I was writing another post, but I had news to share. Canada will be welcoming 1,200 Yazidi children. Some of these children fled ISIL and walked alone to camps. Others were accompanied by their mother. Many, if not most, have been abused and women were used as sex-slaves.
Iraqi Yazidis
A Yazidi Child
Survivors: Nadia Murad (left) and Lamiya Aji Bashar escaped Isis enslavement to become advocates for Yazidis, and were last month awarded the EU’s Sakharov human rights prize AP
ISIL’s persecution of the Yazidis “gained international attention and it directly led to the American-led intervention in Iraq, which started with United States airstrikes against ISIL.” (See American-led intervention in Iraq (2014 – present), Wikipedia.)
Pan-Islamism was the main cause of the Armenian genocide which began in the mid 1890’s under SultanAbdulhamid II. (See Hamidian Massacres, Wikipedia). It is dated 1915, when the men were disarmed and orders issued to rape, enslave and kill the rest of the population. Earlier, in 1892, Sultan Abdulhamid II had also ordered a “campaign of mass conscription or murder of Yazidis as part of his campaign to Islamize the Ottoman Empire, which also targeted Armenians and other Christians.” (See Genocide of Yazidis by ISIL, Wikipedia.)
Abdul Hamid II is pictured below as a Şehzade (Prince).
Abdul Hamid II as Prince in Balmoral Castle, Scotland, 1867 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Islamization/Arabization spread all the way to the Iberian Peninsula. (See Islam in Spain, Wikipedia.) The Moors were exiled, but Moriscos still live in Spain. To my knowledge they are not Muslims. However, several North-African countries converted to Islam (Morocco, Algeria, etc.).
After the fall or the Byzantine Empire, at Constantinople, in 1534, the Ottomans also conquered several countries in Eastern Europe, nearly reaching Vienna. The inhabitants of these countries did not convert and were persecuted. However, there are Muslim communities in Eastern Europe.
They inhabited Northern Iraq and, recently, they have been protected by the Kurds, which did not prevent a genocide resembling the Armenian genocide. The goal is the same: Pan-Islamism. The men who would not convert were killed. In 1915, male Armenians were disarmed, sent on long walks to nowhere or killed. Their wives and children suffered intolerable abuse and women who could do so jumped to their death. The scenario has not changed. Most male Yazidis were separated from female Yazidis and their children. Those who refused to convert to Islam were killed by ISIL.
ISIL’s persecution of the Yazidis gained international attention and it directly led to the American-led intervention in Iraq, which started with United States airstrikes against ISIL. “Additionally, the US, UK, and Australia made emergency airdrops to Yazidis who had fled to a mountain range” and provided weapons to the “KurdishPeshmerga defending them alongside PKK and YPG forces. ISIL’s actions against the Yazidi population resulted in approximately 500,000 refugees and several thousand killed and kidnapped.”
The Yazidis are hiding in moutains. They have been helped through air drops of supplies. KurdishPeshmerga were provided with weapons to protect them. Weapons of all abominations! At this point, they must be flown to safety. Now we know why President Obama led a coalition fighting ISIL. He answered a call for help. No one helped the Armenians, but German soldier Armin T. Wegner took photographs.
N.B.
Individuals whose ancestors or ethnically-related groups have committed crimes against humanity are not guilty. As well, far-right extremism is a universal affliction. United States President Donald Trump is currently conducting a major “cleansing” operation. He is also condemning difference. His actions are governed by pathological fear. However, a large number of Americans are fighting him and the courts oppose him.
Many ISIL terrorists are rebels without a cause who have travelled to the Middle East. As you know, there have been incidents reflecting Islamophobia in Canada. The worst is the Quebec City shooting. Alexandre Bissonnette’s twin has been hospitalized since his brother killed Muslims at the Grande Mosquée. Canada is protecting its Muslims and welcoming new ones.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) or Gendarmerie royale du Canada, an élite corps of policemen, have been helping people cross the border into Canada because, if left on their own, these individuals could be deported indiscriminately. These refugees are illegal immigrants and they are arrested and investigated. The RCMP/GRC must make sure individuals crossing the border are not criminals. However, people fleeing to Canada are human beings who have rights.
The Yazidis are mostly children or young adults who have been persecuted and most have lost their father. They may require medical support.
