RSS
email
0

Contemporary Anglo-Islamic tension

As Swiss voters back a referendum proposal to ban the building of Minarets,one continues to be struck by the prevalence of the debate over ethnic social segregation.

This was the image that the Swiss Federal Commission Against Racisim derided as 'dangerous', apparently comparing the Islamic minaret to missiles. It exemplifies the degree of tension felt on the right at the condition of Swiss Islam.

Last week David Cameron raised an issue in Prime Minister's Questions over the thinking of two Islamic schools, the head teacher of which has been documented by BBC's Newsnight programme as thinking that western education is a threat to Muslim beliefs and values, and taking part in British society is contrary to that belief.

The state of relations between Islamic communities and those they exist both within and among could perhaps be seen as just as tense as they ever have been.

Taken from The World Today programme on the BBC World Service last week, a quote from Dr Taj Hargey, Chairman and Imam of the Muslim Education Centre of Oxford.

Paraphrasing, Dr Hargey said that

"What Muslims in Europe need to understand is that there is a clear distinction between culture and creed. The original rationale behind the Minarets is no longer relevant in the modern age. Muslims in Europe should reject Sharia law, which is neither timeless nor universal. By rejecting this foreign, outdated Sharia, the Swiss will produce a form of Islam which is relevant and rooted in that country. It is important to understand that Muslims who have come to England and Switzerland have come voluntarily to the West, they need to integrate and become part and parcel of that society. There are no rules preventing Muslims practising their faith in these countries. As such, they should respect the laws and rules of these countries. They should be respectful of the indigenous majority, and should build mosques thatare reflective of their new political and social environment, instead of blindly replicating the cultural traditions of their ancestral homes."

The Newsnight report by Richard Watson exhibited some of the hostility clearly felt by representatives of the schools at the press briefing. The worrying aspect of this scenario was heavily commented on in the British papers earlier last week, but was highlighted as early as February.

One can understand the worries of some Muslims after seeing the extent of the influence of the Jewish lobby in the UK exposed by Channel 4 a few weeks ago, yet this far from explains their hostility to the country in which they themselves often choose to reside, and raise their children.

This type of issue is not unique to either Islam or the United Kingdom, as Channel 4's Unreported World highlighted on Friday. Yet it remains prevalent to the extent that it can still dominate Prime Minister's Questions in the run-up to an election, and one suspects that, post-7/7, it informs much of national policing policy as well.

There is no easy answer to that question, and one that I intend to answer this week by talking to local ethnic and political representatives in Bournemouth.
Read more
0

Refraction

Today's Sunday Express runs on page 15 with the headline:

OUTCRY AS CARR LETS FLY WITH A 4-LETTER TIRADE

http://bit.ly/26zxP

Do we really need to be so worried though about the state of humour?

Much of the outcry alleged in this article centres on the accessibility of this stand up show online to children. Primarily this is incorrect as the show is NOT available online to anyone at the Channel 4 On Demand website (see http://www.channel4.com/programmes/jimmy-carr-in-concert/episode-guide/series-1/episode-1). Secondarily it supposes that Channel 4 is, in some way, responsible for its availability elsewhere on the internet, when few would doubt that such censorship is impossible, not to mention the fact that the show was released on DVD all the way back in November 2008. The DVD itself is clearly labelled with an 18 certificate. The watershed exists so that adults can enjoy adult humour without worrying about the overt influence. If there were campaign to change the watershed, then this argument might be put in a different context.

The article itself quotes 'a spokesman for the watchdog group Mediawatch-UK' as denouncing this particular show as “a disgrace. It is typical of Channel 4 not to take any notice of guidance surrounding bad language.” This quote is actually attributed by Mediawatch-UK's website as belonging to - now former - director John Beyer. Yet, though the extract (http://www.mediawatchuk.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=396&Itemid=92) implies him to be the current director, he did in fact resign in July 2009. The broadcast date for '...In Concert' was the 22nd August 2009.

According to Mediawatch-UK's website:
'Many people recognise that television has a global impact on moral, ethical, social and political issues as well as the power to influence our society for good or ill. Gone are the days when broadcasters can realistically say that they simply reflect society as it is. More and more society reflects the false attitudes and behaviour portrayed by some parts of the media.' Is this chicken or egg? (Does reflection + affectation = refraction?)


-----------------------------------------


I tried calling Ofcom to make sure that it was the Channel 4 showing that was complained about, and not the 8 out of 10 Cats reference to Diana that attracted 114 complaints. The Ofcom offices, I was told by a recorded voice, were closed. I wasn't angry, but curious about the complaints procedure, since persoanlly I've yet to make any attempt to complain about anything. Surely, one would suppose, much of the immediate anger at being insulted would ebb away by the time it comes to Tuesday morning (supposing offices remain shut on the bank holiday), in which case it begs the question whether, if Ofcom's offices were open 24/7, they might recieve
more complaints?

-------------------------------

On a separate note about the article, it mentions that there was a 14 year old in attendence, ostensibly blaming Carr for allowing his humour to reach such young and impressionable people. After reviewing the insulting stand up act on DVD, it is made clear that his mother is responsible for bringing him. If the Express is to then suggest that this merits criticism, then surely this leads the conclusion towards a nanny-state conclusion?

---------------

And finally: Who but the Express to find some way for swearing to insult Diana?

Read more