SACW - 28 April 2012 | Sri Lanka: Religious extremism / Goodlooking Jamaat e Islami / Resist intimidation of academics by Deobandi ; Touchiness Disease; Justice for Bathani Tola; no visa for Modi / Tunisian Salafis / UK: Multi culti Alcohol Ban / US: Anti abortion madness

[Harsh Kapoor]

    South Asia Citizens Wire - 28 April 2012 - No. 2745
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contents:

1. Online Petition: Not In Our Name - Against religious extremism in Sri Lanka
2. Pakistan: Goodlooking Jamaat e Islami (Nayyer Khan) 
3. Pakistan: HRCP for end to confrontation
4. India: "We condemn the attempt of bodies like Deoband to encroach on our academic space" - Press Statement by concerned citizens
   + On intimidation of the academia - this time by the Deobandi Ulema (Dilip Simeon)
5. India: Continuing decline the child sex ratio - draft recommendations of the NAC Working Group
6. India: Climate of touchiness augurs ill for India (Palash Krishna Mehrotra)
7. India: Petition: Justice for Bathani Tola
8. USA: No visa for Narendra Modi

International: 
9. Tunisia: Salafis call for death of Tunisian TV boss after "Persepolis" airing
10. Moroccan Muslim Brotherhood PM refuses to talk with female Belgian minister
11. UK: Don’t ban alcohol — we'll get blame, say Muslim students (Anna Davis)
12. USA: Mississippi law may force its last surviving abortion clinic to shut (Rupert Cornwell) 
13. USA: Arizona Sets Dangerous New Standard for Hostility to Women, Doctors, and Reproductive Rights
14. The US Labor Movement and China (Alberto C. Ruiz)

=======================================
1. ONLINE PETITION: NOT IN OUR NAME - AGAINST RELIGIOUS EXTREMISM IN SRI LANKA
=======================================
https://notinournamesl.wordpress.com/category/english/

What happened

A week ago, a violent a mob of about 2,000 Sinhalese, including a group of Buddhist monks led by the Mahanayaka of the Rangiri Dambulu chapter Inamaluwe Sumangala thero, stormed and vandalised a mosque in Dambulla. The mosque was declared an illegal structure, but it is unclear how this far this is accurate.

Several videos, broadcast on national TV in Sri Lanka and now circulating globally on YouTube capturing the violence beggars belief. There are members of the sangha engaged in physical violence and verbal abuse. There is a member of the sangha who disrobes and exposes himself, in public, in front of the mosque. In one video, Ven. Inamaluwe Sumangala thero suggests that the maniacal mob is actually a shramadaanaya, and that destroying the mosque is something that they should in fact be helped by the government.

Aside from the physical violence, which includes scuffles with Army and Police personnel, the derogatory and racist language employed by Ven. Inamaluwe Sumangala thero and other Buddhist monks during the attack against the mosque, and a nearby Hindu kovil, is appalling. Though the violence of the Sinhala idiom employed loses much in translation, Groundviews put into English the most disquieting comments for a wider appreciation. More startling are anti-Muslim, Sinhala-Buddhist supremacist Facebook groups that have thousands of active members and with content too inflammatory to even translate.

A week after this violence,it has not received the condemnation it deserves from the President, government or mainstream media. Ven. Inamaluwe Sumangala thero, perhaps reacting to the indelible record of violence captured in film, attempted to suggest to the BBC that the footage of the mob broadcast on TV was doctored. Ironically, his own media websites showcase the same violence, in greater detail.  A Press Release issued on 25th April from the Government Information Department, only in Sinhala, strangely referred to the violence as a ‘minor misunderstanding’, yet reiterated that Sri Lanka is “a multi-religious, multi-ethnic society” and that “in addition to respecting their constitutional obligations, as well as the policies and principles of the government, all Sri Lankans have a long standing tradition of being respectful of each other”.

What is the fall-out?

The photographs, audio and video recordings of the violence in Dambulla have gone global. They cannot be erased. Incensed by this incident and those who led it, there are now growing threats of violence by sections of the Muslim community, though there are many voices, including the Muslim Council, who are calling for calm, and a more reasoned approach to the transformation of this conflict, noting that the actions of a few are not indicative of the nature of the majority.

There is a real danger that unaddressed or if simply glossed over, this militant religious extremism can very quickly and very seriously undermine Sri Lanka’s post-war reconciliation, and contribute to new, more geographically dispersed violent conflict. Extremists from both the Sinhala-Buddhist community and the Muslim community can also use this incendiary incident in Dambulla to stoke up communal tensions, leading to heightened fear and anxiety.

What can we do?
The shameful behaviour and expression employed by the Mahanayaka of the Rangiri Dambulu chapter, along with the monks he led and the crowd of thugs is not remotely associated with or reflective of the philosophy of the Dhamma, the teachings of the Buddha, or the way in which a Buddhist monk is supposed to behave and speak. Many online have already expressed their dismay and deep concern over the actions of a few, placing Sri Lanka in the media spotlight again for all the wrong reasons.

We have a choice, but time is running out. Speak up. Put your name in a comment below, in English, Sinhala or Tamil. Say that last week’s violence was not in your name. Renounce a fringe lunacy and resist extremism. By putting your name below, oppose mob violence and bigotry as ways to resolve disputes.

If we have to fight, let’s fight to keep Sri Lanka free of extremists who threaten not only what they seek to destroy, but also who and what they claim to represent. 

Put your name down, resist violence, pass on the message

https://notinournamesl.wordpress.com/category/english/


=======================================
2. PAKISTAN: ‘GOOD LOOKING JAMAAT-E-ISLAMI’ 
by Nayyer Khan 
=======================================
(Viewpoint)

Both Jamat-e-Islami and Pakistan's deep state were looking for a charismatic character, who had a glitz of the Western culture and a mindset of an Islamist. One senior memeber of Jamat-e-Islami, namely Hafeea ullah Niazi effectively solved this problem by finding the right person for this job. He happened to be the brother-in-law of Cricket's super star, male sex symbol and Casanova of International repute, Imran Khan.

The Jamaat Islami (JI) won Pakistan state’s patronage to be given a role in home politics for the first time during the brief, yet eventful tenure of military ruler Yahya Khan, when designing of state’s vital policy matters was assigned to then minister for Information and National Affairs, Major General Sher Ali Khan. Yahya Khan was no different from his predecessors – starting from Jinnah to Ayub Khan – who were hardly observant of Islamic practices in their personal lives; but had used political Islam as a major tool for defining national identity and nation-building. They wished to keep militant Islamism under control to prevent it from destabilizing domestic politics; yet direct it against India and also to use it to counter the leftist and nationalist dominant trends that were at the time working against what they deemed the Islamic ideology underpinning the state. In Sher Ali’s scheme of things the “ideology of Pakistan and glory of Islam” became pet words of our military leadership, which projected the army itself as ultimate defender of the ‘ideology of Pakistan’. Learning the lesson from public agitation against Ayub Khan, Sher Ali convinced Yahya that army should maintain its mythical image before the people as a final savior of the nation whenever national interests so demanded and, therefore, control the national politics from behind the scene; to avoid any situation in which people of Pakistan would ever confront the army directly. For this purpose a weak political government was needed to arise from the first general elections in Pakistan, scheduled to take place by the end of 1970, to be used as a fig leaf to army's oligarchy.

As per Sher Ali plans the results of the polls were not to be manipulated during; but before the polls by providing the state’s assistance to religio-political parties - especially JI – in shape of financial and propaganda support. The substantial funds of Ayub Khan’s faction of the Muslim League confiscated by the Yahya’s Martial law regime were diverted to JI, in addition to money raised by IB from the industrialists and business class to fund the election campaign of Islamic parties (Hasan Zaheer ‘The Separation of East Pakistan’ Oxford University Press. pp 124-125). Funds were also poured in JI’s pouch by the Saudi government as well as Saudi sponsored Rabita al-Alam al-Islami.

Following the journalists strike in April-May 1970, media purification and purging was carried out by Sher Ali to replace leftist and secularist media persons with those from JI’s cadres, both in state and private owned media, thereby amplifying Islamic overtones. Emphasis was made by JI, backed by state propaganda machinery, that Pakistan’s ideology was threatened by ‘non-religious’ socialist and secularists like Z.A. Bhutto and Sheikh Mujeeb-ul-Rahman.

By doing all this, Pakistan’s deep state was trying to kill two birds with one stone viz preventing emergence of a strong popular government by ensuring a split mandate in the polls, so that army could always play the role of a moderator or a referee amongst wrangling politicians, and keep Islamists’ influence in the state’s matters to maintain the national ideology which had little room for secularist views. (For details see Ayesha Jalal’s ‘State of Martial rule’ Cambridge University Press, 1990).

However, against all the speculations of intelligence agencies, the results of the election astonished everybody. The secularist ultra-nationalist Awami League and centrist Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) swept the elections in East and West Pakistan respectively. The JI altogether secured only 7 out of 440 National Assembly seats. The Jamiat Ulema Islam – which was a less favored Islamist party for the establishment – did little better due to its alliance with left-wing parties instead of other Islamists.

The chief architect of the election plans, General Sher Ali, was extremely disappointed with election results and resigned in disgust. The establishment had miserably failed to foresee that the bearded bespectacled oldies of JI with flat expressions were no match for mesmerizing personalities of flamboyant Bhutto and firebrand Mujeeb, to attract the populace of Pakistan.
During Z.A. Bhutto’s reign JI remained opposed to the political government; but maintained its cooperation with the security establishment. Bhutto was an Islamist too like preceding rulers of Pakistan. Islamism is a term given to political Islam in which its protagonists do not necessarily have to be practicing Muslims. With his ambitions for Pan-Islamic world and ‘Islamic bomb’ and his coupling of religion with state in the 1973 constitution, there is no doubt that Bhutto was one of the greatest Islamists ever. However, while he wanted to use both Mullah and Military for strategic depth and other covert plans at the international level, he was not willing to allow either of them to have any say in domestic affairs. This deepened the rivalry between the security establishment and PPP, while drawing JI closer to the former. The JI was an important tool of deep state of Pakistan in its Central Asia plans, starting from Afghanistan and extended to Muslim majority Central Asian states, which were the part of the USSR and even to East Turkistan (Xinjiang). Xinjiang became a lower priority though, in consideration of the growing Pak-China relationship. Afghanistan was on the top of the list. Following Daud’s crackdown on Jamaat-e-Islami Afghanistan in 1973, its leadership fled to Pakistan, where it was initially hosted by JI Pakistan. Shortly after, however, both the security establishment and political government of Pakistan welcomed and patronized it for Islamist insurgencies in Afghanistan.

Qazi tries to make JI a populist party of the people

After Zia-ul-Haq’s coup, the JI entered the corridors of power through the backdoor by having strong representation in his hand-picked cabinet. It supported and campaigned for ‘yes’ vote in Zia’s infamous referendum of Dec, 1984. However, in the election of Feb, 1985 held on nonparty basis the members of JI contesting as individuals, once again bit the dust, this time at the hands of locally influential politicians.

Nevertheless, Zia’s tenure totally transformed JI from a meek looking and docile bunch of molvies into violent, aggressive and hostile group of people always ready to wage armed Jihad by virtue of its joint operations with the Pakistani establishment in the Afghan Jihad (1978-88). Although JI student wing Islami Jamiat-e-Talaba (IJT) always had these tendencies, which it had, besides other occasions, demonstrated to the fullest during 1971 Pakistan Army operations in Bangladesh (then East Pakistan). Now the JI got even closer to Pakistan’s security establishment.

Under Maududi and Mian Tufail Mohammad the JI maintained a very stringent and restricted procedure for qualifying as its member. It would not go after cheap popularity at the cost of its orthodoxy and inflexible principles. However, it all started changing after Qazi Hussain Ahmed was elected as JI Ameer (Chief) in 1987. Qazi wanted to shed off JI’s image as a party with limited appeal and circumscribed entry for general public. He sought to become a leader of masses. He would not mind resorting to vulgar publicity and cheap means to popularize himself and JI, which his predecessors would never like to do. This was the time when aging JI veterans were giving way to fresh blood of IJT old boys. Qazi and his team planed and implemented publicity and promotion tactics laced with catchy slogans and political gimmicks. For instance, before the 1988 elections every other wall in the country was chalked with the slogan “Zalimo! Qazi a’a raha hai” (Oh oppressors! Qazi is approaching). In 1990 the election symbol of IJI (right wing multi-party alliance of which JI was a part) was bicycle. During election campaign, Qazi led bicycle rallies in various cities by riding a bicycle himself. However, a moulvi wearing shalwar and Jinnah cap with his beard swaying in the breeze while paddling bicycle hardly looked attractive to the general public of Pakistan, which has strong tendency towards the personality cult. In 1997, Qazi launched a nationwide campaign to expand the party membership, which was now open for almost everyone.

However, despite all efforts by Qazi to win popularity in the masses, the JI failed to make an impressive show in each election that it participated in, with the exception of one held in 2002 in which the leadership of both mainstream parties viz PPP and PML-N were forced to stay out of the scene by General Pervaiz Musharaf.

JI has a significant influence in Pakistan’s domestic politics due to its strong representation in the media, ability to show street power and its connection with both the security establishment and militant outfits. However, as far as its vote bank is concerned, it remains on the lower side. The main reason inter alia could be that the JI carries a tag of Deobandi Islam, which majority of Pakistani’s population is not the follower of. The other major reason is that although general public in Pakistan is very narrow minded and conservative in its religious outlook; yet it is very liberal and secular when it comes to personal life style. It wishes death on ‘Kafir’ (infidel) India; but cannot stop watching Indian movies. It likes to hate the USA with a passion; but has a similar passion for an Americanized way of living.

Mutation of JI

Both Pakistan’s establishment and JI have been realizing the need of a front organization with a moderate semblance for quite some time now, which has the potential to win popularity in the masses. This desire is reflected in JI’s creation of Pasban in the early 1990s. Its name was changed to Shabab-e-Milli when Pasban was banned in 1995 after its involvement in violent acts by the then government of Nawaz Sharif. Apparently these were independent organizations; yet it was but too obvious that they were JI protégés. The public postures of these organizations were more of a Pakistani nationalist than Islamic. To arouse public enthusiasm, patriotic songs were played with music in Pasban’s rallies, which was against the traditional JI culture. Cricket world cup victory of 1992 was celebrated by Pasban all over Pakistan by holding Junaid Jamshaid’s Pepsi-Pakistan music shows. Pasban was publicized in all possible ways. It, however, lacked a leader possessing magnetism necessary to attract the general public. Both the JI and Pakistan’s deep state were looking for a charismatic character like Jinnah and (Z.A) Bhutto, who had a glitz of the Western culture and a mindset of an Islamist. One senior JI member, who had previously been the Nazim (head) of IJT at the Punjab University namely Hafeez ullah Niazi effectively solved this problem by finding the right person for this job. He happened to be the brother-in-law of cricket’s super star, male sex symbol and Casanova of International repute, Imran Khan.

JI’s early nurturing of Imran

It was easy for Hafeez Ullah to preach Maudaudi’s Islamic ideology to Imran, who, after overly enjoying the best of this world was seeking the same for the other too. Imran retired from cricket first time in 1987, after his team’s defeat in world cup’s semi final at Lahore, but reversed his decision at the insistence of General Zia ul Haq. After winning the world cup of 1992 as captain of Pakistan’s cricket team he attained the status of a national hero, after which he finally hung up his cricket shoes. A series of articles written by Imran from 1987 to 1992, in which he criticized the Western culture and British Empire and emphasized on promotion of one’s own Islamic-Nationalistic identity, reflected a deep influence of JI’s brainwashing. The JI got hold of Imran in the early stages of his reversion to his native culture.

