Post 34--Terrorism in Paris; Freedom and Tolerance at Home

Another case of a broken promise!  I mentioned last time that we would continue with the lawyer thing today. “We’ll do that next time,” I wrote. But I also wrote that when important events take place that require more urgent attention, then we’ll go there and leave the previous subject for a more suitable day. Well, that’s what’s happening.

Matthew Fisher of Postmedia News wrote an interesting column in the Vancouver Sun (“We must confront extremism without fanning its flames,” Jan. 8/2015) about the Paris murder of journalists in retaliation for publishing irreverent stuff about Islam, including cartoons (“We must confront extremism without fanning its flames,” Jan. 8/2015). That’s a “now-now” issue that needs our attention. 

(Thus, our lawyer friends will have to wait for another day. Just hope this will not lead to extended nightmares for some of you!  I definitely will come back to that topic for it continues to haunt me, especially right now. I have lying on my desk right in front of me as we speak/write, a lawyer’s bill for over $1100 for the revision of a simple will and of a power of attorney document—at most two hours of work. It did not give me a nightmare, but I did lay awake the first night after its delivery, steaming with anger and indignation.  Who the hell do these lawyers think they are? What gives them the right to charge so exorbitantly?  Especially since I have been referred to them as Christian lawyers by another Christian manager of charity funds. Okay, I’ve spouted off and leave it there for now, even though spouting off at lawyers does not give me the relieved feeling spouting off is supposed to give you.)

Alright, that Parisian terror thing and Matthew Fisher. Sorry for the delay, Matthew, but don’t worry. This is your day in court—eh, sorry, in the blog.

Apart from the terror of it all, Fisher reports a wide-spread agreement that the aim of the exercise was to destroy liberty, particularly the freedom of the press.  Among examples of crimping freedom in the West is the fact that al-Qaida and “its even more virulent stepchild, Islamic State (ISIS), have already terrified western media to the point where almost no journalists have tried to bear witness to the outrages now being perpetrated by ISIS.”  Another example is the closure of western embassies in the Middle East. Even those remaining open have lost their effectiveness, because their staff are too frightened to collect reliable information.

Possibly one of the worst effects is the “grim paradox” of new “tough laws that restrict freedom” in order to “protect it”!  Europe has elected some politicians who have vowed to “further restrict freedom in the name of freedom if they gain power.”  European populations are divided and aggressively campaign for and against further emigration from Muslim countries. Divisions have crept in, bitter divisions between “progressives” and “hardliners” that have developed into a “see-saw battle for the hearts and minds of Germans.”

Fisher warns that “we must try to understand this evil as best as we can and figure out ways to confront it without making things worse.”  That is to say, we must not allow these developments lead to restrictions on our freedom of expression. “We have to remain tolerant of all ideas” except those that involve terrorism and, I would add, the ideas that spawn it. 

He concludes, “Preserving liberty is a tricky business” for which “there are no easy or obvious solutions.”  Well written, Fisher. Thank you.

However, we must recognize that the freedom we have grown accustomed to was developed under more peaceful conditions.  Yes, we had our terrible aberrations in the form of dictatorial authorities and their agents. Yes, we had our Nazis that ignored every norm of human decency.  Yes, we needed protection against serious human rights violations. However, those threats were internal and indigenous. We understood them and, once the Nazis and their allies had been contained, we knew how to curb them with an effective human rights regime buttressed by the authority of the United Nations. 

However, none of that took into account what we are seeing and suffering today. Our human rights legislation simply was not designed to counter this kind of violent, heartless and mindless barbarity. We need to revisit and, probably, rewrite that legislation to take into consideration current realities. Amongst other things, the following immediately come to mind. That means, these are things we need to seriously think about and only after that serious thinking has taken place, act. So, what comes next is not a fixed programme that we must follow so much as a list of things to be considered—and possibly to be (partly) rejected.

• We need to write it out clearly that everyone is legally free to criticize the ideas or beliefs of others, even when they are satirical as were the writings of Charlie Hebdo, that group of Parisian journalists, “ridiculous and highly offensive” even. 
• Political incorrectness must be exposed for what it is and be rejected by society as well by as our government agencies.
• We definitely need to give our security agents the freedom and responsibility to rein in and arrest every individual who is known to support Islamic violence before they act on their ideas. Those ideas and sympathies themselves need to be outlawed.
• If they have come to our shores from elsewhere, citizen or not, repatriate them forthwith.
• It is time to throw away our gentlemen’s gloves and take a harder line.
• And for now, at least, we need to restrict further Muslim immigration till we get a handle on all this—and until the Muslim nations and their citizens take both responsibility for and effective action to counter all this nasty stuff emanating from their cultures and/or religion.

I have a feeling that these “suggestions for serious thought and action” on my part, may go further than Fisher intended, but, if we wish to nip all this in the bud, we have no choice but to take some radical actions that may rattle us after we have been chained in by our own human rights regime. Yes, when our gentrified human rights are applied to the rough and bloody situations we face today and for which they were not designed, they turn into chains and require some serious rattling on our part. Some of the gentrification to which we have grown accustomed has to be pulled back for the time being.  The kids’ gloves have to be replaced by boxing gloves, especially legal boxing gloves.  We need to become intolerant of violent and bloody intolerance, particularly of every embodiment of Islamism.  Legislate it to death. Take it out of the human rights regime. Quit being gentlemanly and just go for it.