|
Despite
the smiles of politicians on both side of the Channel, the closure of the
Sangatte Refugee Centre in France has not solved any problems.
Like the asylum seekers themselves, the problems have simply been
moved on.
Perhaps such problems cannot be resolved, but they can only be tackled by
facing the issues. There have
always been refugees, people moving away from fear and persecution towards
a better future. When they
have settled and been absorbed into their new communities the world has
been a better place. The best
antidote to insularity and small-mindedness is exposure to fresh faces and
new ideas. Language,
commerce, culture and cuisine can all benefit from an influx of refugees.
But where refugees settle without being absorbed, the cultural
divides form fault lines, awaiting disaster from some future shift in the
tectonic plates of society.
Over 200 years, successive waves of immigrants from Europe, together with
descendents of African slaves, gave the USA the broad base from which it
was to become a world super power. In
like manner, the colonies of the old empire boosted Britain’s growth in
factories, construction, transport and the health service. And sporting achievements of both nations would have been
less impressive without this rich ethnic mix.
Migration and Dispossession
But often, if not spilling over onto the streets, jealousy, resentment and
fear are dormant rather than absent.
The Scottish protestants who migrated to Ulster; the Europeans who
created vast farms in Africa; the exodus of European Jews to modern
Israel; the forced relocation of millions of Hindus and Muslims with the
establishment of Pakistan, Bangladesh and India at the end of British
rule; the ongoing Chinese settlement of Tibet; the vast tides of humanity
moving throughout history through the Balkans, Central Asia, and
elsewhere; all have resulted in disruption, dispossession, and wrongs that
cannot be righted without further misery.
With hindsight, we might not have attempted some of these social
upheavals. But although
hindsight was not available then, awareness of the consequences should
inform decisions now being faced. Compassion
for the plight of individuals has to be tempered by recognition of the
effects on the countries involved.
Asylum
There is constant pressure on first world countries to grant asylum to
those fleeing political and religious persecution in third world
countries. Because of the
financial imbalance between these different worlds many more seek asylum,
not because their lives are in danger, but for a better life.
When most of the evidence is anecdotal it is difficult to
distinguish between financial asylum seekers and genuine cases, but
whatever they are fleeing from, the taking in of refugees rewards
repressive and uneconomic regimes, and interferes with the natural
formation of strong opposition groups.
First world countries become accomplices in propping up corrupt and
criminal regimes, implicitly condoning undesirable activities ranging from
local bribery to ethnic cleansing.
Accepting refugees does not necessarily help solve the problems in the
country from which they flee, and can result in new problems in the
country which provides sanctuary. The
old adage ‘When in Rome, do as the Romans’ no longer applies.
Now, it seems, the asylum seeker wants the social benefits and
employment opportunities of a western democracy whilst importing the
cultural values on which the repressive regimes are based. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the clash between
Muslim and Democratic cultures.
Nigeria
In Nigeria, recently, a newspaper article sparked off riots resulting in
hundreds of deaths. The
author of the article was the subject of a death threat, and although this
is illegal in Nigeria the justification was that man-made laws are
irrelevant when offence is given to Islam.
In the west we acknowledged that it was insensitive to hold a
beauty contest in a Muslim country, ill-advised to comment flippantly on
The Prophet in a newspaper article, but failed to utterly condemn the
criminal actions of those who were thus outraged.
Perhaps we in the west should not be concerned with what happens in
Nigeria. But in accepting
large numbers of Muslim asylum seekers we are in danger of wheeling a
Trojan Horse into the chambers of European parliaments.
Different dress codes and eating habits might cause friction, but
if a fundamental Muslim belief is that Islam overrides the law of the land
then we are setting up a potential for conflict that could dwarf those
seen in today’s trouble spots.
Freedom or Repression
A modern democracy is based on rights and freedoms of the individual,
including freedom of worship, within the democratic framework. A Muslim society offers certain rights and freedoms to the
individual within the framework of Islam.
It is this conceptual difference that leads fundamentalist Muslim
immigrants to seek to impose Islam over democracy in the countries that
granted them sanctuary. The
irony is that the ultimate goal, a totally Islamic world, would leave no
future asylum for those seeking yet again to flee repressive regimes.
In common with most religions, Islam consists of early teachings now
considered holy, interpreted by scholars who are themselves shaped by
their beliefs, background and education.
There is no hierarchy or single, Pope-like figure, to monitor or
test contradictory or inappropriate pronouncements made by these different
scholars. Violent and
criminal actions can be condoned, making a mockery of the claim by most
Muslims that Islam is based on peace.
Unless modern Muslim leaders are able to codify Islam in such a way
as to encourage religious adherence within the broad confines of the laws
of the host nation, Islam and democracy seem incompatible.
If this is the case, then democratic nations must question the wisdom of
granting asylum or citizenship to Muslims.
Islamic countries have closed their doors to the Trojan Horse of
western values regarding dress code, alcohol, soft drugs and sex.
It seems eminently reasonable that western nations should not
accept the Trojan Horse from which militant Muslims could compromise the
laws and principles of democracy.
© Harvey Tordoff
December 2002
|
