I never said Je suis Charlie

There was a time before last year’s gruesome attack when not many outside Paris had heard of a satirical publication called Charlie Hebdo. The terrorist shooting that left 11 people dead delivered a harsh blow to those of us who hold freedom of expression to be a birthright. The cold-blooded assassination of the Charlie Hebdo staff sent shockwaves throughout modern societies causing their leaders to flock to Paris and rally in solidarity with the French people in denouncing the attack on freedom of speech. It was also the reason the hashtag #JesuisCharlie trended worldwide with many Muslims using it to reiterate the fact that these monsters in no way represented the views of true Muslims.

The issue following the dark ordeal was published on schedule and in solidarity people, those who had never heard of Charlie Hebdo and those who do not agree with the publication’s opinions or find its “satire” funny, went out and bought the issue. The post-attack issue went on to sell one million copies.

Last week Charlie Hebdo was in the news again, not as a symbol of freedom of expression, but as an example of how racism can be deviously disguised as art. After the alleged harassment ordeal experienced by German women in Cologne on New Year’s Eve at the hands of migrants Charlie Hebdo published a caricature which depicts the body of 3-year-old Syrian migrant Alan Kurdi, which washed up on Turkish shores after his boat capsized while seeking refuge, as growing up to become a monkey-faced rapist attacking German women. The photo of young Alan’s tiny body lying face down on the shore shook the world to the core, it was the physical embodiment of the absolute horror that human greed, ego and lust for power can create. Somehow, while the world tried to make sense of this child’s unfathomable fate Charlie Hebdo’s artists thought it would be “funny” to point at this lifeless tiny bundle of innocence and call him a rapist. Soon social media was abuzz with shocked reactions to this heartless and racist caricature which could not be seen as anything other than a hate-mongering piece of propaganda which has no place in the world we are living today.

I was not shocked at seeing such filth being churned out by Charlie Hebdo, as a matter of fact I was not expecting anything less. Like I said, most people had not heard of Charlie Hebdo before the attack and therefore had no way of knowing how unimaginably vile its work can be. The work being published by Charlie Hebdo is not unlike that of white-supremacist or religious extremists’ propaganda, subjugating any idea which it considers as ‘other’ and inciting segregation. Today, the United States government is considering removing racist terms from great works of literature and is being pressured to take down statues of prominent figures in American history for their involvement in the slave trade. For even though the US amendment lists freedom of speech it specifies that it is not, and can never be absolute.

We are living in a world which is being torn apart by intolerance and hate therefore the utmost care and sensitivity should be taken when approaching issues of great social or political impact. That is exactly why although horrified by the viciousness and unjustness of the attack on Charlie Hebdo and despite the intense fear I felt at the thought of losing journalistic freedoms I never once said je suis Charlie because let’s face it, neither you nor I are Charlie. We would never walk into a room and at the sight of a person who is different hurl profanities at them comparing them to animals. We would never be sat with people from different faiths and insult one’s religious views and idols. And you and I would never in a million years think of a child’s lifeless body as a funny joke to laugh about. 

I never said je suis Charlie because I am not Charlie and will never be. 

This article was first published in The Gulf Today newspaper on 18 January, 2016  http://bit.ly/1PkNKQW

Arabic version of this article appeared in Al Khaleej newspaper http://bit.ly/1OzVajS

UAE, always united, always ahead

Here is the United Arab Emirates today celebrating its 42nd year of unity. Continuing to prove to the world its founders’ vision, that a union does not only bring power, it reinforces harmony. 42 years later the UAE’s political experiment has become one to be emulated. The 2nd of December is not just a day celebrating the passing of time, for the people of UAE it is a celebration of monumental achievements taking place year after year. A young nation it may be, only by years, certainly not by accomplishments.

The UAE’s visionary founder, the late Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan Al Nahyan, foresaw a boundless future for this nation. He was a man of the people and a firm believer in the betterment of all nations. This we continue to witness today through charitable work the UAE has done all over the world since its inception.

History has proven that a true leader never dies if he secures a future for his nation through a coming generation who shall carry the torch further.

Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Bin Sultan Al Nahyan, the Ruler of the UAE, continues paving the path laid by our founders. Along with his brothers the Rulers of the Emirates they have formed a leadership entity that has empowered the people of UAE to seek new heights in whatever they choose to do, all the while reminding them that coming to the aid of nations in need is not only the government’s prerogative but that of the people as well.

The unity has flourished, propelled by inspiring leadership and bound stronger by the belief of the people in its effectiveness and importance. It has indeed created harmony because this union has extended its arms beyond its seven Emirates. The UAE today is not only home for the people of the Emirates but is also home to some 200 different nationalities. People from different countries and faiths have come to live in unison under the UAE’s skies. The UAE’s embrace of different cultures has made it the country it is today. This openness made way for the intermingling of ideas and the creation of a diverse society fuelling the UAE’s movement forward.

It is heartwarming to witness the residents of the UAE who hail from different countries across the globe celebrate its achievements, realising that they too are a part of them. 

Just a few days before the UAE’s National Day the people of UAE celebrated an unprecedented feat in the Middle East, Dubai winning the Expo 2020 hosting bid. UAE nationals were ecstatic and so were its residents, we saw images of hundreds of people waving the UAE flag high and congratulating themselves on the win. The coming together in support of the Dubai Expo 2020 bid has shown us the true harmony that the UAE leadership has spread across its land.

In 42 years the unique Emirati political model and its leadership’s humane qualities have set the UAE apart from nations around the world. It has turned the world’s eyes towards the Emirates and as the world watches on it will continue to move forward.

One has to believe that had the late Sheikh Zayed been among us today he would have been proud of what his nation has achieved and that his vision never faltered. For this humble writer, this belief is motivation enough to keep driving this nation forward, always united, always ahead.

This article was published in The Gulf Today newspaper on 2nd Dec.,2013  http://bit.ly/19cKXoG

Arabic version of the article was published in Al Khaleej newspaper http://bit.ly/1irttOZ 

                              

Celebrating the death of innocence

It used to be that for an issue to become the subject of worldwide debate it had to be investigated, fact-checked and exposed yet today all it takes is a video gone viral. This month, a video of 11-year-old Yemeni girl Nada Al-Ahdal made the rounds on social media sites and after hitting over 7 million views the story was picked up by the media and the doors of debate were flung open. 

This video showed young Nada eloquently telling the world that she has escaped the horrors of home seeking refuge at her uncle’s house because her mother intended to have her married. The passionate child addressed each and every one of us and asked, “What happens to a child’s innocence?” She expressed her wish to die rather than be sold to a man and feared for the lives of other young girls like her who have had their lives ruined. All of a sudden the child bride had a face and that in itself moved the world more than any statistic could.

The media pounced on the story based on its circulation and once again failed to do journalism’s basic requirement, that is, investigate. Turned out Nada’s video was staged by her uncle who works as a graphic technician in a TV station. Nada’s mother never intended on marrying her off and the girl never escaped from home. After the media vilified Nada’s parents in an attempt to save face the story was dismissed as a hoax and the world moved on and away from Nada. 

As this story fades away its remnants still linger on and one wonders, so what if this video is a sham and Nada was never to be a child bride? The facts remain that according to the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) a staggering 52% of girls in Yemen are married before the age of 18. Adding insult to injury in 1999 Yemen’s parliament abolished article 15 of its Personal Status Law which set the minimum age for marriage at 15. Simply put, Yemen has no minimum age for marriage. In a study conducted by Sanaa University it was revealed that in some areas in Yemen girls as young as eight are married off. 

Faced with these frightening figures does it really matter that Nada’s video was staged? Has the world missed the larger picture with regard to this story by dismissing it as a lie? Nada’s story might have been fiction but the crimes she spoke of are very much a reality. In 2008 the world was shell-shocked after hearing the story of 10-year-old Nujood Ali who approached a court in Sanaa asking the judge for a divorce. The words spoken by Nada, scripted or not, depict the lives of many young girls in Yemen who remain helpless because of the poverty compelling parents to sell their children to the highest bidder and the lack of laws which have aided these inhumane acts. 

Yemen is not alone when it comes to the normalisation of child marriages for the likes of these injustices are prominent in all countries suffering from endless political unrest and devastated by poverty. Countries like Niger, Afghanistan and Pakistan among many others rank highest in percentage of child marriages. This pandemic exists all over the world and must be combated. Cases of child marriages reveal many forms of physical abuse and violence, premature pregnancies and a high rate of infant mortality. The psychological effects on the young brides and the eternal feeling of isolation have led to many taking their own lives. 

It is predicted that 100 million young girls will be married in the next 10 years. Child protection laws must be enforced and greater efforts exerted in educating parents and providing a safe haven for children who have no choice but to escape the dismal future forced upon them. Adults should not be given the right to throw parties celebrating the death of their child’s innocence.

An 8-year-old girl should not be denied her childhood by living a life carrying out the duties of a wife. 13-year-old girls should not be raising children for they have yet to live their own childhood. These young girls represent our future and what a ghastly one it will be if we continue allowing these injustices to happen. 

Nada Al-Ahdal is not a child bride and we pray she never will be, but her question to the world still echoes in my mind and should do so in yours as well, when we allow for such crimes to occur she asks… “What happens to a child’s innocence?”

This article was published in The Gulf Today Newspaper on 4 August, 2013. 

Arabic version published in Al Khaleej Newspaper http://bit.ly/1914uxN

                       

An open letter to The Guardian

Dear Guardian,

For years you have taken it upon yourself to single-handedly defame my country the United Arab Emirates. For reasons unknown the UAE has had to endure your endless bombardments of smear campaigns and ugliness in the name of free journalism.

In articles dating as far back as 2000 you have attacked the Emirates in all your sections from politics to travel. You have sent reporters with a mission to excavate only the negative no matter how minute it may be and inflated it into certain truths. You have only to enter the name of any Emirate in your website’s search box and watch as the archives of ugliness start to unfold. Pages worth of headlines that will make anyone who knows the UAE shudder. Your commentators and news reports have called our buildings “the nastiest you’ve ever seen” our lifestyle “a place where the worst of western capitalism and the worst of Gulf Arab racism meet in a horrible vortex” labeled our rulers “dictators” and even advised Dr. Who not to film on our land!

All this unsubstantiated drivel we have heard from you throughout the years and have remained silent simply because we have taken it as just that.

Eventually when your army of pen-pushers failed to paint the bleak image of the UAE that they have set out to do you stepped up to this one-sided battle and wrote an editorial denouncing my country, but why?

For anyone who has ever been to the UAE or chose to make it their home, for the people of UAE this is mind-boggling to say the least. The UAE is a peaceful country; its rulers are as much of the people as the people are a part of this country. Emiratis are a welcoming, tolerant people who have in only 41 years opened up their doors and overcome the culture shock that comes with such a transformation with class and grace. 

The country’s foreign affairs are solid and its worldwide humanitarian efforts are ones all nations must strive to emulate. One has only to visit the UAE, talk to its people and the people who have chosen to raise their children in it to know what it truly is.

We understand your bewilderment at the success of this great nation’s experiment in unity and peace. We do not blame you for feeling a tad bit confused about its resilience in the face of economic adversity and the continuous drive of its people. But does that really warrant all this resentment from you?

Granted, there are many aspects to our country that need to be developed and revised and we are well on our way to doing so. 41 years old this December the UAE’s achievements, cultural sophistication and tolerance transcends its young age as a united nation. In our 41 years we have not waged wars, we have sought peace, we have not divided our land based on race, we have embraced more than 200 nationalities as our own. We have tolerated judgment and criticism from nations who have fought and aided wars on either side of the globe and listened to them preach their version of democracy while they take actions of which hypocrisy is ashamed.

We are an educated nation with a 97% literacy race and we have heard you loud and clear. Now it is time for you to hear us. Twelve years of this one-sided reporting is putting a damper on your impartiality and frankly hurting your credibility as a respected paper. Any person in their right mind, whether they have been to the UAE or not, cannot believe that a country as popular and loved as this one would not have one good aspect to report or comment on. How could people from all walks of the earth flock to a nation that is as ugly as you say? That is a true anomaly, a real wonder of the world, a mystery that has yet to be explained and based on your reporting I think it never will be.

This article was published in The Gulf Today newspaper on 18th November, 2012.
Arabic version of this article was published in Al Khaleej newspaper on the same day: http://bit.ly/TQXwPY

                                                 
                                 

The True Colours of Liberty

Intangible as it may be, freedom is the single most valuable aspect of a creature’s life. Humans and animals alike would fight to the death for freedom. A man, a woman, a child can never be truly free as long as their home, their country is under siege. That sense of belonging to a place that does not belong to you is one of pain and sorrow unfathomed by a person whose land is free. It is this pain that countries fight against in the pursuit of gaining and maintaining their freedom. 

A country is represented by a set of colours, its flag, the identifying symbol and proof of its existence as an independent entity. For centuries countries have fought to either plant this flag into or rip it out of the earth. Many a war has been waged to make sure that no colour but that of the native land flutters against a country’s sky. 

The British Empire colonised most of the world, including most Arab countries, and for decades the countries under its grasp fought to see the Union Jack unearthed from their soil. For those who come from countries that were once not theirs to rule, the sight of the British flag is not necessarily a pretty one, for it evokes memories of losing that intangible thing one holds dear, losing freedom.

Flags planted in areas other than their own mean occupation, it is a simple gesture to portray an invasion of sorts, and it is an unwelcomed one.

After years of British sovereignty most countries regained their freedom and claimed their independence. Their lands no longer carried foreign colours but were saturated with the colours of liberty.

Yet, no sooner have foreign flags disappeared from the political scene than they found their way back through fashion. In the late 80s and throughout the 90s the American flag dominated the fashion scene. We saw the Star Spangled Banner everywhere from shirts, to caps and even shoes. The American flag represented freedom and so, American or not, everyone wanted to feel free. 

In the Arab world, mainly the Gulf region, America was seen as a saviour during the Gulf War and so some Arabs wore it as a sign of appreciation for saving Kuwait. 

Many blunders, disappointments and wars later the image of America, the land of the free and home of the brave, was tarnished in the eyes of the world. This allowed the Union Jack to come full circle and somehow find its way back to all those territories that once shunned it, the British flag came back to take centre stage in the fashion world.

Today it has become a common sight to see the British flag in all its glory sported by people from around the globe. The only flag fashionable enough for the world to wear from head to toe and not look like an extremist or a lunatic. So what does it mean when an Indian, African or even citizens of Gulf countries don the Union Jack? And if there is a fashion statement to be made then what is it??

One might say, it is harmless, just another fashion fad that will soon be replaced with another country’s colours. Sadly this is not the case, for this globalised nationalism is privy only to certain countries. If indeed it is harmless then wearing the flag of any nation should be accepted as such, yet when British actress Tilda Swinson appeared in Vogue magazine’s UK edition wearing a scarf of the Palestinian flag, her fashion statement was seen as anything but harmless. Swinson was ostracised and attacked, some people even went as far as comparing her choice of colours to sporting the Nazi swastika. 

It is this blatant hypocrisy that boggles the mind and angers even the most passive of us. When rules are made and manipulated according to a certain segment of the world, rules such as deeming it trendy to sport colours that once cost people their lives and freedom while vilifying others. Fashion is indeed self- expression and self-expression is as much political as it is creative. It has chosen for us who the good guys are, for it is fashionably acceptable to wear the colours of countries that have waged wars and soiled their hands in blood but not for others who remained peaceful throughout history. 

Self-expression is the essence of freedom but if self-expression deems fashionable the red, white and blues then where does that leave our red, green, white and blacks?

This article was published in The Gulf Today newspaper on 5th August, 2012.

Arabic version of this article published in Al Khaleej newspaper 5th August, 2012: http://bit.ly/McWfCB