Opposing Extremism Extremely

Another blog post, another link to another BBC story, this time about the idea of locking up ‘extremists’ in separate sections.  Never mind the quote from the article, “Extremist prisoners who "seek to poison the minds of others" will be put in special units”, which sounds like something that should be coming from China or North Korea, that’s not the issue I wish to address today, significant and terrifying though it is.

In their infinite wisdom, the BBC opened the story up for comment, and you can imagine some of the gems that came up.  However, beyond the usual daft ‘ban religion’ posts were some rather more disturbing ones: “People who still believe in gods in the 21^st century just need culling”, “All religious people believe in an afterlife, so why don’t we just kill them?”, “Just cut (Anjem Choudary’s) tongue out.”  Now, my understanding of the law is that these are actually incitement to violence and therefore illegal, and I know that the first one at least was removed by the BBC moderators.

Now, as a ‘religious person’, it may not surprise you to learn that I am not wholly in favour of these as long-term plans.  I feel in myself that being culled would not align with my interests, and although I do indeed believe in an afterlife, albeit only with the very vaguest ideas of what precise form it might take, I don’t feel that I should be prematurely ushered into it, even by the most well-intentioned of violent extremist maniacs.

More specifically, there was plenty of ranting against Islam extremism, or indeed just Islam itself.  Plenty of calls to deport them (regardless of the fact that many, including Anjem Choudary, the focus of the article, were born in the UK) and quite a few to just shoot them.  To be fair, these latter were mostly directed towards extremists preaching violence, not Muslims generally.  Mostly.  There were however plenty of calls for such people to be forcibly silenced, and prevented from preaching at all.

Many of the posters claimed that they wanted to protect the UK from Islamisation, and that these extremists want to turn Britain into another “backwards, medieval hellhole”.  In short, to prevent Britain from becoming like Saudi Arabia or Yemen, they want to reinstitute the death penalty, mutilation and corporal punishment, crack down on free speech and quash freedom of religion and freedom of assembly.  Wait a second…

Extremism takes a great many forms, nebulous and easily-abused concept that it is, but if nothing else the saddening and baffling comments quoted above demonstrate that it is by no means the sole domain of religion.  We should also bear in mind of course that the vast, vast majority of moderate, reasonable rational atheists decry and condemn the calls to violence, intolerance and oppression made by their sadly loud but nonetheless tiny extremist fringes.  It can be easy to forget this when they are so very visible, but the aim of such people is to polarise us, enforce the ‘us vs them’ mentality, whether ‘Us’ is British people, atheists, right-wingers or whomever, and the ‘Them’ Muslim extremists, Muslims in general, ‘religious people’, left-wingers etc etc etc.

I reject them and their vile and poorly-thought out antagonism.  We are better than the people who seek to oppress or destroy us, and we should be proud of that fact, not racing people like Choudary to the bottom.  Fighting fire with fire is an excellent way of burning down the entire world, and we need to preach this until everyone gets the idea.

Of Sow’s Ears and Silk Purses Part 2: Through Heartbreak to Hope

This week has seen two high-profile, tragic incidents in the news.  First the hostage crisis and 16 hour siege in Sydney in which 2 people were killed, and then the attack on the school in Pakistan, in which 132 children and 9 teachers were killed, and 125 others were wounded.  Both of these were, at least ostensibly, religiously motivated actions, although I suspect that political motivations were just as significant, and it seems as though in the latter event, revenge played a greater part than either.

Both were carried out by Muslims, the first by a lone individual, the second by a group acting as part of the Pakistani branch of the Taliban.  There has been very little positive news regarding Muslims making headlines recently, and as a result it’s increasingly easy to immediately think of Muslims when one hears the word ‘terrorist’ or ‘extremist’.  As a result, the Muslim community, both here in the UK, and across the world hardly needs more bad publicity, and the vast moderate majority must be despairing, as well as shocked and outraged by what, certainly in the second case at least, can only be called atrocities.

But on top of this must be a great sense of apprehension, even fear.  After all, when Lee Rigby was murdered by Muslim fanatics in the UK, there was a surge of anti-Muslim feeling, with mosques vandalised and Muslims verbally abused in the streets.  It will be sad, but ultimately unsurprising if these recent events don’t cause similar reactions in various places.

It is incredibly heartening then to see that people have already taken steps to ensure that this doesn’t happen, or at least try and limit it as much as possible.  In Australia, #i’llridewithu trended on Twitter.  The idea was for people to offer to accompany visibly identifiable Muslims on public transport to help protect them from any abuse that might be triggered by the events in Sydney.  To what extent this has worked, or was even necessary I don’t know, but it shows a very encouraging response, a level of understanding rather than scapegoating or generalising.  It would have been good if such a thing had occurred here in the aftermath of the Lee Rigby murder.  I hope that next time, and I fear that there will be many next times, something similar will be seen.

In India, the traditional rival and foe of Pakistan, and between whom there is a large amount of very bad feeling which has festered for decades, #IndiawithPakistan began trending on Twitter, as people in India responded to the attack on the school with an outpouring of sympathy and compassion.  It is far too much to hope that this tragedy might lead to a greater reconciliation between the two countries, but it does at least emphasise the fact that people are not their governments, and that historical enemies can be united, albeit briefly, by grief.

These acts were acts of evil, but as is often the case, some good has come of them.  If it can be sustained and repeated, if forgiveness and understanding can replace bitterness and vengefulness, then much will have been achieved.  They may seem like small, insignificant things in the face of massacres and killings, but it is the many tiny, individually insignificant acts of kindness, forgiveness and love that counterbalance the monolithic evils of the world.  Better that they’d never happened at all, but if evil must occur, and I believe that in our world it must always be possible, then we must strive to ensure that at least as much good comes out of it too.

Last Sunday, before either of these events occurred, the church I attend printed the following prayer in its notices as the Prayer of the Week:

Through Heartbreak to Hope

The assignment is clear:

Bind up the broken, proclaim life restored.

Always be joyful!

Sing a song of hope;

Offer it to the world regardless of ears to hear it.

Lord, keep me fixed on the coming light,

Just visible through the haze of my tears.

Lord, clothe me in hope,

The garment of splendour for a heavy heart.

Amen.

Mild Extremism?

Firstly, I’d better apologise for not posting before now.  I’ve said before that I try not to fill this blog with inanities, and only post something when I feel I have something worth posting.  To what extent I’ve succeeded in this only you, dear reader, can honestly say.  However, the point stands that it’s now some time since my last post, and I thought I’d better do something about it.

Over the last few months, I’ve noticed a disturbing trend in the rhetoric of the government.  We have, for many years now, had the rhetoric of ‘terrorism’ and ‘terrorists’ thrown at us frequently and repeatedly.  We’ve had the ‘War on Terror’ and ‘Counter-Terrorism’, ‘Threat Levels’ and various laws and acts passed to prevent the propagation, planning and committing of acts of terrorism.

Now, to me terms like ‘terrorist’ and ‘terrorism’ are hazy enough.  After all, as the saying goes, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.  However, it is easy to agree that blowing up cars and buildings and attacking people with guns and machetes is a Bad Thing, and to be strongly discouraged.  Whether that means more stringent application of existing laws covering the blowing up of buildings and cars and attacking people with guns and machetes, or whether brand new ‘anti-terrorism’ laws need drafting is a matter of personal taste.

However, recently, the rhetoric has changed slightly.  I hear the term ‘terrorist’ less, and find that it is being replaced with the term ‘extremist’, and ‘terrorism’ with ‘extremism’.  The Home Secretary wants to bring in new laws to counter extremism.  We’ve seen Ofsted charged with countering extremism in schools, and universities charged with watching for signs of extremism in their students.

If ‘terrorism’ seems like a hazy term, how much more then is ‘extremism’?  What does it mean?  It’s currently taken generally to mean religious extremism, maybe even specifically Muslim extremism, but of course could also include political extremism.  But what do even these terms mean?  A terrorist is a person who carries out acts of terrorism, defined by the OED as “The unofficial or unauthorised use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims”.  Fair enough.  But what is extremism?  Again, I turn to the OED:  “The holding of extreme political or religious views.”

Without wishing to spill into lazy Orwellian rhetoric of my own, can we really justify taking measures to prevent the holding of certain views?  Are we now willing to police the beliefs and opinions of our people, even before they turn into actions?  I understand that our police need all the warning they can get to help avert potential tragedies, and knowing who it is that hold such views could be useful, but surely holding them cannot be a crime in and of itself?  And who decides what views are ‘extreme’  The armchair jihadi who thinks all non-Muslims should be killed?  Probably.  The animal rights activist who thinks that vivisectionists should all be vivisectioned?  Quite possibly.  The Ku Klux Klan member who thinks that all non-white people should be subjugated and enslaved, or the café anarchist who thinks that the government should be brought crashing down?  Maybe.  The Christian who thinks that all non-Christians are damned to eternal torment?  Barely, even if they go out on the street to tell everyone all about it in the most offensive fashion.  What about the milder Christian, who thinks that Christianity is the only true way to God, even if they don’t hold with the bit about eternal torment?  How about the one who refuses to make a cake bearing a slogan lobbying for gay marriage?

And can we truly justify prosecuting even the first two or three examples?  If the armchair jihadi airs his opinion that all non-Muslims should be killed, he strays close to breaking the laws against inciting religious hatred (which I am not totally comfortable with either), but talking is not doing.  Making the holding of certain beliefs or opinions illegal is a very dangerous step, and one that the government seems almost eager to do, all in the name of ‘security’.

This is not the first time in our country’s history that we have faced the threat of religiously motivated violence, but as Queen Elizabeth I famously said at the time, “I have no desire to make windows into mens’ souls”.  Our current government apparently does, and it makes me worry very much.

Extremism, Freedom and the Lowest Common Denominator

This week, there was a story on the BBC news website regarding Theresa May’s outline for additional ‘anti-extremist’ legislation, curtailing the freedom of speech, movement and association of organisations deemed ‘extremist’ (whatever that means).

The extremely worrying nature of the proposed laws would probably take up a blog post by itself, but that’s not what I want to concentrate on here.  The comments section swiftly filled with people either decrying or hailing the ideas.  Predictably, many people took ‘extremism’ to mean primarily ‘Muslim extremism’ and couched their remarks accordingly.

At least one person said something along the lines of the following, and I have seen it multiple times before:  “If I was living in a Muslim country and tried to convert people to Christianity, or tried to build churches or went out on the streets preaching the destruction of the country I was in, I’d be arrested and imprisoned/deported in the blink of an eye, so why do we allow these people to do the equivalent here!”  A direct quotation for you:  “My feet wouldn’t touch the ground.  My head would.”

What their argument boils down to is “These countries are oppressive and dictatorial, so why shouldn’t we be?  It’s what they’d do in our place!”  This isn’t even an ‘eye for an eye’ argument, it’s a desire to equalise everyone at the level of the lowest and the worst.  “Why should we uphold personal freedoms when they don’t?”  “Why should we have the rule of law when they don’t?”  “Barbarians murder, torture and rape, so why shouldn’t we?”  “The beasts of the field root in the muck for food and fight tooth and nail for scraps.  Why shouldn’t we?”  Why should we try and be better than them?

We should be proud that we live in a society in which one can believe what one wants, say what one wants, wear what one wants, do what one wants, assuming it doesn’t hurt others.  It should be a matter of pride that the poor and the dispossessed of the world make a beeline to us.  Instead of whining about immigrants taking advantage, complaining about ‘scroungers’ on benefits, we should be standing tall, happy to be an example to the world that the best and only way of truly judging a country is by how it treats the poorest and most vulnerable.

The true test of whether you live in a free society is whether you can speak out against that society without fear of prosecution.  It is whether you can state categorically that you disagree with the fundamental truths of every single other person in that society, if that is what your conscience dictates, and do so without fear of persecution. At the moment, I am proud to say that I do.  I am truly afraid that this may not always be the case, and I do not believe that the greatest threat to our society is in what our government is pleased to refer to as ‘extremists’.

Why should we treat them well when they wouldn’t do the same for us in our place?  Many of the people asking this question insist that British Muslims are refusing to integrate, forcing their culture on ours and forcing their values on our British Christian ones.  Here’s a Christian value for you:  “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.  You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven.” 

  

 That seems fairly clear to me.