With thanks to Bishop Hill for drawing His Grace's attention to this latest example of BBC bias (not to say grossly-distorted and culturally-perverted agenda-setting).Michael Buerk said the following in his introduction to the Moral Maze:
"...not long ago, to question multiculturalism - the precepts or the policies of successive governments - risked being branded racist and pushed into the loathesome corner with paedophiles and climate change deniers.“Bishop Hill hopes that they continue with this kind of thing, because 'It makes the BBC look like it is staffed by zealots and nutters. It will win them no friends.'
Initially, His Grace was persuaded by Bishop Hill's indignation at the inflammatory juxtaposition of multiculturalist sceptics and anthropogenic climate-change deniers with paedophiles. But, having reflected (and having read some of Mr Buerk's other pronouncements on the BBC), it is evident that he is actually criticising those who propagate absolutist dogma and hold to an unquestionable creed.
Under the guise of liberal tolerance, the BBC now espouses a fascist and tyrannical cultural narrative, from which to dissent is tantamount to heresy. This is what Michael Buerk is highlighting. To expound a contrary political, religious, scientific or social theory, no matter how reasoned and reasonable, is to join the 'swivel-eyed loons' or, in the words of Medhi Hasan (a BBC favourite) to be an 'oddball, right-wing' nutter. The BBC have become zealots to the creed of political correctness and a hindrance to rational discourse. Of course, their politburo invites in the heretics, to sustain the perception of balance, but they ensure that these religio-political recalcitrants are set-up for humiliation, either by a sneering interviewer intent on pouring scorn upon their thesis, or by an audience who have been virtually coached when and whom to boo.
Michael Buerk is not himself equating anthropogenic climate change deniers and those who question the doctrine and policy of state multiculturalism with paedophiles: he is lampooning those of his BBC colleagues who do so habitually. He chose paedophiles - whom society, rationally or not, now ranks as the lowest form of life and quite beyond redemption - but, were in not for Godwin's law, he could equally have chosen Nazis.
But His Grace still has a question: If a qualified doctor and government adviser (unpaid) can be humiliatingly dismissed for having co-authored a paper in which a reasoned correlation was drawn between homosexuality and paedophilia, why should BBC employees (paid by the taxpayer) remain in their jobs when, according to Michael Buerk, they clearly hold the view that climate-change deniers and multiculuralist sceptics are as perverted in their beliefs as paedophiles?
