| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Actually his name is Harry Cummins, but his articles in the Telegraph appeared under the name of Will. Jenny McCartney's statement at the end of the article is interesting. What facts exactly did Cummins ignore? Why is it "hate speech" to point out that certain tenets of Islam are giving rise to terrorism? Even some Muslims acknowledge that. To speak of "the black heart of Islam" is to speak about Islam's need for reform; it is not synonymous with "the black heart of Muslims."
From The Guardian, with thanks to Nicolei:
A British Council official who assumed a pseudonym to write Sunday Telegraph articles attacking "the black heart of Islam" has been sacked.The government-funded body, which recently commissioned a handbook on Islam "to prevent ignorant comments about Muslims being made in [the] national press", said yesterday it had dismissed Harry Cummins, a senior press officer, after an internal investigation.
The author's identity was unknown to all but the Sunday Telegraph's executives until it was revealed by the Guardian's diarist, Marina Hyde, four weeks ago, prompting a flood of complaints to the council from Muslim groups.
In his four articles, bylined Will Cummins, he compared Muslims to Nazis and argued that Muslim voters have a "global jihadi agenda". One of his articles stated: "All Muslims, like all dogs, share certain characteristics." Another argued: "It is the black heart of Islam, not its black face, to which millions object."...
Are we expected to believe that Omar Bakri and his followers do not have a "global jihadi agenda"? Now who is letting his wishful thinking get in the way of the facts?
Nor was anyone available for comment at the Sunday Telegraph. But the articles have been publicly criticised by another writer on the paper. Columnist Jenny McCartney said of Mr Cummins: "He is not a man to let the facts get in the way of his vigorous pursuit of a bad argument. Inaccuracies and distortions abound."
Posted by Robert at September 3, 2004 6:51 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Unbelievable...is Britian really ready to officially obliterate British wit, sarcasm, and the classic English virtue of 'blustering critique'? That would indeed mean that the Geist of Islam has conquered Britian. Try to find such things in Saudi Arabia, Jordon, Iran, Pakistan.
I read two of these articles. They are witty, informed and say things folks need to hear; the fact that Cummins has been fired due to 'public pressure' (i.e. Muslims and Dhimmis) should send a shudder down the spine of national consciousness.
Its tantamount to opening the grave of Bertrand Russel and driving a stake through his heart.
Posted by: JTF![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 3, 2004 11:52 AM
It would also be probably relevant to draw a parallel between the current events and the British indecision and lingering on the eve of World War II.
At that time PM Chamberlain embarked on the line of 'placating the aggressor' (i.e. Hitler). We can't help remembering its success. Hadn't it been for this dull-witted politician, we wouldn't have had the glorious Battle for Britain, though.
A far-seeing man and proponent of a more active defense, PM Churchill led the nation to victory over fascism.
What the UK (and the rest of the world too) is facing now is but another instance of fascism based on the teachings of a vile pseudo-phophet and developed by his no less blood- and power-thirsty followers.
Religious discrimination and hatred, powered by Islamofascism.
Posted by: Nikoz at September 3, 2004 1:26 PM
Here I go again:
Harry/Will Cummins is spot on about Islam, but the sacking is not a free speech issue.
Harry/Will Cummins was sacked from the British Council, an organisation which promotes co-operation with the Muslim world. His articles were incompatible with that role. If I wrote an article praising the products of a competitor and denigrating those of the company I work for, my company would be right to sack me because such an article would be incompatible with my role as an employee.
Had he been sacked from a newspaper, the BBC or prosecuted, then I would be up in arms about it too.
When you enter into a contract of employment you undertake to obey certain rules, which include not bringing the organisation into disrepute. If Cummins doesn't agree with co-operation with the Muslim world, and this is what the British Council promotes, he shouldn't be working for them. That's all there is to it.
Let's hope he has a long and successful career, in journalism or academia where he belongs.
Posted by: Interestd at September 3, 2004 2:50 PM
Thanks Interestd...but from what I have read at least, this is not the reason he was sacked; nor is the BBC or anybody else I have read reporting these grounds for the dismissal.
Even if the British Council has a right to fire Cummins, what matters in public discourse are public perception and the principles endorsed or denied in the action.
Read how the BBC describes the whole affair: Cummins is characterized indirectly as a raving Islamophobe spitting out hate-speech...that's the jist of it.
And no one of stature seems to be standing up to challenge that perception...at least not yet, or am I wrong?
Posted by: JTF at September 3, 2004 3:03 PM
Interestd is right, and we'll have to wait and see if the excellent Mr Cummins finds employment elsewhere. I think he will, given the increasing hatred for Islam that's palpable here now.
Posted by: Doctor Phibes at September 3, 2004 3:20 PM
Harry Cummins will no doubt be recognized for what he is: a 21st century incarnation of the spirit of Captain William Dawes and Paul Revere, a beacon of liberty to the denizens of the free (i.e., non-muslim) world. His courage will be remembered for centuries, as the victors will be writing this history.
In the meantime, I do hope that he soon finds a way to keep groceries in the house.
Posted by: Hulegu Khan at September 3, 2004 5:35 PM
Doctor Phibes:
Glad someone's got the point of what I've been trying to say, here and on previous threads. I believe in calling a spade a spade, so when something isn't a spade, it doesn't get called a spade.
Harry/Will Cummins knew exactly what he was doing when he wrote those articles without even a pretence of a pseudonym. Come on - a pseudonym with the same surname???!! Am I the only person who thinks this is strange??
Will (Harry?) Cummins has engineered his own sacking and gone out in a blaze of glory. We will be hearing from him again and again. Watch this space!
(PS Interested is a crap name - it's supposed to have an e in it but hasn't - not my typo.)
Posted by: Interestd at September 3, 2004 8:33 PM
The British Council has lost whatever respect it may once have deserved. D. J. Enright travelled around the world on its behalf. Richard Hoggart, author of The Uses of Literacy, worked for the British Council. The historian J. B. Kelly first went to the Middle East in 1951 for the British Council (to Alexandria, still under the ancien regime of Farouk). But now it seems it is more concerned with stifling any speech, even that written by an employee on his own time, and under a pseudonym (why was a witch-hunt undertaken to locate him, if not to punish him for perfectly intelligent, and even brave, articles? If he said something about Islam that is not true, what exactly is it? Vague assertions by Jenny McCartney that "inaccuracies and distortions abound" -- well, if they abound, why not at least give us one such inaccuracy or distortion. Just one.
Posted by: Hugh at September 3, 2004 11:54 PM
A letter has appeared in the Sunday Telegraph making all the same points we repeatedly make on this site. Notice the signer is not a "white racist" but a man with a Sikh name:
Re: Political witch-hunting
Date: 5 September 2004
Sir - The BBC sacked Robert Kilroy-Silk in January and now Mr Cummins of the British Council has met the same fate (News, Sep 2) - both for being brave (or stupid) enough to challenge the Muslim interpretation of Islamic history.
It is a shame that Britain has allowed itself to become such an insecure society, where any criticism of Islam is met with intimidation reminiscent of the anti-Communist McCarthy era in the US.
The current process of Islamisation of Britain started in the mid-1980s, when Ray Honeyford, the Bradford headmaster who committed the cardinal sin of criticising Islam, was sacked. Since then, this circle of political witch-hunting has widened relentlessly.
Britain's Muslims today have separate schools, a separate parliament, a separate bank and a "separate" privilege to have their critics sacked. If this trend of separateness continues unabated, it is only a matter of time before they ask for separate laws (Sharia laws), and eventually a separate country.
From:
Randhir Singh Bains, Gants Hill, Essex
at September 4, 2004 8:03 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)