123792
  • Log in
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Forum
  • Donate
  • Newsletter
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result

Why Does the BBC Censor Content That Offends Muslims, But Not Christians or Hindus?

by Anonymous
5 July 2022 3:37 PM

There follows a letter to the BBC Director-General Tim Davie asking why the BBC appears to be in breach of its Charter obligation to report accurately, fairly and impartially on matters of religious controversy – and why it only breaches this obligation in respect of one religious group. It is written by the same author who wrote for the Daily Sceptic last month about the BBC’s supine coverage of the Nupur Sharma Mohammed furore in India.

Dear Mr. Davie,

I am writing to ask that the BBC clearly explains its unspoken, unwritten editorial policies on covering stories about angry religious people responding to unwelcome depictions of – or references to – their revered religious figures.

Back in 2011, the BBC published an article about vandalism to the controversial artwork ‘Piss Christ’ (i.e., a photograph of a plastic crucified Jesus submerged in a tank of the artist’s piss). The article explained that there had been a large protest of angry Christians outside the museum housing the artwork and that a museum worker had received death threats and had asked for police protection.

Notwithstanding this, the BBC’s article (quite rightly) featured a photograph of the image so that audiences knew exactly what all the fuss was about. In other words, the BBC did not let the ‘feelings’ of easily-offended Christians get in the way of its Charter obligation to report accurately, fairly and impartially.

Today, the BBC has published an article with the headline, “Outrage over smoking Hindu goddess poster.”

In its article, the BBC explains that a film poster of a Hindu goddess with a fag in her gob published by an Indian filmmaker “has generated hundreds of responses from angry Hindus, who have accused her of offending their religious sentiments”.

The BBC reports that Hindus are calling for the filmmaker to be arrested and that Hindus have described the poster as “an insult to Hinduism” – with the spokesperson for India’s governing party saying that the poster is “hurting the sentiments of Indians across the world”.

Notwithstanding this, the BBC’s article (quite rightly) features the controversial image of Kali so that audiences know exactly what all the fuss is about – and it also describes the film poster for the benefit of any visually-impaired visitors to the BBC’s website. In other words, the BBC is not letting the ‘feelings’ of easily-offended Hindu get in the way of its Charter obligation to report accurately, fairly and impartially.

Now let’s compare this Charter-conforming coverage with the BBC’s Charter-violating coverage of the ongoing Nupur Sharma controversy.

Back in May, during an Indian TV debate, a Hindu Government spokesperson, Nupur Sharma, claimed to be offended by Muslim mockery of Hindu deities and responded by asking how Muslims would like it if she were to start mocking their religion, such as by referring to flying horses or that the Prophet Mohammed married a six year-old and had sex with her when she was nine (as written in Islamic hadiths). Shortly afterwards, another member of the BJP (Naveen Jindal) posed a question on Twitter asking whether such a relationship fell under the category of rape.

Instead of either quoting Sharma and Jindal’s comments or describing them so that BBC audiences could understand what was going on, the BBC lied about them, by referring to them as “anti-Muslim comments” and “hateful comments“). The BBC also referred to the comments as “Islamophobia” and stated that:

Their comments – especially Ms. Sharma’s – angered the country’s minority Muslim community, leading to sporadic protests in some states. The BBC is not repeating Ms. Sharma’s remarks as they are offensive in nature.

Needless to say, I am confused.

Why does the BBC put the feelings of easily-offended Muslims before its Charter obligations but not the feelings of easily-offended Christians or Hindus?

Why does the BBC tell the truth and provide the full facts about stuff that upsets some Christians and Hindus but then lie and conceal the truth about stuff that upsets some Muslims?

Why does the BBC treat Muslims differently to Christians and Hindus?

Why does the BBC treat Islam differently to Christianity and Hinduism?

Why does the BBC treat Mohammed differently to Jesus and Kali?

Has the BBC been taken over by the Taliban?

There is no Christian in the world that believes that a historical Jesus was ever submerged in a tank of piss – yet the BBC has no problem with describing this and showing an image of it (and nor should it).

There is no Hindu in the world that believes that a historical Kali had a nicotine addiction – yet the BBC has no problem with describing this and showing an image of it (and nor should it).

But there are many, many Muslims in the world (and have been throughout history) who believe that a historical Mohammed married a six year-old and had sex with her when she was nine.

So is that it, then? The BBC doesn’t report on stuff if religious people genuinely believe it happened – but the BBC does report on it when religious people don’t believe it happened?

So if Christians did believe that Jesus had been dunked into a tank of piss by the Romans after they crucified him (and wanted to keep it quiet), the BBC would not have shown the image? If Hindus did believe that Goddess Kali had enjoyed puffing cigarettes (but didn’t want anyone to get a whiff of it) the BBC would not have shown the image?

No, I don’t think that’s it.

So what are the rules, Mr. Davie? The real rules I mean (the unwritten ones and unspoken ones) because at the moment it just looks like the BBC cares more about protecting the feelings of Muslims and protecting the reputation of Mohammed than it does about respecting the Royal Charter – which requires the BBC to “provide impartial news and information to help people understand and engage with the world around them”.

We live in a world where people dunk crucifixes into tanks of piss, where people make films of Hindu goddesses smoking cigarettes and where Islamic hadiths state that the Prophet Mohammed married a six year-old girl (when Mohammed was a man in his 50s). It’s not pretty, but that’s the world we live in. And that’s the world that the BBC should be helping its audiences to understand and engage with – not some alternative world that religious people would prefer us to live in.

Yours sincerely,

[Name not published]
Tags: BBCBlasphemyCensorshipFree SpeechIslam

Donate

We depend on your donations to keep this site going. Please give what you can.

Donate Today

Comment on this Article

You’ll need to set up an account to comment if you don’t already have one. We ask for a minimum donation of £5 if you'd like to make a comment or post in our Forums.

Sign Up
Previous Post

Hospitals Bring Back Masks and Social Distancing as Covid Admissions Surge – But TWO THIRDS Are in Hospital For Something Else

Next Post

President of Brazil Says He Regrets Removing Liability From Pharmaceutical Companies for Vaccine Side-Effects and is “Sorry for All the Deaths”

Subscribe
Login
Notify of
Please log in to comment

Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.

12 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

NEWSLETTER

View today’s newsletter

To receive our latest news in the form of a daily email, enter your details here:

 

DONATE

PODCAST

Nick Dixon and Toby Young Talk About Trump’s Arrest, the Police’s Preference for Wokery Over Free Speech and the Glorious Implosion of the SNP

by Will Jones
21 March 2023
1

LISTED ARTICLES

  • Most Read
  • Most Commented
  • Editors Picks

News Round-Up

22 March 2023
by Will Jones

The WHO’s Proposals for Future Pandemics Are Almost Everything Bill Gates Demanded

22 March 2023
by Eugyppius

Latest UN Climate Doom Report Falsely Claims Global Temperatures Are “Highest for 125,000 Years”

21 March 2023
by Chris Morrison

When Will They Ever Learn?

22 March 2023
by Thorsteinn Siglaugsson

Is the Met “Institutionally Racist”?

21 March 2023
by Will Jones

News Round-Up

93

The WHO’s Proposals for Future Pandemics Are Almost Everything Bill Gates Demanded

33

When Will They Ever Learn?

33

Is the Met “Institutionally Racist”?

24

Government Makes Laughable Claim the MHRA is “Globally Recognised for Requiring High Standards of Safety and Effectiveness”

60

When Will They Ever Learn?

22 March 2023
by Thorsteinn Siglaugsson

The Gary Lineker ‘Crisis’ is a Distraction From the Real Problem with the BBC

22 March 2023
by Dr David McGrogan

Activism at Scientific Journals Breeds Distrust Among the Public

22 March 2023
by Noah Carl

Is the Met “Institutionally Racist”?

21 March 2023
by Will Jones

Latest UN Climate Doom Report Falsely Claims Global Temperatures Are “Highest for 125,000 Years”

21 March 2023
by Chris Morrison

POSTS BY DATE

July 2022
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Jun   Aug »

SOCIAL LINKS

Free Speech Union
  • Home
  • About us
  • Donate
  • Privacy Policy

Facebook

Twitter

Instagram

RSS

Subscribe to our newsletter

© Skeptics Ltd.

No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Forum
  • Donate
  • Newsletter

© Skeptics Ltd.

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password?

Create New Account!

Please note: To be able to comment on our articles you'll need to be a registered donor

Already have an account?
Please click here to login Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
wpDiscuz
You are going to send email to

Move Comment