|
by: Tahir Gora
Freedom of Expression
is at the very heart of Western political values including Canadian and
American values. It’s a fundamental part of the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms and the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
These constitutional structures allow Canadians and Americans to
practice their religions freely as well as they guarantee an individual
the freedom to sever ties with his previous beliefs if she/he
chooses to.
But the proponents
and opponents of freedom of speech are caught up in unpleasant if not
ugly back and forth arguments in the wake of the 'Islamophobia’ uproar.
We are witnessing a
chain of incidences linked with reactions following 9/11. The biggest
reactions worldwide were denial of terrorism and conspiracy theories,
particularly by Muslim communities. Those reactions by the majority
communities in the west further compounded and complicated the
situation as the ‘silent’ majority of Muslims chose to remain silent
and did not condemn terrorism fueled by Islamic supremacy ideas.
In contrast, many
radical Imams and their Islamic centres based in the West continued to
demonize the western world and kept praying and chanting for the
destruction of the West.
That scenario created
a general suspicion about Islam and Muslims in the eyes of fellow
citizens, what Muslims started to call it ‘Islamophobia’.
The Canadian Liberal
Government put forward a motion, M103 against Islamophobia. The term
Islamophobia gained worldwide approval, particularly after the New
Zealand Mosques attacks.
Most Islamic
organizations started pushing forcefully to equate Islamophobia with
Anti-Semitism. They are asking western governments to introduce
legislation against Islamophobia the way laws are in place against
Anti-Semitism.
But there is a huge
difference between laws against Anti-Semitism and the so-called
Islamophobia.
Legislation against
Anti-Semitism includes curbing denial of holocaust and institutional
and constitutional hatred against Jews.
But there is no
institutional and constitutional hatred towards Muslims.
Laws against
Anti-Semitism don’t include criticism towards Judaism or any religion,
but Islamic groups are asking for barriers against attempts to
criticize Islamic theology under the proposed anti-Islamophobic
legislation.
So in context of this
debate, a large number of Muslim activists are emerging worldwide to
lobby for anti-Islamophobic laws. Western activists are also showing up
to resist such moves.
Meanwhile, Islamic
extremist related terrorism is still on the prowl from China to Africa
and from Middle East to Europe and North America.
A recent attack on
New Zealand Mosques sparked a debate worldwide to denounce White
Supremacy.
Some even asked to
condemn waves of white nationalism, white populism or white right wing ideologies.
However, equating white supremacy with Western nationalism would be
like questioning Chinese, Japanese, Russian or Indian nationalism.
While living in an
age of reactionary ideas, people from opposite camps need to sit for a
candid dialogue for their own introspection so that the world might
avoid huge collateral damage.
Instead of naming and
accusing each other with hollow and shallow political sloganeering,
it's important to engage ourselves in honest intellectual dialogue in
order to maintain an existing environment of free speech.
|
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment