The Politics of Fear & Exploitation: Signs of Decline
Thursday, 06 October 2011 00:56
Earlier this month, Prime Minister Stephen Harper singled out Islam as the number one threat to Canada by saying, “…there are a number of threats on different levels, but if you look at, if we're talking about terrorism, I mean, the major threat is still Islamicism. There are other threats out there, but that is the one that I can tell you occupies the security apparatus most regularly in terms of actual terrorist threats. Now, as we've seen in Norway, terrorist threats can come out of the blue. It can come from something completely different, and there are other groups and individuals that if given the chance would engage in terrorism. But that one is probably still the major one. But it's diffused. You know, it ranges all the way, when people think of Islamic terrorism, they think of Afghanistan, or maybe they think of someplace in the Middle East, but the truth is that threat exists all over the world. We've seen some recent bombings in Nigeria, domestic Nigerian terrorists.”
Harper then disclosed that the Canadian government intends on reinstating two of the most controversial sections of Bill C-36 – an anti-terror bill that was passed in December 2001 and whose portions expired in November 2007 after a majority of parliamentarians voted against reinstating them. The first section to be reinstated grants police the power to detain someone suspected of a terrorist activity or association to one for 72 hours without a warrant. The second section allows a judge to compel secret testimony on previous association and upcoming terrorist activity from uncooperative witnesses in any case that falls under the Canadian Anti-Terrorism Act. The latter section is backed by a jail sentence if the witness refuses to comply. Speaking about the laws Harper said, "We think those measures are necessary. We think they've been useful...And as you know … they're applied rarely, but there are times where they're needed."
Is Canada the target of terrorism? Who are behind terrorist attacks?
The main problem with the PM's statement is that it has nothing to do with fact and reality. Firstly, terrorism is not a major problem facing Canada. The Ottawa Citizen reported last month that according to Maplecroft (a risk analysis company), the 2011 Terrorism Risk Index ranks Canada at 86 out of 197 countries as being a potential target for a terrorist attack - the lowest risk of terrorism among major Western economies. Secondly, it is completely baseless for anyone to link Islam to terrorism. According to an FBI study of terrorist attacks from 1980 to 2005, only 6% of attacks were attributed to Muslims. 94% of the remaining terror attacks had no relation with Muslims and/or Islam.
Why is Islam being portrayed as a threat?
Muslims are well aware that the agenda driven media regularly portrays Islam in an unfavorable light. This in turn generates a negative public opinion within Canada, Europe and America – one based on fear and insecurity. Politicians, in turn, exploit these fears to secure support for their government or its policies. For example, the niqab ban was introduced in Quebec, where very few Muslim sisters actually wear the niqab. In Quebec only 10 people out of 118,000 visitors to the Health Board’s Montreal office in 2008-09 wore the niqab, yet a bill was passed stating that “people obtaining — or delivering — services at places like the health- or auto-insurance boards will need to do so with their faces in plain view”. This bill won support for the unpopular government of Jean Charest and appeased many in Quebec who feel that the government is not doing enough to integrate immigrants into Quebec culture. In Denmark, during the controversy over the printing of cartoons insulting the RasulAllah (saw), the Norwegian PM at the time backed the publication of the offensive material. By doing so, he ensured that the right-wing Dansk Folkeparti would continue to support his frail coalition government. The Dansk Folkeparty came to power by provoking fear of Muslims amongst the Danish people by distributing leaflets that had pictures of a young blonde girl with the tagline: “By the time she retires there will be a Muslim majority in Denmark”. These are all but a few examples of capitalist politicians across Europe and North America who regularly indulge in the politics of fear to garner support for their party and careers.
Exploitation for political gain
In addition to fear, capitalist politicians also exploit the financial desperation of people to buy votes. For example, when running for office in 2003, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty promised a mandatory 10% reduction in car insurance rates within 90 days of taking office, with an eventual reduction of 20%. After eight years of McGuinty being in office, insurance rates have actually increased! In 2009, the Financial Services Commission of Ontario released a report which stated that during the first 3 quarters of 2009 alone, insurance premiums increased by 6.9% on average. This only goes to show that the primary concern for politicians in a democracy is to win elections whatever the cost may be – including making false promises.
Serving the Elite
We must also consider the influence of the capitalist elite on politicians and the role they play in shaping public policy. For example, in 2009, Moammar Gadhafi planned to stop in St. John's to refuel his personal jet on his way back to Libya after addressing the UN General Assembly in New York. But he cancelled the trip after being told that the then-Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon planned to meet with him and express Canada's displeasure over the hero's welcome given by Libya to the Libyan national convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing. Gadhafi was so incensed by Canada's planned lecture that he threatened to seize billions in assets of Canadian companies, including Petro-Canada, if he didn't get an apology. A flurry of emails that night led to Canada softening its wording about the bomber. Ghadafi didn't seize the corporation's assets, but he did cut its allowed oil production in half. Ottawa quietly sent Cannon to Tripoli to smoothen relations over with his government. Cannon was advised to tell Libya that Canada regretted "any misunderstanding" and had supported its bid to join the World Trade Organization. He was also told to remind Libya that Canada had supported Gadhafi's attempt to get a seat on the International Atomic Energy Agency in exchange for Libya's support of Canada's UN Security Council bid.
