Doxing, also known as doxxing, refers to the act of revealing identifying information about someone online, such as their real name, home address, workplace, phone number, financial details, and other personal information. This information is then circulated publicly without the victim’s consent. While the practice of revealing personal information predates the internet, the term “doxing” first emerged in the world of online hackers in the 1990s when anonymity was considered sacred. Feuds between rival hackers sometimes led to someone deciding to “drop docs” on somebody else who had previously only been known by a username or alias. Over time, “docs” became “dox,” and the term expanded beyond the hacker community to describe personal information exposure.
Doxing attacks can range from relatively trivial actions like fake email sign-ups or pizza deliveries to far more dangerous ones, such as harassing a person’s family or employer, identity theft, threats, cyberbullying, or even in-person harassment. Celebrities, politicians, journalists, company executives and people who hold a view different to the majority have all been targets of doxing. The motivations behind doxing vary; some people feel attacked or insulted by their target and seek revenge as a result.
It’s essential to recognise that doxing is harmful and unethical. Revealing someone’s private information without their consent can have severe consequences for the victim’s safety and well-being. As responsible internet users, we should respect privacy and avoid participating in or supporting such harmful practices..
Not everybody who has a dislike for Muslims or Islam is driven by hatred, but their feelings could have been influenced by various factors. Let’s explore this topic further.
Islamophobia refers to anti-Muslim hatred or ideologically driven prejudice. It has become a growing phenomenon in Western countries since the late 1990s. The term itself has been debated semantically, with some claiming it could encompass criticism of the religion of Islam alongside targeted hate against Muslims. However, proponents argue that anti-Muslim hatred has become racialised, affecting those perceived to be Muslim (such as Sikhs and migrants to Europe), necessitating broader terminology.
Negative media portrayals, labour discrimination, and targeted legislation are some non-violent manifestations of Islamophobia. However, more concerning are instances where Islamophobic attitudes are at the core of terrorist and violent extremist attacks. These incidents are often enabled by hate speech and recruitment to anti-Muslim extremist groups, particularly on the far right. Some high-profile violent incidents associated with Islamophobia include:
Christchurch, New Zealand (2019): Brenton Tarrant committed two consecutive terrorist attacks at Al Noor Mosque and Linwood Islamic Centre in Christchurch, killing 51 people and injuring 50 more. Tarrant’s manifesto expressed anti-Islamic and anti-immigration sentiments.
Bærum, Norway (2019): Philip Manshaus opened fire inside the Al-Noor Islamic Centre in Bærum before being subdued by others. He had praised the Christchurch shooter on social media.
Quebec City, Canada (2017): Alexandre Bissonnette killed six worshippers at the Islamic Cultural Centre of Quebec City. Bissonnette held far-right, white nationalist, and anti-Muslim views.
Finsbury Park, United Kingdom (2017): Darren Osbourne drove into a crowd of Muslims leaving a mosque after prayer, killing one.
While some argue for using the term “Islamophobia,” others prefer “Anti Muslim Hate.” The latter focuses more on countering the hate individuals experience without solely emphasizing “Muslimness.” It also includes hate directed towards other Muslims from within the Muslim community itself. The debate over terminology continues, but what remains clear is that addressing this issue requires understanding its complexity and working toward a more inclusive society.
The negative representations of Islam, fear of Muslims, security policies, and counterterrorism measures perpetuate discrimination, hostility, and violence toward Muslim individuals and communities. In such climates, Muslims often feel stigma and collective responsibility for the actions of a small minority. Discrimination can manifest in both public and private spheres, making it difficult for Muslims to freely practice their faith. Restrictions on religious expression, securitization of religious communities, socioeconomic exclusion, and stigmatization are pressing.
”Genuine concerns about Islamist Extremism/Terrorism”
Certainly! It’s important to approach this topic with nuance and sensitivity. While there are genuine concerns around Islamist extremism, it’s essential not to stigmatize an entire community or people voicing a concern based on the actions of a few. Let’s explore some aspects related to this issue:
Stigmatization and Responsibility:
A report by the UK government’s faith adviser, Colin Bloom, highlights that Muslims are being marginalized in various areas of British life.
Some politicians have stigmatized Muslims by making them feel responsible for Islamist terrorism.
