[Phred]

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

BBC reveals huge scale of honour attacks in Britain, fails to mention the word “Islam”
At least 2,823 people, mainly vulnerable young women, were brutalised in Britain last year by members of their family. But BBC report censors out the key information

All right. I’m not going to make this difficult. 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.

Since Britain, like many other European countries, has imported sizeable Muslim communities, which are to a significant degree unassimilated, the cultural practices of the old country have survived the transition to the new.

Finally, the figure of 2,823 attacks is almost certainly a gross under-estimate since, apart from anything else, it is drawn from only 39 of 52 UK police forces.

Got it? In just over 150 words (including title and summary) you now know all the basic information, and as intelligent, informed citizens you can have a discussion on what to do about it. That’s what journalism is for.

Propaganda, on the other hand, is intended for something else. It is designed to present a politically charged narrative held to with a fanaticism that will allow no mention of facts that contradict it. It is thus deliberately intended to lower the quality of the discussion by erasing key pieces of information.

Enter the BBC, which reported on the matter in a lengthy, 700-plus word article and failed to mention the words “Muslim”, “Islamic” or “Islam” even once.

As I write this I am flicking back to the story itself so I can double check using the Find function. Could I be mistaken?

Here goes: “Islamic”? “No Matches”. “Muslim”? “No Matches”. “Islam”? “No Matches”.

This is how societies go down: when matters of the profoundest significance to their character, and potentially their very existence, have been rendered undiscussable by the people that set the terms of public debate.

Clearly the people who wrote and edited that story should be dismissed.

They won’t be of course because the mind-numbing, multiculturalist narrative that demanded censorship of the salient evidence is effectively institutionalised as the dominant narrative across the BBC as well as the wider liberal establishment.

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. But you reap what you sow.

It would be nice to leave it at that on the grounds that these people are too narrow and boring to be bothered with.

Unfortunately we can’t because the BBC is the most powerful media outlet in the English speaking world and it sets the British news agenda.

I have been watching SKY News for at least three hours today and, unless I coughed when the word was mentioned, they’re not reporting that the story is about Muslims either despite multiple repetitions of the news item, and interviews.

Turning to the Daily Telegraph (the UK’s flagship, right-leaning, “quality” newspaper) its report is openly parasitic on the BBC’s, meaning that they also make no mention of Islam.

So you can see the problem. The power of the BBC is such that it is not only capable of influencing what is said, it can also influence what is not said.

And, when the whole organisation has been captured by politically correct ideology, that means that it’s not just a problem for the BBC, it’s a problem for Britain as a whole.

Robin Shepherd is the owner/publisher of @CommentatorIntl. You can follow him on Twitter @RobinShepherd1

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

[Cartertonian]

Robin Shepherd is the owner/publisher of @CommentatorIntl.

Perhaps Mr Shepherd fails to take into account the fact that most Britons don't need to be spoonfed all their information. Most of those who actually bother themselves to follow BBC news are usually intelligent enough to know full well that, 'in the overwhelming majority of cases', these crimes occur within the Muslim community, without the journalist having to screech - EVIL MOHAMMEDANS DO IT - just so's we'll get the point. Indeed, is there a point to be made? Muslim scholars will tell you that honour killings have no justification in Islam. Such practices are tribal and cultural, not religious.

[Phred]

Perhaps Mr Shepherd fails to take into account the fact that most Britons don't need to be spoonfed all their information.

Except, of course, when the miscreants are members of a class the BBC finds distasteful, in which case there is never a shortage of information as to just which political party (for example) they belong.

Most of those who actually bother themselves to follow BBC news are usually intelligent enough to know full well that, 'in the overwhelming majority of cases', these crimes occur within the Muslim community, without the journalist having to screech - EVIL MOHAMMEDANS DO IT - just so's we'll get the point.

And where, pray tell, did they manage to find this information? Not from the BBC. This is, of course, exactly my point. What is the use of a news organization if people don't need it in order to inform themselves of the salient facts of the situation?

Muslim scholars will tell you that honour killings have no justification in Islam.

And yet, they continue. Thousands each year. Odd, that.



Phred

[Lokakyy]

Perhaps Mr Shepherd fails to take into account the fact that most Britons don't need to be spoonfed all their information. Most of those who actually bother themselves to follow BBC news are usually intelligent enough to know full well that, 'in the overwhelming majority of cases', these crimes occur within the Muslim community, without the journalist having to screech - EVIL MOHAMMEDANS DO IT - just so's we'll get the point. Indeed, is there a point to be made? Muslim scholars will tell you that honour killings have no justification in Islam. Such practices are tribal and cultural, not religious.

