I made the mistake of catching a chunk of the Today programme yesterday. I was engrossed in the newspaper and vaguely planning my day, so I wasn’t fully compos mentis, or I would nave switched to Radio 3 .
Now, I don’t normally listen to Today in case I hear John Humphrys’s voice, which can put me in a bad mood for several hours. But yesterday I decided to stick with it after hearing the unpleasant little twerp being bested by the no-nonsense Chairman of the Local Government Association’s Environment Board (imagine having to do a job with that title!).
Towards the end of the programme, there was an item about some recent YouGov research on behalf of the Exploring Islam Foundation which suggested that a majority of Britons associate Islam with extremism and terrorism (I wonder why!), 41% don’t agree that Muslims have made a positive contribution to British society, and only 13% believe Islam has anything to do with peace.
After correspondent Mark Easton had listed these “horrifyingly negative” findings, a British Muslim from the Exploring Islam Foundation was wheeled on for a right old grilling – or, to be more accurate, a series of pat-ball questions which swerved round the concerns of most listeners.
Every question and every response was entirely centred on how to convince Britons that Muslims have made a positive contribution to British society. I was rather hoping that Romana Ali might have been asked how evidently educated, Westernised Muslims like herself might go about convincing some of her co-religionists to stop hating Britain and to stop plotting to kill Britons – that’s quite near the top of my list of concerns when it comes to Muslims. (Treating women like dirt and honour killings might also have been been expected to put in an appearance, but one doesn’t like to be rude.)
I bucked up when the interviewer mused, “It’s been ten years since 9/11 – why has it taken this long?” Yes, why hadn’t mainstream Muslims managed to sort out their extremist elements in the last decade? But the “it” in question turned out, yet again, to refer to the appalling failure of indigenous Britons to appreciate the massive contribution of Muslim incomers. To convince us all to love Muslims, the Foundation is launching a London-based “Inspired by Mohamed” poster campaign to persuade us that Islam is cuddly and that, despite the overwhelming weight of evidence to the contrary, Muslims share our Western attitudes. The posters feature pictures of British Muslims saying things like “I believe in protecting the environment – so did Mohamed”. My favourite was, “I believe in female rights – so did Mohamed”, which actually made my tea to go down the wrong way.
Can you imagine the interviewer’s attitude if a Christian organization had produced a poster featuring an eminent Catholic and the slogan: “I believe in protecting the innocence of children – so did Jesus”? Does anyone doubt that the only subject covered during the ensuing interrogation would have been paedophile priests?
I’m getting terribly, terribly tired of these gormless, obvious, clodhopping attempts at social engineering masquerading as news items.
The fact that the majority of Britons don’t view Muslims in a positive light is not the fault of the British – it’s the fault of those Muslims who refuse to relinquish the customs of their country of origin, refuse to make any effort to assimilate, and despise the country that has so generously afforded them shelter and economic opportunities. (It’s also the fault of the authorities who won’t even send back those they know have been planning terrorist acts.)
Nice, intelligent, well-spoken, Westernised, liberal Muslims aren’t the problem. Obviously! I know quite a few of them – and they’re utterly terrific people. They make more of a contribution to this society than most Britons. But no one (apart, one supposes, from a few BNP goons) has ever suggested that they pose any kind of a threat.
Public attitudes aren’t the problem. The public’s views are perfectly reasonable, given the circumstances. Changing their view of Muslims in general won’t solve anything. The views of Islamofascist extremists are the problem – aim your posters at those charmers!
After a couple of hours’ work, I went down to get another cup of tea, only to be met by yet another example of the BBC’s relentless campaign to make us feel guilty about our perfectly reasonable attitudes towards just about everything.
The issue this time was gay parenting. Ian Iqbal Rashid had written a drama for Woman’s Hour about a gay, mixed race couple in an “open”relationship (i.e. one of them has sex with multiple partners) who find themselves responsible for raising children. The writer was on the show to promote it. The other guest was a woman from Stonewall, the gay organization which has done some research into the experience of children being raised by gays.
You probably won’t be surprised by the absence of any guests who might have had qualms about gay parenting – a fundamentalist Muslim would have been fun. You see, the BBC is all for the practice. (But you already knew that.)
The Stonewall representative spoke like a social worker from a 1980’s Mike Leigh TV play, spraying words like “supportive”, “positive” and “issues” around. Turns out their research shows that there is absolutely nothing whatsoever wrong in any way, shape or form with gay parenting. It’s just perfect and fine and dandy. The only problems for the children in single sex nurturer homes (or however these arrangements are characterized by enthusiasts) arise from the attitudes of other children – i.e. those brought up by heterosexual parents or partners. These unfortunate children ask questions based on “ignorance” and expose our heroic, progressive guinea pigs to “homophobic” language. This causes “issues”. And schools aren’t “supportive”.
Once again, it’s the stupid, blinkered majority who are at fault. We just need to change our silly, hidebound way of thinking and everything would be perfect. Obviously, we’re the real problem. Why should anybody’s sexual proclivities deny them the right to raise the children whom, thanks to one of Nature’s silly little oversights, they can’t actually produce themselves, due to the absence of a vagina and a womb? (I wonder how many gay parents are eco-enthusiasts, demanding that we stop interfering with Nature – except, of course, when it comes to their desire to enjoy the fruits of the procreative process.)
Why should they be expected to forego any experience on account of their life choices? For instance, why shouldn’t Sir Elton John run around the Third World, treating orphanages like an extension of Battersea Dogs Home? He’s loaded and unfulfilled and he wants a kid to nurture, and he wants it now,goddamit!
But don’t worry – apparently it’s a “generational issue”. Once crabby, ignorant old traditionalists such as myself have done everyone a favour and gone to that big Conservative Association in the sky, and the BBC has once more successfully browbeaten the public into accepting something which it instinctively mistrusts, everyone will live in blissful, liberal harmony, and everything will be right with the world.
Now, I’m not sure what I actually think about gay parenting. While I’m not a proponent, I’m not convinced it’s wrong in all circumstances. But I don’t want the BBC ramming the concept down my throat like castor oil while nannyishly ticking me off for having impure, incorrect thoughts.
When will the BBC realize that as many conservatives as liberals pay the license fee, and we thoroughly resent the assumption that our attitudes are invariably wrong?
Show some respect, Auntie!
No comments:
Post a Comment