Here we are again, debating the right of Muslim women to wear what they want. Last week, the Reform UK MP Sarah Pochin asked the prime minister, Keir Starmer, if he planned to follow other European countries and prohibit burqas.

Then the leader of the opposition, Kemi Badenoch, called for bosses to be able to ban the burqa in the workplace. Following the example of the former Labor minister Jack Straw, who in 2006 sparked the first burqa debate by asking constituents at his surgeries to remove their face coverings, she stated that she does not see constituents at her surgeries if they have their faces covered, “whether it’s a burqa or a balaclava”.

These comments from politicians hoping to appease rightwing voters have real repercussions for the safety of Muslim women like me. Muslim women, especially those who wear coverings ranging from the headscarf known as the hijab to the full body and face covering known as the burqa, have become a symbol in UK politics of migration and integration. They – or perhaps the perceived oppressive men in their lives – are outsiders who refuse to live by British values. When politicians call to ban the burqa, they position themselves as defenders of a way of life under threat from outside forces.

The timing of this cannot be ignored. Reform, which triumphed at the recent local elections, warns in its manifesto that “unchecked migration has pushed Britain to breaking point”. The Conservatives, keen to claw back any defecting voters, have positioned themselves as equally tough on immigration and integration.

When our national leaders parrot catchy soundbites such as “ban the burqa”, what they are really doing is normalizing Islamophobia by making it part of mainstream political conversations. Islamophobic incidents rose by 375% in the week after Boris Johnson called veiled Muslim women “letterboxes” in 2018.

But I’m sure you’ve heard all of this before, because yet again, here we are: Muslim women defending their right to choose how they exist in British society. What is really being obscured are more pressing issues: inequality, a lack of affordable housing, crumbling public services, a struggling NHS. This was as true in the early 2000s as it is now.

Source: The Guardian

Donald Trump’s defense secretary pick Pete Hegseth, who has the crusader motto “deus vult” tattooed on his arm, has put bigoted anti-Muslim rhetoric at the center of several of his published books, according to a Guardian review of the materials.

Hegseth, especially in 2020’s American Crusade, depicts Islam as a natural, historic enemy of the west; presents distorted versions of Muslim doctrine in “great replacement”-style racist conspiracy theories; treats leftists and Muslims as bound together in their efforts to subvert the US; and idolizes medieval crusaders.

Experts say that Hegseth’s view of Islam is riven with falsehoods, misconceptions and far-right conspiracy theories. Yet Hegseth, if his nomination is successful, will head the world’s largest military force at a time of conflict and instability in the Middle East.

The Guardian emailed Hegseth and the Trump transition team for comment and received no response.

The Guardian has previously reported that in his 2020 book Hegseth calls for an “American Crusade”, targeting both “internal” or “domestic enemies” and the enemies of Israel. Hegseth also connected the two, writing: “We have domestic enemies, and we have international allies … it’s time to reach out to people who value the same principles, relearn lessons from them, and form stronger bonds.”

‘False, totally wrong’

In American Crusade, Hegseth presents the medieval crusades as a model for Christian-Muslim relations, but one historian of the period says his presentation of the history of that period is “just totally wrong”.

In a chapter entitled Make the Crusade Great Again, Hegseth writes: “By the eleventh century, Christianity in the Mediterranean region, including the holy sites in Jerusalem, was so besieged by Islam that Christians had a stark choice: to wage defensive war or continue to allow Islam’s expansion and face existential war at home in Europe,” adding: “The leftists of today would have argued for ‘diplomacy’ … We know how that would have turned out.”

Hegseth continues: “The pope, the Catholic Church, and European Christians chose to fight – and the crusades were born,” and “Pope Urban II urged the faithful to fight the Muslims with his famous battle cry on their lips: ‘Deus vult!,’ or ‘God wills it!’”

Hegseth has a tattoo of the same crusader slogan, which is also associated with Christian nationalism, white supremacist and other far-right tendencies.

For Hegseth, the crusaders’ short-lived victories in the Holy Land means they can be credited with safeguarding modern values. “Enjoy Western civilization? Freedom? Equal justice under the law? Thank a crusader,” having written the same thing again earlier in the chapter.

Matthew Gabriele is a professor of medieval studies in the Department of Religion and Culture at Virginia Tech, and the author, with David Perry, of Bright Ages: A New History of Medieval Europe.

In a telephone conversation, he said that Hegseth’s picture of Muslim encroachment in the 11th century was misplaced.

“There were absolutely no incursions into mainland Europe,” he said, adding “If anything, Islam was kind of on the retreat in Iberia and other places as well. So there was no large geopolitical shift or any kind of immediate threat of Islam taking over Europe.”

On Hegseth’s presentation of the crusades as a victory for the west against Islam, Gabriele said: “The Crusaders lost. They lost everything.

“The idea that they kind of like emerged victorious is absolutely false.

“This narrative of the crusades as a defensive war, where if the Christians didn’t launch this offensive towards Jerusalem that Europe would be overrun has been a bog-standard narrative on the right: it’s something that was espoused by Anders Breivik, the Norwegian mass murderer, in 2011 and by the Christchurch shooter a few years ago.”

On Hegseth drawing a direct line between the crusaders and the modern west, Gabriele said: “It’s the worst kind of simplistic thinking,” adding: “Anybody who tells you these simple stories is selling something.”

“The British were invaded, and they didn’t even know it”

Elsewhere in American Crusade, Hegseth repeatedly characterizes Muslim immigration to Europe as an “invasion” in a way that mimics racist “great replacement”-style conspiracy theories about immigrants displacing white populations.

At one point he tries to connect – an expert says falsely – an aspect of Islamic history with the purported “capture” of Europe.

Hegseth writes: “In Islamist circles, there’s a principle known as hegira,” and then claims: “This term refers to the nonviolent capture of a non-Muslim country.”

Hegseth writes: “Hegira is a cultural, physical, psychological, political, and eventually religious takeover. History is replete with examples of this; and because history is not over, it’s happening in the most inconceivable places right now.”

Hegseth posits the US as an example where, he claims: “Radical mosques and schools are allowed to operate. Religious police control certain sections of many towns. Sharia councils dot the underground landscape. Pervasive political correctness prevents dissent against disastrous policies such as open borders and nonassimilation.”

Adducing proof, Hegseth bizarrely writes: “Take the British cities of London, Birmingham, Leeds, Blackburn, Sheffield, Oxford, Luton, Oldham, and Rochdale. What do they all have in common? They have all had Muslim mayors.”

For Hegseth, this shows: “The British were invaded, and they didn’t even know it. In one generation – absent radical policy change – the United Kingdom will be neither united nor a Western kingdom. The United Kingdom is done for.”

He adds: “The same can be said across Europe, especially following the disastrous open-borders, pro-migrant policies of the past few decades. Countries such as Germany, France, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands threw open their doors to Muslim ‘refugees’ and will never be the same because of it.”

According to Hegseth, countries that do not restrict Muslim immigration ignore that “Islam itself is not compatible with Western forms of government. On the other hand, countries that want to stay free … are fighting like hell to block Islam’s spread.”

Jasmin Zine is professor of Sociology and Muslim Studies at Wilfrid Laurier University, and the author of a book-length report, The Canadian Islamophobia Industry: Mapping Islamophobia’s Ecosystem in the Great White North.

Zine said Hegseth’s narrative appeared to be an “Islamophobic conspiracy theory distorting the practice of ‘hijra’ or the migration of the Prophet Muhammad and early Muslims from Mecca to Medina in 622 AD looking for safety from persecution”, which “is now being used to promote the xenophobic idea of a Muslim ‘takeover’ of the west”.

Zine added: “These ideas are also linked to white nationalist demographic replacement conspiracies about Muslim birth rates in the west (AKA ‘demographic jihad’) and scare stories about ‘creeping shariah’, which have spawned retaliatory ‘crusader’ narratives in far-right subcultures.”

‘Hard-core leftism provides the best gateway for Islamism’

At other points in American Crusade, Hegseth appears to try to scapegoat Muslims for familiar conservative grievances, in narratives that suggest Muslims and leftists are colluding to undermine the US.

In case of a Biden victory in 2020, Hegseth predicted that an “anti-Israel and pro-Islamist foreign policy” would be introduced along with “speech codes instead of free speech, bye-bye Second Amendment” and “naked socialism, government-run everything, Common Core education for everyone, a tiny military, and abortion on demand – even postbirth”.

Hegseth also tries to connect his narrative with gripes about supposed censorship on social media platforms. “Who are the first people being banned on social media?” he asks, answering: “Not intolerant jihadists or filthy leftists but outspoken conservatives.”

At times he seems to admire what he imagines to be the thoroughgoing religious zealotry of Muslims compared with an increasingly secular west.

“Almost every single Muslim child grows up listening to, and learning to read from, the Quran,” Hegseth writes. “Contrast this with our secular American schools – in which the Bible is nowhere to be found – and you’ll understand why Muslims’ worldview is more coherent than ours.”

At another point in the book he engages in a lengthy diatribe about the Council for American Islamic Relations (Cair), which has been a bugbear for US conservatives since the “war on terror”, and claims Democrats are helping the organization cement a radical “Islamist” agenda.

“Groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood and [Cair] have advanced the radical mission of Islamism for decades,” Hegseth claims, adding: “In the past two years alone, more than one hundred members of Congress – including Ilhan Omar, Adam Schiff, Rashida Tlaib, Elizabeth Warren, and Amy Klobuchar – have signed letters endorsing CAIR.”

Hegseth then singles out “Socialist Bernie Sanders”, who he claims is “a favorite among Muslim Americans due to his support for Palestinian causes and distaste for Israel”.

Sanders has repeatedly publicly supported Israel’s right to defend itself, even after the commencement of the current war in Gaza, while also saying: “Innocent Palestinians also have a right to life and security,” and calling for humanitarian pauses and ceasefires, and last week leading efforts to restrict the sale of offensive weapons to Israel on the grounds that it was in violation of the international laws of war.

Some of Sanders’s positions since 7 October 2023 have drawn criticism from the left, who have seen them as insufficiently critical of Israel and insufficiently supportive of Palestine.

Hegseth meanwhile, as previously reported in the Guardian, is unconditionally supportive of Israel, and has appeared to argue that the US military should ignore the Geneva conventions in favor of “winning our wars according to our own rules”.

According to Hegseth in American Crusade, though: “Leaders of CAIR speak very highly of Bernie because his hard-core leftism provides the best gateway for their Islamism.”

Source: The Guardian

Florida state Senator Randy Fine, who is running to fill the vacancy in Florida’s 6th U.S. congressional district, singled out Representatives Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar on Tuesday. Quote-tweeting an endorsement from the Republican Jewish Coalition, Fine posted, “​​The ‘Hebrew Hammer’ is coming. @RashidaTlaib and @IlhanMN might consider leaving before I get there. #BombsAway.”

Tlaib and Omar are two of just three Muslim members of Congress, and the only two Muslim women.

Fine has a history of using demeaning rhetoric against Muslims and Palestinians and trafficking in Islamophobic tropes. In the past, he has said that “we have a Muslim problem in America” and that “while many Muslims are not terrorists, they are the radicals, not the mainstream.”

In August 2021, when Fine was a representative in Florida’s state House, the Council on American-Islamic Relations filed a complaint against him with the House Public Integrity and Ethics Committee, alleging that Fine “violated his duty as an elected official” by “encouraging his constituents to run over people at Palestinian advocacy protests,” “call[ing] for the annihilation of the Palestinian people,” and direct-messaging a Floridian to “blow yourself up,” among other instances of “egregious conduct.”

In September, Fine took to X to cheer the death of 26-year-old American citizen Ayşenur Ezgi Eygi, an activist reportedly killed by the Israeli forces while peacefully protesting illegal settlements in the West Bank. “Throw rocks, get shot. One less #MuslimTerror ist. #FireAway,” Fine wrote.

Donald Trump threw his support behind Fine’s candidacy last week, referring to him as an “America First Patriot” in a Truth Social post.

Source: Yahoo News

Randy Fine, the Republican state representative for Florida, is facing a wave of anger and accusations of Islamophobia after celebrating the death of Aysenur Ezgi Eygi, a 26-year-old Turkish-American activist who was fatally shot by the Israeli military in the occupied West Bank.

“Throw rocks, get shot. One less #MuslimTerrorist. #FireAway,” Fine wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter, in response to a post announcing Eygi’s killing last weekend.

Eygi, a US citizen, was shot in the head by Israeli forces during a peaceful protest against illegal Israeli settlements near Ramallah. Eyewitnesses said she was unarmed and “standing there doing absolutely nothing with one other woman” when she was shot.

Fine’s comments have sparked widespread condemnation, calling attention to growing concerns about Islamophobia from US officials.

Many expressed outrage at his apparent endorsement of the killing of an American citizen by a foreign military.

Critics also highlighted what they saw as a double standard in the treatment of public figures. Several people posted about Palestinian-American Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, who faced backlash and censure for her use of the phrase “from the river to the sea”.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the largest Muslim civil rights organisation in the US, along with its Florida chapter, has called for the Florida legislature to censure Fine for his tweet.

“We struggle to think of another time in modern American history when an elected official openly celebrated the murder of an American by a foreign government and encouraged more such killing. Randy Fine has made it clear where his priorities lie, and it is not with the American people,” stated Edward Ahmed Mitchell, CAIR’s national deputy executive director, on Monday.

“We urge the Florida House of Representatives to censure him for this hateful, un-American rant,” the statement added.

His account on X is filled with posts using hashtags like “#MuslimProblem”, “#BombsAway” and “#MuslimTerrorists”.

Cair has highlighted various instances of Fine using langauge that “dehumanises all Palestinians and uses Islamophobic tropes,” including a comment that read: “Proud to stand with my colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, in condemning the Islamic terrorism coming out of Gaza. I fully support Israel using maximum force to punish these animals. #NoMercy.”

More than 41,000 Palestinians have been killed, including at least 16,825 children, in Israeli attacks since 7 October.

Source: Middle East Eye

Arab Americans, many (though not all) of whom have historically aligned themselves with the Democratic Party, were relieved for another reason. To them, Biden has been the single-biggest cheerleader of Israel’s punishing and relentless assault on Gaza, which has over nearly 10 months claimed the lives of at least 39,000 Palestinians, according to the Hamas-led Gaza Health Ministry, whose figures are considered reliable by the U.S. and the U.N. While the president has shown deep empathy with Israelis since Hamas’s deadly Oct. 7 attack on Israel, which killed some 1,200 people, he has struggled to convey the same level of sympathy towards Palestinians—and, at one point, even cast doubt on the extent of the Palestinian death toll in Gaza.

“I don’t think he was as balanced as he could have been, and that was really hurtful to a lot of people,” says Jasmine El-Gamal, an Arab American and former Middle East adviser at the Pentagon.

While many Arab Americans might have anticipated this from Trump, who’s made no secret of his disdain for Palestinians (he notably used their identity as a slur against Biden during their debate last month), El-Gamal says they expected more from the purported “empath-in-chief.” Biden’s failure to treat rising anti-Semitism and rising anti-Palestinian racism and Islamophobia with an equal sense of urgency left many feeling particularly deflated. “They’re similar threats, and they should be addressed with similar urgency, and I don’t think that was the impression that was coming out of the Biden administration,” El-Gamal says, noting that it made her and others feel “deprioritized as a human being because of your identity.”

That feeling had a tangible impact: Within the first month of the war, Arab American support for Biden and the Democratic Party dropped to the lowest levels ever recorded. Michigan, a critical battleground state that boasts one of the largest Arab American populations in the country, appeared all but lost.

With Biden out of the race, the prevailing question now is: Can Harris win them back? So far, there seems to be a guarded optimism. Several Arab American activists and analysts who spoke with TIME say that their community is still waiting to see what changes, if any, the presumed Democratic nominee will pledge to bring to U.S.’s policy on Gaza should she win in November. Most all of them recognize that Harris has the potential to have a better relationship with Arab Americans than her predecessor—a relatively low bar that shouldn’t be too difficult for Harris to clear. But they don’t want her to take their support for granted, either.

“There’s a sense of hope,” James Zogby, the founder and president of the Arab American Institute, tells TIME of Biden’s decision to end his reelection bid. His organization’s latest nationwide poll of Arab Americans, conducted in May, found that an overwhelming majority (79%) have an unfavorable view of the president. Although AAI doesn’t yet have polling on views towards Harris, Zogby says that she has largely been seen as more empathetic. “She’s reached out to the community and individuals in different ways to let them know of her concern and her staff have been responsive,” he says, “which is far different than the White House.”

For those who couldn’t countenance a vote for Biden but regard Trump as a threat to the country, the vice president’s candidacy offers a much-needed reprieve. Despite the deep animosity towards Biden, Zogby says AAI’s polling has shown that the Democrats could win back much of support they lost among Arab American voters—many of whom joined the “uncommitted” campaign in a bid to pressure Biden to change tack on Gaza—if there’s a meaningful policy shift.

In the aforementioned poll, 60% of those surveyed said they’d be more likely to vote for Biden in November if he were to demand an immediate ceasefire and unimpeded humanitarian aid into Gaza or if he were to suspend diplomatic support and arms shipments to Israel until they implement a ceasefire and withdraw forces from Gaza. While Biden has unveiled a proposal to end the war that would involve a six-week ceasefire and an Israeli withdrawal from populated areas of Gaza, he has been less willing to withhold military aid to Israel, save for only the largest of munitions.

While Harris hasn’t articulated any major policy deviations from Biden when it comes to Gaza—like the president, she has repeatedly pledged support for Israel’s security and self-defense—she hasn’t been seen as driving the administration’s policies on this issue either. Instead, she has offered Americans a rhetorically different approach. In March, she became the first senior administration official to call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. She was also quicker than Biden to sound the alarm about the humanitarian catastrophe in the besieged enclave, where scores of Palestinians have been forced to live in inhumane, famine-like conditions, and explicitly laid blame on the Israeli government for its part in creating the crisis.

Unlike Biden, whose longtime devolution to the Jewish state has earned him the reputation of being perhaps most pro-Israel American president in history, Harris has long been regarded as being more evenly empathetic when it comes to Israelis and Palestinians. Hala Rharrit, a former American diplomat and Arabic language spokesperson in the U.S. government who resigned earlier this year in protest of the Biden administration’s Gaza policy, tells TIME that the State Department often relied on her speeches when communicating to the Arab world for this reason.

Some Arab Americans are hopeful that this record could make Harris uniquely suited to mending the divide within the Democratic Party as a result of the war on Gaza. “I think she’s the only one who can unite us,” says Sami Khalidi, the president of the Dearborn Democratic Club and a former 2020 Biden delegate who is due to reprise his role at the upcoming Democratic convention in Chicago. He notes that while Arab Americans in his community still want to wait and see who Harris might pick as her running mate, “they favor her over Trump.”

Not all Arab Americans share this view. Indeed, many will be of the belief that Harris’s record, as Biden’s vice president, is inextricable from current U.S. policy. “There’s a genuine and really deep-seated anger and hurt that the Arab American community and the Palestinian American community, in particular, has felt,” Tariq Kenney-Shawa, a U.S. policy fellow at Al-Shabaka, a Palestinian think tank and policy network, tells TIME, noting that while these communities may be able to engage with Harris in the way they were unable to with Biden, “There’s still going to be a lot of Palestinian Americans and progressive Americans who are like, ‘That’s it, I’ve had enough of the establishment Democratic Party,’ and this kind of ties into a deeper resentment around electoral politics.” Some “uncommitted” delegates have already signaled that they will withhold their endorsement unless Harris commits to big policy shifts, such as ending military aid to Israel.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Washington offers an early test of how Harris will approach the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should she win the presidency. Many Arab Americans and progressive Democrats perturbed by Israel’s conduct in Gaza were cheered by Harris’s decision not to preside over Netanyahu’s speech to Congress—a scheduling conflict, her team said, that many nonetheless regarded as a clear snub. But perhaps the clearest sign of her strategy will be revealed following her meeting with the Israeli premier later today, in which she will reportedly tell him that “it is time for the war to end.”

“I don’t think anyone expects her to drastically announce a shift from Biden, especially when she is running [for the presidential nomination],” Matt Duss, the executive vice president of the Center for International Policy and a former chief foreign policy advisor to Sen. Bernie Sanders, tells TIME. “But I think there are things she can say that will indicate a different path.” One option championed by several of Democratic lawmakers is to consistently apply U.S. laws to future military aid to Israel, which prohibits American tax dollars from going to foreign military units suspected of committing human rights violations.

“I’m optimistic, but I’m waiting,” says Tariq Habash, a Palestinian American who earlier this year became the second political appointee to resign over the Biden administration’s Gaza policy. He and others tell TIME that while they are realistic about what is possible when it comes to U.S. policy in the Middle East, they also believe that there is leeway for change. “It is past time for talking points,” Habash says. “You also have to back it up with action.” If Harris does, he says, maybe Arab Americans will too.

Source: Time Magazine

Sergio Gracia, president of the Center for Research on the Far-Right (CINVED) in Spain evaluated the far-right’s anti-Muslim rhetoric for Anadolu.

Gracia said the far-right uses the concept of “Reconquista,” or reconquest, and related historical events to justify reclaiming Spanish lands from Muslims and expelling them.

“The extreme right usually refers to historical figures like Don Pelayo or El Sid, also using terms like reconquer, making reference to battles such as the battle of Covadonga, the battle of Alarcos, the battle of las Navas of Tolosa or the takeover of Granada.

“They usually give you key dates alluding to the battles that they carried out at the local level, such as Malaga 1487 or Alcala 1247. These are two examples of social movements that have been in Spain working and today they are under the umbrella from a far-right political party as Hacer Nacion,” he said.

Gracia noted that far-right figures like Don Pelayo, the Christian king who established the Kingdom of Asturias in northern Spain after rebelling against Arab rulers, are used as symbols.

“The far right sees Muslims as invaders and they sell it that way. You can read on social media references such as expel the invader or you can hear a politician of extreme right talk about Troy horses, Islamization or that demographics are changing in Spain — referring to the construction of religious centers such as mosques, as Sergio Macian and Rocio de Meer have done.”

Hundreds of thousands of Muslims expelled from Iberia during the Reconquista

Gracia added that during the Reconquista, Muslims in the Iberian Peninsula faced the choice between Christianization, death or exile.

“Moriscos were the descendants of the Spaniard Muslims who had remained in the Iberian Peninsula after the fall of the Nasrid kingdom of Granada in 1492 and who were forced to choose between conversion or exile. Not wanting to sacrifice either his land or his faith, the vast majority converted to Christianity but clandestinely maintained their fidelity to Islam.

“In 1502, an edict was published that required all subjects of the crown to baptize — were they Christians or not. Later, other prohibitions that could be identified with Islam were carried out — like the way of dressing or the use of the Arabic language. After the expulsion decree, they had no other option but to hide their convictions,” he said.

Gracia stated that during this period, Moriscos were pressured to consume pork and wine and faced bans on fasting and prayer but they used strategies to avoid suspicion.

Despite ineffective evangelization, they resisted imposed practices during significant life events, according to him.

Gracia added that the exile decision faced opposition in areas with large Morisco populations but between 1609 and 1613 about 300,000 Moriscos were expelled from the Iberian Peninsula.

Morisco cultural heritage continues to live in Spain

Gracia emphasized that despite the expulsion of Moriscos, the historical artifacts and cultural elements left by Muslims remain part of Spain’s cultural heritage.

“Spain, unlike its neighboring countries, keeps and conserves its history brilliantly, both in the monuments, such as the Cordoba Mosque, Medina Azahara, the Alhambra of Granada or the Aljaferia Palace in Zaragoza, among others, and in documentation.”

He noted that the use of figs and “almonds,” certain “recipes, dances, Morisco baths in Ronda, and narrow streets from that period are prevalent throughout Spain, especially in Andalusia.”

Gracia also stressed the importance of “civil society” activities in countering far-right hate campaigns and crimes, calling for continued action “through congresses, seminars, condemning hate crimes, and promoting open days in Islamic communities,” ensuring respect for the “law granting rights and freedoms to all citizens.”

European Parliament elections and far-right in Spain

In the Spanish leg of the European Parliament (EP) elections, the new far-right party, “The Celebration is Over,” surprised many by securing 4.6% of the vote and three MEPs, disrupting the political balance.

Led by 34-year-old Luis Perez, the party that was recently founded, gained approximately 800,000 votes and sent three MEPs to the EP.

The Vox Party, representing the far-right for the last decade, secured six MEPs with a 9.6% vote share in EP elections.

Perez, known for his harsh anti-Islam and anti-immigrant rhetoric, said the party came to “destroy the political system” in Spain.

“Spain has become a country of criminals, corrupt people, mercenaries, pedophiles and rapists, and this is a sad situation. Many Spaniards suffer from this every day,” he said.

Perez defined all irregular immigrants as “criminals” and refused to live in Brussels as an MEP, calling it “the capital of a failed country full of Islamists, insecurity and rape.”

Source: Anadolu Agency

Those who choose an occupation where all things Muslims are read and watched, know that this was not someone off.

Nigel Farage, bought the daily fodder of GB News on to mainstream news even eliciting shock and some pushback from Sky News host Trevor Philips.

Those who have followed the trajectory of Islamophobia in Britain spotted the irony with Phillips having similarly opined just several years earlier that “Muslims see the world differently from the rest of us” and are becoming a “nation within a nation”.

But as the US based journalist Mehdi Hasan writes, “It’s difficult to imagine any British media outlet allowing a sweeping bigoted dishonest rant like this about any other minority community in the UK. Just change the word ‘Muslim’ to ‘Jew’ and ask yourself if the host would have been so friendly and conciliatory in his response.” Before any debate is had the answer we all know is a firm, no.

This is general election season and the non-Parliamentary candidate has been given prime air time on the biggest News channels including the BBC, to not only repeat his mantra of immigration is bad, but to single out Muslims as particularly so.

The BBC this week attempted to explain why Farage is so relevant saying in the nineteenth paragraph of its story that the Reform UK president singling out Muslims was merely “accusations of Islamophobia”, and that the man who has stood seven times for a Parliamentary seat and been rejected by voters each time, added “excitement” to the general election campaign.

It says something about the acceptability of Islamophobia when the national broadcaster finds excitement in what many consider out and out racism against one community.

Perhaps that is what journalism in Britain has now become, titillation and controversy for hacks and news directors and not the serious issues which ought to be the focus of election coverage. As the long time political editor of the Daily Mirror Kevin Maguire said: “Nigel Farage would be cancelled if he said that about British Jews. But somehow Islamophobia is acceptable in certain quarters.”

Enter Ofcom, a broadcast regulator tasked with making sure that “viewers and listeners are protected from harmful or offensive material on TV, radio and on-demand”. Except it seems, if you are Muslim.

The visceral reaction of Britain’s media and the anti-Muslim contingent amongst its commentarial to the result of the local elections shows that it’s not the Muslim Vote but the Muslim voice which irks.

Last month a presenter who was found to have shared racist content on a secret Telegram account according to the charity Hope Not Hate, broadcast the far-right conspiracy of Taqiyya, claiming Muslims were allowed to lie or manipulate the truth in order to get ahead. Fellow guests have claimed that Sharia law is in operation in large swathes of the UK – Islamic principles include not letting women work – and ‘how Islam supposedly teaches that non-Muslims are just to be conquered, destroyed they have to submit to Allah’.

Ofcom has regularly cited context as a factor in how it assesses complaints. The context here is that Muslims are being accused of disloyalty because they don’t particularly like a genocide being committed in Gaza and are using the ballot box to express that displeasure. But whilst it has come to dominate proceedings, Gaza is just the latest hot issue which has exercised a right wing who are in the midst of a forever culture war with Muslims the front and center target. That is the context which Ofcom so readily ignores.

Source: Byline Times