Walking On Islamist Eggshards
Well, they're beating us at our own game. We do, after all, celebrate freedom of expression in western democracies, do we not? In some countries such freedoms are enshrined in their constitution. Justice systems even protect freedom of expression from government interference, if need be.As opposed to dictatorships whose first order of business is to stifle a free press, which invariably points fingers of accusation at the lack of civil law, government corruption and human-rights infringements prevalent there, to the great detriment of those whom they govern.
There are some countries where to blaspheme against the state religion is seen as a capital offence. The repression of religions other than their own is perfectly all right. These are religious dictatorships where to fulminate against the lack of freedom to do otherwise than as the religious political elite dictate is to invite imprisonment and sometimes worse.
Oddly enough, the most repressive of these regimes practise Islam as their state religion, which also informs the day-to-day life of the people under sharia law.
Move confrontational Muslims in a migration to the world of liberal democracy and they enjoy the best of both worlds; freedom of religion as well as expression is guaranteed them. Migrating Muslims are guaranteed the same freedoms granted to all citizens regardless of origin, religion, ethnicity, ideology. Most adapt readily and reasonably to the prevailing culture and social mores, while continuing to embrace their religion.
But in this world of today, militant Islam has shown its destructively violent face and the world has come to know that it cannot step lightly around the raw sensitivities of Islamists who will not tolerate any expressions of doubt about Islam, much less censure, much less blasphemic depictions of the Messenger of Allah, nor Islam itself. Those who defy the danger inherent in so doing are soon abused of their naivette.
We have Danish cartoonists to thank for tweaking Islamist rage resulting in the deaths of protesters plus the riveting images of rampaging mobs, the damage to public buildings and to a country's trade. We have a naive British teacher to thank for the realization that an inadvertent insult to Muhammad results in 40 lashes and 3 months imprisonment.
We have Salmon Rushdie to thank for the reality of Fatwahs issued to those who would undertake to insult Islam through creative fiction.
And we understand too that it is not only abroad, in Muslim-dominated countries that vengeance can be unleashed against those who would take it upon themselves to inject a note of reality into the discourse, or attempt to prod a slumbering sense of humour out of the collective Muslim perception, but here in our law-abiding and protecting democracies.
For we, who are so cognizant of the need to protect human rights, set up human rights commissions here and there and everywhere to ensure that no singularity's toes are being stepped upon. Heaven forfend that through the instrument of free speech we unleash upon innocents a storm of frustrated weeping anguish by way of insult. Lives can be taken away as punishment for the signal sin of apostasy, but criticize this inhumane law and you bring violent censure upon yourself for daring to question sharia law.
So it is that legal means can be undertaken to stomp upon the rights of those who might cause umbrage to Muslims by questioning the veracity of their Koranic interpretations perhaps, or poking unfortunate fun at imbecilic laws targeting infidels. Not only, in the process of assisting offended Muslims, do we truncate our own freedoms, but we pay upfront through taxpayer funds to enable them to extract their revenge.
A professor emeritus of history at University of California writes a book about Islamic jihad and his publisher, facing a libel suit by a wealthy Saudi banker, suddenly "unpublishes" the book by pulping its unsold copies, contacts university libraries to entreat them to withdraw the publication, then pays "damages" to the banker, presumably for hurt feelings. The same banker has successfully sued other publications he has found wanting in respect of Islam.
This can be readily accomplished through the use of Britain's libel laws, resulting in a spate of law suites by what are termed wealthy "libel tourists" who use the laws to stifle any perceived criticism of Islam, or any publication that appears to place Islamists in a dim light.
Despite that resulting rulings have the rather peculiar effect of favouring censorship in their end results and ruling against freedom of speech, one of our cardinal freedoms.
In Canada, writer and editor Mark Steyn and Macleans magazine have had a complaint lodged against them through the British Columbia human rights commission, resulting from a book Mr. Steyn had authored and an article of his, excerpted from the book that Macleans had published. The Canadian Islamic Congress, under its president Mohamed Elmasry, claims that the article and book submit Muslim Canadians to "contempt and hatred".
Obviously failing to comprehend that it is the behaviour of fundamentalist Islamists that bring scorn and contempt to Islam. Through Muslims who practise the arcane art of jihad. Muslims who bring disrepute to the honoured place of Islam as a world religion of great renown. Muslims whose reactive violence to perceived slights to Muhammad bring dread to fascinated onlookers in the non-Muslim world.
Yet instead of behaving as one might anticipate Canadians of any religious or ethnic stripe would, in condemning the threat of violent Islamism both to the security of the world at large, as well as to those Muslims whom the jihadists deem insufficiently Islamic, Mr. Elmasri and his group have brought charges before human-rights commissions for Canada, British Columbia and Ontario against those who do their work for them.
By so doing they seek to intimidate those who would pass judgement on fanatical jihadists who threaten the very democratic systems of governance that law-abiding, moderate Muslims depend upon to secure their safety in their non-Muslim countries of residence. Are their targets not somewhat misplaced? Why wouldn't they think to put a little of that energy into battling extremism that purports to represent Islam?
The kind of fanaticism that that pollutes the civic, social, political atmosphere anywhere. Challenge the legitimacy of jihadists, express alarm and denounce the carnage they wreak on the world stage. Demonstrate solidarity with the social and political system they are now an integral part of. Then, and only then will they no longer feel targeted by suspicion.
Labels: Political Realities, Religion, Terrorism
posted by Pieface @ Sunday, December 09, 2007
<< Home