Truer Words

Barack Obama’s platform of hope and change has catapulted him to the most powerful public office in the world.

Now that the celebration has subsided and the historic result is sinking in, it’s only logical to ask what change, if any, Obama can bring.  From a foreign policy perspective, one can already see how the result has invigorated the so-called “rogue” regimes.

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reportedly sent a letter to the president-elect, congratulating his victory, praising the American people and raising the expectation of significant change in America’s foreign policy.

Syria, involved in peace talks with Israel, is employing a wait-and-see approach to gauge whether Obama could serve as a more effective mediator than previous American administrations.

It’s funny how a candidate who seems to have an aura of sincerity about him, who seems devoid of imperial hubris that plagued previous administrations – and one who is willing to have direct talks – has his counterparts engaged even before he’s sworn in.
The Bush strategy of isolating and labeling those that did not conform to American interests simply did not work.  It was a diplomatic faux pas that only served to engender hostility, hatred, and further isolationism. 

If Obama stands true on his foreign policy promises, there is the potential that he can mend some bridges and improve relations with historically hostile regimes.  However, one person can only do so much.

Obama’s appointment of Rahm Emanuel, a member of the House of Representatives, as White House chief of staff sent mixed messages and contradicts any talk of change in regards to the hot-button Israeli-Palestinian issue.

Journalist Alexander Cockburn describes the former Bill Clinton policy aide as “a super-Likudnik Hawk, whose father was in the fascist Irgun in the late Forties, responsible for cold-blooded massacres of Palestinians.”
Irgun was the Zionist militia of former Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin, in the 1940s and carried out numerous terrorist attacks on Palestinian civilians including the bombing of Jerusalem’s King David Hotel in 1946.

The online Jerusalem Post reports that Emanuel’s father, Dr. Benjamin Emanuel, said he was convinced that his son’s appointment would be good for Israel. “Obviously he will influence the president to be pro-Israel,” he was quoted as saying. “Why wouldn’t he be? What is he, an Arab? He’s not going to clean the floors of the White House.”

In June 2003, Emanuel signed a letter criticizing Bush for being insufficiently supportive of Israel when Bush questioned an Israeli strike on Hamas that killed 18 people. 

In July 2006, Emanuel was one of several members who fought for the cancellation of a speech to Congress by visiting Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki because al-Maliki had criticized Israel’s bombing of Lebanon.

It is difficult to envision any progress towards peace when a key member of the future administration seems to have such partisan views on the subject.

Other influencing factors include the various special-interest groups, powerful lobbies and corporate interests that now expect favours after filling Obama’s campaign coffers, and the military-industrial-complex that’s turned America into a contemporary imperialist state.

Barack Hussein Obama will be scrutinized and his loyalties will be continually tested. 

In his memoir, The Audacity of Hope, Obama states that his father left Islam and was a confirmed atheist, but Obama still had to battle the Muslim stigma throughout the campaign and will have to do so throughout his presidential tenure.
With that chip on his shoulder, Obama may have to overcompensate and prove his loyalty to the American people – perhaps by waging more wars in places Americans can’t pinpoint on a map. 

His ludicrous rhetoric to extend the Afghan war into Pakistan is already common knowledge.  Whether it’s pro-war banter to appeal to rightwingers or a sincere change in strategy remains to be seen.

In the end, change is possible and Obama would be the man to bring that change in American foreign policy.

Still, I’m not going to hold my breath.

Due to Ramadan and school, I will start posting again in mid-October.

Thanks!

“Instead of being a king in a foreign land, be a cobbler in your motherland.” – Old Uighur Proverb

As the Chinese put on perhaps the most charismatic opening ceremonies in the history of the Olympic Games, there was a definite overcompensating quality about the excessive opulence and almost provocative aggressiveness with which the performance was delivered.  It was almost as if China was sending a message to the international community, “We are here and we are here to stay”.  More importantly, for a moment the celebration of Chinese civilization overshadowed the long-standing Tibetan struggle.  In a way, China was also telling its dissidents that they would no longer be allowed use the Olympics to further their own political agenda.  Although the Tibetan movement can always rely on the West to adopt the initiative, the Uighur Muslims of China lack this luxury and remain an unknown entity.

In the run-up to the Olympics, Tibetan activists were mauling torchbearers, and “Free Tibet” fever was gripping Western audiences who so willingly embrace the Tibetan cause perhaps due to its commercial Buddhist appeal.  Granted, China’s human rights record is deplorable and its treatment of Tibetans is unjustified, but why do we ignore the fact the CIA has been involved in Tibet trying to stir up anti-Chinese sentiment since the 1950’s? Why do we ignore the fact that the mainstream media could easily shift public discourse and proclaim the Dalai Lama a terrorist if his cause was not aligned with American interests?  Why do we ignore the fact that Chinese Uighur Muslims have also been victims of a cultural genocide at the hands of Hans Chinese for decades?

Perhaps Bush’s failing “War on Terror” has dented our psyche to such an extent that we have subconsciously accepted that Muslim minorities, whether it’s the Uighurs of China, the Chechen’s of Russia, or the Muslims of the Philippines are aggressors by default.  Hence, popular opinion holds that when Tibetans kill Chinese soldiers, they are exercising their right to freedom, and when Uighurs recently attacked Chinese police, it was an act of terror.  The flawed “War on Terror” philosophy has allowed states to suppress their Muslim minorities with impunity and without fear of international condemnation.

The Chinese oppression of the Uighurs is noted in an illuminating article from Globe and Mail Beijing Correspondent Geoffrey York:

“Here in the heartland of China’s Muslims, mosques are usually pad-locked. In the brief time they are open, worshippers must obey a strict set of rules: no criticism of the authorities, no unregistered guests, no contact with foreign organizations, no visitors under 18, no encouragement of veils and mandatory reporting of people’s prayers”

“Government policies are tilted to favour the new arrivals. The best jobs and university opportunities are reserved for those who speak Chinese, leaving the Uighurs largely on the outside. Most university classes are taught in the Chinese language. Even in Kashgar, an overwhelmingly Uighur city, most street signs and shop signs are written in large Chinese characters, while the Uighur signs are smaller or non-existent.”

“Medieval streets nearby have been demolished, ancient tombs dug up and moved, and hundreds of Muslims forced to relocate to make room for a 55,000-square-metre shopping plaza with almost 3,000 new shops.”

The Uighurs continue to live as cobblers’, although their motherland apparently sees them as nothing more than separatist nomadic terrorists. Amid the burst of Olympic fire-works and the periodic unfurling of the Tibetan flag, it is important that we as a society do not forget the plight of the Uighur Muslims of China.

Let me be the first to proclaim: “Free Xinjiang!”

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Free-Xinjiang-by-Aurangzeb-Qureshi-080813-752.html

The following is a poem about Omar Khadr, the only western national not to be repatriated by its host country from Guantanamo Bay.  This is due to the utter incompetence and blatant disregard the current Canadian government has for its own citizens.  Khadr was interned at age 15 and he is now 21.

Hooded and bound I sit in my prison cell,
While my mind plunges into the darkest depths of hell.
I hear the devil mock me with his ominous knell bell,
While I gravitate towards demons dressed like military personnel.
They exorcise my soul leaving just an external shell.
I yell in despair and bid my previous life farewell.

I sigh…

The demons infiltrate my mind for information.
Like cockroaches scurrying for food during an infestation.
Like the CIA plotting scenario’s before an occupation.
They bribe me endlessly to force my participation.
But I cannot help them much to their resignation.
Then I remember the water-boarding, sensory overload, and sleep deprivation.

I lie…

In my dreams the devil talks to me with a crooked grin.
Telling me how I was born of original sin.
He then shows me a vision of my dead conjoined twin.
Frightened, I think of my mother’s sweet caress and soft skin.
Playing soccer with my brothers and how they’d always win.
Wondering if I’ll ever get married and have a next of kin.

I cry…

As I read the Quran to appease God’s wrath against me.
The tears from my eyes flow like the mother of a slain Iraqi.
Creating an ocean of sorrow saltier than the dead-sea.
I dream of the moment when I am set free.
I dream of the moment when I can shout with joyful glee.
I dream of the moment when I’m no longer a detainee.

I try…

Hooded and bound I sit in my prison cell.

And I wait…

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Non-Enemy-Combatant-by-Aurangzeb-Qureshi-080814-693.html

by Aurangzeb Qureshi

Attempting to disarm Iran’s nuclear enrichment program diplomatically has proven futile. Even with the noose tightening around its neck through sanctions, and joint American-Israeli military exercises combined with covert CIA operations being conducted close to its border, Iran still has the sheer audacity to tell America that it will defend itself in the case of an invasion. How dare this 3000-year-old civilization threaten the world’s declining 60-year hegemonic superpower? How dare this country stand up for itself after watching America slaughter thousands in neighboring Iraq? It is time to bomb these people into oblivion so the West can once again overthrow its regime and replace it with one that will conform, abide by, and slave to its master. It’s time these people got with the times. It is upon America and the rest of the “civilized world” to prevent another 9/11.

I say Bomb Eye-ran!

The inherently evil Ahmadinejad brought it upon himself by demanding oil compensation in euros. Oil has always been bought and sold in American currency. So what if the dollar is at rock-bottom due to America’s colonial misadventures? So what if the Iranians want full compensation for a resource that they own? So what if the Iranians want to circumvent American restrictions on banks that engage in business with Iran? These greedy Iranians have to understand that only America can act in its best interest and everybody else has to act in the best interests of America. As long as Iran exists, so does the potential for another 9/11.

I say Bomb Eye-ran!

What are these Iranians thinking by enriching uranium? Everyone knows that only the U.S. and Israel can have weapons of mass destruction, because they have the God-given right to do so. Any other state that even attempts to acquire such technology, even for peaceful purposes, is doing so because it wants to destroy western civilization. Sure, Iran is constantly threatened by Israel, shares a border with nuclear Pakistan and is surrounded by two American client regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, but that does not matter. If Iran cooperated, did not nationalize its oil industry in 1953, and did not overthrow a brutal US-installed dictator in 1979, then it would not be where it is today. Iran does not have a right to meddle in its own affairs, only Britain, America, and Israel do. If this magnanimous, righteous, and noble trio does not take matters into their own hands, these evil-doers will unleash another attack like 9/11.

I say Bomb Eye-ran!

Ahmadinejad stated that he wanted to wipe Israel off the map so the only logical course of action is that the U.S. and Israel destroy Iran first. In reality he may have said he wanted to “wipe Zionism from the page of history,” but those devious Iranians just like to mask their threats in colorful language. Iran’s constant meddling in Iraq, support of terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, and combative rhetoric of self-defense is highly disconcerting. If Iran acquired nuclear weapons, they will invade neighboring states and try to spread their Shiite revolution across the Muslim world and into Europe. Maybe present-day Iran has not invaded a foreign state since the Greco-Persian wars before the birth of Christ, and perhaps the US and Israel have a more profound history of invasion and occupation. However, that is all irrelevant because the U.S. and Israel are believers in democracy and freedom. Those who committed the heinous acts of 9/11 despised democracy and freedom.

I say Bomb Eye-ran!

America and Israel can easily target Iran’s nuclear reactors that are spread throughout the country. Iran will not see this as an act of aggression because the strikes will be “strategic” and this will minimize any “collateral damage” just like in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their threat to target American interests and to further destabilize the Middle East is hogwash. Their threat to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which 30 per cent of the world’s oil passes, is baseless and tantamount to political suicide. If Iran does become that desperate, oil may rise to $500 dollars a barrel and the people may suffer, but it will definitely make the American oligarchy much happier. In the end that is all that matters.

And most important of all, nobody will have the gall to execute another 9/11, because the concept of “blowback” does not really exist.

I say Bomb Eye-ran and let freedom ring.

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/qureshi.php?articleid=13159

The script goes something like this: 1) get a degree in engineering, medicine, business, or law; 2) complain about how you don’t like what you do; 3) get married and have kids;  4) live a text-book life; 5) grow old and bored; 6) due to boredom, raise a ruckus in your local mosque and anywhere else where you think you’d receive some attention; 7) grow really old and lament about how you wasted life.

Such a script is probably not going to win “best screenplay”, and a director may even use it as toilet paper depending on paper quality.  Why then are we recycling it for our own use?

As a first-generation Muslim born and raised in the West, I sometimes cannot help but notice how we continue to remain stagnant in an environment that has so much to offer.  More and more Muslims I associate with or talk to seem to be turning into carbon copies of their parents holding the same conservative ideals centered around a stable career, retention of faith and culture, and upholding family values.  There is obviously nothing wrong with any of this, however, I do feel that holding a life philosophy based around these criteria alone is not only flawed, it is downright regressive.

Muslims who immigrated here to find a better life were either fleeing persecution by despotic regimes, looking for a better life for their future children, or just wanted a better opportunity to make more money.  Whatever the case may be, they did not have the luxury of engaging in the arts, getting involved in politics, or pursuing a passion.  They were simply concerned with putting food on the table.  In doing so, their life philosophy was simple - career, faith, family. 

Unfortunately, due to their own past uncertainty, some of these now successful immigrants forced the very same values upon their children and pressured them to follow certain career paths that were either stable or associated with status, prestige and materialism.  There are cases where Muslims have challenged the status-quo, however what I find troubling is many have also internalized this one-dimensional approach to life and are making the same choices subconsciously.  The script, it seems, has already been laid out, and it is followed without question.

Furthermore, as first generation Muslims are now finding their way into the job market, it is not a surprise to find that most don’t really like what they do.  When I was in school, I had a conversation with a friend that went something like this:

Friend:  Hey Zeb, so why didn’t you go into engineering?
Me: I don’t know, never really was interested and I don’t think I would enjoy it even if I got in.
Friend: Nobody enjoys it, you just do it.

Again, I’m not arguing that being practical and safe is faulty practice.  On the contrary, one needs a certain level of discipline and preparation to achieve success. However with that said, being too safe and too conservative limits our ability to realize our true potential. 

Now there are Muslims who have followed the safe path, but are still involved in the mainstream community by pursuing film, music, poetry, activism, or other interests, but these examples are few and far between.  Most Muslims I know are learned and knowledgeable individuals, but there is absolutely no desire on their part to go above and beyond or follow an interest.  For example, talking about politics as tableside conversation is what old immigrant parents do, but for some reason we are doing the same thing. 

Shouldn’t we as born and bred Canadians be going a step further by walking the talk and getting involved especially in a climate where Muslims and Islam are being targeted more then ever before?  Shouldn’t we be engaging with the mainstream community at a greater level rather than limiting our interactions with niche cliques, Muslim-only groups, and Muslim-only initiatives? Shouldn’t we get past the archaic “By Muslims, For Muslims” mentality by now?

Perhaps it will take more than just one generation for us to truly think outside of the box.  Until then, the script will continue to replay itself because from the looks of it, we are not running out of film anytime soon.

Hollywood can save on toilet paper in the process.

The Conservative government’s most recent attempt at trying to mimic American style legislation borders on sheer lunacy.  One can understand that curbing copyright infringement in the new era of peer to peer file sharing, illegal downloading, and new-age piracy tactics is necessary.  However, the amendment to outlaw over-riding digital locks on legally purchased media for the purposes of format shifting is not only impractical, it is also a violation of consumer rights.  Therefore, although Bill C-61 does maintain that format shifting and time shifting certain media is allowed, the anti-circumvention provision simply counters those exceptions and renders them meaningless. 

Furthermore, if the government suspects a certain user is breaking the law, it can force the Internet Service Provider to disclose that user’s private information and that person can face a fine of up to $20,000.  According to a White Paper issued by a coalition of Canadian consumer groups, “the American Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) has created many problems - anti-competitive abuses, stifling criticism, repressing security research, undermining security, and after a decade under the DMCA, infringement of movies over file-sharing networks in the US is at an all-time high.”  This fact alone should deter the government from passing any legislation containing anti-circumvention measures.

Related to this topic is another controversial bill that the government is trying to pass without public consultation called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).  This bill would allow border guards to inspect ipods and laptops for infringing content, which is a total invasion of privacy and perhaps the beginning of the dissolution of democracy in this country.

The Liberals took our money and paid for it in the last election.  However, the Conservatives are threatening to take away our freedoms, which is far worse.

Being the first coloured presidential nominee in the history of American politics is certainly a proud accomplishment not only for the Obama camp but for America as a nation.  This obviously does not and should not absolve the heinous atrocities of slavery, or somehow indicate that racism is a thing of the past.  Obama’s victory is, however, a step in the right direction and one that history will remember regardless of the final outcome.

Much has been made about Obama’s incessant catering to AIPAC (American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee) and Israel in recent weeks.  Some have been critical of his comments regarding an “undivided Jerusalem” and his hard stance on Iran, whether illusory or real.  Since when did we start believing that politicians actually mean what they say?  The critics must also remember that Obama has been vocal about peace in the Middle East and has offered to talk to Iran, much to the distaste of right-wing neoconservatives and evangelicals. 

Anyone running for any public office, let alone the most powerful public office in the world, has to cater to the people that matter.  In a democratic system run by special interest groups, AIPAC is probably the group that matters and Obama knows he has to tell them what they want to hear. 

And let’s not forget that Obama was never the ideal choice for president to begin with.  Like other successful candidates, his campaign was funded by the corporate sector and powerful interest groups as well.  When it comes down to it, Obama is the lesser of all evils.  Many, including myself, would have preferred to see Democrat Dennis Kucinich or even Republican Ron Paul as the worthy candidates but that would have been a pipe-dream.  Neither candidate got the media coverage they deserved and were relegated to fringe status. 

Are we so naive to believe that Obama’s clamour for change is going to have a sudden effect on American foreign policy, or somehow result in a massive overhaul in health care?  Absolutely not, however giving these topics due consideration is a start.  As I mentioned in a previous article, the corporate elite and the military-industrial complex play a huge role in American politics and attempting to circumvent or ignore any of these factors is unrealistic.  At the same time we cannot allow these obstacles, or Obama’s need to gratify these obstacles, as a means to discredit the concept of change. 

Criticism and dissent result in change and encompass the true essence behind democracy, but cynicism merely maintains the status quo.  Change will come whether it takes five years, 50 years, or 500 years, but it will come only if we truly believe it will.

We talk about the suffering of Palestinians over a donair at a local Arab restaurant. We talk of American brutality in Iraq while casually sipping a Tim Horton’s iced cappuccino. At work we talk in hushed voices about the torture of innocent Afghanis perpetrated by Canadian-backed Afghan soldiers. In the thicket of shisha smoke, we talk about the plight of innocent Chechens who’ve lost their homes.

We talk, and we’re pretty darn good at it.

We complain about the torture in America’s offshore gulags, but we complain even louder when told to exercise our democratic right by marching through the streets in solidarity against it. We complain when journalistic integrity takes a dive to attack Islam, but we complain with ferocity when told to write a rebuttal -  our pens conveniently run out of ink. We complain when we hear of imperial designs against the Third World, but we complain when unity beckons because we cannot work with “those people”.

We complain, and we’re pretty darn good at it.

Instead of lobbying for those who would serve our needs, our local Muslim organizations pander to conservative politicians giving credence to the phrase “if you can’t beat’em join ‘em”. We embrace conservative ideology excusing our actions by claiming that we’re trying to change the system from within’ when in reality we just want to bank in on the lenient tax policies put in place at the expense of the poor. We see Muslims who support the existing power structure becoming prey to capitalistic greed, yet they are seen as gifts to the community. Similarly, we see Muslim’s in Darfur committing heinous atrocities, but we excuse their actions because of their faith.

We make excuses, and we’re pretty darn good at it.

We pretend to side with Malcolm, Chomsky, Said, Sheehan, and Finkelstein but fail to follow their example. We pretend to care for those ravaged by war but our large donations are only a means to boast of our status in the community. We pretend to be tolerant towards other races and ethnicities, but in some Muslim cultures the conception of beauty does not extend beyond fair skin and blue eyes.

We pretend, and we’re pretty darn good at it.

We must change ourselves before we think of altering the status quo. We must reflect, ponder, and innovate. We must think, question, and elevate. We must progress, debate, and articulate. We must activate our inactive mental state.

And we better become pretty darn good at it.

For IWD, there are many women who’s example I’ve tried to follow.  I have always looked up to political activists such as Amy Goodman, Arundhati Roy, and Cindy Sheehan, but none of them have really had a direct effect on my life.  Perhaps the greatest influence (and I plead bias on this one) is probably my mother who continues to be a person I respect and admire.  I wrote a poem not too long ago depicting how we tend to take things for granted and how that leads to regret.  I certainly see myself guilty of this and I hope this illustrates that the motherly qualities of a woman is something that is truly priceless.

I Remember…

I remember your comforting presence at this time,
The way your essence made the household shine.
I remember when creating a mess was a punishable crime,
And your sweet songs that would always rhyme.

In the hour of your passing I stand in illuminated solitude,
Trying to gather some sense of artificial fortitude.
My heart heavy with a foreign sadness,
Driving me to the brink of suicidal madness.

I remember the way you held out your hand,
And helped me build castles in the sand.
I remember your calming whispers when we were about to land,
Somehow you always made me understand.

I am devoid of emotion,
Lost in the midst of chaotic commotion.
I am descending into the abyss of eternal despair, I am beyond repair.
I struggle to fight my vulnerability
Unable to break the inevitable laws of gravity

I remember when you always came to my immediate defense,
Your reassuring attitude that always made sense.
I remember when you scolded me and how I always became tense,
Whatever you did for me, the gains were always immense.

It pains me that I took you for granted,
How did my psyche become so slanted?
During your last breaths I prayed for your revival,
Realizing how you were essential for my survival.

I remember how you acquiesced to my ridiculous demands,
Buying me clothes that were expensive name-brands.
And I remember how I still ignored your motherly commands,
And now in the twilight your tombstone stands.

Your love was always platitude,
But I never showed you any gratitude.
Even though I shall visit your grave every December,
I will forever,

Remember…

A Fruitful Beginning?

Amidst the virulent power vacuum that seeks to suck the life-blood of a nation already wrought with corruption, nepotism, and ethnic strife, the results of the general election will only serve to worsen the already chaotic situation. 

Since the inception of the Muslim state in 1947, Pakistan is the state equivalent of a drug addict constantly in and out of relapse.  With successive failed democracies, the military has continually had to come in to save the nation from inevitable collapse, and, in the process, consolidated so much power that it has controlled every facet of public life, sometimes to the detriment of the nation itself. 

After nine years of military rule, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is again flirting with democracy, except this time it is doing it with the same tried and tested failures that almost destroyed the nation.  With the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and Pakistan Muslim League (N) (PML N) winning most of the seats, the new government could be a repulsive partnership between Asif “Mr. 10 per cent” Zardari and former exile Nawaz Sharif - both who should be in jail for corruption, extortion, and murder charges.  The Pakistan Muslim League (Q) (PML Q) was predictably the big loser which probably suggests that Musharraf did not utilize rigging tactics that were as aggressive as those employed by all the other parties, perhaps to avoid escaping a third assassination attempt.  In regards to the PPP, Fatima Bhutto, a journalist and the niece of the late Benazir Bhutto, said in an interview on Democracy Now:

...“There is incomplete voter lists that were being used at every polling station with, you know, five to six hundred names with the name, a birth date and a father’s name, but no national identity card number. Now, for that vote to be legally cast, the voter would have to bring in a birth certificate, which of course didn’t happen.

There are also irregularities concerning the numbers. There has been an extremely low turnout across Pakistan, but notably thin because of fears of violence. And, you know, the government is claiming that 40 percent of the population voted, which is a gross exaggeration. PPP candidates are claiming wins of 80,000 and 70,000 votes. It just doesn’t add up.” (http://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/19/pakistan) 

The mainstream media’s constant praise for the elections as some sort of second coming for the state is a damn joke.

The Other Players

Imran Khan’s Tehreek-e-Insaaf (Movement for Justice Party) boycotted the elections under the guise of opposing the military, but in reality he knows that his small party has no chance against the two larger and long-standing rivals.  He needs more time to establish a base, garner further support from the younger masses, and build a party brand that is essential in a climate where personality politics reigns supreme.

Irrelevant from a national perspective, the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) swept urban Sindh through a combination of vote rigging and sympathy votes by Karachiites who’s feeling of isolation has not subsided since the introduction of the quota system and the carnage that was the 1990’s.  No other party needs an overhaul and a different leader more than this one. 

Perhaps the only good news of the elections was the convincing defeat of the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), a coalition of religious parties primarily based in the Northwest Frontier Province who were elected only because of the emotions associated with the attack on Afghanistan after 9/11.  The people of that region felt that their voices were not being heard and they acted on it.

And then you have Musharraf, an overly agreeable dictator turned tyrant who’s popularity plummeted after the Chief Justice fiasco, the State of Emergency, and the Lal Masjid debacle, and who continues to wage war on his own people in order to take pressure off NATO troops that are foolishly battling the Pashtun population in Southern Afghanistan. 

What’s Next?

Pakistan’s pathetic display of democratic wannabe’s is a sign of inevitable despair and this experiment too will fail.  Not mentioned is the fact that Pakistan continues to be a hotbed for proxies from Iran, Afghanistan, India, and remains a sphere of influence for the United States.

With no alternatives, what Pakistan needs is a benevolent, strong dictator that will act in the best interests of the state and its people.  Someone with the industrial fortitude of a Joseph Stalin and the nationalistic fervour of a Mohammad Mossedeq would qualify although such a figure is probably unlikely.  Unfortunately, even the military is now under American wraps with the recent introduction of General Ashfaq Kiyani as the new army chief.

The future looks bleak, but if there is any hope for the nation, it is that Pakistan has been through much worse and has survived. 

The drug addict has not overdosed yet.

A critical look at the Western Muslim Mosquers Review

Disclaimer: The response below is my opinion and my opinion only and is in no way affiliated with the rest of the Mosquer’s Committee.  Furthermore, the below is in no way an attack on the writer, but more of a rebuttal to his review.  I should also add that this criticism includes references to the original article that was later changed, but in my view that article should not have made it past the editing stage. 

First of all, as a Mosquers committee member, I would like to thank the Western Muslim for providing coverage of our event and posting the videos onto their website.  However, I would like to respond to some of the points raised in the article that I felt were unfair and, in some cases, outright demeaning.  I would also like to make clear that the committee is not averse to constructive criticism, but that criticism should be fair which I felt was not true in this case.

Backtracking Claims of Objectivity

The “review” is featured on the front page of the Western Muslim e-zine banner which is usually reserved for the title banner.  What struck me the most was the original title of the article: An unbiased review of the Mosquer awards which was then abruptly changed after the editors realized that the article is littered with bias throughout.  As one can see, approximately 3/4th’s of the article is a heavy endorsement of one particular film entitled False Confessions of a Muslim Lawyer that did not win an award.  The writer admittedly claims that the creator of the film provided him with a private screening and is also a fellow Western Muslim writer who happens to be a lawyer.  He then goes onto state that his dislike of lawyers frees him from any bias which was basically a very poor attempt at exonerating himself.

The original article continues by taking a stab at the event itself claiming that introductory speeches were boring when the committee later found out that the writer was not even present at the event.  How does one arrive to such a subjective opinion without even attending the event they’re supposed to be covering?

