We often read stories of India's economic miracle, its IT revolution and its Bollywood culture. We're keen to do business with India, and Indian migrants are regarded as highly skilled and hard-working.
Australia is even considering selling uranium to India, presuming its status as the world's biggest democracy makes its nuclear programme less dangerous than that of Iran or Pakistan.
But what about human rights? We so often implement double standards when determining how human rights might affect our international relations.
The experiences of India's religious minorities have generally been ignored by Western Governments and commentators.
India's majority faith is Hinduism, an inherently pacifist and tolerant religion. Notwithstanding the caste system, Hindu societies have traditionally practised liturgical and doctrinal pluralism.
Yet indigenous Indian faiths also include Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism and Zoroastrianism. Indian independence leader Mohandas K. Gandhi, a deeply religious man, borrowed freely from all Indian religious traditions.
Gandhi's vision was of a truly civilised and democratic India which zealously protected its minorities. He fought not only the British Raj but also communal extremists who incited bloodshed between religious communities. His assassination occurred at the hands of extremists of his own Hindu faith. In recent decades, these forces have re-emerged in mainstream Indian politics.
The spirit of Gandhi's assassins was present in the various social, educational and political organisations linked to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which ruled India federally from 1998 until 2004 and which continues to be the ruling party in various Indian state legislatures. In 2002, BJP activists in Gandhi's home state of Gujrat systematically murdered at least 2000 Muslim (and some Christian) civilians and made 150,000 homeless.
Police stood by and watched these atrocities take place. State Government workers carried lists of Muslim- and Christian-owned businesses and properties which were destroyed. The Gujrat Chief Minister Narendra Modhi praised the attackers, and remains Chief Minister.
Christians in Pakistan are often victims of discrimination, some even prosecuted under Pakistan's selective implementation of religious-based laws. In recent times, there has been much discussion of the precarious position faced by Christians in Muslim-majority states such as Malaysia, Iraq and the Palestinian territories.
These are all crucial human rights issues about which people of all faiths, especially Muslim minorities, need to agitate.
Unfortunately, minority rights have become an issue of double standards. We rarely hear local Muslim religious bodies and lobbies talking about the plight of non-Muslim minorities in Muslim-majority states. Few Muslim religious leaders have taken the example of imams like South Africa's Farid Esack, who has agitated against the mistreatment of Pakistan's Christian communities.
Imagine a situation where members of an established indigenous Christian community in Malaysia are wrongly accused of murdering the leader of a Muslim chauvinist group. They are hunted down by Muslim thugs, their homes and villages firebombed.
The situation becomes so tenuous Christian leaders announce they might even form their own militia if the Government refuses to provide effective protection.
This situation is happening, though not in Malaysia and not at the hands of Muslims. In India, activists of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), a movement that forms part of the BJP opposition, have terrorised Indian Catholic communities and institutions.
The VHP regards Catholicism as a foreign faith, despite its presence in India for at least a millennium. Catholic welfare groups are accused of pressuring lower-caste Hindus to convert to Christianity. Most Catholics are either former Dalits (untouchables) or from indigenous tribal groups.
On August 23, a senior VHP leader was murdered in the eastern state of Orissa. Maoist rebels claimed responsibility for the murder, accusing the VHP leader of having Nazi sympathies. But VHP leaders blamed Catholics. More than 40 churches and 11 other Christian institutions (including those linked to the order of the late Mother Teresa) were destroyed by VHP supporters. One female missionary was burned alive and dozens of other Christians murdered.
Yet the silence among otherwise vocal Christian activists about the suffering of India's Christian communities is deafening. Even politicians claiming to champion our Judeo-Christian heritage are silent.
There are 18 million Catholics in India, more than in Canada and England combined. Yet as Father Raymond de Souza lamented in a recent article for Canada's National Post, anti-Christian violence by VHP and BJP extremists cannot be checked if it is not even noticed.
As if to underscore his remarks, The Australian newspaper reported on September 16 that violence has spread to Karnataka, with some 14 churches destroyed.
All believers must all agitate for the rights of all religious minorities, especially those suffering human rights abuses in friendly nations. Selective indignation on human rights abuses compromises not only our faith but our very humanity.
First published in the NZ Herald on 21 September 2008.
Irfan Yusuf is a lawyer, award-winning author, commentator and humorist. His comic memoir "Once Were Radicals: My Years As A Teenage Islamo-fascist" was published in May 2009. He currently lives in Sydney where he is completing his doctorate.
Showing posts with label human rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label human rights. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 25, 2019
Sunday, March 10, 2013
LAW: Beggar this
OK, this really is ridiculous. Here's Suzy Freeman-Greene to more capably articulate my thoughts:
And you thought the bloke on Elizabeth Street was annoying.
Words © 2013 Irfan Yusuf
WHY is it a crime to beg when charity touts can ask us for money on the streets? Beggars can be annoyingly in your face at times but so can eagle-eyed collectors for UNICEF or Plan International, wielding clipboards, waving and waiting to pounce ...
Begging alms ... is a crime under the Summary Offences Act. Often police turn a blind eye to this crime and, importantly, they'll refer beggars to agencies for help. Still, between 2009 and 2011, the Magistrates Court heard 393 cases related to begging. (More than 44 per cent were dismissed but in 34 per cent of cases fines were issued.) In 2011-12, Victorian police processed 240 alleged beggars.Apparently it's all to save us from being annoyed.
Traditionally, categorising begging as a crime was justified as a preventive measure that promoted public safety. But does this argument wash? Personally, I'd rather a junkie ask me for money to fund his habit (I am, after all, free to say no) than rob my house. According to the Homeless Persons' Legal Clinic, a further reason cited for criminalising begging has been its "annoyance" factor. Indeed, in 2011, a County Court judge described how the law helped prevent beggars "imposing upon members of the community going about their business".It beggars belief that you can be prosecuted for alleging that you are poor and that someone in the street might be able to spare you a bit of loose change. Yes, I have seen some amazingly dressed and articulate beggars in my time. Though for really buggered-up beggars, try Pakistan where poverty practitioners are often seen with limbs missing and an eye or two gorged out.
And you thought the bloke on Elizabeth Street was annoying.
Words © 2013 Irfan Yusuf
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
VIDEO: Rabiye Kadeer's call to settle remaining Uighur Guantanamo detainees ...
Exiled World Uighur Congress leader Rabiye Kadeer told the National Press Club in Canberra yesterday:
Below is a documentary from AlJazeera English showing the experiences of four Uighurs living in Albania.
Words © 2009 Irfan Yusuf

