For certain, had these men been white Anglo-Saxons, the media coverage and the reaction would have been different; an isolated group of criminals only, with no reference to their racial or cultural identity. This is how for example serial killers are often portrayed. Take the example of the 8 Scottish paedophile gang convicted in 2009 [1] who were caught raping babies, not consenting young teenagers like the Rochdale case, the news went unnoticed. Similarly, the recent case in Cornwall [2] also slipped under the media radar. There was no attempt to cast a slur on the wider community, based on the actions of these culprits. 

In contrast, based on the actions of the 9 culprits in Rochdale, the media and certain politicians have been busy tarnishing the Pakistani community, which is almost a million or more in the UK. The notion of proportion and logic is discarded when there is an underlying agenda; predictably, the usual Islamophobes to the closet racists have come out blaming it on race and culture, the more daft elements of the far right are blaming religion. 

The recent case [1] of a battered British woman made headlines; her lover broke her jaw and nose, then her eyes were gouged out - it sounds like a horror flick. Only the bare facts got reported, as if it was just an isolated incident; there was very little analysis given in the media. There was hardly any mention of the man’s background, his ethnicity or religion, and no mention if he had any ideological affiliation, and nothing to indicate how widespread domestic violence is in the UK.

Media analysis is often tacit; by dropping hints of religious or ethnic background of the perpetrator, and selectively citing out other similar cases it paints a general picture, indicating the source of the problem.  For sure, that would have been the case, had the man been of a foreign complexion with a name like Ahmed, instead of Shane; the Islamophobes and closet racists would have argued that this wife-beating episode is another example proving that it is an Islamic phenomenon. Such Melanie Phillips like analysis usually gets endorsed by nasty comments found below it.  

“I am a better Pakistani than Hussain (the pro-war Labour candidate) will ever be”      George Galloway

The election victory of Rashid al-Ghannushi in Tunisia and the recent victory of George Galloway in the Bradford by-election have been scorned, by the anti-Islamic extremist brigade; the usual suspects are the likes of Melanie Phillips, Douglas Murray, the infamous Daily Mail tabloid and of course the far-right fascists. Since Galloway and Gannushi were elected by the masses in a free and fair election, does this mean, the democratic process of free election a bad thing now? When hate governs the heart, principles become irrelevant as long as you can hurt those you despise; where the end justifies the means.

However, for different reasons, the anti-Islamic brigade has found alliance amongst the Muslims - the radical fringe; they express criticism of George Galloway, because he is viewed as a rival stealing the leadership of the Muslim community, and they scorn Rashid al-Ghannushi for not turning Tunisia into a Caliphate overnight. The radical fringe cannot take leadership because they propose that Muslims should keep out of the political process in the UK, and then moan about the adverse outcome, as the best way forward! And conveniently they do not participate in the election process as they would most likely fail miserably, nor have they managed to mobilise the masses to an alternative course of action.

Demanding the rights of gays to marry in Church is as ‘logical’ as the atheists demanding the right to be baptised as atheists! It is bizarre that the pro-gay liberal brigade wants the Christian Church to endorse homosexuality, when it is clearly condemned by God in the first place. Like theft, adultery, murder and rape, homosexuality is also a sin according to all the Abrahamic faiths (Islam, Christianity and Judaism) and the bulk of other faiths and non-faiths also have a similar position. Surely, the logical place to start would have been to demand that the Church adopt a secular book of prayers and abandon the Bible. Then whatever the current fad is the Church can endorse.

The pro-gay camp has always argued to keep religion out, as they argued on the basis of secular values of personal freedom; thus, it is for free individuals to decide what activities take place inside their bedrooms. The argument more or less goes along the lines, if two consenting adults are in love, it is their ‘right’ to form a relationship, so keep God out of it, this is the 21^st century. Yet, now they want bring to God and religion into it. For decades, religion was the enemy and they derided the values of this institution, so why are they seeking its approval now? This shows the contradictory nature of secularism.

We have just entered 2012 and there are no signs of Armageddon as predicted by some, but it’s still early days. However, I would happily bet that the world would go on past 2012, because to date nobody can predict the relatively small phenomena like earthquakes and hurricanes, therefore, what are the chances of predicting the end of the world? As the year comes to an end, most people utter “Happy New Year”, yet few reflect on the statement: will it be a ‘happy’ one? Will there be peace and prosperity for all? Will it be a greener planet, where conflict, crime and poverty are eliminated; and in societies families and communities take precedence over the few greedy making extortionate profits?

They say by examining the past you understand the present, which in turn allows you to prepare for the future. Hence, the pertinent question is: what have we learnt from the events of 2011?

Finally, following the announcement made by President Barak Obama, the last batch of US troops are exiting Iraq very soon; the inhabitants of Fallujah are rejoicing by burning the US and Israeli flags; for sure so are the relatives of the victims of this unjust war, especially those who survived the gruesome torture in Abu-Ghraib and other prisons. The rest of the masses in Iraq were indifferent, ‘ungrateful’ to their liberators! This is a suitable point to reflect and speculate -what were the reason(s) behind this costly war?

One can imagine the US officials stating to the troops “mission accomplished”, a cliché often seen in Hollywood films. What was that mission? To locate Iraq’s WMDs. Regardless of your viewpoint, according to the ‘official’ figures, the blood of 100,000 Iraqis and almost 5000 US soldiers confirmed that Iraq had no WMDs; thus, Saddam Hussein and the rest of the world were telling the truth. In contrast, George Bush with his neo-conservative Zionist cabal were lying through their teeth, thus the huge mass protests within and all round the world; the maxim of democracy, majority opinion rules was discarded as irrelevant, it was war as usual.