When the Labour Party wanted to communicate their values to a less than grateful Nation they carved them into the ‘Ed Stone’ for posterity, well three days at least.
When the BBC wants to communicate their values to an expectant Nation they send for the Easton, Mark Easton, for better or worse.
Neither of these two vehicles for ‘The Message’ met with unalloyed joy from a less than adoring population. The Ed Stone was quietly removed and secreted away, hidden from the ridicule and scorn that poured down upon it whilst, unfortunately, Mark Easton is still free to roam the world spreading his own brand of pious worthiness wherever he goes….in this case the interesting perspective that Islamic ‘extremism’ may in fact be thought heroic when the history books are written.
The BBC is not a stranger to offering support and reassurance to terrorists and those who seek to attack the West whether by violence or by using the Media itself, the BBC, along with the Guardian, often being the channel of first choice for the ‘disenfranchised’ to get their message out.
The BBC started early of course, banning Churchill from the airwaves for fear he would upset Herr Hitler, then giving priceless airtime and credibility to the IRA and its bloody message before moving on to the ‘militants’ of the PLO and Hamas, not forgetting the ‘moderates’ of the Muslim Brotherhood and the BBC’s decision to claim that the Muslim Trojan Horse scandal was a hoax generated by racism, Islamophobia and paranoia, and latterly of course the Islamists who can more often than not rely on a sympathetic hearing at the BBC.
Which brings us bang up to date and Mark Easton’s latest foray into the World of Relativity that the BBC exists deep within.
Easton expressed the opinion that Islamists like Anjem Choudray are a vital part of society, a sounding board for society and a source of shibboleth breaking iconoclasm to be valued not censored…here he wonders if such extremism isn’t just all relative and may not be bad at all…
‘One can understand a government’s determination to prevent extremism that might lead to radicalisation and terrorism. But where to draw the line? And indeed, how do we draw up a definition?
There is, it seems to me, an inherent contradiction between banning orders and the core British value that one should be tolerant of different viewpoints.
History tells us that the development of new ideas of governance and government require people to think radically. Extreme views are necessary to test the wisdom of the mainstream.’
The BBC of course has no problem at all in deciding what is extreme and shutting such voices out of the debate…oh they may let them speak but only to give someone else the chance to cast derision, scorn and mockery upon them…..UKIP, the EDL and even the Tories know full well they are considered ‘extremists’ by the BBC.
Easton asks…
‘Would those who oppose homosexuality or multiculturalism or feminism be accused of threatening values of tolerance and equality?
Well yes if the person is Christian, no if they are Muslim…..as has been shown many, many times when Christians have been arrested on the streets or forced from their jobs because of their views.
Unfortunately for Easton a great many people objected to his claim that extremists like Choudray could be compared to great transformational figures in history such as Ghandi and that possibly, at some time in the future, we will come to believe extremists like Choudray were in fact the prophets and harbingers of a new and better way of life.
Easton was shocked to be on the receiving end of so much criticism….and all of it,, he assures us, completely unjustified as he scrambles to explain in this self-serving attempt to dig himself out of his hole……
‘After my blog earlier this week and an appearance on the BBC News at Ten reporting on government plans to introduce extremist banning orders, it is upsetting to find myself accused of positively comparing the radical Islamist firebrand Anjem Choudary with civil rights hero Mahatma Gandhi.
I would understand people’s shock and horror if I had – but I did not. Quite the reverse. Anjem Choudary is nothing like Mahatma Gandhi. Nor Nelson Mandela for that matter. Indeed, that was my point and I am saddened if it has been misconstrued.’
Anyone reading the original article and reports of his news broadcast will know he is not being truthful with himself….he was clearly trying to relativise the issues and was suggesting that Choudray may be considered a hero like Ghandi or Mandela one day and that his extremist views might not just be a useful sounding board for society but a source and inspiration for a new society and way of governing.
Easton….shame he can’t be found a quiet spot in a very, very big warehouse where he can be parked for a very, very long time…with no wifi.
Maybe it’s time to embed Easton, a few more of his “progressive” McBBC chummies into “friendly” ISIL (or, more accurately, the Daesh butchers) units operating in Iraq and Syria. Let them see how ISIL’s “extreme views” are compatible with a modern democracy, one in which the McBeeb is supposed to play a responsible and supporting role.
Silly Mark.
All he needed to do was tweet one of those personal ‘Just joooooking!’ jobbies Beeboids issue when something stupid gets written, and doesn’t look like going away.
Maybe Mishal can be prevailed upon to run one of those ‘what you were meant to gather’ explanations the BBC does so well, especially given her expertise in matters of moral relativity?
CECUTT of course can simply refer to his years of experience and BBC editorial integrity, and… that… is that.
My problem is that I fear Cameron and May share Easton’s views on extremism.
Any organisation with a shred of decency would sack Easton. The fact that the BBC has done nothing tells us all we need to know about them.
Unfortunately the article doesn’t cast any light of the moral and intellectual relativism associated with the issue.Clearly the majority on this site will want to ban Choudary and his ilk. But the reasons for this are unclear. First things first,Our country loves violence. We have been in armed conflict with someone or other continuously for over a hundred years. At the moment we are engaged in drone strikes over Syria, prior to that we engaged in two illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq ,the latter having a direct bearing on the rise of ISIS. This is quite apart from our illegal incursions into Lybia and the rest of the Arab spring countries. In relation to the Middle East consider our instigation in overthrowing a number of democracies in order to retain mineral wealth and of course giving lands to others which we didn’t own. In fact our history in the last 2 hundred years has been predicated on the violent overthrow and suppression of foreign people’s for the purposes of extracting wealth. In the case of the Middle East that wealth has been mainly in the form of oil. I would suggest that when it comes to Choudary and his ilk we are hardly in a position to cast many stones or indeed mount much in the way of a moral argument that ‘might isn’t right’ It is the de facto real politic of our Sceptic Isle.
Finally , I think it a grave mistake to consider this in religious terms. It’s a land grab pure and simple and as such it will be opportunistic and serendipitous. Justice will be the interest of the stronger!
Man on a crapped out bus, I am afraid you are talking male bovine excrement , putting it politely.
But you are certainly helping to get votes here…
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/end-the-bbc-licence-fee
Haven’t time to pull apart all of your rot, so just a few.
We are not conducting Drone strikes in Syria. Fact.
Illegal wars ? Iraq 2, Labour.
The Sandpit ? Labour.
In wars for 200 years ? Possibly. Only however if you include attacks on us and our allies in WW 1, WW 2, Korea, The Falklands, GW 1.
In Libya we had a lots of bed wetting going on from the bbc and chums about the nasty government was going to murder the brave people who were standing up to Gadaffi.
Ditto about Syria, VD was crying every morning into her Latte about the crimes being caused in Syria and that “we” must do something about it. Funny, that all seems to have gone quiet lately.
Land grabs ? What, like those conducted by your pals the Soviet Union after WW2 against Eastern Europe and Japan and before the war the theft of land and a war against the Finns ? The brutal attacks against the Baltic States ?
The taking by force of East Timor by the friendly Muslims in Indonesia ? Before getting kicked out by the Australians ?
Your pals in China against fellow communists in Vietnam in 1975 ? And building up to now against the Philippines.
Of course we could just be helpful instead of destructive. We ought to be more like our favourite charities like Oxfam who by feeding the bystanders allowed the civil war to go on in Sudan for the best part of 40 years causing many deaths. Without their “help” it would have by necessity finished when the food ran out, meaning far fewer deaths. A case could be made that by feeding the populations of countries involved in civil wars the charities have caused far more harm than good.
Not all fighting is bad, some is quite good. Some is brought onto you by the behaviour of others.
Not all “being good” is good, in fact some of it is quite destructive in its effects, remember that.
Come the Revolution , Clapped out Bus , you & Easton, will be Ist on the list for paying for your crimes ,without a blindfold .
Clapper, It is so good to have your thoughts. Even on a fairly gloomy day your sense of the ridiculous shines through .
Manon, I am a regular here and I want Anjem to be given the freedom to speak, perhaps not on every topic as the BBC seem to prefer, but at least so his views – and Pamela Geller’s – could be broadcast by our state broadcaster.
As for the ‘we’ and ‘our’ stuff in your post about the wicked non muslims stealing oil from the oppressed Arab Royal families, let me point out that Islam has been at war with the west since it began, which covers a period before oil and the internal combustion engine. In fact the first wars the US had with Islam, just after their war of Independence, was against those oppressed muslims who were capturing white Europeans for slavery and ransoming them in the old Islamic tradition.
Epic. Reminds me of students who say the same sort of things. A bit of history and theory usually show them the error of their ways. They’re young and unread. Excuses? Was reminded when they said “we” – the evil West – went into Afghanistan for the oil. Where was that? When people talk of “illegal” wars, you know what they read. They obviously know little of what drives conflict. Realpolitik makes nonsense of the categories you deploy. Fighting for oil makes a lot more sense – and is more ethical – than fighting for ideas. The wars were probably unavoidable but making them about “justification” and creating “democracy” was ludicrous and definitely lead to excessive warmongering. The problem is that if you go to war to “help” the people of the country you are fighting then everything gets confused, including the “enemy” who are strictly old-school on this. Anyway, it’s good to come across this decadent understanding you express. Try using that understanding to explain the past – and predict the future – and sees how that works out.
This is BAD from al jabeeba, but not as bad as comparing our lord and saviour Jesus Christ with that black supremisist communist terrorist Nelson Madela. if Mandela needs comparing to a biblical figure it should be Satan
And if Choudray needs comparing to anyone its Jeremy Bowen or Tim Wilcox
I already think that those who won’t pay the telly tax are heroes .
More evidence that the BBC is in terminal decline. If it was a commercial outfit poor quality journalists and useless entertainers would be on their way along with the useless executives.
The BBC reflects a world view not shared by the majority of it’s enforced subscribers.
it is not even very good at simple entertainment any more. Sport coverage is poor and getting worse as it loses market share.
When a business gets like this it has to change to survive and that the BBC is never going to do. So get rid of it and make it subscription only. Money back to the taxpayer and it will probably set free real talent currently stifled by the BBC culture and the legacy of the 68ers and their brainwashed followers.
I’m fine with these new laws as long as they’re only used to stop the white working-class scum from objecting to their teenage daughters being drugged and raped by coloured folk.
Anjam should get his own nightly TV programme. Remind people of the true face of Islam as opposed to the snake-oil salesmen. You know, suit and tie, religion of peas and all the rest of the sly taqiyya which some people in this country appear to be ‘buying’.
Pat Condell on banning Andy
So who exactly decides who is evil in the obvious definition of the word, or will in time be regarded as merely an iconoclast – Mark Easton or by extension, the BBC?
“History tells us that the development of new ideas of governance and government require people to think radically. Extreme views are necessary to test the wisdom of the mainstream.”
Is easton seriously asking us to believe that the bbc have a balanced view on historical events? They have been re-writing history for their warped purposes for decades, where else can you see the vanquished write history as the bbc have done with liebour recently?
With nazislam the bbc are doing it again, look at the poor downtrodden followers of the religion of peace being persecuted, all they are trying to do is introduce new ideas?? New ideas such as sharia law being used more and more in UK courts, a concept that had the bbc’s full backing during a recent Peter Allen show on radio 5 dead (in the interest of impartiality he managed to wedge in “some people may say sharia has no place in UK courts”)
Or new ideas such as mass paedophilia, accepted in many muslim countries and now in the UK by the bbc and liebour after they spent years covering the truth and destroying anyone who tried to expose it, as they did with Nick Griffin on QT. Or, how about testing the ‘wisdom of the mainstream’ by staging public beheadings in Trafalgar square.
If the bbc actually told history as it really is they’d admit that what is happening with ISIS and islam and their attempt at a world coup has happened on more than one occasion, the difference being that great men like Charles Martel actually saw the danger and acted to stop it, now we have cowards like easton actively supporting the aims of the jihadi ‘warriors’.
I wonder how many appeasers in the bbc actually admire what ISIS are doing and believe that the western world has got it coming after the way we have raped the world since time began.
I wonder where easton’s back tracking actually came from? Men as arrogant as easton, and many of his bbc colleagues, in his position of nil criticism have ever been known to take back their views, now Whittingdale is watching the bbc is suddenly all to eager to soften their views? I would urge people to let Whittingdale know exactly what they think about the bbc and its abhorrent views.
The quotation is interesting because it is the old dialectical argument so beloved by the left. That Easton deploys it brazenly is pretty shocking. He should read Koliakowski to get an understanding of where this came from. The notion that history is lurching to extremes as it sails along is actually up historical and only makes sense if you deploy the self-fulfilling categories. The thing about the left is that their deployment of seemingly striking language of understanding – with all the pitfalls of shabby narratives – hides a paucity of deep intellectual understanding of phenomena. The groupthink deployed by Easton is all over the BBC and academia and is actually easily challenged.
I think nearly all of us agree that Easton is too fond of these puerile musings to be employed as a senior journalist with the nation’s dominant news media organisation .
Islam is an archaic religion that at best is uncomfortable with and at worst wants to obliterate the value systems we have built up and fought to defend . I wish tbe BBC would concentrate on pointing this out instead of being equivocal about it.
Given the growing percentage of Muslims in our population, we should be highly concerned for our future.
Agreed, but you he is the BBC’s view on these crucial matters. But Easton is the BBC’s point man, the “safe pair of hands” to deliver on political problem areas. You know when some problematic report comes out on immigration, race or Islam, there’s Mark. The interesting thing here is that Easton dropped the ball. Usually, he’s so smooth that you feel him actually almost succeeding – and with many convincing – in downplaying some alarming information. But here he jumped the shark and went full Easton and actually showed his revolutionary side. And all so unnecessary because no one can be persuaded that Islamic terrorism is informing some debate about how we want Britain to be. If Easton thinks it is, that only means that he accepts that terrorism and promoters of Islamic Law are legitimate participants in shaping the future. But, isn’t that the problem?
The problem is also that their moral relativism is very selective.
Man on Clapham bus.. you do a disservice to Clapham.
Your clapped out delusional views belong in ‘socialist worker’ I know they do as I go there for a laugh sometimes, and still to this day wonder how I could have believed all that old ‘Trot’ stuff when I was younger, but then I was a student then.
What changed me was getting a job and realizing the world didn’t owe me diddly squat, I owed myself, period.
I hope for your sake you are still in your late teens early twenties or there really may be no redemption for you at all!
how can anybody have respect for and take mark easton seriously anymore when he compared just last week the rancid racist fascist hate preacher anjem choudary to nelson mandela and gandhi.even fascist choudary rejected mark eastons praise because he views mandela and gandhi as infidels and dirty kuffars,mark easton is a man still stuck in the mindset of politacal correctness and liberal empathy for causes most of us reject and see as divisive,the man is just a joke.