Thinly veiled Islamophobia

“… does wearing a veil make multi-culturalism more difficult? Does it stoke racial tensions? Is it anti-social? Is it right to ask Muslim women to remove their veils?

“I would answer no. It is true that for a society, multi-cultural or otherwise, to function properly its citizens must observe certain basic, shared values. For example, that the law of the country is paramount, and must be observed by everybody. If this value was not common throughout British society, we would have people of every religious or cultural sect acting according to their own specific laws, society would degenerate into chaos and would, effectively, cease to exist.

“So it is right, then, to say that even in a multi-cultural society (indeed; especially in a multi-cultural society), we must expect all citizens to observe certain common values (freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.). However, ‘not wearing a veil’ is not a common value, nor should it be. Mr. Straw makes a mistake by conflating ‘difference’ and ‘separation’. The whole point of a multi-cultural society is that we allow people to express their differences, in fashion, in religion and in culture, within certain limitations (based on public safety)….

“Wearing a veil is, then, a ‘visible statement’ of ‘difference’, but this is not a negative thing. The freedom to express difference is what liberal, progressive democracies are all about. If it is true that ‘people who don’t understand [Muslim] culture’ can find women in veils ‘frightening and intimidating’, as a minister for Communities and Local Government (strangely, the Sunday Mirror described him as ‘Race Minister’) Phil Woolas put it, then the solution is to help people to understand Muslim culture, not to urge Muslims to ‘Westernise’ in order to to fit in better. Multi-culturalism is about embracing cultural differences, not seeking to homogenise society to make everyone look and act the same.

“… the truth is that there is no ‘issue’ with veils; the issue is one of intolerance among some white Britons to people of different cultures. This has been illustrated perfectly over the last few days, with yobs around the country committing hate crimes against Muslims. For example, yesterday a man in Liverpool attacked a Muslim woman, pulling the veil from her face. Earlier this week a 16-year old Asian youth was stabbed in Preston in a racially motivated attack, after a flare-up involving up to 200 people. Local yobs had been chucking bricks and concrete blocks at cars parked outside a mosque.

This is the real issue, the real obstacle to the success of multi-culturalism; Islamophobia due to fear, ignorance and association with terrorism….”

The Heathlander, 9 October 2006

Also features an effective reply to Joan Smith’s Independent on Sunday article.

Right-wing think tank dismisses Islamophobia

In his report, We’re (Nearly) All Victims Now, published by the Civitas think tank, David Green said: “The political-recognised victim status described by this list of isms and phobias has begun to do lasting harm to our liberal culture. Groups who have been politically recognised as victims are starting to use their power to silence people who have had the cheek to criticise them.”

Dr Green added: “Modern victim groups create entrenched social divisions by defining opponents as oppressors who not only must be defeated by the state, but silenced by the state.” He cited the term Islamophobia as a word intended to demonise opponents.

“The pseudo-psychiatric term Islamophobia is a statement that any criticism of Muslims is evidence of clinical pathology,” Dr Green said. “Yet the label is often attached to valid criticisms of particular Muslims whose behaviour has laid them open to legitimate censure.”

Evening Standard, 10 October 2006

Stop the kid glove treatment of Muslims, Jon Gaunt demands

Jon_Gaunt“New Labour has turned tolerant Britain into a powder keg of racial and religious mistrust through their misguided and ill-thought-out policy of multiculturalism.

“Multiculturalism is meant to celebrate difference but I don’t see much to celebrate in today’s Britain. What I actually see is clowns like Sir Ian Blair pussyfooting around the sensibilities of a minority while the rest of us have been silenced for fear of being called racist.

“Since the 7/7 bombings, this Government has bent over backwards to win support from the Muslim community. Thousands have been spent on Muslim roadshows, laws against forced marriage have been dropped and prominent so-called community leaders have been knighted and promoted.

“And what has been the result of all this eggshell-treading? An increased level of victimhood, demonstrations and outrage at the slightest criticism of the Muslim religion and culture. Well, enough is enough.

“Forget lifting veils, Labour should remove the kid gloves and treat Muslims the same as every other British citizen. And it’s not just me saying this. Even the Church of England, in a leaked report, is saying the Government has shown preference to Muslims and has contributed to the divisions in modern Britain.”

Jon Gaunt in The Sun, 10 October 2006

Fascists should have right to incite hatred against Muslims – Liberty

Shami Chakrabati, director of the civil liberties organisation Liberty, explains:

“When you have someone such as Nick Griffin, the BNP chairman, saying ‘Islam is a vicious wicked faith’, if you take the emotion out, it’s essentially someone having a pop at a religion which they have a right to do…. Liberty is unequivocal in its opposition to the legislation on incitement to religious hatred. That means by definition defending all sorts of people, including possibly Nick Griffin. We are against an over-broad speech offence. We may be protecting Griffin, but we are also protecting the vulnerable minority communities.”

Times, 10 October 2006

Make sense of that if you can. Liberty supports Griffin’s right to incite hatred against Muslims … but by doing so they are “protecting vulnerable minority communities”.

Let’s draw a veil over Mr Straw

Rajnaara Akhtar“With one article in a local newspaper, Jack Straw has built up the walls of ignorance and division ever higher. A Muslim community that has been on the defensive for years is now finding itself facing a barrage of criticism about the way it chooses to express its faith; jeopardising its basic right of religious freedom. I oppose Mr Straw asking Muslim women who talk to him to take off their veils, not because I believe the veil is compulsory in Islam but rather because his politically motivated opinions have created a climate of intolerance against the veil and those who wear it.”

Rajnaara Akhtar, chair of Protect-Hijab, in the Times, 10 October 2006

‘Why the veil is a feminist issue’

“We are on the wrong track if we believe that veils are a religious issue. They’re not. Like fat, they’re a feminist issue. The clothes that women wear, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, are a powerful political statement about where they’re at; about the amount of freedom, self-esteem or independence they possess.

“The veil which covers the face, the niqab, is an enormously potent symbol of subjugation to a (male-controlled) religion. It is what Muslim men want. It is about control of women; about forced chastity. The veil sends out a very clear message that the woman behind it abides by the conventions of the Muslim faith; that she places the approval of men above her own self-expression.”

Melanie Reid in the Herald, 10 October 2006

Christian evangelist Franklin Graham blasts Islam

Franklin_GrahamThe Rev. Franklin Graham, a Christian evangelist whose criticism of Islam has frequently outraged Muslims, said Islam teaches its followers to “persecute” others until they convert, with the aim being “total domination.”

In the wake of the 2001 attacks on the United States, Graham outraged Muslims when he said that Islam “is a very evil and wicked religion.” In an interview last March, he told ABC News’ “Nightline” that he had not changed his mind about the faith.

In his latest salvo, Graham told The News & Observer: “It’s the teaching of Islam that is not tolerant of any other faith.”

“It’s world domination. When they dominate an area, they’ll let other belief systems exist, but they’ll persecute them so that (people) convert to Islam and there’s total domination. Once you’re in Islam you can’t get out of it. If you leave Islam you have to be killed,” said Graham.

Associated Press, 9 October 2006

Race attack on Muslim after July 7 ceremony

A white Muslim convert was spat on and racially abused in front of her young children as they travelled home after attending a commemoration of the victims of the July 7 terror bombings.

Michelle Idrees, dressed in a traditional burkha, was targeted by a father and his two sons as she travelled on a Thameslink train travelling out of London. She was returning to her home in Luton, Bedfordshire, when Charles Adams called her a “Muslim bitch” before spitting on her face.

Charles Adams, 23, admitted religiously aggravated common assault and affray when he appeared alongside his brother Mark Edward Adams, 26, and father Mark Raymond Adams, 50, at Middlesex Guildhall Crown Court yesterday. The three men, all from Colindale, northwest London, will be sentenced in November.

Times, 10 October 2006

See also “Father and sons spat at Muslim”, BBC News, 9 October 2006

Update:  See “Man jailed for 7/7 racial attack”, BBC News, 23 November 2006

And “We’re leaving the country after racists abused and spat at me”, Evening Standard, 24 November 2006

Rushdie says ‘the veil sucks’

Rushdie and VeilMuslims turned on Salman Rushdie today for saying that veils “suck”. It came after the author stoked up the debate started by Jack Straw when the Commons leader said he asked constituents to remove their veils which he saw as a barrier to race relations.

Rushdie said: “He wasn’t doing anything compulsory. He was expressing an important opinion, which is that veils suck, which they do. I think the veil is a way of taking power away from women.”

Rushdie’s comments came in an interview with Radio 4’s Today programme about his new joint exhibition with sculptor Anish Kapoor.

Rushdie said: “Speaking as somebody with three sisters and a very largely female Muslim family, there’s not a single woman I know in my family or in their friends who would have accepted wearing the veil. I think the battle against the veil has been a long and continuing battle against the limitation of women, so in that sense I’m completely on [Straw’s] side.”

Sir Iqbal Sacranie, former chairman of the Muslim Council of Britain who has clashed with the author over the Satanic Verses, said Rushdie had “no credibility whatsoever” within the Muslim community. “You can only have a debate with open minds, not closed minds. Islamophobes are currently doing all they can to attack Islam and it doesn’t surprise me if he is now jumping on the bandwagon,” he said.

Continue reading

Matgamna gets it (partly) right

This site has had some harsh words to say about the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty in the past, but happily we’ve found an article, by Sean Matgamna on the veil controversy, at least some of which we can agree with. Of course, you have to put up with the usual denunciations of “Muslim bigots, and their kitsch-left and invertebrate-liberal toadies”, but the core of Matgamna’s article is correct:

“To do what Straw has just done, in the atmosphere in Britain right now, is to light a match in a gas-filled room. It is to pour petrol on a fire. Inevitably Straw has given the green light to people who want to have a go at Muslims, who are not at all concerned to have a reasonable discussion about Muslim women, or with Muslims….

“Dark-skinned Muslim people are victims in this society. They are easy targets. Straw has shown just how easy a target they are. Shamelessly racist newspapers, like the Express – one of a number of similar headlines: ‘Muslims pledge to ruin Straw’! – have weighed-in to turn his words into denunciation, blame-mongering, thinly disguised hate-mongering against identifiable Muslims.”

Workers’ Liberty, 9 October 2006

However, it’s difficult to square this argument with other positions taken by the AWL. Only a couple of weeks ago Matgamna came out in support of the pope – a stance that won him the admiration of Melanie Phillips – and earlier this year the AWL reproduced the Jyllands-Posten cartoons on their website on the basis of defending freedom of expression.

But, surely, the same argument applied in those cases. If freedom of expression is exercised in such a way that it incites bigotry and hatred against a minority community, in circumstances where that community is already under siege – by associating Islam with “things only evil and inhuman”, or by portraying the Prophet Mohammed as a terrorist bomber – then anyone with any progressive principles should condemn this. Time for the AWL to have a rethink, perhaps.