RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS | Stop the Killing Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=63"><span class="small">Marc Ash, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Sunday, 21 December 2014 11:31

Ash writes: "We report on a case of unjustified police violence seemingly every day. We choose carefully which ones to focus on. The criteria is some form of blatant abuse, with serious consequences. Those consequences often involve the deaths of innocent men, women, and children, and disproportionally people of color. As a senior editor at Reader Supported News I cannot say how many cases of people unnecessarily killed by police we have reported on. I have in all honesty lost count."

12/20/14 - Police officers look on near the scene where NYPD patrolman were killed ay a gunman. (photo: TheSource.com)
12/20/14 - Police officers look on near the scene where NYPD patrolman were killed ay a gunman. (photo: TheSource.com)


Stop the Killing

By Marc Ash, Reader Supported News

21 December 14

 

e report on a case of unjustified police violence seemingly every day. We choose carefully which ones to focus on. The criteria is some form of blatant abuse, with serious consequences. Those consequences often involve the deaths of innocent men, women, and children, and disproportionally people of color.

As a senior editor at Reader Supported News I cannot say how many cases of people unnecessarily killed by police we have reported on. I have in all honesty lost count.

Ismaaiyl Brinsley, the man who killed NYPD officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos, clearly had other problems and was almost certainly acting on an array of issues by the time of the killings in Brooklyn.

Brinsley’s internet postings would seem to suggest that his attack on the two officers was intended as retribution for the death of Eric Garner. But his actions paint a portrait of a man acting on violent impulses not connected to the killings in New York.

In all on the day of the killings Brinsley shot a total of four people, including himself, his former girlfriend in Baltimore, and the two officers.

The political attacks launched by NYPD personnel and their representatives against Attorney Eric Holder and New York City mayor Bill de Blasio are dishonest about the reality of the relationship between the NYPD and the community. However, in a broader sense, to assail public officials who attempt to effect badly needed reform guarantees perpetuation of the widespread abuses.

In the coming days we are going to hear a lot about “officer safety.” To address officer safety it is absolutely necessary to address use of force by police, and particularly use of deadly force. In addition, the concept of virtual immunity from prosecution plays a huge role in how the public reacts to the police in their community.

If the public sees the police as adversarial – and to an unprecedented extent they do – then that absolutely affects officer safety. When the justice system refuses to hold the police criminally accountable that does not make police safer. To the contrary, it places police officers in greater danger.

Justice for all is the key to a civil society. The justice system, particularly at the state level, shields police officers from prosecution. They are a different class of citizen. That breeds resentment and a profound sense of injustice.

If Staten Island district attorney Daniel Donovan had pursued an indictment of Officer Daniel Pantaleo in the chokehold death of Eric Garner, he undoubtedly would have gotten it. The death had already been ruled a homicide. Instead, Donovan manipulated the grand jury process to acquit rather than indict.

The rage produced is not limited to the New York area, it has spread across the country and internationally, becoming a symbol of American police violence and judicial corruption. That does not make police officers safer. Nor does increased violence. There are things that will help, however.

There is no international parallel, at least in the Western world, for the aggression and violence of American policing. Other nations watch in amazement at the often deadly results. Reducing the violence is critical. Reducing the overall aggression is equally important.

Greater caution while interacting with suspects is safer and smarter for the suspects and the police officers. Sure, it’s great to make an arrest on the spot, but that is not always necessary. Identifying the suspects and apprehending them later is always an option.

Let’s not forget that Eric Garner was suspected of selling loose cigarettes on the sidewalk. Hardly an immediate threat to society. What flowed was totally unnecessary, and completely out of proportion given the situation.

Police officer safety begins with intelligent police practices. Including knowing when to walk away.

America is a violent country, as are its police. More understanding and less violence are absolutely possible. The sooner we start, the sooner we make a difference.

Let the justice probes continue. The lives they save may be those of police officers.


Marc Ash is the founder and former Executive Director of Truthout, and is now founder and Editor of Reader Supported News.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Tea Partiers Are Right: Jeb Is a RINO Print
Sunday, 21 December 2014 09:32

Taibbi writes: "If Bush-Clinton turns out to be the general election menu, it's going to make kleptocratic paradises like the Soviet Union or the PRC look like vibrant democracies in comparison."

