Indeed there is a bias at the BBC as this leaked report indicates, ( I assume it is this report) . An excerpt:

The full account of the meeting shows how senior BBC figures queued up to lambast their employer.

Political pundit Andrew Marr said: 'The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias.'

Washington correspondent Justin Webb said that the BBC is so biased against America that deputy director general Mark Byford had secretly agreed to help him to 'correct', it in his reports. Webb added that the BBC treated America with scorn and derision and gave it 'no moral weight'.

Former BBC business editor Jeff Randall said he complained to a 'very senior news executive', about the BBC's pro-multicultural stance but was given the reply: 'The BBC is not neutral in multiculturalism: it believes in it and it promotes it.'

Randall also told how he once wore Union Jack cufflinks to work but was rebuked with: 'You can't do that, that's like the National Front!'

Quoting a George Orwell observation, Randall said that the BBC was full of intellectuals who 'would rather steal from a poor box than stand to attention during God Save The King'.

I read this in the print version and intended to post on it. Then I see Tim Blair in Australia has beaten me to the punch. The circular logic of this letter is the stuff of the dark ages:

The fact that someone could call the Koran a "book of inherent violence" tells us how ignorant and uninformed that person is about our religion. Secondly, what I found interesting was Prof. Redeker's comment, "We must distinguish between Islamists and those responsible Muslims out there who should without a doubt support me." I find it hard to understand what he is looking for. Does he want moderate Muslims to support him when he is insulting the basis of our religion without putting in the time and effort to understand it completely? Even though he will not face a violent backlash from moderate Muslims, Prof. Redeker will not gain any kind of support or encouragement either.
Muslim "reactions" and "retaliations" against supposed "free speech" are not coming out of thin air. In fact, authors such as Prof. Redeker are adding fuel to the fire and expecting it to extinguish itself. There is a simple solution to these "violent" retaliations. Let's keep practising free speech, but eliminate the ignorant insulting of Muslim beliefs. The retaliations will stop. It is pretty hard to clap with just one hand.
Hamid Rizvi, Toronto.

What the???? We are vicious and violent only when you point out that we are vicious and viloent? It really isn't ours to wonder why.

Closing down freedom of speech in France. From the BBC (via Bourque):

Turkey has condemned a French parliamentary vote which would make it a crime to deny that Armenians suffered "genocide" at the hands of the Turks. Turkey called it a "serious blow" to relations and has threatened sanctions. The vote was also criticised by the EU.

.....

The French vote came as controversial Turkish writer Orhan Pamuk won the 2006 Nobel Prize in Literature.

He has faced prosecution in Turkey for talking about the murder of hundreds of thousands of Armenians during World War I and thousands of Kurds in subsequent years.

The charges have since been dropped.

This reminds me that it is time for me to do a post calling for the repeal of the Hate Laws in Canada.