Mohammed Saleem was murdered by a terrorist, and yet you have probably never even heard of him. It was April 2013, and the 82-year-old was walking home from evening prayers at a mosque in Small Heath, Birmingham. A Ukrainian neo-Nazi terrorist — who had bombed three mosques — stabbed him three times from behind.
“He was a very beautiful, educated man who empowered all of his five daughters — and his sons as well — to pursue education, and loved and appreciated everything Britain gave him,” said Maz Saleem, his daughter.
“I’ve spent six years tirelessly campaigning for him to be recognized in a mainstream platform,” she said.
Three weeks later, the murder of Lee Rigby by Islamist fundamentalists sparked national outrage and an emergency Cobra [sic] meeting: not so for Saleem.
“It was brushed under the mat,” Maz said.
Or what of Mushin Ahmed, an 81-year-old grandfather who was killed by two British racists in August 2015 as he walked to pray at a Rotherham mosque? As one of his assailants screamed that he was a “groomer,” he was kicked with such force that his dentures shattered and the imprint of a trainer was left in his face.
Or what of a 32-year-old black man in east London who, in June last year, had to crawl on his knees to the A12 to escape a racist attack: He had been stabbed five times.
I was on the receiving end of an attack in the early hours of Aug. 17: My friends were punched defending me and I suffered very minor injuries, but as a white man with a media platform, what happened to me garnered far more interest than the racist murders or serious hate crimes that have far worse consequences than bumped heads and bruises.
The far right is emboldened, legitimized and ever more violent, and hate crimes are surging. When we discuss Islamist fundamentalist terrorists, we ask: Who are the hate preachers radicalizing them in mosques or the Internet?
We have yet to engage seriously in a similar debate about far-right terrorism for a simple reason: The hate preachers are mainstream politicians, commentators and media outlets.
Consider the scale of the threat. The far right has always had two principal enemies — minorities and the political left — and nothing has changed.
Eight years ago, Norwegian far-right terrorist Anders Breivik slaughtered dozens of predominantly young socialists on the island of Utoeya. His reason? The left’s anti-racism meant they were the driving force behind what he described as the “Islamisation” and therefore destruction of Christian Europe.
This was a particularly violent expression of a persistent far-right conspiracy theory, and while left-wing teenagers died on that Norwegian island, this narrative did not. Members of the left are, according to this mindset, traitors to their nation, seeking to destroy it through mass immigration of culturally hostile aliens and are allies of a despised enemy — Islam as a demonized religion, Muslims as a people.
Far-right terrorists feed off the hatred that is often fanned by elites when it suits them. The recent El Paso, Texas, terrorist attack, in which Latin American people were slaughtered, cannot be divorced from the systematic demonstration of Mexican immigrants by right-wing media outlets and Republican politicians, and now in an undiluted form by a US president who labels them rapists and criminals.
Jews — who have been targeted for 2,000 years — were butchered and maimed in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, less than year ago.
The alleged terrorist reportedly accused Jews of trying to bring “evil” Muslims to the US — here was an ancient hatred married to a more modern manifestation: Jews as disloyal and rootless, seeking to destroy Western civilization by importing dangerous Muslims.
Chillingly, in overtly antisemitic remarks, US President Donald Trump this week accused Jewish Americans who vote for the Democrats of “great disloyalty.”
The 2015 far-right terrorist attack on a black church in Charleston, South Carolina cannot be understood in isolation from the fact that slavery, which has bequeathed an extensive racist legacy, was abolished just two lifetimes ago.
In New Zealand’s Christchurch massacre, more than 50 Muslims — people with a faith that has been targeted not just by the far right but several mainstream media outlets and politicians — were murdered.
In Britain, Labour lawmaker Jo Cox was murdered by a white far-right terrorist who gave his name in court as “death to traitors, freedom for Britain.”
What lesson was learned? How was Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage able to brag that Brexit had been won “without a single bullet being fired,” and later declare he would “don khaki, pick up a rifle and head for the front lines” if Brexit was not delivered, without his political or media career suffering?
How did a far-right terrorist plot to murder Labour Lawmaker Rosie Cooper with a machete not lead to national shock and horror — and a determination to crush the political ideology behind it?
What of the far-right attack on Muslim worshipers in Finsbury Park, whose perpetrator expressed a desire to murder Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and London Mayor Sadiq Khan as terrorist supporters?
The hate preachers radicalizing far-right extremists are not ranting on soap boxes on street corners: They are splashed on front pages. They use rhetoric such as “Enemies of the people” and “Crush the saboteurs”; they deploy distortions, myths, half-truths and lies to whip up hatred against Muslims, migrants and refugees, and to scapegoat them for crimes committed by the powerful.
In the clash between fascists and antifascists in Charlottesville, Virginia, Trump infamously declared there “were very fine people on both sides,” and in doing so founded “both-sideism”: the idea that advocating white supremacy is morally equivalent to opposing racism and wanting rich people to pay higher taxes.
Yet this moral equivalence — which includes claiming that the left is equally violent — is beyond dangerous. The far right might be committing murderous terrorist atrocities against minorities, but some guy poured a banana and salted caramel milkshake on Farage’s favorite suit!
Sure, there are members of minorities being murdered on the streets by racists with little media coverage, but American neo-Nazi Richard Spencer was punched once, so who is to say who is worse?
There is a systematic campaign to delegitimize the very few left-wing voices in the mainstream media and politics, orchestrated not just by the right, but by some self-described “moderates” and “centrists” too.
The attempt to construct a false equivalence between a far right that is on a murderous rampage against minorities and their allies, and a left committed to resisting its hatred and violence, is perverse. Mainstream politicians and several media outlets are legitimizing ideas that fuel ideologically driven far-right terrorism and violent racist and bigoted attacks.
Many more people will be injured, and will die, as a consequence, and because they are not white and lack a national platform, you will probably never hear their names.
Owen Jones is a Guardian columnist.
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS