Sie sind auf Seite 1von 20

Running head: ISLAMOPHOBIA AND UK GOVERNMENT POLICIES 1

Islamophobia and UK Government Policies

Student’s Name

Institution
ISLAMOPHOBIA AND UK GOVERNMENT POLICIES 2

Islamophobia and UK Government Policies

Introduction

Government policies are driven by the social, political and economic needs of the people.

Prior to the terror attack in USA and Paris, government policies focused on economic

empowerment and social stability. However, the unstable political environment in the Middle

East and North Africa has created a new challenge for the United Kingdom. New culture within

a setting poses a social dilemma to an indigenous population. The imminent threat posed by the

unstable nature of peripheral states has resultantly shaped policymaking. Due to the terrorist

attacks linked to Islam, majority of the native population in the UKhave acquired a negative

attitudetowards Islam. Change in the natural environment informs policy making across different

jurisdictions. The new policies in the UK are now focused on security and less on liberty rights.

While creating a balance between liberty rights and security, the UK government has in the long

run affected interaction between the various religious groups. Government policies meant to

create a sustainable environment have worked towards promoting Islamophobia. In determining

the impact, there is need to answer the question to what extent are government policies the cause

of increasing islamophobia in UK?

Islamophobia and the Public Stand

According to Allen (2017), Islamophobia is the hatred or prejudice against the Muslims

or the Islamic faith. It was first witnessed in social spheres during the end of the 20th century.

The level of Islamophobia in a country – the UK in this case –is greatly driven by the

government’s social and political attitudes. According to Appadurai (1996), modern societies

are characterized by conflicts between cultural ‘homogenization and cultural heterogenization’.

Based on the model, new cultures are resisted by the indigenous environment. The fear created
ISLAMOPHOBIA AND UK GOVERNMENT POLICIES 3

by the indigenous grouping then links new cultures to any misfortune happening in society. In

addition, the British majority tend to create a hostile environment towards the Muslim minority

groups based on experiences and fear of new cultures (Warsi, 2017). Terror attacks and cyber

bulling associated to ISIL represent past UK experiences. These experiences according to Allen

(2017) have worked towards creating a negative a perception towards the Islamic faith.For

instance, after the London bus attack, there was a negative misconception towards the Islamic

faith and their interaction changed in public spaces. Cultural marginalization based on the newly

formed government stand creates imbalance within the society. Hence, the indigenous population

depend upon the new polices to resist new culture. Appadurai (1996) creates a cultural opinion

where fear of the unknown informs policymaking and social interaction. In the UK, policy

decision has resulted into a divisive public opinion on religion and cultural diversity.

Consequently, punitive policies aimed at the Muslims population – despite being citizens – have

undoubtedly enhanced the Islamophobic environment created in London and the rest of the

United Kingdom.

Employment Policy

According to the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2006), there exists a

higher unemployment rate in the Muslim community compared to other groups in the UK.

Negative stereotypes; for instance, linking terrorism to Islam, were identified as a key factor for

non-absorption of Muslims in the job market. The primary concern for indigenous employees is

job security due to possibility of Muslim immigrants taking up jobs meant for them. Appadurai

(1996) blames aspects of modernization of society to the renewed fear by indigenous UK

cultures on the existence of Muslims within the working spaces. On the other hand, labor laws in

the UK fail to address equality for all since, although they are focused on gender parity, they
ISLAMOPHOBIA AND UK GOVERNMENT POLICIES 4

ignore the need for diversity in terms of religion. Allen (2016) blames the coalition government

for failing to create equal pay and equal opportunities in the employment market. The law on

equality discriminates against religious disparities and focuses the affirmative action (Allen,

2017). The discriminatory policies deployed by the labor market limits the rights of the Islamic

population, hence, contributing towards Islamophobia. The attitude by the indigenous escalates

to the already created negative environment. The government inability to control operations

within the labor market, limits interaction of Britons with Muslim immigrants seeking

employment in the UK. The majority of immigrants in the UK originate from the Muslim

dominated regions of the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and North Africa (Castle & Miller, 2009).

