In the last week two stories from distinctly different parts of the world regarding two distinctly different groups of people have sprung up. Each regards the passage/possible passage of a law allegedly designed to solve a specific social problem. Each specifically targets a single ethnic group. Yet the reaction to each law has been distinctly different. As might be expected when anything regarding "targeting ethnic groups" comes up, the right is heavily in favor of both laws. Surprisingly, though, while the left is adamantly opposed to one (and with good reason), they also seem to be in favor of the other. Why the discrepancy? Let's have a look.
The first law is the one I assume most of you have heard about: Arizona's new bill targeted, allegedly, at curbing illegal immigration. The bill requires - remember that; it doesn't suggest, it mandates - police to stop anyone they may suspect of being an illegal immigrant and demand their immigration papers. If the "suspect" cannot produce said papers, the "suspect" is to be immediately arrested and, unless such documentation can be produced in relatively short order, deported. What exactly denotes a potential illegal? The bill doesn't say; the language is left intentionally vague. The vagueness of the bill is intentional, as it gives the government an out for claiming the bill doesn't mandate racial profiling. They're welcome to make that claim.
They're wrong.
Some of you may be wondering, "Gee, where have I heard that 'must have your papers on you at all times or risk return to your alleged place of origin' thing?" I think I may have an answer for that right here. That's right, the closest thing to this statute in American history is the Fugitive Slave Act, passed 160 years ago. The intent of this bill is no different: to persecute those different from the "threatened" majority (in this case, as usual, old white guys) under the guise of maintaining social order. How many do you believe will be detained in the first month after this law is enacted who are legal American citizens? Remember, this isn't a lily-white state like, say, most of Indiana; a large percentage of the state's residents are of mixed ancestry dating back to the era following the Mexican War. Still more are legal Mexican immigrants. Proponents of the law claim the chances of a legal citizen being detained are few and far between. That's naive, or stupid, or just a blatant lie, or all of the above. There is literally no reason an entire group of people should be made into second-class citizens solely because another group feels they invade on the utopia previously envisioned. Perhaps the most horrifying implication of this law is the likelihood that it will forever shatter the public trust between the Latino community in Arizona and the police. Say a group of local yokels loads into their pickup truck with the American flag and "These Colors Don't Run" pained over the back window and drives to the home of a Mexican-American family, brandishing shotguns and hurling ignorant racist invective. Is that family going to feel confident that the police will protect them knowing that if they can't produce birth certificates in relatively short order, they'll likely be arrested? I ask you, my readers, do you know where your birth certificate is? Could you produce it quickly in a situation of extreme distress? Why should anyone who believes they could be apprehended for the crime of looking/speaking/living different even consider trusting their potential persecutor?
Thankfully, a sizable portion of the nation sees this law for what it is: an abomination, a desecration of the Bill of Rights, an embarrassment to the American ideal. The Obama Administration has publicly decried the law, with the attorney general considering a possible legal challenge (the first of many, to be sure). To their credit, police chiefs across the nation, including many in Arizona, have come out strongly against the measure, with several outright refusing to force their precincts to follow it. Protesters have already begun their demonstrations, with several dozen already arrested and more sure to follow. I can agree that illegal immigration is an issue that needs to be addressed. Creating a police state reminiscent of Orwell, Huxley, and Moore isn't the way to do it. If you really want to fix illegal immigration, how about dropping the hammer on the companies that employ illegals through severe financial penalties, up to and including forced closure of the business? Eliminate the economic advantages of employing illegals, and companies will stop doing it (no one's going to hire illegals if they have to pay them a decent wage, when they could just hire a native citizen and avoid the possibility of aforementioned strict financial and legal punishment if caught). If the atmosphere in which these people can be employed (some, including me, would say "exploited for massive profit") no longer exists, what are the odds that they'll continue streaming across the border in search of money for their families? This is the simplest answer to the problem, but of course, it cuts into the profits of the rich white guys in control of the corporatocracy, so naturally it'll never happen.
The second law is a bit more obscure, particularly since it hasn't come up in its country's legislative body yet, but it's just as important to expose and discuss. In a speech last week, French President Nicolas Sarkozy declared the burqa unwelcome in France, seeking to ban the garment from the country altogether. Sarkozy framed his argument in terms of women's rights, declaring the burqa an affront and a means "imprisoning women behind a veil." A number of commentators on the left have come out in favor of this, including Bill Press and Thom Hartmann. Given that I too despise the burqa and what it represents, you'd probably assume that I'm in their camp.
You'd be wrong, too.
See, there are three major issues with the whole concept of banning an article of clothing, but particularly with banning this particular item of clothing. The first, and perhaps most obvious, is that this isn't a fashion choice for most women; it's either a religious or social requirement. I wholly admit I don't know enough about the strictest Islamic sects, but they take their clothing restrictions extremely seriously. The end result of such a ban wouldn't be "Oh, darn, now that's just taking up space in my closet," it'd be "Well, looks like I can't leave the house anymore unless I want to risk getting stoned to death." That's not an implication I'm interested in testing any time soon. The second is something I'm always concerned with: precedent. If the government can bar an article of clothing, no matter the reason, what's to stop them from banning something else at a later date? Once a precedent has been established, it can't be undone. That's why I was so wary of using reconciliation to pass the health insurance reform bill; what's to prevent a neo-con Senate under another idiotic sub-chimpanzee President from using reconciliation to pass a massive nuclear arms build-up bill, or completely slash income taxes on the top 1%? Likewise, what's to keep a group of old guys in France from saying "I think halter tops are embarrassing, let's get rid of them" and passing a ban on those?
The third, and the thorniest, issue regards the growing cultural divide in France. Over the last decade the number of Muslims in France has grown by leaps and bounds, to the point that France now has the largest Muslim population in Western Europe. It should come as no surprise that this has created substantial tension; many native French are increasingly frightful and angry due to an unwillingness by the Muslim population to completely assimilate, and many Muslims feel increasingly persecuted by a country that preaches complete tolerance but refuses to practice it (the hijab ban being the best example). Hmm, an ethnic group feeling mistreated by an increasingly paranoid and fearful majority. Sound familiar? With a litany of other instances in which the French government has passed increasingly targeted legislation with the intent of forcing assimilation, why should this instance be any different?
So, if this law also represents a form of racism, why would the left be in favor of it? The answer is obvious: because it happens to coincide with an ideological goal. The burqa to many (yours included) represents the repression of the female voice, the burial of the individual in favor of the faceless symbol. I don't like it anymore than they do. However, racism for an (allegedly) altruistic reason is still racism. Specifically targeting one specific ethnic group in an attempt to force conformance to an arbitrary set of rules for the purpose of making that group less uncomfortable for the majority is wrong, no matter the stated reason. We have to remember that in affecting social change, we cannot under any circumstances give in to the same evils that we claim to oppose. To quote, "Using the weapons of the enemy, no matter how good one’s intentions, makes one the enemy."
It's my hope that those in favor of this provision can see beyond their ideology and recognize it for what it is: a subtle form of oppression (kind of amusing that removing a symbol of oppression can be oppression itself, but them's the breaks). Likewise, it's my hope that those in favor of the Arizona immigration law will come to their senses and recognize this sort of blatant prejudice should have died with the Confederacy (but I'm not holding my breath). Until next time, remember that while morality can seem black and white, the truth is usually a shade of grey.
No comments:
Post a Comment