BBC 3 Free Speech: Racism

Discussing art and media trends and organisations generally

BBC 3 Free Speech: Racism

Postby Gavin » 13 Jun 2013, 17:22

Yesterday Tommy Robinson appeared on a BBC 3 programme called Free Speech, on the topic of "Are we getting more racist?". Not a good start - "becoming" would have been better, BBC. Here is a link to the whole programme and here is a YouTube video of a key excerpt:



BBC 3 is one of the BBC's many unnecessary channels catering for ever more specific audiences - this time the teenagers and twenty-somethings. So this programme was just like "Quisling Time", but the plants were generally all young, therefore they were even more self-righteous and would listen to even fewer reasonable objections to their position.

Callers could contact the programme to indicate who they thought made the best points. A person called Akala "won" by some distance. You'll learn more about him soon.

I am going to present a kind of commentary (again) on the core points, below, in case you cannot bring yourself to watch this programme. The first 20 mins or so are taken up with the discussion, then they went on to speak about smoking and other things (I agreed with the UKIP man on this).

The BBC excelled themselves, anyway. I have rarely seen such appalling, one-sided debate and disgusting bullying of an individual (TR) on air.

  • Panel introduce themselves. Female Indian. Female comedian. UKIP man. A black rapper named Akala who describes himself as a "hip hop artist and educator". He appears to be associated with the site Hip Hop Shakespeare which presents the idea that rap is the modern day equivalent of Shakespeare's verse.
  • BBC presenters begin by liberally using the word "Islamophobia" as if it is legitimate.
  • Everyone interviewed in a voxpop in Woolwich has facial studs. I assume the BBC went to pains to avoid anyone with particularly un-PC opinions, but even these people spoke of the complete lack of community integration there. Everyone is "minding their own business".
  • There are evidently numerous Muslims and liberals in the studio.
  • Akala complains that if someone is non-white then they are more likely to be arrested. There is no mention of the fact that they are also more likely to commit certain kinds of crime. Indeed he portrays the criminals as the victims, ignoring the actual victims of crime. He says there are "socio-economic" factors behind "racism" but does not explain in what sense. The same goes for the UKIP man, actually. I have no idea how the question of whether there are innate differences between races can have anything to do with socio-economincs. It is surely a biological question.
  • A white Muslim man comes on. He talks about "Islamophobia" and says he wants to bomb Anjem Choudary - and Tommy Robinson - with anthrax. There is no protest about this. He isn't led from the studio or anything.
  • Speakers measure whether we are "becoming more racist" by comparing laws of the 1960s with those of today, thus showing their considerable simplicity, for that has nothing to do with it: the question is about whether public feeling is changing.
  • Akala says "the mythology of innate white superiority" is a big problem.
  • At nine minutes through, notably the question of whether or not there actually is any evidence to support the idea of differences between races has not been discussed at all. Instead it is entirely assumed by all that there is none, and there is a complete conflation of "racism" and "Islamophobia". (Yes, this schoolboy error again.)
  • The female stand-up comedian (she really is one, as well) thinks racism means not liking someone who wears different clothes to you or eats different food.
  • The Indian woman complains about institutionalised racism - not of the BBC variety mind you, but she does say that people should integrate and not have parallel cultures. (She will more than make up for this sensible remark shortly by completely disgracing herself.) She does not consider the possibility that many indigenous Brits are never going to respect Muslims because their beliefs are absurd and their religion backward and totalitarian.
  • She complains that someone she knows went to a Bangladeshi curry house for many years, yet did not know how to say "hello" in that language. This to her is disgraceful. Now, I do occasionally ask such things, but the native is in no sense obliged to do so. Does she also object that so many come here and make no effort to learn English? No, of course not.
  • Tommy Robinson comes on. As he explains that the police failed to tackle the Rochdale grooming gangs (something they have now actually admitted) all faces grimace and all heads shake in the studio, as if he is lying. This is a very hostile and totally closed-minded audience.
  • Tommy lays out all of his evidence. He is against the grooming gangs, female circumcision, terrorism etc. Admirable. After all of this, when Tommy explains he and his family are subject to hundreds of death threats, the response of the Indian woman is: "Well then stop being a racist and a bigot!". The studio erupts in applause and cheering. This unspeakable and very stupid reaction stunned even me.
  • The Indian woman is impassioned. She says "I don't spout out rubbish like you do!". She hasn't actually refuted anything Tommy said, didn't even try to do so.
  • Then the female comedian comes on again and claims that TR called all Muslims extreme and that he was therefore racist. He didn't, and even if he had that still would't be racist.
  • The Indian woman still gunning. Repeatedly calls TR "racist" but refuses to say in what sense. She remarks that he could instead talk about "all the Muslim people who are killed by white people".
  • TR asks her about 100 times to back up her charge of racism. She never replies, just shouts him down, calling him "a racist bigot" again. More applause from whole studio of stooges.
  • Akala's turn. He tries the approach that "there are white paedophiles too", as indeed there are. TR says 87% of grooming incidents in the involve Muslims. Akala says that Jimmy Savile was white. (My addition: Jimmy Savile did not form part of a large network of paedophiles whose text leads them to consider white girls as second or third class citizens. If there was any racism, further, surely this was it!)
  • Akala says Muslims pioneered maths and science, introduced algebra, the guitar, coffee and lemons. He says if they do bad things we ascribe it to Islam, if good things then we don't. Indeed so. Leaving aside the truth of his specific claims, it seems to me that is the case. Any good things have been done despite Islam, not because of it.
  • An Indian man comes on an calls them EDL thugs and TR a fascist, without providing any evidence (but then that never seems to be required). It seems to me that even if TR is getting on a bandwagon to some degree, the bandwagon is there to get on - the concerns are legitimate. The same man calls TR an Islamophobe (he had missed that one out!).
  • At no point are any actual arguments addressed. Speakers deign to tell TR what he thinks and just propel insult after insult at him, ridiculing and jeering. The host just stands there.
  • At this point a well spoken young white liberal male comes on and says that regardless of TR's views they are all delighted that he came on the programme "to show how unrepresentative and out of touch he is". The speaker finishes with a smug smile, evidently unaware that he has just uttered a meaningless, almost self-contradictiory, statement. I suppose it could at best be interpreted to mean that viewers could see that whatever TR said, everyone else would disagree with him - and this was indeed clearly true.
  • Polish girl Isabella comes on and says people become racist due to their own problems. In some cases she is probably correct about this, but even this talk of racism is a simplification, I think, of some serious and valid problems the UK faces as a result of mass-immigration of people from inferior cultures whose presence is of no obvious benefit to the UK. She does not really make much of a point beyond this except to vaguely claim that it may be racist to resist a massive influx of foreigners into your country. Thanks for telling us that, from your point of view.
  • An Indian girl comes on and calls TR a racist again. She says when millions come to the UK they do not steal jobs "because they are trying to make the country more diverse".
  • TR defends himself well. Presenter useless - never asks anybody to justify their insults.
  • A woman from a country I had never even heard of comes on (in a headscarf) and says she had been here two years. She complains that people do not want to sit with her on bus because she does not fit in. There are many entirely understandable reasons why people might not do so but notably again the onus is placed on us, rather than them, to engage.
  • The sanctimonious Indian woman comes on again and again says TR is generalising about all Muslims, when he has said a hundred times it is Islam he has a problem with.
  • Akala says that racism was created by elite academics and is pseudoscientific nonsense. He likens Lee Rigby's death to that of a black man who died several years ago in police custody (contrary to his claim, this was indeed widely publicised).
  • UKIP man says education is the way. Backs up Tommy a bit - points out that the police did admit to failings re. Rochdale.

That was it, really. Worse than Quisling Time, because it was like a teenage version, but I was shocked at the extreme bias and the very poor standard of reasoning. There was not even the slightest attempt at impartial analysis or seeking after truth. I wasn't surprised by the BBC though. Since the broadcast TR has repeatedly asked the Indian woman to back-up her racism claims but she has been unable to do so. On the whole I would say this programme probably helped TR and UKIP a lot as everybody else behaved so badly.
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3430
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: BBC 3 Free Speech: Racism

Postby Nathan » 13 Jun 2013, 18:22

I think I, my computer and my window are better off if I don't watch this! It sounds much worse even than the Nick Griffin ambush on Question Time - particularly in the light of recent events and the shift in public mood.

The more I hear the word 'racism' and its gratuitous misuses and how despite all that is going on in much of the rest of the world the slur seems to be used against white people only, even though we are the only people that tolerant of other races that we are even allowing them to gradually marginalise us in our own ancestral homelands at no benefit whatsoever to us, the more absurd it becomes.

Really, the word 'racist' in is current usage is just the modern-day equivalent of "heathen!!!!" or "witch!!!!" - just a pure, quite meaningless shutdown tactic and a way of trying to make us feel guilty for being arguably the most creative, adventurous and inventive brand of humanity around, who everywhere we go are that good at creating well-functioning societies that people from all around the world are willing to go to such desperate lengths to smuggle themselves in to enjoy their fruits, despite those of us already living here clearly all being such horrible people.

Fortunately, shame of being successful to the extent of developing a civilisational suicide wish is that unnatural, unhealthy and unsustainable a view that such sentiment cannot be long for this world, and such blatant propaganda as this only hastens its demise.

All I'll say is that I feel sorry for any innocent individuals who are unfortunate enough to get in the way when the day comes that we decide that a shrill cry of 'racist!' just isn't going to work any more - when we do what any other group would have long since done, and say that we've had enough, the guilt trip is over, and we want our countries back.
Nathan
 
Posts: 880
Joined: 08 Dec 2012, 17:58

Re: BBC 3 Free Speech: Racism

Postby Paul » 13 Jun 2013, 19:16

It's unbearable. I could only watch a few minutes - until the British-born Asian-looking woman started ranting and was then joined by her bespectacled compatriot. Harridans, the pair of them and a woe unto people in various scenarios - including any man unfortunate enough to entangle himself in any romantic notions.

Tommy Robinson - the poor chap. I wonder how he puts up with it and find it hard to believe he won't erupt at some point - though just what his opponents would delight in. He needs messages of support that's for sure.

Finally, the audience, and the presenter. How many of them are actually contributing any wealth to the country? Conscription springs to mind, or a proper job ........... down a coal mine!
Paul
 
Posts: 512
Joined: 02 Aug 2011, 11:37
Location: Lancashire, England.

Re: BBC 3 Free Speech: Racism

Postby Gavin » 13 Jun 2013, 21:51

Yes, Tommy Robinson conducted himself admirably in my opinion. I don't think I would even go on such a programme, but as has been said before, someone has to. The BBC is a biased disgrace.

It's hard to know who was the most useless in the studio really, except it certainly wasn't TR, who's putting his life on the line to stand up to the Islamisation of his country. They didn't care about that at all. They were just more enemies for him.

Here is the Twitter feed of the main presenter - a BBC employee. It's full of expletives and inanities. His job is to present to the youth. He's got plenty of fashion tips on his personal site. Probably paid a great deal by the Beeb for his immense skills. Here's the one of the co-presenter. They both have hundreds of thousands of followers.

It's hard to judge sometimes which is the most corrupt and indidious out of the EU and the BBC.
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3430
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: BBC 3 Free Speech: Racism

Postby Elliott » 14 Jun 2013, 02:29

Unbelievable!

It feels like a trial - an ordeal by self-righteousness - the kind of thing Lenin would devise to destroy people's sanity. I don't know how Tommy Robinson can stand it. He acquitted himself well, against quite amazing opposition!

Gavin has helpfully put into words a lot of the thoughts that were going through my mind as I watched this. (I did manage the entire 14 minutes, with a cathartic rest halfway through.) Now I'll see if I can add any thoughts of my own.

The white Muslim from Newcastle (Geordie Jihad?) who talked about bombing people he doesn't like with anthrax... If I said that on TV about Abu Qatada or Harriet Harman, for example, I'd probably get thrown off the set and receive a home visit from the police and be on a list of extremist nutjobs for the rest of my life.

The Indian panelist... unspeakably self-righteous, smug and "empowered". Didn't have a word of sense or logic to contribute. When people say that women are mostly herd followers, who thrive on forcing people to fall into line and being obedient, I think they are envisaging women like her. It didn't matter what she said, as long as it was the consensus and some other person was made a scapegoat for acting against the community's creed.

Depressing that TR has to say that he supports "diversity". Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. Personally I think it's ludicrous that somebody can't be against Islam without being for his people's dispossession in other ways.

The smug young white liberal guy - hardy-har, no doubt he'll get lucky with a girl in the Union bar for that little performance. But let's see him live in an Islamic ghetto for a week. How about Bradford, Tristram? Or how about raising children next door to a Muslim-run kebab shop? No? Not quite for you? Best stick to your Babylon 5 fan conventions.

One of the key points from "Akala" (good British name, that) was that Jimmy Savile's ethnicity does not get spuriously connected with his paedophile activities whereas the Muslim rape gangs' religion does get connected with their systematic and prolonged grooming/drugging/raping of young white girls. What a red herring! Of course, this is one of those points which can be so easily made by a liberal, and so easily recognised intuitively as being false, yet can only be demonstrated as false through a long-winded argument nowhere near as slick as the way in which the original point was made. But here goes. In Britain, it is not unusual that Jimmy Savile was white. His being Caucasian is not an outstanding factor in his identity or his relationship to mainstream Britain - or, perhaps most importantly, his relationship to his rape victims. Therefore, it is of negligible importance. He was just a stupid, twisted white paedophile, like every other stupid, twisted white paedophile living in a 90% white country. By contrast, the ethnicity (mostly Pakistani) and religion (Islam) of the grooming gangs are absolutely markers of their difference from their victims. Not only does it link these rapists all together as a group, it differentiates them from every single one of their victims. To overlook it is extremely disingenuous, naive, deluded and irresponsible. The trouble is, to acknowledge it would be to admit that, after all that post-1960s nonsense, people actually do behave as groups, and against other groups, and sometimes the belligerent group is brown and the victim group is white. That fact seems to send the modern liberal into a "does not compute!" mode.

One particular sticking point - in that I don't yet know how to reply to it - was when somebody said that TR kept conflating Islam and Islamism. This is a problem. But then why is it our problem? Why do we, white British people, have to do research to determine our enemy? And what good would it do if we were then able to say "this is Islam, this is Islamism"? To me the two things, if they even are separate in any meaningful way, are very very tangled up together. The assertion that their separateness matters is based on the assumption that we can stop an ordinary Muslim becoming an Islamist. But I don't think we can. And even if we could... again, why is it our duty to do this? Shouldn't Muslim communities be taking care of these obscure things themselves? It's like expecting somebody who is being terrorised by a problem family to learn all about the inter-relations between various members of that family: ridiculous, and essentially blaming the victim, or at least laying responsibility for a solution on the victim. Frankly, as somebody scared of Islam, I don't give a toss where it does or doesn't merge into Islamism. Neither is terribly enticing to me, and neither seems to me like it has any place in the West. Finally, if the Islamic percentage of Britain's population continues to rise as forecast, distinctions between Islam and Islamism will get even muddier than they are now: the "Islamist" part of it will mobilise and the whole religion will become a war machine. Saying we can tolerate (celebrate!) the "nice" part of Islam just now is like saying the crocodile has a nice tail.

To return to the "debate"...

Basically it's just not a debate at all, is it? It's a show-trial in which the verdict has already been determined, and the verdict is that TR is a racist, and racism is bad, therefore anything TR says is automatically wrong, unhelpful and bigoted. I could see the producer's thinking as he put the show together: "Tommy Robinson is a racist, therefore not worth listening to, and all we have to do is call him a racist umpteen times and people will understand that he is not worth listening to."

But I think this sort of thing will have a limited effect. We're just not living in the 1990s anymore, when Brits were ready to lap up accusations that they were racist and bathe in the guilt of their peoplehood. Anyone who saw that video could see, despite the BBC's intentions, that Tommy Robinson was honest and direct, and every single other person in the studio was effectively a plant. See how the audience fell silent whenever TR spoke (at least they weren't booing) but erupted into applause as soon as somebody - anybody - mocked him. It was pathetic, and pathetically transparent.

I've said before that BBC3 is a disgrace, but really the whole organisation is besmirched by productions like this.
Elliott
 
Posts: 1800
Joined: 31 Jul 2011, 22:32
Location: Edinburgh

Re: BBC 3 Free Speech: Racism

Postby Gavin » 14 Jun 2013, 11:24

From here:

Golgoroth wrote:2043, Amir Choudry, the Prime Minister celebrates the most diverse year ever ... My 39 year old daughter asks me ''But how did this happen? How could we let our country be taken away by these people? [Muslims]'' To which my only possible reply is ''Because they had a word ''racist'' that they used which scared everybody into silence, yes I know it's pathetic".
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3430
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: BBC 3 Free Speech: Racism

Postby wally » 14 Jun 2013, 17:40

On a pedantic point: one of the panel spoke of a native English person who couldn't say hello to the Bengali staff of an Indian restaurant he used regularly, in their own language. The Bangladeshi method of greeting - as with all good Muslims, is as prescribed by Islam and is in Arabic: "Assalam alaikum" (to which the reply is "Wa alaikum assalam". Such is the power of Islam as an agent of Arab imperialism, even Muslim Bangladeshis don't say hello to each other in their own language (I believe Hindu Bengalis say: "Namaste").
wally
 
Posts: 1
Joined: 14 Jun 2013, 17:30

Re: BBC 3 Free Speech: Racism

Postby Paul » 15 Jun 2013, 00:32

In Indian restaurants I would always say (always do say) - Hello; how do you do; good day/evening; or if more informally - hiya. I think that's enough to choose from. Diverse enough, if you like. I could even lay on a strong Lancashire accent. Half the immigrants in the country would understand that!

I don't recall Tristram. Maybe I didn't get that far, but I can picture him now. Bradford yes, or Oldham or Burnley. How about Moss Side?

Maybe I should endure listening to it all. It's bad though, and this is my own living room. When I'm here I'm not at work and I can't cope with discord these days. Those women - hectoring, screeching, strident hags. I've met them before and so long ago (and since). Types like that were thronging round the Miner's Strike way back then. Just a different cause (but similar) and a generation or two ago. And most of them are still around too. Some of them are now on town councils, or in 'social work' and things like that.

Something I now remember from fairly recently (I may have mentioned it here before) - I received a survey about residential life in the borough, from the local Council, late last year. I presume everbody got one - at great expense. The first question was of course about Race. It was probably termed Ethnicity. I had to tick a box. Here were the choices:

White British
White Scots
White Irish
White Welsh

Twenty-six other nationalities from outside the British Isles. And then 'Other' (just in case) with a box to complete in that event.

So there, no mention of English and utterly incorrect as of course the (white) Irish, Scots and Welsh are White British anyway.

Needless to say, I included a footnote on the completed form. I'm probably now a racist!
Paul
 
Posts: 512
Joined: 02 Aug 2011, 11:37
Location: Lancashire, England.

Re: BBC 3 Free Speech: Racism

Postby Gavin » 15 Jun 2013, 12:00

Further comments on this programme may be found here.
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3430
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: BBC 3 Free Speech: Racism

Postby Gavin » 17 Jun 2013, 22:17

TR speaks back against the recent media "interviews".



I don't want to seem like the Tommy Robinson fanclub here - of course I wish there were more people speaking out about these things. When Douglas Murray does, I link to him too. But TR has turned, by default, into the unlikely popular voice of reason on these matters (he discusses his surprise at this himself at seven minutes through, where I'm up to now).
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3430
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: BBC 3 Free Speech: Racism

Postby Nathan » 17 Jun 2013, 22:31

I'll watch the most recent videos tomorrow if I get the time. I don't want to be getting into conspiracy theory territory, but I'm suspicious as to exactly why he suddenly seems to be on TV and radio every single day now. If it is a deliberate safety-valve tactic to stem the anti-Islamist feeling in the country by undermining his credibility, then with the way he performs in these interviews they are playing a dangerous game! I wouldn't be surprised with the more interviews he does and with the way these interviews are so hostile if EDL support actually goes up.
Nathan
 
Posts: 880
Joined: 08 Dec 2012, 17:58

Re: BBC 3 Free Speech: Racism

Postby Gavin » 17 Jun 2013, 22:40

Yes, it appears to have been going up massively. People don't like to see someone who is voicing legitimate concerns, which they share, being victimised. I guess Tommy will lay the ground here then someone else can come along, maybe Farage - or someone stronger if the public even get clued in enough to take someone like Paul Weston seriously - and they would start to get matters in hand. We'll have to see how trends go, but I think (sadly) we can be pretty sure that the Islamic i) self-segregation ii) childbirth and iii) attacks will continue.
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3430
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain


Return to Art & Media

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron

User Menu

Login Form

This site costs £100 per year to run and makes no money.

If you would like to make a small contribution to help pay for the web hosting, you can do so here.

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 175 on 12 Jan 2015, 18:23

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
Copyright © Western Defence. All Rights Reserved.