Shaheen Kattiparambil writing in middleeasteye.net, “[. . .] “The language of free speech is no longer invoked to protect abstract democratic freedoms; it is increasingly used to legitimise racialised political formations, while casting anti-racist critiques as authoritarian [. . .] Far-right mobilisations targeting Muslims are routinely defended under the banner of free expression and national concern, whereas Muslim activism – whether through anti-racist organising, criticisms of Islamophobia, or Palestinian solidarity – is often securitised or framed as socially divisive. The issue, then, is not simply whether speech is free – but whose speech is protected, whose speech is feared, and whose speech is understood as a threat to the nation itself [. . .] This asymmetry reveals something deeper about the politics of free speech in contemporary Britain. What is repeatedly defended in the name of free expression is not speech in the abstract, but racialised speech directed at Muslims [. . . ]
This dynamic was visible in discussions surrounding the Unite the Kingdom march, particularly after footage emerged of three white women on stage mocking the attire of Muslim women, to the encouragement and amusement of sections of the crowd. Responding to criticism of the incident, LBC host Iain Dale attempted to downplay the overt Islamophobia by reframing it through the language of humour. The implication was that critics had failed to appreciate the “joke”, reproducing a familiar pattern in British public culture whereby racialised mockery has been historically defended not on its own terms, but through appeals to comedy, irony and the supposed inability of anti-racist critics to understand humour [. . .]
For article in middleeasteye.net, click here