Take a look at the cartoon on the front cover of this week's the Spectator magazine.
Next to the headline "How to spot the jihadi next door" is a rather gross illustration of, I imagine, what the Spectator thinks we should be all be looking for - the "Jihads Under Our Beds" if you will.
The cartoon shows an exaggerated portrait of an insidious looking suspect with a large crooked nose, dark skin, swollen pink lips, a turban and lashings of dark facial hair. His eye is targeted and face framed by the sights of a sniper rifle. Behind him lies the Houses of Parliament, a lone Union Jack fluttering in the wind.
Now take a look at this cartoon, a Nazi propaganda warning of another "enemy within".
Maybe I'm being overly sensitive here but how on earth did the Spectator think publishing that illustration was a good idea? The problem with illustrations is that it is very easy to resort to sort of caricatures that create utterly false sterotypes of a community and only increase fear and mistrust between people.
The two articles that went with the cartoon (a piece on MI5's fight against Islamic extremism by Fraser Nelson and an essay by Charles Moore on how Conservatives should approach the same thorny issue) were thoroughly researched, thought-provoking pieces from experts in their fields. So why sully them with such a crass image that will only encourage readers to see anyone with dark skin and a beard as a potential extremist.
Look at the July 7 bombers, the failed July 21 bombers and most of the conspirators involved in the 12 plots that have been foiled by the authorities and you'll notice that none of them look anything like that cartoon.
Fraser Nelson himself gives a description of the average British violent jihadi in the third paragraph of his piece: he says he is "usually an apparently well-integrated Muslim who is likely to have a degree, often in engineering".
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems a far cry from the sort of "fresh out of Kandahar, bearded mad mullah" look that the magazine's cover went for.
In cities all over Britain there reside devout, law abiding, peaceful and (gasp!) integrated Muslims who just happen to have large beards and dark skin. But next time some bigot wants to indulge in a spot of "Paki bashing" who do you think they are going to pick on, the smartly dressed engineering student who actually is a violent jihadi or the bearded fella who looks like he should be one?
The same goes for the way the press uses the niqab. When the media is writing a story about the more radical elements of Islam they often stick a picture of a woman wearing a niqab next to it.
Although the number of women wearing hijab has increased in recent years, only a tiny percentage of Britain's 2 million Muslims choose to cover themselves completely. There are numerous reasons why those who do have done so and adopting a more radical interpretation of Islam is just one.
I had a conversation with some activists from the Muslim Public Affairs Committee the other day who told me they were deeply concerned about how niqabis seem to be targeted more and more often by those who want to stir up tension. One girl, they said, recently had her niqab set of fire while riding on the back of a bus in East London. What once provided protection and anonymity to the wearer now sets them out as a potential extremist in the public mind because of the way we now percieve the niqab as a mark of extremism.
Cartoons can be fantastic tools to poke fun and make biting comments about institutions and individuals that words just wouldn't be able to do justice to. But the most seemingly harmless cartoons have the capacity to do great harm if not used carefully. We all ready know that, so why are we still doing it?
Up to a point I think this is a worthwhile point of criticism to have been raised. I do not like the hide away garments worn by some Moslem women and I did not take exception to the Dannish cartoon drawing that caused great controversy a year or so back but I do think with this Spectator cartoon the writer of this article has made a reasonable worthwhile point especially as he has contextualised it quite well against the actual content of the Spectator article.
Posted by: IAN CAMERON | Tuesday, 25 March 2008 at 02:10 PM
While I suspect this cartoon was intended as a jibe, we all know that Islamic extremists aren't exactly renowned for their sense of humour. Why stoke the fire, when it is already too hot?
Posted by: Kenny | Tuesday, 25 March 2008 at 02:21 PM
Ahem. There's no "h" in "caricature", while "...were thoroughly researched thought provoking pieces" needs both a comma and a hyphen. I gave up reading at that point. Doesn't anybody sub this stuff? I know Usenet groups where the posts are better written than this, for crying out loud.
Posted by: Archie Valparaiso | Tuesday, 25 March 2008 at 02:48 PM
Why does Ian Cameron take exception to a woman expressing her right to dress as she pleases? is she not allowed freedom of expression in the way she chooses to dress?would Ian be more confortable in seeing a woman in a bikini rather than a woman being modestly covered up?
Posted by: Joshua Cohen | Tuesday, 25 March 2008 at 03:26 PM
anyway back to the cartoon - only someone with their head buried in the sand would deny that Islamophobes are stirring up racial and religious tensions against Muslims.
Much of the anti-Muslim propaganda being propagated by the media is darkly reminiscent of the propaganda being propagated by the Nazis, before and during WW2. Muslims appear to be a legitimate targets for all to take pot shots at. It is clearly high season for demonising Muslims – and we are all guilty of standing by and just watching the parade!
Posted by: Joshua Cohen | Tuesday, 25 March 2008 at 03:31 PM
er...well i'm a university muslim student with brown skin and a black goatee (for simplicity sake lets call it a beard). I always wanted to know why i got funny looks from my drunk and drug taking next door neighbour!
Posted by: Mo | Tuesday, 25 March 2008 at 03:55 PM
Kenny, do you not think it would be more constructive to comment on the content of the piece rather than pick holes in the grammar?
Posted by: Craig | Tuesday, 25 March 2008 at 04:19 PM
Yes,you can't be too careful with cartoons, can you? Coming from a paper that's run cartoons showing Ariel Sharon eating a Palestinian baby and Bush as the grim reaper this sudden eruption of delicacy and restraint is laughable.
Posted by: Richard Dean | Tuesday, 25 March 2008 at 04:35 PM
Craig, er, no, I don't. An op-ed blog by a staff writer on a major national newspaper's website should look like something that at least merits our attention. If you want to convince the reader, a good starting point is to avoid embarrassing the writer. Is running something through a spell-checker really too much to ask?
Posted by: Archie Valparaiso | Tuesday, 25 March 2008 at 05:02 PM
Archie: Apologies for the errors. We write the blogs straight onto the web page (usually whilst writing stories for the actual newspaper at the sametime) and I admit the odd slip gets through. I'll make sure they're corrected asap.
Posted by: Jerome Taylor | Tuesday, 25 March 2008 at 05:57 PM
Jerome writes about wearing the niquab:
"There are numerous reasons why those who do have done so and adopting a more radical interpretation of Islam is just one".
Would he like to tell us what the other reasons might be. I am intrigued!
Posted by: Rick Worth | Tuesday, 25 March 2008 at 06:14 PM
Your (very gracious in the circumstances) apologies are accepted - and corrections approvingly noted! My moaning wasn't specifically about you or this piece; it was a comment about "official" blogs in general: surely they need subbing, just like any other form of journalism.
Posted by: Archie Valparaiso | Tuesday, 25 March 2008 at 06:37 PM
Rick: British niqabis that I have spoken in the past give all sorts of reasons as to why they may have adopted the full veil. Many do say that a stricter or more orthodox interpretation of Islam convinced them to wear it but that's a far cry from radicalism.
We wouldn't say all Jews who turn to the othodox branch of Judaism and dress accordingly have become radicalised. They may be stricter, more socially conservative and adherent to their religious beliefs but not neccessarily radical.
Some women chose to wear the niqab as a political or cultural statement, a way of reaffirming their Islamic identity, and that might be a sign of radicalism, sure. But others may well have been forced to wear them by their families - and they certainly wouldn't be classed extremists.
Others from conservative familie say a niqab actually gives them the freedom to go out in public when otherwise their family might not have allowed them to.
The point is radicalism is not the only reason that someone might adopt a niqab but the way niqabis are portrayed in the media makes them radical in the popular imagination and that can be dangerous for the women who wear them.
Posted by: Jerome Taylor | Tuesday, 25 March 2008 at 06:59 PM
"by Charles Moore ... experts in their fields"
Not everyone would agree:
http://www.blogistan.co.uk/blog/mt.php/2008/03/23/who_are_the_scargills_of_islam
Posted by: Julaybib | Tuesday, 25 March 2008 at 08:39 PM
To respond to Joshua Cohen's point about my comment regarding particular items of women's dress - I did not seek to deny the right of women's choice I implied that I had a preference for a different choice - my preference is as valid as the next person's - just as I don't smoke or drink whisky blah blah blah. I also seriously don't like the clothing and personal appearence preferences of some Jewish religious followers and it is quite valid to express that view. On the other hand I like Scots wearing kilts. That is how the cookie crumbles.
