GUEST BLOG: Donna Mojab – Islamophobia or free speech?

20
18

B_uCzmWW8AE7t3V.jpg-large-600x376

On May 29th, as the popular Friday evening prayers were underway inside a Phoenix Mosque in America, a loud anti-Islam protest, berating Islam and its prophet Mohammed, was taking place outside.

What these protesters and other anti-Islam campaigners have in common is the belief that Islam is posing a real danger to freedom of speech in the West.

They justify their actions by the need to defend freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech is often used as a veneer to disguise Islamophobic rhetoric in the same way that many anti-Semites use the legitimate criticism of Israel and Zionism to camouflage what the Philosopher Sartre termed as their “criminal passion”.

There is little doubt that Islamophobia is on the rise in the West.

It is true that, in Britain, anti-Semitism has also been on the rise and although we should be gravely concerned about both, we cannot ignore the fact that the current manufactured backdrop of heightened fear and suspicion of followers of Islam, disproportionately harms Muslims by amplifying Islamophobia at an alarming rate.

A recent British study shows that a third of British school pupils believe that ‘Muslims are taking over’ Britain. This false perception maybe explained by some of the headlines which have been splashed across the front pages of British national newspapers in recent years: “Muslim schools ban our culture”, “Muslims tell us how to run our schools”, “Christmas is banned: it offends Muslims”, “Muslim plot to kill Pope”, and “BBC puts Muslims before YOU!”

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

What is read and heard in the media contribute greatly to shaping public’s fear and resentment of Muslims.

Of course there is no point in getting into victimhood competition but we must understand that Muslims are currently suffering the same prejudice and hostilities that were, in the past, targeted at other minority groups such as gays, Jews and people of colour.

The equal ridiculing of Jews and Christians, at the height of anti-Semitism, did not produce an equal impact on the Jews. The Christians who were in charge of the power structure remained unaffected, whilst the Jews suffered increased and enforced hatred and prejudices towards them. Same was also true for people of colour. The demeaning cartoons of black people contributed and encouraged harmful assumptions of black inferiority.

This leads us to why ridiculing Muslims and their religion, by mostly white privileged male cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo, does not fit well with the role of satirists who are meant to challenge and ridicule those in power, not those who are already marginalized.

It is true that Charlie Hebdo cartoonists ridicule all religions equally but the fact is that their actions do not produce equal outcomes for Muslims who are already feared and vilified. The barbaric terrorists who attacked Charlie Hebdo saw the magazine as yet another front in the war waged by the West against Muslims and their religion.

Here in NZ, many editorials framed the Charlie Hebdo attacks as attacks on freedom of speech. Debates about the root causes of terrorism and extremism of the Western military were all swept under the carpet whilst endless debates about the right to free speech continued.

I believe that the greatest threats to our freedom of speech are posed by the Western governments who, under the guise of national security and through greater surveillance, limit our privacy and our ability to speak freely without intimidation and fear.

It is hopeful that, whilst the vile anti-Muslim protests were taking place outside the Phoenix Mosque, hundreds of peaceful counter-demonstrators turned up holding signs that said “love not hate”.

History has taught us that it is important that we do all we can to stamp out bigoted views before they spread and take root in the public psyche.

We are all lucky to live in one of the most free countries in the world.

New Zealand is a wonderfully tolerant and pluralistic society but we must stay vigilant and do all we can to ensure that discriminatory, sensational or unbalanced reporting in relation to Muslims or other minority groups do not become a feature of journalistic practice in parts of our media.

Recently, a senior Fairfax reporter and a self-confessed public intellectual, Martin van Beynen, penned an article in which he likened the hijab to a gang patch and suggested that hijab-wearing Muslims were likely to be terrorist sympathizers.

Of course, under the freedom of speech, Martin van Beynen is perfectly entitled to his opinions but it is my view that opinions that harm a minority group, who are already feared and vilified, have no place in a mainstream newspaper such as The Press.

The article has been referred to the Race Relations Office of Human Rights Commission and we should have their views on this matter very soon.

 

Donna Mojab (Donna Miles) is a British-born, Iranian-bred, New Zealand citizen with a strong interest in human rights, justice and equality issues. Mojab worked as a senior mathematics lecturer in the United Kingdom for 10 years before migrating to New Zealand as a new mother and setting up a small business in Christchurch. She is a prolific letter writer to The Press and an active member of Christchurch’s Canterbury for Justice in Palestine

20 COMMENTS

  1. History has taught us that it is important that we do all we can to stamp out bigoted views before they spread and take root in the public psyche.

    Well said! let’s start with protesting:

    against death sentences for apostates;
    against practice of stoning to death for adultery (females only, of course);
    against death sentences for homosexual acts;
    against physical mutilation for property crimes;
    death sentences for blasphemy;
    against cultural and religious tolerance of female genital mutilation;
    against cultural and religious tolerance of honour killing of female family members.

    And against those who wish to shut down talk about these issues.

    That’ll do for starters.

    • @ Richard Christie: I think you missed the point I was trying to make but I’m all for talking so let’s talk..

      Firstly, Qu’ran does not explicitly prescribe the death penalty for apostasy, or promote the practice of stoning. The origin of stoning to death can be found in ancient Greece and is mentioned as acceptable punishments in both the Torah and the Old Testament of the Bible.

      Also, don’t forget that in Pakistan, one of the most extreme Islamist countries, it was the British colonizers that first introduced penalties for blasphemy for political reasons; much the same way that Americans encouraged the creation of Islamic fundamentalism and the rise of contemporary Jihadism in Afghanistan in order to combat the Soviet’s influence in the late 1970s.

      It is true that blasphemy laws are most common in the Middle East and North Africa, but did you know that a 2012 Pew study by Angelina Theodorou shows that such laws can also be found in Europe (in 16% of countries) and the Americas (31%)?

      Death penalties for apostasy and blasphemy are extremely rare and charges are often motivated by personal vendettas and political motives; not religion. The opposition voices to these barbaric practices are loud and clear within the Muslim world.

      Female Genital Mutilation practices are cultural. It is an African problem. It’s a horrible practice that takes place in African Christian majority counties too.

      As for the treatment of gays, all faiths have a horrible track record here and you would get a different impression if you saw Muslim gays walking hand in hand in streets of Beirut and Istanbul. Islam like other religions can and has been reforming.

      The fact is that we can always find stories that shock us. Read here about the recent Jewish ban on female drivers in London: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/01/belz-london-jews-stand-up-women-driving-ban

      Do I think Judaism is incompatible with Western values? No, of course not. I see it for what it is. Nutters operating amongst a largely peaceful and tolerant Jewish community.

      • My comment didn’t mention Islam once so your response is probably more revealing than you intended it to be.

        All the same, let’s unpack it a bit.

        Firstly, Qu’ran does not explicitly prescribe the death penalty for apostasy, or promote the practice of stoning.

        This is a disingenuous response, “not explicitly” eh?

        Well, the Hadith do, for both subjects. And well you know it.

        Some other Pew stats for you to consider:

        http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

        the figures on apostasy and stoning speak for themselves.

        The origin of stoning to death can be found in ancient Greece and is mentioned as acceptable punishments in both the Torah and the Old Testament of the Bible.

        That’s no defence at all for the practice in the 21st century.
        A variation on the “you did it first” that one hears in the kindergarten playground.

        Oh, and if you insist on maintaining the argument of precedent, maybe you’d like to put a time frame upon when Islam can be expected to abandon the practice.

        Perhaps you can demonstrate the practice in modern secular or other jurisdictions, aside from Islamic countries. I have no doubt you’ll find some, somewhere. When done we can compare the numbers and development of these places with the Islamic countries in which the practice occurs and is tacitly condoned by its religious leaders.

        Also, don’t forget that in Pakistan, one of the most extreme Islamist countries, it was the British colonizers that first introduced penalties for blasphemy for political reasons;

        The death penalty for apostasy first introduced into Pakistan by the British?
        I call bullshit on that. Pure bullshit.

        Also are you complaining that Pakistan is too Islamic?

        It is true that blasphemy laws are most common in the Middle East and North Africa, but

        … but let’s not look there, hey! because here comes a squirrel…

        Death penalties for apostasy and blasphemy are extremely rare and charges are often motivated by personal vendettas and political motives; not religion.

        Whatever you claim the motivation is they are carried out in the name of religion. How can a punishment for blasphemy be considered divorced from religion?

        The opposition voices to these barbaric practices are loud and clear within the Muslim world.

        Not according to the Pew statistics.

        Female Genital Mutilation practices are cultural.

        And that’s why I wrote “cultural and religious tolerance” and, as I didn’t mention any particular religion, I fail to see why you felt it necessary to to point out that …

        It is an African problem. It’s a horrible practice that takes place in African Christian majority counties too

        The fact is that we can always find stories that shock us.

        Agreed, not hard if you look in certain parts of the world.

        • “My comment didn’t mention Islam once so your response is probably more revealing than you intended it to be.”

          Given that your responding to an article on islamophobia, I wouldn’t pat yourself on the back too heartily. Your own comment is even more revealing. Anyway … when are you organising the first protest?

          • Anyway … when are you organising the first protest?

            Against what exactly?

            Medieval barbarism enacted in the name of religious faith?

            Be assured, I’ll always speak out against it. Whatever the faith.

        • Thank you for your insightful, clear, educated and might I add respectful response to the author. Please inform us how to hear more from you.

  2. After reading all of this,

    I believe that you can’t see both sides of the story.

