08-Feb-17: Migrant challenges, deep polarization and new findings in Europe

The shouting and name-calling on all sides of the ferocious debate over Trump's January 27, 2017 Executive Order halting all refugee admissions for now and temporarily banning travel into the US from Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Syria, Sudan, Libya and Somalia ["Is this a Muslim ban? Trump's executive order explained", The Guardian, January 28, 2017] – reflects how deep the polarization is on the issues.

But it's not just the US.

A few hours ago, a UK newspaper published the findings of a poll carried out by the London-based Royal Institute of International Affairs - better known as Chatham House. The study, released yesterday, is entitled "What Do Europeans Think About Muslim Immigration?".

The data, based on polling done shortly before Trump signed that executive order, indicate that

majorities in all but two of the ten states opposed immigration from mainly Muslim countries... ["Most Europeans want immigration ban from Muslim-majority countries, poll reveals", The Independent UK, February 8, 2017]

Our brief summary of the findings follows. On the whole they seem to be strikingly decisive:

• A majority of Europeans want a ban on immigration from Muslim-majority countries. On a pan-European basis, only 20 per cent disagree. Undecideds are 25 per cent. 
• Overall opposition to Muslim immigration is "especially intense" among older people.
• On average, 55 per cent of people across the 10 European countries surveyed want all future immigration from mainly Muslim countries into their own part of Europe to stop.
• Ranked from most opposed to least opposed, the ban is supported by 71% of Poles, 65% of Austrians, 64% of both Belgians and Hungarians, 61% of French, 58% of Greeks, 53% of Germans, 51% of Italians, 47% of Brits.  
• By contrast, a 2016 Pew survey showed unfavorable views of Muslims were held by 28% of Brits, 29% of Germans and 29% of French. Something's changed in the past year, and not for the better. 
• 50% of Spaniards were said to have unfavorable views of Muslims in last year's Pew study, but yesterday's Chatham House poll findings put Spain at the bottom of the "immigration ban" support list with 41% favoring a ban.

The Chatham House people say their survey results were based on asking 10,000 people from 10 European countries. The results, in their words -

"are striking and sobering. They suggest that public opposition to any further migration from predominantly Muslim states is by no means confined to Trump’s electorate in the US but is fairly widespread."

Another commentary notes that

the survey found little correlation with the number of Muslim people already settled in a country.

Worth keeping in mind as coverage in the mainstream media and the social media keeps sinking to ever lower levels of fairness and mutual respect.

As a postscript, the parents of one of us (Arnold) who at the end of World War II were orphaned, destitute survivors of the systematic Nazi destruction of the European Jews (not threatened destruction but the actual thing - genocide) and desperately wanting to get away from Europe, tried to be admitted as refugee immigrants to the United States. They, along with most Jewish survivors of that period, were unable to get the necessary American approvals. (The doors of the United States were famously closed to Europe's Jews before and during the Holocaust.) They eventually found refuge in a remarkably hospitable country - Australia - leaving their son with a lifetime resistance to sanctimonious advice from Americans and Europeans about the moral obligation to give shelter to the homeless and imperilled.

15-Apr-16: Stand by for a united Islamic assault on terror... and possibly some other things as well

Erdogan addresses Muslim kings and prime ministers yesterday in Istanbul [Image Source]

Almost entirely unreported at this early stage, might it be that the Islamic world has decided, finally, to do something serious to curb terrorism? Perhaps, but in the circumstances (which we're about to describe) it would be wise to suspend judgment for a while. That's because it's not that clear what sort of steps they are planning to take. Or against whom exactly. Or frankly for what purpose.

It stems from a major announcement by Turkey's most powerful politician.

Today, Friday, is the second day of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) 13th Islamic Summit Conference. Held once every three years, the event is hosted this time by Turkey in Istanbul with the attendance of "prime ministers and presidents from over 30 countries".

The OIC, about which we have posted several times in the past [click], was formed in 1969 and is made up of 57 member states. It calls itself "the collective voice of the Muslim world" working to "safeguard and protect the interests of the Muslim world in the spirit of promoting international peace and harmony".