Futile Character Assassination

The contents regarding how the 2007 winning submissions were poor and did not deserve to win is the writer’s opinion and I can accept that.  However, I felt that the criticism could have been leveled without questioning the intellect of the submitters, some of whom were teenagers with no experience in film, or insulting their projects as dishonest, irrelevant, and as “jingoistic power point presentations.”

Perhaps the greatest blunder of the original article was the comparison of Muslims playing Non-Muslims in their films to racist whites who played African American characters wearing theatrical makeup in the 1915 film the Birth of a Nation - a film known for its glorification of the Ku Klux Klan. The article went further by attacking the character of these Muslims by labeling them with a superiority complex.  Again, the criticism of the films could have been easily made without personally insulting the film-makers or labeling them as racist or “non-integrated”, but the rhetoric was probably employed in order to create sensationalism and controversy to attract greater readership.  This reference was later deleted, but should have never made it on in the first place.

Maybe if the writer viewed all of the submissions (including those that were not up when the article was released), interviewed the contestants, got their perspective, did a little research on how their submissions were relevant to them, it may have provided a better picture.  After all, the other media that covered the event did their homework.

Deflecting Blame to External Factors

After more endless accolades for False Confessions, the writer launches an attack on the comedy that actually won the award and dismisses it as a “group of friends driving around and goofing off”.  The crowd of 500 strong thought otherwise, and the crowd reaction was markedly different between the two films.  Of course, the writer was not present at the event to witness this.

Rather than examining the weaknesses of False Confessions, the article instead begins to question the wisdom of the judges, two of which included a creator of a hit TV show and a scholar of Film Studies.  The irony, in this case, speaks for itself.  The article proceeds to explain the loss by blaming the Muslim community as being backward, unable to come to terms with implied nudity, and somehow intimidated by a beer when the winning submission included concepts of implied homosexuality, mockery of Muslim conspiracy theories, and continual visuals of bacon, something just as prohibited in Islam as alcohol.  Judging from the reactions, people were not only ready for it, but embraced it without question.

Journalistic Integrity?

Without getting into the specifics, the original article should have been reviewed by somebody who did not have a vested interest in it.  The writer’s last name also brings up further questions of objectivity and how much leniency was given throughout the editing process.  How the original article made it past the initial editing stage is beyond me.

Missing the Point

Calling the event a “missed opportunity”, and judging it based solely on the submissions is the real flaw of the article.  The films and the competition are only a part of the event and the greater, overarching purpose was to get the Muslim community together, engage the youth creatively, and foster an understanding with the greater mainstream community, something that can only truly be understood by being at the event itself.  It is unfortunate that some people did not understand the true spirit of the initiative.  I am sure that as the event progresses, the films too will evolve over time and more people will see the bigger picture.

Criticism is always valid, but the review itself does not stand up to critical scrutiny.  I therefore felt that I had to state the alternate perspective on the matter. 

Even with CNN’s torturous, continuous, and unrelenting election coverage, the artificial sensationalism of Wolf Blitzer’s Situation Room, and the limited coverage of worthy presidential candidates like Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul (who should have ran as independents), one cannot still help but focus their attention on the screen when Barack Obama articulates his views in his own charismatic fashion.  If it is a battle of personality politics, Obama is the clear-cut winner.

Fueled by the mantra “Change we can Believe in” and “Yes we can”, Obama’s largest voter base primarily consists of young professionals who want a refreshing new alternative to the old dinosaur neo-con fascist mentality of the Bush regime.  Obama’s critics argue that his inexperience in the political arena is a cause for concern, however inexperience does not always translate into incompetence.  The American public has already witnessed enough incompetence over the past eight years and has absolutely nothing to lose. 

The fact that the two remaining democratic nominees include an African American and a woman definitely strengthens the party’s image, but can also be its biggest handicap.  How would either of them fare against the experienced, patriotic war hero, alpha-male in Senator John McCain?  How much as the United States progressed as a nation in terms of race and gender issues?  Are Americans still prone to the fear propaganda and false hysteria that led the country into two failed wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?  A great deal still depends on how much the electorate has learned from the past.

Obama is unique in that his climb to the forefront is relevant in today’s political climate.  Partly raised in Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim state, Obama may have an understanding of the Muslim world his counterparts lack.  With ever-increasing anti-Americanism in the Muslim world, Obama could serve to bridge tensions, thereby creating a mutually workable solution.  The Muslim world may also identify more with a visible minority leader who has overcome all odds.  However, his tacit association with Islam and his foreign-sounding name could very well facilitate xenophobia and divert voters to Hillary instead.

Even if Obama wins the nomination and the presidency, how would he deal with the military industrial complex and the variety of corporate and special interest groups that do not always act in the best interests of the state?  Is his rhetoric of unilaterally going inside Pakistan to round up Taliban an attempt to attract Republican votes, or is it something he really intends to do? 

Regardless of who wins, you will still have corporate media deflecting the real issues, A U.S. Congress beholden to right-wing lobby groups, and corporations ready to sponsor wars in the Third World.
I for one will only believe in the change when I see it. 

Is it any surprise that a report written by a panel appointed by Harper wishes to continue sending our soldiers into battle? Soldiers who have been marred by poor equipment, isolation from NATO “allies”, and an increasing threat from a population that sees our efforts as an occupation? 

Is it any surprise that the individual directed to head the panel, John Manley, already had a predetermined pro-mission agenda which he outlined three months prior in an article he wrote for a publication called Policy Options and incorporated those same passages into the “independent” report.  Would it be naive to assume that his prior views had nothing to do with his selection? 

Is it any surprise that our Conservative government fails to see that combat will only serve to exacerbate the already volatile situation and further encourage the Afghani population to side with the insurgents, even if they were despised before the American invasion?  Is it any surprise that our soldiers are engendering more hatred by supplying prisoners to Afghan Communists (a.k.a Northern Alliance) who are then engaging in systematic torture of those prisoners? 

Considering the lack of direction and blatant disregard of the real issues that has characterized this mission, it’s not surprising at all.

Adopting the typical American “us versus them” attitude and hoping that the Taliban disappear into the ether is simply a delusional tactic that will never see the light of day; the insurgents have nothing to lose.  Instead of isolating, marginalizing and stigmatizing a significant portion of the Afghan population, it is time Canada reverted back to traditional peacekeeping methods by trying to build links with each ethnic group in order to build a foundation for a sustainable democracy.  The leadership must also keep in mind that engaging in a war with the Taliban in the south also means waging war on the large ethnic Pashtun population who are forced to side with the Taliban due to being left out of the political process. 
Instead, Canada continues to put weight behind a former UNOCAL employee and CIA installed “leader” in Hamid Karzai who cannot walk outside his residence without American marine body-guards , who is laughingly referred to as “the Mayor of Kabul” (although I think my ward councilor would probably rival him in terms of territorial jurisdiction), and who has become so desperate that he has even talked about awarding government positions to the Taliban (nice to see the Afghan leader totally contradict the unrealistic goals we’re trying to achieve). 

Unfortunately, the Canadian legacy of peacekeeping has been corrupted by those who are keen to impress their American masters by slaving to their ruthless, self-serving, and self-destructive foreign policy.  With an incompetent and clueless Official Opposition, a media that has mirrored the U.S. when it comes to cheerleader coverage, and a Canadian public that is refusing to ask tough questions, the hawks on Parliament Hill have all the ammunition they need to further tarnish Canada’s international reputation.

As Ali mentioned in his blog post, the 2nd annual Mosquers event is set for February 16th at the University of Alberta.  A couple of friends and I also got together and submitted a film.  We felt that Muslims have a tendency to focus primarily on international issues and rightly so, there many issues directly impacting Muslims all over the world.  However, we decided to take an alternate approach to focus more on local poverty issues.  I also hope to have the film on the blog once I receive it in proper format, but here is the poem I wrote that served as the narrative.

Born Into Poverty

I wake up confused, devoid of direction,
Trying to achieve some semblance of perception.
In a dream a once questioned God about my conception,
and God struck me down with vehement aggression.
I am a victim of extraordinary rendition,
Taken to hell without permission, endlessley tortured, beaten and brought to submission.

The piercing wind ravages the essence of my core,
I plead with God, please no more, no more.
I inject the needle of necessity info my designated pore,
As euphoria rushes through my soul like a tsunami approaching a sea-side shore.
For a moment, my body isn’t sore.
For a moment, I am an invincible hero in folklore.
For a moment, I forget I am poor.
For a moment, I forget I am poor.

My mundane life loses colour gradually.
My reality becomes black and white like conservative ideology.
Subjected to solitary confinement damages me psychologically.
I scream out in anguish to expel the demon from inside of me,
while weeping tears of blood incessantly.
To escape the solitude I reach for the flute in my trolley,
and perform the monotonous melody of malignant melancholy.

Stereotypes reign supreme for those like me.
They don’t realize I was born into poverty.
Unable to free myself from the clutches of darkness - I want to see.
I again inject myself with the venom of veneration - I am an exception to God’s mercy.
My vision blurs and my veins freeze, I see my tombstone standing in my memory,
etched with the phrase “here lies Mr. Nobody”.

I forget I am poor, for eternity…
I forget I am poor, for eternity…