BBC in mourning for the “moderate reformer” and Saudi King Abdullah. I guess there was never a tyrant they couldn’t find some love for. Anyway, here is a new OPEN Thread for you.

Matthew Parris quoting Samuel Johnson:

Samuel Johnson never spoke truer than when he said that a man is never more innocently employed than in the pursuit of money. The pursuit of principle is an infinitely more corrupting thing.

 

Not saying Peston is corrupt or anything when he ‘reports’….

The BBC’s Robert Peston pushes Labour’s inequality narrative….along with the NHS, Labour’s central themes in its election campaign….so when the BBC day in day out ‘investigates’ these subjects and keeps them in the public eye and tries to build an atmosphere of ‘you may feel you’re doing OK but you know what…you’re really in terrible straits and heading for disaster’ you might justifiably suspect some ulterior motive.

‘Inequality’ does seem to have become a major issue that the BBC wants to tackle for some reason…Peston making his Labour Party Patsy of the Year bid as he presents …

…a powerful argument for why the widening gap between the rich and poor, in wealth and income, is bad for everyone – even the super wealthy, unless that is they never want to leave their fortified, hermetically sealed, lavishly appointed bunkers.

 

Here Peston combines his profile rasing exercise with his push for world government….

Why extreme inequality hurts the rich

“We could have developed a vaccine for Ebola years ago if we had chosen to allocate the resources to the appropriate research”.

That is what a senior and respected medical scientist, a man who would be seen as a world authority on such matters, said to me.

So why wasn’t the cure found?

The relevant research didn’t happen because Ebola was seen for a long time to be a disease only of the poor, especially in Africa – and therefore the giant pharmaceutical manufacturers couldn’t see how to make big money out of an Ebola medicine.

Today of course it is clear that Ebola is a global threat – and hence there is a mad rush to find a treatment.

 

The trouble is that’s nonsense as we’ve shown before....there was no major need for an Ebola vaccine….it has been controlled by simple measures such as isolation and movement restrictions….and in 40 years only 1700 people or so have died from it, around 45 a year.  A nasty disease for those who get it but the fact that so few get it and relatively few die suggests that huge investment in producing a cure is not productive when the money could be spent on other illnesses and diseases that kill vastly more people such as malaria….

There were an estimated 627 000 malaria deaths worldwide in 2012

About 3.2 billion people – almost half of the world’s population – are at risk of malaria. In 2013, there were about 198 million malaria cases (with an uncertainty range of 124 million to 283 million) and an estimated 584 000 malaria deaths (with an uncertainty range of 367 000 to 755 000). Increased prevention and control measures have led to a reduction in malaria mortality rates by 47% globally since 2000 and by 54% in the WHO African Region.

Peston isn’t reporting he’s campaigning…

‘….the jaw-dropping pace and scale of how a century of narrowing inequalities has gone into dramatic reverse.

To be clear, Oxfam’s claim today that by 2016 the richest 1% could own as much or the same as the bottom 99% is not wildly implausible.

Trouble is there’s little in the way of real thought, analysis or nuance…he’s just peddling Oxfam’s and Labour’s narrative.

The Spectator has a look under the covers…what Oxfam and the BBC’s Peston don’t want you to know….

What Oxfam doesn’t want you to know: global capitalism means less poverty than ever

The hijacking of Oxfam by the politicised left is nothing short of a tragedy. It’s heartbreaking to see a charity that has built up so much goodwill from so many people being used by activists as a vehicle for global class war. As a result, Oxfam is switching its focus away from global poverty towards something very different: wealth inequality.

It has today come up with some questionable figures suggesting that the richest 1 per cent will soon own over 50 per cent of the wealth.

BBC Radio earlier had someone on from Oxfam saying that the shocking wealth of the 1pc stood alongside the fact that ‘one in nine’ go to bed hungry. Oxfam wants you to believe that the two are somehow linked. There is a link between wealth and global poverty – the more of the former, the less of the latter.

It’s true that one in nine (about 12 per cent) of the world is undernourished. But what Oxfam does not say is that this rate has plummeted since global capitalism really took (i.e., off after the fall of the Berlin Wall).  The United Nations has been keeping tabs on this – below (link: pdf).

Of course, hunger is only one of the killers of the world’s poor. How is all of this inequality that Oxfam complains about affecting the others? Answer: global prosperity is being converted into better medicine and healthcare for those who need it the most. Chinese investment in Africa is now a major factor in helping Africans do things for themselves.

Global poverty is falling because people are doing it for themselves – with the helping hand of free trade. Oxfam prefers to think of people as helpless, waiting for its handouts. Its posters reinforce damaging stereotype images (see above), which damage the dignity of Africans as well as belittle their own achievements.

PS And Oxfam is also wrong to scream about an “inequality explosion” – things may have been getting worse for the last two or three years but the longer view is of global inequality falling.  (hat tip: John Rentoul).

 

 

From ‘Spiked’ in 2008…..

In an ugly world, we need ugly newsreaders

Newsreaders should not be employed because they are pretty. They should be employed because they are intelligent and can read the news. This is why it was a scandal that Moira Stuart was forced to retire prematurely. She was deemed too old. Not enough eye candy. Women should become newsreaders regardless of their looks, not because of them. By taking on attractive female newsreaders, networks give succour to the postmodernist and sexist misapprehension that the only way to secure the attention of an audience is via surface, not substance.

 

 

 

The BBC went very quiet after the Sun’s boob job on the Media and the campaign to get rid of Page 3 went, er, tits up…..it was all a mere storm in a D-cup it seems.

It was wall to wall coverage and a glow of satisfaction from BBC presenters as they congratulated the ‘NoMorePage3’ campaign on its success when they thought they’d sunk the Sun…..

However today they haven’t even bothered to get a quote from them in this article about the boobs bouncing back as the Sun makes a clean breast of things and says upfront that it was all a ‘mammary lapse’ on their part ….from the BBC:

Sun’s Page Three ‘returns’ as paper takes swipe at rivals

Jane Garvey actually declared that ‘It’s gone, we hope’ (29:30)...just so we know exactly where she stands on the issue….and therefore where the BBC stands as she represents its face to the world…as do many others like her.

I imagine the campaign to ban Page 3 is quite happy, the fight goes on and they an continue to hog the limelight and smother themselves in the warm adulation and admiration of likeminded folk such as Brogan Driscoll the Assistant Editor for HuffPost UK Lifestyle who says:

This week, The Sun has taken great pleasure in playing misogynist God.

On Tuesday it reportedly axed its controversial topless Page 3 feature (to the applause of many), only to reinstate it today in a cheap shot at critics.

While we may have no power on the decision to kill off Page 3, public opinion is everything.

There is arguably far greater power in influencing the mood around representations of women in media. And this has certainly happened.

Of course, if like me, you’re still set on seeing the end of Page 3. Don’t just refuse to buy the paper or tut while reading your broadsheet, do something about it – sign the petition and get others to do the same.

 

How very pious and worthy….shame that the Huffington Post, that über trendy Lefty rag, should be renamed the ‘Buff-ington Post’…as it is in the habit of publishing not just one shot a day but hundreds of scantily clad women in suggestive poses……

Ariana Grande Pictures: The ‘Bang Bang’ Singer’s 100 Sexiest Snaps (PHOTOS)

Rita Ora Makes Her ‘The Voice’ Debut: 100 Sexiest Photos Of The ‘I Will Never Let You Down’ Singer (PICS)

Naked Celebs 2014: From Kim Kardashian And Rihanna To Dan Osborne And ‘X Factor’ Hopeful Jake Quickenden (PICS)

And of course the BBC is famous for dumping its female news readers and presenters when they reach a certain age…never mind that to start with they are not exactly people who fell out of the ugly tree and hit all the branches on the way down are they?

What sort of appalling message does that send to the children who will take note that their shelf life is just as short in the BBC news room as on the glamour model circuit and that there is probably more money and fun in Glamour than in reading about death and destruction sat behind a desk in Salford?

Glamour sells whether it’s the news or the Sun paper…and the BBC is as guilty as any tabloid for exploiting women for their appearance…however much they dress it up as ‘intellectual’…..

.

All I can say is that I know an ex-Page 3 girl who is now a doctor…paid for by her modelling days…so stuff that up your jumper and suck on it….er..I mean ponder on that!

 

After a long campaign Murdoch’s Times Newspaper has bowed to pressure and decided not to print the Times’ Crossword in the paper any longer…a decision welcomed by campaigners from the ‘No More Times’ Elitist Crosswords’  campaign and MPs.

In an age when intellectually challenging word games became more readily available on the internet, the Times crossword came to be regarded as more of an anachronism. The status of  the Intellectual in society had changed too. To a new generation, it was rather surreal to open a newspaper and see such a self-evidently intellectually elitist pursuit amid stories about Hollyoaks actresses and popstar nymphettes in bed with Premier League footballers.

Campaigner, actor and writer Lucy-Anne Holmes, started the ‘No More Times Elitist Crosswords’ campaign…she said it was a great day for those cowed by the brilliance of others that so often kept them in the shadows and made them feel intellectually inferior.

Elspeth Morris, a cleaner on Virgin Express trains, said she often felt intimidated and demeaned when she came across Times newspapers left on seats with the filled-in crossword uppermost saying that such conspicuous completion of the intellectually demanding puzzle in a public place was tantamount to a hate crime waiving people’s inadequacies in their faces and rubbing their noses in their lack of education and limited natural talent for academic subjects. ..a public humiliation for so many that made them feel they had no place in a society that put such a high value on academic achievement.

Education Secretary Nicky Morgan called it a “long-overdue decision”, which “marks a small but significant step towards improving media portrayal of those less intellectually gifted”.

She stated that we must stop celebrating academic achievement if it meant that other people were made to feel inadequate and rather stupid when in the presence of someone doing the Times Crossword especially in public spaces such as trains, or even in the corridors of power, where she understands that it is common practise for Times Crossword aficionados to ostentatiously brandish completed crosswords under the noses of those passing by, relishing in the feelings of inadequacy they were able to generate in less gifted people who couldn’t complete the crossword.

Lucy-Anne Holmes also stated that it was a great day for the intellectually challenged and a victory for society that recognised brains weren’t everything…children should not have to be pressured at school into pursuing academic excellence….school, and society, should be emphasing the softer skills, the arts, the importance of human relationships, cooperation, kindness and tolerance.

Rupert Murdoch Tweeted in response ‘Bollox’ but apparently that was just an answer to 5 across.  He apologised for any confusion.

BBC presenter Jane Garvey was forced to resign when in the course of a programme discussing the issues surrounding the Times Crossword campign she made the fatal mistake of taking sides and uttered the words ‘It’s gone, we hope’ when told the news that the Times had abandoned the crossword.

Actually she said that about the Sun’s Page 3 and its apparent demise.

The BBC seems rather pleased about the news and thinks it is of great importance giving it plenty of coverage.

Didn’t bother raising a few issues that smack of hypocrisy from campaigner Lucy-Anne Holmes who started the ball rolling.

How did she get her big break for her career in writing?…she used to write a blog...about her ‘disastrous love life’….so she objects to objectifying and demeaning pictures of half-naked women but is prepared to lay bare her love life and her feminine issues to titillate the readers.

I was originally an actress, and I came to writing because in 2006 I had a blog, which detailed my largely disastrous love life! Through the blog I was approached by some agents and publishers. One agent said ‘we think you should write a novel!’ So I said ‘ok.’

 

And her use of makeup, a low cut dress, and the suntan and an alluring publicity photo may induce a certain perception that looks are not unimportant in her life…and maybe, me being ungallant, the lack of a ‘rack’ may indicate other issues with Page 3…..

She tells us:

You founded the ‘No More Page 3′ campaign, what was your reason behind that?
Well, I bought a copy of ‘The Sun’ newspaper during the Olympics and found I couldn’t stop thinking about the fact that the largest female image was the Page 3 image, even though Jessica Ennis had just won her terrific gold medal. I kept thinking ‘what is this saying about a woman’s place in society??’ It’s a national family newspaper and it shows page after page of pictures of men in clothes, doing stuff, ie running the country and achieving in sport and a massive image of a woman standing in their knickers showing her breasts for men. We’re sending out two very different messages about each gender, and kids see the paper, it even gives away free kids toys. What does it teach little girls about where their value lies? What does it teach boys about how to respect women? It’s 2014 if we believe in equality we can’t be showing these pictures in newspapers.

 

So instead of Page 3 we have a sports star whose success relies not just on some hard work but on a natural gift for running made possible by a body fit enough to do that…in other words a physical talent no different to being born attractive enough to be a pin up.  If a sports person can make a living with their body why not a model?

She cheers on Jessica Ennis but she isn’t running the country, she’s running round a track….so a strange choice of role model in some respects if trying to say women are capable of running blue chip companies and even the country.

And I’m certain the Sun gave Jessica Ennis massive coverage, far more than any Page 3 girl could hope to get.

And finally and most ironically for someone championing feminist issues there’s this:

Chicklit eh?  Go girl!!

Adrian Goldberg has a Jewish father and a Catholic mother…is he Jewish?  No idea…but he is married to a Muslim…..or rather someone who presumably was a Muslim as such marriages between a Muslim girl and a non-believer are forbidden in Islam…unless the non-believer converts to Islam.  So either Goldberg has converted or his wife has given up her faith for love.

Why the family history?

Goldberg himself has raised the issue….his latest programme being introduced with him as having a personal interest in the subject…that of mixed marriages.

You may think this was yet another BBC attempt at social engineering, and you’d be right.  The programme I heard, the second one, the real purpose of the programme seemed to be to highlight and point out the bigotry of Jews and Christians than in being really concerned about the difficulties in a ‘mixed marriage’.

The subtext of the programme was intended to tell us that it is not just Muslims who are intolerant and bigoted….so stop worrying about Islam and the Islamisation of Europe.

Now Muslims didn’t get a mention…but you know that is the message we are meant to take away…hence the importance of Goldberg’s identity and marriage….he has a horse in this race…a Trojan Horse.

Think not?  Goldberg is well known as an anti-EDL campaigner writing articles against them and for campaigning to ban them from Birmingham…so much for democracy and freedom of expression.

Here he is in ‘The Stirrer’…a journal he started and edited until he went back to work for the BBC when he declared such an interest was incompatible with his new job….however, of course, he still holds those views.

A BAD DAY FOR ENGLISH VALUES

How ironic that plans for a proposed new mosque in Dudley were withdrawn on the same day as four protesters from the English Defence League staged a rooftop protest on the site. Stirrer editor Adrian Goldberg argues that while the decision was pragmatic, it was also a bad day for tolerance.

They appear to be not just anti-Jihadist, but anti-Islamic, and having scented blood can now be expected to step up their protests against wider expressions of the faith, not just its violent fringe elements.

The pressure they exerted in Dudley helped persuade a respectable religious community to dramatically change its plans despite having the full weight of the law behind it – and their climbdown had the collusion of supposedly respectable mainstream politicians.

We should all mourn the decision and fear the consequences.

At stake is nothing less than freedom of worship and expression – English values which the English Defence League appears not to value.

Goldberg joined forces with Islamist Respect politician Salma Yaqoob to ban the EDL from Brimingham…here he is pressing his point home….

Adrian Goldberg, Khalid Mahmood MP and John Hemming MP also attended the public meeting calling for an EDL ban. Pic: John Tyrrell

Just so we know who’s behind the mike and what they really think on these issues when interviewing others on the subject.

Tuesday was Democracy Day on the BBC…no doubt they are glad that’s all over and they can get back to ignoring the plebs and their ignorant, working class ideas that threaten the nice status quo of the liberallatti.

Today gave its last half hour over to the ever present Professor Michael Sandel, the BBC’s philosopher of choice.

Not a huge amount of startling interest or originality….and a notable absence of comment on the Media’s role in democracy….only at the end did we get a comment that might suggest the importance of that Media role,  Sandel saying …

‘Democracy is listening to people with views of which we disagree’

 

Which is ironic given the BBC’s role in closing down genuine debate on immigration, climate change, Europe and Islam.

An irony reinforced immediately in the following programme in which Nick Robinson set out to do a bit of a hatchet job on Nigel Farage.

Robinson seemed intent on undermining Farage whilst at the same time asking if we can have a meaningful democracy that truly represents the many and not just the few….so undermine UKIP whilst talking about ‘meaningful democracy’…then he raises the memory of The  Peterloo Massacre (Manchester”s equivalent of Tianamen Square apparently)  and those who lost their lives fighting for democracy…..the same sort of people who marched with the EDL of course.

‘A powerful call for action’ Robinson says…bringing on Owen Jones to let us know where we are going wrong today….bankers and bosses of course….then Harriet Harman and Caroline Lucas….no prizes for guessing what they say.

The Greens, Robinson tells us, and ‘others’, are offering us a new politics….hmmm…isn’t it UKIP who are really challenging the consensus….the consensus about immigration and Europe which the other parties have agreed to carry on regardless of the population’s views…even denying them a say in a referendum….the only two issues that are of major interest to the Public aside from the economy which is not an issue that people look to UKIP to sort out.

Robinson tells us that political elite have ignored the widespread and legitimate concerns about immigration…..just politicians?  They have been able to ignore the issues because major elements of the Media have allowed them to do so.

The we get to UKIP….a ‘protest party’ says Robinson, dismissing them as a flash in the pan.

Professor Matthew Flinders is brought on to tell us of ‘Amazon politics’….individual, consumerised politics…politics acting like a market due to over-expectation of what can be delivered and how quickly by politicians…a politics that can only fail.  Identity politics and special interest groups demanding their own agendas that are totally incompatible with a fair society be adopted without compromise.

Who is to blame for that though?  Robinson suggests it is the politicians themselves….hang on though….it is the BBC especially that day in day out brings us individual cases of complaint about welfare, the NHS, cuts to council funding and so on…..the BBC forces politicians to run around trying to respond to these high profile cases which are so often backed up by highly politicised single issue campaign groups that have only one target and have no regard for how other seerviuces or budgest are effected by their demands.  The BBC is a world leader in encouraging highly divisive  identity politics.

Farage says proper debate on politics is impossible due to the Media’s role in presenting debate as a war with parties split asunder by rifts and arguments….it puts people off politics and makes media interviews impossible….an argument even the BBC has had itself recently.

Despite what Farage said Robinson ignores that and dodges the Media’s role in distorting how politics plays out when he suggests that it is the professionalisation of politics that has led to politics becoming like a market place and the public alienated from it.

Farage mentions a debate UKIP had about the NHS and how it might have to be funded in future given its problems….Farage arguing, and losing the argument, for an insurance based system.

Farage says that the debate is now presented as a split, as ‘something dreadful happended’ within UKIP….but no, what happened was they had a debate and a vote.

Robinson totally ignores that and indeed ploughs straight on suggesting this was a disaster, that Farage had lost the ‘courage of his convictions’ and that UKIP’s ‘apparent’ new line being they love the NHS…Robinson being once again dismissive of the UKIP policy, suggesting it’s a bit of a fraud….doing exactly what Farage complained of…hyping debate as ‘something dreadful’ in the party.

He says to Farage ‘Your real belief about health systems…‘….showing Robinson hasn’t listened….we know what Farage’s ‘real belief’ is…but he lost the debate and UKIP’s policy is to support the NHS…so Farage’s ‘real belief’ is unimportant….no mention from Robinson of this:

NHS may be forced to abandon free healthcare for all, says Britain’s top doctor as he warns service needs radical change

Robinson’s approach demonstrates Farage’s point perfectly…the Media are determined to ignore what really happens and look for a more dramatic story with attention getting headlines that reveal apparent infighting in a party…especially UKIP…regardless of the truth….Robinson instead of acknowledging that a debate had taken place and a decision made based upon that debate decided that Farage had ‘bottled it’ and suggests that Farage doesn’t ‘love the NHS’...which as we all know is obligatory….truth is Farage was outvoted by his colleagues so his personal beliefs are unimportant in regard to UKIP, or at least in the way that Robinson is trying to protray them….it also explodes the myth of the ‘one man party’ …UKIP obviously not dominated by Farage if he can lose such an important debate.

Robinson ends with sly and irrelevant dig saying that Farage, not UKIP, still believes that the NHS cannot survive in its present form…a view, Robinson tells us, that ‘wasn’t put before the voters of Rochester and Strood.’ ….Robinson is trying to imply that UKIP isn’t being honest…when in fact it is Robinson who isn’t being honest….why would it be out to the voters when it isn’t the policy?

Robinson goes on to try and undermine UKIP’s message that they can bring some powers back to Britain and have some control over its destiny.  Robinson suggests that no government has any power…and therefore you might conclude, UKIP’s policy is just so much hot air and unachievable dreams….so no point in voting for them.

Eseentially rather than discussing democracy and UKIP’s issues with it Robinson seemed purely intent on raising things they said for the purpose of then trying to rubbish them and UKIP…..implying, as said above…no need to vote for this lot.

So much for the BBC’s Democracy Day…..intent only it seems on reinforcing the same old status quo, or if a new party has to come up through the ranks let it be the Greens who seem to get an easy ride and a warm welcome on the BBC.

Maybe an indication of that is a discussion that was going on on one programme, I forget which, when someone said that no political party was increasing its membership….the BBC presenter came back to that later, such was her interest, and said that this wasn’t true…the Greens were increasing their membership..and oh yes..so were the SNP.

Curious that a BBC presenter should automatically prefer to talk about the Greens, or the SNP, rather than UKIP which is also increasing its membership and is, politically, the dominant, game changing party at present……..and no doubt some of the Green’s success in getting more recruits recently has more to do with the likes of the BBC giving them far more positive airtime than before….Caroline Lucas is hardly off the radio at the moment and party membership has leapt from under 30,000 in December to over 44,000 in a few weeks…far from me to be sceptical but can’t help thinking there’s a lot more to that ‘success’ than meets the eye.

Perhaps some at the BBC see the Greens as a potential block on UKIP and therefore aim to give them a boost…if they can get enough votes they might disrupt a UKIP run and maybe stop UKIP from holding the balance of power and prevent  the ‘nightmare’ of UKIP in a possibly forced coalition government with the Tories, political necessity overtaking Cameron’s hatred of them…ala the Tory antipathy towards the LibDems…..maybe Labour can slip in then and take power, perhaps with a Green aliance.

It is certainly the Tory ploy to stop UKIP by getting more people to vote Green…‘voting Green risks letting in the Tories’…..

The Tories have also been helpful. “Dear old Cameron, God bless his cotton socks, said we should be in the debates, and put all the Tory bloggers – and the Sun – on our side! It’s made all the difference for us.”

 

Far too cynical, no one at the BBC would ever dream of interfering in the political process in such a way.

As you may have guessed, our server crashed on Monday, again! This is so annoying and worse still, some posts and comments have yet to be retrieved and indeed some won’t be. Please bear with us, this is so frustrating for me. In the meantime, here is a new Open Thread, approved by Harriet Harman for being breast-free.

Have you seen the reports of ISIS executing people for being gay?  Not on the BBC….nor it might be added has the caring Media Hasan made any comment despite his opportunistic and disengenuous little tweet here:

And he is outraged at blood being spilled in the name of the prophet….

….Just, it seems, not ‘gay blood’.

Perhaps he’s not got over his youthful homophobia….

As a Muslim, I struggle with the idea of homosexuality

I’m sure he’s on his knees right now praying for gay people.

Still, good to see the BBC still have room for the odd comic charlatan to bring a bit of light relief to Question Time….no time though to report on the horrific killings of these gay people.  Why not?

Hasan gets a free ride on the BBC.  Outside the BBC he has a reputation for hypocrisy and lies as well as for his Islamist rants denouncing the Kafir.  About time the BBC did some due diligence and started to question just what does Hasan really believe as a devout, fully believing Muslim and allow people to see him for what he really is rather than letting him pose as the reasonable voice of the ‘alienated’ Muslim community…and think about this…Hasan is a Shi’ite…Shias do produce images of Muhammed….so his public stance against the cartoons is pure show biz…or blatant hypocrisy and political opportunism…..

When it suits the BBC doesn’t like to raise difficult subjects if it shows their favoured groups in a bad light…remember when Hamas slaughtered Fatah members in Gaza, some thrown off buildings?  The BBC dismissed the massacre as Hamas merely ‘flushing out the corrupt and violent Fatah’.  

Then there is this guy, long time convert, Dr Abdal Hakim Murad…what does a respected Islamic scholar have to say about homosexuality?:

“INEXPLICABLE ABERRATION”: Cam Lecturer Slates Homosexuality
1st May 2013
Divinity Faculty lecturer Tim Winter labels homosexuality an “inexplicable aberration” in a hastily removed YouTube video.
An eight-minute clip of [Dr Abdal Hakim Murad] ‘Tim Winter’, a Cambridge lecturer and a Director of Studies at Wolfson College, has gone viral on Facebook after he referred to homosexuality as an “inexplicable aberration”. 

The clip appears to have been taken from his recent DVD, Al-Ghazali on Disciplining the Soul, in which Winter, a practicing Sufi Muslim, discusses at length the Sharia’s  “emphatic, unqualified condemnation and prohibition of all forms of homosexual behaviour”.

From the Daily Mail:

Drawing from the Sharia but expressing his own personal opinion, Winter, also known as Abdal Hakim Murad, refers to homosexuality as a “denial of [our] manifest creative purpose”, labelling it the “ultimate inversion”.
He goes on to refer to homosexuals as “ignorant people…[who] don’t understand what their bodies are for”.
He adds, “How ignorant can you get? Even the animals know”.

[He said] homosexual acts were an ‘extreme defiance of Allah’.
He went on to compare gay people to smokers, affirming that practising homosexuality is more dangerous than smoking.
‘There is a great war against cigarette smoking but there is no campaign at all against the vice of the people of Lut [ie people of Sodom, or homosexuals]’

 

 

The good Dr Abdal Hakim Murad also, of course, has something to say about recent events…apparently the killing of cartoonists who offend him and his fellow ideologists is, well, uncontroversial…but sanctioned by, not the Koran, but the Bible!…

Scorning the Prophet goes beyond free speech – it’s an act of violence

He invokes the Bible, it’s second Commandment, as a defence for the killers….

Muslims believe in every jot and tittle of the Second Commandment. We are to make no graven images of any living thing, irrespective of whether such images might or might not lure the unwary into idolatry. Orthodox Judaism and many Protestant churches have been similarly direct in following this biblical injunction.

Funny thing…can’t find any mention of the second Commandment in the Koran….indeed no injunction on making graven images of the prophet at all.

It is an irony that a Muslim has to invoke the Bible to defend Islam…and telling porkies in the process to do so…..below are the verses in the Koran that mention the Ten Commandments…or rather some of the Commandments…notably missing is the second one….

The Quran speaks of them in verses 6:151-153 and verses 17:23-39….it commands you to worship one God only but it says nothing about graven images.  Sorry about that.

Now Muslims may or may not ‘ believe in every jot and tittle of the Second Commandment’  but it ain’t in the Koran.

Ironically the Islamic scholar that he is dismisses the murders as…‘ the acts of criminals with troubled pasts and little religious knowledge, and have been condemned by a rare show of unity among Muslim leaders in France and worldwide. ‘  Can’t say much for his own knowledge.

But, again, ironically,  he says this…‘ it would be easy to dismiss this as yet another tragic case of fringe elements trampling on the teachings of the mosques.’

And yet that is exactly what he does.

And then he really gets on the victim bandwagon telling us that the cartoons were outrageous, an act of war he implies,  just another log on the fire stoked under long suffering Muslims by rampant Islamophobes who stalk Europe hunting down Muslims…

It was received, and rightly so, as a deliberate insult to an already maligned and vulnerable community.

Mosque burnings and a raft of legal disadvantages are increasingly a fact of life for Muslims in Europe.

er..hang on…who just killed 10 cartoonists and 4 Jews, and 3 police officers?  And just where do the Jews fit into this ‘rampant Islamophobic’ atmosphere that needs such a violent response from Muslims?  What exactly did those Jews do to French Muslims?  Oh, you know what, he doesn’t mention them at all.

Here’s the funny equation….Muslims launch terrorist attacks on Europe in the name of Allah, the response by Charlie Hebdo is to draw some cartoons….the Muslims claim this is Islamophobic and kill them.  Islamic scholar implies this is justified and complains of endemic Islamophobia.  Fair one.

Sorry don’t quite see where Islamophobia fits in….it isn’t as if criticisms of Islam, this alleged Islamophobia, came from nowhere …it arose as a response to Islamic terror.  Is it not merely a justified questioning of an ideology that patently is at the heart of so much violence around the world?  ‘Islamophobia’ is the ‘backlash’ to Muslim anti-Western attacks.  If it is OK for Muslims to kill 10 cartoonists as a ‘backlash’  for some drawings then it is OK to do a bit of Islamophobic backlashing for the murders no?  That’s the logic….and remember, most of this so-called Islamophobia is in fact entirely peaceful articles and news reports looking at the terrorism and the ideology that spawned it.  Murad thinks Muslim ‘anger’ justifies their actions but anyone elses anger is unreasonable and some sort of hate crime.

Murad then goes full tilt [Remember this is the guy who said Gays were a perverse aberration, lower than animals] making out Muslims are the ‘new Jews’…how ironic..when Muslims just killed Jews for being Jewish:

Scorn towards despised minorities is a hazardous business. During the days of Nazi terror, cartoons supplied a key weapon of anti-Jewish polemic. To laugh at the Prophet, the repository of all that Muslims revere and find precious, to reduce him to the level of the scabrous and comedic, is something very different from “free speech” as usually understood. It is a violent act surely conscious of its capacity to cause distress, ratchet up prejudice and damage social cohesion.

 

Finally he recommends that Muslims launch a war of legal attrition against the secular democracy….the good old Islamist tactic of ‘lawfare’…

It is for the many Muslims who now populate the Inns of Court to discover whether these legal precepts can in practice be used to protect non-Christians from abuse. A series of complex cases would trigger an overdue national and perhaps Europe-wide discussion on the right to protection from hate speech. Not all the lawsuits would succeed, but the community would have shown that it is determined to enjoy the protection of our country’s laws.

 

 

One day Muslims will admit the truth and take responsibility for their own action and stop blaming others.

And the BBC will start to raise a few questions themselves about Islam….and perhaps take a more questioning approach to who they invite on as speakers on Question Time.

The BBC is going full tilt themselves with the Muslim grievance narrative…time they drew a breath and started to look at what is being said and who is saying it…and the logic, or lack of logic, behind the claims.

Here is a particularly good example of the genre from ‘Is the BBC biased?’ where Islam isn’t to blame…and of course UKIP manages to be invoked and compared to the Jihadis….!!!!   Is the BBC biased? has many more such examples from recent programmes…have a read and despair.

But before you do have a read of this…..some more ‘context’….

What does Islam say?, as taught by the moderate and respected Yusuf Qaradawi [Ken’s old mate]:

“Whoever you find committing the sin of the people of Lut, kill them, both the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.”
(At-Tirmidhi: 1376)

 

Sexual Perversion: A Major Sin
We must be aware that in regulating the sexual drive Islam has prohibited not only illicit sexual relations and all ways which lead to them, but also the sexual deviation known as homosexuality. This perverted act is a reversal of the natural order, a corruption of man’s sexuality, and a crime against the rights of females.
The jurists of Islam have held differing opinions concerning the punishment for this abominable practice. Should it be the same as the punishment for fornication, or should both the active and passive participants be put to death?   [This line should be in the text but was cut out ……“How should they both be killed? By the sword? Or by fire? Or by throwing them from a wall?”]  While such punishments may seem cruel, they have been suggested to maintain the purity of the Islamic society and to keep it clean of perverted elements.

And what about the fair sex?  How about that respect we are so often told they get?…

Marital rape?

Your wives are a tillage to you, so go in to your tillage as you will, and send (ahead something) for your souls; and fear Allah and know that you will (one day) meet Him, and give glad tidings to the Believers. (2:223)

Wives are ‘filth’?

It is not a function of religion to define the postures of sexual intercourse. However, a Muslim who fears Allah in his relationship with his wife and possesses the certainty that he will meet Him avoids the anus because the Prophet (peace be on him) said, “Do not approach women from the anus.” (Reported by Ahmad, al-Tirmidhi, al-Nisai, and Ibn Majah.)
Again, he referred to such an act as “minor sodomy.” (Reported by Ahmad and al-Nisai.) A woman of the Ansar asked him concerning vaginal intercourse from the back; he then recited to her, ‘Your wives are a filth to you, so go in to your filth as you will,’ but with only one receptacle.

Obey the Master

Because of his natural ability and his responsibility for providing for his family, the man is the head of the house and of the family. He is entitled to the obedience and cooperation of his wife, and accordingly it is not permissible for her to rebel against his authority, causing disruption. Without a captain the ship of the household will flounder and sink. If the husband senses that feelings of disobedience and rebelliousness are rising against him in his wife, he should try his best to rectify her attitude by kind words, gentle persuasion, and reasoning with her. If this is not helpful, he should sleep apart from her, trying to awaken her agreeable feminine nature so that serenity may be restored and she may respond to him in a harmonious fashion. If this approach fails, it is permissible for him to beat her lightly with his hands, avoiding her face and other sensitive areas. In no case should he resort to using a stick or any other instrument which might cause pain and injury.

 

Charming.

The BBC has betrayed the boy blunder down under….he has long campaigned for Hamas denying that they had anything to do with the murder of three Israeli teens.

Seems the BBC doesn’t agree in this report about the Israelis being dragged through the International Criminal Court…..

The Palestinians’ starting point begins a day after the kidnapping of three Israeli teenagers, who were subsequently murdered, by Hamas militants in the West Bank on 12 June.

 

I must assume he has seen the report as it came out yesterday….why has the eagle eyed Donnison not mentioned it and linked to it as per usual with any ‘bad news’ for Israel?

The BBC looks to be letting bad news go under the radar where Labour is concerned.

The Telegraph reports, it’s their top story just now, that Labour activists were told  ‘Don’t mention the economy’ on the doorstep when out campaigning….saying ‘It’s not our strong point.’

Cecil Jenkins, a Labour Party member from Hampstead, asked Mr Miliband, following the leader’s keynote speech at the Fabian Society’s New Year Conference, why the ban on talking to the economy had been introduced.

He told him that local Labour activists have been advised by the London regional party not to talk to voters about the economy “as its not our strong point”.