More and more Czech politicians, who are demanding a ban on the construction of mosques, have recently been trying to "protect Western society". A strong anti-Islamist stance is said to be a "protection of freedom." Is that so? And what tradition do anti-Islamists actually protect?
Even more recently, we have been receiving more and more modern calls for ban on mosques, za restrictions on Muslim immigration (mainly Arabs that) and the like. Those who proclaim this commit a demonstration newskpeaku a „doublethinku"Orwell would be happy with them.
They claim that they want to protect "our traditional freedom" by restricting freedom. However, this argument is leaky like a colander.
Freedom and tradition?
Is freedom a tradition of Western society? What will we see if we look to the past?
We'll see the Romans slaves, the then clientelism and absolute monarchy. We will see the medieval feudalism and modern absolutist monarchism along with terrorist governance dictators (Jacobins). We will see modern communist revolutions, fascist coups and governments and American "racism by law." This is our tradition and unfortunately, it is not very close to freedom.
Let us not be conceited and admit that freedom is still something new for us, definitely not a tradition.
If many "Islamophobes" want to ban mosques to "preserve tradition," they are right, they protect tradition. But certainly different from what they think they protect. It does not protect the "tradition of freedom", but "tradition of oppression"," Tradition of dictation ","tradition of totality. "
The "tradition of freedom" can no longer exist by principle. "Freedom" is a kind of natural state of man, of any human being. Not just a "western", a "white" or a "black", or perhaps just a man or a woman, but a man. Any.
So freedom (at least potential) is always there, regardless of place and time. She always has her place, she is always defensible. It is not a tradition, it is a nature and with each new test of the existence of freedom, the arguments for its defense are becoming more and more refined. The goal is simple - to reach the point where freedom will be an indisputable fact that can no longer be attacked. To us it came natural, like breathing.
The current "Islamophobia" is thus another test of our perception of freedom. But I must admit that many "Islamophobes" point to problems that do exist - crime that exists. To the extremism that it really is. Let's answer where it comes from and why it is such a problem for us.
Restriction of liberty to restriction of liberty
Why are many Islamic immigrants - especially in Western countries - actors of crime and extremism? The answer is quite simple - let's look for it in the social system and in our current approach to freedom as a "right to" through the state.
The social system is nourished high taxation. Causes lower salaries, higher unemployment, more expensive products and services and, for example, poorer quality education. However, a smart person can easily learn only draw, which may be advantageous.
imagine of a young Iraqi. Coming from a western ruined country (from his point of view) where there is no work is universal poverty, corruption, dangerous. He will come to the west, for example to France, Great Britain or Swedish for a "better life".
He could live his "American dream" in Europe - first to find a low-paid job, for example, learn a language and some basic skillsthen go for the better and the better workSure, he might end up as a supermarket salesman, but from his point of view it is an incredible improvement in his life situation. He has the means, he can improve, he can have his children educated in the West… This is how "old and good" America grew up!
Unfortunately, everything is different. High taxation of labor and setting a minimum wage for him will not allow you to find a job (very acute problem for example in France). In order not to starve, he reaches for a generous social system (because of which, however, he cannot work), from which he can make a living. In his surroundings, he knows by watching and sees that he is alive poorly, but still better than at home, in Iraq (narrowed unrest). Therefore will not return home, will remain in Europe.
The language is not learned, if it is, so very weakly, because it comes into contact only with other Arabs. Why? Because he has no job, for the same reasons, however, work will not be found in the future either.
The difficult situations of such communities will then be easily used by an extremist group or various (even "indigenous") criminal elements. The extremists have it simple - they will tell our young man: "Look - at home they destroyed it all, bombed it. How many of your acquaintances fell? They want to destroy our religion, our faith and our traditions! You need to protect yourself and destroy them first! Come to us, we will give you money, sustenance as comrades-in-arms… and you will still be able to take revenge! ”
Thanks to the existence of the social system it is lucrative europe. Even though they do not find a job with us, they are moving here and they will move here. And precisely because they can't find a job (precisely due to the existence of a social system) they become extremists and criminals.
Does repression solve anything?
If we want to live with peace and tranquility with Arabs and Muslims, so that we do not interfere with each other's freedom and unnecessarily exacerbate the problems between us, we must get rid of the causes of all problems.
The reasons are obvious - it is state interventionism and the social system. The existence of a social system is, in principle, a restriction on the freedom of both payers and recipients. The restriction of freedom produces only another restriction of freedom - only as a result, freedom expires.
Therefore, let us not ban mosques and minarets - it does not solve anything, it only increases the problem (it gives further arguments to extremists on both sides). Let's get rid of the social system, let's get rid of state interventionism, let's reduce the price of work, let's make people's lives easier. People, everyone, not just selected groups.
At the same time, us may not be interestedif we can build churches in Saudi Arabia. We are deciding whether we here we want a free society. When there is a truly free society, those who already interpret Islam in its extreme form will simply have no reason to move here.
On the contrary, those Muslims who interpret some of the liberal forms of Islam will move to us without a problem and will live with us without a problem simply because there will be freedomwhich they will probably miss in their world.