Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
''Islam is a religion of peace'' (debate)
Options
Comments
-
-
-
Ah c'mon, the "national newspaper" involved contains the greatest amount of hacks since Windows 2000 and one of these freelancers grew a conscience. Unusual in the species to be fair. The same "newspaper" is considered a loose cannon even by the murdoch group.
Well it is a national newspaper with a large audience "http://www.dailystar.co.uk/advertise
The Daily Star is read by 1,701* million readers and the Daily Star Sunday is read by 1,021* million " and as such is influential. The Express group also has the Daily Express and Channel 5 in the UK.
It's target audience is exactly that of the EDL's and the BNP - Young, ignorant, poor education, working-class, unemployed, dissasociated and angry.
(bold not intentional above)
Below a journalism professor in the Guardian exposes The Star for it's support for the EDL.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2011/feb/10/dailystar-english-defence-leagueYesterday's Daily Star broke new ground by publishing a political splash. Over a picture of flag-waving marchers was the headline English Defence League to become political party.
As this reproduction of its front page shows, it was anything but a neutral presentation. It is a clear piece of propaganda on behalf of the EDL, a group that opposes the supposed spread of Islamic extremism in Britain.
The story cannot be read as anything other than a cheer-leading, uncritical piece on behalf of the EDL. Triumphalist in tone throughout, it required no between-the-lines deconstruction to grasp its intention – to build support for the group among its readers.
Mind you, the final line of the story suggests it may be preaching to the converted:"In the Daily Star phone poll yesterday, 98% of readers said they agreed with the EDL's policies."That news story was complemented by an editorial, Don't dare ignore EDL, which sought to give the EDL a clean bill of health. Here's the leader in full:"Critics say the English Defence League is a racist, extremist organisation that's filled with hate. The group's leader Tommy Robinson strongly denies this. He says members have no problems with race.No wonder The Independent's media correspondent Ian Burrell asks today: Has Richard Desmond decided to back the English Defence League? (Since amended, replacing 'Richard Desmond' with 'Daily Star', see later posting).
But he admits he is against 'barbaric' Islam and the way it affects Britain. Whatever side of the fence you fall, one thing's for sure.
There is a visibly growing support for the EDL. It is attracting people across Britain to its ranks who feel the same way.
This should be a warning to the major political parties. Key voters are so fed up with them that they are looking elsewhere.
And there are real underlying issues here with Brits who feel abandoned by their leaders.
The EDL are now planning to field election candidates. If the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems don't heed this and address key issues they could soon become a political force.
Then, whether you like them or not, Tommy and his followers will have to be taken very seriously."
Well, he certainly seems happy for the Star's editor, Dawn Neesom, to do so. Her paper has been moving in this direction for some time.
On Tuesday, it ran a story - English Defence League will fight for hero's (that's their grammar, not mine) - about the EDL "planning a huge march after two Muslim councillors snubbed a British war hero given the George Cross."
Today, it carries a lengthy report, EDL boss Tommy Robinson says he has 24-hour guard, claiming that Muslim extremists have threatened to behead his family. Yeah?
A couple of paragraphs into the piece, the Star boasted of having "sparked a huge nationwide debate" in which "critics" had rubbished the EDL as racist thugs while "supporters" were claiming the EDL "are raising legitimate concerns among British people."
It is followed by a long series of quotes from Robinson. Here's the conclusion:"Labour have destroyed this country and we want our rights back for British people. We have done all this in just two years without any funding or marketing.And the article also showed a 1% increase in support for the EDl among its readers. "We asked in yesterday's voteline if you would back the EDL and 99% of you said you would."
We have really struck a chord with the working classes that the three main parties have failed to do."
After publishing quotes from three MPs from each of the main parties, in which they poured scorn on the EDL, it ran a vox pop with people for and against the group.
The Star's coverage is manna from heaven for the EDL. Burrell's article quotes a supporter, Stephen Martin, who wrote on Facebook: "TODAY i sat there with my daily star with PRIDE, the pictures and banners were fair, the write up was fair, the Star comment was fair and 98 per cent back us... We have a voice now, 25p a day, if they have 74,000 new readers, we have a BIGGER voice."
I also noted the way in which the EDL made capital out of Robinson being interviewed by Jeremy Paxman on BBC2's Newsnight last week. "That is how far the EDL has come," it reported on its website.
It allowed Tommy to get "his vitally important message across," it said. "And from this new position of the public awareness of the EDL, and what it stands for, we can only move forward again. No surrender!"
Well, I saw that interview and what was striking about it was the way in which Paxman - without hectoring - managed to show that Robinson had no evidence for his central claim that sharia law was being imposed within Britain.
His ignorance and intolerance were exposed by Paxman's questioning, and I'm sure that most Newsnight viewers saw through his blustering bigotry.
But it is also obvious that there is no overlap between Newsnight viewers and Daily Star readers (sadly, I have to be an exception). And, in terms of numbers, there are more, many more, of the latter.
Desmond ought to think very carefully about letting the Star use far right politics to build sales.
He should remember what happened in those societies across Europe in the 1930s where Jewish minorities were demonised in the media for their religious beliefs.
Can he not see that the underlying agenda of groups like the EDL is anti-Semitic? What does he think he is doing?
0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Islamaphobia is a marketing phrase, it doesnt actualyl MEAN anything.
yes it does.
Look!Islamaphobia” may be defined as the unreasonable fear and heightened anxiety one experiences when in the company of a Muslim or someone from a middle-east nation. The fear or anxiety one experiences when near Muslims, or those perceived to be Muslims, arises in some people through a combination of psychological and social factors. Phobias of every type are thought to be the product of both inner conflicts that may have little or nothing to do with the actual precipitating stressor (also known as the phobic stimulus), and elements in the environment that the individual has associated with some type of risk (Barker, 2003)
...
This phobia is another form of discrimination and correlated with the person’s experiences with the stimulus object. These experiences may be direct or, more often, are subliminal. That is the individual may have heard about, read about, dreamed about or otherwise learned about some risk that has been associated with the stimulus object. Then ones anxieties become transferred onto that object, which is then to be avoided.
Many phobias develop and are sustained due to a type of “self-fulfilling prophecy.” If one comes to believe that some bad consequence will occur if confronted by a certain phobic stimulus
...
In many people the effect intensifies until it emerges as a full-blown phobia. Thereafter the individual comes to expect negative consequences from encounters with the phobic stimulus and is more alert to anything that reaffirms that view. Thus, if an individual is told that many Muslims want to cause harm to non-Muslims, then the person might become more vigilant about Muslims
http://www.academicjournals.org/ijpds/fulltext/2011/Mar/Donovan.htm#Islamaphobia%E2%80%9D_defined_and_illustrated
So you don't consider the EDL Islamophobes? :pac:I would differentiate between, say the EDL who claim all Muslims should be tossed out of England, believe their freedoms should be curtailed and phyiscally and verbally abuse muslims on the street.
Here is the the EDL's mission statement: http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2011/01/edl-mission-statement-final-version.html
where do you disagree with them?
I did. This is all that came up?A "Fair critic" would be one of the secular humanists, like Christopher Hitchens, who make no apologies for not liking an ideology but keep their criticism to the teaching and the direct effect those teaching have all over the world.
Before you ask for an example just google Hitchens and Islam or something.
0 -
-
-
Brown Bomber wrote: »yes it does.
Look!
So you don't consider the EDL Islamophobes? :pac:
Here is the the EDL's mission statement: http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2011/01/edl-mission-statement-final-version.html
where do you disagree with them?
I did. This is all that came up?
No I consider them hateful bigots and rascists. I dont think "Fear" of islam comes into it at all.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
No I consider them hateful bigots and rascists. I dont think "Fear" of islam comes into it at all.
Okay, that's reasonable.
But then what about Breivik? I read his manifesto, though he was portrayed in the media as a racist he wasn't in fact motivated by racialism at all. He did fear Islam. It was the whole driving force behind his atrocity. He wanted to kill Muslims and multiculturalists who he percieved as facilitating the Muslim invasion of Europe. Can we agree that he was an Islamaphobe? And if not then what exactly was he?0 -
Brown Bomber wrote: »Okay, that's reasonable.
But then what about Breivik? I read his manifesto, though he was portrayed in the media as a racist he wasn't in fact motivated by racialism at all. He did fear Islam. It was the whole driving force behind his atrocity. He wanted to kill Muslims and multiculturalists who he percieved as facilitating the Muslim invasion of Europe. Can we agree that he was an Islamaphobe? And if not then what exactly was he?
I havent read his manifesto so I cant comment on that.
I wouldnt doubt that some people fear it, perhaps I was being flippant when I said it doesnt exist - it is merely used alot to describe a cultural phenomena that does not exist.
I would not doubt there are individuals that fear it (maybe Brevik included)
but it is constantly tossed around when people deign to notice Islam encourages different behaviour than other religions.
In this context it loses all meaning.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement