Questions and Answers

Last night’s Any Questions panel spoke for multiculturalism, women, and the Arab Spring. The solitary male member, if you’ll excuse the expression, was Jehangir Malik OBE, UK Director of Islamic Relief, who was roped in to opine on behalf of the Arab World.

The panellists still spoke elegiacally of the Arab Spring, which, for them still heralds the dawning of a new age of enlightenment. It’s just as if they’d never heard of the disconcerting rise of Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, or listened to any of the creeping doubts that are beginning to emerge everywhere but in their own consciousness. They seem a bit like the befuddled fugitive who hasn’t discovered that the war he’s been hiding from for the last decade ended years ago.

In this vein, they expressed undiluted optimism over the Arab Spring, and deep joy at the diversity and multiculturalism in the UK.

The thing that was omitted from the discourse was, of course, Islam.

Diversity is undoubtedly beneficial. I myself am diverse. Variety is the spice of life, and variegated skin-colour, racial origin, a multiplicity of traditions and customs are all jolly good ingredients when added to the mix in correct, proportional measure.

But political correctness ignores the essential truth, which is that the benefits immigration might bring to the UK must outweigh and not overwhelm the very things that make it an attractive destination. There comes a point where those who ‘flock’ from far and wide to partake, begin to resemble tourists who, by sheer numbers, wreck the beauty and tranquility of the tourist attractions they visit, robbing them of their attractiveness in the process. Before people recognise what is happening, too many are profiting from the status quo, so don’t want to admit there’s a problem.

The Islamic faith may well be beneficial in potentially volatile Islamic regimes which are kept on an even keel by people we consider tyrants and despots. They control populations by fear, as do religious leaders who stunt the imagination by persuading vulnerable people that this life is a mere preparation for the next.

Refusing to get to grips with the fact that a functioning democratic society requires the population to be reasonably free from constraints that interfere with the ability to think, is a huge handicap. That’s what political correctness does to us. It won’t permit open discussion, and explains the puzzling tyranny of the P.C. edict, which proclaims ” to be good, one must be non-judgmental.” That leads to moral equivalence, which in turn might explain the frequent appearance on our screens, courtesy of the BBC, of Abdel al-Bari Atwan. Mr. Atwan has been endorsing last week’s attacks near Eilat in which Israelis were murdered.

‘The Eilat operation, as I see it, corrected the course of the Arab revolutions and refocused them on the most dangerous disease, namely the Israeli tyranny. This disease is the cause of all the defects that have afflicted the region for the past 65 years…’

CiFWatch, the watchdog website that monitors the Guardian’s increasingly overt antisemitism, is concerned about Atwan’s frequent contributions to Comment is Free. The Guardian represents the intelligentsia, many of whom have travelled so far to the left that they’ve gone right round the back and out the other side, having picked up radical Islam along the way, like a burr on your woolly jumper. How did that happen? It’s inexplicable to many of us, and apparently to them. At least, I haven’t heard a convincing explanation so far.

The BBC’s fondness for hiring Abdel al-Bari Atwan is clear. He’s never off our screens. Opining on this and that, his eyes bulging preternaturally, he’s regarded as an authority on all things Arab. Springs, Uprisings, and Resistance? Ask Abdel. His speciality is demonising Israel and fantasising about it being nuked.

Is he impartial? Is he sane? Are his prejudices balanced on the air, in the short term or the long term, by opposing views? Are his views given undue respect and credibility?

Why does the BBC give inflammatory, racist, antisemitic and warmongering individuals the oxygen of publicity on programmes like Dateline or Newsnight? We know the BBC is mischievous and likes a bit of a barney for the ratings. But this is serious. They might want to try and make sparks fly, but sparks have a habit of getting out of control if they’re given free rein.

Any Questions? Here’s one. Does the panel think the BBC is after a conflagration?

A caller has phoned in to Any Answers to self-flagellate over our colonial past, and has invented a new despot named ‘Dugaffi.” I despair.

PC Puzzle

A B-BBC reader says “There’s much puzzlement in Hampshire about what section of the community feels it is acceptable to put an old pony in a trap and force it into a lake in order to drown it.”

Pony ‘beaten’ into Hampshire lake dies. (Or should that be ‘dies’?)

