Sunday 29 January 2012

When Two Worlds Collide

Though the two worlds of entertainment and politics orbit around different issues and are inhabited by people who are structured somewhat differently, they always tend to meet and intermingle one way or another. Politicians have long been fascinated by leading ladies of the silver screen that made for some great stories of what happens when these two worlds collide.

We escape into the world of entertainment when we have had enough of being lost in the twisted maze of politics, but where do we go when we find the two becoming one? Whilst in the past celebrity lives were mostly mysterious to those outside their world, nowadays all thanks to tabloids and social networks, that mystery has been laid to rest.

Contrary to what many celebrity publicists will have you believe, celebrities are indeed human beings. Some of them with political and social concerns have chosen to break their silence and take up activism to fight for what they believe is sacred. But this freedom of expression comes at a price.

When a celebrity rallies for a cause they are at risk of losing fans, for you might very well love the celebrity but loathe their political position. Here lies the great sacrifice famous people have to face, to forgo their social responsibility knowing full well that they have a great platform from which they can be heard, or forever hold their peace in fear of losing the fame and money they worked so hard to attain.

During the uprising in Egypt the then-famous Egyptian singer Tamer Hosny was ostracised from Tahrir Square by the revolutionaries because they recalled that at the onset of the rallies he was sent by the government to advise them to go home. Hosny’s political position reduced the voice of Egypt’s young generation, who packed stages across the country, to a YouTube clip of the young man crying after being humiliated by the people of the revolution.

Meanwhile, as the Libyan people fought to regain control of their destiny it was revealed that both American singers Nelly and BeyoncĂ© have been paid millions of dollars to appear for one of Saif Al Islam Gaddafi’s birthday bashes. Knowing full well what kind of reaction this political connection might have on their image, both singers stated that they have nothing to do with the dictator’s money and gave it back to the Libyan people.

Recently, the Belgian singer Lara Fabian, who was scheduled to sing in Lebanon for this year’s Valentine’s Day concert, had to withdraw due to an outcry by the Campaign to Boycott Supporters of Israel in Lebanon, because of pro-Israeli comments she had made.

The American actor Mel Gibson and Christian Dior’s once token designer John Galliano have both felt the wrath of the fans when both were caught voicing anti-Jewish comments. The former has had a hard time getting any of his work produced in Hollywood and the latter was immediately fired from his prestigious position at the House of Dior.

This backlash by fans over celebrities’ political backgrounds is not reserved only for actors and singers but applies to sports figures as well. During the height of the protests in Bahrain football players, who chose to partake in the rallies, have been named and shamed on Bahrain’s local television station, some even withdrew from the league as a result.

A work of art should be judged independently from its artist. Would a painting be as magnificent if we judged the hands that held the brush? Would a love poem be as passionate if we had preconceived notions that its writer was in fact cold and distant?

Most of us fail to see this distinction.

We must realise that diverse worlds such as these exist in a grey universe, where the colours black and white are forever blended. The inhabitants of each must know that stepping out of their territories could bring with it risks they might not be willing to take.
In the political world your views and moral standings are aimed at propelling you into the heights of your cause, but in the world of entertainment they could form the noose that would wrap around your neck. The choice is theirs to make but they do not pay the price alone, it is also paid by the people who once appreciated the art within them and now can no longer see it.

This article was first published in The Gulf Today newspaper on 29th Jan. 2012

Sunday 22 January 2012

Qatar’s dry island

In December last year Qatar announced banning the sale of alcohol in The Pearl, a luxurious residential community. This announcement, just like any other announcement coming from Qatar, invited a slew of opposition from both foreign and local media alike. 

Speculations and predictions of Islamic takeover of the country and loss of insurmountable amounts of money washed over analysts’ writings. Some deeming this a natural by-product of the situation in Bahrain, others warning of negative implications it might have on Qatar hosting the FIFA World Cup in, yes you said it, 2022. The implications of this decision have been foreseen twelve years into the future. 

After all the dramatic articles written on Qatar’s ban of alcohol I feel I must emphasise that the ban is not a general one but one that is concerned with a single area of the country. Qatar allows the sale and consumption of alcohol in up-scale hotels and certain designated areas and this specific ban will not affect the existing law. 

Having said that, is it really that bizarre for an Arab country, which operates under Sharia Law, to take such a step? 

Granted, Qatar practises a moderate form of Sharia, just like some of its neighbouring Gulf States, nevertheless it is still governed by religion. Gulf countries have no segregation of religion and state, therefore, are bound by the rules of Islam, hence my bewilderment at the extreme interpretation of this step.

The greatest clichĂ© used by commentators today is playing the religion card at the first chance they get. None of those, who predicted and speculated, asked why this decision was actually taken. None of them stopped to wonder what propelled a moderate country like Qatar to issue such a restriction keeping in mind the increasing population of expatriates. 

The Pearl is a residential community targeted towards families. Residents of this community have complained of loud noise and lewd behaviour occurring on the island due to the excessive consumption of alcohol. That combined with the increasing rates of alcohol-related car accidents and problems with alcohol addiction have resulted in social concerns as opposed to religious ones. 


It is true that in most Gulf countries the population ratio tips heavily towards the expatriate, but that does not mean that governments should turn a deaf ear to the legitimate concerns of its people. One could even say that it would be unwise at this period of time to do so considering the highly charged situation in the Middle East.


It is unfair to speak on behalf of expatriates residing in Qatar and assume that a specific decision such as this one could affect their living standards. Expatriates, who choose to make Gulf countries their homes, are respectful of their rules and on the most part abide perfectly by their laws. 

Other Gulf countries have a complete ban on alcohol, is it fair then to assume that all expatriates residing in these countries lead disruptive lives? On the contrary people are free to practise their religion for they are all religiously tolerant countries, where churches welcome worshippers just as mosques do. 

The consumption of alcohol, just like the smoking of cigarettes, is a choice that can have negative implications on more than just their user. They affect the health and well-being of those in the surrounding vicinity. Qatar made a decision with the preservation and betterment of the community in mind and based on legitimate complaints.

This ban seems to have the most negative impact not on the country’s society but on its businesses. The major opposition to this ban came from restaurant owners on The Pearl and their liquor suppliers for people who wish to drink in Qatar can still visit places other than The Pearl. And so the inevitable question rears its head once again. Is it worth sacrificing the stability of society for the prosperity of the business world? 

It is imperative that countries be welcoming and respectful towards their expatriate community, yet all the while hold on to the social and moral fabric of their society. 

It is easy to fall into a pit of Islam-based generalisations when hearing of decisions coming out of an Arab country. It is best that we steer away from generalisations altogether for they rarely hold any truths and mostly rob us of common sense.

This article was first published in The Gulf Today newspaper on 22nd Jan., 2012.

Tuesday 17 January 2012

Democracy Resurrects the Religious

The first leg of the race for the 2012 United States’ presidency has taken off with the primary elections and the politicians’ gloves have officially come off. Although it is too early to make any solid predictions as to which candidate will be nominated for either party so far in the Republican race Mitt Romney’s numbers show he is pushing slightly ahead of the rest. 

Romney ticks all the Republican Party boxes. He is a well-connected businessman, has a political background having been Governor of Massachusetts, he ran for the 2008 presidential elections and dare I say he is also a male Caucasian. With the Republican Party struggling to find a solid candidate to go head to head with the Democrats, Romney seems like the obvious choice, only he is not. With Fox News Channel, the Republican Party’s greatest propaganda machine, spewing anti-Romney statements it is safe to say that Romney is not the party’s preferred candidate. In the past Romney’s views have contradicted the party’s political position but he has since mended his ways, which leaves us with one remaining Romney-factor that could be justification enough for the Republican Party’s turned up nose. The main reason for Romney’s alienation lies in his faith. Romney is a Mormon. Mormonism is a religion that spurs from Christianity and follows The Church of Jesus Christ Later-day Saints. It is a religious movement that is considered by many Americans as being more of a cult than a religious group, and because of its strict beliefs, is usually shrouded in negative connotations. Mormonism among other things is known to practise the law of chastity before marriage, have a strict code against any addictive substances such as alcohol, tobacco and caffeine and support polygamy. Taking into consideration that the Republican Party is mostly made up of evangelicals Romney’s religion is constantly being scrutinised by the other candidates in hopes of swaying the voters.In an ideal democracy, such as the one the United States aspires to be, one’s religious beliefs should not factor into the equation of a potential president’s qualifications and ability to run a country. The first amendment of the Bill of Rights separated religion from state yet ironically religion remains a major deciding factor in American elections. Fifty years ago John F. Kennedy had to defend his Catholic faith in a speech saying: “So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again — not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me — but what kind of America I believe in.” Reality does not portray this idealism for even in the most democratic parts of the world we find presidents fighting this prejudice. After four years in the White House President Barack Obama is still being scrutinised for his background and faith. Some claim he is in fact a Muslim, while others believe he is not, they still question the degree of his Christianity based on the number of Church appearances he has made and the references to God in his speeches. While emphasis on faith and religious beliefs seems to be an important catalyst for the American candidates we are seeing quite the opposite reaction happening in the Middle East.Islamic parties are steering away from religious aspects of their beliefs and focusing more on greater impending ones. In 2002, the Turkish people voted overwhelmingly for Tayyip Erdogan a representative of the Islamic Justice and Development Party bearing in mind this is the same nation belonging to Kemal Ataturk, the man who separated religious and governmental affairs, and who believed that it is only through which modernity and culture can be achieved. After winning the parliamentary elections in Morocco, the Islamic Justice and Development Party immediately asserted that there will be no morality police or ban on alcohol and women shall not be forced to wear the veil. This formula has proved successful in winning voters’ confidence for other Islamic parties in Tunisia and Egypt as well. The people are speaking, and their voices are going for the religious, be it Mormons in the White House or the Islamic parties in the Arab Spring’s newly-born democracies, we are bearing witness to nations leaning towards what history fought to subdue. After witnessing so much political corruption have we come to the age where we call on faith to take a seat at the head of the political table? The fear is never of religion but of those who take its name in vain, the idea is not losing faith but being blinded by it. 
If indeed what we desire is democracy then we must adhere to its rules and believe it when it calls on respecting the people’s voice no matter what it shouts for. If today that voice shouts for Mormons and the Muslim Brotherhood then we must stand aside and let democracy have its way, otherwise we should not call for it in the first place.


This article was first published in The Gulf Today newspaper on 17th of January, 2012.


A young man turned war reporter asks…

A young man turned war reporter asks; why should he continue to bare witness to the atrocities  around him when half the world refuses to li...