The challenge of extremists

Editorial

The attack on Western countries’ people and property in parts of Africa and elsewhere in the Middle East, ostensibly over a video deemed disrespectful to Islam, puts into clear relief the extreme challenges facing the world.

It must be said that the video, ludicrous and cheesy as it no doubt is, was apparently merely a convenient excuse to attack things Western. The attack on the American consulate in Libya had the hallmarks of a well-orchestrated assault and the attack on the American embassy in Egypt also appears to have been more than spontaneous. The mysterious video, however, is being used as the excuse for the riots and as post facto justification for the murder of Christopher Stevens, the American ambassador to Libya, and three other Americans.

The Muslim Brotherhood, meanwhile, has taken the opportunity to demand that Western countries criminalize criticism of Islam. Were it not so horrific, it would be almost funny that the manner in which a free society operates is so utterly foreign to the Islamists that they think their demand would be practicable even if, by some inversion of morality, the West wished to obey.

Reaction to the video among Americans has been a confounding sideshow. Before the murder of the ambassador and the other Americans, in an effort to quell the roiling mobs, the American embassy in Cairo issued a highly dubious statement condemning the film’s use of free expression to offend the sensibilities of Muslims. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton later called the video “disgusting.” (Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney learned that, even in a society that values free expression, there are times when it is best to keep silent.) But these are all beside the point. The issue should not be the quality (or lack thereof) of the video or any concern at all about its content. This is an issue of free expression, on the one hand, and absolutely unjustifiable violence, on the other.

On the face of it, the answer is simple. Tell them no. Explain to Muslim dictators and terrorists that, in Western democracies, free people are permitted to express themselves even in ways that are disrespectful and offensive. (Or, as in the case of this particular video, grievously lacking in production values.)

In the real world, such as it now is, simply telling Muslim extremists that they do not understand the way we do things here is an inadequate response. It represents the use of logic against shoulder-mounted grenade launchers operated by fanatics.

At its root, the conflict here is not one of Islamic versus Western values, per se. It is the conflict between pluralism and unbending fundamentalism. Pluralism accepts differences. Ideological extremism, religious or otherwise, seeks to impose its fundamentalism on everyone under its jurisdiction – and even beyond. What we are seeing today in the position of North African mobs, the Muslim Brotherhood and others, is not merely the argument that the offending film should be banned in their countries, but that the film’s creators should be criminalized even though they live in a free country far away from Egypt or Libya. It is also far more than even this, though: it is the idea that their hurt feelings justify murder.

In an earlier time, it would have been relatively easy to wave off this lunacy and continue about our business as free people. This is no longer possible. Not only does this situation leave representatives of Western governments like that of the United States in lethal danger in parts of the world, it also puts into danger, in entirely unpredictable ways, individuals and other targets in countries like ours. The willingness of sympathizers within Western countries to wreak havoc has been an inescapable part of our daily consciousness for 11 years and a few days now. After the Canadian government ended diplomatic relations recently with the Islamic theocracy in Iran, it was not idle chatter that wondered aloud whether Canadians at home or abroad would soon be in danger as that regime sought vengeance for the snub.

Suffice to say there are no easy answers. If there were one, it would be that everyone in the world should see the light and accept the clearly superior concept of pluralism, acknowledging our own values while permitting other people to continue on with their lives even if we do not share their beliefs, even if their actions offend us.

Of course, telling people in other parts of the world that they should adopt our way of thinking will be as welcome as them telling us to conform to their worldview. The difference, one supposes, is that we are not backing up our demands with the threat of violence. This, given the tough words of the U.S. administration and associated sabre-rattlers, may prove not be quite accurate either, as this ongoing battle of ideologies continues with no easy end in sight.

^TOP