The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

So did C4 News purposefully choose her to cover the story or was this her normal slot anyway?
Original post by YoFadda
I do. Are you even a Muslim?


What relevance does that have?
Original post by QE2
She wasn't "discriminated against". Someone simply commented on whether her behaviour was appropriate in the context of a particular situation.
How hard she may or may not have worked to get there, and her ability, is irrelevant. If she was a crap newsreader who ****ed her way to her position, would "discrimination" be ok?

Of course it is.
Check out the definition of "Islamism". The hijab clearly represents this.

They are symbols of extremist or violent Islamism.

These are all symbols of religiosity - Catholicism, Judaism, Sikhism - so the hijab is likewise a symbol of Islamism. You have demonstrated my point very nicely!
And people are also allowed to wear the hijab. This issue isn't about that, it is about whether it was appropriate to use a hijabi to cover that particular story. The Press Standards body ruled that it was legitimate to raise the question. That is all.

Why does she wear the hijab?


I know what the definition of Islamism is, thank you very much. However, the hijab is a religious symbol, not a political one. Someone who wears a kippah or a dastar wears one because he is a Jew or a Sikh and wants to show devotion to his god, not because he thinks that people should live under religious rule. The same applies to people like my mum and perhaps this reporter. Perhaps if you stopped throwing the words "Islamist" and "Islamism" around you would be able to differentiate between the two more easily.

If she is bad at her job then preventing her from reporting wouldn't be "discrimination" to begin with.

If someone wears the hijab but doesn't believe in religion dictating the law of the land then she is not an Islamist by any definition.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Iridocyclitis
So did C4 News purposefully choose her to cover the story or was this her normal slot anyway?


Mackenzie argues it was on purpose.

She isn't very often on to be fair. And rarely (if ever?) in the studio, as an anchor.
Reply 64
Original post by astutehirstute
No-one, so far, has considered a couple of interesting questions Mackenzie asked.

1. Would C4 News have used an Orthodox Jew wearing a kippah to cover the Israeli/Palestinian dispute?
I'm not sure if they would even employ such a person. I've certainly never seen on on British TV.

2. Would C4 News have used a hijab wearing Manji to cover the story if it had taken place in Oxford Street? With scores of Britons run over and killed by a Muslim truck driver from Tower Hamlets, or somewhere.
Considering the "serious" news media's insistance that Islamist terrorism has nothing to do with Islam or Muslims, they probably would.
Reply 65
Original post by Iridocyclitis
So did C4 News purposefully choose her to cover the story or was this her normal slot anyway?
I'd like to see Cathy Newman in her normal slot.
Original post by QE2

Considering the "serious" news media's insistance that Islamist terrorism has nothing to do with Islam or Muslims, they probably would.


You could be right. They work in a total "luvvie" bubble and haven't got a clue what most of their viewers think.
I don't understand the issue with her anchoring the event at all.
Mackenzie clearly interpreted the decision as a provocative one, whether intentional or not. He felt that the image of a Muslim woman covertly displaying her commitment to the faith antagonised the situation. I feel the suggestion that the public are incapable of differentiating between moderate Islam and extremist Islamism, in such times, is a misled and bigoted one.

Of course there is also the interpretation of events that the fact that a Muslim came out and reported on the news (therefore subscribing to the condemning tone of western coverage at the time) is in fact a symbol of solidarity. Mackenzie chose not to see it as such, rather in a negative light which encouraged him to make racially partisan comments. He should have kept this to himself, but the fact that he did not makes him, in my opinion, guilty of racial discrimination.

Whatever your stance on Mackenzie, however, it is undeniable that this kind of alienation of moderate Muslims in our society only benefits one group: the extremists.
Original post by QE2
Yes. There were many. Basic history.

Much like Islam, although the central text contains more than enough justification for violence and intolerance, there are penty of followers who rejected it or were completely unaware of it.

It is noticable that religionists so often fail to understand the nature of analogy. I wonder if it is because they are so used to simply accepting things without nuance or critical analysis.

I was not the one who brought up the Nazi/Holocaust analogy. I merely commented to your flawed response to another's use of it.


No. By "comparable" I meant the analogy was flawed as they are not parallel. So the nazi does not support the holocaust and is neither anti-semetic (or racist etc.), neither are they aware that the agenda they follow is supportive of those things? Given the time we were living in, it's almost impossible for one to exist. If one were to report the news, I wouldn't be offended.

A Christian (even wearing a crucifix) reporting the news of an abortion clinic bombing done in the name of Christianity is a better comparison. I don't find it offensive at all.
Original post by Luke Kostanjsek
Absolutely not; there is nothing that should stop her wearing a hijab in her day-to-day life. She has the right to choose that piece of attire if she so desires. But no one is suggesting that we ban the hijab. What is being suggested is that it is pretty insensitive for someone who is overtly displaying their support for Islam, to be commentating on killings committed in the name of Islam.

In much the same way, it would seem pretty insensitive if someone wearing an NRA badge was commentating on one of the numerous american school shootings. The fact that they don't support shooting children is besides the point; you're blatantly advertising your support for a movement which at the very least contributed to the events that unfolded.

I would also suggest that since most people look to the broadcasters to provide an objective, impartial commentary on events (typically not what you'd find, but it's what most people want) it seems pretty strange to have someone displaying their belonging to a system of belief which will dramatically colour many of their opinions. For instance, I would be skeptical of someone who was wearing a kippah reporting on the legal position of Israel's expansion on the West Bank.


I get that but its not like she is representing or supporting ISIS or any radical beliefs and activities. Its just so ridiculous that most people in the Uk are supposedly educated people and we all learn about religions throughout school and what it is they teach. Thus people should also know that Islam is one of the most leaceful religions around. If a group of malitia decide to twist God's words to what they want it doesnt mean everyone else who even wears such a simple peice of clothing like the hijab are also followers of the radacalised version of the reigion. People shouldnt be so judgemental towards a religion that they know most people follow in the right way. If there is so much hate towards muslims in the UK then perhaos this will be one of the factors that causes good muslims to turn towards ISIS and such groups so i beleive people need to be more open and accept that not all muslims accept the ways of terrorist organisations
Reply 70
Original post by WBZ144
I know what the definition of Islamism is, thank you very much.
Really? Your comment suggested that you didn't.

However, the hijab is a religious symbol, not a political one.
Ah, so you don't!

Someone who wears a kippah or a dastar wears one because he is a Jew or a Sikh and wants to show devotion to his god, not because he thinks that people should live under religious rule.
So you agree that the hijab is a symbol of Islamism, just as the kippah is a symbol of Judaism and the dastar is a symbol of Sikhism.

The same applies to people like my mum and perhaps this reporter. Perhaps if you stopped throwing the words "Islamist" and "Islamism" around you would be able to differentiate between the two more easily.
Not sure what point you are attempting to make here. We have agreed that the hijab is a symbol of Islamism - which is a general term to describe the following of and implementation of the Islamic faith.

If she is bad at her job then preventing her from reporting wouldn't be "discrimination" to begin with.
Who is preventing her from reporting? Not every reporter reports evey story. There were several CH4 news reporters who didn't report that story that day. Were they "discriminated against".

And it was you who calimed that working hard and being good at her job were reasons for not discriminating against her, therefore suggesting that in different circumstances it would be ok to discriminate.
Also, how do you know she "worked hard to get where she is"? She could be an example of "tokenism".

If someone wears the hijab but doesn't believe in religion dictating the law of the land then she is not an Islamist by any definition.
That is a very narrow definition of Islamism. Is Judaism or Sikhism or Hinduism the belief that religion should dictate the law of the land? If not, why do you insist on applying it uniquely to Islam?
Original post by Asiangirl_18
I get that but its not like she is representing or supporting ISIS or any radical beliefs and activities. Its just so ridiculous that most people in the Uk are supposedly educated people and we all learn about religions throughout school and what it is they teach. Thus people should also know that Islam is one of the most leaceful religions around. If a group of malitia decide to twist God's words to what they want it doesnt mean everyone else who even wears such a simple peice of clothing like the hijab are also followers of the radacalised version of the reigion. People shouldnt be so judgemental towards a religion that they know most people follow in the right way. If there is so much hate towards muslims in the UK then perhaos this will be one of the factors that causes good muslims to turn towards ISIS and such groups so i beleive people need to be more open and accept that not all muslims accept the ways of terrorist organisations


Firstly, that's still not the point. The fact that she interprets the ideology differently doesn't change the fact that the same ideology that she is advertising, is that which directly lead to those deaths. I would hence say it's fairly insensitive. Like I mentioned before, would it be acceptable for a badge-wearing member of the NRA to commentate a report on a high school shooting in the US? I would suggest it isn't, for exactly the same reasons.

Islam is not one of the most peaceful religions around. People may choose to interpret it in ways that are peaceful - and more power to them for doing so - but the Qur'an and Hadith say some truly vile things. At best, you could say that Islamic texts can be interpreted in violent ways; at worst, you could argue they openly encourage misogyny, homophobia, rape and all manner of what would now be considered war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Once again, no one is suggesting that everyone who wears the Hijab is a radicalised Islamic terrorist who supports ISIS. They are suggesting it isn't sensitive to juxtapose a report on these atrocities with an open display of Islamism. You're conflating two completely different points. I'm not suggesting the reported shouldn't have covered the story because she's a terrorist sympathiser (I dare say she isn't), I'm not even suggesting she shouldn't cover the story because she's a Muslim; I'm suggesting she shouldn't cover the story because she is overtly advertising her Islamism at a time when it is fairly insensitive to do so.

That last sentence is especially worrying. You appear to be justifying Islamic terrorism as an acceptable response to people displaying hatred towards them. Whilst anyone who hates all Muslims on account of being Muslims is evidently bigoted, that in no way makes terrorist atrocities acceptable.
The terms Islam and Islamism are at times being used inaccurately throughout this thread. This confusion is very much a microcosm of the confusion rife in British society. It is also the confusion which leads to debates such as this one we have here over the use of the hijab.
They are not interchangeable terms and do not mean the same, or even similar things. To confuse a Muslim displaying their commitment to Islam with a commitment to Islamism is a wrong assertion, and more importantly a dangerous one.
The hijab, and also such dress, conflates political and religious issues. It is not one or the other, and its purpose means different things to each wearer. To assume or even hint at this reporter's decision to wear it representing sympathy to extremism is very damaging to inter-religious relations.
Original post by Luke Kostanjsek
Firstly, that's still not the point. The fact that she interprets the ideology differently doesn't change the fact that the same ideology that she is advertising, is that which directly lead to those deaths. I would hence say it's fairly insensitive. Like I mentioned before, would it be acceptable for a badge-wearing member of the NRA to commentate a report on a high school shooting in the US? I would suggest it isn't, for exactly the same reasons.

Islam is not one of the most peaceful religions around. People may choose to interpret it in ways that are peaceful - and more power to them for doing so - but the Qur'an and Hadith say some truly vile things. At best, you could say that Islamic texts can be interpreted in violent ways; at worst, you could argue they openly encourage misogyny, homophobia, rape and all manner of what would now be considered war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Once again, no one is suggesting that everyone who wears the Hijab is a radicalised Islamic terrorist who supports ISIS. They are suggesting it isn't sensitive to juxtapose a report on these atrocities with an open display of Islamism. You're conflating two completely different points. I'm not suggesting the reported shouldn't have covered the story because she's a terrorist sympathiser (I dare say she isn't), I'm not even suggesting she shouldn't cover the story because she's a Muslim; I'm suggesting she shouldn't cover the story because she is overtly advertising her Islamism at a time when it is fairly insensitive to do so.

That last sentence is especially worrying. You appear to be justifying Islamic terrorism as an acceptable response to people displaying hatred towards them. Whilst anyone who hates all Muslims on account of being Muslims is evidently bigoted, that in no way makes terrorist atrocities acceptable.


So is she advertising ISIS? Because funny enough I didnt see her scarf in the colours that represnt them, neither was she holding a gun or anything else that could cause people to interpret her as a supporter of their (ISIS's) view of Islam. She only wore a hijab on her head. Nothing else. So the big deal is...?? And its funny how people jump down the back of Muslims wearing scarfs, its seen as oppression, or representing ISIS at such a delicate time, then what of Trump? That guys the biggest joke to walk on American soil yet i dont see anybody saying he is being insensitive or anything of the sort regarding any of his comments. Religion does not dictate how u follow it or in that case if u are a radicalist.

Islamic texts, if interpreted correctly, are infact very peaceful. There are punishments of course but is there a system even in our modern world that does not enforce punishments if u go against the laws that are set?

Allshe has done is wore a scarf on her head because she follows the religion and people suddenly think its insensitive??? That makes no sense whatsoever. Bad things happen all around the world. Nobody changes their reporters or the way they dress to accomodate to whats happening in each sector of earth do they? No. so again, why the huge fuss??

Call it justifying or whatever u will, all im saying is that if bigoted and racist responses to someone wearing a scarf keep happening do u really think the minority, muslims, that are being targeted are really going to stand around and allow it all to happen? The young and stupid ones will flock to ISIS as they are already doing and they will ruin their own lives. But who cares right? Theyr all representing Islam at a sensitive time. Is that what the response will be. Or will it be, hey they were terrorists in the making. They are from Islam after all. All im saying is, Im a muslim and im quite liberal and I absolutely abhor the violence and the twisted Islam that IS choose to show to the world. But even I am starting to get really irritated withthe amount of bigots and racists that seem to belueve we are all bad apples and we are all evil people for just even wearing a scarf. Its only a scarf. Not a gun. Not a bomb. I really dont understand the problem at all.
Pretty insensitive to be honest and a poor executive decision made by whoever thought it would be a good idea.
Original post by QE2
Really? Your comment suggested that you didn't.

Ah, so you don't!

So you agree that the hijab is a symbol of Islamism, just as the kippah is a symbol of Judaism and the dastar is a symbol of Sikhism.

Not sure what point you are attempting to make here. We have agreed that the hijab is a symbol of Islamism - which is a general term to describe the following of and implementation of the Islamic faith.

Who is preventing her from reporting? Not every reporter reports evey story. There were several CH4 news reporters who didn't report that story that day. Were they "discriminated against".

And it was you who calimed that working hard and being good at her job were reasons for not discriminating against her, therefore suggesting that in different circumstances it would be ok to discriminate.
Also, how do you know she "worked hard to get where she is"? She could be an example of "tokenism".

That is a very narrow definition of Islamism. Is Judaism or Sikhism or Hinduism the belief that religion should dictate the law of the land? If not, why do you insist on applying it uniquely to Islam?


Political Islam and spiritual Islam are not mutually exclusive, you seem to have a problem understanding that. Many women are apolitical but wear the hijab for spiritual reasons. No definition of Islamism that anyone takes seriously equates it with Islamic faith, because in that case, all Muslims would be Islamist. Get back to me when you learn to differentiate between the two because at the moment you are no better than those who throw the word "Islamophobia" around as opposed to using it in its proper context (as much as I dislike the word itself).

Yes, in a case in which someone is a lousy reporter then not assigning them work on those grounds isn't discrimination.

Unless there is evidence that she is a token then I will assume otherwise, as I would for any non-Muslim reporter.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Asiangirl_18
I get that but its not like she is representing or supporting ISIS or any radical beliefs and activities.


No one has said she's an ISIS supporter. They have merely pointed out that it can be construed as insensitive to have someone who subscribes to the same religion as the crimes' perpetrators to report on the incident.

Its just so ridiculous that most people in the Uk are supposedly educated people and we all learn about religions throughout school and what it is they teach. Thus people should also know that Islam is one of the most leaceful religions around.


I'm sorry, but this simply isn't true. Islam is one of the most violent, aggressive religions around and the Quran and Hadith are replete with disgustingly bloody and macabre bits. I'd say that pretty much every modern religion is more peaceful then Islam.

If a group of malitia decide to twist God's words to what they want it doesnt mean everyone else who even wears such a simple peice of clothing like the hijab are also followers of the radacalised version of the reigion.


How are they twisting God's word, though? If anything ISIS are actually following the Quran's passages more literally than most Muslims on the planet. They believe their interpretation is right and that yours is wrong, so why should we believe you over them?

Another strawman, no one is saying that those who wear a hijab automatically follow a radicalised version of the religion. The point is that she supports the same religion that the murderers though despite her interpretation being different.

People shouldnt be so judgemental towards a religion that they know most people follow in the right way.


By "right way" you're essentially saying that most Muslims ignore most of the violent and unpleasant parts because they are guided by their modern morality rather than the one Muhammad made up in the 7th century. ISIS simply look at those violent verses and assume it's what Allah meant, rather than many modern Muslims who try and come up with all sorts of reasons as to why it isn't what God meant. And once again, ISIS believe their way is right and yours is wrong.
Original post by Asiangirl_18
So is she advertising ISIS? Because funny enough I didnt see her scarf in the colours that represnt them, neither was she holding a gun or anything else that could cause people to interpret her as a supporter of their (ISIS's) view of Islam. She only wore a hijab on her head. Nothing else. So the big deal is...?? And its funny how people jump down the back of Muslims wearing scarfs, its seen as oppression, or representing ISIS at such a delicate time, then what of Trump? That guys the biggest joke to walk on American soil yet i dont see anybody saying he is being insensitive or anything of the sort regarding any of his comments. Religion does not dictate how u follow it or in that case if u are a radicalist.

Islamic texts, if interpreted correctly, are infact very peaceful. There are punishments of course but is there a system even in our modern world that does not enforce punishments if u go against the laws that are set?

Allshe has done is wore a scarf on her head because she follows the religion and people suddenly think its insensitive??? That makes no sense whatsoever. Bad things happen all around the world. Nobody changes their reporters or the way they dress to accomodate to whats happening in each sector of earth do they? No. so again, why the huge fuss??

Call it justifying or whatever u will, all im saying is that if bigoted and racist responses to someone wearing a scarf keep happening do u really think the minority, muslims, that are being targeted are really going to stand around and allow it all to happen? The young and stupid ones will flock to ISIS as they are already doing and they will ruin their own lives. But who cares right? Theyr all representing Islam at a sensitive time. Is that what the response will be. Or will it be, hey they were terrorists in the making. They are from Islam after all. All im saying is, Im a muslim and im quite liberal and I absolutely abhor the violence and the twisted Islam that IS choose to show to the world. But even I am starting to get really irritated withthe amount of bigots and racists that seem to belueve we are all bad apples and we are all evil people for just even wearing a scarf. Its only a scarf. Not a gun. Not a bomb. I really dont understand the problem at all.


Are you just intentionally ignoring what I'm saying because you can't actually refute it? Consider these two questions:
1) Were the attacks committed in the name of Islam?
2) Is she overtly advertising Islam by wearing the hijab?
If you agree that the answer to both of these is yes, then it is fairly evident that this is insensitive. And you still haven't answered my point about the NRA, largely I suspect because you agree that that would be insensitive.

I have no idea why you're raising Trump as nothing here remotely pertains to the US elections. But for what it's worse, that's utter nonsense. He is being lambasted in the press constantly as a result of his comments about Muslims, hispanics and plenty of other groups. Hell, his entire campaign may well have been sunk as a result of his comments about groping women.

That is a clearly untrue claim. I'll give you one example; in the Qur'an and Hadith there are numerous uses of a phrase which roughly translates as 'right hand possesses'. The doctrines which use this phrase are fairly universally agreed to say that when a nation is conquered in war, it is acceptable to take possession of and rape the vanquished country's women. Indeed, Muhammad goes so far as to reassure his men that doing so wouldn't count as adultery either.

You're completely missing the point. The Hijab isn't just another item of clothing; it has a very apparent link to Islam. All I'm saying is that blatantly advertising Islam at the same time as reporting on multiple people being killed in the name of Islam, is fairly insensitive. As another analogy, consider the meaning the Swastika has in Hinduism and Buddhism. Would it be acceptable for a Hindu to display a Swastika whilst reporting on an anti-semitic incident? Obviously it wouldn't.

Naturally, I understand why bigoted responses towards Muslims would wear thin and I do sympathise. But this hints towards the larger issue of people conflating criticism of Islam with criticism of Muslims. The latter is bigoted and should be avoided at all costs. Tarring all Muslims with the same brush is simply wrong. On the other hand, criticism of Islam is entirely acceptable and indeed justified, in a tolerant society where we enjoy freedom of speech.

You genuinely don't understand why someone who had just watched their parents, their partners, their children killed in the name of Islam, might be offended by these events being commentated on by someone openly advertising Islam?
Original post by Plantagenet Crown
No one has said she's an ISIS supporter. They have merely pointed out that it can be construed as insensitive to have someone who subscribes to the same religion as the crimes' perpetrators to report on the incident.



I'm sorry, but this simply isn't true. Islam is one of the most violent, aggressive religions around and the Quran and Hadith are replete with disgustingly bloody and macabre bits. I'd say that pretty much every modern religion is more peaceful then Islam.



How are they twisting God's word, though? If anything ISIS are actually following the Quran's passages more literally than most Muslims on the planet. They believe their interpretation is right and that yours is wrong, so why should we believe you over them?

Another strawman, no one is saying that those who wear a hijab automatically follow a radicalised version of the religion. The point is that she supports the same religion that the murderers though despite her interpretation being different.



By "right way" you're essentially saying that most Muslims ignore most of the violent and unpleasant parts because they are guided by their modern morality rather than the one Muhammad made up in the 7th century. ISIS simply look at those violent verses and assume it's what Allah meant, rather than many modern Muslims who try and come up with all sorts of reasons as to why it isn't what God meant. And once again, ISIS believe their way is right and yours is wrong.


How is she representing a view that she does not believe in? So ur saying all muslims represent ISIS in actual fact because hey they all support the 'same' religion right? Even if they follow it competely differently? Thats good to know.

If islam is aggressive as u claim then how isnt christianity? For example didnt jesus teach an eye for an eye? So if someone stabs u, u can stab them back because jesus taught us so. Wrong. In that verse Jesus was trying to teach that one wrong doesnt make it right for another wrong. Yet people have taken it out of context and believe that jesus said its okay to hurt someone for hurting u! Everything can be twisted to the wrong way depending on the context of which it is used. And all through my school life I have been taught by non muslim teachers that Islam and Christianity are peaceful religions. Never learnt about Judaism so cant say but seeming as it was around at the same ish time as the other two it probably is very similiar. Thus if ur saying Islam is violent, then what about Christianity or Judaism? The KKK for example followed Christianity and they believed God taught them to kill and torture the black people. The slave drivers though this too. Isnt that violent?

And i say lol to all those people who actually think Isis are acting upon God's words. If u seriously think that Isis are right and 'modern muslims' are wrong in their interpreatations then God help us all because it seems like ur actually justifying IS? And putting the good muslimes in bad light? Wow...
Reply 79
Original post by markova21
You shouldn't be expressing your beliefs while presenting a TV programme. It's not the time or the place for that.

well guess what, if its part of your religion then? catholics are not allowed to eat pork, yet would you eatit if it were offered on camera. or would you put aside your religios beliefs and and eat it? Or if you had to declare, "I believe in the holy 28 Gods" on camera because you were being recorded as ou entereda cult's building? there are many examples, and i am pretty sure ou wouldnt put your beliefs aside.
(edited 7 years ago)