Beirut - On 6 March micro-blogging service Twitter announced the launch of its Arabic, Farsi, Hebrew and Urdu versions. It all started with the grassroots #LetsTweetInArabic campaign by a handful of users who wanted Twitter to be available in more languages.
While many communities are still disadvantaged when it comes to digital resources, translation initiatives like these are a great first step in making the web a more democratic space, especially for non-English speakers.
With these four new additions, Twitter is available in a total of 28 languages. On its blog, Twitter representatives said that right-to-left languages posed a unique technical challenge that was overcome by its engineers. The translation itself was made possible thanks to the participation of over 13,000 volunteers who helped translate Twitters menu options and support pages.
The company explained that those who donated their time and skills are a diverse group including a Saudi blogger, Egyptian college students, Lebanese teenagers, IT professionals in Iran and Pakistan as well as an Israeli schoolteacher.
We hear a great deal about the networked society as the ultimate global discussion where everyones invited which makes it easy to overlook details. Today, 56.6 per cent of online content is in English while some other languages are severely under-represented. For instance, only 1.3 per cent of online content is in Arabic even though Arabic is estimated to be the 5th largest language worldwide when it comes to the number of native speakers.
Digital communication, as a way to share information and debate ideas, is now central to many parts of life. One prominent example is the focus on online activity in contentious political activities. Twitter and similar networks have been hailed as important tools of communication and organisation for opposition movements to authoritarian regimes.
Such networks were arguably important for successfully mobilising recent movements in the Arab world. However, the emphasis on new media overshadows the other means of communication that ordinary people used, such as posters, flyers and simple word-of-mouth.
To understand the limits of online activism in a developing country, it is important to get a better sense of the demographic that makes up the countrys online mediascape. In a country of great inequalities such as Egypt, Asef Bayat, author of Life as Politics: How Ordinary People Change the Middle East, believes that the 70,000 members of the April 6 Youth Movement Facebook page were mostly educated youth, a minority of the population. He notes that despite increased use of the Internet, cyber campaigns remain limited to the elite in the Arab world.
The 13,000 volunteers efforts to make social media available in new languages are a testament to the desire and the need to make the Internet-democracy dream a reality. As online networks open up to more people around the world, access to online tools will slowly cease to be the privilege of an educated multilingual middle-class.
Along with making Internet access available to more people around the world, the next step in the democratisation of information should be the emergence of online content and tools produced by people in the Global South, so that the connected world doesnt remain culturally, ideologically and economically dependent on content produced by people from a tiny minority of countries.
The web has the potential to become a space where a multilateral conversation takes place and where all have equal leverage. Its happening, but were not quite there yet.
The effort is on-going. Many of us have found that being connected online gives us agency and opened up a world of possibilities. It also gives us the opportunity and responsibility to contribute so that others can benefit.
###
* Nada Akl is a freelance journalist based in Beirut. For information on how to suggest new languages or volunteer you can visit the Twitter translation centre here: http://translate.twttr.com/welcome. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 27 March 2012, www.commongroundnews.org. Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Posts Tagged Common Ground News Service
Washington, DC - Iranians and Israelis should mark 14 March 2012 on their calendars it is the day that the "Israel loves Iran" campaign began to unify the voices of Israelis and Iranians through the path of peace, despite the messages of war that political leaders have conveyed.
Since last week, inspired by Israeli graphic designer and teacher Ronny Edris "Israel loves Iran" campaign, Iranians as well as members of other nations have reframed the narrative of war to one of a love bomb.
Edri designed posters that read Iranians: We will never bomb your country. We [heart] you. And Iranians responded in kind. This messaging is changing nightmares of war into hope that there will be solidarity between the people of Iran and Israel creating a movement to wipe out fear, instead of each other.
The unique characteristic of this campaign is how ordinary people have succeeded in reframing government narratives. Under pressure from fear of a war initiated by governments people began efforts to rescue each other from fright and apprehensiveness; they sought to make each other feel secure. Here, even as an observer, you can see how people employed the most advanced skills from conflict resolution without even knowing it; they simply used the power of compassion, empathy and care. They unconsciously employed these conflict resolution methods to help create their own future and shape their realities.
When a popular movement of solidarity and unity like this is launched, it makes it clear that governments do not have their people's support in threatening the other side with war. Remarkably, the movement is succeeding in raising public consciousness and global awareness that people in both countries hate war not each other. As an Iranian observing this popular solidarity, I feel pride that people who have been surrounded by the nightmare of war for decades now find themselves powerful enough to change the future of the two countries as they stand shoulder-to-shoulder with friends and allies in the campaign.
If you spend even a few minutes on social networking sites, you will see that not only are Israelis and Iranians powering the campaign, but citizens of other nations, from Italy to the Philippines, are participating and want to counteract an attempt by Israel to strike Iran. This has truly become a messaging campaign from our global society.
It has grown to include a Facebook forum for individuals to connect. There, people from multiple countries have shared ideas, and the hunger for connecting across divisions and overcoming fears is clear. Friends of Israel, we love youbefore, there was no place to say [this], said one Iranian participant. I hope the soldiers of this earth can see whats happening here, between all [these] peopleI hope they can say okay, lets stop the war, wrote another participant.
The "Israel loves Iran" campaign will be more powerful and effective when it builds bridges to more Iranians inside Iran. Bridging the people of Iran and Israel is not just preventing war, but re-bridging thousands of years of common history between the Iranian and Jewish peoples, dating back to the sixth century BCE. This is the period when the Persian king Cyrus shaped the foundations of modern Iran through his achievements in politics and the military. He is described by Jewish sources, such as the ancient historian Josephus, as the anointed of the Lord because of his efforts to promote religious freedom and help the Jewish people return to their homeland.
The people of Israeli and Iranian can build this trust and respect again this campaign is a step in that direction.
###
* Sahar Namazikhah was a journalist in Iran for 15 years. She is Director of Iran Projects at the Center for World Religions, Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution, and a Ph.D. student at the School of Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 27 March 2012, www.commongroundnews.org. Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Since last week, inspired by Israeli graphic designer and teacher Ronny Edris "Israel loves Iran" campaign, Iranians as well as members of other nations have reframed the narrative of war to one of a love bomb.
Edri designed posters that read Iranians: We will never bomb your country. We [heart] you. And Iranians responded in kind. This messaging is changing nightmares of war into hope that there will be solidarity between the people of Iran and Israel creating a movement to wipe out fear, instead of each other.
The unique characteristic of this campaign is how ordinary people have succeeded in reframing government narratives. Under pressure from fear of a war initiated by governments people began efforts to rescue each other from fright and apprehensiveness; they sought to make each other feel secure. Here, even as an observer, you can see how people employed the most advanced skills from conflict resolution without even knowing it; they simply used the power of compassion, empathy and care. They unconsciously employed these conflict resolution methods to help create their own future and shape their realities.
When a popular movement of solidarity and unity like this is launched, it makes it clear that governments do not have their people's support in threatening the other side with war. Remarkably, the movement is succeeding in raising public consciousness and global awareness that people in both countries hate war not each other. As an Iranian observing this popular solidarity, I feel pride that people who have been surrounded by the nightmare of war for decades now find themselves powerful enough to change the future of the two countries as they stand shoulder-to-shoulder with friends and allies in the campaign.
If you spend even a few minutes on social networking sites, you will see that not only are Israelis and Iranians powering the campaign, but citizens of other nations, from Italy to the Philippines, are participating and want to counteract an attempt by Israel to strike Iran. This has truly become a messaging campaign from our global society.
It has grown to include a Facebook forum for individuals to connect. There, people from multiple countries have shared ideas, and the hunger for connecting across divisions and overcoming fears is clear. Friends of Israel, we love youbefore, there was no place to say [this], said one Iranian participant. I hope the soldiers of this earth can see whats happening here, between all [these] peopleI hope they can say okay, lets stop the war, wrote another participant.
The "Israel loves Iran" campaign will be more powerful and effective when it builds bridges to more Iranians inside Iran. Bridging the people of Iran and Israel is not just preventing war, but re-bridging thousands of years of common history between the Iranian and Jewish peoples, dating back to the sixth century BCE. This is the period when the Persian king Cyrus shaped the foundations of modern Iran through his achievements in politics and the military. He is described by Jewish sources, such as the ancient historian Josephus, as the anointed of the Lord because of his efforts to promote religious freedom and help the Jewish people return to their homeland.
The people of Israeli and Iranian can build this trust and respect again this campaign is a step in that direction.
###
* Sahar Namazikhah was a journalist in Iran for 15 years. She is Director of Iran Projects at the Center for World Religions, Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution, and a Ph.D. student at the School of Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 27 March 2012, www.commongroundnews.org. Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Notre Dame, Indiana - The Obama administration is under mounting pressure to accelerate the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan. The US-led coalition plans to hand over security responsibility to Afghan forces by 2014. The military withdrawal shouldnt mean that the international community walks away from Afghanistan entirely, however, or ceases support to local civil society especially when it comes to preserving the hard-won rights of Afghan women. How is this possible?
To search for answers, my colleague at Notre Dame Universitys Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies Sarah Smiles Persinger and I authored the report Afghan Women Speak, based on dozens of interviews in Afghanistan with female parliamentarians, activists, researchers, health workers and NGO leaders. This past October I visited Kabul to assess the latest developments.
All the women we interviewed said they want the war to end. They cannot secure their rights in a militarised environment. The longer the war continues the more they are threatened by the Taliban and male reactionaries in the Kabul government. Woman favour peace negotiations, but they do not want an agreement that revokes laws, like the 2009 Elimination of Violence Against Women Act, or that fails to sustain vital services for women.
What do women recommend? The first and most obvious need is continued support for the economic and social development programmes that have already improved the lives of Afghan women and children. Invest in Afghan youth, said a woman leader, not in corrupt leaders. With development funding from USAID, the World Bank and European Union member states, millions of women have acquired an education and gained access to health care.
These achievements are among the few bright spots of the international mission in Afghanistan. They must be sustained as foreign troops withdraw. Improved education is a priority. In 2002 only 900,000 boys attended primary school. Today more than seven million girls and boys are enrolled in school. School attendance rates have increased sevenfold over the past decade. Girls now comprise 37 per cent of the student population. More than 4,000 new schools have been built, many through cooperation between international programs and local civil society. The number of teachers has increased from 20,000 (all men) in 2002 to more than 150,000 today (almost 30 per cent women).
Progress also has been achieved in lowering Afghanistans rates of maternal and child mortality. Since 2001 the number of health facilities and trained health workers has increased tenfold. More than 3,000 women have been trained as midwives, a sevenfold increase. According to the latest Afghan government figures, based on a survey conducted with support from USAID and the UN, the rate of children dying before age 5 has dropped from one in five to about one in ten. The risk of a woman dying in childbirth has dropped from one in eleven to one in 50. These rates are still shockingly high, but the trends are moving in the right direction. The improvements of the last decade translate into hundreds of thousands of lives saved among Afghanistans most vulnerable people.
Despite these gains, much work remains to be done. In rural communities, where most Afghans live, health care remains primitive and preventable disease is prevalent. Primary school attendance has increased, but secondary school and higher education remain unavailable to most Afghan youth. Social development programmes must continue even as military expenditures begin to decline.
A second priority is to preserve womens political rights. Women are equal before the law in Afghanistan today, and 25 per cent of the seats in parliament are reserved for females. The best guarantee against these rights being rolled back is ensuring that women have a seat at the table in peace negotiations. Only a handful of women are members of Afghanistans High Peace Council, which is responsible for guiding the reconciliation process with the Taliban. Western policymakers must pressure the Afghan government to ensure that women are included more meaningfully in high-level decision-making forums. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has shown exemplary leadership in advocating for Afghan womens rights. Other US and Western officials should follow her lead.
Afghan women want peace, but they need continued support for their social and political rights. The withdrawal of troops must not come at the expense of a commitment to development and human rights.
###
* David Cortright is the Director of Policy Studies at Notre Dames Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 27 March 2012, www.commongroundnews.org. Copyright permission is granted for publication.
To search for answers, my colleague at Notre Dame Universitys Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies Sarah Smiles Persinger and I authored the report Afghan Women Speak, based on dozens of interviews in Afghanistan with female parliamentarians, activists, researchers, health workers and NGO leaders. This past October I visited Kabul to assess the latest developments.
All the women we interviewed said they want the war to end. They cannot secure their rights in a militarised environment. The longer the war continues the more they are threatened by the Taliban and male reactionaries in the Kabul government. Woman favour peace negotiations, but they do not want an agreement that revokes laws, like the 2009 Elimination of Violence Against Women Act, or that fails to sustain vital services for women.
What do women recommend? The first and most obvious need is continued support for the economic and social development programmes that have already improved the lives of Afghan women and children. Invest in Afghan youth, said a woman leader, not in corrupt leaders. With development funding from USAID, the World Bank and European Union member states, millions of women have acquired an education and gained access to health care.
These achievements are among the few bright spots of the international mission in Afghanistan. They must be sustained as foreign troops withdraw. Improved education is a priority. In 2002 only 900,000 boys attended primary school. Today more than seven million girls and boys are enrolled in school. School attendance rates have increased sevenfold over the past decade. Girls now comprise 37 per cent of the student population. More than 4,000 new schools have been built, many through cooperation between international programs and local civil society. The number of teachers has increased from 20,000 (all men) in 2002 to more than 150,000 today (almost 30 per cent women).
Progress also has been achieved in lowering Afghanistans rates of maternal and child mortality. Since 2001 the number of health facilities and trained health workers has increased tenfold. More than 3,000 women have been trained as midwives, a sevenfold increase. According to the latest Afghan government figures, based on a survey conducted with support from USAID and the UN, the rate of children dying before age 5 has dropped from one in five to about one in ten. The risk of a woman dying in childbirth has dropped from one in eleven to one in 50. These rates are still shockingly high, but the trends are moving in the right direction. The improvements of the last decade translate into hundreds of thousands of lives saved among Afghanistans most vulnerable people.
Despite these gains, much work remains to be done. In rural communities, where most Afghans live, health care remains primitive and preventable disease is prevalent. Primary school attendance has increased, but secondary school and higher education remain unavailable to most Afghan youth. Social development programmes must continue even as military expenditures begin to decline.
A second priority is to preserve womens political rights. Women are equal before the law in Afghanistan today, and 25 per cent of the seats in parliament are reserved for females. The best guarantee against these rights being rolled back is ensuring that women have a seat at the table in peace negotiations. Only a handful of women are members of Afghanistans High Peace Council, which is responsible for guiding the reconciliation process with the Taliban. Western policymakers must pressure the Afghan government to ensure that women are included more meaningfully in high-level decision-making forums. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has shown exemplary leadership in advocating for Afghan womens rights. Other US and Western officials should follow her lead.
Afghan women want peace, but they need continued support for their social and political rights. The withdrawal of troops must not come at the expense of a commitment to development and human rights.
###
* David Cortright is the Director of Policy Studies at Notre Dames Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 27 March 2012, www.commongroundnews.org. Copyright permission is granted for publication.
London - Can love really bring people together, crossing boundaries and breaking down barriers? It sounds like the stuff of fairy tales and movies, but recently in a little corner of London thats exactly what happened.
In a trendy Indian restaurant that used to be a pub, people of different faiths and backgrounds got together for a meal to celebrate that crazy little thing called love. The event was organised by the Islamic Society of Britain in partnership with the Christian Muslim Forum to launch the start of the 19th Islam Awareness Week, which ran from 12-18 March 2012.
Every year for the past 19 years, Islam Awareness Week has been an opportunity for people across Great Britain to meet, eat, listen and understand each other better. Organisers of the week pick a theme that is of common interest to people of all faiths, such as looking after our neighbours, celebrating the best of Britain or remembering our common heritage. This year the theme was all about love.
At the launch event in London, Jewish, Christian and Muslim speakers explained the centrality of love in their religious teachings. In the Jewish tradition, the world stands on three things: Torah (law), (worship) and Gemilut chasadim (acts of loving kindness). Jesus taught his followers to love God and your neighbour as yourself. In Islam, love is at the heart of the religion, it is the basis of ones relationship with God and the bedrock of relationships with other human beings and all God has created.
Love of God and love of neighbour are the twin commandments that became the central subject of the open letter written by Muslim scholars to their Christian counterparts in 2007, known as the Common Word initiative. Described by one of the speakers at the London event as a love letter to Christians worldwide, it invited people to come together on the basis of what they hold in common and what is also most essential to both faiths. Just a few months ago, one of the main authors of that letter, Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad of Jordon, a Professor of Philosophy, released a new book titled Love in the Holy Quran, which is based on his dissertation at Al Azhar University in Egypt.
The book, and the theme of love, has given Muslims an opportunity to explain what Islam really means to them. For a small community of British Muslims that doesnt usually have much access to mainstream media, occasions like the launch event in London are vital for getting mainstream Muslim voices heard above the hysteria and misinformation propagated by extremists on all sides.
Actions, however, can sometimes speak louder than words. Accordingly the week is not just focused on talking, but also feeding the homeless at a soup kitchen, participating in a community clean-up day and assisting with various kinds of fundraising events for local and national charities.
The theme of love was also inspired by the growing international co-operative effort known as the Charter for Compassion, which is undergoing a significant re-launch this month. It is a recognition that the principle of compassion lies at the heart of all religious, ethical and spiritual traditions and it calls upon women and men around the world to work towards alleviating the suffering of others, to ensure youth are given accurate and respectful information about others and to cultivate an informed empathy with the sufferings of others even those we might see as enemies.
The events over the past week represent a small fraction of the work that has taken place at a grassroots level over the last two decades through IAW, bringing people together who would not otherwise have met. Together they add up to a thousand little victories for compassion and common sense and thats the power of love.
###
* Mubashir Khan was the national coordinator of Islam Awareness Week in the UK from 2009-2012.
This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 27 March 2012, www.commongroundnews.org. Copyright permission is granted for publication.
In a trendy Indian restaurant that used to be a pub, people of different faiths and backgrounds got together for a meal to celebrate that crazy little thing called love. The event was organised by the Islamic Society of Britain in partnership with the Christian Muslim Forum to launch the start of the 19th Islam Awareness Week, which ran from 12-18 March 2012.
Every year for the past 19 years, Islam Awareness Week has been an opportunity for people across Great Britain to meet, eat, listen and understand each other better. Organisers of the week pick a theme that is of common interest to people of all faiths, such as looking after our neighbours, celebrating the best of Britain or remembering our common heritage. This year the theme was all about love.
At the launch event in London, Jewish, Christian and Muslim speakers explained the centrality of love in their religious teachings. In the Jewish tradition, the world stands on three things: Torah (law),
Love of God and love of neighbour are the twin commandments that became the central subject of the open letter written by Muslim scholars to their Christian counterparts in 2007, known as the Common Word initiative. Described by one of the speakers at the London event as a love letter to Christians worldwide, it invited people to come together on the basis of what they hold in common and what is also most essential to both faiths. Just a few months ago, one of the main authors of that letter, Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad of Jordon, a Professor of Philosophy, released a new book titled Love in the Holy Quran, which is based on his dissertation at Al Azhar University in Egypt.
The book, and the theme of love, has given Muslims an opportunity to explain what Islam really means to them. For a small community of British Muslims that doesnt usually have much access to mainstream media, occasions like the launch event in London are vital for getting mainstream Muslim voices heard above the hysteria and misinformation propagated by extremists on all sides.
Actions, however, can sometimes speak louder than words. Accordingly the week is not just focused on talking, but also feeding the homeless at a soup kitchen, participating in a community clean-up day and assisting with various kinds of fundraising events for local and national charities.
The theme of love was also inspired by the growing international co-operative effort known as the Charter for Compassion, which is undergoing a significant re-launch this month. It is a recognition that the principle of compassion lies at the heart of all religious, ethical and spiritual traditions and it calls upon women and men around the world to work towards alleviating the suffering of others, to ensure youth are given accurate and respectful information about others and to cultivate an informed empathy with the sufferings of others even those we might see as enemies.
The events over the past week represent a small fraction of the work that has taken place at a grassroots level over the last two decades through IAW, bringing people together who would not otherwise have met. Together they add up to a thousand little victories for compassion and common sense and thats the power of love.
###
* Mubashir Khan was the national coordinator of Islam Awareness Week in the UK from 2009-2012.
This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 27 March 2012, www.commongroundnews.org. Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Beirut - Many female Muslim football players are celebrating a recent decision by the International Federation of Association Football (FIFA), footballs international governing body, to allow them to test a specially designed headscarf. The decision will be reviewed after a four-month test period. FIFA has prohibited headscarves since 2007, but this new decision, which the UN pushed for, will hopefully allow more girls and women around the world to take part in the game.
During a recent qualifying match for the Olympics, FIFA prevented the Iranian womens football team from playing a match against the Jordanian national team because the players refused to remove their hijabs, or headscarves. The headscarves, which covered the players hair, broke FIFAs strict dress code, which had been officially implemented for safety reasons.
As no hijab-related injuries have ever been reported and headscarves have been permitted in other sports, such as rugby and taekwondo, others saw the ban as discrimination and a baseless reason to exclude these Muslim women. In Iran a former national coach even feared that such a ban would mean that womens football in Iran is over.
Since 2007, the ban on wearing the hijab at FIFA competitions has driven girls and women away from the game all over the Muslim world. Just as earlier, women and girls in Iran and other Muslim societies had to challenge their parents and local traditions just to play football; they now also had to struggle with FIFA, the institution which was supposed to support its players all over the world.
The ban had severe consequences for female players and a campaign to change the rules was initiated by FIFA Vice President, Prince Ali Bin Al Hussein of Jordan. The campaign quickly got the attention of influential personalities and institutions, such as Wilfried Lemke, the UN secretary generals Special Adviser on Sport for Development and Peace, who urged FIFA President Sepp Blatter to overturn the ban in order to secure equal rights for everybody to play football and thus follow the motto of the FIFA President: football for all, all for football.
On 4 March, only a few days prior to International Womens day, FIFA finally followed the advice from Lemke, Prince Ali and many Muslim female football players around the world. Thanks to a specially designed hijab fastened with Velcro instead of pins, the ban was repealed, and an important step was taken to enable girls and women to take part in the most popular game in the world.
We will see many delighted and happy players returning to the field and playing the game they love, said Prince Ali. Wilfried Lemke added that everybody will have an equal chance to participate in football, without any barriers and regardless of gender, race, ability, age, culture or religious beliefs.
Football is now really for all, and the rules no longer exclude a large share of the worlds population from the football pitches.
For millions of girls and women around the world dribbling and shooting at the football pitch can be the first steps towards inclusion in society, and a symbolic example of the fight to promote gender equality, overcome discrimination and challenge stereotypes. Female Muslim football players who wear the headscarf show that it is not an obstacle to participating and excelling in life and sports.
In Lebanon for example, the Cross Cultures Project Association has been promoting football at the grassroots level for boys and girls for several years. Volunteer coaches for the project have succeeded in attracting many girls to the game including those who wear headscarves.
This matters not only to the participants but also to the rest of society. As one of the female volunteers said, I want to change the impression that girls in hijab cant do anything except sit at home [and be] quiet. By doing sports we can change this and express ourselves!
The football pitch is only the first step for women and can have positive implications for their leadership in other areas. As a young female football coach in Lebanon once told me: First we take the football pitch, then we take the parliament.
###
* Jens Juul Petersen is Programme Coordinator for the Danish NGO Cross Cultures Project Association (CCPA). This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 20 March 2012, www.commongroundnews.org. Copyright permission is granted for publication.
During a recent qualifying match for the Olympics, FIFA prevented the Iranian womens football team from playing a match against the Jordanian national team because the players refused to remove their hijabs, or headscarves. The headscarves, which covered the players hair, broke FIFAs strict dress code, which had been officially implemented for safety reasons.
As no hijab-related injuries have ever been reported and headscarves have been permitted in other sports, such as rugby and taekwondo, others saw the ban as discrimination and a baseless reason to exclude these Muslim women. In Iran a former national coach even feared that such a ban would mean that womens football in Iran is over.
Since 2007, the ban on wearing the hijab at FIFA competitions has driven girls and women away from the game all over the Muslim world. Just as earlier, women and girls in Iran and other Muslim societies had to challenge their parents and local traditions just to play football; they now also had to struggle with FIFA, the institution which was supposed to support its players all over the world.
The ban had severe consequences for female players and a campaign to change the rules was initiated by FIFA Vice President, Prince Ali Bin Al Hussein of Jordan. The campaign quickly got the attention of influential personalities and institutions, such as Wilfried Lemke, the UN secretary generals Special Adviser on Sport for Development and Peace, who urged FIFA President Sepp Blatter to overturn the ban in order to secure equal rights for everybody to play football and thus follow the motto of the FIFA President: football for all, all for football.
On 4 March, only a few days prior to International Womens day, FIFA finally followed the advice from Lemke, Prince Ali and many Muslim female football players around the world. Thanks to a specially designed hijab fastened with Velcro instead of pins, the ban was repealed, and an important step was taken to enable girls and women to take part in the most popular game in the world.
We will see many delighted and happy players returning to the field and playing the game they love, said Prince Ali. Wilfried Lemke added that everybody will have an equal chance to participate in football, without any barriers and regardless of gender, race, ability, age, culture or religious beliefs.
Football is now really for all, and the rules no longer exclude a large share of the worlds population from the football pitches.
For millions of girls and women around the world dribbling and shooting at the football pitch can be the first steps towards inclusion in society, and a symbolic example of the fight to promote gender equality, overcome discrimination and challenge stereotypes. Female Muslim football players who wear the headscarf show that it is not an obstacle to participating and excelling in life and sports.
In Lebanon for example, the Cross Cultures Project Association has been promoting football at the grassroots level for boys and girls for several years. Volunteer coaches for the project have succeeded in attracting many girls to the game including those who wear headscarves.
This matters not only to the participants but also to the rest of society. As one of the female volunteers said, I want to change the impression that girls in hijab cant do anything except sit at home [and be] quiet. By doing sports we can change this and express ourselves!
The football pitch is only the first step for women and can have positive implications for their leadership in other areas. As a young female football coach in Lebanon once told me: First we take the football pitch, then we take the parliament.
###
* Jens Juul Petersen is Programme Coordinator for the Danish NGO Cross Cultures Project Association (CCPA). This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 20 March 2012, www.commongroundnews.org. Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Washington - After months of sabre-rattling rhetoric by Iran, Israel and the United States, there seems to be a collective, and welcome, time out.
Since President Barack Obamas 4 March speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), all sides have been stressing non-military means to try to resolve the crisis over Irans nuclear program.
While asserting that he is determined to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, Obama spent much of his AIPAC address decrying what he called loose talk of war. He spoke eloquently of the costs of military conflict for a nation that has fought two wars in the last decade.
His message to visiting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was clear: I am not going to start another war and you are not going to drag me into one.
Netanyahu, for his part, appeared to bow to several realities.
A savvy politician, he is recalculating the odds that Obama will be re-elected for another four-year term. The Israeli leader also knows that most of Israels defence and intelligence establishment as well as a majority of the Israeli people oppose a unilateral strike on Iran that could spark massive retaliation without significantly setting back the Iranian nuclear program. Former Mossad chief Meir Dagan has called such a strike stupid. Obama argues that economic sanctions are having a major impact on the Iranian economy and should be given more time to work.
Evidence bears this out.
US banking sanctions and the threat of a European oil embargo have reduced the value of Irans currency by half, increased inflation and unemployment and depressed oil production. The International Energy Agency reported last week that Iran is pumping only 3.3 million barrels a day down from 3.8 million barrels last year and Irans oil exports may drop by as much as 50 per cent this summer.
While denying that sanctions are a factor, Iranian leaders have agreed to come back to negotiations with the so-called P5+1 the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany. Talks the first since January 2011 are expected to take place after the Iranian New Year holiday.
In advance, the Islamic Republic has been conducting a charm offensive. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on 8 March reaffirmed a 1995 fatwa that building nuclear weapons would be a great sin. He also praised Obama for criticising war talk. Such remarks are good and indicate a step out of delusions, Khamenei said.
On 15 March, Mohammad Javad Larijani, a US-educated physicist and adviser to Khamenei, told CNNs Christiane Amanpour that Iran would provide full transparency for its nuclear program in return for acceptance of Irans right to peaceful nuclear energy under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Larijani also denied that Iran had any intention of attacking Israel, saying that Iran would defend itself against aggression but would not strike another country first.
The Iranians have signalled their interest in dialogue with the United States in other ways.
On 5 March, Irans Supreme Court ordered a retrial for an Iranian American former US Marine who had been sentenced to death as a CIA spy.
On 13 March, the US deported back to Iran an Iranian arms dealer arrested in 2007 in a sting operation in the Republic of Georgia.
Taken together, these steps improve the atmosphere for negotiations. However, it remains unclear whether the Obama administration and its partners will put forward proposals that could provide Iran a face-saving way to reduce tensions.
Key elements would include capping Iranian enrichment of uranium at 5 per cent U-235, stopping enrichment in a facility near Qom and providing access for the International Atomic Energy Agency to places and scientists associated with alleged nuclear weapons research.
In return, Iran is likely to demand recognition of limited uranium enrichment and the lifting or postponement of some sanctions.
Whether Obama in the midst of a re-election campaign is capable of compromise with a country that has been a US adversary for 33 years will test his willingness to put national interest over political expediency.
Iran, in turn, will have to honour its commitments if it hopes to reduce economic pressures and assume its desired position as a respected power in the region and the international community.
###
* Barbara Slavin is a Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council, Washington correspondent for Al-Monitor.com and the author of a 2007 book, Bitter Friends, Bosom Enemies: Iran, the U.S, and the Twisted Path to Confrontation. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 20 March 2012, www.commongroundnews.org. Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Since President Barack Obamas 4 March speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), all sides have been stressing non-military means to try to resolve the crisis over Irans nuclear program.
While asserting that he is determined to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, Obama spent much of his AIPAC address decrying what he called loose talk of war. He spoke eloquently of the costs of military conflict for a nation that has fought two wars in the last decade.
His message to visiting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was clear: I am not going to start another war and you are not going to drag me into one.
Netanyahu, for his part, appeared to bow to several realities.
A savvy politician, he is recalculating the odds that Obama will be re-elected for another four-year term. The Israeli leader also knows that most of Israels defence and intelligence establishment as well as a majority of the Israeli people oppose a unilateral strike on Iran that could spark massive retaliation without significantly setting back the Iranian nuclear program. Former Mossad chief Meir Dagan has called such a strike stupid. Obama argues that economic sanctions are having a major impact on the Iranian economy and should be given more time to work.
Evidence bears this out.
US banking sanctions and the threat of a European oil embargo have reduced the value of Irans currency by half, increased inflation and unemployment and depressed oil production. The International Energy Agency reported last week that Iran is pumping only 3.3 million barrels a day down from 3.8 million barrels last year and Irans oil exports may drop by as much as 50 per cent this summer.
While denying that sanctions are a factor, Iranian leaders have agreed to come back to negotiations with the so-called P5+1 the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany. Talks the first since January 2011 are expected to take place after the Iranian New Year holiday.
In advance, the Islamic Republic has been conducting a charm offensive. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on 8 March reaffirmed a 1995 fatwa that building nuclear weapons would be a great sin. He also praised Obama for criticising war talk. Such remarks are good and indicate a step out of delusions, Khamenei said.
On 15 March, Mohammad Javad Larijani, a US-educated physicist and adviser to Khamenei, told CNNs Christiane Amanpour that Iran would provide full transparency for its nuclear program in return for acceptance of Irans right to peaceful nuclear energy under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Larijani also denied that Iran had any intention of attacking Israel, saying that Iran would defend itself against aggression but would not strike another country first.
The Iranians have signalled their interest in dialogue with the United States in other ways.
On 5 March, Irans Supreme Court ordered a retrial for an Iranian American former US Marine who had been sentenced to death as a CIA spy.
On 13 March, the US deported back to Iran an Iranian arms dealer arrested in 2007 in a sting operation in the Republic of Georgia.
Taken together, these steps improve the atmosphere for negotiations. However, it remains unclear whether the Obama administration and its partners will put forward proposals that could provide Iran a face-saving way to reduce tensions.
Key elements would include capping Iranian enrichment of uranium at 5 per cent U-235, stopping enrichment in a facility near Qom and providing access for the International Atomic Energy Agency to places and scientists associated with alleged nuclear weapons research.
In return, Iran is likely to demand recognition of limited uranium enrichment and the lifting or postponement of some sanctions.
Whether Obama in the midst of a re-election campaign is capable of compromise with a country that has been a US adversary for 33 years will test his willingness to put national interest over political expediency.
Iran, in turn, will have to honour its commitments if it hopes to reduce economic pressures and assume its desired position as a respected power in the region and the international community.
###
* Barbara Slavin is a Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council, Washington correspondent for Al-Monitor.com and the author of a 2007 book, Bitter Friends, Bosom Enemies: Iran, the U.S, and the Twisted Path to Confrontation. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 20 March 2012, www.commongroundnews.org. Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Tripoli - As natives of Tripoli in our mid-twenties, we are part of the second generation of Libyans to have known no other authority than Muammar Gaddafis. When the Gaddafi regime collapsed, the world saw rebels fighting for control of the streets while we felt chaos in our souls. Since those traumatic days we, like many of our friends, have been rethinking our identity and purpose in life.
After the fall of the regime, we began dreaming about the possibility of a free, dynamic Libya, advancing at lightning speed to catch up with a world that left us behind decades ago. But what could we do to help make that dream a reality? We felt that what the Libyan people needed most were education and inspiration and that the most effective way to deliver these would be through broadcast media.
We decided to start a radio show and call it Rough Talk.
In our native dialect, this term is code for frankness and candour. Rough talk is not the same as street talk. In the Libya we had always known, you didnt dare to speak frankly and openly in the streets. Now, we imagined it would be possible to bring rough talk open, candid conversation about issues that matter into the public space where it belongs. It would be the language through which we explored every issue and concern that stood in the way of building of a strong, democratic Libya.
Of course, thats easier said than done.
The three of us are life-long radio lovers. Radio is the one medium to which nearly all Libyans have access. Growing up, we listened to international broadcasts from anywhere and everywhere, sifting through competing narratives of the same piece of news and trying to form our own opinions. Libya currently has neither the economic structure nor the political stability for an independent broadcast to be viable. The best-funded broadcasts in our country are controlled by political interests and factions. We knew that if we approached such media outlets with our idea for Rough Talk, we would probably become tools of their agenda.
And yet we wanted to do a radio show.
By combining YouTube and Facebook, its possible to create a simple audio broadcast of any length and disseminate it via the Internet. All we needed was a microphone and a laptop computer.
In our first episode, we laid out some of our goals: to press public officials to address the countrys problems; to seek out and talk through solutions successfully used in other countries that might be useful here; to foster national reconciliation and an end to private armies; and above all, to never tell a lie. Libya is free, we explained. Its free because we believe it is free, and it will continue to be free as long as we continue to act on what we believe.
In one of our early episodes, we argued with each other about street protests. Can protestors unite on an agenda of what we want to build, or can we only agree on what we want to demolish? We dont know the answers, but we know that the answers must begin by posing the questions.
Another episode addressed the concept of the rule of law. We interviewed friends and strangers and asked them what they thought the term rule of law means. Then we presented our own definition: a system in which every member of the society is treated equally under just laws overseen by the population as a whole.
Since we started, the number of Facebook fans has been gradually growing. We have been using Facebook to reach out. For example, we recently joined an online group called the Lawful Culture Online Community (www.lawfulculture.net), which is comprised mainly of Arab journalists who are committed to spreading a culture of lawfulness and tolerance throughout the Arab world. Weve benefited from its experience in promoting positive values through media work. The input of this online community has made our broadcast content even stronger and we feel honoured to be members of its board.
There are early signs that our persistence is being rewarded. We got our first break when Radio Libya offered to air our programmes. Radio Libya is a small station controlled for the moment by Libyas transitional government. It offered to run our programmes uncut. It means the world to us that we have an outlet through which to reach the street, engaging cab drivers, street vendors and anyone who wants to listen. We believe that this opportunity strikes the right balance between our desire to maintain independence and our hope to grow our audience.
