Islamofobie

"Opinies" is een collectie van korte teksten (van 500 tot 750 woorden) waarin de auteur zijn opinie over courante islam-gelinkte gebeurtenissen uiteen zet. Indien je jouw opinie gepubliceerd wil zien kan je ze hier kwijt. Geef ons ook je naam en email adres. De tekst moet wel van jouw hand zijn.
Gebruikersavatar
Hans v d Mortel sr
Berichten: 16501
Lid geworden op: za jun 18, 2011 7:07 pm

Re: Islamofobie

Bericht door Hans v d Mortel sr »

Moslims horen onder geen beding thuis in onze westerse beschaving.

Zij weten dat maar al te goed. Maar het interesseert hen niet. Wat hen wel interesseert - en daar zijn ze ons niet eens dankbaar voor - is dat zij naar hartenlust mogen parasiteren op onze kenniseconomie en beschaving. Hun grote voorbeeld is de salafistische burgemeester van Rotterdam Ahmed Aboutaleb. Abou betekent overigens vader.

Nederland is niet een klein beetje gek maar knettergek.
Ik weet niks met zekerheid. Ik ben gelovig atheïst en verkondig uitsluitend eigen dogma's wegens gebrek aan de vrije wil.
Mahalingam
Berichten: 48542
Lid geworden op: za feb 24, 2007 8:39 pm

Re: Islamofobie

Bericht door Mahalingam »

Why is the BBC so scared of criticising Islam?

The Beeb’s removal of a clip featuring the new head of the Muslim Council of Britain is a chilling sign of the times.

If you want to understand what’s going wrong at the BBC right now, you could do worse than look at the bizarre Zara Mohammed controversy. The Beeb has removed from social media a clip of Ms Mohammed, the new head of the Muslim Council of Britain, being interviewed on Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour. Cancel-culture mobs had complained that the interview was a form of ‘bullying’ and that it had undertones of ‘Islamophobia’. And now the BBC has caved to these crazy, unfounded criticisms and shoved the interview clip in the memory hole. This reveals a lot about the great moral anchoring of the BBC in the 21st century.

Ms Mohammed is the first female head of the MCB. She and many of her supporters seem to have believed that this fact would generate gushing media coverage only, about Muslim community groups becoming more female-friendly, etc etc. But Emma Barnett of Woman’s Hour – being a journalist who, you know, likes to ask probing questions – had a different idea. Barnett put Mohammed on the spot in an interview aired on 4 February. She pressed her particularly on the issue of female imams. How many are there in the UK, she asked? She asked four times. Mohammed couldn’t answer. It was embarrassing.

To most listeners this will have come across as a standard newsy interview. A public figure being put on the spot, being pushed for answers, being badgered (gently) for information. Nothing to see here. Interviews like this happen every day. But the identitarian brigade saw things differently. To them, the interview was an act of racism. It was an ‘exercise in Islamophobia’, said one commentator. A writer for the Guardian said Barnett’s line of questioning provided ‘yet more ammunition to a media machine that takes pleasure in savaging Britain’s Muslims’. Across social media Barnett and the BBC were called out for victimising Ms Mohammed.

This is baloney of the highest order. Barnett said nothing whatsoever that was racist or Islamophobic. She merely interrogated – quite lightly, as it happens – a newly appointed public figure, the head of a body whose work and beliefs are matters of public interest. The mad accusations of ‘Islamophobia’ sum up what a censorious weapon that i-word has become. Tackling so-called Islamophobia is not about challenging genuine anti-Muslim bigotry, which is something the vast majority of people would like to see challenged. No, it’s about demonising and punishing any criticism of Islam or of Islamic organisations and practices. It is an underhand accusation of racism designed to stymie perfectly legitimate discussion about a religion.

The Islamophobia industry – the Muslim community groups and their army of online supporters who keep their eyes peeled for any media coverage that is even mildly critical of Islamic ideas or Muslim practices – is best understood as an enforcer of neo-blasphemy laws. They pose as being in the tradition of the noble anti-racists of the past, who rightfully challenged demeaning commentary about ethnic-minority people. But in truth their aim is to circumscribe what may be said about Islam. They marshal the modern politics of identity to the pre-modern and regressive end of branding as ‘phobic’ – that is, mentally disordered, morally suspect – anyone who is anything less than effusive about their religion.

There’s another, even more worrying aspect to this crusade against ‘Islamophobia’: it contains its own kind of racism. The idea that Muslims must be shielded from difficult questions or from open, frank debate about the problem of radical Islam is itself racist. It infantilises Muslims. It separates them off from the rest of the community and says they need special protection from the rough and tumble of public life. There is a neo-colonialist feel to the belief among sections of the well-paid, middle-class commentariat that they must protect Muslims like Ms Mohammed from perfectly normal forms of public engagement. This implicit denigration of Muslims’ capacity to partake in public discourse, this diminishing of their intellectual and moral agency, contains far higher levels of racial paternalism than the media commentary that the warriors against Islamophobia complain about.

And now, alarmingly, the BBC has surrendered to the criticisms of the Woman’s Hour interview and removed the clip from social media. This is a serious moral failure on the part of the public broadcaster. And it isn’t the first time the BBC has caved to flimsy criticisms from vocal Islamic activists. Last September it edited a headline on its website that said the Manchester Arena bomber had been ‘seen praying’ before blowing himself up. That this was true – eye-witnesses told the inquiry into that atrocity that they saw the bomber praying – mattered not one jot. The MCB and others complained about the headline, claiming it was ‘unacceptable’, and the BBC duly rewrote it. Is the BBC now more interested in appeasing identitarian campaign groups than in reporting the truth?

The removal of the Woman’s Hour clip runs counter to the BBC’s own editorial guidelines. These state that, ‘Unless content is specifically made available only for a limited time period, there is a presumption that material published online will become part of a permanently accessible archive and should be preserved in as complete a state as possible’. In removing the clip in response to noisy, baseless complaints, the BBC has broken its own guidelines, shown that it is willing to sacrifice its news content at the altar of identitarian sensitivities, and undermined one of its star reporters and its own moral authority.

In a free society, we should be able to discuss everything, including Islam. In a free media, broadcasters and editors should not be browbeaten into removing or rewriting content just because others find it offensive. A free society and a free media – does the BBC believe in these things anymore?
https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/02/1 ... ing-islam/
Wie in de Islam zijn hersens gebruikt, zal zijn hoofd moeten missen.
Mahalingam
Berichten: 48542
Lid geworden op: za feb 24, 2007 8:39 pm

Re: Islamofobie

Bericht door Mahalingam »

De VN wordt steeds meer een gereedschap om te komen tot de wereldheerschappij van het Mohammedanisme.

UN expert says anti-Muslim hatred rises to epidemic proportions, urges States to act


Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks and other horrific acts of terrorism purportedly carried out in the name of Islam, institutional suspicion of Muslims and those perceived to be Muslim has escalated to epidemic proportions, a UN expert told the Human Rights Council today.

The UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Ahmed Shaheed, said numerous States ­­­— along with regional and international bodies ­— have responded to security threats by adopting measures which disproportionately target Muslims and define Muslims as both high-risk and at risk of radicalization.

“Islamophobia builds imaginary constructs around Muslims that are used to justify state-sponsored discrimination, hostility and violence against Muslims with stark consequences for the enjoyment of human rights including freedom of religion or belief,” he said.

In a report to the Council, Shaheed said widespread negative representations of Islam, fear of Muslims generally and security and counterterrorism poli­cies have served to perpetuate, validate and normalize discrimination, hostility and violence towards Muslim individuals and communities.

“In such climates of exclusion, fear and distrust, Muslims report that they often feel stigma, shame and a sense that they are ‘suspect communities’ that are being forced to bear collective responsibility for the actions of a small minority,” he said.

The report cites European surveys in 2018 and 2019 that show an average of 37 percent of the population held unfavourable views of Muslims. In 2017, some 30 percent of Americans surveyed viewed Muslims in a negative light.
Spoiler! :
Shaheed said that Islamophobic discrimination in both the public and the private sphere often make it difficult for a Muslim to be a Muslim. Disproportionate restrictions on the ability of Muslims to manifest their beliefs, the securitization of religious communities, limits on access to citizenship, socioeconomic exclusion and pervasive stigmatization of Muslim communities are among the pressing concerns noted in the report.

In Muslim minority states, he added, Muslims are frequently targeted based on visible ‘Muslim’ characteristics, such as their names, skin colour and clothing, including religious attire, including headscarves.

Shaheed said that Islamophobic discrimination and hostility were often intersectional, such as where ‘Muslim women may face a “triple penalty” as women, minority ethnic and Muslim’. “Harmful stereotypes and tropes about Muslims and Islam are chronically reinforced by mainstream media, powerful politicians, influencers of popular culture and in academic discourse,” he added.

The report emphasised that critiques of Islam should never be conflated with Islamophobia, adding that international human rights law protects individuals, not religions. The criticism of the ideas, leaders, symbols or practices of Islam is not Islamophobic per se; unless it is accompanied by hatred or bias towards Muslims in general, Shaheed said.

“I strongly encourage States to take all necessary measures to combat direct and indirect forms of discrimination against Muslims and prohibit any advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to violence,” the UN expert said.
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pag ... wsID=26841
Spoiler! :
Mr. Ahmed Shaheed (the Maldives) was appointed as Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief by the UN Human Rights Council in 2016. Mr. Shaheed is Deputy Director of the Human Rights Centre at the University of Essex, UK and Senior Fellow of the Raoul Wallenberg Human Rights Centre in Canada. He was Foreign Minister of the Maldives from 2005 to 2007 and from 2008 to 2010. He led the country’s efforts to sign and ratify all nine international human rights Conventions and to implement them in law and practice. Mr. Shaheed is the former Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran.
The Special Rapporteurs are part of what is known as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. Special Procedures, the largest body of independent experts in the UN Human Rights system, is the general name of the Council’s independent fact-finding and monitoring mechanisms that address either specific country situations or thematic issues in all parts of the world. Special Procedures’ experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. They are independent from any government or organization and serve in their individual capacity.
Wie in de Islam zijn hersens gebruikt, zal zijn hoofd moeten missen.
Plaats reactie