An absolutely extraordinary period for Newsnight

Newsnight’s Kirsty Wark on cancel culture, equality and Paxman“Newsnight is now more about being a quiet assassin than a musketeer.” Interview by Decca Aitkenhead  (Sunday Times Magazine)

Kirsty Wark? The Kirsty whose warks are even more indistinct than her bites? The Kirsty whose diction is so adenoidal that all her consonants are slurred together into one semi-intelligible whine?

No! Stop it now! Tell me I’m not subscribing to the Guardian!  

“After watching her present Newsnight for 27 years, many of us probably feel like we’re old friends with Wark. The 65-year-old is the show’s great survivor, having outlived the gargantuan ego of Jeremy Paxman, and endured the nadir of the Evan Davis years, when viewing figures sank so low that many feared the flagship BBC Two show would be axed. In 2018 Wark applied to become the new Question Time presenter, but was beaten to the job by Fiona Bruce.

Today, however, Newsnight is once again on fire, reignited by a new all-female team led by Emily Maitlis and editor Esme Wren. Its coverage of the Covid crisis has been agenda-setting, breaking stories from PPE shortages to domestic abuse, so I wonder if Wark is rather relieved not to have got Question Time. She beams.

“Well, Newsnight’s going through an absolutely extraordinary period just now. I would have loved to have done Question Time. But I am so happy to be on Newsnight now.”

It’s unusual to be a show’s bridesmaid for 27 years and never the bride. Wark deputises for Maitlis, alongside Emma Barnett, but says the arrangement suits her fine. “Emily’s a fantastic lead presenter, but it’s very much a team programme, and we complement each other very well.” I wonder if she thinks it’s a total coincidence that Newsnight is enjoying a dazzling renaissance in the hands of an all-woman presenting team, under a female editor. She hesitates. “Erm, it probably is. But what makes me sad is the idea that it should be in any way exceptional.” She allows a mischievous grin. “Because we didn’t notice for years when all men were presenting programmes, did we?”

I’m channelling Papa Lazarou again. Or Tubbs.  “Noozenight? Renaissance? What is this Ren  — eh - sanse?” No, we’re back in Royston Vasey and Decca Aitkenhead is giving me a very aitken head indeed. 

A powerful, popular national hero

As you'll already know, because the story's been everywhere...

Manchester United star Marcus Rashford - backed by Gary Lineker - successfully forced the Government into a massive Man U-turn a couple of days ago. 

(Has anyone else done that pun yet? I'm guessing yes.)

As a result - though we as a country have never done it before under any shade of government - taxpayers (remember them?) will now be paying to provide vouchers to the parents of 'vulnerable children' to pay for 'free school meals' throughout the summer holidays. 

And Marcus, you'll be pleased to hear, is now looking for fresh causes to champion (though I'm guessing he won't be championing decriminalising non-payment of the BBC licence fee).

Popular parodies of football-speak often use the phrase 'the boy done good'. Watching Tuesday night's Newsnight left me in no doubt that the BBC's Newsnight thinks that Marcus 'done good'. 

Self-imposed 'voice of the nation' Emily Maitlis lauded him as "a powerful, popular national hero".

But, I'm probably guessing what you're now thinking: that Emily Maitlis, as a BBC presenter, shouldn't be saying such things - what with all that 'BBC impartiality' stuff: 'Just report the news!'

If only! 

But this is Newsnight and its Twitter-obsessed bubble. And anything goes there, if it promotes the programme's groupthink and gets lots and lots and lots of 'likes' from like-minded people on Twitter. Plus, you'll never get more than a slight rap on the knuckles anyhow, so why not carry on regardless?

Emily for leader

Here we have Newsnight’s presentation of the individuals trying to get themselves elected as leader of the Labour Party. First I have to address Emily Thornberry’s defence against the charge of antisemitism.

Newsnight’s presenter Katie Razzall set the tone in a schoolmarmish manner but failed to challenge Thornberry’s preposterous demonstration of abject ignorance. (I suspect Razzall is equally ignorant ) 

Thornberry’s ugly little diatribe did the opposite of what was intended if indeed exonerating herself from the charge of antisemitism was her intention.

I admit it’s tricky, trying to suck up to four million potential voters who very likely conform to their religion’s default hostility to Jews, while at the same time trying not to fall foul of the Labour party’s so-called anti-racist raison d’etre. But she got it so very wrong.

 “I think it was really important as I often said, that it is our duty to speak out against the far-right government of Netanyahu, and what it is that that government is doing to the two-state solution.

And what is it that the Palestinian Authority is doing, prey, never mind the “far-right Netanyahu government”, to the two-state solution?  Oh yes, rioting and calling for endless days of rage.

“Which is different from being antisemitic” interrupts Razzall, eager to remind us that “criticising Israel” is not antisemitic.

“Hang on”  interjects Thornberry  “exactly!”

“And then to explain to people, you do that, and that is not antisemitic, but you do not blame the Jews for that.” 

No, not all of them. Not the Jews who belong to certain left-wing, anti-Zionist groups; save the blame for the right-wing, Netanyahu-supporting Jews who live in or support Israel. 

“And to explain to people, there is a clear disconnect. It is not the fault of some guy who lives in a flat in north London - he is not responsible for the death of Palestinian children. And people really need to understand the difference.”

The difference between the innocent ‘guy’ in London who happens to be a Jew through no fault of his own and the right-wing Israeli Jew who callously murders Palestinian children for sport.

“And time and time again, in my role as shadow foreign secretary, I made that absolutely clear. And i think that it would be right to say, that the record shows, that I have regularly called out antisemitism in my party in a very public way.

Yep. Thornberry stops short of chanting ‘Jews to the gas’ so how could she be antisemitic? She hasn’t got a racist bone in her body. (Nor any bones at all as far as one can tell.)

Because of her ‘pseudo-Sloaney with a hint of mid-Atlantic’ accent and her tic (i.e., keeps saying ‘frankly’) it’s impossible to take her seriously. She is like Corbyn and others in the Party in that they make stuff up as they go along as if trapped within some sort of ‘just-a-minute’ format and will be penalised for hesitation. And suffering from “likes the sound of their own voice' syndrome. And starting sentences with “And’ so they can continue talking nonsense on topics about which they know next to nothing without being interrupted or letting anyone else get a word in. And waving their hands (or trotters) around expressively to show off their red nail-varnish. I hope any of that doesn't put anyone off voting for her.


Update:

If anyone here is interested, here’s a video of the Labour Leader hustings that took place yesterday in front of the Jewish Labour Movement. If you’ve got the will and the stamina to watch it, you’ll see that Lisa Nandy is head and shoulders above the other candidates. (Candidates? Have I turned into Alan Lord Sugar?) (no)

Emily Thornberry seems to believe that her day - or was it days  - of glory as a stand-in for Corbs at PMQs were enough of a triumph to leapfrog her to the front of the process. No, Emily, you are vacuous, cliche-ridden, insincere and hypocritical. And spiteful. You’re fired!

The question remains. Is Nandy’s chairpersonship of Labour Friends of Palestine compatible with her support of Israel and/or the Jewish peoples’ right to self-determination? In fact, one could almost defend this by saying at least she couldn’t be accused of pro-Zionist partisanship. Which is a plus.

However, one niggle still won’t go away. I still worry that Nandy has been seduced by the Palestinian propaganda machine.

“I met a three-year-old child whose house was surrounded by the Separation Wall and was growing up without daylight. I saw a 15-year-old shackled by the ankles, who had been held in administrative detention for months without any contact with his family, access to school or a lawyer. I saw families humiliated at checkpoints on a daily basis and the denial of basic medical care as a result.

This is a movement which continually entices British MPs to visit ‘Palestine’ to view the obligatory theatrical production, a series of orchestrated anti-Israel set-ups wrought from self-pity, pathos and victimhood, specifically designed to hoodwink foreign governments into joining their quest to obliterate Israel.

If Nandy showed a glimmer of cynicism, awareness of - or insight into that specific aspect of her own pro-Palestinian advocacy, I could be won over. She’s the only credible leader.
If you watch the linked video I think you’ll agree with me. Hope so.

Razzall Dazzle

Newsnight 21st January 2020

Katie Razzall's intro looked promising. Things might be looking up! Judging from the build-up, it would be easy to assume the BBC had finally been “listening”

”Accused of bias, from left and right!” -  clips of John Whittingdale! Nick Ferrari! Robin Day! 

But no. It turns out the BBC had been listening, but not to us. To each other.

Dimbles looked worn out.  Quickly glossing over his opening statement.......

 “I think in the end —— I think—-people trust the BBC more than they do politicians” 

..he too began promisingly:

“and I think there are major, major problems with the BBC at the moment […](Hall’s) successor will face major challenges!!”

Gesticulating wildly, he even cited the BBC’s coverage of Brexit: 

“People shouting ‘bloody wankers!’ “ 

and 

“something isn’t right!”

So one might have anticipated an insightful analysis of the BBC’s hideously white woke agenda. Then he went and spoiled it all by saying something stupid, like: 

“Look at how Fox News demonstrates ‘not listening to the people’ by promoting Trump!’”

Yes, David; in your personal alternative reality where ‘yes’ is ‘no’ and ‘up’ is ‘down’ and 'the BBC is a mouthpiece of the Tory gov’ment'.

He turned to Emily Maitlis:

“People like you who sit in the studio, night after night, trying to be fair - you do your best to listen to every voice….” 

and then I suddenly realised that Maitlis was now trying to put the case against herself in a kind of despair - probably because no-one else was putting it, and she thought ‘I’d better get that in quick before someone mentions Rod Liddle'.  (H/T Monkey Brains) It was getting very weird.

It seems their suggestions about how to resurrect the BBC’s falling ratings are: More Trump-bashing. More diversity.  Ash Sarkar on every panel.  More pandering to the youth market. (Not just ordinary pandering, but especially cloth-eared M & S pandering - to a market they’ll never win over -  while cocking an M & S snook at their core customers (who must have been young once)  

Russell   Jo   Katy Brand was a runner? I can’t quite picture that. 

I nominate Jeremy Corbyn for the next D.G. As I said earlier, killing two sits vac with one stone - where do I send my three quid?

What I missed

I saw a shot of Douglas and Matthew sitting patiently in the Newsnight studio at the beginning of the programme and I thought ‘I must watch that’ and promptly fell asleep. So here’s what I missed. Pity the sound gets more out of synch with the visuals as this clip progresses. 

Tainted love

I’ve reached the conclusion, sadly, that one’s enemy’s enemy sometimes has to be one’s friend. One has to come to terms with that and suck it up..  

The other day I wrote about the BBC’s short-attention-span format, which seems to be aimed at producing the memorable sound bite. That is to say, if a memorable sound-bite emerges from one of those ‘sorry, we’ve run out of time’ scenarios, the BBC deems it a success. Then, lo and behold, George Galloway said the very same thing on This Week. About the paucity of the in-depth interview on the BBC and the rest of the UK’s main channels. (Obviously not Press TV)

I said that too! 

“I can’t access  Al Jazeera Eng. any longer, but although they were who they were, they allowed their debates time to flow. I think I’ve heard more uninterrupted speech from Israeli politicians and spokespersons on Al Jaz than on any of our own MSMs”

and I did reluctantly mention that “on this occasion,” GG “spoke sense” 

In a similar vein, My sympathies here lie with Benjamin, even though I don’t quite see the humour in “I don’t give a shit” (about the Holocaust)

Again, one has to concede that Peter Oborne has an authoritative persona and that he made some persuasive points about Boris this morning. However, (and it’s a huge however as well as a big but) his ridiculous obsession with the Jewish Lobby - and his so-called documentary was indeed ridiculous - renders everything he ever says and does decidedly toxic. Tainted love, if you like.

This is like the BBC itself. It does some good stuff and it does some bad stuff. At the moment, the bad outweighs the good by a country mile. 

By the way, that interview with the prancing rocker Bobby Gillespie was in the ‘bad’ camp. What was it for? Did someone in the Newsnight production team like this band?

   

“people on the right, they’re not very funky” 

If I were forced to identify as “on the right” (and I might cave if forced) I’d say “Yes we are! How very dare you! We’re as funky as funky can be. And groovy and extremely sexy to boot.” 

Euphemistically referring to his drug-addled state as “immersed,” the poor chap was evidently struggling and befuddled; he had to take a few moments to think hard before answering Kirsty’s somewhat fawning questions.  When it came to the one about “Israel’s right to exist “ his delayed response was almost unintelligible, but on replaying it I detected that it was: “Stolen Land” 

Stupid, ignorant old git.

Chorus of hooters required

Gabriel Gatehouse, which probably is his real name, would undoubtedly call himself a journalist. Tommy Robinson, who apparently also calls himself a journalist, is actually a scoundrel who goes by the name of Stephen Yaxley Lennon. The BBC constantly sees fit to remind us of this.  I seem to recall expanding on that not so long ago. 

I’d be the first to admit that I don’t want the kind of mindless impartiality from the media whereby the Devil incarnate gets equal billing to .. who shall we cite… I don’t know, the antithesis of all evil; the epitome of goodness and apple-pie.

No. I want my broadcast media to show a little distinction between the two. However, a problem arises with our old friend ‘value judgement’. However many times we’re told that the BBC advises employees to steer clear of making any, it’s abundantly clear that they can’t.  

Those stern, schoolmarmish tones and that irritable, rude, aggressive manner always gives the game away.

Gabriel Gatehouse has been concerning himself with even-handedness recently. He has written and spoken about bias and so on as if he alone is able to take a disinterested and distanced view. But he plainly can’t.

In the short film he produced for last night’s Newsnight he was clearly trying to be even-handed and non-judgemental. I think. But sadly the usual signs and signals crept in. He reiterated one of his recent observations, which is that the far-right doesn’t like the media. We saw a similar example in an earlier film of his, where a Dutch-speaking protester wasn’t keen to engage with “The BBC”, which seemed to baffle Gatehouse.

Former “grooming gang’ victim Sammy Woodhouse spoke eloquently about being raped and mentally and physically abused at the age of fourteen by a perpetrator who is now in prison. She was let down by the authorities and branded a ‘slag’ by some of the social services and the police, whose fear of being thought ‘racist’ prevented them from intervening. “Instead of protecting me, they helped the abuser,” she said.

Gatehouse let this criticism speak for itself, but we soon arrived at the real message he wanted to extract from the conversation. He tells us that Sammy Woodhouse considered Robinson ‘selective’ and that she condemns him for not protesting about white paedophiles. “They should be talking about it as a whole, and not just by Pakistani Muslims”. 

Of course, she can’t be expected to sympathise with the fact that Tommy Robinson isn’t solely concerned with the crime that she has endured and survived. It is completely understandable that her primary focus is the extreme sexual abuse of underage white girls. Certainly, Tommy Robinson has alighted on the issue, which serves as an unassailable example of Islam’s incompatibility with “British values’. Certainly, the phenomenon has provided him with more than a little ammunition, which he has exploited to bolster his wider fight against Islamisation.  

“The majority of paedophiles in this country are white men,” says Gatehouse, repeating a statement of Ms Woodhouse’s. Well, there is a majority of white men in this country, would be the obvious retort. 

“Go to any Tommy Robinson rally and you’ll get the impression that child abuse is somehow linked to Islam,” says Gatehouse, “and that narrative is being perpetuated by…”   and so to a clip of Gerard Batten MEP, the current leader of UKIP, speaking into a microphone at a rally.

Speaking on behalf of working-class critics and ex-admires of Tommy Robinson was the aptly named Ivan Humble. He blamed the media’s inappropriate over-exposure of Anjem Choudary for labelling (and thereby unfairly vilifying), Islam.  Our voices aren’t being heard, he explained, citing “Undercover Mosque”, and stating: “when we say it, it’s racist but when the media says it, it’s ok.

William Baldet, Prevent Strategy Coordinator, was consulted. I have to assume that there was a lot more footage of this interview than was included in the final film, because (for me) his message was incoherent.

Back to Sammy Woodhouse. The BBC has certainly used her observations as a springboard to promote their case against Tommy Robinson.  She thinks that Tommy Robinson is taking credit for exposing the grooming gang phenomenon, when in reality it was courageous people like herself, “survivors”,  who were the real heroes. She thinks Tommy Robinson is exploiting the situation to further his own career - “for his own ends” as she put it. But I suggest the BBC is exploiting her in a similar fashion, and, correct me if I’m wrong, I’m not sure that Tommy Robinson himself claims to have ‘exposed’ the scandal, merely raised awareness of it. If you take a look at today’s Politics Live, which I’m coming to in a minute, you might see what I mean.

The rest of the Newsnight item featured a discussion between a ‘fashion-victim-clad' Kirsty Wark, (what is that green thing?) Guardian columnist Nesrine Malik and Danny Lockwood, publisher of the Press, a newspaper from Yorkshire. Kirsty couldn’t pronounce Anjem Choudary’s name no matter how many times she attempted it. “An-jram Chowdy" was her best effort. 

Lockwood was rather good, despite giving Gatehouse’s film a little more praise than it was due. Malik was Malik. “Tommy Robinson is an opportunist” she asserted with not a jot of self-awareness. The gist of her argument was that Tommy Robinson shouldn’t have been given a platform. He does it merely to “further his career,” she opined disparagingly, unaware of the possibility that she was doing the very same thing.

Politics Live took up the same theme and ran with it.  They plucked relevant bits from Gatehouse’s interview with Sammy Woodhouse to emphasise similar points. Then they brought in Gerard Batten, and Jo Coburn was so rude to him that it positively cried out for a chorus of hooters blaring out “Value-Judgement!” “Value Judgement” raucously, like on Q.I. 

Jo Coburn kept on reminding us, with a mixture of indignation and outrage, that Islam is “A religion” rather than an ideology, sounding like Lady Bracknell enunciating “A handbag” but with overstated awe rather than exaggerated disdain. She got herself extremely rattled and accused Batten of the heinous crime of “condemning all Muslims.”  

None of the other guests had a good word to say about ‘convicted criminal’ Tommy Robinson. Not even Toby Young nor James Bloodworth. The word “Islamophobia” was bandied about as if sufferers from this destructive affliction were collectively abominable, contemptible and far and beyond the pale and when you come to think of it, not a million miles from (the heinous crime of) “condemning all Muslims”.

Inside Boris's mind

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.

BRENDAN O’NEILL

“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.

DOUGLAS MURRAY

“……..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. “

JAWAD IQBAL

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.”

Letterbox gate

This hooha about ladies dressed as a pillar-box has seen the BBC pushing the correlation between antisemitism in the Labour Party and “Islamophobia” in the Conservative Party. There is no real correlation; only fakes.

The Corbynites insist that the antisemitism crisis has been confected to discredit Jeremy Corbyn, while your average puzzled onlooker observes as letter-box-gate is increasingly inflated, hour by hour, for the purpose of vilifying Boris Johnson, who, according to the BBC, is cynically courting the populist vote en route to the top job.

Many believe the Labour Party’s anti-Israel rhetoric is a cynical way of courting the considerable Muslim vote en route to Number Ten.

On the one hand we have Nazi-like antisemitism in the Labour Party (emanating from the hard left and Judaeo-phobic Muslims) which is either being flatly denied by camp Corbyn, or dismissed by foolish left-wing politicians and media pundits as justifiable opposition to the policies of the Israeli government. (Which always comes under the heading “What Israel is doing”)

On the other side of the coin, it is argued that the very concept of ‘Islamophobia’ is false and that opposing or criticising Islam is not a psychological condition but a rational response to the creeping Islamisation that the BBC appears to be foisting upon us, which we have to pretend is fine or be deemed racist.

Genuine anti-Muslim bigotry may be a real phenomenon, but being flippant about pillar boxes is not it. 

Why should we have to pretend that extreme Islamic garb is unremarkable? It’s ludicrous, impractical and medically inadvisable. Extreme fashions come and go; piercings, tattoos, crippling high-heeled shoes, all statements, like “Look at me. I’m a bit of an idiot.” 

Wearing the Islamic, 'extreme modesty' costume in public is equally impractical, inappropriate and idiotic, but with an implicit message: “Look at me!  I’m more pious than you, and unlike you, I’m virtuous and modest. You are debauched and immoral, but I am good.“ 

Evan Davis is a gay man, don’t forget. Why does he bat for the homophobic brigade? The way he handled Newsnight (6/8/18) is as baffling as watching while pre-Corbyn, formerly Blairite MPs silently cling to the sinking ship. 

The item on letterboxgate followed a short item about antisemitism, so was asking for a BBC style link containing false moral equivalence.

“Labour isn’t the only political party that descended into hate speech. Boris Johnson wrote a piece for the Telegraph this morning about a ban on women wearing burkas and nikabs in Denmark. He came down clearly against such a ban, but in the process managed to say about Muslim women wearing them, quote. ‘ it is absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking like letterboxes. He separately said they looked like bank robbers.”

Evan leaned forward and gazed intently into the camera.

“Now you have to ask yourself how would that have sounded if something similar was said by Jeremy Corbyn, of orthodox Jews.

No! you do not have to ask yourself that. There is no equivalence. Boris was defending a legal right to wear this uniform but was acknowledging its blatant, undeniable ludicrousness. With humour. 

Jeremy Corbyn, on the other hand, has a long and troubling record of Judaeophobic behaviour which is being unearthed in an ongoing series of revelations. If he made a disparaging remark about the appearance of religious Jews it would have a completely different and more sinister significance.

  

For the record, Haredi Jews do dress in eccentric garb and yes, it may indicate a wish for separateness, and it may give out some sort of “don’t come near me” vibe. It’s not as if this hasn’t been lampooned and described in flippant and derogatory terms many times by all and sundry, but have we heard defiant accusations of racism from that community? They’re probably so insular that they ain’t even bovvered.

Remember that time @JeremyCorbyn appeared on PressTV and said that the Israeli government and Israeli embassy are “very assertive towards all journalists and the BBC” and as proof of this said “there is a bias towards saying . . . Israel has a right to exist”. No? Here you go... pic.twitter.com/9Jy8l1VKHT

— The Golem (@TheGolem_) August 7, 2018

My old man's a bus driver ('e wears a bus driver's 'at)

“Well, there’s been a pretty sharp reaction to the Johnson column” continued Evan, as he brought Alex Forsyth in to reiterate the stuff outlined above. They cited such authoritative bodies as The Muslim Council of Britain and the ubiquitous Sayeeda Warsi (who was on radio 4 again this morning with Peter Hennessy) to underline their point, and as there was no-one available from the Tories, they consulted Mohammed Amin, Chair, Conservative Muslim Forum, who was duly outraged. Outraged by letterboxgate. Suffice it to say that one attribute that couldn’t be ascribed to Amin is GSOH.

Earlier on I saw on TV an animated lady in a full face veil fiercely expressing her indignation through a slit in her costume. Now you come to mention it, she did look as though she was dressed as a letterbox. 

Knock knock

I might as well go proper far-right and link to this comment by ‘namenotnumber’ on the Biased-BBC blog. It’s a list of tweets by Ezra Levant which highlight some of the hypocrisy surrounding the Tommy Robinson fiasco.

The reason I’m doing so is that although there are undoubtedly legitimate technical reasons for the current Tommy Robinson situation, (his imprisonment and so on, which certain admirable people have defended and taken pains to justify) the individual who blogs as “The Secret Barrister” has let himself/herself/xeself down by using some emotive, nay, pejorative language when recounting the background to the affair. 

I can even detect a whiff of  disdain in the first sentence: 

Today the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) heard the appeal of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (AKA Tommy Robinson).

The fact that TR uses a pseudonym (and we all know what his real name is) dwelling on it in that particular way seems gratuitous and a little bit rich coming from The Secret Barrister who wishes to remain pseudonymous.

Call me an ignorant fool who's indulging in a bit of whataboutery, but although I see (and sympathise with) Melanie's point, I have to say that if Tommy Robinson jeopardised the trial of the “men” accused of grooming and raping young girls by using pejorative language while live-blogging in the vicinity of the court, what does that say about the TSB and the reporter from the Independent he/she/xe praises :

“The excellent Lizzie Dearden of the Independent who provided a comprehensive live-blog of the hearing from the Royal Courts of Justice,”

...who seems to be doing something very similar (and, arguably, influencing TR's trial.)

Now that the police have been instructed to concentrate on hate-crimes far-right extremists like myself are apprehensively listening for the knock on the door. What hate-crime have I committed? I think being far-right is one.

Didn't Gabriel Gatehouse let his agenda hang out on Newsnight last night? If that’s impartiality, I’m a Dutchman.

Gaza violence and the BBC

Are we a Muslim country now? Genuine question, as they say on the interweb. As I write this, Revd Angela Tilby, Canon Emeritus of Christ Church, Oxford, is extolling the virtues of Ramadan on TFTD. 

I had a look at Hansard. Gaza border violence debate.

A quick look at the list of contributors tells you almost all you need to know. One does wonder where these self-styled experts on the Middle East get their information? Only, they seem so sure of themselves. Of course, some of them have been to the region on sponsored parliamentary trips to be educated by the people involved. Others will have been ‘home schooled’, so to speak, by the BBC and the Guardian, as well as Sky, Channel 4, ITV and al Jazeera.

It is left to an increasingly isolated group of MPs who support Israel to point out that Hamas bears responsibility for the demise of the ‘peace process’ and for the current violence, which most speakers describe as a massacre.

I am aware that Stephen Pollard and Daniel Finkelstein have joined in the condemnation of Israel’s ‘disproportionate’ response, but without offering much of an (or any) alternative. 

If you look at the sheer numbers, in the event of a substantial breach of the fence, could the IDF realistically contain the invasion by non-lethal means? Should Israelis risk being overwhelmed for the sake of ‘looking good’ in the eyes of an international community that questions their legitimacy and is pretty hostile to their existence? 

As in the 2014 Gaza-Israel flare-up, Israel again used precautionary tactics to deter people from cooperating with Hamas using leaflets, phone calls, and social media. Did the BBC report this?

The BBC rarely mentions the appalling rhetoric that pours out of the mouths of the Palestinian leadership and portrays the Palestinians’ Right of Return as an entitlement, vexatiously denied them by the ‘apartheid’ Zionist regime. 

The BBC rarely reports in any meaningful way on the feud between Hamas and Fatah, the primary cause of Gaza’s depravations. The BBC simply chooses to blame Israel for all the shortages and impediments in Gaza, all of which could be so easily remedied. 

Bearing in mind the palpable venom in the tones of voice and the body language of BBC anchors such as Nick Robinson and Evan Davis when interrogating Israelis (if you saw last night’s Newsnight you’d know what I mean) and their obsequious treatment of some of the most unpleasant Palestinian gibberish-spouting spokespersons, you would be able to understand and almost forgive our pathetic, BBC-watching MPs for taking such a wrongheaded stance on Israel.  

Newsnight, Hair, a giant baby and a bit more

This is a series of observations I would have posted earlier if I’d had time. Some of it might be past its use-by date, but what the hell.

++++++++

What a dilemma, whether to watch Newsnight with Kirsty Wark (afraid of missing something after last week’s spat with Tommy Robinson) or succumb to a nagging desire to watch Question Time. (afraid of missing something) You have to keep an eye on these things.

Switching back and forth between them, I stumbled upon a bizarre exchange between Ann Coulter and Laurie Penny,  in some ways chalk and cheese, and in other ways cheese and cheese.

A surprise location switch found Ms. Coulter in the studio with Kirsty and Laurie Penny in the US against a backdrop of the Hollywood sign, culturally appropriating LA speech patterns and saying “right now” instead of “at the moment". The interview concerned Fake News, a subject close to the hearts of these interviewees with their diametrically opposed interpretations of what is ‘news’ and what is fake.

Ms. Penny was convinced that journalists (like her) were the sole purveyors of truth, while Ms. Coulter said decisively 

 “The internet is the only place you can get the truth.” 

The discourse  became increasingly ludicrous, but Kirsty eclipsed both guests by calling people who doubted the absolute integrity and honesty of the BBC “despots” 

“Aren’t you aiding the despots who say “it’s all about fake news from CNN even the BBC, so we won’t believe it?” You are aiding people by undermining the probity of the mainstream media?” 

Ms. Coulter, never known to be lost for words, was in full flow, when Kirsty turned to Ms. Penny.

“Are you finished!” said Laurie Penny. “May I speak now? Are you finished?” 

she said menacingly in her tiny penetrating voice. 

“Now Miss Coulter is a troll, with no credibility, and so is her president” 

said she, looking suspiciously troll-like herself.

This must have been desperate attempt to boost the ratings, as Newsnight must have known there was no conceivable prospect of meaningful dialogue between these particularly outspoken, ideologically opposed polemicists, specially when there was no time to progress beyond a slanging match and with a host whose speech is so slurred and nasal you have to wonder why she is a host.  

++++++++++

Continuing ITBB’s popular series of posts dedicated to hair. (Episode 3) 

I spotted “Next: hair.” at the top of the screen as I watched The Daily Politics this afternoon.  (The other day, now) Naturally I was excited and I knew immediately where they got the idea. (here!)

The discussion was strictly confined to politicians’ hair, but I suspect Jo Coburn surreptitiously plumped up hers, which had been looking rather flat, while the cameras were focussing on celebrity hairdresser Nicky Clarke as he slid into the studio to explain Donald Trump, which he was unable to do. 

Even the comedians on programmes like Mock the Weak Week sound bored with Trump while wearily churning out their tedious Trumpisms.

extreme short back and sides

Images of obvious hair-centric politicians, Boris and both Michaels Heseltine and Fabricant were shown, as well as (for some reason) Tony Blair and Gordon Brown while real man of the moment, hair-wise, Kim Jong Un, was conspicuously absent. After all, his extreme haircut has conquered the world with the trend for short back and sides. Celebrity hairdresser Nicky Clarke, modelling a fetching Lauren Bacall style, is about the only man-about-town with whom this fashion hasn’t caught on. Luckily for Andrew Neil, he wasn’t present, or there may have been some sniggering in the background. He seemed to be sporting a new toupee when I last saw him discussing PMQs with Laura Kuenssberg.

Lauren Bacall

******

Oh dear what shall I do with my Saturday evenings now that Spiral has finished? The series ended on an enigmatic note, and will be returning when we’ve all forgotten how we left it.

One thing I do know; if that baby continues to grow at the rate she’s ballooned since birth, she’s gonna be massive by then.

*******

Has anyone else noticed the way the BBC’s man in Jerusalem, Tom Bateman, has been prefacing or appending information that comes from Israeli sources with “Israel says” even when reporting something it seems Israel didn’t exactly say. Oh yes, BBC Watch has noticed, and more besides.

This sounds almost as if Bateman is terrified - either for himself,  for the BBC in general or on behalf of the puffed-up Middle East Editor — of sounding like an “Israeli shill”, which is the boilerplate term Israel-haters are inclined to throw at the BBC to intimidate them, and and make them stop sounding as though they ‘believe’, or heaven forbid, approve of anything an Israeli spokesperson might utter.

I’m no particular fan of Sky, but their man on the spot doesn’t seem to need to use caution-laden qualifiers in that way.

+++++++++

I once knew a sexually voracious and predatory chap who worked for Oxfam. Young girls were slightly in awe of him, which made him feel important.  I believe he was ‘let go’ from his post. Huge charities nearly always turn out to be rabidly political, like War on Want and Amnesty International etc etc. and I am wary of them all. 

I have a feeling that this kind of sexually predatory behaviour has been going on in these circles for a very very long time but I don’t know how long the antisemitism has been part of the remit.

***********

I watched the replay of this debate that took place in Westminster Hall on 7th. It was shown on the Parliament channel this morning. Children in detention. (In Israel)

All the usual anti-Israel MPs had their say, as did the small number of pro-Israel MPs, most notably Matthew Offord. 

You wouldn’t get a sense of this from Hansard, but there was some disturbing background noise, including some whoops and cheering from the public gallery. The debate was brought by Sarah Champion who was looking very pleased with herself. 

Ahed Tamimi has a strong fan base in the Labour Party, and the degree of animosity towards “Israel”  (if that’s how they want us to  see it) is based on superficial (mis)understanding of history. This is Gathering Storm territory. Goebbels would be proud.

Sucking up to antisemites

Spell-check will keep altering Maitlis to Meritless - I wonder if it knows something I don’t - I but  am absolutely tired of watching people like Emily Maitlis sucking up to people like Ghada Karmi. 

As if Karmi’s opinion is in any way worth hearing. (If that comment sounds dangerously close to complaining because someone I detest has been given airtime, so be it.) 

It’s not so much that I want Karmi to be no-platformed, although I wouldn’t care if she were, it’s merely that oxygen was being given to her very partisan, embittered opinion and  she was being sucked up to by one of the BBC’s senior presenters. Not only that, but Maitlis suddenly became rude and argumentative when speaking to Israeli ambassador Mark Regev, continually interrupting him in that reproachful tone of voice.

Now we all know what the BBC (and most of the British establishment) think about Trump, and we also know what the prevailing attitude towards Israel is - let’s call it lukewarm to cool -  but we suspect that the latter is based on a mixture of ignorance, lazy thinking and fear of enraging the antisemites in British society (if not on antisemitism itself.)

In case you don’t know, Ghada Karmi is an Honorary Research Fellow based in Exeter University. I think she teaches antisemitism and related studies. Honorary?  Wassat? Oh, nothing. It just means…….. Anyway, she gets to be labelled “academic”. 

To date, the only sensible article I have read about Trump’s decision to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is in Commentary Magazine by Sohrab Ahmari, a senior writer at the magazine who happens to be of Iranian/ American nationality. So in a good position to opine. (i.e., notaJew) 

Because I don’t know if the full article will be accessible to many ITBB readers I’m going to reproduce most of it below. (The missing paragraph virtually reiterates the law US Congress enacted in 1995, which was included in Trump’s excellent speech) 

“The journalistic class is apoplectic over President Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. But conservatives, including those skeptical of this president, should add it to the list of Trump-administration foreign policies that deserve praise. The case for recognizing Jerusalem, and relocating the U.S. Embassy there, is formidable. Talk of the move throwing the region into chaos is overwrought and out of touch with Mideast reality. [..] 

(Professional people) contend that Trump’s capital idea (pun intended) will scuttle any chances for a negotiated settlement to the seven-decade-long conflict. In this, they echo the Palestinian president-for-life, Mahmoud Abbas, who on Wednesday characterized the move as America’s “declaration of withdrawal” from the peace process. 

Here’s the problem with this line of argument: What peace process?

For nearly a decade, Abbas has refused to sit down for direct talks, despite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s open invitation. Abbas’s rejectionism was spurred in part by the Obama administration’s theory that peace would come from creating “daylight” between the U.S. and the Jewish state and tying talks to an Israeli settlement freeze. Now, with the Jerusalem move, Trump is signaling that Washington will no longer tolerate the Palestinians’ excessive demands–or the obstinacy that led them to turn down generous offers from Ehud Barak in 2000 and Ehud Olmert in 2008. 

But, ask the peace-processors, what about the violence that will ensue from this? Here one must respond: Have you looked at the Middle East lately? 

The whole region is on fire, as America’s traditional Arab allies respond to Iran’s hegemonic ambitions from Yemen to Lebanon. Very little of today’s instability has to do with Israel at all. Thus, Washington should take Arab leaders’ statements of outrage with a grain of salt. Arab elites have to create some sound and fury over Jerusalem to satisfy their publics. But most of them today look to Israel as a protector and potential ally against Tehran. 

It can’t be an accident, moreover, that Trump’s announcement followed news of Abbas’s visit last month to Saudi Arabia. There, the reformer-prince Muhammad bin Salman (MBS) reportedly told the Palestinian leader that Riyadh shares Netanyahu’s view of the conflict. The Palestinians must learn to accept a state with limited sovereignty and non-contiguous territory dotted with Israeli settlements. Under the MBS plan, the New York Times reported, “The Palestinians would not be given East Jerusalem as their capital and there would be no right of return for Palestinian refugees and their descendants.” 

The leading Arab power, in other words, has concluded that maintaining the anti-Iranian alliance is more important than a settlement here or an East Jerusalem neighborhood there. The Trump administration’s Jerusalem decision, then, is attuned to the tectonic shifts taking place in the Middle East. Why keep pursuing the fiction that the Palestinian question is the most pressing problem in the region, when the Arabs themselves have moved on? 

As for Palestinian groups’ threat of staging days of rage and rioting, that’s not so much an argument against Trump’s decision as it is a case study in why peace has remained elusive for so long.

Strangely, this morning (still early days) this issue seems to have been demoted, news-wise. I do hope the BBC finds something else to gnaw on.

Saudi Arabia’s condemnation may merely be lip service - to keep their Arab co-religionists quiet, and d’you know, I hear that the Palestinians, actually, ain’t that bovvered.

What's wrong with everyone?

I was watching Broadchurch last night on ITV. 

The actress with the free-roaming accent was discussing the intimate details of the rape with the actress playing the traumatised victim. They were in a quiet cafe,  seated in unnaturally close proximity to the only other occupied table. 

I was still worrying about the wisdom of that when the actress with the free-roaming accent said to the actress playing the traumatised rape victim (who happened to be wearing no makeup whatsoever and sporting a severe grade 2 haircut) “You’re doing really well - you managed to get dressed, do your hair and make-up…. and meet me here”.  

I don’t know how the actress with the roaming accent, at once deeply Yorkshire and generic Westcountry, could have kept a straight face when delivering those lines, but deliver them she did.  In fact I think I did detect a fleeting smirk.

Poor Olivia Colman looked rough, and David Tennant looked like David Tennant , and unless things look up, I’m out.

The Netherland is having an identity crisis

The Netherland is having an identity crisis.

Anyway, I turned on Newsnight halfway through, just in time to catch Gabriel Gatehouse’s report from Amsterdam, “where he grew up”.

Perhaps something imbibed in young Gabriel’s childhood accounts for his forthright disapproval of the racists and bigots who support Geert Wilders. 

Did you know that the Dutch used to be the most liberal people in the world? If not, you do now. 

However, Geert Wilders has put a stop to all that, Gabriel Gatehouse finds. Now they’re a bunch of racists. The good people who once railed against antisemitism, fascism and anti-drug laws  -  the most tolerant people in the world  - have suddenly, for no discernible reason other than the hypnotic charms of Machiavelli Geert Wilders, turned all racist and Islamophobic. Can you believe that? 

It’s inexplicable, and Gabriel Gatehouse is baffled and perplexed.   What has happened to the famous Dutch tolerance and liberalism? The famous Values, the freedom for all minority religions to practice as is their wont?

He consults the hippies of Amsterdam. We tolerated the Jews, so why can’t we tolerate the Muslims? asks Gabriel, in despair.

Does the Netherlands still want to be a place that’s open and inclusive? 

You might well be tolerant of both the chickens and the fox; until you put them in the same pen. Why, it’s as almost as though Gabriel Gatehouse thinks Islam is the religion of peace.

Evan… Even more inexplicable.

Evan Davis has obviously come straight to the studio from his cardboard mattress and hasn’t had time for a wash and a shave. He’s in a slightly hysterical mood.   He can’t contain his mirth when interviewing two Trump supporters, black siblings known as “Diamond and Silk.” 

The more the sisters contradicted him and accused him of disseminating fake news, the more Evan emoted abject disbelief. Haw can anyone, especially black people, take Donald Trump seriously let alone vote for him? wondered Evan. 

“You must know that he lied about how many people were at the inauguration, Everyone could see that it (the crowd) wasn’t as big as Obama’s …”  he sniggered.

“We were there. There were thousands upon thousands upon thousands….we saw it with our own eyes!” 

“That’s right!” said Perky or Pinky.

“I think it was easier to see from the camera positions at the top,” said Evan, gesticulating, “and you really could see that there were more people there under Obama than there were under Trump!”

“Why are you debating me with this question, because the inauguration is over?” asked the sister, at last changing tack.

“I’m just asking cos you obviously love the guy…..When he just says something that is just stupid, what do you think? I mean do you think that’s just Donald talking?” said Evan’, his voice rising with incredulity.

“Wait a minute. My president never says anything that’s stupid” said sister one, waving her pen. “You see, that’s what’s wrong with you left people. You all always want to be so politically correct. Well, he’s not politically correct, he’s honest and we love him for his honesty.”

That's what's wrong with you left people

“Everyone makes mistakes, and it would be very odd if Donald Trump didn’t make mistakes and I’m just wondering if you can think of anything —- can you think of anything he’s done, that was a mistake? Cos if you can’t it probably just tells us that you’re … you know… you’re just big fans and you’re just on his side come what may”

“We trust his judgement and that’s why we voted for him and not a politician”.

“Do you two ever disagree with each other on anything?”

“We agree to disagree, when we have a disagreement.” 

“That’s right.”

And Evan, amused in defeat, bruised but not broken, limped off to face another night staring at the stars with his dog, his sleeping bag and his cans of paint-stripper. 

Is that what’s wrong with left people? They’re just on the left, come what may?

Bear of Very Little Brain

I’ve been wondering lately, what is all this blogging for? It’s time-consuming, and the effectiveness is disproportionate to the effort expended. However, someone's got to do it, and it might as well be us. 

Firstly, how many of us force ourselves to stay awake for Newsnight these days? It hasn’t been worth the sleep deprivation for quite a while, has it?

I started preparing a couple of half-hearted pieces about Newsnight recently, but they didn’t get very far.

One was about a Newsnight scoop about David Cameron and Paul Dacre, which roughly amounted to the BBC acknowledging, disapprovingly, that the press has a considerable influence on events. However it hadn’t occurred to Emily Maitlis as she strolled along the Embankment delivering her piece-to-camera in a mini skirt and fetching military style pea-coat that the BBC too has considerable influence on opinions (and therefore events.)

Another embryonic article, which I aborted and abandoned was about Evan Davis’s chairmanship of a discussion between an extremely belligerent Stella Creasy and Oliver Letwin. (whom Evan certainly didn’t  ‘let win’.) 

I wrote: “Evan’s wispy beard makes him look more unkempt and spectral than ever. If I’m not mistaken I’ve seen him sitting on the pavement with a dog, a sleeping bag and a few empty cans.”

Not very nice of me, was it, but I can understand why he succeeded Paxo. However, LBC’s James O’Brien’s appointment is a different kettle of fish altogether. 

The mystery is, did Ian Katz pluck O’Brien from relative obscurity to the harsh glare of ’national T.V.’ simply to be as objectionable on Newsnight as he is on LBC?  What does he have going for him? He is argumentative - maybe that’s it? He’s also partisan, potato-faced and petulant. His LBC interview with Haneen Zoabi made me think of David Brent surreptitiously scuttling off into his office to quickly Google “Israel and the Palestinians” .

Much more unprofessional than any of the above was / were the now infamous John Sweeney interview(s) with Geert Wilders. The BBC and Sweeney himself must have known how bad this looked because the BBC virtually gave him the right-of-reply-by-stealth, with that creepy FOOC. 

Bear of very little brain

“We sent our bear in a duffle coat John Sweeney in hot pursuit.” was how Emily Maitlis introduced the item when it went out on Newsnight.

The bear in a duffle-coat looked absurdly inappropriate riding a bike in pursuit of typical Dutchmen to use as selective ‘vox-pops’ before confronting “the great man” with that mischievous “Some say you’re a bit of a fascist”. 

He opened with the Mishal Husain manoeuvre, adapted to fit. Not quite “How many Israelis have been killed by those homemade contraptions?” but “What’s the biggest cause, by terror, of the loss of Dutch lives?” 

Same trap, different location.

With this approach, Sweeney is inferring that you can’t justify opposing the Islamisation of Holland until sufficient Dutch lives have been lost. 

All this was the lead-up to a massive ‘whataboutery’ -  the allegedly Russian-inspired downing of a passenger aircraft which killed hundreds of Dutch nationals, and Sweeney's accusation that “Myopic concentration on one thing (Islam) blinds you (Wilders) to ‘another’.  

To add insult to injury, in his subsequent FOOC, he falsely claimed that Wilders hastily “changed the subject’ when this was put to him.  In fact it was Sweeney who ignored, (rather than changed the subject) Wilders’s patient explanation as to why all religions and cultures do not merit moral equivalence.  

Sweeney and his fellow defenders of Islam face a huge conundrum. How to condemn Islamic terrorism without condemning Islam? The favoured  get-out strategy is to assert that ‘good’ Islam has nothing to do with ‘bad” (perverted) Islam. The same contortion is used to avoid appearing antisemitic. ‘Good’ Jews  - some of my best friends - have nothing to do with ‘bad’ (Zionist) Jews. 

Hugh Sykes squirmed to avoid being seen to be Islamophobic as Craig showed earlier .

The most offensive argument being used to denigrate opponents and critics of Islam like Geert Wilders who've been conveniently labelled 'far-right' and who seek to defend their country’s values, (democracy, liberalism, freedom of expression etc etc) against Islamisation is that they are Nationalists or white supremacists, and are behaving like Nazis. If Muslims are their victims then Muslims are the new Jews and the ‘nationalists’ and the Zionists are the new Nazis.

John Sweeney firmly elevated this twisted non sequitur into the headlights when one of his interviewees  elaborated on his opposition to Wilders, ending with a cryptic “I’ve been to Auschwitz….”  So the implication is that Geert Wilders’s political fulfilment will culminate in mass  government sponsored extermination of the world’s Muslims, will it? All 1.6 billion of them? 

Sweeney’s loaded postscript confirmed what we already know. The world has been turned upside down. 

And finally, Sweeney’s closing op ed demonstrates a staggering moral inversion : 

“Many Dutch find his views not just repellant but dangerous. So will Geert Wilders take power? This man is changing what was once the most liberal country in Europe into something different. “

No, it’s not ‘this man’ who’s changing liberal countries into something different. It’s Islam, stupid.

Not that John Sweeney will read this unless he spends his life Googling himself. We bloggers are renowned for preaching to the converted. Sad but true.