This is an uphill battle. But we wont stop, as long as we have an audience that shares our vision of a flourishing future for our country.
###
* Khalid Al-Badawi, Muhammad Al-Taip and Mohannad Awn are co-founders of the Rough Talk Radio Network in Libya. This article was translated by Joseph Braude, a Middle East specialist and author of The Honored Dead: A Story of Friendship, Murder, and the Search for Truth in the Arab World (Random House, 2011). This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 20 March 2012, www.commongroundnews.org. Copyright permission is granted for publication.
After the fall of the regime, we began dreaming about the possibility of a free, dynamic Libya, advancing at lightning speed to catch up with a world that left us behind decades ago. But what could we do to help make that dream a reality? We felt that what the Libyan people needed most were education and inspiration and that the most effective way to deliver these would be through broadcast media.
We decided to start a radio show and call it Rough Talk.
In our native dialect, this term is code for frankness and candour. Rough talk is not the same as street talk. In the Libya we had always known, you didnt dare to speak frankly and openly in the streets. Now, we imagined it would be possible to bring rough talk open, candid conversation about issues that matter into the public space where it belongs. It would be the language through which we explored every issue and concern that stood in the way of building of a strong, democratic Libya.
Of course, thats easier said than done.
The three of us are life-long radio lovers. Radio is the one medium to which nearly all Libyans have access. Growing up, we listened to international broadcasts from anywhere and everywhere, sifting through competing narratives of the same piece of news and trying to form our own opinions. Libya currently has neither the economic structure nor the political stability for an independent broadcast to be viable. The best-funded broadcasts in our country are controlled by political interests and factions. We knew that if we approached such media outlets with our idea for Rough Talk, we would probably become tools of their agenda.
And yet we wanted to do a radio show.
By combining YouTube and Facebook, its possible to create a simple audio broadcast of any length and disseminate it via the Internet. All we needed was a microphone and a laptop computer.
In our first episode, we laid out some of our goals: to press public officials to address the countrys problems; to seek out and talk through solutions successfully used in other countries that might be useful here; to foster national reconciliation and an end to private armies; and above all, to never tell a lie. Libya is free, we explained. Its free because we believe it is free, and it will continue to be free as long as we continue to act on what we believe.
In one of our early episodes, we argued with each other about street protests. Can protestors unite on an agenda of what we want to build, or can we only agree on what we want to demolish? We dont know the answers, but we know that the answers must begin by posing the questions.
Another episode addressed the concept of the rule of law. We interviewed friends and strangers and asked them what they thought the term rule of law means. Then we presented our own definition: a system in which every member of the society is treated equally under just laws overseen by the population as a whole.
Since we started, the number of Facebook fans has been gradually growing. We have been using Facebook to reach out. For example, we recently joined an online group called the Lawful Culture Online Community (www.lawfulculture.net), which is comprised mainly of Arab journalists who are committed to spreading a culture of lawfulness and tolerance throughout the Arab world. Weve benefited from its experience in promoting positive values through media work. The input of this online community has made our broadcast content even stronger and we feel honoured to be members of its board.
There are early signs that our persistence is being rewarded. We got our first break when Radio Libya offered to air our programmes. Radio Libya is a small station controlled for the moment by Libyas transitional government. It offered to run our programmes uncut. It means the world to us that we have an outlet through which to reach the street, engaging cab drivers, street vendors and anyone who wants to listen. We believe that this opportunity strikes the right balance between our desire to maintain independence and our hope to grow our audience.
This is an uphill battle. But we wont stop, as long as we have an audience that shares our vision of a flourishing future for our country.
###
* Khalid Al-Badawi, Muhammad Al-Taip and Mohannad Awn are co-founders of the Rough Talk Radio Network in Libya. This article was translated by Joseph Braude, a Middle East specialist and author of The Honored Dead: A Story of Friendship, Murder, and the Search for Truth in the Arab World (Random House, 2011). This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 20 March 2012, www.commongroundnews.org. Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Doha - The Arab world today is home to millions of young people with hopes, plans and the desire to work. With more than 100 million young people between 15 and 29, representing 30 per cent of the total population, the region is facing an unprecedented youth bulge.
This reality has led to many challenges when it comes to youth employment but it can also be seen as an opportunity to foster youth-powered positive change, using social networks and technology to create much-needed impact.
Today, there simply arent enough jobs for youth coming into the regions labour markets. Public sector jobs are no longer a guarantee for graduates, and the private sector is unable to grow fast enough. For example, in Egypt 600,000 young people enter the labour market each year, but only about 250,000 of them find a job.
The result: millions of young adults are forced to make a living on their own through self-employment, despite low incomes. For many of these micro-entrepreneurs who have very small, self-owned enterprises the only thing standing between subsistence level income and thriving, sustainable businesses is a lack of reliable, affordable capital. But too many financial institutions see young people as a risk when it comes to loaning money.
It may be time for others to help fill the gap.
Even though young Arabs may still be looking for work, they definitely have found their voice. The advent of technologies such as the Internet, mobile phones and social media has provided young people with tools to help them make change happen. One way to drive change is to fund, engage and celebrate young people who are trying to make a living on their own, and show how we as individuals around the world can help foster change. Technology and social media play an important role in achieving this.
Accordingly, two organisationsSilatech, the Arab regions largest youth microenterprise support provider, and Kiva, the worlds largest online microlending platformhave together created Kiva Arab Youth, an online platform that offers a way for people throughout the world to help young Arab entrepreneurs start or grow their businesses through small microloans of as little as $25. An example of how this works in practice is Shawgy, a 26-year-old man who lives in Taiz, Yemen.
He couldn't afford an education and decided to start his own shop, which he has run for four years to help support his family. He wants to increase his sales to offer his parents a better future but in order to do so needs to buy more products that offer his customers more variety. He lacks the capital to do this on his own, but a small loan will allow him to buy more products and increase his sales. Kiva lenders ordinary people around the world can make small contributions towards loans for individuals like Shawgy in the Arab world through Kivas online platform, which are matched by Silatech.
But this is only the start.
There is a clear opportunity for the creation of online peer-to-peer platforms in Arabic that connect charities, lenders and donors (in Arab countries and globally) potentially including Islamic charitable giving to self-employed young men and women from disadvantaged backgrounds. There is a growing movement in the Arab and Muslim worlds toward more strategic, capacity-building forms of charitable giving which focus on long-term, sustainable impact.
Sustainable giving models such as revolving loan funds(which are loaned, repaid and returned to the lender to be reinvested to help more people), or social investments(which direct investor attention towards projects which generate social, as opposed to purely financial, returns), provide an opportunity to use these technology platforms to enable more impactful giving. These can be created for the young, and potentially by the young as well.
If widely adopted by the Arab world, such technology initiatives could mobilise billions of dollars by re-focusing current streams of charitable giving. Forums like the World Congress of Muslim Philanthropists (WCMP), a global network of individuals, foundations and corporations advancing charitable giving, offer a significant opportunity to showcase potential solutions that increase engagement between donors and recipients and fund projects that have positive social impacts.
Organisations such as Silatech through its stakeholders, sponsors and partners in Qatar and elsewhere in the Arab region have an opportunity to spark such a discussion and influence strategies and mind-sets about innovative uses of technology, as well as new forms of social giving.
Opinion shapers, social entrepreneurs, religious figures and other influencers in the region should consider putting their support behind this and similar forms of sustainable social action.
###
* Ramakant Vempati is Senior Advisor and Justin Sykes is Manager for Social Innovation at Silatech. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 20 March 2012, www.commongroundnews.org. Copyright permission is granted for publication.
This reality has led to many challenges when it comes to youth employment but it can also be seen as an opportunity to foster youth-powered positive change, using social networks and technology to create much-needed impact.
Today, there simply arent enough jobs for youth coming into the regions labour markets. Public sector jobs are no longer a guarantee for graduates, and the private sector is unable to grow fast enough. For example, in Egypt 600,000 young people enter the labour market each year, but only about 250,000 of them find a job.
The result: millions of young adults are forced to make a living on their own through self-employment, despite low incomes. For many of these micro-entrepreneurs who have very small, self-owned enterprises the only thing standing between subsistence level income and thriving, sustainable businesses is a lack of reliable, affordable capital. But too many financial institutions see young people as a risk when it comes to loaning money.
It may be time for others to help fill the gap.
Even though young Arabs may still be looking for work, they definitely have found their voice. The advent of technologies such as the Internet, mobile phones and social media has provided young people with tools to help them make change happen. One way to drive change is to fund, engage and celebrate young people who are trying to make a living on their own, and show how we as individuals around the world can help foster change. Technology and social media play an important role in achieving this.
Accordingly, two organisationsSilatech, the Arab regions largest youth microenterprise support provider, and Kiva, the worlds largest online microlending platformhave together created Kiva Arab Youth, an online platform that offers a way for people throughout the world to help young Arab entrepreneurs start or grow their businesses through small microloans of as little as $25. An example of how this works in practice is Shawgy, a 26-year-old man who lives in Taiz, Yemen.
He couldn't afford an education and decided to start his own shop, which he has run for four years to help support his family. He wants to increase his sales to offer his parents a better future but in order to do so needs to buy more products that offer his customers more variety. He lacks the capital to do this on his own, but a small loan will allow him to buy more products and increase his sales. Kiva lenders ordinary people around the world can make small contributions towards loans for individuals like Shawgy in the Arab world through Kivas online platform, which are matched by Silatech.
But this is only the start.
There is a clear opportunity for the creation of online peer-to-peer platforms in Arabic that connect charities, lenders and donors (in Arab countries and globally) potentially including Islamic charitable giving to self-employed young men and women from disadvantaged backgrounds. There is a growing movement in the Arab and Muslim worlds toward more strategic, capacity-building forms of charitable giving which focus on long-term, sustainable impact.
Sustainable giving models such as revolving loan funds(which are loaned, repaid and returned to the lender to be reinvested to help more people), or social investments(which direct investor attention towards projects which generate social, as opposed to purely financial, returns), provide an opportunity to use these technology platforms to enable more impactful giving. These can be created for the young, and potentially by the young as well.
If widely adopted by the Arab world, such technology initiatives could mobilise billions of dollars by re-focusing current streams of charitable giving. Forums like the World Congress of Muslim Philanthropists (WCMP), a global network of individuals, foundations and corporations advancing charitable giving, offer a significant opportunity to showcase potential solutions that increase engagement between donors and recipients and fund projects that have positive social impacts.
Organisations such as Silatech through its stakeholders, sponsors and partners in Qatar and elsewhere in the Arab region have an opportunity to spark such a discussion and influence strategies and mind-sets about innovative uses of technology, as well as new forms of social giving.
Opinion shapers, social entrepreneurs, religious figures and other influencers in the region should consider putting their support behind this and similar forms of sustainable social action.
###
* Ramakant Vempati is Senior Advisor and Justin Sykes is Manager for Social Innovation at Silatech. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 20 March 2012, www.commongroundnews.org. Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Brighton, UK - When we ride public transportation, we are simultaneously moving and stuck. As an American traveling in Israel, I have started to use this time to become unstuck to understand more about the people living there instead of relying on stereotypes.
Riding the bus from Eilat to Tel Aviv last month, a young freckled soldier takes the seat next to me. I ask him where he is serving. He is vague and says he cant tell me, it is highly classified. Written, it sounds ridiculous, as if he is pretending to be a spy, but in person it is said so politely and casually, I believe him. He is boyish, young but mature, lovely, thoughtful. He has a red beret tucked neatly in the epaulette of his army uniform, which has two bars on the shoulder. I know this means he is a captain in a paratrooper unit so young-looking, yet a captain.
He asks me what brought me to Israel, shifting the focus of the conversation away from him. At this point a man in his late 20s gets on and asks to sit in his seat he has the ticket to it. The soldier moves to get up, and then the man notices the step in front of our seat. He tells the soldier to stay put and sits on the step. The men argue for a moment, each insisting the other take the seat near me. The man sitting on the step explains, You should have the seat; you are a soldier. At this moment I realise he too has a story to tell about his relationship to the army, one of gratitude and guilt. The soldier stands up and puts his hand on the older mans shoulder, gently commanding him to take the seat, turns to thank me for my conversation and moves to the back of the bus.
Now I am determined to unearth the story of the man sitting next to me. I wonder about his conflicted relationship to the army. I ask, Were you in the army (the Israeli Defense Forces)? The man, whom I will call Roni, laughs, and tells me he gave nine years to the army as a career soldier, but following a motorcycle accident, he was discharged even from the mandatory yearly reserve duty. Gripping his thighs, he tells me he has metal rods in his legs. I ask Roni for his view about the situation of Arabs in Israel and he gives me the classic Israeli diplomatic answer: We are all sons of Adam; we are all human.
Ronis father was born in Syria and his mothers parents were from Iran. He tells me he focused on Middle Eastern Studies at university. I share that I did too, so he starts to speak in Arabic. His Arabic is spoken so beautifully, like the waves of the Mediterranean Sea. We have a conversation and the Arabic flows from me, words that have not come out of my mouth since university somehow find passage through my vocal chords. He tells me he has a brother who cant stand the sound of Arabic, but we both agree it is a beautiful language.
Roni worked as an interpreter for economic conferences in Taba, an Egyptian resort on the Egypt/Israel border, translating Hebrew to Arabic for people from many Arab countries. It intrigued me that economists succeeded in bringing Arabs and Jews together by meeting in Taba, a local neutral territory. Roni beamed with pride as he told me the Arab participants later complimented him that his formal Arabic was more fluent than their own. It wasnt just the language he translated for them. Roni was a living bridge between the two cultures. In him, Arabness and Jewishness resided respectfully. He dedicated his life to defending the Jewish homeland and immersing himself in Arabic language and culture. I am surprised to hear that his Jewish father, who moved here at age 15, longs to return to Syria, as he is more comfortable with its traditional values.
This mans stories challenged some of my assumptions about soldiers and Syrians. I wonder if we relied less on conventional narratives of Arab-Jewish relations, and instead became interested in the person sitting next to us on the bus or train, that we might also move forward together metaphorically to arrive at our desired destinations.
###
* Ariel Katz is an American living in England. She studied Middle Eastern Studies at Cornell University in New York, and lived in Israel for three years working in Arab-Jewish relations. She now works as a play therapist. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 20 March 2012, www.commongroundnews.org. Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Riding the bus from Eilat to Tel Aviv last month, a young freckled soldier takes the seat next to me. I ask him where he is serving. He is vague and says he cant tell me, it is highly classified. Written, it sounds ridiculous, as if he is pretending to be a spy, but in person it is said so politely and casually, I believe him. He is boyish, young but mature, lovely, thoughtful. He has a red beret tucked neatly in the epaulette of his army uniform, which has two bars on the shoulder. I know this means he is a captain in a paratrooper unit so young-looking, yet a captain.
He asks me what brought me to Israel, shifting the focus of the conversation away from him. At this point a man in his late 20s gets on and asks to sit in his seat he has the ticket to it. The soldier moves to get up, and then the man notices the step in front of our seat. He tells the soldier to stay put and sits on the step. The men argue for a moment, each insisting the other take the seat near me. The man sitting on the step explains, You should have the seat; you are a soldier. At this moment I realise he too has a story to tell about his relationship to the army, one of gratitude and guilt. The soldier stands up and puts his hand on the older mans shoulder, gently commanding him to take the seat, turns to thank me for my conversation and moves to the back of the bus.
Now I am determined to unearth the story of the man sitting next to me. I wonder about his conflicted relationship to the army. I ask, Were you in the army (the Israeli Defense Forces)? The man, whom I will call Roni, laughs, and tells me he gave nine years to the army as a career soldier, but following a motorcycle accident, he was discharged even from the mandatory yearly reserve duty. Gripping his thighs, he tells me he has metal rods in his legs. I ask Roni for his view about the situation of Arabs in Israel and he gives me the classic Israeli diplomatic answer: We are all sons of Adam; we are all human.
Ronis father was born in Syria and his mothers parents were from Iran. He tells me he focused on Middle Eastern Studies at university. I share that I did too, so he starts to speak in Arabic. His Arabic is spoken so beautifully, like the waves of the Mediterranean Sea. We have a conversation and the Arabic flows from me, words that have not come out of my mouth since university somehow find passage through my vocal chords. He tells me he has a brother who cant stand the sound of Arabic, but we both agree it is a beautiful language.
Roni worked as an interpreter for economic conferences in Taba, an Egyptian resort on the Egypt/Israel border, translating Hebrew to Arabic for people from many Arab countries. It intrigued me that economists succeeded in bringing Arabs and Jews together by meeting in Taba, a local neutral territory. Roni beamed with pride as he told me the Arab participants later complimented him that his formal Arabic was more fluent than their own. It wasnt just the language he translated for them. Roni was a living bridge between the two cultures. In him, Arabness and Jewishness resided respectfully. He dedicated his life to defending the Jewish homeland and immersing himself in Arabic language and culture. I am surprised to hear that his Jewish father, who moved here at age 15, longs to return to Syria, as he is more comfortable with its traditional values.
This mans stories challenged some of my assumptions about soldiers and Syrians. I wonder if we relied less on conventional narratives of Arab-Jewish relations, and instead became interested in the person sitting next to us on the bus or train, that we might also move forward together metaphorically to arrive at our desired destinations.
###
* Ariel Katz is an American living in England. She studied Middle Eastern Studies at Cornell University in New York, and lived in Israel for three years working in Arab-Jewish relations. She now works as a play therapist. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 20 March 2012, www.commongroundnews.org. Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Tel Aviv - Last month, United Kingdom Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Eric Pickles described multiculturalism as the "politics of division. He criticised previous administrations in the UK for allowing communities to lead separate lives and not promoting integration with mainstream British society. As the UK and European countries grapple with how to integrate minority populations, including Muslim communities, it would be worthwhile to look to Canada as a successful model.
In Canada, multiculturalism is deemed by the majority of society to be a successful government policy precisely because it promotes, among other things, national unity. For the most part, multiculturalism in Canada fosters social cohesion by placing all cultures on an equal footing. It creates common values, such as tolerance, that can be shared by the many different members of society, despite the fact that many citizens originate from a variety places with disparate religious backgrounds. In other words, multiculturalism can be defined as an approach that aims to assist with the integration of immigrants and minorities, remove barriers to their participation in Canadian life and make them feel more welcome in Canadian society, leading to a stronger sense of belonging and national pride.
Rather than straddling the periphery, the Muslim community generally has a high socio-economic standing. Its contribution to society is far-reaching, visible in their robust presence in numerous sectors including politics, the hospitality industry, health care and media.
Multiculturalism was adopted as official policy in 1971. It is premised on mutual respect between Canadians of all backgrounds, and a range of legislation supports the policy. Multiculturalism is reflected in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which guarantees civil rights, including freedom of religion. Moreover, the Multiculturalism Act aims to recognise and promote the cultural and racial diversity of Canadian society while at the same time upholding the idea that multiculturalism in and of itself is a fundamental characteristic of Canadian heritage and identity.
How this translates to actual policy can be seen in the multiple ways that Canadians accommodate their Muslim compatriots. For instance, Muslim prayer is allowed in public schools under the supervision of the local school boards, wearing the burqa in public places is allowed (although not during citizenship ceremonies when the woman must recite the oath in order to receive her Canadian citizenship), and halal food is carried in Canadian supermarkets.
The institutionalisation of multiculturalism has meant that there is, for the most part, genuine acceptance of all cultures in society on equal terms, without fear that accommodation of different cultures will weaken Canadian laws, institutions or the character of the state. Attesting to this are several polls taken between 2006 and 2007 which show that compared to other countries, Canada has been less affected by the global surge in anti-Muslim sentiments and by the resulting polarisation of ethnic relations. According to a 2006 survey conducted by Focus Canada, 83 per cent of Canadians agree that Muslims make a positive contribution to Canada. International polls reveal that Muslims in Canada are less likely than Muslims in other countries to believe that their fellow citizens are hostile to them.
The policy has not been without criticism, most notably in the province of Quebec. Quebec politicians have lambasted the "Canadian ideology of multiculturalism", demanding that immigrants "integrate" into Quebec's francophone culture. But this stands in conflict with the federal policy on integration, which defines integration in terms of national not local culture.
One of the best examples of the Muslim community's integration into Canadian society is the successful election of Canada's first Muslim mayor in one of the most politically conservative cities in Canada, Calgary.
Canada deserves its reputation of being an inclusive society that celebrates diversity. Although not a perfect system, multiculturalism as promoted in Canada means embracing other cultures while at the same time adhering to the particular country's laws and policies. As the UK and European countries struggle with integrating their minority populations, they would be wise to look to this model and consider adopting policies that strike this balance in favour of inclusiveness.
###
*Natalia Simanovsky has worked as a research officer at various think tanks and intergovernmental organisations in North America and Israel. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 13 March 2012, www.commongroundnews.org. Copyright permission is granted for publication.
In Canada, multiculturalism is deemed by the majority of society to be a successful government policy precisely because it promotes, among other things, national unity. For the most part, multiculturalism in Canada fosters social cohesion by placing all cultures on an equal footing. It creates common values, such as tolerance, that can be shared by the many different members of society, despite the fact that many citizens originate from a variety places with disparate religious backgrounds. In other words, multiculturalism can be defined as an approach that aims to assist with the integration of immigrants and minorities, remove barriers to their participation in Canadian life and make them feel more welcome in Canadian society, leading to a stronger sense of belonging and national pride.
Rather than straddling the periphery, the Muslim community generally has a high socio-economic standing. Its contribution to society is far-reaching, visible in their robust presence in numerous sectors including politics, the hospitality industry, health care and media.
Multiculturalism was adopted as official policy in 1971. It is premised on mutual respect between Canadians of all backgrounds, and a range of legislation supports the policy. Multiculturalism is reflected in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which guarantees civil rights, including freedom of religion. Moreover, the Multiculturalism Act aims to recognise and promote the cultural and racial diversity of Canadian society while at the same time upholding the idea that multiculturalism in and of itself is a fundamental characteristic of Canadian heritage and identity.
How this translates to actual policy can be seen in the multiple ways that Canadians accommodate their Muslim compatriots. For instance, Muslim prayer is allowed in public schools under the supervision of the local school boards, wearing the burqa in public places is allowed (although not during citizenship ceremonies when the woman must recite the oath in order to receive her Canadian citizenship), and halal food is carried in Canadian supermarkets.
The institutionalisation of multiculturalism has meant that there is, for the most part, genuine acceptance of all cultures in society on equal terms, without fear that accommodation of different cultures will weaken Canadian laws, institutions or the character of the state. Attesting to this are several polls taken between 2006 and 2007 which show that compared to other countries, Canada has been less affected by the global surge in anti-Muslim sentiments and by the resulting polarisation of ethnic relations. According to a 2006 survey conducted by Focus Canada, 83 per cent of Canadians agree that Muslims make a positive contribution to Canada. International polls reveal that Muslims in Canada are less likely than Muslims in other countries to believe that their fellow citizens are hostile to them.
The policy has not been without criticism, most notably in the province of Quebec. Quebec politicians have lambasted the "Canadian ideology of multiculturalism", demanding that immigrants "integrate" into Quebec's francophone culture. But this stands in conflict with the federal policy on integration, which defines integration in terms of national not local culture.
One of the best examples of the Muslim community's integration into Canadian society is the successful election of Canada's first Muslim mayor in one of the most politically conservative cities in Canada, Calgary.
Canada deserves its reputation of being an inclusive society that celebrates diversity. Although not a perfect system, multiculturalism as promoted in Canada means embracing other cultures while at the same time adhering to the particular country's laws and policies. As the UK and European countries struggle with integrating their minority populations, they would be wise to look to this model and consider adopting policies that strike this balance in favour of inclusiveness.
###
*Natalia Simanovsky has worked as a research officer at various think tanks and intergovernmental organisations in North America and Israel. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 13 March 2012, www.commongroundnews.org. Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Jerusalem - Its been over a year since the start of a wave of revolutions that brought down the rulers of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen, one after another. In Syria dozens die by the day, hoping to achieve the same goals of freedom and dignity under a democratic regime. Many Palestinians are now wondering what effect this past years developments in the Arab world will have on their own struggle for independence.
After the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, which marked the dissolution of a pan-Arab identity, many Palestinians came to feel that their struggle was theirs alone. A recent poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion (PCPO) shows that Palestinians have not changed their perceptions of how their cause is viewed by the greater Arab world. Of those polled, most (65 per cent) feel that the Arab Spring will have a negative impact on the Palestinian cause. Dr Nabil Kukali, President of the PCPO, says that most Palestinians view the Arab Spring as the Palestinian Fall. Kukali explains that the new Arab regimes and their peoples are now concerned more with internal issues than with the Palestinians future.
Of course the internal situation in Arab Spring countries is still one of turmoil, and it is to be expected that each country is trying to put its own house in order, giving priority to domestic affairs like the economy and security.
But for Palestinians this has meant that their leaders bid to gain recognition for a Palestinian state in the UN last fall was virtually ignored by the Arab street. Had the Arab street raised its voice and called on the world to recognise the Palestinian state as a member of the UN, it might have influenced the larger players, such as Britain and the United States, to think more favourably about admitting Palestine particularly as these countries have relationships with the Arab world based on vital interests.
It will take time for the dust of revolution to settle and for the Arab countries in transition to arrive at a point where they can attend to restructuring their foreign policy and diplomatic relations. One only has to look to Egypt to understand how its standing in the region has been affected by the revolution. Prior to it, Egypt was arguably the major Arab power in the Middle East, playing an important role in mediating between the Arab world and the West. This was the reason US President Barack Obama chose Egypt as the platform from which to deliver his first speech to the Muslim world as president in June 2009.
But today the role played by Egypt in the political arena is marginal because Egypt's internal affairs are in flux. When dozens can die in a football match in Egypt, there is not much room to attend to foreign policy.
The Palestinians dont have time to wait for the Arab street to take a greater interest in their affairs, and must push forward and build the foundations of their future state. Self-reliance at this time is key for the future of an independent Palestinian state. One only needs to look at the steps the Zionists took to found the state of Israel. They did not wait for the world to wake up. Decades before 1948 they were working hard to build the infrastructure for their state. It is only once the main components of a state were in place that the world gave its support.
The young generations of Palestinians have the potential to do the same. The Arab youth who initiated the Arab Spring may have drawn their inspiration from the Palestinian struggle, particularly the first intifada and the nonviolent movement of recent years. I believe that young Palestinians now have the potential to bring about their own Spring.
Of course Arab support, were it to come soon, would no doubt strengthen the Palestinian position and create more favourable conditions for negotiations with the Israeli government. Diplomatic pressure from these countries particularly from the Gulf states but also from Jordan and Egypt, who have economic and military agreements with larger world powers could change the rules of the game sooner. This would be particularly effective if Arab countries were to formulate a unified approach to the Palestinian cause.
But even without the support of the Arab world, one can take hope in the enormous potential of young Palestinians to effect change on the ground and achieve freedom for their people.
###
* Dawoud Abu Lebdeh is a Palestinian living in East Jerusalem. He is currently an MA student for Political Science and Middle Eastern Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He is also one of the founders of the Watan student movement, and writes about the Middle East and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from a Palestinian perspective. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 13 March 2012, www.commongroundnews.org. Copyright permission is granted for publication.
After the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, which marked the dissolution of a pan-Arab identity, many Palestinians came to feel that their struggle was theirs alone. A recent poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion (PCPO) shows that Palestinians have not changed their perceptions of how their cause is viewed by the greater Arab world. Of those polled, most (65 per cent) feel that the Arab Spring will have a negative impact on the Palestinian cause. Dr Nabil Kukali, President of the PCPO, says that most Palestinians view the Arab Spring as the Palestinian Fall. Kukali explains that the new Arab regimes and their peoples are now concerned more with internal issues than with the Palestinians future.
Of course the internal situation in Arab Spring countries is still one of turmoil, and it is to be expected that each country is trying to put its own house in order, giving priority to domestic affairs like the economy and security.
But for Palestinians this has meant that their leaders bid to gain recognition for a Palestinian state in the UN last fall was virtually ignored by the Arab street. Had the Arab street raised its voice and called on the world to recognise the Palestinian state as a member of the UN, it might have influenced the larger players, such as Britain and the United States, to think more favourably about admitting Palestine particularly as these countries have relationships with the Arab world based on vital interests.
It will take time for the dust of revolution to settle and for the Arab countries in transition to arrive at a point where they can attend to restructuring their foreign policy and diplomatic relations. One only has to look to Egypt to understand how its standing in the region has been affected by the revolution. Prior to it, Egypt was arguably the major Arab power in the Middle East, playing an important role in mediating between the Arab world and the West. This was the reason US President Barack Obama chose Egypt as the platform from which to deliver his first speech to the Muslim world as president in June 2009.
But today the role played by Egypt in the political arena is marginal because Egypt's internal affairs are in flux. When dozens can die in a football match in Egypt, there is not much room to attend to foreign policy.
The Palestinians dont have time to wait for the Arab street to take a greater interest in their affairs, and must push forward and build the foundations of their future state. Self-reliance at this time is key for the future of an independent Palestinian state. One only needs to look at the steps the Zionists took to found the state of Israel. They did not wait for the world to wake up. Decades before 1948 they were working hard to build the infrastructure for their state. It is only once the main components of a state were in place that the world gave its support.
The young generations of Palestinians have the potential to do the same. The Arab youth who initiated the Arab Spring may have drawn their inspiration from the Palestinian struggle, particularly the first intifada and the nonviolent movement of recent years. I believe that young Palestinians now have the potential to bring about their own Spring.
Of course Arab support, were it to come soon, would no doubt strengthen the Palestinian position and create more favourable conditions for negotiations with the Israeli government. Diplomatic pressure from these countries particularly from the Gulf states but also from Jordan and Egypt, who have economic and military agreements with larger world powers could change the rules of the game sooner. This would be particularly effective if Arab countries were to formulate a unified approach to the Palestinian cause.
But even without the support of the Arab world, one can take hope in the enormous potential of young Palestinians to effect change on the ground and achieve freedom for their people.
###
* Dawoud Abu Lebdeh is a Palestinian living in East Jerusalem. He is currently an MA student for Political Science and Middle Eastern Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He is also one of the founders of the Watan student movement, and writes about the Middle East and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from a Palestinian perspective. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 13 March 2012, www.commongroundnews.org. Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Kingsville, Ontario - Recently, Floridas House of Representatives passed a bill (which later died in the state Senate) to ban the use of foreign law in domestic courtrooms. Such a bill may seem innocuous but according to the Miami Herald, flyers have circulated in Senate offices describing sharia Islamic principles which are part of a voluntary system of personal obligation as radical Islams threat to the US Constitution.
I saw these same uninformed attitudes in the reactions of some of my colleagues to my four-year qualitative study of Islamic marriage and divorce in North America. Their response was often an amazed Do they have divorce in Islam? When I explained that while Muslim women are treated differently from men (who have unilateral access to divorce in classical Islamic law), and that they do have the right to ask for divorce on a wide range of grounds (and have had this right since the 7th century), the response was frequently But dont they just stone them? followed by laughter.
American public discourse on Islam is underpinned by three related misconceptions about Islam, Muslims in general and sharia in particular.
The first is that Muslims hold very different values compared to other cultures and religions. Rarely can anyone explain what these different values are just that they are frightening. As one student told her professor, I dont really know anything about sharia law, I just know that its a bad thing.
Most Americans are unaware that the vast majority of sharia as it is understood and practiced by Muslim Americans as well as in Muslim-majority countries with Islamic legal systems is concerned with family matters, including the laws of divorce and inheritance. Sharia for Muslim Americans comes down to observing Islamic marriage rituals, and in some cases asking an imam to approve a divorce a far cry from the image of sharia as brutal penal punishment.
A second widespread misconception is the belief that Muslim Americans reject Western norms and values in favour of their own different ones. In my study of marriage and divorce among Muslim North Americans, the more than 200 respondents divorced men and women and their imams embraced the American or Canadian legal systems and saw their Muslim traditions as a supplement, not ,substitute, for legal marriage and divorce requirements. Ninety five per cent were married with both a nikah (an Islamic marriage contract) and a legal license. Many were also divorced twice, once in Islam, with the blessing of an imam, and once legally, by obtaining a divorce decree from a court.
I found almost no interest in establishing a parallel Islamic legal system, which most Muslim Americans regard as entirely unnecessary because they see their Islamic obligations as private and perfectly compatible with the formal legal system. In fact my respondents regularly used the courts to resolve contentious matters in divorce when they could not reach their own private settlements, just like any other Americans.
A billboard outside Detroit, Michigan in 2008 read Sharia Law Threatens America. Such acts and the sentiment behind them illustrate the widespread and ever-growing assumption that Muslims are determined to impose their values on non-Muslims through the legal system (evidenced in numerous state efforts to pass anti-sharia laws, like Florida).
My study illustrates two counter realities. Muslims are not in the least interested in imposing sharia on non-Muslims. Furthermore, American courts, far from applying sharia are holding any Islamic contract to a higher threshold because of the proscription against interpreting religious dogma or enforcing a religious contract.
By far the most common contestation relevant to Islamic law in US courts involves payment of the mahr. Islamic marriage is a contract similar to a pre-nuptial agreement in which the mahr specifies upfront what the wife would receive during the marriage or upon divorce. In these cases, the courts have consistently refused to enforce this promise, despite it meeting all legal contractual requirements (it will have been done in writing, witnessed by hundreds of wedding guests, made voluntarily) because the nikah is deemed to be a religious contract.
In fact many Muslims in my study who used a nikah were quite secular, but wanted to observe cultural traditions. On closer examination, the much-vaunted claim that American courts need a bulwark against creeping Islamisation has no substance at all.
If fear and hostility against Muslims can be countered by more knowledge and better data, there is hope for transforming an impoverished public discourse into one in which Muslim Americans can again feel welcomed.
###
* Dr Julie Macfarlane is Professor of Law at the University of Windsor and the author of Islamic Divorce in North America: A Sharia Path in a Secular Society (Oxford University Press). For two reports summarising her research results, go to www.ispu.org. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 13 March 2012, www.commongroundnews.org. Copyright permission is granted for publication.
I saw these same uninformed attitudes in the reactions of some of my colleagues to my four-year qualitative study of Islamic marriage and divorce in North America. Their response was often an amazed Do they have divorce in Islam? When I explained that while Muslim women are treated differently from men (who have unilateral access to divorce in classical Islamic law), and that they do have the right to ask for divorce on a wide range of grounds (and have had this right since the 7th century), the response was frequently But dont they just stone them? followed by laughter.
American public discourse on Islam is underpinned by three related misconceptions about Islam, Muslims in general and sharia in particular.
The first is that Muslims hold very different values compared to other cultures and religions. Rarely can anyone explain what these different values are just that they are frightening. As one student told her professor, I dont really know anything about sharia law, I just know that its a bad thing.
Most Americans are unaware that the vast majority of sharia as it is understood and practiced by Muslim Americans as well as in Muslim-majority countries with Islamic legal systems is concerned with family matters, including the laws of divorce and inheritance. Sharia for Muslim Americans comes down to observing Islamic marriage rituals, and in some cases asking an imam to approve a divorce a far cry from the image of sharia as brutal penal punishment.
A second widespread misconception is the belief that Muslim Americans reject Western norms and values in favour of their own different ones. In my study of marriage and divorce among Muslim North Americans, the more than 200 respondents divorced men and women and their imams embraced the American or Canadian legal systems and saw their Muslim traditions as a supplement, not ,substitute, for legal marriage and divorce requirements. Ninety five per cent were married with both a nikah (an Islamic marriage contract) and a legal license. Many were also divorced twice, once in Islam, with the blessing of an imam, and once legally, by obtaining a divorce decree from a court.
I found almost no interest in establishing a parallel Islamic legal system, which most Muslim Americans regard as entirely unnecessary because they see their Islamic obligations as private and perfectly compatible with the formal legal system. In fact my respondents regularly used the courts to resolve contentious matters in divorce when they could not reach their own private settlements, just like any other Americans.
A billboard outside Detroit, Michigan in 2008 read Sharia Law Threatens America. Such acts and the sentiment behind them illustrate the widespread and ever-growing assumption that Muslims are determined to impose their values on non-Muslims through the legal system (evidenced in numerous state efforts to pass anti-sharia laws, like Florida).
My study illustrates two counter realities. Muslims are not in the least interested in imposing sharia on non-Muslims. Furthermore, American courts, far from applying sharia are holding any Islamic contract to a higher threshold because of the proscription against interpreting religious dogma or enforcing a religious contract.
By far the most common contestation relevant to Islamic law in US courts involves payment of the mahr. Islamic marriage is a contract similar to a pre-nuptial agreement in which the mahr specifies upfront what the wife would receive during the marriage or upon divorce. In these cases, the courts have consistently refused to enforce this promise, despite it meeting all legal contractual requirements (it will have been done in writing, witnessed by hundreds of wedding guests, made voluntarily) because the nikah is deemed to be a religious contract.
In fact many Muslims in my study who used a nikah were quite secular, but wanted to observe cultural traditions. On closer examination, the much-vaunted claim that American courts need a bulwark against creeping Islamisation has no substance at all.
If fear and hostility against Muslims can be countered by more knowledge and better data, there is hope for transforming an impoverished public discourse into one in which Muslim Americans can again feel welcomed.
###
* Dr Julie Macfarlane is Professor of Law at the University of Windsor and the author of Islamic Divorce in North America: A Sharia Path in a Secular Society (Oxford University Press). For two reports summarising her research results, go to www.ispu.org. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 13 March 2012, www.commongroundnews.org. Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Jerusalem - Shira Nesher, an Israeli, stands alongside Fakhira Halloun, a Palestinian, as Nesher tells her story about life in a conflict zone to a group of American university students who are hanging onto her every word. My family members are Holocaust survivors, and as an Israeli I grew up in an environment of fear and conflict. When I was 18, I enlisted in the Israeli Defense Forces, where I eventually became a military tour guide and an educator
When she is finished, Fakhira follows with her own story. I am a Palestinian Christian with Israeli citizenship. I grew up in a Druze village, as a minority among minorities, with stories of the nakba, the Palestinian catastrophe, in a place where identity limits access and mobility. Now, I devote my life to finding freedom in my native land.
These two speakers are tour guides with the Middle East Justice and Development Initiative (MEJDI); they are leading a dual-narrative tour for a student group. It is rare to see Israelis and Palestinians telling competing narratives, yet working together. Though they live side-by-side, Israelis seldom meet Palestinians, and vice-versa.
MEJDI is the brainchild of two Jewish Americans one of whom is an Orthodox rabbi and one Palestinian who work together at the Center for World Religions, Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution at George Mason University in Arlington, Virginia. They believe that peacebuilding activities must use sustainable business models.
In the past few years, funding for peacebuilding activities has become scarce, and many organisations have struggled to survive. Combining peacebuilding with a profit-making enterprise such as tourism brings new resources to the field and provides a self-sustaining business model.
The emotional and physical journey participants take through the narratives of the Holy Land introduces them to many stakeholders on both sides of the conflict. The groups meet with a rabbi who explains the significance of the Western Wall in Judaism. The exploration continues with meeting an imam at the Al-Asqa Mosque. On a different day, they visit Ramallah and meet with a high-ranking Palestinian official; they later connect with an Israeli politician in Jerusalem.
A Jewish congregation taking a MEJDI tour requested to spend two nights at a Palestinian refugee camp. Two days later, ethnicity, religion and background no longer mattered. The congregation and the Palestinians had forged connections that transcended stereotypes. As they parted, tears streamed down the faces of the Palestinians and Jews alike.
On a different tour, a group comprised of Christians, Jews and Muslims participated in an interfaith trip. The group did not avoid hard questions, and together they experienced some difficult moments. They discussed justice, oppression and the role of religion in the conflict. But there were also moments of simply learning about each others heritage and religion.
The experience of exploring different sides of this thorny conflict is not typical of most tours to the Holy Land. Every year over three million tourists visit Israel and Palestine. Many of the tourists come to see the Holy Land and the holy sites without taking time to meet the people who live there. Their tour guide typically wields an enormous influence on the way they understand the culture, politics and roots of the conflict.
By contrast, the MEJDI guides rely on their personal stories about the conflict, while connecting them back to the larger story of their people. It is not about rehashing the gritty historical details that led up to the present situation, but rather about creating greater understanding. Participants are given time to reflect on the information they learn and interact with the guides and speakers to reconcile their feelings with what they heard.
MEJDI also operates in Egypt, Turkey and Jordan, and will soon expand to new countries, using the same principle of helping participants experience places through differing narratives.
Tourism has the power to be a positive or negative force for change, with the potential to either entrench preconceptions or facilitate the sharing of stories across cultures. Just last year, almost one billion people travelled to other countries. Imagine what would happen if all these tourists used their travels as an opportunity to foster greater understanding.
###
* Aziz Abu Sarah is a National Geographic Emerging Explorer and MEJDI (mejdi.net) co-founder. Talia Salem is a Masters of Tourism Candidate in Sustainable Tourism Destination Management at The George Washington University in Washington, DC and MEJDIs Director of Operations. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 6 March 2012, www.commongroundnews.org. Copyright permission is granted for publication.
When she is finished, Fakhira follows with her own story. I am a Palestinian Christian with Israeli citizenship. I grew up in a Druze village, as a minority among minorities, with stories of the nakba, the Palestinian catastrophe, in a place where identity limits access and mobility. Now, I devote my life to finding freedom in my native land.
These two speakers are tour guides with the Middle East Justice and Development Initiative (MEJDI); they are leading a dual-narrative tour for a student group. It is rare to see Israelis and Palestinians telling competing narratives, yet working together. Though they live side-by-side, Israelis seldom meet Palestinians, and vice-versa.
MEJDI is the brainchild of two Jewish Americans one of whom is an Orthodox rabbi and one Palestinian who work together at the Center for World Religions, Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution at George Mason University in Arlington, Virginia. They believe that peacebuilding activities must use sustainable business models.
In the past few years, funding for peacebuilding activities has become scarce, and many organisations have struggled to survive. Combining peacebuilding with a profit-making enterprise such as tourism brings new resources to the field and provides a self-sustaining business model.
The emotional and physical journey participants take through the narratives of the Holy Land introduces them to many stakeholders on both sides of the conflict. The groups meet with a rabbi who explains the significance of the Western Wall in Judaism. The exploration continues with meeting an imam at the Al-Asqa Mosque. On a different day, they visit Ramallah and meet with a high-ranking Palestinian official; they later connect with an Israeli politician in Jerusalem.
A Jewish congregation taking a MEJDI tour requested to spend two nights at a Palestinian refugee camp. Two days later, ethnicity, religion and background no longer mattered. The congregation and the Palestinians had forged connections that transcended stereotypes. As they parted, tears streamed down the faces of the Palestinians and Jews alike.
On a different tour, a group comprised of Christians, Jews and Muslims participated in an interfaith trip. The group did not avoid hard questions, and together they experienced some difficult moments. They discussed justice, oppression and the role of religion in the conflict. But there were also moments of simply learning about each others heritage and religion.
The experience of exploring different sides of this thorny conflict is not typical of most tours to the Holy Land. Every year over three million tourists visit Israel and Palestine. Many of the tourists come to see the Holy Land and the holy sites without taking time to meet the people who live there. Their tour guide typically wields an enormous influence on the way they understand the culture, politics and roots of the conflict.
By contrast, the MEJDI guides rely on their personal stories about the conflict, while connecting them back to the larger story of their people. It is not about rehashing the gritty historical details that led up to the present situation, but rather about creating greater understanding. Participants are given time to reflect on the information they learn and interact with the guides and speakers to reconcile their feelings with what they heard.
MEJDI also operates in Egypt, Turkey and Jordan, and will soon expand to new countries, using the same principle of helping participants experience places through differing narratives.
Tourism has the power to be a positive or negative force for change, with the potential to either entrench preconceptions or facilitate the sharing of stories across cultures. Just last year, almost one billion people travelled to other countries. Imagine what would happen if all these tourists used their travels as an opportunity to foster greater understanding.
###
* Aziz Abu Sarah is a National Geographic Emerging Explorer and MEJDI (mejdi.net) co-founder. Talia Salem is a Masters of Tourism Candidate in Sustainable Tourism Destination Management at The George Washington University in Washington, DC and MEJDIs Director of Operations. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 6 March 2012, www.commongroundnews.org. Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Jerusalem - In East Jerusalem, the occupation has affected the citys cultural landscape. Chronic underinvestment, expanding settlements and a massive wall which Israel says it has constructed for security purposes and Palestinians allege is a land grab have had the effect of squeezing the life out of the Palestinian quarter in Jerusalem and shifting the cultural centre of gravity to Ramallah in the West Bank. In addition, it seems many Palestinian Jerusalemites have not been able to shake off the curfew mentality of the intifada, which ended almost seven years ago.
In the past few years, however, efforts have been launched to revive and enrich East Jerusalems modest cultural topography. The latest of these is the reincarnation of the old al-Quds cinema, which closed down a quarter of a century ago during the first intifada (which lasted from 1987-1993). Now it is the state of the art, though still unfinished, Yabous Cultural Centre. In addition to film screenings, it hosts artistic, theatrical and musical events, including a photo exhibition about the Egyptian revolution and live jazz concerts.
Yabous marked its reopening with Freedom Films Week. The theme is appropriate given the thirst for political, economic and social liberty, evident not only amongst Palestinians but peoples across the region including in Israel, where a broad-based social protest movement erupted last summer. Israeli protesters declared Rothschild Avenue in Tel Aviv their own Tahrir Square and Arab commentators dubbed the movement the Israeli Spring.
The films featured at Yabous included We Wont Leave, which chronicles the Palestinian struggle against forced displacement in Jerusalem; Fallega, which documents the innovative and inspirational sit-ins organised by Tunisian activists following the fall of dictator Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali; and Cairo 678, a taboo-breaking drama about sexual harassment in Egypt.
Rima Essa, Yabouss cinema coordinator and the festivals curator, says that Palestinian Jerusalemites have been in a coma when it comes to cinema. She sees the festival and the Yabous Cultural Centre as a bridge to restoring the long-interrupted relationship between the Palestinian audience in Jerusalem and cinema theatres.
But can reel freedom help Palestinians achieve real freedom?
The role of culture is crucial, says Essa, our people crave it. She believes that cinema can help connect a new generation of young Palestinian Jerusalemites to the broader Arab and global context, enabling them to relate their situation and struggle to the outside world and end their years of isolation.
And numerous Palestinian films and directors have, in recent years, managed to raise awareness of their statelessness and their quest for nationhood, leading to international acclaim. One notable example is the Palestinian Israeli film director Elia Suleiman, whose 2002 surreal black comedy Divine Intervention about a love affair across checkpoints between two Palestinians, one living in Israel and the other in the West Bank, became an international hit. His first feature film, Chronicles of a Disappearance, (1996) received widespread critical acclaim.
However, Essa, who is a film director and the first Palestinian to graduate from Israels foremost film school, Sam Spiegel, does not believe that cinema can build bridges between Palestinians and Israelis because of the stark inequality between the two sides.
Other filmmakers disagree. For instance, Palestinian Emad Burnat and Israeli Guy Davidi were co-directors of Five Broken Cameras, a film which documents the nonviolent struggle of the residents of the Palestinian village Bilin who are armed only with cameras to stop the seizure of their land.
One landmark co-production is the crime drama Ajami, directed by first-time filmmakers Scandar Copti and Yaron Shani, which realistically depicts life in the deprived Jaffa neighbourhood of the same name. The film not only manages to challenge Israeli stereotypes about the neighbourhood Ajami and delve into the complexity of human relationships between Muslims, Christians and Jews in Israel, it also won Israels top film accolade, the Ophir Award, and was nominated for an Academy Award in the United States.
But the strength of film does not stop at its power to alter peoples ways of thinking and challenge their conscience. Cinema theatres themselves help create a sense of community. For instance, my Palestinian neighbour, who is almost 90 years old, recalls a time before partition and war when her Jewish neighbours were friends and often sat side-by-side at the cinema, with the ethereal Egyptian Jewish actress Leila Murad a particular inter-communal favourite.
In todays bitterly divided and segregated context, this image may appear like a far-fetched cinematic fantasy, but it once held true and may again.
###
* Khaled Diab is an Egyptian Belgian journalist and writer living in Jerusalem. He writes about a wide range of subjects, including the European Union, the Middle East, Islam and secularism, and multiculturalism and human rights. His website is www.chronikler.com. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 6 March 2012, www.commongroundnews.org. Copyright permission is granted for publication.
In the past few years, however, efforts have been launched to revive and enrich East Jerusalems modest cultural topography. The latest of these is the reincarnation of the old al-Quds cinema, which closed down a quarter of a century ago during the first intifada (which lasted from 1987-1993). Now it is the state of the art, though still unfinished, Yabous Cultural Centre. In addition to film screenings, it hosts artistic, theatrical and musical events, including a photo exhibition about the Egyptian revolution and live jazz concerts.
Yabous marked its reopening with Freedom Films Week. The theme is appropriate given the thirst for political, economic and social liberty, evident not only amongst Palestinians but peoples across the region including in Israel, where a broad-based social protest movement erupted last summer. Israeli protesters declared Rothschild Avenue in Tel Aviv their own Tahrir Square and Arab commentators dubbed the movement the Israeli Spring.
The films featured at Yabous included We Wont Leave, which chronicles the Palestinian struggle against forced displacement in Jerusalem; Fallega, which documents the innovative and inspirational sit-ins organised by Tunisian activists following the fall of dictator Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali; and Cairo 678, a taboo-breaking drama about sexual harassment in Egypt.
Rima Essa, Yabouss cinema coordinator and the festivals curator, says that Palestinian Jerusalemites have been in a coma when it comes to cinema. She sees the festival and the Yabous Cultural Centre as a bridge to restoring the long-interrupted relationship between the Palestinian audience in Jerusalem and cinema theatres.
But can reel freedom help Palestinians achieve real freedom?
The role of culture is crucial, says Essa, our people crave it. She believes that cinema can help connect a new generation of young Palestinian Jerusalemites to the broader Arab and global context, enabling them to relate their situation and struggle to the outside world and end their years of isolation.
And numerous Palestinian films and directors have, in recent years, managed to raise awareness of their statelessness and their quest for nationhood, leading to international acclaim. One notable example is the Palestinian Israeli film director Elia Suleiman, whose 2002 surreal black comedy Divine Intervention about a love affair across checkpoints between two Palestinians, one living in Israel and the other in the West Bank, became an international hit. His first feature film, Chronicles of a Disappearance, (1996) received widespread critical acclaim.
However, Essa, who is a film director and the first Palestinian to graduate from Israels foremost film school, Sam Spiegel, does not believe that cinema can build bridges between Palestinians and Israelis because of the stark inequality between the two sides.
Other filmmakers disagree. For instance, Palestinian Emad Burnat and Israeli Guy Davidi were co-directors of Five Broken Cameras, a film which documents the nonviolent struggle of the residents of the Palestinian village Bilin who are armed only with cameras to stop the seizure of their land.
One landmark co-production is the crime drama Ajami, directed by first-time filmmakers Scandar Copti and Yaron Shani, which realistically depicts life in the deprived Jaffa neighbourhood of the same name. The film not only manages to challenge Israeli stereotypes about the neighbourhood Ajami and delve into the complexity of human relationships between Muslims, Christians and Jews in Israel, it also won Israels top film accolade, the Ophir Award, and was nominated for an Academy Award in the United States.
But the strength of film does not stop at its power to alter peoples ways of thinking and challenge their conscience. Cinema theatres themselves help create a sense of community. For instance, my Palestinian neighbour, who is almost 90 years old, recalls a time before partition and war when her Jewish neighbours were friends and often sat side-by-side at the cinema, with the ethereal Egyptian Jewish actress Leila Murad a particular inter-communal favourite.
In todays bitterly divided and segregated context, this image may appear like a far-fetched cinematic fantasy, but it once held true and may again.
###
* Khaled Diab is an Egyptian Belgian journalist and writer living in Jerusalem. He writes about a wide range of subjects, including the European Union, the Middle East, Islam and secularism, and multiculturalism and human rights. His website is www.chronikler.com. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 6 March 2012, www.commongroundnews.org. Copyright permission is granted for publication.
Pakistans first Oscar
Mar 5
Boston, Massachusetts - Pakistans online community erupted in virtual cheers as Sharmeen Obaid Chinoy received an Academy Award (or Oscar) recently in Hollywood for co-directing the Best Documentary (Short Subject). A Tweet by Pakistani blogger Anthony Permal summed up the feelings of many of his compatriots: A woman from Pakistan, who made a film about women, won an Oscar. In your face, world.
The expression in your face may well have been an intentional pun on the title of Obaid Chinoys award-winning film, Saving Face. But some complained that because the film highlighted a particularly horrific form of gender violence (using acid to attack and disfigure women), it gave Pakistan a bad name and so led to the country losing face.
This in effect sums up the bittersweet reality of Pakistans first-ever Oscar. The award meant international acknowledgement for Pakistani talent (through Obaid Chinoy) and the real life heroes who are fighting violence against women, including the survivors themselves. However, it is also a grim reminder of the acid burning phenomenon that stems from a complex set of socio-cultural beliefs and practices that Pakistan and other countries in the region, like Bangladesh and India, where such attacks also occur must do more to counter.
Activists believe that the prevalence of violence against women is far higher than the over 8,000 cases that are reported and compiled in the annual reports of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan. Acid attacks are relatively few, averaging around 30 a year in a country of approximately 170 million. But the devastation they cause is disproportionately immense New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof called it a personal form of terrorism. Survivors whose faces have been literally melted away by acid describe feeling neither dead nor alive.
Acid attacks were previously considered assault by the law, but thanks to lobbying by activists are now specifically dealt with under the Acid Control and Acid Crime Prevention Bill 2010, enacted as law by Pakistani legislators at the end of 2011. Clearly, enacting laws alone will not end such attacks. What needs to change is a particular mindset, rooted in a patriarchal system, in which women are often seen as property. Those who throw acid on women tend to be disgruntled husbands or rejected suitors. Such attacks are among a long list of crimes against women that are considered justified by the prevalent notion of honour.
Hope lies in the organisations and individuals working to counter this phenomenon doctors, non-governmental organisations and survivors themselves like the Pakistani beautician Massarat Misbahs Depilex Smileagain Foundation that rehabilitates survivors and provides skills training for them, often as beauticians. For her film, Obaid Chinoy worked with the Acid Survivors Foundation Pakistan, which was established in 2006. Saving Face focuses on UK-based plastic surgeon Dr Mohammad Jawad (a graduate of Dow Medical College in Karachi), who regularly returns to Pakistan to operate upon acid burns survivors literally saving their faces. The film also focuses on survivors and their struggles to obtain justice. In doing so, the film highlights a story of hope within a grim situation.
This is what Obaid Chinoy stressed in her acceptance speech, noting the resilience and bravery of the acid attack survivors and those working for their rehabilitation. She dedicated the award to all the women in Pakistan who are working for change, adding don't give up on your dreams this is for you.
There is much that needs to be addressed when it comes to gender violence as well as education, health, social development and human rights but the silver lining in these dark clouds lies in those who are working to counter these problems, the real-life heroes of Pakistan: thousands of ordinary men and women working for change in the fields of education, health, culture and human rights.
But such work rarely hits the headlines. Obaid Chinoy, the first Pakistani to win an Oscar, is one among many Pakistanis who are internationally acclaimed for their work in various fields. They include Asma Jahangir, the fiery human rights lawyer and UN Special Rapporteur, and physicist Dr Abdus Salam, Pakistans only Nobel Laureate. Unlike the subjects of Obaid Chinoy and co-director Daniel Junges Saving Face, most of these heroes will never end up in an Oscar-winning film for the world to see.
Is that good or bad? Those who prefer to sweep Pakistans dirt under the rug will never see publicity about a problem like acid burning as a good thing. For those who believe that talking about problems is the first step towards solving them, Obaid Chinoy and Junges Saving Face is spot on.
###
* Beena Sarwar is a journalist and documentary filmmaker from Pakistan. She blogs at Journeys to Democracy (www.beenasarwar.wordpress.com) and you can follow her on Twitter @beenasarwar. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 6 March 2012, www.commongroundnews.org. Copyright permission is granted for publication.
The expression in your face may well have been an intentional pun on the title of Obaid Chinoys award-winning film, Saving Face. But some complained that because the film highlighted a particularly horrific form of gender violence (using acid to attack and disfigure women), it gave Pakistan a bad name and so led to the country losing face.
This in effect sums up the bittersweet reality of Pakistans first-ever Oscar. The award meant international acknowledgement for Pakistani talent (through Obaid Chinoy) and the real life heroes who are fighting violence against women, including the survivors themselves. However, it is also a grim reminder of the acid burning phenomenon that stems from a complex set of socio-cultural beliefs and practices that Pakistan and other countries in the region, like Bangladesh and India, where such attacks also occur must do more to counter.
Activists believe that the prevalence of violence against women is far higher than the over 8,000 cases that are reported and compiled in the annual reports of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan. Acid attacks are relatively few, averaging around 30 a year in a country of approximately 170 million. But the devastation they cause is disproportionately immense New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof called it a personal form of terrorism. Survivors whose faces have been literally melted away by acid describe feeling neither dead nor alive.
Acid attacks were previously considered assault by the law, but thanks to lobbying by activists are now specifically dealt with under the Acid Control and Acid Crime Prevention Bill 2010, enacted as law by Pakistani legislators at the end of 2011. Clearly, enacting laws alone will not end such attacks. What needs to change is a particular mindset, rooted in a patriarchal system, in which women are often seen as property. Those who throw acid on women tend to be disgruntled husbands or rejected suitors. Such attacks are among a long list of crimes against women that are considered justified by the prevalent notion of honour.
Hope lies in the organisations and individuals working to counter this phenomenon doctors, non-governmental organisations and survivors themselves like the Pakistani beautician Massarat Misbahs Depilex Smileagain Foundation that rehabilitates survivors and provides skills training for them, often as beauticians. For her film, Obaid Chinoy worked with the Acid Survivors Foundation Pakistan, which was established in 2006. Saving Face focuses on UK-based plastic surgeon Dr Mohammad Jawad (a graduate of Dow Medical College in Karachi), who regularly returns to Pakistan to operate upon acid burns survivors literally saving their faces. The film also focuses on survivors and their struggles to obtain justice. In doing so, the film highlights a story of hope within a grim situation.
This is what Obaid Chinoy stressed in her acceptance speech, noting the resilience and bravery of the acid attack survivors and those working for their rehabilitation. She dedicated the award to all the women in Pakistan who are working for change, adding don't give up on your dreams this is for you.
There is much that needs to be addressed when it comes to gender violence as well as education, health, social development and human rights but the silver lining in these dark clouds lies in those who are working to counter these problems, the real-life heroes of Pakistan: thousands of ordinary men and women working for change in the fields of education, health, culture and human rights.
But such work rarely hits the headlines. Obaid Chinoy, the first Pakistani to win an Oscar, is one among many Pakistanis who are internationally acclaimed for their work in various fields. They include Asma Jahangir, the fiery human rights lawyer and UN Special Rapporteur, and physicist Dr Abdus Salam, Pakistans only Nobel Laureate. Unlike the subjects of Obaid Chinoy and co-director Daniel Junges Saving Face, most of these heroes will never end up in an Oscar-winning film for the world to see.
Is that good or bad? Those who prefer to sweep Pakistans dirt under the rug will never see publicity about a problem like acid burning as a good thing. For those who believe that talking about problems is the first step towards solving them, Obaid Chinoy and Junges Saving Face is spot on.
###
* Beena Sarwar is a journalist and documentary filmmaker from Pakistan. She blogs at Journeys to Democracy (www.beenasarwar.wordpress.com) and you can follow her on Twitter @beenasarwar. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 6 March 2012, www.commongroundnews.org. Copyright permission is granted for publication.