Hello. Over the recently erupted crisis between Saudi Arabia and
Canada, I thought of composing this editorial. Could human rights be
perverted to implicitly interfere in state affairs? It all started
when the Canadian foreign ministry sent a tweet demanding Saudi Arabia
to immediately release some women activists. Saudi Arabia stated they
are impeached of critical affiliation with external entities. As a
chronological consequence, Saudi Arabia expelled Canada's embassador,
suspended upcoming business transactions with the peaceful nation and
even called its envoy to depart soon. Furthermore, the Kingdom Issued
a notice to its citizens who currently study therein, that they
should either return home or find an alternative source of
scholarship. I therefore must ask, could human rights be used to
marginalise Saudi sovereignty? It is ubiquitously cognised that state
affairs are not subject to imperialism and manipulation. Who would
have dared to ask Israel about detaining Palestinian activists or
brutally murdering innocent civilians? Canadian foreign ministry used
a rhetoric which Saudi authorities considered to be unequivocally
undiplomatic, uncongenial and strictly ordinating. Thence, Canadian
statement is intolerable and unacceptable to Saudi government. Why
human rights activism is somewhat slanted? If someone is detained in
Egypt, Saudi, Qatar etc, human rights activism is arise to criticise.
Nevertheless, if Israel perpetrates savagery, human rights activism
instantly evaporates. Has the term human rights activism been
politicised? In my opinion, there are major factors beyond human
rights activism. There is a continuous effort attributed to the west
to gradually alter Muslim identity. I see this pretty clear here in
Egypt. Our media is filled with those who are called enlightening
minds, attempting to interpolate Islamic text, taking advantage of lay
nescience. The west won't leave us without either distorting our
heritage or sabotaging our civilly occupied territory. There is a
constant failure of them invading us through cultural means. They aim
to make western secularism supervene upon Islamic jural. If Canada
doesn't like policies exercised by the Saudi government, they could
have expressed that more courteously. Be that as it may, it should
have not enjoined Saudi authority to immediately release activists,
particularly, if they face impeachment. Law enforcement is not to be
challenged. Freedom isn't merely doing whatever you want. It is
stipulated not to extend your convictions into other's affairs. If you
are sitting at home and heard one of your neighbors madly shouting at
his children or even beating his spouse, could you ask him to stop?
You would be considered interfering in his domestic affairs. It'll be
relatively satisfactory if you respectfully ask for the reason as to
why he does this? Nevertheless, he is not obliged to answer you. Why?
Because it is not of your business. The justification of human rights
won't be tolerated to make western nations authoritative upon us and
to reach thereby political expediency. You may possibly encourage what
you deem to be proper in terms of human rights. However, you couldn't
ordain state authority to approve or decline something. It should all
be governed internally. If Canada is so fond of human rights, why
doesn't it urge Israel to quit committing crimes against humanity on a
virtually daily basis? It couldn't say one word about this. They just
speak of human rights if it is associated with Arab nations to
denigrate them. The presumption that we shall endorse everything comes
from the west is of prejudicious notion and it therefore must be
utterly decimated. Although Saudi overreacted to Canada's message in
my opinion, it still signifies our political autonomy to speak and act
freely, and not to be suppressed by superior entities. This is what I
always say, if the western sees a particular practice proper, it may
not necessarily be the case for me. So for instance, someone in the
west or even here in Egypt doesn't see a problem with his wife going
out unveiled, being provocative in public and so on. However, this is
quite problematic for me. I hope my message is eventually fathomed. I
am really tired of western ambidextrous regarding the definition of
liberty. The world couldn't be painted in one colour. The political
establishment in the west won't be able to manipulate our orientation.
No one should judge me because of my beliefs, convictions, the way I
dress, act or talk. I am not guilty of anything. Why Canada didn't
criticise France for banning Hijab at schools? I can go on and on, but
no one will tackle these rational queries. I hope we respect beliefs
of one another, convictions, social affairs and political
establishment. Furthermore, I urge westerns to accurately reconsider
their inadequate definition of democracy. Intervening in other state
affairs is not practically democratic. Justice supersedes human rights
activism. No one should mistakenly assume otherwise. End of
conversation. Thank you for reading, Mustafa
