The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

When does it not pay to be Muslim?

Here's a revolutionary concept: how about a TV character happens to be a Muslim and the plot revolves around, say, her job?

By Myriam Francois-Cerrah Published 14 December 2011 14:41

So Lowe's, the US-based chain of retail home improvement and appliance stores, has decided to pull its advertising from the reality TV show All-American Muslim. Most of us aren't stupefied with shock. Its not like we don't know anti-Muslim bigotry is now acceptable beyond the ranks of Tea Party conventions, but for it to be just so blatant still has a sting to it. Who could have predicted that a TV show portraying the lives of five ordinary Muslim families could produce this tornado in a tea cup. For many Muslims, it confirmed what we'd all secretly been hoping was just acute paranoia: that just being Muslim these days is a political issue.

Following pressure from the stormy Florida Family Association, which referred to the TLC (The Learning Channel) show as "propaganda that riskily hides the Islamic agenda's clear and present danger to American liberties and traditional values," Lowe's decided it was not commercially viable to be associated with anything related to Muslims. Even pretty normal ones, apparently.

But it was their seemingly innocuous statement which got my knickers in a twist:

Individuals and groups have strong political and societal views on this topic, and this program became a lightning rod for many of those views.

(sound of screeching record)

You what?

"This topic" is, in fact, the lives of regular Muslims. You know the ones -- the guy who drives your bus, the woman who treated your sick child, your neighbour, your colleague at work. People have strong "political and societal views" about these folk? On what basis exactly might that be?

For those who haven't caught the series -- and you're missing out if you have -- the genius of the show is its decision to showcase the true range of what it means to be a Muslim, even within this small snap-shot of the Muslim community, in the form of its Arab-American variant. From sassy hijab wearing Nawal, to peroxide blonde aspiring nightclub owner Bazzy, via Mike Jaffar, the deputy chief sheriff, through to the all-American high school football coach Fouad, the show is the first honest representation of what regular Muslims are like. Which is just like the rest of us, it would seem. Or to quote Debbie Almontaser: All-American muslim is as American "as apple galette: different crust on the outside, same gooey filling".

So the suggestion that Nawal's preparation for her baby's birth, or Fouad's management of his team's fasting during Ramadan, or scenes of Shadia hanging out at a country music concert because she's a muslim and she likes country music -- is somehow something people have "strong political views" about, needs to be outed for the downright bigotry it is.

Recent research at Cambridge University looking at the overarchingly negative portrayal of Muslims in the media concludes that "Muslims deserve a better press than they have been given in the past decade". The problems is that when Muslims do get a fair portrayal, even that is apparently political.

But let's give credit where credit is due. At least the US media actually has a show portraying the lives of regular Muslims.

In the UK, the most recent portrayals include the most cringe-worthy and facile plots, from secret gay lovers (one imaginatively called "Christian"!) on Eastenders, to the tyrannical Pakistani father who beats his English wife in West is West. The writer Yasmin Alibhai Brown rightly asks:

Where is the soulful, female Muslim singer, the wily, kebab-millionaire, the two-timing Pakistani cricketer, the Arab heartthrob? They do all exist, but these roles are not written into scripts.

Oh sure, if you're nutty, fanatical and cantankerous, the channels will be more than happy to feature your disjointed rant -- but the reality is regular Muslims are plain absent from British screens. I have yet to see a woman in a headscarf on any mainstream film or programme where her identity was not reduced to a caricatured plot about Islam being dangerous/oppressive/threatening. In fact, the bulk of daytime TV seems to be spin offs of 24 all set in Iraqistan where a veiled Muslim women is being beaten, forced into something, or somehow degraded by a freakishly long-bearded generic Arab shouting "Allahu akbar".

Here's a revolutionary concept: how about she just happens to be a Muslim and the plot revolves around, say, her job within a busy hospital A&E? It worked for ER! Despite Muslims being statistically overrepresented in the medical profession, it took until 2011 for Casualty to introduce us to the peripheral character of Omar Nasri -- not a doctor, but a paramedic.

Muslim actor friends of mine often joke that they seem to have had a lot more employment after 9/11 -- the question is, playing who, or what? Most of them have gained notoriety playing terrorists from the North of England. They cringe as they tell me these are the only parts on offer. A Somali actor friend recently made the difficult decision to turn down the part of a Somali pirate in a Tom Hanks feature film, on the grounds that he didn't want to add to the negative portrayal of Somalis.

And I did say actors -- not actresses -- as the parts which feature Muslim women rarely tend to be played by Muslim women. This is partly to do with the fact that few Muslim women are to be found in the acting industry, or the media more broadly. The struggle any budding Muslim actress might face reminded me of a statement by Asian American broadcaster, Jan Yanihero, featured in the documentary Miss-Representation. Recounting growing up in America, she stated that she never saw anyone on TV who looked like her and so never imagined it possible that she could work in the media. Preceding her testimonial were the profound words of Marie Wilson, the founding president of the White House Project: "you can't be what you can't see."

