In the shadow of the ‘global war on terror’ that defined the early 21st century, Muslims appear to have become the acceptable face of racism. We shall examine the ways in which myths and factoids about Islam and Muslims travel to define what Morgan and Poynting call a ‘global islamophobia’ expressed through hijab and burka bans, debates about fundamentalism and segregation, and the notion of Islamification posed as a threat to ‘civilised’ societies. Looking historically, we shall examine the parallels between contemporary islamophobia and anti-Semitism to show how religion and culture have consistently been invoked in constructions of racism.
2. Overview
Origins
&
Definitions
of
Islamophobia?
From
Orientalism
to
the
‘Clash
of
Civilizations’
9/11
and
after:
‘War
on
our
doorsteps’
Producing
threat
The
mainstream
and
the
extreme
Tuesday, 14 May 13
3. Cooking while Muslim
Tuesday, 14 May 13
Yesterday’s news: A Saudi student living in Michigan was questioned in his home by FBI
agents after neighbours saw him carrying a pressure cooker and called the police.
Talal al Rouki had been cooking a traditional Saudi Arabian rice dish called kabsah and was
carrying it to a friend's house.
According to reports in a Saudi newspaper on Friday, the FBI are increasingly vigilant about
'pressure cooker' home-made bombs after the Boston bombers used one to make an
explosive.
4. ‘Somewhere
out
there
is
the
Muslim
that
the
British
government
seeks.
Like
all
religious
people
he
(the
government
is
more
likely
to
talk
about
Muslim
women
than
to
them)
supports
gay
rights,
racial
equality,
women's
rights,
tolerance
and
parliamentary
democracy.
He
abhors
the
murder
of
innocent
civilians
without
qualification
-‐
unless
they
are
in
Palestine,
Afghanistan
or
Iraq.
He
wants
to
be
treated
as
a
regular
British
citizen
-‐
but
not
by
the
police,
immigration
or
airport
security.
He
wants
the
best
for
his
children
and
if
that
means
unemployment,
racism
and
bad
schools,
then
so
be
it.
He
raises
his
daughters
to
be
assertive:
they
can
wear
whatever
they
want
so
long
as
it's
not
a
headscarf.
He
believes
in
free
speech
and
the
right
to
cause
offence
but
understands
that
he
has
neither
the
right
to
be
offended
nor
to
speak
out.
Whatever
an
extremist
is,
on
any
given
day,
he
is
not
it.
He
regards
himself
as
British
-‐
first,
foremost
and
for
ever.
But
whenever
a
bomb
goes
off
he
will
happily
answer
for
Islam...’
Gary
Younge,
The
Guardian,
30
March
2009
Tuesday, 14 May 13
5. Origins & Definitions
Tuesday, 14 May 13
1. Origins:
Islamophobia first coined in 1918. Emerges alongside antisemitism as a means for
conceptualising precise discrimination faced by Muslims.
Orientalism (Said 1978): describes the complex ways in which Arabs and Muslims are
represented.
i.e. Those affected by Islamophobia are usually also affected by Orientalism.
2. Runnymede Trust
Runnymede Trust (a British race equality think tank) produced a report in 1997 -
‘Islamophobia: A Challenge to Us All’ - reintroduces Islamophobia into public policy
discussions.
The report defined Islamophobia as: "unfounded hostility towards Muslims, and therefore
fear or dislike of all or most Muslims."
The report described the prevailing attitudes that underpin Islamophobia:
• Islam is monolithic and cannot adapt to new realities
• Islam does not share common values with other major faiths
• Islam as a religion is inferior to the West. It is archaic, barbaric, and irrational.
• Islam is a religion of violence and supports terrorism.
• Islam is a violent political ideology.
3. Criticism and responses
6. Origins & Definitions
Origins
Tuesday, 14 May 13
1. Origins:
Islamophobia first coined in 1918. Emerges alongside antisemitism as a means for
conceptualising precise discrimination faced by Muslims.
Orientalism (Said 1978): describes the complex ways in which Arabs and Muslims are
represented.
i.e. Those affected by Islamophobia are usually also affected by Orientalism.
2. Runnymede Trust
Runnymede Trust (a British race equality think tank) produced a report in 1997 -
‘Islamophobia: A Challenge to Us All’ - reintroduces Islamophobia into public policy
discussions.
The report defined Islamophobia as: "unfounded hostility towards Muslims, and therefore
fear or dislike of all or most Muslims."
The report described the prevailing attitudes that underpin Islamophobia:
• Islam is monolithic and cannot adapt to new realities
• Islam does not share common values with other major faiths
• Islam as a religion is inferior to the West. It is archaic, barbaric, and irrational.
• Islam is a religion of violence and supports terrorism.
• Islam is a violent political ideology.
3. Criticism and responses
7. Origins & Definitions
Origins
Runnymede
Trust
(1997)
Tuesday, 14 May 13
1. Origins:
Islamophobia first coined in 1918. Emerges alongside antisemitism as a means for
conceptualising precise discrimination faced by Muslims.
Orientalism (Said 1978): describes the complex ways in which Arabs and Muslims are
represented.
i.e. Those affected by Islamophobia are usually also affected by Orientalism.
2. Runnymede Trust
Runnymede Trust (a British race equality think tank) produced a report in 1997 -
‘Islamophobia: A Challenge to Us All’ - reintroduces Islamophobia into public policy
discussions.
The report defined Islamophobia as: "unfounded hostility towards Muslims, and therefore
fear or dislike of all or most Muslims."
The report described the prevailing attitudes that underpin Islamophobia:
• Islam is monolithic and cannot adapt to new realities
• Islam does not share common values with other major faiths
• Islam as a religion is inferior to the West. It is archaic, barbaric, and irrational.
• Islam is a religion of violence and supports terrorism.
• Islam is a violent political ideology.
3. Criticism and responses
8. Origins & Definitions
Origins
Runnymede
Trust
(1997)
‘unfounded
hostility
towards
Muslims,
and
therefore
fear
or
dislike
of
all
or
most
Muslims.’
Runnymede
Trust
(1997)
Tuesday, 14 May 13
1. Origins:
Islamophobia first coined in 1918. Emerges alongside antisemitism as a means for
conceptualising precise discrimination faced by Muslims.
Orientalism (Said 1978): describes the complex ways in which Arabs and Muslims are
represented.
i.e. Those affected by Islamophobia are usually also affected by Orientalism.
