[Phred]

Who do you think is at risk, and from whom are they at risk?

If I answer those questions truthfully and completely, will you answer the same two questions truthfully and completely?


Phred

[GandalfTheGrey]

No, I deliberately chose a title that let people know what point I was making. I then made that point even more clear with my introduction to the article I chose to illustrate the charge made in the title - that the BBC is useless:

"What's the point of calling yourself a news organization if you refuse to actually inform the public?"

...

It is quite clear what is going on here - the BBC's congenital multi-culti politically correct reflex to "whatever you do, don't offend the Muslims" has ironically produced a situation where the Muslim community ends up in a worse light than if they had included a cautionary paragraph such as the one I whipped up in thirty seconds.

What is this absurd line of argument after posting the article that you did in the OP? Why would you argue now that you are really concerned about the anti-muslim backlash this report creates, when the OP article argues thats exactly what the BBC should have been trying to create?. Just so we're clear, this is the essence of the OP article:

So be it. Go ahead and have a conversation about deep-seated problems inside the fastest growing demographic group in Europe without mentioning what that group is. The quality of your discussion will be moronic.

(my bold)

Is this a call for some "cautionary paragraph" to be inserted by the BBC to exonerate the muslim community? No - it is a call for the exact opposite - to make baseless claims about "deep-seated problems" in the muslim community. The sort of claim that you yourself have attempted to argue against!

they leave the reader free to draw his own conclusions, based on his innate prejudices and/or his misunderstanding of the conventional wisdom - that only Muslims commit honor crimes.

right - so what effect do you think it has on readers who instead read the article you posted? - when for example the author says things like:

The families giving the orders, as well as the victims, are, in the overwhelming majority of cases, Muslim. Surprised? No, of course you’re not. Honour attacks ranging in brutality from beatings to murder are commonplace in many parts of the Muslim world. -

without any sort of disclaimer like "nontheless, the practice 'cuts across all cultures, nationalities, faith groups and communities'" - as you yourself suggest is necessary. Are you now going to concede that the OP article is "useless" and inciteful for the same reasons you accuse the BBC? For the record, I agree that it would have been useful to include a "cautionary paragraph" so not to taint the muslim community - but that is, by obvious inference, exactly the sort of thing your OP article was railing against. So again, why on earth would you adopt the line you are adopting now, after posting such a contradictory article in the OP?

My take on this thread is this: you posted the article in the OP to support your contention that the BBC is not prejudice enough against muslims. Thus your opening rhetorical question What's the point of calling yourself a news organization if you refuse to actually inform the public? (with the link to your prejudiced article inside that very text) - is really asking "why doesn't the BBC admit that honour killings is [by inference] an exclusively muslim problem?" - in precisely the same manner as your OP article. You then discovered that this line was problematic after people started pointing out that a) there would need to be evidence presented to support that line - of which there doesn't seem to be any and b) honour killings are actually a cross-cultural/cross-religious phenomena, and is strongly condemned in islam (and every other religion) - and therefore shouldn't be associated with a specific religion. So you then changed your line from "the BBC should be tainting an entire religious group by making accusations of which there is little or no evidence of" (as per your OP article), to "well actually the BBC should be responsible and protect the muslim community by pointing out that the practice is not an exclusively islamic one"

Again, I ask, if the latter really was your thinking from the very beginning, why open the thread with an article - and an article that you don't merely just post, but seemingly use it to support your opening argument - that is so obviously hostile to such a line of thinking??

[Pants-of-dog]

If I answer those questions truthfully and completely, will you answer the same two questions truthfully and completely?

Sure, now who do you think is at risk of being targetted for honour killings, and from whom are they at risk?

[Quantum]

Lol at this thread. Muslim criminality doesn't equal Muslim doctrine. Christians in America are disproportionally represented in prison but nobody would claim that Christian scripture permits that. This phenomenon seems to be limited to the Middle East and South Asia, regardless of religion, and I've never heard of a black, white or South-East Asian Muslim killing their children. Obviously honour killings are a cultural/ethnic problem but Phred is too PC to admit that so he goes on about "Muslims".

This is the relationship: Most Muslims come from North African and Middle Eastern countries.

Actually, many if not most Muslims in the UK are South Asian and I don't think people from the MENA make up most of the Muslim population (Arabs are only 15% of Muslims and even you add other ethnicities, it doesn't add up to 50%).

[Phred]

What is this absurd line of argument after posting the article that you did in the OP? Why would you argue now that you are really concerned about the anti-muslim backlash this report creates, when the OP article argues thats exactly what the BBC should have been trying to create?.

Try to read what I actually say, Gandalf. Not what you think I am saying, but what I actually say. It is true that the article I chose to illustrate my point -- that the BBC is useless -- is harsher on Muslims than I am personally, but that's his problem, not mine. My point is that the BBC deliberately chose to leave out key information about a phenomenon of concern to UK denizens in general. And it's not solely a problem with stories they produce about various negative behaviors where it turns out Muslims are involved, they do the exact same thing with blacks. See their coverage (or non-coverage) on the recent riots as an example.

Is this a call for some "cautionary paragraph" to be inserted by the BBC to exonerate the muslim community?

Don't confuse his comments with my own.

No - it is a call for the exact opposite - to make baseless claims about "deep-seated problems" in the muslim community.

Come on, Gandalf. No honest person is going to pretend this isn't a deep-seated and very ancient problem in Muslim communities worldwide. The claims are far from baseless: the problem is so deep-seated and so well-documented by sources less useless than the BBC that every other contributor to this thread tried to pooh-pooh my complaint by claiming the BBC didn't need to tell us what every well-read person already knows. Not "what every well-read person already thinks", Gandalf, but what every well-read person already knows. You're trying to attack my credibility while demonstrating your lack of same by trying to dismiss the mountains of reports of Muslim honor-based violence as baseless.

so what effect do you think it has on readers who instead read the article you posted? - when for example the author says things like: <snip>

Do you seriously not grasp the essential difference? This guy is not a news organization. He is an opinion column writer (or blogger, if you prefer). His brief is not to present all the facts of the case, but to point out the terrible job the BBC did in their presentation. If he sat down to do a rewrite of the BBC article - a rewrite that would end up being published by the BBC, he would not use the same words.

...without any sort of disclaimer like "nontheless, the practice 'cuts across all cultures, nationalities, faith groups and communities'" - as you yourself suggest is necessary.

Again, if I were to rewrite the BBC article, I would include something quite similar to that disclaimer, yes. I suspect (but can't be certain) that if he were to rewrite it, he might do the same. But even if he didn't, the point isn't what I might include or what he might include, but what the BBC didn't include - key information that belongs in any properly written story on a subject as important as this one.

Are you now going to concede that the OP article is "useless" and inciteful for the same reasons you accuse the BBC?

Again, this guy's site isn't a government approved, taxpayer funded national (and international, when you get right down to it) news organization.

For the record, I agree that it would have been useful to include a "cautionary paragraph" so not to taint the muslim community - but that is, by obvious inference, exactly the sort of thing your OP article was railing against. So again, why on earth would you adopt the line you are adopting now, after posting such a contradictory article in the OP?

Because I came across the article by accident and it reminded me that I had been meaning for quite some time to point out the uselessness of news organizations suppressing news rather than reporting it, with BBC one of the prime culprits. Cutting and pasting this guys comments on a perfect example of this uselessness (worse than useless, harmful) saved me typing a ton of keystrokes. I had intended to do the exact same thing with other BBC articles (especially their absurdly deficient coverage of the riots), but I have only so many hours to spend on PoFo, and I never got around to it. If I had the time to devote to it, this thread would be merely the opening salvo of a continuing series on the uselessness of all news agencies who suppress rather than report the news. I may still do that... I may have a bit more free time in the upcoming year than I thought I would, and there is certainly no shortage of material. Keep your eyes peeled.

My take on this thread is this: you posted the article in the OP to support your contention that the BBC is not prejudice enough against muslims.

Your take on this is wrong.

Thus your opening rhetorical question What's the point of calling yourself a news organization if you refuse to actually inform the public? (with the link to your prejudiced article inside that very text) - is really asking "why doesn't the BBC admit that honour killings is [by inference] an exclusively muslim problem?" - in precisely the same manner as your OP article.

I can't help what your brain misreads into things, Gandalf. That's something you're going to have to deal with on your own.

You then discovered that this line was problematic after people started pointing out that a) there would need to be evidence presented to support that line - of which there doesn't seem to be any and b) honour killings are actually a cross-cultural/cross-religious phenomena, and is strongly condemned in islam (and every other religion) - and therefore shouldn't be associated with a specific religion.

Actually, Gandalf, no... I was already aware that Hindus in particular and Sikhs to a lesser extent also commit these crimes. That doesn't change the fact that the majority of them are carried out by Muslims. Perhaps that's because Muslims outnumber Hindus significantly, and Sikhs are a drop in the bucket in comparison to either. I have no idea what the per capita incidence might be. I doubt anyone else does either.

So you then changed your line from "the BBC should be tainting an entire religious group by making accusations of which there is little or no evidence of"

That was never my line, Gandalf. You really would do yourself a favor by re-reading what I have had to say about the issue.

Again, I ask, if the latter really was your thinking from the very beginning, why open the thread with an article - and an article that you don't merely just post, but seemingly use it to support your opening argument - that is so obviously hostile to such a line of thinking??

Asked and answered above.

Since you seem to feel it appropriate to speculate about what's going on in my head rather than reading what I write, I believe it's only fair I should be allowed to do the same. I believe your compulsion to jump into any thread which in any way slights Islam demonstrates your lack of objectivity on this subject and gets in the way of your reading comprehension skills. Your rush to defend Islam from its critics blinds you to Islam's very real problems.

I repeat - this thread isn't about Islam. It is about the BBC's inability to report competently when their news stories involve select groups who are beloved by the multi-culti politically correct herd, because the BBC fears these groups might be offended. So we end up with the absurd spectacle of an organization whose mission is to inform the public instead actually concealing information from the public. You guys may shrug that off as no big deal. I don't.



Phred

[GandalfTheGrey]

Try to read what I actually say, Gandalf. Not what you think I am saying, but what I actually say

So what am I supposed to think you are saying when you provide the following in your opening post:

1. An opening sentence saying "What's the point of calling yourself a news organization if you refuse to actually inform the public?" with a rabid anti-islamic diatribe hyperlinked in the words "refuse to actually inform"

2. the text of said rabid anti-islamic diatribe

3. A concluding sentence railing against "the BBC's inexcusable behaviour"

Based on this content, how on earth can anyone think that your criticism of the BBC was anything other than the same criticism contained in the article you posted - namely that the BBC sux because they don't publicly lynch islam for being the sole cause of honour killings in the UK? If you really meant to criticise something else about the BBC article - then why the fuck do you put the anti-muslim article as the centrepiece of the entire thread?? It makes absolutely no sense to highlight this seemingly unrelated article ahead of the actual BBC article if thats what you really wanted to discuss. If you meant something else, why didn't you mention it? You don't make a point about your concern for the negative portrayal of muslims by endorsing an article that demands that muslims be negatively portrayed.

Again, I put it to you that your subsequent arguments about "oh what I'm really saying is that the BBC is irresponsible by not protecting islam from bigots" is a complete backflip from your original position.

The claims are far from baseless: the problem is so deep-seated and so well-documented by sources less useless than the BBC that every other contributor to this thread tried to pooh-pooh my complaint by claiming the BBC didn't need to tell us what every well-read person already knows.

Oh we're back to this now? Showing your true colours I see - the only problem here is that you are tripping over yourself. It absolutely IS a baseless claim to say that the source of honour killings is islam and muslims - and *ONLY* islam and muslims - which may not be what you are thinking, but it is absolutely what your OP article was arguing (by inference - by singling out islam and not mentioning any other religious/cultural group). But I bet you've already forgotton that a few posts back you were busilly citing wikipedia and the Association of Police Chiefs to illustrate that honour killings were cultural, not religious, and that they cut across all faiths - and thats what the BBC should have been saying. Now you seem to be back to endorsing the message of the OP article - that muslims should be singled out as the sole culprit of these crimes. But we all knew that was your position from the beginning anyway.

Do you seriously not grasp the essential difference? This guy is not a news organization. He is an opinion column writer

Irrelevant. The only relevant point here is that you chose to post this article while you attacked the BBC for leaving out key information. This article slams the BBC for not singling out muslims and islam as the main cause of honour killings. Therefore there is only one conclusion that can be arrived at regarding what you meant by this "key information".

the point isn't what I might include or what he might include, but what the BBC didn't include

yeah - only you decided to make no mention of this whatsoever in the OP and instead focused *SOLELY* on what the article said. Strange indeed that the centrepiece of this thread actually has nothing to do with what you are arguing.

Cutting and pasting this guys comments on a perfect example of this uselessness (worse than useless, harmful) saved me typing a ton of keystrokes.

perfect example? his problem is that islam and muslims are not singled out - he expects the BBC to make claims about the prevalence of islamic honour killings that are completely baseless. Isn't that the very thing you were arguing against a minute ago? As I said previously, the sort of disclaimer about it being a cross-cultural/non religious specific thing is exactly the sort of thing the author of your article is dead set against. So why use a source that is so contradictory to your argument?

That was never my line, Gandalf.

flogging a dead horse - but again, you posted an article as the centrepiece of this thread, and gave us absolutely nothing to suggest that this wasn't your line. We are not mind readers - if you've got a point to make, make it. Don't do a backflip half way through the thread and claim thats what you meant all along.

gets in the way of your reading comprehension skills.

my reading comprehension is fine. I comprehend perfectly well that when someone writes complaining that islam - and ONLY islam - should be mentioned as the culprit when talking about honour killings - with no basis whatsoever to back this belief, that the insinuation is that islam is evil, and that the author is a prejudiced bigot. I also comprehend that when you post such an article to support your complaint about the BBC's "inexcusable behaviour" - that the complaint in the article mirrors yours.

[Phred]

Again, I put it to you that your subsequent arguments about "oh what I'm really saying is that the BBC is irresponsible by not protecting islam from bigots" is a complete backflip from your original position.

And again, I put it to you that your compulsion to defend Islam from any and all detractors has affected your ability to comprehend what you are reading. Yes, my opening post was brief. Yes, my choice of article was a provocative one. Yes, I had posted it to generate discussion. This is a political discussion board, is it not? Did my choice of articles get the discussion off to a roaring start or didn't it?

But, Gandalf, when I implored you to actually read what I wrote, I didn't mean read what I wrote in the first post and then stop. I meant read what I wrote in the thread so far. As early as halfway through the first page I had already pointed out the obvious -

"Perhaps some were carried out by non-Muslims, but the BBC is content to let Muslims get the blame for every single incident."

The deeper into the thread we get, the more plain I make it that my beef isn't with Muslims, it's with the BBC's concealment of important information. You are even misreading my clarifications, despite my efforts to make them as clear and unambiguous as possible. I am not claiming that the BBC is irresponsible for not protecting Muslims from bigots - I don't want Muslims protected, I want the public informed. That should be, after all, the prime mission of a news organization, especially one funded by tax dollars. It is not the job of the BBC to shield Muslims from the disapproval of the public. And I know that's not their job. Do you?

I merely point out that the BBC does seem to believe its job is to shield Muslims (and other darlings of the multi-culti politically correct herd) from public disapproval, but its attempts to do so are so clumsy that it's backfiring on them: Muslims end up looking like the sole culprits by the end of this article, when they actually aren't. If the BBC had played it straight and included a brief paragraph similar to the one I suggested, public disapproval would not have been aimed exclusively at Muslims. It would have been aimed at "all faith groups", though probably not at every faith group equally. I doubt the public would be too concerned about, say, Zoroastrans.

Oh we're back to this now? Showing your true colours I see - the only problem here is that you are tripping over yourself. It absolutely IS a baseless claim to say that the source of honour killings is islam and muslims - and *ONLY* islam and muslims - which may not be what you are thinking...

The sole source of honor-based violence? That isn't what I am thinking, which is why I suggested you would look less like a pre-programmed fanatic if you were to read what I actually write. The opening post was a jumping off point for discussion about the BBC's uselessness as a news source, Gandalf. The article I block-quoted happened to be about Muslims, so you were unable to prevent yourself from responding but it could as easily have been one where the BBC clumsily tried to hide the identity of those joining gangs in the inner city slums. I have said repeatedly I would have made the same complaint regardless of which favored group the BBC feels it must protect. You refuse to believe me. That's insulting. I don't lie in my posts, Gandalf. Unlike so many of my opponents here at PoFo, I debate honestly. I don't need to lie to prove my points.

...is absolutely what your OP article was arguing (by inference - by singling out islam and not mentioning any other religious/cultural group).

Again, you'd look less fanatical if you'd drop your obsession with that author's words. The block-quoted article was a jumping off point for discussion, nothing more. Everyone else has noticed we moved far past that pages ago. Why can't you?

But I bet you've already forgotton that a few posts back you were busilly citing wikipedia and the Association of Police Chiefs to illustrate that honour killings were cultural, not religious, and that they cut across all faiths - and thats what the BBC should have been saying. Now you seem to be back to endorsing the message of the OP article - that muslims should be singled out as the sole culprit of these crimes. But we all knew that was your position from the beginning anyway.

Unbelievable. Just unbelievable. Your monomaniacal insistence on blindly defending Muslims from the truth exceeds even the BBC's. Honor-based violence is a deep-seated, ancient, and ongoing problem in the Muslim community, Gandalf, and to point out this obvious fact is not an act of bigotry. Denying this obvious fact is, however, an act of deliberate self-deception. My noting this does not mean I am saying that it is a deep-seated and ongoing problem in only the Muslim community. Nor does it mean I think it.

Irrelevant. The only relevant point here is that you chose to post this article while you attacked the BBC for leaving out key information. This article slams the BBC for not singling out muslims and islam as the main cause of honour killings. Therefore there is only one conclusion that can be arrived at regarding what you meant by this "key information".

Only if you stop reading after a post or two. If you read the thread all the way through, it's quite clear your conclusion is the product of a febrile imagination rather than of the words I actually wrote.

yeah - only you decided to make no mention of this whatsoever in the OP and instead focused *SOLELY* on what the article said. Strange indeed that the centrepiece of this thread actually has nothing to do with what you are arguing.

Again, this thread does not consist solely of the opening post, and your bizarre insistence on ranting on and on as if it does is unsettling. I'm starting to get concerned for you, Gandalf. And a little bit for myself, too: I'm glad you don't know where I live. The opening post isn't the centerpiece of the thread, Gandalf, it's the beginning. The start. The jumping off point. The introduction. The trigger for a back and forth discussion.

his problem is that islam and muslims are not singled out - he expects the BBC to make claims about the prevalence of islamic honour killings that are completely baseless.

Well, Gandalf, here's your chance. There is no shortage of information on honor-based violence out there. Why don't you provide some numbers from credible sources showing that the group perpetrating more of these incidents worldwide in a year than any other group is someone other than Muslims? Hindus, maybe. Sikhs, perhaps. Buddhists, possibly. Jehovah's witnesses, Zoroastrans, Jains, Scientologists, Mormons, Roman Catholics... whoever. Give it your best shot.

The author says the "vast majority" of these crimes are committed by Muslims. Contributors to the thread who responded to it before you did believe Muslims are responsible for the majority (though not necessarily the "vast" majority) of these offences, too. You seem to be the only one bucking the conventional wisdom, here. What data have you seen that these others have not? Here's your chance to correct a widely held misimpression, if it is in fact a misimpression. Go for it.

Isn't that the very thing you were arguing against a minute ago?

Reading comprehension, dude, reading comprehension. I didn't say the charge that the majority (though perhaps not the vast majority) of these crimes were perpetrated by Muslims is a baseless charge, I said that not all of these crimes can necessarily be laid at the feet of the Muslim community. Hindus (at the very least) have a statistical likelihood of being responsible for at least a few of the 2,823. It isn't impossible that every single one of them in a single year was committed by Muslims, but it is statistically unlikely.

As I said previously, the sort of disclaimer about it being a cross-cultural/non religious specific thing is exactly the sort of thing the author of your article is dead set against.

Actually, he isn't, or he wouldn't have used the qualifying word "majority". But that's beside the point. Since when does posting an entire block-quoted article count as proof the poster is an perfect accord with every single sentiment expressed in the entire piece? Especially when subsequent examination reveals unequivocally that the poster is not in fact in 100% agreement with every word? Give it up, Gandalf, it's tedious and it makes you look obsessed.

So why use a source that is so contradictory to your argument?

it's not contradictory to my argument, though. His point is that by concealing the identities of victims and perps, the BBC is doing a disservice to the reading public. I point out the same. The fact that we examine different aspects of that concealment is beside the point - what matters isn't who the BBC believes it is protecting from public disapproval - Muslims qua Muslims or immigrants from the Indian subcontinent - what matters is the BBC's insistence on providing that protection in the first place.

but again, you posted an article as the centrepiece of this thread, and gave us absolutely nothing to suggest that this wasn't your line. We are not mind readers - if you've got a point to make, make it.

The reason I keep bringing up your lack of reading comprehension is that the lack is so evident. Long before you had entered the thread I had done just that - repeatedly. You don't need to be a mind reader to get my point, you just have to get past the opening post. This thread is now three pages long. Why you seem unable to get past its jumping off point is puzzling in the extreme. If you're not going to read what I've already written - I mean actually read rather than just pass your eyes over the marks on the screen to amuse yourself before making your next repetitive and baseless claim about what you have convinced yourself is actually going on in my head - why should I bother responding to you at all? You constantly misrepresent my position. You're a veritable pyromaniac in a field of straw men.

No "backflip" was ever done. My point from the beginning has been the uselessness of the BBC. Their concealment of information not just useless, it's counterproductive to their intended goal.

my reading comprehension is fine.

LOL.



Phred

[Pants-of-dog]

you still have not answered my question.

You are accusing the BBC of withholding important information. This important information seems to be: who is at risk of being targetted for honour killings, and from whom they are at risk.

Now, who do you think is at risk of being targetted for honour killings, and from whom are they at risk?

[GandalfTheGrey]

I don't want Muslims protected, I want the public informed.

Lets focus on this question of what you mean by wanting the public "informed".

In previous posts you made the following statements:

I merely point out that they have gone to great lengths to hide the fact that this pathology is one endemic in humans who share certain characteristics.

It is also a pathology peculiar to an identifiable subset of humans who share specific characteristics. This pathology rarely manifests itself in humans lacking these characteristics.

Prey tell, what are these "specific characteristics" of this "subset of humans"? Presumably you have some statistics to back this claim?

Its worthwhile noting here what other sources say about this:

1. Wikipedia:

According to Dr. Shahrzad Mojab, a University of Toronto professor of women’s studies, followers of Hinduism, Islam, Judaism and Christianity have used their religions as a rationale to commit honour killings. However, Mojab stated that honor killings don't have "any definite connection with religion at all." She also pointed out that honor killings have been practised before any major religion came into existence.

Widney Brown, the advocacy director of Human Rights Watch, said that the practice "goes across cultures and across religions."

Professor Khan instead blames it on attitudes (across different classes, ethnic and religious groups) that view women as property with no rights of their own as the motivation for honor killings.

2. Association of Chief Police Officer of England, Wales & Northern Ireland
honor-based violence 'cuts across all cultures, nationalities, faith groups and communities.'

Note that you were citing both these sources to somehow support your argument.

What do we see? Perpetrators could belong to any one of the major religions, they could belong to just about any culture or ethnicity. Put simply, there is *NO* definable "subset of humans" with "definable characteristics" to which this pathology is peculiar to. What you say is complete bullshit, and you have no evidence to back it up. Basically you're saying that the BBC is "useless" because it doesn't make a claim that is completely baseless and complete bullshit.

Honor-based violence is a deep-seated, ancient, and ongoing problem in the Muslim community, Gandalf

More bullshit. People really need to take you to task more on these sweeping baseless assumptions you make. Whats more, its a statement that is completely meaningless. What constitutes a "deep seated" problem? Which muslim community are we actually talking about? The only way this statement can have any shred of worth is if you can prove that honour killings in the "muslim community" (however that is defined) is significantly more endemic than in any other given cultural/religious group. But of course its obvious you can't do that.

and to point out this obvious fact is not an act of bigotry.

It is if you have no basis for this "fact". So is this what you are demanding of the BBC? I'm still confused because its gone from "blame the muslims!" to "offer some 'clarifying statement' about muslims not being solely responsible", to "identify people with "definable characteristics" (which we know there is none), and now back to "blame the muslims!" So if this is really the information that was so lacking in the article, I'll just point out once again that this is information that is completely lacking in basis, and is in fact complete bullshit.

lots more crap

OK lets cut to the chase. Rather than wasting my time and responding individually to all your confused/contradictory nonsense, how about I just summarise the facts that have already killed your argument:

1. there is no basis whatsoever in which to say honour killings are predominantly an islamic phenomenom(as claimed in the OP article)
2. there is no basis whatsoever in which to say that honour killings is predominant in any definable "subset of humans" with "definable characteristics" - in fact the evidence (which you yourself were eager to cite) suggests the exact opposite
3. in light of the above, there is no argument to be made that the BBC should have been claiming one or both of 1 and 2
4. your contradictory suggestion for the BBC to insert a "clarifying statement" to take some of the blame away from muslims is not itself disagreeable, but competely contradicts the heart of your muddled argument - as expressed in the claims made in points 1 and 2

So in summary, in an article that is solely about the prevalence of honour killings in the UK, that is based *ONLY* on one particular FOI piece of data, it is not only irrelevant to point out any sort of cultural/ethnic/religious trends (after all they are all UK residents anyway) - it would a) be providing information of which there are no (as far as I know) records of and b) is justified only on the false assumption that the phenomenom is definable through a "recognisable subest of humans".

[Journo]

The BBC has always leaned to the left of politics. This is not a suprise considering it is an organisation that doesn't depend soley on profit. It goes against everything that capitalism is and should be cherished as a public service broadcaster that produces high quality TV. It's useful because it acts as an educational tool

[GandalfTheGrey]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -year.html

What an outrage. Here we have another gutless and "useless" UK rag bowing to the PC nonsense. The original title for this article, and which is currently still the title on google news, was "Alarming rise in Muslim honour killings", which has now been revised to "Alarming number of 'honour attacks' in the UK". Its a sad day indeed when newspapers can't even publicly crucify an entire group with no basis. As Phred so wisely pointed out - we don't need any evidence whatsoever to "know" which "subset of humans" needs to be singled out for prejudicial attacks.

