The London Blasts: Media Review

DAY 41: 17 August 2005

Contents

Police Realism

Feeding Islamophobia - Part 1 Martin Wolf

Christian Terrorism

Back To Wolf

Feeding Islamophobia - Part 2 The Guardian

The Hallmark Of Dictatorships

Reforming Islam

Blair Pleads Against Extradition

Shoot To Kill Update

POLICE REALISM

Towards the end of a long article about US-UK tensions over policing what are called "radical Islamist groups", the FT (page 15 or paid-for access) includes this muffled sign of realism:

'Many in the intelligence community argue, though, that the impact of radical imams can be overstated and other complicated and long-simmering motivations can drive disaffected Muslims into violent extremism.'

In other words, decoding through the fog: the policy and media focus on 'preachers of hatred' is irrelevant to national security, and the verbal advocacy of 'martyrdom' of a few has little if any effect on the risks of terrorism.

The real risks come from government policy abroad - and at home - feeding and confirming the despair and anger that turns into violent hatred.

The FT article is yet another astonishing omission of the Home Office/Foreign Office report on Young Muslims and Extremism.

Honestly, someone ought to be pressuring the media to take some notice of it.

FEEDING ISLAMOPHOBIA - PART 1: MARTIN WOLF

Martin Wolf in the FT (page 17 or paid-for access) has an article about Islam and 'Islamism' attempting to rebut an earlier article by economist Lord Desai, also in the FT (10 August, page 16, or paid-for access). (There was also a critical letter on 11 August which was briefer and more coherent than Wolf.)

Wolf's article is riddled with factual and logical errors. He calls the Provision IRA 'Marxist', when it was precisely the 'Marxist' and gradualist orientation of the Official IRA that led to the Provisionals splitting away, for example.

Let's not even start on Wolf's handling of the 'revolutionary socialist' issue. It's just too sad.

Despite all this, Wolf is correct in his central point of rebuttal that it is wrong to draw a parallel between al Qaeda and the IRA, and ask why the former is called 'Islamic terrorism' and the latter is never called 'Christian terrorism'. As Wolf points out, the IRA's ideology 'has no religious element': 'Irish nationalists are Catholics because the conquered Irish stuck to the old faith when the English and Scots adopted Protestantism in the 16th century. Catholicism became the basis of their separate national identity.'

In other words, Catholicism became a marker for their underlying ethnic-national bond of the majority of the conquered Irish, but was not identical to it.

The IRA did not claim to be fighting for their faith, or justify their struggle with reference to holy texts. They claimed to be fighting for their community and their nation, and justified their struggle with reference to nationalist declarations rather than the Bible.

Now we come to Wolf's argument, and he gets into trouble. He asks us to imagine a network of terrorists struggling for the return of the medieval papacy's supremacy over the secular states, for an end to all other Christian sects, and the reintroduction of the interdict and the inquisition. This would be a parallel, Wolf points out, to the al Qaeda network we are currently facing.

However, at this point Wolf takes a crucial step away from the question under discussion.

CHRISTIAN TERRORISM

Meghnad Desai was urging commentators not to see al Qaeda-type ideologues as 'Muslims first and terrorists second'. Others have urged the abandonment of the term 'Islamic terrorism' on similar grounds.'

In Wolf's analogy, would mainstream newspapers refer to the violent extremists he dreams up as 'Christian terrorists' or 'Catholic terrorists'?

The answer is clear when we consider the case of anti-abortion terrorists who kill doctors on the basis of their interpretation of Christian texts, or the Lord's Resistance Army, which terrorises Uganda in an effort to establish the Christian version of the Ten Commandments.

Such individuals and groups are never referred to as 'Christian terrorists', despite their clear self-identification and motivation/ideology.

Why not? Because of the offence that would be given to ordinary, law-abiding people who identify themselves as Christian. Because of the implication that such lawless violence is inherent in the Christian religion.

The reason for avoiding the term 'Islamic terrorism' is not that al Qaeda does not derive from a strand of Islam (it does) or that those who carry out these kinds of atrocities are not devout believers in their own interpretation of Islam (some of them are).

Just as the reason for avoiding the term 'Christian terrorism' is not that the anti-abortion bombers or other US terrorists do not derive from a strand of Christianity (see this interesting FBI report), or that those who carry out these kinds of atrocities are not devout believers in their own interpretation of Christianity (some of them are).

The reason for avoiding these terms is they stain the reputation of millions of people who have nothing to do with political violence. In Britain, using the term 'Islamic terrorism' adds to already high levels of fear and hatred directed at the Muslim minority - and increases the already serious level of violence against Asians and visible Muslims.

(Here is an interesting comparison between some kinds of Christian fundamentalist thinking and al Qaeda. Some say that Timothy McVeigh, who bombed the Federal building in Oklahoma City killing 168 people, was involved in the Christian fundamentalist cult 'Christian Identity'. There are FBI documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act which show a connection with Christian Identity members, but it does not seem clear that he was a member.)

BACK TO WOLF

Instead of dealing with the issues around the terminology of 'religious terrorism', Wolf veers off into a spot of high-sounding Muslim-bashing. Recall that in the Home Office/Foreign Office report into Young Muslims and Extremism, one conclusion was that,

The government must make a more concerted effort to persuade the Muslim community that it is trusted and respected . That requires a change of language. Public challenges to Muslims to decide where their loyalties lie are counterproductive. (Emphasis added.)

This paragraph could be repeated with 'The media' replacing 'The government' at the start of the first sentence. Instead, of a 'change of language', there is huge pressure throughout the media on the Muslim community, a constant series of 'public challenges' to 'Muslims to decide where their loyalties lie', and to 'root out the extremists'.

Wolf's contribution to this effort, which the Young Muslims and Extremism report rightly describes as 'counterproductive', is to conclude that,

Muslims must decide where they stand on Islamism, both in word and deed... If the ideology [of the bombers] is unrepresentative, Muslims must struggle to ensure that it fails.

If the ideology is unrepresentative... A suggestion that if Muslims do not 'root out the terrorists', or condemn the terrorists with a satisfactory degree of regularity and vehemence, this means that al Qaeda does truly 'represent' Islam.

We should refer now to Iraq expert Juan Cole who points out what does not happen when Christian terrorists strike:

Thomas Friedman will not write an op-ed for the New York Times about what is wrong with white southern Christian males that they keep producing these terrorists. He will also not ask why Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are not denouncing Eric Rudolph every day at the top of their lungs.

No reporter will interview frightened Iraqis about their fears at hearing that there are 138,000 armed Christians in their country belonging to the same faith as the bomber, Rudolph, some of them from his stomping grounds of Florida and North Carolina.

Daniel Pipes will not write a column for the New York Post suggesting that white southern Christians be put in internment camps until it can be determined why they keep producing terrorists and antisemites.

George W. Bush will not issue a statement that "Christianity is a religion of peace and we will not allow the Eric Rudolphs to hijack it for their murderous purposes."

Frank Gaffney will not write a column for the Washington Post castigating the Republican Party for appeasement in surrendering to the terrorist threats of radical Christians, by now opposing reproductive rights.

Max Boot will not point out that if the United States could only keep the Philippines in the early twentieth century by killing 400,000 Filipinos, than that was what needed to be done, and if the US can only beat back radical Christians by killing 400,000 of them, then that may just be necessary.

Pat Buchanan will not write a column blasting King George III for having promoted the illegal immigration into the American south of criminal elements, whose maladjusted descendants are still making trouble.

FEEDING ISLAMOPHOBIA - PART 2 THE GUARDIAN

The Guardian (page 6) carries this paragraph in a story headlined, 'Clarke suspects link between two London bomb attacks':

His admission came as radical Muslim groups denounced Tony Blair's 12-point anti-terror package as likely to demonise legitimate Islamic values.

Online, this sentence is rendered as gibberish, but there are two further paragraphs:

The statement by 40 radical groups, including the Islamic Human Rights Commission and the Muslim Association of Britain, said the proposed closure of mosques that "foment terrorism" would amount to collective punishment of the Muslim community.

The statement, coorganised by the largest Muslim extremist organisation in Britain, Hizb-ut-Tahrir which faces being banned, also protests at its proposed proscription.

The story, whether on paper or online, is effectively smothered by the headline and surrounding text.