Peace and harmony, let's concede, are in notably short supply these days, and strikingly so in a significant number of the Muslim countries and even at the summit itself (see "OIC conference begins with Iran-Saudi spat"). Indeed Turkey's foreign minister, quoted today by Aljazeera ["Islamic world leaders seek to bridge differences"], reveals that

"the Islamic world is experiencing many disputes within itself. Fratricidal conflict causes great pain. Sectarianism divides the ummah," he told OIC foreign ministers on Tuesday, using the Arabic world for the Muslim community. "Hopefully, this summit will pave the way for healing some wounds." [Aljazeera, April 14, 2016]

Healing wounds? The Russian RT news outlet helps us understand how they are going about that. It reports this morning that terrorism (and not violent extremism, please note) has emerged as a core feature of this OIC summit:

Turkey is trying to unite the Islamic world and lead it in the fight against terror with a new Istanbul-based police force tasked with tackling extremism in the region... Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has announced the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has accepted his proposal to create a multinational police center based in Istanbul to battle international terrorism. The new structure is to be called the OIC Center for Police Cooperation and Coordination... “It would be helpful to establish a structure among member states that will strengthen and institutionalize cooperation against terror and other crimes,” he said, during a speech... The aim, according to Erdogan, is to fight Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) in Iraq, Syria and Libya and Boko Haram and Al Shabaab in Africa, as “all these terror organizations oppress and harm all Muslims."

Turkey's Davutoglu and PA's Abbas yesterday at OIC summit.
Probably preparing their attack on terrorists [Image Source]

However, and it's a rather big but, that's not all they want to fight. RT explains that

While the details of the new Islamic anti-terror police force yet to be made public, Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu is already calling to “liberate all Islamic lands under occupation.”

The Turkish daily Hurriyet expands: 

Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu has put forth a call to “liberate all Islamic lands under occupation,” while also asking for a common and broader view of Muslims in order to discuss the problems of the Muslim world with maturity. “We need a common stance for the liberation of all the Islamic lands that are under occupation, especially Palestine,” said Davutoğlu April 14, while delivering an opening speech... “The most important indicator which would show the effectiveness of the OIC is protecting Muslim minorities and liberating occupied lands such as Palestine, Karabakh and Crimea,” Davutoğlu said... [explaining that in these places] the Islamic identity is under threat of being demolished... “Despite differences of opinion, we need to maximize political relations and improve bilateral contacts in maturity so we can discuss all problems in the Muslim world,” he said. ["Turkish PM calls for broader view of Muslims", Hurriyet, April 15, 2016]

(In passing, we will mention that the editorial offices of Hurriyet, whose line is considered liberal and secular, were sacked by pro-Erdogan mobs screaming Islamist slogans several times in the past year. Still, they managed to escape the fate of their larger competitor Zaman, Turkey's biggest-circulating newspaper; it was shut down by court order last month and placed under state control. BBC says "no reason was given by the court for the decision", and quotes Davutoglu as cryptically explaining the takeover was "legal, not political".)

We have found relatively few mentions in online news channels today of the two-pronged strategy announced by the Turks. This report ["Muslim countries have agreed to work together to fight terrorism: Turkey President Erdogan"] for instance, from a respected Mumbai-based news service seems to have been written by someone who was out of the room when Palestine came up. The same with yesterday morning's Reuters despatch ["Muslim nations agree to work closely to fight terrorism: Turkey's Erdogan"] The Gulf News editors saw fit [here] to report how Erdogan "noted that the majority of the victims of terrorism are Muslims and called it a “source of shame” that most of those who risk their lives at sea to reach Europe are Muslims." But didn't mention the Palestine angle either.

Perhaps we'll be seeing some more-comprehensive news reporting later today. But it seems an odd dropping of the ball.

Being opposed to terror is one of those abstractions that tend to have more to do with prevailing cultural values than with the plain meaning of the words. Sometimes, too, the results of attitude polls into such matters as how people feel about terror and human bomb attacks just don't make sense without drilling down into how they understand some of the basic words.

To illustrate, this might be a good time to review how "terror" seems to mean radically different things at different times and in different contexts. For instance, "03-Nov-15: What do they mean when the Palestinian Arabs say they oppose terror?" And for a specifically-Turkish context, "6-Jun-10: It's not that complicated: Is IHH a humanitarian group or a terrorist group?"

Finally a reminder of how the juxtaposition of the words victim, terror and Israel tends to make some people loses their moral compass completely: "03-Mar-16: When the UN responds to terrorism, which victims does it entirely ignore?"

8-Oct-06: Seems Like a "Dog" Story. But It's Not.

We're the parents of a blind child, our family's life is shared with a very affectionate dog, and we used to live in Melbourne. All good reasons why it's only right that we respond to this news article:

Muslim cabbies refusing the blind and drinkers

By Lincoln Wright and Ian Haberfield
October 08, 2006 12:00am

MUSLIM taxi drivers are refusing to carry blind passengers with their guide dogs or anyone carrying alcohol. At least 20 dog-aided blind people have lodged discrimination complaints with the Victorian Taxi Directorate. Dozens more have voiced their anger. And there have been several complaints that drivers refuse to allow passengers to carry sealed bottles of alcohol. Victorian Taxi Association spokesman Neil Sach said the association had appealed to the mufti of Melbourne to give religious approval for Muslim cabbies to carry guide dogs.

One Muslim driver, Imran, said yesterday the guide dog issue was difficult for him. "I don't refuse to take people, but it's hard for me because my religion tells me I should not go near dogs," he said.

There are about 2000 Muslims among drivers of Melbourne's 10,000 taxis. Many are from countries with strict Islamic teachings about "unclean" dogs and the evils of alcohol. Drivers who refused to carry blind people with their dogs attended remedial classes at Guide Dogs Victoria, Mr Sach said. "They are taught why blind people need dogs," Mr Sach said. "The Victorian Taxi Association has included a program in their taxi driver training program."

Guide Dogs Victoria spokeswoman Holly Marquette said blind people regularly reported taxi drivers refusing to carry them because of their dogs. "It's sad and quite upsetting," Ms Marquette said. "We try to work with new drivers to educate them about their responsibilities and the needs and rights of blind people. We explain that the dog is clean, well trained, won't go near them and will stay in the foot well with the client. But it's a high turnover industry and it's hard to capture everyone." Ms Marquette said there was a legal requirement for taxi drivers, shops, restaurants, hotels and supermarkets to accept guide dogs.

Under the State Government's customer charter, taxi passengers have the right to "be accompanied by a guide dog or hearing dog".

Mr Sach said the problem was often reversed and that Muslim drivers suffered discrimination from passengers who abused them for being "terrorists". "Muslims are good people and the community has to realise that the days of the white Anglo-Saxon Protestant are well and truly over," he said. Over the past two years the licences of 306 drivers were revoked or suspended, including those who refused to carry the blind and their dogs.

Since we no longer live in Australia, it's not appropriate for us to tell anyone there how to conduct their lives. But this seemingly-small issue of how to relate to service-providers whose religion, they say, requires them to discriminate against people in ways that clearly offend the local laws, is a reflection of a much larger issue being played out all over the world. Islamic values, which are subject to a broad range of interpretation, frequently conflict with the values of the societies to which Moslems have migrated in search of a better life.

The self-respect of western societies and their real, actual, practical commitment (as opposed to the empty words and chest-beating of many politicians) to their own mores and values are at the heart of this debate. The implications for Europe, in particular, of not handling this appropriately are tremendous.

A comment on words of the taxi industry leader quoted above: "Muslims are good people and the community has to realise that the days of the white Anglo-Saxon Protestant are well and truly over." Moslems are not good people, any more than Jews or Christians are good people. Their conduct determines whether they're good. As the tensions that characterize multi-cultural societies everywhere grow sharper, people have to be judged by their actions. Not by the shape of their noses, the colour of their head-gear or the direction in which they pray but by their actions.

If their actions serve to make more difficult the lives of blind people or any other group needing some consideration in society, those are bad actions, and society's sanctions need to be applied. This is not racist or prejudicial, but simply a necessary part of living at peace with people whose views different from those of the mainstream. How well we handle the small and large challenges will determine whether or not we're headed for a dark age of intolerance.