Bloody Sunday

Hooray. Three cheers for Yolanda Knell’s report on the recent bomb attack in Egypt against Copts. A balanced report at last! She rectified the omissions we’ve been pointing out on B-BBC, and more. Listen to her report, then skip till just after halfway, when Kevin Bocquet starts his “analysis” of Islam v the West.

Boo. Kevin Bocquet undid all the promise of Yolanda Knell’s integrity by reverting to obfuscation, moral equivalence and politically correct mumbo jumbo, and by the way, Muslims admire America, and modestly dressed women embrace free speech, particularly the freedom to praise the burka.

In particular Bocquet pitted all of fundamental Islam against Pastor Terry Jones as if they represented opposite examples of extremism. To him, Jones’s Koran-burning threat counterbalanced the whole of radical Islam’s terrorist attacks, treating them as though they were equal combatants in a philosophical, moral conflict.
The mind boggled till Stephen Pollard pointed out how ludicrous this and many other things in Kevin’s report were, only to be shusshhed by Ed “Holy book” Stourton, and again later when Pollard had the audacity to mention the upsurge of Islam-fuelled antisemitism on campus.

Indy/ Church Times columnist Paul Valley mentioned intolerance, and Stourton assumed he was referring to Stephen Pollard. But he denied that. For a fleeting second I thought he was referring to the ROP. Silly me, he was referring to Stephen Pollard after all, albeit indirectly. He was, of course, alluding to our intolerance of Islam.

I think I see what Helen Boaden meant about impartiality.
In the debate between God and the Devil, the BBC proudly sits on the fence. In the struggle between good and evil, they’re impartial. Tolerance is handed out to all indiscriminately.

Just as after some Islam-fuelled violence the Egyptian authorities round up equal numbers of Islamists and Christians for the political expediency of appeasing radical Islam, the BBC rounds up equal numbers of Muslims and non Muslims for balance, struggling over who to blame for Islam-fuelled discontent, forever locked into their impossible quest to resolve irreconcilable differences.

ISLAM – NOT BBC!

24 hours a day, the BBC keep pumping out their toxic mix of facts and myths, half-truths and lies. Consider;

BBC Radio 4 news briefing, ‘On this Day’ spot – 5:40 (ish) am 24 /09/10

“This spot features brief reminders of historical anniversaries, things that happened ‘on this day’.This morning, together with the creation of the George Cross medal, the removal of ‘the prophet Mohammed’ from Mecca to Medina featured, as a comparable historical fact. Now there are loads of things wrong with this even from a Muslim point of view – but the most egregious is the conflation of a tradition that is disputed with verifiable incidents in recent history. The date of Mohammed’s (if he even existed) alleged flight from Mecca is not known, it may be commemorated on this day (Some years, the islamic calender not being the same) for all I know but that lesser claim was not made. Would the BBC be caught saying ‘on this day 4000(?) years ago Moses parted the Red Sea? 1977 years ago J! esus Christ entered Jerusalem? was crucified?!

Yet another great catch by a B-BBC reader. Wonder do they have prayer mats at BBC HQ?

FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT…


This was sent to me from a Biased BBC reader. I think he picks up on several great points. It concerns
Laura Trevelyan on‘From our own correspondent’ 11.9.10

“….she reports from New York on the controversy surrounding the Ground Zero Mosque but presents it solely from the Muslim’s perspective except for a relative of a 9/11 victim who supports the building of the Mosque. (amazing that 70% of Americans don’t want the Mosque built in that location but the BBC manages to find so many pro-Mosque advocates among non-Muslims).

She tells us that bewildered Muslims can’t see what all the fuss is about and that Muslims died in the attack also which raises the question who or which religion has the right to speak on behalf of the victims.

This neglects the fact that 9/11 was carried out on behalf of the Islamic religion which is why there are objections….not bewildering really.

She says that the ‘jolly and avuncular’ imam says this is about religious freedom and compares Muslims to the Pilgrim Fathers escaping persecution in England.

She tells us that this is a politically motivated controversy and Muslims are being adversely effected by it….they were alarmed when an ‘angry white man’ stabbed a Muslim cab driver…now other Muslims live in fear not knowing when they might be attacked themselves…hate crime has made a comeback in America.”

Fair and balanced?

Uturn

James Delingpole’s Telegraph article about Fidel Castro’s unexpected about-turn set me thinking.

The magnitude of recent events – Hezbollah’s ominous 15,000 rockets, Jeremy Bowen’s cosy chat with Gideon Levy, the rape/race case that was rape not race, the Al Quds march, various portentous happenings that BBC viewers were spared from troubling themselves with, some annoying personal things – dodgy internet connection, insomnia, work-related stress, hiccoughs, a huge bluebottle flying near me in the kitchen and a sneezing attack – have amalgamated to form an insurmountable obstacle to a piece.

So instead, I’m going to fantasize that the ludicrous juxtaposition of angry (what else) Muslims burning the US flag because a preacher might burn some Korans, will bring the Beeb to its senses.

Will he, won’t he? Who cares? The Muslims don’t, for one. All they need to set them off is the thought. Muslims know a lot about burning things, books, flags, effigies. Are they claiming sole prerogative on burnings? The irony couldn’t be more in yer face, yet apparently some can’t see it. Surely they’re pretending? Angelina Jolie said she was speechless, but oh no she isn’t. Hillary Clinton and William Hague are appalled.

How long can the BBC keep on keeping a straight face? Auntie will have to cave in. “Uturn if u wnt 2, “ she’ll text “ “now the ladyz 4 trning 2.”
Then we can all go home and live happily ever after. Atishoo pass the fly swatter.

BBC’S LOVE OF ISLAM

Interesting to read Andrew Gilligan’s critiques of the BBC’s love-in with radical Islam. 

‘Why does the BBC air Islamist propaganda?’

Andrew Gilligan
13 March 2010
The Islamic Forum of Europe is decried by most Muslims as vicious and unrepresentative, says Andrew Gilligan. So why did Any Questions air its views?

‘The BBC’s propaganda for fundamentalist Islam ‘

One of the main conclusions I drew from my Telegraph/Channel 4 Dispatches investigation of the East London Mosque was quite how gullible some parts of the white establishment were in the face of a persuasive PR machine telling them what they wanted to hear.

THE NIQAB EMPOWERS BUT DOES THE BBC DECEIVE?

A Biased BBC reader writes… 

Newsnight (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00tkx6p/Newsnight_23_08_2010/13 minutes in) had a go at explaining how the niqab is an empowering choicemade by Muslim women without pressure from husbands or brothers or indeedclerics. (Yes, seriously)

I watched it and then by coincidence was clearing out old newspaper clippingswhen I found one from the Sunday Times in 2006 about the teacher, Aishah Azmi,who wanted to wear the veil in class. She at first insisted it was her choiceto wear it but later admitted that it was as a result of a fatwa from YusufSacha, a Muslim cleric in West Yorkshire.

Newsnight only revealed the first name of one of the interviewees asRamaisa(spelling?) and that she was a professional. Looking at the clippingAzmi looked the spit of ‘Ramaisa’…..even though wearing the niqab she hasdistinctive eyes….her accent is also very, very similar to that on a youtubeclip.

Her photo is available on the internet.

I wonder if I’m right….I’d lay money I am and that the BBC has used anIslamic campaigner and changed her name to present the image they want to.

Note also that these women started to wear the veil 8 years ago….2002…justafter 2001, just as the 2 brothers at ‘Forest Gate’ started becoming moreIslamic due to the influence of 9/11 as Bin Laden intended….a battlecry…..as Lawrence of Arabia recognised: ‘Such people demanded a war-cry andbanner from outside to combine them, and a stranger to lead them, one whosesupremacy should be based on an idea: illogical, undeniable, discriminant:which instinct might accept and reason find no rational basis to reject orapprove. This was the binding assumption of the Arab movement; it was thiswhich gave it an effective, if imbecile unanimity.’

Islam-O-Ubiquity

This week’s Any Questions and its loony appendage Any Answers.

For once the panel consisted of two estimable non-leftists, Douglas Murray and Baroness Ruth Deech, but their rational approach was counteracted by Quilliam founder Maajid whassisname and Alex von-something-to-do-with-Jeremy Paxman. Her PC fanaticism was more than enough to outweigh the others, with plenty left over for a rainy day.

The questions raised concerned Tony Blair’s ‘generosity’, the NY mosque, Lockerbie and Pakistan. The Islam theme interwove the programme, continuing throughout A.A.

Most of the callers thought Douglas Murray and Ruth Deech represented evil personified, but towards the end a courageous caller tentatively put forward the suggestion that the Islam theme permeated the BBC itself! Oohh Nooo!

In an ironically humourous twist of fate obviously engineered by the Jewish Lobby, the trail immediately following the programme was for the upcoming propaganda fest: “British Muslims, Father and Son.”
Laugh? I nearly split my sides.

SIDDIQUE WATCH

Hey, who would have guessed it but Mona Siddique, Professor of Islamic Studies and Director for the Study of Islam, was back on Thought for the Day this morning! You will recall I mentioned the frequency of her appearances but last week and now she is back on again talking about the Religion of Peace. It’s almost as if the person who controls religious output on the BBC has a pro-Muslim tendency….

Strength in Numbers

It’s good to see a plug for this website elsewhere, so thanks to everyone who has mentioned B-BBC on JihadWatch, and Mel’s Blog, and anywhere else.
It struck me how easily things can take off or go viral if they catch the imagination. I was thinking of the video of the alarming security breach at Montreal Trudeau International Airport that was filmed by ‘Mickfly’ and posted here. (The affronted reaction to it was interesting too.)
The story has been picked up and blogged by Daniel Pipes, and the more mention it gets the more likely the powers that be will be moved to act.

Comments on the B-BBC open thread by George R & David P about the honeytrap style interview with a covert BBC reporter and Robert Spencer of Jihadwatch caught my eye. The BBC’s Kiera Feldman was trying to record something juicy she could use for propaganda purposes, using Pamela Geller’s name to entice him to blab. This devilish technique is widely used these days it seems. Someone with an agenda pretends to be on your side, you spill too many beans, and it’s taken down used against you as the joke goes.

I note that David P said “I think this is worthy of a main post.”
Can I just say: you know where I live. Mail me. Or David Vance. If you prepare a main post we would gladly guest-post it.

Another comment that caught my eye, which deserves to be discussed more fully, was Dazed-and-Confused’s spot about Hizb Ut-Tahrir’s repulsive article which managed to exploit the BBC’s disingenuous reporting of the girls that allegedly got chucked off a bus for wearing the burqa. The article was given prominence on the BBC’s website, but the explanation by the driver and London Transport, revealing a very different version, was buried deep in its bowels.

Before being sort of elected, David Cameron promised to ban Hizb Ut-Tahrir. I suppose the Lib Dems thought that would be too intolerant.

The websites I look at frequently mention the BBC in despair. But some commenters seem unaware of us. Feel free to spread the word. Every little ‘elps.

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY WATCH…

It amazes me how often Mona Siddiqui, Professor of Islamic Studies and Director for the Study of Islam, gets a bully-pulpit on Thought for the Day. She was on AGAIN this morning, extolling Islam’s quest for academic excellence. Last time I checked in parts of the Islamic world education meets an explosive demise.  It is very odd how Islamicn scholars get such prominence on the BBC given the minority status of their religion. When one looks to see how often evangelical Christians are afforded such a platform, one looks in vain. As I have written before, TFTD is politics by other means!

To Ban or not to Ban

Ed Stourton asked for our views on the burqa. I didn’t know he cared, but now I do, here’s mine.
I hate the burqa because it tells me that the wearer hates me. On the other hand, it’s hilarious. I’m against banning it because using the law as a sticking plaster to cover a self-inflicted wound is too little too late.

Anyway, banning the burqa would give them yet another thing to gripe about. Better to simply stop pandering to an ideology that we should never have encouraged in the first place. Stop building special toilets and prayer rooms and don’t put up with ridiculous anti-human cultural practices.

It’s daft to argue that it’s liberating to be free to advertise your ideological opposition to liberty. Waving banners saying “down with democracy!” is as pointless as campaigning against campaigning.

The ‘liberal’ pro burqa argument, that it’s no different to a hoodie or a crash helmet, a balaclava or a disguise, skirts round the issue. What makes us uneasy isn’t really our concern that the woman might have been coerced. Nor is related to claims that strict modesty regulations aren’t a genuine requisite of the amorphous mystery that people call ‘true Islam,’ or the ‘real’, or the ‘continuity’ Islam I’ve just invented.

No it’s the simple fact that we don’t like anyone flaunting alien beliefs. We don’t like people wearing SS uniforms, specially Prince Harry. We don’t like it, but it’s not illegal. If I want to wear a burqa to a fancy dress party, let me, please.
There’s no law against parading around in jackboots and swastikas. A law’s unnecessary because Hitler’s ideology is considered unacceptable. If you do go round dressed as a Nazi you limit your credibility as a member of HRW or some such. If it took a whole new law to indicate that we see burqa wearing as a symbol of defiance and perfidiousness and that Britain disapproves, it would be more of a sadness than a triumph.
Tell Ed Stourton and the BBC to stop self-hating and resume normal service as soon as possible. Back to core values. Then it might not be necessary to resort to banning the burqa by law because people might just not want to wear the wretched garment.

Good Blog Bad Blog

Things might be looking up. On last night’s R4 World Tonight there was a discussion about the Camel Corps bloggers . The inappropriate sentiment blogged by two important Middle East diplomats and representatives of Her Majesty’s Government; namely UK ambassador to Lebanon Frances Guy’s fond farewell to the late suicide bomb enthusiast and ‘moderate Hezbollah spiritual leader’ Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, and the Arabist /anti Israel views of James Watt, Britain’s ambassador to Jordan, expressed in no uncertain terms on his FCO blog.

The discussion was preceded by the BBC’s Jim Muir who painted a defensive word portrait of Sheikh Fadlallah, which Stephen Pollard rightly described as nonsense. He and Rosemary Hollis of City University chatted to Robin Lustig about whether it was okay for ambassadors and diplomats to publish “paeans of praise for Ayatollahs” or “screeds of anti Israel ranting” on their blogs.
Stephen Pollard said not, while Rosemary said Frances Guy’s admiration for the Ayatollah was tactical and should be taken in the context of diplomacy and foreign office policy, and reminded us that Islam is off limits in terms of “what can be said.”

In March 2009 a programme was broadcast in the Documents series on Radio 4 concerning the BBC’s partisan conduct during the Iranian revolution. In the 1970s accusations of BBC bias abounded. It was thought that the BBC was creating, rather than reporting the news, and had actively encouraged regime change. It had put out a misleading interview with Ayatollah Khomeini, which hid his malevolence and appeared to back him against the Shah.
The conclusion, that there was ‘no evidence of bias’, belied the contents of the programme. But it was being broadcast on the BBC, and it screamed Mandy Rice Davis.

An article that was more interesting still was by Stephen Ward in the Indy of all places, published in 1993. this was about another programme in the Document series, unfortunately no longer available to listen to. The link comes from a comment in Mel’s blog.
“Why the BBC ignored the Holocaust: Anti-Semitism in the top ranks of broadcasting and Foreign Office staff led to the news being suppressed. “
Not only was antisemitism rife in the Foreign Office and the BBC during WW2, there was a widespread belief that this view was shared by the general population of the UK. News of atrocities was disregarded because it came from Jewish sources, and for that reason, echoes of Richard Ingrams, “tended not to be believed.” It’s rather fascinating and shows that this problem is long standing and deep seated.

All these programmes were actually on the BBC as well as being about the BBC. Perhaps the BBC cannot be biased after all, since such openness could be regarded as evidence of self examination and self awareness. But as the first was weighted in favour of Fadlallah, the second came to an unconvincing conclusion, and the third, well, we can’t hear it any longer. So. As you were.

In days gone by there was no internet and the BBC ruled O.K., so although the familiar gathering storms resonate, while there’s blogs, there’s hope.

Hard Talk

Insomnia prompted me to watch HardTalk at about 4:30am. Stephen Sackur was TalkingHARD to Nasser Judeh, Jordan’s foreign Minister. The whole point of Hard Talk, Mr. Judeh pointed out helpfully, is that the talk is hard. Fair enough.
If Sackur was interviewing a lettuce he’d have to press home forcefully the argument from the slug’s perspective. If God Almighty was in the opposite chair, Sackur would be obliged to be devil’s advocate. Or, if he was interviewing himself, he’d have to demand, from himself, some answers to the excellent points made by B-BBC.

One can only hope that this was the idea behind his questioning of Jordan’s foreign minister.

He accused Jordan of not being tough enough on Israel, not being sufficiently condemnatory of Israel’s behaviour during the flotilla incident, and asked why Jordan wouldn’t do the right thing and talk to Hamas, and why it wasn’t sending more aid to Gaza. He criticised Jordan for not being friendlier towards its own Islamist political parties. Sackur was trying to get the guy to admit, as though it was something to be ashamed of, that Jordan might want to stop radical Islamists securing a bigger grip on the country than they already have.

I mean. Give hm a grilling by all means. But give him OUR grilling, not Osama Bin Laden’s.
Episode not available on the website.

Not Inayat A Nice Way

It seems that Guardian contributor and regular BBC talking head, Mr Inayat Bunglawala is an advocate of free speech.
Not so much when the speaker is Geert Wilders, but the kind of free speech that is specific to Muslims.
Bungle, if I may call him by his pet name, has a blog of his own in which he ascribes Theresa May’s ban on Dr. Zakir Naik to “a right-wing campaign to smear the popular Islamic speaker”.

From one extreme, i.e., various sources that support Dr. Naik and protest that when he says “all muslims should be terrorists”, he means it in the nicest possible way, to the other extreme, i.e., various ‘pro western’ sources that take the opposite view, namely that he’s a hatemonger and jolly well deserves to be banned, I’d say the BBC was fairly impartial, occupying the middle ground; and I don’t mean that in a nice way. For a British Broadcasting Corporation, surely impartiality over such a thing is tantamount to bias against “British” values.

In a similar way, the BBC seems to think Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square bomber, is a nice sort of ‘guy next door’ fellow, too. Married with kids, “personable, a nice guy, but unremarkable”. And he’s got a master’s in Business administration! He would wave and say hello to the next door neighbour. Cool.

Bungle also has something to say about Faisal. He thinks the guilty plea “should in a more sensible world urgently prompt a rethink in the US administration about its callous strategy in Afghanistan”. Obama might be already on the case.

Bungle doesn’t like Douglas Murray very much, he thinks Murray is trying to silence Islamic speakers. All these Islamophobes and dog lovers . What is the UK coming to? Never mind, Bungle, I feel the BBC is with you.