Police outside Charlie Hebdo offices (Feb 2006)
It’s been interesting observing the BBC coverage of the overnight firebombing of the offices of French satirical magazine “Charlie Hebdo”.

The offices of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo have been destroyed by a petrol bomb, French police say. It comes a day after the publication named the Prophet Muhammad as its “editor-in-chief” for its next issue.Its cover carried a caricature of the Prophet making a facetious comment. The magazine said the move was intended to “celebrate” the victory of an Islamist party in last month’s Tunisian elections. Charlie Hebdo’s editor is quoted as saying: “We no longer have a newspaper. All our equipment has been destroyed.”

The BBC angle seems to be that these French satirists brought it on themselves being deliberately provocative. No discussion as to who carried out the fire-bombing. Perhaps “youths” from Les Banlieus? We’l never know. The website of the magazine has also been hacked, with a message in English and Turkish, left on it. (Not French, entertainingly!). Again, no real examination as to WHO was behind this.

It seems that the BBC accepts that Islamists have the right to raze to the ground any building and destroy any company that dares make fun of Mohammed. Not only that but it seeks to place responsibility on the victims of Islamic intolerance. 

Bookmark the permalink.

48 Responses to CHARLIE HEBDO

  1. My Site (click to edit) says:

    Awwww, they’re such sensitive little souls, these radical Islamic Fascists, aren’t they.
    The publication of the magazine would have caused these poor downtrodden treasures of diversity enough unnecessary stress as it is, without the BBC rubbing salt in the wound.  


    • noggin says:

      bbc…… tsk tsk 😀  i looked at R4Today listing…..squat..having to settle
      for world service world today, a lily livered affair, just listen to the first 6 mins.
      i actually tuned in to France 24 yesterday, (not as bad as laughable RT but usually quite a PC station).
      Everywhere, on every bulletin about it, close ups of the front page displayed again  & again, also multiple, viewings of the motoons, used as a thread connector, with no nonsense.
      You know i think theyre  finally starting to get it



  2. Jeremy Clarke says:

    I notice the Beeb has toned down its profile of Islam on the Religion pages after it was rumbled for applying double standards to Islam and Christianity.

    To my naked eye, David, I think this report looks fairly neutral but I’d be interested to see what the The Guardian, Indy and liberal press have to say about it – as we know, the Guardian’s views and those of BBC reporters are virtually indistinguishable.


  3. Jeremy Clarke says:

    Incidentally, I would have preferred it if the mainstream media had been more honest about the Motoons.

    If editors and leader-writers had simply said, “We are not going to show these cartoons because we fear a violent backlash from angry Muslims.”, I would have had more respect for them. Instead, we were treated to various tortuous explanations, all of which were abusurdly self-serving and deeply disingenuous.

    I hope the Charlie Hebdo fire-bombing opens up a whole new can of worms about the discussion religion and the media (well, violent religions).


  4. George R says:

    INBBC  tacitly supports Muslim global campaign to ban all criticism of Islam.

    Because INBBC does not report and does not criticise the global Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (really?) -the OIC – and its campaign on this, INBBC is tacitly supporting this global censorship by Islam.

    “Charlie Hebdo Offices Firebombed After It Joked About The Prophet Muhammad ”

    ‘Campus Watch’ 2009:


  5. noggin says:

    check out the world service world today, The World Today
    almost apologetic, this magazine is irreverent, lampooning all in society, BUT when your talking about mohamhead it is a different matter?????, they are RE OFFENDING
    if you will…………

    hello, some horse & pony show incitement charge
    was bought against them, for which, quite rightly they were aquitted
    over the motoon palava.
    just listen to the first 6 mins

    best bias today


    • noggin says:

      ps the “offence” industry strikes again….so violent these
      “offended” i wonder if secularists are offended, the magazine,
      the vast majority of the French public you d never know according to el-beeb.


  6. Grant says:

    The BBC safe in the knowledge that they will never be bombed by Islamic terrorists  !!!


  7. Roland Deschain says:

    It’s the difference in attitude by the BBC depending on whether it’s a favoured cause that really gets on my nerves.

    The clear implication I took from the phrasing of the story when I heard it on Today was that it was the magazine’s fault for printing a picture of Mohammed.  Yet apply so much as a finger to remove the unwashed layabouts camping illegally outside St. Paul’s and all hell breaks loose.

