Racial Discrimination

Like it or not, we live on a world that is rapidly increasing its rate of demographic change.  Ever since the Big Bang, there has been movement of sentient life forms (Observed by Charles Darwin) throughout the globe for various reasons, least of which was the mighty dollar … until today (This century).

Being a controversial subject, some would state that human movement has taken place for many centuries, but there has always been areas to easily and conveniently absorb that movement because of relatively small numbers … until today (This century).

The difference, today, is that global transportation enables anyone to move to the other side of the Earth in 24 hours, unlike in the past when cultures would take a generation to move across just one continent.  The result being stagnation of cultures within their own respective continents.

Unfortunately, geologically and environmentally, especially on the African continent, some cultures were dealt a poor hand which impeded a useful civilized development.  These people were black skinned.  Equally, the Indian continent suffered similarly and these people were brown.  Many indigenous peoples were also dark skinned, Australia is one example … America, another.

Today, geologically and especially environmentally, the Earth is experiencing rapid change, affecting, at least those cultures who were dealt the poor hand and, with the spread of electronic communication, they may observe the comfortable life of the white cultures who were dealt valuable aces and jokers. 

Thus, we have a situation of envious black and brown races believing it is their time to move again, but in greater numbers … for the mighty dollar.  They are, now, referred to as migrants; economic, illegal, and refugees.  Black, brown (Coloured) and poor … and usually uninvited.

When I, firstly, thought about writing this post, I had a slightly different subject in mind.  The upside down aspect of white Afrikaner people being killed in South Africa.  People who, I believe, according to the U.N., may not be given refugee status to move with the black and brown races to a safer continent.  Should we also be sympathetic to their plight … or is it a kind of karma.

Please comment.

Politics 8 - Refugees

When one feels like discussing something interesting, it often becomes a debate. Then, we are told never to introduce those two dangerous subjects, Politics and Religion. But, try to discuss immigration and avoid an insulting argument, because immigration combines both politics and religion.

I wrote the following, as a comment, in a newspaper this morning.  Then, realized that I had a Blog, a worthy stage for my act.

Enter, stage right (or left).  No one political party in the world can design an equitable immigration policy, and those religions that preach 'Peace on Earth to all men', seem to forget those words when they leave the church or mosque.

Personally, I like to teach many people the difference between an 'immigrant' and a 'refugee'. In the 'ideal' world, immigrants should not cause major problems, but that assumes that immigration departments adhere to the regulations, i.e., no person (s) should be coming into a country without sufficient funds to support themselves for a defined period of time, or be sponsored by a business (or another individual) for a specific period of time, e.g., three years. After three years, they should qualify for resident or even citizen status.

But a refugee usually has no choice. They come, for various reasons, for fear of their lives. Once their case is proven, I am sure that most of us would be sympathetic to their situation. We may say, 'There, but for the grace of God, go I.' Nevertheless, I need to mention a rarely spoken, controversial point; If, and when, the fearful reason for their acceptance as refugees has passed, they must be encouraged to return to their safe country of origin ... and, from there, apply for immigration. A precedent exists, e.g., a tourist arrives in a country, loves it so much, decides to stay, but must return to their country of origin to apply at the embassy ... and prove educational skills, financial sufficiency, and criminal record, etc.

That is not discrimination.

Religion 4 - The Global Blasphemy Law

As a keen reader of international media, I thought that I was aware of most things, but the following article, when it appeared in Forbes Magazine caught me on the hop.  It describes an attempt to create a global blasphemy law applicable to every nation.

US Supports UN Anti-Free Speech Measure 

While you were out scavenging the Walmart super sales or trying on trinkets at Tiffany or Cartier, your government has been quietly wrapping up a Christmas gift of its own: adoption of UN resolution 16/18. An initiative of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (formerly Organization of Islamic Conferences), the confederacy of 56 Islamic states, Resolution 16/18 seeks to limit speech that is viewed as “discriminatory” or which involves the “defamation of religion” – specifically that which can be viewed as “incitement to imminent violence.”  Whatever that means. 

Initially proposed in response to alleged discrimination against Muslims in the aftermath of 9/11 and in an effort to clamp down on anti-Muslim attacks in non-Muslim countries, Resolution 16/18 has been through a number of revisions over the years in order to make it palatable to American representatives concerned about U.S. Constitutional guarantees of free speech. Previous versions of the Resolution, which sought to criminalize blasphemous speech and the “defamation of religion,” were regularly rejected by the American delegation and by the US State Department, which insisted that limitations on speech – even speech deemed to be racist or blasphemous – were at odds with the Constitution. But this latest version, which includes the “incitement to imminent violence” phrase – that is, which criminalizes speech which incites violence against others on the basis of religion, race, or national origin – has succeeded in winning US approval – despite the fact that it (indirectly) places limitations as well on speech considered “blasphemous.” 

The background to all of this, unsurprisingly, is an effort on the part of Muslim countries to limit what they consider to be defamatory and blasphemous speech: criticism of Islam, say, or insulting the prophet Mohammed – which, as we’ve learned, can mean anything from drawing a cartoon or making a joke in a comedy sketch to burning a Koran. Such acts – according to some readings of the Koran and, indeed, according to law in some OIC countries – are punishable by death. Hence the riots that met the publication of the so-called “Danish cartoons,” the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, the murder of Theo van Gogh, and on and on. 

Deception.   Here’s where Resolution 16/18 gets tricky.  Because who, exactly, arbitrates what is “incitement to imminent violence”? Violence by whom? If drawing a caricature of the Prophet incites violence by Islamic radicals to the tune of riots, arson, and murder, all sanctioned by the IOC itself – then drawing such a caricature (or writing a book like the Satanic Verses) will now constitute a criminal act. And that is exactly what the OIC was aiming for. It is also in direct violation of the principles of Western democracy – and the First Amendment. (Though it is crucial to note that any resolution passed by the General Assembly remains non-binding, which makes you sort of wonder what the point of all this is, anyway.) 

Moreover, since many would claim that the persecution of blasphemers is mandated by their religion, conflicts emerge between guarantees of free expression and the guarantee of freedom of religion and the practice of one’s faith. In other words: your free speech allows you to insult my prophet: my freedom of religion compels me to kill you for it. 

What about “incitement to violence”?  Whose violence? 

This is how the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation plays “Gotcha. 

This is how the American government, however unwittingly, subsumes its own Constitution in deference to the demands of the Islamic state.  It’s a dangerous game. 

Yet in all of this, America has stood strong in its defense of free speech – even blasphemous, hateful, racist, sexist, Pentecostal, homophobic, and ignorant speech. We must continue to do so, no matter what pressures we may face. Because in the end, limiting our rights to self-expression and – above all – the questioning of religious beliefs – will never help to make the world more peaceful – or more free.

Abigail R. Esman