Monday, September 27, 2010

Afghan Equality and Law, but With Strings Attached

    2:50 PM   No comments


KABUL, Afghanistan — It was an engaging idea.

Hundreds of children would gather on the iconic Nader Khan Hill in the capital, Kabul, on a gorgeous Friday in September and fly kites emblazoned with slogans lauding the rule of law and equality for women. The kites, along with copies of the Afghan Constitution and justice-themed comic books, would be gifts of the United States, part of a $35 million effort “to promote the use of Afghanistan’s formal justice system.”

“The mere portrait of 500 kites soaring in the winds, against a backdrop of beautiful mountain ranges, is enough to instill hope in even the most disheartened observer of the war-torn country,” said a promotional release for the festival, organized by an American contractor for the United States Agency for International Development.

What could possibly go wrong?

Almost everything but the wind.

For starters, Afghan policemen hijacked the event, stealing dozens of kites for themselves and beating children with sticks when they crowded too close to the kite distribution tent. To be fair, the children were a little unruly, but they were also small.

Sometimes the officers just threatened them with sticks, and other times slapped them in the face or whacked them with water bottles. “I told them to stop the policemen from taking the kites,” said Shakila Faqeeri, a communications adviser for the contractor, DPK Consulting.

But the policemen appeared to ignore her. Asked why one of his officers was loading his truck with kites, Maj. Farouk Wardak, head of the criminal investigation division of the 16th Police District, said, “It’s okay, he’s not just a policeman, he’s my bodyguard.”

The District 16 police chief, Col. Haji Ahmad Fazli, insisted on taking over from the American contractors the job of passing out the kites. He denied that his men were kite thieves. “We are not taking them,” he said. “We are flying them ourselves.”

At least he had not lost sight of the event’s goal. “It is so people can understand the rule of law, and it lets the kids get together instead of wandering on the streets,” he said.

It was not clear that the children had a much better grasp of the concept, but some did manage to get kites and were flying them, irregularly shaped patches of color soaring to impressive heights.

Most bore messages about the importance of gender equality, but there was hardly a girl with a kite, although plenty of girls were around. One DPK staff member pushed through the crowd to give 10-year-old Shaqila Nabi a kite; her sister Farzana, 8, had wanted one, too, but a policeman had just swung at her with a stick and she had darted out of harm’s way, and out of sight.

Shaqila raced back to her father, Gul Nabi, a horse wrangler peddling rides. He promptly took the kite and gave it to a boy.

“He is my son and he should get the kite,” he said.

The law and justice comic books were also a big hit. Some of the boys snatched them up and hid them under their shirts so they could come back for more. At one point, fed-up policemen, most of whom cannot read, just tossed piles of them in the dirt.

Mike Sheppard, the DPK project head, pronounced the event a success. “We just gave out a thousand kites in 20 minutes,” he said.

But another DPK staff member, Abdul Manem Danish, stood watching the kite thievery and casual police brutality with disdain. His job was to administer a “kite event effectiveness survey” at the end to see if the festival had affected anyone’s attitudes about justice.

“That’s not a very good example of rule of law,” he said. “Maybe it is the nature of these people that needs to be changed.”

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Gaza flotilla attack: UN report condemns Israeli 'brutality'

    2:57 PM   No comments


UN Human Rights Council accuses Israel of a 'disproportionate' response to Gaza blockade-breakers, nine of whom died

An Israeli army military vessel enters Ashdod
An Israeli army military vessel enters the port of Ashdod in May amid reports of deaths on the blockade-breaking flotilla. Photograph: Jack Guez/AFP/Getty Images

A UN-appointed panel said today that Israeli forces violated international law, "including international humanitarian and human rights law", during and after their lethal attack on a flotilla of ships attempting to break the blockade of Gaza in May.

The UN Human Rights Council's fact-finding mission judged Israel's naval blockade of the Palestinian territory to be "unlawful" because there was a humanitarian crisis in Gaza at the time.

The panel's report, published today, described Israel's military response to the flotilla as "disproportionate" and said it "betrayed an unacceptable level of brutality".

Eight Turkish activists and one Turkish-American were killed in the raid, which prompted international criticism of both the attack and Israel's policy of blockading the Gaza Strip. Israel has since eased its embargo, although still refuses to allow full imports and exports and the free movement of people.

Israel says the soldiers acted in self-defence. But the mission criticised the Israeli government for failing to co-operate with its inquiry. "Regrettably to date, no information has been given to the mission by or on behalf of the government of Israel," it said.

The panel was led by Karl Hudson-Phillips, a retired judge of the international criminal court and former attorney general of Trinidad and Tobago.

The report said: "The conduct of the Israeli military and other personnel towards the flotilla passengers was not only disproportionate to the occasion but demonstrated levels of totally unnecessary and incredible violence. It betrayed an unacceptable level of brutality. Such conduct cannot be justified or condoned on security or any other grounds. It constituted grave violations of human rights law and international humanitarian law."

The panel concluded that there was "clear evidence" of wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment and wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health – all crimes under the Geneva Convention.

The panel expressed the hope that there would be "swift action" by the Israeli government to help victims achieve effective remedies. "The mission sincerely hopes that no impediment will be put in the way of those who suffered loss as a result of the unlawful actions of the Israeli military to be compensated adequately and promptly," it said. It described the blockade of Gaza as "totally intolerable and unacceptable in the 21st century".

The Israeli government has fiercely resisted demands for an independent international inquiry into the flotilla attacks, establishing three internal investigations to avert pressure from the UN, Europe and Turkey.

A DEFENSE OF FREE SPEECH BY AMERICAN AND CANADIAN MUSLIMS

    10:43 AM   No comments




We, the undersigned, unconditionally condemn any intimidation or threats of violence directed against any individual or group exercising the rights of freedom of religion and speech; even when that speech may be perceived as hurtful or reprehensible.

We are concerned and saddened by the recent wave of vitriolic anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic sentiment that is being expressed across our nation.

We are even more concerned and saddened by threats that have been made against individual writers, cartoonists, and others by a minority of Muslims. We see these as a greater offense against Islam than any cartoon, Qur'an burning, or other speech could ever be deemed.

We affirm the right of free speech for Molly Norris, Matt Stone, Trey Parker, and all others including ourselves.

As Muslims, we must set an example of justice, patience, tolerance, respect, and forgiveness.

The Qur'an enjoins Muslims to:
  • bear witness to Islam through our good example (2:143);
  • restrain anger and pardon people (3:133-134 and 24:22);
  • remain patient in adversity (3186);
  • stand firmly for justice (4:135);
  • not let the hatred of others swerve us from justice (5:8);
  • respect the sanctity of life (5:32);
  • turn away from those who mock Islam (6:68 and 28:55);
  • hold to forgiveness, command what is right, and turn away from the ignorant (7:199);
  • restrain ourselves from rash responses (16:125-128);
  • pass by worthless talk with dignity (25:72); and
  • repel evil with what is better (41:34).

Islam calls for vigorous condemnation of both hateful speech and hateful acts, but always within the boundaries of the law. It is of the utmost importance that we react, not out of reflexive emotion, but with dignity and intelligence, in accordance with both our religious precepts and the laws of our country.

We uphold the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Both protect freedom of religion and speech, because both protections are fundamental to defending minorities from the whims of the majority.

We therefore call on all Muslims in the United States, Canada and abroad to refrain from violence. We should see the challenges we face today as an opportunity to sideline the voices of hate-not reward them with further attention-by engaging our communities in constructive dialogue about the true principles of Islam, and the true principles of democracy, both of which stress the importance of freedom of religion and tolerance.


SIGNATORIES:
  1. Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad, PhD, Director, Minaret of Freedom Foundation
  2. Prof. Akbar S. Ahmed, PhD, Ibn Khaldun Chair of Islamic Studies, American University
  3. Prof. Parvez Ahmed, PhD, Fulbright Scholar & Assoc. Prof. University of North Florida
  4. Wajahat Ali, playwright, journalist, and producer of "Domestic Crusaders"
  5. Sumbul Ali-Karamali, JD, LLM (Islamic Law), author of "The Muslim Next Door"
  6. Salam al-Marayati, Pres., Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC)
  7. Shahed Amanullah, Editor-in-Chief, Altmuslim
  8. Shahid Athar, M.D., Editor, Islam-USA
  9. Hazami Barmada, Pres, American Muslim Interactive Network (AMIN)
  10. M. Ali Chaudry, PhD, President, Center for Understanding Islam (CUII)
  11. Robert D. Crane, JD
  12. Mohamed Elsanousi, Director of Communications and Community Outreach for the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA)
  13. Mona Eltahawy, journalist
  14. Prof. Mohammad Fadel, PhD
  15. Hesham Hassaballa, M.D., author, journalist, blogger - "God, faith, and a pen"
  16. Arsalan Iftikhar, author, human rights lawyer, blogger - "The Muslim Guy"
  17. Jeffrey Imm, Director, Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.)
  18. Prof. Muqtedar Khan, PhD, author of several books, Blogger - "Globalog"
  19. M. Junaid Levesque-Alam, writer, blogger - "Crossing the Crescent"
  20. David Liepert, M.D., blogger and author of "Muslim, Christian AND Jew"
  21. Radwan A. Masmoudi, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Islam & Democracy (CSID)
  22. Melody Moezzi, JD, MPH, writer and attorney
  23. Daniel Abdal-Hayy Moore, author of many books of poetry
  24. Sheila Musaji, Editor, The American Muslim (TAM)
  25. Aziz H. Poonawalla, PhD, scientist and blogger - "City of Brass" on Beliefnet.com
  26. Hasan Zillur Rahim, PhD, journalist
  27. Prof. Hussein Rashid, PhD, blogger - "Religion Dispatches"
  28. Robert Salaam, blogger - "The American Muslim"
  29. Tayyibah Taylor, Editor, Azizah Magazine
  30. Amina Wadud, PhD, consultant on Islam and gender, visiting scholar Starr King School for the Ministry
  31. G. Willow Wilson, author of "Butterfly Mosque" and "Air" graphic novel series

***************

NOTE: If you would like to add your signature, use the COMMENT tool, and add your short comment and full name.

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

State Board of Education wants more negative views of Islam

    6:41 AM   No comments

AUSTIN, Texas — The State Board of Education next week is expected to consider what students should learn about Islam.

The Dallas Morning News reported Wednesday that the board will consider a resolution warning publishers not to push a pro-Islamic, anti-Christian viewpoint in world history textbooks.

Members of the board's social conservative bloc have asked for the resolution. A preliminary draft says "diverse reviewers have repeatedly documented gross pro-Islamic, anti-Christian distortions in social studies texts" across the U.S.

A spokeswoman for a religious freedom group, the Texas Freedom Network, says no textbooks cited by resolution sponsors are being used in Texas. Kathy Miller says current books offer a balanced treatment of the world's religions.


Source: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/7201639.html


..

Friday, September 10, 2010

During war there are no civilians

    10:10 AM   No comments
Sitting in on the Rachel Corrie trial alarmingly reveals an open Israeli policy of indiscrimination towards civilians.
Last Modified: 08 Sep 2010 15:28 GMT
Rachel Corrie's plight symbolised the ruthless policy of Israeli demolition of Palestinian homes in the social psyche of millions of people outside of the West Bank and Gaza Strip [Getty Images]

"During war there are no civilians," that’s what “Yossi,” an Israeli military (IDF) training unit leader simply stated during a round of questioning on day two of the Rachel Corrie trials, held in Haifa’s District Court earlier this week. “When you write a [protocol] manual, that manual is for war,” he added.

For the human rights activists and friends and family of Rachel Corrie sitting in the courtroom, this open admission of an Israeli policy of indiscrimination towards civilians -- Palestinian or foreign -- created an audible gasp.

Yet, put into context, this policy comes as no surprise. The Israeli military’s track record of insouciance towards the killings of Palestinians, from the 1948 massacre of Deir Yassin in Jerusalem to the 2008-2009 attacks on Gaza that killed upwards of 1400 men, women and children, has illustrated that not only is this an entrenched operational framework but rarely has it been challenged until recently.

Rachel Corrie, the young American peace activist from Olympia, Washington, was crushed to death by a Caterpillar D9-R bulldozer, as she and other members of the nonviolent International Solidarity Movement attempted to protect a Palestinian home from imminent demolition on March 16, 2003 in Rafah, Gaza Strip. Corrie has since become a symbol of Palestinian solidarity as her family continues to fight for justice in her name.

Her parents, Cindy and Craig Corrie, filed a civil lawsuit against the State of Israel for Rachel’s unlawful killing -- what they allege was an intentional act -- and this round of testimonies called by the State’s defense team follows the Corries’ witness testimonies last March. The Corries’ lawsuit charges the State with recklessness and a failure to take appropriate measures to protect human life, actions that violate both Israeli and international laws.

Witnesses insisted that the bulldozer driver couldn’t see Rachel Corrie from his perch. The State attorneys called three witnesses to the stand on Sunday and Monday to prove that the killing was unintentional and took place in an area designated as a “closed military zone.” Falling under the definition of an Act of War, their argument sought to absolve the soldiers of liability under Israeli law.

The Rachel Corrie trials focus on one incident, one moment, one death, one family’s grief. However it’s important to include the context within which the Israeli military operated on that day in March of 2003 in order to properly understand the gravity of the trial and the reverberations seven and a half years later.

Yossi, the military training leader, described the area where Corrie was killed as an “active war zone.” The State’s defense argues the same. Yet what was happening in Rafah that was so important to Corrie that she confronted a 4-meter high armored bulldozer in the first place?

According to statistics from Human Rights Watch, Israel had been expanding its so-called “buffer zone” at the southern Gaza border after the breakout of the second Palestinian intifada in late 2000. “By late 2002,” reports HRW, “after the destruction of several hundred houses in Rafah, the IDF began building an eight meter high metal wall along the border.”

The area that Israel designates as its buffer zone has since enveloped nearly 35% of agricultural land, according to anAugust 2010 report published by the United Nation’s Office of the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). OCHA says that this policy has affected 113,000 Palestinians inside the Gaza strip over the last ten years as their farms, homes, and villages were intentionally erased from the map.

Rachel Corrie’s nonviolent action -- standing in front of the bulldozer in direct confrontation to this project -- cost her her life.

The home Rachel Corrie died trying to protect was razed, along with hundreds of others. The Gaza Strip remains a sealed ghetto. And countless Palestinian families have not seen justice waged in their favor after the deaths of their loved ones.

In 2005, an arrest warrant was issued against Major General Doron Almog -- a senior soldier in charge of Israel’s Southern Command -- by a British court related to the destruction of 59 homes in Rafah in
2002 under his authority. He was warned before boarding a flight to the UK that he could be arrested upon arrival, and canceled his trip.

Related to the Rachel Corrie case, Maj. Almog gave a direct order to the team of internal investigators to cut the investigations short, according to Israeli army documents obtained by Israeli daily Haaretz.

This indicates that the impunity of Israeli soldiers and policy-makers can -- and will -- be challenged in a court of law. And when the trials continue next month, the Corries will be back in the courtroom in anticipation of a long-sought justice for their daughter.

Thursday, September 9, 2010

Most Americans object to planned Islamic center near Ground Zero, poll finds

    1:29 PM   No comments

By Jon Cohen and Kyle Dropp
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, September 9, 2010; 3:06 AM

Most Americans say the planned Muslim community center and place of worship should not be built in Lower Manhattan, with the sensitive locale being their overwhelming objection, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Two-thirds of those polled object to the prospective Cordoba House complex near the site of the former twin towers, including a slim majority who express strongly negative views. Eighty-two percent of those who oppose the construction say it's because of the location, although 14 percent (9 percent of all Americans) say they would oppose such building anywhere in the country.

The new results come alongside increasingly critical public views of Islam: 49 percent of all Americans say they have generally unfavorable opinions of Islam, compared with 37 percent who say they have favorable ones. That's the most negative split on the question in Post-ABC polls dating to October 2001.

Nearly a third of all Americans see mainstream Islam as encouraging violence, little changed from recent years. More, a slim majority, say it's a peaceful religion.

"Whatever faith or God they believe in, I think most people are decent," Susan Deal, 45, of Walbridge, Ohio said in a follow-up interview.

Views of the Cordoba House project are closely related to these general perceptions of Islam, even if those haven't directly caused a broad-based reevaluation. Those who hold favorable views of Islam and see it as generally peaceful religion are far more apt than others to say the building should move forward. For example, 55 percent who have favorable impressions of Islam support the construction, while 87 percent of those with unfavorable views oppose it.

Cyndi Spurlock, 54, of Yoder, Colo., said she opposes having the Islamic center near Ground Zero: "It would hurt so many people because of all the families that were lost there."

Another poll respondent, Jim Walsh, 48, of Philadelphia, wondered about motives for the project. "Emotionally, I think it's wiser not to have it there," he said.

Regardless of their rationale, most voters who firmly oppose the center's construction in Lower Manhattan say they feel strongly enough about the issue that it would influence their congressional vote in November. These voters side by a wide margin with Republican over Democratic candidates.

Overall, 83 percent of Republicans oppose the Muslim center, as do 65 percent of independents and 53 percent of Democrats. Among Republicans, generally negative views have spiked higher: 67 percent of those who identify as Republican say they have unfavorable views of Islam, up from 42 percent in the months after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Big majorities of Protestants and Catholics are against it, with opposition peaking among white evangelical Protestants. By contrast, most people with no professed religion support the construction.

The poll was conducted by telephone Aug. 30 to Sept. 2, among a random national sample of 1,002 adults. The results from the full sample have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

cohenj@washpost.com droppk@washpost.com


--------------


Opposition to 'mosque' directly linked to anti-Islam sentiment, poll shows

We now have clear evidence that there's a direct link between public anti-Islam sentiment and public opposition to the construction of Cordoba House, a.k.a. the "Ground Zero mosque."

The evidence can be found in the internals of the new Washington Post poll on Islam and the planned center, and it was provided to me by Post polling director Jon Cohen. The numbers directly contradict the claim by opponents that public opposition to the project is not linked to broader anti-Islam sentiment, and is only rooted in a desire to be sensitive to 9/11 families or to respect Ground Zero as hallowed ground.

The poll's toplines show that 66 percent of Americans oppose the Islamic center. Separately, a plurality, 49 percent, has generally unfavorable views of Islam.

But it's the intersection of these numbers revealed in the internals that proves the point.

Here's the rub: According to the internals sent my way, opposition to the "Ground Zero mosque" is overwhelmingly driven by those with an unfavorable view of Islam:

* Fifty-five percent of those who have favorable views of the religion say it should be built.

* Meanwhile, among those who have an unfavorable view of Islam, an overwhelming 87 percent say the project shouldn't be built, with 74 percent strongly opposed.

It gets even clearer when you look at the numbers in another way. If you take the 66 percent overall who oppose the project, it turns out that two thirds of those people have generally unfavorable views of Islam, versus only one-third who view Islam favorably.

Clearly, not all opponents of the project feel unfavorably towards Islam. But two-thirds of them do. Does it mean that anti-Islam attitudes are the direct cause of opposition to the project? Impossible to say. But it's overwhelmingly clear that there's a link between the two sentiments, no matter how often opponents tell you the contrary.

By Greg Sargent | September 9, 2010; 11:01 AM ET


Most popular articles


Karama Videos



Search for old news

Find Articles by year, month hierarchy

Contact Us

Name

Email *

Message *

_______________________________________________

Copyright © KARAMA. All rights reserved.