Hate crimes against Muslims on rise in UK suburbs: Study

Source: Kuwait Times

LONDON: Muslims and their mosques face a higher level of threats and intimidation in UK suburbs and market towns than in big cities, according to a report published yesterday. Case studies revealed that examples such as a Muslim woman who was punched and called a "terrorist" in front of her petrified daughter were not uncommon.

Such attacks often go unreported, and in this case the woman was too scared to inform the police. She also played down the incident to reduce her child's distress, and avoided explaining why she was singled out for wearing a burka and being a Muslim woman. The new study, "Islamophobia and Anti-Muslim Hate Crime: UK Case Studies," reveals this kind of unprovoked incident is a largely hidden experience that is insufficiently acknowledged and understood outside of the communities where they occur.

The report is part of a 10 year academic research project led by the University of Exeter's European Muslim Research Centre (EMRC). It captures a snapshot of these experiences which are often unrecognized by the media, politicians and wider British society.

The research also combines an academic approach to identifying world events and policy information that inform the way reactions and actions towards Muslims can be influenced. Findings show that since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, arson, criminal damage, violence and intimidation against mosques has increased dramatically and smaller or isolated Muslim communities in places like Colchester, Bishop Stortford and Boston have become especially vulnerable.


Read more: http://www.kuwaittimes.net/read_news.php?newsid=MTE2MDczOTg3

---

This from the University of Exeter’s European Muslim Research Centre website:

Muslims face higher level of threats outside the big cities

=snip=

The new study Islamophobia and Anti-Muslim Hate Crime: UK Case Studies reveals this kind of unprovoked incident is a largely hidden experience that is insufficiently acknowledged and understood outside of the communities where they occur. The report published on 27 November is part of a ten year academic research project led by the University of Exeter’s European Muslim Research Centre (EMRC). It captures a snapshot of these experiences which are often unrecognised by the media, politicians and wider British society. The research also combines an academic approach to identifying world events and policy information that inform the way reactions and actions towards Muslims can be influenced.

Findings show that since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, arson, criminal damage, violence and intimidation against mosques has increased dramatically and smaller or isolated Muslim communities in places like Colchester, Bishop Stortford and Boston have become especially vulnerable.

Dr Jonathan Githens Mazer, co-Director of the EMRC said, ‘Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hate crime are very real problems for British Muslims going about their everyday business. Through our research we have found that in smaller and more isolated mosques in many suburbs and market towns there is a feeling of being under siege. Some local councils who are made aware of the situation say to mosque officials, ‘we can see this is bad, why don’t you move the mosque?’’

The report also analyses the local activity by the British National Party, English Defence League and sister organisations. Anti-migrant and random attacks that have impacted on every poor urban community where most Muslims live have also been studied.

More: http://www.exeter.ac.uk/research/news/title,112581,en.html

(and all of its attendant spellings)..

The RW here desperately wants to start similar here. It is frightening. :shrug:

Non-Muslims aren't naming their kids "Muhammad". Muslims represent a growing percentage of the British population; the non-Muslim, native British population feel threatened by social change, increasing immigration, etc.

Also, the UK is still a much less diverse country in most respects than the US...but then, so are most places in Europe; nationally, the population of the UK is 91% white. The rising numbers of immigration in recent decades are bringing to many countries in Europe something that the US experienced in the period from roughly 1850-1900; rapid shifts in the ethnic and religious backgrounds of the population with an influx of new immigrants (in the US it was the Irish, European Jews, Poles, Italians, etc; in much of Europe it's immigrants from the Indian subcontinent, North Africa, Turkey, and the Middle East, as well as the former Soviet countries). This sort of population movement and social change can't fail but create tensions, wherever it happens. In mid-19th-century America there were riots, 'nativist' secret societies like the Know Nothings, etc. In Europe today you have the BNP, the English Defence League, and politicians like Geert Wilders in the Netherlands.

It's probably an inevitability of human nature that people react this way when members of a group that's definably 'other' migrate in large numbers, unfortunately. And things appear set to get worse before they get any better; Europe is becoming more stridently anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant and xenophobic (not that the US is really a lot better there with the crazed anti-immigrant groups like the Minutemen and so on).

