Racism Rears its Ugly Head

Some of the four-year long build up to the European Championships held this year in Poland and Ukraine has focused on the racist abuse black players might receive at the hands of East European fans. In the Champions League and Europa Cup, we’ve seen black players from British teams being racially abused in ways that we haven’t seen in the British Leagues since the 1980s. This has mainly happened in East European countries, although a few times in Spain. We had been proud of our record in managing to kick a lot of the overt elements of racism out of our game. It was no longer deemed acceptable to make monkey noises or throw bananas on the pitch. 

But this season has seen racism rear its ugly head not only off the pitch but also on the pitch. The long campaign to kick racism out of footballer seems to have undermined, mainly by two instances on the pitch. The racist abuse of Patrice Evra by Luis Suarez and the alleged racist abuse of Anton Ferdinand by John Terry. Luis Suarez has already been found guilty by the FA and is currently serving a nine match ban. The allegations against John Terry are still being investigated by the police.

The fans of each club have fervently jumped to the defence of their players. In the case of Luis Suarez, it’s a cultural misunderstanding. In Uruguay, the word ‘negro’ is fine to hurl at a black player. I’ve had this argument several times over Twitter with Liverpool fans. The only argument I seem to have heard so far from Chelsea fans is that John Terry is a ‘legend’, although this doesn’t mean he cannot be racist at the same time.

We now have the situation where fans of both clubs have been accused of racist abuse whether it be the racist chanting that allegedly took place on a train back from Norwich from Chelsea fans or the racist abuse that police are currently questioning a man about after yesterday’s Liverpool v Man Utd match. Racism seems to firmly be back in the public spotlight and from our own fans, something we are meant to have stamped out. 

I lay some of the blame with both Liverpool and Chelsea football clubs. They have vehemently defended their players accused. I understand that you have to back your players and that you have to show support in them but I don’t understand trivalising racism to do so. The Suarez t-shirts worn by the Liverpool players were frankly disturbing. It seemed to give off the message that it’s ok for a player to racially abuse another because he’s one of ours. 

The argument that a lot of Liverpool fans have used to me is that Suarez didn’t realise that it was racist to say ‘negro’ to Evra. If that is the case then don’t try and play it off as ok. Back the Professional Footballer’s Association new scheme to teach foreign players coming into the English leagues what constitutes as racism here. That way racism is continued to be treated seriously. Don’t boo the player who was the victim just because he plays for Man Utd and therefore, somehow, deserved it.

At Anfield yesterday, the atmosphere was so poisonous that BBC Radio 5 were actively hoping that there wouldn’t be a replay. Normally, football pundits would love to see high profile matches played as many times as allowed. It’s a disturbing state of affairs when football becomes so tribalised that it becomes acceptable for racism to take place on the field if by one of your players. It then spreads the message to your fans racism will be tolerated We cannot allow this to continue. 

 

This Christmas spare a thought for the Palestinian Christians

On BBC Radio 4’s the Today programme the other week, they covered a debate in the House of Lords which discussed the position of Arab Christian communities in the Middle East after the various revolutions, with particular emphasis on Egypt’s Coptic community. Rabbi Jonathan Sacks spoke passionately about his fears for Egypt’s Christians after the elections where the Muslim Brotherhood did so well. There was no mention, however, of the Christian community that comes under daily attack in the Holy Land. Indeed, I doubt Jonathan Sacks would be as interested in the plight of this community as their oppressors aren’t Muslims but the state of Israel, for whom he is a regular apologist.

Whilst you start your Christmas festivities this year, spare a thought for the Palestinian Christians. If Mary were alive today and trying to find a place to lay her head, she wouldn’t get into Bethlehem because it’s almost cut off from the rest of the West Bank, surrounded on three sides by a massive concrete apartheid wall. She, Joseph and donkey would have to pass through hundreds of checkpoints on their way. They would often be kept waiting for hours. If Mary went into labour and needed to get through a checkpoint to go to a hospital, there’s no guarantee she would be allowed to pass. Many Palestinian women are forced into the humiliation of giving birth at Israeli checkpoints, in the back of cars, under the eyes of Israeli soldiers. Often, babies don’t survive this start in life.

The Christian communities of Nazareth, Jerusalem and Bethlehem are cut off from each other. Nazareth is part of the borders of 1948 Israel, Jerusalem was illegally annexed in 1967 and Bethlehem has been occupied since then as well. In an effort to turn Jerusalem Jewish, access to the holy sites are denied to the majority of Palestinians. This includes the Church of the Holy Sepulchre for Palestinian Christians.

In an effort to prove the history and heritage of ancient Jewish Israel, the archaeology of later centuries is disregarded and often destroyed by Israel. It wouldn’t do to prove that there is a rich, non-Jewish history for the land. That belies the Zionist claims that Israel is a “land without people for a people without land”. It would also show ideas of Zionists “making the desert bloom” are a complete lie. Early Christian archaeology is as disregarded as it’s Palestinian communities.

The threat for Palestinian Christians doesn’t lie with Islamists but with Israel, who are keen to destroy them as they are their Palestinian Muslim counterparts. To cleanse the Holy Land of their Christians is an aim of Zionism and, sadly, international leaders collaborate with them. Newt Gingrich, a Republican presidency candidate in the US, recently called the Palestinians an invented people. Many of his voters are from right-wing churches who seek a candidate who represents their Christian values. The Palestinian Christians would not recognise these values as they undermine their right to live in the Holy Land. Many churches across the USA fund and politically support Israel. In doing so, they destroy the ancient Christian communities that have lived in Palestine since the time of Jesus. That is a tragedy for Christianity.

Media coverage of Israel/Palestine: The Shalit case

The media has been covering in detail the news that Hamas and Israel have reached an agreement to swap one thousand Palestinian prisoners for Gilad Shalit. This coverage has once again thrown into sharp contrast the way the two countries are reported by UK media outlets.

Gilad Shalit has been the major story. There has been extensive coverage of the what the average Israeli thinks about his release, what his family and supporters think about his release and what the Israeli government have given up to achieve his release. Much emphasis is placed on Shalit being the ‘boy next door’ and the ‘son of every Israeli’ who was just ‘doing his job’ when he was cruelly kidnapped by Hamas. This is the emotion in the story, the shy boy from Israel who is finally coming home to a hero’s welcome. We are all encouraged to sympathise with his plight and that of his family. As a mother I do, I’d be devastated if my son was held hostage for five years. I’d be even more devastated if my child was arrested for nothing and then held indefinitely or until they can be part of a prisoner swap to release an Israeli solder.

The Palestinian story is tacked on the end. Some of the more reputable media outlets may even include an interview with a family member of one of the Palestinian prisoners who will be released. The role of the Palestinian story is to highlight that this prisoner swap is a political coup for Hamas. An increasingly unpopular party needs a seeming victory to make it relevant in light of Mahmoud Abbas and the bid for Palestinian statehood. There is no emotional story for the public to invest in. No stories of political prisoners, how long they have been kept in Israeli detention for or indeed how many aren’t actually even guilty of anything other than being Palestinian.

This is symptomatic of the way in which the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is reported by the UK media. We are encouraged to empathise with Israelis but Palestinians remain strange and alien to us. Each time an Israeli is hurt by a Palestinian, it is international news and highlights the need for security for Israelis before peace can be achieved (and other cliches) but Israeli settlers running down Palestinian school children and terrorising farmers is never mentioned. That would muddy the waters of how we are supposed to feel.

There is no mention either that Gilad Shalit was a occupying soldier when he was capture by Hamas. This would destroy the image of him being a shy, boy next door. Neither are the number of Palestinian children held in Israeli prisons brought up. The idea of the Israeli Defence Force being the most moral army in the world could be called into question if footage of them arresting 8-year-old boys was aired.

The coverage of Gilad Shalit and the Palestinian prisoner swap is just another case in a long line of media stories where Israelis are presented as human and Palestinians are just an overwhelming number looking to over-run this poor, defenceless nation.

The shameful truth the riots have uncovered

The United Kingdom prides itself on its long-standing tradition of civil liberties and respect for human rights. It is what (supposedly) makes us different from less civilised areas of the world and (apparently) gives us the ‘authority’ to enforce these values on other countries. However, the furore in the aftermath of the riots that spread across England over this last week has ripped the veneer off our society and shown how many Britons appear to only respect such values when applied uncontroversially.

The populist mantra to evict families of rioters and take away any benefits that said families receive have been pounced upon by a government that is looking for an excuse to not only destroy the welfare state but to curtail our civil liberties and apply human rights only to the ‘deserving’. The public seem to be lapping this up convinced that it makes us tough on rioters and the causes of riots.

When the House of Commons was recalled for an emergency session on Thursday, our Prime Minister used his statement to encourage councils and landlords to evict any tenants and their families who had played a role in the rioting and looting. The House loudly cheered this across both benches. The first eviction orders have been given to a family in Wandsworth who have a member who was part of the riots.  This is being reported by our media as if it is par for the course and not a disgusting example of collective punishment that makes a mockery of our judicial system.

Not content with making an example of the looters, our government, both national and local, seems determined to make an example of their families too. Punishment, so it seems, for not being able to exercise greater control over their members (children or not). What baffles me is how such action is going to improve the situation so no such riots break out again (or at least for a long time).

For the last week, we have been bombarded with the idea that the people out on the street form an “under-class”, a sub-section of humanity who live in deprived areas, have no education and live in extreme poverty. Apparently they have a lack of authority at home and a lack of respect to institutional forms of authority. This message has confusingly been mixed in with ideas of opportunistic criminals and feral children who highlight our “sick society”. However, the truth is far more complicated. Those up in court have included professionals such as graphic designers and teachers. And despite the attempts of the BNP, EDL and other racists such as historian David Starkey to paint them otherwise, the riots were multi-racial as were the victims.

Attempts to blame a ‘sub-class’ of society is to ignore the uncomfortable truth that our society is riven by inequality, rampant consumerism and feelings of impunity. Why should ordinary citizens respect the law when our MPs, police and media disregard it for their own gains, whether fiddling expenses or bribing police officers for the contact details of dead teenagers.  The de-politicisation of our society through celebrity worship has come at a price which was highlighted by the severe looting during the riots. This was not like the riots in the 1980s against discrimination and racism.

Before I get accused of being a navel gazing, hand-wringing, bleeding heart liberal, I feel no desire to excuse looting, the loss of life or livelihoods of many ordinary people. But I refuse to turn into a Daily Mail columnist for a week, foaming at the mouth in my outrage, demanding greater police powers, the army on the streets and collective punishment for families. I’m happy to see those accused of murder, arson and looting to go up before the courts but for me that is where the buck stops. I feel no desire to see whole families on the streets, children being punished for the crimes of their older siblings or parents. I’d rather we spent more money on youth groups, mentoring schemes and more, properly paid and trained social workers to support families who may have troublesome children. So if this makes me a bleeding heart liberal in your view then I guess I am proud to be one. I do not wish to see human rights being treated as if they are a luxury and not a right for all.

Tired of BBC censorship of Palestine?

Tired of BBC censorship of Palestine and the deeply patronising ‘responses’ you receive when complaining of their impartial coverage of the conflict?

Well here is something you can do that will challenge their censorship policy, doesn’t require you moving from your desk and only costs 79p. Download War on Want’s charity single “Freedom for Palestine” and get it into the top 30 of the UK singles chart.

You can pre-order the single from today and can preview the track here.

The media cult of Anjam Choudhury

A couple of weekends ago, a BBC programme called the Big Question aired an episode titled “Does Britain have a problem with Muslims”. I’m not going to write about this programme as Islamophobia Watch already have. I am concerned that the programme’s editors seriously considered inviting Anjam Choudhury onto the panel and Nicky Campbell actually read out a statement from him.

The media obsession with Choudhury is becoming ridiculous. His PR stunts receive widespread media coverage and he is often interviewed or quoted in many reports regarding Muslims. He represents a tiny minority of Muslims who hold abhorrent views that the vast majority of Muslims reject. There is no justification for the media giving him this much attention. However, they do so because it serves an agenda for them. He is sensationalist and sells newspapers. But he also divides the Muslim community off from mainstream British society which anti-immigration media outlets like because it highlights the ‘perils’ of immigration.

The seeming need for him to be included in every programme or article about Muslims is disheartening for the Muslim community. He is as representative as the BNP or EDL are of British society. Imagine the outcry if Nick Griffin was as widely interviewed by foreign news outlets and used to explain Britain.

Orientalist trends on covering Palestine

After Sunday’s Nakba protests turned violent on three separate fronts, a journalist on twitter asked whether throwing stones was good for the Palestinian “brand”. Whether the journalist was looking to blame Palestinians for the violence or not, this type of question highlights the orientalist way in which Palestine is covered by a lot of western news outlets.

There is no examination of the Israeli psyche or questioning whether over a dozen dead on 3 different fronts is bad for the Israeli “brand”. No, its looking specifically at the ‘violence’ directed at the IDF by Palestinian youths throwing stones. And this is fairly typical. The western media is transfixed by Palestinian minds, actions and deeds. A common question asked is why is there no Palestinian Gandhi. Gandhi was oriental so why can’t oriental Palestine find their version. Gandhi is the oriental ‘we’ like.

The emphasis on breaking the cycle of violence is generally placed on Palestinian shoulders from stone throwing to home-made rockets. If Palestinians could just stop doing this, says the media and politicians, then a peace settlement could be reached. This equates Palestinians as the problem. They are the irrational, violent, unreasonable factor. If they could just rid themselves of this trait and find a Gandhi then everything would be fine despite all the evidence showing that the Israeli establishment does not wish for peace but wants expansion instead.

But this orientalist trend is not only present in how violence is reported but also in how grief is shown. When we see Palestinians mourning their dead, we are shown shots of angry chanting at funeral processions, we focus on the dead persons female relatives with their wailing and face clawing. In stark contrast, Israelis are shown mourning in a familiar ‘western’ way – dressed in dark suits and standing dignified at a graveside. There is no face clawing just a tear trickling down the cheek in a more ‘acceptable’ form of grief.

Palestine and Israel too are shot in different ways. To show Palestine, we see rubbish strewn streets, donkeys pulling carts, women covered up and lots children roaming the streets. A chaotic scene at odds with the ‘western’ lifestyle of beaches, cafes and clubs used for Israel. Even the illegal settlements are shown to have a familiar homelike quality. Neat houses with lawns and children playing out the front on their bikes. No grubby kids here swarming towards the camera pleased when you give them a sweet.

This very much presents an ‘us’ versus ‘them’ psychology in the minds of the viewer. Palestinians are alien, strange and vaguely threatening. Their mindset is impenetrable. Their actions are incomprehensible. All this reinforces the idea that if Palestinians could just be more like ‘us’ then peace could be easily achieved.

No emphasis is placed on Israel’s actions. They after all belong to the superior ‘western’ culture. Their lifestyle is ‘ours’ and is what Palestinians should be striving to achieve. They fight with an army like the West and not with a radical militia who strap bombs to themselves or with youths who throw lethal stones.

Which takes us back to the question posted on twitter, is stone throwing bad for the Palestinian ‘brand’ and why is there no Palestinian Gandhi? Try breaking out of that cycle in you can.

Israel and Iran remain at heart of western reactions to the Arab uprisings

Fears over the stability and status quo of the Middle East are plaguing the leaders of Europe and America. The Arab uprisings have no sign of stopping no matter how much blood is shed and are moving from country to country. The latest country to rise up is Syria, not many people predicted this happening. No matter how much blood is spilt, how hard the governments look to come down on the protesters, Arab populations are continuing to put their lives on the line by going out into the streets calling for change.

How western leaders react to each uprising is interesting. Libya is the only country where they really backed the ‘rebels’ from the outset and are now aiding with military assistance. The rest of the uprisings have met with muted critical statements and much use of the word ‘stability’.  Much of this has to do with the geo-political importance of the countries. Egypt is a key player in pushing for normalisation with Israel, shares a crucial border and actively collaborates with Israel in keeping Gaza the world’s largest open air prison. Syria, despite its close ties to Iran and Hezbollah, keeps it’s border with Israel quiet. Bahrain is a key US military base and it’s Sunni rulers are keen to portray their rule as a defence against Iranian influence. Yemen is keen to co-operate with the US in attempting to crush Al-Qaeda influences in the country.

No-one in America or Europe wants to see any more of these leaders fall. The protests represent an uncontrollable element and raise fears of a 1979 Iranian style revolution that would see Islamists come to power.  Mubarak’s fall from power has been cushioned by the involvement of the army who don’t wish to rock the boat with Israel. Despite deep frustrations within Egyptian society, the leaders collaboration with Israel looks set to continue. Any genuine shift in power towards the Egyptian people would be unacceptable as it would likely end this unpopular friendship.

The position of Israel as the alpha country  is of paramount importance especially in the US, where senators fear the wrath of Israel and AIPAC. Any move to democratisation that could threaten this are worrying and are not to be encouraged. The ‘stability’ offered by dictators willing to massacre their citizens to cling to power is to be lauded. This is because western leaders are well aware that, 63 years on, acceptance of Israel among Arabs is very far from being achieved whatever their leaders try to convey. The injustice and daily humiliations of Palestinians is felt deeply by many across the Arab world.

Add into this a very real fear of Iran and their power. The royal family of Bahrain are propped up as they do a good job in suppressing their Shi’a majority population. Democracy cannot be encouraged here in case Iran is able to influence Shi’ite political parties. Complicit international silence has met the widespread arrest of doctors, sportsmen and most shockingly school-children.

All this makes a mockery of NATOs intervention in Libya. If this is a purely humanitarian intervention then why are there no interventions in Syria, where protesters have been machine gunned, in Bahrain where security services are terrorising children in schools or in Yemen where protesters have been persistently targeted by snipers?

NATO has chosen Libya as worthy of intervention because it has limited effect on the political realities in the Middle East. There is no threat to Israel, no chance of Iranian influence or realistic possibility of Al-Qaeda infiltration.

Why Bahrain truly represents world leaders’ reaction to the Arab Spring

Cameron, Sarkozy and Obama would like us to see the no fly zone in Libya as representative of their reactions to the popular uprisings sweeping through the Arab world at the moment. However, it is Bahrain and the non-action that shows what they truly think.

Bahrain has disappeared from the media. The situation is deteriorating with the Bahraini authorities going into schools, hospitals and offices to arrest those, children included, who have taken part in the anti-government protests, who have relatives who have or who have treated protesters injured by security forces. Two people have already died in police custody that we know of whilst protest leaders have been arrested and are being put on trial at military tribunals. Shi’ite mosques are being torn down whether they are government registered or not and we are witnessing the overall targeting of the Shi’a majority. But you wouldn’t know it from watching the news or listening to NATO leaders who speak daily about their operation in Libya to protect the civilians.

But what about Bahrain’s civilian population? Well, the problem for them is that they are being killed, tortured and unlawfully imprisoned by a royal family who are hugely important for western interests. Bahrain is home to the US 5th fleet. The majority of the protesters happen to be Shi’a which automatically makes them suspicious as they could be working for Bahrain’s neighbour Iran. So what we get is collaborative silence by global leaders and the global media.  Obama has reportedly been told by Saudi Arabia that the Saudis will keep silent and tacitly support NATOs actions in Libya as long as there is western silence on Bahrain.

And this silence truly represents world leaders’ reactions to the Arab Spring. They do not wish to see popular uprisings sweeping through the region. This upsets the status quo and can unleash political forces that may not tow the line on national resources or regional politics especially when it comes to Israel.  In the case of Bashar Assad in Syria it really is a case of better the devil you know. He keeps the border with Israel quiet and keeps Syria relatively stable despite his ties with Iran and Hezbollah. So we see silence on Bahrain and the hope that the protesters can be crushed in time for the Grand Prix to be rescheduled later in the season. We see weak statements being released on Syria. We see relief that the army seems unwilling to allow true democracy in Egypt. And we see a political and media circus around Libya hoping to fool us that NATO is supporting true democracy across the Middle East.

Creeping Sharia? Give me a break

According to far-right groups ably backed up by several right-wing newspapers of choice, Britain is sleepwalking its way to becoming a Sharia state. This is clearly bollocks.

First off, Muslims make up around 2% of the British population, how is that 2% is meant to enforce Sharia law for the 98% of the rest of the country? Secondly, there is no way this would pass through Parliament. Yes, EDL lovers, remember that bastion of democracy?

Politicians are currently falling over themselves to show that they can be tough on ‘extremists’ (read British Muslims) from the unpleasant scare-mongering of Phil Woolas’ election pamphlets to David Cameron’s ‘muscular liberalism’. They are backed up by the right-wing media that looks to demonise British Muslims to further their anti-immigration agenda.

But yet again, we see the spectre of creeping Sharia raised once more over the abhorrent ‘gay free-zone’ stickers that have surfaced in Tower Hamlets recently. Today the Daily Mail has a article entitled “wear the headscarf of we’ll kill you. How ‘London Taliban’ is targetting women & gays in bid to impose Sharia law” complete with EDL inflaming picture of a white women dressed up in a niqab (despite the headscarf threat apparently being issued to Asian Muslim women). The article also quotes tabloid’s favourite Muslim spokesman, Anjam Choudhury, despite him heading a group of around 40 people.

Quite how this small band of Muslims is going to enforce Sharia law for the rest of 60+ million Britons is confusing for me. No where does this article address how this is going to be achieved. Instead we have another in a long line of articles that looks to whip up support for groups like the EDL and make many Britons fear Muslims and immigration in general. Once again, we see irresponsible reporting that focuses on the actions of a tiny minority, gives them too much publicity and makes it seem as if their actions are supported by the mainstream Muslim community.

And that’s the reality of the ‘creeping Sharia’ story, it’s something made up by parts of the media, far-right groups and politicians to keep the public in fear of a community. This way they can sell papers, gain supporters and most disgustingly win votes.

More importantly, this idea that Britain is bowing to a minority section of society is being used to try and enforce ‘traditional British’ values on a society that is increasingly moving away from 1950s Britain. The Daily Mail et al are full of stories of how unmarried parents are destroying their children’s lives, how homosexuals (when they are not being used to highlight evil Muslims) are destroying the fabric of British society and how women with a career are neglecting their own happiness because they are not caring for their men.

Creeping Sharia is also being used to boost anti-immigration rhetoric through the idea that letting in immigrants is erasing British culture despite the fact that British culture is based on thousands of years of immigration.

In reality, Britain is not under siege, Sharia law has no chance of ever becoming state law and white Britons are not going to ‘die out’. Multiculturalism, despite becoming a dirty word, has benefited this country hugely from fusion cooking to better corner shops. The majority of Britons would hate to return to the Daily Mail utopia of 1950s Britain where racism was rampant and divorce was a stigma. It’s about time we called the media on their bullshit and told them enough is enough.