Posted by: Ian Cameron | Tuesday, 25 March 2008 at 11:38 PM
"What once provided protection and anonymity to the wearer now sets them out as a potential extremist in the public mind because of the way we now percieve the niqab as a mark of extremism" says Jerome Taylor.
Good, I say. If niqab-wearing women are seen as extremists (and they are: not usually in the sense of violent extremism but certainly in the sense of an extreme interpretation of religion) then they will no longer feel able to wear such garments publicly. This can only be of benefit, both to them and to the cause of community cohesion.
It should not be acceptable, in a modern western society, for people to shroud themselves in this way. For one thing, it's a security risk, as anyone who has seen those recent CCTV images of niqab-disguised robbers will be aware. For another, it's unhealthy.
To answer Joshua Cohen's point, I personally would feel MUCH more comfortable seeing a woman in a bikini than one in a Burqa. Wouldn't you?
Posted by: Adrian | Wednesday, 26 March 2008 at 11:00 AM
Adrian: Care to provide any scientific evidence as to how on earth a niqab is "unhealthy"? What racist piffle.
Posted by: Samina | Wednesday, 26 March 2008 at 11:15 AM
Samina: A "racist" would presumably be quite keen on a niqab, as they wouldn't have to look at the (usually) brown skin of the woman underneath it.
And yes, there's plenty of scientific evidence about the adverse health effects of under-exposure to sunlight. Vitamin D deficiency, for a start.
Posted by: Adrian | Wednesday, 26 March 2008 at 11:33 AM
I personally have no objections to Muslim women wearing the niqab - if it is their choice. It is obvious however that the origins of the niqab has come from Muslim men not wanting other men to be able to ogle their wives. This seems more likely than it being a part and parcel of their religion, but then all religion is just man trying to make other men (and women) live and in some cases even dress the way they would like them to.
Posted by: Kenny | Wednesday, 26 March 2008 at 04:00 PM
"The problem with illustrations is that it is very easy to resort to sort of caricatures that create utterly false sterotypes of a community and only increase fear and mistrust between people."
Yes, you're right. Convicted Islamic terrorists look nothing like that cartoon... Er, apart from this one:
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200705/r145993_512250.jpg
That cartoon's clearly meant to be Osama bin Laden, not just some "random Muslim".
Posted by: Sam Tana | Friday, 28 March 2008 at 05:09 PM
Ah, not a single comment addresses the indisputable fact that the publication of this cover caricature in England in April 2008 reveals in Britain exactly the same appeal to prejudice and stereotyping as did Nazi caricatures of Jews. Afraid to agree, you all? Or just too ashamed?
Posted by: Observer | Monday, 31 March 2008 at 04:28 PM
Observer: The observation you make is a fair one but surely your criticism should be aimed at the publication, not the British people. In my opinion the caricature along with the slogan 'How to spot the Jihadi next door' were ill-considered and in bad taste and I'm sure most other liberal readers would acknowledge this.... however mild, uncontroversial covers don't sell magazines. Perhaps then Capitalism is to blame - now where is your argument?
Posted by: Kenny | Monday, 31 March 2008 at 05:33 PM
Kenny:
"Capitalism" to blame!!?? What's his name? The person to blame is the editor/publisher who intentionally issued this ugly incitement to prejudice. Whatever his motive, it doesn't excuse his hateful decision. You, like many, think that good intentions excuse intentional bad conduct. So, it's OK to steal from your employer because you genuinely believe your children will starve if you don't? Give me a break!
Posted by: Observer | Monday, 31 March 2008 at 11:03 PM
Observer: Your observations continue to baffle me - what good intentions? I've already postured that I found the cover to be in bad taste. In future you should try and be a bit more careful that your apparent holier-than-thou', self-righteousness doesn't cloud your judgement when deciding who is to blame.
Posted by: Kenny | Tuesday, 01 April 2008 at 08:58 AM