The Telegraph has a long article on the subject headed 'Muslims warn Blair of 'mark of dictatorship', with an accompanying box describing the signatories as 'Groups from mainstream to extreme'.

Notice that the coverage of this story is better in the right-wing Telegraph than in the liberal Guardian, in terms of signposting that something has happened, length of treatment (especially comparing the paper versions), and accuracy.

Notice especially that while the Guardian lumps all the signatories together as 'radical groups', the Telegraph is careful (in a separate box article) to say that some signatories are 'Islamic pressure groups, such as the Muslim Association of Britain and the Islamic Human Rights Commission', others 'such as the Islam channel, available on Sky, or the moderate magazine Q-News', are 'more mainstream', but that there are also 'several more extreme organisations' signing the document.

Which paper is more guilty of censorship? Which paper is feeding Islamophobia more? Which paper deserves a letter of complaint?

Incidentally, we couldn't find any mention of the statement in the FT, Independent or The Times. A more complete form of censorship.

The statement itself is available from the Muslim Association of Britain as plain text, or as a pdf from the Federation Of Student Islamic Societies.

THE HALLMARK OF DICTATORSHIPS

The statement referred to above says, correctly, 'Criminalising the mere possession of certain opinions is the hallmark of dictatorships, not democracies.'

Recall Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott's remark on 9 August about 'extremist preacher' Omar Bakri Mohammed:

'at the moment he has the right to come in and out. That is the circumstances at present and we have to change situations in this country by law. It’s a democracy, not a dictatorship, for God’s sake.'

On 12 August, Omar Bakri Mohammed was excluded from Britain - without any change in the law.

A natural conclusion follows.

REFORMING ISLAM

A few days ago, Salman Rushdie called for an Islamic Reformation, placing the burden of responsibility for the London bombers on 'traditional' British Muslim culture (there is a passing nod to realism, but the emphasis is clear: 'The deeper alienations that lead to terrorism may have their roots in these young men’s objections to events in Iraq or elsewhere, but the closed communities of some traditional Western Muslims are places in which young men’s alienations can easily deepen').

Today Oxford University lecturer (and vicar) Giles Fraser makes some relevant points about the Reformation and about Islam.

BLAIR PLEADS AGAINST EXTRADITION

Tony Blair is, of course, extremely concerned about suspected terrorists being returned to their countries of origin, when these countries of origin are guilty of large-scale human rights abuses. He has pleaded for this not to be done:

Tony Blair has written to the newly elected president of Kyrgyzstan urging him not to extradite 15 Uzbeks who fled their country after troops opened fire on demonstrators in the southern town of Andijan. They are now wanted as "terrorists" by the authoritarian regime of Uzbekistan.

Their plight has become a litmus test for the Kyrgyz president, Kurmanbek Bakiyev, who finds himself at the centre of a strategic tug of war between US, Britain and the EU, eager to encourage western values in central Asia, and Russia, intent on retaining its influence in the former Soviet stronghold.

Mr Blair himself is doing so much to uphold 'western values' here in Britain, he can't help exporting them to Kyrgyszstan.

It has been said of the Balkans that they produced more history than could be consumed locally. We might say something similar of New Labour Britain's production of 'moral values'.

[Please note that information emerged which is discussed in the 21 August Media Review which substantially modifies the following comments.]

SHOOT TO KILL UPDATE

The leaks from the Independent Police Complaints Commission inquiry into the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes appear to largely confirm the picture given in the Observer.

The Telegraph and Guardian go for page 1, the FT for page 2 (we can't locate the story on their site), The Times and Independent for page 4. Different newspapers report that the police had wrongly identified Mr de Menezes as Hussein Osman/Hamdi Isaac.

The Times is the only paper brave enough to headline a separate story, 'Met chief's defence of shooting open to question'. With the evidence so far released, Ian Blair misled the public on a number of points immediately after the shooting. It is hard to see him being misled by his own officers, but it is also hard to see him deliberately lying about matters which would soon be in the public domain.

No one has mentioned that just this weekend the Met said that there were no CCTV images of the shooting.

The Guardian probably has the best background article on the killing.

JNV welcomes feedback.