We are a group of friends and acquaintances -- a merry band of pranksters indeed -- who have been arguing about politics on-and-off, then really on, then a little off... since 1998. On email. But that meant literally thousands of emails a year. That was too many. So here's the blog dedicated to carrying on that spirit of political and pop culture argument and dialogue. You might think of us as "schmoliticians", because while we take politics seriously, we try not to take ourselves quite so.
In an earlier discussion, Rob brought up some of the potential problems with Tony Blair's call for deporting radical Muslim clerics who preach violence against Brits. Here is an Op Ed piece from the Times written by a Muslim who supports Blair's actions.
posted by Carolyn P @ 8/09/2005 11:36:00 AM
5 comments
5 Comments:
You know, there's a huge... HUGE potential for abuse and for racial and religious profiling and stereotyping... but with all of that said, I find myself generally in favor of this move on Blair's part. The fact is, and for whatever set of complicated and inter-connected reasons, Islam -- or misguided men proclaiming their Islamic affiliations -- is turning out terrorists and extremists bent on destruction. I think even the most bleeding of hearts among us will find it difficult to deny that basic reality. The question for me is, does Blair's move exacerbate tensions or propel the country towards safety?
Thanks for sharing that well-written and insightful piece from Ms. Manji. She makes several important and cogent points. However, Mr. Blair's policy still just seems wrong to me. And I don't necessarily buy Ms. Manji's "ends justifying the means" rationalization. She states in her article:
"Radical Muslims, on the other hand, see our inclusive instincts as a form of corruption that makes us soft and rudderless. They believe the weak deserve to be vanquished.
Paradoxically, then, the more we accommodate to placate, the more their contempt for our "weakness" grows. And ultimate paradox may be that in order to defend our diversity, we'll need to be less tolerant. Or, at the very least, more vigilant."
According to Ms. Manji, it is our very ideals of tolerance and free expression that are fanning the flames of radical Islamic terrorism. She seems to be advocating a seed change in our societal priorities--a "can't have your cake and eat it too" scenario. If we want to be safe from terrorism, we have to be less open and tolerant as a society. It is our very tolerance that is killing us. But, I can't see how becoming a more rigid, less tolerant, and closed society is going to do anything but lower us to the level of the terrorists themselves. It is their intolerance, their rigid beliefs, their cultural closed-mindedness that drives them to kill. To become like them, is to compromise everything about our society that is worth defending, that is worth fighting for. I can certainly understand the frustration and indignation that drove Mr. Blair to propose his deportation policy. But, I worry about where it could lead. Would I be labeled an extremist for speaking out against such a policy? It's a slippery slope. I do agree that we need to have a national conversation about what ideals and beliefs we're fighting to defend. But, I don't see how compromising what I see as the hallmark, the pinnacle of our free society is anything but a complete and utter victory for terrorists everywhere.
Once again, I am torn. It seems wise to prevent people from preaching violence against the country in which they live. However, the slippery slope argument rings true to me. And, I had the same reaction to the article. What she is saying is that in order to remain safe, we must cast off the values that have made us great - tolerance, free-thinking, diversity. If we do that, the terrorists have won. And, in my view, the terrorists will hate us and want to kill us no matter what. The only way we could probably become safer is to pull out of the Middle East altogether, and stop supporting Israel. Since neither of these things is going to happen, I doubt that the preachings of these radical clerics are going to make things any worse. Also, is it better to have them where you can watch them? Or, send them away to plot against you somewhere else? I don't know the answer, but its more evidence of the scary, uncertain time in which we are currently living.
This reminds me of a conversation from more than year ago that Aimee and I had with a couple of Londoners. We were having dinner on the neutral soil of a non-US former British colony (a/k/a Club Splash in St Lucia) when a discussion of our careers required an explanation of what the ACLU was, which necessitated a further account (read: civics lesson) of the Bill of Rights.
While describing what I thought to be the ‘easy’ areas like Freedom of Speech, we diverted into a fairly foreign conversation (pardon the pun). We absolutely could not convince them of the justification for protecting speech, rather, protecting all speech. As often happens in conversations of this nature, the specter of Hitler and skinheads haunted their hypothetical assertions, and from their English perspective they held that some ideas, thoughts, concepts, what-have-you, are absolutely or objectively wrong – or evil – and deserved no protection.
The experience of hearing someone speak against our American understanding of free speech with such conviction was so strange to me. Perhaps it’s our indoctrination of our concept of freedom (or theirs) that makes us uneasy with what Blair is doing, but I am also conflicted with it.
It makes so much sense what Blair is doing – “Hate us and Leave us”, yet it flies in the face of our Amendment Numero Uno.
Or, perhaps have we stretched the envelope of freedom of speech to an irrational exaggeration of what we need for a safe and free society?
I really can't say.
Interesting perspective... I just can't shake the feeling that it's a slippery slope that leads nowhere but down towards suppression of dissent, of "rebellious" or "anti-government" thought and ideas, of free expression. And that's somewhere I don't want this country to go; if the Brits are OK with it, more power to them.
Post a Comment
<< Home