Tag: Islamophobia

ANTI-MUSLIM HATE CRIMES AND INCIDENTS

Background

Specific OSCE commitments to combat intolerance and discrimination against Muslims date to the 2002 Porto Ministerial Council Meeting, which explicitly condemned acts of discrimination and violence against Muslims and firmly rejected the identification of terrorism and extremism with a particular religion or culture.^¹ Moreover, at the 2007 High Level Conference on Combating Intolerance and Discrimination against Muslims, the OSCE Chairmanship issued a declaration encouraging the participating States to follow anti-Muslim hate crimes closely, by collecting, maintaining and improving methods to gather reliable information and statistics on such crimes.^² The 2010 Astana Declaration of the OSCE Chairmanship also underlines that international developments and political issues cannot justify any forms of intolerance and discrimination against Muslims and encourages the participating States to challenge anti-Muslim prejudice and stereotypes.^³

On 28 February-3 March, upon the request of the Grand Mufti of Bulgaria and the Director of the Commission for Protection against Muslims, who were concerned about the rise in anti-Muslim hate incidents in Bulgaria, ODIHR advisers conducted an assessment visit to Sofia in order to design a training activity on hate crimes for non-governmental organizations and law enforcement officers. Based on the findings of this assessment, ODIHR concluded a Memorandum of Understanding with the Ministry of Interior, which aims at the implementation of law enforcement hate crime training (TAHCLE).

On 25-28 April, following to the visit of a delegation of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) to Warsaw, on 4 March, ODIHR’s Director visited the headquarters of OIC in Jeddah. The visit to Jeddah provided the opportunity to continue discussions on possible areas of cooperation, some of which were already identified in Warsaw. These included also a hate crime monitoring training which will be delivered, in 2011, by ODIHR for the staff of the OIC Islamophobia Observatory.

On 27-29 May, ODIHR’s Adviser on Combating Intolerance and Discrimination accompanied the Secretary General of OSCE at the Rio Forum of Alliance of Civilizations. In addition to attending several sessions of the Forum as a speaker, the Secretary General delivered a speech on ODIHR’s activities concerning hate crimes against Muslims at the Roundtable Meeting on Islamophobia, co-hosted by OIC and the Council of Europe.

On 23 October, ODIHR co-hosted with the Swiss Federal Commission against Racism a conference on Muslim umbrella organizations in Bern. The aim of the Conference was to support the efforts of Swiss Muslim NGOs to create an umbrella organization, which would empower them to counter stereotypes against Muslims among Swiss society. It was envisaged that such an umbrella organization would increase their capacity, among other issues, to monitor hate crimes against Muslims.

On 8-10 December, ODIHR Adviser attended a Seminar on “Islamophobia” in Central and Easter Europe, which was hosted by OIC. As ODIHR receives little information on hate crimes against Muslims in this region, the event was a good opportunity to establish more contacts with Islamic community organizations in Central and Eastern Europe and explain to them ODIHR’s hate crime related activities.

The personal representative of the OSCE Chairman-in-Office on Combating Intolerance and Discrimination against Muslims, Senator Akhmetov, visited Jeddah, Brussels, Geneva, London, Berlin and Astana. During these activities, he drew attention to the fact that anti-Muslim hate crimes were significantly under-reported and under-recorded, and urged participating States to enhance trust between Muslim communities and law enforcement officers, to create data collection mechanisms and to train the police and judiciary on this specific form of intolerance. He also encouraged participating States to support the efforts of NGOs dealing with hate crimes against Muslims.

Information and data on Anti-Muslim hate crimes and incidents

Currently, 16 participating States^⁴ collect data on anti-Muslim hate crimes. However, no participating States provided data figures. Austria and France each reported only one notable case in their respective countries.

14 NGOs and civil society reported incidents targeting Muslims in ten participating States.^⁵

The country listing below summarizes the information received by ODIHR about each participating State with regard to anti-Muslim crimes. If a participating State is not listed, this indicates that ODIHR did not receive any information concerning such crimes from the government, IGOs or NGOs.

Austria: The NPC reported one case of harassment against a Turkish citizen. The incident was categorizes as an Islamophobic offence and the perpetrator was sentenced.^⁶ No information was provided by NGOs.

Bosnia and Herzegovina: No data on anti-Muslim crimes were reported to ODIHR by officials or NGOs. The OSCE Mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina reported four cases of damage to mosques and one cemetery desecration.^⁷

Bulgaria: No official data on anti-Muslim crimes were reported to ODIHR. Human Rights First reported one arson attack on a mosque.^⁸ The Office of the Grand Mufti reported one arson attack, three cases of damage to property and three cases of graffiti targeting mosques and Muslim cemeteries.^⁹

Canada: No official data on anti-Muslim crimes were reported to ODIHR. The Organisation of the Islamic Conference Observatory (OIC Observatory) reported one arson attack on a mosque.^¹⁰

France: The NPC reported one case of vandalism and graffiti on a mosque. Two perpetrators received prison sentences.^¹¹ The OIC Observatory reported two cases of graffiti on property in reaction to building a new mosque and eight cases of graffiti on mosques.^¹² Human Rights First reported one physical assault and one Muslim cemetery desecration, where 30 graves were damaged.^¹³ COJEP reported a series of hate incidents against property; one arson attack on a mosque, three cases of damage to property (including one cemetery desecration), three cases of graffiti on property and two cases of graffiti on places of worship.^¹⁴ The NGO Collective Against Islamophobia in France reported 152 hate incidents including 12 physical assaults, four arson attacks on mosques, 11 cases of graffiti on mosques and three cases where pigs heads were left outside mosques.^¹⁵

Germany: No official data on anti-Muslim crimes were reported to ODIHR. Human Rights First reported three arson attacks on mosques in Berlin carried out by the same perpetrator.^¹⁶

Greece: No official data on anti-Muslim crimes were reported to ODIHR. The Federation of Western Thrace, the Western Thrace Minority University Graduates Association and the Culture and Solidarity Association of the Turks of Rhodes, Kos and Dodecanese reported one case of damage and graffiti to property where more than 20 gravestones were destroyed.^¹⁷ In addition, the Federation of Western Thrace and the Western Thrace Minority University Graduates Association reported one arson attack on a mosque and one case of damage to property where gravestones were desecrated.^¹⁸ The Western Thrace Minority University Graduates Association and the Culture and Solidarity Association of the Turks of Rhodes, Kos and Dodecanese also reported one arson attack on the Muslims Brotherhood and Cultural Association.^¹⁹ Human Rights First reported one Muslim cemetery desecration^²⁰ and the Western Thrace University Graduates Association reported one additional cemetery desecration^²¹.

Netherlands: No official data on anti-Muslim crimes were reported to ODIHR. The OIC Observatory reported one mosque desecration.^²² Human Rights First reported one arson attack and graffiti on a mosque and one case of damage to property.^²³ The Turks Forum reported one physical assault, four arson attacks on mosques, two cases of damage to property, four cases of graffiti on property and three cases where pig’s heads were left outside mosques.^²⁴

Russian Federation: No official data on anti-Muslim crimes were reported to ODIHR. Human Rights First reported the desecration of a Muslim cemetery.^²⁵ The SOVA Centre for Information and Analysis reported nine hate incidents targeting Muslim sites including two cases of arson attack.^²⁶

Switzerland: No official data on anti-Muslim crimes were reported to ODIHR. Counseling Network for the Victims of Racism reported 10 incidents, including 5 physical assaults, 2 threats and 3 acts of verbal harassment. One of the physical attacks was reportedly carried out by a police officer.^²⁷

Ukraine: No official data on anti-Muslim crimes were reported to ODIHR. IOM Ukraine and Human Rights first reported an attempted arson attack and graffiti on a mosque in the Crimea.^²⁸ Human Rights First also reported an additional arson attack on the same mosque later in the year.^²⁹

United Kingdom: No official data on anti-Muslim crimes were reported to ODIHR. The OIC Observatory reported a series of attacks against a mosque in Essex resulting in damage to property.^³⁰ Human Rights First reported one serious physical assault of a 13 year girl, the perpetrators have been arrested and face trial in 2011. In addition, two physical assaults and two arson attacks were reported.^³¹ The National Association of Muslim Police reported 15 cases of arson and damage to property targeting mosques and five cases of graffiti on Muslim cemeteries.^³² The Institute of Race Relations reported 12 physical assaults and 20 hate incidents involving graffiti and damage to property, eight of which targeted mosques.^³³ The Muslim Council of Britain reported two physical assaults, two arson attacks on mosques, eight cases of damage to property (four targeting mosques, three targeting Muslim cemeteries and one as part of a series of regular attacks on a Muslim family home).^³⁴ Engage reported one serious physical assault, four physical assaults, two arson attacks on mosques, five cases of damage to mosques, one cemetery desecration, one case of graffiti and fours cases where pig”s heads were left outside mosques.^³⁵

United States: No official data on anti-Muslim crimes were reported to ODIHR. Human Rights First reported one serious physical assault and one case of damage to property.^³⁶

The Human Rights Committee recommended that Belgium should intensify its efforts to prosecute and punish Islamophobic crimes.^³⁷

ECRI noted reports of crimes targeting Muslim places of worship in Poland,^³⁸ and that officials in France have taken a firm stance against Islamaphobia.^³⁹

The European Union Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) issued a report in 2010 examining the discrimination and violence experienced by Muslim and non-Muslim youths in France, Spain and the U.K., finding a connection between feelings of social marginalization when victim of violence and discrimination.^⁴⁰

Government and NGO responses to crimes and incidents motivated by intolerance and discrimination against Muslims

In the United Kingdom, the National Association of Muslim Police organised the first conference on “Islamophobia” for law enforcement officers and the community. An overview of titled “Key Islamophobia Research” was later compiled.^⁴¹

An “All Party Group on Islamophobia” was established in the United Kingdom, on 24 November 2010.^⁴²

Box 4: Anti Muslim attack

1 “Tenth Meeting of the Ministerial Council”, Porto, 6 and 7 December 2002, <http://osce.org/item/4162.html>.

2 Press release, “Countering intolerance and discrimination against Muslims purpose of OSCE meeting in Cordoba”, OSCE, Cordoba, 9 October 2007, <http://www.osce.org/item/27234.html>.

3 “Astana Declaration on Combating Intolerance and Discrimination,” Astana, 30 June 2010, <http://www.osce.org/cio/68972>.

4 Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Liechtenstein, Moldova, Netherlands, Poland, Serbia, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, United Kingdom and the United States.

5 Bulgaria, Canada, France, Germany, Greece, Netherlands, Russian Federation, Ukraine, United Kingdom and the United States.

6 Questionnaire from the Austrian NPC, op. cit., note Hata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadı.

7 Communication from the OSCE Mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina, op. cit., note Hata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadı.

