Last August, Marwa el-Sherbini, an Egyptian pharmacist living in Germany since 2003, was with her toddler son at a playground in the Dresden suburb of Johannstadt. A dispute transpired between her and a man now referred to by public records as “Axel W.” about whether it was her son’s or his niece’s turn to go on the swings. In the course of the argument, W. called el-Sherbini, who wore a headscarf, an “Islamist”, a "terrorist” and “slut". Angered by the incident, el-Sherbini filed a formal complaint against W.

A local court fined Axel W. €780 (USD$1,100) for calling el-Sherbini a “terrorist”. During the trial, W. continued to insult el-Sherbini, telling her, "You don't have the right to live here,” and afterwards, he appealed the fine. Last week, he and el-Sherbini appeared in court for his appeal.

As el-Sherbini prepared to testify, W. attacked her inside the courtroom, stabbing her 18 times. El-Sherbini’s husband, Eliv Ali Okaz, intervened during the attack, only to be stabbed by W. and shot by courtroom security, which unexplainably mistook him as the attacker. Okaz is in critical condition. El-Sherbini died on the courtroom floor. Their three-year-old son witnessed the entire episode.

The initial verbal attack on el-Sherbini had been based on her headscarf, and W.’s xenophobic statements at the first trial and his murderous assault at the appeal underscored his racism. If this was not enough, the courtroom security attacked Okaz instead of W., assuming him to be the attacker on seemingly no other basis than his skin color.

But what has really instigated accusations of racism is what happened after the whole ordeal was over. Despite the highly dramatic nature of the incident, it has received little attention in Western media, which has covered the technical details of courtroom security much more than the issue of anti-Islamic sentiment. Muslims – in Germany, Egypt, and throughout the Muslim world – are shocked by the silence.

Commentators across the world are playing the “what if” game, stating that the media values a Muslim life much less than a non-Muslim one, whose murder would have received far more attention. As one blogger exclaimed, “…just imagine if the situation was reversed and the victim was a westerner who was stabbed anywhere in the world or -God Heaven- in any Middle Eastern country by Muslim extremists, or even what the media used to call ‘minorities’ in Egypt! You definitely would have heard the world’s buzzing and the internet goes down too!”

The what-if commentators have reason to be concerned, given the ongoing racism in Germany, evidenced in recent years by the wave of protests against the building of a mosque near the world famous Cologne Cathedral and confirmed by the UN Special Rapporteur for racism, Githu Muigai, who, having completed his 10-day fact-finding trip to Germany just a week before the el-Sherbini incident, emphasized the need for Germany "to turn its attention to the problems of daily racism and discrimination.”

Moreover, the attack on el-Sherbini occurred just weeks after President Sarkozy of France described the burqa as a symbol of subservience and suggested that the Parliament may want to consider banning Muslim women in France from wearing it in public. Sarkozy’s focus on the burqa melded into the attack on the headscarved el-Sherbini, helping to dub her the “hijab martyr” and the whole incident as indicative of European – or Western – hatred for Islam and its practices. Indeed, the focus of European racism on the Muslim headscarf has likely deepened its politicization, much like the insistence of Egypt’s British colonizers that the veil represented backwardness and oppression led to the emergence of the veil as a symbol of resistance to colonialism.

Having acknowledged the legitimacy of the what-if commentary, it’s important to turn the what-if spotlight internally as well. As commentator Khalid Diab notes, "If a western or local woman were attacked or murdered in a Muslim country for not wearing the headscarf, would her case attract much attention in Egypt or other Muslim countries?" Diab questions why more Muslims don’t stand up against forced hijabization in Muslim countries, or even more atrocious, but related, crimes such as the Saudi mutaween, or morality police, arresting women because they were visited by unrelated men, or allowing women to die in a burning building because they weren’t covered? In a twisted way, these women were “hijab martyrs” in their own right.

In addition to Muslim silence on gender injustice in Muslim countries, many if not all Muslim countries also support anti-blasphemy efforts. Egypt, for example, is a major supporter of the U.N. Defamation Resolution, which seeks to criminalize insults to a religion, and has enforced its strict domestic blasphemy laws against religious minorities, converts away from Islam, and Muslim “deviants” and dissenters. It expects that its own Muslim citizens should be free from religion or race-based harassment elsewhere in the world while it continues to oppress religious minorities in its midst.

Interestingly, in all of the anger against racism in Germany, it’s forgotten that el-Sherbini had won on her hate crime claim and awarded damages because she had been called a “terrorist.” Germany’s hate speech legislation is similar to that of many other European countries. Section 130 of its Criminal Code, for example, criminalizes public incitement of hatred or the defamation of parts of the population in a way that violates their human dignity. It is illegal, for instance, to call members of certain ethnic groups "maggots" or "freeloaders". And it was illegal for Axel W. to call el-Sherbini a “terrorist.”

While Germany’s hate speech law is problematic for the same reason blasphemy laws are – both restricting legitimate speech in the absence of a real threat of violence and privileging group sentiment over individual free speech rights – Muslims in many cases stand to benefit from European hate speech law, while in their home countries, blasphemy laws often severely restrict their freedom of conscience. In one scenario they are offered special protection; in other, they are more vulnerable to persecution.

No doubt, the racism and religious discrimination involved in the el-Sherbini case are outrageous and indefensible. But as bigger and bigger protests begin brewing over el-Sherbini’s murder, the nuances should be acknowledged and greater justice should be demanded not just in Europe but in Muslim countries as well.

http://www.menassat.com/?q=en/news-articles/6797-opinion-one-woman-makes-news-another-one-doesnt

I can only wonder how right-wing commentators put a spin of Muslim barbarity on this incident. The most telling is the disparity between the coverage given to Neda Soltan in Iran and Marwa in Germany. Even if the political context is completely different and Muslims think that the Media is a prejudiced public institution of the modern Western state; the reality is that the Western media is effectively seen as the West, and portraying the sentiment of the West. And in typical fashion, even now, the public outcry receives more coverage than the crime and its implication on Germanys courts.

What irks me even more is the constant repetition of the Neda video as she was dying. Why is it so important to show the bloody video of her death when the media affords more respectful coverage of non-Muslim deaths? i.e. displaying family pictures or uniformed marines rather than pictures of their battered remains. Happy human coverage of white humans while the "truth" of Muslims, the poor, brown peoples lives is one of violence and confrontation.

And on both sides of the coverage, political opportunism in coverage of the stories is rife. Muslims consider Marwa a martyr and symbolic of european victimisation, but Muslim men and women are dying in Arab prisons and there is little protest in Germany or elsewhere. Half a million Muslims are displaced in Sudan and the response is to defend "arab pride" in the Egyptian press. The one is considered an attack on Islam, the other more pervasive evil is considered unfortunate and probable political incitement by the West. I can't help but see the disparity in responses on both sides or the opportunistic abuse of the memories of these women. The irony of Muslim women walking with empty caskets in public protest when many won't even be allowed to accompany the Janazah procession is just another painful truth.

The German foreign minister has already issued an apology and recognition of the problem of Islamophobia i.e. He is admitting that Marwa was killed because she was Muslim. But will this result in more sensitive publicity or more sensitive policing of prejudice in a European media that is supposed to be amongst the most free in the world? The subtle Muslim acknowledgement however is that Neda was a victim of the US's greater conspiracy in Iran. Little do we know, we become bigger victims of our victim mentality.

http://www.isria.com/pages/10_July_2009_50.htm

Ghulam: I'm going to side with DrM on this one. Why wasn't this covered much more widely in the western press? This is the kind of outrageous story they usually love.

I'm afraid Asma T. Uddin has not done enough research before putting this piece out. It's just as reactionary as those she accuses of lashing out. The "what if" scenario is credible because anytime a Muslim is even accused of a crime its frontpage news, repeated over and over again in western state media.
You are correct to bring up hate crimes laws, but in almost all cases they are simply ignored when it comes to Muslims. If that wasn't the case, Nick Griffin, Le Pen, Geert Wilders, and dozens of other nazi scum would be rotting in jails instead of winning seats in the European parliament.


>it’s forgotten that el-Sherbini had won on her hate crime claim and awarded damages because she had been called a “terrorist.”<

No it's not. Her court victory means little now that both she and her unborn child are dead, and her husband fighting for his life in ICU. Al-Sherbini was not only called a "terrorist" but an "ISLAMIST whore." Now where do you think that murderous Neo-Nazi bastard, with his 9th grade education learned that word?

Dr. M:

In my piece, I acknowledged the legitimacy of the what-if commentators, so I'm not sure what you're refuting here. I went into it in some detail and then moved on only after stating: "Having acknowledged the legitimacy of the what-if commentary, it’s important to turn the what-if spotlight internally as well."

As for Muslims not being protected by hate speech laws, consider the prosecution of Wilders for his anti-Islam statements: "The Amsterdam appeals court has ordered the prosecution of member of parliament Geert Wilders for inciting hatred and discrimination, based on comments by him in various media on Muslims and their beliefs," the court said in a statement." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7842344.stm)

Yea, it is forgotten that el-Sherbini won on her claim. Whether her victory means a little or a lot is a different question altogether.

fester >>> You are correct to bring up hate crimes laws, but in almost all cases they are simply ignored when it comes to Muslims. If that wasn't the case, Nick Griffin, Le Pen, Geert Wilders, and dozens of other nazi scum would be rotting in jails instead of winning seats in the European parliament.

I think the distinction is between making a valid political commentary and inciting people to hateful action. As Asma has pointed out, discrediting the legal system unfairly could actually undermine a valuable and just means to resolving such situations.

Lets no forget that this man has committed a murder and will be punished on top of the punishment for his hate crime. Also, there are many Muslims who themselves classify themselves as Islamist. When it comes to media bias, its not the label that can be unfair, but the commentary around it. Add to that Muslims who vocally defend the abuses done in the name of Islam or are hateful towards the West and Westerners, and the soft cushy center of public hatred ends up being owned by many different segments of society.

>>> Ghulam: I'm going to side with DrM on this one. Why wasn't this covered much more widely in the western press? This is the kind of outrageous story they usually love.

I absolutely agree about the poor/biased coverage. The theory regarding free speech is that with everyone reflecting their personal bias, the truth is often somewhere in the middle. But that ignores the market and ideological dynamics that govern the press. Mass production and the news are not good bedfellows though. It comes to a point with the popular press that a reasonable person has to actually place big question marks on everything that is being reported. Read analysis as if it were opinion, read factual assertions as if they're missing valuable contextual evidence. The large media houses are barely useful as sources of information and slightly useful for commentary.

That said, independent media and other civil society organisations can be good sources of information too. Of course, with subtext, you risk slipping into conspiratorial thinking.

The whole article strikes me as an entirely misguided apologia for European bigotry. Would the author's first reaction on hearing say, Chinese Christians in Malayasia complaining about restrictions against themselves, be to write an article on how they have far greater rights then they would in the People's Republic of China. Or if Buddhists in Bangladesh complained about discrimination, to ask why they are not outraged by even greater repression against non Buddhists in Burma ? I am guessing that instead of asking these sort of questions, the tenor of the reaction would be more along the lines of asking Muslims to show greater respect or tolerance for minorities. Now when Muslims are justifably outraged by an Islamophobic murder they are being upbraided for not showing similar outrage for something that happened in Saudi Arabia more than six years ago or for the civil war in Sudan. Americans who vicariously support the protests in Iran are not asked why they do not show greater outrage for the regular bombings of Afghan civilians by their government or for their governments participation in the siege of Gaza. Muslims instead are lectured on their 'silence' and informed of the supposed greater protections afforded to Muslims in Europe. This is not even considering the fact that the vast majority of incidents of harrassment and worse of Muslim women wearing hijab go unreported and ignored by the European media. In fact the only reason this incident which resulted in murder was reported at all was because of the reaction in Egypt. Even then, much of the tenor of the coverage has concentrated on the 'overreactions' of those 'angry Muslims' rather than any introspective look at Islamophobia in Europe. Additionaly, most Muslim women who suffer harrassment and abuse for wearing Hijab do not rely on Europe's toothless laws to protect them and simply do not bother reporting the incidences to indifferent law enforcement officers. In the wake of this murder they are even less likely to step forward, as they might reason that they would bring on even greater harrassment on themseleves by doing so. Marwa el-Sherbini was an exception among Muslim women in Europe in that she filed a complaint aginst her abuser but the fact that she was murdered for her troubles is not likely to offer greater encouragement to other Muslim women to repeat her actions in the future. In such a context it strikes me as entirely misguided to try to play down and minimize protests by saying how great Europe is and shifting the subject to Blasphemy laws. There would be no condolences from the German Government or coverage in the European press at all without them in the first place.

As-Salaamu 'alaikum

Hate-speech laws don't exist everywhere in Europe, and are weak in many, including the UK. It's true that there are laws against harassment, but they are often independent of hate speech laws. The fact is that, as long as people moderate their words, they can quite legally spout whatever garbage they like about Muslims in the mainstream media, particularly in the UK where sensationalised anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant campaigns are well-known. Also, these laws didn't stop this woman getting stabbed, and they didn't stop an imam in England getting blinded by some psycho at morning prayers.

Also, I find the moral equivalence with "forced hijabisation" in a handful of Muslim countries (not the majority) rather distasteful. In much of Europe, Muslims face discriminatory laws, particularly women, and front-page vilification, and the fact that Muslims have been assaulted and seen homes, shops and mosques burned and otherwise vandalised is no coincidence in my opinion.

Yusuf,


I did not intend to suggest moral equivalence. I'm just pointing out issues that should help nuance our perspectives in order to make them more honest.

As for the fact that some Muslim countries force hijabization while others don't - that's irrelevant to my point, which was to say that we should get riled up about injustices in the Muslim world the same way we do outside of it.

...we should get riled up about injustices in the Muslim world the same way we do outside of it.
- Posted by asmauddin

Who is going to define what 'Justice' is?

Well said, Tec15.

@tec15: I'm not sure Asma's article was about that. I think it was more about how voices in Egypt (over)-emphasize the hijab aspect of it, as if she died for defiantly wearing the hijab. The subtext to such claims are that other Muslimahs should now fall in line and adopt hijab as well. Thus, it makes one wonder: are those voices upset that a woman was unjustly murdered by a criminal, or are they exploiting her as a role (/ fashion) model that muslimahs should revere for her hijab?

http://muslimahmediawatch.org/2009/07/23/marwa-el-sherbini-did-not-die-for-her-hijab-so-please-stop-saying-that-she-did/

It appears that the murderer was a Russian immigrant.

Tec15 >>> The whole article strikes me as an entirely misguided apologia for European bigotry.

Not very well said. I can hardly find fault with this article, because the racism and religious discrimination are being outwardly and vociferously criticised. I think its taking things very far to indict the whole culture. If whole cultures had to be indicted by "media silence", then every raped Indonesian migrant worker in Lebanon, and murdered and humiliated Indian labourer in the UAE, and every deported Nigerian in Saudi not covered in the Arab press .. would then be either misguided denialism or misguided apologia for the Arab world.

@Ghulam: Perhaps you need better reading comprehension, as I did not find the media silence itself, to be the source of apologia about European bigotry. I criticised this article as it implicitly says that Muslims should not express outrage against such atrocities without expressing outrage against unrelated matters in the Muslim World, a sentiment you seem to repeat yourself.

It also says and I quote, "Despite the murder of Marwa el-Sherbini in Germany, Muslims still benefit from European hate speech laws, in contrast to blasphemy laws which restrict freedom of conscience in Muslim countries." This is an explicit comparision between wonderful European countries which supposedly protect Muslims with their hate speech laws and terrible Muslim countries which in contrast persecute with their 'blasphemy' laws. Again, it implicitly says that Muslims should shut up and instead talk about atrocities in Muslim countires, as they supposedly have it so much better in European countries. This is said much more explicitly in Khaled Diab's cited article where he talks about how Muslims have greater religous rights in European countries.

If you don't see any of this as aplogism, where in response to this murder we are told about the wonderfullness of Europe and the supposed hypocritical silence of Muslims, instead of seeing any meaningful examination of racism and Islamophobia in Germany, then that is your problem and I can't help you.

This article makes a one line mention of the opposition to Mosque construction by groups in Cologne like Pro Köln, but makes no mention of the widespread support this opposition has among wider sections of German society, including among leaders of the Protestant and Catholic churches as well as among secular, progressive and liberal members of the public. Without any proof whatsoever, it is taken for granted that hate speech laws somehow sufficiently protect Muslims already. No mention is made either of the bans on teachers wearing Hijab in many German states without any corresponding bans for other religions like Nun's clothing. Lastly no mention is made of Angela Merkel telling her party conference "we must take care that mosque cupolas are not built demonstratively higher than church steeples" to rapt applause from the attendants and silent indifference from German society as a whole (at best).

Instead much more time is spent discussing the 'evils' of Muslim countries like Egypt which apparantley "expects that its own Muslim citizens should be free from religion or race-based harassment elsewhere in the world while it continues to oppress religious minorities in its midst." I strenously object to the notion that Muslims cannot criticize European Islamophobia without first criticizing Muslim countries. The formulation of "Why aren't you outraged by Saudi Arabia or Sudan?" is heavily used to silence Muslim voices in Europe whenever they object to incidents like these, with the implication that things in Europe are still great for Muslims despite such incidents. No honest appraisal of racism can take place in such an environment where racism is ignored or minimized by false equivalences.

Sorry, if I rambled, but Ihad to get that out of my chest.

Tec15:

You bring some good points to the table. Keep in mind that Ghulam is an Ahmadi (a follower of a cult leader who was found dead with a piece of feces in his mouth) with an inferiority complex (most people from South Asia with shady upbringing are like that) who always talks badly about Islam. In the Muslim world we need a debate about the treatment of Muslims in their home countries and abroad by people who have a genuine interest in the well being of Muslims and by people with good knowledge of their religion and history. There are too many "agent provacateurs" on both sides of the fence which is why Muslims are always divided, and victims like the lady who got killed by that Neo-Nazi degenerate is never mentioned in the mainstream media.

Tec15 ~ Don't get swept up in a counterpoint as if its a personal attack. I fully read and understand your point and appreciate it too. Disagreeing does not mean I'm attacking you.

>>> Commentators across the world are playing the “what if” game, stating that the media values a Muslim life much less than a non-Muslim one<<< Tec15 >>>

My point (and yours) is in reference to the intention and outcomes of the article. I think the article is aimed at political opportunism and the notion of a hijaab martyrdom. Its pointing out that making false assertions about the sister dying for her hijaab, or the hopelessness of the situation of Muslims in Europe is actually more destructive than constructive. Its saying that Muslims must be principled in their criticism. That is not apologia for Europeans because it enhances the Muslim position in the first place esp. when it comes from a sincere Muslim serving the community. Remember very clearly that the people being attacked are Europeans too.

If as Muslims, we say that hate speech, discrimination and abuse are the basis of European interaction with Muslims (as if Muslims are an outside group), then we actualise that reality for those people with that agenda.

>>> The formulation of "Why aren't you outraged by Saudi Arabia or Sudan?" is heavily used to silence Muslim voices in Europe whenever they object to incidents like these, with the implication that things in Europe are still great for Muslims despite such incidents.

But they are still better in Europe, and we shouldn't allow that to be compromised by polarising discussion or hijacking these incidences with no real political aim but venting. More importantly, when you are seeking the support of fellow citizens, they want you to evidence your principles .. or you end up lacking the legitimacy of your cause. Its like walking around with a baseball bat and accusing people of threatening you. Would that not come off as disingenuous to you? We are seen as one entity, because we want to be seen as one entity, Taliban and all. That precipitates a certain amount of ownership.

>>> This article makes a one line mention of the opposition to Mosque construction by groups in Cologne like Pro Köln, but makes no mention of the widespread support this opposition has among wider sections of German society

I think its probably because the site adopts a more social activist approach to discrimination. Integration, not isolation they believe, would yield more results. That denotes immediately a philosophy to deal with the conflict. A philosophy that I think is more in line with the Sunnah, than the unexpressed but implicit philosophies of NapII.

napoleonII >>> Keep in mind that Ghulam is an Ahmadi ...

For your own souls sake, you should watch for the random pronounciations of takfeer. I say this only, because I know myself the sayings of the Prophet SAW in this regard. Making this about who belongs to what group, is also something that people be brought to account for and shown the truth of. Allah SWT says so clearly in the Quraan. So please, for you own sake, I implore you to respect the values of debate.

Ghulam:
Nothing you said, addressed any of my points, as you merely repeated yourself and added extra blather without saying anything meaningful.

In fact I find your claim that talking about Islamophobia in Europe will be "polarizing discussion or hijacking these incidences with no real political aim but venting", or distracting or counterproductive or compromising how good Muslims supposedly have it in Europe, to be very disturbing. You pontificate about "Integration, not isolation" while ignoring the European role in that "isolation" and by the fact that when most European politician's speak about "integration" they mean it as a code word for assimilation. European's bring about the isolation with their white flight, support for far right Anti-Muslim parties (There are more voters and supporters for these parties then there are Muslims in Europe) and their various measures to restrict the rights of Muslims with the Hijab being the easiest and most convenient target (With stopping Mosque construction being a close second). European leaders (And by leaders, I mean the French President and German Chancellor and not just every tinpot far rightist) have now started openly inculcating Islamophobia for their own narrow political ends and to distract from their own countries' shitty economic positions, and we are just supposed to shut up lest we somehow detract from how good Muslims have it in Europe.

At the same time as you want to refrain from any "counterproductive" discussion about Islamophobia, you apparently have no problem whatsoever with criticizing Muslim countries in the most vituperative terms using tropes straight out of the neocon playbook. It's apparently not counterproductive or unhelpful then, but in fact very helpful to just totally blast Muslim countries for real and perceived failings.(Not that I don't think Muslim countries cannot be criticized, I just don't see why European countries should be immune).

This is what I find so frustrating about the entire discussion. Any potential examination of the extent and pervasiveness of racism and hostility to Muslims in Europe is squashed under spurious claims of "counter productiveness" and talk of how great Europe is. No such squeamishness informs discussions about Muslim countries where everyone can bash to their heart's content regardless of the merit. When the first impulse on hearing about horrific incidents such as this is to shield European societies and their delicate sensibilities , and to instead sanctimoniously lecture Muslims about what their proper response should be, then there is something very wrong.

Tec15:

You make it seem as though my piece is representative of something other than just my wanting to take an angle different than what I saw other writers writing about. I felt like the Islamophobia topic had been dealt with many times and wanted to add something different to the discussion given my background in religious freedom. It by no means was meant to apologize for European racism or belittle the incident. I just didn't want to repeat what we all had already read about - the what-if commentary that I cited in my article.

Asma

@tec15 >>most Europeanpolitician's speak about "integration" they mean it as a code word forassimilation.

So what? I'd love to see an indigenous Islam in Western Europe as there is in Eastern Europe. But, by all rights these countries and states belong to those Europeans. Why can't they require voluntary immigrants to thier lands to assimilate? They can culturally assimilate yet keep Islam, I say. Slavic Muslims are often culturally indistinguishable from Christian Slavs, other than not eating pork and sometimes not drinking and other items.

Yes, Europeans can sometimes be abrasive in thier demands and not very polite about it and other can be downright racist, which they need to stop now. But, the underlying demand to assmiliate is not the problem: its how they ask it that is the problem and how poorly they are reacting when those demands are tossed aside. To be fair, though, just as in the US, I believe many / most 2nd gen-ers and higher are quite assimilated. Its this trend Europeans should recognize and not the minority of awkward West-haters who still like our money and immigrate for all the benefits with none of the responsibilities.

...I believe many / most 2nd gen-ers and higher are quite assimilated.
- Posted by OmarG

By the 3rd and 4th generation, most ethnic groups in the U.S. have cultural events (which EVERYONE is invited to). There is usually food and dancing demonstrations. (Outsiders mostly go for the food, it's usually quite good.) This is about the only reminder there ever was a "someplace else" for them. Other than that, for the most part, nobody knows, or cares, what your religion is or where you came from.

OmarG >>So what? I'd love to see an indigenous Islam in Western Europe as there is in Eastern Europe. But, by all rights these countries and states belong to those Europeans. Why can't they require voluntary immigrants to thier lands to assimilate? They can culturally assimilate yet keep Islam, I say. Slavic Muslims are often culturally indistinguishable from Christian Slavs, other than not eating pork and sometimes not drinking and other items.

Yes, because that has worked out so well for the Bosnians, Buglarian Turks, Chechens, Crimean Tatars etc. Of course, all these groups were targeted for persecution despite not being very religous in the first place. Thats what Europe's ideal vision for Muslims is, to have Muslims who are not really Muslims, and in the end even that wasn't good enough in Eastern Europe. I see no difference in how it will work out in Western Europe, considering that for example in France, non-observant Muslims still get denied jobs, targeted for police harassment etc, simply because their first name is Abdullah or something. France holds out the promise of benefits in return for integration or secularisation, but in reality no such benefits occur(Except for a few highly politically connected toadies).