The United States of America, land of the free, the city on the hill, a shining beacon of liberty. Unless of course you're a Muslim, in which case (in the eyes of some leading Republicans) you don't qualify for such privileges.
Opposition to the 'ground-zero mosque' this week is almost unfathomably narrow minded, not least because no-one has actually proposed to build a mosque at ground zero of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The proposed building work under scrutiny is for an Islamic community centre to be built a good 2 blocks away from where the World Trade Centre once stood. Specifics aside however, the premise behind the argument against the new building is that Muslims were responsible for the 9/11 attacks therefore allowing an Islamic building close to the site of the attrocities is unacceptable and insulting to the families of those who lost their lives that day. Right. Noted. Understood.
But what have we learnt this week? A catholic priest played an active role in the 1972 bombings of the small Irish town of Claudy which took the lives of 9 people. Although they happened 29 years earlier and saw a significantly lower amount of people lose their lives, the Claudy bombings are comparable to 9/11 in one hugely poignant way; both were perpetrated by evil attempting to justify itself on religious grounds.
No-one blames the whole of the catholic church for the actions of Father James Chesney, so why is it justifiable to punish the whole of the Islamic faith because of the actions of a few Al-Qaeda members?
Lets put that in practical terms. Does Father Chesney's contribution to the Claudy bombings preclude any churches from being built in the town? Would doing so "stab hearts" Ms Palin? No, I didn't think so.
Tuesday 24 August 2010
Thursday 5 August 2010
Kenyan Democracy: New dawn or false dawn?
Disappointingly a hugely fractious issue has been largely ignored in the British press but it is one that underpins the struggles of a nation with a Christian majority but with a significant Islamic community. Furthermore it helps us to better understand some of the motivations behind the ‘No’ camp.
The issue I’m alluding to is that of the exclusively Muslim kadhi courts and the state funding they will continue to receive now the proposed constitution is all but passed. The courts exist almost exclusively on Kenya’s largely Muslim east coast and survived through British colonisation and independence purportedly as an accord made with the Sultan of Zanzibar during his secession of the coastal strip to the mainland country. The courts rule mainly on issues of inheritance, family and succession and although they will remain subordinate under the superior courts of Kenya the issue of central government funding being put towards religious activities is a contentious one and has roused much opposition from Christian leaders. A panel of 3 High Court judges implored MPs earlier in the year to reconsider the provision for the courts on the grounds of constitutionality but the appeal was met with petty accusations of the judges acting beyond their remit instead of any credible justification for the courts’ inclusion. In principal using state money to fund activities only accessible to a certain proportion of the country is unfair and discriminatory and sets a dangerous precedent in a country with a history of fractional fighting, albeit more recently in a tribal rather than religious nature.
As a British citizen (and a self-confessed liberal) used to more progressive human rights laws I was also shocked, as my eyes wandered across the draft bill of rights I picked up from my Daily Nation last June, to spot a glaring omission. Perhaps unsurprisingly to some, a person’s sexuality is not provided for in any way in the document that many will champion as a great step towards providing protection and equality for Kenya’s citizens. Far from being churlish enough to think achieving reform of such magnitude is like ripping off a plaster I can’t help but feel that introducing legislation designed to protect citizens’ rights is the perfect time to begin correcting this great injustice and failing to address it completely is a huge missed opportunity. Homosexuality remains illegal in Kenya, punishable by up to 14 years imprisonment. The ‘moderate’ view of one leading Christian pastor that homosexuals “should not be killed but removed from society” gives us some indication of how far Kenya still has to come on some equality issues.
The removal of some powers from the presidency (most importantly, in the new constitution the president will become impeachable for the first time) and the devolution of powers to local authorities are reforms that seemingly unite many Kenyans behind the ‘Yes’ camp but further contentious issues abound. Land reforms may very well leave some residents of the Rift Valley, the crucible of much of the 2007 violence, bereft of land to which they once laid claim to whereas the Christian community refuses to back down in its fight for tougher laws on abortion.
Idealism aside however we must not ignore the successes that have been achieved during this referendum. The vote on the new constitution has been the biggest democratic event since the bloody presidential elections of 2007 and could not seem much further removed from the fighting that left 1000 Kenyan citizens dead. One thing that struck me during my time in Kenya in the lead up to the referendum was the huge effort being made to educate the populace on the content of the constitution to encourage debate and allow citizens to make an informed decision. Draft copies of the constitution were readily available from the country’s print media and electoral commission stations were dotted sporadically throughout even the most rural areas, this is certainly something that Kenya can take great pride in.
As a resounding ‘Yes’ seemed increasingly inevitable one of the leading protagonists of the ‘No’ campaign, higher education minister William Ruto, backed down respectfully proclaiming that “the majority had their way, we had our say.” Importantly however he added that “we are now proposing immediate consultations”.
This view from the upper echelons of the Kenyan ruling elite seems also to be one echoed by the country’s electorate. Peter, an IT specialist from the small coastal community of Makongeni told me of the importance he places in the way the referendum was conducted. “It has been vital for this country to vote on the constitution without it being overshadowed by bloodshed like the 2007 elections.” Like Ruto though he acknowledged that this is by no means the end of reform in the country adding that “we must now look at the areas we disagree on and deal with them democratically as we move forwards.” Pragmatism and a great desire for peace seem to be winning out amongst many Kenyans.
On the surface the referendum has achieved peace, stability and a respect for democratic values but before we count our kukus let us ask ourselves this; do we accept an imperfect document as collateral for achieving a peaceful democratic process or are we merely ignoring the issues and leaving the door open for more clashes further down the line?
The issue I’m alluding to is that of the exclusively Muslim kadhi courts and the state funding they will continue to receive now the proposed constitution is all but passed. The courts exist almost exclusively on Kenya’s largely Muslim east coast and survived through British colonisation and independence purportedly as an accord made with the Sultan of Zanzibar during his secession of the coastal strip to the mainland country. The courts rule mainly on issues of inheritance, family and succession and although they will remain subordinate under the superior courts of Kenya the issue of central government funding being put towards religious activities is a contentious one and has roused much opposition from Christian leaders. A panel of 3 High Court judges implored MPs earlier in the year to reconsider the provision for the courts on the grounds of constitutionality but the appeal was met with petty accusations of the judges acting beyond their remit instead of any credible justification for the courts’ inclusion. In principal using state money to fund activities only accessible to a certain proportion of the country is unfair and discriminatory and sets a dangerous precedent in a country with a history of fractional fighting, albeit more recently in a tribal rather than religious nature.
As a British citizen (and a self-confessed liberal) used to more progressive human rights laws I was also shocked, as my eyes wandered across the draft bill of rights I picked up from my Daily Nation last June, to spot a glaring omission. Perhaps unsurprisingly to some, a person’s sexuality is not provided for in any way in the document that many will champion as a great step towards providing protection and equality for Kenya’s citizens. Far from being churlish enough to think achieving reform of such magnitude is like ripping off a plaster I can’t help but feel that introducing legislation designed to protect citizens’ rights is the perfect time to begin correcting this great injustice and failing to address it completely is a huge missed opportunity. Homosexuality remains illegal in Kenya, punishable by up to 14 years imprisonment. The ‘moderate’ view of one leading Christian pastor that homosexuals “should not be killed but removed from society” gives us some indication of how far Kenya still has to come on some equality issues.
The removal of some powers from the presidency (most importantly, in the new constitution the president will become impeachable for the first time) and the devolution of powers to local authorities are reforms that seemingly unite many Kenyans behind the ‘Yes’ camp but further contentious issues abound. Land reforms may very well leave some residents of the Rift Valley, the crucible of much of the 2007 violence, bereft of land to which they once laid claim to whereas the Christian community refuses to back down in its fight for tougher laws on abortion.
Idealism aside however we must not ignore the successes that have been achieved during this referendum. The vote on the new constitution has been the biggest democratic event since the bloody presidential elections of 2007 and could not seem much further removed from the fighting that left 1000 Kenyan citizens dead. One thing that struck me during my time in Kenya in the lead up to the referendum was the huge effort being made to educate the populace on the content of the constitution to encourage debate and allow citizens to make an informed decision. Draft copies of the constitution were readily available from the country’s print media and electoral commission stations were dotted sporadically throughout even the most rural areas, this is certainly something that Kenya can take great pride in.
As a resounding ‘Yes’ seemed increasingly inevitable one of the leading protagonists of the ‘No’ campaign, higher education minister William Ruto, backed down respectfully proclaiming that “the majority had their way, we had our say.” Importantly however he added that “we are now proposing immediate consultations”.
This view from the upper echelons of the Kenyan ruling elite seems also to be one echoed by the country’s electorate. Peter, an IT specialist from the small coastal community of Makongeni told me of the importance he places in the way the referendum was conducted. “It has been vital for this country to vote on the constitution without it being overshadowed by bloodshed like the 2007 elections.” Like Ruto though he acknowledged that this is by no means the end of reform in the country adding that “we must now look at the areas we disagree on and deal with them democratically as we move forwards.” Pragmatism and a great desire for peace seem to be winning out amongst many Kenyans.
On the surface the referendum has achieved peace, stability and a respect for democratic values but before we count our kukus let us ask ourselves this; do we accept an imperfect document as collateral for achieving a peaceful democratic process or are we merely ignoring the issues and leaving the door open for more clashes further down the line?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)