SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
islamophobia
23 Years After 9/11, Are We Any Safer?
True justice for the lives lost on 9/11 and during the U.S.’ war on terror would require us to put an end to overfunding violence and war, and instead prioritize safety and security through investing in our communities.
Sep 11, 2024
It is hard to forget the burning stares of people in the airport that look at you with suspicion and disdain, to the point that your eyes close in shame. I remember feeling deeply embarrassed as a teenager when the Transportation Security Administration officers took my family and I aside to do a secondary screening at the airport. It wasn’t until many years later I realized that this was just a small cost of being Muslim in America after 9/11.
It has been 23 years since September 11, 2001. The phrase “Never Forget” is echoed nationally to memorialize the nearly 3,000 lives lost that day. Instead of building a safer world after 9/11, the United States government responded with misplaced vengeance on multiple civilian populations, the consequences of which continue to be felt at home and globally.
Following the attacks on 9/11, the U.S. government launched an international military campaign, called the “Global War on Terror,” under then President George W. Bush’s leadership. It was a campaign with no end date that included “large-scale surveillance measures in the U.S., torture, global drone strikes, blacksites, and the Guantánamo Bay military prison.”
If investing money in militarism and incarceration was meant to serve as a measure of justice for a post 9/11 world, then our communities would be safe and thriving.
The U.S. government’s response included wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Pakistan that killed 940,000 people directly, while 3.6-3.8 million people died indirectly in post-9/11 war zones. The names of the people killed may never be known and memorialized. At the same time, 38 million people in and from Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, the Philippines, Libya and Syria were forcibly displaced. Over 7,000 U.S. service members also lost their lives due to our government’s foreign policy since the 9/11 attacks.
Since 2002, 780 Muslim men and boys have been detained at Guantánamo Bay, which claims to hold terrorist suspects. However, most were released without being convicted of a crime, and many are survivors of torture at the hands of U.S. officials. Thirty individuals still remain there.
Due to decades of dehumanization and propaganda, the American people have become conditioned to believe that death and violence among Black, African, Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim, and South Asian (BAMEMSA) communities is inevitable. These Islamophobic and anti-Muslim tropes continue today, as we witness the genocide of Palestinians with increasing normalization.
The U.S. government also spent $8 trillion on wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and other countries. Over $21 trillion has been spent on militarism since9/11; militarism expenditure includes funding for the Pentagon, detentions and deportations, and policing and prisons. Our priorities become clear too when we see that the U.S. has the highest incarceration rate and largest immigrant detention system in the world.
If investing money in militarism and incarceration was meant to serve as a measure of justice for a post 9/11 world, then our communities would be safe and thriving. Instead, Americans feel less safe than 30 years ago, while 78% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck.
Oftentimes the U.S.’ global war on terror and intervention in other countries is seen as “an over there problem.” However, the general American public must also pay attention to how the military-industrial complex influences how we are governed, and firmly reject it. The military-industrial complex is a term used to describe the influence of those who profit from war such as contractors who produce weapons, our policymakers, and armed forces. Defense contractors have spent over $60 million in donations to politicians in the 2024 and 2022 election cycles.
During the Democratic National Convention (DNC), we saw a clear example of how Vice President Kamala Harris would continue this pattern of brute American force and militarism. She said, “As commander in chief, I will ensure America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world.”
Lethal is defined as: deadly, mortal, fatal, causing or capable of causing death. Criticisms of the Democratic Presidential candidate or party are often accompanied by “Trump would not be any better.” No politician is exempt from accountability when embracing death and destruction as values to lead with. Other realities are possible. How else have oppressed communities fought for their freedoms in the U.S.? Visionaries challenged the choices given to them by fighting for new ones. Power does not only lie in the hands of defense contractors and lobbyists, but among all of us too.
In a moment when our politicians are paying close attention to the issues voters care about, we cannot separate the genocide in Palestine from police brutality, or issues like access to abortion from the economy. Each issue is inextricably linked because of how our government chooses to prioritize its budget, and the domestic or foreign policies we employ always have a domino effect. During the DNC, Prism interviewed Cherrene Horazuk, the former president of a union at the University of Minnesota. Cherrene shares, “Palestine is a workers’ issue first because money that goes for war is not available for jobs.”
Pro-Palestine advocates understand the interconnectedness of struggles for all people. Their moral compass exemplifies that if we don’t reject this cycle of violence now, we are signaling to those in power that we condone and are willing to continue the U.S.’ culture of forceful domination that has existed since its inception.
The Institute for Social Policy and Understanding examined 3,100 bills in 50 U.S. state legislatures across several years and issue areas including abortion, LGBTQ+ rights, immigrant rights, and more. Eighty-five percent of legislators that supported anti-Shariah or anti-“foreign law” bills also supported restrictive bills against other marginalized communities. When we understand that any form of injustice threatens all of us, we can act to advance our collective needs.
What does real justice look like for all those who have been harmed by the legacy of the U.S.’ war on terror since 9/11? Reparations for the lives lost that day some may argue could be revenge, but families advocating for a peaceful response to end the cycle of harm and violence are also showing us another way. True justice must include demanding our government to:
- Invest our taxpayer dollars in programs and services that actually lead to safety and healing;
- Repay our debt to the Afghan people who suffered immensely due to U.S. intervention and policy;
- Shut down and free the men detained at Guantánamo Bay;
- Ensure a cease-fire and enact an arms embargo on Israel; and
- Enact campaign finance reforms to end the influence of special corporate interests in our elections, such as lobbying by weapons manufacturing companies.
Islamophobia is not just a threat to Muslims—it’s a threat to all marginalized communities in the U.S. and globally. We must end the war on terror, and the violence U.S. government has inflicted on its people and elsewhere. Through our collective power and action, we can create a world that prioritizes and benefits from life, not death.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Rights Group Sues US for Placing Palestinian American on 'Illegal, Racist Watchlist'
"Security agencies have no right to infringe on people's rights under flimsy pretext and without judicial permission and due process," said a plaintiff in the case.
Aug 12, 2024
The largest U.S. Muslim civil rights group on Monday announced it is suing Attorney General Merrick Garland and other federal officials for placing one Palestinian American on its "no-fly" list and for seizing another's electronic device and interrogating him about his constitutionally protected organizing for a free Palestine.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations and its Los Angeles office (CAIR-LA) are suing Garland, Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Christopher Wray, Terrorism Screening Center Director Michael Glasheen, and other national security officials on behalf of Mustafa Zeidan and Osama Abu Irshaid.
According to the lawsuit, the men "are both United States citizens of Palestinian descent" who have never "been charged or convicted of a violent crime."
"Yet, recently, the federal government has placed Dr. Abu Irshaid and Mr. Zeidan on a secret list, subjecting one to a humiliating process of detention, questioning, and phone seizure at the border and barring the other from flying altogether," the filing states. Irshaid is on the terrorism watchlist while Zeidan cannot fly.
"Only one thing has changed for Dr. Abu Irshaid in recent months: his constant and passionate advocacy for an end to Israel's genocide in Gaza and an end to the United States' complicity in that genocide."
"As a result of his status on the government's secret list now, Dr. Abu Irshaid is detained at the border by federal agents each time he crosses it," the document continues. "Federal agents ask... humiliating questions about his lawful associations and work leading a nonprofit organization that advocates for the rights of Palestinians."
As a board member and national director of Palos Hills, Illinois-based American Muslims for Palestine, Irshaid frequently appears as an expert on mainstream media outlets including NPR and Al Jazeera, where he warned last December of "dangerous smear campaigns that weaponize racism to silence the Palestinian freedom movement."
The lawsuit states that
federal agents "have successfully coerced" Irshaid into unlocking his phone, which they still held at the time the suit was filed.
"Only one thing has changed for Dr. Abu Irshaid in recent months: His constant and passionate advocacy for an end to Israel's genocide in Gaza and an end to the United States' complicity in that genocide," the complaint stresses.
The lawsuit continues:
Mr. Zeidan has fared even worse. [He] travels to Jordan several times a year to visit and take care of his ailing mother. After purchasing a ticket to see her in May of this year, he showed up to the airport, only for officials at the airport to tell him that he was forbidden from boarding his flight because of his status on the government's secret list. The government has given Mr. Zeidan no explanation for why he's been placed on the no-fly List after years of flying overseas without any issues. Only one thing has changed in the last several months for Mr. Zeidan: He organizes a weekly protest to call for an end to Israel's genocidal campaign in Gaza and the United States' complicity in that genocide.
