The Times - the London Times, that is - is not a bad newspaper. It has some excellent writers, particularly Ben MacIntyre and Jeanette Winterson. On Islam it is rather mixed. The Telegraph is much better, although by no means perfect, but The Times is generally adequate.
I was most disappointed, therefore, to read David Charter's shoddy reporting on the release of Geert Wilders' film, Fitna.
In the print edition of the newspaper, the headline read:"Right-wing MP puts anti-Islam film on web". This is disgraceful. Is opposition to Islam automatically right wing? Is Caroline Fourest, pro-choice campaigner and critic of Christian fundamentalism, right wing because she opposes Islam? Was Oriana Fallaci right wing?
Perhaps someone complained. The internet version has the headline: "Dutch MP Geert Wilders posts explosive anti-Islam film on web". "Dutch MP" is better, and the addition of "explosive" may prove prophetic. But the rest of the article is misleading. I have picked out the worst bits:
A far-right Dutch MP released a provocative film about the Koran on a British website last night, a move that is likely to provoke violent repercussions from angry Muslims around the world.
The "violent" reaction of "angry Muslims" at a mere film is not questioned. It seems to follow, as night follows day, from the "provocation" of this "Dutch MP". But then the MP is "far right", so what do you expect?
Viewers had only a few minutes to see it on the Freedom Party website before it disappeared because of “technical difficulties”. It then became available in Dutch and English on LiveLeak, a British-based video-sharing website, sparking fears that extremists could also target British interests.
What does this mean? Who are the "extremists"? Are they "far right"? I suspect not; I suspect they are Muslims who have been "provoked". Why not say so? And what are "British intersts"? Share prices? Trade? Or is it British people who will be "targeted", that is murdered? Why not say so?
The company that runs the website defended its decision to host the film last night, saying that there was no legal reason to censor it. “LiveLeak.com has a strict stance on remaining unbiased and allowing freedom of speech so far as the law and our rules allow,” it said. “There was no legal reason to refuse Geert Wilders the right to post his film and it is not our place to censor people based on an emotive response.” The website said that it did not endorse Mr Wilders or his views.
The British Government did not comment.
No surprise there.
The Dutch Government condemned the film, and Maxime Verhagen, the Foreign Minister, called it irresponsible given the reaction to the publication in Denmark of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad that sparked rioting in a dozen countries, leading to about 50 deaths. In 2004 Theo Van Gogh, the director of an earlier Dutch film critical of Islam, was stabbed by an Islamist.
“The film equates Islam with violence. We reject that interpretation,” Jan Peter Balkenende, the Dutch Prime Minister, said last night.
How can David Charter, so keen to comment on Wilders' political leanings, let this pass without comment. Can he not see the irony? Islam isn't violent - perish the thought - but if it is, it's because of "right wing provocation".
Mr Wilders already lives under police protection after death threats for his strident attacks on Islam.
"Strident" is usually coupled with "feminist" by reactionary, perhaps "right wing" men. But is it "strident" to attack - verbally, not physically - a religion whose tenets cause its followers to threaten a politician with death for making a film? If Muslims were merely "strident" we would have little to worry about. If Mohammed Bouyeri had got "strident" with Theo van Gogh instead of killing him, van Gogh would have taken the stridency in his stride. Let Muslims be strident.
This is a disgraceful piece of reporting. With its evasions, insinuations and moral equivalence, it is more worthy of The Guardian than The Times. Still, despite rather than because of such reporting, the word is out. The film is good. It tells me nothing new, but its contents may be new to many. Just calling its maker "right wing" will not change the truth about Islam.
