Mamdani's NYC primary win sparks surge in anti-Muslim posts, advocates say
WASHINGTON, June 27 (Reuters) - Anti-Muslim online posts targeting New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani have surged since his Democratic primary upset this week, including death threats and comments comparing his candidacy to the September 11, 2001 attacks, advocates said on Friday.
There were at least 127 violent hate-related reports mentioning Mamdani or his campaign in the day after polls closed, said CAIR Action, an arm of the Council on American Islamic Relations advocacy group, which logs such incidents.
That marks a five-fold increase over a daily average of such reports tracked earlier this month, CAIR Action said in a statement.
Overall, it noted about 6,200 online posts that mentioned some form of Islamophobic slur or hostility in that day long time-frame.
Mamdani, a self-described democratic socialist and a 33-year-old state lawmaker, declared victory in Tuesday's primary after former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo conceded defeat.
Born in Uganda to Indian parents, Mamdani would be the city's first Muslim and Indian American mayor if he wins the November general election.
"We call on public officials of every party - including those whose allies are amplifying these smears - to unequivocally condemn Islamophobia," said Basim Elkarra, executive director of CAIR Action.
The advocacy group said its hate monitoring system includes its own scraping and analysis of posts, online submissions by the public and notifications from law enforcement. About 62% of the anti-Muslim posts against Mamdani originated on X, CAIR Action said.
People close to Republican President Donald Trump, including one of his sons, are among those spreading anti-Muslim rhetoric, advocates said.
Donald Trump Jr, the president's son, wrote on X on Wednesday that "New York City has fallen" while sharing a post that said New Yorkers had "voted for" 9/11. Also on Wednesday, Republican U.S. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene posted an AI-generated picture of the Statue of Liberty draped in a burqa.
President Trump has pursued domestic policies that rights advocates have described as anti-Muslim, including banning travel from some predominantly Muslim or Arab countries in his first term and attempting to deport pro-Palestinian students in his current term.
The White House, which did not respond to a request for comment, has denied claims of discrimination against Muslims. Trump and his allies have said they oppose Mamdani and others due to what they call the Democrats' "radical left" ideology.
The New York City Police Department said earlier this month its hate crime unit was probing anti-Muslim threats against Mamdani.
Manjusha Kulkarni, co-founder of Stop AAPI Hate, which documents hate against Asian Americans, and CAIR said attacks against Mamdani mirrored those endured by other South Asian and Muslim political figures, including former Vice President Kamala Harris and Representatives Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib.
Republicans have called Mamdani antisemitic, citing his pro-Palestinian advocacy and his criticism of Israel's military assault on Gaza after an attack by Hamas militants in October 2023.
Mamdani has condemned antisemitism and has the backing of New York City Comptroller Brad Lander, who is Jewish. Lander also ran in the Democratic primary.
Rights advocates have noted rising antisemitism and Islamophobia since the start of the Israel-Gaza war, with fatal U.S. incidents including the shooting of two Israeli embassy staff in Washington and the stabbing of a Muslim child in Illinois.
