with stephen harper building economic relations with india, and visiting some of india's memorable shrines and destinations i couldn't help but recall how india had visited canada years previously in 1985: when two flights were bombed over the pacific ocean killing over 300 people which to date has been canada's largest aviation terrorist act in history.
brian mulroney, then conservative party prime minister of canada, appologized to india for their sustained loss of life. he conveniently overlooked the immigrated indians of canada who had family, traditions and culture rooted in canada that also lost their canadian loved ones. 2006 saw an even greater atrocity when the canadian penal system found no one party culpbale of killing the 329 canadian citizens.
there are two points to remember about this coerced, even premature meeting between india and canada prior to the economic meeting being conducted by the two minority-leading harper and singh governments:
1)- although the canadian indian community still mourns the loss of their loved ones, they are also afflicted by the reiteration of their lack of identity and integration within canada. the appology that mulroney issued in 1985 linguistically divided the average canadian from the indo-canadian when he appologized to indians of india, not those within his governing nation, canada. indo-canadians were excluded from the canadian social fabric thereby distancing the terrorist act to the realm of an india.
2)- young indians born in canada after this terrorist act share a common, generic perception of the bombing. i am disturbed when i talk to sikh youth who say that the air india bombing who say that the assassination of indira gandhi was 'understandable and justified. after all, she did order the storming of the golden temple, the sikh community's holiest shrine'. (preface: the golden temple was stormed by indian military forces after sikh terrorist took its refuge. sikhs took retaliation by bombing a flight going to india,dominantly regarded as hindus and the perpetrators of the desecration of the golden temple.). indian youths are not talking amongst themselves nor to the grander canadian society about the discourse of canadian terrorism that shaped this country's national security protocol, airport procedures, and foreign relations 25 years ago.
distancing the analysis of the air india bombing or limiting it to a segment of the canadian society short changes the underlying impact of this terroist act on canada: it lends to premature judgements about national and international policy making institutions, exclusion of members within the canadian fabric, and a real undermining of the impact of this act on indo-canadian mental, emotional and psychological level .
young indo-canadians are falling pray to an indoctrination defining her assassination as just and inevitable. the social analysis of this terrorist act is reducing it to a one-dimentional analysis, and until canadians come together to talk about history making events in one collective arena the growing relationship between canada and india will not fully actualize.
until stephen harper can make amends with how the then canadian goverment publically handled this untimely encounter with india any future relations will remain incomplete and underdeveloped.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
ignorance is not a bliss
i normally don't engage people in a public space on two topics: politics and religion.
however, there are a limited few i have come to know that can think outside the box; those who want to engage in dialogue, not lecture on their ideals and values. i was in a conversation with one such friend when she made an effort to include another mutual friend in our conversation: big mistake.
context: george bush had been in the city to gave a talk. tickets were $100. i already had a prior commitment that night so i didn't attend. she knew someone who had gone and was told that bush had given a really good speech. as soon as she invited our mutual friend to join and was apprised of what we were talking about ('i was just telling [me] about the george bush talk..') my friend was cut off by our mutual friend who said 'i would never pay to see him. he's stupid for what he did in iraq'.
i knew her remarks were not unique. there are many international citizens that feel the way that she reflected. however, what struck me the most was that she was unwilling to engage in the topic at hand: dialogue about the conflicting national and international ideals, and how they influence our tone within the global community. instead, she was giving a full-scale commentary on a topic that you could see she had generic impressions of. i thought to myself: how will we progress as a People if we cannot find a middle ground regarding the diverse, existing principles and practices of differing faiths and cultures?
it's as if people don't have a well- grounded idea of what to think or who to believe, yet they know exactally what they don't want to know (in this case, alternative ideals and perspectives).
ignorance is not bliss and nor should it be context. if we are unwilling to accept excuses from others then we should not accept them from ourselves, either.
talking doesn't hurt. not- knowing does. the choice is simple. or so, it appears
however, there are a limited few i have come to know that can think outside the box; those who want to engage in dialogue, not lecture on their ideals and values. i was in a conversation with one such friend when she made an effort to include another mutual friend in our conversation: big mistake.
context: george bush had been in the city to gave a talk. tickets were $100. i already had a prior commitment that night so i didn't attend. she knew someone who had gone and was told that bush had given a really good speech. as soon as she invited our mutual friend to join and was apprised of what we were talking about ('i was just telling [me] about the george bush talk..') my friend was cut off by our mutual friend who said 'i would never pay to see him. he's stupid for what he did in iraq'.
i knew her remarks were not unique. there are many international citizens that feel the way that she reflected. however, what struck me the most was that she was unwilling to engage in the topic at hand: dialogue about the conflicting national and international ideals, and how they influence our tone within the global community. instead, she was giving a full-scale commentary on a topic that you could see she had generic impressions of. i thought to myself: how will we progress as a People if we cannot find a middle ground regarding the diverse, existing principles and practices of differing faiths and cultures?
it's as if people don't have a well- grounded idea of what to think or who to believe, yet they know exactally what they don't want to know (in this case, alternative ideals and perspectives).
ignorance is not bliss and nor should it be context. if we are unwilling to accept excuses from others then we should not accept them from ourselves, either.
talking doesn't hurt. not- knowing does. the choice is simple. or so, it appears
Saturday, November 14, 2009
the new canadian
on Nov 12, 2009 the canadian government issued the new canada: heavy emphasis on military, monarchy, and technological innovation; and a downgrade on health care, gender, diversity, the environment, and of quebec as a province and not a nation.
the update was a response to the outdated outline last revised in 1995 under the liberal government.
i couldn't help but wonder how outdated the new revisions were. the re-alignement is more consistent with the middle-class, white, man. there is little mention of values that modern day canadians hold dear: freedom of choice, peace keeping, cultural diversity, tolerance, and sovreignty. instead, the new, 21-century canadian is defensive (via emphasis on the military), in alligence to the queen (not a problem as canada is a commonwealth nation), and engaged in traditionally male interests: fighting and sports.
the canadian identity has been contrited. new arrivals are reminded that it is not who they are but rather who they should aspire to be that matters. if anything, the new canadian identity heightens the emphasis on difference rather than celebrate it.
canada has regressed, and is less inclusive: a throwback to the early 20-century canada- which by any account was not a flattering era for new comers to canada, indeed.
the update was a response to the outdated outline last revised in 1995 under the liberal government.
i couldn't help but wonder how outdated the new revisions were. the re-alignement is more consistent with the middle-class, white, man. there is little mention of values that modern day canadians hold dear: freedom of choice, peace keeping, cultural diversity, tolerance, and sovreignty. instead, the new, 21-century canadian is defensive (via emphasis on the military), in alligence to the queen (not a problem as canada is a commonwealth nation), and engaged in traditionally male interests: fighting and sports.
the canadian identity has been contrited. new arrivals are reminded that it is not who they are but rather who they should aspire to be that matters. if anything, the new canadian identity heightens the emphasis on difference rather than celebrate it.
canada has regressed, and is less inclusive: a throwback to the early 20-century canada- which by any account was not a flattering era for new comers to canada, indeed.
even in canada, my body is yours
i just finished Stephen Lewis' book 'Race Against Time: Searching for hope in AIDS- ravaged Africa. he talks extensively about woman's rights and the lack thereof in African and other developing nations. he outlines how their bodies are outsourced to men and their pleasures. then i thought about canada, and its role in giving women the right to their bodies.
many canadians point fingers at other (developing) nations for not doing enough on gender violence, and gender rights. we talk about international hotspots where female genitle mutilation, rape, honour killings, gas stove 'accidents' are grotesque and not at all acceptable behaviour in canada, land of the free, where rights and responsibilites are respected and expected.
i was having a casual conversation with a friend the other day and she told me she made $100 per hour standing at a beer table at a night club wearing skimpy lingerie. she was a struggling university student and needed the money. what she didn't apply for was the gropping, touching, and harassment from club-goers. as she told me, the only time her assigned bouncer would intervene was when the club-goer got 'too' aggressive, meaning a threshold of agressiveness was tolerated, just not 'too' much.
it came to me: here we (canadians) are pointing fingers at countries across the world who don't respect women and their bodies; and yet, we do the same albeit with more subtley without raising ire amongst our own citizenry.
when will gender politics convene in the public arena with serious merit? importantly, when will canadians stop advising other nations regarding gender violence and heed its own advice?
many canadians point fingers at other (developing) nations for not doing enough on gender violence, and gender rights. we talk about international hotspots where female genitle mutilation, rape, honour killings, gas stove 'accidents' are grotesque and not at all acceptable behaviour in canada, land of the free, where rights and responsibilites are respected and expected.
i was having a casual conversation with a friend the other day and she told me she made $100 per hour standing at a beer table at a night club wearing skimpy lingerie. she was a struggling university student and needed the money. what she didn't apply for was the gropping, touching, and harassment from club-goers. as she told me, the only time her assigned bouncer would intervene was when the club-goer got 'too' aggressive, meaning a threshold of agressiveness was tolerated, just not 'too' much.
it came to me: here we (canadians) are pointing fingers at countries across the world who don't respect women and their bodies; and yet, we do the same albeit with more subtley without raising ire amongst our own citizenry.
when will gender politics convene in the public arena with serious merit? importantly, when will canadians stop advising other nations regarding gender violence and heed its own advice?
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Hijab: an exercise of rights or options?
What is it about seeing a veiled woman that can polarize a discussion?
The idea of a head scarf is not unique to women, nor is it exclusive to Islam. Jewish women cover their head when praying, and men in the middle east wear veils to deflect the heat of an arid climate. These scenarios do not provoke dialogue about religious oppression, hostility or even 'backwardness'; yet, a muslim woman wearing a veil does.
The role of colonialism, politics, and media have influenced the meaning of an islamic woman who wears a veil, hijab. She is seen as oppressed and subordinate to the patriarchal model of her religion and culture. This interpretation is not complete nor is it accurate.
Many muslim women say that taking on the hijab was liberating to her femininity and personhood. Wearing the hijab was a way to excerise her rights as a woman, and can provide access to social and economical resources that were previously unavailable. Does this rebuke suffice? Perhaps, but again, it remains incomplete.
Observers of and those that wear the hijab provide convenient interpretations regarding the function of the hijab to his or her agenda.
Homa Hoodfar, a muslim scholar, provides snapshots of women from lower- middle- and upper- class socioeconomic brackets across Egypt that wear the hijab in order to deflect the notion of having become too 'western'. In this instance, adopting the hijab has become a vehicle to assure the larger Egyptian community that she has progressed as a woman but is not a product of the western influence. These woman say that after wearing the hijab the muslim community no longer challenge their 'progressive' ways in life (ie. working while married, travelling the bus late at night) as signs of cultural and/or religious revolt. Rather they support, even empathize, with her circumstance.
Could the hijab be a way of averting social stigmas, or are they using the hijab to communicate their closeness to their faith? Concensus is not clear, and neither should be the opinion on the function of the hijab in muslim nations.
The idea of a head scarf is not unique to women, nor is it exclusive to Islam. Jewish women cover their head when praying, and men in the middle east wear veils to deflect the heat of an arid climate. These scenarios do not provoke dialogue about religious oppression, hostility or even 'backwardness'; yet, a muslim woman wearing a veil does.
The role of colonialism, politics, and media have influenced the meaning of an islamic woman who wears a veil, hijab. She is seen as oppressed and subordinate to the patriarchal model of her religion and culture. This interpretation is not complete nor is it accurate.
Many muslim women say that taking on the hijab was liberating to her femininity and personhood. Wearing the hijab was a way to excerise her rights as a woman, and can provide access to social and economical resources that were previously unavailable. Does this rebuke suffice? Perhaps, but again, it remains incomplete.
Observers of and those that wear the hijab provide convenient interpretations regarding the function of the hijab to his or her agenda.
Homa Hoodfar, a muslim scholar, provides snapshots of women from lower- middle- and upper- class socioeconomic brackets across Egypt that wear the hijab in order to deflect the notion of having become too 'western'. In this instance, adopting the hijab has become a vehicle to assure the larger Egyptian community that she has progressed as a woman but is not a product of the western influence. These woman say that after wearing the hijab the muslim community no longer challenge their 'progressive' ways in life (ie. working while married, travelling the bus late at night) as signs of cultural and/or religious revolt. Rather they support, even empathize, with her circumstance.
Could the hijab be a way of averting social stigmas, or are they using the hijab to communicate their closeness to their faith? Concensus is not clear, and neither should be the opinion on the function of the hijab in muslim nations.
Are we an over-medicalized society?
Our society is over medicalized.
Minor coughs, teasing, sex (too little or too much), and shyness have all become reasons to seek medical intervention. Procedures have to be evasive- advise will no longer do. Drugs to injections to operations are preferred by patients rather than hearing that a 'cold will just have to run it's course', 'juice, water and rest is good enough'.
Enter influenza.
There is nothing novel about the influenza strain. Just like every year it has continued to evolve with mutations seperating it from the preceding strain(s). However, what is different about this strain is that it is the first 'H'1 'N'1 combination ('H' has 16 different varieties and 'N' 9). This new combination means that the virus' characteristics are not known as it has never been identified and studied before. It also means that the interaction with the host isn't understood nor is it known, implying that plotting a correct course of action cannot be definative nor carefully proposed.
Key yet, is that the Avian Flu, the H5N1 strain, is the most lethal influenza strain to humans, and if contracted can lead to effects of greater magnitude than that of H1N1. To date, the World Health Organization, WHO, has confirmed 2 more cases of the Avain flu in Egypt, Cairo as of September 2009 of two 10- and 14- year old girls. Recall, influenza affects 20% of the total population. Of this group, 80% have gone on to contract H1N1 (accorinding to the University of Ottawa panel discussion, September 2009). The question begs: why is the H1N1 influenza strain, which is less viral and isn't affecting the entire population as once H5N1 did, leading to hysteria out of proportion to its potential effects?
Our society lives in a setting of heightened medical surveillance. Meaning, patients not only rely on health care professionals for diagnosis, but now rely on each other to identify- in us- symptoms of potential medical diagnosis. We watch each other, and report our findings to either the individual or a third party.
H1N1 is an emerging and recently unknown strain of influenza. Its entry into the host can be mitigated using less evasive tecniques, such as washing your hands, or coughing into a sleeve. Still, the general public prefers to treat H1N1 as a deadly pathogen, which it is not, and provide evasive tratment, injections, which it does not need.
Less evasive procedures will help deter the H1N1. Common sense, knowleedge, clean hands and moderate levels of sanitation will keep us safer than any level of an evasive medical procedure.
Sadly, the proportion of the H1N1 Flu is being over valued leading to its over medicalization.
Minor coughs, teasing, sex (too little or too much), and shyness have all become reasons to seek medical intervention. Procedures have to be evasive- advise will no longer do. Drugs to injections to operations are preferred by patients rather than hearing that a 'cold will just have to run it's course', 'juice, water and rest is good enough'.
Enter influenza.
There is nothing novel about the influenza strain. Just like every year it has continued to evolve with mutations seperating it from the preceding strain(s). However, what is different about this strain is that it is the first 'H'1 'N'1 combination ('H' has 16 different varieties and 'N' 9). This new combination means that the virus' characteristics are not known as it has never been identified and studied before. It also means that the interaction with the host isn't understood nor is it known, implying that plotting a correct course of action cannot be definative nor carefully proposed.
Key yet, is that the Avian Flu, the H5N1 strain, is the most lethal influenza strain to humans, and if contracted can lead to effects of greater magnitude than that of H1N1. To date, the World Health Organization, WHO, has confirmed 2 more cases of the Avain flu in Egypt, Cairo as of September 2009 of two 10- and 14- year old girls. Recall, influenza affects 20% of the total population. Of this group, 80% have gone on to contract H1N1 (accorinding to the University of Ottawa panel discussion, September 2009). The question begs: why is the H1N1 influenza strain, which is less viral and isn't affecting the entire population as once H5N1 did, leading to hysteria out of proportion to its potential effects?
Our society lives in a setting of heightened medical surveillance. Meaning, patients not only rely on health care professionals for diagnosis, but now rely on each other to identify- in us- symptoms of potential medical diagnosis. We watch each other, and report our findings to either the individual or a third party.
H1N1 is an emerging and recently unknown strain of influenza. Its entry into the host can be mitigated using less evasive tecniques, such as washing your hands, or coughing into a sleeve. Still, the general public prefers to treat H1N1 as a deadly pathogen, which it is not, and provide evasive tratment, injections, which it does not need.
Less evasive procedures will help deter the H1N1. Common sense, knowleedge, clean hands and moderate levels of sanitation will keep us safer than any level of an evasive medical procedure.
Sadly, the proportion of the H1N1 Flu is being over valued leading to its over medicalization.
Movie Review: Shoot on Sight
'Shoot On Sight' released in 2007.
The movie showcases the conflict between muslim and non-muslim in London after a subway station bombing. In the end, the ambitious british muslim police officer shoots the terror suspect, his nephew, pushing the former into emotional and later professional grief.
This movie didn't recieve much fan fair. Mainstream media did not push it into the public arena, nor did it recieve any accolades or recognition for discussing a difficult topic with clarity and sensitivity; such a shame as inter-faith conflict has heightened the meaning and significance of difference.
Guns and violence will not resolve inter-faith discord. To the contrary, it continues to propel extremism and literalist interpretation of religious texts. Inter-faith dialogue cannot be resolved using violence. Rather, ideological differences will begin to soften when conflicting parties sit across a table and engage in meaningful discussion regarding the similarities and differences they share as believers of faith and as members of the same humane community.
In the end we are more simiar than different. What medium will further this message?
The movie showcases the conflict between muslim and non-muslim in London after a subway station bombing. In the end, the ambitious british muslim police officer shoots the terror suspect, his nephew, pushing the former into emotional and later professional grief.
This movie didn't recieve much fan fair. Mainstream media did not push it into the public arena, nor did it recieve any accolades or recognition for discussing a difficult topic with clarity and sensitivity; such a shame as inter-faith conflict has heightened the meaning and significance of difference.
Guns and violence will not resolve inter-faith discord. To the contrary, it continues to propel extremism and literalist interpretation of religious texts. Inter-faith dialogue cannot be resolved using violence. Rather, ideological differences will begin to soften when conflicting parties sit across a table and engage in meaningful discussion regarding the similarities and differences they share as believers of faith and as members of the same humane community.
In the end we are more simiar than different. What medium will further this message?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
