Last edited:
Syria, Gaza and the Criminalisation of Islam
- Thread starter سيف الله
- Start date
- Replies 601
- Views 219K
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Halal Food Gastronomy | vBulletin 4 php 8.0 patch
Last edited:
Salaam
Another update
And they had planned their plan, but with Allāh is [recorded] their plan, even if their plan had been [sufficient] to do away with the mountains.
Oppression itself can be quite difficult to understand. If you look at the universal working definition of oppression from the Cambridge Dictionary, oppression is defined as:
A situation in which people are governed in an unfair and cruel way and prevented from having opportunities and freedom
The definition alludes to a situation of restriction and perversion of freedom of people. It is understandable that when we think of oppression we think of it in the most severe form of depravity and subjugation – violence, war and the physical destruction of people and land. Thus we naturally understand it as a warfare situation which aims to obliterate the oppressed group. We think of the destroyed infrastructures of Syria and Palestine or the oppressive tyrannical regimes that cripple the Muslim world. However, would you ever think “the language of the British media” when you hear the word “oppression”?
Without a doubt, the physical destruction and tyrannical regimes require a lot of attention because of the severity of their situation. Alḥamdulillāh, the Muslims in the UK are living a lot more securely compared to our brothers and sisters in other parts of the world. We ask Allāh to increase them in their reward and grant them success in this life and the next.
Having said that, it is still important to understand the current dynamics and narrative discourse of the Muslims in the UK. It is vital that we acknowledge that oppression is beyond the scope of physical violence and can manifest in different guises – like language found in media which manipulates and shapes a certain narrative to deprive the oppressed party from opportunities and humanness.
In this series on Dismantling the Language of Oppression we aim to illustrate how oppression can exist in a non-violent indirect manner which is destructive to the oppressed. In this article we will cover what dog-whistle politics is.
Part 1: ‘Dog-Whistling’ & ‘Dog-Whistle’ Politics
Let us focus on the type of language and narrative discourse used when discussing the Muslim identity. We cannot restrict oppression to exclusively the most extreme physical displays of hostility – like pulling off a woman’s hijāb or vandalising a masjid. Relatively, these forms are not as frequent and are not representative of the discreet and indirect forms of injustice—despite anti-Muslim hate crimes reaching four per day on average in the country’s capital.[2] Oppression and injustice can manifest themselves in different ways.
We also cannot simply state that physical violence, vandalism and racist discriminatory slurs are the only forms of oppression because this type of injustice itself is heavily contested and rebuked by the general British public. The British populace does not wish to be seen holding on to fascist, intolerant and hate-inciting beliefs saturated with bigotry and xenophobia. Gone are the days where the iconic EDL “Get out of here, and take your mosques with you” discourse was effective in combatting the ‘Islamification’ of Britain. If anything, there is a united backlash from the British public against right-wing blatant racist discourse, like Punish a Muslim Day.[3]
The prejudicial and oppressive narrative discourse used by our politicians has been reconstructed and repackaged in a far more diplomatic and palatable way. What is concerning is how effective it is at making the Muslim identity the “other”.
So what is the language of oppression now? Here is where the dog whistle analogy comes in. A dog whistle is one which, when blown, cannot be heard by the human ear – yet a dog is able to hear the noise and respond to it. The high frequency of the dog whistle is completely inaudible to a human and thus, ineffective in catching their attention.
The dog-whistle analogy is one of the most profound ways of understanding the language of oppression in the media. The altered and inconspicuous oppressive narrative discourse does not blow a loud, brash obvious whistle. Rather, it produces a frequency comprehensible by some that can catch onto the meaning sent out. What we read and what we understand are completely different. It could be that a speech is positive and in favour of protecting the British people, but what we understand is completely different. The new and altered form of oppression is troubling as it is done under the pretence of national security and appeals to the British public’s fear of terrorism. Oppression has evolved from “Go back to Mecca” to “You can live here and have a job, but your daughter can’t wear the hijab to school because we promote cohesion.” The discourse is disseminated by men and women in Parliament who are in positions of governmental leadership – essentially authorising this form of oppressive language. The language of oppression is no longer about biology or physical appearance, it is about nation-state and if someone can adapt to “British values”. Let us take the example of Theresa May. May was invited by BBC Radio to define extremism in the new counter extremism bill. She stated:
“there are people out there sadly that are seeking to divide us. We are a government of one nation. We want to bring people together to ensure we are living together as one society. But there are those who are trying to promote hatred and intolerance, seeking to divide us into a ‘them’ and ‘us’ and undermine our British values.”
On the surface, we see May concerned about “extremist terrorist activities” which threatens the oneness and unity of the British nation and “undermines our British values”. Now why is this “dog-whistling”? Like the human and the dog, the human cannot pick up on the frequency that the dog can, so an interview like this can escape our notice without making us think it is a cause for concern. However – those who have the ability to hear at a high frequency – like the dog – are able to understand the implicit suggestions.
This is what the high frequency listeners hear. After the Manchester terror threat there was authorisation for MI5 officials to monitor and check masjids – as if it to suggest that it is a place of concern where the intolerable, dangerous incompatible form of Islām resides and breeds.[5] In order to qualify as possessing British values, Muslims in the UK require inoculation and screen testing to see if they are living harmoniously in “one nation”. May also states that the terrorists practise a “perversion of Islam”,[6] thus distracting from the empirically determined causes of terrorism to the racist assumption that it is ideology that drives non-White violence.[7] Considering that masjids are monitored and under constant surveillance, there is an implicit and indirect message that though Islām itself is not undermining British values, the Muslims who reside in the masjid are those who are incompatible with “British values”. It is as if strangeness of the Muslims (be it through their attendance to the masjid and their physical garments) equates to potential points of concern. The connection between the masjids and the “perversion of Islam” is a problematic connection. Being Muslim is not the issue, but being a Muslim who openly expresses their religion is where the concern lies as it is usually this type of Muslim who would enter masjids and engage in “questionable” activities.
Let us apply the dog whistle analogy:
Human hears: We have a bill to protect us from radical Islām.
High frequency small group of listeners hear: Not all of Islām is a problem, but the ones who reside in MI5-monitored mosques are points of concern. That is where the fearful rare breed of Islām is from.
Once you understand the concept of dog-whistle politics, you start to notice how often it appears. Dog-whistling may not always be done purposefully with malicious intent to subtly push forth another narrative; sometimes, it is completely innocent. However, we cannot deny that when a matter as serious as national security becomes a part of dog-whistle politics, the repercussions can be quite severe. The problematic and controversial idea that Britain needs to control Islamic activity in masjids is extremely polarising. The Islamic identity is depicted as a point of concern that requires regulation and potential intervention if it transgresses the ‘acceptable’ version of Islām. Ultimately, May’s speech could be understood as a governmental call towards the regulation of Islām and a purification of the “type” of Islām British Muslims ascribe to. The socially acceptable, untainted version is one that distances itself from the masjid and Islamic foreign activity. Anything that defies the version of “good” Islām, which is the socially tamed, docile, apolitical body, is perceived as hostile.
https://www.islam21c.com/politics/dismantling-the-language-of-oppression-the-dog-whistle/
Another update
And they had planned their plan, but with Allāh is [recorded] their plan, even if their plan had been [sufficient] to do away with the mountains.
Oppression itself can be quite difficult to understand. If you look at the universal working definition of oppression from the Cambridge Dictionary, oppression is defined as:
A situation in which people are governed in an unfair and cruel way and prevented from having opportunities and freedom
The definition alludes to a situation of restriction and perversion of freedom of people. It is understandable that when we think of oppression we think of it in the most severe form of depravity and subjugation – violence, war and the physical destruction of people and land. Thus we naturally understand it as a warfare situation which aims to obliterate the oppressed group. We think of the destroyed infrastructures of Syria and Palestine or the oppressive tyrannical regimes that cripple the Muslim world. However, would you ever think “the language of the British media” when you hear the word “oppression”?
Without a doubt, the physical destruction and tyrannical regimes require a lot of attention because of the severity of their situation. Alḥamdulillāh, the Muslims in the UK are living a lot more securely compared to our brothers and sisters in other parts of the world. We ask Allāh to increase them in their reward and grant them success in this life and the next.
Having said that, it is still important to understand the current dynamics and narrative discourse of the Muslims in the UK. It is vital that we acknowledge that oppression is beyond the scope of physical violence and can manifest in different guises – like language found in media which manipulates and shapes a certain narrative to deprive the oppressed party from opportunities and humanness.
In this series on Dismantling the Language of Oppression we aim to illustrate how oppression can exist in a non-violent indirect manner which is destructive to the oppressed. In this article we will cover what dog-whistle politics is.
Part 1: ‘Dog-Whistling’ & ‘Dog-Whistle’ Politics
Let us focus on the type of language and narrative discourse used when discussing the Muslim identity. We cannot restrict oppression to exclusively the most extreme physical displays of hostility – like pulling off a woman’s hijāb or vandalising a masjid. Relatively, these forms are not as frequent and are not representative of the discreet and indirect forms of injustice—despite anti-Muslim hate crimes reaching four per day on average in the country’s capital.[2] Oppression and injustice can manifest themselves in different ways.
We also cannot simply state that physical violence, vandalism and racist discriminatory slurs are the only forms of oppression because this type of injustice itself is heavily contested and rebuked by the general British public. The British populace does not wish to be seen holding on to fascist, intolerant and hate-inciting beliefs saturated with bigotry and xenophobia. Gone are the days where the iconic EDL “Get out of here, and take your mosques with you” discourse was effective in combatting the ‘Islamification’ of Britain. If anything, there is a united backlash from the British public against right-wing blatant racist discourse, like Punish a Muslim Day.[3]
The prejudicial and oppressive narrative discourse used by our politicians has been reconstructed and repackaged in a far more diplomatic and palatable way. What is concerning is how effective it is at making the Muslim identity the “other”.
So what is the language of oppression now? Here is where the dog whistle analogy comes in. A dog whistle is one which, when blown, cannot be heard by the human ear – yet a dog is able to hear the noise and respond to it. The high frequency of the dog whistle is completely inaudible to a human and thus, ineffective in catching their attention.
The dog-whistle analogy is one of the most profound ways of understanding the language of oppression in the media. The altered and inconspicuous oppressive narrative discourse does not blow a loud, brash obvious whistle. Rather, it produces a frequency comprehensible by some that can catch onto the meaning sent out. What we read and what we understand are completely different. It could be that a speech is positive and in favour of protecting the British people, but what we understand is completely different. The new and altered form of oppression is troubling as it is done under the pretence of national security and appeals to the British public’s fear of terrorism. Oppression has evolved from “Go back to Mecca” to “You can live here and have a job, but your daughter can’t wear the hijab to school because we promote cohesion.” The discourse is disseminated by men and women in Parliament who are in positions of governmental leadership – essentially authorising this form of oppressive language. The language of oppression is no longer about biology or physical appearance, it is about nation-state and if someone can adapt to “British values”. Let us take the example of Theresa May. May was invited by BBC Radio to define extremism in the new counter extremism bill. She stated:
“there are people out there sadly that are seeking to divide us. We are a government of one nation. We want to bring people together to ensure we are living together as one society. But there are those who are trying to promote hatred and intolerance, seeking to divide us into a ‘them’ and ‘us’ and undermine our British values.”
On the surface, we see May concerned about “extremist terrorist activities” which threatens the oneness and unity of the British nation and “undermines our British values”. Now why is this “dog-whistling”? Like the human and the dog, the human cannot pick up on the frequency that the dog can, so an interview like this can escape our notice without making us think it is a cause for concern. However – those who have the ability to hear at a high frequency – like the dog – are able to understand the implicit suggestions.
This is what the high frequency listeners hear. After the Manchester terror threat there was authorisation for MI5 officials to monitor and check masjids – as if it to suggest that it is a place of concern where the intolerable, dangerous incompatible form of Islām resides and breeds.[5] In order to qualify as possessing British values, Muslims in the UK require inoculation and screen testing to see if they are living harmoniously in “one nation”. May also states that the terrorists practise a “perversion of Islam”,[6] thus distracting from the empirically determined causes of terrorism to the racist assumption that it is ideology that drives non-White violence.[7] Considering that masjids are monitored and under constant surveillance, there is an implicit and indirect message that though Islām itself is not undermining British values, the Muslims who reside in the masjid are those who are incompatible with “British values”. It is as if strangeness of the Muslims (be it through their attendance to the masjid and their physical garments) equates to potential points of concern. The connection between the masjids and the “perversion of Islam” is a problematic connection. Being Muslim is not the issue, but being a Muslim who openly expresses their religion is where the concern lies as it is usually this type of Muslim who would enter masjids and engage in “questionable” activities.
Let us apply the dog whistle analogy:
Human hears: We have a bill to protect us from radical Islām.
High frequency small group of listeners hear: Not all of Islām is a problem, but the ones who reside in MI5-monitored mosques are points of concern. That is where the fearful rare breed of Islām is from.
Once you understand the concept of dog-whistle politics, you start to notice how often it appears. Dog-whistling may not always be done purposefully with malicious intent to subtly push forth another narrative; sometimes, it is completely innocent. However, we cannot deny that when a matter as serious as national security becomes a part of dog-whistle politics, the repercussions can be quite severe. The problematic and controversial idea that Britain needs to control Islamic activity in masjids is extremely polarising. The Islamic identity is depicted as a point of concern that requires regulation and potential intervention if it transgresses the ‘acceptable’ version of Islām. Ultimately, May’s speech could be understood as a governmental call towards the regulation of Islām and a purification of the “type” of Islām British Muslims ascribe to. The socially acceptable, untainted version is one that distances itself from the masjid and Islamic foreign activity. Anything that defies the version of “good” Islām, which is the socially tamed, docile, apolitical body, is perceived as hostile.
https://www.islam21c.com/politics/dismantling-the-language-of-oppression-the-dog-whistle/
Salaam
Ah 'liberal' Denmark.
New Imam Bill makes Islam a Crime
With an upcoming law targeting Muslim imams, preachers and lecturers, Denmark is now leading the way in Europe with far-reaching anti-Muslim laws. The so-called “Imam package” is defined by significant totalitarian features usually seen in the most infamous police states. Are we witnessing the reemergence of totalitarianism in Europe?
Political pioneering has never quite characterised Danish politics. Throughout the last few centuries, domestic and economic policies have been copied almost directly from Denmark’s big neighbouring states: Germany, France and Britain. From Bismarck’s welfare state to Thatcher’s revival of raw Capitalism, the same changes in Central and Western Europe eventually happen in Denmark, but with a delay of some years or even decades.
The same lack of originality is found in Danish foreign policy which has always been defined by the world’s current major powers. It supported France when Napoleon peaked in power until the British bombardment of Copenhagen in 1807, which changed Copenhagen’s loyalty from Paris to London. Denmark, unlike Norway, pledged its allegiance to Berlin when Nazi Germany looked like it was winning the war until Hitler’s devastating loss in Stalingrad consequently made Denmark a British ally again.
The newly appointed Danish foreign minister, Anders Samuelsen, was asked recently about his vision for Danish foreign policy to which he plainly answered: “my vision is to do what the US tells us to do”.[1] The same pathetic answer could really have come from any Danish foreign minister since the beginning of the Cold War when America became the world’s leading superpower.
Similarly, when security and integration politics were fused together by Western governments after 9/11, Denmark became even more eager to “learn” from its big neighbours. The so-called counter terrorism laws and prevent strategies of Britain is mirrored by the policies in Denmark. The “tough on Muslims” rhetoric from French and Dutch politicians is echoed in Denmark, not only from the right-wing, but from labour and socialist parties as well.
rest here
https://www.islam21c.com/current-affairs/new-imam-bill-makes-islam-a-crime/
And it gets worse
Ah 'liberal' Denmark.
New Imam Bill makes Islam a Crime
With an upcoming law targeting Muslim imams, preachers and lecturers, Denmark is now leading the way in Europe with far-reaching anti-Muslim laws. The so-called “Imam package” is defined by significant totalitarian features usually seen in the most infamous police states. Are we witnessing the reemergence of totalitarianism in Europe?
Political pioneering has never quite characterised Danish politics. Throughout the last few centuries, domestic and economic policies have been copied almost directly from Denmark’s big neighbouring states: Germany, France and Britain. From Bismarck’s welfare state to Thatcher’s revival of raw Capitalism, the same changes in Central and Western Europe eventually happen in Denmark, but with a delay of some years or even decades.
The same lack of originality is found in Danish foreign policy which has always been defined by the world’s current major powers. It supported France when Napoleon peaked in power until the British bombardment of Copenhagen in 1807, which changed Copenhagen’s loyalty from Paris to London. Denmark, unlike Norway, pledged its allegiance to Berlin when Nazi Germany looked like it was winning the war until Hitler’s devastating loss in Stalingrad consequently made Denmark a British ally again.
The newly appointed Danish foreign minister, Anders Samuelsen, was asked recently about his vision for Danish foreign policy to which he plainly answered: “my vision is to do what the US tells us to do”.[1] The same pathetic answer could really have come from any Danish foreign minister since the beginning of the Cold War when America became the world’s leading superpower.
Similarly, when security and integration politics were fused together by Western governments after 9/11, Denmark became even more eager to “learn” from its big neighbours. The so-called counter terrorism laws and prevent strategies of Britain is mirrored by the policies in Denmark. The “tough on Muslims” rhetoric from French and Dutch politicians is echoed in Denmark, not only from the right-wing, but from labour and socialist parties as well.
rest here
https://www.islam21c.com/current-affairs/new-imam-bill-makes-islam-a-crime/
And it gets worse
Salaam
Another update
Harsh anti-Muslim Danish laws are similar to UK CT policies and demand our urgent civil action
In Denmark, government ministers, influenced by the far-right, have approved a raft of laws that aim to purify Europe of the influence of “others”, especially Muslims.
The laws target low income neighbourhoods, referred to as “ghettos”. Officials and media use this term to victimise: an adult is a “ghetto parent” while a youth is a “ghetto child”. So far, nobody seems humane or conscious enough to question these designations.
Beside this language of colonisation and racism, the laws themselves are an example of how in Europe – and even in Britain – the “muscular liberalism” heralded by the likes of David Cameron in his 2011 Munich Speech, and enforced through PREVENT and its global counterpart, CVE, is taken to its truthful end.
Denmark’s laws serve as a warning to us all. In the midst of the broad shift to the far-right across Europe – driven in large part by Islamophobia – the paths taken by Denmark and the UK share similarities that demand our attention.
How the welfare state has morphed into a neoconservative weapon
Both the UK and Denmark have a strong welfare state tradition, and both have found that tradition destabilised in the wake of the financial downturn of the last decade.
A hard right-wing element of the state – the ruling Conservatives in the UK, and the populist Danish People’s Party in Denmark – have taken that opportunity to undermine the welfare tradition further, twisting their systems from being safety nets, into ones of conditional welfare.
This has opened these sectors to securitisation and even social engineering. Be they ‘integration’ proposals in Denmark or Prevent in the UK, this development is sold through a lens of national values – with the notion of ‘British Values’ serving as a litmus test for extremism in Britain.
Through this lens, migrants, and especially Muslims, are framed at best as people who don’t belong, at worst criminals – this opens them up to alienation, sanctions and punishment. Bending a welfare state tradition to hard neoconservative aims has securitised the social sector and facilitated policies of social engineering.
Right here in the UK, the cutback of public funding under austerity and its re-emergence under the banner of Prevent means Muslim community organisations, many operating out of the most deprived communities in Britain, can only exist provided they help combat ‘extremism’ and engineer Muslim communities in line with ‘British Values’.
In both Denmark and the UK, this hard right assault was made possible through the complicity of liberal parties and the silence of the population at large, and scaffolded by the twin arms of War on Terror-era Islamophobia and anti-migrant xenophobia.
So while the forced removal of children under these integration proposals is obviously a policy in Denmark, we must be vigilant against similar state actions in the UK, which are prone to appear under a more pleasing disguise.
The use of Eurocentric “values” to hide the intent to take children away
To understand the social engineering aspect of Denmark’s laws – and those that facilitate Britain’s PREVENT policy – they must be seen against the backdrop of a history of failed and cruel attempts to assimilate immigrants in countries like the Netherlands and those of Scandinavia.
Since the early 20th century, whole government departments have been dedicated to “re-educating”, by force if necessary, errant brown people to white middle-class norms. A key tactic of this is to remove and “re-educate” children. These norms and values are seen – ironically one might point out given this violent paradigm – as respectable.
But it is not only Muslims that can be affected by these laws. They harken towards a dystopia, where freedoms like privacy and culture, and the right to raise and nurture children, is taken out of the hands of the parents and placed firmly in the hands of the state.
As one left-liberal admitted to the New York Times, somewhat euphemistically: “There is always a strong sense of authoritarian risk.”
The courts as tools of institutionalised racism
To understand just how authoritarian and scary these laws are, here they are at a glance:
What is obvious from this, is that the Danish government seeks to preserve white European society even, and exceptionally, at the cost of erasing the cultural, religious and racial identity of those that look different from them, but who nonetheless must seek shelter at its shores from wars that these self-same European governments support.
In other words, by disrupting the bonds between generations and disintegrating families, Danes hope to preserve themselves.
We saw the likeness of this cowardly behaviour of US border police under the orders of Donald Trump at the US-Mexican border, also under the guise of immigration “policy”.
We hear echoes of it in the stories of families who have lost children unjustly through PREVENT.
A veneer of respectability to gloss over the intent
The Danish Justice minister’s dismissive retort that ‘increased penalties would affect only people who break the law’ exemplifies how policing policies in the War on Terror-era hide behind a veil of neutrality while in truth they abuse the rule of law and target children.
The pattern is such: against a backdrop of alarmist rhetoric, the net is cast wider to criminalise more behaviours, and suspect communities are arbitrarily subject to heavier and heavier policing.
This exceptional state of policing is then expanded to the rest of society – and unjust crime and punishment will not end in the Danish ghettos, just like it will not end with Muslims under PREVENT.
Though the Danish laws target immigrants, counter-terrorism laws in the UK appear to target would-be criminals, whose potential for crime is determined by the state.
It is the state that evaluates the would-be criminals’ future behaviour on malleable definitions such as “extremism” (another term that nobody has really agreed upon or challenged). But they do so not, as they claim, to “safeguard”, but to crack down on belief and dissent.
Unlike the obviousness of the Danes, PREVENT and CVE employ a number of disguises. By employing a scientifically invalid method for determining “radicalisation”, which is dressed up as fact, children are being removed from families.
The overall result is not only trauma and alienation – which has far-reaching consequences for society – but the enforcement of a racial hierarchy that is frankly past its sell-by date. We must be vigilant against these efforts, whether they are obvious or disguised.
Given the serious implication if these laws, our calls must be followed by urgent civil action, resistance and then, if this fails and we must do so, disobedience.
https://www.cage.ngo/harsh-anti-mus...t-policies-and-demand-our-urgent-civil-action
Another update
Harsh anti-Muslim Danish laws are similar to UK CT policies and demand our urgent civil action
In Denmark, government ministers, influenced by the far-right, have approved a raft of laws that aim to purify Europe of the influence of “others”, especially Muslims.
The laws target low income neighbourhoods, referred to as “ghettos”. Officials and media use this term to victimise: an adult is a “ghetto parent” while a youth is a “ghetto child”. So far, nobody seems humane or conscious enough to question these designations.
Beside this language of colonisation and racism, the laws themselves are an example of how in Europe – and even in Britain – the “muscular liberalism” heralded by the likes of David Cameron in his 2011 Munich Speech, and enforced through PREVENT and its global counterpart, CVE, is taken to its truthful end.
Denmark’s laws serve as a warning to us all. In the midst of the broad shift to the far-right across Europe – driven in large part by Islamophobia – the paths taken by Denmark and the UK share similarities that demand our attention.
How the welfare state has morphed into a neoconservative weapon
Both the UK and Denmark have a strong welfare state tradition, and both have found that tradition destabilised in the wake of the financial downturn of the last decade.
A hard right-wing element of the state – the ruling Conservatives in the UK, and the populist Danish People’s Party in Denmark – have taken that opportunity to undermine the welfare tradition further, twisting their systems from being safety nets, into ones of conditional welfare.
This has opened these sectors to securitisation and even social engineering. Be they ‘integration’ proposals in Denmark or Prevent in the UK, this development is sold through a lens of national values – with the notion of ‘British Values’ serving as a litmus test for extremism in Britain.
Through this lens, migrants, and especially Muslims, are framed at best as people who don’t belong, at worst criminals – this opens them up to alienation, sanctions and punishment. Bending a welfare state tradition to hard neoconservative aims has securitised the social sector and facilitated policies of social engineering.
Right here in the UK, the cutback of public funding under austerity and its re-emergence under the banner of Prevent means Muslim community organisations, many operating out of the most deprived communities in Britain, can only exist provided they help combat ‘extremism’ and engineer Muslim communities in line with ‘British Values’.
In both Denmark and the UK, this hard right assault was made possible through the complicity of liberal parties and the silence of the population at large, and scaffolded by the twin arms of War on Terror-era Islamophobia and anti-migrant xenophobia.
So while the forced removal of children under these integration proposals is obviously a policy in Denmark, we must be vigilant against similar state actions in the UK, which are prone to appear under a more pleasing disguise.
The use of Eurocentric “values” to hide the intent to take children away
To understand the social engineering aspect of Denmark’s laws – and those that facilitate Britain’s PREVENT policy – they must be seen against the backdrop of a history of failed and cruel attempts to assimilate immigrants in countries like the Netherlands and those of Scandinavia.
Since the early 20th century, whole government departments have been dedicated to “re-educating”, by force if necessary, errant brown people to white middle-class norms. A key tactic of this is to remove and “re-educate” children. These norms and values are seen – ironically one might point out given this violent paradigm – as respectable.
But it is not only Muslims that can be affected by these laws. They harken towards a dystopia, where freedoms like privacy and culture, and the right to raise and nurture children, is taken out of the hands of the parents and placed firmly in the hands of the state.
As one left-liberal admitted to the New York Times, somewhat euphemistically: “There is always a strong sense of authoritarian risk.”
The courts as tools of institutionalised racism
To understand just how authoritarian and scary these laws are, here they are at a glance:
- laws ensuring that “ghetto children” are separated from their families for at least 25 hours a week, not including nap time. This is so they can undergo mandatory instruction in “Danish values,” including the traditions of Christmas and Easter (even though the vast majority of Danes are not practising Christians), and the Danish language. Noncompliance could result in a stoppage of welfare payments.
- Punishments for citizens who live in one of the 25 targeted “ghetto neighbourhoods” are doubled for certain crimes, and based on residents’ income, employment status, education level, number of criminal convictions and “non-Western background”.
- Immigrant parents who allow their children to make “extended” visits to their countries of origin can face a four-year prison sentence
What is obvious from this, is that the Danish government seeks to preserve white European society even, and exceptionally, at the cost of erasing the cultural, religious and racial identity of those that look different from them, but who nonetheless must seek shelter at its shores from wars that these self-same European governments support.
In other words, by disrupting the bonds between generations and disintegrating families, Danes hope to preserve themselves.
We saw the likeness of this cowardly behaviour of US border police under the orders of Donald Trump at the US-Mexican border, also under the guise of immigration “policy”.
We hear echoes of it in the stories of families who have lost children unjustly through PREVENT.
A veneer of respectability to gloss over the intent
The Danish Justice minister’s dismissive retort that ‘increased penalties would affect only people who break the law’ exemplifies how policing policies in the War on Terror-era hide behind a veil of neutrality while in truth they abuse the rule of law and target children.
