One-sided freedom

Freedom has become a buzzword. Freedom has become a refuge. Freedom has become a license to cross boundaries. Freedom is endangering freedom. Man is born to be free. True. But man is born free to make choices. Man is also born to bear the consequences of the choices he or she makes. History has witnessed man’s search and struggle for freedom. Wars have been fought on nations wanting control over other nations. Foreign occupation todate has been a main cause of the struggle to be free. Interpersonal relationships are made or broken on the imbalance between control and freedom. Over-powering nations and over-controlling parents invite rebellion.

There is growing abuse of power, control and the so-called freedom in the world. This is creating an unequal world. Whenever the world becomes unequal it is in danger of imbalance and whenever the unequal try to get even an uncontrolled power struggle takes place which creates resentment, retaliation and sometimes revenge in bloody ways. The word ‘freedom’ was mostly interpreted as a political struggle that nations practice in various degrees. The emergence of the British Empire as a force of occupation in South Asia was the understanding of the struggle for freedom against foreign occupation. Later in the mid twentieth century, the struggle changed to being overpowered by the ‘Super Power America’. American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan became the symbols of oppression and retaliation.

Individual freedoms were enshrined in the American constitution and specified individual rights. The US ten bills of rights are the base of all freedoms to speak, to assemble and to associate, etc. There are many amendments to them to further expand and explain the scope of these liberties. For example, the first amendment also includes the children’s rights of protection that allows them to sue their parents if they perceive the parents being unfair or harming their interests. In the Orient, this would be, however, considered disrespect and disobedience.

It is these expanded freedoms and interpretations that have created controversies as the local and cultural aspects differ in each country. The problem comes in when the interpretation of freedom by one group is considered “the” interpretation. This is most apparent on religious matters. Religion is a very sensitive issue. Any imposition of a certain belief system on another belief system is bound to create resentment and reaction. That is why ISIS is an extremist organization. That is why the Charlie Hebdo caricature case is so sad and dangerous. French policymakers’ unnecessary obsession with proving their version of religious freedom right has made them commit a number of wrongs.

The French magazine Charlie Hebdo has established an “anti” brand in an attempt to sell more by being outrageous, outlandish bordering on being obscene. It gained notoriety when it published the blasphemous caricatures. The blasphemous cartoons first appeared in a Danish daily, Jyllands-Posten. Charlie Hebdo reprinted them in 2006, angering Muslims in France and rest of the world. The magazine’s offices were fire-bombed in November 2011 when it published a highly provocative cartoon under the title “Charia Hebdo”. In 2013, Charlie Hebdo published a special edition featuring the blasphemous cartoons. Two years later, in 2015, a group of gunmen attacked the newspaper’s offices in Paris and massacred 12 people, including some of the country’s most celebrated cartoonists.

The recent beheading of a teacher who showed those blasphemous cartoons in his class again is a consequence of the same streak of riling and imposing their own beliefs on other people’s religious beliefs. This can act as a tipping-off of a frustration bomb. The teacher teaching freedom of expression was trying to impose his freedom value on everybody and tragically was killed. The person responsible was also killed. An attack on people praying in a church in Nice has killed 3 people. The reaction to all these reactions are going to invite more killings and violence. All this is because of lack of understanding and acceptance of 3 things:

1. Freedom is For All- The extremist only gives himself freedom and forces others to follow his version of freedom. Thus when anybody belonging to any religion or sect imposes his own code of conduct or dress or values he or she is extremist. While Muslims have been branded as extremists on the basis of minority of extremists present in various countries, other similar extremist minorities present in Christianity or Hinduism are given the freedom cover. Freedom of choice does not only mean that if you choose to under-dress its none of anybody else’s business, it also means that those wanting to over-cover themselves have the same choice. France has long violated this basic freedom of dress rights of Muslims with the result that conflict and violence have increased. Research points out that ban on the use of headscarves by women in government in 2003 and the ban on wearing clothes that completely cover the face in public by the French parliament in 2010 widened the conflict between Muslim communities and French national identity.

2. Respect has to be Mutual- Respect for each, as they are, is a prime principle of right to live and associate. Respect conditional on conformance to another culture or religion is not respect but disrespect. The pre-requisite for respect is understanding other person’s point of view. When you understand this paradigm you tolerate more. When your tolerance level increases your acceptance of different points of view increases. The West feels that if they make fun of their own religious figures they have a right to do so with all religions. However, they need to understand how religious figures differ in the respect paradigm of other communities.

3. Diversity with equality- If diversity means accepting differences then diversity means accepting not just class or caste or race differences but also religious differences. The true meaning of diversity is to not just tolerate but celebrate differences across cultures and religions. Lack of this understanding has created a convoluted and biased interpretation of these values.

President Macron’s comments labelling incidents of violence as “islamist terror” reflect a thoughtless and reactive response. He is following the path of Trump’s white supremacist imposition. He is following the path of demonizing Islam like Narendra Modi has done. The consequences of this path are also visible. The US today stands divided and President Trump is likely to lose the election. Modi is today facing an India where the pandemic and the economy have gone out of control.

On the other hand there is New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern. The killing of 50 people in the mosque was dealt with utmost sensitivity, affection and healing of hearts approach by her. The man responsible was called terrorist and punished accordingly. She wore a head scarf when she visited Muslim families and stood with them in Friday prayers. No wonder New Zealand was the first country to overcome the Covid-19 pandemic. She has just got a landslide vote to win a re-election. Leaders do not give in to circumstances as President Macron has done but they rise above the circumstances to lift the nation as Jacinda Ardern has done. The choice many be tough but then tough situations do not last, tough leaders do.

(The writer can be reached at [email protected].)

Copyright Business Recorder, 2020