The TalkRADIO interview appeared on their Twitter account on March 27, before removal, and read: “Gay paramedic Tom says he was stopped from entering a mosque in Oldham to render assistance to a heart attack victim and lives in constant fear after death threats.” The original tweet had gained over 300 retweets before its removal.

Various far-right websites and Facebook pages had shared the content or reposted it on their websites, adding further layers to their ideological bivouacs, an issue long-highlighted in Tell MAMA’s reports and research. To not give undue attention further, we are not naming these examples.

A day later, the Express newspaper embedded a segment of the TalkRADIO interview under the headline, “Gay paramedic says he was ‘refused entry’ to a mosque” but did not expand the story further.

That same day, however, a more detailed variation of the falsehood appeared on the Daily Star, headlined: “Gay paramedic says he was refused entry to a mosque to treat heart attack patient” as the sub-heading placed the mosque in Manchester, not Oldham, as TalkRADIO has tweeted, though on its official Facebook, TalkRADIO had listed the mosque’s location as Manchester (as confirmed by the URL link) in a now-deleted post.

The Daily Star article quoting from the interview claims that the caller who identified as a pracademic had made a complaint to the North West Ambulance Service, who had, in turn, ‘spoken to the Imam’. Other comments transcribed from the interview perpetuated anti-Muslim and Islamophobic falsehoods about ‘no-go zones‘, which continues to endure.

Given the serious nature of the allegations, the North West Ambulance Service investigated, and in a statement published on March 29, the thorough investigation concluded that “the local management team have not been informed of any such exchange taking place”.

The statement added: “we therefore have no reason to believe that the allegations made by someone maintaining to be an NWAS member of staff are true,” adding that they maintain good relations with faith leaders across the region and do not see the comments as ‘representative of the situation’ in their local communities. The NWAS tweeted the statement two additional times in reply to TalkRADIO and the interview host, Cristo Foufas.

The Official NWAS LGBT Network Twitter account tweeted, “We’ve been made aware of this incident and are confident this was not a member of our staff,” adding how they value the work of faith leaders in the local area, and “look forward to renewing these Positive relationships very soon.”

The Daily Star also deleted tweets that had shared the falsehood on March 28.

Credit: Twitter.

As of writing, neither the Daily Star nor the Daily Express has acknowledged the removal nor apologised.

Cristo Foufas, however, during a segment yesterday on TalkRADIO, stated that they had made multiple attempts to contact the caller but had yet to receive a response, saying: “That it could be that we’ve been duped. It could be that his story was an absolute load of rubbish, and the trust I have, when people call this show, was broken, and that I was and my team were duped by that call, and if we were, I’m really sorry.”

He added that an ‘immediate decision’ had been taken from management to remove all content of the interview from social media following the tweet from the NWAS as they could not verify the details further.

The post TalkRADIO, the Daily Express, and Daily Star remove false story about mosque appeared first on TELL MAMA.

Credit: Twitter.

Charles Hymas, the newspaper’s Home Affairs Editor, tweeted: “It is based on our understanding of PHE data” in response to a query from Hamza Azhar Salam, a journalist who contributes to The News International, who was encouraged to contact Public Health England.

A spokesperson for Public Health England confirmed the small figure of around 30 cases since June 4, in a statement to the News International.

As one major study found, however, a clear majority of coronavirus came to the UK from Europe, with 75 per cent of initial cases alone followed periods of travel from Italy (14.4 per cent), Spain (33.6 per cent), and France (28.5 per cent) between the end of February and the end of March. Moreover, the study reported that throughout mid-March, the UK had welcomed 20,000 inbound passengers per day from Spain.

The Telegraph coverage also appears to suggest that Pakistan is reporting 4,000 new Covid-19 cases per day since March 1, a date from where 65,000 people flew from the country into Britain.

Pakistan had, for a brief time, suspended commercial air travel between March 21 and April 4, to curb the spread of coronavirus, which caused anxiety for those seeking to return to the UK on chartered flights.

Pakistan’s Health Ministry did not confirm a single-day rise of more than 4,000 cases of coronavirus until early June, however.

Sayed Bukhari, who is the special assistant to PM Imran Khan, called the coverage a “hatchet job” in several tweets.

A change.org petition which has over 3,500 signatures as of writing, is calling for IPSO to investigate coverage in the Sun, Telegraph, and MailOnline, as it calls for apologies and corrections from each title.

It asks that Public Health England are more transparent in its reporting, more so, as factors including systemic racism, discrimination and social inequalities are factors in the disproportionate deaths among black, Asian, and minority ethnic communities from Covid-19.

Tell MAMA also received several reports from members of the public who expressed their concerns about the misleading and inflammatory coverage.

The Sun’s coverage followed a similar pattern: a speculative and inflammatory headline, rebuffed by the actual figure of 30 imported cases specified in the fourth paragraph. Its headline, however, read: “Half of UK imported coronavirus cases ‘originate from Pakistan’ amid calls for tougher checks on ‘high risk countries’.”

Coverage, in the MailOnline, did acknowledge the month of June its headline, with its first subheading providing context for the sensationalised headline.

Credit:MailOnline

It also mirrors coverage the Telegraph as it appears to suggest that Pakistan has reported 4,000 coronavirus cases per day since March 1.

A recent policy shift, which took effect on June 8, mandates self-quarantine for all arrivals into the UK (which some small exceptions), with a breach resulting in a £1,000 fixed penalty notice in England.

UPDATE: June 30

The Sun has amended its misleading original headline which had read "Half of UK imported coronavirus cases ‘originate from Pakistan’ amid calls for tougher checks on ‘high risk countries’.” pic.twitter.com/Xpf8v849Tk

— Tell MAMA UK (@TellMamaUK) June 30, 2020

UPDATE: July 1

The MailOnline has, today, acknowledged its amendment to a misleading and inflammatory headline about imported Covid-19 cases into the UK from Pakistan.

The Sun published its own correction yesterday.

Read our analysis on this issue from 2 days ago: https://t.co/FLBHK7R0F0 pic.twitter.com/ca58PEXNne

— Tell MAMA UK (@TellMamaUK) July 1, 2020

The post Telegraph claim that ‘half’ of UK’s imported Covid-19 cases from Pakistan total just 30 since June 4 appeared first on TELL MAMA.

The headline appeared in an article published on December 17, 2019, which in its print edition had read, “Islamist centre’s pub conversion set for approval”, with a near-identical headline of “Plans to convert pub into Islamist community centre set for approval” appearing online.

The corrected headline as it appeared in later online editions. Credit: Colchester Gazette.

Shoomi Chowdhury raised a complaint with the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), on grounds of accuracy and discrimination. Concerning the former, she argued that the term “Islamist” was understood to refer to violent extremists, and it was, therefore, inaccurate to describe the community centre in this way.

She added a complaint of Clause 12 (Discrimination), fearing that such a headline could incite anti-Muslim hatred, racism, and Islamophobia towards Muslims.

The newspaper accepted all fault, suggesting that it was human error on behalf of the journalist, who felt remorse for their mistake. Staff then spoke with the content editor and journalist, ensuring that such mistakes will not occur in the future.

A correction appeared in the print edition of the newspaper before the complaint reached IPSO, which read: “In yesterday’s Gazette we printed an article about Colchester Islamic Community Centre’s bid to convert the former Beehive pub. In the headline, the word “Islamist” was used – a term that refers to militancy and fundamentalism.

We apologise for this grave error; the headline should have read “Islamic centre’s pub conversion bid set for approval”. We have received many complaints from different communities.”

The clarification added that the Colchester Islamic Community Centre “is a community and family-centred organisation whose work has always looked at the betterment of Colchester and looking to positively contribute to the community.”

Due to a satisfactory mediation, IPSO did not mediate further.

A Tell MAMA investigation, however, has found, that due to the audited nature of this local newspaper network, owned by Newsquest, the “Islamist” headline appeared in several other online editions: including the Maldon Standard, Brentwood Live, the Halstead Gazette, the Daily Gazette, the Braintree & Witham Times, and the Harwich & Manningtree Standard.

Credit: Muck Rack.

Some of the URL permalinks had contained the text “crunch-time-islamist-centre-pub-conversion” before correction, and, as further online searches reveal, the original headline still appears under this search query, which re-directs to the corrected headlines if clicked. The originals are still available through cached results.

Nor do any of the online editions carry the same correction and clarification.

Recent polling of Muslims in Britain found a lack of trust in the media when compared to other public institutions.

Guidance for journalists covering issues about Islam and Muslims published last year by the Scottish parliament’s cross-party group (CPG) on tackling Islamophobia, aims to change this. Professor Peter Hopkins, who co-authored the report, said: “We know from research that problematic media representations play a key role in fostering Islamophobia so we hope that this guidance will help to improve the portrayal, accuracy, representation and terminology used about Islam and Muslims, for the benefit of all.”

This theme is something that Tell MAMA has long explored in its annual reports and challenged.

It is, however, surprising that the online editions do not carry such clarifications, and we urge that this corrected.

Workplace diversity is a crucial tool in ensuring that such mistakes do not happen, and we have long championed more Muslim representation at all levels of journalism, including in editorial positions.

The post Local newspaper apologises for ‘grave error’ over inflammatory “Islamist community centre” headline appeared first on TELL MAMA.

On December 12, the French-language TVA Nouvelles published a report alleging that mosque administrators wanted females removed from a construction site near two mosques during Friday prayers.

A detailed investigation from the Quebec Construction Commission, however, found no such evidence of this claim.

Dominique Vien, Quebec’s labour minister confirmed that no such request was made.

Diane Lemieux, who heads the construction commission, told a press conference that “It’s very clear the mosque never made this kind of request.”

Serge Boileau, director of the Commission des services électriques de Montréal, stated that his company had received no such request from the mosque. Per the agreement signed, construction work on Friday is minimised to avoid noise which Boileau accepted was an ‘understandable’ request, according to the Montreal Gazette.

The original TVA Nouvelles report has not yet corrected its initial report despite BuzzFeed News approaching it for comment.

But the damage is done. And the consequences of this falsehood is felt by many local Muslims. Shahad Salman, who attends the Ahl-Ill Bait Mosque, told CBC News that news story was ‘beyond harmful.’

Death threats and threats to burn down the building were sent to the mosque following the TVA Nouvelles story, according to a legal representative of the mosque, adding that the mosque has not ruled out legal action, in a statement to BuzzFeed News.

This media falsehood energised sections of the Canadian far-right who arranged then cancelled a planned protest.

Rebel Media twisted the story into an example of Muslim ‘no-go’ zones. And this distortion of events was then shared by Paul Joseph Watson of the conspiracy website InfoWars, gaining over two-thousand retweets.

Credit: Twitter.

The post No, a Montreal mosque did not ban female construction workers appeared first on TELL MAMA.

To give context to the Independent article, it is important to state the following given the fact that there are other issues that drive anti-Muslim sentiment. Terrorism is one, inflammatory media headlines are another and we have seen this when headlines are emblazoned across front pages, only for minute retractions to be printed after IPSO complaints. Such work, (of holding to account stories that are not factually correct and meant to sell more newspapers or drive more traffic to a website), is essential and we salute those who carry out this vital work since it does help to reframe facts from fiction. There are a growing number of activists from Muslim and non-Muslim communities doing this and we value their much-needed work with the hope that it continues in the future.

We also understand that many people focus on the role of inflammatory and inaccurate media coverage. This does not make them Islamists, nor should their work be curtailed since holding to account the powerful is a fundamental plank of a healthy democracy, while we primarily focus on supporting those affected by anti-Muslim hate crime, we also use our platform to challenge press inaccuracies, or when hate crime spikes occur in other major political events, be it domestically or internationally.

What is a problem, is when some believe that the media is the only driver, as others may choose to deny or even acknowledge the lasting impacts of terrorisms on communities and individuals, either directly or indirectly. Some may feel that terrorism is not their responsibility, and that is their position to hold. We understand such a position but digress, as it is still our desire to challenge those who seek division through acts of terroristic violence, and how such hatreds manifest, and we remain committed to challenging all forms of hatred.

Some may seek to avoid the issue or seek to position themselves as the loudest community voice, when the voices that need to be heard loudest, are those directly impacted by anti-Muslim hatred, abuse, and hate crime.

Additionally, it is clear is that the vast majority of anti-Muslim hate incidents are opportunistic in nature and where individuals come across visible Muslims. In many of the cases that we have worked on, a language related to terrorist attacks is thrown at visible Muslims, such as “you were responsible for Manchester”. The link between terrorism, opportunism, and perpetrators feeling emboldened is clear. Some may feel emboldened due to press articles and comment pieces which blame all Muslims for extremism and terrorism or framing Muslim communities as culturally threatening or culturally at odds with Britain. As for others, they may have come across far-right extremist material or anti-Muslim rhetoric on social media pages or websites. Causation factors are many, including terrorism. It is neither one or another, but a combination of factors.

The post Anti-Muslim Hatred, Terrorism, Media Sources, Far Right Networks & Spike Points appeared first on TELL MAMA.

On September 30, the Polish Express headlined the story, Kto mieczem wojuje, ten od miecza ginie…? In English, it translates as, ‘live by the sword, die by the sword,’ according to the Notes from Poland page on Facebook.

Readers of the newspaper and members of the public condemned the headline, both in Polish and in English, with one reader accusing the newspaper of using ‘cheap’ tabloid tricks, as another remarked about their ‘unprofessional’ conduct.

The official Twitter account of the Polish Express has also removed a tweet with the offending headline, originally posted on September 30.

Twitter user @McChris85 also challenged the newspaper, replying to their now-deleted tweet, ‘Are you seriously comfortable writing this about an innocent child?’ at 5:28 pm on September 30.

Really @PolishExpress 'Kto mieczem wojuje, ten od miecza ginie…?' Are you seriously comfortable writing this about an innocent child?

— Chris McBride (@McChris85) September 30, 2017

Tell MAMA raised the issue with the Polish Express after members of the public had raised their concerns with our staff.

A spokesperson for the newspaper confirmed that the headline was removed and replaced with a more ‘appropriate’ headline.

A screenshot captures how the Polish Express amended its headline following complaints.

The edit history for the initial Facebook post reveals that the Polish Express had altered the Facebook headline in the afternoon of October 2. Following this amendment, the newspaper thanks its readers to the ‘inappropriate,’ agreeing that in the context of the story, the choice of text was offensive.

The post Polish Express removes ‘live by the sword’ headline following stabbing of boy near mosque appeared first on TELL MAMA.

This myth endures because it privileges all the variations of Muhammad, but not others.

For example, the Sun’s coverage ignores the fact that Harry is a diminutive of Henry, combining these variations gives us a total of 8,811, making their original claim redundant, as all variations of Muhammad fall below that figure, totalling 7,992, according to the Sun’s analysis.

Olivier only falls narrowly behind Muhammad if we include other variations (Olly and Ollie), bringing the total to 7,840, hardly a ‘whopping’ difference.

Muhammad has entered the top 10 most popular boys’ names, but it’s not the most popular.

The MailOnline perpetuated the myth in 2016 and 2014, despite the Guardian debunking the claim years earlier.

Analysis from the Official of National Statistics (ONS) did find that Muhammad is the most popular name in London and the West Midlands, as Harry and Oliver were the most popular boys’ names in other parts of the country.

Nick Stripe, Head of Life Events at the Office for National Statistics, offered a list of predictions for the most popular boys’ names in 2026, in a blog for the Huff Post UK, and Muhammad did not make his list. This prediction perhaps reflects how inflated the issue has become in some sections of society.

Nor does the article consider the historical significance of the name Muhammad in England and Wales. Data confirms that the name Mohammed has ebbed and flowed in popularity between 1924 and 1994, appearing in successive top 100 lists for boys’ names.

In 2016, the ONS visualised this trend in a helpful graph, including a discussion about changing religious demographics since 2001.

As Dr Seán McLoughlin pointed out to the Guardian about this very topic, in December 2014, that Muslims in India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan consider it an esteemed blessing to bestow boys with the name of the prophet, as it serves symbolically as a first name, unlike in the Christian tradition.

Dr McLoughlin added that the number of variations in the name Muhammad owes to the transliterations in various Muslim communities.

The post How the myth about Muhammad as the most popular name for baby boys endures appeared first on TELL MAMA.

A prison service spokesperson contradicts the Sun’s central claim, adding that overalls are available to prisoners, visitors, and staff where their faith prohibits contact with dogs, making no reference to any one faith group.

“Overalls are available for prisoners, visitors and staff during dog searches where their faith doesn’t allow direct contact with dogs – this has no impact on the dogs’ ability to detect weapons or drugs.”

The full statement is buried in the final paragraph of the Sun’s coverage, written by the anonymous ‘Sun reporter,’ as it also recycles stock images of women in the hijab or niqab (face veil), the MailOnline coverage follows the same pattern.

Within hours, Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch, who remains banned from entering Britain due to his anti-Muslim views, editorialised the Sun’s latest coverage, as the English Defence League also tweeted the MailOnline coverage.

The stories, however, tap into a wider trend of so-called ‘Muslim privilege’ in the prison system regarding dogs, a distortion that has endured in parts of the tabloid press for almost a decade.

Take, for example, in 2008, a series of headlines discussed how Muslim prisoners would ‘get clean clothing’ if they came in direct contact with dog saliva, in a similar vein to the infamous ‘Sniffer Dogs Offend Muslims’ front page from the Daily Express. This story concerned a Department for Transport trial of sniffer dogs in London and Brighton train stations who had conducted stop and searches under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

Of the Muslims surveyed for the research, some did express concern that contact with a dog would invalidate wudu (ritual washing before prayer). Researchers acknowledged that the Muslims surveyed would have proven more receptive had the dogs only sniffed luggage, as with the London trial. The demographic differences between London and Brighton meant that researchers struggled to recruit Muslims and BME communities more broadly. Others expressed concern about racial profiling. Issues not discussed in the Express article.

Around this time in 2008, the Sun had published and then later deleted a story about the transfer of a sniffer dog called ‘Allah’ from HMP Belmarsh.

An FOI request sent to the prison service in 2012 had cited the Express article on Muslim prisoners, but as their documentation makes clear, sniffer dogs should not come into contact with any religious artefact (2:40). Prisoners can request a change of bedding if they believe such a search had ‘defiled’ their bed.

The Religion Manual, with amended guidance added in 2002 (4550), advises (2.14) that drug dogs do not touch visitors who would find this act of touching offensive on religious grounds.

The post Did a prison in Surrey give ‘special outfits’ to Muslim prisoners? appeared first on TELL MAMA.

The five-year-old girl, described by her mother as Christian, is now in the care of her maternal grandmother, at the request of her mother, and the local authority.

This interim care order came about thanks to the evidence presented in family court, and not influenced by media reporting.

The judge, Khatun Sapnara, disclosed that an assessment of the maternal grandparents revealed their non-practicing Muslim background.

The timetable of proceedings has changed to reflect the complexities of the case, which includes ‘criminal and family law proceedings’ and an international dimension.

Supervised contact between mother and daughter will continue following the council’s request to place the child in the care of her maternal grandmother for the interim, as the mother wants to resume care of her daughter. Tower Hamlets Council hopes to place the child with her maternal grandmother in the long-term, but this may involve the child leaving the country.

Tower Hamlets Council took the child into care in March after police exercised their powers of protection. There was, however, no ‘culturally matched’ placement available at the time.

The mother continued to have regular supervised visits with her daughter, which extended to telephone calls and calls to her grandmother.

On June 27, 2017, the court ordered the local authority to address the mother’s concerns, which they continue to dispute.

Confidential reports seen by The Times newspaper alleged that the child had a necklace with a cross removed and was not allowed to eat carbonara as it contained bacon. Concerns raised by a social services supervisor that the child complained about a lack of spoken English in one foster carer’s home. The local authority disputes this claim.

The court has directed Tower Hamlets Council to address fresh allegations from the mother by 4 pm on September 8.

The mother will voluntarily submit hair and liver samples to test for cocaine and alcohol. Any criminal proceedings against the mother, including sentence and pre-sentence reports, must be filed with the court by the same date.

Tower Hamlet’s Council will translate the mother’s final statement into the native tongue of the grandmother. It is understood the child also speaks this language but did not understand the Arabic spoken, according to an article in the Times.

The Times has made serious allegations that the local authority had attempted to block the story, including preventing court access for their journalists, which was lifted by Judge Sapnara.

A damning Ofsted report last July had rated child services in Tower Hamlets as inadequate. The council said it was taking steps to address the concerns raised.

There are strict rules around fostering, and the BBC spoke to Esmat Jeraj and her family’s long record of fostering children.

Far-right groups in the UK, including the British National Party, English Defence League, and Britain First seized on the initial coverage.

Kirralie Smith, the political activist in the far-right Australian Liberty Alliance party, tweeted the MailOnline’s initial coverage while criticising multiculturalism.

Others raised concerns about MailOnline journalists editing a stock photo of a Muslim family to include a face veil. The photo was then re-edited to remove the veil, and pixelating her face.

The print edition of the Metro had published the edited face veil photo.

The Sun’s editorial bellowed that the decision ‘beggars belief’ on August 29, its front page for that day made passing reference to the story.

A day earlier, MPs were urged to call for a public inquiry, which became the Daily Mail’s front page lead the next day, which referenced the child’s faith. Katie Hopkins had tweeted this front page, posing the question: “Which individual at Tower Hamlets was responsible for the abuse of this little girl?”

The Daily Mail’s front page on August 30 gave further coverage to the story.

Every front page from the Times between August 28 and August 31 referenced the foster case, including two front page leads, per social media posts. Every headline referenced Muslims or Muslims, with two headlines, made contrasting reference to the child’s faith.

Other media outlets including the Independent, Metro, and Mirror referenced the faith of the parties involved and the child’s ethnicity.

The newspaper regulator Ipso has received complaints about the Times and Mail’s coverage of the story.

The next hearing for this foster case is on October 2.

The post How did a fostering row in Tower Hamlets become about religion? appeared first on TELL MAMA.

Through our support service, the woman, whose identity we protect, has given us a statement to give her side of events. We have published it in full below.

“I’m shocked and totally dismayed at how a picture of me is being circulated on social media. To those individuals who have interpreted and commented on what my thoughts were in that horrific and distressful moment, I would like to say not only have I been devastated by witnessing the aftermath of a shocking and numbing terror attack, I’ve also had to deal with the shock of finding my picture plastered all over social media by those who could not look beyond my attire, who draw conclusions based on hate and xenophobia.

 

My thoughts at that moment were one of sadness, fear, and concern. What the image does not show is that I had talked to other witnesses to try and find out what was happening, to see if I could be of any help, even though enough people were at the scene tending to the victims. I then decided to call my family to say that I was fine and was making my way home from work, assisting a lady along the way by helping her get to Waterloo station. My thoughts go out to all the victims and their families. I would like to thank Jamie Lorriman, the photographer who took the picture, for speaking to the media in my defence”.

We urge media outlets to share this statement, not her photo, due to the distress and fear this has caused. An innocent bystander who was targeted online for no other reason than her Muslim identity. There should be no place for hatred on social media, it’s why we continue to work with Twitter on this matter to try and get content removed.

The post The truth behind the photo of the Muslim woman on Westminster Bridge appeared first on TELL MAMA.

Both featured in a live debate about the so-called ‘alt-right’ movement last week.

Mr Buckby’s notoriety grew in 2016 after he stood in the Batley and Spen by-election, the seat of murdered Labour MP Jo Cox.

Out of respect, major parties did not put candidates forward. A bulk of the candidates who did stand, however, came from traditional far-right parties.

Tracy Brabin, the Labour candidate, was elected with more than 86 per cent of the vote. Mr Buckby received just 220 votes. But it was never about votes. It concerns exploiting the legitimacy of the political process to further an anti-Muslim agenda.

Months before the by-election, he tweeted: “Jo Cox was complicit in the rape of young girls throughout Yorkshire and beyond.”

In the Channel 4 News feature on the so-called ‘alt-right,’ Mr Buckby alludes to his time in the British National Party (BNP) but remains free to present himself as a simple ‘conservative’ who longs to be part of this ‘winning strategy’.

In the live televised debate, however, he self-defines as a ‘paleolibertarian’.

In both segments, Channel 4 failed to identify the far-right ideas at the core of Buckby’s ideology. This failure to engage with his actual politics is not the most conducive way of challenging the far-right.

Mr Buckby has also appeared in the BBC Three documentary ‘Is Britain Racist?’ – where his ideology of ‘culturalism’ was challenged by journalist Mona Chalabi.

This concept of ‘culturalism’ is borrowed from the American John Press, who rejects multiculturalism at the promotion of ‘cultural preservation’.

Missing from both discussions, however, was the fact that Mr Buckby founded the National Culturalists (NC) in 2012.

An archive of an NC blog from 2012 called for the closing down of all Islamic institutions and the banning of halal meat. It also added that social services must hold regular inspections of Muslim families to ensure they were not involved in FGM or ‘honour violence’.

In July 2012, Mr Buckby spoke at a far-right conference and admitted that the idea of ‘culturalism’ was simply the means to make nationalism palatable to young people.

In his own words: “nationalism is the cause we need to fight. The issue we’ve got is that young people do not associate with the word. So, as long as we keep the ideology it doesn’t really matter what word we use. Obviously, it’s all about spin.”

Adding, that the language of ‘culturalism,’ which is ‘already important’ to nationalism, would help get young people involved with groups like the BNP.

When a student at the University of Liverpool, Mr Buckby tweeted a poster warning against sex with ‘intravenous drug abusers’, ‘bisexuals’ and ‘blacks’.

A now-deleted tweet from 2014 read: “Today is Holocaust Remembrance Day. Please take time to remember those who were killed at the hand of fascism & hope Islam can’t do the same.”

In recent years, his incendiary rhetoric on Islam and Muslims has not changed. Further, he has made highly offensive and extreme comments about the LGBT and Jewish communities as well, yet Channel 4 gave him a platform to air such views without informing its audience effectively about his extremist ideology.

On his personal Twitter, Mr Buckby writes: “Islam is the most violent religion and political ideology on earth.” Or “I’m proud not to tolerate murder, paedophilia, rape and fascism of Islam.” He also described the prophet Muhammad as a ‘murderous prophet’.

Following the terror attacks in Orlando, he tweeted: “It’s time LGBT woke up and realised THEY are responsible for the death of 50+ people in Orlando. #OrlandoShooting.”

To promote a video where he misgenders Caitlyn Jenner, Buckby tweeted: “Trans movement is belittling what it means to be a woman”.

Regarding Jewish communities, Mr Buckby adds in the same blog: “if you’re a believer in the racial bell curve, the Ashkenazis are one of the most intelligent ethnic groups on earth”.

The well-known Bell Curve argument, debunked by virtually all social scientists, is “part of a much longer history of arguments about race and intelligence, critically rooted in early scientific racism.”

In September 2016, he recycled the falsehood that renovations to parliament would mean that MPs would be unable to drink in their leased location due to ‘Sharia Law’. A Treasury spokesperson denied this claim.

In a statement, the spokesperson added: “The buildings remain the property of the government, and the lease and associated documents explicitly state they are governed by English law.”

The matter of alcohol licensing is unresolved, but not prohibited.

Buckby’s views towards ethnic and religious minorities are highly offensive and extremely troubling. Buckby himself insists that his discourse is about ‘spin’ yet Channel 4 presenters could have more effectively challenged him by debunking his views and alerting his audience to his extremism.

In fact, Buckby is exploiting this appearance to crowdfund  from supporters in Europe and North America. It is no accident that his Twitter cover photo features Ms Ntumy’s horrified expression when she heard his inflammatory statements.

The post Why it’s important to challenge the far-right views of people like Jack Buckby appeared first on TELL MAMA.

Trump’s carefully worded statement taps into the partisan distrust of mainstream media. This latest dog whistle intends to justify in the minds of his supporters what others argue is unconstitutional.

This section of his statement has that audience in mind: “And in many cases, the very, very dishonest press doesn’t want to report it. They have their reasons, and you understand that.”  Its central aim is to re-energise his support base given recent negative headlines and abysmal approval ratings.

Gallup found that Republicans are fuelling a broader distrust of mainstream media in American society. Trust in media from Republicans fell to 14 per cent from 32 per cent in 2015. A twenty year low for Republicans. And for the first time since 2001, trust in the mainstream media among older generations has fallen below 40 per cent.

The divisive presidential campaign may explain part of this mistrust. According to the Shorenstein Center, 82 per cent of election coverage about policy positions was negative. But it’s an older problem.

Take, for example, this op-ed for Fox News. It blamed the mainstream media for Mitt Romney’s defeat in 2012. Part of the argument reflects the sentiment of President Trump. And it concerns the idea that the mainstream media was more interested in the gaffes of Romney, not Obama.

Is American mainstream media biased? The Pew Research Center found that the ideological groups most likely to agree with this statement are conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats. This ideological difference was previously explored in 2014 and drew similar conclusions.  Almost half of this conservative group list Fox News as their main news source. Trust in Fox News among this group stood at 88 per cent.

Many Americans, however, distrust social media sources. And this includes the ‘one-sided’ nature of news shared by family members. But over half of conservative Republicans see no problem with the latter. Broad levels of trust in Fox News are consistent in other conservative groups.

But is it fair to blame Fox News for such polarisation? Some are not convinced, arguing that cultural shifts and political apathy are the real culprits.

In 2013, Princeton’s Markus Prior extensive literature review argued:

If the goal was to find a connection between media and more partisan elections, we can stop

looking. The culprit turns out to be not Fox News, but ESPN, HBO, and other early cable

channels that lured moderates away from the news—and away from the polls.

Unlike traditional print news, Prior argues, the original function of cable news was to help less educated audiences understand politics when news choices were limited.

Free from ideological constraints, some were more motivated to get out and vote. Thus, reducing the partisan nature of elections in the 1960s and 1970s.

Others argue that partisan news push individuals further away from the political centre.

The importance of television news is not lost today. Pew found that television news remains the most popular news source for Americans (57 per cent) in 2016.

Television news is most popular among older generations. Many in the 50-64 age group (72 per cent) and the 65+ age group (85 per cent) rely on television news for most of their coverage.

This relationship creates strong bonds of loyalty. For example, more than half of ‘very loyal’ news consumers are heavily reliant on television news. Loyalty also concerns the choice of news. It’s why 76 per cent of Americans turn to the same news source.

Youthful aversion to mainstream media can decrease with added consumer trust.

Long before “Pizzagate” were conspiracies about Benghazi. Opinion pieces on Fox News continue to speculate about media complicity in governmental cover-ups.  A narrative which carried over into coverage of the Clinton campaign in 2016.

Breitbart and Infowars accuse the mainstream media of covering up Benghazi.  This sits among their broader criticisms of mainstream media coverage of terrorism.

One example concerns the Lyon factory attack. Breitbart headlined their story: “There Was a Significant Terrorist Attack in France This Week and the Mainstream Media Hasn’t Even Bothered Telling You” on July 15, 2015.

But it ignores key aspects of the case – including the date of the attack. Yassin Salhi, 35, was investigated on terrorism-related grounds. He would later hang himself in his prison cell in December 2015. No media outlet ignored the story or dismissed the terrorism angle.

Yet, this single Breitbart story received thousands of Facebook shares.

A quick search on Breitbart reveals similar and equally pernicious attacks on mainstream media.

President Trump’s own media habits help us understand this latest controversy. He teases interviews on Fox News like upcoming episodes of The Apprentice.  He dismisses mainstream media as ‘fake news’.

Breitbart soon became Trump’s preferred choice of news. He frequented Steve Bannon’s talk show on Sirius XM. Some speculate that Trump donated money to Breitbart.

Alex Jones, the voice of Infowars, told listeners that Trump thanked him for aiding his victory.

The Munich shooter, Ali Sonboly, who took inspiration from the neo-Nazi terrorist Anders Breivik, is not on Trump’s list. He carried out the attacks on the anniversary of the Utøya massacre. His targets were students of migrant backgrounds. There’s no mention of Thomas Mair, the neo-Nazi terrorist who murdered Jo Cox MP. Or the terrorist attack on Muslims at a Quebec City mosque.

The mother of murdered British backpacker Mia Ayliffe-Chung has criticised Trump’s decision to include her daughter’s murder in his list. Rosie Ayliffe’s open letter pointed out that terrorism was discounted as a motive. She added: “My daughter’s death will not be used to further this insane persecution of innocent people”.

The post How Trump’s ‘under-reported’ terror list taps into Republican mistrust of mainstream media appeared first on TELL MAMA.

There are clear indicators of support for a burqa ban: by age, political affiliation, and those who voted to ‘Leave’ in the EU referendum. The same is true for a similar YouGov poll in August 2016. A majority (70 per cent) of the latter in the December 2016 poll, for example, want a legal ban. Among Ukip supporters, 74 per cent favour the ban, as did 61 per cent of Conservative voters. Around half of Labour and Lib Dem voters opposed a ban. But sizeable minorities in both parties favour a ban.

Those of pension age (65+) were overwhelmingly in favour of a ban (72 per cent). In comparison to the 36 per cent of 18-24 year olds who back such a ban.

In August 2016, YouGov posed the question: “To what extent would you support or oppose a law that bans people from wearing the burka in the UK?” Support for a ban from Leave voters stood at 78 per cent.

Support among Conservative voters remains broadly the same in both polls (66 per cent in August 2016 and 61 per cent in December 2016). Once again, Ukip voters remain the most in favour of a ban.

This intensity from Ukip voters appears in earlier polls. In September 2013, YouGov asked: “To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement? The burkha should be banned in Britain,” of which, 93 per cent of Ukip voters agreed. A clear majority of Ukip voters favoured a burqa ban in universities, schools, courtrooms (as defendant or witness), and for security checks at airports. The 2013 data found near unanimous cross-party support for a ban when it concerns security and criminal justice.

In the 2011 data, however, Ukip voters were not represented. But YouGov’s data found that more than half of Conservative (77 per cent), Labour (60 per cent) and Lib Dem (55 per cent) voters favoured a burqa ban. Older generations were also most likely to favour a ban (71 per cent).

The data sets show a consistent reservoir of support in favour of a ban. This support, be it sizeable minorities or sizeable majorities of voters do cross party lines. Yet, there’s also the role of current affairs in shaping public opinion. This may prove negligible, but we should keep in mind that the 2011 poll came off the back of the public niqab and burqa ban in France.

In 2013, the field data was carried out on September 16 and September 17. The first date is important. On September 16, Judge Peter Murphy ruled that a Muslim woman can stand trial wearing a niqab but must remove it to give evidence. A month earlier, the woman was asked to remove her niqab by the judge. She was eventually jailed for witness intimidation in March 2014. Another political debate was brewing during this period. The one-time Home Office Minister Jeremy Browne calls for a public debate on banning certain Muslim veils in public institutions drew a response from Downing Street. A spokesman for former Prime Minister David Cameron made clear that: “The Prime Minister doesn’t believe Parliament should legislate on what people do and don’t wear on their local high street.”

In July 2013, Philip Hollobone MP put forth a Private Members’ Bill on face veils. It would, however, fail to make its passage through parliament before the end of the session.

The fieldwork for the August 2016 poll took place towards the end of the month. On August 8, 2016, Lisa Duffy, a prospective Ukip leadership candidate, called for a public ban on the face veil. This story appeared in all major media outlets. The Independent version of the story received two thousand shares. Readers of MailOnline shared the story 797 times.

Now, it’s possible that the Independent story shares were not from individuals favouring a ban, but it demonstrates how easily such stories on this topic permeate discussions. In a broader sense, some stories about the burqa lose perspective. In September 2016, for example, Leicestershire Police made the rare decision to express their ‘disappointment’ at press coverage regarding their uniform policy, which at no point had taken a position on the burqa.

On December 6, 2016, German Chancellor Angela Merkel backed a public ban on the burqa in schools, courts and state buildings. This is not a policy the Prime Minister Theresa May seeks to pursue. A Downing Street spokesman told the Daily Express: “It is not something that’s being considered in this country.” Theresa May ruled out a burqa ban in 2011 when Home Secretary. The Express story went viral in the weeks before YouGov carried out their polling fieldwork.

Not all European states have issued a sweeping ban. In Barcelona, for example, there have been restrictions on face veils in libraries and some public institutions since 2010. In the Netherlands, MPs backed a ban in public places such as schools and hospitals, and on public transport. In Belgium, however, as with France, has seen a ban since 2011.

The post Why a ‘burqa ban’ remains popular in Britain appeared first on TELL MAMA.

The Sun’s article incorrectly stated that the force “would have to consider”any such request. Yet, the original statement from Leicestershire Police made no such claim. As their statement made clear:

We have been made aware of discussions in other police forces regarding incorporating burkahs into police uniform. It is not something that Leicestershire Police has been asked to consider by an officer or by a police recruit. If such a request was made, it would be considered in line with the requirements of policing and the need to ensure officers have uniforms that are fit for purpose. [Our emphasis].

The journalist contradicts this claim further into the article by quoting from the above statement. Nor did Leicestershire Police mention the niqab in their statement. But this was still inserted in the Sun’s article.

Days later, Chris Roycroft-Davis opined in the Daily Express that “Sometimes a smile can disarm a violent suspect but not if it’s invisible. When police go undercover they don’t mean under that sort of cover“.

The ‘outrage’ followed news earlier this month that West Midlands Police would consider a similar approach to uniform.  But the original question put to both forces was nothing more than hypothetical.

Chief Constable David Thompson, of West Midlands Police, said: “Clearly we don’t have any barriers relating to that (the burka). As it stands we have not had any approaches from potential recruits asking to wear the burka, but if such an approach was made it is something we would have to consider.”

As the with the statement from Leicestershire Police: “It is not something that Leicestershire Police has been asked to consider by an officer or by a police recruit”.

Detective Chief Constable Nick Baker, of Staffordshire Police, made clear that no member of staff has made such a request.

No serving Muslim police officer or potential recruit has requested to wear the burqa while on duty. This bears repeating.

Two MailOnline articles incorrectly stated the burqa is a ‘traditional Islamic dress’. Both articles also used the same stock image.

The first use of the burqa stock image. Published by MailOnline on September 9, 2016.

The second example of the same stock image used by MailOnline on September 22,2016.

Perhaps this reliance on a stock image demonstrates that the burqa is far removed from the daily lives of many Muslims in Britain. This caricature reduces the complexities of religious identity and does little to further religious literacy. Yet, the original MailOnline article about the burqa and West Midlands Police gained 31,000 online shares. It stands to reason that this was not about the uniform policy of West Midands Police. But rather what the burqa is ‘meant’ to represent. As our annual report notes, a woman’s hijab can become a universal symbol of ‘Muslimness’. This would extend to the ideological perceptions attached to the burqa.

The post Leicestershire Police criticise misleading ‘burqa police uniform’ press coverage appeared first on TELL MAMA.

It promised “an extensive and rigorous survey to get a better understanding of British Muslims’ attitudes to living in Britain and British institutions”; but did it deliver on its promise?

One major problem was the arguments put forward by Trevor Phillips. On several occasions he misrepresented polling data. The first example concerns how social Muslims are with non-Muslims. He led with the stat that 56 per cent mix with non-Muslims outside of their home on a daily basis. Yes, it’s true that 21 per cent visit non-Muslims once a year, and the same figure never visit non-Muslim homes.  Audiences were not told, however, that 17 per cent of Muslims have social visits from non-Muslims in their homes on a daily basis. That figure rises to 19 per cent on a weekly basis and a fifth on a monthly basis. Muslims polled by ICM make a similar effort to visit the homes of their non-Muslims friends on a daily, weekly and monthly basis.

Nor did Trevor Phillips seek to interrogate this question. He did not consider why some Muslims would not visit the homes of non-Muslims. Did he not consider the health of individuals? Disability or long-term health issues may limit social activities and visits. What of economic factors like the cost of bus fares in deprived areas limiting social mobility and activities?

Young Muslims were also more likely to have non-Muslim friends visit their homes on a daily basis. And social mixing also exists on social media platforms. These factors were simply ignored.

The ICM poll has its flaws but it remains a comprehensive look at the views of 51 per cent of self-identified Muslims in England and Wales. Nor did the poll explore the diversity of Islamic belief – were individuals Sunni, Shia, Deobandi?

Just over a fifth of Muslims polled make no effort to visit a mosque, and 17 per cent only attend on special occasions. This is not a measure of religiosity; but it speaks to how individuals interpret their own faith. The documentary failed to show the diversity of belief outside of liberal and conservative binaries.

Trevor Phillips drew a comparison between how Christians and Muslims understand their faiths.  This matters in the context of freedom of expression. ICM’s data did show a clear divide between Muslims and the control group sample on blasphemy.

Responses in the control group were more in favour of publishing cartoons of the prophet Muhammad. A fifth of non-Muslims who rejected this position were Christian.

Opinions in the control group sample were even more divided on the question of publishing cartoons that mock the prophet Muhammad. Almost half said that publications should not have this right. And that included 32 per cent of non-religious people and 50 per cent of Christians.

His own analysis of the polling data allowed him to argue that  policy makers had misjudged the aspirations of Muslim integration when compared to Hindu and Sikhs.

Difficult questions around women about obeying their husbands may owe to cultural conservatism given the over-representation of South Asians in the poll data. Phillips did at least seek some understanding of this question. One woman suggested that obedience in the context of pleasing God would suffice. How representative these positions are of course, are open to interpretation and insinuation.

It’s true that 35 per cent of 18-24 year olds also found polygamy acceptable. He did not inform the audience that 34 per cent of Muslims aged 18-24 did not find it acceptable. Disagreement on this issue grew with each age category until we arrive at the over 65s.

This pattern continued into the question of integration. Trevor Phillips gave weight to the small majority of Muslims who wish to lead a separate Islamic life. Yet he did not reveal that 49 per cent of Muslims want to integrate with non-Muslims in all aspects of life. And that is broadly true among British Muslims young and old.

Phillips goes on to speculate that 500,000 Muslims in Britain want to live parallel, separate lives. He does not afford the same level of speculation for the greater number of Muslims seeking total integration. This type of speculation appeared earlier in relation to sympathy for suicide bombings among four per cent of Muslims; but not for the one per cent of the control sample who also expressed sympathy.

A proclivity towards antisemitic tropes is a troubling finding. Yet British Muslims also expressed tolerance towards Jewish communities.

Phillips also made a confusing statement about the caliphate and ISIS. Just 7 per cent endorsed the principal of a caliphate. That figure drops to 3 per cent when asked if they support how ISIS established their violent version of a caliphate.

ICM also justified the use of the word ‘sympathy’ in relation to violence and support for terrorism because it had appeared in other surveys. Yet again, our understanding of this vague term remains open to interpretation. Putting aside social desirability bias, a small minority of Muslims still expressed any sympathy for terrorism or violence.

Muslims (34 per cent) were also more likely than the control group survey (30 per cent) to report individuals to police if they suspected their involvement in terrorism in Syria. Yet this was not reflected in the documentary.

Other points missing from the documentary included that non-Muslims had also expressed similar levels of sympathy for violence against unjust governments. That also extended to use of violence against police injustice.

Muslims were also more likely to condemn the use of violence to protect their family. This is also true for non-violent radical groups. Nor were the desires or sympathies for violence among non-Muslims explored.

The poll does highlight some troubling and positive views among British Muslims. At times Phillips did highlight some nuances in the poll data – like the generational divide on LGBT issues.

Misrepresenting ICM’s poll data does not improve debate.

The post How Trevor Phillips misrepresented ICM’s poll on British Muslims appeared first on TELL MAMA.

But did the poll titled “What do British Muslims really think?” answer its own question? Polling British Muslims is a difficult and expensive task. It’s why YouGov avoided the Sun’s now infamous ‘1 in 5 Muslims’ poll.

ICM’s researchers picked 138 random Local Super Output Areas where Muslims make up at least 20 per cent of the population. This skewed the findings to areas with relative social deprivation. It also over-represented certain ethnic groups. Yet it still captured 51 per cent of the total Muslim population.

Of the 1,081 Muslims polled, 55 per cent were Pakistani. British Asians/Asians totaled 83 per cent of the polling data. Data from the last census revealed that British Asian/Asians totaled 67.6 per cent of Muslims in England and Wales.

The poll included just 11 Arabs and 16 white Muslims who account for 6.6 per cent and 7.8 per cent of Muslims in England and Wales.

Despite methodological issues it remains a serious poll.

As with previous surveys – Muslims identify with Britain at a higher rate than the national average. They also expressed greater attachment to their local areas. A vast majority believe that Britain was a good place for Muslims to live in, and 78 per cent said they would like to integrate into British life on certain topics.

Nearly a quarter supported the idea of sharia law operating in parts of Britain above British law. Yet what defines sharia law remains ambigious and open to interpretation. But as Dr Imam Mamadou Bocoum notes: ‘Shariah means a road that leads into Spring Water, which is nothing but to live in peace and harmony. Amongst the principles of the Shariah is to preserve and protect life, intellect, property, honour, lineage, and religion‘.

There was little support among the Muslims polled to establish a caliphate. Support for ISIS polled at just 3 per cent. Few blamed the police or government for girls travelling to Syria.

More than a third of Muslims polled would report individuals who they suspected of seeking to participate in terrorism abroad to police. A figure that stands above the control sample of 30 per cent. Nearly half would attempt to dissuade the individual.

On the subject of extremism, 47 per cent agreed that Muslims need to do more to tackle extremism. The data reveals that a vast majority of Muslims look to the government to tackle Islamophobia and fund special projects to help communities root out the causes of violent extremism.

Islamophobia is a concern in this context, even when 73 per cent thought that religious harassment was not a problem in their local area. Individuals may of course experience less discrimination within their own ethnic and faith communities. Or in a public setting disclose their experiences to strangers. Research also points to the fact that hate crimes increase in areas of deprivation.

The wider public had also expressed a wider concern for Islamophobia than the Muslims polled. Nor do we know what language the interviews were conducted in. So it’s possible that individuals may not understand a question that pertains to religious prejudice.

There was also an overwhelming desire to empower young Muslims and women in the decisions that affect them. And many felt that better leadership in Muslim communities would help address the causes of violent extremism. Just one in 10 sought information on current affairs from mullahs at mosques. And a fifth never attend their local mosques. But 72 per cent felt that their local mosque did represent their views.

The most popular choice for television news was BBC 1, and a vast majority got their news from social media accounts. Yet again, the BBC remained the most popular source for news online.

Discussions of attitudes towards homosexuality dictated a majority of media coverage. The poll found that 52 per cent dsaid they disagreed with homosexuality being legal in Britain, compared with 5 per cent among the public at large who disagreed.

For British-born Muslims, 27 per cent agreed that homosexuality should be legal. Almost a third said neither/nor and 38 per cent disagreed. But that figure requires a caveat since the total figure in the weighted and unweighted sample is below 500 people. Muslims born outside of Britain were more likely to disagree that homosexuality should be legal (a net disagreement of 68 per cent in a sample of 601 or 609 when factored against weighted and unweighted bases).

On the topic of gay marriage and allowing a homosexual person to teach, the data reveals slight differences between Muslims born in the UK and abroad. But the above caveat still applies.

Despite a proclivity towards antisemitic tropes, British Muslims were not hostile towards Jewish communities. ICM asked the control and Muslim samples to measure their feelings towards faith and non-faith groups on a thermometer. Oddly, views towards Sikhs were missing from the data. The control group survey were more likely to agree that antisemitism was a problem. Yet 44 per cent of the Muslim survey and 46 per cent of the control group did not consider antisemitism a problem in Britain today.

The control survey were far more likely to disagree (51 per cent) with the statement ‘Jews still talk too much about what happened to them in the Holocaust’. Yet 18 per cent did agree with the statement, compared to 34 per cent in the Muslim survey.

Confusion about deaths in the Holocaust in the Muslim survey may owe to ignorance, not antisemitism. As 55 per cent did not know the true figure. Just 14 people agreed that it was a myth perpetuated by Jewish people. The control group was not asked this question so it’s hard to make a direct comparison.

Muslims surveyed overwhelmingly had also rejected the right of individuals to publish pictures of the prophet Muhammad. But 12 per cent stated that it would depend on the nature of the pictures. Responses in the control group were more in favour of publishing cartoons of the prophet Muhammad. A fifth of non-Muslims who rejected this position were Christian.

Opinions in the control group sample were even more divided when it came to the question of publishing cartoons that mock the prophet Muhammad. And 44 per cent said publications should not have this right  – and that included 32 per cent of non-religious people and 50 per cent of Christians. A measure of support from Christians may owe to a sense of Abrahamic solidarity or the UK’s own historic and abolished blasphemy laws.

Linda Woodhead, Professor of Sociology of Religion at Lancaster University, surveyed different faith groups in 2013. It found a variety of liberal and conservative views towards topics like abortion and homosexuality.

ICM also asked how often Muslims had mixed socially with non-Muslims in the past year. Again, what defines this social interaction remains open to interpretation. It was rare for Muslims to have had no social mixing outside of the home. Nor are social interactions defined by the boundaries of a person’s home. That applies to Muslim and non-Muslim alike. Yet the data does show that at least a fifth did host and visit non-Muslims friends at least once a week, and 17 per cent welcomed non-Muslims into their homes on a daily basis.

Trevor Phillips, the former head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, who will present the Channel 4 documentary What British Muslims Really Think tomorrow evening, made a problematic statement on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

Phillips stated that: “What we also found is that there is a correspondence between this desire to live separately and sympathy for terrorism. People who want to live separately are about twice as likely to say that they have sympathy for terrorist acts.” Yet the data reveals that just 40 people expressed sympathy for terrorist acts. Nor was there any effort to extrapolate the meaning from a vague term, as sympathy does not always mean endorsement. Phillips is overstating the opinions of a tiny proportion in the data set.

That rhetoric can also suggest that religiosity and support for terrorism are somehow linked, a point that misunderstands the nature of radicalisation.

ICM asked some wide-ranging, probing and sensationalistic questions; but to suggest it captures the breadth of Muslim opinion is not quite accurate. Yes, some issues to address but the real conversations must happen beyond this poll.

This post originally appeared on Religious Reader.

The post Why the latest poll won’t tell us what all British Muslims actually think appeared first on TELL MAMA.

On March 9,  an article headlined ‘Electoral Commission: “Keeping London British! Is Offensive Slogan’ made bombastic claims of censorship. But it sounds familiar.

The party made similar claims against Royal Mail in 2014.  Royal Mail can refuse to deliver election materials if they consider it threatening or abusive. Paul Golding ignored this detail as Britain First were ‘victims’ of a greater perceived injustice.

Under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (Section 29 2b), the Electoral Commission can reject ballot emblems if they deem it ‘obscene or offensive’. The Electoral Commission reiterated this point to the party. But Britain First accused them of acting as the “Commissar for Political Correctness” in elections. Again, the party reinforces accusations of censorship to party faithful.

This strategy serves a dual function: policies in the age of multiculturalism and ‘PC culture’ have a detrimental impact on the party and its supporters. Britain First rejects the label of ‘racist party’. And argues that they are victims of ‘job stealing’ and ‘welfare stealing’ migrants.  Britain despite Muslims making up less than 5 per cent of the total population in England and Wales. These contradictions are never addressed. Britain First tailors their language and output to reflect the anxieties of those who ‘like’ their page. Reinforcing these anxieties are not always enough.  Presenting solutions can build group identity and raise the potential of donations.

A strategy of targeted donations has paid off in the past. Britain First topped the Electoral Commission’s donations league table for smaller parties last year. In 2014, the party had tripled its donations from 2013 to £159,516 – but spent most of it on campaign work. This is a strategy that extends to supporters in Australia, Canada and the United States.

Like other far-right parties, Britain First seeks mainstream credibility. Jayda Fransen, deputy leader, sought that in the Rochester and Strood by-election. It mattered little that the party achieved just 56 votes. Fransen had posed for a photo with the BBC’s Nick Robinson (who later apologised for his error). The extra media attention had little to do with local issues in the Rochester and Strood area. Britain First wanted national attention for their anti-mosque campaign in the neighbouring constituency.

Jayda Fransen also admitted that the mayoral campaign is a PR move to increase their public profile. Fransen wrote:

‘The benefits to standing in the London Mayoral Election will be immense: Each Mayoral candidate is entitled to a two-page spread in a booklet that is delivered to 10 million people in London, 45% of which are still ethnically British.

Each Mayoral candidate will no doubt receive a lengthy Daily Politics interview and a plethora of other high profile media attention.

Contesting this election will cement Britain First as a powerful force on the “Right” of politics and will massively increase our public profile.’

Some of the top comments from some Britain First supporters to Electoral Commission story had the intended outcome. And it included:

‘OFFENSIVE? I don’t live there but such an insipid attitude offends me. If London isn’t British, then what is?’

‘London IS British. Whoever objects to that slogan is obviously some left-wing pond life.’

‘well if you guys don’t tell people to say it you are not breaking the law … so … Keep London British … stop the dismantling of the Westminster system and only recognise British law …’

The post How Britain First uses ‘victim narratives’ to boost support appeared first on TELL MAMA.

He goes on to suggest that Tell MAMA, which has tackled anti-Muslim prejudice for over three years, has links with Islamophobes and shares the Quilliam Foundation’s narrow assumption that Islamist ideology is solely responsible for radicalisation. We have not been shy to criticise Quilliam in the past and we will not be in the future.

These accusations are based on shoddy, surface-level research intended to misinform readers.

Dilly should do his homework and look at Tell MAMA’s work in 2014 and 2015. Anyone who does will find that his accusations are untrue. We work hard to ensure that Islamophobia remains on the policy agenda and we helped bring about important changes.

We are not reliant on government funding. A number of charitable trusts have recognised the quality of our work and provide us with the funds to deliver our services. Dilly’s assumption that public agencies should not fund work countering the measurable rise of Islamophobia is naïve.

Tell MAMA stands up for Muslims in the UK facing hatred, racism, and prejudice. Our work on quantifying Islamophobia and bringing it into public debates is necessary and unrivalled.

We will not become obsolete any time soon.

Tell MAMA has no working links with the Quilliam Foundation

Dilly’s poorly researched column imitates the most facile examples of tabloid journalism. It is a gross inaccuracy to suggest that we ‘announced’ the findings of our 2013/2014 report at a Quilliam Foundation event. The official launch took place at Teesside University on 4 July 2014. Our director Fiyaz Mughal attended the Quilliam event as part of a wider tour that happened at nine different locations to promote the findings of this report.

To give an example of how this ‘Dilly-logic’ works, here is a recent photo from his Facebook page where he shared a platform with Tell MAMA’s Outreach Officer, Rehman Anwer. Based on his logic, Dilly must support Tell MAMA because he shared a platform with us. The more interesting question is why Dilly shares a platform with us one day, and smears us on another?

In fact, we shared a platform critical of Prevent with Moazzam Begg at a conference in June 2015. Our director Fiyaz also sat on a panel organised by iERA at Dilly’s invitation.

That does not mean Tell MAMA endorses their views, but shows that we are keen to engage and debate with the breadth of the British public to address Islamophobia.

Dilly takes a single event out of context as convenient ammunition to falsely accuse us of working with the Quilliam Foundation. We certainly do not.

We have voiced our differences of opinion with organisations that have suggested a top-down, highly centralised Prevent implementation. We have criticised this in a report to the London Assembly, calling for implementation to take community concerns seriously.

Before the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill passed, we posted an infographic that informed Muslims about the changes it would make and criticised the government’s approach. You can find it on the Stop the CTS Bill Website. We published this infographic before Dilly even addressed the bill on 5Pillars.

One of our staff members wrote recently that the Home Office had a ‘narrow’ definition of extremism based on a mythical set of ‘British values’ and consequently, ‘the outlook for democratic participation and accountability in counter-terrorism is grim’.

Eschewing an honest evaluation of our work for an accusation of guilt by association, Dilly suggests that we are linked to Quilliam and Islamophobes. This is a duplicitous smear.

If his accusation is true, why do we continue to have numerous Muslims on our advisory board, including community leaders, Imams, and academics?

Now coming onto the issue of Tehmina Kazi, she has clarified that she was part of the Arbitration Bill process and this included many other prominent Muslim women. This took place in 2011, well before Tell MAMA was even founded, which was in March 2012.

Dilly’s article picks facts at his convenience and ignores counterpoints to suit his agenda. In fact, 5Pillars has used Tell MAMA cases or data in thirteen different articles.

Dilly seems happy to cite us when it drives web traffic to 5Pillars and disparage us when expedient for his online brand.

Tell MAMA puts Islamophobia on the agenda and works across government and civil society to counter hate

Hate crime policing demands partnerships with faith communities. Dilly seems to think that the recent Home Office announcement to record Islamophobic hate crimes under a unique crime flag will render Tell MAMA obsolete. Once again, Dilly did not do his due diligence.

Tell MAMA has played a crucial role in putting Islamophobia and anti-Muslim incidents on the policy agenda. Our data has been cited frequently in reports to the All Party Parliamentary Group on Islamophobia. FOSIS used our information to design infographics for Islamophobia Awareness Month 2015. From 2012 to 2015, Tell MAMA research documented a national rise in Islamophobia.

We used this data to push the government to require all police forces to record anti-Muslim incidents. While we commend Mend (then iENGAGE) for getting 10 Police and Crime Commissioners to pledge to record anti-Muslim hate crimes, we focused our efforts on lobbying the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the Home Office to require all police forces to record anti-Muslim crimes.

Our lobbying capacity led to this ‘positive step forward’. Tell MAMA has representatives on hate crime panels across the country and advises police forces on how to address the nuances of Islamophobia.

It should be no surprise that the National Police Chiefs’ Council shares hate crime data with us. We have an important role to play in conducting crime analysis in a forthcoming report on Metropolitan Police data, disseminating figures about anti-Muslim hate crime, and sharing the experiences of victims.

With this shared data, we provide the police with monthly bulletins on trends and analyse their data to help improve hate crime policing. On top of that, we got the government to pressure Twitter and Facebook to take hate incidents more seriously. Sharing our reports on Islamophobia in schools has also put the issue on the agenda.

Tell MAMA will not be obsolete until hate and bigotry disappear

Third party reporting centres—bodies Dilly suggests will be obsolete now—were part of an important recommendation of the 1999 Macpherson report into the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993.

Third party reporting centres are a conduit between victims and the police. As one such reporting centre, this is what Tell MAMA does day in, day out.

These policies will not make Tell MAMA obsolete. Other Muslim organisations, including the organisation Mend whose 2012 report Dilly cites calls for PCCs to include third party reporting centres as part of their strategies (see page 8).

Most importantly, we serve victims. The data we record informs the UK public about the rise of hate crime and ensures that Islamophobia is on the policy agenda.

If Islamophobia disappears in the future, we will be more than happy to be rendered obsolete. Until then, our important work will continue to support victims and inform the public, the police and policy makers about anti-Muslim hate

The post Tell MAMA remains the leading organisation to tackle Islamophobia appeared first on TELL MAMA.

We decided to investigate this further and judge whether the proliferation of anti-Muslim attacks in the summer of 2013 was a temporary spike. To do this, we submitted a Freedom of Information Request to the Metropolitan Police requesting a detailed breakdown of every anti-Muslim hate crime from April 2012 to August 2014 by borough (which is available as a PDF and an Excel spreadsheet). Looking at the data, we find an even more disturbing story, illustrated in the infographic below.

Before the Woolwich incident, from April 2012 to April 2013, there was an average of 28 anti-Muslim hate crimes per month. In April 2013, there were 22 anti-Muslim hate crimes in London, but in May (when Lee Rigby is murdered) that number soars to 109 crimes. As the infographic shows, this spike lasts until about July 2013. By August, it appears that anti-Muslim hate crime is back to a normal level.

However, if we measure anti-Muslim hate crimes from August 2013 to September 2014 the average number of hate crimes sits at 45 per month, a 60% rise compared to the average prior to the Woolwich incident, suggesting a long-term increase in the average level of anti-Muslim hate crimes in London.

By early 2014 Muslims are back on the front page, with the ‘Trojan Horse’ scandal in Birmingham framed as a ‘jihadist plot’ to take over schools. In the summer and early autumn, the Gaza-Israel conflict and ISIS are in the news, correlating with an increase in anti-Muslim attacks. In fact, some anecdotal evidence from Tell MAMA’s verbal abuse cases suggests that perceptions about ISIS motivate anti-Muslim hate nationally and in London. Coverage of child sexual exploitation in Rotherham, twisted by the far-right into a ‘Muslim’ issue, further contributes to anti-Muslim discourse in late 2014.

The data from the Metropolitan Police shows that the spike in anti-Muslim attacks in the summer of 2013 led to a sustained increase in the base level of crimes into 2014. If we look at the last two years, we find that between October 2013 and September 2014, there is a 6.5% increase in the total number of anti-Muslim hate crimes over the previous year (October 2012 – September 2013). It is clear that anti-Muslim hate did not simply taper off and fall back to a low level after 2014. Instead, it got worse in 2014.

The post Anti-Muslim hate crimes, 2012-2014 in London: An Analysis of the Situation appeared first on TELL MAMA.