Al Beeb Defends Women's Rights & Western Values (video)

Um, not.

In some parts of the Muslim world women are severely beaten, even killed, by their male overlords for daring to throw off that abominable tent-like garment, the burqa.
 
In northern lands women who wear it deprive themselves of sufficient sunshine, thereby subjecting their offspring to the risk of rickets.

Western women who have worn this cloth prison as an experiment have reported how stifling and uncomfortable it is.

In several Middle Eastern countries Muslim women, when given the chance, and when not subject to reprisals from Islamic misogynists, have been glad to dispense with it.

In Saudi Arabia and in Iran brave female activists have rid themselves of surplus coverings in public, to strike a blow for female human rights.

In Turkey, women who appreciate the freedoms initiated by Ataturk have joined mass demonstrations against imposition of a conservative dress code.

Yet the BBC, which knows these things well enough, has seen fit to make the following video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUVWVBrPsTM

No wonder that BBCThree, which made it, is copping flak on Twitter.

Yet there are always the Leftist apologists for Islamic values that reflect the mindset of the BBC itself. 

What a weird lot of feminists these BBC types are.  

As with the ABC here in Australia:

Patriarchy rules  OK.  Just as long as Islamic, not western, patriarchs are doing the ruling.

Not a BBC Broadcast: "Where is Your Positive Image? ...Ten Important Scientists in 1000 Years?"

Here's an outspoken Middle Eastern broadcaster, Youssef Al-Husseini, telling his Egyptian audience that in view of atrocities on westerners committed by Muslims round the world it's no wonder that the Islamic world has a bad image.

"Why do they hate us?!" he even says at one point.  "If they didn't, there would be something mentally wrong with them." 

And he goes on to observe: "Where is your positive image?" adding scathingly "C'mon ... Ten important scientists in 1000 years?..."

Clearly, this is not a BBC broadcast.

Nor is it likely that Mr Al-Husseini would ever be permitted to speak as he does in the studios of the biased and dhimmitude-inclined British national broadcaster, which is still feeding British schoolkids notions such as these:

For the genuine contributions of medieval Islam to knowledge, all praise.  But let's not practise inverse racism or gild the lily or belittle and disparage Western civilisation, as the BBC loves to do.

 

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gMQWdbcEmU

(Memri.org video)

Published on Jun 25, 2017

"MEMRI TV is a non-partisan, independent research institute providing research, analysis and translation of primary materials covering a wide range of issues, including on terrorism and ideological trends in the middle east. These video clips are provided as a public service to an international viewing audience to bridge the language gap and better educated and inform. Material about the statements of terrorists and extremists is provided to alert the public to threats and in no way constitutes an endorsement of such activities."

"A Sensitive Topic For Many Muslims": The BBC Hits A New Low

Is there no limit to the depths to which the BBC will sink in its biased reportage concerning Israel?

On its news site currently is a story, that sounds more of a propagandistic beat-up, about Muslim schoolgirls from a Berlin school being "racially abused" on a visit to Holocaust memorials in Poland.

For the BBC, as for much of the Left, the "victimisation" of Muslims, real or imagined, is a topic worthy of the maximum exposure, for Muslims, it seems, are "the new Jews".

Thus the BBC's salivating over the theme that "German Muslim schoolgirls who went on a visit to Holocaust memorials in eastern Poland say they were racially abused by locals during their trip" is almost palpable.

Gratuitous attacks on anyone, irrespective of race or creed, are unconscionable and despicable.

But what the blazes does the following statement have to do with the report in question?

"The Holocaust is a sensitive topic for many Muslims because Jewish survivors settled in British mandate Palestine, on land which later became part of the state of Israel"

Not for the BBC, so far as I'm aware, frank reportage about Muslim antisemitism as seen in the many Al Quds Day hate-fests in European cities, including London (as I have mentioned in several recent posts) and Berlin (see below the new demographics where once the jackboot strutted):

Yep.  There they teach hatred of Israel young:

Just as they do in Dublin:

The Windmills of the BBC Mind

Ah, the crafty BBC.  If they can't get their leftist propaganda across by one route, they'll get it across by another.

"We did this," the BBC's fictional lady doctor says (in an indictment of Western policy) during the year's first episode of Silent Witness. "Make beasts." 

Propaganda to soften up the public regarding mass Muslim immigration, from the drama department of the BBC  

The plot  focuses on the plight of "desperate people".  But the traumatised "Syrian refugee girl" is hardly  representative of the testosterone-fuelled so-called "asylum seekers" in the "camps" across the Channel waiting to be smuggled into Britain.

Another propaganda piece, courtesy of Al Beeb's Travel page recently, entitled "What can Albania teach us about trust?":

".... Little known to most, Albania was one of a few European countries to emerge with a larger Jewish population by the end of WWII than at the start, saving nearly all of its original Jews while offering refuge to more than 2,000 others from surrounding countries. Despite pressure from Italian fascists and occupying Nazi soldiers, Albanians refused to yield their guests, as doing so would not only result in great shame but would bind the master of the house to  “clean the blood”, meaning to take vengeance.

 More recently, Albania has again found itself offering besa, this time to those travelling from the Middle East. Hundreds of Iranian exiles are currently residing within the country after having been relocated from Camp Liberty in Iraq. Albanian prime minister Edi Rama has also expressed an intent to aid Syrian refugees, provided a collaborative agreement is reached with other European nations, saying that Albania will not ignore its duty.

Despite all these heroic instances, unassuming Albania remains unrecognized for its great services to the huddled masses of the world. The truth remains that this Balkan nation is small and poor, and as such, it hardly receives international attention for its exploits. Yet, at a time when refugees are being turned away at borders all over the world, it seems that there is a lot to learn from Albania’s penchant for hospitality...."  [Emphasis added]

An earlier attempt at this propaganda went slightly awry, leaving the propagandists with egg on their face:

"EDITOR'S NOTE: A previous version of this story stated that hundreds of Iranian refugees were residing in Albania. We've updated the text to explain that these Iranian refugees had been relocated from Camp Liberty in Iraq. We’ve also clarified that the refugees from Kosovo were mostly ethnic Albanians."

From EdgarDavidson's blog here

And then, of course, there's the direct approach at propaganda, brazenly thumbing the nose at Al Beeb's obligations to be objective required of it by its Charter and its Producers' Guidelines.

On a recent Newsnight the BBC's John Sweeney  displayed a shamefully naked piece of bias in his piece about Geert Wilders, whose policies he attacks and whom he belittles and vilifies  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6z0XZMvdD8):

 

To quote Al Beeb:

"Populist parties are growing in strength across Europe - emboldened by both Brexit and Trump. There's Marine Le Pen and the National Front in France of course. But there's a critical election before that: next month, in Holland. Geert Wilders - who leads the anti Muslim Freedom Party is hoping to top the ballot. He wants to take them out of the EU, and to 'de-islamise the Netherlands' with a ban on immigration from Muslim countries. In 2016 he was convicted of inciting discrimination. The Dutch coalition system means it's unlikely Wilders will be crowned Prime Minister. But he could end up leading the largest party which would chill European centrists and boost other populist movements throughout the continent. We sent John Sweeney in pursuit."

Towards the beginning Sweeney waits for an opportunity to "have a natter" with Wilders, and when he gets the chance to buttonhole him he tells him "Some people say you're a bit of a fascist".  "Well, don't talk to those people" is the reply.

Wilders later grants an interview to the sneering BBC man, who says with regard to the Dutchman's concerns regarding mass Muslim immigration into Europe (it's not Muslim individuals he's against but rather the ideology of Islam which is "incompatible" with Western freedoms, he explains): "Aren't we going back to 1939?"   It's less a question than a reflection of Sweeney's own views.

"People are equal.  Ideologies, values ... religions are not equal" observes Wilders, who speaks at some length about "cultural relativism".

Sweeney's mind is already made up, and avoiding the role and contribution of The Elephant in the Room he concludes the program, funereal tones to the fore: 

"There is no doubt that this man is changing what was once the most liberal country in Europe into something quite different." 

Not an iota as different as what these charmers have in mind:

Something To Do With Islam: The BBC befuddles British schoolkids (updated)

BBC bias for schoolkids

I've blogged before about how the BBC is spoon-feeding schoolchildren bite-sized morsels of pro-Islam propaganda.

See my post here about what the BBC tells the kids about Islam and war and my post here about what the BBC tells the kids about Islam and women's rights.

Astonishing stuff.  Bloody outrageous (excuse the "Great Australian Adjective" but if not appropriate here, where?)

But those are not the only ways in which the BBC shamelessly shills for Islam, indoctrinating British schoolchildren.  What an evil agency it is.

Thanks to a recent post by the estimable Craig over at "Is the BBC Biased?" I've been taking a look at the BBC presentation for teenage schoolchildren entitled "The Islamic world in the Middle Ages" that proclaims what I've cut and pasted above on the yellow/orange background.

Here's a summary of that presentation's points. Note the way in which it contrasts the (supposed) glories of Islam with the squalor of medieval London.  A cheap, deliberate mockery of the western way of life, eh?

And, in the Bitesize section on "The Crusades", here's one of the revision questions Al Beeb poses to schoolkids.  (Yes, very childish.  How thick would a kid have to be to tick the second or third alternatives?!)

