| |
| Join Our Newsletter |
 Please Select sub-criteria |  |
|
|
|
|
| |
| Letter to the Editor - The dehumanising factor |
01 |
|
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
The dehumanising factor
Dear editor,
What makes a good magician? A strange question you may ask, but then we live in strange times. Perhaps an essential ingredient of any self proclaimed practitioner is the ability to pull off a good illusion. A glamorous assistant, a few tools of the trade, the compulsory pack of cards, and of course, sleight of hand. We all remember the party favourites. Pick a card, any card. Which cup is the ball under? Now that was an interesting one. No matter how hard you kept your eye on the cup with the ball, it always ended up elsewhere. All credit to the master illusionist then.
And of master illusionists today, there appears to be no shortage. As we watch the media coverage of world events, listen to the statements of many an expert and generally do our best to make sense of the information we are being bombarded with daily, it seems we're party to possibly the most spectacular illusion of them all.
There can be no doubt that the recent actions constitute an atrocity. The tears have yet to dry on the faces of those who lost their loved ones. Uncomfortable questions surface underneath the worn, pale exteriors. What did we do to harm anyone? Surely the perceived quarrel of those responsible was with others? Why harm innocent people going about their daily chores? And, inevitably, along with the questions there will be an acute sense of frustration and anger. An anger borne of witnessing lives cruelly cut off. Dreams and hopes shattered in a matter of minutes, if not seconds. And frustration at not being able to comprehend the madness and terror that suddenly became all too real and palpable.
Now, hands up all those who think I talk of the bomb blasts in London last Thursday? In fact, the description refers, just as equally, to another incident that I'll come to later.
Since last Thursday's explosions we've seen a variety of responses. Perhaps the most telling were the reactions of political leaders in the immediate aftermath of the events. Tony Blair considered the attacks as being against the very values, fabric and structure of Western society. By implication, this is directed at nothing other than political Islam. That may seem like a very bold and, by some measures, a controversial assertion to make.
However, to understand this better requires a reading of past statements, understanding of government policy, analysis by think tanks, and so on. Many of them paint political Islam as being a new spectre, replacing the Communist threat of the past century. Even Hollywood has got in on the act, so to speak. Remember how James Bond was always up against some Soviet monster? Now it is 'fundamentalist' Muslims, hell bent on wanton destruction, featured in some capacity or the other. Executive Decision, The Peacemaker, Black Hawk Down, we could go on.
The point being that only Islam is capable of providing a different, viable and distinct ideological model in comparison with the concept of Western liberal democracy and capitalist economics. For the West, preserving and strengthening the current status quo, vis-à-vis the hegemony over resources, super power status and military and economic dominance requires neutralising any perceived threats. Hence the Red Menace is now considered to be the Green Menace.
So how do you curb this apparent threat? The usual stratagems apply. If we consider our own situation here in the UK, it includes the almost constant demonising of Islam - not Islam as such, but rather political Islam. There is no problem with religion as long as it fits into a secular framework. Anything outside of this is considered distinctly unpalatable. No wonder we find the government desperate to construct an artificial line - those in the community it can do business with [the 'moderates' and 'reformists'] and those it can't [the minority fringe, 'extremists' and 'fundamentalists']. A recently leaked joint UK Home Office and Foreign Office report entitled 'Young Muslims and Extremism' alludes to this explicitly. It is the latter grouping that the authorities are particularly keen to vilify. We've seen raids on houses, dozens of arrests, media hiatus about shadowy terrorists living in our midst, explanations of how fertiliser can be used in the bomb making process [presumably the occasional astute gardener makes use of it as well, but that's all on the side], detentions in facilities such as Belmarsh, and so on. We've also seen these much publicised events fizzle and peter out when it transpires that there is a distinct lack of any evidence. Needless to say, the media tend not to get so excited when this happens. It all adds up nicely for the government. A minority group living in a climate of fear. A public that has become more and more suspicious of that community. And, most importantly, the justification for errant foreign, and for that matter internal, policies. Thus, what could be better than to ensure blame for events such as Thursday's are placed squarely at the doors of the unfortunate 'extremists' from the very beginning.
Let's examine some more reactions, again bearing in mind that these were before the revelations in the past few days. George Bush Junior stated that the attacks justified the war on terror. Dominique de Villepain, French Defence Minister, considered them an attack on all democracies. All of this very interesting given that at the same time Charles Clarke was making the point that there was no indication of the identity of those behind the attacks.
What if it was another disturbed character like Timothy McVeigh, for example? Was his attack also considered an assault on democracy and Western values? Clearly not.
Yet, without any evidence [bar a somewhat suspicious and dubious posting on the internet] the focus turned quickly towards an organised 'Islamic terrorist cell'. Is this what many [from on high] wanted us to believe regardless? More telling, perhaps, are the irrational and persistent attempts to persuade the public that there is no link between the attacks and British foreign policy in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
Even Ken Livingstone, normally a brazen character, was at pains to make this point. He also opposed the war. Yet, in his mind, the terrorists were inhumane, intent on causing maximum destruction and didn't need a reason. It was case of pure evil.
Really? Given that investigations are still in progress, let's assume for the time being, that the named suspects from Yorkshire were definitely responsible for the atrocities. Are we to believe they plotted these attacks in an effort to wipe out Western society and values or impose some form of Islamic government in Britain?!! What exactly is going on here? To attempt to disconnect self serving policies from Thursday's events defies the most basic of logic. What is more, one commentator mused that the terrorists were so debased that they dehumanised their victims.
Unfortunately, I think there's only one leader in the dehumanising business. We've had wall to wall coverage of Thursdays events, we've had political and religious leaders from all denominations standing together in condemnation, we've witnessed a concerted rescue operation and now an investigation to catch the perpetrators, we've seen radio phone in's where people have shared their grief and sense of shock, we've had one and two minute silences allowing us to remember and reflect. In contrast, I give one example, that of the incident I made reference to earlier in my article. The Saturday before last saw the bombardment of Chechal Village in Eastern Afghanistan by U.S. forces. At least seventeen people were killed in the air strike, including women and children. According to initial reports, the US Air Force indiscriminately bombed the village in retaliation for the U.S. loss of a Special Forces unit. Whilst some villagers went to help recover bodies and aid the wounded, the USAF launched a second raid, killing in the process many of those who had gone to help. Later, ground troops were sent to find out who the victims were and determine if any of them had actually been 'terrorists'. A few days later, the US issued a short statement acknowledging that civilians had in fact been killed. No wall to wall coverage for the fathers, mothers, sons and daughters killed there then. No strong, united protests of condemnation or impartial inquiries either. But it did make a few lines in the daily news. Dehumanise, eh?
Perhaps we are all guilty of falling for the illusion that is the concoction of propaganda and concealment. Telling where the truth is and what the facts really are, admittedly, is an uphill struggle.
But surely, if we have been asleep before, now is the time to awaken from the slumber. It is not a time for more spin, lies and the clever re-definition and application of terminology.
Terror is terror, regardless of the means chosen to deliver it. As we have found out to our detriment, sometimes it is meted out with bombs on a train. And other times it adopts the guise of destructive weapons. We must have the honesty and integrity to call a spade a spade.
Let us bring sincerity to a much needed discussion. Let us debate openly the causes of terror and put under the microscope the policies of government. Nay, let us even ponder the values that Tony Blair believes to be under attack and consider their real meaning and impact. It may be that under this critical analysis we begin to question their very suitability as a panacea to the problems of humankind. It is a beginning at least. And one would hope, by rising to this challenge, we may even confound the magician by turning the tables when it matters. Surely, there is a thought worth holding on to.
Mohammed Hussain
13th July 2005
mohammedghussain@hotmail.com
| |
|
|
