Sayeeda Warsi – A bull in search of a china shop

The Paul Richards column

Sayeeda Warsi has always struck me as a bull in search of a china shop. I’ve had trouble discerning the merits and attributes that others have seen, and which have led to her elevation to the House of Lords and the Cabinet. Even her best friends would agree that her contributions to public debate have not been noted for their thoughtfulness. Tonight she makes a speech at Leicester University on the status of Britain’s 2.9 million Muslims. He remarks have been given exclusively to the Daily Telegraph, who have splashed the story under the headline ‘Tory chief attacks ‘bigotry’ against Muslims’. This technique, by the way, of giving a story to only one newspaper in return for enhanced status for the story, and trailing a speech before it is delivered, is what used to be called ‘spin doctoring’, before the Tories introduced us to the New Politics.

There’s always a danger in judging a speech from the reports in the paper, especially before a word of it has been uttered. The gist seems to be that prejudice against Muslims has become acceptable in British society, in ways that prejudice against Jews or black people is not. What she calls ‘Islamophobia’ passes the ‘dinner-table’ test. She paints a picture of growing religious and ethnic intolerance.

If that is indeed the core message from Baroness Warsi’s speech, she needs to be very careful. Britain remains an overwhelmingly tolerant place. Many Muslims will tell you that the UK is one of the best places on earth to be a practising Muslim, far preferable to so-called ‘Muslim countries’. There was no mass outbreak of violence against mosques or Muslim-owned property after 7/7 (unlike, say, the violence against German-owned shops and businesses during the first world war). The only violence that Warsi has suffered (as far as I know) was when she was pelted with eggs, not by white ‘Islamophobes’, but by her fellow Muslims. When extremists such as the English Defence League (EDL) attempt to stir up trouble they fail to attract popular support, and are met by fierce resistance from anti-racist and anti-fascist groups. That’s not to say that lazy prejudice and racism doesn’t exist. But it’s a much harder argument to state, as Warsi does, that Muslims qua Muslims are being uniquely singled out for prejudicial treatment, and that it’s getting worse in modern Britain.

Use of the term Islamophobia carries huge dangers. One is that it confuses criticism of aspects of a religion or culture with irrational prejudice against a people. The former is a legitimate part of public discourse (inside and outside Islam itself). The latter is just plain old racism, and should be resisted. Another danger is that it feeds into a narrative that Muslims are in an old-old conflict with the ‘West’ (not helped when idiots like Bush use works like ‘crusade’). Al Qaeda want every young Muslim to believe a version of history and current events that sets Muslims against the rest. The very concept of Islamophobia feeds this narrative.

The Al Qaeda narrative, of competing world views, is at the centre of every variant of political Islamism, including those that engage in terrorism. Every suicide bomber believes that Muslims are being oppressed, and that the act of suicide bombing is part of a wider struggle on behalf of the Muslim people in all countries.

The Quilliam Foundation has produced a thoughtful piece of work on Islamism and Language How Using the Wrong Words Reinforces Islamist Narratives. The report’s authors make the point that bandying around terms such as Islamophobia makes it harder for anyone to tackle extremism, because it encourages a climate of fear of speaking out. It is not ‘Islamophobic’ to denounce certain cultural practices which occur within specific Muslim communities, such as genital mutilation or ‘honour killings’, so long as the criticism is made from a position of knowledge and acceptance that these horrors are not a feature of all Muslim communities. The bottom line is that if you’re against homophobia, or sexism, or women being stoned to death, there’s nothing racist or Islamophobic about saying so, out loud. Jack Straw made the link between Pakistani men and criminal gangs grooming young white girls, based on evidence from the police. He was right to do so. It wasn’t Islamophobic. The report also makes the point that a blanket term makes it more problematic to isolate genuine examples of discrimination against Muslims.

I will read Baroness Warsi’s speech this evening in the hope, but not the expectation, of these complex and nuanced arguments being dissected. More likely is the sound of shattering china and the smash of breaking plates.