Terrorism v/s Freedom of Speech
In Flirting
with Disaster, Marc Gerstein wrote about the (short term) behavioral change
due to terrorism and its consequence:
“After 9/11, many people were terrified
to fly, and they took to the roads instead…the shift of people from commercial airlines
(which are extremely safe) to cars (which are less safe when measured on a
comparable basis) meant that one thousand more people died in the three months
after 9/11 than would have if people had travelled as they usually do.”
It’s exactly this kind of behavioral
change that Simon Phipps warned
about more recently:
“Terrorism isn’t just performing a
terrifying act. It’s provoking society’s immune system into attacking itself,
making its defence systems attack the values and people they are supposed to be
defending.”
During the recent Sony hack, and the related threats against airing the movie The Interview, David Carr wondered (he wrote this when Sony had yielded to the threats):
“Now that cultural discourse has become
the subject of online blackmail, it is hard to imagine where it will end.”
At around the
same time, Scott
Adams wondered whether it was worth (or right) putting lives on the line on
a matter of principle:
“Do any of you believe that Sony
employees should risk their lives, and the lives of movie-goers, so you can see
more movies about dictators?”
Touché.
And this brings us to the terrorist
attacks against the Charlie Hebdo
publication in Paris because of, what else, cartoons making fun of, who else,
the prophet. One of the victims was Stephane Charbonnier, the publishing
director of Charlie Hebdo, who once
said:
“I am not afraid of retaliation. I have
no kids, no wife, no car, no credit. It perhaps sounds a bit pompous, but I
prefer to die standing than living on my knees.”
Prophet-ic words. Pun unintended.
Turns out a couple of years back, Charbonnier
said this after the magazine's offices were fire-bombed:
“Mohammed isn't sacred to me. I don't
blame Muslims for not laughing at our drawings. I live under French law. I
don't live under Koranic law.”
And yet, the pseudo-secularists
everywhere, both in Europe and India, now worry about an over-reaction against
Muslims and ask whether it was at all necessary to provoke them. What are they
thinking? Give in to these animals and we will have won peace for our time? Hmmm…who
was the last man who said that? Oh yeah, it was Chamberlin. About Hitler. And
we know how that ended.
The word pseudo-secularists is a very convenient way of verbal attack in some general direction, hoping to hit someone whom the person using it wants to hit. The person using the expression should be invited to define the expression's meaning. [In this, we have to leave out all politicians because they can never be interested in principles but only interested in politicking.]
ReplyDeleteIf the person using the word is reasonable, he or she would have to agree that there are pseudo-secularists and there are secularists. The secularists need not necessarily be the pseudo type. We must, in this context, look into how and why this catchy expression 'pseudo-secularist' came into being. This word was the weapon used by Hindu extremists and fanatics who wanted to attack (verbally, to start with) anyone who is unwilling to tow their line. The word is their solution to silence those who condemn their religious extremism and fanaticism.
That I would get branded and labeled as a pseudo-secularist cannot and should not limit me. I would like to hold on to my value system. Secularism is a better way and religious extremism is evil. I am not budging from that! Just because I am secular, despite being a God-believer without the narrowness of any religion, should that mean that I am siding with the Muslim commitment to and their immersion in terrorism? Their terrorism is the cancer that will bring about the end of the decadent Muslim society. I say decadent because, in the Muslim society, the voice against their own wrong doings is so so absurdly minimal. But in contrast the zeal with which they whip themselves up against any non-Muslim without evaluating the situation objectively is phenomenal. Both their extreme form of fanaticism and their ever-readiness to lean on terrorism are going to be the cause of their own doom. In fighting terrorism, we are only helping in what the Muslims have chosen for themselves. So, this fight can be done with cool-headedness.
As a person likely to be labeled as a pseudo-secularist I would still harp on this note only. "World! Take on terrorism and show no weakness in doing so. Stand up with all the strength and ways that would support this right cause. There can be no wavering on "Terrorism has to be defeated and terrorists have to be punished". This has to be a true resolve not a politician's harangue. In doing the battles against today's evil-most component of the society, do not follow the same unreasonableness, extremism, purposeless killing and the brutality towards the innocents - all of which is what the terrorists and religious extremists follow or support."
Before closing, I wish to return to one more point about pseudo-secularism. The European society went in for 'secular' governance. Through that they actually succeeded in getting rid of all messy but powerful influence wielded by the Church, which had been going on for centuries. My question is: "Is the secular approach shown by the Hellenic society and later taken up many other societies with a fair degree of success the pseudo-secular type?" At once, this question emerges too: "The Muslims believe their governance (whatever it may be) has to be perfect, because they consider they are neither pseudo nor secular! Are we to agree then that religious governance is better than secular governance, unless we wish to condemn one religion only?"