Islamophobia in Europe

According to a recent article in the New York Times Magazine, Europe is in the grip of “an anti-Islamic bias that is becoming institutionalized in the continent’s otherwise ordinary politics.” In the UK, a research report published earlier this year by the Institute of Race Relations argued that Islamophobia is hindering efforts to integrate Muslims into European societies.

The growing hostility towards Muslims in Europe is often linked to the fear of terrorism and associated concerns about the increasing involvement of young Muslims in radical political movements with connections to Al Qaeda. Yet Islamophobia has not emerged to any notable extent in the United States, despite the experience of the September 11 terrorist attacks, suggesting that other factors are also driving the phenomenon in Europe. In any case, Islamophobia had been observed in Europe for some years before the September 11 attacks, linked to concerns about the increased involvement of Muslims, especially of North African origin, in domestic European politics. Although there was undoubtedly a rise in anti-Islamic views and discrimination after September 11 and the London bombings of July 2005, these attacks only served to exacerbate a phenomenon which was already on the increase.

Islamophobia takes a range of forms in Europe, including the more traditional types of socio-economic discrimination and racist attack historically suffered by other ethnic or religious minorities. However, its distinctive feature – as documented by the New York Times article – is the extent to which it has infiltrated European mainstream politics and culture. In recent years many high-profile incidents from across Western Europe have exemplified this trend: the publication in Danish newspaper Jyllens Posten in 2005 of a cartoon portraying the Prophet Mohammad as a terrorist; the online release earlier this year by Dutch right-wing politician Geert Wilders of the movie Fitna, which directly links Islam with terrorism; the banning in French schools of the Islamic hijab, or headscarf, and the debates which are raging throughout Europe over the right to build mosques.

Political Encouragement

The growth of Islamophobia and its seep into mainstream politics have been attributed to the recent strategies of political parties on the Far Right. These have repackaged their traditional messages in a lighter form in order to capitalize on widespread concerns among many European populations about high levels of immigration to Europe and the impact of this on jobs, crime rates and the like. As these parties make political gains, as has been the case in the Netherlands, Italy, Denmark and Austria for example, mainstream parties often adopt similar themes, reinforcing the anti-Islamic stance in national politics. The media also plays a big role: several studies have documented evidence of a bias against Muslims in newspaper reports in countries including Germany and the UK, and more generally there has been much sensationalist reporting about the threat of Islamic terrorism which fails to distinguish between radical Islam and Muslims in general.

Some writers have linked the development of Islamophobia in Europe to the relatively homogenous nature of European populations, the associated development of strong national cultures and identities and a tendency for integration of immigrants to be regarded as synonymous with assimilation. When immigrant cultures or religious beliefs are seen to clash with dominant national ideology, as has occurred in many European countries in the case of Islam, the people concerned are seen as a threat to national identity and become the target of discrimination and prejudice.

Other Factors

Socio-economic factors also play a significant role in contributing to Islamophobia and the factors that drive it. Compared with the U.S., where Muslims are on average better educated and higher earners than the native population, Europe’s Muslim populations are concentrated in low socio-economic groups, at least in part because of the structural discrimination they have experienced over time. This not only makes them an obvious target for racism among those who see them as direct competition for low-skilled jobs but also generates a pool of Muslim youths who are alienated from societies which offer them few rewards and are ready prey for Islamic fundamentalist movements.

A number of European countries, alerted by the threat to their social stability posed not only by Islamic extremism but by growing Islamophobia, are now taking steps to promote better dialogue with their Muslim communities and to enforce new anti-discrimination legislation. This is a positive development for Europe, yet such measures may only be able to skim the surface of a problem which appears deep-rooted in a multitude of cultural, political and socio-economic factors.

References

Al-Azmeh, A. & Fokas, E. (2006). Islam in Europe: Diversity, Identity and Influence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cesari, J. (2006). Muslims in Western Europe After 9/11: Why the term Islamophobia is more a predicament than an explanation. Submission to the Changing Landscape of Citizenship and Security. 6th PCRD of European Commission.

Fekete, L. (2008). Integration, Islamophobia and civil rights in Europe. London: Institute of Race Relations.

Feldman, N. (2008). The New Pariahs? New York Times Magazine, June 22, 2008.
Ford, G. (2007). In the wake of xenophobia: the new racism in Europe. UN Chronicle. September 2007.

Saeed, A. (2007). Media, Racism and Islamophobia: The Representation of Islam and Muslims in the Media. Sociology Compass 1, 2: 443–462.

Robotics in Surgery

My last few posts on telemedicine addressed some advances in the diagnostic aspects of medicine. While one commenter brings up the great point that we are not at the place where we can do full diagnostic physical exams for primary care via telemedicine, there are some areas of procedural medicine where doctors do their work without ever touching the patient. Robotics and the surgical field of Urology is one great example.

For those of you who thought that surgery by robots was something out of a futuristic science fiction novel, that day has already come for Urologic surgeons. The da Vinci robot created by the company Intuitive Surgical is an expensive but top selling robot that is a must for any health center that claims to be cutting edge. Many of you might already have heard of Intuitive Surgical as their company stock has been a top performer in the device industry for several years. I do not own stock in the company or get anything from mentioning them, but they are the pioneer for Urologic robotics.

At any rate, the da Vinci robot is an actual robot that is controlled by a surgeon who is sitting at a computerized console in the corner of the room. The actual robot is a different machine that can move above the patient and has several “arms” that contain instruments on the end. The surgeon controls the arms and moves the “wrists” at the end of the arms. Sophisticated software now allows the robot to learn the movement patterns of the surgeon. The robot can filter abrupt movements of the surgeon and smooth out the movements to minimize any trauma to the patient.

When robotic surgery first came out, it was met with resistance. Common complaints included the high cost of the machine and the sterilized add-on components, the lack of “tactile feedback” from the instruments, and the steep learning curve. Older surgeons have been hesitant to retrain and obviously are not as facile with the machine as the younger generation who trained with robotics. On the whole, Urologists who use this machine regularly for prostate cancer surgery have excellent outcomes and are able to incise, cut, sew, and handle tissues delicately with the machine. Outcomes continue to improve and there have even been reports of surgeons remotely operating the machine on patients.

Thus, for the surgical field of Urology, robotics is here to stay.