Bloom emphasizes that Islamist extremism is repulsive to mainstream British Muslims, just as acts of violence by other extremists are to other religious communities.
However, he warns that if this situation persists, many British Muslims may struggle to feel fully accepted and integrated within society.
Threat Perception:
Public perception plays a role. A report by Hope not Hate found that over a third of people in the UK believe Islam is a threat to the British way of life.
Law enforcement agencies have foiled several plots, with a significant proportion related to Islamist extremism. In 2017-18, 44% of individuals referred to authorities were due to concerns related to Islamist extremism.
Diversification of Threats:
The threat landscape has evolved over the last decade. While Islamist terrorism remains a concern, there is also a rising threat from far-right extremists.
The UK faces twin threats: from Islamists (such as adherents of Islamic State) and from a more disparate extremist far right aiming to trigger a race war.
Let’s not forget about Anjem Choudary, the Muslim voice used by the media, that was always on the TV. Responsible for radicalising two generations of Muslims plus many people like myself in the past, And the reason that the English Defence League (EDL) was formed in 2009.
Anjem Choudary, a hate preacher and extremist, was finally caught for supporting ISIS after more than 20 years of spreading extremism in the UK. His case highlights the challenges faced by authorities in dealing with individuals who carefully skirt the boundaries of British terror legislation.
Choudary had managed to evade British terror laws by treading a careful line, arguing that he was merely exercising his freedom of speech over his interpretation of the Quran and Islam. He claimed he was not breaking the law by supporting any banned groups. However, everything changed after ISIS declared its “caliphate” in 2014, claiming to realize Choudary’s frequently-declared wish for a territory ruled by Sharia law.
In 2014, Choudary and his key supporters met at a curry restaurant in London. After discussing the move with his mentor, Omar Bakri Mohammed, who is currently in jail in Lebanon after being banned from the UK, Choudary and his followers formally pledged allegiance to ISIS and its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. This pledge was not publicly announced but was made through a series of tweets encouraging Muslims to move to an unspecified “caliphate.” The convicted Indonesian terrorist, Mohammed Fachry, was given permission by Choudary to publish his oath online.
The evidence needed for Choudary’s conviction came when he and his co-defendant, Mohammed Mizanur Rahman, encouraged backing for the so-called Islamic State in a series of talks posted on YouTube. They were both convicted of “inviting support” for a banned group in July following a trial at the Old Bailey.
Choudary’s extremist network had been linked to approximately 15 terror plots dating back approximately 20 years. His release from prison occurred after serving five and a half years for inviting support for the Islamic State group. Despite widespread bafflement about how he avoided jail for terrorism offenses, there is remarkable agreement across political and religious spectrums that Choudary played a pernicious role in funnelling people towards terrorism.
Where is Choudary currently, In prison on remand after recently appeared in court, facing charges related to the banned group Al-Muhajiroun. The 56-year-old Islamist is accused of directing this proscribed organization, as well as addressing meetings to encourage support for it.
Al-Muhajiroun was banned in the UK in 2010 for glorifying terrorism, but it has continued to operate under various names and guises. Choudary allegedly provided lectures to the Islamic Thinkers Society, which is essentially an offshoot of Al-Muhajiroun . The prosecution claims that Choudary spoke to weekly online small groups from June 2022 until his arrest, giving lectures on establishing an Islamic State in Britain and how to radicalize people.
Khaled Hussein, a Canadian national, was arrested at Heathrow Airport after arriving on a flight on the same day as Choudary’s arrest. Prosecutors allege that Hussein helped set up Al-Muhajiroun’s Canadian branch and was effectively working for Choudary. The trail continues on the 4th August.
The case highlights the ongoing efforts by authorities to combat extremist ideologies and activities within the UK.
In summary, it’s essential to differentiate between mainstream Muslims and extremist individuals
An opportunity for an ambitious and exciting new series for a major broadcaster which aims to explore the current topic of refugees and asylum seekers coming to the UK today.
They are keen to speak to people who have strong opinions on the Refugee and Asylum seeker situation in the UK (both for and against) who would like the chance to have their views heard on primetime television.
Hatred of the other, or xenophobia, is a form of prejudice that stems from fear, ignorance, or perceived threat. It can manifest in various ways, such as discrimination, violence, or exclusion. Hatred of the other can have negative consequences for both the victims and the perpetrators, as well as for the society as a whole.
One possible way to counteract hatred of the other, that I have learnt from my journey is to adopt a growth mindset. A growth mindset is a belief that one’s abilities and traits are not fixed, but can be developed through effort, learning, and feedback. A growth mindset encourages curiosity, openness, and empathy, which are essential for understanding and appreciating diversity.
A growth mindset can help combat hatred of the other in several ways:
– It can reduce the tendency to stereotype or judge people based on their group membership, such as race, religion, or nationality. Instead of seeing people as static and homogeneous, a growth mindset can help us see them as dynamic and unique individuals who have their own strengths, weaknesses, goals, and experiences.
– It can foster a sense of common humanity and connection with others who are different from us. Instead of focusing on the differences that separate us, a growth mindset can help us find the similarities that unite us. We can recognize that we all share basic needs, emotions, and aspirations, and that we all face challenges and struggles in life.
– It can promote constructive dialogue and cooperation with others who have different perspectives or opinions. Instead of avoiding or attacking those who disagree with us, a growth mindset can help us engage with them respectfully and constructively. We can learn from each other’s views, exchange feedback, and seek solutions that benefit everyone.
– It can enhance our personal growth and development. Instead of feeling threatened or insecure by others who are different from us, a growth mindset can help us embrace them as sources of inspiration and learning. We can expand our knowledge, skills, and horizons by exposing ourselves to new ideas, cultures, and experiences.
In conclusion, having a growth mindset can help us combat hatred of the other by fostering a more positive and inclusive attitude. A growth mindset can help us overcome fear and ignorance, and instead cultivate curiosity and empathy. By doing so, we can not only improve our own well-being and performance, but also contribute to a more peaceful and harmonious society.
I was invited on radio Cambridgeshire this afternoon on the Louise Hulland show, and was surprised when I got on the show that, my good friend Amir Suleman was standing in for Louise.
Please take a listen to hear a bit about my story from ‘Hater to Hated’ plus some of the work I do now and about how I met Amir on my journey of change.
The UK is facing a series of challenges that are fuelling discontent among workers, consumers and citizens. The cost of living crisis, the Covid-19 pandemic, the Brexit aftermath, the climate emergency and the social care crisis are some of the factors that are putting pressure on the economy, the public services and the political system.
In this blog post, I will explore what the discontent in the UK might look like in 2024, based on current trends and historical comparisons. I will also suggest some possible ways to address the discontent and restore trust and confidence in democracy.
The winter of discontent revisited?
Some commentators have drawn parallels between the current situation and the winter of discontent of 1978-79, when widespread strikes by public sector workers brought down the Labour government and paved the way for Margaret Thatcher’s election victory. The winter of discontent was triggered by high inflation, low wages, cuts to public spending and a breakdown of social dialogue between unions, employers and the government.
There are some similarities between then and now. Inflation has reached a 41-year high of 11.1% in October 2022, driven by soaring energy prices, supply chain disruptions and labour shortages. Wages have not kept up with inflation, especially for low-paid workers in sectors such as health, education, transport and hospitality. Public spending has been squeezed by years of austerity and the impact of Covid-19. And unions have become more militant and assertive, launching strikes and protests across various industries and services.
However, there are also important differences that make a direct comparison misleading. First, the level of union membership and influence is much lower today than it was in the late 1970s. Only about 23% of workers belong to a union, compared to more than 50% in 1979. And unions face more legal restrictions and public scrutiny than they did four decades ago. Second, the political landscape is more fragmented and polarised today than it was then. The Labour party is divided between its left-wing and centrist factions, while the Conservative party is split between its pro-Brexit and pro-business wings. The rise of nationalist parties in Scotland and Wales, as well as smaller parties such as the Greens and the Liberal Democrats, has also reduced the dominance of the two main parties. Third, the social and cultural context is more diverse and complex today than it was then. Issues such as immigration, identity, race, gender and sexuality have become more salient and contentious in recent years, creating new sources of conflict and solidarity among different groups.
Therefore, while there is a risk of a repeat of the winter of discontent in terms of industrial unrest and political instability, it is unlikely to be exactly the same or have the same consequences as it did in 1979.
