Until Christchurch I thought it was worth debating with Islamophobes. Not any more | Nesrine Malik

Politicians and the media know exactly what they are doing when they allow dehumanising anti-Muslim tropes to enter the mainstream

If you have been paying attention, you will know that there is now a genre of response protocol that is followed after attacks on Muslims. It blows dog-whistles even as carnage is unfolding. A ghoulish routine has become established. It usually goes like this. Condemn the attack in the strongest terms, and then water down that condemnation. We mustn’t get carried away, you see, and forget about the context. Attacks against Muslims must not stop us from continuing to criticise Islam and Muslims when it is warranted. The unvoiced subtext is that maybe these particular Muslim victims didn’t have it coming, but such atrocities don’t come out of nowhere. But, you know, thoughts and prayers at this difficult time.

Following the Christchurch massacre, there is an article I could write today to explain the danger of this forked-tongue response. An article that exposes the fallacy of thinking that extremist hate crimes can be separated and quarantined from the fact that western societies have become radicalised against Muslims. An article that tries again to show the link between mainstream, fashionable Muslim-bashing and its violent manifestations on the right. An article that fillets the semantic tricks played to stop Muslims ever being complete victims: the line that Islam is not a race; the use of women’s and LBGT rights as a rhetorical stick to beat Muslims with; the cant about freedom of speech, political correctness and the danger of identity politics; the whataboutery and the strawmanning.

Continue reading...

from The Guardian https://ift.tt/2FdcTBm