    “It is true that Charlie Hebdo cartoonists ridicule all religions equally but the fact is that their actions do not produce equal outcomes for Muslims who are already feared and vilified. The barbaric terrorists who attacked Charlie Hebdo saw the magazine as yet another front in the war waged by the West against Muslims and their religion.”

    You call them barbaric, but why try to justify their actions at all?

    From your words I feel as if you sympathize with these ‘terrorists’.

    • “I am not Charlie” but let me tell you that I have no sympathy for any terrorists this includes the biggest global terrorists, the US and UK. Have you heard of St Augustine’s pirate and the emperor’s story?

      The Emperor asks of the pirate, “How dare you molest the seas?” To which the pirate replies, “How dare you molest the whole world? Because I do it with a small boat, I am called a pirate and a thief. You molest the world with a great navy, and are called an emperor.

      I just think the pirate has a point but it doesn’t mean that I approve of pirates.

      • You just prove my point!!!!

        You are only seeing one side of the story, the ‘pirates story’.

        I am sure the emperor with his big navy has a point too…

        Perhaps, none of these points/views have any greater meaning, however we try to entertain the thought.

  3. “We are all lucky to live in one of the most free countries in the world.”

    Oh really?

    Ask the Tangata Whenua if they agree with that.
    Ask anyone falsely imprisoned.
    Ask anyone who has had their kids removed from them by mistake.
    Ask anyone who has had to take on the IRD, or the Judiciary or any number of over enthusiastic government departments.
    Ask any woman who has been banging her head on the glass ceiling.
    Ask anyone living at the bottom edge of society.

    A little background work is always useful for bloggers.

    • It’s a relative statement. It means we’re freer than most countries, not that we are absolutely free.

      • Wow! Thanks for that. So we’re all relatively free in NZ?

        It’s an absolute adjective: you are either free or not.

        A bit like pregnant. You try describing someone as being relatively pregnant and see how far that gets you.

  4. Just what we need. Another apologist for a group of fundamentalist terrorist primates.

    Tolerance goes both ways. One mans insistence of tolerance is another mans loss of freedom and total disregard for his own culture.

    Our tolerance has been tested to the limit. Our patience has been rewarded with contempt from a minority group of primitive thugs who think that they have a right not to be offended.

    We have our own beliefs, culture, morals and standards and I hope that this whole thing is the start of an uprising against those who seek to minimise and devalue our own culture, morals and standards by abusing our patience, tolerance and understanding that we offer with open arms through our generous immigration rules.

    Tolerance goes both ways, especially when starting a new life in a new country.

  5. It is not freedom of speech that is under the microscope here, but what is said with it.

    If people are willing to vilify other race, creeds, religions, etc, under the guise of “freedom of speech” – then that same freedom can be applied to criticise the vilifyers. It cuts both ways.

    • .It is not freedom of speech that is under the microscope here, but what is said with it.

      Yes, and what is implicit in the post is that criticism of religion, particularly criticism of Islam, is off-limits.

      Mislabeling criticism as vilification is an essential first step in the attempt to shut criticism down.

      I am Charlie Hebdo.

      • Knowing the difference between free speech and vilification is essential in their current unfettered and limitless context. Only one of them is actually free.

  6. I wonder if those who see themselves as experts on the Koran have carefully scrutinized the Bible. You can find what you are looking for; if it is harsh violence you want , try reading Deuteronomy for a starter. Jeff Halper, co-founder of the Israeli Committee against House Demolitions, explained to some of us that the violent Jewish fundamentalist Rabbis, the ones of the Hebron Palestine area, teach the Torah..ignore the Jewish prophets ..walk around armed to the teeth..openly & violently terrify Palestinians..claim God is on their side.

  7. Gosh, I really hope that “discriminatory, sensational or unbalanced reporting in relation to Muslims or other minority groups do not become a feature of journalistic practice in parts of our media.”

    Because even here, in the liberal online media, people trying to defend muslims say things like:

    “The barbaric terrorists who attacked Charlie Hebdo”

    Too late. According to the story given us by mass media (what other evidence do we have?), a group of islamist militants killed some artists. This is horrible but “barbaric terrorists”” is sensationalist and discriminatory, in that you apply it to these killers, but nowhere in this article do you apply the same or worse to the US military agents who kill civilians while assassinating people in foreign countries with drones (except for the meme graphic at the top of your article, which I assume you don’t control), or who indefinitely imprison and torture people, often on spurious grounds.

    I recently read Two Brothers by Ben Elton, one of the most cutting satirists of his generation. He describes the gradual rise of fascism, and its attendant anti-jewish discrimination, from out of a society that was once as liberal and culturally creative as we think of New York as being now. There were too many disturbing parallels with the rise of anti-islamic discrimination amongst both joe public – think of that imbecile haranguing the women in burqa at the service station – and oft-quoted public intellectuals like Dworkins et al. There is a divide-and-rule game being played on us here by the ruling parties, just as there was in Germany, and we must not fall for it, or tolerate it.

Comments are closed.