Peter Oborne, a contributor (or former contributor?) to the Spectator, has been writing at length recently on Islamophobia, which he says can be expressed acceptably nowadays in ways which would make a pariah of anyone who so expressed any other prejudice. Most notably, he has presented a Dispatches programme entitled It Shouldn't Happen to a Muslim, which is scheduled for transmission at 8pm on Channel 4 tomorrow, on the third anniversary of the 2005 bombings (you can also watch it on Channel 4+1 at 9pm if you've got digital); there is a 32-page PDF pamphlet accompanying it, available from Channel 4's website; it demolishes a number of popular anti-Muslim myths, among them the claims about a "Muslim hate mob" vandalising a house belonging to some soldiers in Windsor and Christmas being "banned" to avoid offending Muslims. Islamophobia Watch has this entry, which has links to other recent writing (by Oborne and others) on the subject.
On that subject, last week the papers (links here) tried to whip up such sentiment by claiming that Muslims had protested against a flyer from the local police with a picture of a puppy on it, advertising a non-emergency police line. The beef was that a Muslim local councillor, who was on the police advisory board, advised (as that's his job) that such a picture wouldn't go down too well; the fact was that nobody actually complained. As it happens, I think that they should have produced an alternative design without the dog (meaning, with something other than the dog), but if was made to sound as if Muslims were up in arms, which they weren't. Read Gabriele Marranci's article for the full story.
I hope the writers of "Images of Islam in UK" will expand their insightful analysis to cover theelectronic media too.
Here are a few reasons why:
There are some news editors who are fond of sensationalists wishing to see their audience to live in what Jeanne Jordan, author of The Panic diaries, calls "a world of perpetual 'duck and cover', a world of terror alerts scrolling across the bottom of our television screens. A world where evening news fees our fear." Many of us are beginning to get weary of the pushier sort of ‘expert’ declare Christopher Booker and Richard North. In their book, Scared to Death: From BSE to Global Warming they point out: Gone is the sense of proportion, the admission of scientific doubt, the ability to weigh risks against benefits. Taking seriously a year’s worth of their health warnings would give anyone an eating disorder. This tendency makes Anne Applebaum, author of 'Finding Things to Fear' remark: Now that we've eliminated most of the things that the human race once feared, we've just invented new ones to replace them.
The discourses of state agencies locate Islam and Muslim communities not simply as "problem communities" but as security concerns, notes Defence Studies scholar Katherine Brown. There is a need to watch out if certain contributors to this debate about minority communities wish to steer it from siscussing
'politics of difference' to stirring up the
'politics of fear'.
We need to be wary of pundits who are shy, unable or unwilling to offer alternate set of
policies and positions. What we don’t deserve is another discussion that’s governed by fear and innuendo. What we don’t wish to hear from the pundits is the kind of discourse that uses
religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon – that sees opponents
not as competitors to challenge, but enemies to demonize.
It will be interesting to examine if discussions about religio-political identity, affiliations, reading habits and opinion polls of Muslim youth have been used as the opening up of 'opportunity spaces' generated by elements who push the discourse into security-related realm.
It is more than a coincidence that reports by Newsnight’s Richard Watson depend heavily on contentious and controvertial informants who portray certain communities negatively. Dean Godson, Douglas Murray, Dominic Whitman (who openly boasts intending to "perform a witch hunt but using 21st Century tools"). It doesn't take long to spot that all these contribute to voice of negation, fear and dehumanisation. It remains unclear why the BBC continues to allow belligerent right-wingers and neocons who frequently demonize, distort and denounce identity and intentions of a certain community.
While boasting aloud about being balanced some regular commentators stoke panic and tend to trade truth for tired tautologies. Serious questions pertaining to the methodology and approach taken by some of the aforementioned persons have been raised by scholars including Dr. Marie Breen Smyth and Dr Jeroen Gunning, director and deputy director of the Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Contemporary Political Violence at the University of Wales, Aberystwyth They warn that "the politicisation of research can lead to serious distortions in debates on policy issues." There are reason to exercise caution in debates over multiculturalism, security and British Muslims.
One is yet to notice any attempts by BBC editors to widen the horizon of discussions by inviting reknowned and respectable scholars to offer alternate approaches that reinforce reflection, respect and recognition. Instead, the BBC has been pulling several of its controversial reports together to create a contentious chorus. Is it because these guys happen to be Peter Barron's pet paranoia pundits?
The BBC audiences may be saved from shallow and pallid remarks with the depth and sophistication of scholars who suggest alternate ways of explaining motives and machinations behind damning and dismissive tendencies include well-known scholars such as Ira Chernus, Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder and author of Monsters To Destroy: The Neoconservative War on Terror and Sin. In his works Chermus tells us about opinion makers mesmerized by John-Wayne-style tales of "real men" fighting evil on the frontier --is this why Watson periodically brings elements harping on to remind as to who must be identified and established as "evil" and then promote all policies and practices it takes to "contain evil". Is it Watson's personal inclination or part of a collective pursuit in tandem with those who lobby for stricter measures to regulate certain sections of Britain's ethnically diverse society?
Chermus draws attention to the following two experts yet to be seen on BBC's discussions on extremist or violent tendencies and their treatment by the present political authorities:
Catherine Albanese of the University of California at Santa Barbara writes: "Ordered conduct of foreign policy will, according to the conservative ethic, keep evil at bay and erect the safeguards that protect Christian life. Thus, containment for conservatives means the management of evil." But the management of evil is a lifetime task. Far from relieving anxiety, it is bound to create more of it --Albanese reminds that authorities are often unable to admit the deepest sources of their guilt without destroying their sense of who they were." So, instead, they went (and still go) looking for other people to control and blame them for their troubles. Our most recent candidates are, of course, the terrorists.
Princeton University's John F. Wilson explains why. The obsession with managing evil comes from "a concern, often exaggerated, to achieve control over those aspects of life experienced as uncertain." From the Puritans to the present, people bent on controlling their lives have been haunted by the inescapable fear that they might lose that very control.
Sensational cases startle the public into accepting a new understanding by opening gateways to the public’s fears and frustrations, and igniting processes that illuminate the boundaries of a community, notes Indiana Professor Steven Chermark adding: "The media defines these events, relying primarily on
representatives from institutions typically used in the construction of news."
Is it then a coincidence that many of Watson's informants are introduced by pseudonyms and/or with guised identities? In his report on 17 April, Watson introduced Glen Jenvey - erstwhile affiliate of the VIGIL group- as a freelance “expert”. Telling us little about this person and nothing about his background and his methods prompts many questions, as raised here by Richard Bartholomew, a PhD in the Study of Religion. : http://blogs.salon.com/0003494/2006/11/15.html
It is troubling to observe Newsnight’s relentless reliance on shadowy persons/organisations prone to concealment and camouflaging real motives behind the smokescreens. Given the choices why some in the BBC subscribe to concoctions rather than cogitations? Leaving irresponsible and vacuous journalism unchecked risks reducing Newsnight as a visual manifestation of the tabloid media. One way to ensure the principles of neutrality and evenhandedness are upheld is enable the viewers notice that a process is in place that vets the 'experts' and identifies persons and organizations with verifiable credentials and background about supporters and promoters of such 'research'.
The programme seemed a bit self censored to me. In that Independent article Oborne attacks a number of big Lefty journalists and writers but last night he only went after right-wing tabloids. Perhaps claiming that anti-muslim bias was "bipartisan" and not solely a right-wing thing was a bit too much for channel four.
I personally would have challenged the term Islamophobia and presented instead "Muslim-mania". There's a difference between critisizing religious beliefs and being obsessive,deceptive and prejudicial about the followers of a religion.
When Marin Amis talks about searching brown people that's not theological criticism.