Bookmark this on Delicious

All of the Uighurs in Albania, Bermuda and Palau are living very normal and productive lives -- so we'd be happy if Australia took the four.
Below is a documentary from AlJazeera English showing the experiences of four Uighurs living in Albania.
Words © 2009 Irfan Yusuf
Bookmark this on Delicious
Labels:
Afghanistan,
al-Jazeera,
Albania,
China,
Guantanamo,
human rights,
Pakistan,
politics,
torture,
Video
Friday, July 24, 2009
COMMENT: The terror inquisition ...


I've come across a recently-published book (as in published in 2008) about the history of the Spanish Inquisition. It's called The Grand Inquisitor's Manual: A History of Terror in the Name of God and is authored by Jonathan Kirsch, a lawyer and journalist. It's a book for general reading, not an academic text. And it makes scary reading.
Kirsch compares America's domestic anti-terror adventures (and, by implication, Australia's) to the Medieval Inquisition of the Catholic Church in various parts of Europe, most notably in Spain.
More than a few unsettling parallels can be drawn between the medieval Inquisition and the modern war on terror. The FBI reportedly considered a plan to secretly monitor the sales of Middle Eastern foods in grocery stores in order to detect the presence of Muslim terrorists in America; the FBI later denied the report, but the whole notion echoes the readiness of the Spanish Inquisition to arrest young men of Muslim ancestry who were seen eating couscous. Federal law enforcement officers were, in fact, “ordered to search out and interview Muslim and Arab men between the ages of eighteen and thirty-three,” an inquisitio generalis that was intended to fl ush out a vast and secret conspiracy of alien terrorists.
I never liked couscous that much. But it's even scarier when you look overseas to warzones in Afghanistan and Iraq or to prisons (known and secret) where suspected terrorists are held.
The parallels are even more striking when it comes to American military and intelligence operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere around the world. Like the war on heresy in the Middle Ages, the war on terror has been the occasion for coining new and evasive phrases: “extraordinary rendition,” for example, refers to kidnapping a suspect off the streets and sending him to a secret prison in a “third country” where he can be subjected to “harsh interrogation techniques,” a euphemism for torture. Indeed, the technique now called waterboarding is precisely the same one that the friar-inquisitors of the Middle Ages called the ordeal by water, and the same one used by the Gestapo and the NKVD ...
The prisons are the same. Even the prison dress is the same.
The inquisitorial prisons, where victims could be held for years or even decades and tortured at will, find their counterparts in the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad and the detention facilities at the U.S. military base at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba. The notorious photograph of a naked and shackled Iraqi prisoner taken in a cellblock at Abu Ghraib features a specific item of apparel that was a favorite of the friar-inquisitors—the Iraqi man has been crowned with a conical “dunce’s cap” that resembles the coroza worn by victims of the Spanish Inquisition at an auto-da-fé. In both cases, the point of the headgear was to degrade and humiliate the victim.
Kirsch concludes with this assessment:
All the weaponry and tactics that have been deployed in the war on terror are justified by precisely the same theological stance once invoked in the war on heresy.
But what if the inquisitorial rhetoric of "war on terror" changes? Will many of these excesses cease to exist? Or will they be packaged and sold in a more clever and convincing way?
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
COMMENT: The columnist who wants to bomb Iranians accuses his opponents of not doing enough for them ...

Back in January 2007, Greg Sheridan praised former US President George W Bush for defying conventional wisdom and popular sentiment in his foreign policy adventures. His column of 11 January began with these words:
A US military strike against Iran must now be considered formally on the international agenda, following George W. Bush’s sombre, calm, but in substance extraordinarily bold address on Iraq . Bush accused Iran of providing material assistance for attacks on US troops in Iraq . It is hard to imagine a more serious accusation. What’s more, Bush promised to stop such Iranian actions. Whatever you think of Bush, he has a very high level of credibility when it comes to carrying out any threat he makes of military action.
Given Sheridan ’s near-obsessive grovelling of all things Bush, I have little doubt that Sheridan would have supported a full scale invasion of Iran . Forced regime change was good enough for the Iraqi goose, and in Sheridan ’s eyes would be just as good for the Iranian gander. Heck, what’s a few hundred thousand dead Iranian civilians?
Yet the other day Sheridan has the gall to claim that the so-called “Western human rights lobby” has been doing bugger-all to support Iranian protesters Sheridan would have been quite happy to see the Yanks and/or Israelis bomb the crap out of. Heck, just a week earlier Sheridan was happy to consider the utility of “a limited military strike” against Iran.
Now Sheridan claims that ...
[a]part from ethnic Iranians, there has hardly been a single demonstration in any Western capital in support of the Iranian democrats. Yet isn't there a class, in Australia and in the rest of the West, of people deeply concerned about human rights?
He then has a go at Louise Adler for criticising Israel and Michael Leunig for having a cartoon in an Iranian competition which he didn’t actually submit and had no idea was being submitted anyway. And what does all this prove?
[T]hat many Western human rights organisations, and many of the most self-congratulatory and morally vain posturers, are not interested in human rights at all. They are interested in advancing a soft Left sectarian agenda.
Actually, what it proves is that Sheridan doesn't know what he's talking about. He should name just one of his critics who has called upon Iran to be bombed and invaded in the manner he has. But then on Planet Sheridan, if you don’t draw a cartoon for Iranian protestors or you don’t march through the streets, you clearly don’t like Iranian democrats as much as if you’re happy to see them and their families blown up by American and/or Israeli bombs. Go figure.
Labels:
democracy,
Greg Sheridan,
human rights,
humour,
Iran,
neo-Con,
The Oz
Friday, July 03, 2009
VIDEO: Kristen Schaal takes on burka bans and baby high heels ...
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Burka Ban | ||||
| thedailyshow.com | ||||
| ||||
Bookmark this on Delicious
Saturday, May 02, 2009
VIDEO: Uighurs from Guantanamo settled in Albania ...
Here is the text accompanying this DW European Journal video:
Two years ago, four Uighurs were released from the US detention center in Guantanamo Bay. They belonged to a Muslim minority group in China who had traveled to Pakistan via Afghanistan because they alleged they had suffered human rights abuses in their home country. In 2000, Pakistani police arrested the men and transferred them to US custody and spent years in detention. They found asylum in Albania but life in the foreign country is everything but easy and hopes of reuniting with their families have completely faded.
Labels:
Albania,
China,
Guantanamo,
human rights,
politics,
torture,
Video
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
VIDEO: Easter in modern Jerusalem ...
Israel's treatment of its Arab citizens has raised accusations of racism.
Most Palestinians living in East Jerusalem are not Israeli citizens, instead Israel issues identity cards permitting them to live there.
But now authorities are threatening to retrieve dozens of IDs.
Al Jazeera's Jacky Rowland reports from East Jerusalem.

Bookmark this on Delicious

Most Palestinians living in East Jerusalem are not Israeli citizens, instead Israel issues identity cards permitting them to live there.
But now authorities are threatening to retrieve dozens of IDs.
Al Jazeera's Jacky Rowland reports from East Jerusalem.
Bookmark this on Delicious
Labels:
al-Jazeera,
Christians,
human rights,
Israel,
Palestine,
prejudice,
racism,
Video
VIDEO: Resisting eviction in Jerusalem ...
Members of a Palestinian family who have been served an eviction notice to leave their home in the Sheik Jarrah neighbourhood in East Jerusalem are taking it in turns to stay awake in case Israeli authorities come to force them out.
Rami Hannoun, one of the family members, said: "The Israelis say they own this land, that they own it since a long time ago. But we also have papers that say we own this land".

Bookmark this on Delicious

Rami Hannoun, one of the family members, said: "The Israelis say they own this land, that they own it since a long time ago. But we also have papers that say we own this land".
Bookmark this on Delicious
Labels:
al-Jazeera,
human rights,
Israel,
Palestine,
prejudice,
racism,
Video
Monday, April 20, 2009
COMMENT: The tortured reality that clouds Obama's message ...

President Barack Obama has many messages to deliver to that nebulous blob called “the Muslim world”. He wanted to move relations between America and 1.2 billion Muslims beyond the kind of stereotypes that dogged his own campaign.
Obama’s recent address to Turkey’s National Assembly was really an address to the governments of Muslim-majority states. He acknowledged “there have been difficulties these last few years … that strain is shared in many places where the Muslim faith is practiced”. He also reminded them that “America's relationship with the Muslim community, the Muslim world, cannot, and will not, just be based upon opposition to terrorism”.
This all sounds lovely. There’s just one problem. America’s unpopular war on terror involved kidnapping and torturing Muslim terror suspects, with few charges laid against anyone. Much of this torture was outsourced to the very governments Obama was addressing in his remarks. Police and intelligence services of countries such as Pakistan, Egypt, Morocco and Syria tortured prisoners and sold their “evidence” to the United States. Governments of these countries allowed the CIA to conduct secret “black site” prisons.
A host of kings, emirs, generals and presidents-for-life of Muslim-majority states used America’s “war on terror” as a convenient excuse to stifle dissent and to suppress their own political opponents. These same governments use religious sentiment to stir up trouble over trivial issues (e.g. the Danish cartoons) to divert attention away from government excess and incompetence. In countries where substantial Muslim minorities existed (such as China, India and the Philippines), fighting “terrorism” was used as a cover to suppress minorities. And not only Muslims suffered. Fighting terrorism has been used as an excuse by the Sri Lankan army to commit atrocities against Tamil civilians.
And now CIA Director Leon Panetta is insisting that ...
... no one who took actions based on legal guidance from the Department of Justice at the time should be investigated, let alone punished.
Then again, a full investigation might just expose the dirty role played by the despots that rule the majority of Muslim countries. It might also expose the role of US allies such as Australia.
Words © 2009 Irfan Yusuf
Bookmark this on Delicious
Labels:
Barack Obama,
human rights,
Muslims,
terrorism,
torture,
Turkey,
US,
war
COMMENT: On CIA doctors and Hippocratic hypocrisy ...

There are medical practitioners. And then there are medico-legal mercenaries. I came across a few of the latter during my brief stint as a plaintiff personal injury lawyer. The amount of compensation my punters got was determined by the extent of their impairment. I’d send my clients for an assessment by anyone of my plaintiff specialists, some of whom wrote reports making whiplash look like paraplegia. The insurers would then have the punter assessed by one of their specialists, who usually wrote reports “proving” an actual paraplegic punter could outrun Cathy Freeman. It was all terribly scientific.
Faced with this competing evidence, the judge usually came up with an assessment in line with what the punter’s treating doctor had to say. After all, the treating doctor had a longer history of working with the patient and hence more able to provide a prognosis. Treating doctors generally give more than a rat’s backside for the punter. Why? Well, for starters they have this code of ethics summarised in the Hippocratic Oath. Secondly, they know breaching the oath compromises their indemnity insurance.
None of this seems to have crossed the minds of medical practitioners overseeing detainees in secret CIA “black site” prisons in 3 continents during George W Bush’s so-called “war on terror”. The Washington Post reported these doctors
A 43-page report by the International Committee of the Red Cross quoted one medical officer even telling an inmate: “I look after your body only because we need you for information”.
Another detainee told ICRC he was made to stand with his arms shackled overhead for a period of 2 to 3 months! Other forms of torture included waterboarding as well as being threatened with sodomy, HIV infection and electric shocks. Believe it or not, the CIA Director Leon Panetta is insisting that “no one who took actions based on legal guidance from the Department of Justice at the time should be investigated, let alone punished”.
Legal guidance? What lawyer would advise doctors to breach fundamental medical ethics? Perhaps the same Defence Department lawyers mentioned in the 2008 book Torture Team: Deception, Cruelty and the Compromise of Law by international lawyer and academic Philippe Sands QC. Those lawyers joined with neo-conservative politicians to produce the 2002 Acton Memo signed by Donald Rumsfeld. The Memo enabled interrogators at Guantanamo Bay (and later at Abu Ghraib) to lawfully commit acts of torture in violation of Article 3 of the Geneva Convention.
And so the US and its allies (including Australia) fought a war to defend our values using methods that threatened our values. Go figure.
Words © 2009 Irfan Yusuf

Bookmark this on Delicious


Faced with this competing evidence, the judge usually came up with an assessment in line with what the punter’s treating doctor had to say. After all, the treating doctor had a longer history of working with the patient and hence more able to provide a prognosis. Treating doctors generally give more than a rat’s backside for the punter. Why? Well, for starters they have this code of ethics summarised in the Hippocratic Oath. Secondly, they know breaching the oath compromises their indemnity insurance.
None of this seems to have crossed the minds of medical practitioners overseeing detainees in secret CIA “black site” prisons in 3 continents during George W Bush’s so-called “war on terror”. The Washington Post reported these doctors
... committed gross violations of medical ethics and in some cases essentially participated in torture.
A 43-page report by the International Committee of the Red Cross quoted one medical officer even telling an inmate: “I look after your body only because we need you for information”.
Another detainee told ICRC he was made to stand with his arms shackled overhead for a period of 2 to 3 months! Other forms of torture included waterboarding as well as being threatened with sodomy, HIV infection and electric shocks. Believe it or not, the CIA Director Leon Panetta is insisting that “no one who took actions based on legal guidance from the Department of Justice at the time should be investigated, let alone punished”.
Legal guidance? What lawyer would advise doctors to breach fundamental medical ethics? Perhaps the same Defence Department lawyers mentioned in the 2008 book Torture Team: Deception, Cruelty and the Compromise of Law by international lawyer and academic Philippe Sands QC. Those lawyers joined with neo-conservative politicians to produce the 2002 Acton Memo signed by Donald Rumsfeld. The Memo enabled interrogators at Guantanamo Bay (and later at Abu Ghraib) to lawfully commit acts of torture in violation of Article 3 of the Geneva Convention.
And so the US and its allies (including Australia) fought a war to defend our values using methods that threatened our values. Go figure.
Words © 2009 Irfan Yusuf
Bookmark this on Delicious
Labels:
comment,
Guantanamo,
human rights,
politics,
terrorism,
torture,
US
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
OPINION/CRIKEY: Khatami: a case for dialogue ...


Last night, I was among the crowd who filled a large lecture theatre at the Australian National University in Canberra to hear a presentation by Dr Sayyed Mohammad Khatami, Iran's President from 1997 to 2005.
Dr Khatami spoke confidently about dialogue among civilisations starting at a grassroots level between civil societies of various nations. Khatami argued limiting dialogue to politicians could result in just another round of negotiations that entrenches the geo-political status quo.
I've criticised the views of some who object to the involvement of a Victorian university and the Anglican Church in hosting Dr Khatami. Yet the fact that these critics frequently don't acknowledge crimes committed by one non-Arab state in the Middle East doesn't mean their critique of the other non-Arab state in the Middle East is without foundation. Iran isn't a haven of liberty and human rights. There's plenty of evidence from credible sources about the mistreatment of ethnic, sectarian and religious minorities (not to mention bloggers and student activists) in Iran, including during Khatami's rule.
I don't know what it's like to live in a country where I could be jailed or denied access to a tertiary education for my religious beliefs. Yes, here I have to put up with reading racist and xenophobic material published in tabloids. Some schools may not want my type teaching their kids. But I'd sooner be a South Asian Muslim in Australia than a Bahá'í in Iran.
Hence, I refused to stand with those who stood for Khatami. No amount of sweet talk about dialogue between civilisations was going to convince me to get out of my seat. I wanted to hear what Khatami had to say about minority rights. Khatami received two questions about the treatment of Bahá'ís, including one about a law that disallowed Bahá'ís from attending public universities.
Khatami was much more blunt than I'd expect of a politician from a dictatorial regime. He admitted people were imprisoned in Iran because of their religious beliefs, including Bahá'ís and even Muslims from the dominant Shia sect (who presumably opposed Ahmedinejad). He said this happened for any number of reasons, none of which were justifiable. Khatami also acknowledged women were mistreated, and blamed his colleagues from the religious establishment for interpreting texts in a discriminatory manner. Yet progress had been made, especially in tertiary education where over 70% of students were female.
Khatami said all this in a public lecture in the presence of Iranian diplomats, who would certainly report his comments back to officials in Tehran. If everything we're told about Iran being a police state is true, Khatami was a brave man for criticising his own country so brazenly.
Of course, none of this will please the neo-Con ayatollahs of free market fundamentalism. But with most Iranians under 30 and from a generation that only knows a repressive revolution, it's little wonder young Iranians embraced Khatami's politics and continue to do so. We may not like Khatami, but he polled 70% of votes cast in the 1997 Iranian election, and then 77% of votes cast in the 2001 election. That's enough reason for dialogue.
Words © 2009 Irfan Yusuf
Bookmark this on Delicious
Saturday, March 21, 2009
POLITICS/PAKISTAN: Useful lawyers ...
Lawyers are often considered sources of division, as leeches who suck not just blood but even marrow from their communities and their local economies. Lawyers are also seen as futue politicians, yet often another source of division.
But in recent days, Pakistanis are seeing a different side to their legal profession. Lawyers, all suited and booted, are seen marching in the streets, being arrested and even beaten. Their protest concerns the restoration of judges and the rule of law. They want to see democratically elected governments being held accountable. And Pakistanis across rthe nation (and even diaspora cross the world) could keep up with it all on Twitter. Years ago, they were protesting on the same issues during the rule of military dictator General Pervez Musharraf.
All this really came home to me when I recently saw a snippet from a talkback TV show on Pakistan's Aaj TV. One housewife called in to made this observation, which I will translate from Urdu:
But lawyers can (and so often do) make a huge difference behind the scenes holding authorities to account. And lawyers everywhere can feel proud of what their colleagues across Pakistan have achieved. Whether it all makes the difference remains to be seen ...
Words © 2009 Irfan Yusuf

Bookmark this on Delicious

But in recent days, Pakistanis are seeing a different side to their legal profession. Lawyers, all suited and booted, are seen marching in the streets, being arrested and even beaten. Their protest concerns the restoration of judges and the rule of law. They want to see democratically elected governments being held accountable. And Pakistanis across rthe nation (and even diaspora cross the world) could keep up with it all on Twitter. Years ago, they were protesting on the same issues during the rule of military dictator General Pervez Musharraf.
All this really came home to me when I recently saw a snippet from a talkback TV show on Pakistan's Aaj TV. One housewife called in to made this observation, which I will translate from Urdu:
It was the lawyers who united our country where once we were so splintered that people with opposing political views wouldn’t even talk to each other.My paternal grandfather was a criminal lawyer practising in Lahore, who died at a relatively young age of a heart attack whilst cross examining a witness in a murder trial. My father, who avoided a career in legal practice like the plague, was never much keen on seeing me practise law. I've met some pretty nasty lawyers during my 15-odd years practising in Sydney.
But lawyers can (and so often do) make a huge difference behind the scenes holding authorities to account. And lawyers everywhere can feel proud of what their colleagues across Pakistan have achieved. Whether it all makes the difference remains to be seen ...
Words © 2009 Irfan Yusuf
Bookmark this on Delicious
Labels:
al-Jazeera,
democracy,
human rights,
lawyers,
media,
Pakistan,
politics,
Video
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
CRIKEY: Become the evil you wish to see defeated ...


Mahatma Gandhi once said: "Be the change you want to see". But in George W Bush's so-called "war on terror", the extreme opposite applied. At Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Bagram Airbase and in secret CIA torture facilities across the world, it was (and quite possibly remains) a case of: "Be the evil you want to see defeated".
Each and every account I have read from former Guantanamo detainees describes some of the most gruesome (or, as recently released Briton Binyam Mohamed describes it, "medieval") forms of torture. In Mohamed's case, the torture took place in Pakistan, Morocco, Afghanistan and Guantanamo over a period of seven years. Being some six feet tall, Mohamed lost one quarter of his body weight. He now weighs a mere 57 kilograms.
Here's a sample of Mohamed's treatment before he even set foot on Guantanamo soil:
*In Morocco, he spent 18 months being deprived of sleep, severely beaten and had his genitals cut with a scalpel.
*In Afghanistan, he was kept in a small black hole in prison, beaten, strung up and subjected to extremely loud music.
Combined with his treatment at Guantanamo, it all reads like something out of an al-Qaeda or Taleban guidebook (minus the beheadings).
Mohamed's lawyer reports Mohamed confessed "to anything those inflicting that treatment on him wanted him to say". Who knows how many things Mohamed confessed to? Former Australian Guantanamo detainee Mamdouh Habib also tells in his memoir about signing confessions after repeated torture and beatings.
Despite their confessions, both were released without any charges being laid. As if to underscore his complete innocence, Mohamed was released as soon as he arrived in London.
What makes all this even more scandalous is that Britain's own security agencies may have collaborated with the Americans in Mohamed's torture. At the very least, MI5 were likely to have been aware of his treatment.
Former US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told the world that those held at the Guantanamo Bay facility were "the worst of the worst". Yet as Peter Bergen, author of Holy War Inc and An Oral History of al-Qaeda's Leader, co-writes:
... only five percent of all detainees at Guantanamo were ever apprehended by US forces to begin with ... Almost all of the detainees were turned over to American forces by foreigners, either with an axe to grind, or more often for a hefty bounty or reward. After U.S. forces invaded Afghanistan in late 2001, a reward of $5,000 or more was given to Pakistanis and Afghans for each detainee turned over.Trial by ordeal should have been left in the Middle Ages. Our failure to do so means we have handed medieval forces of terror a moral victory they simply don't deserve.
First published in Crikey on 25 February 2009.
Words © 2009 Irfan Yusuf
Bookmark this on Delicious
Labels:
Crikey,
Guantanamo,
human rights,
politics,
terrorism,
UK,
US
Monday, January 26, 2009
VIDEO: HAMAS terrorists get exactly what they deserve ...
This video is yet further evidence that Israel never attacks civilians. Its campaign was only against terrorists.
Here is the text accompanying the video:

Bookmark this on Delicious

Here is the text accompanying the video:
Israel's cabinet is considering how to protect its soldiers from international prosecution for alleged war crimes in Gaza.
More than 1,300 Palestinians were killed during Israel's three week offensive, many of them women and children.
Al Jazeera's Amr El-Kahky has been to a hospital in Egypt, where doctors claim the wounds they are treating may have been caused by the use of white phosphorus.
This package contains images that may disturb or offend some viewers.
Bookmark this on Delicious
Labels:
al-Jazeera,
Gaza,
human rights,
Israel,
Palestine,
politics,
Video
Sunday, January 25, 2009
VIDEO: Young Freud in Gaza ...
Labels:
al-Jazeera,
Gaza,
human rights,
Palestine,
politics,
Video,
war
Friday, January 23, 2009
HATEWATCH: Yet more great moments from Tim Blair's News Ltd blog ...

Those charming people that surround the Opinion Editor of the Daily Telegraph continue to trot out lunar-Right and genocidal madness. Here are some highlights.
I’ve had enough of the ABC’s pro terrorist bias. Everytime they run something pro Islamic nut case from now on I am going to donate $10.00 to the Israeli Defence Force in the hope that they spend the cash on something horrible to post to Gaza. I realise I will be broke in about a month but I figure with the GFC who cares.Something horrible to post to Gaza? How many dead bodies does Andrew wish to generate? Meanwhile, it's great to see jupes has been successfully dupred by what he describes as Blair's Law ...
Andrew of Melbourne
Thu 22 Jan 09 (10:13pm)
jupes replied to Rod BlaineAnd let no one accuse Tim's buddies of sectarian bigotry, or indeed the Daily Telegraph of failing to abide by its own publication guidelines:
Thu 22 Jan 09 (01:55pm)
This rally was absolute proof of Blair’s Law. Commies, Nazis, Muslims and Greens all rallying against the Jews.
What do Australia and Australians matter when it comes to establishing the Great Global Caliphate? Having successfully destroyed their own countries and arrived in this one, in many cases under false pretenses, most of those demonstrating - and their sycophantic, self-loathing supporters of local origin - consider both flower beds and infidels grist for the mill of the Islamic cause ...Yep, the best way to fight stereotyping of Jews is to stereotype others. And I wonder what the in-house lawyers at Nationwide News would make of this clear breach of the Racial Discrimination Act ...
ann j of Sydney (Reply)
Thu 22 Jan 09 (07:51am)
I love seeing suburban middle-class white women wandering around in keffiyehs as a sign of their solidarity with one of the most misogynistic, homophobic, human rights-disregarding cultures on Earth.This is racism pure an simple. Despite having employed not one but two persons to carry out moderating of comments, the Tele has allowed racist remarks about Australians of Palestinian origin and heritage to be moderated and posted in its blog. Indeed, a few paragraphs below this racist comment appearing, the moderator kn own as "Tran" deleted a comment and stated:
The utterly clueless misplacement of sentiment sums up the Greens mindset succinctly.
Ross (Reply)
Thu 22 Jan 09 (08:39am)
Bill, you’re doing it again. You want to use this place as a personal forum. It isn’t. Start your own site - TranAnd how about this moderated beauty ...
It’s time Australia had a serious look at Islamic immigration. We need time out to stake stock of the value this demographic brings to out society ... Even Blind Freddy can see where their loyalties lie. Australia needs loyal citizens, not terrorist supporting bigots.More to follow.
jupes of west coast (Reply)
Thu 22 Jan 09 (11:56am)
Words © 2008 Irfan Yusuf
Bookmark this on Delicious
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

