An-Nisa urge Brent Council to reject the APPG definition of Islamophobia at tonight's Council Meeting

Statement from An-Nisa Society

An-Nisa Society urges Brent Council to reject the All-Party Parliamentary Group's ill thought out and regressive definition of Islamophobia at the full Council meeting on Monday July 8th that has been tabled by for adoption by Cllr Ahmad Shahzad (Labour - Mapesbury) LINK.

An-Nisa Society rejects this definition which states that:

“Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.” 

The definition and the arguments in the report are riddled with thinking that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

We reject that Islamophobia is a form of racism. Rather, it is a deeply rooted historical hatred and prejudice of Islam as a faith and of its adherents, who are Muslims who are from diverse ethnic and racial backgrounds. This manifests in prejudice, discrimination, abuse and attacks. It is a hatred of Islam and Muslims that drives the discrimination and attacks. This is not just the case in the West but also in places like China, India and Myanmar.

To subsume Islamophobia into racism, which is about colour and ethnicity no matter how much this definition is trying to manipulate it as a form of ‘cultural’ racism, is to minimise the alarming extent of the hatred of Islam. We cannot combat Islamophobia effectively if the root cause is not properly identified.

This definition of Islamophobia, like the Prevent policy and its Public Sector Duty, will do little to improve conditions for our local Muslim communities. It not only fails to identify the root causes but fails to address the most important issues that are about implementation and resources for implementation.  This report does not offer any guidelines how it will be implemented in practice.

If racism alone was the issue then the anti-racism policies that have been implemented for decades would be enough to tackle this social exclusion of Muslims and the hate crimes perpetrated against them. But they clearly haven’t.

While there is often intersectionality with racism Islamophobia is s specifically anti-Muslim religious discrimination. Unless this is understood and taken on board then adopting any definition that says otherwise is not only not fit for purpose and unworkable. It is also detrimental as there will be a false impression that something is being done, thereby preventing a more relevant and meaningful definition to be worked at,

The definition is regressive and undermines all the work that has been done since the mid 80’s to identify Islamophobia as faith based and not race based. The campaign to tackle anti-Muslim exclusion and anti-Muslim hatred began in the mid 1980s in Brent, led and initiated by An-Nisa Society as a call for the government and the anti-racist movement to acknowledge anti-Muslim discrimination as a specific discrimination separate but sometimes intersectional with race. It is ironic that a movement that started locally by Muslim women and taken on board nationally has never been addressed in it’s place of origin. (1)

Our Director has worked for Brent Council in its Race Relations Unit and has served as a Commissioner with The Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia and as a trustee for the Forum Against Islamophobia and Racism.

Getting the definition right should not be piggybacked on other existing recognised hatreds or as a defensive reaction to those who will attack the existence of Islamophobia. For example,

Pragmatism

“In this definition of Islamophobia, the link to racism is made for both pragmatic and theoretical reasons.  Pragmatically, many large organisations already have in place mechanisms and protocols for dealing with racism; therefore, by articulating Islamophobia as a form of racism, there is no need to invent new procedures to deal with complaints and concerns that arise. Theoretically, racism is understood to be a form of regulation based on racialization by which collective identities are formed and placed in hierarchies." (2)

If these race-based structures had worked for Islamophobia we wouldn’t have had to campaign for decades for separate recognition. And why should we be pragmatic? We have to be bold and courageous and chart our own experience of prejudice and discrimination and how to it need to be addressed.

Lazy thinking

Should the definition be an almost word for word copy of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-semitism?

“The authors of the report have taken the structure and content of IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism as their starting point and, in many places, done little more than cross out ‘Jew’ and insert ‘Muslim’ in its place. Most forms of bigotry have some common characteristics but diverge significantly in their details and form. Homophobia doesn’t take the same form as anti-Black racism. Transphobia isn’t identical to misogyny. If you start out with a definition of antisemitism and try to apply it to the sort of hatred that Muslims face, you will miss the mark.” (3)

Freedom of Speech & the Right to Criticise religion

And of course the issue of freedom of speech and the right to criticise religion. Yes we agree that any criticism of Islam that is made in good faith is welcome. What is not welcome where this is used as a cover to incite hatred of Islam and Muslims, either directly or indirectly leading to discrimination and attacks on Muslims. This needs to be addressed robustly through our laws around incitement to hatred, which at the moment it isn’t.

We urge Brent Council to reject this definition.


References

1) http://www.insted.co.uk/islam.html#concepts

2)https://www.criticalmuslimstudies.co.uk/defining-islamophobia/?fbclid=IwAR3cm0gC1VyFJSMTJAyxqS9R1OZq_jRtBZKXVy0-QevvUmKFHtwSmFGspUg

3)https://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/we-need-an-effective-definition-of-islamophobia-1.481712

Don't bomb Syria - weaken ISIS by cutting off its funds and arms supplies

I am publishing this letter to Dawn Butler from local activist Sarah Cox as a Guest Blog in the light of Dawn Butler's call for constituents to give her their views on the bombing of Syria. Butler's poll is HERE

 I have just sent this email to Dawn Butler. Please email her too. You can do it through the Stop the War Coalition website Home or write your own email LINK
 
Dear Dawn Butler,

Thank you for your very thoughtful reply to my previous email to you about the possibility of Britain joining in the bombing of Syria. I would like to ask you to consider again how dangerous and indeed counterproductive such a course of action would be.

I am sure you agree that policy decisions should be evidence based, not the result of knee jerk reactions or simply about this country's position in the world, so I am asking you to consider the following facts:

The US has been bombing ISIS positions for a year now and far from reducing the number of ISIS fighters or the area of land they control, both have increased. In fact it has been argued by some Middle East experts that US bombs act as recruiting agents for ISIS.

The bombing and invasion of Iraq did not bring peace and stability to that country, in fact ISIS was born out of the divisions in Iraqi society introduced by the US sponsored Iraqi government.
The bombing and occupation of Afghanistan have not brought peace or stability to that country, nor did NATO forces succeed in their stated aim of eliminating the Taliban, which still controls large parts of the country.

Allied bombing of Libya has not brought peace or stability to that country, in fact it has resulted in the creation of a chaotic failed state in which ISIS is able to recruit and organise.

Only today we learn that Turkish forces have shot down a Russian plane, claiming it was over Turkish airspace, while Russia insists it had not left Syrian airspace. How sensible is it to send more planes into the already crowded airspace over ISIS positions in Syria?

There are up to six million civilians living in the areas under ISIS control. Do you seriously believe that US, French, Australian, Jordanian, Russian and, if this country joins in, British bombs can distinguish between innocent civilians and ISIS supporters any more than the bombs dropped on Dresden (arguably a war crime by today's standards) did between Nazis and ordinary people suffering under Nazi rule?

Can there be any justification for dropping bombs on ISIS because they behead and inflict other barbarous punishments on the people in the areas they control, while continuing to supply arms to Saudi Arabia and other states which also behead and inflict barbarous punishments on people living in their countries? Saudi Arabia does behead people publicly, contrary to what David Cameron says, earlier this year they advertised for eight more executioners and recently sentenced a Sri Lankan woman domestic worker to be stoned to death, yet Britain regards Saudi Arabia, which arms and supports ISIS as a friend and ally.

Surely Jeremy Corbyn is right to say that the priority must be to cut off funding, support and arms supplies to ISIS and to seek a political solution to the immensely complex situation in Syria?

As for the threat of terrorist attacks in this country, I believe that indiscriminate bombing and increasing Western intervention in the Middle East make these more likely and that cuts to police funding will make us less safe. At the same time, a climate of rising Islamophobia, cuts to youth services and policies like the Prevent strategy that seek to silence debate about foreign policy or issues like Palestine could increase disaffection among young Muslims.

Thank you for taking the time  to read this. Please vote against further bombing of Syria and support policies that weaken ISIS by decreasing or stopping its funding and its arms supplies.

Yours sincerely,
Sarah Cox