Rushdie has time to reconsider, BBC points out
This is the worst yet. Tendentious manipulative hostile language in every line. It defies belief. The damn BBC seems to be convinced that Rushdie committed a crime.
Salman Rushdie’s knighthood has provoked protests around the Islamic world and a diplomatic row. So how was the decision made, and why did no-one appear to consider the consequences?
See? There it is again – the knighthood ‘provoked’ protests. No it fucking didn’t – some mindless zealots and some political thugs keen to distract attention from their own real malfeasance decided to make a fuss; Salman Rushdie’s knighthood didn’t provoke anything. And what does ‘consider the consequences’ mean? Predict that mindless zealots would blow their tops again and that therefore an otherwise reasonable and desirable act should not be performed, because it’s always good to do what mindless zealots demand? What a stupid question. Why didn’t the BBC consider the consequences of publishing this horrible article?
The lengthy process involved makes it all the more surprising to critics that little consideration was given to a likely backlash.
Somebody should get a damn good thrashing, yes? The critics are quite right, yes?
[I]n Sir Salman’s case it looks as if his cheerleaders were the English branch of Pen, an international writers’ group.
Cheerleaders. Girly, overexcited, useless – not sober adults who seriously think Rushdie is at least as deserving of a K as Iqbal Sacranie, who said death was too good for him, was.
His book, The Satanic Verses, was seen as so offensive to Muslims that he was forced into hiding, under threat of death.
Seen by whom? Forced by whom? Threat of death from whom? What’s with all the passive voice and the anonymity? The mealy-mouthed belly-up excusing of a dictator putting out a hit on a citizen of a foreign country? I don’t suppose the BBC talked about Pinochet in this hyper-tactful way; why does it talk about Khomeni this way?
And then we get to Conservative MP Stewart Jackson.
“Salman Rushdie was subjected to one of the most famous death sentences in the 20th Century. If the senior officers of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office were not able to use their knowledge of the Islamic world to consider the likely ramifications of this decision, then I’m extremely concerned.”
It wasn’t a death sentence, because Khomeini had no jurisdiction over Salman Rushdie; it was a contract, a hit, an incitement to murder. It’s staggering to see a Tory MP dressing up a mob hit in that way.
His objections to Sir Salman’s knighthood do not stop there. “He’s only semi-resident in this country and his books are rubbish, tedious and without literary merit. There’s no question that we can rescind the award, it would make us look weak and it’s not for Britain to kow-tow to extremists but perhaps it would be appropriate for Salman Rushdie to make the decision not to accept this award,” said Mr Jackson. That seems unlikely given Sir Salman’s initial reaction that was he “thrilled and humbled to receive this great honour”. He does, however, have time to reconsider since he is unlikely to be formally presented with the award by the Queen until the end of the year.
Thus Jenny Percival makes it clear that she thinks he should damn well step up to the plate.
Foul stuff.
Islamabad – A hard-line Pakistani parliamentarian and head of a religious political party on Wednesday demanded a 2sir” title for Osama bin Laden, the leader of the al-Qaeda terrorist network, in retaliation for Britain knighting author Salman Rushdie.
“Muslims should confer the ‘sir’ title and all other awards on bin Laden and Mullah Omar in reply to Britain’s shameful decision to knight Rushdie,” Sami ul Haq, leader of the pro-Taliban Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam, said in a statement, referring also to the leader of the Taliban.
“Europe and Western nations are intentionally pushing Muslims towards extremism by awarding a nefarious person,” Haq said. The hard-line leader, who is also a parliament member, called upon the Pakistani government to withdraw its support for the US-led war on terrorism.
Bring on the cheerleader!
Well if it is such a given that it is all Rushdie’s fault, why stop at saying he should refuse the honour? Why not just round him up and escort him to either Iran or Pakistan for an execution? Surely lasting peace and quiet will once more descend upon the muslim world and the home counties?
I’d love to see one of these people publically engage with Rushdie. Or Hitchens.
Sometimes I think that certain Muslim “leaders” are trying to scare us with their lunacy.
And I don’t quite get why people care so much about whom the UK establishment knights. If GWB “cowboyed” or whatever Fred Phelps, I think I’d be hard pressed to work up much idignation. I would take it more as just another black mark on his administration. After all, George Tenet (ex-CIA director) got the Medal of Freedom.
But for these Brits to suggest that perhaps Rushdie ought to refuse the award? Are they nuts? What side are they on?
I still have bitter memories of the lack of outrage when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel (fucking) Peace Prize in 1973.
Thought experiment: 1973: Mao Zedong declares that self-respecting, peace-loving leftists ought to murder Kissinger.
What side are they on? Well that’s just it – apparently they’re on the side of people who are elated by calls to murder novelists for writing a novel they find annoying. I’m just baffled. I knew there was a lot of weird twisted groveling to Islam over there, but I wouldn’t have predicted this. I am just seriously baffled.
I am equally baffled by this, as I am by the question of why the BBC still has a high reputation for journalism among thinking people. I’ve considered it gutter journalism with a “received British” accent for years.
Perhaps all of you over there have the same opinion, but a lot of Anglophiles over in the ex-colonies of North America still consider it worth paying attention to. That accent just floors them, I guess.
I don’t watch the BBC on TV, but do occasionally take in some radio, which once in a while is somewhat educational. Years ago, I used to listen to a lot of it — up until I couldn’t take that little opening theme anymore. What was that late-baroque(?) piece of music they played at the top of each hour? How I grew to hate it!
Oh yeah. Sometimes I play video from the internet which was produced by the BBC. Very recently, I watched/listened to all 3 parts of *What Happened to our Dream of Freedom?*, which I thought was quite good.
JonJ I gave up watching news on the beeb years ago I get my home news from sky,I think the b.b.c.has become both marxist and anti semetic in recent years and that is a shame!
Richard, if you think Murdoch’s Sky is better than the BBC, as bad as it is, then you really are deluded. “Marxist and anti-Semitic”? Jeezuskreistalmighty!
OB “It’s staggering to see a Tory MP dressing up a mob hit in that way.”
Actually, no it isn’t. Tories will always prefer authority over freedom. Such is their nature.
I have just heard the Hitch (on the BBC as it happens) make a very valid point. If the loons demanding that the knighthood be taken from Rushdie say that they speak for the worlds 1.5 billion Muslims (and that is exactly what they claim) then they cannot subsequently turn round and claim that the islamists do not speak for the majority of Muslims. Either Muslims speak with one voice or they do not.
Doug have ever seen Sky news? whoever owns it does not seem to efect Sky news winning news channel of the year award every year!Rockingham.Looks like Hitch nailed that point realy well,but if correct it is quite scary.
Doug the beeb recently did an internal reveiw of its news outlet and the conclusion was that the B.B.C. had a liberal pro arab bias and also a group think mentality,so if that is what they think of themselves you can bet it is 10 times worse than that!The worst example was their mid east reporters teary eulogy of thug Arafat,after his last journey by helicopter from his compound.
Whoever wrote that BBC piece ought to be ashamed of themselves.
There IS a comments section to contact the Beeb, but is it worth it?
The camel-corps Tory really reminds one of why NuLab is in power, though, doesn’t he?
The BBC has this piece:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6224702.stm
Excellent stuff!
( Hat-tip to the NSS )
Yes, good stuff – but notice the equivocation – ex-muslims in inverted commas as if such a thing is somehow unthinkable. And as to how the council is decribed –
“The Council of ex-Muslims believes it represents the views of a majority of secular-minded Muslims in Europe.”
Now would the Beeb say that the MCB ‘believes that it represents all British Muslims’? I doubt it.
In fact they have decribed the MCB thusly: “[The MCB]is seen as representing mainstream Muslim opinion”, as Ophelia might say, seen by whom?
The difference may be subtle, but it is invidious none the less.
“Whoever wrote that BBC piece ought to be ashamed of themselves.”
Yes.
But they won’t be. They’ll be proud of their “understanding”.
This story is utterly, utterly insane.
However unpalatable it may be to some people, the BBC is still the world’s best news-gathering organisation. Sorry JonJ, but having had prolonged exposure to the US media, there’s no question about it – where else do you get your basic news, hmm? Sky (falls over laughing)? Fox? MSNBC? A totally-unbiased-newspaper (falls off chair and hurts self this time)? The Blogosphere (oooh..nooo..not again!)? UK Ch4 evening news is the best single show, but ITN’s budget cuts mean they haven’t got the scale of coverage…does anyone else here watch the BBC world news on Beeb4? Or listen to world service (now that’s good – but also budget-stricken)??
Anyway, back to point –
Auntie’s editorial standards, however, clearly need a good dose of “fact me till I fart” (C.Morris)
Still, anyone who thinks it’s coverage is “Marxist” without providing solid evidence…oh, wait, it was Richard. ok.
So, quick question – who else here has expressed their “outrage” at the coverage of the “outrage” to the BBC yet?
Anything less just smacks of pointless whingeing, surely?
:-)
In the original Rushdie affair, the Labour Party failed as abjectly as Mrs Thatcher’s government and the first President Bush. Some Labour MPs called for Sir Salman’s novel The Satanic Verses to be banned. Keith Vaz, MP for Leicester East, was the most vocal figure.
Marie-Therese, I am pleased to see that I am not the only person who reads Oliver Kamm’s blog!
http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2007/06/suporting_sir_s.html
I knew there was a lot of weird twisted groveling to Islam over there The thing is, Ophelia, lots of us, especially those living in London, have friends who are Muslim but non-fundamentalist. It doesn’t “feel” that much different to having friends who are C of E. Moderate, private, even wishy-washy Muslims of the kind that much of the world doesn’t seem to believe exist.
Stewart Jackson has a small majority in a seat for which about 6% of people self-identify as Muslim ie his comments may be purely political; but he may also have Muslim friends. His CV wouldn’t particularly lead me to expect him to consider the issues in a philosophical way, rather than a personal or political way. (He obviously hasn’t read ‘Midnight’s Children’).
I am not normally one to suspect a conspiracy, but it’s impossible for me to believe that the FCO didn’t know that there would be an outcry about this from the loonies. My guess is that for some abstruse diplomatic reason they wished to express their displeasure (to Pakistan, I’m guessing) and Rushdie’s knighthood was just a handy marker.
A quick Google suggests to me that at one point, Jenny Percival was Royal correspondent for Sky. Doubtless she is a subtle analyst of the political scene. The quality of journalism on the BBC website is usually pretty crap once you get down to the detail. IMHO, the speed with which the world moves these days means that there is no available daily source of news which is really considered.
Mm, I also noticed that the CoEM was described as ‘believing’ that it represented the views of ‘secular minded Muslims’, which I think is good cautious language to use, but I doubt it would be used consistently. But does the CoEM think it represents ‘secular minded Muslims’? That doesn’t seem to be synonymous with ex-Muslim to me.
Calling the BBC ‘Marxist’ is just plainly absurd. I would broadly support it. It is certainly biased against Israel and towards the left, and it has slips in standards, but broadly speaking I think it does a good job of trying to balance its coverage – cf. the internal review cited by Richard.
I agree with Andy about the bias in commercial news outlets being worse than the BBC – when the Lebanon thing was going on last summer I watched both the BBC and CNN coverage and while they were both biased (anti- and pro-Israeli respectively), I think the BBC gave the more thorough coverage and at least looked to balance the bias. As for Sky News, they gave Richard Littlejohn his own discussion program, which I think speaks for itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewart_Jackson
“In the House of Commons, he […] is also currently Vice Chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Friends of Islam. He is also currently Chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Pakistan.”
Why was the latter fact mentioned in the article but not the former?
“If the senior officers of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office were not able to use their knowledge of the Islamic world to consider the likely ramifications of this decision, then I’m extremely concerned.”
Might I ask – what does knowledge of the Islamic world have to do with British decision – making on those who receive awards for literary awards?
It is conspicuous that Mr Jackson is only mouth-piecing the things that he is theoretically meant to say. The drivel he spouts on about in all likelihood is prepared and goes with the job description as chairperson of the all-party group on Pakistan.
He believes the decision to give Salman Rushdie a deserved will exacerbate tensions with the Pakistani government at a time when it is struggling to deal with political uncertainty and terrorism.
Diplomacy, I say, in all its glory. Is it not, as it were; the art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations – using, to the utmost, the skills in handling affairs without arousing hostility. Tacky Tact!
Mr Jackson, has by all – to be seen- to be grovelling. Erm, I mean, swimming in the Indus waters.
Not only has Salman Rushdie since 1988 been hanging on to dear life. He has also – by inheritance – been all his life clinging on to rushDIE.
But the salMAN is in no RUSH to DIE.
Yeah, Rockingham, I spotted Oliver Kamm’s link in the news section of B&W. Very interesting indeed. I learn a lot about current affairs from B&W’s news bulletin as well as I might add – the comments here.
Channel 4 news is definitely the best individual news programme, although it isn’t as good as it was, but then I guess I’m already a flaming anti-Semitic Marxist, so I would think that.
The other news organisations, including the BBC, are pretty variable, with a tendency to pander to the lowest common denominator, which has nothing to do with political bias per se.
“Years ago, I used to listen to a lot of it — up until I couldn’t take that little opening theme anymore. What was that late-baroque(?) piece of music they played at the top of each hour? How I grew to hate it”!
Doug,
Would the following be the music that you grew to hate?
“The UK Theme was created in 1973 at the suggestion of Ian McIntyre, the then-new controller of Radio 4. He commissioned Fritz Spiegl to produce an arrangement of traditional British melodies to signify Radio 4 as a service encompassing all of the UK. Austrian-born Spiegl came to the UK as a refugee in 1939, after his parents fled Nazi persecution of Jews following the Anschluss”.
If it is, luck should have it, for you – as it has, by the beeb been scrapped. Do not say, though, that you have not been warned if you should decide to wander down any given British highway St, supermarket with the name ASDA written overhead. As therein your ears will be blessed with the UK theme.
The UK Theme wasn’t played every hour;
if it was the BBC World Service, then
it was most likely Lilli Burlero.
_
“Vice Chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Friends of Islam”
The what???
“The thing is, Ophelia, lots of us, especially those living in London, have friends who are Muslim but non-fundamentalist…Moderate, private, even wishy-washy Muslims of the kind that much of the world doesn’t seem to believe exist.”
I believe they exist, potentilla! I’m always pointing out that it’s not all Muslims who get frantic about cartoons or a few pages in a novel.
But I’m not sure why that would explain the weird twisted groveling? (I take you to be saying it sort of does, since you quoted that bit? Correct me if I’m wrong!) I would see it the other way – that friendship with non-fundamentalist Muslims would make one all the more irritated by all this groveling, because it’s an implicit insult to those n-f Muslims. See Hari Kunzru’s comment. I think it’s genuinely insulting to assume that all Muslims get outraged by trivia that’s none of their business – and to assume that all Muslims think universal assent to the tenets of their religion is mandatory, so that no one on the planet is allowed to ‘blaspheme’ the prophet.
“Now would the Beeb say that the MCB ‘believes that it represents all British Muslims’? I doubt it.”
It wouldn’t and it bloody doesn’t – it says the opposite.
“The difference may be subtle, but it is invidious none the less.”
I think it’s not all that subtle, and I also think – quite strongly – that the more subtle it is the more invidious it is – so it’s not a case of none the less but all the more. That’s why this stuff makes me so sick – because it is so covert, so comparatively subtle: that means most people don’t notice it, and it succeeds in leaving the impression that Rushdie did something terribly wrong. I bet you anything people who’ve been reading BBC and/or Guardian coverage of this subject now have a strong impression that Rushdie ‘provoked’ someone, on purpose, and half deserves all this opprobrium.
Sorry, O, I had just come from reading Barefoot Bum on the world of Islam…..I don’t think he believes they exist, but i don’t have the energy to argue about it with him.
I think it does explain some of the weird twisting grovelling; explain in the sense of enlighten as to the cause of, not justify. It’s the “us-and-them” thing again. If you have some Muslim friends and already spend some time feeling indignant on their behalf because they have been stopped by the police or glared at in shops or something (very probable in London), you quite likely have a sort of Muslims-are-unfairly-got-at-because-of-the-sins-of-the-few feeling and knighting Salman Rushdie might look life deliberate provocation in the sense that it would obviously stir up the few again and make your friends’ lives that much more of a hassle. I’m not defending any of this logically, just saying it’s how some people think. “Think”. Lots of people don’t think, much.
(An aside; I also think a lot of people don’t warm to Rushdie because in his pictures he always looks rather sardonic or sneering. I only just found out from Wikipedia that this is due to a medical condition that makes it difficult for him to open his eyes properly, or did until he had surgery quite recently. I bet some people unconsciously do “think” that he is probably a provoking kind of person.)
Potentilla, I always thought that he looked like satan. Arched eyebrows and demonic beard. Just look at this picture:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6756149.stm
Mephistopheles lives!
Heh! I find Rushdie provoking in some ways myself. He does sometimes seem a good deal too pleased with himself.
Got it, about explaining.
About the BBC – it’s very far from all bad. Very far indeed. You’ll find a lot of highly useful articles via links right here – articles on persecution of women accused of being witches in India, on women and girls in Afghanistan, on women forbidden to touch the grain supplies during a famine in Niger – and on and on. Really excellent investigative stuff, in small towns in obscure bits of the Third World. Look at Flashback right now – it has two old articles on girls committing suicide in Afghanistan because their lives are such shit; and those articles contain links to more such articles.
No, the Beeb is terrific on that kind of thing, and other kinds of thing too. I think it’s godawful on this subject, and on the MCB and other UK-Muslim stuff (that article on Maryam’s new council is just dreadful), but that doesn’t mean it’s bad on everything.
“In 1990, a year after the fatwa, Rushdie wrote: “I feel as if I have been plunged, like Alice, into a world beyond the looking glass, where nonsense is the only available sense. And I wonder if I’ll ever be able to climb back through”.
With the latest brouhaha, one wonders if he will [for the rest of his life] live like a customary person.
The British are unsurprisingly petrified of the fall-out of all of this and are frantically beside themselves and all over the place in quest of dismal scapegoats. This is from my self-effacing perspective, for what it is worth. Britain disowns Salman Rushdie on one hand – but with the other, it is offering a knighthood.
So unreservedly woolly, hazy, obscure and ambiguous to say the least.
Mephistopheles live — and Bambi is not in a RUSHtoDIE? So says the Pudo Ghost-Rider anyway?!
Thanks, Adam and M-T O’L. “Lillibullero” was the tune that I couldn’t stand hearing anymore. So glad they dumped it.
An extra Lillibullero wiki tit-bit – which I think is very interesting.
“It is stated in a BBC’s article on its signature tune that the tune “started life as a jig with Irish roots, whose first appearance seems to be in a collection published in London in 1661 entitled ‘An Antidote Against Melancholy’, where it is set to the words “There was an old man of Waltham Cross”.” The lyrics refer to the Williamite war in Ireland 1689-91, which arose out of the Glorious Revolution. In this episode King James II abdicated and fled after an invasion of England by Dutch forces under William III. William was invited by Parliament to the throne. James II then tried to reclaim the crown with the assistance of France and his Catholic supporters in Ireland led by Richard Talbot, 1st Earl of Tyrconnell. His hopes of using Ireland to reconquer England was thwarted at the Battle of the Boyne in July 1690. The song ‘Lilliburlero’ puts words into the mouths of Irish Catholic Jacobites and satirizing their sentiments, pillories the supporters of the Catholic King James. It was said to have ‘sung James II out of three kingdoms’. The tune seems to have been known at the time of the English Civil War”.
World Service dropped Lillibullero? When? Damn, is nothing sacred?
(Figure of speech, naturally.)
In my younger days in remote tropical parts tuning in to that air was a reassuring moment. Not to mention being a memorable part of Tristram Shandy, Treasure Island and (I think) The Magus.
I’m whistling it as I type.
You’re glad they dumped it, Doug? What are you, some kind of godless commie?
Don: Not that I know of, but BBC 4’s “The UK Theme” by: Fritz Spiegl has – since 2006 been scrapped.
And everyone that won’t go to Mass
Lillibullero bullen a la
He will be turned out to look like an ass Lillibullero bullen a la
Refrain
Now the heretics all go down
Lillibullero bullen a la By Christ and St Patrick’s the nation’s our own.
I am famous for confusing people.
They dropped it quite a few years ago, Don — maybe 7 or 8. I have to assume you’re joking about regretting the fact. Not that it was bad — the first hundred or so times. But after a few thousand hearings, I despised it. Never did know what it was until today.
Godless? Definitely. Commie? Maybe.
“Mohammed Ijaz ul-Haq, was reported as having said that “if someone exploded a bomb on his body he would be right to do so unless the British government apologises and withdraws the ‘Sir’ title”.
How is one supposed to respect people of this bomb-mad mindset. Who think nothing of the sacredness of human life?
There is a huge gulf of misunderstanding between those of us who understand the meaning of free speech and those who think that mediaeval bigots’ right not to hear things they disagree with trumps it. Free speech is only ‘free’ about the margins. The normal uncontroversial stuff in the middle that no-one cares about has no need for laws protecting it (unless we allow the contentious bits to be stripped off the edges, leaving a newer and fresher margin exposed for the bigots and bluenoses to attack.)
For what It’s worth, the only book of Rushdie’s I’ve ever read is Haroun and the Sea of Stories. I tell you this: if I ever have children, it will be very prominent among the books I will buy for them. Absolutely one of the most wonderful tales I’ve read. He deserves a K for that alone.
Andy I cited the beebs own report on itself!Liberal,pro arab,and group thinking!
Marie-Therese O’ Loughlin wrote:
> Britain disowns Salman Rushdie on one hand – but with the other, it is offering a knighthood. So unreservedly woolly, hazy, obscure and ambiguous to say the least.
Marie-Therese, you sound as if you find it surprising that an entire nation fails to speak with a single voice! ;)
(Yikes! Do I really have to leave my mail address for the spam bots to harvest? Oh well…)
No, you don’t have to leave your email address!
Perhaps, I should have said “some” of the British. And with the other hand, “some” from the Government.
Does that sound like something you want me to post?
Sourced from: ralpress – Home.
“I hope the British High Commissioner is quick to point out to whoever he meets at Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry that not only is Salman Rushdie’s freedom of expression guaranteed under UK law, but is also enshrined within the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
I hope the British High Commissioner points out that Pakistan’s attempts to interfere with our citizens’ freedom of expression is intolerable.
I hope the British High Commissioner points out that people here in Britain worked long and hard for many centuries to gain the rights we have now, and that being asked to compromise them to protect religious sensitivity is perverse and intolerable.
I hope that the British High Commissioner points out that in Britain, all religious beliefs are parodied and even ridiculed on a regular basis (as are many political beliefs).. There is no case for favouring one set of religious sensitivities over another. Both our law and de facto constitution guarantee freedom of expression, and no one exercising this expression should be disbarred from official recognition or state honours. That another state should expect us to do so (especially one with such a lamentable human rights record) is both political and cultural interference, and is intolerable.
I hope the British High Commissioner points out that the comments reported yesterday made on the floor of the Pakistan parliament by Pakistan’s Religious Affairs Minister were tantamount to incitement of terrorist acts and were intolerable and criminally irresponsible”
I sincerely hope that the British High Commissioner makes it clear that we are a secular nation and that our secularity is not merely another competing strand of belief within our multi-cultural milieu, but is in fact the overarching and governing framework within which that milieu exists and is managed. Our framework is an expression of the majority will in this country, and is thus a democratic thing. The only method by which its fundamental nature should be changed is at the ballot box and the rights guaranteed by the governing framework are thus not up for negotiation or compromise on an issue-by-issue basis. If our national polity changed its fundamental character to suit either overseas, faith-derived sensitivity or the faith-derived sensitivity of a particular domestic group, then cultural Balkanisation and inevitable strife would be a serious and likely threat (and indeed, many claim that such is already occurring). I hope our commissioner points out that we have worked too hard, for too long, to allow that to happen.
Very well done indeed. I too – concur
Thank you, from a regular on this site I’ll take that as a complement. It was definitely a from-the-hip rant, but heartfelt and sincere nonetheless.
For the record, the post Marie-Therese quoted is at:
http://ralpress.org/post/373
But be warned, my blog contains a lot of facetious and self-indulgent fare. If you’re looking for incisive political and philosophical analysis and commentary, you’re far better off staying here.
Kudos from a USer, Roger. I especially liked this part: [W]e are a secular nation and … our secularity is not merely another competing strand of belief within our multi-cultural milieu, but is in fact the overarching and governing framework within which that milieu exists and is managed.
@Doug
Thanks for your kind words! There seems to be a tacit attempt to turn Britain into the cultural equivalent of an ‘airport waiting lounge’, where multiple cultures come and go without any being dominant. But this fashionable picture is nonsense of course. There is a dominant culture in the UK (as surely as there is an operator of every airport waiting lounge), and the pretence that the dominant, indigenous culture is simply another constituent part of the multicultural mix is wishful thinking by those who desire such a thing, and it flies in the face of the very obvious arithmetical facts. In fact, the only way such a wishful picture can be sustained is by the use of the accusation of ‘racism’ which is brought to bear on anyone who dares to shout ‘but the emperor is not wearing any clothes!’
Given that public accusations of racism are nearly as career-limiting and reputation-damaging as being convicted of sex crimes against children, it’s not surprising that, in public at least, people tread very carefully around the conveniently vague ‘philosophy’ of multiculturalism. Thanks to this, IMO, its excesses and nonsenses frequently go unchallenged.
Anyway, I’m so bloody pleased I found this site. I feel the will to live slowly returning.
What the multiculti types need to understand, so that they stop throwing around unjustified charges of racism, is that what we Enlightenment-oriented types are against are certain beliefs, usually faith-based ones. Beliefs, ideas and concepts don’t necessarily have anything to do with one’s genetic heritage. We are not racists precisely because we believe that our principles, ought to be applied universally, that they are the heritage of all humankind.
Richard –
please answer the following basic questions:
1) did YOU read the report, or rely upon 2nd-hand commentary?
2) please provide instances of Murdoch’s biggest-selling rag, The Sun, promoting highly negative criticism of him and/or his company? (hint – this might be a tough assignment – Private Eye regularly point out serious negative facts that Murdoch’s media all mysteriously fail to carry)
cheers.
oh, and btw – any government deciding that it doesn’t want to play ball with a foreign news agency is not in itself evidence of bias on the part of the agency. Apartheid-era south africa springs to mind as an example. not that i’m saying that israel=A-E S.A. of course, just making a fairly obvious point.
At least you made the effort to complain, though…more than some lazy mates of mine…
“Anyway, I’m so bloody pleased I found this site. I feel the will to live slowly returning.”
:- )
I feel so useful!
Andy the Israely goverment stopping co operation with the beeb came at the same time as it was being deluged with complaints about anti semetic coverage,as far as I remmember that is the time I made my complaint,as to Murdoc never being critisised in the sun,I wouldnt know I dont read the sun but Fox news picks on him and Fox tv.
Dear Richard,
Why do you keep ducking question 1?
And simply because there are many complaints (organised, perhaps?) does not make them right – see “Jerry Springer: The Opera” for details.
Fox is an irrelevance here in the UK, that’s why I aimed at Murdoch’s biggest outlet.
If you have evidence that shows that NewsCorp is as openly self-critical as the BBC, then please, share it with us…?
Andy I dont know whether news corp is more critical of itself than the beeb and I dont care.If I dont like what they say I dont buy the paper or turn of the channel,I am forced to pay for the beeb through taxation so the least I expect is unbiased reporting.
Richard,
Ok, I’m out. This is pointless. If you won’t answer a simple question, that’s up to you, but it undermines your position either by your being simply too lazy to do research to support your prejudices, or worse, deliberately ignoring the evidence because you fear it may challenge them.
So debating with you is a waste of everyone’s time.
I’ll know better in future!
“The wise man proportions his belief according to the evidence” David Hume
“I’ll know better in future!”
Andy – I think most of us realised
from very first appearance.
_
Adam –
Yeah, but it’s like with little kids – you feel obliged at least to try, ya know?
:-)
Andy I probably have had about 10% of the education you have had(I wasted my time learning four seperate trades in the constrution industry)yet you are the one who resorts to insult!the reason I didnt answer the question is because it is irelevant whether I have read it or not, bias is more often than not is in the eye of the beholder, so I would see the report if it was favourable to the beeb as a white wash or I would read the critical parts as a vindication of my veiw,just as you would!if you must know I didnt read the report but read commentary from both the left and right neither of which changed my veiw that the beeb has a left wing bias and also what really bothers me a pro arab bias that comes close to anti semetism in its news coverage, and what I consider blatant anti semetism in its commentary programs,For instance having people like Jasmine Brown and Bary Atwan(forgive the spelling)provide analysis on mid east afairs is like having Fred Phelps thoughts on a gay pride parade!
Richard,
..and so you fall into another error of your own assuming.
Read what I said to Adam again, a bit more carefully. “It’s LIKE with little kids”. If you choose to be piqued by that, fine, but why don’t you take that chip off yer shoulder for a second and consider this…
I’m a stay-at-home dad of 2 small boys. What I was talking about, and all parents will surely recognise, is the sense of perseverance-in-the-face-of-seeming futility-because-it-might-get-us-somewhere-in-the-end that ya have to get through with kids. I felt “obliged” to give you a fair try, a square go, rather than just right you off like, it appears, some other folk here have…
I admit I went fishing slightly, but your ego took the bait.
Oh, and I neither knew, nor cared, a jot about your (or anyone else’s onthis board) academic background – or lack thereof. Anyone can make a decent argument if they’re prepared to support it when challenged – hell, look at our well-qualified politicos for great examples of evidence-free, logically-flawed pronouncements!
:-)
You, on t’other hand, appear over-fond of bold-yet-unsubstantiated assertions, wilful misrepresentations of others’ arguments, and over-simplistic analyses that you cannot back up with relevant data.
Ho hum.
I’m sure all your assumptions about me are far more accurate…
:-)
Yeah get a job!
Sorry that was unecesary,you didnt hurt my ego mate, patronising responses from p.h.d.s tend to remind me that I have no formal education and that is a source of deep regret to me!on the subject of me dodging questions,I just re read your posts and note that you never answered me on the subject of anti semetism on the beeb?
Don: ” World Service dropped Lillibullero? When? Damn, is nothing sacred?”
Don’t panic, it’s still there (or perhaps back again). I hear it most (antipodean) nights.
I have a job – or is child-rearing & domestic management not a valid and socially-vital occupation?
:-)
Anti-semitism on the beeb – err..yes I did – I asked for hard data, not anecdotes/opinion. Hume, skeptical empiricism, all that kerfuffle. And I dealt with the suggestion that just because the Israeli government didn’t like ’em, they were anti-semitic.
Interestingly, our ex-Dear Leader doesn’t like the Beeb, but is, apparently, a big fan of Reuters, whose boss is, er, a big fan of his. Can’t draw any conclusions from that, but..?
I certainly haven’t gone anywhere near one, but PHD’s are often pretty meaningless in any wider context – DR. John Reid, perhaps? Or when the subject they’re in is dubious at best – “Dr.” Gillian McKeith (hohoho), theology doctorates, etc,etc.
Anyway, it’s never too late for us to go and buy a couple of phd’s off the web, surely?
Or becoming internet-ordained!
Might even be a tax-break in that one??
:-)
I am tempted to give an old fashioned answer but I have already had one sheelacking from the proprietor this week!