Appearances can be deceptive

The BBC it seems have decided to make a judgement call (again) and have instructed their propaganda wing journalists not to mention certain facts or details about a Mr Abu Qatada the guy accused of being Osama Bin Laden’s right hand man. Apparently we’re not to be told he’s an extremist and to avoid pictures showing him as overweight (tricky that he’s definitely a bit of a porker)

Mail.

BBC journalists have been told not to call hate preacher Abu Qatada an ‘extremist’.
Using such a term to describe the man once called ‘Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man in Europe’, is making a ‘value judgment’ and should be avoided, bosses have said.
The corporation’s managers have insisted he should be described as ‘radical’, according to meeting notes seen by the Telegraph.
Journalists were also advised not to use images that suggest the preacher is overweight, the paper says.
The guidance was issued at the BBC newsroom’s 9.00am editorial meeting yesterday, chaired by a senior manager, Andrew Roy.
According to notes of the meeting, seen by The Daily Telegraph, journalists were told: ‘Do not call him an extremist – we must call him a radical. Extremist implies a value judgement.’

I don’t believe that the BBC should ever withhold the facts although I can cite several examples of when they have, just google the Biased BBC site for a never ending litany of them. But in this instance I believe the BBC are right not to call this man an extremist, though probably not for the reasons the BBC chose to do so. A Washington Times article from 2010 will tell you why I think this…

Nearly one-third of Muslim college students in Britain support killing in the name of religion, while 40 percent want to live under Islamic law, according to a secret cable from the U.S. Embassy in London that reviewed public polling data and government population predictions.
A survey of 600 Islamic and 800 non-Islamic students at 30 universities found that 32 percent of the Muslims believed in religious killing, while only 2 percent of non-Muslim students felt religious murder was justified, the cable said, referring to a poll conducted by the Center for Social Cohesion.
The embassy cable, released by the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks, said the same survey revealed that 54 percent of Muslim students want to be represented by an Islamic-based political party.

You see, I believe that Abu Qatada’s views are actually pretty much mainstream with younger Muslims in their communities, whether this is simply as the young do a rejection of their elders views as kids often do or symptoms of a greater malaise that Islamic beliefs have upon people I’m not sure, but 32% who believe that killing in the name of their religion is justified is a pretty scary number particularly as universities are supposed to expose young people to a wide variety of views and people.Nor do I believe the term radical should be used either for exactly the same reasons, Abu Qatada’s views are simply that of the Quran and Hadiths and applied under Shariah for dealing with non believers. As I posted in the comments of my previous post

Under Sharia law:
There is no freedom of religion
There is no freedom of speech
There is no freedom of thought
There is no freedom of artistic expression
There is no freedom of the press
There is no equality of peoples-a non-Muslim, a Kafir, is never equal to a Muslim
There are no equal rights for women
Women can be beaten
A non-Muslim cannot bear arms
There is no equal protection under Sharia for different classes of people. Justice is dualistic, with one set of laws for Muslim males and different laws for women and non-Muslims.
Our Constitution is a man-made document of ignorance, jahiliyah, that must submit to Sharia
There is no democracy, since that means that a non-Muslim is equal to a Muslim
Non-Muslims are dhimmis, third-class citizens
There is no Golden Rule
There is no critical thought
All governments must be ruled by Sharia law
Unlike common law, Sharia is not interpretive, nor can it be changed.

So whilst the BBC believe, or rather what the Mail believes the BBC are up too in hiding what Qatada is, the BBC are actually presenting him as a mainstream Muslim, which sadly he appears to be. Though the BBC and the MSM do have form for hiding Islamic activities such as the trial of 47 alleged Muslim paedophiles in the ongoing trial in Liverpool with it’s media blackout in full force.

Appearances can be deceptive, the BBC wants to hide the truth about Qatada, in this instance at least, they appear to be giving us the truth however accidental this might be.

9 comments for “Appearances can be deceptive

  1. February 8, 2012 at 4:28 pm

    “…and to avoid pictures showing him as overweight (tricky that he’s definitely a bit of a porker)…”

    WAS a bit of a porker. The Beeb insist this instruction to show a more recent photo is because he’s lost weight & is necessary ‘for accuracy’. Personally I think it’s because that photo they keep using shows a most unattractive buck-toothed sneer of contempt, and the Beeb would rather a less infuriating photo…

  2. Stadtler
    February 8, 2012 at 7:42 pm

    In Beeb-world, the only extremists are Israel and the EDL.

    All others are paid up members of ‘The Oppressed’ and require us to understand their cause and reach out to them.

  3. Radical Rodent
    February 8, 2012 at 7:45 pm

    …the trial of 47 alleged Muslim paedophiles…

    Actually, there is a certain logic to this, as any alleged paedophiles do tend to be tried by media; the principle of innocent until proven guilty holds no sway with the MSM – witness the recent case of a young baby whose death was apparently caused by (amongst other injuries) rape; there were many on the blogosphere who would have strung up the parents. Nothing more has been said about that case, so I have no idea what happened, but the drift is the same – had the MSM had their way, it is possible innocent people could have been metaphorically (or even actually!) stoned to death.

    Should the outcome be “guilty”, then there has to be a suitably loud outcry as there would have been for any indigenous citizen. However, I do doubt that will happen.

    • February 8, 2012 at 8:45 pm

      I wonder what you made of all the publicity around the Lawrence case then…

    • February 9, 2012 at 5:47 am

      On the baby case, the last I heard via the Kent ‘Echo’ was that he’d made a good recovery and been released from hospital to foster parents while ‘enquiries continue’.

      On the other matter, a blog on it yesterday at ‘The Slog’ was taken down ‘on legal and journalistic advice’ and a commenter at my site reports that a question about it on ‘Yahoo Answers’ was similarly nuked within minutes by the admins… 🙄

  4. Mudplugger
    February 8, 2012 at 8:51 pm

    Does anyone have notes of the meeting when the BBC instructed all their in-house agents to refer to the EU only in the most glowing, deferential and positive terms ? I’d pay good money to get hold of that one.

  5. nisakiman
    February 9, 2012 at 10:22 pm

    “BBC journalists have been told not to call hate preacher Abu Qatada an ‘extremist’…”

    I assume that they will be extending the same courtesy to the leadership of the EDL and the BNP from now on.

    • February 10, 2012 at 3:53 am

      Not only them. If Abu Qatada can’t be called an extremist because it’s a value judgement then surely the same logic applies to those CAGW sceptics some at the Beeb sneeringly dismiss as ‘climate change deniers’ (despite nobody denying that there’s a climate and that it’s always changed). Geese, gander, etc.

Comments are closed.