The Toronto Palestine ended with as big a bang as it began. Laila’s Birthday, the tale of an overeducated and overqualified cab driver in Ramallah, West Bank is about much more than the name suggests.
Laila’s Birthday tells the story of a day in the life of Abu Laila (directly translated as “father of Laila”, and his misadventures as a cab driver. But this day is not like any other: it’s his daughter’s seventh birthday and the uptight, middle-aged Abu Laila has been asked by his wife to come home from work early, and to bring a cake for his daughter.
At only 71 minutes, this movie is a dark comedy, made all the funnier by Abu Laila’s stoic and silent attitude. The entire film comes together in literally the last two minutes, bringing all the aspects of the day into the one perfect moment that is Laila’s birthday.
The first thing we learn is that Abu Laila’s family is the jewel of his crown. He adores his daughter, and she too dotes on him. It is in moments with her that the audience becomes aware that he even has the ability to smile wide goofy smiles.
As the day goes on we learn that Abu Laila is a stickler for rules, which is highly unusual in a city that seems to be on the brink of falling apart. Even driving away after a car bomb explodes, he insists that drivers buckle up and refrain from smoking, as this is the law. This is the second time we see him smile his wide, goofy smile: when he his explaining his love for justice to an elderly passenger riding in his car.
And why shouldn’t be invest so much time into following the rules? We learn that Abu Laila used to be a judge in a friendly country, and was asked by the Palestinian Authority to return to his homeland to resume judicial work. However, as soon as he arrived, the bureaucrats in the PA changed, and there were no longer enough funds to keep him. He was forced to begin driving his brother in-law’s taxi. He returns to the Ministry of Justice every day, to demand, with dignity and grace, that he be given the job he was promised. And every day, he is told by ever-changing faces, to “come back tomorrow.”
The scene at the Ministry of Justice is particularly memorable, for its absurd hilarity. (“Can you move your taxi, sir? We have a truck driver delivering new curtains for the office.” “Oh, him again? Tell him it’s Abu Laila. He knows me; we met last month when he came to replace the curtains for the last guy who had your job.” )
All of this stress takes place under the watchful eye of the Israelis, who float above in the airspace and wait in the distance, at the checkpoints.
For me, it is of particular importance that Abu Laila chose to return to his homeland. It signifies that he was not forced to stay, and has someplace else to go. But it is love for his home that keeps him where he is. There are no actors playing Israeli characters in the film; the Israeli is meant to be something that is heard but not seen, to symbolize how the Palestinians live in a bubble.
He meets a recently released inmate from an Israeli prison and he also drives home someone who has lost her husband in a bombing. But this contrasts nicely with the other face of Palestine, the “normal” one: young lovers, normal shoppers and a wedding procession. What the rest of the world sees as a disaster scenario has become normalized and internalized by those who live in it.
On a harrowing quest to return a lost cell phone and get home to his daughter in time, Abu Laila’s story, like the story of Fadi and Muna in Amreeka, is both moving and hilarious.
The TIFF drama has revealed itself to be part of a much wider political drama. For this week's blog, please enjoy this three-part Naomi Klein interview with Democracy Now, with Amy Goodman on September 14th, 2009. In it, she delves much deeper into how the Toronto International Film Festival, in collaboration with the city of Tel Aviv, deliberately "politicized" the world of art.
In Part 1, Klein clarifies the position laid out by the group, called "No Celebration for Occupation." The entire group has been met with harsh criticisms of anti-semitism, and they have been wrongly accused of being anti-TIFF and anti-Israel.
Klein states that the letter does not once call Israel an apartheid-state; it only notes that Desmond Tutu has referred to Israel as one.
She says that Israel and Tiff are not the issue. What is at issue is that a city is being honored, not a film. This is an explicit propaganda opportunity to increase tourism to Tel Aviv. The group is boycotting such a political decision, especially in the wake of assaults on Gaza at the beginning of the year. She says that Israel Foreign Ministry has launched an "aggressive campaign to use culture as a distraction" from Israel's human rights abuses. Klein explains that TIFF and Toronto have been selected to be a part of an Israeli rebranding campaign called "Brand Israel". It's not a secret: there are accounts of it in the New York Times & Reuters; an effort to show the "prettier face" of Israel.
It's certainly not wrong for Israel to want to highlight its pretty side. But it is wrong for TIFF to engage in such overt favoritism? Is it okay for them to turn the art festival into a political tool? Apparently, they feel they have the right to do it; the director of TIFF stands behind his decision 100%. And Klein and the group agrees. Toronto and TIFF are certainly in their right to do as they wish. What the group is trying to highlight is that this walks a moral tightrope, one that "Toronto the good" should be uncomfortable with walking. It's not unconstitutional to highlight Tel Aviv; its unethical.
In Part 1, Klein clarifies the position laid out by the group, called "No Celebration for Occupation." The entire group has been met with harsh criticisms of anti-semitism, and they have been wrongly accused of being anti-TIFF and anti-Israel.
Klein states that the letter does not once call Israel an apartheid-state; it only notes that Desmond Tutu has referred to Israel as one. She says that Israel and Tiff are not the issue. What is at issue is that a city is being honored, not a film. This is an explicit propaganda opportunity to increase tourism to Tel Aviv. The group is boycotting such a political decision, especially in the wake of assaults on Gaza at the beginning of the year.
She says that Israel Foreign Ministry has launched an "aggressive campaign to use culture as a distraction" from Israel's human rights abuses.
Klein explains that TIFF and Toronto have been selected to be a part of an Israeli rebranding campaign called "Brand Israel". It's not a secret: there are accounts of it in the New York Times & Reuters; an effort to show the "prettier face" of Israel.
It's certainly not wrong for Israel to want to highlight its pretty side. But it is wrong for TIFF to engage in such overt favoritism? Is it okay for them to turn the art festival into a political tool? Apparently, they feel they have the right to do it; the director of TIFF stands behind his decision 100%. And Klein and the group agrees. Toronto and TIFF are certainly in their right to do as they wish. What the group is trying to highlight is that this walks a moral tightrope, one that "Toronto the good" should be uncomfortable with walking. It's not unconstitutional to highlight Tel Aviv; its unethical.
In Part 2, Klein responds to a scathing critique of her group by Robert Lantos, one of the largest Canadian filmmakers in Canada.
He writes: "The headline of her 'open letter' protesting the presence of films by Tel Aviv filmmakers, "No Celebration of Occupation," implies that Tel Aviv is 'occupied territory.' That is more than just a lie. That is a regurgitation of terrorist slogans. We are not talking about the West Bank or the Golan Heights here. We are talking about the biggest population centre in the heart of Israel, where the first neighborhood was built in 1887. If that is 'occupied' or 'disputed' territory, then Ms. Klein and her armchair storm troopers are clamouring for nothing short of the annihilation of the Jewish State. They are effectively Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's local fifth column."
True, Klein responds. Tel Aviv is not occupid land. But it is impossible to lift Tel Aviv out of Israel and separate the city from the state. She reiterates her broader point: she objects NOT to Tel Aviv, but to the decision made by TIFF to neglect its artistic responsibility and become a tool in a political campaign. The slander against her group, she says, has been part of an Israeli government mission to ensure that Brand Israel is never tarnished.
In Part 3, Klein discusses her work with “No Celebration for Occupation” as an extension of her heart-wrenching trip to Gaza.She tells the story of how Palestinians have lost hope. And strangely enough, they had more hope during the Gaza attacks, when the world was in outrage, than there is now; when it seems the world has forgotten.
It is unclear from this interview what Klein's position is on the right of return of Palestinians to occupied territories. But she is clear on one thing: Israel has intentionally and flagrantly violated international law and human rights accords. And for this, they should take responsibility.
As I write this review, I am listening to Jennifer O'Connor's "Here With Me"; one of the songs featured in the Amreeka movie and trailer: "I hold you close and whisper in your ear:"There's nothing to fear" I know the things you want to be I don't know if they will ever come for anyone"...
It is such a fitting song, one that well describes this story about dreaming big and realizing those dreams. Every time I hear that upbeat sound, my heart warms. I can't seem to listen to anything else, I think to myself, as I hit replay for the umpteenth time.
Muna Farah is a strong, round-eyes, cherubic Palestinian woman. Left by her husband for a younger woman, she lives in Bethlehem with her aging mother and her 16-year-old son, Fadi. Set at the beginning of Bush Junior's invasion of Iraq, Amreeka welcomes viewers to catch a small glimpse of her life in Palestine. The Gaza/West Bank has become such old news that the political has become inextricable from the personal. Two-hour rides to work through Israeli checkpoint interrogation have become the norm, but seeing her husband's skinny new girlfriend at the grocery store drives Muna to tears. She learns that her application for immigration to the United States (one she filled out while still married) has been approved. Scared, but excited and hopeful, Muna and Fadi set out for America, where her sister Raghda, her brother-in-law Nabeel and her nieces Salma, Lamis and Rana await with genuinely open arms. (Her mother moves in with her brother Sameer, who also lives in Bethleham). The rest of the film has no epic plot, no climax and no anti-climax. It is literally a snapshot of their experience in a new land. At first, I expected the story to be about how her family had changed; how her sister thought her a burden and her nieces thought her an embarrassment. But you quickly realize that this is not the case. This is one of the few uniquely Palestinian aspects of the film: the ties that bind this group of people are able to withstand any form of separation. For the most part, the film is a universal tale about loving the people who love you even when you don't want their love. It's about family, and fresh starts. About honor and shame and discovering that some things are more important.
At one point, Fadi is reflecting on American life and prematurely comments on how much "this place sucks." "Every place sucks", Muna says lovingly, before she embraces him.
And that is when we realize that this is, at its heart, a story about trying to find a place you belong, even when the world seems to be telling you that you don't belong anywhere. What becomes clear early on is that Muna and her son are not even Muslim. I am confident that this is no accident. It only adds to the point Raghda makes when she receives a death threat in the mailbox, tying their family to the war in Iraq: "But we're not even Iraqi!" Muna says, indignantly. "They don't know the difference!" Raghda hisses, her eyes wide and her thin lips pursed.
As her son struggles to fit in at high school (with the help of his activist cousin Salma), Muna struggles to be successful and be useful in her sister's home. We watch the characters struggle through the realization that while fresh starts are great in theory, one cannot move forward without reconciling the past with the present, and the future. The tree, as Raghda muses, has roots that yearn for home even after they've been pulled out. Despite the political nature of the topic, Amreeka is a character-driven story. The most beautiful thing about Amreeka is the small moments that made most of the theatre laugh through their tears, and think "this is just like my home." Oh, these beloved people we call family: we love them, and we hate them. But, more importantly, we love to hate them, and this is what keeps us together.
In class on Wednesday, I learned some very interesting lessons from a very influential man.
The professor of my Foreign Policy class is Canadian diplomat David Wright. He was the Ambassador to Monaco, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to Spain and Andorra, and Ambassador and Permanent Rep to the North Atlantic Council, the most senior governing body of NATO. The topic of discussion that day was the “Afghanistan leak.” Essentially, part of a report on the status of the war in Afghanistan, prepared by US General Stanley McChrystal, was leaked to the public.
The 66-page report (written from the International Security Assistance Force headquarters in Kabul for Defense Secretary Robert Gates on August 30th) was a grim view of Afghanistan. McChrystal was clear: if he didn’t get at least 40,000 more troops, the NATO mission was doomed to fail.
McChrystal says the resurgent forces are growing in power, and that NATO troops are poorly equipped and poorly prepared for the onslaught. They know little of the local culture/language, and seem to be indirectly contributing to the radicalization of citizens towards Al-Qaeda.
How will Obama get out of this one? I thought. I figured that whoever responsible for the leak was going to be fired, shot or sent to Guantanamo Bay for a nice waterboarding torture session. Remember how much trouble Bush Junior had in 2007 when he tried to get 20,000 more in Iraq? He was met with so much resistance that I figured Obama had just gotten himself into a fine mess.
Oh, how naïve .
When leaks like this happen, Ambassador Wright said, they usally always come from the top. This report wasn’t accidentally left out on the lunch table by some file boy in the White House. These leaks often come right from the Office of the President. He was very confident that Obama had leaked this himself. And if Obama hadn’t himself leaked the document, he was certainly aware that it was going to go down.
Why??
I was shocked.
Why in the hell would Obama want to release something like this?
Think back to less than a year ago, when Obama was just a lowly senator campaigning for presidency. He made Afghanistan his war. He said Afghanistan has to be our focus; not Iraq.
Immediately after the McChrystal leak came Vice-President Joe Biden’s analysis; which is now being called the “Afghanistan Plan.” Essentially, Biden countered McChrystal by saying that Afghanistan could be won if the United States changed its tactics. Instead of focusing on the Taliban, the US army would be best served by narrowing its targets, and focusing more intensely on eliminating Al Qaeda extremists there and in Pakistan.
So it seemed to me that McChrystal had embarrassed Obama, and Biden was doing damage control.
But, Ambassador Wright explained that Obama is in a very unique position in history. It is his first year in office. He has huge, overwhelming public and global support. He doesn’t have to worry about elections just yet. As such, he is an unusual position of power. Nevertheless, he is not a god. He still needs public support.
This explains the necessity of such a leak. It seemed to Ambassador Wright that Obama was testing the waters. He wanted a debate to happen; and he wanted to judge which side came out on top. The NYT even posted a copy of the report on its website and asked people to comment with their opinions.
Apparently, this is exactly what Obama needs. He put the McChrystal leak out there to see how the public would react: would there be outrage? Would there be cries to bring the troops home? Or would people trust Obama enough to pledge more men and women?
And then, the Biden report was released, in an effort to put feelers out in a new direction. If we limit our goals, does it look like defeat? Can we get away with it? It looks as though the President is taking his VP’s advice very seriously. Whitehouse officials stated a few days ago that Obama was looking for alternatives to a troop surge. It seems that he gauged the public reaction quickly; and decided that less is more in Afghanistan.
This is, of course, speculation. It’s very possible that Obama leaked the report in an effort to create a sense of urgency in Washington; to get debate moving on sending more troops. It may have backfired when people panicked, forcing Biden to advocate for another path. This is the feeling among some major analysts in Washington. But Ambassador Wright's point is crystal clear: everything is political. And nothing is ever as it seems.
Having come from a South Asian home, I was always taught the US president controlled the universe. He conspires and colludes with the world’s most powerful and richest men and women, and together they decide the fate of the world between now and the end of time. As such, everything bad in the world can be blamed on the United States in some way or another. And certainly, I was not alone in having received this kind of education. Anti-US rhetoric became extremely popular under the Bush administration's eight years in power and there was a feeling that Bush Jr. was single-handedly going to kill us all.
So, whatever the reason for the leak, it did teach me two valuable lessons.
First, it showed me that momma was right: there are secrets and conspiracies. That leak came from the top dog, and it was done as part of a clear, predetermined strategy.
That said, it also confirmed the converse: that the United States government responds first and foremost to the people. Foreign policy is won at home, and nowhere else. Unlike the French president and the Canadian Prime Minister, the US president has FAR LESS authority in his own state. The US president relies on the goodwill of major voting blocs and major political constituencies in order to act. And even after then, he must win the support of members of the Senate and Congress.
Harper, on the other hand, has pretty much full control over the federal government due, in no small part, to the principle of party discipline that operates in British-style parliamentary governments.Essentially, party discipline forces members of a party to vote the way their leader tells them, or they are seen as traitors and can be removed from the party.
As such– STRANGELY enough – the US president is actually far weaker than Harper (at a domestic level). The United States was founded at the end of a civil war; a civil war that emphasized the people's power over the government.
All this backroom politicking aside, it will be very interesting to see the direction Obama takes in Afghanistan. I, for one, am convinced that we must do whatever possible to ensure that the Taliban do not get control of Kabul or Islamabad. If that means getting the Americans out of Afghanistan, then so be it. If it means keeping them there, then so be that. General McChrystal is open about the fact that the Taliban insurgency is strong and getting stronger. I am afraid that the United States is unable to deal with the threat posed by clever, highly educated and well-connected networked cells of extremists. More troops may not be the answer and carpet-bombing the entire nation doesn’t do anyone any good. Civilians who survive such attacks can potentially become radicalized, and all the efforts at rebuilding civil society are proven futile. The United States military is used to fighting a nation’s army… do they know how to respond to a faceless enemy? It seems that when you cut off the head of this enemy, two more grow in its place.
For political reasons, scaling down the effort may be the best for Obama’s future. But for the future of the United States, can he scale back? While Biden’s suggestion makes sense at a superficial level, I challenge him to explain how he will tell the difference between Al Qaeda and Taliban. Will he have them wear name tags? Seriously though: it’s impossible. (Apparently, Reuters India agrees). If you’re in Afghanistan to secure the capital, you can’t do it without dealing with the Taliban too. Both from a human rights and strategic perspective it is crucial that Afghanistan not be lost to the Taliban.
Because if that happens, like falling dominos, Pakistan will be next.
One of the biggest things I missed during Ramadan was eating out. Which I do a lot. So, in appreciation of eating out, I am writing a review of my favorite little hangout in Downtown Toronto: Hamdi!
I used to ride past this little unassuming Somalian joint on Carlton Street almost every day in my first year of university. Finally, I decided I would go in. And the rest, as they say, is history. Since then, it's become my top spot when I'm hungry, exhausted, in a rush and in need of soul food.
The place may look small from the front, but walk in and you have about two levels of semi-decadence. Warm lighting, lots of seating, cute decorations and BBC playing from the giant flat-screen on the wall. When I walked in and heard the broadcast from UK, I knew this was the place for me.
It seems like everything you order is ten bucks: no more and no less. No matter what I order, I never seem to pay more than ten bucks. Maybe it's just me, but this same experience is corroborated by a lot of other Hamdi regulars.
Sure, the food is not Yorkville refined and the menu is not super diverse. It's short, sweet and to the point. It's true "home food" perfect for a cold winter's day. The servings are huge and, for ten bucks, worth every penny. So what if the bathrooms are a little sketch? And yes, the waiters are not at your beck and call at every minute. But it's a lot of fun to just hang out and chill. Whenever I go with friends, I pull up some extra chairs, put my feet up and stay even after the meal is done. As a student, I'd much rather go some place a little less formal - but with lots of charm and personality.
The last time I was there I ordered the signature dish " Rice & Roasted Goat meat." And with every meal comes the Somalian signature accessories: a banana and mango juice!
And if they forget your banana, tell the waiter he owes you two.
Toronto has become home to an international controversy since a group of 1500 signatories signed an open letter to boycott the Toronto International Film Festival (not to be confused with the Toronto Palestine Film Festival which debuted on Saturday September, 26, 2009).
The 34th annual TIFF took place from September 9 - September 18th this year and boasts over 300 films. So what could the festival have possibly done to piss of this group of Palestine supporters?
Here's a copy of their open letter, published on September 2nd, by the group called "No Celebration to Occupation." Read the issue straight from the horse's mouth:
An Open Letter to the Toronto International Film Festival:
September 2, 2009
As members of the Canadian and international film, culture and media arts communities, we are deeply disturbed by the Toronto International Film Festival’s decision to host a celebratory spotlight on Tel Aviv.We protest that TIFF, whether intentionally or not, has become complicit in the Israeli propaganda machine.
In 2008, the Israeli government and Canadian partners Sidney Greenberg of Astral Media, David Asper of Canwest Global Communications and Joel Reitman of MIJO Corporation launched “Brand Israel,” a million dollar media and advertising campaign aimed at changing Canadian perceptions of Israel. Brand Israel would take the focus off Israel’s treatment of Palestinians and its aggressive wars, and refocus it on achievements in medicine, science and culture. An article in Canadian Jewish News quotes Israeli consul general Amir Gissin as saying that Toronto would be the test city for a promotion that could then be deployed around the world. According to Gissin, the culmination of the campaign would be a major Israeli presence at the 2009 Toronto International Film Festival. (Andy Levy-Alzenkopf, “Brand Israel set to launch in GTA,” Canadian Jewish News, August 28, 2008.)
In 2009, TIFF announced that it would inaugurate its new City to City program with a focus on Tel Aviv. According to program notes by Festival co-director and City to City programmer Cameron Bailey, “The ten films in this year’s City to City programme will showcase the complex currents running through today’s Tel Aviv. Celebrating its 100th birthday in 2009, Tel Aviv is a young, dynamic city that, like Toronto, celebrates its diversity.”
The emphasis on 'diversity' in City to City is empty given the absence of Palestinian filmmakers in the program. Furthermore, what this description does not say is that Tel Aviv is built on destroyed Palestinian villages, and that the city of Jaffa, Palestine’s main cultural hub until 1948, was annexed to Tel Aviv after the mass exiling of the Palestinian population. This program ignores the suffering of thousands of former residents and descendants of the Tel Aviv/Jaffa area who currently live in refugee camps in the Occupied Territories or who have been dispersed to other countries, including Canada. Looking at modern, sophisticated Tel Aviv without also considering the city’s past and the realities of Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza strip, would be like rhapsodizing about the beauty and elegant lifestyles in white-only Cape Town or Johannesburg during apartheid without acknowledging the corresponding black townships of Khayelitsha and Soweto.
We do not protest the individual Israeli filmmakers included in City to City, nor do we in any way suggest that Israeli films should be unwelcome at TIFF. However, especially in the wake of this year’s brutal assault on Gaza, we object to the use of such an important international festival in staging a propaganda campaign on behalf of what South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, and UN General Assembly President Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann have all characterized as an apartheid regime.
This letter has some very high-profile signatories and supporters, including:
Udi Aloni, filmmaker, Israel; Elle Flanders, filmmaker, Canada; Richard Fung, video artist, Canada; John Greyson, filmmaker, Canada; Naomi Klein, writer and filmmaker, Canada; Kathy Wazana, filmmaker, Canada; Cynthia Wright, writer and academic, Canada; b h Yael, film and video artist, Canada.
(Naomi Klein is probably the most well-known to Toronto youth: she wrote Shock Doctrine and - the extremely famous - No Logo. A leftist bible; it is one of the most influential books of the anti-globalization movement.)
"No Celebration to Occupation" has a blog site they are using to update readers on their issue. We will definitely be following along.
There are many ways to read into this. Is it fair for TIFF to showcase Israel, and not Palestine? Is TIFF taking sides? And, is this really Israeli propaganda?
I fear that many will perceive this entire situation as another instance of self-righteous Arab whining. However, the group's long list of supporters might suggest otherwise.
A photo of young Uyghur girls at the Sunday Market in Kashgar. Photo credit: David Butow for US News. Click the photo for more images from his Uyghur photography collection
This past July, the Uyghur Muslims (pronounced Wee-ghurs) made the news when a series of violent clashes between the Uyghur, Chinese state police, and non-Uyghur Chinese residents in the city of Ürümqi lead to the deaths of 197 people.
Which begged the question: who are the Uyghurs, and why should we care about them?
The Uyghurs are a group of ethnically Turkish people who live in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region in China. The region became automomous in 1955 and has long been pressing for complete autonomy, by means of a sovereign state called Uyghurstan, or East Turkistan.
Round faced, pale-skinned and dark-haired; as I look at pictures taken in and around Uyghur, the people share a slight resemblance to the ethnic Hazara minority of Afghanistan, who are descended from the ancient Mongolians. (An interesting note: the movie The Kite Runner, set in Afghanistan, was actually filmed in Kashgar!)
And as I read more about Xinjiang, I realize that it’s a fairly large place for something so off our mental radars. Xinjiang is about similar in size to Iran, and it is one sixth the size of China’s total territory. It houses about 19.6 million people, which is about eight times more than Toronto’s population. The capital (an industrial city) is Ürümqi, and the region borders India to the South, Mongolia to the east, Russia to the north, and Kazakhstan, Afghanistan and Pakistan to the west.
Xinjiang is home to Kashgar, an important and ancient oasis city that was once a hub on the famous ancient Silk Road; the vast network of trade routes connecting East, South & Western Asia to the Mediterranean, Africa & Europe. This road was extremely crucial to the rise of many military empires, including the Islamic one.
The Uyghur people were once rulers of a vast empire that stretched from the Caspian to Manchuria, from 745 to 840 CE. The Empire was eventually overrun by the Kirghiz, another Turkic people, and the majority of the tribal groups under the Empire migrated to what is now Xinjiang. Conversions to Islam began about a century later.
We should care then, beause Xinjiang is inextricably linked to Islamic history. Currently, it has commercial and economic ties with South Asia too (Kashgar’s sister city is Gilgit, Pakistan; near the Afghan border in the Northern Area). Historian George Michell writes in Kashgar: Oasis City on China’s Old Silk Road that Kashgar is the “best preserved example of a traditional Islamic city to be found anywhere in Central Asia.” This makes it a tourist hotspot; attracting more than a million backpackers and Islamophiles per year.
Kasghar Muslim. Photo credit: taken in May 2008 by travel bloggers Efrat & Yoni. Click picture to read about their travels in Xinjiang.
The Id Kah Mosque in Kashgar; the largest mosque in China.
Not yet affected by the most modern trappings of life, the Uighurs still live in small one or two story houses, in varying states of disrepair. The Sunday market in Kashgar has not yet begun to sell TVs and DVDs. Instead artisans and blacksmiths sell wood carvings, pots, fresh baked bread and hand-made Islamic accessories. Michael Wines for The New York Times reports that the azaan is still called from the rooftops of the mosques, and the voices carry through narrow lanes. There are no loudspeakers or microphones in Kashgar. According to travel guides, you have not seen Xinjiang until you have seen the Kashgar Sunday Market. The Observer, at Guardian.co.uk calls it the "the best market town" in the world.
The Old City is also home to the Id Kah Mosque, the largest mosque in China. Jum’aa prayers attract about 10,000 Muslims every week, and the mosque itself is able to house about ten thousand more than that still.
But the fate of the Uyghurs is uncertain, and has been for quite some time.
On Facebook, kijiji, partyplanners.com, and craigslist, Faiza Syed (or "Fia," as her fans call her) has recently been making the rounds to publicize her home-run Henna business, Henna-by-Fia.
In today's modern world, young kids are getting more entrepeneurial. It's not just about selling lemonade on a street corner: with internet, social networking and university as a marketplace, teens are getting more creative. It's becoming easier and easier to turn side hobbies and pet projects into lucrative small businesses. Marketing is much easier, and word of mouth spreads faster.
But this also means there is much more competition and much more action on the playing field. So, entrepeneurs have to find a special product or service and cater to a unique subset of people.
Take one look at this 19-year old York student's advertisements and you can tell straight away that she knows her product. On her Facebook group wall, Fia boasts an extensive knowledge of Henna, as "an ancient Indian Body Art." ..."Mehndi is a natural product that comes from a bush called Lawsonia Inermis... growing in size from 3 to 5 feet and can vary slightly from region to reion. Its leaves are then dried and ground to make the henna powder."
One potential client, on her Facebook group wall, asks if she using black henna. "No I don't use it," she replies quickly. "Since it contains PPD in it and its harmful for the skin. Thus, its ban in Canada!"
Artist: Faiza Syed
Her business is only about eight months old, but she has already been successful. She is unique among many on Gerrard Street because she also applies henna on the legs, the back, and even on pregnant baby bellies. She is a veritable temporary tattoo artist. See her Facebook group for some pictures of her more interesting - and even controversial - designs.
Her customers are just as thrilled by her prices as they are by her expertise. Working from home reduces costs for Syed; and it also allows her to be more flexible and adaptable.
Syed is in second year at York, pursuing a psychology degree. Her henna skills are self-taught, and she's been practicing for as long as she can remember. As a kid, she had always wanted to have henna applied on her own hands but no one in her family knew how to do it. Eventually, her mom would give into her tantrums by slapping henna on both her palms. Though there was no design - only two big red stains - it was the start of something special.
She is available for anniversary parties, birthdays, bridal showers, weddings, and other events. But for Eid, she is hosting a special Eid Open House. Check the Upcoming Events section for all the details, or log on to the Facebook group for Henna-by-Fia.
Another school year has started and it’s about that time again to decide where our allegiances lie. No, I’m not talking about the Game versus 50 cent. I’m talking about clubs. Clubs are tricky at university: we have so many in existence; plus a million more being planned at any given minute. It's not like high school, where everything was neatly planned. Many university clubs are not truly active after the first couple of weeks. Due to lack of resources, lack of will or lack of interest in the club: members disband and the executive stops planning. It’s hard to keep track of which clubs exist and which are active. This makes Clubs Week at any university a terrifying process for a newbie. What if you join the wrong club? What if the one you joined is just a lame social party? What if the executive is disorganized and lazy, and it ends up shutting down? So, allow a Clubs Fair veteran to point out some clubs that might be ideal for the readers of Keepingithalal.com.
A good club... 1)Allows you to build a resume: Is it a clubs that has a long history? A great number of resources? Lots of clout? Famous alumni? Is there someone who can provide you a reference, or is there some evidence of your involvement in the club?
2)Allows you to build a large social and professional network without sacrificing your religious values. Do the members meet regularly? Do they attend events, socials and trips together? And if so, is the social life diverse, or is it focused on clubbing and drinking? Is this a place where you can make good friends?
3)Is not a waste of your time. Are the meetings efficient? Check the website: Is it up to date, and does the team execute its mandate within the year? Is there room to grow from a lowly member, to an organizer or executive; or are you stuck at the bottom of the totem pole forever?
Here are some clubs I saw at the U of T Clubs Fair this past week (September 4th – 8th) that may or may not be a good place to start. While these clubs are specifically a U of T, you most likely have similar clubs at your own universities. As well, it still gives you a good idea of what to expect, and what to look for.
At a UN Conference in London, England
For the Politically Inclined: 1)U of T UN Society (Model UN): Meets Wednesdays 7-9 pm OR Fridays 3 -5 pm. Location TBA. This is a Model United Nations; the club trains members on how debate, negotiate and perform well in United Nation SImulation Conferences that take place in Canada, the United States and throughout the world. The committees you find in the conferences simulate real committees that have been or are in the United Nations.
Some of the more interesting committees you can be a part of: - Futuristic Security Council, Mafia Wars of the 1920s, Mexican Drug lord negotiations, Palestine/Israel peace talks. Some of the more interesting conferences you can go to: -Yale, Harvard, McGill, London (UK), Lahore, Pakistan
Pluses: - You can meet a lot of great people during weekly meetings, weekly socials, and the conferences. - A great resume builder! You can start off as a delegate, you can win awards, you can organize local conferences or be a Head delegate in an away conference... -The club has a long history and more resources than most clubs. The U of T team is one of the best model UN schools in Canada & the United States. There are also similar teams at York and Ryerson. I've met them, and I can tell you they have a lot of fun. MUN'ers around the world usually become friends for life. This means that if you met someone at Model UN in Chicago, you've got a place to crash the next time you visit!
Minuses: - the away Conferences can be pricey. The team is working on getting funding, but you're still covering a lot of costs on your own. It's up to you to decide if its worth it.
2)Hart House Debates Club Meets Tuesdays at 7 pm AND Wednesdays at 4 pm, at the HH Committees Room (2nd Floor) This is a university wide organization based out of Hart House. They train members on how to debate, in practice for tournaments that take place in Canada, the United States & abroad.
Pluses: -Another great resume builder. Debating skills are essential to many political/social careers. In fact, they are essential to many fields, so its definitely useful. -The fact that the team is affiliated wtih historic and world-renowned Hart House is not bad, either. -The tournaments are not very expensive! The 2009 McGill Winter Carnival North American Invitational was only about $35. -There is a lot of room to move up in the organization: if you are a good debater, you can go from a novice to a pro. If your skills are not up to par, but you love the environment, you can be a tournament organizer for local events. It's a close-knit team. You will make friends for life here. Minuses: -2 mandatory meeting times? Though a heavily rewarding experience; it could be very time consuming and mentally exhausting.