A 1914 Russian poster in which the upper inscription reads “agreement”. The uncertain Britannia (right) and Marianne (left) look to the determined Mother Russia (centre) to lead them in the coming war.(Caption credit: Wikipedia)
The Zykes-Picot Agreement
the Triple Entente
the Turkish War of Independence
the partition of the Ottoman Empire
We are going back to the Zykes-Picot Agreement of 1916, a secret partitioning of the Ottoman Empire. It had an enormous impact on the 20th century and beyond. The Agreement was negotiated by Mark Zykes (England) and François Georges-Picot (France) and was signed by Edward Grey, for Britain, and Paul Cambon, for France.
In 1914, Britain had declared war on the Ottoman Empire and expected a victory, which meant that the Ottoman Empire would, in all likelihood, be partitioned. Britain and France had spheres of influence in the Ottoman Empire. So did Imperial Russia, which explains why the Zykes-Picot Agreement is also called the Triple Entente. Imperial Russia was to get Istanbul (still named Constantinople since the birth, in 325 CE, of Christianity as an institution), the Turkish Straits and Armenia. The image above, shows a Russian poster, with the word agreement or concord written at the top. The figures represents France, Russia and England. However, by 1918, Imperial Russia had fallen to the Bolsheviks (1917) and the Czar and his family had been executed on 17 July 1918. By then, the Russian Civil War had erupted (November 1917-October 1922), opposing the Red Army and the White Army. The Zykes-Picot Agreement nevertheless remains a triple entente because Russia had assented to the Agreement.
Given that the Allied powers (France, England, the United States and other allies) won World War I, the Ottoman Empire was partitioned. By and large, its partitioning was consistent with the terms of the Zykes-Picot Agreement, but the negotiations were carried out by the newly founded League of Nations, established on 21 October 1919. A first attempt resulted in the disputed Treaty of Sèvres (10 August 1920). The treaty was renegotiated at Lausanne, Switzerland, resulting in the Treaty of Lausanne (24 July 1923). The Treaty of Lausanne partitioned the fallen Ottoman Empire and also recognized the independence of Turkey and its borders. The Turkish War of Independence was fought between 19 May 1919 and 24 July 1923, the day the Treaty of Lausanne was signed. The last Sultan, Mehmed VI, went into exile on 17 November 1922, but the Ottoman Caliphate was not abolished until 3 March 1924. The last Caliph, Abdülmecid II left for Paris, where he died in 1944. The Ottoman Empire had lasted 700 years, a very long time.
As for the manner in which the Ottoman Empire was partitioned, allow me to quote an earlier post:
Chaim Weizmann and Emir Faisal in 1918(Photo credit: Wikipedia)
The Balfour Declaration of 1917
The Balfour Declaration of 1917 seems to contradict promises made to Arab leaders. There was no mention of a homeland for the Jewish people in the Sykes-Picot Agreement. In fact, the Balfour Declaration negated the UK’s “promises to Arabs” through T. E. Lawrence, better known as Lawrence of Arabia. Britain had promised a “national Arab homeland” in return for the support of Emir Faisal in opposing the Ottoman Empire. Under Emir (his title) Faisal, Arabs did revolt against the Ottoman Empire (see the Damascus Protocol, the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence, and the Arab Revolt, Wikipedia).
His Majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. (See Balfour Declaration, Wikipedia.)
If read closely and completely, this letter is somewhat confusing. As of “it being clearly understood,” it introduces conditions: “[N]othing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine[.]” After World War II, Britain opposed the partitioning of Palestine. At that point, the country promoting the creation of Israel was not Britain. It was the United States, at least briefly. US President Harry S Truman had befriended a Zionist.[1] When the State of Israel was created, President Truman was the first leader to recognize the new state, despite protests on the part of Palestinians. The Holocaust had claimed the life of 6 million Jews. It was horrific. By comparison, the Palestinian Exodus of 1948 did not make many victims, but for the people of Palestine, losing their home was tragic.
Eliahu Elath presenting ark to President Truman
Despite growing conflict between Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews and despite the Department of State’s endorsement of a trusteeship, Truman ultimately decided to recognize the state Israel. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/creation-israel
However, I am now reading that Harry Truman, “initially opposed the creation of a Jewish state.”
As president, Truman initially opposed the creation of a Jewish state. Instead, he tried to promote an Arab-Jewish federation or binational state. He finally gave up in 1947 and endorsed the partition of Palestine into separate states, but he continued to express regret in private that he had not achieved his original objective, which he blamed most often on the “unwarranted interference” of American Zionists. After he had recognized the new state, he pressed the Israeli government to negotiate with the Arabs over borders and refugees; and expressed his disgust with “the manner in which the Jews are handling the refugee problem.” (in “Was Harry Truman a Zionist?” The New Republic)
The above could be revisionism, but both sides lost opportunities for peaceful coexistence. (See Palestine-Israel Journal, Sources and Resources.)
