Crosswords2 mins ago
Should Ch4 Have Used This Woman In A Hijab
to front the news of the Nice massacre?
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by trt. 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.
Retrocop, you are such a card.
I am sure you, like me, know the limitations of Google image search. I could have come up with a much more complicated search to try to narrow it down to purely images of Fatima Manji, but then no doubt I would have been accused of manipulating the search to my own ends. So I put a plain, simple search there, which even though it throws up photos of other people, e.g. Kelvin Mackenzie, would surely throw up a photo of Manji presenting the news without a hijab if this was a common occurrence.
I repeat, I watch this programme so I know how she normally appears.
I am sure you, like me, know the limitations of Google image search. I could have come up with a much more complicated search to try to narrow it down to purely images of Fatima Manji, but then no doubt I would have been accused of manipulating the search to my own ends. So I put a plain, simple search there, which even though it throws up photos of other people, e.g. Kelvin Mackenzie, would surely throw up a photo of Manji presenting the news without a hijab if this was a common occurrence.
I repeat, I watch this programme so I know how she normally appears.
Ellipsis, // She dressed in the same style as she always dresses, but then you would know that if you actually watched the program.//
I watch Channel 4 News every night and, as far as I’m aware, she always wears her scarf when presenting an item. However, on that occasion, rather than deem it paramount to pursue her quest to demonstrate that Muslim women can become journalists, it would have been nice of her – and Channel 4 - to consider the victims of that atrocity along with the thousands who have been affected by the actions of radical Islamists. It is okay for me to expect a little sensitivity to be shown towards victims isn’t it? Or isn’t it?
I watch Channel 4 News every night and, as far as I’m aware, she always wears her scarf when presenting an item. However, on that occasion, rather than deem it paramount to pursue her quest to demonstrate that Muslim women can become journalists, it would have been nice of her – and Channel 4 - to consider the victims of that atrocity along with the thousands who have been affected by the actions of radical Islamists. It is okay for me to expect a little sensitivity to be shown towards victims isn’t it? Or isn’t it?
Of course, Naomi, and now you have finally answered a question I asked twice earlier in the thread, which was what exactly you would like her to do to show sensitivity. You have answered "abandon her hijab".
But why should she? The hijab is a sign she is a Muslim, not a terrorist and not a supporter of terrorism. To "abandon her hijab" would imply that she thought the hijab was a sign of those things, and for her to associate being a Muslim with terrorism.
She is fortunate enough to live in a free country, and to work for an organisation like C4 News who gives her the freedom to express her religious identity. You would prefer to take those freedoms away, it seems. To ask her to abandon her hijab is a really pathetic request and just shows your own prejudices.
But why should she? The hijab is a sign she is a Muslim, not a terrorist and not a supporter of terrorism. To "abandon her hijab" would imply that she thought the hijab was a sign of those things, and for her to associate being a Muslim with terrorism.
She is fortunate enough to live in a free country, and to work for an organisation like C4 News who gives her the freedom to express her religious identity. You would prefer to take those freedoms away, it seems. To ask her to abandon her hijab is a really pathetic request and just shows your own prejudices.
Naomi - //fiction-factory, displaying a visual symbol of the religion that is currently active in perpetrating widespread slaughter worldwide is not conducive to empathy for the victims. //
Seriously?
I always thought it was unbalanced fanatics who use their twisted misinterpretations of Muslim texts to justify their dreadful crimes - rather than the default positions of Muslims to be murderous terrorists as part of their religion.
Or am I being 'silly' again?
Seriously?
I always thought it was unbalanced fanatics who use their twisted misinterpretations of Muslim texts to justify their dreadful crimes - rather than the default positions of Muslims to be murderous terrorists as part of their religion.
Or am I being 'silly' again?
Naomi - //andy-hughes at 11:04. You are rather. You are not au fait with Muslim texts so you can hardly deem them 'twisted' when used to justify the actions of extremists. //
Can the use of any religious texts to justify wholesale murder be seen as anything other that twisted?
And if you re-read my text carefully, you will see that I did not refer to the Muslim texts as twisted - rather the fanatical interpretations of them, which is not the same thing at all.
There are endless examples of encouragement towards extreme behaviour in any religious writing - the Bible included.
Off the top of my head, and as an atheist I will cheerfully own up to not having read it for over fifty years - I recall something along the lines of - "If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out ..." but I, and I am sure you, would question the sanity of anyone who carried out that edict literally.
Hope that's cleared up any misunderstanding.
Can the use of any religious texts to justify wholesale murder be seen as anything other that twisted?
And if you re-read my text carefully, you will see that I did not refer to the Muslim texts as twisted - rather the fanatical interpretations of them, which is not the same thing at all.
There are endless examples of encouragement towards extreme behaviour in any religious writing - the Bible included.
Off the top of my head, and as an atheist I will cheerfully own up to not having read it for over fifty years - I recall something along the lines of - "If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out ..." but I, and I am sure you, would question the sanity of anyone who carried out that edict literally.
Hope that's cleared up any misunderstanding.
Andy-hughes, //if you re-read my text carefully, you will see that I did not refer to the Muslim texts as twisted - rather the fanatical interpretations of them, which is not the same thing at all.//
I read your post and you are mistaken. The texts are not ‘twisted’ by fanatical interpretation. They say what they say. I hope that's cleared up any misunderstanding.
I read your post and you are mistaken. The texts are not ‘twisted’ by fanatical interpretation. They say what they say. I hope that's cleared up any misunderstanding.
Naomi - //Andy-hughes, //if you re-read my text carefully, you will see that I did not refer to the Muslim texts as twisted - rather the fanatical interpretations of them, which is not the same thing at all.//
I read your post and you are mistaken. The texts are not ‘twisted’ by fanatical interpretation. They say what they say. I hope that's cleared up any misunderstanding. //
Interpretation - fanatical or otherwise - is entirely the centre of actions by anyone who follows any faith anywhere on the planet.
The Westboro Baptist Church people will quote screeds of biblical text to bolster their horrible prejudice against homosexuals - but the vast majority of the Christians in the world do not see the Bible as meaning hatred of anyone - it's somewhat against the nature of Christianity.
Similarly, millions of Muslims lead peaceful lives without resorting to murdering people who are not as they are.
I cannot believe that you make the distinction between the two faiths - that one takes its texts literally to justify hatred, and the other does not - you cannot have it both ways.
I read your post and you are mistaken. The texts are not ‘twisted’ by fanatical interpretation. They say what they say. I hope that's cleared up any misunderstanding. //
Interpretation - fanatical or otherwise - is entirely the centre of actions by anyone who follows any faith anywhere on the planet.
The Westboro Baptist Church people will quote screeds of biblical text to bolster their horrible prejudice against homosexuals - but the vast majority of the Christians in the world do not see the Bible as meaning hatred of anyone - it's somewhat against the nature of Christianity.
Similarly, millions of Muslims lead peaceful lives without resorting to murdering people who are not as they are.
I cannot believe that you make the distinction between the two faiths - that one takes its texts literally to justify hatred, and the other does not - you cannot have it both ways.
Naomi - //andy-hughes, I’m not going around the houses with you again on this subject. You claim the texts are twisted by Muslim extremists. They are not. //
As far as I am concerned, we are discussing a subject - if you feel that is 'going round the houses', it implies that you lack the conviction of your argument - as evidenced by your statement, which is only your opinion, and not, as you have implied - a provable fact.
But if you wish to dip out, then fine, we can simply agree to differ, and let our posts stand for others to make up their mind, and join in the debate on either side if they wish.
As far as I am concerned, we are discussing a subject - if you feel that is 'going round the houses', it implies that you lack the conviction of your argument - as evidenced by your statement, which is only your opinion, and not, as you have implied - a provable fact.
But if you wish to dip out, then fine, we can simply agree to differ, and let our posts stand for others to make up their mind, and join in the debate on either side if they wish.
The texts are not the issue here. The issue is that some people - Kelvin Mackenzie and Naomi being examples - get offended when others - Fatima Manji being an example - express their religious freedoms in our free country. Perhaps they would prefer our country was not free (as long as it remained free for them, of course), much as they would "prefer" that Fatima Manji was switched out that evening or, at the very least, "abandon her hijab", as an expression of "sympathy". Wow.
As C4 News stated: The comments published in The Sun today by Mr MacKenzie are offensive, completely unacceptable, and arguably tantamount to inciting religious and even racial hatred. It is wrong to suggest that a qualified journalist should be barred from reporting on a particular story or present on a specific day because of their faith.
As C4 News stated: The comments published in The Sun today by Mr MacKenzie are offensive, completely unacceptable, and arguably tantamount to inciting religious and even racial hatred. It is wrong to suggest that a qualified journalist should be barred from reporting on a particular story or present on a specific day because of their faith.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank4 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
Editor's Blog9 mins ago
Film, Media & TV29 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.