Your License Fee Hard At Work: BBC Arabic and Persian Edition

Here’s one for you:

Proud to be American

With a sister who wears the hijab and a cowboymad Muslim father who dresses like John Wayne, Seema Jilani enjoys a diverse family life. The Texas-based paediatrician, who has worked in Afghanistan and Pakistan and written extensively on health and social issues, is an engaging contributor to a new BBC documentary, American Muslim: Freedom, Faith and Fear.

Sure, why not? The whole family is Muslim, but their clothing is diverse, so that counts as “a diverse family life” when seen through the agenda-tinted glasses.

Other participants include a fashion designer, an imam, a comedian, a Marine, a Republican congressman and a forthright newspaper columnist – all with something to say about Muslims who live in the Land of the Free. The illuminating 60 minute tv programme, to be accompanied by a World Service radio documentary, emerged from a competition that invited proposals for a collaborative project between BBC Arabic and BBC Persian.

Which means it’s meant to be targeted at Mohammedans in those regions, and not for your consumption. It’s nice, though, that the BBC is actually presenting these people with a positive image of the US, for a change.

‘The original idea was to concentrate on the Bible Belt where there are fascinating similarities between devout Christians and devout Muslims,’ explains BBC Persian reporter Karen Zarindast.

You mean like how they think of women as childbearers first and foremost, subject to the absolute rule of the husband, and their feelings about homosexuality, for example? I won’t hold my breath.

The remit later broadened out and the resulting programme, commissioned by Global News, will be shown on BBC World News, BBC Arabic and BBC Persian in the run-up to the tenth anniversary of 9/11.

I bet it did. But we’re not at the ‘fear’ part yet. The BBC Persian reporter involved says this:

Originally from Lebanon, he went to university in the US in the mid-80s and this was his first trip back. ‘It was interesting to return after so many years, and I have to say that I fell in love with the country all over again.’

Again, nice to see a positive image about the US from the BBC, for a change.

It’s a familiar sentiment. ‘Everyone we met, from the most recent Muslim arrivals to the surgeon who left Pakistan 30 years ago, told us how much they loved America,’ says Farah. Zarindast, who moved to the UK from Iran 15 years ago, and travels regularly to the US, where her mother and brother now live, was also struck by Muslims’ loyalty to their adopted land.

What shock, eh? People move here on purpose to escape the sh!thole Mulsim countries they live in, and don’t hate it as much as certain Beeboids do.

‘Muslims in America are better integrated than in Britain,’ Darius Bazargan notes. ‘The country is more of a melting pot where people go to escape repression and really value their freedom.’

Shall we examine why that is, BBC? Any future documentaries about what’s preventing Mohammedans from becoming better integrated in Britain? Or have you already decided that it’s down to the inherent racism of the indigenous population, full stop?

Not that Muslims’ love of the States means they are always loved equally in return, he points out. ‘There seems to be more Islamophobia now than immediately after the 9/11 attacks.

Do you think it might have to do with the fact that there have been a few more attempted terrorist attacks by Muslims since then, not to mention Maj. Jihadi Nassan at Ft. Hood? Nah: it’s the inherent racism of the indigenous population:

‘Attitudes have hardened since the election of President Obama. People know they can’t express anti-black opinions but think it acceptable to be anti-Muslim. In fact, [in the case of politicians] their ratings can go up if they appear to be anti-Muslim.’

There you have it: we’re still bloody racists, only we keep quiet about the blacks now. And just like Baroness Warsi said, it’s acceptable to hate Muslims at dinner parties instead. I’m going to go out on a limb and predict that not a single second of this is spent discussing any attempted terrorist attacks, or any incident which might even remotely have caused concern about Mohammedans wanting Shariah Law to take precedence over domestic US law in certain cases, or Mohammedan cab drivers in Minnesota refusing to pick up fares at the ariport if they have alcohol on them, or jihadi imams who are forced to leave. Nope, it’s all just racism.

And of course, the best bit:

In another side of the story, the documentary features white Americans who have converted to Islam as a reaction against Western materialism and the constant pressure to look slim and attractive. They include a woman who used to make her living photographing people in nightclubs and is now a devout Muslim.

You couldn’t make it up. It’s White Girl all over again. Remember, this is specifically meant for Muslim audiences in the Muslim World.

What you might call a step change…

What you might call pandering….

