Chris Morris, the comedy genius behind shows like Brass Eye and The Day Today, has turned to the cinema with the release of his first feature film, ‘Four Lions.’

But he’s moved on from attacking ridiculous “news” programmes or hypocritical celebrities. For the last four years Morris has been engaged in a huge programme of research to produce what’s probably the world’s first laugh out loud funny comedy about suicide bombers.

Chris Morris on The Day Today

The premise of the film is that a group of young Muslim guys from Northern England are plotting a terrorist attack against the UK. Their problem? They’re totally incompetent. There’s Waj, a none too bright spark who, not quite managing the Qu’ran focuses more on reading ‘The Camel Who Went to Mosque.’ Or Faisal, who plans to attach a bomb to a crow that he’s trained to fly into a building. There’s wannabe rapper Hassan, who, after exploding a fake bomb full of party poppers in a public meeting shouts “Oh what, just because I’m a Muslim you thought it was real.” But the two most interesting characters are the feuding would-be heads of the cell, Barry and Omar.

Barry is clearly a man with a lot of issues. A white convert to Islam, he constantly raves and rants about his desire to bring jihad to British streets. His greatest resentment though is that the others have not recognised him as the natural leader.

Omar on the other hand is a security guard at a shopping mall, where he sits day after day listening to his inane boss drone on about his fitness regime whilst staring at CCTV monitors. He is the heart of the film, and you can’t help but sympathise with him.

When Waj and Omar are eventually summoned to take part in a training camp in Pakistan, they make a total arse of things, culminating in firing a rocket propelled grenade the wrong way and accidentally killing their hosts. When they return to Britain they are unable to face Barry and others and tell them the truth, and so invent a mythical sheikh who has given them orders to attack.

We see their chaotic preparations of explosives, and their inept attempts to film martyrdom videos. The video scenes are some of the funniest, as they try to explain what has motivated them on to their present course. They denounce western consumerism, decrying Britain as a “McDonalds, Disneyland, TK Maxx” land of bullshit, to which Waj enthusiastically responds “Fuck Mini Babybels!”

Barry

In another pivotal scene, Omar tries to convince Waj of the justice of their cause by comparing earthly life to the queues at Alton Towers, and the martyr’s paradise as the rides. From that point on, when Waj is trying to explain what he’s fighting for, he constantly tells people “Rubber dinghy rapids!”

One of the strengths of the film is in fact that it makes little reference to Islam itself. Omar has a devout brother, who in fact tries to argue Omar out of what he’s doing, saying that it’s contrary to Islam. The underlying message seems to be that these terrorists’ motivation has little to do with their religion or some mythical goal of a global caliphate, and everything to do with alienation from the society they live in, particularly represented by Omar’s job. It’s a message that seems all the more credible after reporters discovered that the guy who recently attempted to bomb New York’s Times Square was probably motivated mainly by the impact of the credit crunch on his family, and is more comparable to that guy who flew his plane into a tax office than Osama Bin Laden.

Perhaps this could have been explored further by showing us a little bit more about how Barry came to be one of the group. He’s a self-important nutter who clearly has turned to Islam to give his ridiculous life some meaning, as seen in the scene with the meeting, where he’s on the platform spouting slogans and generally making a lot of noise. (Omar, btw, consistently derides him for this public activity, recognising his need for attention undermines their efforts.) But Barry’s full motivation and background are never explored fully, and he remains a bit of a comedy caricature.

But the exploration of the group’s motives is perhaps the film’s most important achievement. Morris has attended hundreds of trials and demonstrations, and interviewed all kinds of experts from the police to imams. What his film sets out to do is what we also tried to do here on Leftfield when deconstructing Islam4UK: debunk the myth of the massive Islamist conspiracy. The Scottish/English Defence Leagues are the street expression of a political idea perpetrated by a right wing media seeking to bolster the power of the state: that there is a well organised extreme Islamist movement poised to take over Britain and impose Sharia law. Something which is total nonsense.

The fact is that hardcore Islamist political ideas are held by about 4% of the Muslim population in the UK. The idea that they represent some kind of powerful movement is a dangerous lie, used to justify racism against completely innocent people, and to give the state ever growing powers to control our lives and snoop on us.

Morris has attempted to make this stance clear, writing for example to attack vile racist Martin Amis. He’s also talked about how footage of the September 11th planners dicking about on a farm and having a laugh convinced him he had to humanise terrorists, and make us understand they are real people rather than cartoon monsters.

The group prepare to implement their devastating plan

The only part where this falls flat for me is the introduction of Omar’s family. Omar’s wife is an intelligent, modern woman who nevertheless fully supports Omar in his plan, as does his boy. Something about the ease with which they talk about his plans to kill himself made me feel that the message about the realities of Muslim life was being undermined. Not because I think that intelligent people don’t ever think that it’s ok for their families to become suicide bombers -- it’s just the lack of seriousness about it, the fact that it’s something that can easily be chatted about over a cup of tea.

However, it should also be pointed out that the film, although it dwells on terrorists, does not leave out the incompetence and thuggery of the state as well. At several points you think the game is up for the gang, only to find out that racist cops have got the wrong folk. In the final sequence, when the film is at its funniest, the remaining members of the group have disguised themselves in silly costumes to cover their bombs as they infiltrate the London marathon. Omar is dressed as the Honey Monster. Police snipers receive an order to shoot a grizzly bear, and promptly take out someone dressed as Chewbacca, leading to an argument on police radio about whether the Honey Monster, or Chewbacca, are bears.

The film has also been compared to Dr Strangelove in that it doesn’t shy away from showing the realities of what’s being discussed. In a similar way to the Kubrick classic, Four Lions tries to make us ask real questions about what’s going on in our society through the medium of farce. There’s no doubt that the realities of imperialism, and terrorism, are horrific, but constant repetition of those horrors has been used to shut down debate and justify some pretty awful things. Just as he’s done with drugs or paedophilia in the past, Chris Morris has successfully used humour to once again break through those barriers, and to see that for every September 11th, there’s a whole lot more Glasgow airports, with terrorists so inept it only took the likes of John Smeaton kicking a burning man in the balls to stop them.

These signs were put up in the Italian town of Varallo after another right wing mayor also banned veils

A woman in Italy has become the first to be fined for covering her face. Known only as Amel, she was fined £430 under laws that ban covering your face in public places, after she was spotted by police in the Post Office.

The laws were originally brought in during the 70s to prevent political activists from hiding their faces. However, the mayor of the town of Novara, where Amel lives, now is using the law as a pretext to attack Muslim women.

Mayor Massimo Giordano is a member of the Northern League party, which takes a far right position on immigrants. Leader Umberto Bossi once called for boats containing immigrants from Africa (who he called “bingo bongos”) to be shelled, while another mayor from the party said “we should dress them up like hares and bang-bang-bang”. Party members have also been convicted of incitement to racial hatred for their part in trying to expel an encampment of Roma people.

Giordano has made sure the Italian laws, which have never been fully enforced before, are now being used against Muslim women. He’s said he wants Italian law to be amended so that it specifically outlaws wearing Muslim veils. He said:

Beard stroking tosspot Massimo Giordano contemplates racism

“I signed the new regulations for reasons of security but also so that people who came to live in our city are aware and respect our traditions. The people of Novara do not want to see people walking around in the city wearing a burka. This is the only way to stop behaviour that makes the already difficult process of integration even harder.”

Meanwhile, Giordano’s ambitions have almost already been fulfilled in Belgium, where the lower house just voted through a plan for a complete ban on veils and headscarves. This is despite the fact that parties representing Belgium’s different regions have been at each other’s throats, leading to the recent collapse of the government. However, MPs put their differences aside to give near unanimous cross-party support to racist measure. Hopefully however, the political crisis will mean it is months before the Senate can meet to give the law approval.

Several Belgian towns already have similar local laws. Another knobhead Mayor, Jan Creemers, of the Belgian town of Maaseik, said: “It became a problem in our town because we had about 50 women who walked around like that, which really annoyed many other residents. They kept coming to me to ask me to do something about it. I spoke to a couple of these ladies to ask them very simply not to wear this kind of clothing. But one in particular refused point-blank so eventually the police opened legal proceedings against her.”

And in France, President Nicolas Sarkozy, facing declining popularity, has decided pushing for a ban on veils is a good way of shoring up his right wing support, and is determined to try and push one through over the summer. The response of the opposition “Socialists” (the French equivalent of New Labour) has been to present their own bill, which would ban veils in public buildings such as hospitals or banks.

