Giving Hatred A Stage
Incredibly, a ruling has been brought down by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council with respect to a series of programs broadcast by VisionTV, when it invited a controversial Pakistani religious figure, head of a group called Tanzeem-e Islami, based in Lahore to perform a televised lecture. As the chief spokesperson of a "revolutionary" group determined that Pakistan be turned into a fundamentalist Islamist state.
The presence of this notorious individual through a Canadian television appearance arranged by the multi-faith television programmer was deemed by the Standards Council to have breached no Canadian broadcast code of ethics. His lectures on Canadian television were relatively restrained, not quite representative of those he often blisters his listeners' ears and eyes with back home in Pakistan.
In Canada's broadcast he confined himself to calmly discussing fighting "the enemies of Allah on the battlefield", as a form of permitted, sanctified jihad. The council ruled that as his voice was not violently emotive but rather that he spoke in a monotone, he was not, through his speech, encouraging his listeners to jihad.
"This is not to suggest that there may not be some persons who interpret those words in a violent way and use them as a spur to hostile acts. That is not, however, the panel's understanding of Israr Ahmad's comments in the challenges episode" concluded the council. Effectively finding it expedient to equivocate with their own findings.
It's the man's background, however, of feeding hatred to his audience, as a vile anti-Semite, that had people upset about his appearance, his very invitation to appear on a Canadian television station. Mr. Ahmad publishes writings wherein he paints Jews as "parasites", claiming the Holocaust represented "divine punishment".
He revels in conspiracy theories about secretive and highly successful Jewish aspirations to control world finances, arguing that the final extermination of the Jews is required to usher in the "domination of Islam over the entire globe".
If this kind of hateful, incendiary antecedents to his presence in a moderately hate-filled lecture doesn't label him as a danger to society with his urging to vulnerable-minded Islamic simpletons, then it's a fair guess that anything goes, anywhere, at any time, and no one need be protected from ranting hate-fests in the public arena.
In point of fact, the wife of one of the men charged in 2006 in Toronto with belonging to a Canadian terror group accused of plotting truck bombs and possible assassination attempts of politicians, identified her husband as a follower of Mr. Ahmad. His inspiration in his terror activities. So to deny the potential for public danger as an advocate of hate and jihad is merely to blind oneself to reality.
The broadcaster, once one of Canada's national newspapers made the story public, apologized for its lack of vigilance. Despite which, after the original broadcast had aired, a week later a follow-up lecture was broadcast. Upon which, another outraged furor developed, and once again the broadcaster gulped a mea culpa. Excusing themselves, promising never again to foist upon its public such a diseased personality.
Despite which, it was VisionTV itself, under the weight of public censure in the wake of Mr. Ahmad's broadcast lecture that appealed to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council to uphold its apprehension that it had not violated regulatory codes because the speaker hadn't uttered hateful statements on air at that particular instance. Now, they have declared themselves to be voluntarily altering their own code of ethics.
Background checks will now be conducted, they claim, on all future hosts, guests and presenters of faith-based programming. And to that end they have hired a suitable researcher to ensure no such repeats occur. That may very well settle that end of the problem, but the fact still remains, it's amazing, puzzling and vexing that the Standards Council could reach the conclusion they did.
Their standards are peculiar beyond comprehension, having expressed censure at the use of the f-word during a broadcast; same for an infomercial for telephone sex; same for censuring a television station for reporting the addresses of the ten men arrested on terror charges in Toronto in June 2006.
Reality check?
The presence of this notorious individual through a Canadian television appearance arranged by the multi-faith television programmer was deemed by the Standards Council to have breached no Canadian broadcast code of ethics. His lectures on Canadian television were relatively restrained, not quite representative of those he often blisters his listeners' ears and eyes with back home in Pakistan.
In Canada's broadcast he confined himself to calmly discussing fighting "the enemies of Allah on the battlefield", as a form of permitted, sanctified jihad. The council ruled that as his voice was not violently emotive but rather that he spoke in a monotone, he was not, through his speech, encouraging his listeners to jihad.
"This is not to suggest that there may not be some persons who interpret those words in a violent way and use them as a spur to hostile acts. That is not, however, the panel's understanding of Israr Ahmad's comments in the challenges episode" concluded the council. Effectively finding it expedient to equivocate with their own findings.
It's the man's background, however, of feeding hatred to his audience, as a vile anti-Semite, that had people upset about his appearance, his very invitation to appear on a Canadian television station. Mr. Ahmad publishes writings wherein he paints Jews as "parasites", claiming the Holocaust represented "divine punishment".
He revels in conspiracy theories about secretive and highly successful Jewish aspirations to control world finances, arguing that the final extermination of the Jews is required to usher in the "domination of Islam over the entire globe".
If this kind of hateful, incendiary antecedents to his presence in a moderately hate-filled lecture doesn't label him as a danger to society with his urging to vulnerable-minded Islamic simpletons, then it's a fair guess that anything goes, anywhere, at any time, and no one need be protected from ranting hate-fests in the public arena.
In point of fact, the wife of one of the men charged in 2006 in Toronto with belonging to a Canadian terror group accused of plotting truck bombs and possible assassination attempts of politicians, identified her husband as a follower of Mr. Ahmad. His inspiration in his terror activities. So to deny the potential for public danger as an advocate of hate and jihad is merely to blind oneself to reality.
The broadcaster, once one of Canada's national newspapers made the story public, apologized for its lack of vigilance. Despite which, after the original broadcast had aired, a week later a follow-up lecture was broadcast. Upon which, another outraged furor developed, and once again the broadcaster gulped a mea culpa. Excusing themselves, promising never again to foist upon its public such a diseased personality.
Despite which, it was VisionTV itself, under the weight of public censure in the wake of Mr. Ahmad's broadcast lecture that appealed to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council to uphold its apprehension that it had not violated regulatory codes because the speaker hadn't uttered hateful statements on air at that particular instance. Now, they have declared themselves to be voluntarily altering their own code of ethics.
Background checks will now be conducted, they claim, on all future hosts, guests and presenters of faith-based programming. And to that end they have hired a suitable researcher to ensure no such repeats occur. That may very well settle that end of the problem, but the fact still remains, it's amazing, puzzling and vexing that the Standards Council could reach the conclusion they did.
Their standards are peculiar beyond comprehension, having expressed censure at the use of the f-word during a broadcast; same for an infomercial for telephone sex; same for censuring a television station for reporting the addresses of the ten men arrested on terror charges in Toronto in June 2006.
Reality check?
Labels: Anti-Semitism, Canada, Realities, Religion
posted by Pieface | 6:55 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home