"While dictators rage and statesmen talk, all Europe dances — to The Lambeth Walk."
Monday 6 April 2009
Cartoon for Children Implies Christians Are Bigots
A cartoon (pictured below) aimed at under-12s was criticised yesterday for the controversial way it chooses to depict victimisation, in particular the dreaded 'Islamophobia'.
Called 'Standing up for what you believe in' and produced by the Who Cares? Trust, it shows a boy wearing a prominent cross around his neck shouting abuse at a girl wearing a hijab, calling it a 'turban', after telling his friend that the smiling girl 'looks like a terrorist'.
She explains 'it's part of my religion... just like that cross you're wearing'. She then goes on to stand up for another boy who is being bullied, her behaviour clearly contrasted with the Christian boy.
The Who Cares? Trust, aimed at helping children in care, received £100,000 from the Department for Children, Schools and Families, headed by Ed Balls, in both 2007 and 2008, and £80,000 this year.
Although the boy's religion is not specifically referred to, many British Christians are upset about the implications of the depiction:
Mike Judge, of the Christian Institute, said: ‘What about Christian children in care who received this magazine? How will they feel to see themselves mocked as narrow-minded Islamaphobes?
‘It is a clumsy caricature, symptomatic of a culture which says it is OK to bully Christians in the name of diversity.’
Philip Hollobone, the Tory MP for Kettering, said: ‘I think it is very unfortunate that the lad who is pointing the finger is wearing a cross.
'You can hardly imagine anyone producing a magazine in which the roles were reversed and it was the Muslim girl who was behaving badly.’
I think the last point is very valid. Because as we know, in the name of diversity every bad behaviour which is either committed by Muslims or in the name of Islam must be covered up, excused, or even denied outright.
The Trust is refusing to withdraw the magazine:
But Who Cares? Trust chief executive Natasha Finlayson said she had no intention of withdrawing it, describing the cross as ‘bling’ rather than a religious symbol.
She said the charity had received a complaint but did not agree the cartoon was derogatory towards Christians.
‘I am a Christian myself, so when a woman called us, I went back and looked at the comic strip from her point of view,’ Ms Finlayson said.
‘I am sorry that she is upset but I don’t share her view. When I saw the cartoon, I didn’t think of that character being a Christian because I saw the cross as ‘bling’, as jewellery.
‘To me it is a cartoon about bullying rather than discrimination or religion.’
Oh, it's 'bling'! Well, that makes everything OK then, doesn't it?
Whatever the intention, this cartoon needlessly propagates the myth of Muslim victim hood at the hands of a hostile, poorly defined but very real majority.
It creates the very division it claims to combat, and it should be withdrawn immediately as running contrary to its cause.
It won't be, though - Christians generally don't burn enough flags and embassies when they're offended for their opinion to count much, it seems.
Called 'Standing up for what you believe in' and produced by the Who Cares? Trust, it shows a boy wearing a prominent cross around his neck shouting abuse at a girl wearing a hijab, calling it a 'turban', after telling his friend that the smiling girl 'looks like a terrorist'.
She explains 'it's part of my religion... just like that cross you're wearing'. She then goes on to stand up for another boy who is being bullied, her behaviour clearly contrasted with the Christian boy.
The Who Cares? Trust, aimed at helping children in care, received £100,000 from the Department for Children, Schools and Families, headed by Ed Balls, in both 2007 and 2008, and £80,000 this year.
Although the boy's religion is not specifically referred to, many British Christians are upset about the implications of the depiction:
Mike Judge, of the Christian Institute, said: ‘What about Christian children in care who received this magazine? How will they feel to see themselves mocked as narrow-minded Islamaphobes?
‘It is a clumsy caricature, symptomatic of a culture which says it is OK to bully Christians in the name of diversity.’
Philip Hollobone, the Tory MP for Kettering, said: ‘I think it is very unfortunate that the lad who is pointing the finger is wearing a cross.
'You can hardly imagine anyone producing a magazine in which the roles were reversed and it was the Muslim girl who was behaving badly.’
I think the last point is very valid. Because as we know, in the name of diversity every bad behaviour which is either committed by Muslims or in the name of Islam must be covered up, excused, or even denied outright.
The Trust is refusing to withdraw the magazine:
But Who Cares? Trust chief executive Natasha Finlayson said she had no intention of withdrawing it, describing the cross as ‘bling’ rather than a religious symbol.
She said the charity had received a complaint but did not agree the cartoon was derogatory towards Christians.
‘I am a Christian myself, so when a woman called us, I went back and looked at the comic strip from her point of view,’ Ms Finlayson said.
‘I am sorry that she is upset but I don’t share her view. When I saw the cartoon, I didn’t think of that character being a Christian because I saw the cross as ‘bling’, as jewellery.
‘To me it is a cartoon about bullying rather than discrimination or religion.’
Oh, it's 'bling'! Well, that makes everything OK then, doesn't it?
Whatever the intention, this cartoon needlessly propagates the myth of Muslim victim hood at the hands of a hostile, poorly defined but very real majority.
It creates the very division it claims to combat, and it should be withdrawn immediately as running contrary to its cause.
It won't be, though - Christians generally don't burn enough flags and embassies when they're offended for their opinion to count much, it seems.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
This woman's stupidity (or deviousness) aside, a perfect example of how religious belief creates trouble where none would otherwise exist.
Post a Comment