The pattern is such: against a backdrop of alarmist rhetoric, the net is cast wider to criminalise more behaviours, and suspect communities are arbitrarily subject to heavier and heavier policing.
This exceptional state of policing is then expanded to the rest of society – and unjust crime and punishment will not end in the Danish ghettos, just like it will not end with Muslims under PREVENT.
Though the Danish laws target immigrants, counter-terrorism laws in the UK appear to target would-be criminals, whose potential for crime is determined by the state.
It is the state that evaluates the would-be criminals’ future behaviour on malleable definitions such as “extremism” (another term that nobody has really agreed upon or challenged). But they do so not, as they claim, to “safeguard”, but to crack down on belief and dissent.
Unlike the obviousness of the Danes, PREVENT and CVE employ a number of disguises. By employing a scientifically invalid method for determining “radicalisation”, which is dressed up as fact, children are being removed from families.
The overall result is not only trauma and alienation – which has far-reaching consequences for society – but the enforcement of a racial hierarchy that is frankly past its sell-by date. We must be vigilant against these efforts, whether they are obvious or disguised.
Given the serious implication if these laws, our calls must be followed by urgent civil action, resistance and then, if this fails and we must do so, disobedience.
https://www.cage.ngo/harsh-anti-mus...t-policies-and-demand-our-urgent-civil-action
Salaam
Another update
Wonderful from the Tory party.
so the UK is well on the way to becoming a secular theocracy. . . .
Difficulties of being a Muslim student
This wasnt part of the plan!
Another update
Wonderful from the Tory party.
so the UK is well on the way to becoming a secular theocracy. . . .
Difficulties of being a Muslim student
This wasnt part of the plan!
Last edited:
Salaam
The globalists are going to remake Islam in their own image. They are quite open about it
The globalists are going to remake Islam in their own image. They are quite open about it
Salaam
Another update, unusual perspective.
Silencing Diversity in the Name of Diversity
In my latest book, Being in Time – a Post Political Manifesto, I explored different tactics used by the New Left – a loose collective of Frankfurt School graduates -- to destroy political diversity and intellectual exchange. I concluded that the ‘new order’ is maintained by ensuring that so-called ‘correctness’ dominates our vocabulary. We are drowning in jargon, slogans and sound bites designed to suppress authentic thinking and more important, to suppress humane intellectual exchange. As I finished writing the book, I understood that this new language is a well-orchestrated attempt to obliterate our Western Athenian ethos in favor of a new Jerusalemite regime of ‘correctness.’
Yesterday I was interviewed by Pakistani Journalist Tazeen Hasan. She was interested in my take on Islamophobia. Hasan, I guess, expected me to denounce Islamophobia. Since I am opposed to any form of bigotry*, hatred of Muslims is no exception. Though I am obviously troubled and strongly disagree with the views that are voiced with the so-called 'Islamophbes,' I am also troubled by the notion of ‘Islamophobia’. As opposed to the Identitarian Left, I contend that we humans should seek what unites us as humans. We should refuse to be shoved into biologically oriented (like gender, skin colour, sexual orientation etc.) boxes. I was probably expected to criticise Islamophobia by recycling a few tired slogans, but that was not my approach to the question. Instead of dealing with 'Islamophobia,' I decided that we should first dissect the notion of ‘phobia.’ I asked why some activists attribute ‘phobic’ inclinations (Islamophobia, homophobia, Judeophobia, etc.) to those with whom they disagree.
‘Phobia’ is defined as an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something. Accordingly, the notion of ‘Islamophobia,’ attributes irrationality or even madness to those who oppose Muslims and Islam. It suggests that ‘fear of Islam’ is an irrational hatred. This turns Islamophobia into a crazy fear of Islam that doesn’t deserve intellectual scrutiny, let alone an intellectual debate.
But fear of Musilms might be rational. As things stand, we in the West have been actively engaged in the destruction of Muslims and their countries for at least a century. We plunder their resources, we invade their lands, and we even gave some of their land to the so called ‘people of the book,’ and when those people committed a brutal ethnic cleansing, consistent with their ‘book,’ the West turned a blind eye. For the last three decades this genocidal war against Muslims and Arabs has intensified and become an official Western policy. This transition is the achievement of the Neocon school, who have attempted to redefine Zionism as the struggle for a promised planet instead of just a promised land.
Within the context of the global war we have declared on Muslims and Arabs on behalf of Zion, in the name of Coca Cola and Gay Rights, it is rational to expect that at some point Muslims may retaliate. So those who fear Muslims are not necessarily crazy or mad, they may even be more ethically aware or even guilt ridden than the progressives who castigate them for having ‘phobias’.’ If we are looking to dismantle ‘Islamic danger’ then we should find a rational and peaceful solution to the war we declared on Muslims. It will be probably more effective not to drop bombs on Arabs than to label fear of Muslims as irrational. Obliterating Israel’s nuclear facilities could also be a reasonable path to peace. A total embargo on Israel would probably be the most effective way to calm the Middle East. That would certainly induce some deep thinking in the Jewish State that has been the catalyst in this developing global war.
It seems the term ‘phobia’ is routinely attached to anyone who disagrees with the new order. Are all those who oppose gay rights driven by ‘phobia’? Is it really ‘irrational’ for pious people (Christians, Muslims and Jews, etc.) to detect that gay culture may interfere with their churches or family values? Instead of addressing these conservative concerns, the New Left prefers to employ tyrannical abusive language designed to delegitimise the opposition. Similarly, those who look into organised Jewry and its political lobbying are reduced to ‘Judeophobes.’ But given the growing number of studies of the domineering effect of the Jewish Lobby in the USA, Britain and France, is it really ‘irrational’ or an act of ‘madness’ to scrutinise this lobby’s activity and the culture that fuels it?
However, in spite of these Orwellian ‘phobic’ tactics, awareness of its effects has grown. Increasingly, people see that the New Left corrosive agenda is driving these divisive Identitarian tactics. The tyrannical regime of correctness is a Machiavellian operation that in the name of ‘diversity,’ attempts to eliminate diversity all together. It dismisses the concerns of the so called ‘enemy’ by labelling them as irrational fears.
My message here is simple. The war against us is facilitated by cultural means. We are constantly subjected to terminological manipulations. To win this war we must first spot the terminological shifts as they appear. Then we have to identify those who put such manipulative tactics into play.
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2018/7/16/silencing-diversity-in-the-name-of-diversity
Another update, unusual perspective.
Silencing Diversity in the Name of Diversity
In my latest book, Being in Time – a Post Political Manifesto, I explored different tactics used by the New Left – a loose collective of Frankfurt School graduates -- to destroy political diversity and intellectual exchange. I concluded that the ‘new order’ is maintained by ensuring that so-called ‘correctness’ dominates our vocabulary. We are drowning in jargon, slogans and sound bites designed to suppress authentic thinking and more important, to suppress humane intellectual exchange. As I finished writing the book, I understood that this new language is a well-orchestrated attempt to obliterate our Western Athenian ethos in favor of a new Jerusalemite regime of ‘correctness.’
Yesterday I was interviewed by Pakistani Journalist Tazeen Hasan. She was interested in my take on Islamophobia. Hasan, I guess, expected me to denounce Islamophobia. Since I am opposed to any form of bigotry*, hatred of Muslims is no exception. Though I am obviously troubled and strongly disagree with the views that are voiced with the so-called 'Islamophbes,' I am also troubled by the notion of ‘Islamophobia’. As opposed to the Identitarian Left, I contend that we humans should seek what unites us as humans. We should refuse to be shoved into biologically oriented (like gender, skin colour, sexual orientation etc.) boxes. I was probably expected to criticise Islamophobia by recycling a few tired slogans, but that was not my approach to the question. Instead of dealing with 'Islamophobia,' I decided that we should first dissect the notion of ‘phobia.’ I asked why some activists attribute ‘phobic’ inclinations (Islamophobia, homophobia, Judeophobia, etc.) to those with whom they disagree.
‘Phobia’ is defined as an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something. Accordingly, the notion of ‘Islamophobia,’ attributes irrationality or even madness to those who oppose Muslims and Islam. It suggests that ‘fear of Islam’ is an irrational hatred. This turns Islamophobia into a crazy fear of Islam that doesn’t deserve intellectual scrutiny, let alone an intellectual debate.
But fear of Musilms might be rational. As things stand, we in the West have been actively engaged in the destruction of Muslims and their countries for at least a century. We plunder their resources, we invade their lands, and we even gave some of their land to the so called ‘people of the book,’ and when those people committed a brutal ethnic cleansing, consistent with their ‘book,’ the West turned a blind eye. For the last three decades this genocidal war against Muslims and Arabs has intensified and become an official Western policy. This transition is the achievement of the Neocon school, who have attempted to redefine Zionism as the struggle for a promised planet instead of just a promised land.
Within the context of the global war we have declared on Muslims and Arabs on behalf of Zion, in the name of Coca Cola and Gay Rights, it is rational to expect that at some point Muslims may retaliate. So those who fear Muslims are not necessarily crazy or mad, they may even be more ethically aware or even guilt ridden than the progressives who castigate them for having ‘phobias’.’ If we are looking to dismantle ‘Islamic danger’ then we should find a rational and peaceful solution to the war we declared on Muslims. It will be probably more effective not to drop bombs on Arabs than to label fear of Muslims as irrational. Obliterating Israel’s nuclear facilities could also be a reasonable path to peace. A total embargo on Israel would probably be the most effective way to calm the Middle East. That would certainly induce some deep thinking in the Jewish State that has been the catalyst in this developing global war.
It seems the term ‘phobia’ is routinely attached to anyone who disagrees with the new order. Are all those who oppose gay rights driven by ‘phobia’? Is it really ‘irrational’ for pious people (Christians, Muslims and Jews, etc.) to detect that gay culture may interfere with their churches or family values? Instead of addressing these conservative concerns, the New Left prefers to employ tyrannical abusive language designed to delegitimise the opposition. Similarly, those who look into organised Jewry and its political lobbying are reduced to ‘Judeophobes.’ But given the growing number of studies of the domineering effect of the Jewish Lobby in the USA, Britain and France, is it really ‘irrational’ or an act of ‘madness’ to scrutinise this lobby’s activity and the culture that fuels it?
However, in spite of these Orwellian ‘phobic’ tactics, awareness of its effects has grown. Increasingly, people see that the New Left corrosive agenda is driving these divisive Identitarian tactics. The tyrannical regime of correctness is a Machiavellian operation that in the name of ‘diversity,’ attempts to eliminate diversity all together. It dismisses the concerns of the so called ‘enemy’ by labelling them as irrational fears.
My message here is simple. The war against us is facilitated by cultural means. We are constantly subjected to terminological manipulations. To win this war we must first spot the terminological shifts as they appear. Then we have to identify those who put such manipulative tactics into play.
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2018/7/16/silencing-diversity-in-the-name-of-diversity
Salaam
More on the failings of Prevent
More British values in action
Oh dear
Whats the matter Dawkins? You spent a substantial amount of your life mocking, ridiculing and trashing Christianity, but whats this? Now that Christianity is disappearing it might not be as bad as you imagined? What a parasite.
More on the failings of Prevent
More British values in action
Oh dear
Whats the matter Dawkins? You spent a substantial amount of your life mocking, ridiculing and trashing Christianity, but whats this? Now that Christianity is disappearing it might not be as bad as you imagined? What a parasite.
Last edited:
Salaam
Like to share
Blurb
FULL never seen before Exclusive interview with Professor Tariq Ramadan and Moazzam Begg In this inspiring interview we discuss: - Where do we begin our fight for Justice - What is the reality of ‘Moderate Islam’ - How best to respond to being targeted and maligned - Our duty to speak up for the oppressed. - How do we manifest our faith and values in our work for Justice! and why Professor Tariq Ramadan doesn’t like people applauding his speeches… Make sure you take the time to watch this short, yet immensely powerful interview!
Like to share
Blurb
FULL never seen before Exclusive interview with Professor Tariq Ramadan and Moazzam Begg In this inspiring interview we discuss: - Where do we begin our fight for Justice - What is the reality of ‘Moderate Islam’ - How best to respond to being targeted and maligned - Our duty to speak up for the oppressed. - How do we manifest our faith and values in our work for Justice! and why Professor Tariq Ramadan doesn’t like people applauding his speeches… Make sure you take the time to watch this short, yet immensely powerful interview!
Salaam
Another update
UK government’s exploitation of child spies amounts to state-sanctioned child abuse
London – The Home Office and security services are exploiting children as young as 16 to be used as spies – known as ‘Covert Human Intelligence Sources’ (CHIS) – within violent gangs, and to gather intelligence on terrorism suspects, endangering their welfare in the process.
In addition to the flagrant disregard for the rights of children, it is possible that youths caught for crimes are ‘re-deployed’ into spying operations, and then undergo surveillance themselves while spying, for vetting purposes.
Serious questions then arise as to whether these ‘juveniles’ are being coerced into spying to avoid prosecution; this would amount to ‘state sanctioned child abuse’.
Moreover, it is ironic that the Security Minister Ben Wallace, who has publicly defended this exploitative policy, continues to defend the intrusion of PREVENT surveillance into families on the pretence of ‘safeguarding’.
It appears that the concept of ‘safeguarding’, in the hands of the state, can be invoked and discarded at will – without any regard for the genuine welfare of children.
This pattern of entrapment, harassment and recruitment of the vulnerable by intelligence services has been documented previously by CAGE.
Asim Qureshi, research director for CAGE, said:
“This is nothing more than the recruitment of child soldiers in a more sugar-coated guise. It is now simply naive to believe that government is concerned with “safeguarding” the vulnerable. Such a claim would entail putting the well-being of children at the core of all of its decisions, but this latest revelation amounts to evidence of state-sanctioned child abuse.”
“It is now plain to see that the British government has lost all touch with what is just, good and practical in terms of bringing communities together. We thought it was bad when Mi5 was shown (link to report) to be taking advantage of the vulnerable including the mentally challenged, but this approach is even more cynical and abusive. We call for the immediate cessation of such abuse.”
https://www.cage.ngo/uk-governments-exploitation-of-child-spies-amounts-to-state-sanctioned-child-abuse
Another update
UK government’s exploitation of child spies amounts to state-sanctioned child abuse
London – The Home Office and security services are exploiting children as young as 16 to be used as spies – known as ‘Covert Human Intelligence Sources’ (CHIS) – within violent gangs, and to gather intelligence on terrorism suspects, endangering their welfare in the process.
In addition to the flagrant disregard for the rights of children, it is possible that youths caught for crimes are ‘re-deployed’ into spying operations, and then undergo surveillance themselves while spying, for vetting purposes.
Serious questions then arise as to whether these ‘juveniles’ are being coerced into spying to avoid prosecution; this would amount to ‘state sanctioned child abuse’.
Moreover, it is ironic that the Security Minister Ben Wallace, who has publicly defended this exploitative policy, continues to defend the intrusion of PREVENT surveillance into families on the pretence of ‘safeguarding’.
It appears that the concept of ‘safeguarding’, in the hands of the state, can be invoked and discarded at will – without any regard for the genuine welfare of children.
This pattern of entrapment, harassment and recruitment of the vulnerable by intelligence services has been documented previously by CAGE.
Asim Qureshi, research director for CAGE, said:
“This is nothing more than the recruitment of child soldiers in a more sugar-coated guise. It is now simply naive to believe that government is concerned with “safeguarding” the vulnerable. Such a claim would entail putting the well-being of children at the core of all of its decisions, but this latest revelation amounts to evidence of state-sanctioned child abuse.”
“It is now plain to see that the British government has lost all touch with what is just, good and practical in terms of bringing communities together. We thought it was bad when Mi5 was shown (link to report) to be taking advantage of the vulnerable including the mentally challenged, but this approach is even more cynical and abusive. We call for the immediate cessation of such abuse.”
https://www.cage.ngo/uk-governments-exploitation-of-child-spies-amounts-to-state-sanctioned-child-abuse
Salaam
Another update. Seems the government mass conversion campaign isn't going to plan, naturally they have to whine about.
Sara Khan says “extremists” are changing tactics and are “intellectualising hate”
The government’s controversial Commissioner for Countering Extremism, Sara Khan, has said that the tactics of “extremists” are changing, including an “intellectualising of hate” and a “misuse of human rights language.”
Writing in the Eastern Eye, Khan said she had spent the last few months travelling the country, engaging with 300 people, visiting 10 cities and speaking to academics, experts, faith leaders, women’s organisations, youth groups, civil society groups and others.
She wrote: “Whether its Birmingham or Bradford, Leeds or Liverpool, I was struck by the view that in 2018 the stereotypes of far-right thugs or Islamist hate preachers don’t always ring true. The tactics of extremists are changing. This includes a new-found professionalism, an intellectualising of hate and the misuse of human rights language.
“Social media has created new opportunities for the spread of hateful content and how ‘keyboard bigots’ who spread conspiracy theories, are having an increasing influence out in communities
“But we have just scratched the surface. We need to look into the scale and harm of extremism, and ask difficult questions about extremism in communal settings, such as schools and places of worship. Whether it’s Far Right, Islamist or other forms of extremism, we need to investigate extremists’ changing tactics.”
Meanwhile, Khan has formed a new “Expert Group” to report on counter extremism strategy which includes several pro-Prevent and establishment figures such as the Tell Mama founder Fiyaz Mughal and the former Met police officer Mark Rowley.
The purpose of the Expert Group is to provide Khan with “constructive advice” in her first 12 months of the Commission on “gathering evidence, publishing a comprehensive study and making recommendations to the Home Secretary, including a workplan for the Commission in future years.”
When she was appointed to her £140,000 a year three-day-a-week post in January, more than a hundred Muslim leaders in the UK signed a joint statement condemning Khan’s appointment.
They said she had no grassroots credibility with the Muslim community and no academic background or serious practical experience upon which to take up the role.
They said: “We believe that this appointment will further damage relations between the Government and Muslim communities. We have no confidence in this appointment and firmly believe that Muslim communities will refuse to liaise with Miss Khan thereby defeating the purpose of her appointment to the role.”
Khan’s “Expert Group” includes Fiyaz Mughal, the founder and director of Faith Matters and Tell Mama; Sir Mark Rowley, the former Assistant Commissioner for Specialist Operations of the Metropolitan Police; Lord Anderson, the government’s Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation 2011 to 2017; Dame Louise Casey, who carried out and published the Casey Review into social integration and opportunity in December 2016 which also looked at the effects of extremism on integration; and Dr Azeem Ibrahim, a Research Professor at the Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College.
https://5pillarsuk.com/2018/07/22/sara-khan-says-extremists-are-changing-tactics-and-are-intellectualising-hate/
Another update. Seems the government mass conversion campaign isn't going to plan, naturally they have to whine about.
