A glimpse of nuclear terror and horror on a day that Japan will never forget

By Fareed Khan

On August 6th and August 9th, 1945 the United States committed the single worst act of terrorism in history when it dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. While it was justified as an act of war, the overwhelming majority of victims were civilians – men, women, children who were not involved in any way in the Japanese military.

This clip from the 1983 Japanese animated movie “Barefoot Gen” about the Hiroshima attack gives a glimpse into the horror and terror that the civilian population of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were subjected to when the U.S. dropped its atomic bombs on Japan.

The US justified its use of atomic weapons by claiming it was the only way to end the war with Japan without sustaining many thousands more American casualties. Many U.S. politicians, scientists and military experts came forward before the nuclear attack to state that the war could have been ended quickly without the use of the atomic bombs. They included:

• Admiral William Leahy, chief military advisor to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman; 
• General Dwight Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander in Europe; 
• General Douglas MacArthur, Supreme Allied Commander in the Pacific; 
• General Curtis LeMay, future head of the U.S. Air Force; 
• Navy Secretary James Forrestal; 
• former President Herbert Hoover; 
• Albert Einstein; and
• Some of the lead scientists of the Manhattan Project.

In a personal visit to President Truman a couple of weeks before the bombing, General Dwight D. Eisenhower urged him not to use the atomic bombs. Eisenhower said (in a 1963 interview in Newsweek):

“It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing . . . to use the atomic bomb, to kill and terrorize civilians, without even attempting [negotiations], was a double crime.”

The death toll in the days, weeks and months after those nuclear attacks resulted in a conservatively estimated 150,000 dead in Hiroshima and 75,000 dead in Nagasaki. In the decades following the attacks, tens of thousands of the survivors died from various cancers as a result of exposure to radiation.

War is state terrorism on an epic scale but the perpetrators rarely if ever see the inside of a court or are convicted for their crimes. World War 2 was an act of terrorism instigated by Germany but involving most of the nations of the world. The decisions by both the Allies and the Axis powers to target civilians in their military strategy were criminal acts of terrorism, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and violations of the 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions, and the 1925 Geneva Conventions.  America's decision to target Hiroshima and Nagasaki with their atomic bombs, where the majority of victims were civilians, were acts of terrorism and unspeakable evil.

History is written by the victors in that the most egregious and criminal acts of the victor nation are rarely if ever brought to light or prosecuted.  The US and its World War 2 allies wrote the history of the atomic attacks on Japan to put the US and the Allies in the most positive light. However, anyone who seeks the truth will discover that nations that create empires build those empires on foundations of evil and the bodies of the innocent.

The reality is that US President Harry Truman, who had the final say on going ahead with the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is a war criminal and should be remembered as such. And the United States is a terrorist state not just for what they did at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but also for their actions in the 70+ years following World War 2 where they have (directly and indirectly) attacked any nation that dared to oppose their foreign policy, challenged their economic hegemony, or stood in the way of their global ambitions.

Of all the nations on Earth, the US is the Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde of the world. On the one hand it holds itself up as the shining light of democracy, human rights and freedom, and on the other hand it undermines democracy, violently violates human rights, and destroys the freedom of people in other nations whose governments dare to stand up to the US. For modern examples all you have to do is look at Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and Venezuela.

It seems that if you are not an ally or friend of the US, the only way to keep them from interfering in your nation's business or violating your sovereignty is to do like North Korea and build your own nuclear weapons – the very weapons that made the U.S. a terrorist state in the first place.

To date the US is the only nation that has used nuclear weapons against an adversary. As the world marks the 74th anniversary of the 1945 attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, let us hope and pray that no other nation ever becomes the second.

© 2019 Fareed Khan.  All rights reserved.

Quebec court’s refusal to grant injunction against “secularism” law during constitutional challenge shows systematic prejudice towards racialized religious minorities in Quebec’s justice system

By Fareed Khan

 
The refusal by a Quebec Superior Court judge to suspend application of certain sections of the Quebec government's "secularism" law (Bill 21), while a constitutional challenge works its way through the courts, shows how ingrained and pervasive the stereotypes at the heart of this issue truly are, and that the judge doesn’t accept the negative impact of the bill on those most affected.  It also shows how deeply rooted the biases against racialized religious minorities are not just in Quebec society broadly, but also within Quebec's justice system, which is supposed to protect the rights of minority communities.  What else would explain the decision to allow the continued enforcement of a law that violates the fundamental Charter guaranteed rights and civil liberties of Quebec's religious minorities, while there are legal challenges to the law underway?

 

 

A Superior Court judge in Montreal announced the decision to refuse the request for a stay of the law made by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) and the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM) on July 18th.  In addition, the CCLA and NCCM had sought an injunction to freeze the two most controversial sections of the law, which included measures to ban the wearing of religious symbols and clothing by public school teachers and other public authority figures in the workplace.

It has been common practice, since the Charter of Rights became law, for laws that may be unconstitutional to be temporarily suspended as the legal challenges worked their way through the justice system and a final decision is rendered, usually by the Supreme Court.  Such actions are generally taken to prevent the application of a law that could be deemed unconstitutional from violating the rights of Canadians during the legal process.  The fact that the judge refused to impose the requested injunction, despite numerous legal precedents across Canada where such action has been taken in previous constitutional challenges, raises the question as to whether Quebec's legal system has been infected by the ideology of what can be termed “radical secularism”.

This refusal by the Quebec courts to impose the requested injunction sends a message that inequality, intolerance, exclusion, segregation and isolation of those who visibly practice their faith in Quebec are completely acceptable.  This is the sort of law that one expects to see under a fascist regime, because it is about targeting, isolating, demonizing and punishing visibly religious minority communities and stripping them of their rights.  The fact that this is happening in Canada is unbelievable.

There have been incidents in Quebec courts in the past where members of religious minorities have been told by judges to remove head coverings worn as an article of faith.  The most recent example involved Quebec court Judge Eliana Marengo who refused to allow a Muslim woman to appear in her court wearing a hijab.  Marengo's case is currently before Quebec's judicial council where a request has been made to remove her from the bench for her alleged misconduct.

While those opposed to Bill 21 may have lost this first skirmish the battle won't stop here, and an appeal of the Quebec court's decision is guaranteed, as is the fact that this will end up at the Supreme Court.  The diversity of Quebec communities that are opposed to this violation of fundamental rights by the Quebec government are determined in their conviction that this unjust law must be withdrawn.  Of course, the fly in the ointment is that while this law works its way up to the Supreme Court there are thousands of Quebecers whose rights will be violated and livelihoods threatened under this legislation.

The CCLA and NCCM are expected to lay out their next steps in response to the Quebec Superior Court's decision in the coming days and weeks before the Quebec Court of Appeal.  As rights activists wait for this there is growing moral support coming from provincial and municipal governments from outside Quebec, as well as from ordinary Canadians.  This is an indication about how much Canadians value defending the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that the Quebec government stands alone in its bigoted attitude towards how Canadians practice their faith.

© 2019 The View From Here.  © 2019 Fareed Khan.  All rights reserved.

Passage of Quebec’s Bill 21 is a declaration of war by Francois Legault on people of faith, particularly Quebec’s racialized religious minorities

By Fareed Khan
 
Following a weekend of intense debate and voting in the Quebec National Assembly last week, Premier Francois Legault’s CAQ government passed its much criticized “secularism” bill (Bill 21), with Parti Quebecois members also supporting the legislation. Members of the National Assembly from the Liberal and Quebec Solidaire parties voted against the bill.

 

Passage of this bill is a dark day for Quebec. It is nothing short of a declaration of war on freedom of religion in the province, a blatant violation of the Charter rights of people of faith (particularly racialized, religious minorities), and an example of radical atheism shrouded in the language of extremist secularism.By passing this bill into law Legault has energized two groups of people in Quebec. He has energized bigots, racists, and those with a prejudice against the increasingly multicultural face of Quebec, who support this bill. But he has also energized anti-racism activists and those who support human rights and our charter rights to now carry the fight forward against what civil liberties and human rights lawyers have called an assault on fundamental freedoms.

Legault claims that this bill is about keeping Quebec society secular. However, this is not what this bill does. Secularism is the principle of the state refraining from declaring an official state religion. What this bill does is it enshrines in law the ideology that atheism is the state “religion”, and the government is going to impose it on anybody who decides to display their faith and work in the public sector.

Even more worrisome is a last minute government amendment to the bill that would create what the opposition Liberals likened to an anti-religious “secularism police force”, similar to the “religious police” found in countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran. The legislation itself is odious, but this amendment is inexcusable since it is the sort of thing that one finds in repressive authoritarian regimes which try to control the lives of their citizens.

Passage of the bill has elicited condemnation from various human rights and civil liberties groups, as well as from organizations representing the Muslim, Jewish and Sikh communities. In addition, a legal challenge to the law has already been filed in Quebec Superior Court by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) and the National Council of Canadian Muslims.

In the court filing the CCLA called the law “impermissibly vague, impossible to apply equally, and a blatant attack on religious freedom.” Both groups have also argued that the ban “violates religious freedoms and discriminates against a woman’s right to equal treatment in the workplace.”

The passage of Bill 21 is the latest sign of the rising tide of bigotry targeting religious minorities, and particularly Muslims, that has found deep roots in Quebec, including evidently among certain segments of the political class. This battle has been on-going since the appointment of the Bouchard-Taylor Commission on “reasonable accommodation” by Premier Jean Charest in 2007. However, until Legault and the CAQ came to power no government was willing to openly violate the fundamental religious freedoms of its minority faith communities, and override the rights guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by invoking the “notwithstanding” clause.

Premier Legault’s justification for this bill is that he has a mandate, and that the bill is supported by a majority of Quebecers. However, at one time a majority of people supported denying women the right to vote. At one time a majority supported denying rights to the LGBTQ community. There are many past examples of immoral and unjust laws that were once supported by the majority, but that didn’t make them right, and Bill 21 falls into the same category.

By declaring war on people of faith Premier Legault will find that he has bitten off more than he can chew, and will come to regret siding with the voices of prejudice and bigotry in Quebec rather than supporting those who call for upholding human rights and civil liberties.

© 2019 Fareed Khan.  © 2019 Fareed Khan.  All rights reserved.

A Few Thoughts On The Niqab, The Canadian Election, and Our Rights As Canadians

By Fareed Khan

There was another election debate last night.  And the moment when the leaders seemed to become the most agitated was when the issue of the niqab was raised.  Apparently more than 80% of Quebecers feel that it should be banned and that Muslim women should show their face in public even if they sincerely believe that as part of their faith they have to cover it. As a result Stephen Harper has decided to make this a campaign issue and cater to the whims of the majority on an issue of one of the fundamental freedoms protected in the Canadian Constitution.

Now as a Muslim I am not a fan of the niqab.  I do not believe that it is religiously mandated in the Quran or according to the traditions of the Prophet Muhammad.  There are even Islamic scholars who have written that it is not something that is a core part of being a Muslim (do a Google search and you will easily find those opinions).  The only reference in the Quran that refers to how Muslims dress is that all Muslims (men and women) should dress modestly.  For many that interpretation means that they have to dress in a fashion that covers their bodies from the neck down, while others believe that their head should also be covered.  But some have taken it to the extreme and feel that their face should be covered also as a practice of their faith.  They do this because there are a small minority of Islamic scholars who follow the ultra-conservative Wahabist interpretation of Islam originating in the Arabian Peninsula who have said that women covering their face is a part of Islamic practice.

I and a majority of other Muslims don't agree with that last interpretation.  However, it is not up to me (or anyone else for that matter) to tell someone else how to practice their faith as long as that practice does not infringe on my protected rights or the rights of other Canadians as outlined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We all have to realize that faith is not a static thing.  It is something that evolves.  All three Abrahamic faiths (Christianity, Islam and Judaism) have evolved since they were founded.  They are not practiced today as they were centuries ago.  And in the last several decades Islam has also been going through an evolution in some parts of the world (the fact that it is evolving in a more conservative direction is immaterial).

And this is where the wearing of the niqab comes in.  In some parts of the Muslim world that comprises over 1.6 billion people there is a small minority who believe that a woman covering her face is a fundamental part of being a Muslim.  It is controversial even among Muslims.  And because it is controversial and a practice that is alien to Canadians it is something that Stephen Harper has decided to use as a wedge issue to demonstrate (as he says) that only he is interested in protecting Canadian values and protecting women from religious oppression.  But by doing this he has (knowingly) been willing to highlight a non-issue that unleashes a latent bigotry against Muslims that some are only too willing to vocalize and display.

The niqab is an easy target because the women who wear it make the vast majority of Canadians very uncomfortable.  But what Harper fails to remind Canadians is that religion/faith is something that is very personal to an individual, and the freedom to practice faith (even if that practice is offensive to some) is protected under Section 2 (Fundamental Freedoms) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 

Under Section 2a, "everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of conscience and religion".  And to back that up in Section 7 (Legal Rights) it states that "everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."  So regardless of the fact that many Canadians may not like the way that some Muslim women practice their faith, it is not something that is subject to the whims of the majority as should be the case with fundamental rights and freedoms.

During this debate many Canadians have assumed that those who wear the niqab are forced to wear it.  Very few believe that there are women who wear it as a personal choice and as a fundamental expression of their faith.  However, if we want to get an answer why don't we ask the woman who is at the centre of this controversy.  In an opinion piece published n the Toronto Star she states her views on why she is fighting this fight.  And her reasons are not what the Prime Minister claims or what many Canadians believe.

Related:  

Why I intend to wear a niqab at my citizenship ceremony 

And if you search on the internet you can find similar articles and blogs by Muslim women who have made a conscious choice to wear this clothing, even over the objections of their family.

So in the end, what does this controversy revolve around?  It doesn't revolve around a piece of cloth or the way some Muslim women dress as many would believe. 

What this issue revolves around is whether we as Canadians are willing to allow an individual to practice an aspect of their faith which we disagree with, an aspect that doesn't affect the lives of Canadians in any measurable way, and whether we believe that Canadian society is willing to accept peoples differences and uphold the constitutional rights that are guaranteed to all residents of Canada regardless of where they come from and what faith they practice. 

What this issue revolves around is whether we as Canadians are willing to let politicians tell us how any of us are allowed to practice (or not practice) our faith. 

And if we are willing to allow politicians to do this then Canada can no longer claim to be the democratic society based on constitutional freedoms and the rule of law that it believes itself to be.  And if that's the case then this country has entered very dangerous political territory.

© Fareed Khan.  © The Vieew From Here.  All Rights Reserved.

I Couldn't Disagree More With Glenn Greenwald About His Take on Acts of Terrorism in Canada

By Fareed Khan

 

October 23, 2014 -- I generally agree with Glenn Greenwald.  He's one of the most incisive and intelligent journalists to write on issues of international politics and public policy.  His reports last year on the Edward Snowden NSA leaks were the definitive stories about US abuses of their national security apparatus to spy on ordinary Americans and on US allies.

But on the issue of terror attacks in Canada I couldn't disagree with him more (for the most part)!

GLEN GREENWALD: Canada, At War For 13 Years, Shocked That "A Terrorist" Attacked Its Soldiers

He obviously hasn't followed the political nuances and internal debates of what has occurred in Canada over the past 13 years when it comes to terrorism and related issues and so I question his logic since he couldn't have read up on more than a decade of Canadian political dialogue and the public debates they generated in the day or so since he wrote his article.  In addition, his linking Canada's role in Afghanistan to the attack on the Canadian soldier outside Montreal earlier this week is a total disconnect since one has nothing to do with the other. (NOTE: His article was written before the Ottawa attack.)

Related:
*  Terrorism rocks Ottawa
*  Ottawa terrorist attack prompts worldwide step-up in security from Australia to England to Iqaluit
*  Day of chaos in the capital leaves soldier and terrorist dead
*  Terror strikes Canadian capital as attacks leave one soldier and one suspect dead
*  Ottawa shooting: Harper, Mulcair, Trudeau speak about attack
*  Ottawa shooting: How the terror unfolded
*  Quebec hit-and-run attacker 'radicalized,' PMO says
*  Ottawa terror payback for Harper's war in Iraq?

Where I do agree however is his take on the use of the word "terrorism" by governments (particularly the US) to define acts of violent protest that governments disagree with.  The US has used the word terrorism to lable many actions against American policy over the past two decades.  And since 9/11 Russia, China, France, Israel and others have applied the terrorism lable to any acts of political protest or political violence that are in opposition to the policies of those nations.  In Canada the Conservative government of Stephen Harper has used the terror lable to try and silence environmental groups that have opposed the Conservative governments pro-oil and anti-environment policies.

However, where we don't see the word terrorism used (and it should be) is when the governments of the US, the UK, France, Israel, India and many others take military actions which target supposed terrorists but instead end up killing and maiming mostly innocent people far away from the centres of power.  And while most will agree that the attack in Ottawa yesterday was an act of terror, we should also then agree that any act of brutal violence (whether perpetrated by an individual or by a government) are acts that terrorize people.  

With this in mind one has to question how acts of terrorism are labled.  For example, why was the Ottawa attack considered an act of terror while the June 2014 shootings of five RCMP officers (three of whom died) which terrorized Moncton, New Brunswick were not.  Certainly that entire community was terrorized as a killer roamed the streets targeting RCMP officers the same way that the Ottawa shooter targeted the Canadian Forces members at the National War Memorial and Parliament.  There was a similar incident in May 2014 which terrorized the community of St. Paul, Alberta where an individual once again tried to kill RCMP officers.  And then there was the Mayerthorpe, Alberta incident where four RCMP officers were ambushed and killed.  That incident certainly terrorized and traumatized a community and the nation.

So if the definition of terrorism isn't locked down, as Greenwald says, and is used by politicians selectively then maybe it should be defined more accurately by those who make a career of studying and writing about it.  Or better yet, why don't we just define it as any deliberate violent act that creates the feeling of terror in people.  That way school shootings and gun violence in the US would also be considered acts of terror and maybe the American government would finally do something about that (but I digress).

We should also keep in mind that when US drones and fighter jets drop bombs and missiles from 20,000 feet on unsuspecting villagers in Pakistan, Yemen or Somalia, with the goal of killing terrorists, and when a large number of the dead and dismembered are innocent civilians, that too is terrorism, and more so it is by international definition a war crime.  Studies and interviews done with those who live in those affected areas have certainly demonstrated that those people feel terrorized everyday, but the (state) terrorism lable is never applied to those circumstances.

The only difference between the incidents mentioned above and what happened in Ottawa yesterday is that drone attacks and bombings by fighter jets always happen out of sight of the western media.  And since we didn't see it happen on TV or watch the progress of the event on social media it's as if it never happened and, therefore, it wasn't an act of terror.  But if you talk to the survivors of those attack I will bet that they would think differently.  And if we as Canadian citizens and our government are truly committed to fighting and eliminating terrorism then we should be thinking and acting differently also.

© Fareed Khan.  © The View From Here.  All Rights Reserved.

69 years and Counting: Looking Back At Hiroshima and Nagasaki

By Fareed Khan

 

August 6th and August 9th marked the 69th anniversary of the dropping of atomic bombs by the United States on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  The days came and went this year with little political or public commentary on two of the most horrific events in the history of war.

 

 

Conservative estimates of the death toll in the days and weeks after the bombing are approximately 150,000 dead in Hiroshima and 75,000 dead in Nagasaki.  However, in the years that followed survivors of the bombings began to die as a result of various cancers, bomb-related diseases and injuries resulting from radiation exposure and physical trauma. It is estimated that by 1950, 200,000 more people from the two cities had died.  And of those survivors who did not die, many became victims of various types of cancers as they aged.

While the U.S. justified its use of atomic weapons by claiming it was the only way to end the war with Japan without sustaining many thousands more American casualties  Many experts, politicians,and scientists came forward before and after the bombings to state that the war could have been ended quickly without the use of the atomic bombs and that Japan was on the cusp of surrendering at the time the decision was made to use the weapons.

Among the critics of the decision were: Admiral William Leahy, chief military advisor to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman; General Dwight Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander in Europe; General Douglas MacArthur, Supreme Allied Commander in the Pacific; General Curtis LeMay, future head of the U.S. Air Force; Navy Secretary James Forrestal; former President Herbert Hoover; Albert Einstein; as well as a number of the lead scientists of the Manhattan Project.

DWIGHT EISENHOWER

Supreme Allied Commander in Europe

"Japan was already defeated and dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary . . . I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'.”

ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY

Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons."

HERBERT HOOVER

Former President of the United States

On May 28, 1945, Hoover visited President Truman and suggested a way to end the Pacific war quickly: "I am convinced that if you, as President, will make a shortwave broadcast to the people of Japan - tell them they can have their Emperor if they surrender, that it will not mean unconditional surrender except for the militarists - you'll get a peace in Japan - you'll have both wars over."

GENERAL DOUGLAS MacARTHUR

Supreme Allied Commander in the Pacific

MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: "...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible . . . Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."

Today, almost seven decades later, it's difficult to imagine why a country would justify unleashing the horror of such weapons on anyone.  And while no nation other than the United States has used nuclear weapons against an adversary, the nine nuclear nations of the world combined sit on a stockpile of nuclear weapons many times more powerful than those dropped on Japan.  If even a fraction of these weapons were ever used they would render the Earth uninhabitable to almost all life on this planet. In total the nuclear nations of the world possess 17,300 nuclear warheads among them with Russia (8,500 warheads) and the United States (7,700 warheads) accounting for 92% of that number.

As this anniversary passes and the 70th anniversary of the bombings approaches next year let us hope that the campaign initiated in 2007 to declare nuclear weapons illegal under international law gains momentum and reaches a point where that goal can be achieved.

“Nuclear abolition is the democratic wish of the world's people, and has been our goal almost since the dawn of the atomic age. Together, we have the power to decide whether the nuclear era ends in a bang or worldwide celebration.”

~ Archbishop Desmond Tutu 

Related:
* Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 69 Years Later

* August 6th – A Date Which Will (Not) Live in Infamy

* The Living Myths About Nuclear Murder: Remembering Hiroshima and Nagasaki

* CIA: No Evidence of Iranian Nuclear Weapons Program

* Israeli Asher Karni & Nuclear Terrorism Network

* The Unspoken Alliance: New Book Documents Arms, Nuclear and Diplomatic Ties
  Between Israel and Apartheid South Africa

* Secrets About Suspected Israeli Theft of U.S. Weapons-Grade Nuclear Material 
  Declassified

* Let’s Be Honest About Israel’s Nukes

* China, India, Pakistan boost nuclear arsenals

* Is The U.S. Planning A Horrific Global Nuclear War?

* The Dangers of a Middle East Nuclear War

* Nuclear Hero's 'Crime' Was Making Us Safer

NOTE: All links in this article were current and working at the time of posting.  If any links no longer work please post a note and the problem will be corrected where possible.

© Fareed Khan.  All Rights Reserved.

Injustice Must Be Opposed

Injustices, whether in words or actions, that go unchallenged are an affront to civil society and are dangerous to the long term health of the social order.

How would things have been different in 1920s and 1930s Germany if people had spoken out against the growing institutional and societal oppression of that country's Jewish population?

What if the world had opposed the Apartheid policies in South Africa from their inception?

How would society have been bettered if gay and lesbian populations in all societies hadn't faced oppression and persecution?

Would there be peace in Israel and Palestine today if the world had opposed Israel's occupation of Palestinian lands and their unjust policies of oppression?

History has shown that to remain silent in the face of injustice is to condemn the population that is being victimized to pain, suffering and death.  It means that those who don't speak out or take action against injustice become accomplices to the injustices being perpetrated.

It is something that is unconscionable, especially in a democratic society where human rights are suppose to be guaranteed.

As members of civil society, as human beings, we should never allow words or acts of injustice to go unchallenged.  To do so is to take a step on the path to the breakdown of civil society and the social order, and towards the darkness of barbarism.

© F. Khan.  All Rights Reserved.