For the Intellectually Inclined: 3)Bookends OPTIONAL meetings: Thursdays from 3-4P OR 5-6PM in Hart House This club at U of T wants have fun with reading. They also want to support (non-textbook) literacy on campus. According to their website: "At our monthly meetings, we discuss the book of the month and vote on the following month’s book. We also discuss issues that are relevant to the club, such as which charity events members would like to participate in, and ideas for club socials."
Pluses: - What a nice, relaxing club! Pick a book, read it, and talk about it? Maybe have some tea and cookies? Take a mental load off? I'm interested. -There's also an active online forum for those who miss meetings, or who want more discussion.
Negatives: - As for these so-called charity and social events, I don't see a single picture of one on the website, and I have yet to hear about it on campus. Could it be that the group is a little bit disorganized? Considering that the one-hour meetings are OPTIONAL, how much does the club really get done? - As a resume builder, it depends on what the charity events are. Otherwise, you're just a group of kids who sat together and read a book. Big whoop for an employer/grad school acceptance committee. - Could be a great way to meet like-minded people. Books really do tell you a lot about people.
For the Religiously Inclined: 4) Muslim Students' Association Meetings depend on your involvement! The MSA works to be a representative voice for Muslims at U of T, and a unifying one. There are lots of ways to get involved: For example, the MSA Community Affairs Committee organizes events such as: Ramadan Food Drive, Blood Drive, Habitat for Humanity Build, Pink Hijab Day, Sandwich Run, Lecture, occasional recurring events, and more as suggested by the committee members.
Pluses: - Your voice matters. Got an idea? You can put it into action if you find the right committee. - It's a close knit group, despite the size of the group. - You decide your own involvement. So meeting times vary and commitment level varies depending on what you can handle. - It's chicken soup for the Imaan =) Negatives: - The fractured nature of the involvement means a lot of people get lost in the shuffle. It's a huge club and they put on many events that get regular attendance and regular notice. But this means there are different bodies of the MSA doing different things at different times. The lack of simple structure can be disarming to some. - As a resume builder, beware. In today's society, it may not send off a good vibe if the only thing you are involved in is your local religious organization. Many employers and grad schools expect variety and diversity in your experiences. If this is ALL you do, it may come off exclusive.
For the Active: 5) University of Toronto Outing Club About ten-fifteen outings per semester. See website for details. The club sends out trip information via a mailing list and members sign up for which outings they want to do!
Some outings include: -Halloween Outing to the UTOC cabin, with a movie night and a trip to the apple orchard, a Killarney Canoe Trip, a Gourment Foods weekend at the UTOC weekend, day trips at the Dufferin Quarry, indoor rock-climbing, and ice-skating.
Pluses: -Don't want to be a committed member but want to go camping with some friends? Sign up for an outing! -Trip costs are very low for day trips. The most expensive trip is the weekend canoeing which is about $90, with food and accomodation included. -Doing active things with friends, and getting to see some beautiful parts of Canada! - An escape from the city!
Minuses: -Though there is a large number of events, many of UTOC's socials appear to feature pub nights. But if you can get your own group together who doesnt drink, it changes the nature of the experience. - As a resume builder, it does show that you have diverse interests. It can be wow-ing, depending on how you spin it!
For the Creatively Inclined - Those who want to get Published! 6) The WA Is a biannual urban publication. According to their booth at the Clubs Fair: If you can write/draw/design/interview/come up with "cool shit to publish", then send it off to the WA, at emailthewa@gmail.com
Pluses: -It's a free for all! Got ANY cool social things to publicize or highlight? Send it to the WA!
Minuses: - The group doesn't have a website that is easily searchable; or any place you can find a mandate or a mission statement. Who do you contact to look at back copies of issues? Who is the Executive? Even if you get published, will it mean much as a credit if no one can find any evidence of it online? It may just be free exposure to small group of emo/artsy people. -You exercise your typing skills... not your social skills. Not a great way to make friends.
In France, a parliamentary committee is about to meet to decide whether or not the burqa is banned in France (not just the public school systems at it currently stands). This seemed an opportune time for me to introduce you all to Canada’s right-wing voice against the burqa. Rosie Dimanno is a columnist for the Toronto Star. She has a pink streak in her hair, and the ability to make me gag every time I read her work on the Muslim community.
She has done a great job of making this so-called community appear to be a monolithic identity made up of unenlightened women, ravenous men and secretly unreligious, resentful teens.
In an article written in October 2006, she essentially goes on a tirade against the burqa/niqab. She declares: “I can think of no more insulating a statement than the veil. That one small rectangle of fabric speaks volumes about separateness and exclusion. It carries both an intrinsic sense of superiority (my faith, which sets me apart) and inferiority (my gender, which renders me de facto prey, thus requiring this protection, which just happens to be the invention of males).”
She then goes on to declare that women who wear the hijab, niqab, or burqa are actually hurting other women. When we wear it out of our own personal choice, we make it hard for oppressed woman to stand up to their evil brothers and fathers.
She says: “It is not patronizing to acknowledge that many Muslim women who wear the niqab… do so not out of personal choice but because they are bullied, tacitly or overtly, into doing so. They must hide their faces so that their men don't lose face.” … “And I care a great deal more about their predicament than I do their Islamist sisters who choose to veil under the rubric of feminism.”
In this second article, she is more irritating. If you’ve ever burned your hand on a hot stove, you will realize that you often get the same sensation when you read Rosie Dimanno’s articles. It stings hard at first, and then becomes a dull pain that lasts for weeks. "A burqa," she says, “is not just an article of clothing. It's a fetish that demeans and demonizes women.” …“I've never met a female who willingly wore the damn thing.” She congratulates President Nikolas Sarkozy, who banned the burqa from the French Republic. He declares it to be a sign of subservience and subjugation, and thus unwelcome in a modern democracy. Apparently, Muslim women all over the world should thank Dimanno and Sarkozy for giving them the justification they needed to finally throw off these repressive clothes.
Her colleague, Antionia Zerbisias (another columnist at The Star), poses this question in retaliation: "How can a state complain about women being forced to wear something – and then force the same women to take it off?"
Dimanno’s answer is basically this: well, Afghanistan did it first. They’ve been telling people what to wear it since forever, so why shouldn’t we? It appears then, for Dimanno, two wrongs do make a right. So, she’s going to ban the scarf and drag Muslims kicking and screaming into modernism.
Though I agree with Dimanno that many women are brutally forced to wear the burqa, many other people I know were not forced. These women wear it for a variety of reasons (it’s comfortable, it makes them feel closer to God, it’s a statement of pride, etc). Whatever the motive may be; the simple fact that it is often worn by choice reduces the impact of her argument. For if there exist people who “wear the damn thing willingly”, then there must be some significance to it that she has simply chosen to ignore. It is sheer lazy reporting that keeps her from investigating the other side of the coin.
On one hand, she belittles the veil, and on the other hand, she makes it out to be something bigger than it really it is: a square piece of cloth that many women use to cover themselves.
Examine this situation for context: In 1984, James Keegstra, Canadian high-school teacher, was charged with denying the Holocaust and making anti-Semitic claims in his classroom as part of the course material. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, where it was decided that the law he was convicted under did infringe on his freedom of expression. But, it was ultimately justified, because teaching hate is a far worse crime. It appears Dimanno is trying to say that forcing women to remove the burqa/niqab is justified infringement of their constitutional rights because the veil is not just a personal choice: it’s a furtherance of evil, oppressive attitudes.
Is this really the case? Is my choice to wear the hijab directly or even indirectly leading to the subjugation of other women? I am not convinced that it is.
If I have learned one thing throughout my education, it is this: correlation is not causation, and appearances are often deceiving. There is rarely one, singular, sufficient cause for any problem. Looking at the Keegstra case, it is possible to see that teaching anti-Semitic material has a direct negative effect on youth. It’s pretty safe to say that though teaching hatred from a position of authority may not be a sufficient factor; it is definitely a necessary factor that could cause young, susceptible students to become racist and intolerant. Conversely, the veil is neither a necessary or sufficient factor. It is correlative, since it often coexists with oppression, but it is not causative in any way.
Accordingly, our energy is better expended on correcting the underlying sources of the problem. It is interesting that the same people who rant about the banning of the veil continue to keep quiet about many poor leaders and poor laws that propagate tyranny and patriarchy. It creates only hypocrisy and confusion when influential people decry a nation’s culture without criticizing the rulers who manipulate and exploit it cruelly. From the Taliban, to Pervez Musharraf, modern industrial democracies have shown their willingness to prop up corrupt regimes. And it is only after the state crosses the line from ally to enemy that democratic politicians come out with guns blazing. Great power politicking seems to have allowed our nation’s leaders to pick and choose when they enforce humanitarian responsibilities.
At the end of the day, the veil is a tool of domination, but not the cause. This certainly does not mean that we should ban it, because it is possible for any “good” thing to be used as a tool for “bad” acts (education, media, religion, etc). So, don’t take your rage out on a square piece of cloth. It’s sometimes modestly decorated, and it’s sometimes bedazzled… but it’s still just a square piece of cloth. There are larger, systemic problems at hand, ones that can only be solved with an appropriate mixture of domestic uprising and international intervention.
If it was really true that the niqab or burqa was the origin of the dilemma, every Muslim girl in the world would willingly take it off her head and burn it. Islam never asks us to do anything that harms fellow sisters. So, before we assume that Dimanno speaks with any authority on this matter, let us ask ourselves this: if the scarf never existed, would downtrodden Muslim women be any freer? Perhaps they would be freer to show and style their hair, but not free in any meaningful sense of the word. Not if the fundamental conditions that have resulted in the problem continue to exist.
Apparently, the French have had distaste for organized religion since the 1789 Revolution, in which the Roman Catholic Church was dismantled. The political foundations built subsequently put a strong focus on Rousseau’s philosophical idea that nothing comes between one’s relationships with the state. Religious affiliations are the ultimate rejection of this. When in conflict, religion is supposed to beat the state. This is a dangerous breeding ground for the bad things people have seen coming out of Islamic communities in the last couple of decades.
For Sarkozy to pretend this situation is all about the women is distasteful and laughable. Andre Gerin, Communist Party legislator and mayor of Vénissieux, a Muslim-populated Lyon suburb in France, began the motion to ban by the burqa in June. He got it signed by 57 other legislators and called for the parliamentary commission. He expresses the sentiment of the French very clearly, in a way that damns him more than redeems him: “The burqa is the tip of the iceberg. Islamism really threatens us.”
*Opinions presented in the articles may not reflect the opinions held by Keeping it Halal. They are the opinions of the author. *No content may be reproduced or altered without the express written permission of the KIH executive body.
Comments
Comments that contain foul language and/or are a personal attack/s towards the author will be deleted. Constructive criticism towards the article is welcome.
RSS Feed
