Category Archives: World Affairs: politics and news

According to wikipedia, Sarah Palin “opposes same-sex marriage and supported a non-binding referendum for an Alaskan constitutional amendment to deny state health benefits to same-sex couples”.

What a psycho! Social conservative indeed. Nothing “social” about denying someone health benefits because of who they”re in a relationship with!

Goodness. Don”t see why the Republicans didn”t just pick someone like Condi instead…why then you could play the race and gender card.

and then this..

a “gun-toting” hockey mom?

“That has all changed with his pick of Palin, who is a mission statement of Christian conservativism in human form. She”s not just pro-gun, she shoots grizzly bears. She”s not just anti-abortion, she has had five children, giving birth to her fifth, who has Down”s syndrome, earlier this year. She supports teaching creationism alongside evolution in science classes at state schools.”

Sounds like appointing a solid Auntie-ji into power - show everyone what “women really want”.

I”ve been meaning to write about this wonderful network - the Women”s Learning Partnership (WLP) - before but have been procrastinating.

No time like the present:

In a nutshell, they”re about female empowerment as part of human equality, and positive thinking : they”re a network of networks - they work with 18 autonomous and independent partner organizations in the Global South, particularly in Muslim-majority societies, to “empower women to transform their families, communities, and societies.”

One of their particular campaigns that I wanted to highlight is “Claiming Equal Citizenship“: the Campaign for Arab Women”s Right to Nationality.

Women’s right to equal citizenship is guaranteed by the majority of Arab constitutions, as well as by international law. Yet across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region and the Gulf, women are denied their right to nationality – a crucial component of citizenship.

In almost every country in the MENA and Gulf regions, women who marry men of other nationalities cannot confer their original nationality to their husbands or children. Only fathers, not mothers, can confer their nationality to their children.

Discriminatory laws denying women equal nationality rights undermine women’s status as equal citizens in their home countries. Such laws send the message that women do not enjoy a direct relationship with the state, but must access their citizenship rights through mediation of a male family member, such as a father or a husband. Until women in the MENA and Gulf regions are recognized as full nationals and citizens, they cannot participate fully in public life, nor claim the other rights to which they are entitled as equal members of their societies.

The denial of women’s nationality rights also created real suffering for dual nationality families living in the woman’s home country. Children and spouses are treated as foreigners and must obtain costly residence permits. Children are often excluded from social services such as social security, healthcare and subsidized or free access to education. In many countries, spouses and children have limited employment opportunities and are unable to own property. In terms of psychological impact, many women feel isolated and guilty because they feel responsible for the difficulties faced by their families, while children suffer from low self-esteem because of their second-class status.

I have written about this problem as affecting Bangladeshi women in the past - not being able to confer nationality upon their children - as it is passed through the father. Essentially this is how I found out about this campaign, one of the WLP activists commented upon my post and pointed me to their work.

The goals of the campaign are to call for

• Legal reform enabling women to confer their nationality to their husbands and children without condition
• Full implementation of reformed nationality laws and equal access to these laws for all women
• Recognition of women as equal citizens in all areas of life

Please sign the petitions to support equal rights to citizenship for men and women.

Your signature sends a message of support to partners, who can use the international visibility to strengthen their advocacy efforts for amending nationality laws.

via Pickled Politics ( thanks Sunny!)

“Prominent journalist and fellow blogger Tasneem Khalil has been arrested by the military police in Bangladesh, a serious attack on press freedom in the country.

An editor and outspoken journalist for the English daily newspaper Daily Star, he also worked for CNN and Human Rights Watch in the country. Of late he has been documenting the military’s attempts to take over Bangladesh and restrict political rights and free speech in the country.
Mash says:

Apparently Mr. Khalil’s crime is that he did his job. He spoke truthfully about the current situation in Bangladesh. He was interviewed by Nora Boustany of the Washington Post last month - that interview may have cost him his freedom and now possibly his life.

I have been speaking out over the last month about the military takedown of the democratic system in Bangladesh. One by one the fundamental rights of Bangladeshis have been taken away. But, Bangladeshis have recently started to fight back against the military. The press, the people and the courts have begun speaking out. The military now aims to silence them. Their thuggery is now plain to see.

Other bloggers covering: Drishtipat, Global Voices, Rezwanul, Golmal Sid, Salam Dhaka, Keep me honest, My dear Bangladesh, Adda, Deshi Voice and Butterflies and Wheels.

Human Rights Watch has also issued a press release. SD says this has also been elevated to the US State dept and Washington Post should be doing a story.

We need to organise joint protests in Washington and London in front of the Bangladeshi embassies to raise the profile of this arrest and highlight human rights abuses there. “

Please check out the discussion on Pickled Politics ..where we”re figuring out what we can do. Any ideas are welcome and much appreciated.

The CNN story is here - I can”t find anything on the BBC”s site ..or Amnesty International - see that”s the problem with all these big institutions - they can”t move quickly! Hopefully the blogosphere will be quicker in spreading the news.

A photography exhibition at St. Paul”s Cathedral which documents the ordinary lives and everyday locations caught up in human trafficking and calls for an end to this illegal 21st century trade. The exhibition seeks to expose the reality of trafficking and the action needed to tackle it. Running until the 29th March, produced by Panos Pictures, in partnership with Amnesty International, Anti-Slavery International, Eaves and UNICEF UK. Photographs by Karen Robinson and David Rose.

Calling all modern-day abolitionists! Please sign the petition to urge the UK government to ratify the Council of Europe Convention on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings, bringing help and protection for all trafficked people in the UK a step closer. Tony Blair announced in Jan 2007 that he would do so - the petition requests that this be done so as a matter of urgency.

So the discussion around “foreign policy” - Ministers saying but of course we wouldn”t change our foreign policy just because of some stupid terrorist threat, or what some stupid people suggested has something to do with the threat”. Right - if that”s the only reason you were going to change what is agreed by most people as a highly unethical “foreign policy” - (ooh i love that phrase - such a nice way of “externalizing” and removing the problem one or two steps away - “but dear, it”s foreign policy” doesn”t affect us here”) - clearly it”s not good enough.

How clever though - the reason we heard so much about this fine phrase of not changing policy “because we don”t negotiate with terrorists” - because then - if anyone does speak up about the lack of fit of being a democratic civilized nation and the shitty stuff that passes for foreign policy - why there”s a simple solution: Honey we don”t change policy to suit terrorists - okay? Even if it”s shit we gotta put up with it. We can”t be seen to be responding..

Well that might seem sensible except that it doesn”t seem to be understanding the point of terrorism. Which is to cause terror and gain power. If not “literal” power of the sort governments have - power nonetheless - power over how people see themselves, what they believe in, what they will do for those beliefs etc. - i.e. moral authority. As i”ve said elsewhere, terrorists and governments have much in common - a guy like Bin Laden has plenty in common with politicians who want power over “their people” - scaring your people, propaganda, etc. etc.

Terrorists are effectively similar to people who are career politicians - their end game is the same - terrorists use different means. ( and for those of you who believe the end justifies the means - think about this long and hard..) They”re all folks who basically in search of nation-states and the accompanying power and authority. ( remember what distinguishes the Nation-State from any other form of formal social organization - the monopoly on violence) So whilst some folks might not like my saying it like it is - some people use “legitimate” roots of gaining power within the existing model - and some - who feel they can”t get power in the system - find other ways of grabbing power. Power - also - manifests itself in different ways. Essentially the “War on Terror” gave Osama Bin Laden exactly what he wanted - to be seen as some sort of moral authority for Muslims. Machiavellian tactics in use here.

In any case - someone somewhere said if you magically wave a wand and change British foreign policy it wouldn”t mean the violence would end. Well - obviously, plumping for peace doesn”t mean all the violent idiots out there are never going to kill anyone any more. But it does mean that with less violence going about, we can spot the violence a mile off and say ah - this isn”t good, and in the process distinguish ourselves from these other criminals. otherwise one is permanently in the subjective state of oh well i can kill some people because I have justification, but these people cannot come and kill me which is fine for a lot of us clearly! but some of would rather be honest about the whole malarkey. In any case this is the basis for “law and order” in ordinary society “within” the nation-state - you can”t go about “taking the law into your own hands” because if you do, you are as guilty as the other party. Anyway, this is obvious so the people who don”t get it aren”t really interested I suppose. Still the point remains that in trying to condemn terrorism for the shitty thing it is, state-sponsored violence gets in the way of being able to do this properly. Pure and simple that”s what it is. Not this business of “justifying” terrorism - (which is actually what the countries are trying to do) but precisely the opposite - condemn terrorism and violence for what it is. If countries want to go about being violent - then obviously we ordinary individuals have tried but have not been able to stop them. Pointing to the cycle of violence which makes it much harder to stop future violence is hardly “justifying” violence - precisely the opposite - you want to stop ALL kinds of violence! if you wanted to justify violence you wouldn”t be much interested in stopping the overall cycle. I guess a lot of people are just too dumb to see that or frankly = not interested in the overall picture. They could just be honest about that.
And “justification” of violence is neither here nor there ( in a moralizing world it might be ) for those of us who”re interested purely and simply in providing a suitable environment to live in and enjoy ourselves however best we can - it doesn”t matter. We just want peace. I”m not bothered about “oh this person”s violence was good and this person”s was evil - that good and evil dichotomy is frankly nonsense and “religious” if anything. All this moralizing again simply reminds me of the sort of thing that terrorists are supposed to be about. “Oh we have a glorious cause for our violence. Some say it”s democracy** ( hah ) and some say its their religion.” Oh great. I”m not interested in either excuse thanks very much - no shrapnel or shards of glass in my skin is what i”m interested in! And being able to live to savour tomorrow.

Is this sooo difficult to understand? Surely not.

** Amusing sidenote: { ha- i suppose soon we”ll be hearing calls for “banning” democracy because their proponents have resorted to violence in their pursuit of it - in a similar way we hear that religion must be banned because of all the people who”ve resorted to violence in their pursuit of it..} Golly its the sort of oxymoronic thing where anti-war protestors stage a “war” with the other side to make their point. Oh then of course people would say “one should ban pacifism”. Really there”s no end to amusement - sit back and view the world..as long as we don”t take it seriously, you could fill a book with “can you believe they actually thought this one up..