8 “Violence against Muslims”, Human Rights First, March 2011, <http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/3-2010-muslim-factsheet-update.pdf>.

9 Communication from the Office of the Grand Mufti of Bulgaria, op. cit., note Hata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadı.

10 “Third OIC Observatory Report on Islamophobia (Intolerance & Discrimination against Muslims)” The Organisation of the Islamic Conference Observatory (OIC Observatory), May 2010, <http://www.oic-oci.org/uploads/file/Islamphobia/2010/en/Islamophobia_rep_May_22_5_2010.pdf.pdf>.

11 Questionnaire from the French NPC, op. cit., note Hata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadı.

12 “Third OIC Observatory Report on Islamophobia (Intolerance & Discrimination against Muslims)” The Organisation of the Islamic Conference Observatory (OIC Observatory), op. cit., note Hata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadı.

13 “Violence against Muslims”, Human Rights First, op. cit., note Hata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadı.

14 Information from COJEP, 8 April 2011.

15 “Rapport sur l’Islamophobie en France 2010”, Collectif Contre l’Islamophobie en France, 15 March 2010, <http://www.islamophobie.net/user-res/fichiers/rapport_ccif_2010_PDF>.

16 “Violence against Muslims”, Human Rights First, op. cit., note Hata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadı.

17 Information from the Federation of Western Thrace, op. cit., note Hata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadı; Information from the Western Thrace Minority University Graduates Association, op. cit., note Hata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadı; Information from the Culture and Solidarity Association of the Turks of Rhodes, Kos and Dodecanese, 27 January 2011.

18 Information from the Federation of Western Thrace, op. cit., note Hata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadı, Information from the Western Thrace Minority University Graduates Association, op. cit., note Hata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadı.

19 Information from the Western Thrace Minority University Graduates Association, op. cit., note Hata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadı; Information from the Culture and Solidarity Association of the Turks of Rhodes, Kos and Dodecanese, op. cit., note Hata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadı.

20 “Violence against Muslims”, Human Rights First, op. cit., note Hata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadı.

21 Information from the Western Thrace Minority University Graduates Association, op. cit., note Hata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadıHata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadı.

22 “Third OIC Observatory Report on Islamophobia (Intolerance & Discrimination against Muslims)”, OIC Observatory, op. cit., note Hata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadı.

23 “Violence against Muslims”, Human Rights First, op. cit., note Hata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadı.

24 Information from Turks Forum Netherlands, 29 March 2011.

25 Ibid.

26 “The Phantom of Manezhnaya Square: Radical Nationalism and Efforts to Counteract It in 2010”, SOVA Centre for Information and Analysis, op. cit., note Hata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadıHata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadı.

27 Information from Counseling Network for the Victims of Hate Crimes, Bern, 15 April 2011.

28 Communication from IOM Ukraine, op. cit., note Hata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadı; “Violence against Muslims”, Human Rights First, op. cit., note Hata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadı.

29 “Violence against Muslims”, Human Rights First, op. cit., note Hata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadı.

30 “Third OIC Observatory Report on Islamophobia (Intolerance & Discrimination against Muslims)”, OIC Observatory, op. cit., note Hata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadı.

31 “Violence against Muslims”, Human Rights First, op. cit., note Hata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadı.

32 Information from the National Association of Muslim Police, London, 31 March 2011.

33 Information from the Institute of Race Relations, 25 March 2011.

34 Information from the Muslim Council of Britain, 1 April 2011.

35 Information from Engage, 31 March 2011.

36 Information from Human Rights First, op. cit., note Hata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadı.

37 “Draft concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee: Belgium” CCPR/C/BEL/CO/5, op. cit., note Hata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadı.

38 “ECRI Report on Poland (fourth monitoring cycle)”, European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, op. cit., note Hata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadı.

39 “ECRI Report on France (fourth monitoring cycle)”, European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, op. cit., note Hata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadı.

40 “Experience of discrimination, social marginalization and violence:A comparative study of Muslim and non-Muslim youth in three EU Member States” European Union Fundamental Rights Agency, (Vienna:2010),<>.

41 Information from the National Association of Muslim Police, op. cit., note Hata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadıHata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadı; “An Overview of Key Islamophobia Research”, Dr Chris Allen, National Association of Muslim Police, April 2010, <http://www.namp-uk.com/images/stories/an_overview_of_key_is.pdf>.

42 Information from Engage, op. cit., note Hata: Başvuru kaynağı bulunamadı; “Launch of All Party Parliamentary Group on Islamophobia”, Engage, 24 November, <http://www.iengage.org.uk/images/stories/appgpr241110.pdf>.

June 13, 2011
Confronting anti-Muslim hatred
21 May 2011

A conference on anti-Muslim hatred throughout Britain and Europe.
- Saturday 21 May 2011, 11-6pm
- London Muslim Centre Whitechapel Road, London E1 1JX
Speakers include:
- John Esposito – Georgetown University
- Tony Benn – Anti-war campaigner
- Mehdi Hassan – New Statesman
- Robert Lambert – European Muslim Research Centre
- Hiba Aburwein – European Forum on Muslim Women
- Peter Oborne – Daily Telegraph
- Liz Fekete – Institute of Race Relations
- Seumas Milne – The Guardian
- Salma Yaqoob – Respect
- Dr Sabine Schiffer – Germany
- Dr AbdoolKarim Vakil – Muslim Council of Britain
- Les Levidow – Campaign Against Criminalising Communities
- And many others
This is a free event but booking is advisable, for further information, email: info@enoughcoalition.org.uk or phone 020 7650 3006.
May 15, 2011
Breaking stereotypes in Brussels

At the end of March the Friends of Turkey, a group of 76 MEPs, together with TUSKON, a Turkish business confederation, held a seminar in the European Parliament with the aim of breaking stereotypes and building bridges between Turkey and the EU.