While the issue of female visibility in the media has thankfully got some attention (apparently saturation point is around 33 per cent visibility), I often note how rarely Muslim women are called upon to contribute to mainstream discussions; even when, as in the Arab revolutions, they are frontline activists in the struggle for change. In a recent Guardian article, Chitra Nagarajan is quoted as saying, on the topic of the absence of women -- particularly black and ethnic-minority women -- from current affairs programmes:

When I was doing my count, it was the early months of the year, when revolutions were happening in the Middle East and north Africa, but very rarely did you actually see a woman from any of those countries speak.

You occasionally saw the men speak, but never the women, which I think ties into the whole idea of black women's vulnerability and invisibility. So black women never speak for themselves - other people speak for them, and over their heads - when it comes to their rights. And the image you see of them is as weak, vulnerable and not being really important agents for change.

Muslim women so very seldom speak for themselves; I don't recall the last British Muslim woman I saw on Newsnight or BBC Question Time. Deliberate policy or not (and I'll venture it is a not), young Muslim women often ask me whether it is even feasible for them to seek a career in the media. It is difficult to be optimistic when I have no concrete examples to show them.

All the more so when, as the Cambridge study confirms, so-called "moderate Muslims" -- those who might get air-time -- often are praised in a way which implies they are good because they aren't fully Muslim. So how can young Muslims aspire to be engaged in an industry which reflects back to them the idea that to be accepted, you must compromise your identity?

Muslims who just get on with their lives aren't seen as newsworthy, and when the focus is on a violent subset of the Muslim community, there is the danger that the majority suffer guilt by association. The proof is in the pudding. What's actually politically contentious in All-American Muslim is its potential to dispel some of the hysteria built up around the Muslim community and show us up, warts and all -- as regular people, with regular problems.

Myriam Francois-Cerrah is a freelance journalist, currently undertaking a Phd in Oriental Studies at Oxford. Her blog can be found here.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Muslim

More from Myriam Francois-Cerrah

39 comments

Sun, 2012-04-15 19:06 — PetLetle (not verified)

check this link, discount louis vuitton bags at my estore

Wed, 2011-12-14 17:12 — john woods (not verified)

Interesting piece....

Abstract

A random survey of 100 representative mosques in the U.S. was conducted to measure the correlation between Sharia adherence and dogma calling for violence against non-believers. Of the 100 mosques surveyed, 51% had texts on site rated as severely advocating violence; 30% had texts rated as moderately advocating violence; and 19% had no violent texts at all. Mosques that presented as Sharia adherent were more likely to feature violence-positive texts on site than were their non-Sharia-adherent counterparts. In 84.5% of the mosques, the imam recommended studying violence-positive texts. The leadership at Sharia-adherent mosques was more likely to recommend that a worshipper study violence-positive texts than leadership at non-Sharia-adherent mosques. Fifty-eight percent of the mosques invited guest imams known to promote violent jihad. The leadership of mosques that featured violence-positive literature was more likely to invite guest imams who were known to promote violent jihad than was the leadership of mosques that did not feature violence-positive literature on mosque premises.

Fri, 2012-01-13 06:19 — Aref (not verified)

"...that just being Muslim these days is a political issue."

Islam is a political system! A violent , racist, bigoted, intolerant political system.

Mon, 2012-01-02 03:35 — Drakula

The BBC could well do a documentary on the Bahai community dating back to the turn of the 19th century.

The story of the exodus (from Iran) of that community is well documented in a book called the 'Dawnbreakers' by Namil.

The Shia monopoly treated the Bahai's as the Spanish Inquisition treated 'heretics'in the 16th century.

There seems to be a pattern here; once certain religion's gain a monopoly the most terrible abuse of power ensues.

I think freedom of religion is essential but there needs to be a system of checks and balances enforced by a secular, constitutional, democratic government.

I also think that in this prevailing zeitgiest religion is on the wain.

Thu, 2011-12-15 15:54 — Jenny (not verified)

We rarely see religious/orthodox Jewish men and women appearing in public life wearing headscarves, the tall black hats or skullcaps either! (Although, Baroness Warsi and Baroness Uddin are frequently seen onscreen or in photographs in their headcoverings. Even in Parliament AND the Lords).

In public life, Britain became secular for many reasons. Among them, cynicism and trauma after WW2, and a cutting loose from an old feudal sytem, where the 3rd son of landed families were expected to go into the church. The first two sons going into the state and the army.

For centuries Britain's history has been riven with Protestant/Catholic divide and bloody conflict. Only this week sociologist Laurie Taylor writes about being passed over for jobs because of his Catholicism - as recently as the '70's!! As does George Galloway frequently point out that up until the late '60's/ early '70's, some of Scotland's institutions, local authorities and firms had policies where they quietly passed over Catholic job applicants.

Growing secularism in Britain has helped prevent a lot of these unfair, divisive civic divisions and political patronages. Britain's is a long, long journey/stumble towards a more egalitarian society.