**double post***

Name and change in rank since 2008
Rank Boys Girls
1 Oliver (up one) Olivia (non-mover)
2 Jack (down one) Ruby (non-mover)
3 Harry (up one) Chloe (up three)
4 Alfie (up two) Emily (down one)
5 Joshua (non-mover) Sophie (up two)
6 Thomas (down three) Jessica (down one)
7 Charlie (non-mover) Grace (down three)
8 William (up two) Lily (non-mover)
9 James (non-mover) Amelia (non-mover)
10 Daniel (down two) Evie (non-mover



http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/namesnr1010.pdf

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/specials/babiesnames_boys.asp

This "Mohamed is the top name" thing is nothing more than an internet meme that is not supported by the statistics. Its usually used by Right Wing Americans trying to tell us that we are falling to Islam.

BTW I don't know about you, but I prefer the gold topped cans of 5.2% stuff that's brewed in Belgium to the Stella on tap in England. Two completely different lagers.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/27/mohammed-britains-most-po_n_775145.html
The name, a reference to the Muslim prophet, was denied the top spot due to a plethora of spellings listed separately, including "Muhammad and Mohammad," said the Daily Mail. However, the disparate spellings taken together formed the largest group, with 7,549 newborns given the name last year. The official top spot went to Oliver, with 7,364 newborns. The most popular girl's name was Olivia. The lists were compiled by Britain's Office of National Statistics.

The most frequent spelling alone, Mohammed, was the number four most popular name in London, while it was number one in "West Midlands region of central England which includes the city of Birmingham," according to the Sidney Morning Herald. It was number 16 in the general list, with the second most frequent spelling coming in at 36.

and another one from Saudi Arabia showing that the most popular name in USA was Crusader closely followed by Cohen!1!

...

!

all citing statistics from the office of National Statistics. Google if you do not believe me. Here is HuffPo's coverage:
Britain's most popular baby names have been released, and Jack, the reigning champ for 14 years, has been replaced this year by Mohammed, reports the AFP.

The name, a reference to the Muslim prophet, was denied the top spot due to a plethora of spellings listed separately, including "Muhammad and Mohammad," said the Daily Mail. However, the disparate spellings taken together formed the largest group, with 7,549 newborns given the name last year. The official top spot went to Oliver, with 7,364 newborns. The most popular girl's name was Olivia. The lists were compiled by Britain's Office of National Statistics.

The most frequent spelling alone, Mohammed, was the number four most popular name in London, while it was number one in "West Midlands region of central England which includes the city of Birmingham," according to the Sidney Morning Herald. It was number 16 in the general list, with the second most frequent spelling coming in at 36.

Jack came in third on the list, followed by Harry and Alfie.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/27/mohammed-britains-most-po_n_775145.html


I WOULD NEVER cite something from some RW email, thank you very much. :eyes:

People always seem to be scapegoating the wrong people.

"Just let them eat cake!"


(some day it will catch up with them)....

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

What if the title said: "Hate crimes against Jews on rise in UK suburbs: Study"?

Would you be allowed to get away with saying something like that, then?

Academic report finds Muslim communities in small towns are more vulnerable to attack than those living in big cities.
Last Modified: Nov 27 2010 20:45 GMT

A report published by a British university has found that arson, criminal damage, violence and intimidation against Muslims in the UK have increased dramatically since the 9/11 attacks on the US in 2001.

In particular, the authors found that since Muslim communities in small towns are more isolation than in cities, they are more vulnerable to attack and this accounts for higher Islamophobia-related incidents.

=snip=

Speaking to Al Jazeera, Jonathan Githens-Mazer, a co-author of the report, said: "There are two main things that are significant about this (report). "One is that it talks about the experiences of Muslims that are living away from the big cities, away from big Muslim population areas and starts unpacking some of the problems they are having in these places. The other thing is that it starts talking about the politics of securitisation of Muslims, Muslims always being associated with terrorism, those ideas are being taken up by those who do violence against Muslims."

=snip=

Media criticised

"The real question isn't so much why there's Islamically-inspired terrorism. The real question is how is it that 99.99 per cent of the community want to have nothing to do with it, want to reject it," Githens-Mazer said. "The fact is that academics, and in terms of communities, there's so much work done by them to show (that the vast majority of Muslims want nothing to do with terrorism). But it's not taken up by the media, and certainly not taken up by the politicians, because it doesn't fit various narratives about, you know, evil Muslims and good non-Muslims."


Video here: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2010/11/20101127183749942336.html

Apart from the general rise in xenophobia (including France's attempts to expel the Roma), hate groups like EDL have been working actively to whip up hatred and fear against Muslims. It seems ironic, in view of their complaint that Muslims are not integrating into the broader society, that one result of their actions is to further isolate Muslims.

