Saturday, December 15, 2007

Private tragedy and public issues

Private tragedy and public issues
TheStar.com - columnists - Private tragedy and public issues

December 15, 2007
Kathy English

At 16, on the eve of my sister's first communion in the Catholic Church,
I told my parents I no longer believed in the rite of confession.
Further, I refused to attend confession as part of the church's
expectations of our family's preparation for my sister's initiation into
the sacrament of communion.

An angry battle ensued. Eventually, I backed down, more because of my
sister's tears than my father's rage. But, to this day, I remember my
defiant, smart-mouthed adolescent self's sense of empowerment in the
realization that my parents couldn't force me to reveal anything to a
man sitting in a dark, closet-like confessional booth.

I thought about that night this week in fielding numerous complaints
from Muslim readers concerned about media coverage of the murder of Aqsa
Parvez, 16. Her father, Muhammad Parvez, faces a murder charge in her
death. This tragedy has received international attention in light of -
still unsubstantiated - reports from the girl's teenaged friends that
she had battled with her father over her desire to remove her hijab, the
Muslim head scarf.

I wondered, had my teenaged conflict happened now, and had it somehow
escalated to the point of such tragedy, would the media have reported it
as a teen's rejection of Catholic faith, or would it be contained as an
age-old story of conflict between controlling parents and a rebellious
adolescent or covered primarily as an incident of domestic violence?

It must be clearly understood that we don't know what went on in the
Parvez home. We know that the family came to Canada from Pakistan and is
Muslim and clearly there was conflict between Aqsa and her parents.
Police have not confirmed the reports of Aqsa's friends that she
rebelled against the hijab. But if that is found to be so, many readers
question why this has been primarily portrayed as a broad conflict
between Canadian culture and Islam rather than as an issue of domestic
violence.

Indeed, from the outset, media reports in the Star and other newspapers
and broadcasts, were quick to focus on Aqsa's friends' comments, which
immediately framed the story as a cultural clash, in line with the
"clash of civilizations" thesis - the idea that there is inherent
conflict between Western values and Islamic faith.

Reader Abubakar Kasim charged that "the media disregard objectivity and
balanced reporting and forget their ethical and professional
responsibility when the suspect of a crime is thought to be a Muslim.
Eventually all Muslims are forced to defend their faith."

Toronto imam Nazim Mangera told the Star it is "disingenuous" to portray
this tragedy only as a conflict over the hijab. "For a situation to
escalate to such a violent end must mean that there were several
contributing factors. Please do not tarnish a whole religion."

To its credit, the Star published several letters to the editor this
week expressing those views. An editorial also expressed the Star's view
that family violence is not a "Muslim issue" or even an immigrant issue.
News, feature articles and columns also broadened the context to
indicate that intergenerational and cultural conflicts are a factor for
many families throughout Toronto and the GTA. The Star also interviewed
several Muslim leaders who condemned the killing and made it clear that
nothing in Islam sanctions violence, if indeed a daughter did rebel
against the hijab.

In examining the media coverage overall, and speaking to Carleton
University journalism professor Karim H. Karim, author of the book
Islamic Peril: Media and Global Violence, which explores media coverage
of Islam, I don't at all agree with the charges of some Muslim readers
that media coverage of this sad incident reflects an anti-Islamic bias.

But I do agree with some readers and Professor Karim that the media were
too quick to rely on the views of Aqsa's teen chums to portray this
simplistically within the framework of a clash of cultures and religion,
which could perpetuate negative stereotypes of Islam.

Certainly, seeing this as a clash of cultures provides an easy way to
attempt to come to terms with the tragedy of a father accused of
murdering his adolescent daughter. But, as anyone who has ever been part
of a family certainly knows, what goes on in our individual homes is
most always far more complex.

Monday, December 10, 2007

Climate change 'likely to cause wars'

Climate change 'likely to cause wars'
December 10, 2007


Climate change is likely to aggravate old conflicts and trigger new
tensions that could spill over into war or violence in many parts of the
world, a report for the United Nations Environment Programme said.

Areas at risk of greater insecurity include northern and southern
Africa, central Asia, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, China, parts of
the Caribbean and Andean and Amazonian regions of Latin America.

The report, by German and Swiss academics, says that the population of
North Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean is estimated to grow by 40
per cent by 2025 at the same time as rainfall and agricultural
production will be in decline.

Entitled Climate Change as a Security Risk, the report suggests that the
climate change-induced causes of conflict are likely to be: degradation
of freshwaters; decline in food production; increase in storm and flood
disasters and environmentally-induced migration.

It identifies vulnerable states and societies as those that are in
political transition and have a low level of economic activity with
often large population or high population densities.

The regional hotspots identified are:

North Africa. It says this could be at particular risk of rising
interstate conflicts including ones that might affect the region and
beyond. Some countries in North Africa have recently suffered internal
unrest and tensions including Algeria and Morocco.advertisementIn
addition, many countries here are "characterised by poverty, high youth
unemployment, wide social discrepancies and scanty state social security
networks".

Aggravating pressures will be the likelihood of increased migration to
the north by people living in the Sahel region and increased rural to
city migration.

"As usable land and water resources become increasingly scarce, and use
of non-sustainable methods of agriculture continues, desertification
will cause further impoverishment and the risk of water and land-related
conflicts at regional and local level will increase throughout North
Africa," says the report.

After 2025-2030, water conflicts between Egypt and other countries
cannot be excluded and could trigger insecurity that is 'felt far beyond
the region".

The experts believe that the political and institutional structures of
southern Europe will be able to cope with environmental changes such as
drought and heat waves. But it notes that migration from countries of
North Africa to EU countries could have violent consequences.

Central Asia. Above-average warming and glacial retreat will exacerbate
water and agricultural problems in a region already characterised by
political and social tensions and civil war, (Tajikistan).

India, Pakistan, Bangladesh. The retreat of glaciers in the Himalayas
will jeopardise the water supply for millions. Changes in the monsoon
will affect agriculture.

China. Climate change will intensify existing environmental stresses
from air and soil degradation. Cyclones and sea level rise will affect
the populous south coast. The report says that the government's capacity
to cope could be overwhelmed by the rapid pace of modernisation, social
and environmental crises and climate change.
Hans Schellnhuber, a lead author of the report, director of the Potsdam
Institute for Climate Impact Research and a visiting professor at Oxford
university, said:" Without resolute counteraction, climate change will
overstretch many societies' adaptive capacities within coming decades.
This could result in destabilisation and violence jeopardising national
and international security to a new degree".

Climate change and conflict

Source: United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

Date: 10 Dec 2007

Climate change and conflict - New report weighs the risks and pin points likely hotspots
German Advisory Council on Global Change and UN Environment Programme Claim Combating Global Warming Contribution to Global Security

News Comes as UN Climate Panel Awarded Nobel Peace Prize

Bali, 10 December 2007-Combating climate change will be a central peace policy of the 21st century.

Unchecked it is likely to aggravate old and trigger new tensions in parts of the world that may spill over into violence, conflict and war a new report concludes.

Areas at increased risk of insecurity include northern and southern Africa alongside countries in the Sahel region and the Mediterranean

Other potential hot spots are central Asia; India, Pakistan and Bangladesh; China; parts of the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico and Andean and Amazonian regions of Latin America.

The report, prepared by German and Swiss academics, urges governments meeting at the UN climate convention conference in Bali to adopt deep and decisive emission reductions alongside support for adaptation or 'climate proofing'.

Otherwise climate change, including more extreme weather events; impacts like the melting of glaciers; the drying out of big forest systems and rising numbers of climate refugees is likely to overwhelm the ability of many countries to govern and to cope.


Professor Hans Schellnhuber, a lead author of the report, Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Visiting Professor at Oxford University, said:" Without resolute counteraction, climate change will overstretch many societies' adaptive capacities within coming decades. This could result in destabilization and violence jeopardizing national and international security to a new degree".

Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary General and Executive Director UN Environment Programme (UNEP), said: "There are multiple environmental challenges facing the world and the security of communities and countries. Climate change is perhaps the most high profile".

"However, if we can counter climate change and climate proof economies to buffer them against the climatic changes already underway, perhaps the world can unite around these other pressing challenges from reversing the decline of biodiversity and loss of marine resources up to designing a more intelligent, fairer and ultimately sustainable global trade regime".

The new report comes in the wake of rising concern over climate change and conflict. Earlier in the year the UN Security Council debated the issue and there have been warnings from retired and serving senior military in Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom.

Later today the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), jointly founded by UNEP and the World Meteorological Organisation, will co-win the Nobel Peace Prize-again reaffirming growing understanding between combating climate change and peace.

The new report, entitled Climate Change as a Security Risk, has been prepared by the German Advisory Council on Global Change drawing on the work of international experts and organizations including UNEP.

The report suggests four 'climate-induced conflict constellations'. These are degradation of freshwaters; decline in food production; increase in storm and flood disasters and environmentally-induced migration.

It also tries to define and explain what may constitute vulnerable states and societies. These are likely to be ones that are in political transition and have a low level of economic activity with often large population or high population densities.

Countries bordering a neighbour in which violent conflict is being waged or ones that have themselves experienced violent conflicts in the very recent past within their own borders will also be vulnerable to renewed conflict in a climatically constrained world.

Highlights from the Report-Regional Hotspots

North Africa: The potential for political crisis and migratory pressure will intensify as a result of the interaction between increasing drought and water scarcity, high population growth, a drop in agricultural potential and poor political problem-solving capacities. The populous Nile Delta will beat risk from sea-level rise and salinization in agricultural areas.

Sahel zone: Climate change will cause additional environmental stress and social crises (e.g. drought, harvest failure, water scarcity) in a region already characterized by weak states (e.g. Somalia, Chad), civil wars (e.g. Sudan, Niger) and major refugee flows (Sudan: more than 690,000 people; Somalia: more than 390,000 people).

Southern Africa: Climate change could further weaken the economic potential of this region, whose countries already belong to the poorest in the world in most cases. It could also worsen the conditions for human security and overstretch the capacities of states in the region.

Central Asia: Above-average warming and glacial retreat will exacerbate the water, agricultural and distributional problems in a region which is already characterized by political and social tensions, civil war (Tajikistan) and conflicts over access to water and energy resources.

India, Pakistan, Bangladesh: The impacts of climate change will be especially severe in this region: glacial retreat in the Himalayas will jeopardize the water supply for millions of people, changes to the annual monsoon will affect agriculture, and sea-level rise and cyclones will threaten human settlements around the populous Bay of Bengal.

These dynamics will increase the social crisis potential in a region which is already characterized by cross-border conflicts (India/Pakistan), unstable governments (Bangladesh/Pakistan) and Islamism.

China: Climate change will intensify the existing environmental stress (e.g. air and water pollution, soil degradation) due to the increase in heat
waves and droughts, which will worsen desertification and water scarcity in some parts of the country.

Sea-level rise and tropical cyclones will threaten the economically significant and populous east coast. The government¹s steering capacities could be overwhelmed by the rapid pace of modernization, environmental and social crises and the impacts of climate change.

Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico: Increased frequency of more intense hurricanes could overwhelm the economic and political problem-solving capacities in the region (especially in Central America).

Andean region and Amazonia: Faster glacial retreat in the Andes will worsen the region¹s water problems. The collapse of the Amazon rainforest, which cannot be ruled out, would radically alter South America¹s natural environment, with incalculable economic and social consequences.

Notes to Editors

The report Climate Change as a Security Risk is available at www.wbgu.de under flagship reports. It is also available at Earthscan www.earthscan.co.uk graphics for download are available at www.unep.org


UNEP's Post Conflict and Disaster Management Branch is at http://postconflict.unep.ch/

Saturday, December 8, 2007

Why 'mapping' of Muslims was a bad idea

Why 'mapping' of Muslims was a bad idea
By HUSSAM AYLOUSH, Guest Writer

What a relief it was for me and about 20 other southern California
Muslim leaders to meet with Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton
along with Deputy Chief Michael P. Downing and Los Angeles Deputy Mayor
Arif Alikhan last month and be assured that the ill-conceived "mapping"
program had been abandoned.

The LAPD is now moving forward and wishes to fully engage Los Angeles
Muslims, creating a community forum to seek their input. That is the
right path to reaching out to Muslims and helping ensure the safety and
security of all Americans.

What was wrong with "mapping" of Muslims? On the surface, the proposal
may have seemed well-intentioned. However, if given the green light,
"mapping" would have effectively jeopardized the civil rights of all
Americans, along with creating a host of other problems.

First, the '"mapping" program was based on the faulty and offensive
premise that the local Muslim community is more prone to committing acts
of violence than people of other faiths or ethnicities. It sought to map
out Muslims according to factors such as which Web sites they visited,
what mosques they attended, which Islamic schools of thought they
followed, who they interacted with and their income levels.

The proposed project would have inevitably infringed on the First
Amendment rights of law-abiding, peaceful citizens, by holding them
suspect based on legitimate religious and political views.

Secondly, "mapping" would have been impractical. Deputy Chief Downing
said in his recent Senate testimony, "While this project will lay out
the geographic locations of the many different Muslim population groups
around Los Angeles, we also intend to take a deeper look at their
history, demographics, language, culture, ethnic breakdown,
socioeconomic status and social interactions.

"It is also our hope to identify communities, within the larger Muslim
community, which may be susceptible to violent, ideologically-based
extremism, and then use a full-spectrum approach guided by an
intelligence-led strategy."

How did the LAPD exactly envision mapping out Muslims? Muslims are
widely dispersed throughout southern California. They are not a
monolithic group deriving their identity from various cultures and
heritages. Some are immigrants. Many were born and raised in Greater Los
Angeles.

Additionally, it would have been impossible to map out Muslims because
the Census Bureau does not track data by religion. Not only that, Los
Angeles is home to Persian Jews and Arab Christians. Would they have
been mapped as well?

The "mapping" program, therefore, was morally, legally, and practically
wrong. I am sure the LAPD recognized and considered those factors in
addition to the strong opposition from the Muslim community when it
decided to withdraw the plan.

However, the good fight must continue. Americans must oppose future
attempts to map or profile any community. When one group loses its
rights, America loses.

Let us remind ourselves of the treatment of Japanese Americans during
World War II, when more than 110,000 men, women and children were
interned based solely on their heritage. In the end, not one Japanese
American internee was charged with espionage.

The struggles of African Americans continue. They were first humiliated
and degraded as slaves. Then, decades later, they were segregated and
ordered which restaurants to eat in, which parks to let their children
play in and where to sit in buses.

To this day, African Americans are profiled and singled out in cities
and neighborhoods around the country.

And who can forget the prejudice and discrimination against Jews? They
were grossly mistreated in Europe and the United States, which
eventually culminated in one of the biggest tragedies in history - the
Holocaust.

Now is the time to stand up for the civil liberties of all Americans.
Let us not be overtaken by fear and suspicion of the "other" and
disregard the Constitution, which guarantees rights to every American,
including the rights to free expression and free practice of religion.

National security is a concern for us all. But there is a way to
strengthen national security while respectfully upholding the rights of
Americans, whether they are Muslim or another faith or ethnicity.

Muslims, too, consider southern California home and proudly work with
local, state and federal law enforcement agencies to keep America safe.
They are doctors, teachers, business owners, soldiers, FBI agents,
police officers and others who serve in all walks of life.

Muslims stand with other Americans in seeking to ensure the security of
our nation and of all Americans.

But we refuse to be treated as less than equal citizens. We reject
"mapping" or profiling under any name, in Los Angeles or in any other
city in America.

Hussam Ayloush is the executive director of the Greater Los Angeles area
office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Ayten Ahmet : Muslim beauty defies critics to be Miss Teen Australia finalists

Muslim beauty defies critics

December 07, 2007

THE Muslim teenager who generated a wave of controversy by entering last
year's Miss Teen Australia beauty contest has made this year's finals.

Then aged 16, Melbourne schoolgirl Ayten Ahmet was condemned by Muslim
leaders when she entered last year's competition, with Melbourne cleric
Sheik Mohammed Omran branding participation by Muslim girls as "a slur
on Islam".

However, this year reactions had been more low key for Ayten, who was
one of 12 Miss Teen Australia finalists at the Gold Coast's White Water
World yesterday.

"It hasn't really been a big deal this year," she said.

"At the time last year I said it (religion) wasn't really relevant to me
entering the competition."

Being the centre of a raging debate on Muslim values was difficult for
the teenager, but it did not dissuade her from entering again.

"My family has been very supportive," she said.

"It was made into a big issue by some people last year but I didn't see
it as anything wrong."

Former Gold Coast Islamic Society president Naseem Abdul said Ayten was
free to make her own decisions about entering modelling or beauty
competitions.

"It is her life," he said.

"She is an individual, she can decide for herself if she wants to do
that sort of thing, it doesn't affect or offend me in any way."

The winner of this year's pageant was due to be crowned last night.

Thursday, December 6, 2007

India: Don't mention the massacre

India
Don't mention the massacre

Dec 6th 2007 | AHMEDABAD
From The Economist print edition


But it still colours Narendra Modi's campaign for re-election in Gujarat


AS A cheerleader for the emerging India, a giant democracy with-at
last-an economy to match, Narendra Modi is a disgrace. His six-year
leadership of Gujarat, a booming western state, is widely cited as a
paragon of economic management. But double-digit growth is not all that
Mr Modi-who is seeking re-election in a poll due to begin on December
11th-is alleged to have orchestrated.

There is also the small matter of 2,000 murdered Muslims, victims of a
2002 pogrom carried out by his Hindu-nationalist followers with the
collusion of Gujarat's bureaucracy and police. This week the widow of a
Muslim politician called Ahsan Jafri, whose limbs and genitals were
hacked off and the rest of him burned alive, was due to file a petition
in the Supreme Court, accusing Mr Modi of mass murder. There is little
justice for Muslims in Gujarat. Only eight people have been convicted
over the pogrom, mostly in neighbouring states. In Gujarat, some 2,000
cases remain pending.

A small matter, however, is just how the pogrom is viewed in Gujarat,
the birth-place of Mahatma Gandhi, and a bastion of prohibition,
vegetarianism and gnat-respecting Jains. Its last election, later in
2002, gave Mr Modi a thumping majority, biggest in those districts where
the bloodshed was worst. Mr Modi's campaign that year exploited
anti-Muslim sentiment. He foamed and raved against Pakistan's leader,
Pervez Musharraf-meaning, his audiences knew, scheming Muslims in their
midst. Many considered-and consider-the pogrom to be a legitimate act of
revenge against a poor minority making up 9% of Gujarat's population. It
was organised by supporters of Mr Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)
after 58 Hindu activists were killed in a fire on a train for which, on
scant evidence, Muslims were blamed.

This time Mr Modi's campaign has been more sober. He has unleashed the
odd rant against "terrorists", and a few barbs at Mr Musharraf. But the
BJP'S leader has been much keener to trumpet Gujarat's recent economic
performance-including growth of 11.5% last year. The change of tack may
be because he is chary of the contempt the outside world holds for him.
In 2005 America revoked his visa. EU countries have also denied him
diplomatic status. This has been damaging to his ambitions to lead the
BJP, and India. Mr Modi is already its most globe-trotting state boss.
This year he has visited China, South Korea, Japan and Switzerland.


But elections in India are not won by leading trade delegations-even in
Gujarat, which has 24% of India's coastline and a proud commercial
tradition. Moreover the slogan Mr Modi is most associated with, "Vibrant
Gujarat"-the name of a biennial trade fair he has staged-recalls the
ill-fated "India Shining" campaign run by India's last BJP-led
government for the general election in 2004. It was turfed out by the
masses for whom India did not shine. Many in the Congress party, which
leads the coalition that won that election, predict that Mr Modi will
suffer the same fate.

His camp is certainly unhappy. Leaders of two powerful castes, the
Patels and Kolis, which usually vote BJP, have rebelled against Mr Modi.
They dislike his autocratic ways-and, perhaps, his intolerance of
corruption. A total of 50 former BJP members of the outgoing assembly
have refused or been denied the party's ticket. Eight are instead
standing for Congress. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad, a Hindu group heavily
implicated in the 2002 slaughter, is also upset with Mr Modi. Indeed,
there are many in the BJP who would like to see him fall. With a general
election due by May 2009, India's main opposition party is suffering a
crisis of ideology and leadership. Another thumping win for the divisive
Mr Modi would strengthen his claim to supply both.

These divisions have given Congress hope. Its supporters also point out
that Congress did better in Gujarat in the 2004 general election than in
2002. Its leader, Sonia Gandhi, has campaigned hard in Gujarat. A strong
showing by Congress would be a bitter blow to the BJP. It might even
embolden Mrs Gandhi to call a general election early next year, or at
least to push through a controversial nuclear co-operation deal with
America over the objections of the government's Communist allies. As the
Communists have said they will forsake the government if the deal
survives, this might come to the same thing.

The BJP, however, remains the favourite. In 2002 it won 126 out of 182
seats. Gujarat's illegal bookmakers, famed for their prescience, expect
it to win again, with a smaller majority. Betting has been heavy.
Meanwhile, few commentators have dwelt on the poll's most depressing
aspect: Congress's own careful reluctance not to mention the 2002
massacre-let alone Mr Modi's alleged part in it. This makes electoral
sense. Attacking Mr Modi for failing to protect Muslims might remind
Gujaratis why they used to like him so much.

After all, last month, in a brave investigation into the pogrom, an
Indian magazine, Tehelka, published transcripts of Gujarati
Hindu-nationalists confessing to hideous murders and rapes. One alleged
that Mr Modi had granted them three days to do this work unimpeded by
the police-which is in fact what happened. No action has been taken
against them. Instead, senior Congress figures have accused Tehelka of
being in cahoots with the BJP. Gujarati bookies responded to its report
by shortening the odds on Mr Modi.

Tuesday, December 4, 2007

A Muslim like Obama

US politics
A Muslim like Obama

The rumors about Obama's faith are based on America's long history of
mistrust and misapprehension of Islam, a faith that we associate with
our own 'Others'.

By Manan Ahmed, December 4, 2007


"Sir, you make a mistake listening to people who tell you how much our
stand alienates black men in this country. I'd guess actually we have
the sympathy of 90 percent of the black people. There are 20,000,000
dormant Muslims in America. A Muslim to us is somebody who is for the
black man; I don't care if he goes to the Baptist Church seven days a
week. The Honorable Elijah Muhammad says that a black man is born a
Muslim by nature. There are millions of Muslims not aware of it now. All
of them will be Muslims when they wake up; that's what's meant by the
Resurrection." - Malcolm X in a conversation with Alex Haley, Playboy
Magazine, May, 1963.

The recent week has seen two major stories about the political baggage
of "being Muslim" in United States. The first was Mitt Romney's refusal
to consider a Muslim as a Presidential advisor in his Cabinet -
specifically to advise him on "jihadism" (apparently the only field in
which a Muslim can claim expertise). On Nov 27th, Mansoor Ijaz, "an
American-born citizen of the Islamic faith", reported this exchange in
the Christian Science Monitor:
I asked Mr. Romney whether he would consider including qualified
Americans of the Islamic faith in his cabinet as advisers on national
security matters, given his position that "jihadism" is the principal
foreign policy threat facing America today. He answered, "...based on
the numbers of American Muslims [as a percentage] in our population, I
cannot see that a cabinet position would be justified. But of course, I
would imagine that Muslims could serve at lower levels of my
administration.
Mitt Romney denied that he expressed this as reported, but multiple
sources have since emerged confirming Ijaz's account. The story, as it
was covered on right wing blogs received lots of comments that generally
tended to agree with Romney. "Having a muslim in the cabinet would be
like having a Japanese guy in the cabinet in WWII" said one. Another
asked "Wait... how does this hurt Romney?!? From what I can see, he will
get a bounce out of this! Much of middle America would strongly support
his perspective and likely hold it themselves."

The other story was one in the Washington Post:
Since declaring his candidacy for president in February, Obama, a member
of a congregation of the United Church of Christ in Chicago, has had to
address assertions that he is a Muslim or that he had received training
in Islam in Indonesia, where he lived from ages 6 to 10. While his
father was an atheist and his mother did not practice religion, Obama's
stepfather did occasionally attend services at a mosque there.

Despite his denials, rumors and e-mails circulating on the Internet
continue to allege that Obama (D-Ill.) is a Muslim, a "Muslim plant" in
a conspiracy against America, and that, if elected president, he would
take the oath of office using a Koran, rather than a Bible, as did Rep.
Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), the only Muslim in Congress, when he was sworn
in earlier this year.
We live in a rumor-based society where spurious flyers can derail
campaigns and invented words like "swift-boating" scarcely raise a
Colbert eyebrow. So it is no surprise that such internet rumors are
given equal credence by the Post. The entire story is written with the
"he said/they say/people claim" and the denials are restricted solely
for the campaign - which "keeps a letter at its offices, signed by five
members of the local clergy, vouching for the candidate's Christian
faith" - and for Obama - "If I were a Muslim, I would let you know". At
no point, does the Post sully itself by actually reporting that Obama is
not a Muslim. Understandably, some are upset.

Still, it is perhaps no great shock to anyone that a healthy amount of
Islamophobia exists in the current political and cultural climate. The
absurdities of teddy bears named Muhammad are constantly played in our
media as de facto expressions of an irrational and medieval faith - with
nary a word on the political machinations behind the street protests.

These stories about Obama's faith and Romney's Islamophobia, however,
cannot be lumped in with the more generic fear of a Muslim planet. They
illustrate, much more starkly, the fear of hidden loyalties within a
population that cannot ever be assimilated (birth in America being no
benefit) and draw on a more a complicated history in America - a history
of Islam's arrival and subsequent life on American soil - which is
intertwined with the history of slavery and an oppressed minority.
Islamdom's medieval encounter with Christendom has received ample
historical and scholarly attention but the American continent has
largely remained unexamined. Or if examined, it is noted for its
obscurity.

Islam came to America with the Africans who were kidnapped, enslaved and
shipped to the New World for labor. Here is an early Virginia Law from
James City, 1682 covering Muslims (negroes, moores, mollatoes),
mandatory conversions, and the continuance of the state of slavery:
An act to repeale a former law makeing Indians and others ffree.

WHEREAS by the 12 act of assembly held att James Citty the 3d day of
October, Anno Domini 1670, entituled an act declareing who shall be
slaves, it is enacted that all servants not being christians, being
imported into this country by shipping shall be slaves, but what shall
come by land shall serve if boyes and girles untill thirty yeares of
age, if men or women, twelve yeares and noe longer; and for as much as
many negroes, moores, mollatoes and others borne of and in heathenish,
idollatrous, pagan and mahometan parentage and country have heretofore,
and hereafter may be purchased, procured, or otherwise obteigned as
slaves of, from or out of such their heathenish country by some well
disposed christian, who after such their obteining and purchaseing such
negroe, moor, or molatto as their slave out of a pious zeale, have
wrought the conversion of such slave to the christian faith, which by
the laws of this country doth not manumitt them or make them free...

And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid that all servants
except Turkes and Moores, whilest in amity with his majesty which from
and after publication of this act shall be brought or imported into this
country, either by sea or land, whether Negroes, Moors, Mollattoes or
Indians, who and whose parentage and native country are not christian at
the time of their first purchase of such servant by some christian,
although afterwards, and before such their importation and bringing into
this country, they shall be converted to the christian faith; and all
Indians which shall hereafter be sold by our neighbouring Indians, or
any other trafiqueing with us as for slaves are hereby adjudged, deemed
and taken, and shall be adjudged, deemed and taken to be slaves to all
intents.
These Muslim "slaves, Africans, mulatto's, moors and all" - unable to
change their beings, whether converted or not - largely disappear from
the main streams of American historiography, even as fears of
rebellions, miscegenation and foreign loyalties plague the white
American imagination.

The Ahmadiyya movement, the Babist movement and a world wide 'resurgence
of Islam' were key anxieties for the American public at the turn of the
century. Babist Propaganda Making Headway Here declared an alarmed New
York Times in December 1904. Islam Gaining on Christianity; Missionaries
Admit They Are Losing Ground Against the Teachers of the Koran was heard
a decade later. The emergence of the Moorish Science Temple and the
Nation of Islam in the 1920s and 1930s - led by Nobel Drew Ali and
Elijah Mohammad - certainly crystallized these fears: Calls Negroes to
Islam; Detroit Man Would Lead Exodus to Anatolia, Fleeing Color
Prejudice. FBI surveillance, community policing and militia-formation
ensued.

The rumors about Obama's faith, then, are not just manifestations of a
post 9/11 Islamophobia or a peculiar xenophobia about his African
father. They are, in fact, uniquely American - based on our long history
of mistrust and misapprehension of a faith that we associate with our
own 'Others'.

Last week, I signed my name to a public statement issued by Historians
for Obama. I wasn't too enamored by the statement itself, though I
thought that historians could certainly demonstrate the historical
import behind Barack Obama's candidacy much more forcefully. I hope that
historians who signed that statement will carry forward their impulse. I
hope they write about the burdens of history hoisted upon Barack Obama
as he moves towards the nomination.

Obama is certainly a unique individual - and uniquely placed - to force
this nation to remember again and again what it constantly chooses to
forget - its histories of oppression, fear and hatred. Barack Obama's
own personal history is a testament to a brighter future for our nation.
We can certainly make that case to the American public on his behalf,
and perhaps even counter some rumors.


Manan Ahmed, who is writing his dissertation in the history of South
Asia and Islam at the University of Chicago, blogs under the sobriquet
Sepoy at the group blog Chapati Mystery.

Study: Try honey for children's coughs

Study: Try honey for children's coughs
By CARLA K. JOHNSON


CHICAGO - A teaspoon of honey before bed seems to calm children's coughs
and help them sleep better, according to a new study that relied on
parents' reports of their children's symptoms.


The folk remedy did better than cough medicine or no treatment in a
three-way comparison. Honey may work by coating and soothing an
irritated throat, the study authors said.

"Many families are going to relate to these findings and say that
grandma was right," said lead author Dr. Ian Paul of Pennsylvania State
University's College of Medicine.

The research appears in December's Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent
Medicine

Federal health advisers have recently warned that over-the-counter cough
and cold medicines shouldn't be used in children younger than 6, and
manufacturers are taking some products for babies off the market.

Three pediatricians who read the study said they would tell parents
seeking alternative remedies to try honey. They noted that honey should
not be given to children under age 1 because of a rare but serious risk
of botulism.

For the study, researchers recruited 105 children with upper respiratory
infections from a clinic in Pennsylvania. Parents were given a paper bag
with a dosing device inside. Some were empty. Some contained an
age-appropriate dose of honey-flavored cough medicine containing
dextromethorphan. And some contained a similar dose of honey.

The parents were asked about their children's sleep and cough symptoms,
once before the bedtime treatment and once after. They rated the
symptoms on a seven-point scale.

All of the children got better, but honey consistently scored best in
parents' rating of their children's cough symptoms.

"Give them a little time and they'll get better," said Pat Jackson
Allen, a professor at Yale University School of Nursing.

The study was funded by a grant from the National Honey Board, an
industry-funded agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The agency
had no influence over the study design, data or results, Paul said.

Monday, December 3, 2007

Malalai Joya: courage under fire

Malalai Joya: courage under fire


Death threats and assassination attempts have forced Malalai Joya underground, but she is unwavering in her mission to bring true democracy to her country. Glyn Strong meets Afghanistan's most outspoken politician. Photographs by Tom Stoddart

For about £9, a woman can disappear in Kabul. That's how much it costs to buy a burqa, and behind it she can become invisible. It is no small irony that the garment forced upon Afghanistan's women during the repressive reign of the Taliban has become the key to freedom for the controversial human rights activist Malalai Joya.


Malalai Joya with her bodyguards at a secret address in the backstreets of Kabul

But even the burqa cannot always hide Afghanistan's most famous woman. A visit to a maternity hospital in Kabul last month provoked a security alert. Initial irritation among the pregnant women standing in the dusty heat turned to near hysteria as they realised who was behind the veil. A whisper, 'It's Joya, Joya is here,' spread like electricity through the crowd. Women have been known to walk for miles just to touch her. For them, she is their only real hope for a better future.

Under the Taliban, Afghanistan was notorious for the treatment of its women. Girls were not allowed to be educated beyond the age of eight. Women were barred from working, from being treated by male doctors, from enjoying the most basic freedom of movement, and from appearing in public without the burqa. To those who broke the rules, extreme punishments were meted out.

Today, Afghanistan has a democratically elected government, in which women are well represented: its new constitution requires that two women be elected from each of its 34 provinces. Women make up about a quarter of the country's parliament. But Taliban insurgency, corruption, the country's dependence on opium production, and infighting between local commanders over power and territory has left it impoverished and unstable. In many ways, the situation for Afghanistan's women has not improved, and Malalai Joya, by far the country's most outspoken female politician, will not stand for it.

Joya's growing fame, or infamy, has brought enemies as well as admirers. The 29-year-old is a wanted woman in every sense of the word: by the disenfranchised, voiceless people of Afghanistan, by international organisations seeking to honour her, by political supporters who want her to run for president (something she does not aspire to) and, most dangerously, by a growing number of potential assassins.

She has no permanent home, no office and no income. Her home has been bombed, she has survived four assassination attempts - and she predicts that there will be more. As long as Afghan women are still brutalised, denied education and access to constitutional law, she refuses to stay silent.

It was on December 17, 2003, during her first appearance as an elected delegate from her home province of Farah in the country's newly established national assembly, the Loya Jirga, that Joya became their most controversial and unlikely champion. In a now notorious speech, she insisted that Afghanistan's fundamentalist warlords, criminals and drug traffickers should not only have no role in shaping the country's future, but should also be tried as war criminals. The mood in the chamber became ugly as discomfort turned to anger. Unrepentant, Joya refused to either apologise or retract what she had said (and still has not done so). Security guards were called to eject her, and from that point on she was a marked woman.

Her popularity among ordinary Afghans grew and, in September 2005, Joya was elected to the 249-seat national parliament (the Wolesa Jirga), representing Farah province. At 27, she was one of the country's youngest MPs. After her election Joya became a fierce critic of her fellow parliamentarians, telling journalists, human rights groups and anyone who would listen that though they now wore suits and ties, they were still the same corrupt, greedy, murdering warlords and religious fundamentalists who had contributed to the country's ruin.

In May this year her enemies retaliated. In an Afghan television interview in Kabul Joya claimed the legislature was 'worse than a zoo'. When an edited recording was shown in parliament she was found guilty of violating Article 70 of the Rules of Procedure that forbids lawmakers to criticise one another. She was thrown out of parliament and banned until 2009. It was, Joya claimed, a 'political conspiracy', and risible given that earlier in the month fellow MPs had made death threats and thrown bottles at her in parliament.

She knows that there is a price on her head. 'They will kill me, but they will not kill my voice, because it will be the voice of all Afghan women,' she said earlier this year. 'You can cut the flower, but you cannot stop the coming of spring.'

By all accounts, Joya is a firebrand, and the clips of her speeches on YouTube, savage attacks on everything from US policy to home-grown corruption - dismissed by her enemies as 'fanatical rants' - support this. I am expecting to meet a messianic, chillingly focused politician. Instead, after protracted cat-and-mouse arrangements and body searches, I am received by a tiny, softly spoken, beautiful woman. Joya invites us to sit on the floor of her 'borrowed' house; we are all barefoot, and the dim, cushion-strewn room where we drink tea is a welcome respite from the glaring heat of Kabul's streets.

Joya is married, though reluctant to say much about her husband out of fear for his safety. She is the eldest daughter of a large family: 'I have seven sisters and three brothers,' she says. 'My dad was a democrat. He wanted to be a doctor, but he also wanted to fight for freedom, and, during the era known as Jihad [between 1992 and 1996, another bloody period of infighting before the Taliban took power] he was injured and lost part of his leg.'

As Afghanistan dissolved into chaos, the family became refugees, first in Iran, then Pakistan, and her father's dreams of a medical career ended abruptly. Recalling the strictures of the killjoy 'Vice and Virtue Department' that operated during the years of Taliban fundamentalism, Joya reflects on her own religious beliefs: 'Islam is a personal issue and many crimes have been committed in the name of Islam, but I am a secular Muslim.' When representatives from an underground campaign group, OPAWC (the Organisation for Promoting Afghan Women's Capabilities), came to the refugee camp where 18-year-old Joya lived with her family and offered her the chance to work, she grabbed it. 'There are no universities in the camps; my family was poor - this was an opportunity to make some money and to serve my people.'

This underground work, covertly teaching literacy to women in Herat during the Taliban regime, was dangerous, and to do so she had to buy one of the hated burqas. 'My dad and brother laughed. Sometimes when I was afraid that the Taliban would find me, I would knock on a door and ask for water to get off the streets. It was a risk for the students, too, but they gave each other courage.'

After a round of phone calls, and with disguises in place, we prepare to visit a series of 'friendly' locations in Kabul with Joya and her armed bodyguards - sometimes as many as six, often using more than one car. Dressed in the blue burqa she describes as 'a shroud for the living', she takes us to a suburb of Kabul where we stop at an ordinary-looking house. This is a shelter for women, one of several in the capital that house the victims of violence, forced marriages and a variety of other abuses. The inhabitants, about 20 of them, range in age from 11 to 60, but by far the saddest is Alya - a softly spoken 16-year-old, bartered into a loveless marriage at the age of 12.


Joya visiting Malalai Maternity Hospital in Kabul

The stumps of what were once her hands are all that is visible of the terrible burns she suffered when her husband and mother-in-law 'punished' her for baking a bad batch of bread. They beat her and threw oil on her; in unimaginable desperation, Alya set fire to herself. Now she cannot comb her hair, feed herself or hold a book. Her pain is constant and, despite medication, unrelenting. In a different society, she could look forward to months of corrective surgery to improve her condition, but the procedures involve costly convalescence and care. Her dreams are simple: she tells Joya, 'I want only three things - to divorce, to heal my hands and to get an education.' Alya's plight moves Joya to tears. She fights for control, whispering in English, 'I'm sorry, I'm sorry.' She has said many times of the women of Afghanistan, 'Their suffering is my suffering.'

And their suffering is immense. Statistics published by Cure International, a Christian charity dedicated to transforming the lives of disabled children and their families in the developing world, indicate that every day 44 Afghan women die giving birth. The infant mortality rate is 165 per 1,000 live births (compared with seven per 1,000 in the USA). Other statistics are more shocking still: 87 per cent of Afghan women are illiterate, and only 30 per cent of girls have access to education; one in three Afghan women experiences physical, psychological or sexual violence; the average life expectancy for women is 44, and as many as 80 per cent of women face forced marriages.

The next day Joya is pale and a little distracted. 'I'm tired,' she explains when I meet her in yet another temporary lodging. 'I was up until one this morning. Some-times there is no electricity when I need an internet connection. And I wake at six to listen to news on the radio.'

Normal life for Joya is impossible. She carries with her only a small bag containing little more than a book and a radio. She never sleeps in the same house for more than one night and cannot remember when she last went shopping. She doesn't wear make-up and she washes her own clothes. A vegetarian, she lives simply. 'I have a bag that I leave at supporters' houses,' she says, 'but sometimes I need to borrow things.' The outfit she wore the previous day was such a one. 'Oh, it was so tight,' she laughs, 'but what can I do! My bodyguards and my uncle joke and they call me a bird without wings.'

When she speaks of personal issues, and in rare moments of relaxation, Joya is a different person - wistful, thoughtful, hopeful. Separated by more than 600 miles, she and her husband of two years meet infrequently and clandestinely. Warravaged Helmand - where three British soldiers died during my visit - stands between them geographically, but it is fear for his safety and the murderous venom of her enemies that really keeps them apart. She will not even tell me his name, but talks about their relationship and the children they may never have. 'I said to him, I know it's difficult for you; if it's too difficult for you, divorce me, but he became sad and upset. He loves me very much, I think. Because of my struggle I think it's better not to have a baby. Even nine months is too much. My life is full of [people's] suffering - and there are so many orphans. I said we could adopt. Of course my husband would love to have a baby, but we discussed it before we married and he accepted it.'

A student of agriculture, Joya's husband first saw her at a press conference after the Loya Jirga speech; much later, when she flew back to Farah and got off the aircraft safely, she was told that he cried with happiness to see her. She recalls their wedding: 'It was a simple marriage party. People brought flowers for me, so many. It was International Women's Day and I invited everyone - there was just one glass of juice and one cake for everyone - and half a room full of flowers. I said, "This is a free shop; everyone can come and take flowers if they want."'

Now she dreams of a day when flowers and vegetables will usurp the ever-increasing quantities of opium grown in her country. (The UN estimates that Afghanistan's poppy production has risen by as much as 15 per cent since 2006, and that the country now accounts for 95 per cent of the world's crop.) She also looks forward to a day when women will be treated as equals. 'In my marriage speech I asked people to think about what they are doing - not to sell their daughters, to give them an education. Some of them laughed.'

No one laughs today. Certainly not the war-hardened men from Rostaq in northern Takhar province, sitting in a semi-circle at Joya's feet, telling tales of atrocity. None is worse than that of 42-year-old Abdul Halim, whose sons Yusuf, seven, and Fraidon, six, were, he claims, taken hostage by a former Jihadi commander and now member of parliament whom Halim had publicly accused of being a criminal. He claims that, because he spoke out against the crimes, his boys were killed, put into a sack and thrown into a river.

One by one, these men tell of land snatched and relatives murdered. Halim says he has seen President Karzai three times and told him his story. 'I showed him pictures of my sons and he cried but told me to forget it. He said, "You are young, have more babies."'

Only Joya, they claim, stands between the violence of desperation and any last possibility of judicial redress. Is this realistic given her suspension and official powerlessness, I ask. They are adamant that she is Afghanistan's best hope. 'Our culture is revenge,' one man tells me. Halim talks of blowing himself up outside the parliament building if he fails to get justice.

'We want to make the warlords powerless and we want you back in parliament,' another tells Joya. 'It is wrong that someone who does only good is taken from us. We support you because you tell the truth.'


With Alya, who set fire to herself to escape her brutal husband

Although Joya is welcomed everywhere we go, she is enough of a politician to know that it is sometimes diplomatic for organisations and individuals to distance themselves from her outspoken rhetoric. Some are brave enough to support her publicly. A year ago Dr Mohammed Zaher Joya, who runs the neonatal ward at Kabul's Malalai Maternity Hospital, was kidnapped and beaten by men who believed he was related to Malalai. After being held hostage for two days, he was released when a ransom was paid. Is he bitter? 'No,' he says. 'I support Joya and will help her however I can.'

One organisation that is unflinching in its support is the radical human-rights group Rawa (the Revolutionary Association of Afghan Women). Friba, a spokesman, tells me, 'Joya is among only a few people in Afghanistan who courageously touch the core issues that are regarded as taboo in our society. Raising these issues is dangerous. Among them, the main and decisive one is the existence of brutal and criminal Jihadi fundamentalists, who only speak in the language of the gun and hold real power today. No one else has been so brave as to publicly call them criminals.'

Joya believes that Britain and America have a responsibility, too. She acknowledges that the withdrawal of international security forces would result in civil war in Afghanistan, but believes that the United States is making a mockery of democracy and the war on terrorism with its support for corrupt Afghan lawmakers. 'Bush talks about education, but these fundamentalists who are in power are burning schools,' she says. 'Bush talks about women's rights, but women are committing suicide because of violence. They prefer to die than to be alive.'

For the parents of those British servicemen who have died in her country, she has a sobering message: 'I want to offer my condolences on behalf of the suffering men and women of Afghanistan to those mothers and fathers who lost their dear ones. They think that they come to Afghan-istan to bring democracy, security and human rights, but I tell you that though they shed their blood in Afghanistan, they are not changing the lives of the people.'

Since she was thrown out of parliament and lost her official status, Joya is more vulnerable to attacks than ever, both verbal and physical. At first she was banned from leaving the country but her enemies soon realised that her many absences - ironically, to collect honours and human rights awards - could be used as propaganda against her. 'I travel alone,' she explains, 'and all my journeys are funded by those who invite me.' Her support base outside Afghanistan is large, and a month after her suspension from the Afghan parliament, an international day of action was observed by her supporters from as far afield as Rome and Vancouver, all demanding that the government re-instate her.

Did she realise what she was getting into when she made that remarkable speech in 2003? She recalls how she felt when she looked around the crowded room and got to her feet: 'A young man had spoken before me and said something similar. He was threatened and later fled Afghanistan. I thought, I am educated, I have seen the faces of my enemies, I will go on. The thing I feared most was that when the soldiers took me out they would rape me.'

Is she fearful for the future? Not in the conventional sense, although she worries constantly about the security of her family and friends. 'I'm not frightened, because one day everyone will die. I want to serve my people, especially the women, who are the worst victims. But I believe that no nation can donate liberation to another nation. Democracy, human rights, women's rights are not something that someone gives to us. We must ourselves make sacrifices to achieve these values.'

Her vision of the country's future is pragmatic. 'Society in my opinion is like a bird,' she says. 'One wing is man, one wing is woman. When one wing is injured, can the bird fly?'

Want to Go 'Green'? Stay Married

Want to Go 'Green'? Stay Married
Divorced Households Have Negative Impact on Environment, Study Finds
By ASHLEY PHILLIPS
Dec. 3, 2007 -


Environmentalists who are thinking of getting a divorce may want to
reconsider, a new study at Michigan State University finds.

Households in which a divorce occurs have a greater negative impact on
the environment in terms of efficient use of resources than the
households of married couples, according to research that will be
published this week by the Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences.

The reason is simple  it's all about efficiency, says Jianguo Liu, lead
author of the study who has the Rachel Carson chair in ecological
sustainability at the university's department of fisheries and wildlife.


"In the divorced households, the number of people is smaller than in
married households," Liu told ABCNEWS.com. "The resource efficiency used
per person is much lower than in married households."

For example, the amount of heat used in a house is the same whether one
or four people live there; the fewer people who occupy the space, the
more energy is wasted.

"Whether you have four or two people, you still use the same amount of
heat, and whether you have two people or 10 people, the light is on,"
Liu said.

Similarly, because divorced households have fewer people, they have more
rooms per person and are using their living space less efficiently. This
inefficiency may also lead to an increase in generating greenhouse
gases, the study concludes.

To come up with their findings, Liu and postdoctoral associate Eunice Yu
examined data from 12 countries, including the United States, Brazil,
Ecuador, Kenya, Mexico and Spain.

In the United States, they found that divorced households spent 46
percent more per capita on electricity and 56 percent more on water than
married households did.

According to the study, if divorced households could have the same
resource efficiency as their married counterparts, they would need 38
million fewer rooms, use 73 billion fewer kilowatt hours of electricity
and 627 billion gallons of water in 2005 alone.

Liu said he was inspired to do the study because of a global population
phenomenon  a decrease in population growth but an increase in the
number of households.

"The number of people in the households is getting smaller," he said.
"One of the main reasons for the smaller households is divorce."

This maxim applied even in countries where divorce was not traditionally
accepted, which surprised Liu.

For now, Liu hopes that his research will have an impact on couples who
are considering divorce.

"[Couples] don't know the impact on environment from divorce. & After
the research is done, it's really simple. Before our research, nobody
knew about the impact," he said. "My hope is that they will think about
the decision. Also, they can inform other people about the environmental
impact of divorce."

But Raoul Felder, a prominent New York divorce attorney, is skeptical.

"I think people who want a divorce are so driven to improve their
quality of life  environmental factors are the least of what they're
thinking about," he said. "If they're not thinking about the effect of
divorce on children, they're not going to be thinking what their
environmental footprint is going to be or how many kilowatts they're
using."

There is hope, however, for environmentally conscious divorcees. When
those people remarry (or cohabit), the environmental tally sheet
corrects itself, Liu said.

The Teddy Bear Tumult's Legacy

TIME
Monday, Dec. 03, 2007
The Teddy Bear Tumult's Legacy
By Sam Dealey/Khartoum

Four days after she was spared the lash but jailed by a Sudanese court
for insulting Islam, British schoolteacher Gillian Gibbons received a
presidential pardon Monday and was deported from the country. But while
her alleged crime - permitting her primary students to name a Teddy bear
"Mohammad" - garnered the Khartoum regime a good deal of international
condemnation for its radical justice, the charges against Gibbons and
her famous bear were incidental to a larger struggle playing out in
Sudan - the manipulation of Islam in the pursuit of personal and
political power.

From the beginning, in fact, the case against Gibbons was never really
about her alleged insensitivity to Islam. Western and Sudanese sources
tell TIME the ordeal began from an employment dispute at the school
where Gibbons worked. Sarah Khawad, a former secretary at the school who
had recently lost her job, allegedly dug up a letter Gibbons had sent to
her students' parents in September informing them that each child would
take home a Teddy bear and record the evening in a diary. The class had
named the bear Mohammad, Gibbons wrote. According to the sources,
Khawad, a Sudanese citizen, encouraged two parents to register a
complaint of religious outrage with the Education Ministry. When the
parents declined, she allegedly registered the complaint herself.
Khawad's simple charge of a Westerner defiling the Muslim prophet was
too explosive for the regime to ignore, and Gibbons was soon arrested.

With international outrage growing, two British Muslim parliamentarians,
Lord Ahmed and Lady Warsi, traveled to Sudan in the hopes of securing
her release. The government was amenable. For one thing, an internal
investigation by the Sudanese government apparently revealed Khawad's
role. Indeed, many members of the political elite expressed private
embarrassment over the affair. As the Britons arrived in Khartoum,
Gibbons' release seemed all but assured.

But just as the deal seemed imminent, an outsized and vocal hardcore
Islamic minority hijacked the political majority's desire to make it go
away.

Islam is a double-edged sword in Sudan. In many instances, the regime
harnesses it to advance its own power - witness the decades-long war
successive Arab regimes in Khartoum waged against non-Muslim Africans in
the south. Then, too, there are the regime's frequent charges of
anti-Islamic bigotry against the West for its diplomatic pressures on
Khartoum.

But just as often, as the controversy surrounding Gibbons illustrates,
it is Islam that harnesses the Sudanese regime. Far from being a radical
Islamic autocracy, the Khartoum government is a tenuous regime riven
with factions and dissent.

Fearing that radical Islamist leaders would use their Friday prayers to
whip up anti-government fervor, the usually lethargic regime moved up
Gibbons' trial, originally scheduled for Saturday, to Thursday. For the
most part, the strategy worked: the Muslim day of prayer witnessed only
one demonstration, itself relatively small and easily dispersed.

The reaction by most Sudanese to Gibbons' lenient sentence was mostly
benign; still, the government's fears of a larger backlash bordered on
paranoia. Riot police were deployed, and Internet access to some stories
was denied. Lord Ahmed, one of a pair of British parliamentarians who
traveled to Khartoum as private citizens - and as co-religionists with
the Sudanese - to secure Gibbons' release, told TIME that Sudan's
President Omar al-Bashir admitted to them he was weighing a retrial - on
stricter charges.

In the end, however, as British foreign minister David Miliband said,
"common sense" prevailed. Gibbons was freed and Khartoum remained calm.
But rather than view the Gibbons case as yet another example of a
radical regime's autocratic abuse, the West would do well to realize
that the events in Khartoum expose the government's weakness, and not
its strength.

Thursday, November 29, 2007

Graveyard shift work linked to cancer

 

Graveyard shift work linked to cancer

By MARIA CHENG, AP Medical Writer

Like UV rays and diesel exhaust fumes, working the graveyard shift will soon be listed as a "probable" cause of cancer. It is a surprising step validating a concept once considered wacky. And it is based on research that finds higher rates of breast and prostate cancer among women and men whose work day starts after dark.

Next month, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the cancer arm of the World Health Organization, will add overnight shift work as a probable carcinogen. The American Cancer Society says it will likely follow. Up to now, the U.S. organization has considered the work-cancer link to be "uncertain, controversial or unproven."

The higher cancer rates don't prove working overnight can cause cancer. There may be other factors common among graveyard shift workers that raise their risk for cancer.

However, scientists suspect that overnight work is dangerous because it disrupts the circadian rhythm, the body's biological clock. The hormone melatonin, which can suppress tumor development, is normally produced at night.

If the graveyard shift theory eventually proves correct, millions of people worldwide could be affected. Experts estimate that nearly 20 percent of the working population in developed countries work night shifts.

Among the first to spot the night shift-cancer connection was Richard Stevens, a cancer epidemiologist and professor at the University of Connecticut Health Center. In 1987, Stevens published a paper suggesting a link between light at night and breast cancer.

Back then, he was trying to figure out why breast cancer incidence suddenly shot up starting in the 1930s in industrialized societies, where nighttime work was considered a hallmark of progress. Most scientists were bewildered by his proposal.

But in recent years, several studies have found that women working at night over many years were indeed more prone to breast cancer. Also, animals that have their light-dark schedules switched develop more cancerous tumors and die earlier.

Some research also suggests that men working at night may have a higher rate of prostate cancer.

Because these studies mostly focused on nurses and airline crews, bigger studies in different populations are needed to confirm or disprove the findings.

There are still plenty of skeptics. And to put the risk in perspective, the "probable carcinogen" tag means that the link between overnight work and cancer is merely plausible.

Among the long list of agents that are listed as "known" carcinogens are alcoholic beverages and birth control pills. Such lists say nothing about exposure amount or length of time or how likely they are to cause cancer. The American Cancer Society Web site notes that carcinogens do not cause cancer at all times.

Still, many doubters of the night shift link may be won over by the IARC's analysis to be published in the December issue of the journal Lancet Oncology.

"The indications are positive," said Vincent Cogliano, who heads up the agency's carcinogen classifications unit. "There was enough of a pattern in people who do shift work to recognize that there's an increase in cancer, but we can't rule out the possibility of other factors."

Scientists believe having lower melatonin levels can raise the risk of developing cancer. Light shuts down melatonin production, so people working in artificial light at night may have lower melatonin levels.

Melatonin can be taken as a supplement, but experts don't recommend it long-term, since that could ruin the body's ability to produce it naturally.

Sleep deprivation may be another factor in cancer risk. People who work at night are not usually able to completely reverse their day and night cycles.

"Night shift people tend to be day shift people who are trying to stay awake at night," said Mark Rea, director of the Light Research Center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in New York, who is not connected with the IARC analysis.

Not getting enough sleep makes your immune system vulnerable to attack, and less able to fight off potentially cancerous cells.

Confusing your body's natural rhythm can also lead to a breakdown of other essential tasks. "Timing is very important," Rea said. Certain processes like cell division and DNA repair happen at regular times.

Even worse than working an overnight shift is flipping between daytime and overnight work.

"The problem is re-setting your body's clock," said Aaron Blair, of the United States' National Cancer Institute, who chaired IARC's recent meeting on shift work. "If you worked at night and stayed on it, that would be less disruptive than constantly changing shifts."

Anyone whose light and dark schedule is often disrupted — including frequent long-haul travelers or insomniacs — could theoretically face the same increased cancer risk, Stevens said.

He advises workers to sleep in a darkened room once they get off work. "The balance between light and dark is very important for your body. Just get a dark night's sleep."

Meanwhile, scientists are trying to come up with ways to reduce night workers' cancer risk. And some companies are experimenting with different lighting, seeking a type that doesn't affect melatonin production.

So far, the color that seems to have the least effect on melatonin is one that few people would enjoy working under: red.

___

American Cancer Society's list of known and probable carcinogens from IARC and National Toxicology Program: http://tinyurl.com/2kl5ab

International Agency for Research on Cancer: http://www.iarc.fr/

 

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

A Muslim Belongs In The Cabinet

A Muslim Belongs In the Cabinet

Nov. 27, 2007

 

by Mansoor Ijaz.

 

 

Mitt Romney tells good jokes. I had the chance to hear a few of them this month at a political fundraiser in Las Vegas, where the Republican presidential contender gave his audience a few good chuckles before going into his domestic and foreign policy agenda.

His platform seemed sound enough analytically -- until he demonstrated an aggravating hypocrisy in his reply to my query on one of his key foreign policy positions. It's a stance that should give pause to all Americans who are considering voting for him.

I asked Mr. Romney whether he would consider including qualified Americans of the Islamic faith in his cabinet as advisers on national security matters, given his position that "jihadism" is the principal foreign policy threat facing America today. He answered, "…based on the numbers of American Muslims [as a percentage] in our population, I cannot see that a cabinet position would be justified. But of course, I would imagine that Muslims could serve at lower levels of my administration."

Romney, whose Mormon faith has become the subject of heated debate in Republican caucuses, wants America to be blind to his religious beliefs and judge him on merit instead. Yet he seems to accept excluding Muslims because of their religion, claiming they're too much of a minority for a post in high-level policymaking. More ironic, that Islamic heritage is what qualifies them to best engage America's Arab and Muslim communities and to help deter Islamist threats.

I am an American-born citizen of the Islamic faith. I stand as a living symbol of all that America offers in its system of liberty, justice, and, most of all, opportunity. I am also proud of my Muslim heritage and beliefs, and, true to the American work ethic, I have worked tirelessly to raise up the voices of disaffected Muslims everywhere and help them, too, share in America's promise.

As a private American citizen, I negotiated Sudan's offer of counterterrorism assistance to the Clinton administration in 1997 when the US government had no relations with that country's leaders. I felt there was still an opportunity at that time to unravel the metastasizing terror network being organized by Osama bin Laden and his followers.

I later initiated dialogue with an Arab counterintelligence official in the summer of 2000 that could have resulted in the extradition of Mr. bin Laden to a friendly Muslim country and neutralized Al Qaeda's pre-9/11 planning. That summer, I also helped negotiate a cease fire in Kashmir, which brought peace to a region that has known constant conflict since partition between India and Pakistan.

In early 2001, I notified national security adviser Stephen Hadley that Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency and militant Islamists, some of whom I had worked with during the cease-fire campaign, were actively engaged in the sale and distribution of Pakistan's nuclear technology. Mr. Hadley asked me to make recommendations on how these proliferation activities could be stopped. I did so, mindful that, as an American Muslim whose father was a pioneer in Pakistan's nuclear program, I risked harming the name of my family. But for the sake of my duty as a citizen, I helped the US government expose the illicit transfers. A.Q. Khan, who headed Pakistan's nuclear program, was arrested a few years later.

The point I make in enumerating these efforts to contribute to US national interests is that Americans of the Islamic faith - even when they have no formal role in government - are committed to helping our nation defend its interests. And we have done so. Why, then, should we be excluded from holding positions that carry the highest levels of responsibility?

Imagine how a qualified American Muslim FBI director, sensitized to the genuine concerns among Arab and Muslim communities about civil rights violations, would be able to ensure that FBI actions and policies target the real bad guys, not communities as a whole. Imagine how an American Muslim CIA director or defense secretary whose understanding of cultural differences in places that breed Islamist violence would ensure that intelligence was not biased by bigotry or lack of understanding and that defense strategies were constructed on data acquired from authentic sources.

If Romney wins the White House, he will probably rely on those who know Mormonism best to help him explain it to those who distrust it most. It is time for him to reconsider his views on who should help America craft the right policies that attack the scourge on civilization that Islamic extremism has become.

He, and other candidates for the presidency from both political parties, should actively begin searching for American Muslims and Arab Americans who can serve in primary decisionmaking cabinet level posts. To do otherwise is to risk promulgating policies that once again put the US straight in the sights of the terrorists who seek to bring America down.

Mansoor Ijaz is chairman of The Crescent Investment Group, a private equity firm based in New York.

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Prince Alwaleed: Why Chuck had to go

Prince Alwaleed: Why Chuck had to go

In a Fortune exclusive, Citigroup's biggest single investor talks about his disappointment in Chuck Prince, the bank's colossal losses, and his views on a successor CEO.

By Andy Serwer and Barney Gimbel, Fortune

November 16 2007: 2:37 PM EST

(Fortune) -- In the midst of staggering losses and intense public scrutiny, former Citigroup CEO Charles O. Prince III could always count on the support of the company's biggest individual shareholder: Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdul Aziz al Saud. Less than a month ago, the Saudi prince, who owns 3.6% of the company, even dismissed a sharp drop in earnings as a "mere hiccup."

But Fortune has learned that Prince Alwaleed and other major shareholders agreed last week that, if Chuck Prince didn't offer his resignation after the news of the additional $8 billion to $11 billion writedowns, they would publicly call for his ouster. In an exclusive interview, Prince Alwaleed, speaking by phone from the desert outside Riyadh, talked with Fortune's Andy Serwer and Barney Gimbel about the final days of Chuck Prince's tenure at Citigroup (Charts, Fortune 500).

Fortune: When Citigroup first reported the writedown three weeks ago, you said that you supported Citi and Chuck Prince. Do you feel like you were misled? Did the situation change? What happened there?

Prince Alwaleed: Let me tell you the facts. Basically when Citigroup pre-announced the $6.4 billion writeoff, Chuck Prince called me within five minutes of the announcement and informed me of that loss and I told him bluntly and openly, "Is this the end of the story? Did you think of everything?"

His answer was "yes" and he expected normalization in the fourth quarter. I listened to the analyst discussion he had with everybody else and he said there would be normalization in the fourth quarter. So obviously, this gave me comfort that this was a onetime event and only an aberration and I backed off.

Although the writeoff said $6.4 billion, post-tax $3.4 billion, if you compare this to the equity of Citibank and the profits of Citibank in the third quarter, there was a $2.4 billion profit. So it was a hiccup assuming that this was a onetime event. But what happened two or three weeks later, another $8 to $11 billion additional write-off, the situation changed completely.

You cannot come to the public and say that this normalization is expected in the fourth quarter and then three weeks later, not three months later, you come and say there is an $11 billion writeoff. This is unacceptable. That's when the events changed completely. My backing was withdrawn dramatically. You should never commit to something that you can't deliver. Never.

Q: When did you learn about the additional write-down?

A: I got a sense that something big was going to happen when the 10K was delayed.

Q: Did Chuck Prince call you to talk with you about the delay?

A: No, but it was public information.

Q: [Former Citi CEO] Sandy Weill was in town then as well.

A: Sandy was in Riyadh.

Q: Did you meet with him about this? Did he come over specifically to talk to you about Chuck or was that a regularly scheduled visit?

A: Sandy meets me more than four or five times a year. I will meet him in Riyadh or in the United States. We are very close friends. Last week, Sandy was in Riyadh and he met me and we discussed many things and obviously one item on the agenda was the results of Citibank. We discussed the situation, what was wrong and why things are happening like that. But remember, this was before the additional $11 billion was announced.

Q: When you heard that the losses were going to be greater, did you immediately question your support of Chuck Prince?

A: Immediately my support was withdrawn. He got my message very clear that my support has been withdrawn because I cannot really tolerate that, obviously. You can't go publicly and say that our losses are around $3 billion post-tax and then all the sudden add another $11 billion loss.

Q: How did you let Chuck Prince know?

A: I was in touch with him. In the last two weeks, we were in touch almost every two or three days. Four or five calls over the past 10 days.

Q: Did you ask him to resign?

A: No, I did not ask him to resign, but I told him my support is no longer there.

Q: Did you think that Sandy Weill should come back on an interim basis?

A: No, no, Sandy is not seeking to be president. What Sandy likes to do is to be involved in the process of selecting a new boss. Sandy told me, "I have no aspirations whatsoever to be CEO or chairman."

However, he would like to be involved in the process of selecting the boss for Citi because Citi can't afford to have another loss. The situation right now is unacceptable for a bank like Citi with $2.5 trillion in assets and $120 billion of equity, and is in more than 100 countries. It's a pity for Citibank to be in this position. It's not right. We can't afford to have another blunder like that.

Q: Are you concerned about Citigroup's position right now?

A: No, Citibank will withstand everything. Frankly speaking, you can imagine the strength of this company. Even with the $6.4 billion writeoff they took in the third quarter, this company had $2.4 billion of profit. So this company can withstand a lot of pressure and a lot of stress because its equity is so big.

Q: Do you have assurances that there aren't going to be more losses when they reevaluate the debt again?

A: No one is sure of that. The situation right now is they took around $6.4 billion pre-tax losses in the third quarter. They announced another $8 to $11 billion pre-tax loss for the fourth quarter. However, Citibank was able to absorb the $6.4 billion and the $8 to $11 billion -- I wouldn't say comfortably -- but they were able to withstand that.

Q: Are you disappointed in Chuck Prince?

A: I am extremely disappointed with Chuck Prince and I believe that Chuck Prince let down the shareholders completely. Citibank did not conduct itself in the right way. The risk-management situation was very wrong at Citibank.

Q: Who is the right kind of leader for Citi now?

A: I was in touch with the board when they selected Mr. [Robert] Rubin as chairman and Mr. [Winfried] Bischoff as the [interim] CEO. Mr. Rubin called me and I am very close friends with Mr. [Richard] Parsons of Time Warner (Charts, Fortune 500), who was involved in the search process. I am in touch with them on a continuous basis.

Q: Do you have anybody in mind?

A: Frankly speaking, I don't have anybody in mind. I trust Mr. Rubin. I trust Mr. Bischoff. I trust Mr. Parsons. The selection process has to be very careful and they should take their time finding the right guy. My recommendation and advice for them is they don't hire anyone unless this guy has expertise in banking. I told them, next time no lawyer, please.

Q: Do you think Citi is undervalued now? Are you going to buy more of it?

A: Look, frankly speaking, Citibank at this price is ridiculous. Citibank does not deserve that. Citibank deserves a lot better.

Q: You once said that you would hold your Citi shares forever. You still stand by that?

A: I will sell nothing. We are selling nothing. I want to make it clear that I fully support the leadership of Citigroup and think it is a very strong company with a good future.

You remember something very important, that theaverage [price at which] I bought Citibank was $2.75 per share adjusted for stock splits. That's my average. But still Citibank does not deserve to be where it is right now. It is a pity what is happening, but I hope that a big lesson is learned in the board of directors and the management of Citibank.

Q: What is that lesson specifically?

A: The lesson is that, No. 1, this management has to be at the highest class possible. No. 2, they have to have a succession plan. You can't have a company that size without a [successor] ready. And No. 3, you need a professional who has run a bank.

Q: Was Chuck Prince not going resign without [pressure]?

A: The impression I had is that he was not going to resign at all.

Q: Did Chuck Prince ever offer his resignation to you?

A: No, he did not.

Q: Did you like Chuck Prince?

A: Yes, Chuck Prince was a good man. Honest man. Decent man.

Q: When did you start realizing that he might have not been the right person to lead Citigroup?

A: I gave him the benefit of the doubt for the first two or three years. And the first two quarters of this year were good. But clearly you cannot go public and say we lost $6.4 billion, and then three weeks later say you will lose another $8 to $11 billion.

Q: Does Citigroup need to do a deal now to combine with another institution like Wachovia (Charts, Fortune 500) to become strong?

A: It is not time for that right now, for sure. I am against it now. Not at this price, for sure. It would not be fair for the shareholders of Citibank at all. I mean even after the stock went down, Citibank is still worth $160 billion. It's still a force to be reckoned with. I mean, how many companies in the world can withstand a writeoff of $6.4 billion and another writeoff of $8 to $11 billion three weeks later, and still stand on its own feet? Not many