BBC Equates Free Speech Advocate to Islamic Hate Preacher

[Teddy Bear]

It would be something if the BBC referred more to the majority of Islamic hate preachers it interviews as such. Those like Anjem Choudary, or Omar Bakri Mohammed. But when
it comes to describing a free speech advocate, somebody standing up for the values of our society, they have no problem in calling them a radical and comparing them to an Islamic hate preacher.

BBC SAYS FREE SPEECH ADVOCATE IS “RADICAL”, COMPARES HER TO ISLAMIC HATE PREACHERSS

by LIAM DEACON

The BBC has broadcast a programme that labels free speech advocate Anne Marie Waters a “radical”, comparing her to the Islamic hate preacher Haitham al Haddad, and implying they are two sides of the same coin. Ms. Waters’s profile increased recently when it was reported that she was planning to host a ‘Draw Mohammed’ cartoon competition in London.

The BBC series is called “Radicals,” and is currently airing on the Victoria Derbyshire show on the BBC News channel. The previous two episodes have focused on a Neo-Nazi radical and an ISIS recruit respectively.

The episode in question is entitled “I’ve been silenced for my views.” The fact that Anne Marie Waters has built a career campaigning against radicalism and extremist views is not mentioned in the programme, though they do mention that she is the director of the Shariah Watch organisation that campaigns against sharia law in the United Kingdom.

The BBC has edited the programme in such a way that Ms. Waters’s quotes appear to mirror Haddad’s. Both say they not radicals.



Haitham al Haddad is a British “scholar” of Palestinian origin, who has called Jews “apes and pigs,” praised Osama bin Laden, written articles arguing gays are a “scourge” and “criminal,” and given his support to female genital mutilation (FGM) as “proper.” He once spoke regularly in British universities and schools, but has recently had the majority of his events canceled.

Marie runs shariawatch.com, which was one of several organisations planning to put on the “Draw Mohammad” competition in London that was recently cancelled.

The security services believed the event would be attacked, leading to a “very real possibility that people could be hurt or killed – before, during, and after the event.”

“The two people I’ve met feel they’ve been silenced, censored and misunderstood,” the presenter tells us, “they’ve both had events repeatedly called off; they’ve both been accused of preaching hate.”

In a way, this might be true, but the critical difference is that Ms. Waters’s events have been called because people with similar views to Mr. Haddad have threatened them with violence. His events, however, have been canceled be they are generally considered hateful.

Ms. Waters, who will publis her full response on Breitbart London later today, said: “I find it extraordinary that I am considered a radical – although I suppose Mr. [George] Orwell did tell us that telling the truth is a radical act.”

She added: “Caitrin [the presenter] did tell me that she had spoken to Haitham al Haddad, among others. I don’t particularly care if she interviews him, but I do think it is a sign of our societal sickness that I, [someone] who opposes violence, misogyny and tyranny, is compared to a man who advocates just those things.

“Opposites are now equals. That is how disturbing relativism is.”

[Teddy Bear]

Here it is from the Free Speech advocate herself.

ANNE MARIE WATERS: BBC MADE ME LOOK AS ‘RADICAL’ AS AN ISLAMIST HATE PREACHER, FOR OPPOSING VIOLENT ISLAMISM

by ANNE MARIE WATERS

What happens when people are confronted with sheer evil? Well, some acknowledge it and attempt to oppose it, others refuse to admit it exists and attack those who continually remind them that it does. An effective tactic is to pretend that those who oppose evil are in fact evil themselves (“racist”, “bigot” etc). This tactic was utilised again yesterday when I was featured in a BBC programme which purported that I, who sought to show some cartoons in support of free expression the world over, am the equivalent of a jihadist who wants to cut up little girls’ genitals, wants those who leave Islam to be murdered, and calls for a global battle against democracy and freedom.

We’re the same, equally “radical”. Moral relativism has reduced us to such depths that opposites are now equals and right and wrong no longer exist.

The BBC’s Victoria Live programme showcased myself and one Haitham al-Haddad as “two people not deemed potentially violent but considered by some as very offensive”. Caitrin Nye, the journalist who produced the report, attempted to downplay Haddad’s views in her introduction of him. She said he has stated that “God hates homosexuals, that leaving Islam is punishable by death in the right circumstances, and that Sunni Muslims shouldn’t marry Shias”.

In fact, Haddad has said a lot more than that. I can’t help but wonder why she omitted the following: He endorses death-by-stoning for adultery, which sounds fairly violent to me. In addition to his belief that apostates should be killed, Haddad thinks that a man should be permitted to beat and rape his wife (not violent?), and that child marriage and female genital mutilation (FGM) are entirely acceptable. This is that passes for “not deemed potentially violent” in the eyes of the BBC.

I, on the other hand, believe that people should be entirely free to join or leave any religion they like, or to join no religion at all. I believe that both men and women should have the equal right not to be beaten or raped, and that child marriage and FGM are grotesquely cruel and should be punished to the fullest extent of our law. Yet somehow I am comparable to Haitham al Haddad.

Having said all that, I do have something in common with him. In the BBC piece, we both said that we were telling the truth, and we are. We both acknowledge that justification for the horrors listed above can be found in Islamic scripture – or at least a widespread interpretation of it – and we’re both right. The only question now is what side we take as a nation and a society. Do we stand with myself and others who oppose vicious tyranny and religious oppression, or do we continue to sanitise, elevate, and legitimise those who advocate it?

There are a couple of glaring problems here and as usual, they are overwhelmingly the fault of the incalculably dangerous loony left.

These are, as I’ve mentioned, a determined denial of reality, and the redefinition of language in order to maintain that denial.

To acknowledge the evils propagated by the likes of Haddad, the loony left would have to acknowledge that their stupid fantasy i.e. that if only America weren’t such a bully we would all the running hand-in-hand through the long grass together, equally committed to human rights and equality, is infantile and ridiculous.

They would have to acknowledge that some people don’t want to run through the long grass together, but to kill those who don’t submit to them and bury them underneath that grass.

They would have to acknowledge that the brutal acts committed in the name of sharia exist irrespective of American foreign policy (indeed, they are far older than the United States of America).

They would have to admit that people really are being butchered for blasphemy, by laws enacted by the state and in the name of Islam, all over the Muslim world.

I see it all the time, they attack me regularly, but omit to mention those who have been murdered – it’s as if they don’t matter.

They might also have to concede that opening Europe’s borders to every Tom, Dick, and Harry has brought these atrocities right in to the heart of our established democracies.

No, this would never do.

To facilitate their denial, they have redefined our language so that nothing means what it means. Violence is peaceful, oppression is liberating, and those who oppose tyranny are just as “radical” as those who promote it.

I’m getting rather tired of this, but I’m getting rather used to it also. Still, I remain optimistic. I will continue to speak out despite the lies and deception because I know that the current state of affairs is simply not sustainable. There is only so long the truth can be hidden from public view. The world is waking up, and so are the British.

To be fair to Caitrin Nye, she did tell me she had interviewed Haddad (though I wasn’t aware it would be just the two of us) and she did portray my views accurately for the most part.

But she is so clearly a product of relativist indoctrination that she seems unable to see the difference between myself and a man who thinks adulterers should be stoned to death.

She is a product of the mainstream notion that all beliefs are of equal value, regardless of the fact that one causes untold human suffering and the other doesn’t. She also suggested I was “provoking” violence by showing cartoons, a view that is popular and that endorses the idea that violence is an understandable and inevitable response to free expression.

This is where we are today. The lefty media is so determined not to face up to the disaster it has helped create, that it will mercilessly attack and demonise individuals who keep pointing out the pesky reality.

What a bloody mess we are in.