Sunday, April 05, 2009

Government-funded charity depicts Christians as Islamophobic bullies

Klic aims to be ‘the best ever mag for kids in care’, and is aimed at children aged 8-12. The ‘in care’ aspect is rather important in this context, for many of these young children will already be disadvantaged in terms of domestic stability, emotional development or educational progress. So messages conveyed by a magazine which aspires to be 'the best ever' ought to be considered with very great care before the nation’s most vulnerable minds are exposed to them. Channel 4 journalist Jon Snow judges it to be 'the best magazine I know'.

Perhaps he is drawn to its subliminal anti-Christian message.

In a cartoon strip, an angry boy wearing a large cross around his neck tells a friend that a smiling Muslim girl wearing a hijab looks like a terrorist. He later confronts her and shouts: "Hey, whatever your name is, what are you hiding under your turban?"

She replies that the garment is called a hijab and that it is part of her religion ‘like the cross you wear’. The girl is then shown defending another boy, who is being bullied, and her reasonableness, benevolence and altruism are in stark contrast to the bullying and ‘Islamophobic’ behaviour of the boy wearing the cross.

The cartoon story, entitled ‘Standing Up For What You Believe In’, is published by the Who Cares? Trust which received £100,000 from the Department for Children, Schools and Families, in both 2007 and 2008, and £80,000 this year.

That is £280,000 to convey the impression to children that Christians bully Muslims.

Some might, of course. But the Government would never subsidise a magazine which conveyed the impression that Muslims bully and intimidate Christians.

In its defence, the magazine says that it does not specifically refer to the boy's religion. Trust chief executive Natasha Finlayson described the cross as ‘bling’ rather than a religious symbol.

Yet the cartoon specifically links the prominent 'bling' to its religious significance. And by giving the bully a cross the size of that worn by a bishop, Ms Finlayson’s attempt to pass it off as a meaningless piece of jewellery is not remotely credible.

One can only imagine the furore if a Muslim in a hijab were portrayed as persecuting a Christian wearing a cross. Certainly, many people do wear crosses simply as 'bling', but in a cartoon the theme of which is racism and discrimination, the symbolism becomes rather more important. One wonders how the Trust might attempt to pacify angry Muslims if they were to insist that the hijab is simply a fashion accessory.

20 Comments:

Blogger John of Enfield said...

racist - init

5 April 2009 at 15:49  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And we are paying for this.

5 April 2009 at 16:41  
Anonymous len said...

This is blatantly anti-christian.
This is a not too subtle attempt to vilify christians and to make them seem intolerant and anti-social.
This sort of propaganda has been used before!
Jesus said this would happen in the last days.
"If the world hates you ,you know that it has hated Me before it hated you.
This may seem to be an over-reaction but christians seem to be the only group that is it is deemed politically correct to attack.

5 April 2009 at 17:44  
Blogger Oldrightie said...

Oh for the glorious day Brown is made to leave.

5 April 2009 at 17:50  
Anonymous Heavenly hirahrah said...

We are consistently shocked by the absurd decrees of "Political Correctness", yet it remains little understood why a particular politician or organ of the state is behaving in a way that is intuitively destructive and absurd, yet remains impregnable to reason and reality.

Without going too far into the arcane details of the intellectual history of Marxism, political correctness is a political epistemology (a way of interpreting social conflict) that grew out of the intellectual tradition of Marxism. In the epistemology of Marxism, there is no objective truth, truth is really a "narrative" contrived to further the aims of a certain group. In classical Marxism that group was the "ruling-class" who promoted a "false consciousness" to oppress the workers. Later on this epistemology was expanded by the Frankfurt school to include racial, gender, sexual, and religious groups.

Truth and reason are therefore political, truth is socialized, truth is owned by the government, and only that which serves the prerogative of equality is "true", because the alternative is conflict which is naturally regarded by most as the wrong state of affairs. Nothing objectively true can be said by one against another social group, all this is relagated to the entirely subjective ontological status of "hatred" - hence "hate-speech". Falsehood is that which causes social conflict against groups, even if the "falsehood" that starts the conflict is factually accurate.

We do not live in a revolutionary Marxist society and socialist revolution is not the goal of political correctness in our Liberal society. In a Liberal society the highest moral good is the freedom of the individual, to be judged as an individual, and not to be discriminated against on the basis of a group attribute - this is the meaning of the Equality ethic with regards to class, racial, sexual, religious and gender groups. The group equality ethic levels into irrelevance any group attribute, which perhaps explains the wicked success of PC in a liberal society with a high emphasis on individual freedom.

The banning of Geert Wilders from entering Britain amply demonstrates the epistemology of political correctness in action. Geert Wilder's factual demonstration, by reference to the Koran, that Islam is a religion of conquest logically requires (or incites) an aggressive response from non-Muslims in Britain against Muslims. This potentially amounts to Mosques being burnt down (violation of private property) and assaults against Muslims (violation of the private individual) and later civil war. In all cases the results are fairly illiberal. For the PC liberal however, it is a vindication of his idea that the political consequences of "hate-speech" merit censorship. The liberal would be assured in this rightness of this view because it would indeed fit the facts of the above semi-hypothetical example. It is likely that this ethic will be stretched to it's most extreme length when formal dhimmi status is accepted for a measure of peace.

My conclusion and riposte is that the criterion of politics is not social effect, but truth. The idea that truth is only that which is politically expedient enough to keep the peace is the philosophy of Pontius Pilate.

5 April 2009 at 18:01  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I suppose its slightly kinder than all non muslims are animals and should be murdered!

5 April 2009 at 18:03  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

His Holiness,

Whilst I am normal not inclined to believing anything irrational, the constant onslaught of our great nation and religion is verging me towards conspiracy belief.

God help me and our Country!

5 April 2009 at 18:27  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is yet another example of death by a thousand cuts. When will all this wickedness stop and decency, honesty and normal English way of life return to these shores? Archbishop Sentamu seems to be the only Christian in this country who is actually defending our nation and explaining why Christianity is based on goodness, while islam has evil as its foundations.

5 April 2009 at 18:29  
Blogger Liam said...

You might be interested to see how a similar publication distributed to 300 schools and produced by the Amsterdam City Council, led to an interesting reaction - and ultimately the resignation of the councillor (Work en Income, Education, Youth, Diversity en Large Town Policy) responsible for the cartoon.

The cartoon

From left to right:

Hi! I'm Adir, a muslim!
What have you got against us?
Troublemaker!
Get him Dad!!


The reaction to the cartoon


From left to right:


Hi! I'm Henny, a homo!
What have you got against us?
From him from the roof of the flats!!
Homo is haram

5 April 2009 at 18:33  
Anonymous Gnostic said...

I caught this story over on Eye on Britain. This is a shameful piece of anti-Christian propaganda. There's no other term for it.

5 April 2009 at 18:41  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

as a christian... the magaizne is such a rubbish piece of propaganda.. its not realistic.

considering that 'that' magazine mentioned is targetted to 8-12 year olds... i think those kind of kiddies would rather opt for a kiddy fashion mag called sugar and shout... why don't the government just propagate those not-so ideal mags for the young ones.

as the governmnet has backed this magazine, makes it even worse as they can barely justify where they stand in religion.. so why listen?

the boy wearing the cross.. hellor most people wear a cross as a fashion accessory these days.... i honestly think this government of ours needs a lot fashion lessons to what in and what's out... It very sad, but they do. may be then they may understand the young people of today.

5 April 2009 at 18:58  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

I'm getting the point at which I've got rage fatigue.

I have just written an email complaining to them - for what it's worth.

5 April 2009 at 20:26  
Blogger Hugh Oxford said...

Given the actual persecution of Christians by Muslims throughout the world, in contrast to the widely abused generosity of Christian countries to Muslim immigrants, this is rubbing salt in the wound.

5 April 2009 at 22:12  
Blogger Gnostic said...

So this piece of abhorrent bullsh*t (sorry, Your Grace but I am so angry) is coined as the "best ever" is it? Apart from grossly short-changing the most vulnerable kids in our society it's a brick in the face to anyone who is afflicted by the social diseases of fairness and integrity.

So Natasha Finlayson thinks that describing a crucifix as nothing more than "bling" settles the argument does she? Then why not use the heavy gold chains that are the bling of choice to those who like such things? Why use a cross in a religio-racial context if it wasn't meant to put across a highly offensive and damaging message? Why, when it was pointed out that her sinister little publication was insulting to Christians, did she not only defend it but refused to withdraw it? Taxpayers are footing the bill for this travesty? Sack the woman. RIGHT. THE. HELL. NOW!!!

I don't know about anyone else but I'm sick to death of being treated like I'm a village idiot by this bunch of socially-challenged,[insert string of appropriate, highly derogatory obscenities of your choice] quasi-intellectual, politically correct Nazis!

6 April 2009 at 07:49  
Blogger Woman on a Raft said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

6 April 2009 at 10:00  
Blogger Woman on a Raft said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

6 April 2009 at 10:11  
Blogger Gnostic said...

It's not so much that she describes the cross as mere bling which is bad enough. The presence of the cross is intentional rather than incidental since the Muslim character refers to it directly. Therefore, not only is her claim that the publication is not anti-Christian gob-smackingly duplicitous, she insults our intelligence too.

A Christian that woman certainly is not.

6 April 2009 at 10:33  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

Klic reveals how Left-liberals see Christians and therefore reveals how they attack our faith.

First they commit the same mistake as Muslims: they see ‘all’ westerners (convenient) as Christians.

Secondly, they select the bad behaviour of some and conflate it, through association, with the behaviour of all – investigating causation is too difficult for minds that can sleep soundly on bad logic but not bad feelings.

Thirdly, by implicating Christians in bullying zeal for the persecution of Christians in the public square can be encouraged; after all a bully deserves all he gets.

Fourthly, anyone who violates their secular version of ‘Do unto others as you would be done by’ forfeits not only sympathy but a fair hearing; hence, the arrow pointing to the boy with the remark ‘Jew?’

Fifthly, and I think this is the most interesting one of the subliminal messages that has escaped the mind of the editor of Klic, is that the Jews and Christians are allies – but in the cartoon the implication is that Judaeo-Christian values are hostile to the social cohesion of society – a complete travesty of the truth.

6 April 2009 at 11:20  
Anonymous Adrian P said...

I wonder what life will be like for us and our children in 50yrs time Unless we wake up to what is being done.

6 April 2009 at 14:48  
Anonymous Voyager said...

It is interesting to see the Government wants Christians to challenge Muslims over their commitment to terrorism; there can be no other interpretation. Bit hard on Muslims but the Government wants to crack down on terrorism and the power of The Cross is such that it symbolises resistance to The Anti-Christ.

6 April 2009 at 20:52  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older