Startling admission here by Mark Thompson;
“The head of the BBC, Mark Thompson, has admitted that the broadcaster would never mock Mohammed like it mocks Jesus. He justified the astonishing admission of religious bias by suggesting that mocking Mohammed might have the “emotional force” of “grotesque child pornography”. But Jesus is fair game because, he said, Christianity has broad shoulders and fewer ties to ethnicity.
Mr Thompson says the BBC would never have broadcast Jerry Springer The Opera – a controversial musical that mocked Jesus – if its target had been Mohammed. He made the remarks in an interview for a research project at the University of Oxford. Mr Thompson said: “The point is that for a Muslim, a depiction, particularly a comic or demeaning depiction, of the Prophet Mohammed might have the emotional force of a piece of grotesque child pornography.”
This explains a lot. The point is that the State Broadcaster has one standard for how it deals with Christianity but another for how it deals with Islam. I suggest that it is not just the “emotional force” that concerns Thompson should the BBC offend Muslims as it does Christians but rather the “cutting edge” that the Religion of Peace offers to all who dare demean it.
Talking of Anglophobic, IslamoMarxist, opportunistic filth:
You missed out anti-semitic.
Steals healthcare money from Iraqi kids and makes out it’s for admin costs
They (Thompson/BBC) can’t get anything bloody well approaching even-handed can they ?
I think the point is that Mr Thompson does not want to spend 20 years of his life living in safe houses with round-the-clock police protection a la Salman Rushdie. I think that is what guarantees the Religion of Peace from any “mockery” by the State Broadcaster, or anyone else for that matter.
“mocking Mohammed” ????
They don’t even do mild criticism.
Mr Thompson said: “The point is that for a Muslim, a depiction, particularly a comic or demeaning depiction, of the Prophet Mohammed might have the emotional force of a piece of grotesque child pornography.”
Whereas a committed Christian will just laugh off a depiction of Christ getting blown by another man or a crucifix immersed in piss. There is a whiff of casual racism about this argument which he probably doesn’t notice.
His argument that ‘Islamophobia’ is a form of proxy racism perhaps carries greater weight but is still a cop-out and stinks of excuse-making. Criticism of, contempt for and mockery of Islam are not the same thing as racism and Thompson knows this full well. It is a convenient smokescreen.
He was far closer to the truth when he tacitly admitted his corporation treated a certain religion differently because he fears violent reprisals.
Just say it, Mark. We know you’re thinking it.
The head of the BBC, Mark Thompson, has admitted that the broadcaster would never mock Mohammed like it mocks Jesus. He justified the astonishing admission of religious bias by suggesting that mocking Mohammed might have the “emotional force” of “grotesque child pornography”. But Jesus is fair game because, he said, Christianity has broad shoulders and fewer ties to ethnicity.
In a way this is a compliment to Christians and Christianity, and contempt for Islam and Muslims. Further, it shows to the general public, how alien Islam is to Western norms.
Jesus told us it wouldn’t be easy.
Could have done with a Koran or two today – it’s turned bloody cold, and I’ve had to relight my woodburning range.
Ha!
Look in the bathroom – you might have the odd copy in there. Maybe hanging from a nail.
What does this mean, “fewer ties to ethnicity”? Less white people? But aren’t there any white ethnicities? Has the English language become so f@#$ed up amongst the elite?
Like I keep saying, there’s an intellectual failure at the BBC.
Having said that, I believe there’s actually a subtle bit of racism in Thompson’s statement about Christianity having broader shoulders. He’s saying that the ethnicities associated with Islam are immature and unsophisticated. Is Mark Thompson a racist? I think he is.
No, no, no! The English especially, have no ethnicity. Nor any identity either. They are a sort of vague presence but nothing more. It’s only those funny foreigners or relatively recent immigrants, particularly ones with brown or black skin colour, that have ethnicity and therefore require special handling and special reverence for their funny customs, religion, clothes and even the food they eat.
He is stuck in this mindset and that’s that; everything he says on the subject is merely an exposition of his set ideas. That is why I’ve said before that I see no intelligent engagement by this man with any ideas or perspectives other than his own.
Strange, isn’t it?
If you claim to be a Cockney, Yorkshireman, Cornishman or whatever, you’re leaving yourself open to the accusation of being a stray mongrel, of no consequence at best, and malign at worst.
If, however, a person with brown or black skin colour claims to be a Cockney, Yorkshireman, Cornishman, that identity suddenly acquires special status and woe betide anybody who dares to suggest otherwise.
Actually his remark could be read that Christianity has broader shoulders could be read that Christianity is a better religion. Now there’s a piece of Islamophobia for you. 😎
Asian Network
Nihal asks whether it is anti-Semitic to criticise Israel, after Baroness Tonge stepped down following the backlash against her comments.
I can’t wait for the follow-up. Is mentioning the violent reaction of Muslims to criticism, Islamophobia?
I’m surprised how fair Nihal seems. Perhaps he’s Hindu?
