Off Topic The Politics Thread

Anjem Choudary found guilty of inviting support for ISIS - hurrah!

 

Big issue on freedom of expression raised now, with the liberal BBC giving this extremist huge amount of air time and privileged status as a leader of a minority, despite the fact that moderate muslim leaders had banned him and his murderous followers from their number. It is a difficult issue. BBC were presumably applying lessons learned when broadcasted speech by the IRA was banned.

 

I don't envy those who have to balance what appear to be conflicting laws. On the one hand, we have an understanding that freedom of expression is protected by law (not sure if it's actually written down anywhere) and we also have a different law that states certain views are not accepted and cannot be expressed. Media outlets will always draw the line in different places, and unless someone like Choudary clearly and explicitly crosses that line, what do you do? When he wraps his hate speech in religious terms, I would imagine this makes denying him a platform even less palatable to the media. He's playing them, and sought to nudge the line further and further in his favour over the years. I'm glad that he's finally overstepped and been caught.

This must be an even bigger issue in the US, where freedom of expression (and particularly religious expression) is built into their constitution. They also have a bigger issue with personal and institutional racism there, and a high proportion of the public have firearms and a belief that using guns to settle disagreements is an acceptable option. It's a wonder there aren't far more mass killings over there than there are already.

 

My understanding is that you at free to express an opinion but not to incite violence.

"The British are infidels!" Ok but moronic

"The British are infidels and should be killed like dogs!" Not ok and even more moronic.

 

As I understand, he's looking to talk somewhere between those two. And the line the media draws is somewhere between the two.

It's like Trump and his speech about Clinton's potential stacking of the US supreme court with anti-gun judges. When he suggested that there would be nothing anyone could so, but then said "maybe the 2nd Amendment folks could do something about that" - is that incitement to kill? Many have taken it to mean just that, and to be fair, Trump is so stupid maybe even he doesn't know what he meant.

 

We seem to be firmly sat in an era of "no-truth" or "post truth". Judgement, balance and respect for people holding different views has been thrown out of the window and people just ignore the facts if they don't agree with their prejudices. They simply accuse the other side of lying and bias.

The BBC has a very difficult balancing act to perform, as everyone accuses them of getting it wrong - but from multiple, conflicting viewpoints! That is probably an indicator of success. Contrast that with Fox News, who don't seem to get complaints from their core customers.

 

Fox do not "perform a balancing act" They are right wing as are their core. The most unbiased news station in the US seem to be the PBS sites who have the BBC America news.

 

I know - and didn't say they were. That's my point. If you're getting complaints from all sides, maybe you're not doing too badly at being even handed. If you're only getting complaints from your enemies and not your fans, your bias is probably consistent.

 

Agree it is a difficult issue but there is something to be said for the fact that we can read reports of his conviction and the potted versions of the poison he spread. What is the alternative? Censorship and editing out anything that some appointed bureaucrat deems offensive or out of kilter with his paymaster's point of view?
It's the price we pay for living in a democracy. We just shouldn't beat ourselves up because we feel and express our outrage at what these evil bastards say and get the gullible misfits in the world to do in the name of their warped vision of the world.

 

We'd never be talking censorship. If you recall, the words of the IRA/Sinn Fein could be published during Thatcher's time, but the actual speech could not be broadcast, leading to dubbing by the TV stations, which was a joke.

The media just have to think carefully and act responsibly, steering clear of any minority sect where there is evidence, direct or indirect, that it espouses violence to achieve its aims. Don't give it the oxygen of publicity, otherwise extremist followers may be encouraged to commit atrocities and the wider minority (in this case, the Muslim community in the UK) may be damaged.

 

Generally agree, but there is also a train of thought that would say that if the public at large are not made aware of these people or their actions/agenda, then they will simply proceed unhindered by public opinion or pressure. It's not true that 'all publicity is good publicity', because exposing hate crimes and incitement to terrorism for what it is is part of what protects us by keeping us all vigilant.

That's why I said above that the line the media must walk in this is a very tough call to make. They need to allow people like Choudhary enough rope to hang themselves, but not enough rope that they tie people up in knots.

 

The media can, indeed must, report on the existence of hate preachers and the violence they espouse.

But it's another thing altogether to give these extremists the opportunity to justify that violence. Choudary was a regular on the BBC, and Newsnight gave him the privilege and prominence as their special guest speaker when he came on and refused to condemn the killing of Lee Rigby.

Irresponsible journalism.

 

I agree with that - they shouldn't wheel out these people after every incident. For example, if they interviewed Nick Griffin each time there was a incident they'd rightly be accused of giving the far right a platform.

 

I didn't see that and would not condone any broadcasting organisation according the status of 'special guest speaker' to anyone whether with moderate or extremist views. I do recall hearing Choudhary once on BBC Breakfast news when he was interviewed by John Humphries. The intention was not to give him the opportunity to justify the atrocity just committed. In fact quite the opposite. Choudhary's response was to avoid answering the question and seek instead to deflect it to his chosen script namely one in which he could portray all muslims as victims and to demand that John Humphries condemn the rest of the world. I am glad I heard that. Even though it made me want to go to the BBC there and then and dispense a small bit of the atrocity perpetrated on innocents on to Mr Chouhary himself.

It exposed him for what he is to the 99.99% of people who actually know the difference between right and wrong. That is well worth having. Therefore sorry I have to disagree. It was highly responsible and effective journalism.

 

I'm a fan of Humphries. He's not one of the metropolitan liberal elite, not a chattering class Islingtonite. He was brought up in Methodist Wales and his moral compass seems to function admirably. I think I remember the Today program interview of Choudary. It showed Choudary up to be the extreme Islamist that he is, in the same way that Question Time's invite to Nick Griffin showed Griffin up to be the racist that he is. So I could live with the occasional such interview, so long as it doesn't turn previously unknown extremists into national figures. There has to be a compelling case for calling someone out.

But I'm not talking about when the BBC get it right - we should take it as a given they should get it right, they spend our money freely enough. I'm talking about when they get it wrong, as Newsnight did. If you bring on as an "expert" a man who celebrated 9/11, fete him and give him credibility then there will be impressionable people, mostly young male Muslim youths who will idolise him. He will come to the attention of those who may not have known him hitherto. In my view, what Newsnight should have done is, first, speak to moderate Muslim leaders and elders to get their opinion on whether to invite Choudary (and all the evidence suggests they would have received a resounding NO), and secondly, having rejected Choudary, bring in a moderate Muslim in his place. Not a lickspittle but someone respected in the broad Muslim community who has a strong voice and does not advocate or celebrate violence.

Let's hope Newsnight have learned its lesson, because we're going to hear a lot about Choudary's human rights now, and there will be plenty of his followers who will be looking for a respectable platform to peddle their vile views. I can't see any reason for the BBC to interview any of them.

 

Is this debate about freedom of speech or the BBC?

 

You think the two are mutually exclusive, Stan?

 

No, but the BBC is such a small sub set of the bigger principle. Personally, I think the second we restrict freedom of speech (as distinct from incitement to violence) is the second we have lost. Shutting people up because you don't like what they say is totalitarian, no matter how offensive you find their views. I don't think there are any ignorant Muslim kids waiting to be radicalised through watching Newsnight. I doubt they know where the BBC 2 button is on the remote.

 

The kids don't need to know where BBC2 is, or what Newsnight is. In this day and age it takes but a matter of minutes for controversial TV interviews and incidents to go viral (I think the phrase is). I find myself watching clips of shows etc. that I wouldn't dream of normally watching because it catches my eye on YouTube, Facebook or is simply sent to me by somebody that thinks it may be of interest to me. I am sure that those seeking to radicalise impressionable muzzims will be using such clips for their own nefarious purposes. I would.

 

I see Corbyn's 'ram-packed' trains stunt has been shown to be a lie, a 'politician of principles' my arse...