Why the Quebec Mosque Shooting Happened: New Age Islam's Selection, 02 February 2017
New
Age Islam Edit Bureau
02 February 2017
• Why The Quebec Mosque Shooting Happened
By Safiah Chowdhury
• Understanding The Reality Of Trump’s Immigration Policy
By Ray Hanania
• Is It Possible To Create Safe Zones In Syria?
By Diana Moukalled
• Will Trump Put America First And Close ‘Open Skies’ To Gulf?
By Frank Kane
• Canada Was First To Try To Muzzle Scientists And Fail
By Andrew Mitrovica
• Trump, Iran And Mixing Up The Issues
By Abdulrahman Al-Rashed
• Trump Presidency Should Stimulate US Civil Society
By Mohammed Nosseir
• Trump Wall Awakens Mexican Patriotism
By Yemeli Ortega
Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau
-----
Why The Quebec Mosque Shooting Happened
By Safiah Chowdhury
02 February 2017
"Hey hey, ho ho, we would rather have Trudeau," chanted protesters in an American airport, gathered to challenge the executive order by the US President Donald Trump, effectively banning entry of Muslim refugees and residents from seven countries.
The invocations of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau were likely due to his tweet reaffirming the country's commitment and openness to diversity, irrespective of faith. As many looked to Canada with envy and hope, Canadians relished in a haughtiness that has almost become a marker of national identity
So when news broke of a shooting in a Quebec mosque on January 29 which killed six congregants and injured eight others, the country was shaken. In one moment, Canadian smugness was silenced.
Hatred and antipathy do not grow in a bubble. They fester and grow over years, fed by rhetoric that is, at its core, dehumanising towards the targeted group. Neither Trump's "Muslim ban" nor Quebec's "Mosque shooting" emerged in a vacuum.
Quebec's Islamophobia
Anti-Muslim sentiments similar to those Trump has so adeptly encouraged in the US have been present in Quebec City, whose mayor previously spoke of mosques as a hotbed of radicalisation. These sentiments are found across Canada and in Quebec, a province that has, in very recent history, actively enabled Islamophobia.
In 2007 and 2008, the province debated "reasonable accommodation" of religious minorities (read: Muslims) after an 11-year old girl attempted to wear her hijab while playing soccer. This would catalyse a 2010 bill banning women wearing the niqab (face veil) from accessing public services such as healthcare.
Together, this debate would reach its most recent zenith in 2013 with the introduction of a Quebec Charter of Values, banning government employees, including teachers, nurses, and bureaucrats, from wearing religious symbols. Though implicating many religious groups, its positioning targeted the Muslim veil or hijab in particular.
While Canadians generally rallied against this specific notion, the implications persist with the debate resurrected as recently as September 2016.
Focusing on Muslim dress suggests that Islam and Muslims are at odds with Quebecois culture and values.
This all set the groundwork for a number of violent incidents focused on Quebec's Muslim communities.
The Centre for the Prevention of Radicalization Leading to Violence reported an increase in reports of right-wing propaganda targeting Muslims and mosques in Quebec, 20 percent of which came from Quebec City alone.
This includes the delivery of a swastika-covered pig's head to the door of the same Centre Culturel Islamique de Quebec whose congregants were killed on Sunday. Despite frequent targeting of Quebec City mosques, these acts were all considered "isolated".
Similarly dismissed were the anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant posts by Alexandre Bissonnette, the sole person accused of the Quebec shooting, who was written off simply as an "online troll". This persistent lack of serious attention given to anti-Muslim violence in Quebec was similarly felt with the poor media coverage in the hours after the Quebec shooting.
Fearmongering
Beyond Quebec, hate crimes towards Muslims have generally seen an upward trend in Canada. As the total number of hate crimes around the country dropped, those targeting Muslims increased significantly.
Precipitated, perhaps, by global events in Europe and beyond, the baiting of Muslims has also occurred domestically. The "war on terror" sentiment exists in Canada too as many Canadian foreign policies, especially towards Muslim-majority countries, mirror those of the US.
Both countries actively participated in the First Gulf War, leading to a rise in Islamophobic acts at home.
And while Canada was not directly involved in the 2003 invasion of Iraq - an oft-touted example of Canadian peacekeeping - its historic relationship with the US meant key military support was nonetheless provided.
Both countries also militarily supported the mission to liberate Afghan women, cultivating and feeding a rhetoric that positioned veiling as oppressive and Muslim women in need of saving.
This rhetoric featured prominently in Quebec's debates on Muslim women's clothing.
Before the incitements of "creeping shariah" across the US, Canada's largest province, Ontario, had its own episode of fear mongering.
In 2004, when Muslims sought religious-based legal options long afforded to the province's Jewish and Christian populations, a fury of frightening invocations of stoning, beheadings and religious terror dominated the news.
These sentiments continue to exist, where a 2016 poll found that a majority of Ontarians view Islam negatively, perceiving it as a religion that promotes violence.
Like US anti-terror legislation, Canada's anti-terror law, Bill C-51, provides sweeping powers to state agencies with minimal public accountability, allowing them to take greater unilateral action than ever before.
Muslims as young as six have been arbitrarily added to Canadian anti-terror provisions such as no-fly lists.
And although radical right-wing sentiment was identified as a bigger threat to Canada than radical Islam, innocent Muslims continue to be targeted by such legislation instead of white supremacists. Bill C-51 was supported by the then-minority Liberal Party led by Trudeau, despite opposition from Canadian Muslim communities.
Words Only, No Actions
Furthermore, the labelling of the recent Quebec shooting as terrorism by both Prime Minister Trudeau and Quebec Premier Couillard similarly feels empty.
While naming it an act of terror is an important symbolic gesture of solidarity, how the shooting is adjudicated in the courts and the relationship of right-wing extremism to anti-terrorism laws will be the true test of Trudeau's words.
If the lack of outrage towards white supremacist terrorism has been any indication thus far, symbols may be all we have to rely on.
If the elections in the US are a lesson to anybody, it is to US' northern neighbours. President Trump's executive order led to a frenzy of action in the US: rallies at airports, taxis on strike, immediate fights in court, and millions of dollars in donations to civil liberty organisations.
By the end of the weekend, the first legal battle had been won and dozens of residents were released from airports.
Meanwhile, in Canada, openness was declared, tweets were shared, and a gunman in Quebec opened fire on a mosque congregation, killing and injuring Muslims while they prayed peacefully. Canadians must not take words for action and the world should caution to celebrate symbols over deeds.
-----
Safiah Chowdhury is a community advocate from Toronto, Canada
Source: aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2017/02/quebec-mosque-shooting-happened-170201075600344.html
----
Understanding the Reality of Trump’s Immigration Policy
By Ray Hanania
1 February 2017
US President Donald Trump ordered the suspension of immigration from seven Muslim countries for 90 days, and the entrance of refugees for 120 days, fulfilling his much-maligned campaign vow to crack down on illegal immigration. The seven countries are Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
Immediately, nearly every Arab and Muslim organization in the US joined in condemning Trump’s executive order, calling it “anti-Muslim” and referring to it as a “Muslim ban.” However, none of the organizations denounced the mainstream US news media, which roundly demanded to know why Trump did not expand the order to include Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan.
Sadly, many Arabs and Muslims in the US have been duped once again into believing that the mainstream American news media, American society and the many protesters who have denounced Trump’s “Muslim ban” really care about Arabs or Muslims. They do not.
Here is the truth that the anti-Arab and anti-Muslim media does not want to report, and that protesters are ignoring: Trump’s order does not restrict immigration into the US from the vast majority of Muslim nations, so clearly his action is not “anti-Muslim.”
What justifies a suspension of immigration from the seven targeted nations? It is obvious. Six of them — Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — are failed states that are in societal disarray. The seventh, Iran, is less of a government and more of a terrorist enterprise committed to the destruction of Arab society and Western democracy.
Syria is in total dysfunction under the brutal military leadership of Iranian puppet Bashar Assad. His military assaults against Arab Spring protesters created the instability that allowed Daesh to build a base in the country, which he has exploited to prevent Western military intervention to undermine his oppressive rule.
Iraq has been basically partitioned into several mini-nations, each with its own political agenda and militia. Libya has been in total chaos for years. Somalia, Sudan and Yemen face serious internal threats from terrorist organizations linked to Daesh.
How does any of this relate to America’s immigration? If a Daesh terrorist wants to enter the US to fulfil repeated terrorist proclamations — such as the most recent one in December to drive trucks into American parades and high-profile public events to kill civilians — the easiest way for these terrorists to enter the US is through the weak and ineffective immigration systems in those six Arab/Muslim nations.