Turkish protesters shout slogans against the government as they wave Turkish flags during a protest against the Ergenekon trial in front of the heavily guarded Silivri prison in Silivri, west of Istanbul, Turkey, on 23 August 2010. 86 people, including retired army officers, the head of a small nationalist party and journalists will be faced with charges in the 2,500-page indictment include armed insurrection, aiding a terror group and possession of explosives, according to Turkish and international news sources. |EPA/TOLGA BOZOGLU

Earlier the same afternoon, the Turkey Assessment Group, an open forum for MEPs and their assistants, held its fifth meeting, addressed by Professor Binnaz Toprak on “Being different in Turkey”. Oddly enough, both meetings confirmed the stereotypes and demolished the bridges that the Friends of Turkey intended to build.

Contrary to Brussels opinion, the Turkey Assessment Group is not anti-Turkey, xenophobic and Islamophobe, but as the chairman, Morten Messerschmidt stated at the beginning of the meeting, “We are also friends of Turkey”. Perhaps the difference lies in the fact that criticism can be constructive and need not be branded as hostile. To correct another misconception: the Turkey Assessment Group’s meetings are hosted by the EFD Group in the European Parliament, which otherwise exercises no control over the content of the meetings or the selection of speakers. In fact, the aim of the Turkey Assessment Group is to act as an antidote to the views of the AKP government which have for a number of years predominated in Brussels.

Now the tide is turning. According to Barçın Yinanç, associate editor of Hürriyet Daily News, there are signs of an axis shift in the EU’s trust in Turkey’s ruling party. As Demir Murat Seyrek, a senior policy adviser for the European Foundation for Democracy, has pointed out: “There is an erosion of confidence in the AKP’s democratic rhetoric.” This was not evident at the Friends of Turkey seminar, which had more the character of a revival meeting than a sober analysis of the situation. However, a note of realism was struck by Andrew Duff, who called for a refoundation of the Turkey-European relationship and warned that if Prime Minister Erdogan put Cyprus before the European Union, he would be making a profound and historic strategic mistake.

The only criticism came from Binnaz Toprak, who as a guest complained that the term ‘Kemalist’ was now equated with that of ‘fascist’ in AKP Turkey. The next day Mrs Toprak got her comeuppance in the Islamist daily Zaman, which accused her of being delusional. Her offence consisted of heading a research group, which in December 2008 produced a report on “Being different in Turkey”. The purpose of their research was to examine the relationship between religion and conservatism in Anatolia but their most significant findings concerned the Gülen movement and its activities in connection with the increasing Islamization of Turkey. The Gülen movement, headed by Fethullah Gülen, a Turkish imam resident in Pennsylvania, is a $25 billion transnational organization with 1,000 schools in 115 countries around the world. According to STRATFOR it “provides the AKP with a social base, while the AKP provides the Gulenists with a political platform to push their agenda”. Its followers are entrenched in the government, public administration, education, the police, the judiciary, the media, business and even the military. TUSKON, which co-hosted the seminar together with the Friends of Turkey, is part of this movement.

As such, since the AKP government came to power in Turkey in 2002, it has become a force to reckon with. As journalist Ahmet Şık, who when he was arrested last month in connection with his unpublished book, “The Imam’s Army”, shouted: “Anybody who touches (Gülen) burns.”

Consequently, Fethullah Gülen has issued a statement that he has never been engaged in efforts to prevent the publication of a book, and that “Freedom of thought, expression and the press is a sine qua non for democracy.”

Nevertheless, it is widely perceived that the Ergenekon case, which was launched

in 2007 as a showdown with “the deep state”, has developed into a witch hunt against critics of the government and the Gülen movement. Take, for example, the arrest of İlhan Cihaner, Erzincan’s chief public prosecutor, after he began to investigate the activities of religious communities, and the arrest of former police chief Hanefi Avcı after he exposed the activities of Gulenists inside the police force.

Not to forget investigative journalist, Nedim Şener, a member of Binnaz Toprak’s team, who was arrested together with Ahmet Şık and also charged with being a member of the Ergenekon organization. Last year Nedim Şener was given the PEN Freedom of Expression Award and named World Press Freedom Hero by the International Press Institute.

Therefore it is not surprising that Prime Minister Erdoğan, who is averse to criticism and awkward questions, cancelled his visit to Brussels on 1 April.

The Turkey Assessment Group, which shares the European Parliament’s concern about the deterioration in freedom of the press in Turkey, has invited Haluk Şahin, Professor of Communications at Istanbul’s Bilgi University, to present the latest developments at its next meeting on 4 May. Accordingly, we hope that MEPs and their assistants from across the political spectrum will support our endeavours to throw light on this problem and attend the meeting.

Morten Messerschmidt, MEP, chairman, and Robert Ellis, advisor to the Turkey Assessment Group

via Breaking stereotypes in Brussels – New Europe.

April 11, 2011
Jews against Islamophobia

By Jenny Bourne

27 January 2011, 5:00pm

An anti-racist of Jewish descent asks if the time has not come for Jews to speak out against Islamophobia.

