Of those two images the BBC knows which is the ‘extremist’ one…..Naughtie has just described the exhibition as an ‘anti-Islamic event’….actually Jim it’s about freedom of speech…the right to say something without being killed.
Today told us that two people who shot at and hit a security guard at an exhibition of Muhammed images were killed by police officers…the BBC’s response….it was a ‘provocative’ exhibition run by an anti-Muslim hate group (so labelled by an organisation that tracks extremists in America the BBC tells us), the American Freedom Defense Initiative, which ran anti-Muslim adverts and was attended by the ‘Far Right’ politician Geert Wilders.
Not sure that Wilders is ‘Far Right’ just because he opposes mass immigration and the Islamisation of Europe.
Jihad Watch predicted the response….
The freedom of speech is under violent attack. It now remains to be seen whether American authorities will defend it, or will blame the victims and the targets and kowtow yet again to violent intimidation.
We’re told the motivation isn’t known…however others aren’t so coy….
And of course the BBC are quick to blame ‘anti-Muslim’ sentiment as the ‘provocation’ that led to this shooting.
Who is that group that ‘tracks extremists in America’? The Southern Poverty Law Center….that’ll be the group that have been removed from an FBI list of ‘advisors’ because it itself spreads hate.…
‘In the fall of 2012, Floyd Lee Corkins, armed with a loaded semi-automatic pistol and 100 rounds of ammunition, entered FRC headquarters not far from FBI headquarters in downtown Washington, D.C. Corkins shot the front desk security guard and tried to gain entrance to the upper floors where he intended to kill FRC employees…. Corkins said he got the idea of killing FRC employees from reading the SPLC hate list and made use of a map of the FRC office found on the SPLC website.’
Perhaps the BBC should be more circumspect in who it uses to back up its own pro-Muslim prejudices….
‘A 2013 article in Foreign Policy concluded that SPLC exaggerates the hate crimes threat, saying SPLC is not an “objective purveyor of data,” instead calling them “anti-hate activists” and suggesting that their reports need to be “weighed more carefully by news outlets that cover their pronouncements.”’
The SPLC’s definition of an extremist is interesting….
‘The SPLC defines hate groups as those that “… have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.” The SPLC states: “Hate group activities can include criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing” but that “Listing here does not imply a group advocates or engages in violence or other criminal activity”‘
Surely that should include many religions…..in their actual form not as defined by their defenders. The SPLC is itself a ‘Far Left’ campaign group that uses its influence to distort American politics….
‘A critical analysis published recently by Professor George Yancey of North Texas University concluded that SPLC targets only those groups its leaders disagree with politically while leaving liberal groups who use extreme language alone.’
The BBC of course ignores all that but then it has always had an odd way of looking at life…..if a Muslim doesn’t have a job, or has a job he feels is below him, or is prevented from ‘living’ his religion to its full extent and therefore feels ‘oppressed’, he is excused by the BBC for mass murder…..express a view that an ideology might be regressive, backward and deeply unpleasant, to channel Mishal Husain, and the BBC vilifies you as a racist and a fascist……say all Jewish settlers are Nazis and should be killed and the BBC will laugh it off and continue to employ the person who said that…argue against Islamic terrorism and once again you are are spreading ‘hate’…..as these adverts obviously are……
“Wouldn’t it be just great if one day she wins Wimbledon”
From this earnest plea from our two BBC sofa bods we deduce we are nearing tennis season. But of course this being the BBC there is hardly a corner of life that is not agenda driven.
We are presented with a short report on a tennis school for youngsters. Many children are involved but we focus on the background of just one – a young black girl.
I’m sure both myself and other viewers will wish her all the best.
What grates is the performing donkey reaction of our news presenters at the end of the report. They over do it. And we know why.
The problem being that ordinary British people can wish all kids a successful future – be they black white or whatever. But BBC presenters have to bend over backwards to display their love of diversity which manifests itself in overly loud and disproportionate support for the black kid.
We have all heard it before. Prior to the London Olympics at a time when I still listened to the awful BBC 5 Live I recall one of their female presenters desperate to share an annecdote with the audience about her child (4-years old I believe) being a great fan of Usain Bolt. The story jarred with me. I wondered how a child so young would have settled on that particular sports celebrity? Did he really watch the 2008 Olympics and cheer on the Jamaican champion from the womb?
Of course the truth or otherwise of the story was not important. It was the telling of it that mattered to the lefty liberal wannabe working for the lefty liberal broadcaster telling it.
29 British Gold medals at the London Olympics. We can all name two…..
Mo Farage got a couple, didn’t he, in the political heavy-weight division?
No, no you are mistaken, Mo Farage is the new kid on the blocks.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-32515516?OCID=fbasia
The new term appears to be ‘agent provocateur? (The question mark is important to provide separation from advocacy)’.
As with Charlie Hebdo, I struggle to see how words or doodles can ever be used to justify the outrage brigade locking and loading.
Maybe it’s such as the BBC who do this, and hence are much more provocative than anyone?
“…and his latest stunt has involved once again offending Muslim sensibilities with a controversial Facebook post.”
How often do we see articles on the BBC about “offending Christian sensibilities”? I can’t ever recall it. What could possibly account for such difference in treatment?
I’m surprised the BBC hasn’t picked up and run with the Mail’s coinage “free-speech extremists” which prones the equivalence of people who say/draw what they think to people who kill people for saying/drawing what they think. Give it time.
Off topic (so apologies) but the Mail has plumbed new depths with that headline. Its attack on Ms Geller and her “long history of hatred” is typical of its moral cowardice.
A “long history of hatred” from the rag that once supported Hitler?!
Strange how in BBC Land jihadist murderers are “militants” but counter jihadists are a ‘hate group’.
Did you notice also how the Mail censored the pic of the two old bill next to a cartoon of Mo? Nothing to do with fear of getting their heads chopped off, oh no, it’s just that they’ve got such a lot of respect for the religion of peace.
Even the Mail dances to a correctnick tune on Islam.
Why isn’t this story headline news? The bBC have tucked it away down the page. Damage limitation, no doubt.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-32579396
We now have an absurd and highly worrying situation where some Islamic lunatics will execute anyone for insulting their ‘prophet’. And our leaders seem to engender silence rather than freedom of expression.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-32579396
Basically, you have medieval religious fanaticism mixing with enlightened secular and Christian beliefs… a recipe for disaster. And Labour want to make it a crime to criticise Islam? Most concerned.
Now if this was an event where a cross with a crucified Jesus was dumped in a jar of urine, then for the left it would be a free speech event. And if Christians protested ever so peacefully, then the left would respond by stating that the very protest by Christians made it necessary for the event to take place. However, for some undisclosed reason, that very sensible reason does not hold when mass murdering Muslims protest about caricatures of Muhammed.
Meanwhile I’m waiting for our leaders to come out with the officially agreed line, “This has nothing to do with Islam”
Texas is not a good place for Muslims to start a war.
This Youtube video of the event is important because what an African-American man has to say
Start around 1: 26:00
The jihad just had it’s ‘Glasgow moment’ in Texas.
The Mail ran a photo of the SWAT team standing proud with Geert Wilders. And the two jihadists were whacked by a traffic cop apparently. We should all be wearing the yellow rose of Texas methinks.
BBC’s Stephanie Hegarty blaming the organisers, saying they wanted to be terrorist targets:
And, inevitably, she’s now blocked me.
These middle-class BBC lefty types are always trying to sanitise Muslim atrocities. They consistently shift the blame onto the victims of these religiously motivated attacks by claiming provocation.
Why shouldn’t we make fun of religion? Are the BBC saying we should be coerced into craven silence? Idiots like Steph really are cowards and do a disservice to all of those who value free speech.
Is this her?
https://uk.linkedin.com/pub/stephanie-hegarty/46/74/71a
Educated in Dublin? Maybe her first loyalty is to a foreign country and not to the UK at all? Education in Dublin: History and English Literature, Post-colonial literature, American history 2002 – 2006 The ‘post-colonial’ bit sets of some alarms!
One News today, summarising from memory – something like, the cartoon drawing was organised by a group that is categorized as a hate group by a group in New York that monitors hate groups. Brilliant – no mention – or free publicity – for Pamela Geller.
Also this : http://biasedbbc.tv/blog/2013/09/26/an-emetic/
Steph Hegarty
Remember Beslan.
Bear in mind that the parents of young children deliberately sent their children to school, when they should have known that educating girls is Haram, and would provoke devout Musllims.
That is how BBC’s Sterp Hegarty would see it.
Looking at her twitter feed she does rather seem to like the look of her own opinions, but not so much anyone else’s.
One can see how she fits in well at the BBC.
‘I suppose this was the intended consequence of a stunt like this…’
Sounds as though she has some doubt over who was to blame.
Listen, Steph luv, it was testing the right to free speech. The ‘consequence’ did not have to happen, though you don’t sound surprised that it did. Now put your thinking hat on very carefully, join the dots and tell us what conclusion you come to…
‘Draw the Prophet’. Gives a hole new meaning to it, doesn’t it?
What we do know is Texan traffic cops are faster on the draw than Jihadists!
I glanced at her twitter page and it was amazing how out and out leftist it was. She managed to attack the conservatives and the new royal baby in just one page. You would think she would have a little bit of self-control about showing off being an ideologue whilst a BBC journalist.
just look at her Twitter – she is a factory produced middle class lefty
We don’t need any more laws against “hate crimes”, or political red herrings about hurting peoples feelings. We need politicians with the balls to stand up for free speech.
I don’t use Twitter, but the answer to Steph Hegarty is: No, that was not the intended consequence of the exhibition. The intention was to make a stand. Even if it allows idiots like you to make ill-informed and ignorant statements.
I rarely use it, but have left her a reply. Let’s see if I can get my maiden banning.
I have indeed. All i said was “Yes, it’s all the victims’ fault. They should have picked on a religion with fewer anger management issues.”
What a sensitive flower she must be.
Typical leftist censorship. Islam is beyond criticism, didn’t you know!
It’s easy
You set up an organisation – which could just consist of yourself – and say it is to monitor XYZ .
You then say that X is {insert whatever bad traits you abhor} and the BBC uses that to paint X as rascist , homophobic, islamophobia or whatever .
By its own logic then the BBC is biased because this website exists, not for the content in it .
By Muslims objecting to the cartoons, they are able to exert control of the media, free speech and the population.
They also cause division and unrest within the Christian population by the objection.
They thereby create a ‘just cause’ for the murders Muslims commit.
Muslims are able to ‘win’ on every level. This is how Terrorism operates.
(I had to write this now. By Friday this week, I would be guilty of Islamaphobia if Labour won).
..
Quite remarkably open-opinionated, Ms Steph:
…
It’s interesting that her twitter does NOT include a disclaimer the views are her own rather than the Beeb’s.
I guess we’re still waiting for that ‘right-wing tweet’ from a BBC correspondent.
Any luck yet, Dez, Scott, Albaman, Mr Clap etc etc etc…?
The security guard’s injuries aren’t serious, so it’s:
Good Guys 2 Bad Guys 0
What’s not to like?
Unless you’re the BBC – in which case my scoreline is the wrong way round.
I am pleased to announce the winning picture in the draw Mohammid competition. Drawn by cops outside the building.
Brilliant!
The Southern Poverty Law Center is a hard-left organisation. Many of its classifications and findings, when it moves away from actual white supremacists, are highly dubious. It admitted to National Review that it doesn’t much care about leftwing extremism and hate unless it has racialist or anti-homosexual dimensions.
An amusing story related to the Southern Poverty Law Center:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/12/black_crime_claims_life_of_apologist_for_black_crime.html