The BBC clears the ariwaves to report that a Palestinian schoolboy in Israel who, with creative genius, built an electronic clock and took it into school one day where teachers mistook  it for a bomb and called the police. The boy was arrested, charged, found guilty and sentenced to be beheaded and crucified by the Israeli authorities for intention to commit terrorist acts.  The BBC are all over this story.

Or did that really happen?….Was the clock really a bomb or just a clock and did the Israelis merely jail the boy for a couple of hours?… the BBC wouldn’t let the facts spoil a good anti-Israeli story.

In fact, of course, none of that is true.  But you can imagine all too easily the furore that would erupt were the Israelis to execute a boy on trumped up charges never mind merely arrest and jail him.

But there’s no such furore, oddly, from the BBC for a Shia Muslim being executed by the Saudis…this week his sentence of beheading and crucifixion was confirmed and may be carried out within days.

As far as I can see the BBC last reported on this story over a year ago and nothing since.  Which is amazing really, a Shia Muslim boy being beheaded and crucified by Sunni Muslims, after probably being tortured into signing a false confession…and it’s all based on his religion.

‘Amazing’ because a Muslim boy in America who was arrested on suspicion of making a bomb and quickly released has really caught the BBC’s imagination and resulted in endless stories from the BBC about him…..none of which actually get anywhere near the truth as to what really happened…funnily enough.  Why so much attention on what is essentially a non-story and why, in complete contrast, the lack of interest in a Shia Muslim actually being tortured then executed by Sunnis on trumped up charges?

Does the BBC have an agenda?  Is the BBC only interested in stories that show Muslims as ‘victims’ of white oppression and Islamophobia?  Looks that way doesn’t it?

The BBC’s interest in a boy about to be beheaded is minimal to nil, the BBC’s interest in Muslim Clockboy is phenomenal in comparison….

Texas teenager arrested after a homemade clock was mistaken for a bomb

Ahmed Mohamed: No charges for boy, 14, arrested over clock

‘Clock boy’ Ahmed Mohamed’s huge invite list – Facebook, White House, Twitter

Ahmed Mohamed: Homemade clock boy quits Texas school

Oh yes, and then there’s this story….

Who’s behind the campaign for Ahmed, the young Muslim clockmaker?

Who indeed is behind the campaign for Ahmed?  Is it really just a concerned Muslim girl shocked by America’s Islamophobia or a hard-core campaigner on Islamic issues?

The BBC merely tells us that ‘A Texas college student wanted to show her support for Ahmed Mohamed. Twenty-four hours later, her hashtag has started a movement. …Those on social media who feel that the event was unjust and racially motivated have used #IStandWithAhmed to show their support.  The hashtag was created by Amneh Jafari, who wrote, “If his name was John he would be labelled as a genius. Since its Ahmed he’s labelled as a “suspect”. #doublestandards #IStandWithAhmed.”  Jafari, a 23-year-old psychology student at the University of Texas Arlington (UTA).’

Who is she really?  She is a Palestinian who champions the ‘one Ummah’ (you do remember the Islamic State’s single finger salute…one god, one religion, one mosque, one Ummah?) and her other hashtag is #HandsOffAlAqsa

• Amneh Jafari ‏@AmnehJafari 7 hrs7 hours ago

  InshAllah at 8:30 am I’ll be doing an interview with @KhaledSafi from Gaza, Palestine about #IStandWithAhmed http://www.alaqsavoice.ps/live/ 

Oh yes…she’s also a good friend of the extremist Islamist group CAIR’s Texas representative…...’Alia Salem, a friend of mine, and the executive director of CAIR-Texas Dallas Fort Worth’.  That’ll be CAIR who are coordinating a campaign in Ahmed’s name…

Remarkably the BBC seem entirely unconcerned about investigating the actual events that led up to the boy’s arrest and rely purely upon the boy’s own narrative…and that of his new friends.  But how true is that?  In this video you can see the BBC absolutely lapping up CAIR’s narrative and even adding the BBC’s own twist to it….suggesting that unless America sorts itself out it runs the risk of alienating young Muslims…which, completely without irony, we are told could ‘be problematic in the future’...does he mean radical Muslims with bombs?

First, the narrative that this is Islamophobia based upon the fact that the boy was a Muslim….well yeah, it was precisely because he was a Muslim…why?  Because Muslims are around the world planting bombs that get people killed.  The ‘clock’ looked nothing like a clock and looked like what everyone would suspect a bomb to look like.

Consider this was just after the 9/11 anniversary as well and the boy refused to explain why he had made the clock, why he had brought it into school and what it was for….the police, on that basis, arrested him for making a hoax bomb.  The school is also apparently just 25 miles away from where two Muslims attacked the Mohammed cartoon exhibition recently….why would people not be on the alert?

The boy was told not to show it to other teachers and yet he did, and in one class set the alarm to go off….which concerned the teacher enough to make her report him to the headteacher…..what would anyone make of a container full of electronics like that?

Did he actually ‘invent’ or otherwise create the clock himself?  Seems that he actually just took the guts out of a digital clock and put them into the case……hardly genius at work here…

Also thanks to David Brims for this video which gives a perspective the BBC doesn’t bother with:

And there’s this video which also takes a critical look at the issue and tells us of other, non-Muslim school children who have been treated in a similar, if not worse way…

The BBC has just taken this story and run with the Islamophobia narrative put out by the Islamist activists.  It hasn’t made the slightest effort to examine either the story or the supposed issues surrounding it as to whether this was ‘Islamophobia’ or a natural and cautious, sensible reaction in light of the serious terrorist threat in America right now…as we know there have been scores of arrests recently in the US related to the Islamic State.

The video in which the BBC hands over the airwaves to CAIR and actually sides with them, adding to CAIR’s own narrative of Islamophobia and Muslim victims, demonstrates perfectly how the BBC cannot be trusted to report on issues surrounding Islam and Muslims with the slightest degree of honesty and openness….another example of which was Jon Sopel’s astonishingly bigoted, biased pro-Muslim rant against Ben Carson which we looked at yesterday…..a story to which we can add to with this comment by Carson himself…..(H/T gb123 in the comments)

The first issue I want to deal with tonight is the stories today about my comments yesterday when I was asked if I would support a hypothetical Muslim candidate for President. I responded “I would not advocate for that” and I went on to say that many parts of Sharia Law are not compatible with the Constitution. I was immediately attacked by some of my Republican peers and nearly every Democrat alive. Know this, I meant exactly what I said. I could never support a candidate for President of the United States that was Muslim and had not renounced the central tenant of Islam: Sharia Law.

Those Republicans that take issue with my position are amazing. Under Islamic Law, homosexuals – men and women alike – must be killed. Women must be subservient. And people following other religions must be killed.

I know that there are many peaceful Muslims who do not adhere to these beliefs. But until these tenants are fully renounced…I cannot advocate any Muslim candidate for President.

…I also can’t advocate supporting Hillary Clinton either by the way.

But here’s a thing…one of CAIR’s declared enemies, the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD), run by Muslims, according to its 2011 IRS filings states, “AIFD’s mission is to advocate for the preservation of our U.S. Constitution’s liberties and freedom, through the separation of mosque and state.” ‘….therefore if a Muslim refuses to compromise on his beliefs he cannot be President and still defend the US Constitution….just as Carson said.

Sarah Montague interviewed Ta-Nehisi Coates on Today (08:50) concerning a letter he wrote to his son preparing him for life in ‘racist’ America, a land in which the Blacks are still oppressed.  Never mind having a black President and all that.  A rare form of oppression one might think.  The letter came out in July and Coates has a long history of such racist whimpering.  You may suspect that the letter to his son was nothing more than a device to catch the media’s attention in a way that a race baiter talking up the usual anti-white rhetoric wouldn’t…wrap it up in a sentimental coating and it becomes a heartfelt plea, a meaningful spotlight on a cruel and racist America.

Montague played along and offered up Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown as evidence of America’s white racism…never mind Martin was shot as he tried to smash the head of an Hispanic American into the ground and Brown was a thug and thief who attacked a police officer, tried to take his gun, punched him in the face and charged at him when told to stop….that’s why he was shot, not because he was black, because he was a dangerous, dumb-ass thug.

Then we get to the real meat of the interview, one suspects what Montague really wanted to address all along….Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson stating that a Muslim should not be President of the USA.

Coates denounced him as a bigot.  Montague said nothing to contradict that view.  In fact she didn’t put into context what Carson said and why he said it  thus deliberately leaving it open to interpretation that he was a bigot….an ‘Islamophobe’.

So now we know…America is racist, black men get gunned down by police for absolutely no reason whatsoever and blacks are put in jail just for the crime of being black [If you believe frothing mouthed liberal rants such as this where mass murderers and rapists are being treated ‘unfairly’ by racist America….”The imagery haunts, and the stench of slavery and racial oppression lingers through the 13 minutes of footage.’] and Republicans are Islamophobes.

Jon Sopel joins in the condemnation of Carson in this blatant piece of opinionated tripe he wrote for the BBC...Carson leaps over the line with his Islam comment.   This is not reporting but a one-sided piece of invective against Carson giving him no say to defend himself and which libels and labels him as a bigot and racist.

First though we have the usual BBC anti-Trump rhetoric which Sopel uses as a warm-up for his attack on Carson….

The slight trip across the line came from the aforementioned Mr Trump who failed to correct a questioner who alleged that Obama wasn’t American, wasn’t a Christian – but was a Muslim. Mr Trump, under fire, countered that it wasn’t up to him – he had no moral responsibility to stand up for the president. OK, but you can correct a downright lie. No?

That of course is purely subjective and not in the realm of a BBC ‘journalist’ to demand…Sopel calls the comment a ‘lie’ but what if it is a truly held belief or just a mistake?  To label it a ‘lie’ is a contrived way to put the person who made the comment in a bad light and Trump after.  Trump had no obligation to ‘correct’ him at all, and Obama was born a Muslim, his father was Muslim, therefore he may well be Muslim technically…in fact Muslims will tell you everyone is ‘Muslim’…you just don’t accept it…that is why they, especially the fundamentalists, insist on calling converts ‘reverts’…they revert back to their ‘natural’ religion….Jesus was a Muslim, as was Moses  and Abraham..oy vey!

Then Sopel gets to Carson and mounts his high-horse…..here sententiously, pompously, laying it out for us…

If you haven’t heard it I am going to reprint here the full exchange with Chuck Todd the interviewer, just so you can see that the comments aren’t being taken out of context.

TODD: Should a president’s faith matter? Should it matter to voters?

CARSON: I guess it depends on what that faith is. If it’s inconsistent with the values and principles of America. And of course, if it fits within the realm of America and consistent with the constitution, no problem.

TODD: So do you believe that Islam is consistent with the constitution?

CARSON: No, I do not. I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.