    Apparently force is unacceptable in one case and only to be expected in another.  That politicians are too craven/stupid/brainwashed (delete as applicable) to do anything is down to the BBC who have made this hypocrisy out to be the normal view.  I don’t believe it is but until the BBC is dealt with I really fear for the future of this country.


  8. Bupendra Bhakta says:

    Aw c’mon, albeeb often sides with the victims rather than the ‘perps’.

    CF the News International hacking scandal etc.


  9. Farquar says:

    Pinched and linked your excellent summary of the BBC angle, DV. I have the front cover image if you haven’t already seen it …


  10. Martin says:

    When the BBC first reported this pile of crap they just said “the prophet”. I was trying to work out which prophet, isn’t Russell Grant a prophet? Has he tripped over his high heels rehearsing for Strictly I thought at first.

    I wish the BBC would wake up tot he fact that the vast majority of us (luckily) are not Muslims, have no interest in Islam nor do we care.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Yes, if their excuse for always including the “Prophet” modiifier is that it’s the official term, and they’re doing it out of respect for others, why don’t they ever say “The Savior”, or “The Lord Jesus Christ” or similar?  Christians never get the same respect from the BBC.


    • Roland Deschain says:

      Prophet is good, profit is bad.


  11. David Preiser (USA) says:

    While doing a reasonable job of feigning neutrality, the article includes this line by way of explanation of why the Mohammedans got violent:

    Depiction of the Prophet is strictly prohibited in Islam.

    Sure: for Muslims.  Non-Muslims are not required to obey Islamic laws.  One could equally say that it’s understandable for Mohammedans to get violent when they see others eating pork, as that, too, is “strictly prohibited” in Islam.

    It’s freedom of religion that’s equally important here as freedom of speech. No group should be allowed to force others to obey the rules of their religion, yet that’s what always happens in these cases.  And the BBC refused to touch the concept.  The same intellectual failure as always.


    • Barry says:

      On the news this morning – a London borough that wants to ban lap dancing clubs. As soon I heard it, I suspected that the usual suspects were behind it and, sure enough, the local spokesperson was wearing a hijab.   
      Lots of non-religious reasons were given for the ban, naturally, but I couldn’t help wondering ‘what next’ – alcohol, music, churches?  
      In the interests of balance, it is worth pointing out that other places have banned them as well. However, since posters have appeared in Tower Hamlets declaring Sharia law, I can’t help feeling that it’s just the beginning.


      • jarwill101 says:

          As Muslim districts reach critical mass, the logical progression will be to ban…the kuffar. This process has, sadly, already begun, with non-Muslims being told to get out of ‘our area’ by young warriors of the crescent moon who, most certainly, don’t want to be ‘enriched’ by ‘diversity’. They are defiantly monocultural. This isn’t quite the picture Tony Blair painted recently in defence of his criminally insane immigration policy.


        • London Calling says:

          The M_slims will go on demanding more and more, until such time someone  stands up to them and says “No”. The Swiss did it with “no minarets”, the French did it with banning “face-covering”.
          Spineless wet-toiletpaper Tories say err umm err..nothing. Freedom of speech nil, M_slims 1.
          It’s Blairs convuluted “hate speech” laws – written for one purpose, applied for the opposite, like most of what lawyers produce.


  12. Richard Pinder says:

    I do not think the BBC will tell us which religion is the most violent religion in the world, but I do not think it is Buddhism. So the BBC attacks Jews and Christians because they are peaceful religions and therefore will not blast the BBC to kingdom come.


  13. George R says:

    As ‘Jihadwatch’ says:    
    “Now comes the challenge. Will France stand up for the freedom of speech? Will France and the West capitulate to the calls that are sure to come in the wake of this bombing to stop ‘provoking’ Muslims, and to effectively rule Islam off-limits for criticism?”    
    Will INBBC stand up against the global Islamic campaign to ban criticism of Islam, a campaign which is physically violent and verbally violent?

    (One hopeful sign in France is that ‘Liberation’ newspaper has offered to help out ‘Charlie Hebdo’; will INBBC do likewise?)


  14. George R says:

    One might think that what’s good enough for ‘Liberation’,  is good enough for INBBC:  
    Satirical weekly hit by petrol bomb over ‘sharia’ issue”*  
    (video clip – * contains reference to ‘Liberation’ support for ‘Charlie Hebdo’.)  


  15. Cheradenine Zakalwe says:

    Has the BBC shown any of Charlie Hebdo’s images of the so-called prophet or are they observing the traditional Islamic restriction on portraying him? The article on their website only shows an image of the editor and the firebombed offices.


    • Grant says:

      I think,  in the past, the BBC have always ducked out of showing the “offending” images.  Fear, cowardliness, appeasement, the main characteristics of the BBC when dealing with terrorists. 


    • james1070 says:

      Well the BBC is now run under Sharia Law so images of the ‘prophet’ are strictly Haraam.


      • Cassandra King says:

        The BBC is just the 1st organisation that has become ‘sharia compliant’.

        A multibillion pound media giant has become a platform for the introduction of sharia law in the West.


  16. D B says:

    Just had a quick look on Twitter to see what the comedy atheists have had to say about this.  You know – the ones who think they’re being brave and radical when they take the piss out of the Christians.

    Robin Ince – nothing. Richard Herring – nothing.  Marcus Brigstocke – nothing. In fact Brigstocke’s big thing today is a petition on behalf of Babar Ahmad organised by fellow lefty BBC turn Mark Thomas who, likewise, has had nothing to say about Hebdo


  17. pounce_uk says:

    I see the bBC homos can’t bend over fast enough in which to proclaim Mohammed the pedophile a Prophet. The thing is when was the last time you saw the bbC proclaim jesus as the son of God? 
    Yeah right.


  18. ian says:

    Next, Fiona Bruce in a burkha. Yup, that smug, anti-British, amoral old slag who probably brags to all the staff about how liberated she is. Bring it on, inshallah. 


  19. John Horne Tooke says:

    Notice how the BBc always emphasise that it was done by a “minority who do not represent the ‘muslim community’.

    Yet on peadophile Catholic preists this caveat is never put forward.


  20. Cassandra King says:

    “Depiction of the Prophet is strictly prohibited in Islam.” 

    Notice the clue to the reality of what is happening in those few words?

    “IN ISLAM”

    Oh thats right, we just happen to live in the WEST do we not? The BBC seems to be implying that ISLAM consists of everwhere these hostile colonists decide to hang their hats. Here is the danger that the BBC is determined not to see and it is the greatest danger we face in the West. The route to colonising a land is to bring the colonists laws with them, to subdue the native population to threats of violence until that goal is acheived.

    The world turned upside down? The hostile colonists need to see themselves as victims to lend credibility to their cause, and yet where is the violence and the threat of violence coming from? How many mosques have been burned down so far? More and more demands follow more and more threats follow more invented and imagined insults to their faith.

    In association with the usual appeaser lickspittle useful idiots islamofascism is making its play, carving out the 1st foothold in the path to a hostile colonisation of the West. Who here believes that if the West concedes defeat and allows these hostile colonists to place their religion above the criticisms that our own religions face, who among us believes that this will be the final demand? Only the cowardly appeaser class would believe that to be true, but they want to believe, need to believe because their cowardice demands they do not make a stand.

    In reality islamofascism is using the issue of drawing or making fun of their so called prophet to stamp their authority on the West, once it becomes a criminal offence to ‘insult’ islamofascism we in the West are finished, once their bridgehead has been secured more demands will follow, the fear of insulting this so called religion will quickly spread and we non muslims will be cowed, more demands will follow and more of those demands will be met with an ever weaker opposition until these hostile colonists dominate us all.

    You see the depiction of the so called prophet is merely the 1st step to eventual domination, once protected by law then islamofascism will grow ever stronger and ever more demanding and ever more confident. The BBC will play their part, we already see them pimping all the faked up accusations from islamofascim about their supposed victimhood, about how badly done to they are, about how they are discriminated against, which funnily enough will be the very next demand from islamofascism, it will become illegal to ‘discriminate’ against islam which will be translated into anything that islamofascim wants it to mean.

    The two main planks of the eventual domination and colonisation of the West by islamofascim are being constructed right now, once these planks are in place nothing can save us in the West from a fate worse then death, that of being dominated by the most ugly hate filled religion the earth has been cursed with. We are led by cowards and appeasers all too ready to help thse hostile colonists get their 1st real foothold and bridgehead in the insane belief that by appeasing the bully it will satisfy the bully.


    • Cassandra King says:

      Imagine a near future where all cricism of ‘islam’ is illegal and a criminal offence. But here is the meat of it, what does ‘islam’ constitute and what does it mean?

      It is in fact everything and anything and universal in nature, it means that given legal protection everything can and will constitute an insult to islam and the prophet. thousands of examples from not being placed 1st in housing lists, not allowing a man to have a multiple wives all claiming benefits and seperate housing. Not being allowed to bring ‘relatives’ and ‘family’ from the 3rd world on demand. Being treated by a non muslim doctor and nurse. seeing shops open on their religious holidays. Having infidels walk past their mosques can be described as an insult to islam.

      On and on, the list is endless, and you can be sh*t sure that the demands will blossom like a malign cancer, the more demands met the more that will follow. The facts are too distressing to think about, the future is just too disturbing to contemplate.

      Once islam has legal protection, the nature of the beast will change very quickly, everything will become an insult to islamofascism, our flag and our culture and our religions all become a de facto insult to them. Even the fact that they are not dominant and superior is an insult to islam, the fact that the head of state is an infidel can be viewed as an insult to islam.

      God save us from useful idiot appeasers and cowards, again and again they hand us over ripe for plucking in the hope that the monster will eat them last.


      • Grant says:

        But, Cassie, whatever happens can’t be as evil as the British Empire, surely  ?


        • Cassandra King says:

          Just outside the light there is the darkness, when the light dims and the darkness comes closer, when the light fails we find ourselves in a new dark age, the age of islam is that darkness. God help us all.

          The light of the West is failing.


  21. Cassandra King says:

    I hate islamofascism on many levels but I hate them most for making me hate them, they bring a darkness with them that threatens us all. They carry with them an evil virus that we in the West had banished or thought we had, that of religious bigotry. And now its back and threatens all we have achieved so far, the spectre of a few ugly old men deciding our fate based on an ugly minority cult invented by ugly old men.

    A religion that forces all to bow its knee before its laws, laws made by ugly old men warped by an ugly ideology of domination, laws enforced by ugly old men and supported by ugly young men. A cancer spreading through the free world. The religous bigots, the islamofascists will never be apeased, never be satisfied, never content until they dominate. To the islamofascists the British people are dogs, dirty unclean animals. And who among us truly believes that those who see us as no more than filthy curs and a living insult to their ‘prophet’, who among us believes that any concession we make will be enough?

    Step one is under way, any infidel thinking of making a stand against their filthy ideology will be breaking the law, any cricism will be seen as an insult to their grubby backward beliefs. Islamofascism whines about islamophobia but how many mosques have been attacked, how many clerics have been beaten up, how many muslim families have had to flee persecution? These bastards should be forced to go to Egypt to witness real genuine religious hatred and discrimination at work, these people need to be told just who and what religion is doing the persecuting.

    At the sharia comliant BBC, the islam friendly BBC we see the muslims queue up to claim a victimhood they neither warrant nor deserve, we see them allowed to spew their ever growing list of imagined slights and insults to their made up death cult, no ridiculous assertion is too ridiculous for the BBC to pimp on their behalf. Judeo Christians around the world are beig persecuted by islamofascism, real persecution that goes unreported at the BBC with their ranks ofmuslim censors making damn sure of that.

    The BBC and islam? They go together like blow flies around a rotting corpse.


    • noggin says:

      C eloquent, precise and heartfelt as always


    • My Site (click to edit) says:

      Very good Cassandra, now send this to the BBC and Guardian, see if they print it. You are preaching to the converted on this site, we do not have to be told this. 


  22. Demon1001 says:

    Wow Cassie, I hope you feel better for getting all that off your chest.   😉  A Beboid would call that paranoia but I agree that there appears to be some kind of a plan for domination, ably assisted by their champions in the MSM.


    • Cassandra King says:

      The BBC has become an incubator for and evil virus, their actions have demolished the fabricated myth of impartiality.


  23. George R says:

    For INBBC, and what ‘Have I Got News For You’ will not mention:-

    “Firebombing Free Speech In Paris” 
     (by Robert Spencer ,   Bio ↓  ) – 2 page article.  


  24. john says:

    Once again the BBC points a finger, rather than lifting one in the interests impatrial reporting.
    They are an offence to creation.


  25. George R says:

    For INBBC:  
    “Shocking! ‘Charlie Hebdo’ covers screams The Daily Beast”


  26. George R says:

    Journalist with guts, eh INBBC?: -Worth reporting this –

    Firebombed French paper reprints Muhammad cartoon that got it bombed