A positive message about Islam and Muslims, with a qualified mixed message about the US, and not even meant for you to see or even know about. All at your expense.


A Biased BBC contributor writes…..

“A remarkable tale inwhich a lot is said but what actually happened is hidden.

BBC radio news tells us that there have been riots between Muslims andChristians in Egypt…caused by Christians who blocked a road in protest abouta church that had been burnt down. No indication of who had burnt the church down though.

In the web report they report both Muslims and Christians were killed….thoughit was almost all Christians who died…(how unlike Gaza in which every deathis labelled and blame apportioned)….in fact there have been no confirmedMuslim deaths.

The BBC is quick to report that ‘Egypt’s Sunni authority has urged Muslims tohelp rebuild the church, calling its destruction un-Islamic.’ and later ‘TheGrand Imam of al-Azhar issued a statement on Tuesday condemning the attack onthe church in Atfih, Hilwan governorate, as “a distortion ofIslam”….oh and later to reinforce the message ‘Sheikh Ahmad al-Tayyibcalled on Muslim residents of the town to help start rebuilding the church andto refrain from sectarian violence, Egypt’s official news agency, Mena,reported’

So we have established that the attacks were nothing to do with Islam…in factit was the Christians who were to blame for enflaming the situation….

‘The violence erupted when Coptic protesters blocked a highway in the Egyptiancapital, protesting against the burning of the church in the province ofHilwan. The rally angered Muslims who wanted to pass through.’

So we have a church burnt to the ground and a village attacked by severalthousand Muslims, then up to 15,000 Muslims along with the Egyptian Army attackand fire upon the Coptic Christians killing and injury many….with possibly noMuslim casualties, and yet the BBC tries to paint a picture of Muslim tolerance and peace contrasted with Christian belligerence.


BBC reports that swimming lessons in some Staffordshire schools should stop during Ramadan to ensure Muslim pupils “do not swallow water”, a council has suggested…..

Stoke-on-Trent City Council has issued an 11-page Ramadan guide for schools to help pupils who may be fasting when the school year starts in September. It said swimming was acceptable to Muslims but posed a high risk of swallowing water that may break a fast.

There is a real moral dilemma for the BBC here. On the one hand it has long been an advocate of sex education in schools but the challenge is that this Labour dominated Council (Leasder Mohammed Pervez) has other ideas…

It also suggests re-scheduling sex education classes during the holy lunar month, as Muslim followers who have reached puberty are required to avoid sexual thoughts during this period.

I wonder if everyone in Staffordshire agrees with the banning of swimming lessons? Reading the BBC, we will never know.  Still, since the Muslim Council of Britain is behind this it must be OK?


BBC still worrying about the backlash against Muslims in the US after a Muslim slaughters 13 non-Muslims.

Amid fears of a possible anti-Muslim backlash after the attack, President Obama has stressed the multinational diversity in the US armed forces. “They are Americans of every race, faith, and station. They are Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus and non-believers. “They are descendants of immigrants and immigrants themselves. They reflect the diversity that makes this America,” he said in the aftermath of the shooting.
It must be such a worry. But here’s a thought; Given the number of attacks from “devout” Muslims in the USA since 9/11 perhaps the BBC should investigate what is it that drives such maniacal hatred of fellow Americans from those who embrace Islam.


So, did you catch this gem on our much loved State Broadcaster? My heart bleeds for those poor Muslim Tommies who were so uniquely badly treated and let down by their colonial masters. I am SURE all those with military experience will recognise the firm reality portrayed by this BBC special. Yes? Is it any wonder Muslims have such angst?

Doff of the Trilby to the ASE!

Easy money, expensive words

The BBC have given £45,000 to the head of the Muslim Council of Britain, Muhammad Abdul Bari, to settle a legal case brought by him against the BBC for comments made by Charles Moore on Question Time in March. Charles Moore accused the MCB “leadership” of failing to condemn attacks on British soldiers, thereby implicitly condoning them, and this was deemed libellous of Mr Bari.

I read Cranmer’s response to it, and it simply reinforced my sense that a wrong had been done. The big question seems to be why the BBC so tamely ponied up telly-taxpayer’s money and imply that even mild indirect criticism of Islam is not within the law in the UK. I understand from Cranmer’s comments that Mr Moore is seeking legal advice of his own. The BBC don’t mention him in their own report, possibly mindful of such escalation, but it seems to me this is an attack on the mildest kind of free speech, and the BBC are binding themselves to being wary of who they allow to speak on the BBC. We often express dismay at the liberal-leftist consensus which the BBC supports by stacking their panels with centre-leftists; here the BBC are accepting legal reinforcement of their natural instincts; perhaps it’s no wonder they surrender so meekly to the heap big chief of the MCB.

Needless to say, the libel lawyers in this case were Carter-Ruck, tyrants of the UK libel laws renowned for squeezing money out of the flimsiest cases of offence and reputational damage. What a bunch of evil shysters they are.

Impartial BBC Reflects Changed World.

I am so acclimatised to the air-brushing from the original I/P peace plan of any requirements from the Arabs that I can’t tell if one report is any more biased than another.

Reports and analyses of Obama’s speech conclude that this ‘reaching out to the Muslim World’ malarky that everyone is so delighted with, must mean Israeli settlements are now officially the only obstacle to peace.

Although President Obama didn’t exactly say that, his speech was sufficiently imprecise for the press to take away whatever interpretation they wanted.

I don’t know if the BBC has been any more biased on this subject than any other organ of news, but no-one can accuse President Obama of not honouring one of his pre-election pledges. From a starting point of evasiveness over his Muslim origins, to full-blown ‘call me Hussein’ identification with them, he’s certainly found a neat way to fulfill his promise of ‘Change.’

Now Obama is officially a Muslim, and The World is known as The Mussslim World.
(In other words it has simply caught up with the BBC. They knew that all along.) Relax BBC. You’re not biased any longer. Salaam alaikum !

Different Strokes for Different Folks

Honest Reporting links to JJ Goldberg’s article in Columbia Journalism Review where he analyses and compares coverage of the “debunked allegations” of IDF abuses in Gaza. (I use the quotes because I’m quoting.)
He is interested in how the story is framed, and notes differences in the way the American and British press present the subject.

JJ Goldberg acknowledges that the US ‘Jewish lobby’ is a factor that both affects and influences the American Press’s gentler treatment of Israel, but explains that this is understandable, no more sinister than any other pressure from any other organised interest group, and no bad thing. He is asking: What’s wrong with a Jewish lobby? Why shouldn’t Jews have an interest group? The Jews are good guys and valuable to America.

“It’s almost a cliché these days to suggest that the presence of a well-organized Jewish community in America has a lot to do with the way Israel is treated by government and the media. It’s a mistake, though, to note the community’s ability to threaten and overlook its role as a leavening force in the larger culture. Jewish sensibilities help shape America’s sense of humor, U.S. attitudes toward civil rights, and much more. It would be astonishing if American Jews didn’t also influence America’s view of Israel—much as Irish Americans have helped mold attitudes toward Ireland.”

The article shows how the BBC’s Paul Wood seems to represent the British attitude. His reports, in sharp contrast, are blatantly critical of Israel, with emotive images accompanying inflammatory voiceovers, openly disapproving and condemnatory.

It is a fascinating exercise. What particularly interested me was the conclusion that:

“That’s a key difference between American and British coverage of the Middle East. The British Jewish community is well rooted, but it’s smaller—barely one-tenth the size of, say, the British Muslim community.”

It sort of hints that the ‘Muslim lobby’ has been busy influencing and affecting things here. If so, are we to assume that it’s understandable, natural, and quite okay, and we must accept that in Britain we have a culture that regards the phrase “Jewish Lobby” as shorthand for sinister cabal with dastardly intent, and the word Zionist as the embodiment of evil.

In saying this, I could be letting the Beeb off the hook, saying they’re only reflecting our culture.
But are they reflecting, or creating?

Don’t Mention the War

Feedback R4 was all about anti-Christian Comedy. What it was really about though, was: why is the BBC too scared to make jokes about Islam? But they were too scared to say that, so they cloaked it in a foil of other religions, saying “You’re always dissing Christianity, why don’t you ever do that with Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Atheism, Ismism, oh and Islam. They said it very quickly while no-one was listening.

‘I mentioned it once but I think I got away with it.’ Like that.

Anyway, the chap from the Beeb said “I deny everything” and “edgy comedy” and “Iconoclast”.

Oh well. Feedback is always a bit like that.