The recent Golden Globe Awards ceremony got us thinking about how television programming has evolved…
The Paris attacks of Nov. 13 came as a shock to French citizens as well as many of us around the world. The terrorist attacks by European (primarily French and Belgian) youth connected to ISIS left almost 130 innocent civilians dead. This atrocity follows on the heels of the Charlie Hebdo shooting, a similar terrorist attack in Paris which took place less than a year ago.
The perpetrators of the shooting in January and this most recent violence are demographically identical: young Muslim-French men – in fact, brothers and relatives – in their 20s and 30s who have grown up in France, speak French and have gone to French school.
What could be learned from those violent incidents? What would be a best reaction to keep our society peaceful and safe in the future?
Immediate reactions from a number of hysterical politicians in the U.S. Congress and local governments are to “stop refugees from Syria.”
Before enacting such a drastic policy, we might want to ask carefully if limiting “refugees” from Syria actually will help to prevent another terror attack or the radicalization of “Muslim” youth here or elsewhere in Europe.
I pose three general questions to help put these recent attacks in perspective and to guide our discussion of the best course of action going forward.
The first and obvious question is: How are 21st century terrorist attacks connected to ISIS or Al-Qaeda related to “refugees” from Syria or other Muslim nations?
I see no logical linkage between those two variables. It is widely known that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by foreign Al-Qaeda followers who entered the United States on tourist or business visas.
A cautious but common-sense reaction among terrorist experts is that “no competent terrorist would choose the U.S. refugee process as a preferred strategy for gaining entry into the U.S.”
It is also important to keep in mind that a mass exodus of civilians from Syria and Iraq and the refugee crisis in Europe is not the cause of the Paris attacks or any other terror attacks, but rather the consequence of the military expansion of ISIS under the war-torn autocratic rule of Bashar al-Assad in Syria.
The second question is why France (and Belgium) has been a prime target of terrorism and radical Islamist recruitment, while other European nations who have opened up their doors and accommodated a large number of Muslim population and refugees (especially Germany) have not.
What is the key difference?
Unlike Germany or Britain, France historically has had difficult relations with its former Muslim colonies and Muslim communities at home. The state’s aggressive enforcement of French secularism (Laïcité) has justified intolerant policies such as the banning of veils in public schools, policies easily perceived as “anti-Muslim,” with the unintended result of the ideological radicalization of secular Muslim youth.
On the other hand, the American model of secularism based on “twin religious tolerations” is said to have accommodated multi-religious communities relatively peacefully because it does not favor one religion over others, at least in principle.
Imagine what would be the likely reaction if any one of our faculty proposed the banning of bearded men and veiled women in classroom because they could potentially be a security threat, and Muslim students should be watched. The reaction seems obvious.
The third and final question is if liberal democracies such as America are ready to tolerate the expansion of xenophobic, radical political right groups, such as Madam Marine Le Pen’s National Front.
The likely result would be religious intolerance, deteriorating social capital and trust, and discrimination against particular religious communities based on identity.
It might be worth flipping through Alexis de Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America” to reflect what societal attributes impressed the French philosopher about American democracy: It was the American civil society.
Uncivil and intolerant fundamentalist religion and politicization of religion was not – and will not be – the best answer to make American (or any) liberal democracy work. The potential damages to our civil and multicultural traditions would be substantial.
Kikue Hamayotsu is an associate professor in the NIU Department of Political Science.
Kikue Hamayotsu, why must France have to pay dearly for banning veils in order to keep her citizens safe? Did you consider digging deep into why that policy was enacted? There are some very nice people in the Muslim, no doubt, but that is so because they have not taken time to dig deeper into the teachings of the holy prophet! Have you considered that the reason why the civilized world is a major target of Islam today is because they (the west) intervened by stopping the killing of innocent people in these Arab nations. Muslims push for sharia as a weapon to annihilate non believers, and then after all non believers are dead, they turn it back into themselves- Shiites vs. Sunni. I don’t want to be blown up commuting in the train and I believe you don’t want to be a victim of that either. For America and the world to continue to be safe, all refugees and people coming to America or any part of Europe must be properly screened.
Okay, I’m starting to find this a bit . . . Well it’s overthinking it. Muslims become radicals become in their holy books, the Hadith and the Quran, they are ordered to killing non believers, many, many times. Not only that, but if a Muslim does not do this, then in essence they are being hypocritical to their own faith. If you read their holy book, you will see that at the very least, they are supposed to be radicals in ideology. Most are peaceful in practice, because they have the decency to value life.
Eric .. if you don’t know Islam well don’t make things up. You’re mistaken sir.
Eric, the radicalization of Muslims and others is not just because of their holy book. It is a perverse translation that radical groups use to validate their cause and actions. It is ignorant to claim what their holy book teaches if you’ve never read it. Moving to this article, I am curious to know why the focus was only on radicalization in Europe. I believe that you cannot focus only on one region to understand radicalization. The US alone has had over 5000 people cross into Syria and Iraq to join ISIS. This article’s title leads the readers to believe that specifics will be given to why Europeans are radicalized, but contains no insight. It talks briefly of perceived religious intolerance in France without adding any substance to that argument. Youth in both Europe and the US are recruited through tactics that are simple and yet very effective. One being finding youth that feel alone and separated from the society they are in and offering them a group to belong to and power to hurt those that hurt them. Another tactic that is being used is guilt tripping. The ISIS recruiters are focusing on western Muslims who are better off than middle-eastern Muslims trying to make them feel bad for the suffering and strife that is happening and not doing anything to fix it. It attacks western Muslim’s conscience and morals. I believe this title should have been titled differently since it provides no insights or specifics into, “Why Muslim-European youth are recruited into radical Islamism”.