[Civsoc-mw] POLICING CRITICISM OF ISLAM: THE NEW STAR CHAMBER

[Bamudala]

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/policing-criticism-of-islam-the-new-star-chamber/19344#.WISX7fl97cc
CRITICISM OF ISLAM: THE NEW STAR CHAMBER
Newspapers are being forced to recant their questioning of Islam.

We are happy to make clear that Islam as a religion does not support
so-called “honour killings”.’ Last August that sentence appeared in the
corrections pages of both the Sun and the Mail Online. Why had these
newspapers suddenly felt inclined to weigh in on this contentious
theological debate? Because a complaint had been made against them to the
Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), the non-state-backed press
regulator set up after Leveson. It was lodged by Miqdaad Versi, the
assistant general secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain, acting in a
personal capacity.

Versi took issue with the way the papers had reported on the tragic killing
of Saima Khan, a woman who was stabbed to death in a suspected honour
killing in Luton. First the Mail Online, and then the Sun, reported on it
May 2016, and had the temerity to refer to it as an ‘Islamic honour
killing’. Honour killings, Versi said, were rooted in culture, not faith.
Though the Sun and the Mail at first challenged this, IPSO ruled they were
in breach of the editor’s code regarding accuracy, and the papers
capitulated, printing what was not so much a retraction as a theological
declaration.

Just take that in for a moment. Versi was effectively able to leverage an
independent regulator to force newspapers to print what he deemed to be the
true interpretation of his religion. He told the Guardian that ‘it is vital
that news outlets do not encourage Islamophobia through the usage of
clearly inaccurate and inflammatory headlines’. But neither of these
reports were inaccurate, necessarily. Islam is a body of teachings,
principles and texts, interpreted differently by Muslims and non-Muslims
across the world. Whether or not it ‘supports’ honour killings is not
something anyone can say definitively – certainly not a press regulator.

As the National Secular Society has pointed out, there are many Muslims
across the world who would disagree with Versi: in many Muslim-majority
countries, the belief that women can be murdered in some circumstances is
common. Whether or not Versi or IPSO claim to have the direct line to
paradise, the question of whether Islam supports honour killings is up for
debate, like anything else. And, indeed, the newspapers weren’t even
necessarily weighing in on that debate. The Sun argued that it was merely
reporting that the honour killing was being investigated as such.

This is backdoor blasphemy law, and it’s positively pre-modern. Just as
Henry VIII cracked down on heretical publications – which were spreading
reformist religious ideas he would, ironically, later enforce – IPSO was
complicit in pressuring these papers to print a quasi-official
interpretation of Islam. In some ways, it’s far more insidious. Islam isn’t
the state religion. And IPSO isn’t the Star Chamber. The terror of
appearing ‘Islamophobic’, of daring to even raise the dark side of Islamic
practice, has led an independent institution to force papers to
self-censor, to bow to, in this case, one man’s interpretation of a
religion.

Versi’s exploits don’t stop there. Since the publication of the Casey
Review into integration in December he’s gone into overdrive. The
much-touted claim that people in ‘Islamic enclaves’ are so isolated that
they believe the UK is 75 per cent Muslim turned out not to be true: the
figure came from a survey of one largely British-Asian school, in which the
students believed the UK was somewhere between 50 and 90 per cent Asian.
After Versi lodged complaints with IPSO, various newspapers – including The
Sunday Times, the Express and the Mail Online – either apologised or pulled
the story.

When newspapers get things wrong some may feel morally obliged to retract
their claims – others may not. A free press means giving editors the
freedom to publish and be damned, by readers who are free to challenge them
in the court of public opinion. But this particular fluff-up looked more
like a product of churnalism than some hidden Islamophobic agenda. The
Sunday Times’ correction noted that it published its report before the full
review was even released. And it wouldn’t be the first time that a
statistical misreading made it around the world before the truth got its
boots on.

These complaints were clearly about more than correcting a journalistic
error. On Twitter, Versi accused the papers of ‘spreading hate’. And when
looked at in tandem with his previous complaints it would be fair to say
this was nitpicking with an agenda. He seems intent on forcefielding Islam,
and issues that involve Muslims, from robust discussion. This will only
chill discussion of important issues. The Casey Review proved so explosive
because it tapped into keenly felt concerns about multiculturalism. And, as
spiked has long argued, any real egalitarian should be concerned about the
splitting of society along ethno-religious lines.

But this is bigger than Versi. The Islamophobia industry – the loose
network of self-touting community representatives and Islamic groups –
piles on anyone who dares criticise or ridicule Islam, or those who merely
probe at issues affecting Muslim communities in a less-than-deferent
manner. And from Stop Funding Hate to IPSO, it now has strong allies among
nominally secular Brits and institutions, who have colluded in the specious
conflation of Islam (an ideology) with Muslims (a group of people). We all
pay the price for this. In this climate, crucial topics are swept under the
carpet and free debate is further eroded.

The idea that the media are ridden with anti-Islam prejudice is ridiculous.
Islamophobia has become akin to a secular sin. Regulators are forcing
publications to apologise for daring to criticise Islam. There may be a few
lairy, attention-seeking columnists who have taken it as their mission to
rail against all things Islamic. (Katie Hopkins recently had to apologise
for falsely claiming a Muslim family who had been chucked off a plane in
the US were linked to extremists.) But they’re only making un-PC hay out of
a touchy, fearful climate around the subject of Islam that people like
Versi are intent on maintaining.

We fought for centuries in this country for the right to criticise,
ridicule and expose religion. That newspapers are now hauled over the coals
for blaspheming against Islam is an outrage.

Tom Slater is deputy editor at spiked. Follow him on Twitter: @Tom_Slater_
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://chambo3.sdnp.org.mw/pipermail/civsoc-mw/attachments/20170122/2e8a6faf/attachment.html>