|
In this mailing:
Kerry's
Peace Process Double Standards
  Be the first of your
friends to like this.
It is interesting how one comment
from an Israeli minister has managed to strain relations between the U.S.
Administration and Israel, while fiery rhetoric and street demonstrations
against Kerry and Obama in the Palestinian territories and Arab capitals
are completely ignored by Washington.
The U.S. Administration has reacted quickly and strongly to statements
attributed to Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon. Ya'alon
was quoted by the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronot as describing U.S.
Secretary of State John Kerry as "messianic and obsessive."
In response, the U.S. condemned
Ya'alon's comments as "offensive and inappropriate."
|
Israel's Defense
Minister Moshe Ya'alon greets U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in
Israel, May 2013. (Image source: U.S. State Department)
|
But while the U.S. Administration has been quick in issuing a response
to the Israeli minister's statements, it continues to ignore remarks and
demonstrations against Kerry made by Palestinians and other Arabs.
Palestinian officials representing various organizations, including the
Palestinian Authority, have been denouncing Kerry almost on a daily basis
over the past few weeks. But these condemnations do not seem to bother the
State Department.
Among the officials who have been extremely critical of Kerry's role in
the current Israeli-Palestinian peace talks is Yasser Abed Rabbo, the PLO's
Secretary-General and one of the closest advisors to Palestinian Authority
President Mahmoud Abbas.
Just last month, Abed Rabbo launched a scathing attack on Kerry, denouncing
his latest proposals as unacceptable. "Kerry does not have the right
to decide where our borders will be," the top PLO official said.
"If the U.S. wants, it can give parts of California or Washington to
Israel. Kerry's framework agreement is very dangerous."
Abed Rabbo has also accused
Kerry of seeking to "appease Israel by fulfilling its expansionist
demands in the Jordan Valley under the pretext of security. He wants to buy
Israeli silence over the Iran deal (with the six big powers)."
Palestinian officials have also been leaking details about Kerry's
latest proposals for reaching an agreement between Israel and the
Palestinian Authority. Some have gone as far as accusing Kerry of being
biased in favor of Israel, working toward "liquidating" the
Palestinian cause and trying to extort the Palestinians.
Tayseer Khaled, member of the PLO Executive Committee, was recently quoted
as accusing Kerry of trying to extort the Palestinians politically.
Khaled's allegations have since been repeated by other Palestinians.
In addition, anti-Kerry demonstrations have
become a common phenomenon in Ramallah and other Palestinian cities in the
West Bank and Gaza Strip. At some of these protests, Kerry is often
condemned as a pawn in the hands of Israel.
At another protest in Ramallah, Palestinians chanted,
"Oh Kerry, you coward, you have no room in Palestine."
In Bethlehem several weeks ago, Palestinians took to the streets to protest against Kerry's
visit to the city. And when President Barack Obama visited Bethlehem last
year, Palestinians hurled
shoes at his portrait and chanted, and set fire to his photograph.
Anti-Kerry protests have also taken place in Egypt and Jordan, where
protesters also torched
his portrait and declared him persona non grata.
Why, then, Kerry is not just as offended by the Arab condemnations?
It is interesting to see how one comment from an Israeli minister has
managed to strain relations between the U.S. Administration and Israel,
while fiery rhetoric and street demonstrations against Kerry and Obama in
the Palestinian territories and Arab capitals are completely ignored by
Washington. If Kerry really cares about the peace process, he also needs to
ask the Palestinian Authority and Arab governments to lower the tone and
stop inciting against him and the U.S. Unless, of course, those statements
and protests do not offend him.
Competing
Human Rights in Canada
Be the first of your
friends to like this.
Many of us who came from theocratic
and patriarchal counties are wholly dependent on Canada's liberal, secular
values to maintain our equality -- which others are working so tirelessly
to curtail.
Not even one women's group come out
to lobby for women's rights or to remind the nation that a decision to
support segregation is a slap in the face of equality.
Reasonable accommodation is
celebrating our holidays with joy; unreasonable accommodation is
criticizing others who wish to say Merry Christmas and celebrate their
cultures, too.
Although Canada's diversity is usually touted globally, a clash of
rights is now playing itself out.
Even though the struggle for reasonable religious accommodation is not a
new issue in Canada, this is the first time that the challenge of religious
accommodation at a secular institution of higher education is being noted,
and argued, by the media here.
In September 2013, at York University in Toronto, a male student whose
religious affiliation has not been revealed, asked to be excused for
religious reasons from group work in which women were included. Sociology
Professor Paul Grayson did not agree to the student's request; he said it
marginalized females (who make up a majority of students at York) and was a
sexist stance. The student relented and agreed to join the class. All was
quiet until Professor Grayson decided to ask the university "brass"
to weigh in. To his surprise, the Dean of the Faculty of Liberal Arts and
the Director at York University's Centre for Human Rights said the
student's request should be granted.
|
York University,
where Sociology Professor Paul Grayson teaches. (Image source: Andrei
Sedoff/Wikipedia)
|
The case made headlines not only in Canada but internationally, where
other Western countries with hugely diverse populations are also struggling
with the challenges of competing human rights. There is already a petition
supporting Professor Grayson's decision from two activist groups in London,
England.
In UK, it has apparently become common practice to separate men and
women at some lectures sponsored by Muslim groups. In November, the
representative body of Universities [UUK] met with widespread opposition when it issued guidance endorsing
gender segregation; it was forced to withdraw its guidance after
intervention by Prime Minister David Cameron, who stated that gender
segregation should not be enforced on audiences; he added, however, that
such an opinion did not apply to worship services.
The UUK recently withdrew its guidance but left open the issue of
voluntary segregation. A legal notice issued later, on behalf of a female
student in the UK, stated that "gender segregation reinforces
negative views specifically about women, undermines their right to
participate in public life on equal terms with men and disproportionately
impedes women from ethnic and religious minorities, whose rights to
education and gender equality are already imperilled."
A poll taken by some media outlets shows that 70% of Canadians support
Professor Grayson's decision and would like York University to take back
its decision to segregate the classroom -- apparently out fear that if it
does not, the precedent might be set for other, possibly unreasonable,
accommodation. As Professor
Grayson noted in his first response, "Can I assume that a similar
logic would apply if the group with which he did not want to interact was
comprised of Blacks, Moslems [or] homosexuals?"
He added that segregated classrooms could eventually require York to
agree to segregated seating, segregated tutorials and even gender-specific
instructors.
Grayson says that decision about this particular case will affect the future
of gender equality at universities. If permission for gender segregation is
upheld, it will open a Pandora's box for those who will undoubtedly come
forward to ask for all sorts of other concessions.
Requests for religious accommodation are, however, already common in
many Canadian schools. In October last year, some schools in Ontario said
students should not dress
up in Hallowe'en costumes because, according to the Niagara School
Board, "some families don't participate in Hallowe'en, or can't afford
costumes, and are excluded."
At the Valley Park Middle School in Toronto, where the Lord's Prayer was
removed from schools many years ago, the principal allowed 400 Muslim
students to pray
in the lunchroom, with girls made to stand at the back. Educational
institutions typically allow Muslim students to have special assigned rooms
for prayer, where, if there is gender segregation, it remains within a
specific group of people. Some colleges have built footbaths and special
places for ablution. There has been no public dissent. Canadians, however,
are now starting to ask how far religious accommodation can go before it
becomes an impingement on the freedom of others. Although a nuisance, at
least for now, it has apparently been viewed as a harmless one. The
problem, as Grayson notes, comes later with: Where does it stop?
This issue is troubling at so many levels. Not even one women's group
came out to lobby for women's rights or to remind the nation that a
decision to support segregation is a slap in the face of equality.
Reasonable accommodation is good when not imposed from the top down.
Reasonable accommodation is the multifaith chapel at Toronto airport with a
large section for Muslims; unreasonable accommodation is the Muslim airport
employee who insists on a separate room allocated only for him or her.
Reasonable accommodation is including Muslim books in the library;
unreasonable accommodation is the demand to eliminate the Three Little Pigs
from a traditional story. Reasonable accommodation is celebrating our
religious holidays with joy; unreasonable accommodation is criticizing
others who wish to say Merry Christmas and celebrate their culture, too.
Many of us who come from theocratic and patriarchal countries are wholly
dependent on Canada's liberal, secular values of gender equality to
maintain our freedom -- which others are working so tirelessly to curtail.
York University's decision to allow gender segregation suffocates and
chokes the very values that make this country, and others like it, the
great liberal, secular democracy we came here to seek.
|
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment