History and the Christchurch Massacre

by with One Comment FeaturedGlobalRace Relations

“I sleep well. It’s the politicians who are to blame for failing to come to an agreement and resorting to violence.”

You may recognize these words as those of Mikhael Kalashnikov, the inventor of the AK-47. In a world where terrorist attacks and mass shootings have become a daily reminder of the power weapons confer to their holders, there is always a pending question: who is to blame?

Judging by the latest information, the Christchurch shooter was inspired by several European events and figures: Anders Breivik, Marine Le Pen, and the Balkan War among others. This idea that the good, rightful Christian world is being invaded and threatened by the blood-thirsty, ignorant Muslims is not new, but it is sickening that some people still act accordingly to such nonsense. Breivik slaughtered teenagers trapped on an island. Marine Le Pen and her party (Front National) lost the French elections because their claims are absurd, their ideas are utterly racist and the French were either more hopeful or less cynical than the Americans or the Brazilians, who both chose to rally behind pseudo-charismatic, fear-inducing, history-ignoring leaders. There is no such thing as a Muslim invasion. Swapping the word “Muslim” with “Mexican” or “LGBTQ” works as well. The people do not feel threatened or cornered. But to divide is to conquer. It does not go any further than that.

The Balkans were indeed invaded, centuries ago, by the Turks. Many Albanians and Kosovans still revere Skanderbeg as a hero and model of patriotism who fought to defend his country. Nevertheless, many of them are Muslims. If these people can accept their legacy, why does an Australian native decide that he has to go on a shooting spree after invoking the spirits of men who are, or have been, tried by the International Court of Justice for organizing and perpetrating the most recent genocide in Europe?

The Albanian and Kosovan diaspora constitutes one of the most important minorities in Switzerland, and most of them are Muslims. The stigma of the war is still blatantly visible in this community, and conflicts with Serbia over borders and the Kosovan independence are intense. Second or third generations have Swiss passports, do their military service, marry Swiss citizens and could not care less whether their children are the invaders or the invaded. Claiming that the tyrants who cold-heartedly ordered women to be raped and men killed, houses to be burnt not even 30 years ago are modern heroes is simply ignoring the most important lesson history has taught us. Brenton Tarrant was probably not very attentive when his History teacher talked about the Crusades. There is no peace to be found in weapons and hatred. 

Similar Read: Muslim “Re-Education” Camps?

Shaming Shamima: An Unlikely Debate

by with No Comment FeaturedGlobal

Shamima Begum, to forgive or not to forgive? The request of this 19-year-old British Muslim to return to England after defecting to ISIS has sparked debate on the issues of remorse and culpability of minors for serious criminality. A martyr, a victim, a misguided youth, an accomplice to terrorism, a precedent for case law. Shamima has certainly divided opinion over how her wrongdoings should be viewed. Never in recent memory has a supporter of terrorism generated such controversy and even more surprisingly, sympathy.

Support from the public is undeniably linked to her young age. Shamima made her decision to join ISIS when she was 15 years old. A child beyond 10 years old committing any crime can still be tired and sentenced under British Law. Her decision to stay with ISIS continued past her turning 18 when she was fully capable as an adult to take criminal responsibility. Now at 19, her naivety is coincidental and unfortunate at best.

Let’s consider if this was a British boy who had been radicalized and fathered a child whilst part of ISIS. Would they be given sympathy for their regret? What we have here is a gender bias from both men and women on social media that no one is talking about. ‘She’s a victim’ ‘she was groomed’, ‘she’s traumatized.’ Were the teenage boys who defected to ISIS at the same age ever given victim status? Where was all this uproar for them? Two similar cases of British-Bangladeshi men were repatriated back to England only because of legal reasons, not on the basis of forgiveness. The same should apply to a female member of ISIS.

Having made the case that she is fully culpable for her actions, the question now is does the punishment fit the crime? The legal dilemmas here are more complex than many of us realize. Our (Head of ) Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, states his decision to revoke Shamima’s citizenship was in the interest of national security. Foreign terrorists and accomplices are also banned from entering the U.K. under the same principle. Opponents argue she has not been given a fair trial to be prosecuted and sentenced.

However, the statistics presented in Parliament last year revealed that only one in ten of all jihadists returning to the UK were prosecuted. The Director of the Centre on Radicalisation and Terrorism, Nikita Malik, has expressed concern about British laws not being robust enough to allow for prosecution in these cases. The current legal framework prohibits much of the evidence collected on terrorists abroad being admissible to court. There is the very real possibility of Shamima being free on a technicality despite her openly saying she left to join ISIS. It is therefore unfair to label Sajid Javid’s decision as purely political, xenophobic or washing hands of responsibility. Risking miscarriage of justice really is at the expense of Britain’s security if Shamima (and subsequent cases) cannot be adequately prosecuted.

The debate has since shifted to the issue of her citizenship. The ‘bloodline’ law in Bangladesh means Shamima may be a citizen there by default because of her Bangladeshi mother. Bangladesh are in the process of disputing this with the Home Office, meaning the U.K. could have illegally rendered an individual stateless. Shamima also has the right to appeal the Home Office’s decision by proving the Home Secretary acted disproportionately.

One fact remains: she admits to joining ISIS. This in itself is the definition of proscription and is illegal under the Terrorism Act 2000. It is punishable by up to 10 years in prison. If she is accepted back into the U.K, she will be tried and sentenced in accordance with those laws. An indefinite/temporary ban from re-entering the U.K. may ironically be the more lenient punishment, all things considered. Quite simply put by Sajid Navid (Home Secretary), if you back terror, there must be severe consequences. 

Similar Read: God Save the King, the Demise of a Regime 

MUSLIM “RE-EDUCATION” CAMPS?

by with One Comment Diversity & InclusionFeaturedGlobalRace Relations

Think about a group of people who were persecuted, tortured, and put into internment camps for no other reason besides their religion. The first thing that probably comes to mind is the Jews during the Holocaust – something that happened in history and will never occur again. However, there are people in 2018 who are being subjected to some of the same horrors that those people faced during World War II.

The Uyghur Muslims are a group of Muslims who live in a territory occupied by China. They have their own flag, culture, and language that separates them from the rest of China. Over the past several years, they have been persecuted by China’s government for their religion (China’s Muslim population is approximately 1.7%). Most recently, the Chinese government has detained hundreds of thousands of Uyghur Muslims and held them in internment camps, or as they call to them, “re-education” camps. They justify their actions by claiming that it is an effort to prevent terrorism fueled by religious extremism. Muslims in these camps are being brainwashed and forced to watch propaganda. They’re also being forced to participate in activities and renounce their faith and culture and pledge allegiance to the Chinese Communist Party. They’re children are often separated from their parents and put into state-run orphanages. These camps have also been referred to as “hospitals” since China views religious beliefs as a form of mental illness that must be cured. 

We have seen this happen before. When the colonizers came to North America, they forced the native people into camps in an attempt to “re-educated” them by stripping away their language, culture, and customs in an effort to control them. The Nazis forced Jews into concentration camps where they tortured an entire group for no reason other than their religion. Today, we see it happening again, and it is clear that the world’s promise of “never again” has once again been broken. 

One can only imagine the outcry if this was happening again similar to the atrocities during World War II. It seems that the same heinous behavior taking place towards Muslims in an age of readily accessible information cannot even get basic media coverage. This isn’t the first time a massacre towards Muslims has been largely ignored. The 1995 genocide in Srebrenica is still unbeknownst to most people, where more than 8,000 Muslim men and boys were murdered for their religion and the rest of the world stood by in silence (the UN declared the city a safe haven for Muslims before the massacre occurred). 

“Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”