Paul
Goble
Staunton, July 24 – Given the
Islamist threat, many in the West have been less inclined to protest obvious
violations of the human rights of Muslims by post-Soviet governments than actions
by those regimes against others, an approach perhaps understandable given
domestic politics in their countries but morally indefensible and still worse
counterproductive.
Obviously, speaking out now in the
West against such abuses puts those who do so at risk of being called defenders
or enablers of terrorism since in today’s hyper-politicized environment, defending
any Muslim invites attack from some elements in Western countries even if the same actions visited on anyone
else would be condemned.
But not only are such double
standards are morally wrong: They are politically indefensible for two reasons:
On the one hand, they allow the
governments involved to violate the rights of their citizens confident that
they will not be criticized if they describe their targets as Muslim radicals,
masking their repressions as part of the fight against Islamist extremism.
And on the other, they give real and
dangerous Islamist radicals opportunities to make use of such cases to recruit others
to their cause by claiming that Western societies, including those who see as
their duty to defend human rights, are opposed to Islam as such and views
Muslims as less than worthy of defense.
It is not always easy to sort out the
facts in the cases of such abuse, but such difficulties must not become excuses
not to try. Indeed, developing the
capacity to track what is going on in such cases is a key part of fighting the spread
of Islamist extremism and thus deserves support for that reason as well as on
moral grounds.
These reflections are prompted by a case
in Azerbaijan against Taleh Bagirzade now in court, although the number of such
incidents in many countries could be multiplied at will. But because the
violation of anyone’s rights puts the rights of all at risk and the violation
of the rights of Muslims can threaten our national security, they merit more
attention than they often get.
Bagirov, a Shiite Muslim leader, has
already served two years on what he and his supporters say were false drug
charges after he protested the installation of an imam in a local mosque by the
Muslim Spiritual Directorate (MSD) in Baku against the wishes of its
parishioners.
Prior to his release from prison a year
ago, he organized the Muslim Unity Movement which unsuccessfully sought
registration with the authorities even though it made clear that it was committed
to democracy and non-violent change in Azerbaijan. But that decision has not ended his travails.
Now, he is on trial along with 17 others
who are accused of organizing protests in Nardaran in November 2015 and of
promoting disorder, anti-government activities, and religiously-based
violence. According to human rights
groups, none of the accused had lawyers, and the trial was behind closed doors.
However, relatives of the accused were
allowed to attend and as a result, some information has leaked out, including
reports by Bagirzade that he was subjected to electroshock and drug treatments
while he was under detention at the interior ministry’s anti-organized crime
unit (kavkaz-uzel.eu/articles/286245/).
Those charges have not been fully
investigated, but the point is they should be rather than treated as somehow
entirely reasonable if the government involved declares it is combatting
Islamist extremism. Failure to do so will
help precisely those groups that should be fought rather than those who are
fighting against them.
No comments:
Post a Comment