Freedom, democracy, pluralism, integration
Sorry for the lack of posts - I'm not going to pretend that it's been because of a lack of time; instead it has to do with a slowed thought process that starts after I finish my exams in April, and it also explains why I do relatively poor in the September and October of every school year.
To the point of the post...
I've had several thoughts on my mind since the London bombings...
So let me list them off:
1) After it became clear that the London bombers were homegrown - i.e. they were born in London, and not, in say, Cairo or Riyadh, someone suggested to me that perhaps Bush's (alleged, according to the person who I spoke with) doctrine of spreading democracy around the world was misplaced. The person suggested that if bombers can be born and raised in England, one of the most free and sophisticated of all western democracies, then surely it was misguided to suggest that the spread of democracy would lead to the end of Islamist suicide bombings.
His point, in my view, was poorly thought out because the suicide bombers were actually responding to (supposed) grievances that took root in non-free societies. It actually seems that if the entire world and in particular, the Middle East, became democratized, and free, and progressive, Muslim teens in Leeds would NOT be coerced and manipulated and lied to (40 virgins in paradise........) into blowing themselves up.
2) I read an interesting post over at Samizdata.net about Muslim integration into England and into Europe in general. I agree with all of it and I agree with it so much so I'll paste the relatively long relevant excerpt:
Moreover it seems obvious to me that a significant number of Muslims in Britain have successfully integrated into British society just fine and I see no reason to pretend otherwise. Yet clearly we do have a major problem with an equally significant number of Muslims who have not assimilated, show no sign of doing so and are manifestly a source of recruits for Al Qaeda.
Endlessly blathering on about how "Islam is a religion of peace" or alternatively to call for expelling 'Muslims', simply because they are Muslims, is the sort of wilful blindness and one size fits all collectivism of a sort I would rather leave to socialists of both left and right. Anyone who values western liberal civilisation needs to think a little harder than that, avoiding both atavistic collectivism and a head-in-the-sand refusal to see we have a serious problem that will not go away on its own.
If what we are trying to defend is a pluralistic tolerant society, then we have to make sure that the message is not just "throw the wogs out!" but rather "You are welcome here if you are willing to assimilate to a sufficient degree."
But how does one define what that 'degree' is exactly? I am not talking a Norman Tebbit style "cricket test" but rather a willingness to tolerate 'otherness'. We do not need Muslims to approve of alcohol or women in short skirts or figurative art or bells or pork or pornography or homosexuality or (particularly) apostasy. We have no right to demand that at all and obviously not all Anglicans approve of some of those things, so why require that Muslims must? No, what we do have the right to demand (and that is not too strong a word) is that they tolerate those things, which is to say they will not countenance the use of force to oppose those things even though they disapprove of them. In fact it is not just Muslims from whom we must demand such tolerance.
If we can get them to agree to tolerate those things, then it does not matter if Muslim women wear burquas because as long as they are not subject to force, a woman may elect to say "Sod this for a game of soldiers!" and cast off that symbol of misogynistic repression... and if she does not do so, well that is her choice then... but she must have a choice. They do not have to look like us (I do not hear calls for Chinatown to be razed to the ground), they do not have to share our religion(s), or lack thereof, but they do have to tolerate our varied ways and if by their actions or words they show they do not, we have every right to regard them as our enemies and take action to defend ourselves.
For decades the supporters of multiculturalism have used tax money and government regulations to actively discourage assimilation of immigrants into the broader society, preferring to see communities develop which favour 'identity politics' better suited and more amenable to their own collectivist world views. And now we are paying the price for that. We will not be able to defend ourselves physically or preserve our liberal society unless we stop tolerating intolerance, and that includes not just fundamentalist Islam but also the anti-western bigotry of the multiculturalists.
I had these sorts of thoughts brewing in my head ever since the bombings, and this post basically summed it all up. I'm not and I never will be a supporter of assimilation in the same way that many others view it, but I will always be in favour of choice (to wear or not to wear a Burqua - which is unlike the French government's recent attempts to circumvent that choice), freedom, tolerance and integration - all of which is a sort of mild form of assimilation.
3) I was also listening to a pundit on TV discuss the alarming (poll) numbers of British Muslims who supported or gave sympathy to the bombers. The pundit remarked about how you would never see those numbers among American Muslims, and I would suggest that you would never see those numbers among Canadians Muslims either. Why the difference between British (and probably European Muslims in general) and North American Muslims? It's odd because North America is still, in comparison, the "new world" - which was largely settled only in the past couple of hundred years. It's odd that integration and the lack of extremism is more evident in North America than it is in the long-established civilizations of Europe. Why do the Europeans seem to tolerate intolerance (back to point 2) more than North Americans, and particularly those North Americans of the United States?
To the point of the post...
I've had several thoughts on my mind since the London bombings...
So let me list them off:
1) After it became clear that the London bombers were homegrown - i.e. they were born in London, and not, in say, Cairo or Riyadh, someone suggested to me that perhaps Bush's (alleged, according to the person who I spoke with) doctrine of spreading democracy around the world was misplaced. The person suggested that if bombers can be born and raised in England, one of the most free and sophisticated of all western democracies, then surely it was misguided to suggest that the spread of democracy would lead to the end of Islamist suicide bombings.
His point, in my view, was poorly thought out because the suicide bombers were actually responding to (supposed) grievances that took root in non-free societies. It actually seems that if the entire world and in particular, the Middle East, became democratized, and free, and progressive, Muslim teens in Leeds would NOT be coerced and manipulated and lied to (40 virgins in paradise........) into blowing themselves up.
2) I read an interesting post over at Samizdata.net about Muslim integration into England and into Europe in general. I agree with all of it and I agree with it so much so I'll paste the relatively long relevant excerpt:
Moreover it seems obvious to me that a significant number of Muslims in Britain have successfully integrated into British society just fine and I see no reason to pretend otherwise. Yet clearly we do have a major problem with an equally significant number of Muslims who have not assimilated, show no sign of doing so and are manifestly a source of recruits for Al Qaeda.
Endlessly blathering on about how "Islam is a religion of peace" or alternatively to call for expelling 'Muslims', simply because they are Muslims, is the sort of wilful blindness and one size fits all collectivism of a sort I would rather leave to socialists of both left and right. Anyone who values western liberal civilisation needs to think a little harder than that, avoiding both atavistic collectivism and a head-in-the-sand refusal to see we have a serious problem that will not go away on its own.
If what we are trying to defend is a pluralistic tolerant society, then we have to make sure that the message is not just "throw the wogs out!" but rather "You are welcome here if you are willing to assimilate to a sufficient degree."
But how does one define what that 'degree' is exactly? I am not talking a Norman Tebbit style "cricket test" but rather a willingness to tolerate 'otherness'. We do not need Muslims to approve of alcohol or women in short skirts or figurative art or bells or pork or pornography or homosexuality or (particularly) apostasy. We have no right to demand that at all and obviously not all Anglicans approve of some of those things, so why require that Muslims must? No, what we do have the right to demand (and that is not too strong a word) is that they tolerate those things, which is to say they will not countenance the use of force to oppose those things even though they disapprove of them. In fact it is not just Muslims from whom we must demand such tolerance.
If we can get them to agree to tolerate those things, then it does not matter if Muslim women wear burquas because as long as they are not subject to force, a woman may elect to say "Sod this for a game of soldiers!" and cast off that symbol of misogynistic repression... and if she does not do so, well that is her choice then... but she must have a choice. They do not have to look like us (I do not hear calls for Chinatown to be razed to the ground), they do not have to share our religion(s), or lack thereof, but they do have to tolerate our varied ways and if by their actions or words they show they do not, we have every right to regard them as our enemies and take action to defend ourselves.
For decades the supporters of multiculturalism have used tax money and government regulations to actively discourage assimilation of immigrants into the broader society, preferring to see communities develop which favour 'identity politics' better suited and more amenable to their own collectivist world views. And now we are paying the price for that. We will not be able to defend ourselves physically or preserve our liberal society unless we stop tolerating intolerance, and that includes not just fundamentalist Islam but also the anti-western bigotry of the multiculturalists.
I had these sorts of thoughts brewing in my head ever since the bombings, and this post basically summed it all up. I'm not and I never will be a supporter of assimilation in the same way that many others view it, but I will always be in favour of choice (to wear or not to wear a Burqua - which is unlike the French government's recent attempts to circumvent that choice), freedom, tolerance and integration - all of which is a sort of mild form of assimilation.
3) I was also listening to a pundit on TV discuss the alarming (poll) numbers of British Muslims who supported or gave sympathy to the bombers. The pundit remarked about how you would never see those numbers among American Muslims, and I would suggest that you would never see those numbers among Canadians Muslims either. Why the difference between British (and probably European Muslims in general) and North American Muslims? It's odd because North America is still, in comparison, the "new world" - which was largely settled only in the past couple of hundred years. It's odd that integration and the lack of extremism is more evident in North America than it is in the long-established civilizations of Europe. Why do the Europeans seem to tolerate intolerance (back to point 2) more than North Americans, and particularly those North Americans of the United States?
posted by Japnaam Singh at
8:03 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home