It's easier said than done isn't it? Recognising the integrity of our
opponents and including them in our embrace.
And it's even more difficult when
there are times it seems that those with whom we disagree are significantly
lacking in integrity; moral, social, political, personal. That is when we must,
without a moments hesitation fall back on the default setting, the fundamental
human right of respecting the dignity of that person.
Respecting their dignity is something we must do regardless of who they
are or whether we personally feel they deserve it or not. It is not up for
negotiation. And if we find we can't recognise much integrity in them, we must still
treat them with at least the basics of dignity and work to include them in our
embrace.
This has never been more urgent. You will be aware as you read this,
that right-wing parties across the globe are gaining credibility, influence and
power by restricting their countries borders based on dubious ethnic/religious
criteria, clamping down on human rights and controlling cultural activities
that do not conform to, or promote their agenda. We have entered an era where
an international network of politicians, lobbyists and figureheads who have
formerly been viewed by the demographic at large as extremists, now feel
comfortable enough to reveal their connections across the continents.
It's not only coming from the political right-wing. There are many
people from a range of political persuasions, and none, who are just as angry
and aggressive.
Do I recognise the integrity of any of the aforementioned people?
Difficult. Can I respect their basic dignity even if I don't think they deserve
it? I have to. Because if I don't, the alternative and it's consequences do not
even bear thinking about. These, then, are the people that we must continually
seek to engage with respect, and work hard to include them in our embrace.
Saffiyah Khan
confronting the English Defense League...with a smile. I don't own the copyright on this photograph. If there is an issue please get in touch and I,ll remove it.
A bit about the new artworks on-line including:
Echoes in the
Street, mezzotint and etching
Fish on a Plate, etching
There is
certainly something of what I have just written above in the new artwork.
I read recently
that political videos with aggressive titles are cropping up with increasing
frequency both here in the UK and abroad. Although not exclusive to politics,
they are an example of growing international trends for videos with
confrontational titles. "The trend for videos where someone
"schools", "beats", "takes apart" or even
"destroys" their opponent appears to come from America's polarised
political culture" 2.
Although punchy
headlines have long been one of the most important skills in journalism, on the
internet this seems to translate directly into on-line success. If it makes
people angry they will be more likely to click, like, share and therefore
spread it's message. With aggressive, negative and destructive videos "we
are pushing people to hate, attack and humiliate each other. That's good for
watch time but bad for society...we have a natural tendency to pay attention to
fights and this only encourages video makers to emphasis confrontation over
collaboration" 3. Of course, all of this masquerades as freedom of speech
while failing to accept our responsibilities that come with such freedom.
Each of the new
artworks is permeated (visually) with words like "coexist"
"peace/war" and "shalom/salaam". One includes the line
"in a lawful, moral society it is the responsibility of the rich to make
sure the poor do not starve, it is the responsibility of the strong to make
sure the weak are not preyed upon".
Instead of
destroying our opponents, can we engage them with dignity whilst aiming to
include them in our embrace? Peace after all starts with a smile.
1. Rabbi Lord Jonathan
Sacks. BBC Newsnight interview.
2. Joey D'Urso, BBC News website.
2. Joey D'Urso, BBC News website.
3. Guillame
Chaslot, former YouTube engineer, BBC News website.
.
