The frightening scenes of far-right extremists clashing with police and even rioting in British towns and cities in recent days have many wondering how to stop the spread of the propaganda that encourages racism, violence and misogyny.

The tough truth is that in seeking to fact check misinformation and force social media companies to remove hateful content, we are doing it wrong. Another message will simply pop up in place of each that is removed. The people who plant propaganda are far more advanced in their methods than the people trying to stop them. They are not thinking about messages but about audience. Hate is clickbait. And social media algorithms put it on steroids.

The unrest started in Southport where a group who claimed to be “protesting” over the deaths of three young girls during a knife attack in the area attacked a mosque. They seemed to believe that the attack was perpetrated by a migrant (which was untrue). More than 50 police officers were injured when they responded to the emergency.

Misleading messages about the Southport attack were posted online and Reform MP Nigel Farage “questioned” whether we were being lied to about the Southport attacker’s identity (although he told the BBC that he had “merely expressed a sense of sadness and concern that is being felt by absolutely everybody I know”).

Our working definitions of propaganda are hopelessly outdated because they all focus on message. And message is unimportant because propagandists will say anything to generate clicks, income or power. They will post calls to “build a wall” and “stop the boats”. They will claim “those kids were murdered in the name of Islam”. Factual accuracy is not important, what matters is that those who wield online influence identify and target a powerbase.

If what they say is taken down, they will simply find a different way to say it to the people they are trying to reach. In the meantime, then they can claim to be censored victims of the establishment. They appeal to emotion rather than rationality, and while their messaging is equal parts ludicrous and disturbing to the rest of us, it wins an audience. Therefore, that audience – rather than the messaging – should be our focus.

‘Imagined communities’

The modern propagandist creates what political scientist Benedict Anderson described as “imagined communities”. He argued that states and nations (and mass media) are founded by successfully creating a community with its own foundation myths, symbols and history. This chimes with the work of propagandist theorist Jacques Ellul, who argued that myths were central and necessary to successful propaganda.

Some symbols are well known and largely shared among us all – spitfires, the British bobby, royalty. But others, like the “cockroach” immigrant, the loss of national agency, and the language of conspiracy theories, are foundational to a community that speaks only to itself. Worse still, those who don’t share their beliefs are naive and need to “do their own research”. Marianna Spring, the BBC disinformation and social media correspondent, found in her book Among the Trolls, algorithmic rabbit holes with their own imagined communities.

Such myths are also fundamental in the process of generating “agitation” propaganda. Traditionally, agitation propaganda is the casus belli summoned by states to send people to war. In the same way, the hatred of today’s racist bigot and the misogyny of the incel are both founded in “agitation” propaganda. Influencer Andrew Tate, for example, has made his name summoning an army of men to fight for his cause.

As Ellul would have it, “hate is generally its most profitable resource … Hatred is probably the most spontaneous and common sentiment, it consists of attributing ones misfortunes and sins to ‘another’… Propaganda of agitation succeeds each time it designates someone as the source of all misery, provided that he is not too powerful.”

Add to this mix social media bots and it brews a poison for our democratic public sphere.

Finding the lost

Fact checking is not useless, but it doesn’t resolve the central problem. Better to identify the silos, and work with their members. We could water down the messaging being sent out to the people causing unrest on the streets with other, better sources. We might even even block some of the networks that deliver the content.

This is better than playing fake news whack-a-mole. Once we have identified the silos of information, we can target the algorithms that create them, and those being targeted or isolated. We can then mediate and ameliorate the problem by reaching out to these groups, spending our energies introducing alternative views, new symbols and foundational myths, negating the effects of algorithm that led them to their silo.

Spring writes of people whose lives have been ruined, of charlatans who create clickbait, but most of all the pathos of those dragged down. Factchecking simply convinces the converted that those who don’t share those views have taken the blue pill of blissful ignorance, rather than the red pill of painful knowledge.

Malicious actors are more than prepared to “flood the zone with shit”, as Trump adviser Steve Bannon puts it. This makes clearing the misinformation impossible, but, by thinking about audience first, we can, maybe, find the lost, and lead them through the storm.

Richard Fern, Lecturer, media, Swansea University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

—

Bonus video added by Informed Comment:

Channel 4 News: “Rioters attack hotel housing asylum seekers amid far-right violence”

World Hijab Day recognizes the millions of Muslim women and girls who wear the traditional Islamic headscarf.

(The Conversation) – Around the world, Muslim girls in hijab are experiencing unique forms and heightened rates of gender and race-based violence and discrimination. Overt violence against girls and women in hijab have captured global attention, evidenced most recently in the violent Canadian attacks on women in hijabs in Alberta and the horrific murders of the Afzaal family in London, Ont.

Violence against hijabi girls is often situated in structural oppression, including gendered Islamophobia and white supremacy. Understanding the underpinnings of this violence is key to imagining more just and equitable futures for girls and young women in hijab.

Islamophobia

The term Islamophobia has often been used and understood in different ways. While often used interchangeably, some have argued that the term anti-Muslim racism, rather than the term Islamophobia, better encapsulates the systemic nature of anti-Muslim hate and violence.

Sociologist and Muslim studies scholar Jasmin Zine has outlined how Islamophobia in Canada is comprised of systemic oppressive networks and industries that are both fueled by and fuel anti-Muslim racism. Zine explains that an “industry behind purveying anti-Muslim hate” distinguishes Islamophobia from other forms of oppression.

According to Zine, this well-funded, lucrative and often transnational industry is comprised of media outlets, political figures and donors, white nationalist groups, think tanks, influencers and ideologues that support and engage in “activities that demonize and marginalize Islam and Muslims in Canada.”

Gendered Islamophobia

Islamophobia and anti-Muslim racism is part of the fabric of institutions. Critics of laws such as Bill 21 in Québec and similar measures in France have argued that Muslim women who wear the hijab are most affected. These measures reflect narratives that position Muslim girls and women as oppressed victims in need of rescue, as well as Orientalist tropes in the form of the “save us from the Muslim girl” narratives.

As Muslim women in hijab, we grieve horrific violence alongside our communities. Violent attacks highlight how anti-Muslim racism is often situated at a nexus of anti-Black racism, xenophobia, white supremacy and patriarchy.

We know that anti-Muslim violence is often aimed at girls and women in hijab. Yet, academic literature on hijabi girlhood is relatively scarce. Two years ago, we put out a call to the international academic community seeking papers and creative submissions on the experiences of girls and young women in hijabs.

The girl in the hijab

Two years later, our new special issue, called The Girl in the Hijab, has now been published in the international journal Girlhood Studies. It comes at a time when anti-Muslim, anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian racism are on the rise around the country and around the world.

Image by Chan Factory from Pixabay

The special issue includes academic articles written by mostly Muslim women and creative works produced by hijab-wearing girls themselves. Both types of work provide insight into the current global landscape of hijabi girl experiences.

Cultural politics lecturer Noha Beydoun explores the events surrounding the donning of the American flag as a method of protest. She finds that this phenomenon gained popularity because it worked to conceal complicated U.S. histories regarding Muslim immigration and broader imperial interests. Beydoun’s analysis evidences that the “American flag as hijab for girls and women reinforces the larger constructs it seeks to resist.”

Gender studies professor Ana Carolina Antunes highlights how unconscious bias and microaggressions hinder a positive sense of belonging among hijab-wearing students and impacts their academic success. This study also reveals that anti-Muslim sentiment in schools affects the everyday experiences of Muslim girls, leading to disconnection from the school community.

Among the central themes in the special issue is how women and girls resist gendered and Islamophobic discrimination in their everyday lives. Hijabi girls resist oppressive narratives through their everyday actions and activist engagements. In Antunes’s study, girls asserted their right to occupy space in the educational environment.

Clinical social workers Amilah Baksh and her mother, Bibi Baksh, provide insight into their lived experiences as Indo-Caribbean social workers and university educators. In their article, they identify the hijab as a form of resistance and resilience in their personal and professional lives. In their words, “it was never the hijab that rendered us voiceless. It is Islamophobia.”

The special issue highlights how Muslim girls and women, racialized through donning hijab, continue to be at the forefront of the struggle against Islamophobia and anti-Muslim violence, even as we remain among the primary targets of that violence.

The articles in this special issue demonstrate the need for better policies, education and laws that consider the unique experiences of girls and women in hijab. To counter violence against girls and women in hijab, we must name and understand the complexities of anti-Muslim racism and gendered Islamophobia.

Critically, this must center the voices of girls and women in hijab, opening or widening spaces for girls and women in hijab to practise acts of resistance in ways that are not bound by colonial logics and respectability politics.

Salsabel Almanssori, Adjunct Assistant Professor, Faculty of Education, University of Windsor and Muna Saleh, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Education, Concordia University of Edmonton

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

(The Conversation) – In political communication, a big lie — what is known as the “illusory truth effect” — is when the constant repetition of misinformation makes people more likely to accept it as truth.

Repetition is how lies gain traction. The more exposure to specific ideas and tropes that may be false claims, the more likely it is that this misinformation becomes understood as real.

A plethora of fake news circulates on the internet and social media. Unlike misinformation, which refers to false or inaccurate information, disinformation campaigns deliberately spread propaganda to create fear and suspicion.

Disinformation industries, and the brokers who exchange in this false currency, have an immense capability to circulate propaganda and conspiracy theories to a greater public, outside of their own echo chambers.

Producing social fictions

Through media outlets and co-ordinated networks, Islamophobic and anti-Palestinian tropes and conspiracies are circulated. Eventually, they become regarded as social facts, especially in times of war, conflict and heightened political tensions.

During these fraught times, the ability to authorize wholesale violence relies on circulating dehumanizing tropes and “scare stories.” This targeted propaganda frames entire populations as deviant “folk devils,” responsible for crimes and social problems. This then creates moral panics, used to justify acts of oppression.

A violent threat

In my book, Under Siege: Islamophobia and the 9/11 Generation, I document how since 9/11, two billion Muslims globally have faced collective punishment. Constructed as folk devils who imperil western societies, Muslims have been framed as inextricably linked with the support and promotion of violence.

Image by StockSnap from Pixabay

More recently, this trope was evident in public statements made by Canadian politicians, including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow described recent Palestinian solidarity rallies and movements as “glorifying” violence and characterized anyone attending these events as “Hamas supporters.”

The ubiquity of Islamophobia has led to generalized stereotypes of Muslims and Palestinians (including those who are not Muslim) as being prone to violence and terrorism. When these racist narratives are espoused by politicians, they falsely equate the support of Palestinian people with support for terrorism and instil fear and moral panic about the Muslim presence in this country and elsewhere.

Anti-Muslim policies

Public belief in the vilifying narratives of violent Muslims can become second nature to people who watch biased news reports on mainstream media and a variety of social media platforms that circulate anti-Muslim narratives.

For instance, negative Canadian attitudes about Muslims were evident in a 2017 Radio Canada poll. Fifty-one per cent of respondents in Canada — and 57 per cent in Québec — felt the presence of Muslims in this country made them “somewhat” or “very worried” about security. Nearly one out of four Canadians — 23 per cent — would favour a ban on Muslim immigration to this country, a level of support that rose to 32 per cent in Québec.

Widespread Islamophobic sentiments translate into anti-Muslim policies and practices. Recently, Markham Public Library in Ontario temporarily removed Islamic Heritage Month displays from its branches after an email was sent to staff saying that, “given the current situation in the Middle East, it is best for us not to be actively promoting the Islamic Heritage Month … .”

Islamophobia also has more deadly consequences. In 2021, four members of a Canadian-Pakistani Muslim family were mowed down and killed by a truck in the Ontario city of London. Evidence introduced at the trial of the man accused of the murders has shown that after his arrest, he repeatedly referred to fabricated scare stories about Muslim “grooming gangs” when being interrogated by police.

Online rumours and disinformation

The unsubstantiated claims of Hamas decapitating and burning 40 Israeli babies were repeated by international heads of state, celebrities and media outlets, despite the fact that there was no official confirmation by Israeli authorities of this alleged horrific act.

TRT World: “Anti-Muslim hate crimes spike in Canada ‘by 1,000%’”

Nonetheless, the repetition of this false story led to the dehumanizing characterization of Palestinians as “bloodthirsty monsters” and “human animals,” fomenting widespread anti-Palestinian racism.

These campaigns of disinformation and demonization also tragically resulted in the murder of Wadea Al-Fayoume, a six-year-old Palestinian-American Muslim boy, in Plainfield, Ill. He was stabbed 26 times, allegedly by his family’s white landlord, who is also accused of repeatedly stabbing Al-Fayoume’s mother, proclaiming, “You Muslims must die!”

Casualties of war

These violent trajectories bring to mind the military maxim attributed to the Ancient Greek playwright Aeschylus, which warns that “In war, truth is the first casualty.” In times of war and conflict, disinformation is the first weapon to be deployed.

Uncritically consuming political or media narratives is no longer an option. In these dystopian times, the public needs to be able to separate fact from fiction as fabrications masquerade as truth. The consequences are dire.

This article has been updated to include a reference to the ongoing trial in the London, Ont. case.

Jasmin Zine, Professor of Sociology, Wilfrid Laurier University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

(The Conversation) – Worn by some Muslim women, an abaya is a long, loose-fitting, robelike garment that covers the entire body, except for the face, hands and feet. Through the abaya, women can express their religious identity and dedication to following Islamic guidelines regarding modest attire.

In more conservative social circles, the abaya is part of expected dress conforming to social norms and culture. In Saudi Arabia, for example, women were required to wear an abaya until 2018.

Worn over everyday clothing, the abaya is typically paired with a headscarf to cover the hair. This garment finds its primary usage in North Africa; the Horn of Africa, which includes countries such as Somalia and Somaliland; and the Arabian Peninsula.

Traditionally, the abaya was black or dark in color, reflecting a conservative approach. In present times, however, its design and aesthetics can vary between regions and communities. In some places, abayas may feature intricate embroidery that is specific to that locality. In others, the choice of fabric and the style of draping can differ, allowing women to align their abaya with regional fashion preferences. These regional variations offer women a way to express their cultural identity while respecting religious norms.

In fact, modern abayas – offering a wide spectrum of colors and innovative designs – have become a fashion statement. These designer abayas offer a departure from the conventional plain styles and incorporate innovative patterns, like floral prints and geometric designs, and even metallic embellishments such as belts and pins.

Why it matters

In societies where Muslims constitute a minority, the abaya takes on an added layer of significance. Muslim women can use the abaya as a means to connect with their cultural heritage. But it has also drawn criticism.

Critics argue that religious garments like the abaya represent a form of religious control over women’s bodies and a reinforcement of patriarchy.

Other critics of abayas say they object to public symbols of religious identity. Some individuals who advocate for a strong separation between religious and state affairs argue that religious expressions should be limited to private settings. France recently banned the wearing of abayas in its public schools, arguing that it was in conflict with secular principles, which has caused an uproar.

Others, however, say these laws predominantly affect the country’s Muslim minority. This is because Christians do not typically express their religious identity through attire. Even when they do, Christianity often prioritizes belief over outward religious practices, as opposed to mainstream Islam.

These critiques underscore the ongoing discussion surrounding the tension between religious practices and individual rights in diverse, multicultural societies.

Armin Langer, Assistant Professor of European Studies, University of Florida

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

(The Conversation) – On March 21 2023, the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, and Hamza Taouzzale, lord mayor of Westminster, stood on Coventry Street in central London and switched on the capital’s first ever Ramadan illuminations.

Every evening throughout the holy month, 30,000 coloured lights have lit up this busy streetscape. “Happy Ramadan” is spelled out in a white florid script against a golden half-disc, supported by crescent moons, five-pointed stars and lanterns.

This marks the first time that Ramadan has been celebrated this way – not just in London’s West End or the UK capital at large, but in any major European city. The significance of lighting up Piccadilly Circus during Ramadan for Muslims in Britain and around the world cannot be overstated.

Major news outlets across the Arab and Islamic world, including Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabia, have praised the initiative for the diversity and tolerance it signals within British society.

Muslims worldwide observe the holy month of Ramadan – which this year ends on the evening of Friday, April 21 – as an opportunity to reflect on their relationship with God and strengthen their faith. It is a time for prayer, charity and kindness towards others. Fasting from sunrise to sunset is seen as a spiritual practice that fosters self-discipline, patience and empathy.

In Britain, local open Iftars, where Muslims break the day’s fast, have taken place for decades, with invitations to all – Muslims and non-Muslims alike – to join. Ramadan has always been an opportunity for Muslims to share their cultures with others, and for others to learn about Muslims and Islam.

In my research of Muslims’ participation in architecture and urban projects across the UK, I have found that empowering these communities to co-design and shape the area they live in, so they can see their cultural and religious practices taken into account, is crucial.

Community involvement

London’s Ramadan lights are the result of three years of community campaigning led mainly by the Ramadan Lights UK community group. Founder Aisha Desai set up the project in 2021 with a lit-up structure in north London (Henlys Corner on the North Circular ring road). She cited childhood memories of travelling into central London to see Christmas decorations:

As a proud Muslim, I wanted to bring some of that magic to my community.

A slightly larger structure followed in Trafalgar Square in 2022.

The current installation follows the cancellation, in 2020, of proposals by the Aziz Foundation to turn part of the Trocadero building on Piccadilly Circus into a mosque. Westminster City Council received upwards of 6,000 comments supporting the project, but 2,800 objected with a high volume of these reportedly racist in tone.

Lighting up a city for Ramadan is an invaluable opportunity for local governments nationwide to boost their Muslim communities’ sense of ownership over their localities. It affords Muslims greater visibility and a sense of inclusion in public spaces.

This is important. Research shows that Muslims in the UK feel excluded most of the time, yet also negatively over-exposed whenever a public crisis related to them occurs. This is particularly notable in cities and towns such as Bradford, Burnley and Oldham in the north of England that witnessed ethnic unrest around the year 2000.

I have done extensive interviews and field work in Burngreave, Sheffield, where 60% of the population identifies as Muslim. When a public space there, Ellesmere Green, was redesigned in 2013, I found that local Muslims were not being engaged about it. The people I spoke to expressed their frustration at Christmas lights being put up without them being consulted. No similar effort was made by the local authorities to celebrate Ramadan.

Such lack of engagement not only erodes Muslims’ sense of belonging to British society. It also precludes the community from having any sense of ownership over their local public spaces.

By contrast, the open iftars that have been organised during Ramadan by the Muslim community in Sheffield this year, in several public spaces around the city, have created a welcoming atmosphere for both Muslims and non-Muslims to share.

Link FM, a local community radio station, interviewed people who attended an iftar at the Peace Garden. One woman said: “It was open, obviously. I wouldn’t be comfortable going into a mosque, or going to something much more enclosed.” Another said: “I think it is really bringing people together, it was really lovely.”

And a Muslim attendee concurred:

This open iftar brings people of all races together – showing that Sheffield is a very diverse community; showing that our diversity is our strength as a city.

Representatives from the Darnall Education & Sports Academy , where another open iftar was held, commented on a Sheffield Online Facebook post saying:

Witnessing people from diverse backgrounds, both religious and non-religious, come together to share a meal was truly heartening. Such initiatives play an instrumental role in fostering understanding and cooperation, breaking down barriers and dispelling misconceptions. They make social cohesion, often perceived as a platitude, a tangible reality.

Similar benefits have been reaped in other cities across the north, including Nottingham, Leeds, Manchester and Bradford.

Official endorsement

Any impact this kind of initiative can have, however, is minimised when not embraced by a local authority. Official endorsement, such as the mayor of London backing the city’s Ramadan lights, is necessary if the goal of bridging different communities and navigating commonalities is to be achieved.

It is highly likely that positive media coverage of London’s Ramadan lights encouraged other establishments to show their values of tolerance and inclusion through open iftars. Chelsea has become the first Premier League football club to host an open iftar on the grounds of its stadium. Similar open iftars are being held in other venues around in London. Further afield, Bradford cathedral and Manchester cathedral have followed suit.

Research shows that Islamophobia is on the rise in British society. Data published by the Muslim Census found that 92% of Muslims believe Islamophobia exists within the UK government.

In its heightened focus on Muslim radicalisation, the recent review of Prevent, the UK counter-terrorism strategy, risks further exacerbating such Islamophobic sentiment. And a forthcoming independent report, commissioned by the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government, on how the UK government engages with faith organisations, is reportedly set to call for stricter measures to be implemented on Muslim groups. Pundits and scholars alike say this will deepen the divide between Muslims and the wider community.

In this context, any initiative that signals social inclusion within the public square – the urban environment that all communities share – is crucial.

Farouq Tahar, PhD Researcher in Architecture, University of Sheffield

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Humza Yousaf’s appointment as first minister of Scotland is a historic moment for the UK. It means that, for the first time in history, the country has a Hindu prime minister in Westminster (Rishi Sunak) and a Muslim first minister in Scotland.

In his victory speech, Yousaf said:

We should all take pride in the fact that today we have sent a clear message, that your colour of skin, your faith, is not a barrier to leading the country we all call home.

On the face of it, these two men, whose families came to the UK as immigrants looking for a better life, embody the dream that, through hard work, immigrants and their children can make it to the top of society.

Similar stories are playing out elsewhere at the top level of British politics, too. Scotland’s main opposition party Labour is led by Anas Sawar, a man who is also of Pakistani Muslim heritage, as is Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London. The Westminster cabinet also has unprecedented ethnic diversity.

Many of these politicians are the children and grandchildren of immigrants who came to the UK in the 1950s and 1960s, economic migrants from former colonies like India, Pakistan and the nations of east Africa and the Caribbean, who came with little money and limited English language. This first wave of postcolonial migrants often worked in the great British industries, in factories and in mills, settling in large town and cities.

Scotland is the only western European nation to have a Muslim leader and the UK the only democracy where the children of formerly colonised people are running the country that colonised their parents’ and grandparents’ nations. The moment is monumental. The UK, Scotland and indeed Ireland are all led by people from the south Asian diaspora.

Both Yousaf and Sunak have credited their grandparents and parents for their work ethic, which they say has enabled them to move up Britain’s social and political hierarchy. It’s an inspiring story but perhaps one they should both reflect on now they are in power. It is perhaps harder for arrivals in today’s Britain to replicate this journey.

The ultimate stress test awaits

Though Yousaf has stated he is a practising Muslim, he is also clear that he does not believe that legislators should be led by faith in their decision-making. That said, at an event we organised at the Scottish Parliament on Muslims and the political process in Scotland when Yousaf first became an MSP, he revealed that his faith had been part of his motivation for getting into politics in the first place.

His political awakening had taken place a decade earlier in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks in the United States. As he sat watching the images of the Twin Towers with classmates, they turned to ask him why Muslims hated America. That, he states, is when he realised politics mattered.

Yousaf’s faith and ethnicity had previously been rarely commented on in Scottish politics. Indeed, it is rare to hear him described as a “Muslim minister” or “British Asian MSP”. The same applies to others who have preceded or followed him and is a measure of how far the UK has come with regards to minorities in public life.

During the SNP leadership contest, however, Yousaf’s absence from a vote on equal marriage for same-sex couples was questioned and linked to his faith and standing in the Glasgow Pakistani community. The allegation was that he did not want to vote in favour of this legislation for fear of alienating that community.

A spokesperson for Yousaf’s campaign responded by saying that he “unequivocally supports equal marriage” and that his absence from the vote was due to “an extremely important engagement which involved trying to secure the release of a Scottish national sentenced to death for blasphemy in Pakistan”.

It is important to note that neither Yousaf or Sunak have yet faced the real stress test. They both became leaders on the back of a closed party selection process so have not yet had to stand as a leader in a public election.

That will be the real measure of how accepting the wider British public is of the changing face of national politics. It remains to be seen whether their ethnicity becomes a factor in the public debate around their politics.

Both Yousaf and Sunak seem keen to keep their faith in the private sphere, which is expected in British politics. Former prime minister Tony Blair’s team famously lived by the mantra “We don’t do God” when it came to avoiding discussions about his Christianity.

The class caveat

Yousaf’s politics couldn’t be more different from Sunak’s. He is firmly left of centre on immigration, welfare and taxation. This reminds us that the ethnic minority political identity is not uniform, although for years parties on the left took the minority vote for granted.

Today ethnic, religious and cultural diversity is reflected across the political spectrum. It is possible to reach the top whatever your political identity.

But it should be noted that less has changed when it comes to educational and social background. Yousaf’s father was an accountant. Sunak the son of a doctor and a pharmacist. Both men went to private school. They were part of a generation of immigrants who were able to come to the UK and make a better life for themselves.

Politics continues to be dominated by the privately educated. Class is the true divide in British politics, whatever colour rosette a candidate wears.

Parveen Akhtar, Senior Lecturer: Politics, History and International Relations, Aston University and Timothy Peace, Lecturer in Politics, University of Glasgow

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Kahf, who is of Syrian origin, is a law and immigration attorney from the township of Wayne. She took the oath of office yesterday with her hand on a copy of the Quran, the Muslim holy book, according to local news website North Jersey.

She will serve as a Passaic County Superior Court judge after New Jersey’s Governor Phil Murphy nominated her a year ago, according to local media.

Though Kahf is not the first Muslim woman to serve as a state judge, she is the first to wear a hijab on the bench.

Since 2003, she has sat on the board of the New Jersey chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Muslim civil rights organisation where Kahf now serves as chairwoman.

She is also the legal adviser to Wafa House, a nonprofit domestic violence and social services agency based in the city of Clifton, and chairwoman of the Islamic Centre of Passaic County.

Via Middle East Monitor

This work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

McCarthy’s planned course of action is ugly and recalls a previous Congressional decision, in 1869. As the site A History of Racial Injustice points out, John Willis Menard was the first Black man to be elected to Congress, from New Orleans. A poet and newspaper publisher as well as politician, Menard handily defeated his white opponent, Caleb S. Hunt. Hunt, like a lot of Republicans today, refused to acknowledge that he had been defeated fair and square in an aboveboard election. His claims were taken up in the halls of Congress, but he did not show, and in any case Hunt’s case was without merit. Menard was permitted to address the House on his own behalf, becoming the first Black man to speak to Congress.

Despite Hunt’s collapse, the House voted by a margin of 130 to 57 to refuse to seat Menard on the grounds that he was . . . Black. James Garfield, then a representative, spoke in favor of refusing to seat the elected representative, saying that it would save the $5,000 salary. Garfield later became president.

A substantial number of voters in Louisiana thus had their political will thwarted by arbitrary and bigoted white men.

Although Omar is a first generation immigrant from Somalia, Muslim Africans have been present in North America for 500 years. Even before the Emancipation Proclamation, African Muslim Americans like Omar had played a significant role in US history. The Smithsonian notes,

“African Muslims also fought alongside colonists during the Revolutionary War (1775-1783). Multiple men with Muslim names appear on the military muster rolls, including Bampett Muhamed, Yusuf ben Ali (also known as Joseph Benhaley), and Joseph Saba. Other men listed on muster rolls have names that are likely connected to Islamic practice, such as Salem Poor and Peter Salem, whose names may reflect a form of the Arabic salaam, meaning peace. These men often distinguished themselves on the battlefield.”

Along with singling out an African-born Muslim woman for marginalization, McCarthy is playing revenge politics. Democrats led by Nancy Pelosi had removed Republican Representatives Paul Gosar and Marjorie Taylor Greene from their committees. Gosar put out a snuff video about his colleague Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Greene is a 9/11 denier and a school shooting denier who harassed a survivor of a school shooting in the street, and compared vaccine and mask mandates during the pandemic to the Nazi Holocaust against Jews. She also compared Joe Biden to Hitler. She has retracted some of her conspiracy theories but always seems to find more.

Greene and The Lying Man, George Santos, have both been given choice committee assignments by McCarthy, so that his attempt to sideline Omar, along with Democratic Reps. Adam Schiff and Eric Swallwell, is especially egregious and makes a farce of his speakership. Buckle in, folks, we’re in for a Clown Roller-coaster on the Hill.

McCarthy accuses Rep. Omar of antisemitism. As Dean Obaidallah points out, however, some significant number of Omar’s Jewish constituents in Minneapolis disagree, publishing a statement against McCarthy’s move. Undoubtedly, Omar did put her foot in her mouth in some comments on the Israel lobbies, but she swiftly apologized, as Ubaidallah says. The mistakes she made came from an unfamiliarity with how anti-Jewish bigotry has operated in the United States, and she has become more sure-footed as she has settled into her role as a legislator.

It should also be pointed out that some of the charges of Antisemitism against Omar are simply a way of twisting her stance for Palestinian human rights into something sinister, and are in bad faith on the part of vociferous ‘Israel-can-do-no-wrong’ fanatics.

Kevin McCarthy himself tweeted out that Jewish billionaires such as George Soros and Michael Bloomberg were trying to “buy” an election. The notion that Jews are somehow especially powerful and control elections behind the scenes is a key trope in antisemitic discourse. McCarthy later deleted the tweets. So he is denying himself committee assignments, right? Nope.

Apparently some principled Republicans are putting their feet down against McCarthy’s petty prejudices. Unlike Garfield in 1869, they may take the path of the American Way, and common decency.