* Yes, but who in the home office has the balls to go after them and clean this pigsty out?
The Ofcom ruling today totally exonerating the Channel Four Dispatches programme Undercover Mosque should not be the end of this disturbing episode. The programme exposed the preaching of extremism and hatred in a number of British mosques, several of them supposedly ‘moderate’ and mainstream. In any rational society those preachers, who were inciting hatred against gays, Jews, women and non-Muslims, would have been arrested and prosecuted. But this is Britain, and what happened after Undercover Mosque was transmitted was an object (or should that be abject) lesson in how to hand victory to the Islamists on a plate.
First, West Midlands police investigated whether any offences had been committed at these mosques and presented their findings to the Crown Prosecution Service. The CPS decided there was insufficient evidence to bring charges against anybody. Then the West Midlands police decided that the real villains of the piece were the makers of the Dispatches programme itself for stirring up racial hatred. This astounding view was dismissed by the CPS. Undaunted in its determination to find the Dispatches team guilty of something, the police then referred the programme to the broadcasting regulator Ofcom, claiming that it had distorted various speakers’ comments, edited material in a manner likely to
undermine community cohesion and was likely to undermine feelings of public reassurance and safety of those communities in the West Midlands for which the Chief Constable has a responsibility.
Now Ofcom has robustly rejected all these charges and concluded:
Undercover Mosque was a legitimate investigation, uncovering matters of important public interest. Ofcom found no evidence that the broadcaster had misled the audience or that the programme was likely to encourage or incite criminal activity. On the evidence (including untransmitted footage and scripts), Ofcom found that the broadcaster had accurately represented the material it had gathered and dealt with the subject matter responsibly and in context.
Questions must now be raised in Parliament about the behaviour of the West Midland police. By their actions, they have made the people of Britain signally less safe. The Dispatches programme performed a public service in exposing sources of the kind of extremism that threatens the safety and security of this country. For the police to turn on this programme with patently implausible charges against it is deeply sinister and against the public interest. As Channel Four said after the ruling, the police action had given
legitimacy to people preaching a message of hate.
The West Midlands police appear to have turned themselves into a mouthpiece for Islamists trying to shut down legitimate and necessary debate. The idea that the police should believe that ‘community cohesion’ â€” aka the sensitivities of the Muslim community â€“ should trump the need to identify those endangering not only the cohesion but the security of the whole country suggests that the police have totally lost the plot here. There is also something badly wrong with a system which is unable to act against those identified on this programme inciting hatred in this way. Is this because of the pusillanimity of the CPS? Is it the inadequacy of the law? Whatever the reason, this is the way a culture offers up its own throat to the knife.
Sheik yer’mami sez: ‘follow the money..!
Dispatches – Undercover Mosque (1 of 6)
The sinister police response to Islamist incitement (see post below) in which they tried to suppress the evidence of it in the interests of ‘community cohesion’ is unfortunately part of a far larger picture of terminal British cultural cringe and abasement in the face of the threat to Britain and the west. Following the statement by the head of MI5 that we should ‘pay close attention’ to the language used to talk about such matters, the Guardian reports that counter-terrorism officials are abandoning ‘offensive’ ‘inappropriate’ and ‘emotive language’ when talking about, er, Islamic terrorism. So no more ‘war on terror’; the ’battle’ against extremist ideology becomes a ‘struggle’ (hello? isn’t that what ‘jihad’ actually means?); and terrorist plots and conspiracies will be described as ‘criminal’ instead. ‘
We hadn’t got the message right,’ said one senior official. He added: ‘We must talk in a language which is not offensive.’ Another said that the terrorist threat must not be described as a ‘Muslim problem’.
Later on in the story, however, we learn that the geniuses in the Home Office Research, Information, and Communications Unit, which was set up to counter al Qaeda propaganda and ‘win hearts and minds’, will draw up
‘counter-narratives’ to the anti-western messages on websites designed to influence vulnerable and impressionable audiences… to explain what one official called the government’s ‘foreign policy in its totality’, counter the accusations made by al-Qaida sympathisers and extremist groups and pinpoint the weaknesses in their arguments. The unit will also support ‘alternative voices’ in the Muslim community.
So how precisely are they going to do this if they won’t even acknowledge that the words ‘Muslim’, ‘terrorism’ and ‘problem’ might go together? Since the driver of I*****c t*******m is the I******t injunction, mandated by leading M****m religious authorities, to wage war against western civilisation in the name of I***m, restore the M****m caliphate and subjugate unbelievers and M****m backsliders everywhere, just how is the HORICU going to ‘pinpoint the weaknesses in their arguments’ if they refuse even to use these words? On what basis will they single out the Muslim community for the encouragement of ‘alternative voices’ if they say the problem is nothing to do with that community? And just what is the government’s ‘foreign policy in its totality’? Does this involve saying less than fulsome things about George Bush, perhaps, and more fulsome things about the Palestinians in their historic ‘struggle’ against the Zionist entity? I’m sure that we’d all love to know.
Last week, London Mayor Ken Livingstone published a report about ‘Islamophobia’ which damned pretty well every factual reference to Islamic extremism, terrorism or intended genocide as ‘Islamophobic’. This risible document was said to have been written by ‘leading academics and experts’; but one of its main targets, the television journalist John Ware who made an exemplary documentary exposing the extremism of the Muslim Council of Britain, quickly discovered at the press conference that one of these alleged luminaries wasn’t an academic or expert at all but Inayat Bunglawala of the MCB, whose form in the field of prejudice and extremism has been well documented (see here, for example) and that two other MCB people were also among the authors.