Friday, October 27, 2006

It seems the BBC has put it's foot in it again...

BBC seeks to suppress bias report

Network asks High Court to overturn decision that it publishes report into bias in coverage of Middle East conflict

Hagit Klaiman
Published: 10.24.06, 15:50

LONDON - What is keeping the BBC, which is ready to invest intense efforts and money, from publishing a report it commissioned to investigate whether its reporting is biased against Israel?

This question is being asked in Britain after a report about the BBC's petition to the High Court demanding the right to keep a report about its broadcasting secret. The report was commissioned by the BBC in 2003 and 2004.

In 2003, Israel complained about the broadcaster's coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, accusing the BBC of being biased against Israel.

Biased Media

Among other things Israel condemned the BBC's refusal to call Palestinian suicide bombers "terrorists". The crisis reached a nadir when Israel banned diplomats and government officials from speaking with the broadcaster over its release of a documentary claiming that Israel has numerous weapons of mass destruction.

In 2004, the BBC decided to appoint editorial advisor Malcolm Balen to pile a report about the organization's coverage of the Middle East conflict.

The BBC refused to publish the full report although acknowledged that its reporting was biased against Israel. Ynet has a document detailing the legal saga between the BBC and Attorney Steven Sugar, who filed a court petition demanding the BBC release the report.

The publicly-funded report, which comprises 20,000 words, was withheld by the Information Commission.

Sugar told Ynet that his motivation was his belief that the public is entitled to have the full picture, especially when it comes to the complicated and entangled Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

He admitted that he has not conducted his own study on the subject but he said he trusts other studies that showed the BBC's coverage of the conflict is biased.

He noted Trevor Assersson of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs who found that the BBC's coverage of the conflict is biased and that the organization breaches all the norms of journalism required of a news body.

In 2005 the Freedom of Information act was passed in Britain. Sugar turned to the BBC with a request to have access to the report under the Act. He was surprised to be turned down.

He was told that his request was turned down because the BBC is not obliged to publish the report despite it being a public body.

Sugar then turned to the Information Commission which refused his request and sided with the BBC.

Sugar was determined and turned took the case to court. The court ruled that the BBC should make the report available to the public.

The BBC decided to appeal the decision at the High Court.

Sugar: BBC trying to hide something

Sugar vowed to continue the struggle against the BBC. He told Ynet he is not representing any social body but he believes that it is the tax-paying public's right to know whether in 2003 and 2004 the BBC covered the Middle East conflict in a biased way.

He said he believes that Balen is a neutral and objective editor and that he greatly appreciates his hard work in penning the report.

He said Balen will not object to the publication of the report but he estimates that the BBC would argue that the public has no right to know what an independent editor advised the broadcaster to do.

Sugar said what the BBC is trying to cover up is really important. He said it was after Balen's report that the BBC decided to appoint Jeremy Bowen as Middle East Editor despite the spirit of correspondent Orla Guerin who left Israel in response.

Sugar said he has noticed a change in the BBC's coverage of Israel which he links to the Balen report.

Ynet turned to the BBC for a response about why they are reluctant to withhold the report. A BBC spokeswoman said: "We will be appealing the decision of the Information Tribunal. This case has wider implications relating to the way that the Freedom of Information Act applies to public broadcasters.

Thursday, October 26, 2006

BBC admits it's being ruled by the infamous 'M25 Ring' - the extreme left-left wingers, the gays & the politically motivated minorities. It admits that in a fact it does not represent the majority of the UK public! Is anyone surprised?

BBC admits: We are biased on religion & politics

Internal corporation memo on ‘impartiality’ summit leaked to British media exposes truth on BBC bias

Hagit Klaiman
Published: 10.23.06, 16:10

LONDON – The British Broadcasting Corporation has been struggling for several years against criticisms and claims of biased reporting concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and distorted coverage of the global fight against terror.
Following a diplomatic incident with Israel, the BBC appointed an editor known for his objective reporting, however, the true stance of the corporation’s editors remained the same.

An internal memo, recently discovered by the British media, revealed what the BBC has been trying to hide. Senior figures admitted in a recent 'impartiality' summit that the BBC was guilty of promoting Left-wing views and anti-Christian sentiment.

Most executives admitted that the corporation’s representation of homosexuals and ethnic minorities was unbalanced and disproportionate, and that it leaned too strongly towards political correctness, the overt promotion of multiculturalism, anti-Americanism and discrimination against the countryside.

Okay to trash Bible, not Quran

A truly shocking revelation to come out of the summit was expected to invoke a storm in Britain, which has already reached the boiling point with regards to the treatment of Muslims and the issue of the veil.

For the purpose of illustration, the executives were given a scenario in which Jewish Comedian Sasha Baron Cohen [Ali G., Borat] would participate in a program titled ‘Room 101’, a studio program where guests would be asked for their opinions on different issues, and allowed to symbolically throw things they hated in a garbage bin.

The executives were asked what they would do if Cohen decided to throw ‘Kosher food’, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bible, and the Quran in the garbage bin.

The executives said they would allow everything to be thrown in the garbage bin, save the Quran, for fear of offending the British Muslim community.

According to the ‘Washington Times’, the BBC also reportedly revealed that its executives favored interviewing terrorist leader Osama bin Laden if the opportunity arose.

Among other issues raised in the summit was the question of whether or not veiled women should be allowed to read the news. The BBC’s diversity editor said that since news anchors were allowed to wear crosses, any news anchor should be permitted to wear anything they wished, including the veil.

One senior BBC executive admitted to the ‘Daily Express’, "There was a widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness. Unfortunately, much of it is so deeply embedded in the BBC's culture, that it is very hard to change it."

Friday, October 20, 2006


Fury as Berlin Opera Cancels Performance

Berlin's Deutsche Oper opera house is under fire for cancelling a controversial production of a Mozart opera which shows the severed heads of the Prophet Muhammad, Jesus and Buddha. Politicians have condemned the cancellation as self-censorship and cowardice.

The German government accused a Berlin opera house of "self-censorship" on Tuesday for cancelling performances of a Mozart opera because it was concerned about attacks by Islamists.

The Deutsche Oper, one of Berlin's three opera houses, was due to show a controversial production of Mozart's "Idomeneo" by director Hans Neuenfels in which the severed heads of the Prophet Muhammad, Jesus and Buddha are placed on four chairs.

Deutsche Opera manager Kirsten Harms pulled the opera, due be performed four times in November, after receiving a warning from police. "We got alerted by the police that all the press publicity surrounding the play would severely heighten the security risk to this opera," she told a news conference.

After its premiere at the Deutsche Oper in December 2003, the Neuenfels production prompted shouts of protest from the audience but reviewers interpreted it as a radical critique of religion and religious war. First performed in 1781, the opera set in ancient Greece after the Trojan War deals with human resistance to making sacrifices to the gods.

News of the cancellation drew strong criticism from the government and the main political parties. Culture Minister Bernd Neumann said: "If concern about possible protests already leads to self-censorship then the democratic culture of free speech is in danger."

The Berlin police department said it had analysed security risks resulting from the performance in light of the worldwide protests that followed the publication of Muhammad cartoons in Danish newspapers earlier this year.

"We told the opera that possible disturbances relating to the performance in its planned form couldn't be ruled out," the spokesman said.

Thursday, October 19, 2006

Canada, Prime Minister Stephen Harper:
All Liberal leadership hopefuls 'anti-Israeli'

Prime Minister Stephen Harper waded further Thursday into the incendiary debate over Liberal leadership front-runner Michael Ignatieff's charge that Israel has committed a "war crime" in Lebanon, blasting the entire Grit hopeful lineup for what he called their "anti-Israeli position."

When asked about the term "war crime" to describe Israel's action against Hezbollah in Lebanon, Harper told reporters at a press conference on Thursday that he found the usage inappropriate, saying "I don't support that view."

But the prime minister went one further, taking a jab not only at Ignatieff, but the entire lineup of Liberal leadership hopefuls.

"This is consistent with the anti-Israeli position that has been taken with virtually all of the candidates of the Liberal leadership, and I don't think it's helpful or useful."

But Ignatieff's leadership rivals may not agree with his choice of words.

"To use the phrase 'war crime,' I think, is most unwise," Bob Rae told CTV News on Wednesday.

Meanwhile fellow contender Joe Volpe characterized Ignatieff's comments as "a rookie error."

In an ironic twist, Ignatieff was attempting to explain a previous gaffe on the same subject when he dug himself into a deeper hole.

In an interview broadcast Sunday on Quebec talk show "Tout le monde en parle," Ignatieff apologized for telling the Toronto Star in August that he was "not losing sleep" over an Israeli air strike that killed dozens of Lebanese civilians in the village of Qana on July 30.

"I showed a lack of compassion. It was a mistake and when you make a mistake like that, you have to admit it," he said in French.

"I was a professor of human rights, and I am also a professor of the laws of war, and what happened in Qana was a war crime, and I should have said that." Earlier in August, Ignatieff admitted that he made a "mistake" in his comments to the Star; and since then transcripts of his interview shows that he prefaced those comments by calling the Qana bombing a "tragedy" for the Lebanese people.