Sopel tries to set it up to suggest the context proves Carson is a bigot…hmmm…well reading it doesn’t seem to support that prejudiced and bigoted conclusion from Sopel who exhibits all the usual signs of being the BBC’s useful idiot in America ala Mark Mardell….it can’t be long before ISIL murders a group of people in America and Sopel comes up with the line that ‘This is a senseless tragedy….nothing to do with Islam’.

Reading what Carson said seems more to support the idea that he said this because his comments were based upon what the religion teaches, events from around the world such as in the war zone of the Middle East and events in Muslim majority countries in which Islam rules supreme guided by the word of God not man.

Is Islam compatible with western, democratic, secular, liberal societies that value free speech, liberty, tolerance and humanity?  Most people would probably say not.  I know of no-one who thinks Islam is a good and humane religion…the evidence is overwhelming that it seems to promote violence, intolerance and apartheid in societies around the world in a way that no other religion even comes close to…only in Islam does a holy book incite its followers to kill the unbelievers, to kill them until Islam rules supreme…nowhere in the Bible will you find Jesus telling followers of Christ to kill the unbelievers….

Quran (8:39) – “Make war on them until idolatory shall cease and God’s religion shall reign supreme.’

Sopel emotes on behalf of Muslims in America…

How is it going to feel to have a serious political figure, someone who aspires to lead this nation, essentially saying being Muslim is un-American?

These people who day in, day out serve their communities, support their families, enrich the lives of fellow citizens and make America the successful melting pot that it is. Kids who recite the pledge of allegiance in the morning at their schools and go to their mosque or church or synagogue in the evening at the weekend? Isn’t that what America is all about? Which bit of “one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all” doesn’t Dr Carson get?

He then says this:

Indeed, how different are Dr Carson’s comments from previous generations of bigots, racists and apologists who would say there could never be an African-American as president, or Catholic, or any other minority you could single out.

So Carson is a racist, a bigot, an apologist for racists and bigots……but his comment was based not upon a physical characteristic but upon an ideology, one that clearly states what its tenets are….for everyone to read….and you can see those tenets being put into action around the world…and come to the conclusion that Carson did….are you a racist and a bigot if you oppose Communism or Fascism?  No, because they are ideologies not a skin colour.  Sopel doesn’t seem able to tell the difference.

Sopel quotes from the Constitution...

Article 6 is just about as explicit a statement as you’re ever going to find: no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

That though isn’t the issue…the issue is that it is Islam doesn’t recognise the ‘sovereignty of man’ and will not recognise the very same US Constitution that Sopel quotes from……which makes this command from the Constitution somewhat incompatible with  a Muslim being President…

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

As does this…..

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

How can a Muslim defend the Constitution when his religious principles oppose that very notion, that concept of man’s sovereignty not God’s, the very heart of the US Constitution?  Federal Law is the supreme law of the land, Sharia law therefore would be incompatible, it cannot also reign supreme.

Sopel’s failure to explain Muslim beliefs about politics and Sharia law whilst quick to quote Article 6 shows how biased his ‘reporting’ is on this issue.  Article 6 may not actually mean what he takes it to meant…that anyone, of any religion can be in public office….it is apparently taken as meaning no-one can be made to adopt a religion or belief…a slight but significant difference in meaning….it may not mean anyone is free to be President regardless of their ideology.

John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, in his Presidential campaign tackled a similar question….and his conclusions were…

If the time should ever come – and I do not concede any conflict to be remotely possible – when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any other conscientious public servant would do likewise.

It is apparently necessary for me to state once again—not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me—but what kind of America I believe in.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute—where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishoners for whom to vote—where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference—and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish—where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source—where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials—and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

I would not look with favor upon a President working to subvert the first amendment’s guarantees of religious liberty.

I want a Chief Executive whose public acts are responsible to all groups and obligated to none—who can attend any ceremony, service or dinner his office may appropriately require of him—and whose fulfillment of his Presidential oath is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual or obligation.

I don’t believe any Muslim could make the same statements about the separation of religion and state, the guarantee of religious freedom, a state where religious law plays no part, where no faith school gets public funding and that he should have to resign if his faith and conscience should act against the national interest.

Sopel ends with this condescending and pompously arrogant sneer…

I was in California for the second Republican debate last week, and to be honest I thought Dr Ben Carson was sailing in a bit of an empty vessel. I couldn’t remember anything noteworthy that he had said. Well, we now see that there is something in that vessel, aside from him. And it is not very pleasant. It will be interesting to watch how much pressure there’ll be for him to walk the plank, or chart a very different course.

So Carson is also ‘not very pleasant’ and should be made to resign or be forced to change his views.

All in all a typically prejudiced, ill-informed and bigoted piece from the BBC that sets out to label anyone who criticies Islam as a racist and a fascist, someone whose views are ‘unacceptable’ and therefore can be maligned and slandered by the BBC…..and either silenced or forced out of their job.

Regardless of whether a Muslim could actually be the President and ‘protect and defend the Constitution’ Sopel has produced an incredibly biased piece aimed at Carson.  Sopel and his crew are the closest we have to the medieval thought-police of the Inquisition, the Gestapo in the 30’s or the KGB….this is a media show trial and just as in any show trial the defendant has no right of reply and his guilt is pre-ordained.  Carson was hung out to dry by Sopel for the crime of being truthful.

The BBC keeps telling us that the migrant crisis could be solved if the European countries could only come up with a unified plan to parcel out the migrants equitably. Of course what the BBC means by ‘migrant crisis’ is probably entirely different to what most people’s understanding of the term might be.  The BBC’s interpretation is that the millions of people heading towards Europe are not a migrant crisis, the BBC is in fact a cheerleader for this, the crisis is purely in the mishandling of the migrants once they get here and not in the fact that they come.  The BBC thinks that if only we could process these migrants faster and more efficiently and share them out between the different countries, regardless of where they want to go, then the crisis is solved.

