Bookmark and Share
Showing posts with label Human Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Human Rights. Show all posts

Monday, February 7, 2011

Top Down Takeover Of Egypt's Revolution


The revolution in Egypt erupted like all revolutions do, from the bottom up. It was unemployment and high food prices that propelled working and poor people into action. Now, the media reports that the "opposition” in Egypt is a group of well-to-do folks who have very little in common with the poor of Egypt.


This top down takeover of the revolution is being engineered with the support of the U.S. and European nations, the same allies of the dictatorship that lasted three decades. If this elite group of Egyptians manages to gain power, they'll soon find themselves confronted with the real opposition of Egypt, the overwhelming majority of working and poor people.


Who are these upper-crust oppositionists? Middle East journalist Robert Fisk explains:


"[the oppositionists] include Amr Moussa, the secretary general of the Arab League, ... the Nobel prize-winner Ahmed Zuwail, an Egyptian-American who has advised President Barack Obama; Mohamed Selim Al-Awa, a professor and author of Islamic studies, ... and the president of the Wafd party [a tiny political party], Said al-Badawi...Other nominees for the committee...are Nagib Suez, a prominent [super-wealthy] Cairo businessman... Nabil al-Arabi, an Egyptian UN delegate; and even the heart surgeon Magdi Yacoub, who now lives in Cairo." (February 4, 2011).


What is the task of this committee? Al-Jazeera reports:


“The committee — which was formed last night... proposed that vice president Omar Suleiman [the head of the brutal secret police] preside over a transitional government, and that he pledge to dissolve parliament (whose lower house was elected just last year) and call early elections.” (February 4, 2011).


Are these oppositionists so naive to believe that a "pledge" from a snake like Suleiman is worth anything? Is this a man that any respectable person should be negotiating with?


And herein lies the problem. There can be no smooth "peaceful transition," as Obama and other politicians would like to see, unless nothing in Egypt changes. This is because the ruling political power in the country, the National Democratic Party (NDP), has extremely deep ties to the rich and powerful in Egypt, backed up by both senior military officials and the U.S. government foreign aid program, which enriches various sections of the NDP. 


The New York Times explains:


"Since the revolt, the military has surged to the forefront, emerging as the pivotal player in politics it long sought to manage behind the scenes. The beneficiary of nearly $40 billion in American aid during Mr. Mubarak’s rule, its interests span the gamut of economic life — from the military industry to businesses like road and housing construction, consumer goods and resort management. Even leading opposition leaders, like Mohamed ElBaradei, have acknowledged that the military will have a key role in a transition."


To summarize, U.S. aid to Egypt has been the lifeblood of the dictatorship and the ruling party associated with it, while leading opposition figures have no interests in confronting these powerful interests, only removing their current figurehead. The opposition group that plans to negotiate with the NDP must know that any agreed to middle ground will be unacceptable to the majority of Egyptians, since the NDP will work to maintain their own privileges and wealth.


If the ruling party stays intact, then so will the ruling security apparatus, which will eventually steer the wheel of history backwards again. The party of the dictatorship must be crushed and dismembered, so that real democracy can have room to grow. The official "opposition" has no interest in doing this, because they have no interest in real change.


What would real change look like? It would require a drastic departure from the free-market policies that have been implemented for years, including privatizations of state run industries, lowering taxes for the rich and corporations, eliminating regulations, subsidies, and tariffs, etc. These policies were required by the IMF and World Bank, U.S.-led institutions that created in Egypt what exists in the U.S. — an incredible gap between rich and poor.


None of Egypt's "respectable" opposition are mentioning these policies, because many benefit from them.


If an anti-Mubarak, pro-free-market opposition gains power, they will collide immediately with the majority of working and poor Egyptians, who want a change in the above policies that brought about their misery.


The only opposition group that is expressing the economic demands of the people seems to be the newly-formed Egyptian Federation for Independent Unions, which broke away from the government dominated unions to demand that a "... a minimum wage no less than 1200 LE, with a yearly raise proportionate to inflation; guarantee workers rights to bonuses and benefits according to work value, especially work compensation for those facing work hazards."
and:


"The right for all Egyptian citizens to fair social security including the right to health care, housing, education ‘ensuring free education and syllabus development to cope with science and technology evolution,’ the right for all retired to decent pensions and benefits."


It is demands like these that will decide Egypt's future the day after Mubarak is gone. This will require a complete transformation of Egypt's political system, including its economic policies that are intimately connected to the billions of U.S. foreign aid. It will also require that Egypt's poor and working class develop a clear vision of what they want in order to avoid being led astray by enemies acting as friends.


By Shamus Cooke/www.workerscompass.org

Monday, July 6, 2009

Gay Rights: Us & Them

Indians are devastated. There is an urgency to address issues of public morality and answer questions like, "What are we going to say to our children?" People of all faith and religion are flocking together to understand the ugliness of the statement made by the Delhi High Court legalising gay relationships.

The viciousness of the LGBT (Lesbian, Guy, Bisexual and Transgender) community is being celebrated on all television channels across the country. In a recent debate on a prominent TV channel, a retired police commissioner lambasted a gay rights activist.

Imagine, morality pouring out of the mouth of a police commissioner! How ridiculous could that be? In fact, by the most rough estimates, the High Court statement stands to ablactate our police force of significant money which was routinely extracted as hafta (weekly extortion sum) from hijras and transgender on our streets.

It is a different matter that the police in India are too chic to be let down by the diction of an old judge of the High Court. This brings us to the broader question. How justified are we in condemning legalisation of LGBT rights?

Legalising LGBT relationships have two entirely divergent angles. It is both an issue of religious faith and a matter of human rights. Unfortunately, as a bystander, I have seen on more than a single occasion that religion and human rights don’t go hand in hand. Our experiences with Taliban in Afghanistan, with Church’s posturing on abortion and in recent times with forces of hindutva in Gujarat are more than ample evidence to prove the point.

So do we expect that major religions of this country would go all out to embrace the LGBT community with open arms? Not really. Hinduism is full of verses depriving those who indulge in a homosexual relationship. Manusmriti talks of loss of caste or Gatibhramsa for those who are in such rapport.

Being a Muslim I know that Islam prohibits homosexual relationships. But then Islam also prohibits alcohol, pork and idol worship. Should the Muslims go all out in India asking the government to ban these? The restrictions imposed by a vibrant democracy teach us to rein our religious thoughts and practices to a more personal level.

Whenever the boundaries of personal and public discourse on issues of faith get blurred, the country is engulfed by a squall of blood. How commonly have we seen the eruption of violent conflicts started by the carcass of a cow in a temple or a pig in a mosque?

Expectedly, the most severe condemnation on the High Court judgment has come from the Islamic seat of Deoband. Having said this, it’s interesting to note that Muslim scholars in the US and Europe have never spoken in such harsh and ruthless language against the LGBT community in these regions. Possibly, the acceptance of a practice takes time and the scholars in those countries are more evolved on the social understanding of sexual orientation of people.

This brings us to the issue of public morality. How many times have we heard the use of this word in all public debates on legalisation of LGBT relationships? Public morality in India, as I understand, is a weapon of a class to be used without much justification on the most downtrodden creatures of the society.

Public morality goes for a toss when a girl is burnt alive by petty eve teasers. Public morality is thrown out of the window when issuing censure certificates to bollywood movies which would be good enough to be labeled as pornographic. Public morality is raped and molested each day on Indian buses, Goan beaches and red light areas. Public morality is burnt and thrashed in the name of dowry and female foeticide.

Yet we Indians accept public morality as a shield against any act of human upliftment and social change. Change which does not suite our style, our culture, our values and our petty needs can be easily sacrificed at the altar of public morality without any questions asked or eyebrows raised.

It is interesting to see that there has not been a single case of conviction in last twenty years in accordance with Article 377 in this country. Public morality is a Rip Van Winkle, awake after 20 years of deep stupor.

In my opinion, the real context of the LGBT issue is a matter of human rights. We live in a democratic country, governed by a constitution which imparts equal rights to all irrespective of their religious faith, class, gender or age.

Although the impartiality of this statement can be questioned, the essence of the Constitution remains pristine. In legalising guy rights in India, the Delhi High Court has shown its abject acceptance of a community which has long been eschewed in our society.

To me, this is an empowerment of kinds. It has nothing to do with religious decrees and narrow social fiats through which our lives are governed. This is accepting those who live life as they think is good and natural for them. If we cannot accept this change then we should have reservations on orders prohibiting sati and child marriage. It is a matter of serious thinking that in a complex dynamic world, are we ready to accept social change as and when it comes or are we still trapped in our past.

By supporting the legalisation of gay rights we do not accept the practice, we accept a broader relevance of human rights. Some of these rights might not be acceptable and palatable to us but if they give freedom to a big chunk of society, they should be relevant and meaningful.

It is wrongly felt that by legalising the LGBT community, the Delhi High Court has opened the flood gates for such relationships. "Oh my God, my son will be a gay now", screamed a man from inside his new Skoda on a TV channel. I wish I could tell him that his son will be a gay or a heterosexual not because of the High Court order but because of his sexual orientation and preferences.

These are misconceptions which make our society handicap to accepting change. It’s high time that we change our attitudes and preferences for social acceptability. Our morality should not be based on bigotry.

Intolerance can destroy civilisations. Social change is the sine qua non of survival. Good or bad, social changes need time to manifest their full impact. As a democratic country we need to give this time.

Shah Alam Khan/CounterCurrents

Friday, July 3, 2009

Gay Sex No Crime, Decrees Delhi High Court; Victory Of Lower Classes: Row Kavi

My good friend Ashok Row Kavi was the first journalist to expose the mainstream media's homophobia and bring LGBT issues into the public domain. Disgusted by the status quoists who preferred to keep quiet, he quit to start Bombay Dost, India's first LGBT journal. It ceased publication for a few years for want of funds but is now back on the stands again. Here's Ashok's take on India's gay scene in his own words:

“After a few years I launched Bombay Dost in the late ’80s, ironically the main opposition to this incipient activism came not from straight quarters; it came from the gay community itself. For instance, the gay segment from the city’s corporate elite, featuring brown sahibs who frequent Bombay Gymkhana and such types, the upper middle classes with their ever-growing detachment from the nation’s core concerns, were opposed to queer activism.

One of the arguments was, “Which policeman would dare catch people like us; it’ll take one phone call to the police headquarters to set matters straight.” This attitude exemplifies the queer paradox, where despite being so sequestered from the mainstream, it remains a microcosm of India and its worst qualities: a horribly divided society based on caste and class.

This historic judgment is thus a victory of the lower classes, of the poor, and oddly enough, of heterosexual liberalism. The poor and the petty bourgeoisie have had significant reason to fight against Section 377. It is they who need protection from police harassment most; it is they who need the canopy of a law that will protect them from the injustices that they are so prone to. It’s been a long battle, but they are larger battles to fight in the coming years.”

Here's an interesting comment from a queer feminist and activist I came across in the Asian Age:

July 2, 2009 is a historic day. Not just for lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgender, hijras and kothis in India, but also for all those who strive to uphold the values of equality, freedom, non-discrimination and inclusiveness in India.

The Delhi high court on Thursday, in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) asking for the reading down of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, decriminalised adult, consensual, same-sex sexual activity in private.

The reading down of Section 377 is not just a reaffirmation of the rights of all citizens of this country to live their lives with freedom, dignity and respect, but it also upholds the essence of the Indian Constitution, that of inclusiveness.

The judgment states very clearly: “If there is one constitutional tenet that can be said to be the underlying theme of the Indian Constitution, it is that of ‘inclusiveness’.”

Among various other statements, this one in particular makes the judgment not a simple reaffirmation of the rights of a large section of citizens of this country but also of the basic pillars of our Constitution, that of freedom, dignity, respect and equality.

This Delhi high court judgment, in content and language, has set an example that can be emulated in various demands for justice, equality and freedom of oppressed communities in this country.

The struggle for decriminalisation of same-sex activity has been on in the Delhi high court since 2000 and in the streets of this country for many years before that. The judgment comes soon after this country witnessed its second “pride march” in Delhi, Kolkata, Chennai, Bengaluru and Bhubaneshwar.

The colourful parades and the march, along with many other campaigns over the years, like the open letter written by Vikram Seth against Section 377, and signed by many prominent citizens including Amartya Sen and Swami Agnivesh, contributed immensely to this historic judgment.

What will be the effects on this judgment on the everyday lives of India’s lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgender people? The daily violence upon and harassment of this section is well-known.

Violence and discrimination exists in the public sphere as well as in the private sphere (among friends, family and colleagues), and has in several instances led to death and suicide. When stopping short of death, it has meant lives that are lived in secret with the threat and danger of being “outed” looming large.

Discrimination towards same-sex loving men, who have been forcibly married off to women, has led not only to adverse effects on their own lives but also on the lives of the women they have been married to, who are unaware that their husbands are uninterested in them in any way.

Given this reality, the judgment has been long overdue to grant basic rights to these communities and ease the reality of their everyday lives. The symbolic significance of this judgment is beyond measure.

The constitutional framework within which it has been placed gives it enormous legitimacy, strength and significance. In legal terms, it only applies to Delhi but is a strong precedent that can be used in any other parallel court in this country. While other courts are free to disagree, they will have to counter the Delhi high court judgment substantially, a task that is close to impossible.

An appeal in the Supreme Court by any of the defendants in the PIL is a likely reality and will have to be addressed. This may not necessarily be a bad thing as a victory in the Supreme Court will vindicate the judgment of the Delhi high court nationally, beyond any further doubt. Either way, the legal battle may continue, but the effects of this judgment can never be entirely undone.

In real terms, the judgment, we hope, will mean a significant reduction in harassment of gay men, hijras, kothis, panthis, lesbians and transgenders in the public and public spheres. Further, this judgment gives us the right to demand our rights openly in cases where there is discrimination and violence on the basis of gender and sexual identity.

The basic civil rights assured to all citizens of this country need to be extended to same-sex desiring persons. This includes rights of property ownership, adoption, inheritance and others. These rights are not automatically attributed to same-sex loving people by this judgment but have to be fought for. That can now be done with pride and openness.

We hope this judgment will also open up space for individuals in this country to renegotiate the freedom and openness with which they live their lives. Colleagues, friends and families can no longer argue the illegality of homosexuality and we hope this will be encouragement for individuals to live more open and honest lives with their loved ones.

The struggle for equality and freedom has been flagged off to an illustrious start with this landmark judgment and will now continue with all the momentum that has been gained by it.

The joy of this historic day is beyond measure. Celebrations will be on while we look with hope at the future struggles that can now be fought, not as criminals, but as equal citizens of this country who have the space to demand their basic rights.

Let this day be the beginning of many more such illustrious days that reaffirm the rights of all Indians without discrimination and make its people proud of the country’s firm belief in freedom and democracy.

Ponni Arasu/The Asian Age
Powered By Blogger