Words; they are the ammunition the BBC uses to disguise profound and systemic bias. The BBC on numerous occasions via website & television, describes Ennahda, the Islamist party that won the recent Tunisian elections as moderate. For example see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15438945 Click here to see just how “moderate” Ennahda is.
Hat-tip to Martin.
I mentioned this too, on the open thread, and I blogged the French coverage of the Tunisian elections after watching France 24.
Although the French were understandably more interested in discussing Tunisian politics at election time than we were/are, they also seemed nearly as willing to downplay the likelihood of crazy Islamists taking over the asylum. I wonder what they’ll have to say about it now. Oh look, here’s an example from their website: ”Moderate Islamist party big winner in Tunisia’s election “
They mention Hamadi Jebali, “Ennahda has already put forward its deputy leader (Jebali) for the post of prime minister, while discussions are in hand among the Islamists, the CPR and Ettakol for the choices of head of state and speaker of the constituent assembly.”
They don’t mention this speech from him:
“Jebali declared that the occasion was “a divine moment in a new state, and in, hopefully, a 6th caliphate,” referring to the historical system of Islamic monarchies.
The tone of this last comment is in sharp contrast to many of the party’s public statements, where it has denied any intention of instituting Sharia or Islamic law in the nascent democracy.”
So what will the BBC make of it? Not a lot, probably.
Yes, it’s quite a development. Reuters is reporting it under the headline Tunisia Islamist causes outcry with “caliphate” talk.
One of Ennahda’s prospective coalition partners, the centre-left Ettakatol party, is having cold feet because of it:
“We do not accept this statement,” he said. “We thought we were going to build a second republic with our partner, not a sixth caliphate.”
If the BBC’s reporters can tear themselves away from scanning Palestinian websites for news of fresh publicity stunts to report, maybe one of them can get off their backsides and report this.
Not me.
More than one Martin!
No, no, no. There can only be one Martin. š
Luftur Rahman is always portrayed as some kind of moderate voice of reason too.
BBCSpeak: Islamists can be moderate, but the Tea Party is extremist.
Good point David…when Islam can be “moderate”, but the Tea Party is inevitably extreme and Eurosceptics “fanatical”…we have a wonderful new world of language possibilities.
Does the licence fee constitute a ransom demand, demanding money with menaces or a retrograde tax on the poor?…just wondering because the BBC seem keen to tell me that its my contribution to the multikulti society.
The BBC have got to go…or take an extended opportunity for gardening leave, if they understand that better!
Not Islam: Islamist. By definition it can’t be moderate. Yet the BBC defines them as such.
I wish I had taken a screen shot of Jeremy Bowen’s post calling the Muslim Brotherhood “moderate and conservative” before he deleted “moderate”.
How about this Dave
Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood promotes moderate path
Good fine, Teddy. That’s a classic.
With its conservative Islamist agenda….
Doubleplus good.
š
Supplementary:
‘Jihadwatch’ –
New Tunisian PM: “The liberation of Jerusalem starts here. I will be the sixth righteous caliph.”
Raymond Ibrahim: Tunisian Elections and the Road to the Caliphate
Imams running the moderate Arab Spring states.. a string of Ayatollahs in suits across the middle east. At what point will the BBC reconsider it’s definition of ‘moderate’?
Rhetorical question =-X
According to the BBC there are two types of Muslim groups, Moderate, when the BBC wants us to embrace Islam and ‘conservative’ when they try to pretend that the majority of Muslims are not like that and are ‘moderate’.
Words such as Fundamentalist, Right wing etc are reserved for Christianity.
Here we hear of some Christians protesting (yes, how dare they Mr.beeb!) The BBC automatically labels them ‘Fundamentalists’ for doing so;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15752989
Jihadwatch’:
Tunisia: Pro-Sharia party’s claims to be moderate ringing hollow
Opening extract:
“Shocker: Tunisia’s Islamic supremacists, after being dubbed ‘moderate Islamists’ in the mainstream media, are showing themselves to be anything but ‘moderate.’
And so here we go yet again: I tried to tell you.
When I started warning last winter that Islamic supremacists were in the best position to take advantage of the uprisings in Tunisia (and Egypt), most people were drinking the mainstream media Kool-Aid about a new birth of democracy and freedom.”
Just to contrast the difference between a professional news outlet, who are more interested in reporting the news as it happens, and the BBC who are more interested in maintaining their agenda.
You’d think that with over 2000 ‘managers’ and a budget of over £3.5billion they would at least try to compete, especially as they like to think they are a world media service.
They should be ashamed of themselves, and not just for their pathetic coverage.
Just look at the articles appearing right now on the Yahoo Mid-East webpage, and note too just how recent these articles are. Consider too the import of these articles in understanding just what is going on in the various countries that comprise this region.
Now see what the BBC offers. One would think that 3 day old articles are still relevant in light of other events. Notice there is no mention of the continuing violence against the Copts in Egypt by the BBC, and they still think that the article praising the ‘humanity’ of Bin Laden, and another about the Palestinian scam to portray Israel buses as racist are worth hanging on to.