Skip to content

Archive

Tag: Aljazeera
Arjun Sethi the American lawyer based in Washington, DC, and a frequent commentator on civil rights and social justice-related issues has published an article on Aljazeera titled ‘The US and enemy prisoners post 9/11’. Sethi states “Fear is a powerful human agent. It can cloud our judgment and dim our conscience. Left unchecked, it can skew the moral compass of a nation, leaving destruction in its wake. A recent bipartisan report by the Constitution project confirms what many have long suspected: US personnel tortured enemy detainees in the months and years following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The report lays bare a nation so paralysed by fear that it jettisoned longstanding human rights protections in the name of national security. …Human rights bodies and humanitarian groups, like the International Committee on the Red Cross, have uniformly condemned these practices, calling many of them torture. So have numerous US judges, who have thrown out an array of detainee statements arguing that evidence obtained through torture is not admissible. The coup de grace comes courtesy of the US government, who previously condemned other countries for engaging in the very same practices. …President Obama has insisted that he wants to look forward, and that culpable US personnel will not be prosecuted. …A commitment to look forward is just another way of saying forget the past. The fact remains that an array of actors - the President, his advisers, lawyers, psychologists and those on the ground - committed a grave human rights violation. Call it a movie script. President Bush produced it; his top advisers directed it; lawyers and psychologists provided the special effects; and personnel played the part. Only through government support, and the power to review classified information and subpoena witnesses, can this tragic story be told.”  Inspired by Arjun Sethi, Aljazeera ow.ly/lCDnx Image source Twitter ow.ly/lCDmR A nation so paralysed by fear (June 18 2013)

 

Arjun Sethi the American lawyer based in Washington, DC, and a frequent commentator on civil rights and social justice-related issues has published an article on Aljazeera titled ‘The US and enemy prisoners post 9/11’. Sethi states “Fear is a powerful human agent. It can cloud our judgment and dim our conscience. Left unchecked, it can skew the moral compass of a nation, leaving destruction in its wake. A recent bipartisan report by the Constitution project confirms what many have long suspected: US personnel tortured enemy detainees in the months and years following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The report lays bare a nation so paralysed by fear that it jettisoned longstanding human rights protections in the name of national security. …Human rights bodies and humanitarian groups, like the International Committee on the Red Cross, have uniformly condemned these practices, calling many of them torture. So have numerous US judges, who have thrown out an array of detainee statements arguing that evidence obtained through torture is not admissible. The coup de grace comes courtesy of the US government, who previously condemned other countries for engaging in the very same practices. …President Obama has insisted that he wants to look forward, and that culpable US personnel will not be prosecuted. …A commitment to look forward is just another way of saying forget the past. The fact remains that an array of actors – the President, his advisers, lawyers, psychologists and those on the ground – committed a grave human rights violation. Call it a movie script. President Bush produced it; his top advisers directed it; lawyers and psychologists provided the special effects; and personnel played the part. Only through government support, and the power to review classified information and subpoena witnesses, can this tragic story be told.”

 

Inspired by Arjun Sethi, Aljazeera ow.ly/lCDnx Image source Twitter ow.ly/lCDmR

Yianice Hernandez the American Deputy Director of Green Communities overseeing comprehensive research and evaluation of the economic, environmental and health benefits of green affordable housing has published an article on Aljazeera titled ‘Making green housing affordable’. Hernandez states “What comes to mind when you think about green communities? I find many people think about technology - solar panels, wind turbines, or rapid public transit. Another important pillar of green communities is action: the actions people take related to the buildings in which they live. Green communities must incorporate technology and action. As an uncertain housing market continues to plague the economy, obesity rates escalate, and the number of children and adults living in poverty reaches an all-time high, green housing and sustainable community development have never been more critical. Implementing a holistic vision of sustainable development in the residential sector would help the US address three of its biggest challenges: an economy in the doldrums, climate change, and rising long-term health care costs. The benefits of sustainable development are vast: healthier air to breathe, reduced carbon emissions, water and energy cost savings, improved health from fewer triggers for asthma, and opportunities for people to live active lifestyles. The list goes on. Less well known are the benefits from the actions we take every day in our homes. …In an era when more than one-third of all Americans spend more than 50 percent of their income on rent, green affordable housing technology helps keep rents affordable by reducing energy and water usage. We have seen that educating tenants on the green features where they live and about the health, economic and environmental benefits of green living results in further savings through action.”  Inspired by Yianice Hernandez, Aljazeera ow.ly/l30gL Image source Twitter ow.ly/l30eg Making green housing affordable (June 2 2013)

 

Yianice Hernandez the American Deputy Director of Green Communities overseeing comprehensive research and evaluation of the economic, environmental and health benefits of green affordable housing has published an article on Aljazeera titled ‘Making green housing affordable’. Hernandez states “What comes to mind when you think about green communities? I find many people think about technology – solar panels, wind turbines, or rapid public transit. Another important pillar of green communities is action: the actions people take related to the buildings in which they live. Green communities must incorporate technology and action. As an uncertain housing market continues to plague the economy, obesity rates escalate, and the number of children and adults living in poverty reaches an all-time high, green housing and sustainable community development have never been more critical. Implementing a holistic vision of sustainable development in the residential sector would help the US address three of its biggest challenges: an economy in the doldrums, climate change, and rising long-term health care costs. The benefits of sustainable development are vast: healthier air to breathe, reduced carbon emissions, water and energy cost savings, improved health from fewer triggers for asthma, and opportunities for people to live active lifestyles. The list goes on. Less well known are the benefits from the actions we take every day in our homes. …In an era when more than one-third of all Americans spend more than 50 percent of their income on rent, green affordable housing technology helps keep rents affordable by reducing energy and water usage. We have seen that educating tenants on the green features where they live and about the health, economic and environmental benefits of green living results in further savings through action.”

 

Inspired by Yianice Hernandez, Aljazeera ow.ly/l30gL Image source Twitter ow.ly/l30eg

Stefanie Ostfeld the American Policy Advisor with Global Witness, an international advocacy organization that works to break the links between natural resource exploitation, conflict and corruption, exposing the ways in which the global financial system enables corrupt public officials to loot and launder state funds. Ostfeld has published an article on Aljazeera titled ‘Why UN arms negotiations must include talk of ending corporate secrecy’, in which she states “There is a need to fix the system that enables illegal arms dealers and other felons to evade law enforcement. As United Nations representatives meet to hammer out a Global Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) …they must take into account the role of corporate secrecy in facilitating illegal arms trafficking and other crimes around the world. Addressing anonymous shell companies and hidden company ownership will be essential to successfully stemming the flow of illegal weapons around the world and protecting the innocent civilians who suffer from their proliferation. …Each year, approximately 2 million corporations are formed in the US under state laws that often allow anonymous incorporation of companies. While some states require listing of shareholders, these can be other companies or "nominees" who serve as front people for the actual shareholder. In many states, less information is collected from individuals seeking to incorporate than is required from people applying for a driver's licence or registering to vote (which explains how a recent World Bank report found that the US was the favourite destination of corrupt politicians trying to set up such shell companies). …There is a growing momentum in the US and abroad to improve company ownership transparency and end anonymous shell companies. Prime Minister David Cameron has announced that he intends to use the UK presidency of the G8 to address this issue. Now is the perfect time for Congress to end anonymous incorporation in the US and for the Obama administration to act in concert with our international partners to end anonymous incorporation in all G8 countries, and around the world.”  Inspired by Stefanie Ostfeld, Aljazeera ow.ly/kBcvF Image source offshorealert ow.ly/kBdcF UN negotiations must end corporate secrecy (May 29 2013)

 

Stefanie Ostfeld the American Policy Advisor with Global Witness, an international advocacy organization that works to break the links between natural resource exploitation, conflict and corruption, exposing the ways in which the global financial system enables corrupt public officials to loot and launder state funds. Ostfeld has published an article on Aljazeera titled ‘Why UN arms negotiations must include talk of ending corporate secrecy’, in which she states “There is a need to fix the system that enables illegal arms dealers and other felons to evade law enforcement. As United Nations representatives meet to hammer out a Global Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) …they must take into account the role of corporate secrecy in facilitating illegal arms trafficking and other crimes around the world. Addressing anonymous shell companies and hidden company ownership will be essential to successfully stemming the flow of illegal weapons around the world and protecting the innocent civilians who suffer from their proliferation. …Each year, approximately 2 million corporations are formed in the US under state laws that often allow anonymous incorporation of companies. While some states require listing of shareholders, these can be other companies or “nominees” who serve as front people for the actual shareholder. In many states, less information is collected from individuals seeking to incorporate than is required from people applying for a driver’s licence or registering to vote (which explains how a recent World Bank report found that the US was the favourite destination of corrupt politicians trying to set up such shell companies). …There is a growing momentum in the US and abroad to improve company ownership transparency and end anonymous shell companies. Prime Minister David Cameron has announced that he intends to use the UK presidency of the G8 to address this issue. Now is the perfect time for Congress to end anonymous incorporation in the US and for the Obama administration to act in concert with our international partners to end anonymous incorporation in all G8 countries, and around the world.”