Individuals from these regions are denied employment opportunities on legal grounds and public

unwillingness to integrate Islamic immigrants. In an effort to control the influx of immigrants,

the government has created a negative environment between the majority and the Islamic

population by denying them work permits without cause.

Public holidays are recognized under the UK constitution. According to Lewicki and

Toole (2017), the Islamic holiday calendar differs from the Roman calendar utilized in the UK.

Appadurai (1996) the modernization of cultures to allow cross cultural approaches may create an

imbalance within the social sphere. Given the undefined holidays in Islam, it is a challenge for

the government to fuse the Islamic holidays with the existing public holidays without creating a

social conflict. Failing to recognize Muslim holidays infringe on the basic rights of the Muslim

population and indicate government policies guiding the labor environment. The move by the

British labor environment according to Appadurai (1996) market adapts ‘historically situated

imaginations’ which is contrary to contemporary social settings. Inflexible nature of the labor

market makes conservative employers limit employment opportunities to Muslims on grounds


ISLAMOPHOBIA AND UK GOVERNMENT POLICIES 5

that they might be unproductive. The trend according to Lewicki and Toole (2017) is replicated

in the private sector; thus, the sector utilizes the government unwillingness to create parity in the

labor market to discriminate against the Muslim immigrants. The lower Islamic intake by the

private sector indicates its intolerance towards Muslims. Theassumption by the private firms on

productivity proves the silence of the government on Islamophobia in the work environment. As

a result, the Muslim community has been limited economically by the lack of government policy

to foster a suitable working environment (Choudhury, 2005). Majority groups and government

failures to impose regulations within the labor market protecting the freedom of worship in

organizations contributes towards Islamophobia in workplaces and lack of understanding. The

labor market remains diverse, but the UK government lacks the goodwill in formulating laws

that respect the Muslim population.

Policies in the Workplace

In July of 2015, the government and local authorities made it mandatory for organizations

operating in the UK to report extremists in the workplace (Habib, 2017). Teachers, lawyers, and

doctors needed to report suspected behaviors with an aim of combating extremism. The legal

requirement meant each citizen had a role to play in fighting terrorism. The negative effect of

modernization is evident to the tension initiated by the government between the natives and

Muslim minorities. The aftermath of the regulation has seen Muslim women and young girls

being targeted by the larger majority (Habib, 2017). The majority deploys discriminative models

geared towards dealing with perceived threats by Muslim minorities. Appadurai (1996), the

move by the majority is driven by its failure to embrace modernity and allow a cross cultural

approach. A survey by EUAFRA on the majority within the workplace indicated intolerance
ISLAMOPHOBIA AND UK GOVERNMENT POLICIES 6

towards the Islamic population (EUAFRA, 2006). Based on the report by EUAFRA, the working

population in the UK feels insecure in the presence of the minority. Fear is initiated by Britons

inability to adapt to globalization and allow different cultures into their spheres. Creating

stringent policies acts as deterrence to Islamic culture penetrating into the British social

organization. The war on extremism has turned into Islamic prejudice and as a way of

maintaining social orders.

Politics

According to Bayrakli and Hafez (2016), the government applies double stands in

implementing the anti-radicalization regulations to Islamic groups and right-wing groups. The

UK prime minister in recent condemned the right-wing actions to target the Muslim population

during a track attack on Muslims (Bayrakli &Hafez, 2016). In addition, the premier condemned

the actions by the right wing but did so by mentioning Islam in her submission. The Prime

Minister represent the coalition government, hence, her sentiments represented the government’s

position on Islamophobia and showed misconceptions on Islam. Misconception created by the

fear of Islam influencing the indigenous population. As much as extremism remains illegal, there

exist double standards while addressing it by different groups in the UK. Furthermore, the

sentiments by Teresa May showed discontent in the government’s ability to create a suitable

environment for the Islam minority (Bayrakli and Hafez, 2016). She felt that the government

tends to take a liberal position while addressing Islamophobia. Her press release evidence the

position of the executive on the issue. The political stand taken the UK prime minister shows the

native energy geared towards the Islamic minority. The death of young Muslims during the truck

failed to capture the attention of the prime minister and created an impression that the UK

government values less the lives of Muslims. Conversely, although the labor party and the
ISLAMOPHOBIA AND UK GOVERNMENT POLICIES 7

conservative condemn discrimination of Islam, they have failed in establishing regulations and

laws that protect the Muslim population.

