First ever bill on Palestinian human rights introduced to U.S. Congress

November 16, 2017

Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN) introduced a House bill on Tuesday that seeks to prohibit the U.S. from funding the detention and prosecution of Palestinian children in the Israeli military court system. The legislation is said to be the first time a bill on Palestinian human rights has ever been introduced to Congress.

Betty
Rep. Betty McCollum

The 11-page bill comes several weeks after a report was released by Israeli rights groups, with the support of the European Union, which revealed “broad, systemic abuse by Israeli authorities,” against Palestinian teenagers detained in occupied East Jerusalem.

The bill, dubbed the “ “Promoting Human Rights by Ending Israeli Military Detention of Palestinian Children Act,” begins by detailing the provisions laid out by the the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, signed by both the U.S. and Israel in the 90s (the U.S. signed the treaty, but did not ratify it, while Israel both signed and ratified the treaty into Israeli law).

The treaty required, among other things, that ‘‘no child shall be subject to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,” as well as requiring arrests and detentions of minors be used as a last resort and that said detentions should instituted for the shortest period of time possible. It also requires that children have access to fair and speedy trials.

The bill lists other requirements of the convention, and challenges that the Israeli government fails to protect Palestinian children in accordance to its own laws as well as the treaty.

The bill does not request any adjustment or cuts to the amount of money already officially allocated from the U.S. to Israel, instead it requests that none of the funding go toward any of the following practices against children:

Torture or cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment.
Physical violence, including restraint in stress positions.
Hooding, sensory deprivation, death threats, or other forms of psychological abuse.
Incommunicado detention or solitary confinement.
Administrative detention (detention without charge or trial under “secret evidence”
Denial of access to parents or legal counsel during interrogations.
Confessions obtained by force or coercion.

Rights groups, including Defence for Children International, Human Rights Watch, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), B’Tselem, HaMoked, as well as the State Department, among many others, have documented practices employed by the State of Israel against children that are in contravention of International Law.

Israeli border police officers detain a Palestinian youth in Jerusalem’s Old City, Monday, July 17, 2017. (AP Photo/Mahmoud Illean)

The State Department’s 2016 Annual Country Report on Human Rights Practices for Israel and the Occupied Territories found that ‘‘signed confessions by Palestinian minors, written in Hebrew, a language most could not read, continued to be used as evidence against them in Israeli military courts,” and documented a ‘‘significant increase in detentions of minors’’ in 2016, all of which is detailed in the bill’s text.

Defence of Children International (DCI), one of the main supporters of the bill, released a statement under its “No Way to Treat a Child” Campaign, calling for support of the bill.

“Israel has the dubious distinction of being the only country in the world that automatically and systematically prosecutes children in military courts that lack fundamental fair trial rights and protections,” the statement reads, adding that Israel prosecutes between 500 and 700 Palestinian children in military courts each year.

According to data from Israel’s military courts obtained by Israeli daily Haartez in 2011, 99.74 of all military court hearings end in convictions.

“Despite sustained engagement by UNICEF and repeated calls to end night arrests and ill treatment and torture of Palestinian children in Israeli military detention, Israeli authorities have persistently failed to implement practical changes to stop violence against child detainees,” DCI said in its statement. “Reforms undertaken by Israeli military authorities so far have tended to be cosmetic in nature rather than substantively addressing physical violence and torture by Israeli military and police forces.”

Since 2000, an estimated 10,000 Palestinian minors from the occupied West Bank between the ages of 12 and 17 have been subject to arrest, detention, interrogation, and/or imprisonment under the jurisdiction of Israeli military courts, according to DCI.

The bill is expected to put pressure on Israel to change its practices concerning Palestinian minors and bring attention to the matter.

Along with McCollum, who is presenting the legislation, the bill has the backing of nine other Democrats in congress, listed as: Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva (D-AZ), Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI), Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME), Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR), Rep. Andre Carson (D-IN), Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) and Rep. Danny Davis (D-IL).

Human Rights Watch supported the bill, and there are endorsements from 17 different human rights groups, including Amnesty International USA, which endorsed the bill just hours before it was presented.

The full list of endorsers are Amnesty International USA, Churches for Middle East Peace, US Campaign for Palestinian Rights, United Methodists for Kairos Response (UMKR), United Methodist General Board of Church and Society, Global Ministries of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ and United Church of Christ), Mennonite Central Committee, Defence for Children International – Palestine, Center for Constitutional Rights, American Friends Service Committee, CODEPINK, Jewish Voice for Peace, Presbyterian Church (USA), Friends Committee on National Legislation, American Muslims for Palestine, the New Internationalism Project at the Institute for Policy Studies and Friends of Sabeel North America.

The Institute for Middle East Understanding released a statement on the bill, pointing out that the legislation comes just a few months after 39 members of Congress showed “unprecedented support” for Palestinian nonviolence activist, Issa Amro, who is currently facing a number of charges against him by the Israeli government. The 39 members of congress sent letters to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, urging Tillerson to pressure Israel into dropping charges against the activist.

“These developments reflect a significant shift in American public opinion in recent years, away from unconditional support for Israel and towards growing support for Palestinian rights and freedom,” the statement read.

Sheren Khalel is a freelance multimedia journalist who works out of Israel, Palestine and Jordan. She focuses on human rights, women’s issues and the Palestine/Israel conflict. Khalel formerly worked for Ma’an News Agency in Bethlehem, and is currently based in Ramallah and Jerusalem. You can follow her on Twitter at @Sherenk.

Courtesy: http://mondoweiss.net

How Italy ignored the sexual harassment debate taking place around the world

November 16, 2017

Instead of opening a conversation about workplace sexual harassment, the Italian debate has focused on shaming those who come forward.

As the Harvey Weinstein scandal continues to erupt, there’s been an outpouring of allegations against powerful men, accused of committing similar abuses during their careers.

The media, politics, the tech industry, and the art world are all having their own Weinstein-inspired moments of reckoning, although it’s too early to say if there will be a sea change in behaviour.

Experiences shared via the #metoo hashtag on social media have shown how widespread this kind of abuse of power is; women around the world face sexual harassment at work everyday.

‘women around the world face sexual harassment at work everyday’

In Italy, however, media coverage of the Weinstein scandal has been predictably outrageous, focusing on actress Asia Argento’s behaviour. Instead of focusing on abuse, and how to end it, we have been victim-blaming.

There has been no “Weinstein effect” here, and discussions around sexual harassment at work remain largely taboo. Of course that’s not to say Italy doesn’t have a sexual harassment problem; we do.

The only research on this topic is from 2008-2009, when the Italian National Statistics Institute (ISTAT) revealed that over one million women in Italy have been harassed or ‘sexually blackmailed’ at work.

This number is huge, but the true figure is likely even larger. The ISTAT study said almost 99% of victims do not report such abuse to the police. Women stay silent for many reasons: concerned over proof, shame, fear of being treated badly, or not believed at all.

An artist’s effigy of Harvey Weinstein. Photo: Gareth Fuller/PA Wire/PA Images. All rights reserved.In 2015, an Italian journalist published a book entitled Toglimi le mani di dosso (“Get your hands off of me”) about her experience of sexual harassment in a national newsroom. She used a pseudonym, Olga Ricci, and anonymised the newspaper and identifying details.

In the book she described how her editor-in-chief promised her a contract, then began making advances, inviting her to dinner, before more explicit requests to spend the night in a hotel room with him, and finally blackmailing her. In the end, she lost her job.

Harassment and ricatto sessuale (‘sexual blackmail’ – when a man takes advantage of a position of power over women who want to start or progress in their career, or are fearful of being fired) is “pervasive in Italian media”, Ricci told me.

After her book was published, she received messages from other female journalists who tried to guess the identity of her harasser, suggesting editors and publishers who had behaved in similar ways.

These stories have yet to come out.

#Metoo protests continue in the wake of the Weinstein scandal. Photo: NurPhoto/SIPA USA/PA Images. All rights reserved.The lack of debate on workplace sexual harassment in Italy also means there’s a lack of awareness of what it is.

Ricci herself did not immediately realise what was happening to her. “I thought that my boss’s behaviours were normal,” she said. “He treated lots of women in the same way in the newsroom.”

She explained that harassment can be difficult to prove, as there may not be witnesses. Such behaviour may also be minimised by other women.

“We learn it as children. It is unimaginable, according to ‘common sense’, to consider a dinner invitation, a compliment, a shoulder massage, or a hand on a hip as harassment. Even sexual jokes are considered normal. And if you point out [these acts] to your colleagues…they will call you tragic or a bigot.”
“Sexual jokes are considered normal. And if you point out [these acts] to your colleagues… they will call you tragic or a bigot”

For her, awareness of this issue came only after she left Italy to study. She told me: “Now, I use the word ‘violence’ to describe what happened to me. Too many women still do not use it, because they do not know they can.”

“I still receive messages from women who say that after reading the book they finally are able to give a name to what they have been through,” she added.

Italian ‘showgirl’ Miriana Trevisan is one of the very few women on Italian TV who disclosed her own experiences of workplace sexual harassment in the wake of the Weinstein scandal.

Earlier this month, Trevisan said she had been in Italian director Giuseppe Tornatore’s office about 20 years ago, and that he “put me against the wall and started to kiss my neck and my ears, and touched my breast aggressively.”

“He may not recall it, but I do,” she said. Tornatore has denied the allegations and announced legal actions, while Trevisan has been engulfed in a flurry of piublic criticism.

She also described a case of sexual assault by an unnamed TV personality. “His approach was sneaky. At first he flattered me – which made me think I had an opportunity. Then the conversation became sexual,” Trevisan told me.

At this point, she remembers feeling confused, asking herself: “Did I do something he misunderstood? Am I dressed too sexily? Am I overreacting?”

Then, “he said I had to be nice to him, because we could only talk about work if we were close. Then he tried to kiss me, but I said no.”

Leaving his room, she met his assistant: “She gave me a quick look and said: ‘You still have your lipstick on, I think we will never see you again.’”

“Did I do something he misunderstood? Am I dressed too sexily? Am I overreacting?”

“I was not able to give a name to the discomfort I felt. I almost convinced myself that it was the way it worked. I felt that everyone around me was addicted to these behaviours,” said Trevisan.

But after Asia Argento came forward, with her allegations against Weinstein, “all the pain resurfaced, together with the anger” that she had previously repressed.

“I think there’s a problem in our media. Newspapers and TV are showing no courage in talking about the implications of Weinstein case,” Trevisan said.

“They talked a lot about Asia Argento and said almost nothing about ‘our Weinsteins’. We have them, and everybody knows it.”

Recently, a few actresses – some of them anonymously – have recounted experiences of sexual harassment on the Italian TV show Le Iene; though most of their abusers have not been named.

Harsh treatment endured by Argento is a clear example of why women may feel forced to choose between staying silent about abuse or being blamed – and if they talk after many years, they may be blamed for having waited too long.

“Public opinion is uneducated, sexist and fierce,” said Ricci. “Those commentators [who attacked Argento] will never change their point of view if the debate in the media doesn’t offer them new ones.”

“When a boss invites you to dinner, talks to you about his private life or his problems, says how beautiful or attractive you are, when he kisses you, hugs you, touches you, he is abusing his power,” she insists.

And this is the whole point: sexual harassment is not about sex. It’s about power. If we want women in Italy to speak up, Italian public opinion needs to understand this first. Our reaction to the Weinstein scandal has shown the dire need for cultural change.

Claudia Torrisi is an Italian freelance journalist focused on social issues such as migration and civil rights. In 2015 she was a finalist for the Roberto Morrione Award for investigative journalism with a video report on the application of the law on abortion in hospitals in Rome. She is part of Chayn Italy, an open-source project that uses technology to empower women against violence. Claudia writes monthly features for openDemocracy 50.50. Follow her on Twitter: @clatorrisi.

Farmers Lost Over Rs.2 Lakh Crore Due To Low Prices of Crops This Year

November 16, 2017

Thousands of farmers arriving in Delhi for Kisan Mukti Sansad on 20-21 November 2017 to protest betrayal by Modi govt.

Newsclick Image by Nitesh Kumar

Following the massive workers’ mahapadav on Nov 9-11 at Delhi, it is now the farmers’ turn to occupy the Capital. Thousands of farmers from all over India will congregate at Delhi to demand better prices for their produce and complete freedom from debt. Many families of farmers who committed suicide in the recent past due to debt will also participate in what is being called the Kisan Mukti Sansad (Farmers’ Liberation Parliament).

During the election campaign for the 2014 Lok Sabha elections, Narendra Modi had promised that farmers would get good prices for their crops. He assured that if elected, his govt. would implement the price formula recommended by the MS Swaminathan Commission, which was a fixed minimum support price that covers the cost of production and gives an additional 50% of that to the farmer.

More than three years have passed since Modi won the election and became the Prime Minister. But there is no talk of this promise. In fact, the agriculture minister even denied in Parliament that such a promise was made.

What is the cost of this betrayal? The All India Kisan Sangharsh Coordination Committee (AIKSCC), an umbrella forum of over 180 farmers’ organizations, has calculated that for the top 7 crops in the kharif season this year, farmers got prices that were less than Modi’s promise by a whopping Rs.2 lakh crore. The seven crops studied were paddy, maize, soybean, cotton, bajra, groundnut and urad. Market arrivals and costs across hundreds of mandis were analysed by the AIKSCC activists. This has been dubbed #KisanKiLoot (plunder of farmers) by the Sangharsh Committee.

For example, Bhagat Singh, a farmer from Haryana sold 19 quintals of bajra crop. While the MSP is Rs.1425 and the deserved MSP as per PM’s election promise is Rs.1917, the farmer got only Rs.1135 per quintal. This meant #KisanKiLoot of Rs.14,858. A woman farmer from Andhra Pradesh, Gaddam Lalithamma sold 31 quintals of groundnut at a mere Rs.2600 per quintal while the MSP is Rs.4450 and PM’s promised MSP would be Rs.6134. The #KisanKiLoot of this farmer is Rs.1,09,554.

AIKSCC found that farmers would lose Rs. 35,968 crores as compared to prevailing MSPs. This is because in most places farmers don’t even get the govt. backed MSP. If compared to PM’s promise of cost price+50%, the loss balloons to over Rs.2 lakh crore. The reason for this difference between their current loss and the potential loss compared to PM’s promise is that even the declared MSPs are highly inadequate. However, among the 14 crops of Kharif 2017-18, the MSPs for 7 crops have been fixed less than the cost of production. In the other 7 crops, the margin above cost of production is merely 2% to 19%.

Steadily rising input costs, like fuel, pesticides and fertilizers and even water, slashing of subsidies by the govt., are some of the key factors behind this skew in cost versus income imbalance. Another major factor is the opening up of economy to agricultural imports and integration of India’s production with global markets that causes local prices to crash, as has happened in tea, groundnut, rubber etc. Between 1990-91 and 2011-12, while agricultural exports grew at an annual rate of about 13%, agricultural imports grew at a faster rate of about 21%, according to R.Ramakumar of TISS.

This massive injustice in prices is pushing farmers into debt and suicides across the country and igniting repeated protests across the country. In the past two years farmers have agitated for better prices to their produce in Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and several other states. Besides these, the Bhumi Adhikar Andolan, a front of over 300 organisations, has held kisan jathas across the country in 2016 and AIKSCC organized a Kisan Mukti Yatra covering over 10,000 kilometers throughout the country, meeting nearly 50 lakh farmers and strengthening their struggles.

“It is to address this loot of farmers that we are congregating in large numbers in Delhi on November 20th 2017 in a Kisan Mukti Sansad (a farmers’ freedom parliament) to be organised on Parliament Street. Full remunerative prices as a legal entitlement with correct cost estimations and at least a 50% profit margin over the cost of production, for all farmers and commodities, is our main demand, in addition to a demand for freedom from debt, that includes a comprehensive immediate loan waiver as well as statutory institutional mechanism that addresses farmers’ indebtedness on an ongoing basis,” said AIKSCC leaders at a recent press meet.

On November 20, a draft Bill encompassing the two demands will be introduced and passed after debate by the farmers’ parliament. AIKSCC will invite leaders of political parties and the Prime Minister to come to the Sansad – but only if they are ready to support the Bill and the demands.

Courtesy: Newsclick.in

Nightmarish Visions: Indian government plan for ‘Institutions of Eminence’

November 16, 2017

Statement by JNU Teachers’ Association

In early November, the JNU administration forwarded to all Centres/Special Centres/Schools, the Government of India proposal to establish twenty “Institutions of Eminence” to achieve world class status, from amongst the existing Government/Private institutions and new institutions from the private sector. It conveyed its intentions to submit an application to the UGC under the scheme and has asked Centres/Special Centres/Schools to provide comments on Part-1 – III [Vision for Institute of Eminence], Part-1 – IV [proposed fifteen year strategic plan], and Part-1 – VI [Proposed five years implementation plan] of the attached proforma.

This note from JNUTA is first to direct colleagues’ attention to the serious debate that this GoI plan has occasioned, in a country where higher education has simply failed to deliver in terms of access, quality, and justice — with a Gross Enrolment Ratio of just 20.4, as per the All India Survey of Higher Education (2013), it is the responsibility of educationists to query whether an outlay of Rs. 10,000 crore on ten institutions is warranted in the first place. (Please see the following pieces in favour of the proposal, and against it, in particular). Given that the goal of this whole initiative is a limited one of achieving a breakthrough into the world top 100 rankings, the teaching community must thoroughly discuss what rankings are good for anyway, and what significance the term ‘world class’ truly signifies, if the goals of education are essentially humanist and necessarily inclusive in character.

With regard to rankings, the JNU-DU faculty group Academics for Creative Reform has formulated a detailed position, which can be found here. With regards to ‘world class’, it is important to note that the parameters for assessment privilege a certain combination of parameters that there is no independent validation as having greater value than a positive estimation by peer institutions. See these articles for opinions highlighting the inherent flaws of a faith in the semanticity of world rankings.

Most immediately, it is necessary that given that the JNU administration has decided to pursue this application path, for JNU faculty to examine the exact provisions of this scheme and to evaluate whether the visions each academic unit has for its own and the university’s development can indeed be realised within the rubric provided by this scheme.

Beyond the hoopla: The Scheme
At the outset, it is important to note that all that exists is a set of non-mandatory guidelines for an application. (Please note that the Gazette notification associated with this scheme does not pertain to government-owned universities like JNU, but rather only to those “not owned or controlled by government”.) It is therefore entirely inappropriate for the university administration to decide that this scheme will be applied for without consulting Schools and Centres in the Academic Council, and for administrators to imply that this is the only means by which funding for the future can be secured. This is patently not the case, as the guidelines make no such statement.

In JNUTA’s view, there are extremely serious reasons for concern at JNU’s making any application under this scheme.

First, the scheme actually has nothing to do with the UGC. Rather, the decisions will be taken by an “Empowered Experts Committee (EEC), which will comprise three to five eminent persons appointed for a period of three years. The persons appointed to the EEC will be “as advised by the Central Government”, with “the approval of the Appointments Committee of Cabinet”. The EEC shall be responsible for scrutinising and appraising the proposals submitted all the way up to monitoring, assessing and reviewing the selected institutions. In other words, the scheme is to be operationalised by out-and-out political appointees whose decisions will have political sanction alone and will not be constrained by even the regulatory framework of the UGC. This has been admitted by the MHRD itself in answer to a Lok Sabha question, where it records the Solicitor-General as having categorically stated that the UGC Act, 1956 does not allow for the UGC to form an Empowered Expert Committee in this manner, such that the decisions of this EEC shall be deemed to be decisions of the UGC. Should JNU be associating its future as an institution with a scheme in which there is virtually no scope of autonomy and practically no regulation of the regulators? What impact will this regulation by a body have on the provisions for autonomy in the JNU Act then?

Second, the scheme will drastically alter the composition of the JNU faculty, restricting the university’s ability to recruit the best from India. By the “indicative list of parameters” provided in the guidelines, JNU shall have to move in a specified time period to having “a good proportion of foreign or foreign-qualified faculty”, where foreign faculty is defined simply in terms of having non-Indian citizenship, but a foreign-qualified Indian must be one who has a degree from the top 500 institutions in the world and also be “one who has spent considerable time in academics in a foreign country”. Further, hiring need not be restricted to permanent positions alone, and the sourcing of faculty from ‘industry’ without the requisite qualifications will be an option that can be exploited. The UGC may somewhat shockingly (particularly in these times of hyper-nationalism) be ready to consider the simple attribute of non-Indian citizenship as a qualification and to devalue a domiciliary status in India, but is JNU ready to do the same?

If what is meant by a good proportion of foreign faculty is 25%, is the university ready to commit to an imminent process that will restrict all hiring to non-Indian citizens for the foreseeable future? And what of the objects enjoined upon the university then in the Second schedule of the JNU Act, of the special measures it must take “to facilitate students and teachers from all over India to join the University and participate in its academic programmes?” And most of of all, what happens to the reservation policy with regards to faculty recruitment?

Third, an application under this scheme also entails an explicit commitment to an exclusionary model of student admissions, in which social justice has no substantive part. There is no mention of maintenance of reservations anywhere in the guidelines; instead we are told that the focus “must remain on getting meritorious students”, and that admissions must be “purely on merit”. Further, admissions for Indian students are capped to 70% of the total students admitted, as 30% is now to be ‘reserved’ for foreign students. Is JNU ready to give up both reservation in admissions as well as deprivation points and other measures for social justice?

Fourth, the scheme also can (indeed, will) entail massive fee hikes without any regulation, both for foreign and domestic students. As per the document circulated, there are admonitions about ensuring that no ‘meritorious’ but ‘needy’ student is denied a scholarship, but we are all aware the sharp constriction if access that is produced by exorbitant fees. Furthermore what is categorically not envisaged in this business model is a university in which most students study on fellowships. Is this the vision of a university that the research that JNU is known for can be done?

Fifth, the scheme actually seems to have no defined parameters of academic evaluation whatsoever. In the guidelines provided, and indeed in the proforma that needs to be filled out, evaluation for eligibility for the grant seems largely to be premised on a willingness to work towards institutional eminence, which is essentially defined in terms of getting into the world top 100 rankings. The simple fact of the matter is that no Centre/School/Special Centre can develop a purely academic plan to get to a particular world ranking. It can only plan to identify areas of development and research focus and to ensure that research funding is available for every faculty and student in these areas. But that’s what seems to be of little interest in the scheme of things it seems, as there are no provisions of the academic evaluation by subject experts that seem to be involved.

Sixth, there can be no doubt that an award will contribute to a fundamental loss of autonomy in academic pursuit for every faculty member and Centres/Special Centres/School. Award of the scheme involves signing a Memorandum of Understanding with “the government”, as the agreement “that would guide and govern the development of the institution”, failure to abide with which shall result in penalties. It does not take much imagining from then on to conceive of scenarios in which the MoU shall be elevated to the status of a categorical imperative, leading to an enforced obedience that can only be detrimental to research.

Seventh, that the actual financial details of the scheme are beneficial even in the medium term is far from clear. An injection of Rs. 1000 crore sounds attractive, but is it to be replacive of, in whole or part, the outlay the university receives of roughly Rs.200 crore p.a.? If so, this in effect works out to just five years of funding, with no clear understanding to what happens to existing funding — does it go or stay? The scheme also spells out the university will be responsible for raising money from outside sources, largely without regulation — indeed, the incentives to attract faculty are to be entirely self-funded. To add to this, the strong penalties for failing to achieve as yet unspecified targets introduce a level of uncertainty that does not inspire any confidence either.

All this for what a freedom to do what exactly — to give up university autonomy with respect to admissions and recruitment, to violate national reservation policy, and transfer the costs of education to the students?

Ayesha Kidwai (President, JNUTA)

Pradeep Shinde (General Secretary, JNUTA)

Courtesy: Kafila.online

When Muslims are killed in hate crimes, BJP governments always side with the accused

November 16, 2017

A few days ago, during the trial of the persons accused of killing Junaid Khan, Justice YS Rathor of the Faridabad District Court made an extremely astounding observation. In his written order, Justice Rathor observed, “Despite repeated warnings, government additional advocate General Naveen Kaushik was seen helping the lawyer of the accused and telling him the questions which will be asked to the accused.” Following this, Kaushik was removed from his post and Justice Rathor also asked the Haryana government to take action against Kaushik.

Justice Rathor’s observation may have been a revelation for some, but it points to a much bigger issue: time and again, the way the state and central government have acted in cases related to mob lynching of Muslims, it is clear that justice for Muslims in these cases will be tough and probably elusive. This becomes even more visible in cases where the state government is also under the BJP, as is the case in Haryana where Junaid was murdered.

Take the case of Pahlu Khan, where an independent investigation has conclusively proved how the government is hell-bent on providing all possible support to the accused. The police have been in an overdrive mode trying to prove that the men named by Khan in his dying declaration were never present on the site (despite video evidence) while the hospital where Khan was brought says he died of a heart attack. The report also details exactly how the police have time and again, shown a lackadaisical attitude towards the case. In September, the police announced that an investigation by their Crime Investigation Department— Crime Branch (CID-CB) had obtained evidence and statements from witnesses that proved that these six men named by Khan in his statement were not present on the scene of the crime during the attack and, therefore, could not have murdered Khan.

The situation is no different in Jharkhand, which is also ruled by the BJP. When a Muslim trader Alimuddin Ansari was lynched in Ramgarh, the government showed little or no interest in treating it as a matter of hate crime but instead focussed on trying to prove that Ansari was illegally trading in cow meat. The wife of the Jalil Ansari, the only eyewitness to the incident who decided to stand up was ‘killed’ in an accident moments before the court proceedings were about to begin relating to the case. It is no coincidence that prior to this, the family of Jalil Ansari had been receiving multiple threats from members of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the BJP. Two local BJP leaders: Nityanand Mahato and Santosh, along with three others had been arrested. Two more Bajrang Dal members surrendered a few days later.

Apart from these cases, the BJP has actively encouraged and extended support to Gaurakshaks across the country, with cabinet ministers often applauding their work that has led to the death of over 30 people in the past three years. The BJP and its extended Sangh Parivar have extensively used state machinery to ensure maximum protection for people arrested for such heinous crimes and it is unlikely that this will change anytime soon.

Courtesy: Two Circles

Birsa Munda’s Jharkhand slipping out of Adivasi hands

November 15, 2017

An Indian tribal freedom fighter, Birsa Munda was a charismatic folk hero who challenged the anti-Adivasi policies of the British and belonged to the Munda tribe. Had he been alive today, he may well have asked, whether Jharkand State, created on November 15, 2000 –on his 125^th birth anniversary — actually stands for the dignity of Adivasis?

Birsa Munda died a martyr in the Ranchi jail on June 9, 1900 at the young age of 25. He had been arrested on March 3 that year by the British police while he slept with the tribal guerrilla army he had formed, in Jamkopai forest in Chakradharpur. Like Bhagat Singh the revolutionary who died so young, Birsa Munda’s fiery band of activism has inspired generations. He is the stuff of what folk legends are made omnipresent in popular and folk literature, academia, and mass media.

But today on his 142^nd birth anniversary let’s ask is the state that as formed on his 125^th birth anniversary actually protecting the dignity and rights of tribals?

Incarceration
Prabhat Khabar reported that 4,000 Adivasis of Jharkand falsely charged as ‘Naxals’ languish in the jails of Jharkand. 1307 Jharkhandis have been arrested and 88 of them are supposed to have surrendered. (Source: Prabhat Khabar, Ranchi ed., 1 Sept. 2017). Some independent studies indicate that 27 persons [22 in 2016 and 5 in 2017) were killed in so-called ‘encounters’ by the police. (Bagaicha, Ranchi, documentation)

A quick look at a timeline of the state’s repression of agitations over the past years tells a grim story.

Malnutrition

In early November 2017, a rickshaw-puller reportedly died of hunger at his house in Jharia last Friday evening. His wife claimed that he had not eaten anything for the past two days. However the district administration rubbished the allegation arguing that 45-year-old Baijnath Ravidas, a resident of Bhalgora Tarabank in the coal mines rich district, was suffering from a disease.

Poor Disenfranchised

A month earlier, news of Jharkand’s poor been struck of the ration card and pensioners list made the news. 11,64,000 ration cards cancelled as ‘fake’: 2,71,000 old-age pensioners have been declared ‘fake’; pruning of MGNREGA applicants as ‘fake’. The Jharkhand government published a full page advertisement on September 22, enumerating its achievements during the 1000 days it has been in power. Among the ‘achievements’ there is one item in the list that details of how it has cancelled 11,64,000 ‘fake ration cards’ leading to saving Rs.225 crores. Similarly, the state government has also ‘cancelled; 2,71,000 old-age pension documents and saved Rs.86 crores. Again, the state government claimed that it has saved Rs.203 crores by pruning MGNREGA ‘fake applicants’. This is peddled like and appears to be a huge achievement of the govt. What this has meant is that large numbers of poor have been disenfranchised and left out the meagre social welfare schemes.

State Leadership Contemptuous of Adivasis and Dalits

In September 2017, the state government put out a controversial advertisement describing Tribals and Dalits are described as “simple and mute as cows”. The Chief Minister, allowed an advertisement with his photo and that of “Bappu” reducing the Tribals and Dalits to the level of cows.

Social Welfare Schemes on Paper

Social welfare schemes for STs and SCs in Jharkand remain on paper: Perusing the long list of developmental and welfare schemes meant for SCs and STs in Jharkand is like stepping into a dream-world. There are 49 schemes jointly undertaken by the central & state governments. This is apart from about 40 other schemes meant for the general population under the banner of rural development. The state bureaucracy iself violates the PESA Act which says “Gram Sabha shall be responsible for the identification and selection of persons as beneficiaries under the poverty alleviation and other programmes” [PESA 4.e.(ii)]. So the whole selection process of those chosen as beneficiaries is both illegal and ultra vires.

The much The much spoken about SC Sub Plan [SCSP]and Tribal Sub Plan [TSP] are implemented half heartedly, the irony being big sums from these schemes are diverted for general schemes such as road construction, panchayat building, stadiums etc with the justification that SCs and STs also use these facilities!

Worst Offender the Jharkand State Created in Name of Adivasis

Jharkand government has been accused of the ‘loot of adivasi land’, and it has taken place in the following manner: (i) land alienation and consequent displacement. From the time of independenceup to now a staggering 24 lakh acres of land has been forcibly acquired all in the name of development. Consequently, 17 lakh adivasis have been displaced. The sad fact is not a single adivasi person or community has ever been rehabilitated because it involves not only resettlement in another place of their choice but also social and cultural bonds preserved intact. Only a minimal cash compensation was thrust upon them and after that they were neatly forgotten.

Repressive Laws in Jharkand
(ii) CNT/SPT Acts amendments being forcibly enforced in Jharkhand is yet another blow to the Adivasi people insofar as it aims to transfer agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes. This implicitly means non-adivasis from within or without the country can acquire adivasi land for setting up commercial and business enterprises and govt can take agricultural land for infrastructural purposes. This is as good as finishing off this protective legislation. Happily there is wholesale resistance to this deceptive action of the govt and even the Governor has returned the bill asking the govt to re-consider this proposed legislation.

(iii) Land Bank is the most recent innovation to rob adivasi land from the back door. The govt proudly announced during the investors meeting in February this year that it has put together 21 lakh acres of land in Land Bank and therefore the investors will not have to face the problem of how to acquire land in Scheduled Areas. It has now come to light the govt stealthily ear-marked the ‘Commons’, namely the common facilities of the village community such as ponds, cattle-grazing grounds, roads, places of religious worship, burial grounds, rivulets and even rivers as part of land bank! There is also private family land that is not cultivated but used for other needs that has also been included in land bank. And all this has been done without even informing and getting the consent of concerned families and communities. This action of the govt goes against constitutional and legal provisions.

Fake Land Deals

(iv) Fake land-deeds alienating thousands of acres of adivasi land are being reported in the print media recently. More than 1000 such fake deeds during the past 16 years have been unearthed.[Prabhat Khabar, 19 June 2017]. Those who are guilty of doing this are mostly non-adivasi-outsiders who are very adept in bribing govt functionaries and make out the needed fake documents. So there is a collusion of govt officials, politicians, contractors, land brokers, middle men most of whom are non-adivasi-outsiders have been working overtime to cheat the simple adivasi and deprive him of his cherished natural resources. Can there be a greater injustice than this cruel game?

Put briefly, the government’s developmental & welfare schemes have not made any difference in terms of betterment to most of SC / ST people. What is the use of decorating the tree’s branches with schemes that are either not responding to their real needs or they are not accessible to them?

Protests Against Amendments in Laws Repressively Put Down

Between July-October 2016,Jharkand erupted in conflict last year (July-November) as amendements in laws were pushed through to dilute the say of peoples and communities over what could or should be done with their lands.

Firing on NTPCs
In October 2016, in a gruesome incident, early morning on Saturday, the Jharkhand police is said to have left five persons dead and many injured as it opened fire on the villagers protesting “forcible land acquisition” for a thermal power plant being built by the National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) in district Hazaribagh, Chirdudih area.

The firing, according to independent sources, has left five people dead, 12 critically injured and nearly 50 injured. There is a curfew in the area, and outsiders can’t go, and many missing are yet to be traced, these sources added.

While protests against the NTPC plant have been going on since 2010, when the project was announced, critics says, till date far acquired 8,056 acres of land acquired, most it “forcibly and fraudulently.”

This has happened despite the fact that, it is suggested, many issues even on the acquired land remains to be resolved, including higher compensation, employment and so on.

Post Script
Jharkand has also seen the brute attack on minorities apart from Adivasis. The A Muslim Dairy Owner Thrashed. Believed Dead, House Set on Fire on ‘Suspicion’ of Cow Slaughter in June 2017.

Jharkand has seen a spate of brutal killings, lynchings since March 2016 when Mazlum Ansari and his nephew Imtiyaz were lynched and hung to die. Thereafter too there have been a series of attacks, assaults and killings. The last one was last friday after the Alvida Namaz on the Friday before Eid, on June 23 when 24 year old Mohammad Salman was allegedly shot dead by a posse of policeman. One arms guard is even under arrest after confessing to the crime. The National Commission of Minorities (NCM) even brought out a report on the deep rooted communal polarisation in Jharkand, even within the police force after the Latehar hangings.

In early April 2017, a Maulvi was brutally assaulted at Kodarma and thereafter in May 2017 rumours of child lifting had left many Muslims and some Hindus dead.

Embracing holy envy: ‘Allahu Akbar’

November 15, 2017

We should not allow terrorists and bigots to hijack language in order to sow fear, ignorance and division.

Interior of the Sheikh Lotf Allah Mosque in Isfahan, Iran. Credit: By Phillip Maiwald (Nikopol) – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0.

I say ‘Allahu akbar’ dozens of times a day. I say it during prayer. I say it as an expression of reaffirmation and gratitude to God.

I said it when my daughter was born, and there will be someone to say it over me when I am buried.

I say it when I witness beauty.

‘Allahu akbar.’

In 1985, Lutheran Bishop Krister Stendahl, in defending the building of a Mormon temple by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Stockholm, enunciated “Three Rules of Religious Understanding:”

“When trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies.”

“Don’t compare your best to their worst,” and:

“Leave room for holy envy.”

Stendahl challenges us to be open to recognizing elements in other religions—even those that may appear foreign or threatening—and to consider how we might wish to support, embrace, emulate or further explore those elements that might help us to deepen our understanding of our own religious traditions and more deeply connect to others: to embrace ‘holy envy.’

Abdullah, a Saudi friend of mine whose family tree traces back to the time of Prophet Mohammad in Mecca, travels to Cairo with his family every Christmas.

He, with children and grandchildren—perhaps even now with great grandchildren—window shop, go to Christmas parties, sing Christmas carols and together celebrate the birth of Jesus, considered by Muslims to be the most revered prophet after Prophet Muhammad.

On Christmas Eve they attend Midnight Mass at the Anglican Church in Zamalek. Abdullah doesn’t take the Eucharist but he loves Jesus—and Christmas pudding (Egyptian friends make him an alcohol-free version).

Before New Year’s Day they return to Saudi Arabia, renewed by their encounter with Christian tradition and re-committed to an ecumenical understanding that the descendants of Abraham share much more through faith than they disagree about politically.

Like Stendahl, Abdullah and I believe that being open to holy envy helps us to connect to others, to ease tensions and build bridges.

I was recently reminded of Stendahl and Abdullah as I listened to the discussion that followed the terrorist attack in New York on October 31 2017 when eight people were killed and 12 injured by a truck driven by Uzbek native Sayfullo Saipov. As the truck plowed into a bicycle path in lower Manhattan, it’s reported that Saipov cried out ‘Allahu Akbar.’

‘Allahu akbar.’

We know, from documents released by the FBI after 9/11, that a letter written by the hijacker Mohamed Atta urged attackers to shout ‘Allahu akbar’ because “this strikes fear in the hearts of the non-believers.”

We know, from Fort Hood, from New York, London, Paris, Brussels, Mogadishu, Istanbul, Baghdad and Beirut, that terrorists continue to shout ‘Allahu akbar’ even when most of their victims are believers.

To terrorists the non-believers are those who don’t hate as they do—Muslim and non-Muslim.

On the other hand, at the funeral service for Muhammad Ali there were four recitations of ‘Allahu akbar’ along with prayers, readings and blessing in-between.

‘Allahu akbar.’

I believe that ‘Allahu akbar’ will strike fear only if we allow, through ignorance and prejudice, terrorists to define how we approach God.

To Muslims ‘Allahu akbar’ means ‘the greatest,’ although linguistically, it translates as ‘greater.’

To Muslims it means nothing is greater than God.

‘Allahu akbar’ isn’t in the Qur’an, but it’s part of daily prayer and worship, embedded in our consciousness. As a term of gratitude to God it’s even used by some Arabic-speaking Christians.

Today, Muslims who pray ‘Allahu akbar’ are caught between terrorists who try to inspire fear and Islamophobes who try to instill ignorance and fear of The Other.

In the US, we are learning not to define all Christians by the practice of the Westboro Baptist Church (“God hates fags”), or the far-right anti-Muslim Judge Roy Moore, or by those who want to ban Harry Potter, Halloween and dancing.

We’ve learned that Christianity is not monolithic.

Today, we must also learn that Islam is not monolithic, and that all Muslims are not defined by Sayfullo Saipov and Mohamed Atta.

We must embrace more holy envy and less unholy ignorance.

A friend of mine, an Episcopal priest who has traveled in the Middle East, has holy envy over the Muslim tradition of saying ‘insha’Allah.’

“I often wish we had something like that in our tradition” she once told me, “the constant reminder—‘insha’ Allah’—that only God knows the future.”

‘Insha’Allah’—if God wills it—is to recognize God’s omnipotence, God’s Grace, presence and authority in our lives.

Can I borrow your snow-blower tomorrow? ‘Insha’Allah.’

Can we have dinner tonight? ‘Insha’Allah.’

Can you meet me tomorrow? ‘Insha’Allah.’

I love Thanksgiving. I like Christmas trees. I love menorahs and the story they tell. I love the call of the shofar, the peeling of church bells and the sound of muezzins calling the faithful to prayer. We need to witness, and we need our children to witness, each others’ religions, traditions, symbols and practices.

We need more holy envy—‘insha’Allah.’

We need to see the world, not as something to be partitioned and feared but as a source of engagement and richness that nourishes all of humanity.

Our challenge today is to refuse to allow terrorists and bigots to hijack, weaponize and appropriate language in order to sow fear, ignorance and division. I believe that our public squares are richer and our nations healthier when we struggle to preserve and enhance the pluralistic experience that defines our societies at their best.

This isn’t just an Abrahamic calling: whether secular, Jewish, Christian, Muslim or Quaker—whatever faith tradition we may or may not embrace—I believe that we are all called, by our Constitutions as well as our Prophets, to serve the forgotten and the dispossessed, and to honor conscience and each other’s dignity and humanity.

‘Allahu Akbar.’

Robert Azzi lives in Exeter New Hampshire. An Arab American Muslim, he writes on Islam, identity and conflict. Information on “Ask a Muslim Anything” and an archive of his writing can be found at theotherazzi.wordpress.com. For an interview with Robert on NPR click here.

Courtesy: Open Democracy

‘Successful failures’ – the problem with food banks

November 15, 2017

From their inception in the early 1990s, Australian food banks were supposed to be a temporary solution to food poverty.

Food park
Pasta and bolognese sauce were on the menu provided at this Sydney venue by not-for-profit organisation Foodbank.

They have since morphed from “emergency to industry” – lauded for reducing food insecurity and helping to solve the food waste problem by diverting tonnes of produce from landfill.

It’s the ultimate win-win that big food corporations and retailers love: feed the needy and save the planet at the same time. This logic has been enshrined in Canada’s National Food Waste Reduction Strategy and in European laws that require supermarkets to donate surplus produce to charities.

Can foodbanks end food insecurity?

As Martin Caraher has suggested on The Conversation, we argue that food banks “depoliticise hunger” and address symptoms rather than causes.

Laudable and regrettably necessary as their work is, food banks are a band-aid solution for a patient – contemporary society – suffering from what John McMurtry evocatively terms “the cancer stage of capitalism”. We are seeing ubiquitous and intensifying inequality, brought about by decades of dogmatic adherence to market fundamentalism.

If we are serious about tackling the causes of food insecurity, we must turn away from neoliberalism to an inclusive and values-based political economy. And if we are serious about ending food waste, we need a “paradigm shift” away from productivism towards a food system “designed for well-being, resilience and sustainability”.

From emergency to industry

According to Foodbank Australia’s 2017 Hunger Report, 625,000 Australians are seeking emergency food relief every month. That’s a 10% increase on the previous 12 months.

Despite their rapid expansion, food banks are unable to meet the demand produced by stagnating wages, rising costs of living and a shrinking welfare state. They have been called “highly visible successful failures”. As well as stepping into the state’s shoes to provide a minimal social security safety net, they offer very useful services to food manufacturers and retailers.

First, they divert millions of tonnes of waste from landfill. Food donors save considerable sums in disposal charges.

Second, donors receive tax deductions for all produce donated to food banks, which are registered charities. And, perhaps most significantly, donors can enhance their social licence to operate as good corporate citizens and receive cheap publicity into the bargain.

Band-aids, not solutions

In a recent paper for the UK Food Research Collaboration, Martin Caraher and Sinead Furey undertook a cost-benefit analysis of the current consensus that food insecurity is best addressed by increasing donations of surplus food to food banks. Their conclusion was unequivocal:

While there are benefits to diverting surplus food away from landfill, the reasons for pessimism outweigh the reasons for optimism. This is because the benefits of using food waste to feed people accrue primarily to the food industry, whilst absolving responsibility of the government to address food insecurity.

This is of particular concern in a liberal democracy such as Australia that professes to be committed to the principle of universal human rights, including the right to adequate food. Research in the Netherlands and Scotland has confirmed the humiliation, shame and loss of dignity experienced by food bank users.

Dignified access to good food is a fundamental component of the human right to adequate food. Feeding people food waste directly undermines this right.

Reframing the debate

The dominant win-win approach that says we can solve food insecurity by diverting food waste into food banks is patently failing. Both phenomena are increasing. In any case, a state of food security is not achieved via emergency food relief.

A breakthrough was achieved on March 25, 2015, when leading community food organisations and food security researchers in Canada issued the Cecil Street Statement. The statement clarified that food insecurity was due to inadequate income and the solution lay in people having enough money to buy good food in a dignified way. Further, it stated that the conflation of food insecurity with food waste was unhelpful and counterproductive.

In Australia, the Right to Food Coalition last year issued a position statement, The Human Right to Food. This included a detailed set of recommendations, drawing on the work of the United Nations special rapporteur on the right to food.

These recommendations specified the actions required from all levels of government, as well as industry, philanthropical and community organisations. The statement called on the federal government to:

adequately finance income support payments so that all Australians can access a weekly basket of healthy foods
ensure that initiatives to rebuild local food systems are adequately supported.

What is the solution?

Broadly, what’s needed is a paradigm shift towards sustainable, healthy, resilient and rational food systems. The International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES) has clearly articulated the pathways towards such systems.

The principal barriers to such systems, according to the experts, reside in excessive concentration of political and economic power in the hands of mega-food corporations. This is documented in the new IPES report, Too Big to Feed.

In the words of visionary UK economist Kate Raworth, the necessary paradigm shift begins with a reframing of our societal priorities, away from the mantra of “an economy that grows regardless of whether we thrive” and towards “an economy that enables us to thrive regardless of whether it grows”.

Nick Rose, Lecturer, William Angliss Institute and Susan Booth, Casual Academic, College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

1...1,9511,9521,953...2,697 Page 1,952 of 2,697

First ever bill on Palestinian human rights introduced to U.S. Congress

How Italy ignored the sexual harassment debate taking place around the world

Instead of opening a conversation about workplace sexual harassment, the Italian debate has focused on shaming those who come forward.

Farmers Lost Over Rs.2 Lakh Crore Due To Low Prices of Crops This Year

Thousands of farmers arriving in Delhi for Kisan Mukti Sansad on 20-21 November 2017 to protest betrayal by Modi govt.

Nightmarish Visions: Indian government plan for ‘Institutions of Eminence’

When Muslims are killed in hate crimes, BJP governments always side with the accused

Birsa Munda’s Jharkhand slipping out of Adivasi hands

Embracing holy envy: ‘Allahu Akbar’

We should not allow terrorists and bigots to hijack language in order to sow fear, ignorance and division.

‘Successful failures’ – the problem with food banks

Can foodbanks end food insecurity?

From emergency to industry

Band-aids, not solutions

Reframing the debate

What is the solution?

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

Important Links

Other Links

CONNECT