Responsible Use of Freedom and Tolerance
By Muhammad Zamir
02 Feb, 2015
The unfolding events associated with the extreme forces of ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant), Boko Haram and Taleban have been drawing the wrong interpretation of Islam for the last few years. The fundamentalist approaches of these groups have led Islam to be branded as a faith which relies on force rather than reason to advance itself. This unfortunate moral compass was taken one step further with the events that recently took place in Paris.
Extremists belonging to the above fundamentalist factions appear to have forgotten the essence of Ayat 136 of Sura Al-Baqarah of the Holy Quran which states: "Say we believe in Allah and that which has been sent down to us and that which has been sent down to Ibrahim (Abraham), Ismail (Ishmael), Ishaq (Isaac), Ya'qub (Jacob) and to Al-Asbat (the offspring of the twelve sons of Jacob) and that which has been given to Musa (Moses) and 'Isa (Jesus), and that which has been given to the Prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and to Him we have submitted (in Islam)".
Despite this essential guidance, persistent provocation and caricature through cartoons appear to have pushed matters out of hand. Irresponsible use of freedom of expression overcame tolerance, incited violence and appears to have pushed some over the edge.
One of France's worst terrorist attacks in decades began on January 07 when two brothers of the Muslim faith gunned down 12 people in an attack on journalists belonging to satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. Four more were killed the next day in a hostage drama in a Jewish supermarket. The three gunmen involved in these acts were also shot dead by the law-enforcement agents. This fateful attack was the end result of persistent abuse of the religious sentiment of Muslims through the use of cartoons.
The attack has led to serious controversy about the limits of freedom of expression and whether the media needs to follow certain ethical guidelines to ensure that the process of expression does not end up being a vehicle through which the cultural and religious sensitivities of others might be affected. It has raised questions as to whether heinous acts need to be treated with reason and resolved through dialogue instead of fanatic acts. Some have also raised the question of collective responsibility and whether extraneous factors related to political paradigms or inter-faith hostility need to be treated with greater seriousness. Several analysts have pointed out that Charlie Hebdo's Islamophobic mockery of the sacred beliefs of a minority community in France was unnecessary, provocative and not an act of bravery. In a manner of speaking, it was an example of binary categorisation.
The incident in Paris led to nearly one million people, including more than a dozen world leaders, marching through the streets of Paris to demonstrate that Europe will always embrace liberal and tolerant values. This effort also included Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, who had no compunctions in coordinating armed action a few months ago against the helpless civilian population in Gaza that led to 2,140 Palestinian casualties, one-third of whom were children. One presumes that the attack on the Jewish supermarket resulted in Netanyahu's presence and was a reflection of the Jewish lobby seizing the initiative.
This latest incident in France needs to be understood against the growing spectre of European far-right nationalism. Analysts like George Friedman have since pointed out that such extreme right and right-of-the centre feelings have grown in the recent past because "a growing number of Europeans believe that people from other cultures are threatening their national identities and livelihoods". Marine Le Pen, the leader of the far-right National Front Party in France, is at the forefront of a Europe-wide nationalist resurgence that "wants to evict from their homeland people they view as Muslim subversives". Far-right nationalists elsewhere in Europe, including the German anti-Islam protest group Pegida and others in Sweden, United Kingdom, Denmark and Norway, are fanning the flame of Europeans' fear and mistrust of "foreigners". We have today European nationalism travelling on the reverse gear.
Le Pen herself has expressed support for a more authoritarian programme that will lead to a moratorium on immigration, a restoration of the death penalty and a 'French first' policy on welfare benefits and employment. The card played by similar parties elsewhere in Europe is "populism presented as an aggrieved nationalism". In this context Europeans are depicted as 'victims of rapacious Muslim immigrants'. Britain's Nigel Farage of the anti-immigrant UK Independence Party has been clever about this. He tries his best to come across as reasonable and socially acceptable. At the same time he explains to his followers about immigrants being social parasites that are either stealing jobs from 'real' Europeans or living off welfare. This negative response to immigration, and cultural and religious differences created by immigrants has already led to German Chancellor Angela Merkel meeting British Prime Minister David Cameron in London. Although the formal reason for the meeting was to discuss the upcoming G-7 summit, the two leaders are understood to have also discussed Cameron's proposals to limit migration in Europe.
