What is in Boris’s mind?
"Take the vip from him! Why not?"
That was from the sound-bite clip of Lord Sheikh that was shown at the head of Mark Urban’s Newsnight, which was great fun. Hysterical.
“After a couple of days of antisemitism, the Westminster pack has moved on to Islamophobia,”announced Mark Urban. The Westminster pack? The BBC is going ballistic over it today, so make that the BBC pack.
Newsnight says the P.M. and Brandon Lewis think Boris should apologise. Lord Sheikh (or is that Sheikh Lord) demands that the whip is taken away from Boris, (or was it that the whip should be applied to his backside?) I can’t quite remember.
Tom Newton Dunn seems to think this is a deliberate manoeuvre by Boris, whom Jawed Iqbal describes in The Times (£) as “a cynical political opportunist” and not about the burka at all, but a much larger issue. (Even larger than a burka?)
Two Shazias V one Laura.
The all-female studio guests consisted of two Muslims, one with a headscarf, and Laura Perrins of The Conservative Woman.
The three ‘Conservative’ ladies were in the studio waiting to speak. Two Muslims named Shazia, (one headscarved, one bare-headed ) and an immodestly bare-armed infidel named Laura Perrins.
The first speaker was Shazia Awan-Scully, an ex-Conservative, who said there is a huge problem with Islamophobia in the Conservative Party. She blames those out-of-touch, middle-aged white men, whose principal concern is ‘don’t make trouble for the Party’.
The next speaker, Shazia Bashir, is still a Conservative councillor, but she thinks Boris should apologise. “We don’t have space for these kinds of comments. Disciplinary action is the way forward”.
Mark Urban turned to Laura Perrins to ask what was in Boris’s mind. She claimed she didn’t know - (a likely story!) - and deftly avoided answering that question by saying the burka issue was a debate that we need to have. Mark Urban wasn’t convinced. “What was in Boris’s mind, though?” he persisted, to no avail. For some unknown reason Laura remained tight-lipped about the workings of Boris’s mind, which as a non-Muslim and a Tory, she must know. Try as he might, Urban couldn't prise that fascinating secret information from her.
Before you go, some essential reading. If you haven’t already read it, it’s your homework.
“What Boris’s shrill detractors are really demanding is that he respect everything about Islam. That he be unquestioning towards this religion. That he celebrate it and love it, unconditionally. But why should he? His responsibility, as a politician, is to never interfere with people’s religious freedom; he doesn’t have to like people’s religious beliefs.
The attacks on Boris are a reactionary, illiberal assault on his right to be critical of certain aspects of religious ideology. People are not demanding that he support freedom of religion, because it is clear from his column that he already does. Rather, they are demanding that he bow and scrape before Islamic values and never criticise them again. This is a medieval demand, a war on heresy, dressed up as a progressive critique.
“……..portions of the left have decided to counter what they regard as the ‘anti-Semitism card’ with the ‘Islamophobia card’. Of course there are other people hanging around with not very much to do who are very happy to join this bandwagon. ‘You criticise me for anti-Semitism? Fine – I raise you “Islamophobia”.’
“Thus somebody called Mohammed Amin who heads the ‘Conservative Muslim Forum’ told the BBC’s Newsnight yesterday, ‘This should have been a good article opposing the Danish niqab ban. But instead Boris spent about half the article slagging off Muslim women.’ The first part of which suggests that we’re all completely agreed that the Danes are wrong, and the second part of which is provable rubbish.
Meantime the Labour party’s Naz Shah – along with Jess Phillips and others – has decided to try to escalate the ‘letter box’ comment. Ms Shah has even written to the Conservative Party Chairman, Brandon Lewis, insisting that the party put Boris Johnson into mandatory ‘diversity training’. I presume that this training is now so perfected that anyone who goes into it is guaranteed to come out saying that far from looking ridiculous, women in burkas are in fact mega-hot and total babes. We’ll see. In any case it would be easier to listen to talk of mandatory diversity training for ‘Islamophobia’ if it was not pushed by Naz Shah, who has a recent history of anti-Semitism so extreme that the modern Labour party suspended her for her anti-Semitism a couple of years ago. Which is quite a feat. “
This piece is in The Times, (£) and it’s a bit of a mishmash. Make of it what you will.
“Some dismiss Johnson as a buffoon but that’s a mistake. He is a cynical political opportunist who knows exactly how his remarks will go down with the Tory grassroots.”
Hmm. If you say so. He’s not happy with Boris’s critics, either.
“What should give pause for thought is the reaction from his self-appointed Muslim critics. They claim Johnson’s views are further evidence of the Tories’ wider “Islamophobia” and that the party must lance this boil by launching a formal inquiry.
Mr. Iqbal continues by criticising of Baroness Warsi ‘who has never been elected to public office’ and the Muslim Council of Britain ‘a group that in the past has faced allegations of holding extreme views.’
Incidentally, I see Janice Turner has retracted her description of Tommy Robinson as a girlfriend beater. It was false.
At the bottom of the article, should anyone who originally read it happen to return for another go, this amendment has been added:
“This article has been amended. We wrongly referred to Tommy Robinson as a “girlfriend-beating football thug”. His 2005 conviction was in fact for assaulting an off-duty police officer who had intervened in a domestic incident. We apologise for the error.”
I've just realised what 'Islamophobia' is, it's the irrational fear of being found not to be promoting Islam.ReplyDelete
If ever there was a politician created problem this is it.
Brendan O'Neill is very sound I think.ReplyDelete
When the BBC decides that someone needs to be burnt at the stake, they will provide the stake, chop the wood, bring along matches and lighter fuel, and then fan the flames as hard as they can...ReplyDelete
This goes back to the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, in fact as far back as the Salman Rushdie Affair. It has nothing whatsoever to do with offence and everything to do with obedience and power.ReplyDelete
It goes even further back to Ray Honeyford - Headteacher persecuted by the SWP, BBC, Labour Party and Guardian for having the guts to enforce school rules and tell the truth about the culture clash in his area.Delete
You know how the media love to refer to Tommy Robinson's previous misdemeanours?...oddly they don't mention Lord Sheikh's predilictions:ReplyDelete
He promotes Sharia (finance) through the The Islamic Finance Council UK.
An all-round good guy.
He was also Chairman of the Conservative Muslim Forum which appears to be open only to followers of Islam...but I am sure that is not at all discriminatory so that's OK.
The bbc and minds are not an easy fit, as they seem to have lost theirs over this. An obsession with trying to force others to read that of yet another being but one dire manifestation.ReplyDelete
I think even Boris may have been surprised at the extent of the official backlash from the BBC, Guardian, Conservative Muslims, MBC, Police and so on. He perhaps didn't realise quite how far we have slid down the slippery slope.ReplyDelete
One hopes it concentrates his mind and focuses him on saving this once great nation from itself. What will that require? Still to be seen...
Theresa May doesn't provide much leadership. She could be speaking out about knife crime, horrible murders, poor business practice, our transport system...whatever...she could be providing vision and pointing the way forward. Generally she chooses not to...ReplyDelete
But at least we are now clear on one thing: she loves the Burka and is determined to preserve it.
Funnily enough all the things Treeza doesn't speak about and all the things she does seem very closely aligned with the BBC view.Delete
She is part of the liberal establishment elite along with The BBC. I think we knew that already. They are all pretty much aligned but are out of step and out of touch with much of the electorate.Delete
How's this for rank hypocrisy from Lord Sheikh:ReplyDelete
"We must also respect freedom of speech, as we in this country take pride in our democratic values."
Seems this applies only to his "community" and not to Boris Johnson.
Noticed BBC R4 News now refer to Boris's comments about the Muslim "face veil" ... such an alluring thing, a veil don't you know ... why brides and sexy dancers wear them don't they ... what a bigot that Boris chap must be!ReplyDelete
This is the dance of the seven veiled threats.Delete
Not the black feeding bag looking thing. There's a family in my neighbourhood of older and younger couples and children. Only the men ever speak to you and they are civil and friendly. The women wear long head-covering veils that sweep down the back like a cloak, over long black or dark floor length robes. There's a girl who looks about six or seven who wears a long head-covering cloak and longer dress, with leggings and trainers peeping out under it. She looks like a small quaint granny or Victorian child. One of the older men wears a long robe. The funny thing is the women and children are not restrained in their demeanour as they stream in and out of the house, making a racket and shouting or screaming as they go down the road past your house. In complete contrast, the street they live in is one of those almost eerily quiet orderly suburban streets which normally you walk down and rarely see or hear a thing.ReplyDelete
Evan Davis off to a flying start on Newsnight. Apparently "no one wants to say they're Islamophobic". Really?ReplyDelete
Newsnight has a nicely Islamocentric report about the issue from Birmingham - no non-Islamic voices. Why do the BBC never do any interviews with non-Islamic young women in mini skirts regarding the abuse they have received walking in "some areas" shall we say?
Of an evening, on the roof garden, one imagines our Evan and chums never even consider being the least bit concerned about where things may be headed.Delete
Never mind; they're sending him off to see some common people:Delete
"Politicians have had success recently, attacking "the elite". But who are the elite? Is there only one? In this programme Evan travels to one of the most deprived areas in the UK, Jaywick, and asks residents whether they feel an "elite" have let them down,"
Always quick to catch a passing bandwagon is the BBC. Not sure why it's called Sweet Reason.
I forget to say for anyone who missed this historic encounter, as I did, it is repeated on Radio 4 at 9 30 tonight.Delete
Elite - A group or class of people seen as having the most power and influence in a society, especially on account of their wealth or privilege.Delete
The irony is that Evan Davis and the rest of the BBC are part of the elite! They know it, which is why they do so much handwringing and virtue signalling whilst despising a big proportion of their viewers and listeners.
I heard some of the Evan Davis programme. It wasn't too bad...for instance those residents chosen to represent Jaywick were lively and intelligent contributors...ReplyDelete
But of course, yes, at some level the whole thing is an absurd conceit. To pretend (as Davis was implicitly doing) that someone from the flagship news programme of an organisation that receives some £4 billion via a state levy and can then decide what to broadcast with only minimal supervision is not part of something fairly described as an elite, is frankly absurd.
I only heard some of it, but from what I heard the programme seemed to be taking a rather literalist view of the word "elite" even calling on Suzie Dent of Countdown fame to give a brief but entirely irrelevant historical overview of the word's etymology.
It is best to see it as a shorthand word describing the interlocking networks of people with power - whether it be economic, informational, ideological, cultural or political power. These networks can be viewed at different levels: globally, nationally and regionally. Historically, and now as well of course, the elite sometimes work in harmony and sometimes has strong internal conflict - on occasions these conflicts can break down into civil war, or wars between states.
Looking at the UK, the key issue I think is that while in broad terms, it could be said that between 1945 and maybe 1985 the elites were following policies which overall benefitted the nation as a whole (leading to better economic prospects, better health services and more opportunities), since that period it has become increasingly the case that the elite have been pursuing policies which harm the established population, leading to poorer economic prospects, declining services, and reduced opportunities.
The series seems to be a vehicle for Davis to promote the globalist PC agenda at the expense of more populist voices.
So far he has looked at patriarchy, stereotypes and offence. I think he has his hands firmly on the scales as presenter. Take a look at his list of guests:
Alistair, now Lord, Darling - former Labour Cabinet Member.
Nacny Fielder, editor of the Sheffield Star.
Catherine Colebrook is the Chief Economist at the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) UK's "leading progressive think tank".
Charlotte Riley a lecturer in twentieth century British history at the University of Southampton.
The neo-liberalist economist, Sam Bowman
Guardian journalist Kate Bevan.
Jordan Peterson is an academic psychologist in Toronto, he's the author of a recent big-seller, 12 Rules for Life.
Dr Clare Chambers is a Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Cambridge.
Shaista Aziz is a journalist, writer, stand-up comedian, Labour Party politician, and an Oxford City councillor.
Of those I would say only one was a genuinue anti-establishment voice who wasn't representing elite interests, and that is Jordan Peterson, because he doesn't work with the ideological assumptions that dominated modern society. Nancy Fielder had some populist-type things to say, but promoting localism is not the same thing as opposing globalism. The rest seem to support globalist PC ideology.
Ramble possibility advisory.
I post here mainly because of the headline, and apparent trend, of certain folk presuming to read the minds of others. Especially media folk.
But my post is trying to pull a few seemingly separate, if possibly related things together, so forgive me using the assembled intellectual firepower of this forum to do so.
There can surely be no doubt that there is an unhealthy trend by certain groups to try and get away with starting fights, and expecting to land punches and hence win, without response. But if a response comes, and it is overwhelming, rather than concede they often suddenly revert to victimhood wailing.
Nothing new there, and no great surprise that more often than not finding the media weighing in on the side of these provocateurs for reasons that mostly escape me, at least.
However, of late, I have also found the media itself doing the same thing. They launch an attack, and seemingly shocked by this failing or worse getting redirected back, suddenly become oppressed flowers of free speaking delicacy.
So while it is perfectly ok for tech giants to crush some not in the wagon circle, or errant pols need putting in their place, all weigh in; but if things go awry with audiences within for their expressing tacit approval, suddenly free speech and freedom of the press IS under assault after all.
Earlier I was mightily put offside by yet another BBC headline that managed to place the Israelis in bad light by again headlining some unfortunate collateral victims in the headline whilst ignoring and excusing why they came to be sacrifices to the cause by cynical, PR-savvy old men hiding behind those who hide behind these unfortunates.
Now I am frustrated if not ashamed to say I could see no value in any personal effort with BBC Complaints. Too little, not much chance.... waaaaay too late.
However it seems bodies with more heft can move mountains. Why, a good question in this egalitarian age, but a result.
However later on, my patience with our supposedly impartial, professional media was again tested.
Sky News posted a story, replete with image of the perps, that made me (and others) see red.
An Indian passenger has accused British Airways of recreating the Amritsar Massacre. Apparently. Well, at the very least he and his family were ‘kicked off’ a plane for no good reason other than their baby was crying.
Awful. And boycotts of BA being called for by one and all, not least Sky, in the U.K.
Thing is, even from their own story, it was pretty clear the headline and reality were barely connected. Flights cannot depart if passengers not buckeled in. This lot seemed to have an issue with that, so.....
Hence Sky was trying to create an international incident, damage our national carrier and further drive a wedge into ethnic harmony based on... a claim.
Few were buying, and said so.
Now media folk of integrity are up there with hen’s teeth, but I thought I knew one at Sky on par with Rob Burley until he decided the keys to the executive toilet were too good to jeopardise by actually dealing with legitimate concerns.
But no, the Kool Aid had been long drained there too.
He was having none of it. I had asked a question, and one they ask all the time, and he could not answer, so a full on offensive was mounted until I decided to bail at a point he burst a blood vessel or sent the boys round. Job done I guess.
But I fear the U.K. media have now locked themselves in a bunker under the Reichstag and are as of one against the coming hordes, be they upstart bloggers, elected political foes, or... blokes simply asking questions.
Not a healthy situation, imho.
Sent from my iPad