For apologists, the timing for dissent is never right
I was interviewed by Anne-Marie Tomchak for thirty minutes for BBC Trending on 26 November. Despite my also having referred 4 ex-Muslims, including those who maintained anonymity whilst Tweeting for#ExMuslimBecause due to fears for their safety, the programme spoke to Mobeen Azhar and Rashid Dar, two men who identified themselves as Muslims, about my segment which was highly edited for BBC World Service on 28 November.
The presenter Tomchak and the two Muslim men framed the entire discussion about apostasy and the basic human right to leave and criticise Islam without fear into one that was “hateful,” “bigoted,” “an attack on Muslims,” “Islamophobic,” “opportunistic,” “quite offensive”…
So the BBC actually thinks Muslims should not be allowed to leave Islam? It thinks Maryam and the ExMuslims are being “hateful” in saying Muslims can leave?
Why? The BBC is based in the UK. People in the UK are allowed to leave their religions (though it’s socially difficult for some, especially Muslims); that freedom is taken for granted. Why does the BBC make it its business to tell Muslims that they’re not allowed to leave their religion? Why does it treat her as some sort of criminal?
Tomchak and her “experts” insist that #ExMuslimBecause was “bad timing” due to the Paris attacks. For apologists, the timing for dissent is never right.
Whilst we mourn our dead in Paris, we must not forget the countless others killed by ISIS and Islamists, including this very month in Lebanon, Nigeria, Mali, Iraq, Egypt, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan… as well as those executed perfectly legally via Sharia laws in Iran, Saudi Arabia… The refugee crisis is in large part due to this unbridled brutality.
In fact, if there ever was a “right” time to challenge Islam and Islamism, it is now.
And why would we not be allowed to do that in any case? It’s not the 13th century. We’re allowed to challenge ideas, ideologies, institutions. We’re allowed to challenge them and we’re allowed to abandon them. The BBC shouldn’t be saying or implying otherwise.
Maybe this example will help Tomchak and the BBC understand what they have got so very wrong (though I am not holding my breath). What they’ve done in their report on #ExMuslimBecause is similar to labelling critics of the Magdelene Laundries or Symphysiotomy as “strident,” “Catholic bashers” or “openly hostile to the Catholic Church.”
Of course there are people who do exactly that: apologists for the Catholic church and all its actions. But they tend to be cardinals or Bill Donohue; they don’t tend to be the BBC.
I know the BBC and its “Muslim community specialists” would have preferred us to raise #ExMuslimBecause in private over coffee. Regressive laws and fascist movements, however, are not pushed back over private chats but via normalising the taboo and through very public challenges and renunciations.
Every movement – from the demand to end racial apartheid, for gender equality, and LGBT rights – were battles fought in the public square. The right to apostasy and blasphemy is no different.
Remove all the BBC’s bogus accusations and one fact remains: the right to religion comes with a corresponding right to be free from religion. #ExMuslimBecause is part of the effort to bring about that hugely important change.
And the BBC should not be crapping on it.
@”the BBC treats Maryam Namazie and the ExMuslims as some kind of horrid contaminant if not just plain traitors”.
I listened to the piece pretty carefully, and didn’t get that impression at all.
And much as we support Maryam’s position, the presenter isn’t there to give anyone a free pass. Their job at the BBC is to ask difficult questions, present opposing views etc.
I heard Maryam’s view. I heard opposing views. That’s journalism.
No, that’s not journalism. It’s not the case that journalism=always offering 2 opposing takes on every subject.
Arthur, that’s the UpForDebate fallacy. If one side is arguing for freedom of beliefs — a bedrock human rights value at this point — and the other side is coloring that standpoint as an insult to their beliefs, they are just plain wrong.
Freedom of belief is the only way to guarantee respect for religions and unbelief. Otherwise whoever has the bigger machete can always try a holy war against those insulting others.
The BBC’s journalistic responsibility was to make the logic of that context clear. Pandering to fundamentalists is the worst possible way to react to the Paris attacks.
“It’s not the case that journalism=always offering 2 opposing takes on every subject.”
Yes, agreed, for example, when there’s a discussion on cosmology or evolution there’s no justification to include creationists in the interests of “balance”, or to canvass the opinions of some misogynist theocrat on the issue of women’s rights.
Someone put it quite well, on PJ’s Groklaw (pbui) I think:
“A says the sun rises in the east, B says it rises in the west, so I suppose the truth lies in the middle.”
The BBC are better than the verkrappt Guardian, but not always by much. The only time freedom of/from religion seems up for “debate” is when Islam is involved.
@”No, that’s not journalism. It’s not the case that journalism=always offering 2 opposing takes on every subject.”
The BBC’s Charter and Agreement requires BBC journalism to be impartial and to present opposing views. There was nothing unusual about the way the BBC covered this piece.
Also, there is a rigorous complaints process at the BBC and at Ofcom if we believe we have been served biased coverage.
Imparitality guidelines:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/impartiality/
@”Why does the BBC make it its business to tell Muslims that they’re not allowed to leave their religion? ”
If you truly believe that the BBC asserted that during the piece, then maybe it is worth following their complaint process and getting a response. The BBC is obliged to respond, and often do.
I just listened to the World Service programme, and I was relieved to find that no-one was treating Maryam as a criminal or a contaminant. But they did ignore her, and then laid into her with no opportunity to reply.
In the first part of the segment, Maryam was marvellously brilliant and in slightly less than 3 minutes explained the hashtag #ExMuslimBecause, why it was relevant, necessary, not hateful, and not opportunistic. The presenter probed firmly but gently.
The second part was back in the broom-cupboard studio with one opposing journalist/filmmaker plus a studio link to a second interviewee in New York (I think). This part was half a minute longer.
The presenter then led off with the statement “Quite a strident tone coming from Maryam Namazie. And the way she uses the term ‘Islamists’…”.
O_O
This seems quite unbalanced balanced journalism, and rubbishy journalism even for anyone who subscribes to “two sides must be given equal weight”.
Therefore the majority part of the programme was solely the two men and the presenter (a) ignoring everything Maryam said whilst (b) agreeing with each other that she or the CEMB, or both, were being opportunistic, encouraging hateful speech, strident, uncompromising, problematic.
I haven’t the time to analyse it properly (maybe later), but I think there are definitely grounds for complaint; the Beeb has a case to answer. They might try to sweep it under the carpet, but the Beeb does care: the producers don’t want to get a reputation for being crap at journalism and cheap at presenting.
In fairness to Mobeen Azha, (not that I expect he’d return the favour), he did briefly acknowledge that there are lots of countries where apostasy is illegal and gets you killed. He forgot to mention that there’s entire communities where apostasy gets you murdered even when apostasy isn’t illegal. I probably shouldn’t mention that this seems overwhelmingly a problem for Islam, in case someone thinks I’m stoking up hatred or trying to hurt the feelings of any muslims. I’m not.
Thank you for those, eigen. I got around to listening to the segment late yesterday and was going to post about it today, and now I don’t have to.
At the beginning Mobeen Azha seemed reasonably fair about Maryam and the Exes – but then after Maryam’s recorded segment and that outrageous remark by the host, he was a good deal more hostile. I wondered if he felt the host had given him permission or even cued him.
I was really shocked when right after Maryam’s calm discussion, the host announced “how strident” – when Maryam wasn’t strident at all! That part is why Arthur’s comments @ 1 & 7 are wrong. Part of why; there’s also the fact that the two guys were the studio conversation with the host, while Maryam’s bit was recorded ahead of time and then they attacked her in absentia. That’s not “balanced.”