According to the National Secular Society’s Newsline:

A British TV channel that broadcast a talk saying it is acceptable to murder someone who has shown disrespect to the prophet Muhammad is facing a heavy fine or potential closure by Ofcom. The regulator ruled that DM Digital is the first UK broadcaster to break the broadcasting code for material “likely to encourage or incite the commission of a crime or lead to disorder” or more likely the first one Ofcom has recognised as breaking the broadcasting code.

The media regulator commissioned two English translations of the programme which revealed that the presenter of the show said: “If someone takes a step in the love of the Prophet, then this is not terrorism.” He also made a number of comments citing a “duty” to kill those who insult Mohammed, including: “I hail those who made this law [Pakistan’s blasphemy law] which states that one who insults the prophet deserves to be killed – such a person should be eliminated.”

Ofcom said: “We considered that the broadcast of the various statements made by the Islamic scholar … was likely to encourage or incite the commission of a crime.”

Finally, Ofcom is getting it!

Imagine if they had commissioned English translations for a 24 hour period and for all the Islamic channels. Oh the gems they would find…



  1. If a politician advocated the killing of someone who switched political parties, said politician would be arrested. If a political cartoonist drew a cartoon lambasting a regional or national politician and was arrested for it, we’d call it a police state.

    Why are threats by the religious exempt from the law while threats toward those in government and elections are punished? No doubt the religious would try to legalize the shooting of politicians rather than ending calls for violence by religious leaders.

  2. It was mostly meant tongue in cheek it was not a particularly serious arguement. That’s why I added the 😛 (supposedly a tongue emoticon) to the end to emphasis the fact that I was not being serious.

  3. I am surprised that the accused has not argued that the translations were not accurate. It usually is the standard response in such cases.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.