PORTRAIT OF A COFFEE HOUSE: People engage in conversation, for it is there that news is communicated and where those interested in politics criticize the government in all freedom and without being fearful, since the government does not heed what the people say. {Jean Chardin, 17th Century French Traveller}

30 September 2010

The Girl Effect

Having finished reading Half the Sky earlier this year, I've become a great supporter and advocate for the Girl Effect. Half the Sky covers the the concept of the "girl effect" in its introduction. In essence, empowering women and children through the provision of education and healthcare transforms economies, saves lives, and reforms political institutions, cultures, and entire societies. The fight on behalf of women if not just a 'feminist' issue, it is a fight to reduce poverty, fight domestic and political abuses, increase the availability of healthcare to men, women, and children, and prevent disease pandemics through knowledge which is passed down generation to generation. Empowering women and children, girls in particular, is a solution that will impact the world on a grand scale. It will not be easy, it will not be 100 per cent effective all of the time, but over time it will have an impact.

I challenge everyone to support the campaign, either through advocacy, spreading the word, donations or involvement in campaigns that strive to empower women and children. Read Half the Sky for more details about what you can do to contribute to the 'girl effect.'

23 September 2010

The Case of the Missing Prince

On January 19, 2010 , The London Review of Books (LRB) Blog published a post concerning the disappearance of Prince Bandar bin Sultan from the public eye. To the foreign policy jocks out there, Prince Bandar, former Saudi Ambassador to Washington from 1983 to 2005, was known to be the infamous wheeler and dealer in the beltway having hopped into his career through the arms trade back in the 1970s. A shrewd and influential diplomat, respected by some and reviled by others, his career came into the spotlight with the BAE Al-Yamamah Scandal.

Bandar resigned from his ambassadorship in June of 2005 for "personal reasons." He returned to Saudi Arabia weeks prior to the death of King Fahd. Foreign affairs commentators speculate that the prince sought to position himself in the new government where his father, Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz, became the new crown prince.

LRB notes that the last official sighting of Bandar in public was in December 2008. LRB listed the following speculations following Prince Bandar's vanishing act:

  • "Iranian media reported that Bandar had been put under house arrest, allegedly for plotting a coup to try and ensure the Kingdom would continue under the rule of the Sudairi branch of the Al Saud family. But Iran isn’t the most reliable source."
  • "Others say that Bandar is depressed or has been ordered by King Abdullah to keep a low profile because he meddled in Syrian affairs, trying to stir up the tribes against the Assad regime, without the king’s approval."
  • "According to Saudi opposition sources, Bandar is now in Dhaban Prison, in north west Jeddah, a high security jail where terrorist suspects and political opposition figures are held. Bandar is said to be in a special wing where the other prisoners are four senior generals: one from the army, one from the royal guard, one from the national guard and one from internal security. Bandar’s lawyer in the US denies he is in prison and says he has been seen out and about recently, although he wouldn’t divulge when, where or even in which country."

LRB added that in September 2009, when Prince Bandar's "position as head of the Kingdom’s National Security Council was renewed for another four years, he didn’t appear in public to profess his allegiance to the king, as is customary. No official explanation was forthcoming." Moreover, LRB notes that the former Saudi ambassador has not made any of his usual appearances since 2008.

A recent blog post by Le Figaro's journalist, Georges Malbrunot, claims that the prince's disappearance was in lieu of health problems. According to Malbrunot's post published on June 18, 2010, Prince Bandar was treated in Paris for a spine problem and is recovering in Morocco. Malbrunot cynically added: "One thing is for sure: his star has faded in the circles of power in Riyadh."

22 September 2010

The Rally to Restore Sanity

For anyone who hasn't yet heard, Jon Stewart is hosting The Rally to Restore Sanity on the Washington Mall on Saturday, October 30, 2010.


The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Rally to Restore Sanity
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full EpisodesPolitical HumorTea Party


Additionally, Stephen Colbert is hosting his own mock rally on the mall, The March to Keep Fear Alive, on the same day:

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
March to Keep Fear Alive Announcement
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes2010 ElectionFox News


The rallies, meant to be satirical, have gotten an overwhelming amount of response. Where the organizers of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report expected only a show of 25,000 people when applying for permits if the rallies' facebook pages are any reflection of what the real turnout will be over 100,000 plan to attend.

For two comedians to have inspired so much turnout says a lot about general American public opinion, both sarcastic and cynical, for our own societies. mainstream media and political processes.

16 September 2010

The Arab-Jewish dating divide: thoughts on relationships, ethnic identity, and pluralism

Earlier this year, a story came out of Israel of a Palestinian man accused of "rape by deception" after having consensual sex with a woman who believed him to be a Jew. According to different news reports the man denied misrepresenting himself. Nonetheless, he was sentenced to 18 months in prison in a plea bargain.

The story appears to have come down to a classic case of he-said/she-said:
According to the complaint filed by the woman with the Jerusalem district court, the two met in downtown Jerusalem in September 2008 where [Saber] Kashur, an Arab from East Jerusalem, introduced himself as a Jewish bachelor seeking a serious relationship. The two then had consensual sex in a nearby building before Kashur left. When she later found out that he was not Jewish but an Arab, she filed a criminal complaint for rape and indecent assault. Although Kashur was initially charged with rape and indecent assault, this was changed to a charge of rape by deception as part of a plea bargain arrangement. Handing down the verdict, Tzvi Segal, one of three judges on the case, acknowledged that sex had been consensual but said that although not "a classical rape by force," the woman would not have consented if she had not believed Kashur was Jewish. The sex therefore was obtained under false pretences, the judges said. "If she hadn't thought the accused was a Jewish bachelor interested in a serious romantic relationship, she would not have cooperated," they added.
Remember, the Palestinian man denied misrepresenting himself as a Jew; he is currently appealing the sentence. One of the judges on the case, Tzvi Segal, asserted somewhat ridiculously: "The court is obliged to protect the public interest from sophisticated, smooth-tongued criminals who can deceive innocent victims at an unbearable price – the sanctity of their bodies and souls. When the very basis of trust between human beings drops, especially when the matters at hand are so intimate, sensitive and fateful, the court is required to stand firmly at the side of the victims – actual and potential – to protect their wellbeing. Otherwise, they will be used, manipulated and misled, while paying only a tolerable and symbolic price."


I would contend with Segal: In that case if a man lies to a woman about loving her and she sleeps with him and he leaves her after is that rape by deception? If a man lies about his profession or misrepresents his income to get women to sleep with him is that also rape by deception? If the man promises the moon and the stars to bed a woman and doesn't deliver can a woman bring that to court as rape by deception?

I don't know the exact details of the case, what evidence was offered or if there was any evidence presented. My opinion is this entire case is moot and should have been dismissed. The politics of the case, the bias through which the judges were ruling on it was the fact that the man in question was Arab and the woman Jewish and therefore a "victim." If these judges lived up to the standard of justice that the philosophy of law required of them they should have been blind to the ethnic identities of both parties and ruled according to the facts of the case which to any outside viewer is clearly absurd. The ruling concerned itself more with symbolic politics than with any ounce of common sense.

Dating across cultural, racial and religious divides is still a touchy subject even in the most modern countries. I don't mean to pick on Israel specifically, but given the political nature of Jewish identity, that of individual and state, it makes it an interesting case on the interracial dating divide. In that the character of the state identifies itself as Jewish; that the apparent "demographic threat" of low Israeli birthrates places pressure on the government to give Jewish women incentives to start families; that in essence woman is constructed as being symbolic of the nation and its future: relationships between Arab men and Jewish women are taboo not simply for political and religious reasons but on symbolically national-cultural grounds.

In a community in Nazareth, a special team has been established by the local authority to prevent Arab-Jewish dating relationships and "rescue" women from Arab men. Other privately-funded groups have also sprung up for the same purpose. This is a radical intervention of local government and very conservative communities in the private lives of individuals. A 2007 poll claimed that nearly half of Israeli-Jews believed that interracial relationships amounted to "national treason." As of today, there is no such thing as civil marriage in Israel, the status quo being that marriage is relegated to the individual religious communities. There are no provisions for gay marriage or interfaith marriages.

As an aside, I don't think early political philosophers foresaw democracies based on the cultural character of the nation, that culture would define the state or that public policy, or even justice, would be meted out and informed through a cultural lens and the problems it would engender. Where individual identity, taken collectively, defines these governments often any claims to minority protections are marginalized or even ignored in the face of bias or even blatant racism. There's a wide gap between what's in the law books and what happens in practice due to social and cultural norms.

I question anyone's interference in the private lives of individuals, especially in matters of love and marriage. The desperate necessity to preserve identity at the expense of humanness or greater interaction between different groups is willful ignorance at worse and paranoia at best. Anyone who claims that ethnic identity is eradicated due to intermarriage or "miscegenation" also fails to appreciate the complexity of individual identity and the fact that identities can be transformed and multiple identities acknowledged and that's not necessarily a negative thing. Perhaps global conflicts would be readily resolved through the establishment of more pluralist institutions so that petty conflicts which arise over something as absurd as dating or intermarriage don't have to be the reflection of the general absurdity of greater political conflicts.

08 September 2010

Christians are losing their religion

Reverend Terry Jones should be ashamed to call himself a Christian.  Recent news is that the lunatic reverend is planning to commemorate September 11th by organizing a public Quran burning. That the Florida religious leader even labels his organization the Dove World Outreach Center speaks to a massive ounce of irony. Clearly, to the deluded reverend the virtues of "faith, hope, and love" or the maxims "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or "love thy neighbour as you would love thyself" don't quite strike a chord with him. The reverend seems to believe that one should answer hatred with more hatred. If this is his way to commemorate a day Americans lost their lives in an act of hateful senseless violence, I find it to be a selfish display on the lowest wrung of disrespect not only for those who died in that tragedy but those who are in the process of becoming casualties in acts of hateful and senseless violence. The reverend clearly doesn't care to engender peace or understanding. And this, dear friends, is what I despise about blind fundamentalism.

Sure, some will argue that this is a First Amendment issue. I am a great fan of the First Amendment, but I'm not particularly tolerant of any action that espouses hatred and blatant racism against anyone else. The freedom of speech and assembly, however, supercedes my opinion in this matter as David Hudson Jr. writes concerning First Amendment issues:
The First Amendment protects peaceful, not violent, assembly. However, there must a "clear and present danger" or an "imminent incitement of lawlessness" before government officials may restrict free-assembly rights. Otherwise, the First Amendment's high purpose can too easily be sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. [...] The KKK's right to assemble peaceably was secured by the famous 1977 case of National Socialist Party v. Skokie, in which the American Civil Liberties Union successfully argued that the First Amendment prohibited officials of Skokie, Ill., from banning a march by the National Socialist Party. Skokie is a Chicago suburb that is home to many Holocaust survivors. One federal judge reasoned that "it is better to allow those who preach racial hatred to expend their venom in rhetoric rather than to be panicked into embarking on the dangerous course of permitting the government to decide what its citizens may say and hear."
Having that said, however, doesn't mean it's a good idea for a bunch of lunatics to burn a holy book if for nothing else than to be provocative. A few weeks ago, an act of arson was committed against a Tennessee mosque. If Christians of any denomination believe that inciting hatred by publicly disrespecting another group because of the actions of an extreme few is a "Christian thing to do" then they really ought to reexamine the values of their own religion. Jesus would not have burned the Quran. Jesus would not have espoused such acts of hatred. And if any Christians claim he would, then I'll snap back that in that case Jesus could not have really been the son of God. Hypocrisy is a disgusting habit.

I am not particularly sympathetic to dogmatic religion in general. I am sympathetic that entire cultures, ideas, and histories were borne of religion (whether good or bad) and that the fundamental precepts of religion teach love, respect, and charity for all as the highest virtues a human can amount to in order to build a sense of community and foster peace. Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity lay claim to that bedrock teaching of love and compassion. That to identify with others in empathy and understanding is the most godly of traits. What many of the leaders of these religions have done, however, is highjacked a spiritual reading of holy books to justify wholly unspiritual actions. Be they terrorists who kill civilians or lunatic reverends, like our choice subject, who burn the holy books of others.

Moreover, I dislike people who burn books. Knowledge and the human imagination are to be respected even if we deem it forbidden or antithesis to our own views. In which case, if our lunatic reverend feels obliged to carry out his senseless act of hatred with the First Amendment to back him up, I feel obliged to fight back and point out that his actions are not only un-Christian but terribly un-American.

I hope one day he'll see the light.