I don't think that this was an illegitimate question to ask, but its presentation as a 'gotcha' displays a really profound ignorance of how Muslim spiritual leadership works (i.e. its complicated, and not analogous to either the Anglican or Catholic church).
What it shows is that, unfortunately, when Muslims are in the media there's already narrative constraints in place about being backward and anti-woman. I mean, anyone remember this incident from a few years ago? theguardian.com/media/2015/feb…
I've experienced it firsthand. A few years ago LBC invited me to talk about a feminist and gay-friendly mosque that was opening, and Nick Ferrari proceeded to argue (a Muslim feminist) that there aren't any Muslim feminists.
I think I recall Nick Ferrari talking about whether Muslim women could wear bikinis, as if we just sprout gills and scales when we want to go swimming.
While not as obnoxious, Emma Barnett's line of questioning demonstrates a similar incuriosity and rigidity.
Being an imam is not like being a priest. It refers to someone who occupies a paid role as a community leader, which is what I imagine Emma is talking about.
But it *also* refers to the person who's leading the prayer, and there are women who do that.
Asking "how many women imams are there?" isn't a question that'll yield a meaningful answer, if what you really want to know is how the role of women in Islamic spiritual leadership has or hasn't changed.
At best, it looks ignorant. At worst, it looks like baiting.
Either way it does a disservice to both interviewee and audience, who are missing the chance to learn about a community who are more often spoken of than spoken to.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Got a few things to say about David Baddiel's characterisation of my views in his new book, but before I get into it I'd like to ask people don't @ him about it.
Not because any of what I've got to say is a secret, but because I don't want it to turn into a big hostile thing.
I'm saying this because a number of reviews that I've seen of his book have picked up on a quotation he's taken from this article: theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
On the left is the quotation as it appears in the book. And on the right is the quotation in its context in the article.
I messaged David this weekend saying that I think he substantially misrepresents my point.
The context makes clear that I'm not talking about Jewish people being well-off, I'm arguing the nature of other racisms mean that an IHRA-style definition isn't suitable for other groups.
I'll be honest, I don't know whether engaging with people like this is a complete waste of time or not. Perhaps I should just block and move on, and let people rage by themselves.
This is really disappointing from @NickCohen4. Whether it's by error or by design, he has completely misrepresented my point.
I'm not saying that Jewish people are rich, I'm explaining why the left has often struggled to include antisemitism alongside other antiracist struggles.
It's completely unfair to suggest, as @NickCohen4 does, that I've argued that we shouldn't worry about Jewish people being under threat from racist violence and harassment. In fact, I've publicly argued the opposite.
Pleased to see the quote has been changed, so that it no longer wrongly presents me has having shrugged my shoulders at antisemitism.
Moral of the story? If you're serious about having a debate in good faith, double check that someone's actually said the thing you said they did.
So I understand that Slumflower has replied to my article about intersectional Thatcherism:
“Keep writing about me whilst I update my shopping carts with lovely top tier essentials and self care goodies that white people’s money have paid for.”
1) What Slumflower is seeking is restitution, not reparations. If her allegation that Florence Given has infringed her IP is as strong as she says it is, I imagine any lawyer would jump at the chance to represent her no win, no fee. So why isn't that happening?
2) It is legitimate and fine to want to be paid for your work, and that includes being an influencer. But that's not the same as reparatory justice. White people paying for your luxury goods is not a means of addressing the lasting impacts of colonialism and chattel slavery.
Staying well out of this beef, but I've spent the last 48 hours in hysterics since I learned that an influencer has been getting fans to give her money by calling it "individual reparations."
That's the joke line I use when I want one of my white mates to get a round in!
I get how this dynamic emerges. Social media blurs the distinction between influencer and activist. Individuals are seen as totemic of a wider political struggle, so you want to see them succeed. And of course, supporting people's work is meaningful.
But it's not reparations.
Reparations isn't an individual white person giving money to an individual black or brown person (apart from when I'm broke and want a cocktail, in which case it's very much that).
It's about recognising that
a) colonialism and slavery have had a lasting economic impact
Talk of imposing a one hour exercise rule, or being able to exercise with one person from another household, is just theatre. It's not about suppressing transmission - it's about keeping the focus away from the fact that what we're seeing is the result of failed policy.
The hospitalisations and deaths we're seeing are from infections which predate the national lockdown.
It's a legacy from a time when the government insisted schools were safe to open, when households were mixing for Christmas, when the flawed Tier system was still in operation.
We've also known since September that self-isolation rates are woefully low. According to SAGE than 20% of people in England self-isolate when told to do so. According to the Department of Health, the proportion might even be as low as 11%.