The legislative arm of the government has failed in creating laws to compact

Islamophobia. The prime minister’s condemnation of the Islamophobic triggered truck attack

portrays popularity gimmicks. According to (1996), the new model of modernization segregates

societies and classifies social settings on preferred terms. Discontented groupings are enticed and

those resisting forced by circumstance to submit to the populist. The lack of goodwill from the

political class to address the selective attack attributes to stereotypes geared towards Muslims.

According to Ferguson (2018) & Thomas (2012), All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) in

Britain has linked the British Muslim Council to extremist groups such as the Muslim

Brotherhood in Egypt and the Middle East. The link negatively affects the council’s ability to

advocate for the rights of the Muslims. The nonpartisan stand taken by the parliamentarians in

the APPG report highlights political intolerance and selectiveness in advocating for the rights of

citizens (Fergusson, 2018). Comparing a civil group to terrorist organizations without irrefutable

proof works negatively towards creating public trust. Misconceptions created by political

stakeholders have worked towards passing the wrong informing to the public on the need to

create a political and social balance.

According to Ali (2018), in England, the Muslim population stands at five million.

Comparing the population to public appointments, there are inconsistencies since they occupy

few positions in government. Discrimination in state appointments reveals an active role

government policies wok in enhancing Islamophobia. According to EUFRA (2006), majority of

Muslims have dual citizenship in the United Kingdom. Furthermore, the law allows individuals

with dual citizenship to occupy public offices and engage in economic activities that contribute
ISLAMOPHOBIA AND UK GOVERNMENT POLICIES 8

to the development of the nation. A survey by Allen (2016), however, shows that Muslims

holding dual citizenship are less likely to get state appointments attributing it to public interest

and punitive government regulations. As such, the political spaces tend to mistrust the Islamic

population based on events happening in different jurisdictions. According to Appadurai (1996),

‘deterritorialization’ places the minority in a lower social class and denies them opportunities

within the social spaces. Limiting job opportunities to Muslim immigrants ensures that the social

order is maintain and the migrants occupy the lower end of the social sphere. The parliamentary

house committees also have fewer Muslims compared to other groups. The conservative in

particular has only three Muslim members in parliament (Allen, 2016). Both majority and

minority groups in parliament have limited positions set aside for religious groups. However, the

position taken by both sides of the political sphere are informed by the need to retain traditional

believes and reduce a shift in party ideology.

Anti-Terrorism Policies

According to Quarashi (2018), The British Government in 2015 introduced into law the

preventive scheme. In addition, the policy has failed in its mandate to counter radicalization and

rather has contributed towards Islamophobia in the UK. The scheme focused on regulating

religious teachings and limiting the freedom of association. The aim of the scheme was to ensure

that all citizens are guided by the need to respect rights and create a patriotic attitude. In an

effort to regulate religious interactions, the local authorities and the police have been mandated

to conduct crackdowns on suspected religious leaders. Since the inception of the policy, 97% of

the religious crackdowns have been done in Areas that are predominantly Muslim populated

(Jackson, 2017). Frequent raids have targeted Muslim habitats compared to other homes

occupied by non-Muslims (Quarashi, 2018). The right-wing terror group poses danger to the
ISLAMOPHOBIA AND UK GOVERNMENT POLICIES 9

national security. However, the Preventive Scheme has sidelined the danger of the grouping and

focused more on Islamic radicalization. The move indicates a fixed mindset by government on

Islamic teaching and resistance by the indigenous cultures to accommodate new cultures. The

right-wing movement is based on Islamophobia; the movement has equally attacked innocent

civilians across the UK and major cities in Europe. The discriminatory model created by the

government to combat radicalization has failed in its core mandate. The Muslim youth have been

a target of the state during policy formulation. The government guidelines on religious groupings

have placed many Muslim youths on the wrong path of the law. The youth can be molded, but

discrimination only pushes them towards radicalization. Attacks on the Muslim population have

also been on the rise (Joppke, 2009). The attacks have been attributed to Islamophobia driven by

the right wing. The failure by the anti-radicalization scheme to protect the Muslim population

show punitive measures implemented by the authority and the public. Targeting a single religion

in the war on terror outlines the Islamophobic nature of the preventive models designed by the

British government.

According to Alam and Husband (2013), youths converting to Islam are treated as

suspects under the ant-radicalization model. Conversion to Islam over the years has been seen by

the authorities as an attempt to join ISIS. The ISIS war has negatively affected Islam as a religion

and the nature in which the UK public perceive the religion and government formulate laws.

Those converting to Islam are seen as potential domestic terrorists. The perception is determined

by the global media spaces. Reducing social interaction limits modernity from distorting social

sequence Appadurai (1996) relates the behavior to the elite creating a dorminat state and limiting

the activities of the follower. The arrest of Baulor Saffa, an 18-year old British citizen in 2016,

based on her religion and perceived notion of her attempt to join ISIS in Syria (Ali, 2018). The
ISLAMOPHOBIA AND UK GOVERNMENT POLICIES 10

arrest showed a negative side of the anti-radicalization program in UK. In 2018, the teenager was

sentenced to life imprisonment. The entire family of Saffa was questioned on the incident and the

media documented a historical background of the teenager. On the other hand, the Finsbury Park

mosque attack perpetrated by a Christian, several injuries and the death of one person were

recorded (Bayrakli and Hafez, 2016). The aftermath of the attack saw the authorities only

condemn the crime perpetrator, but protected the identity of his family and religious background.

Furthermore, there was no background check done to ascertain his link to the right-wing. This

move shows a double standard in UK laws and policies on Terror.

Migration Regulations

The government clearly stipulates who can travel to or live in the country. Moreover, the

country’s regulations limit movement to the Middle East by its citizens on basis of safety. The

fear of foreign culture influencing the Britons informs the travel restriction. Consequently, the

presence of ISIS among other terror sects in the Middle East and the political instability in the

region has affected immigration policies. Muslim immigrants from this region are thoroughly

scrutinized while seeking asylum and work permits (Joppke, 2009). The Muslim population

undergoes a tedious vetting process that can be termed as discriminatory since a radical aiming

to harm the UK would not seek asylum or get into the country from such regions. Muslim

immigrants are taken through a vigorous process and are denied free movement for long

periodsuntil the migration department can ascertain they are not a threat (Ali, 2018). A

committee by the home office is formed to access the historical background of immigrants and

their level of threat. According Joppke (2009), documented Islamic immigrants in the UK have

failed to access social amenities and denied movement for longer periods compared to other

immigrants. The move is termed as a security model based on the antiterrorism regulation. The
ISLAMOPHOBIA AND UK GOVERNMENT POLICIES 11

religious based government policy, has informed public position on Muslim immigrants and

reduced interaction between the natives and foreigners seeking residence. The most affected

group by the travel policies are Muslims.

Brexit

Britain voted to exit the EU, which meant that it would establish independent policies.

The EU move on immigration was clear on the vetting process as a means of promoting for

equality. The EU guided member states on the need to allow immigrants from war troubled

regions to seek residence. Moreover, EU limited discrimination and created an equal

environment where asylum seekers were given free passage. A cross-cultural approach adopted

by the EU. Amied at fusing different cultures into a new culture that tolerate diveristy.

According to Appadurai (1996) those opposed to modernity would form a dominant culture and

resist foreign cultural influence. The exit by Britain meant restoring the ancient culture and

reducing the impact of modernity policy making. Brexit negatively influenced the relations

between the UK and Islamic immigrants as it limits the number of immigrants per region. Under

the new law, work permits are limited in that, countries that are politically unstable are offered

refugee status and denied work permits (Warsi, 2017). The influx of the Syrian population in the

UK adds to the existing Muslim population. As a result, the government deploys Islamophobic

regulations to limit number of refugees and their movement in Britain. The UK after Brexit

limited movement of the Muslim population citing security concerns. Immigrants from other

European nations are allowed on assumption that they pose less threat compared to their

Muslims counterparts.

