[Pants-of-dog]

The BBC doesn't imply in the slightest (merely or otherwise) that Kurds or Iranians are responsible for even a single one of the 2,823 incidents they mention, much less the majority of them. What on earth leads you to believe they made any such implication?

I never said that the BBC claimed that the Iranians and Kurds were responsible for a majority of them, so I have no clue why you're saying I claimed that.

Why should the BBC blame a specific group or religion at all? Why are you so insistent that they blame Muslims?

[Phred]

I never said that the BBC claimed that the Iranians and Kurds were responsible for a majority of them, so I have no clue why you're saying I claimed that.

I never said you claimed the BBC attributed the majority of the incidents to Kurds or Iranians, I asked you to support your allegation that:

The BBC (correctly) attributes honour killings to certain cultural groups (Iranians and Kurds) and not to Muslims.

The problem is, the BBC did no such thing. They didn't attribute any honor attacks, much less any honor killings to Kurds or to Iranians. Or to Muslims. Or to North Africans. This is why I asked you to provide proof for your assertion.

Why should the BBC blame a specific group or religion at all? Why are you so insistent that they blame Muslims?

Because the whole concept of "honor attacks" or "honor-based violence" is one foreign to the traditional British mentality. It is not the norm. It is unusual, hence newsworthy. It is also a pathology peculiar to an identifiable subset of humans who share specific characteristics. This pathology rarely manifests itself in humans lacking these characteristics. A useful news agency would at the very least mention these characteristics. A useless news agency would do everything in its power to keep that information hidden.



Phred

[Pants-of-dog]

Because the whole concept of "honor attacks" or "honor-based violence" is one foreign to the traditional British mentality. It is not the norm. It is unusual, hence newsworthy.

That did not answer my question at all. You explained why it is newsworthy, but not why you feel the BBC has to blame Muslims.

It is also a pathology peculiar to an identifiable subset of humans who share specific characteristics. This pathology rarely manifests itself in humans lacking these characteristics. A useful news agency would at the very least mention these characteristics. A useless news agency would do everything in its power to keep that information hidden.

You believe all sorts of weird things. Do you have any evidence that this is a pathology peculiar to Muslims?

[Phred]

That did not answer my question at all.

You haven't answered by request for proof at all. Does that make us even?

You explained why it is newsworthy, but not why you feel the BBC has to blame Muslims.

Because deliberately concealing information central to the story renders the story useless. And of course, I don't say the BBC should blame Muslims, I merely point out that they have gone to great lengths to hide the fact that this pathology is one endemic in humans who share certain characteristics.

Do you have any evidence that this is a pathology peculiar to Muslims?

I never said this was something that only Muslims do. That was the stance taken by my opponents, not by me - "Oh, Phred, you poor clueless boob, we don't need to be spoonfed by the BBC, we don't need to be reminded by them of what all intelligent people already know - Muzzies murder their female relatives. Why should the BBC belabor the point?" I'm the one giving the benefit of a doubt to Muslims - I am not assuming these 2,823 incidents were perpetrated by Muslims. I am assuming that at least some of them were perpetrated by non-Muslims. The problem is, I have know way of knowing whether or not my assumptions are accurate. That is the whole point of turning to a news organization which purports to be an investigative organization.

Phred

[Pants-of-dog]

Because deliberately concealing information central to the story renders the story useless. And of course, I don't say the BBC should blame Muslims, I merely point out that they have gone to great lengths to hide the fact that this pathology is one endemic in humans who share certain characteristics.

So you arbitrarily decided that this pathology is endemic to Muslims (despite no evidence) and you are pissed off that the BBC is not proclaiming your belief loudly as if it were true and important.

I never said this was something that only Muslims do.

You said, and I quote:

"It is also a pathology peculiar to an identifiable subset of humans who share specific characteristics. This pathology rarely manifests itself in humans lacking these characteristics."

You also specifically referred to Muslims in your OP. From this we can safely infer that you are claiming that honour killings are a pathology peculiar to Muslims (i.e. an identifiable subset of humans who share specific characteristics) and that this pathology rarely manifests itself in non-Muslims (i.e. humans lacking these characteristics).

That was the stance taken by my opponents, not by me - "Oh, Phred, you poor clueless boob, we don't need to be spoonfed by the BBC, we don't need to be reminded by them of what all intelligent people already know - Muzzies murder their female relatives. Why should the BBC belabor the point?" I am the only one so far to give the benefit of a doubt to Muslims - I am not assuming these 2,823 incidents were perpetrated by Muslims. I am assuming that at least some of them were perpetrated by non-Muslims. The problem is, I have know way of knowing whether or not my suppositions are accurate. That is the whole point of turning to a news organization which purports to be an investigative organization.

Like I care what others said about your arguments. I am talking about what you said.

[Phred]

So you arbitrarily decided that this pathology is endemic to Muslims (despite no evidence)...

"Endemic" is not a synonym for "exclusive", Pants. But you know that.

...and you are pissed off that the BBC is not proclaiming your belief loudly as if it were true and important.

Apart from the fact that you are misrepresenting my belief, why do you believe the BBC chooses to omit the key question in this whole sordid mess - just who is it perpetrating these savage crimes?

You said, and I quote:

"It is also a pathology peculiar to an identifiable subset of humans who share specific characteristics. This pathology rarely manifests itself in humans lacking these characteristics."

Which would you prefer we believe? Where do I identify any of those characteristics as Islam?

You also specifically referred to Muslims in your OP.

No, the blogger I block-quoted did that. I merely pointed out that the BBC had failed to inform the public. It was the posters responding to my complaint who started assuming there was no need for the BBC to mention Muslims, since "everyone knows already" that it must have been Muslims doing these things. I would have pointed out the BBC's malfeasance if the group in question had been Blacks or Gays or Investment Bankers. The deliberate choice to refuse to identify the perps is the issue here, not their ultimate identity. The offence would be as egregious regardless of which group was being shielded.

From this we can safely infer that you are claiming that honour killings are a pathology peculiar to Muslims (i.e. an identifiable subset of humans who share specific characteristics) and that this pathology rarely manifests itself in non-Muslims (i.e. humans lacking these characteristics).

Again, I have stated - repeatedly - that my presumption has been from the beginning that since the statistics on this pathology show it is not restricted to Muslims, but also extends to - at least - Hindus and even Sikhs, I had fully expected to see non-Muslims as perpetrators. I also was very careful to use the word "characteristics", not "characteristic". Plural, not singular.

So, no evidence that this pathology is peculiar to a set of people that share certain characteristics.

So, no evidence supporting your claim that "the BBC (correctly) attributes honour killings to certain cultural groups (Iranians and Kurds) and not to Muslims."


Phred

[Pants-of-dog]

"Endemic" is not a synonym for "exclusive", Pants. But you know that.

This is why I quoted the text where you used the word "peculiar" which is a synonym for "exclusive".

Apart from the fact that you are misrepresenting my belief, why do you believe the BBC chooses to omit the key question in this whole sordid mess - just who is it perpetrating these savage crimes?

There are an infinite number of hypotheses. It could be irrelevant. It could be a fact that is not news-worthy. It could be that it is a diverse group of people doing these things. I want to know why you think your hypothesis is correct.

No, the blogger I block-quoted did that.

Right. And we take your claim, and add the claim put forth in the blog you quoted, and we are left to logically assume that you meant Muslims are responsible for honour killings.

Do you believe this? Yes or no? If you do not believe it, then you should not complain that the BBC is not mentioning it.

If you do believe this, can we move on?

I merely pointed out that the BBC had failed to inform the public. It was the posters responding to my complaint who started assuming there was no need for the BBC to mention Muslims, since "everyone knows already" that it must have been Muslims doing these things. I would have pointed out the BBC's malfeasance if the group in question had been Blacks or Gays or Investment Bankers. The deliberate choice to refuse to identify the perps is the issue here, not their ultimate identity. The offence would be as egregious regardless of which group was being shielded.

Okay. Now, you seem to say below that these honour killings are peculiar to certain religious communities. Should the BBC have mentioned the fact that these killing are peculiar to those communities?