2. Runnymede Trust
Runnymede Trust (a British race equality think tank) produced a report in 1997 -
‘Islamophobia: A Challenge to Us All’ - reintroduces Islamophobia into public policy
discussions.
The report defined Islamophobia as: "unfounded hostility towards Muslims, and therefore
fear or dislike of all or most Muslims."
The report described the prevailing attitudes that underpin Islamophobia:
• Islam is monolithic and cannot adapt to new realities
• Islam does not share common values with other major faiths
• Islam as a religion is inferior to the West. It is archaic, barbaric, and irrational.
• Islam is a religion of violence and supports terrorism.
• Islam is a violent political ideology.
3. Criticism and responses
9. Origins & Definitions
Origins
Runnymede
Trust
(1997)
‘unfounded
hostility
towards
Muslims,
and
therefore
fear
or
dislike
of
all
or
most
Muslims.’
Runnymede
Trust
(1997)
Criticisms
and
responses
Tuesday, 14 May 13
1. Origins:
Islamophobia first coined in 1918. Emerges alongside antisemitism as a means for
conceptualising precise discrimination faced by Muslims.
Orientalism (Said 1978): describes the complex ways in which Arabs and Muslims are
represented.
i.e. Those affected by Islamophobia are usually also affected by Orientalism.
2. Runnymede Trust
Runnymede Trust (a British race equality think tank) produced a report in 1997 -
‘Islamophobia: A Challenge to Us All’ - reintroduces Islamophobia into public policy
discussions.
The report defined Islamophobia as: "unfounded hostility towards Muslims, and therefore
fear or dislike of all or most Muslims."
The report described the prevailing attitudes that underpin Islamophobia:
• Islam is monolithic and cannot adapt to new realities
• Islam does not share common values with other major faiths
• Islam as a religion is inferior to the West. It is archaic, barbaric, and irrational.
• Islam is a religion of violence and supports terrorism.
• Islam is a violent political ideology.
3. Criticism and responses
10. Origins & Definitions
Origins
Runnymede
Trust
(1997)
Criticisms
and
responses
‘Racialisation
does
not
depend
on
biology
to
produce
'races';
rather
it
sees
the
construction
of
collective
identities
as
a
product
of
social
processes.
lt
does
not
follow
that
just
because
Muslims
are
not
a
'race’,
or
there
is
yet
no
Muslim
gene,
their
subjugation
is
not
racism.’
Sayyid
(2012)
Tuesday, 14 May 13
1. Origins:
Islamophobia first coined in 1918. Emerges alongside antisemitism as a means for
conceptualising precise discrimination faced by Muslims.
Orientalism (Said 1978): describes the complex ways in which Arabs and Muslims are
represented.
i.e. Those affected by Islamophobia are usually also affected by Orientalism.
2. Runnymede Trust
Runnymede Trust (a British race equality think tank) produced a report in 1997 -
‘Islamophobia: A Challenge to Us All’ - reintroduces Islamophobia into public policy
discussions.
The report defined Islamophobia as: "unfounded hostility towards Muslims, and therefore
fear or dislike of all or most Muslims."
The report described the prevailing attitudes that underpin Islamophobia:
• Islam is monolithic and cannot adapt to new realities
• Islam does not share common values with other major faiths
• Islam as a religion is inferior to the West. It is archaic, barbaric, and irrational.
• Islam is a religion of violence and supports terrorism.
• Islam is a violent political ideology.
3. Criticism and responses
11. Eurocentrism & Orientalism
Tuesday, 14 May 13
1. A ‘violent hiererchy’
Sayyid: arguments about whether Islamophobia is a proper term, ignore what Islamophobia
really describes.
For Sayyid, it is, about the ‘maintenance of the “violent hierarchy” between the idea of the
West and Islam.’
Islamophobia is about judging (regulating) Muslims by reference to a western framework, i.e.
asking questions about the compatibility of Islam/Muslims with the West.
That is why Islamophobia crops up in debates on multiculturalism, security, feminism, etc.
It is ultimately an anxiety about the sustainability of the West itself - can the West continue to
dominate culturally, economically and militarily?
2. Being Muslim as Political
Sayyid: Although islamophobia is similar in many ways to racism, it is also distinct from it for
various reasons.
Islamophobia is a contemporary phenomenon because it emerges in contexts where being
Muslim has a political significance (e.g. it cannot be compared to historical contexts where
being Muslim was not problematised in the same way as today).
Sayyid: ‘What Islamophobia seeks to discipline is the possibility of Muslim autonomy, that is,
the affirmation of Muslim political identity as a legitimate historical subject.’
But, Muslims (particularly in Britain where Sayyid is from) are very active politically, and have
become more so, politicised by the post-9/11 era, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the
continued occupation of Palestine. They want to be at the centre of political life, not at its
12. Eurocentrism & Orientalism
A
‘violent
hierarchy’
Tuesday, 14 May 13
1. A ‘violent hiererchy’
Sayyid: arguments about whether Islamophobia is a proper term, ignore what Islamophobia
really describes.
For Sayyid, it is, about the ‘maintenance of the “violent hierarchy” between the idea of the
West and Islam.’
Islamophobia is about judging (regulating) Muslims by reference to a western framework, i.e.
asking questions about the compatibility of Islam/Muslims with the West.
That is why Islamophobia crops up in debates on multiculturalism, security, feminism, etc.
It is ultimately an anxiety about the sustainability of the West itself - can the West continue to
dominate culturally, economically and militarily?
2. Being Muslim as Political
Sayyid: Although islamophobia is similar in many ways to racism, it is also distinct from it for
various reasons.
Islamophobia is a contemporary phenomenon because it emerges in contexts where being
Muslim has a political significance (e.g. it cannot be compared to historical contexts where
being Muslim was not problematised in the same way as today).
Sayyid: ‘What Islamophobia seeks to discipline is the possibility of Muslim autonomy, that is,
the affirmation of Muslim political identity as a legitimate historical subject.’
But, Muslims (particularly in Britain where Sayyid is from) are very active politically, and have
become more so, politicised by the post-9/11 era, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the
continued occupation of Palestine. They want to be at the centre of political life, not at its
13. Eurocentrism & Orientalism
A
‘violent
hierarchy’
Being
Muslim
as
political
Tuesday, 14 May 13
1. A ‘violent hiererchy’
Sayyid: arguments about whether Islamophobia is a proper term, ignore what Islamophobia
really describes.
For Sayyid, it is, about the ‘maintenance of the “violent hierarchy” between the idea of the
West and Islam.’
Islamophobia is about judging (regulating) Muslims by reference to a western framework, i.e.
asking questions about the compatibility of Islam/Muslims with the West.
That is why Islamophobia crops up in debates on multiculturalism, security, feminism, etc.
It is ultimately an anxiety about the sustainability of the West itself - can the West continue to
dominate culturally, economically and militarily?
2. Being Muslim as Political
Sayyid: Although islamophobia is similar in many ways to racism, it is also distinct from it for
various reasons.
Islamophobia is a contemporary phenomenon because it emerges in contexts where being
Muslim has a political significance (e.g. it cannot be compared to historical contexts where
being Muslim was not problematised in the same way as today).
Sayyid: ‘What Islamophobia seeks to discipline is the possibility of Muslim autonomy, that is,
the affirmation of Muslim political identity as a legitimate historical subject.’
But, Muslims (particularly in Britain where Sayyid is from) are very active politically, and have
become more so, politicised by the post-9/11 era, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the
continued occupation of Palestine. They want to be at the centre of political life, not at its
14. Eurocentrism & Orientalism
A
‘violent
hierarchy’
Being
Muslim
as
political
‘What
Islamophobia
seeks
to
discipline
is
the
possibility
of
Muslim
autonomy,
that
is,
the
affirmation
of
Muslim
political
identity
as
a
legitimate
historical
subject.’
Sayyid
(2012)
Tuesday, 14 May 13
1. A ‘violent hiererchy’
Sayyid: arguments about whether Islamophobia is a proper term, ignore what Islamophobia
really describes.
For Sayyid, it is, about the ‘maintenance of the “violent hierarchy” between the idea of the
West and Islam.’
Islamophobia is about judging (regulating) Muslims by reference to a western framework, i.e.
asking questions about the compatibility of Islam/Muslims with the West.
That is why Islamophobia crops up in debates on multiculturalism, security, feminism, etc.
It is ultimately an anxiety about the sustainability of the West itself - can the West continue to
dominate culturally, economically and militarily?
2. Being Muslim as Political
Sayyid: Although islamophobia is similar in many ways to racism, it is also distinct from it for
various reasons.
Islamophobia is a contemporary phenomenon because it emerges in contexts where being
Muslim has a political significance (e.g. it cannot be compared to historical contexts where
being Muslim was not problematised in the same way as today).
Sayyid: ‘What Islamophobia seeks to discipline is the possibility of Muslim autonomy, that is,
the affirmation of Muslim political identity as a legitimate historical subject.’
But, Muslims (particularly in Britain where Sayyid is from) are very active politically, and have
become more so, politicised by the post-9/11 era, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the
continued occupation of Palestine. They want to be at the centre of political life, not at its
15. Eurocentrism & Orientalism
A
‘violent
hierarchy’
Being
Muslim
as
political
Orientalist
attitudes
Tuesday, 14 May 13
1. A ‘violent hiererchy’
Sayyid: arguments about whether Islamophobia is a proper term, ignore what Islamophobia
really describes.
For Sayyid, it is, about the ‘maintenance of the “violent hierarchy” between the idea of the
West and Islam.’
Islamophobia is about judging (regulating) Muslims by reference to a western framework, i.e.
asking questions about the compatibility of Islam/Muslims with the West.
That is why Islamophobia crops up in debates on multiculturalism, security, feminism, etc.
It is ultimately an anxiety about the sustainability of the West itself - can the West continue to
dominate culturally, economically and militarily?
2. Being Muslim as Political
Sayyid: Although islamophobia is similar in many ways to racism, it is also distinct from it for
various reasons.
Islamophobia is a contemporary phenomenon because it emerges in contexts where being
Muslim has a political significance (e.g. it cannot be compared to historical contexts where
being Muslim was not problematised in the same way as today).
Sayyid: ‘What Islamophobia seeks to discipline is the possibility of Muslim autonomy, that is,
the affirmation of Muslim political identity as a legitimate historical subject.’
But, Muslims (particularly in Britain where Sayyid is from) are very active politically, and have
become more so, politicised by the post-9/11 era, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the
continued occupation of Palestine. They want to be at the centre of political life, not at its
16. Eurocentrism & Orientalism
The
Orient
is
seen
as
separate,
eccentric,
backward,
silently
different,
sensual,
and
passive.
It
has
a
tendency
towards
despotism
and
away
from
progress.
It
displays
feminine
penetrability
and
supine
malleability.
Its
progress
and
value
are
judged
in
terms
of,
and
in
comparison
to,
the
West,
so
it
is
always
the
Other,
the
conquerable,
and
the
inferior.
Paraphrased
from
Orientalism
(Said,
1978)
Tuesday, 14 May 13
1. A ‘violent hiererchy’
Sayyid: arguments about whether Islamophobia is a proper term, ignore what Islamophobia
really describes.
For Sayyid, it is, about the ‘maintenance of the “violent hierarchy” between the idea of the
West and Islam.’
Islamophobia is about judging (regulating) Muslims by reference to a western framework, i.e.
asking questions about the compatibility of Islam/Muslims with the West.
That is why Islamophobia crops up in debates on multiculturalism, security, feminism, etc.
It is ultimately an anxiety about the sustainability of the West itself - can the West continue to
dominate culturally, economically and militarily?
2. Being Muslim as Political
Sayyid: Although islamophobia is similar in many ways to racism, it is also distinct from it for
various reasons.
Islamophobia is a contemporary phenomenon because it emerges in contexts where being
Muslim has a political significance (e.g. it cannot be compared to historical contexts where
being Muslim was not problematised in the same way as today).
Sayyid: ‘What Islamophobia seeks to discipline is the possibility of Muslim autonomy, that is,
the affirmation of Muslim political identity as a legitimate historical subject.’
But, Muslims (particularly in Britain where Sayyid is from) are very active politically, and have
become more so, politicised by the post-9/11 era, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the
continued occupation of Palestine. They want to be at the centre of political life, not at its
17. “Huntington
is
an
ideologist,
someone
who
wants
to
make
‘civilizations’
and
‘identities’
into
what
they
are
not:
shut-‐down,
sealed-‐off
entities
that
have
been
purged
of
the
myriad
currents
and
countercurrents
that
animate
human
history,
and
that
over
centuries
have
made
it
possible
for
that
history
not
only
to
contain
wars
of
religion
and
imperial
conquest
but
also
to
be
one
of
exchange,
cross-‐fertilization
and
sharing.”
Edward
Said
(2001)
The Clash of Civilizations
Tuesday, 14 May 13
18. “Huntington
is
an
ideologist,
someone
who
wants
to
make
‘civilizations’
and
‘identities’
into
what
they
are
not:
shut-‐down,
sealed-‐off
entities
that
have
been
purged
of
the
myriad
currents
and
countercurrents
that
animate
human
history,
and
that
over
centuries
have
made
it
possible
for
that
history
not
only
to
contain
wars
of
religion
and
imperial
conquest
but
also
to
be
one
of
exchange,
cross-‐fertilization
and
sharing.”
Edward
Said
(2001)
The Clash of Civilizations
Tuesday, 14 May 13
19. “There’s
a
definite
urge
-‐
don’t
you
have
it?
-‐
to
say,
‘The
Muslim
community
will
have
to
suffer
until
its
gets
its
house
in
order’...
They
hate
us
for
letting
our
children
have
sex
and
take
drugs
-‐
well,
they’ve
got
to
stop
their
children
killing
people.”
Martin
Amis
(2006)
Amis vs. Eagleton
Tuesday, 14 May 13
The spat between Martin Amis and Terry Eagleton has become emblematic of the ideological framing of the war
on terror and the clash of civilizations as a fight for liberty and modernity against unfreedom and a return to what
some see as the ‘dark ages’.
While, for Martin Amis, suppression of the rights of Muslims is justified because of what he sees as their attack on
western values and societies, others such as Eagleton see this as arrogant, racist imperialism.
[SHOW INTRO TO I/VIEW]
The Amis v. Eagleton dispute should be set against the backdrop of global Islamophobia. i.e.
it is not neutral. It was happening against a backdrop of war during which the majority of the
victims were Muslims.
Often repeated in the media was the need to have a so-called ‘honest and open’ debate
about Muslims and Islam (backdrop to Younge’s article). However, as evidenced by Amis’s
comments, this often allows for incendiary comments to be made against a marginalised
minority that rely on generalisation and stereotyping - all Muslims are terrorists.
20. “There’s
a
definite
urge
-‐
don’t
you
have
it?
-‐
to
say,
‘The
Muslim
community
will
have
to
suffer
until
its
gets
its
house
in
order’...
They
hate
us
for
letting
our
children
have
sex
and
take
drugs
-‐
well,
they’ve
got
to
stop
their
children
killing
people.”
Martin
Amis
(2006)
Amis vs. Eagleton
Tuesday, 14 May 13
The spat between Martin Amis and Terry Eagleton has become emblematic of the ideological framing of the war
on terror and the clash of civilizations as a fight for liberty and modernity against unfreedom and a return to what
some see as the ‘dark ages’.
While, for Martin Amis, suppression of the rights of Muslims is justified because of what he sees as their attack on
western values and societies, others such as Eagleton see this as arrogant, racist imperialism.
[SHOW INTRO TO I/VIEW]
The Amis v. Eagleton dispute should be set against the backdrop of global Islamophobia. i.e.
it is not neutral. It was happening against a backdrop of war during which the majority of the
victims were Muslims.
Often repeated in the media was the need to have a so-called ‘honest and open’ debate
about Muslims and Islam (backdrop to Younge’s article). However, as evidenced by Amis’s
comments, this often allows for incendiary comments to be made against a marginalised
minority that rely on generalisation and stereotyping - all Muslims are terrorists.
21. 9/11 and after: ‘Wars on
our doorsteps’
Tuesday, 14 May 13
1. Personalising security
As part of the process of racialiation is dehumanisation, it is easy to divorce the ‘honest and
open’ debate about Muslims from what has been happening tp Arab and Muslim populations
since the unleashing of the ‘war on terror’.
Gargi Bhattacharyya: ‘From the pictures of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib to the brutalisation
and murder of Iraqi civilians by coalition forces to the public burning of the bodies of dead
Taliban fighters as a warning and provocation to their colleagues, these nation-building
occupations are meting out treatment that implies that these places are inhabited by lesser
peoples.’
On the other hand, the war on terror is predicated on ensuring ‘our’ personal security. It is
thus unlike other wars. It is made personal - the threat is everywhere, anyone could be a
victim at any time.
The personification of the attacker as a stereotypical feeds into the need for society to create
‘folk-devils’ (link week 10). Everyone fitting the stereotype is to be mistrusted, not just
because his (it’s usually a man) beliefs conflict with our own, but because he could attack us
at any moment - not the nation, but us personally.
For that reason, we have become ‘docile bodies’ (Foucault) in the management of the threat.
e all compliantly take off our shoes at the airport or throw away our liquids. Any protest
means being treated as a potential terrorist ourselves. So everyone is involved and invested in
being vigilan for the ever-present threat.
This is another central trope in race-thinking (the enemy among us - the race within the race -
Foucault).
Bhattacharyya: ‘The racialised other is frightening because there is no way of knowing how
22. 9/11 and after: ‘Wars on
our doorsteps’
Personalising
security
Tuesday, 14 May 13
1. Personalising security
As part of the process of racialiation is dehumanisation, it is easy to divorce the ‘honest and
open’ debate about Muslims from what has been happening tp Arab and Muslim populations
since the unleashing of the ‘war on terror’.
Gargi Bhattacharyya: ‘From the pictures of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib to the brutalisation
and murder of Iraqi civilians by coalition forces to the public burning of the bodies of dead
Taliban fighters as a warning and provocation to their colleagues, these nation-building
occupations are meting out treatment that implies that these places are inhabited by lesser
peoples.’
On the other hand, the war on terror is predicated on ensuring ‘our’ personal security. It is
thus unlike other wars. It is made personal - the threat is everywhere, anyone could be a
victim at any time.
The personification of the attacker as a stereotypical feeds into the need for society to create
‘folk-devils’ (link week 10). Everyone fitting the stereotype is to be mistrusted, not just
because his (it’s usually a man) beliefs conflict with our own, but because he could attack us
at any moment - not the nation, but us personally.
For that reason, we have become ‘docile bodies’ (Foucault) in the management of the threat.
e all compliantly take off our shoes at the airport or throw away our liquids. Any protest
means being treated as a potential terrorist ourselves. So everyone is involved and invested in
being vigilan for the ever-present threat.
This is another central trope in race-thinking (the enemy among us - the race within the race -
Foucault).
Bhattacharyya: ‘The racialised other is frightening because there is no way of knowing how
23. 9/11 and after: ‘Wars on
our doorsteps’
Personalising
security
Policing
terror
Tuesday, 14 May 13
1. Personalising security
As part of the process of racialiation is dehumanisation, it is easy to divorce the ‘honest and
open’ debate about Muslims from what has been happening tp Arab and Muslim populations
since the unleashing of the ‘war on terror’.
Gargi Bhattacharyya: ‘From the pictures of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib to the brutalisation
and murder of Iraqi civilians by coalition forces to the public burning of the bodies of dead
Taliban fighters as a warning and provocation to their colleagues, these nation-building
occupations are meting out treatment that implies that these places are inhabited by lesser
peoples.’
On the other hand, the war on terror is predicated on ensuring ‘our’ personal security. It is
thus unlike other wars. It is made personal - the threat is everywhere, anyone could be a
victim at any time.
The personification of the attacker as a stereotypical feeds into the need for society to create
‘folk-devils’ (link week 10). Everyone fitting the stereotype is to be mistrusted, not just
because his (it’s usually a man) beliefs conflict with our own, but because he could attack us
at any moment - not the nation, but us personally.
For that reason, we have become ‘docile bodies’ (Foucault) in the management of the threat.
e all compliantly take off our shoes at the airport or throw away our liquids. Any protest
means being treated as a potential terrorist ourselves. So everyone is involved and invested in
being vigilan for the ever-present threat.
This is another central trope in race-thinking (the enemy among us - the race within the race -
Foucault).
Bhattacharyya: ‘The racialised other is frightening because there is no way of knowing how
24. 9/11 and after: ‘Wars on
our doorsteps’
Personalising
security
Policing
terror
Tuesday, 14 May 13
1. Personalising security
As part of the process of racialiation is dehumanisation, it is easy to divorce the ‘honest and
open’ debate about Muslims from what has been happening tp Arab and Muslim populations
since the unleashing of the ‘war on terror’.
Gargi Bhattacharyya: ‘From the pictures of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib to the brutalisation
and murder of Iraqi civilians by coalition forces to the public burning of the bodies of dead
Taliban fighters as a warning and provocation to their colleagues, these nation-building
occupations are meting out treatment that implies that these places are inhabited by lesser
peoples.’
On the other hand, the war on terror is predicated on ensuring ‘our’ personal security. It is
thus unlike other wars. It is made personal - the threat is everywhere, anyone could be a
victim at any time.
The personification of the attacker as a stereotypical feeds into the need for society to create
‘folk-devils’ (link week 10). Everyone fitting the stereotype is to be mistrusted, not just
because his (it’s usually a man) beliefs conflict with our own, but because he could attack us
at any moment - not the nation, but us personally.
For that reason, we have become ‘docile bodies’ (Foucault) in the management of the threat.
e all compliantly take off our shoes at the airport or throw away our liquids. Any protest
means being treated as a potential terrorist ourselves. So everyone is involved and invested in
being vigilan for the ever-present threat.
This is another central trope in race-thinking (the enemy among us - the race within the race -
Foucault).
Bhattacharyya: ‘The racialised other is frightening because there is no way of knowing how
25. 9/11 and after: ‘Wars on
our doorsteps’
Personalising
security
Policing
terror
Tuesday, 14 May 13
1. Personalising security
As part of the process of racialiation is dehumanisation, it is easy to divorce the ‘honest and
open’ debate about Muslims from what has been happening tp Arab and Muslim populations
since the unleashing of the ‘war on terror’.
Gargi Bhattacharyya: ‘From the pictures of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib to the brutalisation
and murder of Iraqi civilians by coalition forces to the public burning of the bodies of dead
Taliban fighters as a warning and provocation to their colleagues, these nation-building
occupations are meting out treatment that implies that these places are inhabited by lesser
peoples.’
On the other hand, the war on terror is predicated on ensuring ‘our’ personal security. It is
thus unlike other wars. It is made personal - the threat is everywhere, anyone could be a
victim at any time.
The personification of the attacker as a stereotypical feeds into the need for society to create
‘folk-devils’ (link week 10). Everyone fitting the stereotype is to be mistrusted, not just
because his (it’s usually a man) beliefs conflict with our own, but because he could attack us
at any moment - not the nation, but us personally.
For that reason, we have become ‘docile bodies’ (Foucault) in the management of the threat.
e all compliantly take off our shoes at the airport or throw away our liquids. Any protest
means being treated as a potential terrorist ourselves. So everyone is involved and invested in
being vigilan for the ever-present threat.
This is another central trope in race-thinking (the enemy among us - the race within the race -
Foucault).
Bhattacharyya: ‘The racialised other is frightening because there is no way of knowing how
26. 9/11 and after: ‘Wars on
our doorsteps’
Personalising
security
Policing
terror
Domestic
enemies:
✦ Dr
Haneef
✦ Talha
Ahsan
&
Babar
Ahmed
Tuesday, 14 May 13
1. Personalising security
As part of the process of racialiation is dehumanisation, it is easy to divorce the ‘honest and
open’ debate about Muslims from what has been happening tp Arab and Muslim populations
since the unleashing of the ‘war on terror’.
Gargi Bhattacharyya: ‘From the pictures of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib to the brutalisation
and murder of Iraqi civilians by coalition forces to the public burning of the bodies of dead
Taliban fighters as a warning and provocation to their colleagues, these nation-building
occupations are meting out treatment that implies that these places are inhabited by lesser
peoples.’
On the other hand, the war on terror is predicated on ensuring ‘our’ personal security. It is
thus unlike other wars. It is made personal - the threat is everywhere, anyone could be a
victim at any time.
The personification of the attacker as a stereotypical feeds into the need for society to create
‘folk-devils’ (link week 10). Everyone fitting the stereotype is to be mistrusted, not just
because his (it’s usually a man) beliefs conflict with our own, but because he could attack us
at any moment - not the nation, but us personally.
For that reason, we have become ‘docile bodies’ (Foucault) in the management of the threat.
e all compliantly take off our shoes at the airport or throw away our liquids. Any protest
means being treated as a potential terrorist ourselves. So everyone is involved and invested in
being vigilan for the ever-present threat.
This is another central trope in race-thinking (the enemy among us - the race within the race -
Foucault).
Bhattacharyya: ‘The racialised other is frightening because there is no way of knowing how
27. 9/11 and after: ‘Wars on
our doorsteps’
Personalising
security
Policing
terror
Domestic
enemies:
✦ Dr
Haneef
✦ Talha
Ahsan
&
Babar
Ahmed
Tuesday, 14 May 13
1. Personalising security
As part of the process of racialiation is dehumanisation, it is easy to divorce the ‘honest and
open’ debate about Muslims from what has been happening tp Arab and Muslim populations
since the unleashing of the ‘war on terror’.
Gargi Bhattacharyya: ‘From the pictures of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib to the brutalisation
and murder of Iraqi civilians by coalition forces to the public burning of the bodies of dead
Taliban fighters as a warning and provocation to their colleagues, these nation-building
occupations are meting out treatment that implies that these places are inhabited by lesser
peoples.’
On the other hand, the war on terror is predicated on ensuring ‘our’ personal security. It is
thus unlike other wars. It is made personal - the threat is everywhere, anyone could be a
victim at any time.
The personification of the attacker as a stereotypical feeds into the need for society to create
‘folk-devils’ (link week 10). Everyone fitting the stereotype is to be mistrusted, not just
because his (it’s usually a man) beliefs conflict with our own, but because he could attack us
at any moment - not the nation, but us personally.
For that reason, we have become ‘docile bodies’ (Foucault) in the management of the threat.
e all compliantly take off our shoes at the airport or throw away our liquids. Any protest
means being treated as a potential terrorist ourselves. So everyone is involved and invested in
being vigilan for the ever-present threat.
This is another central trope in race-thinking (the enemy among us - the race within the race -
Foucault).
Bhattacharyya: ‘The racialised other is frightening because there is no way of knowing how
28. 9/11 and after: ‘Wars on
our doorsteps’
Personalising
security
Policing
terror
Domestic
enemies:
✦ Dr
Haneef
✦ Talha
Ahsan
&
Babar
Ahmed
Tuesday, 14 May 13
1. Personalising security
As part of the process of racialiation is dehumanisation, it is easy to divorce the ‘honest and
open’ debate about Muslims from what has been happening tp Arab and Muslim populations
since the unleashing of the ‘war on terror’.
Gargi Bhattacharyya: ‘From the pictures of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib to the brutalisation
and murder of Iraqi civilians by coalition forces to the public burning of the bodies of dead
Taliban fighters as a warning and provocation to their colleagues, these nation-building
occupations are meting out treatment that implies that these places are inhabited by lesser
peoples.’
On the other hand, the war on terror is predicated on ensuring ‘our’ personal security. It is
thus unlike other wars. It is made personal - the threat is everywhere, anyone could be a
victim at any time.
The personification of the attacker as a stereotypical feeds into the need for society to create
‘folk-devils’ (link week 10). Everyone fitting the stereotype is to be mistrusted, not just
because his (it’s usually a man) beliefs conflict with our own, but because he could attack us
at any moment - not the nation, but us personally.
For that reason, we have become ‘docile bodies’ (Foucault) in the management of the threat.
e all compliantly take off our shoes at the airport or throw away our liquids. Any protest
means being treated as a potential terrorist ourselves. So everyone is involved and invested in
being vigilan for the ever-present threat.
This is another central trope in race-thinking (the enemy among us - the race within the race -
Foucault).
Bhattacharyya: ‘The racialised other is frightening because there is no way of knowing how
29. Producing Threat
Post-‐secular
anxiety:
Cartoons,
Minarets
&
Schools
Tuesday, 14 May 13
1. Post-secularism:
Several scholars are arguing that we need to understand the current age as a post-secular one.
But, we might ask whether society has ever really been secular. Although, many countries separate between
Church and State (not only western ones, e.g. Turkey), many states are organised culturally around a particular
religious tradition.
e.g. Why do we have a day off for Xmas in a multicultural society like Australia - Australia is culturally Christian.
Political decisions such as the banning of hijab/burka in France are said to be a way of protecting secularism -
religion should gave no place in public. But, although the ban is supposed to affect ‘all ostentatious religious
symbols’, it has only ever been enforced against Muslim dress codes (give Sikh example).
The so-called ‘crisis of secularism’ seems to be concerned mainly with a rise in religiosity among Muslims in
postcolonial societies, as well as with an intensification of transnational political alliances between Muslims across
the world (cf. Sayyid).
Three cases illustrate this: Cartoons scandal, Swiss Minarets referendum, and the Camden
Mosque affair.
A. Cartoons:
Background: Jyllands Posten publishes cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in 2004.
Mohammed is directly linked with terrorism. Causes outrage in Muslim world, including
‘violent’ anti-Danish protests. Despite this, the cartoons were republished by several
newspapers around the world (Charlie Hebdo).
Rowan Atkinson: ‘there should be no subjects about which you can’t tell jokes’ and that ‘the
right to offend is far more important than the right to offend.”
Saba Mahmood: a double standard was at play in how reactions to the cartoons were perceived. Muslims who were
30. Producing Threat
Post-‐secular
anxiety:
Cartoons,
Minarets
&
Schools
Tuesday, 14 May 13
1. Post-secularism:
Several scholars are arguing that we need to understand the current age as a post-secular one.
But, we might ask whether society has ever really been secular. Although, many countries separate between
Church and State (not only western ones, e.g. Turkey), many states are organised culturally around a particular
religious tradition.
e.g. Why do we have a day off for Xmas in a multicultural society like Australia - Australia is culturally Christian.
Political decisions such as the banning of hijab/burka in France are said to be a way of protecting secularism -
religion should gave no place in public. But, although the ban is supposed to affect ‘all ostentatious religious
symbols’, it has only ever been enforced against Muslim dress codes (give Sikh example).
The so-called ‘crisis of secularism’ seems to be concerned mainly with a rise in religiosity among Muslims in
postcolonial societies, as well as with an intensification of transnational political alliances between Muslims across
the world (cf. Sayyid).
Three cases illustrate this: Cartoons scandal, Swiss Minarets referendum, and the Camden
Mosque affair.
A. Cartoons:
Background: Jyllands Posten publishes cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in 2004.
Mohammed is directly linked with terrorism. Causes outrage in Muslim world, including
‘violent’ anti-Danish protests. Despite this, the cartoons were republished by several
newspapers around the world (Charlie Hebdo).
Rowan Atkinson: ‘there should be no subjects about which you can’t tell jokes’ and that ‘the
right to offend is far more important than the right to offend.”
Saba Mahmood: a double standard was at play in how reactions to the cartoons were perceived. Muslims who were
31. Producing Threat
Post-‐secular
anxiety:
Cartoons,
Minarets
&
Schools
Tuesday, 14 May 13
1. Post-secularism:
Several scholars are arguing that we need to understand the current age as a post-secular one.
But, we might ask whether society has ever really been secular. Although, many countries separate between
Church and State (not only western ones, e.g. Turkey), many states are organised culturally around a particular
religious tradition.
e.g. Why do we have a day off for Xmas in a multicultural society like Australia - Australia is culturally Christian.
Political decisions such as the banning of hijab/burka in France are said to be a way of protecting secularism -
religion should gave no place in public. But, although the ban is supposed to affect ‘all ostentatious religious
symbols’, it has only ever been enforced against Muslim dress codes (give Sikh example).
The so-called ‘crisis of secularism’ seems to be concerned mainly with a rise in religiosity among Muslims in
postcolonial societies, as well as with an intensification of transnational political alliances between Muslims across
the world (cf. Sayyid).
Three cases illustrate this: Cartoons scandal, Swiss Minarets referendum, and the Camden
Mosque affair.
A. Cartoons:
Background: Jyllands Posten publishes cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in 2004.
Mohammed is directly linked with terrorism. Causes outrage in Muslim world, including
‘violent’ anti-Danish protests. Despite this, the cartoons were republished by several
newspapers around the world (Charlie Hebdo).
Rowan Atkinson: ‘there should be no subjects about which you can’t tell jokes’ and that ‘the
right to offend is far more important than the right to offend.”
Saba Mahmood: a double standard was at play in how reactions to the cartoons were perceived. Muslims who were
32. Producing Threat
Post-‐secular
anxiety:
Cartoons,
Minarets
&
Schools
Tuesday, 14 May 13
1. Post-secularism:
Several scholars are arguing that we need to understand the current age as a post-secular one.
But, we might ask whether society has ever really been secular. Although, many countries separate between
Church and State (not only western ones, e.g. Turkey), many states are organised culturally around a particular
religious tradition.
e.g. Why do we have a day off for Xmas in a multicultural society like Australia - Australia is culturally Christian.
Political decisions such as the banning of hijab/burka in France are said to be a way of protecting secularism -
religion should gave no place in public. But, although the ban is supposed to affect ‘all ostentatious religious
symbols’, it has only ever been enforced against Muslim dress codes (give Sikh example).
The so-called ‘crisis of secularism’ seems to be concerned mainly with a rise in religiosity among Muslims in
postcolonial societies, as well as with an intensification of transnational political alliances between Muslims across
the world (cf. Sayyid).
Three cases illustrate this: Cartoons scandal, Swiss Minarets referendum, and the Camden
Mosque affair.
A. Cartoons:
Background: Jyllands Posten publishes cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in 2004.
Mohammed is directly linked with terrorism. Causes outrage in Muslim world, including
‘violent’ anti-Danish protests. Despite this, the cartoons were republished by several
newspapers around the world (Charlie Hebdo).
Rowan Atkinson: ‘there should be no subjects about which you can’t tell jokes’ and that ‘the
right to offend is far more important than the right to offend.”
Saba Mahmood: a double standard was at play in how reactions to the cartoons were perceived. Muslims who were
33. Producing Threat
Criminal
tendencies:
‘Asian
grooming
gangs’
and
‘Sydney
rape
gangs’
Tuesday, 14 May 13
1. Asian Grooming gangs:
Men, mainly of Pakistani Muslim origin (but also Hindus an some whites), in Northern cities in
the UK were found guilty last year of grooming young girls for prostitution. The girls were
mainly white and often either in care or not looked after by their families.
Cultural explanations were used to make sense of this. Pakistani men were portrayed as
being particularly repressed sexually. The culture was blamed for the fact that it was white
girls who were being preyed upon (Asian girls were exclusively for marriage). In opposition,
others proposed that there was a culture of neglect that led to the girls being able to be
preyed upon so easily.
Joseph Harker (recent article in The Guardian) spoke out against blaming culture for sexual
abuse which is rife in every community:
Satirical article - ‘It's time to face up to the problem of sexual abuse in the white community’.
Harker uses the recent spate of sex abuse cases involving high profile white men in the UK
(e.g. Jimmy Saville) to make the case that no one would tar all white people with the same
brush in the way that has been the case following the Asian grooming gang scandal.
[Click to reveal quote]: ‘I’m beginning to feel sorry for whites. I have many white friends and I
know most of them are wholly opposed to sexual abuse. But they must be worried that their
whole community is getting a bad name. I can imagine that, every day, with each unfolding
case, they must be hiding their face behind their hands, pleading: "Please, God, don't let it be
a white person this time."’
Harker concludes: ‘all of the above arguments were made within various parts of our print
and broadcast media when similarly small numbers of Muslim men were revealed to be
34. Producing Threat
Criminal
tendencies:
‘Asian
grooming
gangs’
and
‘Sydney
rape
gangs’
Tuesday, 14 May 13
1. Asian Grooming gangs:
Men, mainly of Pakistani Muslim origin (but also Hindus an some whites), in Northern cities in
the UK were found guilty last year of grooming young girls for prostitution. The girls were
mainly white and often either in care or not looked after by their families.
Cultural explanations were used to make sense of this. Pakistani men were portrayed as
being particularly repressed sexually. The culture was blamed for the fact that it was white
girls who were being preyed upon (Asian girls were exclusively for marriage). In opposition,
others proposed that there was a culture of neglect that led to the girls being able to be
preyed upon so easily.
Joseph Harker (recent article in The Guardian) spoke out against blaming culture for sexual
abuse which is rife in every community:
Satirical article - ‘It's time to face up to the problem of sexual abuse in the white community’.
Harker uses the recent spate of sex abuse cases involving high profile white men in the UK
(e.g. Jimmy Saville) to make the case that no one would tar all white people with the same
brush in the way that has been the case following the Asian grooming gang scandal.
[Click to reveal quote]: ‘I’m beginning to feel sorry for whites. I have many white friends and I
know most of them are wholly opposed to sexual abuse. But they must be worried that their
whole community is getting a bad name. I can imagine that, every day, with each unfolding
case, they must be hiding their face behind their hands, pleading: "Please, God, don't let it be
a white person this time."’
Harker concludes: ‘all of the above arguments were made within various parts of our print
and broadcast media when similarly small numbers of Muslim men were revealed to be
35. Producing Threat
Criminal
tendencies:
‘Asian
grooming
gangs’
and
‘Sydney
rape
gangs’
‘I’m
beginning
to
feel
sorry
for
whites.
I
have
many
white
friends
and
I
know
most
of
them
are
wholly
opposed
to
sexual
abuse.
But
they
must
be
worried
that
their
whole
community
is
getting
a
bad
name.
I
can
imagine
that,
every
day,
with
each
unfolding
case,
they
must
be
hiding
their
face
behind
their
hands,
pleading:
“Please,
God,
don't
let
it
be
a
white
person
this
time”.’
Joseph
Harker,
The
Guardian,
6
May
2013
Tuesday, 14 May 13
1. Asian Grooming gangs:
Men, mainly of Pakistani Muslim origin (but also Hindus an some whites), in Northern cities in
the UK were found guilty last year of grooming young girls for prostitution. The girls were
mainly white and often either in care or not looked after by their families.
Cultural explanations were used to make sense of this. Pakistani men were portrayed as
being particularly repressed sexually. The culture was blamed for the fact that it was white
girls who were being preyed upon (Asian girls were exclusively for marriage). In opposition,
others proposed that there was a culture of neglect that led to the girls being able to be
preyed upon so easily.
Joseph Harker (recent article in The Guardian) spoke out against blaming culture for sexual
abuse which is rife in every community:
Satirical article - ‘It's time to face up to the problem of sexual abuse in the white community’.
Harker uses the recent spate of sex abuse cases involving high profile white men in the UK
(e.g. Jimmy Saville) to make the case that no one would tar all white people with the same
brush in the way that has been the case following the Asian grooming gang scandal.
[Click to reveal quote]: ‘I’m beginning to feel sorry for whites. I have many white friends and I
know most of them are wholly opposed to sexual abuse. But they must be worried that their
whole community is getting a bad name. I can imagine that, every day, with each unfolding
case, they must be hiding their face behind their hands, pleading: "Please, God, don't let it be
a white person this time."’
Harker concludes: ‘all of the above arguments were made within various parts of our print
and broadcast media when similarly small numbers of Muslim men were revealed to be
36. Producing Threat
Criminal
tendencies:
‘Asian
grooming
gangs’
and
‘Sydney
rape
gangs’
Tuesday, 14 May 13
1. Asian Grooming gangs:
Men, mainly of Pakistani Muslim origin (but also Hindus an some whites), in Northern cities in
the UK were found guilty last year of grooming young girls for prostitution. The girls were
mainly white and often either in care or not looked after by their families.
Cultural explanations were used to make sense of this. Pakistani men were portrayed as
being particularly repressed sexually. The culture was blamed for the fact that it was white
girls who were being preyed upon (Asian girls were exclusively for marriage). In opposition,
others proposed that there was a culture of neglect that led to the girls being able to be
preyed upon so easily.
Joseph Harker (recent article in The Guardian) spoke out against blaming culture for sexual
abuse which is rife in every community:
Satirical article - ‘It's time to face up to the problem of sexual abuse in the white community’.
Harker uses the recent spate of sex abuse cases involving high profile white men in the UK
(e.g. Jimmy Saville) to make the case that no one would tar all white people with the same
brush in the way that has been the case following the Asian grooming gang scandal.
[Click to reveal quote]: ‘I’m beginning to feel sorry for whites. I have many white friends and I
know most of them are wholly opposed to sexual abuse. But they must be worried that their
whole community is getting a bad name. I can imagine that, every day, with each unfolding
case, they must be hiding their face behind their hands, pleading: "Please, God, don't let it be
a white person this time."’
Harker concludes: ‘all of the above arguments were made within various parts of our print
and broadcast media when similarly small numbers of Muslim men were revealed to be
37. The mainstream & the extreme
‘I
am
not
condoning
the
slaughter
in
Norway
or
anywhere...
But
the
jihad-‐loving
media
never
told
us
what
antisemitic
war
games
they
were
playing
on
that
island.
Utoya
Island
is
a
Communist/Socialist
campground,
and
they
clearly
had
a
pro-‐Islamic
agenda...
The
slaughter
was
horrific.
What
these
kids
were
being
taught
and
instructed
to
do
was
a
different
kind
of
grotesque.
There
is
no
justification
for
Breivik's
actions
whatsoever.
There
is
also
no
justification
for
Norway's
antisemitism
and
demonization
of
Israel.’
Pam
Geller,
Atlas
Shrugged
Tuesday, 14 May 13
Link to the crisis of multiculturalism.
Explain Breivik case - Norway at risk of Islamicization supported by tolerant multiculturalist
liberal left (who had to be killed).
Explain Geller - Stop Islamicization of America - first comes to light in protests against
‘Ground Zero Mosque’.
Funds pro=Israel campaign on buses in San Francisco, aimed against Muslims as uncivilised
as opposed to Israel and the West as civilised.
Geller openly endorsed the ideas behind Breivik’s attacks.
But Geller may be considered to be more on the fringes.
Although Breivik’s actions were not condoned by many of the detractors of multiculturalism,
many came out in favour of his ideas.
Breivik’s ‘manifesto’, A European Declaration of Independence, quoted from many
mainstream authors/ journalists (including Melanie Philips - author of Londonistan, strident
opponent of immigration and ‘Islamification’ as well as arch Zionist). Also influenced by
right-wing blogger Bat Ye’Or.
Titley and Lentin: Breivik should be seen as a symptom of European/western racism. His
ideas are not made in a vacuum; they fold out of a logic in which the enemy is everywhere
and western culture is at risk of imminent demise.
Nevertheless, unlike terrorists and terrorist suspects, Breivik is seen as lone wolf, a pariah,
utterly disconnected from other political processes - the war on terror, the construction of
38. Tutorial Questions
Should
we
be
allowed
to
‘laugh
at’
another’s
religion?
Should
there
be
a
distinction
between
Islamophobia
and
other
racisms?
Do
you
think
it’s
fair
to
say
that
there
is
a
‘global
war
on
Muslims’?
Tuesday, 14 May 13