What it means to have a festival

I'll be sharing more older posts for the rest of January, sharing more comments from Google+ and tying into Islamic subjects that are of interest to the wider public.
Can't think of much off the top of my head, except the writing I've saved onto the home PC, for the moment, but I'm sure I can come up with other interesting original things to say soon. Insha Allah.

Today, "What It Means To Have A Festival" about the problems at a cultural event held in the US, which had (I'm guessing, educatedly) both Arab Christians and Arab Muslims, and many non Arab Americans.
Probably some bigotry or hate on both sides who were involved.

More bitmaps for readers, about the blog, comments and stats. Also bitmaps from Twitter, which are a new thing on the blog I'm introducing and will try to do more of in the future as well.

Since I can't comment on google+ these days, I have other ways to get around that by sharing on the blog, but probably there is a solution to that; also, readers comments welcome on the blog. I have commented myself here, so don't see why others can't or are unable. Maybe that's not so?



Also, photos and video this week.



Comments on blogger



Dearborn Michigan – What it Means to Have a Festival

A person asked me about giving out tracks at a festival in Dearborn; what did I think of it? I responded then that I didn’t know what happened in Dearborn, I’m not from the US (and believe it or not, don’t watch US News that much), or keep up on events in the US. But a while later I saw the video about the Arab festival in Dearborn, the Christians with placards who were being pelted with bottles and pieces of concrete by Arab or Muslim children and were soon asked, by the police on duty there, to leave.

I’m not really interested in the final part of the video, which shows how police later stop their vehicle while they are being escorted by more police to a safe distance; presumably the police don’t want them to come back and are escorting them to the ends of the cultural festival, which has 17 blocks of activity related to the festival. Whatever the protesters then felt towards the police or the city, regarding their rights or an infringement of their freedom of speech right, is not my concern, after they are escorted out of the festival, that’s up to their lawyers to decide; it seems that from what the group leader said, that there had been a court case about events at the last festival and the police or city were not successful in the suit against them. So the precedent from the previous year’s court verdict is in favor of the protestors and as far as any new suit trying to fight the same fight (allowing a presence for the Christian preachers) as the year before. Nonetheless, the group is asked by the police to leave, (the festival in April, 2012).

Deputy Chief of Dearborn

First, it is the law that must be upheld. The police on the scene require compliance whether you are an Arab, a Muslim or a Christian. That being said, the fact that the leader of the group keeps arguing with the police, when they have crowd control to worry about, is in itself a problem. The deputy chief defends police actions saying that it isn’t free speech (or “the signs”) that are the problem, but the “disturbance” which the group is causing by their presence. He has to call a spade a spade. He obviously doesn’t know everything that is going on between the crowd (largely children, and later some youths with horns) and the group of Christian evangelicals or preachers.

After the deputy chief speaks to a lawyer he tells the protestors that they have to leave or they will be “cited for disorderly”. That’s when the group is finally escorted out.

The Crowd - group dynamics

The protest leader claims that the Muslim or Arab children (200 children, he says) have been attacking their group for 30 minutes. During that time, we see some yelling, we see one young Muslim man speaking with them angrily, but not violently, we see many children (I couldn’t say if they are 100 or 50 or 200 from the video, that would need a panorama or view from above) throwing things at the protestors (Christians evangelicals, maybe). Later on there are more Muslims, older youths with horns, making a lot of noise as they walk in front of the Christian group of protestors, some verbal exchanges take place, no real violence of any sort is directed at the group, except from children.

The Organizers - their rights

I have to look at the context of the festival to understand more. For one thing, the festival is not a Muslim festival, but is an Arab festival. As such, I imagine that in Dearborn, there are both Muslim and Christian Arabs. Therefore, there is already in all likelihood a good presence of Christians and possibly Christianity at the festival. Maybe there are booths that are already promoting Christianity, or maybe the Christians and Muslims are not propagating their religious views or beliefs at the festival. Maybe the festival organizers didn’t want any religiously outspoken people or booths with only religious content or products at the festival, i.e. books, CDS, DVDs or video cassettes. We have no idea from the video what was available at the festival or even the theme of the festival other than it is an Arab festival. During some of the filming, there is obvious Arabic recorded music playing, or perhaps even live music.