Mamdani and other Pro-Palestinian advocates, including some Jewish groups, said their criticism of Israel is wrongly conflated with antisemitism.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
23 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The real Starmer has this week revealed himself: a Corbynista in a Blairite suit
It's the spinelessness of it all that gets me. We knew Keir Starmer was weak. We knew it when he recorded a leadership pitch in 2020 that could have been directed by Ken Loach – only to emerge as some sort of budget Tony Blair impersonator in office. Deep down, we knew what we were getting; no one could have seriously believed the Prime Minister, a self-professed socialist who served so willingly under Jeremy Corbyn wouldn't do exactly this to the country. But did we think the capitulation would happen this quickly and under so little pressure? After 14 years of Conservative calamity, which left a trail of broken promises in its wake, people could have been forgiven for hoping this self-styled beacon of 'stability and moderation' would at least try to fulfil his pledge of a 'government unburdened by doctrine, guided only by a determination to serve your interests'. When he called, on the steps of Downing Street, for a 'return of politics to public service,' and vowed to 'tread more lightly on your lives', things were that bad that voters gave him the benefit of the doubt. After the horror of Covid, the cost of living crisis, the embarrassment of Liz Truss's premiership, and record numbers of illegal immigrants arriving here by boat, they thought to themselves: well, it can't get any worse. 'Country first, party second,' Starmer vowed and people thought, maybe, just maybe, this respectable lawyer would put the needs of the electorate first. But no. Instead we have ended up with something far worse than the Tories could ever muster. In Starmer, we have not just ended up with a Butlin's Blair but a cut-price Compo; a coward leading a craven cabinet. Until now, I thought lily-livered Labour was best summed up by Starmer's complete inability to say whether he supported the US air strikes on Iran's nuclear sites. Kemi Badenoch was unequivocal in her support of Donald Trump's attempts to ensure we can no longer be nuked by murderous mullahs hellbent on wiping Israel from the map along with any of her allies. So was Nigel Farage. It shouldn't be a difficult question for any politician with the faintest concern for the preservation of western civilization. Still, handwringing Starmer struggled, calling for more negotiation with a regime that once described America as the Great Satan, murders women for removing their hijabs, throws gays off buildings and funds terrorist Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis to kill Jews (and anyone else in their path). So far, so invertebrate, and then, on Friday, Starmer took another step down the yellow brick road by giving an interview to the Left-leaning Observer, in which he expressed ' deep regret' for saying that Britain risked becoming an 'island of strangers ' because of mass migration. Insisting it 'wasn't right' to use 'that particular phrase' in a speech last month, despite No 10 previously insisting that he stood by his words, he said neither he nor his speechwriters had been aware that the remarks could have been interpreted as an echo of the language of Enoch Powell. 'I wouldn't have used those words if I had known they were, or even would be interpreted as, an echo of Powell. I had no idea – and my speechwriters didn't know either. 'But that particular phrase – no, it wasn't right. I'll give you the honest truth – I deeply regret using it.' Have you ever heard such weapons-grade gaslighting? If it wasn't gutless enough to be backtracking on the speech, to then suggest that no one in No 10 considered that it might be a bit Rivers of Bloodish is an insult to anyone with even the most rudimentary understanding of British politics. To make matters worse, Never Here Keir then went on to whine that he 'wasn't in the best state to make a big speech' because he'd just come back from a three-day trip to Ukraine. Boo hoo. Try being Volodymyr Zelenskyy for a week, you big sissy. Good grief. The mea culpa came less than 24 hours after he agreed to water down his controversial welfare reforms to stave off a massive rebellion. On Wednesday, covering for lesser spotted Starmer at PMQs, Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner insisted that the Government would not back down on its proposals to cut nearly £5 billion from the welfare bill by limiting access to disability payments. It took less than two days for Sir Keir to cave in, offering compromises that will wipe out at least a third of the savings the Chancellor had banked on making through welfare reform. After the similarly feeble U-turn on the winter fuel allowance cuts, tax rises now look like a certainty come the autumn Budget. So not only is the benefits bill going to continue to rise, working people are once again going to have to pay the price thanks to the inadequacy of our current administration. Almost a third of all income tax revenue and National Insurance contributions are being spent servicing the nation's total welfare budget which has ballooned by £86 billion compared to a decade ago, totalling £296 billion in 2023-24, the last year for available data. But instead of tackling this behemoth on behalf of a nearly bankrupt nation, Starmer has opted to save his own skin. It's not just spineless, it's shameful. We used to believe Britain under Blair was a Left-wing country. But how foolish that seems now, under his successor. Margaret Thatcher had created the conditions for people to work, to save, and to own their homes. People still believed in a 'hand up' and not a 'hand out'. Look at us now, once again expecting the state to solve all our problems. Aspiration, entrepreneurialism, good old fashioned graft; all these courageous qualities have been quashed by pusillanimous, progressive politicians living in a fantasyland where there are no trade-offs, just ever more government spending funded by soaking 'the rich''. And the worst of them all is socialist Starmer – a man with so little backbone he can't even stand up to his own MPs.
Telegraph
24 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Children can skip classes with LGBT books, Supreme Court rules
Parents can take their children out of school if they are reading books with gay characters in them, the Supreme Court has ruled. Christian and Muslim parents in Maryland sued to keep their elementary school children out of certain lessons when storybooks with LGBT+ characters were read, claiming it violated their constitutional rights. At the same time, the Supreme Court also ruled to block judges from thwarting Donald Trump's move to ban birthright citizenship, the 14th amendment, which makes people born on US soil automatically American regardless of parentage. The LGBT+ ruling overturned a lower court's refusal to force public schools in Montgomery County to allow some children to opt out of the classes if desired. The lower court had rejected the argument made by a group of parents who sued the school district, claiming it violated the Constitution's First Amendment protections for the free exercise of religion. The court's conservative justices were in the majority and its liberal justices dissented from the ruling. The plaintiffs in the LGBT+ case - who are Muslim, Roman Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox - said in their lawsuit that the storybooks 'promote one-sided transgender ideology, encourage gender transitioning and focus excessively on romantic infatuation - with no parental notification or opportunity to opt out.' Montgomery County said it ended the opt-outs in 2023 when the mounting number of requests to excuse students from these classes became logistically unworkable and raised concerns of 'social stigma and isolation' among students who believe the books represent them and their families. Opt-outs are still allowed by the district for sex education units of health classes. Meanwhile, the birthright citizenship ruling authored by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, prevents other judges in the court circuit from blocking Mr Trump's legislation. On the first day of his second term, Mr Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to refuse to recognise the citizenship of children born in the US who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident. More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually under the directive, according to the plaintiffs who challenged it, including the Democratic attorneys general of 22 states as well as immigrant rights advocates and pregnant immigrants. It did not put the birthright citizenship order into effect or address the legality of ending birthright citizenship. Significantly, the ruling could apply to all attempts by federal judges to block any executive orders from Mr Trump, not just birthright citizenship. The Supreme Court case argued federal judges should not be able to issue nationwide, or 'universal,' injunctions, in theory paving the way to allow widespread enforcement of Mr Trump's agenda with minimal legal pushback. A 1898 US Supreme Court ruling in a case called United States v Wong Kim Ark set precedent for guaranteeing that children born in the US to non-citizen parents are entitled to American citizenship. The Trump administration has argued that the court's ruling in that case was narrower, applying to children whose parents had a 'permanent domicile and residence in the US.' Following Friday's ruling, Mr Trump claimed a victory. He wrote in a Truth Social post: 'GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court! 'Even the birthright citizenship hoax has been, indirectly, hit hard. It had to do with the babies of slaves (same year!), not the SCAMMING of our immigration process. 'Congratulations to attorney general Pam Bondi, solicitor general John Sauer, and the entire DOJ.' Mr Trump has previously argued that the 14th amendment was passed in the wake of the Civil War and was meant to protect 'babies of slaves' rather than children of illegal migrants. 'Birthright citizenship was not meant for people taking vacations to become permanent citizens of the United States of America, and bringing their families with them, all the time laughing at the 'suckers' that we are... It had to do with Civil War results, and the babies of slaves who our politicians felt, correctly, needed protection,' he said in a Truth Social post last month.
The Guardian
26 minutes ago
- The Guardian
US attacks on Iran redraw calculus of use of force for allies and rivals around globe
For US allies and rivals around the world, Donald Trump's strikes on Iran have redrawn the calculus of the White House's readiness to use force in the kind of direct interventions that the president said he would make a thing of the past under his isolationist 'America First' foreign policy. From Russia and China to Europe and across the global south, the president's decision to launch the largest strategic bombing strike in US history indicates a White House that is ready to employ force abroad – but reluctantly and under the extremely temperamental and unpredictable leadership of the president. 'Trump being able to act and being willing to act when he saw an opportunity will definitely give [Vladimir] Putin pause,' said Fiona Hill, a former Trump national security adviser and one of the principal authors of the UK's strategic defence review. While Trump has pulled back from his earlier warnings about potential regime in Iran, going from tweeting 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER' to 'NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!' within 72 hours, he has nonetheless reinforced Russian perceptions of the United States as an unpredictable and aggressive rival that will not unilaterally abandon its ability to use force abroad. 'It has some pretty dire warnings for Putin himself about what could happen at a time of weakness,' Hill said. 'It will just convince Putin even more that no matter what the intent of a US president, the capability to destroy is something that has to be taken seriously.' It also shows a shift in the calculus in Washington DC, where hawks – along with Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu – were able to convince Trump that launching a strike on Iran was preferable to pursuing negotiations that had not yet failed. That could have knock-on effects for the war in Ukraine, where Republicans and foreign policy hardliners have grown more vocal about Putin's attacks on cities and the need for a tougher sanctions strategy. Although he hasn't changed his policy on resuming military support to Ukraine, Trump has is publicly more exasperated with Putin. When Putin offered Trump to mediate between Israel and Iran, Trump said he responded: 'No, I don't need help with Iran. I need help with you.' In the immediate term, however, the strikes on Iran are unlikely to have an impact on Russia's war in Ukraine. 'I don't see it as having a big impact on the Ukraine war, because although Iran was very helpful at the beginning stages in providing Russia with [Shahed] drones, Russia has now started manufacturing their own version and have actually souped them up,' said Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, during a roundtable discussion. More broadly, Trump's attacks could undermine a growing 'axis of resistance' including Russia and China, given the pair's reluctance to come to Iran's aid beyond issuing strong condemnations of the attacks during security discussions under the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) being held in China this week. 'It also shows that Russia is not a very valuable friend, because they're not really lifting a finger to help their allies in Iran and returning all the help that they've received,' Boot added. The strike could also have implications for China, which has escalated military pressure around Taiwan in recent months and has been holding 'dress rehearsals' for a forced reunification despite US support for the island, according to testimony from Adm Samuel Paparo, the commander of US Indo-Pacific Command. Trump had promised a tough line on China, and many of his top advisers are either China hawks or believe that the US military should reposition its forces and focus from Europe and the Middle East to Asia in order to manage China as a 'pacing threat'. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion Yet his previous hesitance to use US force abroad could have emboldened Beijing to believe that the US would not come to the direct aid of Taiwan if a military conflict would break out – the one wild card in what would otherwise likely be a lopsided conflict between China and Taiwan. Experts cautioned that the stakes are far different, and the conflicts too far removed, in order to draw direct conclusions about Trump's readiness to intervene if a conflict broke out between China and Taiwan. Trump's administration appears further embroiled in Middle East diplomacy than it wanted and its pivot to focus on China has been delayed as well. And while some close to the military say the strikes have regained credibility lost after some recent setbacks, including the withdrawal from Afghanistan, others have said that it won't send the same message for military planners in Moscow or Beijing. 'We shouldn't conflate willingness to use force in a very low risk situation with deterring other types of conflicts or using force when it's going to be incredibly costly – which is what it would be if we were to come to the defence of Taiwan,' said Dr Stacie Pettyjohn of the Center for a New American Security during an episode of the Defense & Aerospace Air Power podcast. Around the world, US rivals may use the strikes to reinforce the image of the US as an aggressive power that prefers to use force rather than negotiate – a message that may break through with countries already exhausted with a temperamental White House. 'The fact that it all happened so fast, there wasn't much multilateral involvement or chance for diplomacy, I think, is something Russians can point to as an indication of, you know, imperialism to the global south,' said Aslı Aydıntaşbaş, a fellow in the Center on the United States and Europe at Brookings during a conference call. 'But also in their talking points to United States and western allies, they will definitely make a point of highlighting this as something great powers do, and in a way that normalizes Russia's language on its own [conflicts].
