Barry Magee is a native of Co. Down. He is a Law Graduate from Queens University Belfast and has been involved  in Northern Irish, EU and US Politics for a number of years.  This is the second part of an article  about growing up as a Republican in the North over the past 25 years and what he feels needs to be done to achieve Irish Unity in the future

Following on from my earlier post regarding the growing up in the North during the Troubles, I would like to now discuss how we can actually progress the type of change that we want – and create a new, agreed and united Ireland.

This is a difficult one when one considers the current lie of the political landscape in the North. There is widespread inertia and this is typified by leadership failures at the very top of the political establishment between the Sinn Fein and the DUP.

This inertia is in truth a basic result of the St Andrews Agreement. This agreement created a form of balkanised “Government” in the North. It is not really a Government in the conventional sense, one that makes decisions and has a distinct presence of accountability. It is a “Government” of nobody and everybody at the same time. There is a clear lack of accountability for decision-making and it is a Government that has become synonymous with constant, almost perpetual, grid-lock and political inertia.

Considering the inability of the Assembly to properly legislate and the inability of higher echelons of the Executive to provide leadership it is a Government that does not really govern. As a result many people may begin to question the ability of the Stormont institutions to act as a proper vehicle to deliver sound and credible devolution and question whether Stormont is capable of delivering the goal of all-Ireland state.

In reality the institution stagnation is a result of the diametrical and conflicting nature of both the DUP and SF and reflects the institutionalizing of this conflict. This direct opposition only serves to perpetuate sectarian animosity and undermines any semblance of a shared society that exists. The fact that the two parties cannot even agree on a Shared Future strategy compounds this argument. This makes the prospect of a united Ireland look distinctly “pie-in-the-sky”. If political parties can’t even agree on how to live together in peace, then how exactly could they agree on something as outlandishly contentious as creating a united Ireland?

I believe that the problems with the current political dispensation are not only reflective of the composition of the mainstream political establishment in the North; they are inherently institutional. There is simply too much power concentrated in OFMDFM currently between what are confrontational and diametrically opposed parties in the DUP and SF.

Institutional reform is realistically an option if the circumstances dictate, and the current stalemate over the devolution of policing and justice may even prove to be that, but a change of political personnel is a dynamic that may not be so easily achieved. The DUP-SF mutual “love-in” has been so far electorally successful for both parties, despite the TUV giving the DUP a bloody nose at the European Parliamentary elections in June. While nothing continues to get done and the Executive workload begins(!) to drift, the DUP and SF continue to feed off their mutual blame and opposition to each other.

When republicans consider these difficult realities, a united Ireland sometimes seems like not only distant but an unachievable and hopeless goal. Not only is the leading party of Northern republicanism complicit in continuing to undermining public confidence in the devolved institutions but they have also entrenched and antagonised unionism, thus putting off the prospect of a united Ireland even further.

So who else should republicans look to for leadership? The SDLP are a party of leadership, but currently it is vastly outnumbered in the NI Executive and has a limited political voice due to the unhealthy weighting of power, at the hands of the DUP and SF, within OFMDFM. While the SDLP enjoy good relations with all parties in the South, SF has a long way to go in terms of being recognised as a major all-Ireland political force.

With virtually no influence in the South, SF seems unable to shake of the mantle of being a “northern party”. Couple this “northern party” label of SF with considerable opposition towards them in the North and it seems SF do not offer a viable vehicle to achieve a united Ireland. The monopoly on all-Ireland politics that SF currently enjoys is extremely unhealthy for both the political development of the North and for the overall all-Ireland project. I believe that this monopoly is also unhealthy for republicanism.

Firstly SF’s connections to violence will always undermine their ability to generate unionist consensus behind a united Ireland. Simply put SF will never deliver a united Ireland on their terms. This is due to the simple fact that their role in the troubles has meant that unionist do not trust them. Although this may seem like a paradox but a united Ireland will never be achieved without unionist support and any major advocate of all-Ireland realignment must be capable of gaining their trust. SF undoubtedly fails in this crucial task.

Secondly, SF negotiators at St Andrews failed republicanism with the deal that they struck with the DUP and British Government. SF gifted the DUP a perpetual veto for themselves and republicans have been living with the consequences ever since: DUP torpedoed the Irish Language Act, blocked SF’s education proposals, DUP continue to block the devolution of policing and justice powers and, frankly, there is a litany of other examples. The triple-lock veto given to the DUP by SF at St Andrews represented a sell-out and has allowed the DUP to dictate the agenda and call the shots.

One must ask whether allowing this DUP veto was either incompetence on the behalf of SF negotiators or in fact an ingenious but cynical strategic ploy, knowing that giving the DUP would be like giving a hunting rifle to Sarah Palin. A DUP veto would enable SF to play the blame game. This victimhood is the very essence of where SF draws it’s political power. Here we delve into the murky realms of SF political thought where SF cannot survive unless they can accuse unionism of oppression. Neither the DUP nor SF would be so powerful if it was not for the existence of the other: they both represent a rather perverse case of mutually dependent existentialism.

What we now have is a high-stakes political blame game between the DUP and SF. This is being pursued by each party for self-centred electoral purposes while the grid-lock threatens the very essence of the peace process, the stability and credibility of the structures in which the peace process is institutionalised and the very health of the political progress that has been made.

Thirdly, SF has displayed an inability or unwillingness to compromise and work with other parties, including their green counterparts in the SDLP. In the devolution of policing and justice debate SF have been complicit in attempting to exclude their fellow republicans in the SDLP and have attempted to deny them their democratic claims to a future policing and justice ministry. This is an unacceptable. Cooperation is also a fundamental principle of power-sharing government and their inability and unwillingness to compromise on the transfer debacle has not only created chaos in the education system but has shown SF to be incapable of being a party of leadership. The strangle-hold that SF currently exerts over republican politics in the North must be broken.

In my opinion for this to happen there must be all-Ireland political realignment involving other parties, North and South. Fianna Fail’s recent decision to organise in the North is something that should be welcomed by all republicans. This decision should not become dialectic or be about conflicting ideological issues between the various strands of republicanism, such as an argument about left or right. Republicans must look to the bigger picture: it’s about what is right and what is wrong in terms of the struggle for united-Ireland and a realignment of politics, potentially prompted by a move North by FF, will be simultaneously beneficial to the political health of the North and the republican struggle in the long-term.

Both the SDLP and SF have publically recognised this fact. They too know that all-Ireland political realignment will further advance republican goals. While each of these parties may have their respective concerns about the electoral ambitions of FF, whether FF will pose an electoral threat to these parties remains to be seen and is a discussion for another day.

The participation of another all-Ireland party within the realm of Northern politics is a development which must be accepted as an inevitable reality on the road to normalising the North and in the future create a united Ireland. Unity will not happen unless those who support it have political influence. Those driving the process forward must have influence in government in both the North and South. But it is imperative that FF, should they finally decide to contest elections in the North, operate on the basis that strengthening the republican agenda across the island of Ireland will involve cooperating with other republican parties already established here and seek to explore ways through which they can collaborate.

Even with this realignment, a united Ireland will not happen overnight. In order to bring that reality closer we must break down this cycle of deadlock in the North and make REAL power-sharing work. Republicans must also pay attention to the unionist community; a united Ireland can only happen with them on board. We must stay true to the consent principle and begin a process of engaging the unionist community in discussions about a united Ireland. This must be done by developing practical arguments for unity, and identifying the socio-economic benefits that it will bring to the table.

Another substantial issue will be dealing effectively with the legacy of the past. This is a major issue for me and one which the SF-DUP axis have failed to show proper leadership upon, instead preferring to degenerate this narrative into a zero-sum, sectarian game. There must be a proper, balanced and thorough process of reconciliation and truth that addresses the legacy of the past and all those involved.

There are many questions that will remain unanswered for the time being, including practical governance issues with unity including the implications for public finances, etc. These difficult issues are for a time in the future when a united Ireland is a more realistic prospect and when a much more serious debate can be instigated. Let’s just take one step at a time.

WORDPRESS.COM/ILUSTRASI

”Kurban” dari bahasa Alquran qurban, terdiri dari kata qurb yang berarti ”dekat” dengan imbuhan an yang mengandung arti ”kesempurnaan”, sehingga berarti kedekatan yang sempurna.

Dalam istilah keagamaan, kata ini mulanya berarti ‘’segala sesuatu yang digunakan mendekatkan diri kepada Allah”, kemudian artinya menyempit, menjadi ”binatang tertentu yang disembelih pada hari raya Idul Adha dan tiga hari sesudahnya dalam rangka mendekatkan diri kepada-Nya”. Dalu, kurban — dalam pengertian keagamaan itu — hampir selalu dikaitkan dengan manusia. Penduduk Meksiko yang menyembah Dewa Matahari, mempersembahkan jantung dan darah manusia, karena mereka berkeyakinan bahwa Dewa tersebut terus-menerus bertempur melawan dewa gelap, demi kesinambungan cahaya kehidupan ini. Untuk itu Sang Dewa harus dibantu dengan darah dan jantung.

Dalam Islam, sejarah disyariatkannya kurban kembali kepada peristiwa yang dialami Nabi Ibrahim dan putranya, Ismail. Kala itu, ada anggapan bahwa manusia terlalu mahal untuk dijadikan kurban demi Tuhan. Lalu lewat Nabi Ibrahim, Allah menjelaskan, tiada sesuatu yang mahal dikurbankan bila panggilan telah datang. Allah SWT lantas memerintahkan Ibrahim agar menyembelih anaknya, sebagai bukti bahwa manusia pun dapat dikurbankan bila panggilan Ilahi tiba.

Allah selalu harus berada di atas segalanya, itu bukti iman sejati. Dan setelah hakikat ini ditegaskan melalui perintah penyembelihan itu, dan Ibrahim pun melaksanakan sesuai kemampuannya, Allah dengan kuasa-Nya menghalangi penyembelihan, untuk membatalkan tradisi pengorbanan manusia.

Namun, yang harus diingat ialah, bukan lantaran manusia terlalu mahal berkurban atau dikurbankan, demi karena Allah. Ia dibatalkan demi kasih sayang Allah kepada manusia. Kurban disyariatkan guna mengingatkan manusia bahwa jalan menuju kebahagiaan, membutuhkan pengurbanan, tapi yang dikurbankan bukan manusia, bukan pula nilai-nilai kemanusiaan. Yang dikurbankan adalah binatang, yang jantan, sempurna umur dan tidak cacat,

Sebagai pertanda bahwa pengorbanan, harus ditunaikan. Dan, yang dikurbankan adalah sifat-sifat kebinatangan dalam diri manusia, seperti rakus, ingin menang sendiri, mengabaikan norma, nilai, dan sebagainya. ”Yang sampai kepada Allah bukan darah atau dagingnya tetapi ketakwaan pelakunya” (Q.S.22:37). Ketakwaan itu tecermin antara lain ketika daging kurban dibagikan kepada yang memerlukan. ahi

Ram Madhav: Giving the facts.

The Ramjanmabhoomi Movement reached a historic stage after the demolition of the non-mosque in 1992. It was a non-mosque because it was never used by Muslims after 1934. It was never registered as a Waqf property by any of the Sunni or Shia boards anywhere in UP or the country. There was no  Muttawalli/Imam attached to it. In effect, it ceased to be a mosque at least since 1934. And what is more, it was – and still is – a functioning temple at least since 1949.

The real India is waking up to a new, historical reality. This awakening is a result of the unfolding of a mighty creative genius of millions of unknown Indians whose names are not known and whose lives are nothing special to remember otherwise. It is they who can metaphorically be descried as the “Real Bharat”. They are charting a new course for the future of our country. The historic Ramjanmabhoomi Movement is but a symbol of that new awakening – a symbol that reminds the world that India, at last, is becoming alive to its history.

It is not just a movement for a temple. It manifests the innate yearning of people for self-respect and honour, an urge to unshackle themselves from the humiliating history heaped on them. It happens to every country; in fact it has happened several times in the history of several countries.

Russian Eastern Orthodox Cathedral in Warsaw: Demolished by the Roman Catholic Poles in the 1920s.

“As I have been speaking, some vivid visual memories have been flashing up in the mind’s eye. One of these is the picture of the principal square in the Polish city of Warsaw sometime in the late nineteen twenties. In the course of the first Russian occupation of Warsaw (1914-1915), the Russians had built an Eastern Orthodox Christian cathedral on this central spot in the city that had been the capital of the once independent Roman Catholic Christian country Poland. The Russians had done this to give the Poles a continuous ocular demonstration that the Russians were their masters. After re-establishment of Poland’s independence in 1918, the Poles pulled this cathedral down. The demolition had been completed just before the date of my visit. I do not greatly blame the Polish government for having pulled down that Russian church. The purpose for which the Russians had built it had been not religious but political, and the purpose had also been intentionally offensive,” says universally acclaimed
historian Sir Arnold Toynbee.

In Turkey, they turned the Church of Santa Sophia into a mosque. In Nicosia churches were converted into mosques. The Spaniards spent many centuries re-conquering their land from Muslim invaders.

About India this was what Toynbee had to say: “Aurangzeb’s purpose in building those three mosques (Ayodhya, Kashi and Mathura) was the same intentionally offensive political purpose that moved the Russians to build their Orthodox cathedral in the city centre at Warsaw. Those mosques were intended to signify that an Islamic government was reigning supreme, even over Hinduism’s holiest of holy places. I must say that Aurangzeb had a veritable genius for picking out provocative sites. Aurangzeb and Philip II of Spain are a pair. They are incarnations of the gloomily fanatical vein in the Christian-Muslim-Jewish family of religions. Aurangzeb – poor wretched misguided bad man – spent a lifetime of hard labour in raising massive monuments to his own discredit. Perhaps the Poles were really kinder in destroying the Russians’  self-discrediting monument in Warsaw than you have been in sparing Aurangzeb’s mosques.” (One World and India; 1960; pp 59-60).

Medieval Indian history is replete with instances of wanton aggression on its holy places by Muslim hordes. Innumerable instances of defaced Hindu idols and destroyed Hindu/Jain/Buddhist holy places stare at us everywhere. These destructions were not done just for the sake of fun as some eminent Indian (read Marxist) historians would want us to believe. These were deliberate acts of religious vandalism perpetrated by intolerant Islamic invaders.

However, one would be grossly and sadly mistaken if he confuses the present day awakening in the form of the Ramjanmabhoomi Movement to an effort to “avenge the historic wrongs”. Many so-called liberal (euphemism for Marxist) intellectuals spread this canard either deliberately (most probable) or at times out of ignorance (rare).

The movement for the Ramjanmabhoomi is basically a movement for the self-assertion of a civilisation. It is a wounded civilisation trying to re-invent its roots. It has to be understood properly, instead of dismissed with contempt. That is what Sir Vidia Naipaul also says: “If people just acknowledged history, certain deep emotions of shame and defeat would not be driven underground and would not find this rather nasty and violent expression. As people become more secure in India, as a middle and lower middle class begins to grow, they will feel this emotion more and more. And it is in these people that deep things are stirred by what was, clearly, a very bad defeat. The guides who take people around the temples of Belur and Halebid are talking about this all the time. I do not think they were talking about it like that when I was there last, which is about 20 something years ago. So new people come up and they begin to look at their world and from being great acceptors, they have become questioners. And I think we should simply try to understand this passion. It is not an ignoble passion at all. It is men trying to understand themselves. Do not dismiss them. Treat them seriously.” (“The Truth Governs Writing”, an interview by Sadanand Menon, The Hindu, July 5, 1998).

The movement has reached a historic stage after the demolition of the non-mosque in 1992. It was a non-mosque because it was never used by Muslims after 1934. It was never registered as a Waqf property by any of the Sunni or Shia boards anywhere in UP or the country. There was no Muttawalli/Imam attached to it. In effect, it ceased to be a mosque at least since 1934. And what is more, it was-and still is-a functioning temple at least since 1949.

Mir Baqi's victory monument in Ayodhya being demolished on Dec. 6, 1992. The "masjid" was built in 1528 after demolishing a Vishnu temple and is named for the Turkic-Uzbec invader Babur who became India's first Mogul emperor. Babur is buried in Kabul, Afghanistan.

Hence, what was destroyed on December 6, 1992, was a non-mosque and a functioning temple only. The destruction was a result of the pent-up frustration caused by the inordinate delays and insensitive approach of a section of leaders.

The dispute reached the Supreme Court in 1993 when the government of the day referred to it the core question of whether a Hindu temple existed at the disputed site before the construction of the mosque or not. Declining to answer the core question, the five-member Supreme Court bench in its judgment in October 1994 said keeping aside the disputed land of 2.77 acres on which the make-shift Ram Temple stands today, the remaining land of about 67 acres may be returned to its owners if the government thinks such a step would not hamper the legal proceedings on the disputed site.

It is pertinent to note here that there is no dispute about the ownership of this land or its title in any court anywhere. This undisputed land was acquired by the Union government in 1993 along with the disputed land. There was a move by the central government in 2002 to hand over this undisputed land to its original owners including the Ram Janambhoomi Nyas. The Nyas on its part was willing to give an undertaking to the effect that it would provide a corridor to the disputed site as access in case the judgment on that site went the other way. However, a public interest litigation was filed by a Muslim individual acting upon which a three-member Supreme Court bench asked the Government of India to maintain the status quo on the 67 acres.

All that the leaders of the movement are asking at this point in time is that their part of the undisputed site be returned to them. It does in no way affect the judicial proceedings on the disputed site. The Government of India has moved an application in the Supreme Court seeking vacation of the status quo order so that it can implement the 1994 judgment.

While the facts of the matter clearly indicate the demand of the leaders of the movement is fully legal and constitutional – at no point in time are they demanding that the disputed site be handed over to them – a campaign of calumny full of falsehood and insinuation has been unleashed by a section of intellectuals.

It is a tragedy that these intellectuals fail to understand the movement in its entirety. This is what Sir Vidia had to say about them: “Indian intellectuals, who want to be secure in their liberal beliefs, may not understand what is going on, especially if these intellectuals happen to be in the United States. But every other Indian knows precisely what is happening: deep down he knows that a larger response is emerging even if at times this response appears in his eyes to be threatening.”

And this is the advice he has for those intellectuals: “It is not enough to abuse them or to use that fashionable word from Europe: fascism. There is a big, historical development going on in India. Wise men should understand it and ensure that it does not remain in the hands of fanatics. Rather they should use it for the intellectual transformation of India.” (“An Area of Awakening”, interview by Dileep Padgaonkar, The Times of India, July 18, 1993).

So much transformation has taken place in the intellectual world after 1993 that a large section of our intelligentsia understands and appreciates the significance of this movement today.

Let me end by quoting Dr Rajendra Prasad during the renovation of the historic Somnath temple in 1950, which was vandalised by a 11th century Muslim invader, Mohammad Ghazni.

“By rising from its ashes again, this temple of Somnath will proclaim to the world that no man and no power in the world can destroy that for which people have boundless faith and love in their hearts….  Today, our attempt is not to rectify history. Our only aim is to proclaim anew our attachment to the faith, convictions and to the values on which our religion has rested since immemorial ages.”

Just replace Somnath with Ayodhya.

Jai Ram! Jai Hind!

By: Agha Haider Raza

So the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) beneficiaries list comes out.  The media is happy that those persons who enjoyed taking advantage of the NRO have light casted upon them, while the government is trying to push forward the argument of how they have respected the Supreme Court’s judgment and have publicized the list.  It seems to be a win-win situation for all parties.  But is it really?  Calls for the resignation of ministries and portfolios have echoed from all corners.  How has this zero-sum game turned into a finger-pointing-name-calling battle?

As we all now know, the NRO was a ‘bail-out’ for politicians and businessmen, giving them a clean sheet.  This not only cleared the way for billions of rupees to be kept in the hands of defaulters, but also allowed plenty of politicians to get re-elected as their corruption charges were taken out of the court as well.  Though many readers would say that I am playing the ethnic card here, I’d like to know why 96% of the beneficiaries are Sindhi’s?  Secondly, if the PPP, claims itself to be a liberal-democratic party, why have they not asked for a majority vote on such a sensitive issue? After all, the billions of rupees that have been siphoned through this ordinance are Pakistani’s money, not the beneficiaries’.  Why should this debt be written off?

What I find more ironic though after following up on the July 31^st Supreme Court verdict, and the publication of the NRO beneficiary names, is how no one wants to own up to actually using the advantages of this disgusting piece of legislation.  Prime Minister Gillani made a bold statement by openly declaring how he would tender his resignation if it could be proven that his wife was a beneficiary.  Our Minister for Defense has today also articulated that he has nothing to do with the NRO, while Pakistan’s High Commissioner in London Wajid Shamsul Hasan “feels hurt by mention of his name with reference to NRO beneficiaries”. Furthermore, the Presidents right-hand man, the quintessential wazir , Mr. Salman Faruqui has also articulated that has not taken any relief under the NRO and is an “innocent victim”.

Why the embarrassment, my respected statesmen? The Ordinance was drafted so that you could finally show your innocence to the rest of the nation.  If my understanding is correct, the NRO only cleared those cases that were “politically motivated”.  So if you have nothing to be ashamed about, since the cases were only initiated as a political vendetta, why bother if your name is found on the list?  I mean, here we are, having the Prime Minister of Pakistan, the world’s 38^th most powerful man, offering to resign if his wife can be proven to have taken advantage of the NRO.  Mr. Prime Minister, if you are willing to go to such lengths and give up the most sought-out job in Pakistan, why not solve the problem, since you have obviously identified it?

Hopefully we won’t be seeing a repeat of the judicial crisis, which in the end only became a battle of egos. But alas, we have politicized yet another piece of legislation. Here we thought years of dictatorship would teach our Parliament a lesson, and they would, for once; listen to what the very people who elected them have to say.  The Chief Justice has given a half volley to the government by throwing the NRO ball in the court of the Presidency.  Either the President smacks it for six or is clean bowled. Rarely in politics is one given so many chances to redeem themselves, but here, President Zardari has been handed yet another a golden opportunity to side with the people of Pakistan and annul the NRO. One can only hope that the rumor of President Zardari using the powers given to him under Article 89 of promulgating ordinances will not become a reality.

Sacrificing for the greater good seems to be what is really required at this point.  Article 58 2(b) and the 17^th Amendment are two other sensitive issues that require a Pakistani stance, not a Presidential one.  Frankly speaking President Zardari, no one is going to forget your title of Mr. 10 per cent, and although you may have never been convicted of corruption charges your money laundering stories will always remain tied to you.  But I can tell you this much Mr. President: if you become the bigger man, rise to the occasion and annul the NRO and bring accountability to Pakistan, you will get the political limelight you strive for, and Pakistan will get the honor it truly deserves!

Filiala ND Basarabia a restaurat recent o troitã din raionul Ialoveni, din apropierea Chisinãului. Actiunea face parte dintr-un proiect mai amplu de restaurare a monumentelor de artã religioasã din raioanele centrale ale Republicii Moldova.

SURSA:  Biroul de Presa al Noii Drepte

byIan Bremmer, for Foreign Policy, November 25, 2009.

Brazil’s emergence as an investor-friendly, free market democracy has been one of the world’s most encouraging stories of the past several years. As Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez perfects his Castro impersonation, Ecuador and Bolivia follow Chavez’s example, and Argentina’s economy flounders, Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has maintained responsible macroeconomic policies — while redistributing wealth to narrow the still-considerable gap between the country’s rich and poor. But as he begins his final year in office, a huge off-shore oil find has emboldened his government to deepen state control of the energy sector, clouding the investment picture.

Lula now looks likely to win a legislative battle over the future of Brazil’s oil sector. State-owned oil company Petrobras will then hold exclusive rights to operate all new exploration and production in off-shore fields that are believed to contain one of the world’s largest deposits of crude oil discovered in recent years. Brazil’s government will then control all activity in the new fields, making the big decisions on project operation and management. Over time, Petrobras will become a much larger but less profitable and less efficiently run enterprise…(continue reading)

This is a slightly longer version of a column published under the slightly odd title of “Protect us please”, in City Press on Sunday, 22 November 2009. It is a response to the death of a toddler at the hands of two policemen who shot the boy, who was sitting in a car with his paternal uncle, outside an aunt’s house because “he was carrying a pipe” which the police officers then “mistook for a gun”. This is one of a range of civilian deaths at the end of police officers since attempts by the Police Ministry to tighten legislation which governs when police officers may use deadly force. Ostensibly, this is to equip the police force to deal decisively with violent criminals, but it is open to abuse. Deputy Minister of Police, Fikile Mbalula, is the figure most closely associated with instuctions to “shoot to kill”.

I was not then, nor am I now, convinced that civilian deaths are unavoidable as Mbalula claims. I think the response from police heads has been completely unacceptable.

So here is the long version:

I cried when I saw the picture of a toddler killed by the police this week. I don’t know him or his parents, but I wondered what difference it makes to them whether their child was killed by criminals or police officers. This was a little boy who brought laughter to his parents’ faces even when they did not necessary want to laugh at his antics. Atlegang Aphane was a little boy whose father wanted to play many more games with in the future. His mother cradled him protectively as he kept her up at night. This is part of the experience of love; we had this effect on our parents and the children we love have it on us. As I pondered all of this, I wondered how long the police heads had taken to think about how it would feel if their little children were unsafe from the very people that were supposed to protect them.

No matter what he did, no three year old can look that menacing. There are conflicting stories about a parked car, a child sitting inside it with an uncle, the pipe that little Atlegang may or may not have had in his hand. But no matter what the little boy held in his hand, he must have looked like a little boy to the same eyes that were so attentive as to notice that he was holding something.

Is a three year old the face of violent crime?

I am sure that some police officers, like many other ordinary people, buy guns as toys for their children to play with. Little boys and girls all over the country should throw those toy guns away lest they may be mistaken for violent criminals. Being gun free will not render them safe. Atlegang did not have a gun when he was killed. Even if s/he has a real bomb in his hand, a three year old should not die at the hands of the police. There is no justification for what happened this week.

Newspapers say he did not have a pipe in his hand. But he is dead nonetheless. Somebody needs to take responsibility for this, and not just the two police officers on whose hands his blood is. It will not bring Atlegang back or heal his family’s pain, but it will be a world apart from the insensitivity of justifying a child’s death with talk of innocents caught in the cross-fire.
This child was not hit by a stray bullet between shooting grown men.

What kind of people are we that can accept such a thing as the trivialisation of human life as normal?

A friend of mine remarked this week that she was no longer sure whom to fear more: criminals or the police. She and I have had countless conversations about crime over the years. We have not always agreed on its causes and whether the government is doing enough to address is. She was frequently infuriated by what she called Mbeki’s side-stepping of the issue, as was I. Now the media reports that Zuma speaks about how ‘our’ crime is different from that experienced in other countries, and I honestly don’t know what this means. I suppose that if our crime is more violent, then our police officers should also be more violent and less cautious. But how are we as ordinary people supposed to know the difference in the absence of consideration for the fact that all lives matter, especially those of us who are not shooting at the police?

Yes, I know that there are many outstanding men and women in the police force, many of whom have lost their lives to violent criminals. I doubt that they feel recognised in the glossing over the unnecessary death of unarmed children and adults.

The yearning for more reliable and visible policing is one of the few calls that unite South Africans across the political landscape. When we hope for safety we imagine that we can tell those we can trust apart from those we dare not.

A few weeks ago, in this paper, Mathata Tsedu wrote movingly to Shadi Rapitso’s parents about the horror of losing a child and to a senseless violent act. We cannot accept that the unnecessary loss of life is unavoidable. Giving hope to people who live in this country cannot mean that we have to first fear the police when we think about our own and our families’ safety.

No doubt the call to burn History books reminds us of some the darkest times in European History of the 20^th century. I am very well aware that such calls led in the past to perverse actions and heinous crimes, nothing short of sacrilege. And yet, some books trigger such strongly negative feelings in me that I would rather see them burned. These are the History books produced by the Greek government and distributed to innocent schoolchildren. Once the books reach the classroom the teacher has no option but to agree with the content. Plurality of opinions is not allowed and in some instances it is punishable. Recently a friend, who informed her pupils of the fact that the Kryfo Scholeio (underground schools organized by the Orthodox Church in the Ottoman empire) was a fiction. The result was a caution from the Headmaster. If she repeated the comment she would lose her job. As historians are not rebels, she complied.

A question to be explored is how are these “official” opinions formed? It is evident that schoolbooks are written by professional historians. And there is no doubt that they have the qualifications to deliver work of the highest standard (well, at least some of them). However, we should not forget that schoolbooks are commissioned by the Ministry of Education and Religion. The minister himself is appointed by the government after the elections and, in principle, he reflects the wishes of the electorate. Let us see, though, who manipulates the opinions of this electorate.

On March 25^th 2007 I was teaching in Leicester. Spring was arriving late and I started feeling homesick. I wanted to reconnect with my home country. So, I decided to attend mass in the Orthodox church in Nottingham. After all, 25^th of March is both a religious and a national holiday back home. Upon arrival I rejoiced in the familiar scent of incense and I relished the chance to speak Greek again. But my happiness did not last long. The priest decided to preach us against the new fifth grade history school book. Among his statements there was one that hit home! He claimed that historians are not qualified to write history. Only the Church can really know what happened in the past. As I looked around me I noticed that nobody reacted. I stood up and left in indignation. Later I found out that the debate about the new book has caused hysterical fits among the Greek population. It still does! In several internet forums you will find comments by doctors, lawyers and other members of the Greek intelligentsia, all of them attacking the poor fifth grade book (which has been “burned” in a way). An intelligentsia brought up with already obsolete (and even dangerously nationalistic) views of our historical past.

It is obvious that the well-known academic authors insulted some vital part of Greek psyche. A psyche formed by religious propaganda and governmental policies. An ideological web whose origins we trace in previous history schoolbooks, written by extreme nationalists. And I am wondering if it is not the right time for historians to leave their comfortable nests and try to reach people. It is never too late to explain their views, analyze their data and even try to teach some of these analytical skills. Internet certainly expands our horizons and provides new opportunities. Along these lines all schoolbooks should be withdrawn from circulation (OK, burning them maybe somewhat extreme). Instead, teachers can use a variety of ancient sources and modern bibliography, which present different views of history. The sources should be approved by an academic committee without political affiliations, which will safeguard the quality of the material. Then, internet can be used not only as an information platform but also for extensive discussions. Only this way, our pupils will start developing their analytical thinking. Unless, of course, this is what governmental and religious institutions in Greece are afraid of.

This week in Alexandria Township, New Jersey a group of committed anti-Islamic parents are hoping to save a 6th grade class from a history lesson about Islam. In fact one of the thirty parents involved in this movement called for the textbook being used for the lesson to be banned.

Well that caught my attention so I looked up the textbook in question. It is from the History Alive series. The grade 6 text – The Medieval World and Beyond is available online where I found a red-hot controversy among the reviewers at Amazon as well about this text teaching the history of Islam.

It would appear that for some discerning textbook readers there can be no historical,  neutral or positive presentation of the Muslim faith which is really no surprise.  However the assertion and assumption that we all hold this same prejudice and the resulting hostilities  is somewhat disturbing among the comments of Amazon reviewers.  When will I learn not to read through the comment section when I can already predict what I will find there?

But I digress, let’s go back to the New Jersey community where according to this local article on the current situation:

The controversy over the textbook grew out of concerns expressed by some parents about a class project. Students were told to make a collage of images dealing with Islam in America.

The textbook in question — part of the “History Alive!” series — was selected, in part, for how it incorporates various learning strategies, Superintendent Matthew Jennings said. He stressed the textbook is only one resource that teachers will use to educate students.

But according to the parents concerned with Islamic indoctrination, this is a resource they want no part of:

Many of the latter complained that the book is inaccurate and is politically correct about Muslims. For example, said Mary Beth Scheier, there was nothing in the book women being beaten and stoned in Muslim countries.

Well, I think I’ll let that thought speak for itself.

It would appear that the counterpoint to this woeful worry as presented by the authors of History Alive, as well as the educators in the community is a hope that knowledge of and understanding the ‘other’ might make the world a safer place for everyone:

Scott Saccal, school board vice president, said instruction isn’t indoctrination. The social studies teachers, “are trying to teach the social norm,” he said.

“Because Islam is growing every day, it’s important for students to know” what its adherents believe, said eighth-grade social studies teacher Thomas Scollan.

I can’t help but worry about the educational ground that can be lost in such controversies. While the district stood firm on the history curriculum in this discussion it seems such spectacles can easily move us toward a noncontroversial curriculum of less and less. Resulting in a student body more and more isolated from and ignorant of the world outside the window. So cheers to the board member and the superintendent for standing behind facts, information, and knowledge. And to the parent who said:

“Before you ban anything, read the book cover to cover.” It contains more about the impact of Christianity than anything else, she said. “If there is any hope for peace in the world, they (students) have to understand one another’s beliefs.”

As the game progressed the Egyptians looked more sullen and spoke even less.

I poked my Canadian coworker.

This is strange. It’s like the Egyptians are bottling their anger and disappointment.

Though no sports fan, I enjoy sitting back and socializing over games with enthusiastic friends, sharing their excitement and learning a thing or two about the complicated world of sports so many swear by. (It’s similar to my fascination with religion…)

Yet, this game,the outcome of which would determine whether Egypt or Algeria would compete in the World Cup in South Africa, was different. No one talked, snacked or drank and tension filled the air. Though all day Egyptians had laughed, dawned flags and face-paint, now few looked like they were actually enjoying the action.

When Algeria scored the single goal toward the beginning of the match, there was complete silence. Did that really, happen? I squinted at the new “1” marking Algeria’s score, the replays and those around me. Though I was at an extremely crowded outdoor cafe, with tons more surrounding, there were no boos, or any other insults yelled at the offending goal.

Maybe they’re collectively not optimists? I wondered. During the previous game, which led them to this tie breaker, they scored in the first moment and last. They had needed to win by at least two points to advance and they had done it. After such a victory, the lack of optimism throughout the entire game surprised me. Rather than being a fun, social experience, the game seemed intensely personal to the Egyptian viewers.

The game ended and spectators rose and dispersed. The loudest noise was employers at the cafe forcefully stacking the cheap plastic chairs. We hurried out of their way.

Leaving the game my Egyptian friend confided he was relieved Egypt had lost.

The people can’t handle it, he explained. They’d go crazy. There’d be riots.

He also thought it would lead to less opposition toward Mubarak because as the primary supporters of the football team, Egyptians would environ the regime with their nationalistic aspirations for the team. Driving away from the cafe, our cab driver shared his views.

The next evening, another Egyptian friend and I sat in traffic in Zamalek. A natural occurrence in Cairo, we didn’t think much of it until we encountered riot police blocking entire streets and gangs of screaming boys dawning Egypt flags and loud words.

In the past days, what seemed like it was going to be a losing M3lesh (whoops) for Egypt, quickly blocked from memory, has turned into a national and international attention steeling  debacle. Though security concerns were present from the beginning, (BBC reported 15,000 security forces were at attention at the game in Sudan) because of pre-game violence, including Egypt attacking and injuring Algerian players in their bus and Algerians ransacking Egyptian businesses in Algeria, the level has quickly escalated and gained international attention.

Last week both nations recalled their ambassadors, leading the debate to switch from football to Arab unity and the secretary general of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, used the opening of the World Economic Forum to call for peace between the two Arab nations. BBC has also reported that Amr Moussa asked Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi to mediate. So practical…

Verdict of the moment? Seems like Egypt might as have well won the match for all the trouble and politics being squeezed out of the plays.

Some links I referred to–though I’m in no way saying they’re all reliable news sources–part of the fun is the rumors. Part of the interest is the unverified facts and motives of the reports.

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSGEE5AL0EV

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8366739.stm

http://www.magharebia.com/cocoon/awi/xhtml1/en_GB/features/awi/features/2009/11/24/feature-02

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8377211.stm

http://www.echoroukonline.com/eng/index.php?news=8489

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091120/wl_africa_afp/egyptalgeriaunrest

I remember when I first realized that the notions I had regarding politics and social affairs could most closely be called Anarchy.  I was in one of my Spanish literature class (to my delight my second major, Spanish, was filled with all the exciting peripheral fight-the-power ideas that I had been so disappointed to learn that my original major, English, lacked), taught by my favorite professor, an Argentine.  He lectured about three recent political structures:

1st – The Nation/The People - The Nation is ruled by a government that represents the will of The People.  Top-down.

2nd – The Leader/The Masses - Coming from Argentina my professor was especially familiar with Peronism and this form of organization.  The Leader is one who sweeps to power through the overwhelming support of The Masses .  Not empowered by the national sovereignty such as Rousseau talked about…but instead representing a more coarse group outside the structure of government, one that fills government with its exploding will.  Also top-down.

3rd – The Multitudes/Sporadic Potential – He said this was what truly excited him.  The Multitudes combine to create Sporadic Potential which in turn affects the direction of decisions and policies.  Bottom-up. 

Many in my class, especially one young woman, were furious about his teachings.  She called him a communist.  But what I realized was that his political leanings were something even more taboo, which he was understandably loathe to openly admit – an anarchist.  And for the first time I understood Anarchy and it slotted completely into my misgivings about power, government, corruption and subjection.  It all made so much sense then…although this realization made me distressed and uncomfortable at first. 

 As I read further I came to realize that Anarchy had been developed over centuries, and was not as scary as I had once thought.  It seemed that above all other political theorists, the Anarchists had the most beautiful vision of human potential, the most heartrending devotion to what so many others scoff at.

The following conversation stems from an excellent post on one of my favorite blogs on WordPress, Speak Now Peace Works.  It was specifically in response to the post Positively Deviant, which talks about the success observed when ideas come from within groups instead of from outsiders providing guidance, however well-intentioned. 

It was a good opportunity to try and elaborate further on what, for me at least, Anarchy is.  It also raises some very difficult questions that an ideal conception of the world with sporadic, independently-functioning beings would have to address.  But those are the topics for further posts…

• That is why I am mostly an Anarchist!

People can solve their own problems, if we give them a chance. The human brain is more amazing than any machine could ever be…

I believe in bottom-up solutions always and hope that these ideas catch fire throughout the world!

Great to see you have been writing a lot lately, this is one of my favorite stops while my brain is fried from staring at reports and contracts, ugh…

Throughout life I have tried to understand why certain abnormalities fall into our culture as Americans. A question concerning me at this moment is, “What is the source of poverty, unproductivity, exploitation of America, and crime?”. I have come to no better answer then those 43,000 illegal immigrants in Kansas City, and those 11.3 million in the great country of America. Bear in mind, 8 American Children are sexually abused by those same parasitic border-jumping everyday; that adds up to be a whopping 2,920 annually. This is why I have devoted my life to rid this great nation of such people. This is the struggle not only I face, but the struggle that is waiting for you just around the bend.

On the statue of liberty is reads, “Give me your tired, your hungry, your poor…”. Well, in all actuality it’s the people you know and trust that are tired, hungry, and poor, and until that problem is solved I believe the they need to shut the book. But why are Americans suffering, yet again, take a look at the statistics; when an illegal immigrant gets caught for rape, murder, or drug distribution, America pays $1.6 billion annually in prison costs to feed, clothe, and bathe, the felons that make up more then 30% of America’s prisons, that are not citizens, and shouldn’t even be here in the first place.

To be fair, these statistics and views are not guided to any race, sex, religion, or nationality; but directed to those bottom-feeders who abuse the system and come here to exploit this great nation. One concept that I struggled to understand (but now seeming ever so clear), is that all races, religions, and nationalities have these low-life parasites. Be it Christian, Black, Phillipino, or Asian; all minorities have these characteristics, and eliminating those few is just half of the solution. You must also spread the word of Productivity and teach those with less advanced minds how to cherish America, and work for the good of all citizens, not just yourself.

Don’t forget that these illegal immigrants are the same illegal immigrants that bring over anchor babies; over 300,000 pregnant illegal women arrive annually and give birth on our soil. The average cost annually per child is 7,161 or K-12, according to the center of Immigration Studies. This is all paid for by the so-called “hard-working father” who makes 1-10th of his American counterpart. Cheap Labor sounds pretty good right? Wrong. These “hard-workers” are not paying taxes, not helping out the common welfare of the American people, and definitely not helping America’s current economical situation.

But don’t be naive America, I sure wouldn’t want my future son or daughter to have to deal with these people, you must act now to create a better tomorrow. With love for other citizens in my heart, I have fought procrastination and unproductively, and I now expect you to do the same.

Man hör då och då från våra politiker att klassamhället är avskaffat. Detta är en ren lögn som många svenskar säkert känner till men som få öppet vågar erkänna för att de vet precis hur det är.

Vi nationella snackar mycket om en levande social gemenskap i vårt land vilket innebär aktiviteter av olika slag. Men som vi alla vet kostar allt vad vi hittar på så fort vi går utanför våran ytterdörr! Och detta kan begränsa människors möjlighet till att engagera sig politiskt, i en förening eller hänga med polarna ut på krogen eller en bowlingkväll eller vad man nu kan hitta på. Tro mig jag vet jag har vuxit upp under ekonomiska förhållanden som är under existensminimum så jag vet hur mycket pengar tyvärr betyder i detta samhälle.

Är det inte dags att vi nationellt socialistiskt sinnade arbetare börjar kräva ett socialt bättre Sverige? Foto: Christoffer Thunberg

Det är detta som är det nya nygamla klassamhället vissa har pengar vissa inte, etnicitet, ålder, kön spelar ingen roll! De olika socialgrupperna består genom storleken på plånboken men detta döljs av tre huvudsakliga skäl.

1) De som har det dåligt ställt t.ex. pga kronofogden eller arbetslöshet de håller tyst på grund av skamkänslan av att inte ”vara som alla andra”.

2) Vi håller oss själva närmast.

3) Det är en klasskamp mellan socialgrupperna som media klär in i fina ord t.ex. ”avtalsrörelse”, “arbetsgivare” och “arbetstagare” mm.

Vilket exempelvis kan innebära att människor röstar efter plånboken istället för vad man egentligen tycker i första hand! Jag förstår precis vi behöver alla överleva klart man röstar på det man gynnas mest av, det är helt mänskligt att göra så!

Detta ovan kan krossa den nationella visionen om ett samhälle med en sund gemenskap! Vad som krävs må låta lite tabu för nationella öron men det är en medveten folksocialistisk politik som ger människor i samhället möjlighet till en bättre social- och ekonomisk standard och rättvisa!  T.ex. bättre bostäder, jobb så att folk får lite självrespekt, bättre lön för de lågbetalda, lönehöjningsstopp för de högavlönade mm.

“Är det inte dags att vi nationellt socialistiskt sinnade arbetare börjar kräva ett socialt bättre Sverige?“

För det är ju så att har vi inga bekymmer så är det lättare att ha skoj med sina medmänniskor – Carpe Diem helt enkelt!

Det måste vi nationella demokrater och socialister lyckas åstadkomma vid ett maktövertagande. Det är lätt att i teorin beskriva en folksocialt utopisk vision om framtiden i ett nationellt samhälle men fungerar det inte i praktiken så slutar vi bara som grisarna i George Orwells ”Djurfarmen” vi blir det vi ville avskaffa!

Det är därför jag skrev denna krönika jag har tänkt på det ovan! Slutar vi som ”Djurfarmen” så ger vi Lenins ”elitteori” rätt. Att det alltid kommer att finnas en elit som skor sig på någon annan. Tro mig ett sånt samhälle vill jag som nationalist och socialist inte ha – för då gäller bara en sak Revolution utan pardon!

Christoffer Thunberg
Nationalist och socialist

You can usually tell a lot about some why who their enemies are. Strangely, that always seemed to breakdown in the case of the Nazis. They are almost universally despised if you believe those that rail against them, but often the critics seem like they should be kindred spirits instead of mortal enemies. Yet, during the Second World War, those folks banded together to fight Hitler and his band. When the threat from the Nazis was gone, these allies took to accusing one another of being fascists, or neo-Nazis, or just like Hitler, and so on. It was baffling to me.

Then one day I was pondering the full name of the Nazi Party when it finally struck me. It was right there in the English translation, National Socialist German Workers Party. I wondered how people with diametrically opposed views could have fought with such passion and unity against the same enemy. The epiphany? We weren’t, not even close.  While many were justifiably fighting the evils of socialism, many of our erstwhile allies were fighting the good of nationalism.

We need to extract the good name of nationalism from the wreckage of the Second World War and wipe off the stains of the damning association with socialism.

The Zionism of the early kibbutz communards had never imagined a national revival taking the form of a state-building enterprise. For them, the Balfour Declaration in 1917, promising a “national home” for the Jews, meant an opportunity to establish a completely new form of society and a chance to put their dreams and visions into practice. Collective settlement was not seen simply as the most efficient way of colonizing the land in order to create a Jewish state and install a market-capitalist economy, as some have since argued. Though the later centrality of the movement to the creation and defence of Israel is clear, the notion that the pioneers resorted to collectivism simply in order to create suitable conditions for the institution of that state is largely a myth. Even the founders of Degania were strictly opposed to the notions of government and state, and by the time the Third Aliya groups arrived, the idea of building a stateless society on the back of the new social model they had created was one that was widely embraced. The idea held in common by many of the groups arriving in Palestine during the 1920s was to transform the Yishuv into a stateless commonwealth of autonomous communities that would include few, if any, non-collective alternatives.

= = =

from James Horrox, A Living Revolution: Anarchism in the Kibbutz Movement (Oakland, CA & Edinburgh: AK Press, 2009), pp 57–58.