The British press has really gone to town on Shamima Begum’s plea for sympathy. Indeed, it is outrageous that she entertains such expectations while remaining so steadfastly unrepentant.
“‘Show me some sympathy,” says the Telegraph, “I deserve sympathy,” shouts the Metro; the Mirror goes with “I had a good time” and The Sun goes with the cheeky ”Sympathy? You must be kidding”
By splashing those headlines in gigantic lettering all these newspapers are obviously wallowing in it. They’re championing UK values! Echoing the will of the people! Speaking for the country!
That may well be true - I suspect that many, many people think she should rot in hell. But here’s the thing. Do we know, in legal terms, what constitutes the ‘uman rights of a clearly disloyal (but technically still British) citizen whose actions signify the willful renunciation of her British identity? The lawyers seem to think there are no legal grounds to block her return.
And look, if we’re obliged to prioritise the “right to a family life” of murderers and illegals who plead that they’ve set up home with a cat, why not a brainwashed abaya-clad Jihadi with a newborn baby and a loving Muslim family back home who are very likely just as ideologically traitorous as their daughter, but have the brains to realise on which side their bread is buttered.
At the time they absconded, the press were keen to emphasise the academic prowess of the three girls. They said they’d been amongst the school’s high flyers. But if she hasn’t even worked out that a tiny bit of contrition would help her case, Shamima Begum seems to be rather thick. Unless it’s a double bluff, and she realises that too much regret would sound a little insincere.
That shot of a black-gloved hand stroking that one-day-old baby was intensely creepy.
I find the press’s approach cheap and lazy. I see the whole lot of them as pandering to the baying mob in a particularly cowardly way. This is why. Shamima Begun’s plea for sympathy was not the revelation. The press ignored the most revealing thing she said; they wouldn’t touch it with a barge-pole.
There’s a transcript of the interview with John Sparks on the Sky website.
Did you know what Islamic State were doing when you left for Syria? Because they had beheaded people. There were executions.
Yeah, I knew about those things and I was okay with it. Because, you know, I started becoming religious just before I left. From what I heard, Islamically that is all allowed. So I was okay with it.
Beheading people is allowed Islamically. Islamically. That. Is. Allowed!
If I were a newspaper editor that would be my headline, 4 inches high. Ten centimetres if you like.
But no. They wouldn’t bloody dare.
I have been moved to post on several MSM pages today.ReplyDelete
"The UK MSM is what happens when the lunatics get to tell the political asylum how high to jump. Full of 'what kind of message does this send?' usually, and now full of turning every nut job narcissistic young Jihadi girlie into a reality star with images, interviews and groupies."
It will be interesting to see if I remain unblocked when next offering a PoV.
You are absolutely right Sue , they wouldn’t dare. That would be Islamophobic and MSM colleagues would throw to the lions anyone who strays from the accepted narrative. Within the MSM and ruling elite there is a de facto ban on any criticism of Islam which also means there can be no serious debate on the subject.ReplyDelete
In Orwell's 1984 this is referred to as "crimestop" - when you know not to quote something or think about it, lest you commit a thought-crime. Thinking (even worse - knowing!) that core Islamic scriptures agree with slavery, offensive war, torture, beheading or crucifixion of the religion's enemies, is of a course a Thought Crime in our version of Orwell's dystopia, punishable by legal persecution, years in prison, career death and public humiliation.Delete
Unfortunately, the best outcome for this fiasco is that she comes home, becomes a minor celeb. for a few weeks then next year blows herself up somewhere in central London, at least she'll be gone.ReplyDelete
As long as innocent people aren't involved, I agree.Delete
Someone on R4 news yesterday mentioned briefly that she has now been joined by a dozen other "british" wives who are "fleeing".ReplyDelete
So it's become clear that the once pregnant Jihadi now with new baby (ahh) was selected as the stalking horse for re-entry to the benefits system and the BBC have lapped it up.
Where this site is the best around is in its willingness not to do outrage and be clickbait fodder.ReplyDelete
I`m hoping that you will dig deep and let us know
1. HOW this became a story?
2. What was the TRAIL that led from a Times hack in Syria to the BBC news headlines?
3. WHY NOW? Its not as if she has to put a book out or seek a second series like Terry Christian is it?
4. Why do her rights trump , say Asia Bibbys or the boys in Covington High, USA? Why should fifteen year olds be give a vote one day-yet be seen as easily groomed cannon fodder for extremists, unable to be held accountable at the other end?
4. What about some stats? what percentage of the media serially mock us with flags flying like this story(its not NEWS)-and was it Brexit or Camerons election in 2015 that drove them from some semblance of neutrality into the ravers that they now are?
Spiked gets it right-if Shamina was a white baby father off to join Anders Breivik or Golden Dawn say-would the luvvies be as "sympathetic"?
Come on Craig...some stats, basically this is mockery, and we have no fight to deal with this affrontery.
Always ask :ReplyDelete
"Is it news. or is it PR"
... this smells of PR