Qatar 2022: Through the Prism of Racism and Islamophobia
Qatar 2022: Through the Prism of Racism and Islamophobia
Qatar successfully hosted the 2022 FIFA World Cup, even though traducers were unrelenting in their efforts to malign the tournament. The BBC decided not to broadcast the opening ceremony. A rather bizarre decision that highlighted the BBC’s agenda ab initio! The BBC boycotted the closing ceremony as well, and the Bisht – a ceremonial garb that exudes honour was not spared from the vitriol. The juxtaposition with the events surrounding the previous two world cups in 2014 and 2018, buttresses the selectivity of morality on display. In the run up to the 2014 FIFA World Cup in Brazil, the country was plagued with various human rights accusations. Amnesty International described the situation as ‘human rights under threat’. Similarly, there were human rights issues raised prior to the 2018 FIFA World Cup in Russia, particularly the anti-LGBT stance. However, the human rights accusations against Brazil and Russia in 2014 and 2018 respectively, did not prevent the BBC from broadcasting the opening ceremony.
The BBC’s decision not to broadcast the world cup
opening ceremony was a missed opportunity to positively portray people living
with disabilities on a global stage. Qatar used the golden opportunity to
showcase Ghanim Al Muftah – a 20 year old Qatari born with caudal regression
syndrome, sharing the stage with Morgan Freeman. And the message was very clear
– uniting the world through understanding. It is rather befitting that Morgan
Freeman once played Nelson Mandela in the 2009 movie Invictus. In the indelible
words of Nelson Mandela:
“No one is born hating another person because of the
color of his skin, or his background, or his religion. People must learn to
hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes
more naturally to the human heart than its opposite.”
Racism can be taught; if people can be taught to hate then they can be taught to love! There are forces that prefer the world stays divided because their existence thrives on hate. After all, the hate industry is a multibillion dollar business.
The toxic otherization was not limited to the UK, some
other Western media outlets participated in the hate orgy. The Danish channel TV
2 News compared Moroccan players hugging their mothers to monkeys and a
German Welt
TV anchor compared Moroccans to ISIS, and the French newspaper Le
Canard enchainé depicted Qatari footballers as terrorists.
So what is fuelling this brand of hatred? Is it really about alcohol, workers’ rights and LGBT as claimed or there are deeper issues manifesting? The ban on alcohol in stadiums is a no-brainer! Less alcohol means less football hooliganism. UK fans are notorious for hooliganism, hence the ban on alcohol whilst seated in any UK football stadium since the 1980s. There was a similar ban in France following ‘shocking scenes of fan violence’ during Euro 2016. The Qatar world cup was generally violence-free and the fans enjoyed the tournament without boozing.
Workers’ rights are very important, and such matters must be of genuine concern. Since Qatar won the hosting rights, it has taken onboard criticism and has been making gradual improvements in that sector. In addressing the criticisms levelled against Qatar, the FIFA President Gianni Infantino, pointed out the double standards in solely criticizing Qatar for migrant workers’ rights, whilst Western businesses are less concerned about any legislation on workers’ rights. This is because of the impact it would have on the profits from the ‘millions’ and ‘billions’ these Western companies earn annually from Qatar. Infantino highlighted the sheer hypocrisy of pontificating ‘moral lessons’ by reminding the West of its brutal history ‘around the world’. The FIFA President employed a deep analogy to expose the sanctimony of the West that is especially relatable. The world is still dealing with the effects of colonialism and slavery in many ways. From a socioeconomic viewpoint, neocolonial entities are still actively involved in the ravaging of resource-rich countries across the globe.
There are people in the West who still justify
colonialism and believe it was a good thing, probably because it has been
presented to them from a rose-tinted prism. The history of the conqueror is
glamorized whilst the anguish of the conquered is trivialized. Colonialism and
slavery may be in the past, but have the effects on the society been adequately
addressed? Have the minds of those in modern times been cured of a racist
mindset that dehumanized and justified the subjugation of the otherized? It
does not matter if it is a media presenter, sports personality, or politician;
they are a microcosm of a societal problem. Such mentality still exists in
various forms and manifests in varying ways – consciously and
unconsciously.
Boris Johnson, used racial epithets like “letterboxes” for Muslim women, and “piccaninnies” and “watermelon smiles” for people of African-descent, and suggests the best fate for Africa is for another colonial scramble, but without the feeling of guilt. Recently, UK Education Secretary Gillian Keegan stated that she does not think that ‘white privilege’ is a ‘fact’. She has never experienced racism in her life, so cannot relate to the struggles of those who have. I worked as a professional in the city years ago, and one morning I was stopped by the police outside a London train station on my way to work. I was dressed in a suit and tie, with a matching cashmere overcoat, and still got stopped by the police. And when I asked why, I was told it was ‘random’. Some ‘white’ people will never experience such indignation in their lifetime. Some years ago, I conducted a social experiment with two identical CVs, with the major difference being the English and non-English name on each CV. The outcome was that the CV with the English name got more recruiter phone calls and interview offers. These cited scenarios do not necessarily make people who exhibit such traits outright racists, but it is the reality. It is an “unconscious bias” as Prince Harry admittedly acknowledged in his recent Netflix documentary. Such an honest admission was from someone whose son was caricatured as a chimpanzee leaving the hospital after his delivery. If Archie, the Queen of England’s great-grandson can be subjected to casual racism because of his mother – Meghan’s ‘black’ ancestry, then the issue is existential! Denials of these racial issues only exacerbate an already complex situation. This societal problem transcends the charade of ‘white guilt’ or ‘guilt trip’, without a genuine concern for people living and surviving with systemic and institutional racism.
The same supercilious mentality was exhibited during the coverage of the world cup, though presented through a façade about ‘rights’. It is worth mentioning that the BBC has been accused of being ‘institutionally racist’. The tokenism of having some ‘black’ presenters in the studio does not solve a systemic issue. Qatar 2022 was the first world cup to be hosted in the Arab/Muslim world. Rather than use the opportunity of the world cup to bring people of various backgrounds together, some Western media personalities chose to drive a deeper chasm between people of the world, and exacerbate hate with their prejudiced reportage.
From a war theory prism, if peace and love was consistently
promoted, the arms industry would be impacted. The hate industry needs to keep
the embers stoked and flames alive for its brothers in arms – quite literally.
The appalling coverage of Qatar 2022 by some Western media outlets was simply revolting. I wonder if the same level of incandescence would be dedicated to the United States when it hosts the event in 2026. As a virtue signaling primer for the coverage of the 2026 World Cup in the United States, I will suggest Ava DuVernay's 13th, because the presenters of the sport would be deeply concerned about the rights of African-Americans disproportionately incarcerated in a highly racialized US Justice system, and free labour from the prison-industrial complex. Obviously, the aforementioned scenario is only hypothetical and is never going to happen. Such extreme criticisms during sporting events are only reserved for Qatar – or anyone that resembles the Qataris.
The ad nauseam virtue signalling has its ideological underpinnings. The ideology that manifested during the FIFA World Cup in Qatar goes back decades or even centuries. According to Edward Said in Orientalism, the discourse should be traced back centuries. In the recent past, theories like that of Samuel P. Huntington and his ‘Clash of Civilizations’ have shaped the thoughts of an entire generation, and done immense damage through interventionist foreign policies. Post-Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, a new threat had to be fabricated with justifications for interventions. The otherization of an entire region, its people, culture and religion led to wars, deaths and destruction, with the media playing a crucial role in fuelling the hate that justifies invasions. The West cannot triumphantly impose its values on others, whether through war, coercion or propaganda. The world does not revolve around just one set of values, especially Western perception of values.
An enquiry by any rational mind into the concerted negativity towards Qatar is valid. Though Qatar may be in the spotlight, the ultimate target is Islam. Despite the coordinated attacks against Islam, it seems Islam is still spreading, particularly post-9-11. Anti-Islam propaganda may have inadvertently aided Islam.
The major issue with Islam is because the religion
remains resolute in its ethics. Islam does not compromise on core issues, and
from an Islamic perspective, a divine message does not need to succumb to every
whim that infects any society. Whether one believes in Islam or not, that is
the realistic position. Overt sexualism and alcoholism will never be condoned,
even if it is normalized in any society. Essentially, what you do privately is
frankly your business. Your sins are between you and your Creator, and not for advertisement.
Islam does not promote the public consumption of alcohol, nor does it condone
public expressions of love or lust, regardless of sexual orientation. Whatever
anyone identifies as, keep it private and not publicize it, or infringe on the
rights of those who prefer to preserve their dignity and modesty. People are still
entitled to their religious rights.
Though various religions can be traced to a particular geographical region – the area now referred to as the Middle East post Western colonial incursion into the region, Islam receives the heaviest criticism because of its consistency on issues. From the perspective of a non-Muslim, it may seem strange and there may be thoughts along the lines of: ‘Who do these Muslims think they are?’ ‘Why do they keep claiming the last prophet and divine revelation?’, ‘Do they think they are special or better than others? Such curiosities are understandable, but when such inquisitiveness develops into hate, then that is a manifestation of Islamophobia.
© M.B.O
M.B.O Owolowo is the
author of P.R.I.S.M: Primal Religious Instruction Serving Mankind
Comments
Post a Comment