Written By Unoccupied Press on Thursday, May 17, 2012 | 12:55 PM
There was no doubt that after the dreadful attacks of September 11, the United States would take action and rightfully so.
But in declaring a military war on terror, invading Afghanistan after they had agreed to hand bin Laden over to a third party for prosecution, and then Iraq with fabricated evidences of Weapons of Mass Destruction, the United States went too far.
Surely, the more logical thing to do would have been to treat the attacks of September 11 as a criminal offense rather than a military attack.
The response to September 11 resulted in the War on Terror which effectively created a climate of fear and paranoia under which civil liberties and human rights, in the United States and abroad, came under attack.
The reality of today’s America is one that would make the founding fathers cringe – an America where indefinite detention without trial is possible at an executive whim, mass surveillance is possible, and where anyone, including American citizens can be summarily executed anywhere in the world without substantive evidence.
Worse still, the treatment of detainees, suspects and targets abroad is reprehensible and completely out of touch with international human rights standards.
The War on Terror has simply not been worth any of the heavy, deep cutting costs including an overall bill of $4 trillion, an excess of 31,000 soldiers dead, at least 137,000 civilians killed in Afghanistan and Iraq and the erosion of human rights all over the world. Much more than simply being the War on Terror, it has also been the War on Human Rights.
And quite frankly, the latter war is in better shape.
Racial profiling in the United States before September 11 used to be police officers disproportionately stopping black or Hispanic individuals with the belief that within these ethnic pools lay more chances of catching a potential criminal. After September 11, racial profiling began to mean the specific targeting and investigating of individuals who look like they come from the Middle East, with the belief that within this pool lay more chances of catching a potential terrorist.
The difference between the kind of racial profiling that occurred before September 11 and the kind that happens today is that before there was this understanding that it was something wrong. That is not to say that it did not happen but rather there was a public consensus that racial profiling was unacceptable.
In 1999, 81% of respondents in a Gallup Poll said that they disapproved of racial profiling. [i] Barely days after the September 11 attacks, a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll found that 58% of Americans supported “requiring Arabs, including those who are U.S. citizens, to undergo special, more intensive security checks before boarding airplanes in the United States.”
The same poll also found that 49% supported “requiring Arabs, including those who are U.S. citizens, to carry a special ID”. [ii] The reason for this apparent change in mentality was that, as a result of the September 11 attacks, 73% of public considered the United States to be at a state of war. [iii] In a 2006 Gallup poll, only 2% of respondents felt that racial profiling at airports should be stopped. [iv] More recently, a 2010 Gallup poll displayed that an overwhelming 71% felt that “airline passengers who fit the profile of terrorists based on their age, ethnicity or gender should be subjected to special, more intensive security checks before boarding U.S. Flights.” [v]
Fear can do a lot of things to a public and the fear of another attack in the style of the September 11 attacks has been obviously enough to make the general American public display distrust towards a certain ethnicity.
While it is unfortunate that the general population believes that racial profiling should be employed as a security measure, it is even worse that the government and law enforcement agencies seem to agree. Proponents of racial profiling say that it is a necessary evil that works but that is not at all true.
For racial profiling to work, a huge majority of terrorists worldwide must come from one specific identifiable ethnicity. But that is not the case. Not every terrorist threat is going to manifest itself in the stereotypical Middle Eastern-like image. There are Muslim extremists but there are also Christian extremists. And Muslim extremists, just like Christian extremists, come in all colors.
The Oklahoma City bombing was perpetrated by a white male by the name of Timothy McVeigh. John Walker Lindh, who in fighting for the Taliban was captured by American soldiers during the 2001 Invasion of Afghanistan, is another white American male that does not fit the stereotypical Middle Eastern-like image. In 2011, Anders Behring Breivik, a white Christian supremacist, bombed government buildings in Oslo, killing 8 people and then went on a shooting spree in the island of Utøya, killing 69 people. These incidents display the simple fact that racial profiling can not work because not every terrorist looks the same. And if we insist on racial profiling, all we will achieve is the collective alienation and disenfranchisement of a valuable entire segment of society.
Racial profiling is not simply just an ineffective a tool, but it is also fundamentally in opposition to the values of human rights. Racial profiling violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in that it discriminates against a particular ethnicity. In 2010, the United Nations released a report reviewing the United States human rights record and made several recommendations, including calling for the United States to eliminate racial profiling. [vi]
In addition, the United States has ratified two international treaties that should bind her to end racial profiling. The two treaties in question are the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Article 2 of the latter treaty requires the signatory to “take effective measures to review governmental, national and local policies, and to amend, rescind, or nullify any laws and regulations, which have the effect of creating or perpetuating racial discrimination.” [vii] Article 26 of the former treaty obligates the signatory to “prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.” [viii]
Not only is racial profiling ineffective, it is also in blatant violation of the international commitments made by the United States. Both of the above international treaties uncompromisingly require the United States to put an end to existing discrimination and to not commit future discrimination – two requirements that a formal or informal policy of racial profiling would consistently violate.
___________________________
i "Racial Profiling is Seen as Widespread, Particularly Among Young Black Men." Gallup News Service, December 09, 1999.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/3421/racial-profiling-seen-widespread-particularly-among-young-black-men.aspx (accessed May 8, 2012).
ii "The Impact of the Attacks on America" Gallup News Service, September 25, 2001. http://www.gallup.com/poll/4894/impact-attacks-america.aspx (accessed May 8, 2012).
iii "The Impact of the Attacks on America" Gallup News Service, September 25, 2001. http://www.gallup.com/poll/4894/impact-attacks-america.aspx (accessed May 8, 2012).
iv "Terrorism in the United States" Gallup News Service. http://www.gallup.com/poll/4909/Terrorism-United-States.aspx (accessed May 8, 2012).
v "Terrorism in the United States" Gallup News Service. http://www.gallup.com/poll/4909/Terrorism-United-States.aspx (accessed May 8, 2012).
vi "Universal Periodic Review - United States of America." United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights, November 05, 2010. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/16session/DraftReport16thSessionHRC.pdf (accessed May 9, 2012).
vii "International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination." United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights, January 04, 1969. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cerd.htm (accessed May 9, 2012).
viii "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights, March 23, 1976. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cerd.htm (accessed May 9, 2012).
It's very, very difficult to speak at the end of a conference like this, because everyone has spoken. Everything has been said. So I thought that what may be useful is to remind us of some of the things that have gone on here, and then maybe offer some ideas which we can take away, and take forward and work on. That's what I'd like to try and do. We came here saying we want to talk about "Africa: the Next Chapter." But we are talking about "Africa: the Next Chapter" because we are looking at the old and the present chapter -- that we're looking at, and saying it's not such a good thing. The picture I showed you before, and this picture, of drought, death and disease is what we usually see. What we want to look at is "Africa: the Next Chapter," and that's this: a healthy, smiling, beautiful African.And I think it's worth remembering what we've heard through the conference right from the first day, where I heard that all the important statistics have been given -- about where we are now, about how the continent is doing much better. And the importance of that is that we have a platform to build on.
So I'm not going to spend too much time -- just to show you, refresh your memories that we are here for "Africa: the Next Chapter" because for the first time there really is a platform to build on. We really do have it going right that the continent is growing at rates that people had thought would not happen. After decades of 2 percent, we are now at 5 percent, and it's going to -- projected -- 6 and 7 percent even. And inflation has come down. External debt -- something that I can tell you a long story about because I personally worked on one of the biggest debts on the continent -- has come down dramatically. You know, as you can see, from almost 50 billion down to about 12 or 13 billion. Now this is a huge achievement.
You know, we've built up reserves. Why is that important? It's because it shows off our economies, shows off our currencies and gives a platform on which people can plan and build, including businesses. We've also seen some evidence that all this is making a difference because private investment flows have increased. I want to remind you again --I know you saw these statistics before -- from almost 6 billion we are now at about 18 billion. In 2005, remittances -- I just took one country, Nigeria skyrocketing -- skyrocketing is too dramatic, but increasing dramatically. And in many other countries this is happening. Why is this important? Because it shows confidence. People are now confident to bring -- if your people in the diaspora bring their money back, it shows other people that, look, there is emerging confidence in your country. And instead of an outflow, you are now getting a net inflow.
Now, why is all this important, to have to go really fast? It's important that we build this platform, that we have the president, Kikwete, and others of our leaders who are saying,"Look, we must do something different." Because we are confronted with a challenge. 62 percent of our population is below the age of 24. What does this mean? This means that we have to focus on how our youth are going to be engaged in productive endeavor in their lives. You have to focus on how to create jobs, make sure they don't fall into disease, and that they get an education. But most of all that they are productively engaged in life,and that they are creating the kind of productive environment in our countries that will make things happen. And to support this, I just recently -- one of the things I've done since leaving government is to start an opinion research organization in Nigeria. Most of our countries don't even have any opinion research. People don't have voice. There is no way you can know what people want.
One of the things we asked them recently was what's their top issue. Like in every other country where this has been done, jobs is the top issue. I want to leave this up here and come back to it. But before I get to this slide, I just wanted to run you through this. And to say that for me, the next stage of building this platform that now enables us to move forward -- and we mustn't make light of it. It was only 5, 6, 7 years ago we couldn't even talk about the next chapter, because we were in the old chapter. We were going nowhere.The economies were not growing. We were having negative per capita growth. The microeconomic framework and foundation for moving forward was not even there. So let's not forget that it's taken a lot to build this, including all those things that we tried to do in Nigeria that Dele referred to. Creating our own program to solve problems, like fighting corruption, building institutions, stabilizing the micro economy.
So now we have this platform we can build on. And it brings us to the debate that has been going on here: aid versus private sector, aid versus trade, etc. And someone stood up to say that one of the frustrating things is that it's been a simplistic debate. And that's not what the debate should be about. That's engaging in the wrong debate. The issue here is how do we get a partnership that involves government donors, the private sector and ordinary African people taking charge of their own lives? How do we combine all this?To move our continent forward, to do the things that need doing that I talked about -- getting young people employed. Getting the creative juices flowing on this continent, much of what you have seen here. So I'm afraid we've been engaging a little bit in the wrong debate. We need to bring it back to say, what is the combination of all these factors that is going to yield what we want? (Applause)
And I want to tell you something. For me, the issue about aid -- I don't think that Africans need to now go all the way over to the other side and feel bad about aid. Africa has been giving the other countries aid. Mo Ibrahim said at a debate we were at that he dreams one day when Africa will be giving aid. And I said, "Mo, you're right. We have -- no, but we've already been doing it! The U.K. and the U.S. could not have been built today without Africa's aid."
(Applause)
It is all the resources that were taken from Africa, including human, that built these countries today! So when they try to give back, we shouldn't be on the defensive. The issue is not that. The issue is how are we using what has been given back. How are we using it? Is it being directed effectively? I want to tell you a little story. Why I don't mind if we get aid, but we use it well. From 1967 to '70, Nigeria fought a war -- the Nigeria-Biafra war.And in the middle of that war, I was 14 years old. We spent much of our time with my mother cooking. For the army -- my father joined the army as a brigadier -- the Biafran army. We were on the Biafran side. And we were down to eating one meal a day, running from place to place, but wherever we could help we did. At a certain point in time, in 1969, things were really bad. We were down to almost nothing in terms of a meal a day. People, children were dying of kwashiorkor. I'm sure some of you who are not so young will remember those pictures. Well, I was in the middle of it.
In the midst of all this, my mother fell ill with a stomach ailment for two or three days. We thought she was going to die. My father was not there. He was in the army. So I was the oldest person in the house. My sister fell very ill with malaria. She was three years old and I was 15. And she had such a high fever. We tried everything. It didn't look like it was going to work. Until we heard that 10 kilometers away there was a doctor, who was looking at people and giving them meds. Now I put my sister on my back -- burning -- and I walked 10 kilometers with her strapped on my back. It was really hot. I was very hungry. I was scared because I knew her life depended on my getting to this woman. We heard there was a woman doctor who was treating people. I walked 10 kilometers, putting one foot in front of the other. I got there and I saw huge crowds. Almost a thousand people were there, trying to break down the door. She was doing this in a church. How was I going to get in?
I had to crawl in between the legs of these people with my sister strapped on my back,find a way to a window. And while they were trying to break down the door, I climbed in through the window, and jumped in. This woman told me it was in the nick of time. By the time we jumped into that hall, she was barely moving. She gave a shot of her chloroquine -- what I learned was the chloroquine then -- gave her some -- it must have been a re-hydration -- and some other therapies, and put us in a corner. In about two to three hours, she started to move. And then they toweled her down because she started sweating,which was a good sign. And then my sister woke up. And about five or six hours later, she said we could go home. I strapped her on my back. I walked the 10 kilometers back and it was the shortest walk I ever had. I was so happy -- (Applause) -- that my sister was alive!Today she's 41 years old, a mother of three, and she's a physician saving other lives.
Why am I telling that? I'm telling you that because -- when it is you or your person involved -- you don't care where -- whether it's aid. You don't care what it is! (Applause) You just want the person to be alive! And now let me become less sentimental, and say that saving lives -- which some of the aid we get does on this continent -- when you save the life of anyone, a farmer, a teacher, a mother, they are contributing productively into the economy. And as an economist, we can also look at that side of the story. These are people who are productive agents in the economy. So if we save people from HIV/AIDS, if we save them from malaria, it means they can form the base of production for our economy. And by the same token -- as someone said yesterday -- if we don't and they die,their children will become a burden on the economy. So even from an economic standpoint, if we leave the social and the humanitarian, we need to save lives now. So that's one of the reasons, from a personal experience, that I say let's channel these resources we get into something productive. However, I will also tell you that I'm one of those who doesn't believe that this is the sole answer. That's why I said the debate has to get more sophisticated. You know, we have to use it well.
What has happened in Europe? Do you all know that Spain -- part of the EU -- got 10 billion dollars in aid from the rest of the EU? Resources that were transferred to them --and were the Spanish ashamed of this? No! The EU transferred 10 billion. Where did they use it? Have you been to southern Spain lately? There are roads everywhere.Infrastructure everywhere. It is on the back of this that the whole of southern Spain has developed into a services economy. Did you know that Ireland got 3 billion dollars in aid?Ireland is one of the fastest-growing economies in the European Union today. For which many people, even from other parts of the world, are going there to find jobs. What did they do with the 3 billion dollars in aid? They used it to build an information superhighway,gain infrastructure that enables them to participate in the information technology revolution, and to create jobs in their economy. They didn't say, "No, you know, we're not going to take this." Today, the European Union is busy transferring aid. My frustration is if they can build infrastructure in Spain -- which is roads, highways, other things that they can build -- I say then, why do they refuse to use the same aid to build the same infrastructure in our countries? (Applause)
When we ask them and tell them what we need, one of my worries today is that we have many foundations now. Now we talk about the World Bank, IMF, and accountability, all thatand the EU. We also have private citizens now who have a lot of money -- some of them in this audience, with private foundations. And one day, these foundations have so much money, they will overtake the official aid that is being given. But I fear -- and I'm very grateful to all of them for what they are trying to do on the continent -- but I'm also worried. I wake up with a gnawing in my belly because I see a new set of aid entrepreneurs on the continent. And they're also going from country to country, and many times trying to find what to do. But I'm not really sure that their assistance is also being channeled in the right way. And many of them are not really familiar with the continent. They are just discovering.And many times I don't see Africans working with them. They are just going alone! (Applause)
And many times I get the impression that they are not really even interested in hearing from Africans who might know. They want to visit us, see what's happening on the ground and make a decision. And now I'm maybe being harsh. But I worry because this money is so important. Now, who are they accountable to? Are we on their boards when they make decisions about where to channel money? Are we there? Will we make the same mistake that we made before? Have our presidents and our leaders -- everyone is talking about --have they ever called these people together and said, "Look, your foundation and your foundation -- you have so much money, we are grateful. Let's sit down and really tell you where the money should be channeled and where this aid should go." Have we done that? The answer is no. And each one is making their own individual effort. And then 10 years from now, billions will again have gone into Africa, and we would still have the same problems.
This is what gives us the hopeless image. Our inability to take charge and say to all these people bringing their money, "Sit down." And we don't do it because there are so many of us. We don't coordinate. We've not called the Bill Gates, and the Soros, and everybody else who is helping and say, "Sit down. Let's have a conference with you. As a continent, here are our priorities. Here is where we want you to channel this money." Each one should not be an entrepreneur going out and finding what is best. We're not trying to stop them at all! But to help them help us better. And what is disappointing me is that we are not doing this. Ten years from now we will have the same story, and we will be repeating the same things. So our problem right now is, how can we leverage all this good will that is coming towards our way? How can we get government to combine properly with these private foundations, with the international organizations, and with our private sector.
I firmly believe in that private sector thing too. But it cannot do it alone. So there might be a few ideas we could think of that could work. They said this is about proliferating and sharing ideas. So why don't we think of using some of this aid? Well, why don't we first say to those helping us out, "Don't be shy about infrastructure. That health that you're working on cannot be sustainable without infrastructure. That education will work better if we've got electricity and railroads, and so on. That agriculture will work better if there are railroads to get the goods to market. Don't be shy of it. Invest some of your resources in that, too." And then we can see that this is one combination of private, international, multilateral money, private sector and the African that we can put together as a partnership, so that aid can be a facilitator. That is all aid can be. Aid cannot solve our problems, I'm firmly convinced about that. But it can be catalytic. And if we fail to use it as catalytic, we would have failed.
One of the reasons why China is a bit popular with Africans now -- one of the reasons is not only just that, you know, these people are stupid and China is coming to take resources. It's because there's a little more leverage in terms of the Chinese. If you tell them, "We need a road here," they will help you build it. They don't shy away from infrastructure. In fact, the Chinese minister of finance said to me, when I asked him what are we doing wrong in Nigeria. He said, "There are two things you need only.Infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure and discipline. You are undisciplined." (Applause) And I repeat it for the continent. It's the same. We need infrastructure, infrastructure and discipline. So we can make a catalytic to help us provide some of that.Now I realize -- I'm not saying -- health and education -- no, you can also provide that as well. But I'm saying it's not either or. Let's see how aid can be a facilitator in partnership.One idea. Second thing, for the private sector, people are afraid to take risks on the continent. Why can't some of this aid be used as a kind of guarantee mechanisms, to enable people to take risk?
(Applause)
And finally, because they are both standing at my -- I'm out of time. Am I out of time? OK, so let me not forget my punchline. One of the things I want everybody to collaborate on isto support women, to create jobs. (Applause) A lot has been said here about women, I don't need to repeat it. But there are people -- women -- creating jobs. And we know, studies have shown that when you put resources in the hand of the woman -- in fact, there's an econometric study, the World Bank Review, done in 2000, showing thattransfers into the hands of women result in healthier children, more for the household, more for the economy and all that. So I'm saying that one of the takeaways from here -- I'm not saying the men are not important -- obviously, if you leave the husbands out, what will they do? They'll come back home and get disgruntled, and it will result in difficulties we don't want. We don't want men beating their wives because they don't have a job, and so on.
But at the margin, we also -- I want to push this, because the reason is the men automatically -- they get -- not automatically, but they tend to get more support. But I want you to realize that resources in the hands of African women is a powerful tool. There are people creating jobs. Beatrice Gakuba has created 200 jobs from her flower business in Rwanda. We have Ibukun Awosika in Nigeria, with the chair company. She wants to expand. She needs another 20 million. She will create another 100, 200 more jobs. So take away from here is how are you going to put together the resources to put money in the hands of women in the middle who are ready -- business people who want to expand and create more jobs. And lastly, what are you going to do to be part of this partnership of aid, government, private sector and the African as an individual? Thank you. (Applause)
Obama might as well be Bush, albeit with a better image.
Starting in November 2002 with the killing of 6 al-Qaeda members traveling in a car struck by a missile from an unmanned drone, the United States began to adopt a policy of targeted extrajudicial killing in the War on Terror. [i]
And since then, the extrajudicial killings have multiplied, culminating in the high profile killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan on the first of May 2011 and the killing of two American citizens in Yemen, Anwar Awlaki and Samir Khan. [ii]
Two weeks after the killing of Awlaki, his son was also the subject of an extrajudicial killing after a strike had been authorized by the Obama administration. [iii] In most of the cases of extrajudicial killings in the War on Terror, there had not been much effort made to apprehend any of the targets.
15 year old victim of U.S extrajudicial killing
In fact, many of the targets did not even have a single charge against them. Rather, once they had been identified as a terrorist, they were put on a hit list.It must also be noted that these killings should be considered political assassinations seeing that the targets were generally neither in a field of battle nor involved in combat at the time of death. In most of these cases there has been no due process and no real evidence of guilt provided.
Even in the case of Osama bin Laden, the United States never provided a shred of evidence of his involvement in September 11. Up till his death, his place on the Federal Bureau of Investigations Top Fugitives list was justified by previous charges against him. In the case of Awlaki it is much worse since he never had any charges brought against him. In fact, the Obama administration has never provided evidence of his involvement in al-Qaeda plots.
America’s extrajudicial killings pose a range of problems not only to international human rights standards, but also to the international system itself. If the United States can assassinate individuals without any judicial backing in any country in the world, then what is to stop other countries from following suit?
Jonathan Hafetz, a professor at Seton Hall Law School, writes that the American targeted killing policy “encourages other states to expand their counter-terrorism operations in similar ways - ways that might seem less attractive when the same principles are invoked in different contexts. The United States, for example, might feel differently if Russia were to target Chechen rebels in Georgia, or if India were to target Pakistani-backed forces in Kashmir.” [iv]
Simply put in continuing with this policy, the United States, as the world’s superpower, is setting a very dangerous precedent for the rest of the world. If other nations follow suit, there is a danger that the global system might fall into chaos with borders, treaties and laws losing importance and respect.
This policy is also a violation of international law.
Article 3 of the 4th Geneva Convention specifically prohibits “the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court”. [v] Similarly, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights both prohibit executions without trial and a judicial process.
Furthermore in 2004, the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions presented a report to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, finding that “empowering governments to identify and kill “known terrorists” places no verifiable obligation upon them to demonstrate in any way that those against whom lethal force is used are indeed terrorists, or to demonstrate that every other alternative had been exhausted.” The report concluded that the practice of extrajudicial killing, even in the case of terrorists, makes a mockery of accountability mechanisms under human rights law. [vi]
The worst thing about the use of extrajudicial killing by the United States in the context of the War on Terror is that the guidelines seem to be expanding, with the President having more discretion than ever in who he decided to brand a terrorist and kill. Allowing the President the license to kill will only prove to be a very dangerous precedent.
_____________________
i. Dworkin, Anthony. "The Yemen Strike: The War on Terrorism Goes Global." Crimes of War Project, November 14, 2002.
http://www.mafhoum.com/press4/122P7.htm (accessed May 9, 2012).
ii. "Islamist cleric Anwar al-Awlaki killed in Yemen." BBC, September 30, 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15121879 (accessed May 10, 2012).
iii. Flinn, Peter, and Greg Miller. "Anwar al-Awlaki’s family speaks out against his son’s death in airstrike." Washington Post, October 18, 2011.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/anwar-al-awlakis-family-speaks-out-against-his-sons-deaths/2011/10/17/gIQA8kFssL_story_1.html (accessed May 10, 2012).
iv. Hafetz, Jonathan. "Targeted killing and the 'War on Terror' ." Al Jazeera, October 19, 2011. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/10/2011101872910456159.html (accessed May 10, 2012).
v. "Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War" Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, August 12, 1949.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/full/380
vi. Alston, Philip. "Civil and Political Rights, including the question of disappearances and summary executions." Commission on Human Rights. December 22, 2004.
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G05/101/34/PDF/G0510134.pdf?OpenElement (accessed May 10, 2012).
Written By Unoccupied Press on Saturday, May 12, 2012 | 3:19 PM
Malaysian police have clashed with thousands of protesters calling for an overhaul of the country's electoral system. Security forces fired tear gas and water cannon at demonstrators in the capital Kuala Lumpur. Al Jazeera's Harry Fawcett, reporting from the city using the Skype for iPad application, after Malaysian police "busted" his crew's camera, shares his first-hand account of the police's actions.
When North Carolina became the 30th state to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, not much changed. Already illegal in North Carolina, the amendment that passed with 61% of the vote is merely a step to further solidify the state against any encroaching liberalism.
What is remarkable, however, is not that the amendment passed – that was a given almost from the day it was introduced – but the rational behind its passage. North Carolina banned gay marriage because enough of the voting population believed it to be a sin against god. Religion was the driving force behind the vote and proves, again, the destructive force of faith once unleashed in the public sector.
“The Bible is clear,” said prominent evangelical leader Billy Graham. “God’s definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. I want to urge my fellow North Carolinians to vote for the marriage amendment on Tuesday, May 8. God bless you as you vote.” And he is absolutely right. By any literal reading of the Bible gay marriage is explicitly forbidden. In fact, the “god hates fags” message runs through the Bible from cover to cover.
If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. – Leviticus 20:13
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. – 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Obviously Christians debate whether or not these verses mean that homosexuals should be denied equal rights (and some even question whether or not these verses actually mean that god hates homosexuals).
Billy Graham, however, has no such qualms. “At 93, I never thought we would have to debate the definition of marriage,” he said. To him and to most religious American Christians (those that actually believe the tenants of the religion they subscribe to) gay marriage is expressly a sin and that fact means that it should be banned by law. This is the crux of the issue. Personal faith is only problematic when it becomes public policy. Whether or not you personally feel that god hates homosexuals, or that the world was created 6,000 years ago, or that god approves of your taxation program only matters once it becomes the justification for political action. When North Carolina passed its anti-gay marriage amendment, it did so explicitly because of religion. Christianity was the single most important force driving the ban and this is why it is so important for non-theists and non-Biblical literalists to speak up.
We are faced with a large contingency of people who believe religious law should be state law. When this contingency is allowed to exercise its might in a constitutional referendum, like in North Carolina, we are witnessing the theocracy of the majority and it is as tyrannical as any other. This is why we, who do not hold the same dogmatic tenets as do the faithful, must not be quiet on matters of faith. This is why we fight; not only for the rights of minorities like homosexuals, but for the rights of all who do not wish to live according to ancient laws written at the dawn of civilization.
Sean Ewart is a student at the Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy at the University at Albany. Currently Sean is the City Editor at the Legislative Gazette. He is also the founder of The Gadfly Press.
"At a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married," Obama said on Wednesday during an interview with ABC.
Gays in New Orleans applaud and discuss President Obama's statement in support of same-sex marriage.
On Wednesday, 6 months to the presidential elections, U.S President Barack Obama declared his support for the right of homosexuals to marry, becoming the first U.S. president in office to take such a position.
Obama's headline making statement comes two days after the official launch of his campaign and with it comes undoubtedly his first election controversy. Obama,who has long been ambiguouson the subject,said that he reachedthis conclusionafter along process of reflection.
"I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask Don't Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married," he said on Wednesday during an interview with ABC.
For a long time, Obama, who hadsaid in 2008 that he wasin favorofcivil partnerships without the right ofhomosexuals to marry,hadmerely explained thathis position was"in the process ofevolving".But on Sunday, Vice PresidentJoe Biden dropped abombshell by declaring himself for gay marriage. The next day Education Secretary Arne Duncan followed suit. And pressure began to mount on Obama to clarify whether he and his staff were in disagreement. The White House insisted that the vice president and the president were not in conflict, but noted that Biden clarified his statement as being in reference to civil rights for gay couples. This explanation was largely rejected by both supporters and critics as a convenient way for the president to show support for gay marriage without having to declare it himself. And the pressure continued to mount with the White House being inundated with grilling questions by journalists and reporters. Finally, Obama played his hand.
Obama's likely opponent for presidenton 6 November,MittRomney,immediately responded bystressingthat he was"notin favor of marriagebetween same-sexcivil unions". Additionally, thechairmanof the Republican Party,ReincePriebus, accused Obama of politicking andreiteratedthat "marriage involvesaman and a womanandwe would opposeany attemptto change that."
Meanwhile New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg has come out in support of Obama's decision to support gay marriage, saying that "this is a major turning point in the history of American civil rights. No American president has ever supported a major expansion of civil rights that has not ultimately been adopted by the American people - and I have no doubt that this will be no exception."
According to a Gallup poll on Tuesday, Americans remain divided over the legalization of homosexual marriage, with 50% for and 48% against. Marriages between same sex partners are legal in six states while thirty states have, in stark contrast, adopted constitutional amendments limiting marriage to a union between a man and a woman. The latest in that line being North Carolina, where 61% of voters voted Tuesday for such an amendment.
Written By Unoccupied Press on Monday, May 7, 2012 | 12:25 PM
Nicolas Sarkozy admitted defeat Sunday night in his attempt to be re-elected French president, and called on his supporters to respect the new president of France. The outgoing president got roughly 48% of votes in Sunday's run-off against Francois Hollande's 52%.
In his concession speech, Mr Sarkozy told upset supporters that he was "taking responsibility for defeat" and that he wishes Francois Hollande "good luck".
To what the future might have in store for him, Sarkozy said, "My place will no longer be the same. My involvement in the life of my country will now be different."
Socialist candidate François Hollande won Sunday’s French presidential runoff, giving the country its first Socialist president in almost two decades. Thousands of socialist supporters celebrated their candidate’s victory near the Socialist Party headquarters at rue de Solférino and at Place de la Bastille in Paris.
Hollande gave a victory speech to supporters in Tulle, vowing to serve the French people regardless of how they had voted.
"Fellow citizens, French people, the 6th of May have just chosen change by bringing me to the presidency of the French Republic. To those who haven't voted for me - let them know that I hear them, and that I will be president to all. There is one France, united in the same destiny," said Hollande.
.jpg)
