The jilbab trial as (not) reported by the BBC

[Teddy Bear]

2 brilliant observations concerning the recent Law Lords ruling defending Denbigh High School which forbade the wearing of a jilbab, which was brought to court originally by student Shabina Begum.

One is by Scott Callaghan at The American Expatriate, who writes:

it is clear that fidelity to language continues to be a problem for the BBC. Despite it’s portrayal to the contrary, Miss Begum was not excluded “for wearing a traditional jilbab”. She was, in fact, excluded for not wearing an approved school uniform…a uniform which in fact did include concessions to Muslim sensitivities.

Virtually every story on the BBC about this affair has portrayed it as an issue in which a school “refused to allow” the jilbab rather than, as was the case, an issue in which a student refused to wear the approved school uniform. In other words, the BBC characterizes the conflict as arising from the actions of the school, rather than from the actions of the girl, a characterization which is belied by the facts of the case. To be fair, the BBC has supplied the details of the case, thus allowing more attentive readers to ultimately draw the correct conlcusions. But still, it's introduction of the issue inevitably seems to place Begum in the role of victim, when in fact reality is quite the opposite.

The other is by Scott Burgess at The Daily Ablution who comments that no connection has been shown by the left wing media

.....pointing out the links between Ms. Begum and members of the radical Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, who acted as her "advisers" (or, more probably, handlers) as the cases progressed.

to understand the real implication of what was going on here.

However, both Scotts fails to mention that our 'impartial' BBC does not mention Hizb ut-Tahrir in any of their articles in connection with this case.

This makes BBC 'Impartiality' even further left of The Guardian.

[Teddy Bear]

Today Scott Burgess does note the BBC avoidance of mentioning both Begum and Hizb ut-Tahrir, and makes another very interesting observation of BBC double standard.
More Shebina Begum

...Unsurprisingly, the BBC seems not too keen to make the Begam/Hizb connection either. All told, her name appears in at least 10 stories on the BBC news site, never in the same article as the word "Hizb".

A correspondent points out that he confronted a BBC reporter on just this issue back in March of 2005, asking:

"In your report on Shabina Begum and her case at the high court I am curious to know why you neglected to mention the influence of her older brother who is a member of the extremist Hizb ut-Tahrir group which desires a worldwide Muslim state?"

The reporter, James Westhead, responded that such considerations were not pertinent, since the "appeal court judges in their 22 page judgement nowhere mention the influence of the girls older brother or his views" - the implication being that, for the BBC, factors not specifically mentioned in the final judgement are of no interest to an audience attempting to form a perspective on a legal case.

Undeterred, my correspondent returned with a more specific question, in an email that's worth quoting at length:

"It's strange that since Hizb ut-Tahrir seem to have had more influence in this case than any other group you would find it necessary to seek comment from the Muslim Council of Great Britain. Surely Hizb ut-Tahrir were more worthy of being interviewed in this case than the Muslim Council of Great Britain which has no mandate in any case.

"Hizb ut-Tahrir had been in contact with and advising this family for some time. It's also strange that in the same news bulletin your colleagues found it necessary to interview Martin Mubanga in relation to the Babar Ahmed case despite the fact he was not mentioned in that case either. The world of BBC journalism seems to be somewhat arbitrary and full of double standards in terms of what is deemed to be newsworthy and what isn't. Are there different criteria for different journalists?

"Perhaps it's just coincidence that the items you choose to exclude as not relevant are those which would show Muslims in a bad light by exposing their relationships with other extremist Muslims. However for Muslim extremists in court on terror charges BBC News finds it relevant to include interviews with Muslims who have been in Guantanamo Bay and who are believed to be innocent, regardless of them being mentioned in court or not."

Oddly, Mr. Westhead chose not to respond to these seemingly apposite concerns.