You Can't Do That on Television

Michael C. Moynihan | August 8, 2007

In the past few years, England's Channel 4 has produced a string of terrific documentaries on religious and political extremism. Last year, they broadcast Undercover Mosque, an investigation into radicalism in Britain's Muslim community (Watch it on YouTube here). A sampling of some of the nutty opinions captured in the film, as transcribed by the Guardian:

At the Sparkbrook mosque, run by UK Islamic Mission, an organisation that maintains 45 mosques in Britain and which former prime minister Tony Blair described as "extremely valued by the government for its multi-faith and multicultural activities", a preacher was captured on film apparently praising the Taliban. In response to the news that a British Muslim solider was killed fighting the Taliban, the speaker was filmed saying: "The hero of Islam is the one who separated his head from his shoulders."

Another speaker was shown saying Muslims could not accept the rule of non-Muslims. "You cannot accept the rule of the kaffir [non-Muslim]," a preacher told a meeting held within the mosque. "We have to rule ourselves and we have to rule the others."

A deputy headmaster of an Islamic high school in Birmingham was also shown telling a conference at the Sparkbrook mosque that he disagreed with using the word "democracy".

"They should call it ... kuffrocracy, that's their plan," he was shown as saying. "It's the hidden cancerous aim of these people."

But showing video of nutty preachers stirring religious hatred got the producers charged with, um, stirring racial hatred:

Today, the way the programme was edited came in for criticism from the Crown Prosecution Service, which considered charging Channel 4 with broadcasting material likely to stir up racial hatred, but decided against proceeding.

The Crown Prosecution Service doesn't dispute any of the material in the film—the producers didn't edit out mitigating sections of the pro-beheading sermon, for instance—but claim that such truths best not be shown on television, lest they stir up anti-Wahabbi sentiment. Lord Nazir Ahmed, the House of Lord's house extremist, chided Channel 4 for discussing such matters in public, as they weren't contributing to a constructive dialogue...or something:

In a statement to Channel 4 at the time, Lord Ahmed, the convener of the government's Preventing Extremism taskforce, said he was worried about the programme's consequences.

"While I appreciate that exaggerated opinions make good TV, they do not make for good community relations", he added

It should be pointed out that the head of the government's "Preventing Extremism Taskforce" was roundly criticized last year for inviting an extremist to lecture at the House of Lords on the subject of "Jews and Empire."

Full story.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

|8.8.07 @ 1:50PM|#

Remember 9/12/01? The whole world was repulsed and disgusted with radical Islam. And all the civilized people of the earth were sympathetic towards the US. What ever happened to that?

|8.8.07 @ 1:52PM|#

This wasn't how the story was reported here in the UK (though clearly we're not to be trusted).

The story I heard:

1. Police asked to investigate the subjects of the programme.
2. They view all the raw footage and conclude that it was edited to make the subjects seems to say things they didn't.
3. They accuse the programme makers of distortion.
4. They ask the Crown Prosecution Service lawyer to consider a charge of incitement to racial hatred, because they thought the quotes had been deliberately distorted.
5. The CPS decides there is no evidence to prosecute anybody for anything.

Here's the CPS lawyer:

"The splicing together of extracts from longer speeches appears to have completely distorted what the speakers were saying.

"The CPS has demonstrated it will not hesitate to prosecute those responsible for criminal incitement.

"But in this case we have been dealing with a heavily-edited television programme, apparently taking out of context aspects of speeches which in their totality could never provide a realistic prospect of any convictions."

There's a complaint against the programme makers with the broadcast regulator, so perhaps we'll know more after it reports.

|8.8.07 @ 1:54PM|#

This is a wrong-headed action by the governnment, but what a dishonest punk this Moynihan is!

lest they stir up anti-Wahabbi sentiment.

Yup, that's it, exactly. Anti-wahabbi sentiment, that's precisely the concern.

People who refuse to even accurately describe their opponents' arguments are not peole whose ideas need to be taken terribly seriously.

|8.8.07 @ 1:55PM|#

but what a dishonest punk this Moynihan is!

What do you expect from a UMass grad ;)

|8.8.07 @ 2:01PM|#

I liked the British better when they were busy subjucating most of the third world.

|8.8.07 @ 2:02PM|#

Much of the Muslim world still live in the 1300's.Those of us on this site wouldn't last long withour views.

|8.8.07 @ 2:03PM|#

joe's relationship with Mike Moynihan is shaping up to be much like mine with Ron Bailey!

|8.8.07 @ 2:08PM|#

This is a wrong-headed action by the governnment, but what a dishonest punk this Moynihan is!

lest they stir up anti-Wahabbi sentiment.

Yup, that's it, exactly. Anti-wahabbi sentiment, that's precisely the concern.

Joe, RTFA.

Many of the preachers featured were linked to the Wahhabi strain of Islam practised in Saudi Arabia, which funds a number of Britain's leading Islamic institutions.
...
"While I appreciate that exaggerated opinions make good TV, they do not make for good community relations", [Lord Ahmed] added

A spokesman for the Green Lane mosque told the Observer before the programme's broadcast in January that Channel 4 was intensifying the "witch-hunt" against Muslims.

Sounds to me like they are more concerned with keeping the "civil peace" than outing the whack-a-loons spouting this shit. If Channel4 was fabricating stories of murder and mayhem in the grand tradition of Randolph Hurst it would be one thing, but they are capturing, then playing on air, the nutjobs speaking their crazy talk and being chastised for it.

That'd be like CNN being charged with a hate crime for showing David Duke giving one of his speeches, while showing just how craaaazy Mr. Duke was.

crimethink,

Sublimated homosexual lust?

|8.8.07 @ 2:10PM|#

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

|8.8.07 @ 2:18PM|#

If you read the Guardian article linked above, there are no examples given of statements taken out of context, but rather of pretty straight forward stuff like this: "The hero of Islam is the one who separated his head from his shoulders." How that can be misinterpreted in the editing process is totally beyond me and the Guardian article doesn't explain. Channel 4 was not ruled against, but was told that its film could "stir up racial hatred."

- A Dishonest Punk

Kwix,

I did RTFA. Even the part you quoted: A spokesman for the Green Lane mosque told the Observer before the programme's broadcast in January that Channel 4 was intensifying the "witch-hunt" against Muslims.

Muslims, Kwix. You see that word there? Muslims.

Of all people, a libertarian should be familiar with how the depiction of a group's most extremist elements can be used to whip up hatred towards the more mainstream elements of that group.

That'd be like CNN being charged with a hate crime for showing David Duke giving one of his speeches, while showing just how craaaazy Mr. Duke was.

Actually, it would be more like CNN being investigated for libel for showing the David Duke speech in a documentary about those dangerous Republicans, and the case being dropped because there's no there there. But whatever.

|8.8.07 @ 2:22PM|#

If you read the Guardian article linked above, there are no examples given of statements taken out of context

Nor would a documentary about Germans that consists of footage of speeches by Hitler, Goering, and Himmler need to take anything out of context.

No, the documentary clearly doesn't fabricate anything. The only fabrication here is your assertion that it is fear of anti-Wahabbism, rather than fear of anti-Muslim hatred, that motivated the investigation.

Hey, if you're not a Wahabbist, there's no way depictions of lunatic Muslim preachers could be a problem for Muslims living in Britain. Skinheads are so careful about that sort of thing.

Franklin Harris|8.8.07 @ 2:22PM|#

Something about invading and occupying a relatively secular Arab country that posed no real threat to anyone, had nothing to do with 9/11, had a third-world military, and had a couple of rusty, expired cans of mustard gas in a closet somewhere.

|8.8.07 @ 2:24PM|#

SugarFree,

Are you saying that any relationship between two men must have sexual undertones? Are you still in puberty?

And, to repeat myself, I agree with Moynihan's main point - there shouldn't have been an investigation.

