Fighting terrorism the pragmatic way
In a democratic society, fighting ‘fundamentalist terrorism’ should only mean fighting ‘terrorism’ and here lies the debate between ‘freedom’ and ‘security’
ven as tonnes of bombs are dropped on the civilian population in Aleppo and elsewhere in the region — in an exercise that is nothing short of war crime — the French media is busy discussing the issue of forbidding Muslim women from wearing the ‘burkini’ on the beaches of the French Riviera. The fight against ‘fundamentalist terrorism’ is now following two directions in France.
First, there is an attempt to make an inaccurate comparison between Islam and Christianity. This despite the fact that despite several Imams are reiterating that terrorists are “not true Muslims”. And despite Pope Francis recently asserting that there is “no war of religion”, French authorities still insist on trying to “organise a French Islam”, which would be respectful of French laws — as if that is not the case with French Muslims. Such a path is not only impractical, but quite hazardous as well.
It is indeed impractical because, for instance, as opposed to Catholicism, Islam is a religion characterised by several nuances with no unified head. Therefore, speaking on behalf of “the French Muslim population” is a bet that few Imams are prepared to make. The creation of a “French Muslim Foundation” — that would notably ensure proper training of the Imams, or looking into the source of funding behind mosques in France — may be seen as a positive step, provided such measures have the support of all Muslims.
The question of the relationship between religions is a cumbersome issue that just cannot be left in the hands of rookie politicians. It requires serenity, depth and time, whereas the present situation is just the opposite: 45 per cent of the French population now considers Islam a threat (compared to 35 per cent a year ago), which is exactly what the followers of Daesh (the self-proclaimed Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) are driving at.
The second wrong direction that is being pursued is to try and transform France into a miniature Guantanamo: Everybody will be jailed as soon as there is suspicion that someone could be involved in a terrorist attack. Some of the proposals put forward by the candidates for the next presidential election in France are amazing in that respect: Former president Nicolas Sarkozy has launched his campaign under the sign of ‘French Identity’, though his record with security issues in the past is anything but encouraging.
Actually, in a democratic society, fighting ‘fundamentalist terrorism’ should only mean fighting ‘terrorism’. Here lies the traditional debate between ‘freedom’ and ‘security’, which is not a new issue for democracies. However, mixing up this debate with matters of religious concern will only increase the confusion without offering any solution. This is particularly true when one comes to the concept of ‘radicalisation’. An interesting case in point could be the Leftist organisations that had spilled blood and spread terror in Europe in the 1960s. Many of those who were involved with those organisations were ‘extremists’, but they only turned ‘terrorists’ the day they felt they were ready to take a quantum leap and that was when the state was required to act against them.
When a clueless, unemployed suburbanite turns ‘radicalised’, goes to Syria and comes back to France, does it make sense to put him in a cell occupied by other delinquents? When a family realises that one of its members is turning ‘radicalised’, is it not its duty to inform the police? And shouldn’t the state sue a family for failing to act?
Imposing additional restrictive measures or worse, mixing up the issue with matters of religious concern and the notion of ‘freedom’ may simply lead to additional chaos. And that is what Daesh is looking to capitalise on.