Fear of Islam: Britain’s New Disease
Last Updated on Tuesday, 30 November 1999 00:00
‘Fear of Islam: Britain’s New Disease’. So ran the headline in the Independent in July, above an article by the columnist Peter Oborne in which he outlined the ways in which Islamophobic sentiment had achieved a level of respectability in Britain that no other form of prejudice enjoyed. Oborne argued that, while overt racism and anti-semitism were unacceptable in modern society: the ‘systematic demonisation of Muslims has become an important part of the central narrative of the British political and media class; it is so entrenched, so much part of normal discussion, that almost nobody notices’. Citing proud declarations of personal antipathy to Islam by journalists such as Polly Toynbee and Rod Liddle, and Martin Amis’ assertion that ‘The Muslim community will have to suffer until it gets its house in order,’ Oborne cited examples of law-abiding Muslims living in daily fear of abuse and attack.Oborne’s argument, which formed the basis for a Channel 4 Dispatches programme the following week, was accompanied by a Democratic Audit pamphlet, co-written with James Jones, entitled Muslims Under Siege. It remains to be seen what, if any, impact Oborne’s critique has on the way Muslims are ‘framed’ in politics and the popular press – Melanie Phillips, in the following day’s Daily Mail, predictably repudiated Oborne’s argument by trotting out a familiar litany about Muslim youth out of control, a lack of integration and the failure of multiculturalism. However, Oborne’s piece fires a useful opening volley in the battle for the media to be more self-aware and not always seek the sensational and often insupportable when reporting Muslims in Britain.
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Trackback(0)
Comments (2)

written by scrutinizer , December 01, 2008
It is necessary to take stock of how the British media covered the Mumbai tragedy.
London's Evening Standard on 28 November, besides The Daily Mirror and The Telegraph on the 29th November were all keen to claim a scoop for reporting an alleged (but unsubstantiated) link between the culprits in Mumbai with Britain's Muslim communities.
One is surprised how armchair commentators are being accorded spotlight for idle second guessing and lazy finger pointing. Among hasty commentators, Douglas Murray wrote a comment piece in the Daily Express dated on the 29th November, while Ed Hussain volunteered his two cent's worth on Channel Four News on the 29th November.
Sections of the US electronic media too appeared desperate to offer anything that could attract viewers to their channels. On Friday 28 November,CNN's Sitauaion Room was still running several hours old footage as live, 'breaking news.' Perhaps the ethical need to clearly identify items recorded earlier was set aside in the rush for ratings. Credibility did not appear as a high priority during those hours for many eager to jump the guessing game bandwagon.
Think tanks and the media, which advance “form over substance, celebrity over ideas” plague the public discourse, warn Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke adding: At times of crisis, the nuanced and expert advice of — "career professionals, scholars, analysts and others working in government and at universities and think tanks — is sidelined or ignored, while emotional sloganeering is amplified by 24/7 cable news and Internet chatter that prize raucous confrontations between fervent avatars of the right and the left. Reasoned analysis is shoved to the sidelines, and critics of the party or faction in power are often accused of being unpatriotic or disloyal."
Can one expect that views of genuine experts will be solicited by the media to offer cautious, well-informed and learned opinion about something they have evidence for?
written by Madeline , October 28, 2008
Ian Traynor's recent Guardian article reporting on the findings of the Pew Survey of Global Attitudes draws attention to an apparent rise in Antisemitism and Islamophobia in Europe, quoting statistics which indicate that while European Islamophobia is 'considerably higher' than Antisemitism, both are on the increase and there tends to be a link between the two. The article suggests that 'people over 50 and of low education' are 'more likely to be prejudiced', but offers little more in the way of elaboration or explanation as to the root cause of such a rise.
Barely a week after the publication of the Pew Survey findings we see the shadow home secretary, Dominic Grieve, making headline 'news' with yet another attack on Britain's 'terrible' multiculturalism, which he considers responsible for installing 'fear' in 'long-term inhabitants' and creating 'a vacuum in which the BNP rise and Hizb ut-Tahrir rises' – and for a multitude of other sins.
Despite the warnings of Peter Oborne politicians like Grieve continue actively to raise concerns about 'other' faiths and cultures in Britain while condemning multiculturalism. ‘Fundamental Islam’, in particular is singled out as an object of ‘fear’ for 'restricting debate'. Pious personal statements of the 'us and them' variety (often contradictory) now seem common parlance. Grieve's patronising reference to his tailoring of speeches for Muslim voters, 'Our country has adapted because people have been tolerant... When I go and address an Islamic audience I always point this out," is disturbingly self-righteous, almost designed to offend.
Such belligerent speeches make the headlines, while the more measured voices that counter them seem relegated to letters columns and comment buried in the back pages. In this context, should the results of the Pew Survey - if they are to be believed – come as a great surprise?
For articles and letters, see:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/18/islam.religion
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/sep/27/polls.conservatives1
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/sep/29/conservatives.britishidentity).
Write comment