The cultural festival already has a right, before the protestors, to have their festival. Why their festival should be disturbed by protestors is a good question, and if the eviction of the protestors means a better and safer atmosphere for the festival shouldn’t the protestors be evicted?

That being said, it is not obvious to me at this point if the Christian protestors needed to be there with placards or pamphlets or a megaphone, or even if their message being broadcast at the festival isn’t already being broadcast at some of the booths at the festival. Also, did the singular approach of the protest group contravene any bylaws, or such, as the police officer tells the group’s leader that they are not permitted to use the megaphone. And it seems that they at some point, during their march, are instigating violence, and if they are, is that against the law? But you will have to read on to see what I mean by ‘instigating violence’…

17 Blocks of Festivities

Another thing which should be noted, which is very important is that the festival runs for 17 blocks, so a disturbance in one area will require more police; escorting a group out will use more police but only until they are gone, then the police will of course resume policing the area of the festival; it’s obvious that the group is making some trouble for the police, whether they see that or not. In any case, when police tell you to do something you should do it. I think the protest leader is lucky he wasn’t arrested for obstruction of justice. If an Arab Muslim or a black or Hispanic Muslim argues that much with a policeman maybe he wouldn’t be as lucky as this man.

The most important thing to note, which is of course not a subject of the video at all (a very amateurish slanted video in my view), is the success of the festival and what it can mean for Dearborn. Festivals can become huge and popular gatherings. Festivals can also make a lot of money; is one of the reasons the police and the city want the festival to continue, so that the money made from the festival, which stays in Dearborn rather than leaving Dearborn, will help the economy, even slightly? Why do people generally want festivals? Why do city governments allow festivals? The deputy chief mentions the fact that the Chamber of Commerce didn’t want a bullpen at the festival, so that’s why there are no bullpens; it also seems as though if the Chamber of Commerce is involved that they should also have some rights as far as what kind of activities they want promoted at the festival and what kind of actions they would prohibit, to maximize enjoyment and a festive atmosphere at the festival.

The City - freedom of speech debate

The protest leader complains that the city or police are not well equipped to deal with the crowd, or shouldn’t have given the festival organizers a permit, if they can’t protect the protestors, what I had understood from one of his statements to the police. Well, the police are hoping that they will be able to control a crowd and they also count on their authority as peace officers to be able to evict anyone, including American patriots or Christian evangelicals out of the festival if need be, but without resistance. When someone starts resisting the police he becomes a danger to the public.

The deputy notes that “your head is bleeding” or something to that effect, and that obviously he and his group are in some danger or risk of being harmed further than they have already been harmed. He also points out that the police themselves are also in some danger, due to the actions or presence of the group. If their mere presence is enough to cause a riot, then they should be evicted, sorry.

Arab children vs. Mr. Israel

It is unfortunate that the children persist in throwing objects, especially heavy object like pieces of concrete, which obviously can hurt someone and did. It would have been better if the police had stopped some of the children, and I’m not quite sure why they didn’t just make an example of some of them to stop the abuse.

Instead of enjoying themselves at the festival, buying food, listening to Arab music, riding the Ferris wheel and playing on other toys or games at the festival, the children are attracted to the stoning of protestors. Partly, there is a mob mentality which seizes the children, as obviously children are not the most rational of humans or well-behaved when they think they are being drawn into a fight. They readily accept the challenge unthinkingly; they saw the protestors as challengers, and because they are not afraid of the protestors (no adult is going to attack them, or he’ll be arrested) they are very bold in their stoning of the protestors and verbal abuse. They continue to stone the protestors as long as the protestors continue to give them a reason; which to them is the fact that they are at a festival where they are not wanted. An American girl yells to them, “Go home”, which might show that there is already tension in Dearborn between immigrants’ children, or Arab Americans and others in the community; one Muslim youth mentions that many of the protestors are not ‘Americans’ so much as illegal Mexicans from over the border. Therefore, there definitely appears to be a problem of race-relations in the city, or at least everyone is well aware that differences and problems exist in Dearborn because of race, or economic impacts of the over the border migration of Mexicans into America, whether they are actually legal immigrants or are illegal. (I don’t think though, that illegal immigrants would risk police investigation of their identity at a cultural festival merely because they demand the right to video the crowd, hand out Christian literature to Muslims, or get into a scuffle or argument with some Arab children.)

History of the Festival - distrubances

It is however sad that the festival, for two years in a row, is plagued by some low-level violence and disturbances which serve to tarnish the image of the festival, the people involved in the festival, the organizers, the community as a whole, and put a spotlight on the local government, or police, which makes them appear in a negative light. As American patriots, I think it would be much better to concentrate their efforts on the success of any and all events held in the city which promote the city’s unique cultures, which promotes peaceful coexistence. The protestors seem altogether self-absorbed, just out to promote their own view of the world, at the same time not really promoting Christianity as much as their right to freedom of speech, even if it disturbs an otherwise fun and healthy family activity; it is the families with children who really appreciate festivals, and to ruin it for those families in Dearborn who are there with their children - to give them an opportunity to enjoy a wholesome event; with good food, friends, and what is available at the festival - is pure selfishness and self-aggrandizement. There is no good reason for a group to come into a festival - not with the idea of enjoying the festival, which is the purpose and raison d’être of the festival; that people would enjoy themselves – but to disrupt and attract a crowd. They know from the last year’s events that this year probably the same negative responses to their presence, as a group from outside the festival, coming in to spread their message, where it isn’t necessarily going to be respected nor received, especially by Muslims, who do not need nor want a Christian education (Muslims already know what the Christians believe, it isn’t like they don’t already know). And if a policeman tells you to put the megaphone away, that it is not allowed, then you put the megaphone away. If police tell you that you are to be escorted out, then you let yourself get escorted out; that is the law, pure and simple. You can then take your protest to the courts and practice your amendment rights to sue the government of Dearborn, or the police department.

My question:

One of the protestors is heard saying, “I think when you chop peoples’ heads off that’s provocative.” Does such an attitude belong at an Arab cultural festival, where people want to go to have a good time?

Arab unrest and the US response

(I will be publishing many posts I had written from the previous 6 months while I was away)

“The west ravaged and destroyed Afghanistan for years “, says Brzezinski in an interview with Fareed Zakaria of CNN.

Libya, and Yemen and Syria are thorny issues.

It has approached the Libyan crisis well”, he had said at the time about Obama administration’s role in the conflict before the lynching of the late leader (Gaddafi) by rebels.

ON the other hand, in other conflicts, the US should not be in the forefront of the military initiative.

“There can be a slight gap between (our) words and actions”, he had said.

The West totally ignored Afghanistan (after the end of the war with Russia) and then Taliban appeared, he explains.

Concerning future relations in the region; “Iran is more hostile while Egypt will be more difficult”, he says.

Fareed Zakaria explains, we approve of the Arab uprisings, but may make things more difficult for American foreign policy issues.

The masses are more driven and less patient, explains Brzezinski.

It’s in Israel’s interest to move forward (now).

I particularly have in mind Egypt and potentially Jordan.

The New York Times “story of a showdown likely in the UN” is worrying. Will the UN vote for Palestinian independence? He asks.

“The time is against us”, he said. US voted against UN resolution despite the wording being like the American position, “conveying that it is powerless,” but it is a “redeemable” mistake, he points out.

American Interference and Life - Part Two

Legalities and Life

The wording is so important;

Will the AUMF apply in 2021 in Somalia, as it does in 2001, in Afghanistan? Now, I want to clarify something, although I’m not familiar with law. If something is right in 2011, isn’t it right in 2001, or 2021? And if it’s wrong in 2021, isn’t it wrong in 2011 or 2001?

You see, the Islamic law, called Shari’a, as most people who read about Islam at all will know, hasn’t changed in over 1,440 years! The Shari’a hasn’t changed, but applications can change, depending on different variables, and so on.

Slavery wasn’t completely abolished in Islamic Shari’a, because, as some people surmise, if slavery were abolished to the Muslims (no longer would they be allowed to have slaves), but somewhere in the future the non-Muslims align against the future Muslim state (under a Khalifah) for argument’s sake, and they decide it is in their best interests to have Muslim captives become their slaves, you can see how it would be really difficult for Muslims to retaliate in wise.

Whereas alcohol and pork are forever and always will be considered “haram”, slavery isn’t. “Slaves” doesn’t mean “blacks”, but anyone who is made a slave. In Islam, racism is totally, forever and always will be “forbidden”. During the early period of Islam, there were slaves among Muslims and non-Muslims. The Islamic state, under the Prophet Muhammad’s guidance, taught the people that one of the best forms of repentance was to “free a slave”. That’s why it was done so extensively. Since that time Muslims freed their slaves liberally and the number of slaves dwindled in the first few centuries of Islamic rule. Just one point, they are not permitted to free another’s slave, only a slave in their possession.

Did you ever think about Saddam Hussein’s trial; why was it done so quickly? Saddam was probably one of the few Iraqis, or Muslims in the ‘war on terror’ privileged enough to (avoid a long and dragged out) “due process”. However, the medical examinations he had to endure could be seen as “unusual punishment” (because he was a prominent figure).

There are lots of detainees still in Guantanamo or in black sites (as “disappeared” persons), who are in effect being held illegally, without trial, without charge, without legal representation, is this not the case? Isn’t this scenario against International law? What is being done about these men, (or if there are any women, about them)?

Can a Muslim government also use AUMF in/for their own country? Or is AUMF only okay for America, or American forces, but not Muslim governments or their forces? Also, is brutal use of force by law enforcement, or military - even “torture” justified in some instances? We are led to believe that “torture” is not justified, yet isn’t “torture” used even by America; as such America’s black sites are there for this specific purpose, to extract confessions out of people? Although he was innocent, Khaled El – Massri is a case in point - he was kidnapped and tortured in Afghanistan for five months, then dumped in Albania, left to find his way home. You can find out more about the ongoing case he’s fighting against the American government at WikiLeaks.

 Faced by “terrorism”, and “extremists” torture or “enhanced interrogation” techniques is still an option most governments (will) use as a final option, whether it gets the desired results or not.

(The Authorized Use of Military Force)

For America as it stands now, the congress needed some powers to get Al-Qaeda, and Bin Laden or their operatives inside and outside America, so AUMF was used. Bush said, “We’ll smoke ‘em out”, or was it “him (Bin Laden) out”? At any rate, AUMF allows for long detentions, detention without trial and interrogation tactics, which may or may not look like torture to some of us, to name a few.  The AUMF must be extended to 2011, now, or the date of the explanation by Ho, I read at opinionjuris.org.  

Some problems:

A new bill – what’s wrong with the old one? Apparently these things run out, and have to be renewed.

The new language – the Obama administration (maybe) wants to Veto (the) (some) new language because (it) “if the set of detainee related provisions are included” (must be bad for the detainees). Mainly as explained by Deborah Pearlstein, the language being objected, more vigorously this time, has to do with “Gitmo (detainees) prosecution -and-transfer restrictions.”(opinionjuris.org)

Spaulding says, “[OBL] sparked the Global war”.

The reason that conspiracy theories exist, and by the theory of relativity, the opposite of them exist; I mean arguments (equally as unbelievable as the conspiracy theories and just as improbable) against the conspiracy theories (i.e. the 9-11 truthers theories, are the most recent and maligned of these), obviously can’t and shouldn’t be ignored, whichever side of the argument you fall on. The fact is, nothing has yet been proven or disproven to the whole population. Actually, the 9-11 camp has a lot of supportive evidence, which if someone is honest with himself, would realize is not all “crazy”.  We should be as honest and straightforward as the truthers are being, should we not? (I’m speaking here as an omniscient outside voice, not taking sides, apparently). To tell the truth, I know what side I’m on, have no ambivalence about it whatsoever, but I’m trying to add my bit to keep the debate alive, otherwise it might die, and become another historically forgotten matter. But what about the next event, national disaster in America, or global jihadist group that comes along; it will...Is there a lesson, to be learned here, in the here and now?

It’s not true, what Spaulding says in her report; that America was pulled into the war with OBL and Al-Qaeda, at least, not completely true. There are ‘forces’ at work, or clandestine” men in black”, in the shadows who make conflicts happen.

Suzanne Spaulding, who wrote her report for the Senate Select Committee, “[The]events of 9-11 provoked the United States into declaring its own Global War, which Bin Laden used to support his own claim that Muslims were called to join in the Global Jihad”

I can’t believe, even in light of the fact that some 3,000 innocent people (innocent of attacking Bin Laden)were killed in New York in 2001, that America decides to start a Global War in ‘retaliation’.  Was it not only to play the blame game, name OBL the mastermind, throw in a global Jihad, the Taliban, Mullah Omar, some Arabs the Pakistanis decide to turn in for the cash reward, who turn out to be largely innocent of a connection to 9-11, Khaled El Massri who is trying to get justice, or a highly paranoid KSM, who ranted in his diaries about all kinds of stuff, obviously mentally disturbed and possibly mentally handicapped, too, to plaster his photo, unkempt hair, chest hair and in undershirt to make one of the supposed “brains” of the operations; should we believe he is brilliant, yet deranged, taking a cheap shot at Muslims and their supposed  “cream of the crop”, the leader who goes into hiding, in caves, and a one-eyed religious icon, Prophet, according to media hype, it all played out so well, in the hysterical aftermath of the crash of the stock markets, in the hysterical aftermath of the crashing of the ‘twin towers’ (in the financial center), never mind that at least one man, Silverstein made a lot of money when he agreed to sign, as he clearly says, in video footage (Loosechange, or other 9-11 theory information gatherers didn’t plan this, it just happened) to have his building (one of the no 5, or no 7, I’ll have to watch the video again to be sure) demolished, “brought down” with “controlled explosions” because as he casually, under no duress explains, his decrepit building is worth a lot torn down, and he wouldn’t have paid for the cost of refurbishing it, because his building had asbestos, an expensive do-it-yourself project on its own, he decides just before the “terrorist attacks” that anytime will be good to “bring (it) down”. The environmental impact of the attacks, and the destruction of the buildings which contained asbestos, clearly was terrible, and the impact on people’s lives continues, to this day. The insurance he got after the attacks (for that building alone) was 3 billion! I think.

The government claimed (i.e. Condoleezza Rice made statements which contradict her earlier actions, or statements) or members of the administration did, that they had no advanced knowledge of “the attacks”. < a href = http://www.opinionjuris.org > Condoleezza </a> received advanced notice, via  information she received in a folder from then President Bill Clinton.

About the AUMF, if America could do so, please try using it to “target” those “belligerent individuals” in Libya ( who must surely exist) if America is involved in a campaign there (revised June 29), as opposed to an entire population in the urban centers which Nato is bombing daily; that might help cut down on the “collateral damage”, as some like to call non-military people in the crossfire or “run” of apache helicopters and “bombing raids” in a ‘war zone’, the civilian casualties. I happened to hear from a close family member that his sister saw a lone school girl outside of  the school she attends get hit with fire from an apache helicopter, as it flew overtop the area. One of many “bringing freedom and democracy” to Libya - or is it too soon to hope? I see that beleaguered country and its people, most of all, facing a future, I’m afraid will be as much as Iraq, one of destruction and mayhem, and above all, occupation.

The UN Special Rapporteur is as American as Apple Pie

 

Richard Falk may be engineering himself between a rock and a hard place. But why does he?

I don’t know much about the man, except what I’ve seen of him on the internet. His activities; writings, blog, UN special Rapporteur posting, Professor Emeritus at one University, and Visiting Special at another, all point to the fact, this person is serious. He may also be compromised.

Why not give up your UN posting? Why not ‘resign’ before you are sacked? Is it the prestige, or the money you seek? How much does a posting like that pay? Not to mention, how much do you make with all the articles you write, your opinion pieces?

Sure, he is allowed to his opinions, like everyone else. I don’t even argue where he is coming from. But, isn’t it hypocritical to keep a UN posting, and at the same time tell the UN off? I don’t know it seems to me to be a compromising position. Since you think so poorly of the UN in its lack of progress on the Middle East or World Peace processes, why not resign on principle? Is it a posting with special status, such that you are like another Watchdog? So you can’t be sacked? But then how can others in the UN demand your firing, if you are somehow protected? If they insist, will you be made to leave against your will?

I’m not an expert on Politics, or any field. But I suspect, you can’t be fired, or there are people who don’t want you fired. If the ‘nays’ are greater than the ‘ayes’, then you will remain the UN Special Rapporteur (on Palestinian issues).

Is it a cushy job? Seems to me it would have to be; lots of free air miles, hotel accommodation, maybe. I wouldn’t mind a UN posting, but I don’t have the knowledge or the experience to earn such. It’s almost like a reward for all the long years of writing pieces that make some Americans’ neck hair salute.

Americans will do anything for money, in that sense at least, Richard is as American as Apple Pie with ice cream.

Just one more question, “Who’s your daddy?”*

DD – I like to write silly stuff sometimes, this is one of those times. As John Candy said in one of his roles, “There’s a time to act and a time to think; and this man has no time to think”.

* A line from the movie, “Master of Disguise”, which was pretty hilarious, and sometimes not so much. Michael Moore says it in his anti Bush production, I forget the name.

Movie Review - Born On The Fourth Of July

The Meaning of Home and Country

“I just felt like I’m home…like maybe we’re home”, is the last line Ron Kovic, or Ronny says in the movie, “The Fourth of July”.  Kovic is played by Tom Cruise, a veteran actor by the time. Maybe it’s one of his best movies. There’s some sex, and of course violence. The story moves between Ron’s last year of high school in 1967, his enlistment in the war, and the war 13,000 miles away in Vietnam, where he as platoon leader, leads the fight, only to erroneously kill  village women and children, and hauntingly as well, one of the young newly enlisted men in his platoon, Charlie Wilson.

Then the heroic fight he makes, when he returns to his homeland, country and hometown two years later, only to find that he is not so much respected, as maligned by many citizens, as the tide against the war is beginning to change many Americans’ feelings about the justice of the war against the Vietnamese. At one point, he even says that the Vietnamese are brothers and have been fighting for their independence for 100 years.

The most poignant parts of the movie are his meetings with his “sweet heart”, Donna, the first time she sees him as a paraplegic, after his return, and when he tells Charlie Wilson’s family (parents, and wife, who has a young child by Charlie who never met his father), that he was responsible for their son’s/husband’s death.

One of the most unnerving moments, is when his mother tells him to leave the house. He begins to blame her openly for his situation, the fact that he went to war and disabilities (physical as well as mental). He escapes temporarily to Mexico, where he tries to drown his memories of war atrocities and his gunning down of Charlie Wilson.

Finally, he returns to face all his fears. The movie ends in 1979, when he has become an author, and has come to accept his lot in life, moved passed his disability to become an author, and important spokesperson for the movement against an unjust war. Nixon will be elected next President of the United States of America.