Free media: an oxymoron

For decades the Arab world limped through life maimed by the brutality of regimes driven only by greed. The previous generation lost hope in a better future, and the new one had none, but overnight and without any substantial signs a storm took over the region, uprooting the most ancient of dictators. Hurricane Arab Uprising has hit and as we watched it swoop through in utter shock and disbelief we knew our world was never going to be the same again.

The aftermath of storm Arab Uprising has left many dead and made brave those who remained, but like in the passing of any storm the most obvious remnants are in the form of rubble. Yet even amidst all the chaos and in spite of the confusion we could see new lines being drawn and new words etched to form our new reality.

The political world was altered to an almost unrecognisable entity. Every branch of governance is currently experiencing a transformation and if we believe that the press is the fourth branch of governance then it is safe to say that the Arab media landscape is being reshaped as well.

Strangled by the heavy hands of bureaucracy and political agendas Arab media was just like the people, gasping for air. The revolutions revived what was once forgotten, that the media in itself is a freedom fighter and the teller of truth. History has seen the Arab media awaken and then slip back into its coma many times; such is the impact of great events on journalism. All media channels experience slow news days but in the Arab world the days dragged into years.

Today the Arab media is reawakening once again, rising from slumber it is taking its first steps towards more courageous coverage, treading on areas only a few years ago would have meant the end of a media establishment.

Many who have been in the fraternity prior to the revolutions can vouch for this newly found freedom however mild it may be. Having said that, one must not take the word freedom in vain. Freedom of the press can never be the licence to say anything one desires. Freedom of the press is not the freedom to slander and attack and must never be used to fight other people’s wars. It does not mean manipulating a story into speaking your views. One might think it common sense but in the world of journalism a lot of what makes sense is lost to the lure of favouritism, greed and fame. Sadly, in this truth-telling business truth is hard to find.

It is unfair to undermine Arab media and compare it to the West because the climates both operate in are drastically different. The profession is the same but not the rules of the game. When we say the media in the West is free what freedom do we speak of? You might be quick to reply that governments do not overshadow media in the West, yet that is not technically correct. Corporations govern the Western media, corporations owned by powerful almost governing figures. Therefore substitute one governance for another and you shall see that while the hands might differ the grip is one and the same.

The media world taught in classrooms is an idealistic representation of a world very far from the reality of the profession. Manoeuvring in the media, whichever part of the world it may be in, is akin to being a diplomat, adapting, evolving and finding a way out of the maze of social and political interactions that come with the job. It is not just a question of black or white and right or wrong. It is a grey political world, this world we call the media.

Freedom in the press means freedom from bias, it means telling both sides of the story but it also means responsibility. Just like the government, the press is responsible for the community and its people. Media channels that are concerned about the welfare of their people must adhere to the social and cultural sensitivities. Media being global is not an excuse to be insensitive to the local. The press is not there to offend, it exists to inform and educate. The media should report the chaos not create it.

Say what you wish about media in the Arab world, but say it knowing that no media channel in the world is absolutely free.

This article was published in The Gulf Today newspaper on 10th June, 2012.

Arabic version of this article published in Al Khaleej newspaper on 10th June, 2012: http://bit.ly/KX3RYc

                        

Earth Wars: Attack of the Drones

Buttons, every single moment of our waking lives is controlled by buttons. When we wish to be entertained we click a button and on comes an onslaught of channels designed to keep us transfixed for hours. When we are running low on energy we push a button and out pops our replenishment in whatever form we desire. At the end of our hectic day and after having pushed, pressed and clicked our way through a thousand buttons we flick the all important one, the button that allows for darkness to fall and envelop us as we lay our weary heads to sleep.

Yet we have not restricted buttons to controlling our lives for they control our death as well. Just as we have created buttons to push us forward we have created ones that could bring us to a complete stop. Man has waged war for the pettiest of reasons and from the beginning of time, yet in the past winning wars was measured by the amount of blood spilled in attack and defence of the so-called cause. It meant armed men going face to face with whoever the enemy may be, looking him in the eye and pulling the trigger.

Today we have a button to do that for us.

After creating an industry that preys on human fears there was nothing else to do but sit back and watch nations throw billions of dollars at it for the latest in weapons technology. Technology to keep them safe, secure and protected from the ‘enemy’. After successfully selling buckets of blood rather than actual security, the arms trade has now given us the drone. An unmanned, aerial vehicle designed to go to war for us, capable of delivering death to our ‘enemy’s’ doorstep with, you guessed it… a push of a button.

It has become the United States’ weapon of choice for it has been used in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and now Yemen. It is Israel’s weapon of choice for if you ask any Gazan he will speak of his drone filled night skies. He will describe the buzzing sound of hovering metal wasps and the fear they instil in the hearts of the innocent.

According to the New America Foundation, in 2010 alone the United States carried out more than 200 drone strikes in the hunt for Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Drones are controlled remotely and are aimed at a targeted location not a targeted individual therefore, indeed, some of those targeted have perished during strikes. But without clear knowledge of how many ‘actual’ enemies are at the location, and frankly because a drone cannot look its enemy in the face and assess his guilt, thousands of innocent civilians have been murdered in cold blood via cold, soulless drones fittingly named Predators and Reapers by their deployers.

I call it the weapon of choice not only because of the sheer volume of drones being used by the United States government all over the world but also because with a drone, unlike a human being, there is less mess to clean up. Unlike humans, drones do not torture captives; they do not urinate on the dead and post videos of their exploits. Drones do not develop psychological trauma and cannot speak of injustices. The US government need not worry about cover-ups and military trials; in warfare-logic the drone is the weapon of choice because, it just makes sense.

The United States government has now decided to bring this technology home when Congress passed a bill to allow flying drones over its own citizens. Projections show an estimate of 30,000 drones will be released in US airspace by 2020. If killing innocent civilians via flying robots is logical and if we now live in a world where ends justify the means then spying on your own people makes sense as well.

Wars are meant to be difficult so we would think a thousand times before waging them. Wars are meant to test the faith and resolve of humanity in order for them to never be our solution for every problem.

Wars are no longer difficult.

And so, they have infiltrated the daily rhetoric of governments around the world. They have become a nation’s answer to every threat, words have failed us and buttons have won.

This article has been published in The Gulf Today newspaper on 13th May, 2012. 

Link to Arabic version of this article published in Al Khaleej newspaper: http://bit.ly/IRm3hi

The Secular State of Social Networks

Never before has the world been as interconnected as it is today. Entire populations all tangled up in an invisible web, one that holds them captive indefinitely. Each virtual string binds one stranger to the other making friends of some and foes of the rest. The virtual world where people feel safe under the false security of illuminated screens has provided the lonely being with a mirage, one that promises at the end of it the fulfilling sense of closeness and the death of loneliness.  

Virtual connections have stripped bare the essence of love songs, for no longer does one have to climb the highest mountain or brave the desert sands to be with the ones they love. A click of a button and a swipe of a screen will just about do it today. While the feelings of love have been subdued by the world of the virtual being, those of hatred have been amplified.

Those inhabiting social network sites have followed other inhabitants or created a following of their own, unconsciously forming virtual communities that speak the same language as they do. All of a sudden a lonely person’s thoughts are being reinforced by many other voices, suddenly a once ludicrous idea seems logical. Communities, even virtual ones, mean borders, boundaries, gates and armies. When thoughts are challenged, when lines are crossed, threats are issued and armies are deployed — such is the world we live in and such is the world we created online.

As much as people longed to believe that this world, created not of brick and mortar but of ones and zeros, will be the place where all voices shall be equal the reality is, a world is just a reflection of its inhabitants. The social network community is a place where codes of conduct do not exist, where people live without a governing law. A world that is an experiment in freedom, but freedom in the wild can get ugly.

The world of social networks lured the voiceless in with the gift of speech. It promised that voices, no matter how soft-spoken, would be heard. This granted wish soon revealed that not all voices have something to say and instead of a world of voices set free we experienced a world filled mostly with noise.

Angry voices grew louder filling the vastness of the virtual world, criticism turned to spite and a cold war between communities began. Those with spite lead a slew of their followers towards unsuspecting targets bombarding them with an onslaught of hate-filled words and accusations. Complete strangers enter into a war of words over the most trivial of subjects, imagine getting into a street fight but instead of a few spectators, there are millions. In this lawless but free world hate crimes are committed every day, it seems out of all the freedoms we prefer the freedom to hurt the most.

The virtual world was meant to be the great escape from the segregation that the real world imposed yet no sooner have they settled in than people managed to make a secular world out of the virtual. Freedom is required in a civilised world but so are the sense of social responsibility, fear of reprimand and respect for your fellow man, all of which the inhabitants of Twitter and Facebook seem to have left behind during their migration from the world of the tangible.

This world promised a place for everybody but it is not a place for everyone. Many loathed the falseness of it all and opted out, chose not to dwell in a place where many hide behind false avatars and speak in tongues that are not theirs. Where groups and sects are more prominent than any other place in the world.

After years of trying to make it a better place they understood that its ugliness was far more powerful than its beauty and committed social network suicide, deactivating their accounts and saying goodbye to it all. This is one choice the virtual world offers that the real world might not, to walk away when it all just gets too much.

To deactivate, disconnect, be free.

This article was published in The Gulf Today newspaper on April 1st, 2012.

Arabic version of this article was published in Al Khaleej newspaper April 1st, 2012: http://bit.ly/H5nD20

A word written is a word feared

As a writer I dream of a world where words are not imprisoned, a world where all forms of literature are celebrated not mourned. Yet for every book festival held somewhere in the world there is a book burning being planned. Words when collected and arranged in a specific manner become a force to be reckoned with. This meticulous selection and arrangement transforms the word into a weapon capable of instilling fear in the bravest of us. For words are ideas, and an idea is a contagious infliction.

Throughout history numerous books have created massive conflicts between people and ripped holes into well-knit societies. The most infamous of all is Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, which translated into English means My Struggle. Published in 1925, Mein Kampf is an autobiographical work of Hitler’s childhood life and political ideology, written while he served a four-year jail sentence in a Bavarian prison. It is a 700-page documentation of the psychological make-up of the world’s most abhorrent leader. This book was heavily circulated in Nazi Germany and was even given as a wedding gift, by the Nazi Party, to every newly married couple.

After the Second World War, and in an effort to cleanse itself of the acts of horror committed by Adolf Hitler, the publication of Mein Kampf was halted indefinitely in Germany. Austria went as far as adopting a ‘Prohibition Act,’ banning and criminalising the existence of the Nazi ideology in any form. The German state of Bavaria, which holds the copyright to this book, has fought against its publication, which has limited its distribution extensively in Europe. The idea behind the ban is that this book is capable of influencing people and once again igniting the Nazi racist ideology.

Based on the German copyright law Mein Kampf will enter public domain in 2016, 70 years after the author’s death. Currently the book can be found in different countries around the world and excerpts of it are available on the Internet. I remember buying my copy of Mein Kampf, which is published by Mariner Books in New York, ten years ago, curious to delve into the mindset behind such atrocities. I approached it just as one would the mass published autobiographies of serial killers the likes of Charles Manson and John Wayne Gacy.

From the onset, Hitler’s preface clarifies his reader niche by writing:

“I do not address this work to strangers, but to those adherents of the movement who belong to it with their hearts, and whose intelligence is eager for a more penetrating enlightenment.”

Taking this into account, I assume Hitler would have no objection to the banning of his book and the restriction of its readership, for were it read openly the mystery around it would soon be dispelled.

History cannot be erased no matter how dark or sordid the events. It exists for us to learn from and arm ourselves with its trials and tribulations. It is understandable that the victims of Hitler’s heinous crimes would not want to relive them, but Mein Kampf is a historic document which when dissected with an impartial eye reveals the mindset behind the insanity.

The ban on this book was upheld in consideration of the emotional impact its widespread release would have on Jews around the world. There were outcries from Jewish communities calling the republication and distribution of this book ‘insensitive and crass.’

If being insensitive to a certain race or religion is enough to get a book banned in Europe then why was the ban on Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses in India frowned upon by the world? Comparing only the works of literature and not the writers who penned them, both works are gravely offensive to a great portion of the world’s population.

Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses published in 1988 is a work of fiction inspired by the life of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH). The lead character, Mahound or ‘The Messenger’, receives verses of the Holy Quran, which are later revealed to be given to him by Satan.

In Rushdie’s so-called dream vision narratives, which attempt to shake the faith upon which Islam is based, Muslims around the world were aggrieved. The implication that the Quran or verses of it were indeed the work of the devil was seen as not only offensive but hits at the foundation of what the Muslim nation holds sacred. The book went on to create a massive controversy, the book was banned in Muslim countries all over the world and Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran issued a fatwa calling for Rushdie’s death. The fatwa was later dropped but the ban on his book is still enforced to this day.

At the time only a handful of authors, one of whom was the late Roald Dahl, spoke out against Rushdie saying:

“Rushdie knew exactly what he was doing and cannot plead otherwise. This kind of sensationalism does indeed get an indifferent book on the top of the bestseller list but in my mind it is a cheap way of doing it.”

Yet although The Satanic Verses is viewed by millions as being insensitive and insulting to the Muslim nation, people have failed to reach the universal agreement that Mein Kampf has achieved, with regard to its banning. To this day authors and readers alike are still split on the issue.

Last month Salman Rushdie was scheduled to appear at the Jaipur Literary Festival but then cancelled it due to the uproar this news induced in the people of India. Authors around the world condemned the people’s reaction, for the people of India are expected to accept the work on the basis of freedom of speech and understand that it is not meant to insult, but to entertain them.

Two books, both hold within them words, offensive, hurtful words, yet one is condemned, suppressed while the other is critically acclaimed and widely available.

As hard as one might fight to set the word free we should never underestimate the power it holds. Should this power fall into the wrong hands its tremors will be felt the world over and for years to come. If we wish the word to become an unstoppable force then we are left with only two choices: either to move out of its way or be crushed by it.

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

When Two Worlds Collide

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

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

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

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

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

Meanwhile, as the Libyan people fought to regain control of their destiny it was revealed that both American singers Nelly and 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

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

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.