A BBC Islamophobia adviser shares an antisemite's writing

The Campaign Against Antisemitism reports that a Muslim media analyst who advises the BBC on its coverage of Islam has apologised for sharing an extract from a book by an antisemite. 

The analyst in question, Faisal Hanif, works for the Muslim Council of Britain-affiliated Centre for Media Monitoring and was the author of that report which claimed that Muslims are treated unfairly by the media which the BBC's Mark Easton helped launch and which Sue wrote about here. 

The author he shared was jazz saxophonist and Holocaust revisionist Gilad Atzmon. Mr Hanif says he was unaware of Mr Atzmon's antisemitic track record. Gilad's the sort of antisemite who blames the Grenfell Tower tragedy on “Jerusalemites”.

The BBC and the Muslim Council of Britain

And while we're on the subject of the BBC Style Guide, these entries also caught my eye:

al-Muhajiroun

(radical British group also known as Islam4UK, banned since January 2010) ie lower case "al", followed by a hyphen and capital "M". Make it clear in news stories that this group and others like it are regarded by the majority of British Muslims as unrepresentative - ideally, through a quote to that effect from a leading mainstream Muslim group such as the Muslim Council of Britain. Preachers associated with these groups should not be described simply as "Muslim clerics", but as radical, fringe or similar.

 

Supporters of Shariah

(radical Islamic group)) Our policy is to run stories about this group and others like it (eg: al Muhajiroun) only if we can make it clear that they are regarded by the majority of British Muslims as unrepresentative - ideally, through a quote to that effect from a leading mainstream Muslim group, such as the Muslim Council of Britain. Preachers associated with these groups should not be described simply as "Muslim clerics", but should be labelled as radical, fringe, or something similar. Do not confuse the mainstream Muslim Council of Britain with the more radical Islamic Council of Britain - which should be labelled as self-styled.

It intrigues me how the BBC regards the Muslim Council of Britain. 

They  evidently take them as the ''mainstream'' voice of British Muslim opinion, even thought they are no less ''self-styled'' than the Islamic Council of Britain, and hardly free from controversy. 

That the BBC considers these far-from-entirely-moderate people to be their go-to Muslims [''ideally, through a quote...from a leading mainstream Muslim group, such as the Muslim Council of Britain''] doesn't surprise me but is still somewhat alarming nonetheless.

Cultural “keep out” signs at Broadcasting House

 

Trevor Phillips hit the nail firmly on the head this week, writing in The Times: 

Outrage at the BBC‘s Emma Barnett for the crime of asking a self-styled Muslim leader how many female imams there are in Britain — a query similar to that addressed to Catholic leaders for decades — displays the same exaggerated regard for cultural “keep out” signs. The apparent capitulation by her bosses to social media clamour betrays a lack of self-confidence in an elite that genuflects (these days, often literally) to diversity. They will do almost anything to avoid calling attention to their own uniformity of social class, ethnicity and political outlook. I don’t think it is true of the BBC’s new boss, Tim Davie, but often the mask of compassion hides simple cowardice.

Is he being too charitable to Tim Davie there though?  

Thoughts (without links) on the Emma Barnett/Woman's Hour/Muslim Council of Britain affair

 

One of the major BBC-related stories of the week has been the furore over Emma Barnett's Woman's Hour interview with the new female head of the Muslim Council of Britain Zara Mohammed - something you've already discussed in the comments.

It's a remarkable story. 

Emma has really hit the ground running when it comes to hitting the newspaper headlines since taking over at main host of Woman's Hour from Jane and Dame Jenni. 

She's become 'controversial'.

But here Emma Barnett only did what feminist BBC presenters have been doing for decades, albeit not towards Muslims.

She asked and pushed exactly the same kind of questions, in much the same kind of persistent way, that BBC Radio 4 presenters (among myriad BBC others) have pushed with no small amount of vigour for at least a couple of decades about the lack of Catholic women priests and senior Anglican women bishops: 'How many are they? Shouldn't there be more? Shouldn't you be doing more?'

It may or may not be silly to ask how many female imams there are (not-so-shock answer: zero), but it's basic BBC Radio 4 feminist questioning. 

Even Ed Stourton has been forever asking this very kind of question in this very kind of way, albeit more quietly-spoken, on Radio 4's Sunday programme year in and year out of Catholics and Anglicans for many, many years.

It is absolutely archetypical 'liberal' BBC Radio 4 questioning (towards non-Muslims). Even John Humphrys, in his Today days, was prone to taking this approach, in a knee-jerk drop of a hat fashion, whenever Anglicans and Catholics appeared to discuss certain topics.

This very rare venture into challenging Islam from a BBC feminist angle - and it wasn't even aggressive - looks as if it will be something of a flash-in-the-pan though given that the BBC panicked in the face of a furious backlash, and Tim Davie himself grovelled out a sort of apology about their being not enough Muslims at the diversity-focused BBC.

That disappointing response from Mr Davie came in response to an absurd hundred-strong letter of protest from the worst, densest and/or most disingenuous, Islamist-soft grievance-mongering Labour MPs and (of course, and inevitably) Conservative Baroness Warsi - plus all manner of like-minded fellow travellers.

The BBC should have defended Emma Barnett here. They let her down. The interview wasn't "strikingly hostile". (Should I invite her to join me and Sue here?)

The BBC are terrified of appearing 'Islamophobic' (despite that being the very last thing they are).

I wonder if Emma being Jewish might have seriously inflamed the Islamist-soft Corbynista mob, plus Islamic apologist grievance-mongerers like Tory Baroness Warsi, even more? The onslaught appears to have been peculiarly fierce and targeted.

Lukwesa is the bearer of good tidings

 

Talking of Lukwesa Burak...

Straight after Dharshini's latest performance on the BBC News Channel, Lukwesa turned to something completely different. 

And I've never seen a BBC News Channel newsreader look so happy about announcing something. She beamed with what looked like delight, and her voice became excessively loud and giddy with seeming excitement. 

Now what could have so lifted Lukwesa's face and voice into the stratosphere and beyond? Well, a bit of identity politics, that's what!

The actual words really don't do justice to just how over-the-moon she gave the impression of being. (Of course, she could have been faking it). It was quite startling. That woman in the big pink frock on North Korean news couldn't have looked happier if Kim Jong-un had opened a new nuclear weapons factory. 

Anyhow, here's the news wot did it:

The UK's largest umbrella organisation for Muslim groups has elected a woman as its head for the first time. 

Zara Mohammed, who has a background in human rights law, is not only the first woman in the role, she's also the youngest. 

She said she hoped her election as Secretary-General of the Muslim Council of Britain would inspire more women and young people to come forward to leadership roles. 

Not only is she the first woman in the role, she is also the youngest and the first Scottish person to be Secretary General. 

Great honour to say that the new Secretary-General herself, Zara Mohammed, has joined us here on BBC News. Thank you for joining us, and huge congratulations to you.

So the deeply dodgy MCB has gone woke? Hmm.......

The Muslim Council of Britain forces the BBC to change its headline

 

The Muslim Council of Britain has successfully pressurised the BBC into changing a headline on the front page of the BBC website. 

Click to enlarge

The MCB's Miqdaad Versi, thanking the BBC for its "important correction", complains that it was "an unverified, misleading, and frankly irrelevant claim" and "wrong" to be included in the headline on the front page of the news website. "Prayer is not an indicator of terrorism, nor relevant to terrorist activity", he says.

The replies suggest the public isn't necessarily buying it:

Vanessa Atalanta: So, new leadership, same old BBC. Rolling over to minorities for “giving offence” when it was just reporting facts. It seems we are no longer entitled to know the truth.

Ellie Jukes (to Miqdaad Versi): It may not be but it was a factual report so what’s the issue?

Miqdaad Versi (to Ellie Jukes): He also ate food, breathed air and other irrelevant items. They can (and did) report this, but it didn't warrant being a headline.

Will (to Miqdaad Versi): It is not irrelevant. That's the point. His actions were directly motivated by his fundamentalist Islamic beliefs. Of course that doesn't mean praying is a negative but it IS pertinent when understanding his actions and motivations.

Defund the BBC: The BBC should not have made this correction under pressure from a lobby group that the majority of British Muslims do not feel represents them. It is simply untrue to claim that faith played no part - and is as irrelevant as eating - in this brutal mass slaying. 

#MosqueMeToo

As Sue pointed out, the Muslim Council of Britain scored a quick victory over the BBC last week.

The MCB website reads: 

In an article on hijab and female dress, the BBC inaccurately wrote “One of the main pillars of the religion of Islam is female modesty”. After Miqdaad Versi, Assistant Secretary general of the MCB, contacted the BBC to clarify that female modesty is not actually a pillar of Islam, they acknowledged the mistake in an email response and corrected the error online.

I was curious about the article they were objecting to. What was it about? Were the MCB simply correcting a factual error, or did they have other reasons to attack this article as well?

It's a piece headlined 100 Muslim women rally round #MosqueMeToo written by Faranak Amidi, "Women’s Affairs Journalist, BBC World Service" and, unusually for the BBC, tackles the question of sexual harassment of women by Muslim men. 

Its specific subject is the #MosqueMeToo movement which campaigns against sexual abuse experienced by women on the Hajj. 

Other Muslims (doubtless many of them men) have apparently accused it of "Islamophobia and Western propaganda".

So is that the real reason why the Muslim Council of Britain chose to target this particular BBC article? That #MosqueMeToo isn't to their liking either and that they wanted to discredit this BBC report?

Bricks 'n' mortification

Last year - my goodness - nearly a whole year ago - I wrote a post about blogging. It fell into the category we like to call ‘introspection’.

At the time I was sort of examining our reasons for leaving Biased-BBC and going it alone, also addressing the seemingly insurmountable problem of  being discredited by one’s own supporters in the form of unsolicited (or unintentionally solicited) below-the-line comments or if you’re Tommy Robinson, over-enthusiastic followers, fellow members and rabble rousers. Like, thugs and that.

Anyway, when the news came that ‘right-wing’ Breitbart was starting up a UK branch, and that they had hired James Delingpole and Raheem Kassam no less, I thought it sounded interesting. 

But then I remembered that even Robin Shepherd’s promising venture ‘The Commentator’ seemed to be infested with borderline racist below-the-line comments (from both sides) and breakaway former Commentator co-director Raheem Kassam’s  flashy Trending Central had something of the sledge-hammer about it - which under the circumstances is probably just what the doctor ordered - I can’t help wondering what will become of Breitbart UK.

 Will it be the kind of  ‘hate site’ that the MSM love to dismiss as the work of right-wing-spawns-of-the-devil? 

Here on “Is” despite apparently having a healthy readership count, not just bots and crawlers I’ll have you know, we don’t get many comments, so at present there’s little risk of being discredited by association. We have to do our discrediting all by ourselves. (Craig is too polite to discredit himself though.)

So; going temporarily off topic, Lego has been coming in for a bit of stick recently, what with ‘the film’ facing accusations of being anti-capitalist and “Marxist propaganda”. And now this, almost the funniest thing I’ve seen in a while. Irony upon irony mixed with Olympian foot-shooting.

wot no Islamic cleric?

It concerns Richard Littlejohn’s satirical take on a Fun Day Out at Legoland. Not just any old F.D.O., but a Muslim Family Day for Muslim people at Royston Vasey Windsor Legoland.

It’s hosted by an Islamic Fanatic named Haitham al-Haddad; not the kind of al-Ha ddad that’s married to dear old al-Ha mum, but more Haitham, with the emphasis on the Haith, and it doesn’t sound like my idea of fun.

The Muslim Council of Britain didn’t see the joke, as is their wont. Goodness me. MCB with GSOH? I think not

Anyway, they have written to Paul Dacre not only demanding an apology from Littlejohn, but also accusing him of inciting one of those anti-Muslim backlashes we often hear about, even though the backlash in question was allegedly formulated two days before the Mail article appeared.   

Dear Mr Dacre,
We write to express our condemnation of a recent article published by Richard Littlejohn in your newspaper. Entitled “Jolly Jihadi’s Outing to Legoland”, Mr Littlejohn deploys the most hateful stereotypes of Muslims to attack an individual. 
Our condemnation is not about the attacks on Mr Haitham al-Haddad: he is perfectly capable of responding to the accusations put to him if minded to do so. Many of us may well disagree with the views attributed to him. Rather, we are speaking out at the insidious and hateful tropes Mr Littlejohn uses for his argument.
Mr Littlejohn may think he is humorous, satirical in fact. But there is nothing funny about inciting hatred. The language he deploys is exactly the same as those used by racists and the far-right. One needs only to peruse the comments below his article online to see the hatred against Muslims Mr Littlejohn has generated. 
Would you allow similar hateful stereotypes to be used when writing about other faith or race communities?
Mr Littlejohn may suggest his words of hatred are directed at one figure rather than mainstream Muslims. This is a poor excuse. He accuses one figure of using hate speech by deploying hate speech himself. 
As a cross section of Britain's Muslim community, along with many of our fellow Britons, we state clearly and loudly that Mr Littlejohn's article is the worst form of bigotry. This goes beyond causing offence. Your newspaper has published an incitement to hate Muslims.
So, we urge you, in the interests of decency and fairplay, to retract Mr Littlejohn's article and to issue an apology not just to British Muslims, but to your readers and the great British public at large.

I don’t know.  As far as this member of the great British public is concerned, no apology is necessary thanks.

There are 320 comments btl on Breitbart at the time of writing, and although the article in question seems reasonably factual, there are many backlash-style comments of the sort that don’t do Breitbart any favours (in regard to defending themselves against accusations of racist incitement.)

In the same ironic way that Breitbart highlights the hypocrisy of a hate-preacher organising a day-out in Legoland or the irony of the MCB’s indignation at Littlejohn deploying ‘hate-speech’ while almost everyone concerned is deploying hate-speech either directly or by association, the MCB are behaving like Olympian-grade champions-in-chief of hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness.

al-Haddad NSOH

They cite the nasty below-the-line comments whilst pleading that al-Haddad’s own racist hate-speech is irrelevant because “he can defend himself”.

"Would you allow similar hateful stereotypes to be used when writing about other faith or race communities?" 

Oh, the irony of the MCB asking such a question. I hope J. Delingpole and R. Kassam don’t let their UK site degenerate into one of those suicidally marginalised cesspits that we can all too easily become.  

P.S. If you have been reading, thanks for not bringing this site into disrepute with your dodgy *comments* ;-)