|
Religious intolerance in Europe Bashy Quraishy President - ENAR Vice Chair – POEM (The Federation of Ethnic Minority Organizations) Nyelandsvej 53, 2000 Frederiksberg. Denmark Tel & Fax: (45) 38 88 19 77. Mobil: (45) 40 15 47 71. www.bashy.dk
On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 2 of this declaration clearly states: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. In
the month of June 2001, something very unusual happened in French
history. French President Jacques Chirac signed a bill which will
practically prevent small religions and faiths to excercise their right
to propogate and recruit new followers. This bill is the result of many
years of ground work and discussions in the French National Assembly. The
main argument for the law was that it will scare the new age religions
and sects to brain wash innocent and weak souls. These sects were in the
eyes of the French State, dangerous and oppressive therefore it was
clearly the duty of the State to act to protect it’s citizens. The
law was passed with the presence of only 30 Deputies out of 600 in the
National Assembly.15 members voted for the bill and 15 abstained. Of
course, it would be difficult to argue against or for such actions since
all States are sovereign and have the constitutional right to protect
it’s citizens from external and internal threats. Problem arises when
the case is prepared not against an individual or an organization but as
a warning shot against all religions which the State itself defines
dangerous and disapprove of. The
second worrisome aspect of this particular law is that it is not only
the French issue but such laws are also being put in place or are under
consideration in other European countries. Germany, Austria, Belgium and
Russia are some of the countries where very powerful campaigns have been
launched against new age religions and sects. There are active anti-sect
lobbies who have morally, financially and politically inspired,
supported and backed unending propaganda and thus are directly
responsible for a political climate, where such discriminatory laws are
being passed. These
are called “anti-sect movements” in many European countries. There
are both secular and Right Wing Christian groups who accuse other small
religions for: Child abuse, theft, brain washing, anti-state activities,
money laundering etc. These sects are often labeled as “destructive
and totalitarian” and are accused of being subversive elements in the
society. For example a conference was held in April in Russia, where
anti-sect groups from 7 different countries including China, where Falun
Gong is under relentless attack, passed such an uncompromising
manifestation which would not be allowed in any legal system in the
West. The
rhetoric and the political response is very familiar to that when
“Jesus Movement” came under attack and were labeled as subversive.
The situation is however not similar and there are other factors which
should be taken into consideration, like the availability of information
regarding religious groups and the general sociological analysis of
people’s reactions. This does not mean that all these new religions
are free of problems. Cases of ill
treatments of members, financial pressure and even harassment has been
reported. Legal action has also been taken against some groups. Many
historians, socialogists, and legal experts though agree that the
description forwarded by “Anti-cult Movements” of new age religions
and other sects is wrong. It is often simplistic, lack proof and the
neutral observors can not wholly verify the conditions which are often
claimed against these religions. Socialogists argue that one can not
accuse all sects or religions because of individual cases of accesses.
They point out that if people choose to follow scientific knowledge
instead of Anti sect lobby, then there will be no need to have such
draconian laws as passed in France. It
has been pointed out that in the countries where opposition to new
religions is greatest, contact between politicians/authorities and
researchers is also minimal. Danish historian of religions, Mikael
Rothstein in his article in national newspaper Politiken (12.06.2001)
says: “The
German religion historians are very frustrated that they can not take
part in the public debate and be helpful to balance it. The Russian
researchers find their working conditions almost impossible. In the
countries like USA, UK and Scandinavia, where contact between
authorities and researchers is
considerable, the situation is different and conflicts are rare and less
dramatic. It is not a coincidence that anti-cult movements dislike
researchers dealing with religion. Negligence and disregard shown
towards human rights, specially religious freedom in this French law, in
my opinion is very evident. One
of the main problem in this respect is that the huge quantities of
available scientific knowledge has been set aside and not used in the
preparation of this law”. In
a situation where EU laws are being integrated and coordinated and
common laws are being proposed, the development in France, Russia,
Belgium and Austria is disturbing and therefore action must be taken now. An
interview in a Danish newspaper, Christian Daily (26.06.2001) with
Jacques Richard co-founder of FECRIS, Federation Europene des Centres de
Recherche et d'Information sur le Sectarisme (European Association of
Centres for Research and Information about Sects ) reveals the extent to
which European anti-sect association, will go to have their opinions
prevail in EU institutions. The
assosiation among other things, is working hard to obtain the right to
comment on EU directive proposals regarding religion. In
his long interview, Mr Richard says: “I
am totally for the law, which in my eyes gives the state a needed tool
against the manipulation of people. If it was up to me, that type of
legislation became normal in entire Europe.” Religious
intolerance In
the following 30 days after the World Trade Center attacks,
I have personally
experienced a lot of hostility and found
proofs that Religious
intolerance is very wide
spread in Europe. Not
only in Denmark but also in places like, Sweden, Germany and even in
Portugal where I was attending a conference in the 3rd week
of September. Staring looks
in the public places, spitting on the streets and uncomfortable
questions from the media. Even
a country like UK which has a long tradition of being a
multi- cultural society has experienced an increase in the anti-
religious feeling. One
of the most prestigious British newspaper, Guardian (28.02.2001) under
the headline “Religious bias on increase” reports: “According
to a report commissioned by the Home Office Hostility, abuse and
discrimination towards Muslims and Hindus
is increasing.They experience unfair treatment in every aspect of
education, employment,housing, law and order and local government
services, the study showed.” Organizations
representing the religions said that hostility and violence remained
very real concerns.The study Religious discrimination in England and
Wales,found that most Muslims and Hindus respondents said that hostility,
verbal abuse and unfair media coverage had become more frequent in
recent year. Muslim
organizations reported increased unfair treatment than other religious
groups.Pagans and people from new religious movements also complained of
open hostility and discrimination and of being labelled as child abusers
and cults. The
report suggested that some changes in the law might be needed to send
the right message about discrimination. “The
idea of legislation of some kind received most support from Muslim
organizations and interviewees from ethnic minorities.”the report
points out. Mike O´Brien
, the Home Office minister, said: ”The
findings reveal that there is a consensus among all faiths that there is
ignorance and lack of respect for religion and religious identity.” He
said that research would be used to take practical steps to tackle
religious discrimination. Opinion
surveys Since
1989 the European Union has conducted yearly opinion-poll surveys to
assess racism and xenophobia in its member states. These are published
as the Euro barometer series
by the European Parliamentary Commission. In 1997, the European
Commission ´s Year Against Racism, a detailed survey was carried out in
all the member states in which the respondents were asked directly
whether they had racist attitudes towards ethnic minorities.
(Eurobarometer,1997: 2).
Research done by Migration Policy Group
on behalf of EUMC - European Eunion´s Monitoring Centre in Vienna
regarding national and European Legislation combating Racism includes
religious discrimination. The report was published in 2000. Other
social scientific inquiries of the recent past have shown that ethnic
relations in EU have been deteriorating since the start of 1990s and
religions specially Islam has come to play a pivotal role in racialised
expression in political and public discourse.There are a number of
factors e.g., an influx of refugees from the Middle East at a moment of
higher unemployment and the crisis of the social welfare model during
the 1980s; the rise of new-liberal and neo-racist ideologies in Western
Europe along with the policy of 'Fortress Europe' supported by
harmonisation measures within the EU that entailed the rhetoric of, and
legitimation for, more restrictive immigration policies. Socialogist
Mustafa Hussain of Lund University, Sweden explains: “Many
scholars have pointed to the media's role in popularising a neo-racist
discourse that positions the Muslim identity as a direct negation of the
'Europeanness'. The mass media's selective focus on Muslim minorities
has resulted in the concept of refugees or immigrants being
automatically associated with Muslims, as a binary opposite of an
European, in popular discourse. The
current environment of negative public opinion and political intolerance
is an outcome of the powerful societal institutions. Thus, ethnic
prejudice (and hence ethno-political
opinion) is constantly (re)produced in discourse and
communication.It is important to look at the institutionalised mass
mediated discourses and communication, namely, the daily news flow on
ethnic minorities in the national press of Denmark and its contribution
to the formation of a negative ethno-political consensus.” Ethnic
inequalities and prejudice in text and speech in the public sphere are
not produced by media alone. Very often news texts are reproductions of
discourses originating at some other source or channel of communication
(i.e. political parties, government officials, police, courts, employers,
cultural elites, other important people in various organizations,
academic reports, and press-releases). However, in European Union´s
open societies the media enjoys a relative editorial freedom and an
autonomous domain in cultural reproduction. In this regard, it is
important to note not only what
the media choose to report, and how
it is accomplished in the production of a news text, but also what
the media choose to routinely hold back. Our study of news flow
demonstrates, for instance, that a number of political or social
activities, debates and events to combat racism and xenophobia, both at
the European level and in the domestic arena, are routinely not reported
on by the national media.”
In many European Union countries, this process continues without
hindrance as there is neither strong political resistance, nor is there
any major shift in sight in the elite discourses on Muslim minorities in
particular and ethnic minorities in general. Unless European sense of
ethnic realities changes, or their vital interests are threatened, for
instance, by globalization trends in the world economy, public opinion,
it seems, will continue to worsen in EU. Report
on religious intolerance in the OSCE region documents This
report is based on information gathered for the IHF Report Human Rights
in the OSCE Region: the Balkans, the Caucasus, Europe, Central Asia and
North America, Report 2001. The report focuses on human rights
developments in the OSCE region in 2000. Therefore, this report covers
the issue of religious tolerance in selected OSCE countries in the year
2000 only but it gives a very disturbing picture.
"The trend in the field of religious freedom is toward
adopting legislation that increasingly restricts the activities of
minority religions to the advantage of the so-called traditional
religions," according to Aaron Rhodes, IHF executive director.
"Some Western European countries do not provide good models for new
democracies as they develop discriminatory legislation or practices
governing religious associations. Anti-'sect' hysteria has been a source
of violations of the Helsinki commitments." Attitudes
towards minority religions in EU On
behalf of European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia,
Migration Policy Group has carried out a
special analysis of the Euro barometer 2000 survey. The report is called
“Attitudes towards minority groups in the European Union”.
This research has looked upon the national and European Legislation
combating Racism. One aspect of the report deals with religious
intolerance and discrimination.
ENAR has included some portions of this report in our position
paper on religious intolerance and how the network can deal with this
challenge. Eurobarometer
2000 In another special analysis of thr Eurobarometer 2000 done on behalf of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia by an Austrian Consulting Company SORA and published in March 2001, there are some very disturbing facts of religious intolerance. With regard to the question of acceptance of people from Muslim countries who wish to work in the EU, 76% of the public said that they will not accept or will accept with resrtictions. When the question was asked: Do you personally find the presence of people of another religion disturbing in your daily life?, 14% answered said yes while 81% sais No.Interestingly when the same persons was asked to respond if the wanted people belonging to these minority groups must give up such parts of their religion and culture which may be in conflict with country´s law, 56% tended to agree and 32% disagreed. Islamophobia Stereotyped
image of Islam has become a crutch on which the survival of the Western
cultural identity depends. 15th
of September 2000 was the day of Olympic
inauguration in Sydney Australia. I was attending a conference in
Brussels. In the lunch time
I went to my room to see the news on BBC. After few tries, I zapped on a
German TV Channel which was covering the Olympics. Out of curiosity, I
let myself stay on for few moments to see the opening. The commentator
was introducing each country by it´s sporting achievements, history or
just passing pleasant remarks. I soon noticed that every time a
delegation from a country with a Muslim background appeared on the
screen, Islam, terrorism, fundamentalism or civil war was mentioned.
Countries as diverse as Algeria, Indonesia, Sudan, Saudi Arabia and
Pakistan were introduced in the similar fashion. I was astonished at
this celebrate effort to mix religion and sports. An
unfortunate example of selective anti-Islam journalism practiced by
Danish media was seen in connection with riots in Britain. A number of
my colleagues and I very closely followed the story of racial violence
in Bradford –UK which took place on 6th and 7th
July 2001 and shook the world. The scenes of riots were shown on
the British and international media, including CNN. At the time of the
episode I was in Amsterdam attending a media conference organized by the
Dutch Union of Journalists. I followed the events on BBC world service
and the Dutch media as well. The reporting was sketchy but neutral. When
I returned to Denmark, I was surprised to notice that the story which
was described by the international media, as a tension between the
police and the Asian communities, fueled further by the National Front ,
was angled both in the Danish national channel TV-2 and newspaper
Politiken from an Islam perspective. What
makes the Danish reporters to think about Muslims and Islam, whenever
there is eruption of violence in the world ? When neither the British,
nor some other European press framed the Bradford riots from an Islam
perspective, it seems quite obvious that the Danish TV and newspapers
are waging a war against Muslims and thus openly violating all the
standards of journalism and fair reporting. But before one brings this
gross, and notoriously Danish ill-practice of anti-Muslim journalism to
the notice of International Federation of Journalists, and its special
body on anti-racism, IMRAX, and other concerned Danish and International
organizations, it would be fair enough to demand publicly, that why the
TV2 and Politiken’s journalist brought Islam into the story, when the
British media did not even hint on such a connection in their news
reporting? " One
can rightly ask, what is the purpose of putting Islam into this story?
Is it to find a pretext to repeat the connection to "Rushdie-roits"
of 1989 in Bradford in their upcoming news analyses, features and
reportings to continue the anti-Muslim propaganda. The
Muslim immigrants in EU In
1996 European Parliaments yearly report was published. It describes all
tendencies relating to racism, discrimination in European Union. The
report was approved by 260 yes -votes to 188 no-votes while 32 absentees.
There was wide spread criticism of the lack of respect for human rights
which the parliamentarians blamed EU countries for. The
member of European Parliament wished
that EU showed more solidarity to asylum seekers, and restrictions on
the right to seek asylum be diminished. The report describes the racist
tendencies and increase in xenophobia in the political system. Report
also says that in some member countries the situation in certain fields
is against the human rights. While it was being done, the European
Parliament was also busy discussing draft proposals to keep an eye and
control the rise in Islamic fundamentalism through out European Union. Declaration
on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination
Based on Religion or Belief
While
discussing the religious discrimination and the instruments to combat
it, it is vital to keep in mind the above mentioned UN declaration
proclaimed by General
Assembly resolution 36/55 of 25 November 1981. Considering
that one of the basic principles of the Charter of the United Nations is
that of the dignity and equality inherent in all human beings, and that
all Member States have pledged themselves to take joint and separate
action in co-operation with the Organization to promote and encourage
universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental
freedoms for all, without distinction as to race, sex, language or
religion, Considering
that the disregard and infringement of human rights and fundamental
freedoms, in particular of the right to freedom of thought, conscience,
religion or whatever belief, have brought, directly or indirectly, wars
and great suffering to mankind, especially where they serve as a means
of foreign interference in the internal affairs of other States and
amount to kindling hatred between peoples and nations, Convinced
that freedom of religion and belief should also contribute to the
attainment of the goals of world peace, social justice and friendship
among peoples and to the elimination of ideologies or practices of
colonialism and racial discrimination, Noting
with satisfaction the adoption of several, and the coming into force of
some, conventions, under the aegis of the United Nations and of the
specialized agencies, for the elimination of various forms of
discrimination, Concerned
by manifestations of intolerance and by the existence of discrimination
in matters of religion or belief still in evidence in some areas of the
world, Resolved
to adopt all necessary measures for the speedy elimination of such
intolerance in all its forms and manifestations and to prevent and
combat discrimination on the ground of religion or belief, What
kind of conflicts are we talking about? There
are no serious conflicts taking place between the European masses, the
power elite and law enforcement on one side and the ethnic minorities on
the other. The word conflict is very misleading and a misrepresentation
of the reality. What is happening in Europe is that majority society’s
oppression is resulting in civil conflicts. Minorities isolation, their
refusal to obey, social deprivation, anger against the family, violent
outbursts from the youth, economical setbacks, establishment of
sub-cultures, religious revival and a general animosity towards the host
country. Since
the response to oppression is often vocal and loud, it has produced a
chain reaction from the majority. It used it’s PR power to blame the
victims for their own social problems, lack of jobs, establishing of
ghettoes, criminality among the ethnic youth and fundamentalism. Until
now the conflicts have been of misunderstanding of each other’s values,
norms and traditions and not of ethnicity, religion, race or class.
Ethnic
Minorities are no threat Increasingly
it is pointed out that the Ethnic Minorities are a threat to the Western
identity and welfare system. In contrast to this popular belief, the
presence of these Ethnic Minorities pose no threat to the host nation's
identity, culture or religion. This is true for a number of reasons; 1.
Ethnic Minorities are diverse and not a single entity. 2.
Minorities are not more than 7% of the whole population in any given
European country. It is an insignificant number to be considered a
threat. 3.
Minorities have no power -- politically,
militarily, economically, or socially. 4.
A strong sense of European identity, which has been shaped over many
years by an ideology, glorifying what is white, Christian, and "culturally
superior "to all and everything", is so deeply rooted in the
Western subconscious that it would be very difficult, if not impossible,
to change, challenge, or destroy it. 5.
Minorities very rarely challenge the West on a cultural level. This,
they know, is not the reason for their being here. They do not consider
themselves as Cultural Crusaders. For example, Muslims who constitute
40% of all Ethnic Minorities in EU hardly ever propagate their religion
publicly. Their religious activities are restricted among themselves. 6.
West with it’s technological advances, mass media monopoly, and
economical superiority, is strong enough to withstand any crisis, any
test it encounters from Ethnic Minorities. But if there is any imagined
challenge to the host nation's identity because of the presence of
Ethnic Minorities, it could only be positive. By learning about and from
Ethnic Minorities values, e.g. family ties, respect for elders, hard
work, social networking, strong religious beliefs, great hospitality,
and pride in their own culture -- the host nations have an opportunity
to rediscover the strength in their own "long forgotten "beautiful
values. A
very well known Danish politician, with a Jewish background, Mr. Arne
Melchior once said in the Danish parliament: "If
a small percentage of Ethnic Minorities in Denmark has the ability to
destroy a strong Danish culture, then perhaps this great culture is not
worth keeping or preserving". NGOs
and Left Wing parties are passive 1.
The so called equal rights for everyone living in Europe and it's
negative consequences for Ethnic Minorities are not taken into account. 2.
Failure to fully acknowledge the presence of Ethnic Minorities in Europe
and the subsequent hindrance in developing a coherent integration’s
policy to meet the needs and protect the rights of such minorities. 3.
Lack of consultation at an appropriate level with Ethnic Minorities. 4.
Lack of focus on the missing official checks and prohibition of racial
discrimination in all its forms as required by international laws. 5.
Condemnation of the official policy of assimilation instead of
multi-culturalism. 6.
Passivity as to the fate of non - European Ethnic Minorities, especially
at the hands of the police and in the courts. 7.
Lack of affirmative action for Ethnic Minority youth, as proposed by
European Convention on Human Rights and the International Labor
Organization’s convention. What
can be done? Defending
religious identity without the extremes of " cultural minimalism" or violent conflict is possible, providing
the West accepts the condition of democracy and the reality of pluralism.
Identity, whether, of an individual or a group, religious or political,
ethnic or racial takes on a decisive importance in a violent context if
it is not allowed to manifest freely and peacefully. It always affirms
itself through struggle of power and domination. The absence of identity
in the European contest is because of dissolution of society’s inner
cohesion. The question of identity is not relevant in communities that
are sure of themselves and stand firmly united by a common culture or a
strong sense of religious affiliation. In
the case of Europe, I believe, the thinking man’s only contribution
lies in helping political leaders by re-examining the path via which the
cultivated person is educated and developed, taking into account that
one of the key characteristic of the
modern society is, it’s pluralistic nature. Tomorrow’s European
should no longer be obsessed with the idea of a single identity, even
less so by the quest of a strong sense of
European Union. They must advance towards an identity that is, if
not weak, at least flexible
and open. They will then become authentic citizens in a society where
identity will at last be dissociated from race, culture, religion and
color. If
we wish to succeed in creating a single European identity then we must
create an atmosphere in which identity is not determined by the color of
your skin or the religion you practice or the geographical area you come
from but on a single principle which is enshrined in the
UN Human Right Conventions related to social, economic and
cultural rights. Only then civil and political rights will make any
sense. It is sad to point out that many European countries put a lot of
emphasize on legal rights which in itself is commendable but if right to
work, housing and cultural progress is not assured then what good will
come out of political freedom. If
Europe really wants to have a pluralistic society and a
cosmopolitan identity, then it must do away with Eurocentrism and
enlarge the definition of citizenship from being -legalistic to all
inclusive. It must be
multi-cultural, multi-ethnic and multi-religious. Political
parties must protect religious minorities Political
parties must be: ·
Mindful that according to international human rights instruments
one's political freedoms are not absolute in view of the equally
fundamental right to be protected against religious discrimination and
that therefore political freedoms cannot be allowed to be abused to
exploit, cause or initiate prejudice on the grounds of race, color,
ethnic origin, religion and nationality or for the purpose of seeking to
gain the sympathy of the electorate for prejudice on such grounds. ·
Aware of special tasks and responsibilities of political parties
as actors in a democratic political process, defending, articulating and
bearing witness to the basic principles of a democratic society;
providing a platform for discussion on religiou issues where there may
be differences of opinion, integrating different views into the process
of decision making, thereby
enabling society to solve conflicts of interest and of opinion between
various religious groups through dialogue rather than through opting out
and conflict; selecting representatives at various levels for active
participation in the process. Specific
principles of good practice ·
To defend basic human rights and democratic principles and to
reject all forms of racial violence, incitement to racial hatred and
harassment and any form of religious discrimination. ·
To refuse to display, to publish or to have published, to
distribute or to endorse in any way views and positions, which stir up
or invite, or may reasonable be expected to stir up or invite prejudices,
hostility or division between people of different religious
origin and to deal firmly with any anti-religious sentiments
within its own ranks. ·
To deal responsibally and fairly with sensitive topics relating
to religious minority groups and to avoid stigmatization of any
religious group. ·
To refrain from any form of alliance or cooperation with a
political party which stirs up or incites religious prejudices and
religious hatred or attempts to do so. ·
To strive as much as possible for the equal representation of the
various religious groups in society at all levels of the parties with a
special responsibility for the party leadership to stimulate and support
the recruitment of candidates for political functions as well as
membership from ethnic minority groups with different beliefs. Pledge
for a tolerant and multi-religious society The
basic elements of the religious minority policy ·
the minorities must be offered a chance to practice their own
religions ·
the minorities must have a right to organize themselves and look
after their religious interests ·
the concept of ethnic and cultural equality should be enlarged to
include religious equality in the constitution and legal system Religious
interaction through education Educational
institutions can create an atmosphere of tolerance by: ·
preparing discussions and
study material for students ·
creating contacts to religious organisations working for an
inclusive society ·
educating the teachers in religious minority issues ·
creating meeting
forums and workshops for parents to listen to each others point of views
– good and bad ·
Invite inter-faith scholars and experts to hold seminars, debates
and panel discussions Learn
and improve from the positive developments in other countries Here are
few suggestions. ·
Exchange of experience with Holland, Great Britain, Canada and
other countries who have years of experience multi-religious work ·
Close contact with Ethnic Minority organizations on the local and
national level ·
Consultation with minority politicians, religious leaders,
leading business people, neutral researchers, solidarity organizations
and NGO´s. ·
Keep in mind international human rights conventions, practicing
democratic principles when making laws and decisions regarding religious
equality ·
Strong legal protection for religious minorities must be
available. A kind of Commission for Religious Equality or an
Anti-discrimination Ombudsman ·
Be open to change. Do not say, " That is not the way we do
things in our country" ·
Positive political signals are important for mental security of
religious minorities ·
Principle of equality must be incorporated in every religious
initiative ·
Focus on religious diversity instead of uniformity However,
it must be done with respect to the norms of the common people.
Decisions must not be imposed but explained Priorities
in relation to policies for religion and belief The
European Union and the European countries outside EU can formulate
policies regarding religion and belief, with different time perspectives. Some
action must be taken ungently, while options must be open for medium and
long term solutions. These
policies should cover work,education, public order and the role of the
State. The
action urgent required is a legislation to permit time off for religious
holidays and time for religious observance at work, a review of access
to education for religious minorities, legal protection against
anti-religious hate speech and equal access to state funds for religious
activities, building of places of worship and tax relief for religious
charities. On
the medium term level, legislative protection against blasphemy, removal
of all religious barriers to hold state offices and take part in
political activities ´must be considered. On
the long term, one must look at the equal access to state funds for all
religious educational foundations, establishment of religious schools
and a full review of established church and its role in the secular life. Understanding
through serious and constructive efforts When
it comes to Islamophobia,it is also necessary to point out that Islam is
a religion and not a nationality. Islam is a universal religion,
spanning over 65 countries, with 1.2 billion followers and these so
called Muslims are not a united mass. They have different cultures, way
of life, history, color, ethnicity, languages, dressing, mentality,
social status, upbringing and experiences. The only thing which they
have in common is 5 tenants of Islam. The standard picture of Muslims,
we see in the media all the time is a distortion, simplified and
outright dangerous. It
will produce a better atmosphere if the Europeans come to terms with the
fact that Ethnic Minorities are now firmly established, both culturally
and organizationally in their midst. The society must open it self to
the idea that it has no choice but to accept some form of cultural
pluralism for the foreseeable future. Policies based on political and
cultural assimilation or the exclusionary definitions of nationality can
no longer serve as effective forms of integration of the nation state.
The de facto ethnic diversity and pluralism of the host nation requires
new approaches and new thinking. Unless
the bearers of public discussions, the intellectuals, local
authorities, public figures, civil servants, national politicians,
religious leaders and the business community plus Ethnic Minorities
living here, invest in understanding and preserving common sense, we
will be building future on
a foundation of shifting sand. Within a couple of generations, we will
be forever lost as civilized people. The
harmonious future The
majority and the Ethnic Minorities owe it to the coming generations and
not least to the many caring people who want to understand the problem
and work towards a just society. It
is the duty of those, who are privileged
to do that which their means allow in an effort to preserve the
human traditions so that all
may be positively aware of it. Past experience warns that for some
minority intellectuals or professionals who are successful, it is all
too easy or desirable to leave behind the past - as cultural baggage on
the basis that it is useless and cumbersome. Fortunately such minority
intellectuals are very few and have their own personal reasons to
assimilate. Such individuals become a stick
with which the majority is able to beat the minorities in order
to keep them in their place. History is littered with such examples,
where the hostile society has made
sure that the ivory tower in which those naive intellectuals took
shelter, fell in the end and their past associations - both cultural and
political, caught up with them. Wealth,
education and social standing do not protect a minority group or a
member of this group from persecution. Concealed cultural identity or
discarded religious affiliation is no guarantee that majority society
will embrace the minorities. On the contrary, if the Ethnic Minorities
are encouraged to feel more proud of their cultural heritage, maybe they
would feel safe to open up and not feel the need to keep the traditional
way of life they brought with them from their respective homelands.
Tolerance and openness which the society asks of the Ethnic Minorities -
should be promoted by all, first and foremost by the majority itself. In
the absence of such acts, democracy becomes majority’s dictatorship. References 1.
Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. Article 2 - December 10, 1948 2.
UN
declaration proclaimed by General Assembly
resolution 36/55 of 25 November 1981 3.
European
Parliaments yearly report - 1996 4.
Van Dijk 1987, 1993; see also Potter and Wetherell - 1996 5.
Eurobarometer
- 1997 December 10, 1948 6.
Substantive Rights and equal treatment in respaect and belief –
by Gay Moon and Robin Allen European
Human Rights Law Review - Nov 2000 7.
British
newspaper, Guardian - 28.02.2001 8.
Report
from European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia - March 2001 9.
Report on
religious intolerance – Helsinki Federation for Human Rights -19 June
2001 10. Danish newspaper, Christian Daily - 26.06.2001
|
|
|