You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Pakistan’ tag.
morphthing.com
(I apologize in advance for the assumed vulgarity in this piece)
On Sunday night, after a dramatic pause, President Obama announced to the world that through US bomb efforts, Osama Bin Laden had been located in Pakistan and was confirmed to be dead.
While Obama hoped to make a completely surprise announcement, the longer he waited, the more leaks of this astonishing news transpired. By the time Obama approached the podium to make his statement; his thunder had already been stolen by numerous pundits, newscasters and commentators.
What caught me off guard was not the news itself—since Osama’s death had been expected for quite some time, but it was the reaction to the news. . To start, Geraldo Rivera actually cheered on air, clapped and whooped. Kate Perry stated, “AMERICA F–, YEAH, HERE TO SAVE THE MOTHER F– DAY YEAH!” Jack Osbourne: “F– yeah!!! They killed Osama. F– that mother f–! Hope he rots in hell.” Actress Olivia Munn tweeted, “Wait… Does it still count if Obama wasn’t born in America? Damn. #Killhimbetternexttime.” And of course how could we not hear from Charlie Sheen who made the following statement: “Dead or Alive. WE PREFER DEAD!”
As the news spread, I was amazed as the reaction from outside the White House—crowds waving American flags, cheering, shouting and singing; widened to New York Times Square, Boston, Denver and other cities and towns. While I am relieved that Osama can no longer harm innocent lives, I am very disappointed to say the least, over the reaction of my fellow American citizens.
No matter how evil and diabolic Osama Bin Laden was, to enthusiastically celebrate his death brings each and every person who does so, to the same level of reprehensible and appalling human response of which he was so guilty.
What does it say about a people who cheer at the news of another human’s death? To me, it says that there is a lack of respect for the fact that every human, no matter how evil, has some shred of decency in them. If we can say that someone is completely evil and not worthy of even a speck of human consideration, what hope does that offer for all of us who strive to change, learn and grow from our daily mistakes?
For many, Osama Bin Laden was the focus of all we despise and reject as a country. But even Osama Bin Laden had a family, friends and those (perhaps surprisingly to us)—who loved and cared for him. On some level he was still a human. For me, while I am thankful this man can no longer harm anyone, I am saddened that his life was filled with such hatred for his fellow man. A celebration over anyone’s death; is a response that is barbaric, uncivilized and savage.
Natalie Behring-Chisholm/Stringer/Getty Images
This week French President Sarkozy called for a ban to be placed on Muslim women who choose to express their faith by observing hijab and donning a burkha. The French have been the most vocal and active in the arena of attacking religious freedom. In 2004 they outlawed the use of headscarves, Sikh turbans, large Christian crosses and Jewish skullcaps in their state schools. The French defend their law which is designed to strictly adhere to their ideas of separation of church and state, but French liberalism is coming dangerously close to ending religious freedom. Even worse it seems to be spreading to other parts of Europe. Italy, Turkey, three Belgian towns and seven of Germany’s 16 states have banned headscarves. While speaking in Cairo President Obama said it clearly, “it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit – for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.” Members of the French Parliament, from both the left and right called the burkha an “oppressive dress that breaches individual freedoms”.
Individual freedoms? According to whom? There are many in the world who would consider Western women oppressed because they feel compelled to don a style of dress that is made to entice and attract men. Indeed, upon hearing the new French policy the spokesman for the Muslim Council of Great Britain said, “Unfortunately, there is a pressure on women to dress skimpily in the West.” I agree.
Perhaps the burkha could provide greater freedom than a skimpy bikini ever could. It can be said that the burkha is a tyrannical and repressive piece of clothing forced on the women who wear it, but the same could be said of a bikini. Both the burkha and the bikini are worn to indulge the whims of men in the society they represent. The burkha is worn to mask and conceal that which belongs or could belong to the men, and the bikini is worn to expose and display the same. Both articles of clothing find their impetus in their effort to control and subjugate women.
Women long to adopt a carefree and liberating expression in their choice of clothing. There are few women that can wear a bikini and feel comfortable in it. Even supermodels lament because they feel their thighs or behinds are more ample than they should be. Donning a large black covering in the morning could provide a liberation few Western women have experienced. To arrive at work, school, or social occasion without first applying makeup, dressing the hair, and fussing over clothing would be a dream come true!
One need only to read the comments and remarks made about Hilary Clinton’s appearance to long for this type of freedom. During her run for the democratic presidential nomination, what Mrs. Clinton said was never as important, as how she was dressed when she said it. The criticism made about Mrs. Clinton’s hair, makeup, body type, and clothing took precedence over what she was saying. Her legs were compared to tree trunks, her clothes called frumpy, and her hair and makeup was the topic of many water cooler gatherings. In the same vein, such discussions did not take place about Benazir Bhutto or Indira Gandhi when they were Prime Ministers of their countries. The political pundits debated their political agendas and viewpoints, not their choice of clothing or makeup. Perhaps this was because the males in their countries were conditioned to view respectable women in a non-sexual way, and therefore these women were taken more seriously than Hilary Clinton.
Men will be unable to view women as equal—as long as women continue to exercise their right to seduce men, and therefore objectify themselves. If women will dress in a manner that does not engage a man’s libido and instead engages his mind, they will be able to experience true freedom and liberation. Both women and men should be disturbed by this fact: the American voting public is unable to elect a woman even as a vice-president. While India, in 1966 and Pakistan, in 1988—countries thought by the West to have little equality for women, had already elected women as Prime Ministers!
what people are saying