UKC

I stumbled across this while reading about something else (about the professor from Kent eating a page from his book on Brexit). It's about a lady wearing a head scarf who was pushed over from behind by a man while with her 3 year old child.

http://www.indiatimes.com/news/world/woman-pushed-to-ground-hijab-removed-a...

Apart from it being cowardly that the majority of Muslim people who are attacked (most of the time by men) are women, possibly because it's them who are most 'visibly Muslim', isn't it helping to create the climate for further radicalisation, if young and impressionable Muslims feel like people are against them?

http://www.independent.co.uk/News/uk/crime/london-bridge-attack-latest-rise...

It seems incidents of racism went up too, after the Manchester and London attacks...

In reply to Timmd:

Unfortunately terrorist attacks provide a twisted justification for tw*ts to act like tw*ts and temporarily assuage their own feelings of worthlessness by kidding themselves that other people are worthy of their contempt based on religion or ethnicity.
See also , gay bashing, sectarian violence, attacks on rival football fans, post code violence (London). Etc. Etc.

Depressingly common human behaviour the world over.

In reply to Timmd:

We had a man outside a school here, calling little girls terrorist. Cowardly behaviour.

In reply to Stichtplate:

Unlike the examples you mention, there does seem to be a pattern of men attacking women or girls at the moment

In reply to marsbar:

Mostly not attacking but still nasty looks, bad feelings and 'you are not British' type of feelings towards obviously muslim women. It must be horrible and sad for them sometimes. But the opposite can happen also. People who try to give more than a bit of good energy just to balance things out.

In reply to Timmd:

I think we need to clarify - this is a rise in reports of hate crime.

That does not necessarily equate to a rise in hate crime.

It has spiked following every terror attack and then quickly returned to "normal".

In reply to off-duty:

I hope it does go back down, I do think it is an actual rise at present not a rise in reports, we have never had anything like the incident last week before. It's not the kind of area where there is any kind of incident usually.

In reply to off-duty:

Is it a known psychological phenomenon, where people will more readily report attacks after a terror incident if people from their own group (loosely speaking) are involved?

In reply to Timmd:


Not sure it's a "psychological phenomenon" but I think the rise includes things like -
-reporting more because it might previously have been ignored but it's in the news/in focus
-reporting more because there's more police to report to
- reporting more because more has occurred
- reporting more because one hate incident gets multiple reports , typically an idiot will post a video as a result of the incident which will go viral= multiple reports

In reply to off-duty:


Surely there are a lot fewer police to report to?

Interesting in Scotland nearly half of religious hate crime is being reported by the police themselves, you've got to wonder at the reason for that.

http://www.policeprofessional.com/news.aspx?id=29531

Note Catholics are the greatest number of reports by far, then Protestants then Muslims.

In reply to Timmd:

A couple of times as a youth I was punched in the face for no apparent reason. It's not an uncommon experience. It made me angry and upset and offended for some time afterwards. Oddly enough, I did not become a mass murderer. Nor did I develop extremist views and join a white supremacist group. I calmed down and got on with life. Maybe I'm just weird. How else to explain such a bizarre reaction?

In reply to off-duty:
The only problem with a list of possible reasons like that is it sort of implies equal weighting, even if it isn't intentional. I suspect that more being reported because of the temporary increase in visible policing is only a small factor compared to more hate crime actually occurring, but it gives the two a false equivalence.

In reply to toad:

so how would you devise such a list?

In reply to Timmd:


After Westminster there were reports of a mini spike but after a few days it was reported as no increase (both figures from the same guy at Tell Mama).

I don't think the affect on radicalisation can be so strong, although there's a backlash amongst muslims, Birmingham police asking people not to report false allegations:

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/west-midlands-police-war...

But it still remains that the majority of reports are on-line not physical.

Headlines of increases in the hundreds of percent ( ie 400% is a fourfold increase) sound dramatic but it's because there are relatively few cases before hand, only a small increase is a large percentage increase.

I would say that demonstrates a huge tolerance by the vast majority of the UK, rather than an outpouring of hate, certainly much better than Europe or the US.

People find it difficult to put these things in perspective, but an example, our local Black Lives Matter head is of Italian descent. He was asked in an interview to recount his 'lived experience' of racism. He said in Italy it was a daily occurrence but in England he hadn't experienced it once in 5 years.

It's interesting too that Tel Mama complain that the Police clamp down on on-line radicalisation but not on Far Right extremism but the difference here is that they are looking for terrorists not name calling, if you look at the amount of racism and hate on muslim websites and forums it is quite shocking how tolerated it is compared to right wing racism in the UK. It's just not (yet) reported as hate crime.

In reply to marsbar:


Of course there is, they might get a smack if they pick on a male who can defend himself. (not saying women can't defend themselves)

In reply to Dr.S at work: short answer is that I/we don't! It's a complex data gathering exercise that requires a bit of subtlety and proper resources and expertise. Which is why it's so easy for pressure groups and think tanks to spin the data to suit their agenda.

And also why it's important not just to present a bald list of possible reasons without some sort of narrative around weighting and reliability.

In reply to Thrudge:

Who knows? What do you think? Perhaps we're not all psychologically wired the same way? It might be true from how we all turn out differently as adults?

It's a deep topic which simple answers don't do justice to I think....

In reply to Timmd:


Good point, although I'd go further and say it's certainly true that we're not all wired the same way. In stating that my experience is not uncommon, the point I was trying to make is that the overwhelming majority of people who've had similar experiences don't become extremist. Being punched (let alone criticized, or 'looked at in a funny way') is usually nowhere near enough to push someone to extremism. But Islam is.

Getting back to your point about psychological wiring, it's a truism that religion can rewire people and that Islam is particularly good at it.

In reply to winhill:


Following these incidents there is an awful lot of reassurance patrolling and visits to community groups etc etc.
More police contact might be a better way of putting it.
I can confirm there are no more cops

In reply to toad:


Not the intention, just a (non-inclusive)list off the top of my head.

I suspect that more being reported because of the temporary increase in visible policing is only a small factor compared to more hate crime actually occurring, but it gives the two a false equivalence.

Suspicion based on what?
I know of incidents that have only been reported due to the ready availability of cops who have specifically attended community groups to reassure.

In reply to Timmd:

I think that every society has a small minority of poisonous, hate filled individuals , who spend a fair chunk of their time assaulting random individuals, keying cars, wrecking bus shelters and generally attempting to make life miserable for the rest of us.
Then a terrorist attack happens and unfortunate Muslims become a lightning rod for their hate. I believe these tw*ts account for the vast majority of such spikes rather than an increase in the number of racists.
The majority of people just don't equate normal Muslims with the wankpuffins who attacked at Manchester Arena and London Bridge.

In reply to Timmd:

No more cowardly than driving a truck through a crowd. Given the choice between some complete stranger trying to run me over/stab me/blow me up, and some complete stranger calling me names & pushing me over, I know which I'd prefer.

In reply to Stichtplate:


Much like the terrorists themselves.

In reply to Stichtplate:



I think that every society has a small minority of poisonous, hate filled individuals , who spend a small chunk of their time assaulting random individuals, driving cars at them, killing children and generally attempting to make life miserable for the rest of us.

In reply to Chris Harris:


Very much, but on a vastly different scale.

In reply to Timmd:


Where do you get that from?

In reply to Chris Harris:

We could explain this phenomena better if only there were some sort of link between these people, some common denominator, a plausible reason for their behaviour....

In reply to Thrudge:


I don't think anyone is ignoring the role of Islamist ideology, it's just that the threads about anti Muslim incidents.

In reply to off-duty:

Here's a source, talking about women being more likely to be targeted.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-36655951/women-targets-of-muslim-hate-crime

In reply to off-duty:


Another one here, which says more than half of people targeted are women...

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/28/women-targeted-attacks-musl...

In reply to Chris Harris:

Your posts make a really weird, vague, argument, which I can't really understand.


Why are you making a comparison between who's the most cowardly out of terrorists and people assaulting Muslims on the street? No one's said that those committing the assaults on women are "worse than the terrorists" - would anyone think that? - yet that's the point you seem to be responding to.

More generally, there's a nasty whiff of excusing or playing down the harm of assaults on Muslims because "it's nowhere near as bad as the terrorism". Is that the argument you intend to make? Can you articulate what you mean more explicitly?

In reply to Chris Harris:

Personally I'd rather neither happen.

The terrorists on the other hand must be delighted that people are retaliating by verbally abusing innocent Muslim children because that's exactly what they want to back up their hate filled nonsense and their ridiculous playing the victim role.

In reply to Chris Harris:

Muslim people should be grateful they're not having trucks driven at them or being stabbed when they're pushed over and/or verbally abused...?

Can people step on your foot and say at least they're not poking you in the eye?

In reply to Thrudge:


It's a funny one. As an ex Catholic, I probably get what you mean about religion (I stopped going to church in my teens, which seems to be a questioning phase for most people, about life etc, so can't speak about how it affected me as an adult), but since history shows that it's near enough impossible to wipe out a religion, it strikes me that if we have any hope of solving the terror problem, we've got to be working 'with' Muslims, since they're (presumably) more likely to come into contact with potential terrorists and contact the authorities. Like some Muslims actually did do in reporting the Manchester bomber. Aside from freedom to follow a religion being a human right, an important one I think, it's only pragmatic to work 'with' Muslims. I've known some very decent ones too.

In reply to Timmd:

Don't be so pessimistic ( or historically illiterate )the world is absolutely packed with extinct religions. Only a few more to go.

In reply to Stichtplate:
How would one go about deciding whether people gave them up as a bad lot, compared to them being wiped out by people opposed to them?

There's priest holes and secret places in Holland and England and France. You might be right, but what might come in their place? Argh.

Edit: In the here and now though, working with religions as if they're going to stay could seem like a way that has more chance of a peaceful outcome? I heard an anthropologist talking about Roma gypsies in Romania, and she said that it's a common trend, that when a minority community feels under threat, they can withdraw into themselves, and also hold onto aspects of their culture which aren't always to their own benefit, just from a sense of wanting to hold on their identity which they feel is under threat.

In reply to Thrudge:


So do you think that Islam - the Koran and Hadith taught in your average mosque around the world - is sufficient to push someone towards extremism, or do you think it's Islam plus something else that's required?

Obviously Islamist terrorism has an awful lot to do with Islam. You could narrow this to the group within Islam who commit and support terrorism, call them Islamist extremists. Or you could choose the group within Islam that shares the political ideology that Muslims should live under Islamic rule, i.e. Islamism (obviously there's a point of definition here). You could, if you wanted, broaden the people you associate with Islamist terrorism to all religious people. But the usual response is to associate the terrorism at the level of Islam, not at one of the narrower or broader groups.

Why choose this level? My intuition is because it makes sense at the level of tribalism. Muslims are a recognisable group in society: they don't look like us, they have distinct practices and culture, and we roughly know who what we're talking about when we talk about Islam. It requires a lot more effort to differentiate Islamism as an ideology within and not identical to Islam, in order to avoid expressing distrust or even hatred towards all the Muslims we live together with in our society.

It may appear that I'm trying to absolve ordinary Muslims from their guilt or complicity in recent terrorist attacks...

In reply to Timmd:
It's certainly a tough one, but as science becomes ever more adept at explaining the universe* , religious people either have to give up on reason or somehow breed themselves stupider. Some are currently attempting to pursue both these options, but neither provides a good long term survival strategy. Couple this with how keen the very religious are on killing each other or dying for their Gods and the long term future for atheism looks rosy.

* admittedly still some glaring holes in our grasp of physics, but thinking that god can slip in there is grasping at straws.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

The Muslims who contacted the authorities about their fears about the Manchester bomber would probably appreciate that?

In reply to Stichtplate:

Not unless you 'have' to believe, if life only has meaning if there's a creator and grand plan behind it all. Then god is still behind it all, deep down, they can have created the whatever it is we find out about how things all started. Not all people think like you.

Edit: I thought a brother put it quite well when he said religion exists because some people need it to.

In reply to Chris Harris:


And what would you prefer between those two options and, being allowed to carry on with life without being intimidated.

In reply to Timmd:



Of course you're right, but things are gradually getting better for atheists. Only a few countries still execute us, so there's that . Maybe I'm being optimistic, but god is increasingly being marginalised, just look at the C of E !

In reply to Stichtplate:
I'm generally an optimist, but I seem to think that one needs to allow for the worst in human nature (whatever one considers that to be) and work to minimise the chance of that occurring and doing any harm. I went through a phase of pondering how the abuse of women and children, and torture taking place, and general criminality seem to pop up where ever law and order breaks down in the world. It doesn't seem to take a lot for the dark side to emerge and have an effect.

There's the good sides to human nature too, but I don't think things will ever be 'solved', to do with human darkness, I think it's like a weed in the garden which keeps needing pulling up.

Perhaps you've caught me on a bad day, or I've thought too much about it.