In 1917, Chaim Weizmann‘s own rebuttal to Arthur Balfour: “but we had Jerusalem when London was a marsh” obscured reality.[2] Israel had not “had” Jerusalem for two thousand years. In fact, the diaspora had begun several hundred years before the birth of Christ. Jesus of Nazareth was a Jew who lived in occupied Palestine. However, Dr Weizmann’s rebuttal was a powerful metaphor and it evoked an equally powerful mythos as in mythology). The Jews were the chosen people and had a Promised Land. Britannica’s entry reads as follows:
Although the term refers to the physical dispersal of Jews throughout the world, it also carries religious, philosophical, political, and eschatological connotations, inasmuch as the Jews perceive a special relationship between the land of Israel and themselves. Interpretations of this relationship range from the messianic hope of traditional Judaism for the eventual “ingathering of the exiles” to the view of Reform Judaism that the dispersal of the Jews was providentially arranged by God to foster pure monotheism throughout the world.[3]
In the immediate aftermath of the Holocaust, the Jewish people needed a “promised land” and despite ambivalence regarding the creation of the State of Israel, it does appear that US President Harry Truman won the day. The Jewish population of Europe had been slaughtered, which preyed on every mind.
However, I am now reading that, following Brexit, British Jews have been applying for German citizenship and applicants will be successful. They have a right of return.
There are, however, separate rules for Jewish and political refugees from Hitler’s Reich. Under the principle of “restored citizenship”, German Basic Law ( Grundgesetz) stipulates that “former German citizens who between January 30, 1933 and May 8, 1945 were deprived of their citizenship on political, racial, or religious grounds, and their descendants, shall, on application, have their citizenship restored”.
In fact, there is a small Jewish community in Germany. Among survivors of the Holocaust, some returned to their German homes. After denazification, it was a safe option, safer than moving to Israel. No sooner was Israel created than war erupted. (See Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Wikipedia.)
Conclusion
I am ending this post. The above shows, albeit incompletely, that Europeans demonstrated eurocentrism when drafting the Zykes-Picot Agreement, the term still used in reference to the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire. The Zykes-Picot Agreement led to the creation of protectorates. As for the Balfour Declaration of 1917, the letter sent by Arthur Balfour to Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild, dated 2 November 1917, expresses strong but conditional support for the creation of a national homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine. The quotation must be read in its entirety. According to the Palestine-Israel Journal,
In reality the proposed Jewish state was to be a bi-national one, simply because the Arab Palestinians constitute approximately half the population and owned much more land than the Jews. (See Palestine-Israel Journal.)
I have included a photograph of Chaim Weizmann and Emir Faisal in 1918. It could be that peace would reign in the Middle East had negotiations taken place between the parties concerned at the time the Balfour Declaration was signed. The central motivation in partitioning the Ottoman Empire seems to have been the protection of European spheres of influence in the Middle East.
The Zykes-Picot Agreementstill resonates. The Israeli-Palestine conflict is an issue in the current crisis in the Middle East.
Nations must sit around a table, as equals, and their objective has to be peace, not the protection of spheres of influence. It cannot be a repay of the Treaty of Versailles which was a punitive conclusion to hostilities that would generate further hostilities. It was another example of the eurocentrism characterizing the Zykes-Picot Agreement.
Let there be peace!
Apologies for the long absence due to health issues: anemia. Love to everyone♥
[1] “Zionism”. Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2016. Web. 23 Aug. 2016
<https://www.britannica.com/topic/Zionism>.
[2]“Mr. Balfour, supposing I was to offer you Paris instead of London, would you take it?” He sat up, looked at me, and answered: “But Dr. Weizmann, we have London.” “That is true,” I said, “but we had Jerusalem when London was a marsh.” He … said two things which I remember vividly. The first was: “Are there many Jews who think like you?” I answered: “I believe I speak the mind of millions of Jews whom you will never see and who cannot speak for themselves.”… To this he said: “If that is so you will one day be a force.” Weizmann, Trial and Error, p.111, as quoted in W. Lacquer, The History of Zionism, 2003, ISBN978-1-86064-932-5. p.188 (See Balfour Declaration of 1917)
Leaving Algeria: the Harkis and the Shephardi Jews
In 1961, as the War of Independence was drawing to a close, Algerians were drowned in Paris. (See Massacre of 1961, Wikipedia.) Moreover, before the mass exodus to France, the French disarmed the Harkis and left them behind. Harkis, now called French Muslims of Algerian descent, had been loyal to France during the eight-year War of Independence. It is estimated that as many as 150,000 were massacred. Torture was used on both sides of this conflict, the French and the National Liberation Front (FLN), and it was deemed acceptable. Harkis had to flee and did so with the assistance of French officers acting “against orders.”
“About 91,000 managed to flee to France, some with help from their French officers acting against orders, and today they and their descendants form a significant part of the Algerian-French population.” (See Algerian War, Wikipedia.)
In 1962, Sephardi Jews also fled to France and some to Israel. They had identified with the French during colonial times (1830-1962). They were the descendants of Jews who had escaped the Spanish Inquisition and many spoke Spanish. (See Algerian War, Wikipedia.)
The cease-fire was declared on 18 March 1962 by Charles de Gaulle, at great risk to his life. He would not listen to his bodyguards. De Gaulle pronounced Algeria independent on 3 July 1962 and Independence Day is celebrated on 5 July. French settlers wanted to stay in Algeria and were bitterly disappointed when De Gaulle declared a cease-fire and set about freeing Algeria. For some settlers, it was betrayal.
After France left Algeria, the country contemplated socialism. Its first president was Ahmed ben Bella, who described himself as an Islamist of “mild and peace-loving flavour.” (See Ahmed ben Bella, Wikipedia.) The Sand War, fought in October 1963, occurred during ben Bella’s presidency. Morocco was claiming ownership of Algerian territory. Ben Bella grew into an autocrat and a thief. He was deposed by his friend and colleague Houari Boumédiène (FLN). Boumédiène was a popular leader, but he fell ill and died in 1978, at the age of 46. Houari Boumédiène also contemplated socialism and put into place measures reflecting the influence of socialism.
Algerians are not Arabs. They are descendants of Berbers who converted to Islam. As we have seen, initially, Algerians were not attracted to Islamic fundamentalism and jihadism. Consequently, when Algeria’s neighbours to the east started promoting intégrisme, Islamic fundamentalism, resistance to Islamism culminated in the Algerian Civil War (1991-2002).
The Algerian Civil War, 1991: Fundamentalism
The Algerian Civil War “followed a coup negating an Islamist electoral victory.” (See Algerian Civil War, Wikipedia.) In December 1991, the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) seemed about to defeat the National Liberation Front (FNL). The election was cancelled in January 1992 and a High Council of State was formed under the presidency of Chadli Bendjedid. During the Algerian Civil War, the government of Algeria, the National Liberation Front, opposed members of the Armed Islamic Group (GIA) who, contrary to the government, the FLN, were fundamentalist Muslims advocating Sunni Islamism and djihadism.
Barbaric massacres occurred during the Civil War. Most followed the hijacking of Air France Flight 8969 (1994), to which I have referred in my last post (See Related Articles). It was an act of terror that found a tragic echo in the attacks of 9/11 in the United States. The terrorists’ intention was to blow up the Eiffel Tower in Paris, but France’s anti-terror unit, the Groupe d’Intervention de la Gendarmerie Nationale (GIGN), killed the terrorists at Marseille.
In 1999, Abdelaziz Bouteflika, a member of the National Liberation Front (FLN), was elected president of Algeria. It could be that Islamic fundamentalism had lost its appeal, but given the wars waged in the Middle East during the 2000s, some fundamentalism could not be averted.
“In 2006, the GSPC, the Groupe salafiste pour la prédication et le combat,[1] was officially accepted as a branch of al-Qaida in a video message byAyman al-Zawahiri; soon thereafter, it changed its name toal-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM).” (See Abdelaziz Bouteflika, Wikipedia.)
Abdelaziz Bouteflika, Algeria’s President, has not been seen since January 2016, which has fuelled rumours that he is extremely ill.
Conclusion
To sum up, after Algeria gained its independence, its leaders identified with socialism. However, groups were progressively drawn into the fundamentalist Islamism that was rooting itself in neighbouring Arab countries of the Middle East. It was called Salafist “Islamic revivalism.” Algeria resisted Islamic fundamentalism, but it found supporters.
The driver of the death truck of the 2016 Nice attack, Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel, was Tunisian. It has now been determined that the attack was planned over a year and that Mohamed Bouhlel had accomplices. He responded to calls to attack citizens of coalition countries fighting ISIL. Yet, he was not a suspect. (See 2016 Nice attack, Wikipedia.)
The Kouachi brothers (Charlie Hebdo shooting) were of Algerian descent and the two were radicalised in the Middle East. In other words, after France left Algeria, the Arabization of Algerians led to a degree of Islamic fundamentalism and at least two of the three major attacks on France have been perpetrated by descendants of the population of France’s Colonial Empire. ISIL, however, remains at the heart of terrorist attacks on France andEuropean cities. Last week, Munich was attacked. When will it end?
These are terrible days, but I doubt that radical Islamism will abate until it is rejected by Islam itself. Neither Islamic fundamentalism, nor autocratic leadership, Syria’s Bashar al-Assad‘s, Saudi Arabia’s King Salman, can benefit the Middle East. Its citizens are walking out. It seems that Assad is ready to talk. (See Malta Today.)
President Obama is still the President of the United States and he is a man of peace, despite the strikes. The talks have to occur soon. Participants should be supplied with plenty of good food and drinks, sit at a round table, and put an end to this misery. Muslims are not migrating because they want to. They are migrating because they have to. This is self-destruction. Make Syria safe for Syrians, Iraq safe for Iraqis and free Saudi Raif Badawi. It is difficult to imagine why King Salman of Saudi Arabia fears an innocent blogger whose wife and children are living in my town. They are awaiting a beloved husband and father.
Reconciliation should happen soon, because members of the extreme Right could be voted into political office in mostly tolerant countries.
The Arab Spring was a call for greater democracy. It was energetic opposition to Islamic fundamentalism and Islamic radicalism, i.e. ISIL, by Muslims themselves.[2] But Assad was led by his fear of losing power. If he acts as he should, the migrant crisis will end and he may save himself.
Apologies for a long absence due to migraines. Love to everyone.♥
I haven’t been able to write for several days because of flu symptoms. But I thought I should “drop in”.
Paris
The events in Paris have left me numb. I looked at the photograph of persons who died at the Bataclan. Some were very young. President François Hollande called the massacre an act of war.
It is my understanding that Canada’s Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, is pulling Canada out of the Middle East. I wonder whether or not he will reconsider this decision in light of Friday’s brutal and senseless attacks.
This time, President Hollande was blamed. Terrorists always find a scapegoat.
The attacks will no doubt complicate the migration crisis. Europeans may fear some refugees are terrorists in disguise.
In Canada, tout le bataclan is translated as “the whole kit and caboodle”. But the word “bataclan” has acquired a new meaning.
I feel so sorry for the victims, their families, their friends. France has lost one of the Four Freedoms, freedom from fear. I grieve for France. French Canadians look upon the French as cousins.
Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu(Photo credit: constitution.org)
The Relativity of Laws: Background
Montaigne – Pascal – Montesquieu
A few posts ago, I quoted Pascal (19 June 1623 – 19 August 1662) who wrote:
« Vérité en deça des Pyrénées, erreur au-delà. » (Pensées 8, p. 68 FR)
Truth on this side of the Pyrenees, error beyond. (literal translation)
Laws do change from country to country. In the 16th century, Montaigne[1] (28 February 1533 – 13 September 1592) had come to the same conclusion as Pascal, but Montesquieu (18 January 1689 – 10 February 1755) is the political philosopher who best demonstrated that laws depend on a very large number of factors, one of which is climate.
Montesquieu
The Persian Letters
the Spirit of the Laws
Turquerie
Montesquieu is the author of Les Lettres persanes (1721), The Persian Letters, and the Spirit of the Laws (1748). The notion of relativity is central to both Montesquieu’s Lettrespersanes, an epistolary novel, and the Spirit of the Laws. In the Persian Letters, Paris and France are seen from the perspective of Usbek and Rica, two noblemen from Persia. The book constitutes a comparative description of two different societies.
The Persian Letters were written when “turquerie” was fashionable, from the late Renaissance, until the early part of the 19th century. It is an oblique text, a form of saying without saying. One cannot punish a foreigner for expressing views about the country he is visiting or his country, if he is elsewhere.
Three Types of Government
Relativity is also central to Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws (1748), his masterpiece. Laws depend on a large number of factors, from the country’s type of government, of which he names three: the republican, the monarchical and the despotic (« Il y a trois espèces de gouvernements: le républicain, le monarchique et le despotique. »), to the climate of the country, not a new theory but one usually associated with Montesquieu. (See L’Esprit des lois, II.1 [The Spirit of the Laws, Book 2, Chapter 1].)
Applied to three different types of governments, laws have a different impact, hence their relativity. Montesquieu critiqued laws and governments by applying laws to three types of government.
I should also note that, contrary to Thomas Hobbes, Montesquieu believed human beings were born good, but were later spoiled by society, which vilifies society.
Advocacy
Constitutional governments
The Separation of Powers
The Spirit of the Laws is descriptive. Montesquieu claimed he was happy living in a monarchy. However, he did advocate constitutional governments. French monarchs were absolute monarchs. He also advocated the separation of powers: the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. De l’Esprit des loix served as a model to American founding fathers.
Slavery condemned
A man is innocent until a jury finds him guilty.
Moreover, although Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws is descriptive, he had opinions. For instance, Montesquieu condemned slavery and we owe him the notion that a man is innocent until a jury finds him guilty. Therefore, there is advocacy in De l’Esprit des loix.
De l’Esprit des loix, 1749 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
The relativity of laws is problematical and, therefore, an issue I would like to raise in this post, though not at great length. At the moment, we have local laws as well as an international law, and an international criminal court, at The Hague, Netherlands. Moreover, we have the United Nations‘ Universal Declaration of Human Rights /la Déclaration universelle des droits de l’homme (UDHR) and other international agencies. Yet, although we have endowed ourselves with international covenants, it remains possible to torture people and detain individuals rather gratuitously.
When Montesquieu wrote his Spirit of the Laws (1748), there were no official and stated “human rights.” But it should be said that, during the 18th century, the age of Enlightenment, various philosophes sought the recognition of individual and collective human rights. Voltaire (21 November 1694 – 30 May 1778) advocated freedom of religion, freedom of expression and the separation of church and state. (See Voltaire, Wikipedia.)
President Obama is trying to save the middle class, but resistance is enormous. Equality is difficult to achieve. As for other abuses of human rights, they constitute a common occurrence.
I would like to suggest that, despite the very real possibility of infringements, it would be in humankind’s best interest to implement, within limits, its international covenants and, in particular, its human rights as defined in the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Portrait of a Painter, Ottoman Dynasty (Photo credit: Wikimedia)
Nature vs Culture: the Importance of “Natural Laws”
Raif Badawi
Muath al-Kasasbeh
Given such violations as the sentence inflicted on Raif Badawi, it would be my opinion that the abolition of torture should be given serious and prompt attention at an international level. It should override local laws. There are areas where there cannot be a double standard. Torture is one such area. Moreover, ISIL must be crushed.
It is “natural,” rather than “cultural,” for a caring wife to do all she can to spare her husband punishment he does not deserve and which constitutes torture, a blatant infringement of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is also “natural,” rather than “cultural,” for Muath-al-Kasasbeh‘s father to grieve the burning alive of a beloved son and to call for revenge.
The entire world is condemning this crime against “humanity.” I have noticed that the media have started describing Mr Badawi as the “father of three.” An innocent “father of three” is a greater victim than an innocent blogger. Raif Badawi should not be tortured and arbitrarily incarcerated. In fact, this is a “natural” rather than “cultural” law.
As King Abdullah II of Jordan stated, the Muslim faith does not condone such cruelty as the burning alive of Muath al-Kasasbeh. Gone are the days, or gone should be the days, we burned at the stake 19-year-old Joan of Arc.
Humankind has long yearned for the best possible government.[2] We have already discussed the theories of such political philosophers as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, all of whom came to the conclusion that the rule of law,just laws, had to prevail.
Conclusion
President Obama is saying that “the fight against violent extremism demands a new approach.” I believe this is what I have been attempting to state in this post.
It would be my opinion, that a good education would help prevent radicalization. A good education does seem the best tool we have to bring about lasting changes. What have we been teaching our children? They are still joining ISIL as though it were an option. It isn’t. Could it be that we have not been teaching our children to think? If they do not think they may fall prey to indoctrination and terrorize the world.
In short, to what extent should respecting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights /la Déclaration universelle des droits de l’homme (UDHR) be based on consent and membership? And to what extent should local laws allow serious violations of human rights. Laws vary from country to country, but no local law should allow a serious infringement of international law.
So let me quote President Obama once again: “Violent extremism demands a new approach.”
I experienced difficulties writing this post. Proposing that individual nations comply with international law is a sensitive matter. Absolute monarchs do as they please and terrorists are not amenable to reason. But when humanity is besieged, one looks for a remedy, a remedy which may consist in respecting human rights which is international law.