Belgian Mayor Jan Creemers stands up for "european values"

However, the most radical proposal has come from a German member of the European Parliament, who has called for Europe wide ban on veils. Silvana Koch-Mehrin, and MEP for the right wing Free Democrats (who are part of Angela Merkel’s coalition government) used an editorial in in Germany’s Bild newspaper (the German equivalent of The Sun) to make the extreme demand.

What all this shows is that after almost 10 years of the demonisation of Muslims, anti-Muslim racism has become mainstream for European governments. Many claim that the bans are aimed to protect women’s rights, but the comments by those who are enforcing these laws shows their real motivation: using the veil as a way to attack Muslim people. The fact is that racist politics across Europe finds it hard to come to terms with the fact that Muslims are Europeans too, and should be allowed to dress however they wish.

The idea that white politicians should be the ones to “save” Muslim women from oppression is itself racist. It also will make it more difficult for Muslim women who want to stand up for women’s rights within their own communities, if all Muslims feel they are subject to racist attack from outside. What women wear is not and should never be a matter for politicians to decide. It should be for women themselves to decide.

PM Yves Leterme's government has collapsed, despite him dressing up as a member of the Time Lord High Council to try and increase his authority

The government of Belgium has collapsed as part of a row between Dutch speaking and French speaking politicians.

This is good news for Belgian Muslims, who were facing the possibility of a racist legal attack, as Belgium was poised to become the first European country to ban Muslim women from covering their faces. However, the law, which was just about to be debated, has been delayed by the political crisis.

Belgian is split between Dutch speaking Flanders in the North and French speaking Wallonia in the South. Which region you are in decides which language is officially used in all official capacities, and the two different regions each have their own political parties. The city of Brussels in the centre is a bilingual district, but the row centres on breaking up this district into French and Dutch speaking areas. They argue it includes solely Dutch speaking towns round about the city. The Dutch speaking Liberals have quit the coalition government, claiming the French speaking parties are trying to block this process.

At the root of the crisis is inequality between the regions. In the past Wallonia was the industrial powerhouse of Belgium, and Flanders was poor. However, in the last 20-30 years this has changed around, with the decline of industry in Wallonia causing massive unemployment, while in the North the Flemish economy has experienced big growth based on neoliberal policies, finance and also the port of Antwerp, which is the third biggest port in the world.

Right wing Flemish politicians represent the resentment of Flemish bosses at the cost of supporting the unemployed and social services needed in Wallonia in their taxes, and demand more autonomy for their region. However, this is also overlaid with historical resentment by most Flemish people at the exploitation and oppression of Flemings when things were different in the past.

What happens next isn’t clear. The PM Yves Leterme has submitted his resignation to King Albert, who has not immediately accepted it but started consultations with politicians about the way forward. The whole crisis has been rumbling along for some time, and could conceivably could lead to the break up of Belgium. Last year rows over the same issue helped contribute towards a situation where Belgium had no government for 194 days!

Although the racist anti-Muslim law may well be scuppered for now by the crisis, the desire to curb the rights of Muslim women to wear what they want is unfortunately one of the few things that unites the mainstream parties across the linguistic divide. So it may well be resurrected when Belgium does have a government again. Anti-racists need to use the breathing space to try and organise against it.

Ultimately, the political crisis in Belgium will keep rumbling along as long as the country’s economic model remains committed to neoliberalism. Belgium needs to help the people of all the regions by taking their resources into public ownership and redistributing wealth to help alleviate the poverty and unemployment caused by right wing policies.

Bonus: For more in depth info about the economic and political background in Belgium, check out this article written during the governmental crisis last year.

A Belgian parliamentary committee has unanimously voted to finally tackle the scourge of creepy shopping centre Santas.

Concern has been growing in the European nation for years at the growth of fundamentalist Santa-ism, as these dodgy looking characters lure children towards their radical ideology with promises of “presents”. Many advocate that the entire Santa-believing world is united in a fundamentalist empire ruled from the North Pole, in which all adults will be forced to become toy manufacturing elves. Many fear the threat of Father Christmasification of Belgium.

The new law will ban appearing in any public place “with face covered or disguised in whole or in part to the extent that she cannot be identified”. Doing so will lead to a fine or up to 7 days in prison. It is hoped that the measure will help prevent Santas from congregating on Belgian streets or shopping centres.

Of course, the anti-Santa move will also have a significant impact on Muslim women. Belgian local authorities already have the power to ban the burqa or the niqab, and the city of Brussels has banned the wearing of headscarves in schools, prompting protests.

But the Belgian MPs have tried to reassure people that they are totally not racist, and the ban is just part of their commitment to a “liberal, open and tolerant society.” Indeed, it’s not as if looking at Belgian history would ever make you think they have a problem with racism.

The committee’s approval is a major step towards the bill becoming law, which would make Belgium the first European country to order covering the face in public places. This may well be followed by the Netherlands, where everybody’s favourite racist “secularist” Geert Wilders looks set to score big in the upcoming elections. And in France, after getting trashed in the local elections, right wing President Nicolas Sarkozy announced he would introduce a similar ban.

“The all-body veil is contrary to the dignity of women,” he said. “The answer is to ban it. The government will introduce a bill to ban it that conforms to the principles of our laws.”

Quite how characters like Sarkozy expect us to take them seriously when they tell us they’re defending women’s rights by passing a law about what they can and cannot wear I don’t know. The other major defence of this idea is that it’s about secularism. Secularism is the idea that religion should be completely separate from the state, and your religion should be a matter of personal conscience, not state law. Passing a law that makes religious dress a matter of state interest is therefore by definition not secularist.

Belgian Muslims protesting the headscarf ban. Banner reads: "School is my right, the veil is my choice."

The ban on covering the face in public places has united all the major political parties, and indeed the traditionally divided French and Flemish speaking politicians. The fact that there are so few voices willing to stand up against a state that thinks it has the right to regulate how women dress shows just how far the fight against anti-Muslim racism, and indeed against sexism, has to go.

SSY acknowledges that some of the Santa images displayed in this post would disturb even the most staunch defender of human rights. However, we feel that even the enormity of the threat these men pose to our mental health is no justification for a racist law which dictates how women can and cannot dress. As the Vice-President of the Muslim Executive of Belgium, Isabelle Praile, puts it:

“Today it’s the full-face veil. Tomorrow the veil, the day after it will be Sikh turbans, and then perhaps it will be miniskirts.”

Bonus: For sensible commentary on the issue of the burqa (as opposed to posts that steal convoluted Santa jokes from Belgian MPs) check out islamophobia watch and muslimahmediawatch. Santa images via Sketchy Santas.

SSY’s reconnaissance man in the Netherlands, Thomas Swann, takes a look at the Dutch political situation in the wake of the collapse of the government, and the rise of Geert Wilders:

The Dutch Parliament in The Hague

With the collapse of the governing coalition still very fresh in people’s minds, the Dutch local government elections that took place on the 3^rd of March were widely predicted to prove disastrous for the two largest parties. Indeed the Labour Party (PvdA) and the conservative Christian Democrats (CDA) lost around 700 and 200 local council seats respectively. In addition, the left-wing Socialist Party’s (SP) share fell from 306 seats to 250.

The repercussions of the elections began to be seen almost immediately, with Agnes Kant, parliamentary leader of the SP stepping down hours after the poor showing for her party. On the basis of recent opinion polls, the SP looks set to lose more than half of its 25 seats in the Dutch parliament. The party’s steady growth in the last decades has seen it become the main parliamentary opposition to the ruling PvdA/CDA/Christian Union (CU) coalition (like Scotland, the Dutch electoral system makes it highly unlikely that one party will secure enough seats to form a government by themselves, and so coalitions are made to allow a government with over 50 per cent of the seats to be formed). However, the SP’s tone on the issue of immigration, championing a ‘Dutch jobs for Dutch workers’ line, for example, has lost them support among left-wing activists.

In Nijmegen, christened ‘Havana on the Waal’ (the Waal being the river that passes through the city) because of its strong left-wing showing in previous elections and the large student and squatter movements that existed in the past, the SP’s share of the vote fell to just over 12 per cent. On the 16^th of March the left-wing coalition between the SP, Green-Left and the PvdA was replaced by a centre-left grouping of Green-Left, the PvdA and the social-liberal D66. According to Alex de Jong of the Dutch socialist organisation Grenzeloos, the SP lost credibility as a result of their response to the credit crisis of the last two years: ‘The crisis, the SP leadership thought, would force the other parties to renounce neoliberalism and move them closer to its positions. What is happening instead is that working people are made to pay for anti-crisis measures and that the SP lost its profile as the party of the opposition. A left-wing perspective in the debate about the causes and solutions for the crisis was barely visible.

Geert Wilders: "I'm too sexy for my racist shirt"

Another casualty of the local elections was the leader of the PvdA, Wouter Bos, who had previously held the position of Deputy Prime Minister in the cabinet of Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende. Two weeks before the local elections, Bos’s time as Deputy PM came to an end when the ruling coalition in parliament collapsed following crisis talks on withdrawal of Dutch troops from Afghanistan. The PvdA had refused to support NATO’s request for a longer deployment (a position supported by the CDA) and demanded that the Dutch mission end this year, as was previously agreed.

Perhaps the most striking result of the local government elections, however, was the victory of the extreme-right Party for Freedom (PVV) headed by anti-Islam populist Geert Wilders. The PVV stood in only two towns but came first in one and second in the other. In Almere the PVV won 9 seats becoming the largest party with 21 per cent, and in The Hague they came out with 8 seats, second to the PvdA. While the PVV has not been successful in forming a ruling coalition in either town, their role as the largest opposition party does not bode well. In the Dutch parliament, where the PVV holds only 9 of 150 seats, they have already been instrumental in shifting policy to the right. The ban on squatting, narrowly passed with the PVV’s support, had originally contained a 4 month jail sentence for anyone convicted of squatting. In exchange for the support of the PVV, the CDA, VVD and CU agreed to increase this to 1 year.

Wilder’s anti-Islam stance has met with popular support. Two polls conducted in the last weeks revealed him to be the third most popular candidate for Prime Minister with as much as 17 per cent of the people backing him. In addition, the PVV has in recent months been repeatedly suggested to come out the winner in the general elections to be held in June. The party, of which Wilders is the only member, came second in the European Parliament elections and is expected to gain between 25 and 27 seats in the Dutch parliament. While this would not put him in a position to rule, any coalition without the PVV would be difficult. So, while Wilders may not become Prime Minister of the Netherlands, his racist views on Islam, Moroccans and immigrants from Muslim countries will pull government policy further to the right.

The English Defence League - respectful and polite

To get a picture of the kind of policy this might be, just take a look at some of Wilders’ demands: changing the part of the Dutch constitution that forbids racial and religious discrimination, closing the borders to Muslims, banning the Koran, taxing head scarves and banning such clothing from public buildings. While this type of rhetoric may prove popular with the BNP and the English Defence League (who turned out to support Wilders on his recent UK visit), there is as yet no figure in UK politics comparable to Wilders. His success has been attributed to his ability to present racist and Islamophobic views while distancing himself from extreme-right thugs. This is something the BNP is unable to do. However, the environment in the UK is ripe for someone else to maneuver into position and grab the anti-Islam vote and at the same time appear respectable and so appeal to a larger amount of people than the BNP can.

While the main political parties, with the exception of the D66, have been unable to properly challenge Wilders in parliament, anti-racist activists have come together under the banner of the Wilders Sluit Ook Jou Uit (Wilders Shut You Out Too) campaign. This grouping aims at building a grassroots resistance to Wilders and the extreme-right policies he supports. The mainstream parties in the UK are proving themselves just as incapable, or perhaps unwilling, as their Dutch counterparts in seriously challenging Islamophobia and a racist line on immigration. Ulitmately, they argue simply that their policy is better for dealing with the problem of immigration, rather than attempting to challenge the perception of immigration as a problem. Therefore, it seems that in the UK too, resistance to Islamophobia will not be found in parliament or on Newsnight, but instead on the streets and in the communities who are prepared to reject racist populism and stand up for the rights of immigrants.

Geert Wilders manages to make Glenn Beck sound moderate:

Anjem Choudary in happier times

Fundamentalist nutjob Anjem Choudary’s bottled it. After a week of hysteria in the British press over a planned Islamist march through Wootton Bassett, he has cancelled the demo – as many already predicted he would do. Choudary previously claimed to be organising a march for Shariah Law in London before bottling it, unfortunately not before the Daily Express ran with the story “Now Muslims Demand Full Sharia Law”.
In both cases the reasons for shitting it are obvious; Islam4UK has a membership base of only dozens and would be outnumbered in the hundreds if not thousands by far-right counter demonstrators.

Full credit must be given where it’s due however. While the Left and secular Muslims can hold sizeable demonstrations against war, terrorism and in defence of secularism they are lucky to get any coverage. Islam4UK on the other hand can picket a homecoming march with a couple dozen demonstrators holding placards and make national headlines.

People who demand that more secular Muslims speak out against Choudary, or that their voices are not being heard because they have sympathy for Islam4UK should remember how the media works. Choudary is given more publicity than any other religious Muslim leader (and possibly anyone of Muslim background in the UK) not because his ideas are popular but because they sell newspapers. A bearded lunatic raving about the flag of Allah flying over Downing Street, flogging drunks, attacking British Soldiers and generally acting like something Chris Morris would cook up is someone much more interesting to read about than some nondescript spokesperson for the Muslim Association of Britain – particularly when he’s on 25k of YOUR taxes Great Britain!

It’s this massive outpouring of hatred for Islam4UK that’s probably resulted in their banning. After being banned in their previous incarnation Al Muhjahiroun, they rebranded themselves as Islam4UK. Expect them to do the same in a couple of months – Jihad4Anglia? Scouser Muhjahadeen? Nice Cup of tea and a sit down Martyrs Brigade? The potential name changes for British Islamists are almost endless.

As much black humour Choudary and Islam4UK can provide with calls for a fundamentalist Islamic programme across the UK they are much more dangerous than their small numbers suggest. The coverage they obtain provides crucial justification for a variety of “think tanks” and a growing cottage industry of anti-Muslim bigots. Every time Islam4UK carry out a demo it can be used as evidence for massive, concealed sympathy for Islamist ideas among British Muslims. This is almost certainly Islam4UK’s strategy; punch above your weight with some mental slogans then when these are used to justify an anti-Muslim backlash pose as the defenders of Muslims.

One such organisation which has used Islam4UK to bolster it’s own anti-Muslim bigotry is the Centre for Social Cohesion. Their spokesperson agreed to debate with Anjem Choudary but then pulled out when he demanded the audience be divided into male and female. Who would have thought a religious fundamentalist would be so unreasonable. The Centre for Social Cohesion snatched headlines recently by conducting a poll claiming that one third of Muslim students supported killing in the name of religion.

The reality was that the poll showed completely different results. Only 4% of Muslim students thought it was acceptable to kill to “preserve and promote religion”. 28% thought it was acceptable to kill “only if that religion was under attack”. The second question was specifically designed to be vague enough to get the results the poll wanted.

In other questions asked, only 6% of Muslims believed that those who became apostates (converted from Islam) should be punished under Sharia Law. The poll reveals that there are only about 4-6% of British Muslims who support Islamist ideas. There were some disturbing results however – there were significant minorities who had “little or no respect for homosexuals” for instance. Also large sections of Muslims polled said they would welcome the introduction of an Islamic Caliphate, and Sharia Law in the UK. Unsurprisingly though the poll did not ask if they thought it should be forced upon non-Muslims through violence.

The only Sharia Law that is present in the UK has no legal standing whatsoever, where Muslims go to an Imam to receive a religious judgement on aspects of their lives. The Imam has no legal power and his authority is based on Muslims deciding to accept his judgements. This is not unique in the UK – Jewish Religious courts arbitrate on affairs in the Jewish community, but can only act when Jews recognise it’s authority.

Religious law shouldn’t be whitewashed – there is often pressure in marriages, families and communities to accept arbitration from religious figures even if they carry no official power. Deciding to reject it can come at a high cost in terms of personal relations with your friends and family etc. But the people who will suffer that will be Muslims and not non-Muslims in the UK, and Muslims won’t be able to challenge religious authority if there is a cloud of suspicion cast over all of them. Instead a siege mentality will develop, with these religious figures finding their authority in the community increasing.

Polling consistently shows tiny support for hardcore Islamist ideas in the UK – only 4-6% of the Muslim population support killing in the name of Islam even if its not attacked or punishment of apostates. And this is 4-6% of a religious minority. Across the UK Muslims make up 3% of the population. In Scotland it is only 0.8%. The base of support for turning the UK into an Islamic Republic would not be able to organise in telephone boxes – matchboxes would be more appropriate.

When people like Choudary are promoted throughout the media it’s not just to laugh at his ideas, or because of his sexist, and bigoted ideas. He is used by many anti-Muslim newspapers and commentators as a stick to bash all Muslims in the UK with, and to raise a nightmare scenario of Britain becoming an Islamic State. Once you have that nightmare vision you can go on to justify any kind of attack on Muslims that wouldn’t be suggested for any other minority in the UK. That makes Anjem Choudary very dangerous, but not in the way he or his opponents in the tabloid media would think.