 

Inspired by Stefanie Ostfeld, Aljazeera ow.ly/kBcvF Image source offshorealert ow.ly/kBdcF

Pauline Rose the British Director of EFA Global Monitoring Report with her expertise themes of governance, marginalization and conflict, has published an article on Aljazeera titled ‘The world's poorest children are paying a high price for scholarships’. Rose states “For many donor countries, a large proportion of "aid" never leaves their country. Spending this money on education in the world's poorest countries could go a long way to giving the 132 million out-of-school children and adolescents the chance for a better future. Our recent policy paper, Education for All is affordable - by 2015 and beyond, shows that the financing gap for achieving basic education has grown by $10 billion in three years and now totals $26 billion per year. This increased finance gap is primarily due to donors failing to increase aid significantly to help developing countries send children to school. This finance gap can be bridged, however, if both developing countries and donors prioritised basic education. Currently, however, donors spend $3.1 billion per year on university students from poor countries to study in donor countries, equivalent to one quarter of total direct aid to education. This money is spent on scholarships and imputed costs (costs incurred by donor-country institutions when they receive students from developing countries). While higher education is undoubtedly important, allocating aid in this way does little to help the world's poorest and most vulnerable children and young people and does little to fill the finance gap. …Donor countries should prioritise basic education by targeting 20 percent of overall aid to education. If they also allocated half of these funds to basic education, we could raise a total of $14 billion. This would go a long way in reducing the current financing gap for basic education. It will be even more vital to ensure aid reaches those who need it most as we approach the prospect of even more ambitious education goals after 2015.”  Inspired by Pauline Rose, Aljazeera ow.ly/kuD1T Image source Twitter ow.ly/kuCVg Children paying high price for scholarships (May 17 2013)

Pauline Rose the British Director of EFA Global Monitoring Report with her expertise themes of governance, marginalization and conflict, has published an article on Aljazeera titled ‘The world’s poorest children are paying a high price for scholarships’. Rose states “For many donor countries, a large proportion of “aid” never leaves their country. Spending this money on education in the world’s poorest countries could go a long way to giving the 132 million out-of-school children and adolescents the chance for a better future. Our recent policy paper, Education for All is affordable – by 2015 and beyond, shows that the financing gap for achieving basic education has grown by $10 billion in three years and now totals $26 billion per year. This increased finance gap is primarily due to donors failing to increase aid significantly to help developing countries send children to school. This finance gap can be bridged, however, if both developing countries and donors prioritised basic education. Currently, however, donors spend $3.1 billion per year on university students from poor countries to study in donor countries, equivalent to one quarter of total direct aid to education. This money is spent on scholarships and imputed costs (costs incurred by donor-country institutions when they receive students from developing countries). While higher education is undoubtedly important, allocating aid in this way does little to help the world’s poorest and most vulnerable children and young people and does little to fill the finance gap. …Donor countries should prioritise basic education by targeting 20 percent of overall aid to education. If they also allocated half of these funds to basic education, we could raise a total of $14 billion. This would go a long way in reducing the current financing gap for basic education. It will be even more vital to ensure aid reaches those who need it most as we approach the prospect of even more ambitious education goals after 2015.”

 

Inspired by Pauline Rose, Aljazeera ow.ly/kuD1T Image source Twitter ow.ly/kuCVg

 

 

Lauren Carasik the American Professor and nationally recognized expert in the field of disability law has published an article on Aljazeera titled ‘When fear eclipses justice, we all lose: Shutter Guantanamo now’ stating the US intransigence on Guantanamo issue is counterproductive, as it only serves to stoke animosity and contempt. In the article Carasik states “Eleven years into their incarceration at Guantanamo Bay, many desperate detainees are exerting what little control they still exert over their lives: they are refusing to eat. As word of the hunger strikes began trickling out of the prison in February, lawyers for the detainees became increasingly alarmed at the harrowing conditions their clients were reporting. Even now a vast discrepancy separates the official story and what numerous counsels have witnessed and heard firsthand from their clients. According to various detainees, the roots of the resistance originated when the prison authorities seemed to revert to their pre-Obama levels of brutality.  Cells were searched, family photos and other cherished, tangible reminders of life before Guantanamo were confiscated and harsh treatment ensued. Perhaps more upsetting to detainees was that Qurans were rifled through in a manner detainees had repeatedly denounced as desecration of their holy book. The justification centred on arguments that such searches were necessary security measures, though detainees were reportedly willing to surrender their Qurans instead of having them subjected to search, while observing that hiding items in the Quran would violate their religious practices. …According to lawyers for the detainees, after almost two months of striking, the health of the men is deteriorating rapidly, and others are already in critical condition. Medical experts warn that long-term hunger strikes can cause severe and irreversible physiological and neurological damage, which is compounded by the psychological distress of indefinite detention and isolation. An unconfirmed number of detainees are prepared to die, and may in fact prefer death to living their remaining years within the confines of Guantanamo. The US can and must act: if it has any hope of regaining its moral authority, these men should not be reduced to a despair so profound that they feel their only way out of Guantanamo is in a coffin.”  Inspired by Lauren Carasik, Aljazeera ow.ly/k6H4b Image source WNE ow.ly/k6HA7 When fear eclipses justice we all lose (May 10 2013)

 

Lauren Carasik the American Professor and nationally recognized expert in the field of disability law has published an article on Aljazeera titled ‘When fear eclipses justice, we all lose: Shutter Guantanamo now’ stating the US intransigence on Guantanamo issue is counterproductive, as it only serves to stoke animosity and contempt. In the article Carasik states “Eleven years into their incarceration at Guantanamo Bay, many desperate detainees are exerting what little control they still exert over their lives: they are refusing to eat. As word of the hunger strikes began trickling out of the prison in February, lawyers for the detainees became increasingly alarmed at the harrowing conditions their clients were reporting. Even now a vast discrepancy separates the official story and what numerous counsels have witnessed and heard firsthand from their clients. According to various detainees, the roots of the resistance originated when the prison authorities seemed to revert to their pre-Obama levels of brutality.  Cells were searched, family photos and other cherished, tangible reminders of life before Guantanamo were confiscated and harsh treatment ensued. Perhaps more upsetting to detainees was that Qurans were rifled through in a manner detainees had repeatedly denounced as desecration of their holy book. The justification centred on arguments that such searches were necessary security measures, though detainees were reportedly willing to surrender their Qurans instead of having them subjected to search, while observing that hiding items in the Quran would violate their religious practices. …According to lawyers for the detainees, after almost two months of striking, the health of the men is deteriorating rapidly, and others are already in critical condition. Medical experts warn that long-term hunger strikes can cause severe and irreversible physiological and neurological damage, which is compounded by the psychological distress of indefinite detention and isolation. An unconfirmed number of detainees are prepared to die, and may in fact prefer death to living their remaining years within the confines of Guantanamo. The US can and must act: if it has any hope of regaining its moral authority, these men should not be reduced to a despair so profound that they feel their only way out of Guantanamo is in a coffin.”

 

Inspired by Lauren Carasik, Aljazeera ow.ly/k6H4b Image source WNE ow.ly/k6HA7

Meghan Murphy the Canadian a freelance writer, journalist and founding editor of Feminist Current, has published an article on Aljazeera titled ‘Creating gender equity: Lessons from Iceland’ highlighting the sexually liberal country has not only criminalised the purchase of sex, but has also banned strip clubs. Murphy states “…Since the economic crash in 2008, the country has turned itself around in more ways than one. Iceland ranked first place in the 2012 Global Gender Gap report, moving up from number 4 in 2008. Based on factors like economic participation and opportunity (so, looking at things like wage equality and the number of women in the labour force and in positions of power), educational attainment (based on factors such as female literacy and the number of women enrolled in higher education), health and survival (which looks at life expectancy and mortality rates), and political empowerment (which takes into account the number of women holding political office as well as the number of female heads of state); this report ranks countries throughout the world. The US, on the other hand, ranked 22nd, having moved down a few notches from 17th place in 2011. …Unlike the US, Iceland dealt with the crash by prosecuting those responsible, holding banks accountable, minimising, and in some cases forgiving individual household debts completely, cutting government spending and raising taxes. They also came to the rather radical conclusion that a male-dominated economy and business culture were part of what led to the crash in the first place. In response, Iceland developed a legislation that ensured companies' boards were composed of 40 percent women and incorporated what they called "feminine values" into the "mainly male spheres of private equity, wealth management and corporate advice". Throughout all this, the new government made maintaining Iceland's extensive welfare system a priority, protecting the middle and working classes above the rich. The country learned the consequences of right-wing privatisation policies and responded accordingly.”  Inspired by Meghan Murphy, Aljazeera ow.ly/k4aRR Image source feministcurrent ow.ly/k4bOA Creating gender equity: Lessons from Iceland (May 2 2013)

 

Meghan Murphy the Canadian a freelance writer, journalist and founding editor of Feminist Current, has published an article on Aljazeera titled ‘Creating gender equity: Lessons from Iceland’ highlighting the sexually liberal country has not only criminalised the purchase of sex, but has also banned strip clubs. Murphy states “…Since the economic crash in 2008, the country has turned itself around in more ways than one. Iceland ranked first place in the 2012 Global Gender Gap report, moving up from number 4 in 2008. Based on factors like economic participation and opportunity (so, looking at things like wage equality and the number of women in the labour force and in positions of power), educational attainment (based on factors such as female literacy and the number of women enrolled in higher education), health and survival (which looks at life expectancy and mortality rates), and political empowerment (which takes into account the number of women holding political office as well as the number of female heads of state); this report ranks countries throughout the world. The US, on the other hand, ranked 22nd, having moved down a few notches from 17th place in 2011. …Unlike the US, Iceland dealt with the crash by prosecuting those responsible, holding banks accountable, minimising, and in some cases forgiving individual household debts completely, cutting government spending and raising taxes. They also came to the rather radical conclusion that a male-dominated economy and business culture were part of what led to the crash in the first place. In response, Iceland developed a legislation that ensured companies’ boards were composed of 40 percent women and incorporated what they called “feminine values” into the “mainly male spheres of private equity, wealth management and corporate advice”. Throughout all this, the new government made maintaining Iceland’s extensive welfare system a priority, protecting the middle and working classes above the rich. The country learned the consequences of right-wing privatisation policies and responded accordingly.”

 

Inspired by Meghan Murphy, Aljazeera ow.ly/k4aRR Image source feministcurrent ow.ly/k4bOA

Catherine Rottenberg the Israeli Assistant Professor in the Department of Foreign Literatures and Linguistics and the Gender Studies Program at Ben-Gurion University has published an article on Aljazeera titled ‘Hijacking feminism’, arguing that powerful women are introducing a new form of feminism devoid of social justice. Rottenberg states “A new trend is on the rise. Suddenly high-powered women are publically espousing feminism. In her recently published book, Lean In: Women, Work and the Will to Lead Facebook's chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg advocates for a new kind of feminism, maintaining that women need to initiate an "internalised revolution". Sandberg's feminist manifesto comes on the heels of Ann-Marie Slaughter's much- discussed Atlantic opinion piece, "Why Women Still Can't Have It All", which rapidly became the most widely read essay in the magazine's history. In her piece, Slaughter explains why professional women are still finding it difficult to balance career demands with their wish for an active home life: social norms and the inflexibility of US workplace culture continue to privilege career advancement over family. The buzz that has surrounded these two "how-to-reinvigorate-feminism" programmes suggests that Sandberg and Slaughter have struck a deep cultural chord. Indeed, the two women are quickly becoming the most visible representatives of US feminism in the early 21st century.  …Articulated at a time when Western liberal democracies are loudly decrying women's lack of freedom in the Muslim world while lionising gender equality in their own societies, it actually makes a kind of cultural sense to shift the conversation away from the gendered division of labour and profound social injustices upon which US liberalism itself is constituted. The turn to the language of balance, internalising the revolution and a happiness project, in other words, puts the burden of unhappiness, failure and disequilibrium once again on the shoulders of individual women while diverting attention away from US self-scrutiny with respect to its own "woman problem". “ Inspired by Catherine Rottenberg, Aljazeera ow.ly/jBfip Image source bgu ow.ly/jBfha New form of feminism devoid of social justice (April 28 2013)