Imran, who wished to remain in the public eye even after retiring from cricket, started building a non-profit cancer hospital in Lahore. Pasban helped him in organizing the fund raising campaign for this purpose, after Punjab government of Nawaz Sharif donated free land for the proposed project. Here an event exposed yet another traditional hypocritical double standard of the JI. Since the mid 1980s, Pakistani artists had been performing in shows in India. In return, a few event organizers and show biz promoters in Pakistan tried to invite Indian artists to perform in Pakistan too. However, those proposed events had to be cancelled due to vociferous threats by Pasban to forcibly stop any such programs. But, when in 1995, Imran invited Indian movie stars such as Rekha, Vinod Khana, Sonu Walia, Kabir Bedi etc to perform in Lahore for the fund raising for his hospital, Pasban did not object to it even a bit. Similarly, JI has always been doing character assassination of its rivals, by finding faults in their personal lives. For instance, in 1970s the JI targeted “un-Islamic life style” of Z.A. Bhutto. In public speeches and slogans in rallies; it called Bhutto “sharabi” and “za’ni” (buzzer and adulterer). However, Imran’s colorful life and his established love-child never bothered the JI. In the case of Bhutto, however, the JI went so below the dignity as to allege that his mother was a Hindu. When in 1994 the critic of Western culture and British aristocracy, Imran married a lady from British Jewish elitist back ground, it did not raise JI’s eyebrow.

Making of PTI under JI’s fostering

There is little doubt about it that PTI is a hybrid of JI and the security establishment in general and its strong Jihadist segment in particular. Imran’s links with the JI are too obvious. Initially Qazi deployed expert campaign designers of JI, Mansoor Siddiqui (creator of “Zalimo….” slogan for Qazi), Shams Raza Khan and Mohammad Ali Durrani along with two of the founding members of Pasban, Shabeer Sial and Mahmood ul Raheed (elected as member of the Punjab Assembly on JI/IJI ticket in 1988), to help Imran organize his campaign for 1997 election. The JI itself boycotted that election. Shabeer Sial later served PTI as its president of Lahore, while Mahmood ul Rasheed presently holds this position.

Ejaz Chaudhry, Vice President and Incharge Youth Affairs of PTI, considered to be the closest adviser to Imran, is an ex-JI man and son-in-law of Madudi’s immediate JI successor, Mian Tufail Muhammad. Another VP of PTI Abdul Hafeez Khan too is an ex-IJT Nazim (head) of Punjab University.

Since its inception till present day, the governing body of PTI has been overly populated by ex-members or sympathizers of the JI. Usually two parties develop rivalry, if members of one are snatched by the other. However, PTI and the JI are hand in hand together as JI members left the JI and joined PTI on the behest of JI, under an orchestrated infiltration of an up and coming party. Not only was Imran quick to forgive IJT when its workers manhandled him at the Punjab University in Nov. 2007; but the person he appointed as Chief of PTI’s student wing (ISF), Ehsan Niazi, is also an ex-IJT man. Therefore, the students running from IJT because of its hoodlumism and joining ISF will once again find themselves under an ex-IJT man.

As elections draw near, the growing popularity of PTI will attract opportunists from all political backgrounds. However, PTI will most likely retain its core group that has JI’s ideology deep seated in its heart and mind.

PTI connections with the Jihadists

During 1995-1996, just before the launching of PTI, Imran had numerous meetings with General Hamid Gul. On one’s reviewing leading news papers of that time, one finds them full of speculations that Imran and Gul were jointly launching a party to provide alternative leadership to those fed up with bipartisan politics. It did not happen after all, probably to avoid exposure of Imran’s close links with former members of the security establishment who were still close to Jihadi outfits.
However, Lt. General Mujeeb-ul-Rehman, who had served as secretary information during Zia-ul-Haq’s regime and said to have close links with the security establishment and Gul Hameed, was one of the founding members of PTI who went on to become its secretary general. Presently one of the central PTI leaders, Ahmad Awais is Gul Hameed’s nephew (one who lost Supreme Court bar election to Asma Jahangir).

In 1997, soon after the launching of PTI, Imran Khan toured Chechnya where, for one week, he was the guest of Mujahideen rebel Leader Aslan Maskhadov, who would later in 1999 go on to institute full sharia law in Chechnya and who was at that time the President of Chechnya.

The soft or apologetic stance of PTI on the Taliban issue is also a well known fact. Imran has been opposing Military operations against the Taliban and trying to justify the Taliban movement as “Pushtoon nationalist resistance against occupation forces.” He is also on record defending Taliban’s way of ‘justice’. He has been one voice with Islamist parties on the issues of war on terror, drone attacks, Aafia Siddiqui, Raymod Davis etc.

Imran’s right hand man Ejaz Chaudhry has close links with fanatic sectarian organizations like Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP aka LeJ). Recently, he was one of the speakers at their seminar on Usman-e-Ghani Martyrdom Day at the Lahore Press Club on Nov 15, 2011. He actively participated in the rallies of another extremist organization Aalmi Majlis-e-Tahaffuz-e-Khatem-e-Nabuwat (AMTKN), notorious for its extreme hatred and incitement to violence against Ahmadiyya minority. Ejaz Chaudhry took the podium at a rally held by AMTKN in favor of Mumtaz Qadri (the self-confessed killer of Salman Taseer) “where he declared that he speaks for Imran Khan when he says that 295 C is a settled matter in Pakistan and is a godly law that no one should dare touch”. His discourse on alleged involvement of the CIA and RAW in the PNS Mehran attack is identical to TTP-SSP-LeJ-JI rhetoric.

When in Nov 2007 Imran was arrested protesting against the declaration of emergency by Gen. Musharaf and detained in D.I. Khan Jail, then TTP’s President Baitullah Mehsud threatened Pakistan government that Taliban would blow-up the D.I. Khan Jail if Imran was not released in 24 hours. His statement appeared in all leading news papers. Imran actually did get released by GOP within 24 hours of Mehsud’s statement. Later on Oct 02, 2008 when Baitullah Mehsud made a public appearance in South Waziristan, the local president of PTI Toofan Burki garlanded him and put a traditional pagri (turban) upon his head.

Shireen Mazari (also known as Lady Taliban), the Spokesperson and Adviser on Foreign Affairs for PTI, is a paranoid anti-US and anti Indian academic. She is a female version of Hamid Gul and Zaid Hamid for her advocacy of conspiracy theories in the media. She writes a regular column for the website run by Ahmed Quraishi who being a close soul brother of Zaid Hamid gives him a run for his money in promoting baseless conspiracy theories to blame atrocities and actions of the Taliban on others. Currently they are blaming the Rabbani’s assassination on the CIA and RAW. Quraishi is also infamous for promoting the faked wikileaks cables, getting caught out in that scam. Hosted on that website it is no surprise that she has been pushing the conspiracy theory of the involvement of CIA and/or RAW in attacks on Mehran base, which is contrary to the finding of slain journalist Saleem Shahzad, who exposed the involvement Al-Qaida and its secret cell in Navy in that whole episode – a revelation that cost him his life.

Shireen Mazari is said to have close connections with the security establishment. She is a regular lecturer at the National Defense College (NDC); where her specialized subject is Islamic ideology. If the curriculum of the ‘educational revolution’ that Imran Khan is talking about to bring in Pakistan, is going to be designed by likes of Mazari, then our schools will produce more Taliban than even madrasas could do.

Will PTI deliver?

In his most-talked-about recent rally in Lahore, Imran Khan said nothing new; but pushed the single-point thesis of the establishment in which the entire problems of the country are attributed to the corruption of the politicians. This is the agitprop that the deep state of Pakistan has been amplifying through media since restoration of the democratic system in 1988 and on the pretext of which many elected governments were dismissed half way through their mandated period to rule the country during the 1990’s. Imran Khan only strengthened the belief of a common man that corruption of politicians really is the actual cause of all his miseries, which is only a quarter of the truth. The hyperbole of this overstatement has always been aimed at playing down and concealing the root cause of the country’s actual distress, which in fact is the jingoism and martial plans of our establishment, eating up the country’s limited resources. Also, bigot Mullah, is the other big obstacle in nation’s progress. Imran Khan represents the elements responsible for these evils. This disparate nation is once again seeking remedy of its problems from the source of the problems itself. If Imran Khan now has the cure of the problems of the country, then the JI always had it. In that case people of Pakistan have been fools not to have ever elected the JI to power.

[The above post is also available at: http://communalism.blogspot.in/2012/04/pakistan-good-looking-jamaat-e-islami.html]

=======================================
3. PAKISTAN: HRCP FOR END TO CONFRONTATION
=======================================

Posted: 26 Apr 2012 04:54 AM PDT

Lahore, April 26: While commenting on the Supreme Court verdict in the contempt case against the Prime Minister, the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) has called for an end to confrontation between the state organs. In a statement issued today the commission said:

“While it is gratifying to note that the Supreme Court held its hand while sentencing Prime Minister Gilani, nobody can be happy that matters came to the point that the head of an elected government was convicted of and sentenced for contempt of court and that the court could not avoid making its decision controversial. That the situation resulted from the maximal and rigid positions taken by the two essential pillars of the state – the executive and the judiciary – can only be regretted. The executive earned no credit by apparently defying the apex court’s orders, which must be accepted even when they do not seem to be correct or sound, and only time will tell what cause has been promoted by the judiciary by belabouring the executive, out of the hundreds of issues on which it is liable to be chastised, on the issue of its own contempt. ‘The tendency to treat what is legally permissible as mandatory needs to be reviewed and greater reliance placed on the principle that all institutions must work not only within their constitutional limits but also adopt policies and postures that strengthen each other. Unfortunately the matter between the state institutions does not look like ending soon. It is hardly necessary to point out that Pakistan needs both justice and democracy in ample measure and that justice without democracy will be as inadequate a dispensation as democracy without justice. The people who have been kept on tenterhooks for week after week only wish to see the end of a confrontation that is looking more and more ungainly. They must not be disappointed.

 (Zohra Yusuf)
Chairperson

=======================================
4. INDIA: "WE CONDEMN THE ATTEMPT OF BODIES LIKE DEOBAND TO ENCROACH ON OUR ACADEMIC SPACE" - PRESS STATEMENT
=======================================
(i) http://www.sacw.net/article2662.html

27 April 2012

Resist the Climate of Intimidation in Academics

It is a matter of deep distress that a threat from Darul Uloom Deoband has forced Prabha Parmar , a research scholar at the Chaudhary Charan Singh University to change the topic of her post-doctoral research: Use of magic and realism in the major novels of Salman Rushdie,Amitav Ghosh and Vikram Seth. Taking strong exception to the UGC's decision to award a post-doctoral fellowship to the scholar on a topic that included Rushdie’s writings, Darul Uloom Deoband demanded “immediate remedial steps to correct the high impropriety.” Terming the award an act of ‘glorification’ of Salman Rushdie, the seminary asked for the writer to be blacklisted and for the award to be cancelled with immediate effect.

The atmosphere of fear and intimidation created by this statement led Meerut University to cancel the fellowship. Later the scholar withdrew her research proposal.

This is yet another assault on the space of scholarship and free enquiry which represents the essential character of a university. In recent months there have been many instances of academic institutions succumbing to threats issued by religious and sectarian bodies and withdrawing texts and films or modifying syllabi or curricula to please them. The point at issue is not the controversial nature of the text, because freely debating such texts is the very purpose of intellectual inquiry. Rather, the crucial point is the climate of intimidation and the thinly-disguised threat of violence that informs the language of those making such demands. They constantly remind us that their sentiments are inflamed enough to spark off bloodshed. They crush the spirit of inquiry by intimidating those who disagree with them. They assume the fake title of representatives of this or that community to enforce their claims. And our spineless authorities allow them to do this with impunity. This time it is the Deoband ulema who have claimed yet another academic victim.

We condemn the attempt of bodies like Deoband to encroach on our academic space. It is time for all Indian academicians and intellectuals who believe in the freedom of thought to firmly defend our right to free enquiry and the pursuit of knowledge. We appeal to Meerut University and the UGC to stand by the scholar and encourage her to pursue her research on a topic of her choice.

1.      Aditya Nigam, CSDS

2.      Amlan Dasgupta, Jadavpur Unv

3.      Aniket Alam, Senior Assistant Editor, Economic and Political Weekly.

4.      Anita Cherian

5.      Apoorvanand , Professor, DU

6.      Arma Ansari, ANHAD

7.      Arshad Ajmal, Sahulat, delhi

8.      Asha Bhagat

9.      Ashok Vajpeyi, poet, writer

10.  Biraj Patnaik, Right To Food campaign

11.  Dhruva Narayan, Managing Editor, Daanish Books

12.  Dilip Simeon

13.  Furqan Qamar, VC Central Unv of Himachal Pradesh

14.  Gauhar Raza, scientist, poet

15.  Gautam Bhan

16.  Harsh kapoor

17.  Irfan Khalifa, television journalist

18.  Ishwar Dost , Asst. Prof., CSSEIP, Goa University.

19.  J Devika, Centre for development studies, Trivandrum, Kerala.

20.  Jairus Banaji

21.  Jamal Kidwai

22.  Jyoti Punwani

23.  Jyotirmay Sharma

24.  Kausar Wizarat

25.  Kavita Panjabi, Fellow, Indian Institute of Advanced Studies, Shimla

26.  Kavita Srivastava, PUCL National Secretary

27.  Khairunnisa Pathan, Parwaaj

28.  Khurshid Anwar

29.  Mahmood Farooqui, Dastango

30.  Mahtab Alam, civil rights activist and journalist

31.  Manoj Mitta, Journalist 

32.  Mary E John,

33.  Mehtab Alam

34.  Moinak Biswas

35.  Momin Latif

36.  Mukul Sharma, Writer and Researcher

37.  Musab Iqbal, Editor, newzfirst.com

38.  Naseem Mansuri, Niswan

39.  Naseem Shaikh, Niswan

40.  Nasiruddin Haider Khan, Journalist

41.  Naveen Kishore

42.  Nayanjot Lahiri, professor, DU

43.  Nilanjana Gupta, Professor of English, Jadavpur University, Kolkata

44.  Nirantar, Resource Centre for Gender & Education

45.  Nivedita Menon, JNU

46.  Noorjahan Ansari, Niswan

47.  Noorjahan Diwan, ANHAD

48.  omair anas
,cwas/sis jnu

49.  Parthasarthi Bahumik, Jadavpur Unv

50.  Prof Rama Kant Agnihotri (Rtd., Univ of Delhi)

51.  Purwa Bharadwaj

52.  Ramchandra Guha

53.  Rehana Qureshi, Nyayagrah

54.  Rohan D'Souza

55.  S.Irfan Habib, historian

56.  Satya Shivaramn

57.  Satish Deshpande, DSE, DU

58.  Semeen  Ali

59.  Shabnam Hashmi, social activist, Anhad

60.  Shakeel Shaikh, Ahmedabad

61.  Shamina Diwan, Parwaaj

62.  Sharifa Chhipa, Niswan

63.  Sheba george, Sahr waru, Gujarat

64.  Shivam vij, journalist, delhi

65.  Shuddhabrata Sengupta, artist/writer

66.  Sohail Hashmi, Writer, Film Makerli

67.  Sucheta Bhattacharjee

68.  Usman Shaikh, Nyayagrah

69.  Waqar Qazi, Social Activist, Anhad, Gujarat

70.  Zafar Syed, banker, Mumbai

o o o 

(ii) On intimidation of the academia - this time by the Deobandi Ulema (Dilip Simeon)

Dear friends, this is a note I've written on the latest act of academic intimidation - this time by the Deobandi Ulema.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2135170/Deoband-heat-forces-university-scrap-paper-controversial-author-Salman-Rushdie.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

NB: Over the past four months, the Deoband Ulema has contributed to the climate of intolerance and religious bigotry in India. First by opposing Rushdie's presence at the Jaipur Literature Festival, and now by sabotaging a perfectly legitimate subject for research. In the first instance they succeeded by riding on the backs of various hooligans disguised as 'Muslim leaders', and now by presenting themselves as the self-appointed representatives of 'hurt sentiment' - that tried and tested weapon of communal politicians of all colours. (Witness the hue and cry over AK Ramanujan's Many Ramayanas). They want Rushdies work to be excluded from bona-fide literary research, even if the research does not explicitly take up The Satanic Verses. In Jaipur, there were threats of violence - with talk of 'rivers of blood' etc. The Ulema ought to have condemned such statements in clear and explicit terms, but we did not hear of it. We only heard of their sentiments. After this precedent, the Deoband Ulema can continue dictating our research programmes indefinitely.

By any sensible standard of reasoning, to research something does not imply 'glorification'. If I study various versions of the Ramayana, this does not imply that I'm glorifying this or that version. If I study the bombardment of Hiroshima, this does not mean I approve of atomic warfare. The study of Mein Kampf does not imply an admiration of Adolf Hitler. If I read Golwalkar's or VD Savarkar's writings, it does not follow that I sympathise with the RSS. Studying Pol Pot does not make the researcher a proponent of genocide. The Deoband Ulema should reflect on the damage they are doing to the very basis of academic research by citing 'hurt sentiment' to oppose a legitimate literary research programme.

It's ironic that in India today we can study the ideas of mass murderers, Nazis, fascists, racists, imperialists, communalists etc etc., but Deoband will not let us study Rushdie. Wonderful! I suggest the Ulema examine the compatibility of their religious norms and sentiments with the brutal treatment of Asiya Bibi, a worker and mother of five children, condemned to hang on mere hearsay; and the acquittal of the men who assaulted Mukhtar Mai. The intellectuals of Deoband need to understand that by raising such issues repeatedly, they contribute to the fascist degeneration of the Indian polity - Dilip

http://dilipsimeon.blogspot.in/2012/04/academic-research-on-rushdies-literary.html

=======================================
5. INDIA: THE DECLINE IN THE CHILD SEX RATIO - DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE NAC WORKING GROUP
=======================================

Government of India
National Advisory Council

20th April, 2012

The decline in the child sex ratio (0-6 years), as reported by the Census of India, from 945 in 1991 to 927 in 2001 and further to 914 females per 1,000 males in 2011 - the lowest since independence - is cause for alarm and urgency. The situation has worsened, despite the existence of a law
banning the use of medical diagnostic technology for sex selection., several cash incentive schemes, and some mass media messages on the issue.
Taking note of this development, the NAC constituted a Working Group of its Members on the subject. The NAC Working Group held three national consultations on different aspects of this issue.
---

To download the draft recommendations of the Working Group.
(English Version http://nac.nic.in/pdf/gsr_draft.pdf> )
Comments may be sent to the Convenors of the Working Group of NAC by 6th May, 2012 by email at [image: wgs-gsr[at]nac[dot]nic[dot]in]

or by post to
Secretary,
National Advisory Council
2 Moti Lal Nehru Place,
Akbar Road, New Delhi -110011.

=======================================
6. INDIA: CLIMATE OF TOUCHINESS AUGURS ILL FOR INDIA
by Palash Krishna Mehrotra
=======================================
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/climate-of-touchiness-or-new-hypersensitivity-in-india/1/185534.html

New Delhi, April 22, 2012 | UPDATED 11:07 IST

Mamata's West Bengal is getting itself a reputation. First, a political scientist was imprisoned for the cardinal crime of sharing cartoons of the CM on Facebook.

A few days later, the West Bengal Board of Censorship banned posters of the film, Hate Story. One poster, deemed to be 'obscene and provocative', featured the bare back of an actress with a pistol dangling in the foreground.

The ban was upheld by the Calcutta High Court; six other posters of the film were passed, provided the image of the back was blotted with blue ink. Vivek Agnihotri, the bewildered director of the film, is on record saying: "I'm surprised by the choice of blue ink over black. I guess these people had 'blue' film on their minds or maybe blue ink is cheaper".

Phenomenon

But this column is not about Mamata's Bengal, though her state has been at the forefront of this 'movement' I call The New Hypersensitivity. As we speak, her crack team is busy infiltrating social networking sites, looking for images and content that lampoon the leader. The Congress too banned The Red Sari, a novel, for it was felt that it portrayed the Supreme Leader, in a bad light. Peter Heehs was kept on tenterhooks for his visa - one of several examples of our intolerance, in this case, regarding Sri Aurobindo. The Indian government has repeatedly asked sites like YouTube to remove 'objectionable content', and backed it with the threat that in case of noncompliance, it will ask the sites to relocate their servers to India, a move that will enable the government to exercise tighter control.

The New Hypersensitivity is everywhere. It seems that our touchiness is directly proportionate to economic liberalisation. The more liberalised the economy gets, the more hypersensitive we are to remarks about our lives. At this rate, our touchiness will go through the roof once third generation reforms are introduced. Thankfully, according to Kaushik Basu, such reforms are not due until 2014; we can rest easily for the time being - our sensitivity levels should remain stable for now.

Ironically, in this climate of touchiness, the Gujarat CM, Narendra Modi, has emerged as an unlikely beacon of liberalism, both economic and moral. Modi has not bothered about what venom people are spewing against him on Facebook and other social networking sites. He has not gone on a banning spree. Maybe he is too thick skinned to bother about caricatures and cartoons and limericks - and that is the way it should be. It's a lesson other Indian politicians can learn from him.

On a serious note, the New Hypersensitivity raises some important questions about the kind of people we are. What are the implications for writers, artists, musicians, filmmakers and academics that live and work in a society like ours? Are we really touchy as a people, more so than other societies?

To start with the last question first, I don't think we are touchier than people elsewhere. In a country of a billion plus, where we are all fighting for scarce resources, does the ordinary person have the time to be prickly? I doubt it. This constant struggle- whether to find good schools for our children, or a flat to live in, or a water or gas connection, makes us selfish, loud, aggressive, and insensitive to the needs of others. The facts of our circumstance and environment affect our personalities, both collective and personal, but it doesn't really make us insecure about our religion or community. To put it bluntly: we simply don't have the time.

The argument from sentiment, that the 'sentiments of a community' have been hurt (though in Oxford I was taught that the word 'feelings' is more appropriate than 'sentiments'), is more a ploy used by cynical politicians to extract political mileage, or as in the case of Mamata, to protect their own image. And if it's not politicians, it's very often a crank somewhere, most often a crazy mofussil advocate, who decides that his sentiments have been mauled, and the media then duly follows, blowing it up into a national controversy, like with the Shilpa Shetty-Richard Gere kiss. On paper, it looks like an entire community or nation is up in arms because 'Indian values have been transgressed', but in reality it is only one crank who is making an inordinate amount of noise. Our laws are faulty - how can a man be imprisoned for sharing a cartoon? How can some random individual somewhere be powerful enough to throw a spanner in the works of a filmmaker? It seems too easy - filing a case in a lower court in a far-flung town is good enough to make life difficult for the creative person.

Rules

At this stage, it might be useful to move the debate from the general to the specific. Let's talk about what this climate of touchiness means for creative individuals, with particular reference to obscenity.

For one, those of us who are involved in creative pursuits don't know what the rules are. This makes it confusing, for we don't know what's acceptable and what is not. There are no fixed rules which this society has evolved over the years. What was passed by the censor board in 1970 is suddenly not acceptable in 2012. What is obscene one Monday is not obscene the next Monday. Instead of having a debate and fixing things once and for all, we change our minds every week. We are not sure if we're moving forward in time or backwards. There isn't any pattern to our collective morality.

Let's take the example of books and obscenity in the Western context. The decision by Allan Lane, Penguin's founder, to publish an unexpurgated edition of the previously banned Lady Chatterley's Lover, provoked intense debates about obscenity. Maurice Girodias, whose father had published the likes of Henry Miller, started Olympia Press in 1953, in order to publish books in English that couldn't be published in America or England because of censorship.

Contrast

Those were conservative times; when Norman Mailer's Naked And The Dead came out in America, his publisher replaced the f- word with fug, all the way through the book. From Nabakov's Lolita to Donleavy's The Ginger Man to Burroughs' Naked Lunch , Girodias set a standard by publishing books in English in Paris long before their authors could publish them in US. A seminal movie on Allan Ginsberg's epic poem 'Howl', starring James Franco, provides us with a glimpse into the protracted court case fought by his publishers against charges of obscenity.

Where the West is different from us is that the issue of obscenity was sorted out after these trials. Western society had moved on permanently. Unlike us, it wasn't going to spend the next few decades in déjà vu mode, revisiting the same old issues. We need to fix the limits of our morality in cement and concrete.

Every time a cartoon comes out, or a film poster is splashed all over a city, we cannot start wondering what is obscene and what offensive. Given the current climate, I'd rather be a cartoonist in North Korea, or a filmmaker in Iran, where there is little freedom, but at least the boundaries are etched in jagged glass. Clarity is better than confusion, and oppression more preferable to watery freedoms.

- The writer's new book The Butterfly Generation was published recently.


Read more at: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/climate-of-touchiness-or-new-hypersensitivity-in-india/1/185534.html


=======================================
7. INDIA: PETITION: JUSTICE FOR BATHANI TOLA
=======================================
Please sign and circulate:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/justice-for-bathani-tola/

"One of the survivors of the Bathani Tola massacre who lost six members of his family, responding to the acquittal by the Bihar HC, asked, “Who, then, killed 21 people that day?” We, the undersigned, believe that the entire country and our system of justice, owes the people of Bathani Tola an answer to that question. And we write to you in the hope that the Supreme Court will correct the deep injustice to victims and survivors of Bathani Tola, and will take all possible measures to ensure that the perpetrators of this and other heinous massacres of the poor and oppressed in Bihar are tried and convicted."

=======================================
8. USA: NO CHANGE IN VISA POLICY ON NARENDRA MODI
=======================================
From: ibnlive.in

CNN-IBN

New Delhi: The US has has said there is no change in its visa policy with regard to Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi. "Our position on the visa issue hasn't changed at all," State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland told reporters at her daily news conference on Wednesday.

Nuland was responding to questions on the letter written by Congressman Joe Walsh to the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, that the US Government reverse its 2005 decision not to issue a US visa to Modi.

Congress leader Salman Khurshid said, "US must have looked at all their policy details. It is not for us to comment but it is sad for the country that a Chief Minister of one of the leading states is thought of so poorly. He should reflect upon it."

The letter by Walsh was written about a fortnight ago. "If we do respond, it ll be along familiar lines," Nuland said.

In a statement, the Indian American Muslim community demanded the State Department should not change its 2005 policy on Modi's visa.


INTERNATIONAL
=======================================
9. TUNISIA: SALAFIS CALL FOR DEATH OF TUNISIAN TV BOSS AFTER "PERSEPOLIS" AIRING
=======================================
(Reuters, Al-Akhbar)

21-04-2012

Secularists have accused Salafi radicals of attacking free speech in Tunisia, as a court said it will issue on May 3 its verdict in a blasphemy trial against Nessma TV over its broadcast of the award-winning film "Persepolis."

The broadcast prompted calls by Salafi Islamists for the station chief to be put to death.

The trial of Nabil Karoui, who faces charges of violating sacred values and disturbing public order by showing the animated movie, resumed amid tight security on Thursday.

Dozens of conservative Salafi Islamists gathered outside the courthouse, some waving black flags inscribed with Islamic verses and placards calling for Karoui's execution.

"Persepolis" is based on an account of a woman growing up in Iran under religious rule following the 1979 Islamic revolution.

Its broadcast ahead of the country's elections in October was seen by many as an attack on the moderate Islamist Ennahda party that went on to win Tunisia's first vote after last year's revolution sparked the Arab Spring uprisings.

Some religious Tunisians were also angered by a scene which they said contravened an Islamic ban on depictions of God.

The trial has pit the religious right against Tunisia's secularist elite, which has denounced the trial as an attack on free expression and accused Salafis of seeking to turn back the clock in a Mediterranean nation known for its moderation.

Salafis, jailed and persecuted under Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali, have become more assertive since last year's uprising ousted the dictator from power.

"Free expression is on trial in Tunisia after the revolution and this poses a danger to Tunisians who call for the right to express themselves without permission from religious leaders," Karoui told reporters on Thursday.

"I hope that we can turn a page on this once and for all and return calmly to work at Nessma."

Tunisian prosecutors launched their inquiry after members of the public filed complaints over Nessma's airing of the film.

Prosecution lawyers argued that there should be limits to freedom of expression and that the airing of the film was an attack on religious sensibilities.

The charges against Karoui carry a three-year jail term but observers said it was unlikely he would be incarcerated as the case appeared weak and a tough sentence would stir controversy in Tunisia, where political tensions are running high.

"The judiciary was used in Ben Ali's day to attack freedom of expression and we hope that it will not be used now to attack freedoms but to protect them," said Radhia Nasraoui, a human rights lawyer who is part of the defense team for Nessma.

Amnesty International called on Wednesday for the charges against Karoui to be dropped, echoing demands by secular politicians who have defended Nessma throughout the trial.

"A trial over a film damages the image of Tunisia abroad," said Nejib Chebbi, a veteran secular politician. 

http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/salafis-call-death-tunisian-tv-boss-after-persepolis-airing 

=======================================
10. MOROCCAN MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD PM REFUSES TO TALK WITH FEMALE BELGIAN MINISTER
=======================================
http://pointdebasculecanada.ca/actualites/10002604-moroccan-muslim-brotherhood-pm-refuses-to-talk-with-female-belgian-minister.html

Point de Bascule on 25 Avril 2012. 

Abdelilah Benkiran does not seem to conceive that a foreign government could send a female representative to talk with him. During the whole meeting he talked strictly with Belgian minister of Foreign Affairs Didier Reynders and refused to speak with the Belgian minister of Justice.

Original French version HERE : http://blogs.rtl.be/carnetpolitique/quand-le-premier-ministre-marocain-snobbe-annemie-turtelboom-a-la-limite-de-lincident-diplomatique/

English translation by Point de Bascule


Fabrice Grofilley (RTLinfo.be – April 25, 2012): Moroccan PM snubs Annemie Turtelboom and almost provokes a diplomatic incident (Quand le premier ministre marocain snobe Annemie Turtelboom, à la limite de l’incident diplomatique)

Rabat (Morocco) – April 11, 2012

On that day the Moroccan Prime minister, Abdelilah Benkiran, received in audience Didier Reynders, Belgian minister of Foreign Affairs and Annemie Turtelboom, minister of Justice. Both Belgians got a cold reception.

Abdelilah Benkiran does not seem to conceive that a foreign government could send a female representative to talk with him. During the whole meeting, he talked strictly with Didier Reynders. Worse, the Moroccan PM explained to his visitor that he speaks French very well and that it was “useless to bring an interpreter with him”. The message is clear: I do not speak with a woman. Annemie Turtelboom could not believe it. All the dossiers she is responsible of (and they are not light ones: equality between men and women, forced marriages, return of convicted prisoners in their home country) were eventually tackled by Didier Reynders. Facing them, the Moroccan held to his prayer beads during the whole meeting.

After the meeting, Annemie Turtelboom was furious. If Didier Reynders had not been there and if she had not feared to provoke a major diplomatic incident, she would have left and slammed the door, she said.

The anecdote is significant. Abdelilah Benkiran is a member of the Justice and Development Party, the Islamist party that won the last elections. In the last few days, he even criticized the Moroccan king, Mohammed VI, something never seen before. “The Arab Spring is not over yet. It is still here and could well come back”, he said according to Reuters.

Two weeks after the incident, the Belgian side has not done anything yet. Annemie Turtelboom’s spokesperson now claims that the Moroccan PM was joking around and that he ended up apologizing. Unofficially though, those who told me the anecdote are not sure that these apologies were expressed.


========================================
11. UK: DON’T BAN ALCOHOL — WE'LL GET BLAME, SAY MUSLIM STUDENTS
by Anna Davis
======================================== 
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/london/dont-ban-alcohol--well-get-blame-say-muslim-students-7660654.html

London Evening Standard

Drink row: Syed Rumman, opposes proposals for a ban on alcohol in parts of London Metropolitan University

"Why are we not banning pork from the canteen as well?" - Syed Rumman

Anna Davis, Education Correspondent

19 April 2012

Muslim students at a university considering banning alcohol from parts of its campus have hit out at the plan — fearing they will be blamed for the move.

Students at London Metropolitan University said banning alcohol in the name of Muslims will cause tension on campus, divide the community, and could be exploited by far-Right groups such as the English Defence League.

Malcolm Gillies, Vice Chancellor of London Met, has said he might stop alcohol being served in parts of the university because some religious students view it as “immoral”.

But Syed Rumman, vice president of the Student Union, warned that any ban would be “catastrophic”.

Mr Rumman, who is a Muslim, said: “I do not drink, but it doesn’t mean that I will deprive another student from having alcohol.”

He added: “It is unethical, catastrophic and it will isolate Muslims further in society. This will go against the ethos of London Met where students are so diverse but also socialise together. Students who do drink will resent Muslims. It will divide the student body. We must not allow this to become a religious issue. Muslim students never asked for this ban.”

The debate began after a decision was made to close The Hub, a student bar on the university’s Aldgate campus.

Mr Rumman, originally from Bangladesh, is leading a campaign for it to be replaced with another licensed venue. He said: “If the university wants to ban alcohol it should be because of its own agenda, it should not include religions. If this is all about religious beliefs then why are we not banning pork from the canteen as well?

“Some Muslim students do drink, but none eat pork. And most of our international students come from India and do not eat beef.”

Claire Locke, Student Union president, said: “In all the time I have been here I have never heard of a student who wanted alcohol-free zones. It is completely ridiculous.

“Some of our Muslim students drink and some don’t. Because we are a metropolitan university we are tolerant of other people’s cultures.

“It is quite dangerous to be making these assumptions about students especially when Islamophobia is a big problem in the community. Groups like the EDL will jump on something like this and use it for their own ends.”

In an open letter, Ellie May, president of the university’s Unite Against Fascism Society, said: “We believe that the Vice Chancellor’s comments are insensitive and dangerous, provoking hostilities among students and the wider community.” Speaking to the Evening Standard, Professor Gillies said that about 30 per cent of London students do not drink alcohol. He added: “Nobody is talking about banning alcohol. We are talking about the ways we use space.

“We are interested in catering for all of our students. London Met talks about being a university for the whole community. We are not interested in catering for 60 per cent, we want to cater for 100 per cent so students feel as comfortable as possible.”

=======================================
12. USA: MISSISSIPPI LAW MAY FORCE ITS LAST SURVIVING ABORTION CLINIC TO SHUT
by Rupert Cornwell 
=======================================
(The Independent, UK)

Republican bill could end abortions in state, despite 1973 Roe v Wade Supreme Court ruling

Wednesday 18 April 2012

Mississippi has become the latest Republican-run US state to bring in tough new anti-abortion legislation, which could shut down its one remaining clinic offering the procedure and thus effectively end abortions in the state.

Signing the measure this week, Governor Phil Bryant called it a major step to "ensure the lives of the born and unborn are protected". For pro-choice advocates however, the step directly threatens a woman's basic right to an abortion, enshrined in the US Supreme Court's historic Roe v. Wade ruling of 1973.

Under Mississippi's new law, all doctors at abortion clinics must be state-registered obstetrician-gynaecologists, who can send a patient to a local hospital in the event of complications. But almost all the physicians at the clinic, in the capital Jackson, are from outside Mississippi and its owner, Diane Derzis, warned last week if the law went into effect, the clinic could be forced to close.

Mississippi's move is further proof that 40 years after the landmark Supreme Court decision, abortion is as polarising an issue as ever, and one set to feature in November's election that pits a Democratic president committed to abortion rights against near-certain Republican nominee Mitt Romney, who has called for Roe v. Wade to be overturned.

Roe v. Wade's fate of course depends not on the politicians, but on the country's highest court. However the latter has turned markedly to the right over the last few decades. Although the conservative majority of justices has stopped short of overturning the 1973 ruling, based on the right of privacy contained in the US Constitution, a string of narrower rulings have chipped at its edges.

Last week, Arizona became the seventh state since 2010 to pass a measure all but outlawing abortions after 20 weeks, based on the five-month "fetal pain" principle. According to Arizona governor Jan Brewer, the Women's Health and Safety Act, "recognises the precious life of the pre-born baby".

Proponents insist the 20-week cut-off point does not apply in medical emergencies, but according to the pro-choice Center for Reproductive Rights, women at risk of complications "will be forced to decide whether to proceed with their pregnancies in the dark, before they have the information they need".

In a separate move to make an abortion more difficult, Virginia last month passed a law requiring women to have an ultrasound before the procedure. Governor Bob McDonnell rejected a first version of the bill that mandated a transvaginal ultrasound, amid an outcry the procedure violated womens' rights.

Mr McDonnell, who has been mentioned as a possible vice-presidential candidate for 2012, is pro-life. But he is also aware how the party's rigid stance on abortion and birth control, is costing it dear among women voters, who favour Mr Obama by a 55-39 margin, says a poll yesterday.

Both Mississippi and Virginia were also in the forefront of the "personhood" challenge to abortion, based on the premise that life begins not at birth but conception, and that a fertilised egg is legally a human being. The notion was rejected by Mississippi in a 2011 referendum, but Virginia's legislature approved a personhood bill this year. However it is on hold until 2013, after the election in which Virginia will be a vital swing state.

=======================================
13. USA: ARIZONA SETS DANGEROUS NEW STANDARD FOR HOSTILITY TO WOMEN, DOCTORS, AND REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS
=======================================
Center for Reproductive Rights

Newly-signed omnibus legislation enacts most extreme abortion ban in U.S., other severe restrictions

04.13.12 - (PRESS RELEASE) Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed into law the country’s most extreme anti-reproductive rights law of its kind—banning abortion procedures before the time most women undergo critical prenatal testing to evaluate their own health and the health of their pregnancy. The law also severely restricts a safe alternative to surgical abortion and increases to 24 hours the time women must wait after undergoing a mandatory ultrasound before they may terminate their pregnancies.
 
The omnibus law—which in large part could take effect as early as July—includes only one extremely narrow exception for dire medical emergencies to its abortion ban. The law does not include any protection for women’s lives, or their physical and mental health, in any other circumstance. The law also makes zero exceptions for women carrying fetuses with even the most severe abnormalities.
 
Said Nancy Northup, president and CEO for the Center for Reproductive Rights:
 
“To call this an extreme assault on reproductive rights would be a massive understatement. In its cruelty and its callous disregard for women’s lives, it is downright appalling.
 
“Women facing life-threatening pregnancy complications will be forced to wait until they are bleeding to death before doctors are able to provide the emergency care they need.
 
“Some women at risk of grave complications will be forced to decide whether to proceed with their pregnancies in the dark, before they have all the information they need to arrive at their choices.”
 
The measure will ban abortions in Arizona at 20 weeks after “the first day of the last menstrual period of the pregnant woman,” also known as LMP—thus prohibiting abortion 18 weeks after fertilization. This is the precise time the vast majority of women undergo a comprehensive scan that uncovers most major abnormalities that pose risks to the health of women and the fetuses they are carrying.
 
For example, this routine scan has resulted in some women receiving a diagnosis that their fetus has lethal skeletal dysplasia, a severe bone growth disorder which causes many newborns to die immediately after birth. Other women have learned of open neural tube defects for the fetus, a disorder that could cause infants to be born blind, deaf, unconscious, and die within a few hours or days after birth.
 
“Every pregnant woman’s circumstances are different,” said Northup. “A woman facing devastating complications in her pregnancy must have every medical option available to her. That is why the Supreme Court has said repeatedly that restrictions on abortion must have an exception for women’s life and physical and mental health.”
 
Arizona’s legislature has considered a number of extreme bills assaulting women’s reproductive rights, including a measure that would have allowed employees to limit insurance coverage of birth control to only non-contraceptive use, and even allow those bosses to fire women found to be using contraceptives to prevent pregnancy.

=======================================
14. THE US LABOR MOVEMENT AND CHINA
by Alberto C. Ruiz
=======================================
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only.
(counterpunch.org - Weekend Edition April 27-29, 2012)

The statistics are chilling.   In a country where workers have no real right to organize a union, they face an ever falling standard of living.   The workers’ attempts to organize independent unions are faced with repression – 25% of the companies illegally fire workers who try to organize; active union supporters indeed have a 1 in 5 chance of being fired; over half of the companies threaten to have undocumented, foreign laborers deported during organizing campaigns; over half of the companies threaten to close the plant if it is organized; and nearly half of companies that are unionized never reach a labor contract with the union.   Of course, this country is not China, but rather, is, according to the AFL-CIO, the United States.

Notwithstanding this dismal situation for labor rights in this country, the U.S. labor movement is fixated on vilifying China and its human and labor rights situation as a cover for protecting U.S. workers from competition from albeit much lower paid Chinese workers.  Of course, U.S. labor has every right, and indeed a duty, to protect the workers it represents.   However, the obsession with China as an economic rival – an obsession which sometimes devolves into a racist stigmatization of the Chinese people themselves — is a distraction from the real and most pressing problems of U.S. workers:  the ever growing economic and power disparity between capital and workers in this country, and a legal regime in the U.S. which only encourages this disparity.

This was brought home for me by a recent meeting at my union with visiting labor law professors from China.    Very tellingly, it was our Chinese guests who were much more candid about the problems facing their working class than their American hosts.

The master of ceremonies (MC) who led the discussion for the U.S. trade unionists – a quite typical labor leader who harbors profound anti-Chinese resentments — met in advance with all of us who would be attending the meeting to go over the ground rules, the primary rule being that, notwithstanding the shortcomings we know to exist in U.S. labor law, we were not to share those openly with our Chinese visitors lest they go back home and use this as propaganda against us.

Then, during the meeting itself, our MC gave a revealing history of the U.S. labor movement, though it was most revealing in the details and large time period it left out of the history.   Thus, he started the meeting discussing the struggles of workers to organize in the late 19th Century; the critical strikes of the early 20th Century which eventually gave rise to the CIO and the unprecedented union drives in the U.S.; the passage of the Wagner Act in 1935 which gave workers’ the right to legally organize; and the post-war period which was punctuated by a strike wave motivated by workers’ attempts to get a fair share of the growing economic pie as well as the pent-up frustration they felt as a result of the strike ban during World War II.   He then stated that all of this led to the period of the 1950’s which saw unparalleled prosperity for this country and a workforce which was 40% unionized.   He concluded his oral history there, and asked if there were any questions.

Of course, what was not discussed was the period from the 1950’s till the present day during which time union density shrunk to around its present figure of 12%.    Also not mentioned was the outlawing of Communists in the labor movement – though, without a doubt, Communists were critical to the founding of the CIO, to the organizing drives of the 1930’s and to the New Deal itself – and the disarming of the labor movement which flowed from the patricidal purge of the Reds who had helped build it.   Also missing was any discussion of the AFL-CIO’s decades-long period of prostrating itself to the foreign policy aims of the U.S. government – regardless of which party was in power – and its activity abroad in helping the CIA overthrow democratic governments (such as those of Arbenz in Guatemala and Allende in Chile) and install military dictatorships in their stead which were anti-labor and indeed fascist.

These facts are undoubtedly inconvenient, for they underscore how the U.S. labor movement is not so different from the caricature it has painted of the official labor movement of China.   Thus, while U.S. unions criticize the Chinese labor movement, known as the All-China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU), as being government-captive and controlled, the AFL-CIO itself can be similarly critiqued.   Indeed, the AFL-CIO’s interventionist foreign policy in support of U.S. expansion is the starkest example of this, and no other union movement in the world can be accused of such thoroughly pro-government and treacherous anti-labor policies.

And, while this period ended largely with the end of the Cold War – though not entirely, as can certainly be seen in the labor movement’s anti-communist rhetoric against China itself and the AFL-CIO’s complicity in the coup against Chavez in 2002 — the AFL-CIO’s unquestioning linkage to the Democratic Party continues unabated.   And, this linkage continues even though the Democratic Party is more and more indistinguishable from its ostensible rival and even though the Democratic Party has delivered nearly nothing to the American working class for over three decades except job-killing trade deals and the assault on the social safety net.  Moreover, I would suggest that the AFL-CIO’s uncritical support of the Democratic Party with millions of dollars of its members’ contributions, as well as its keeping its ranks mollified by fixing their focus and energies on an electoral process which produces nearly no return for them, rivals any service the ACFTU performs for or at the behest of the Communist Party of China.

Meanwhile, the fascinating fact we discussed about China is the unprecedented strike and protest wave occurring throughout that country and being led by workers – 90,000 of such “mass incidents” taking place last year alone.   And, as the labor professors from China explained, much to our surprise, these strikes are being led by workers with no unions at all, are indeed uncoordinated (leading our MC to candidly compare these strikes to those in the U.S. which were led by the Wobblies in the 1920’s), and are being tolerated by both the Chinese government and the ACFTU.   The result of this is an increase in wages for workers in China.   We also discussed, quite ironically, that if, as the labor professors do in fact desire, China adopts some type of U.S.-style labor law, it will be done for the very reason that the U.S. government and employers acquiesced to our labor law in the first place – because it will lead to “industrial peace” and quell the strike wave now impacting China.

In other words, China needs a U.S.-style labor law, the argument goes, in order to control its workers better and to obtain the type of compliant and acquiescent work force we see in this country – a workforce which continues to see its standard of living drop further and further with barely a peep in response.

Finally, at the end of the meeting, our Chinese guests were asked what we could do to help them with their struggle in China.  They answered that we could put pressure on U.S. companies doing business in China to treat their Chinese workers better and to provide them with better wages and benefits.   They explained that, while workers in the U.S. may view the Chinese as taking their jobs, the Chinese view the situation differently – as U.S. companies coming over to China to exploit them and to pay them low wages to manufacture goods which Americans can then buy at cheap prices.

Our guests then looked at us and asked, in relation to the hostility they know the U.S. people have towards China, “didn’t Marx say something at the end of the Communist Manifesto about the workers of the world uniting?”  And all we could say was, “yes he did, yes he did.”

Alberto C. Ruiz is a long-time unionist, peace activist and associate member of the left-wing World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU).   He recommends the following website for serious reading on the struggles of labor in China: http://chinastudygroup.net/


_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

South Asia Citizens Wire
Buzz for secularism, on the dangers of fundamentalism(s), on
matters of peace and democratisation in South
Asia. Newsletter of South Asia Citizens Web: 
www.sacw.net/

DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not necessarily reflect the views of SACW compilers.
=====================================