We observe some of the Islamic Schools divisions in this country among British Muslims, and sometimes see unfotunate throwbacks to our own recent religious dark divides. In Oxford the other year, a Pakistani Muslim father killed the Iraqi young man whom his daughter wanted to marry. There are several similar blighted lives... How many British Shia's will employ Sunni's and vice versa? Whatever divisions exist in our country, it can never again be socially/religiously/civically or legally acceptable for Protestant, or Catholic family members to murder or torture their sons and daughters for 'marrying out'. 'Religious' killings, and any tacit support, in any community in Britain belongs to the dark ages.

For all its faults, Britain, as a secular civic society, is a more egalitarian country for everyone - and for migrants to settle and live in. Within the laws, people freely practise their faiths in private and freely attend their places of worship. Many in Britain aren't anti religion - but do feel we're a better country for keeping religion and its man-made divisions and patronages off the *public* platform and out of the political domain.

Thu, 2011-12-15 16:52 — jankaas (not verified)

"Interesting piece. How long before this is legal in the UK, with the Mozzies taking over?"

what planet are you from?

Thu, 2011-12-15 17:14 — Buckskins (not verified)

Someone needs to inform those apprentices, that when they get married and want their wife pregnant. They haveta be bangin away at the other hole.

Thu, 2011-12-15 17:18 — john woods (not verified)

"what planet are you from?"

Well, from the one which used to be London, and which is now a third world shithole.

Why is this bird wearing a headscarf? Possibly cos if she shows her hair, hubby and his uncles will give her an honour killing and bury the body? Why are the feminazis not outraged about this?

Wed, 2011-12-14 20:46 — Jenny (not verified)

The article writer does seem to forget that we have Muslim MP's, Lords, TV presenters and newscasters... and many, many Muslims appearing on British TV, radio, press and print, business - therefore in REAL life in Britain, if not in soaps. (Incidentally, no family in EastEnders, and their regularly murderous antics, are representitive of families most of us familiar with in the UK).

I don't hear this writer, or anyone else, bemoaning the fact that there are few Chinese people/families on TV/British public life? Yet they've had settled communities here for over 100 years! If it comes down to it, where are the British Cypriots, Italian, French or Spanish familes on TV soaps, or in popular/public life here? We've got sizeable communities of Nepalies, where do we see them on soaps, or anywhere else in the media? Compared to other groups and communities who used to crop up regularly in public life and TV, we appear to be very much over-represented by Muslims and South Asians from the Indian subcontinent. They're a whole industry in our TV newsrooms. Let's spread the diversity coverage of new Britons instead of shrinking it! This article made the first point very well, but went off on a pointless victimhood tangent rant in claiming that Muslims aren't being allowed to make their mark, or being given a chance in Britain.

Wed, 2011-12-14 21:05 — Peter (not verified)

"the tyrannical Pakistani father who beats his English wife in West is West"

Wasn't that 'East is East'?

And wasn't that one of the character types that is otherwise not commonly portrayed?

Wed, 2011-12-14 21:09 — Peter (not verified)

"Muslim actor friends of mine often joke that they seem to have had a lot more employment after 9/11"

You can tell a man is Muslim by looking at him?

Wow.

Wed, 2011-12-14 22:15 — jankaas (not verified)

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."

oh shit, just remembered Americans don't do irony....

Wed, 2011-12-14 22:16 — jankaas (not verified)

@Freeman

"How about we all agree to abolish religion?"

tell you what. demonstrate how to achieve this by getting rid of Astrology and Homeopathy first, then we can try and replicate your approach?

Sun, 2011-12-18 20:28 — john woods (not verified)

"I think that it's time for journalists (ones who claim to represent Muslims in particular) to move beyond this staid debate. Rather than decrying the lack of opportunity, you have the ability and the platform to illustrate the diverse (and positive) contributions that Muslims ARE making to British society"

Yeah, like honour killings, rape of under age white girls, murder of Charlene Downes, blowing up tube trains, female circumcision, death threats to journalists, etc etc et bloody cetra

Sun, 2011-12-18 20:35 — john woods (not verified)

Tom McTague, Daily Mirror, December 13, 2011

Around 1,000 men and their illegal multiple wives are thought to be claiming welfare benefits.

The polygamous families could be costing the taxpayer millions of pounds a year by pocketing everything from dole cash to housing costs.

But the Government has said it will not stop the controversial payments until 2013, when it will officially no longer accept group marriages for welfare handouts.

Polygamy is not recognised in Britain but was allowed within the benefits system under the former Labour administration.

Tory MP Philip Hollobone blasted: “I can’t see why we have to wait until 2013 to stop this scandal. Daily Mirror readers will be surprised to find out polygamous marriage, which is illegal, is represented in the benefits system.”

Tory MP Priti Patel added: “This is yet another example of how our system is being abused and this will appal all hard-pressed taxpayers.”

Immigration minister Chris Grayling admitted that he had no idea how many polygamous families are on welfare.

He said they are allowed to claim handouts including income support, housing benefit and child support.

A man and his “first wife” can jointly claim £105.95 in dole payments, made up of a £67.50 single person payout and a couple’s top-up of £38.45. “Subsequent” wives are only entitled to the £38.45 top-up. Mr Grayling added that housing benefit and council tax benefit was “limited to those living in one property”.

