The Sun.
The News of the World.
The Times.
Sky News.
All owned by Murdoch.
All carrying the same shit.
This is our “free press”.
This is our “democracy”.
A: Humans aren’t meant to be alone are they?
B: Then why do you want to be alone?
A: Maybe I’m not human.
The jury at the inquest into the killing (or, more accurately, extra-judicial state execution) of Jean Charles de Menezes by the Metropolitan Police returned an open verdict over his death.
This was the only answer the jury could return after the coroner in charge of the inquest did his best to protect the state by telling the jury they would not be allowed to reach a ruling of unlawful killing. The open verdict means, in effect, the jury rejected the police’s accounts of the incident. It was also a rebuff, within the confines of the inquest as directed by the coroner, Michael Wright.
Indeed, the behaviour and reported statements from Wright are strange and confusing. Apart from his decision to force the jury into disregarding an unlawful killing verdict, he also told the jury they had to “put aside emotion” (and I will put aside links between emotion, human psychology, and intelligence). This seems reasonable enough, yet Wright’s gag on the media reporting for his final summary rested on the ‘sensitive’ nature of what he was about to say (sensitive implies emotional response). And, more to the point, the entire case for the police rested on the emotions of those who had killed De Menezes — a point which Wright acknowledged in his reported summary:
“This tough, fit, highly-trained, mature man broke down in tears and this fact may assist you in assessing the depth of the emotional experience that he was going through here when he was reliving the terrible events of July 22.” [my emphasis]
A letter to the Grauniad summed up the absurdity of Wright’s decisions:
What would be interesting is if a study has been carried out of verdicts returned by juries at inquests where the state is accused of the killing, and if the study found coroners in charge of an inquest repeatedly instructing juries to overlook verdicts of unlawful killing. The only other situation I can think of at present is that of Harry Stanley; an unarmed man who was killed by police marksman because they thought he had a gun when he was carrying a table leg in a bag — in this the coroner also ordered the jury that they could not return a verdict of unlawful killing.
And just like that shocking incident (it is not unlawful to kill a man for carrying a table leg in a bag?!), the killing (extra-judicial state execution) of De Menezes involved lies and smears which the Met Police, aided by the media, tried to promote in the immediate of the incident. ‘He was running away from armed police’; ‘he jumped the barrier at the train station’; ‘he was wearing heavy clothes which made him look out of place in the summer’. All of these were false. Yet in directing the jury to overlook an unlawful killing verdict, these and other blunders seem to have minimised by the coroner.
Unsurprisingly, the blather from the right-wing press (and some on the left) is about the supposed ‘bravery’ of the policeman who killed De Menezes and attempts to deflect criticism of the police’s treatment of the entire incident. This is one of the most curious arguments we always come across over those who are involved in state-sanctioned violence. What is so brave about pumping several bullets into the head and upper body of an unarmed man you have not even bothered to identify properly? There is a similar demand when it comes to the bravery of Our Boys fighting legally dubious wars when they have not been drafted in through conscription. The whole point of the inquest, while not to assign blame to individuals per se (an inquest is not a court of law), was also not about the supposed bravery of individuals who are charged with applying state-sanctioned violence. There is no question for right-wing hacks, and other defenders of the police in this case, about the confused state of the police operations; about the gung ho attitude of armed police trained by the SAS; about the fact that the police failed to identify the man they were tracking!?
Which leads to me to a point not even the most harshest critic of the establishment has raised yet. The unmentioned racism. I remember this incident which happened right after the failed attempt to bomb Stockwell tube station (I had just come back from a horrible stint offshore in the North Sea, so remember that whole week very well). There were repeated news reports on television about the man shot dead by the police was “Pakistani-looking”. Yet, the police were after Hamdi Adu Issac (or Osman Hussain), who is not Pakistani but Ethiopian. They all look alike, right? What is even more absurd is Jean Charles De Menezes was Brazilian. And not even a black- or dark-skinned Brazilian. Look at the picture the Met Police used in a health and safety case to defend their actions. What is similar about Hussain and De Menezes? They have two eyes? A nose? Mouth? Ears? Some hair?! Not surprisingly, in the aftermath of the De Menezes killing (extra-judicial state execution), De Menezes was accused of being an illegal immigrant (which, as far as I know, he wasn’t). I wonder who put that rumour out?
Immigrant. Brown-skinned. Pakistani-looking. “Foreign”. Enough to get you shot dead, even though those given the power to take your life have not bothered to properly verify who you are.
