Megyn Kelly continued her crusade on behalf of the anti-Islamic film, “Honor Diaries” tonight. This time, her vehicle was a pair of dueling interviews – one with an Honor Diaries critic, from CAIR, and the other was the anti-Islamic Honor Diaries contributor Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Guess which guest Kelly berated and which one she praised?
First up was Ibrahim Hooper, National Communications Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. CAIR has been singled out for attacks on The Kelly File and elsewhere on Fox over its objections to the film. But Kelly acted as though Hooper were the antagonistic one.
The pretext for this discussion was Brandeis University’s decision to cancel its plan to confer an honorary degree on Ali after an outcry from pro-Muslim groups. Kelly prefaced her interview with Hooper with a long, sympathetic profile of Ali. It wasn’t long into Hooper’s explanation as to why he objects to Ali receiving an honorary degree from – as opposed to speaking at – a prestigious university that Kelly began interrupting and arguing.
In fact, Kelly halted Hooper’s explanations of his objections to the film to read him comments from his critics. You know, to “give him the chance to respond” because “that’s what we do here.” She just happened to drop a little jab, “I know, everything’s a hate site if it doesn’t come from you.” Right before she announced, “You refused to condemn Hamas!” She didn't even try to hide her distaste.
Next up, was Ali. No such belligerence now! Kelly did ask at least one semi-tough question. But even then, Kelly signaled sympathy for Ali to the viewers: “Let me ask you this. What (Hooper) was saying and what Brandeis University used as its excuse to pull your honorary degree and boot you out of the commencement ceremony was other statements. They claim you’ve been too general in your criticisms of Muslims and Islam, claiming that you said, ‘Violence is inherent in Islam. Islam is the new fascism. It’s a destructive cult of death.’ They claim at Brandeis University, those statements were a bridge too far.”
Ali did not deny it. She said the students “take lines from various interviews… and then they tie all these things together to fit their own narrative.” But Kelly didn’t press her to either endorse or distance herself from those sentiments. She sat in respectful silence and let Ali continue to speak without further challenge or interruption.
When it was Kelly’s turn to ask another question, it was, “Do you feel that Brandeis is engaging in a double standard because they have given honorary degrees to some controversial figures?” She gratuitously added, “Ahmadinejad went and spoke at Columbia University and I don’t remember CAIR objecting to that.” That, despite the fact that Hooper had emphasized he didn’t have any objection to Ali speaking at Brandeis or anywhere else. It was the award of an honorary degree he objected to.
Kelly closed by saying, “You’re a brave woman. I know you’ve been threatened specifically with death a number of times. It’s outrageous. And we appreciate you and your courage in coming on the broadcast tonight.”
Part two of Kelly’s interview with Hooper airs tomorrow.
Kelly told Jay Leno a few months ago, “The way we do it on the Fox News Channel is that straight news anchors like myself give a hard time to both sides.”
She just forgot to mention that one side gets a much harder time than the other.
I rest my case.
A caveat, however: in the past and even today, those very same arguments were/are advanced by christians (small case intentional) against other denominations: Protestants against Catholics and vice versa; everybody against the Jews, then the Mormons, then the …, then the … and so forth. Muslims are simply the latest target of so-called christians who simply can’t get out of bed without hating someone or something. Who’s next? Confucianism, or Hinduism, or Buddhism? the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
When the Quran was written, women were indeed perceived by local societies as good only for making babies and cooking meals. We should not, however, forget that this was not so different from the other societies of the time, including the European ones. There were, of course, exceptions, like The Prophet’s first wife who was a successful businesswoman in her own right. I do not know of any similar exceptions in our own history. The lady who became Pope Jean of the Catholic Church doesn’t count because she succeeded by passing for a man.
At that time, the Quran represented a huge step towards gender equality by laying down some rules for protecting women, admittedly as inferiors but the concern for their welfare was a huge step forward. Our own history went backwards from accepting women as priests to barring them from the priesthood of early Christian days. Those of us who are tempted to look down on the Quran for supposedly not having done enough should perhaps take a good hard look at our own religious texts and history. Both the New Testament and the Quran contain revolutionary ideas on a lot of things, including the place of women in society, and those ideas are still making their way into the awareness of people in our own societies.
No thanks to the likes of FNC. In this particular case, FNC is clearly taking up the standard of women’s rights only because it’s a golden opportunity to slam all Muslims. In all other respects, they advocate in favour of putting women back in the kitchen, surrounded by a passle of kids with one in the drawer, allowed to wear shoes only on Sunday, and expected to follow rules that do not apply to their masters. The truly unfortunate ones are at risk of being heavily punished for disobeying. Shall we recall the Salem witch trials? Nobody in their right minds would call that “mainstream Christianity”, and yet … when it’s another religion involved, the drum-beating starts.
FNC, thy name is hypocrisy, pure and simple.
Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the nation’s largest Muslim advocacy group, said, “It is unconscionable that such a prestigious university would honor someone with such openly hateful views.”
I would answer CAIR’s pit bull, who as he usually does , argued with Megan Kelly on her Fox News TV show, repeatedly rudely interrupting her, and dodging just about every question she asked. I’d answer Hooper by saying >> It is NOT at all unconscionable for Brandeis to honor someone with such openly hateful views of wife-beating, of physical beating of women and numerous other mistreatments of women, and numerous examples of CRIMINAL behavior advocated by Islam.
But the foxies conveniently omit this. Why? Because it does not fit their propaganda. And that is what FNC offers.
Ali has a good excuse for having tunnel vision about it, given what she’s been through. But that’s no excuse for completely distorting not just her remarks but Brandeis’s objection to them.
Do all Fox shows get some sort of daily memo about the subjects they’re supposed to raise hell about, or is it just a phenomenal degree of group think?
Also amusing was Hannity’s first segment, a nearly incoherent “timeline” of the IRS “scandal” he seemed to think proved… something about poor old Lois Lerner’s corruption and venality, even though his “timeline” explicitly admits she didn’t learn about whatever was going on until more than a year after it started. And then there was his reliance on the Daily Caller for some of his flat-out assertions. It was a real eye-roller for people who’ve followed this crap circus of Darrell Issa’s.