Furthermore, politicians in decision-making positions are most often appointed from corporate backgrounds making them vulnerable to lobbying from firms that stand to gain or lose as a result of passing a certain bill. Once these politicians quit politics, they usually go back to the corporate world, and use their political connections to advance corporate interests. Some examples include:
- Jean Chretien, the former Prime Minister, had the position of "international relations advisor to PetroKazakhstan Inc., an energy firm based in Calgary with major interests in Kazakhstan and [the] Caspian".
- John Dossetor, senior policy advisor to the then Health Minister Allan Rock, joined Monsanto (a giant-agribusiness corporation) as "Vice-President, Government Affairs".
- Gordon O'Connor, prior to taking the position as Canadian Defense Minister, was a lobbyist representing defense contractors such as Airbus Military, United Defense, General Dynamics Canada and BAE Systems in addition to a variety of other, non-military clients.
Why do capitalists rely on fear and exploitation to build support?
While it may be tempting to explain this phenomena by raising slogans such as, “politicians are corrupt” or that “politics is a dirty game”, the answer lies at the heart of the capitalist system: its aqeedah, and the norms that emanate from it, specifically the measure of benefit and harm. The secular aqeedah is based on the separation of deen from life which relegates man to design his own laws and systems. The rejection of Allah (swt)’s guidance and the reliance on man’s limited faculties is, as a result, doomed for intellectual bankruptcy. In such a system legislation will inevitably tip the balance in favour of the wealthy (i.e. the capitalist elite) at the expense of the average individuals’ rights. With no true accountability, the imbalance will continue to increase. The capitalist system also produces individuals who make decisions that will maximize their personal benefit. The politicians are not immune from such behavior and the above examples clearly illustrate this.
The Islamic aqeedah establishes proper governance
As Muslims we believe that the systems that govern man should not be based on the whims and desires of people. Instead, these systems should solely be based on what Allah (swt) has revealed. Allah (swt) revealed:
“Rule between them by that which Allah has revealed to you, and do not follow their vain desires.” [TMQ 5:49]
This is the reason that the Islamic political system, the Khilafah, is the only system suitable to govern humanity. Having a society in which the thoughts, emotions and systems are all based on the Islamic aqeedah will provide the rights and responsibilities to all citizens irrespective of whether they are rich or poor. The Sahabah (ra) understood this example and implemented it. When Abu Bakr (ra) became the Khalifah, he said: "Oh people, I have been appointed your ruler, though I might not be the best of you. Support me if I do good, but if I do not, set me right. The weak is strong to me until I remove his plight, Allah willing; and the strong is weak to me till I take the right of the weak from him, Allah willing.” And indeed, Abu Bakr (ra) fulfilled his pledge. When the strong withheld the zakat – which is a duty upon the wealthy towards the poor – Abu Bakr (ra) declared war on them. This is despite the fact that the Muslims who remained loyal to the Khilafah state were far outnumbered by their enemies.
Any attempt to introduce a bias into the Islamic system that favors the rich will be met with extreme harshness as happened during the time of RasulAllah (saw). In the following hadith narrated by Aisha (ra), Usama Bin Zayd (ra) approached the Prophet (saw) in order to intercede on behalf of a woman (from the elite tribe of Bani Makhzoom) who had committed theft and ask him to excuse her from the punishment. After Usama (ra) made his request to the Prophet (saw), the color of the face of RasulAllah (saw) changed and he said:
“Do you intercede in one of the prescribed punishments of Allah?” He (Usama) said: ‘Messenger of Allah, seek forgiveness for me.’ When it was dusk, RasulAllah (saw) stood up and gave an address. He (first) glorified Allah as He deserves, and then said: “Now to our topic. This (injustice) destroyed those before you that when any one of (high) rank committed theft among them, they spared him, and when any weak one among them committed theft, they inflicted the prescribed punishment upon him. By Him in Whose Hand is my life, even if Fatima, daughter of Muhammad, was to commit theft, I would have cut off her hand.” [Muslim]
The Islamic aqeedah also produces individuals who make decisions based on engaging in the halal and shunning the haram. By having the goal of achieving the pleasure of Allah (swt) and hoping to attain Jannah, the politicians of the Khilafah will feel a sense of immense burden and responsibility to ensure that everyone under their guardianship is taken care of as commanded by Allah (swt). As we saw during the Khilafah of Umar ibn Al-Khattab (ra), he was very meticulous in ensuring that the governors whom he appointed were servants of the citizens of the Khilafah and did not profit from their positions beyond what the shariah allowed them. For example when assigning an individual to the position of a governor, Umar (ra) would weigh how much money he had. Then when the governor would return the following year, Umar (ra) would again weigh the governor’s wealth and half of any profits he had made would go to the Bait al-Mal.
May Allah (swt) expose the plots of the disbelievers and make the truth clear from error.
“Shall We then treat the Muslims like the Mujrimun (criminals, polytheists and disbelievers)? What is the matter with you? How do you judge?” [TMQ 68:35-36]
