The backlash on rights in Lebanon: Brutal but not irreversible- By Lina Abou-Habib

To Revolt is to Insist on Joy 

Nur Turkmani  

More than two years ago, a seemingly orchestrated hate campaign spread throughout Lebanon targeting essentially refugees from Syria.  Whilst negative stereotypes were always used and reproduced against refugees from Syria, what was different in this new trend was the ways in which the overall narrative and its attendant messages were carefully crafted to produce maximum impact and violence. 

The timing of this campaign coincided with the exponential manifestations of the acute economic crisis in Lebanon, one that deprived citizens of their life savings and their livelihoods and pushed the country into unprecedented depth and despair.  This was additionally exacerbated by the destructive outcome and loss of lives and infrastructure caused by the infamous port explosion of 2020 which perpetrators remain to this date unpunished and in power. 

Amidst these multiple crises, the despair and hopelessness of the country’s inhabitants, the destruction of most of Lebanon’s public institutions and infrastructure, the quick slide towards extreme poverty and destitution, the increasing lawlessness exacerbated by the illegal militarization of specific groups and communities, the impunity enjoyed by corrupt officials and their entourage, the strategy of the regime and its acolytes took a quick turn towards scapegoating Syrian refugees. The context was ready for such narrative which was already feeding on existing negative and racist sentiments towards refugees, a flurry of “informal” and bigoted policies curbing their mobility, freedoms, and visibility, and a belief that they are causing or about to cause a long-term shift in the delicate demographic balance in the country.   

The hate mongering machine was put in motion and included official statements by politicians warning of the dangers that the refugee population constituted.  Newspapers were plastered with news of crimes allegedly committed by refugees, and the international community was openly accused of funneling money in hard currency to the refugees at a time when host communities were more and more impoverished and destitute.  Newly elected MPs jumped the bandwagon and accused refugees of spreading diseases, increasing pollution, and even overflooding the sewage systems across the country.   

The backlash and hate speech targeting Syrian refugees all converged to one key demand and that is to return refugees to Syria whilst claiming that this return is safe and secure.    The discussion as to whether or not Syria is safe for its people is beyond the scope of this short blog.  This text only seeks to follow the turn of events where different forms of backlash against Syrian refugees in Lebanon was used to serve two clear purposes.  These include creating a conviction amongst the local population of the responsibility of Syrian refugees for all of Lebanon’s problems, be it economic, social, political, or demographic, and secondly, accelerate the forced return of refugees to Syria (a matter which remains illegal, inhumane, and unethical). 

A backlash against a vulnerable group is rarely punctual or limited.  It is simply an indication of what will follow and who is next to be targeted.  In the case of Lebanon personal freedoms, sexual orientation, independent civil society, and international funding were the next target.  This backlash adopted similar tactics namely inflammatory newspaper reports and statements by politicians accusing international funding of forcing western values and practices through the vector of “toxic CSOs” (as per the exact statement of a clergy belonging to one of the militia) which mission is to spread decadence and freedoms that are likely to destroy families and societies thus ensuring that the country loses its historical battle against its enemy.  At the time of writing this article, a group of peaceful demonstrators who were demanding freedoms were brutally harangued and attacked by thugs in the presence of the watchful eye of the local security forces.   

These brutal and gory attacks are thought to have been very much inspired by an incendiary front-page article published a couple of days prior to the demonstration and where the newspaper links international funding with spreading local debauchery and accuses the demonstrators of being agents of this international plot.  Many civil society and activists, organisations, and analysts believe that this article was instrumental in the reaction of conservative groups, the indifference of the security forces, and the carnage that ensued.  Not content with this attack, armed groups raided a number of private parties where the guests were also accused of debauchery and were attacked brutally.  A reminder that these gory events are taking place against a background of crackdown on civil society, bloggers, writers, and independent journalists as well as the introduction of an unprecedented censorship on what is construed to be “western culture”. 

The above begs again the question of who will be targeted next and reminds us of the powerful poem by Martin Niemöller and which ends with this ominous quote: 

“Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.” 

In the case of Lebanon, and despite the brutality of the backlash and the ways it is encouraged by a context of lawlessness and impunity, a segment of independent and courageous civil society and individual activists remain undeterred and refuse to give away their rights and voices and thus concede to fear.  We may be seeing a transformation of Lebanon as we know it but the strategies of mobilization, communication, confrontation, and courage exerted by many an independent civil society remain for many of us a cause of hope in a better future. 

The backlash on rights and increased securitization in the MENA region: an intersectional analysis of the impact on the most vulnerable.  The MENA region is experiencing a heightened closure of civic spaces, more stringent policing, and a brutal backlash on individual freedoms.  Where does this backlash come from? How is it impacting the most vulnerable? And what are the counter-backlash strategies?