Fasaad watch: Spencer on British 9/11 film article

She had gone to bed early claiming that she couldn’t stand the bullst. She was right, there was a lot of bullst, but Sandy’s wife would have detected bulls**t in a house brick, as long as it had been a London house brick
- Ben Elton, Gridlock, London, 1991

There is a film on Channel 4 tonight called Yasmin (which has just finished as I write) about a British Pakistani family in Keighley (a major Pakistani-settled town in Yorkshire) and the effects of the 9/11 attacks on it. The family has arranged for a plainly unsuitable cousin to be brought in to marry their daughter, Yasmin. Faisal was a goatherd back home in Kashmir and keeps a goat in the yard in Keighley, much to his wife’s distaste. Yasmin acts the obedient daughter while in her father’s house, but once out of it, she drives her VW Golf GTi out into the hills, discarding her hijab and shalwar-kameez for a tight top and trousers. 9/11 changes all that. People accuse her of loving Osama, who she’s never heard of, and draw a turban and beard on her “employee of the month” photo. Then the police burst into the house, armed to the teeth, pointing guns at people’s heads and kicking over furniture in search of Faisal, who happens to be out getting straw for his goat. Faisal gets taken in later, when he tries to alert police to the fact that intruders have ransacked his house (obviously without realising that the police were the intruders). When Yasmin goes looking for him (so he can sign their divorce papers!), she gets questioned by police who want to know about her husband’s “connection” to a Kashmiri guerrilla group.

There’s an article in the Guardian today about the film - the title, “Coming to a small screen near you“, refers to the fact that the film got to the big screen in several countries in Europe, but not the one where it was made. Spencer calls it a dhimmi piece, because the author apparently doesn’t realise that British “Islamophobia” “may be driven more from suspicion about the intentions of British Muslims to try to institute Sharia there, rather than racism or bigotry”. The context, by the way, is where a group of kids molest an Asian woman in what the author calls a “burka” (it’s just a black headscarf and a long coat), and an elderly woman comes up to apologise after Yasmin comes to the woman’s aid. The elderly woman, in fact, was not even acting - she thought the harrassment was real and did not realise she had stumbled into the middle of a film shoot.

Rather like the Liverpool wife in the quote above, Spencer manages to find an excuse to cry “dhimmi” about pretty much anything, as long as it is remotely favourable to Muslims, or in this case, praises anyone for not being unfavourable to us. Never mind that the context is kids harrassing a woman minding her own business in the street. I shouldn’t imagine that kids who behave this way even know what Shari’ah is.

Spencer concludes his comment with: “Jeffries hopes that it will do some good for beleaguered Muslims in Britain. It doesn’t seem to occur to him that it would do much greater good for Muslims in Britain to cooperate fully with anti-terror efforts, and help authorities identify all the followers of Omar Bakri and Al-Muhajiroun, among others”. I find this really quite naive and stupid. For a start, how does any ordinary Muslim co-operate with anti-terror efforts except for by informing on terrorist cells they actually know about - and if they are serious terrorist cells, they would most likely keep their operations secret from every Zaid and Amr in the mosque. As for Omar Bakri, the authorities know who his followers are - they were not difficult to miss during their street stall days before Omar Bakri announced the dissolution of the group. The authorities don’t need our information; if they had wanted to pull them in, they could have done so years ago.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share

You may also like...