Sayeeda Warsi was on The Andrew Marr Show this morning arguing that the Westminster attack had nothing to do with Islam. People from all religions can carry out violent acts, she said, and Masood "was a violent Christian long before he was a violent Muslim". She also condemned the government's "obsessive focus" on "Islamic ideology" - a term she regards as "not factually correct" - and wants to see the present Prevent strategy replaced by a new strategy which will better engage with Muslims.
Now, you may have thought that her contribution was the usual, predictable guff from the baroness but Andrew Marr ended the interview by gushing:
A moment of calm and clever reflection. Sayeeda Warsi, for now, thank you very much indeed for talking to us.
He'd already described her new book as "eloquent".
Why does Warsi get invited and not say Ann Marie Waters who is equally eloquent. I'll tell you why - because the BBC have a narrative to construct.ReplyDelete
There is no evidence that Masood ever took Christianity seriously. There is every sign he took Islam seriously, including undertaking a pilgrimage to Mecca in 2015.
Before we got to the Warsi interview, there was a giveaway moment during the paper review. Marr and the panel all worked together to demonstrate that last week's Islamist terrorist was really only yet another disturbed loner, whacked out on drugs and drink most of his life, nothing to do with growing up in one of those Muslim-only enclaves the Islmaophobes like to present as the root cause.ReplyDelete
A very fundamental version of Islam, Baroness Kennedy opined, provides a strict set of rules and worldview that gives direction to someone so lost. But nobody then asked why he turned to Islam for that and not, say, the strict guidelines of the Mormons, or ultra-orthodox Judaism. He was radicalized in prison, but, well, that's just another bad decision he made or something.
In support of the narrative that it's only mentally ill, troubled youths who become radicalized and do awful things, Kennedy brought up the lunatic who murdered Jo Cox. But she said he was driven to violence by things said by Leavers, inspiring his xenophobia to the point of murder. Trevor Kavanaugh correct her slightly, that he got more info from the internet than the media per se, but that was it.
And there you have it. It's okay to say that a mentally ill person was driven to murder by the Leave ideas he turned to for direction, but it's absolutely wrong to say that Islam influenced last week's - or any - Islamist murderer.
As for Warsi, Marr never pointed out that Masood never did any of his previous violence in the name of Christianity or was inspired to do it by any of its tenets or clergy. Because it didn't occur to him as he is 100% biased and dishonest on this issue.
I'm tacking on my earlier post here because it goes to the heart of the debate demonstrating BBC bias over how the murders of Jo Cox and PC Keith Palmer have been reported. ... 'Khalid Masood is patently in a different category',.... should we say a protected category?Delete
"a deranged man"... sounds like some sort of mitigation on behalf of Khalid Masood from Marr. Thomas Mair on the other and was quickly labelled as a "white supremacist" or as" far-right". The question must be asked, if "a deranged man" can be applied to Khalid Masood, then why not to Thomas Mair.
The answer goes to the heart of the BBC disparity. Thomas Mair represents all that the BBC seek to distance themselves from: White, English, Northern, Racist, probably a Brexit voter etc. Khalid Masood is patently in a different category, and we must all tip-toe around the subject of his motive:
"We must all accept that there is a possibility we will never understand why he did this. That understanding may have died with him", Deputy Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu said.
I know the legal system here is a bit iffy, but for a violent Christian he did seem out and about a lot.ReplyDelete
The faith upgrade seems to have seen that cease for him and, sadly, too many innocents.
Plus if there was a 'community' around him before, I'd bet they were less on board than some from his new one.
The Baroness may like to try another tack.
And the BBC another talking head.
The BBC is a key player in furthering the NTDWI narrative. Over the weekend news and commentate programs I heard Masoods actions compared to Mairs, Irish terrorists and as noted to Christian by Warsi. Someone may have got round to mentioning recent Islamic terror but not on the prime time programs I heard and saw.ReplyDelete
But then we have the met police farcically telling us the motive may never be known. And Amber on Marr blaming a US Technology company for the incident!
Yup a coordinated message to keep us calm and carrying on whilst being murdered by unknown motiveless deranged loners. Fact is we've a huge and growing problem. They all know it and we know it. But they don't know what to do.
Sorry if I'm a bore, but Today R4 this morning was at it again. With an interview of a friend of Masood who knew him as nice friendly guy mildly religious only in that he prayed every lunchtime. So what on earth provoked Masood to go on rampage is a mysterious mystery.Delete
In the "small print" it was noted that the friend wished to be anonymous ... and hadn't actually spoken to Masood since 2012. Good grief is all I can add.
Now I am a bit obsessive, but the R4 news during today's Today had items about a new report from Ann Coffey, Stockport MP, stating that child sex abuse in Manchester has increased 4 fold in recent years since 9 "men" were convicted in Rochdale.Delete
I listened carefully and couldn't hear the words Muslim, Pakistani nor even Asian; just "men". Nor could I hear that the abused girls were nearly all white.
It was quite a contrast to Today's obsessive examination of every minutae of Brexit in order to shout out potential negative implications, while the details of actual large scale child sex abuse rings are airbrushed away.
Think about it - the national/state broadcaster deliberately suppressing information which could help parents and children avoid child sex abuse.
Perhaps the BBC's role will be reviewed in the ongoing (but open ended) Inquiry.