Furious
Wednesday, December 6, 2006 at 11:15AM Im too cross to get a post up on Channel 4s decision to platform fundamentalism at Christmas without offering up a challenging viewpoint. This isn't furthering the debate on the veil at all. I look forward to her covering off the injustices suffered by many women forced to wear this garb either in the UK or elsewhere - whose viewpoint is never heard. Perhaps she could extend good wishes to Nazanin whose retrial is set for January. I somehow doubt this will happen. And I also doubt 2007s speech will give voice to some other extreme viewpoint in the name of improving community relations, perhaps the KKK or a BNP swastika bearing thug - who after all is entitled to feel ostracised by society for his or her viewpoints. A debate is no doubt essential but this is the wrong way to go about it - this is neither a debate nor a reasonable approach to the issue. It is simply designed to aggravate an already sensitive issue. Of all the ways to go about furthering the debate they choose Christmas and a single extreme viewpoint to go unchallenged on air - which many people myself included will simply switch off. However, Jonz has put together some questions for Channel 4's chief executive Andy Duncan.
1. Why do Channel 4 go out of their way not to offend ethnic minorities, specifically the Muslim community, when Channel 4 is happy to offend large swathes of the british public - on the traditional Christian holy day of christmas - with a muslim women in a full Islamic veil?
2. Will Channel 4 be inviting beer swigging naked women to introduce Ramadan or the Eid festival next year? Or is it just open season on the british public?
3. As a non-muslim I find the veil offensive, so why aren't my views taken into account? Does political correctness only extend to minorities?
4. Why has Channel 4 never screened Submission by Theo Van Gogh? Why has Channel 4 never screened the satirical mohammed cartoons?
5. Can Channel 4 not see that is is fueling extremism, resentment and antagonism against Britiains Muslim community by deciding to air the voice of an Islamic extremist - I use the word extemist since only 1% of Britains muslim population wear the full face veil?
Alison
Channel Four are (not) proposing a guest slot for their 2007 alternative christmas speech. The slot will go to Senator Robert Byrd (KKK-WV). He will comment on relevant current affairs including Iran and Syria, what he thinks the consequences of such attacks might be, etc. and explain what the Klan thinks of Jews.
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (127)
viewerenquiries@channel4.co.uk
The Broadcasting Act 1990 gives Channel 4 a specific remit requiring Channel 4 programmes to “contain a suitable proportion of matter calculated to appeal to tastes and interests not generally catered for by Channel 3 and that innovation and experiment in the form and content of those programmes (should be) encouraged”.
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/itc/itc_publications/itc_notes/view_note79.html
Im too cross to get a post up on David's decision to platform fundamentalism at Christmas without offering up a challenging viewpoint.
1 Tired repeat of comedy duo's Christmas special 3,500,000
2 Christmas-related ( distantly) film on digital or satellite channel 5,000,000
3 Simultaneous broadcast by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second on BBC and ITV 4,750,000
4 Multifarious and downright silly broadcasts featuring pop music sung by so-called celebs 6,000,000
5 Channel Four's 'Zorro returns', also sub-titled 'This is Religious freedom?' viewers 1,175,000
The last statistic is, by some remarkable freak of fate, exactly the same as the average daily readership of the Guardian circa 2005!
So Andrew and Alison , do you want to silence women who don't agree with you. Fine, you join a lot of Muslim men around the world who practise the same patronising dictats.
yet its fine for the conservative lobby on here to take the piss, make jokes about and mock the same issue. wise up.
Channel 4 relies on the mary woodhouse types to further their marketing, for free. well done you guys. MSM useful fools.
>>yet its fine for the conservative lobby on here to take the piss, make jokes about and mock the same issue.<<
Good one, Daytripper!
Everything you say about the space that should be given to other voices addressing abuses of women in the Islamic world is absolutely right and correct but that doesn't mean that this woman shouldn't be allowed to speak or that the ONLY way she should be permitted to do so is as part of a debate. Let's have the debate , and let's have this Channel 4 Chrstmas day speech too. The 'alternative'speech is a channel 4 tradition and sometimes it's serious - Doreen Lawrence , and sometimes it's silly, Rory Bremner as Princess DI - Let it be !
yet they can, with not so much as a blush, use a holy day of a peaceful religion to antagonize their view points. How can anyone indulge such awful double standards ?
i can only conclude that these people are shameless tramps with no concept of reciprocation, justice or standards of conduct.........
'i can only conclude that these people are shameless tramps with no concept of reciprocation, justice or standards of conduct......... '
as will a large section of the population also, either that or they will treat it as a joke. A serious issue made trivial. Bravo C4!
"Channel 4 relies on the mary woodhouse types to further their marketing, for free. well done you guys. MSM useful fools"
Its the people who dont speak out on it that are the useful fools. The BBC advertised the issue and it is already out there in the MSM Daytripper so ..what we cant comment now either? Wise up.
You never know she may surprise everyone by standing up midbroadcast rip the veil off herSself and give a nice big middle finger sign while saying " THIS MESSAGE IS TO ALL MY SISTERS OUT THERE SUFFOCATING UNDER THIS BLOODY IDIOTIC BLANKET - GET IT OFF AND TELL ANY MAN WHO OBJECTS TO GO TO HELL.
That's because you're prejudiced.
you'll always be wee bit disappointed when you open the wrapping.
did i say you cant comment on it? just suggesting that if you find it that objectionable, maybe an alternative tactic would be to not discuss it, thus cutting off a valid marketing stream to the programmers. i hadnt heard about this until popping into ATW.
And if im sober enough i might watch it, purely to see what way the speech goes. after all you might be surprised, and weeks of pointless speculation of what somebody, who you wont listen to, might or might not say will all have been in vain.
though i doubt ill be sober enough. with any luck.
I have an idea how you can sabotage this . RE my comment above about the surprise 'whipping off the veil'. Why don't you turn up at the C4 studios all Niqabed up and say you are this woman (they'll never know the difference) and then insist you want to do the speech live - and than you can do exactly that.
actually colm funny you should say that....
"use a holy day of a peaceful religion to antagonize their view points. "
What's so peaceful about it? Do you not read the news? Recently two devout christian leaders invaded a country that posed no threat and now hundreds of thousands are dead.
As for 'antagonise their views' the notion of women as inferior chattel is entirely consonant with the religious views of a large number of mainstream christians. Perhaps you mean they would be jealous?
http://www.talktofrank.com/home_html.aspx
Frank, any chance of actually commenting on the contents of the post? Thought not...
He is commenting on the post , just not saying what you want to hear.
Bush , Blair, and the Iraq war???! Maybe you need to Talk to Frank as well... :)
Finding content in your posts is always a challenge. I'm not sure how drugs would help. I take it you write them on acid, but your readers might prefer morphine.
Pleasantries aside, do you mean your question 1, 2, 3 and 5, where you argue for censorship of views you dislike - just like a Muslim extremist would?
Or do you mean your question 2 where you act like you think that a veiled woman is offensive to Christians? Why would it be? Many of them are anti-woman - just like Muslim extremists. And just like people who want to "rip the veil off her face".
Or do you mean your question 4 where you pretend to be in favour of freedom, but only to air propaganda that you like - just like Muslim extremists.
Or do you mean Alison's rant about "the veil" which pretends that a forced choice is the same as a free choice - just like a Muslim extremist would?
eh? what has that got to do with fundamentalist garb? or the fact that this is being pushed onto a large nos of non christians and moderate muslims without any meanigingful debate? at a time of year when most people are thinking peaceful family things we get extreme things i think is another way of looking at jauns point.
What was that? should we draw a veil over it?
Just like every Muslim believes, right? That is totally integral to the whole project, just like Salem is integral?
Wasn't there something in the Bible about bearing false witness? Remind us.
eh?
"eh? what has that got to do with fundamentalist garb? "
Ask jaun, he brought it up.
lol. hilarious aileen.
"I look forward to her covering off the injustices suffered by many women forced to wear this garb"
What has that to do with her if she CHOSE to wear it? Does everyone who has consensual sex have to apologise to those who are raped?
Why don't you crosspost your calls for censorship of this woman to your "speak freely" blog? You remember, the one where you pretend to care for freedom of speech?
Heh.
It's just typical, and thus infuriating, of the media to get the most extreme voices and attitudes on tv - to make ratings and sell papers.
It is often reported that more veils are seen on internal UK flights than flights coming out of places such is Iran.
Which is why you argue for her views - on anything - not to be aired. That means you want her censored. You are, in your own words, "furious" that channel 4 chose to air them. All this is merely your justification to silence her.
"It's just typical, and thus infuriating, of the media to get the most extreme voices and attitudes on tv - to make ratings and sell papers."
Except certain danish media, right? Then you say it's all about freedom of speech.
Notice also that you are "offended" at her mere presence, regardless of what she says. Because you don't even know what she will say and here you are. What if she simply says merry christmas?
Ironic too that your solution to the veiled woman is to hide her away.
Alison,
"You on the other hand are an odious little troll who would rather see an extremist piece of propaganda aired to all with NO recourse to debate."
Wrong as usual. But at least you don't personalise it and offer insults in place of a rational argument.