I’d like to hear Mark Thompson’s views on offending Jews. Judaism too has “broad shoulders” but more “ties to ethnicity”.
But Thompson is married to a Jewess, so he’s compromised on that score no matter what he might say.
I’d question why the state broadcaster feels the need to “mock” any religion, other than to give amusement to communists such as Jeremy Hardy. The reason they don’t mock the man they always call “The Prophet Mohammed” is of course simple: they don’t want to be murdered, and they know that’s what will happen if they mock the founder of the Religion of Peace.
It could be argued that the BBC’s approach comes dangerously close to racism.
It’s admitting that the corporation treats some people more carefully and respectfully because of their ethnicity.
It promotes the view that different ethnic groups have differing abilities when it comes to coping calmy and peacefully when they think they have been offended.
Treating groups of people differenty because of their ethnicity is usually called racism.
So is ascribing emotional qualities to a particular ethnic group.
The easy defense for the indefensible is that treating non-white ethnics with a lighter touch is perfectly acceptable because they’ve been oppressed and face racism every day, etc.
The problem with Thompson’s remark is that he’s actually saying that people who subscribe to a religion with “ties to ethnicity” – e.g. non-whites – are weaker in spirit, less sophisticated people.
That’s the soft racism of lowered expectations. Mark Thompson is a racist.
Robin Rose
“I’d question why the state broadcaster feels the need to “mock” any religion”
Exactly what jumped out at me too, surely fair decent non partisan would be better served NOT moking religions at all.
Phil
It could be argued that the BBC’s approach comes dangerously close to racism.
Not close, racism on two counts: one you mention but the second is taht if you an be racist against Islam (you shouldn’t be, but you can, as has been proven) then he is being bloody openly racist against Christianity.
Here’s a word I’d like to see entered into the dictionary for all those like the BBC whose own cowardice in the face of fundamentalist Muslims makes them choose to appease them instead of denounce them. Even worse is they then convince themselves that they are doing it because they are truly ‘multicultural’.
The word is SCUM!
It’s not just a derisive term for these lily livered ‘heroes’, but is derived from the word ‘SUCCUMB’, which they have done in the face of the Islamic agenda. It’s also in keeping with the real translation of Islam, which is submission – not ‘peace’, as the BBC SCUM want you to believe.
Here’s a word I’d like to see entered into the dictionary for all those like the BBC whose own cowardice in the face of fundamentalist Muslims makes them choose to appease them instead of denounce them.
Teddy Bear, I thoroughly understand the BBC’s (and the rest of the media’s) reluctance to produce and screen material that risks enraging Muslims. People’s lives would be put at genuine risk as a result.
Personally, I wouldn’t go on air and immerse a copy of the Koran in piss and there are many people far braver than I who wouldn’t, either.
And besides, I wouldn’t want to offend anyone simply for the sake of offending – I’ll leave that for the ‘edgy’ comedians, thankyouverymuch.
The bravest thing Mark Thompson can do is to acknowledge that the BBC (and the rest of the UK’s media) treats Islam differently because of the fear of violent reprisals. He and senior managers have a duty of care to their staff, after all, and they cannot sanction material that will endanger lives.
All this guff about ‘ties to ethnicity and Christianity having ‘broad shoulders’ is precisely that: guff.
To screen or promote material that mocks, debases, trivialises Christianity and Christians while treating Islam with kid gloves does show cowardice and double standards, however. And to justify this ‘one rule for one, one for another’ approach by playing the racism card is, frankly, disingenous.
That should be “disingenuous”, of course. 🙂
Jeremy, since this issue is largely responsible for so much of the insidious and dishonest reporting created by the BBC I think it’s worthy of further debate to determine ‘what the correct response should be’. So here’s a few points to get the ball rolling.
Wisdom dictates that any action should be weighed against the likely consequences to best determine what the right course should be.
In this case we have a direct threat to our society by those who wish to overthrow it and replace it with values that we long since outgrew. Should we stand up to it immediately and make it clear that we recognise the intent and agenda of those who perpetrate this, and that unless they desist it will be met with ALL force necessary to subdue it, or do we pretend to appease and respect it, bending our own society and creating confusion in the process.
I would suggest responding to this point first, before analysing what the BBC should be doing, as we need to be clear about what the right course truly must be, and why.
Thompson could also suggest that Mohammedans grow up and learn to react in a more nuanced fashion. Unfortunately, he’s a racist who thinks they can’t.
It’s time the BBC started to represent the majority of viewers in this country who couldn’t give two shits about Muslims but who are starting to get mightily pissed off about how much airplay these wastes of space get on the left wing socialist and pro-Islamic bum-sucking BBC ‘news’.
“… a depiction, particularly a comic or demeaning depiction, of the Prophet Mohammed might have the emotional force of a piece of grotesque child pornography.”
Of course it might! It might actually be child pornography. He was a paedophile after all.
Touche!
Enthused with its ‘Arab Spring’ Islamisation, will Islam Not BBC (INBBC) now explicitly follow this Islamic Egyptian example?:-
Egyptians offer “anti-Christianization” course