“There are only two kinds of people in this world. Good people who do good deeds, and bad people who do bad. That’s the only difference in human beings. There’s no other difference.”
As we descend into further chaos, the world would do well to take note from the highly successful Hindi movie, My Name is Khan. The 2010 film, starring Shahrukh Khan and Kajol is one of the most successful Bollywood productions ever for a reason. One, the star cast, and secondly – and perhaps more importantly – the film’s powerful message.
The film is centred around Rizwan Khan (Shahrukh Khan), a Muslim man with Asperger’s syndrome and his quest to meet the US President in a bid to prove his innocence and win back his wife Mandira (Kajol) in an America reeling from the shock of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Without focusing too much on the plot, Khan’s character is one of humility and hope, battling American anger and Islamic fundamentalism through various acts of goodness, in a journey across the country.
Race, religion, and any other discriminator pales into insignificance – or at least should – when making a judgment between right and wrong. This core principle is ever present in My Name is Khan and is one that would be worth adopting by a British society becoming more and more apologetic for increasingly despicable acts.
We must be very clear in showing no compassion to those who have committed unforgivable acts of wrong. The sheer barbarism seen in recent weeks from the Islamic State in both Iraq and Syria are some of the worst in living memory.
To think that there is nothing to stop terrorists who have left Britain to fight for this “cause” returning and slipping back quietly into British society is both frightening, and unbelievable.
The human rights argument completely falls flat when considering the human rights of those whose lives they have ruined or worse, taken away. The inseparable attachment the UK in particular now has to human rights continually acts as a prevention to achieving justice for the victims of such crimes. As necessary as they are, they should not serve to protect those who have committed heinous crimes.
It is my belief that once you infringe on the human rights of another person you begin to lose your own. That is fair. The “eye for an eye leaves everybody blind” argument does not hold when it is the innocent who are the victims.
It is not a case of perpetuating hatred but protecting ourselves from acts of terrorism as well as the silent growth of it. Protection isn’t being insular, in cases like these it’s required. Ir is a country’s duty to act first in the best interests of its citizens.
Another case of being apologetic and fearful of causing upset has become apparent in Rotherham where it has emerged 1,400 children have been abused since 1997, from rape, trafficking, to abduction, predominantly by Pakistani men.
Yet in fear of being labeled racist, the authorities made every effort in order to cover themselves. Criminals were shielded whilst the victims were left helpless. Any consideration for justice was completely disregarded. Referring to the point I made earlier, race, creed or culture has no bearing on whether something is right or wrong.
Unless sensible action is taken to secure justice, and all criminals are held to account, the door will remain open to unchallenged crime.
However, whilst there should be no fear of being labeled racist for pointing out factual evidence, there is also no justification for real racism, which is still a prominent issue and is given somewhat of a platform when events aforementioned occur.
Tolerance is key. I don’t need to explain that discrimination on race is never acceptable but neither should it be for religion.
Religion can be used as a moral compass, and a guide to how somebody can lead a good life. The God fearing little old lady at the Church has almost certainly not used religion as a hate tool.
Although if religion is interpreted to justify criminal acts – most significantly on those of opposing beliefs – then it has no place.. Die hard religious – I use the term religious lightly – fundamentalist organisations such as the Ku Klux Klan and the Islamic State have no place in this world.
I am no expert on religious scripture but feel certain that no sane minded person attempting to lead an honorable life would ever murder or abuse other human beings, or see religion as a way to justify it.
Being apologetic and sympathising for those who have committed wrong is not an act of tolerance, but one of cowardice.Yet criminalising people on baseless accusations is equally indefensible. Distinguishing between whether something is right or whether something is wrong is made far easier when removing race, creed, culture etc. from the equation.
For those who haven’t seen My Name is Khan – which is probably most considering most people reading this I assume are from a Western background – I couldn’t recommend it further. Not only is it a good damn watch but it re-emphasises the values I have tried to put forward, as well as offering a different perspective to the modern world than the Western one we are almost solely accustomed to.
Having spent time in India, I’ve also developed a soft spot for their cinema. The Indian film industry isn’t the world’s biggest for no reason you know.