A cursory run through the online definitions of "extremism" finds that there is no standardised meaning of the word. It's connotations, depending on ones biases, are mostly negative, though neutral in academic circles. A common thread, however, is that extremism, whether political or religious, is an ideology far outside the mainstream views of the society. But am I an extremist simply because I refuse to accept a situation where forces of law and order can pick and choose when to abrogate provisions of the Bill of Rights when they are dealing with other extremists?
Let us presume that the vast majority of adults want to abrogate the Bill of Rights when dealing with extremists. Let us also assume that they are willing to have this standard applied to them in the future when the circumstances change or some other ideological crisis arises. If that is the case, why have the Bill of Rights at all?
There is a reason why we declare that the Bill of Rights is not the gift of the State, but inherent rights that one enjoys. An abrogation, a limitation, of those rights must be, and I quote the constitution, "reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom." The constitution is a statement of our values, values that we all share and that we all agree to abide by. It is the compact we have made with each other as we organise our government and order our lives. It is littered with values statements, but simply by promulgating it, we agree to live by what it says.
The rights it enshrines are statements of how we value each other and how we must treat each other. The Bill of Rights is principally a bulwark against the, yes, extremism of the government, but also the extremism that lurks beneath the surface of society in times of crisis. If we say, in Article 48, the every person has a right to justice, we do not limit that right to the moderates alone; that right is also extended to the extremist. If we say, in Article 49, that an arrested person has certain rights, and, in Article 25, that certain rights cannot be limited or abrogated, these are the values that we chose to live by.
An accusation of extremism is likely to be made by the officers of the government against an individual or a group. The accusation alone is not enough to abrogate or limit the rights of the alleged extremist. The accusation must be proven. It can only be proven by a trial. During the trial, the alleged extremist can challenge the proof advanced by the government or its witnesses. It is for the judge to weigh the substance of the accusation as well as that of the defence. This is also a value that we have chosen to live by. It is why we must not be afraid to let officers of the court, advocates, who also live by a code of conduct and ethics, to perform their duty under a set of values we call our constitution.
My fear is that it will not end with extremists in the mould of the Shabaab. Take Article 26 on the right to life and the exceptions to the prohibition on abortion. Whether or not an abortion law is enacted, the broad circumstances under which one may be procured have been enumerated in Article 26. If the medical practitioner who procures an abortion is labelled an extremist, would the lawyer who defends him be an extremist? Will the nurses who assist in the operation be extremists? Will the pharmacists and chemists who provide the drugs necessary for the procedure be extremists?
The Shabaab are extremists. Their ideology glorifies murder and the subjugation of the weak and minorities. Their misogyny is extreme. Their interpretation of scripture is puritanical and extreme. Their acts are extreme. At the heart of their ideology is the nub of an idea. For us to prevail against them, we must not just defeat them on the field of battle but also in the field of ideas. Their ideas must be fully challenged in every theatre, whether it is the law courts, the editorial pages or the television and radio studios.
We must live with the values that we have enshrined in the Bill of Rights and allow their lawyers to state their case unfettered. Either our ideology, ideas and values are persuasive or they are not. To limit their extremist ideas and ideology using patently value-less unconstitutional fiddles tells me that we are afraid that our values, our ideas and our ideology is the lesser of the two. Either we believe in our Bill of Rights or we don't.
Is this an extreme view? Am I an extremist?
No comments:
Post a Comment