A recent story published by MailOnline and The Sun reposted an argument between TfL passengers from December 14, 2014.

The respective headlines gave weight to the ‘You white sl*g!’ and ‘Don’t call me a white b***h!’ comments. We are then informed that ‘Two white women and two women wearing hijabs fired insults at each other while a horrified onlooker filmed the whole thing’. And ‘Shocking moment ‘racist’ Muslim women face off with white women in vicious confrontation on a London train’.

Both journalists make efforts to transcribe the argument, its insults and abuses. Yet the MailOnline copy makes little effort to highlight the abusive comments directed at the Muslim women. It acknowledges that they experience a ‘torrent of racist and Islamophobic abuse’; but does little to provide readers with statements until the end of the article.

Missing from the MailOnline copy are these statements:

“I don’t care if that’s your family or not or one of yous (sic), I don’t give a s**t she’s sitting there with her headscarf on being racist.”

“She’s sitting there with a headscarf on like I’m going to be threatened.”

“You’re a Muslim p***k, with that s**t round your head.”

To the Sun’s credit, the journalist did acknowledge that the argument was not quite so one-sided. But the accusation of racism remains directed solely at the Muslim women, abusive statements directed at the Muslim women are not afforded the same scrutiny, even when the MailOnline article acknowledges that the Muslim women experienced racist and Islamophobic abuse.

The MailOnline copy did acknowledge that the video surfaced in December 2014; but you’d need to read further down the article to learn this fact. The Sun, however, made the odd claim that  ‘an eyewitness filmed the altercation in March but the footage has only just surfaced online’. This may owe to the fact the article appeared a day after the MailOnline version appeared online.

In a heated and unpleasant argument where neither side comes across well, the context of what triggered the argument eludes both articles. That context does appear in the original video description.

YouTube user Jo Hip wrote that the argument had started ten minutes before they hit record. According to Jo Hip, “it all started when the white girl noticed the somalian girls steering at her and making comments under their breaths, after a while the white girl asked them, ‘Why do you keep on looking at me?. The Somalian girls responded by saying, ‘We’re free to look at whoever we want’”.

The description then adds:”After a while the white girl said ‘ I’ve dealt with many people like you and I won’t be intimidated’. When the Somalian girls heard the White girl say ‘People like you’, they assumed she was talking about their religion or race, they then said’ What do you mean people like us? Somalian? Muslim?? Well you’re nothing but a ‘White Slag’.”

Only after hearing the utterance of ‘white slag’ did the video record. The justification for filming was “to show the ignorance of people. Ignorance knows no colour or religion.”

This distorted framing of the article perhaps influenced some the comments from MailOnline readers. It reflected their own anxieties towards multiculturalism. Others recycled myths that the police would favour the Muslim women. It also captured their pessimism and fatalism. Soon it became clear that the comments focused less on the content and more on their own broader concerns and biases.

A bigger question, however, remains: why was a video uploaded in December 2014 reposted in 2016?

The post How a MailOnline article distorted a video from 2014 to highlight ‘racist’ Muslim women appeared first on TELL MAMA.

This is the shocking video of a Muslim woman in Moelenbeek who was run over on Saturday. Moelenbeek has become a rallying point for demonstrations and counter-demonstrations and has also drawn in far right groups to the area.

The victim was left unconscious as she was hit by the vehicle as she carried her shopping across the road. She appears not to have life threatening injuries.

The Daily Mail has stated that the individual driving the vehicle even took pictures as the car drove towards the Muslim female and the incident took place after a far right rally in the area. The Mail initially suggested that the perpetrators may have links to far right groups. However, according to Belgian police, the perpetrators are two local residents of North African or Arab heritage.

The post Muslim Woman Deliberately Run Over in Moelenbook, Brussels. appeared first on TELL MAMA.

18/11/2015

Readers’ Editor,
Daily Mail,
Northcliffe House,
2 Derry Street,
London W8 5TT

Dear Sir,

RE: Editorial Cartoon in the Daily Mail on the 17th of November 2015

We wanted to get in touch with you regarding this cartoon which was published on the 17th of November. We would like to start off by saying that unlike some, we believe that the Daily Mail has published some excellent investigative pieces in the last 24 months and produces scoops at points that are unique and which have a public interest. We also have to acknowledge that there are fundamental differences around our views on refugees, minority communities and on human rights. On these, we will continue to differ since we believe in the right for people to seek sanctuary when they are persecuted and in the protection of communities who are threatened or abused just because of a part of their multiple identities. We also believe that human rights are fundamental to a healthy functioning democracy.

