Sunday, November 06, 2005

Rioters Cruelly Discrimated Against

Curses! The Rotteweiller Puppy crew have beat me to this example of BBC drek. Ah well – BBC dhimmitude is surely the very definition of a renewable resource. Take this one, for example.

Apparently, the rioting by a completely random group of people has been partially provoked by the banning of the Muslim headscarf. Huh ? There are Muslims involved in the rioting ? Who knew ?

As with much of the BBC’s reporting, the bias vs stupidity question comes up. The author quotes an Islamopath claiming:

Christians have crucifixes, why can't we have headscarves?

Yet later on we have an Educrat saying:

All conspicuous religious signs have gone," says Marie-Louise Testenoire, the top education official for the Essonne department

So, who’s right ? Need you ask ? The law does not, in fact, discriminate between symbols of particular religions. The bottom line is that, yet again, if you got your information from our £3 billion per year broadcaster, you wouldn’t get the full story.

The crucial point isn’t what’s there – it’s what’s missing. We’re invited to a pity party for all those Islamopaths denied the chance to parade round the schoolyard in full Islamic regalia, but isn’t there a degree of humbuggery here ? Which side of the political spectrum is it that turns all Linda-Blair-in-The Exorcist when faith schools are mentioned ? Surely the French are just taking Liberalism to its logical conclusion, mmmmm ? But no, after all those years of mocking the religious – not to say the approximately 200 000 dramas in which the local Priest is bonking a parishioner – the BBC has suddenly decided that religious feelings need to be respected, after all.

In a similar vein, the BBC has been prepared to give houseroom to even the most absurd stories about George W Bush’s religious beliefs, yet when faced with people who really are pushing ideology in the guise of religion, the dogs not only don’t bark, they roll over with their legs in the air. If someone is seriously religious – even to the point of wearing religious garb in their daily life – it is surely valid to consider what the tenets of that religion are, and how they might influence their behavior. The BBC is surely double-dipping here: if these people’s religion is so important to them that not being able to wear its regalia on school grounds causes them such distress, then it’ll surely affect them in other areas of life, yet the whole tone of the latter part of the BBC report suggests that wearing a scarf is merely some harmless quirk.

As ever, the point needs to be made that Islam does not simply concern itself with creation myths and personal morality. On the contrary, Islam is an ideology which intrudes on all aspects of life. What’s more, the headscarf is emphatically not equivalent to the crucifix – from the start, it was an overtly ideological symbol. When people wear the headscarf they are signalling their adherence to an ideology that is antithetical to just about the whole of Western Civilisation. Yet, staggeringly, companies aren’t queuing up to employ them. Who’d have thunk it ?

No comments: