There is no doubt that the technological revolution applications in the field of media and information are directly tangent to the conventional pillars traditionally recognized for achieving security and stability in all societies. For years ago, we have been seeing multiple templates of the new media, backed with tremendous developments in smart phones, which represent a key pillar of this style of media, which is also called social media, of which “Facebook” and “Twitter” are among the most prominent influential manifestations in shaping public opinion trends and convictions.
And because developments at the technical level have impacts on various levels, including of course the social aspect, the United Arab Emirates, has been considering for some time that there is a relationship between society’s security and worldwide developments in the field of communications technology, and has dealt with this matter proactively.
Since several months, the United Arab Emirates has issued an “anti-discrimination and anti-hatred law”, which I see as a proactive legislative model, and one of the best legal armors, developed since the establishment of the State in terms of ensuring security, stability and coexistence grounds. Someone may tell me why are you celebrating this law specifically and putting it in the top tier of importance? Here I would like to refer to several reasons, the first of which is that the Emirates is among the countries that are well aware of the nature of the strategic challenges facing its developmental march, security and stability, and that deal with them seriously without wasting time. Here comes the importance of this law, in the Emirates, we have nationalities that may outnumber the members of the United Nations, and consequently there is an urgent need for a precise framework to guarantee the coexistence of so many races and nationalities, so that tolerance, coexistence and respect for others’ values become rooted, and everyone would devote themselves to work and production, hence the importance of this law issued by His Highness Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, President of the UAE, may Allah save him, last July, including clauses that guarantee equality among members of society and criminalizing discrimination between individuals on the basis of religion, sect, color or ethnic origin. The second reason, which emphasizes the paramount importance of this law, is the wave of extremism and terrorism experienced by the Arab and Muslim communities in the present historical phase, a wave fed on practices of hatred, incitement and religious and intellectual discriminatory discourse, and other behaviors that represent in their entirety a real threat to security and social stability to any country afflicted with such practices, and here comes the role of the law as a strong bulwark repelling intellectual and religious extremism, with all its colors and trends, to build a social culture based on mutual respect and civilized coexistence through criminalization of acts related to contempt of religion and its sanctities and the fight against all types of discrimination, and the rejection of hate speech through various means and methods of expression, which makes the law a real tool to instill a culture of tolerance in the face of the culture of incitement, racism and hostility, so that the law becomes the owner of the real clout in ensuring societal security.
For the sake of objectively I say that when the UAE enacted this important law, they were not experiencing symptoms of hatred and incitement, the law was not issued as a response to a given reality, but it was a proactive immunization step that preserves social cohesion and prevents any threat to social peace.
One of the problems facing the Arab and Islamic world is that we frequently repeat words and concepts such as tolerance and coexistence without setting mechanisms to achieve these concepts. Such concepts need to be planted and nurtured by the State, which is the real guarantor of the security and stability of citizens, by virtue of the existing social contract, which in turn is one of the intellectual foundations of the discussions and debates going on around us about the liberties and the principles of human rights and other issues, and law becomes a needed standard to translate these principles and foundations and concepts into a mechanism to rationalize the behavior of individuals and groups in the public interest, and prevent any intellectual or behavioral deviations that would impair the general moral framework of society, and translate the values of coexistence and tolerance into a real culture whose moral dimensions and limits are realized by all members of society.
What we should also pay attention to in this regard is that the intellectual and cultural challenges facing the Arab and Islamic societies are not only related to extremism and terrorism organizations that use the Islamic religion as a cover, but include other types of moral chaos and misconceptions about liberties and lack of awareness of social responsibility, and the manifestations of intellectual, religious and political extremism , which wear incalculable different masks, all alike, are sources to the same danger and threaten coexistence and stability values.
These days, I read heated debates about the importance of “social contract security”, between supporters and opponents amid different variations and interpretation spaces of the concept, but my attention was drawn to some who refuse the existence of this concept and consider it a kind of State control over liberties, and forcibly connect the word “security” to the concept of “security State “, and consider it a new type of security that targets the confiscation of rights and liberties!!
It is irrefutable that differences and debates are basically healthy and positive phenomena, but blowing up the bases and shuffling the cards are not positive at all. What the highest human societies have reached, is only a product of pursuing the means of maintaining security and stability, and if not then what is the use of the presence of the contemporary State in the first place? The difference between primitive life and the State in its current form is simply what is conventionally known as the social contract, which includes a list of the rights and duties of the two parties of the relationship, and thus there are commitments related to security, economics, society and intellect…etc.
One of the problems is that the concept of “security” whether intended as security of society or the traditional security raises the ire of some, which implies the necessity to adjust the concepts in order to build an objective communication situation. What I mean, and many others mean, by security, is simply the causes that lead to achieving the aspects of safety and stability we are seeing and that provide a scope to work and production and the pursuit of the happiness of male and female citizens and the realization of their aspirations of living, and consequently, the “treatment” of any obstacles on this path becomes like a vital and even a necessary issue located in the heart of the tasks entrusted to the State, and this is what is conventionally known as community security or social security.
Also, the problematic is not related to provoking discussions on issues and topics of this kind, but it always remains in “setting” the concepts and terminology used in any dialogue that may touch societies’ values and religious, intellectual and moral maxims. No one wants to clone ancient human experiences suffered by Western civilization, especially in relation to the thorny relationship between the “sacred” and “profane”, and no one wants absurd conflicts that distract countries from their development goals and objectives that are urgently needed by our people, therefore, the social contract security of communities is not a trail of luxury or restriction on freedoms, as it is said, but one of the requirements to achieve coexistence and consecration of social peace.
