Free speech doesn't require giving Ahmadinejad a platform

Russ

Free speech meansing giving everyone and all views and equal platform. It's hardly free speech if you only ever get to hear one view

Paul Edwards

I despise what Ahmadinejad advocates - but most people I know have no idea just how criminally radical he is.

Build the stage I say - and have faith that the audience will decide for themselves how abhorrent his views really are.

Liam Murray

I suspect the description of the C4 relativists is spot on and the decision to do this was pathetic but surely it can be labelled as such, dismissed and then forgotten?

The idea that this is some sort of national outrage simply panders to the adolescent bent of those who commissioned it. And your corruption of Voltaire is a bit worrying - he DID talk about defending to the death the rights of free speech so while your distinction between offering a platform and defending this principle holds true I suspect Voltaire would still find himself closer to C4 on this issue than all those expressing faux outrage.

Move on...!

Verity

James, I largely concur with your post. However, I think that people who mention - in this context - Israel and hanging homosexuals from canes and denying women human rights are missing the point of this outrage.

Those are not the points at issue. What counts is this man is committing acts of aggression against our troops, and he committed an act of war against us by seizing a British warship and capturing the crew. (He also sent them home in civilian clothes which is probably another offence against international terms of warfare.)

Let us stay focussed here. That he's an enemy of Israel and gays (and decent tailoring) are not germane. He has committed acts of aggression against our country. He murders our troops. He captured our RN ship.

Austin Barry

Fortunately, Israel, as today's events have shown, will not, ultimately, align itself with the West's supine position where its enemies are concerned. So the IAF will likely take care of Iran's nuclear project, and good luck to them.

George H

"Free speech meansing giving everyone and all views and equal platform."

No, freedom of speech means you get to CHOOSE which views to air on your platform, not that you have to air all of them. Duh.

Mohammad

Giving airtime to a torturer and representative of a dictatorial and fascist regime is not free speech. it's giving opportunity to a regime that execute children, stone to death women, amputate limbs,export terrorism and fundamentalism to the Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan and has vowed to wipe Israel off the map, to poison the viewers' minds and thoughts. Shame on those who close their eyes on what happening in Iran and Middle East because of this terrorist regime and pretend that they are blind and can't see.

Archbishop Cranmer

Cranmer has waited until now before commenting on this for one very good reason. All of those (including Coffee House) who were quick to take offence and who spouted their condemnation and poured out their invective before the broadcast on Christmas Day did Channel 4’s advertising for them and undoubtedly boosted their viewing figures. The ‘alternative’ slot has gone relatively unnoticed in the past, attracting very modest viewing figures. Who even remembers the Reverend Jesse Jackson, the wounded Afghanistan veteran or Marge Simpson? And if the characters are remembered, the substance of their message has long been lost.

So let it be with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Christians of all denominations condemned the decision to invite him as ‘sick’, ‘disgusting’, a ‘scandal’, or something akin to blasphemy. It generated angry protests from Israel and other critics of the Islamic republic. They were precisely the constituency C4 sought to offend, and great offence they took.

But why?

Channel 4 has provocation in its DNA. And this is a good thing. It is frequently the only channel to tackle some of the touchiest religio-political issues of the age, and it does so with forensic precision. Of course the Christmas Day broadcast was offensive to many, but they are quick to forget that C4 is the only channel in the UK to have investigated what is being preached in many mosques, and they dared to broadcast ‘Undercover Mosque – the Return’ just in time for Ramadan.

And what did President Ahmadinejad actually say?

"If Christ was on earth today, undoubtedly he would stand with the people in opposition to bullying, ill-tempered and expansionist powers. If Christ was on earth today, undoubtedly he would hoist the banner of justice and love for humanity to oppose warmongers, occupiers, terrorists and bullies the world over.

"If Christ was on earth today, undoubtedly he would fight against the tyrannical policies of prevailing global economic and political systems, as he did in his lifetime. The solution to today's problems can be found in a return to the call of the divine prophets.”

Well, if Christ were (subjunctive) on earth today, Mr President, he might talk to you of motes and beams, of not judging lest ye be judged, of considering one’s own sin before casting the first stone, of showing mercy before justice, and of loving one's neighbour as oneself, even if that neighbour is Israel.

Of course, the President is preaching his Jesus, appearing as an angel of light, deluding the masses with his unsubstantiated talk of Iran's efforts for peace and reconciliation. But we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose (Rom 8:28). Jesus Christ is not simply one of a number of prophets but the eternal Son of God, the Word of God made flesh, who died for the sins of the world and who rose again from the dead.

So it falls to Cranmer to seize the opportunity of this broadcast to draw the attention of his readers and communicants to the work of the British Parliamentary Committee for Iran Freedom. Its work is supported by a majority of MPs and over 200 members of the House of Lords. Lord King of West Bromwich has written of the Iranian opposition party in Ashraf City, Iraq, whose residents are the embodiment of justice, and inspire hope for peace and democracy in Iraq and Iran. This group has long been seen as the greatest threat to the Iranian regime, with its mixture of democratic ideals and female liberation. The 4000-strong opposition group - complete with its President-elect Mrs Maryam Rajavi - has prided itself on offering a ‘third option’ to the Iranian crisis, democratic change through the Iranian people and their resistance movement – a far better alternative to either war or appeasement.

However, the Iranian regime and its proxies in Iraq have now put this Iranian group in danger. Iranian influence in Iraq has increased greatly over recent years as Tehran funds, trains and supplies weaponry to terrorist militias in Basra and beyond. This support for terrorist militias is the main cause of Coalition deaths. Iranian proxies are now believed to control a number of high-ranking positions in Iraq, while infiltration into the Iraqi police and military has left the Iranian opposition in danger of Tehran’s terrorism.

Since C4 has forged good relations with the President of Iran, perhaps they might extend a further invitation to him to appear before the British Parliamentary Committee for Iran Freedom?

Let him be questioned on democracy and freedom in Iran, and let C4 make documentaries about his execution of children, about the 170 mass graves each containing a truck-full of bodies, about the atrocities committed by the mullahs’ Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS), and about the stoning of women condemned to death by the testimony of two men.

Jaw-jaw is preferable to war-war. Since we are not at war with this odious regime, robust dialogue, not appeasement, is the best way of bringing democracy and freedom to Iran - a conclusion which will not only guarantee the safety of the Iranian people, but a solution which will greatly increase the likelihood for peace in Iraq and the wider Middle East.

Channel 4 may justifiably be condemned for granting this holocaust-denier a pulpit on Christmas Day, but it is utterly wrong to meet this with demands for censorship. The broadcaster now has a moral obligation to investigate further and finish the work it has begun. With direct access to the office of the President, who is now manifestly flattered and well-disposed to the organisation, the opportunity presents itself to tell the world of the barbaric injustices of this regime.

That would indeed be a worthy use of public money.

Failing that, perhaps C4 might invite the odious Nick Griffin to deliver the alternative Ramadan/Eid message next year?

Failing that, how about the utterly reasonable, eminently sensible and manifestly highly-qualified Bishop of Rochester?

Jack R

The publicly subsidised Channel 4 gives an uninterrupted platform to the Thug-In-Chief, despite, or because of his kidnapping of British navy personnel, and his support for Islamic jihadists.

This is 'free propaganda' for Channel 4's friends, as sections of the political left see it.

The democratic Iranian opposition to the Ahmadinejad regime is appalled.

Hugo Rifkind in today's 'Times'

[-opening to article]:

"My New Year Message: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

"According to Hugo Rifkind

"Greetings!

"In the name of the Humblest, the Most Merciful, the Boss, the Top, the Tip, the Indisputable Leader of the Gang, Top Cat, I am His Most Excellentness Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the democratically elected dictator of Iran!

"And, in order to give your Acclaimed Christmas Channel 4 Massage, have I been learning the full grasp of the humorous English idiom? Fan-dabby-dosey! Welcome to the jungle, we’ve got fun’n’games! Oh yes! For I am only the second Middle Eastern Gentleman to be entrusted with this task, I learn, following in footsteps of one by the name of Ali Gee. "

Channel 4's dhimmis have their last anti-Bush hurrah; they prefer Ahmadinejad, and all the Sharia-compliant, anti-democratic repression he represents.

Augustus

What magical powers does this Iranian president possess? First he was strictly forbidden to enrich uranium, then, he was allowed to, albeit under certain conditions. That was a couple of years back, now the talk is how far the regime might be on the path to creating an atomic bomb. What is it that enables Ahmadinejad to repeatedly turn the world on it's head? Is it possible that this alchemy is the same as Hitler possessed in the years leading up to WW2: Playing in on the fear of your opponent?

In 1937 Hitler announced that he need more 'lebensraum'. An extension of the German speaking people with an 'Anschluss', and that this was only possible by force at the time and manner of his choosing. This is similar to Ahmadinejad's utterances that he will never give up his nuclear programme. Hitler considered the attack on Sudetenland completely justified as a means to avoid war. Both England and France had no appetite for war, and Italy was not ready for it. How similar to today where the West couldn't even contemplate a war with Iran: It could mean less oil coming to the West, with a new oil crisis and any number of nasty developments. In short, the fear of an engagement is mighty profound.
Furthermore, part of the British Government was naively convinced that Hitler's hunger for war was being exaggerated. As Chamberlain broadcast on the radion on 27th September these now unbelievable words: "How terrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks
here, because of a quarrel in a faraway country between peoples of whom we know nothing. It seems still more impossible that a quarrel which has already been settled in principle should be the subject of war." The analogy with the Iran crisis becomes clear. Ahmadinejad has said that he wants to clear up
'misunderstandings' between the West and Iran. But no doubt we must go cap in hand to him to achieve this 'clearing up of misunderstandings'.

Churchill understood Germany's motives, but nobody wanted to listen. It couldn't possibly be true. Witnesses have told how, during the Munish conference where Chechoslovakia's fate was decided, Hitler acted with ruthless determination towards Chamberlain to show that he couldn't be played around with.
Together with Mussolini he sat in the middle of the room and stayed seated until Chamberlain was prepared to come to him. The photographer then took a picture of the psychological moment, and ensured that whole Germany could see that Hitler was the shining centre of a great political triumph.

Just like Hitler, Ahmadinejad plays the media to a masterful degree and gets the population behind him. He has made it clear that he has a similar vision to Hitler. 'Endlosung' of Israel, and the build-up of deadly weapons of war, and rockets that would reach into Europe. We can't ever say that we didn't know.

Trumpeter Lanfried

Channel 4, of course, wants us to be outraged. But that's no reason not to be.

bernerlap

Hopefully we all support free speech. However, my gripe with Channel 4 on this issue is that it is a woefully cowardly decision.
It is offensive, but again that is not the problem, the people it offends are primarily liberal law abiding Christians, Jews and secularists who believe in the rights of women and homosexuals.
People who also think that abiding by treaty obligations is a good thing and that it is not really a good idea to torture people. And most importantly people who's ideas of protest involves writing letters, making telephone calls and posting on blogs.
All of which Channel 4 can and will safely ignore.
If Channel 4 wanted to be really courageous and make a genuinely controversial stand they should have commissioned an alternative Christmas message by Ayan Hirsi Ali or Ibn Warraq, or any one of a number of courageous muslims and ex-muslims who challenge Ahmadinejad's medieval barbarism.
However, the protests faced if they did that might be fatwahs, kidnappings or bombings.
Channel 4 would not like that so instead - like most other media outlets - it adopts a pathetic form of self-censorship masquerading as respect for 'difference'.
In short the Ahmadinejad broadcast has nothing whatsoever to do with free-speech and everything to do with appeasement.

Wilhelm

Hows this for edgy.

Channel 4 putting on the Pope delivering his Christmas message.

Nah, it just wouldnt happen, would it ?

Wilhelm

Channel 4 squeeeels only for free speech if you have an athesist pagan liberal commie viewpoint.

If you have moderate traditional values, you dont get free speech.

thomas

The hatred of their own government often blinds people to greater evil elsewhere. It's not just Bush Derangement Syndrome, it's a far wider phenomenon.

m wood

I thought this was one of Ali G's best impersonations....

Verity

I didn't see it. Was he wearing a silk suit? Cut by one of Teheran's ace tailors? What about his tie? Was it hilarious?

Familiar Clown

Oh, I get it! The whole purpose was to wake Britain up. This is what you'll get if you continue down the absurd path the Government is taking. Do you really want Dinnerjacket to replace The Queen?

Verity

Has anyone noticed how the Bush Derangement Syndrome has seguéd into the Palin Derangement Syndrome?

Thomas Pride

It is a bit late to add my thoughts but I think I recall a Channel 4 debate with John Snow following the Danish cartoon publications. Something about limits to free speech. Channel 4 refrained from showing the viewers the cartoons (sensitivities) and the result of the debate was that the assembled audience (or was it a phone in?) supported the motion that there should be limits to free speech where it impinged on religious sensibilities.

Channel 4 must have forgotten. They could not be hypocritical, could they? Or, just plain gutless.