ChatterBank8 mins ago
Kelvin Mackenzie Is Thinking About Lodging An Official Complain About Fatima Manji's Hajib
From his column in The Sun (the link at the bottom is to the Independent, because the Sun is behind a paywall):
I will be looking at making a formal complaint to Ofcom under the section of the broadcasting code which deals with impartiality.
Since the question of religious motivation was central to the coverage of the Nice attack, I would ask whether it is appropriate for a newsreader to wear religious attire that could undermine the viewer's perception of impartiality
http://
Do you think he has a point?
I will be looking at making a formal complaint to Ofcom under the section of the broadcasting code which deals with impartiality.
Since the question of religious motivation was central to the coverage of the Nice attack, I would ask whether it is appropriate for a newsreader to wear religious attire that could undermine the viewer's perception of impartiality
http://
Do you think he has a point?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sp1814. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
andy; //In the interests of clarity - do you mean he is right to push buttons, or that he is specifically correct in his particular crusade here?//
He is right to complain - as I have several times in the past. Her wearing a hajib is a typical piece of Ch. 4's 'in your face' aggression (she is also their worst presenter). No Christian presenter would be allowed to wear a cross or Jew a kippah.
He is right to complain - as I have several times in the past. Her wearing a hajib is a typical piece of Ch. 4's 'in your face' aggression (she is also their worst presenter). No Christian presenter would be allowed to wear a cross or Jew a kippah.
Naomi - //Andy-hughes, if that's what you want to talk about, do it. The rest of us have moved on. //
If by the term 'moving on' - you mean to carry on preaching your dogmatic views on a particular faith, and completely ignoring the point of the OP on which you are posting - then yes, you have 'moved on'.
I think we should be sticking to the OP - which is the essence of the AB - but you make up your own rules, so that's that I guess.
If by the term 'moving on' - you mean to carry on preaching your dogmatic views on a particular faith, and completely ignoring the point of the OP on which you are posting - then yes, you have 'moved on'.
I think we should be sticking to the OP - which is the essence of the AB - but you make up your own rules, so that's that I guess.
Khandro - //andy; //In the interests of clarity - do you mean he is right to push buttons, or that he is specifically correct in his particular crusade here?//
He is right to complain - as I have several times in the past. Her wearing a hajib is a typical piece of Ch. 4's 'in your face' aggression (she is also their worst presenter). No Christian presenter would be allowed to wear a cross or Jew a kippah. //
Thank you for your response.
I am intrigued that you interpret the wearing of something as a piece of 'in your face aggression' - since it is hardly that! But if we aceed to your point - then surely being made not to wear it is open to exactly the same accusation?
The point which we keep sliding away from on this thread is this -
The journalist routinely wears a hijab when presenting the news, and I understand has done so for some considerable time.
Mr Mackenzie has opined that to do so when presenting an item about a Muslim atrocity is 'insensitive', and the journalist should either have been replaced, or made to remove her hajib.
I cannot believe the universe-sized irony of enforcing a dress rule on someone's faith in order to accede to some notion of 'sensitivity' - un-noticed though it would be - is fascism of the first order, and has no place in a free country.
I suggest that no Christian who routinely wears a cross, or Jew who wears a kippah, would, or indeed should, be asked to remove them. That is religious intolerance, which again with supreme irony - is the route cause of the atrocity that was being reported in the first place!
He is right to complain - as I have several times in the past. Her wearing a hajib is a typical piece of Ch. 4's 'in your face' aggression (she is also their worst presenter). No Christian presenter would be allowed to wear a cross or Jew a kippah. //
Thank you for your response.
I am intrigued that you interpret the wearing of something as a piece of 'in your face aggression' - since it is hardly that! But if we aceed to your point - then surely being made not to wear it is open to exactly the same accusation?
The point which we keep sliding away from on this thread is this -
The journalist routinely wears a hijab when presenting the news, and I understand has done so for some considerable time.
Mr Mackenzie has opined that to do so when presenting an item about a Muslim atrocity is 'insensitive', and the journalist should either have been replaced, or made to remove her hajib.
I cannot believe the universe-sized irony of enforcing a dress rule on someone's faith in order to accede to some notion of 'sensitivity' - un-noticed though it would be - is fascism of the first order, and has no place in a free country.
I suggest that no Christian who routinely wears a cross, or Jew who wears a kippah, would, or indeed should, be asked to remove them. That is religious intolerance, which again with supreme irony - is the route cause of the atrocity that was being reported in the first place!
Just think of the issues that Ms Manji would face of CH4 were to take notice of Mr MacKenzie's complaints.
What if she were reading the news when suddenly there's a newsflash about an Islamic terrorist attack...?
What would she do?
Dive under the desk and read the news from there? With perhaps a glove puppet on her arm?
Order a quick cut to a commercial break whist they get Krishnan Guru-Murthy or Cathy Newman out of the pub?
What if she were reading the news when suddenly there's a newsflash about an Islamic terrorist attack...?
What would she do?
Dive under the desk and read the news from there? With perhaps a glove puppet on her arm?
Order a quick cut to a commercial break whist they get Krishnan Guru-Murthy or Cathy Newman out of the pub?
"Naomi -how about reading what real Muslim women are talking about -educate yourself out of the middle ages".
I don't doubt that Lamya Kador is a real Muslim woman, Retrochic, but your post suggests she is typically so. Do you think most real women in the Islamic world think and dress like Ms Kador? Do you think most of these women are as free as she to dress as they please? Do you know what happens to some women in some Muslim countries who think and dress like her? Do you think Ms Kador has educated herself out of the middle ages, dresses as she does and reinterprets the Islamic concept of modesty because she is living in a non-Muslim country. How do you think Ms Kador's appearance and opinions would be received in Teheran, Kabul or Jeddah? Have you heard of Aqsa Parvez?
I don't doubt that Lamya Kador is a real Muslim woman, Retrochic, but your post suggests she is typically so. Do you think most real women in the Islamic world think and dress like Ms Kador? Do you think most of these women are as free as she to dress as they please? Do you know what happens to some women in some Muslim countries who think and dress like her? Do you think Ms Kador has educated herself out of the middle ages, dresses as she does and reinterprets the Islamic concept of modesty because she is living in a non-Muslim country. How do you think Ms Kador's appearance and opinions would be received in Teheran, Kabul or Jeddah? Have you heard of Aqsa Parvez?
The fact that the words 'hair' and 'head' are not found in 24:31 should be sufficient for any unbiased reader to conclude that there cannot be a command to cover parts of the body if these parts are not mentioned in the first place.
Nevertheless, traditional Muslim scholars manipulated the words in 24:31 in order to enforce the covering of the hair on women, but in reality they are enforcing their culture on people and claiming it is Islamic!
Latest Posts
Crosswords19 mins ago
Businesses Warn Of Job Losses Threat As...
News29 mins ago
News29 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.