That's a point that can be made without misleading people about the other side's position.

|8.8.07 @ 2:26PM|#

Dishonest Punk < Third Party Partisan

Take that, Moynihan!!!!

Abdul|8.8.07 @ 2:29PM|#

"The splicing together of extracts from longer speeches appears to have completely distorted what the speakers were saying."

That's illegal in England? How does Michael Moore get any work over there?

|8.8.07 @ 2:30PM|#

I'm so juvenile, I can barely type. But I think I touched a nerve.

|8.8.07 @ 2:33PM|#

A spokesman for the Green Lane mosque told the Observer before the programme's broadcast in January that Channel 4 was intensifying the "witch-hunt" against Muslims.

We see the word "muslim, joe. Being used by someone trying smear the documentary and its makers. Not sure what point this is supposed to support, other than extremists have learned to play the victim card at the first opportunity.

Of all people, a libertarian should be familiar with how the depiction of a group's most extremist elements can be used to whip up hatred towards the more mainstream elements of that group.

I had no idea that the quiet, rational majority of Muslims so outnumbered the ones that take to the street and set fire to shit because someone drew a cartoon/wrote a book/made public criticisms.

No doubt the majority of cops are decent, too, but that doesn't change the fact that Radley Balko has been able to make a career of documenting the horrendous excesses of the supposed minority.

|8.8.07 @ 2:34PM|#

Joe,
'Tis a very bizarre complaint. The phrase was deliberate: The producers of the program were clearly not talking about all Muslims, but arguing that many mosques (often Saudi-funded) were allowing deeply extremists messages to be broadcast by radical imams. So for the government to say that Channel 4 encourages hatred against Muslims for broadcasting a documentary against Wahhabism in Britain strikes me as ridiculous and, frankly, condescending to the viewer. I was (sarcastically) saying that one could hope that Undercover Mosque is spreading anti-Wahabbi feeling in ol' blighty. If this was clumsily phrased (or clunky sarcasm), then so be it. But it's in no way "dishonest."

D.P.

a relatively secular Arab country that posed no real threat to anyone

Whoa, I thought we invaded Iraq. What peace-loving country with no history of invading its neighbors and supporting international terrorism did we invade?

|8.8.07 @ 2:38PM|#

That's not what he said, RC. Re-read the snippet that you quoted, noticing that it doesn't include "never invaded anyone" or "peace-loving".

And if you think Iraq was a threat to anyone at the time of the invasion, well, there's a bridge in the Green Zone I'd love to sell you cheap.

|8.8.07 @ 2:40PM|#

Yeah, SugarFree. joe and I are both closet homosexuals who fantasize about Reason writers. You discovered the secret.

|8.8.07 @ 2:45PM|#

Well, at least you finally admitted it.

|8.8.07 @ 2:48PM|#

When I got tested for HIV, it was with my wife. I just wanted to say that, in public.

Episiarch|8.8.07 @ 2:51PM|#

Man, crimethink, SugarFree is winding you up--you do realize that, right?

joe, I think your paranoia about skinheads is a little outdated. In my memory most recent ass-kickings on the street in many European countries have been perpetrated by Muslims (or "youths" in France), often to Jews. If I'm wrong, set me straight, but the old skinhead boogeyman isn't really there any more.

|8.8.07 @ 2:56PM|#

The proximity to an abortion thread may be affecting my judgement, Epsiarch.

Russ 2000|8.8.07 @ 2:58PM|#

I did RTFA.

Did you WTFV?

(Just trying to coin a new intertube-ism.)

|8.8.07 @ 3:07PM|#

I am sure that Michael Moynihan is a very honest punk, but it is still far from clear from the coverage what actually happened.

The CPS lawyer - probably honest, certainly no punk - accuses the programme makers of distortion.

According to the BBC, Abu Usamah says that editing had made it seem that he thought gays should be thrown from a mountain, but that he had been quoting a book with which he disagreed.

Bloggers really need to hedge their bets, until they can sure whether they should be hating on the MSM, or giving it to nutty radicals.

|8.8.07 @ 3:11PM|#

RC Dean,

Do you think the investigators were primarily motivated by a desire to keep Wahabbists from being looked down upon, or Muslims in general?

You migh well have a point about the complaint being bogus. As I've repeatedly said, I'm not defending the investigation. But that is completely irrelevant - the producers were not investigated because of concern that they were stirring up hatred of Wahabbists, but of Muslims.

As someone with a distinctly minority political voice, you of all people should be cognizant of how this works.

|8.8.07 @ 3:18PM|#

Let me rephrase Mr. Moynihan's latest defense:

So for the government to say that Channel 4 encourages hatred against libertarians for broadcasting a documentary against the Freemen in Montana strikes me as ridiculous and, frankly, condescending to the viewer.

Because, obviously, no libertarians have ever, ever complained that that the statements Janet Reno and Bill Clinton made during the 1990s about those particular gun owners who were hostile to the federal government had the intent or effect of whipping up hostility towards more reasonable, less violent gun owners who were hostile towards the federal government.

Nope, never happened. Anyone who ever complained about the language Clinton and Reno used was only concerned about their words whipping up hostility to the particular radicals they mentioned, not about the smearing of libertarians or gun owners in general.

Right?

|8.8.07 @ 3:21PM|#

Epistarch,

OK. If there has been violence committed by Muslims in France, I guess that means there cannot possibly be a problem with violence towards Muslims in England. And if there is, we shouldn't be concerned about it, because they brought it on themselves by having the same religion as some bad people in other countries.

|8.8.07 @ 3:24PM|#

Look, this is very simple.

The Crown Prosecution Service doesn't dispute any of the material in the film-the producers didn't edit out mitigating sections of the pro-beheading sermon, for instance-but claim that such truths best not be shown on television, lest they stir up anti-Wahabbi sentiment.

Mr. Moynihan, did the Crown Prosecution Service complain that the documentary stir up anti-Muslim sentiment, or anti-Wahabbist sentiment?

|8.8.07 @ 3:27PM|#

Joe - aren't you missing the point?

The CPS *does* dispute the material in the film:

"we have been dealing with a heavily-edited television programme, apparently taking out of context aspects of speeches which in their totality could never provide a realistic prospect of any convictions."

Episiarch|8.8.07 @ 3:35PM|#

joe, got any examples of anti-muslim violence in England?

Again, I said set me straight (with proof) if I am wrong, but I just don't see any evidenc of anti-Muslim sentiment causing any violence towards Muslims in England. I have, however, seen evidence of Mulsim violence across Europe.

You are getting worked up about something that doesn't seem to be happening, while completely ignoring Muslim violence (cartoon riots, car burnings, beatings of Jews, Theo Van Gogh's murder, etc.).

|8.8.07 @ 4:04PM|#

Episiarch,

I only know Salman Rushdie wrote about in The Satanic Verses - about the skinheads and police alike being violent towards "Pakis."

I haven't written a single word denying that Muslims have committed acts of violence, btw. I'm not ignoring anything. But let's pretend I had: that would be relevant to this discussion, how, exactly? Are you dong for "them Muslims deserved it," or is it more a PC "victim-groups can never be victimizers, and victimizer-groups can never be victims?"

And no, I'm not interested in doing your research for you. You've made the rather extraordinary claim that there is, and has never been, anti-Muslim violence in England, and the burden of proof falls to those making the extraordinary claims.

|8.8.07 @ 4:16PM|#

Episarch,

There has been anti-muslim violence in the past couple years in england -- minor riots in wrexham, barnsely, birmingham, plus large gains in the number of votes and number of candidates of the BNP -- as well as various individual acts -- nothing epidemic, but its there. the muslim riots in france had little to do with them being muslim and is not directed at the jews in large measure

Episiarch|8.8.07 @ 4:38PM|#

joe, don't be lyin', or hatin'. I never said there was never any violence against Muslims. I asked for examples, and fully expected some, and anon provided (non-linked) examples. No extraordinary claims made by me.

All I want is for you to explain why you are so super-concerned about anti-Muslim violence, when, as anon put it, there is "nothing epidemic", and why you aren't concerned about Muslim violence; and why a show pointing out things said by imams and Muslim speakers that are quite violent bothers you so.

It's not that you don't have valid points, joe, it's just that all your posts scream "I am the white liberal protector joe who will decry bigotry against the poor brown Muslims". The ferocity and intensity with which you attack people for criticizing Muslims speaks more about you than anything else. Maybe if you criticized Islam at exactly the same rate as Christianity (or any other organized religion) you'd be taken more seriously, but you don't. Christians are fair game (and should be!) but those poor Muslims...

|8.8.07 @ 5:24PM|#

Episiarch,

What I am super-concerned about is the conflation of "Muslims" and "terrorists." There is rather a striking tendency among those with a religious or political agenda to use that trick in order to justify violence and oppression towards Muslims these days, you know.

If Mr. Moynihan had mishcharacterized the ADL's objection to a film about West Bank settlers as being about "anti-settlement hostility" when they were actually worried about anti-Jewish acts, I would have called him on that.

Ditto if he had claimed that libertarians who complained about Clinton's "you can't love your country and hate your government" quote were worried about "anti-Freeman hostility" rather than anti-libertarian hostility, I would have called him on that.

But as it is, he pulled that little sleight of hand on Muslims, so I called him on that. I am no more or less concerned about anti-Muslim violence in England than anti-Jewish violence, anti-gay violence, or any other hate crimes.

I also have no truck with this show, one way or the other. It's entirely plausible to me that it was pefectly innocent, and the complaint as frivolous as RC Deas describes it.

BTW, I'm a Christian myself. I think you need to think long and hard about stereotypes. That's twice now you've made missteps in that area.

|8.8.07 @ 5:26PM|#

Episiarch,

If my country was suffering through its greatest foreign policy fiasco in my lifetime, largely because of people's willingness to view Jews, Christians, or libertarians as terrorists, I'd probably have a pet peeve against conflating peaceful and homicidal members of those groups.

Episiarch|8.8.07 @ 5:31PM|#

joe, fair enough. Just don't let your worries about Muslim oppression blind you to the very serious problems with their religion.

|8.8.07 @ 5:46PM|#

The vast majority of Muslims don't have a problem with their religion.

You don't judge Christians by the Klan, do you?

|8.8.07 @ 5:48PM|#

|8.8.07 @ 6:12PM|#

What evidence do you have that those supposed "extreme" elements aren't mainstream? If mosque attendees really objected to what they were saying, they'd remove these imams. That they don't is telling.

|8.8.07 @ 6:22PM|#

Bob Smith,

The several million Muslims that have lived in America for decades, without there being a single terrorist attack.

If mosque attendees really objected to what they were saying, they'd remove these imams.

You're not a Catholic, are you, Bob? Ever see any polling on what American Catholics think about birth control and second marriages?

But that's not even fair - to the Muslims in England. While it is virtually every priest who rails against condoms, the extremist nonsense we see in these videos is the purview of only a minority of British mosques.

|8.8.07 @ 6:32PM|#

You're not a Catholic, are you, Bob? Ever see any polling on what American Catholics think about birth control and second marriages?

Well, Catholics who refuse to accept the Church's teachings deserve all the contempt we can muster, so maybe that's not the best example, joe.

|8.8.07 @ 6:36PM|#

Joe,
1) My comments don't need to be "rephrased" and it is not a "defense" but a clarification. You are, I think, arguing with yourself.
2) The one argument you make seems to be based on a sarcastic little jibe I put into the blog post. I clarified that I was being sarcastic.
3) Stop refreshing this thread for an hour, go out and get some fresh air.

- The Punk

|8.8.07 @ 6:42PM|#

Tell you what - how about if I don't let my concern about the oppression of Muslims blind me to the problem that the tiny, pro-terrorist fraction of Muslims have with their religion, while at the same time not letting my hostility towards pro-terrorist Muslims blind me to the decency of the great majority.

Joe is exibit A in the attitude that will lead to the suicide of Europe.

Britain has a growing minority that OPENLY PREACHES the country's destruction. People shrug it off and are much more concerned about a possible rise in "Islamophobia".

Wake the fuck up, you've got a politically organized, radical group of people that are growing rapidly, don't want to be a part of Western Civillization and openly say so and have no problem with using violence to silence anybody who stands in their way.

And in 50 years when large swaths of Europe are living under Sharia and we are well on our way to a new dark age people will wonder how it happened.

|8.8.07 @ 7:03PM|#

Stop refreshing this thread for an hour, go out and get some fresh air.

Ixnay! We need more hits!

|8.8.07 @ 7:05PM|#

Grand Chalupa,

Your argument sounds suspiciously like that advanced by the Know-Nothings in the 1840s.

So, why aren't we all eating dogs and cats now, given the fact that we refused to step up to the Yellow Menace?

|8.8.07 @ 7:11PM|#

Your argument sounds suspiciously like that advanced by the Know-Nothings in the 1840s.

So, why aren't we all eating dogs and cats now, given the fact that we refused to step up to the Yellow Menace?

Because we all know Asians participated in honor killings, murdered politicians and film makers and polls found half of them wanted Sharia law.

Anybody who doesn't think Europe is in trouble either doesn't know about demographics and the political situation there or has had there brain turned to such mush by political corectness that they can't concieve of any situation where brown people can do any wrong.

|8.8.07 @ 8:58PM|#

crimethink,

The Church is the Body. The heirarchy is not the Church, just a part of the Church. Don't be so beholden to power.

Michael,

Just correcting your mistake would have been fine. No need to be bitchy about it. Yes, "religious hatred" is much better.

Grand Chalupa,

They said the same thing about the unassimilable Jews in New York 100 years ago. And some of them were violent anarchists! Forgive me if I don't soil my drawers because there is a religious minority in England.

Anybody who doesn't think Europe is in trouble either doesn't know about demographics and the political situation there or has had there brain turned to such mush by political corectness that they can't concieve of any situation where brown people can do any wrong.

Well, one of us wrong. Tell me, Chalupa, how's your record of predicting what poses a threat to us been over the past four and a half years?

|8.8.07 @ 9:34PM|#

They said the same thing about the unassimilable Jews in New York 100 years ago. And some of them were violent anarchists! Forgive me if I don't soil my drawers because there is a religious minority in England.

The thing that makes an anarchist different from being a Muslim is that you don't pass being an anarchist down to your kids. And you don't kill them for going out with a boy either.

Well, one of us wrong. Tell me, Chalupa, how's your record of predicting what poses a threat to us been over the past four and a half years?

Pretty good, thank you for bringing it up.

I thought Islam in Europe was a growing threat. Since that time Theo Van Gough was murdered, Ayaan Hirsi Ali was chased out of her country, there have been terrorist attacks in Britain and Spain, riots in France, at least a dozen honor killings in Britain alone, Imams openly call for the destruction of European nations and hundreds died in a riot over a cartoon.

The biggest shift is the cultural one. Ten years ago if someone predicted you'd see a headline like "12 killed in Danish cartoon riots" people would've thought they were crazy. Today, its accepted as part of life that in Europe criticizing a religion could cost you your life. An immigrant group has through violence in less than a decade overruled what people thought were permanent victories of the enlightenment. And we worry about Islamophobia!

Here's another prediction: Things are going to get a hell of a lot worse and faster than people think.

Ah, I see.

So if some guy thinks that beating up gays is consistent with his Catholic faith, we can't question his belief, you know, 'cause he's part of the Body.

Why should he care what you and I and the old fogies in the funny hats think!

|8.8.07 @ 9:39PM|#

Ten years ago if someone predicted you'd see a headline like "12 killed in Danish cartoon riots" people would've thought they were crazy.

That didn't happen in Europe. There have been riots over silly things in Muslim countries for centuries.

|8.8.07 @ 9:40PM|#

I thought Islam in Europe was a growing threat.

Well, thanks for the way-specific prediction.

I have a prediction too: people are going to die violently in Iraq this week. Let's see if it comes true.

|8.8.07 @ 9:49PM|#

What, do you want the specific names of people who will die in terrorist attacks?

I'll do the best I can.

In the next year, Muslims will do something indefensible in Europe and Joe will be more worried about how people precieve Muslims than the actual victims.

White Europeans will start moving to North America and Australia in larger numbers.

By 2050, Europe will be a Muslim majority continent and be on its way to being one of the poorest. There wouldn't be any reason to care, except that they'll have nukes.

|8.8.07 @ 10:02PM|#

Man, those Islamo-fascists have really infiltrated that country. We ought to just nuke London.

What they should really do is spray pig's blood on the video tape so the islamos couldnt touch it. Then they should completely douse the so-called "Crowns Prosecution Service' building with pig's blood, then the musselmen couldnt enter it to press charges on anybody.

They really should just spray pig's blood on the treshhold of every islamo household, then the mooslims couldn't even get out of their house. (their scared of pig's blood or somethin)

That's how you gotta deal with thse people. Some religion of peace, huh? lol.

Ya'll take care now.

|8.8.07 @ 10:47PM|#

Hey, crimethink, when did you start working for the Inquision?

So, did you talk to my bishop?

Who the fuck are YOU, anyway?

Get ready for one of your Christ-like bouts of contempt, because I'm about to tell you to blow me.

perilisk|8.8.07 @ 10:59PM|#

So, if this guy is disagreeing with a book that he's quoting, doesn't that still mean that there is some other jerk that actually wrote the book and is taking the other side and is probably also Muslim? I mean, it gets him personally off the hook but it doesn't really change the question vis a vis Islam in aggregate, unless the question is solely limited to British Islam and the author is a foreigner.

On other hand, joe is right about the CPS. I doubt they were as concerned with preventing interference with the precious world domination plans of minority hate groups as they were about giving ammunition to BNP types to justify (to themselves, if no one else) stomping the crap out of someone who sort of vaguely looks like he could be Muslim (even if he turns out to be, say, Brazilian). Cuz, you know, pre-emptive self defense and whatnot.

Still, if we punished the media every time they distorted the facts of a story to appeal to emotion over reason, thus encouraging people towards objectively unjustified acts of punishment or the restriction of rights, we wouldn't have any TV journalists left.

Robert|8.9.07 @ 12:54AM|#

I guess it would've been OK if they'd shown people of other races saying the same things.

wayaway|8.9.07 @ 3:35AM|#

Get ready for one of your Christ-like bouts of contempt, because I'm about to tell you to blow me. Still waiting joe...

I'll check back later.

|8.9.07 @ 10:43AM|#

No! You cannot have the Mango!

|8.9.07 @ 11:11AM|#

It is not me whose contempt you need to worry about. I won't say I'm praying for you, joe, but I will say that I'm not praying against you. And that's not nothing.

M|8.9.07 @ 7:35PM|#

I can usually follow the topics at H&R, but what crimethink and joe are debating in this thread escapes me. I generally learn from reading both of them. Would someone summarize?

samina|8.11.07 @ 6:18AM|#

Indian Muslims are the second largest community on religious basis (over 20% of India's population is Muslim). Now, of course, to an outsider a Muslim is a Muslim is a Muslim. But is it true? No!, says Mohib. Here is why:
Poverty amongst Indian Muslims and the Reasons

John Rohan|8.11.07 @ 12:17PM|#

This is ludicrious. How can you take action against someone who reported remarks, but not against the people who actually made the remarks??

If you are interested in double standards, the UK prosecuted BNP members last year for statements on tape that were less inflammatory:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/bradford/6133470.stm

Also, there is more detail on this case here:
http://shieldofachilles.blogspot.com/2007/08/shooting-messenger.html

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements