The Commission on British Muslims and Islam published its report, “Islamophobia: A Challenge For Us All,” on October 23. The Commission of seventeen, consisting of six Muslims, and chaired by Professor Gordon Conway, Vice-Chancellor of Sussex University, is a damning indictment of British society’s treatment and conception of Islam and Muslims. For the first time, a think tank report published through the research of non-Muslims accepted the concept of discrimination against Muslims as a religious group and not as (an) ethnic minority/ies.

Dr. Richard Stone, a commissioner and Chair of the Jewish Council for Racial Equality, narrated at a Press Conference held to launch the report, that at the beginning of the process he had been against the idea of legislation to prevent religious discrimination. At the end of the consultation process, he was now passionately convinced that British Muslims suffer extraordinary prejudice at every level of society from education and housing to political representation and criminal persecution. The only way forward in his and the commission’s view was for the government to enact legislation which would tackle religious discrimination.

The Runnymede Trust, who set up the Commission, launched the report at the House of Commons, and invited the Home Secretary, Jack Straw, to address the gathering of press, politicians and Muslim and non-Muslim community leaders. Notable attendees included Ken Livingstone MP, and the former Tory MP turned Liberal Democrat Emma Nicholson. The Muslim community was represented by all sectors including, the UK Action Committee on Islamic Affairs, World Ahlul Bait Assembly, Q-News, Muslim News, Islamic Human Rights Commission, and many other too numerous to mention. All those who attended were concerned at what appeared to be the Home Secretary’s lack of commitment to accepting even the concept of Islamophobia. Whilst he thanked the Runnymede Trust for its efforts, he felt unconvinced that legislation - the recurring recommendation of all sixty made - was not the solution to the discrimination that Muslims faced.

Regarding the problem of media demonisation of Muslims, he exhorted greater self-regulation by the press. When questioned by a member of the press using the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, as an analogy, as t o what it would take to make the media take responsibility for its treatment of Muslims, the Home Secretary could only trust in their good intentions. As the excerpts from various media in the report show, such good intentions are few and far between. Bernard Levin, in The Times at the time of the Oklahoma bombing, subsequently found to have been planted by right-wing American extremists wrote the following:

“We do not know who primed and put the Oklahoma bomb in its place; we do know that they were in the fullest meaning of the word, fanatics. Unlike most of us, they do not in the least mind being killed; indeed, they are delighted, because they believe they are going to a far, far better place . . .Do you realise that in perhaps, half a century, not more and perhaps a good deal less, there will be wars, in which fanatical Muslims will be winning? As for Oklahoma it will be called Khartoum-on-the-Mississippi, and woe betide anyone who calls it anything else.”

The report further pointed out that attempts to address racial discrimination in education had been satirised and ridiculed in the mainstream media also, in particular by The Sun. The day after the report was published, The Independent published an article by the well-known secular journalist Polly Toynbee called, “In Defence of Islamophobia.” It began, “I am an Islamophobe and proud of it.” This type of media arrogance (the article once more perpetrated stereotypes of oppressed women and violent men), indicates the extent to which this issue continues to be ignored.

The report itself is not without fault. In particular it advocates that Muslims, as a self-help measure should be more accommodating towards the Jewish community regarding events in the Middle East. It suggests we should condemn every action taken that offends Jewish sensibilities in the Middle East, almost regardless of the rights and wrongs of each individual incident. The Runnymede Trust published a similar report on anti-Semitism in 1993, and no similar recommendation was made to the Jewish community. This aside, the report documented the problems faced by Muslims in a very real and thorough manner. The Runnymede Trust was set up in 1968 as a think tank to advise government on race relations issues. It is well-respected, and the fact that its findings can be so easily brushed aside augurs ill for Muslims in the UK, who already face bleak prospects.

As a further insult to injury, Jack Straw in his speech at the launch, announced a measure in education which he felt would please the Muslim community very much. The New Labour government was has committed itself to reestablish the budget for s.11 teachers for children with difficulties with the English language. It appears that the Home Secretary and the government see Muslims as illiterate. New Labour, New Prejudices.

Related pages