The only good news is that there is a possibility that the verdict may be overturned in the High Court.
Please comment on the main TalkIslam blog.
1. ‘Free speech’ — Is it possible to allow for speech to be exercised freely when views expressed are not ‘acceptable’, not just to our perception of the sensibilities of the ‘mainstream’ (or the views of people who help underpin this perception), but also to the law? Clearly, the state must define and protect speech* alongside its other obligations. I suppose this is largely a numbers game. (Consider similar secret filming of the BNP’s Nick Griffin a few years ago.)
2. ‘Freedom of religion’ — Similarly, can expressing ‘unacceptable’ views be protected by freedom of religion? As we have seen, repeatedly, the state needs to define (and so protect) religion again alongside its other obligations. Consider the case of Abdullah Al-Faisal who was jailed for soliciting the murder of non-Muslims**. His attempt to use freedom of religion was rejected by the judge. The judge’s reported words during the Al-Faisal case are interesting: quoting ‘controversial’ verses depending on the “circumstances in which they are quoted”.
3. Muslim beliefs — I am not sure all the views expressed by the people caught on film can be considered particularly ‘Wahhabi’. Views on women not traveling alone has wider roots. Punishments for apostasy are found in classical texts. I don’t think merely dismissing these points as matters of ridicule is always the right approach and it seems as though sometimes Muslims are not willing to make a causal relationship between their religious practices and abuses committed in the name of these adhereing to these practices — merely chalking the abuses down to ‘not true Islam’ seems disingenious at times. Some views, such as not associating with people from outside your religious group, are probably more dependent upon the numbers of people who hold to such views; and even then those who can practically adhere to them (some Muslims are not alone in holding them, of course). I do think, however, that filming inside someone’s house without their knowledge and where there is no evidence that a crime is going to be committed is completely inappropriate.
4. Muslim representatives — This is not an easy problem to resolve (as another Channel 4 documentary team are finding out), but the filmmakers could have done better than a former mouthpiece of the Iranian rulers. Ghayasuddin Siddiqui is no different to the string of Celebrity Ex-Extremists that we have seen emerge over the last couple of years.
*Libel, slander, race-baiting or national security/state secret issues are not usually protected.
**What is sometimes forgotten is that he wasn’t particularly fond of ‘deviant’ Muslims either.
***And I’m sure I have been guilty of this in the past.
Please comment on the main Talk Islam blog.
Given the way in which similar stories about Muslim women working in the NHS have been reported in the past, I expect there are more details to come out. The Trust where she worked has said they were “surprised” when she told managers she was unable to comply, given she had been working for several weeks without a problem — this adds some confusion to the story.
The Daily Telegraph report also includes quotes form Dr. Majid Katme, a psychiatrist, who belongs to a group called the Islamic Medical Association (doc). Katme seems to be something of a rent-a-quote. He has made pronouncements on various medical practices of the day and how they relate to Muslim beliefs: vaccinations, the need for single-sex clinics, embryology, abortion and fluoride all seem to be problems for Katme. However, he may have a point in questioning the evidence related to the ‘bare below the elbows’ policy (although he seems to put forward his own assertions without a source or reference).
Even the British Medical Jounal’s (BMJ) website has an article on the scant evidence which exists to support the ‘bare below the elbows’ policy. The article states:
In December 2007 the [British Medical Association's] central consultants and specialists committee voiced concerns. “The CCSC is particularly concerned that the secretary of state’s ‘bare below the elbows’ policy is not supported by demonstrable scientific evidence and was issued hastily in response to an intense period of media focus on the issue. The CCSC and the wider BMA support evidence backed policies aimed at fighting infection rates in hospitals but believes that such policies should be introduced on the basis of clear evidence and in partnership with clinicians locally.”
I am not in a position to evaluate the scientific evidence* on this policy, but clearly the need to combat infection and ensure good public health is a serious matter. But if turns out that there is limited evidence for such a policy, the problem in this ‘bare below the elbows’ case appears to be one of how the debate has been framed.
On one one side is the media’s penchant for Muslim news stories, concentrating on Muslim ‘cultural backwardness’ and the ‘special demands’ they make on state and society (the ‘dhummitude’ meme is a more extreme form of this). Churnalism only accentuates this problem**. You’ll notice from the media reports of the ‘bare below the elbows’ issue which specifically involve Muslims, none of the reports suggest the scientific evidence might be limited or that the British Medical Association and other experts has raised this concern with the government, or that even the Department of Health itself states that “there is no conclusive evidence that uniforms (or other work clothes) pose a significant hazard in terms of spreading infection”. A good example is the Daily Mail’s reporting. They report the Muslim radiographer story without mentioning these facts; yet back in Februrary the Mail carried a report that nurses may be banned from wearing their uniforms outside hospitals, quoting the exact same words from the Department of Health I note above.
Muslim responses, however, are also problematic. When Muslims frame every issue as a matter of ‘rights’ this lends itself to the (lazy) characterisation of the Muslim threat to Our Way Of Life. Where it is an issue of public policy, talking about religious accomodation becomes more difficult, especially if it involves Muslims providing health or education services***. For if it comes down to an issue of public health versus religious freedom, the former is always likely to trumph over the latter****. Instead, a more culturally-literate language and approach is needed. In the case of the ‘bare below the elbows’, Muslim staff in the NHS concerned with this issue should have enlisted the support of their trade unions to emphasise the limited scientific evidence on which this policy is based (as noted in the BMJ article). There should have been a coordinated campaign in response to media stories, noting that the policy, while possibly good sense and designed to ease public fears, was not based on scientific evidence.
Please comment on the main Talk Islam blog.
Related: See an earlier Talk Islam discussion on religious beliefs and providing health care.
*Plus, I don’t have access to medical journals — so if anyone has any information please leave a comment. It may just be that it is good common sense and there are practical ways around for Muslims who want to observe the strictures related to clothing.
**Fair point and I am probably guilty of aiding and abetting churnalism too.
***And not forgetting the fact that some professions (e.g. doctors, pharmacists) are given legal protection in return for a public service. In other words, there is no particular ‘right’ to be a doctor or a pharmacist.
****In general I agree with the sentiment that “you shouldn’t be in healthcare if you don’t care about health” and I think most people would too.
An embarrassed Kevin Rudd has been forced to apologise to Muslim delegates at this month’s 2020 Summit because their religious dietary needs were ignored by caterers who could not tell the difference between halal and vegetarian food.
In the absence of halal food – prepared in accordance to sharia dietary laws – the Islamic delegates were forced to eat “salad sandwiches and vegetarian pies”.
This was the Rudd Government’s second major summit-related gaffe involving a religious minority after the Prime Minister was forced to apologise to Jewish community leaders for holding the talkfest during the Passover.
Mr Rudd’s apology to Muslim delegates follows revelations by The Australian last month that the federal Government was considering setting up a Muslim advisory body – which would include sporting figures and academics – to help dismantle the stereotypical and overly religious image of Islam in Australia.
Prominent Muslim leader Fadi Rahman, who attended the two-day conference a fortnight ago, yesterday attacked summit organisers for failing to make halal food available for Islamic delegates.
He said the event’s catering manager could not distinguish between halal food – where animals, excluding pigs, are killed under religious supervision for hygienic and humanitarian reasons – and vegetarian food.
“They just thought to themselves vegetarian will do, that’s halal and that’s it, eat it,” he said. “But we said, ‘No, vegetarian is not halal. Vegetarian is vegetarian. Halal food is totally different, shouldn’t you guys have done your homework?’
“We were thinking to ourselves, ‘What the hell is going on? If they can’t get the halal food right, what the hell can they get right?”‘
Mr Rahman said Mr Rudd approached him and Queensland Muslim leader Mohamad Abdalla – who has been caught up in the scandal over Saudi funding for Griffith University – and apologised to the pair about the glitch, blaming the caterers for getting it wrong.
“We were sitting in our groups and he walked past and said, ‘Look I heard about the halal food, I’m terribly sorry, it’s to do with the catering company’. And we thought it was a nice gesture for him to apologise.”
Malaysian Muslim groups have called for protests when Chelsea football club visits in July because the coach, Avram Grant, and a player are Israeli.
An alliance of 21 Muslim groups is angry the Malaysian authorities have given permission for the Israelis to visit the country with the London club.
Malaysia has no diplomatic relations with Israel, and the Malay Muslim majority is strongly pro-Palestinian.
Malaysian citizens are banned by their government from visiting Israel.
The Associated Press reports that the National Counterterrorism Center in the United States has published guidance on using terms when talking about terrorism.
The last one is probably the best piece of advice:
(Via Muse.)
Does anyone know if the Kuwaiti businessmen funding the Quilliam Foundation are supporting any similar moves to promote pluralism and combat Islamism in Kuwait?
Or is this an absurd question?