The Internet: Hypocrisy 2.0 vs Revolution 2.0

Wikileaks frontman and founder, Julian Assange, is still fighting extradition to Sweden on sexual assault charges that coincidentally arose shortly after the unprecedented leak of hundreds of thousands of US military documents. 

As the fallout from the Leak spread across the world claiming victim after victim, World Governments, and the US in particular, cowered in fear of the most powerful weapon of all: knowledge. People began to taste what true freedom of information was and the kind of power the collective force of whistleblowers, tech geeks and a listening public could wield. But the euphoria surrounding the power of the Internet to facilitate knowledge and freedom of speech was short lived - at least in the case of the US and its Allies. 

The fall of Mubarak has been hailed as a great victory for the power of the Internet, along with social media like Twitter and Facebook. The role of Google exec, Wael Ghonim, has been highlighted by the media and the group Ghonim allegedly formed, along with other tech savvy young Egyptians, became known as Revolution 2.0 - not unlike the spontaneously formed Anonymous born out of frustration with the vilification of Wikileaks and its enigmatic founder. But why is Revolution 2.0 heroic while Wikileaks irresponsible and even terrorist?

It depends on who the target is, and this shows who really controls the media and the Internet itself. Mubarak attempted to shut down cyber portals and was condemned for it. The same was done to Wikileaks with seemingly no sustained public or State response to speak of. Some Republican senators even demanded that Wikileaks even be named a terrorist group. The current lull, and even silence of Wikileaks, as well as the virtual neutralization of Assange, seem to suggest that it has indeed been deemed a threat though not officially (or legally) so.

Western hypocrisy knows no bounds and the Internet has made it possible for that hypocrisy to spread far, wide and fast. To the credit of the relevant US authorities, it was acknowledged that no laws were broken by Wikileaks. Freedom of Speech was the only 'crime'. But it turns out that Freedom is a commodity which the US seems to have purchased, patented and copyrighted. And they seem to have cornered the market and restricted supply, and only the currency of those who say what is in accord with the American agenda is any good.  

If Multiculturalism Is Dead In Europe, Then It Must Be Dead Everywhere Else Too

Recently British Prime Minister, David Cameron, followed his German counterpart's example and declared multiculturalism a failure. Angela Merkel did the same in October last year, stating, "...of course, the approach [to build] a multicultural [society] and to live side-by-side and to enjoy each other... has failed, utterly failed." (see previous link).  French integration has led to the banning of Muslim face coverings, and not surprisingly, Sarkozy also joined the chorus against multiculturalism saying, 'We have been too concerned about the identity of the person who was arriving and not enough about the identity of the country that was receiving him.'

Cameron argued that there needed to be a more robust 'national identity' in order to combat 'all kinds of extremism' in Britain. With the previous rationales in mind, one doesn't have to delve too deeply to see that the 'multiculturalism' referred to is really Islam and Muslim communities and culture that spring thereof. 

As such the burning question is: Does integration apply to expats and immigrant communities in the Muslim world as well? And by 'immigrant' and 'expat' we mean White and Western (but not limited to).

The United Arab Emirates, arguably the most liberal Muslim nation, has opened its arms to the West, at risk of its cultural and religious mores, and this has led to an increasingly Westernized society evidenced through Western media content, the growing workforce made up of many from the West and former colonies thereof, and the changing mode of dress and social interaction (primarily in flouting religious and cultural standards of modest dress and public abuse of alcohol).

Local authorities in the UAE concerned about the growing marginalization of their own people,  embarked on Emiratisation programmes to increase the presence of locals in the workforce. But the problem is also social. Some incidents of expats 'breaking the rules' have received international media attention, usually with sympathy for the perpetrators, and some amount of disdain for the standards of the host country. Some expats intentionally and openly defy the standards of dress and propriety in the name of their brand of Western freedom. 

Suffice it to say, Muslim nations are oft criticised by the West (and not without reason) for their strict moral standards and application of related justice, from putting their women 'under sheets' to insisting on the prohibition of pre-marital sex, and the harsh sentences for adultery or public indecency. But if multiculturalism has failed, and one is to be true to the aforementioned conclusions, then integration should take place wherever the context. 


The simple conclusion is - to all non-Muslims in the Muslim world - follow the lead of Western integration and don your burqas, dishdashas and abayas. It's only fair. If a Muslim cannot wear a burqa in the West, then a Westerner must wear it in the East.  Anything less would be hypocritical. But how would these standards be greeted by expats in the UAE should they be enforced? What would be the response if the UAE were to declare the failure of alien populations to learn Arabic, and the consequent repatriation of those who do not learn it? Your opinion is welcome.