Sociologists are, however, pointing out that the Europeans' fear and mistrust of "foreigners" is a much broader phenomenon that goes beyond the issue of Islam-related violence. What is actually happening is that Europe is rediscovering nationalism. There has been a continuous effort since the Sixties of the last century to create a grouping of supranational institutions that, over time, were meant to create a supranational European identity. The idea worked for some time, especially at the economic level, where institutions quickly achieved integration. However, over the past few years, several changes in Europe have exposed the limits of the project. Prosperity is the glue that has held the European Union together. It made it easier to accept giving up national sovereignty to supranational institutions. However, the last few years, faced with recession and economic decline in several countries in Europe, a growing number of European citizens appear to be having second thoughts about the benefit of the 'European project'.
Immigration and the growing tide of immigrants are adding fuel to this fire of anxiety. This has been exacerbated through the European Union's enlargement in the mid-2000s when it opened the door for immigration from countries in the former Communist bloc. This has resulted in countries like Germany, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands having to deal with immigration from southern and eastern EU countries. Poland from the northern part of Europe has been particularly a worry for job-starved Britain. To this paradigm has also been added the instability being created through the arrival on European shores and European borders of tens of thousands of refugees, mostly Muslim, seeking sanctuary and asylum from the chronic instability being faced by them in the Middle East and the Levant. European governments are consequently under considerable stress having to deal not only with immigration from less-developed EU nations but also having to undertake efforts to try and assimilate the asylum seekers that arrive from the Mediterranean.
The situation has been further aggravated because the ethnically and linguistically cohesive areas of Europe tend to be less tolerant of people with a different cultural background. This is eventually affecting the integration of these immigrants within their host communities. This, unfortunately most often has led to youth unemployment, lack of opportunities, structural problems and social discrimination. This has resulted sometimes in minority communities having to face the vicious cycle where young men and women feel disenfranchised and discriminated and decide to turn to violence. This in turn, is only fuelling anti-immigration and anti-Islam rhetoric.
George Friedman has correctly observed that 'the combination of economic malaise and resistance to immigration is seriously challenging the cohesion of the European Union'. As a result of this dynamics, some European governments are now questioning the Schengen agreement, which eliminates border controls among most EU member states. The current British government has been flirting with the idea of introducing 'emergency brakes' on EU immigration but has had to put it on the back-burner for the time being because of German insistence.
British Prime Minister Cameron has, however, tried to flex his muscle with regard to the wise and responsible comment made by Pope Francis urging that there be limits to freedom of expression that might be construed as offensive to a person's or community's religious faith. In an interview aired by CBS, Cameron said 'in a free society, there is right to cause offence about someone's religion' and that is consistent with western values that believe in free speech. One would think that more caution would have been exercised by the British politician to avoid further unnecessary controversy. After all, religions have their own sanctioned ethical, ritualistic and cultural parameters that do not need to be crossed. This can promote peace and understanding so essential for stability and the fight against terrorism and extremism of all descriptions - Muslim, Christian, Jewish and also Buddhist.
From this standpoint, one can quite understand the latest observation made by Turkish President Erdogan urging Muslim States to speak with one voice against terrorism and racism and calling on the United Nations to make 'contempt of religions illegal'.
France, in the meantime, has unveiled a raft of measures to curb radicalisation and better monitor Jihadists. Nearly 700 million Euros will be spent over the next three years in this exercise. Hopefully some of that will be spent on inter-faith dialogue and in teaching the need to exercise freedom of expression within the framework of morality and cultural and religious sensitivities. This will then help to suitably tackle any perception of discrimination.
Muhammad Zamir, a former Ambassador, is an analyst specialised in foreign affairs, right to information and good governance.
Source: http://www.thefinancialexpress-bd.com/2015/02/02/78863
No comments:
Post a Comment