I agree.

The mere usage of the term honour killing already makes the reading audience (except perhaps the readers of the CommentatorIntl, who must be living with a bucket on their head) pretty obvious that the killing is no ordinary jealosy crime, but a murder based on cultural and tribal custom. It seems like a rather misleading logic in a way. "In the most conservative Kurdish families, girls are killed for dating wrong boyfriends. Therefore, in all Kurdish families, girls are killed for dating wrong boyfriends. And, since Kurds are muslims, therefore, in all muslim families, girls are killed for dating wrong boyfriends. So in Islam, killing girls dating with wrong boyfriends is okay. Off with their heads!" It simply doesn't compute, and it seems rather obvious that the far-right commentators like this Mr. Shepherd don't even want to understand, they just want to push their political point.

And, since commenting far-right opinion (of the OP) nowadays requires a disclaimer, I strongly condemn honour killings and find them a sickening cultural practice, that as a phenomenon seriously requires action from the authorities.

And yet, they continue. Thousands each year. Odd, that.

I think that is the most crucial misunderstanding of the muslim faith for what I know. Islam is treated like it was the Catholic Church, where there was some sort of central authority who could declare what Islam is all about and what it certainly wasn't. It is also assumed that the Islamic scholars all around the world have some kind of supremacy over what their believers are doing. It is a rough equivalent of saying that because Christians in Africa are hanging homosexuals, all Christians must believe that homosexuals should be hanged, despite the fact that most figures of Christian authority have condemned hanging those people.

So. Even the Pope has said that the homosexuals shouldn't be shunned and discriminated, despite the fact that their sexual orientation is intolerable to the Christianity. And yet, they continue. The can of worms for every religion is endless and I have little faith that the staunchest supporters of Christianity will in the end prove very liberal in their outlook on what people can do and what they can't. Could atheists who believe that conceived embryo isn't a person still abort if the legislation was based on born-again Christian outlook?

[Phred]

The mere usage of the term honour killing already makes the reading audience (except perhaps the readers of the CommentatorIntl, who must be living with a bucket on their head) pretty obvious that the killing is no ordinary jealosy crime, but a murder based on cultural and tribal custom.

And how did non-readers of the CommentatorIntl come by this knowledge? Through osmosis? Extra-sensory perception, perhaps? Because they clearly didn't garner it from reading BBC articles on the subject. Which - again - makes my point for me: the BBC is pretty useless as a source of information.

It is a rough equivalent of saying that because Christians in Africa are hanging homosexuals, all Christians must believe that homosexuals should be hanged, despite the fact that most figures of Christian authority have condemned hanging those people.

So what are you saying? That the people who didn't need the BBC to inform them the perpetrators of these outrages are Muslims because they are sophisticated enough to know that without being spoonfed (Cartertonian's phrase) are jumping to the wrong conclusions? I'm confused.



Phred

[Wolfman]

And how did non-readers of the CommentatorIntl come by this knowledge? Through osmosis? Extra-sensory perception, perhaps? Because they clearly didn't garner it from reading BBC articles on the subject. Which - again - makes my point for me: the BBC is pretty useless as a source of information.

Maybe because "honor killings" is commonly associated with Islam?

[Phred]

Maybe because "honor killings" is commonly associated with Islam?

Really? And from whom did you learn this fact? I'm guessing not from the BBC.



Phred

[Wolfman]

Is your entire complaint that because there is something I don't need to learn from a news station, that news station must be shit?

[Phred]

Is your entire complaint that because there is something I don't need to learn from a news station, that news station must be shit?

Well, let's see. The BBC reported that at least 2,823 people were brutalized in Britain last year by members of their family. Since the BBC seems to be relying on the audience's belief that "honor killings are commonly associated with Islam," it would stand to reason that - in the absence of any commentary by the BBC to the contrary - the BBC is implying that all 2,823 of these incidents were perpetrated by Muslims. But is that really the case? We'll never know. At least, we'll never know if we rely solely on the BBC's coverage of this story. Perhaps some were carried out by non-Muslims, but the BBC is content to let Muslims get the blame for every single incident.



Phred

[Wolfman]

In other words, yes, your whole complaint is that the BBC doesn't fill in every detail because some things can just be assumed.

[Phred]

In other words, yes, your whole complaint is that the BBC doesn't fill in every detail because some things can just be assumed.

So you're just assuming that every single one of the 2,823 people mentioned in the story were brutalized by Muslims. See, that's the difference between you and me.



