Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Student’s Name
Institution
ISLAMOPHOBIA AND UK GOVERNMENT POLICIES 2
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
the impact, there is need to answer the question to what extent are government policies the cause
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
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
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
the government has created a negative environment between the majority and the Islamic
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
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
labor market remains diverse, but the UK government lacks the goodwill in formulating laws
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
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
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
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
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
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
‘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
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
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
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
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 department in the UK is mandated with the task of offering visas and
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
Recommendations
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
Conclusion
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.
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
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
1: 27-47.
Aune, K.& Stevenson, J. (2016). Islamophobic attacks in learning institution are on the rise in
Castle, S. & Miller, M. (2009). The Age of Migration: International Population Movements in
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
european-union-discrimination-and-islamophobia
Transworld.
Habib, S. (2017). Learning and Teaching British Values:Policies and Perspectives on British
Joppke, C. (2009). Limits of Integration Policy: Britain and Her Muslims. Journal of ethics and
Lewicki, A.& Therese, O ’Toole. (2017). Acts and practices of citizenship: Muslim women’s
Qurashi, F. (2018).The Prevent strategy and the UK ‘war on terror’: embedding infrastructures of
Sabir, R. (2017). Blurred lines and false dichotomies-integrating counterinsurgency into the
Tania, S. (2018). Islamophobia and Securitization: Religion, Ethnicity and the Female Voice.
Thomas, P. (2012). Responding to the Threat of Violent Extremism: Failing to Prevent. New
Warsi, S. (2017). The Enemy Within:A Tale of Muslim Britain. London: Allen Lane.