MOCK JESUS, NOT MOHAMMAD

Startling admission here by Mark Thompson;

“The head of the BBC, Mark Thompson, has admitted that the broadcaster would never mock Mohammed like it mocks Jesus. He justified the astonishing admission of religious bias by suggesting that mocking Mohammed might have the “emotional force” of “grotesque child pornography”. But Jesus is fair game because, he said, Christianity has broad shoulders and fewer ties to ethnicity. 

Mr Thompson says the BBC would never have broadcast Jerry Springer The Opera – a controversial musical that mocked Jesus – if its target had been Mohammed. He made the remarks in an interview for a research project at the University of Oxford. Mr Thompson said: “The point is that for a Muslim, a depiction, particularly a comic or demeaning depiction, of the Prophet Mohammed might have the emotional force of a piece of grotesque child pornography.”

This explains a lot. The point is that the State Broadcaster has one standard for how it deals with Christianity but another for how it deals with Islam. I suggest that it is not just the “emotional force” that concerns Thompson should the BBC offend Muslims as it does Christians but rather the “cutting edge” that the Religion of Peace offers to all who dare demean it.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone
Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to MOCK JESUS, NOT MOHAMMAD

  1. My Site (click to edit) says:

    Talking of Anglophobic, IslamoMarxist, opportunistic filth:

       0 likes

  2. john says:

    They (Thompson/BBC) can’t get anything bloody well approaching even-handed can they ?

       0 likes

  3. Allan D says:

    I think the point is that Mr Thompson does not want to spend 20 years of his life living in safe houses with round-the-clock police protection a la Salman Rushdie. I think that is what guarantees the Religion of Peace from any “mockery” by the State Broadcaster, or anyone else for that matter.

       0 likes

  4. Barry says:

    “mocking Mohammed” ????

    They don’t even do mild criticism.

       0 likes

  5. Jeremy Clarke says:

    Mr Thompson said: “The point is that for a Muslim, a depiction, particularly a comic or demeaning depiction, of the Prophet Mohammed might have the emotional force of a piece of grotesque child pornography.”

    Whereas a committed Christian will just laugh off a depiction of Christ getting blown by another man or a crucifix immersed in piss. There is a whiff of casual racism about this argument which he probably doesn’t notice.

    His argument that ‘Islamophobia’ is a form of proxy racism perhaps carries greater weight but is still a cop-out and stinks of excuse-making. Criticism of, contempt for and mockery of Islam are not the same thing as racism and Thompson knows this full well. It is a convenient smokescreen.

    He was far closer to the truth when he tacitly admitted his corporation treated a certain religion differently because he fears violent reprisals.

    Just say it, Mark. We know you’re thinking it.

       0 likes

  6. DP111 says:

    The head of the BBC, Mark Thompson, has admitted that the broadcaster would never mock Mohammed like it mocks Jesus. He justified the astonishing admission of religious bias by suggesting that mocking Mohammed might have the “emotional force” of “grotesque child pornography”. But Jesus is fair game because, he said, Christianity has broad shoulders and fewer ties to ethnicity.

    In a way this is a compliment to Christians and Christianity, and contempt for Islam and Muslims. Further, it shows to the general public, how alien Islam is to Western norms.

       0 likes

  7. Louis Robinson says:

    Jesus told us it wouldn’t be easy. 

       0 likes

  8. Natsman says:

    Could have done with a Koran or two today – it’s turned bloody cold, and I’ve had to relight my woodburning range.

       0 likes

    • Barry says:

      Ha!

      Look in the bathroom – you might have the odd copy in there. Maybe hanging from a nail.

         0 likes

  9. David Preiser (USA) says:

    What does this mean, “fewer ties to ethnicity”? Less white people? But aren’t there any white ethnicities? Has the English language become so f@#$ed up amongst the elite?  
     
    Like I keep saying, there’s an intellectual failure at the BBC.  
     
    Having said that, I believe there’s actually a subtle bit of racism in Thompson’s statement about Christianity having broader shoulders. He’s saying that the ethnicities associated with Islam are immature and unsophisticated.  Is Mark Thompson a racist? I think he is.

       0 likes

    • Millie Tant says:

      No, no, no! The English especially, have no ethnicity. Nor any identity either. They are a sort of vague presence but nothing more. It’s only those funny foreigners or relatively recent immigrants, particularly ones with brown or black skin colour, that have ethnicity and therefore require special handling and special reverence for their funny customs, religion, clothes and even the food they eat.

      He is stuck in this mindset and that’s that; everything he says on the subject is merely an exposition of his set ideas. That is why I’ve said before that I see no intelligent engagement by this man with any ideas or perspectives other than his own.

         0 likes

      • Barry says:

        Strange, isn’t it?  
         
        If you claim to be a Cockney, Yorkshireman, Cornishman or whatever, you’re leaving yourself open to the accusation of being a stray mongrel, of no consequence at best, and malign at worst.

        If, however, a person with brown or black skin colour claims to be a Cockney, Yorkshireman, Cornishman, that identity suddenly acquires special status and woe betide anybody who dares to suggest otherwise.

           0 likes

    • deegee says:

      Actually his remark could be read that Christianity has broader shoulders could be read that Christianity is a better religion. Now there’s a piece of Islamophobia for you. 8-)  

         0 likes

  10. deegee says:

    Asian Network
    Nihal asks whether it is anti-Semitic to criticise Israel, after Baroness Tonge stepped down following the backlash against her comments.

    I can’t wait for the follow-up. Is mentioning the violent reaction of Muslims to criticism, Islamophobia? 

       0 likes

  11. Biodegradable says:

    I’d like to hear Mark Thompson’s views on offending Jews. Judaism too has “broad shoulders” but more “ties to ethnicity”.

       0 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      But Thompson is married to a Jewess, so he’s compromised on that score no matter what he might say.

         0 likes

  12. Robin Rose says:

    I’d question why the state broadcaster feels the need to “mock” any religion, other than to give amusement to communists such as Jeremy Hardy. The reason they don’t mock the man they always call “The Prophet Mohammed” is of course simple: they don’t want to be murdered, and they know that’s what will happen if they mock the founder of the Religion of Peace.

       0 likes

  13. Phil says:

    It could be argued that the BBC’s approach comes dangerously close to racism.

    It’s admitting that the corporation treats some people more carefully and respectfully because of their ethnicity.

    It promotes the view that different ethnic groups have differing abilities when it comes to coping calmy and peacefully when they think they have been offended.

    Treating groups of people differenty because of their ethnicity is usually called racism.

    So is ascribing emotional qualities to a particular ethnic group.

       0 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      The easy defense for the indefensible is that treating non-white ethnics with a lighter touch is perfectly acceptable because they’ve been oppressed and face racism every day, etc.

      The problem with Thompson’s remark is that he’s actually saying that people who subscribe to a religion with “ties to ethnicity” – e.g. non-whites – are weaker in spirit, less sophisticated people.

      That’s the soft racism of lowered expectations. Mark Thompson is a racist.

         0 likes

    • Span Ows says:

      Robin Rose 
      “I’d question why the state broadcaster feels the need to “mock” any religion”

      Exactly what jumped out at me too, surely fair decent non partisan would be better served NOT moking religions at all.

      Phil 
      It could be argued that the BBC’s approach comes dangerously close to racism.  

      Not close, racism on two counts: one you mention but the second is taht if you an be racist against Islam (you shouldn’t be, but you can, as has been proven) then he is being bloody openly racist against Christianity.

         0 likes

  14. Teddy Bear says:

    Here’s a word I’d like to see entered into the dictionary for all those like the BBC whose own cowardice in the face of fundamentalist Muslims makes them choose to appease them instead of denounce them. Even worse is they then convince themselves that they are doing it because they are truly ‘multicultural’.

    The word is SCUM!
    It’s not just a derisive term for these lily livered ‘heroes’, but is derived from the word ‘SUCCUMB’, which they have done in the face of the Islamic agenda. It’s also in keeping with the real translation of Islam, which is submission – not ‘peace’, as the BBC SCUM want you to believe.

       0 likes

    • Jeremy Clarke says:

      Here’s a word I’d like to see entered into the dictionary for all those like the BBC whose own cowardice in the face of fundamentalist Muslims makes them choose to appease them instead of denounce them.  
       
      Teddy Bear, I thoroughly understand the BBC’s (and the rest of the media’s) reluctance to produce and screen material that risks enraging Muslims. People’s lives would be put at genuine risk as a result.  
       
      Personally, I wouldn’t go on air and immerse a copy of the Koran in piss and there are many people far braver than I who wouldn’t, either.  
       
      And besides, I wouldn’t want to offend anyone simply for the sake of offending – I’ll leave that for the ‘edgy’ comedians, thankyouverymuch.  
       
      The bravest thing Mark Thompson can do is to acknowledge that the BBC (and the rest of the UK’s media) treats Islam differently because of the fear of violent reprisals. He and senior managers have a duty of care to their staff, after all, and they cannot sanction material that will endanger lives.  
       
      All this guff about ‘ties to ethnicity and Christianity having ‘broad shoulders’ is precisely that: guff.  
       
      To screen or promote material that mocks, debases, trivialises Christianity and Christians while treating Islam with kid gloves does show cowardice and double standards, however. And to justify this ‘one rule for one, one for another’ approach by playing the racism card is, frankly, disingenous.

         0 likes

      • Jeremy Clarke says:

        That should be “disingenuous”, of course. :)

           0 likes

      • Teddy Bear says:

        Jeremy, since this issue is largely responsible for so much of the insidious and dishonest reporting created by the BBC I think it’s worthy of further debate to determine ‘what the correct response should be’. So here’s a few points to get the ball rolling.

        Wisdom dictates that any action should be weighed against the likely consequences to best determine what the right course should be.

        In this case we have a direct threat to our society by those who wish to overthrow it and replace it with values that we long since outgrew. Should we stand up to it immediately and make it clear that we recognise the intent and agenda of those who perpetrate this, and that unless they desist it will be met with ALL force necessary to subdue it, or do we pretend to appease and respect it, bending our own society and creating confusion in the process.

        I would suggest responding to this point first, before analysing what the BBC should be doing, as we need to be clear about what the right course truly must be, and why.

           0 likes

      • David Preiser (USA) says:

        Thompson could also suggest that Mohammedans grow up and learn to react in a more nuanced fashion. Unfortunately, he’s a racist who thinks they can’t.

           0 likes

  15. Merlin says:

    It’s time the BBC started to represent the majority of viewers in this country who couldn’t give two shits about Muslims but who are starting to get mightily pissed off about how much airplay these wastes of space get on the left wing socialist and pro-Islamic bum-sucking BBC ‘news’. 

       0 likes

  16. Richard says:

    “… a depiction, particularly a comic or demeaning depiction, of the Prophet Mohammed might have the emotional force of a piece of grotesque child pornography.”

    Of course it might! It might actually be child pornography. He was a paedophile after all.

       0 likes

  17. George R says:

    Enthused with its ‘Arab Spring’ Islamisation, will Islam Not BBC (INBBC) now explicitly follow this Islamic Egyptian example?:-

    Egyptians offer “anti-Christianization” course

       0 likes