Sunday, January 28, 2007

Big Brother’s ‘racism’ and Undercover Mosque’s ‘homophobia’

Quite a few of Cranmer’s communicants have expressed disappointment that he did not comment on the C4 Dispatches programme ‘Undercover Mosque’. A few also sought his opinion on Big Brother and the allegations of racism. With due respect to the sensitivies of animal rights activists, he shall endeavour to euthenise two avian creatures with one lapillus.

In truth, His Grace does not watch Big Brother. It is a programme for the socially inept and mentally challenged, who are transfixed by the ignorance and hysteria of largely unknown social misfits who consider themselves to be of a certain celebrity status, and who desire entertainment on the lowest possible cerebral plane possible: that of the amoeba. However, its consequences are a little harder to avoid. When the entire nation is judged to be bigoted, intolerant and racist, simply because one girl with a single brain cell makes some comments which are totally consistent with her intellectual capacity, it is a sign that the world has gone mad.

The Prime Minister and the Prime-Minister-in-waiting were both drawn into the national breast beating, and the Chancellor was obliged to respond to India with an apology on the Government’s behalf. Absurd. His Grace is of the opinion that if C4 is intent on making the Jade Goody’s of this world famous, it should hardly be surprised if she opens her very large mouth and occasionally puts several feet in it. That this should then involve the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is indicative of the very sorry state of national and international politics.

‘Undercover Mosque’, however, was quite a different matter. The essential discovery was that ‘moderate’ mosques, praised by the Prime Minister for the multi-faith tolerance, invited respected imams who preached that homosexuals should be killed, that Mohammed’s example of being betrothed to a 9-year-old should be emulated, that women are deficient and should be beaten, as should all girls who do not wear the hijab, and lastly, that Islam should take over the UK by forming a state-within-a-state, and run it under Shari’a law whilst waging Jihad against the infidels. The transcript may be found here.

Of course, not all Mohammedans accord with the Wahhabi doctrine, and many would assert that members of this sect are not ‘true Muslims’. It is, however, time for Mohammedans to take responsibility for what is preached in their name. If they don't like the way they are portrayed in the media, they should expel the imams who preach intolerance. In response to the news that a British Mohammedan solider was killed fighting the Taliban, one imam declares: “The hero of Islam is the one who separated his head from his shoulders.” Another speaker says Muslims cannot accept the rule of non-Muslims: “You cannot accept the rule of the kaffir.”

And, please, Cranmer does not want a barrage of emails insisting that comments were ‘taken out of context. Communicants may observe excerpts here, and he himself heard one imam say: "Allah has created the woman deficient, her intellect is incomplete," and "By the age of 10, if she doesn't wear hijab, we hit her." There is no context which would render such comments acceptable.

Cranmer would like his communicants to consider two points. Firstly, it appears that HM Constabulory has not yet investigated the comments of these imams, nor visited the mosques. It seems, however, that Miss Goody is already being questioned by the police. One wonders if they are afraid of appearing ‘institutionally racist’? But secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the Government involved itself very publicly with the alleged racism of Big Brother, but has said not a word about the bile that is being preached in these mosques. One wonders why...

10 Comments:

Anonymous Voyager said...

In truth, His Grace does not watch Big Brother.

This belated admission is most welcome, I had my doubts...believing you to be either William Mervyn or Robertson Hare

28 January 2007 at 20:14  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I believe that were the government to involve itself in the matters that his grace has pointed out what little chance of labour regaining power may exist will also cease to do so.. nonetheless the point raised is perhaps rather more important than the comments made by an uneducated miss goody and it is time for the august institution known as the government to respond no matter what the consequences may be.. after all right is right in the scorn of consequence..

28 January 2007 at 23:58  
Blogger Tom Tyler said...

Given the current absurdly liberal criteria which constitutes sufficient grounds for making an accusation that a "hate crime" has been committed, and given the responsibility of the police to investigate all such accusations as a matter of utmost priority, it would seem simplicity itself to report said imams to the authorities.

I am most surprised that no police action seems to have been taken yet.