Phred

[Wolfman]

So you're just assuming that every single one of the 2,823 people mentioned in the story were brutalized by Muslims. See, that's the difference between you and me.

If the phrase 'honor killing' was used, yes. But, really, I doubt the BBC even reported that many events.

[Phred]

If the phrase 'honor killing' was used, yes.

So you don't agree with those PoFo members who insisted to me that honor killings are not a phenomenon exclusive to Muslims? That Hindus and Sikhs will sometimes pull the same stunt? Okay then.

But, really, I doubt the BBC even reported that many events.

An active link to the BBC article in question is right there, in the block quote I cut and pasted in the opening post. But to save you time, here it is again --

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16014368



Phred

[Pants-of-dog]

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?

[Phred]

The BBC (correctly) attributes honour killings to certain cultural groups (Iranians and Kurds) and not to Muslims.

Please provide proof of this.

Nowhere in the BBC article does the BBC attribute these types of crimes to any cultural or religious or ethnic group. Not to Iranians, not to Kurds, not to immigrants from North Africa. But by all means, take as much time as you think you need to scrutinize the article carefully in order to determine this for yourself.

How many Iranians are there in Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan? How many Kurds?



Phred

[Ombrageux]

Phred - Not all honor killings are by Muslims and it is not the only kind of spousal violence and murder. See Loonwatch on violence against women in India (8,000 reported 'dowry killings' in 2008) and D.R. Congo. I see no reason why reference to socio-cultural group ('Kurdish') is less information than religious group 'Muslim'. In fact the former is always better: There's no reason why an 1.3 billion people should be tainted by the actions of a fraction of it (akin to saying that because Glasgow has a problem with alcohol/murder (for example) this means the problem should be referred as a "Scottish problem" affecting the whole country).

[Pants-of-dog]

Please provide proof of this.

Nowhere in the BBC article does the BBC attribute these types of crimes to any cultural or religious or ethnic group. Not to Iranians, not to Kurds, not to immigrants from North Africa. But by all means, take as much time as you think you need to scrutinize the article carefully in order to determine this for yourself.

How many Iranians are there in Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan? How many Kurds?

The first two sentences from the BBC article:

UK police recorded at least 2,823 so-called honour attacks last year, figures from 39 out of 52 forces show.

A freedom of information request by the Iranian and Kurdish Women's Rights Organisation (Ikwro) revealed that nearly 500 of these were in London.

Bolding mine for emphasis.

[Phred]

The first two sentences from the BBC article:

"UK police recorded at least 2,823 so-called honour attacks last year, figures from 39 out of 52 forces show.

"A freedom of information request by the Iranian and Kurdish Women's Rights Organisation (Ikwro) revealed that nearly 500 of these were in London."

Bolding mine for emphasis.

And I repeat my request - please provide proof for your false claim that the BBC attributes honour killings to certain cultural groups (Iranians and Kurds) and not to Muslims.




Phred

[Phred]

Phred - Not all honor killings are by Muslims and it is not the only kind of spousal violence and murder.

I am well aware of that fact, Teen. Despite this fact, the BBC is content to let its readers assume the worst - that all 2,823 of the brutalizations they mention were committed by Muslims. Hence my choice of thread title.

I see no reason why reference to socio-cultural group ('Kurdish') is less information than religious group 'Muslim'.

And yet the BBC article does not attribute any of the 2,823 incidents to Kurds. Or to Muslims. Or to North Africans. Or to any other distinguishable societal or racial or ethnic or religious group. They're just people who live in the UK. Generic Britons.

That's my entire point -- the BBC finds this story worthy of reporting but does nothing whatsoever to inform its readers of just who it is performing these dastardly deeds.

Useless.

There's no reason why an 1.3 billion people should be tainted by the actions of a fraction of it (akin to saying that because Glasgow has a problem with alcohol/murder (for example) this means the problem should be referred as a "Scottish problem" affecting the whole country).

And why should millions of Kurds be tainted by the actions of a fraction? Or millions of Iranians? It doesn't matter in this case, since the BBC does everything in its power to conceal the identity of the perpetrators anyway. We have no way of knowing if even a single one of these acts was carried out by a Kurd.

Phred

[Phred]

The BBC doesn't imply in the slightest (merely or otherwise) that Kurds or Iranians are responsible for even a single one of the 2,823 incidents they mention, much less the majority of them. What on earth leads you to believe they made any such implication? I ask for the third time, please cut and paste the section of the article where the BBC assigns to any ethnic, religious, geographical, or cultural group responsibility for even a single one of these incidents.

Thank you.



Phred