TS: Daily Express vs Islam

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Okay, maybe the title's a bit OTT, but what do ILXors make of this lot? If its a papers job to "catch the zeitgeist", is it a wise move to align yourselves with "ALL MUSLIMS ARE EVIL!"?

― Johnney B (Johnney B), Wednesday, 14 January 2004 13:05 (twenty-two years ago)

Particularly when the paper's publisher is also responsible for publishing Asian Babes?

― Phoebe Dinsmore, Wednesday, 14 January 2004 13:09 (twenty-two years ago)

I think they mean "East" Asian, Phoebe

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 14 January 2004 13:18 (twenty-two years ago)

Does seem to be the zeitgeist, though, doesn't it?

― Phoebe Dinsmore, Wednesday, 14 January 2004 13:25 (twenty-two years ago)

Its a zeitgeist among a certain strata of the country, yeh. Whether that's the Express's readership, and whether or not a national paper should be publishign stuff like this, is down to you lot to discuss.

I thought there are laws against this kinda thing. And won't it be the paper, and not Kilroy (or any other writers that come up with all this bollox) that are done under the race relations act (or whatever they're claling it these days)?

― Johnney B (Johnney B), Wednesday, 14 January 2004 13:34 (twenty-two years ago)

Perhaps when the likes of the Guardian (five years of Burchill, god knows how many more years of Aaronovitch) and the Telegraph (Lord and Lady Black) are similarly brought to book for publishing far more offensive rubbish, this might be a question worth addressing.

― Phoebe Dinsmore, Wednesday, 14 January 2004 13:46 (twenty-two years ago)

"Far more offensive"?

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 14 January 2004 14:02 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't understand Tracer's comment. Why, I'll wager the man hasn't seen a copy of Asian Babes in his life!

― Markelby (Mark C), Wednesday, 14 January 2004 14:04 (twenty-two years ago)

I was thinking about Julie Burchill's anti-Islam tirade of a couple of years ago when this whole Kilroy thing blew up.

― N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 14 January 2004 14:06 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,537755,00.html

― N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 14 January 2004 14:09 (twenty-two years ago)

i can't believe these people get paid for this stuff

― stevem (blueski), Wednesday, 14 January 2004 14:54 (twenty-two years ago)

weekly columnists are usually/almost always rubbish. Even the good ones run out of ideas soon enough, but they keep going on and on. If you took all the weekly columnists out of The Guardian, it would be a better paper by far, I think.

The Daily Express = lower than toilet paper. Robert Kilroy Slik = a knob.

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Wednesday, 14 January 2004 15:01 (twenty-two years ago)

If Channel 4 had any sense they would be on the phone commissioning Kilroy to do a Bernard Manningesque visit to Saudi Arabia and Julie Burchill in Kabul RIGHT NOW.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 14 January 2004 15:04 (twenty-two years ago)

no they're going to plump for Boss Swap, fucking lazy cowards

― stevem (blueski), Wednesday, 14 January 2004 15:14 (twenty-two years ago)

That Burchill column is pretty piss poor but she's talking about Islam as a religion, as opposed to a group of people a la Bob KS, which is a pretty big difference

― DJ Mencap (DJ Mencap), Wednesday, 14 January 2004 15:23 (twenty-two years ago)

Taking Sides: Sensationalist sweeping negative generalisation of religion vs sensationalist sweeping negative generalisation of a race?

― stevem (blueski), Wednesday, 14 January 2004 15:44 (twenty-two years ago)

How about sensationalist sweeping generalisations about fat birds with squeeky voices?

― Pete (Pete), Wednesday, 14 January 2004 15:47 (twenty-two years ago)

Sensationalist sweeping negative generalisation of religion are easier because they're just based on rules, the more fundamentalist the more reliant on these rules they are. I think you can justifiably attack the more extreme religions in a specific or a generalising way without being a bigot.

― Markelby (Mark C), Wednesday, 14 January 2004 16:01 (twenty-two years ago)

The argument is with the assumption that Islam is 'an extreme religion', Barry.

― N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 14 January 2004 16:06 (twenty-two years ago)

All religions have their extremists. Though if you're dumb enough to blanket attack every adherent of said religion then you deserve to have shit heaped on you.

― Markelby (Mark C), Wednesday, 14 January 2004 16:10 (twenty-two years ago)

Hmm, I'm pretty sure ILX has been home to any number of attacks on fundamentalist (key word here) Christians. I don't think Burchill's piece is anything like Kilroy's. I'm an atheist, but I'm against stupid attacks against religion; I don't think it's fair to mock the afflicted. That said, I don't think religions automatically deserve respect in the way that secular creeds seem not to.

― Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 14 January 2004 16:16 (twenty-two years ago)

I dunno, Jesus said some neat things, Enrique.

― Markelby (Mark C), Wednesday, 14 January 2004 16:22 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah, but *some* Christians *have* been known to be cockfarmers, and saying things about crazy (usually American) Xtian fundamentalists is usually more acceptable here on ILX than saying things about crazy Islamic fundamentalists, I'd wager.

― Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 14 January 2004 16:27 (twenty-two years ago)

Nonsenese.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 14 January 2004 16:29 (twenty-two years ago)

Anyway, we're not talking about extremists.

More pertinent question - why do we see so few positive Muslim portrayals in the mainstream media?

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 14 January 2004 16:30 (twenty-two years ago)

you can't spell fundamentalist without mentalist
and that goes for fundamentalists of all creeds.

― Bob Shaw (Bob Shaw), Wednesday, 14 January 2004 16:31 (twenty-two years ago)

enrique, because the relationship between race and religion in those cases is not comparable perhaps? and even if it were, in a vacuum, it becomes not so, in the real world?

matt, excellent question

― gareth (gareth), Wednesday, 14 January 2004 16:31 (twenty-two years ago)

I thought we were overrun with positive portrayals of muslims - or do the left-leaning papers, mags etc. not count as mainstream?

(I'm an atheist/agnostic fence-sitter but happily follow many of the tenets of religions becuase they make life nicer)

― Markelby (Mark C), Wednesday, 14 January 2004 16:32 (twenty-two years ago)

what are these positive portrayals mark? the only ones i ever see in the broadsheets are "of course, the vast majority of muslims are not like this", kind of back-handed compliment?

of course, the further left you go, the more of an antipathy to religion there is full stop (eg: me)

― gareth (gareth), Wednesday, 14 January 2004 16:34 (twenty-two years ago)

Not really - Mark, as they are generally consumed by other left/liberals. What I'm talking about is TV, films, tabloids etc. How would the presence of a Muslim family in EastEnders affect public perception of Islam?

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 14 January 2004 16:36 (twenty-two years ago)

What I'm talking about is that Islam tends to have a particularly strong sense of 'Otherness' in general British consciousness in a way that Jews, Hindus and Sikhs don't. I'm interested as to why this is - is it purely cultural?

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 14 January 2004 16:38 (twenty-two years ago)

Try planes crashing into tall buildings.

― Markelby (Mark C), Wednesday, 14 January 2004 16:42 (twenty-two years ago)

that is the positive portrayal in the broadsheets? what?

― gareth (gareth), Wednesday, 14 January 2004 16:45 (twenty-two years ago)

I think Mark's talking about the reason for the 'Otherness' I mentioned above. I'm unconvinced - I'm fairly sure it existed before 9/11 (although it has been amplified a hundredfold since).

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 14 January 2004 16:46 (twenty-two years ago)

Sorry, this is an area where flippancy is inappropriate. But Islam's otherness has been growing since the toppling of the Shah - Islamic Iran being the 80s bogey state, Africa turning to Islam and with it terrorism, Israel moving further rightwards and causing the west to take sides, the Taliban, Al-Qaeda pre-9/11 and then 9/11 itself. It's hardly a surprise that white westerners find it harder and harder to understand that mentality and link the threat from this "other" to all Moslems.

Please forget the broadsheet comment, as I can't/don't have time to back it up.

― Markelby (Mark C), Wednesday, 14 January 2004 16:46 (twenty-two years ago)

Islam is probably the biggest growth religion here in terms of non pre-determined ordination/conversion (many black people of Christian heritage switch faith later in life it seems - it's a phenomenon in Africa that extends here) whereas I don't think Christianity is (compare average Mosque attendance with Church attendance rather than overall/national averages given how there are so few Muslims in rural areas here) - not sure about Judaism or indeed Hindus or Sikhs - perhaps this intimidates the predominantly Christian and Jewish BASED (but with only vague religious mandate) media (newspapers, TV etc.)? The strength of unity and passion among Muslims often seems 'more' than other faiths here, but that's a chicken and egg type thing, fuelled by the Islamophobia which seems stronger than any other fear of the unknown in society lately.

― stevem (blueski), Wednesday, 14 January 2004 16:51 (twenty-two years ago)

perhaps i'm under-estimating the two other Abrahamic faiths and granted my knowledge of all religions bar the one i was raised on is limited.

― stevem (blueski), Wednesday, 14 January 2004 16:52 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.