Very respectful of "The prophet".  But have you ever seen the BBC talk of "Moses the Lawgiver" or "Christ the Redeemer" or "Jesus the Saviour"?  No, me neither.  Such labels would be offensive to those of no religion or at any rate non-applicable to anyone but the followers of Judaism and Christianity and thus politically incorrect.  (Ain't that right, BBC?)

There's nothing in these Bitesizes about the supremacist nature of Islam, the "convert or die" scenario  or the taking of infidel women and girls as sex slaves excrescence.  There's nothing about the bloody slaughter of Jews at the battle of Khyber and the capture of their wives as booty.  There's no mention, as far as I can see, of the Jews of the Rhineland killed by marauding Crusaders.  Jews don't appear to count in these particular narratives, except where they can be used as fodder for pro-Islam propaganda, as in this idealised picture of the Ottoman Empire:

 To quote Craig:

"I would have hoped that the BBC would have encouraged nuance at the very least in their schools' history study guide instead of sounding oddly like proselytisers"   [Emphasis added]

 Re the Crusades:

And note the value judgment regarding Dubya, whose speech is labelled "infamous".  That's a straightforwardly blatant example of the BBC's contempt for its obligation to be impartial. [Update: when a reader of mine complained to the BBC about this he received the absurd reply below at ***]

On the Biased BBC website is a very good guest blog that addresses this very issue.  It says, inter alia (do read it all, and the comments):

“The BBC’s contemporary battle for hearts, minds and souls extends far beyond the purile petulance of its news outlets. Such is the BBC’s eagerness to produce the next generation of politically correct, self-loathing social justice dhimmis that they are now indoctrinating school children via the BBC Bitesize guide to National Curriculum.

Al-Beeb’s sinister agenda is evident in Key Stage 3 resources, such as “The Islamic World in the Middle Ages”. The licence fee is helping fund a programme of propaganda that is telling children as young as 11 that Allah really is the greatest...

Ah, but surely if talking about the Religion of Peace™ the Beeb will have to mention the concept of jihad, dhimmis and jizra? Well, not really. On Islamic imperialism, the Beeb seems to think that the Ottoman Empire expanded so quickly not because of a desire to extend power or the march of Islam but because “the Turks believed in a prophecy called Osman’s dream, about a tree which grew until it covered the whole world”....  

If the kiddies haven’t got the message yet, what about being told that the Islam provide the foundations of Western Civilization? Shamelessly: “The Islamic empire had a huge impact on the development of medieval western Europe. It is possible to argue that the Islamic world provided the foundations on which later developments in western civilisation occurred.” ....'  [Emphasis added]

I can't resist linking here to a post I wrote for the Elder of Ziyon website earlier this year.  It debunks the notion of "1001 Islamic inventions" so beloved of propagandists like the BBC, and as commenter Raymond observed:

'Much of what "Islamic civilization" contributed was built on the earlier works of the Greeks and Romans, and heavily reliant on the conquered peoples living under Muslim rule - the Christians, Jews, Persians, Hindus, etc. Yes, there were a few contributions by Muslims in the field of medicine, for example, building on earlier Greek works. But according to one historian, 90% of physicians around the Islamic Mediterranean at one point were ... Jews. The standard work of known pharmaceuticals in the 12th century was compiled by none other than Maimonides.

The typical pattern however is that as the generations of conquered cultures began to be "Islamized" or Arabized, those cultures went into decline and their contributions dwindled. And when Europe opened trade routes to India and China that bypassed Islamic lands, the Arab/Islamic world became almost irrelevant.'  [Emphasis added]

 Click on the caption for link and enjoy!

To read article click on this caption

***  BBC's reply to a reader's complaint:

Veiling Islam's Sexism: What the BBC tells the kids

That true and outspoken feminist, the American Professor Phyllis Chesler, who knows from personal experience the misogynist nature of Islam, has recently returned from a visit to London.

 'England,' she writes inter alia:

'The country of William Wilberforce, who successfully fought to abolish the slave trade; the land of the bravest suffrage movement anywhere; Churchill's own country--that fair and glorious Kingdom is still there but it is also fraying, fading away.

....The streets are filled with women in heavy hijab, in Niqab, (face masks), and in black, burqa-like body bags. As I have written many times before: I have no quarrel with head coverings but suggest that the West must draw the line at face masks and sensory deprivation isolation chambers which burqas truly are. These "covered" women are flying the flag of Jihad, of a barbaric version of patriarchy--which is now increasingly ensconced within Britain's gates.

The West's dependence on Big Oil together with its own blind commitment to cultural sensitivity, an allegedly anti-racist tolerance for the barbarian "other," and fearfulness about the consequences of speaking out--have together brought this about.

Dhimmified for Oil: Ffion Jenkins (Mrs William Hague)

Some say that just as England once colonized the Middle East, the Indian sub-continent, Central Asia, and the Far East that now, the favor is being returned; the Islamic world is giving the colonizing Mother Country a taste of its own well deserved medicine.

Tragically, this means that infidel women are sexual prey; that their rape, sexual harassment, and sexual slavery is being done quite openly, publicly--just as it is done in the Muslim world....

Will Britain, will all Europe, fight to remain Western countries? Or, hoisted on their own petard of political correctness, will they simply become vassal states of Islam?'

From BBC hack Paul Danahar's Twitter page

And in Britain no entity is more politically correct, more ready to bang the drum for Islam, than the national broadcaster, dear old "Auntie", the BBC.

Among the various non-broadcasting initiatives that the feather-bedded BBC provides with all the money it accrues from hapless licence-payers is a "service" called BBC Bitesize, in which it provides teenagers with information connected with exams.

Among these Bitesize portions are topics related to "Religious Studies". And within that range, the attitudes of Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Sikhism, and Buddhism (in that order) towards "Prejudice and Discrimination" are described.

Under the heading "Inequality in the Christian Church", the British national broadcaster has absolutely no qualms about telling the kids (emphasis added):

Many people think that the Christian Church is sexist. It does not treat men and women equally.

The teaching of St Paul is often quoted to support the way some churches today treat women. From the extracts below, it would seem that he believed that the role of women was different to that of men, and secondary to it.

St Paul said:

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to enquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

 Now I want you to realise that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonours his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head - it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 1 Corinthians 11:3-7

Jesus, however, always showed by his actions that he respected and valued women. He included them among his closest companions, and sometimes went against the conventions of his time which kept men and women apart. Jesus made it clear in the Parable of the Good Samaritan how his followers should treat people – he made no distinction between men and women.

Some Christian denominations have recently begun to allow women to be priests or ministers (eg, Church of England and the Methodist church). Some remain opposed to this (eg, the Roman Catholic Church). Some Christians believe that women are second to men, that men should lead and women should follow (see 1 Timothy 2:8–15).

So although Christianity teaches that everyone should be equal and should be treated the same, this doesn't always happen.

"Fair enough," I hear you say. "That's an accurate and objective summary."

How about this, regarding  "Attitudes to women in Judaism" (emphasis added)?:

"The Tenakh (Jewish Bible) and the Talmud (Mishnah and Gemara collected together) describe different roles for men and women.

Traditionally women have a sacred role - they bear children, run the home and take responsibility for their children’s Jewish upbringing. The woman passes on Jewish values and it is because of the mother’s Jewish faith (not the father’s) that a child is born Jewish.

While Jewish law excuses women from some religious duties (eg, they don’t have to wear the tzizit and tefillin) there are some duties that women are obliged to carry out like the lighting the Shabbat candles. (Shabbat is the day of spiritual renewal and rest commencing at sunset on Friday, terminating at nightfall on Saturday.)

Some people say that Judaism is sexist. Men and women sit separately in Orthodox services and women cannot take an active part in this worship. Some Jewish women today accept these limitations, but they are as well-educated as men and choose to combine a career with family responsibilities.

Progressive Jews (which includes Jews of both liberal and reform traditions) think that this attitude is wrong and treat women equally in all respects, so they too can become rabbis (Jewish teacher) if they choose to do so."

 Okay so far?

On the basis of the above, we are entitled to expect that BBC Bitesize will tell the kids a little of the sexism inherent in Islam.

However, in sections such as Marriage and Divorce it avoids the sexist bits, and this is what we find, in the section "Islam: prejudice and discrimination" under the heading "Attitudes towards women":

 "Islam also teaches that men and women are equal in the sight of Allah. They are individually accountable for their actions, and will be judged equally by Allah.

However, although men and women are equal, they are not the same. They have different purposes. It is part of Allah’s design and purpose for men and women to have different physical characteristics; likewise it is the duty of a man to provide for the financial needs of his family, and for a woman to look after the home and family.

Some of these differences and responsibilities are mentioned in the following words from the Qur’an:

O Prophet, direct thy wives and daughters and the women of the believers that they should pull down their outer cloaks from their heads over their faces. This will make it possible for them to be distinguished so that they will not be molested. Surah 33:59

Wives have rights corresponding to those which the husbands have, in equitable reciprocity, though, in certain situations men would have the final word and would thus enjoy a preference. Surah 2:229

Men are appointed guardians over women, because of that in respect of which Allah has made some of them excel others, and because men spend of their wealth. Surah 4:35

Although the rights of women are different to those of men, they do have the right to choose whom they marry, to divorce, to study, to own property, to conduct business and to take part in politics.

The Prophet Muhammad stressed the importance of women and the respect that should be shown to them when he said: Paradise lies at the feet of your mother. (Sunan An-Nasa’i)"

Nice little bit of propaganda there, huh?  Not one honest mention of Islam's sexism, let alone the misogyny that that infuses it and makes Saul of Tarsus/St Paul look like a Sensitive New Age guy in comparison.

In reality, this is what UK Islam's attitude to women looks like (as set out in this important British document of 2012, of which the BBC, if it's worth its salt the enormous amount of public money it gathers via a compulsory poll tax cannot be ignorant).

Note the testimony regarding the oppression of women in Islamic law as set out by female victims of sharia courts operating in Britain and by conultants including such scholars of Islam as the Australian Dr Mark Durie.

See, for instance, this:

"Women’s rights are compromised by the operation of Sharia law in the UK. Sharia Councils often permit polygamy. Men have multiple Nikahs (Muslim marriages) and have multiple wives to gain sex and/or money. Polygamy is not about protecting women.

If women marry through an Imam and they eventually have a problem with their marriage, they will be forced to go back to an Imam and discuss the problem; these women feel intimidated. Many women are unable to discuss their personal issues with an Imam; they feel embarrassed and do not feel comfortable talking to a total stranger about personal issues.

I am in contact with large numbers of women who have a language barrier. They are not in contact with the wider community and they have no understanding of the laws available to them. Instead they believe the lies that their husbands tell them. These women, unable to speak English, are tied to unhappy marriages and have no way of accessing their rights.

If a legal dispute arises they go to a Sharia Council and consult an Imam, they are not aware of the English legal system, nor are they ever informed of their rights under English laws.

Like me, many Muslim women are asylum seekers. They have fled their home country to live a safe life, they are running away from oppression and persecution that they suffered in their home country. They should not arrive in the UK to be met with further oppression through the operation of Sharia law. The Government should ensure that everyone in the UK abides by the English legal system.

For these reasons I am totally against Sharia law in the UK. The law should not be left to religious men to manipulate women in a democratic state. It is the responsibility of the Government to make sure that everyone in the UK submits to the law equally. I am worried because the Government and people outside the Muslim community are frightened to address sensitive issues like Sharia law, when the wellbeing of the majority is more important that the sensitivity of the minority....

 Shaikh Haitham al-Haddad is a member of the Islamic Sharia Council and a Sharia Council ‘judge’ in London. In a speech entitled "Why Marriages Fail" Shaikh a-Haddad made the following observation: "A man should not be questioned why he hit his wife because this is something between them. Leave them alone. They can sort out their matters among themselves. Even the father of the daughter who is married to the man, he should not ask his daughter why you have been beaten or hit by your husband".

 (Note also this statement:  "People argue that Sharia Councils should be allowed to operate in Britain because Britain allows Beth Din systems, but Jewish Law does not affect mainstream life as much as Sharia Law which aims to control rather than simply affect mainstream life".  Emphasis added)

As Professor Dennis MacEoin, another very respected expert, points out in "Sharia Law or One Law for All?", a paper for the Civitas thinktank in 2009:

"a Muslim woman may not marry a non-Muslim man unless he converts to Islam (such a woman's children will be separated from her until she marries a Muslim man);  polygamous marriage (two to four wives) is legal: a man may divorce his wife without telling her about it, provided he does not seek to sleep with her; a husband has conjugal rights over his wife, and she should normally answer his summons to have sex (but she cannot summon him for that); a woman may not stay with her husband if he leaves Islam; non-Muslims may be deprived of their share in an inheritance; a divorce does not require witnesses (a man may divorce his wife and send her away even if no one else knows about it); re-marriage requires the wife to marry, have sex with, and be divorced by another man; a wife has no property rights in the event of divorce (which may be initiated arbitrarily by her husband); sharia law must override the judgements of British courts; rights of child custody may differ from those in UK law; taking up residence in a non-Muslim country except for limited reasons is forbidden;  taking out insurance is prohibited, even if required by law; there is no requirement to register a marriage according to the law of the country; it is undesirable to rent an apartment belonging to a Christian church; a Muslim lawyer has to act contrary to UK law where it contradicts sharia; employment by driving a taxi is prohibited; it is allowable to be a police officer, provided one is not called upon to do anything contrary to the sharia; women are restricted in leaving their homes and driving cars; an adult woman may not marry anyone she chooses; sharia law of legitimacy contradicts the Legitimacy Act 1976;  a woman may not leave her home without her husband's consent (a restriction that may constitute false imprisonment); legal adoption is forbidden;  a man may coerce his wife to have sex; a woman may not retain custody of her child after seven (for a boy) or nine (for a girl);  a civil marriage may be considered invalid;  sharia law takes priority over secular law (for example, a wife may not divorce her husband in a civil court); fighting the Americans and British is a religious duty;  recommendation of severe punishments for homosexuals;  a woman's recourse to fertility treatment is discouraged;  a woman cannot marry without the presence and permission of a male guardian (wali); if a woman's 'idda (three months, to determine whether or not she is pregnant) has expired and she no longer has marital relations with her husband, he is excused alimony payments;  an illegitimate child may not inherit from his/her father."

It would be unreasonable to expect a megillah on the BBC Bitesize website regarding Islam's sexist attitude to women, but we are entitled to honesty, to at least some indication of how Islam disadvantages females.

So how is the BBC's whitewashing of Islam in its attitude towards women to be explained?

Might it have something to do with the fact that a Muslim, Aaquil Ahmed, is the BBC's Commissioning Editor Religion and Head of Religion and Ethics?

 Or is it because the left-liberals who dominate Al Beeb despise the Judeo-Christian heritage and save their barbs for that?

 Or is it due to a combination of both?

 Here, by the way, is what some American Muslims replied when asked whether Sharia should  supersede the US Constitution:

(hat tip: Vlad Tepes blog)

Meanwhile, in a must-read article in the current Quadrant, Australia's conservative intellectual magazine, regarding the secularised and myopic West's facilitation of Islamic dreams of hegemony, Jim Campbell notes:

"Perhaps the most dangerous misconception that has gained some traction is the notion that Islamic and Christian values, and by default secular democratic values, are similar. This was suggested recently by a professor of religious studies no less, and on the ABC’s Q&A program [analogous to the BBC's Question Time] by a Muslim guest.

 The most astonishing aspect was not the theological invalidity of the statements, but that no member of the panel or of the audience sought to take issue with the assertion. That silence said a lot about Australia’s spiritual immaturity, as nothing could be further from the truth, as the precepts of Islam and Christianity are diametric opposites. Islam pits Muslims against non-Muslims; Christianity instructs followers to love their neighbors as themselves

 Islam’s aim is the subjugation of all to the God of the Qur’an; Christianity asks people to consider the claims of the God of the Bible and make personal decisions. Islam offers salvation through the coercive performance of “good deeds”; Christianity’s salvation comes through faith in promises of the God of the Bible.

 Are these differences important? They should be for the West, whose secular democracy is founded on the precepts of the Bible. On this issue the West is myopic behind its rose-coloured glasses."

Goes quite a way to explaining Al Beeb's stance, I reckon.

"What's A British Version of Judaism?" asks the imam defensively, to applause

Before going on to declare:  "Islam is all about love.  Islam is all about peace."

Welcome to Al Beeb's discussion, in Bradford, Yorkshire, of "The Big Question," in this case, "Do we need a British Islam?"

 In perhaps too up-beat a tone than is strictly necessary, the BBC studio host, Nicky Campbell, points out that Islam is the fastest growing religion in today's Britain, with 100,000 converts adding to the number, two-thirds of them women.

Going against stereotype, a woman in a sombre black face covering interrupts and hassles the opening speaker, Adam Deen, before being assured by the host that he'll call upon her in due course.

As for that "British version of Judaism," since Jews believe "the law of the land is the law," have never sought to impose their religion on others, and have contributed to general society in a myriad of fields out of all proportion to their numbers, I'd have thought the imam's question redundant.

Comments (inter alia) the website Is the BBC biased?:

'It was impossible to derive any kind of satisfaction from this unpleasant programme.  Viewers were further away from knowing whether or not British Muslims think they need a British Islam at the end of the programme than at the beginning. At one moment, when Nicky Campbell tried to elicit a straight answer from an Imam, one might have thought we were dangerously close to getting somewhere. But no.

It was just an unstructured row, with no beginning, middle or end. Maybe they’d have forced out a more definitive answer if they’d stuck to the usual format, stuffing three different Big Questions into the allotted hour. Condensing it might have taken them by surprise. Who knows what might have come out in the rush....

Judging by what we saw on this programme and what we already know, that is insoluble. True Islam is unBritish and true Britishness is clearly unIslamic.

I’m suspicious of people who wear a collar and tie with a jumper so I felt obliged to Google Adam Deen.  He has an extensive Youtube / web presence.

I learned that he used to be called Hakkan Cerrah and is married to T[he] B[ig]Q[estion]regular Myriam Francois Cerrah....

The Big Question that needs answering is  one that no TV presenter ever gets round to putting.

Is Islamic antisemitism acceptable in Britain? Why does the antisemitism in Islam get a free pass? The British don’t like it when antisemitism or racism emanates from any other individual or group, be it a non-Muslim individual, a right-wing antisemite or a bunch of Nazi sympathisers. But with the majority of Muslims antisemitism and anti-Zionism are a given.

Mindless opposition to Israel’s existence is rooted in gross antisemitism, and that is the elephant that’s always present in the studio. An enormous elephant that’s allowed to career around, willy nilly, trampling on everything with impunity, utterly and completely confident it can get away with it.' [Emphasis added]

See the rest of that post here

And, incidentally, in a feature called "Why French Jewish people are moving to London," Al Beeb coyly hints at a tusk but nevertheless fails to acknowledge the elephant in the room.

Again, The BBC Shows Its Bias & Its Bankruptcy

Donnison makes light of real concerns

What a wretched leftist propaganda machine the BBC is. 

Notice how it has reported the not unreasonable view of former Australian prime minister Tony Abbott that Islam needs a reform movement.

Mr Abbott writes, inter alia, in the Sydney Daily Telegraph and sister papers today:

'Round  the world, terrorists screaming out Allah-u-Akbar are killing decent people going about their daily lives....

Dealing with terrorism and the Islamist fanaticism that inspires it is the great challenge of our time.

Obviously there needs to be a very strong security response at home and abroad....

The security response is necessary but it’s not sufficient. There also needs to be a concerted “hearts and minds” campaign against the versions of Islam that make excuses for terrorists.

Although most Muslims utterly reject terrorism, some are all too ready to justify “death to the infidel”....

Demonising Islam generally or all Muslims could bring on the “clash of civilisations” that academic Samuel Huntington feared two decades back and make “Islam’s bloody borders” even more dangerous. But we can’t remain in denial about the massive problem within Islam.

Islam never had its own version of the Reformation and the Enlightenment or a consequent acceptance of pluralism and the separation of church and state.

Fortunately there are numerous Muslim leaders who think their faith needs to modernise from the kill-or-be-killed milieu of the Prophet Mohammed.

It’s also time Australians stopped being apologetic about the values that have made our country as free, fair and prosperous as any on Earth....

Islam needs to delegitimise the urge to “behead all those who insult the Prophet” but only Muslims can do this. That’s why everyone interested in a safer world should be reaching out to “live and let live” Muslims and encouraging them to reclaim their faith from the zealots.

In Australia that means talking to decent people who happen to be Muslim as well as to “official” Muslims inclined to see “Islamophobia” in any criticism....

It’s also time Australians stopped being apologetic about the values that have made our country as free, fair and prosperous as any on Earth.

Where hate preaching is not illegal it should at least be thoroughly answered point-by-point with a very robust defence of human rights and responsibilities.

It’s not culturally insensitive to demand loyalty to Australia and respect for Western civilisation. Cultures are not all equal. We should be ready to proclaim the clear superiority of our culture to one that justifies killing people in the name of God.'

Not offensive or over-the-top, is it?  At least, not to rational people.

But look at the BBC's report. That item is less a report on what Mr Abbott has said as what lefty and Muslim critics have declared in response to what he has said.  It's reminiscent of BBC reports on and from the Middle East, when the Israeli case ("Israel says") is put last, after the views of Palestinian Arab spokespeople and any UN official/leftwing activist who might happen to be on hand.

Then there are the snide, derogatory references to Mr Abbott's "letter" (in fact, it's an op-ed article) having appeared  "in News Corps tabloids" (that's the Murdoch stable, which also happens to carry the syndicated column of Australia's most-read columnist, the conservative Andrew Bolt, who is of course anathema to the Left, for lots of reasons including his pro-Israel stance.)

"Tabloids".  That's a way of saying that the newspapers in question are populist pieces of trash fit only to wrap fish 'n chips, not the highbrow newspapers (The Guardian, Ha'aretz, the Israel-bashing Fairfax press) that Al Beeb reporters and intellectuals of the left choose as their daily fare.  (Yes, I'm being sarcastic when I say "intellectuals"; after all, that term hardly describes the Bowens and the Donnisons and the Knells, does it?)

Note, too, the gratuitous reference to Mr Abbott having once been intended for the Roman Catholic priesthood.  The BBC, like its Aussie counterpart the ABC, which it resembles so much in pet causes and ideology, rarely wastes an opportunity to depict the Roman Catholic Church in a bad light (allegations of priests behaving badly are, as it were, a godsend to it).  I suspect that the gratuitous reference to Mr Abbott's religion is a snide way of implying that he's some kind of Christian fanatic and that when it comes to having a go at Islam, well, he would, wouldn't he? For of course religion is there to be poked fun at by the Left, unless that religion is, well, the one that needs reforming.

There's no byline given for the report, but presumably it's by the BBC's snide and snotty Jon Donnison, who when he can be bothered to tear himself away from tweeting schoolboyish semi-smut and other trivia, does occasionally report from the Land Down Under, though rarely with any degree of profundity.  He seems to have left his reporting hat in the West Bank or Gaza, when all is said and done, and coming to the Antipodes is all a bit of a (no pun intended) come down.  At least, that's how his characteristically superficial reports strike me.

How utterly loathsome, too, is Australia's embattled Opposition leader Bill Shorten in implying that Islam is above criticism.  Why, in its attitude to women alone it proves itself culturally inferior to and at odds with Western values.

Bill should look at this video, of a secular Iranian woman being disrespectfully treated at a talk she is giving at a constituent college of London University, to see just how contemptuous of women Western Islamists are.

Better still, he and his fellow Lefties (those decrying Abbott's article is Greens leader Richard Di Natale) should read Professor Phyllis Chesler's latest article here

How desperately Shorten, who's doing very badly in opinion polls, must need the "Muslim vote".

How utterly hypocritical the Greens are.

But Malcolm Turnbull's not much better.

Incidentally, concerning Australian politicians and Islam, readers may be interested in my latest Elder of Ziyon article (which illuminates the reference in the image above to the Mufti) here

ABC, BBC, Both Biased On Asylum

I've been catching up with the most recent posts on one of the websites I most admire, the rhetorically-titled Is the BBC Biased?, and note the number of times the authors have had reason to draw our attention to the outrageous leftist propaganda that the BBC, despite its obligations to be objective, in reporting, is pushing regarding the current migration crisis facing Europe.

See this, for example, and this, and this

No wonder this video (featuring exasperated Britons, fearful and furious at what now seems like a Third World invasion of their Continent and existential threat to its way of life) berating the egregious BBC radio host Stephen Nolan, has gone viral; all Nolan could do in response was to insult them, thus underlining what one of them calls the "guilt trip" foisted on the public by such types as he:

Typifying the biased agenda foisted onto the public by the British national broadcaster are the reports by funereal-toned Fergal Keane that feature on the BBC's website, in which contempt for European civilisation and the Europeans who wish to preserve it is not far from the surface.  It's the same leftist mindset that regards everything the British Empire ever achieved as inherently evil.

A mindset that believes that the "victims" of "imperialism" are entitled to grab whatever they can:

This week, in a typically sharp and robust piece, Australian conservative columnist Andrew Bolt complained that the ABC's Paul Barry has twisted and traduced what Bolt wrote here:

"I argued that the tragic picture of drowned toddler Aylan Kurdi did not show what most of the media claimed - a refugee fleeing death in Syria. 

The picture was more complicated, I said. The boy’s family had actually lived in Turkey in safety for three years, and a key part of the father’s decision to go to Europe was to have his teeth fixed. 

Paul Barry of [the ABC's] Media Watch is angry with this dissent, and last night tried to dismiss it in ways I think are deeply misleading"

But it's not only Paul Barry who has taken pot shots at Bolt.  It would appear that the woman dubbed "La Trioli" has made a (subtle) dig at Bolt too.

Although ABC reporters and presenters are obligated, like their BBC counterparts, to be objective, this obligation is honoured more in the breach than in the observance.  Virginia Trioli, the very handsomely paid co-host of ABC News Breakfast and ABC News 24, has a weekly column in a publication called The Weekly Review, which is delivered free to mailboxes.

I don't know whether Ms Trioli's column is similarly gratis but I do know that she's free with her views, as befits a column titled "Mouthing Off".  In the current issue of the giveaway paper she  "seeks understanding" for "asylum seekers" (yes, for the ABC all of the seething mass of Third World humanity desperate to enter the West are, it seems, genuine "asylum seekers") by those who dismiss them as "economoc migrants".

The half-Italian Ms Trioli writes, inter alia:

"The story - and the distortions of that story - of the father of little Aylan Kurdi is instructive.... 

The journey of the contemporary asylum seeker is challenging to us because it does not take a straight line from, say, napalmed village in Vietnam to refugee boats to the Australian shore.  This route travels through countries of equally little hope - economically, socially - in search of a future.  It's similar to the journey my grandfather made before the outbreak of World War II.  First to America, then to Australia and then calling for his little family and first son to take a boat and join him...." 

As for the oft-made analogy between the plight of European Jewry in the 1930s and the situation of today's migratory Muslims, blogger Edgar Davidson has a graphic comment:

 (See more here)

A thought-provoking piece here

Update: Compare and contrast:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34272248

Meanwhile: