'BBC Trending' goes on the attack against ex-Muslims

Even by the BBC's standards this is an absolute shocker...

BBC Trending on the BBC World Service today discussed the use of the hashtag #ExMuslimBecause. As the programme's website put it:

Thousands explained why they left Islam online, using the hashtag #ExMuslimBecause, but some thought the discussion was badly timed, and labelled it ‘hateful’. We meet the woman behind the campaign, and ask if she intended to create such a pointed conversation.

Before coming to the programme itself, it goes without saying that many people 'lose their faith' or convert to another religion, and that we tend to think it's OK for them to do so, given our commitment to freedom of belief. 

As is well known, however, a lot of Muslims disagree. A sizeable number don't think that their fellow Muslims should be allowed to stop believing in Islam, and a fair proportion of those also believe in death for 'apostates'. Some 13 Muslim-majority countries still proscribe the death penalty for 'apostasy', here in 2015.

That being the case, the large-scale global use in recent days of the hashtag #ExMuslimBecause for people to explain and share their own reasons for leaving Islam is undeniably significant and brave, and you might think that the BBC would be interested in giving it a respectful hearing.

The BBC did not give it a respectful hearing here. Instead, this programme put its users in the dock and condemned them.

Presenter Anne-Marie Tomchak outlined the nature of the hashtag before saying that it had been strongly countered by people claiming it was "hateful". 

Her guest in the studio was Mobeen Azhar, a journalist and film maker for the BBC who you may have seen on Newsnight following the Paris attacks, and who was one of Ed Stourton's guests on Paris: Could It Happen Here? last week. 

Mobeen Azhar

He said that, for a time, #ExMuslimBecause was the top-rated tweet in the UK last week and that it aroused a strong response, including strong criticism that it was "Islamophobic...opportunistic...and shouldn't be happening right now".

Anne-Marie interrupted to say, "People were really upset about it as well because it's such a sensitive issue".  

"And I think a lot of this has to do with timing," replied Mobeen, before expanding on that:

You know, we're in a situation where Muslims, I think, feel slightly attacked and they feel that their lives and their beliefs are being constantly discussed. You know, they're on the front page of lots of newspapers constantly. And so for that reason I think a lot of people thought this was bad timing.

Anne-Marie Tomchak then introduced an individual from an organisation associated with the hashtag, the very brave Council of Ex-Muslims. Her introduction to the group sounded (to my ears) somewhat disdainful: 

It was actually started by this group, the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain.

She then spoke to its spokeswoman, Maryam Namazie - though not before Mobeen had mocked her for winning the 'Secularist of the Year' award. "It's not the sexiest title!", he said, laughing, before adding that her opponents would say she's "quite opportunistic".

Here is a transcript of Anne-Marie Tomchak's interview with Maryam Namazie. 

Please keep an eye on both the ratcheting-up of the BBC presenter's questions - and the nature of those questions - and Maryam's answers, which repay close attention:

MN: One of our activists said that, "Being ex-Muslim is not being anti-Muslim. It's just criticising an idea that I don't agree with". And that's actually how it started. And we never expected it to trend in this way. We actually initially said that we were collecting statements from people for December 10th, which is International Human Rights Day, to show that leaving Islam, saying one is an ex-Muslim, is a basic right. But it just took off. And it shows just how much people needed to express themselves via this hashtag. 

A-MT: What kind of stories have you noticed people sharing around this hashtag online? 

Maryam Namazie

MN: Yeah. I think there are some really funny ones, of course, like, you know, "I'm #ExMuslimBecause I wanted to eat pork".,And then there are, of course, those that are saying, you know, "My father is a sheikh and he's forced me to marry", "My own mother told me I ought to die because I've left Islam". So there's a wide range of stories. A lot of the hashtags just said that they felt that they're not alone, because I think a lot of people do feel alone and isolated - which shows how much people need to know that they're not alone and that there are many of us out there. 

A-MT: Is there a risk that there are others out there who would look at a hashtag like this and might not necessarily be prepared for the kind of backlash that might lie in store for them? 

MN: Yeah. I don't think that anyone is encouraging anyone to take a risk because if anything we know the risks more than anyone else. For example, even though I don't have threats for my family I do have it from Islamists all the time. But again, you know, blaming us for speaking up for the death threats and the intimidation that Islamists impose is sort of blaming the victim in a way. You know, how else are we going to challenge this movement if we're not able to say that we think differently and we have a right to think differently.  

A-MT: One of the tweets that I noticed was saying that this hashtag was more or less giving people an opportunity to bash Muslims. What do you have to say in response to a statement like that? 

MN: Yeah, well I mean, you know, those who bash Muslims bash me as well because we all look the same to them. I've got a Muslim name. The minute I defend refugee rights they tell me to go back home. But we've been very clear from the start that we're ex-Muslims not because we want to be anti-Muslim but because we want to defend the rights of ex-Muslims. And there has to be a space for that.

A-MT: 'Can you speak?' is one thing'; 'when to speak' is another. And when you look at the recent news events - say, for example, what happened in Paris, the Paris attacks. Let's look at the refugee crisis around Europe. Did it occur to you that this was possibly not the right time to put out a hashtag like this? 

MN: Yeah, but Paris is maybe your marker as someone in the West, but our marker has been bombings in Iraq, in Afghanistan, sharia law in Saudi Arabia, for decades. That is our marker. To see it only within the context of Paris doesn't see the humanity of all those people who are dying, day in and day out.

Anne-Marie Tomchak's questions there - and the tone she delivered them in - weren't sympathetic (unlike her questions to Mobeen Azhar). Maryam Namazie was being firmly challenged here. 

Maryam, in response, gave some very interesting answers, occasionally couched in language that you might expect would strongly appeal to the left-liberal instincts of a BBC reporter/presenter - if you didn't know how strangely such people react to anything that concerns Muslim sensibilities.

And here's the really shocking thing about this edition of BBC Trending. As soon as that interview with Maryam Namazie had finished, the BBC's Anne-Marie Tomchak said the following:

So quite a strident tone coming from Maryam Namazie.

That was truly a "WTF?" moment for me. And Mobeen Azhar gave it a clear 'hmm' of agreement.

There was nothing strident about Maryam Namazie's tone there. Or her comments. 

Anne-Marie Tomchak

And it got worse.

Anne-Marie then went on to explain what she meant:

So quite a strident tone coming from Maryam Namazie. And the way she uses the term "Islamists".

And, yes, Anne-Marie Tomchak paused before the word 'Islamists' in order to put it in inverted commas. 

Bear in mind that Maryam Namazie has received death threats from such people.

Mobeen Azhar agreed:

I mean, it's quite uncompromising. I think that one of the problems that might come from that 'Islamist' broadly refers to this idea of Islam the faith being used as a political ideology. Now the fact is, within that there are many shades of grey. And I think lumping these people together is not going to be the most helpful thing, and could be misconstrued, and could be quite problematic. 

Another "WTF?" moment. And bear in mind again that Maryam Namazie has received death threats from such people, and yet Mobeen Azhar is fretting about her comments being "problematic" towards Islamists.

And what did Anne-Marie Tomchak of the BBC say in response to Mobeen Azhar of the BBC's frankly jaw-dropping comments?

Did she respond with some kind of "WTF?" too? Of course she didn't:

But let's just talk about her tone again because you described it as 'uncompromising'. How do you think what she's saying is going to be interpreted by Muslims around the world?

Mobeen Azhar then replied: 

Well, you know, this really takes us back to this thing about Muslims feeling attacked because I think pretty much for 15 years now - you can say since 9/11 - a lot of the Muslim community around the world has felt that they are on the defensive. They feel that there's fingers being pointed at them. I think in terms of Maryam's tone, it might make Muslims feel attacked again. 

Unbelievable, isn't it?

And on it went. Here's what the BBC presenter said next:

Well, they have demonstrated that on social media. There has been quite a defensive tone, even a counter-hashtag #MuslimBecause, and then outlining the reasons why they are Muslim and defending the faith. Some people found the #ExMuslimBecause hashtag quite offensive. One tweet I saw said, "I find this campaign hateful. It paints all Muslims as bad. Almost 2 billion humans can't all be the same." And then they've used the hashtag, #NotoBigotry. Other practising Muslims tried to engage with the hashtag, which is interesting. And one of those is Rashid Dar. He works with a think tank over in Washington DC and he posted a tweet where he offered to meet ex-Muslims and have a coffee and have a chat. 

We duly heard from Rashid Dar, calling for both sides to "tone down the vitriol" and expressing his desire to talk about what his Muslim faith means to him in a positive way. 

No challenge came from Anne-Marie Tomchak (at least as BBC World Service listeners heard it). It was just a short statement. Instead, she asked Mobeen Azhar what he made of what Rashid said and they both laughed. Mobeen joked that "social media is not like a coffee shop".

And that was that.

I try to be as dispassionate as I can be on this blog, but this was an absolute disgrace.

Anne-Marie Tomchak and Mobeen Azhar's behaviour here was beyond belief - and very far from impartial. 

Worse, it was far from impartial in the most appalling way. Instead of sticking up for brave people like Maryam Namazie they put her in the dock and then pronounce a sentence of 'guilty' on her - and all in the interests of her critics, many of whom are Islamists. 

Thanks to Anne-Marie Tomchak and Mobeen Azhar, the last straw has broken the camel's back here. I've had enough of them.


Update: I see others have picked up on this too and Maryam has posted her own response.

I came across this edition of BBC Trending via a tweet from Nick Cohen and a Facebook posting from Atheist in a Headscarf that said "the BBC should really be ashamed of for further silencing us by promoting the idea that somehow, SIMPLY STATING we are Ex Muslim and why is tantamount to Islamophobia".

Maryam's blogpost states that Anne-Marie Tomchak interviewed her for 30 minutes. Only 3 minutes of that interview made it onto today's programme.


Further update: Alan at Biased BBC recalls that this isn't the first time that Mrs Namazie has been given the 'BBC treatment'. As she wrote on her blog five years ago:

BBC Sunday Morning Live invited me to join its debate on whether ‘it is right to condemn Iran for stoning’ on 5 September 2010 via webcam. During the debate, the programme allowed only two interventions via webcam (that of Suhaib Hassan of the Islamic Sharia Council and Mohammad Morandi of Tehran University – both of whom were in support of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani’s stoning and/or execution). I (who had presumably been invited to defend Ms Ashtiani and oppose stoning in the debate) was never given the opportunity to speak. 

Another update: Intriguingly, Rashid Dar is also concerned that the BBC omitted most of his interview with Anne-Marie Tomchak. And the parts he says were omitted appear particularly telling, and damning. He says the BBC chose not to air his criticisms of the Muslim community:

Incendiary affair

I watched  “The Satanic Verses: 30 years on”   t’other night. 

Before sitting down to comment on the actual programme, I was curious to see what other reviewers had made of it. The Independent’s review by Sean O’Grady was a shocker, even for that publication, and it was a pleasant surprise to see several below the line comments that reflected that view. 

The Telegraph’s review was better, but not a lot. Collective tiptoeing around Islam is safer than committing a hateful thought-crime these days. 

Over on Harry’s Place, as we used to say quite a lot, Sarah AB has also tackled the tightrope of reviewing a programme-that-shows-Muslims-in-a-bad-light, and as she took an interest in Maryam Namazie at one time Sarah AB might have the measure of Mobeen Azhar. 

Do look through some of our brilliant pieces on Mobeen Azhar to set the scene. I’m going to steal a chunk from Sarah's article.

“In last night’s programme The Satanic Verses: Thirty Years On, Mobeen Azhar reported on the novel’s legacy, and its role as a catalyst in the conflict between radical Islam and the West. Azhar had never read The Satanic Verses before and it was interesting to hear him articulate the discomfort it made him feel.  He went on to make it clear that he does not question Rushdie’s right to write or publish the novel. 

He began by reminding us of the context to this controversy – the racism and discrimination facing immigrants and the reasonable perception of unfairness in a blasphemy law (now of course thankfully abolished) which only protected one religion – Christianity. 

Azhar went on to interview several of those caught in the events of 30 years ago. Some of these seemed disturbingly adamant that they still see nothing wrong in their actions. Chillingly, Mohammad Siddique said he thought the response to the novel had been useful in stopping others write similar books. (By contrast Shahid Butt said he’d no longer resort to violence – but he would call Rushdie a ‘fucking dickhead’.)”

That gives you an idea of what we watched. The next section of her review featured a contributor from Hope not Hate - a portly chap called

“Matthew Collins, formerly a NF activist, now with Hope Not Hate, gave an interesting account of his (largely ignorant) views at the time. However it was a little unsettling – though he may simply have phrased the point unfortunately – that he almost seemed to blame Salman Rushdie for writing the novel rather than simply noting that it could be exploited by the far right.”

There was the obligatory shot of “far-right” ex-EDL persona non grata formerly known as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, a completely gratuitous and unhelpful inclusion, very BBC, in my objective opinion.  

Having outlined the plot so to speak, Sarah AB drifted off to express her characteristically benign opinion of our presenter so I'll take up the narrative. Mobeen was dressed in a fetching, three-quarter length trench-coat, belted and cinched in at the waist, which made its full peplum-style skirt flap as he pursued the angry Muslim man who had snatched his precious copy of The Satanic Verses out of his hand.  

Our presenter looked decidedly urbane and camp with his trademark quiff, which always makes him look like like a displaying cockatoo. Was it the gay look that triggered the incendiary Muslim Uncle and the man in the (Arab) dress and the baseball cap? Or was it simply the effrontery of anyone holding offensive literature in a “Muslim Public Area”? 

Either way, it provided plenty of fuel for the likes of the far right - who are obviously not far wrong when they talk about ‘no-go areas”. 

The urbane Mobeen was suitably taken aback by this unexpectedly dramatic and absurdly comical encounter, but he also confessed that he himself religiously made sure his own copy of the Koran remained in an elevated position (on a high shelf) in compliance with superstitious Islamic rules and regs.

The most significant moments for me, however, were conversations with some elderly British Muslims who had no intention of conforming in any way shape or form to British values and customs, and frankly didn’t see why anyone might expect them to. 

 Here’s a funny distillation by   “Veedu Viz” (whatever that is.)

Mobeen goes home to Huddersfield

BBC journalist Mobeen Azhar has featured here at Is the BBC biased? quite a few times before. 

His first appearance came after the 2015 general election where he used his BBC-branded Twitter feed to say of the Conservative victory over Ed Miliband's Labour, "Great result unless you're poor / old / vulnerable / a single parent / not obsessed with money. Well done #selfishBritain #GE15", which I didn't feel was entirely within either the letter or the spirit of BBC impartiality. (He subsequently deleted it).

Sue (also in 2015) caught him being rather too enthusiastic about 'Jeremy Corbyn mania' for Radio 4 and the BBC News website. 

He then (once more in 2015) appalled both me and Sue with his contribution to one of the worst BBC programmes I've ever heard, an edition of BBC Trending that turned into a hatchet job on Maryam Namazie from the Council of Ex-Muslims. Maryam, who'd already received death threats from Muslim extremists, found herself - in absentia - being traduced by a couple of BBC reporters. Mobeen found her language about Islamists "quite problematic" and mocked her for winning the 'Secularist of the Year' award. (In fairness, the BBC host was much worse). 

We then rather lost sight of him until March this year when he presented The Satanic Verses: 30 years on for BBC TV. This was the programme where he said he himself religiously made sure his own copy of the Koran remains in an elevated position (on a high shelf) in compliance with Islamic rules but ended up stunned and appalled after Muslims in Bradford aggressively took against him and his copy of The Satanic Verses. One very angry Muslim man snatched the book, ran off and tried to burn it. It was certainly dramatic TV. Tommy Robinson got slated by Mobeen, and Hope Not Hate were on to worry about the far-right, but it also - unusually for the BBC - showed Muslims in a bad light. Sue commented:

The most significant moments for me, however, were conversations with some elderly British Muslims who had no intention of conforming in any way shape or form to British values and customs, and frankly didn’t see why anyone might expect them to.

I mention all of this because "award-winning" (hipster-looking, quiff-sporting, Chemsex-reporting BBC Muslim) Mobeen has again been put centre stage by the BBC with a new six-part BBC TV series called Hometown: A Killing:

Award-winning journalist Mobeen Azhar moves back to his hometown of Huddersfield to cover the death of Mohammed Yassar Yaqub but realises that there is a much bigger story in town.

This morning's Sunday programme on Radio 4 discussed Hometown: A Killing because members of the Pakistani Muslim community have complained about it being soooo unfair for showing their community to be heavily and disproportionately involved in violent drug-related crime in the town.

Sunday debated it with Mobeen himself and an aggrieved Muslim leader from Huddersfield who argued, in the usual way of things, that all communities do nasty things, so why single out Muslims?

(The aggrieved Muslim leader from Huddersfield was oddly gentle about it though and prepared to concede points. On listening back I wasn't surprised to hear that he's Ahmadiyya.)

One theme discussed was that putting such a focus on Muslim community criminality could be exploited by the anti-Muslim far-right.

(Very BBC!)

Mobeen said it's not just anecdotes but facts and that there is a massive problem with Pakistani Muslims in Huddersfield and violent drug-related crime.

And he said that numerous Muslims involved in the crime have told him that it's not a problem because the hadiths says that it's OK to sell/do bad things to unbelievers...

Now, I will admit that I was truly taken aback by him saying that, especially on Radio 4's highly PC Sunday.

Alas he then went and spoiled it all by immediately saying and repeating and then re-repeating the point that these Muslim men aren't "pious Muslims", and that he himself doesn't even consider them "real Muslims".

(One step forward, at least one step back then).

Still, the lad is obviously trying to do some right things and say it as he sees it, and his being at the highly PC BBC is probably hindering his ability to grasp the doublethink in his thinking and his reporting, given that I doubt anyone there would ever think of pointing out such things to him. 

Mobeen's BBC reporting makes for a fascinating case study in BBC bias. 

Annihilation for the nation

The BBC is heading this morning’s news bulletins with Tony Blair’s somewhat alarmist comments about what will happen if Jeremy Corbyn wins the Labour Party’s leadership contest.

“Over the cliff’s edge!” and I don’t think he was talking about Cliff Richard.

“Please understand the danger we are in. The party is walking eyes shut arms outstretched over the cliff’s edge to the rocks below”

However, as it has been stated on more than one occasion, anything that emanates from Tony “Bliar” has the opposite effect to that intended. He’s seen as toxic.  

The BBC is running several articles on Jeremy Corbyn’s unexpected popularity.

 The piece about Yvette Cooper concentrates on Corbyn’s economic policies - “not credible” 

BBC Political Correspondent Ross Hawkins says:

“Criticise Corbyn and you make him stronger. That's been the fear of so many who believe he'd spell disaster for Labour.When Tony Blair - arch-enemy of the party's left - says a Corbyn victory could mean annihilation, they wince.If you love Corbyn and hate Blair, they argue, that won't change your mind.”

If that’s really the case, might not the BBC consider holding back on the criticisms? That’s a classic no-win scenario.

This morning we heard Jack Straw explaining that Corbyn’s quantitative easing idea was rubbish.  Everyone but Dianne Abbott and Ken Livingstone says Corbyn’s ideas are old hat. They’re retrograde principles that have proven disastrous whenever and wherever  they’ve been tested. 

The BBC’s Mobeen Azhar asks ”Where is Labour’s ‘Jeremy Corbyn mania’ coming from?” in a kind of reverse echo of Gillian Duffy’s infamous “Where are they flocking from?”

"All over the country we are getting these huge gatherings of people. The young, the old, black and white and many people that haven't been involved in politics before."

Mobeen Azhar

For more on Mobeen I turned to Twitter. 

I gather his current area of expertise is ‘chemsex’ (gay). There’s a fetching photo of Mobeen intertwined with Jon Snow at the One World awards. I don’t know anything about chemsex (gay) or the One World awards therefore I only know a tiny bit about Mobeen Azhar, but did spot that on April 1st he Tweeted “Palestine joins the ICC at last!”, so I think we can safely assume that he’s going to find nothing disturbing in the fact that all these Corbyn enthusiasts, political virgins that they are, seem perfectly content to ignore Corbyn’s affiliation with Hamas and Hezbollah, his friendship with Stephen Sizer and so on. 

The combination of idealism and political illiteracy that have always afflicted the young and immature inevitably produce confused passion and turbulence. We all go through an anti-capitalist and anti-corporate phase when we’re young till we become resigned to the fact that it’s a by-product of not being totalitarian.     

No wonder there are people who hate ‘the rich’ even if some of them are not short of a bob or two themselves. 

What is most disturbing of all is that the BBC has always shied away from challenging Corbyn over his antisemitic affiliations. Whether they are ideologically pro or anti the prospect of a  Corbyn led Labour Party, they avoid dwelling on it because they regard it as irrelevant. Why stir up an unnecessary hornet’s nest, when no-one but the capitalist moguls of the Zionist lobby gives a toss? 

This is why they steer clear. It’s because these days there’s such a climate of Israel-hate in the world, that exposing its existence in a politician is neither here nor there. In fact the opposite is true. If there was no evidence of Israel-hate, it would be a hindrance to that politician’s electability. In terms of voter appeal, absence of antisemitism makes the heart grow fonder.   

Look at this Open Letter to Jeremy Corbyn by Alan Johnson, a pro-Israel advocate, and therefore speaking with a voice marginalised by the swell of public opinion. The letter was published in June, before the mania really took hold, so it was effectively pissing in the wind.

“But you won’t get my vote.
You won’t get it because Labour’s best traditions also include anti-fascism and internationalism while your support – to me, inexplicable and shameful –  for the fascistic and antisemitic forces of Hezbollah and Hamas flies in the face of those traditions. In particular, your full-throated cheer-leading for the vicious antisemitic Islamist Raed Salah is a deal-breaker.Why did you lend your support to Raed Salah? No, he is not a ‘critic of Israel’, but a straight-up Jew hater.”You said ‘Salah is a very honoured citizen’, even though Salah was found guilty of spreading the blood libel – the classic antisemitic slander that Jews use the blood of gentile children to make their bread.”

I gather Alan Johnson is a lefty. If the Left Foot Forward readership won’t be influenced by him, what hope is there that the Daily Mail will have any effect? 

Their lavishly illustrated revelations are greeted below the line with a load of derogatory comments about the Daily mail.

Here’s an indication of what’s happening in Europe, and it’s not far from what’s happening here. This is not 1930s, remember.

The BBC has belatedly reported this: “Paris Plages: Tel Aviv invite prompts Palestinian protests.” 

“Every summer, the French capital turns the banks of the Seine into a makeshift beach known as Paris Plages and has this year devoted each day to a famous beach around the world.” 

Well, the Mayor, Anne Hidalgo has designated Thursday (today) Tel Aviv day. Needless to say the pro-Palestinian lobby are up in arms! 

Perhaps as a gesture to France’s beleaguered and dwindling Jews, the Mayor and her deputy have “courageously” stuck to their guns. The left wingers have plenty to say, citing the obvious to justify their outrage.

“Critics said the timing of the tribute to Tel Aviv was particularly ill-advised, coming after a Palestinian toddler burned to death in a 31 July arson attack in a West Bank village, suspected to be the work of Jewish extremists.” 

“Mayor Anne Hidalgo’s deputy, Bruno Julliard, said Israel’s critics should distinguish between “the brutal politics of the Israeli government and Tel Aviv, a progressive city”

Defending Israel is not what this is about. Not at all.  “I could never regard a city as responsible for the policies of a government” says the mayor.  “To do so would be to show contempt for ...democracy”

It’s solely about Tel Aviv, because it’s gay-friendly and everyone likes falafels.

I would contend that over the years the BBC has systematically helped create a kind of united hatred of the Israeli government. The BBC's ‘half a story’ policy has been irreparably damaging. In fact fatal.

It no longer matters whether reality is pointed out or not. The BBC ignores its critics and behaves as if it’s infallible.

 Jeremy Corbyn can be hand in glove with virulent antisemites and his supporters don’t turn a hair. 

It’s hardly surprising that Israelis have given up any hope of a sympathetic hearing. The demonisation has gone too far. There’s no turning back.

*******

Listen to Mobeen's piece The Corbyn Effect at 22:00 on Thursday on BBC Radio 4's The Report.

"Great result unless you're poor / old / vulnerable / a single parent / not obsessed with money. Well done"

Just another one for the collection (found because he's got a documentary on Radio 4 today)...

"All opinions expressed are personal and not linked to the BBC", says the BBC's Mobeen Azhar.

In that spirit, here's Mobeen of the BBC's reaction to the general election result in May (purely personal, not linked to the BBC, of course - despite him mentioning the BBC in his Twitter blurb):

Great result unless you're poor / old / vulnerable / a single parent / not obsessed with money. Well done #selfishBritain #GE15

— Mobeen Azhar (@Mobeen_Azhar) May 8, 2015

What the terrorists want

When Craig and I first imagined this blog we envisaged a lively below-the-line commentariat, with brilliant ideas being batted back and forth good-humouredly.  No we didn’t. We thought we’d be plagued by trolls, antisemites and fools. Maybe the absence of frantic and furious btl interactivity is a jolly good thing.

I can’t remember why I started this, but I intended to apologise for the recent paucity of posts on this blog. Events seem to have prevented both of us from posting. While I was out of action someone stole my thoughts. Well, not just one person, several. 

I’m not the only one who wanted to ask David Cameron and Theresa May, if IS / DAESH / ISIL /ISIS is nothing to do with Islam, how about Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Al Shebab, Islamic Jihad, the Al Qaeda affiliate that just went berserk in Mali and the Jew-stabbing loonies in Israel --- how about them? Are they anything to do with Islam? Or not? Let’s be clear, as the politicians say.

Melanie Phillips and many others voiced similar thoughts. Who believes IS and all the rest of them have nothing to do with Islam? No-one. No. One. No-one’s fooled, so  stop it. Stop being so silly.

*******

I see Nick Cohen has been addressing the vexed but hypothetical question of life after the BBC. He fears that ‘the right’ is plotting to deprive us of our national treasures, like Bake-off and the Archers, and the left will never forgive them. “Never mind a little bit of bias” he says, “we can’t all be perfect.”

*******

Then there was another bizarre Question Time. See Douglas Murray.  Mehdi of “cattle” fame was on again.

I actually marvel at everyone’s superior insight in grasping  ‘what the terrorists want‘. Knowing exactly what this is and depriving them of it is the way to go, apparently. One of several ‘things the terrorists want’ is for us to take measures to prevent them from carrying out more atrocities, so we mustn’t. We must keep on living our merry, laissez faire, happy go lucky, western lives as though nothing has happened. That’s the way to stand up to the terrorists. Also, they want us to bomb them, so we mustn’t. Mustn’t let them win.

Of course, the “We love death as you love life” mantra is a tough one because if it’s sincere, well, they’ve already won. It’s  the ultimate stopper. Un-winnable for us. 

Oddly enough (silly me) I had been thinking that what the nothing-to-do-with-Islam terrorists really really want is a caliphate: world-wide pure Islam where no creativity, musicality, or any kind of independent thought can interfere with a proper Muslim lifestyle. The terminal suppression of humanity is all they crave, in an ideal state.   

The deterrent effect of gruesome punishments, (limb-amputations, being thrown off tall buildings, being beheaded or stoned to death) will guide the Proper Muslim on the trouble-free journey to paradise. Obedience and total submission, what’s not to like? 

*******

As the three sisters who ran away to join the jihad said, we want our children to grow up knowing the real Islam and “to be brought up as Proper Muslims”. 

David Cameron might want to put them straight about that. 

BTW, I heard that on the radio. BBC radio 4 as it happens. Thursday 19th November at 8pm.    Paris: Could it happen here?  With Edward Stourton.

Contributors:  Sabbiyyah Pervez, Mobeen Azhar,,Fayaz Rizvi, Secunder Kermani,  Producer: Sally Abrahams. 

 Yes, it could happen here, they say. British Muslims feel frustrated. They’re aiming for global war.  

Ed Stourton treated the relatively banal observations from British Muslim journalists as pearls of wisdom.  As far as I was concerned nothing new emerged from that half-hour, apart from the fact that one of Lee Rigby’s killers had “Daddy issues”  -  

don’t we all?

*******

I thought Ezra Levant’s video on Daphne Anson’s blog summed it up.

“Apart from very basic facts, there’s almost nothing you can take at face value from the MSM.”   

Daniel Pipes says terrorist attacks like the one in France push ordinary citizens to the right, towards embracing national security, restricting immigration, especially Muslim immigration; but he predicted that it would push the official people - what he called “the four ‘P’ professionals” - (Politicians, the Press, Police and Professors) in the opposite direction. 

To maintain their worldview they’ll have to go even further to the left, to demonise as racists anyone who criticises Muslim migrants; to introduce censorship laws, not to stop Imams, but to stop those who criticise Muslim Imams; to open the floodgates to even more migrants.

I always thought that being ‘right’ meant you had a moustache and you hated Jonny foreigner whom you might refer to as a wog or a darkie. You believed in corporal and capital punishment and you had sharp creases in your trousers.

I’m not that. I’m shocked shocked that I’m thought of as ‘on the right’. (Not in the right.)

That’s why I’m supposedly trying to destroy the BBC, and why I’ll never be forgiven. Only I’m not, but what I really, really want is the BBC to properly reflect my views as well as theirs. I’d like the BBC to be what it’s supposed to be. Reliable, balanced, truthful, accurate, topical, grown-up. 

Maybe the BBC think they “know what the right wants”, and they’re determined not to let us win. They won’t change, because that would be a victory for us. Above all, they mustn’t let us win. 

Is this war?

Let's not bomb Luton

This house is divided over Syria. (chez Sue, not the HoC) One side says bombing ISIS may not be perfect but it’s a start. The other side is sorely tempted to offer the trusty old  internet cliche: “what could possibly go wrong”?

After the BBC’s misguided optimism over the Arab Spring (which should have indicated that your shiny new Arab World was not full of right-on pro-libertarian dudes whose passionate desire for western-style democracy was only thwarted by the tyrants) and taking into consideration David Cameron’s stubborn delusion that “ISIL” has nowt to do with Islam, (which should indicate that the PM and the Home Secretary haven’t got much of a clue about Islam) the establishment’s utter failure to come to terms with reality does not inspire confidence in their plans for dealing with it. 

On the other hand, ‘cutting off the head of the snake’ has a very definite appeal. But what then? Will we have to start all over again, when Al Qaeda, Al Nusra Front, Islamic Jihad, Boko Haram and all the other nothing-to-do-with-Islam jihadis start flexing their muscles?  I demand a list from David Cameron specifying precisely which groups have anything to do with Islam, and which have not.

One thing about the anti-bombing argument is potentially heartening, which is the gradual recognition by the anti-war brigade that the terrorists’ tactic of cosily embedding themselves with innocent civilians throws up a dilemma. A little lightbulb is flickering on and off in the distance. If the anti-war crowd can grasp the implications of this fundamental moral dilemma, then they might be close to understanding what Israel is facing. 

Maybe when they’re seeing their countrymen being stabbed with kitchen implements or mown down in their hundreds they might get it. That is, they would if they weren’t immune to logic.

Kitchen implements

Nevertheless, they might be asking themselves whether that unsportsmanlike tactic can, or should, prevent all retaliatory activities whenever and wherever they are employed? For how long? in perpetuity? Till the end of time?

In other words, does the human shield manoeuvre automatically ensure victory for the bad guys? Or is there a point where the bad outweighs the good?

They might decide that innocent civilians caught up in this way are hostages, and in effect already sacrificed. Life as human ransom can’t be much fun. They are in jeopardy if they do and in jeopardy if they don’t, if you think about it.

What does Jeremy Corbyn’s “political” answer entail?  Bribery? Appeasement? Capitulation? Human sacrifice? A world-wide Caliphate? How does he propose this political solution would be achieved? 

Go on, tell us. Give us the answer, do.

I noticed that even Corbyn has started using the word “Jihadi” in a pejorative tone of voice. Does he extend that disapproval to his ‘friends” or is it just for the particular Jihadis of ISIS, the criminals who have nothing-to-do-with Islam?

I see that David Cameron’s bombing campaign would be part of a broader approach, which is tantalisingly close to saying something. But what? Is he going to tackle the enemy within? Are the extremists in, say Luton, or the Rotherham, Oxford, Bradford, etc etc  nothing-to-do-withs part of the strategy? 

Rod Liddle has got himself into trouble for making a flippant suggestion. (It’s a good thing I’m unimportant. It’s tough being flippant, as anyone who’s a hostage to their own flippancy will attest)

If anyone reading this is wondering what it has to do with the BBC, let me remind you of Craig’s previous post. It seems that the BBC is complicit in a kind of  ‘no-platform’ / ‘safe-space’ scenario of its own. The above was a preamble to this.

One of our commenters has mentioned Sarah AB’s latest post on Harry’s Place concerning Maryam Namazie, which addresses a more overt manifestation of the same thing, namely trying to silence people you disagree with by foul means. 

If our universities and our national broadcaster follow this insidious pattern of ‘no-platforming’  with the aim of silencing vociferous opponents of radical Islam in the UK, no amount of bombing campaigns in Syria are going to solve the problem.

Everyone accepts that the media wields enormous power and influence. It can edit interviews, emote, select and propagandise to its heart’s content while the truth is slowly putting its boots on and before people start noticing that something sinister is going on. The Conservatives have been subjected to a little of this themselves, so they should realise that some of society’s current  problems are exacerbated by irresponsible conduct from some of the BBC’s ignorant and immature employees. 

Should the BBC bosses give free reign to Anne-Marie Tomchak and Mobeen Azhar to edit material, cherry pick from it, and chat about it in negative terms when the unfortunate target is no longer present and unable to defend him/herself? 

Maryam Namazie recounts her experience at Goldsmiths on her website and intends to post a video of the disruptive and thuggish antics of male members of Goldsmith’s Islamic Society. 

Further evidence of the cognitive dissonance that has polluted academia is illustrated here: (H/T EoZ)

An American academic who belongs to Jews for Justice for Palestinians has penned a hurtful reply to an email she received from an Israeli girl. 13 year old Shachar Rabinovitch had approached her on the topic of ‘the history of the domestication of horses’, Ms. Lavine’s area of expertise.  

As a former Cambridge researcher Dr. Levine must have taken some of her ‘facts’ from the BBC.  Apart from her appallingly insensitive, insulting and inappropriate response to a 13 year-old child, Dr. Marsha Levine has further disgraced herself by setting out her reasons for belonging to this organisation:

“The violence against Palestinians never stops”, the Cambridge-based former academic said. “The people who live in Gaza cannot get education, health, water. What does it say about Jews that they support that? Jews have turned themselves into monsters.”

If any of the inaccuracies in the above originated from the BBC, then the BBC should be obliged, under its charter, to correct them. We can find the truth elsewhere, but why should we have to? 

The jury’s still out on the bombing, but very clearly something must be done. 

It all hinges on the recognition that the flippant remark “we might as well bomb Luton” ... no, to be precise:  “We’d be as well off bombing Luton as Syria” refers to the futility of bombing ISIS in Syria without addressing the enemy within. It wasn’t a straightforward call to bomb our own democratically elected mini-caliphate.

Let’s not forget, mass immigration from the third world was deliberately encouraged by the Blair/Brown Labour party to keep them in power in perpetuity, and as they must have said at the time “what could possibly go wrong?”

Interruption (Craig): Rod Liddle's fiesty encounter with Three Counties Radio can he heard at 2:18:10 here.

Rod gives presenter Justin Dealey and reporter Gareth Lloyd both barrels - and when you listen to their absurd setting-up of the whole thing you'll well understand why.

You really will be missing out if you don't listen to it!