Remember Remember the Twenty Fifth of November

In 1981, the 25^th of November was designated International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. This day was chosen by the United Nations in honour of the Mirabal sisters, political activists who were assassinated by the president of the Dominican Republic in 1960. Since then thousands of acts of violence have been committed against women and continue to be committed to this very day. 

I write these words with the painful realization that at this very moment hundreds of young girls and women are being beaten, raped and murdered, which makes these letters all the more heavier on my page. Sadly, staggering figures show that violence against women is a common thread that cuts through all races and nations. It’s absurd that people cannot agree on many issues, yet are unanimously comfortable with committing crimes based on gender discrimination.

Just like all evils, violence against women has many faces and takes many forms. Iraqi poet Ibn Nabatah Al Saadi said, “causes are many but death is one” and nowhere is this saying more potent than in the discrimination and violence against women. When a woman is abused death is inevitable, be it physical or emotional, a part of her dies and can never be revived.

 Domestic violence is one that seems to span the globe, statistics show that reasons as trivial as ‘burning dinner’ is enough to warrant aggression. Being abused by a loved one is the greatest of all pains for it shatters trust in people and diminishes self-worth.

Throughout history societies have managed to either legitimise or belittle the abuse of women in the name of one thing or another. Religious, economical and political issues continue to be abused in order to diminish a woman’s role in society, and keep its boundaries that of the backyard’s fence. For every woman who breaks out of that fence there are hundreds who live and die within it. 

The figures are shocking, many of which have left me dumbfounded. In many parts of the world young girls are forbidden education for no reason other than that they are girls. As a result two-thirds of the world’s illiterate adults are women. Instead they are married off as children in return for a meagre price as if they are a commodity of sorts; the number of these child brides has reached 60 million worldwide. The UN estimates that 700,000 young girls and women are trafficked and subjected to the most horrendous acts of exploitation every year. In the Middle East, what is known by ‘honour’ killing has taken many women’s lives. If a man feels that a woman has been dishonourable in any way he is not only allowed, but also expected, to kill her and end the so-called “shame” she has brought to the family. In Asia a growing trend of acid attacks have left many women maimed and disfigured. Since 1999 there were about 3000 acid attacks in Bangladesh alone. If these reports show anything, it is that no matter what the circumstance men seem to take a chance at abusing women. Even during the revolutions in Egypt random groups and policemen alike were sexually assaulting women, leaving nowhere for these women to seek justice. It is nauseating to say the least that women cannot feel safe in their own skin.

So why do many men around the world act so blatantly on their aggression towards women?

Inequality is at the core of such aggression. When one gender, race or group thinks itself supreme then crimes will be aplenty and aggression will be the norm.  Only when women are seen, as equal to men will these injustices be a thing of the past, remembered only as a black mark on mankind’s history that shall not be repeated. Until then, every aspect of society remains hinged to these scales and as long as they remain tipped the law will lean as well.

Governing laws in most countries are not put in place or implemented to fight crimes that violate women’s rights. For example, most cases of rape go undocumented because women are afraid that they would either be implicated in the process or that their case would be dismissed as another statistic.  Women believe that the law, society and the media are unsympathetic to rape victims, it is no wonder then that women choose silence over protest. All laws must be amended and others put in place to ensure the safety of all human beings especially those whose rights are infringed upon daily and for the most ludicrous of reasons.

Today is a day for the world to understand these crimes and know that they are still being committed. We women must remember our fallen sisters and keep upright those who are about to fall. Today is a day where we lend our voices to those who have lost theirs in fear of flying fists and bloodied faces. The 25^th of November is a day chosen to speak against violence on women and I say each and every day should be the 25^th of November.  

This article was written as a contribution to the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office in honour of International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. Published on their blog on 25th November, 2012. 

Here is the official link to the article: http://bit.ly/UlIFPQ 

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

                                                 
                                 

A World of Books and Bullets

Somewhere in the world a shot is fired, a girl falls, she is silenced. Fourteen-year-old Malala Yousufzai was shot in the head by Godless men who claim to know God. Malala is not a politician or a lawmaker, she is a girl whose bravery instilled fear in the hearts of heartless men. She grew up in a world where education is not a right, a world where a woman is a second-class citizen. School grounds are off limits for girls of Malala’s age. Girls in Swat Valley are only allowed an education until the 4th grade. While other children celebrated their educational advancement Malala loathed reaching the 5th grade and described it as the saddest point of her life. Yet instead of accepting this vile injustice she spoke out against it. Despite the deaths her people have witnessed at the hands of the Taliban this brave girl refused to let them win. She went to school with her books hidden under her shawl disguised as a fourth grader when in fact she was not. She was determined to learn and she was going to do it by any means necessary. 

School was her only outlet for expression, the place where she could share ideas and absorb them, school is where young girls are allowed to dream. Who of us can’t recall his younger-self sitting in the schoolyard dreaming of changing the world? Malala was fighting for her right to dream. She wanted each and every girl in her village to have that, for even at her tender age, Malala knew that only by dreaming could we alter reality.

Malala’s school bus, the one that drove her closer to her dreams each day, that seat she occupied as she gazed out of the window at the moving world was to be the same place that was to cradle her body and soak up her innocent blood. A bus riddled with bullets, not a bus carrying soldiers or weapons, but a bus carrying young girls towards enlightenment. 

Heinous as the act may be we find solace, because one must in such tragedies, in the fact that the shooter was more afraid of Malala than she of him, for a woman’s voice is her most powerful weapon and Malala’s voice was louder than the sound of a thousand guns. Its echo surpassed the borders of Pakistan and resonated throughout the world and brought on an avalanche of support. 

Most of the time we forget that women around the world suffer on a daily basis for the most basic of requirements. We tend to think that injustice based on gender is a thing of the past, and then we hear a gunshot. Reminding us that an ongoing battle still rages, maiming and killing our sisters all over the world. That bullet was not meant to end Malala’s life alone, it was meant to end the lives of all women to ensure that they would remain crippled by fear and silenced by ignorance. 

As I write these words I have two images of Malala in my mind, one of a girl fighting for her right to an education and the other of a girl fighting for her life. In both she maintains a common virtue, Malala is a fighter. Speaking about the importance of education Malala said, “I know the importance of education because my pens and my books were taken from me by force.”

Some of us might have been lucky enough to have books forced upon us instead of taken away, lucky not to have endured the struggle for equality, this privilege gives us all the more reason to be fighters too. If a girl can single-handedly stand up to oppression and speak up against the violence of ignorance then it would be shameful, if with all the education we acquired, that we should stand idly and remain silent while a pool of blood slowly dried up and darkened in a school bus far away. 

We must fight because a scattering of equality is not enough, gender equality must reign all over the globe for the world to be perfectly balanced. Until then, this skewed planet must listen to the Malalas of the world and their plight must be echoed by all of us until this united voice becomes too loud to be ignored.

We pray for Malala’s recovery because it is girls like her who bring courage to an otherwise dastardly world.

This article was published in The Gulf Today newspaper on 21 October, 2012. 

Arabic version of this article published in Al Khaleej newspaper 21 October, 2012: http://bit.ly/RMerBT

                                               
                                                      

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

                                            

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