Category: Letters

SIR: The world watched as the Arab world shook during the Arab Spring. Here, we saw people of different cultures and faith stand up together to demand for a less authoritative, representative government. In some parts, the outcomes were highly successful; in others, the price was a heavy one to pay courtesy of the lives lost in the protests.

In a similar fashion however, the world was taken by storm by angry and in some cities, violent protests by Muslims against a movie produced in Hollywood, depicting at best, an insulting message to believers of Islam throughout the world. Lives have been lost, properties destroyed and anger has been exercised. However, a lot of questions will most likely remain forever unanswered. One of such is the very motive of the movie, and the intent of its producers.

In a not too distant past, a US fast food restaurant, Chil-fil-A stirred non-violent protests against its chain president, Dan Cathy’s publicly voiced anti-gay sentiments. The movements that followed were not only peaceful, but effective in expressing disagreement with the comments. Attempts by some public officers to deny location expansion for the chain was actively and publicly denounced by seasoned rights advocate such as Tom Palmer in his CATO Institute publication where he reiterated Dan Cathy’s right to his views.

However in similar contrast, a planned Miss World pageant scheduled to hold in Nigeria was not only aborted and compulsorily rescheduled, but also led the loss of at least a hundred lives.

Reflecting on the reaction of the groups involved in both instances, one would want to consider the influence of a greater followership on the manner and outcome of their protests. It is evident that non-violent stand against Dan Cathy’s statement bore no sub-differences among the inspired movement; all came under one umbrella to stand for what they believed in. On the other hand, a greater fragility exists in the handling of religious differences which represents the majority of the world’s population, divided between Christians and Muslims. The unity and peaceful co-existence of these two diverse world groups holds the key to the political and socio-economic stability of the world.

While the post-traumatic effects of 9/11 and other religious conflicts around the world abounds, one wonders the reckless necessity for inciting a religious war that is capable of bringing the world to a deadly halt. The point here is not about depriving the individual rights to free speech or freedom of association, but, that of the application of rights and its relative respect for the rights of others.

In the case of Dan Cathy, his views were expressly expressed without restraint or concern for others who might not find his views acceptable, but also was his view responsibly echoed. In the case of this violent inciting movie however, the physical and emotional trauma inflicted by the depiction of the prophet Mohammed, regarded as the founder of Islam on followers of the religion is potent enough to lead to extremism and hatred for everything the producers stood for.

Part of what the producers stood for was being American (Hollywood production) and anti-Islam (theme and nature of film), both of which are already being paid for from locations like Tunisia to Sudan, Egypt, Yemen, Libya, Istanbul, Malaysia, and across other Muslim and non-Muslim states such as Nigeria were too much a price for the pleasure of a few, including murders such as that of the late US Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stephens.

While the extremist violent reactions to this by Muslims all over is reckless, unnecessary, unjust and uncalled for, the producers also should acknowledge the extremism of their exercise of rights through the inflammable and despicable movie and make up for its attendant damages.

There is absolutely a need to embrace tolerance on either side of the coin.

• Fiyinfoluwa Elegbede

Greenville, South Carolina, USA

SIR: In 1992, as Nigeria’s ex-dictator Ibrahim Babangida tottered after fraudulently tinkering with his own transition programme, a presidential candidate suggested to him an interim demilitarized government of national unity to usher in the genuine democracy. Babangida did not heed the call. A year later, his bag of tricks and political subterfuges empty, he reached belatedly for that interim national government idea, but gave no credit to its patriotic originator.

He then went for a puppet continuity of his regime while scampering off the scene (stepping aside, as he called he called his exit!).

Dr. Frederick Isiotan Fasehun was the man who proposed the idea as a short term solution to the political impasse contrived by the Babangida junta. Later, newspapers ran headlines of Fasehun screaming: “IBB stole my idea and bastardized it!”

This soft-spoken man was born on September 21, 1935 in Ondo town and put in the care of a disciplinarian grandmother of the Spartan school starting education at Saint Matthews Roman Catholic School, Ondo at age late 13. He was a “man” among kids – the very reason he strove to excel and be man rather among fellow men. He moved up rapidly. After about a year at Saint Peter’s Teacher’s Training College, Akure, Fasehun was thrown out because he didn’t succumb to Catholicism’s creed.

He was admitted into form Two at Ondo Boys High School in 1956. After only two and a half years, he sat for the final examination and passed simultaneously grade one and earning distinction in English Language. It was a record not set since the school was created in 1919!

September 30, 1958, Fasehun went to London, where he studied science at Blackburn College and later proceeded to Aberdeen University College of Medicine. He was also at the Liverpool Postgraduate School and the Royal College of Surgeons for his fellowship.

Later in 1976, he studied acupuncture in China under a joint World Health Organization and United Nations Development Programme Scholarship.

Back home in 1977, he set up an Acupuncture Unit at the Lagos State Teaching Hospital, LUTH. But Fasehun resigned in 1978 because “too many people were dying (there at LUTH) ….. and my standard of medical practice was not feasible in LUTH”.

He immediately set up the Besthope Hospital and Acupuncture Centre in Lagos. It was once reputed to be Africa’s first for the Chinese medical practice.

Fasehun has found more than ample time to devote impartial attention to his age-old calling (health management) and politics (his inner stirrings).

He was an executive member of the Campaign for Democracy, CD. Fasehun in 1993 founded the Movement for Social and Economic Justice MOSEJ, emerging as its National Chairman. He is the founder of Oodua People’s Congress whose agitation against injustice and extrajudicial killing as well as resistance to perceive ploy to waste the Yoruba Nation has become legendary. A noiseless but adroit negotiator, Fasehun pointedly rejected Head of State Sani Abacha’s request to have him serve in his military dictatorship.

In 1989 when Babangida lifted the ban of politics, Nigerian workers put together the Nigerian Labour Party and had Fasehun as their presidential flagbearer.

Although this man of eternal youth is no longer in active in politics, he still contends for justice no longer and democracy having been in and out of detention countless times for his front-row role in street and undercover agitation for good governance. He was one of the three leaders of the National Democratic Coalition, NADECO who staged the rally for Abiola after the latter claimed his mandate as President of Nigeria.

• Banji Ojewale

Lagos.