Just like in the height of the ‘War on Terror’ era in the early 2000s, it seems like Muslims have once again become the ultimate scapegoat for all the nation’s problems.
Over the weekend, Claire Coutinho – the shadow minister for, rather ironically, equalities – spoke on Sky News about how ‘political Islam’ is one of the biggest problems our country is facing.
She later backed this up with a post on X stating: ‘If we can’t name a problem, we can’t deal with it. Political Islam is a growing problem in Britain.’
That’s right – not crippling poverty, a buckling health system, or a housing crisis.
No, tackling ‘political Islam’ is apparently where our priorities should lie. Whatever that is supposed to mean.
And that’s the point. There is rarely ever any attempt to explain what a nonsensical phrase like that actually means – and that’s because its effectiveness as a rallying tool is precisely because it holds no meaning at all.
Sign up to Metro’s politics newsletter, Alright Gov?
Craig Munro breaks down Westminster chaos into easy to follow insight, walking you through what the latest policies mean to you. Sent every Wednesday. Sign up here.
We never hear politicians gravely warning about the risks of ‘political Christianity’, ‘political Judaism’, or ‘political Hinduism’.
But members of those faiths, like people of all backgrounds, hold a whole host of political opinions – some of which will undoubtedly be considered ‘extreme’.
That’s why I believe phrases like ‘political Islam’ aren’t supposed to make sense – they are supposed to scaremonger.
They are designed to frighten the public, sow discord, and rally support around the type of far-right politics that wants any iteration of Islam to be kicked out of Britain.
And above all, to create a perception of Muslims in the public imagination as an organised group scheming against the country.
Unlike other members of British society, if we engage in politics – particularly if we dare to voice concerns that challenge the establishment – then we are somehow dangerous or antagonistic. That’s what was so alarming about Claire Coutinho’s comments.
As a visible Muslim in the UK – I’m used to hearing Islamophobia go completely unchecked, while Muslims and migrants are blamed for the failings of successive governments. The result of this is that we feel less safe than ever and that Islamophobia is at a record high.
But what was so chilling about Coutinho’s comments was that she seems to be portraying any Muslim with a political opinion that happens to go against the status quo as extreme and, therefore, a threat to Britain.
Even when we Muslims participate in the machinery of democracy, we are presented as a nefarious force to be curtailed and controlled.
Quote Quote
She referred to ‘a movement of people’ who elected five independent MPs last election ‘simply on sectarian politics’ and goes on to say that these MPs were elected solely based on ‘foreign conflicts’ and ‘issues that only spoke to the Muslim community’.
This implies that their democratically elected mandate is essentially less than any MP elected from one of the major political parties.
This is why a blanket, obscuring term like ‘political Islam’ is so dangerous.
Even when we Muslims participate in the machinery of democracy, we are presented as a nefarious force to be curtailed and controlled.
If we dare care about anything – least of all what the UN Commission last month deemed a genocide by a close ally of the country we live in, then we are somehow ‘sectarian’ and putting foreign nations above Britain.
Coutinho disingenuously portrays how five independent MPs came to be elected as a mandate that only speaks to the Muslim community, which sounds like a convenient dogwhistle to the Islamophobia of the far-right who already see us as a nation within a nation.
But an ounce of common sense will tell you that it is simply the result of local parliamentary politics.
Aren’t all MPs ultimately elected on the issues that are important to their constituents?
And if your constituents happen to be overwhelmingly Muslim, then those concerns will naturally mirror that community – just like any number of constituencies with high numbers of certain religious or ethnic groups.
Moreover, why wouldn’t a community elect someone who comes from their area and shares their values, rather than a wealthy career politician who had likely never set foot in their constituency before being placed there by their party?
It exposes a stunning double standard.
When constituencies that see themselves as impacted by immigration – such as those with asylum hotels – elect MPs on an anti-migrant platform, we never hear their concerns dismissed as sectarian or the result of ideologies like nationalism.
And they are certainly never accused of putting one issue above all else.
What this is really about is making sure that it’s not previous governments that are blamed for the country’s problems, but Muslims and migrants.
We are the bogeyman that almost the entire political spectrum is increasingly rallying against.
And while politicians make a name for themselves and win votes by vilifying us, we become ever more unsafe in a country that is supposed to be our home.
Do you have a story you’d like to share? Get in touch by emailing Ross.Mccafferty@metro.co.uk.
Share your views in the comments below.