Against attacks, more freedom.

One more time, the day after the attacks, we have the speeches focusing on mistakes, such as the return of Ibrahim El Bakraoui on the European soil. Others are speaking about threats, replicas, etc. What I bring out from my observations is the fact that People are ready to sacrifice part of their freedom for more safety.

In France, since november attacks, the emergency state is instaured and the Constitution was changed for less freedom. In Belgium, soldiers were in the streets. Everywhere, there should be more security gates or more de caméras toujours au nom de la sécurité. J’ai l’impression que ces mesures servent à rassurer l’exécutif des États afin qu’ils puissent se présenter devant l’électeur en disant « Nous agissons contre la terreur ! ». Par contre, c’est toujours less freedom.

At some point, cynism is winning as our blessed elected politicals tell their voters what they want to hear. However, I think it's more important to try to find solution and above all try to understand radicalisation to fight it better. Looking for answers I found this video (In French) Université Libre de Bruxelles tribune: after the attacks, understanding without excuser: contribution of human and social sciences..

On March the 8th in 2016, Michel Wieviorka was speaking about the Paris attacks in a conference organized by la Maison des Sciences humaines (Human Sciences house), in particular on radicalization phenomenon. He underlines two paths: an unfavorable socio-economical context or the "quest of meaning". I don't come back on the second as it's essentially on the first that we can work.

Indeed the common point of radicalized people is the fact that they were in prison. I did not find the Belgian statistics so I use the French ones: 15% are in for drugs trafficking and 25% for voluntary violences.¹ In 2008, Laurent Muchielli estimated that the penal law reforms are more in destination of public opinion as the magistrates and the researchers are not heard anymore. ²

Drugs liberalisation

Nowadays, on the market, there are at least 3 kinds of completely legal hard drugs: alcohol, cigarettes and medicine.

As in this article³ suggests it, why don't we liberalize all the drugs? That would mean that 15% of the detained would not be condamned anymore and, probably, a part of those who are serving their time on the behalf of voluntary violences would not be there neither.

I see only benefits: dealers would have a 100% legal business, would pay taxes and the State could control the quality of the products. Introducing it in Belgium could develop the cross-border drug tourism. For my readers who are fan of security, if they exists, that would lead to more border controls on the behalf of our... Neighbours.

I come back on the 3 legal hard drugs. Dear reader, did you notice that they are in the hands of with people and that almost all the others are in the hands of non white? Then I would suggest you to read this Vice article⁴ A Former Nixon Aide Admitted the « War on drugs » Was Designed to Screw over Blacks and Hippies.

Liberalizing drugs, all the drugs, we will have less prisoners, so less inmates temptated by radicalism and more freedom. Of course, more policemen to investigate on other crimes.

Freedom of speech and to debate

Once again, I'm joining Michel Wievorka on the point of freedom of opinion. Let's be very clear, incitement to hatred and xenophobia have to be fought and the Law have to give the tools to this mission. But, a few days after the attacks, some teenagers were prosecuted for refusing the minute of silence.

However, it's especially in the dialogue that the whole society can understand the motivation of other persons, young or less young who do not desire joining compulsory commemorations. To take one of Wievorka's example, why Dieudonné's anti-semitism is strongly fought but not the insults against muslims?

I go even further than him, why a Zemmour has the right to spit his islamophobia on the radio and television networks as a polemist ? What would have happened if another polemist would have had the same kind of speech against Jews? Maybe that standing against that minute of silence, these students simply wanted to report the several levels of freedom of speech. There is no alternative: all the types of xenophobia have to be fought with the same strenght.

Giving freedom of speech and the right to debate to all the actors of the society, we will less unsaid, and so less stigmatization and partiality and more Freedom. In the limits of respect of the Other and the Law.

Freedom of knowing (each other)

Wievorka mainly speeks about freedom of research, because he speaks about academical freedom. However, in my opinion, knowledge has to be free. The access to it cannot be padlocked. I do not speak only about libraries or internet, but mainly the first path to it: comprehension and critic reading.

The freedom of knowing begins with the freedom of an efficient instruction that leads to an understanding of the surrounding world or to be trained for a profession. That does not mean that everybody will be a researcher, but that means that the world should be free to choose the path in which he can carry on learning and improving his knowledge.

Even more, this knowledge have to be shared and taken in account. Nowadays, politicians are not listening to researchers, medias prefer the specialists and national education has not the means of its ambitions. However, it's by knowing each others that the discriminations can be lifted.

By giving the possibility to all citizens to learn how to learn, we will have less left overs, so less closed minds and more Freedom.

The goal of the terrorists is to sow terror. Let's answer them with more Freedom. Some readers may think that I'm an utopist. I answer them that the "War on Terror" cannot be won and it leads only to less Freedom. Let's try the opposite. Freedom of get high, Freedom of telling each other what we want to say, and Freedom of learning.

Freedom of living ! Who is ready to try to be a winner ?

PS: The image used in the article comes from the blog ecriteauxcithares

Updated on March 25 2016

Here are two headlines I do not want to see anymore:

(in French) Cannabis traffick: dismantling of a network in Saint-Ouen when we know that radicalization starts in prison we still throw the "main protagonists" in it for 15 kg...

(in French) Alain Juppé: " Tariq Ramadan is not welcome in Bordeaux " this goes against opinions debates. He is a eminent intellectual that some want to be silenced instead of listening with a critical spirit.

1. French ministery of Justice, consulted March 24 2016 [↩]
2. Laurent Mucchielli, « Justice, délinquance et sociologie…» in La revue pour l’histoire du CNRS  (Online), 24 | 2009, uploaded on the October the 5th 2009, viewed March the 24th 2016. URL : http://histoire-cnrs.revues.org/9076 [↩]
3. Patrick Hilsman, «How Decriminalising Drugs Could Reduce Islamic Terrorism in France and Belgium» on Vice.com, uploaded March the 24th 2016, viewed on March the 24th 2016. URL: http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/how-decriminalizing-drugs-could-reduce-islamic-terrorism-in-france-and-belgium [↩]
4. published March 22 2016, consulted March 24 2016 [↩]