Search Results for: head of religion

Start the Week Thread 17th May 2021

Sometime this week the BBC is to publish a report by Lord Dyson on its’ conduct over the Princess Diana interview by Martin Bashir . Mr Bashir left the BBC for ‘health reasons ‘ on Friday 14th May. He had held the post of ‘head of religion ‘. Now it transpires that a Panorama documentary about the Diana Interview – due to be broadcast on Monday – has been cancelled . Much more will follow ….

They were the future once

 

Image result for muslim in burka like klu klux klan freedom of speech

 

The Now Show, so yesterday, so bigoted, prejudiced, lazy, stereotyping, lame, cowardly.  Only for very small-minded [in all senses] Guardian readers. Punt and Dennis give Alf Garnett a run for his money.  It’s just unfortunate that the BBC clearly sees a long future for such drivel as they’ve recruited a new comedian, an 18 year old whose got cerebral palsy…I had thought his long anti-Trump rants were a result of drink but no, it’s cerebral palsy….that’s his own joke, suck it up….I’m being inclusive in my abuse.

When he wasn’t droning on about Trump being orange or his hair or his racism or his….whatever….he told us of his shock at seeing a page on Facebook [the new ‘Daily Mail’ anti-Christ for the BBC] that asked why we can’t all go around in KKK hoods if Muslims can wear Burkas.  Apparently our comedic young friend thinks this is racist, so racist in fact that even a racist would think it is racist because obviously you just can’t compare the two….the KKK is much less frightening….no?

An ideology that says kill Christians and Jews, that says fight the unbeliever until Islam reigns supreme, that says kill gay people, that says kill apostates, that stones adulterers to death, that thinks it’s OK to beat your wife, that says you can keep slaves, that you can keep sex slaves, that you can use your slaves as prostitutes, that you can behead, crucify, chop off hands and feet, of criminals, that makes women but not men wear the veil, that makes women second class citizens…an ideology that  has kept much of the world in the Dark Ages for a thousand years…..many would say that the KKK might actually be the more enlightened by comparison…and that Islam is not a race….so it’s not racism to criticise Islam…however as David pointed out the BBC seems to think it is…the only question they think is what punishment should be dished out for such ‘blasphemy’.

Now that quandary sounds familiar….for Islam is in no doubt that Gays should be killed…the only question is how…whether to throw them off a tall place, burn them, or to stone them to death….only quoting the much respected and moderate Muslim scholar, Yusuf Qaradawi.

 

 

Retweeted

Zac Goldsmith Retweeted BBC Asian Network

Next week on the BBC; “what is the correct punishment for being gay?”

Zac Goldsmith added,

From the Guardian…

Mr Qaradawi’s rulings are recognised by Muslims around the world as reflecting the balanced nature of Islamic law and its relevance to modern life. This is the recurrent theme of his programmes on Arab television channels, as well as the popular Islam Online website, for which he acts as patron.

When most Muslims look to Mr Qaradawi, they see a shining example of moderation: in its Islamic meaning. To us, being a moderate Muslim means to practise the religion faithfully, according to its letter and its spirit….if he is an extremist, who is there left to be moderate? 

The real question of course is ‘Is Islam compatible with the West’s civilisation?’  The next question might be is it wise to have Muslim activists in positions where they can spread their fundamentalist messages, either in the media or in government office, or in civil society organisations.  Was it a mistake to appoint to the Chair of the Tory party, and make her a government minister, someone who proposed arming the terrorist group /Hamas and the disarming of Israel?  What hope is there?…Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Minister Ahmed Hussen.  BBC’s head of religion, twice…Muslim.

The CIA says…‘Britain is an Islamist swamp. You don’t want to have to spend time spying on your friends.’  But they do.

As far as our closest ally is concerned, Britain is not part of the
problem, Britain is the problem. Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer and
Middle East expert on the NSC for three presidents, who has just been
appointed to head Barack Obama’s overhaul of Afghan strategy, told me:
‘The 800,000 or so British citizens of Pakistani origin are regarded by
the American intelligence community as perhaps the single biggest threat
environment that they have to worry about.’

 

 

 

 

 

Cultural Jihad

 

Terrorism, violent extremism, is easily identified and labelled as a threat, or not.  The BBC, and indeed those in the Establishment, like to tell us there is a difference between Islam and Islamism, Islamism being mostly used to describe the violent extremists, not to be confused with ‘real’ Muslims, ‘Moderate’ Muslims…but of course the violence is just a tool, a tool that is used to further the aims of the Muslim supremacists, these are the same aims that many so-called ‘moderate’ Muslims also have but promote in non-violent ways using the media, the legal system and the infiltration of the Establishment and influential organisations in order to ‘normalise’ Islam, to draw the Establishment into accepting Islam, ensuring policies are always shaped to take into account Muslim demands and by utilising the Muslim ‘as victim’ card to blackmail those with the power to defer to Muslim wishes….always backed up by the threat that the Muslim community will be angered and radicalised if not appeased.

The Establishment is all too ready to accomodate the ‘Islamist’ charter as seen by how many radicals are actually employed by government and how organisations like the BBC employ people on the basis of their religion…no coincidence that the BBC has now had two heads of religious broadcasting who are Muslim.  How on earth did Warsi get to be Chair of the Tory Party and then head of the government’s own faith programme when she is quite clearly someone with fundamentalist views….the woman who wanted to disarm Israel and arm the terrorist group Hamas.

We know that the Muslim Brotherhood is a dangerous, Muslim supremacist organisation that seeks to Islamise the world and is in fact the group from which the MCB sprang as well as Hamas and Al Qaeda.  The group that intends to take over America.  The British government produced a study on the group but diluted it down and made little of it because the conclusions would have been too inconvenient and meant taking action that would be ‘Islamophobic’. The Swedish ‘MOD’ has produced its own report and the conclusions are nothing surprising…unless you  rely on the BBC for all your news and current affairs…

The Muslim Brotherhood is creating a ‘parallel social structure’ in Sweden with the help of ‘political elites’ who foster a culture of silence, a damning government report has found. 

The document claims that  the Brotherhood is building a ‘parallel society’ within the Scandinavian country, which can help the Islamist group to achieve its ends. 

The report, which was published on Friday, was commissioned by Sweden’s Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB), which is part of the country’s Ministry of Defence.

The paper’s authors claim the Brotherhood is working to increase the number of practising Muslims in Sweden, which they say encourages tension with the secular society and puts community cohesion in jeopardy.

The authors also claim the organisation is targeting political parties, NGOs, academic institutions and other civil society organisations.

‘Islamists aim to build a parallel social structure competing with the rest of the Swedish society the values of its citizens. In this sense, MB’s activists pose a long-term challenge in terms of the country’s social cohesion’, the report says.

The BBC seeks to normalise Islam as it disproportionately fills its own ranks with Muslims, fills the airwaves with programmes portraying Islam as a moderate and peaceful religion and peddles a narrative that hides the truth about the consequences of Muslim activism and the realities of what Islam actually means, and actively works to encourage Muslim migration in its millions into Europe despite the very, very obvious conflicts of interest that arise.

It is an irony that a BBC programme, Muslims Like Us, intended to work towards that normalisation of Islam by showing Muslims as ‘everyday’ people just like ‘us’, and commissioned by the BBC’s new head of religion, actually proved the opposite…how most Muslims gravitate towards defending Islam against the West even when they are supposedly moderate, loyalty is to ‘Islam First’, and how those openly professing and pushing the Islamist agenda in an aggressive manner dominate the conversation and the community as those who might oppose them give up and don’t want to be drawn into conflict…so the extremists win and the fundamentalist, strictly observant line on Islam is imposed.

That media goto, Tariq Ramadan, admitted that he expected Muslims not to adapt their religion but for Western societies to adapt to Islam all the while telling non-Muslims that Islam is reforming and we can expect a ‘European Islam’…but that’s a lie, an impossibility that relies on people’s ignorance, wilful or otherwise of Islam…Ramadan is of course a Muslim Brotherhood mouthpiece.

One day we may get the truth…but it will be too late…and there will be no one to save you when they come for you as you didn’t speak up to save the first victims.

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left

 

 

 

 

The BBC’s Very Own Trojan Horse Religious Programming

 

Aaqil Ahmed has claimed that sending Songs of Praise to Calais is entirely non-political…well, that’s obviously not true.

We looked at it in the last post but Ahmed has said a lot more in other places that suggest he uses religious programmes as political vehicles to carry a message, and indeed even  uses programmes officially classed as non-religious to spread that message.

Broadcast magazine tells us that ‘the topic of religious broadcasting – and its growing importance for any understanding of foreign affairs – has come back into the mainstream, after years when the TV world, politicians and regulators preferred not to think about it.’

Clearly then on that basis a programme from a highly controversial place such as Calais is not intended to increase knowledge of religion but to add pressure onto the government by saying that it is the ‘Christian’ thing to do to be welcoming to migrants….a different take altogether on a religious educational programme, using it to push a political message.

A paradox that the BBC, so antagonistic towards Christianity, should now co-opt it, under the guidance of a Muslim head of religion of all people, to further its own political agenda.

Ed Stourton told us that knowledge of religion and religious issues was important for understanding current affairs…however that should not be taken as endorsement for religion itself…

‘I do think that there is a problem with British culture… in the way that we treat religion as a sort of curious ‘ghetto’-like thing,” he told Press Gazette.

“And I don’t say that from the point of view of arguing that religion is a good thing – because very often it’s not.

“But it does damage our understanding and our ability to perceive stories accurately.”

Having worked in broadcast journalism for 35 years, Stourton suggested the British media’s indifference to religion is “deeply engrained”.

He added: “But it’s been perhaps made more apparent than ever by events since 9/11, because a whole area of quite complex religion has become very essential to the understanding of mainstream news,” he said.

The problem is that Aaqil Ahmed is not just informing us about religion but selling it to us as well, to him it is a ‘good thing’.

He tells us that although ‘Rev’ was not officially classed as religious programming he himself classed it as that, the same with ‘Citizen Khan’….he believes these programmes ‘help the population understand about religion and diversity in our community’.  I wonder how he classes ‘Father Ted’?

As for Citizen Khan I doubt that had the intended effect….watching it rather confirmed the notions you might have had about what Muslims think of non-Muslims and of Islam….as David Goodhart said, the more people understand about Islam the more ‘alien’ they realise it is…and the more we should speak up for our liberal, secular, democratic society.

Ahmed also tells us that the BBC’s ‘The Ottoman’s: Europe’s Muslim Emperor’s’ was a programme commissioned by his religion and ethics department and did not come from mainstream programming.  Clearly from the title Ahmed was intending to make a powerful political statement, one that tried to tie in Islam to Europe in order to spin us a narrative that Muslims belong in Europe and to tell a further tale of just how wonderful Islam was..is.  This wasn’t just history but a heavily politicised narrative with a message.

However the title is deliberately misleading…The Ottoman’s were Turkish and Turkey is not European, the Ottoman’s certainly ruled some parts of Europe in the Balkans but were not ‘European Emperors’ as Ahmed’s programme provocatively proclaims.

What is interesting, and controversial for the BBC’s narrative about the Islamic State, is the blurb for this programme which states:

Few realise the importance of Ottoman history in today’s Middle East. And why you have to know the Ottoman story to understand the roots of many of today’s trouble spots from Palestine, Iraq and Israel to Libya, Syria, Egypt, Bosnia and Kosovo.

If you understand the Muslim empire of the Ottomans you will undertand events in the modern day Middle East….the ‘roots of many of today’s trouble spots’.  You may think that would undermine the standard BBC line that all the problems in the Middle East can be traced back only to the Sykes Picot agreement and then to the 2003 Iraq War.  All history before then, and indeed much of it in that period itself that is unhelpful to that BBC discourse, is wiped from the narrative by BBC journalists ‘explaining’ issues such as the rise of the Islamic state….explaining them as the fault of the West.  However it was not long into the first episode until we got to the usual suspsects, and it wasn’t the Ottomans.  The British were set up as the guilty culprits, the cause of all the tension and conflict in the Middle East today.

This BBC description of the Ottoman Empire is somewhat more truthful than the template BBC statements on Islam and the Middle East we so often hear now and indeed than the BBC’s own programme on the Ottoman empire…

The Ottoman Empire was the one of the largest and longest lasting Empires in history.

It was an empire inspired and sustained by Islam, and Islamic institutions.

Why was it so successful?

Why was the Empire successful?

The recipe for success

There were many reasons why the Ottoman Empire was so successful:

  • Highly centralised

  • Power was always transferred to a single person, and not split between rival princes

    • The Ottoman Empire was successfully ruled by a single family for 7 centuries.
  • State-run education system

  • Religion was incorporated in the state structure, and the Sultan was regarded as “the protector of Islam”.

  • State-run judicial system

  • Ruthless in dealing with local leaders

  • Promotion to positions of power largely depended on merit

  • Created alliances across political and racial groups

  • United by Islamic ideology

  • United by Islamic warrior code with ideal of increasing Muslim territory through Jihad

  • United by Islamic organisational and administrative structures

  • Highly pragmatic, taking the best ideas from other cultures and making them their own

  • Encouraged loyalty from other faith groups

  • Private power and wealth were controlled

  • Very strong military

    • Strong slave-based army

    • Expert in developing gunpowder as a military tool

    • Military ethos pervaded whole administration

 

Did you spot these statements that never normally make it past the BBC censors?…

  • An empire inspired and sustained by Islam

  • United by Islamic ideology

  • United by Islamic warrior code with ideal of increasing Muslim territory through Jihad

 

 

So the religion of peace expanded its empire by utilising the ‘Islamic warrior code‘ and engaging in Holy, religiously inspired, war….Jihad!

Who’d have thought?!

I was also interested in this anodyne claim…’Encouraged loyalty from other faith groups‘….really?  Just how did they ‘encourage loyalty’ from non-Muslims?  History suggests that it was more at the point of a sword than gentle persuasion and mutual respect.

This claim is also of interest…’Highly pragmatic, taking the best ideas from other cultures and making them their own‘….so the Golden age of Islamic science was in fact standing on the shoulders of giants….a golden age which was actually based upon the science of other cultures and civilisations.  Which provides the answer as to why Islamic countries have been so backward for centuries…once Islam kicked in fully and imposed itself properly upon the nations its rigid, uncompromising, unintellectual approach to life, guided by the Koran, stopped all innovation and the spread of ideas.  They created a desert where thought, science, innovation and intellectual development were choked off by religious rules and certainties.

Once we understand that we can see that many of the BBC’s recent lines about Islam, that it is the religion of peace, that there is no connection between Islam and ‘Holy war’, that we should thank Muslims for all scientific progress, are somewhat less than true and are purely meant to persuade us that there is no problem with having a backward, unpleasant religion [to quote Mishal Husain] thrusting itself upon the European civilisations.

 

In the video at the top of this post, “God: TV’s Holy Grail?“, Roger Bolton from the BBC’s Feedback programme, states that programmes like ‘Rev’ are religious and teach us to care for all humans, that all human life is valuable however criminal or destitute and broken. He claims this revelation about humanity is one brought to us through religion alone and has nothing to do with the Enlightenment or being just part of the natural human condition and thinking…we are not naturally ‘humane’ or altruistic apparently…we need God’s self-appointed representatives on earth to guide us to the moral high ground.

That’s complete hogwash.  Religion is the most divisive and judgemental of any of the ideologies, if you’re not a Christian or a Muslim or whatever you’re going to Hell….so where’s the valuing all humanity regardless of sin or condition?  Not there is it?  Religions value only their own and to hell with all the rest…..which is a bit ironic when Bolton complained that it was the ‘liberal, secular elite’ dominating TV that had ‘a lack of basic understanding about religion meant faiths such as Islam were being oversimplified, leading to dangerous levels of ignorance.  The BBC had a responsibility to improve understanding about religion and not just for educational reasons. “It is also frankly for the safety of society,” he said.

You have to know about Islam and religion generally ‘for the safety of society’.  Go figure.

He rounded off by saying Muslims should get a sense of humour…‘Mr Bolton also said many listeners and viewers had written to the corporation complaining “that Christianity is unfairly treated: that other faiths do not have to put up with what Christianity has to put up with”.

He added: “What I do think is that Muslims in particular ought to be mature enough in this country to be able to take that humour and that Christians do have a right to say it’s about time that the satire which applied to them ought to be applied to others.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I’m Jesus!

 

The BBC’s head of religion has sent in the Hot Gospellers from Songs of Praise to stir things up in Calais. (H/T Guest Who) and he insists this is not a political move.

It is, of course, patently a highly political intervention by the BBC and is fully intended to stir up debate and put pressure on the government to open the borders as the BBC continues to drip feed us, if ‘drip’ is the right word, maybe deluge is better, with tales of hardship, danger and ‘desperation’ of the migrants intending to generate sympathy, empathy and compassion for them and a subsequent capitulation and surrender of all reason, common sense and intelligent debate in favour of short term emotion which long term will produce far more conflict and ‘desperation’ for all than is being ‘suffered’ now as economies and societies collapse under the massive weight of these migrants and tribalism and war breaks out.   The BBC could bring you endless tales of desperate lives from any country in the world including on our very own streets in the UK.  Why not send Songs of Praise to the back streets of Delhi or Mumbai and then suggest that perhaps all the residents should move to the UK….what is the difference other than the location of the ‘desperate’ and downtrodden…are those in Delhi or Mumbai not also in need of salvation and sanctuary? Or Shanghai or Moscow or perhaps Ferguson in the USA?

Not political?  Very few programmes seem to have come from abroad…I could find only one recent one which came from Kenya.  There are churches all around the world and yet the BBC doesn’t send in the Songs of Praise squad to visit them and to comment/intervene on the political issues of the day there…..clearly it is not the church at Calais that is of interest but the fact that the congregation is made up of migrants.

This is what Ahmed admits is the pupose of the programme..

Almost two weeks ago, I read about the make shift church in the Calais camp known as ‘The Jungle’.

It started a conversation with the Songs of Praise team about the faith of the people who built and use the Church in the camp, what is the Christian response to the migrant issue in Calais and would it be of interest to our audience. Songs of Praise is not only about Christian music, it also explores contemporary issues and modern themes from a Christian perspective. 

What would be the Christian response to the migrant crisis?  Exploring contemporary issues and themes?  Sounds just a little like this is highly political as this next quote illustrates as he lays out what he thinks the Christian response would be…let ’em all in basically…

The Gospels themselves are full of stories and teachings of Jesus to help those in need, to find the dispossessed and vulnerable and to love your neighbour as yourself, whether that’s close to home or in a global context.

Ahmed is of course Muslim…far be it from me to suggest an ulterior motive, but I have yet to hear a Muslim in the public sphere who doesn’t use his job to promote Islam.  Mishal Husain said she would use her position on the Today programme to improve people’s perceptions of Islam and Baroness Warsi in her role as minister for faith promoted the idea of more influence and a bigger role for religion in society knowing that promoting Christianity meant the government would also be obliged to do the same for Islam and provide it with similar privileges and powers.  A slightly more sophisticated version of ‘my enemy’s enemy’.

Ahmed knows that many, if not the majority, of illegal migrants and those claiming to be asylum seekers are Muslim…any chance he has stitched together this programme to promote migration and thence to further increase the Muslim population of Britain?  This Songs of Praise is about a Christian church but the real narrative is about migrants and if they should be allowed to come into the UK and Europe as a whole in uncontrolled numbers…and it would be uncontrolled…..have you ever heard a pro-immigration advocate name a figure which when reached migration could then be ‘controlled’?  The very same hue and cry about ‘desperate’ migrants would then kick off again and the well practised moral blackmail would be churning out of the BBC filling the airwaves.

If Ahmed is so enthralled with Christian values perhaps he should convert himself and adopt them rather than pay lip service to them and make a pretence of respecting them when we know that Islam condemns Christians and Christianity.

As for Ahmed’s association of migrants with Jesus as a refugee, well there’s plenty in the Bible that we could use for inspiration….how about killing all the first born? Or seeing how far food banks get with a couple of loaves and a few fish.  Or, as Jesus was crucified, perhaps, like in the film Spartacus, we could line the roads with crucified migrants as if they were so many Jesus’ living and dying as he lived and died.  If Ahmed wants the Bible to be taken as gospel and a guide for our lives let him be the first to try…..

 

 

 

No?  Too far?

Or perhaps like Jesus the migrants would have no need for boats and the Chunnel…..why not just walk on water across the Channel to Britain?…

 

 

 

 

NicK Griffin Wins BBC Lifetime Achievement Award.

 

Yusuf / Cat Stevens with presenter David Gray

 

H/T Guido…

 

 

 

The BBC has given a lifetime ahievement award to a man who expressed the desire to execute Salman Rushdie.….. endorsed by Sharia law…but only in an Islamic State Yusuf Islam assured us….though I’m sure the BBC thinks it has nothing to do with Islam.

This year’s Lifetime Achievement awards will be given to legendary musician Yusuf / Cat Stevens and Grammy Award-winning artist Loudon Wainwright III.

 

From Nick Cohen:

But here is what Islam said to Geoffrey Robertson QC in 1989. (Video here.)

Robertson: You don’t think that this man deserves to die?
Y. Islam: Who, Salman Rushdie?
Robertson: Yes.
Y. Islam: Yes, yes.
Robertson: And do you have a duty to be his executioner?
Y. Islam: Uh, no, not necessarily, unless we were in an Islamic state and I was ordered by a judge or by the authority to carry out such an act – perhaps, yes.
[Some minutes later, Robertson on the subject of a protest where an effigy of the author is to be burned]
Robertson: Would you be part of that protest, Yusuf Islam, would you go to a demonstration where you knew that an effigy was going to be burned?
Y. Islam: I would have hoped that it’d be the real thing.

Just had this from my marvellous Observer colleague Andrew Anthony: “He told me in 1997, eight years after saying on TV that Rushdie should be lynched, that he was in favour of stoning women to death for adultery. He also reconfirmed his position on Rushdie. He set up the Islamia school in Brent, which is currently undergoing council-backed expansion. Its mission statement three years ago explicitly stated that its aim was to bring about the submission of the individual, the community and the world at large to Islam. For this aim it now receives state funding. Its an incubator of the most bonkers religious extremism and segregation, and is particularly strong on the public erasure of women. Why do people go to such lengths to ignore these aspects of Yusuf Islam’s character and philosophy?

If the BBC’s continuing endorsement of a Muslim fundamentalist with views that are evidently quite extreme, in  British society, is quite scary this (H/T Sue at Is the BBC biased?) should create a great deal more concern as it looks as if the BBC’s much vaunted independence has been compromised by Muslim activists seeking to change how the BBC reports Muslim issues:

Aaqil Ahmed, the BBC head of religion and ethics, said: “Religious literacy is far too important just to be left in the hands of people who are not subject specialists. I think you need both.”

Replying to criticism that BBC cuts and the pressures of the 24-hour news cycle had stripped out specialists, he said: “There are a lot of conversations with BBC News. There is a different leadership in BBC News, understanding exactly the world is different.”

He said editors, including director of news and current affairs James Harding, had attended a recent meeting with Muslim academics covering “the rise of religiosity in young Muslim children, the Trojan horse schools, which are not one-offs, they are a glimpse of the future.

“We have to find out the right way of telling that particular story. That notion has landed.”

‘A glimpse of the future’?  What did Ahmed mean by that exactly?  Is he saying that Muslims are becoming more devout, fanatical, in their religious observation and will be demanding British Society adapts to them…or else?

I think he is saying precisely that….but he is also looking to have the BBC report such issues, such as the Trojan Horse scandal, in a Muslim friendly manner rather than present them as the threat to a democratic, secular, tolerant and peaceful society under one law that is the British way.

All of which is a bit laughable as the BBC already does its utmost to pretend there are no such issues with the Religion of Peace and happily sweeps them under the carpet more often than not…or if forced to report them looks to downplay any issues and deny a connection to Islam…the Trojan Horse scandal being a case in point, the BBC claiming it was all a hoax, that there were no issues, that it was a result of islamophobia and racism…the BBC that refused to publish information that indicated that the lead Muslim advocacy group, the MCB, was at the heart of the scandal.  Why would the BBC do that?

Even John Birt noticed the BBC’s failure to address the issues….

BBC’s current affairs programmes ‘failing to address radical Islam and other tough topics’

The BBC is failing to address the “awesomely difficult questions” facing Britain, including the economy and the threat of radical Islam, according to the corporation’s former chief.

John Birt, director-general of the BBC from 1992-2000, said its current affairs analysis was falling short.

“What it’s not sufficiently doing is addressing the very big, awesomely difficult questions our country and our world are facing at the moment,” he said.

 

 

 

There is a war going on, a war of words and ideologies.  Activist Muslims have launched a media assault on our society with the intent to intimidate the Media into censoring themselves on Islamic issues, forcing them to whitewash any crimes or behaviour that can be associated with Islamic teachings in order to silence criticism of Islam and deceive non-Muslims about the serious concerns that the rise of a fundamentalist religiosity, one that is highly intolerant of other religions and which incites high levels of violence in many adherents, in the West raise.

It looks like the BBC has been groomed and recruited.

I think we should know who were these ‘Muslim academics’ that lobbied the BBC and what exactly was said and agreed.  How can it be that private interest groups can shape how the BBC reports the news in their favour?

How soon Rochdale is forgotten.

 

 

 

 

LIVING IN THE PAST…?

Aaqil Ahmed: Church of England is
Did you see that the BBC’s head of religion has accused the Church of England of “living in the past” and said that the corporation should not give Christianity preferential treatment? Well, he IS a Muslim and he is acting to form in that regards. What a scandal that Christianity is so abused by the BBC head of religion and what an even bigger disgrace that we are asked to fund this.

The Jihad will not be televised

 

 

 

“It’s quite reductionist,” she tells me firmly, “to call them ‘jihadi brides’. They’re facilitators, logisticians, propagandists. There’s more to these women socially, politically, psychologically, culturally, that we don’t understand and that we need to understand.”

 

 

Panorama has pulled, seemingly indefinitely, its film called ‘My Return from IS’ which would have told ‘the story of a British woman who is back in the UK after living with so-called Islamic State in Syria for more than two years before managing to escape with the help of her mother. She was arrested, but after extensive debriefing by counterterrorist officers the CPS decided there were no grounds for prosecution. `Fatima’ tells Panorama reporter Peter Taylor how the group has hijacked Islam, with men acting as cannon fodder and women used for cooking, cleaning and giving birth.’

As you might imagine it was most likely going to be a puff piece that portrayed the ‘Jihadi Brides’ as naive and well-meaning victims and the men as brave, if deluded, defenders of Islam under attack from Western aggression, men who didn’t understand the true, peaceful nature of Islam and who believed, wrongly, that they were carrying out its commands.   Naturally that is a picture the BBC has always wanted to peddle but even a Muslim expert on radicalisation doesn’t accept that saying the Jihadi Brides were far more willing and active than the likes of the BBC would have you believe telling us “It’s quite reductionist,” she tells me firmly, “to call them ‘jihadi brides’. They’re facilitators, logisticians, propagandists. There’s more to these women socially, politically, psychologically, culturally, that we don’t understand and that we need to understand.”

The question stands though as to why the BBC pulled the programme?  It tells us that it spoke to contributors to the programme and made the decision to cancel based upon ‘duty of care considerations’ but not expanding upon that.

You have to think that this may be related to the Darren Osborne terror attack at Finsbury Park and is a reaction to the news that the BBC drama ‘Three Girls’ was the catalyst for his descent into radicalisation….though why the programe wasn’t called ‘1,400 Girls’ is beyond me.  Good I suppose that the BBC admits, in a very roundabout way, that its programme was in its way responsible for the attack because the BBC otherwise has signally failed to admit that its coverage was ‘the catalyst’ preferring to blame the Far-Right, social media and Tommy Robinson, who had little to absolutely nothing to do with the attack.  The BBC was absolutely right to show the film, if years too late and an exercise in trying to make itself appear to be a leading campaigner against the abuse, when in fact it had covered it up for years….one of its own journalists admitting that he knew what was going on and asking why the police did nothing…but not thinking to ask why he himself failed to break the story which would have forced the police and authorities to act.

Douglas Murray in the Spectator believes the BBC may retreat back into those old ways of covering up crimes and other unpleasant behaviour by Muslims because it fears to report them may lead to anti-Muslim anger.

Will the BBC go back to ignoring grooming gangs?

For the best part of a decade the BBC – like most other mainstream media – chose to ignore the issue of the northern Muslim grooming gangs. They didn’t know any of the victims, didn’t know the towns and somewhere along the way (subliminally or otherwise) made the decision that all this was just too horrible and delicate a story to wade into.

I know what people at the BBC and elsewhere will be thinking. Perhaps this vindicates the silence of all those years. Perhaps the public cannot be trusted. Perhaps they are indeed the sort of people who have in their midst people on a hair-trigger who are willing to hire trucks and drive them into crowds of people at a moment’s notice. Perhaps the censorship and silence were after all a good idea? Personally I happen to think not. But nobody should be surprised if the BBC reverts to ignoring crimes like Rochdale in the future.

Matti Freidman in the Atlantic notes a similar attitude when reporting about Israel as the reporters choose to side with the Palestinians….’This group of intelligent and generally well-meaning professionals ceased to be reliable observers and became instead an amplifier for the propaganda of one of the most intolerant and aggressive forces on earth.’

Orwell spelt it out years ago….“The argument that to tell the truth would be ‘inopportune’ or would ‘play into the hands of’ somebody or other is felt to be unanswerable, and few people are bothered by the prospect that the lies which they condone will get out of the newspapers and into the history books.”

That is precisely the BBC’s attitude.  They believe that reporting such events ‘play into the hands of the Far-Right’ and thus should be censored and suppressed.  But that attitude sacrificed 1,400 girls to the Muslim predators that groomed, raped and abused them under the noses of the media and authorities who held back from acting due to concerns about race and religion.  It also of course does in the end serve to bolster the Far-Right as the story becomes massive and very toxic in a way that it never would have done if it had been nipped in the bud so many years, and so many victims, earlier.  The censorship creates the very thing it is meant to stop…just as the media’s attempts to silence voices on immigration lead to the rise of the Far-Right across Europe as most other people are intimidated by the ‘liberal’ intolerance of their views and the labelling of them as racists making life for them very difficult.

The BBC has in fact been slipping back into its bad old ways of suppressing or indeed rewriting history in order to change people’s perceptions by providing an alternate truth, alternate facts.  Reports of a Trojan Horse plot by Muslim conservatives to take over and Islamise secular schools was  fully backed up by the evidence and several investigations and yet the BBC ignored or downplayed its existence when the story first broke and suppressed crucial evidence that confirmed that such attempts to Islamise schools were in fact official MCB policy as revealed in its 2007 guidance document to schools, drawn up by the same man at the heart of the Trojan Horse plot, that tried to pressurise schools into Islamising their curriculum, buildings and activities…in order to make schools more Islam friendly so that Muslim pupils could fully follow their beliefs and would feel more integrated…and thus, the implicit threat, would not feel alienated, marginalised and angry which may lead to radicalisation, extremism and terror.

The BBC always reported the plot as if it was something made up by Islamophobes and that the letter which outlined the plot was a hoax.  The BBC’s Phil Mackie insisted that it was just fantasy, created by paranoid, racist Islamophobes…

Despite the plot having been proven the BBC is now working to discredit the story and you may hear several programmes that look at the subject and revise the facts the suit the BBC’s own agenda telling us that the letter was definitely a hoax and that there was no plot.

Recent events of course show why that narrative is not only wrong but dangerous as Islamists force a school to bow to pressure and Islamise itself.

Religious extremists are using schools to narrow children’s horizons and “pervert education”, England’s chief inspector of schools has warned.

Amanda Spielman said some community leaders see schools as vehicles to “indoctrinate impressionable minds” – with extremist ideology in some cases.

Ofsted inspectors are increasingly coming into contact with such extremists, she said.

She is asking head teachers to confront those who foster extremist behaviour.

The BBC naturally sides with those who would surrender to the extremists…‘is it the role of a head teacher to dictate who should and who should not be allowed to wear such an item? Even if they are in charge of uniform policies. By calling on head teachers to exercise a “muscular liberalism” in the face of ultra-conservative forces, she may yet stir up more opposition than she anticipated.’

Yep, let’s not make the extremists angry….do what they want us to do and all will be peaceful….and Kirsty Wark thinks ‘there may be a danger you conflate [islamic] conservatism with extremism’…Muslim of course, as the BBC always conflates conservatism, the blue kind, with extremism.  However, Muslim conservatism is extremism in the context of any Western society…completely at odds with our values and beliefs.

The Trojan Horse Plot is true and the BBC reaction is the same old one of trying to suppress the truth in the vain hope of keeping the peace…..not realising that the extremists will never rest and that every appeasement just emboldens them to keep on demanding more….and of course there may well be a counter-reaction all the more violent as it has been suppressed for so long.

As mentioned above, it does seem that this is the true nature of BBC journalism now…

‘This group of intelligent and generally well-meaning professionals ceased to be reliable observers and became instead an amplifier for the propaganda of one of the most intolerant and aggressive forces on earth.’

 

Under the radar

San Francisco: Man arrested over ‘Christmas terror plan’

 

Listened to the BBC all day yesterday and their reports about the ‘US Marine’ who wanted to be a terrorist….no idea, but could have guessed, that he was a Muslim convert…..just why would the BBC miss that crucial and very relevant piece of info from their bulletins?  Why tell us he was a Marine but not a Muslim….which is more relevant?  The BBC web report manages to include a quick mention of the fact that he is a Muslim convert but again seems more concerned about his Marine status telling us…’Mr Jameson completed basic recruitment training for the US Marine Corps in 2009, but was reportedly discharged for not disclosing details of his asthma.’  So hardly a Marine and nearly ten years ago….but a more important fact about his identity than being a Muslim?  Nothing at all about how he came to convert to Islam, when he did it and whether his asthma was a drawback when it came to exercising his new religious fervour.

Then again it’s just the usual BBC practice to downplay any facts that implicate the ‘religion of peace’ as a motivation…just as they happily report the Aussie police’s great big lie that the attack by a Muslim in Melbourne was not terrorism.  Others beg to differ:

Call it for what it is: an Islamist terror attack

We have all been knocked off kilter by this terror attack in Melbourne, another cowardly, vicious and sickening attack using a car to mow down innocent civilians.

The police arrested an Afghan migrant who according to their own reports cited the treatment of Muslims as his grievance and his motivation.

Yet Victoria Police waited five hours before sharing any of the ­detailed information and even then denied any link to terrorism.

This denial is so worrying so ­ignorant and so dangerous, yet even the Prime Minister adopted this same ridiculous line.

They tell us a Muslim migrant from Afghanistan has mown down people and raved about the treatment of Muslims yet they say there is no link to terrorism.

How can the public feel safe if the authorities and politicians won’t even confront the very real enemy of Islamist extremism terrorism.

This is the evil whose name they dare not speak — they are in jihad denialism.

Another favourite BBC narrative is of course that Brexit is a big mistake, the result of ignorance, perhaps stupidity, and bigotry.  Hence we get constant ‘subtle’ little nudges urging us to look back in history and weep as we would then realise what a catastrophic disaster Brexit will be just as country ‘X’ discovered when it left the utopian collective and benevolent dictatorship that had long held it in its kind embrace….such as say the once state of Czechoslovakia…..which the BBC now tells us was a happy, multicultural place that has now been rent asunder by savage nationalism….they really should have stayed together.  The BBC’s whole tone is one of  regret and negativity.  Brexit, you know, will be just like this…even if ‘just like this’ isn’t in fact the truth at all about Slovakia and the Czech state….I’m pretty sure they are quite happy making their own way in the world.

 

 

‘Make Britain Great Again’

ISLAM

– Introduce a comprehensive ban on the religion of “Islam” within the United Kingdom. This ban will include the prohibition of halal slaughter, sharia courts, religious publications (such as the Koran, Hadiths), the operation of mosques, madrasas and “cultural centres” and the public preaching and / or teaching of Islamic scriptures and doctrines.

– Introduce a prohibition on the use of Islamic face coverings in public, such as the Burka.

– Anyone found to be promoting the ideology of Islam will be subject to deportation or imprisonment.

Britain First’s policy on Islam

 

The BBC likes to promote the idea that the Far-Right are a serious threat to Britain, equivalent or worse than the Islamist threat.  Complete nonsense of course.  They point to the murder of Jo Cox as evidence of the seriousness of the threat and yet forget the stabbing of Stephen Timms MP by a Muslim and naturally forget all the Muslim terrorism that has happened preferring instead to try and alarm us about the Far-Right on Twitter or Facebook….so dangerous.

Of course Twitter has banned ‘Britain First’ and Youtube looks to have tried to limit access to its videos

In response to user reports, we have disabled some features, such as comments, sharing and suggested videos, because this video contains content that may be inappropriate or offensive to some audiences.

But just how much of a threat or even growing presence is the Far-Right or groups so defined by the BBC?  Britain has been famously immune and resistent to ideologies either from the far-left or the far-right and despite fringe elements fanatically promoting them they have not prospered.  That changes of course when you import people who don’t have the same values and attitudes as British people and who are from birth inculcated with the ideology that they then carry with them and profess diligently throughout their lives wherever they are.  There are now millions of people, and growing in number, who adhere to an ideolgy that is intrinsically and radically opposed to western liberal values and beliefs…and yet the BBC shows absolutely no concern about that, and actually promotes it, and instead paints an alarmist picture of Europe turning into a Nazi plaything all over again.

Look at some ‘Far-right’ youtube videos and look at the views…hardly any.  This is the video that Jayda Fransen from Britain First was once again arrested for…..

 

Just over 2,000 views…look at the views Muslim attacks on her get.…nearly a million….and yet she is the threat to Britain?  Britain First certainly has strong view on what should be done to stop the Islamisation of Britain…but if you think Islam is a genuine and serious threat to British culture and society then that is the logical conclusion….which is why politicians, the BBC and even the security services refuse to say that there might be a problem with the growth of an ideology so radically opposed to British values….admit it and they would have to do something about it….what?  The very tough proposals of Britain First?  Never ever happen.

The Telegraph tells us of the truth about the Establishment response…

People in MI5 tell me that denying the connection between Islamism and terrorism derives from the belief that if you accept it, there’s no hope for a multicultural society in Britain: we would just have to recognise that part of the population is permanently liable to become terrorists.

Maybe some are more onboard with Britain First than they’d like to admit….

7/7 Met police chief calls for extremists to be locked up in INTERNMENT camps as he says MI5 and police cannot keep track of 3,000 terror suspects

And note, for the record, it is ‘Britain First’ not ‘Whites First’….they may be anti-Muslim but not racially prejudiced as the BBC likes to tell us…..the BBC’s positive discrimination beneficiary [surely!] Nihal today telling us that Britain First’s views were ‘repugnant’…but failed to spell out exactly what and why.

The BBC tells us that their message is ‘so dangerous that the authorities are trying to shut them down’…note the BBC trying to imply that Britain First is violent as it cuts to a clip of Britian First actually warning of conflicts that they say are likely to be the consequence of the political indulgence of Islam…not a surprise nor controversial as the Islamist threat to Britain is constantly in the headlines…and indeed four more terrrorists arrested today…but just what is ‘so dangerous’ about their message?  The BBC are quite happy to warn us that the Far Right are taking us back to the Thirties with all that entails…and yet Britain First’s warning about Islam is ‘so dangerous’….why is the BBC’s message not ‘so dangerous’?  Note the BBC suggest that there are only 100 or so followers of Britain First on this march….and EDL ‘rallies’ are now pretty miserable affairs by all accounts, barely getting into double figures…so that massive ‘far-right’ threat, where is it really?  Just the Establishment’s counter-propaganda narrative designed to build up the threat of the far-right so as to lessen the perception of threat from Islamism….the far-right threat is just as bad as the Islamist one thus we mustn’t be too critical of Muslim terrorism.

 

Why is it permissible to attack political ideologies but something like Islam, which is more political than spiritual, and which the establishment of which has serious consequences for British society, is off limits?  Why does Jayda Fransen get arrested when the police refused to arrest those Muslims exposed by Dispatches’ ‘Undercover Mosque’ programme….the police in fact outrageously trying to prosecute C4?

 

However ‘repugnant’ [©Nihal] Britain First’s message might be how is it that they are treated so vastly differently than those who promote the Isamist message which may be equally, or more, ‘repugnant’?

Why are Charles Moore and Boris not ‘so dangerous’…their messages pretty similar to Britain First’s…

Charles Moore:

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.

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.