But the interview in Quebec on Sunday marks the first time he has characterized Israel's actions as a war crime.

Jewish leaders reacted angrily to Ignatieff's latest choice of words and demanded a retraction.

In an apparent effort to make amends, Ignatieff told reporters that while he is a friend of Israel he is a "critical friend of Israel."

He added that "where crimes were visited on Israeli civilians, they were visited on Lebanese civilians." But the damage appeared to be done. His comments highlighted divisions not only within his inner circle but within the Liberal party itself.

The co-chair of Ignatieff's Toronto campaign, Thornhill MP Susan Kadis, announced Wednesday that she was quitting over his remarks.

Kadis said she found his comments "troubling," given that Israel was defending itself in its conflict with Hezbollah.

Ignatieff so far has the support of nearly 30 per cent of delegates in the battle for the Liberal leadership, with the less than two months to go before the Nov. 28-Dec. 3 Liberal convention in Montreal.

Harper, who has been perceived as pro-Israeli, has come under fire himself for taking sides in the Mideast conflict.

The prime minister even made waves in international waters in September, when members of the Francophonie summit agreed to a compromise on a contentious resolution after Harper blocked the original proposal.

The original wording of the resolution recognized Lebanon's suffering in this summer's 34-day conflict, but not Israel's.

Harper took a strong stance against the Egyptian-proposed resolution, which most of the 72 members supported. He urged the organization to recognize the suffering of both nations.

After returning to the conference table to hammer out the wording of the resolution, the French-speaking states eventually agreed unanimously to support a compromise that called for the end of hostilities and a return to calm.

It appears, however, that Harper is mindful of the criticism levelled at his unequivocal support for Israel's offensive in Lebanon.

In August, the prime minister appointed a Muslim Liberal MP to be special adviser on South Asia and the Middle East, an appointment seemingly aimed at restoring his political fortunes among groups who say he has been too pro-Israel in his approach to the conflict.

Monday, October 09, 2006

A new important book by Professor Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion" talks about the uselessness of all religious in the life's of people on earth; It also discuss the negative role religious have on people & states. You can find more information on Prof.Dawkins site & his amazon book is now on sale.

The God Delusion
Professor Richard Dawkins

Sanity In A World Of Madness
Review: Philip Hyland [Dublin, Ireland]

I first came across Richard Dawkins when I watched his two-part documentary for Channel 4, "The Root Of All Evil?", which this book is an expansion of, and it was one of the most joyous, exhilerating and liberating experiences of my life. I was already an atheist at that stage but I didn't really know why. Having such a logical counter argument, the facts, presented freed me from any lingering belief in a god or afterlife. After that I immersed myself in Dawkins' work so needless to say I was giddy like a child on Christmas Eve about the release of this book. It's everything, and more, then I could have hoped for. Dawkins provides an all encompassing rebuttal to any argument for God's existence, highlights the dangers of religion and provides an inspiring and mind-opening view of life without the belief in God. He does so in his usual manner. His arguments are water-tight, completely convinving, easily understood by anyone, humourous, inspiring and life changing.

It has been said, probably fairly, that with this book Dawkins will simply be preaching to the choir but I imagine that there are huge amounts of people out there who like me were confused atheists or are unsure about their beliefs. I would urge anyone who is unsure about their beliefs or hasn't given them much thought to seek out this book. It's hugely enjoyable and it will change how your life for the better.

Dawkins is right that the belief in God is a delusion however any believer who reads this masterpiece and persists in their belief afterwards will be suffering from full blown psychosis.

Thursday, October 05, 2006

And more about the British Muslim Community

Straw's veil comments spark anger

Jack Straw, the ex-foreign secretary, has angered Muslim groups by suggesting women who wear veils can make relations between communities more difficult.

He wrote in the Lancashire Evening Telegraph that he feared "wearing the full veil was bound to make better, positive relations between the two communities more difficult".

Asking women to consider showing the mouths and noses could lead to true "face-to-face" conversations with constituents, enabling him to "see what the other person means, and not just hear what they say".

He said he made sure he had a female colleague in the room when asking someone to show their mouth and nose - and his constituents had so far always agreed to do so.

'Different views'

Later Mr Straw, who has defended the right for women to wear headscarves, asked BBC Radio Lancashire: "Would those people who do wear the veil think about the implications for community relations?"

The remarks attracted an angry response from some organisations representing Muslims.

It was "astonishing" that Mr Straw chose to "selectively discriminate on the basis of religion", said Massoud Shadjareh, chairman of the Islamic Human Rights Commission.

Halima Hussain, from civil liberties group the Muslim Public Affairs Committee, asked BBC News 24: "Who is Jack Straw to comment on negative symbols within a religion that is not his own?"

Rajnaara Akhtar, who chairs the organisation Protect-Hijab, suggested the "appalling" comments showed "a deep lack of understanding".

Mr Straw was putting women "into a very awkward position by compromising the faith they believe in and that is ill-placed", Council of Lancashire Mosques chairman Hamid Kureshi told BBC Radio Five Live.

And a political rival - Liberal Democrat constitutional affairs spokesman Simon Hughes - questioned whether it was Mr Straw's place to question the way that members of the public dressed.

"I don't think it's the job for somebody who represents the whole community to say to somebody who comes through the door, 'Do you mind if you dress differently in order to talk to me?'," Mr Hughes said.

Oliver Letwin, the Conservatives' policy chief, told the BBC's Question Time programme that if women wanted to wear a veil they should do so. He described it as "dangerous" to suggest they should not be allowed to.

Labour chairman Hazel Blears said: "I do not think it would be the first thing that occurred to me but I think it's perfectly proper."

Dr Daud Abdullah of the Muslim Council of Britain said individual Muslim women could choose to remove part of their veil. "Even within the Muslim community, the scholars have different views on this. "Our view is that if it is going to cause discomfort and that can be avoided then it can be done." Dr Abdullah added, however, that covering hair remained "obligatory" for Muslim women.

Mr Straw was home secretary from 1997 to 2001, and then foreign secretary until 2005, a period which included the build-up to, and invasion of, Iraq.
More discounts for the British Muslim Community:

A Muslim police officer was excused
duty guarding Israel's embassy
Met defends Muslim officer move

A Muslim police officer was excused duty guarding Israel's embassy for safety reasons, Scotland Yard has said. The Sun newspaper said the officer was reassigned on "moral grounds" as he objected to Israeli actions in Lebanon. The Diplomatic Protection Group officer, named as Pc Alexander Omar Basha, had Lebanese relatives.

But Metropolitan Police Deputy Commissioner Paul Stephenson said the move followed a risk assessment and was "not about political correctness". The decision to excuse the officer has been attacked by some former police officers and politicians, while being defended by groups representing officers.

Met Commissioner Sir Ian Blair ordered an urgent review into the matter.

We're going down a very, very slippery slope if we then start having postings based on individual officers' conscience [Supt Dal Babu, Association of Muslim Police Officers]

Can the police say no?

Mr Stephenson said: "At the height of the Israeli/Lebanon conflict in August this year, the officer made his managers aware of his personal concerns which included that he had Lebanese family members." He said that following a risk assessment "and not because of the officer's personal views whatever they might have been", a temporary decision was made not to deploy Pc Basha to the Israeli embassy.

"Our priority is making sure that any officer we deploy can have their mind on the job and make sure they discharge effectively and efficiently. "That's what a risk assessment is about, it is not about political correctness and we do not allow officers to pick and choose their deployment on the basis of their personal views."

The Association of Muslim Police Officers said it had been a "welfare issue" not a political one - with the officer having a Syrian father and a Lebanese wife.

The association said Pc Basha had asked to be excused from his duties because he felt "uncomfortable and unsafe". Superintendent Dal Babu, from the association, told BBC News Pc Basha was now back on diplomatic protection group duties and that "if an incident happens at the Israeli embassy he will deal with it". Supt Babu accepted that excusing officers from assignments because of moral beliefs would be unacceptable. "I think that we're going down a very, very slippery slope if we then start having postings based on individual officers' conscience," he said.

What we don't want is a situation where one particular section of the community is given special reasons for not performing duties because that will simply alienate the rest [Lord Mackenzie]

Monday, October 02, 2006

Dutchblog - Great web-blog by Dutch historian Bert de Bruin, who now lives in Israel and concluding his PhD. This is one of many good cartoons on his site..

Another great blog that I have found is 'Jewish Landlord'; This is one of the entries of the owner which I have found very interesting!

Talking With Abdul
Sunday, February 12, 2006

My father called me. He asked me to fix a leaking kitchen drain pipe in his apartment building on the northwest side of Chicago. I agreed to work on it that afternoon. I enjoyed plumbing jobs. They gave me a sense of satisfaction of a job well done, and they paid real good too.

I drove my van to the apartment building, arriving at about 1pm. I rang the doorbell to the apartment on the 1st floor. Vicki, a beautiful peurto rican woman, opened the door. I explained I was here to fix the leak. Her husband, Abdul let me inside.

I remembered seeing them before. I first met them when they came to see the apartment when it was for rent. I was painting it when they stopped by to look at it. I remember how quiet Abdul was. Almost too quiet.

I started working on the kitchen sink pipes. I removed them and started cutting new pipes to fit. Abdul sat down by the kitchen table. Vicki left and didn't come back while I was there.
As I worked, Abdul watched and surprisingly started to talk. At first his questions were about my father and what kind of business we had together. Abdul knew I was Jewish American. I wondered when the hatred would leak out of his mouth. Then the questions and talk moved to where he was from and what family he had.

Abdul told me he had a brother in Egypt, another brother in Kuiwait and a third brother in France. Abdul's parents lived in a Gaza refugee camp. Abdul left Gaza when he was in his early 20's and he never came back.

We started talking about the Israeli-Arab conflict. Abdul assured me he was Palestinian. I asked him why don't the Arabs want to live in peace? Israel's Arabs are the best educated, and have the highest living standards of all the Arab world. Why don't the Israeli Arabs live in peace with Jews the same way many ethnic groups do here in the US?

With a wave of the hand, and a smile, Abdul said, "We Arabs come from a long history of conquest and domination of Islam over all others. We cannot get used to living with dhimmis as equals."

What are dhimmis I asked? I already knew what they are, but I wanted him to tell me.

Abdul said, "dhimmis are slaves, second class people." He smiled big and said, "You Jews were dhimmi slaves in our lands for a thousand years. You Jews had to pay a tax to us Muslims. We simply can't tolerate dhimmi 'slave Jews' ruling over us Muslims. Israel's very existence is poison in our eyes."

As I worked on the pipes, I said to him, "we had to tolerate you Arabs, when you conquered Israel and built your mosques on our sacred Jewish Temple mount. Arabs let the land go to waste, and we Jews had to tolerate your people building Arab squater towns and ghettos on our sacred land. The Turks cut down all the trees in Israel, turning the land into desert."
Abdul countered by saying, "we Arabs came from the Philistines and have a deep connection to the land going back thousands of years."

That was too much for me to stand. I kept working, but said, "Oh really? If you have a deep history in the land of Israel, then tell me what are the names of any Philistine kings, or any Philistine history? Can you show me pictures or books of any coins, any stamps or any kind of proof that you Arabs had any history in the land of Israel? Or is it that you Arabs came as conquerers from Arabia and have no history in Israel?"

Abdul was silent. But not for long. Ignoring my questions, he said, "We want what is our land. We will not stand to live under the Jews. Its our Arab land. We conquered it and we own it. Our mosques stand as witness to it being our land."

Working faster, I said, "your mosques stand as witness to your conquest of the land of Israel. Not ownership of it. Arabs settled into the land in the last 100 years. Before that, there was very few inhabitants in the land of Israel. There was mostly poor Jews and various other peoples scattered around the land. Never did any of the over 20 conquerers ever establish an independent country there. Only the Jews established 2 independent commonwealths of Israel. Jews have never left the land, even though the land of Israel was conquered over 20 times in the last 3000 years. Only the Jews have a 4000 year old history in the land of Israel. Only the Jews have kings, prophets, 2 great Temples, holidays and holy bible stories of us Jews living on the land of Israel. For 4000 years, since the time of Abraham, Jews have always returned to Israel. No matter how many times we were killed, enslaved and deported, we Jews always returned back to the land of Israel."

I continued talking as I finished the job. "You've yet to name me one Palistinian king, one Palistinian prophet, one Palistine story from the bible. Could it be that you have no history, no stories to tell of your history in the land of Israel? Could it be that your attachment to the land is because Jews love it so? Could it be that you've been taught lies to claim my land, my Israel, when you have no right to it?"

Again Abdul was silent. There was nothing for him to say. He had not imagined that a 'Jew slave' would talk back to an Arab. Abdul had nothing to say to me. I finished the job and left.

On the way out, I told him, "Now the tables are turned. Jews are the landlords. You live here as our tenant. Jews owns this building. Jews own this land. Jews set the rules. We Jews are the landlords. Be respectful. We will let you live here if you pay the rent on the 1st of each month. If not, then we will have to evict you."

The same applies to Israel. Truth cannot be argued with. The holy bible tells of all our Jewish stories concerning the land of Israel. Our Jewish holidays are woven around the land of Israel and its events. When Israelis stand up as the true landlords of the land of Israel that we are, then the Arabs will have nothing to say.

Sunday, October 01, 2006

Dr. Wafa Sultan: Brave Arab lady!

Dr. Sultan is an Arab-American Psychologist originated in Syria. She is a voice of reason and truth in the world. She says it like it is! These video clips are taken from Al Jazeera - the famous Arab News broadcaser - and shows that there are logical voices in the Arab world.