Last week, the UK's most popular newspaper, the Sun, ran the headline "1 in 5 Brit Muslims' sympathy for jihadis". Where did that statistic come from and how reliable is it?
The Sun's headline immediately caused a backlash - angry videos of British Muslims disputing the "1 in 5" figure soon appeared on social media and Twitter users took up the hashtag #1in5muslims to make fun of the story. The newspaper regulator, the Independent Press Standards Organisation, received more than 2,600 complaints.
The Sun's figures came from research carried out by polling company Survation, which conducted phone interviews with 1,000 British Muslims after the recent attacks in Paris. One of the questions was: Which of the following statements is closest to your view?
I have a lot of sympathy with young Muslims who leave the UK to join fighters in Syria.
I have some sympathy with young Muslims who leave the UK to join fighters in Syria.
I have no sympathy with young Muslims who leave the UK to join fighters in Syria.
Don't know.
The word "jihadis", which is used in the headline, does not appear in the question. This might be significant because not everyone who travels to Syria is necessarily going to fight for the so-called Islamic State or other militant Islamist groups - some could be going to join rebel groups opposed to IS.
When people answered the question, 4% said they had a lot of sympathy and 14% said they had some sympathy - a total of 19%, which is the figure the Sun used.
But the word "sympathy" is ambiguous and using it casts doubt on the result, says Manchester University's Maria Sobolewska, an expert on polling minority groups.
In the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, the first two definitions of the word are:
Feelings of pity and sorrow for someone else's misfortune.
Understanding between people; common feeling.
"Did [the respondents] simply mean that they felt the situation for Muslims is very hard around the world, with a lot of wars and conflict, and perhaps prejudice in Western Europe, and therefore, this particular person feels some sympathy with how desperation may lead some young people to terrorism?" asks Sobolewska. "Is it just an emotional understanding? Or is it actually weak or tacit support of terrorism? I really think making that leap in to the second conclusion is taking it a bit too far."
This distinction is also made by someone who helped carry out the poll. Writing anonymously on the news website Vice, they say they are uneasy with the way such a complex issue was presented.
"None of the people I polled who responded to the question with the 'some sympathy' answer supported jihadis," they write. "One woman gave me thoughtful, considered answers to every question. She thought that David Cameron would probably be right to bomb Syria, and that Muslims did have a responsibility to condemn terrorist attacks carried out in the name of Islam. But she also had some sympathy with young British Muslims who joined fighters in Syria. 'They're brainwashed, I feel sorry for them,' she said. And so I ticked the box, 'I have some sympathy for young British Muslims who go to join fighters in Syria.'"
So why was the word "sympathy" used? "It was chosen deliberately to exactly match the wording of previous polling that we've done on this topic earlier in the year, and so to enable comparisons to be drawn," says Patrick Brione from Survation.
When compared to research commissioned by Sky News in March, the new survey suggests that among British Muslims, sympathy for people joining fighters in Syria has fallen.
The earlier poll also asked non-Muslims the same question, with around one in seven expressing at least some sympathy. Non-Muslims weren't included in the Sun's poll.
To find out how many people are actively in favour of the actions of fighters in Syria, Sobolewska thinks they need to ask a different question.
"I'm a great fan of saying what you mean," she says. "Using the word 'support' would have been a good start. So 'Do you support actions, such as the Hebdo attacks or the Paris attacks?' And I think, what we would see is that the level of support for these questions would be within that kind of two, three, four, maybe five per cent."
She says that after the attacks in London in 2005, a number of polls asked very direct questions about whether British Muslims supported the bombings or felt they were justified.
"Normally this expression of clear support has yielded smaller numbers - so there were anything from 2%, which is obviously statistically insignificant in a poll that has about a 3% margin of error, up to 9% even on some occasions. This is a clear message that a very, very small proportion of British Muslims may have thoughts that are in fact supportive of these kind of terrorist attacks."
Since the Sun's story was published, Survation has distanced itself from the newspaper's interpretation of the research. "We don't support or endorse the way they've chosen to portray the story and that headline," says Brione, adding that it was a "bit of a shock to see it portrayed in such a stark way".
A statement from the Sun said: "It is not for a polling company to endorse or otherwise the editorial interpretation of a survey. The Sun published the poll's findings clearly and accurately, including the questions in full."
A spokesman added: "The fact remains that a significant minority of Muslims have sympathy for the actions of extremists. That is a subject worthy of discussion and the Sun believes that it must be appropriate for that conversation to take place."
The Sun's sister paper, the Times, also published a story based on the poll, but has since issued a correction saying its headline "One in five British Muslims has sympathy for Isis" was "misleading".
"People from Nigeria to Jordan to Indonesia overwhelmingly expressed negative views of ISIS," it said. "And in those countries with mixed religious and ethnic populations, negative views of ISIS cut across these lines."
In Lebanon, Burkina Faso and Malaysia there was barely any gap between the opinions of Muslims and non-Muslims on this question. Although in Nigeria 20% of Muslims had a favourable view of IS compared to 7% of Christians.
One exception was Pakistan where 62% said they had no definite opinion of IS.
"In some countries, like Lebanon, it's 100% unfavourable so their image is overall quite negative," says Steven Kull, a political psychologist at the University of Maryland.
But he suspects there are people who find some of IS's ideas attractive, believing it is "very committed to Sharia law and that it has a reputation of not being corrupt or that it is standing up to Western forces that many of them perceive as being hostile to Islam."
Keep these in mind as you contemplate the direction of the American government over the past 50 years and especially since the Obama election.
The Goals of Communism
(as read into the congressional record January 10, 1963, from "The Naked Communist" by Cleon Skousen)
1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament of the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.
6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.
7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.
8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.
9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.
10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.
11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)
12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.
14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.
15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."
29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."
31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand.
39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use united force to solve economic, political or social problems.
43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.
44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.
45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction over nations and individuals alike.
No comments:
Post a Comment