Search

According to the UN Refugee Agency, 59.5 million people around the world were forcibly displaced in 2014. The numbers are particularly high in countries which have been subject to a process of ‘redrawing the map’ by imperial powers or their regional allies. The response to the recent developments – a stage which has been dubbed as ‘refugee crisis’ – is as polarising and as problematic as before. On the one hand we have witnessed the heroic acts not only of the refugees themselves who moved collectively and refused to queue ‘orderly’ in the immigration lines, but also the magnificent response of citizens in all over Europe who rushed to feed, clothe, accommodate and welcome them. In contrast the overwhelming institutional response by ‘liberal’ states has been, and remains, depressingly illiberal. The official response to this humanitarian crisis – which is after all the product of ‘humanitarian interventions’ – has nothing to do with whether or not Europe can cope with a ‘swarm of people’ aiming to exploit the ‘host’ countries. It is to do with managing a massive reserve army of labour. Forced migration is not only a product of this staggering inequality but also an important element of how that inequality is produced, maintained and managed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Press freedom and free speech have again become central questions in discussions of democracy and power. A whole range of events have called into question the role of the press in the democratic process in today’s combined context of economic crisis and the free reign of market forces. From the publication of the racist cartoons in Denmark, to the Wikileaks witch hunt, to the Leveson inquiry in Britain, the rhetoric of press freedom is revealed as a universalizing concept that masks political and class interest – free expression is not treated universally, but is tied to questions of social, political and economic power. This article argues, however, that it is not the case that liberal democracy has latterly been corrupted or impaired. Instead, the significant limits of liberalism, highlighted by the above instances, stem from the historical conditions which gave rise to it; mass revolution and reaction in the 19th century resulted in constitutional democracies which established the principle of freedom, but not the fact. This article will suggest that from the outset, constitutional democracies were shaped by the class interests of an economic elite. There has been a historic entanglement of emancipation and de-emancipation in liberal thought, and the role of the press in this enterprise has been to use a racially charged definition of freedom and the notion of a threat to ‘our freedoms’ to scapegoat the Muslim population and to justify curbing ‘their’ freedoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The veil has become an image of otherness, of a refusal to integrate and an example of the ‘failings’ of multiculturalism. As such, it has become an important symbol in the homogenisation and demonisation of Muslims in Britain. It is important to situate this ‘debate’ about the veil in the broader context of racism, immigration and imperialism, and neoliberal economic and political transformations. In the post-9/11 and 7/7 climate, public discussions of Muslims in Britain have centred on the twin issues of ‘integration’ and ‘terrorism’, at a time when racism is on the rise and poverty has increased for immigrant communities. How the veil is understood in this ‘debate’ is shaped by this wider context and, above all, by a history of colonialism and imperialism. This article examines the debate on the veil, showing that many garments and practices surrounding veiling are reduced in the British media to a threatening set of symbols of difference and otherness. It is argued that to detach gender issues and Islam from their wider social context leads to regressive, intolerant and overtly racist assumptions. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The context in which the current 'debate' about Muslim women and the veil is taking place, in Britain and elsewhere in Europe, is that of the new orthodoxy, the 'clash of civilisations'. This attempts to explain much of the world's political turmoil in terms of a clash between the ('secular modern') West and the ('traditionalist religion') Islam. The increased visibility of veiled bodies in Britain today has stirred a response that draws on long-standing orientalist oppositions and reworks them in the current climate of the 'war on terror', connecting them to parallel racist discourses about 'threats' to British culture. Sections of the British media have homogenised the variety of Muslim veiling practices and have presented the veil as an obstacle to meaningful 'communication'; an example of Islamic 'refusal' to embrace 'modernity'. Veiled women are considered to be ungrateful subjects who have failed to assimilate and are deemed to threaten the 'British' way of life. This paper reviews the debate over the veil in Britain in the context of British foreign policy, attacks on civil liberties, the further marginalisation of poor communities and the politicisation of British Muslims, where the veil is an increasingly political image of both difference and defiance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Questions the validity of Hamid Mowlana's model and rejects the general assumption of a unified Islamic community in terms of culture and communication. Argument that the Islamic state is a God-fearing state, founded on Qur'an, Sunna and the Sharia; Comparison with western states or political states; Comparison between Tablig or propagation and western concept of propaganda.

This article maps the manner in which the press has become a key site in the ongoing struggle between conservatives and reformers inside the Islamic Republic of Iran. A more moder-ate president has encouraged renewed debate about civil society, often evident in new titles and newspaper content, while the forces of conservatism continue to fear and censor such debate. A new struggle around an old medium is very live in Iran. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Examines the impact of the political magazine `Red Pepper' on the press in Great Britain. Foundation and launching of the magazine; Context of the Comedia theory of the alternative press; Importance of mainstream economy and organizational technique on the financing of the magazine; Consequences of the alternative theories of left and radical publications.