Baroness Warsi condemned the amount of coverage given to Choudary and other militant Islamists on the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 News.
The BBC was criticised for offering the radical preacher a slot on last night’s Newsnight programme on BBC2, in a decision branded ‘idiotic’, ‘irresponsible’ and ‘insensitive’.
The corporation has earlier released footage of Michael Adebolajo standing behind Choudary at a 2007 demonstration.
Baroness Warsi said: \”We all have a responsibility, including the media, not to give airtime to extremist voices – idiots and nutters who speak for no one but themselves.
Nutters beheading people in the streets is obviously bad. Those who spout the rhetoric that leads to such is similarly bad.
But neither hold a candle to politicians telling people who may or may not be featured in the media. We have this idea of a free press for a reason, see. Politicians were responsible, are responsible, for far more deaths than the occasional drummer boy vilely executed in public.
I\’ve said this before and no doubt I\’ll have to keep on saying it. Islamic militants are a danger to us each individually. But the danger to us as a whole, as a society, is in what the reaction to such nutters might be from the powers that be.
“I’ve said this before and no doubt I’ll have to keep on saying it. Islamic militants are a danger to us each individually. But the danger to us as a whole, as a society, is in what the reaction to such nutters might be from the powers that be.”
I wonder if people said that in Medina after Mo arrived. Were they right as well?
There sure do seem to be a lot of these fundamentalist Moslem idiots and nutters who speak for noone but themselves.
I disagree with Baroness Warsi from a different angle: we, joe public, need a better understanding of our enemy. For we are at war, but only one side is fighting yet. Pretending that each of these terrorist murders is a bizarre outlier that can’t be explained by the self-confessed religious motives of the murderers is only inviting more trouble.
And if most Moslems are peaceful, tolerant people who are strongly opposed to their violently fanatical co-religionists, we do them no favours by sticking our heads in the sand. You can’t expect to defeat extremism and hatred by being too afraid to speak of it openly.
Islam is no longer a religion. It is a violent political cult that wishes to destroy us in the West. We either start treating in the way we treated other violent political cults (such as Nazism) and destroy it, or it will destroy us.
Its indicative of the attitude the authorities have that these two animals are still alive. They should have been finished in the street. Thats the message that needs sending, not airlifting them to hospital (at our expense no less).
Pols are aloud to express opinions about what thing media oes
Allowed and does
@Luis: Politician are allowed to express their opinions, just like anyone else. But we can, and should, tell them to take their opinions and fuck off. Becuase if we don’t their opnions suffer from a nasty tendency to make it into law.
That God these two fanatics were just shot after hacking a soldier to pieces and didn’t chase a roll of cheese down a hill, otherwise they would have really been fucked then. No treatment for you, sonny.
What MattJ said. We have the right and perhaps the obligation to tell politicians what we think of their asinine ideas.
However I think TW is wrong about one thing. Politicians will not lead on this issue. They will follow. They will reflect their constituents wishes. Which, if these attacks continue, will not be very liberal.
We are not a particularly liberal set of people anyway. We inherited a liberal society but we are doing our best to get rid of that legacy. If these attacks keep up, we will just demand our politicians get rid of it a lot quicker.
A liberal society cannot survive this sort of terrorism. Look at Israel and the death of the Israeli Left and moderates. This terrorism is a direct product of our self-loathing and their barbaric religion. Which means it is going to go on and on and on.
It’s gratifying, if a little surprising, to see a conservative finally recognise that the root cause of all this is the grotesque religion that escaped from Judea two thousand years ago. It’s about time we rid ourselves of all three of its manifestations. Killing for God has had its day, I think.
I wholly agree with Tim’s views on politicians and censorship. However, politicians are not society’s only or even perhaps most influential agents. Censorship by broadcaster is perhaps the most insidious form we have at the moment.
Take for example Jim’s comment: ” Islam is no longer a religion. It is a violent political cult that wishes to destroy us in the West. We either start treating in the way we treated other violent political cults (such as Nazism) and destroy it, or it will destroy us.”
Now, the BBC allows Choudary on to spread his bile, but you can bet your arse Jim isn’t getting anywhere near a studio to express his views on Islam.
Ian B – “It-s gratifying, if a little surprising, to see a conservative finally recognise that the root cause of all this is the grotesque religion that escaped from Judea two thousand years ago.”
I am not sure I would put it quite like that. And anyway, I would say that given the strong Greek and Roman influence on Christianity, Judaism belongs with Islam in a separate branch from Christianity.
“It-s about time we rid ourselves of all three of its manifestations. Killing for God has had its day, I think.”
Well I think you are wrong for three reasons. One is that they are outbreeding you and will likely continue to do so. Although their fertility rates are declining, the secular will decline even further. The future belongs to those who turn up.
The second is that violence works. The non-violent, tolerant religions have been pushed out and exterminated by the less tolerant ones for a good part of those 2000 years. Think of the West 1000 years ago. Muslim rule in Spain did not cause the complete collapse of Christianity. But if the Muslims ruled France today, it would cause the complete collapse of atheism and secularism. Nice people give in. They do not die or suffer for their faith.
Third, evil is attractive. The most popular ideologies are always the most brutal and violent. We are losing the battle for the hearts and minds of our young males. That is not a surprise really. We offer them so little. Just wealth, peace and democracy.
The future does not belong to you. Alas it does not belong to me either as my branch of conservatism is determined to commit suicide too. It belongs to the beheaders.
Ian B, you know I think you’re a tool. So you won’t be surprised to find, as a church going Catholic, I simply do not recognise one of the religions to which to are referring – or rather to which YOU BELIEVE you are referring.
Given that I am sensate and actually have sat through sermons, read the book(s) studied it etc, I do know what I’m talking about.
Tim said: *We have this idea of a free press for a reason, see.*
A freedom which many of them failed to exercise when the Mohammed cartoon appeared. No party in this mess is entirely clean.
I’m quite relaxed about Warsi and others expressing an opinion on the way the media reports stuff – I have one too. So long as it remains only an opinion and not something backed by legislation.
I also agree with Steve further up – the public surely benefit from seeing these extremist views in that we learn how to recognise them in the future. If the only people talking about radical islamists are the radical islamists themselves then the public perception of these terror plots and murders will be that they appear almost out of nowhere.
Well then Ironman, perhaps you’d like to make some kind of substantive assertion to support that position.
Also, if it’s any help, I had no idea that you think I’m a tool. What have I said that so upsets you? (Besides this thread questioning the validity of the worship of your imaginary friend)?
Well, except that unlike say, The Daily Telegraph or The Sun, the rest of us pay for this. If we want live TV, we are forced, under threat of violence to pay for the BBC.
Of course, most politicians don’t then follow that to its logical conclusion – privatise the BBC and switch it to a subscription service – they instead try and mould it to what they want it to be.
The BBC is too big to privatise. It would need just closing down, its assets auctioned off. Plonking it into the “free market” after nearly a century of expansion under State power would be the same problem as BT. Too big, too hegemonic.
IanB, once again, you tool.
You suggested that my faith was grotesque because it preached killing for God. It is for you therefore to provide evidence to support that view; I don’t need to prove the contrary. I’ll just repeat: never in my life, not once, at any mass, wherever in the world I have lived, in the many diverse languages in which I have celebrated Mass has killing ever been preached.
As for tool: it doesn’t really matter whether you were aware of it previously or not does it; you are now.
To be picky, I said that the religion that escaped from Judea was a killing for God type religion.
Christians were killing for God up until the modern era, when they were forced into a weaker position, a process that began after the massive killing-for-God spree of the Reformation- culminating in the Thirty Years War- and exhaustion set in. So, you won’t have heard much of that lately because your religion was basically told it couldn’t get away with that shit any more.
The muzzies just haven’t got that far yet. They’re still Old Skool, kind of thing.
Of the 95 people in prison in March 2012 for terrorist offences, the number adhering to sundry religions were: Anglican 1, Roman Catholic 2, Buddhist 1, Muslim 87, other religious groups 1, no religion 3.
The source for that is a Home Office publication, Operation of Police Powers under the Terrorism Act 2000 and Subsequent Legislation: Arrests, outcomes and stops and searches. Table 1.18, p.40. See:
“Christians were killing for God up until the modern era, when they were forced into a weaker position, a process that began after the massive killing-for-God spree of the Reformation- culminating in the Thirty Years War- and exhaustion set in. So, you won
87/95 terrorists; no need to do a chi squared test to spot that’s a significant association. Still, Dave tells us Islam has nothing to do with terrorism, so maybe we should all just shut up, move along, nothing to see here etc etc
The only reason Baroness Warsi doesn’t want the nutters on TV, is it makes her religion look bad.
She should spend her time defending her religion as she understands / believes, rather than trying to shut other people up.
25 years ago what was the breakdown of terrorists in prison by religion. But has anyone said certain churches are nothing to do with terrorism? Or is the terrorism in spite of religion?
Just out of interest, the numbers killed in invasion and occupation of countries, what percentage of the killers are each religion?
Isn’t there a strong and obvious correlation between wealth and not-being-a-terrorist? Isn’t there also a correlation between being extremely poor and being religious? (I’m not sure of that one, but on a broader scale it certainly appears true that wealthier societies tend to be more secular.)
Isn’t there also a quite-possibly-coincidental correlation between those areas of the globe that have traditionally been Islamic, and those areas of the globe that are currently relatively impoverished? (Some might argue that’s a causal link, but I find that very unlikely based on historical evidence.)
If we agree that poor people are more likely to be come terrorists, then doesn’t the prevalence of Islam in poor areas need to be accounted for before claiming there’s any unexpected number of Islamic terrorists, let alone before trying to give reasons for an excess?
Martin – your first question would be a good one if we had faced religious terrorism in the UK 25 years ago. We did not. The IRA didn’t claim to be following the teachings of the Pope, and wasn’t trying to force people to submit to Rome. Northern Ireland was a limited territorial conflict.
Your second question is just displacement activity. Radical Moslems are murdering non-Moslems across the world. They beheaded an Englishman in broad daylight in England and said they were doing it for Islam. As Islam’s adherents grow in numbers in our country, we can expect more violence. I dare say it is cowardly in the extreme to seek to change the subject.
Do you think the Troubles had a more rational basis than Islamic terrorism? Why do you think they stopped?
If as you believe, they’re clearly different, then those questions should have fairly simple answers that are obviously true.
In the interest of keeping its audience informed, the BBC ought to provide the nutters a couple of prime time broadcasting hours per week to say whatever they want.
Dave, I’ve tried responding twice but the blog is eating my comments 🙁
If you’re quoting something, you need to swap out all the apostrophes, quote-marks, £-signs and so-on. Although normally we get a half-eaten post when that happens, so maybe it’s another problem.
If you’re using a modern browser the back button should return you to the comment page with everything still filled-out, so at least you don’t lose everything.
Check your browser encoding is Unicode UTF-8.
Fixed things for me,'”‘”‘£ etc
For those of you who don’t read the Graun, this was the apparently irony free headline from Comment is Free – it was better when it was the first headline.
*Woolwich attack: This echo chamber of mass hysteria only aids terrorists.*
I don’t know what the article said as I decided to read it would add to the echo.
The problem is, people are being too broad brush about Islam, as if it’s monolithic. What we’re dealing with, or they’re dealing with and we’re stuck with the fallout from, is a new radical extremist form which is aggressive. See also: Jewish Zealots, Byzantine Iconoclasts, Anabaptists, Protestants, etc.
And what’s it all about? Like all fundamentalist movements, basically a sort of radical reactionaryism (is that a word? It is now!) based on an imagined past golden age. They believe their culture- represented by Islam in the way we once held our culture to be Christendom- is being eclipsed. And in that, they are right.
So, they are trying to purge the culture internally and simultaneously destroy the source of the cultural infection, which is the Western world.
The Abrahamic religions provide grist for a violent mill, if you’re looking for some justification- sort of in the same way that if you want to kill whores, you can find the Bible telling you to. Sort of. A bit. Read with squinty eyes.
The Muzzie Brotherhood is a culture movement. Their banner is Islam. But Islam is not a thing, in an essentialist sense. There is no such thing as society, no such thing as the State, and no such thing as “Islam”. It is just an idea. It is whatever the person believing in it wants it to be. Ideas are like that.
The great error made by many Western critics of Islam, e.g. Robert Spencer, is that there is (a) one true reading of the Quran (Hadith etc) and (b) the Muzzie Bruvvers have that correct(!). This is untrue. Spencer (as our example) being a devout Christian believes that there is one true reading of the Bible, and he knows what that is. The Catholic one. Despite the world being full of other Christians with other readings who are just as devout. So, he thinks that is true of Islam too. He’s just one example of course.
It is in defiance of reality to believe that some true Islamic essence existed since the 7th century, unrealised, until Hassan Al Banana and sad eyed little fuck Sayeed Qutb suddenly “revealed” it. This is not true.
The mad muzzies are killing in the name of a particular, recent innovation in Islam. They are extremely popular right now and on the “up”; fundie movements are like this (compare our own historical jihadis, the Puritans). They are currently attracting cannon fodder- weirdos like our latest pair of “terrorists”. There will be a lot of this.
But it really is just plain wrong to think that there is one Islam, and the nutters have it right, any more than there is one Christianity, and Catholics like Ironman have it wrong and Protestants have it right, or vice versa. Belief is whatever you believe it is.
Dave // May 24, 2013 at 3:42 pm
Isnt there a strong and obvious correlation between wealth and not-being-a-terrorist?
It is an inverse correlation. Among young muslims, the well-off, highly educated, highly qualified, well travelled, with at least some experience of western life, are the most likely to turn to terrorism.
Have you any evidence for that?
Not saying it’s entirely untrue, because OBL was certainly from a good family, but I was talking about foot-soldiers. Those who carry out attacks in this country are obviously likely to fit the profile you describe, but most terror attacks aren’t in this country, or even Western Europe and the US.
Well, it may be that the profile in different countries is different. In the Islamic heartland, poor folks; in the diaspora, better off ones trying to overcompensate and connnect with their rootz.
That, and also a matter of which of the Jihadists will make it through security and into the UK or onto a plane in the first place.
Thinking about it some more, I assume the link between wealth and not becoming a terrorist is because people in wealthy societies have better lives to look forwards to, and so on. With second-gen immigrants with stereotypically pushy parents, there’d be something of a correlation between being middle-class and being pushed into a career like pharmacy. Lots of badly arranged marriages amongst the more religious types, too. Regardless of the financial rewards, I think I’d rather be a terrorist than a pharmacist with an ugly arranged-wife 😉
“Monty // May 24, 2013 at 5:25 pm
Dave // May 24, 2013 at 3:42 pm
Isnt there a strong and obvious correlation between wealth and not-being-a-terrorist?”
I doubt it very much countries like Bolivia in South America have less terrorism than richer countries like Colombia.
Ian B being a tool again – “in the same way that if you want to kill whores, you can find the Bible telling you to. Sort of. A bit. Read with squinty eyes.”
Actually it is not remotely difficult to find parts of the Bible telling you to kill whores. You have to work hard to avoid seeing those bits in fact.
“The Muzzie Brotherhood is a culture movement. Their banner is Islam. But Islam is not a thing, in an essentialist sense. … It is whatever the person believing in it wants it to be. Ideas are like that.”
Sure. But not all ideas are equal. It is easier for some people to accept some things if they already believe some other things. It is more logical to believe in C if you already believe in A and B. It is laughable for the Christian Churches to pretend Gay marriage and Gay priests is remotely credible given the Christian tradition. We all know they are making it up. It is not hard for them to point out that burning witches is a normal thing for Christians to do. Because they have textual and historical back up.
In the same way it is much easier for the Islamists to say their reading, one of millions of possible readings, of Islam is authentic than it is for the moderates, assuming any exist, to claim that their reading is. The Islamists reading is actually well founded in history and in the mainstream of religious textual analysis. The moderates less so. Which is why the Islamists have a great deal of support among ordinary Muslims and the liberals do not.
“The mad muzzies are killing in the name of a particular, recent innovation in Islam.”
The problem with that assumption is the long history of Islamic revivalist movements who have done exactly the same thing going all the way back t Muhammed himself. It is a new reading, but it is strongly based on past history and theology. Stronger than the liberals can claim.
“Belief is whatever you believe it is.”
And so of course these acts are as Islamic as Moms Apple pie.