Free speech distinguishes the West from the rest

In Crowds and Power, the late Elias Canetti, a wonderfully gifted writer and Nobel laureate, brought a unique perspective in examining the human condition and history under the stress of mobs in politics.

When individuals gathered together turn into a crowd and then erupt into a mob, the transition from one into another is the obliteration, even momentarily, of the individual as a thinking being reduced physically into a mindless atom constituent of a mass set in motion by the wish to demonstrate power.

The crowd as mob, wrote Canetti, “wants to experience for itself the strongest possible feeling of its own animal force and passion and, as means to this end, it will use whatever social pretexts and demands offer themselves.”

The politics of the Arab-Muslim world of late — or at least since the 1979 revolution in Iran that brought clerics with a medieval mind-set to power — has been reduced to the pathology of the mob in politics.

This is not unique in history and, for instance, as it was with the pathology of mob politics during the “reign of terror” in France or the Maoist “cultural revolution” in China, the situation in the Arab-Muslim world may likely pass at some point in the future.

In the meantime, however, it should be clearly understood that there is no reasoning with mobs, and any sign of weakness in terms of appeasing mobs by acknowledging or giving in to their demands amounts to stoking their wild frenzy.

Those religious and political leaders at the head of Muslim mobs, or riding them for their own demagogic ends, sense that they are pretty close to intimidating the West into surrendering on the subject of free speech, and accepting that mocking what is sacred to Muslims — their religion, their prophet and their sacred book — must be deemed offensive and banned.

Free speech is the pulse of a free society, the antidote to the pathology of politics driven by mobs. And, moreover, free speech as the hallmark of individual freedom distinguishes the West from the Rest and, in particular, the Arab-Muslim world.

Yet once again free speech is threatened not as much by the pathology of mob politics, but by the weakness of those in the West who mistakenly believe Muslims might have a point and their demand should be met in some fashion.

This is what President Obama said at the UN this week in responding to the mob frenzy in the Arab-Muslim world: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

When one finishes parsing the sentence, one is left thinking the president of the United States agrees with Muslim mobs, and denouncing those who cause offence by ridiculing what others hold sacred can only mean admitting free speech should be abridged.

On the contrary, what needs to be said to the Arab-Muslim world, irrespective of how mobs there engage in rampaging their own societies, is that the West as a civilization is also defined by something sacred.

This something sacred and universal in appeal is individual freedom, manifest in the principle of free speech in whose defence people have made the ultimate sacrifice and, hence, this principle is non-negotiable.

 

The play’s the thing: Mark Steyn on the Obama admin’s utter failures

As if I had to tell you, columnist Mark Steyn wrote the best piece regarding the latest example of total, epic failure on the part of the Obama administration: the global Islamist chaos.

Disgrace in Benghazi

 

A night with the fanatics

On Tuesday evening, I covered a 9/11 vigil in Toronto, and a counter-protest across the street organized by Islamic and leftist groups calling for the return of Omar Khadr.

We didn’t know that as this was taking place, Muslim fascists in Libya and Egypt were murdering people who had in some way offended them. One of the dead was the U.S. ambassador to Libya, representing a nation that had given so much to free the Libyan people from tyranny.

The ostensible reason for the slaughter was outrage over a fringe movie depicting the prophet Mohammed in a negative light.

So what? We are supposed to be free to speak our minds. The issue here is not the movie but the Islamic reaction to the movie.

Remember, the same week this tiny film was made public, the internationally celebrated Venice Film Festival gave an award to a movie showing a naked woman masturbating with a crucifix.

The Christian response was an e-mail.

I doubt any of this would have moved the crazies protesting Tuesday. They described their demonstration as a hate-free zone, but told me and the other Sun News team to “f— off” as soon as we arrived. Not one of the many protesters could tell me the name of the medic who was killed by Omar Khadr, and some of them said it didn’t matter. They were also indifferent to the stories I told them of Christians, gays, women and moderate Muslims being slaughtered by militant Islamists.

What was noticeable was how many non-Muslim, white student types were there, including one with a megaphone with OCAP — Ontario Coalition Against Poverty — written on it, as an ownership marker. In that most of the crowd seemed to have the latest iPhones and iPads, I’m not sure where the poverty was.

As always, these extremist groups wheel out their token Jew or two, like the old South African apartheid regime always had a black traitor who would praise the system. One of the Jewish ladies at this event explained how all of Israel was occupied territory.

The crowd screamed “fascist” and “hoodlum” at the peaceful crowd of mainly Jewish, Hindu and Chinese people across the road, and then ostentatiously sat down when the Canadian national anthem was played.

Suddenly Omar’s sister Zaynab Khadr was spotted and internal e-mails revealed she would be kindly providing refreshments — no joke.

The lovely Zaynab once said of Americans killed on 9/11, “They deserve it.

“They’ve been doing it for such a long time, why shouldn’t they feel it once in a while?”

We asked her politely for a comment, and the zoo erupted.

We were pushed and threatened, and a group of people surrounded us screaming “racist, racist” and tried to prevent us from moving. One of them grabbed my arm and microphone, but his grip was as tenuous as his grasp of logic.

So, a night with the fanatics. Thank God they do not have the guns and bombs possessed by their friends in the Middle East.

But be aware, they live among us, and their hatred and anger knows few bounds.

Arab Spring now a Christian nightmare

In the 1990s, western democracies stepped forward to stop ethnic cleansing in former Yugoslavia by dispatching NATO forces in support of UN peacekeeping operations in the Balkans.

The disintegration of Yugoslavia precipitated ethnic strife, and like all such struggles anywhere in the world, the Balkan conflict was complex and layered with history of grievances, identity politics, and religious bigotry. If one reaches back to the early years of the last century, this region was a cauldron of ethno-nationalism that ignited the First World War.

Some 16 years later, the so-called Arab Spring mirrors the conflict that ripped through the Balkans.

The rotten structures of Arab states were primed to crash once the people set aside their fear of despots. But not unlike the Balkans, the death knell of Arab dictatorships has been accompanied by predictable conflicts among people divided by religion, sect and ethnicity.

There is one stark difference, however, between the Balkans and the situation in the Arab-Muslim world. In the Balkans, the minority most seriously hurt by the conflict were Bosnian Muslims.

It was in part to protect Bosnian Muslims that the West intervened with force and, eventually overseen by President Clinton’s administration, the parties agreed to abide by the Dayton Agreement of November 1995 reached in Dayton, Ohio and formally signed in Paris a few weeks later.

In the Arab-Muslim world, the so–called Arab Spring has hurt most seriously the dwindling Christian minorities of the Middle East. While Arab despots in the name of secularism paradoxically provided some protection to Christians, the situation has worsened with Islamists taking power.

William Dalrymple, the well-respected historian and author of From the Holy Mountain: A Journey in the Shadow of Byzantium (1998), recently wrote, “Wherever you go in the Middle East today, you see the Arab Spring rapidly turning into the Christian winter … The past few years have been catastrophic for the region’s beleaguered 14 million strong Christian minority.”

The decline, probably disappearance, of Christians from the Middle East is an ominous sign of a tragic future for the region.

And such an eventuality has precedence.

Jews of the Arab-Muslim world from the pre-Christian era, with their rich heritage and long historical presence in ancient cities across the region — Alexandria, Algiers, Baghdad, Beirut, Cairo, Constantine, Damascus, Fez, Oran, Sana’a, Tripoli, Tunis and more — were compelled to leave lands conquered by Arabs in the name of Islam following the establishment of Israel in 1948.

There have been numerous anti-Coptic riots with attacks on Christian churches in Egypt. From Gaza reports have come of forced conversions among Christians reduced to a miniscule presence.

Iraqi Christians fled in large numbers following post-Saddam sectarian strife, and they found refuge in Syria.

This safe-haven for Iraqi Christians is in jeopardy as the sectarian conflict in Syria has intensified, and Syrian Christians are endangered.

While Christians flee from their ancient homes in the Arab-Muslim world, the West’s failure to respond effectively, unlike its response in the Balkans, is more than an immense moral failure.

It is another sign of the West scandalously appeasing Islamist totalitarianism that might well be as catastrophic as when Europe’s major democracies appeased Hitler and the Nazis in the 1930s.

Assad: The devil we know.

We do not understand the Arab world. We think we do, we like to think we do, but we don’t.

It’s far more complex and nuanced than we give it credit for, and few parts of it are as multifaceted and layered as Syria. The struggles of the Middle East are seldom about good and bad or black and white. In this case, western arrogance and presumptions of knowledge and moral superiority could lead to strife and violence almost beyond comprehension.

President Bashar al-Assad is a dictator, as was his father. More brutal than Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, less sadistic than Saddam Hussein. His father was a man of substance, and while prepared to use horrible force and kill anybody who stood in his way, he was a leader to be reckoned with.

His son was never supposed to inherit power, and did so reluctantly and with none of his father’s capabilities.

The country is a composite of disparate groups: Sunni Muslims, Alawites, Christians, Kurds, Druze and various others. The Assads are from the Alawite minority, and are Baathists, meaning they’re secular Arab nationalists rather than Islamic fundamentalists.

And here is the essential problem for the West. While Syria interfered and still interferes in Lebanon, while it has close ties to Iran, and while it supports Hezbollah, it is directly opposed to the Muslim Brotherhood and its many front groups throughout the region.

Lefties, labour militants and anti-Semites will tell you the whole area is divided over Israel and Palestine. Laughable. It’s divided because the four main local powers — Iran, Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia — want to either control their neighbours or, in the case of Israel, neutralize them to guarantee their safety and stability. Frankly, nobody really cares about the Palestinians, unless they can use them to digress from genuine domestic problems.

Syria is caught in the middle of all this. President Assad would probably like to be part of the West’s orbit and did at one point make overtures to Israel and the U.S. via intermediaries. But he now knows that he can’t rely on a naive, weak, and basically pro-Muslim American leader, and that Iran would have him killed if he moved too far.

Shortly before the revolt began, Assad had further liberalized the country’s laws regarding women and minorities, and Christians and non-Sunni Muslims know that if he is removed, they will face persecution and murder — witness Iraq after the fall of Saddam. While some of his opponents are genuinely progressive, the heart of the opposition is the Brotherhood, who swore long ago that they would bring down the Assads and impose Shariah.

Israel and London want Assad gone because they know chaos will ensue, Iran will be weakened, and Hezbollah emasculated. A civil war in Syria will also make Israel safer and strengthen western ally Saudi Arabia. Apart from the horrible cynicism of it all, it’s short-term. Christians, a moderating force, will hemorrhage the country, Egypt will attempt to aid their Brotherhood friends, and ambitious Turkey will rush to fill the aid vacuum.

The devil is never a good friend to have. But the devil you know is usually less monstrous than the one who follows.

Empty church discloses a harsh reality

 

ALGIERS, ALGERIA  - Notre Dame d’Afrique sits on top of a cliff overlooking Algiers. It was completed in 1872 and since then has been one of the landmarks of the Algerian capital, its neo-Byzantine style architecture with an impressive dome standing imperially over a city that still reflects, despite its present shabbiness, the legacy of France.

The view from here of the city below is magnificent, and surveying the scene before me it becomes obvious the French chose this spot for the church to stand as a symbol embracing North Africans as part of their civilizing mission. Behind the altar they inscribed the words, “Notre Dame d’Afrique priez pour nous et pour les Musulmans.” (“Our Lady of Africa, pray for us and for the Muslims.”)

The Church now stands practically empty, guarded by a contingent of armed police.

It symbolizes today something entirely different from what the French had once imagined. Its emptiness speaks of how beleaguered is Christianity, or any other minority faith, not only in Algeria but right across the Arab-Muslim world.

Christians and Jews were once a vibrant part of the North African culture. Early Christianity thrived here under the authority of St. Augustine, the most famous son of Algeria who remains unknown to most Algerians.

History is never simple. French-Algerian history, as is European-Muslim history in general, has its share of terrible things done on both sides in the mistaken name of some higher principle.

But every generation, as the German historian Leopold von Ranke noted, stands in equidistance from infinity or God.

In other words, every generation is responsible for deeds done and their consequences, and past wrongs cannot be an excuse for wrongs done in the present.

In March 1996, seven French monks belonging to a Trappist order were kidnapped from their monastery in Tibhirine, set in the mountains south of Algiers, by Islamist terrorists.

The monks were murdered, and such a horrible crime was not an isolated tragedy that might be dismissed as the work of evil men. It was a crime that reflected, among other things, the intolerance among Muslims of others and other faith-traditions, and how this intolerance has besmirched Islam and its place in our world.

There was a funeral mass held at Notre Dame d’Afrique for the murdered monks. But I could not verify if mosques in Algiers offered prayers for those killed who had worked in Christ’s name among the poor of Algeria.

And herein lies the unspoken problem of the Arab-Muslim world.

There is among Muslims no public discussion about Jesus; nor do Muslims display reverence or understanding about Jesus and his place in history, yet they readily indulge in anti-Christian polemics. As a result, Muslims have emptied Islam of that aspect of humanity nearest and dearest to God symbolized by Jesus in the Qur’an.

The Qur’an refers to Jesus as “ruh Allah” meaning the breath, or spirit of God.

In emptying Islam of Jesus, Muslims have taken the spirit out of the Qur’an as the word of God.

Hence, Muslim poverty reflects much more than politics and economics.

It is, as I observe this phenomenon, an effect of Muslims having turned Islam into an arid and intolerant religion.

The military’s shrewd gambit in Egypt

JIZEL, Algeria — The landscape around Jizel, east of Algeria’s capital Algiers on the Barbary Coast, appears like an artist’s hidden paradise in some remote corner of the world. The view of the Mediterranean framed by the mountains is spectacular, and it tells me why the French fought so long and hard to remain here.

From here the tumult in Egypt is both near and distant.

It is near since Egypt played an eventful role in Algeria’s struggle for independence, and as the most populous Arab state Egypt’s political culture carries an appeal across the region despite its bankrupt economy. But the distance of Egypt from here also provides a critical perspective.

Algeria is an oil-rich economy with about a third of Egypt’s population. This relative wealth made the difference between Algeria turning into an Afghanistan or Somalia as Islamists bid for power in the 1990s, and the country remaining under control of a somewhat secularized military-civil elite that has ruled since France departed.

The result of Egypt’s presidential election discloses how greatly divided is the country. A mere 51% of the electorate voted and Ahmed Shafiq, as the candidate of the allegedly discredited previous military regime of Hosni Mubarak, received more than 48% of support.

In winning the presidency Mohamed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s candidate, has made history, yet the uncertainties of Egypt’s economy looms ominously.

Another round of elections, for the parliament was disqualified by the constitutional court, will have to occur.

The military’s role, given its stakes in society, will also need to be worked out in the midst of a failing economy, and in an international context wherein the margin of error is just about non-existent.

Moreover, the sort of Islamist terror and military counter-terror played out in Algeria is not unlikely. The past is the prologue for the future in a society as divided as is Egypt.

Most outside observers fail to understand or avoid discussing the fundamental nature of Arab society, which has failed to modernize or reform Islam sufficiently by discarding its tribal culture. Behind the public discourse of democracy, the real contest for power in Egypt, as it was in Algeria, is one among competing tribes to take control of the state and distribute its spoils. In Arab culture, the military has proven to be the most powerful of tribes.

But the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt since 1945 has posed a serious challenge to the military’s hold on power. Seen from this perspective, the primary internal conflict in Egyptian politics remains the tribal contest between the military and the MB.

The post-Cold War developments and the post-9/11 rise of Islamism affected the political equation inside Egypt. What we are witnessing is a new round of power struggle with stakes much higher for both Egypt and the region.

My sense is Egypt’s commanding generals shrewdly made their gambit as they sacrificed Hosni Mubarak, one of their own, to the mob. In stepping back, the military has permitted the MB with Morsi to assume the presidency with the narrowest margin of public support, and then hold them entirely responsible for the predictable economic collapse ahead.

A year from now the mob that cheered Mubarak’s fall may likely demand the return of the military.

View from Algeria of North Africa tumult

ORAN, ALGERIA – A cool evening breeze brings relief over the faded glory of the city I am visiting. This was once the prized French metropolitan on the Mediterranean that Albert Camus made the setting of his novel, The Plague.

The crowd is gone and the street is about empty. But inside the cafe where I am sitting, there is smoke, loud arguments and anticipation as people await the games of Euro 2012 to begin.

Algeria is a soccer-crazy country, as is all of North Africa. In the cafe the noise is friendly while individuals share with each other the game’s history, relish arguments over previous tournaments, recall earlier matches, and talk about their favourite players from the past, comparing them with performances of the current stars, such as Spain’s Fernando Torres or Portugal’s Cristiano Ronaldo.

The scene around me is not unusual, for soccer is a main topic of conversation wherever people gather. But the passion for it is also a measure of the general disdain for politics.

Algeria is close to Tunisia — the ground zero of the so-called Arab Spring — and it is instructive to draw upon its recent history to understand why the expectations of a year ago for democratic change across the region peaked and then headed for a crash.

In July, Algeria will mark the 50th anniversary of its blood-soaked independence from France in 1962, but there is little public evidence of preparation to celebrate the occasion. Algerian memory of the past half-century is painful. Authoritarianism and one-party rule following independence suffocated the promise of freedom.

Some 20 years ago, the country’s ruling elite and the National Liberation Front (FLN), its political arm, decided to arrange a transition to some sort of democratic order and called an election. But to the consternation of the army generals, the opposition parties headed by the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) won big.

Islamist leadership of the FIS enjoyed Saudi support, and the prospect of FIS turning Algeria into a Shariah-based Islamic order was as likely then as has been in recent months the Muslim Brotherhood’s plans for doing the same in Egypt. The result of the Algerian election, not unlike the current situation in Egypt, was a crisis for the old order. The military elite, unwilling to accept the idea of the FIS forming a government, nullified the election and precipitated a civil war. Two decades later, and some quarter-million of Algerians dead as a result of Islamist terror and the army’s counter-terror, Algeria’s self-inflicted wound has barely healed.

In May this year, the ruling authority held parliamentary elections in which the public turnout was merely 40% of the eligible voters. The authorities announced a modest FLN victory with a plurality of elected members, instead of fixing results by giving it a majority.

It has taken time and violence for a consensus to emerge regarding the military having a dominant role in any political arrangement, and that is the political reality given the nature of Arab-Muslim culture.

A majority of Algerians now reluctantly concede the alternative of FIS in power might have been worse, and is positively relieved of being spared the illusions of Arab Spring.

 

Video lifts veil on Arab-Muslim societies

A young man is pinned to the ground, his head is twisted and a knife held against his throat. In a few minutes the head is severed and held up for display to the public chanting loudly, “Allahu Akbar” (God is great).

The video of this gruesome public execution of an apostate — the victim had converted to Christianity from Islam — somewhere in Tunisia was recently shown on Egyptian television by Tawfik Okasha, the host of Egypt Today, and it has gone viral on the worldwide web.

I came across it in reading a column by Raymond Ibrahim for the Gatestone Institute out of New York. Ibrahim is of Egyptian-Coptic ancestry, fluent in Arabic, worked as a translator for the Library of Congress and is the editor of The Al Qaeda Reader. There is some dispute about how recent this video is of the public execution of a Muslim condemned as an apostate. But aired on Egyptian television, it was an illustration of the immense regression of Arab-Muslim societies in our time.

The video is chillingly frightful and unbearable for any normal person to watch. I turned it off in horror. I am certainly not alone in my reaction, nor in feeling revulsion and disgust at the silence of Muslims around the world, by which they give legitimacy to crimes committed in the name of Islam.

While such abominations as the public execution of an apostate — or stoning of adulterers, hanging of homosexuals, lashing of individuals for conduct deemed inappropriate, etc. — are justified by Islamists and their apologists on the basis of Shariah, the silence of Muslims in the West contributes to the view spreading among non-Muslims that Islam itself is the problem.

In killing the young Tunisian for apostasy, the irony is appalling. It was another young Tunisian, who set himself ablaze in despair more than a year ago, that sparked the so-called Arab Spring.

It is now increasingly obvious that despots of the Arab-Muslim world, even those as despicable as Saddam Hussein in Iraq, had an unblinkered understanding of their people. Their despotism reflected the nature of their societies.

The Shariah penalty for apostasy is death. If in the past there was reluctance on the part of Muslim judges and rulers to institute such a penalty, it had to do with the slow evolution of traditional Muslim societies away from the primitive circumstances of the seventh-century origin of Islam. But under the weight of modernity, traditional and post-colonial Muslim societies crumbled. The general failure of these societies to make progress out of their closed tribal circle has left them a political wasteland. In such circumstances, Islamists — irrespective of their sectarian differences — are agreed that return to “authentic Islam” means implementation of the primitive seventh-century values read into the Shariah as incontrovertible, divinely ordained Islamic laws.

The result has been Muslims by birth or conversion have been made captives of Shariah — devised by fallible men in the 9th and 10th centuries — on the pain of death.

The world watches, and the burden is on Muslims of reforming Islam, or remaining bound like sheep for slaughter to a primitive legal-political system of totalitarian control disguised as religion.

 

West must resist urge to act in Syria

Syria is caught once again in the long history of sectarian conflicts in the region and, as the killings escalate, the West recoils in horror. The urge to do something, anything, that might end this insanity is natural. And so France’s new president, Francois Hollande, ventures forth declaring, “It is not possible to allow Bashar Assad to massacre his own people.”

But immediately German leaders express surprise and caution against use of force that would likely complicate the situation.

There is the Russian and Chinese veto on the UN Security Council to consider, and the lesson of Libya sits uneasily in western capitals as the country slides deeper into the control of Islamists.

Moreover, there is no stomach in Washington or elsewhere to mount another campaign for regime change after the rancour of the Iraq war.

It is also now abundantly clear that liberal delusions surrounding the so-called Arab Spring have lifted, and the old adage — “the more things change, the more they stay the same” — describes well the culture and politics of the region.

This is reason for despair, and there are voices from the region expressing this despair that need to be heard and understood in western capitals. One such voice is that of Suat Kiniklioglu, a Turkish member of parliament and a frequent commentator for the Turkish paper Today’s Zaman. In a recent article titled “Back to a barbarian age,” Kiniklioglu expresses this despair in no uncertain terms. He writes about the pervasiveness of identity politics that is fuelling the conflicts in the region and pushing it “back to the Middle Ages.”

The Middle East, according to Kiniklioglu, is “being ravaged by barbarians who want to divide the world into Sunni and Shiite.”

The result is “sectarian rivalry between the Shiite Persians and the Wahhabi Saudis who are now fighting proxy wars all over the region.”

Syria is one theatre of this proxy war. Islamists or “Salafis who bomb the streets of Damascus,” Kiniklioglu writes, “are just as guilty and barbaric as Assad’s killing machine.”

We might as well ask if Kiniklioglu has a better understanding of the region than the Europeans or the Americans. He certainly does as his ancestors, the Ottoman Turks, ruled over much of the Arab lands and people for more than five centuries.

History is full of surprising twists, and Turks have had their share. The immense defeat in the great war of 1914-18 ironically “liberated” the Turks from the albatross of their empire, and out of that defeat emerged modern republican Turkey under Mustafa Kemal. Turks like Kiniklioglu are even more wary of getting drawn into a wider regional conflict than are the Germans at some distance. They know from their own experience how long and difficult is the recovery to sanity from any sort of barbarism.

Arabs need to find their own path into the modern world, as do the Shiites of Iran. This will likely happen only when they have exhausted themselves with their sectarian fighting.

We in the West, in the meantime, should hold back on our desire to do something and, instead, do as little as we did in awaiting the former Soviet Union to implode on its own.