We've seen the same kind of xenophobia, including anti-Muslim hysteria, in the U.S. The Southern Poverty Law Center has documented an explosion in the number of 'hate groups' and other 'extremist groups,' including some, Like Pamela Geller's and Robert Spencer's "Stop Islamization of America" group, that are specifically targeted against Muslims. Just this month, Oklahoma voters even adopted a law to prohibit imposition of Sharia law in the state--even though no one was trying to impose or even suggesting any such thing.

The release of this report and its introductory tour seem to be the beginning of a broader effort to push back against the hate groups not only in England, but in this country as well. From the second link:


Professor John Esposito from Georgetown University, USA argues against the anti-Muslim rhetoric and has recently been commenting on the furore surrounding the negative campaigning against Park5l, the co called Ground Zero Mosque in Lower Manhattan. He will be attending the launch of the new report and recognises the need to unite UK and US citizens in a common purpose. He said,‘US and UK citizens should distinguish the faith of mainstream Muslims from the claims of a minority of extremists who justify their acts of violence and terrorism in the name of Islam. Blurring this distinction plays into the hands of preachers of hate (Muslim and non-Muslim) whose rhetoric incites and demonizes, alienates and marginalizes and leads to the adoption of domestic policies that undermine the civil liberties of Muslims and non-Muslims alike.’


Thanks for the post, Turborama. :thumbsup:

K&R

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...Esposito has continued to do what he's always done--promote Muslim-Christian dialogue and understanding and tolerance. (How nefarious!1!! Oh noes!1!!)

The "apologist" label comes from the Right Wing group Campus Watch, which criticizes Middle Eastern Studies in the U.S. as too "leftist" and not supportive of U.S. "national interests." It's hardly an unbiased, credible source for labeling anyone biased or an apologist.

I really hope this study gets the publicity it deserves. I'm trying to find out how to get hold of a copy.

Even some here on this site want to debunk it even before they've read it. I'm not sure what their motive is for doing that, but it's an attitude that's going to upset all of DU's Muslims.

With regard to religion (or the lack thereof), Democratic Underground is a diverse community which includes Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists, Agnostics, and others. All are welcome here. For this reason, we expect members to make an extra effort to be sensitive to different religious beliefs, and to show respect to members who hold different religious beliefs. Members are welcome to discuss whether they agree or disagree with particular religious beliefs, but they are expected to do so in a relatively sensitive and respectful manner. As a general rule, discussions about ideas are usually permitted, but broad-brush bigoted statements about groups of people — either religious or non-religious — are not. If you are easily offended by discussions about religious beliefs, or if you take pleasure from offending or ridiculing people with different beliefs, or if you consider progressive people with different beliefs to be your enemy or your inferior, do not participate in religious discussions on Democratic Underground.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

to everyone yet.

Therefore, you're making prejudiced assumptions.

But hey, thanks for your help with keeping this OP kicked.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Read this and educate yourself: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9614693

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You sympathize with far right Islamophobic thugs do you? If so, you're on the wrong website.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Same goes for anyone who turns up supporting the racists at Stormfront. Neither should be welcome at DU...

You appear to be trying to defend those bigoted and racist scumbags. If you are, that's disgusting...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sorry, but that makes no sense at all. People aren't immune from being a bigot just because they're of one religion and not another. Anyone who supports of defend the EDL is a fucking bigot and hatemonger...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I doubt you'll bother reading, but if you actually have an open mind you should spend some time here: http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/

And specifically here: http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/English-Defence-League

And here: http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/The-Extremist-Defence-League

Mindless, drooling wankers who probably are EDL or BNP members. Hatefilled and violent turds who roam in violent gangs attacking minority groups. Fuck them and fuck any tool who supports their hate and violence...

Those sort of creatures don't have the self-awareness required to do so. Hatemongers and bigots exist in every religion. Are you really not aware of the bigotry and hate that exists amongst extremists Hindus and Jews, for example?

Yr support of a fascist gang of violent thugs that are little different to the Brownshirts is very disturbing...

...but when you constantly demonize an entire group with your broad brush, spew extreme RW talking points, and defend a notorious anti-Muslim hate group, your agenda becomes crystal clear.

Buh-bye. :hi:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I can't believe you're still here, to be honest.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Just run through yr posts and use the word 'Jew' instead of 'Muslim' and you should be able to see why what yr posting is totally unacceptable on a Left Wing forum where bigotry isn't tolerated....

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

There are a very few 'token' minorities who join or support the EDL - probnbly a smaller proportion than that of African Americans who join the Tea Party movement - but it's overwhelmingly a white movement. Mostly young white males, with considerable overlap with the BNP.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

So do you feel that it's crap when the same sort of studies are done about bigotry against Jews, or is it only Muslims you feel that way about?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Free Republic loves stuff like that. DU has rules against it.

I've read quite a few and incidents are listed in them that aren't reported to the police...

And a fyi. If a rape isn't reported to the police, does that mean you think it's crap and it never happened?

on edit: You haven't read the report on anti-Muslim hate crimes, have you? If so, can you give me a list of incidents included that hadn't been reported to the police?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Because it hasn't been released to the public yet.

Again, thanks for keeping the OP kicked and helping it reach a wider audience.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Yr claiming if a crime isn't reported to police, then it's crap, but in this thread you claim that atnisemitic attacks are rampant in Europe. It makes no sense that someone who claims that something's crap unless it's reported to the police would hold other groups to a different standard.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sorry, but you seem overly eager to call Muslim victims of crime liars, while not doing the same for anyone else. In fact, it seems you call just about anyone who you don't agree with a liar.

I'm absolutely stunned that you not only show support of an extreme fascist racist group like the EDL, but don't seem to believe that there's bigotry against Muslims in the US. When people speak of crimes carried out against them, they're not 'sound bytes' to anyone but ugly and bigoted wankers who hate that group...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

They all have incidents that are reported to police and some that are given first-hand. Why is yr issue only with Muslims??

The study is based on first-hand testimony. It's one thing to question that and to seek further information when the study is published and available. I wouldn't call that biased. But to label those testimonies as 'lies,' sight unseen, is quite a different thing--and very revealing.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You're not worth the effort.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It really was deleted because I don't want to waste my time with you.

Plus, I was going out to meet up with some friends to enjoy the sunset and I couldn't be bothered anymore, and still can't.

Or does that only apply if they're Muslim? ;)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

How about you try reading what gets said to you and reply to that?

And reports aren't non-fiction, btw...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I know that reports and studies are non-fiction because I graduated third grade, which is where I learnt the difference between fiction (novels) and non-fiction. That's also where I learnt to spell ;)

You've already let slip what your ultimate (pre-conceived) conclusion is going to be, regardless of any more information or evidence that will be presented.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

But who cares about the victims, especially if they're Muslims, right? It's all about the ugly hateful bigoted wankers who think that people are liars if they don't report a crime to police. btw, you didn't answer my question from earlier. Do you also think women who don't report rape to police are liars?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Do you also think women who don't report rapes are liars, or are they only liars if they're Muslims?

btw, you haven't read the book, so you don't know that it contains only first hand accounts...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It's a very easy question to answer. I'm surprised at yr evasiveness...

..especially when the victims are from marginalized communities that are discriminated against? That's hardly a "real world" view.

Do you deny that victims often have valid reasons for not reporting a crime to the police? Under-reporting of rapes is well-substantiated, and the reasons for not reporting those crimes are well-understood. What about undocumented immigrants? Do you think they have no problem going to the police to report crimes?

To take the view that if a crime is unreported it didn't happen is absurd. Even more absurd to brand the first-hand reports of victims as "lies" before the study and the victims' accounts are even available.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It's pretty spectacular...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Remember that question you ignore each time you get asked it? Well, I want you to answer it...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It did not attempt to describe hate crimes in the U.S., France, or anywhere else but England.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You appear to be the only one who has advance information on this study, as you have already announced that the victims interviewed are telling "lies"--before the study and the victims' accounts are even available. You've already pronounced your conclusion, which is unjustifiable on its face.

There is a broader conversation to be had, but you're not contributing to it. You've done nothing but disrupt this thread with RW talking points, evasions, and defense of a known hate group. If you want to know the reason why the conversation isn't going far...look in the mirror.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

From what I can see, NO ONE ELSE has it yet. All that search engines yield are reports similar to the ones linked in the OP.

Calling the testimony of victims "lies" is nothing but a knee-jerk reaction to serve a particular agenda when you have not even SEEN the accounts that you label as "lies." There is not even a pretense of intellectual honesty in such a blatantly biased reaction.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

That means either you have read the study and know what you are talking about or haven't read the study and are prejudging it and those who took part in it.




Ironic, really. That an OP about the growth of Islamophobia in Britain has attracted exactly that.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Claire Berlinski - from the Manhattan Institute...

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/berlinski.htm

In defense of Sarah Palin: http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Attack-on-Sarah-Palin-Shows-Richard-Cohen-s-Ignorance-of-History







The more you post, the more you pull your own curtain.

It's unbelievable that that kind of crap would be used to support arguments on DU. That hole is just getting deeper, lol.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/jun/15/sarah-palin-meets-margaret-thatcher

What was that you were saying about the Guardian?

Anyway, here's her book about Thatcher: http://www.amazon.com/There-No-Alternative-Margaret-Thatcher/dp/0465002315

Yeah, a real Democrat.

Finally, I'll treat your ridicule of the term Islamophobia with the contempt it deserves.

"38. Why are they being deleted?

Because I don't believe in the first post in this thread. It isn't based on any solid information, but is based on hear say.

If you have more prove I will be willing look at it, but I know you don't because it is base on lies. "

That's it - your prejudice is that it is lies. You have no basis for calling the work of a university 'lies', but you've just done it anyway.

And as for your claim about the origin of 'Islamophobia' - Sadly, No!

The first recorded use in the Oxford English Dictionary is
"1976 Internat. Jrnl. Middle East Stud. 7 124 What makes the task difficult, perhaps impossible, for a non-Muslim is that he is compelled, under penalty of being accused of Islamophobia, to admire the Koran in its totality."

But the International Institute for Islamic Thought was not founded until 1981. Abdur-Rahman Muhammad is making things up.

...when you have NO idea what they said is NOT a strawman argument.

Your reaction--wholly out of the blue and not based on any actual information--is very revealing. Asserting that you got information via a "search engine" when that information is NOT AVAILABLE on the web is deceptive, at best, and does not even give members here the credit for the low level of sophistication required to see through such a transparent ploy.

A more honest approach would be to critique the study AFTER you have actually seen it. Then, you can take your best shots if you see problems in it. But you can't imagine, beforehand, that people interviewed are going to be lying and assert that as a fact or conclusion.

The rest of your post is full of "I have not seen," "I would imagine," "we keep hearing about" and other vague and imprecise observations, as well as unsupported accusations about lies and "victimhood." I'm surprised I didn't see "some say" in there, as well. You'll have to do much better than that if you expect us to treat your arguments seriously.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Calling someone a liar when you know absolutely NOTHING about what he or she may have said is prejudice--even if you pretend that your search engine miraculously turned up nonexistent web information.

I suggest you take your own advice: STOP DIGGING.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You never addressed the question of how you reached the conclusion that the study's interviewees were telling "lies" when you cannot possibly know what they actually said.

You'd have done better to admit that you pre-judged the study's findings and gotten it over with. Accusing others of strawman arguments and digging holes is only ludicrous projection.

is Hope Not Hate (www.hopenothate.org.uk). Their campaigns contributed to the overwhelming defeat of BNP candidates in the General Election and recent council elections.

The xenophobic organizations here in the UK are vicious. It's a longstanding problem, though the groups change name from time to time - when I was growing up it was the National Front, now it's the BNP and EDL. First and foremost, such groups hate immigrants and descendants of immigrants. A lot of their hate is directed at Muslims at the moment, and Muslims are the EDL's first focus, but East Europaeans (our current biggest immigrant group) are also a big target for the BNP and other anti-immigrant campaigners. Jews, Irish, Afro-Caribbaeans, Indians, Chinese, etc. were earlier targets, and all still come in for some xenophobic hate.

Sadly, xenophobia and hatemongering tend to increase in hard economic times.

Contrary to myths, Britain is not 'overrun by Muslims': overall, the proportion is under 3%.

It's hard to believe the bilge that some may try to pass off to Americans about other places in the world--as if we don't have search engines and international members to provide information about the broader world.

Your presence here is a real contribution. :toast:

Things that are said here about Muslims would not be tolerated if they were said about other ethnic groups.

I think living through these times since 9/11, hearing the never-ending propaganda, the fear-mongering etc. finally answered all my questions all my life about 'how Germany happened. And don't anyone bother reminding of Godwin's law. I see perfectly rational people here so indoctrinated now that they don't even realize how bigoted they have become.

When you say 'here' I'm not sure if you mean in the USA, or on DU. But even on DU, I've occasionally seen nasty comments and links to bad sites about Mexicans, Jews, 'immigrants', and other groups.

Probably much commoner in the USA in general; and also the UK, replacing 'Mexicans' with 'East Europaeans' - and of course non-white people of all backgrounds. And possibly the biggest hate-targets in parts of contemporary Europe are Gypsies/ Roma.

None of which excuses the vile hate-campaigns against Muslims, of course!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

And that is why they are encouraging victims to come forward:

http://www.dorset.police.uk/default.aspx?page=4452
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8187259.stm

And why the Community Support Trust, which compiles figures for antisemitic hate crime, recognises that victims may not want to contact the police about a crime: http://www.thecst.org.uk/index.cfm?content=3&Menu=2

This well-respected university centre is compiled statistics on Islamophobic hate crime, like the Community Support Trust does with antisemitic hate crime.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:sarcasm:

Your tinfoil hat may be on a little too tight if you're seeing a secret plot to foist upon us your assertion of "a myth perpetrated by certain Islamic organizations." Exactly WHAT nefarious "certain Islamic organizations" are you referring to? Or are you just seeing mysterious plotters so clever that you cannot even ascertain their identities?

It's hard to follow your continued confusion of a British report about events in the UK with experience in the U.S. What does CAIR have to do with the British study?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

began right after 9/11 in the U.S. Such derogatory ethnic slurs as 'raghead' 'camel jockey' etc. were rampant all over the internet. And on rightwing talk radio, with people like Ann Coulter, Limbaugh et al using these slurs and then rationalizing them when anyone objected.

And not just rightwing hate radio hosts, a SC state legislator used the slur in an interview, obviously believing it was perfectly acceptable.

SC State Senator Jake Knotts (R) "Raghead" comment



There have also been incidents of violence against Muslims, against Mosques etc.

The Politics of Fear has permitted racists to come out of their closets and openly engage in racist rhetoric.

I hope this study gets a lot of attention and something needs to be done here also about hate radio. We already have lunatics heading to the ACLU to murder people there by his own words, after listening to Glenn Beck who, he said, was actually not just talking but talking about 'doing something'.

I just came upon this thread, and though I'm interested in the topic and the discusion, this disussion has become incoherent and unreadable because of all the (apparently) deleted/censored posts.

Have we come to the point here where we are simply not being allowed to have a discussion of important issues related to Islam and politics that allows for open expression of opinion from all quarters?

I think we should be able to debate this topic like others, without censoring viewpoints with which we may disagree. I'm an adult and can sort through what I think is credible, and what I think is hopelessly biased. I simply wish to be allowed to do that. I think others can and will behave similarly.

(And I hope this posting does not also get deleted, as it would be just too Orwellian to see censorship here of respectful complaints about censorship.)

- Bragi

who admitted they'd been banned from DU before. They supported the EDL, said (without foundation) the report is 'lies', and made broadbrush statements about Muslims.

There's the problem. I have no doubt that you think everyone who was deleted was an EDL supporter who made "broadbrush" (I presume derogatory) statements about Muslims.

I don't know whether to agree with you on that, however, because I wasn't allowed to read their postings.

I am a radical free speech advocate. For me, the proper response to offensive speech is not censorship, it is for fair-minded people to make counter-arguments, and to let reasonable people decide what is the right viewpoint.

That's how free speech and freedom fit together (at least according to me.)

DU does not wish to be disrupted by bigots or other trolls. I'm sure you can find the same kind of talk on many other sites - his freedom of speech has not been restricted. But DU does not have to provide a platform for such things. It is not owned by a country, or any other form of public ownership.

Since your post count is high, I know you are not new to the internet, and so you know that discussions taken on in good faith by some participants can be disrupted by others whose purpose is not to persuade, but to shut down others with lies. You can look at discussion forums which allow any kind of crap to be posted, and see how useless they are for productive discussion.

that said the videos of some muslim men burning poppys and shouting British soldiers burn in hell at a remembrance day gathering was in very very poor taste, it was completely designed to humiliate and stir the edl...makes the muslims who participated in that look as bad as the crazy group from kansas that yells God hates fags n soldiers at funerals..that chowdry(sp?) fellow also is just as bad as the ones he preaches against...so its a two way street, neither group is worth a damn!!!

it may have been designed to humiliate the British people, army, or the Royal British Legion; and it may have been designed to stir up the EDL, but you shouldn't conflate the British people/Royal British Legion with the EDL.

The EDL have no claim whatsoever on the symbol of the poppy. They are the kind of people the Second World War was fought against by Britain.

Yes, Choudary is just as bad as the EDL, and the Phelps clan; but the OP is about hate crimes against the general Muslim population, who are not connected with Choudary, any more than I am connected with the EDL.

but he does not represent mainstream British Muslims, any more than the EDL represents mainstream British non-Muslims. He cannot be used to excuse hate-crimes against Muslims in general.