The West is very sick. The BBC thinks a preacher of violence and hatred is a hero on the level of Mahatma Gandhi or Nelson Mandela, and that people who fight for human rights and humane values, such as Pamela Geller and I, are bigots and hatemongers. The Church is in full appeasement/surrender mode, and the government and law enforcement authorities are in full denial mode. No one is standing up. Cowardice and appeasement not only rule the day, but are celebrated and hailed as prudence and wisdom. Those who dare to stand up anyway are vilified, smeared, marginalized and thrown under the bus. How do you think this picture is going to look in five more years? Ten?
The BBC is under fire after the Home Affairs Editor appeared to compare notorious hate preacher Anjem Choudary to Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela.
Following a lengthy report on last night’s BBC News at Ten about Choudary’s ‘radicalising force’, Mark Easton appeared to question whether there were similarities between Britain’s most famous extremist and two of history’s greatest civil rights campaigners.
Referring to Theresa May’s pledge to clamp down on extremism, the journalist said that Gandhi and Mandela had both been ‘extremists’ and that extreme views ‘are sometimes needed to challenge very establish values’.
But outraged viewers slammed the comparison as ‘disgusting’ while experts said the ‘ludicrous’ comments could give credence to Choudary’s ‘complete rejection’ of democracy and tolerance.
After a ‘special report’ which gave further airtime to Choudary and his radical views, Mr Easton said: ‘It’s one thing to ban someone for inciting hatred or violence, but quite another to pass a law that silences anyone who challenges established values.
‘I was in Parliament Square today – a statue of Gandhi looking down at me who was jailed for being extremist; Mandela who was jailed for being an extremist.
‘History tells us that extreme views are sometimes needed to challenge a very established values that people at the time hold so dear.’
Adam Deen, founder and executive director of The Deen Institute, a Muslim debating forum and think-tank, said the journalist was trying to make the point that dissenting views are essential in a democracy.
But he said that Choudary’s views ‘completely reject’ democracy and tolerance – the very values by which Gandhi and Mandela’s views were inspired.
Mr Deen said: ‘I think the journalist’s point is underpinned by the view that dissenting views are important for a democracy and that these voices can highlight areas where a society may have gone wrong.
‘But the error is that he is assuming that Anjem is arguing in the same way or dissenting in the same way as the likes of Mandela or Gandhi, both of whom were dissenting with a backdrop of views that the establishment already held.
‘Unlike Mandela and Gandhi, Choudary completely rejects those values of democracy and tolerance which makes the comparison completely false.
‘Anjem rejects democracy, is very non-Muslim and is very much anti-western. So to regard Anjem as a legitimate dissenting voice – and to open up this topic, saying that “maybe we’ve got it wrong to clamp down on his organisation” – is absurd.’
Anjem is “very non-Muslim”? Exactly who is “Mr. Deen” trying to kid?