Home Office Policies


ISLAMOPHOBIA AND UK GOVERNMENT POLICIES 12

Home office department in the UK is mandated with the task of offering visas and

regulating immigration. The department determines nature of interactions between immigrants

and the entire UK population. The home office prompts Visa applicants to take passport

photographs (Bayrakli & Hafez, 2016). However, this process infringes on the rights of Muslims

since the government requires Muslim females to remove their head veils (hijabs) before having

their passports taken. This requirement is against Islamic dressing regulations since females are

prohibited from exposing their hair in public. A Muslim female applicant is hence at crossroads

of which of the two – religious beliefs or British Citizenship – is more important. The

government policy is conservative and reduces aspect of globalization from affecting decisions

within the British territory. The regulation lacks flexibility and offers no exceptions. The

government through such requirements indicates their unnecessary rigidity in regulation while

devaluing religious rights (Bayrakli & Hafez, 2016). Furthermore, Muslim clerics are denied

visas on grounds that they may offer radicalization programs to the UK Muslim population (Ali,

2018). Consequently, failure by the government to show goodwill in formulating policies that

offer leeway to religious beliefs and failure to respect women rights on security grounds fosters

an Islamophobic environment.

Appadurai (1996) explores stringent measure taken by the elite in reducing the influence

of the peripheral in society. The Home department classifies immigrants based on their country

of origin (Appadurai, 1996). Society that oppose modernity limits interact and works towards

creating a dominant social behavior. For instance, in the UK, Immigrants from Arabic nations

are taken through a long vetting process while seeking residence. In addition, Muslims tend to be

labeled as high risk in matters security based on global happenings across the world. The right to

movement and information is denied to this religious group pending verification. Risk factors
ISLAMOPHOBIA AND UK GOVERNMENT POLICIES 13

highlighted by the department acts towards stereotyping the Muslims (Thomas, 2012).

Furthermore, the model adapted by the department assumes that all Muslims are more likely to

cause state insecurity compared to organized groupings within Europe.

Housing Policies

The Manchester terror attack also transformed housing policies in the UK. A sense of

tension was created between property owners and tenants. The landlords depended upon

government to guide them on housing regulation. According to Lewicki and Toole (2017), the

property owners changed the manner in which they leased properties. The move was based on

the failure by government to create a safe environment. Private property owners chose to deny

Muslim the right to lease property on grounds that they pose a security threat (Lewicki & Toole,

2017). Modernity allows societies to interact without creating tension. The assumptions by the

landowners to ignore police statistics while assigning properties indicate the public’s

contribution towards Islamophobia. Islamophobia in the UK is attributed by the fear of the elite

in adapting a globalization model that enhances cultural tolerance. The Islamic population has

suffered from policies imposed by landowners since the government has failed to formulate

regulations guiding property owners against discrimination of citizens in turn undermining the

right of Muslims to acquire houses.

Public and private owners determine the UK’s housing programs, but private property

owners are the majority. The government has limited control towards ensuring affordable

housing and allocating spaces. However, government international position on cultural diversity

informs property decisions made by landlords. The limited control means the private property

owners dictate housing regulations and justify their actions by adapting an anti-globalization
ISLAMOPHOBIA AND UK GOVERNMENT POLICIES 14

stand. The government in trying to reduce the homeless develops projects that aim at housing the

less privilege, and a larger number of the population includes Muslim immigrants (Lewicki &

Toole, 2017). However, the government given the security and social policy develop stringent

measures while housing the homeless, which denies the homeless Muslim population the right to

housing. The homeless raise security concerns by the public in Britain; thus, being homeless and

Muslim at the same time is quite difficult. The government then leaves the homeless Muslims to

the mercies of Aid groups, which are mostly funded by the churches. The government’s failure

to set a proper housing program can be attributed to Islamophobia among legislators and lack of

political goodwill.

Education Policies

According to Alcock (2018), the government offered guidelines on the need to formulate

a universally accepted educational program. Modernization informs educational policy

formulation. Among the guidelines is the scholarship program for the bright and needy students.

According to Alcock (2018), security determines international and local education policies. The

globalization of education then places Based on the security policies, Muslim students from poor

background are offered less opportunities while seeking tertiary education. The university

committees in UK prefer students from perceived friendly nations. The move ensures the

dominant culture in schools is maintains and reduce global influence in the educational sector.

