Rapt Reveries

When Two Worlds Collide

2012-01-29T10:15:00.000+04:00

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 Beyoncé 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

Qatar’s dry island

2012-01-22T10:17:00.000+04:00

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 cliché 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.

Democracy Resurrects the Religious

2012-01-17T09:56:00.000+04:00

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.

Don’t be afraid to say the F-word

2011-09-25T09:55:00.000+04:00

When French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde was chosen to be the managing director of the IMF no news wire missed out on the words “first woman to head the IMF.” In the many interviews she endured following her recruitment she had to answer questions revolving around her marital life rather than her position and what she intended to do with its power. She was described in an article as a “divorcee with two sons,” a description I have yet to read about a man in any position. Answering yet another question about her gender as an IMF director she said, “I honestly think that there should never be too much testosterone in one room.” How else is a woman who comes from the land of the Republican Motherhood supposed to respond?

It is instances like these that remind us of what feminism allowed us to forget. Still, as women are reaching once unimaginable heights they are haunted by thoughts that question their abilities. At one point in time, women's rights were important, fighting for them was important, gaining them was a must, that point in time has passed. The urgency has slowed down, the priorities have been blurred and the word feminism has developed many faces and lost its way in the crowded world of activism.

The word feminism has become synonymous with the idea of man-hating when in fact it has more to do with women than men. The idea was to become equal to what man has achieved and never to downgrade man's role. This misconception has led to the demise of the word, no longer does any woman want to be labelled a feminist for fear of being accused of hating men.

When asked if she is a feminist the American pop singer Beyoncé Knowles said she didn't feel the need to define what she is. This is coming from a singer who brought us a long list of chart-topping girl power anthems such as Independent Women, Survivor, If I Were a Boy, Single Ladies and Run the World. She is also a volunteer and supporter of the CARE organisation that works to empower women around the world, which makes it all the more baffling that she would fear to be called a feminist.

If there should be a reason for this label to disappear from our vocabulary it must not be because of a negative connotation but because there should not be only a segment of the female race that believes in their rights.

Every woman, hell, every man should be a feminist, that is the only way to render this word obsolete.

Throughout history women have fought for one right after another, right to education and the right to be viewed equally by the scrutinising eyes of the law. They fought so the world would understand that theirs is a global issue, one affecting half the planet's population.

Women thinkers, philosophers and activists like Virginia Woolf, Simone de Beauvoir and Sylvia Plath have written extensively on the subject of women's rights believing that only a woman can truly portray the struggle of her race. Books like Woolf's A Room of One's Own and de Beauvoir's The Second Sex, which as far as I'm considered, should be read by men before women, caused an explosion of female enlightenment and gave voice to issues rendered dumb by years of injustice.

Yet as we see less and less women embracing the cause, does that mean we have attained equality and that we no longer need the 'dreaded' feminist?

Equality might have been attained in some parts of the world, yet there are many segments of the world still subjugating women and young girls to all kinds of cruelty and injustice for no other reason than their gender. The irony cannot be escaped when a glass ceiling shatters in one part of the world and a girl is being denied education and forced into marriage in another. This imbalance makes it all the more necessary to speak up for those of us who continue to be silenced by ignorance and fear.

Feminism is not dead. Feminism has altered itself, morphing into a more entertaining entity, in order to survive in a world where it has become easier to digest an issue if it came with its own music video.

For women's rights to exist today the idea of feminism has to be subtly reintroduced back into the world. Therefore, for women's rights to be addressed we must sing about female solidarity instead of rallying for it, and if this generation would rather rename it 'Bootylicious' instead, then so be it.

But no matter what we do, we must not belittle the struggle of superwomen, who championed our rights at times when the idea of such equality was unfathomable. Names like Gloria Steinem and Huda Shaarawi must be taught not forgotten, for without their daily battles the world would not have had a Beyoncé today.

This article was published in The Gulf Today Newspaper on 25th Sep., 2011.

Palestine’s creation is America’s salvation

2011-09-18T10:09:00.000+04:00

This September marked the 10th anniversary of the Trade Center attacks and while you have been overwhelmed by the sheer magnitude of media coverage of this event it is quite possible that you might have missed another major event happening this month.

The Palestinian government will bid for a UN membership. In an unprecedented move proving that it has finally seen the futility of this two-decade old ‘peace process’, Palestine has ended the waiting game and finally opted to upgrade its diplomatic standing at the United Nations instead.

And why shouldn’t it? After all, the State of Palestine fulfills all the criteria codified in the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States to exist under international law. Palestine has a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and a capacity to enter into relations with other states, which makes its bid legitimate. In addition, more than 120 UN member states already recognise the State of Palestine, which would technically make the voting process a sure win.

In an ideal world the State of Palestine would be a done deal yet in the real world, where political agendas overshadow logic and basic humanity, the State of Palestine will never be recognised.

That which stands between the existence of an independent Palestine and the complete evaporation of it, is but a word. This word has come to resemble the antithesis of progress in the world of politics, the word ‘veto’ is in fact the United Nation’s Kryptonite.

Veto is a Latin word meaning ‘I forbid’, and the United Nations Security Council has ordained the powers of this word to five countries. China, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and the United States of America are the chosen ones.

This word gives its owners the power to block any resolution regardless of the amount of votes in its favour. The United States has already threatened to veto the Palestinian bid thereby ending this story before it begins. So why then the extensive diplomatic efforts exerted in persuading President Mahmoud Abbas into backing down?

The US has sent Hillary Clinton, David Hale, Dennis Ross and even brought Tony Blair back from the political rubble of the past, to talk Abbas out of this ‘mad’ notion. The reason for all these persuasive negotiations is that the US knows that even by winning the battle it would most certainly lose the war. This particular veto puts the US firmly in Israel’s isolated corner leaving the unbiased world watching, confused by its unsubstantiated position.

The US government does not wish to once again contradict itself when only a few months earlier its President addressed a rejuvenated Middle East and in his own words acknowledged the need for an existence of the State of Palestine saying; “a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples.” In this same speech Obama uttered the ‘blasphemous’ words “the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines”.

This sentence sent Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu into a flying rage and made for one of the most awkward meetings in American-Israeli relations. In this meeting Netanyahu bluntly told the leader of the free world that his vision of Middle East peace is unrealistic and called it an illusion. Never in history has an American president been subjected to such harsh comments on live television. After enduring this humiliating ordeal Obama never mentioned the year 1967 again.

Vetoing Palestine’s bid will confirm that Obama has learned Netanyahu’s lesson and once again shown the world how strong a hold Zionism has on American politics.

The United States is discouraging the bid on the basis that a Palestinian state cannot exist without reaching an agreement with Israel first. Yet Israel is able to exist without reaching that same agreement. After decades of Palestinian compromise on issues such as the right of return of Palestinian refugees of the 1948 war, the Camp David Accords agreement which left the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt barren and the continuous illegal building of settlements in Palestinian territories, when will the world see Israel’s compromise?

The fact of the matter is that Palestine does not require permission from a country that continues to break international laws with no regard for any repercussions as long as they are in its best interest.

How can the United States expect to lead a fair and just negotiation process when the key players on the field are not on level footing? How can one believe that the President of the United States is taking note of Palestinian issues when he himself is denying its existence?

The creation of the State of Palestine will level the playing field and give substance to future negotiations. It will raise the morale of the Palestinian people who, while Arab nations everywhere are waking up to new beginnings and newly developed levels of self-respect, are feeling all the more ostracized. And it will eventually plant, in the Middle East, the seeds of trust that America longs for.

In his election campaign President Obama promised the American people that he would clean up the tarnished image of the United States. Standing in the way of the inherent right for people to exist in their own territory will see the President breaking that promise.

This was America’s chance to rid itself of Israel’s political chains and take a stance that would undoubtedly show the true spirit of the American people. Nevertheless the threat has been issued and the world has heard it loud and clear.

Even if the ending has already been written and Palestine does not win the battle for the bid, it wins the war by revealing the irony that the land of the free is also the land denying others freedom.

This article was published in The Gulf Today newspaper on 18th September, 2011.

You Poured Fuel on Murdoch’s Fire and Cried Help

2011-08-07T12:17:00.000+04:00

The past few months saw Britain consumed by an incident, which ignited hundreds of debates and opened doors to arguments that were once sealed shut. The sheer speed in which the News of the World newspaper came tumbling down was shocking to say the least. After 168 years of providing its readers with scandal after scandal and making it its prerogative to pry into the lives of every public figure it could get its hands on, News of the World ended its run with a headline that simply read; "THANK YOU & GOODBYE". In an ironic twist of fate the tabloid went down with the same grandiose publicity that it once prosecuted its subjects with.

Rupert Murdoch, media baron and Chairman of News Corporation along with the Editor in Chief of News of the World Rebekah Brooks were accused of using illegal means to obtain information, mainly by hacking private citizens’ phones and bribing police officers. In true Machiavellian logic, when it came to a scoop News of the World justified all means. Indeed it is just a local Sunday paper that closed down but its demise sent shockwaves all around the journalistic world. For once the British parliament seemed to agree on an issue, calling for law amendments and prosecution of those involved in these invasions of privacy. Newspapers all over the world ran editorials on the incident, some condemning the paper's actions, preaching about ethics in journalism and insisting on drawing clearer lines to stop journalists from infringing on people's rights. Others sided with News of the World pointing out that what was committed was not a crime but in fact true investigative journalism, whereby the job entails retrieval of information as fast as possible by any means possible.

Now that News of the World closed down and its two hundred employees safely relocated to another Murdoch-owned enterprise, the dust is slowly settling on this journalistic whirlwind and the eyes are slowly beginning to experience clarity. We might even begin to see that Murdoch, Brooks and the News of the World journalists are not the only ones who should be scrutinised and condemned. After all, this tabloid has had the highest readership in Britain until the day it closed its doors. According to the National Readership Survey, News of the World secured 13.8 percent of the entire British market exceeding all other Sunday papers. And while every other paper in the UK is suffering with regards to revenue News of the World’s projections continuously showed profits.

If we believe the numbers then the ones who should stand trial along with Murdoch and Brooks are the readers. Yes, the readers. A product could not survive without a market, someone had to supply to the relentless demands for gossip and that is exactly what News of the World did. It catered to people's insatiable appetite with a buffet of scandalous revelations that while made for a great feast, ruined people's lives in the process. The reason why tabloids still make profits while respectable journalism struggles to make ends meet is you, the reader. When you would rather read about a politician's torrid love affair rather than his active role in governmental policy, you become a particle in the force pushing papers like News of the World over the lines of ethics and human rights. People have an innate curiosity for the affairs of others and this curiosity is never satisfied. Readers don’t want to know how a tabloid gets its information they just want it. Once a piece of salacious news enters the bloodstream more is needed to maintain that initial high but how do you get more? By eavesdropping? Sticking ones head in someone’s mailbox? Going through their trash? Phone hacking is the tip of the tabloid iceberg and readers know it, yet they choose to cast a blind eye for the sake of satisfying their addiction to gossip. If Murdoch is guilty of the charges against him then News of the World readers should be guilty for aiding and abetting them.

News of the World won many British Press Awards one of which was for ‘Newspaper of the Year’ in 2005. The public fed the fire that was raging in the newsroom and encouraged them to go forward, for with 7.5 million readers and a shelf stacked with awards News of the World’s formula could not have been wrong, or could it?

When News of the World’s web of lies and deceit detangled its loyal readers abandoned it. Shocked at the scandal they gawked and pointed fingers at the paper that once was their sole means of news (according to Enders Analysis, the closure of News of the World will see two-thirds of its readers never picking up another Sunday paper again). In the end, the user blamed the dealer when in fact both were as much a part of the scandal as the other.

As everyone stood aside opportunity presented itself to the politicians, they pounced at the chance to get back at this paper that has heckled them for years exposing their lies and costing many their positions. And so News of the World was to be made an example of, British journalism will no longer be above the law and with that the free press around the world gasped in unison feeling the hammering of one more nail in its coffin.

This article was published in The Gulf Today newspaper on 7th August, 2011.

Living Green Has Us Seeing Red

2011-07-03T14:10:00.000+04:00

The past few weeks have shown us an image foreign to most UAE dwellers’ eyes. The image of one deserted petrol station after another in an oil rich country, ah the mother of all ironies. Unlike others this sight did not trigger in me the great debates of finance and economics, rather it steered me towards a different course. It got me thinking of the human being’s complete dependence on a vanishing resource, of a human being living an ephemeral life on the hopes that he shall never face its complete depletion.

Steps are being taken everyday by the United Arab Emirates’ government towards creating a country less dependent on oil. And a great effort is being exerted in the renewable energy sector to secure a future less grim than that filled with images of cars in gridlock heading towards the only operating petrol station in town.

The worrisome part of this equation is not on the corporate or governmental level but on the personal one. Everywhere we look we are being reminded of our responsibility towards the world we live in. Eco-friendly campaigns aimed at guilting us into recycling and caring for the environment are all around us yet these efforts do not seem strong enough to paint a person’s entire life green.

We all do the odd recycling here and there and most of us would opt for a recyclable bag at the grocery store instead of a plastic one but a total conversion of one’s lifestyle is a daunting thought. In order for a person to convert fully to the green world he is expected to change his entire frame of mind, he must be prepared to live a life where thinking green will be the deciding factor of all his future endeavors.

Should you be the one to take the leap then realistically there are a few other hurdles you have to overcome. Being green is expensive. Buying any of the alternative energy sources to power your home will set you back a hefty chunk of money. If you wish to use solar power you must invest in solar cells, which come at an unreasonable price for quite a reasonable idea.

But since you have committed to the lifestyle then your movement should also be green therefore it will be a horse, a bicycle or an electric car for you. In this hot and humid region the first two options are unlikely therefore, the electric car it is. If you have moved past the shallow mindset of it being quite ugly, how far do you think the electric car would get you and how fast will you really be able to maneuver in the UAE traffic? When it comes to farther destinations are you willing to forgo your vacation, which you know requires you to use a plane that burns gallons of oil, to reduce your carbon footprint? Before you answer you should know that years of your recycling will be offset by this one plane ride.

If you are still willing to convert then I tip my hat to your bravery because in addition to the above, not many people will be on board with the compulsive details of your lifestyle and you might soon find yourself feeling like a vegetarian in a meat eater’s household.

Being green is a great concept but it requires more than ad campaigns and awareness seminars. Every day cigarette boxes tell smokers that their contents will literally kill them but that does not deter the fingers from pulling one out. What must be changed is the psychology of the human mind, the greed and selfishness of the individual. As long as people put themselves first, Mother Nature will be second and as long as alternative technologies remain expensive and hard to acquire, cheap and available will be the common choice.

From a psychological viewpoint, believing in the importance of a green lifestyle seems to me as difficult as believing in a faith different than the one you follow. You are expected to change your ways and hold a new creed close to your heart. It is difficult to accept at first and as you go along there will be hard roads to tread, many will falter, but you must go on, because you believe with every ounce of your sanity that the end will be glorious.

Sometimes it takes more than persuasion to get people to believe, sometimes it takes a miracle.

Our world needs one now more than ever.

This article was published in The Gulf Today newspaper on July 3rd, 2011.

Don't Teach, Inspire

2011-06-19T10:36:00.000+04:00

Universities in the United Arab Emirates and around the world have wrapped up their academic year with graduation ceremonies for the class of 2011. Some of which have been televised others appeared as a collection of photos in newspapers across the country. The overwhelming number of graduates ushered into the professional world indicates the success which UAE universities have achieved in educating and preparing the young minds of tomorrow.

Watching the ceremonies this year has led me into a subconscious comparison with the ones taking place in the West. Universities in the UAE have been rehearsing pretty much the same choreography for their ceremonies as far as I can remember. The graduating class of year so and so, usually sits through a speech from a government official, then another address from the Dean and lastly a speech given by the class valedictorian. The following routine is an essential part of university protocol which must take place but it leaves one wondering, where is the inspiration?

As the graduating class eagerly awaits their degrees they are at their most enthusiastic which is the exact moment in time when the utterance of some encouraging words or the sight of an inspiring figure could make the most impact on them.

In the United States graduation ceremonies are mostly remembered for their commencement speeches, which are usually given by a well-known public figure of the university’s choice. These public figures can be politicians, actors, CEOs, generally any public figure, who has made a difference in his field or profession. So there you have a graduating class going through the normal processions and then getting the opportunity to not only meet but also be addressed by a public figure, who has accomplished what any one of those graduates might aspire to be.

The idea is to expose these graduates to role models who have truly excelled, and to allow their words to resonate in the minds of those in need of courage and confidence to brave the world of 2011. This year the University of Massachusetts went as far as the stars, literally, to give their graduates a ceremony to remember. The university chose NASA astronaut Catherine Coleman, who delivered her speech via video from the International Space Station orbiting the Earth.

In other universities across America President Barack Obama thanked the graduates for inspiring him, Arianna Huffington proclaimed there is no leader on a white horse the leader is to be found in the mirror, Stevie Wonder sang You are the Sunshine of My Life and Conan O’ Brien delivered a half hour hilarious speech that left the graduates in tears.

We live in a time where degrees no longer mean much, where job opportunities are scarce and with a generation, which believes that fame, and fortune is achieved as easily as being discovered on Youtube. This makes it all the more essential for graduates, who have chosen to pursue education over other options, to see before them a product of their country who has reached great heights by hard work and persistence.

Universities in the UAE should consider the idea of inviting guest speakers to their ceremonies every year. The choice should be theirs although it is imperative to emphasise on the local talent. An international speaker is great but a more effective one would be a figure who is a product of the UAE, one who has lived within the same culture and environment as they have. It would be much easier to relate to such a person’s experiences than to one hailing from a different part of the world. Universities can release the names of their chosen speakers ahead of time where a list can be compiled for publication. This decision benefits both the graduates and the universities as well. The proper choice of commencement speaker can get any school’s name listed among the top tier ones and allows for great exposure.

Graduation ceremonies are one of the few occasions in life where a person can truly believe that anything is possible. Educators have a responsibility to capitalise on this moment and inspire their students until the very end of their journey together, in order to usher them into the world with enough inspiration and motivation to change it for the better.

This article was published in The Gulf Today on June 19th, 2011.

Too much Twitter

2011-06-12T10:00:00.000+04:00

A few days ago I posted this statement on my Twitter account:

“Most used term this year, social media. I’ve about had it! And yes I realise the irony of tweeting this statement so don’t even.”

We have been reading about the social media ever since its inception but after it has somehow been given all credit for the revolutions happening in the Middle East, social media has become the subject of the year. Endless debates and analyses of websites such as Facebook and Twitter’s role in the Arab revolutions flooded the region drowning other important elements in its wake, hence my Twitter outburst.

Yes, the social media sites have aided in exposing parts of the revolution that governments tried relentlessly to keep hidden and a Facebook page might have set a revolution in motion, but those were nothing but tools used in the building of a national dream.

Believe it or not revolutions did take place prior to Facebook.

In 1952 Egypt there was no ‘Free Officer’s Movement’s’ Facebook page calling to overthrow the British backed monarchy. Gandhi’s non-cooperative movement did not ‘tweet’ about its struggle with ending the British rule in India. Neither Castro nor Guevara uploaded videos of their forest march to Cuba onto Youtube and although there was no live-stream of Martin Luther King Jr. from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, the entire world still heard his dream.

Throughout history revolutions did take place and ruthless governments have been overthrown. So before we go overboard in giving credit to the social media we should evaluate what it really did for today’s revolutions.

Social media sites did not create these revolutions they merely advertised them, in the same way pamphlets and underground newsletters did in the past. They are a medium, granted they have a wider reach, but they are a medium nonetheless. Credit for the revolutions must always be given to the people and the people alone, they are whom we need to be debating and analysing in this case not Zuckerburg’s Facebook and Dorsey’s Twitter.

The exaggerated attention given to social media sites has resulted in an infatuation that has led users to believing that their existence on them is more important than their existence in the real world.

A social media site is designed to make you believe that the more followers you have the more important you ought to be. Therefore, the more followers you have the higher the need becomes to retain them. Every user is given the opportunity to become a critic and many have seized it.

Some users act like politicians running for the Twitter presidency, addressing certain sections of the world, hashtagging, re-tweeting and monitoring fluctuations in their followers’ numbers. Contrary to what our Twitter users/politicians believe the reality of social media remains that you gain followers and you lose them. You really do not need to be developing alter egos to better suit your cyber world persona. It’s not science, it’s Twitter.

To our social media addicts I pose a question: “If a tree falls outside of Twitter, does it make a sound?”

If you took time mulling this question over then, in the immortal words of Tyra Banks, congratulations you are in the running to becoming Twitter’s next top user.

Indeed the numbers might be pointing towards a life lived solely through the social media but statistics do not always reflect the ways of the world. There are indeed millions using these sites but there are billions of people walking this earth who are not. Of the many activists that have taken to Twitter and Facebook during the Middle Eastern revolutions hundreds have died on the streets with no social media account to their names.

The question is are we being led to believe that if some people choose not to be on such websites that we should neglect their actual existence?

If they are writers do we not read their works? If they are politicians do we not hear their views? If they are activists do we not pay attention to their cause? Do we leave them behind while we set sail on our fancy boat of modernity, christened ‘Social Media’?

The term social media is in fact an oxymoron for there is nothing social about this media. There is nothing socially satisfying about tweeting to no one in particular. It is not a revolution, it is just a way for us to vent out and hope that someone in the cyber world is listening to what no one in our real world actually wants to.

This article was published in The Gulf Today newspaper on 12th June, 2011.

Writing a Wrong

2011-05-15T09:50:00.001+04:00

Historically the Western mind has been mesmerised by the Middle East often painting pictures of it as a land of mysteries browned by the desert sun. In the United Arab Emirates, our parents recall during the British occupation that Englishmen stood the children in line and took photos of them. These very Englishmen would later put the photos in their books as they penned the history of our country. This was also the case for the rest of the Middle Eastern region, an Arab history conveyed to the rest of the world through foreign eyes.

Edward Said, the late Palestinian literary theorist and powerful political voice coined this phenomenon ‘Orientalism’, describing the Western study of Eastern cultures. In recent years, the Arab world’s fluency of the English language has allowed the West to hear our own description of our past and our concerns for our future. We no longer needed the Englishman to tell our stories and no longer did the philosophy of the Arab mind need to be translated by the West.

Nowadays, Arab writers and commentators writing in the English-language are a plenty. The language barrier has ceased to exist. The true crisis lies in failing to identify the thin line between writing in a foreign language and writing with a foreign tongue. It is sad to see that many intelligent Arab writers are adhering to the Western perspective and echoing its same rhetoric in return for international recognition.

In the past we have seen such antics working especially in the literary world. Salman Rushdie, the Indian novelist, had written four novels prior to his Satanic Verses but it was this book, that portrays a skewed perspective of Islam which catapulted him into the farthest heights of fame, winning him awards and even having him knighted by the Queen of England for his “services to literature”. Selling out on one’s ideology and beliefs in return for the West’s approval is shameful.

Many Arab writers have been blinded by the glaring lights of Western fame and have found that Arab opinions dressed in a Western man’s suit can get them far, but at what cost? We possess the language that now bridges the gap in perspectives but instead of using it to tell our story we are telling theirs. While we are grateful for their work, it is painful to see writers like Noam Chomsky and Norman G. Finkelstein, both Jewish Americans, fight for Palestinian rights and the Arab perspective more passionately than many Arabs do.

For years, anytime an Arab writer or publication expressed their opinions the Western commentators played the ‘Arab victimisation’ card and dismissed them as just that. On the other hand, if writers such as Chomsky or Finkelstein discuss the same issues they are labeled ‘truth-tellers’. Still, it is one thing for the Arab voice to be suppressed by the West but it is a whole other issue for it to be choked by our own hands. When Arab commentators repeat Western rhetoric then our voice becomes redundant thereby rendered useless.

This month, Al Jazeera English will receive Columbia University’s top journalism award for “singular journalism in public interest”. One of the substantial reasons that Al Jazeera news channel gained momentum and weight for its news coverage is because, regardless of its own agendas, it never followed a Western one. Its notoriety came not from adhering to a certain Western standard, but for standing up against it and revealing to the world the other side of the political coin.

Writers, especially of politics, should never take information at face value and steer facts towards a logic that goes against their beliefs. In journalism and intellectual commentary one should not take certain issues to the merest truisms.

In politics, the pen is at its heaviest because it is weighed down by the collective responsibility it holds towards its people and their future in the eyes of the world.

It is best to retire one’s pen than succumb it to a life of self-betrayal.

This article was published in The Gulf Today newspaper on May 15th, 2011.

Obama Kills Osama to Remain Alive

2011-05-04T10:09:00.000+04:00

Almost a decade after Osama Bin Laden’s inauguration as the most wanted man on the planet it took American soldiers 40 minutes to kill him. Today the American people rejoice with the feeling of utter relief for the bogeyman hiding in the dark closets of their minds is gone.

The truth is, it cost the United States billions of dollars and thousands of human lives to eliminate a man who was apparently hiding in plain sight. After years of scouring dusty caves it was revealed that Bin Laden had in fact been residing in a mansion in Pakistan. Osama Bin Laden’s death comes as no shock to the Arab world. We believed it inevitable but it was the timing that was unforeseen.

Had Bin Laden been killed only a few months earlier the reactions of the Arab world would have been resentful and possibly more heated. But as the news comes to us at a time where the plates of the Middle Eastern political world are shifting, Arabs seem more subdued and indifferent. Osama Bin Laden neither had a presence in the Arab revolutions nor reacted to them.

Ten years after the September 11 attacks Bin Laden’s status and influence on Al Qaeda has dwindled. While killing him nine years ago would have been credited as eliminating a leader, killing him today is viewed more as the death of an iconic figure for Al Qaeda, a mascot if you will.

The timing of Bin Laden’s death is nothing short of genius. With the Arab uprising in full swing there seems to be a list of dictators/villains to take his place. Bin Laden filled in the spot vacated by Saddam Hussein’s death and so the question is who will succeed Bin Laden on America’s most wanted Middle Eastern face of evil?

The American presidential elections have to also be factored into this equation, which resulted in the quick sudden death of the world’s most feared man. George W. Bush Jr. declared the war on terror to secure his second term at the presidency and while President Barack Obama proved the impossible by being the first black President of the United States at the end of his first term his promise of ‘change’ hasn’t yet made a huge impact on the average American. And while Obama tried his best at playing the peace card he finally realised that Bush Jr. had played it right all along knowing that nothing matters more to the American people than regaining their throne as the most powerful and untouchable country in the world.

Revenge was the final dish on Obama’s table, served cold, the American people ate it graciously. Has this move secured Obama’s second term at presidency just as it did for his predecessor? We await the answer in 2012.

This article has been published in The Gulf Today newspaper on May 4th, 2011.

Cupcake and Abaya Nation

2011-04-17T09:39:00.000+04:00

Emirati women have always been leaders in the pursuit of self-actualisation. With the birth of the Emirates they saw their dreams manifesting into realities at the hands of our father and the founder of our beloved country the late Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan. It is because of his extraordinary efforts in encouraging women’s education throughout the Emirates that we are here today.

In the 1970s Emirati women sought knowledge with an insatiable thirst and had the courage to venture into worlds previously unknown to them. Nevertheless they ploughed their way through male dominated arenas and proved their abilities admirably. From being mothers in their homes they became teachers in our schools, filling positions that prior to their involvement saw only hired teachers from across the Middle East. Our pioneering Emirati women of the 70s were role models then and remain ones today.

By the 1980s, Emirati women constituted 6.2 percent of the UAE’s workforce. Today this figure has risen to well above 50 percent proving beyond any doubt that their long sought-after dream of financial independence had been achieved.

Today, in a bold yet welcomed step many Emirati women have decided to leave their jobs and seek private business ventures instead. Soon after, we began to see local businesses entirely owned and run by Emirati women. At first these business ventures came in the form of abaya stores. The abaya is the Emirati woman’s national dress and therefore understandably it became her first outlet for fashion expression.

It was indeed refreshing to see Emirati women designing their own national dress for who better to translate the experience of wearing abayas into fashion than the women that live in them on a daily basis. This move transformed a staple of UAE society into the ultimate fashion accessory, pushing its prices upwards from a few hundred dirhams in the 1990s well into the thousands today. This proved that abaya stores are great business models and profitable ventures. Soon every women stopped wanting to buy abayas and started making them. The country became littered with abaya stores and, in an odd twist on the theories of supply and demand, the more stores there were and the higher the prices got, the more people demanded them.

Once the national black cape market had been saturated our Emirati woman moved on to something a little bit sweeter, dessert making. In a decision reminiscent of the 1950s American woman’s pie baking ventures the cupcake craze was born in the UAE. Some opened up cupcake stores, others baked them from home and delivered them to designated locations. This also proved to be a venture too sweet to fail and with that the skies of the Emirates filled with the smell of freshly baked cupcakes.

While there is absolutely nothing wrong with replicating business models that have proved successful, it seems that Emirati women have backed themselves into an icing slathered corner. If you ever had an opportunity to walk around university fairs that showcase students’ business models you might get the impression that ideas have stagnated and become sandwiched between food and fashion.

What happens to the remaining business sectors? Have they become barely visible through the rows of abayas and the ensuing sugar rush? Young Emirati women should realise that there lies great potential and room for profits in different business areas offering them not only ease of entry but also an opportunity to be female pioneers.

Innovation is a word we live by in the UAE. Always seeking new heights, always pushing forward, we must not lose this passion for excellence. Daring to be different has its risks but brings with it change and variety. Emirati women have proven that they are worthy competitors in the work place and must now aim to prove that in all private business sector too.

This article was published in The Gulf Today newspaper on 17th April, 2011.

Make Way, the Arabs are coming

2011-02-27T09:58:00.000+04:00

We humans are a curious bunch and it is this curiosity that allowed us to document our every endeavor. Every now and then events happen which we deem monumental to our existence, choosing their final resting place to be among the pages of our cherished history books.

At times the world seems to move in the same cycle, uttering the same words and displaying the same images year after year.

This is not one of those times.

This is a time when intense events are unfolding at a speed that has flung the Arab world spiraling out of its hamster wheel.

The Arab nation had been abused and forced to keep this corrupt wheel turning for far too long. For decades it lay comatose and suddenly its eyes opened. Its people have been pushed to limits that no human should have to endure, limits that made death seem a better option than the world they live in. Basic human rights have become a luxury that only a few could boast about. Even dreams of a better life were murdered by the realities of government corruption that seeped to the very core of their societies. The only dream that is packaged and sold to ambitious folks around the world is the American one, an Arab version does not exist.

Political debates and arguments are now taking place in every living room and coffee shop around the Middle East. Some proud of the revolutions snow-balling through the Arab world, others hesitant, fearful of embracing them, programmed to believe that no good can come from any Arab decision. The discussions are always political, yet if we peel away the layers of criticism and attempts at the rationalization of events, we will see that this revolution is not about politics at all. It is about the citizens of countries that without them would seize to exist. It is about the every day people who make the world go around.

This revolution started with a single spark that ignited Mohamed Bouazizi’s body in the middle of a dusty Tunisian street. Bouazizi was not a politician. He never dreamed of his death as being a tool in any political agenda’s toolbox. He did not imagine that the burns on a street vendor’s body could raise the prices of oil or impact the economy. He was just a young man who wasn’t even allowed to dream of a better tomorrow.

What shocked the world was that the people who related to Bouazizi’s desperation came out in the millions. Millions of people chose to face death rather than go back to their hopeless lives. They chose to walk bare-chested under a sky raining bullets rather than endure the blatant disregard of their humanity. They were willing to make that sacrifice because they knew that the road to freedom is soaked in gallons of blood yet the destination is worth every drop.

They are being sniped from the rooftops, driven over by cars, bombed from fighter jets, and massacred by the very images that hung framed over their desks as they worked day in and day out. Presidents who when tested have excelled at failing. Living in complete denial until the very end, holding on to the last splinter of the chair that once kept them high above the rest. Refusing to bow down to the wishes of the world, deaf to the cries of rejection and willing to sacrifice more innocent souls for their egos to remain intact. Thirty years are not enough, forty years, still not enough, for power is a beast that grows within man feeding on everything in its path.

This contagious revolution will eventually find its way to our history books as being the era when the Arab political face was reconstructed by its people. When political alliances were revealed to be nothing but false promises and misplaced trust. When tyrants fell in slow-motion as the world watched. This time will be remembered as the moment when the idea of an Arab dream was conceived.

This article was published in The Gulf Today newspaper on 27th Feb, 2011.

Egypt spoke, the world listened

2011-02-18T11:56:00.000+04:00

On January 25^th, 2011, we heard that a group of young Egyptians have started a protest against their government. Slowly but surely and along the duration of the day more and more people found their feelings resonating in the voices of these youngsters. By the end of that fateful day the protest had morphed into an escalating revolution from which the Egyptian people never looked back.

As the world witnessed the bravery of every man, woman and child in the now world-famous Tahrir Square we were unconsciously attending a lesson in life taught to us by the people of Egypt. We watched attentively and listened carefully to every news piece or image we could get our hands on. And when it was all over and our eyes welled up at the sheer joy emanating from the centre of Cairo on February 11^th, 2011, the world learned the greatest lesson in modern history.

The political world learned that its ship could in fact be steered by the people. Aspiring dictators learned to keep looking over their shoulders. Current dictators learned that their delusions of grandeur are indeed just that. Citizens of every nation learned that peaceful protests could indeed be fruitful. The world learned that there is power in numbers. And the lesson we are indebted to Egypt for, our future generations learned that in the face of oppression silence is never golden.

Egypt has always been the school where Arab nations went in search of knowledge and inspiration. Today and in only eighteen days Egypt schooled the entire modern world on the true meaning of freedom and solidarity. Egypt will continue to give as long as it speaks with the voice of its courageous people who will continue to inspire as they keep fighting for a better tomorrow.

This comment was published in Panorama magazine on 18th February, 2011.

2010 One last time

2010-12-30T10:09:00.000+04:00

As 2010 draws to a close some of us have already drafted our resolutions for the coming year, others like myself, cannot help but take one last glance over our shoulders for it is only by doing so that we are truly able to move forward. When we look back we see that in 2010 Mother Nature demanded our attention with earthquakes that shook us to the core, floods that drowned our homes and volcanic ash that halted our very movement. We proved our ignorance with an oil spill, which after months of stubbornness desecrated everything in its path. She in turn swallowed 33 miners and kept them hostage.

Throughout this ongoing battle we witnessed some of us pull together and others tear apart. We saw environmental activists rush to rescue the oil covered wild life. We watched as thousands gave aid to earthquake ravaged and submerged countries. We experienced the feeling of pride in the human mind when scientists and engineers came together inventing a contraption, which pulled men unscathed from the dark bowels of the earth.

2010 proved to us that one’s convictions are worth fighting for even if it means being imprisoned half your life, the moment Aung San Suu Kyi took her first breaths of freedom.

This past year also introduced us to the United States’ new enemy who, for a change, dons no turban and has no beard. Julian Assange founder of the latest weapon of mass destruction Wikileaks, has for the first time in modern history given the people a chance to eaves drop on the goings-on of the selected few who govern our world. And although most of what we learned was not entirely new, with Wikileaks this information suddenly had the power to officially hold governments accountable.

Segregation seemed to be the word of the year for both Korea and Sudan with Norths and Souths refusing to live in harmony with one another.

Meanwhile, on our side of the globe the United Arab Emirates unveiled its Burj Khalifa, the tallest building on the planet, and Qatar became the first Arab country chosen to host the FIFA World Cup. Yet we also continued to watch as injustices and crimes were committed on our land and in our waters when the Israeli military raided ships carrying aid to Palestinians in Gaza, killing unarmed volunteers and shocking the entire world with its blatantly disparaging excuses. We watched dumbfounded as they raided Al Aqsa mosque and refused to halt their illegal settlement building. We felt Islamophobia shivers all the way from New York City down our spines and had to endure a lowly person rally to burn the Quran.

We heard President Barack Obama announce the end of combat operations in Iraq and while it still remains a battered country we wondered what difference did the US interference actually make in the life of the average Iraqi citizen. We witnessed democracy dying in Kuwait as journalists were imprisoned and members of parliament dragged from their homes and beaten up by their own government.

Indeed we should be drafting our new year’s resolutions but not after we have looked back at the images and heard the sounds of 2010 resonate in our minds, if for nothing else but to sculpt our dreams and hone our aspirations for a better tomorrow.

Here’s hoping that 2010 was a lesson in life we will not soon forget.

This article was published in The Gulf Today and Al Khaleej newspapers on Dec. 30th, 2010.

Democracy alive and unwell

2010-10-24T09:20:00.000+04:00

Ever since the notion of democracy had been conceived by the Grecian philosopher Plato and to this very day a universally accepted definition for the word fails to exist. With the word democracy you are allowed to paint a picture of man comfortable in the arms of equality and freedom. With democracy the image is of beauty but is it of reality?

Idealistically, democracy should rise from the people’s need for freedom, from their endless pursuit of equality. It should come from within the country and not be perceived as a foreign idea that if embraced will manifest into a foreign entity that will wreak havoc among the people. The essence of democracy is enticing and that is why throughout history it has been the West’s Trojan Horse. A beautiful idea gifted to the world, which in most times, hides within it the tools for the deconstruction of a country.

One day and on a whim the United States government decided that the former ruler of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, is a tyrant predictably after he similarly woke up one day and decided America is one too. The United States government overthrew, prosecuted and sentenced the tyrant to death all the while aiming to make Iraq a democratic country. Seven years on and not only has the United States failed to democratise Iraq, its mere introduction of the idea had sent its people spinning in a whirlwind of chaos dividing the land and forcing them into a sectarian war.

Later, we witnessed the democracy crusaders attempting to convert the people of Afghanistan. In theory, democracy seems to bring light to the people engulfed in the darkness of oppression. But in all practicality, this idea being successfully implemented in Afghanistan at this moment in time is very optimistic and a far cry from reality. Nevertheless, the ever-optimistic America trudged on with its plan. Yet, no sooner than the voting began than we heard the inevitable cries of corruption and forging of votes. Not to mention the Taliban raiding voting booths armed with weapons and their casual threats of face mutilation and finger-chopping.

There must be some basic prerequisites present before democracy can settle comfortably among the people. Elements such as education and literacy and an overall understanding of this ideological concept the people are expected to readily adopt. There also has to exist some sort of political stability within a country before it begins taking the shape of a democratic entity. And most importantly a country should have the choice of whether or not it wishes to be governed by this particular type of democracy. Because it is not enough to be labelled democratic, there is more to this self-governing idea than just a name.

The democratic experiment continued to fail around the world as we witnessed the 2009 Iranian presidential elections. We saw democracy crumble in the streets of Tehran as its people took to them in protest, accusing President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of election fraud.

Meanwhile, in Arab countries we continue to be told that democracy resides. Yet their leaders go on winning every election by staggering numbers in the 99th percentiles, numbers that never waiver regardless of the public’s opinion on their governance.

The world considers them democratic countries but are they really so when they start silencing and manipulating the media? And when they impose regulations on telecommunication companies in efforts to hinder the sway of voters at the first sight of a true opposing candidate? Arab countries are tackling a political genetic mutation, a ‘democratorship’ if you will, and so we continue to witness unabashed non-democratic actions from these democratic countries.

The closest the Gulf has come to democracy is through the Kuwaiti parliament known as the Kuwait National Assembly. Although it faces the occasional conflicts with Kuwait’s Crown Prince it seems to work for the people of Kuwait because it rose from the people of Kuwait. It works because Kuwaitis saw a need for it and chose to utilise it as best they could. Kuwait is officially a constitutional monarchy, which simply means that its legislative power is shared between the Crown Prince and the National Assembly.

This notion of democracy seems to be the proverbial carrot dangling before our faces teasing us to forever pursue it, within our reach yet unreachable. The solution is to stop looking forward and look around for a change. Look up, look down, look to your right and to your left for the answer could be around you while you continue to move ahead.

Contrary to Western beliefs, democracy is not solely a Western idea. In Islam the Quran has instructed the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) to “consult with them upon the conduct of affairs.” (Quran 3:159). And for a society of similar publics “whose rule is based upon consultation (Shura) among themselves” (Quran 42:38). Democracy does not need to be in the Western form for it to exist. It can grow, however, it wants as long as its aim is equality.

Democracy’s aim is to treat people as equals by providing similar rights and ensuring their comfort and happiness. If that is its sole purpose then, by definition, in a land where people are already happy and content there exists no need for democracy. Democracy’s existence in a place where that aim has already been realised seems to be both irrelevant and confusing.

Democracy should always be viewed through a more philosophical perspective rather than a political one because after all democracy was born to a philosopher and murdered by a politician.

This article was published in The Gulf Today on 24th October, 2010.

Orwell saw the black in Blackberry

2010-08-30T10:44:00.000+04:00

When George Orwell was writing his political sci-fi novel Nineteen Eighty-Four he had no idea how close his imaginative classic would come to eerily predict our future. It took a few years past the year 1984 but in 2010 our world is resembling Orwell’s futuristic one and realising his grim outlook.

The industrial age gave us the means to pave the technological road, which led us to the age of information. Information or the excessive access and manipulation of it have eventually landed us in the era we live in today, the time we could quite easily dub, the age of paranoia.

Civilisations tend to embrace technological advancements in the hope that with them comes progress and enlightenment. But sooner than the world realised, technology spread like wildfire and before we knew it every man and child had the entire world at their disposal. Overnight, the power of information was available to all, even the once harmless person was now equipped for destruction.

Civilisations also cannot thrive without maintaining order and controlling chaos. Yet this virtual world they helped create and nurture has now turned into a living, breathing monster they cannot seem to control. Information technology has become their Frankenstein.

Once the monster broke loose governments strove to maintain control over the potential chaos it could cause. With the countries’ security at risk governments quickly started to monitor the instigator of all fears, the borderless world they helped create, the Worldwide Web. Emails, chat rooms and blogs became breeding grounds for anarchy and a major concern to government security.

Social networking websites had to revise their privacy policies because when it came to the Internet no stone would remain unturned, no page unmonitored. The social-networking site Twitter has donated the entire world’s status updates (tweets) to the United States’ Library of Congress claiming they took this step for the “preservation and research” of tweets. Why would the Library of Congress want to preserve and research random peoples’ updates? Regardless of the reasons, whatever you decide to use your 140 characters for, rest assured they will be archived and never be erased. Once you send that tweet you can never take it back.

Countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom took the monitoring to the streets, and to their publics’ outrage, have introduced the use of closed-circuit television cameras (CCTV) as a tool for crime prevention. The UK has not divulged the total number of CCTVs being used or whether or not this method has directly lowered crime rates, although according to several independent studies CCTVs have reduced crime in the UK by only four per cent. Their effectiveness is very low considering their massive cost on the taxpayers and on their civil liberties.

It is supposed to feel comforting having an eye watching you on every street corner yet there is something quite unsettling about it. Looking back at Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four his Big Brother Surveillance prophecy has indeed been manifested through today’s CCTV.

After the Web monitoring and the street watching comes the latest fight against terror in the form of cell-phone tapping. The new terrorist on the governments’ block is the Canadian company Research In Motion (RIM). RIM has made it on this list because of their smart-phone device, the Blackberry. The company’s effort to differentiate its product by offering their customers complete privacy, a safe-zone if you will, through the use of this device is its crime.

Yes the big picture is clear and we are reminded of it everyday. Yes, terror is among us. Yes, national security is of utmost importance and governments have the right and obligation to maintain peace within their territory. But while we are staring at and being consumed by the bigger picture have we managed to neglect the smaller one within it?

The conflicting rights are bewildering and can place a person at a thorny crossroad. On the one hand we have to think of our safety as a nation and on the other we have to be concerned for our right in pursuing a private life. National security is sacred and should be fought for but are we willing to sacrifice personal privacy as our not so glorified casualty of this fight against terror?

Should we wilfully accept that every word we type on Twitter be documented by the United States’ security service? Every letter we type in haste or anger be a weapon used against us?

Should it be normal to walk down a street and not feel like you’re being watched but be certain of it?

Should law-abiding citizens be scrutinised and punished in the name of national security?

It is quite a dilemma that once absorbed, forces a person to re-sketch the parameters of his private space and rethink his every step, for you never know who is out there watching, listening and ‘documenting’.

Most of what Orwell prophesized in Nineteen Eighty-Four has come true in some form or another. In Orwell’s fictitious world “You had to live – did live, from habit that became instinct – in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard and, except in darkness, every moment scrutinized”.

Here’s hoping his Thought Police aren’t next.

This article was published in The Gulf Today newspaper on August 30th, 2010.

BLOOD ON THE DECKS OF PEACE

2010-06-01T09:38:00.000+04:00

"While our Arab league deliberates, the ships bringing aid have become the ones in need of it."

After months of planning and preparation the Gaza Freedom Flotilla consisting of six ships boarded by 700 brave volunteers set sail last Sunday night carrying aid to the 1.5 million besieged people in Gaza. Bravely attempting to sail through and peacefully penetrate the Israeli blockade was their mission.

700 civilians who could no longer sit aside and wait, who could no longer go about their daily lives carrying the weight of their suffering brothers and sisters on their backs. Aware of the risks involved and the unpredictably hostile nature of the Israeli military they left the comfort of their homes and said goodbye to their families convinced that this movement is of absolute importance to the Palestinian people. What they were not aware of while boarding the decks and sailing into the darkness is that their journey will be of absolute importance for the whole world.

It has marked a day in history, a day when Israel lost control of its media cover up. A day that moved many of the younger generation to tears at hearing the news of how this brave journey ended. Nineteen have been shot dead by the Israeli navy who opened fire on the peaceful visitors long before exiting international waters. With communication from the boats severed we had nothing to go by until after the deaths.

The International media’s semantic magic show decided to instantaneously make the word “aid” disappear from their headlines. And as per usual the rest of the world got to hear Israel’s side of the story, which always goes something like this “so and so attacked us” and “it wasn’t us it was them” etc. You know how it goes, you have been hearing it for years. It’s ironic how it is only in Israel that attackers are always the ones dying.

We are stunned by the news but what shook us to the core is the slowness in the Arab governments’ response. The Turkish government moved immediately after the news was heard and so did the Iranian one. Meanwhile, it took our proud Arab nations half a day to appear with their condemnations followed by their announcement that the Arab league will meet no later than tomorrow?! What can be more urgent than a merciless attack on innocent aid workers?

While our Arab league deliberates, the ships bringing aid have become the ones in need of it. And on the Gaza shores the news fell the hardest for the flicker of hope sailing towards them had been once again snubbed by Israel and once again the walls of the siege seemed to rise higher and stand stronger.

We are here to tell Gaza and the people of Palestine that this movement has set the precedent for many more to come. The people have not forgotten you and are ready to fill your seas with their blood delivering the help you need. Today the world’s view has changed in many ways. Israel can stop a flotilla but it cannot stop our longing for freedom. To the families of the people lost on board the Freedom Flotilla I give my sincerest condolences and ask you to keep your heads up for you now carry an emblem of pride on your chests and in your hearts forever.

As for the Arab governments, you could learn a thing or two from these brave martyrs who sailed into the darkness only to see the light.

This article was published in The Gulf Today newspaper on June 1st, 2010.

CARRIED AWAY TO ABU DHABI

2010-05-23T09:56:00.000+04:00

In a period when the western critics and bashers have been having a ball at our expense, should we be relieved or concerned that our capital is making an appearance in cinemas all over the world this May 27th?

The trailer to the much-anticipated sequel of Sex and the City has dropped and the girls’ next adventure unfolds in no other place but our capital Abu Dhabi. The trailer shows Carrie and the gang whisked away from New York City for an all-expenses paid week in Abu Dhabi. It shows the girls riding camels, lazing on the poolside of extravagance and hitting the nightclubs that are apparently full of belly dancers. Your typical Edward Said notion of Orientalism, only dressed in designer from head to toe.

The movie was initially set to be filmed in Dubai yet the authorities refused to give filming clearance. The grapevine has it that clearance was to be granted if the movie’s name was changed to Love and the City but that offer was obviously not accepted. The movie was finally shot in Morocco, but the destination in the film remained our capital Abu Dhabi.

The media is finding it ironic that Sex and The City 2, just like its prequel, might not even be screened in the Emirates. But the refusal of filming in the country and the absence of the movie in our theatres are both attempts from the UAE to control and maintain brand Emirates. In a period when the western critics and bashers have been having a ball at our expense, should we be relieved or concerned that our capital is making an appearance in cinemas all over the world this May 27th?

The local reactions are mixed. Some people are welcoming what they view as a pleasant and fun image of the country that has been suppressed with all the negative media about the financial situation and the latest tragedy of Hamas commander Mahmoud al-Mabhouh’s assassination.

Others are concerned with the hidden message that the movie might be sending. After all, the trailer invites the world to “discover how much fun forbidden can be.” The portrayal of Abu Dhabi as a playground for the rich, where everything and anything goes, is far detached from reality. Yes, our capital is a decadent city that boasts many luxuries and splendour but it is also where all our culture and traditions are embedded. It is Zayed’s city, where extravagance and subtle conservatism are the essence of its beauty and pride.

Many Arab and African countries have been featured in Western movies in the past. The most famous of which Lawrence of Arabia, starring Peter O’Toole and Omar Sharif, was shot in Jordan and Morocco. And the latest depiction of the war in Iraq, conceptualised by Kathryn Bigelow, in her Oscar winning movie The Hurt Locker was also shot in Jordan.

If there are any concerns or objections, they do not exist out of mere refusal of filming a movie or using the country’s name, they do not come from ignorance but spur from the logic and political realisation that such associations should be monitored and selected according to what the country deems to be an appropriate representation.

The United Arab Emirates is known around the world for its patronage of the arts, embracing the art world in all its forms. Abu Dhabi is creating an unprecedented step towards realising the dream of bringing the arts even closer to its people by building goliath art museums such as the Louvre and the Guggenheim. Both the Abu Dhabi and Dubai international film festivals continue to thrive with worldwide works being selected and viewed every year. Culture is alive and well in the UAE.

In certain interviews that touch upon the subject we find the cast of the movie explaining that whatever may have been said about the culture is all in good humour and that it is simply an attempt to remain true to the characters. Yet the concern is neither about the characters nor the movie. Many of us in this region are quite familiar with what Samantha’s character would do and Miranda’s would say regardless of the setting, for the TV show, the movies are based on, aired in its entirety on certain Arab TV networks. The concern comes from the distorted and highly exaggerated impression the movie will give about the country.

Quite how far the movie has gone with its representation of Abu Dhabi will only be known on May 27th. Until then, we are left with an image of Charlotte’s little girl asking, “is it like Jasmine and Aladdin”? and Carrie sheepishly answering: “Yes sweetie, but with cocktails.”

This article was published in The Gulf Today newspaper on 23rd of May, 2010.

AL KHALEEJ, AN UNDYING PROMISE

2010-05-10T10:20:00.000+04:00

Every scholar, every writer and every reader has said all that is to be said about the institution that is Dar Al Khaleej publishing house. They spoke of its unbiased journalistic commitment, they marvelled at its unwavering, unapologetic position on Arab unity free from all political agendas. They praised its exclusive coverage of the news and its endless army of forward-thinking, visionary contributors. And acknowledged that throughout these 40 years and with all the struggles in the Arab region, Al Khaleej’s name remained at the forefront and on the frontlines of the media wars. Fighting in the name of all Arab rights regardless of country, politics or religion. In the face of all opposition it never stuttered, never lost its voice.

But that is what they had to say. What I have to say about Al Khaleej is less concerned with history and politics and more concerned with the personal element of Al Khaleej.

Allow me to speak about the Al Khaleej family and not the institution. Throughout my life, and for as long as I can remember, I have lived among the voices of Al Khaleej, schooled by their ethics and liberalism and driven by their passion.

During these 40 years, sailing the treacherous waters of both local and international political turmoil, Al Khaleej the institution lost its captain, and Al Khaleej the family, its father. Taryam Omran Taryam passed away on the 16^th of May, 2002. It was indeed the biggest and hardest blow to the heart and mind, to the soul of Al Khaleej. It was an almost impossible struggle for his brother and best friend to carry on sailing through his inconceivable grief. Yet he did, if only to keep Taryam Omran alive through the perseverance of his work and the perpetuation of his legacy.

And so on Al Khaleej’s 40^th birthday, our hearts and minds cannot help but be consumed with the man, our captain, my uncle, for without his vision we would not be here today. We miss you everyday. May your soul rest in peace and your voice continue to echo through your Al Khaleej.

Al Khaleej is all that has been mentioned, but Al Khaleej to me is much more than that. It is my uncle, it is my father, it is a legacy that fills me with pride. It is a story of brotherhood and an undying promise.

This piece was published on the 10th of May, 2010 in The Gulf Today in celebration of Dar Al Khaleej publishing house's 40th anniversary.

UAE’S SITUATION WITH BRANDED EDUCATION

2010-04-25T10:04:00.000+04:00

Education has always been an essential building block in the construction of the United Arab Emirates. The UAE’s founding father, His Highness the late Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, made educating his people his main priority and even encouraged all women to empower themselves by seeking education. Thanks to his enduring efforts, today the nations’ literacy rate is in the 97^th percentile with women’s literacy rate exceeding that of the men’s.

With the rapid growth of the UAE’s economy the country has become one big melting pot in which many cultures and nationalities mix and brew. Private schools were founded to accommodate all nationalities residing in the UAE. Every type of school imaginable has been established and before we knew it the UAE has become infested with thousands of such institutions.

Education began its hypnotised stride towards the glittery world of business where profits rule with an iron fist. Schools became establishments with nothing but revenues in mind and where quality of education is no longer a requirement. The current education system in the UAE seems to be taking cue from the Starbucks model for success, mass franchising and churning out degrees/lattes by the dozen. It is quantity not quality that matters the most.

With the increase in schools and yearly graduates a demand for more universities and higher education became imminent. And so we were off once again spending billions of Dirhams and conducting laborious negotiations in efforts to convince this university or that to agree on opening a branch in the Emirates. All the while adhering to the universities’ culture and vision even if it contradicted ours. We are so keen on opening international universities within our boundaries even if it means we should bend our rules and skew our views.

These universities are of course well known and revered in the world of education hence the hefty price tags. And although money is never a deciding factor when it comes to UAE endeavours I am afraid that one cannot measure the price of such agreements by ones and zeroes. When we forgo negotiations on certain defining elements such as the type of subjects being taught at these universities and whether or not they go against the inherent character of this country then the issue becomes bigger yet.

When we allow for university students to live in mixed dormitories then we are attempting to ignore one of the most important aspects of our culture and taking a step unprecedented in the Arab world. For no other Arab country has adhered to such a stipulation no matter where the university they were seeking came from. With all due respect to these major universities but how do the sleeping arrangements of your students hinder your vision as an educational institution? I cannot see how that would act as an obstacle to the learning experience or the university’s social setting. Many students do not reside in dormitories while attending universities and come out with the same experience and receive your degrees just the same, don’t they?

If a university, no matter how famous and respectable, cannot and will not adhere or at least be sensitive to the country’s governing religion and culture then we can certainly do without it. It is not just a matter of slapping a famous name on the doors and distributing attractive brochures to fill seats with students from every part of the world. It is a matter of teaching and educating on more than just the subjects chosen by the university, but to also teach and educate students coming from far and wide about the United Arab Emirates’ heritage and values.

The idea of building an education system based on brand names is a flawed one. Besides, a university branch is almost always a second-rate version of the original, why settle for that?

The image I have of the UAE’s future education system does not comprise thousands of international schools and hundreds of franchised universities. It is a more specific and long term one. The idea is to simply pump these same billions first into the betterment and enrichment of our public schools, and second, to build a national university, just one to fully call our own.

In the past this idea would have been just a dream because human resources and expertise were not available, and therefore, they were solicited from abroad. But today and with our outstanding 97 per cent literacy rate this dream can surely manifest into a reality.

This is not to say that we do not have some brilliant universities that have paved the way in the right direction. In 1978, Sheikh Zayed Al Nahyan established the first national university, UAE University in Al-Ain. This university was to be his biggest step towards realising his dream of bringing education to his nation and providing it with the skills necessary to one day become self-sufficient. A project such as His Highness Sheikh Sultan bin Mohammad Al Qassimi’s Sharjah University City is one that shines like a beacon in both the Gulf and Arab education system as a whole. The American University of Dubai and Zayed University have also found their places among the UAE’s prominent universities.

Because of such dedicated work the realisation of this dream is possible. This single UAE-built university can be a privatised one, led by prominent local experts in the field. Professors handpicked from both the Arab world and abroad for their excellence and commitment. The courses tailored to be a reflection of both the modernity of the United Arab Emirates and its cherished traditions and taught in both the Arabic and English language. The university’s name is one that bears no affiliate, one that is solely ours.

In the Arab world some universities stand out when you think of such examples. Egypt’s Cairo University, established in 1908, is one that has people from around the globe enjoying its rich education system, not because it bears the name of some famous university bought for billions of dollars, but because more than a hundred years later its own name has become worth just as much.

Let us build education institutions not for today or tomorrow but for hundreds of years to come, not for image or show but for substance and generations to come. So that some day foreign countries will pay to franchise the UAE’s name and adhere to its stipulations in pursuit of our knowledge and great achievements.

This article was published in The Gulf Today newspaper on 24th April, 2010

EMIRATI THE LOCAL EXPAT

2010-03-28T10:11:00.001+04:00

On some days more than others we are subjected to incidents, reactions or even words that rub us the wrong way. The reasons are many but the ultimate feeling is one. A feeling of shock and utter disturbance that tends to whack you upside the head and knock you off balance. No matter who you are I am sure that you have been whacked once or twice in your lifetime. People reacting to you differently, hesitantly, judgmentally. Reacting because you are on foreign turf, because you are a minority, because you do not belong to the familiar.

The United Arab Emirates is a country that is proud of its multicultural residents, and UAE nationals are known for their ever-welcoming and embracing attitude towards this continuous stream of newcomers. Ironically, the same cannot be said about the attitudes of some of the UAE expatriates.

As a UAE national I speak from personal experience when I say that I have been subjected to endless stares and been the topic of many hushed conversations after stepping into a number of different outlets in the country. And while in other parts of the world expatriates go to great lengths to fit in among the locals, it works quite the other way round in the Emirates. Granted, we Emiratis are a minority in our own land, for numbers rarely tell a lie, but that is by no means a reason for us to be treated as such.

This outnumbering has left many areas and outlets untrodden by the native Emirati and to many of their dwellers such a sighting is a rarity, hence the rubbernecking. When this native discovers a shiny new place and curiously wonders in he is treated as a rare species, at times an unwelcomed one. Once he is noticed, the patrons will size him up and immediately feel restless, his national dress offending them and disturbing their peace. The native immediately feels the prying eyes follow him and senses the gapers’ shoulders tense up in defence. Once he is settled and it becomes obvious that his presence is not the end of their world as they know it, things start to go back to normal, the incident is over, or is it?

For the Emirati it doesn’t quite die out. The agitation lingers through the day. It raises a barrage of questions and brings about an onslaught of reasoning in an effort to make sense of this meaningless subjugation.

Unfortunately, this issue is not constrained to looks and whispers, it has reached as far as affecting establishment rules. Some restaurants in certain Emirates can actually ban Emiratis, wearing their national dress, from entering the vicinity. Now allow me to say that such a matter is just unspeakable. Can you imagine if in Scotland a Scottish man is not allowed into a place for wearing a kilt, a Japanese woman sent packing for wearing a kimono in Japan, or Indians not allowed entrance into a restaurant in India proudly wearing their saris or kurtas? It is just unthinkable, not to mention humiliating.

Laws must be issued prohibiting establishments from enforcing rules like these on the grounds that they are purely discriminatory to both the nationals and the country’s rich tradition. For how can you fight for your rights not to be discriminated against in other parts of the world when you allow for it at home?

Nobody wants to feel like a stranger in his own home, an alien in his world. Shamefully, it is an ever-increasing phenomenon in the UAE experienced by many nationals in every aspect of their lives, be it the workplace, a random eatery or even public parks.

It is truly a sad feeling that I’m left with whenever I am faced with these head-turning, neck-breaking incidents. Once the anger of being discriminated against has subsided it is sadness that I feel. Sadness because we welcome and embrace, we speak in every mother tongue except ours and make every dweller feel at home, yet with every piercing look the price becomes painfully obvious.

We the natives are the aliens dressed in black and white.

This article was published in The Gulf Today on 28 March, 2010

NO LONGER THE FARTHEST MOSQUE

2010-03-07T10:09:00.000+04:00

The Israeli occupation police have seized al-Aqsa mosque, assaulted Palestinian civilians and barricaded the mosque area in a first step towards their so-called “national heritage restoration project.” This project is a $107 million plan to restore areas they claim prove Israelis’ connection to the land. Some 150 sites are listed. Among them many Islamic and Christian sites are named on this ‘heritage list’, devised and set into action by Israel’s Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu.

Many of the listed sites lie in the West Bank, which was handed over to the Palestinian Authority in 1994 under the Gaza-Jericho agreement. On the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ own website the agreement states that “the Israeli Civil Administration in Gaza and the Jericho area has been dissolved and its powers and responsibilities transferred to the Palestinian Authority in the following civilian spheres” which lists among other things planning and zoning, archeology and religious affairs.

But in true Israeli fashion and with deceptive disregard to political agreements or promises, they took it upon themselves to restore these sites that are not in their territory. Zionists are masters of gradualism, they took Palestinian land slowly, brick by brick. Israel has built more than 100 Jewish settlements in the West Bank, where more than 500,000 Jews reside. The World Court has ruled that these settlements are illegal under international law yet they remain untouched. Because when it comes down to it, Israel does what it wants while the rest of the world merely condemns and watches.

Palestinian Authorities have expressed outrage at this clear violation and warned that Israel’s actions will hinder the peace process and ignite another religious war. Peace is not on the Zionists’ agenda. Judaisation of the state of Israel is. Therefore, the logical form of action is to seize, desecrate and stamp the Jewish mark on both Islamic and Christian sites in order to serve that purpose.

Since 1946 hundreds of mosques have been seized as the world stood silent, some were demolished and many were turned into restaurants and nightclubs. The Ibrahimi mosque was invaded with the same “restoration” excuse, a quite ridiculous one, because the Palestinians have been adequately maintaining it for more than a hundred years. Their request was simply to add a candle holder in the Ibrahimi mosque, once accessed it was seized. Now prayer times are regulated by Israel and “promises” to allow Muslims shared access to the Ibrahimi mosque have been given.

Today it is the same old excuse but on a much wider and more invasive scale. Israel wants to take hold of al-Aqsa mosque. Israel’s audacity is fuelled by the Arab and now Islamic nations’ silence. It is al-Aqsa mosque, one of the three holiest Islamic sites in the world. The direction every Muslim prayed towards before the Ka’aba was built. It is where Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) made his night journey. How far does Israel have to go for the Arab governments and Islamic nations to speak up and take action?

This is a clear sign from Israel that it wants nothing to do with the peace process and a slap in the face for the Obama administration that is trying to foster it. Governments should not constraint themselves to the issuing of condemnation notices to the press. All Arab governments should sever political and business relations with Israel immediately. Meanwhile, sadly in the same week as al-Aqsa invasion Egyptian courts allowed the sale of gas to Israel.

The person will riot, take to the streets, shout and scream but it is the government that should speak in our voice and echo what our hearts and minds are hollering. How long can we stay quiet, silenced by our fear of political rejection? We are fed up with the words condemn and denounce. If we take a stand, if we grow a spine we will not be prosecuted because what we are asking for is not irrational, it is a right.

We are asking for our history and our rights to be preserved and protected. For our political agreements to be honoured and respected, not disregarded and invaded. The United Nations condemned Israel’s restoration project but after the Goldstone Report we have come to realise the truth that left a bad taste in our mouths. The truth that even the United Nations cannot make a difference when Israel is on trial.

If our governments do not act, and act with serious vigour, then al-Aqsa mosque will slowly but surely crumble and fall. No matter how many stones are flung at the bulldozers, in thirty months’ time and as planned by Israel al-Aqsa will be owned by them. It will become a tourist attraction to bring in revenues for the Israeli government and will eventually hold Jewish names and recently etched markings of the Jewish so-called historical connection.

It is an outrage and a crying shame that while we go about our daily lives we leave it up to the people of Palestine to protect the mosque with a wall of their own bodies. Relentlessly trying to put a stop to the Israeli occupation army, which spares no means to combat a stone flung by a child towards their tanks.

Our governments are more powerful than they seem to think. End the era of Arab government passivity and impotence and use your power to stop this crime against history, human rights and religion.

This article was published in The Gulf Today on 7th of March, 2010.

BODY OF WATER TIRED OF NAME-CALLING

2010-02-28T10:04:00.000+04:00

Iran has issued an ultimatum about its feelings over the naming of the waterway that lies between it and the Gulf States. The aggressive demand stipulates that no airline calls this body of water the Arabian Gulf. If it does, then airplanes are banned from flying over the country.

After hearing the news Body of water herself has decided to make her first ever public appearance. Speaking to reporters who gathered uniformly along its shoreline, she explained that for as long as she can remember she has felt tension among her neighbours. The neighbours that she has come to consider her family. She sensed extreme pressure closing in from both sides for her to pick one over the other. When she remained silent, her family members took it upon themselves to name her, so some called her Arabian Gulf and others named her Persian.

Body of water did not mind having two names, it made her feel unique, special even. After all, no other body of water or ocean for that matter had two names. It shifted, tossed and turned as reporters threw questions at her anxious to hear where she felt she truly belonged.

Body of water spoke softly, reminding the world that in the 80s her issue caused a stir between her neighbours. After much deliberation no official naming had been agreed upon. She kept silent then simply because everyone seemed happy with naming her what they felt she represented to them.

She wondered aloud what difference her name really made? She heard Shakespeare’s Juliet answer her saying “That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet.” And she would be right because her name would not change the fact that she is as old as time, or that she has been the connector who enhanced trade and allowed for the intermingling of cultures. How did she now become a separator? It was definitely not her own ego that caused it.

Feeling uneasy, Body of water rested her palms on the shore in hopes of gaining some balance. She expressed her fear and sadness at the situation of the world. Her largest family member is facing the United States head on and is suffering from political turmoil. Another is surrounded by political and media attention because a shocking assassination has come to upset its otherwise peaceful climate. Amidst all this, Body of water believes her name is of least importance. She demanded to just let her be.

As the press conference came to a close Body of water breathed heavily with every ebb and flow and addressed her family directly:

I have been here long before you named me, and will be here long after I have been named. I shall never leave any of you. I remain for no other reason than my love for all of you. Do not let me be the reason you confront each other. After all, I am what I am, just a body of water.

Published in The Gulf Today on the 28th Feb, 2010.

NOTHING PRETTY ABOUT THIS WOMAN

2010-02-21T10:25:00.000+04:00

Thanks to the master playwright Shakespeare, today’s cinema world has acquired some formulas that are sure-fire winners. In the romantic genre or what we have come to dub the ‘chick flick,’ as if there is no need for romance in a man’s life, the age-old story of the damsel in distress being rescued by a knight in shining armour is a no brainer.

But after Hollywood was done with it, it managed to replace the damsel in distress to suit the modern, independent woman who is not a doctor, an architect or a CEO but a prostitute who is rescued by a high-flier wealthy man in a white limousine. Queue tissue boxes everywhere for the movie Pretty Woman was re-released this year after twenty years of being the best-selling romantic movie to date.

Who of us hasn’t watched Pretty Woman? For me the sole reason that movie was even watchable is Julia Roberts. She is one actress that can make any character a lovable one. As for the plot, to this day I cannot for the life of me see the romance in such a world no matter how hard Tinseltown tries.

The Academy has long rewarded such roles. Julia Roberts herself was nominated for playing Vivian Ward in Pretty Woman, so was Jodie Foster for playing a teenage hooker in Taxi Driver. Elizabeth Shue also received an Oscar nomination for her role as a Las Vegas prostitute in Leaving Las Vegas.

Kim Basinger won one for her role as a high-class call girl in L.A. Confidential and so did Mira Sorvino for her role as a prostitute opposite Woody Allen in Mighty Aphrodite. Names like Jane Fonda, Elizabeth Taylor, Natalie Portman, and Nicole Kidman also have a place in this list.

In fact, the very first woman to win an Oscar was Janet Gaynor who played, you guessed it, a streetwalker in 1928’s Street Angel.

One other thing in common with all these movies apart from the words prostitute and Oscar, is the fact that they were all written by men. Which makes us wonder is this the man’s romantic formula?

The betterment of a tainted woman, and her redemption by the hands of a man that was caring enough to show her the way, seems to the writers and directors of Hollywood to be the new romantic story. Jane Austen’s romance no longer makes any sense or has any sensibility.

Taking cue from Hollywood, both Arabic cinema and Bollywood followed suit. Egyptian adaptations of such storylines sprouted everywhere. From the movie Khamsa Bab (The Five Doors Bar), where the lead actress Nadia El Guindy played a prostitute based on Billy Wilder’s 1963 film Irma La Douce starring Shirley McLaine, up to the movie Al Jeans (The Jeans) played by Jala Fahmi which is an exact copy of Pretty Woman. In Bollywood, Kareena Kapoor’s Chameli is one of the many movies casting the lead as a call girl.

This formula is so popular that it has seeped into television with shows like Secret Diary of a Call Girl. The show, based on a high-end escort/blogger’s life, remains on air despite the huge amount of criticism it has faced. Belle lives a stable life, wears designer clothes, has a personal assistant, high-end clientele, and maintains healthy relationships. Why then won’t young girls find this a possible career choice?

This issue is no longer restricted to females either. Recently a show called Hung (yes the pun is painfully obvious) has been aired. It tells the story of a high school football coach, who finds himself struggling to make ends meet, so naturally he chooses to become a prostitute.

Seriously, why are they trying so hard to keep this so-called profession alive?

Hollywood’s stereotypical prostitute proliferates a false myth about prostitution and casts an invisibility cloak on its harm. As the world gets more cultured and aims for better education why are we still expected to sit through a two-hour long movie or follow a TV show season after season to watch a call girl’s frivolous escapades? Why is that entertaining?

Women today are making money and gaining power through all sorts of interesting professions, so why does Hollywood insist on the glamourising the flesh trade?

There is no mystery or glamour in walking seedy streets at night. The threat of physical and psychological harm to both the person and society as a whole is imminent. Just ask Jack The Ripper.

This article was published in The Gulf Today newspaper on 21st Feb, 2010.

TO BURN A BOOK ALL IT TAKES IS A KINDLE

2010-02-14T10:43:00.000+04:00

Steve Jobs, the man behind Apple’s innovation train has yet again revealed to the rest of us a glimpse of the future. This month Jobs introduced Apple’s latest product the iPad. Putting the iPad’s ton of technology in a nutshell, it is basically a touch screen tablet computer crammed into a device the size and thickness of a notepad. Being a technology enthusiast myself this piece of plastic had me highly excited, I mean anytime Jobs is set to reveal a product it is big news. Like it or not he has changed the way we listen to music after all.

The reveal was impressive and the features of the iPad superb, but is it just me or did anyone else feel a slight pang of concern when the eBook reader application was presented?

The eBook, the digital book, the book of the future made up of compressed and digitalised words reduced to bits and bytes of memory. A technology allowing us to carry thousands of books in one device. Not a fairly new technology, in the sense that eBook readers have been around for a couple of years now but haven’t proved to be very popular until Amazon introduced its Kindle.

Kindle is an eBook reader that is equipped with an Internet connection allowing you to access the book selling Goliath’s website and download any book you desire in mere seconds.

Following in Amazon’s footsteps Jobs has created his own version, fit it snuggly in the iPad and sprinkled some Apple magic on it (the magic being his wondrous marketing and advertising techniques).

This is all and well, I mean we have all heard the list of benefits. It starts with the space factor and ends with saving the planet yet after going through them I still feel anxious. What happens to the book? Should we give it a new name? The ‘original book’ or the ‘paper book’ maybe? If Jobs is to do to the book what he did to the CD then my anxiety is justified.

Sometimes technology makes us believe that we cannot live without the features it provides. That we absolutely need it. Amazon’s data suggest that Kindle users buy more books than they did before owning the device, but does that necessarily mean they are reading more? It is true we can carry thousands of books in one device but while we can listen to hundreds of songs in an hour we cannot do the same with reading, so why the need to carry them all? Efficient yes, but a complete replacement? I find that hard to imagine.

The image of reading in bed does not conjure up myself curled up with a Kindle or an iPad. And although the sound of pages being turned is an option on your device it remains a simulation. And what of the smell of paper that wafts as you feel the texture of the pages being turned in anticipation of reaching the end? I am sure Jobs will soon think of something to shut me up. Yet the fact remains the way we read, the act of reading will be changed forever.

I am a collector of rare books but in the near future I will be a collector of books for all of them will at one point become rare. As for Kindle and iPad helping save the planet, buying used books could too, there is no shame in that.

Yes I dread living in a paperless world. I do not harbour the fear of a publisher that spurs from profit and copywriting concerns. My fear is that of a reader that has held a book in her hands throughout her life and cannot fathom ever saying goodbye.

This article was published in The Gulf Today on 14th Feb, 2010.

I HATE YOU, NOW GET IN LINE

2010-01-24T10:03:00.004+04:00

“100 per cent of the Islamic terrorists are Muslims, and that is our main enemy today. So why we should not be profiling people because of their religion?”

“You could say that 80-85 per cent of mosques in this country are controlled by Islamic fundamentalists”

“We’re just living in a politically correct world to say we should be screening a Scandinavian grandmother the same as we do a middle-eastern male”

These hateful, outrageous and highly insulting generalisations are but a few of the hundreds that Rep. Peter King, a New York Republican, who is currently serving his ninth term in the US House of Representatives, is spitting out to the media at every given opportunity.

As a member of the Homeland Security Committee King has used the terrorism angle to spread his obvious and unwitheld hatred for Islam. He went as far as criticising the Obama administration for not using the word ‘terrorism’ enough.

In 2008 he protested against an Islam awareness ad campaign aimed at educating people and demanded it be rejected. The ads were simple black and white panels with words such as “Head Scarf?” or “Prophet Mohammad?” and the words “You deserve to know” along with a Web site address.

His latest endeavour is to promote what he describes as a “half truth and half fiction” novel, “Vale of Tears,” which tells a story about future terrorist attacks by so-called Muslim extremists in Nassau County, N.Y.

After the recent foiled bomb attack on a trans-Atlantic airliner, bound for Detroit, King has opted for higher security measures in US airports. This is a predictable reaction considering he is a veteran of the Bush administration. Although if this strategy was ever successful in more than inconveniencing the general public this recent incident would have never been possible.

King’s proposed form of higher security measure is not only shocking but also demeaning to every Muslim and to the Americans themselves. He blatantly proposed on a radio show a Muslims-only screening protocol, which involves a full-body-see-through screening for any person carrying a middle-eastern name (basically full X-ray images recorded on film). His other suggestion is to have Muslims-only checkpoint lines at US airports.

This makes me wonder have they not learned anything from their past? Is this King’s way of going back to the segregated schools and water fountains when it was white versus black?

The mere suggestion of such an absurd broad-based ethnic profiling scheme is clearly nothing but a modern day witch-hunt.

Although this suggestion will not be adopted anytime soon, the sheer thought of it churns my insides. How is it in this day and age, after all that has been done by the Americans themselves to fight bigotry and prejudices, that a man like King and his followers are able to blurt out statements such as “It’s time to have a Muslim checkpoint line in America’s airports and have Muslims be scrutinised. You better believe it, it’s time.”

I wonder if the word Muslim was replaced by the word black or Jew would America have reacted differently to Peter King? This has gone beyond political correctness. This is what Americans must view as illegal, unethical and unconstitutional. The first amendment to the US constitution professes the freedom of religion and the fourth, “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

King has many followers urging him to run for the 2012 presidential nomination. If King has his way it would be shameful for any Muslim, let alone middle-eastern, to accept this insult. To willingly stand in Muslims-only queues, herded from the rest and happily be frisked and screened for no reason than our religion, that would be the end of Arab pride, and Islamic dignity.

How long are we going to remain silent and bow down to the barrage of insults that come in the form of France banning the Hijab (Islamic head dress) in schools, Denmark releasing shameful caricatures about Prophet Mohammed, Switzerland approving a constitutional ban on mosque minarets, Jewish soldiers invading Al-Aqsa mosque during Friday prayers and now Peter King. Our political strength lies in our solidarity. Muslim nations should find one united voice in which to speak with. Stand up to this tyranny, injustice and ongoing condemnation. Demand that we are given our rights and respected for we are no less deserving than any other nation or religion.

At last I wish to address my final words to Mr King:

Mr King, bigotry and prejudice are a contagious infliction that spread faster than the swine flu our world was so rattled by. Therefore, for your sake, and the sake of the American people, I wish you a full and speedy recovery.

Published in The Gulf Today on Jan 24th, 2010

EVERYDAY SAVAGES

2010-01-17T09:51:00.004+04:00

Have you ever looked at certain people and couldn’t help think that they reminded you of a certain animal, a bird maybe? You could see the resemblance not only in their features but in their behaviour too. Fret not, that doesn’t make you a horrible person it just solidifies the fact that on this planet we are all connected.

Our relationship with animals is one that dates back to the beginning of time. For as long as humans roamed this earth they have walked side by side, or most probably ran in the opposite direction of animals, and therefore, we have a certain kinship to them. We have photographed them in amazement, studied them in wonder, we continue to raise them as pets. And some of us even worship them.

This bond humans have with animals has infiltrated art, and so we witnessed the likes of Leonardo Davinci incorporating them in his paintings, and devising contraptions in their likeness. Writers have made lead characters of them in works such as Aesop’s Fables and Kalīlah wa Dimnah. Religious texts are full of them, each animal representing a human flaw, a strength, a weakness. Each is portrayed as the image of good and evil personified. Why does it seem easier for us to accept reality when it is within the confinement of the animal kingdom yet so hard for us to face it in ours?

In children’s literature animals were used as a moral compass to direct them to the rights and steer them away from the wrongs of the world. One wonders if books such as Beatrix Potter’s The Tale of Peter Rabbit and Lewis Caroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland would have been as influential if all their characters were humans. Children can easily relate to animals and understand human characteristics through them, as can adults. I guess it is easier to cast aside discriminatory and judgmental feelings when we are talking about Peter Rabbit and the Cheshire Cat.

George Orwell used animal characters in his portrayal of the evils of totalitarianism in the classic novel Animal Farm. Through the pigs, cows and horses that lived within the borders of a farm fence we learned of political manipulation and twisted agendas better than watching the real thing unfold on the news. There must be a connection between the world of politics and that of animals (no pun intended) because to this day the United States’ two major political parties are represented by animal images. The Democratic Party the donkey and the Republican the elephant.

In language animals make an appearance more often than not. We hear terms such as “crocodile tears” when speaking of hypocrisy in human emotions. But why use an image of a weeping crocodile to portray a characteristic reserved purely for humans? It makes you wonder why the slyness of a fox and the wisdom of an owl? Why not the slyness of politicians and the wisdom of monks?

In our so-called civilised world we pride ourselves on being so different from animals. We are not savages we say. Only animals hunt for survival and we hunt for sport. Animals kill because they have no choice yet humans kill because the choice is all theirs. If only people lifted their heads up once in a while, if they gazed at the faces passing them by or glanced over towards a nearby table in a restaurant they would see. They would see the fox in the face of a passer-by and glimpse the owl in another person’s eyes, only then will they realise that there is something beastly in every human and another thing humane in every beast.

This article was published in The Gulf Today on 17th Jan, 2010.

UAE'S SLICE OF THE PIE CHART

2009-11-15T09:51:00.004+04:00

The new generation of the UAE nationals has to not only know but be proud of who they are or else they will be lost among the crowds.

Last week His Highness Sheikh Mohammad Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice-President and Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai, approved a resolution for establishing the Federal Demographic Council of the United Arab Emirates.

The council strives to develop national demographic strategies all the while gathering information, conducting studies and establishing an official demographic database.

This is indeed a great step forward towards tackling and reducing the ever-growing difference in numbers between the UAE nationals and expatriates residing in the Emirates. The UAE nationals make up less than 20 per cent of the total demographic pie chart, while the remaining 80 per cent or so is made up of expatriates from all over the world, many of whom have never interacted with a UAE national. Although the figures are not completely accurate still they are staggering and when put on paper beckon for action.

With nationals being a minority in their own homeland a call must be made to address national identity. The new generation of the UAE nationals has to not only know but be proud of who they are or else they will be lost among the crowds. But what is our national identity?

Our national identity spurs first and foremost from our religion. Islam is the UAE’s religion and the law governing this land. Without solid knowledge of what it means to be a true Muslim the country loses its soul. The Arabic language is our mother tongue and our core identifier yet most of us rarely use it.

In France, Germany and Switzerland you can barely get by using the English language. These countries refuse to use it not out of arrogance but out of fear of losing their identities and yet in the UAE, English has virtually become our first language.

Our history as a country is one of great accomplishments. Ones that we should be proud of and never forget. Unfortunately many of our kids today do not know how the UAE came into being.

All schools must teach the history of the UAE, public as well as private, for if we are happily inviting foreigners to make the UAE their home it is only fair that they know how their chosen home was envisioned and resurrected.

The future generations of the Emiratis should know that the UAE is not just a flag. They must understand that this flag is one born out of seven separate flags. Emirati children should know that what has become easily accessible to them today would not have been possible without the struggles of their founding fathers.

It is true, our country is of a tender age but its years are undoubtedly filled with accomplishments that overwhelm us with pride. It is true, our numbers are small but our love for this land defies any demographical imbalance and tips the scales in our favour every time. The United Arab Emirates is a living and thriving proof that true Arab unity is alive, and well may it forever live united under this flag, the flag born out of seven separate flags.
This article was published in The Gulf Today newspaper on 15th November, 2009.

OPRAH AIRED, PITCHFORKS SHARPENED

2009-11-09T10:10:00.002+04:00

"The Emirates prides itself on being a country, which advocates freedom of expression and speech, and that is exactly what Dr. Lamees displayed."

On Saturday night, and as per its daily schedule, the Oprah Winfrey Show aired on the locally broadcast television channel MBC4. This episode in particular was enthusiastically awaited by the UAE nationals since it was to feature our beloved city Dubai. Dubai was presented as one of the happiest cities in the world along with the likes of Copenhagen, Rio de Janeiro and Istanbul.

Copenhagen was visited by the Queen of talk shows herself where she met two ladies at their homes highlighting the differences in their minimalistic, yet happy lifestyles as opposed to the United States in true Oprah fashion.

Next in line was our pride and joy, Dubai. After a brief, and what seemed to me a pretty weak introduction when compared to the feats that Dubai has achieved, Oprah connected via webcam with a Dubai national and a general practitioner Dr. Lamees Hamdan. Dr. Lamees came across as well-versed and confident, speaking freely about her life, family and her home, Dubai.

Dr. Lamees invited Oprah’s cameras into her home and candidly introduced her family to the world. She seemed very proud of her heritage and closeness to her extended family. Oprah then proceeded to ask her questions, while Dr. Lamees spoke of free healthcare in the UAE and pointed out that ironically it is the United States which is facing challenges. She added that no taxes are paid in the UAE, which understandably thrilled Oprah.

Oprah then asked the doctor about her outfit. Dr. Lamees explained that she was wearing a Jalabiya, a traditional dress, and that she chooses not to wear the Sheila, the national headdress and Abaya, while her sisters choose to do so. She explained that the Sheila and Abaya are an extension of the UAE culture yet it is left as a choice for women to sport them or not.

All in all a smooth and candid interview. Yet no sooner had the show ended than our mobile phones began receiving a barrage of messages attacking Dr. Lamees Hamdan claiming that she had misrepresented both, Dubai and Islam. They are, of course, referring to the comment made about the Abaya.

I frankly do not think that Dr. Lamees misrepresented Dubai in any way by stating that the Abaya is a cultural aspect and a ‘national dress,’ one that the UAE women have a choice with. The Emirates prides itself on being a country, which advocates freedom of expression and speech, and that is exactly what Dr. Lamees displayed. I also think that the misrepresentation of Islam accusation is highly dramatised since she did not speak of the Hijab, which is the Islamic headdress for women. All throughout the Islamic world women are seen wearing the Hijab yet the Abaya is reserved mostly for people of the Gulf region, and particularly the UAE.

What strikes me as unreasonable is the fact that people thoughtlessly let loose a barrage of criticisim, instead of understanding that Dr. Lamees spoke of her own life and did not generalize her representation. We as nationals in general, and as local women in particular, should do away with the sharpened pitchforks and appreciate that overall Dr. Lamees carried herself well with her representation of the educated working mothers of the UAE.

Therefore, after reading the many unnecessarily misleading messages that seemed to have spurred from no more than shallow jealousy. Do permit me to call upon the people of the UAE to be as understanding and accepting as the country that we represent. Instead of attacking one of our own, we should take example and draw heart from our liberal governments who have always been there to support us and help us forward.
This article was published in The Gulf Today newspaper on November 9, 2009.

WORDS FOR THE FIRE

2009-11-01T09:51:00.005+04:00

" Where would The Aeneid be if Virgil’s heirs respected his wishes to destroy it and how much would we have known of Kafka had his friend Max Brod burned The Trial and The Castle as instructed?"

The creative process that spurs from a moment’s inspiration is ever so demanding. Once its call is answered the response to it must be one of sheer commitment. Perfection is its one request. Like a lover it demands endless hours of your time and your complete devotion. Only after pouring his entire being into the craft will it be satisfied, never settling for anything less. And only then will the creator and seeker of perfection feel whole again.

Writers, the creators of fiction, masters of the perfectly tailored sentence and rulers of their conjured up worlds relish this creative process. No matter how gruelling and sadistic it may be. No matter how much time and how many people it asks them to give up, they remain faithful to it until the very end.

Vladimir Nabokov was a writer and a slave to this creative process. An author whose imagination saw no boundaries and whose pen gave us novels like Ada, Pale Fire and the bestselling violator of social acceptability, Lolita. Thirty years ago from his deathbed Nabokov worked on his 18^th and what was to be his last novel named The Opposite of Laura.

Amidst his delirium and fleeting consciousness he managed to organise his plot, create his characters, and arrange his words on what totalled to 138 index cards. Nabokov died in 1977, his last wish was for his wife Vera to destroy The Opposite of Laura. His wish was partially granted for his transcripts entered a vault in a Swiss bank, where they lay untouched and unseen for thirty years, until now.

Dimitri, Nabokov’s only son recently decided to put together his father’s last novel and gift it to the world. He confessed that it was a great struggle for him whether or not to honour his father’s dying wish. Ultimately he found that it would be an immense loss for the literary world to keep The Opposite of Laura from seeing the light of day.

Dimitri’s dilemma is understandable for what should one do when he is requested by one of the most influential writers of the 20^th century to destroy a piece of his work? At the onset one would be inclined to object, to speak on behalf of the art form and fight for its survival. For where would The Aeneid be if Virgil’s heirs respected his wishes to destroy it and how much would we have known of Kafka had his friend Max Brod burned The Trial and The Castle as instructed? Yet one issue remains, and as a writer I must say that I bend ever so slightly towards it. Honouring an artist’s wishes seems to me the right thing to do. For after his death the writer is painfully denied of his inherent right to discuss his work. If the creator was able to utter the words “destroy it,” referring to his own creation, then he fully believes that his creative process has not been completed and without perfection. Without full satisfaction the work is just not quite there yet, and probably never will be.

Nabokov could have understood that or maybe in his hallucinatory state uttered these words unaware of their consequences. Nevertheless his request posed the question and pushed the doors of debate wide open.

Does a writer have more of an obligation to the literary world than to his work? Does the fact that he was generous enough to share his gift with the masses mean he should be robbed of his final wishes? And why is it that the more you offer yourself the more people expect from you? A writer, at the very core, is a person and a person should always have the right to choose.
This article was published in The Gulf Today newspaper on Nov. 1st, 2009.

LUXURY HAS LOST ITS LUSTRE

2009-10-17T10:54:00.007+04:00

Gone are the days when luxury was reserved for and accessible only to the select groups perched high up on society’s top branches. Hefty price tags no longer pose a threat to the average consumer. Even with the world’s economy being the quicksand pit that it is at the moment people are still scrambling to possess the latest luxury items and the pricier they are the better.

Not long ago people were taking out loans to fund a dream project or get a proper education. Today, people are using these loans to pay for diamond studded cell phones and designer handbags. Now I do understand the existence of 100,000AED handbags and I also understand that for people who can comfortably afford them it must be a great sport hunting them down like some kind of rare species. It is beyond me though how people who break their backs working day in and day out finding it logical to put their life’s blood into such items. Such people do not even know why they are buying this product or the reasons behind the ridiculous price tag and they don’t care to as long as it is rare. They have not even stopped to ask themselves if they like them or not, if they suite them or not because it really does not matter. And then it struck me, we are living in an age where luxury has become a necessity.

We are not judged by the words we utter or the thoughts circulating in our head but by the clothes we wear and the accessories we sport. Many people have said to me that when they walk into a function carrying a so and so handbag or wearing so and so shoes they gain respect. Yes my friends respect can be bought and off the rack, might I add. Has the void in one’s life become so huge that people are now chucking designer labels in to fill it up? If so, I wonder if this quick fix is actually working? Where does this race to own the most expensive product end and once you get to the finish line what is it that you win?

Intelligence, manners and class have become the luxuries while Hermes and Chanel are the absolute requirements. And so after this disease-like infestation has spread, slapping our priorities senseless and flooding the streets with these once rare items, it seems to have had an adverse effect on me and rendered this whole phenomenon obsolete in my eyes. To me luxury has somewhat lost its luster and I don’t know if it will ever get it back.

This article was published in The Gulf Today Newspaper on 17th October, 2009.

REALITY, GIVE ME A SUPERHERO

2009-10-11T14:16:00.003+04:00

The times we live in are indeed tough. The economy is in shambles; wars seem to be sprouting across the world and never before seen viruses are spreading airborne fear among the masses. We live in a world where happiness and positivity are packaged and sold, where it is easier to nourish the land with blood than water, a world where even the children are suffering from exhaustion and depression.

Before you rush to label me a pessimist and a painter of bleak images allow me to clarify that I am neither. I belong to the group of people who still have faith in the world, who still seek the silver lining as hard as it might have become to glimpse. But the grim examples are overwhelmingly great and they are creeping ever so closer to home.

So what do we do when we feel that our worst fears have become tangible? Most of us will seek divine intervention, fall down on our knees and lift our hands up in prayer for what else are our feeble hands able to do? Nothing else. This state of helplessness has inseminated popular culture and allowed for the birth of the ‘superhero.’

The ‘superhero’ is a fictitious character developed to rescue humankind from their most devastating circumstances. A character made up of all that we feel is ideal and necessary. It is a hologram projected by our own aspirations. The first appearance of this superhero was through the character of Superman. Superman was born in 1938 amidst the raging fires of the Second World War. It was a hopeless time and so a character such as Superman was not only needed but essential for the world’s moral and spirit.

A superhero is forever mysterious, tirelessly concealing his secret identity. It is important to us that he remains as such because we realize that it is in our nature to admire and respect what we do not fully understand. We are surrounded by real-life ‘superheroes’ who endlessly sacrifice for the good of others. Yet, we do not acknowledge them, simply because we have the habit of taking what is right in front of us for granted.

Fiction is nothing but an extension of real life, through it we translate our inner most desires. Secure under its thin veil we summon up the courage to create a person, only one, who is able to rebuild all that we have come to destroy in life. A person who walks among us by day and soars above us by night, watching over us, keeping us safe. Fiction offered us Superman, but dare we ask reality for one? Say we did, that would be its cue to laugh in our desperate faces and think us mad.

Superman paved the way for hundreds of other ‘superheroes’ each responding to a need, each representing a missing thread in the fabric of society. In the 40s for example, DC Comic’s created Wonder Woman. Just like Superman she came to life responding to the necessity of women’s role in society that was simply non-existent beyond the house gates. Wonder Woman came to life in order to represent feminism and sexual equality, her role, to shatter the fence of these once confining societal norms.

Indeed superheroes are extreme role models yet they are role models nevertheless. And while we do realize that a single human being no matter how noble, honest and forthright, or maybe because of these qualities, could never eliminate injustices with a ZAP and a POW. We must recognise that saving the world does not rely on one person, but starts with one. The more we reach out to one another the more invincible we shall become.

Every superhero has a weakness. For Superman it was kryptonite, for us mortals the weaknesses are many. Ones that we must acknowledge before we can eradicate. It is the only way we can hope to survive. For only by facing our flaws and accepting our frailties shall we grow strong again. In a world such as ours, we do not need super powers, what we truly need are humane ones.

This article was published in The Gulf Today Newspaper on 11th October, 2009.

THE KING IS DEAD

2009-06-27T14:19:00.006+04:00

Michael Jackson’s heart stopped beating last night. Michael Jackson is no longer with us. After being there for me throughout my entire life I must say I feel like I have lost someone close to my heart. His beats where the background music to my life, as far as I can remember Michael was there with me as I am sure he was there for many of you. Who can’t remember their jaws dropping after watching Thriller? Practicing the moonwalk for hours in front of the mirror? Asking everyone to Beat It and proclaiming to the world that we are Bad?

We have called Michael by many a name; sometimes we were kind and called him the ‘King’, other times we settled for ‘Wacko Jacko.’ After rocking to his music for years we were quick to judge his person. We witnessed his face deteriorate before our eyes, we gawked at him dangling his baby from a hotel balcony, we stood divided when he was on trial and were shocked to see his beloved Neverland Ranch being sold. Michael Jackson’s music brought worlds together, but he was a lonely man, one could even say a lonely child. I say that with conviction because when one is gifted enough to reach such heights, he will always remain there alone.

Nevertheless, today we should remember Michael Jackson for all the times he inspired us with his art and be forever grateful to him for shaping the face of music. We should keep dancing to his beats as long as we can in honour of his devotion to us, his fans. The King’s heart gave out last night and tragically, all the king’s horses and all the king’s men couldn’t put MJ together again. Farewell Michael you were gone to soon.

This piece was published in The Gulf Today Newspaper on June 27, 2009.

Political Prophet

2009-06-27T14:17:00.002+04:00

The name George Orwell is synonymous with political criticism owing to his two uber famous novels: the satirical Animal Farm and the dystopian Nineteen Eighty-Four. He was a journalist, a literary critic, and a Democratic socialist who loathed totalitarianism and was not afraid to say it. He believed that nothing is mightier than the word and that language, when used right can be the most powerful weapon against mankind.

His immense contribution to the English language continues to inspire and school writers. What young writer has not come across Orwell’s six rules of effective writing, used them and never looked back? I sure have. The lexicon he developed for his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four has entered the English language and become a part of our everyday speech. It is said that Orwell was the first to use the term ‘cold war’ in his essay You and the Atomic Bomb.

Eric Arthur Blair’s persona was quite the opposite of what his books and essays portrayed. His alter ego, the one he named George Orwell and unleashed onto the world was the most outspoken critic of the Second World War. Who believed in bringing the truth to the people no matter how harsh it may be and set out to do it. But the person behind this tough, injustice-fighting machine was a shy man. Eric Arthur Blair was a man who although spent most of his short-lived life fighting for the common man he didn’t really mix with any and always kept to himself.

He contracted tuberculosis, which forced him to write from the confinement of his hospital room. The most vivid memory the hospital staff recall of Orwell is the sound of typewriter keys resonating in the hallways all through the night. While his body was fighting for survival, his mind was engaged in an image of the future. A bleak image that he managed to paint using innovative word choice and unparalleled imagination. At first glance Nineteen Eighty-Four may seem like a science fiction novel but the political satire and Orwell’s message to future generations is unmistakable. Although it was published in 1949 many of its elements are still relevant to this day, people take head of growing government powers for you will be the ultimate sacrifice.

Orwell wrote from a hospital bed, Blair got married in one. Two very different people living in the same body. This body took its last breath on the 21st of January 1950. One soul lives on through its passionate, influential work and the other lives on in the heart of the son it left behind. And although Orwell was gone too the tombstone carries an epitaph that simply reads: "Here lies Eric Arthur Blair, born 25 June 1903, died 21 January 1950" as if to say he never really left us.

This piece was published in The Gulf Today Newspaper on June 27, 2009.

Killing for Honour, Honoured for Killing

2009-05-22T12:49:00.008+04:00

“This is the only way to win back his so-called honour for she is now a stain that can only be cleansed by death.”

Agony thy name is woman. A sentence that commanded my attention as a 16-year-old. I had no real background knowledge or experiences to speak of that would lead me to believe in such a bold and definite sentence. Yet after stumbling across it through the pages I carefully cut it out and pinned it on the already busy board above my desk.

Women have forever been viewed as the Other: the other sex, the other half, the other option. Always the next best thing, always another part of. Yes indeed we have come far as women from the dark ages of silence, suffering and self-blame. We have broken through and taken our rightful role in society. But when I write the word ‘we’ I hesitate, because ‘we’ is all- encompassing. And that would not be fair to the thousands of women around the world who are still forced to dwell in the darkest of ages that we lucky ones have left behind.
It is hard to imagine that even today while many of us go about our lives freely, hundreds of women cannot fathom the concept of being free. Bound, gagged and suffocating from the cruel societal chains they fight for survival on a daily basis, some succumbing to it, others rebelling against it and paying for it with their lives.

The rusty metal links that make up these chains are many, but one in particular has shaken me to the core and continues to do so every time I come across an image of it reflected in the news. It is the horrific crime that seems to be accepted among many Arab societies, conveniently coined ‘honour killing.’ This must be the most contradictory term I have ever come across for what is honourable about cold-blooded murder? Just like the heinous crime the term itself is gravely flawed.

Honour killings allow families to murder any member of their family who they feel has dishonoured them one way or another. And although this definition constitutes any member interestingly enough it is only practiced on female members. Since the dishonourable conduct is not clearly specified the women could be hunted down and murdered for as petty a reason as refusing a marriage arrangement.

Countries like Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, Turkey and Pakistan see an outstanding number of murdered women as a result of these honour killings. Since many of the crimes are
concealed by the entire family there is no way of acquiring clear statistics. But the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) estimates that more than 200 women are murdered yearly in Turkey, over 1000 in Pakistan and gives a total of 5000 women lost worldwide. Tragically, these witch hunts go unpunished because the law books in these countries do not view them as crimes. Basically, the law allows people to act as judge, jury and executioner and is prepared to cast a blind eye no matter how harsh their punishment might be.

In Jordan the law justifies honour killings. Article 340 of its Penal Code states “he who discovers his wife or one of his female relatives committing adultery and kills, wounds, or injures one of them, is exempted from any penalty.” Queen Noor and Queen Rania of Jordan have been fighting to amend this law for years and although it has been put forward it was refused twice by the Lower House of Parliament. Shockingly the law is somewhat similar in over 60 countries in the Middle East, Africa, Asia and Latin America.

The West has spoken volumes about these crimes always emphasising that it is a problem which occurs solely in countries governed by Islam. Failing to mention that any law which is interpreted to allow men to kill female relatives in a premeditated effort, crime of passion or in flagrante delicto in the act of committing adultery actually exists in the Napoleonic code (French civil code).

Brazil and Columbia are two non-Muslim countries that considered honour killings noncriminal until the 1990s. It is ironic how when this crime is executed by a Muslim it is named ‘honour killing’ and when the same crime is committed by a non-Muslim it is a ‘crime of passion,’ terminology does make all the difference after all.

This is not Islam’s creed. When Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) was approached by a man who suspected his wife’s infidelity, he asked him to procure three additional eye-witnesses to her act before the public authority could judge her. Otherwise, the husband would be lashed for making such an accusation. Being able to find four eye-witnesses to such a matter is near-impossible. Therefore, the evidentiary requirements for conviction are actually there to ensure that punishment will virtually never be carried out.

This is not about religion. This dilemma arises from the concept of shame. Sociology defines it as a family of emotions that arise from viewing the self negatively through the eyes of others. Therefore, it is this fear of judgement that pushes men to murder. A father cannot bear the idea of people viewing him negatively if they found out about his daughter’s disobedience. That heavy sense of self-loathing is enough to make him drive a knife into the flesh that he himself has raised and nurtured. To him this is the only way to win back his so-called honour for she is now a stain that can only be cleansed by death.

This sense of shame is rooted in tribal cultures. Honour killings are one of the many tribal understandings that pre-date Islam and Christianity together. It is as ancient a concept as the crimes of female infanticides. While the former is now extinct, the latter has somehow managed surviving to this day.

This gendercide must be tackled by a revision of all laws. Killing is killing and placing the word ‘honour’ in front of it should never be justification enough for allowing its escalation.

On September 2nd 2008 in Pakistan Hameeda was taken to the desert beaten, shot at and buried alive for wanting to choose the man she was to marry. She was 18 years old.

Banaz Mahmod, 20 years old, disappeared from her home in south London, two years later her body was found stuffed in a suitcase murdered by her father and uncle. Her only crime was standing up to her father’s daily beatings.

Shawbo Ali Rauf, a 19-year-old Iraqi girl, was shot seven times by her in-laws for having an unknown number on her cell phone.

At a time when the world is exhausting all its resources to fight problems like swine flu it seems oblivious to this ongoing gendercide. How can we justify this to Hameeda, Banaz, and Shawbo?
I can’t... can you?

This article was published in The Gulf Today Newspaper on May 22, 2009.

Who Killed The Femme Fatale?

2009-05-01T15:24:00.005+04:00

"Picking up a self-help book entitled 10 Easy Steps To Make A Man Fall in Love With You will by no means transform any average woman into a femme fatale”

A couple of nights ago while aimlessly flipping through the channels I came across a scene that suspended my finger in mid-air preventing it from landing once more on the eager remote control button. It was Sharon Stone dressed in red, complete with red nail-polish and red stilettos, blonde hair slicked back, smoking a cigarette. The movie was Diabolique from 1996. I remember seeing it when it first came out, but considering that more than 10 years have passed since, I decided to watch it again with an older, wiser, more critical pair of eyes and laid the remote-control to a well-deserved rest.

For those who haven’t seen Diabolique here is my brief description: it is a remake of a French film noir named Les Diaboliques meaning ‘The Devils.’ Set in an all-boys boarding school the plot revolves around a love triangle, the three sides of which are the husband and head-master played by Chazz Paliminteri, the ex-nun and wife played by Isabella Adjani, and the sultry mistress and teacher played by none other than Sharon Stone. After having had enough of Paliminteri's abusive character the two women devise a plan to murder him. After thinking they have actually gotten away with it the body disappears and suspicious events start to occur.

I will stop right there because I do not intend on giving away the ending and also the plot is not really what this article is about. What caught my interest was the role that Sharon Stone was playing. Her character conveniently named ‘Nicole Horner’ is that of the cunning, seductively beautiful and sexually forthright woman. She speaks softly, charms her way through man, woman and child, doesn’t take no for an answer and wherever she goes the trail of cigarette smoke follows. Nicole Horner is the classic Hollywood Femme Fatale.

The femme fatale made her appearance in Hollywood in the 1940s in the period where studios were churning out murder mysteries by the dozen. Femme fatale is French for ‘deadly woman’ and just like the word, the character was also conceived in France. The character was created to rebel against the typical-female roles of the time. She was fashioned to be the antithesis of the wholesome woman. Confident, cunning, seductive and adamant on getting what she wants regardless of the consequences. A black widow who does not succumb to societal roles and although threatening to the male psyche, she is absolutely irresistible to him. At the time of her introduction to the world it was liberating for women everywhere to witness such a strong female unabashedly appearing on the silver screen.

Actresses like Anna Savage in Apology for Murder (1945), Rita Hayworth as The Lady of Shanghai (1948), Marilyn Monroe in Niagara (1953) and throughout the 90s Sharon Stone in movies such as Basic Instinct and Diabolique, have introduced and immortalised the image of the femme fatale in cinema. But it pretty much stops there.

The femme fatale has lost her way and has not been seen since. Of course there were and still are many strong female characters in cinema but not quite the femme fatale, not portrayed in all her heavily made-up glory. So where did she go? She was a fantasy that was created to accommodate for a need, she was taboo but that’s just it, she was. The fantasy has become a reality. The femme fatale no longer appears because we no longer need her. The industry might be under the impression that with the likes of Oprah, Madonna and Carla Bruni the world has seen its share of powerful women. There is no mysterious aura about them and as far as I know they don’t even smoke therefore the femme fatale is nothing but an urban legend.

When sex-appeal is being marketed to a target demographic made up of 16 year old boys the package will surely include a cheerleader, a Chihuahua and a hackneyed plot. No mystery, no intrigue, hell not even a hint of the ever alluring smoke. Or maybe, nowadays every woman walks around believing that by showing a bit of flesh she too is a femme fatale? Picking up a self-help book entitled 10 Easy Steps To Make A Man Fall in Love With You will by no means transform any average woman into a femme fatale. Perhaps the only ones to gain from such books are the authors themselves.

The femme fatale has an innate passion and drive and exudes an aura that cannot be learned in 10 steps or even 100, simply because it cannot be taught. Her weapons are her's alone and whether or not I agree with the way she uses them, I have much respect for her presence and will. Because if indeed a man used her same weapons we would label him ambitious, driven and view him in a less darker light than we do our femme fatale. Femme fatale must make a comeback because although women today can achieve what they desire using more direct methods, the world is a less exciting place without her. Therefore, this piece is dedicated to the blonde hair, the red lipstick, the husky voice and the fading flicker of a cigarette.

This article was published in The Gulf Today newspaper on May 1, 2009.

Facebook Junkie

2009-04-21T19:20:00.003+04:00

"I am starting to feel like I have had a long and overbearing relationship with over a hundred people and counting."

The ‘Communication Era’ is what we have happily dubbed the times we live in. After being the most cumbersome, near-impossible feat for mankind it has now become one of the most mundane daily activities for us to communicate with one another. After tiny letters sent on the heels of doves, after men traveling through treacherous terrain and Graham Bell’s joy at hearing a voice in the other room answer his call. We now have it all at a click of a button, no sense of accomplishment included. You know the lot; emails, video-calling, and our latest cyber drug social-networking sites. They come in the form of Facebook, Twitter, Myspace and many more I dare not list in fear of losing you right here.

I would like to interject right now by stating that I am indeed a recovering Facebook addict. You may sneer at the word ‘addict’ but I do not use it lightly or even for dramatic effect. I have actually experienced all the stages and shown all the signs of a proper addiction. A couple of years back I curiously started using, which led to abusing and eventually heavily depending on and being purely addicted to what I call the ‘Peeping Tom’ networking site.

These sites are meant for reconnection, but what do we really use them for once we have connected with all the random and not so random faces from our past? At first it felt like the high-school reunion from hell. You mentally prepared yourself and became excited at the thought of seeing how the years have treated these people. You polished your profile and made sure it looks presentable and if possible, impressive. Later came the feeling of being obligated to accept ‘friend requests’, people ‘poking’ you and readily answering a barrage of questions about your life. Overwhelming I know, not to mention feeling a tad creepy after going through your friends’ photo albums and acquiring complete knowledge of their daily activities scrolling through their ‘status updates’. I might be somewhat old-fashioned but aren’t personal photos supposed to be conveniently saved on your hard-drive or safely tucked away in a box somewhere for you to sift through on a day when you feel life is just not worth it?

Updating your status seems to be a competition for the Facebook junkie, always looking for the best sentence to make his name pop on someone’s list. So basically a lonely drive can end up morphing into, a relaxing cruise and a boring stay at home into a well-deserved rest, on one’s status. Since when have we become so ready to divulge every detail of our lives and document every movement we make? A Facebook junkie would happily update his status every couple of hours, telling me, a person who really doesn’t care that they have ‘just woken up’, an hour or so later ‘had breakfast’, next ‘off to work’ and before you know it you have become so accustomed to this person’s routine you feel you could write their status for them. Status updates are not confined only to the user’s movements though, some are just mere facts of which my favourite are the weather updates. When all else fails mention the weather, it is a sure-fire when used in conversations why not Facebook? Status goes something like this ‘it’s raining’, it’s windy’, ‘it’s sunny’ dear God we can look out the windows ourselves!

Some people have actually surpassed the term Facebook junkie reaching a whole new level of insanity that I am afraid they cannot recover from. These people found in Facebook the means to live a life outside their own using the virtual photo albums as proof of their so-called self. Photo albums on Facebook have transformed into virtual shopping lists and restaurant menus. If they see an item they want they snap a shot and it’s posted on their page, thereby enforcing their style and earning the right to be called ‘trendy’. What is even more mind-boggling is the sheer amount of comments and responses these photos get, all praise of course, but who are you actually praising? The designer who made these products? Because the person who posted a photo of the item cannot really be praised for just posting right? Apparently they can. Facebook albums are void of faces yet full of Hermes, Graff, and many, many plates of food.

People are living lifestyles so far from their true identities it is actually frightening. Why do they feel the urge to keep others informed? Is it because they seek validation? Long for a connection? Or just because it is easy to do so? If information is indeed power, then aren’t we providing it to random people by readily updating every move we make and every desire we long for?

This over-share of information erases the curiosity shrouding people’s lives and in turn eliminates the mystery. I am starting to feel like I have had a long and overbearing relationship with over a hundred people and counting. They are with me all the time and although I haven’t seen their actual faces or been in their presence for years I am starting to feel somewhat crowded. I feel like we should take a break and allow each other some space. You see, it’s not you, it’s me. I just cannot handle knowing your every move and complimenting you on your folders of shopping, so let us take a breather for a while. And if you would allow me one last piece of advice, please, please leave the weather to the weatherman.

This article was published in The Gulf Today newspaper on April 18, 2009.

Beneath The River Ous

2009-04-21T17:36:00.004+04:00

A few weeks ago I was lucky enough to have purchased a first-edition copy of Virginia Woolf’s novel The Voyage Out. It need not be said that I am a fan of Virginia Woolf and an avid collector of her works. Holding the book in my hands right now, feeling its frayed spine, flipping ever so gently through its aging pages and taking in its musty smell I am slowly slipping back in time to the events of this very day sixty-eight years ago, when one of our greatest literary minds chose to drown itself in the cold waters of the River Ous.

Virginia Woolf, daughter of Sir Leslie Stephen, wife of Leonard Woolf, passionate friend of Vita-Sackville-West, avid feminist, one of the most influential writers of the modernist movement and founder of the Hogarth Press, would not allow her madness to swallow her whole. After penning two letters, one to her idolizing husband Leonard and the other to her beloved sister Vanessa she walked out of her house, filled her pockets with stones and gave herself to the waters. Virginia Woolf’s limp, lifeless body was to be found eighteen days later by a group of children.

Virginia Woolf had an overzealous habit of jotting down every detail of her day; she insisted that every woman should write about her day for there is a treasure in every movement. She believed that every part of the day need not be wasted or forgotten and she was right. Owing to this almost obsessive habit, Virginia left behind a life-time worth of diary entries that were later compiled into five volumes which now serve as out gateway to her life, love and madness.
This wealth of detail led to the analysis and over-analysis of every aspect of Virginia’s life. Critics devoured Woolf’s diaries and personal letters hoping to make rhyme and reason of everything she did, everything she said and every word she penned. They dissected every part of her life from her mental state to her eating habits. If Virginia Woolf were alive today the critics would be her paparazzi and every detail of her life would be published in tabloids and posted on websites.

To the literary world Virginia Woolf’s life and loves have come to over-shadow her work. She was a devoted writer who lived her entire life for the craft. She was an artist forever seeking perfection. She dwelled on every sentence, in the confinement of her room among tons of scrapped papers; she recited each one out loud. One of which is the opening sentence in her novel Mrs. Dalloway: “Mrs. Dalloway said she would buy the flowers herself”. A single sentence such as this one may have taken days from her life, years from her sanity and brought her ever so closer to the River Ous.

Everything that is to be said about Virginia Woolf has been said. Many have criticized her personality and neglected her work, many poured over her work and neglected her person, inspirations and passion. Nevertheless, all of them agreed on one thing, that Virginia Woolf had an undeniable effect on the literary world and an uncompromising hold on every person who has read any of her works. She has laid the foundation for the ‘stream of consciousness’ technique that many have failed to emulate. Although she is categorized as a feminist (what that word means nowadays I have no idea) she believed in ‘fortifying’ the difference between men and women and in blurring the lines that separate them, for only then will each come into his own.

Virginia was convinced that the mind should be androgynous in order to be able to write freely and passionately. Her ultimate aim in life was to express the necessity for female writers to find a sentence, just a single sentence that describes them, and not succumb to borrowing the male sentence that they have been exposed to since the creation of the word. Virginia searched for this very sentence all her life, who knows maybe she found it on this day sixty-eight years ago beneath the icy waters of the River Ous.

This piece was published in The Gulf Today newspaper on March 28, 2009. On Virginia Woolf's 68th death anniversary.

Dubai The Curse of The Auspicious

2009-04-20T19:34:00.007+04:00

"I do not know whether Geraldine Bedell's book The Gulf Between Us was excluded because of its content or because of the horrible pun in its title, but I know for sure that there is more to the title than meets the discerning eye."

It is a fact that with undeniable success comes heavy scrutiny, but with the recent flood of tarnishing publicity and the Western media's constant probing of Dubai it has become evident that the intentions behind the accusatory tone of the press are both malicious and vindictive. It is also common knowledge that Dubai has comfortably taken its place among the greatest cities in the world and at an unprecedented pace. Dubai has gladly opened its doors to people from all walks of life, it has offered avid opportunities for many seeking career advancement and homes to those seeking stability and security. Dubai’s astounding achievements have stunned the Western media into submission, but that state of shock has clearly worn out. As of late all that is written about Dubai is nothing, but a slew of selective negatives, a so-called revelation on a need-to-expose basis.

The first bout of that coverage spurred from the amount of construction sites in Dubai, the media latched onto the “inhumane” labour camps. No matter what the issue the Western press seems to bring Islam into it one way or another. The BBC News published an article on the worker camps in Dubai with this opening sentence:

“There are two sounds you cannot escape in Dubai: the call to prayer ringing out from the city’s mosques five times a day and the 24-hour clunking and grinding of construction.”

What the sound of prayers has to do with labour camps is beyond me, but it is there in black and white. Failing to mention that Dubai has provided thousands of jobs for otherwise poor, desperate workers, they went on and on about the working hours and the camp conditions. The living condition details were highly exaggerated and as for working hours, the fact is the workers follow scheduled shifts that are well within reason and general rules. On the other hand, there are many Western companies that have benefited and are still benefiting from exploiting children in Asia utilising sweatshops to produce their tons of merchandise. That is all well just as long as it doesn’t happen on their soil I guess.

The second wave resulted from an incident where a British couple was found frolicking and engaging in sexual activities on a public beach in Dubai. They were arrested and taken through the proper procedures of the UAE’s legal system. Surprisingly, the British press pounced on the story and made a huge capital by painting a picture of how horrific and unjust UAE’s legal system is, mocking the religious, moral and societal beliefs of the country. Conveniently ignoring the fact that their very own British law on sex clearly states that:
“Consenting adults will be allowed to have sex at home with the curtains open but will face jail sentences of up to six months for making love in the back garden” (The Independent).
Their own back garden let alone a public beach in a Muslim country which proudly cherishes its proven traditions.

The third addition to the ongoing tsunami came in the form of protests against Dubai’s refusal in granting the Israeli female tennis player Shahar Peer, who also serves as an administrative secretary in the Israeli military, entry into the country. The media took it upon itself to label it an anti-Semitic act against Peer claiming that Dubai was taking a political stance on a professional tennis player, when in reality it was not so. The UAE has granted Andy Ram, an Israeli tennis player entry, under a “special permit” granted after the allowance of time for the necessary procedures to be taken. The UAE does not have any diplomatic relations with Israel, therefore, it is understandable that the entry of an Israeli would take time to be processed. This would also be the case for a Muslim holding an Israeli citizenship, and in Shahar Peer’s case the time was simply inadequate. But even under such an assumption as the one taken by the Western media wouldn’t the UAE government be completely justified in reinforcing its political position even if it were in the name of sports? Do they not have the right to refuse the fluttering of the Israeli flag on their soil when only a month ago Israel was well into a meaningless war on Gaza that left 1300 Palestinians dead?

Having not yet recovered from the tennis debacle Dubai is once again being forced to defend itself against the Western media after the recent exclusion of a novel from The Emirates Airline International Festival of Literature. The romantic work of fiction by an up-and-coming British writer Geraldine Bedell features the character of a homosexual sheikh. The press spun the story claiming that the country’s Islamic beliefs are stifling creativity with its censorship. This in turn forced Canadian Booker-prize winner and vice-president of the writer’s group International PEN Margaret Atwood to withdraw only a week before the festival was to begin. Atwood pulled out of the festival as a reaction to the onslaught of media that followed the festival organiser Isobel Abulhoul's decision to exclude the book and immediately posted a letter on her website stating the reasons for her withdrawal.

The chaos and outrageous media outpouring became highly contagious affecting other writers listed to participate in the festival and threats of withdrawal were made before the event organisers had a chance to clarify their position. Once Abulhoul had the chance to explain the situation it became clear to Atwood and the rest of the writers that the book was not considered for the festival because the slots provided are given to more well-known authors.
This is well within their rights as festival organisers and such rejections are done in every festival around the world. Atwood herself spoke candidly to The Guardian about her hasty reaction saying “The little golden time bomb of a refusal-with-reasons was carefully guarded by someone – who? – until now, when it was hurled into the press to great publicity effect, easily stampeding people like me.” Atwood has nowagreed to attend the festival via video link-up to make up for the misunderstanding.
Books are banned and censored for many reasons. Canada for example considers hate literature illegal, and every country is free to set its own standards according to its cultural fabric. It is clear that Geraldine Bedell was upset at the refusal of her book, took advantage of Abulhoul’s honesty and cashed in on her five minutes of fame. I do not know whether Bedell’s book The Gulf Between Us was excluded because of its content or because of the horrible pun in its title? It is quite an expected reaction that the media would make an issue out of the exclusion because it deals with homosexuality accusing Dubai of intolerance and bigotry. When on the other end of the spectrum ideals are not so different, in the United States' 2008 elections the California ballot Proposition 8, which eliminates same-sex couple’s right to marry, was passed and readily implemented. This cements the fact that no matter how open-minded the West may seem, sugar-coating their words and hiding behind their political correctness, their ideals are as reserved as ours, if not even more so.

One might argue that the media's sole purpose of existence is to report on such issues regardless of the implications and I would undoubtedly agree, but the truth is we do not report for the sake of reporting. We have a responsibility to report the truth and when the truth looks to be somewhat unattainable we must unearth it. Implications or not we must reveal both sides of the coin showing heads for heads and tails for tails. It is a shame that a country such as the UAE and a city such as Dubai that have come so far in so little time be judged so harshly and so unjustly by the Western media. Political agendas, no matter how powerful, should not taint journalism because once that happens, then our voices become their echos and our words become their weapons of mass destruction.

This article was published in The Gulf Today newspaper on February 27, 2009.