVICTED OF BEING ISLAMIST PROPAGANDIST
Bookmark the permalink.
The BBC are one of the biggest threats to freedom.
Interesting proposition – it would be very nice to see Mr Thompson of the BBC stand in court faced with spreading Islamic propoganda. In a just society it would happen.
I disagree. In a free country Islamic propaganda should not in itself be a crime. The BBC’s failure to maintain impartiality is what Mr Thomson should be in court for.
With impartial facts presented Islam would be seen for what it is.
Yes, in this particular case, in Tajikstan, INBBC Muslim reporter Mr USMONOV was convicted and sentenced to three years in jail for being a member of the banned Islam jihad supporting outfit, HIZB UT-TAHRIR; he’s free on amnesty.
http://www.newkerala.com/news/2011/worldnews-88002.html
But perhaps this case does raise broader questions about the political affiliations/inclinations of INBBC staff, especially when reporting on events relating to Islam.
INBBC employs many Muslims in a role of political reporting around the world.
The licencepayer does not know what their political affiliations are. Do they support Hamas? Do they support Hezbollah? Do they support Hizb ut-Tahrir? Or do they support the West?
Does INBBC do a proper vetting check before employing such people?
Of course, it is apparently not necessary to be a Muslim to support e.g. Hamas at INBBC.
In general, INBBC reports from Islamic countries are inclined to relegate the significance of Islamic jihad and the operation of Sharia law.
This problem of political bias on reporting matters Islamic at INBBC will get worse as the licence fee replaces taxes as the way of financing World Service. All such INBBC’s Islamophilic output, including BBC Arabic Television will be provided for (and often by) Muslims throughout the world and will be shifted from the control of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Of course, INBBC hides away its report on its ‘Asia-Pacific webpage’ on one of its Muslim reporters, Mr USMONOV, being convicted of membership of Hizb ut-Tahrir, and, of course it concentrates on using our money to largely present the case ‘for the defence.’ (I wonder who wrote it?)
“Tajik court finds BBC reporter guilty of complicity”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-15311141
In the process, what INBBC ends up doing in that report in not only defending Usmonov, but also defending, and misrepresenting Hizb ut-Tahrir!
This is how INBBC whitewashes and misrepresents Hizb ut-Tahrir in the final section of the above piece:
INBBC’s politically partial assessment of Hizb ut-Tahrir is here:
“Hizb ut-Tahrir is an Islamic organisation which has swept across Central Asia over the past decade, attracting thousands of young recruits.
It is openly critical of the Tajik regime and is outlawed in the country.
It does not advocate violence but wants to overthrow the present leadership to establish an Islamic state across the Middle East and Central Asia.”
In contrast, Melanie Phillips has provided information on Hizb ut-Tahrir which INBBC censors:
“WHATEVER its protestations, Hizb ut-Tahrir actively promotes terror and violence, says Melanie Phillips. ” (2010)
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/jihadist-group-a-threat-to-us-all/story-e6frg6zo-1225888223710
So even when, after one of its Muslim reporters had been convicted for being a member, one would expect INBBC to be very careful in its choice of words in describing Hizb ut Tahrir; but, no, it attempts to exonerate it with the usual INBBC political propaganda!
Yes, for the BBC report to simply state “it does not advocate violence”, when the issue of Hizb ut Tahrir’s attitude towards violence is (to say the least) highly controversial, isn’t honest reporting.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1564616/Islamists-urge-young-Muslims-to-use-violence.html
http://www.newstatesman.com/200511140010
I’ll have a bucket of salt, if I may.
The Tajik government’s poor record on human rights and their widespread mistreatment of journalists do not fill me with confidence, I’m afraid.
There are many islamist vermin in the MSM and the BBC in particular, where do you think the BBC filth get their exclusives/hold the front page/direct line to any and all islamist gangs?
The BBC have direct access to and from every terrorist group and these go betweens are employed as BBC reporters, they can be described as deniables, they have the contacts to the islamist filth who need to get their messages across about various ‘wedding parties’ killed by drones/whos who etc.
All part of the BBCs stratgey to allow airtime and elbow room and a primetime platform from which they can talk to the world. In a just world these vermin should have exactly enough airtime to describe how many our forces have killed and thats it. As far as Tajikistan is concerned? They are not exporting terror, they are not killing our people and they run their own affairs in their own way and it seems to be popular with the people.
The biggest mistake the West makes in dealing with the islamist cancer is to treat them as human beings, they are not, they are vermin and a virus that should be wiped out wherever they are found.
I have nothing but contempt for Islamist politics, Cassandra, and I am as Islamosceptic as anyone. I have severe misgivings about a lot of the BBC’s news reporting, too. That is why I visit this site.
But I’d still reiterate the point that Tajikistan’s record on human rights is wretched and there are suspicions that Usmonov was fitted up, not to mention abused. Meeting with members of HuT does not equate to membership of that group or even agreement with their beliefs.
Bearing in mind all of the above, I just cannot use the Usmonov affair as a stick to attack Peter Horrocks or the BBC.
The INBBC attitude, as expressed in the conclusion to its report on the case of the conviction of INBBC Muslim, USMONOV for membership of Hizb ut-Tahrir, still indicates a political misrepresentation of that organisation.
Lessons have not been learnt by INBBC.
No, INBBC has not learnt political lessons from this case, has it, Mr HORROCKS?: you are supposed to condemn violence-promoting HIZB UT-TAHRIR.
Got it, Mr Horrocks and Mr Usmonov?
“Furthermore BBC Jersey has had this “evidence” FOR WEEKS. They’ve not reported a single word of it.” http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2011/10/stuart-syvret-bbc-and-community-service.html
Question is will any fat idle Tory MP get off his (or her) over paid arse and demand an investigation?
I think we know the answer.
If we examine how the BBC reports this in their article today, we can see that not only is this reporter guilty as charged, but the BBC itself.
Note early in the article the BBC claim Mr Usmonov’s arrest in June sparked international condemnation – the BBC has strongly condemned the verdict. International condemnation by whom, we are not told. What INTERNATIONAL body or bodies can determine whether this reporter is guilty or not of the crimes he is accused of, to condemn it?
Now the BBC does report …He added that the court saw Mr Usmonov as being guilty of “giving information to BBC radio for propaganda of Hizb ut-Tahrir activities”. Propaganda of Hizb ut-Tahrir activities sounds totally accurate to me, and if we see this final paragraph from the article it should be clear to anybody with a brain that this is exactly what the BBC is doing: Hizb ut-Tahrir is an Islamic organisation which has swept across Central Asia over the past decade, attracting thousands of young recruits.
It is openly critical of the Tajik regime and is outlawed in the country.
It does not advocate violence but wants to overthrow the present leadership to establish an Islamic state across the Middle East and Central Asia.
I would like somebody to explain to me then how they will ‘overthrow the present leadership and establish an Islamic state’ in non-Islamic countries without violence.
But this is what the BBC want you to accept as valid.
Bear in mind that Tajikistan does not have the same kind of ‘politically correct’ government and society that we have gotten use to here. There they call a spade a spade, and they do not want an Islamic group trying to undermine their society, as we ‘tolerate’ here. So they have banned Hizb ut-Tahrir, as have quite a few other countries around the world. Here’s an article on this group from Islam Watch, a website run by ex-Muslims ‘scrutinising Islam’. While this article was written in 2007, it is still valid on most of the points covered.
It is a fact that the use of ANY tactic from extreme violence and murder (terror), to lies and deceit, are considered justifiable tools by Muslims engaged in jihad against the non Muslim world. This in itself makes trust impossible. If we look at this segment, which simply looks logically at what this group is trying to do whilst claiming it doesn’t advocate violence, we can see the ‘loophole’ in their claim.
Part III: Intellectualism or Incitement?
Hizb ut-Tahrir presents itself as an intellectual group, but there is a gap between what it professes and what is practically possible. It claims to be non-violent, yet argues for the installation of a world-wide Caliphate. To institute a new “world order” would unavoidably lead to violence. Political revolutions, by their nature, involve some amount of violence. There have been few examples of bloodless revolution. The 1989 “Velvet Revolution” of the former Czechoslovakia was bloodless, yet could have been crushed with violence, had the Soviets so desired. The founder of HT, Taqiuddin al-Nabhani, spent much time discussing the nature of thought, but such sophistry is limited by its dogma. He believed that Islam was rational and therefore could be promoted through persuasion and rational discussion. Contradicting this, he maintained that the Koran cannot be questioned, and is thus beyond the bounds of true discussion. Persuading non-Muslims to accept Islam as a political system which allows no dissent from the tenets of one book would naturally result in conflict. This conflict was specifically alluded to on the group’s U.K. website last November (since removed). The statement claimed that Hizb ut-Tahrir “also aims to bring back the Islamic guidance for mankind and to lead the Ummah into a struggle with Kufr, its systems and its thoughts so that Islam encapsulates the world.”
It is disingenuous for any Islamic group, knowing full well that we in the West are aware of the intent of the radical elements within their framework to think that we should believe any claim or statement they make. Any more than a serial criminal would expect a society to believe in his rehabilitation based only on statements.
‘By their works shall ye know them’.
If not directly behind numerous terrorist attacks in the world, Hizb-ut-Tahrir has certainly promoted many, not to mention their stance on Israel and Jews, which you can read about on Wikipedia, amongst other acts and statements made by them.
Years ago I noted how the BBC gave Omar Bakri Mohammed, one of the early leaders of this group, a very easy ride, allowing him to sponsor terrorism while promoting him as a peaceful or moderate Muslim.
The BBC sponsors terrorists, and we should follow the example of Tajikistan.
Further example today on how the BBC promotes Islamic murder at the expense of real innocents. Associated Press reported last Tuesday that Egyptian State media had purposefully lied to the public and incited Muslims to protect soldiers who they claimed were being attacked by Copts. In fact video evidence shows that the Copts had been peacefully demonstrating until they were attacked.
But the BBC report nothing of this. In an article from yesterday they maintain the original lies, both of the media and the military.
I believe many in this country believe that such an event like happened with the Copts only happen in these type of ‘third world’ countries, and we need have no fear of things like this. In fact we are just as much prey to false or deceitful reporting as the worst of any propaganda medium. Maybe more so, since the BBC still retains some credence, although based on a service it performed long ago and certainly not due to any current coverage. But there are those who would rather believe that it is fair, than suspect it has an insidious and destructive agenda.