Sara Khan says “extremists” are changing tactics and are “intellectualising hate”
The government’s controversial Commissioner for Countering Extremism, Sara Khan, has said that the tactics of “extremists” are changing, including an “intellectualising of hate” and a “misuse of human rights language.”
Writing in the Eastern Eye, Khan said she had spent the last few months travelling the country, engaging with 300 people, visiting 10 cities and speaking to academics, experts, faith leaders, women’s organisations, youth groups, civil society groups and others.
She wrote: “Whether its Birmingham or Bradford, Leeds or Liverpool, I was struck by the view that in 2018 the stereotypes of far-right thugs or Islamist hate preachers don’t always ring true. The tactics of extremists are changing. This includes a new-found professionalism, an intellectualising of hate and the misuse of human rights language.
“Social media has created new opportunities for the spread of hateful content and how ‘keyboard bigots’ who spread conspiracy theories, are having an increasing influence out in communities
“But we have just scratched the surface. We need to look into the scale and harm of extremism, and ask difficult questions about extremism in communal settings, such as schools and places of worship. Whether it’s Far Right, Islamist or other forms of extremism, we need to investigate extremists’ changing tactics.”
Meanwhile, Khan has formed a new “Expert Group” to report on counter extremism strategy which includes several pro-Prevent and establishment figures such as the Tell Mama founder Fiyaz Mughal and the former Met police officer Mark Rowley.
The purpose of the Expert Group is to provide Khan with “constructive advice” in her first 12 months of the Commission on “gathering evidence, publishing a comprehensive study and making recommendations to the Home Secretary, including a workplan for the Commission in future years.”
When she was appointed to her £140,000 a year three-day-a-week post in January, more than a hundred Muslim leaders in the UK signed a joint statement condemning Khan’s appointment.
They said she had no grassroots credibility with the Muslim community and no academic background or serious practical experience upon which to take up the role.
They said: “We believe that this appointment will further damage relations between the Government and Muslim communities. We have no confidence in this appointment and firmly believe that Muslim communities will refuse to liaise with Miss Khan thereby defeating the purpose of her appointment to the role.”
Khan’s “Expert Group” includes Fiyaz Mughal, the founder and director of Faith Matters and Tell Mama; Sir Mark Rowley, the former Assistant Commissioner for Specialist Operations of the Metropolitan Police; Lord Anderson, the government’s Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation 2011 to 2017; Dame Louise Casey, who carried out and published the Casey Review into social integration and opportunity in December 2016 which also looked at the effects of extremism on integration; and Dr Azeem Ibrahim, a Research Professor at the Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College.
https://5pillarsuk.com/2018/07/22/sara-khan-says-extremists-are-changing-tactics-and-are-intellectualising-hate/
Salaam
Another update
Why Ozil’s Resignation Is More Than a Goodbye to Football: Cultural Hegemony, Colonialism, and Dual Identity Fatigue
On Sunday, thousands of football fans learnt that Arsenal’s midfielder Mesut Ozil, had chosen to resign from international football. Releasing the statement on his social media that called out the continued racist attacks by the media against his dual Turkish-German heritage, his resignation not only demonstrates the continued existence of xenophobia, discrimination and racism that exists within football, but has also highlighted the identity crisis that those who belong to diaspora communities experience whilst living in Europe.
There can be no denial about the fact that sports events, such as the Olympics or the World Cup, have a significant impact on communities and countries from across the world. An idea is presented to us that by wearing the shirts of the countries we choose to be associated with, we are a ‘part of the team’ irrespective of our physical and cultural differences. During this period, a unique process of political amnesia occurs in which divisions and suspicions are put aside as we come together to celebrate a mutual goal – winning.
However, we cannot forget the divisive consequences of sport, especially when it comes to football. Whilst there is definitely a level of positivity and cooperation that is produced as a result of playing for or supporting a football team, we cannot reduce this to merely an apolitical institution – we cannot be lulled into a false sense of security that minimises and reduces our struggles and micro-aggressions, especially in an institution which has constantly been in the headlines for its racism and xenophobia. Within society, there seems to be a continued failure to view the cultural institution as being reflective of political issues, tensions and affairs.
An idea is prevalent that political and cultural institutions exist in separate paradigms, existing on individual trajectories that will never intersect. We cannot, however, continue to silence the rising sentiment and voices of those who show the extension of politics into our cultural institutions. Football has always been a clear indication of this fact, with Mesut Ozil’s resignation only adding to a number of growing complaints that exist. But when analysing these issues, it becomes clear that within our everyday mundane cultural institutions, such as TV shows, movies and also football, there is a clear reproduction of neocolonial ideals and mentalities that continue to oppress and suppress certain identities. Not only is there a prominence of biological racism, but we are also seeing the continued growth, rise, and normalisation of ‘cultural racism’.
Cultural racism
Cultural racism is defined as a form of racism that focuses explicitly on cultural differences, rather than biological markers of identity and stresses the superiority of certain cultures and practices over others. As a result, this process simultaneously reproduces the ‘Otherness’ of certain cultures and highlights their inferiority. This is an idea that is most evidently seen in the work of postcolonial thinkers like Frantz Fanon, who in his book ‘The Wretched of the Earth’, explains how the ‘Self’ and the ‘Other’ will always be viewed to exist in separate paradigms, thus making cooperation, assimilation and integration impossible as they are seen to be ‘two separate species’.
This is most evidently seen in football where losses often see to certain footballers losing their European identity and being reassigned the identity of the hostile ‘Other’. From Benzema to Lukaku and now Ozil, their identities as ‘Arab, Congolese and Turkish’ are highlighted and amplified whenever their national teams are at a loss, yet when they succeed they are described as ‘French, Belgian and German’. This demonstrates a clear separation between the dual identity of these players, where only their success and victory are associated with their European identities, whilst moments of loss and inferiority are associated with the ‘Other’. This criticism of success and failure is also seen through the continued need from the press to associate the failure and success of a national team to specific individuals.
Not only is this something that Ozil points out, but many also criticised the treatment of Raheem Sterling (English professional footballer who plays as a winger and attacking midfielder for Premier League club Manchester City and the English national team) by the media. Who continuously attacked his performance, which was called out by his fellow teammate Harry Kane. Not only does this demonstrate the continued racism and discrimination that individuals face, but it echoes and reaffirms colonial ideals and practices in which certain groups of individuals are viewed with failure and hostility. And only recognised to be treated unfairly when a white or European team player recognises and amplifies the hypocrisy. Despite wearing the shirts of the team, and despite physically stripping themselves of their external identity and adopting new ones, overt narratives of exclusion and alienation remain.
Ozil and celebrating otherness
Such alienation can be seen in instances where we choose to accept or celebrate the identity of that which is deemed to be the ‘Other’. In the case of Ozil, he is clearly vindicated and vilified for accepting and celebrating his Turkish heritage by the press. As he explains within his resignation, his meeting with President Erdogan sparked criticism and debate not only within the media, but he was also asked to justify his actions and reassure individuals that this was not political. As a result of this process, many organisations refused to work with him, thus demonstrating the clear instance in which those with dual identities are made to ‘choose’ between identities, and thus choose which heritage they must be loyal to. The existence of cultural hegemony and cultural colonialism becomes very clear; not only does one have to strip oneself of any other cultural ideals, practices and beliefs and wholly and solely adopt this ‘new identity’, but effectively one must subjugate oneself to this new way of life in order to prove themselves.
How this plays out for second and third generation
This is reflective of a wider trend and experience that many young people, especially those who belong to diaspora communities and have settled in European countries have had to face – an identity crisis in which they are constantly asked to choose between two seemingly opposed identities and prove their loyalty. Not only is this a tiring process, but effectively this has a significant impact on the physical, mental and emotional health and wellbeing of the individual. This is most evidently seen in the case of the Muslim community, where Islamophobia has constantly led Muslims to undergo a ‘loyalty’ or ‘citizenship test’ – irrespective of whether they are an average civilian, or well known politician or footballer.
For many Muslims, it becomes harder and harder to navigate between two seemingly alternative identities that are constantly painted to be opposed to each other. Not only has Ozil’s resignation triggered the debate regarding what it means to be a ‘European’, but effectively it also raises interesting questions regarding multiculturalism and integration – is this truly possible when we are constantly viewed as the ‘Other’? For integration to be possible and for multiculturalism to be accepted and celebrated, we must acknowledge the existence of cultural hegemony and realise that alternate cultures cannot be viewed with hostility and must be given spaces that sit alongside our own. By taking a stand and directly challenging this narrative of cultural hegemony, Ozil has not only shed light upon this covert Orientalist narrative that continues to surround and plague those of us who are physically viewed to be the ‘Other.’ But it also demonstrates how we can use existing mechanisms and tools such as social media and even formal methods of resignation to peacefully resist being ‘otherised’.
As Ozil’s statement highlights, we need to make sure that we drop the lens of hostility and suspicion in our approach towards each other, and move towards acceptance and mutual respect – an idea that we can all follow and reproduce on both micro and macro levels, whether that be through having difficult discussions in our personal or professional circles, or by simply reminding ourselves to be kind and polite in our etiquette and conduct with others.
It is important to realise that integration will only be possible once we view and accept each other as equal citizens of the Earth – an ideal that can be achieved if we inform each other and seek knowledge about ourselves and the other.
We must rid ourselves of negative stereotypes, and constantly try to find the good within each other. Moreso now than ever, we must look internally and understand ourselves first, rather than relying on others to tell us who we are. As Muslims, it is our duty and focus to seek ‘ilm’, or knowledge – it is only through this process that we will be able to reaffirm and recognise our identity in moments of complications, hardship and in situations where we may lose sight of who we are.
https://www.amaliah.com/post/48453/cultural-hegemony-colonialism-dual-identity-fatigue-ozils-resignation-represents
Another update
Why Ozil’s Resignation Is More Than a Goodbye to Football: Cultural Hegemony, Colonialism, and Dual Identity Fatigue
On Sunday, thousands of football fans learnt that Arsenal’s midfielder Mesut Ozil, had chosen to resign from international football. Releasing the statement on his social media that called out the continued racist attacks by the media against his dual Turkish-German heritage, his resignation not only demonstrates the continued existence of xenophobia, discrimination and racism that exists within football, but has also highlighted the identity crisis that those who belong to diaspora communities experience whilst living in Europe.
There can be no denial about the fact that sports events, such as the Olympics or the World Cup, have a significant impact on communities and countries from across the world. An idea is presented to us that by wearing the shirts of the countries we choose to be associated with, we are a ‘part of the team’ irrespective of our physical and cultural differences. During this period, a unique process of political amnesia occurs in which divisions and suspicions are put aside as we come together to celebrate a mutual goal – winning.
However, we cannot forget the divisive consequences of sport, especially when it comes to football. Whilst there is definitely a level of positivity and cooperation that is produced as a result of playing for or supporting a football team, we cannot reduce this to merely an apolitical institution – we cannot be lulled into a false sense of security that minimises and reduces our struggles and micro-aggressions, especially in an institution which has constantly been in the headlines for its racism and xenophobia. Within society, there seems to be a continued failure to view the cultural institution as being reflective of political issues, tensions and affairs.
An idea is prevalent that political and cultural institutions exist in separate paradigms, existing on individual trajectories that will never intersect. We cannot, however, continue to silence the rising sentiment and voices of those who show the extension of politics into our cultural institutions. Football has always been a clear indication of this fact, with Mesut Ozil’s resignation only adding to a number of growing complaints that exist. But when analysing these issues, it becomes clear that within our everyday mundane cultural institutions, such as TV shows, movies and also football, there is a clear reproduction of neocolonial ideals and mentalities that continue to oppress and suppress certain identities. Not only is there a prominence of biological racism, but we are also seeing the continued growth, rise, and normalisation of ‘cultural racism’.
Cultural racism
Cultural racism is defined as a form of racism that focuses explicitly on cultural differences, rather than biological markers of identity and stresses the superiority of certain cultures and practices over others. As a result, this process simultaneously reproduces the ‘Otherness’ of certain cultures and highlights their inferiority. This is an idea that is most evidently seen in the work of postcolonial thinkers like Frantz Fanon, who in his book ‘The Wretched of the Earth’, explains how the ‘Self’ and the ‘Other’ will always be viewed to exist in separate paradigms, thus making cooperation, assimilation and integration impossible as they are seen to be ‘two separate species’.
This is most evidently seen in football where losses often see to certain footballers losing their European identity and being reassigned the identity of the hostile ‘Other’. From Benzema to Lukaku and now Ozil, their identities as ‘Arab, Congolese and Turkish’ are highlighted and amplified whenever their national teams are at a loss, yet when they succeed they are described as ‘French, Belgian and German’. This demonstrates a clear separation between the dual identity of these players, where only their success and victory are associated with their European identities, whilst moments of loss and inferiority are associated with the ‘Other’. This criticism of success and failure is also seen through the continued need from the press to associate the failure and success of a national team to specific individuals.
Not only is this something that Ozil points out, but many also criticised the treatment of Raheem Sterling (English professional footballer who plays as a winger and attacking midfielder for Premier League club Manchester City and the English national team) by the media. Who continuously attacked his performance, which was called out by his fellow teammate Harry Kane. Not only does this demonstrate the continued racism and discrimination that individuals face, but it echoes and reaffirms colonial ideals and practices in which certain groups of individuals are viewed with failure and hostility. And only recognised to be treated unfairly when a white or European team player recognises and amplifies the hypocrisy. Despite wearing the shirts of the team, and despite physically stripping themselves of their external identity and adopting new ones, overt narratives of exclusion and alienation remain.
Ozil and celebrating otherness
Such alienation can be seen in instances where we choose to accept or celebrate the identity of that which is deemed to be the ‘Other’. In the case of Ozil, he is clearly vindicated and vilified for accepting and celebrating his Turkish heritage by the press. As he explains within his resignation, his meeting with President Erdogan sparked criticism and debate not only within the media, but he was also asked to justify his actions and reassure individuals that this was not political. As a result of this process, many organisations refused to work with him, thus demonstrating the clear instance in which those with dual identities are made to ‘choose’ between identities, and thus choose which heritage they must be loyal to. The existence of cultural hegemony and cultural colonialism becomes very clear; not only does one have to strip oneself of any other cultural ideals, practices and beliefs and wholly and solely adopt this ‘new identity’, but effectively one must subjugate oneself to this new way of life in order to prove themselves.
How this plays out for second and third generation
This is reflective of a wider trend and experience that many young people, especially those who belong to diaspora communities and have settled in European countries have had to face – an identity crisis in which they are constantly asked to choose between two seemingly opposed identities and prove their loyalty. Not only is this a tiring process, but effectively this has a significant impact on the physical, mental and emotional health and wellbeing of the individual. This is most evidently seen in the case of the Muslim community, where Islamophobia has constantly led Muslims to undergo a ‘loyalty’ or ‘citizenship test’ – irrespective of whether they are an average civilian, or well known politician or footballer.
For many Muslims, it becomes harder and harder to navigate between two seemingly alternative identities that are constantly painted to be opposed to each other. Not only has Ozil’s resignation triggered the debate regarding what it means to be a ‘European’, but effectively it also raises interesting questions regarding multiculturalism and integration – is this truly possible when we are constantly viewed as the ‘Other’? For integration to be possible and for multiculturalism to be accepted and celebrated, we must acknowledge the existence of cultural hegemony and realise that alternate cultures cannot be viewed with hostility and must be given spaces that sit alongside our own. By taking a stand and directly challenging this narrative of cultural hegemony, Ozil has not only shed light upon this covert Orientalist narrative that continues to surround and plague those of us who are physically viewed to be the ‘Other.’ But it also demonstrates how we can use existing mechanisms and tools such as social media and even formal methods of resignation to peacefully resist being ‘otherised’.
As Ozil’s statement highlights, we need to make sure that we drop the lens of hostility and suspicion in our approach towards each other, and move towards acceptance and mutual respect – an idea that we can all follow and reproduce on both micro and macro levels, whether that be through having difficult discussions in our personal or professional circles, or by simply reminding ourselves to be kind and polite in our etiquette and conduct with others.
It is important to realise that integration will only be possible once we view and accept each other as equal citizens of the Earth – an ideal that can be achieved if we inform each other and seek knowledge about ourselves and the other.
We must rid ourselves of negative stereotypes, and constantly try to find the good within each other. Moreso now than ever, we must look internally and understand ourselves first, rather than relying on others to tell us who we are. As Muslims, it is our duty and focus to seek ‘ilm’, or knowledge – it is only through this process that we will be able to reaffirm and recognise our identity in moments of complications, hardship and in situations where we may lose sight of who we are.
https://www.amaliah.com/post/48453/cultural-hegemony-colonialism-dual-identity-fatigue-ozils-resignation-represents
Salaam
Another update
The state is harming Muslim and Roma children and families in the same ways
Shezana Hafiz is a law graduate who has spent years involved in grass roots community work, campaigning on justice related issues and leading on some of the most pertinent issues threatening fundamental human rights.
She is currently Community Relations Officer at CAGE.
I had the opportunity a year ago to work at a primary school and gain a thorough insight our current education system’s treatment of Muslim and Roma children.
The school is located in the heart of an area with a high population of Muslim children and in recent years an increasing population of Roma children.
There are many similarities between the treatment of Muslim and Roma children by the British government. The deep prejudice present in our current education and social sectors, mean these children are stigmatised, securitised and in some cases removed from their parents.
The removal of children is happening in the case of Roma communities for vague notions such as “family culture” and among Muslims, for another vague and disputed notion of “extremism”.
Educational institutions are places that have the potential to cultivate healthy and progressive environments for the next generation. But to do this they must enable children to feel safe and secure. The same goes for our social welfare sector.
Criminalising a way of life that is different, but not criminal
Roma children share much in common with Muslim children under PREVENT. Primarily, the UK government is enforcing Western “norms and values” onto children through policing schools by a right-wing regulatory body and through the threat or actual removal of children from families. This amounts to systematic oppression and in the worst cases, abuse.
My reflections underline the statements made in the annual global Kids Index, which saw the UK plummet from 11 to 156 in the Global Children’s Rights rankings. According to the report:
“Counter-terrorism measures (…) are widely perceived to have a discriminatory or stigmatizing effect on children, in particular Muslim children;(c) Many children in certain groups, including Roma, gypsy and traveller children, … continue to experience discrimination and social stigmatization, including through the media.”
The law in itself in the case of Roma children, and through PREVENT in the case of Muslims, is enforcing schools and other institutions to treat children as “subjects” under a microscope. This threatens their identity and humanness, leading to isolation and disenfranchisement.
Our young people should not be the subjects of coercive policies, and nor should their families. The primary years should be cultivated in an environment that allows them to form their own identity based on their culture, and appreciate the diversity of the world we live in with respect.
The removal of Muslim and Roma children from their families is increasing
What is even more alarming is when this perceived “threat” to the notion of “British values” is “tackled” through the removal of children.
CAGE is soon to release a report detailing such cases among Muslim families, while earlier this year The Guardian published a story of a mother from a Roma community whose child was removed on the basis of “family culture”, though she insists that it was due to prejudice.
The mother cut ties with her family to be closer to her son, and travelled 10 hours a day to visit him while he was being held at a centre prior to being assigned a permanent foster family.
A new study shared exclusively by the European Roma Rights Centre with the Guardian shows that government figures reveal that since 2009, the number of Roma children in care in England has surged by 933% and those of Travellers of Irish heritage by 400%.
Professionals acknowledged to the Guardian that prejudice existed and there were cracks in the system: “On the whole, systems do, albeit inadvertently, discriminate against Gypsy, Roma and Traveller families,” admitted one social worker.
The criminalisation of children and their removal from their families of birth in minority communities is an age-old tactic rooted in the eugenics of colonialism. These methods have resulted in trauma, disconnection, and family breakdown.
This brings on mental health problems, societal fissures and substance abuse that plague minority communities and which result in a more serious and long-term burden for the state. Such inhumanity spells disastrous outcomes in society.
The enforcement of British “values” is taking place in a frightening way for children
I have worked very closely with Roma community and tried to understand their culture, background and way of life. The challenges have been immense, including a language barrier, cultural differences, preconceived misconceptions and pre-existing stereotypes.
The media narrative around Roma people has fueled further tensions and speaking from the inside out, I know this is far from the reality.
But from a professional perspective, the school I worked at is failing these children. This is a first generation that has come here to live in the UK. They do not understand the system as it clashes with their way of life (see facts below), and the fault lies in the way this clash is perceived and responded to by schools and social services.
We are applying rules and regulations and enforcing upon them all the policies that are well understood by those of us who have a grasp of the way of life here in the UK.
The Muslim community in this regard are ahead of the Roma community. But in both, the result is fear. And fear is an unproductive emotion that can have unpredictable outcomes.
Success and breakthrough comes through empathy and a truly open mind
Within the first week of work with Roma children, I realised that the core of my approach would have to incorporate effective and empowering communication where I am able to decipher and see the missing links, educate and encourage.
Some staff members supported this approach, others did not and many made unacceptable, derogatory remarks about Roma families and children.
But I found my interactions with the Roma children fascinating. They bring with them their own culture and heritage and they are proud. Yes they are different but instead of isolating them more needs to be done to understand their way of life and what they value and treasure.
The way forward can be summed up in one word: interact. Without sensitive and empathetic interaction and a desire to learn and teach one another on an equal level, as well as a real acknowledgement of the deep need to preserve family ties, we simply cannot create a progressive and rich environment in which young people are afforded their rights and can develop positively within their cultures, creating positive outcomes for society.
https://www.cage.ngo/the-state-is-harming-muslim-and-roma-children-and-families-in-the-same-ways
Another update
The state is harming Muslim and Roma children and families in the same ways
Shezana Hafiz is a law graduate who has spent years involved in grass roots community work, campaigning on justice related issues and leading on some of the most pertinent issues threatening fundamental human rights.
She is currently Community Relations Officer at CAGE.
I had the opportunity a year ago to work at a primary school and gain a thorough insight our current education system’s treatment of Muslim and Roma children.
The school is located in the heart of an area with a high population of Muslim children and in recent years an increasing population of Roma children.
There are many similarities between the treatment of Muslim and Roma children by the British government. The deep prejudice present in our current education and social sectors, mean these children are stigmatised, securitised and in some cases removed from their parents.
The removal of children is happening in the case of Roma communities for vague notions such as “family culture” and among Muslims, for another vague and disputed notion of “extremism”.
Educational institutions are places that have the potential to cultivate healthy and progressive environments for the next generation. But to do this they must enable children to feel safe and secure. The same goes for our social welfare sector.
Criminalising a way of life that is different, but not criminal
Roma children share much in common with Muslim children under PREVENT. Primarily, the UK government is enforcing Western “norms and values” onto children through policing schools by a right-wing regulatory body and through the threat or actual removal of children from families. This amounts to systematic oppression and in the worst cases, abuse.
My reflections underline the statements made in the annual global Kids Index, which saw the UK plummet from 11 to 156 in the Global Children’s Rights rankings. According to the report:
“Counter-terrorism measures (…) are widely perceived to have a discriminatory or stigmatizing effect on children, in particular Muslim children;(c) Many children in certain groups, including Roma, gypsy and traveller children, … continue to experience discrimination and social stigmatization, including through the media.”
The law in itself in the case of Roma children, and through PREVENT in the case of Muslims, is enforcing schools and other institutions to treat children as “subjects” under a microscope. This threatens their identity and humanness, leading to isolation and disenfranchisement.
Our young people should not be the subjects of coercive policies, and nor should their families. The primary years should be cultivated in an environment that allows them to form their own identity based on their culture, and appreciate the diversity of the world we live in with respect.
The removal of Muslim and Roma children from their families is increasing
What is even more alarming is when this perceived “threat” to the notion of “British values” is “tackled” through the removal of children.
CAGE is soon to release a report detailing such cases among Muslim families, while earlier this year The Guardian published a story of a mother from a Roma community whose child was removed on the basis of “family culture”, though she insists that it was due to prejudice.
The mother cut ties with her family to be closer to her son, and travelled 10 hours a day to visit him while he was being held at a centre prior to being assigned a permanent foster family.
A new study shared exclusively by the European Roma Rights Centre with the Guardian shows that government figures reveal that since 2009, the number of Roma children in care in England has surged by 933% and those of Travellers of Irish heritage by 400%.
Professionals acknowledged to the Guardian that prejudice existed and there were cracks in the system: “On the whole, systems do, albeit inadvertently, discriminate against Gypsy, Roma and Traveller families,” admitted one social worker.
The criminalisation of children and their removal from their families of birth in minority communities is an age-old tactic rooted in the eugenics of colonialism. These methods have resulted in trauma, disconnection, and family breakdown.
This brings on mental health problems, societal fissures and substance abuse that plague minority communities and which result in a more serious and long-term burden for the state. Such inhumanity spells disastrous outcomes in society.
The enforcement of British “values” is taking place in a frightening way for children
I have worked very closely with Roma community and tried to understand their culture, background and way of life. The challenges have been immense, including a language barrier, cultural differences, preconceived misconceptions and pre-existing stereotypes.
The media narrative around Roma people has fueled further tensions and speaking from the inside out, I know this is far from the reality.
But from a professional perspective, the school I worked at is failing these children. This is a first generation that has come here to live in the UK. They do not understand the system as it clashes with their way of life (see facts below), and the fault lies in the way this clash is perceived and responded to by schools and social services.
We are applying rules and regulations and enforcing upon them all the policies that are well understood by those of us who have a grasp of the way of life here in the UK.
The Muslim community in this regard are ahead of the Roma community. But in both, the result is fear. And fear is an unproductive emotion that can have unpredictable outcomes.
Success and breakthrough comes through empathy and a truly open mind
Within the first week of work with Roma children, I realised that the core of my approach would have to incorporate effective and empowering communication where I am able to decipher and see the missing links, educate and encourage.
Some staff members supported this approach, others did not and many made unacceptable, derogatory remarks about Roma families and children.
But I found my interactions with the Roma children fascinating. They bring with them their own culture and heritage and they are proud. Yes they are different but instead of isolating them more needs to be done to understand their way of life and what they value and treasure.
The way forward can be summed up in one word: interact. Without sensitive and empathetic interaction and a desire to learn and teach one another on an equal level, as well as a real acknowledgement of the deep need to preserve family ties, we simply cannot create a progressive and rich environment in which young people are afforded their rights and can develop positively within their cultures, creating positive outcomes for society.
https://www.cage.ngo/the-state-is-harming-muslim-and-roma-children-and-families-in-the-same-ways
Salaam
Like to share
Blurb
On Wednesday 4 July 2018, the chairman of Wembley Central Mosque called armed plain-clothed police officers to escort a khateeb (speaker) off the mosque premises after he delivered a sermon in May about boycotting Israeli dates.
Its getting ugly
Like to share
Blurb
On Wednesday 4 July 2018, the chairman of Wembley Central Mosque called armed plain-clothed police officers to escort a khateeb (speaker) off the mosque premises after he delivered a sermon in May about boycotting Israeli dates.
Its getting ugly
Last edited:
Salaam
Another update on Tariq Ramadans situation.
More on Islamophobia
Another update on Tariq Ramadans situation.
More on Islamophobia
Last edited:
Salaam
Another update
More on prevent
Ah so THIS is what its all about, trying to co-opt Muslims to keep them under control? No thanks, we know the game your playing
Another update
More on prevent
Ah so THIS is what its all about, trying to co-opt Muslims to keep them under control? No thanks, we know the game your playing
Last edited: