| |
View
Point Abid
Ullah Jan
"Suicide"
and Blame
"There
has long been a crying need to hold bullies responsible for their
actions," which force the weak into committing suicide. This
is the opening salvo of Globe and Mail's October 13 editorial.
Many might think the editorial is discussing Middle East. However,
such a shift in the set norms of addressing international issues
is beyond all imaginations.
Before discussing the real issue, let us remind ourselves that
all that happens around us is an endless combination and repetition
of a few laws of nature. From the genesis and maturation of a
planet, and its poise and orbit to a tree's recovering itself
from the strong wind, we daily take the laws of nature in operation
for granted.
Ignoring some laws might not affect our lives, but paying no heed
to those which are strictly related to the life and interaction
of nations has serious consequences. For instance, we brush aside
the reality that actions are always the results of a chain of
causes and sub-causes, which the guilty among us try to make us
ignore through spreading misinformation and misplacing the blame.
Committing suicide by individuals, suffering under different forms
of occupation and tyranny, is one of the glaringly misinterpreted
phenomenons in this regard. We must remember that there are no
double standards in nature. Unlike our daily practice, the laws
of nature apply equally everywhere and at all levels. We, however,
judge things differently and expect different results from the
same actions at two different places.
Everyone knows that the blame for the Palestinians, Afghans and
now Iraqis' committing themselves to death is squarely placed
on the shoulders of their immediate family members and the whole
community is collective punished for one person's giving up on
life.
The Globe and Mail's October 13 editorial is an interesting reading
for understanding the phenomenon called suicide bombing and holding
the real culprits responsible for making someone commit him/herself
to death.
The editorial discusses the story of a 12-year-old boy who committed
suicide after severe bullying a school. The paper strongly criticised
the authorities who "went way off course in laying criminal
charges against the [boy's] mother." Authors of the editorial
believe that "the conviction…merely compounds the tragedy
of her son's death." This is where the question arises: Is
anyone worried about the compounding tragedies of the oppressed
people in Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere?
The paper believes, "there were multiple failures before
the boy took his life." This is an important aspect to look
upon. But the question is: Why is the world not ready to count
and consider "multiple failures" of those associated
with the so-called suicide bombers. Instead, the leading media
outlets resort to making fun of the Qur'an (Newsweek, July 28,
2003) and holding Qur'anic verses responsible for the motives
behind the oppressed victims' committing themselves to death?
The paper says, the boy who committed suicide "was an easy
game for his peers. We must not ignore that living as an "easy
game" for peers is much easy than living as an easy game
for the Anglo-American or Israeli occupation forces.
The Globe and Mail's editorial recounts the incident of boy's
getting "kicked and punched, knocked off the school bleachers….and
treated like a 'piece of dirt'." Compare this kind of bullying
with the systematic oppression and daily psychological degradation
the occupation forces are imposing on successive generations in
Palestine. Not to speak of the reports of rapes, strip searches
on the road and humiliation of local population by the occupation
forces in Iraq.
The Globe and Mail holds the school and the state responsible,
saying, "the school failed the boy, so, too, did the state's
…child welfare agency" which could not address "the
filthy conditions in the [boy's] home." The problem is that
no one is ready to do such analysis and apply the same standards
on global or regional scale to find out who failed in the case
of Palestine or Iraq. Are families of those who take their lives
elsewhere in the occupied countries really responsible for the
death of their family members which justifies collective punishment
of the families and communities as a whole?
If a State, not the mother in this case, is supposed to be held
responsible for filthy conditions at a particular home, who are
we supposed to hold responsible for the unbearable conditions
in a society under foreign occupation?
The Globe and Mail concludes that it is "not illegal to be
imperfect as a parent…the time to have dealt with Ms. Scruggs's
[boy's mother] imperfection was when her child was alive."
It is a good suggestion but if this paper or other western analysts
could suggest it for holding US and Israeli occupation authorities
from collective punishments.
As the "suicide bombers" are a scapegoat during their
unhappy existence under occupation, all Muslims must not be made
a scapegoat for bomber's despair and for the failure of all involved
to save them.
The Globe and Mail is right in concluding that the "answer
to bullying is not for the state to become the biggest bully of
all." Similarly, the answer to the Israeli and American bullying
on a different scale is not for the UN and the world as a whole
to become the biggest bullies and support the aggressors in consolidating
their occupation through participation in a fake war on terrorism.
For actions having opposite reactions is a law of nature that
we ignore at our peril. It is time we should stop blaming Islam
or all Muslims for the actions of a few who prefer death over
bearing bullies any more. Courts in Nova Scotia and British Colombia
could convict bullies who forced others into committing suicides.
We must ask, who is going to convict international bullies?
We may have double standards, but the laws of nature apply equally
everywhere. Irrespective of the difference in nature of application
due to difference in circumstance, decision of a person persecuted
by bullies in Palestine and decision of a victim of bullies in
Canada would always remain identical. The only difference is in
how we look at these instances at different places
|
|
