2004: TWO TRENDS IN RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
By Elizabeth Kendal
World Evangelical Alliance Religious Liberty Commission (WEA RLC)
Special to ASSIST News Service
AUSTRALIA (ANS) -- For this end-of-year posting I wish to look at only two trends that were prominent in 2004 and are destined to escalate during 2005.
1)Perestroika. Openness, because of the way osmosis works, is the key which ignites an unstoppable trend towards reform. Openness must therefore be encouraged and used wisely as it provides the momentum and foundations for reform. Meanwhile perestroika (reform) is not an event that occurs at a moment in history, but a process that is fluid, and is a work-in-progress.
2)Liberty. Whose liberty? This is the question arising in multicultural democratic nations as growing Muslim minorities made zealous by the Palestinian Intifada, the War on Terror, and the growth of their own numbers, assert themselves politically and demand Muslim rights and privileges. These however, often involve the removal of others' individual freedoms.
--------------------------------------
PERESTROIKA
--------------------------------------
Events in 2004 in Belarus and Ukraine demonstrate the extent to which perestroika (reform and restructure) is fluid and remains a work-in-progress.
Freedoms that were gained in Belarus in the late 1980s have been decisively drained away. Russia's freedoms are slowly and quietly seeping away. Governments can clamp down on freedom but they cannot undo the influence of even a short-lived openness. Ukrainians have just demonstrated that peaceful-people-power can depose corrupt oligarcs and bring political reform. Ukraine's peaceful "Orange Revolution" will stand as a model for action in other authoritarian former Soviet states. This is what can happen when a splintered opposition unites behind a leader of integrity and the people publicly support him or her, and the church prays.
But as analysts note, the "Orange Revolution" was not "spontaneous combustion". For Ukraine, the Orange Revolution was the fruit of a society that has matured. In totalitarian Asia, the foundations that enable peaceful political revolution (some free mea, some political awareness, and the possibility of fair elections) are not yet mature, or even in place. Ukraine will however, stand as a model and inspiration to the region and beyond.
It might be helpful though, and encouraging, to view totalitarian Asia in the light of Eastern Europe. People often think that Communism fell in an instant in Europe - the terms used are cataclysmic and instant: the Berlin wall "fell", the USSR "collapsed" - and grieve that in Tiananmen Square (Beijing, China), the tanks prevailed.
However, it is more realistic and helpful to view these events, not as solitary, decisive "perestroika events" that win or lose the battle, but as positive or negative events in a larger, fluid "perestroika process" that has its own irresistible momentum. Regarding the Berlin Wall, while it did collapse in November 1989, that event was the fruit of a four year process of concerted undermining of the foundations.
National transformation is not fast food. It cannot be purchased in a drive-through. It takes time, and if transformation is to occur without bloodshed, revolution and anarchy, then the foundations need to be replaced in advance.
SOLZHENITSYN'S FRUSTRATION
In 1990, five years after Gorbechev introduced glastnost and perestroika, and one year before the disintegration of the USSR, Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote words of frustration and fear ("Rebuilding Russia" Harper Collins 1991). These are words that we could apply to totalitarian Asia today.
"Time has run out for Communism. But the concrete edifice has not yet crumbled. May we not be crushed beneath its rubble instead of gaining liberty." (p9). "And what have five or six years of the much heralded 'perestroika' been used for? For some pathetic re-shuffling within the Central Committee. The slapping together of an ugly artificial electoral system designed to allow the party to continue clinging to power." (p28)
Deng Xioaping introduced economic openness and reforms to China in 1978, but how far has China progressed towards freedom? Is totalitarian Asia today in the same position Russia was in 1990? The momentum for reform is gaining. Whether they realise it not, the Asian Communist Parties and the regime of Kim jong-il may be facing a situation of reform or perish.
ASIA'S PERESTROIKA-LITE
Totalitarian Asia has learnt from Gorbechev's accidental political suicide that openness and reform, if not carefully managed, may eventually prove fatal. Totalitarian Asia operates therefore, a sort of glastnost-lite, and perestroika-lite. But since the demise of Gorbechev, the USSR and Communism in Europe, the reins are held especially tight in Asia to ensure that the process does not gain so much momentum that the Communist Party loses control of it. The best way to slow down reform is to slow down and manage openness. Everything, especially information, is controlled by those whose main aim now is to hold on to power.
Solzhenitsyn grieved for Russia as we do now for totalitarian Asia, that the slowness of reform "represents years in the people's life given up to pointless suffering". (p35) However, he also notes that wholesale adoption of a foreign system can be ruinous and that patience is always better than a bloody and violent revolution which results in anarchy, which he describes as "the ultimate peril".
AVOIDING ANARCHY
Solzhenitsyn acknowledges in his chapter, "Is the system of government really the central issue?" that continuity and stability are essential to avoid anarchy, and hence, it is more important to resolve the most pressing issues of social reform before tackling government reform. Solzhenitsyn believed that the entire state organism could be eventually reshaped by introducing reforms gradually, progressively, starting at the margins and in grass-roots issues, whilst preserving the central authority until society is ready for political reform.
This is, of course, exactly what has occurred in Ukraine. This, and not "regime collapse" or a revolution that would result in war or anarchy, is what must be encouraged and assisted in totalitarian Asia, including and especially North Korea, where the situation is so extremely dangerous. While we grieve for the 100,000 believers incarcerated in North Korean concentration camps, regime collapse in North Korea would probably lead to their slaughter as the military machine shifted into self-preservation mode.
We do not wish for Korean Christians to be "crushed beneath the rubble" of a collapsing regime and system. We wish them liberty, so we pray for wisdom in 2005, for openness and reform to advance, and for liberty for the oppressed. "The king's heart is like a stream of water directed by the Lord; he turns it wherever he pleases." Proverbs 21:1
----------------------------------
LIBERTY
----------------------------------
There needs to be public debate about whether religious groups, because of a constitutional right they have to religious freedom, can demand that they exercise their own religious law in a way that denies others that same constitutional right.
This issue is affecting multicultural democracies that have growing Muslim minorities who are demanding Muslim laws and rights to accommodate those elements of Islamic law and culture that clash with Western, Judaeo-Christian-based laws and culture.
PARALLEL OR GRID?
Some governments are capitulating to Muslim demands out of sheer (or wilful) ignorance of what Islam permits and demands, or simply in order to capture the valuable Muslim vote or be politically correct and inclusive. Various degrees of Islamic arbitration or law for Muslims now exists in many non-Muslim nations - officially, as in Canada, and unofficially as in much of Europe, while the battle for Islamic courts is still on in Kenya.
We often picture a society that permits both Western / Judaeo-Christian laws and Islamic laws as one that has two sets of laws running in parallel. But really the situation looks more like a grid, as the two systems - Judaeo-Christian and Islamic - regularly intersect and clash as they head in different directions.
In Uganda, women have praised the government's new Domestic Relations Bill (DRB) 2003 (passed November 2004) because it prohibits polygamy, raises the marriage age to 18 years, protects against domestic violence and rape in marriage, which in turn protects against AIDS. The Bill promotes equal rights, bringing Uganda's laws in line with its own constitution. However, the Uganda Muslim Supreme Council (UMSC) is protesting against the bill claiming it goes against the Islamic faith and Islamic laws and customs. Hopefully the Ugandan government will not be moved by such protests, and the protections and rights granted to Ugandan women will remain available to Ugandan Muslim women.
Governments that capitulate to Muslim demands are actually stripping Muslims of their religious freedom and shackling Muslim women to the demeaning, discriminatory and oppressive demands and penalties of sharia. There can be no mistake, the two systems do not run parallel - they are in conflict.
VILIFICATION
Previously in the West, Muslims have had to endure the Western/European practice of open debate and free speech. Criticism was handled by apologists, not by lawyers. But times are changing. Limits are being placed on long-held and respected freedoms in order not to "offend", regardless of how unjustifiable that feeling of offence might be, as if the giving of offence is automatically an intolerable crime. In the process, all critical debate of Islam and the Qur'an by non-Muslims is being silenced.
On 17 December 2004, in Victoria, Australia, two Christian pastors were found guilty of breaching the state's Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001. The charge of vilifying Islam was brought against pastors Nalliah and Scot (photo, link 1) by the Islamic Council of Victoria (ICV). The case was heard in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) over the course of nearly two years. The ICV claimed the pastors vilified Islam and thus breached section 8 of the Act in a Christian seminar entitled "Insight into Islam", held in a church in March 2002.
The details are complicated and a more focused posting may be released in early February after penalties have been determined. The most serious element of this case is the fact that truth is not a defence. Section 8 of the Act states: "A person must not, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons, engage in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons. Note: 'engage in conduct' includes use of the internet or e-mail to publish or transmit statements or other material."
As noted by Andrew Bolt, an associate editor and columnist for the Melbourne (Australia) Herald Sun, 8 of the 13 reasons the judge listed in his summary of why he found the pastors guilty of vilifying Islam are actually quotes from the Qur'an. (Link 2). In fact at one point in the VCAT hearing, Daniel Scot was asked to justify his statement that the Qur'an is harsh to women. As he did, he was accused of further vilifying Islam with quotes from the Qur'an! Scot was ordered to refrain from quoting the Qur'an in his response to avoid further vilification of Islam!
Section 11 of the Act provides that a person may be granted an exemption if the conduct was engaged in reasonably, in good faith, and in the public interest. However, the judge determined that: "Pastor Scot's conduct was not engaged in reasonably and in good faith for any genuine religious purpose that is in the public interest... Having made that finding, he receives no protection under section 11 of the Act."
The President of the ICV, Mr. Yasser Soliman hailed the judgement as "a win for religious debate", adding, "This case lays some basic ground rules for religious debate in Victoria." Waleed Aly, a spokesperson for the ICV wrote in a Melbourne paper, that citizens have the right to "inform, but not inflame". This still leaves us with the problem of what to do with potentially inflammatory information.
DHIMMITUDE
This silencing of criticism has historically been part of the agreement with dhimmis, people of the Book living under Islamic domination. Dhimmis were granted "protection", that is, right to life in exchange for payment (jizya) and total subjugation. Any breach of the arrangement led to "protection" being withdrawn and a state of war resuming upon the individual or group. Laws that silence or punish negative criticism of Islam place non-Muslims in a position of dhimmitude.
In Britain, Prince Charles recently met with Christian and Muslim leaders to broker efforts to end the Muslim death penalty on apostates. The London Telegraph reported, "The Muslim group, which included the Islamic scholar Zaki Badawi, cautioned the Prince and other non-Muslims against speaking publicly on the issue." (Telegraph 18 Dec 2004)
Of even greater interest are the words of Ahmad Kamal Abul Magd, a prominent Islamic scholar who addressed the recent UN-sponsored seminar, "Confronting Islamophobia: Education for Tolerance and Understanding", on Tuesday 7 December 2004.
Abul Magd believes the word "tolerance" is derogatory of Islam. "What we are aiming at is much more positive than the mere tolerance. Usually you don't tolerate something you admire or like but you tolerate something you are going to live with although you do not like (it)." (Islam Online 8 Dec 2004). Abul Magd is not interested in promoting tolerance - he is advocating that we should respect, admire and like Islam. He then gave reasons why we should revere Islam, reasons which were based on a totally revisionist view of history.
THE PROBLEM OF THE MISSING ABSOLUTES
Most Western governments are honourably keen to advance equal rights for all. But they are unwilling to face the fact that the "rights" of different cultures sometimes conflict. On top of this, they are so committed to secularism and appeasement that they can do nothing else other than advance the myth that all moral values (in the absence of moral absolutes) are essentially equal and good. They refuse to accept the fact that many Islamic laws and customs actually violate the laws of the land and the constitutional rights of citizens. They tolerate, and even advance, intolerance at the behest of pressure groups because that is preferable to, and easier than, imposing moral standards for the benefit of all citizens, including voiceless minorities (eg apostates and Muslim women).
So what will it take for governments and societies to realise how precious and worth preserving are their Judaeo-Christian foundations, rights and freedoms? Will it take sectarian murder and violence, as was seen in the Netherlands this year with the murder of film maker Theo van Gogh, who was slain by an Islamic militant? This followed the screening of his 11-minute film on Islam entitled "Submission", the script of which was written by Ayaen Hirsi Ali, a Somali-born woman who fled an arranged marriage and became a refugee, apostasised in Europe, and became a Dutch MP in 2003. The Dutch are now looking at issues of immigration, multiculturalism and assimilation.
In the light of the events of 2004, Bat Ye'or's new book "Eurabia" (due for release in April/May 2005) will surely beone of the most confronting, controversial and challenging books of 2005.
STANDING UP FOR LIBERTY
As Islamic rights are advanced in the non-Muslim world, Muslims who seek liberty find that sharia is an inescapable stalker, and non-Muslims are being forced to comply with elements of dhimmitude, commencing with self-hatred and advancing to submission.
Standing up for liberty means standing against sharia for the liberty of Muslims, and against dhimmitude for the liberty of the rest of society.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Links
1) NALLIAH and SCOT
http://community.webshots.com/album/233515462eSqZeM
2) Playing with fire. By Andrew Bolt.
Herald Sun. 22 Dec 2004
http://heraldsun.news.com.au/printpage/0,5481,11754577,00.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Kendal is the Principal Researcher and Writer for the World Evangelical Alliance Religious Liberty Commission (WEA RLC) www.worldevangelical.org/rlc.html. This article was initially written for the World Evangelical Alliance Religious Liberty News & Analysis mailing list.
. 5:30:16 PM 
|
