Muslim Barack Obama fans told to hide from television camera

hongi · Post by **hongi** » 2008-06-19 03:34am

Muslim Barack Obama fans told to hide from television cameras

Barack Obama's campaign has been forced to apologise to two Muslim women barred from sitting behind him at a public event.

The two women in headscarves were asked not to sit in view of cameras at a rally in Detroit on Monday, where Al Gore endorsed Mr Obama.

Hebba Aref, a 25-year-old lawyer, told Politico magazine: "I was coming to support him, and I felt like I was discriminated against.

"The message that I thought was delivered to us was that they do not want him associated with Muslims or Muslim supporters."

Miss Aref's friend Ali Koussan, a law student, said that a volunteer "explained to me that because of the political climate and what's going on in the world ... it's not good for her to be seen on TV or associated with Obama."
A second woman was told to take off her headscarf if she wanted to sit in the special seats.

Polls show that around one in eight Americans falsely believe that Mr Obama is Muslim.

Campaign spokesman Bill Burton said: "This is of course not the policy of the campaign. It is offensive and counter to Obama's commitment to bring Americans together and simply not the kind of campaign we run.

"We sincerely apologise for the behaviour of these volunteers."

But the incident highlights the degree to which Mr Obama's campaign is concerned with traditional political image making, something his promise to change American politics claims to eschew.

While he grew up and was schooled in Indonesia, a Muslim nation, Mr Obama's campaign has repeatedly denied that he was ever a Muslim.
Until he resigned over the furore surrounding his former's pastor's comments, Mr Obama has worshipped for more than 20 years at the same Chicago church.

Well this won't really hurt Obama's campaign I don't think, but it's shameful how attacks on Obama's background means that he's constantly had to prove that he is a Christian to other Christians. Disgraceful really, and it contributed to the treatment of these two ladies here.

cosmicalstorm · Post by **cosmicalstorm** » 2008-06-19 04:40am

This stuff always reminds me of this The Onion piece:

Poll: Bullshit Is Most Important Issue For 2008 Voters

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/p ... _important

Chris OFarrell · Post by **Chris OFarrell** » 2008-06-19 05:37am

I wonder if Obama will make it a point to publicly apologize for the actions of his staff to those two people at a speech some time soon. Seriously, I can just see him being THAT classy and bringing it off effectivly, without playing into any of the stupid 'OMG, B. Hussein O' (I see people writing his name just like that on a LOT of right wing US sites) is an uber secret Islamic Agent!

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2008-06-19 06:09am

Manchurian candidate was a good movie, but it was a terribly unrealistic story, mere fiction. People in the US apparently don't get it. "Hidden Muslims". Yeah.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2008-06-19 07:03am

KO has pointed out that Manchurian Candidate applies better to McCain

Kanastrous · Post by **Kanastrous** » 2008-06-19 10:42am

I'm surprised that they weren't smart enough to develop a not-related-to-headscarves-or-Islam reason to give those people, as to why they couldn't be seated there.

I mean, why did they choose to handle it in such a way that begs for bitching and complaining and bad publicity?

CaptainZoidberg · Post by **CaptainZoidberg** » 2008-06-19 11:03am

My understanding was that the people behind the candidate were always positioned tactically, to show the racial/gender/background mix that the candidate wants to project to the viewer. For example, if the candidate is viewed as unpatriotic, he'd want to put a lot of military veterans in the background.

I don't see what the big deal is here. Obama doesn't want to be seen as an Islamic fundamentalist, so he doesn't put any of those supporters behind him during a speech.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2008-06-19 11:16am

CaptainZoidberg wrote:My understanding was that the people behind the candidate were always positioned tactically, to show the racial/gender/background mix that the candidate wants to project to the viewer. For example, if the candidate is viewed as unpatriotic, he'd want to put a lot of military veterans in the background.

I don't see what the big deal is here. Obama doesn't want to be seen as an Islamic fundamentalist, so he doesn't put any of those supporters behind him during a speech.

You don't see the problem of segregating supporters based on race in a campaign that's promoting unity and overcoming racial problems? Are you intentionally being dense?.

Kanastrous · Post by **Kanastrous** » 2008-06-19 11:18am

I don't believe that selecting who you want in front of your cameras at a given event, equals "segregating supporters based on race."

Particularly when Islam is not a "race."

AniThyng · Post by **AniThyng** » 2008-06-19 11:21am

CaptainZoidberg wrote:My understanding was that the people behind the candidate were always positioned tactically, to show the racial/gender/background mix that the candidate wants to project to the viewer. For example, if the candidate is viewed as unpatriotic, he'd want to put a lot of military veterans in the background.

I don't see what the big deal is here. Obama doesn't want to be seen as an Islamic fundamentalist, so he doesn't put any of those supporters behind him during a speech.

Headscarf-wearing != Muslim fundamentalist. This distinction may be lost on you, but it should be obvious why a muslim woman who chooses to wear a headscarf would be slighted at this - if not by the implication that nothing has changed and that muslims will continue to be discriminated against, or by the implication that if she wears the headscarf she cannot be taken seriously as a reasonable person but is immediately pegged as a fundie or pressured by fundies with no will of her own.

AniThyng · Post by **AniThyng** » 2008-06-19 11:23am

Kanastrous wrote:I don't believe that selecting who you want in front of your cameras at a given event, equals "segregating supporters based on race."

Particularly when Islam is not a "race."

Change it to segregating supporters based on religion if it makes you happy, the point is completely unchanged.

Kanastrous · Post by **Kanastrous** » 2008-06-19 11:42am

AniThyng wrote:
Kanastrous wrote:I don't believe that selecting who you want in front of your cameras at a given event, equals "segregating supporters based on race."

Particularly when Islam is not a "race."
Change it to segregating supporters based on religion if it makes you happy, the point is completely unchanged.

Not really. No one chooses their race, so it's wrong to discriminate based upon their race.

People do choose to establish or maintain ties to a given religion. So discrimination against them is of a different character. You *are* responsible for the faith you choose to push.

AniThyng · Post by **AniThyng** » 2008-06-19 11:48am

Kanastrous wrote:
AniThyng wrote:
Kanastrous wrote:I don't believe that selecting who you want in front of your cameras at a given event, equals "segregating supporters based on race."

Particularly when Islam is not a "race."
Change it to segregating supporters based on religion if it makes you happy, the point is completely unchanged.
Not really. No one chooses their race, so it's wrong to discriminate based upon their race.

People do choose to establish or maintain ties to a given religion. So discrimination against them is of a different character. You *are* responsible for the faith you choose to push.

Don't be absurd, if this was a reverse situation about a Muslim woman in a muslim country denied the right to be in a photoshoot because she isn't wearing a headscarf, you wouldn't be accept "you are responsible for the faith you choose to push" as an excuse now would you?

CaptainZoidberg · Post by **CaptainZoidberg** » 2008-06-19 11:58am

General Zod wrote:
You don't see the problem of segregating supporters based on race in a campaign that's promoting unity and overcoming racial problems? Are you intentionally being dense?.

Islam isn't a race, it's a belief system. Moreover, he would've allowed them to sit there if they removed their headscarfs, showing that it's not about their race or ethnicity - it's about their religion / belief system.

Kanastrous · Post by **Kanastrous** » 2008-06-19 12:01pm

AniThyng wrote:

Don't be absurd, if this was a reverse situation about a Muslim woman in a muslim country denied the right to be in a photoshoot because she isn't wearing a headscarf, you wouldn't be accept "you are responsible for the faith you choose to push" as an excuse now would you?

Yes. The way that Muslim women are treated in various Muslim societies is a legacy of what Muslim women in the past chose to accept, and what they continue to choose to accept. They are largely complicit in their own oppression.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2008-06-19 12:04pm

Kanastrous wrote: Not really. No one chooses their race, so it's wrong to discriminate based upon their race.

People do choose to establish or maintain ties to a given religion. So discrimination against them is of a different character. You *are* responsible for the faith you choose to push.

You still aren't getting it. Any campaign promoting unity sends precisely the opposite message when they start moving people away from the camera based on religion, race or what have you.

Kanastrous · Post by **Kanastrous** » 2008-06-19 12:13pm

If your candidate has been wrongly and viciously portrayed as a Muslim - something which, for purposes of electability, it's important not to be, whether any of us approve, or not - it doesn't impress me a strange that some of his staffers figured that obviously Muslim supporters behind him on-screen was more a potential harm than a potential benefit. Balancing let's show how inclusive we are against how many viewers are we likely to lose, when they see reinforcement of the Muslim canard right behind our guy on stage, they seem to have decided to come down in favor of image and against inclusivity.

Which does not impress me as an unusual kind of call to make, during a campaign.

The degree to which these individuals really support his candidacy - relative to their own desire for a stroke, anyway - can be gauged in part by the decision to make potentially candidacy-harming hay out of a poor decision by some staffers.

CaptainZoidberg · Post by **CaptainZoidberg** » 2008-06-19 12:18pm

AniThyng wrote:
Headscarf-wearing != Muslim fundamentalist.

Islam is a belief system, and the headscarf (at least to the average American who sees it) symbolizes that belief system, and designates the person wearing it as a member of the Islamic faith.

Let's say someone from the Westboro Baptist Church was wearing a "God Hates Fags" shirt, and wanted to sit behind Obama during the speech, and one of Obama's people said "Take the shirt off or move where the camera can't see you". Would you find that unreasonable? It's not like he's discriminating against that person's race. He's just saying that the person is wearing the symbol of a belief system that he doesn't agree with, and shouldn't be sending that message while he's giving a speech.

While I understand that Islam is nowhere near as bad as the WBC, the analogy still stands. There's nothing unreasonable about asking someone to not display a certain ideology or symbol thereof at a meeting.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2008-06-19 12:32pm

CaptainZoidberg wrote: Islam is a belief system, and the headscarf (at least to the average American who sees it) symbolizes that belief system, and designates the person wearing it as a member of the Islamic faith.

So I guess Rachel Ray is a Muslim?

Let's say someone from the Westboro Baptist Church was wearing a "God Hates Fags" shirt, and wanted to sit behind Obama during the speech, and one of Obama's people said "Take the shirt off or move where the camera can't see you". Would you find that unreasonable? It's not like he's discriminating against that person's race. He's just saying that the person is wearing the symbol of a belief system that he doesn't agree with, and shouldn't be sending that message while he's giving a speech.

Hate speech is not inherently equitable to religious practice. Try again chuckles.

While I understand that Islam is nowhere near as bad as the WBC, the analogy still stands. There's nothing unreasonable about asking someone to not display a certain ideology or symbol thereof at a meeting.

Except this was a public meeting. Discrimination based on race, religion or gender at public events is still illegal and antithemetic to any sort of message based on unity.

Big Phil · Post by **Big Phil** » 2008-06-19 12:38pm

General Zod wrote:snip

Tell you what, if you're this pissed at Obama's staffers for asking the muslim women to move, go vote for Nader. Otherwise, recognize that in a campaign where anti-muslim fears are omnipresent and showing an affiliation with that reviled minority isn't a good idea if you want to get elected, and quit whining. Whether the women were in the photo or not, there wasn't a good option here.

Kanastrous · Post by **Kanastrous** » 2008-06-19 12:38pm

Zod, Ray's not wearing a headscarf, in the picture attached to the article you linked.

She's wearing a scarf around her neck, and the scarf is in a pattern that reminded some people of a pattern popular for men's keffiyehs, among Palestinians.

Kanastrous · Post by **Kanastrous** » 2008-06-19 12:41pm

ghetto edit - I should have added that unlike the women at the rally, Ray's not wearing the scarf in a fashion at all reminiscent of how a Muslim woman might wear it.

And, since that item is more like a common item of Palestinian men's clothing, than it is like women's clothing, it's also worth mentioning that Christian Palestinians wear the keffiyeh too, so it does not designate its wearer as Muslim, either.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2008-06-19 12:45pm

SancheztheWhaler wrote:
General Zod wrote:snip
Tell you what, if you're this pissed at Obama's staffers for asking the muslim women to move, go vote for Nader. Otherwise, recognize that in a campaign where anti-muslim fears are omnipresent and showing an affiliation with that reviled minority isn't a good idea if you want to get elected, and quit whining. Whether the women were in the photo or not, there wasn't a good option here.

How about you fuck off and ram your strawman up your ass until you can actually address my point? That being any campaign basing itself on unity and trying to separate people based on religion is blatantly contradicting itself and sending the exact opposite message it's intending to?

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2008-06-19 12:51pm

Kanastrous wrote:ghetto edit - I should have added that unlike the women at the rally, Ray's not wearing the scarf in a fashion at all reminiscent of how a Muslim woman might wear it.

And, since that item is more like a common item of Palestinian men's clothing, than it is like women's clothing, it's also worth mentioning that Christian Palestinians wear the keffiyeh too, so it does not designate its wearer as Muslim, either.

So what? Some idiots thinks Obama's a Muslim because of his middle-name. Do you honestly think the details on how a scarf is worn is going to change their minds? If they weren't going to vote for him based on that, they sure as fuck aren't going to change their minds based on whether or not there happened to be obvious Muslims in the crowd.

CaptainZoidberg · Post by **CaptainZoidberg** » 2008-06-19 12:52pm

General Zod wrote: So I guess Rachel Ray is a Muslim?

I'm not saying that she necessarily has that ideology. All I'm saying is that she's wearing the symbol of an ideology - an ideology that disagrees with Obama's message.

Hate speech is not inherently equitable to religious practice. Try again chuckles.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... y_laws.svg

If you look at how nations with a Muslim majority tend to have the most violent and hateful laws against homosexuality, wearing a scarf that says "I believe in the Islamic ideology", definitely sends an anti-homosexual message.

Although a better metaphor would have had the T-shirt saying "Westboro Baptist Church" without any specific message from the church, the point still stands.

Except this was a public meeting. Discrimination based on race, religion or gender at public events is still illegal and antithemetic to any sort of message based on unity.

Except he wasn't saying that they had to move. They just had to take off their headscarfs.