Such people don't belong in high profile jobs

The editor of a Pakistani edition of Newsweek, already long an awful magazine, trivialized child rape in posts he wrote on Twitter:

The editor-in-chief of Newsweek Pakistan has issued a series of tweets minimising child sexual abuse and making lewd comments to female critics.

Fasih Ahmed, a former staff writer at the Wall Street Journal, tweeted: “The sexual abuse of children will always exist. You can never eliminate it. Sometimes it leads to great art. So there’s also that.”

The comment was Ahmed’s take on the current furore in Pakistan surrounding the rape and murder of 12 children as young as 6 years old by a serial killer in the city of Kasur.

The 40-year-old’s response to the inevitable backlash was combative, with one female critic being told: “I’m glad you were raised on the healthy cum of your male family members.”

The Newsweek journalist also appeared to think it was a good thing that the killer’s victims were all female, tweeting: “On the bright side, at least he’s straight.”

He explained “Straight better than not. From an Islamic perspective” in another tweet, adding: “Men are superior than women in Islam. Damaging boys who become men would ruin society as we know it.”

His comments have been deleted and Newsweek is distancing themselves from the monster. But here's another example of somebody who obviously didn't receive a background check when first getting the job arrangement.

And that's not the only creep in the Islamic world who doesn't belong in a job requiring a big reputation. Even a Muslim "model" wearing a hijab working for L'Oreal had to step down after it was discovered she'd written antisemitic tweets  nearly 4 years ago:

French Cosmetic giant L’Oréal fired hijab-clad Muslim model, Amena Khan on Monday following revelations that Khan posted several anti-Semitic memes and rants on social media. Most of the postings were from the summer of 2014, during Operation Protective Edge, while Israel was in the midst of a difficult counter-insurgency campaign aimed at stopping indiscriminate Hamas rocket fire and destroying Hamas terror tunnels that the group hoped to use in the commission of mega attacks against Israelis.

L’Oréal had initially hired Khan to feature in an ad campaign for hair products. Khan attempted to frantically delete the damning tweets but soon learned to her chagrin that what’s posted on the internet stays on the internet like a stubborn rash that won’t go away.

In a statement, Khan said that she “deeply regret[ted] the content of the tweets,” and decided to step down because she didn’t want to serve as a distraction from the positive aspects of L’Oréal’s message of inclusivity. L’Oréal released its own message stating that it agreed with Khan’s decision to step down.

Reading between the lines, it’s easy to discern that Khan’s decision to step down was anything but voluntary. L’Oréal fired her and had no choice in the matter. The backlash against L’Oréal was instantaneous, and the company had its reputation to protect, and of course, the bottom line.

Even so, they do have a nasty past, much like IKEA, Coco Chanel and Henry Ford, in being nazi collaborators during WW2, and hiring somebody that vile only makes it look like they never learned any lessons. All that aside, it's hilarious why a woman wearing a hijab would be chosen to represent hair care products.

In more similar news, even a Muslim "beauty blogger" in Britain turned down an award offered by Revlon because they're working with Israeli actress Gal Gadot:

A popular Muslim author, entrepreneur and social media star has rejected an award from Revlon after Israeli actress Gal Gadot was declared the frontwoman for the cosmetics giant’s latest advertising campaign.

In her rejection of the Changemaker Award, Amani Al-Khatahtbeh — known among her fans and followers as MuslimGirl — accused the “Wonder Woman” star of backing “the oppression of women and girls” in supporting the Israel Defense Forces.

More hilarity in motion, I see. Gadot served as a great role model for women in the army, acted in a movie that provided something similar, and the dummy still shuns her because she can't come to terms with the phoniness of her beliefs. I guess she shouldn't use Revlon products either, because they were formed by Jewish employees. Just another selfish, obnoxious brat who can't appreciate the better qualities of life, and that's why Revlon would be wise not to offer awards to people like her anymore.

The time when DC scrapped a Superman story with Islamic propaganda around 2011

A story whose synopsis, as I recall, could've been potentially offensive to Americans. CBR has some history of this tale written by Chris Roberson, which was replaced by DC editorial with a previously unused story written by Kurt Busiek:

Sinbad was a new Muslim superhero that Bill Loebs introduced into the Superman titles in 1990 during a fill-in arc on the Superman titles. The late, great Curt Swan came back to the Superman titles (that he drew for over 20 years in the 1950s through the 1980s before the books rebooted in 1986) and drew the storyline, which was about a young telekinetic hero from Qurac (DC’s stand-in for Middle Eastern countries like Iran or Iraq). Sinbad (which, okay, was probably a bit of a sketchy name, even if Loebs obviously meant well) even got his own entry in the 1990 DC’s Who’s Who…

First of all, I don't think it was actually stated in the original story by Loebs that the character was a Muslim, though it was noted in the Who's Who entry he was Arabic. However, the profile does state that when he got hold of a belt that could provide him with some of the telekinetic powers he got, Lex Luthor waged an anti-Arab hatemongering campaign to try and retrieve it, dispatching paramilitary crooks to vandalize houses and stores in Little Qurac, including those belonging to Davood Nassur's folks. It even included a bizarre bunch of crooks in costumes who all called themselves "Sinbad", and Nassur made an effort to stop the imposters. The profile also notes that his family were victims of the secret police of the Shah in the country, another suggestion they weren't whitewashing Islam per se at the time (thankfully, the industry wasn't that far gone back then), but depending on your viewpoint, the notion Luthor would wage such a campaign as he did is still disturbing and questionable from an artistic perspective. Bill Loebs and Curt Swan were both pretty talented creators in their time, but this sounds like a potentially black mark on their records.

As for the Superman issue 712, where the reintroduction of Nassur was to have taken place, it was replaced by the story written by Busiek, and Roberson had the following statement to offer:

As much as I look forward to seeing an unpublished Kurt Busiek Superman story, it’s a shame that DC didn’t determine that the story we prepared for Superman 712 didn’t work in the Grounded storyline in time for us to do a different story. As it happened, the Sharif story was included in the outline for the remaining issues of Grounded that I submitted in November. The outline was approved, and in February the issue synopsis that I provided was used to draft the solicitation text, to work up character designs for Sharif (the grown up version of Sinbad from the early 90s), and for cover art to be pencilled, inked, and colored. The script for the issue was accepted in April, and was drawn, inked, and lettered. Unfortunately, when the issue was ready to be sent to the printer in the third week of May I was informed that the decision had been made not to print it.”

I wouldn't be shocked if the story had been very pro-Islam as could be expected, and Roberson's already had his share of moments where he made leftist comments that were truly awful. That DC opted to drop his Superman story was certainly odd, considering it was surely never the first story they'd ever published with a whitewashed view of Islam (at the time, they'd published the joint project with the Kuwaiti propagandist behind The 99 comic) and look what happened with Green Lantern soon after. At this point, I'm sure the irony isn't lost on anyone that Geoff Johns, by sharp contrast, was granted full ability and free rein to introduce his own Islamic propaganda - much worse than anything Sinbad under Roberson might've stood for - in the form of the Simon Baz character in Green Lantern, and something tells me that if Johns had written the story credited to Roberson, it would've been greenlighted instantly without question. I honestly don't get why Johns, much like Brian Bendis, gets all these privileges, or why DC's willing to take "risks" with his ideas they won't with writers of ostensibly lesser caliber. But that's a telling problem about the Big Two nowadays: they have a lot of favoratism for overrated writers who get high profile jobs all because they've worked in some allegedly fancy job or written a supposedly classic product that wouldn't work with a larger audience.

Tim Seeley carries on Geoff Johns's "progressive" vision of Green Lantern

In an interview with Newsarama, writer Tim Seeley's just told them how he's carrying on with what Geoff Johns set up over 5 years ago with the introduction of a Muslim to the Green Lanterns:

When writer Tim Seeley got the gig on Green Lanterns, he not only wanted to make sure it was character-focused and showed the challenges of becoming superheroes, but he also wanted it to be the "more progressive" Green Lantern book.

As Seeley put it, "there's a reason that it's a man and a woman, that it's a Muslim guy and a Latina."

If it were just a Latina - or a character of a specific racial background - that'd be perfectly okay, though the way she was introduced decided isn't. But emphasizing somebody who goes by a horrific belief system and whitewashing all its components, that's where it warrants serious disapproval. If he wanted to cast a character simply of Arabic/Lebanese descent, that alone would've been fine. When the emphasis becomes religion sans any distinctions whether it's a good or bad one, rather than race/nationality, that's when you know something's wrong.

In Seeley's first Green Lanterns storyline, which kicked off in October, the writer not only portrayed the lead heroes struggling to find jobs on Earth, but Seeley also attacked the issue of xenophobia during the pair's mission on another planet.

Oh, and we can only guess what political angle he's going by. That's exactly why nobody should overlook the harm Seeley's contributing to the medium with his exploitation of the GL franchise. On which note, let's continue to the interview itself and see what he's saying:

Newsarama: Tim, now that you're a few issues into your run and finishing the first storyline, what were some of the things you wanted to establish about Jessica about Simon as you started on Green Lanterns?

Tim Seeley: The thing I took from the book before I started — and I'm not sure everyone did — but what I thought Geoff [Johns, who co-created both characters] set up and from what [former Green Lanterns writer] Sam [Humphries] was doing with it was that this is the Green Lantern book that's about the people that have the job and not really about the Corps or the history.

I think Hal Jordan and the Green Lantern Corps should be about things that involve the larger institution and things that involve the Guardians and all that mythology that comes with it.

But Green Lanterns should be the book about people who are average, everyday people who have to deal with this job.

Hmm, does that include average, everyday aliens from different planets? Because if the marginalization of Martian Manhunter in recent years says anything, DC decided some time ago otherworldly aliens cannot serve as star hosts of a title, let alone co-stars of a team title, compounding the impression they lack confidence in their ability to sell by story merit.

Nrama: So is that how you distinguish it from the other Green Lantern book?

Seeley: Yeah, if the other book is sort of, you know, Star Trek meets police stuff, then this one is going to be like a Spider-Man story. You know? It's going to be the young hero dealing with power and responsibility and what that entails.

And it also, I think, has to be the more progressive Green Lantern book. I think that's what Geoff originally wanted. There's a reason that it's a man and a woman, that it's a Muslim guy and a Latina. All those things, I think, are what makes this book unique and makes it different from the other Green Lantern title.

And from what I found about Johns' take on GL nearly 5 years ago, it's clear he did intend to shove politics into GL far worse than anything Denny O'Neil and Neal Adams ever did. Even if their run in the early 70s was overrated, at least they didn't go out of their way to whitewash bad religions and propagandize in the favor of bad ideologies. However, if Johns was leveling criticism at the O'Neil/Adams run in GL: Rebirth during 2005, he only proved himself hypocritical with this new age leftist propaganda he obviously didn't see contradicting what he put in GL: Rebirth earlier.

Nrama: Is that the reason behind some of the themes you're exploring — like this storyline's plot about two life forms sharing a planet, and the next storyline, which has a sort of human trafficking-type story?

Seeley: Yeah, I really wanted to dive into that stuff. I wanted it to be more rooted on real-life issues.

But I wanted it to be very character-based and about the things that Simon and Jess would deal with that we could all relate to, but that are also specific to the kind of people they are — that Simon is a Muslim guy in America in 2017 and that Jessica is a Hispanic woman in America in 2017 — but also be about them specifically. They are people with interesting, unique personalities. Simon's kind of impulsive and brash and that's what makes him who he is. And Jess is very cautious and very sympathetic to people.

All those things had to be tied into a unique approach to the book, which is what I hope I pulled off.

The only thing he's pulling off is propaganda intended to serve the SJW narrative that America is "islamophobic" and inherently "racist" to anybody considered immigrants. I wouldn't be surprised if the story about human trafficking is also depicted very dishonestly; I seriously doubt it's a metaphor for Planned Parenthood.

Real life issues are fine so long as you know how to be honest and open about the details involved, and Seeley's not doing that, from what I can tell. I will say DC's being very cunning, however, to keep things shrouded in metaphors, because that way, they're able to foist bad propaganda upon the audience even more easily than Marvel did with books like The Truth: Red, White and Black back in 2003.

And again, one has to wonder why two humans are the prime focus of a spinoff title in a sci-fi franchise and not otherworldly aliens. A few of the comentors weren't impressed with Seeley's progressive preaching either, and one said:

TELL A GOOD STORY and stop worrying about agendas, since Seeley has taken over the title has gone down, it's boring

I sometimes feel at this point like GL collapsed after 1988 and never recovered. And why, all this time, hasn't DC thought of righting a wrong like the slaying of Katma Tui, by bringing her back to the land of living? There's a lot of past errors like that which DC had over a decade to prove they're willing to mend, and their progressive agendas have evidently gotten in the way. In a manner of speaking, you could argue they've got a low opinion of otherworldly aliens and humans.