Mediaboss Marketing

The row over border checks is, however, about more than a quick flash of a passport. The response to the migrant crisis has been for governments to reassert their position at a nation-state level, thereby enfeebling the EU rather than strengthening it. It provides a marked contrast with the Eurozone crisis, which highlighted significant weaknesses with the EUs system of economic and monetary union. Back then, the states pulled together to deal with the problem (largely at Greeces expense, of course), introducing the European Stability Mechanism and instigating a banking union. What didnt kill the EU, made it stronger.

In comparison, governments have been willing to jettison Schengen and with it the fundamental EU principle of free movement, for national reasons. It turns out sovereignty matters in countries other than the UK, after all. The migrant crisis could have provided the impetus for member states to seek out ever closer ties, but instead they have ridden roughshod over what was meant to be a core value of EU integration. Little wonder that federalists are so concerned: in 2018, the President of the European Parliament wrote that the situation threatens to destroy the EU.

2020 was supposed to be the year when the Schengen crisis came to an end, with the EU hoping that the border checks would at last be removed. But now we have coronavirus. For France, Germany and the others, this would seem like a dangerous time to belatedly allow people to move without checks. In numerous other states that have continued to adhere to the Schengen rules even in the midst of the migrant crisis, border controls may be introduced for the first time in decades.

The rest is here:
The coronavirus outbreak shows the real limits of a borderless EU - Telegraph.co.uk

We live in a world of displaced populations. Nearly one out of seven people alive today is a migrant. Over a quarter of a billion are classed as international migrants, while over three-quarters of a billion are migrants within the borders of their own countries. Worldwide, by mid-2019, there were over 70 million refugees people who have been forced by war, persecution and environmental crisis to leave their homes. A vast majority of these refugees are from Muslim nations, including Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Myanmar, Bangladesh and Yemen. Contrary to perceptions that these Muslim migrants are flooding the West, the biggest recipients of refugees are also Muslim nations like Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Afghanistan and Pakistan. While global migration is primarily motivated by economic reasons and may also be an indicator of the global economy's success, refugee data represents only tragedy and it is clear that the Muslim world bears more than its fair share of that.

This fact, combined with the teachings of Islam, both mandate that Muslims should be especially active in addressing the global refugee crisis. Facing the challenge is not a question of Sadaqa or charity aid alone. It includes mobilization and activism against war, the promotion of peacebuilding, restoration, taking care of victims, ensuring the protection and return of refugees, and rehabilitation of devasted cities and villages across nations. We need to end existing conflicts, prevent those which are imminent and then rebuild nations so people can go back to their homes. Yes, the challenges are numerous and Muslims, a community of 55 nations and nearly 2 billion people, must at least do their fair share.

It is common knowledge among Muslims that Islam is a religion of refugees and migrants. Indeed, the Islamic calendar starts not with the first revelation of the Quran in A.D. 61, but with the migration of the Prophet Muhammad and his companions from Mecca to Medina in A.D. 622. The Prophet Muhammad and his companions are erroneously labeled as migrants in Islamic literature, although in truth they were refugees forced to flee after a decade of religious persecution in Mecca. Given the historical origins of the first Muslim community, it is surprising that Muslims have not made the care, protection and advocacy of refugees a pillar of their faith.

Maybe it is time for American Muslims to reinforce the fact that Muslims do not engage in religious persecution akin to what the prophet suffered; nor will they stand by while there is religious persecution anywhere on Earth. We, as American Muslims, should be the first to come to the aid of refugees forced to leave their homes like Muhammad and his companions.

The story of the Prophet Muhammads migration has another side that is often neglected: The story of the Ansar (or "Helpers") the people of Medina who received and accepted the refugees from Mecca. While the story of the migrants ("Mahajirs") is a tale of faith, persecution and suffering, the story of the Medinans (the Ansar) is one of sacrifice, giving, tolerance and openness. While the people of Mecca had no choice but to migrate, the those in Medina chose to provide refuge. In my latest book, "Islam and Good Governance: A Political Philosophy of Ihsan," I argue that a society based on the concept of "Ihsan" (doing beautiful things) would be motivated not by self-regarding politics but by other-regarding interests. The Muhsins ("those who perform Ihsan") will act not in self-interest but in the interests of others like the Ansar of Medina. Nothing can be more virtuous than what the Ansar did. The Quran records their concern for others:

"They love those who emigrated to them and find not any want in their breasts for what the emigrants were given but give (them) preference over themselves, even though they are in privation," Quran verse 59:9.

The Quran places a lot of importance on the plight of migrants and refugees, making them eligible for zakat (deserving of distribution). It also commands Muslims to provide protection for refugees even if they are nonbelievers.

And if any disbeliever seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah. Then deliver him to his place of safety, Quran verse 9:6.

The Prophet Muhammad, who was himself a migrant/refugee, understood their plight firsthand and so he too commanded Muslims to help those in need.

Whoever grants respite to someone in difficulty or relieves him, Allah will shade him on the Day of Resurrection when there is no shade but his, says Al-Tirmidhi 1306.

Some American Muslims, 68% of whom are immigrants and refugees, have a unique opportunity to be both Mahajir and Ansar. We came here as immigrants seeking a better life, and now that we have found our American dream, it is our time to be Ansar; to advocate, to fight for and to support those who are forced to leave their homes. Fighting for those who are in need is the best sunnah, a true way of bringing Ihsan into our lives.

Allah loves the Muhsineen ('those who do good')," Quran verse 2:295.

* Professor at the University of Delaware and a senior fellow at the Center for Global Policy

View original post here:
Goodness in the age of displacement - Daily Sabah

If you want to understand the populist medias underlying agenda then you have to look not only at what gets published, but what doesnt.

Remember the great peril that threatened to bring Britain to its knees, consigning our history and culture to the dustbin of history? What, youve forgotten already?

Im talking about immigration. It was the press phenomenon of the age 10 years ago, and for at least the following six years right up to the EU referendum. Since then, however, immigration has all but disappeared from newspaper pages.

References to migrants, asylum seekers and refugees have almost vanished along with the associated prejudicial buzzwords and phrases, such as swamping, influx, surge, illegal, bogus, sham, jungle, welfare scroungers, benefit tourists.

Remember those dehumanising, derogatory metaphors such as parasites, leeches and cockroaches? Gone at least for the moment.

We were told the UK was full up and there was no room for anyone else. Images of the worlds poor on the verge of invading Britain were painted in numerous articles. Immigration was, supposedly, a crisis of unimaginable proportions.

The daily newspaper diet of large anti-migrant headlines, accompanied by xenophobic columnists retailing thinly veiled racist rhetoric, was so common it became a clich for us critics to complain about it. Yet as much as we railed against it, editors redoubled their efforts, ignoring rational arguments that exposed their distorted agenda.

Britain was not alone in dealing with the arrival of migrants and refugees. It was happening in every European country, but in 2015 researchers from Cardiff Universitys journalism school found that British press coverage was strikingly more polarised and aggressive than in newspapers across the rest of Europe.

In 2016, a disturbing analysis revealed that the Daily Express had carried 179 front pages in five years devoted to anti-migrant stories, while the Daily Mail had published 122. Through repetition, disinformation, misinformation warnings of hordes to come from various war-torn or impoverished countries and the omission of any positive material, papers incited fears of immigrants. Migrants, readers were told, were being treated to more homes, more jobs and more generous benefits than the indigenous population.

It is painful, but necessary, to remind ourselves of just some of the 301 Express-Mail propaganda pages: Illegal migrants flood in, Migrant chaos all summer, Asylum seekers ferried around in stretch limo, Migrants rob young Britons of jobs, 500,000 migrants get social housing, Britains 40% surge in ethnic numbers.

A Daily Mail headline from October 2014, You cant ignore migration now, which was based on a single Ukip election victory.

Yet, in 2020, newspapers are, indeed, ignoring migration. Admittedly, the Daily Express is under more responsible ownership (the Daily Mirrors publisher, Reach) while the Daily Mail is edited by a man (Geordie Greig) who no longer feels it appropriate to provoke the bigotry of a chauvinist readership.

But those factors alone, while they should be applauded, do not account for the muted coverage of immigration over the past year or so. Nor am I naive enough to think it couldnt kick off all over again, because its there in the background.

Yet the undeniable truth, the sad, sick, unvarnished truth, is that migration is off the medias central agenda for two reasons. Firstly, it is no longer a political issue. With the pro-Brexit vote having been achieved, there is no need to keep on injecting the same poison into public debate. Job done.

Secondly, seen from the newspaper editors perspective, it is not a sales-winning topic at present. No need to play to the gallery. There is no value in running anti-immigrant stories.

Given that news is what editors say it is at any given moment, then they believe it amounts to yesterdays news.

In fact, it never was news. It was a wholly media-manufactured crisis. Facts, such as those detailed in a BBC briefing about immigration last week, were ignored in favour of appealing to public prejudice.

I am not doubting this prejudice exists, but it is the result of a failure by postwar governments, along with a reactionary press, to explain why Britain needed immigration and why a multicultural society should be embraced.

Instead, editors preferred to accentuate the negative. They readily published anecdotal evidence of individual misbehaviour as if it was a universal problem created by immigration. Then there were the dodgy figures, as if plucked from mid-air, that suggested Britain was about to be overrun.

Now, to get a grip on just how influential media coverage has been, note recent fascinating findings from YouGov. In its poll weeks before the referendum, when anti-migrant press coverage was at its zenith, 56% thought immigration and asylum were the most important issues facing Britain. Weeks later, soon after the vote, that was down to 46%.

By the following year, with the press already beginning to tail off its migration coverage, the number had fallen to 35%. Much more telling is the most recent set of findings.

Of the 24 polls in 2019, the average number of people who believed immigration was the key issue was 23%, with the latest total standing at just 20%.

In other words, the downplaying of immigration in newspapers has been mirrored by the publics attitude towards the subject. Lack of coverage equals lack of interest. Where is that crisis of 2016 in 2020? It does not exist because it never did exist.

It may be, given their terminal decline, that newspapers are never able to mount such a campaign again.

So what? They have already done their worst by encouraging and exploiting deep divisions in society while splitting us off from Europe. Now that really is a crisis.

Continued here:
Migrants are off the agenda for the UK press, but the damage is done - The Guardian

Frances Deputy Interior Minister Mr Laurent Nunez announced on Monday that his country will host 400 migrants in Greece requesting asylum, with priority given to families and other vulnerable individuals.

Nunez made the announcement following his meet with Greeces Alternate Minister of Migration and Asylum George Koumoutsakos, in which the French agreed to collaborate on six measures to help out with the migrant/refugee issue.

The French Minister also said that his country will also send 24 specialists on asylum, with options of increasing their number and extending their tour of duty in Greece to three or four instead of the current two. The number of French officials aiding EUs Frontex guarding agency will rise from the current 176 to 200.

Issues under discussion included collaboration on merging flights of individuals being returned from France and Greece to their countries of origin after their asylum applications have been rejected, the option of having the French embassy in Greece issue the return permits (laissez-passer), and the possibility of adding a third French official at Greek airports as a link for secondary transfers within the EU.

Nunez said the measures belong to a framework of close and trusting collaboration between two countries, and described his visit as related to the solidarity France is obliged to express. The increase of migration flows since summer 2019 he said calls for a stronger presence, especially when an EU member state finds itself in difficulty.

Koumoutsakos spoke of the need for a vigorous EU policy for asylum and migration and said that Europe urgently needs a policy that can address new factors. Both Greece and France, the minister said, believed that there should be an operational and effective balance between the principle of responsibility and that of solidarity.

He also called on Turkey to collaborate more on the EU-Turkey Joint Statement on the return of migrants, and called its repeated statements and threats that at some point it may open the migration doors to Europe as particularly unproductive. Such statements help nobody, neither Turkey nor Europe nor anyone in the region, he added.

This article was researched and written by a GCT team member.

Here is the original post:
France to help Greece with migrant crisis - Greek City Times

For years, Jaromir Balda lived a mostly quiet life in the northern Czech Republic. But fueled by news reports and politicians spouting anti-immigrant diatribes on television, the 72-year-old developed outspoken political views. Balda began supporting the far-right Freedom and Direct Democracy Movement, and neighbors saw him drive around with a poster of an anti-immigrant politician in his car window.

Things got worse. Twice in the summer of 2017, Balda felled trees across a railway line near Prague. He left notes reading Allahu Akbar God is great in Arabic in a bungled attempt to blame Muslim immigrants. Both times trains plowed into the trees, though no one was hurt. Last year, he was sentenced to four years in jail, the first Czech person to be convicted on terrorism charges.

The Czech Republic and Slovakia were a single country for three-quarters of a century, 46 years of that locked together behind the Iron Curtain. Their languages, traditions and histories are closely intertwined. But when it comes to attitudes toward Muslims, Czechs and Slovaks take a very different view.

The Czech Republic is the least friendly country in Europe for Muslims, while Slovakia is nearly the friendliest in Eastern Europe.

A Pew Research poll conducted across 34 European countries between 2015 and 2017, at the height of Europes migrant crisis, found that just 12 percent of Czechs say theyd accept Muslims as members of their families. That and other surveys suggest that Czechs are far more hostile to Muslims than any other country in Europe. Of the 1,497 Slovaks surveyed, however, 47 percent said theyd willingly accept a Muslim as a family member. Of all participating post-Soviet states, only Croatia returned a higher acceptance rate.

In the 27 years since the two states split from their previous combined existence as Czechoslovakia, one has become far more tolerant than the other.

Czech Republic, or Czechia as its now officially known, has a small community of 11,000 well-integrated Muslims 0.1 percent of the population. Just three mosques are open in the country, but Islamophobia is still rampant. The Czech government has refused to accept refugees, many of whom are Muslim, in the fallout of the 2015 migrant crisis.

Some academics have suggested the Czech opposition to Muslims is anchored to the countrys long history of invasion by larger, outside powers that kicked off in the early 17th century and continued for three hundred years under the Habsburgs.

The subjection continued until the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire at the end of World War I. Thereafter, the First Czechoslovak Republic was formed, and for more than two decades enjoyed a precarious peace. With the rise of Nazi Germany in the 1930s, Czechs again faced outside threats, forced to cede territory to Germany in 1938 at the behest of European leaders and later occupied by the Nazis. With images of hundreds of thousands of immigrants walking into Europe dominating the media in 2015 and 2016, many on the countrys far-right linked the crisis to previous incursions on Czech territory.

It was unscrupulously whipped up by commercial media, says the University of Glasgows Jan ulk of the anti-migrant sentiment. The media have given wide coverage to Islamist attacks in Western Europe, but almost no coverage to extreme right-wing attacks against refugees.

Slovaks, for their part, dont seem to be as easily wound up.Though it hasnt escaped the overwhelmingly anti-immigrant rhetoric thats dominated political discussions in recent years, Slovakia has accepted some refugees and in 2018 claimed it would house Iraqi Christian asylum seekers and a small number of Syrian orphans (though that, say observers, has yet to happen). Slovakia has also helped its neighbor Austria temporarily house refugees during processing periods.

The mainstream media used to report on Muslim-related issues in a very simplifying and often biased manner, says Mohamad Safwan Hasna, president of the Islamic Foundation in Slovakia. But I must say that this has greatly improved in recent years and during the so-called migration crisis they were actually somewhat fair. Since then the main source of anti-Muslim sentiment are politicians and fake news outlets.

While Slovaks, like Czechs, suffered foreign rule for centuries, they havent had to live under the same perceived historical threat posed by Germany and appear to be more outward-looking. Slovakia joined the Euro currency in 2009 (the Czech Republic has not) and in recent years liberal, pro-human rights politicians have come to the fore.

The difference in attitudes in Czech Republic and Slovakia is that Slovakia now has a liberal-minded president, Zuzana aputov, who openly espouses human rights, says ulk. The Czech Republic, on the other hand, has President Milo Zeman, a populist, who has been whipping up hatred against Muslims and who has repeatedly said that Islam is a criminal ideology.

While Slovakia may be more accepting of Muslims and immigrants than its neighbors, its by no means a sanctuary. Islam is banned from being taught in schools and there isnt a single mosque in the whole country to serve Slovakias 5,000 Muslims. Yes, it is much better compared to [the] Czech Republic, says Hasna of the Pew Research findings, but it is still a horrible result.

In fact, experts say Slovakia has many more extremist parties than its northern neighbor. Ex-Prime Minister Robert Fico averred in 2016 that Islam has no place in this country.But Fico who was charged last month for his racist comments against the countrys Roma minority is no longer commanding the spotlight as in the past. That could be a hopeful sign for Slovakias Muslims.

Follow this link:
What Divides Czechs and Slovaks on Muslims? - OZY