Transsexuals in Iran

Yes, it's legal to be a transsexual in Iran. Since being gay is seen as a medical problem, Iranian law has permitted gays to have sex changes. Clearly, homosexual relationships are strictly forbidden, but it has been justified (as the argument goes) to 'modify' one of God's creations.... just as you turn wheat into bread, you turn a male into a female and Voila!

Be Like Others is a recent documentary that came out this year, following the lives of a few transsexuals in Iran. The director, Tanaz Eshaghian, has won three awards so far for her film. The last screening was at the Berlin International Film Festival.

Are we living in an 'Era of War'?

"According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the number of inter state wars is lower than it has ever been and the number of civil wars has been declining for at least fifteen years."

-Jonathan Power, "The Confidence to Say 'No' to Would-be Warmakers"

Despite all the reports you see on the news everyday, the world has not been having more wars than in the past. Now, there is also the consideration that we are now experiencing a new type of ‘warfare’- random terrorist attacks, but these don't kill nearly as many as when there is a full blown war. At the same time, however, our weapons today can cause much more destruction and result in the loss of many more lives than in the past. So does this mean that although we are having less wars, more people are dying? Most definitely.

Nevertheless, we should recognize the fact that (as the author in the article above points out) there has been a great accomplishment, to have a once-upon-a-time region of warring nations to stabilize. Europe! A great example to the rest of the world. Of course, it still has its issues (eg. separatists groups like ETA in Spain, and the past conflict in Ireland etc.), but we can be pretty sure that Germany and France won't go to war tomorrow. There is time now for the region to heal, to produce several generations who are aware enough of their past and at the same time experience a life of peace and stability. Something that many regions haven’t had the chance to experience for long enough. If you had told any European citizen 100 years ago that a European Union would be created in the near future, he/she would've laughed in your face and probably called you a lunatic.

So why has this progress in the history of humanity been greatly under-appreciated? Why has it not been seen as a stepping stone to further global unification? Or used as an example to other warring nations to help pull them out of their misery? Maybe because, as I have pointed out in several of my postings and as is mentioned in the above article, the realist view has permeated current politics and thus come to justify the high spending on security measures. Cause a sense of paranoia and nations will be more likely to stack up on arms.

Therefore, according to the study, our conundrum may not be that we are producing more conflicts, but rather that we aren't getting rid of the arms that are prolonging conflicts and as a result causing a rising number of casualties. The efforts to solve conflicts are being undermined by the fact that weapons are giving countries a false sense of security. As the advancement in arms technology becomes more sophisticated with biological, chemical and nuclear arms, the accessibility of them has not become any more difficult. That is the scary part. Now we are seeing the interplay between the different countries pointing fingers at each other. Each is playing their part in the blame game and in the meantime the arms collection keeps increasing. For what? Has the lesson not been learned yet?

So, for as much as I appreciate the tad bit of positive news that our current era is not necessarily one of increased warfare; I remain concerned with the prospect that our military power has increased its destructive potential and that practically no restrictive measurements have been put in place.

[Picture taken in Berlin]

Be 'Pro-peace' not 'anti-war'

I have to admit that I have a bit of a problem with anti-war groups. They are usually a little too ‘anti’- if that makes any sense. It’s almost self-defeating… always against things, heavily criticizing the opposing view and eventually, stooping down to the same level as those they criticize. It just puts more hatred in the air. It polarizes more. It, to me, has a counter-effect.

Now, I think much of the work they do is important. I’m not saying that people shouldn’t be raising their voices when they see an injustice. Nor am I saying that I’m in favor of war. I can understand that those in the anti-war movement have much stored up anger since their views tend to be marginalized on the international stage. However, I propose that instead of gathering together to largely focus on criticizing the other- why don’t they get together to do a little less criticizing and a little more problem-solving. A little more dialoguing and brainstorming.

They should be the force that brings both sides to the table as a “pro-peace” movement, not “anti-war”. Many people can be for war. But, who’s going to be against peace? (That is, unless the peace that you want is exhibited as ‘anti-war’, THEN that may turn off those who don’t believe in a peace without war). If it can be framed in a way that it becomes an alternative to settling an argument or conflict, it can then become appealing to people in all playing fields. And the ‘anti-war’ movement can come closer to convincing the ‘pro-war’ movement that military means are maybe not the best way to resolve conflicts.

I bring this up because I was taking a look at bits of the “World Against War Conference” that was held back in December 2007 by the ‘Stop the War Coalition’ in London. It is nice to see that they were able to get so many well distinguished scholars to come together, as well as people who have taken part in peace processes, those who are directly suffering from the effects of war and basically those whose voices haven’t been heard much. For example, below is the video of a speech given by the ex-Chief Editor for Hezbollah’s Al Manar television station, Ibrahim Mousawi:

Now hearing him talk your reaction may either be, “well, he’s full of BS” or “hmmm, I didn’t know terrorists could be so reasonable after all”. Either way, it is a view that, the American audience especially, has not really been exposed to. Sure you’ll hear a lot of criticism geared toward so-called terrorist groups, but when do you actually hear comments from them firsthand? All the information we get is usually filtered or twisted truths. This makes it nearly impossible to provide us with any understanding of the other side. Or even to open up our minds to the possibility of favoring negotiations. Why do you think it was so easy for the Bush administration to have so much public support for going to war in Iraq after falsely connecting to it 9/11?? Did they stop to ask first what might be the reason that the attack occurred? Obviously not, otherwise people would’ve been quick to conclude that Iraq had nothing to do with it. I mean, if it was so easy for that to become accredited, what makes us think that the same strategies aren’t being used to demonize these “terrorists”?

Like Mousawi says, a terrorist for one person is a freedom fighter for someone else. Both sides are using violent means to defend their beliefs, so it makes them equally culpable. Using the current global conflict that we are experiencing, it goes like this: the US, Israel and most European nations consider themselves defenders of freedom, but they are considered terrorists to those who are generally labeled as terrorists. While the terrorists, as we know them, consider themselves freedom fighters… it’s a vicious circle that can keep going around and around and around, well, until a Savior comes along to tell us who’s right- only kidding…. but you get my point.

So I propose to get all these freedom-fighters together in the PRO-PEACE movement… anyone in?

Clash of what?!

For a second time now, Danish newspapers have printed the offensive caricatures of the prophet Mohammad. Is this a courageous gesture showing Muslims what great privilege the Christian-dominated West has to be free to express themselves? Or is this merely an act intending to mock Islamic beliefs and incite anger?

This case is thought to be a clear example of Samuel Huntington's theory of the "Clash of Civilizations". Below is a bit more debate on the topic coming from an Arab station.**

Reactions from the East:
Check out the responses to this video. Very interesting!

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

Extra

*The station, known as MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute) has been criticized for it's biased and propaganda-like coverage. Despite this, I have intentionally chosen to publish Wafa Sultan's video because it reflects what a majority of those who defend the theory believe.