Great Britain Keeps a Stiff Bloody Lip

An article on How liberal Britain let hate flourish appearing in The Times Online notes that Abu Hamza, who was convicted last week of encouraging his followers to kill non-Moslems, was not unknown to the British authorities:

When Hamza was convicted of inciting his followers to murder non-Muslims last week, it became clear that the British authorities had also failed to counter the extremism — although they were only too well aware of what was going on.

Is this how moderate Islam has ended up being overshadowed by fanatics in Britain? Has the politically correct Establishment made the fatal mistake of ignoring extremists?

...Was there an unwillingness to confront Hamza and other fanatics for fear of offending the wider Muslim community?

That last question is a common one. Honest Reporting relates the following exchange between filmmaker Martin Himel and Dr. Tim Benson, founder of the British editorial cartoonists' society--when the society honored the Sharon-eating-babies cartoon that was honored in 2003 as Cartoon of the Year:

Himel: My question to you is, why, in all these [images] don't we see Sharon and Arafat eating babies?
Benson: Maybe because Jews don't issue fatwas.
Himel: What do you mean by that?
Benson: Well, if you upset an Islamic or Muslim group, as you know, fatwas can be issued by Ayatollahs and such, and maybe it's at the back of each cartoonist's mind, that they could be in trouble if they do so.
Himel: If they do what?
Benson: If they depict, uh, say, an Arab leader in the same manner.
Himel: Then they could suffer?
Benson: Then they could suffer death, couldn't they? [emphasis in original]

Another case of caving was reported in September 2004 when Can-West used copy it got from the British news source Reuters and inserted 'the T-word'. Reuters responded:

"Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone," David A. Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor told the New York Times. "Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline."

Schlesinger indicated changes like those made at CanWest could lead to "confusion" about what Reuters is reporting and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations.

"My goal is to protect our reporters and protect our editorial integrity," he said.

"This is a stunning admission," notes Honest Reporting. "Reuters' top international editor openly acknowledges that one of the main reasons his agency refuses to call terrorists 'terrorists' has nothing to do with editorial pursuit of objectivity, but rather is a response to intimidation from thugs and their supporters. [emphasis added]

"My goal is to protect our reporters and protect our editorial integrity"? The former is important, but does Reuters really think it can always avoid being done at the expense of the latter? Are terms such as right-wing, settlers, and occupied territory any less emotive?

In February 2005, Jonathan Rosenblum wrote:

Given what the English public is exposed to on a regular basis, is it any wonder that Britain now boasts the fastest rising rate of anti-Semitic incidents in Europe, and that frum Jews do not feel safe walking the streets in Stamford Hill? As a spokeswoman for Natan Sharansky, Israel's [former] Minister for Diaspora Affairs put it recently, "You can't brainwash people for four years that Israel is an illegitimate country and that Israelis are like Nazis . . . and expect that nothing will happen to Jews."

Unfortunately, because of the media and authorities caving in to Islamic pressure, the English public has other issues than just the safety of the Jews who live there.

Crossposted at Israpundit

Technorati Tag: Hamza and terrorism. and Islam and Media Bias and Great Britain and Anti-Semitism