Jeb Bush. (photo: Joe Burbank/Orlando Sentinel)
Jeb Bush. (photo: Joe Burbank/Orlando Sentinel)


Tea Partiers Are Right: Jeb Is a RINO

By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

21 December 14

 

Apparently, the American political establishment isn't just afraid of new ideas, it's afraid of new people

o Jeb Bush might be running for president. The rest of the world must be howling with laughter.

Apparently, the American political establishment isn't just afraid of new ideas, it's afraid of new people. It wants things so much the same, it's seeking blood guarantees, like the old Euro aristocracies that sealed military alliances with marriages. It's pathetic, and if Bush-Clinton turns out to be the general election menu, it's going to make kleptocratic paradises like the Soviet Union or the PRC look like vibrant democracies in comparison.

And man, could anything be less exciting, less of an inspiration to get the vote out than that lineup? "Vote 2016! Nothing Ever Changes!" People will stay home and hand-remove their own moles before dragging themselves to vote in that contest.

But hoping for anything else increasingly looks like a vain pursuit, now that Jeb has just "announced" that he will "actively explore" a run for the Presidency, whatever that combination of terms means.

The news kicked off a heated debate in the blogosphere over what Bush's run will mean for conservatives, who will have spent eight painful years waiting to unseat the black Satan and probably had not planned on settling for anything short of a violent repudiation of his administration. Unsurprisingly, the reaction from the base to Jeb's announcement ranged from mild nausea to outright hysteria.

Probably the funniest bit was on Breitbart.com, where preeminent military-thriller author Brad Thor took time out from talking about himself in the third person and fictionally thwarting elaborate presidential-kidnap plots to denounce Jeb's entrance in the race. "If Jeb Bush is the nominee, I will never vote Republican again," he promised, via Twitter.

The Breitbart writeup explained:

Putting a Democrat or establishment Republican in the White House in 2016 won't be sufficient, Thor said.

"You put in a left winger, it's going to increase the size of the federal government. You put in a squishy moderate, it's only going to increase the size of the federal government more slowly."

Laugh all you want at Brad Thor (and laugh you might: his books, which contain lines like "Cradling an H&K MP7 submachine gun in the backseat beneath her burka was twenty-?ve-year-old Sloane Ashby," were almost certainly an unironic inspiration for Team America: World Police). But he's not wrong. Jeb Bush is not what the conservative base wants, not by any stretch of the imagination.

Conservative voters of the type author describes don't "sort of" believe in balancing the budget. They believe that it's a mandatory, day-one prerequisite to other action. They likewise insist that deficit spending of any kind has to be immediately discontinued, and they believe this to be non-negotiable.

They won't accept any restrictions on gun ownership, and their stance on immigration is unequivocal (as one Tea Party group put it, "Illegal aliens are here illegally"). Moreover their concept of "limited government" isn't some abstract, rhetorical pose. It's a concrete idea that entails immediately wiping out massive portions of the federal bureaucracy.

Someone like Jeb Bush, who called immigration an "act of love" and supported Common Core (which was supported by the demonic Obama and which conservatives believe is a heretical federal takeover of education), does not come close to representing their values.

Jeb Bush isn't just a Beltway insider. He's literally the biological spawn of the political establishment. He's not going to come to Washington and (as the base wants and demands) start hurling government bureaucracies out the window in an attempt to clean out the Augean stables of big-government corruption.

Yet we all know that someone like Bush or like Mitt Romney is eventually going to be forced down the throats of Republican voters by the big-money donors of the Beltway. Jeb may not be a hit with Rush or Thor or "the base," but he's a hit with the money folks, and everyone, Republican voters especially, , know it.

In the coming days and weeks we'll be hearing a lot of voices from the Democrat-leaning side subtly (and in some cases not-so-subtly) applauding this process of subverting the desires of conservative voters with sheer financial force. Generally this will come in the form of trying to convince Republicans that Jeb, while maybe not all they want ideologically, is a good horse for the horse race.

While not exactly endorsing Bush, the general thrust of the rhetoric from mainstream campaign watchers will be that Jeb has a good shot at winning and will make things tough for other entrants.

The National Journal's Ronald Brownstein set the example, writing a scare piece ("Jeb Bush's 2016 Move Fuels Democratic Debate") arguing that Democrats should be knocking their spindly little knees in terror before such an imposing figure.

The entrance of Bush, Brownstein loathsomely argues, should make Democrats wonder if passing health care reform was such a good idea, when they could have passed something more "middle-class" (read: white-voter) friendly.

After all, now that the Republicans might be running a guy who speaks Spanish, is married to a Mexican woman, and supported Common Core, it's no longer a guarantee that the Dems will sweep the minority vote like they have the last two election cycles.

Bush, Brownstein argues, could be a game-changer just in terms of perception of the parties' relative strengths: while all everyone is talking about now is why Republicans do so badly with minorities, a loss of the White House by a Hillary to a Jeb could flip the script:

It wouldn't take much Republican improvement among minorities in 2016 to shift the discussion toward why Democrats are struggling so badly with whites…

I wasn't a fan of the Affordable Care Act, but the notion that Democrats should have shelved a revolutionary health care program in favor of some kind of superficial handout to the white middle class because Jeb Bush speaks Spanish – well, that tells you everything you need to know about how people inside the Beltway think.

I disagree, obviously, with the politics of the Brad Thors of this world. And I'm with Bill Maher on this one – I'd rather see Jeb Bush be president than, say, Marco Rubio, because I personally prefer that the president be someone who "eats with a fork and a knife."

But voters, not some miniscule bund of financiers and pundits, should decide elections. One can argue that the Tea Party Platform is not a grassroots movement, that it just represents the wants and needs of a different set of Daddy Warbuckses like the Koch Brothers, who've used clever marketing techniques to get the frustrated, dying white middle class to support slashing corporate taxes and deregulating the economy.

But in the conservative platform there are echoes of the real anger and frustration of real people. Check out entry #2 in this Tea Party Platform: "Pro-domestic employment is indispensable." The Jebs and Hillaries who will head to the general election fattened by money from the same Wall Street banks that financed the relocation of the American manufacturing base from the Rust Belt to places like China and India, they're not going to be worried about "domestic employment" in the way the Tea Partiers mean.

Voters, even crazy voters, make better choices for the country than behind-the-scenes oligarchs who scheme to keep the field narrowed to an endless parade of the The Same Old Crap. It's hard to see, because the Schadenfreude factor is so high when the losers are voters who think Barack Obama is a Kenyan-born sleeper agent of Black September, but when the choices aren't real choices, everyone loses.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The President's Latest Political Masterstroke Print
Sunday, 21 December 2014 09:28

Cassidy writes: "If you doubted that President Obama's decision to normalize relations with Cuba was a political and strategic masterstroke, you only have to look at the reaction it has engendered to see otherwise."

President Barack Obama. (photo: Kevin Dietsch/UPI/Landov)
President Barack Obama. (photo: Kevin Dietsch/UPI/Landov)


The President's Latest Political Masterstroke

By John Cassidy, The New Yorker

21 December 14

 

f you doubted that President Obama’s decision to normalize relations with Cuba was a political and strategic masterstroke, you only have to look at the reaction it has engendered to see otherwise. From Washington to Florida to Caracas, the President’s critics are wandering around in a state of confusion and cognitive dissonance, while more objective observers, including many in Latin America, are hailing the move as a turning point. (In his Daily Comment on Thursday, my colleague Jon Lee Anderson provided some valuable historical context.)

Let’s start with Latin America, where President Nicolás Maduro, the leftist President of Venezuela, who has previously described Obama as a dutiful servant of American imperialism, said, “We have to recognize the gesture of President Barack Obama, a brave gesture and historically necessary, perhaps the most important step of his Presidency.” In Friday’s issue of the Times, Andrés Pastrana, a former President of Colombia, was quoted as saying, “There will be radical and fundamental change. I think that, to a large extent, the anti-imperialist discourse that we have had in the region has ended. The Cold War is over.”

Actually, of course, the Cold War ended on December 26, 1991, the day the Soviet Union was disbanded. On this side of the Atlantic, however, the ongoing standoff between Washington and Havana served to obscure this reality for more than two decades. “For us, social fighters, today is a historic day,” Dilma Rousseff, the sixty-seven-year-old President of Brazil, who, like many leftist Latin American politicians of her generation, did her stint as a Marxist radical, said shortly after Wednesday’s announcement. “We imagined we would never see this moment.”

It is important not to go overboard: tensions between the United States and its southern neighbors haven’t disappeared overnight. On Thursday, for example, President Obama signed legislation allowing his Administration to freeze the financial assets of Venezuelan officials involved in crackdowns on domestic protesters—a move that brought forth another bitter denunciation from Maduro. But credit where it is due: coming from an Administration that is sometimes accused of ignoring its own back yard, this was a foreign-policy move of great symbolic importance, and it didn’t emerge spontaneously from the ether.

Obama, with his clear-eyed approach to the world, which is surely borne partly of having spent some of his formative years living ten thousand miles away from Washington, has long been aware that the United States’s bullying approach toward a small island in the Caribbean made no sense. As far back as May, 2008, when he was running for President, he pointed out that the U.S. policy of isolating Havana economically and diplomatically was serving the interests of neither Americans nor Cubans. After taking office, he lifted restrictions on how much money Cubans living in the United States could send to their families, and how often they could return home. As a realist and a humanitarian, he should have gone further—and now he has, creating consternation and division in the Republican ranks.

Back in 2008, John McCain said that Obama, in talking of improving relations with Cuba, was exhibiting “weak leadership.” As was evident to everybody at the time, this was a thinly coded way of accusing him of going soft on the geriatric Castro brothers and their perfidious Commie regime. Six and a half years later, Marco Rubio is sticking to the same dog-eared G.O.P. script. On Wednesday, the Florida senator, whose parents are Cuban immigrants, accused Obama of forging a “disgraceful deal” that amounted to “just another concession to a tyranny.” On Thursday, Rubio blasted Rand Paul, his Republican colleague, who had dared to break with the party line by saying that Obama’s move was “probably a good idea” because the old policy of isolation had failed. Rubio, appearing on Fox News, said of Paul, “Like many people who have been opining, he has no idea what he’s talking about.”

As Rubio finished up his interview with Megyn Kelly, you could almost hear the cheers from the White House, not to mention from the Clinton residence in Chappaqua. It’s not yet the end of 2014, and two of the G.O.P.’s likely Presidential contenders for 2016 are already slashing at each other.

Not only that, but Jeb Bush, fresh from announcing, via Facebook, that he was all but entering the Presidential race, got himself in a Cuban pickle. A longtime foe of liberalizing relations with Havana, he took to Facebook again, this time to slam Obama’s move and describe it as “another dramatic overreach of his executive authority.” So far, so predictable. But then BuzzFeed’s Andrew Kaczynski pointed out on Wednesday night that Bush has a lucrative consulting gig with a big bank, Barclays, that paid a heavy fine, not so long ago, for violating the sanctions on Cuba. Ouch! According to the Financial Times, even before the BuzzFeed story came out, Bush was in the midst of cutting his ties to Barclays. But the damage had been done and, by Thursday night, Rachel Maddow was busy regaling her MSNBC viewers with Jeb’s Cuba troubles. She didn’t quite break out a chorus of “Happy Days Are Here Again,” but that was her general drift.

No wonder that Obama was looking so chipper at his year-end press conference on Friday, during which he announced that he would take some unspecified actions against North Korea for hacking Sony. Since the midterm elections on November 4th, he has introduced his own immigration reforms, called for Internet-service providers to be regulated like utilities, reached a climate agreement with China, and, now, embarked on a reset with Cuba. It is true that, in the interim, he also signed a lousy spending bill stuffed with giveaways to corporate interests, among them Wall Street banks and truck companies. But still: for a President who, on Election Night, was being written off as the lamest of ducks, it’s quite a turnaround. The Washington Post ’s David Ignatius reckons that the sports-loving President is breaking out his changeup. A headline at Politico referred to him as “Obama libre.” You can say it in Spanish, French, English, or whatever: the Thin Man is on a roll.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Top 7 Ways Assassination Fails USA as Policy Print
Saturday, 20 December 2014 12:50

Cole writes: "Wikileaks has released a government assessment of drone strikes aimed at assassinating top leaders. The document urges such strikes, but is amazingly frank about the drawbacks."

Juan Cole; public intellectual, prominent blogger, essayist and professor of history. (photo: Informed Comment)
Juan Cole; public intellectual, prominent blogger, essayist and professor of history. (photo: Informed Comment)


Top 7 Ways Assassination Fails USA as Policy

By Juan Cole, Informed Comment

20 December 14

ikileaks has released a government assessment of drone strikes aimed at assassinating top leaders. The document urges such strikes, but is amazingly frank about the drawbacks.

it says,

“Potential negative effects of HVT operations include increasing the level of insurgent support, causing a government to neglect other aspects of its counterinsurgency strategy, altering in surgent strategy or organization in ways that favor the insurgents, strengthening an armed group’s bond with the population, radicalizing an insurgent group’s remaining leaders, creating a vacuum into which more radical groups can enter, and escalating or deescalating a conflict in ways that favor the insurgents. “

Below I consider the CIA’s cautions about the drawbacks of such assassination tactics in the context of the rise of Daesh (ISIS or ISIL) in Iraq.

“Potential negative effects of HVT [high value target] operations include”:
“increasing the level of insurgent support,”

This happened with what is now Daesh (ISIS or ISIL). The US killed the leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in spring of 2006. His successor was Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, who was killed by the Iraqi army in 2010. The new leader was Ibrahim al-Samarra’i, who styled himself Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and took over 42% of Iraq’s land area. Each assassination seems to have increased the level of insurgent report among Iraqi Sunnis.

“causing a government to neglect other aspects of its counterinsurgency strategy,”

The Shiite government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in Iraq failed to reach out to Sunni Arabs to include them in the new system. The alienated people of Mosul thus allied even with Daesh against al-Maliki.

“altering in surgent strategy or organization in ways that favor the insurgents,”

The heat in Iraq on Daesh caused the fighters to go off to Syria, instead. They were able to take and hold al-Raqqah Province there, allowing them to establish a state with ordinary institutions.

“strengthening an armed group’s bond with the population,”

The USA/ Shiite leaders of Iraq scared the Sunni Arab population so badly, with its prejudice and discrimination, that it pushed them into the arms of al-Qaeda.

“radicalizing an insurgent group’s remaining leaders,”

Each al-Qaeda/ Islamic State leader has been more radical than his predecessor.

“creating a vacuum into which more radical groups can enter, and”

The US targeting of secular Iraqi opposition groups such as the 1920 Revolution Brigade and Jaysh Muhammad led the way for extreme fundamentalist Daesh to dominate that market.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The Day I Saw 248 Girls Suffering Genital Mutilation Print
Saturday, 20 December 2014 12:31

Haworth writes: "It is well established that female genital mutilation (FGM) is not required in Muslim law. It is an ancient cultural practice that existed before Islam, Christianity and Judaism. It is also agreed across large swathes of the world that it is barbaric."

Midwives wait for the next girl to be brought in for circumcision in Bandung, Indonesia. (photo: Stephanie Sinclair/VII)
Midwives wait for the next girl to be brought in for circumcision in Bandung, Indonesia. (photo: Stephanie Sinclair/VII)


The Day I Saw 248 Girls Suffering Genital Mutilation

By Abigail Haworth, Guardian UK

20 December 14

 

n 2006, while in Indonesia and six months pregnant, Abigail Haworth became one of the few journalists ever to see young girls being 'circumcised'. Until now she has been unable to tell this shocking story It's 9.30am on a Sunday, and the mood inside the school building in Bandung, Indonesia, is festive. Mothers in headscarves and bright lipstick chat and eat coconut cakes. Javanese music thumps from an assembly hall. There are 400 people crammed into the primary school's ground floor. It's hot, noisy and chaotic, and almost everyone is smiling.

Twelve-year-old Suminah is not. She looks like she wants to punch somebody. Under her white hijab, which she has yanked down over her brow like a hoodie, her eyes have the livid, bewildered expression of a child who has been wronged by people she trusted. She sits on a plastic chair, swatting away her mother's efforts to placate her with a party cup of milk and a biscuit. Suminah is in severe pain. An hour earlier, her genitals were mutilated with scissors as she lay on a school desk.

During the morning, 248 Indonesian girls undergo the same ordeal. Suminah is the oldest, the youngest is just five months. It is April 2006 and the occasion is a mass ceremony to perform sunat perempuan or "female circumcision" that has been held annually since 1958 by the Bandung-based Yayasan Assalaam, an Islamic foundation that runs a mosque and several schools. The foundation holds the event in the lunar month of the Prophet Muhammad's birthday, and pays parents 80,000 rupiah (£6) and a bag of food for each daughter they bring to be cut.

It is well established that female genital mutilation (FGM) is not required in Muslim law. It is an ancient cultural practice that existed before Islam, Christianity and Judaism. It is also agreed across large swathes of the world that it is barbaric. At the mass ceremony, I ask the foundation's social welfare secretary, Lukman Hakim, why they do it. His answer not only predates the dawn of religion, it predates human evolution: "It is necessary to control women's sexual urges," says Hakim, a stern, bespectacled man in a fez. "They must be chaste to preserve their beauty."

I have not written about the 2006 mass ceremony until now. I went there with an Indonesian activist organisation that worked within communities to eradicate FGM. Their job was difficult and highly sensitive. Afterwards, in fraught exchanges with the organisation's staff, it emerged that it was impossible for me to write a journalistic account of the event for the western media without compromising their efforts. It would destroy the trust they had forged with local leaders, the activists argued, and jeopardise their access to the people they needed to reach. I shelved my article; to sabotage the people working on the ground to stop the abuse would defeat the purpose of whatever I wrote. Such is the tricky partnership of journalism and activism at times.

Yet far from scaling down, the problem of FGM in Indonesia has escalated sharply. The mass ceremonies in Bandung have grown bigger and more popular every year. This year, the gathering took place in February. Hundreds of girls were cut. The Assalaam foundation's website described it as "a celebration". Anti-FGM campaigners have proved ineffective against a rising tide of conservatism. Today, the issue is more that I can't not write about that day.

By geopolitical standards, modern Indonesia is an Asian superstar. The world's fourth-largest country and most populous Muslim nation of 240 million people, it is beloved by foreign investors for its buoyant economy and stable democracy. It is feted as a model of tolerant Islam. Last month, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono visited London to receive an honorary knighthood from the Queen in recognition of Indonesia's "remarkable transformation". Yet, as befitting an archipelago of 17,000 islands, it's a complicated place, too. Corruption and superstition often rule by stealth. Patriarchy runs deep. Abortion is illegal, and hardline edicts controlling what women wear and do are steadily creeping into local by-laws.

Although Indonesia is not a country where FGM is widely reported, the practice is endemic. Two nationwide studies carried out by population researchers in 2003 and 2010 found that between 86 and 100% of households surveyed subjected their daughters to genital cutting, usually before the age of five. More than 90% of adults said they wanted the practice to continue.

In late 2006, a breakthrough towards ending FGM in Indonesia occurred when the Ministry of Health banned doctors from performing it on the grounds that it was "potentially harmful". The authorities, however, did not enforce the ruling. Hospitals continued to offer sunat perempuan for baby girls, often as part of discount birth packages that also included vaccinations and ear piercing. In the countryside, it was performed mainly by traditional midwives – women thought to have shamanic healing skills known as dukun – as it had been for centuries. The Indonesian method commonly involves cutting off part of the hood and/or tip of the clitoris with scissors, a blade or a piece of sharpened bamboo.

Last year, the situation regressed further. In early 2011, Indonesia's parliament effectively reversed the ban on FGM by approving guidelines for trained doctors on how to perform it. The rationale was that, since the ban had failed, issuing guidelines would "safeguard the female reproductive system", officials said. Indonesia's largest Muslim organisation, the Nahdlatul Ulama, also issued an edict telling its 30 million followers that it approved of female genital cutting, but that doctors "should not cut too much".

The combined effect was to legitimise the practice all over again.

It is impossible to second-guess what kind of place holds mass ceremonies to mutilate girl children, with the aim of forever curbing their sexual pleasure. Bandung is Indonesia's third largest city, 180km east of the capital Jakarta. I had been there twice before my visit in 2006. It was like any provincial hub in booming southeast Asia: a cheerful, frenzied collision of homespun commerce and cut-price globalisation. Cheap jeans and T-shirts spilled out of shops. On the roof of a factory outlet there was a giant model of Spider-Man doing the splits.

Bandung's rampant commercialism had also reinvigorated its moral extremists. While most of Indonesia's 214 million Muslims are moderate, the 1998 fall of the Suharto regime had seen the resurgence of radical strains of Islam. Local clerics were condemning the city's "western-style spiritual pollution". Members of the Islamic Defenders Front, a hardline vigilante group, were smashing up nightclubs and harassing unmarried couples.

The stricter moral climate had a devastating effect on efforts to eradicate FGM. The Qur'an does not mention the practice, and it is outlawed in most Islamic countries. Yet leading Indonesian clerics were growing ever more insistent that it was a sacred duty.