When the BBC finally has the monopoly of newsgathering and reporting how will anyone ever know what’s behind the politically correct obfuscation of such stories?
Will such incidents always be carried out by ‘People’ and never by ‘Travellers’ or indeed ‘Gypsies’?

Suicide by Political Correctness

What a fascinating turn of events. WikiLeaks has revealed that the government was so determined to uphold our reputation as a safe haven for the world’s oppressed that it repeatedly ignored warnings about radical Islamic extremists and refused to admit that harbouring them was not the simple humanitarian gesture they believed it to be.

Now that they’ve managed to turn British cities into Al Qaeda hubs, it’s a bit late in the day to say a shamefaced sorry. The labour party still diverts all recriminations over their open door immigration policy by making a reluctant apology for their small mistake concerning Poles.

At last we’re starting to hear on the BBC what we’ve known all along.

I made a flippant remark about Frank Gardner, but I really meant it.
If, as he says, he too knew all along, and (as he said on Today) Mubarak had actually gripped his hand and warned him, why didn’t he use his influence to persuade the BBC to inform educate and entertain us through one of the many programmes and documentaries that are specifically there to spread the word?

Presumably political correctness was too prevalent at the BBC, even for someone in his position, to penetrate the barrier that separates us from reality.
The real gem was the discussion at 7:31 with Frank Gardner and Kim Howells. Now ‘they’ know, the government knows, and we know they know, what is going to be done about it? If the government won’t act because they’re afraid of losing public support, the BBC must ensure the public knows, and then dealing with the problem firmly will be a massive vote-winner.

The Straw that Nearly Broke the Camel’s Back

Jack Straw was being fashionably outspoken, and the admirable Douglas Murray and Mohammed Shafiq all shouted at once in a Newsnight chaired by Stephanie “toss-tosterone” Flanders.
The best way they could deal with the question of Muslim racism against non-Muslims in a suitably non-racist way was to identify the practice of ‘men of Pakistani origin’ abusing vulnerable white girls, as a criminal rather that a culturally-motivated issue.
Someone proposed that the police unfairly target Asian men, and if they took the trouble to look they would find this crime equally rampant in any other community. Here is yet another manifestation of the contortions we go through so as not to be thought racist. We must insist that there are good Muslims and bad, or there are criminal Muslims and law-abiding Muslims, but never that there is a culturally based racism in Muslim communities that paints non muslims as inferior and unworthy of respect.

If criminal or bad Muslims are indeed a tiny minority, what is stopping the good majority doing their bit, wholeheartedly co-operating with the police, or condemning such behaviour loud and clear, or in their own ethnically cultural way, issuing a fatwa against it.

It’s only about fifty years since liberation from Victorian type stifling of human sexuality occurred in the West. Before the 1960s premarital and extramarital sex was considered shameful, and single mothers were put under enormous pressure to give up their babies, oh yes, and homosexuality was illegal.
When the revolution took place people were encouraged to throw off the shackles of shame, prudery and repression and love themselves and each other. Then, as is the way of things, the pendulum swung too far, and along came overt promiscuity and sexualisation of everything under the sun including children.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that chauvinistic male-centerd Muslim culture is entrenched in the distant past, and their fear and loathing of our debauchery, combined with their, dare I say it, racist insularity is what lies at the heart of what they call ‘Asian men’ grooming and abusing vulnerable, unloved white girls.
For heaven’s sake don’t let’s think we can or should reintroduce pre 1960s attitudes to sex, but we need to examine our own exploitative culture too.

If they really want to stop being marginalised, Muslim communities who live geographically in the west but emotionally in the east must revolutionise their attitude to sexual and male-female relationships, and liberate their young men from the sexual stifling and repression that causes this so-called “fizzing and popping with testosterone,” and make sure that the “outlet for that” doesn’t amount to abusing the non-Muslims they think of as ‘easy meat’.
Jack Straw was one of the bunch that orchestrated the Asian invasion. Now he’s surprised at the consequences.

The BBC is slowly but surely exposing this problem, albeit more tentitively than it should, but it’s hampered by an over-sensitive wariness of a backlash that might threaten ‘community cohesion’ if it’s discussed openly. They pretend this is a fear of a purely right wing BNP style reaction, but of course openness is also taboo in the Muslim world, and Mohammed Shafiq, the Muslim spokesman on Newsnight admitted that he has received threats from his own community “for speaking out”.

Here endeth the sermon. Come on BBC, let’s stop walking on eggshells and get down to the nitty gritty.

Unmentionable Matters

A BBC world service programme, Politics UK discussed Neathergate with Sir Andrew Green and Denis MacShane.

Presenter Dennis Sewell’s admirable introduction promised a frank and open discussion, but it quickly reverted to type as the participants carefully avoided mentioning the detrimental effect Muslim immigration in particular has had on western society, and the obvious vote-conscious stranglehold it has on politicians with Muslim-heavy constituencies.

The next item tackled Ali Dezaei’s exploitation of the PC-driven taboo that prevented criticism of Black’nAsian police. The whole saga seems like a microcosm of the UK.

When the institutional racism in the police force was recognized after the Stephen Lawrence affair, the pendulum swung so far in the other direction that political correctness rendered objectivity nigh on impossible.

The considerable effort expended by politicians and the BBC in persuading the population to accept and embrace all cultures, even ones that abhor the very tolerance that facilitates their good fortune in being unconditionally and paradoxically welcomed here, echoes the collective blind eyes that refused to see a “black’ policeman as a crook.

Desperate bluster by politicians in order not to appear racist, and the media’s frantic attempts to normalise Islam parallel police anti racist measures like promoting ethnic minority individuals above their ability or setting up a Black Police Association.

If the police scenario does parallel that of the UK as a whole, the eventual conviction of a corrupt ethnic-minority policeman offers hope that this country might one day come to its senses.

Before that can happen the BBC must somehow become unbiased, and allow a wider spectrum of opinion to share the platform enjoyed by the cosy consensus that currently dominates the airwaves.


From this morning’s Today programme (06.30-ish), here’s BBC political correspondent Norman Smith commenting on the Tories’ claims that government money has gone to schools run by Hizb Ut-Tahrir activists:

“It does seem to me to raise questions, too, about judgement and tone. Judgement as to whether it is appropriate to make such very serious allegations in this way, and although the Tories say that if they hadn’t raised it in this way the issue wouldn’t have been dealt with and the government wouldn’t have acted, I’m sure there will also be people who will argue that well, actually, perhaps it’s better to make such sensitive claims in private through the usual channels.”

So here we have a BBC journalist wondering if it’s even appropriate to discuss openly the “sensitive” issue of Islamic fundamentalism.

The families of the dead at Fort Hood know where that sort of thinking can lead.


There’s a good analysis here of ‘Hobnobgate’ – the ridiculous BBC hypocrisy over Andrew Neil’s lighthearted (and even affectionate) remark on the BBC1 programme This Week that panellist MP Diane Abbott was like a “chocolate hobnob”, while her companion Michael Portillo was more like a “custard cream”. As Christopher Hart eloquently points out, the PC police at the BBC go into flatspin panic the minute 10 Guardian readers complain about alleged racism, while they do virtually nothing at all when an oaf like Jonathan Ross mounts a nasty, vicious, spiteful attack on the gentle Andrew Sachs. And what steps are our revered senior managers at the BBC taking to rid us of genuinely offensive parts of their output, such as using the f-word at every opportunity, or getting Andrew Marr to present an analysis of British history (as he did last night)? His programme was so full of crass class-hatred judgments that the best comparison is with 1066 And All That (although not nearly as funny).

Only Joking

Hilarious conversation with Hazel Blears and John Humphrys about new policy against political correctness. (Inability to mention certain things.) This new policy of abandoning political correctness, (Unfortunately P.C. prevents us from saying out loud what we really mean,) is, for some coincidental reason, designed to prevent radicalisation.
Up till now political correctness has prevented us from making jokes about the Irish, Welsh or Scots. (To name just a few.)

“Of course we mustn’t allow racist jokes. People will say we don’t want any part of that. Because it’s not even funny’ (Well, not always)
“Muslims are not offended by us celebrating Christmas! We celebrate their rituals, after all.”
“Sorry, political correctness prevents us from telling us exactly who we’re afraid will be radicalised.


The BBC has been swooning at the success of the film “Slumdog Millionaire” at the Oscars all morning. I haven’t seen the movie yet so can’t comment on it but I do note that several of the young people that star in the movie repeatedly refer to their home city as “Bombay”. The BBC really must have a word with them – don’t they know it is Mumbai?