Of media bubbles, comfort zones and twitstorms posted by Richard Seymour

You know, I like Mehdi Hasan, or those bits of him which can be read.  He makes the right enemies, opposes Islamophobia, is antiwar and is far more critical of both Obama and the Labour leadership than most in his position are willing to be.  I also notice when he RTs my stuff on Twitter, and glow a little inside.  (Oh, save your sanctimony, I need the approval.)  But then this: a big whatthefuck sandwich.

In effect, I would argue, the article faces in two directions simultaneously.  Formally, it is addressed to British Muslims, a wake-up call, an appeal to get their skates on and join in more in wider political issues.  Substantively, it is addressed to a wider audience, as an explanation for the seemingly inexplicable and aberrant behaviour of Muslim voters in Bradford West.  It says, Muslims are obsessed with foreign affairs, and thus appear to be foreign; they care only about war and don't join in the wider arguments about inequality or the NHS; they respond only to that which specifically affects Muslims as Muslims, the least expansive kind of identity politics, and in effect isolate themselves from wider British public life.  Acknowledging the chilling effects of so-called anti-terrorism legislation on political activism by Muslims, it nonetheless blames them for inhabiting an "antiwar comfort-zone" and exhorts them to abandon it.

Addressing Bradford specifically, the article insists that Muslims weren't enthused by the anti-austerity message of Respect, and only knew that its candidate George Galloway was antiwar and pro-Muslim.  The authority for this piece of information is a local Labour student.  So there you have it: the degeneration in our parliamenary democracy, the fragility of mountainous Labour majorities (demonstrated well beyond Bradford West), the collapse in coalition parties' support, the polarisation and volatility of politics in the age of austerity... all of this can be set aside, for the main cause of the result in Bradford West is a political pathology among British Muslims.

Okay.  This isn't the worst example of its kind.  Given the source, it is a disappointment, but you come to expect this from pundits.  And most of the British punditocracy just did not get it about Bradford West; never mind foresight, twenty-twenty hindsight would have been nice.  They were left trying to cobble together ersatz explanations from an impoverished analytical language that rarely knows how to ascribe political and tactical intelligence to voters.  Watch them at work on the television: the same old dull, leaden psephological cliches from the same dull, leaden pollsters and pundits which we've been hearing for forty years to no avail: voters are becoming less tribal, more like consumers, sick of party politics they gravitate toward single-issue campaigns, except for Muslims who vote en bloc along tribal lines etc etc.  So, Hasan's piece hardly stood out. 

However.  If you follow me on Twitter, you might already know that I took some of this up with Hasan.  I asserted that the article was filled with unfounded, unfair and patronising generalizations about British Muslims that would do nothing but feed into the stereotypes which Hasan usually opposes, and I challenged him to back up his assertions.  This generated a terrifically rancorous twitstorm.  What struck me is that those defending the piece, including Hasan, have one argument, and one argument only: he is a British Muslim and is thus perfectly placed to make the kind of judgement calls that he made in this article.  That is the only defence offered, the only defence available.  Variations on the theme were offered: you, ghetto leftist, shouldn't attack someone with Hasan's record; you, provocateur, have stepped over the line this time; you, non-Muslim, have no basis for disputing Hasan's arguments; how many Muslims have you met, known or been related to anyway?  I will spare you the various tiresome interjections along the lines that "guys, this is booooring, please stop".  As if they don't know what Twitter is; as if they don't know how to scroll past lines of text.

In essence, the defence rested on an appeal to authority.  In fact, for it to be coherent, for it to sustain the sorts of arguments made by Hasan without external support, it really has to be an appeal to omniscience.  So, now, I have to explain that an argument stands or falls on its merits, on the proofs that can be assembled for it, not on the merits of the person making it?  I doubt it.  I doubt that a simple logical fallacy is responsible for such a streak of emetic twaddle.  I assume that, to defend it on such sycophantic and illogical lines, either you have to be sympathetic to the thesis in the first place, hence grateful that a person of suitable authority gave voice to it, or you must have a conception of political etiquette (cf. 'coalition-building') in which one doesn't publicly criticise luminaries, or at least not too strenuously, and always 'constructively', ie on favourable terms.  Talk about comfort-zones. 

Labels: bradford, george galloway, islam, islamophobia, liberals, media, muslims, twitstorm, twitter

Guess who's coming to vote? posted by Richard Seymour

BBC to Galloway: will you represent Muslims or the white working class? Labour to press: we have a problem with incorrigibly reactionary Muslims voting for left-wing Catholics, or with the incorrigibly reactionary white working class who won't vote for a Muslim candidate. Salma Yaqoob:

The fact that Respect won in every ward in the constituency, and won by a massive 10,000 majority, testifies that that disillusionment goes way beyond the Muslim community. In the predominately white, middle-class ward of Clayton approximately 900 votes were cast for Respect compared to 40 for Labour.

Labels: capitalist ideology, george galloway, islam, labour, muslims, respect, social democracy, white working class

The Metropolitan Police and the EDL posted by Richard Seymour

If you want to understand why the police are not to be relied upon when dealing with the far right, this story offers part of the answer:

Scotland Yard has been accused of underestimating the threat from the English Defence League (EDL) after the head of the unit monitoring hate groups declared it was not an extremist organisation.

In an email obtained by the Guardian, Adrian Tudway, National Co-ordinator for Domestic Extremism, said he formed the view the EDL were not extreme after reading their website.

Today the EDL, accused by Muslims of fostering hate against them, will stage a "static" demonstration in Tower Hamlets, east London, in one of their most potentially provocative displays so far.

The Metropolitan police obtained a ban against a planned march through east London by the EDL, fearing clashes with anti-fascist groups and also the prospect of British Muslim youths taking to the streets to defend their communities against feared racist attacks.

British Muslims have claimed police have not done enough to protect them against the EDL.

In an email sent on 27 April 2011, Tudway told a Muslim group they should try opening up a "line of dialogue" with the EDL, who have been accused of staging attacks and directing hostility at British Muslims.

Tudway wrote: "In terms of the position with EDL, the original stance stands, they are not extreme right wing as a group, indeed if you look at their published material on their web-site, they are actively moving away from the right and violence with their mission statement etc.

"As we discussed last time we met, I really think you need to open a direct line of dialogue with them, that might be the best way to engage them and re-direct their activity?"

Labels: anti-fascism, edl, english defence league, fascism, islamophobia, metropolitan police, muslims, racism

Police crackdown on protesters posted by Richard Seymour

Newsnight on the case of Jake Smith and the Gaza protests:

Labels: gaza, islamophobia, Israel, metropolitian police, muslims, police brutality, protest, zionism

Press targets British Muslims posted by Richard Seymour

My brief article for Socialist Worker, alongside Muserat Sujawal arguing that Islamophobia is likely to increase as a result of the Mumbai attacks, and some detailed background to the attacks themselves.

ps: also, my review of Wolfgang Sofsky's 'Privacy: A Manifesto'.

Labels: india, islamophobia, kashmir, mumbai, muslims

Good hair day posted by Richard Seymour

Islamophobia Watch draws attention to the victory of Bushra Noah in her discrimination case. The young woman was turned down for a job at hair salon because she wears a headscarf. Now, this is a boost for workers everywhere, particularly female workers who are often the target of sexist dress code policies that insist they wear a skirt and so forth. Previous challenges to such policies have been difficult to sustain, but this lays down a precedent. So, not just a victory against blatant employer Islamophobia, but also something that working people will find useful if they want to challenge their employers on discriminatory dress codes. However, the radical firebrands at HP Sauce have been moved to eructate as follows:

Why should a hairdressing salon carry even the risk of losing business because an irrational third party who as decided that showing hair is sinful and thus must be covered up at all times wants to work in the trade?

Surely the the person making bizarre lifestyle choices based on their irrational fears and superstitions should carry the consequent risks and inconveniences - and and not expect someone else to?

This is posed as a "moral question", no less. The tradition that this argument draws on is that embodied in the legal defense of segregation. Why should businesses have to run the risk of losing business by being forced to employ blacks? Why should they have to even allow them in the store if it'll drive away good white customers? Why can't they bar customers at their own discretion? The citation of the holy profit, of the inviolable rights of property owners, is precisely in that usage. (It is, of course, still the case that those who want to preserve the legacy of segregation in the labour market argue against affirmative action and similar legislation as a form of 'reverse discrimination' - thus implying that the prevailing inequality is meritocratic). The interesting thing about this is that such arguments were answered by civil rights legislators, who accepted the narrow terms of the discussion. They pointed out that public accomodations, shops and so forth, were not merely private property but of such a kind that they both were and had to be open to the public. This property is inserted into market relations, which is a sphere of social life that ought not to be restricted on the basis of race or any other irrelevant factor. The tormented souls at HP Sauce are appealing to a conception of property rights that has historically been tailored for the defense of white supremacy, and which would sit as comfortably in the literature of the BNP today.

Labels: hp scum, islamophobia, muslims, property rights, working class

How do you become "Britain's top Muslim"? posted by Richard Seymour

Apparently it is possible to become "Britain's top Muslim". I would like to know how this can happen, and will therefore be awarding special Tomb brownie points to whoever can tell me in no more than 2 million words what the procedure is. Bear in mind that wit and insight does count at the Tomb - it just doesn't count for much.

Labels: islamophobia, muslims, the sun

Another pogrom, chaps? posted by Richard Seymour

That's all I can stands, I can't stands no more. I was not about to comment on all this 'Sharia' business, because the controversy is largely manufactured on the basis of what turns out to be a rather conservative and moderate statement by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Of course, there are more interesting ways to respond to such a statement than by either hysterically over-reacting or simply seconding it as a common sense bit of multiculturalism. So, why waste time refuting acres of sensationalist trash when the usual effect is to incite even more while trapping one in a self-defeating binary? But look at the picture to your left. This cover is an attempt by The Independent on Sunday to be cutting edge, by which I mean racist and alarmist. The story that it links to is actually a rather glib piece of work that trivialises domestic violence, and while it does externalise such violence, it doesn't at any point make the explicit equation "Honour Killings = Muslims". But then most communication is not verbal, and the cover says everything. It makes the formula quite explicit through its selected image, and it is inserted into the context of hysterical overreaction to Rowan Williams' musings in such a way as to provoke a chain of further hysterical overreaction. The offended secular liberal would be instantly aflame, seething with a potent and toxic mixture of resentment and sanctimony: "What is the Archbishop thinking, and doesn't he realise that this is what Sharia law will mean, and why must we let them get away with everything, and isn't this just Political Correctness Gone Mad, and why do we always have to apologise for our own culture, it's just not fair, and isn't it about time we just stopped being sorry and said to Muslims enough is enough..."

The reaction to Williams' statement adequately expresses the three basic coordinates of contemporary Islamophobia, veering between burning resentment about Them getting 'special treatment', fear and loathing of the 'Muslim threat', and finally a vague 'humanitarianism' in which whitey rescues Asian Babes from their non-white male captors. The first two being the usual racist discourse, and the latter being a staple of colonial ideology. Incidentally, these reactions are being blended in roughly the same measure in both the crude right-wing tabloids and in the broadsheets. (One outstanding exception, which beats all competition by its single-minded devotion to a daily dose of anti-Muslim racism is the Daily Express, which - like most pets - is coming to resemble its owner: as unadulterated scum). It is clear that honour killings are not to do with Islam, but it is equally clear that liberals who think it does are barely in a state to tell what time of day it is never mind check their facts. The Independent's headline says that there are 17,000 'honour' attacks each year, which is based on the following rumination by Commander Steve Allen of the Association of Chief Police Officers of the 'honour-based violence unit':

"We work on a figure which suggests it is about 500 cases shared between us and the Forced Marriage Unit per year," he said: "If the generally accepted statistic is that a victim will suffer 35 experiences of domestic violence before they report, then I suspect if you multiplied our reporting by 35 times you may be somewhere near where people's experience is at."

I would point out that - as alarming as this is - the story drastically underestimates the scale of domestic violence in the UK. There are also 12 million incidents of domestic violence each year, 89% of which is directed at a female spouse, and this accounts for 16% of all violent crime in the UK. One incidence of domestic abuse is reported to the police every minute. One in four women will experience this in their lifetimes, according to official statistics. On average, two women are killed each week by a current or former partner. So, you could say that's over 100 'honour' killings a year. (These figures from the Home Office and the NHS). If we followed the ACPO method, the figures would be even higher (one report of domestic violence each minute would actually yield more than 18 million incidents per year). By anyone's standards, that is a staggering amount of violence. Only a fraction of it is headline news, however, because only a fraction of it can be spuriously attributed to Islam and Shari'a law.

The three basic elements of Islamophobia mentioned above are all present in the hysteria about what Muslim women wear: resentment (why should you get to hide your face?); fear and loathing (what have you got to hide?); and patronising 'concern' (that veil hides bruises and tears, sister, so kindly allow whitey to liberate you). The latter component is not particular to the centre-left press, but it is essential to the amour-propre of the liberal that liberalism alone is sufficiently attuned to the iniquity of misogynistic violence. Far from being in any sense feminist, however, The Independent's alarmism involves a particular kind of misogyny. In the first instance, by its omissions, it seriously understates the real level of violence against women in this country. Secondly, by its distortions, it transfers the blame for it onto a spotlit minority. Thirdly, in its hateful depiction of Muslim women (especially those wearing the niqab), it contributes to a battery of imagery and claims that has actually resulted in several instances of violence against Muslim women, such as this and this.

I fear we are in for a spell. Every time the media goes on another Muslim-hunt, it is almost inevitable that the politicians will find something to say about it that makes it worse. Gordon Brown has attempted to distinguish his government by attenuating the naked provocations of the Blair era. He will not risk another humiliation in a Labour heartland, if he can avoid it. But he is also an opportunist and it would not be at all out of character for Mr "British Jobs For British Workers" to join the offensive. And if he doesn't, his silence will surely be remarked upon by David Cameron, who is almost as repellent a charlatan as Blair was. The logic of parliamentary politics almost dictates that the two main party leaders have to compete for the lowest common denominator on this question. In Autumn 2006, the Blair government was sputtering to its dismal end, and in its decrepitude launched one attack after another on Muslims. Cameron joined in, and the newspaper editors collectively creamed their pants. Jonathan Freedland wrote: "If this onslaught was about Jews, I would be looking for my passport". A pre-pogrom atmosphere about Muslims is being cultivated in this country. The liberal press bears a great deal of responsibility for that.

Labels: feminism, islam, islamophobia, misogyny, muslims, violence

Demonology posted by Richard Seymour

91% of all news stories about Muslims are negative. Quite high, but still somewhat short of government targets.

Labels: islamophobia, media, muslims