A Department for Work and Pensions spokesperson said: “This outdated legislation is in the process of being changed.”

Polygamy is practised by some Muslims and is common in Africa.

Original article

Sun, 2011-12-18 20:40 — john woods (not verified)

Leo McKinstry, Express, December 8, 2011

The dogma of political correctness is dangerously weakening Britain’s traditional concept of justice.

Our ruling elite are so deluded by the ideology of cultural diversity that they have lost the ability to protect the innocent and punish the guilty.

That is the only conclusion to be drawn from the outrageous leniency shown by a court this week towards a gang of Somalian Muslim women who savagely beat up a white woman in Leicster city centre. In a brutal, unprovoked assault, the thugs knocked Rhea Page to the ground, then repeatedly kicked in the head while calling her a “white bitch” and “white slag”.

Ms Page, who was so traumatised by the incident that she has lost her job as a carer for people with learning disabilities, later said: “I thought they were going to kill me.”

Incredibly, despite the ferocity of the attack, the judge gave the girls only suspended sentences, even though he could have jailed them for up to five years.

His bizarre decision came after the defence told him that the Muslim assailants had been drinking and were “not used to being drunk” because of their religion.

As a cause for mitigation, this is absurd. Why on earth should Muslims be treated any differently to other offenders, simply on the grounds of their faith?

If they are so pious, so respectful of Islamic rituals, why were they drinking in the first place? And shouldn’t their drunkenness in public, an offence in itself, have added to the seriousness of their crime rather than lessened it?
Just as troubling was the failure of the authorities to charge the gang with racially-aggravated assault. For nothing could be more racially abusive than their barbaric cry of “kill the white bitch”.

We can be pretty sure that if a Somalian Muslim girl had been kicked to the ground by a group of white brutes, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Police would have taken a tougher approach.

The disgraceful message of this episode is that Muslims can get drunk and maim almost with impunity because the state is so craven about their creed.

The case makes a mockery of the idea of equality before the law—one of the cornerstones of liberal democracy.

The reluctance to imprison Ms Page’s attackers is so indicative of the supine, guilt-ridden mindset of our modern ruling class, where cowardice is dressed up as cultural sensitivity and self-loathing masquerades as tolerance.

This mentality, which is tearing apart the moral bonds of our civilisation, can be seen all around us. A classic recent example was the police’s initial paralysing feebleness towards the rioters last August because of fears about accusations of racism.

The same is true of the hesitancy in tackling so-called “honour” attacks on women in Muslim communities.

Only last week, it was revealed that the total of these appalling incidents, some of them fatal, is approaching 3,000 a year.

In a similar vein, the police and social services have long been terrified of talking openly about the growing problem of Pakistani gangs preying on white girls in northern towns.

As Detective Inspector Alan Edwards, an expert in the field, has said, “Everyone’s been too scared to address the ethnicity factor.”

In the twisted world of our civic institutions, minorities are always seen as victims.

Even the worst behaviour of some in their communities is excused by references to poverty or racism or social exclusion.

That certainly applies to the Somalian community in Britain, who are constantly presented one of the most oppressed groups in the country.

But, in truth, the oppression can work the other way. Too many Somalians have become a burden on the British taxpayer, thanks to their welfare dependency.

Over 80 per cent of them, for instance, live in taxpayer-funded homes. Moreover Somalian gangs, most of them peddling drugs, have helped to create a climate of fear in parts of our cities through their enthusiasm for violence and contempt for the law.

As one Somalian youth from the notorious Woolwich Boys says, “We’ve come over here with one thing on our mind—money. We don’t care how we get it. The Government doesn’t stand a chance.”

Tremendous double standards are at work over race crime. Racial killings of whites are frequently downplayed or forgotten.

The name of Kriss Donald is almost unknown today, yet the circumstances of his death could hardly have been more horrific.

In March 2004, while walking through Glasgow, the 15-year-old schoolboy was kidnapped by a Pakistani gang, dragged to open land, tortured, stabbed 13 times and set on fire while he was still alive.

Fortunately the gang was caught and convicted, but this monstrous crime provoked no great outpouring of moral anguish.

Peter Fahy, one of Britain’s leading chief constables, once said that political correctness means it is “harder to get the media interested” when the victims are “young white men”.

The British establishment is guilty of nothing less than reverse racism. Their members, from judges to politicians, think they are enlightened and compassionate. But in truth they are filled with prejudice.

For often they refuse to expect the same standards of civilised behaviour from certain minorities that they demand of the indigenous population.

Such a perverted outlook is the opposite of equality. In the name of anti-racism, they have ended up in the bizarre position of promoting discrimination.

That is no way to achieve the integration and cohesion that our society so badly needs

Sun, 2011-12-18 20:42 — john woods (not verified)

Daily Mail (London), December 3, 2011

Nearly 3,000 so-called honour attacks were recorded by police in Britain last year, new research has revealed.

According to figures obtained by the Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation (Ikwro), at least 2,823 incidents of ‘honour-based’ violence took place, with the highest number recorded in London.

