Current Events > BBC describes man as 'Muslim' when he's a victim, 'Indian' after he molests girl

(+) Yeah! (+)

When athlete Tanveer Hussain was denied a U.S. visa in early February, BBC described him using this headline:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-38824358

Kashmir Muslim athlete denied US visa due to 'current policy'

Then, a month later, after Tanveer molested a 12 year-old girl, their description of him oddly changed:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-39138083

Tanveer Hussain: Indian athlete held over sex abuse in US

---

Lol
---

interesting

He is Indian though.

TheVipaGTS posted...

He is Indian though.

As he was in the first post too....
---

Lots of Indian muslims in India. Interesting choice of words, but I wouldn't think too deeply on this one.
---

ThisSiteIsDying posted...

Lots of Indian muslims in India. Interesting choice of words, but I wouldn't think too deeply on this one.

Oh please tell me you aren't that naive when looking at the context of the two stories.
---

Gojak_v3 posted...

TheVipaGTS posted...

He is Indian though.

As he was in the first post too....

he was also muslim in the first post. are you upset they didn't call him indian in the first one?

His religion was "relevant" in the first case (because of the talk of the Muslim ban), but not in the second case.

I don't see the malicious cover up that you do.
---

TheVipaGTS posted...

Gojak_v3 posted...

TheVipaGTS posted...

He is Indian though.

As he was in the first post too....

he was also muslim in the first post. are you upset they didn't call him indian in the first one?

Yer willfully missing the point to deflect and you know it.
---

Gojak_v3 posted...

TheVipaGTS posted...

Gojak_v3 posted...

TheVipaGTS posted...

He is Indian though.

As he was in the first post too....

he was also muslim in the first post. are you upset they didn't call him indian in the first one?

Yer willfully missing the point to deflect and you know it.

he is indian. they called him indian. stop crying about it lol

TheVipaGTS posted...

Gojak_v3 posted...

TheVipaGTS posted...

Gojak_v3 posted...

TheVipaGTS posted...

He is Indian though.

As he was in the first post too....

he was also muslim in the first post. are you upset they didn't call him indian in the first one?

Yer willfully missing the point to deflect and you know it.

he is indian. they called him indian. stop crying about it lol

vipa's head up his ass again.
---

We can play this euphemism game all day.

When a white person shoots someone, what's he called?
When a black person shoots someone, what's he called?
When a Muslim person shoots someone, what's he called?

Seems awfully silly to sit here and lose your shit just cause Indians get the same treatment as other groups of people.
---

Anteaterking posted...

His religion was "relevant" in the first case (because of the talk of the Muslim ban), but not in the second case.

I don't see the malicious cover up that you do.

Was nothing but speculation, and they ran with it cause of an agenda.
---

Tag
---

Imagine getting triggered over this
---

It's about the context. His being Muslim is directly related to the first headline, but not the second one.
---

UnholyMudcrab posted...

It's about the context. His being Muslim is directly related to the first headline, but not the second one.

---

He's both Muslim and Indian, what's the big deal
---

UnholyMudcrab posted...

It's about the context. His being Muslim is directly related to the first headline, but not the second one.

And if you read there is zero proof of that. Which would make the story basically fake news. They assumed Trumps muslim ban and went with that. That's not news. That's throwing shit against the wall and seeing what sticks.
---

Agenda driven garbage.
---

Anteaterking posted...

His religion was "relevant" in the first case (because of the talk of the Muslim ban), but not in the second case.

I don't see the malicious cover up that you do.

It turned out that it wasn't relevant at all, since India was not a part of the "current policy." This guy was given a visa two weeks later, and this was the U.S. statement:

When the India’s Ministry of External Affairs had asked for a response from the American mission, the US embassy “categorically denied that it has any linkage to the executive order”.

---

The Admiral posted...

It turned out that it wasn't relevant at all, since India was not a part of the "current policy." This guy was given a visa two weeks later

Yes. it was incorrect. But it is still the likely reason it was mentioned regardless.
---

in the first article they chose the descriptor that had previously been used by U.S. administration when enacting recent visa policy, since the article itself notes India was unaffected directly by the policy and thus the response given drew out their confusion over the reasoning for rejection

in the second article they chose the descriptor that gives reference to his athletic representation and return destination, since the article makes note of his being held from leaving the U.S.
---

The Admiral posted...

Anteaterking posted...

His religion was "relevant" in the first case (because of the talk of the Muslim ban), but not in the second case.

I don't see the malicious cover up that you do.

It turned out that it wasn't relevant at all, since India was not a part of the "current policy." This guy was given a visa two weeks later, and this was the U.S. statement:

When the India’s Ministry of External Affairs had asked for a response from the American mission, the US embassy “categorically denied that it has any linkage to the executive order”.

I'm saying it's relevant to the article, because half the article was about the travel ban. I know that India isn't actually one of the seven countries.
---

prettyprincess posted...

in the first article they chose the descriptor that had previously been used by U.S. administration when enacting recent visa policy, since the article itself notes India was unaffected directly by the policy and thus the response given drew out their confusion over the reasoning for rejection

in the second article they chose the descriptor that gives reference to his athletic representation and return destination, since the article makes note of his being held from leaving the U.S.

This is too many words. People demand to be angry NOW. Keep in mind these are the same People who claim sjws get outraged over the stupidest thngs but now they demand that its THEIR turn to be outraged over the stupidest things.
---

UnholyMudcrab posted...

It's about the context. His being Muslim is directly related to the first headline, but not the second one.

---

Swing and a miss.
---

Anteaterking posted...

His religion was "relevant" in the first case (because of the talk of the Muslim ban), but not in the second case.

I don't see the malicious cover up that you do.

Not one said anything about a malicious coverup. What this is, though, is an example of a media outlet using editorial license to word stories in a way that suits a particular agenda. No, I don't mean like a spooky conspiracy thing, just that, in this case, left leaning publications may want to present stories involving Muslims as sympathetic to them to stymie Islamophobia.

It's kind of like that business times story about Colin Moriarty's tweeting a joke on women's day. They called it racist to make it seem so much worse than it was. Even when it had nothing to do with race.
---

how did you figure this out?
---

Esrac posted...

Anteaterking posted...

His religion was "relevant" in the first case (because of the talk of the Muslim ban), but not in the second case.

I don't see the malicious cover up that you do.

Not one said anything about a malicious coverup. What this is, though, is an example of a media outlet using editorial license to word stories in a way that suits a particular agenda. No, I don't mean like a spooky conspiracy thing, just that, in this case, left leaning publications may want to present stories involving Muslims as sympathetic to them to stymie Islamophobia.

It's kind of like that business times story about Colin Moriarty's tweeting a joke on women's day. They called it racist to make it seem so much worse than it was. Even when it had nothing to do with race.

Do publications, right or left, put in the religion of anyone who commits a crime if it has nothing to do with it? Do people say "Christian man shoots 3 people".

If he bombs an abortion clinic, they will. If he is beaten up by an atheist group that hates religious people, they will. So why did they say he was Muslim? Because the ban was originally intended to target "radical islam", and the fact that he would be denied a visa could have been because of his religion. If the media believes religion might be a factor, they will mention it. If they don't, they will not.

You're assuming intent on extremely shaky grounds.
---

Esrac posted...

Anteaterking posted...

His religion was "relevant" in the first case (because of the talk of the Muslim ban), but not in the second case.

I don't see the malicious cover up that you do.

Not one said anything about a malicious coverup. What this is, though, is an example of a media outlet using editorial license to word stories in a way that suits a particular agenda. No, I don't mean like a spooky conspiracy thing, just that, in this case, left leaning publications may want to present stories involving Muslims as sympathetic to them to stymie Islamophobia.

It's kind of like that business times story about Colin Moriarty's tweeting a joke on women's day. They called it racist to make it seem so much worse than it was. Even when it had nothing to do with race.

But if he was Christian or atheist, I don't think they would put "Christian athlete rapes..." or "Atheist athlete rapes...", so I don't see this as them trying to hide it in order to push a pro-Islam message.
---

Anteaterking posted...

But if he was Christian or atheist, I don't think they would put "Christian athlete rapes..." or "Atheist athlete rapes...", so I don't see this as them trying to hide it in order to push a pro-Islam message.

By this logic, why would his religion matter for his refugee status
---

Mal_Fet posted...

By this logic, why would his religion matter for his refugee status

Because the article was trying to draw a connection between the rhetoric of the Muslim ban and his religion.

In that case the article doesn't even work if you put in Christian or atheist.
---

The first article was fake news trying to push an agenda that anti-Islamic sentiment is more widespread than it is. BBC also has an obvious anti-Trump bias. No retraction or apology for that complete horseshit story.
---

I'm more bothered by the fact that his family's response to the molestation wasn't "that's horrible, we can't believe he would do this" or even the more cliche "he's a good man who'd never do something like this", but instead "oh good, he lawyered up."
---

s0nicfan posted...

I'm more bothered by the fact that his family's response to the molestation wasn't "that's horrible, we can't believe he would do this" or even the more cliche "he's a good man who'd never do something like this", but instead "oh good, he lawyered up."

Still better than that German teacher who said it was "normal" for Muslims kids to beat the shit out of Jewish kids:

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/german-boy-beaten-by-muslim-schoolmates-after-telling-them-he-is-jewish

He endured a campaign of intimidation by Muslim pupils who told him “Muslims hate Jews. All Jews are murderers.”

His British mother, who asked not to be named to protect the identity of her son, told the The Daily Telegraph the school had done little to stop the bullying.

“They told us this is normal for adolescents from this background, that they’re just trying to find their identity,” she said. “But it shouldn’t be normal. I’ve never experienced such direct anti-Semitism before in all the years I’ve lived in Germany.”

---

Because schools are just so good at handling bullying normally?
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

Agenda driven garbage.

This. Totally.

When it doesn't fit the narrative, they downplay the islam angle. But when a muslim is 'my goodness' apparently slighted, cue a fucking song and dance about it. With these islamic lobbyists crying foul every sodding time.

Fuck them
---

The BBC has an obvious pro-immigration slant, this is obvious. Like all the other big media corporations, they are globalists.

I like how this topic has a post by every poster you assume it would except one. So let's invite him

Hey @Mal_Fet get your hatin ass in here

Wait I missed him lol.

The Gang's all here!
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Anteaterking posted...

But if he was Christian or atheist, I don't think they would put "Christian athlete rapes..." or "Atheist athlete rapes...", so I don't see this as them trying to hide it in order to push a pro-Islam message.

By this logic, why would his religion matter for his refugee status

---

so... was he denied a passport because of trumps muslim ban? because if so, that would be the reason they specifically brought it up...
---

3rd_Best_Master posted...

We can play this euphemism game all day.

When a white person shoots someone, what's he called?
When a black person shoots someone, what's he called?
When a Muslim person shoots someone, what's he called?

Seems awfully silly to sit here and lose your shit just cause Indians get the same treatment as other groups of people.

1. Mental illness
2. Violent acts of gang violence
3. Terrorism


I have answered your question.
---

Admiral upset that a Muslim wasn't painted in the worst light possible.
---

sktgamer_13dude posted...

Admiral upset that a Muslim wasn't painted in the worst light possible.

Wondered when the usual apologists would materialise.

Not disappointed
---

shockthemonkey posted...

I like how no one is acknowledging that Indian culture is constantly criticized for sexual abuse and assault. Seems like pointing out that he's Indian draws attention to that deliberately.

This true though. In India women are nothing but slaves. They don't even have a choice in deciding on who they want to marry. Is even worse than the middle east. Even a brother raping his sister in India will get him an standing ovation and treat him as a hero as the woman gets shamed by the males.
---

Miz_iZ_AwSOme_X posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

I like how no one is acknowledging that Indian culture is constantly criticized for sexual abuse and assault. Seems like pointing out that he's Indian draws attention to that deliberately.

This true though. In India women are nothing but slaves. They don't even have a choice in deciding on who they want to marry. Is even worse than the middle east. Even a brother raping his sister in India will get him an standing ovation and treat him as a hero as the woman gets shamed by the males.

This is complete horseshit. India has an incredibly diverse set of customs with regards to treatment of women. In middle and southern India (Mumbai and below), women have the choice as to who they marry and are treated with general equality. Those places are cosmopolitan and pretty westernized.

The parts of India where women are oppressed like that -- to the point where the government warns female tourists in advance about the harassment -- are in rural villages and in the northern parts that are predominantly Muslim. And in those regions, just like in the Middle East, it's the religious culture that causes the sexist attitude, not the ethnicity.
---

Anteaterking posted...

His religion was "relevant" in the first case (because of the talk of the Muslim ban), but not in the second case.

I don't see the malicious cover up that you do.

You'd think anyone would realize this. Guess not.

Oh wait, it's Admiral. LMAO.
---