Comments and
Recommendations on the Draft Resolution and Report on
(Refs:
16th July 1996
B4-0705/96, 7th August A4-0000/97
1.
The Association of Muslim
Lawyers in the UK (“the AML”) welcomes the more positive perceptions and
recommendations which appear in the Explanatory Statement of the Draft Report, under the
following paragraph headings:
(a)
Western
media (p.13)
(b) Attitude of European authorities towards the Muslim
community (p.13)
(c) Equal scope for Islam in the public domain (p.14)
(d) Educating media workers (p.14)
(e) Credible foreign
policy to be pursued by the Member States and the EU (p.15)
2.
There are, however, serious flaws
in the following definition of fundamentalism which appears in the Report:
“Over the years, the term “fundamentalism” has come to be defined increasingly broadly. It can now perhaps best be defined in terms of its opposite, i.e. as comprising those ideas and practices that conflict with fundamental values and principles which typify the Western social order.” (p. 9)
This
definition, it is respectfully submitted, could easily be applied so as to be an
expression - both ideologically and in the direct implementation of government policy - of
totalitarian secular fundamentalism, backed up by the full might of the State, a form of
fundamentalism which is more extreme than any other form of fundamentalism which the
Report purports to examine. A clear example of such secular fundamentalism is that of
Stalin, who was responsible for the deaths of some 20 million people who did not subscribe
to the fundamental values and principles which typified his legal order.
Recommendation:
If the final Recommendation and Report are to be balanced, then they
should include an analysis to this effect.
3.
Furthermore, it is respectfully
submitted, it is this kind of “reasoning” - defining a concept “in terms of
its opposite” - which was used by the Theodosian, the Mediaeval and the Spanish
Inquisitions to define “heresy” and then eliminate all “heretics” by
the simple expedient of killing them. This kind of reasoning is part of “the specific
history of Europe” to which the Draft Report refers (p.9) and from which the “Western
model of society derives its characteristics”.
Recommendation: If the final Recommendation and Report are to
be balanced, then they should draw attention to the defects in this kind of “reasoning”
and propose that it should not be followed by any of the governments of the Members of the
European Union.
4.
The Draft Recommendation and
Explanatory Statement both refer to the often false “stereotyped image of Islam and
Muslims in the Western media”, which affect both the Muslims” perception of
themselves as well as the perception of Muslims by non-Muslims, and which in turn often
result in acts of both direct and indirect religious discrimination against Muslims - who
often have no legal means to bring such discrimination to an end or to receive
compensation for injury to feelings and pecuniary loss in a court of law, simply because
the rule of law does not recognise religious discrimination as even existing.
In
other words Muslims are expected to have respect for a rule of law which does nothing or
very little to protect their basic human rights, and which accordingly itself
discriminates against them.
5.
The danger with the Draft
Recommendation and Explanatory Statement as worded at present is that they themselves
contain an inherent tendency to give reality to three of the equations which underly most
of today”s prevalent media perpetuated false stereotypes of Islam and the Muslims,
namely:
Violent Religious
Fundamentalism = Armed Islamic Extremists =
Islamic Fundamentalists
and
Islamic
Fundamentalists = All Muslim Organisations = All Muslims
These
first two equations are presented in tandem in the media so as to “arrive” -
implicitly but never explicitly - at the third most extreme equation, namely the
conclusion that:
All
Muslims support Violent Religious Fundamentalism
This
false “conclusion” is then used to justify the proposition that all Muslims are
fundamentally in conflict with the fundamental values and principles which typify the
Western social order - a clearly absurd proposition which is then used in turn to justify
the equally absurd proposition that all Muslims should not
be entitled either to equal rights or to equal opportunities or to any legal
defence against religious discrimination.
6.
It is this kind of false “reasoning”
which lies behind the UK government”s present rejection of the main recommendations
of the recent Runnymede Trust Report, Islamophobia:
A Challenge For Us All.
Recommendation:
If the final Recommendation and Report are to be balanced, then they
should refer to the Runnymede Trust Report and endorse its main recommendations.
7.
Furthermore, it is this kind of
false “logic” which, with reference to the concluding paragraph of the Report
(pp.15-16), might eventually lead to the “inescapable” conclusion that all
Muslim organisations are “relevant groups” requiring monitoring from the
intelligence services and the police - a policy which, if it were pursued, would in the
vast majority of cases amount to either unjust harrassment or unwarranted persecution.
8.
Since the vast majority of Muslims
in Europe are not supporters of violent religious
fundamentalism, as the Draft Report itself admits more than once, it follows that all
Muslims in Europe should be entitled just as much as anyone else to equal rights, equal
opportunities and a legal defence against religious discrimination.
Recommendation:
If the final Recommendation and Report are to be balanced, then they
should include explicit statements to this effect.