However, we would like to turn attention to the cartoon printed in the Daily Mail on the 17th of November 2015. The cartoon was a depressing attempt to couch stereotypes in the guise of artistic freedom for a national newspaper. The suggestion given was that Muslims are symbolic of men with beards and with their wives walking behind them and where refugees cannot be fully trusted since their migration is allowing in terrorists – note the man with the weapon.

Whilst the Paris murders do indicate that a handful of extremists may have slipped into Europe with refugees, we need to re-iterate that refugees should not be seen as part of the problem and their plight is real as they flee from the horrors of Assad and the so-called Islamic State. Yet, this cartoon is not meant to acknowledge such issues and plays to the most basal stereotypes about Muslims and raises question marks on fleeing families who have suffered years of war, persecution and killings.

Finally, we are very concerned that the cartoon places fleeing rats with the individuals in the cartoon. Is the Mail suggesting that the refugees or Muslims are rats? Why was other wildlife not used and why rats?

Such imagery should never be repeated again. In 2015, the production of such imagery is simply an insult to us all.

Yours sincerely,

Tell MAMA

The post Open Letter to the Daily Mail on their Editorial Cartoon for the 17/11/2015 appeared first on TELL MAMA.

The Mail on Sunday apologised for and corrected a story that blamed “Muslim gangs” for an attack on immigration enforcement vans in east London after a complaint to press regulator Ipso.

Miqdaad Versi, who is assistant general secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain, complained in a personal capacity to Ipso after receiving a non-satisfactory response from the newspaper.

In July, the newspaper published the story with the headline “Welcome to east London: Muslim gang slashes tyres of immigration-raid van before officers showered with eggs from high rise”.

It linked Muslims with criminality in the same week David Cameron had called on the Muslim communities to support the “British way of life” and combat extremism.

The evidence? In the original story, it quoted an unnamed witness who claimed that, “I think they were local Muslim hoodies just doing a prank, but it’s not funny. It’s the sort of thing that will cause this area problems now”.

Following a complaint to Ipso, the Mail on Sunday agreed to rewrite the story to remove the references to Muslims and publish a correction both in print and online.

The correction said: “An article on July 26 said a gang of Muslim youths was responsible for damaging Home Office Immigration Enforcement vehicles in Shadwell, East London, in the week the Prime Minister appealed to Muslims to help combat extremism. Muslim readers have asked to point out that the youths’ religion was unclear and, in any case, irrelevant to the story. We apologise for any offence caused”.

One removed reference included that ‘more than half the population of Shadwell is Muslim, according to the 2011 census’. An irrelevant statistic that plays on deeper anxieties towards Muslim communities.

The original story proved a viral hit – achieving more than 15,000 online shares. Anti-Muslim hate sites, including Robert Spencer’s Jihad Watch and Pamela Geller’s Atlas Shrugged were quick to republish it. Spencer did acknowledge the Mail on Sunday’s correction with a single sentence.

‘Counter-jihadists’ and the far-right insulate their echo chambers with such stories. In spite of the corrections, these groups already believe the worst about Muslims and lazy journalism acts as confirmation bias.

Take, for example, how supporters of the English Defence League reacted, ‘Fickin dirty Muslim nonses should all be shot at birth and fed to the pigs!’ ‘Just kick the muslim scumbags out , they will NEVER live in peace in this country EVER !’ ‘One word. HITLER. None of this would of happened. If we had stayed as an island’. If anything, the extreme nature of the comments are the blunt end of insecurities around Muslims.

The comments raises an interesting question: why would an individual post them? It could reflect how people navigate the internet. John Suler’s influential ‘Online Disinhibition Effect’ breaks down internet behaviour into six factors.

One factors details how an individual compartmentalises their identities into ‘online’ and ‘real world’ personas. Online behaviour therefore feels inconsequential. Some may never act on these comments offline. Others blur the lines of incitement.

Nor will the corrected reality of the story achieve the same viral success online – and that remains a bigger problem as the total online shares total just 29.

The post Mail on Sunday apologies for and corrects ‘Muslim gangs’ story appeared first on TELL MAMA.

The Daily Mail initially reported that it had received unique footage on threats being made allegedly by Jihadi John. The threats seem to have been made on a mobile phone camera some 2 months ago and were then circulated using VIBER and through mobile phone networks. The video purports to show Jihadi John as he is travelling and his statements come across with a British accent.

Free Syrian Army contacts in Bulgaria and in Turkey passed on the video and what this brings to light once again is the way that the FSA is managing to capture such data from SIM cards that are still active and beyond the shores of Syria. This is one of the key ways that such information is being captured and disseminated beyond the country. In fact, the very networks that IS use, potentially open them up to intelligence communities, though the rapid opening and closing of social media accounts and the use of disposable SIMS means that tracking becomes difficult.

Suggestions that Mohammed Emwazi left Syria for Libya may well be wrong given this video that has surfaced and which places him within Syria.