Friday, 13 February 2009

Channel 4's Act of Treason in Collaborating with Ahmadinejad

Given that this blog has been started this week, this publication may appear to be late. I am sure you are all aware of the bad taste demonstrated by Channel 4 last Christmas (2008) in providing Ahmadinejad with his time of fame in presenting the British people with his 'alternative Christmas message'.

'What's the problem?' some of you may ask, given Channel 4 does this every year. The issue is that Ahmadinejad is notorious for expressing anit-semitic views; he is notorious for constantly challenging the USA and democracy; he is notorious for having enacted a law in Iran that prescribes the death penalty for those people who merely convert from Islam to another religion. He has been known to argue that the Islamisation of the world must be reached by any means necessary. His system in Iran executes teenage girls who were charged with 'crimes against chastity', when in fact they were molested by married men three times their senior (See the case of Atefeh Salaaleh, executed in 2004; also see “Execution of a Teenage Girl”, BBC News, 27 July, 2006). Women are stoned to death, young people and children are hanged off cranes in public, and the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights has been infuriated by the constant violations of human rights laws, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966.

Channel 4 has betrayed the very fabric of freedom, democracy, and humanitarian ethics by abusing the use of the media and broadcasting Ahmadinejad's Christmas message as an alternative to the Queen's speech. Sure, we all stand for freedom of speech; however, Ahmadinejad is a man who leads a system that tortures and even executes people in Iran for daring to exercise their right to freedom of speech. The Canadian photo-journalist, Zahra Kazemi, was tortured in Iran's notorious Evin prison and died as a result of her injuries - just for taking photos of the prison itself.

It has been argued that his speech was more pertinent to peace. And??? Would Hitler have been any more welcome on the television sets of British people and supporters of democracy if he spoke of peace, during his time leading the holocaust?

After many complaints were filed against Channnel 4, Lorna Dane, representing Channel 4, forwarded the following as their pitiful excuse:

"As I am sure you are aware, we have had an Alternative Christmas Message on Christmas Day for many years which has been delivered by a diverse range of people including an injured veteran from the war in Afghanistan, Quentin Crisp, the Reverend Jesse Jackson, Doreen and Neville Lawrence, Genelle Guzman, a 9/11 survivor and The Simpsons.With relations between Iran and the West set to play a central role in world affairs in 2009, Channel 4 felt that it was timely to feature the leader of one of the most powerful states in the Middle East. In featuring PresidentAhmadinejad, we wanted to offer our viewers an insight into an alternativeworld view..."

How does one compare a 9/11 survivor, Jesse Jackson, the Lawrences (victim parents) and a cartoon family with the likes of Ahmadinejad, a man who wants nothing more than violent jihad across the world? Even though the relationship between Iran and the West might play a 'central role in world affairs', do Christians, and other Brits really want such a man in their living room on Christmas day? Sure, they do not have to watch his broadcast speech; however, in such a case, who does want to watch?

Shall we accept this act of betrayal by Channel 4? Every freedom we enjoy in the UK is what Ahmadinejad stands against, and executed people for back in Iran; and yet Channel 4 brought him into British living rooms via the TV on a holy Christian day. Channel 4 has demonstrated its true colours, and I hereby demand Channel 4 be boycotted and made to face responsibility for its heinous act of treason and betrayal to human rights.


  1. We really need more British people to take the situation seriously and help us. Either they are going to lie on their back and let the Islamic Republic build its network and infrastructure here to radicalise the UK Muslim population or we can fight back together to keep Britain a secular democracy.

  2. Here we go, another close-minded, retard expat masquerading around as a blogger while waving his law credentials.

    Get outta town.


  4. Dear Barmakid.

    I thank you for your post, as it is illustration that you have taken the time to read my work.

    Regarding your prejudice that I am another ex-pat; well, suffice it to say that you are wrong. You could not be further from the truth.

    Nevertheless, your words and challenges are most welcome. Please do keep on posting.

  5. Allowing him to speak was a publicity stunt typical of the global media. The UK is not lost and saddens me to read that sort of talk

  6. Dude, your arguments are so perverse they're laughable. I mean, how did you get through law school??

    You live in a free society with a free press. Thus, Channel 4 has the right to broadcast whatever is pleases (decency and profanity is another issue), especially if it brings in ad revenue.

    And why would it bring in ad. revenue? BECAUSE UK RESIDENTS DESIRED TO AND DID WATCH IT. The ultimate choice of watching it is left to the individual viewers; IT IS THEIR CHOICE.

    And here you are trying to obstruct the free flow of information because the guy talking isn't ideologically in sync with you (or with me for that matter). Well, fortunately that's not up to you and your ilk; the principles of a free press and individual choice, which took thousands of years and ocean's of blood to achieve have prevailed over your anachronistic views.

    You are no different than the IRI officials, you just wear a different cloak.

    be salamat,

  7. Barmakid,

    Thank you for your post. It is good to see you exercising your intellect in a discourse in pursuit of truth and justice.

    Even though your argument on free speech and questioning my intellect is prima facie robust; there are flaws in your reasoning. For a start, you are quick to label me, and implicitly call me a hypocrite for having protested against Channel 4 giving Ahamdinejad a platform in the UK. Yet you are defending the free speech of Channel4, and Ahmadinejad's hypocrisy. It seems that you are in favour of free speech for one person, but not for another. Therefore, you, my learned friend, are no different to me.

    Furthermore, no one in the UK of sound intellect wants Ahmadinejad on their TV's; just a handful of apologists and extremists.

    Ba sepas.

  8. How do you figure I'm for "free speech for one person, but not for another?"

    That makes no sense, just like the rest of your response. First of all, you're presuming Channel 4 is the only medium from which shit is broadcast, which it is not. It is their choice (and business interest) to choose who or what to broadcast, and they can only do one broadcast at a time - this time they chose Ahmadinejad.

    And since they played Ahmadinejad's message, maybe Sky News or another channel could have broadcast Ehud Olmert's alternative method's of dradle spinning. Get my point?

    Personally, I would have rather had them broadcast Hugo Chavez singing Spanish pop songs, but either way, as much as I think Ahmadinejad is a joke, I stand behind the principles that have accorded me the life I live in the U.S. - free speech, free press, and freedom of religion.

    Furthermore, you make a dumb (I don't know what else to call it but dumb) statement like, "no one in the UK of sound intellect wants Ahmadinejad on their TV's; just a handful of apologists and extremists."

    And who are you to make this unfounded claim? Fine, you don't want Ahmadinejad on your TV, but I don't find you to be of "sound intellect."

    be salamat,

  9. Let me add a quote from George Orwell that you've probably already heard but is nonetheless relevant (since you are, in effect, trying to "control the present)."

    "Those who control the past control the future. Those who control the present, control the past."

    Think about it.


  10. Barmakid,

    I am in favour of freedom of press and the right to free speech. I am sure you agree with a lot of, if not all of the basic human rights; and even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    Channel 4 was exercising their right to freedom of press, right to free speech, and even the enjoyment of revenue. However, I also believe that any right can be abused. Under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, Article 9 accords the right to marry and found a family; however, one abuses such a right when they found a family by force, coercing the bride into wedlock. Similiarly, Channel 4 has abused their right to freedom of press and the right to freedom of speech, given Ahmedinejad would sooner see the UK kneel before his extremist radical Islamic views. He stands against all the values you proudly boast that you enjoy in the United States; he stands against the UK's way of life. As a result,I do not believe he has a place on UK T.V. other than to illustrate his true colours. To have him on Christmas in a country in which he maintains to be the enemy is in seriously poor tast on Channel 4's part.

    Now, we can argue round and round the same points, getting nowhere. These are my views; and whilst you resort to personal retorts in order to appease your ego, I suggest you consider your objectives when you post, as it is evident that you enjoy arguing rather than finding truth; as I witness many times over on Azarmehr's blog.

    Thank you for posting here; I hope to read from you soon, with perhaps a more original melody to play.

  11. Alison,

    It may have been a publicity stunt; however, such a stunt was conducted in poor taste. The fact that the UK allowed it to be conducted and broadcast on a day that is dedicated to peace and unity was a serious error. Ahmadinejad, as his conferences and books illusrate, is not one in favour of world peace if it includes non-Islamic systems.

    The UK needs to realise its priorities and security. Broadcasts such as the above can only serve to reach out to supporters and fan the flames.