Islamophobia In The British Tabloids

“Muslim fan­at­ics plot to hijack Roy­al Wed­ding…”[1], reads the head­line of the Daily Mail. The paper claims, “They plan a ‘force­ful demon­stra­tion’ with thou­sands of pro­test­ers set to burn the Uni­on Flag, images of the Crown, and effi­gies of the bridal couple”, all of which will be sym­bols of Bri­tain in this Roy­al cere­mony. The fan­at­ics in ques­tion are a small num­ber of Muslim men who belong to the group, ‘Muslims Again­st Cru­sades’, and who have not them­selves attrac­ted “thou­sands of pro­test­ers” in any demon­stra­tion they have taken part in. The art­icle provides three images con­nec­ted to these men, one of the images shows a mem­ber of the group, another shows a pre­vi­ous protest where a giant poppy is in flames on the ground and the third image is taken from the group’s web­site where the words, “HARRY THE NAZI”, “BEST MAN IS A NAZI”, are clearly vis­ible. Beneath this pic­ture, the art­icle states: “Police are anti­cip­at­ing viol­ent clashes as the Right-wing Eng­lish Defence League have given notice that they intend to protest again­st the Muslim hard­liners.” Whil­st the group of Muslim men are fan­at­ics, the Eng­lish Defence League (EDL) is given legit­im­acy and a degree of cred­ib­il­ity by merely refer­ring to them as “Right-wing”. Indeed, the final image shows a protest from the EDL which in the cap­tion states: “coun­ter-protest”, pos­i­tion­ing the protest as a respon­se to, as it reads, “the Muslim extremist” group and again no descript­ive term pre­cedes the words “Eng­lish Defence League”. Two oth­er images accom­pany the art­icle, one of the wed­ding couple and another of a stream of uni­on flags. These rep­res­ent what ‘Muslims Again­st Cru­sades’, or more gen­er­ally, what “hard­line Muslims” are again­st: Bri­tain. The art­icle con­tin­ues: “Almost 5,000 Met officers will be deployed to com­bat dis­order on April 29.” The art­icle makes no men­tion of any oth­er pos­sible dis­turb­ances; dis­order, here, is dir­ectly linked to “Muslim fan­at­ics”.

Edward Said’s notion of Ori­ent­al­ism remains per­tin­ent as the Muslim threat lingers in the back­ground, threat­en­ing to “hijack” the “wed­ding cel­eb­ra­tions.” From refer­ring to the group of men by their organ­isa­tion, as the art­icle con­tin­ues, it points to the more gen­er­al­ised threat of “hard­line Muslims” as the paper pos­i­tions ‘them’, Muslims, again­st sym­bols of Bri­tain through its imagery: the poppy in flames and the Uni­on flags. All of which estab­lish the divis­ive notion of ‘us’ versus ‘them’ and the tend­ency to por­tray Muslims again­st ‘the West’, frame­works cent­ral to Ori­ent­al­ist com­ment­ary. Said’s Ori­ent­al­ism forms the basis of under­stand­ing the pre­ferred ste­reo­typ­ic­al rep­res­ent­a­tions attrib­uted to Muslims. These rep­res­ent­a­tions con­struct a link between ter­ror­ism and Islam in a way that of “no reli­gion, cul­ture or eth­nic group except Islam and its soci­et­ies, has it been said that ter­ror­ism is, after a fash­ion, endem­ic.”[2] It is neces­sary to con­tex­tu­al­ise the report­ing of Muslims from the out­set for one can­not over­look the involve­ment of West­ern powers in the world of the ‘Ori­ent’, wheth­er this be in the form of mil­it­ary inva­sion and occu­pa­tion in the cases of Iraq and Afgh­anistan, or through con­tin­ued sup­port for oppress­ive regimes in North Africa and the Middle East, includ­ing Israel. When report­ing on Islam/Muslims, self rep­res­ent­a­tion on the part of the ‘Ori­ent’ is not a pri­or­ity for the main­stream media as ‘experts’ are in abund­ance to high­light the inher­ent flaws of the ‘Ori­ent’, sug­gest­ing that more often than not, indi­vidu­als who sing from the same hymn sheet as media cor­por­a­tions them­selves are given a plat­form to rep­res­ent ‘mod­er­ate Muslims.’ To some extent, instead of report­ing the ‘War on Ter­ror’, the main­stream media have cham­pioned it, thus, estab­lish­ing an envir­on­ment where Islamo­phobic trends can thrive.

Ori­ent­al­ism today

Said’s influ­en­tial notion of Ori­ent­al­ism can be revis­ited to explain the frame­works from which Muslims are rep­res­en­ted. Ori­ent­al­ism can be seen as being at the core of the ste­reo­typ­ic­al rep­res­ent­a­tions of Muslims that we see in the main­stream media today. Said pro­poses: “The gen­er­al basis of Ori­ent­al­ist thought is an ima­gin­at­ive and yet drastic­ally polar­ized geo­graphy divid­ing the world into two unequal parts, the lar­ger, “dif­fer­ent” one called the Ori­ent, the oth­er, also known as “our” world, called the Occi­dent or the West.”[3] The dis­tinc­tion between ‘our’ world and ‘their’ world and the media’s por­tray­als of these two sup­posedly incom­pat­ible worlds, con­stantly pits ‘us’ again­st ‘them’. There­fore, the ‘us versus them’ frame­work is flawed from the begin­ning because it makes gross gen­er­al­isa­tions of an entire reli­gion and indeed an entire region into one indif­fer­ent and homo­gen­eous people, wheth­er it be the so called ‘Muslim world’ or ‘the West’, though “Muslim soci­et­ies have not insti­tu­tion­al­ised their ima­gin­ar­ies about West­ern soci­et­ies to the extent that the lat­ter have done of Islam”[4]. Indeed, the “most sig­ni­fic­ant accom­plish­ments of Ori­ent­al­ism is the con­struc­tion of ‘an Ori­ent’. The depic­tion of a single ‘Ori­ent’, or a single Muslim ‘Middle East’ which can be stud­ied as a cohes­ive whole”[5]. Thus, through the media’s insist­ence on provid­ing ste­reo­typ­ic­al rep­res­ent­a­tions of the Ori­ent, “the sense of West­ern power over the Ori­ent is taken for gran­ted as hav­ing the status of sci­en­ti­fic truth”[6] and so the two polar­ized worlds, ‘ours’ and ‘theirs’, bring forth a cer­tain under­stand­ing of that ‘world’. Karim explains: “A bearded ‘middle-East­ern-look­ing’ man wear­ing a black cloak and turban can trig­ger an entire series of images of a fan­at­ic­al reli­gious move­ment, of air­plane hijack­ings, of West­ern host­ages held help­less in dun­geons, of truck bombs killing hun­dreds of inno­cent people, of cruel pun­ish­ments sanc­tioned by ‘Islam­ic law’ and of the sup­pres­sion of human rights – in sum, of intel­lec­tu­al and mor­al aggres­sion.”[7] Ste­reo­typ­ic­al depic­tions of Muslims that are repeated become famil­i­ar in the mind of the view­er or read­er as an accur­ate and true por­tray­al of Muslims albeit con­struc­ted for us by the media as they become “ste­reo­types embed­ded in the West­ern col­lect­ive imagery”[8].

To some extent, Ori­ent­al­ism in prac­tice is “fil­ter­ing through the Ori­ent into West­ern con­scious­ness”[9] through ste­reo­typ­ic­al por­tray­als that reaf­firm ‘our’ sus­pi­cions and anxi­et­ies towards the ‘Muslim world’. Fun­da­ment­ally, “Ori­ent­al­ism can be dis­cussed and ana­lyzed as the cor­por­ate insti­tu­tion for deal­ing with the Ori­ent”[10], in oth­er words, “mak­ing state­ments about it, author­iz­ing views of it, describ­ing it, by teach­ing it, set­tling in it, rul­ing over it”[11]. Ori­ent­al­ism, then, “is a West­ern style for dom­in­at­ing, restruc­tur­ing, and hav­ing author­ity over the Ori­ent.”[12] The idea of any self rep­res­ent­a­tion from the Ori­ent is not enter­tained due to the Orient’s inab­il­ity to define itself. To speak of self rep­res­ent­a­tion, some­thing that Said talks of in rela­tion to col­on­ized peoples is rel­ev­ant because after all, “the Ori­ent is not only adja­cent to Europe; it is also the place of Europe’s greatest and richest and old­est colon­ies”[13]. Though the Middle East and North Africa are no longer col­on­ized, as such, by West­ern nations, the West is still highly influ­en­tial in this part of the world. Indeed, as Childs and Wil­li­ams explain: “although colo­ni­al armies and bur­eau­cra­cies might have with­drawn, West­ern powers were still intent on main­tain­ing max­im­um indir­ect con­trol over erstwhile colon­ies, via polit­ic­al, cul­tur­al and above all eco­nom­ic chan­nels, a phe­nomen­on which became known as neo­co­lo­ni­al­ism.”[14] Ori­ent­al­ist rep­res­ent­a­tions in the West serve the pur­pose of main­tain­ing this status quo, uphold­ing “a West­ern sense of superi­or­ity and hege­mony over the Muslim world.”[15] Acknow­ledging the West’s hand in the affairs of this part of the world allows one to see how and why Ori­ent­al­ism is still rel­ev­ant today. This West­ern sense of superi­or­ity can be iden­ti­fied in main­stream report­ing of Muslims today, where in many instances the Ori­ent is seen as, in Said’s terms, “some­thing one judges (as in a court of law), some­thing one stud­ies and depicts (as in a cur­riculum), some­thing one dis­cip­lines (as in a school or pris­on), some­thing one illus­trates (as in a zoolo­gic­al manu­al). The point is that in each of these cases the Ori­ent­al is con­tained and rep­res­en­ted by dom­in­at­ing frame­works.”[16]

These frame­works not only “rep­res­ent the Ori­ent and Islam as an object for invest­ig­a­tion and con­trol”[17], but they pos­i­tion the West as cul­tur­ally super­i­or to the Ori­ent. Said elab­or­ates: ”to have such know­ledge of such a thing is to dom­in­ate it, to have author­ity over it. And author­ity here means for “us” to deny autonomy to “it” […] since we know it and it exists, in a sense, as we know it.” Per­haps one could con­sider this deni­al of autonomy in terms of the absence of self rep­res­ent­a­tion from the Ori­ent jux­ta­posed with the pres­ence of fig­ures who make state­ments about the Ori­ent and for the Ori­ent in the main­stream media, “every com­ment­at­or or expert a poten­tial sec­ret­ary of state”[18], in the words of Said. Indeed, when it comes to debat­ing Islam and ter­ror­ism, “author­it­ies can be cited for it read­ily, ref­er­ences can be made to it, argu­ments about par­tic­u­lar instances of Islam can be adduced from it – by any­one, not just by experts or by journ­al­ists.”[19] Per­haps one could con­sider this as the blue­print of Ori­ent­al­ism that very much still exists today.

Post-9/11 Islamo­pho­bia

The Brit­ish Runnymede Trust defined Islamo­pho­bia as “dread or hatred of Islam and there­fore, to the fear and dis­like of all Muslims”[20]. Islamo­pho­bia in the media is not some­thing that sud­denly came to exist post-9/11, on the con­trary, “this anti-Muslim dis­course in Bri­tain pre­ceded 911 and emerged, in par­tic­u­lar, in the wake of the Rush­die affair.”[21] The Runnymede report on Islamo­pho­bia, which “power­fully illus­trated the vehe­mence with which Islam and Muslims were neg­at­ively ste­reo­typed both in the press and the broad­cast media”[22], was pub­lished in 1997, how­ever, what 911 did do, though, was give “fur­ther impetus to Islamo­phobic trends in the media.”[23] Indeed, “with­in hours of the hor­ri­fic acts of 9/11, the Bush admin­is­tra­tion framed the struggle again­st ter­ror­ism in abso­lut­ist terms that painted the world black and white and ignored all shades of grey.”[24] The impact of this was that the frame­work of ‘us versus them’ that already exis­ted in the media was now evid­ently con­firmed by the attacks and could be amp­li­fied to a great­er extent, both as a jus­ti­fi­able reac­tion to the attacks and a root cause for the attacks. “Since 911 this divi­sion has been the defin­ing char­ac­ter­ist­ic of glob­al affairs”[25], a divi­sion steeped in “the notion of ‘Ori­ent­al­ism’ as a dis­tinct­ive and per­vas­ive ideo­logy of the Ori­ent as Oth­er­ness”[26]. The main­stream media exploited the deep empathy felt towards the vic­tims of 9/11, includ­ing dozens of whom were Muslims, by pro­mot­ing old ideas of Islam as medi­ev­al and dan­ger­ous whereby “Muslims are ‘Oth­ered’ in a medi­ated world where simplist­ic notions of good and evil peoples find cur­rency.”[27]

The events on, and indeed the drastic meas­ures taken after 911 by West­ern lead­ers, Bush and Blair in par­tic­u­lar, have meant that “it has become a cliché to say that the attacks of 911 ‘changed everything’”[28], des­pite the fact that for many, “9/11 simply made overt a world­view that had long been present but little acknow­ledged”[29]. To some extent, the media cir­cus that sur­roun­ded the events of 911 and the Bush administration’s determ­in­a­tion to hunt down the per­pet­rat­ors wherever it may lead them, even if some­how to Iraq where there was no con­nec­tion to the attacks, was per­haps guilty of beat­ing the drums of war in line with ‘offi­cial’ gov­ern­ment sources who had pre-exist­ing motives, as it is now known, to invade Iraq. Con­veni­ently miss­ing from the ana­lys­is in the main­stream media was any pos­sible link of the attacks on 911 to the US’ con­tinu­ing sup­port for the ter­ror­ism of the Israeli régime in their mil­it­ary occu­pa­tion and Zion­ist expan­sion in Palestine, or to Bill Clin­ton pound­ing Afgh­anistan and Sudan with cruise mis­siles in 1998, or of what many in the Middle East and North Africa deem to be the “imper­i­al­ist intru­sion of the West”[30]. Indeed, “ter­ror itself became the enemy, rather than a weapon used by an enemy, firmly shut­ting the door on any dis­cus­sion of root causes or motiv­a­tions.”[31] 911 was instead repor­ted as though ‘they’ declared war on ‘the West’ for reas­ons unknown to ‘us’ and as a res­ult, it seems “a con­front­a­tion­al polit­ic­al situ­ation has been cre­ated, pit­ting “us” again­st “Islam.”[32]

Mal­colm et al. state in “Woolmer­gate” that rep­res­ent­a­tions of Islam and Muslims have “become more homo­gen­eous and more heav­ily focused on reli­gion and ter­ror­ism post-9/11”[33]. Sup­port­ing the idea that Islam and Muslims are demon­ized is the fact that in Bri­tain “on Septem­ber 11 itself the Muslim Coun­cil issued a press release”[34] con­demning the attack, “on 13 Septem­ber a meet­ing of Muslim organ­isa­tions con­vened by the Coun­cil issued a state­ment”[35] also in con­dem­na­tion of the attack and then on “29 Septem­ber the Coun­cil con­vened a meet­ing of lead­ing Islam­ic schol­ars and mosque lead­ers that con­demned the attack in the strongest pos­sible terms”[36] yet “these responses were either ignored or heav­ily down­played by sig­ni­fic­ant sec­tions of the press”.[37] Per­haps this “demon­strates how stor­ies will only be selec­ted if they fit with an idea of who Muslims are.”[38] The exclu­sion of these voices is sig­ni­fic­ant because what is appar­ent today is the notion that Muslims must speak out again­st the actions of fel­low Muslims in order to pre­vent the tar­nish­ing of the image of Islam. How­ever, as Richard­son vehe­mently argues: “To engage with the argu­ment, even to argue that ‘Islam con­demns ter­ror­ism, Islam con­demns murder and killing of inno­cents, etc. ‘not only con­trib­utes to the gen­er­al rela­tion­ship between Islam and ter­ror via their col­loc­a­tion, it also grants a cer­tain cred­ib­il­ity to the racist argu­ment: it sug­gests, albeit impli­citly, that both sides are ‘debat­able pos­i­tions’. Clearly, to still be hav­ing such a debate is offens­ive: it is offens­ive because it is part of this “relent­less insist­ence – even if it is put in the form of a debate – that [the Muslim] faith, culture[s] and people[s] are seen as a source of threat” (Said, 1997: xxi).”[39] There­fore, even in less obvi­ous neg­at­ive art­icles or broad­casts about Muslims, when a sup­posed Muslim rep­res­ent­at­ive con­demns the actions of oth­er Muslims, often by deem­ing their actions un-Islam­ic, the plat­form is set for a debate on the cred­ib­il­ity of his or her claims, as though there is always the oth­er more rad­ic­al Islam­ic side of the argu­ment that is miss­ing from the dis­cus­sion. “Add this to the com­plete mar­gin­al­isa­tion of those Muslims con­demning the attacks and you have a fic­tion­al Muslim com­munity that sits com­fort­ably with­in the estab­lished norms of Islamo­phobic expect­a­tion.”[40]

The main­stream media con­sist­ently use words such as ‘Jihadists’ and ‘Islam­ists’ when refer­ring to Muslim ter­ror­ists. The fre­quency of which these words are used in rela­tion to actions of Muslims is prob­lem­at­ic because when non-Muslims com­mit acts of ter­ror­ism, they can­not be labelled ‘Jihadists’ or ‘Islam­ists’, and there­fore to some extent these words are cun­ningly used by the media when refer­ring to Muslims because they are men­tioned heav­ily in con­junc­tion with the words ‘ter­ror­ism’ or ‘ter­ror­ists’ in a way that strengthens the link between Islam/Muslims and terrorism/terrorists. This is not to say that oth­er groups, such as the Irish, are not labelled ter­ror­ists, but that per­haps the fre­quency of news stor­ies about Muslim ter­ror­ists being higher than oth­er groups of people grants per­suas­ive weight to the demon­isa­tion of Islam as a reli­gion com­mit­ted to ter­ror­ism. In oth­er words, as Said explains: “there is a pro­cess by which vari­ous iden­tit­ies in align­ment end up by fus­ing com­pletely with each oth­er: the ter­ror­ist with Islam, com­mun­ism, and whatever oth­er undesir­able iden­tit­ies we wish to foist on him, the oppon­ent with all the desir­able qual­it­ies which, one assumes, fit around ‘us’ like a per­fect body stock­ing.”[41] Per­haps one could also argue that words like ‘Islam­ist’ and ‘Jihadist” are used even as sub­sti­tutes for the word ‘ter­ror­ist’, par­tic­u­larly by politi­cians who are more care­ful to label a Muslim as a ‘ter­ror­ist’ than tabloid news­pa­pers would be. The recent revolu­tion in Egypt provides an example of such rhet­or­ic as politi­cians talk of the ‘Islam­ist threat’ that could come to power in Egypt in regards to the Muslim Broth­er­hood. One could ques­tion wheth­er there is any dis­tinc­tion between an ‘Islam­ist threat’ and a ‘ter­ror­ist threat’ in the minds of those who use such words and those who come to such con­clu­sions. On the oth­er hand, if the ‘Islam­ist threat’ is instead the pos­sib­il­ity of total­it­ari­an rule, then this begs the ques­tion why it took a people’s upris­ing for the main­stream media to recog­nise and inform the audi­ence that the Mubarak régime was in fact a total­it­ari­an régime long before West­ern lead­ers pub­licly sup­por­ted the calls of the Egyp­tian people. If the Mubarak régime was not an ‘Islam­ist threat’ then per­haps the sug­ges­tion is that an ‘Islam­ist’ rul­ing power would be worse than the pre­vi­ous régime. Labelling a group of mur­der­ous people as ‘Islam­ists’ only attrib­utes neg­at­ive con­nota­tions to Islam.

In the Tabloids: Ste­reo­types

“Islam and Muslims are rep­res­en­ted and thereby ‘made known’ to us via, among­st oth­er sites, the pages of news­pa­pers.”[42] Neg­at­ive rep­res­ent­a­tions of Islam and Muslims are par­tic­u­larly  rife in today’s tabloid news­pa­pers where “Muslims are marked out and rhet­or­ic­ally ‘Oth­er-ed’”[43] as “Islam is ‘news’ of a par­tic­u­larly unpleas­ant sort”[44].

In 2006, The Sun pub­lished an art­icle head­lined, “Hate demo over car­toon”[45], about a group of men protest­ing again­st a Dan­ish newspaper’s pub­lic­a­tion of unpleas­ant images depict­ing Proph­et Muham­mad (pbuh). Beneath the head­line, a pic­ture of a group of men hold­ing plac­ards is cap­tioned: “Hate… Lon­don Muslim mob’s vile mes­sages over car­toon”. The open­ing sen­tence reads: “THEIR eyes are full of hate and their ban­ners call for a new 77 ter­ror attack.” The read­er is posi­tioned to asso­ci­ate Muslims with the words, ‘hate’, ‘Muslim mob’, ‘vile’ and ‘ter­ror attack’ just by see­ing the head­line, the pic­ture and cap­tion, and the open­ing sen­tence, with no indic­a­tion of what alle­gi­ances the men hold, oth­er than that they are Muslims, and with no know­ledge of how many pro­test­ers there actu­ally are. Per­haps this works to blur the bound­ar­ies of the views of this “mob” and the views of ‘nor­mal’ Muslims. The gen­er­al­ising of Muslims is then cor­rob­or­ated by the use of the pos­sess­ive pro­noun, “their”, in the open­ing sen­tence. For obvi­ous reas­ons, the word ‘our’ is not used, but a more suit­able way of phras­ing the sen­tence would per­haps be to state, “The men’s eyes…” or even, in keep­ing with The Sun‘s out­look, “The mob’s eyes…” By stat­ing, “THEIR eyes are full of hate”, the sub­jects of the art­icle (the group of pro­test­ers), hav­ing been iden­ti­fied thus far only as Muslims, become less isol­ated and more rep­res­ent­at­ive of ‘them’, the Muslims. In the head­ing, the word ‘Hate’ is used to describe the demon­stra­tion while the car­toons are not described and in the pic­ture cap­tion, the word ‘vile’ is used to describe the mes­sages on the plac­ards while again no descrip­tion pre­cedes the word “car­toon”. The art­icle fails to adequately explain the pro­test­ers’ anger. Indeed, whil­st the plac­ards are later described as “pro­voc­at­ive”, in the entire art­icle, the words “row over the Proph­et Muham­mad car­toons” are the most eval­u­at­ive of the debate sur­round­ing their pub­lic­a­tion. The second pic­ture shows two plac­ards, one reads: “Demo­cracy go to hell”, the oth­er, “Europe: your 911 will come”, and the cap­tion to this pic­ture states: “Threat… demon­strat­ors warm of a 911 style respon­se to news­pa­per car­toon ‘insults’”. Here, the unspe­cified num­ber of Muslims are rep­res­en­ted as again­st the West as the plac­ards pic­tured denounce demo­cracy and warn Europe.

The quo­ta­tion marks around the word “insults” ques­tion the Muslim respon­se and sug­gest their anti-West­ern views on show at the protest exist regard­less of any injustice they feel has been inflic­ted upon them and helps to build a “par­tic­u­lar image of Islam, by por­tray­ing it as a threat to the West, and to the glob­al lib­er­al val­ues and ten­ets of the mod­ern world.”[46] Fur­ther­more, the art­icle says the pro­test­ers “screamed their hatred towards Europe” and that “Shouts of “We adore Osama Bin Laden” rang out from a small sec­tion of the crowd”. A small sec­tion of an already small crowd, per­haps. The edit­or, Paul Thompson, fails to inform the read­er of the num­ber of pro­test­ers.  The art­icle sug­gests that Muslims “are allied with ‘Them in the Muslim world’ and not ‘Us in the West’”[47], thereby estab­lish­ing the divis­ive Ori­ent­al­ist notions of ‘us’ versus ‘them’ in two incom­pat­ible worlds as Islam is con­stantly depic­ted “as that with which the West is rad­ic­ally at odds”[48]. The art­icle says: “The pro­test­ers were whipped into a fren­zy”, “Onlook­ers were shocked by the fero­city of the demo” and talks about “Three Trans­it vans full of […] col­leagues […] parked out of view of the pro­test­ers ready to rein­for­ce the dozen officers”. Only to then state: “Des­pite the ban­ners the demo was peace­ful.” Dir­ectly beneath this state­ment is a pic­ture of pro­test­ers chant­ing, described in the cap­tion as, “angry Muslim fun­da­ment­al­ists”. The pic­ture does not enlighten the read­er on the size of the demon­stra­tion as three indi­vidu­als fit into the frame of the pic­ture which cov­ers their shoulders and faces giv­ing no approx­im­ate indic­a­tion of how many people are behind them. An onlook­er, “who moved to the UK from Syr­ia 13 years ago”, is quoted say­ing the views of the pro­test­ers “did not rep­res­ent the views of main­stream Muslims”, as are the Muslim Coun­cil of Bri­tain, who con­demn the lan­guage used in the protest. How­ever, dir­ectly beneath this, the art­icle states: “The demo in Lon­don fol­lowed sim­il­ar protests across the world”, and men­tions Jakarta in Indone­sia where “Viol­ence flared”. The peace­ful demon­stra­tion in Lon­don, as described by The Sun, is now equated with the viol­ence in Indone­sia.

