Lock & Load

Right of reply

There is ample evidence here and here that the technique by which you can be forced to say things you don't realy mean to say was invented by a Jewish agent. Sometimes these things can be inconvenient and make you look like a fool.

So with this overwhelming evidence, why will no one believe that Sir Iqbal Sacranie was set up when his answers to straighforward questions on the BBC's Panorama programme cast him and the organisation he represents in a bad light. Clearly it was the fault of the Jews who often are involved in covert operations.

In a letter to Director General Mark Thompson, Sir Iqbal states: "The Panorama team is more interested in furthering a pro-Israeli agenda than assessing the work of Muslim organisations in the UK." Apparently the BBC is under the spell of "highly placed supporters of Israel". He complained in The Guardian that this was "deeply unfair".

The evidence seems to support Sir Iqbals' view. Let's examine it:

When confronted with the fact that Ali Hadith, and MCB affilliate, have a statement on their website saying that Christians and Jews ways are "based on sick or deviant views" and that "imitating the Kuffaar leads to a permanent abode in hellfire", (NOTE: the page has now been removed from their website, but is still available in the Google cache) Sir Iqbal replied:

"Well we must accept the reality on the ground that the diversity that we have with the Muslim Community in the UK and as long as they subscribe to our constitution, which is very clear, which is on the website and it's totally transparent in terms of its activities of a work which is through the teachings of the Quran and upholding the principles of Islam; then what they do outside the Council, there is no control that we have on them."

Now, this clearly suggests that the MCB's constitution allows its members to use the most insulting and disrespectful language about other religions without limitation. It also suggests that the MCB's leadership is questionable and that it has "no control" over its membership. This is a very negative image and could only serve the interest of the Jews... sorry, the "highly placed supporters of Israel".

Okay, let's be honest, all religions believe the other ones are somehow "deviant" and Sir Iqbal should be supported for supporting the use of free speech to criticise other beliefs, no matter how robustly. This is a very healthy attitude. Which is why it is infuriating that the biased BBC and their Jewish puppet-masters made it appear that Sir Iqbal was totally opposed to the criticism of religion, especially his own. Whose interests did it serve when they showed him saying:

"Attempting to insult the blessed prophet, peace be upon him, is the most serious crime in the eyes of Islamic law. The crime is considered as transgressing the limits and is worse than treason and is a capital offence. "

He is right, it is "deeply unfair" to portray him as holding the murderously anti-humanitarian view that not only is insulting his religion wrong, but that such apostates and blasphemers deserve to die by broadcasting a clip of him saying so. It is only because of that Jew Freud's devious invention that people are shown to say what they might otherwise simply mean.

The BBC completely ignored the fact that Sir Iqbal had courageously defended Salman Rushdie when a death fatwa was issued against him after the publication of 'The Satanic Verses'. Denouncing the death penalty, Sir Iqbal pointed out that such a punishment was wholy inappropriate:

"Death, perhaps, is a bit too easy for him" he
declared.

But the defamation didn't stop here. The BBC's reporter John Ware then asked a very difficult question: If 'The Satanic Verses' were published today, would Sir Iqbal Sacranie call for government intervention to have it banned?

"There is no law at the moment, sadly, that would enable me to pursue with a legal course of.. of seeking its withdrawal. "

Oh dear. One can almost smell the mallicious venom oosing out of the poors of the editor as he included a quote from Sir Iqbal that clearly gives the impression that he might either resort to extra-legal means to block free expression or lobby government to introduce a law to do so.

"If the law that we would like to sort of see appear, a law does not prevent totally, it's a very powerful message that goes out in type of what sort of society we have. We respect the freedom of expression but we expect freedom of expression to be exercised with responsibility."

Then, when the BBC allowed him to continue, it also facilitated the impression that Sir Iqbal has tottally unrealistic expectations for the law. Why are the BBC allowing Sir Iqbal to use his own words create the impression that he is anti-free speech and would like to see the death penalty imposed for blasphemy?

They must have known full well that when they showed him saying that freedom of expression must be "exercised with responsibility", viewers would still have fresh in their minds his earlier comment that "the crime is considered as transgressing the limits and is worse than treason and is a capital offence."

The 'Right of Reply' has always been the cornerstone of a democratic media. Now we have an example of how - probably with the backing of Jews, um, "highly placed supporters of Israel" - the BBC have found a way to damn people with their own replies. It is wrong that people are made to look and sound ridiculous and dishonest simply by what they say on TV in reply to some mind-bending technique which, in the trade, are called "questions".

Apparently these "questions" elicit a reply - something referred to in the media community as "answers" - and this is where the danger lies. The Jews might make you say what you mean.

posted by Brett Lock @ 9:02 am