The London Blasts: Media Review

DAY 80: 25 September 2005

Contents

Publicly-Funded Extremism

The British Council / The BBC

Snippets

Christianist/Islamist / Denial -Gerard

 

PUBLICLY-FUNDED EXTREMISM?

THE BRITISH COUNCIL

Counterpoint, 'the cultural relations thinktank of the British Council', a government-funded body that promotes British culture overseas, is under attack in the Sunday Telegraph, at the same time that the BBC's Newsnight programme is attack from the police.

The accusation against Counterpoint/the British Council is that it has ' fuell[ed] anti-British extremism by promoting material strongly critical of the war in Iraq.' (Sunday Telegraph, page 10)

The Sunday Telegraph is upset about a lot of the views published (not 'promoted') by the British Council. Among them is this rather cautious statement from Bangladeshi journalist Bashir Ahmed, 'one of the project's most regular contributors':

'Now the USA and its allies are seen by people in general, and in Muslim countries in particular, as having capitalised on the 9/11 attacks by trying to conquer Muslim countries - Afghanistan and Iraq. The blind diplomatic support given to Israel by the US administration drives some Muslims crazy and reckless.'

The Sunday Telegraph does not dispute the truth of this statement. It's a plain statement of fact. The Sunday Telegraph objects to such statements being published by a Government-funded body.

The articles have apparently been removed from the British Council website, but there is still a document (2.8Mb pdf) and a film trailer for the 'Keeping in touch' project on the Counterpoint site.

The British Council has (wrongly) apologised for the project.

THE BBC

Meanwhile, for the time being, Newsnight is resisting pressure to hand over footage of interviews with 'Abu Uzair, a former leading light of the radical al-Muhajiroun movement and a leader of the Saviour Sect, an Islamic group whose members include those who have allegedly endorsed suicide bombings', and what the Observer (page 11) describes as 'another radical cleric, Abu Izzadeen.'

Earlier in the year, the Sunday Times complied with a similar request in relation to its investigation into the Saviour Sect (which seems to be a continuation of the "disbanded" al-Muhajiroun).

In contrast,

'Newsnight assistant editor Ben Rich wrote an online article defending the interviews shortly after they were broadcast [in August]. 'The issue of extremism is a very difficult one for broadcasters, and sadly often causes offence. It was our view that it was a legitimate part of our role to identify and demonstrate these problems, and discuss how they should be addressed,' Rich wrote.'

This is exactly what the British Council should have said. (The full text of Rich's article is here.)

SNIPPETS

ISLAMIST / CHRISTIANIST

Two short pieces, in full, one above the other, in the Observer (page 21):

Lord's Resistance Army rebels killed in bloody gun battle

Ugandan troops killed 15 rebels from the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) in a gun battle in remote southern Sudan, the military said. For 19 years the cult-like LRA has terrorised isolated communities on both sides of the border, uprooting 1.6 million people in northern Uganda alone and triggering one of the world's worst humanitarian crises.

Algerian rebels kill 10

Al-Qaeda-aligned Islamist militants have killed 10 people, including seven soldiers, in separate ambushes in Algeria, newspapers reported yesterday. The attacks came a week ahead of a national referendum on a partial amnesty aimed at rebels fighting for a purist Islamic state.

We've discussed the LRA before. They are fighting for a 'purist Christian state' based on the Ten Commandments (as they see them).

Assuming the accuracy of the reports, why are the Algerian militants 'Islamists', but the LRA not described as 'Christianist'?

Why are the Algerian militants described as fighting for 'pure Islam', when the LRA are described as 'cult-like'?

Why are there two references to Islam (as well as one to al-Qaeda) in relation to the Algerian militants, but no reference at all to Christianity in relation to the LRA?

These short reports encapsulate, in around 100 words, the poisonous assumptions which skew reporting, and deepen public fear and hatred of Islam.

DENIAL - GERARD

Jasper Gerard of The Sunday Times (page 28) does his little bit for understanding by describing in these terms the conversion to Islam of Samantha Lethwaite, whose husband Germaine Lindsay became one of the 7/7 bombers:

'I used to wonder how angry teenagers could shock oldsters post-punk. Gangsta rap was predictable, but burqa chic cracks it: Lewthwaite’s folks must have been so stunned when she came home early, sober and serious.'

'Dull old Kate gets high on coke, Samantha gets higher on Allah. Sniffing coke is going along with the crowd; but snorting at everything in the society that has nurtured you is really radical.'

'All good teenage rebellion rejects rational thought but needs an excuse for that rage. For the Sex Pistols it was a “fascist regime”. For fundamentalist Muslim kids it is Iraq. Our teenagers just have Jordan and Peter Andre.'

Converting to Islam is just a way of shocking one's elders.

Converts to Islam are riding a tide of ecstatic emotionalism akin to recreational drug use, not based on genuine religious feeling (apparently unlike other religious converts).

Outrage at the destruction and suffering in Iraq is 'teenage rebellion' devoid of 'rational thought'. The tens of thousands of deaths in Iraq are just an 'excuse' for already-existing rage stemming from personal inadequacies.

This is Mr Blair's diagnosis: excuses, excuses, excuses. Terrorism is just rebellion. There are no genuine grievances, there is no real rage at the helpless suffering of millions of people either at the hands of the West or under the bland, knowing gaze of the rulers of the West.

JNV welcomes feedback.