Heads you lose, tails we win
Why are their howls of protest over banning an Indian film in Pakistan? What’s the problem if our censor board deemed it unsuitable for public consumption via cinema release, just as the The Last Temptation of Christ was banned in Chile, Singapore, Philippines, Argentina, Mexico and censored in other countries, in keeping with the objections and sensitivities of Christians. In France, the film’s release was met with attacks on cinemas, including arson by a Christian group in which a number of cinema-goers were badly burned. To prevent such disorder, some countries banned the film.
Countries have the right to reject foreign material. If there is a potential for disruption to public order, especially in a country which is in a state of war such as ours, the ban is completely reasonable. We cannot afford to police such protests. It is fine to argue the merits of the decision but not to greet such restrictions with immediate ridicule. Certain people argue that every act of prohibition is inherently anti-democratic and un-workable. If so, then should pork not be banned in Muslim countries? What about alcohol, drugs and prostitution? The latter two are even banned in many Western countries. The argument that things need not be banned “as good people won’t indulge in them even if they are freely available” is a patently flawed argument. The vast majority of people are neither staunch abstainers nor addicts. They are susceptible to persuasion to “try” things out and the availability and accessibility factor plays a large part in whether they consume a product or avail a service. So “bans” do work by limiting access to the majority of people.
As to those who start hyper-ventilating as soon as anything in a Muslim country is restricted, many of them have fallen head first into a “Western liberal paradigm” which they have accepted as their holy grail. It obliges them to denigrate their own cultural and religious values in order to prove how “liberal and open-minded” they are. They become oblivious to the obvious double standards being employed to undermine Muslim social values and promote Western values in their place, under the disingenuous banner of “freedom”.
If Western countries feel something is counter-productive for their society, such as drugs, they make it illegal for the protection for ordinary citizens and promotion of a civilised society. If developing countries, especially Muslim ones, make something illegal, such as alcohol (which is also a drug), then it is labelled a “ban” which is inherently atavistic, autocratic and retrograde and any arguments for the public good are seen with suspicion or mocked. What about when Islamic countries allow more freedom to the individual than Western countries? If France bans the veil, it is promoting secular values, but if Turkey allows women the choice of wearing the headscarf, it’s an affront to civilised values and against women’s rights. Many Islamic countries allow polygamy but Western countries have criminalised it. If all parties are adults expressing free consent, then is it not an unwarranted restriction on personal freedom to ban it? If the same man and woman have illicit relations, that is neither a crime nor considered abhorrent by Western society. This reflects Western values which tolerate adultery but not polygamy despite the obvious detriment to their social fabric, as documented in numerous studies on the breakdown of family units. Islamic values view adultery as unacceptable yet Muslim countries don’t issue warnings or messages of concern to Western countries on their “intolerance of polygamous families”. So what right do Western countries have to reproach Muslim societies on the values they choose to live by?
When Islam is defamed, the Prophet (pbuh) is caricatured, Muslims are demonised and vilified — that is “freedom of speech”. But questioning any aspect of the Holocaust, even pursuant to historical research, is a crime punishable by imprisonment. The burqa is criminalised, minarets are banned and Muslim women are forcibly de-veiled, also in pursuit of freedom. Smell a double standard here? According to these rules, Muslims can never be right. Heads you lose, tails we win.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 24th, 2010.
Countries have the right to reject foreign material. If there is a potential for disruption to public order, especially in a country which is in a state of war such as ours, the ban is completely reasonable. We cannot afford to police such protests. It is fine to argue the merits of the decision but not to greet such restrictions with immediate ridicule. Certain people argue that every act of prohibition is inherently anti-democratic and un-workable. If so, then should pork not be banned in Muslim countries? What about alcohol, drugs and prostitution? The latter two are even banned in many Western countries. The argument that things need not be banned “as good people won’t indulge in them even if they are freely available” is a patently flawed argument. The vast majority of people are neither staunch abstainers nor addicts. They are susceptible to persuasion to “try” things out and the availability and accessibility factor plays a large part in whether they consume a product or avail a service. So “bans” do work by limiting access to the majority of people.
As to those who start hyper-ventilating as soon as anything in a Muslim country is restricted, many of them have fallen head first into a “Western liberal paradigm” which they have accepted as their holy grail. It obliges them to denigrate their own cultural and religious values in order to prove how “liberal and open-minded” they are. They become oblivious to the obvious double standards being employed to undermine Muslim social values and promote Western values in their place, under the disingenuous banner of “freedom”.
If Western countries feel something is counter-productive for their society, such as drugs, they make it illegal for the protection for ordinary citizens and promotion of a civilised society. If developing countries, especially Muslim ones, make something illegal, such as alcohol (which is also a drug), then it is labelled a “ban” which is inherently atavistic, autocratic and retrograde and any arguments for the public good are seen with suspicion or mocked. What about when Islamic countries allow more freedom to the individual than Western countries? If France bans the veil, it is promoting secular values, but if Turkey allows women the choice of wearing the headscarf, it’s an affront to civilised values and against women’s rights. Many Islamic countries allow polygamy but Western countries have criminalised it. If all parties are adults expressing free consent, then is it not an unwarranted restriction on personal freedom to ban it? If the same man and woman have illicit relations, that is neither a crime nor considered abhorrent by Western society. This reflects Western values which tolerate adultery but not polygamy despite the obvious detriment to their social fabric, as documented in numerous studies on the breakdown of family units. Islamic values view adultery as unacceptable yet Muslim countries don’t issue warnings or messages of concern to Western countries on their “intolerance of polygamous families”. So what right do Western countries have to reproach Muslim societies on the values they choose to live by?
When Islam is defamed, the Prophet (pbuh) is caricatured, Muslims are demonised and vilified — that is “freedom of speech”. But questioning any aspect of the Holocaust, even pursuant to historical research, is a crime punishable by imprisonment. The burqa is criminalised, minarets are banned and Muslim women are forcibly de-veiled, also in pursuit of freedom. Smell a double standard here? According to these rules, Muslims can never be right. Heads you lose, tails we win.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 24th, 2010.