"Separatist" and "moderate" are apparently bad words:
"The BBC is facing a High Court challenge over its decision to censor a party political broadcast in the run-up to Thursday's local elections. A Christian party has begun legal action after the corporation insisted on changes to a short film in which the party voiced opposition to the building of Europe's biggest mosque next to the site of the 2012 Olympics.
Tablighi Jamaat, the Islamic missionary group behind the 75 million pound Abbey Mills mosque, opposes inter-faith dialogue and preaches that non-Muslims are an evil and corrupting influence. One of its British advocates has said that it aims to rescue Muslims from the culture and civilisation of Jews and Christians by creating "such hatred for their ways as human beings have for urine and excreta".
The Christian Choice election broadcast would have described Tablighi Jamaat as "a separatist Islamic group" before welcoming that some "moderate Muslims" were opposed to the mosque complex.
Alan Craig, the party's candidate in the London mayoral election, also on Thursday, said that he was forced to change the wording at the insistence of lawyers at the BBC and ITV, which will also feature in the court action.
The BBC refused to accept "separatist" - the corporation asked for "controversial" instead - and barred the use of "moderate Muslims" because the phrase implied that Tablighi Jamaat was less than moderate.
Source
As the BBC is compulsorily supported by the taxpayer (and even some non-taxpayers are made to cough up), one would hope it had some obligation to speak the truth rather than cover it up. Silly of me to think that, I guess.
5 comments:
From all accounts I don't think the building of that mega-mosque is in any way a certainty - so good ol Winston won't be revolving in his tomb for that reason (tho' maybe for some others!).
"a country (and a people) that has never been known for having much backbone"
What an extraordinary statement to apply to Britain of all countries. Didn't they resist all foreign invaders since 1066; dominate the world's oceans and establish the world's largest ever empire; and the reason the US has English as a first language and not Spanish or French.
And if the US did "let" Hitler take Britain (as it almost did anyway by waiting so long to fight him) then you would soon have Nazi V-rockets landing on New York, without the ability to deliver an atom bomb in return.
And by the way, American soldiers die for American global interests not to "save" other countries, which may or may not be grateful for US intervention!
And the British Empire did all those things for it's love of others, or for it's own global conquests? (which BTW, it never had the strength to hold onto) And it's easy to dominate the worlds oceans when there's no real compitition. As soon as compitition came along, they were done!
And why did 1 Million American warriors land at Normandy? (Clue: it wasn't to capture France!) It was to protect Britain from the coming German invasion! If not for the US, German troops would have marched right through London. The Brits, and the rest of the EU have us to thank for their very existence. And turning to socialism isn't the best way to show appreciation!
Your missing the point - the US (like all countries) acts only in its own national interest and not primarily to help another country. So it's a bit disingenuous for the US or any country to claim the right to gratitude from other countries who may incidently benefit. The references to the British Empire were to show it must have had some backbone - and it did have serious naval and colonial competition from France and Spain and later Germany.
The threat of a German invasion of Britain in WWII had been abated by the Brits on their own in the Battle of Britain in 1940. When the Americans finally arrived in the UK it was to help mount the invasion of the Continent, along with other allies.
Yanks are so full of themselves they act as tho they won WWII all by themselves without any credit given to the other Allies
Post a Comment