Christopher Hitchens gives a very measured and scholarly take down of Islam…..is it ‘insulting’ or respectable, intelligent and ‘acceptable’ comment?
The BBC is already mounting its counter punch to the ‘defiant’ Charlie Hebdo cartoon published in reaction to the murders of its staff. The Today programme (07:36) brought on someone from the Muslim Association of Britain…an extremist outfit and the British offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Then on came Prince Hussein of Jordan who condemned the publication and was outraged at suggestions that Islam might be a threat to the European civilisation.
Naughtie asked how he thought Europe should deal with the situation..what is required on our part?…hmmm…is it us that is the problem then?
An irony eh?
The publication of a cartoon is yet again portrayed as insulting and provocative, one that the BBC abhors…and yet the Muslim reaction of intense, extreme violence is explained away, excused and justified.
Print a cartoon satiring violence and you are a neo-Nazi Islamophobe…savagely kill those who produce such cartoons and you are quietly feted as defenders of a Great Faith insulted.
Naughtie thinks it is merely a problem of a few extremists blackening the name of Islam…you can count them on the fingers of one hand perhaps.
Hussein hopes that the media can be more aware of the importance of sharing the knowledge, analytical knowledge [about the issues]….just after he wished that people used the #JeSuisAhmed hashtag [Naughtie giving a snort of approval]…..which I analyse here for his benefit.
There is nothing less likely from the BBC than that, they are extremely reluctant to open the box on this one and when they do they are not going to pay the slightest attention to the findings.
As noted previously the BBC is making a lot of room on the airwaves to push the Muslim side of things…but the BBC’s approach is to deliver this in such a one sided format that it is nothing more than propaganda…..this may well be in the same vein:
Freedom of Expression and the Ban on the Burqa in France
I haven’t listened to it but let me think….the narrative is that the ban on the Burkha is just one of many instances of Islamophobia and racism that French Muslims have to put up with and hence we must expect a few murders in response to this outrageous restriction on their religious freedom.
Let me know if I’m on the money if you dare to listen.
This morning on radio Devon, a news bulletin stated that a cartoon had been published with the words “je suis Charlie” over the cartoon. What the BBC failed to mention was the top bit “Tout est pardonne”. They cannot bring themselves to publish the facts of the cartoon can they? The BBC really have become the “gutter press” haven’t they?
Not sure about gutter press, but certainly they are the ‘gutless press’.
Count the number of extremists on the fingers of one hand? Only if they haven’t chopped off the hand first, that is. As Bill Maher said the other day: “When There’s This Many Bad Apples, There’s Something Wrong with the Orchard”
The freedom of expression issue basically comes down to how much of intrusion into expressions of opinion can the state do. Freedom of expression is a constraint on states becoming authoritarian. The state’s sole function, as I see it – regarding protecting freedom of expression – is to protect those so expressing and suppressing those who wish to attack fellow citizens in that expression. Following this logic, the BBC – as an extension of the state with this constitutional principle – editorially should be focused critically on the would-be oppressors of this freedom and the violence suffered by the expressors of views, rather that some notion of their “provocation” which seems to be their current mode. The state itself, of course, is left with only one function in a free society when it’s citizens are assaulted and killed, which is to protect them and suppress the attackers of Liberty. Thus, the BBC should only have commentators who agree with this unnegotiable principle – that Liberty requires freedom of expression in all circumstances short of war. Allowing people to oppose this principle is essentially suggesting this constitutional principle is up for discussion and – crucially – change. This is dangerous because Liberty rests on this foundation. The “balanced” discussion cannot occur in a free society on this issue because it is predicated on constitutional change. Does the BBC want this leg of legality cut off as soon as someone uses violence against a freely expressed view?
Clear and good. Liberalism will never accept your premise. It is for that reason that the liberal is in such a mess over this affair.
Many liberals put the avoidance of offence and the need for demonstrating equality of cultures over and above freedom both of expression and of the individual.
The liberal media has chosen it’s side. it must not be ours ever
Those trying to make a case bout the “Act prohibiting concealment of the face in public space” in France have hard time since it was upheld by the ECHR. An institution known for it’s extremely strict adherence to the human rights conventions/laws. As much as you’re not allowed to enter public places with a helmet or balaclava, you’re not with a burqa. As such it’s not a ban of the burqa but a ban to be unrecognizable which to me makes a lot of sense. At 150 euro a pop it does the trick. A few attempts by extremist muslims have been made to turn it into a religious affair by provocation but that simmered down since the government just didn’t cede.
Furthermore applying for french citizenship in a burqa is an exercise in futility because you’ll be refused just for entering the courts to give the oath of alliance in one.
The cartoon is not quite as innocent as you think. Hint – try looking at it from another angle.
Yep, 1st thing I noticed too, being an artist myself, and prone to rude sketches…turn the picture upside down, concentrate on the eyes and nose, and it’s clearly a (crudely drawn) cock and balls.
Good on Luz for doing it.
Strange the bbc do not report this Muslims views.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/01/13/muslims-who-dont-like-free-speech-fk-off-rotterdam-mayor-ahmed-aboutaleb_n_6461880.html?1421153515
“Political class in denial over cause of jihadist threat, says LEO MCKINSTRY”
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/leo-mckinstry/551443/Leo-McKinstry-political-leaders-Islam-multiculturalism
‘Jihadwatch’-
“UK shops to receive Charlie Hebdo as Muslim cleric calls it
an ‘act of war’ that will bring ‘repercussions.’”
[Excerpt]:-
“But in absurd, cowed, subjugated Sharia Britain, where public officials race to outdo each other in appeasing and showering privileges upon Islamic supremacists, Choudary runs around loose and says whatever he wishes, while counter-jihadists are defamed and marginalized, or — if they’re not British — barred from the country outright. Why not just make Choudary Prime Minister and be done with it?”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/01/uk-shops-to-receive-charlie-hebdo-as-muslim-cleric-calls-it-an-act-of-war-that-will-bring-repercussions/comment-page-1#comment-1178600
I wouldn’t worry too much about Choudary. He’s widely believed to be a collaborator or agent provacteur for the security forces, officially licensed to hate with the aim of bringing others into the open.
I like Chaudary, as he tells it like it is.
No wonder Muslims dont like him.
Th only quibble I have with Hitchins talk, is that he assumes that Western civilisation, which presumably he admires, is independent of Christianity.
Western civilisation cannot be separated from Christianity. Music, art, philopsophy, social and political progress, engineering, science, are all part and parcel of Western Christian faith. This is a complex fabric, with Christianity the main thread.