The charity said the statistics fail to provide the full picture of the levels of ‘honour’ violence in the UK , but are the best national estimate so far.

The data, taken from from 39 out of 52 UK forces, was released following a freedom of information request by Ikwro.

In total, eight police forces recorded more than 100 so called honour-related attacks in 2010.

The Metropolitan Police saw 495 incidents, with 378 reported in the West Midlands, 350 in West Yorkshire, 227 in Lancashire and 189 in Greater Manchester.

Cleveland recorded 153, while Suffolk and Bedfordshire saw 118 and 117 respectively, according to the figures.

Between the 12 forces able to provide figures from 2009, there was an overall 47 per cent rise in honour attack incidents.

Police in Northumbria saw a 305 per cent increase from 17 incidents in 2009 to 69 in 2010, while Cambridgeshire saw a 154 per cent jump from 11 to 28.

A quarter of police forces in the UK were unable or unwilling to provide data, Ikwro said.

The report stated: ‘This is the first time that a national estimate has been provided in relation to reporting of honour-based violence.

‘The number of incidents is significant, particularly when we consider the high levels of abuse that victims suffer before they seek help.’

‘Honour’ attacks are punishments usually carried out against Muslim women who have been accused of bringing shame on their family and in the past have included abductions, mutilations, beatings and murder.

Ikwro director Diana Nammi told the BBC that families often deny the existence of the attacks.

She said: ‘The perpetrators will be even considered as a hero within the community because he is the one defending the family and community’s honour and reputation.’

Calling for more support for victims, she added: ‘For some cases, police and some organisations just help them up to a length of time, then they will stop. With honour-based violence, the threat may be a lifetime threat for them.

‘The problem is that there is no systematic training for police and other government forces in the UK, such as social services, teachers and midwives.’

She said that honour-based violence is an ‘organised or collective crime or incident’ which is orchestrated by a family or within a community.

Honour crimes mostly happen in South Asian, Eastern European and Middle Eastern communities, she added.

Ms Nammi added that ‘lots of things’ are considered to be dishonourable including; having a boyfriend, being a victim of rape, refusing an arranged marriage, being gay or lesbian and in some cases wearing make-up or inappropriate dress.

The association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) said they were working hard to offer support to victims, and front-line staff had been specially trained to deal with complaints.

Commander Mak Chishty, lead for honour based violence, said: ‘In 2008 Acpo published a strategy which recommended consistent reporting across England and Wales. We are satisfied that this is being done.

‘We’re now in consultation on a new strategy. All frontline staff have received awareness training and every force has a champion on honour-based abuse.

‘Acpo is confident that any victim who comes to us will receive the help they need.’

A Home Office spokesman said: ‘We are determined to end honour violence and recognise the need for greater consistency on the ground to stop this indefensible practice.

‘Our action plan to end violence against women and girls sets out our approach to raise awareness, enhance training for police and prosecutors and better support victims.’

A Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) spokesman said: ‘Honour-based violence cuts across all cultures, nationalities and faith groups—it is a worldwide problem.

‘Our fundamental aims are always: to preserve life, protect those at risk, and seek to bring perpetrators to justice.

‘The MPS has been on a significant journey regarding how we police honour-based violence over the past decade, and has played an instrumental part in developing work in this field.

‘We have used our organisational learning over the years to inform our current policies, staff training and operating procedures.

‘We know that like other hate crimes, honour-based violence is under-reported however, and remain very concerned about this. We continue to work with victims’ groups, non-governmental organisations and statutory agencies to ensure that we are providing the best assistance possible to victims—they are at the heart of all we do.

The spokesman added there were specially-trained officers who carry out daily reviews of reported incidents in London.

He said: ‘The MPS has incorporated honour-based violence and forced marriage into its mandatory domestic violence training for all constables, sergeants and inspectors; there has also been specific training for PCSOs and senior officers, and regular training sessions for other specialist officers such as schools officers and Safer Neighbourhoods’ Teams.’

In 2006, Banaz Mahmod, from Mitcham, south London, was strangled on the orders of her father and uncle because they thought her boyfriend was unsuitable.

Cousins Mohammed Saleh Ali and Omar hussain, both 28, were jailed last year for a minimum of 22 and 21 years respectively for the honour killing of the 20-year-old Iraqi Kurd.

The victim’s father Mahmod Mahmod and uncle Ari Mahmod were jailed for life at the Old Bailey in 2007.

Original article

Wed, 2011-12-14 23:54 — Mick (not verified)

"young Muslim women often ask me whether it is even feasible for them to seek a career in the media. It is difficult to be optimistic when I have no concrete examples to show them"

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown?

It should be an inspiration to young Muslim women that someone with such daft opinions as Yasmin can be a journalist.

Thu, 2011-12-15 19:17 — jankaas (not verified)

"Well, from the one which used to be London, and which is now a third world shithole."

that's odd. i was there this very afternoon; arrived on a train at Victoria (on time), caught the tube to Russell Square (no delays), did some work in a building with running water & electricity (imagine!), had a cup of coffee at several stalls (yum), bought some things in shops, got cash from the machine, heard at least 8 different languages from tourists....

are you even sure what a 3rd world country is? or are you just really ANGRY because there are "foreigners" who are doing better than poor little you? (foreigners like me btw)

Sun, 2011-12-18 20:46 — john woods (not verified)

The Local, December 8, 2011

Norway’s Progress Party has called for the immediate arrest of Mullah Krekar after the firebrand jihadist spoke of the need for renewed terrorist attacks on the United States.

The Norway-based extremist made the comments in an interview with Finland’s MTV3. He also claimed that Islam “will control the entire world” within the next 20 years.

More than a decade on from the devastating terrorist attacks in the United States that left almost 3,000 people dead, Krekar said:

“They have learned nothing from the 9/11 attacks. That’s why they need two more attacks. It’s the only way the Americans will understand that we [Muslims] are people and not animals or slaves.”

Morten Ørsal Johansen, immigration policy spokesman for the populist Progress Party, said the remarks merited placing Krekar under arrest.

“We have just passed a new law stating that anybody who poses a threat to basic national interests may be subject to arrest. There’s no doubt that Krekar should now be apprehended,” he told newspaper VG.

Krekar, the co-founder of Islamist militant group Ansar al-Islam, moved to Norway as a refugee from northern Iraq in 1991.

In the Finnish TV interview, he also spoke cryptically of how European-style democracy would never take root in the Middle East. Likening the export of Western democracy to a “plastic banana”, he said it would never work in the Arab world because, unlike the real thing, “you can’t eat it.”

He also argued in the three-minute interview that further terrorist attacks were unavoidable, VG reports.

“It’s going to happen. It’s meant to happen. Jihad is meant to happen, I’m certain of it. Jihad is like a cat. If you lock up a cat it becomes dangerous,” said Krekar.

The radical Islamist is set to appear in court in Norway in February after allegedly issuing verbal death threats to five different people, including Conservative Party (Høyre) leader Erna Solberg.

Thu, 2011-12-15 02:07 — Sameer (not verified)

It seems like you want Muslims to be OVER-represented in the media. Let me put it this way... if you have a room full of 100 people, and only 3 of them are Muslims, then that shouldn't surprise you in the slightest. Muslims only make up 3% of the UK population afterall. Oh, and of these 3 Muslims, if neither of them wear a “headscarf” then that shouldn’t perplex you either.

It seems like you won’t be satisfied until we have a disproportional number of practising Muslims on our terrestrial television channels doing dawah to the woefully ignorant non-Muslim audience.

If you want Muslims to be viewed as people who are “just like everybody else” then introducing a family, who happen to be Muslim, into a primetime soap such as Eastenders is the correct method of doing so. Oh and surprise surprise, no family in Eastenders is without controversy. The “cringe-worthy and facile” plots apply to ALL. That’s Eastenders for you.

You should be glad that the Eastenders scriptwriters are applying the same sort of controversial storylines to the Muslims family as they would have to any other family. That is what you want after all isn’t it? For Muslims to be viewed “just like everybody else”?

Thu, 2011-12-15 04:52 — Ruby (not verified)

I can recall numerous Muslim figures on Newsnight panels, one of them the female president of the Islamic Society of Oxford, where you are currently studying.

How can you attempt to identify Muslims in the media? If they are not commenting on specifically 'Muslim' issues, and are not being defined by their religious/ racial identities surely that's a sign of how successfully they have integrated into British public life? (and how much more that they can offer than a commentary on post 9/11 stereotypes).

Quoting Yasmin Alibhai- Brown is surely scraping the barrel a bit... there are far more interesting Muslim journalists you could refer to.

Thu, 2011-12-15 04:58 — Ruby (not verified)

Or was that you on Newsnight?? In which case you are fully aware that there is a platform for female Muslims in the British media.

Thu, 2011-12-15 07:05 — @MoAnsar (not verified)

Firstly, its a fair article.

Lets look at a few newsreaders or TV personalities: Mishal Hussein, Tamsin (Daybreak), Zeinab Badawi, Razvia Iqbal, countless regional news readers and personalities... amongst these, where are the hijaabis?

If its ok to watch Judy Finnigan with a crucifix sticking out of her cleavage on television, then surely a woman wuth a bit of cloth on her head must be ok?

Apparently not. The Equality Act 2010 makes a specific provision for an exception for broadcast journalism / editorial content. This means if you feel the media is misrepresentative, or discriminates in representation - tough.

The fact is that with recent court cases having convicted Muslims of selling books from the 1950s written for revolutionary Egypt or for literal thought crimes, it is not by accident but by design that visibly orthodox Muslims are being excluded from the public discourse.

And for those screaming these are unfounded claims of discrimination, read carefully:
the Government carried out a survy called Study 220, Religious Discrimination in England and Wales. Of all groups analysed, Muslims face the most discrimination in all areas of public service delivery including housing, health, education, employment and others.

The sting in the tail? This study was done in Feb 2001, 6 months before 9/11. Imagine how much worse it is now. 70% of Pakistani and Bangladeshi families are on or below the poverty line compared to 20% of white families.

There are significant challenges on religious discrimination against orthodox Muslims in this country - media advertising and visibility of scarf wearing women is no exception. We need to look at the whole pucture.

Sat, 2011-12-17 21:50 — Sarah (not verified)

@ Myriam: I think you make a valid point about the limited types of discourse that muslims are called on to engage in. However continuing the debate in the terms (laid out by the above article) surely adds to this 'reification' of Muslim identity in the media? Why continue to define the contribution that Muslims (and other) minorities are making to public discourse in terms of their religion or race? When a British Muslim is invited on behalf of an organisation or institution to speak, say on a news channel about a topical issue, surely his/her religion is neither relevant to the viewers or the broadcasters?

I think that it's time for journalists (ones who claim to represent Muslims in particular) to move beyond this staid debate. Rather than decrying the lack of opportunity, you have the ability and the platform to illustrate the diverse (and positive) contributions that Muslims ARE making to British society.

Thu, 2011-12-15 10:24 — Des Demona (not verified)

Their are countless minorities who could claim they are under represented in the media. But as MoAnsar above rather self-defeatingly states 'Lets look at a few newsreaders or TV personalities: Mishal Hussein, Tamsin (Daybreak), Zeinab Badawi, Razvia Iqbal, countless regional news readers and personalities... '

His/her rather pathetic argument being that they don't confirm to his/her view of what a Musilm woman should wear?

Under represented in the media? I hardly think so. The Muslim lobby is just more concerted and vocal than other minorities.

Wed, 2011-12-14 15:14 — Fraziel1

What is the percentage of the Uk that are muslims? it's about 3% i believe. In Scotland it is less than 1%. I would say that if those figures are correct then muslims are over represented on tv and we should be seeing less of them, not more. As for the series being a representation of regular muslims, doesn't sound much like tower hamlets to me.

Wed, 2011-12-14 15:15 — Scott Morris (not verified)

Muslims, at the time of the 2001 census, accounted for less than three percent of the population of the U.K.

It may be interesting to analyse whether they account for more or less than three percent of the subject / characters / presenters / whatever of TV output in the U.K, but it's outwith my scope.

Wed, 2011-12-14 15:21 — Freeman2

How about we all agree to abolish religion? Perhaps in the same way we don't go in for cannibalism any more. A lot of unemployed vicars, priests, mullahs, rabbis I know, but they can get jobs in the private sector.

Thu, 2011-12-15 11:23 — crabstix (not verified)

Pretty sure that Baroness Warsi has been on both Question Time and Newsnight and she is co-Chair of the Conservative Party! How under represented is that?

Thu, 2011-12-15 12:09 — myriam (not verified)

the article is more about what Muslims are called upon to discuss - ie the reification of their identity so that they are called upon to discuss only islam-related issues (as in soaps where they are defined solely by their 'islamness') Baroness Warsi and Yasmin Alibhai Brown are the exceptions that confirm the rule. The article is not about increasing the number of Muslims on TV/film/media, but varying the type of discourse they are involved in, so that they cease to be defined solely on the basis of their islamic identity and are called upon to discuss other issues, many of which they are active and leading figures in.

Wed, 2011-12-14 16:10 — Ugeine (not verified)

Good article. I agree that representations of Muslims on British TV is laughable.

Shame people seem to have largely missed the point.

Thu, 2011-12-15 12:33 — john woods (not verified)

Interesting piece. How long before this is legal in the UK, with the Mozzies taking over?

Afghan sex practices concern U.S., British forces

By:Sara A. Carter | 12/20/10 8:05 PM
National security correspondent
.

Pfc. Martinez Wangner from Rockville MD of 2nd Platoon Bravo Company 2-327 Infantry stands guard outside the door of a house during a patrol in Chowkay district near Pakistani border in Kunar province, eastern Afghanistan, Tuesday, Dec. 21, 2010. (AP Photo/Rafiq Maqbool)

A document released by WikiLeaks described efforts by high-ranking Afghan officials to quash reports of police officers and other Afghans arrested for "purchasing a service from a child."
The leaked diplomatic cable quoted former Minister of the Interior Hanif Atmar's concern that publicity about the arrests, which involved the hiring of "dancing boys," would "endanger lives."

The author of the diplomatic cable fretted that the case would be "blown out of proportion, an outcome that would not be good for either the U.S. or Afghanistan."

The vast gulf between U.S. and Afghan attitudes about homosexuality and pedophilia has generated concern among U.S. advisers in Afghanistan since the American presence there began to expand.

In late 2009, U.S. and British forces ordered a study of Pashtun male sexuality. They were worried that homosexuality and pedophilia among Afghan security forces and tribes could create cultural misunderstanding with allied troops, according to a copy of the report obtained by The Washington Examiner.

The study, requested by 2nd Marine Expeditionary Battalion along with British forces in Lashkar Gah, was conducted by members of one of the Defense Department's Human Terrain Teams stationed in Afghanistan. The report was authored by team member Anna Maria Cardinalli, who said the goal was to learn how to advise "U.S. and British service members who report encounters with men displaying apparently homosexual tendencies. These service members are frequently confused [by] this behavior."

The report described unease by U.S. Marines and British soldiers who felt they were being propositioned, or who were outraged by apparent acts of pedophilia by Afghan soldiers and police. It documented one case in which 12 of 20 Pashtun interpreters working with one U.S. Army unit had contracted gonorrhea from homosexual encounters.

Troops interviewed by The Examiner say they are frequently forced to deal with a radically different attitude toward sex with male youths by Afghan security forces.

"I know Marines and soldiers who have refused to work with Afghan military or police," said one U.S. military official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "It's not about homosexuality as much as it is about the young boys. Some of them like to show pictures on their cell phone -- that should be illegal. Some of the Afghans have their own young boys they use for sexual purposes and we can't do anything about it."

Cardinalli told The Examiner by e-mail that she is writing a book about widespread acceptance of male homosexuality among Pashtuns, a culture where far fewer opportunities for premarital heterosexual encounters exist.

"To dismiss the existence of this dynamic out of desire to avoid Western discomfort is to risk failing to comprehend an essential social force underlying Pashtun culture which can potentially effect the success" of the U.S. effort there, Cardinalli wrote in the report.

An American military official who works closely with Afghan security forces called the discomfort among U.S. and British troops "the elephant in the closet that no one's talking about, but needs to."

The study makes a number of observations about the extreme segregation of women in Pashtun culture.

It discusses the prohibitive cost of marriage within Pashtun tribes and the long-standing traditions in which boys are appreciated for their physical beauty and apprenticed to older men to learn a trade at an early age.

"Homosexuality is strictly prohibited in Islam, but cultural interpretations of Islamic teaching prevalent in Pashtun areas of southern Afghanistan tacitly condone it in comparison to heterosexual relationships," the study states.

For a male to have sex with a boy is considered a "foible," the report said. By contrast, having sex with an "ineligible woman" would set up "issues of revenge and honor killings."

Years of living under that cultural construct have greatly altered sexual attitudes, the study said. "One of the country's favorite sayings is 'women are for children, boys are for pleasure," the report noted.

The study said the prevailing sexual attitudes in some parts of Afghanistan are creating a cycle damaging to boys and young men.

"There is frequently the risk that Pashtun boys will face a set of experiences that mold their beliefs regarding sexuality as adults in ways that are ultimately damaging, both to themselves and to Afghan society," the report concludes. "It appears that this set of experiences becomes cyclical, affecting generations, and that this cycle that has existed long enough to affect the underpinnings of Afghan culture itself."

Sara A. Carter is The Washington Examiner's national security correspondent. She can be reached at scarter@washingtonexaminer.com.

Wed, 2011-12-14 16:21 — PikeyMikey (not verified)

@Myriam, I suppose one could say the same of Christians. Around 7% of the UK population consider themselves to be practicing Christians but apart from the character "Dot" on East Enders I don't see any others.

@Freeman, I couldn't agree more. I wonder what sort of work vicars, priests, mullahs, rabbis et al could do? I suppose they'd have be office based clerical workers.

Thu, 2011-12-15 12:35 — PikeyMikey (not verified)

@Myriam - but this does happen, I regularly see people with arabic names on television talking about medicene, politics, law, science, the arts, social issues, banking/finance, sport etc.

Maybe you only see what you want to see.

Thu, 2011-12-15 12:40 — john woods (not verified)

When U.S. civil affairs teams (and other special forces units) quietly investigated the problem, they quickly discovered a common denominator. Virtually all of the younger men who beat their wives (over their inability to become pregnant) had been former "apprentices" of older Afghan men, who used them for their sexual pleasure. Upon entering marriage, whatever the men knew of sex had been learned during their "apprenticeship," at the hands of the older man. To put it bluntly, some of the younger Afghans were unfamiliar with the desired (and required) mechanics for conception.
To remedy this situation, the Army called in its psychological operations teams, which developed information campaigns in Pashtun areas, explaining the basics of heterosexual relations and their benefits, in terms of producing male offspring. It may be the only time in the history of warfare that an army has been required to explain sex to the native population, to curb the abuse of women and young boys--and retain U.S. influence in key geographic areas.
Army psy op specialists declined to discuss their efforts in great detail. But one of the "preferred sex" campaigns was (reportedly) a direct result of the 2009 survey, and the problems encountered by NATO troops working with their Afghan counterparts.

Thu, 2011-12-15 12:51 — Des Demona (not verified)

What PikeyMikey said.

You know what they call Muslims on TV who talk about things other than their religion, and of which there are many examples? This organ's own Mehdi Hasan's frequent appearances on QT for instance ( when mostly he doesn't bleat on about Islam)

They are called People. If you choose to define yourself by your religion that is up to you. But it doesn't necessarily mean that others have to cater to it by right.

Thu, 2011-12-15 13:10 — PikeyMikey (not verified)

Des Demona - excellent point on them being People. But perhaps some people (maybe with beards and head coverings) are more peopleish than others.