Human Rights: It’s all for one or none for all

Life is but a lesson of learning… The more issues you explore, the more people you meet, the more you learn about them and about yourself. In light of a recurring lesson of mine, I’d like to share with you a beautiful, simple yet oh so powerful poem. You may know it. Take a look…

First They Came

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemoller

This short but very poignant poem refers back to the era of Nazi Germany and the failure of German intellectuals to stand up to the Nazis. Dating back to the middle of the last century, it is as relevant as ever in an era of rising hate crime, neo-Nazi/far-right groups and religious extremism to name a few, despite the public awareness of human rights, the availability of resources to learn about each others’ rights and the wide range of means/mediums to speak out (social media, lobbying organisations etc.).

This poem in fact highlights a few very serious key points, which can be summed up in the following famous quotes:

  • “Love for others what you love for yourself” (Prophet Muhammad, pbuh)
  • “You’re either part of the solution or part of the problem” (Eldridge Cleaver)
  • “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing” (Edmund Burke)
  • “I am not free while any women is unfree, even when her shackles are very different from my own” (Audre Lorde)

What is the overall message you may ask? Well, put quite simply it’s this: you cannot be free whilst someone else is oppressed. You cannot advocate for peace whilst hating others and you cannot call for the rights of one group, whilst advocating hatred or intolerance for another. No one is saying we all have to have the same beliefs or opinions, but common decency and universal rights are not exclusive. Where human rights are concerned it’s in the famous words of the three musketeers (!) that things go: “It’s all for one, and one for all!”.

Imagine this: you want others to accept and accommodate your religious beliefs but you won’t do the same. Not very logical is it? Or you want women to have the freedom to wear what you want them to wear but not what they may or may not want to wear. Not a simple pick and choose is it? Bearing that in mind, I’d like to lay out the following scenarios. For simplicity sake, we’ll use the names “Mr A” and “Mrs A”:

  1. “Mr A” advocates for the rights of Muslim minorities in Europe but perpetuates anti-Shia, anti-Sunni, anti-Ahmadi rhetoric.
  2. “Mrs A” is outraged at the discrimination hijabis face but forces her daughter to cover and won’t accept difference of opinion related to covering within Muslim circles.
  3. “Mr and Mrs A” are campaigning for the rights of Palestinians yet victimise the Jewish community, refusing to separate faith from politics and fail to stand up to rising anti-Semitism
  4. “Mr A” is outraged about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq but doesn’t put pen to paper and seek genuine dialogue
  5. “Mrs A” expresses concern for UK foreign policy in the Middle East yet stays silent about the famine in Yemen caused by the Saudi led war, the abuse of women in Saudi law and Iran, the suffering of the Uyghurs in China, the cause of the Tibetans etc.
  6. “Mr and Mrs A” stands up for the religious/cultural/ethnic rights of their personal communities but stay silent about the abuse and difficulties that others face.

What is the message in all of these cases? Well, the message is quite clearly this: they’ve got it wrong! They’re missing the point. If it’s human rights you want, if it’s justice, freedom and equality, then it’s all for one and one for all! So when you’re advocating for a specific cause, ask yourself the following questions:

  • Am I advocating a message of peace, non-violence, tolerance and unity? (Unbiased educated criticism is allowed but violence is counter-productive!)
  • Am I utilising the correct tools, networks and organisations which advocate peace and tolerance? (Giving/sharing a platform with an intolerant, bigoted group is also a counter-productive no-no!)
  • Is my message inclusive or exclusive? (Am I alienating or spreading hatred of others?)
  • What is my ultimate message and purpose? (Am I aiming for a positive outcome which will resolve conflict and abuse?)

Remember: calling out abuse is always going to ruffle a few feathers. That’s not the problem! The problem is when your method goes against the principles and purpose of what you’re fighting for – or if you’re cause is exclusive in the rights and aims you’re fighting for.

Think about this and remember, when we’re talking about rights: it’s all for one and one for all!

Salam

20-offpurplebouquets

Advertisements

Laïcité of lies – Laïcité à la française is not secularism

There has been a lot in the news the past week about France, its so-called “secular policy” and a recent ban on burkinis in Cannes. This is yet another example of an Islamophobic, discriminatory ideology that is not secular in any sense in relation to freedom, justice and democracy – three words it is usually described and presented in relation to.

Let’s have a look at what secularism is supposed to be. According to the Oxford dictionary, secularism is defined as:

The principle of separation of the state from religious institutions‘he believes that secularism means no discrimination against anybody in the name of religion

Now, as a translator, I usually refuse to translate France’s policy of laïcité to “secularism” when translating into English. No, this is not a political bias as a translator – it is simply the truth. Laïcité is a whole different political policy of its own and not what we in Anglophone countries equate with secularism. There is a key core ideological difference:

  • Secularism: non-discrimination, the lack of political power/influence over one’s religion and vice versa
  • Laïcité: not simply separating state and politics. This principle is the banning of religion from the public sphere, in all senses. “Privatising” personal religion and refusing to acknowledge/understand religious identity/belonging.

I always compare it to being more of “State atheism” – but of course with a Catholic bias in the case of France. I spent six years at university studying – amongst other things – French language, culture, politics and aditionally human rights. Before even becoming a Muslim, I was convinced that France was Islamophobic. Before marrying an Algerian… Before the new line of laws which just keep hitting Muslims… Before the ever worsening regression of religious freedom and increase in Islamophobic politics…

In order to keep this short, just consider these examples of the treatment of religious communities – essentially affecting largely Muslim women and girls  – and see if this sounds like secularism, freedom, democracy and justice

1. Banning burkinis on the beach for unfounded reasons of “hygiene”, “safety” and “secularism” (see here and here) which essentially rules out swimming for a groups of (Muslim) women like myself (Cannes – I won’t be visiting next summer by the way!)

IMG_0993

Image: Elizabeth Arif-Fear (c)

2. Banning facial coverings (niqabs, burqas) – meaning innocent Muslim women cannot wear face veils unless they want to face a fine and/or imprisonment (see here)

5631903720_8d34a3e564_o

Image credit: Khalid Albaih

3. Banning “conspicuous” religious symbols in schools such as headscarves and for those “delivering a public service”, which means either removing your kippa, Sikh turban or hijab or removing yourself from the Republican sphere;  i.e. be taught at home, work from home or go to a Muslim/Islamic school (see here and here)

14538006170_a3bc41ff1c_o.jpg

Image credit: Vincent Albanese

This is the model that Turkey used to base its headscarf policy on. I myself have direct experience of this having being informed I could not teach in my headscarf when I applied for a teaching post. I therefore withdraw my application. Fortunately things seem to have changed in Turkey. Clearly, I was out to indoctrinate the students during English class by being myself whilst teaching girls who they themselves had the right to cover their heads and were Muslim… Glad to see, things have changed a little in Turkey at least!

Things have become so extreme in France, that a young Muslim girl was recently told that her maxi skirt was “too religious”, resulting in her being banned from the school.

Now just ask yourself these questions:

  • Does this sound like non-discrimination?
  • Does this sound like freedom?
  • Does this sound fair?
  • Does this sound rational?

For me, that’s a big, fat NO! It must be said:

France: laïcité is not secularism! Please stop pretending your République functions for the benefit of the people according to liberté, égalité et fraternité. It doesn’t! What it is is:

neo-colonial, intolerant,

Islamophobic, hypocritical and nothing less!

Salam!

Credits:

Feature image: Lisecher