You would hope that this is not what they actually think….many BBC reporters must be victims of group-think as well as pressure from their fellow reporters to toe the compassionate line…start reporting the truth and investigating the consequences of so much migration into Europe by totally ‘alien’ peoples and they would soon find themselves shut out of the BBC club and victims of the ‘consensus’.

The Telegraph is running a poll asking if Merkel has made the migrant crisis [a normal person’s understanding of the term] worse….when I looked 99% said she had made things worse…by unilaterally opening Germany’s borders, and hence Europe’s, without asking anyone else in Europe if they agreed…and then demanding ‘unity’ to solve the problem created by her own disunity.

The BBC has misjudged the Public mood, well, determinedly ignored it.  Which is ironic really because the BBC thinks it is Cameron who misjudged the Public mood when he refused to let in anymore Syrian migrants until the photograph of the boy on the beach surfaced….apparently when Cameron relented and agreed to let in more Syrians he was only then just catching up with the Public mood….obviously we all wanted more Syrian migrants.  You can hear the BBC’s wise words at about 4 mins 30 secs in this video…..

Hitchens, in the video, takes the view that the only sensible way to deal with this ‘migrant crisis’ is to improve the refugee camps in the areas surrounding Syria…he says the migrants coming into Europe are actually economic migrants and that they will transform the whole of Europe and that pro-immigant propaganda, such as the photograph of the boy on the beach, is used to silence people and stop critical, rational thinking about the migrants, there is a lot of emotion clouding judgement, a lot of emotive stupidity.

The BBC, as said, doesn’t see millions of migrants flooding into Europe as a crisis and keeps asking if we shouldn’t be taking more migrants.  Funny the direction in which the BBC pressure is always applied.

On Friday 5Live brought us Anna Holligan (46 mins) reporting from Croatia where she tells us that ‘We’ve all seen these pictures of razor wire, police using water cannon and tear gas to disperse refugees who came to the border to try and cross into Hungary…’

Several problems with that small sentence…first we have the ever-present use of the term ‘razor wire’ which the BBC uses as often as possible in what must be a deliberate attempt to make the Hungarians look as bad as possible and the ‘plight’ of the migrants really harsh….not that much different to the victims of the Holocaust…something that the BBC also alludes to frequently in regard to the migrants and their treatment, or alleged treatment.

Secondly the police didn’t use water cannon and tear gas to disperse ‘refugees’, they used them to stop migrants from attacking the police with extreme violence and attempting to storm the border by force….curious how the BBC never seems to mention the violence of the migrants when it mentions Hungary’s use of control measures.  And of course they are not so much ‘refugees’ as economic migrants.

She then admits that Croatia says it cannot cope with the numbers and might close its borders…odd how Croatia gets a sympathetic hearing but Hungary gets called a Fascist state when it says it can’t cope….such an approach seems BBC-wide and not just limited to Holligan as this example shows…

Croatia initially welcomed the migrants, but then said it was unable to cope with the numbers and moved them over its border with Hungary, which quickly ferried them west to Austria.

 

When that finding came out the BBC has had to find a new way to promote the idea that Syrians are supposedly the bulk of the migrants when the truth is they are not…the BBC now says the Syrians are merely the ‘largest group’ which doesn’t tell you that overall they make up only 20% of the migrants…..

The largest group arriving in Europe are Syrians escaping the conflict there, followed by Afghans, then migrants from Eritrea, Nigeria and Somalia, fleeing war and human rights abuses.

And yet it is the Syrians that the BBC concentrates on and uses as a means to try and induce guilt in the West by claiming the West is responsible for events in Syria in a way it couldn’t do for Eirtrea, Nigeria and Somalia.  They try to ramp up the sympathy or guilt for the migrant cause overall by exploiting the Syrian angle.

Have to say that Hungary proves that migration can be controlled and stopped despite the BBC saying it is inevitable and unstoppable….the border fence, and the will to stop them, forced the migrants to turn elsewhere…so the logic would be that similar preventative measures elsewhere would send out the message that Europe is not open to all the world and this would force potential migrants, the vast majority of whom are economic, to think again.  The BBC of course can be relied upon to seek out those who did attempt to come here anyway and ended up stranded behind the fences or on the beaches somewhere because they didn’t listen and the BBC would be working hard to ‘break down’ the fences and the political will to stop migration by looking for more ‘dead babies’ on those beaches to try and paint a picture of a continuing ‘migrant crisis’ and suffering migrants.

Peter Hitchens, echoing government policy, has the only sensible answer….improve the refugee camps and stop the war in Syria.  The solution is not merely finding a way to accomodate millions of people flooding into Europe in hope of a better life as the BBC’s campaigning supports.

The BBC is, as always, completely out of touch with Public opinon in the UK, and probaly the majority Public opinion across most of Europe.

Monday morning and time for a fresh Open Thread. Here is where you must detail that bias. What has the BBC been doing to annoy you?

As Syrian refugees flood into Europe what baggage may some bring with them?

This clip from Memri isn’t encouraging…certainly not if you’re Jewish…

The Highland Rebel in the comments brings us this apology from the BBC:

Shock over anti-Semitic caricature in BBC Proms programme

Classical music lovers were left stunned when they spotted an “antisemitic” illustration in a BBC Proms programme.

Gillian Stern, from Finchley, said she was shocked that a “hideously and very obviously antisemitic cartoon” of the violinist Leopold Auer appeared in the programme for a Proms performance of Tchaikovsky’s Violin Concerto.

Auer was a violinist and teacher of significance, and a number of composers, including Tchaikovsky, dedicated pieces to him.

Ms Stern said: “This image of Leopold had been printed large in the programme, with no full context or explanation of its questionable nature.

“Leopold was one of the most important violin teachers of his time. If you look him up you will see this fine man, and there are plenty of pictures of him available – but they have used what was at the time clearly a caricature.  “It is the most extraordinary thing. I can’t get my head around why they would have picked that.”
She added: “I was so shocked I tweeted it to them to complain, but no one got back to me.”

Surprised by the image was violin teacher Nigel Goldberg, who said: “It is an antisemitic cartoon and it is completely out of context. There is no explanation of the image at all. Anyone I’ve shown it to, Jewish or not, has been stunned.”

A spokesperson for the BBC Proms was unavailable for comment.

From Nicky Campbell’s good mate….

As Jews are once again being purged from Europe just for being Jewish, and the BBC looks on apparently with the feeling that they get what was coming to them, many people point out a few problems arising from mass immigration that the BBC is all too often not just reluctant to debate but actively seeks to hide and dismiss….denying and silencing truth.

The final image of Dr Jacob Bronowski, in his “Ascent of Man”, standing in the mud at Auschwitz is implanted in my brain. He wept and said that Auschwitz and, by implication, all the other hell-holes constructed by Man, is the unavoidable destination reached by the denial and silencing of truth.

And no…Muslims are not the ‘new Jews of Europe’.  An irony that the BBC recently tried to invoke the Holocaust to defend Muslim immigrants and to label opponents of mass migration as something akin to the Nazis….whilst at the same time ignoring the real ‘Jews of Europe’.

There’s the Truth, and there’s the Truth as reported, or not reported, by the BBC…as Rod Liddle points out…

In Sweden there are riots…almost all the people doing the rioting were, to adapt Nick Robinson’s phrase, people of non-Swedish orign.  These were…are..race riots.

It was not the ordinary Swedes rising up against the oppressive Swedish state; it was immigrants.  Come on James – why not tell us the truth?’

From Boris Johnson:

To any non-Muslim reader of the Koran, Islamophobia – fear of Islam – seems a natural reaction, and, indeed, exactly what that text is intended to provoke. Judged purely on its scripture – to say nothing of what is preached in the mosques – it is the most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers. As the killer of Theo Van Gogh told his victim’s mother this week in a Dutch courtroom, he could not care for her, could not sympathise, because she was not a Muslim.

The trouble with this disgusting arrogance and condescension is that it is widely supported in Koranic texts, and we look in vain for the enlightened Islamic teachers and preachers who will begin the process of reform. What is going on in these mosques and madrasas? When is someone going to get 18th century on Islam’s medieval ass?

It is time that we started to insist that the Muslim Council of Great Britain, and all the preachers in all the mosques, extremist or moderate, began to acculturate themselves more closely to what we think of as British values. We can’t force it on them, but we should begin to demand change in a way that is both friendly and outspoken.

David Goodhart managed to slip this out on the BBC one day:

The gulf between conservative Islam and secular liberal Britain is larger than with any comparable large group….for those of us who value an open, liberal society it is time to explain why it is superior to the alternatives.

He told us that…

Some claim that if people understood Islam more everything would be fine, they would be more tolerant, I think quite the contrary….the more they understand about it the more alien they would find it…authoritarian, collectivist, patriarchal, misogynist…..all sorts of things that Britain might have been 100 years ago but isn’t now.

David Coleman, professor of demography at the the University of Oxford, said:

“Many of the consequences of large scale migration are damaging.  We do not need up to 13 million more people by the mid century.   Almost all that increase will be immigrants and their children.  It will not make the UK a happier or richer place.  Crowding and congestion will have entirely negative effects, increasing pressure on schools, hospitals and particulary housing.”

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi gave a speech on the occasion of the birth of the Prophet Muhammad on Jan. 3, when he called for breaking free from texts and ideas that were sacred centuries ago and that have become a source of anxiety for the whole world. In the presence of Tayeb, Sisi said, “How is it possible that the ideologies that we have sanctified for hundreds of years breed feelings of anxiety, danger, murder and destruction in the whole world and nation?”

“Moderate” Muslim Leader says all Muslims are “Radical” and “Extremists”

“Every now and then, every time we have a conference, every time we invite a speaker, they [the media] always come with the same accusations: This speaker supports the death penalty for homosexuals, this speaker supports the death penalty for this crime or this crime or that he is homophobic, that he subjugates women, etcetera. I always try to tell them that it is not that speaker that we are inviting who has these ‘extreme radical views,’ as you say. These are general views that every Muslim actually has.

Every Muslim believes in these things. Just because they are not telling you about it, or just because they are not out there in the media, doesn’t mean that they don’t believe in them.”

The measured and rational Charles Moore in the Telegraph voices some of his concerns about this influx of Muslims to Western Europe:

Nothing has changed in 25 years to ease my concerns about Islam

It seemed to me that most Muslim leaders saw their role not in integrating Muslims in Britain, but in asserting difference and increasing their muscle. Many favoured sharia law trumping British law. They would not support Muslim membership of the Armed Forces if those forces were deployed against Muslim countries. They wanted it to be illegal to attack Islam, let alone denigrate its prophet; and they waged constant “lawfare” to try to silence their critics. They tended, I thought, to see the advance of their cause as a zero-sum game in which the authorities had to cede more ground (sometimes it is literally a matter of territory) to Muslims.

Even the Mirror is dubious about Muslim agitprop…

WE MUST NOT GIVE IN TO MUSLIM BLACKMAIL

AS the country vexes itself over how to deal with the radicalisation of British-born Muslim youths, it’s revealing to know some of their leaders believe they have the answer.

The introduction of Sharia Law in Britain along with important religious days in the Muslim calendar becoming public holidays for followers of the faith should do the trick, or so claims the secretary general of the Union of Muslim Organisations in the UK and Ireland.

As Dr Syed Aziz Pasha says: “If you give us religious rights we will be in a better position to convince young people that they are being treated equally along with other citizens.”

This sounds perilously close to blackmail. Thus far the British people have shown exemplary tolerance in the face of terrorist threats.

There are enough wedges between us without introducing more in the form of Sharia Law or Muslim Bank holidays.

Nor should we feel it necessary to beat ourselves up because willing recruits, who happen to be born here, have signed up to become human bombs.

Some people, John Reid reminded us last week “just don’t get” the seriousness of the threat facing the West.

What will it take to understand? Ten planes destroyed and thousands of innocents dead while the family of the perpetrators weep into the cameras and say, “he wouldn’t do a thing like that”.

Oh yes he would. And believe me, he will.

Definitely a discussion people should be having about the consequences of mass migration from Muslim countries into a western, secular and democratic Europe.

On the other hand we could just have pictures of women and children crying at razor-wire topped fences and dead babies on beaches as the preferred narrrative as well as the labelling of anyone who dares to criticise that approach as racist nazis.

Your choice…oh no…it’s not…it’s the BBC  that gets to choose the narrative…..

The BBC, paying lip-service to the issue, does a body swerve around the problem by adopting the usual stance that it is not Islam but Islamism that is the problem and that of course it is ‘moderate’ Muslims who will suffer the ‘backlash’, that problem that the BBC is really concerned about rather than the activities that are the cause of any such ‘backlash’….

Across western Europe, liberally-minded societies are beginning to divide over how best to deal with radical Islamism and its impact on their countries, while governments agonise over the potential for a backlash against Muslims living in Europe.

Today, mainstream Muslim organisations in the UK and France have unequivocally condemned the killings, saying that terrorism is an affront to Islam.

But the potential backlash, including support for far right parties and groups, may well hurt ordinary Muslims more than anyone else, leaving the authorities and religious leaders in western Europe wondering how to confront violence in the name of religion without victimizing minorities or being accused of ‘Islamophobia’.

Muslims themselves hate the term ‘Moderate’ as it implies they don’t follow the true Islam and all its teachings…“Are you saying I’m only 50% Muslim? When someone says to me ‘you’re moderate’ it suggests to me they’re saying ‘you’re not fully Muslim’.”

Stop Saying “Moderate Muslims.” You’re Only Empowering Islamophobes.

 

Can we drop the term ‘moderate Muslim’? It’s meaningless

 

In fact, there is only One Prophet Muhammad, and there is only One Allah, and there is only One Quran, and there is amongst Muslims only One Islam, hence there can be Only One Muslim. A Moderate Muslim is an oxymoron because there is no such thing as a “Moderate Islam.” A Cultural Muslim

 

Turkey’s PM Erdogan: The term “moderate Islam” is ugly and offensive — Islam is Islam

 

And of course Iqbal Sacranie, when head of the Muslim Council of Britain, stated that ‘There is no such thing as moderate or extreme Islam, there is just Islam.’

Islamists and normal, moderate Muslims?  The difference isn’t in the beliefs but in the way they try to impose them upon society.

The BBC weren’t so quiet  and in denial when it came to a Christian birthrate:

A Womb is a Weapon

First broadcast:

Saturday 18 May 2013

Across the world, and increasingly in Europe and the UK, a unique Christian evangelical movement is growing.

For some, encouraging larger Christian families is part of a project to outbreed other religions, particularly Islam, winning back the world for Christ one baby at a time.

From the Guardian:

Cranmer in the comments succinctly summarises the BBC’s approach to ‘reporting’ the migrant ‘crisis’…

It’s just the same old cliches rolled out with little or no attempt to provide any insight into what is actually happening. Tabloid TV at its finest. I’m old enough to remember the days when foreign correspondents on television were restricted to a verbal report over a crackly telephone line, accompanied by a still photo of them holding a phone! This was much better because they couldn’t lard on the sentiment or play with our emotions so easily. They were restricted to who, what, why, where, when. This is what the BBC should stick to instead of trying to remake ‘Ghandi’ every bloody night!

Naturally it is not a ‘migrant crisis’ for the BBC, more an opportunity to further the liberal elite’s naive and childish, and very dangerous, social, cultural and political experiment that attempts to force multiculturalism upon societies that don’t want it and won’t accept it without force being applied in some shape or form.  The BBC’s deliberate attempt to hide the consequences for Europe of mass immigration of people who hold views and beliefs that are so at odd with our own is not just a betrayal of its legal obligations to inform and educate but a betrayal of 2,000 years of European history that has resulted in societies that, after much hard fighting and bloodshed, are reaching a level of sophistication, stability, prosperity and peace that is unparalled in history.  All that could be at risk as many predict that we are heading back to the vicious and terrible religious wars that we thought were buried in history.

Here Ed West in the Telegraph reminds us of what is being forced upon us without any debate or consent from the people of Europe…

Muslim immigration: the most radical change in European history

Christopher Caldwell is a mild-mannered Financial Times journalist who over the past decade has covered continental Europe (France especially) and its relationship with Islam in particular.

That Caldwell is so mainstream, well-respected and analytical makes his conclusion all the more devastating – that the mass migration of Africans and Asians into Europe since the Second World War was an unprecedented, economically unnecessary and ill-thought-out plan that has had a profoundly negative impact on our way of life.

Furthermore, he says, the mass importation of Muslims at a time when Europe has lost its own faith and Islam has developed a dangerous and powerful radicalism threatens the very freedom of Europe.

The collapse of Christianity, and the introduction of novel morals such as the belief in sexual freedom and gay equality, totally at odds with both contemporary Muslim culture and European culture of only half a century ago, has made conflict between Europe and the new Europeans even more unavoidable. That is why surveys consistently show Muslims and non-Muslims thinking the other side are “disrespectful” to women, or why a large minority of young British Muslims advocate the death penalty for apostasy or homosexuality.

Can Europe be the same? Clearly not. Can we reach some happy compromise that peacefully integrates such large communities and avoids the conflicts that have plagued such multi-cultural countries in the past? Probably not.

This is a fascinating, earth-shattering account of the most radical change in European history.

 

NCBBC in the comments highlighted this video which demonstrates the dishonesty, the foolishness, the complete failure of politicians to grasp what is going on in Europe and what the future holds.  Merkel completely dismisses any idea that people should think there is a threat to European identity and culture, and in fact suggests that Europe is to blame as many of the Muslim ISIL members have come from Europe…we have apparently bred them so we are at fault.  The reality is that Merkel and her ilk have totally failed to recognise the threat such radical people posed and allowed them to not only keep coming to Germany but to freely practise their fundamentalist beliefs….in other words what she is doing now is merely repeating the errors of the past…brushing the problem under the carpet and hoping for the best….

Merkel and her foolish invitation to migrants to flood into Germany in unlimited numbers is at the heart of this migrant crisis, numbers wise….a problem of Germany’s making….however it is one that Germany is forcing upon other countries and then blaming those other countries for not doing the same…it seems Germany does think of itself as the ruler of Europe…

Germany’s foreign minister says it may consider use of “a qualified majority” to force Eastern European countries to accept quotas for migrants

But there is another factor here….Turkey is helping to flood Europe with migrants…

Rapid expansion of Turkish national carrier is in part behind surge in African migrants through the Western Balkans, EU agency says

We know that Gaddafi threatened to swamp Europe with migrants, that mass immigration is a weapon that the Islamic State is using to attack Europe, it is hardly beyond the realms of possibility that the Islamist Erdogan is not happy to flood Europe with migrants who will break down a cohesive and structured EU making it easier for Turkey to influence events and force an entry into the EU as a member state thus opening the door to even more immigration.

Is migration being used as a weapon of war against Europe?  Discuss.

These are momentous times in Europe’s history that presage a future that is increasingly looking to be uncertain and full of conflict.  However such important events and consequences seem to have passed the BBC by, or rather, the BBC chooses to downplay or ignore the growing dangers.  The BBC prefers more to ’emote’ about immigrants apparently than to report the issues surrounding them…H/T Craig at Is the BBC biased?…

Empathy

Many have asked me how they can help these people. The majority, I would say.

But there has also been a sizeable minority of people who are concerned about this great migration. Some have questioned my objectivity.

But I do not think you lose balance just because you care about another human being. Surely, we can empathise with someone while still acknowledging there are difficult questions that need to be answered about how Europe and the rest of the world should deal with this.

‘Difficult questions that need to be answered’?  Don’t make me laugh…the whole thrust of the BBC narrative has been to bury such questions under a torrent of emotive words and pictures intended to induce sympathy and guilt that over-rides commonsense and reality.  The BBC wants to create an atmosphere where any people, especially politicians and media, who are critical of immigration have to think twice about doing so publicly for fear of being labelled at best inhumane and incompassionate and at worse a xenophobic racist or Islamophobe.

You can see an example of the BBC attempts to manipulate opinion in this article which has this eye-catching headline..‘Migrant clashes leave Hungary bitterly divided.’  Curiously if you read the piece you won’t find much evidence of a ‘Hungary bitterly divided’…..just the usual BBC attacks on anyone who has the guts to speak out about the real problem that is part of the immigration crisis...’Csaba Lukacs, the paper’s leader writer, depicts a Hungary under attack from young, stone-throwing Muslim men: “Hungary’s border was besieged by those who think they have the basic human right to march across Europe without documents.’  Can’t say he is wrong when you see the videos from the border….these are people intent on getting into Europe by whatever means possible and if violence is the answer they’ll use that….invasion or migration?

Obviously you’re meant to be shocked by such sentiments but you know that Hungary is the black sheep of the European family….as Hungary’s actions lead to its ‘deepening diplomatic isolation. ‘

The article ends with this…‘The dispute has further polarised an already deeply-divided society.’   Well not really….those who oppose the migrant policy are on the left and in a minority in Hungary.

The BBC is once again trying to confuse the issue and present it as if there is a vast number of people who support uncontrolled immigration when that is palpably untrue.  The very fact that the Hungarian PM is apparently, according to the BBC, trying to out-Jobbik Jobbik says it all….the national consensus must be anti-immigrant….as in the Uk where 77% want controls and reduced immigration.

A view not reflected by BBC reporting….nor are they reporting this from the Mail…

Imam tells Muslim migrants to ‘breed children’ with Europeans to ‘conquer their countries’ and vows: ‘We will trample them underfoot, Allah willing’ 

“Europe has become old and decrepit and needs human reinforcement….they are not motivated by compassion for the Levant, its people and its refugees,” said Ayed, adding, “Soon, we will trample them underfoot, Allah willing.”

“Throughout Europe, all the hearts are enthused with hatred toward Muslims. They wish that we were dead, but they have lost their fertility, so they look for fertility in our midst,” he added.

“We will give them fertility! We will breed children with them, because we shall conquer their countries!”

Ayed stated that “whether you like it or not,” Americans, Italians, Germans and the French will be forced to take the “refugees”.

“We shall soon collect them in the name of the coming Caliphate. We will say to you: these are our sons. Send them, or we will send our armies to you,” concluded Ayed.

Not long ago we suggested that the BBC’s use of the modest descriptive term of ‘leftwing’ to describe Jeremy Corbyn was doing him a favour as he is to the left, far to the left, of most in the Labour Party.  If there were a Tory MP in a similar position with similarly extreme views he would be described as Far Right….and of course UKIP are usually dismissed as the Far Right and as Nazis by the BBC.  Look at how Enoch Powell, based on one speech, is vilified even now decades after he made that speech and yet Corbyn’s associates, his comments, and indeed some of those whom he has chosen as shadow ministers, should put him in a category of contempt way above that of Enoch Powell.

However others beg, scream and shout, to differ.

Over 50,000 people sign petition saying that the BBC is biased against Jeremy Corbyn

They are asking the BBC to refer to David Cameron as the ‘right-wing Prime Minister’, because they often refer to the leader of the Opposition as ‘left-wing’

The change.org petition was set up by Amanda Drury from Lincoln, and it says in the description:

The Labour Party is leftwing so someone to the left of that must by definition be ‘Far Left’.  Corbyn was not being traduced by the BBC, he was being given favoured status and a makeover by them.  The BBC was presenting him as less extreme than he really is.

It does seem extraordinary that the ‘Left’ are now up in arms about being called ‘left’…what do they have to hide? Do they now think that the nation recognises the ‘left’ as something not to tread in?  Being on the ‘left’ was supposed to be the ‘Red Badge of Courage’ showing you were proudly fighting oppression and inequailty and all that, something to be loudly proclaimed, trumpeted by the believers…. now they’re embarrassed by it?

Perhaps rightly so…Nick Cohen is more than embarrassed by the right-on far left comrades....Why I’ve finally given up on the left.   He says that ‘Left-wing thought has shifted towards movements it would once have denounced as racist, imperialist and fascistic. It is insupportable.’

He could be describing Corbyn couldn’t he?

And, in the run up to the election and subsequent election of Corbyn as leader the fact he was ‘leftwing’ was relevant to the debate….people needed to know where was he on the spectrum of Labour politics compared to the other candidates…who presumably weren’t ‘leftwing’ in the BBC’s eyes.  Now the leadership election is over the BBC will use such a term sparingly, even in its moderate form of ‘leftwing’ rather than the more accurate ‘Far Left’….or perhaps ‘Loony Left’…..the BBC defence?…’The BBC defended their journalists choice of words, commenting choice phrases were employed as a matter of “specific editorial justification” to enhance its audience’s understanding.’

I might suggest describing Corbyn as merely ‘leftwing’ hardly enhances the audience’s understanding as the term is clearly not reflective of his actual beliefs and position on the lefty spectrum.  Left of Yvette Cooper et al maybe, but that would put him to the ‘far left’ of most normal people….the voters.

The BBC however seems to be giving Corbyn a good write up elsewhere, after peviously having studiously ignored his unsavoury connections to terrorist groups et al ….asking if he is the new Attlee and uncritically bringing us suggestions that Miliband didn’t lose because he was too left wing…which of course plays into Corbyn’s own narrative of moving ever more leftward.  Perhaps the BBC should ask a few people instead of possibly academics with vested interests, why they didn’t like Miliband…one, he was clearly not a ‘statesman-like’ leader, two, his party wrecked the economy and looked like they’d continue down the same path and three, he was too far left….intent on imposing state controls on anything that moved with policies that any fule could see would fail spectacularly.

Perhaps the BBC should stick to ‘beige’ in describing Corbyn….A parliamentary revolution in beige, Jeremy Corbyn’s new leader’s navy suit, nowhere to be seen.  

Anyone else bored senseless with the nightly reports filed on the BBC News at Ten by Fergal Keen which are little more than pro-immigrant propaganda? He churns out the same cliches night after night – with the constant narrative that these swarming economic immigrants are lovely people out to make Europe a more vibrant and successful place. Dar Al Islam.

Well then, Labour’s John McDonnell used his appearance on BBC “Question Time” to offer a fulsome apology for his pro-IRA comments back in 2003. The BBC seem satisfied with this, honour has been restored and we can all now move on. Except, of course, McDonnell has simply resorted to lying and the BBC let him away with it. His explanation for his comments, made in 2003, was that he (along with Corbyn) were desperate to help ensure the “Peace Process” survived. The FACT of the matter is that this sordid process commenced in 1998 when the Belfast Agreement was ‘signed”. So what the hell was McDonnell doing FIVE YEARS LATER and why was it almost invisible at that time? The BBC know perfectly well that McDonnell’s explanation is flimsy but they have chosen not to go after him any further. In fact, on Question Time, when Timothy Stanley at least TRIED to go after McDonnell a bit more, he was shut up. It’s easy to say sorry when the sorrow is for yourself.