Moreover, the claim of “sim­il­ar protests across the world” is sup­por­ted only by a men­tion of preach­ers address­ing wor­ship­pers and “Muslim lead­ers” who “vowed revenge”. The art­icle then dir­ects atten­tion to Jord­an where the edit­or of a paper “was fired after he ran the car­toons”, and then to Leban­on where the art­icle ends by quot­ing an unnamed Palestini­an refugee who appar­ently said, “We will not be sat­is­fied with protests. The solu­tion is the slaughter of those who harmed Islam and the Proph­et.” The Sun out­weighs the con­dem­na­tion com­ing from the Muslim Coun­cil of Bri­tain with more ‘rad­ic­al’ voices from dif­fer­ent parts of the world. Per­haps it can be said that “what is hap­pen­ing in the media is that they are seek­ing out those with the loudest voices who fit their own agenda rather than fit­ting the agenda around the more sig­ni­fic­ant voices”[49]. Even though the ref­er­ences amount to two indi­vidu­als, a refugee from Leban­on and a “preach­er” from Palestine, the way the art­icle ends with an array of ref­er­ences to dif­fer­ent loc­a­tions in the ‘Muslim World’ gives cre­dence to the idea that the views of the pro­test­ers in Lon­don are in fact not isol­ated and that Islam and Muslims are a glob­al threat. “It also has the effect of homo­gen­ising Muslims, link­ing hos­til­it­ies abroad to Muslims in Bri­tain”[50] and brings into ques­tion the cred­ib­il­ity of the state­ments given in the art­icle by those Muslims who have con­demned the pro­test­ers’ views.

The Sun also pub­lished an art­icle in 2007 titled: “A rough guide to world justice”[51]. The art­icle begins by stat­ing: “THE For­eign Office want Brits to find out more about loc­al laws abroad, so they are less likely to find them­selves in trouble when they travel”. It com­pares a list of pun­ish­ments to dif­fer­ent crimes with the pun­ish­ments that would be given here in Bri­tain. Begin­ning with Indone­sia, the art­icle claims: “A typ­ic­al sen­tence for pos­ses­sion of can­nabis in the strictly Muslim Banda Aceh region is 11 years jail and ten strokes.” It then focuses on Iran where “drug smug­gling is pun­ish­able by up to 100 strokes of the cane in a pub­lic beat­ing”. It refers to “Islam­ic Somalia” where, the art­icle states, “can­nabis use is pun­ished with whip­ping.” On “Drun­k­nness”, the art­icle again cites “Islam­ic Bandeh Aceh, Indone­sia”, where “40 strokes with a rat­tan cane is typ­ic­al pun­ish­ment for drink­ing in pub­lic. If the vic­tim faints before they have had all the lashes, the rest are admin­istered when they are con­scious again.” This is com­pared to “on-the-spot fixed pen­alty” fines in Bri­tain. A com­par­is­on is then made between Ohio, Amer­ica, and Saudi Ara­bia. The art­icle states that in Ohio, “drink-drivers are forced to walk around with plac­ards pro­claim­ing their guilt” whil­st in Saudi Ara­bia, “drink­ing will earn you between 30 and 120 strokes of the cane.” Leni­ent pun­ish­ments in the West (Bri­tain, Ohio) are com­pared to what the art­icle sug­gests are harsh pun­ish­ments in Saudi Ara­bia, in “Islam­ic Bandeh Aceh” and in “Islam­ic Somalia”.

The art­icle goes on to state that “under Sharia Law in Iran and Saudi Ara­bia, blas­phemy is pun­ished by death, as is apostasy”. The edit­or, Mar­tin Phil­lips, then relates this to the Dan­ish car­toon pub­lic­a­tions which, in his words, “incited riot­ing around the world, death threats to the pub­lish­ers, and calls for jihad – holy war.” And so the art­icle con­tin­ues, after (know­ingly) mis­lead­ing the read­er into believ­ing jihad means holy war, the edit­or men­tions pun­ish­ments in Iran on three fur­ther occa­sions, Saudi Ara­bia on three more occa­sions, Tur­key, Malay­sia and Nigeria. On theft, the art­icle states that in com­par­is­on to Bri­tain, “Else­where around the globe, they tend to mete out some­what tougher justice. Under Sharia law, repeated theft is pun­ish­able by ampu­ta­tion”, Nigeria and Iran are high­lighted. On infi­del­ity, the art­icle reads: “INFI­DEL­ITY isn’t a crime in this coun­try, which is per­haps as well because it is given as the cause of one in five divorces.” A strange way to jus­ti­fy why it is not a crime. Non­ethe­less, the art­icle then refers to an incid­ent in Iran where a man and woman were stoned to death and con­tin­ues: “Under Islam­ic law a male con­vict due to be stoned is bur­ied up to the waist with his hands tied behind his back, while a female is usu­ally bur­ied up to her neck”, no explan­a­tion of the con­di­tions of Sharia Law or wheth­er it is imple­men­ted cor­rectly in the coun­tries men­tioned is given. In com­par­is­on to the ampu­ta­tions in Saudi Ara­bia which the edit­or states are “admin­istered by anaes­thet­ic”, whip­ping in the Bahamas is more cas­u­ally described; “the Navy’s cat-o’-nine-tails is back in use.”

The art­icle scru­tin­izes pun­ish­ments handed out in Muslim major­ity coun­tries and com­pares them with pun­ish­ments in Bri­tain and Amer­ica, high­light­ing trivi­al pun­ish­ments in Ohio on two occa­sions. The under­ly­ing theme of the art­icle is clear, “‘We’ are civ­il­ised, reas­on­able, gen­er­ous, effi­cient, soph­ist­ic­ated, enlightened, non-sex­ist […] ‘They’ are prim­it­ive, viol­ent, irra­tion­al”[52]. Ste­reo­typ­ic­al rep­res­ent­a­tions of bar­bar­ic Muslims are pro­moted as “images of ‘medi­ev­al bar­bar­ism’ con­tin­ue to dom­in­ate the struggle over rep­res­ent­a­tions of Islam”[53]. The art­icle that is sup­posed to pre­vent Brits from get­ting into trouble abroad, becomes an attack on Sharia Law as the edit­or assumes Brits’ hol­i­day des­tin­a­tions are likely to be Indone­sia, Somalia, Nigeria, Iran and Saudi Ara­bia.

The oppres­sion of women is a ste­reo­type often attrib­uted to Islam and Muslims. Indeed in one art­icle by Tre­vor Kavangh of The Sun, titled: “Islamo­pho­bia… or cold, hard truth?”[54], the edit­or makes a string of com­ments again­st Islam that “make it evid­ent that cov­er­ing Islam is not inter­pret­a­tion in the genu­ine sense but an asser­tion of power. The media say what they wish about Islam because they can.”[55] Kavanagh states: “Muslim men are entitled to beat their wives”, “Women appear rarely and, when they do, are covered head to toe. The rest are under vir­tu­al house arrest, liv­ing behind closed doors in ignor­ance and isol­a­tion”, “such bar­bar­ic treat­ment of women has been impor­ted and thrives here.” Evid­ently in this art­icle, “the twin obses­sions of oppressed Muslim women and viol­ent Muslim men find clear expres­sion”[56] but what is more, these sweep­ing gen­er­al­isa­tions and repeated ste­reo­types sup­port Said’s argu­ment that “in many instances “Islam” has licensed not only pat­ent inac­cur­acy but also expres­sions of unres­trained eth­no­cen­trism, cul­tur­al and even racial hatred, deep yet para­dox­ic­ally free float­ing hos­til­ity. All this has taken place as part of what is pre­sumed to be fair, bal­anced and respons­ible cov­er­age of Islam.”[57]

When domest­ic viol­ence involving a Muslim is repor­ted, indeed whenev­er a story arises involving Muslims, tabloids often make a point of ensur­ing that the indi­vidu­al men­tioned in the art­icle is described as Muslim, often from the out­set in the head­line. If “the wide­spread use of one’s reli­gious adher­ence becomes a vital and neces­sary factor in describ­ing any indi­vidu­al or group that is fea­tured in a news story”[58], then Muslims will con­tin­ue to feel tar­geted “until we are informed that Jew­ish Israeli guards have opened fire on the West Bank or that Roman Cath­olic Basque sep­ar­at­ists are focus­ing their ter­ror­ist activ­it­ies on the Span­ish tour­ist trade”[59]. Indeed, it seems it is less import­ant or neces­sary to identi­fy oth­er indi­vidu­als by stat­ing their reli­gion or, if it is neces­sary to identi­fy people by faith, if they are athe­ists. The tabloids often report domest­ic viol­ence when a Muslim is not involved by describ­ing the attack­er as men­tally unstable in a way that deems them on the peri­phery of soci­ety, isol­ated and unen­lightened indi­vidu­als. “Brute kills second wife…”[60], “Con­fused pen­sion­er stabs wife…”[61], “Knife mani­ac slashes wife’s throat…”[62], “Jeal­ous hubby…”[63], to name but a few examples. Fur­ther­more, the fact that indi­vidu­als are iden­ti­fied as Muslim enables the sup­posed bin­ary oppos­i­tion of ‘Muslim cul­ture’ and ‘West­ern cul­ture’ to be pit­ted again­st each oth­er. Indeed, Kund­nani states: “It is right that the spe­cific jus­ti­fic­a­tions which Muslim men use to legit­im­ise viol­ence again­st women is exposed. But this should not be done in such a way that com­bat­ing viol­ence again­st Muslim women is seen as fight­ing again­st a cul­ture, while com­bat­ing viol­ence again­st white women is seen as a fight for rights.”[64] Unfor­tu­nately, domest­ic viol­ence when involving Muslims provides fur­ther impetus for ste­reo­typ­ic­al rep­res­ent­a­tions of viol­ent and oppress­ive Muslims who are incap­able of adapt­ing to West­ern life­styles to be presen­ted.

Daily Mail art­icle in 2009 is titled: “Muslim man sen­tenced to life in jail after killing his Ger­man-born wife because she was ‘too inde­pend­ent’”[65] The words “too inde­pend­ent” are the words of the pro­sec­utor how­ever the head­line, after identi­fy­ing the man as Muslim, gives the impres­sion that these words are the words of the Muslim man, thus Muslim men are placed in oppos­i­tion to lib­er­ated women and to gender equal­ity, pro­mot­ing ste­reo­types of viol­ent and oppress­ive, back­ward and prim­it­ive Muslim men whom women exist under. The art­icle labels the man in the open­ing sen­tence as “A Muslim asylum seeker”, but then later claims: “He returned home to Tur­key in 2003, where he per­formed his man­dat­ory mil­it­ary ser­vice”. This is dubi­ous as he is able to serve in the mil­it­ary in Tur­key even though he is seek­ing pro­tec­tion from pro­sec­u­tion from this very coun­try. Per­haps the label asylum seeker fits into the over­all argu­ment of the art­icle that European val­ues are super­i­or to those of Muslims com­ing to Europe from prim­it­ive soci­et­ies in the ‘Muslim World’. This idea is appar­ent when the art­icle reads: “The case has pulled into sharp focus the cul­tur­al dif­fer­ences between West­ern val­ues and the estim­ated three mil­lion Muslim immig­rants liv­ing and work­ing in Ger­many.” Per­haps the sug­ges­tion being that the actions of the Muslim man are inher­ent in the cul­ture of the Ori­ent. Indeed, “Islam has always been seen as belong­ing to the Ori­ent, […] to be looked at first of all as if it were one mono­lith­ic thing, and then with a very spe­cial hos­til­ity and fear.”[66] What is more, the art­icle makes gross gen­er­al­isa­tions about Muslims by pla­cing the val­ues of “three mil­lion Muslim immig­rants liv­ing and work­ing in Ger­many” in oppos­i­tion to “West­ern val­ues”, thus “redu­cing them all to a spe­cial malevol­ent and unthink­ing essence. Instead of ana­lys­is and under­stand­ing as a res­ult, there can be for the most part only the crudest form of us-versus-them.”[67]

The Daily Mail, who “in the 1930s  […] was an ardent admirer of Nazi Ger­many and Mosley’s Black­shirts”[68], pub­lished a sim­il­ar art­icle in 2010 head­lined: “Muslim imam who lec­tures on non-viol­ence in Ger­many is arres­ted for beat­ing up his wife”[69]. Again, the paper seeks to show the con­flict of the West and Islam/Muslims as it claims: “Media reports claimed the woman, who has borne one of his ten chil­dren, wanted to live a more ‘west­ern’ life­style and was allegedly attacked after telling her hus­band.” No source is provided for these “media reports”. It con­tin­ues, “Adam is alleged to have shouted a verse from the Kor­an at his wife as he beat her.” The art­icle then presents the verse as say­ing, “’As for those from whom you fear dis­obedi­ence, admon­ish them and send them to beds apart and beat them.’” The art­icle jus­ti­fies present­ing Islam as bar­bar­ic by (wil­fully) falsely inter­pret­ing the verse to por­tray a par­tic­u­lar image of Islam. Indeed, in 2008, Peter Osborne of the Daily Mail wro­te in a ral­ly­ing cry again­st the rise of Islamo­pho­bia in Bri­tain that such texts “end up shar­ing the same warped inter­pret­a­tion of a great reli­gion as Osama bin Laden and the viol­ent extrem­ists they denounce”[70], pity his own paper failed to take heed.

The art­icles dis­cussed, through mak­ing gross gen­er­al­isa­tions about mil­lions of Muslims and por­tray­ing Islam itself as a cause for domest­ic viol­ence, express “an unques­tioned assump­tion that Islam can be char­ac­ter­ized lim­it­lessly by means of a hand­ful of reck­lessly gen­er­al and repeatedly deployed cliché’s”[71] whereby “viol­ence, the cun­ning of Muslims and the irra­tion­al­ity of Islam con­tin­ue to be key ste­reo­typ­ic­al argu­ment­at­ive themes – or topoi — use­ful in derog­at­ing Islam.”[72]

A more pos­it­ive story comes from the Daily Star, head­lined: “MY MUSLIM PALS SAVED OUR BACON”[73]. The open­ing para­graph reads: “A CAFÉ boss ordered to remove an extract­or fan because the smell of her sizz­ling bacon might offend passing Muslims can carry on fry­ing.” But the art­icle explains: “when Bev appealed, she was backed by her own Muslim cus­tom­ers – and now she has been told she can keep the fan open.” A quote from the Café boss is sep­ar­ated from the rest of the art­icle and high­lighted as it reads: “We had lots of sup­port from the Muslim com­munity who were infuri­ated by what happened.”

Per­haps the art­icle was a respon­se to Richard Pep­pi­att, a Daily Star report­er who resigned earli­er in the month of the article’s pub­lic­a­tion because of the newspaper’s anti-Muslim pro­pa­ganda. “The report­er, who was once made to dress up in a bur­qa, now accuses the paper of incit­ing racial ten­sions and Islam­a­pho­bia”[74]. Also, the art­icle refers to Islam when explain­ing why the café boss had to remove the extract­or fan by stat­ing: “Islam for­bids eat­ing bacon.” How­ever, the fact that the smell of bacon is not offens­ive in Islam, or indeed any ref­er­ence to Islam in the actions of the Muslims and the even­tu­al pos­it­ive out­come of the story is not men­tioned. Per­haps reveal­ing of the idea that “in less neg­at­ive report­ing con­texts, the ‘Muslim-ness’ of Muslim social action is omit­ted[75] as the paper quotes the café boss and deems it “a vic­tory for com­mon sense”.

In the Tabloids: Un-Brit­ish Muslims

 “Islam’, ‘Muslim’, ‘fun­da­ment­al­ist’, ‘jihad’ – these words res­on­ated in the USA, Europe and around the world after the cata­strophes of 11 Septem­ber 2001.”[76] The affil­i­ation of Muslim with ter­ror­ist is well estab­lished and a reg­u­lar occur­rence still today, how­ever, I would argue that though “ter­ror­ism now uni­fies cov­er­age with­in the ori­ent­al­ist glob­al con­struc­tion of Islam”[77], the next phase of derog­at­ing Muslims is well under way and is in no way coin­cid­ent­al, but rather an expec­ted and logic­al devel­op­ment of Islamo­pho­bia in the main­stream media. The cov­er­age given to rad­ic­al Muslim voices by the main­stream media that has por­trayed a par­tic­u­lar image of Muslims through “indis­crim­in­ate pre­ju­dice that tar­nishes every Muslim irre­spect­ive of social, eth­nic or cul­tur­al ori­ent­a­tion”[78] has bred fer­tile ground to pro­mote the tabloids’ next agenda: if it is not to get ‘them’ out, then to high­light ‘their’ dif­fer­ence and Muslim val­ues as an affront to Brit­ish val­ues, as though, through the clas­sic Ori­ent­al­ist stand­point, the two can­not coex­ist because Islam belongs to the Ori­ent, and the Orient’s world is incom­pat­ible with the Occident’s (or the West). I describe this agenda as a logic­al devel­op­ment from Islamo­pho­bia in the media because ulti­mately, “what people read, see and hear in the media influ­ences and shapes their opin­ions about Islam and Muslims”[79], the rise of far-right fac­tions such as the Eng­lish Defence League, who have an expli­cit anti-Islam agenda, per­haps to some extent cor­rob­or­ates this. Indeed, Kund­nani states: “Those who were once abused as ‘Pakis’ are now also abused as ‘Muslims’. What had before been inter­preted as a prob­lem of Asi­ans liv­ing in sep­ar­ate cul­tures has, since 9/11, been taken to be a prob­lem of Muslims liv­ing by sep­ar­ate val­ues.[80] Cer­tainly in the debates around immig­ra­tion, the cent­ral prot­ag­on­ists in the nar­rat­ive of the ‘fail­ure of mul­ti­cul­tur­al­ism’ seem to be Muslims as “the loy­alty of Muslims and the secur­ity of Bri­tain are con­stantly being ques­tioned”[81], often in rela­tion to one another. The main­stream Brit­ish media present “Islam out of con­trol – a threat like com­mun­ism, best con­tained.”[82] Thus, much like the reac­tion to the ‘red scare’, the divis­ive notion of ‘us’ versus ‘them’ res­on­ates and “we have a grow­ing gen­re of stor­ies that focus on the incom­pat­ib­il­ity between Islam­ic and Brit­ish val­ues – a ‘clash of civil­isa­tions’”[83]. Kund­nani explains: “in the caco­phony of voices that make up this new media-driv­en ‘integ­ra­tion debate’, it is Muslims who are routinely singled out: it is their cul­tur­al dif­fer­ence which needs lim­its placed on it; it is they who must sub­sume their cul­tur­al her­it­age within‘Britishness’; it is they who must declare their alle­gi­ance to (ill-defined) Brit­ish val­ues.”[84] Con­sequently, “from being some­thing out there, Islam – or rather, the mater­i­al invari­ably asso­ci­ated with it – is turned into an ortho­doxy of this soci­ety. It enters the cul­tur­al can­non,”[85] and main­stream media cov­er­age now focuses on the fail­ure or inab­il­ity of Muslims to integ­rate into Brit­ish soci­ety.

Richard­son refers to “an ‘ideo­lo­gic­al square’ of pre­ju­diced talk and text”[86] that is adop­ted in broad­sheet news­pa­pers when Muslims are repor­ted neg­at­ively. He argues that this con­sists of a “pro­cesses of: sep­ar­a­tiondif­fer­en­ti­ation, and neg­at­iv­isa­tion.”[87] Richardson’s ‘ideo­lo­gic­al square’ revolves around “neg­at­ive ‘Oth­er’ present­a­tion and sim­ul­tan­eous pos­it­ive ‘Self’ present­a­tion and is dom­in­ated by a twin pro­cess of ‘divi­sion and rejec­tion’ of Muslims (‘Them’) from ‘Us’.”[88] This strategy, how­ever, can also be iden­ti­fied in tabloid report­ing of Muslims.

Fer­gus Sha­na­han of The Sun pub­lished an art­icle titled: “No-go zone for Muslim fan­at­ics”[89], about “Islam­ic rad­ic­als” who are “turn­ing parts of Bri­tain into men­acing no-go areas.” The colum­nist claims: “our mainly Chris­ti­an soci­ety is being swept aside as Islam stakes its claim to be our main reli­gion” and that “mosques have been spring­ing up from leafy sub­urbs to rough estates.” The art­icle con­tin­ues: “Chris­tian­ity has sculp­ted the fab­ric of our soci­ety, from our car­ols and cathed­rals to our laws and lan­guage.” Here, the neg­at­ive ‘oth­er’ present­a­tion is iden­ti­fi­able as Islam is por­trayed as “a threat to Christen­dom or even as a threat to reas­on and ration­al­ity”[90], and in accord­ance with Richardson’s ‘ideo­lo­gic­al square’, a pos­it­ive ‘self’ present­a­tion is given through ‘our’ rich cul­tur­al inher­it­ance under­pinned by Chris­tian­ity of car­ols, cathed­rals, laws and lan­guages. A meta­phor­ic­al space is estab­lished merely by por­tray­ing ‘our own’ space as organ­ised and his­tor­ic­al, in con­trast to the space of Islam, which is intol­er­ant and invad­ing. Indeed, the art­icle vows: “Islam is an uncom­prom­ising reli­gion. In its most extreme form it can be deeply unpleas­ant in its treat­ment of women, who can be denied edu­ca­tion, forced into mar­riage and murdered for refus­ing a male relative’s order.” Des­pite the fact that the colum­nist assumes “a sim­ple cor­rel­a­tion between the Islam­ic faith and the oppres­sion of women, ignor­ing the com­plex­it­ies of cul­ture”[91], the work­ings of the ‘ideo­lo­gic­al square’ can be observed as he explains the com­pos­i­tion of the cul­tur­al space of Islam and attrib­utes neg­at­ive social value on it as he then states, “Such bar­bar­ism has no place in Bri­tain. Yet every day more people arrive here who believe in it.” The ste­reo­type of bar­bar­ic Muslims is evid­ent and the sug­ges­tion seems to be that Bri­tain must thus not allow these people (Muslims) to be here.

There is a clear indic­a­tion of divi­sion and rejec­tion as Sha­na­han states that Islam “is not the his­tor­ic reli­gion of this nation”, again dis­tan­cing ‘them’ from ‘us’. Moreover, “it not only obvi­ously serves to dis­tance ‘Us’ Brit­ish, ‘Our’ opin­ions, ‘Our pub­lic domain from ‘Them’ and ‘Theirs’, it also acts to sym­bol­ic­ally divide Brit­ish Muslims from the semantic domain ‘Brit­ish’”.[92] The art­icle says, “The surge of Islam has been the flip coin of uncon­trolled immig­ra­tion”. Again point­ing to the ali­en threat of Islam as it passes our bor­ders from out­side, the art­icle priv­ileges a “sim­ple dicho­tomy between the superi­or­ity of (sup­posedly homo­gen­eous) Brit­ish val­ues and the ali­en threat of Muslim val­ues.”[93]

An art­icle in the Daily Mail also con­trib­utes to the grow­ing trend of stor­ies about the increas­ing (unwel­come) pres­ence of Muslims in Bri­tain, head­lined: “Will Bri­tain one day be Muslim?”[94] The art­icle, which is expli­citly about Muslims in Bri­tain, rep­res­ents these Muslims with a single pic­ture, that of angry pro­test­ers, with one hold­ing a plac­ard warn­ing Europe of another 911. The cap­tion: “Mil­it­ants: Threats to end our freedoms blithely ignored”. Indeed,often accom­pa­ny­ing art­icles about Muslims are pic­tures of unnamed Muslim men in groups, such pic­tures show, as Said artiuc­u­lates: “No indi­vidu­al­ity, no per­son­al char­ac­ter­ist­ics or exper­i­ences. Most of the pic­tures rep­res­ent mass rage and misery, or irra­tion­al (hence hope­lessly eccent­ric) ges­tures. Lurk­ing behind all of these images is the men­ace of jihad. Con­sequence: a fear that the Muslims (or Arabs) will take over the world.”[95] The rep­res­ent­a­tion of Muslims here is neg­at­ive and one that con­tin­ues the tend­ency to por­tray Islam and Muslims in oppos­i­tion to “our freedoms”. The edit­or, Ruth Dud­ley Edwards, men­tions five Muslims sen­tenced to life in pris­on for a bomb plot and then states: “first and second gen­er­a­tion immig­rants – respon­ded to the tol­er­ance of the Brit­ish people by try­ing to kill as many of them as pos­sible.” The art­icle cites the actions of a few, instead of the major­ity of law-abid­ing Muslims in the coun­try, in order to aid its prin­ciple argu­ment, “the enemy with­in”, in Edwards’ own words, is invad­ing, pol­lut­ing and des­troy­ing ‘tra­di­tion­al’ Brit­ish soci­ety. Indeed, “People who had been Brit­ish cit­izens, occa­sion­ally labelled ‘col­oured’ or ‘black’ or ‘Pakistani’, are now an ‘enemy with­in’.”[96] The work­ings of the ‘ideo­lo­gic­al square’ can be observed through the pos­it­ive ‘self’ rep­res­ent­a­tion of (excess­ively) tol­er­ant Bri­tain and the neg­at­ive ‘oth­er’ rep­res­ent­a­tion of, in Edwards’ words, “the threat that rad­ic­al Islam poses to the Brit­ish way of life – and, indeed, to European civil­isa­tion”.

Edwards con­tin­ues: “Yes, Islam may be a great reli­gion. But in its fun­da­ment­al­ist ver­sion, some of its val­ues are anti­pathet­ic to ours, and if they tri­umph in Europe, they will threaten our val­ues such as freedom of thought and speech (…) The danger of end­ing up like those poor, des­pot­ic and medi­ev­al Islam­ic states in which mil­lions live miser­ably is a pro­spect that Chris­ti­ans, Hindus, mod­er­ate Muslims and non-believ­ers should be unit­ing to pre­vent.” Here, Edwards “is spe­cific­ally attempt­ing to draw the reader’s atten­tion to ‘Islam’, using the reli­gion as an explan­at­ory factor in the agency or motiv­a­tion of the act­ors in the art­icle”[97]. Instead of ques­tion­ing indi­vidu­al motives of ‘fan­at­ics’, the edit­or cites a fic­ti­tious “fun­da­ment­al­ist ver­sion” of Islam. Indeed, “cov­er­age has moved from an avoid­ance of the artic­u­la­tion of motives – in which ter­ror­ists are simply ‘bad people’ – towards loc­at­ing and detail­ing Islam­ic beliefs as the source of the prob­lem.”[98] Fur­ther­more, instead of inform­ing the read­er “that Muslims in Bri­tain are extremely het­ero­gen­eous”[99], by refer­ring to a “fun­da­ment­al­ist ver­sion” of Islam and also refer­ring to “mod­er­ate Muslims”, the art­icle sug­gests “that people of Muslim her­it­age can be divided into two con­trast­ing groups: good/bad, ‘moderate’/‘extremist’”[100], or ‘fun­da­ment­al­ist’ in this case. This is sig­ni­fic­ant because it is “dis­tin­guish­ing between ‘good Muslims’ and ‘bad Muslims’, on a dir­ect ana­logy with the good nigger/bad nig­ger dis­tinc­tion that was once an expli­cit hall­mark of racism in the United States.”[101] Indeed, “the media fre­quently give the impres­sion that there is a single, homo­gen­eous ‘Muslim com­munity’ in Bri­tain”[102], but not without reas­on, as Said explains: “The res­ult has been a gross sim­pli­fic­a­tion of “Islam,” so that numer­ous manip­u­lat­ive aims can be real­ized, from the stir­ring up of a new cold war, to the instig­a­tion of racial anti­pathy, to mobil­iz­a­tion for a pos­sible inva­sion, to the con­tin­ued den­ig­ra­tion of Muslims”[103].

Ori­ent­al­ist com­ment­ary can also be deduced from the text as it harks back to ste­reo­typ­ic­al notions of the medi­ev­al ‘Muslim World’ and by doing this, iden­ti­fies a space, in accord­ance with Richardson’s ‘ideo­lo­gic­al square’, that is fun­da­ment­ally dif­fer­ent from and hos­tile to ‘our’ space that val­ues “freedom of thought and speech”. The art­icle con­tin­ues: “Muslim hot­heads have over­played their hand by blow­ing people up, riot­ing in their neigh­bour­hoods or broad­cast­ing hate-filled speeches which ali­en­ate them from the host soci­ety.” Over­played their hand or over­stayed their wel­come, here, the clear divi­sion and rejec­tion of Muslims can be inferred from the text as the gen­er­al term, “Muslim hot­heads”, aligns all Muslims with “blow­ing people up”, thus, with ter­ror­ism, the use of the term “host soci­ety” fur­ther dis­tin­guishes ‘us’ from ‘them’. The article’s use of lan­guage is ‘to the point’, it men­tions “their neigh­bour­hoods”, sug­gest­ing ‘we’ are already sur­ren­der­ing parts of Bri­tain to ‘them’ and dis­as­so­ci­ates this space as ‘ours’ as a res­ult, ulti­mately answer­ing its own ques­tion in the head­line, Bri­tain will one day “be Muslim”. The art­icle warns: “The enemy may be a minor­ity but he is with­in, armed and dan­ger­ous and we have to deal with him”, pro­mot­ing “the notion that Bri­tain is suf­fer­ing from the tyranny of a cul­ture imposed by a minor­ity”[104].

In Janu­ary, 2011, Leo McKin­stry of the Daily Express wro­te an art­icle in respon­se to Bar­on­ess Warsi’s claims that “Islamo­pho­bia has “passed the din­ner-table test” and is seen by many as nor­mal and uncon­tro­ver­sial”[105]. McKin­stry states in his art­icle: “What she calls “islamo­pho­bia” is a per­fectly ration­al con­cern about the beha­vi­our of a sig­ni­fic­ant sec­tion of the Muslim pop­u­la­tion here, which due to the col­lapse of our bor­ders is now three mil­lion strong and grow­ing.”[106] The grow­ing influx of Muslims in Bri­tain is largely attrib­uted to immig­rants enter­ing the coun­try from out­side, “the impossib­il­ity of either ‘white-Muslim’ or ‘non-white Englander’ form cent­ral pre­sup­pos­i­tions of these texts”[107] that stig­mat­ise immig­ra­tion. The art­icle con­tin­ues: “When she com­plains about “isol­a­tion” she does not acknow­ledge that far too many Muslims have refused to integ­rate into our soci­ety. instead, they have pur­sued an aggress­ively sep­ar­at­ist agenda, refus­ing to show respect for (…) tra­di­tion­al Brit­ish cus­toms” Here, “Muslims as fel­low cit­izens is taken to be con­di­tion­al on their pri­or accept­ance of Brit­ish val­ues”[108]. The ste­reo­typ­ic­al por­tray­als of Islam that have deemed the reli­gion incom­pat­ible with West­ern soci­ety have meant that in many instances, “their Islam­ic-ness is used to divide ‘Them’ from ‘Us’.”[109] Indeed, Richard­son explains: “The hall­mark of good Muslims, in this demon­o­logy, is not so much that they are ‘decent’ or ‘law-abid­ing’ (…) but that they do not seek to apply their faith to social and polit­ic­al affairs, do not cri­ti­cise Brit­ish for­eign poli­cy on Iraq and Israel/Palestine, do not wear Islam­ic dress in pub­lic spaces, (…) The con­veni­ent con­sequence of this demon­o­logy is that ‘good Muslims’ are remark­ably hard to find.”[110] Con­sequently, aspects of a Brit­ish Muslim’s life are seen through a lens which views “Muslim cul­tur­al dif­fer­ence as cul­tur­al devi­ance and, increas­ingly it seems, as cul­tur­al threat.[111] Brit­ish Muslims are thus caught up “in a push towards what is called ‘integ­ra­tion­ism’, but which really means ‘assim­il­a­tion’ (Fekete, 2006; Werb­n­er, 2007; Wilson, 2007)”[112] of ‘Brit­ish cul­ture’ because their Islam­ic way of life is almost seen as arrog­ance and a betray­al of ‘Brit­ish­ness’. “From this per­spect­ive, ‘Muslim extrem­ists’ are reposi­tioned as simply ‘extremely Muslim’.”[113]

McKin­stry states: “the lan­guage of vic­tim­hood comes eas­ily to the fol­low­ers of islam yet all too often they are the real oppress­ors, as has been shown in the appalling incid­ence of Muslim sex gangs prey­ing on white girls in the north of england. Sim­il­arly the grim cata­logue of forced mar­riages, “hon­our” killings and domest­ic viol­ence demon­strates the bru­tal miso­gyny of islam, as does the enforce­ment of such grot­esque dress codes as the burka. that prim­it­ive gar­ment should have no place in an open, mod­ern soci­ety.” In accord­ance with the ‘ideo­lo­gic­al square’, the neg­at­ive ‘oth­er’ present­a­tion is appar­ent through the ste­reo­typ­ic­al rep­res­ent­a­tions of “bru­tal” Islam and a pos­it­ive ‘self’ present­a­tion is provided by describ­ing ‘our’ space and soci­ety as “open, mod­ern”. McKin­stry demon­strates the full spec­trum of ste­reo­typ­ic­al Ori­ent­al­ist affirm­a­tions: sex driv­en, viol­ent, oppress­ive, back­ward Muslim men and Islam as bar­bar­ic, the anti­thes­is of mod­ern­ity. Such Ori­ent­al­ist ideo­logy, or “self-right­eous pon­ti­fic­a­tion about what makes ‘us’ worth pro­tect­ing and ‘them’ worth attack­ing”[114], has “ been used relent­lessly to manip­u­late pub­lic opin­ion into sup­port­ing neo-imper­i­al adven­tures in the Middle East”[115] by the media and poli­cy makers alike, indeed a “fright­en­ing testi­mony to what might be lurk­ing in the minds of poli­cy-makers”[116]. The ‘intel­li­gent manip­u­la­tion of the masses’, to use a phrase coined by the Amer­ic­an pub­lic rela­tions officer Edward Bernays, has been mobil­ized to fur­ther “the notions about bring­ing civil­isa­tion to prim­it­ive or bar­bar­ic peoples”[117]. The art­icle goes on to state: “From wel­fare to edu­ca­tion, the appar­at­us of the civic bur­eau­cracy is geared towards the demands of the ever rising num­ber of immig­rants, now run­ning at more than 500,000 every year, most of them from Asia and Africa. Mean­while the Brit­ish tax­pay­ers who have to pay for this whole rack­et find them­selves mar­gin­al­ised.”

Hav­ing singled out Muslims through­out, per­haps as no more than “strangers and intruders, bear­ers of an ali­en and pol­lut­ing cul­ture”[118], the art­icle points to wel­fare and the tax­pay­er, pos­i­tion­ing the read­er as a mem­ber of the “host soci­ety” and thus the tax­pay­er, and the immig­rants, or Muslims, as the two have been talked of in con­junc­tion with each oth­er, as the ungrate­ful bene­fi­ciar­ies of the tax­pay­er. Indeed, there is an increas­ing volume of stor­ies about Muslim ‘fan­at­ics’ who ‘hate’ the West and ‘hypo­crit­ic­ally’ live off ‘state handouts’. Such texts entail, as Richard­son states, a “pre­ju­di­cial argu­ment in which Muslims are homo­gen­ised and vil­i­fied (under both broad and spe­cific neg­at­ive accus­a­tions) in order to facil­it­ate the suc­cess of the (…) prin­cip­al argu­ment – ‘We should keep them out’.”[119]

Cur­rently, there is an obses­sion in the tabloids with a hand­ful of Muslim men who spout viol­ent lan­guage in unsa­voury demon­stra­tions, the men and their lead­er, Anjem Choudary, belong to the banned ‘Islam4UK’ group which trans­formed into ‘Al Muhajiroun’ and ‘Muslims Again­st Cru­sades’, which was the group behind the protests again­st the Dan­ish car­toons men­tioned earli­er in this essay. Whatever the name of the group, the same men seem to be reg­u­larly quoted and given cov­er­age in the tabloid press, often link­ing them with fig­ures such as Abu Ham­sa, “the Islamophobe’s per­fect cari­ca­ture.”[120] The vast cov­er­age given to these men is prob­lem­at­ic because in the same way that report­ing of the so called ‘War on Ter­ror’ con­vinced West­ern­ers “that Osama Bin Laden, Ayatol­lah Khomeini, and Sad­dam Hus­sein epi­tom­ize Islam”[121], in this moment, when atten­tion is more intensely focused upon the Muslim pop­u­la­tion in Bri­tain, these men through their pres­ence on a daily basis on tabloid front pages, come to rep­res­ent Brit­ish Muslims as though their views and actions are wholly rep­res­ent­at­ive of the major­ity of Muslims in Bri­tain.

The tabloids’ and the main­stream media’s fail­ure to rep­res­ent Muslims in all their diversity both in Bri­tain and glob­ally is dan­ger­ous because it “estab­lishes a frame­work rad­ic­ally lim­it­ing know­ledge of Islam.”[122] This lack of know­ledge, as a res­ult, per­haps in “Britain’s undoubtedly Islamo­phobic envir­on­ment […] con­trib­utes to and rein­forces the dis­ad­vant­age and dis­crim­in­a­tion exper­i­enced by many Muslims”[123]. Stor­ies about how much money these men receive weekly and monthly from bene­fits are com­mon place, the mes­sage of such art­icles and indeed McKinstry’s art­icle is clear, “’They are already here’, and ‘we are sup­port­ing them through Social Secur­ity bene­fits’. It’s hard to find a more neg­at­ive rep­res­ent­a­tion of Brit­ish Muslims.”[124]

Con­sum­ing News

Richard­son states: “Brit­ish Muslim com­munit­ies are over-rep­res­en­ted in the poorer, less well edu­cated, dis­em­powered sec­tions of Brit­ish soci­ety. Con­sequently, the report­ing resources of élite Brit­ish broad­sheet news­pa­pers will not be ‘wasted’ by attempt­ing the appeal to such an audi­ence.”[125] Though Richard­son is refer­ring to broad­sheet news­pa­pers, per­haps the same could be said for tabloid news­pa­pers as they “adopt a White out­look in their report­ing, ima­gin­ing and pos­i­tion­ing their read­ers as White read­ers and talk­ing to them about Muslims rather than assum­ing they are talk­ing to Muslims.”[126] Con­sequently, “because this is a ‘rat­ings issue’, the racial­ised (racist?) out­comes of profit ori­ent­ated audi­ence seg­ment­a­tion are not prob­lem­at­ised let alone inter­rog­ated.”[127] There is no sur­prise, then, that Ori­ent­al­ism finds a voice in today’s main­stream media as, one could argue, anti-Muslim press is insti­tu­tion­al­ized and “delib­er­ate West­ern vili­fic­a­tion of Islam, many Muslims reas­on, is noth­ing more than cul­tur­al imper­i­al­ism”.[128] Indeed, Said explains: “the media are profit-seek­ing cor­por­a­tions and there­fore, […] have an interest in pro­mot­ing some images of real­ity rather than oth­ers. They do so with­in a polit­ic­al con­text made act­ive and effect­ive by an uncon­scious ideo­logy, which the media dis­sem­in­ate without ser­i­ous reser­va­tions or oppos­i­tion.”[129] The main­stream media in Bri­tain has notori­ously been guilty of repeat­ing gov­ern­ment pro­pa­ganda, as with the case of the lies about ‘weapons of mass destruc­tion’, indeed, “journ­al­ists are mar­shalled by cap­it­al­ism, manip­u­lated by power­ful social/political élites”[130] and there­fore, “it is incum­bent upon the users of media to act as cit­izens, rather than merely as con­sumers of news, by chal­len­ging journ­al­ists to provide report­ing that ques­tions the dom­in­ant frames.”[131] Instead of invest­ig­at­ive journ­al­ism that exposes false­hood for what it is, the ‘uncon­scious ideo­logy’ of the main­stream media presents Islam in a way that serves the audi­ence and cul­ture at large by not being in con­front­a­tion with the public’s gen­er­al under­stand­ing of ‘Islam’. Hence, repeated “ste­reo­types are the cur­rency of nego­ti­ation”[132] when cov­er­ing Islam, ensur­ing a con­sist­ent Ori­ent­al­ist nar­rat­ive that has “con­trib­uted to a tra­gic dis­tor­tion of Islam and of devout Muslims around the world.”[133]

Because of this, the war report­er and pho­to­grapher Guy Small­man says, “It is per­haps easy to under­stand why Brit­ish Muslims feel com­pletely dis­en­fran­chised from our domest­ic news ser­vices.”[134]  Indeed, Brit­ish Muslims “are now being emo­tion­ally and psy­cho­lo­gic­ally affected by watch­ing West­ern­ers vil­i­fy and belittle Islam”[135] from the “blood­less view of the Iraq con­flict, con­cen­trat­ing on the tech­no­lo­gic­al ‘shock and awe’”[136] where “the West does not seem con­cerned to even account for the Iraqi civil­ian deaths while they are care­ful to count their own losses”, to the “silence about incon­veni­ent facts, (…) to present Islam­ic fun­da­ment­al­ism and West­ern gov­ern­ments as if they belong to two com­pletely sep­ar­ate and uncon­nec­ted worlds”[137]. It is import­ant that news con­sumers are aware that journ­al­ists who work for tabloid news­pa­pers that often echo the war­mon­ger­ing élite, and thereby become the fear-mon­ger­ing opin­ion formers, belong “to a power with def­in­ite interests in the Ori­ent, and more import­ant, that one belongs to a part of the earth with a def­in­ite his­tory of involve­ment in the Ori­ent”[138]. Indeed, “what dis­tin­guishes the hon­our­able excep­tions from oth­er journ­al­ists is, above all, the equal value they place on life, wherever it is. Their ‘we’ is human­ity.”[139] The key ideo­logue that con­tin­ues to be instru­ment­al in the por­tray­al of Islam is Ori­ent­al­ism and per­haps grasp­ing this would help ‘us’ (human­ity) to under­stand how the media, per­haps, increas­ingly is becom­ing “’weapon­ised, trans­formed from chan­nels of under­stand­ing to tools of viol­ence.”[140]

Towards a con­clu­sion

For as long as Ori­ent­al­ism con­tin­ues to be the dom­in­ant frame­work from which Muslims are repor­ted, Islamo­pho­bia will only increase, and this is prob­lem­at­ic “not only for West­ern­ers who come away with a poor under­stand­ing of the Muslim world but for Muslims as well.”[141] Muslims have gradu­ally had their reli­gion scru­tin­ized with increas­ing malice, from ste­reo­typ­ic­al Ori­ent­al­ist rep­res­ent­a­tions and the homo­gen­ising of an entire faith into one cul­ture, to per­haps the begin­nings of a hijack­ing of Islam where ‘rad­ic­al’ voices or viol­ent upheavals come to rep­res­ent what Islam is. Such rep­res­ent­a­tions, then, amp­li­fy the divis­ive notion of ‘us versus them’ that we have today. What is more, an attempt to adequately explain ‘Muslim anger’ is miss­ing from the nar­rat­ive presen­ted to the audi­ence of the main­stream media in order to fur­ther Ori­ent­al­ist asser­tions of “Islam as viol­ent and aggress­ive, firmly com­mit­ted to bar­bar­ic ter­ror­ism, and implac­ably hos­tile to the non-Muslim world.”[142] The increase in volume of stor­ies about Muslims in the tabloid press has enabled old ste­reo­types to be recycled and amp­li­fied, all of which have con­trib­uted to a tra­gic mis­un­der­stand­ing and fear of Islam. “Pure mis­in­form­a­tion, repe­ti­tion, an avoid­ance of detail, an absence of genu­ine per­spect­ive”[143], these tend­en­cies on the part of the media only intensi­fy Islamo­phobic trends and con­trib­ute to an Ori­ent­al­ism that still exists. The dis­turb­ing devel­op­ment in the tabloid press of art­icles tar­get­ing Brit­ish Muslims and routinely ques­tion­ing their loy­alty to Bri­tain sug­gests that the ‘us’ versus ‘them’ frame­work that Said high­lights as well as the pos­it­ive ‘self’ present­a­tion and the neg­at­ive ‘oth­er’ present­a­tion that Richard­son draws on, are of cent­ral import­ance to tabloid art­icles which base their report­ing of Muslims around this divis­ive strategy.

Just as import­ant as it was to estab­lish Ori­ent­al­ism as the basis from which ste­reo­typ­ic­al por­tray­als of Muslims take root, it is equally import­ant to men­tion the pos­sible begin­nings for the decline of Ori­ent­al­ist ste­reo­types, one hopes. Indeed, dur­ing the com­ple­tion of this essay, events in the world of the ‘Ori­ent’ seem to have taken a turn for the bet­ter as calls for demo­cracy sweep across the Middle East and North Africa. As one Daily Mail art­icle reads: “as fire­works burst over­head, what pleas­ure it was to be here, part of a singing, drum­ming, hoot­ing, shriek­ing and often tear­ful scrum of exuber­ant human­ity – the major­ity young­er than 30.”[144] The edit­or, Richard Pendle­bury, is describ­ing the scenes in Tahrir Square, “beside the mighty Nile”, as he puts it. Pendle­bury writes: “They had seen what their West­ern con­tem­por­ar­ies took for gran­ted and wanted it too.” The Ori­ent is aligned with us, as oppose to again­st us. Tony Blair described Egypt as the ‘the heart of Islam’ at the Iraq Inquiry and a con­trast­ing image emerges again­st one of misery, des­pair and medi­ev­al bar­bar­ism that have been relent­lessly used to describe the world of the ‘Ori­ent.’  Instead, we have a pro­gress­ive image of youth as the art­icle describes the revolu­tion as “a very mod­ern upris­ing, sparked on social net­work­ing sites, which the old guard could not sup­press.”

The Ori­ent­al­ist ste­reo­types that plague our main­stream media seem, belatedly, inac­cur­ate and con­trived. Iron­ic­ally, it is the Ori­ent rising up again­st West­ern backed regimes that fit into the frame­works that were so cun­ningly man­aged to rep­res­ent him. Indeed, an art­icle in the Israeli news­pa­per Haaretz reads, “the Ori­ent­al­ists who emphas­ized the con­tra­dic­tion between Arab and Islam­ic cul­ture and demo­cracy are afraid to admit their fail­ure.”[145] The ‘Arab Spring’ and its even­tu­al out­come would be a top­ic that could be taken fur­ther to con­trib­ute to the ever-grow­ing mater­i­al on Said’s Ori­ent­al­ism. The events only demon­strate fur­ther that the prac­tice of Ori­ent­al­ism is deeply manip­u­lat­ive and inac­cur­ate in truth, and, without doubt, con­trib­utes sig­ni­fic­antly to Islamo­pho­bia in the Brit­ish tabloids.

Nadeen Fayaz

@NazzyCR7


[1] CAM­BER, R. 2011. Muslim fan­at­ics plot to hijack Roy­al Wed­ding by burn­ing effi­gies of Kate and Wil­li­am along route of the pro­ces­sion. Daily Mail. [online]20 April 2011. Avail­able at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1378527/Royal-Wedding-Muslim-fanatics-plot-burn-effigies-Kate-Middleton-Prince-William.html [Accessed on: 27 April 2011].

[2] SAID, E.W. 1988. Iden­tity, Neg­a­tion and Viol­ence. New Left Review. p.49.

[3] SAID, E.W. 1981. Cov­er­ing Islam: How the media and the experts determ­ine how we see the rest of the world. Rout­ledge: Lon­don. p.4.

[4] KARIM, H.K. 2006. Muslims and the News Media. I.B. Taur­is. p.118–119.

[5] SAID, E.W. 1981. Cov­er­ing Islam: How the media and the experts determ­ine how we see the rest of the world. Rout­ledge: Lon­don. p.6.

[6] SAID, E.W. 1978. Ori­ent­al­ism. Pen­guin Books. p.46.

[7] KARIM, H.K. 2006. Muslims and the News Media. I.B. Taur­is. p.118.

[8] ELGAM­RI, E. 2008. Islam in the Broad­sheets: The Impact of Ori­ent­al­ism on Rep­res­ent­a­tions of Islam in the Brit­ish Press. Ithaca Press. p.21.

[9] SAID, E.W. 1978. Ori­ent­al­ism. Pen­guin Books. p.6.

[10] SAID, E.W. 1978. Ori­ent­al­ism. Pen­guin Books. p.3.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] SAID, E.W. 1978. Ori­ent­al­ism. Pen­guin Books. p.1–2.

[14] CHILDS, P., WIL­LI­AMS, P. 1997. An Intro­duc­tion to Post-Colo­ni­al The­ory. Pren­tice Hall. p.5.

[15] SAIKAL, A. 2004. Islam­ic Per­spect­ives on the New Mil­len­ni­um. Insti­tute of South­east Asi­an Stud­ies. p.19.

[16] SAID, E.W. 1978. Ori­ent­al­ism. Pen­guin Books. p.40.

[17] YEGEN­O­GLU, M. 1998. Colo­ni­al fantas­ies: towards a fem­in­ist read­ing of Ori­ent­al­ism. Cam­bridge Uni­ver­sity Press. p.14.

[18] SAID, E.W. 1988. Iden­tity, Neg­a­tion and Viol­ence. New Left Review. p.57.

[19] SAID, E.W. 1981. Cov­er­ing Islam: How the media and the experts determ­ine how we see the rest of the world. Rout­ledge: Lon­don. p.149.

[20] RUNNYMEDE TRUST. 1997. Islamo­pho­bia: A Chal­lenge for Us All. Lon­don: Runnymede Trust.

[21] KUND­NANI, A. 2007. Integ­ra­tion­ism: The Polit­ics of anti-Muslim Racism. Race and Class. 48(4). Lon­don: SAGE. p.29.

[22] ANSARI, H. 2004. The Infi­del With­in: Muslims in Bri­tain since 1800. C. Hurst & Co. Pub­lish­ers. p.24.

[23] ANSARI, H. 2004. The Infi­del With­in: Muslims in Bri­tain since 1800. C. Hurst & Co. Pub­lish­ers. p.25.

[24] PIN­TAK, L. 2006. Muslims and the News Media. I.B. Taur­is. p.188.

[25] PIN­TAK, L. 2006. Muslims and the News Media. I.B. Taur­is. p.190.

[26] DON­NAN, H. 2002. Inter­pret­ing Islam. SAGE. p.20.

[27] POOLE, E., RICHARD­SON, J.E. 2006. Muslims and the News Media. I.B. Taur­is. p.6.

[28] PIN­TAK, L. 2006. Muslims and the News Media. I.B. Taur­is. p.190.

[29] Ibid.

[30] LAWRENCE, B,B. 2000. Shat­ter­ing the myth: Islam bey­ond viol­ence. Prin­ceton Uni­ver­sity Press. p.xiii.

[31] PIN­TAK, L. 2006. Muslims and the News Media. I.B. Taur­is. p.189.

[32] SAID, E.W. 1981. Cov­er­ing Islam: How the media and the experts determ­ine how we see the rest of the world. Rout­ledge: Lon­don. p.40.

[33] BAIRNER, A., CURRY, G., MAL­COLM, D. 2010. “Woolmer­gate”: Crick­et and the Rep­res­ent­a­tion of Islam and Muslims in the Brit­ish Press. 34(1). Lon­don.

[34] SEIDLER, V.J. 2009. Urb­an Fears and Glob­al Ter­rors: Cit­izen­ship, mul­ti­cul­tures and belong­ings after 77. Rout­ledge. p.58.

[35] SEIDLER, V.J. 2009. Urb­an Fears and Glob­al Ter­rors: Cit­izen­ship, mul­ti­cul­tures and belong­ings after 77. Rout­ledge. p.58–59.

[36] SEIDLER, V.J. 2009. Urb­an Fears and Glob­al Ter­rors: Cit­izen­ship, mul­ti­cul­tures and belong­ings after 77. Rout­ledge. p.59.

[37] Ibid.

[38] POOLE, E. 2006. Muslims and the News Media. I.B. Taur­is. p.101.

[39] RICHARD­SON, J.E. 2004. (Mis)Representing Islam: The Racism and Rhet­or­ic of Brit­ish Broad­sheet News­pa­pers. John Benjamin’s Pub­lish­ing Com­pany. p.43.

[40] ALLEN, C. 2001. Islamo­pho­bia in the Media since Septem­ber 11th. Uni­ver­sity of West­min­ister. p.5.

[41] SAID, E.W. 1988. Iden­tity, Neg­a­tion and Viol­ence. New Left Review. p.53.

[42] RICHARD­SON, J.E. 2004. (Mis)Representing Islam: The Racism and Rhet­or­ic of Brit­ish Broad­sheet News­pa­pers. John Benjamin’s Pub­lish­ing Com­pany. p.33.

[43] RICHARD­SON, J.E. 2004. (Mis)Representing Islam: The Racism and Rhet­or­ic of Brit­ish Broad­sheet News­pa­pers. John Benjamin’s Pub­lish­ing Com­pany. p.231.

[44] SAID, E.W. 1981. Cov­er­ing Islam: How the media and the experts determ­ine how we see the rest of the world. Rout­ledge: Lon­don. p.144.

[45] THOMPSON, P. 2006. Hate demo over car­toon. The Sun. [online]06 Feb­ru­ary. Avail­able at: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article36799.ece [Accessed on 13 April 2011].

[46] ELGAM­RI, E. 2008. Islam in the Broad­sheets: The Impact of Ori­ent­al­ism on Rep­res­ent­a­tions of Islam in the Brit­ish Press. Ithaca Press. p.ix.

[47] RICHARD­SON, J.E. 2004. (Mis)Representing Islam: The Racism and Rhet­or­ic of Brit­ish Broad­sheet News­pa­pers. John Benjamin’s Pub­lish­ing Com­pany. p.231.

[48] SAID, E.W. 1981. Cov­er­ing Islam: How the media and the experts determ­ine how we see the rest of the world. Rout­ledge: Lon­don. p.155.

[49] ALLEN, C. 2001. Islamo­pho­bia in the Media since Septem­ber 11th. Uni­ver­sity of West­min­ister. p.5.

[50] POOLE, E. 2006. Muslims and the News Media. I.B. Taur­is. p.97.

[51] PHIL­LIPS, M. 2007. A rough guide to world justice. The Sun. [online]03 August. Avail­able at: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/261876/A-rough-guide-to-world-justice.html [Accessed on: 15 April 2011].

[52] RUNNYMEDE TRUST. 1997. Islamo­pho­bia: A Chal­lenge for Us All. Lon­don: Runnymede Trust. p.3.

[53] DON­NAN, H. 2002. Inter­pret­ing Islam. SAGE. p.52.

[54] KAVANAGH, T. 2008. Islamo­pho­bia… or cold, hard truth? The Sun. [online]13 July. Avail­able at: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/columnists/kavanagh/1417495/Kavanagh-Islamophobia-or-cold-hard-truth.html [Accessed on: 18 April 2011].

[55] SAID, E.W. 1981. Cov­er­ing Islam: How the media and the experts determ­ine how we see the rest of the world. Rout­ledge: Lon­don. p.142.

[56] GOTT­SCHALK, P., GREEN­BERG, G. 2008. Islamo­pho­bia: Mak­ing Muslims the Enemy. Row­man & Lit­tle­field. p.54.

[57] SAID, E.W. 1981. Cov­er­ing Islam: How the media and the experts determ­ine how we see the rest of the world. Rout­ledge: Lon­don. p.xi.

[58] ALLEN, C. 2001. Islamo­pho­bia in the Media since Septem­ber 11th. Uni­ver­sity of West­min­ister. p.3.

[59] ALLEN, C. 2001. Islamo­pho­bia in the Media since Septem­ber 11th. Uni­ver­sity of West­min­ister. p.3–4.

[60] PATRICK, G., TAYLOR, A. 2011. Brute kills second wife who cheated. The Sun. [online]25 March. Avail­able at: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3489962/Man-killed-second-wife-to-cheat-on-him-after-earlier-attack-on-first-wifes-lover.html [Accessed on 17 April 2011].

[61] HILL, P. 2011. Con­fused pen­sion­er stabs wife to death in Kend­al, Cum­bria. Mir­ror. [online]20 Feb­ru­ary. Avail­able at: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/02/20/confused-pensioner-stabs-wife-to-death-in-kendal-cumbria-115875–22935881/ [Accessed on 17 April 2011].

[62] McTA­GUE, T. 2010. Knife mani­ac slashes wife’s throat and stabs her mum in East Lon­don. Mir­ror. [online]13 August. Avail­able at: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/08/13/knife-maniac-slashes-wife-s-throat-and-stabs-her-mum-in-east-london-video-115875–22483947/ [Accessed on 17 April 2011].

[63] COLES, J. 2010. Jeal­ous hubby’s Taser door trap. The Sun. [online]03 Decem­ber. Avail­able at: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3259296/Jealous-hubbys-Taser-door-trap.html [Accessed on 17 April 2011].

[64] KUND­NANI, A. 2007. Integ­ra­tion­ism: The Polit­ics of anti-Muslim Racism. Race and Class. 48(4). Lon­don: SAGE. p.40.

[65] HALL, A. 2009. Muslim man sen­tenced to life in jail after killing his Ger­man-born wife because she was ‘too inde­pend­ent’. Daily Mail. [online]21 August. Avail­able at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1207931/Muslim-asylum-seeker-sentenced-life-jail-killing-wife-independent.html[Accessed on 17 April 2011].

[66] SAID, E.W. 1981. Cov­er­ing Islam: How the media and the experts determ­ine how we see the rest of the world. Rout­ledge: Lon­don. p.4.

[67] SAID, E.W. 1981. Cov­er­ing Islam: How the media and the experts determ­ine how we see the rest of the world. Rout­ledge: Lon­don. p.8.

[68] SEIDLER, V.J. 2009. Urb­an Fears and Glob­al Ter­rors: Cit­izen­ship, mul­ti­cul­tures and belong­ings after 77. Rout­ledge. p.62.

[69] HALL, A. 2010. Muslim imam who lec­tures on non-viol­ence in Ger­many is arres­ted for beat­ing up his wife. Daily Mail. [online]02 Decem­ber. Avail­able at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1335024/Muslim-imam-Sheikh-Adam-lectures-non-violence-arrested-wife-beating.html [Accessed on: 18 April 2011].

[70] OSBORNE, P. 2008. Is post-war Bri­tain anti-Muslim? Daily Mail. [online]04 July. Avail­able at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1031769/Is-post-war-Britain-anti-Muslim.html [Accessed on: 18 April 2011].

[71] SAID, E.W. 1997. Cov­er­ing Islam: How the media and the experts determ­ine how we see the rest of the world. Lon­don: Vin­tage. p.li.

[72] RICHARD­SON, J.E. 2004. (Mis)Representing Islam: The Racism and Rhet­or­ic of Brit­ish Broad­sheet News­pa­pers. John Benjamin’s Pub­lish­ing Com­pany. p.14–15.

[73] LAW­TON, J. 2011. MY MUSLIM PALS SAVED OUR BACON. Daily Star. [online]31 March. Avail­able at: http://www.dailystar.co.uk/posts/view/183828/My-muslim-pals-saved-our-bacon/ [Accessed on: 17 April 2011].

[74] LEWIS, P. 2011. Daily Star report­er quits in protest at tabloid’s ‘anti-Muslim’ cov­er­age. Guard­i­an. [online]04 March. Avail­able at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/mar/04/daily-star-reporter-quits-protest [Accessed on: 17 April 2011].

[75] RICHARD­SON, J.E. 2004. (Mis)Representing Islam: The Racism and Rhet­or­ic of Brit­ish Broad­sheet News­pa­pers. John Benjamin’s Pub­lish­ing Com­pany. p.231.

[76] HARIK, J.P. 2005. Hezbol­lah: The Chan­ging Face of Ter­ror­ism. I.B.Tauris. p.7.

[77] POOLE, E. 2006. Muslims and the News Media. I.B. Taur­is. p.102.

[78] ALLEN, C. 2001. Islamo­pho­bia in the Media since Septem­ber 11th. Uni­ver­sity of West­min­ister. p.9.

[79] ELGAM­RI, E. 2008. Islam in the Broad­sheets: The Impact of Ori­ent­al­ism on Rep­res­ent­a­tions of Islam in the Brit­ish Press. Ithaca Press. p.ix.

[80] KUND­NANI, A. 2007. Integ­ra­tion­ism: The Polit­ics of anti-Muslim Racism. Race and Class. 48(4). Lon­don: SAGE. p.30.

[81] AHMED, S. 2006. Muslims and the News Media. I.B. Taur­is. p.172.

[82] SAHA, S.C. 2004. Reli­gious Fun­da­ment­al­ism in the Con­tem­por­ary World: Crit­ic­al Social and Polit­ic­al Issues. Lex­ing­ton Books. p.189.

[83] LEWIS, J., MASON, P., MOORE, K. 2011. Point­ing The Fin­ger: Islam and Muslims in the Brit­ish Media. One­world Pub­lic­a­tions. p.65.

[84] KUND­NANI, A. 2007. Integ­ra­tion­ism: The Polit­ics of anti-Muslim Racism. Race and Class. 48(4). Lon­don: SAGE. p.26.

[85] SAID, E.W. 1997. Cov­er­ing Islam: How the media and the experts determ­ine how we see the rest of the world. Lon­don: Vin­tage. p.149.

[86] RICHARD­SON, J.E. 2004. (Mis)Representing Islam: The Racism and Rhet­or­ic of Brit­ish Broad­sheet News­pa­pers. John Benjamin’s Pub­lish­ing Com­pany. p.xx.

[87] RICHARD­SON, J.E. 2004. (Mis)Representing Islam: The Racism and Rhet­or­ic of Brit­ish Broad­sheet News­pa­pers. John Benjamin’s Pub­lish­ing Com­pany. p.232.

[88] RICHARD­SON, J.E. 2004. (Mis)Representing Islam: The Racism and Rhet­or­ic of Brit­ish Broad­sheet News­pa­pers. John Benjamin’s Pub­lish­ing Com­pany. p.xx.

[89] SHA­NA­HAN, F. No-go zone for Muslim fan­at­ics. The Sun. [online]. Avail­able at: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/columnists/fergus_shanahan/688513/Columnist-Fergus-Shanahan-Green-debate-Global-warming-Nuclear-power.html [Accessed on: 20 April 2011].

[90] SAHA, S.C. 2004. Reli­gious Fun­da­ment­al­ism in the Con­tem­por­ary World: Crit­ic­al Social and Polit­ic­al Issues. Lex­ing­ton Books. p.172.

[91] KUND­NANI, A. 2007. Integ­ra­tion­ism: The Polit­ics of anti-Muslim Racism. Race and Class. 48(4). Lon­don: SAGE. p.40.

[92] RICHARD­SON, J.E. 2004. (Mis)Representing Islam: The Racism and Rhet­or­ic of Brit­ish Broad­sheet News­pa­pers. John Benjamin’s Pub­lish­ing Com­pany. p.113.

[93] KUND­NANI, A. 2007. Integ­ra­tion­ism: The Polit­ics of anti-Muslim Racism. Race and Class. 48(4). Lon­don: SAGE. p.39.

[94] EDWARDS, R.D. 2007. Will Bri­tain one day be Muslim? Daily Mail. [online]05 May. Avail­able at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-452815/Will-Britain-day-Muslim.html [Accessed on: 22 April 2011].

[95] SAID, E.W. 1978. Ori­ent­al­ism. Pen­guin Books. p.287.

[96] KUND­NANI, A. 2007. Integ­ra­tion­ism: The Polit­ics of anti-Muslim Racism. Race and Class. 48(4). Lon­don: SAGE. p.31.

[97] RICHARD­SON, J.E. 2004. (Mis)Representing Islam: The Racism and Rhet­or­ic of Brit­ish Broad­sheet News­pa­pers. John Benjamin’s Pub­lish­ing Com­pany. p.120.

[98] LEWIS, J., MASON, P., MOORE, K. 2011. Point­ing The Fin­ger: Islam and Muslims in the Brit­ish Media. One­world Pub­lic­a­tions. p.65.

[99] PET­LEY, J., RICHARD­SON, R. 2011. Point­ing The Fin­ger: Islam and Muslims in the Brit­ish Media. One­world Pub­lic­a­tions. p.xvii.

[100] Ibid.

[101] RICHARD­SON, R. 2011. Point­ing The Fin­ger: Islam and Muslims in the Brit­ish Media. One­world Pub­lic­a­tions. p.160.

[102] PET­LEY, J., RICHARD­SON, R. 2011. Point­ing The Fin­ger: Islam and Muslims in the Brit­ish Media. One­world Pub­lic­a­tions. p.xvii.

[103] SAID, E.W. 1981. Cov­er­ing Islam: How the media and the experts determ­ine how we see the rest of the world. Rout­ledge: Lon­don. p.xviii.

[104] KHIABANY, G., WIL­LI­AM­SON, M. 2011. Point­ing The Fin­ger: Islam and Muslims in the Brit­ish Media. One­world Pub­lic­a­tions. p.190.

[105] KIRKUP, J. 2011. Tory chief Bar­on­ess Warsi attacks ‘bigotry’ again­st Muslims. The Tele­graph. [online]19 Janu­ary 2011. Avail­able at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8270294/Tory-chief-Baroness-Warsi-attacks-bigotry-against-Muslims.html [Accessed on: 22 April 2011].

[106] MCKIN­STRY, LEO. 2011. BAR­ON­ESS FAR­CIC­AL AND A NASTY LITTLE INSULT TO EVERY ONE OF YOU. Express. [online]23 Janu­ary 2011. Avail­able at: http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/224825/Baroness-Farcical-and-a-nasty-little-insult-to-every-one-of-you [Accessed on: 22 April 2011].

[107] RICHARD­SON, J.E. 2004. (Mis)Representing Islam: The Racism and Rhet­or­ic of Brit­ish Broad­sheet News­pa­pers. John Benjamin’s Pub­lish­ing Com­pany. p.114.

[108] KUND­NANI, A. 2007. Integ­ra­tion­ism: The Polit­ics of anti-Muslim Racism. Race and Class. 48(4). Lon­don: SAGE. p.39.

[109] RICHARD­SON, J.E. 2004. (Mis)Representing Islam: The Racism and Rhet­or­ic of Brit­ish Broad­sheet News­pa­pers. John Benjamin’s Pub­lish­ing Com­pany. p.113.

[110] RICHARD­SON, R. 2011. Point­ing The Fin­ger: Islam and Muslims in the Brit­ish Media. One­world Pub­lic­a­tions. p.160.

[111] RICHARD­SON, J.E. 2004. (Mis)Representing Islam: The Racism and Rhet­or­ic of Brit­ish Broad­sheet News­pa­pers. John Benjamin’s Pub­lish­ing Com­pany. p.232.

[112] KHIABANY, G., WIL­LI­AM­SON, M. 2011. Point­ing The Fin­ger: Islam and Muslims in the Brit­ish Media. One­world Pub­lic­a­tions. p.189.

[113] RICHARD­SON, J.E. 2004. (Mis)Representing Islam: The Racism and Rhet­or­ic of Brit­ish Broad­sheet News­pa­pers. John Benjamin’s Pub­lish­ing Com­pany. p.13.

[114] SAID, E.W. 1988. Iden­tity, Neg­a­tion and Viol­ence. New Left Review. p.60.

[115] KHIABANY, G., WIL­LI­AM­SON, M. 2011. Point­ing The Fin­ger: Islam and Muslims in the Brit­ish Media. One­world Pub­lic­a­tions. p.187.

[116] SAID, E.W. 1981. Cov­er­ing Islam: How the media and the experts determ­ine how we see the rest of the world. Rout­ledge: Lon­don. p.163.

[117] FAN­ON, F. 1967. Black Skin, White Masks. Pluto Press. p.xi.

[118] ANSARI, H. 2004. The Infi­del With­in: Muslims in Bri­tain since 1800. C. Hurst & Co. Pub­lish­ers. p.96.

[119] RICHARD­SON, J.E. 2004. (Mis)Representing Islam: The Racism and Rhet­or­ic of Brit­ish Broad­sheet News­pa­pers. John Benjamin’s Pub­lish­ing Com­pany. p.132.

[120] ALLEN, C. 2001. Islamo­pho­bia in the Media since Septem­ber 11th. Uni­ver­sity of West­min­ister. p.5.

[121] SAHA, S.C. 2004. Reli­gious Fun­da­ment­al­ism in the Con­tem­por­ary World: Crit­ic­al Social and Polit­ic­al Issues. Lex­ing­ton Books. p.181.

[122] SAID, E.W. 1981. Cov­er­ing Islam: How the media and the experts determ­ine how we see the rest of the world. Rout­ledge: Lon­don. p.55.

[123] ANSARI, H. 2004. The Infi­del With­in: Muslims in Bri­tain since 1800. C. Hurst & Co. Pub­lish­ers. p.394.

[124] RICHARD­SON, J.E. 2004. (Mis)Representing Islam: The Racism and Rhet­or­ic of Brit­ish Broad­sheet News­pa­pers. John Benjamin’s Pub­lish­ing Com­pany. p.137.

[125] RICHARD­SON, J.E. 2004. (Mis)Representing Islam: The Racism and Rhet­or­ic of Brit­ish Broad­sheet News­pa­pers. John Benjamin’s Pub­lish­ing Com­pany. p.36.

[126] RICHARD­SON, J.E. 2004. (Mis)Representing Islam: The Racism and Rhet­or­ic of Brit­ish Broad­sheet News­pa­pers. John Benjamin’s Pub­lish­ing Com­pany. p.229.

[127] RICHARD­SON, J.E. 2004. (Mis)Representing Islam: The Racism and Rhet­or­ic of Brit­ish Broad­sheet News­pa­pers. John Benjamin’s Pub­lish­ing Com­pany. p.36.

[128] SAHA, S.C. 2004. Reli­gious Fun­da­ment­al­ism in the Con­tem­por­ary World: Crit­ic­al Social and Polit­ic­al Issues. Lex­ing­ton Books. p.185.

[129] SAID, E.W. 1981. Cov­er­ing Islam: How the media and the experts determ­ine how we see the rest of the world. Rout­ledge: Lon­don. p.142.

[130] RICHARD­SON, J.E. 2004. (Mis)Representing Islam: The Racism and Rhet­or­ic of Brit­ish Broad­sheet News­pa­pers. John Benjamin’s Pub­lish­ing Com­pany. p.233.

[131] KARIM, H.K. 2006. Muslims and the News Media. I.B. Taur­is. p.127.

[132] FOWL­ER, R. 1991. Lan­guage in the news: dis­course and ideo­logy in the press. Rout­ledge. p.17.

[133] SAHA, S.C. 2004. Reli­gious Fun­da­ment­al­ism in the Con­tem­por­ary World: Crit­ic­al Social and Polit­ic­al Issues. Lex­ing­ton Books. p.172.

[134] ITV. 2010. The War You Don’t See (Decem­ber 15 2010).

[135] SAHA, S.C. 2004. Reli­gious Fun­da­ment­al­ism in the Con­tem­por­ary World: Crit­ic­al Social and Polit­ic­al Issues. Lex­ing­ton Books. p.184.

[136] PIN­TAK, L. 2006. Muslims and the News Media. I.B. Taur­is. p.193.

[137] KHIABANY, G., WIL­LI­AM­SON, M. 2011. Point­ing The Fin­ger: Islam and Muslims in the Brit­ish Media. One­world Pub­lic­a­tions. p.182–183.

[138] SAID, E.W. 1978. Ori­ent­al­ism. Pen­guin Books. p.11.

[139] PIL­GER, J. 2005. Tell Me No Lies: Invest­ig­at­ive Journ­al­ism and its Tri­umphs. Vin­tage Books.

[140] PIN­TAK, L. 2006. Muslims and the News Media. I.B. Taur­is. p.193.

[141] SAHA, S,C. 2004. Reli­gious Fun­da­ment­al­ism in the Con­tem­por­ary World: Crit­ic­al Social and Polit­ic­al Issues. Lex­ing­ton Books. 184.

[142] RUNNYMEDE TRUST. 1997. Islamo­pho­bia: A Chal­lenge for Us All. Lon­don: Runnymede Trust. p.3.

[143] SAID, E.W. 1981. Cov­er­ing Islam: How the media and the experts determ­ine how we see the rest of the world. Rout­ledge: Lon­don. p.40.

[144] PENDLE­BURY, R. 2011. Mubarak’s gone – we have won! The Mail’s Richard Pendle­bury reports from Tahrir Square. Daily Mail. [online]13 Feb­ru­ary 2011. Avail­able at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1356192/Hosni-Mubaraks-gone-weve-won-Richard-Pendlebury-reports-Tahrir-Square.html [Accessed on: 27 April 2011].

[145] MUSTA­FA, M. 2011. The Ori­ent­al­ist blind­ness. Haaretz. [online]13 Feb­ru­ary 2011. Avail­able at: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/the-orientalist-blindness-1.343042 [Accessed on: 25 April 2011].

The fol­low­ing two tabs change con­tent below.
Gata Malandra

Gata Malandra

Edit­or / Research­er at No Bounds
Gata is a music and arts lov­er, stud­ied anthro­po­logy, art man­age­ment and media pro­duc­tion ded­ic­at­ing most of her time to cre­at­ive pro­jects pro­duced by No Bounds.
Gata Malandra

Latest posts by Gata Malandra (see all)

About Gata Malandra

Gata Malandra
Gata is a music and arts lover, studied anthropology, art management and media production dedicating most of her time to creative projects produced by No Bounds.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *