Islamophobia
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Islamophobia

  • 775 views
Uploaded on

In the shadow of the ‘global war on terror’ that defined the early 21st century, Muslims appear to have become the acceptable face of racism. We shall examine the ways in which myths and factoids......

In the shadow of the ‘global war on terror’ that defined the early 21st century, Muslims appear to have become the acceptable face of racism. We shall examine the ways in which myths and factoids about Islam and Muslims travel to define what Morgan and Poynting call a ‘global islamophobia’ expressed through hijab and burka bans, debates about fundamentalism and segregation, and the notion of Islamification posed as a threat to ‘civilised’ societies. Looking historically, we shall examine the parallels between contemporary islamophobia and anti-Semitism to show how religion and culture have consistently been invoked in constructions of racism.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
775
On Slideshare
767
From Embeds
8
Number of Embeds
2

Actions

Shares
Downloads
20
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 8

http://www.alanalentin.net 6
https://twitter.com 2

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. IslamophobiaThe  Racial  State  Week  12Dr  Alana  Lentin   a.lentin@uws.edu.auTuesday, 14 May 13
  • 2. Overview  Origins  &  Definitions  of  Islamophobia?From  Orientalism  to  the  ‘Clash  of  Civilizations’9/11  and  after:  ‘War  on  our  doorsteps’Producing  threatThe  mainstream  and  the  extremeTuesday, 14 May 13
  • 3. Cooking while MuslimTuesday, 14 May 13Yesterday’s news: A Saudi student living in Michigan was questioned in his home by FBIagents after neighbours saw him carrying a pressure cooker and called the police.Talal al Rouki had been cooking a traditional Saudi Arabian rice dish called kabsah and wascarrying it to a friends house.According to reports in a Saudi newspaper on Friday, the FBI are increasingly vigilant aboutpressure cooker home-made bombs after the Boston bombers used one to make anexplosive.
  • 4. ‘Somewhere  out  there  is  the  Muslim  that  the  British  government  seeks.  Like  all  religious  people  he  (the  government  is  more  likely  to  talk  about  Muslim  women  than  to  them)  supports  gay  rights,  racial  equality,  womens  rights,  tolerance  and  parliamentary  democracy.  He  abhors  the  murder  of  innocent  civilians  without  qualification  -­‐  unless  they  are  in  Palestine,  Afghanistan  or  Iraq.  He  wants  to  be  treated  as  a  regular  British  citizen  -­‐  but  not  by  the  police,  immigration  or  airport  security.  He  wants  the  best  for  his  children  and  if  that  means  unemployment,  racism  and  bad  schools,  then  so  be  it.He  raises  his  daughters  to  be  assertive:  they  can  wear  whatever  they  want  so  long  as  its  not  a  headscarf.  He  believes  in  free  speech  and  the  right  to  cause  offence  but  understands  that  he  has  neither  the  right  to  be  offended  nor  to  speak  out.  Whatever  an  extremist  is,  on  any  given  day,  he  is  not  it.He  regards  himself  as  British  -­‐  first,  foremost  and  for  ever.  But  whenever  a  bomb  goes  off  he  will  happily  answer  for  Islam...’Gary  Younge,  The  Guardian,  30  March  2009Tuesday, 14 May 13
  • 5. Origins & DefinitionsTuesday, 14 May 131. Origins:Islamophobia first coined in 1918. Emerges alongside antisemitism as a means forconceptualising precise discrimination faced by Muslims.Orientalism (Said 1978): describes the complex ways in which Arabs and Muslims arerepresented.i.e. Those affected by Islamophobia are usually also affected by Orientalism.2. Runnymede TrustRunnymede Trust (a British race equality think tank) produced a report in 1997 -‘Islamophobia: A Challenge to Us All’ - reintroduces Islamophobia into public policydiscussions.The report defined Islamophobia as: "unfounded hostility towards Muslims, and thereforefear or dislike of all or most Muslims."The report described the prevailing attitudes that underpin Islamophobia:• Islam is monolithic and cannot adapt to new realities• Islam does not share common values with other major faiths• Islam as a religion is inferior to the West.  It is archaic, barbaric, and irrational.• Islam is a religion of violence and supports terrorism.• Islam is a violent political ideology.3. Criticism and responses
  • 6. Origins & DefinitionsOriginsTuesday, 14 May 131. Origins:Islamophobia first coined in 1918. Emerges alongside antisemitism as a means forconceptualising precise discrimination faced by Muslims.Orientalism (Said 1978): describes the complex ways in which Arabs and Muslims arerepresented.i.e. Those affected by Islamophobia are usually also affected by Orientalism.2. Runnymede TrustRunnymede Trust (a British race equality think tank) produced a report in 1997 -‘Islamophobia: A Challenge to Us All’ - reintroduces Islamophobia into public policydiscussions.The report defined Islamophobia as: "unfounded hostility towards Muslims, and thereforefear or dislike of all or most Muslims."The report described the prevailing attitudes that underpin Islamophobia:• Islam is monolithic and cannot adapt to new realities• Islam does not share common values with other major faiths• Islam as a religion is inferior to the West.  It is archaic, barbaric, and irrational.• Islam is a religion of violence and supports terrorism.• Islam is a violent political ideology.3. Criticism and responses
  • 7. Origins & DefinitionsOriginsRunnymede  Trust  (1997)Tuesday, 14 May 131. Origins:Islamophobia first coined in 1918. Emerges alongside antisemitism as a means forconceptualising precise discrimination faced by Muslims.Orientalism (Said 1978): describes the complex ways in which Arabs and Muslims arerepresented.i.e. Those affected by Islamophobia are usually also affected by Orientalism.2. Runnymede TrustRunnymede Trust (a British race equality think tank) produced a report in 1997 -‘Islamophobia: A Challenge to Us All’ - reintroduces Islamophobia into public policydiscussions.The report defined Islamophobia as: "unfounded hostility towards Muslims, and thereforefear or dislike of all or most Muslims."The report described the prevailing attitudes that underpin Islamophobia:• Islam is monolithic and cannot adapt to new realities• Islam does not share common values with other major faiths• Islam as a religion is inferior to the West.  It is archaic, barbaric, and irrational.• Islam is a religion of violence and supports terrorism.• Islam is a violent political ideology.3. Criticism and responses
  • 8. Origins & DefinitionsOriginsRunnymede  Trust  (1997)‘unfounded  hostility  towards  Muslims,  and  therefore  fear  or  dislike  of  all  or  most  Muslims.’Runnymede  Trust  (1997)Tuesday, 14 May 131. Origins:Islamophobia first coined in 1918. Emerges alongside antisemitism as a means forconceptualising precise discrimination faced by Muslims.Orientalism (Said 1978): describes the complex ways in which Arabs and Muslims arerepresented.i.e. Those affected by Islamophobia are usually also affected by Orientalism.2. Runnymede TrustRunnymede Trust (a British race equality think tank) produced a report in 1997 -‘Islamophobia: A Challenge to Us All’ - reintroduces Islamophobia into public policydiscussions.The report defined Islamophobia as: "unfounded hostility towards Muslims, and thereforefear or dislike of all or most Muslims."The report described the prevailing attitudes that underpin Islamophobia:• Islam is monolithic and cannot adapt to new realities• Islam does not share common values with other major faiths• Islam as a religion is inferior to the West.  It is archaic, barbaric, and irrational.• Islam is a religion of violence and supports terrorism.• Islam is a violent political ideology.3. Criticism and responses
  • 9. Origins & DefinitionsOriginsRunnymede  Trust  (1997)‘unfounded  hostility  towards  Muslims,  and  therefore  fear  or  dislike  of  all  or  most  Muslims.’Runnymede  Trust  (1997)Criticisms  and  responsesTuesday, 14 May 131. Origins:Islamophobia first coined in 1918. Emerges alongside antisemitism as a means forconceptualising precise discrimination faced by Muslims.Orientalism (Said 1978): describes the complex ways in which Arabs and Muslims arerepresented.i.e. Those affected by Islamophobia are usually also affected by Orientalism.2. Runnymede TrustRunnymede Trust (a British race equality think tank) produced a report in 1997 -‘Islamophobia: A Challenge to Us All’ - reintroduces Islamophobia into public policydiscussions.The report defined Islamophobia as: "unfounded hostility towards Muslims, and thereforefear or dislike of all or most Muslims."The report described the prevailing attitudes that underpin Islamophobia:• Islam is monolithic and cannot adapt to new realities• Islam does not share common values with other major faiths• Islam as a religion is inferior to the West.  It is archaic, barbaric, and irrational.• Islam is a religion of violence and supports terrorism.• Islam is a violent political ideology.3. Criticism and responses
  • 10. Origins & DefinitionsOriginsRunnymede  Trust  (1997)Criticisms  and  responses‘Racialisation  does   not   depend  on  biology   to  produce  races;   rather   it    sees  the  construction  of  collective  identities  as  a  product  of  social  processes.  lt    does  not  follow   that   just  because  Muslims  are  not  a  race’,  or  there   is    yet  no  Muslim   gene,  their   subjugation  is  not    racism.’Sayyid  (2012)Tuesday, 14 May 131. Origins:Islamophobia first coined in 1918. Emerges alongside antisemitism as a means forconceptualising precise discrimination faced by Muslims.Orientalism (Said 1978): describes the complex ways in which Arabs and Muslims arerepresented.i.e. Those affected by Islamophobia are usually also affected by Orientalism.2. Runnymede TrustRunnymede Trust (a British race equality think tank) produced a report in 1997 -‘Islamophobia: A Challenge to Us All’ - reintroduces Islamophobia into public policydiscussions.The report defined Islamophobia as: "unfounded hostility towards Muslims, and thereforefear or dislike of all or most Muslims."The report described the prevailing attitudes that underpin Islamophobia:• Islam is monolithic and cannot adapt to new realities• Islam does not share common values with other major faiths• Islam as a religion is inferior to the West.  It is archaic, barbaric, and irrational.• Islam is a religion of violence and supports terrorism.• Islam is a violent political ideology.3. Criticism and responses
  • 11. Eurocentrism & OrientalismTuesday, 14 May 131. A ‘violent hiererchy’Sayyid: arguments about whether Islamophobia is a proper term, ignore what Islamophobiareally describes.For Sayyid, it is, about the ‘maintenance of the “violent hierarchy” between the idea of theWest and Islam.’Islamophobia is about judging (regulating) Muslims by reference to a western framework, i.e.asking questions about the compatibility of Islam/Muslims with the West.That is why Islamophobia crops up in debates on multiculturalism, security, feminism, etc.It is ultimately an anxiety about the sustainability of the West itself - can the West continue todominate culturally, economically and militarily?2. Being Muslim as PoliticalSayyid: Although islamophobia is similar in many ways to racism, it is also distinct from it forvarious reasons.Islamophobia is a contemporary phenomenon because it emerges in contexts where beingMuslim has a political significance (e.g. it cannot be compared to historical contexts wherebeing Muslim was not problematised in the same way as today).Sayyid: ‘What Islamophobia seeks to discipline is the possibility of Muslim autonomy, that is,the affirmation of Muslim political identity as a legitimate historical subject.’But, Muslims (particularly in Britain where Sayyid is from) are very active politically, and havebecome more so, politicised by the post-9/11 era, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and thecontinued occupation of Palestine. They want to be at the centre of political life, not at its
  • 12. Eurocentrism & OrientalismA  ‘violent  hierarchy’Tuesday, 14 May 131. A ‘violent hiererchy’Sayyid: arguments about whether Islamophobia is a proper term, ignore what Islamophobiareally describes.For Sayyid, it is, about the ‘maintenance of the “violent hierarchy” between the idea of theWest and Islam.’Islamophobia is about judging (regulating) Muslims by reference to a western framework, i.e.asking questions about the compatibility of Islam/Muslims with the West.That is why Islamophobia crops up in debates on multiculturalism, security, feminism, etc.It is ultimately an anxiety about the sustainability of the West itself - can the West continue todominate culturally, economically and militarily?2. Being Muslim as PoliticalSayyid: Although islamophobia is similar in many ways to racism, it is also distinct from it forvarious reasons.Islamophobia is a contemporary phenomenon because it emerges in contexts where beingMuslim has a political significance (e.g. it cannot be compared to historical contexts wherebeing Muslim was not problematised in the same way as today).Sayyid: ‘What Islamophobia seeks to discipline is the possibility of Muslim autonomy, that is,the affirmation of Muslim political identity as a legitimate historical subject.’But, Muslims (particularly in Britain where Sayyid is from) are very active politically, and havebecome more so, politicised by the post-9/11 era, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and thecontinued occupation of Palestine. They want to be at the centre of political life, not at its
  • 13. Eurocentrism & OrientalismA  ‘violent  hierarchy’Being  Muslim  as  political  Tuesday, 14 May 131. A ‘violent hiererchy’Sayyid: arguments about whether Islamophobia is a proper term, ignore what Islamophobiareally describes.For Sayyid, it is, about the ‘maintenance of the “violent hierarchy” between the idea of theWest and Islam.’Islamophobia is about judging (regulating) Muslims by reference to a western framework, i.e.asking questions about the compatibility of Islam/Muslims with the West.That is why Islamophobia crops up in debates on multiculturalism, security, feminism, etc.It is ultimately an anxiety about the sustainability of the West itself - can the West continue todominate culturally, economically and militarily?2. Being Muslim as PoliticalSayyid: Although islamophobia is similar in many ways to racism, it is also distinct from it forvarious reasons.Islamophobia is a contemporary phenomenon because it emerges in contexts where beingMuslim has a political significance (e.g. it cannot be compared to historical contexts wherebeing Muslim was not problematised in the same way as today).Sayyid: ‘What Islamophobia seeks to discipline is the possibility of Muslim autonomy, that is,the affirmation of Muslim political identity as a legitimate historical subject.’But, Muslims (particularly in Britain where Sayyid is from) are very active politically, and havebecome more so, politicised by the post-9/11 era, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and thecontinued occupation of Palestine. They want to be at the centre of political life, not at its
  • 14. Eurocentrism & OrientalismA  ‘violent  hierarchy’Being  Muslim  as  political  ‘What  Islamophobia  seeks  to  discipline  is  the  possibility  of  Muslim  autonomy,  that  is,  the  affirmation  of  Muslim  political  identity  as  a  legitimate  historical  subject.’Sayyid  (2012)Tuesday, 14 May 131. A ‘violent hiererchy’Sayyid: arguments about whether Islamophobia is a proper term, ignore what Islamophobiareally describes.For Sayyid, it is, about the ‘maintenance of the “violent hierarchy” between the idea of theWest and Islam.’Islamophobia is about judging (regulating) Muslims by reference to a western framework, i.e.asking questions about the compatibility of Islam/Muslims with the West.That is why Islamophobia crops up in debates on multiculturalism, security, feminism, etc.It is ultimately an anxiety about the sustainability of the West itself - can the West continue todominate culturally, economically and militarily?2. Being Muslim as PoliticalSayyid: Although islamophobia is similar in many ways to racism, it is also distinct from it forvarious reasons.Islamophobia is a contemporary phenomenon because it emerges in contexts where beingMuslim has a political significance (e.g. it cannot be compared to historical contexts wherebeing Muslim was not problematised in the same way as today).Sayyid: ‘What Islamophobia seeks to discipline is the possibility of Muslim autonomy, that is,the affirmation of Muslim political identity as a legitimate historical subject.’But, Muslims (particularly in Britain where Sayyid is from) are very active politically, and havebecome more so, politicised by the post-9/11 era, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and thecontinued occupation of Palestine. They want to be at the centre of political life, not at its
  • 15. Eurocentrism & OrientalismA  ‘violent  hierarchy’Being  Muslim  as  political  Orientalist  attitudesTuesday, 14 May 131. A ‘violent hiererchy’Sayyid: arguments about whether Islamophobia is a proper term, ignore what Islamophobiareally describes.For Sayyid, it is, about the ‘maintenance of the “violent hierarchy” between the idea of theWest and Islam.’Islamophobia is about judging (regulating) Muslims by reference to a western framework, i.e.asking questions about the compatibility of Islam/Muslims with the West.That is why Islamophobia crops up in debates on multiculturalism, security, feminism, etc.It is ultimately an anxiety about the sustainability of the West itself - can the West continue todominate culturally, economically and militarily?2. Being Muslim as PoliticalSayyid: Although islamophobia is similar in many ways to racism, it is also distinct from it forvarious reasons.Islamophobia is a contemporary phenomenon because it emerges in contexts where beingMuslim has a political significance (e.g. it cannot be compared to historical contexts wherebeing Muslim was not problematised in the same way as today).Sayyid: ‘What Islamophobia seeks to discipline is the possibility of Muslim autonomy, that is,the affirmation of Muslim political identity as a legitimate historical subject.’But, Muslims (particularly in Britain where Sayyid is from) are very active politically, and havebecome more so, politicised by the post-9/11 era, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and thecontinued occupation of Palestine. They want to be at the centre of political life, not at its
  • 16. Eurocentrism & OrientalismThe  Orient  is  seen  as  separate,  eccentric,  backward,  silently  different,  sensual,  and  passive.  It  has  a  tendency  towards  despotism  and  away  from  progress.  It  displays  feminine  penetrability  and  supine  malleability.  Its  progress  and  value  are  judged  in  terms  of,  and  in  comparison  to,  the  West,  so  it  is  always  the  Other,  the  conquerable,  and  the  inferior.  Paraphrased  from  Orientalism  (Said,  1978)Tuesday, 14 May 131. A ‘violent hiererchy’Sayyid: arguments about whether Islamophobia is a proper term, ignore what Islamophobiareally describes.For Sayyid, it is, about the ‘maintenance of the “violent hierarchy” between the idea of theWest and Islam.’Islamophobia is about judging (regulating) Muslims by reference to a western framework, i.e.asking questions about the compatibility of Islam/Muslims with the West.That is why Islamophobia crops up in debates on multiculturalism, security, feminism, etc.It is ultimately an anxiety about the sustainability of the West itself - can the West continue todominate culturally, economically and militarily?2. Being Muslim as PoliticalSayyid: Although islamophobia is similar in many ways to racism, it is also distinct from it forvarious reasons.Islamophobia is a contemporary phenomenon because it emerges in contexts where beingMuslim has a political significance (e.g. it cannot be compared to historical contexts wherebeing Muslim was not problematised in the same way as today).Sayyid: ‘What Islamophobia seeks to discipline is the possibility of Muslim autonomy, that is,the affirmation of Muslim political identity as a legitimate historical subject.’But, Muslims (particularly in Britain where Sayyid is from) are very active politically, and havebecome more so, politicised by the post-9/11 era, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and thecontinued occupation of Palestine. They want to be at the centre of political life, not at its
  • 17. “Huntington  is  an  ideologist,  someone  who  wants  to  make  ‘civilizations’  and  ‘identities’  into  what  they  are  not:  shut-­‐down,  sealed-­‐off  entities  that  have  been  purged  of  the  myriad  currents  and  countercurrents  that  animate  human  history,  and  that  over  centuries  have  made  it  possible  for  that  history  not  only  to  contain  wars  of  religion  and  imperial  conquest  but  also  to  be  one  of  exchange,  cross-­‐fertilization  and  sharing.”Edward  Said  (2001)The Clash of CivilizationsTuesday, 14 May 13
  • 18. “Huntington  is  an  ideologist,  someone  who  wants  to  make  ‘civilizations’  and  ‘identities’  into  what  they  are  not:  shut-­‐down,  sealed-­‐off  entities  that  have  been  purged  of  the  myriad  currents  and  countercurrents  that  animate  human  history,  and  that  over  centuries  have  made  it  possible  for  that  history  not  only  to  contain  wars  of  religion  and  imperial  conquest  but  also  to  be  one  of  exchange,  cross-­‐fertilization  and  sharing.”Edward  Said  (2001)The Clash of CivilizationsTuesday, 14 May 13
  • 19. “There’s  a  definite  urge  -­‐  don’t  you  have  it?  -­‐  to  say,  ‘The  Muslim  community  will  have  to  suffer  until  its  gets  its  house  in  order’...  They  hate  us  for  letting  our  children  have  sex  and  take  drugs  -­‐  well,  they’ve  got  to  stop  their  children  killing  people.”Martin  Amis    (2006)Amis vs. EagletonTuesday, 14 May 13The spat between Martin Amis and Terry Eagleton has become emblematic of the ideological framing of the waron terror and the clash of civilizations as a fight for liberty and modernity against unfreedom and a return to whatsome see as the ‘dark ages’.While, for Martin Amis, suppression of the rights of Muslims is justified because of what he sees as their attack onwestern values and societies, others such as Eagleton see this as arrogant, racist imperialism.[SHOW INTRO TO I/VIEW]The Amis v. Eagleton dispute should be set against the backdrop of global Islamophobia. i.e.it is not neutral. It was happening against a backdrop of war during which the majority of thevictims were Muslims.Often repeated in the media was the need to have a so-called ‘honest and open’ debateabout Muslims and Islam (backdrop to Younge’s article). However, as evidenced by Amis’scomments, this often allows for incendiary comments to be made against a marginalisedminority that rely on generalisation and stereotyping - all Muslims are terrorists.
  • 20. “There’s  a  definite  urge  -­‐  don’t  you  have  it?  -­‐  to  say,  ‘The  Muslim  community  will  have  to  suffer  until  its  gets  its  house  in  order’...  They  hate  us  for  letting  our  children  have  sex  and  take  drugs  -­‐  well,  they’ve  got  to  stop  their  children  killing  people.”Martin  Amis    (2006)Amis vs. EagletonTuesday, 14 May 13The spat between Martin Amis and Terry Eagleton has become emblematic of the ideological framing of the waron terror and the clash of civilizations as a fight for liberty and modernity against unfreedom and a return to whatsome see as the ‘dark ages’.While, for Martin Amis, suppression of the rights of Muslims is justified because of what he sees as their attack onwestern values and societies, others such as Eagleton see this as arrogant, racist imperialism.[SHOW INTRO TO I/VIEW]The Amis v. Eagleton dispute should be set against the backdrop of global Islamophobia. i.e.it is not neutral. It was happening against a backdrop of war during which the majority of thevictims were Muslims.Often repeated in the media was the need to have a so-called ‘honest and open’ debateabout Muslims and Islam (backdrop to Younge’s article). However, as evidenced by Amis’scomments, this often allows for incendiary comments to be made against a marginalisedminority that rely on generalisation and stereotyping - all Muslims are terrorists.
  • 21. 9/11 and after: ‘Wars onour doorsteps’Tuesday, 14 May 131. Personalising securityAs part of the process of racialiation is dehumanisation, it is easy to divorce the ‘honest andopen’ debate about Muslims from what has been happening tp Arab and Muslim populationssince the unleashing of the ‘war on terror’.Gargi Bhattacharyya: ‘From the pictures of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib to the brutalisationand murder of Iraqi civilians by coalition forces to the public burning of the bodies of deadTaliban fighters as a warning and provocation to their colleagues, these nation-buildingoccupations are meting out treatment that implies that these places are inhabited by lesserpeoples.’On the other hand, the war on terror is predicated on ensuring ‘our’ personal security. It isthus unlike other wars. It is made personal - the threat is everywhere, anyone could be avictim at any time.The personification of the attacker as a stereotypical feeds into the need for society to create‘folk-devils’ (link week 10). Everyone fitting the stereotype is to be mistrusted, not justbecause his (it’s usually a man) beliefs conflict with our own, but because he could attack usat any moment - not the nation, but us personally.For that reason, we have become ‘docile bodies’ (Foucault) in the management of the threat.e all compliantly take off our shoes at the airport or throw away our liquids. Any protestmeans being treated as a potential terrorist ourselves. So everyone is involved and invested inbeing vigilan for the ever-present threat.This is another central trope in race-thinking (the enemy among us - the race within the race -Foucault).Bhattacharyya: ‘The racialised other is frightening because there is no way of knowing how
  • 22. 9/11 and after: ‘Wars onour doorsteps’Personalising  securityTuesday, 14 May 131. Personalising securityAs part of the process of racialiation is dehumanisation, it is easy to divorce the ‘honest andopen’ debate about Muslims from what has been happening tp Arab and Muslim populationssince the unleashing of the ‘war on terror’.Gargi Bhattacharyya: ‘From the pictures of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib to the brutalisationand murder of Iraqi civilians by coalition forces to the public burning of the bodies of deadTaliban fighters as a warning and provocation to their colleagues, these nation-buildingoccupations are meting out treatment that implies that these places are inhabited by lesserpeoples.’On the other hand, the war on terror is predicated on ensuring ‘our’ personal security. It isthus unlike other wars. It is made personal - the threat is everywhere, anyone could be avictim at any time.The personification of the attacker as a stereotypical feeds into the need for society to create‘folk-devils’ (link week 10). Everyone fitting the stereotype is to be mistrusted, not justbecause his (it’s usually a man) beliefs conflict with our own, but because he could attack usat any moment - not the nation, but us personally.For that reason, we have become ‘docile bodies’ (Foucault) in the management of the threat.e all compliantly take off our shoes at the airport or throw away our liquids. Any protestmeans being treated as a potential terrorist ourselves. So everyone is involved and invested inbeing vigilan for the ever-present threat.This is another central trope in race-thinking (the enemy among us - the race within the race -Foucault).Bhattacharyya: ‘The racialised other is frightening because there is no way of knowing how
  • 23. 9/11 and after: ‘Wars onour doorsteps’Personalising  securityPolicing  terrorTuesday, 14 May 131. Personalising securityAs part of the process of racialiation is dehumanisation, it is easy to divorce the ‘honest andopen’ debate about Muslims from what has been happening tp Arab and Muslim populationssince the unleashing of the ‘war on terror’.Gargi Bhattacharyya: ‘From the pictures of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib to the brutalisationand murder of Iraqi civilians by coalition forces to the public burning of the bodies of deadTaliban fighters as a warning and provocation to their colleagues, these nation-buildingoccupations are meting out treatment that implies that these places are inhabited by lesserpeoples.’On the other hand, the war on terror is predicated on ensuring ‘our’ personal security. It isthus unlike other wars. It is made personal - the threat is everywhere, anyone could be avictim at any time.The personification of the attacker as a stereotypical feeds into the need for society to create‘folk-devils’ (link week 10). Everyone fitting the stereotype is to be mistrusted, not justbecause his (it’s usually a man) beliefs conflict with our own, but because he could attack usat any moment - not the nation, but us personally.For that reason, we have become ‘docile bodies’ (Foucault) in the management of the threat.e all compliantly take off our shoes at the airport or throw away our liquids. Any protestmeans being treated as a potential terrorist ourselves. So everyone is involved and invested inbeing vigilan for the ever-present threat.This is another central trope in race-thinking (the enemy among us - the race within the race -Foucault).Bhattacharyya: ‘The racialised other is frightening because there is no way of knowing how
  • 24. 9/11 and after: ‘Wars onour doorsteps’Personalising  securityPolicing  terrorTuesday, 14 May 131. Personalising securityAs part of the process of racialiation is dehumanisation, it is easy to divorce the ‘honest andopen’ debate about Muslims from what has been happening tp Arab and Muslim populationssince the unleashing of the ‘war on terror’.Gargi Bhattacharyya: ‘From the pictures of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib to the brutalisationand murder of Iraqi civilians by coalition forces to the public burning of the bodies of deadTaliban fighters as a warning and provocation to their colleagues, these nation-buildingoccupations are meting out treatment that implies that these places are inhabited by lesserpeoples.’On the other hand, the war on terror is predicated on ensuring ‘our’ personal security. It isthus unlike other wars. It is made personal - the threat is everywhere, anyone could be avictim at any time.The personification of the attacker as a stereotypical feeds into the need for society to create‘folk-devils’ (link week 10). Everyone fitting the stereotype is to be mistrusted, not justbecause his (it’s usually a man) beliefs conflict with our own, but because he could attack usat any moment - not the nation, but us personally.For that reason, we have become ‘docile bodies’ (Foucault) in the management of the threat.e all compliantly take off our shoes at the airport or throw away our liquids. Any protestmeans being treated as a potential terrorist ourselves. So everyone is involved and invested inbeing vigilan for the ever-present threat.This is another central trope in race-thinking (the enemy among us - the race within the race -Foucault).Bhattacharyya: ‘The racialised other is frightening because there is no way of knowing how
  • 25. 9/11 and after: ‘Wars onour doorsteps’Personalising  securityPolicing  terrorTuesday, 14 May 131. Personalising securityAs part of the process of racialiation is dehumanisation, it is easy to divorce the ‘honest andopen’ debate about Muslims from what has been happening tp Arab and Muslim populationssince the unleashing of the ‘war on terror’.Gargi Bhattacharyya: ‘From the pictures of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib to the brutalisationand murder of Iraqi civilians by coalition forces to the public burning of the bodies of deadTaliban fighters as a warning and provocation to their colleagues, these nation-buildingoccupations are meting out treatment that implies that these places are inhabited by lesserpeoples.’On the other hand, the war on terror is predicated on ensuring ‘our’ personal security. It isthus unlike other wars. It is made personal - the threat is everywhere, anyone could be avictim at any time.The personification of the attacker as a stereotypical feeds into the need for society to create‘folk-devils’ (link week 10). Everyone fitting the stereotype is to be mistrusted, not justbecause his (it’s usually a man) beliefs conflict with our own, but because he could attack usat any moment - not the nation, but us personally.For that reason, we have become ‘docile bodies’ (Foucault) in the management of the threat.e all compliantly take off our shoes at the airport or throw away our liquids. Any protestmeans being treated as a potential terrorist ourselves. So everyone is involved and invested inbeing vigilan for the ever-present threat.This is another central trope in race-thinking (the enemy among us - the race within the race -Foucault).Bhattacharyya: ‘The racialised other is frightening because there is no way of knowing how
  • 26. 9/11 and after: ‘Wars onour doorsteps’Personalising  securityPolicing  terrorDomestic  enemies:✦ Dr  Haneef✦ Talha  Ahsan  &  Babar  AhmedTuesday, 14 May 131. Personalising securityAs part of the process of racialiation is dehumanisation, it is easy to divorce the ‘honest andopen’ debate about Muslims from what has been happening tp Arab and Muslim populationssince the unleashing of the ‘war on terror’.Gargi Bhattacharyya: ‘From the pictures of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib to the brutalisationand murder of Iraqi civilians by coalition forces to the public burning of the bodies of deadTaliban fighters as a warning and provocation to their colleagues, these nation-buildingoccupations are meting out treatment that implies that these places are inhabited by lesserpeoples.’On the other hand, the war on terror is predicated on ensuring ‘our’ personal security. It isthus unlike other wars. It is made personal - the threat is everywhere, anyone could be avictim at any time.The personification of the attacker as a stereotypical feeds into the need for society to create‘folk-devils’ (link week 10). Everyone fitting the stereotype is to be mistrusted, not justbecause his (it’s usually a man) beliefs conflict with our own, but because he could attack usat any moment - not the nation, but us personally.For that reason, we have become ‘docile bodies’ (Foucault) in the management of the threat.e all compliantly take off our shoes at the airport or throw away our liquids. Any protestmeans being treated as a potential terrorist ourselves. So everyone is involved and invested inbeing vigilan for the ever-present threat.This is another central trope in race-thinking (the enemy among us - the race within the race -Foucault).Bhattacharyya: ‘The racialised other is frightening because there is no way of knowing how
  • 27. 9/11 and after: ‘Wars onour doorsteps’Personalising  securityPolicing  terrorDomestic  enemies:✦ Dr  Haneef✦ Talha  Ahsan  &  Babar  AhmedTuesday, 14 May 131. Personalising securityAs part of the process of racialiation is dehumanisation, it is easy to divorce the ‘honest andopen’ debate about Muslims from what has been happening tp Arab and Muslim populationssince the unleashing of the ‘war on terror’.Gargi Bhattacharyya: ‘From the pictures of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib to the brutalisationand murder of Iraqi civilians by coalition forces to the public burning of the bodies of deadTaliban fighters as a warning and provocation to their colleagues, these nation-buildingoccupations are meting out treatment that implies that these places are inhabited by lesserpeoples.’On the other hand, the war on terror is predicated on ensuring ‘our’ personal security. It isthus unlike other wars. It is made personal - the threat is everywhere, anyone could be avictim at any time.The personification of the attacker as a stereotypical feeds into the need for society to create‘folk-devils’ (link week 10). Everyone fitting the stereotype is to be mistrusted, not justbecause his (it’s usually a man) beliefs conflict with our own, but because he could attack usat any moment - not the nation, but us personally.For that reason, we have become ‘docile bodies’ (Foucault) in the management of the threat.e all compliantly take off our shoes at the airport or throw away our liquids. Any protestmeans being treated as a potential terrorist ourselves. So everyone is involved and invested inbeing vigilan for the ever-present threat.This is another central trope in race-thinking (the enemy among us - the race within the race -Foucault).Bhattacharyya: ‘The racialised other is frightening because there is no way of knowing how
  • 28. 9/11 and after: ‘Wars onour doorsteps’Personalising  securityPolicing  terrorDomestic  enemies:✦ Dr  Haneef✦ Talha  Ahsan  &  Babar  AhmedTuesday, 14 May 131. Personalising securityAs part of the process of racialiation is dehumanisation, it is easy to divorce the ‘honest andopen’ debate about Muslims from what has been happening tp Arab and Muslim populationssince the unleashing of the ‘war on terror’.Gargi Bhattacharyya: ‘From the pictures of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib to the brutalisationand murder of Iraqi civilians by coalition forces to the public burning of the bodies of deadTaliban fighters as a warning and provocation to their colleagues, these nation-buildingoccupations are meting out treatment that implies that these places are inhabited by lesserpeoples.’On the other hand, the war on terror is predicated on ensuring ‘our’ personal security. It isthus unlike other wars. It is made personal - the threat is everywhere, anyone could be avictim at any time.The personification of the attacker as a stereotypical feeds into the need for society to create‘folk-devils’ (link week 10). Everyone fitting the stereotype is to be mistrusted, not justbecause his (it’s usually a man) beliefs conflict with our own, but because he could attack usat any moment - not the nation, but us personally.For that reason, we have become ‘docile bodies’ (Foucault) in the management of the threat.e all compliantly take off our shoes at the airport or throw away our liquids. Any protestmeans being treated as a potential terrorist ourselves. So everyone is involved and invested inbeing vigilan for the ever-present threat.This is another central trope in race-thinking (the enemy among us - the race within the race -Foucault).Bhattacharyya: ‘The racialised other is frightening because there is no way of knowing how
  • 29. Producing ThreatPost-­‐secular  anxiety:  Cartoons,  Minarets  &  SchoolsTuesday, 14 May 131. Post-secularism:Several scholars are arguing that we need to understand the current age as a post-secular one.But, we might ask whether society has ever really been secular. Although, many countries separate betweenChurch and State (not only western ones, e.g. Turkey), many states are organised culturally around a particularreligious tradition.e.g. Why do we have a day off for Xmas in a multicultural society like Australia - Australia is culturally Christian.Political decisions such as the banning of hijab/burka in France are said to be a way of protecting secularism -religion should gave no place in public. But, although the ban is supposed to affect ‘all ostentatious religioussymbols’, it has only ever been enforced against Muslim dress codes (give Sikh example).The so-called ‘crisis of secularism’ seems to be concerned mainly with a rise in religiosity among Muslims inpostcolonial societies, as well as with an intensification of transnational political alliances between Muslims acrossthe world (cf. Sayyid).Three cases illustrate this: Cartoons scandal, Swiss Minarets referendum, and the CamdenMosque affair.A. Cartoons:Background: Jyllands Posten publishes cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in 2004.Mohammed is directly linked with terrorism. Causes outrage in Muslim world, including‘violent’ anti-Danish protests. Despite this, the cartoons were republished by severalnewspapers around the world (Charlie Hebdo).Rowan Atkinson: ‘there should be no subjects about which you can’t tell jokes’ and that ‘theright to offend is far more important than the right to offend.”Saba Mahmood: a double standard was at play in how reactions to the cartoons were perceived. Muslims who were
  • 30. Producing ThreatPost-­‐secular  anxiety:  Cartoons,  Minarets  &  SchoolsTuesday, 14 May 131. Post-secularism:Several scholars are arguing that we need to understand the current age as a post-secular one.But, we might ask whether society has ever really been secular. Although, many countries separate betweenChurch and State (not only western ones, e.g. Turkey), many states are organised culturally around a particularreligious tradition.e.g. Why do we have a day off for Xmas in a multicultural society like Australia - Australia is culturally Christian.Political decisions such as the banning of hijab/burka in France are said to be a way of protecting secularism -religion should gave no place in public. But, although the ban is supposed to affect ‘all ostentatious religioussymbols’, it has only ever been enforced against Muslim dress codes (give Sikh example).The so-called ‘crisis of secularism’ seems to be concerned mainly with a rise in religiosity among Muslims inpostcolonial societies, as well as with an intensification of transnational political alliances between Muslims acrossthe world (cf. Sayyid).Three cases illustrate this: Cartoons scandal, Swiss Minarets referendum, and the CamdenMosque affair.A. Cartoons:Background: Jyllands Posten publishes cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in 2004.Mohammed is directly linked with terrorism. Causes outrage in Muslim world, including‘violent’ anti-Danish protests. Despite this, the cartoons were republished by severalnewspapers around the world (Charlie Hebdo).Rowan Atkinson: ‘there should be no subjects about which you can’t tell jokes’ and that ‘theright to offend is far more important than the right to offend.”Saba Mahmood: a double standard was at play in how reactions to the cartoons were perceived. Muslims who were
  • 31. Producing ThreatPost-­‐secular  anxiety:  Cartoons,  Minarets  &  SchoolsTuesday, 14 May 131. Post-secularism:Several scholars are arguing that we need to understand the current age as a post-secular one.But, we might ask whether society has ever really been secular. Although, many countries separate betweenChurch and State (not only western ones, e.g. Turkey), many states are organised culturally around a particularreligious tradition.e.g. Why do we have a day off for Xmas in a multicultural society like Australia - Australia is culturally Christian.Political decisions such as the banning of hijab/burka in France are said to be a way of protecting secularism -religion should gave no place in public. But, although the ban is supposed to affect ‘all ostentatious religioussymbols’, it has only ever been enforced against Muslim dress codes (give Sikh example).The so-called ‘crisis of secularism’ seems to be concerned mainly with a rise in religiosity among Muslims inpostcolonial societies, as well as with an intensification of transnational political alliances between Muslims acrossthe world (cf. Sayyid).Three cases illustrate this: Cartoons scandal, Swiss Minarets referendum, and the CamdenMosque affair.A. Cartoons:Background: Jyllands Posten publishes cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in 2004.Mohammed is directly linked with terrorism. Causes outrage in Muslim world, including‘violent’ anti-Danish protests. Despite this, the cartoons were republished by severalnewspapers around the world (Charlie Hebdo).Rowan Atkinson: ‘there should be no subjects about which you can’t tell jokes’ and that ‘theright to offend is far more important than the right to offend.”Saba Mahmood: a double standard was at play in how reactions to the cartoons were perceived. Muslims who were
  • 32. Producing ThreatPost-­‐secular  anxiety:  Cartoons,  Minarets  &  SchoolsTuesday, 14 May 131. Post-secularism:Several scholars are arguing that we need to understand the current age as a post-secular one.But, we might ask whether society has ever really been secular. Although, many countries separate betweenChurch and State (not only western ones, e.g. Turkey), many states are organised culturally around a particularreligious tradition.e.g. Why do we have a day off for Xmas in a multicultural society like Australia - Australia is culturally Christian.Political decisions such as the banning of hijab/burka in France are said to be a way of protecting secularism -religion should gave no place in public. But, although the ban is supposed to affect ‘all ostentatious religioussymbols’, it has only ever been enforced against Muslim dress codes (give Sikh example).The so-called ‘crisis of secularism’ seems to be concerned mainly with a rise in religiosity among Muslims inpostcolonial societies, as well as with an intensification of transnational political alliances between Muslims acrossthe world (cf. Sayyid).Three cases illustrate this: Cartoons scandal, Swiss Minarets referendum, and the CamdenMosque affair.A. Cartoons:Background: Jyllands Posten publishes cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in 2004.Mohammed is directly linked with terrorism. Causes outrage in Muslim world, including‘violent’ anti-Danish protests. Despite this, the cartoons were republished by severalnewspapers around the world (Charlie Hebdo).Rowan Atkinson: ‘there should be no subjects about which you can’t tell jokes’ and that ‘theright to offend is far more important than the right to offend.”Saba Mahmood: a double standard was at play in how reactions to the cartoons were perceived. Muslims who were
  • 33. Producing ThreatCriminal  tendencies:  ‘Asian  grooming  gangs’  and  ‘Sydney  rape  gangs’Tuesday, 14 May 131. Asian Grooming gangs:Men, mainly of Pakistani Muslim origin (but also Hindus an some whites), in Northern cities inthe UK were found guilty last year of grooming young girls for prostitution. The girls weremainly white and often either in care or not looked after by their families.Cultural explanations were used to make sense of this. Pakistani men were portrayed asbeing particularly repressed sexually. The culture was blamed for the fact that it was whitegirls who were being preyed upon (Asian girls were exclusively for marriage). In opposition,others proposed that there was a culture of neglect that led to the girls being able to bepreyed upon so easily.Joseph Harker (recent article in The Guardian) spoke out against blaming culture for sexualabuse which is rife in every community:Satirical article - ‘Its time to face up to the problem of sexual abuse in the white community’.Harker uses the recent spate of sex abuse cases involving high profile white men in the UK(e.g. Jimmy Saville) to make the case that no one would tar all white people with the samebrush in the way that has been the case following the Asian grooming gang scandal.[Click to reveal quote]: ‘I’m beginning to feel sorry for whites. I have many white friends and Iknow most of them are wholly opposed to sexual abuse. But they must be worried that theirwhole community is getting a bad name. I can imagine that, every day, with each unfoldingcase, they must be hiding their face behind their hands, pleading: "Please, God, dont let it bea white person this time."’Harker concludes: ‘all of the above arguments were made within various parts of our printand broadcast media when similarly small numbers of Muslim men were revealed to be
  • 34. Producing ThreatCriminal  tendencies:  ‘Asian  grooming  gangs’  and  ‘Sydney  rape  gangs’Tuesday, 14 May 131. Asian Grooming gangs:Men, mainly of Pakistani Muslim origin (but also Hindus an some whites), in Northern cities inthe UK were found guilty last year of grooming young girls for prostitution. The girls weremainly white and often either in care or not looked after by their families.Cultural explanations were used to make sense of this. Pakistani men were portrayed asbeing particularly repressed sexually. The culture was blamed for the fact that it was whitegirls who were being preyed upon (Asian girls were exclusively for marriage). In opposition,others proposed that there was a culture of neglect that led to the girls being able to bepreyed upon so easily.Joseph Harker (recent article in The Guardian) spoke out against blaming culture for sexualabuse which is rife in every community:Satirical article - ‘Its time to face up to the problem of sexual abuse in the white community’.Harker uses the recent spate of sex abuse cases involving high profile white men in the UK(e.g. Jimmy Saville) to make the case that no one would tar all white people with the samebrush in the way that has been the case following the Asian grooming gang scandal.[Click to reveal quote]: ‘I’m beginning to feel sorry for whites. I have many white friends and Iknow most of them are wholly opposed to sexual abuse. But they must be worried that theirwhole community is getting a bad name. I can imagine that, every day, with each unfoldingcase, they must be hiding their face behind their hands, pleading: "Please, God, dont let it bea white person this time."’Harker concludes: ‘all of the above arguments were made within various parts of our printand broadcast media when similarly small numbers of Muslim men were revealed to be
  • 35. Producing ThreatCriminal  tendencies:  ‘Asian  grooming  gangs’  and  ‘Sydney  rape  gangs’‘I’m  beginning  to  feel  sorry  for  whites.  I  have  many  white  friends  and  I  know  most  of  them  are  wholly  opposed  to  sexual  abuse.  But  they  must  be  worried  that  their  whole  community  is  getting  a  bad  name.  I  can  imagine  that,  every  day,  with  each  unfolding  case,  they  must  be  hiding  their  face  behind  their  hands,  pleading:  “Please,  God,  dont  let  it  be  a  white  person  this  time”.’Joseph  Harker,  The  Guardian,  6  May  2013  Tuesday, 14 May 131. Asian Grooming gangs:Men, mainly of Pakistani Muslim origin (but also Hindus an some whites), in Northern cities inthe UK were found guilty last year of grooming young girls for prostitution. The girls weremainly white and often either in care or not looked after by their families.Cultural explanations were used to make sense of this. Pakistani men were portrayed asbeing particularly repressed sexually. The culture was blamed for the fact that it was whitegirls who were being preyed upon (Asian girls were exclusively for marriage). In opposition,others proposed that there was a culture of neglect that led to the girls being able to bepreyed upon so easily.Joseph Harker (recent article in The Guardian) spoke out against blaming culture for sexualabuse which is rife in every community:Satirical article - ‘Its time to face up to the problem of sexual abuse in the white community’.Harker uses the recent spate of sex abuse cases involving high profile white men in the UK(e.g. Jimmy Saville) to make the case that no one would tar all white people with the samebrush in the way that has been the case following the Asian grooming gang scandal.[Click to reveal quote]: ‘I’m beginning to feel sorry for whites. I have many white friends and Iknow most of them are wholly opposed to sexual abuse. But they must be worried that theirwhole community is getting a bad name. I can imagine that, every day, with each unfoldingcase, they must be hiding their face behind their hands, pleading: "Please, God, dont let it bea white person this time."’Harker concludes: ‘all of the above arguments were made within various parts of our printand broadcast media when similarly small numbers of Muslim men were revealed to be
  • 36. Producing ThreatCriminal  tendencies:  ‘Asian  grooming  gangs’  and  ‘Sydney  rape  gangs’Tuesday, 14 May 131. Asian Grooming gangs:Men, mainly of Pakistani Muslim origin (but also Hindus an some whites), in Northern cities inthe UK were found guilty last year of grooming young girls for prostitution. The girls weremainly white and often either in care or not looked after by their families.Cultural explanations were used to make sense of this. Pakistani men were portrayed asbeing particularly repressed sexually. The culture was blamed for the fact that it was whitegirls who were being preyed upon (Asian girls were exclusively for marriage). In opposition,others proposed that there was a culture of neglect that led to the girls being able to bepreyed upon so easily.Joseph Harker (recent article in The Guardian) spoke out against blaming culture for sexualabuse which is rife in every community:Satirical article - ‘Its time to face up to the problem of sexual abuse in the white community’.Harker uses the recent spate of sex abuse cases involving high profile white men in the UK(e.g. Jimmy Saville) to make the case that no one would tar all white people with the samebrush in the way that has been the case following the Asian grooming gang scandal.[Click to reveal quote]: ‘I’m beginning to feel sorry for whites. I have many white friends and Iknow most of them are wholly opposed to sexual abuse. But they must be worried that theirwhole community is getting a bad name. I can imagine that, every day, with each unfoldingcase, they must be hiding their face behind their hands, pleading: "Please, God, dont let it bea white person this time."’Harker concludes: ‘all of the above arguments were made within various parts of our printand broadcast media when similarly small numbers of Muslim men were revealed to be
  • 37. The mainstream & the extreme‘I  am  not  condoning  the  slaughter  in  Norway  or  anywhere...  But  the  jihad-­‐loving  media  never  told  us  what  antisemitic  war  games  they  were  playing  on  that  island.  Utoya  Island  is  a  Communist/Socialist  campground,  and  they  clearly  had  a  pro-­‐Islamic  agenda...  The  slaughter  was  horrific.  What  these  kids  were  being  taught  and  instructed  to  do  was  a  different  kind  of  grotesque.  There  is  no  justification  for  Breiviks  actions  whatsoever.  There  is  also  no  justification  for  Norways  antisemitism  and  demonization  of  Israel.’Pam  Geller,  Atlas  ShruggedTuesday, 14 May 13Link to the crisis of multiculturalism.Explain Breivik case - Norway at risk of Islamicization supported by tolerant multiculturalistliberal left (who had to be killed).Explain Geller - Stop Islamicization of America - first comes to light in protests against‘Ground Zero Mosque’.Funds pro=Israel campaign on buses in San Francisco, aimed against Muslims as uncivilisedas opposed to Israel and the West as civilised.Geller openly endorsed the ideas behind Breivik’s attacks.But Geller may be considered to be more on the fringes.Although Breivik’s actions were not condoned by many of the detractors of multiculturalism,many came out in favour of his ideas.Breivik’s ‘manifesto’, A European Declaration of Independence, quoted from manymainstream authors/ journalists (including Melanie Philips - author of Londonistan, stridentopponent of immigration and ‘Islamification’ as well as arch Zionist). Also influenced byright-wing blogger Bat Ye’Or.Titley and Lentin: Breivik should be seen as a symptom of European/western racism. Hisideas are not made in a vacuum; they fold out of a logic in which the enemy is everywhereand western culture is at risk of imminent demise.Nevertheless, unlike terrorists and terrorist suspects, Breivik is seen as lone wolf, a pariah,utterly disconnected from other political processes - the war on terror, the construction of
  • 38. Tutorial QuestionsShould  we  be  allowed  to  ‘laugh  at’  another’s  religion?Should  there  be  a  distinction  between  Islamophobia  and  other  racisms?Do  you  think  it’s  fair  to  say  that  there  is  a  ‘global  war  on  Muslims’?Tuesday, 14 May 13