"When I first came to the United States almost three decades ago what appealed to me the most about it were the constitutional rights and civil liberties that guarantee humans dignity," Irshaid said Monday at a press conference in Washington, D.C. announcing the lawsuit, "and that security agencies have no right to infringe on people's rights under flimsy pretext and without judicial permission and due process."
"The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 in New York and Washington turned things upside down in the United States," Irshaid continued. "Harsh laws were enacted that infringed on the civil and constitutional rights of American citizens including the right to privacy and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty."
"American Muslims in particular became suspects merely because of their religious and ethnic background and were treated as guilty until proven innocent," he noted. "I understand the need to maintain security, but it must be conducted consistent with American values, and constitutional legal values and protections."
Explaining that he was previously on the U.S. watchlist from 2010-17, Irshaid expressed his dismay at finding himself back on it. However, he said he would not stop advocating for Palestine.
"As a human being, I reject killing, maiming, displacement, starvation, displacement, and terrorization of tens of thousands of children, women, civilians, and innocents, regardless of their nationalities," he said. "Moreover, as an American, I reject the complicity of American decision-makers in supporting such crimes with weapons, money, and the diplomatic immunity they provide to Israel."
"The right to political dissent is protected by the First Amendment," Irshaid added. "This does not make me less patriotic, but rather makes me more in line with American values."
Earlier this year, U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) urged her House colleagues to condemn a proposal by U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) to add pro-Palestine student protesters to the no-fly list.
"A sitting senator labels Americans protesting against a foreign country accused of carrying out a genocide funded with our tax dollars as terrorists and puts a target on their back to be attacked," said Omar, who is Muslim. "This is insanely dangerous and somehow no one will condemn it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The UK’s Racist Violence Is Driven by a Dangerous Right-Wing Ideology
A coalition of hard-right politicians, commentators, and influencers have empowered this hateful movement to inflict widespread violence against families fleeing fear.
Aug 08, 2024
Every Saturday night throughout summer, young people gather in Bristol’s historic Castle Park to sit on blankets under the cherry blossom trees, eating ice cream and drinking from cans as reggae, dub, and drum n bass rattle through tinny speakers. The music competes with the squawks of the city’s seagulls, the roar of traffic leaving the Galleries mall, and the strumming of a guitar. Teenagers try out circus skills, while bikes whizz along the river toward the bars and clubs of Old Market.
This weekend, the scene was very different.
Gangs of far-right race rioters stormed the park, passing its commemorative plaque to the city’s anti-fascists who fought in Spain in the 1930s. They were joined by those pulled into the far right via a toxic mix of anti-vax, anti-LGBTQ, QAnon conspiracy theories. Punches were thrown at a Black passerby. Counterprotesters insisted that fascists and racists were not welcome here, before moving south to the river to form a human barrier around a hotel housing migrant people, which the mob attempted to attack.
In many ways, the far right is grooming the general public to believe the violence and disorder of the past week—and any future violence—is an inevitable consequence of political failings around immigration. Worse, it is a result of the failure of democracy.
The scenes in Bristol were repeated across the country. In Rotherham and Tamworth, people who had fled violence and persecution in their own countries hid in hotel rooms as the buildings were set on fire. Asian men were dragged from their cabs to shouts of “kill him,” while Syrian shopkeepers, determined to build a new life away from dictatorship and civil war, watched in despair as their businesses were trashed. By Sunday night, more than 90 people had been arrested, but the violence did not stop, spreading to city after city, to Liverpool and Belfast and Plymouth and London and beyond.
The inciting incident was ostensibly the tragic killings of three girls, and the stabbing of other women and girls, at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class in Southport. British-born teenager Axel Rudakubana has been charged with murder and attempted murder.
The horrific deaths of the three children had nothing to do with the terrorising of asylum-seeking people and children in hotels, the destruction of Black and Brown people’s businesses, or the attacks on mosques. The street violence that has gripped much of England and Northern Ireland since 30 July instead tells a story of who the modern far right are, how they organise, what they believe, and the coalition of hard-right politicians, commentators, and influencers who have empowered this hateful movement to inflict widespread violence against families fleeing fear.
Who Is the Modern Far Right?
The early days of the violence were met with suggestions from the new Labour government that the English Defence League (EDL) could be designated as a “proscribed group”—one that is forbidden under U.K. law due to terrorist connections.
But the suggestion fails to understand two crucial issues. The first, is that the EDL does not really exist. Its co-founder and most famous member, far-right activist and convicted criminal Tommy Robinson (real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon) left in 2013, claiming he had concerns over the "dangers of far-right extremism," after which the group’s membership dwindled until it ultimately became defunct a few years later.
The second is that the modern far right is no longer made up of organisations with clear hierarchical structures. Instead, it is an international and online-networked movement. It organises around a shared ideology spread by a core of theorists, leaders, and influencers who use their power to put out statements designed to trigger others to commit violence. In this, the influencers commit what is known as “stochastic” or “random violence,” while of course making sure they are not the ones throwing the punches and smashing the glass themselves, and can claim plausible deniability when it comes to incitement.
The networked nature of the modern far right means that rather than coalescing around a physical leader, they instead organise around a shared ideology and aim: the Great Replacement conspiracy theory, which can be defeated via a race war.
The movement breaks out into the real world with violent, racist outbursts and attacks. That violence is filmed and live streamed across its network, with each action used to tell a story that will inspire new followers and, crucially, influence nonmembers by creating an atmosphere of insecurity and fear.
Following the killings in Southport, an online conspiracy claimed the killer was a Muslim man who had arrived into the U.K. illegally on a small boat last year. The lie brought together the two tropes driving the modern far right: Islamophobic claims that Muslim men pose a threat to women and girls and manufactured outrage over “fighting age men” arriving in the U.K. on small boats to live off the taxpayer.
While the false claims about the Southport killings were specific to that incident, the disinformation being shared was built on years of far-right influencers engaged in rhetorical violence against primarily Muslim migrant people. Numerous posts from Robinson’s Telegram channel, for example, discuss how migrant men who “inevitably go on to rape and murder” are “invading” the U.K. and “taken in and housed in hotels at taxpayer expense.” Governments and NGOs are even accused by him of “using little girls to encourage fighting age men to come to the U.K. who see nothing wrong in diddling kids.”
These messages have gathered pace over the past four years as the former Conservative government ramped up messaging to “stop the boats” and accused migrant people of abusing the system while being “child rapists" and "threats to national security.” In the same time period, growing anti-immigrant rhetoric and a failing policy to house asylum-seeking people in hotels has repeatedly triggered real-life violence and intimidation, mainly outside the hotels housing families.
“Citizen journalists” who made their names as “migrant hunters” such as Amanda Smith (who uses the social media avatar Yorkshire Rose) and Alan Leggett (Active Patriot), as well as groups including Britain First and Patriotic Alternative, have increasingly targeted hotels, live streaming their “visits” in footage that shows activists intimidating residents. Smith wrote how “women and girls are frightened to walk around the area of the [Rotherham] hotel at night,” pushing the message that migrant men are a threat to white women. Even children are positioned as a threat: One Britain First post said that a child in a hotel waving at their cameras was mocking them.
When it was revealed that the individual charged with the Southport murders was a British-born teenager, the far-right narrative shifted to maintain its Islamophobic focus. Robinson and others shared disinformation about Muslim men stabbing people in Stoke-on-Trent, giving a new inciting reason for the riots, despite Staffordshire Police confirming there have been no such stabbings. Footage of the so-called “Muslim Defence League” portrayed British towns as under attack.
The claim that white Britain is under attack by Muslim men is then used to incite the far-right’s ultimate goal: a genocidal civil war, otherwise known as Day X.
The Ideology
The networked nature of the modern far right means that rather than coalescing around a physical leader, they instead organise around a shared ideology and aim: the Great Replacement conspiracy theory, which can be defeated via a race war.
The theory baselessly claims that white people in the Global North are being “replaced” by migrant people from the Global South, aided by feminists repressing the birth rate via abortion and contraception. All of this is supposedly being orchestrated by “cultural Marxists,” a catch-all term that includes liberal elites, feminists, Black Lives Matter activists, LGBTQ+ people, and Jewish people.
This so-called replacement is commonly referred to as a “white genocide.” To defeat this so-called genocide, the far right wants to incite a civil war—sometimes referred to as Day X or boogaloo—that would result in pure ethno-states. It’s for this reason that the owner of X (formerly Twitter), Elon Musk, warned that “civil war is inevitable” in the U.K., in the wake of the riots. While it is far from inevitable, it is the desired outcome of the global far right, who are looking for an inciting incident to trigger Day X.
To prevent white genocide, men are told that it is their duty to defend their family—and to defend whiteness—through violence.
When white men in England are dragging Asian men out of cars with shouts of “kill them,” and when white gangs are setting fire to hotels housing families from various countries across the Global South, they are rehearsing the actions they would take during the thing they fantasise about: genocide. When white men attack mosques, they are rehearsing a cultural genocide.
The central replacement/white genocide theory is supplemented by secondary conspiracies designed to provoke anxieties that children are in danger, and that parental authority is being usurped by outside, hostile “others.”
Those attending the riots had signs written with “save the children” and “save our children.” The same slogans also appear at anti-vax protests and anti-drag queen protests. While seemingly a benign slogan—who doesn’t want to save children?—the message now evokes the far-right QAnon conspiracy theory claiming liberal elites are trafficking and torturing children in Satanic rituals in order to harvest “adrenochrome.”
The demand to “save the children” feeds directly into the overarching Great Replacement conspiracy theory. A hostile “other,” the message reads, is coming to take your children away. Children are the frontline against replacement. To prevent white genocide, men are told that it is their duty to defend their family—and to defend whiteness—through violence.
Strategy
The desired outcome of this violence is to create insecurity, fear, and anxiety in the general population, which in turn leads to a collapse in faith in democracy and society.
That this is happening now, less than a month into a Labour government, is important to note. Labour has already cancelled the Rwanda scheme and implemented a statutory instrument to start processing asylum claims that were in a backlog as a result of rule changes in the Illegal Migration Act. Though the party, which has a long history of courting anti-immigrant support, is also acting “tough” on immigration, with raids on businesses and deportation flights to Vietnam and Timor-Leste, Labour is the traditional enemy of the far right. It is associated with progressive values, multiculturalism, and “woke.” For the far right to achieve its aims, it has to destroy the electorate’s trust in the Labour Party, in government—and in democracy.
In many ways, the far right is grooming the general public to believe the violence and disorder of the past week—and any future violence—is an inevitable consequence of political failings around immigration. Worse, it is a result of the failure of democracy.
Sowing fear, anxiety, and distrust in societal norms allows for the far right to achieve its ultimate aim: to replace democracy with a strong-man, authoritarian leader who can rule on a war footing.
That’s why, following U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s intervention on Sunday night, where he condemned “far-right thuggery,” social media filled up with messages that he was a “traitor to his country,” a “Soros puppet” (an antisemitic trope) running a “radical government.”
Former actor and failed politician Laurence Fox called Starmer a “traitor,” writing that he is on the “side” of “immigrant barbarians” who rape “British girls.” He finished the tweet with the threat of violence: “Fine. Then it’s war.” His tweet echoes Musk’s “civil war is inevitable.”
Following the Southport riot, Reform U.K. Member of Parliament Nigel Farage put out a video where he claimed the violence was a reaction to “fear, discomfort, to unease… I am worried, not just about the events in Southport, but about societal decline that is happening in our country… this prime minister does not have a clue… we need to start getting tough… Because what you’ve seen on the streets of Hartlepool, of London, of Southport, is nothing to what could happen over the next few weeks.”
In his video, Farage hints to the far-right trope of Western decline—an offshoot of the Great Replacement theory. He argues that the government is failing to protect its people. More importantly, he suggests that if the government fails to get "a clue," it will get worse. The violence, fear, and disorder will increase. And then what happens? What happens when violence leads to people no longer trusting the state?
This is part of the modern far right’s strategy: If the state cannot protect us from inevitable violence, it says, the far-right strongman can. Sowing fear, anxiety, and distrust in societal norms allows for the far right to achieve its ultimate aim: to replace democracy with a strong-man, authoritarian leader who can rule on a war footing.
This is the lesson of the 1930s. It’s one we cannot afford to forget in the 2020s.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular