1) Threats of funding cuts to C4

To be fair, I believe your point about Bush and UK politicians to be a valid one. But I don’t believe that our politician’s subservience to Bush and its policies to be good enough reason to lower our standards and expect any value from having a lunatic deliver a Christmas message on prime-time TV.

Good to see that you’ve come to the realisation that if you start your argument with a moral equivalence, you’re going to have to handle a flood of them in response.

I believe “media freedom” is a straw man considering the real issue is not and never was “censoring” a message because we do not like it.

It is if you think C4 funding should be cut on that basis.

No – that’s your argument: that people who are against C4′s alternative Christmas message have a problem with freedom of speech. I believe that in the name of freedom of speech, we should avoid giving a platform for people who support executing homosexuals, or who keep on saying they want to obliterate countries from the face of the Earth. This almost seems like the rumblings of a psychopath.

Furthermore, you can defend “freedom of speech” but reject what most of us agree to be inhumane and violent speech – which is why, I would reject speech from people who for instance defend NAMBLA, racial supremacy, religious intolerance, ethnic cleansing, and so on. The fact that we reject these people, no matter if they have been subject to “tight control” to appear in mainstream TV, doesn’t mean we reject freedom of speech.

Secondly, as I keep saying, you’re not supporting the Telegraph financially.

I believe you meant C4. Isn’t public subsidy by definition tax payers money?

1) Threats of funding cuts to C4

It is a completely legitimate threat.

2) The different ways in which different heads of state are treated.
I see you ignored my point about how our media keeps treating Bush and Berlusconi (for eg)

I am not entirely sure why you are equating Berlusconi with Ahmedinejad. As for Bush, I would bet with you that he would get far more outrage from the public and media if he gave the alternative Christmas message than Ahmedinejad. So, I see no hypocrisy in that front. As for politicians and hypocrisy… are we supposed to be shocked?

Main Point:
similarly here, if this Address highlights the putrefaction of what otherwise passes for normal,
ie the routine relaying of leaders’ views throughout the media, then it’s all to the good.

-I have long objected, even before Blair’s comments on a soap-character’s foreign incarceration were reported [at variance to his silence on the 100-odd actual cases] or his vomit-fest about the people’s princess, or even when it was not the time for sound-bites yet he felt the hand of history on his shoulders;
but esp. during the months their lies were relayed during the Gulf War 03, what excuse is there for people not to notice/object henceforth, given that even the best of the media failed to take it upon themselves to distance themselves from governmental lies?

The alternative message by MA succeeded in kicking off a debate within families and individuals around the country about faith, prophets, religion and the role of these things in our ever-changing modern society.

Personally, I found it pretty thought-provoking, despite my problems with the Iranian leader. Just because I have issues with him, does that mean I have to discount every good thing he might say?
I’d prefer this message over the one delivered by Marge Simpson anyday…

Is that right? Refer to #61

I see the overiding objective is to provide MA with a platform to show others what an idiot he is. A proportion of people will see him as that. Another proportion will just add it to their accumulation of racist, bigoted examples as to why the western world needs to demonise Islam/Iran.

It does? So… leaving aside the point about blocking of churches (India doesn’t restrict them, but it still has Hindu nationalists that occasionally attack them. Similarly, Muslims in Israel can end up facing state bias against them)…

my point is – do you object on point about anyone having a sense of allegiance of interest to groups outside the ones you want? British Americans writing about the US annoy you, do they? Same goes for the Irish? For Catholics? Jews? Or does this ‘fairness’ problem only apply to Muslims?

“This argument rather sounds like those people who complain about “Muslims in the UK wanting Mosques by saying that Arab regimes in the Middle East don’t allow Churches. It’s a fatuous argument because we subscribe to a different way of life…”

Sunny @ 60

“I have no problems with people with multiple identities expressing an interest in other affairs.”

And that’s there’s the rub. Jews to my knowledge do not block churches in Israel. If they did, they might also come in for criticism. One might choose a multiple identity, but one has to accept it is not a one-way street: it offends people’s natural sense of “fairness”. And no, it’s not “logical”, but people on the whole are not.

It is if you think C4 funding should be cut on that basis.

Secondly, as I keep saying, you’re not supporting the Telegraph financially.

Thirdly:
Does Sunny apply this criteria to C4? I do not think so. Furthermore. unlike C4, I am not supporting the Telegraph financially.

The obvious difference being that one allowed the BNP to say what they want, including demonise asylum seekers and spread hatred, while the other was within a tightly controlled forum.

Besides, as I keep pointing out, my criticism was on the basis of:
1) Threats of funding cuts to C4
2) The different ways in which different heads of state are treated.
I see you ignored my point about how our media keeps treating Bush and Berlusconi (for eg)

Sunny is not defending MA. He is defending media freedom.

I believe “media freedom” is a straw man considering the real issue is not and never was “censoring” a message because we do not like it.

Sunny knows what is all about. A while back the Telegraph hosted a blog for BNP London councillor Richard Barnbrook. This is what Sunny wrote in an article titled “Telegraph gives the fascists a platform”:

So, let them advertise in the Ham and High. Let them speak at City Hall if they’re democratically elected. But giving them a platform on your website so they can spout their racial hatred? That’s quite different. That is a low, even for the Telegraph

Does Sunny apply this criteria to C4? I do not think so. Furthermore. unlike C4, I am not supporting the Telegraph financially. And as much as I find the BNP odious, they do not (openly) support the execution of homosexuals. or obliterating whole countries from the face of the earth. I do understand that Ahmedinejad does not really mean what he says, and that chauvinist rhetoric is part of Iranian politics, which is why this “alternative Christmas message” is nothing short of a freak show, and one that I hope is not rewarded by viewers.

Katy:
I just object to the suggestion that it’s hypocritical to complain about MA unless you also complain about every other human rights abuse that’s going on at the same time.

Just to clarify further, my point wasn’t aimed at people who do care about other human rights abuses, but aimed at people who ARE selective about the human rights abuses they highlight.

boyo:
maybe if the likes of the MCB shut up about Iraq, Holocaust Memorial Day, Islamophobia etc then others would not be so sensitive to relative disparities of tolerance between the Muslim “world” and the West.

That’s a bit like saying British Jews should “shut up” about what’s going on in Israel or about anti-semitism in Britain. Is that what you’re saying boyo? Because I certainly would not say that to Muslims or Jews. I’d want more perspective and less hypocrisy on both sides, but I have no problems with people with multiple identities expressing an interest in other affairs.

Yes, Iran needs a better representation than it’s ever received to date. My concern has been to see different parts of the Middle East come under so much violence – Israel/Palestine, Iraq and having travelled myself to neighbouring countries in the region, I cannot begin to imagine the scale of devastation taking place of people, culture, and their resources.

But on the question of whether MA deserves airtime is a judgement call – and that’s a personal matter.

Sunny is not defending MA. He is defending media freedom.

I would agree that Iran needs to be given a more balanced perspective. A couple from my family lived in Iran in the 70′s – they moved to Teheran a few yrs before the ayatollah’s ascent. They remember Iran for the iranians hospitality & welcoming nature to those of a different race/religion – they would be invited to family parties etc. After the Ayatalloh came to power things quickly changed (as to the enforced lifestyle) but alot of the iranians were against the changes & restrictions.

Oh dear Sid, it looks like you’ve joined the ranks or the “moral equivalence” massive.

haha, what’s wrong with making a moral equivalance with Ahmadinejad and some other “nutjob” (your word)? I see you have no qualms about joining the “moral equivalence massive” yourself, in your article even:

If Ahmedinejad is to be condemned, then the same should apply to George Bush, no? Isn’t Bush responsible for more deaths (regardless of his intention) of innocent people? How are we measuring who is good and who is bad?

So why pull me up on it when I make a moral equivalence?

And seriously speaking, I think there is an even more direct moral equivalance between Ahmadinejad and the likes of David Duke and Narendra Modi. And since C4 are loyal only to their own balance sheet, what is to stop them from having, say, Modi deliver an “Alternative” XMAS message next year? I look forward to seeing you deliver a staunch defence of C4 when that happens.

The whole point about free speech is that you defend the right of complete idiots to say what they want to, and yes that includes Modi and Duke. As long as they’re not inciting hatred on my TV screens, have no problems with them being on.

but clearly, you missed the point that C4 was trying to make, along with the other outraged blood-demanding mob. I suggest reading what Jai says above.

Yes, and do try and understand that it is just as much a part of my Freedom of Speech to *criticise* Channel 4, Ahmadinejad or Modi or Duke were they’re given a soapbox on public domain TV. Or any other media outlet which is loyal to no political principle but to its shareholders and ratings figures only.

Being the “champion” of freedom of speech that you are, I really hope that you will start campaigning for Ahmadinejad’s detractors to be allowed on an Iranian terrestial channel to deliver an “Alternative” Muharram message. And also to have, I dunno, Anjem Choudhury, do the alternative message on C4 next year. That would be very alternative and very freedom of speech, no?

And I would suggest you read Katy’s comment at #47, because she pretty much says it all.

I’d love that. It happens that virtually all of my neighbours are Iranian (I know that sounds a bit “some of my best friends are”, but it’s true), and their love for and pride in their Persian heritage is wonderful. But I’m not convinced that 15 minutes of propaganda from MA is the way to achieve that. In any event, I don’t say that C4 shouldn’t be allowed to invite whoever they want on. I just object to the suggestion that it’s hypocritical to complain about MA unless you also complain about every other human rights abuse that’s going on at the same time.

I was under the impression it was UK Muslims who identified themselves with Muslims elsewhere in the world – maybe if the likes of the MCB shut up about Iraq, Holocaust Memorial Day, Islamophobia etc then others would not be so sensitive to relative disparities of tolerance between the Muslim “world” and the West.

People are very parochial – before 9/11 most British non-Muslims had barely registered them; after then and 7/7 naturally their profile increased, but I resist the proposition that Muslims are somehow “picked on” – British Hindus have neither the violent, visible or political profile that Muslims have in Britain – all of which are generated NOT because they are being singled out, but because they are singling themselves out. Granted a minority may drive this higher profile, but nonetheless it is not fair to blame non-Muslims for its existence.

C4 don’t pay for the spectrum they use. We do. Since I’m (we’re) paying for their airtime, I see no problem with objecting to their stunt. Go live in Iran.

Am I being dramatic? No. Look at the pattern of discourse on Afghanistan 10-15 years ago. Except now in Iran we have put nulcear proliferation on the table.

If we’re really concerned about nuclear threat – there’s one right on our doorstop in India-Pakistan.