Appadurai (1996) shows an act of defiance by a section of the society in preserving culture. The

political sphere actively decides on people seeking further education in the UK, and the Islamic

population is discriminated against based on political position taken by the government.

Islamophobic attacks in learning institution are on the rise in the UK (Aune & Stevenson, 2016),

and in addition, verbal attacks towards the Muslim population based on what the government
ISLAMOPHOBIA AND UK GOVERNMENT POLICIES 15

presents to the public. In this case, travel advisory and suctions towards certain jurisdictions

create animosity between the Muslim population and the majority in the UK. Hence, students

from these hostile jurisdictions are denied educational visas and access to British institutions.

Failures in curriculum designs discriminate against Islamic cultural beliefs, and UK’s

educational policy, works towards segregating Muslims from the rest of the population.

The government also lacks effective control of private educational institutions. Rules on

dressing and mode of interacting differ depending on the institution, and private schools dictate

upon the code of dressing. A cultural modernization model works towards ensuring total

satisfaction within a diverse environment. The freedom of expression and association works only

in public institutions (Aune & Stevenson, 2016). Private institutions possess the right of

admission and may deny admission to certain religious groups. The selecting council may ignore

an application not on merit but on grounds that they are Muslims. The inability by the

government to control the private institutions evidence how government actively contributes

towards Islamophobia. This is because the legislature can formulate laws that ensure the right to

tertiary education irrespective of religious affiliation. Furthermore, denying the Muslim

population the right to tertiary education reduces their competitiveness.

Medical Policy

The medical policy caters for the employed and a selected group of the unemployed. A

higher population of Muslims remains unemployed due to their immigration status as earlier

established. According toAppadurai (1996) parties opposed to modernity create social groping

and deploy punitive measures in maintaining the social order. The national health policy
ISLAMOPHOBIA AND UK GOVERNMENT POLICIES 16

obligates the employer to offer employees medical covers and, in the long run, ensure affordable

healthcare. The nature of the Muslim population remains unidentified under the law (Aune &

Stevenson, 2016). Unemployed Muslims and those with non-citizen statuses do not enjoy the

medical policy developed by the government. Discriminating against the Islamic population on

medical policy represents Islamophobia based policy devised by the government. As a result,

accessing quality health services in the UK remains expensive to majority of Muslims.

International Policies

According to Sabir (2017), in 2012, the UK government sent troops to Iraq and

Afghanistan in order to combat terrorism and maintain the global order. Military interventions by

the UK were based on the core nation’s fear of the peripheral states; this has resulted into the

Islamophobic environment created by nations aligned to UK. The war on terrorism undermines

modernization in creating social cohesion. Muslims fearing the military intervention by the UK

and her allies, the displaced migrate to regions that are perceived safe. As such, the UK has

directly contributed towards Islamophobia in Europe and UK (Aune & Stevenson, 2016). The

influx of refugees has created a conflict between the host nation and Muslim immigrants. The

failure by legislature to reduce military intervention has negatively affected the social perception

towards Muslims. In addition, the UK government has created economic models aimed at

limiting trade and improving national security. The government advocates for its citizens to

reduce consumption of specific goods from different regions. Most of the countries suctioned by

the UK government are Islamic states (Choudhury, 2005) citing that these regions fund

terrorism. Discriminating international trade partners creates region and international animosity

based on religious grounds.


ISLAMOPHOBIA AND UK GOVERNMENT POLICIES 17

Recommendations

A shift in regulation should be guided by a modernity approach in matters policy.

Government should keep into account the multicultural composition of the UK population while

formulating policies. Political and social policies should focus on creating a positive attitude

towards the Muslim population. Positive environment means creating awareness to the public on

the need of diversity, which would be triggered by political goodwill. The war on terror should

be redesigned to allow freedom of movement to everyone and ensuring all human rights are

upheld including fair vetting. Empowering the population and designing models that

acknowledge diversity would effectively work on combating Islamophobia in UK.

Conclusion

Social, political and economic policies devised by government have created an

Islamophobic environment in the UK. The social policies within the UK are misinformed as they

create fear of globalization. The economic policies have undermined the competiveness of the

Muslim population and created mistrust within the social spheres. The security policies have

created a rift between the British populations and have ignored the essence of liberty rights.

Punitive measures deployed by the government in combating extremism have greatly

discriminated against the Islamic religion. The policing regulation aimed at ensuring safety

within the public space has seen the Islamic population wrongly targeted by the public and

property owners. The public has limited interaction with the Muslims due to misconceived fear

since not all individuals of a certain faith can share the same personal beliefs. Terrorism is a

personal conviction, as it is not ascribed in the Koran; thus, discriminating an entire religion

because of a few extremists is unjust. The international policy adapted by the UK political

players has worked towards segregating the Muslim minority in the UK. Furthermore, lack of
ISLAMOPHOBIA AND UK GOVERNMENT POLICIES 18

political goodwill has negatively affected efforts to criminalize Islamophobia. Economic

sanctions focus on religious composition rather than political threat. The military intervention

and war on terror has over time created animosity between the majority and the Islamic

population, and prejudicial government policies are the leading cause of increasing Islamophobia

in the UK.

References

Alam, Y.& Husband, Y. (2013). Islamophobia, community cohesion and counter-terrorism

policies in Britain. Patterns of Prejudice, 47(3): 235-252.

Alcock, P. (2018). Social policy in Britain. London: Macmillan.


ISLAMOPHOBIA AND UK GOVERNMENT POLICIES 19

Ali, N.N. (2018). Emancipation in an Islamophobic age: Finding agency in “nonrecognition,”

“refusal,” and “self-recognition.” Journal of Critical Race Inquiry, 5 (1): 1-26.

Allen, C. (2017). Approaches to tackling islamophobia: An‘Insider/Outsider’ analysis of the

British CoalitionGovernment’s approach between 2010–15. Social Science, 6(77): 4-19.

Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. Public Worlds,

1: 27-47.

Aune, K.& Stevenson, J. (2016). Islamophobic attacks in learning institution are on the rise in

the UK. New York: Taylor & Francis.

Bayrakli, E. & Hafez, F. (2016). European Islamophobia Report 2015. Ankara:SETA.

Castle, S. & Miller, M. (2009). The Age of Migration: International Population Movements in

the Modern World. London: Palgarve Macmillian.

Choudhury, T. (2005). Muslims in the UK: Policies for Engaged Citizens. London: Open Society

Institute.

European Monitoring Centre. (2006). Muslims in the European Union: Discrimination and

Islamophobia. EUFRA. Retrieved from http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2012/muslims-

european-union-discrimination-and-islamophobia

Ferguson, J. (2018). Al-Britannia, My Country: A Journey through Muslim Britain. London:

Transworld.

Habib, S. (2017). Learning and Teaching British Values:Policies and Perspectives on British

Identities. London: Springer International Publishing.

Jackson, L. (2017). Islamophobia in Britain:The Making of a Muslim Enemy. London: Springer.

Joppke, C. (2009). Limits of Integration Policy: Britain and Her Muslims. Journal of ethics and

Migration Studies, 35 (3): 453-472.


ISLAMOPHOBIA AND UK GOVERNMENT POLICIES 20

Lewicki, A.& Therese, O ’Toole. (2017). Acts and practices of citizenship: Muslim women’s

activism in the UK. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 40(1): 152-171.

Qurashi, F. (2018).The Prevent strategy and the UK ‘war on terror’: embedding infrastructures of

surveillance in Muslim communities, Palgrative Communication, 4 (17): 1-10.

Sabir, R. (2017). Blurred lines and false dichotomies-integrating counterinsurgency into the

UK’s domestic ‘war on terror’.Critical Social Policy, 37(2):1–23.

Tania, S. (2018). Islamophobia and Securitization: Religion, Ethnicity and the Female Voice.

New York: Springer International Publishing.

Thomas, P. (2012). Responding to the Threat of Violent Extremism: Failing to Prevent. New

York: A&C Black.

Warsi, S. (2017). The Enemy Within:A Tale of Muslim Britain. London: Allen Lane.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen