Sixteen years ago, when Dutch commentator Paul Scheffer published his "Multicultural Drama" declaring that multiculturalism in the Netherlands had failed, the response was swift and angry. Critics across Europe called him racist, bigoted, nationalistic. Others dismissed his views as mere rants and ramblings of a Leftist in search of a cause.
With over 275 people killed in 10 Islamic terrorist attacks since January 2015, Europeans harbor no more illusions about the multiculturalist vision: where immigrants from Muslim countries are concerned, that idealist vision has more than just failed. It has produced a culture of hatred, fear, and unrelenting danger. Now, with European Muslim youth radicalizing at an unprecedented rate and the threat of new terrorist attacks, Europe is reassessing its handling of Muslim communities and its counterterrorism strategies and laws.
Among the changes being considered are a reversal of laws that allow radical Muslims to receive handouts from the very governments they seek to destroy; restricting foreign funding of mosques; and stronger surveillance on private citizens.
Through these meetings and the improved shared database, it is now possible for each country to contextualize its intelligence and understand links between individuals and various groups from one city to another – and so, between radicals and radical groups as they pass through a borderless EU.
Concurrently, EU members are now beginning to share information about web sites and even details about private citizens where needed. Most countries had been reluctant to make such exchanges, citing both privacy concerns and the need to protect their sources. Other cooperative efforts include an EU initiative begun in February 2015 to counteract Islamic extremist propaganda. The project received a major €400 million boost in June, indicating the high priority Europe now places on fighting recruitment.
Earlier this month, Europol began a new effort to screen refugees still awaiting placement in Greek asylum centers. According to a report from Europa Nu, an initiative between the European parliament and the University of Leiden, Europol agents "specifically trained to unmask and dismantle terrorists and terror networks" will be dispatched to the camps to try to prevent terrorists from infiltrating the flood of refugees to Europe.
Some EU measures, however, have been based more in politics than counterterrorism, including efforts to crack down on the ability of radical Muslims to benefit from welfare programs. British citizens, for instance, reacted with outrage when it was discovered that the family of "Jihadi John" had received over £400,000 in taxpayer support over the course of 20 years. In Belgium, Salah Abdeslam, the terrorist accused of participating in the Nov. 13 Paris attacks, pulled in nearly €19,000 in welfare benefits from January 2014 and October 2015, according to Elsevier. And Gatestone reports that more than 30 Danish jihadists received a total of €51,000 in unemployment benefits all while battling alongside the Islamic State in Syria.
Such concerns have also spread to the United States. Earlier this year, U.S. Rep. Bruce Poliquin, R-Maine, introduced the "No Welfare For Terrorists Act."
"Terrorist victims and their families should never be forced to fund those who harmed them," he said in a statement. "This bill guarantees this will never happen."
But not all of Europe's new approaches to the terror threat are being coordinated out of Brussels. Many more, in fact, are country-specific, such as England's decision to follow an example set earlier by the Netherlands and Spain, separating jailed terrorists and terror suspects from other prisoners. The measures follow others the country adopted after the July 7, 2005 bombings of a London underground and buses, to criminalize "those who glorify terrorism, those involved in acts preparatory to terrorism, and those who advocate it without being directly involved," the New York Times reported.
In fact, prisons worldwide, including in the U.S., have long been viewed as warm breeding grounds for radicals and potential terrorists. Ahmed Coulibaly, the gunman at the Porte de Vincennes siege in January 2015, was serving time for a bank robbery, for instance, when he met Cherif Koauachi, one of the Charlie Hebdo attackers. Both converted to Islam there. It was in that same prison that the two encountered Djamel Beghal, an al-Qaida operative who attempted to blow up the American Embassy in Paris in 2001.
Hence many experts now argue in favor of isolating those held on terrorism-related charges as a way to stop them from radicalizing their fellow inmates.
Yet British officials have until now resisted creating separate wings for terror suspects, arguing that doing so gives them "credibility" and makes it harder to rehabilitate them. But a recent government report on Islamist extremism in British prisons forced a change in thinking, in part by noting that "other prisoners – both Muslim and non-Muslim – serving sentences for crimes unrelated to terrorism are nonetheless vulnerable to radicalization by Islamist Extremists [sic]."
Similarly, France, the site of the worst attacks of the past two years, also balked at first at the idea of separating terrorists from other prisoners, arguing that doing so "forms a terrorist cell within a prison." But the Charlie Hebdo attacks of January 2015 changed all that. Now, officials are even going further, looking at other potential sources of radicalization: the mosques.
Shortly after the Bastille Day attack in Nice, Prime Minister Manuel Valls announced plans to ban foreign financing for French mosques as part of an effort to establish a "French Islam," led by imams trained only in France. France hosts dozens of foreign-financed mosques – many sponsored by Saudi Arabia and Morocco – which preach Salafism, an extreme version of Islam practiced in the Saudi Kingdom and the root of much radical Islamist ideology. And according to a new report on counter-radicalization, about 300 imams come from outside France.
That same report also calls for "regular surveys" of France's 4-5 million Muslims, according to France 24, in order "to acquire a better understanding of this population in a country where statistics based on religious, ethnic, or racial criteria are banned."
Both proposed measures have been met with resistance. The "surveys," as even the report itself notes, are a means of circumventing laws against gathering information on the basis of religious criteria – and so, go against democratic principles. And many French officials also oppose the ban on foreign funding for mosques, arguing that French government intervention in places of worship contradicts separation between church and state. Besides, they claim, radicalization doesn't take place there anyway.
But Dutch authorities and counter-extremism experts are not so sure. The announcement earlier this month that Qatar would finance an Islamic center in Rotterdam, for instance, set off alarms even among Muslim moderates, including Rotterdam's Moroccan-born mayor Ahmed Marcouch. There are good reasons for this. The Salafist Eid Charity, which sponsors the project, has been on Israel's terror list since 2008, according to Dutch daily NRC Handelsblad. Moreover, in 2013 the U.S. Treasury Department accused the charity's founder, Abd al-Rahman al-Nu'aymi, of providing funding for al-Qaida and its affiliates, and named him a "specially designated global terrorist."
Plans for the center sound much like those of the now-abandoned plans for New York's "Ground Zero mosque," with sports facilities, prayer space, tutoring for students, Islamic child care, and, reports Dutch newspaper Volkskrant, imam training.
Yet the center's prospective director, Arnoud van Doorn, a convert to Islam and former member of the far-right, anti-Islam political party PVV, insists that any fears about the project are unfounded. "Our organization has nothing to do with extremism," he told the NRC. "We want only to provide a positive contribution to Dutch society."
Notably, though, France's proposal to ban foreign mosque funding and the Qatari backing of the Rotterdam center point to some of the deepest roots of Europe's radical Islam problem, and, despite all the new initiatives now underway, the greatest challenges to ending it. When Muslim immigrants came to Europe in the 1970s, they carved prayer spaces wherever they could: the backs of community grocery stores, in restaurants and tea rooms. But these soon became too small to handle the growing Muslim population. Mosques – real mosques – would have to be built.
But by whom? The Muslim communities themselves were too poor. Western governments, wedded to the separation of church and state, could not subsidize them with taxpayer funds. And so the door was opened to foreign – mostly Saudi – investment, and the placement of Saudi-trained and Saudi-backed imams in European mosques. Europe had, in essence, rolled out the welcome mat for Salafism.
Now they want to roll it in again. But is it too late? Even as Western intelligence is now uniting to fight radical Islam, Islamic countries are pooling together in Europe to expand it. The result, as Manuel Valls told French daily Le Monde, is that, "What's at stake is the republic. And our shield is democracy."
Hence as the number attacks against Western targets increase, many Europeans are coming to understand that preserving the core of that democracy may mean disrupting some of the tenets on which it's built, like certain elements of privacy, for instance, and religious principles that violate the freedom that we stand for . It is, as it were, a matter of destroying even healthy trees to save the forest. But in this tug-of-war between the Islamic world's efforts to shape the West, and Western efforts to save itself, only our commitment to the very heart of our ideals will define who wins this fight.
Read more at IPT.
You know, everyone understands that allowing free speech for some, and not for others, is not fair. And yet we also know that Western Civ is actually the only civ that advances anything like it. Further, we realize that allowing the same thing for the "locals" in Western Civ, for the rest of the world, is ending up with a choice. Either follow the principles through, equally and thoroughly, until the West kills itself, or... create limits. Where those limits stop is another thing. Should functional communists, or even socialists, be allowed access, freedoms, and such? Should they be punished, or just expelled from power, access, and whatever else it takes, even to exile?
I am not sure, as the post suggests, that the pendulum has begun swinging back. It is slowing. It will stop. It will swing back. But who will guide it? If the West has truly and fully gone secular, than the only difference between the controlling powers will be who they target, locals versus foreign, for the harsh treatments... not whether doing things rightly is even considered. A secular world is bound for genocide.
Many questions, few answers. It will get ugly whichever way it goes. It was a choice. The warning signs and history, which were ignored, buried, or even rewritten, all told that this didn't work. In religion, history, chemistry, physics, even the biological sciences (if observations are true), combining dislike with dislike and you create a problem.
Basically, what needs to be established is the political equivalent of the principle of noncontradiction, where A != Not-A: the idea being that the one thing a political freedom must be unequivocally forbidden from doing is contributing to its own negation or destruction. The one thing you cannot use freedom of speech to advocate for is the removal of freedom of speech. The one thing you cannot use freedom of association or movement for is to implement the denial of that freedom to others.
In this case, the principle would be: No religion which does not permit as a matter of basic dogma the free and unburdened civic practice of other religions, or which enforces secular penalties for leaving it or refusing to join it, can claim the defense of freedom of religion. That there is only one faith I know of which currently meets these criteria is only that faith's responsibility. Banning burkinis is a sideshow: the issue is a civic faction exploiting a freedom it does not itself extend.
Enlightenment freedom of religion was a compromise designed to protect Christians from other Christians, and later to protect Jews and secular post-Christian freethinkers. Its fatal weakness is that it assumes a common ethical framework which Islam simply does not share (or enough of Islam does not share enough of, to be fair), and has no protocol for addressing a genuinely irreconcileable set of cultural values. Until such a protocol is developed -- which cannot be done until the problem is admitted -- this clash will continue.
The tricky part with all this is how far do we go. And how far could it be taken. Would it be possible or likely to use these new laws against Christians deemed radicalized? Most would agree that the Westboro Baptist church is pretty far out there. If these laws were to come here to fight terrorism could they be used against a church like Westboro? And what about a church that doesn't support abortion or gay marriage? Would they become targets because someone deemed them also radicalized?
I'm all for stopping islamic terrorism where it begins, in their places of worship. But how much freedom are we willing to sacrifice to achieve this goal?
The U.S. Congress passed a law in 1952 banning Moslems and Communists from immigrating because their beliefs and values are not compatible with the Constitution.
Post a Comment