Should Ch4 Have Used This Woman In A Hijab

[trt]

to front the news of the Nice massacre?

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1459893/why-did-channel-4-have-a-presenter-in-a-hijab-to-front-coverage-of-muslim-terror-in-nice/

[naomi24]

Ellipsis, //People who claim not to think Muslim=Islamist=terrorist, posting things that clearly show they do think exactly that. //

Utterly inaccurate and not unexpected. You talk a lot but understand little.

[ichkeria]

Lordy! It's always intriguing to return to a topic several hundred posts later (!)
I can only echo what ellipsis last posted and hope that we'll all think again before getting on our high horse about religious bigotry in N Ireland :-)

[naomi24]

Northern Ireland has nothing whatsoever in common with Islamic extremism. It’s a mistake to think it has.

[andy-hughes]

I think ellipsis has summed up the thinking behind the various posts on here pretty succinctly - those who want to shout from the rooftops about the intolerance of Muslim fanatics are themselves equally intolerant of Muslims living among them.

The actions may be different between them - but the mind-set of self-righteous prejudice is absolutely identical!

And we have managed to stroll down a fascinating side street (cul de sac?) while still awaiting a reasoned response regarding the 'sensitivity' of dress depending on the content of the news.

[Ellipsis]

Naomi, you wrote: To put it frankly, people who are upset or personally affected by the appalling actions of Islamists in Europe can do without a woman dressed in Muslim garb being shoved in their faces reporting it directly after the event.

So you wrote "Islamist" to describe the actions of "terrorists", and then you wrote "[people] can do without a woman dressed in Muslim garb" as if that Muslim garb would remind people of the act of terror (even though it wasn't perpetrated by a woman in Muslim garb). Muslim=Islamist=terrorist, q.e.d.

Try posting something that shows you don't believe that.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - //Northern Ireland has nothing whatsoever in common with Islamic extremism. It’s a mistake to think it has. //

Self-righteousness in universe-sized proportions
Arrogance and an utter unwillingness to compromise
Belief that one aspect of a faith is the right and only one
A willingness to use violence and murder to get results

I think they have absolutely everything in common!

[naomi24]

Andy-highes, //while still awaiting a reasoned response regarding the 'sensitivity' of dress depending on the content of the news.//

Had you read my posts you wouldn’t be waiting.

//I think they have absolutely everything in common!//

That figures.

Ellipsis, you may read what you like into my posts, but your accusations against me are unfounded.

[andy-hughes]

Really Naomi - I do expect better of you.

I know you are a seasoned debater, and I know you are more than capable of succinctly arguing a point of view - so this recent tendency to adopt a Robin Day-ish approach - his raised eyebrows and clipped 'Thank you' always meant 'You are talking compete tosh but that is your right ...' - is really not what I would expect from you.

I have read every post on this thread - which of course includes yours - and the continual requests from various contributors asking you just what exactly you believe would be 'sensitive' about removing an item of clothing, and why the journalist or channel should even consider such oppressive behaviour.

If you have answered - as you infer - then I have not understood or picked up your point, and would request that you either post me towards appropriate posts, or reiterate, which ever you find easiest.

Thanks.

[fiction-factory]

I must have missed it too, andy.

[naomi24]

Andy-hughes/fiction-factory, look again. 10:46 and 10:56 today.

[fiction-factory]

Thanks. Sorry but I can't see why removing a scarf even before details were known of a possible link to IS (and this link still isn't clear) would have made things any less painful for the victims - almost all of whom wouldn't be watching Channel 4 news in France anyway . Was her spoken presentation in any way disrespectful- e.g. did she smile as she spoke about the atrocity?

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - Thanks for your help, here is your post - //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. //

Er, she wasn't.

I would suggest that she was dressing as she feels is comfortable and appropriate for her place in society, and her profession as a journalist.

Her garment represents Islam, which carries the burden of a miniscule percentage of its followers twisting its messages to justify their certifiable bloodlust.

That is a world away from referring to it as " ... the religion that is currently active in perpetrating widespread slaughter worldwide ... "

I know that you know that there is a massive difference between a tiny percentage of murderous fanatics, and a faith as a whole - I am mystified why you are refusing to acknowledge that simple fact in this debate.

[Ellipsis]

Naomi> Ellipsis, you may read what you like into my posts, but your accusations against me are unfounded.

My accusations are entirely founded, upon your own words, as I've demonstrated.

Naomi> Andy-hughes/fiction-factory, look again. 10:46 and 10:56 today
Naomi, 10:56> displaying a visual symbol of the religion that is currently active in perpetrating widespread slaughter worldwide is not conducive to empathy for the victims.

All I see there is yet another example of your Islam=terrorism (the religion=widespread slaughter worldwide) mantra. It does not reveal exactly what you believe would be 'sensitive' about removing an item of clothing.

[naomi24]

Regardless of what andy-hughes ‘suggests’, had he read the previous posts he would be aware that the reason she wears the hijab is because it is a visible symbol of Islam.

In my opinion Channel 4 and the reporter should have been rather more sensitive - and I am aware that all Muslims are not terrorists. I don’t know what more I’m expected to say – and frankly, I’m past caring. I trust you’ll forgive me for not joining in with all this virtue-signalling. I’m not into that.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - //Regardless of what andy-hughes ‘suggests’, had he read the previous posts he would be aware that the reason she wears the hijab is because it is a visible symbol of Islam. //

I am quite happy to concede that - it is a reasonable assumption.

//In my opinion Channel 4 and the reporter should have been rather more sensitive - and I am aware that all Muslims are not terrorists. //

Fine - so why the need to pretend that they are by not obviously being a Muslim when talking about atrocities committed by someone who may (or may not!) be a Muslim!

You must see that to remove her hijab in order to read an item about possible Muslim terrorism can only have one interpretation, and it is not that she is being 'sensitive' - rather it is that she is ashamed of her faith and is keen to distance herself from it.

Whereas in fact, she can know that being distanced from terrorism is the default position of any rational human being - Muslim or not - and underlining that by abandoning her own cultural identity is advertising a sense of shame that she does not, and certainly should not feel.

//I don’t know what more I’m expected to say – and frankly, I’m past caring. I trust you’ll forgive me for not joining in with all this virtue-signalling. I’m not into that.//

I don't think you need to say anything else.

You have consistently opined that a Muslim woman journalist should visually signal that she ashamed of her faith because of actions carried out in its name by people who have nothing to do with the faith aside from a cover for their dreadful crimes.

Where the notion of 'sensitivity' comes from remains in the further reaches of Mr McKenzie's fevered bigoted imagination, and I remain surprised that you entertain it for a second - much less that you defend it to the length and level that you have.

You learn something about people every day.

[naomi24]

Oh dear.... :o)

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - //Oh dear.... :o) //

I am delighted to take that Robin Day-ism as your retirement from the fray - but don't let me stop you, if you have a serious defence to make of your 'sensitivity' stance (snigger!) I remain ready to discuss it with you.

[naomi24]

You? Discuss it with me? Oh good grief! Haaaaaaa!

[andy-hughes]

You make a point, I make a point - that's a discussion as far as I understand the term.