Time for change is NOW

Got an emailed attachment in my inbox this morning - a signed petition/statement from a number of members of parliament in relation to the pending vote of no confidence against Papua New Guinea's Prime Minister, Sir Michael Somare.

It's worth a read.

Download the report here (right click, save target as):

Papua New Guinea Opposition Media Campaign 2009

Perfectly Frank

"We are not going to have an election just to please Australia and New Zealand. That's not going to happen".
- Frank Bainimarama

He's been called a dictator, a disgrace and a blot on democracy in the Pacific, but Fiji's interim Prime Minister, Frank Bainimarama, says he just wants to make his country a better place.

In a rare interview with Mark Davis he comes out fighting against his critics...on SBS's Dateline (on Sunday, August 1, 2009).

Al Jazeera's Inside Story: What do Iran's reformists want?

"...Anger and deadly violence in Iran escalate, despite tough warnings from the country's supreme leader. As the protests continue, what do reforminsts want exactly? What will become of their movement? And can they shake the foundations of the Islamic Revolution?"

Documentary: The battle between Moderate and Radical Islam

Since yesterday, I've been busy working on a briefing analysis that I need to present to a group of highly opinionated I.R. students. I need to present an analysis on the bi-lateral cooperation between Australia and Indonesia as a result of the Bali attacks on October 12, 2002.

Whilst researching for this topic, I came across the following documentary, by Al Jazeera, in all its entirety conveniently available on YouTube.

Note that Indonesia is the most populous Muslim country in the world. Contrary to the beliefs and actions that are often referred to as "Islam radicalism", Islam is actually a a religion of tolerance and peace. Members of Jemaah Islamiah (JI) interpret the teachings of radical Islamist ideology as reaffirmed in such radical "boarding schools" (such as the one that Abu Bakar Bashir is the principal of) and are consequently encouraged to idolise posters of prominent jihad leaders such as Osama bin Laden (its true, watch the doc below). Such schools of teaching are actually breeding grounds for "terrorism" (a Western concept) however, the students of such schools are really "soldiers of war". I think that Indonesia needs to really take a firmer stand against such institutions as the curriculum that they have encourage these kids to see the world in a "us vs them" paradigm. Even though Indonesia is a developing democracy (after the fall of Suharto), all its citizens have the freedom to worship what ever religion they choose. However, like the anti-Semitic movement that dominated Germany's Nazi Party which eventually lead to WWII, this 'jihad' against non-Muslims (The West predominantly) is escalating as we speak.

Indonesia: Hearts and Minds (Part 1)



Indonesia: Hearts and Minds (Part 2)



Indonesia: Hearts and Minds (Part 3)

Yes, we call it diplomacy, Minister!

Just for laughs: diplomacy explained artistically (and as some may argue...honestly)

Irony at It's Best

Received a two-line email from Tama today:

90 people get the Swine Flu and everybody wants to wear a mask.

A million
people have AIDS and no one wants to wear a condom.

Featured documentary: India Reborn

Ex-Guantanamo Bay detainee is released

After seven years without trial, Guantanamo Bay Prison detainee Binyam Mohamed has been released from the controversial prison.

I'm aware the when David Hicks was released, there was an enforced media ban on him which prevented him from speaking publicly about his ordeal.

Since, his release - Mohamed's lawyers have requested that President Obama release documented evidence (including photographs) which detail abuse and torture inflicted upon Mr. Mohamed during his incarceration.

My question is: Can Binyam Mohamed sue the United States government? If so, on what grounds?

Through their eyes: The Darfur Genocide

I've recently signed up to be a member of The Hub which is the world's first participatory site where individuals, groups, networks and organisations can bring their stories of human rights abuses and draw the attention of citizens worldwide. Members can upload videos, photos or make comment on posts. It's a great site - volunteers all over the world with acclaimed human rights advocacy organisations such as Amnesty International make frequent postings as well.

Well, so we all know that George Clooney didn't rock up to this year's 81st Annual Academy Awards...instead he was briefing U.S. President, Barack Obama and Vice President, Joe Biden on the ongoing conflict in Darfur, Sudan. This genocide has been going on for a few years now and the fact that someone of George Clooney's celebrity and association with the United Nation's (he is a U.N. Messenger of Peace) brings great publicity before this modern day genocide went off the radar. You would have thought that world would have taken a more firm stance in the aftermath of Rwanda.

The Sudanese government has time and again denied supporting the mass killings and atrocities that have been instigated by the Jajaweed Militia, however, witnesses continue to raise claims about Government helicopters being used in the assault against innocent civilians. To difuse the Government's rejection of any involvement, video below is a shocking testimony from four alleged perpetrators who have been involved in the Sudan crisis - one was a senior officer in the Sudan Army Force, one a high-ranking Janjaweed commander, another a Janjaweed footsoldier, and the last a Sudanese soldier. In this video you see the genocide through the eyes of these four men. They give very key details about who were financiers behind some of the attacks through to detailed accounts of some of the attacks. The stories of these four men make a direct link between the accounts of witnesses claims and their own experiences in the lies that the Sudanese government has been telling the world over and over again. Phil Cox, an independent film-maker who assisted in the production of this film states the importance of this footage as being "the first time that the people can see a Sudanese, Arabic-speaking, high-ranking commander saying that 'We did this.' It never happened before." In a nutshell, the testimonies of these four alleged perpetrators could be used against Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir and others if this case was to go the the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Watch the video here.

Related articles:

Group releases film allegging Darfur war crimes - International Herald Tribune
Shocking video testimony from Darfur perpetrators (Aegis Trust) - By Samir Padania, The Hub online

Get it right, Buai Chewer

(Mustard, Betel Nut, and Lime)

This post in retaliation to an article posted in the Post Courier's Viewpoint Section entitled "Get right NCDC with your buai ban" by Buai Chewer:

"...Your supporters can then go around and collect the rubbish in their trucks twice a day and while doing so the public is educated on how to dispose of their rubbish properly instead of going around in convoys harassing people".
Read the full article here.

I agree with Buai Chewer that more bins need to be located in smart spots - locations where betel nut chewers can easily dispose of the betel nut shell itself instead of throwing it on the ground and littering public areas. One thing I've noticed (and I'm sure every other Moresby-ean) is the spilling of 'red blood' on our streets and walkways. This 'red blood' itself isn't actually 'human blood' but the product of a chemical reaction between the lime, mustard and saliva in the mouth. If not swallowed, a lot of betel nut chewers usually spit this out of their mouths onto our walkways and from their moving vehicles onto our roads. If the purpose of the betel nut ban is to promote cleanliness and hygiene in Port Moresby, in order to also prevent betel nut chewers from ruining our pathways and especially our roads, (1) all buai chewers on our PMVs (Public Motor Vehicles) should be refused entry on all our PMVs if they are chewing betel nut. (2) NCDC should also enforce all betel nut chewers to carry a plastic bottle (for example only) to spit into instead of smearing betel nut spittle publicly.

"Buai selling (betel nut selling) is their lifeline and as soon as they are deprived of their income..." - Buai Chewer

Growers, PMV operators and village people will not be affected by the betel nut ban - they can still grow, distribute and supply betel nut vendors! The current betel nut ban only restricts WHERE betel nut vendors can sell betel nut. They still can sell betel nut - just not on public property. This is legally enforceable because first of all, betel nut sellers who sell betel nut in public places do not pay the people that the NCDC contracts to clean up the streets. By restricting betel nut vendors to sell betel nut only on private property reduces the costs that the NCDC has to cough up paying street cleaners and also gives the responsibility of cleaning entirely up to the betel nut vendor. Which is very fair. Think of it as a form of 'corporate responsibility' - only on a smaller business scale. In addition, the fact that NCD govenror, Mr. Powes Parkop has established a taskforce of enforcement officers - they aren't mobilised to 'harass' people as Buai Chewer suggests. Yes, they may be intimidating but this is not unlawful harassment. These betel nut sellers know it is illegal to sell betel nut in public places.

By banning the sale of betel nut in public places - there is only a slight change (as opposed to complete difficulty) in terms of moving and purchasing betel nut, I've made a few suggestions to make purchasing betel nut, more 'efficient' for betel nut lovers:

• know your 'suppliers' and their location. Liase with them. Get their mobile numbers if you're that desperate. If you can't go to them, let them come to you! Most importantly, know where they live so you can go to their house and buy it. This all sounds very hilarious but I can't figure out anything more practical. It shouldn't prove too difficult as there is a high probability that there is at least one betel nut vendor who alread resides on your street/has a betel nut stall on their property.


• Buy in BULK. Simply, less trips and frustration in finding and locating your supplier.
  

Buai Chewer, I suggest you start to not only stop thinking selfishly, but start acting responsibly. If you haven't noticed, the Health Department, other NGOs as well as the National Capital District Commission (NCDC) have spent millions to educate citizens on how to dispose of their rubbish properly in paid TV, radio and print media. The argument that spending K80,000 so that "the public is educated on how to dispose of their rubbish properly" is a reckless argument. Obviously, lazy and ignorant people have failed to comprehend one-line advocacy campaigns such as "Please Help Keep Port Moresby Clean". It's time to toughen up.

Yes Buai Chewer, betel nut is here to stay, but please be smart and responsible.
Enough is Enough.

The journalistic shot heard around the world

Both these images have been strategically juxtapositioned in order to raise an issue that relates to the priority placed on events or people that are considered to be "soft entertainment news" and ones that register on a more important global agenda. Some critiques may argue that celebrity news is totally irrelevant and important air-time should not be dedicated to the lives of those who live 'comfortable' and 'priveleged' lives when the time set aside to feature such unecessary headlines may have covered other headlines that register on the economical, social or political agenda - issues that are more 'real'.

The 'journalistic shot heard around the world' was one which involved MSNBC's co-host and news reader Mika Brezezinski, in which she refused to read Paris Hilton's release from jail as the news lead.

"On June 26, 2007, near the
beginning of Morning Joe, Brzezinski
refused to read a report about Paris Hilton's release from
jail. One hour later during another news break segment, her producer Andy Jones
again pushed the story as the lead, ranking it over Republican Senator Richard
Lugar of Indiana's break with President Bush on the Iraq war,
which Brzezinski considered more important. After several unsupportive remarks
from host Joe Scarborough, she
attempted to burn the story's script on the air, but was physically prevented
from lighting it by co-host Willie Geist. She then tore
up the script, and one hour later, got up and ran another copy of the script
through a paper shredder retrieved
from Dan
Abrams's office. The incident was quickly popularized on the Internet, and
in the days that followed Brzezinski received large quantities of fan mail
supporting her on-air protest as a commentary on the tension between 'hard news'
and 'entertainment news."

(Source: Article on Wikipedia about Mika Brzezinski)

This video has raised a number of issues personally. Firstly, I admire Mika Brzezinski for her ability to actively stand and vocally argue her views for being 'such a journalist' as Joe Scarborough had called her. My question is to Joe Scarborough is: "If she is such a journalist, then what are you?" Obviously, Mika Brezesinki through her actions and views has expressed an absolute distaste and has obviously put her own career and job security on the line with her reactions. Unlike Joe Scarborough, she is not willing to compromise or sacrifice her beliefs and attitudes and conform to expectations of what people think she should do or say. Secondly, not only do Joe Scarborough's remarks connote a sense of misogynistic views that he has deep-rooted within his immature mind (as his actions and words suggest in the video), it is even more disturbing when he blesphemises with the following: "How do I further the kingdom of God on heaven". Seriously, what a PIG! Overall, I salute Mika Brzezinski on her ability to stand up for what she believed in - in front of millions of viewers, which compromised her career and job security, as well as for her ability to control and poise herself whilst arguing her point with two immature, unprofessional, pigs whose equivalents I would hope never to have as co-workers.

"To the news now..."

- Mika Brzesinki

One night stands and feminist critique: why

This blog posting is the result of about three semesters (six months) of English classes between Years 11 and 12 studying representations of gender and dissecting tonnes of material where constructions of gender were construed and at times, over analysed. Think of the provocative advertisements that challenge traditional constructions of gender (ie Voodoo advertisements) and/or reinforce traditional constructions of gender (ie the controversial Windsor Smith shoes advertisements).



Since being educated about such important issues, I have become more analytical and opinionated (at times explosive) about my reactions to 'sexist' or biased advertisements on television or in the print media. I'm at a stage of my life, where I am still developing my values and beliefs with relation to issues, some which involve me supporting feminist ideals as well as challenging or siding with alternative view points on confronting issues that women face everyday. Such issues range from 'breaking the glass ceiling' (ie climbing the corporate hierarchy), women's rights, equal opportunity....the list is endless.

However, tonight I'm particularly concerned about "one-night stands" having visited a couple of other blogs whose authors have quite openly expressed and commentated on several stances on this topic, a topic which leaves some of us tight-lipped and others more vocal.

Some of you may find critique in this posting, arguing that I am only seventeen and therefore should not be talking about such a 'taboo' topic, however, I feel that having being educated and exposed to such issues, I have a right to freely express what I think without giving a fcuk about what people may think or say.

So here it goes...(post coming soon!)

Torture techniques: a question of human rights

Okay, fixed myself a bowl of salad (herb and garlic tuna, tomatoes, avocado, balsamic dressing..same old, same old) and decided to sit down and catch up on some current affairs by skim reading some newspapers. Exams are finally over so I guess reading newspapers and enjoying a salad you prepared yourself can be therapeutic at times.

The first article that grabbed my attention was Sally Neighbour's 'Asking the painful questions' in The Australian Inquirer (p.22).

The article gives an account of torture mechanisms and techniques that have developed over the past fifty years or so. Neighbour's article goes on to question why these torture mechanisms are still being used by the U.S. government despite being labelled as 'unreliabile' and thus, ineffective in the war against terror.

Have a look at this picture:

Most of you will probably associate it with the prisoner abuse claims that occurred at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq that caused much international controversy about two years ago. Most people who have heard only little or not much about torture techniques may at first see this picture only as a man or woman simply standing, arms stretched on what looks like a cardboard box - or even as a gimmick, something that kept the U.S. army personnel entertained in the middle of nowhere.

Upon closer examination, this photograph reveals a can full of worms, unearthing some of the most gruesome and inexcusable human rights violations that have occurred to date. Alfred McCoy, a historian at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and author of A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation from the Cold War to the War on Terror (click here for more McCoy's' deconstruction of these images and CIA torture techniques) adds more to this picture by citing that this photo represents two CIA foundational techniques. Firstly, the hood on the detainee acts as a sensory disorientation and deprivation technique. Secondly, his arms stretched out are intended to inflict pain upon him/herself (ie self inflicted pain).

What truly shocks me is the possible legalisation of torture techniques that could allow people such as John Howard and George W. Bush to sign a warrant issued by a judge to authorise torture. Have a look at the picture of the prisoner in Abu Ghraib again. If this person was your father, mother, sister, brother, nephew or friend, would you let this happen to them?

In Neighbour's article, the argument of well-known Harvard academic and criminal lawyer, Alan Dershowitz is used to justify 'painless' torture mechanisms that could be used by governments such as the U.S. and Australia. Dershowitz who claims to not be a supporter of torture contravenes his personal belief and states that governments should be able to use torture as long as they are done so in an "accountable, transparent way." Notably, the U.S. does not have a clean slate in relation to matters dealing with accountability and transparency. For example, no one knew that the U.S. were using torture techniques on the detainees at Guantanamo Bay until one of its own, former chief lawyer for the US Navy, Alberto J. Mora blew the whistle on the use of such torture techniques. Think of the human rights abuse claims made by David Hicks against the U.S. government and the U.S government's failure to bear the onus of such claims.

After reading this, who would you believe...a man imprisoned for over five years without a formal charge or a government which claims itself to be democratic and a signatory to numerous United Nations' human rights conventions, yet exercises a form of modern tyranny.

Onto more pressing global issues...

I was just reading the United Nation's Development Program Report entitled 'Beyond Scarcity Power, Poverty and the Global Water Crisis?

The Report primarily focuses on the issue of the water crisis, the causes and the problems experienced by the poor. The main arguments being that water is not a scarce resource, however, the poor have been sysytametically disadvantaged due to political choices.

However, what really drew my attention and something that I think would start a great discussion relates to the following excerpt (see page 3):

In the world of the early 21st century national
security concerns loom large
on the international
agenda. Violent conflict, concerns
over terrorist
threats, the proliferation of nuclear
weapons and the growth of illicit
trade
in arms and drugs all pose acute challenges.
Against this backdrop
it is easy to lose sight
of some basic human security imperatives, including
those linked to water.

The 1.8 million
child deaths each year related to
unclean water
and poor sanitation dwarf the casualties associated
with
violent conflict. No act of terrorism
generates economic devastation on the
scale of
the crisis in water and sanitation. Yet the issue
barely
registers on the international agenda.

It would be interesting if people could get involved and share some ideas or thoughts.