IT is, I suppose, given the politics of the Middle East, inevitable though not excusable, that some Jews will be vociferous about emphasising Muslim extremist crimes here. But what is not inevitable and is certainly unforgiveable is the way in which certain people speaking as Jews are currently upping the ante on a generalised Islamophobia. Far from pointing out the parallels that both communities – of Jews and Muslims – face in terms of the construction of ideologies and policies against them, some Jewish opinion-formers are actually joining in to the creation of new Islamophobic stereotypes using the same tricks and tropes that were being used against Jews just over half a century ago.

This became particularly clear after Baroness Warsi delivered a speech on 20 January against Islamophobia – describing it as the form of racism about which we had a ‘blind spot’, allowing it therefore to become acceptable and respectable. ‘You could even say that Islamophobia has now passed the dinner-table test.'[1] Significantly, her talk was delivered as the annual lecture organised in memory of Sir Sigmund Sternberg, a Hungarian Jew (for ten years president of the movement for Reform Judaism), believer in interfaith dialogue and philanthropist.

The response to Warsi

Interfaith indeed! The reaction against her speech was immediate and vitriolic. And in the cacophony one could detect the Christian timbre in critics such as Norman Tebbit, Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali and Philip Hollobone, the MP wishing to ban the burka. The phone-in responses to Any Questions (BBC Radio 4 Saturday 22 January) were truly frightening in their bigotry. One respondent had so long a list of Muslim ‘crimes’ across the globe that one could not but believe him to be a political professional defender of religion, race and nation. Richard Littlejohn, too, in his Daily Mail column managed to include, while cocking a snook at upper-class dinner party conversation, a wide range of Muslim sins – from wearing burkas to harbouring extremist preachers – while citing British fears over the intrusive call to prayer and increased immigration.[2] But it is not just a Christian tone that runs through the cacophony, now we can hear a decidedly Jewish tone as well in the responses of columnists like Melanie Phillips and academics like Geoffrey Alderman.

Phillips on her Spectator blog admonished the baroness. ‘Instead of using her unique platform to defuse extremism by telling a few home truths to the British Muslim community about its inflated and perverse sense of its own victimisation, Warsi has merely poured fuel onto the flames.’ And shrill and ad hominem, she went on to say that Warsi ‘has now outed herself as at best a stupid mouthpiece of those who are bamboozling Britain into Islamisation, and at worst a supporter of that process.’ She went on: ‘Either way, how David Cameron now deals with her will tell us much about how the Prime Minister will deal in turn with the great civilisational crisis that Britain now faces.'[3]

Geoffrey Alderman, true to the academic he is, was less vituperative but in fact more insidious in his arguments against Warsi on Radio Four’s religious Sundaydebate with Sheikh Ibrahim Mogra of the Muslim Council of Britain. But why was a Jewish spokesman chosen to respond in the first place? Why not a Christian or a layman? And if a Jew why not someone from an organisation with a proven record of tackling racism across faiths? Presumably Alderman was chosen precisely to make the debate more combative.[4] But more informative? When first asked about Islamophobia, Alderman’s reply was derisive. ‘Islamophobia’ he explained, ‘is the irrational prejudice against Muslims and against Islam … But the prejudices, thoughts and feelings that many people have about Islam are not based on irrational thoughts but very rational thought processes.’ How are they rational? Well he, too, like Warsi, had been at dinner parties where guests recently asked themselves round the table, ‘what sort of a religion is it whose clerics praised the assassination of a Pakistani politician simply because he criticised their blasphemy laws? Or what sort of a religion is it whose adherents praised the actions of a lady now in an English prison for trying to murder a British member of parliament?’ But, surely, to select your facts to suit your case is the essence of prejudice, which is in itself irrational.

When pulled up by Mogra for judging an entire religion on the actions of a handful of criminals, he quickly changed tack. Muslims apparently are not just criminal; they are also, according to him, downright liars and bigots. He went on to quote from the scaremongering Panorama programme ‘British Schools, Islamic Rules’ (23 November 2010) which had already come in for much criticism from the Muslim community for its fallacious arguments, innuendo and lack of hard information.

‘I am not just talking about criminal behaviour’, said Alderman, ‘We had a BBCPanorama programme a few weeks ago where proof was given to the audience that children in this country, children of Muslim parents are taught in religious schools that Jews are descended from pigs and monkeys.’ A canard, repeated often enough, apparently becomes gospel. Mogra’s protest that this was absolute nonsense: ‘I have seen the programme and how distorted it was. A historical fact is taken out of context’, fell on deaf ears.[5]

When asked by the interviewer as to whether there were not parallels between anti-Semitism in the 1930s and Islamophobia today, Alderman replied, ‘There was a lot of Judeophobia in Britain in the ’20s and ’30s, some of it was certainly irrational – the idea that Jews in Britain were part of a conspiracy to take over the governing of the world was irrational. But I am afraid it is true that the British Union of Fascists did latch on to some genuine fears …’ Ultimately, and after some pushing from the interviewer, he conceded that ‘irrational prejudice’ against Islam needs to be challenged and violence against Muslims needs to be condemned.

Jews take a stand

Some Jews in the West have realised that today they have to take a clear and unequivocally different position from their appointed spokespeople when it comes to the policies of the state of Israel and the redefining of anti-Zionism as a new anti-Semitism, as evidenced in groups such as Independent Jewish Voices, Jews for Justice for Palestinians and the Jewish Socialist Group.

But it looks now that we need to take the brief wider and come out as ‘Jews against Islamophobia’.

Why us, why Jews? Because we would not be true to our history of oppression if, to subvert that anti-Semite TS Eliot, ‘we have had the experience’ but ‘miss the meaning’. We cannot stand by and see sets of stereotypes being created the way they were created against Jews, see the whole discourse being imbued with hatred as it was against Jews, see prejudices passed off as facts, what is irrational deemed rational and acceptable. The point is not to equate anti-Semitism with Islamophobia (they are not the same, have different geneses, appeared at their most virulent at completely different points in time), but to reveal the ways that stereotypes are created. One can find many parallels and the fact that they are parallels should itself be instructive. Look at the examples above. There is Phillips with her version of ‘a conspiracy theory’, Muslims are the greatest threat to civilisation. There is Alderman generalising from one or two people’s conduct on to a whole people and repeating canards until, presumably, they become accepted truth. Like the Protocols or the Blood Libel?

Work in this field has been started and, ironically, in Germany, where a handful of scholar/activists have, in the interests of combating a growing anti-Muslim sentiment, gone back to basics. Sabine Schiffer and Constantin Wagner have been examining the constructions of stereotypes against both communities.[6] Whilst they are at pains to say that the two hatreds are not the same and that there are differences on the conceptual and analytical levels, they point out that ‘collective constructions, dehumanisation, misinterpretation of religious imperatives (proof by “sources”) and conspiracy theories are the patterns one finds in both discourses.’ They call the clear parallels in style of argument and of images ‘frightening’ and say that to some extent the exact same metaphors and ideas are used, including terms such as ‘Islamisation’ and ‘Judaisation’. They show how recent empirical shifts have moved the ‘Muslim’ from an external enemy to the ‘internal enemy’, from ‘foreigner’ to ‘the enemy within’.

The Muslim in Germany, they show, is now the archetypal ‘Other’. And not just in Germany, but across Europe. It is time we really began to heed that cacophony, the rumblings of a real hatred and bigotry which is beginning to take hold. It is time to stand up as Jews against Islamophobia.

References: [1] Very few people appear to have read the whole speech which contextualises religious hatred and also shows her as keen to distinguish between extremists and moderates within the Muslim community. [2] Richard Littlejohn, ‘ What kind of dinner parties do you go to, Baroness?’, Daily Mail, 21 January 2011. [3] Melanie Phillips, ‘Just whose side is Baroness Warsi on?’, Spectator blog, 20 January 2011. [4] Geoffrey Alderman, a professor of politics at the University of Buckingham and author of a number of books on the history of Jews in modern Britain, is a regular columnist in the Jewish Chronicle. [5] The Panorama programme quoted a Saudi text book which stated that Jews looked like pigs and monkeys – a poor translation of verses in the Qur’an. They relate to what was to happen to a specific group within the Israelites, who had disobeyed God’s command about the Saturday and gone fishing and caused waters to break and flow. They were, one reading has it, to be insulted as apes, another has it that they behaved like animals. [6] See ‘Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia – new enemies, old patterns’, inRace & Class, January 2011. In 2008, Wolfgang Benz, historian and director of the Centre for Research on Anti-Semitism in Berlin, organised the conference ‘Muslim enemy – enemy Jew’ because, according to the press release, ‘The parallels are unmistakable: with stereotypes and constructs that are familiar as a tool of anti-Semitism’ being used to now generate ‘anti-Muslim sentiment’.

The Institute of Race Relations is precluded from expressing a corporate view: any opinions expressed are therefore those of the authors.

January 29, 2011
Tory chief Baroness Warsi attacks ‘bigotry’ against Muslims

Prejudice against Muslims has become widespread and socially acceptable in Britain, the Conservative chairman will claim.

Baroness Warsi will warn against trying to divide Muslims into 'moderates' and 'extremists' saying that it simply fosters intolerance Photo: IAN JONES

By James Kirkup, Political Correspondent

Islamophobia has “passed the dinner-table test” and is seen by many as normal and uncontroversial, Baroness Warsi will say in a speech on Thursday.

The minister without portfolio will also warn that describing Muslims as either “moderate” or “extremist” fosters growing prejudice.

Lady Warsi, the first Muslim woman to attend Cabinet, has pledged to use her position to wage an “ongoing battle against bigotry”.

Her comments are the most high-profile intervention in Britain’s religious debate by any member of David Cameron’s government.

They also confirm the Coalition’s determination to depart from its Labour predecessor’s policy of keeping out of issues of faith.

Lady Warsi will use a speech at the University of Leicester to attack what she sees as growing religious intolerance in the country, especially towards followers of Islam.

A recent study estimated there are now around 2.9 million Muslims in Britain, up from 1.6 million in 2001.

Some religious and social commentators have suggested that growth in numbers gives rise to legitimate concerns, asking whether strict adherence to the faith is compatible with the values of Western democracies.

Some Christian leaders have also said that Britain has become less tolerant of their faith during the same period.

In response, Lady Warsi will blame “the patronising, superficial way faith is discussed in certain quarters, including the media”. The peer will describe how prejudice against Muslims has grown along with their numbers, partly because of the way they are often portrayed.

The notion that all followers of Islam can be described either as “moderate” or “extremist” can fuel misunderstanding and intolerance, she will say.

“It’s not a big leap of imagination to predict where the talk of ‘moderate’ Muslims leads; in the factory, where they’ve just hired a Muslim worker, the boss says to his employees: ‘Not to worry, he’s only fairly Muslim’.

“In the school, the kids say: ‘The family next door are Muslim but they’re not too bad’.

“And in the road, as a woman walks past wearing a burka, the passers-by think: ‘That woman’s either oppressed or is making a political statement’.”

A decade of growth in the British Muslim population also saw the first al-Qaeda attacks on British soil and Lady Warsi will address the issue of terrorism and extremism.

Terrorist offences committed by a small number of Muslims must not be used to condemn all who follow the faith, she will insist.

But she will also suggest that some Muslim communities must do more to make clear to extremists that their beliefs and actions are not acceptable.

“Those who commit criminal acts of terrorism in our country need to be dealt with not just by the full force of the law,” she will say.

“They also should face social rejection and alienation across society and their acts must not be used as an opportunity to tar all Muslims.”

Her call echoes Mr Cameron’s New Year message, in which the Prime Minister asked why the country was “allowing” the continuing radicalisation of young British Muslims.

Lady Warsi will also reveal that she raised the issue of Islamophobia with the Pope when he visited Britain last year, urging him to “create a better understanding between Europe and its Muslim citizens.”

Despite her warnings, she will recognise that Britain has a long history of tolerance and diversity.

www.telegraph.co.uk, 19 Jan 2011

January 20, 2011
Swiss architects challenge Islamophobia

By Liz Fekete

1 December 2010, 4:00pm

The IRR News Service met up with three members of Foreign Architects Switzerland (FAS) who are challenging the Swiss ban on minarets.[1]

LIZ Fekete: You are in London, at the invitation of the Architecture Foundation, to speak at a forum on architecture’s political and social role in the context of the Swiss ban on minarets and the hysteria in the US over plans to site a new Islamic cultural centre in downtown New York City.[2] First, could you tell us a little bit about FAS?

Charlotte: We are a collective of architects from different backgrounds living in Switzerland fed up with the general passivity within the architecture profession who steer away from any controversy or political debate and adopt a low profile. Switzerland is often portrayed as a paradise, but from where we were standing there is a lack of innovation. So the whole purpose of FAS is to provide, often in a playful way, a platform for alternative ideas and projects that would never be considered in the brain-dead, incestuous architectural media of Switzerland. Oh, yes, and we are also friends. The Collective is a way for us to come together – we are only a few individuals and FAS is not our main occupation.

So how did you react when news came through that the Swiss People’s Party (SVP)[3] had been successful in its referendum to prohibit the construction of minarets?

Charlotte: When we heard about the minaret ban we felt very angry. We were angry because it was clearly discriminatory. The whole talk of Islamicisation was just crazy (there are only four mosques with minarets in the whole of Switzerland). And all that the referendum proved was the level of ignorance and fear that exists in Switzerland about a different culture, Islam. But we were also angry as architects. We felt this as an attack on us as architects, on our field. And despite this, the architectural scene was not responding. This also made us very angry. The only opposition came from civil society in the form of demonstrations, as well as a few individual acts, such as that of Guillaume Morand, the owner of a shoe company, who defied the referendum by extending the chimney on the top of his warehouse near Lausanne to give it the shape of a minaret.

So what did you decide to do?

Charlotte: We decided that if we were to address the situation we needed to take architecture and turn it into a weapon. We launched a counter- competition – to design an Islamic Centre. And for this competition we adopted the slogan ‘Save the Honor of Architecture, Save the Honour of Switzerland’.

Lorenz: We chose a site which has a traditionally Swiss landscape. It’s a visitor’s centre up on a hill, with lots of churches and a leisure lake. You have to visualise this. In the middle of a residential area, directly adjacent to a Greek Orthodox church, swimming facilities and an active bar scene. It would be impossible to camouflage a mosque on such a site. The counter-competition asked entrants to come up with a design that would, in the words of the competition tender, ‘promote interaction and dialogue in the community’. You also have to understand that the site, the Kronenwiese along the Limmat River was already controversial. Homeless people and a soup-kitchen had been evicted from the area to make way for a new housing development. So the counter-competition was in itself a political statement, asking the profession to re-evaluate its priorities and raising pertinent questions about multiculturalism in Switzerland.

Jesse: We invited architects to submit a design which would not only give Muslims a place to pray and meet, but provide an open meeting point between cultures. The design would include a mosque, a hamam, an Aula, space for lectures, exhibitions and a theatre, multipurpose rooms for men and women, offices, library, coffee shop and restaurant, as well as a public park and playground.

And what was the reaction?

Jesse: Well, in terms of the general public the reaction was small. But the most important thing was that we actually got entries. Architecture if rather non-political and this is one of the reasons we founded FAZ. And we got so many really thoughtful entries which helped us achieve our aim – to catalyse a much needed discussion within the architectural community about cultural differences.

Charlotte: Some of the entrants challenged stylistic norms, others went so far as to suggest that religion, as well as architectural style, is bound to evolve in a changing cultural climate. From these entries we picked out three which addressed different issues of design. The first was very open, the second quite aggressive, challenging codes on mosques and the third rather tongue-in-cheek, with a minaret. And through this we really did achieve our aim to catalyse discussion, which we also did via our facebook page and our fanzine that we sent to about 250 architects, university chairs, architecture organisations and publications in and outside Switzerland.

Did you get much reaction from the Muslim community?

Jesse: The Muslim community are very under-represented in Swiss society and were very scared. They were placed in a difficult position; they found it difficult to come out. Ours was an act of solidarity.

Charlotte: You have to understand that we are representative of what we are – middle-class architects with a few Muslim friends. I had an intern from Kuwait at that time and she was very shocked by all this. The only way she could understand it was to explain it as some kind of misunderstanding. You find often in discussions people like to minimise the issue, talk about it in rational terms and suggest it must be the result of a misunderstanding.

You clearly feel that architecture has the power to convey positive messages about cultural interaction and it saddened you to see how it was being manipulated.

Jesse: Yes. The architecture of cities are where ideas come together. We tried to get the architecture profession to react, but largely because architects are apolitical, we were disappointed. It seemed to us an obvious thing that you can’t outlaw the mosque, or indeed the right to practice one’s religion. The minaret ban was all about pushing things to their limits. It’s a symbolic thing. And what the minaret ban did was to set forth a symbolic war, one that has been fabricated. It is a fictional narrative. Look at the imagery – minarets are bayonets attacking the land – this is a fictional narrative. They are making use of architecture to make a political statement against Islam. In this way, they conceal their racism. Racism does not have a face. The landscape – architecture – buildings give it a face. And this is precisely why we feel architects had a duty to speak out against the ban. Architecture is a manifestation of social relationships. Architects are responsible for the form of the city, for the urban landscape which organises social relationships. Architects could promote constructive, creative dialogue – if they dare to speak up.

A lot of the original arguments in favour of the ban seemed to rest on the idea of protecting the traditional landscape from foreign cultures. Why was this such a powerful factor in Switzerland?

Jesse: You have to understand that Switzerland is a country where an unusual emphasis is placed on the power of the built environment. This is a country which regulates everything from cast shadows and noise pollution to where you can and can’t hang out your laundry – this is the level to which the Swiss are concerned about their neighbourhoods. It just seems that this is one of the main ways in which xenophobia expresses itself in Switzerland. For me, it seems something very specific to the Swiss. It seems to me that here in the UK xenophobia is much more linked to the fear of terrorism, whereas in Switzerland xenophobia manifests itself around issues of the built environment.

Charlotte: Yes. In Switzerland, the argument is that the landscape is attached to our identity as a nation, and the identity-building aspects of that landscape were depicted as threatened by Islam.

And is this what the SVP exploit?

Lorenz: Yes, but the SVP is adept at exploiting any insecurity. They generate a fear of people and they use that fear to gain votes. In fact, at the moment they have issued another referendum to expel foreign nationals who commit crimes.[4] The one thing we all agree on is that the people who are racist and manipulate these fears are not stupid.

But that’s what’s so fascinating about you three. You describe yourself as middle-class people with limited interaction with Muslims. Other people in your social position were falling over themselves to support the ban. Why did you see things differently?

Charlotte: Maybe it’s a question of sensibility. For me I was always uncomfortable with the post 9/11 anti-Muslim drive. I just can’t understand how people don’t link the minaret ban to other forms of discrimination, particularly what happened to the Jews. It freaks me out.

Jesse: I think it comes down to contact and proximity with other people. In our professional life, certainly as architects, we come into contact with people from different cultures all the time. It is the nature of the job that we travel. We have worked in Vienna, in India, all over the place, and we have lived alongside people from the former-Yugoslavia. In many ways I just don’t get it. I can’t understand why people have difficulties with Islamic cultures – after all Islam and Christianity both have Abrahmic roots. I mean the differences are minute.

Charlotte: You must remember, that in the run-up to the minaret ban, people didn’t really mobilise. The opinion polls were all saying that the ban would have no chance. I have many international friends and I wanted to make a sign.

Lorenz: I agree that it’s a question of sensibility – towards fairness, justice. The ones who want to kick people out just don’t see the injustice of it all.

[1] On 29 November 2009, Switzerland became the first country in Europe to vote to curb the religious practices of Muslims when a referendum banning the construction of minarets on mosques was backed by a strong majority. As a result, Article 72 of the Swiss Federal Constitution regulating relations between the state and religion was amended to include the statement: ‘the construction of minarets will be forbidden’. For more information see IRR Briefing Paper No 1, February 2010, ‘The Swiss referendum on minarets: background and aftermath’. [2] Faith in the City: the mosque in the contemporary Urban West was a two-day event organised by the Architecture Foundation in partnership with Openvizor and Arts Council England’s Arts & Islam programme. More information from www.architecturefoundation.org.uk [3] The ‘People’s Initiative Against the Construction of Mosques’ was launched by the SVP and the small ultra-conservative Federal Democratic Union. An SVP poster in favour of the ban depicted a woman wearing a burqa against a background of a Swiss flag upon which several minarets resembling missiles were erected. [4] On 29 November, Swiss voters approved a plan for automatic deportation of foreigners who commit serious crimes or benefit fraud, despite warnings that people who had lived all their life in Switzerland, married Swiss citizens and had children but never obtained Swiss passports, would be unusually hard hit by expulsion. Some 52.9 per cent of voters backed the SVP proposal. 47.1 per cent of voters were opposed.

The Institute of Race Relations is precluded from expressing a corporate view: any opinions expressed are therefore those of the authors.

RELATED LINKS

The image above, used in FAS’ presentation, was inspired by a video campaignby the Federal Democratic Union (EDU).

The Architecture Foundation

Foreign Architects Switzerland

Arts and Islam

IRR is not responsible for the content of external websites. Inclusion of a link does not constitute an endorsement. Please contact us if you come across a broken link.

, 1 December 2010

December 4, 2010