The summer of discontent ahead?
A more plausible scenario is that the discontent in the UK will not be confined to a single season or sector, but will spread across different domains and dimensions over time. This could lead to what some have called a summer of discontent – not necessarily in terms of weather or calendar, but in terms of mood and intensity.
A summer of discontent could manifest itself in various ways, such as:
– A surge in consumer dissatisfaction and frustration over rising prices, shortages of goods and services, poor quality standards and lack of choice.
– A wave of social unrest and civil disobedience over issues such as climate change, inequality, racism, sexism and human rights.
– A decline in trust and confidence in public institutions and authorities over their handling of Covid-19, Brexit, social care and other policy challenges.
– A growth in populism and extremism among political parties and movements that exploit people’s grievances and offer simplistic solutions.
– A breakdown in social cohesion and solidarity among different communities and groups that feel alienated or threatened by each other.
These manifestations of discontent could interact with each other and create a vicious cycle of anger, resentment
Extremism is a complex phenomenon that cannot be reduced to a single cause, ideology or motivation. Extremists are not a homogeneous group of people who share the same beliefs, goals or methods. They are individuals who have diverse backgrounds, experiences and grievances that lead them to adopt radical views and actions.
However, many of the mainstream narratives and policies that address extremism tend to oversimplify and demonize extremists, portraying them as irrational, evil or brainwashed. This approach not only fails to understand the root causes and drivers of extremism, but also alienates and stigmatizes those who are involved or at risk of involvement in extremist movements.
A more nuanced and empathetic approach to extremism is needed, one that recognises the human dimension of extremism and seeks to understand the personal and social factors that influence people’s choices and behaviours. Such an approach does not condone or justify extremism, but rather acknowledges the complexity and diversity of human motivations and emotions.
An empathetic approach to extremism also implies a willingness to engage with extremists and their supporters, rather than isolate or exclude them. Engagement does not mean acceptance or agreement, but rather dialogue and communication. By listening to their perspectives and stories, we can gain a deeper insight into their worldview and needs, as well as identify potential points of common ground and cooperation.
Engagement also creates opportunities for prevention and intervention, by offering alternative narratives and pathways that can challenge or change extremist views and actions. By providing support, guidance and positive role models, we can help extremists and their supporters to disengage from violence and reintegrate into society.
The nuanced and empathetic approach to extremism is not a naive or soft approach. It is a realistic and effective approach that recognizes the complexity and humanity of extremism, and seeks to address it in a holistic and constructive way.
In the age of social media, we are constantly exposed to the opinions and preferences of others. We can easily see how many people like, love, or react to a post, a comment, or a message. But what about the opposite? What about the people who don’t like something, or who disagree with it, or who find it offensive or annoying? Where is the option to express that?
The word ‘dislike’ seems to have disappeared from our online vocabulary. It is rarely used as a verb, and even less as a noun. Instead, we have more euphemistic ways of showing our displeasure, such as ‘unfollow’, ‘mute’, ‘block’, or ‘report’. Or we resort to more aggressive forms of criticism, such as ‘troll’, ‘hate’, ‘cancel’, or ‘roast’. There seems to be no middle ground between indifference and hostility.
Why is this the case? Why are we afraid to say that we dislike something or someone? Is it because we fear the backlash of others who might disagree with us? Is it because we want to avoid conflict and maintain a positive image? Is it because we don’t want to hurt the feelings of the person or entity behind the content? Or is it because we have lost the ability to articulate our reasons for disliking something in a respectful and constructive way?
Whatever the reason, I think we need to reclaim the word ‘dislike’. It is a perfectly valid and useful expression of our personal taste and judgment. It does not mean that we are hateful, intolerant, or ignorant. It does not mean that we are trying to impose our views on others or that we are rejecting their views. It simply means that we have a different perspective, preference, or experience.
Disliking something does not have to be a negative or destructive act. It can be an opportunity to learn more about ourselves and others, to explore different viewpoints and arguments, to challenge our assumptions and biases, and to grow as individuals and as a society. Disliking something can also help us appreciate what we do like more, and to express our gratitude and admiration for it.
So let’s not be afraid to use the word ‘dislike’. Let’s not shy away from expressing our honest opinions and feelings. Let’s not censor ourselves or others for having different tastes and perspectives. Let’s respect each other’s right to dislike something, and let’s try to understand why they do. Let’s use the word ‘dislike’ as a tool for dialogue, not for division.
In a world of growing discontent, one word is used more than most and that is the word hate. Hate is a strong and negative emotion that can lead to violence, discrimination, and intolerance. But what does it really mean to hate someone or something? And why do we use this word so casually and frequently? In this blog post, I will explore the meaning and origin of the word hate, the psychological and social factors that contribute to hate, and the possible ways to reduce hate and promote understanding and respect.
The word hate comes from the Old English word hatian, which means “to regard with extreme ill-will, have a passionate aversion to, treat as an enemy”. The word has been used in various contexts and languages throughout history, such as the Latin word odium, which means “hatred, spite, offense”, the Greek word miseo, which means “to hate, abhor, detest”, and the Hebrew word sane, which means “to hate, be hostile”. Hate is often associated with other negative emotions, such as anger, fear, envy, jealousy, and contempt. Hate can also be influenced by cognitive biases, such as stereotyping, prejudice, scapegoating, and dehumanization. Hate can motivate people to harm or exclude others who are perceived as different or threatening.
However, hate is not a fixed or innate trait that we are born with. Hate is a learned and dynamic emotion that can change over time and circumstances. Hate can also be unlearned and replaced with more positive emotions, such as empathy, compassion, and love. Some of the possible ways to reduce hate and increase understanding and respect are:
Educating ourselves and others about the diversity and complexity of human beings and cultures.
Challenging our own assumptions and biases and seeking out different perspectives and experiences.
Communicating respectfully and constructively with others who have different opinions or beliefs.
Developing emotional intelligence and self-awareness and managing our own emotions effectively.
Practicing kindness and generosity and helping others in need.
Seeking common ground and shared values with others and building trust and cooperation.
In conclusion, hate is a powerful and harmful emotion that can cause a lot of damage to ourselves and others. But we can also choose to overcome hate and cultivate more positive emotions that can enrich our lives and relationships. Instead of using the word hate so lightly and frequently, we can use more nuanced and accurate words that reflect our true feelings and intentions. And instead of saying “I hate you” or “I hate this”, we can say “I dislike you” or “I dislike this” or better yet, “I disagree with you” or “I prefer something else”. By doing so, we can reduce the intensity and negativity of our emotions and open up more possibilities for dialogue and understanding.
The rise of far right movements and parties across the world poses a serious threat to democracy, human rights, and social justice. Far right rhetoric often relies on spreading a mixture of peoples genuine concerns with misinformation, fear, and hatred, while scapegoating vulnerable groups such as immigrants, refugees, minorities, and LGBTQ+ people. How can we counter this dangerous trend and promote a more inclusive, tolerant, and progressive society?
One way to challenge the far right rhetoric is to engage and expose its lies and contradictions. We can use reliable sources of information, such as academic research, independent media, and fact-checking organizations, to debunk the myths and propaganda that the far right uses to manipulate public opinion. We can also use social media platforms, online forums, and personal networks to share accurate and evidence-based information with our friends, family, and community.
Another way to challenge the far right rhetoric is to engage in constructive dialogue with those who are influenced by it. We can try to understand their concerns and grievances, and offer alternative perspectives and solutions that are based on facts, reason, and empathy. We can also try to find common ground and values that we share with them, such as respect for human dignity, freedom of expression, and social responsibility. We can avoid name-calling, insults, and personal attacks, as they only fuel hostility and polarization.
A third way to challenge the far right rhetoric is to support and amplify the voices of those who are marginalized and oppressed by it. We can join forces with civil society organizations, social movements, and activist groups that advocate for the rights and interests of the groups that the far right targets. We can also participate in campaigns, protests, and events that celebrate diversity, solidarity, and democracy. We can show our support by donating, volunteering, or simply spreading the word.
These are some of the ways that I think, From what I have learnt from my journey and the many people I speak too. We can challenge the far right rhetoric and create a more positive and peaceful world. It is not an easy task, but it is a necessary one. We cannot afford to be silent or passive in the face of hatred, intolerance and the ever growing discontent. We have to stand up for what we believe in and defend our common humanity.