 

Catherine Rottenberg the Israeli Assistant Professor in the Department of Foreign Literatures and Linguistics and the Gender Studies Program at Ben-Gurion University has published an article on Aljazeera titled ‘Hijacking feminism’, arguing that powerful women are introducing a new form of feminism devoid of social justice. Rottenberg states “A new trend is on the rise. Suddenly high-powered women are publically espousing feminism. In her recently published book, Lean In: Women, Work and the Will to Lead Facebook’s chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg advocates for a new kind of feminism, maintaining that women need to initiate an “internalised revolution”. Sandberg’s feminist manifesto comes on the heels of Ann-Marie Slaughter’s much- discussed Atlantic opinion piece, “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All”, which rapidly became the most widely read essay in the magazine’s history. In her piece, Slaughter explains why professional women are still finding it difficult to balance career demands with their wish for an active home life: social norms and the inflexibility of US workplace culture continue to privilege career advancement over family. The buzz that has surrounded these two “how-to-reinvigorate-feminism” programmes suggests that Sandberg and Slaughter have struck a deep cultural chord. Indeed, the two women are quickly becoming the most visible representatives of US feminism in the early 21st century.  …Articulated at a time when Western liberal democracies are loudly decrying women’s lack of freedom in the Muslim world while lionising gender equality in their own societies, it actually makes a kind of cultural sense to shift the conversation away from the gendered division of labour and profound social injustices upon which US liberalism itself is constituted. The turn to the language of balance, internalising the revolution and a happiness project, in other words, puts the burden of unhappiness, failure and disequilibrium once again on the shoulders of individual women while diverting attention away from US self-scrutiny with respect to its own “woman problem”. “

 

Inspired by Catherine Rottenberg, Aljazeera ow.ly/jBfip Image source bgu ow.ly/jBfha

Christine Haight Farley the American Professor of Law at University Washington College of Law, teaching Intellectual Property and Trademark Law has published an article on Aljazeera titled ‘Whether to challenge or protect offensive trademarks’ referring to offensive trademarks that may deeply offend a minority while the majority may be insensitive or unaware of the offence. Farley states “How would you feel about a wine called "Khoran?" Apparently, the word "Khoran" is Armenian for altar, which is why a company sought to trademark "Khoran" for wine in the United States. But should such a trademark be registered by the US government when, being phonetically equivalent to the sacred text of Islam, it may offend Muslims when used to denote an alcoholic beverage? In this case, the trademark was refused registration by the US trademark office. Should a trademark application for jeans called "Jesus Jeans" be treated any differently? In the US and European Union, this registration was allowed, however, China, Switzerland, Australia, Norway, Cuba, Turkey, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan have all refused the trademark, and Britain's trademark office rejected its as "morally offensive to the public". What should we do about offensive trademarks? Granted, this is not the biggest problem that plagues us today and there are very few offensive trademarks that are still in use. Perhaps the most obvious thing to do is to vote with our dollars. That is, generally the market will correct the problem since merchants usually do not want to offend their customers. …Racist trademarks tear down the fabric of society by promoting negative stereotypes of minority groups. There is a strong public interest in eliminating damaging stereotypes and stigmatisation. The social costs to the public at large are huge and include reinforcing hateful and erroneous stereotypes and misinformation about our fellow citizens. The psychological harms of such racialised representations impact not only the referenced group, but also society as a whole.”  Inspired by Christine Haight Farley, Aljazeera ow.ly/jAqgz Image source Facebook ow.ly/jAqg6 Racist trademarks tear down fabric of society (April 17 2013)

 

Christine Haight Farley the American Professor of Law at University Washington College of Law, teaching Intellectual Property and Trademark Law has published an article on Aljazeera titled ‘Whether to challenge or protect offensive trademarks’ referring to offensive trademarks that may deeply offend a minority while the majority may be insensitive or unaware of the offence. Farley states “How would you feel about a wine called “Khoran?” Apparently, the word “Khoran” is Armenian for altar, which is why a company sought to trademark “Khoran” for wine in the United States. But should such a trademark be registered by the US government when, being phonetically equivalent to the sacred text of Islam, it may offend Muslims when used to denote an alcoholic beverage? In this case, the trademark was refused registration by the US trademark office. Should a trademark application for jeans called “Jesus Jeans” be treated any differently? In the US and European Union, this registration was allowed, however, China, Switzerland, Australia, Norway, Cuba, Turkey, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan have all refused the trademark, and Britain’s trademark office rejected its as “morally offensive to the public”. What should we do about offensive trademarks? Granted, this is not the biggest problem that plagues us today and there are very few offensive trademarks that are still in use. Perhaps the most obvious thing to do is to vote with our dollars. That is, generally the market will correct the problem since merchants usually do not want to offend their customers. …Racist trademarks tear down the fabric of society by promoting negative stereotypes of minority groups. There is a strong public interest in eliminating damaging stereotypes and stigmatisation. The social costs to the public at large are huge and include reinforcing hateful and erroneous stereotypes and misinformation about our fellow citizens. The psychological harms of such racialised representations impact not only the referenced group, but also society as a whole.”

 

Inspired by Christine Haight Farley, Aljazeera ow.ly/jAqgz Image source Facebook ow.ly/jAqg6

Sarah Mousa the American graduate student at the Center of Contemporary Arab Studies at Georgetown University, has published an article on Aljazeera titled ‘Layers of resistance’ implying Egyptian murals aren't a form of art - they are an act of protest. Mousa states “…just one month after the fall of Mubarak, security forces gathered demonstrators from Tahrir Square into the National Museum. There, amid ancient Egyptian artifacts and under the rule of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, the protesters were tortured. One year later, that day was marked with another act of protest; members of the opposition used their talent to paint elaborate murals on Mohamed Mahmoud Street, just off Tahrir Square. The street, home to the American University of Cairo, had been the site of bloodshed for months. …SCAF erected eight cement walls, barbed wire barriers and security checkpoints throughout Downtown Cairo, citing security purposes. …The walls were a point of great contention; some climbed over them, others attempted to knock them down. …Graffitists, who had mostly used stencils or quickly scribbled messages on walls to avoid arrest or torture …spend more time painting …Mohamed Mahmoud Street as well as the SCAF-constructed barriers became sites of elaborate paintings. Over the past year, the murals, whitewashed and painted one over the other several times, have confronted a number of forces of power: the SCAF government, the Ministry of Interior, the Islamist-dominated parliament, societal apathy, the Morsi leadership, Mubarak-era hijacking of culture, and Western modernist dictations on the utility of art. …The dimensions of resistance revealed in the evolving walls of Downtown Cairo point to the depth of Egypt's revolution. The range of authoritarian forces, both political and social, and on local and global scales is poignantly confronted through the protest murals, which are far more than artistic works to be preserved and displayed.”  Inspired by Sarah Mousa, Aljazeera ow.ly/j4H6R Image source Twitter ow.ly/j4H6C Egyptian murals are an act of protest (April 13 2013)

 

Sarah Mousa the American graduate student at the Center of Contemporary Arab Studies at Georgetown University, has published an article on Aljazeera titled ‘Layers of resistance’ implying Egyptian murals aren’t a form of art – they are an act of protest. Mousa states “…just one month after the fall of Mubarak, security forces gathered demonstrators from Tahrir Square into the National Museum. There, amid ancient Egyptian artifacts and under the rule of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, the protesters were tortured. One year later, that day was marked with another act of protest; members of the opposition used their talent to paint elaborate murals on Mohamed Mahmoud Street, just off Tahrir Square. The street, home to the American University of Cairo, had been the site of bloodshed for months. …SCAF erected eight cement walls, barbed wire barriers and security checkpoints throughout Downtown Cairo, citing security purposes. …The walls were a point of great contention; some climbed over them, others attempted to knock them down. …Graffitists, who had mostly used stencils or quickly scribbled messages on walls to avoid arrest or torture …spend more time painting …Mohamed Mahmoud Street as well as the SCAF-constructed barriers became sites of elaborate paintings. Over the past year, the murals, whitewashed and painted one over the other several times, have confronted a number of forces of power: the SCAF government, the Ministry of Interior, the Islamist-dominated parliament, societal apathy, the Morsi leadership, Mubarak-era hijacking of culture, and Western modernist dictations on the utility of art. …The dimensions of resistance revealed in the evolving walls of Downtown Cairo point to the depth of Egypt’s revolution. The range of authoritarian forces, both political and social, and on local and global scales is poignantly confronted through the protest murals, which are far more than artistic works to be preserved and displayed.”

 

Inspired by Sarah Mousa, Aljazeera ow.ly/j4H6R Image source Twitter ow.ly/j4H6C

Antonin Gregory Scalia the 76 year old Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, described as the intellectual anchor of the Court's conservative wing, has been featured in an article by Cliff Schecter published on Aljazeera titled ‘The Republican party's anger mismanagement’. Schecter states “Praise be to Judge Antonin Scalia, for he sees what the rest of us do not. The man for whom nasty, brutish and short is not simply a political formulation, but a mirror image, can look at hundreds of years of slavery, 100 more of legalised segregation and another 50 of daily discrimination and see "racial entitlement" in the basic right to vote in America. I guess it's kind of like the right-wing-clown entitlement enjoyed by our current Supreme Court. Scalia, of course, was a modern Republican (in a robe) before it was even cool. I mean that in the sense that it's clear to anyone taking so much as a gander at what animates the GOP of 2013 - as well as Scalia's immunity to legal reasoning - that it's not any set of policy ideas, but simple emotion: all-consuming, blood-curdling, vein-bulging-out-of-the-forehead, Mel Gibson-watching-Fiddler-On-The-Roof ANGER. Policy-wise, the GOP is an entity that literally lacks any new ideas, has no interest in governing and has rejected all of its own policy positions from as recently as early 2008 as "oh-my-God-we're-all-doomed!" creeping Socialism (see: cap and trade, earned-income tax credit, individual healthcare mandate). Rejecting anything right wingers sneeringly see as created by them-there libruls is the secret handshake of modern conservatism. …Meanwhile, Antonin Scalia seems to size up any crowd he's in and think to himself, what would a Morlock do? And then does it. That the guy's an activist judge of the first order and his legal opinions on guns, campaign finance reform and the Commerce Clause imply he should be banned from operating heavy machinery, that's only a sweetener to the Right.” Inspired by Cliff Schecter , Aljazeera ow.ly/j4wrv Image source USA Govt ow.ly/j4wpv Kind of like the right-wing-clown (April 7 2013)

 

Antonin Gregory Scalia the 76 year old Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, described as the intellectual anchor of the Court’s conservative wing, has been featured in an article by Cliff Schecter published on Aljazeera titled ‘The Republican party’s anger mismanagement’.  Schecter states “Praise be to Judge Antonin Scalia, for he sees what the rest of us do not. The man for whom nasty, brutish and short is not simply a political formulation, but a mirror image, can look at hundreds of years of slavery, 100 more of legalised segregation and another 50 of daily discrimination and see “racial entitlement” in the basic right to vote in America. I guess it’s kind of like the right-wing-clown entitlement enjoyed by our current Supreme Court. Scalia, of course, was a modern Republican (in a robe) before it was even cool. I mean that in the sense that it’s clear to anyone taking so much as a gander at what animates the GOP of 2013 – as well as Scalia’s immunity to legal reasoning – that it’s not any set of policy ideas, but simple emotion: all-consuming, blood-curdling, vein-bulging-out-of-the-forehead, Mel Gibson-watching-Fiddler-On-The-Roof ANGER.  Policy-wise, the GOP is an entity that literally lacks any new ideas, has no interest in governing and has rejected all of its own policy positions from as recently as early 2008 as “oh-my-God-we’re-all-doomed!” creeping Socialism (see: cap and trade, earned-income tax credit, individual healthcare mandate). Rejecting anything right wingers sneeringly see as created by them-there libruls is the secret handshake of modern conservatism. …Meanwhile, Antonin Scalia seems to size up any crowd he’s in and think to himself, what would a Morlock do? And then does it. That the guy’s an activist judge of the first order and his legal opinions on guns, campaign finance reform and the Commerce Clause imply he should be banned from operating heavy machinery, that’s only a sweetener to the Right.”

 

Inspired by Cliff Schecter , Aljazeera ow.ly/j4wrv Image source USA Govt ow.ly/j4wpv

Nanjala Nyabola the Kenyan writer and political analyst, is currently a graduate student focusing on the socio-political dimensions of conflict in Africa has published an article on Aljazeera titled ‘International law isn't real' in which she states “Although there is a pseudo-consensus on what the law 'is', it is in fact simply a consensus among elites. It's one of the most common refrains you hear, especially in an American law school, as to why the US has no reason to abide by or participate in international conventions or nascent legal institutions like the international criminal court. The unspoken philosophical implications are: that there is such a thing as "real" law, and that domestic law has somehow achieved that gold standard. After almost two years of grasping the essence of this "realness", swimming upstream against the glib acceptance that Law is, I find myself concluding that there is no such thing as "real" law. Domestic law is no more real than international law and if we allow one, the empty comfort of ascribed "realness", we should be able to extend this comfort to the other. "Real" law is the necessary fiction that consequences must flow from the actions of one against each other, and that the Law as defined by those in power or with money, determines both the infraction and its consequences; yet another tool that those in power have to employ against the powerless. They are able to do this, because even at the most prestigious centres for legal learning and thought, few grapple the meta-question that underpins the entire exercise: namely, what is law? …The onus is on law schools and practitioners to think creatively about how elite consensus on this issue can be created. Ultimately, it comes down to two things: either change the minds of the elite, or change the elite. That is a call to anarchy.”  Inspired by Nanjala Nyabola, Aljazeera ow.ly/iqTxa Image source The Guardian ow.ly/iqTmD International law isn’t real (March 23 2013)

 

Nanjala Nyabola the Kenyan writer and political analyst, is currently a graduate student focusing on the socio-political dimensions of conflict in Africa has published an article on Aljazeera titled ‘International law isn’t real’ in which she states “Although there is a pseudo-consensus on what the law ‘is’, it is in fact simply a consensus among elites. It’s one of the most common refrains you hear, especially in an American law school, as to why the US has no reason to abide by or participate in international conventions or nascent legal institutions like the international criminal court. The unspoken philosophical implications are: that there is such a thing as “real” law, and that domestic law has somehow achieved that gold standard. After almost two years of grasping the essence of this “realness”, swimming upstream against the glib acceptance that Law is, I find myself concluding that there is no such thing as “real” law. Domestic law is no more real than international law and if we allow one, the empty comfort of ascribed “realness”, we should be able to extend this comfort to the other. “Real” law is the necessary fiction that consequences must flow from the actions of one against each other, and that the Law as defined by those in power or with money, determines both the infraction and its consequences; yet another tool that those in power have to employ against the powerless. They are able to do this, because even at the most prestigious centres for legal learning and thought, few grapple the meta-question that underpins the entire exercise: namely, what is law? …The onus is on law schools and practitioners to think creatively about how elite consensus on this issue can be created. Ultimately, it comes down to two things: either change the minds of the elite, or change the elite. That is a call to anarchy.”

 

Inspired by Nanjala Nyabola, Aljazeera ow.ly/iqTxa Image source The Guardian ow.ly/iqTmD

Katherine Gallagher the Irish Senior Staff Attorney at the Centre for Constitutional Rights (CCR), focusing on holding US and foreign government officials, military and corporations accountable for serious human rights violations, has published an article on Aljazeera titled ‘Bahrain: Silencing the voice of the voiceless’. Gallagher states “Bahrain is a small country, often forgotten unless the Fifth Fleet of the US Navy, which it hosts, is in the news. A country where people continue to fight for democracy despite the high, sometimes deadly, price of speaking out. A country which, for the past two years, has been living to the beat of police crack-downs, arbitrary detentions and tear gas shootings. …scores of Bahrainis are languishing in prison simply for having marched in the street to call for economic, social and political reforms. Human rights defenders have become a major target of the regime, with one leading human rights defender after another being arrested for documenting the ongoing abuses. It seems that in today's Bahrain, the surest way to prison is human rights work. …Impunity remains the backdrop for these state-sponsored human rights violations. As of now, very few sentences have been rendered by courts for security officers accused of severe human rights violations and those convicted are low-ranking officers. Moreover, torture accusations by those unlawfully detained continue to be dismissed by the judicial system. …The international community and Bahrain's main partners - particularly the United Kingdom and the United States, which, contrary to its own rhetoric on respecting human rights, continue to provide military aid to Bahrain - must ensure that Bahrain allows its citizens to enjoy their full rights without fearing dire consequences. …Only when all Bahrainis are allowed to exercise the full spectrum of rights, and human rights defenders allowed to do their important work, will the situation in Bahrain improve. “  Inspired by Katherine Gallagher, AlJazeera ow.ly/i3fGA Image source Twitter ow.ly/i3g0w Silencing the voice of the voiceless (March 15 2013)

 

Katherine Gallagher the Irish Senior Staff Attorney at the Centre for Constitutional Rights (CCR), focusing on holding US and foreign government officials, military and corporations accountable for serious human rights violations, has published an article on Aljazeera titled ‘Bahrain: Silencing the voice of the voiceless’. Gallagher states “Bahrain is a small country, often forgotten unless the Fifth Fleet of the US Navy, which it hosts, is in the news. A country where people continue to fight for democracy despite the high, sometimes deadly, price of speaking out. A country which, for the past two years, has been living to the beat of police crack-downs, arbitrary detentions and tear gas shootings. …scores of Bahrainis are languishing in prison simply for having marched in the street to call for economic, social and political reforms. Human rights defenders have become a major target of the regime, with one leading human rights defender after another being arrested for documenting the ongoing abuses. It seems that in today’s Bahrain, the surest way to prison is human rights work. …Impunity remains the backdrop for these state-sponsored human rights violations. As of now, very few sentences have been rendered by courts for security officers accused of severe human rights violations and those convicted are low-ranking officers. Moreover, torture accusations by those unlawfully detained continue to be dismissed by the judicial system. …The international community and Bahrain’s main partners – particularly the United Kingdom and the United States, which, contrary to its own rhetoric on respecting human rights, continue to provide military aid to Bahrain – must ensure that Bahrain allows its citizens to enjoy their full rights without fearing dire consequences. …Only when all Bahrainis are allowed to exercise the full spectrum of rights, and human rights defenders allowed to do their important work, will the situation in Bahrain improve. “

 

Inspired by Katherine Gallagher, AlJazeera ow.ly/i3fGA Image source Twitter ow.ly/i3g0w

 

 

Salil Shetty the Indian long-term activist on poverty and justice, former director of the United Nations Millennium Campaign and now Secretary General of the human rights organization Amnesty International has published an article on Aljazeera titled ‘Nigerian government should address the problems’. Shetty states "A country with global aspirations should also be a country of the rule of law. On that count, Nigeria is failing dismally - particularly when it comes to Boko Haram [Islamic militant group]. …The death of 43 adds to the toll of more than 1,000 people killed by Boko Haram over the last two years, including attacks on churches, outside mosques and in markets. Such an assault from within is a challenge to any country. But Nigeria has to find a more effective means of response than it has to-date. The country is positioning itself as a global player and is seeking a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. The terrible crimes of Boko Haram can never be a justification for a country's security forces to kill or disappear people with impunity. The security forces' response is creating an atmosphere of lawlessness across vast swathes of the country. In the words of one Nigerian judge, the authorities' disregard for due process is "barbaric". … Unlawful killings, detention without charge, and enforced disappearances are just some of the human rights violations being perpetrated by Nigeria's security forces in the name of national security which Amnesty International identified in a report launched in November. … The Nigerian government should address the problems, not blame the messenger or deny the undeniable. The Nigerian government owes its own people respect for the rule of law - including by the lawful prosecution of Boko Haram crimes, which we see too rarely. If official lawlessness is denied and goes unpunished, Nigeria will not gain the stability it so badly needs.”  Inspired by Salil Shetty, Aljazeera ow.ly/hYDEp Image source Facebook ow.ly/hYDC8 Creating an atmosphere of lawlessness (March 7 2013)

Salil Shetty the Indian long-term activist on poverty and justice, former director of the United Nations Millennium Campaign and now Secretary General of the human rights organization Amnesty International has published an article on Aljazeera titled ‘Nigerian government should address the problems’. Shetty states “A country with global aspirations should also be a country of the rule of law. On that count, Nigeria is failing dismally – particularly when it comes to Boko Haram [Islamic militant group]. …The death of 43 adds to the toll of more than 1,000 people killed by Boko Haram over the last two years, including attacks on churches, outside mosques and in markets. Such an assault from within is a challenge to any country. But Nigeria has to find a more effective means of response than it has to-date. The country is positioning itself as a global player and is seeking a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. The terrible crimes of Boko Haram can never be a justification for a country’s security forces to kill or disappear people with impunity. The security forces’ response is creating an atmosphere of lawlessness across vast swathes of the country. In the words of one Nigerian judge, the authorities’ disregard for due process is “barbaric”. … Unlawful killings, detention without charge, and enforced disappearances are just some of the human rights violations being perpetrated by Nigeria’s security forces in the name of national security which Amnesty International identified in a report launched in November. … The Nigerian government should address the problems, not blame the messenger or deny the undeniable. The Nigerian government owes its own people respect for the rule of law – including by the lawful prosecution of Boko Haram crimes, which we see too rarely. If official lawlessness is denied and goes unpunished, Nigeria will not gain the stability it so badly needs.”