Again, I have stated - repeatedly - that my presumption has been from the beginning that since the statistics on this pathology show it is not restricted to Muslims, but also extends to - at least - Hindus and even Sikhs, I had fully expected to see non-Muslims as perpetrators. I also was very careful to use the word "characteristics", not "characteristic". Plural, not singular.

Then why did you make your OP a quote of a blog that focused on Muslims?

So, no evidence supporting your claim that "the BBC (correctly) attributes honour killings to certain cultural groups (Iranians and Kurds) and not to Muslims."

I put my evidence right here for everyone to see. You are correct that it does not explicitly attribute the problem to these communities, but it does specifically mention that women from these communities are the ones demanding this information from the government. This implies that women from these communities are inordinately affected. You may, if you wish, keep going about my "lack of evidence" but I am not going to address the issue further.

Now, what exactly would you like the BBC to claim?

[Cartertonian]

OK. I've cleaned this thread up. If any contributor wishes to continue the debate, without resorting to Rule 2 violations, they are welcome to do so.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

The BBC does not report the numbers of honour killings and violence by religion, ethnic group etc. because those numbers are not available to them. The total number was extracted from all of the police forces by the Kurdish and Iranian women's organisation by a series of Freedom of Information requests. The BBC, and the Telegraph, and all other media, then get the choice of reporting that number, or not reporting it. They are not all-knowing groups that can categorise thousands of crimes on their own. They could try more Freedom of Information requests about the religious and ethnic nature, but that will take months.

If it's up to anyone to produce these numbers, it's the Home Office or Justice Ministry. Why don't you write to them, Phred? You could make it a Freedom of Information request.

[Phred]

The BBC does not report the numbers of honour killings and violence by religion, ethnic group etc. because those numbers are not available to them.

To emulate the esteemed Pants-of-dog: proof, please.

The total number was extracted from all of the police forces by the Kurdish and Iranian women's organisation by a series of Freedom of Information requests. The BBC, and the Telegraph, and all other media, then get the choice of reporting that number, or not reporting it. They are not all-knowing groups that can categorise thousands of crimes on their own.

Yet so many other all-knowing groups have established convincingly the vast majority of these crimes are committed by Muslims (with almost all of the remaining ones being perpetrated by Hindus and - according to some people - Sikhs) that it is now common knowledge. So universal is this knowledge that I am derided for being naive enough to think the BBC needs to "spoonfeed" its readers something everyone already knows. If these other all-knowing groups were able to dig up the statistics which establish these practices are almost exclusively reserved to those who self-identify as Muslims, Hindus, or Sikhs, how is it the BBC was unable to?

If it's up to anyone to produce these numbers, it's the Home Office or Justice Ministry. Why don't you write to them, Phred?

If that is the case, then why didn't the BBC write to them? I thought that was the whole point of journalism.


Phred

[Prosthetic Conscience]

Yet so many other all-knowing groups have established convincingly the vast majority of these crimes are committed by Muslims (with almost all of the remaining ones being perpetrated by Hindus and - according to some people - Sikhs) that it is now common knowledge. So universal is this knowledge that I am derided for being naive enough to think the BBC needs to "spoonfeed" its readers something everyone already knows. If these other all-knowing groups were able to dig up the statistics which establish these practices are almost exclusively reserved to those who self-identify as Muslims, Hindus, or Sikhs, how is it the BBC was unable to?

People here are saying that 'honour' violence is frequently reported as being by Muslims, and so it's reasonable to assume that many or most of the total are also by Muslims.

If it's up to anyone to produce these numbers, it's the Home Office or Justice Ministry. Why don't you write to them, Phred?
If that is the case, then why didn't the BBC write to them? I thought that was the whole point of journalism. [/quote]

Because, as I already said, that would have meant they couldn't report the story now. They'd have to wait until the police forces, or central bureaucrats, had collated a new set of figures - if they can. Religion may not be recorded in all cases. It would, anyway, mean waiting months to report this.

[Phred]

Because, as I already said, that would have meant they couldn't report the story now. They'd have to wait until the police forces, or central bureaucrats, had collated a new set of figures - if they can. Religion may not be recorded in all cases. It would, anyway, mean waiting months to report this.

I see. So the BBC - in its rush to "scoop" the competition - decided to let the Muslims take the blame for these 2,823 incidents.



Phred

[Prosthetic Conscience]

No, Phred, you don't see. You make things up. But you're happier in that world with a BBC to rant at, so we may as well leave you there.

[Phred]

What is it, specifically, you think I am making up?



Phred

[Pants-of-dog]

Phred, what exactly would you like the BBC to claim?

[GandalfTheGrey]

What is it, specifically, you think I am making up?

that the BBC "decided" to let muslims take the blame for these 2823 incidents.

Any more stupid questions Phred?

[Phred]

Any more stupid questions Phred?

Oh, maybe one or two. For example:

If the authors of the BBC article are as modern and sophisticated and well-read as the PoFo members who responded to my opening post, then they too would know the same things those respondents do, i.e. -

Most of those who actually bother themselves to follow BBC news are usually intelligent enough to know full well that, 'in the overwhelming majority of cases', these crimes occur within the Muslim community, without the journalist having to screech - EVIL MOHAMMEDANS DO IT - just so's we'll get the point. - Cartertonian

Maybe because "honor killings" is commonly associated with Islam? - Wolfman

It is also assumed that the Islamic scholars all around the world have some kind of supremacy over what their believers are doing. It is a rough equivalent of saying that because Christians in Africa are hanging homosexuals, all Christians must believe that homosexuals should be hanged, despite the fact that most figures of Christian authority have condemned hanging those people. - Lokayy

Knowing that this is the conventional wisdom, why didn't the BBC would point out the same thing Lokayy and Ombrageux did - that though Muslims are responsible for the majority of honor based violence, they are not responsible for all of it: members of at least one other religion have been known to commit these crimes as well. They could have said something like:

"The statistics released to IWKRO do not track the ethnicity, religion, or immigrant status of either victims or perpetrators. According to a 2008 report by the Association of Chief Police Officer of England, Wales & Northern Ireland, honor-based violence 'cuts across all cultures, nationalities, faith groups and communities.' Accordingly, the readers should not presume our decision to publish only photos of victims and perpetrators with names such as Mahmod and Mahmood and Mohammed shows that all 2,823 reported incidents involved Muslims. We could as easily have added a Presbyterian Scottsman or two had space allowed."

How hard would that have been, Gandalf? I'm sure they could have managed to fit in a statement like that in an article of that length if they had wanted to. The decision to leave out this important information (that this kind of thing cuts across all cultures, nationalities, faith group and communities, despite the conventional wisdom) wasn't accidental. It was deliberate. You can of course believe otherwise if you wish.

See, this is exactly why I say the BBC is useless. Key information - that the stats don't track by ethnicity or religion; that these practices cut across all cultures and religions; that their choice of using photos and names of only muslims was purely a random decision - was not relayed to the reading audiences, leaving them to reinforce their own prejudices: "My word, Edna, I already knew these Muzzies were a savage lot, but I had no idea how many thousands of times they do these horrible things every year right here in Old Blighty!"


Phred

[GandalfTheGrey]

Knowing that this is the conventional wisdom, why didn't the BBC would point out the same thing Lokayy and Ombrageux did - that though Muslims are responsible for the majority of honor based violence, they are not responsible for all of it: members of at least one other religion have been known to commit these crimes as well.

Because no matter how well understood it may be, it would be irresponsible for the BBC to make such a claim without any actual evidence to back it up. All the facts outlined in the article were sourced from the FOI stats that IWKRO had obtained. Statistics on ethnicity/religion obviously weren't contained in that information. The article was specifically about the data that IWKRO had obtained. Is that so hard to understand??

their choice of using photos and names of only muslims was purely a random decision - was not relayed to the reading audiences, leaving them to reinforce their own prejudices

I'm sure you think its terribly clever of you turning your original argument on its head like this. Remember though, that you posted the article in the OP because you were outraged that the BBC wasn't being racist enough by omitting the words 'muslim' and 'islam', and not providing statistics that were not available to them (or more correctly, was not relevant to the topic of the article).

[Phred]

Because no matter how well understood it may be, it would be irresponsible for the BBC to make such a claim without any actual evidence to back it up.

But there is evidence. Or are Lokayy and Ombrageux just making stuff up in order to excuse Muslims? Do Hindus and Sikhs in fact commit acts of honor-based violence or don't they? The Association of Police Chiefs claims the problem cuts across "all" faith groups. Wikipedia says the practice is not exclusively a Muslim one. Look, I don't say the BBC should just make numbers up out of nowhere, such as "Of the nearly three thousand cases, a little more than a third were committed by recent immigrants," or anything of that sort, since they of course have no evidence to support that level of specificity. To do that kind of thing would be irresponsible, you're right. My position is that it is every bit as irresponsible and arguably more so to remain totally silent on such a key point.

All the facts outlined in the article were sourced from the FOI stats that IWKRO had obtained. Statistics on ethnicity/religion obviously weren't contained in that information.

Why do you believe that when writing a story on a phenomenon the BBC must restrict itself to information from a single source? That is one of the standard rules of responsible journalism: never rely on single sources. Whenever possible, get a second or even third.

The article was specifically about the data that IWKRO had obtained. Is that so hard to understand??

No, the story was about the prevalence of honor-based violence reported in the UK in a year. The stats IKWRO obtained provided information on the quantity of these attacks. Other sources out there provide information on who is most at risk, and from whom.

I'm sure you think its terribly clever of you turning your original argument on its head like this. Remember though, that you posted the article in the OP because you were outraged that the BBC wasn't being racist enough by omitting the words 'muslim' and 'islam', and not providing statistics that were not available to them (or more correctly, was not relevant to the topic of the article).

You misrepresent my position completely. I strongly suggest you go back to the opening post and reread my commentary. See, Gandalf, unlike many of the lazier posters here, I don't just cut and paste a block quote or entire article with no commentary of my own. I chose the thread title I did for a reason. I didn't title it: "BBC covers up Muslim culpability in violent crimes" nor did I (as so many others do) just use the title of the article I chose to illustrate my point as the thread title. No, I deliberately chose a title that let people know what point I was making. I then made that point even more clear with my introduction to the article I chose to illustrate the charge made in the title - that the BBC is useless:

"What's the point of calling yourself a news organization if you refuse to actually inform the public?"

As I told Pants-of-dog, I would have pointed out the BBC's malfeasance if the crimes being examined involved Blacks or Gays or Investment Bankers. The deliberate choice to refuse to identify either the perps or the victims is the issue here, not their ultimate identity. The BBC's absurdity would be as egregious regardless of which group was being shielded. When looking at a societal problem as serious as this one (thousands of people are being badly hurt and even killed each year, after all) the two things a typical concerned citizen most wants to know are:

- who is at risk
- from whom are they at risk

The BBC article answers neither of these two central questions, leaving readers to instead rely on whatever superstitious nonsense on the topic they may have heard their mates down at the Pub rail about. Therefore, in actual fact, the BBC is worse than useless, because by their refusal to point out facts readily available to them (that honor-based violence cuts across all faith groups, therefore in a sample size of almost three thousand, it is statistically unlikely that all incidents were perpetrated by those following a single faith: Islam) they leave the reader free to draw his own conclusions, based on his innate prejudices and/or his misunderstanding of the conventional wisdom - that only Muslims commit honor crimes.

It is quite clear what is going on here - the BBC's congenital multi-culti politically correct reflex to "whatever you do, don't offend the Muslims" has ironically produced a situation where the Muslim community ends up in a worse light than if they had included a cautionary paragraph such as the one I whipped up in thirty seconds. Their attempt to head off a potential backlash against Muslims ends up having the opposite effect - the stereotypes the readers already hold about Muslims are reinforced. By jumping through so many hoops to avoid even a mention of ethnicity, culture, immigrant status or religion, they have instead drawn attention to exactly those factors.


Phred

[Pants-of-dog]

...When looking at a societal problem as serious as this one (thousands of people are being badly hurt and even killed each year, after all) the two things a typical concerned citizen most wants to know are:

- who is at risk
- from whom are they at risk

The BBC article answers neither of these two central questions, leaving readers to instead rely on whatever superstitious nonsense on the topic they may have heard their mates down at the Pub rail about. ...

Who do you think is at risk, and from whom are they at risk?