Philippines: Bill seeks to prohibit accurate reporting of Islamic jihad activity

Pangalian Balindong is assuming a well-worn argument of Islamic supremacists and apologists: that the religion of Islamic jihadists is not connected to their violent acts, such that it would be no fairer to call Osama bin Laden an Islamic terrorist than it would be to call Timothy McVeigh a Christian terrorist. (McVeigh wasn’t even a Christian until years after his act, but that never matters to them, either.) If that were true, and if it were really true that the media was calling Islamic terrorists “Muslim” solely to cast aspersions on the Muslim community, then this bill would make sense.

But in reality, Islamic jihadists, not greasy Islamophobes and certainly not biased reporters, whose biases are all on the other side, are the ones who link their actions to Islam, invoking the Qur’an and Muhammad’s words and deeds to justify violence. So the only result of this bill would be to obscure that even further, making the public even more ignorant of the nature and magnitude of the threat it faces, and how best to deal with it. In that regard, this bill could have been framed by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, which has been trying for years to force the West to criminalize criticism of Islam, a category in which it includes “counter-terror” efforts — hence the massive effort to hoodwink people into thinking that resisting jihad terror and Islamic supremacism is “hate” and “bigotry.”

Watch for a bill like this to come to the U.S.

“Bill seeks to end discrimination vs Muslims in media reports,” from, September 8 (thanks to Twostellas):

MANILA — A lawmaker has filed a bill prohibiting the media of using labels to describe the religion or ethnicity of criminal suspects.

“It may be said that there is already the practice in media of labeling criminal suspects according to their religious or ethnic culture; thus they are described as Muslim terrorists or Muslim bandits which smacks of being highly discriminatory,” Lanao del Sur 2nd District Rep. Pangalian Balindong said.

House Bill 1447 prohibits the use of “Muslim” or “Christian” to describe suspects. Balindong said the manner of reporting from media entities has become offensively biased even if the suspect has yet to be proven guilty.

He said labels contribute to the mindset against Muslims.

“Why then is our media doing the same to our Muslim countrymen? Indeed, our Muslim brothers are a minority among the Filipino majority, but should be treated with the same respect and privileges as any other Batangueño, Visayan or other Filipino citizen,” Balindong said.

The bill prohibits any person to use in mass media any word that would denote religious, regional or ethnic affiliation to describe any person suspected of or convicted for having committed criminal or unlawful acts.

The person found guilty of this will face imprisonment of not less than six months or a fine of not more than P10,000 or both at the discretion of the courts.

If the violator is the editor-in-chief in the case of print media and the news editor in the case of broadcast media and other forms of mass media, a fine of not lower than P50,000 shall be imposed.

If a juridical entity is a violator of this Act, a fine not lower than P50,000 shall be imposed for every violation and the penalties shall be doubled for the second and succeeding offenses as provided under the bill.

Philippines: Muslim group takes over four villages, takes 38 hostages
Islamophobia breaks out at BBC: special "uncovers the hidden scandal of sexual grooming of young Sikh girls by Muslim men"
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint


  1. says

    Such a prohibition would suit West’s MSM which is already inclined to substitute the reality of ‘Islamic jihad’, by using euphemistic words such as ‘militants’, ‘insurgents’ ‘rebels’ or ‘gunmen,’ to obfuscate instead.

  2. says

    The bill prohibits any person to use in mass media any word that would denote religious, regional or ethnic affiliation to describe any person suspected of or convicted for having committed criminal or unlawful acts.

    This would lead to abuses of Islams notoriously abusive blasphemy law which Muslims use to eliminate those who would expose the truth about Islam….

  3. says

    Small point of fact: Timothy McVeigh was born into Roman Catholicism and died accompanied, at his own request, by a Roman Catholic priest. In between he at one point called himself an agnostic. Not that any of this seems to have had any relevance to his murdering a building full of civil servants, any more than that Anders Brevik was a fan of Robert Spencer.

  4. says

    He said labels contribute to the mindset against Muslims.

    What’s not said here is what then impels the thousands of jihad war terror attacks across the globe, and the millions of threats of the same?

    We have a hint: the express statements of the mass murderers themselves. Too bad Major Nidal Hasan wasn’t allowed to testify to his motive. He wanted to but was denied, the denial because the obvious connection between the dots would’ve impugned one of the world’s great religions: Islam.

  5. says

    Generally speaking I do not disagree with avoiding terms used in accusation, which are so general, such as , as Muslim, or Christian etc.
    Who’s to know anyway, unless the subject has specifically publicised the fact of their socio religious adherence. It might be glaringly obvious, but we must not be seen to assume and judge.
    Let their behaviour and statement, objectively reported be their own testament.
    I work in a clinical field where a description of a mental health or medical state cannot be general.
    It must always be objective, symptom specific and detailed.
    In the mental health area, terms such as confused, deluded, hallucinated, psychotic, behaviour disordered, anxious, aggressive etc have no real treatable weight without specific detail and description.
    This is absolutely appropriate if the correct intervention/treatment is to occur.
    In the same way, describing the behaviour and statements of felons and or jihadists and their acts, should be that clinical/scientific, cos thats the only information that will stand to challenge and scrutiny. Especially at law.
    To avoid criticism of,subjectivity and emotionalism of the jihadist criminals, we’ve gotta tidy up and objectify our descriptions of the the stinking,extremist murderous behaviour.
    We’re going nowhere with our protests other wise, than to be subjected to further moaning and defending of themselves that we’re just phobic and anti multicultural, which of course non of us are, toward those who genuinely are capable of assimilating.
    Genuine,adherent Islamists are definitely NOT. Xxxx

  6. says

    Is it just me or is it always to our detriment to exclude information. It is up to the viewer or listener to use critical thinking skills to determine if the acts are representative of an entire group or not. To hide information like you would hide cleaning supplies from a 3 year old is just so odd, yet world leaders think this is a normal course of action, as if the population is completely unable to make reasonable judgments.

  7. says

    Don’t forget that McVeigh had teamed up with and was seen with a number of Moslems prior to the attack on the Murrah building. Also don’t forget that the original APB after the mass murder was for the police to pursue men of Middle Eastern appearance. But all that changed after intervention by the Clinton administration.

    I’m not saying McVeigh was a Moslem. He was a cutaway in a larger operation funded and run out of Baghdad. The evidence is overwhelming on this; this evidence was never acted on, thanks to several people, most especially Bill and Janet Reno.

  8. says

    Oh, hey – gee…thanks for that lecture. And thanks for speaking for all of us.

    No, I think you better think for yourself, because I reserve that right for myself, and, besides, I’m not buying your pseudo-logic.

    “To avoid criticism of,subjectivity and emotionalism of the jihadist criminals, we’ve gotta tidy up and objectify our descriptions of the the stinking,extremist murderous behaviour.”

    Well, looks to me like you done contradicted yourself there, boy! On the one hand, you claim that to call Muslim jihadis Muslims is to be unclear or non-objective, but in your statement above, you claim WE need to “tidy up and objectify” the descriptions of “extremist, murderous behavior”.

    Huh? Look, the clowns that are pulling off jihadi attacks ARE ALL MUSLIMS! There’s no Christians, no Jews, no Buddhists and no Martians doing these things.

    To avoid calling them Muslim is to further THEIR cause, and to consciously avoid the truth. I’ll be damned if I’m going to go along with your “we” suggestions.

    Finally – this whole thing is not a mental hospital. These jihadis are not your patients, nor should one consider the paradigm of mental health issues in the western sense to be some sort of analogy to be used in the naming of our enemy.

    They’re crazy – flat out nuts – and the proof is in the pudding of their jihadi behavior.

    Don’t come in here preaching about what “we” should be calling these clowns. That only compounds the problem and further confuses the issue, despite your demands that “we” be clear and “objective”.