In this issue
Note from the chief editor
When the contribution of our Pakistani members for this YouthSpeak reached me shortly after the assassination of Mrs Benazir Bhutto, it spurred me to dig deeper in the backgrounds of this crisis. The article that was sent to me attempts at explaining the current crisis by referring to several aspects that often go unnoticed in the mainstream media.
On the one hand, we see General Musharaf referring to Islamist militants when explaining the current clampdown on civil liberties, even blaming them for the murder of Mrs Bhutto. On the other hand, we read of the army supporting Islamist militants in the border provinces of the country. Furthermore, we hear of the massive repression that is exerted against civil rights activists, mostly lawyers. And finally, Islam fanaticists seem to gain support among parts of the population.
One thing is clear, our humanist comrades are the victims of each and every of these woes. But why is it that this situation is so blurred? And why is president Musharaf so warmly welcomed on his tour, garnering support throughout Europe? Reading through some of Tariq Ali's excellent articles on Pakistan’s recent past and the history of the muslim world, it struck me how this is a history riddled by western intervention. Behind the current rhetorics of a War on Terror stands a legacy of support for obscurantist regimes.
In the context of Pakistan, what comes to mind immediately is of course how in the Cold War days the western bloc eagerly supported the Afghan Mujahedeen, Muslim fighters against a Soviet invasion. Ali documents how it was only in the course of the Afghan war that the rallying cry for Jihad was initiated ... by an advisor of the US State department.
Once the Cold War over, the country was left to internecine fighting among Mujahedeen factions. This fighting only came to an end with the coming to power of Mullah Omar's Taleban with support from ... Pakistan. Less than a month after “9/11” the latest Afghan war was launched against these very Taleban, and Pakistan became one of the front-line states in the United States' “War on Terror”. While this may explain the warm welcome the West reserves for President Musharaf, it leaves us puzzled how he and his US allies now fight an enemy which they once willingly armed.
It betrays the divide and rule approach that is so characteristic of imperial power relations. Whereas large parts of the world were colonised, the Ottoman Empire (the Islamic empire that stretched from the Southern coasts of the Mediterranean far into the Middle Easts, and which counts as the predecessor of current-day Turkey) was left more or less untouched by the colonial powers until the First World War. But after an internal revolution gave the final blow to the giant on clay feet which the empire had become, parts of it were put under semi-colonial tutelage.
In other regions however, it was deemed more opportune to nurture local power-holders. Such was the case on the Arabian peninsula, where the British thought fit to leave the rule in the hands of the Saud dynasty. This marks the beginning of an awkward relationship between the West and the royal court of Saudi Arabia.
One the one hand, the house of Saud is well-known for its sponsorship of the most fundamentalist schools of thought within Islam, schools which have clear ties with militant groups, on the other, it is still overtly cherished by the western powers. As recently as last month (as you can read in more detail in this YouthSpeak), president Sarkozy of France commended the country's civilisational mission whilst easily glossing over the violations of women's rights that remain commonplace in the country.
In a similar vein, the regime in Sudan was long regarded a stabilising factor in the War on Terror, allowing the world to turn a blind eye on the atrocities committed in Darfour. One could sum up tens of regimes that are internally repressive, violate human rights and verge to obscurantism, but are supported in the interest of ...
In the interest of what?, one is tempted to ask. Certainly not in the interest of a more humane world. The story of our Pakisani members is exemplary for the plight of humanists and humanist thought under these regimes. The stories that reach us speak of courageous commitments to human dignity, to values that are firmly grounded in local activism. While we must avoid to replicate the interventionism we criticised, we are compelled to show solidarity with those who suffer from this obscurantism. IHEYO's 2008 conference will be one of those occasions to revive your international partnerships!
Since its independence in 1947, Pakistan has lived under firm control of military and civil burocracy. People have no say in its matters and even MPs openly condemned the parliament as a rubber stamp institution. Pakistan came into being in 1947 but it only managed a constitution developed in 1973 by its Parliament after the secession of Bangladesh in 1971. The constitution adopted after 26 years of independence remained in jeopardy from its conception onwards.
Pakistan remained under direct rule of the Army from 1957 until 1972, when it was defeated by the Bangladeshi movement for independence and the Indian Army. Government was handed over to Parliament under the rule of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto – father of Benazir. Bhutto had come to power with a progressive programme and had the overal support of the impoverished population. As soon as he came to power, he gave in to more reactionary pressure and failed to deliver on his promises. Meanwhile, the Army had maintained a powerful position and, profiting from his waning popularity, as soon as 1977 unseated Bhutto.
Under the military head of state, Zia ul-Haq, Bhutto was hanged. The Syllabi of Schools, colleges and University changed and were Islamised by entering preaching of Jihad and hatred towards other religions. Islamic Teaching was compulsory from primary to the post graduation level (and it still is). Professors and Teachers with liberal and democratic thoughts were fired from services, arrested and even murdered.
The Islamic Extremists Students Groups were supported by the State agencies and they were imparted militant training and provided with weapons like Kalashnikovs. This resulted in violent clashes at campuses, leaving several liberal and democratic students dead.
Going further than influencing education, Zia ul-Haq introduced Islamic Laws. We are still living under these laws, although they have been slightly moderated under the rule of General Musharraf.
The major changes concerned:
Radicalisation during the Afghan war
During this period, the first Afghan war started, which pushed the country even further towards Islamic fundamentalism, extremism and militancy. The Afghan war opposed the Soviet Union to Afghan Mujaheddeen (Islamic militants), and turned neighbouring Pakistan in a Cold War frontline state. The Pakistani army, and through it the Afghan Mujaheddeen, enjoyed full political, armed and financial support from the so-called free world under the leadership of the USA. While Militants coming from the entire world gathered in Pakistan in the name of Jihad (Holy war), it became a hotbed of Islamic militancy.
The Western world lost its interest in these trained Islamic Militants after the fall of Soviet Union. Their native countries refused to accept these militants while the Pakistani Army embraced them as their allies. They were given shelter, training camps and they were allowed to recruit young people throughout the country. They opened their offices at community level and mobilized young people to join their ranks. Young people were rushing towards them because the young people form poor backgrounds needed clothing, food, pocket money and a Kalashnikov which had become a symbol of honor for marginalized youth.
The Pakistani Army used these trained militants to fan the fire in Kashmir and to disturb the Indian government. These militants went to China, Russia (Chechnya), Arab and African countries, such as Algeria and Somalia. When the dead bodies of these young militants were brought to their homes, rather than expressing their condoleances, people came to their parents to congratulate them as their young son had scarified his life for Islam and had become a Martyr (Shaheed).
After the death of General Zia in 1988, government befell democratically elected Benazir Bhutto. While replicating the meagre achievements of her father, after only two years Benazir Bhutto was removed in favour of her all-time political opponent Nawaz Sharif. Sharif himself had to leave office after two years, to be replaced by Bhutto, who, after another two years, was followed up by ... Nawaz Sharif.
Behind this farce of democratic government, the army retained its strong grip on public life and imposed its conditions and preferences upon this government. The process of islamic radicalisation continued at the same pace during this period.
After the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, Pakistan’s took interest in Afghanistan – the army tried to subjugate the country to its control. The Mujahedeen warlords in Afghanistan were dispersed and a new force was raised into being. These Taliban were backed by Pakistan and, more remotely, by the USA. It is ironic that they were supported even by Benazir Bhutto when she was in power, and that her Interior Minister General Naseer-ullah Khan Babar claimed them to be his own children. The Taliban equally garnered support in the tribal areas of Pakistan.
Musharraf and the West
In October 1999 the army again took over the charge directly under the leadership of General Musharraf. This didn't receive large attention until “9/11”, and the Pakistani army and General Musharraf were accepted and honored by the West as a strategic ally in the war on terror. Sides were shifted from Mullah Omar's Taliban to the so-called Northern Alliance. General Musharraf knows the jargon and language of the Western World and has got popularity there, while we have to live under his rule for an unknown period.
After 9/11 and entering US Army in Afghanistan, the religious political parties got stronghold among Pashto speaking people called Pakhtoons mainly living in the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan, the tribal areas of Pakistan, Baluchistan Province and Afghanistan. Pakistani Army Intelligence Agencies played very active role in uniting these religious political parties and disintegrating Pakhtoon Nationalist and other progressive political parties. As a result these Islamic Political Parties swept the political scene in the election and got a tremendous majority in the 2002 elections under General Musharraf's aegis.
These Islamists parties remained in power in two provinces neighboring Afghanistan for the last five years. They supported Islamic militancy and extremism in the area. The alliance of religious political parties, MMA, was soon nicknamed Mullah (Cleric) and Military Alliance among the public. These Islamic political parties also supported General Musharraf in the Parliament to give indemnity to his ultra-constitutional actions in the past under 17 Amendment in the Constitution.
Recently, as documented in the previous YouthSpeak, we have seen that a single person amended the constitution and when the superior judiciary took a stand to follow the constitution and play its role as Constitutional Court, fulfilling civil society demands, they were arrested, humiliated and dismissed from their services. When the superior judiciary took stand and determined to follow Constitution in its real spirit, the lawyers and media of Pakistan became their main allies. Political parties focused on cashing in on the situation in having deals with General Musharraf and the army.
Now we see that Pakistani civil society is too much divided. Lawyers and some political parties are boycotting the election of 2008 while major political parties are there in the field. During this recent period, the young people of Pakistan are becoming unconcerned and in-aligned to the political matters of Pakistan. Our young people are running out of the country and wish to enter Europe and USA at any cost. Many have drowned in the deep waters at the hands human traffickers.
It is evident form the reports and data presented by Human Rights Commission of Pakistan that the number of suicide cases because of hunger and poverty has increased rapidly during the rule of General Musharraf. Pakistan is among the countries that are on the top of illiteracy lists. A great number of children are out of schools. Education is expensive and the number of people living below the poverty line is increasing day after day. The parents are unable to send their children to schools. Higher education is only affordable for well-off people. Where there is no school for children there are two or three Religious Schools (Madrassas) for them. In such a situation religious schools are attractive to youngsters, because these schools provide free education, clothing, food and guarantee a Palace in the Heaven for their parents.
The other trend which emerged and developed after 9/11 is suicide bombers. Young people having no job no food and no money are joining the Militant Groups. Uneducated and poverty-hit youth have no choice to live; they see it as their only choice to join the Suicide bombers and sacrifice their lifes for their families to get them some money and meanwhile securing a beautiful life in heaven for themselves.
Recommendations
To get Pakistan out of this perilous position, we keep fighting for the following steps:
In France, two years after the festive celebrations of a hundred years of laïcité, president Sarkozy now calls into question its very foundations. Laïcité, a word which translates difficultly into English, is a cornerstone of French public space, a defining treat of France's intellectual life. The 1905 law which lays at its base stipulates that the state be neutral, in that it may not sponsor any particular cult whilst guaranteeing freedom of religion. Subsequently, members of a clergy cannot take part in public education and civil servants can not sport religious signs.
Nonetheless, the French head of state is traditionally granted the title of honorary canon of Saint-John of Latheran, the cathedral in Rome of which the pope is bishop. Several recent presidents have accepted and carried this title without a fuss, but Nicolas Sarkozy's abrasive style prevented him from doing so on december 20th. A Catholic himself, Sarkozy took the occasion to express thoughts on religion, its role in France and his particular views on the French laïcité.
After stating that “the roots of France are essentially Christian”, as the baptism of Clovis, king of the Franks, rendered the nation “Fille ainée de l'église” (Eldest daughter of the church), he turns to the neutrality of the State. “La laïcité has become a condition for social peace, as the country has grown more culturally diverse”. Paradoxically, Sarkozy hails at the concept, as its defenders have attempted to “cut France off its Christian roots”, to the detriment of “the cement of national identity and social relations”. But now that la laïcité has come of age, according to Sarkozy, the time has come for her to appraise religion.
Agreeing with Benedict XVI's last encyclical, he goes on to applaud the hopes religion feeds and its transcendental strivings amidst spiritless consumerism - a passage that has been virulently criticised by Régis Debray, ancien combattant of a thousand left-wing battles, and presidential contender Alain Bayrou as a return to religion as the opium of the people. But Sarkozy goes on to state that it's in the Republic's interest “that there are lots of men and women who hope”, and that France can benefit from moral thought that draws its inspiration from the religious aspiring.
The reasons he gives are, pardon my French, outrageous: “Secular morals always risk to expire when not backed by a hope that replenishes the aspirations to infinity. Moreover, morals which lack a link to the transcendent are more exposed to historical contingency and, eventually, ease.” To add insult to injury, he furthermore states that “in the transmission of values and in learning the difference between good and bad, the teacher will never be able to replace the the priest or the minister, albeit important he comes close, because he'll always lack the radicality of life-sacrifice and the charisma of a commitment carried by hope.”
While his tinkering with the fundamentals of the French republic sparked off considerable protests, not the least from teachers' unions, Sarkozy went a lot further when visiting Riyad, Saudi Arabia's capital – dubbed “the capital of fanaticism” by the same Régis Debray.
Addressing the Consultative Council of the Muslim kingdom, he embarks on a lecture invoking the shared characteristics of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, the positive impetus they give to mankind, the capacities for the good harboured in mankind, to conclude on highlighting the similarities between France's and the house of Saud's civilisational goals. While this doesn't foresay much good, what kicked up even more dust was the incantation of God that marked the opening of his speech. Starting his formal address, France's first citizen soon turns to chanting God's qualities! “God transcendent, present in the thoughts and heart of everyman. God who doesn't enslave but liberates man. God who is the threshold against the unreserved pride and the folly of man.”
Given his religious merriment, it may not be surprising that Sarkozy has called for a 'positive laïcité', the overarching idea of these several interventions. Knowing that any attempt to alter the 1905 law will be stillborn, he tries to modify its interpretation. But against this, humanist organisations argue that qualifying the laïcité hollows it out, rather than enriching it. The word 'positive' implies that the concept has up to now been negative (towards religion). The main strength of the French laïcité is exactly its neutrality vis-à-vis every worldview – by making her embrace religion this neutrality, and so they argue the very neutrality of the French state, would be washed down.
This all, and the announced visit of the Pope on the occasion of the 150th anniversary of the alleged appearance of the Virgin Mary in Lourdes, has invigorated humanist activism in France. The four French member organisations of IHEU have taken action, which we'll eagerly follow up.
On the 9th of December 2007, which coincided with the celebration of 100 years of humanism in Poland, a humanist wedding was celebrated in Warsaw. Read the press release from our Polish member organisation, the Polish Rationalist association.
On Saturday, the 9th of December, at Krakowskie Przedmiescie 66 in Warsaw the first humanist wedding in Poland took place. The first couple were psychologists from Gdansk: Monika Szmidt and Milosz Kuligowski. This ceremony was organized by the Polish Rationalists Association and was conducted by Krzysztof Tanewski (PRA) and Jane Bechtel (Humanist Society of Scotland).
This kind of wedding is administered by humanist communities worldwide. In the USA, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Norway and Scotland it is recognized in civil law. Humanist weddings are very different from religious ones. All attention is focused on human, interpersonal and social relations. Also, there are many more aesthetic events, for instance: more music, poetry and stories about a bride couple.
Monika and Milosz’s wedding was introduced by Pachelbel’s Canon played on the violin by Zuza Kuczbajska from the “Wedding Workshop”. The ceremony started at dusk with the lighting of more than one hundred vanilla-scented candles.
The ceremony took place in an extraordinary building – the Museum of Industry and Agriculture, with which Maria Sklodowska-Curie was associated in her youth. Centrepiece was a beautiful orchids arrangement. The main hall contains the quotation “Poland will mean as much as its science and culture.”
All the guests were welcomed by Krzysztof Tanewski, who said that the presence of Jane Bechtel emphasized the equal rights of women and men, not only on that day but in society as well. This event doesn't indicate the creation of a new secular tradition, but rather a natural globalization process.
Jane Bechtel made a speech about love, family, marriage and humanist values. Then Marek Pawłowski, a member of PRA, told the gathered guests about Monika and Miłosz, emphasizing their interests and social commitment.
The couple had chosen passages of prose, expressing their beliefs and their system of values, and asked their friends to read those during the ceremony. Monika chose Vonnegut’s „bokonon humanism” (from “Cat’s Cradle”) and Milosz chose a few excerpts from “Fabula Rasa” by Edward Stachura, Polish poet, philosopher and prose writer.
The central point of this ceremony were the expression of the vows and the wedding rings, which symbolized the marriage contract. Both the bride and bridegroom signed a wedding certificate and made their marriage vows.
Monika said, “Dear Miłosz, I promise that you may take care of me and live with me through moments of happiness and sadness, moments of defeat and success. I also promise that you may hear about my everyday impressions, make me coffee, bake me a cake and carry my heavy bags. You may also fall asleep and wake up next to me. You may cuddle and kiss me. You may be angry with me when it’s necessary and forgive me, if it is possible. During my absence you can miss me. I promise that you can watch films with me ... dance and sing with me ... laugh and cry with me and eat my whole candies, and I swear that you can share everything with me: my thoughts, genetic material ....everything that is needed.”
They pledged love and loyalty to the end of their lives.
At the end of the ceremony, the couple left the hall to the accompaniment of Vivaldi's music. The visitors book was waiting for the guests.
The first humanist wedding in Poland was a great media event, with many press articles and television programmes (the most important Polish media covered it).
Unsurprisingly, soon after this event, other couples expressed their interest in having a humanist wedding.
Pictures taken by Mariusz, president of the Polish Rationalist Association can be found here.
More and more, humanist wedding ceremonies are embraced as an alternative to religious ceremony by those who want to give a bit more solemnity to their marriage. In Great Britain, this development is notable in Scotland, as this BBC news item documents.
IHEYO will be holding its annual conference (well, er, annual. We missed last year, but are on track with the 6th one now). We've been putting some work in it, and can now give you more details on the programme.
The conference takes place in Washington from Wednesday 4th until Sunday the 8th of June, alongside the IHEU annual conference. Registration for the latter conference is required to take part in ours, as we will be attending some of the IHEU sessions when we're not busy discussing The future of Youth Humanism.
This conference will combine the 2008 General Assembly (afternoons of the 5th and the 8th), exhaustive discussion of the future activities of IHEYO (I won't say we're questioning everything, but we'll definitely be discussing how IHEYO can become a better organisation for you all), and the future of Youth humanism in general. There will be joint activities with our US counterpart, the Secular Student Alliance and of course we'll take the opportunity to visit some of Washington's most humanist corners.
We'll keep you updated via Youthspeak and other mailings, as soon as a definite programme is ready, and when we've established the registration procedure. Keep an eye on the website!
For its communication project, IHEYO is looking for 4 motivated volunteers.
IHEYO is the umbrella organisation for
humanist youth organisations worldwide. We seek to stimulate exchange
between these organisations, and support them as much as we can in
their local and international endeavours. IHEYO advocates the
interests of the young humanist community.
IHEYO has recently renewed its website (www.iheyo.org) and the design of the monthly newsletter YouthSpeak (new.iheyo.org/youthspeak), and we are still improving it. We are looking for volunteers who want to be part of this on-going process.
For instance, we intend to translate parts of our website in French, Spanish, or any other international language (Chinese, Arabic, Farsi, ...). Secondly, as our website is a platform for discussion, we are continually expanding its functionalities. And finally, we are looking for contributors and people who want to join the editorial board for our newsletter YouthSpeak.
So, if you are committed to humanism or humanist values and want to contribute some of your time to a dynamic organisation of young people, don't hesitate to contact us. We are particularly looking for volunteers who recognise themselves in any of the following:
you like to translate short and longer texts, or
you have a sharp pen, or
you want to build up experience in journalism, or
you want to try your web-editing skills on our website
you have some time to spare – anything from a few hours to a few days per month
Although IHEYO's office is located in Brussels, Belgium, there will be no need for any displacements - any of these tasks can be managed via a simple internet connection.
More information on IHEYO can be found at www.iheyo.org, for more information on the activities or for applying as a volunteer, don't hesitate to contact joris.verschueren@iheyo.org
Applications are awaited until the 20th of February, 2008.
Monty Python's Life of Brian
Parodying the Gospel? No, not exactly. It's a line from Monty Python's hilarious Life of Brian. Those who stand at the back during the Sermon of the Mount, cannot but misinterpret Jesus's words. With these down-to-earth interpretations making up half the fun of the Life of Brian, the other half is simply hilariously grotesque – who'll ever forget the mass of crucifieds singing the immortal anthem, “Always look on the bright side of life”?
Due to this optimist hymn, the Python's movies are imputed with a “gentle humanism” that defies the belief that humanists have to be people who cannot transcend the drudgery of everyday life and enjoy spirited things. But for all the light-hearted humour that makes this movie a must-see (it has several times been voted the “funniest movie ever”), it stirred scandal upon its release. The movie actually portrays the life of Brian of Nazareth, fictitious contemporary of Jesus of Nazareth, who is sometimes mistaken for a messiah himself – those things happen when everyone is expecting the saviour to come – and finally crucified by the Romans.
Therefore, the accusations of it being blasphemous and undermining Christian morale are probably even funnier than the movie itself. From the beginning it is clear that Brian is not to be taken for Christ, and the movie rather takes on the misguidings of organised religion, rather than religion itself.
Brian: Look, you've got it all wrong! You don't NEED to
follow ME, you don't NEED to follow ANYBODY! You've got to think for
yourselves! You're ALL individuals!
The Crowd (in unison):
Yes! We're all individuals!
Brian: You're all different!
The
Crowd (in unison): Yes, we ARE all different!
Man in
Crowd: I'm not...
The Crowd: Shhh!
Nonetheless, entire campaigns were staged wherever the movie was released and the movie was banned in several places. (For instance in Norway – Swedish ads were run: “So funny it was banned in Norway”). The bulk of these campaigns were run by Christian groups, accusing the makers of blasphemy. This prompted them to defend their movie by saying it wasn't blasphemous, “only heretic”, as it takes on organised religion's structuration. In the end, two of the Python's, Michael Palin and John Cleese were engaged in a televised debate with the bishop of Southwark (Anglican) and a born again christian broadcaster. As can be expected, these were impenetrable for the humour of the film, and used the platform as if it were a pulpit. Less than a week later, the debate was parodied in another BBC evening show.
Although the movie's release is almost thirty years ago, you can get quite a good idea of the animosity it caused by watching the documentary “The secret life of Brian”, which can be found entirely on Youtube. Apart from the aforementioned debate, it also shows a hilarious interview with a local councillor who has banned the film, although he hasn't seen it, and doesn't know the Christian organisation who prompted him to ban it. And if you think these days lay behind us, its noteworthy that still in 2007 uproar was caused by a screening of the movie in a church.
(A shorter documentary can be watched here)