A week before I attended the Assalaam foundation's khitanan massal or mass circumcision ceremony, the chairman of the Majelis Ulama Indonesia, the nation's most powerful council of Islamic leaders, issued this statement: "Circumcision is a requirement for every Muslim woman," said Amidhan, who like many Indonesians goes by a single name. "It not only cleans the filth from her genitals, it also contributes to a girl's growth."

It was early, before 8am, when we arrived at a school painted hospital green in a Bandung suburb on the day of the ceremony. Women and girls clad in long tunics were lining up outside to register. It was a female-only affair (men and boys had their own circumcision gathering upstairs), and the mood was relaxed and sisterly. From their sun-lined faces and battered sandals, some of the mothers looked quite poor – poor enough, possibly, to make the foundation's 80,000 rupiah cash handout as much of an enticement as the promise of spiritual purity.

Inside, I was greeted by Hdjella, 57, a teacher and midwife who would supervise the cutting. She was wearing a pink floral apron with a frilly pocket. She had been a traditional midwife for 32 years, she said, although, like most dukun, she had no formal training.

"Boy or girl?" she asked me, brightly. I was almost six months pregnant at the time.

"Boy," I told her.

"Praise Allah."

Hdjella insisted that the form of FGM they practised is "helpful to girls' health". She explained that they clean the genitals and then use sterilised scissors to cut off part of the hood, or prepuce, and the tip of the clitoris.

"How is this helpful to girls' health?" I asked. "It balances their emotions so they don't get sexually over-stimulated," she said, enunciating in schoolmistress fashion. "It also helps them to urinate more easily and reduces the bad smell."

Any other benefits? "Oh yes," she said, with a tinkling laugh. "My grandmother always said that circumcised women cook more delicious rice."

FGM in Indonesia is laden with superstition and confusion. A common myth is that it is largely "symbolic", involving no genital damage. A study published in 2010 by Yarsi University in Jakarta found this is true only rarely, in a few animist communities where the ritual involves rubbing the clitoris with turmeric or bamboo. While Indonesia doesn't practise the severest forms of mutilation found in parts of Africa and the Middle East, such as infibulation (removing the clitoris and labia and sewing up the genital area) or complete clitoral excision, the study found the Indonesian procedure "involves pain and actual cutting of the clitoris" in more than 80% of cases.

Hdjella took me to the classroom where the cutting would soon begin. The curtains were closed. Desks had been covered in sheets and towels to form about eight beds. Around each one, three middle-aged women wearing headscarves waited in readiness. Their faces were lit from underneath by cheap desk lamps, giving them a ghoulish glow. There were children's drawings and multiplication tables on the walls.

The room filled up with noise and people. Girls started to cry and protest as soon as their mothers hustled them inside. Rapidly, the mood turned business-like. "We have many girls to circumcise this morning, about 300," Hdjella shouted above the escalating din. As children were hoisted on to desks I realised with a jolt: this is an assembly line.

Hdjella led me to a four-year-old girl who was lying down. As the girl squirmed, two midwives put their faces close to hers. They smiled at her, making soft noises, but their hands took an arm and a leg each in a claw-like grip. "Look, look," Hdjella commanded, as a third woman leant in and steadily snipped off part of the girl's clitoris with what looked like a pair of nail scissors. "It's nothing, you see? There is not much blood. All done!" The girl's scream was a long guttural rattle, which got louder as the midwife dabbed at her genitals with antiseptic.

In the dingy, crowded room, her cries merged with the sobs and screeches of other girls lying on desks, the grating sing-song clucking of the midwives, the surreally casual conversational hum of waiting mothers. There was no air.

Outside in the courtyard, the festive atmosphere grew as girls and their mothers emerged from the classroom. There were snacks and music, and later, prayers.

Ety, 40, was elated. She had brought her two daughters, aged seven and three, to be cut. "I want them to be teachers. Being circumcised will bring them good luck," she said. Ety was a farmer who came from a village outside Bandung. "Daughters should be pure and obey their parents."

Neng Apip, 28, was smiling radiantly. She said she was happy her newly cut daughter Rima would now grow up into "a good Muslim girl". Rima, whose enormous brown eyes were oozing tears, was nine months old. Apip kissed her and gave her a rice cracker to suck. "Shh, shh, all better now," she cooed.

Tradition is usually about remembering. In the case of FGM in Indonesia it seems to be a cycle of forgetting. The act of cutting is a hidden business perpetrated by mothers and midwives, nearly all of whom underwent FGM themselves as young children. The women I met had little memory of being cut, so they had few qualms about subjecting their daughters to the same fate. "It's just what we do," I heard over and over again.

When the pain subsides, it is far from all better. The girls in the classroom don't know that removing part of their clitoris not only endangers their health but reflects deep-rooted attitudes that women do not have the right to control their own sexuality. The physical risks alone include infection, haemorrhage, scarring, urinary and reproductive problems, and death. When Yarsi University researchers interviewed girls aged 15-18 for their 2010 study, they found many were traumatised when they learned their genitals had been cut during childhood. They experienced problems such as depression, self-loathing, loss of interest in sex and a compulsive need to urinate.

I saw my interpreter, Widiana, speaking to Suminah, the 12-year-old who was the oldest girl there, and went to join them. Suminah said she didn't want to come. "I was shaking and crying last night. I was so scared I couldn't sleep." It was a "very bad, sharp pain" when she was cut, she said, and she still felt sore and angry. Widiana asked what she planned to do in the evening. "We will have a special meal at home and then read the Qur'an," said Suminah. "Then I will listen to my Britney Spears CD."

Back in Jakarta, an Indonesian friend, Rino, agreed to help me find out about the newborn-girl "package deals" at city hospitals. Rino phoned around Jakarta's hospitals. They told him he must see a doctor to discuss the matter. So we decided that is what we would do: since I was visibly pregnant, we'd visit the hospitals as husband and wife expecting our first baby. ("It's not necessary to bring your wife," Rino was told repeatedly when he rang back to book the appointments.)

We visited seven hospitals chosen at random. Only one, Hermina, a specialist maternity hospital, said it did not perform sunat perempuan. The other six all gave package prices, varying from 300,000 rupiah to 550,000 rupiah (£20-£36), for infant vaccinations, ear piercing and genital cutting within two months of birth.

Interestingly, the only doctor who argued against the procedure was a female gynaecologist from the largest Islamic government hospital, the Rumah Sakit Islam Jakarta. "You can have it done here if you wish," the doctor said with a sigh. "But I don't recommend it. It's not mandatory in Islam. It's painful and it's a great pity for girls."

Last month I spoke to Andy Yentriyani, a commissioner at Indonesia's National Commission on Violence Against Women. Yentriyani told me the problem is now worse than ever. Since the government's guidelines on FGM came into effect last year, more hospitals have started offering the procedure.

"Doctors see the guidelines as a licence to make money," she says. "Hospitals are even offering female circumcision in parts of Sumatra where there has never been a strong tradition of cutting girls."

"They are creating new demand purely for profit?"

"Yes. They're including it in birth packages. People don't really understand what they're signing up for." Nor do some medical staff, she adds. The new guidelines say doctors should "make a small cut on the frontal part of the clitoris, without harming the clitoris". But Yentriyani says that most doctors are trained only in male circumcision, so they follow the same principle of slicing off flesh.

Moreover, according to The Jakarta Post, the guidelines were rushed through partly in response to the deaths of several infant girls from botched FGM procedures at hospitals.

Likewise, Yentriyani says, the recent endorsement of FGM by some Islamic leaders has vindicated those carrying out mass cutting ceremonies, such as the Assalaam foundation. "Women are caught in a power struggle between religion and state as Indonesia finds a new identity," the activist explains. "Clamping down on morality, enforcing chastity, returning to so-called traditions such as female circumcision – these things help religious leaders to win hearts and minds."

Yentriyani and other Indonesian supporters of women's rights believe FGM can never be justified as a religious or cultural tradition. "Our government and religious leaders must condemn it outright as an act of violence, otherwise it will never end," she says. Her view is supported by organisations such as Amnesty International, which has called on Indonesia to repeal its guidelines allowing FGM. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has also weighed in, saying in February this year that, although many cultural traditions must be respected, female genital cutting is not one of them. "It is, plain and simply, a human rights violation," Clinton declared.

Suminah will be 18 now; a grown woman. She could well be married, or at least betrothed. Soon enough she will probably have her own kids. I hope she's forgotten her pain, but held on to her rage.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 2611 2612 2613 2614 2615 2616 2617 2618 2619 2620 Next > End >>

Page 2616 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN