Lee Rigby's death, Soldier of the British Army Fusilier, hit close to home as the young man was attacked and murdered by two individuals with Islamic ties, something the media dutiful crowned a terrorist attack. The murder likewise was unprovoked, as Lee on May 22 was walking and struck by a vehicle, only to be dragged, beaten and stabbed. It's not necessarily the nature of the murder that makes UK officials nervous, but the assailants and their connections that caused skepticism. Immediately the Ministry of Defense investigated the incident, deploying police to protect Muslim communities from retaliation. This event triggered a state and cabinet response to extremist ideals. Everything from “Schools, colleges, charities, Islamic centres and prisons,” (BBC) were investigated and debated whether or not to pursuit some measure of curbing extremism in the UK. This means the “legal powers to ban groups that preach hatred,” something of which was sought after public outcry for some sort of response from the Ministries involved. Home Secretary, Theresa May, now publicly stated that there was an outline being created to support the ban on those that do in fact “preach hatred.” (BBC) Some of these measures that support the ban involve "internet censorship": "websites, organizations," maybe even individuals with ties to Islam or of Muslim background. (The Economist)
But like anything, there are two sides to every coin...if not more. Religion isn't just one dimensional, nor are all of it's followers. It's one thing to target individuals who promote harm and hatred towards other society members, but another to potentially racially profile individual's to try and “beat them to the punch.” If we look at the United States for example, 9/11 created a chaotic and zealous finger pointing bonanza that landed many of its citizens on the no fly list, under surveillance and detained. Yes, with good reason security was heightened in mass transportation, in schools, in businesses, but many people fell victim to new “security” policies. Various Sikhs were prosecuted at airports on the basis of their appearance. And not to forget either that in certain parts of the United States, tolerance is not part of peoples agenda. Racism fused with insecurity creates a hostile climate that many individuals faced following the fall of the World Trade Center, the surmised attack on the Pentagon.
Currently in the UK some of these anti-extremist as well as anti-immigrant resentment is making news. A man born in Iraq, Hilal Al-Jedd, has had his British citizenship revoked for the second time by orders from Home Secretary, Theresa May. What makes this situation tumultuous is the involvement of the Supreme Court which had "previously overturned her first decision" (Independent) to take Al-Jedd's citizenship. The loss of his citizenship means that he is without a nationality, making his presence illegal globally, with no rights, no liberties. The decision was all on the basis of speculated "Islamist Extremism," which the individual has denied in court. (Independent) Not to necessarily condemn the Secretary's decision, Al-Jedd was under military speculation after coming to the UK in the 90's "to seek asylum from Iraq," (Independent) and has since then been in and out of the country battling for his legality since. Whether or not the sentence is too harsh, will only be reinforced by the effort to control Islamic behavior within Britain with the new laws on anti-extremism.
Yes, measures should be instilled to curb terrorism, extremism, and harmful, inexcusable behavior. Yes, it is important to keep in mind that the majority of citizens do not practice and act violence and . However, a policy must exist or be created that can effectively ensure that there are not external victims beyond the target, beyond those “extremist” group . This is becoming increasingly more important as the media gains ahold of footage, testimony, allegations of terrorist behavior and events, and as a nation becomes sensitive to violence after suffered a loss. It's within human nature to form opinions, to want to protect ones own and as a result that may mean the prosecution of another. For the sake of humanitarian rights, the new policy should vary much so refrain from any sort of racial profiling to keep its integrity, even when tried by national tragedy and the loss of human life.
TL;DR… UK responds to terrorist attack by creating measures and laws to effectively ban "groups that preach hatred." Could it in fact mean racial profiling in a nation that already battles with immigration issues, rioting, and the like? And as a result, what does that mean for those who practice and uphold Islam within the UK?
Sources:
The terrorists who attack civilian populations are not the typical muslim with a turban, long beard, that yells "Death to America." Most are assimilated second generation immigrants who can speak the native language of the area, knows the culture, and can all around blend in with the populace. This being said, racial profiling is a double edged sword because on one side more protective measures focussed on middle eastern looking people creates a safer environment (at least it seems that way) and on the other side it violates human rights because 99.99% of those people probably aren't terrorists. I believe it's the uncertainty that scares people into racial profiling. It might take some effort from the government but background checks, along with keeping up with the dealings of the muslim population within the country could help identify outliers, which could lead to catching terrorists.
ReplyDeleteIt is odd that "preach hatred" is used in this because were do you draw the line? This broad language could be used against any religious group. This broad language coupled with racial profiling that occurs from governments trying to find suspected terrorists could make the UK a larger target for such attacks. This language could be used against the government if their profiling is wrong. This is some very dangerous ground that the UK is walking on.
ReplyDeleteThere has been an increasing rise in far right political parties and their power/influence due to issues such as immigration and terrorism. I'm sure groups and this kind of thinking propels the tensions of the situation and the tension between different ethnic groups. But I also think the new found rise in popularity of these groups may not be entirely without cause. That is many of these groups of new Islamic migrants appear and often act in a hostile and different manner.
ReplyDeleteOf course this could be do to how they've been recently treated and feel abused. However, and I wish I still had the link, I saw this really interesting documentary. In it this English girl who had been out of the UK for a few years goes back to her town and finds that a huge Muslim population has migrated there. Now she didn't think this was a bad thing, but then she began to record their actions and interview them. At one point there was a rally in which thousands of people were protesting and questioning the legitimacy of the British government. Of course she showed the part where they told that if she wasn't muslim she was going to hell and that she was a whore. Sort of expectable in my opinion when dealing with the religious extreme. But what I found disturbing is that most of them felt that the rule of law did not exist. That if the law wasn't in the Koran then it wasn't legitimate and a muslim didn't have to live up to them.
Now what the British government chose for it's course of current action may not be appropriate, but I think they're in a difficult situation. It's sort of hard to turn the other cheek and preach freedom of speech and that sort of stuff when the opposition would like very much to take those rights away from you. Even the right to think independently isn't yours, it might not be what the majority of the Islamic faith believes but it's enough to be perceived as a threat.
I would also like to point out that the UK and many other European laws do not have as liberal freedom of speech rights or even guarantee them as the United States does.
Using stereotyping as means of identifying terrorists turned into making guesses and judging people by ethical background. This new era of civil liberties unfortunately focuses on racial profiling. Terrorists are not very easily identifiable, and their is no clear way to determine what counterterrorist measure is appropriate. How should one deal with and increase in terrorist activity and what type of measures are ok and which ones are not? Citizens must be protected, and as we discussed in class, this is where civil liberties come into question. Should they be violated? temporarily limited? In order to effectively fight terrorist threats,countries must address all means of terrorist organizational activities. And the implies addressing non-criminal terrorist activities, such as planning, funding, recruiting, education, research etc.
ReplyDelete