As of November 29, 2009 following a referendum held in Switzerland, a ban on the construction of minarets was passed with 57% in favor. The ban is just the latest in a series of Islamophobic reactions coming out of Western Europe. Switzerland has 400,000 Muslims and four minarets and Swiss Muslims are among the best integrated in Europe.

Ironically this was condemned by the French who claimed that intolerance should not be tolerated, yet France earlier on September 2, 2004 had banned the wearing of symbols or clothing that showed religious affiliation in public primary and secondary schools. The ban included headscarves, crosses, kippah and turbans. The penalty for continuing to wear these were initially being sent home, but continued violation would result in meeting with the parents and ultimately expulsion from school. France has a rather strong style of secularism, the idea laciete calls for not just freedom of religion, but due to France’s history complete separation of religion from all aspects of public life. Perhaps taken in isolation these instances wouldn’t be particularly concerning, however a wave of such legislation is being passed in Western Europe.

Belgian municipalities have used municipal by-laws to ban the wearing of the burka and niqab. A Belgian town Maaseik was the first to implement such a ban. Regulations were then sent to all Flemish municipalities to ban facial coverings on the basis that it was necessary “ to protect the social order, which allows a harmonious process of human activities.” In 2008 the Danish government decided that judges in court would no longer be able to wear any religious symbol including headscarves and crucifixes. Half of the German states have placed restrictions on wearing headscarves however five of these states allow Christian religious clothing such as a nun’s habit to be worn. A regulation upheld in the state court despite its blatantly discriminatory nature. Two students that appeared at school wearing the burqa were suspended for “disturbing the peace.”

In 2006 the Dutch government strongly considered banning the burqa entirely. Amsterdam and Utrecht proposed cutting social security benefits to unemployed women who wore the burqa on the basis that they were unemployable. In Britain an employment tribunal ruled that a school could fire a teacher because she wore the veil, Tony Blair and British minister Phil Woolas personally demanded that teacher in question be fired, and she was. A ban on the niquab in schools is also being proposed by British authorities. The far-right parties of Europe like the BNP in the UK are often the strongest advocates of such legislation, yet they find broad support among the general population.

Certainly when one takes all this attempted legislation together it indicates a strong amount of paranoid xenophobia among the Western European states and its hard to imagine such legislation passing in the United States. First, however, let me get the following out of the way, by no means should we condone what Saudi Arabia, Iran, or the Taliban do when they enforce the facial veil, headscarves, burqa, or niquab on their women. Such actions are deplorable and their disgusting treatment of women should be strongly condemned by the international community. However by doing the opposite extreme these European states act no better than any of the autocratic states that we look down upon.

On some level one can understand why this type of legislation is being advocated. Europe has found itself faced with the problem of how it should go about integrating its religious minorities.  The question here is really the paradox of a liberal society. A liberal society ideally would allow anyone to hold whatever beliefs they wanted because that’s the nature of the liberal society.

The problem, as the Europeans see it, is when immigrants want to change the nature of the liberal society and turn it into something else. Ideally that should be allowed also. But what if the immigrants are all monarchists and want to establish a monarchy with a God-Emperor who rules with absolute power and destroy liberal democracy? Is that something we really want to allow? And what if they want to take away rights from women, or homosexuals? Is that something we should allow also? The majority of us who live in a liberal democratic society would say no, that such things should not be tolerated.

The people and governments of Western European countries, by supporting legislation such as banning the burka, seem to believe that the Muslim immigrants are incompatible with the liberal democratic values they believe in, that they’re radicals who want to impose Sharia law and oppress women. Feminists in particular believe that women who wear the veil, headscarves, burqa, and niquab are being oppressed by the men and being forcibly segregated from the rest of European society. Such attitudes are shockingly widespread among citizens of European countries. There are a few radicals who may support this perhaps, but I would venture that the majority of Muslims in Europe moved there not to change it but because they sought a better life in a new country, as is frequently the case with new immigrants.

Certainly some concerns are valid. Yet the solution of banning symbolic displays of Islam is misguided, bigoted, counterproductive, and odious to the very freedom and democracy that it ostensibly seeks to protect. Europe fears the radicalization of its Muslim population yet when it passes these discriminatory measures all it does is further isolate and inflames Muslims. Europe seeks to protect democracy and freedom yet it attempts to regulate the clothing of what its citizens may and may not wear. This is without a doubt one of the most slippery slopes I have seen, the logical result of this is to next pass legislation against a Goth with black makeup and piercings cover their face because they segregate themselves from society and make themselves unemployable. Once the government chooses to enter the private lives of its citizens then there is no stopping it. The wearing of a headscarf by a woman when she wears it willingly harms no one, and the construction of a minaret does not endanger Switzerland. If there are concerns about women being forced to wear it against their will then prosecute men who force their wives to do so, if there are concerns that radical preachers are advocating violence then arrest them for advocating violence. But targeting the headscarf and the minaret achieves nothing and is merely discrimination. Europe’s attitude toward Muslims is clearly a problem. Yet some of their concerns are valid regarding integration of Muslims. So what is the solution for it?

To discard the flawed notion of multiculturalism. Right now you are probably staring at the page in shock. Multiculturalism calls for tolerance of the group’s rights and in some cases the accordance of special privileges to the group. Take the Canadian notion of a tossed salad. That each immigrant group retains its culture, its beliefs, and values and they all add to the Canadian cultural mosaic. That has worked well for Canada yet when the European attempt to apply it has failed miserably, and I predict it will fail in Canada too. This idea of multiculturalism is entirely misguided; it is not groups we should be concerned about. It is individuals. The beliefs and culture of all individuals should be tolerated and respected. It is the individual that matters not the group. The mistake we make is when we create a group and give them special privileges.

The mistake we have been making all along is encouraging multiculturalism when we should have been encouraging assimilation. The United States is not a multicultural country. You’re probably staring at the page in shock again. It’s true. The dominant paradigm we hold, that we were told of in elementary school is the American Melting Pot ™ , each immigrant can maintain their traditions, culture, religion, and beliefs, each immigrant adds their own flavor, but all of them become Americans. Muslims can wear headscarves, Christians can wear their crucifixes, Jews can wear their kippah. Yet all immigrants learn English, adopt American values and adopt American culture. This is the model that the United States has followed since the time of its independence. Irish, Italian, German, French, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, Indians, Cubans, Iranians, and Mexicans have all immigrated to America in large numbers.

They retain their own cultures and religions yet they think of themselves as American first. Of course this doesn’t go without a hitch; there are hiccups, from anti-Catholic sentiments to anti-Mexican sentiment. However, such views are time and time again proven wrong and each new group becomes a valuable and integrated part of American society.

For perhaps the first time, Europe should look to the US as a model. Europe lacks the same history of immigration that the US has. It has failed to impart a sense of “European-ness” into its immigrants. If Europe wishes to integrate its Muslims then it needs a melting pot. A melting pot that can meld its immigrants together into a coherent and functional whole, which can give rise to a peaceful society that, maintains individual freedoms and liberties while at the same time protecting the nature of a liberal society. This is the goal that all societies and governments must strive toward.

The political situation as it stands today is nothing short of dire. On one side, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded tepidly to the call for freezing settlements in the West Bank; on the other, the Palestinian leadership continues to drag its feet on sitting down for negotiations. In the meantime, the citizens of Gaza suffer from a crippling Israeli blockade and those in the West Bank and East Jerusalem face expansion of settlements that already infringe on their sovereignty. All the while, Israeli families in surrounding border towns and elsewhere live in continuous fear of rocket attacks and suicide bombers from Hamas. Ian Gallagher, a Rutgers Alumnus and Graduate Student at Boston University, majoring in Political Science, says:

I think that the issue is a centerpiece in America’s geopolitical strategy for the world and in particular the Middle East. It is obvious to Arabs living in the region that the occupation of Palestine is looked upon as a colonial settler state in the nature of Algeria or South Africa, backed by the US”, he contends.

After the Second World War, the Arabs in the region did have a relatively favorable view of the United States due to its history of anti-imperialist advocacy. However, geopolitics is not the only issue at hand, argues Lauren Sheppard*, a senior at School of Arts and Sciences, majoring in Political Science.

While it takes a toll on US with regard to its relationships with the Arab countries, it is worth it.  America can condemn Israel’s actions on a regular basis but when it comes down to it, the US has no bigger supporter than Israel in the region.

In the past, both the Israeli Government and Palestinian society have made serious strategic and moral errors, for which they pay the price today. Over the years, they mirrored each other’s hostility, adding fuel to fire with bouts of retaliation. Under such circumstances, it is not hard to understand the extent of aggravation and despair.

I visited Israel for only three months. I do not know that many people who live in Israel and I wonder what it is like for those people. How many countries have to constantly defend themselves and always be ready to fight a war?

At times, Palestinian society does tend to lend credence to violent uprising and anti-Semitism. Their misplaced faith in the morality and efficacy of such tactics took a lot of credibility away from their movement in the seventies, as witnessed by the aftermath to the Munich Olympics Massacre. Feverish calls for overthrowing the Israeli government are only surpassed by their penchant for praising martyrdom through suicide bombing. Ian Gallagher disagrees:

There may be instances of anti-Semitism, but they are very few. I spent months in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, telling everyone I met that I was Jewish and I never experienced a single instance of racism. It shows that the disputes are obviously political and anti-colonial in nature. Suicide terrorism was an effect of harsh repression of non-violent resistance during the first Intifada

So, is violence, as Gallagher posits, merely a response to past injustices inflicted on the Palestinians? Does Israel share some of the blame? Prior to its recent incursion into the Gaza strip, surrounding towns in Israel were showered with rockets almost every day.

The city of Sderot was attacked on a daily basis, but that fact was ignored because there were no casualties, the reason being the Israeli government takes care of its people; most Israelis have a bomb shelter that they can go to. In any form of war, civilians need to be protected. That being said, Hamas uses civilians, specifically women and children, as human shields, which is an atrocity.

The truth is both sides are guilty of crossing the line. The UN sanctioned Goldstone report accused Hamas, which controls the Gaza strip and the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) of breaching the rules of engagement and even committing war crimes during the Gaza War of 2008. Israel claims to try to prevent civilian casualties, but often, their response to attacks is disproportionate.

Military errors aside, one of the biggest Israeli policy errors in the seventies was the decision to marginalize the moderate factions of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), which was largely a secular entity advocating for Palestinian sovereignty. Hoping to destroy Palestinian nationalism, Israel cynically exploited the divisions within the PLO, ultimately giving prominence and political influence to the more religious Hamas. As a result, the Palestinian Authority (PA) today derives its capacity entirely from Israel.

]]> http://libertas.rudemocrats.com/2010/03/27/blessed-are-the-peacemakers/feed/ 2 http://libertas.rudemocrats.com/2009/11/08/what-do-i-know-im-just-a-liberal-idealist/ http://libertas.rudemocrats.com/2009/11/08/what-do-i-know-im-just-a-liberal-idealist/#comments Sun, 08 Nov 2009 22:01:46 +0000 Monika Chopra http://libertas.rudemocrats.com/?p=311

Many conservatives say that those of us who are Liberal are idealists. Recently, after receiving this label for the nth time, I started thinking about what it actually means. The concept of labeling liberals as ideal became…

“For the world has changed, and we must change with it”, proclaimed Barack Hussein Obama on a cold January morning, minutes after he took the oath of office to become the 44th President of the United States. He made a pledge to the world; a great promise of internationalism that hasn’t been seen since John F. Kennedy. America is now lead by a president whose thought process can be traced to a vast diversity of international experiences. Obama has walked a path in life that few American presidents can boast, although that isn’t to say that people aren’t wary. During my recent trip to India, I was bombarded with many questions about the new President.

What is his commitment to the subcontinent? Will he try to stop the outsourcing of jobs? How would he deal with Pakistan? Recovering from the senseless attacks in Mumbai, most Indians that I speak to are entranced by Obama’s oratory and his star power, but quickly return to the cynical reality they hold so dear. With the area under control by Taliban expanding in the north-eastern regions of Pakistan, Talibanistan, India lies only a few hundred miles away. Many of my Indian friends professed to me their fear that Obama might be too soft on Pakistan. This is contradicted by his ever swift response in condemning the Mumbai attacks, his stern willingness to continue the war in Afghanistan by increasing the number of troops there, and to break away from his predecessors in condemning Pakistan’s inability to root out terrorist networks. He understands that the central front on the “War on Terror” is in Afghanistan, and is a test of endurance for the rest of the Muslim world, especially in the Middle East.

Military strategies aside, one gets a sense that President Obama understands that one of the strengths of networks like Al-Qaeda is their ability to propagate their ideological hatred. Even now, as thousands of madrassas in Pakistan and Afghanistan train young Muslims at a young age to fear the Jews and Hindus as enemies, Obama understands that a war strategy alone cannot assuage feelings of despair and hate that arise from years of economic and political instability. He knows that this is as much a war of ideology as it is a war of weapons. In the recent interview with Al-Arabiya, he spoke of his willingness to break away from the reckless Bush administration neologisms like “Islamofascism” and “American crusade.” At the same time, however, he refused to respect terrorist organizations and called their ideas bankrupt.

The most astute of his observations in that interview was how he saw no economic benefit for the people of the Arab world, from those that propagate these hateful ideologies. Having lived in Indonesia, one of the largest Muslim countries, and having witnessed conditions like abject poverty and lack of a decent infrastructure, the President can brag some institutional knowledge about conditions that lead people to embrace the extremist ideology. His heritage, which television pundits predicted would lead to his electoral demise and was often used by right wing zealots to undermine him, is now suddenly an asset for the simple reason that the Muslim world, in general, is less likely to be hostile to a man who once called the evening Islamic prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.” The terrorists are desperately trying to quell the Obamania that is sweeping across the world. They face an adversary who flaunts an aura of internationalism that has never been seen before in modern history, one that makes all Americans declare, “We are ready to lead again.”