29 January 2007 at 03:25  
Anonymous VOyager said...

It is highly unlikely that any action will be taken. Recent events with respect to what Muslims see as the symbol of Christianity - the Catholic Church - they are remarkably ignorant of Christian theology or denominations - makes it clear that the loudmouth radicals will have a bigger audience as they depict the power of the State to rewrite scripture and punish those who try to live by it.

The disastrous message of Harman, Hain, Johnson, etc on Catholic adoption agencies will not be lost on the Muslim radicals who want a community to live in fear of the police raid, the suppresson of religion, and the dispersal of Muslim "communities". I think the chances of any rapproachement with Islam disappeared when Blair let his party ride roughshod over People of The Book

29 January 2007 at 05:56  
Blogger Sir Henry Morgan said...

Just a couple of points, Your Grace:

Context. In cases like this the Mohammedans always say said remarks are taken "out of context", without any explanation of what the context should be. I suspect they mean that the context lies in the mores of seventh centuri A.D. Arabia. That would be fair enough, I suppose, if it was for the fact that those same Mohammedans also claim that their holy texts are the word of God, unchanged and unchangeable for all time ... which would seem to imply that they are always and forever IN context.

And as for the question of why the government behaves as it does with respect to Mohammedism and all its doings, perhaps a short read of the first two paragraphs of the following newspaper article might supply a clue. I really would like to know which of our Cabinet ministers begs God's will in the Mohammedan way.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2192977.ece

29 January 2007 at 09:45  
Blogger Sir Henry Morgan said...

Correction:

" ... if it was not for the fact ..."

Sorry.

29 January 2007 at 09:47  
Blogger tim said...

Voyager--
What was the issue over People of the Book, and what did the government do? I'm familiar with the meaning of the phrase itself, but I haven't heard of this particular book.

It's hard to say which is more exasperating--the government's refusal to treat the radicals as a serious problem, or its taking action against an individual for merely saying something obnoxious and rude.

Forgive an American for not knowing, but even if you don't have explicit Constitutional protection for it, I had the impression that there was a tradition of freedom of speech in Britain. I'm sure this is a regular topic over there, and I'm chiming in late, but from a legal standpoint: has this been an erosion in an existing right, through gradually-changing court precedents?

29 January 2007 at 13:14  
Anonymous Voyager said...

What was the issue over People of the Book,

People of The Book is how The Koran describes Jews and Christians (in its positive sections). The imposition of an EU-Directive on gender equality in provision of goods and services by the Blair regime is held to make it a criminal offence for Roman Catholic Adoption Agencies to uphold Scripture and act in accordance with same thus making it illegal for local authorities to pay the £28.000 it costs to prepare each adoption thus rendering the Catholic Church unable to continue.

You are correct we did have a tradition of Free Speech because our forebears going back to the 17th Century decided they would not let the King be Absolute and tyrannical to the point of beheading him. Having been through a regicide and Civil War it became a hallmark of England never to push things to Civil War again......though had the First World war not occurred in 1914 some think civil disorder could have torn the country apart.

So there is no right of free speech . England was characterised by a relaxed approach whereby you could do whatever was not prohibited - it is just the rise of Socialism and Ideological Fanaticism that has used the law-making power to control Thoughts and Words and not just Deeds.

I believe as an American you have had a similar experience through the Warren Court and a mindset that gets histrionic over words like girl niggardly

29 January 2007 at 14:31  
Anonymous Observer said...

Just to note - Ms Goody is of mixed-race having a Jamaican father as progenitor - it appears she can in PC-Speak only be "half-racist" or perhaps simply impure in thought and deed ?

30 January 2007 at 07:29  
Anonymous Alexandrian said...

Like your Grace, I am perplexed that ministers of Her Majesty's government feel obliged to publicly disassociate themselves from the remarks of Jade Goody.

I do not know what this signifies. It is, indeed, as you have pointed out, an indication of madness. But what kind of madness?

It seems to me that many people in politics (and indeed, the media) see any remark made by any British subject to, in some way, represent the nation. If we are all ambassadors, then it follows that when we speak publicly, we must reflect the official policy of the nation. And if that is what our leaders believe, then it follows that they will not be content to tolerate freedom of speech (as it has traditionally been understood) for long.

30 January 2007 at 11:53  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older