Selective facts

I confess that I have been following all aspects of the Tariq Ramadan case perhaps a little too closely for the past few months, with the aid of Google Translate, of course — taking in the perspectives of both of the main camps in this highly polarised and politicised case.

The trouble with the bulk of onlookers in both camps (for and against) is that they only present the parts of the story that suit them. Anti-Muslim bigots paint one picture, Ramadan-supporters paint another. The same is true of many articles in the British Muslim online media.

For example, the website Islam21C reports on Mr Ramadan’s alleged alibi proving that he was in transit at the time of one of the alleged crimes, but they ignore the claim of the Union of Young Muslims who organised the conference that he was collected from the airport at 11.15am that day. And this is just one example, where some alleged facts are reported, whilst others are ignored.

Rather than report all of the known facts and allegations in an objective manner, all sides are taking highly selective, partisan stances, judging him either entirely guilty or entirely innocent. A more honest approach would be to report on the case without injecting our personal inclinations and prejudices. But that demands us detaching ourselves from the personalities involved, in pursuit of justice — a tall order for any of us.

Leave feedback

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s