At a cultural festival last year, Sameer al-Qudah recited a poem of his depicting Arab rulers as a notch below pirates and highwaymen on the scale of honorable professions. Within days, Jordan's intelligence police summoned him.
Mr. Qudah, sentenced to a year in jail for a similar offense in 1996, was apprehensive but not surprised. The secret police, or mukhabarat in Arabic, is one of the most powerful and ubiquitous forces in the Arab world. Jordan's network had surreptitiously videotaped his reading.
"We are hungry for freedoms like the right to express ourselves," said Mr. Qudah, 35, whose day job is supervising construction projects as a civil engineer. "But our country lives under the fist of the mukhabarat."
In Jordan and across the region, those seeking democratic reform say the central role of each country's secret police force, with its stealthy, octopuslike reach, is one of the biggest impediments. In the decades since World War II, as military leaders and monarchs smothered democratic life, the security agencies have become a law unto themselves.
The above is from Neil MacFarquhar's "Heavy Hand of the Secret Police Impeding Reform in Arab World" in this morning's New York Times.
Secret police? Thank goodness the United States doesn't engage in anything like that! Oh . . . wait . . . extraordinary rendention. Secret prisons abroad. Detainees held with no charges for years at Guantanamo Bay.
And never forget the propaganda battles. We'll note two. First, Susan e-mails to note Stephen J. Hedges' "Secretive firm helps U.S. wage information war abroad" (The Baltimore Sun):
The Rendon Group, directed by former Democratic Party political operative John Rendon, has garnered more than $56 million in work from the Pentagon since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
These contracts list such activities as tracking foreign reporters; "pushing" news favorable to U.S. forces; planting television news segments that promote American positions; and creating a grass-roots voting effort in Puerto Rico on behalf of the U.S. Navy, according to Pentagon records.
The contracts, some of which were obtained by the watchdog group Judicial Watch through a Freedom of Information Act request, reveal that the Bush administration is engaged in a constant war of images and words with al-Qaida and other radical groups.
Seen as necessity Civilian and military leaders say the contracts are necessary to fight the media wars waged by Islamic fundamentalists who control images on television, radio and the Internet in some Arab countries.
But proponents of open government question the role of firms such as the Rendon Group, suggesting that their work blurs the line between legitimate news and propaganda.
Also, Americans have long been nervous about the notion of the government's managing information.
[. . .]
The Rendon Group is perhaps best known for its part in the controversy that surrounded the Pentagon's short-lived Office of Strategic Influence nearly four years ago. A February 2002 New York Times article disclosed the office's existence and reported that the company was part of the effort, which possibly included attempts to plant false new stories abroad.
And we can't note propaganda without noting the Bully Boy -- Lyle e-mails to highlight Matthew Rothschild's "Bush Tries to Gag Critics in Veterans Day Speech" (This Just In, The Progressive):
What's more, Bush said, "When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support."
But that's not exactly what Bush told Congress or what Congress was approving. The October 2002 authorization of force was not a declaration of war; Bush did not seek one. It talks about "support for United States diplomatic efforts," though it does give the President ridiculous leeway to "use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" to defend against "the continuing threat posed by Iraq" and to "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."
Lowest of all, Bush suggested that even to question his veracity was to give aid and comfort to the enemy--the constitutional definition of treason.
"These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops, and to an enemy that is questioning America’s will," he said.
That's the last defense of this scoundrel: Wrapping himself in the flag, and denouncing anyone who dares to criticize him for deceitfulness as helping out the enemy and hurting the troops.
This is the tattered old Ashcroft card. Bush's first attorney general, when questioned about his civil liberties infringements, said that such criticisms "only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends."
But this ploy didn't work for Ashcroft, and it won't work for Bush. And it is profoundly un-American.
As citizens, we are entitled to question our President's policies--and, yes, his truthfulness.
And he’s certainly given us plenty of reasons to do so.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
the new york times
stephen j. hedges
neil macfarquhar
matthew rothschild
the rendon group
Monday, November 14, 2005
Ruth's Morning Edition Report
[Repost from Saturday]
Ruth's Morning Editon Report
Ruth: The e-mails came in and then some. C.I. posted a notice about a column I killed last weekend. At first, I was going to rework it and hopefully have something ready for Sunday. But I could not rework it and told C.I. that I was going to take a pass. Which is when C.I. asked me what I wanted said since e-mails would come in wondering where I was?
C.I. summarized exactly what I said on Monday while noting, "Ruth, people are going to read this and think I'm making a comment on your pulled column." C.I. was right but those were my words and C.I. addressed the issue of the show involved.
CounterSpin, produced by the organization FAIR, is one of my favorite radio programs. Two Fridays ago, they had Robert Parry as a guest. Mr. Parry is the reporter who established himself in the mainstream press by taking on stories no one else wanted to deal with such as Iran-Contra. Now he is an author of books and also runs Consortium News online. When the interview ended, I thought to myself, "I wish it had been longer." Then the next interview started and that was the problem.
A law expert, a law professor, was the guest. I was underwhelmed by the guest. He was brought on to discuss Judge Sameul A. Alito Jr. who currently serves on the federal bench and is nominated for the Supreme Court. As Treva would say, Mr. Alito is a "biggie."
Janine Jackson was the interviewer. Ms. Jackson has strong interview skills and she needed every one of them while dealing with a guest who had not reviewed Mr. Alito's court decisions and repeatedly relied upon statements to the effect of "I'm told he ruled this way . . ."
It was as though I was asked to come on the show to discuss kugel and arrived with only, "I'm told Treva has an incredible recipe for it . . ." Did I look at Treva's recipe? No and I had no information to offer of any substance. P.S. Treva does make an incredible kuglel and I do have her recipe.
Ms. Jackson did an incredible job in the interview but I honestly felt the guest was ill prepapred and offered nothing of substance. I also took issue with the guest's use of "partial-birth abortion." "So-called" as a preface is quite different from other prefaces. I believe the guest used "what is known as partial-birth abortion" but I won't swear to that. As a feminist of more years than I have gray hairs, and I have a lot of gray hairs, I am really tired of hearing men weigh in on abortion. Especially those who use terms that are not medically supported. I was married to a doctor, many of my children have followed in their late father's footsteps, so I do take medicine seriously.
The guest was not to my liking. I had no desire to recommend that anyone go out of their way to listen to the show. That is where my back and forth on whether I'd have something came from.I love CounterSpin. Robert Parry was a guest worth hearing. The critiques by Ms. Jackson, Peter Hart and Steve Rendell that start each episode are always on the money and funny. So the issue was one of do I want to recommend this episode or not?
As a feminist and someone who has a strong appreciation of real science, I had no desire to recommend that anyone listen to the legal expert brought on to discuss Judge Alito's record.My hope was just to skip a week and come back this week where I would note the problems I had with the guest, as I have, and then recommend the latest edition of CounterSpin. C.I. called me to give me a heads up to a guest and warn me that I might want a "Ruth is on vacation" note posted at The Common Ills.
I cannot recommend this Friday's episode. I did not listen to it. I am sure there was value early on but there was a guest from an organization that this community would not support.
It is really too bad that the organization has never clarified their stance. Maybe the organization does not support the tactics used this summer? If so, the community would be happy to get behind the organization. But there has never been a statement from them on it. Now, as some leave the organization and go elsewhere, they may do so with a cloud over them.
C.I. said, "Ruth, it's your space, feel free to name the organization and write whatever you want." While I will gladly take C.I. up on the latter, I have no desire to promote the organization.
To recap, although I am sure every member of the community already knows what organization I am speaking of, this summer a high school kid, fifteen-years-old, goes to work with his father.The kid plays around the internet. Coming from a family of good leftists, he seeks out leftist sites. He checks out the organization involved as well as some of the sites that the organization links to at its blog report.
The blog report is asking for feedback and allows comments. The kid notes some sites, four, in his comments. The kid also makes a comment that some of the topics being covered by the blog report are frivilous. I would agree with that statement. Instead, the kid steers the blog report author to posts at some other sites.
The Common Ills was one of the four sites. C.I. noted this event after the kid e-mailed, to the blog report author and each of the four sites, an apology because there was talk of the four sites not being mentioned as a result of the child's comments. That is where this community comes in.
But, thanks to the gina & krista round-robin and the fact that they ran the e-mails sent out by the organization -- both to West and those not to West, we know a bit more now than when C.I.'s statements on this were posted. So let's all back up a moment. On the first day when the student posted, already there was an effort by the author of the blog report, via e-mail, to attempt to find out information on the child. The author did not e-mail the child. That seems to me a bit sneaky, going around and attempting to get dirt on someone.
There was no dirt to be gotten from this community because the student was not a member of this community and no one knew him or of him. That was day one and I want to include it because it has not been noted here. That is due to the fact that C.I. did not know about this until Gina and Krista ran e-mails in their round-robin.
As my granddaughter Tracey pointed out, she is a big fan of Katrina vanden Heuvel at The Nation, "Some people post really mean things in reply to Katrina's Editor's Cut but I can't believe she would ever attempt to get dirt on them and she obviously doesn't ban them." That is because The Nation operates under the principle of free speech.
Which brings us to day two. On day two, the blog report included praise for Michelle Malkin and links to her. Was the news that day so slow that the left needs to praise Michelle Malkin? I do not think we have had a news day that slow since the Bully Boy stepped into the oval office.
The child posted something to the effect of "step out of the GOP closet" and that is where things really hit the fan.
At this point, it is not only the author of the blog report but also a member of management of the organization involved that is on record: "Step out of the GOP closet" was "hate speech."
The child was informed of that and informed that he was banned and the possibility of harm to the four web sites was floated if the child did not immediately apologize. This occurred in a flurry of e-mail messages from the organization which apparently has nothing better to do on a mid-week day than harrass fifteen-year-olds.
So the child e-mails an apology. The child apologizes to the author of the blog report and to the four blogs he had praised. He sends that out in a group e-mail and then receives an e-mail from the author of the blog report saying he wished the child had not done that.
Of course he wishes the child had not done that. What the author and the one member of managment at the organization had done goes against everything that the left is supposed to stand for. It goes against freedom of speech, which is not supported in the comments that you can post, at your own risk, at the organization, as noted by management in an e-mail to the child.
What it boils down to is a bad writer did a bad blog report. Critical comments were not allowed. Prior to the banning, there was an attempt to seek out dirt on the child. When no dirt came back to the author of the blog report, at least from this community who did not know the child, they looked for an excuse to ban the child. The excuse they latched onto was that "step out of the GOP closet" was "hate speech."
"Step out of the GOP closet" is not hate speech. No one in their right mind would attempt to argue that it was. I spoke with my grandson Jayson and several friends who are lesbians to make sure that I was not missing something, as a straight woman, but the feedback was the same, "That is not hate speech and has nothing to do with sexuality."
What is was, I would argue, was an excuse to ban the kid who was making humorous criticism, but insightful criticism. Instead of taking a look at that criticism, they elected to ban the child, after first seeking out dirt on him and then going so far as to force an apology out of him.
The child's parents are still bothered by the actions of the organization. I spoke with the father on Friday and he said that to this day the child has not received an apology from the organization in any form.
As a mother and grandparent, I will say that no organization calling itself "left" should go after a child the way they did that student.
I also spoke to Pru who had advocated the linking to that blog report. Being one of our European members, Pru lives in London, Pru feels that C.I. gave special consideration to her request once Gareth, Polly and James in Brighton joined in. She states that they are appalled to this day over the events of this summer and that, speaking for herself and Gareth, they do not go to that blog report or to anything on that organization's site.
C.I. states that the decision was not Pru's and that C.I. takes full responsibility for that link.
When the child sent out the group e-mail, Rebecca, who operates one of the four sites the child had praised -- the other two are not community sites, immdiately responded. She e-mailed the child and asked that they speak on the phone. She immediately posted her feelings of disgust over the treatment of this child at Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude. C.I. learned of what had happened from Rebecca who phoned. C.I. immediately posted at this site. C.I. noted that the link was being pulled and that the behavior was not of the left. C.I., being C.I., didn't name the organization. C.I. offered the hope that the treatment of the child was not policy at the organization and that an apology would be made to the child. C.I. also stated that the child could consider himself a member of this community because anyone who is beat up for advocating this site and others on the left is a member. We know the child by "West" now.
I told West's parents that if that had been Tracey, Jayson or any of my grandchildren, I would be on the phone every day screaming at the organization, demanding an apology. West's parents are practicing Buddhists and a bit more sanguine than I am and feel that karma will hold the organization accountable. They say, both the mother and the father, that they have just eliminated visiting that web site and purchasing from it. West's father feels very badly about all of this because he actually had the site bookmarked on his computer at work and had suggested to his son that he visit it.
They were not aware, like everyone else, until Gina and Krista reproduced all the e-mails involved on this in their gina & krista round-robin, that the blog author had attempted to get dirt on their child. West's father is most vocal on that topic. He says that the site can certainly ban anyone that they wish to, for whatever trumped up charges, but it is quite another option to attempt to do covert research.
"If my son's comments bothered him [the blog author] so much the first day, he should have e-mailed my son. To instead attempt to hunt down dirt on him behind his back is more the sort of actions one expects from J. Edgar Hoover than from a purported left site."
The parents appreciate the strong support from the community on this. West no longer leaves a comment on any site he visits as a result although he maintains he is putting the incident behind him. As a mother and grandmother, I question whether he can?
That is some message the organization elected to send to a fifteen-year-old child. But West seems very bright and will hopefully be able to realize that some organizations practice free speech and some not only do not practice it but also attempt to launch covert actions.
I asked C.I. what I could say about this and was informed, no surprise, whatever I wanted to say would go up. "This is your space, Ruth. This is your op-ed."
As Rebecca pointed out over the phone Friday night, C.I. delinked from them as soon as what was done to West was learned. C.I. welcomed West into the community, apologized that there would be no e-mail reply to West's e-mail that night, due to the late hour. C.I. also delinked from the blog report. The blog report author immediately delinked from The Common Ills. The author obviously read C.I.'s entry yet the author has never made any effort to apologize to West.
C.I.'s comments on the future with regards to that organization are "I stand with the community" and nothing else. To every question I asked, "I stand with the community." Rebecca's belief is that had the author attempted to contact West and state that the author's behavior was "questionable," since the parents want to put this all behind them, C.I. would have probably linked to the organization. As it stands now, the organization is not promoted at this site. C.I. stated that Rebecca's opinions are her own opinions and may or may not reflect C.I.'s but that the operating prinicple at this site is that we do not promote or reward bad behaviors. If the organization had a spokesperson on Democracy Now!, a link would simply not be provided for that segment.
Could I have promoted the interview on CounterSpin in my column? Yes, I was told I could because this is my space though C.I. added that knowing my own feelings towards the treatment of West, it is highly unlikely that I would promote them. C.I. is correct. I came of age when, if something was wrong, you said it was wrong.
That all these months later, the organization has still not offered any sort of olive branch to West is appalling. There has not even been an e-mail stating, "I was under a lot of stress and, in reflection, if I had it to do over, I probably would have conducted myself differently."
So for this community, the organization does not exist. When this all went down, my eldest son was dropping off Elijah the next morning and I honestly had not read C.I.'s post on it. It went up very late and I always start with the top entry and work my way down. So I learned of it from my eldest son and I will note his reaction to it and insist that it make it into my report today. I will insist upon it because the only editing C.I. ever does of my column is to remove references to C.I.
My eldest son expressed amazement that the organization would treat anyone that way, let alone a child. He had bought a paper book from the organization and, I believe, a few DVDs. He stated then, and has kept his word, that he was not going to purchase anything from them anymore nor was he going to visit it. He also felt C.I. was brave to take the stand since it would likely cost a "link." It did. But, as Rebecca will tell you, C.I. could care less. There is right and there is wrong. You stand for what you believe in or you do not.
The only response from the blog author has not been an olive branch of any sort to West, it has been just to delink from The Common Ills. The blog author may feel that "addresses" the situation and possibly upper management at the organization does as well. It does not address what was done to West.
As a result, I did not listen to my favorite radio program. I will catch CounterSpin next week and enjoy it as I usually do. But in the wishy-washy world we live in where Bully Boy is treated with kid gloves and a corporate media repeats, but does not analyze, White House spin, it is very important that we take strong stands. The organization was one of several that could not take a stand on the war following the elections. They refused to run a piece by Tom Hayden that was "on the money" as we used to say in my day.
I applaud strong stands. The Nation has an amazing editorial. Hopefully that issue will arrive in the mail soon because I am highly tempted to use the link provided Friday to read it. ("Democrats and the War.") This is not a time for cowardice.
Which brings me to two programs I wanted to highlight from public radio. KPFA's The Morning Show provided an in depth look at adoption this week, exploring various issues over several days. I do not think that I have heard a more in depth discussion on that topic. They approached the topic from a variety of angles including the rights of the LGBT community, the issues involved in raising children that are a different race or ethnicity from the parent or parents and, on Friday, the issue of how a natural tragedy in one corner of the world can lead to adoptions in another and what are the ethics involved in that? Andrea Lewis did an amazing job interviewing the guests and everyone involved in the series deserves praise. With a multi-part series, the last installment often features some attempt to close the gate and state, "So here's how it is." There was no attempt to simplify this complex issue. Listeners were treated like adults.
I will also note that Friday, November 4th, Ms. Lewis interviewed Eddi Fiegel, the author of a new book entitled Dream A Little Dream Of Me: The Life of Cass Elliot. During her research for the book, Crosby, Stills and Nash's David Crosby offered Fiegel a hundred dollars if she found anyone who knew Cass Ellliot and had anything bad to say about Ms. Elliot. Ms. Fiegel did not collect a hundred dollars from Mr. Crosby. She did, however, learn a great amount of information about Cass Elliot. One of the reasons this was such a strong interview was because Ms. Lewis actually knew about Mama Cass. That surprised me as I listened and I kept thinking, "Surely she is not my age?" During the interview, it was revealed that, no, she is not my age. She was a child at the time of the Mamas and the Papas. But she does appreciate the vocals of Cass. Fans of Cass and those interested in the book, as well as those interested in hearing a good interview, should use the link to listen to the archived edition of the broadcast. For any impatient listeners, I will note that Ms. Fiegel comes on in the last hour of the broadcast.
The other program I want to steer to you towards is Law & Disorder on WBAI. [Dallas note: To hear this broadcast, click here and scroll down to November 7th.]
The hosts are "Michael Ratner, President of the Center for Constitutional Rights, Dalia Hashad, Muslim, Arab and South Asian Advocate with the ACLU, Michael Steven Smith, civil rights attorney and author and Heidi Boghosian, Executive Director of the National Lawyers' Guild." There were many topics discussed but I will note the one that holds everyone's interest when I mention it, author Joan Mellen about her forthcoming book A Farewell to Justice: Jim Garrison, JFK's Assassination, and the Case That Should Have Changed History. [C.I. note: This book will be released Tuesday, November the 15th.] Utilizing documents from the National Archives, Mellen explores new data on the JFK assassination. The discussion included noting that the late Hale Boggs, House Majority Leader and father of Cokie Roberts, was the one who first steered Jim Garrison to questions regarding the Warren Report. Ms. Mellen draws strong conclusions and if you are interested in them, you should listen to the broadcast. [Dallas note: Again, click here and scroll down to November 7th.]
Earlier this week, C.I. noted of the departure of Judith Miller from the New York Times, "The Times, the original Survivor, has spoken. Everyone's to feed on Miller now." I found the line both apt and humorous. Tracey told me I had to include it and her mother will swear that Tracey has laughed "nonstop like a hyena" at that line. Apparently, if you have watched the program Survivor, it is especially funny. Being a doting grandmother, I immediately agreed it would be included. I was not sure how I would work it in until Friday morning when I flipped on NPR out of the blue and found Renee Montaigne suddenly, also out of the blue?, remembering that she was a reporter.
Here is the segment:
Judith Miller Defends Her Reporting at the 'Times'Morning Edition,
November 11, 2005 · Former New York Times reporter Judith Miller says she disagrees with criticism of her reporting on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. She maintains that her sources got their facts wrong, and denies that her stories were improperly vetted.
Renee obviously got the memo that "everyone's to feed on Judy Miller" which explains Renee's interview "style." Does anyone else remember the tut-tutting from the NPR ombudsman over Terry Gross' Fresh Air interview with Bill O'Reilly? Will he have anything to say about the fact that Renee repeatedly cut off and interrupted Ms. Miller? That Renee was openly hostile to Ms. Miller?
If NPR wants to make this their "style," by all means do so but apply it to all. Curiously, Ahmad Chalabi was intervied by Steve Inskeep immediately prior to Renee's interview with Ms. Miller being aired and Steve handled Mr. Chalabi with kid gloves.This is not Renee's normal "style." You can contrast her interview with Ms. Miller with any number of people. You can focus solely on her interviews on to the topic of Iraq. She has held hands with administration officials repeatedly. Nor was this a case of Renee being frustrated because she had been a brave voice in the lead up to the war. She was not. As a sometime host of Morning Edition, then anchored by Bob Edwards, Renee never challenged any assertions or Colin Powell's infamous United Nations speech.
So since this is not her normal style and since she was not a brave voice standing alone on the coverage of Iraq, the only conclusion I can draw is she wanted to score some points. She did so.
She presented herself as belligerant and combative. If NPR wants to be that way, I have no problem with it provided that "style" is carried out with everyone.
Judith Miller is now disgraced publicly. Due to that, Renee apparently feels she can alter the tone of NPR and go into attack mode to score a few points.
I doubt the ombudsman will take a look at the issue and I doubt even more that he would issue a "finding" against Renee. It is open season on Ms. Miller.
While Ms. Miller has herself to blame for that, the fact remains that Renee's attention seeking interview "style," which I would term a "tantrum," did not meet the standards of NPR. If Renee wants to cut off administration officials and snap at them, by all means do so. But unless she is willing to provide that "style" across the board, the conclusions many listeners will draw is that Renee thought she could get away with dropping what NPR terms "professionalism" and go into attack mode since Ms. Miller is an easy target.
How bad was the interview? Ms. Miller said at one point, "Renee, I'm not going to argue with you about this." At one point, Ms. Miller asserted that "chest beating" was not the answer but that the answer was "going out and doing more journalism." While Ms. Miller's name is in tatters, a real interviewer might have asked the obvious question, "How would that be done? What would be pursued?"
Renee was not interested in pursuing that topic which is too bad because, now that Ms. Miller can admit her reporting is wrong, she might also be able to admit how the truth could be discovered. She might not be able to but we will never know that since Renee did not follow up on it. Instead, Renee show boated in a manner that goes against anything I have ever heard on NPR.
I have no respect for, nor good thoughts of, Judith Miller. But it bears noting that standards are apparently relaxed when Ms. Miller is a guest. The reason for that is a question NPR needs to explore.Whether Ms. Miller's statements were sincere or not, she is correct that more reporting is needed. It is needed to rectify the reporting on record which was not reporting but stenography and which carries not just Ms. Miller's name but the names of many other "reporters."
If the conclusion from all of this is that Ms. Miller was a bad reporter I have no idea why people have spent so many hours addressing this. Ms. Miller was a bad reporter and that is not "news" or even fresh gossip at this point.
The news value is in exploring how a compliant press abdicated their duties and responsibilities to the public not in the usual manner of pursuing some titilating story but in one sided, unquestioning coverage of an issue as serious as war. That is the story. Ms. Miller is a character in that story. She, however, is not the only character.
It is very interesting that the press is so willing to examine Ms. Miller's motives but not the motives of people at their own organizations or, for that matter, the motives of the administration. Perhaps if they were Bully Boy's speech Friday would have been greeted with the laughter and ridicule it deserved.
counterspin
robert parry
cass elliot
mama cass
katrina vanden heuvel
the nation
david+crosby
andrea lewis
eddie+fiegel
kpfa
the morning show
wbai
law and disorder
judith miller
morning edition
steve inskeep
renee+montagne
joan mellen
jfk
chalabi
janine jackson
michael ratner
consortium news
center for constitutional rights
adoption
the mamas and the papas
Ruth's Morning Editon Report
Ruth: The e-mails came in and then some. C.I. posted a notice about a column I killed last weekend. At first, I was going to rework it and hopefully have something ready for Sunday. But I could not rework it and told C.I. that I was going to take a pass. Which is when C.I. asked me what I wanted said since e-mails would come in wondering where I was?
C.I. summarized exactly what I said on Monday while noting, "Ruth, people are going to read this and think I'm making a comment on your pulled column." C.I. was right but those were my words and C.I. addressed the issue of the show involved.
CounterSpin, produced by the organization FAIR, is one of my favorite radio programs. Two Fridays ago, they had Robert Parry as a guest. Mr. Parry is the reporter who established himself in the mainstream press by taking on stories no one else wanted to deal with such as Iran-Contra. Now he is an author of books and also runs Consortium News online. When the interview ended, I thought to myself, "I wish it had been longer." Then the next interview started and that was the problem.
A law expert, a law professor, was the guest. I was underwhelmed by the guest. He was brought on to discuss Judge Sameul A. Alito Jr. who currently serves on the federal bench and is nominated for the Supreme Court. As Treva would say, Mr. Alito is a "biggie."
Janine Jackson was the interviewer. Ms. Jackson has strong interview skills and she needed every one of them while dealing with a guest who had not reviewed Mr. Alito's court decisions and repeatedly relied upon statements to the effect of "I'm told he ruled this way . . ."
It was as though I was asked to come on the show to discuss kugel and arrived with only, "I'm told Treva has an incredible recipe for it . . ." Did I look at Treva's recipe? No and I had no information to offer of any substance. P.S. Treva does make an incredible kuglel and I do have her recipe.
Ms. Jackson did an incredible job in the interview but I honestly felt the guest was ill prepapred and offered nothing of substance. I also took issue with the guest's use of "partial-birth abortion." "So-called" as a preface is quite different from other prefaces. I believe the guest used "what is known as partial-birth abortion" but I won't swear to that. As a feminist of more years than I have gray hairs, and I have a lot of gray hairs, I am really tired of hearing men weigh in on abortion. Especially those who use terms that are not medically supported. I was married to a doctor, many of my children have followed in their late father's footsteps, so I do take medicine seriously.
The guest was not to my liking. I had no desire to recommend that anyone go out of their way to listen to the show. That is where my back and forth on whether I'd have something came from.I love CounterSpin. Robert Parry was a guest worth hearing. The critiques by Ms. Jackson, Peter Hart and Steve Rendell that start each episode are always on the money and funny. So the issue was one of do I want to recommend this episode or not?
As a feminist and someone who has a strong appreciation of real science, I had no desire to recommend that anyone listen to the legal expert brought on to discuss Judge Alito's record.My hope was just to skip a week and come back this week where I would note the problems I had with the guest, as I have, and then recommend the latest edition of CounterSpin. C.I. called me to give me a heads up to a guest and warn me that I might want a "Ruth is on vacation" note posted at The Common Ills.
I cannot recommend this Friday's episode. I did not listen to it. I am sure there was value early on but there was a guest from an organization that this community would not support.
It is really too bad that the organization has never clarified their stance. Maybe the organization does not support the tactics used this summer? If so, the community would be happy to get behind the organization. But there has never been a statement from them on it. Now, as some leave the organization and go elsewhere, they may do so with a cloud over them.
C.I. said, "Ruth, it's your space, feel free to name the organization and write whatever you want." While I will gladly take C.I. up on the latter, I have no desire to promote the organization.
To recap, although I am sure every member of the community already knows what organization I am speaking of, this summer a high school kid, fifteen-years-old, goes to work with his father.The kid plays around the internet. Coming from a family of good leftists, he seeks out leftist sites. He checks out the organization involved as well as some of the sites that the organization links to at its blog report.
The blog report is asking for feedback and allows comments. The kid notes some sites, four, in his comments. The kid also makes a comment that some of the topics being covered by the blog report are frivilous. I would agree with that statement. Instead, the kid steers the blog report author to posts at some other sites.
The Common Ills was one of the four sites. C.I. noted this event after the kid e-mailed, to the blog report author and each of the four sites, an apology because there was talk of the four sites not being mentioned as a result of the child's comments. That is where this community comes in.
But, thanks to the gina & krista round-robin and the fact that they ran the e-mails sent out by the organization -- both to West and those not to West, we know a bit more now than when C.I.'s statements on this were posted. So let's all back up a moment. On the first day when the student posted, already there was an effort by the author of the blog report, via e-mail, to attempt to find out information on the child. The author did not e-mail the child. That seems to me a bit sneaky, going around and attempting to get dirt on someone.
There was no dirt to be gotten from this community because the student was not a member of this community and no one knew him or of him. That was day one and I want to include it because it has not been noted here. That is due to the fact that C.I. did not know about this until Gina and Krista ran e-mails in their round-robin.
As my granddaughter Tracey pointed out, she is a big fan of Katrina vanden Heuvel at The Nation, "Some people post really mean things in reply to Katrina's Editor's Cut but I can't believe she would ever attempt to get dirt on them and she obviously doesn't ban them." That is because The Nation operates under the principle of free speech.
Which brings us to day two. On day two, the blog report included praise for Michelle Malkin and links to her. Was the news that day so slow that the left needs to praise Michelle Malkin? I do not think we have had a news day that slow since the Bully Boy stepped into the oval office.
The child posted something to the effect of "step out of the GOP closet" and that is where things really hit the fan.
At this point, it is not only the author of the blog report but also a member of management of the organization involved that is on record: "Step out of the GOP closet" was "hate speech."
The child was informed of that and informed that he was banned and the possibility of harm to the four web sites was floated if the child did not immediately apologize. This occurred in a flurry of e-mail messages from the organization which apparently has nothing better to do on a mid-week day than harrass fifteen-year-olds.
So the child e-mails an apology. The child apologizes to the author of the blog report and to the four blogs he had praised. He sends that out in a group e-mail and then receives an e-mail from the author of the blog report saying he wished the child had not done that.
Of course he wishes the child had not done that. What the author and the one member of managment at the organization had done goes against everything that the left is supposed to stand for. It goes against freedom of speech, which is not supported in the comments that you can post, at your own risk, at the organization, as noted by management in an e-mail to the child.
What it boils down to is a bad writer did a bad blog report. Critical comments were not allowed. Prior to the banning, there was an attempt to seek out dirt on the child. When no dirt came back to the author of the blog report, at least from this community who did not know the child, they looked for an excuse to ban the child. The excuse they latched onto was that "step out of the GOP closet" was "hate speech."
"Step out of the GOP closet" is not hate speech. No one in their right mind would attempt to argue that it was. I spoke with my grandson Jayson and several friends who are lesbians to make sure that I was not missing something, as a straight woman, but the feedback was the same, "That is not hate speech and has nothing to do with sexuality."
What is was, I would argue, was an excuse to ban the kid who was making humorous criticism, but insightful criticism. Instead of taking a look at that criticism, they elected to ban the child, after first seeking out dirt on him and then going so far as to force an apology out of him.
The child's parents are still bothered by the actions of the organization. I spoke with the father on Friday and he said that to this day the child has not received an apology from the organization in any form.
As a mother and grandparent, I will say that no organization calling itself "left" should go after a child the way they did that student.
I also spoke to Pru who had advocated the linking to that blog report. Being one of our European members, Pru lives in London, Pru feels that C.I. gave special consideration to her request once Gareth, Polly and James in Brighton joined in. She states that they are appalled to this day over the events of this summer and that, speaking for herself and Gareth, they do not go to that blog report or to anything on that organization's site.
C.I. states that the decision was not Pru's and that C.I. takes full responsibility for that link.
When the child sent out the group e-mail, Rebecca, who operates one of the four sites the child had praised -- the other two are not community sites, immdiately responded. She e-mailed the child and asked that they speak on the phone. She immediately posted her feelings of disgust over the treatment of this child at Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude. C.I. learned of what had happened from Rebecca who phoned. C.I. immediately posted at this site. C.I. noted that the link was being pulled and that the behavior was not of the left. C.I., being C.I., didn't name the organization. C.I. offered the hope that the treatment of the child was not policy at the organization and that an apology would be made to the child. C.I. also stated that the child could consider himself a member of this community because anyone who is beat up for advocating this site and others on the left is a member. We know the child by "West" now.
I told West's parents that if that had been Tracey, Jayson or any of my grandchildren, I would be on the phone every day screaming at the organization, demanding an apology. West's parents are practicing Buddhists and a bit more sanguine than I am and feel that karma will hold the organization accountable. They say, both the mother and the father, that they have just eliminated visiting that web site and purchasing from it. West's father feels very badly about all of this because he actually had the site bookmarked on his computer at work and had suggested to his son that he visit it.
They were not aware, like everyone else, until Gina and Krista reproduced all the e-mails involved on this in their gina & krista round-robin, that the blog author had attempted to get dirt on their child. West's father is most vocal on that topic. He says that the site can certainly ban anyone that they wish to, for whatever trumped up charges, but it is quite another option to attempt to do covert research.
"If my son's comments bothered him [the blog author] so much the first day, he should have e-mailed my son. To instead attempt to hunt down dirt on him behind his back is more the sort of actions one expects from J. Edgar Hoover than from a purported left site."
The parents appreciate the strong support from the community on this. West no longer leaves a comment on any site he visits as a result although he maintains he is putting the incident behind him. As a mother and grandmother, I question whether he can?
That is some message the organization elected to send to a fifteen-year-old child. But West seems very bright and will hopefully be able to realize that some organizations practice free speech and some not only do not practice it but also attempt to launch covert actions.
I asked C.I. what I could say about this and was informed, no surprise, whatever I wanted to say would go up. "This is your space, Ruth. This is your op-ed."
As Rebecca pointed out over the phone Friday night, C.I. delinked from them as soon as what was done to West was learned. C.I. welcomed West into the community, apologized that there would be no e-mail reply to West's e-mail that night, due to the late hour. C.I. also delinked from the blog report. The blog report author immediately delinked from The Common Ills. The author obviously read C.I.'s entry yet the author has never made any effort to apologize to West.
C.I.'s comments on the future with regards to that organization are "I stand with the community" and nothing else. To every question I asked, "I stand with the community." Rebecca's belief is that had the author attempted to contact West and state that the author's behavior was "questionable," since the parents want to put this all behind them, C.I. would have probably linked to the organization. As it stands now, the organization is not promoted at this site. C.I. stated that Rebecca's opinions are her own opinions and may or may not reflect C.I.'s but that the operating prinicple at this site is that we do not promote or reward bad behaviors. If the organization had a spokesperson on Democracy Now!, a link would simply not be provided for that segment.
Could I have promoted the interview on CounterSpin in my column? Yes, I was told I could because this is my space though C.I. added that knowing my own feelings towards the treatment of West, it is highly unlikely that I would promote them. C.I. is correct. I came of age when, if something was wrong, you said it was wrong.
That all these months later, the organization has still not offered any sort of olive branch to West is appalling. There has not even been an e-mail stating, "I was under a lot of stress and, in reflection, if I had it to do over, I probably would have conducted myself differently."
So for this community, the organization does not exist. When this all went down, my eldest son was dropping off Elijah the next morning and I honestly had not read C.I.'s post on it. It went up very late and I always start with the top entry and work my way down. So I learned of it from my eldest son and I will note his reaction to it and insist that it make it into my report today. I will insist upon it because the only editing C.I. ever does of my column is to remove references to C.I.
My eldest son expressed amazement that the organization would treat anyone that way, let alone a child. He had bought a paper book from the organization and, I believe, a few DVDs. He stated then, and has kept his word, that he was not going to purchase anything from them anymore nor was he going to visit it. He also felt C.I. was brave to take the stand since it would likely cost a "link." It did. But, as Rebecca will tell you, C.I. could care less. There is right and there is wrong. You stand for what you believe in or you do not.
The only response from the blog author has not been an olive branch of any sort to West, it has been just to delink from The Common Ills. The blog author may feel that "addresses" the situation and possibly upper management at the organization does as well. It does not address what was done to West.
As a result, I did not listen to my favorite radio program. I will catch CounterSpin next week and enjoy it as I usually do. But in the wishy-washy world we live in where Bully Boy is treated with kid gloves and a corporate media repeats, but does not analyze, White House spin, it is very important that we take strong stands. The organization was one of several that could not take a stand on the war following the elections. They refused to run a piece by Tom Hayden that was "on the money" as we used to say in my day.
I applaud strong stands. The Nation has an amazing editorial. Hopefully that issue will arrive in the mail soon because I am highly tempted to use the link provided Friday to read it. ("Democrats and the War.") This is not a time for cowardice.
Which brings me to two programs I wanted to highlight from public radio. KPFA's The Morning Show provided an in depth look at adoption this week, exploring various issues over several days. I do not think that I have heard a more in depth discussion on that topic. They approached the topic from a variety of angles including the rights of the LGBT community, the issues involved in raising children that are a different race or ethnicity from the parent or parents and, on Friday, the issue of how a natural tragedy in one corner of the world can lead to adoptions in another and what are the ethics involved in that? Andrea Lewis did an amazing job interviewing the guests and everyone involved in the series deserves praise. With a multi-part series, the last installment often features some attempt to close the gate and state, "So here's how it is." There was no attempt to simplify this complex issue. Listeners were treated like adults.
I will also note that Friday, November 4th, Ms. Lewis interviewed Eddi Fiegel, the author of a new book entitled Dream A Little Dream Of Me: The Life of Cass Elliot. During her research for the book, Crosby, Stills and Nash's David Crosby offered Fiegel a hundred dollars if she found anyone who knew Cass Ellliot and had anything bad to say about Ms. Elliot. Ms. Fiegel did not collect a hundred dollars from Mr. Crosby. She did, however, learn a great amount of information about Cass Elliot. One of the reasons this was such a strong interview was because Ms. Lewis actually knew about Mama Cass. That surprised me as I listened and I kept thinking, "Surely she is not my age?" During the interview, it was revealed that, no, she is not my age. She was a child at the time of the Mamas and the Papas. But she does appreciate the vocals of Cass. Fans of Cass and those interested in the book, as well as those interested in hearing a good interview, should use the link to listen to the archived edition of the broadcast. For any impatient listeners, I will note that Ms. Fiegel comes on in the last hour of the broadcast.
The other program I want to steer to you towards is Law & Disorder on WBAI. [Dallas note: To hear this broadcast, click here and scroll down to November 7th.]
The hosts are "Michael Ratner, President of the Center for Constitutional Rights, Dalia Hashad, Muslim, Arab and South Asian Advocate with the ACLU, Michael Steven Smith, civil rights attorney and author and Heidi Boghosian, Executive Director of the National Lawyers' Guild." There were many topics discussed but I will note the one that holds everyone's interest when I mention it, author Joan Mellen about her forthcoming book A Farewell to Justice: Jim Garrison, JFK's Assassination, and the Case That Should Have Changed History. [C.I. note: This book will be released Tuesday, November the 15th.] Utilizing documents from the National Archives, Mellen explores new data on the JFK assassination. The discussion included noting that the late Hale Boggs, House Majority Leader and father of Cokie Roberts, was the one who first steered Jim Garrison to questions regarding the Warren Report. Ms. Mellen draws strong conclusions and if you are interested in them, you should listen to the broadcast. [Dallas note: Again, click here and scroll down to November 7th.]
Earlier this week, C.I. noted of the departure of Judith Miller from the New York Times, "The Times, the original Survivor, has spoken. Everyone's to feed on Miller now." I found the line both apt and humorous. Tracey told me I had to include it and her mother will swear that Tracey has laughed "nonstop like a hyena" at that line. Apparently, if you have watched the program Survivor, it is especially funny. Being a doting grandmother, I immediately agreed it would be included. I was not sure how I would work it in until Friday morning when I flipped on NPR out of the blue and found Renee Montaigne suddenly, also out of the blue?, remembering that she was a reporter.
Here is the segment:
Judith Miller Defends Her Reporting at the 'Times'Morning Edition,
November 11, 2005 · Former New York Times reporter Judith Miller says she disagrees with criticism of her reporting on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. She maintains that her sources got their facts wrong, and denies that her stories were improperly vetted.
Renee obviously got the memo that "everyone's to feed on Judy Miller" which explains Renee's interview "style." Does anyone else remember the tut-tutting from the NPR ombudsman over Terry Gross' Fresh Air interview with Bill O'Reilly? Will he have anything to say about the fact that Renee repeatedly cut off and interrupted Ms. Miller? That Renee was openly hostile to Ms. Miller?
If NPR wants to make this their "style," by all means do so but apply it to all. Curiously, Ahmad Chalabi was intervied by Steve Inskeep immediately prior to Renee's interview with Ms. Miller being aired and Steve handled Mr. Chalabi with kid gloves.This is not Renee's normal "style." You can contrast her interview with Ms. Miller with any number of people. You can focus solely on her interviews on to the topic of Iraq. She has held hands with administration officials repeatedly. Nor was this a case of Renee being frustrated because she had been a brave voice in the lead up to the war. She was not. As a sometime host of Morning Edition, then anchored by Bob Edwards, Renee never challenged any assertions or Colin Powell's infamous United Nations speech.
So since this is not her normal style and since she was not a brave voice standing alone on the coverage of Iraq, the only conclusion I can draw is she wanted to score some points. She did so.
She presented herself as belligerant and combative. If NPR wants to be that way, I have no problem with it provided that "style" is carried out with everyone.
Judith Miller is now disgraced publicly. Due to that, Renee apparently feels she can alter the tone of NPR and go into attack mode to score a few points.
I doubt the ombudsman will take a look at the issue and I doubt even more that he would issue a "finding" against Renee. It is open season on Ms. Miller.
While Ms. Miller has herself to blame for that, the fact remains that Renee's attention seeking interview "style," which I would term a "tantrum," did not meet the standards of NPR. If Renee wants to cut off administration officials and snap at them, by all means do so. But unless she is willing to provide that "style" across the board, the conclusions many listeners will draw is that Renee thought she could get away with dropping what NPR terms "professionalism" and go into attack mode since Ms. Miller is an easy target.
How bad was the interview? Ms. Miller said at one point, "Renee, I'm not going to argue with you about this." At one point, Ms. Miller asserted that "chest beating" was not the answer but that the answer was "going out and doing more journalism." While Ms. Miller's name is in tatters, a real interviewer might have asked the obvious question, "How would that be done? What would be pursued?"
Renee was not interested in pursuing that topic which is too bad because, now that Ms. Miller can admit her reporting is wrong, she might also be able to admit how the truth could be discovered. She might not be able to but we will never know that since Renee did not follow up on it. Instead, Renee show boated in a manner that goes against anything I have ever heard on NPR.
I have no respect for, nor good thoughts of, Judith Miller. But it bears noting that standards are apparently relaxed when Ms. Miller is a guest. The reason for that is a question NPR needs to explore.Whether Ms. Miller's statements were sincere or not, she is correct that more reporting is needed. It is needed to rectify the reporting on record which was not reporting but stenography and which carries not just Ms. Miller's name but the names of many other "reporters."
If the conclusion from all of this is that Ms. Miller was a bad reporter I have no idea why people have spent so many hours addressing this. Ms. Miller was a bad reporter and that is not "news" or even fresh gossip at this point.
The news value is in exploring how a compliant press abdicated their duties and responsibilities to the public not in the usual manner of pursuing some titilating story but in one sided, unquestioning coverage of an issue as serious as war. That is the story. Ms. Miller is a character in that story. She, however, is not the only character.
It is very interesting that the press is so willing to examine Ms. Miller's motives but not the motives of people at their own organizations or, for that matter, the motives of the administration. Perhaps if they were Bully Boy's speech Friday would have been greeted with the laughter and ridicule it deserved.
counterspin
robert parry
cass elliot
mama cass
katrina vanden heuvel
the nation
david+crosby
andrea lewis
eddie+fiegel
kpfa
the morning show
wbai
law and disorder
judith miller
morning edition
steve inskeep
renee+montagne
joan mellen
jfk
chalabi
janine jackson
michael ratner
consortium news
center for constitutional rights
adoption
the mamas and the papas
Sunday, November 13, 2005
Reporting from outside the US mainstream media
U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton said Sunday that she supports the separation fence Israel is building along the edges of the West Bank, and that the onus is on the Palestinian Authority to fight terrorism.
"This is not against the Palestinian people," Clinton, a New York Democrat, said during a tour of a section of the barrier being built around Jerusalem. "This is against the terrorists. The Palestinian people have to help to prevent terrorism. They have to change the attitudes about terrorism."
Kara e-mails to note the above from By Lily Galili and Roni Singer 's "Sen. Clinton: I support W. Bank fence, PA must fight terrorism" (Haaretz).
Kara's enraged by Hillary's "stupid statements." I'd agree that they are uniformed and completely in keeping with her restyling as a War Hawk. The fence Junior Bully Hilly supports decimates the areas and keeps the Palestinians removed from land and resources. Hillary's no fool, she knows that.
Her "logic" is laughable as she pushes all responsibility and blame off on the Palestinians. By the way, her lecture on what the Palestinians need to do? It was given to the Israelies. Crowd pleaser that Hillary.
Dominick e-mails to note Will Lester's "Most Americans believe Bush is dishonest, new poll reveals" (Irish Examiner):
MOST Americans say they aren't impressed by the ethics and honesty of the Bush administration, already under scrutiny for its justifications for an unpopular war in Iraq and its role in the leak of a covert CIA officer's identity.
Almost six-in-10 - 57% - said they do not think the Bush administration has high ethical standards. The same portion says George Bush is not honest, the AP-Ipsos poll found.
Whites, Southerners and evangelicals were most likely to believe Mr Bush is honest. Mr Bush, who promised in the 2000 campaign to uphold "honour and integrity", last week ordered White House workers to attend ethics classes. Some 82%, described Mr Bush as "stubborn".
Why might people see the Bully Boy as "stubborn"? Oh, we could count the ways. Instead, we'll note something DK e-mailed a perfect example of how the Bully Boy inflames hatred around the world, Michael Ratner and Sara Miles' "Is America above the Geneva Conventions?" (Germany's Der Spiegel):
Inside the Pentagon, officials are arguing with Vice President Dick Cheney about a new set of US Defense Department guidelines for interrogating suspected terrorists. The debate over an anti-torture bill is a sad moment for a country that once stood for human rights.
As someone who has spent decades representing clients who have been tortured under dictatorships, in dirty wars and by lawless governments around the world, I'm having a rough week here at home. My friend Sister Dianna Ortiz, an Ursuline nun whom I represented after she'd been abducted, raped and tortured by security forces in Guatemala, told me she was having a hard time too.
"Torture destroys trust," she said. "Since my torture, 16 years ago, I've tried to rebuild that trust, but now my government has shattered it yet again. Fear returns..."
For Sister Dianna and other victims of torture, this moment represents what she calls "a choice between courage and cowardice, human decency and depravity." Inside the Pentagon, officials are arguing with Vice President Dick Cheney and some of his aides about a whether a new set of Defense Department guidelines for interrogating suspected terrorists should prohibit the "cruel, humiliating, and degrading" treatment of prisoners.
In the Congress, Sen. John McCain, with support from 89 colleagues, is pushing a separate measure to ban cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of any detainee in U.S. custody -- against veto threats from the White House and fierce opposition from Cheney and his new chief of staff, David Addington, who are maneuvering to exempt clandestine CIA activities from oversight. And reporters have uncovered a network of "black sites" in Eastern Europe and elsewhere -- secret detention camps run by the CIA, where suspects are being held and brutally interrogated.
The idea that torture could be so publicly defensible -- and the news that the United States is maintaining secret facilities in former Soviet-era prisons for torturing nameless and disappeared people -- fills me with shame and horror. And while it's encouraging that John McCain, who was himself tortured as a prisoner of war, wants to make it illegal to strap naked prisoners to boards and hold them under water, electrocute them or mock-execute them, it's profoundly depressing that the discourse about torture has come to this point.
Cruelty in war may be universal: but an international code acknowledging limits on cruelty has been, until now, a fundamental part of civilization. The Geneva Conventions, adopted in 1949, put it plainly: Even in war, all persons are to be treated "humanely"; "cruel treatment and torture and outrages upon personal dignity" are prohibited. The United States and countries from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, 192 in all, have agreed that freedom from torture, degradation, and cruel or inhuman treatment is one of the most basic of human rights, transcending national boundaries.
As Judge Irving Kaufman of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 1980 -- in a landmark case we at the Center for Constitutional Rights brought in a U.S. court against the Paraguayan general who tortured Joel Filartiga to death -- "for purposes of civil liability, the torturer has become like the pirate and slave trader before him hostis humani generis, an enemy of all mankind."
On Nepal, Liang e-mails to note Marty Logan's "Court Refuses to Restrain King's Gov't" (IPS):
The future of one of Nepal's best known radio stations, and the country's entire media, was hazy Friday after the Supreme Court refused to issue an order preventing the government from acting against Kantipur FM. According to sketchy reports in the local media, the court rejected a number of petitions submitted after government officials, backed by soldiers, raided the radio station and seized equipment last month.
Kantipur FM is one of many assets in a media group that has been especially critical of King Gyanendra's takeover of the government on Feb. 1. Officials justified the raid and seizure of transmission equipment by pointing to an ordinance issued days before. It amended the country's media laws to, among other things, ban news broadcasts on all FM stations. The ordinance also prohibits one entity from owning holdings among the three types of media, widens laws against criticism of the king to include the entire royal family and multiplies 10-fold the penalties for violating the laws.
After raiding the station Oct. 21, officials ordered Kantipur's owners to explain, within 24 hours, why the station should not be closed for violating the new laws. Almost immediately, the Supreme Court stayed that order but on Friday, a special panel, led by Chief Justice Dilip Kumar Poudel, refused to extend that into an interim order, said news reports.
The decision comes as non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and their supporters launched a fresh wave of protests against the government, which said it would begin to enforce a new NGO code of conduct. By mid-afternoon Friday, local media were reporting that five people had been arrested for trying to torch the code in eastern Saptari district. A protest rally was reportedly planned for later in the day in the capital Kathmandu.
The code of conduct and the media ordinance are the most visible indications that the king is going beyond the mandate he announced when he seized power on Feb. 1: to return the country to peace. Instead, it appears the monarch is attempting to reverse social changes introduced since democracy was restored here in 1990.
James in Brighton also notes a report on Nepal, "India seeks 'democratic' Nepal" (BBC):
India Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has asked Nepal's King Gyanendra to take concrete steps towards restoring multi-party democracy in his country.
The two South Asian leaders held talks at the two-day summit of South Asian leaders in Dhaka.
The king took control of the Himalayan kingdom in February, saying the government had not done enough to quell a Maoist insurgency.
He has announced that parliamentary elections will be held by April 2007.
Opposition parties say they plan to boycott any election called by the king, because they say his government is unconstitutional.
Olive e-mails to note "Woman arrested over Jordan bombings makes TV confession" (Australia's ABC):
A woman arrested by Jordanian authorities and accused of carrying out a failed suicide mission in last week's Amman hotel bombings has given a televised confession wearing her suicide belt.
Jordanian police arrested the Iraqi woman on Sunday, saying she concealed explosives that failed to detonate but her husband managed to blow himself apart in a mission that targeted two other hotels and killed 57 people.
"My name is Sajida Mabruk Atrous Rishawi, [I was] born in 1970 in Ramadi. I entered Jordan on November 5 with falsified Iraq passports in which the name of my husband was Ali Hussein Ali and mine was Sajida Abdel Kader Latif," she said, wearing a white headscarf and a black coat.
Sasha e-mails to note Catherine Belton's "Khodorkovsky Sets Out Vision for 2020" (The Moscow Times):
Mikhail Khodorkovsky attacked President Vladimir Putin's regime in a withering missive from his east Siberian prison camp that said time was up for the "parasitic" policies of the current elite and, for the first time, presented what appeared to be his own manifesto for the presidency.
In his first major article since he was sent to serve out his sentence in the remote Chita region near the Chinese border, Khodorkovsky called for Putin to step down "not a day before nor an hour later" than the legal end of his term in 2008. He called for a "new responsible elite" to run the country in place of the bureaucrats who he said currently sought office only for the opportunity to win assets. Without a major shift toward more paternalistic, left-wing economic policies, the country is heading toward collapse, he said.
"This parasitic approach no longer works," he wrote in the article, which took up a full page in Kommersant on Friday. "The country is not capable of being competitive, and the strategic reserve of endurance and infrastructure built up from the Soviet era has run out."
Attempts by the Kremlin to justify its authoritarian rule by encouraging extremist groups would lead to "sorry" consequences and long-term instability, he said.
Gareth e-mails to note Louise Cotton's "The man who might hold the secret to defeating Aids" (The Independent of London):
The man who may hold the key to a cure for Aids was urged by doctors last night to come forward for the sake of millions of virus carriers worldwide.
The case of Andrew Stimpson, 25, who was diagnosed as HIV-positive in 2002 but found to be clear of the virus in 2003, has stunned the medical world. If doctors can establish why this happened, without treatment, it could benefit the 34.9 million virus carriers worldwide.
But Chelsea and Westminster Healthcare NHS Trust, which carried out the initial diagnosis tests, said Mr Stimpson has so far declined to undergo further tests with it.
A spokeswoman for the Trust said: "I can confirm that he has a positive and a negative test.
"When we became aware of his HIV-negative result we offered him further tests to help us investigate and find an explanation. So far he has declined to do so."
Mr Stimpson subsequently tried to sue the hospital, believing his initial positive test was inaccurate. But he was told there was no case to answer because both tests were correct. The Trust spokeswoman insisted there was no chance a mistake had crept into the testing system.
Pru e-mails to note "France: rage of the poor" (UK's The Socialist Worker):
Simon Assaf reports from Paris as days of rioting have engulfed French cities.
The slums of France have risen in revolt.
Young people have burned cars, and attacked police and government buildings. Their rebellion has engulfed towns and cities from the Mediterranean coast to the German border--and now threatens the survival of the government.
Night after night, rioters have confronted the forces of law and order in what the French police have labelled a "civil war". The chief of police has even called for the army to intervene.
The right wing minister of the interior, Nicolas Sarkozy, who has made no secret of his presidential ambitions, has staked his political career on taming the riots. His failure to rapidly quell the violence has led to growing pressure for him to resign.
The rebellion began on Saturday 26 October. Two teenagers in the Parisian banlieue (suburb) of Clichy-sous-Bois were electrocuted when they tried to hide from police in a power substation.
Their deaths sparked off a night of rioting. On Sunday the CRS riot police flooded the area and fired tear gas into a mosque causing panic among Muslim worshippers celebrating the end of the holy month of Ramadan.
The CRS attack unleashed years of pent-up anger.
In Clichy-sous-Bois and the neighbouring banlieue of Aulnay-sous-Bois the whole community rebelled.
Hanane is a young Muslim woman from Seine-Saint-Denis, which includes the sink estates of Clichy and Aulnay.
"Before, if a young man was picked up by the police, his parents would say, 'You must have done something,' or 'It’s your fault for hanging around the streets at night.' But now parents are telling their sons 'Get into the streets and defend our neighbourhood'," she said.
Poverty
While the media and the politicians are blaming "vandals" for the riots, Hanane says on the first day of the riots in Clichy-sous-Bois the whole community was behind the youths. "During the height of the riot both old and young were leaning over their balconies pelting the police with anything to hand."
The banlieues of Seine-Saint-Denis have come to represent the belts of misery and grinding poverty that exist on the edges of many towns and cities across France.
In some areas of Clichy-sous-Bois half the population are unemployed. This is an area with no station, by-passed by all the major roads and bus routes through Paris.
Antoine is a teacher who has worked in the run-down schools of Seine-Saint-Denis for seven years. "The sons and daughters of Arab and African immigrants face terrible discrimination," he said. "Often their CVs would be set aside simply because of their names.
"This racism has bred despair and these youngsters find it difficult to find a route out of poverty. "Meanwhile they face daily harassment by the police, especially from the anti-criminal brigade, or Bac, plainclothes policemen who rule the banlieues like an army of occupation."
"The Bac are like cowboys," said Hanane. "They are the hotheads of the police. They hang around the entrances to tower blocks harassing any youth they see. They are cruel and violent.
"They stop you and ask for your ID papers. If you say anything you get a slap in the mouth. If you resist you get a beating and end up in jail. One lad I know was stopped ten times in one day by the same policemen.
"They knew who he was and they knew he had done nothing but they just provoked him then they pounced on him. This is not an isolated experience. This is unfortunately the daily reality for many people."
Through the first week of November the government's response to the troubles was mass arrests and increased repression.
Over 1,000 CRS riot police descended on Seine-Saint-Denis in a massive act of intimidation, but the focus shifted to other towns and cities.
Over the following ten days riots spread to Marseille, Lille, Dijon, and Saint-Etienne. Even the resorts of Nice and Cannes were touched by the revolt.
The increased repression has fuelled deep mistrust and anger among the peoples in the banlieues, Hanane said. "The Bac act with impunity, they know that if they shoot you nothing will happen to them.
"It is for this reason that the two young lads tried to hide in an electricity substation—they were terrified of the police."
The nightly rioting has almost become a personal battle between Sarkozy and the young "casseurs", or vandals, as they are known. "This scum," Sarkozy declared in one of his provocative visits to a banlieue last week, "will be washed off the streets."
For the youth, the tally of cars torched or buildings attacked has become an affirmation that Sarkozy and the police no longer control their estates.
"But the young are fighting on their own doorstep," warned Hanane. "The political parties have abandoned them. It is easy to say that these lads are simply destroying their communities, and although I think it is wrong just to torch cars, no one is providing them with an alternative."
Hanane said that the "community leaders" have no solution to the despair.
"Now the rebellion is not just against the police, but also against the elders in the community, whose only answer is to invite the chief of police and right wing politicians for 'dialogue'. But it is these people who are behind the racism. Why are we having a dialogue with them?"
Immigrants
She added that Sarkozy was appealing to supporters of the fascist Front National in his bid to win the 2007 presidential election, and that he was sending the Bac, the "political children" of Front National leader Jean-Marie Le Pen, onto her estate.
Aziz al-Jawari runs the Tawhid cultural centre in Seine-Saint-Denis. He dismissed out of hand any suggestion that the young rioters were driven by fundamentalist ideas, a frequent accusation in the media.
"They say we are trying to build an 'alternative France', and the banlieues have become hotbeds of Islamic radicalism," he said.
"They say the Arab youth are under the control of 'foreign forces'. Their logic runs: 'Islam means terrorism, so all Muslims are terrorists.'
"The young are not rioting because they are immigrants, or because of Palestine, the war on Iraq or even Islam. They are rioting because they are French.
"Their parents may have been immigrants who came to live in a new country.
"They expected little and received even less. But this generation were born here and went to school here. French is their mother tongue.
"They are angry because even though they are French, they are treated as second class citizens."
"We don't live in the banlieues out of choice," said Hanane. "Our parents did not come here and say, 'We want to be poor and live in ghettos.' We are forced into these areas by the deep racism in French society.
"I don’t travel into the centre of Paris because I wear a veil and I'm sick of the dirty looks I get. There is an unofficial curfew for young blacks and Arabs.
"If they are caught in the centre at night they will be get trouble from the police. So we have no choice, we have to stay in our areas.
"It is the racists who want a divided France, not the immigrants or the children of immigrants.
"No matter how many generations have lived here, we cannot change the colour of our skin. We cannot become white, so for them we will never be acceptable."
The following should be read alongside this article:
» Despair behind the French riots
» Unrest shows the need to resist the elite’s agenda
© Copyright Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original and leave this notice in place.
If you found this article useful please help us maintain SW by supporting our » appeal.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
"This is not against the Palestinian people," Clinton, a New York Democrat, said during a tour of a section of the barrier being built around Jerusalem. "This is against the terrorists. The Palestinian people have to help to prevent terrorism. They have to change the attitudes about terrorism."
Kara e-mails to note the above from By Lily Galili and Roni Singer 's "Sen. Clinton: I support W. Bank fence, PA must fight terrorism" (Haaretz).
Kara's enraged by Hillary's "stupid statements." I'd agree that they are uniformed and completely in keeping with her restyling as a War Hawk. The fence Junior Bully Hilly supports decimates the areas and keeps the Palestinians removed from land and resources. Hillary's no fool, she knows that.
Her "logic" is laughable as she pushes all responsibility and blame off on the Palestinians. By the way, her lecture on what the Palestinians need to do? It was given to the Israelies. Crowd pleaser that Hillary.
Dominick e-mails to note Will Lester's "Most Americans believe Bush is dishonest, new poll reveals" (Irish Examiner):
MOST Americans say they aren't impressed by the ethics and honesty of the Bush administration, already under scrutiny for its justifications for an unpopular war in Iraq and its role in the leak of a covert CIA officer's identity.
Almost six-in-10 - 57% - said they do not think the Bush administration has high ethical standards. The same portion says George Bush is not honest, the AP-Ipsos poll found.
Whites, Southerners and evangelicals were most likely to believe Mr Bush is honest. Mr Bush, who promised in the 2000 campaign to uphold "honour and integrity", last week ordered White House workers to attend ethics classes. Some 82%, described Mr Bush as "stubborn".
Why might people see the Bully Boy as "stubborn"? Oh, we could count the ways. Instead, we'll note something DK e-mailed a perfect example of how the Bully Boy inflames hatred around the world, Michael Ratner and Sara Miles' "Is America above the Geneva Conventions?" (Germany's Der Spiegel):
Inside the Pentagon, officials are arguing with Vice President Dick Cheney about a new set of US Defense Department guidelines for interrogating suspected terrorists. The debate over an anti-torture bill is a sad moment for a country that once stood for human rights.
As someone who has spent decades representing clients who have been tortured under dictatorships, in dirty wars and by lawless governments around the world, I'm having a rough week here at home. My friend Sister Dianna Ortiz, an Ursuline nun whom I represented after she'd been abducted, raped and tortured by security forces in Guatemala, told me she was having a hard time too.
"Torture destroys trust," she said. "Since my torture, 16 years ago, I've tried to rebuild that trust, but now my government has shattered it yet again. Fear returns..."
For Sister Dianna and other victims of torture, this moment represents what she calls "a choice between courage and cowardice, human decency and depravity." Inside the Pentagon, officials are arguing with Vice President Dick Cheney and some of his aides about a whether a new set of Defense Department guidelines for interrogating suspected terrorists should prohibit the "cruel, humiliating, and degrading" treatment of prisoners.
In the Congress, Sen. John McCain, with support from 89 colleagues, is pushing a separate measure to ban cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of any detainee in U.S. custody -- against veto threats from the White House and fierce opposition from Cheney and his new chief of staff, David Addington, who are maneuvering to exempt clandestine CIA activities from oversight. And reporters have uncovered a network of "black sites" in Eastern Europe and elsewhere -- secret detention camps run by the CIA, where suspects are being held and brutally interrogated.
The idea that torture could be so publicly defensible -- and the news that the United States is maintaining secret facilities in former Soviet-era prisons for torturing nameless and disappeared people -- fills me with shame and horror. And while it's encouraging that John McCain, who was himself tortured as a prisoner of war, wants to make it illegal to strap naked prisoners to boards and hold them under water, electrocute them or mock-execute them, it's profoundly depressing that the discourse about torture has come to this point.
Cruelty in war may be universal: but an international code acknowledging limits on cruelty has been, until now, a fundamental part of civilization. The Geneva Conventions, adopted in 1949, put it plainly: Even in war, all persons are to be treated "humanely"; "cruel treatment and torture and outrages upon personal dignity" are prohibited. The United States and countries from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, 192 in all, have agreed that freedom from torture, degradation, and cruel or inhuman treatment is one of the most basic of human rights, transcending national boundaries.
As Judge Irving Kaufman of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 1980 -- in a landmark case we at the Center for Constitutional Rights brought in a U.S. court against the Paraguayan general who tortured Joel Filartiga to death -- "for purposes of civil liability, the torturer has become like the pirate and slave trader before him hostis humani generis, an enemy of all mankind."
On Nepal, Liang e-mails to note Marty Logan's "Court Refuses to Restrain King's Gov't" (IPS):
The future of one of Nepal's best known radio stations, and the country's entire media, was hazy Friday after the Supreme Court refused to issue an order preventing the government from acting against Kantipur FM. According to sketchy reports in the local media, the court rejected a number of petitions submitted after government officials, backed by soldiers, raided the radio station and seized equipment last month.
Kantipur FM is one of many assets in a media group that has been especially critical of King Gyanendra's takeover of the government on Feb. 1. Officials justified the raid and seizure of transmission equipment by pointing to an ordinance issued days before. It amended the country's media laws to, among other things, ban news broadcasts on all FM stations. The ordinance also prohibits one entity from owning holdings among the three types of media, widens laws against criticism of the king to include the entire royal family and multiplies 10-fold the penalties for violating the laws.
After raiding the station Oct. 21, officials ordered Kantipur's owners to explain, within 24 hours, why the station should not be closed for violating the new laws. Almost immediately, the Supreme Court stayed that order but on Friday, a special panel, led by Chief Justice Dilip Kumar Poudel, refused to extend that into an interim order, said news reports.
The decision comes as non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and their supporters launched a fresh wave of protests against the government, which said it would begin to enforce a new NGO code of conduct. By mid-afternoon Friday, local media were reporting that five people had been arrested for trying to torch the code in eastern Saptari district. A protest rally was reportedly planned for later in the day in the capital Kathmandu.
The code of conduct and the media ordinance are the most visible indications that the king is going beyond the mandate he announced when he seized power on Feb. 1: to return the country to peace. Instead, it appears the monarch is attempting to reverse social changes introduced since democracy was restored here in 1990.
James in Brighton also notes a report on Nepal, "India seeks 'democratic' Nepal" (BBC):
India Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has asked Nepal's King Gyanendra to take concrete steps towards restoring multi-party democracy in his country.
The two South Asian leaders held talks at the two-day summit of South Asian leaders in Dhaka.
The king took control of the Himalayan kingdom in February, saying the government had not done enough to quell a Maoist insurgency.
He has announced that parliamentary elections will be held by April 2007.
Opposition parties say they plan to boycott any election called by the king, because they say his government is unconstitutional.
Olive e-mails to note "Woman arrested over Jordan bombings makes TV confession" (Australia's ABC):
A woman arrested by Jordanian authorities and accused of carrying out a failed suicide mission in last week's Amman hotel bombings has given a televised confession wearing her suicide belt.
Jordanian police arrested the Iraqi woman on Sunday, saying she concealed explosives that failed to detonate but her husband managed to blow himself apart in a mission that targeted two other hotels and killed 57 people.
"My name is Sajida Mabruk Atrous Rishawi, [I was] born in 1970 in Ramadi. I entered Jordan on November 5 with falsified Iraq passports in which the name of my husband was Ali Hussein Ali and mine was Sajida Abdel Kader Latif," she said, wearing a white headscarf and a black coat.
Sasha e-mails to note Catherine Belton's "Khodorkovsky Sets Out Vision for 2020" (The Moscow Times):
Mikhail Khodorkovsky attacked President Vladimir Putin's regime in a withering missive from his east Siberian prison camp that said time was up for the "parasitic" policies of the current elite and, for the first time, presented what appeared to be his own manifesto for the presidency.
In his first major article since he was sent to serve out his sentence in the remote Chita region near the Chinese border, Khodorkovsky called for Putin to step down "not a day before nor an hour later" than the legal end of his term in 2008. He called for a "new responsible elite" to run the country in place of the bureaucrats who he said currently sought office only for the opportunity to win assets. Without a major shift toward more paternalistic, left-wing economic policies, the country is heading toward collapse, he said.
"This parasitic approach no longer works," he wrote in the article, which took up a full page in Kommersant on Friday. "The country is not capable of being competitive, and the strategic reserve of endurance and infrastructure built up from the Soviet era has run out."
Attempts by the Kremlin to justify its authoritarian rule by encouraging extremist groups would lead to "sorry" consequences and long-term instability, he said.
Gareth e-mails to note Louise Cotton's "The man who might hold the secret to defeating Aids" (The Independent of London):
The man who may hold the key to a cure for Aids was urged by doctors last night to come forward for the sake of millions of virus carriers worldwide.
The case of Andrew Stimpson, 25, who was diagnosed as HIV-positive in 2002 but found to be clear of the virus in 2003, has stunned the medical world. If doctors can establish why this happened, without treatment, it could benefit the 34.9 million virus carriers worldwide.
But Chelsea and Westminster Healthcare NHS Trust, which carried out the initial diagnosis tests, said Mr Stimpson has so far declined to undergo further tests with it.
A spokeswoman for the Trust said: "I can confirm that he has a positive and a negative test.
"When we became aware of his HIV-negative result we offered him further tests to help us investigate and find an explanation. So far he has declined to do so."
Mr Stimpson subsequently tried to sue the hospital, believing his initial positive test was inaccurate. But he was told there was no case to answer because both tests were correct. The Trust spokeswoman insisted there was no chance a mistake had crept into the testing system.
Pru e-mails to note "France: rage of the poor" (UK's The Socialist Worker):
Simon Assaf reports from Paris as days of rioting have engulfed French cities.
The slums of France have risen in revolt.
Young people have burned cars, and attacked police and government buildings. Their rebellion has engulfed towns and cities from the Mediterranean coast to the German border--and now threatens the survival of the government.
Night after night, rioters have confronted the forces of law and order in what the French police have labelled a "civil war". The chief of police has even called for the army to intervene.
The right wing minister of the interior, Nicolas Sarkozy, who has made no secret of his presidential ambitions, has staked his political career on taming the riots. His failure to rapidly quell the violence has led to growing pressure for him to resign.
The rebellion began on Saturday 26 October. Two teenagers in the Parisian banlieue (suburb) of Clichy-sous-Bois were electrocuted when they tried to hide from police in a power substation.
Their deaths sparked off a night of rioting. On Sunday the CRS riot police flooded the area and fired tear gas into a mosque causing panic among Muslim worshippers celebrating the end of the holy month of Ramadan.
The CRS attack unleashed years of pent-up anger.
In Clichy-sous-Bois and the neighbouring banlieue of Aulnay-sous-Bois the whole community rebelled.
Hanane is a young Muslim woman from Seine-Saint-Denis, which includes the sink estates of Clichy and Aulnay.
"Before, if a young man was picked up by the police, his parents would say, 'You must have done something,' or 'It’s your fault for hanging around the streets at night.' But now parents are telling their sons 'Get into the streets and defend our neighbourhood'," she said.
Poverty
While the media and the politicians are blaming "vandals" for the riots, Hanane says on the first day of the riots in Clichy-sous-Bois the whole community was behind the youths. "During the height of the riot both old and young were leaning over their balconies pelting the police with anything to hand."
The banlieues of Seine-Saint-Denis have come to represent the belts of misery and grinding poverty that exist on the edges of many towns and cities across France.
In some areas of Clichy-sous-Bois half the population are unemployed. This is an area with no station, by-passed by all the major roads and bus routes through Paris.
Antoine is a teacher who has worked in the run-down schools of Seine-Saint-Denis for seven years. "The sons and daughters of Arab and African immigrants face terrible discrimination," he said. "Often their CVs would be set aside simply because of their names.
"This racism has bred despair and these youngsters find it difficult to find a route out of poverty. "Meanwhile they face daily harassment by the police, especially from the anti-criminal brigade, or Bac, plainclothes policemen who rule the banlieues like an army of occupation."
"The Bac are like cowboys," said Hanane. "They are the hotheads of the police. They hang around the entrances to tower blocks harassing any youth they see. They are cruel and violent.
"They stop you and ask for your ID papers. If you say anything you get a slap in the mouth. If you resist you get a beating and end up in jail. One lad I know was stopped ten times in one day by the same policemen.
"They knew who he was and they knew he had done nothing but they just provoked him then they pounced on him. This is not an isolated experience. This is unfortunately the daily reality for many people."
Through the first week of November the government's response to the troubles was mass arrests and increased repression.
Over 1,000 CRS riot police descended on Seine-Saint-Denis in a massive act of intimidation, but the focus shifted to other towns and cities.
Over the following ten days riots spread to Marseille, Lille, Dijon, and Saint-Etienne. Even the resorts of Nice and Cannes were touched by the revolt.
The increased repression has fuelled deep mistrust and anger among the peoples in the banlieues, Hanane said. "The Bac act with impunity, they know that if they shoot you nothing will happen to them.
"It is for this reason that the two young lads tried to hide in an electricity substation—they were terrified of the police."
The nightly rioting has almost become a personal battle between Sarkozy and the young "casseurs", or vandals, as they are known. "This scum," Sarkozy declared in one of his provocative visits to a banlieue last week, "will be washed off the streets."
For the youth, the tally of cars torched or buildings attacked has become an affirmation that Sarkozy and the police no longer control their estates.
"But the young are fighting on their own doorstep," warned Hanane. "The political parties have abandoned them. It is easy to say that these lads are simply destroying their communities, and although I think it is wrong just to torch cars, no one is providing them with an alternative."
Hanane said that the "community leaders" have no solution to the despair.
"Now the rebellion is not just against the police, but also against the elders in the community, whose only answer is to invite the chief of police and right wing politicians for 'dialogue'. But it is these people who are behind the racism. Why are we having a dialogue with them?"
Immigrants
She added that Sarkozy was appealing to supporters of the fascist Front National in his bid to win the 2007 presidential election, and that he was sending the Bac, the "political children" of Front National leader Jean-Marie Le Pen, onto her estate.
Aziz al-Jawari runs the Tawhid cultural centre in Seine-Saint-Denis. He dismissed out of hand any suggestion that the young rioters were driven by fundamentalist ideas, a frequent accusation in the media.
"They say we are trying to build an 'alternative France', and the banlieues have become hotbeds of Islamic radicalism," he said.
"They say the Arab youth are under the control of 'foreign forces'. Their logic runs: 'Islam means terrorism, so all Muslims are terrorists.'
"The young are not rioting because they are immigrants, or because of Palestine, the war on Iraq or even Islam. They are rioting because they are French.
"Their parents may have been immigrants who came to live in a new country.
"They expected little and received even less. But this generation were born here and went to school here. French is their mother tongue.
"They are angry because even though they are French, they are treated as second class citizens."
"We don't live in the banlieues out of choice," said Hanane. "Our parents did not come here and say, 'We want to be poor and live in ghettos.' We are forced into these areas by the deep racism in French society.
"I don’t travel into the centre of Paris because I wear a veil and I'm sick of the dirty looks I get. There is an unofficial curfew for young blacks and Arabs.
"If they are caught in the centre at night they will be get trouble from the police. So we have no choice, we have to stay in our areas.
"It is the racists who want a divided France, not the immigrants or the children of immigrants.
"No matter how many generations have lived here, we cannot change the colour of our skin. We cannot become white, so for them we will never be acceptable."
The following should be read alongside this article:
» Despair behind the French riots
» Unrest shows the need to resist the elite’s agenda
© Copyright Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original and leave this notice in place.
If you found this article useful please help us maintain SW by supporting our » appeal.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)