[Dr House]

OP has a tremendous point, but... the BBC runs Doctor Who. I can forgive them pretty much anything for that.

[Phred]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2069459/Alarming-number-honour-attacks-UK-police-reveal-thousands-carried-year.html

What an outrage. Here we have another gutless and "useless" UK rag bowing to the PC nonsense. The original title for this article, and which is currently still the title on google news, was "Alarming rise in Muslim honour killings", which has now been revised to "Alarming number of 'honour attacks' in the UK". Its a sad day indeed when newspapers can't even publicly crucify an entire group with no basis. As Phred so wisely pointed out - we don't need any evidence whatsoever to "know" which "subset of humans" needs to be singled out for prejudicial attacks.

So... what is your beef with this article, Gandalf? The original title which has since been changed? Or is it with the content?



Phred

[Pants-of-dog]

So... what is your beef with this article, Gandalf? The original title which has since been changed? Or is it with the content?

You still have not answered my question.

[youngian]

Actually, it's the guy you quoted in your OP who assumes that this has something to do with Islam. The BBC (correctly) attributes honour killings to certain cultural groups (Iranians and Kurds) and not to Muslims.

This is the relationship: Most Muslims come from North African and Middle Eastern countries. Most cultures with honour killings also come from there. But one doesn't cause the other just because they come from the same place.

Hyenas come from Africa. Black people come from Africa. Do hyenas cause black people?

I think that just about sums it up.

The original post is part of a growing diatribe of far right conspiracy theory mumbo jumbo that infests the internet.

The BBC has always been seen by them as a nest of Bolsheviks and political correctness. In reality they have a liberal Oxbridge 'on one hand this' sensibilty. Its just sour grapes as people in the UK generally trust BBC news, while few would believe Rupert Murdoch's hacks if they told you the time.

From the 60s to the 80s the attacks were embodied by a reactionary bigot called Mary Whitehouse who was a unbiquitous professional complainer who demanded the "cleaning up of TV." She became such a joke that any programme she attacked would add an extra half a million onto the viewing figures. She even had a porno mag named after her.

[Sithsaber]

The BBC is actually pretty moderate on most conflicts. They openly are against leftist radicalism, praise the market in a philosophical sense and get all perturbed whenever local unrest breaks out, examples of which being how they called the last student protests as shameful and jumped on the "hang the rioters" bandwagon. That and the fact that they all seem to hate the pirate bay. American radio usually just ignores that shit.

ps: In other words NPR is far more to the left than the BBC.

[rmadison]

What's the point of calling yourself a news organization if you refuse to actually inform the public?

I eagerly await the arrival of Qatz, who will undoubtedly dazzle us all with some kind of whacked-out excuse for the BBC's inexcusable behavior.

Phred

After the Balen Report fiasco, if there is anyone who accepts anything the BBC publishes, they are a fool. But then I am beginning to accept the conspiracies much more lately, as I mentioned in a thread in the Media section about how "news" outlets like CNN and the NY Times are heavily cheerleading for obama and his gun confiscation and illegal alien amnesty bills, at the behest of his corporate masters running the US. Indeed, there was an editorial this week in the NYT about how they will no longer even use the term "illegal alien," but will substitute the euphemistic "undocumented immigrant," a factually incorrect obscenity to whitewash the criminal activity of invaders/trespassers.

[rmadison]

You believe all sorts of weird things. Do you have any evidence that this is a pathology peculiar to Muslims?

That's the whole fucking point of this thread, the fact that the BBC has an obvious agenda where it is trying to provide protection of who is committing the honor killings by refusing to publish the identities of the perpetrators.

But what is so obvious that Phred has pointed out is that from purely reading the BBC articles, there is no information on who is committing the crimes, that they are expecting its readership to have some general knowledge of who is responsible for most of them - from some other source. A well written news article stands on its own - it does not require the readership to do further research to answer such basic questions, i.e, one of the standard 5 questions for a news article.