 

Inspired by Salil Shetty, Aljazeera ow.ly/hYDEp Image source Facebook ow.ly/hYDC8

Jose Efrain Rios Montt the 86 year old former de facto President of Guatemala, dictator, army general, and former president of the Congress, who came to public office through a coup d'etat in1982 is currently on trial for Genocide and crimes against humanity. Amy Ross in an Aljazeera article titled ‘Wading uncharted waters: The trial of Rios Montt’ discusses how the events in Guatemala are exceptional because they are happening at home, in the nation where the crimes occurred. Ross states “When a judge ruled … Montt will, finally, stand trial for the crime of genocide, the news resounded profoundly at home and abroad. These events in Guatemala mark the first time a national court, anywhere, prosecutes its own former head of state for the crime of genocide. Several international courts established in the last 20 years have prosecuted people involved in genocide. …the judge ordered the former army general confined to his home - represented an extraordinary break with impunity in the Central American country; the decision to proceed with the trial, despite attempts to have the charges dropped, is of even greater significance. No ranking officer has been held responsible for the violence in which some 200,000 people, almost all civilians, lost their lives. …Holding trials "away" has been deemed appropriate when conducting a trial at home carries considerable risks. The rationale behind establishing international tribunals for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague, The Netherlands, and for Rwanda in Arusha, Tanzania, was that holding trials in the country where the violence occurred would put participants at risk and potentially disrupt other fragile socio-political conditions.  …We should pay close attention to these legal proceedings in Guatemala. In the US, evidence of torture, disappearances and other crimes against humanity committed by US service members is denied, ignored or disposed of with minimal punishment. We might well need lessons from the brave lawyers in Guatemala.”  Inspired by Amy Ross, Aljazeera ow.ly/hMHhZ Image source The Kooza ow.ly/hMHEM Wading uncharted waters: Trial of Rios Montt (March 1 2013)

 

Jose Efrain Rios Montt the 86 year old former de facto President of Guatemala, dictator, army general, and former president of the Congress, who came to public office through a coup d’etat in1982 is currently on trial for Genocide and crimes against humanity. Amy Ross in an Aljazeera article titled ‘Wading uncharted waters: The trial of Rios Montt’ discusses how the events in Guatemala are exceptional because they are happening at home, in the nation where the crimes occurred. Ross states “When a judge ruled … Montt will, finally, stand trial for the crime of genocide, the news resounded profoundly at home and abroad. These events in Guatemala mark the first time a national court, anywhere, prosecutes its own former head of state for the crime of genocide. Several international courts established in the last 20 years have prosecuted people involved in genocide. …the judge ordered the former army general confined to his home – represented an extraordinary break with impunity in the Central American country; the decision to proceed with the trial, despite attempts to have the charges dropped, is of even greater significance. No ranking officer has been held responsible for the violence in which some 200,000 people, almost all civilians, lost their lives. …Holding trials “away” has been deemed appropriate when conducting a trial at home carries considerable risks. The rationale behind establishing international tribunals for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague, The Netherlands, and for Rwanda in Arusha, Tanzania, was that holding trials in the country where the violence occurred would put participants at risk and potentially disrupt other fragile socio-political conditions.  …We should pay close attention to these legal proceedings in Guatemala. In the US, evidence of torture, disappearances and other crimes against humanity committed by US service members is denied, ignored or disposed of with minimal punishment. We might well need lessons from the brave lawyers in Guatemala.”

 

Inspired by Amy Ross, Aljazeera ow.ly/hMHhZ Image source The Kooza ow.ly/hMHEM

Guy Ryder the 57 year old British Director General of the International Labour Organization (ILO) and former General Secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), a leading figure in the Global Call to Action Against Poverty (GCAP) has published an article on Aljazeera titled ‘One idea the world has not tried’ claiming that setting job creation as a number one goal would be a sustainable way out of the economic crisis. Ryder states “We have spent the past five years trying to jump start the global economy. After a promising start, we now seem to be heading in the wrong direction. …Some 200 million people worldwide are out of a job. …Young people are particularly hard hit. Close to 75 million 15-24 year olds are unemployed. Many of them experience long spells of unemployment right from the start, or leave the labour market altogether, often losing their professional and social skills and missing out on on-the-job experience. …There is one idea we have not tried: making job creation our number one priority. We have talked about it, but haven't really acted on it. … when people have no jobs or are forced to work in poverty, there is less growth, less security and less human and economic development. Add to this the growing income and social inequalities within and across countries, and what you get is a recipe for economic, political and social instability. A shift to inclusive and sustainable development will not be possible if millions of people are denied the opportunity to earn their living in conditions of equity and dignity. That is why our efforts to achieve inclusive, equitable and sustainable development must be anchored in decent jobs. And why it's time to redouble them now.”  Inspired by Guy Ryder, Aljazeera ow.ly/hnKgB Image source Facebook ow.ly/hnKwk One idea the world has not tried (February 15 2013)

Guy Ryder the 57 year old British Director General of the International Labour Organization (ILO) and former General Secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), a leading figure in the Global Call to Action Against Poverty (GCAP) has published an article on Aljazeera titled ‘One idea the world has not tried’ claiming that setting job creation as a number one goal would be a sustainable way out of the economic crisis. Ryder states “We have spent the past five years trying to jump start the global economy. After a promising start, we now seem to be heading in the wrong direction. …Some 200 million people worldwide are out of a job. …Young people are particularly hard hit. Close to 75 million 15-24 year olds are unemployed. Many of them experience long spells of unemployment right from the start, or leave the labour market altogether, often losing their professional and social skills and missing out on on-the-job experience. …There is one idea we have not tried: making job creation our number one priority. We have talked about it, but haven’t really acted on it. … when people have no jobs or are forced to work in poverty, there is less growth, less security and less human and economic development. Add to this the growing income and social inequalities within and across countries, and what you get is a recipe for economic, political and social instability. A shift to inclusive and sustainable development will not be possible if millions of people are denied the opportunity to earn their living in conditions of equity and dignity. That is why our efforts to achieve inclusive, equitable and sustainable development must be anchored in decent jobs. And why it’s time to redouble them now.”

 

Inspired by Guy Ryder, Aljazeera ow.ly/hnKgB Image source Facebook ow.ly/hnKwk

Zillah Eisenstein the American political theorist, activist and Professor of Politics having written books that have tracked the rise of neoliberalism both within the U.S. and across the globe. Eisenstein has published an article on Aljazeera titled ‘Female militarism: Band of sisters?’ claiming that fighting on the front lines of a war zone doesn't exactly reflect feminist ideals or progress towards gender equality. Eisenstein states “…US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta has lifted the military's official ban on women in combat. This overrides a 1994 Pentagon ruling that excluded women from artillery, armour, infantry and other combat. …I wonder who really wants to serve in combat? Who wants to fight wars in the first place? Who wants to be on the front lines and kill other human beings - or better yet, get killed themselves? …Not all, but many who "choose" to enlist have few other alternatives. Many are in the US military today because of a lack of alternatives in a shrinking job market. …The pay is about equal between Wal-Mart and the military, although the latter job can get you killed. I do not think that many enlisted women are any more pro-war than I am. It is a job, albeit a dangerous one. The rest of us are just lucky enough to have other options. …My point is that the global economy and its shrinking labour market, everywhere, is growing more militarist and more female at the same time. And, it is really important to not confuse the presence of females, especially in combat, with gender "equality". …There is less and less equality for everyone, men and women alike. Equal to what and to whom and for what? I am thinking about that 99 percent. US military women are still part of the 99 percent, unequal even if now with full citizen rights.”  Inspired by Zillah Eisenstein, Aljazeera ow.ly/hfL1N Image source Facebook ow.ly/hfKZS Who really wants to serve in combat? (February 6 2013)

Zillah Eisenstein the American political theorist, activist and Professor of Politics having written books that have tracked the rise of neoliberalism both within the U.S. and across the globe. Eisenstein has published an article on Aljazeera titled ‘Female militarism: Band of sisters?’ claiming that fighting on the front lines of a war zone doesn’t exactly reflect feminist ideals or progress towards gender equality. Eisenstein states “…US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta has lifted the military’s official ban on women in combat. This overrides a 1994 Pentagon ruling that excluded women from artillery, armour, infantry and other combat. …I wonder who really wants to serve in combat? Who wants to fight wars in the first place? Who wants to be on the front lines and kill other human beings – or better yet, get killed themselves? …Not all, but many who “choose” to enlist have few other alternatives. Many are in the US military today because of a lack of alternatives in a shrinking job market. …The pay is about equal between Wal-Mart and the military, although the latter job can get you killed. I do not think that many enlisted women are any more pro-war than I am. It is a job, albeit a dangerous one. The rest of us are just lucky enough to have other options. …My point is that the global economy and its shrinking labour market, everywhere, is growing more militarist and more female at the same time. And, it is really important to not confuse the presence of females, especially in combat, with gender “equality”. …There is less and less equality for everyone, men and women alike. Equal to what and to whom and for what? I am thinking about that 99 percent. US military women are still part of the 99 percent, unequal even if now with full citizen rights.”

 

Inspired by Zillah Eisenstein, Aljazeera ow.ly/hfL1N Image source Facebook ow.ly/hfKZS

Otto Fernando Pérez Molina the 62 year old Guatemalan politician and retired military officer who has been President of Guatemala for the past twelve months has been the subject of an article published by Mike Allison on Aljazeera titled ‘Guatemalan President Otto Perez Molina's first year in office’. Allison states ‘Otto Perez Molina of the Patriotic Party stepped onto the international stage in February 2012, after announcing to Guatemala and to the world that he would support the decriminalisation of marijuana and other illegal drugs. While his proposal brought accolades abroad, his first year in office has been much more of a mixed picture, at best, for the people of Guatemala. Upon his inauguration on January 14, 2012, President Perez confronted a challenging environment following four tumultuous years under Alvaro Colom. Fifty-four percent of the population lived in poverty, a three percentage point increase from the start of Colom's term. …For the last few weeks, all the Guatemalan newspapers have been running stories about social unrest throughout the country over land conflict, mining, and indigenous rights. The massacre in Totonicapan, the earthquake and devastation in San Marcos, repression against civil society, tensions surrounding the poorly conceptualised, planned and executed end of the world celebrations, and Otto Perez Molina's military history make for poor relations between a large number of Guatemalans and the government. These are real concerns about the situation here as Guatemalans head into 2013 and the second year of this administration. I'm afraid that adverse decisions with regards to the prosecution of human rights violators and the increased reliance on the military to resolve problems that do not have military solutions will only stoke the flames of discontent which is unfortunate and dangerous for the people of this beautiful country.”  Inspired by Mike Allison, Aljazeera ow.ly/gXCq5 Image source Twitter ow.ly/gXCpm President Otto Perez Molina’s first year in office (January 28 2013)

Otto Fernando Pérez Molina the 62 year old Guatemalan politician and retired military officer who has been President of Guatemala for the past twelve months has been the subject of an article published by Mike Allison on Aljazeera titled ‘Guatemalan President Otto Perez Molina’s first year in office’. Allison states ‘Otto Perez Molina of the Patriotic Party stepped onto the international stage in February 2012, after announcing to Guatemala and to the world that he would support the decriminalisation of marijuana and other illegal drugs. While his proposal brought accolades abroad, his first year in office has been much more of a mixed picture, at best, for the people of Guatemala. Upon his inauguration on January 14, 2012, President Perez confronted a challenging environment following four tumultuous years under Alvaro Colom. Fifty-four percent of the population lived in poverty, a three percentage point increase from the start of Colom’s term. …For the last few weeks, all the Guatemalan newspapers have been running stories about social unrest throughout the country over land conflict, mining, and indigenous rights. The massacre in Totonicapan, the earthquake and devastation in San Marcos, repression against civil society, tensions surrounding the poorly conceptualised, planned and executed end of the world celebrations, and Otto Perez Molina’s military history make for poor relations between a large number of Guatemalans and the government. These are real concerns about the situation here as Guatemalans head into 2013 and the second year of this administration. I’m afraid that adverse decisions with regards to the prosecution of human rights violators and the increased reliance on the military to resolve problems that do not have military solutions will only stoke the flames of discontent which is unfortunate and dangerous for the people of this beautiful country.”

 

Inspired by Mike Allison, Aljazeera ow.ly/gXCq5 Image source Twitter ow.ly/gXCpm

Mario Monti the 69 year old Italian economist and current caretaker Prime Minister of Italy will run for the premiership as leader of a centrist alliance in the next Italian general election. In an article by Vito Laterza published on Aljazeera titled ‘Technocracy's new bet: Mario Monti runs for premiership’.Vito states “His entry into the political arena will provoke major re-alignments in strategies, programmes and personnel in the centre-right and centre-left coalitions. His ambitious agenda of reforms will strongly influence the policies of the next government. …The rationale of Monti's proposals is not so different from Cameron's austerity programme in the UK: free up the market, reduce the weight of government and let the economy adjust itself. But the prospects for the global economy, especially the eurozone, look grim. European economies will grow slowly, if at all, for many years to come. Italy has struggled with low growth rates for the last two decades. …There is also a major difference with Britain. Italian workers receive very low salaries compared to most of their European counterparts. Further liberalisation without a comparable rebalancing of social protection would effectively mean a low-cost economy driven by cheap labour, reduced quality and quantity of social services and rising socio-economic inequalities. For both these reasons, the continuation of the technocratic agenda by political means is unlikely to result in anything more than a face-lift. … keeping confidence in the Italian government artificially high and interest rates on Italian bonds low. But for how long? Monti is aware that his decision to enter frontline politics "carries many risks and a high probability of failure". If he does fail, how bad will the next collapse in international credibility hit Italy and its people?”  Inspired by Vito Laterza, Aljazeera ow.ly/gKkTU Image source Twitter ow.ly/gKlaQ Technocracy’s new bet runs for premiership (January 18 2013)

Mario Monti the 69 year old Italian economist and current caretaker Prime Minister of Italy will run for the premiership as leader of a centrist alliance in the next Italian general election. In an article by Vito Laterza published on Aljazeera titled ‘Technocracy’s new bet: Mario Monti runs for premiership’.Vito states “His entry into the political arena will provoke major re-alignments in strategies, programmes and personnel in the centre-right and centre-left coalitions. His ambitious agenda of reforms will strongly influence the policies of the next government. …The rationale of Monti’s proposals is not so different from Cameron’s austerity programme in the UK: free up the market, reduce the weight of government and let the economy adjust itself. But the prospects for the global economy, especially the eurozone, look grim. European economies will grow slowly, if at all, for many years to come. Italy has struggled with low growth rates for the last two decades. …There is also a major difference with Britain. Italian workers receive very low salaries compared to most of their European counterparts. Further liberalisation without a comparable rebalancing of social protection would effectively mean a low-cost economy driven by cheap labour, reduced quality and quantity of social services and rising socio-economic inequalities. For both these reasons, the continuation of the technocratic agenda by political means is unlikely to result in anything more than a face-lift. … keeping confidence in the Italian government artificially high and interest rates on Italian bonds low. But for how long? Monti is aware that his decision to enter frontline politics “carries many risks and a high probability of failure”. If he does fail, how bad will the next collapse in international credibility hit Italy and its people?”

 

Inspired by Vito Laterza, Aljazeera ow.ly/gKkTU Image source Twitter ow.ly/gKlaQ

Francis Wade the Thailand based freelance journalist and analyst covering Myanmar and Southeast Asia has published an article on Aljazeera titled ‘A bloody year for Southeast Asia's environmentalists’ referring to a murky "military-government nexus backed by powerful business forces is behind" silencing environmental movements. Wade states “The year hasn't been kind to Southeast Asia's environmental defenders. Anti-copper mine protesters in Myanmar have been firebombed and Laotian journalists critical of major hydropower projects were silenced; in Cambodia, two activists, including famed anti-logging campaigner Chut Wutty, have been killed; in the Philippines, the number of land activists alone who were assassinated stands at six. The levels of oppression are consistent with a global increase in the number of assassinations of activists, journalists and community workers who expose the ills of economic development - in 2009, according to research by Global Witness, 56 killings took place across the world; last year, 106 were slain. Behind the campaigns to snuff out environmental movements in Southeast Asian countries lurk a murky military-government nexus backed by powerful business forces. The deaths this year in Cambodia and Philippines were "carried out by men in uniforms", said Global Witness in June, who were "acting on behalf of private sector interests and/or governments". The stories are not new, but the intensity of attacks may well be: the month of May in the Philippines was the deadliest on record for environmental defenders, and it continued throughout the year. ... where increased competition for resources combines with unwillingness by Southeast Asian governments to protect their populations from the ill effects of investment, indeed complicity in clearing the land of any resistance - the alarm bells are ringing louder.” Inspired by Aljazeera ow.ly/gwSgb image source The Guardian ow.ly/gwCiw Bloody year for Southeast Asia environmentalists (January 8 2013)

Francis Wade the Thailand based freelance journalist and analyst covering Myanmar and Southeast Asia has published an article on Aljazeera titled ‘A bloody year for Southeast Asia’s environmentalists’ referring to a murky “military-government nexus backed by powerful business forces is behind” silencing environmental movements. Wade states “The year hasn’t been kind to Southeast Asia’s environmental defenders. Anti-copper mine protesters in Myanmar have been firebombed and Laotian journalists critical of major hydropower projects were silenced; in Cambodia, two activists, including famed anti-logging campaigner Chut Wutty, have been killed; in the Philippines, the number of land activists alone who were assassinated stands at six. The levels of oppression are consistent with a global increase in the number of assassinations of activists, journalists and community workers who expose the ills of economic development – in 2009, according to research by Global Witness, 56 killings took place across the world; last year, 106 were slain. Behind the campaigns to snuff out environmental movements in Southeast Asian countries lurk a murky military-government nexus backed by powerful business forces. The deaths this year in Cambodia and Philippines were “carried out by men in uniforms”, said Global Witness in June, who were “acting on behalf of private sector interests and/or governments”. The stories are not new, but the intensity of attacks may well be: the month of May in the Philippines was the deadliest on record for environmental defenders, and it continued throughout the year. … where increased competition for resources combines with unwillingness by Southeast Asian governments to protect their populations from the ill effects of investment, indeed complicity in clearing the land of any resistance – the alarm bells are ringing louder.”

 

Inspired by Aljazeera ow.ly/gwSgb image source The Guardian ow.ly/gwCiw

Ronnie Barkan the 35 year old Israeli human rights activist, conscientious objector and co-founder of Boycott from Within, a group of Israeli citizens and residents which supports the Palestinian call for BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel), has published an article on Aljazeera titled ‘Demanding equality - how is that illegal?’. Barkan states “If the anti-boycott law is ever put to the test, the first cases may provide an even greater boost to the BDS movement. …speaking as an Israeli-Jewish boycott activist who is working to end Israeli apartheid, the law actually serves our struggle. There is a long list of discriminatory laws against non-Jews in Israel or those affected by Israeli policies. Many of these laws were passed during the early days of the state following the forced ethnic cleansing that was meant to create an artificial Jewish majority on that land. Such racist laws were put in place to maintain, as well as institutionalise, that crime. Then came the military occupation of 1967 which introduced a whole slew of repressive military laws aimed specifically against the Palestinians under occupation. Military tribunals, with a whopping 99.7 per cent conviction rate, still stand to this day. In that sense, the anti-boycott law is nothing out of the ordinary. It is only different in one respect - that the target audience includes the privileged group under Israeli apartheid. …The Israeli anti-boycott legislation, which is meant to stifle any attempt to hold it accountable for its violations of international law, is a serious matter. Consequently, it is worrisome that several European governments have recently attempted to protect Israel from holding it legally accountable by conditioning their vote at the UN on denying recourse for Palestinians in front of the International Criminal Court, where they may have access to the protection of international law.” Inspired by Aljazeera ow.ly/gpPrG image source Restiamoumani ow.ly/gpPpU Demanding equality – how is that illegal (January 4 2013)

Ronnie Barkan the 35 year old Israeli human rights activist, conscientious objector and co-founder of Boycott from Within, a group of Israeli citizens and residents which supports the Palestinian call for BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel), has published an article on Aljazeera titled ‘Demanding equality – how is that illegal?’. Barkan states “If the anti-boycott law is ever put to the test, the first cases may provide an even greater boost to the BDS movement. …speaking as an Israeli-Jewish boycott activist who is working to end Israeli apartheid, the law actually serves our struggle. There is a long list of discriminatory laws against non-Jews in Israel or those affected by Israeli policies. Many of these laws were passed during the early days of the state following the forced ethnic cleansing that was meant to create an artificial Jewish majority on that land. Such racist laws were put in place to maintain, as well as institutionalise, that crime. Then came the military occupation of 1967 which introduced a whole slew of repressive military laws aimed specifically against the Palestinians under occupation. Military tribunals, with a whopping 99.7 per cent conviction rate, still stand to this day. In that sense, the anti-boycott law is nothing out of the ordinary. It is only different in one respect – that the target audience includes the privileged group under Israeli apartheid. …The Israeli anti-boycott legislation, which is meant to stifle any attempt to hold it accountable for its violations of international law, is a serious matter. Consequently, it is worrisome that several European governments have recently attempted to protect Israel from holding it legally accountable by conditioning their vote at the UN on denying recourse for Palestinians in front of the International Criminal Court, where they may have access to the protection of international law.”

 

Inspired by Aljazeera ow.ly/gpPrG image source Restiamoumani ow.ly/gpPpU

Charlotte Silver the American journalist based in the Palestinian West Bank has published an article on Aljazeera titled ‘Will Monsanto destroy Mexico's corn?’ discussing the introduction of GE corn to Mexico would sound the death knell for the country's precious ecology. Silver states “When GE corn was introduced in the mid-90s, Mexico was inhospitable to the new-fangled crop. The country's National Biosecurity Commission established a (non-legally binding) moratorium on genetically engineered corn in 1998 as a means to safeguard what is considered to be the planet's cradle of maize cultivation. Corn has been carefully tended in Mexico for eight millennia and environmental conservationists report that thousands of peasant varieties are still grown throughout the country. With an estimated 75 per cent of the planet's biodiversity vanished as of 1995, Mexico's heterogeneous corn fields are a rare vestige of the age prior to the "Green Revolution" era that is responsible for the artificially and unhealthily homogenous industrial agriculture that is prevalent now. Introducing GE corn to Mexico would sound the death knell for this precious ecology as it is widely agreed that GE crops cannot co-exist with conventionally bred seeds. Despite institutional protections against GE corn, neoliberal policies have already enabled certain strains of GE corn to intermingle with Mexican maize… Thousands of tonnes of corn that began inundating Mexico from, primarily, the US (mostly for non-human consumption) after the signing of NAFTA in 1994 ensured that the promiscuous plant's pollen blew onto the pristine fields of small farms. As of today, it is estimated that at least one per cent of Mexico's corn has traces of GE. But perhaps of more immediate threat to the magnificent biodiversity of Mexico's maize is the country's politicians' willingness to succumb to the pressure of big biotech companies. …As long as politicians do not stand up for the health of their citizens or their land, biotech companies will reap profits in the grim wake of human and ecological destruction.“ Inspired by Aljazeera ow.ly/gdJyl image source Twitter ow.ly/gdJT9 Will Monsanto destroy Mexico’s corn (December 27 2012)

Charlotte Silver the American journalist based in the Palestinian West Bank has published an article on Aljazeera titled ‘Will Monsanto destroy Mexico’s corn?’ discussing the introduction of GE corn to Mexico would sound the death knell for the country’s precious ecology. Silver states “When GE corn was introduced in the mid-90s, Mexico was inhospitable to the new-fangled crop. The country’s National Biosecurity Commission established a (non-legally binding) moratorium on genetically engineered corn in 1998 as a means to safeguard what is considered to be the planet’s cradle of maize cultivation. Corn has been carefully tended in Mexico for eight millennia and environmental conservationists report that thousands of peasant varieties are still grown throughout the country. With an estimated 75 per cent of the planet’s biodiversity vanished as of 1995, Mexico’s heterogeneous corn fields are a rare vestige of the age prior to the “Green Revolution” era that is responsible for the artificially and unhealthily homogenous industrial agriculture that is prevalent now. Introducing GE corn to Mexico would sound the death knell for this precious ecology as it is widely agreed that GE crops cannot co-exist with conventionally bred seeds. Despite institutional protections against GE corn, neoliberal policies have already enabled certain strains of GE corn to intermingle with Mexican maize… Thousands of tonnes of corn that began inundating Mexico from, primarily, the US (mostly for non-human consumption) after the signing of NAFTA in 1994 ensured that the promiscuous plant’s pollen blew onto the pristine fields of small farms. As of today, it is estimated that at least one per cent of Mexico’s corn has traces of GE. But perhaps of more immediate threat to the magnificent biodiversity of Mexico’s maize is the country’s politicians’ willingness to succumb to the pressure of big biotech companies. …As long as politicians do not stand up for the health of their citizens or their land, biotech companies will reap profits in the grim wake of human and ecological destruction.“

 

Inspired by Aljazeera ow.ly/gdJyl image source Twitter ow.ly/gdJT9

More settler than the settlers (December 18 2012) More settler than the settlers (December 18 2012)

Jon Elmer the Canadian writer and photojournalist specializing in the Middle East and Canadian foreign and military policy, has published an article on Aljazeera titled ‘”More settler than the settlers”: Canada’s UN policy and Israel’ claiming since Israel’s inception, Canada has been at the forefront in its unwavering support of the Jewish state. Elmer states “Even before Canada officially cast its “no” vote at the United Nations, Palestinians knew which way the Canadian wind would blow. At the gates of Canada’s heavily guarded “embassy” in Ramallah the day before the vote, protesters carried signs of Prime Minister Stephen Harper emblazoned with a dogs snout and the dismissive slogan, “this dog doesn’t hunt”. The next day in New York, Canada joined Israel, the US, the Czech Republic, Panama and four small countries in the Pacific Islands – including Nauru, population 10,000 –  in voting against a General Assembly resolution granting Palestinians Non-Member Observer State status. The final tally was 138 to 9 in favour. Before the vote, analyst Mouin Rabbani aptly characterised the antagonists: “Those openly opposing this vote can easily be counted on the fingers of an amputated hand: Israel; the United States, which is more pro-Israel than Israel itself; Canada, which is more pro-Israel than even the United States.” Indeed, the very next day Canada voted against six more resolutions on Palestinian rights that were adopted, including one on the “peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine” (163-6). Canada opposing resolutions dealing with Palestinian rights is not new, nor is it the effect of a particular government or another. Opposing such resolutions has been a core Canadian diplomatic tactic since the creation of the State of Israel in 1948 – by both Liberal and Conservative governments.”

 

Inspired by Aljazeera ow.ly/g22OM image source WorkingTV ow.ly/g22I7

Israel keeps us imprisoned in an enclave (December 16 2012) Israel keeps us imprisoned in an enclave (December 16 2012)

Yasmeen El Khoudary the Palestinian cofounded Diwan Ghazza, a cultural and knowledge-exchange platform for youth in Gaza, runs a project to preserve Gaza’s cultural heritage and history.  El Khoudary has published an article on Aljazeera titled ‘Steal what you will from the blueness of the sea and the sand of memory’. El Khoudary states “In the Middle Ages, Gaza was home to countless treasures, including rich agriculture, pottery making and wool weaving, with exports along the famous Silk Road. In 1660, a French visitor compared Gaza’s baths and markets with those of Paris and noted that Arabic, Turkish and Greek were all spoken in the streets. Where was Israel then? …our faith in humanity will not be restored if countries of the world vow more money for rebuilding Gaza. It will only be restored once the world starts looking at our cause with its brains and not with its donations, in which case, no donations will be required. The fact that the Gaza Strip is still besieged by Israel from land, sea and air, should mean that we are still under occupation and under the responsibility of the Israeli government. If Israel argues otherwise, saying that we are not under Israeli occupation, then it should relinquish its control of our borders and leave us to handle our own business. But as long as Israel keeps us imprisoned in an enclave of ambiguity, the world will keep paying and Israel will keep destroying. …I would like to prepare the international community for another Israeli argument that they will likely be hearing in a couple of years, when today’s children become the leaders of future Palestine. “We have no peace partners in Palestine,” you will hear every Israeli leader say. When you hear that, I want you to think of the 350 Palestinian children who were injured by Israel during the last six days…”

 

Inspired by Aljazeera ow.ly/fWljs image source gcmhp ow.ly/fWlgm

China's one-child policy conundrum (December 12 2012) China’s one-child policy conundrum (December 12 2012)

Anne Gonschorek the German multimedia freelance journalist and video reporter for China Radio International has published an article on Aljazeera titled ‘China’s one-child policy conundrum’ stating that amid a soaring population of elderly Chinese, new leadership in Beijing is expected to review the decades-old policy. Gonschorek states “China’s fast-ageing population threatens a demographic disaster with too few young people to care for the elderly – a major problem that may lead to a review of the country’s contentious one-child policy. One-third of Chinese will be 60 or older by 2053, according to estimates by the National Committee on Ageing. There will be more than 200 million senior citizens in the country by the end of 2013. While the one-child policy has been recognised for limiting China’s population to 1.3 billion people, its demographic ramifications are now becoming clear. Many researchers are of the opinion that the policy has profoundly aggravated China’s ageing crisis. The China Development Research Foundation, a think-tank with close ties to China’s leaders, recently wrote a surprising report denouncing the one-child policy and calling for its abolishment. “China has paid a huge political and social cost for the policy, as it has resulted in social conflict, high administrative costs and led indirectly to a long-term gender imbalance at birth,” the report said. According to the government, the one-child policy reduced hundreds of millions of births since it came into effect in 1979 under former leader Deng Xiaoping, and helped to lift countless families out of poverty. However, the policy has now burdened a young workforce. The one-child generation must support the large, ageing population. Effectively, the one child will now have to care for two parents and four grandparents.”

 

Inspired by Aljazeera ow.ly/fS1X0 image source theworldofchinese ow.ly/fS1Cm

Why email is and must remain private (December 7 2012) Why email is and must remain private (December 7 2012)

Sarah Kendzior the American Anthropologist who studies politics and the internet in the former Soviet Union has published an article on Aljazeera titled ‘Why email is and must remain private’ on the premise that private communication, if monitored, will damage trust between individuals, making it harder to form relationships. Kendzior states “When I was a child, my grandfather offered me some advice: “Don’t do anything you wouldn’t want to read about in the newspaper”. To my nine-year-old self, this advice seemed strange, almost flattering. What could I possibly do that would be worthy of public interest? Why would anyone care? Decades later, this advice still seems strange, but not for the reasons my grandfather envisioned. The internet has made us all the media, able to broadcast the indiscretions of ourselves and others with ease. What seemed horrifying to him – transgressions exposed to an audience of thousands, maybe even tens of thousands – now seems like a comparatively good deal. How quaint to experience personal humiliation on a local level, endured for a day instead of preserved for eternity. The aftermath of the Petraeus scandal, in which the CIA director’s emails to his mistress biographer were considered grounds for his resignation, has sparked debate on whether email should be considered private communication. …The expectation that private communication will be monitored will damage trust between individuals, making it harder to form relationships and exchange ideas. Email, the most intimate form of online communication, should be considered private by default and legal rights to privacy must be strengthened. The self-censored life is not worth living.”

 

Inspired by Aljazeera ow.ly/fKf7f image source Wustl ow.ly/fKf2v

All created an atmosphere of despair (December 2 2012) All created an atmosphere of despair (December 2 2012)

Muhammad Abdul Bari the 59 year old British Bangladeshian secondary school teacher has published an article on Aljazeera titled ‘Israel’s scorched earth policy in Gaza could prove fatal’ discussing how the US and other western governments have failed to publicly criticise Israel for its iron-fist policy on Palestine. Bari states “Beyond Gaza, the situation in historic Palestine is not much different. Israeli land grabbing, illegal settlements and ethnic cleansing in occupied territories, forced removal of families from their homes, the increasing refugee problems, massive unemployment, daily humiliation of Palestinian people in the crossings, the erection of the “apartheid wall” – have all created an atmosphere of despair. As in its 2009 operation, Israel is trying to match its overwhelming military might with its superior media outreach in the western world. As a result, and due to what seems to be America’s depressingly unquestioned support for Israel, many in the West buy in to the Israeli narrative claiming Hamas as a “terrorist” organisation. Sadly, people have a short memory. They forget that Hamas, for all its flaws, formed the legitimate Palestinian government after winning an internationally-accepted election in 2006. The fear of being accused as anti-Semitic has inhibited many in the West from publicly criticising Israel’s historic injustice to the Palestinians. Some try to be ambivalent; in order to prove their neutrality, the only thing they do is offer some advice to Israeli and Palestinian politicians to sort out the mess on the negation table. However, an overwhelming majority of people in the Muslim world and many in Asia, Africa and Latin America consider Israel a Pariah state, supported by the world’s sole superpower, the United States. Many consider Israel as a Goliath when it comes to the Palestinian people.”

 

Inspired by Aljazeera ow.ly/fuNhQ image source Facebook ow.ly/fuNMd

How hatred plays a role in politics (November 29 2012) How hatred plays a role in politics (November 29 2012)

Niza Yanay the 61 year old Israeli Professor of Sociology and Anthropology has been interviewed by Neve Gordon in an Aljazeera article titled ‘The Ideology of Hatred’ discussing how ‘hatred’ plays a role in politics. In the interview Yanay states “…distinction between hatred as an experience and hatred as ideology underscored the need to ask new questions about the relation between politics and hatred. And these new questions, I believe, need to focus on power relations between different groups, such as coloniser and colonised, ruler and subject, and not so much on the personal experience of specific individuals who experience hatred (though such questions are still important too). …Most people consider “suicide bombings” as motivated by hate, while very few people consider air strikes on populated areas to be hate crimes. The media often describes the suicide attack as a hate crime, but I have never come across a report describing the US drone attacks in Pakistan – that have killed over 3,500 people – as hate crimes. This suggests that hatred as ideology is at work. And this ideology helps determine who is blamed for being the initiators of hate, who becomes the target of hatred, and, in fact, when hatred counts as hatred at all. Let me give you an example to help clarify my claim. Think about a young adolescent Jewish girl in Israel who leads a comfortable life and has never interacted face-to-face with Palestinians. This is a very reasonable assumption, since Israel is a totally segregated society. Why, it is interesting to ask, would a girl who has never met a Palestinian speak with such vehemence and personal hatred against Palestinians and Arabs in general? Why do so many Jewish citizens of Israel, who have never been hurt by Palestinians, openly admit to intense hatred? This articulates a national ideology of hatred and not merely a personal hatred.”

 

Inspired by Redress ow.ly/fuIio image source Neve Gordon ow.ly/fuIrJ

Send Gaza back to the Middle Ages (November 26 2012) Send Gaza back to the Middle Ages (November 26 2012)

Michael Marder the Spanish Ikerbasque Research Professor of Philosophy has published an article on Aljazeera titled ‘Israel’s medievalism’ claiming calls to send Gaza “back to the Middle Ages” only reinforce Israel’s current state of medievalism. Marder states “In one of the most brazen and, at the same time, frank declarations to date, the Israeli Minister of the Interior, Eli Yishai stated regarding the war currently being waged on the Gaza Strip: “The goal of the operation is to send Gaza back to the Middle Ages. Only then will Israel be calm for forty years.” With these words, he revealed much more than the subtext behind the official reasons for the invasion, namely restoring Israel’s “deterrence capabilities” and destroying Hamas missile launchers. He also shed light on Binyamin Netanyahu’s vision of peace not as a relation among equals but as the calm of the defeated, the vision consistent with the use of war to bolster the Prime Minister’s domestic image as a tough, military leader in a run-up to his likely re-election in January 2013. Yishai’s Biblical allusions to forty years of wandering in the desert are not accidental. After all, his political party, Shas, is the utterly fanatical, religious faction in the Netanyahu government. Its ideal of Israel, too, is not very far from being medieval – a country where men and women would be segregated in public transport as well as in every area of public life, where freedom of religion would be a pipe dream, and where homosexuality would be deemed a plague “as toxic as bird flu”. In brief, both the domestic and the foreign policies of Yishai’s party are based on a venomous mix of anti-modernism, theocracy, religious parochialism, and disrespect for human rights.”

 

Inspired by Aljazeera ow.ly/fuDtu image source Michael Marder ow.ly/fuDji

The Battle for the 21st Century (November 24 2012) The Battle for the 21st Century (November 24 2012)

David Wearing a postgraduate writer and researcher studying British foreign policy in the Middle East and North Africa, and co-editor of New Left Project has published an article on Aljazeera titled ‘The Revenge of History: The Battle for the 21st Century’. Wearing states “The triumphalist atmosphere in Western capitals following the demise of the USSR produced assessments of America’s status as the world’s only superpower that ranged from the hubristic to the outright irrational. As Bush the First announced a “New World Order” based on Washington’s military and economic supremacy. …In 2004, a senior presidential aide told a writer for the New York Times magazine, “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality… we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors… and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” In the end, the neo-conservatives’ “New American Century” lasted around seven years, from the al-Qaeda attacks on Washington and New York that fired the starting gun on the “War on Terror” to the departure from the White House of a much diminished George W Bush, with the quagmires of Iraq and Afghanistan having demonstrated “the limits, rather than the extent, of US military power”, in the words of British newspaper columnist Seumas Milne. Meanwhile, the banking crash of 2008 exposed the Anglo-American model of hyper-financialised, deregulated capitalism as a catastrophic failure. For the Nobel economics laureate Joseph Stiglitz, the fall of Wall Street was to “market fundamentalism” what the fall of the Berlin Wall was to Communism. The idea that “democratic market capitalism [is] the final stage of social development” and “that unfettered markets, all by themselves, can ensure economic prosperity and growth” had now been conclusively discredited.”

 

Inspired by Aljazeera ow.ly/fmVfO image source The Guardian ow.ly/fmV4K

Judge had courage to go against the prosecutor (November 21 2012) Judge had courage to go against the prosecutor (November 21 2012)

Kostas Vaxevanis the 46 year old Greek journalist and founder editor of the magazine Hot Doc, has been acquitted of charges relating to his publishing of the ‘Lagrade List’ of possible tax cheats. In an Aljazeera article titled ‘Crusading Greek journalist acquitted’, John Psaropoulos states “The late night acquittal … was met with an eruption of applause in courtroom number one, building two, of the Athens judicial compound. “The court has found you innocent,” was all the judge had time to say. Vaxevanis had faced a year in prison and a 30,000 euro ($38,500) fine for allegedly breaching Greek privacy law. His offence was to publish the names of what purports to be the infamous Lagarde List, a spreadsheet of more than 2,000 influential Greeks with Swiss bank accounts who might warrant investigation as tax evaders. It is named after the former French finance minister, now IMF chief, who handed it to her Greek counterpart, Yiorgos Papakonstantinou, in 2010. “A junior court judge had the courage to go against the prosecutor’s office which created all the fuss in the first place, to listen to society, to see the results of all this activity surrounding the revelation of the list and of course to see the truth.” Vaxevanis told Al Jazeera after the verdict was announced. …Vaxevanis offered an explanation as to why authorities have been so loath to prosecute the list. “Greece is being governed by a closed group of interests… comprising businesspeople, politicians and a few journalists,” he said. “The Lagarde List is a document that proves what everyone suspects – that a powerful elite… enjoys the privilege that no one dares move against them.”

 

Inspired by John Psaropoulos ow.ly/fmSms image source Facebook ow.ly/fmSfk

Israeli policies reminiscent of apartheid (November 17 2012) Israeli policies reminiscent of apartheid (November 17 2012)

Heidi-Jane Esakov the South African researcher at the Afro-Middle East Centre, a Johannesburg-based think-tank, has published an article on Aljazeera titled ‘Israeli policies of dispossession reminiscent of South African apartheid’ discussing how plans to displace bedouins in Israel are reminiscent of the forced removals of blacks in Sophiatown. Esakov states “During the forced removals of the South African suburb of Sophiatown in 1955, around 65,000 residents were moved and “dumped in matchbox houses” in black townships. Only a few years before that, in 1948, Bedouins of Israel’s Naqab/Negev region, who Israel had not expelled, were also forcibly moved “from their ancestral lands into a restricted zone called the Siyag (literally, ‘fenced in’)”. And, just as Sophiatown was completely bulldozed, the Negev village of Al-Arakib was recently razed to make way for a Jewish National Fund forest. As a South African it is particularly difficult not to see the stark parallels between the experiences of black South Africans under apartheid and of Palestinians today. …The villagers of Umm al-Hiran and Al-Arakib are citizens of Israel: Its Arab citizens that Israel prides – and parades – as proof of its democracy. They are, however, not Jewish, a critical determiner of who is entitled to what land and how rights are allocated. …It is not for the oppressor to decide how the oppressed should understand their oppression. But, how is whites-only different to Jewish-only? And, if the forced removal of 30,000 Bedouins to make way for 250,000 Jews is not “systematic oppression… with the intention of maintaining the regime”, what, then, is it?”

 

Inspired by Aljazeera ow.ly/f5wnA image source Twitter ow.ly/f5wKR

Rss Feed Tweeter button Facebook button Technorati button Reddit button Myspace button Linkedin button Delicious button Digg button Flickr button Stumbleupon button Newsvine button Youtube button