What is most appalling, when watching Arab- and Muslim-American organizations join the mainstream news media in accusing Trump of taking racist actions, is that the biggest purveyors of racist, anti-Arab and anti-Muslim hatred in America is the mainstream news media. So why would anyone in the Arab or Muslim worlds listen to the mainstream US news media say they care about Arab or Muslim rights?
The media’s hypocrisy was evident on Sunday during the five top morning news discussion programs. Media personalities with the most journalism power all asked why Trump was not moving to suspend relations with Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other Arab countries such as Jordan and even Lebanon.
Worse is why American Arabs and Muslims would join in this bonfire of truth and denounce the immigration suspensions, which are clearly intended to protect all Americans regardless of their faith.
The media says the suspension is racist because it singles out certain peoples such as Syrians, Iranians and Libyans. That is just not true. America’s immigration policies have been weak for years. As Daesh steps up its efforts to attack the US, the country has every right to impose stringent policies to more closely examine who these immigrants are.
Trump has explained that his goal is not to ban Muslims, but to ensure that anyone entering the country is not intent on committing terrorism. Basically, he wants to separate the “good” from the “bad.”
America has an overlapping problem that is the real motivation behind the media’s phony obsession with the rights of Muslims and Arabs. Every year, hundreds of thousands of Mexicans enter the US via its southern border illegally. It is estimated that there are 12 million illegal aliens living in US cities, 3 million of them engaged in criminal violence.
The remainder are taking jobs, receiving health care benefits and exploiting the benefits of living in the US without contributing to American society as taxpayers or abiding by citizenship laws. Many do not even speak English. That is why Trump has proposed building a “wall” along the Mexican border. Which other country allows millions of illegal aliens to enter without being screened for criminal backgrounds? None.
The real issue is about US politics. Most ethnic minorities such as Hispanics tend to be Democrats, not Republicans. That is why Democrats have been the loudest in denouncing Trump’s policies. Trump defeated Hillary Clinton by winning the majority of the votes in a dozen states that traditionally have voted Democrat, not Republican.
Trump is not perfect. His rhetoric sometimes feeds public fears, but those fears are being played by the mainstream US news media, the same media that fuels racism against Muslims and Arabs. The fact that Arab and Muslim Americans do not see this concerns me, and should concern everyone.
• Ray Hanania is an award-winning Palestinian-American former journalist and political columnist. Email him at rghanania@gmail.com.
Source: arabnews.com/node/1047886
-----
Is It Possible To Create Safe Zones In Syria?
By Diana Moukalled
31 January 2017
US President Donald Trump’s administration has issued an order temporarily banning citizens from several nations, and indefinitely banning Syrian refugees, from entering the US. However, the order mentioned the intention to set up safe zones in Syria.
Safe zones, seen as a compromise between the options of a military solution and absolute retreat, was suggested by Turkey nearly a year ago, but was opposed by Russia. Now, following Russian-Turkish rapprochement, Moscow says it does not oppose the idea, but it would require approval by the Syrian regime, which said any attempt to create safe zones without coordinating with it would be unsafe.
Can safe areas, based on previous experiences, really provide safety, or they are just an easy alternative to the ultimate military solution? In modern history, there are many examples of safe zones that failed. During the Bosnian war, the UN declared the town of Srebrenica a safe zone, but Serb forces massacred and raped thousands of people there.
However, the US set up a safe zone in northern Iraq in 1991, and introduced a no-fly zone and military presence that protected Kurds for more than 12 years, though it required a large military presence and financial costs.
What we can learn from both examples is that areas that are intended as safe havens for civilians require a political decision, a large military presence and huge resources. This would be complicated in Syria, whose people have fled the brutal bombings of a regime bolstered by Iran and Russia. Who will enforce the safe zones? What about the Turkish and European positions, not to mention that of the US, which is now allied with Moscow?
Is it possible to create safe areas for Syrian refugees that would be enforced by the regime, Moscow and Tehran, which are the main cause of Syrian deaths and displacement? President Bashar Assad recently reiterated that “Syria’s social fabric” is “much better than before the civil war began.” His statement indicates that the regime believes the return of refugees to their country would tear apart that social fabric.
Syrian refugees have become a major source of confusion for the world. Neighboring Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon want to be relieved of this heavy burden, so they may turn a blind eye to the dangerous move of transferring refugees to areas that would not be safe if they remained under regime control. Meanwhile, the international community is exerting enormous pressure to prevent refugees from seeking asylum in Western countries.
Talk of safe zones is an evasion of major international responsibilities toward the ongoing tragedy in Syria. More dangerously, the move would forcibly transfer and put Syrian refugees under the mercy of the very parties that have caused their misery.
---
• Diana Moukalled is a veteran journalist with extensive experience in both traditional and new media. She is also a columnist and freelance documentary producerSource: arabnews.com/node/1047881
----
Will Trump Put America First And Close ‘Open Skies’ To Gulf?
By Frank Kane
1 February 2017
Arabian Gulf countries have so far been largely left out of the carnage that US President Donald Trump has inflicted on the world.
The Muslim travel ban, the scrapping of trade deals, the proposed tariffs on commerce with some of the US’ closest neighbours, are obviously negative for Gulf countries that believe in and depend on thriving global trade. But they can probably live with the consequences, as much as the rest of a reluctant world.
But there is one issue lying in the new president’s in-tray that could change all that. Sometime pretty soon, Trump will have to rule on the potentially explosive matter of “Open Skies” aviation between the US and the Middle East.
He has it in his power, if he so choses, to deal a body blow to Gulf airlines just as they face critical challenges in other areas: Overcapacity, falling demand and reduced revenue from airfares. There is mounting concern in Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Doha that the president might just hit them hard.
The Subsidy Row
Some backstory: Emirates, Etihad and Qatar have carved themselves a dominant position in global aviation by being “super connectors” between the West and the East. Geographical location is one reason, so too is the new generation of aircraft that can make 10-hour-plus trips with ease.
Another reason is that all three offer a level of service that neither American nor European airlines can dream of matching. Schedules, airport infrastructure, and onboard facilities are just way ahead of anything the West can offer. (Some Asian airlines are just as good, incidentally, but Hong Kong and Singapore are at the wrong end of the Mercator world to be a problem for the US.)
The US airlines — notably United, Delta and American — do not like this. They feel that they have a natural right to fly Americans around the world, even if they do not offer the schedule or levels of service the Gulf airlines regard as normal. So they complained to former President Barack Obama about “unfair competition” and “illegal subsidies” by the Arabs, which they alleged put the Gulf airlines in breach of the Open Skies treaties the US has with the rest of the world.
The former president had to take their complaints — backed by a powerful Washington lobby — seriously, and he asked three government departments to consider the allegations. State, commerce and transportation were handed the portfolio of grievances and asked to consider them.
You got the feeling that liberal, cosmopolitan President Obama did not really want to take sides in the dispute and was kicking it into the long grass of DC bureaucracy.
New Transport Secretary
Not so the new president. He puts America first, distrusts Muslims and Arabs, and is suspicious of anything that originates east of Maine. The Open Skies deal would seem to be an obvious victim of the new Trump protectionism.
He has found a soul mate in his choice for US secretary of transportation, who will probably have the final say.
Elaine Chao was this week approved by Congress as head of the department, which has aviation under its remit. She is of Taiwanese origin, with impeccable Republican credentials, and in her spare time sits on the board of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, which owns President Trump’s favourite TV channel, Fox News.
Although Chao has given no indication of how she might decide on Open Skies, you might expect her to side with the America First lobby and order the Gulf airlines to change their strategies toward the US.
Her options would range from a complete US withdrawal from the reciprocal agreements that allow the Gulf airlines to fly to the US, to a ban on flying some individual routes, through to an order to restrict future route expansion between the Gulf and US. Either of these would be a serious challenge to the Gulf Three, but especially Emirates, which sees trans-Atlantic aviation as a keystone of its global strategy.
Emirates recently upped the stakes in the dispute by slashing fares to the US and launching a new service between New Jersey’s Newark airport and Athens. Both moves are justified in market terms, but are sure to rile the American lobby.
On the other hand, President Trump might decide to ignore whatever advice he gets from Chao and let things carry on as before. His immigration ban — which does not apply to nationals of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar and Saudi Arabia — is a signal that he can be selective in his policy toward the Middle East, especially when there are Trump business interests at stake.
Gulf airline officials I have talked to recently say they have no idea which way the Open Skies dispute will turn out. But I suspect that now they are fearing, and planning for, the worst.
----
• Frank Kane is an award-winning business journalist based in Dubai.
Source: arabnews.com/node/1047876
----
Canada Was First To Try To Muzzle Scientists And Fail
By Andrew Mitrovica
Facts are fast becoming an endangered species.
As anyone with functioning synapses knows, facts and, more particularly, the literate people that produce them, are considered public enemy No 1 by an illiterate president who watches TV obsessively and boasts of not reading books, including, presumably, the turgid, self-aggrandising tomes he paid others to pen for him.
Donald Trump confirmed long ago that he prefers to inhabit an agreeable alternate universe where "alternative facts" that defy logic, rationality and, in many cases, the immutable laws of nature, are perpetually manufactured by his courtiers to comfort and calm the combustible psyche of the President of the United States.
And so it was after Trump's sparsely attended inauguration where the National Mall and nearby viewing stands resembled an abandoned suburban shopping mall early on a Monday morning, he had yet another tantrum.
'Alternative Facts'
Reportedly, an apoplectic Trump ordered his marionette turned press secretary, Sean Spicer, to gather up his alternative facts and humiliate himself by raging at his blessedly brief maiden "press conference" that the inauguration was the most-watched in alternate universe history.
Everyone laughed, while The New York Times rightly dismissed Spicer's angry, sputtering performance as a pack of lies. Infuriated, Trump devoted much of his first official day as the "leader of the free world", pressuring the acting head of the National Park Service to produce alternate photographs - that didn't exist - to prove a lie.
Of course, since that was impossible, Trump did the next best thing; his regime retaliated and temporarily closed the National Park Service's Twitter account when it posted two photographs - one of Obama's densely populated inauguration adjacent to Trump's relatively vacant one.
In reply to Trump's diktat, a brave, subversive soul posted a series of tweets on the Service's account which pointed out, in effect, that the Earth is well on the way to committing climate suicide.
The tweets were, no doubt, crafted as a factual rebuke of the climate-change dodos now running the US government. Alas, they soon evaporated into the electronic ether. Still, the point was made, widely noted and applauded.
As we know, Trump's media ban on an innocuous government agency would be the first of many. Next on the hit list were those - theoretically-speaking - fact-friendly scientists and bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Their intellectual crime was not only to search for, verify and share facts with the public, but also to underwrite other local scientists to search for, verify and share facts with the public about how, among other things, to clean up toxic spills and test for nasty, dangerous stuff lurking in groundwater.
Since searching for and sharing facts with Americans is anathema to the Trump administration's rule-by-fiat modus operandi, the career scientists and bureaucrats at the EPA were ordered to stop talking to the "opposition party" … no, not the Democrats, but those other supposedly fact-friendly degenerates in the press.
Canada's Science Gag Order
Watching these surreal events unfold in the US, I was reminded of the ultimately futile, destructive actions of a slightly more polished, but equally paranoid leader of another western democracy who shared Trump's preference for alternative facts over the objective truth - former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
Like Trump, Harper was crippled by insecurity and an irrational conviction that beyond a handful of loyal consiglieri, he was besieged by his mortal, political enemies - visible and invisible, burrowed well inside the bureaucracy. Turns out, Harper wasn't scared of his shadow, but rather scientists and their science.
Long before Trump appeared on the political horizon, Harper was not only banning government scientists from having any contact with the media, but, driven by a crass, petulant ideology, he and his compliant cabinet also set out to purge systematically the unfriendlies or, at the minimum, stifle their ability to share their work with anyone outside government.
This translated into a government-wide edict requiring scientists to endure a vetting process with more hurdles than a steeplechase simply to respond to even a routine query from the press that would inevitably, more often than not, go unanswered.
The intent of this sorry, cynical pantomime was clear: scientists don't serve the public, but the petty, parochial interests of a majority government that had little faith in or time for their science.
At first, the attendant "chill" had the desired effect. With neither access to the scientists, nor their science, reporters were increasingly unable to report on serious matters in the public interest, including government-produced studies charting the projected warming of the globe through to 2100.
But scientists are, by and large, a bright, inventive and independent-minded lot, not prone to saluting when politicians bark orders like drill sergeants.
One by one, Canadian scientists stepped out of anonymity into the unwelcomed spotlight to tell the truth about what was happening to them and the fate of their work at the behest a politician who thought he could imprison their brains and muzzle their mouths.
Harper miscalculated badly. Eventually, government scientists, supported by their international brethren, mobilised and demonstrated against a myopic politician and his corrosive, anti-democratic impulses.
Last October, millions of other Canadians finally and emphatically joined these courageous scientists to resist and reject an opaquely sinister authoritarian masquerading as a "democrat" who has quickly and happily disappeared into irrelevance.
Today, the US is confronting a similar, although, arguably, more pronounced and vile menace. If there is an overarching lesson to be learned from the Canadian experience, it may be this: an ignorant regime, led by a singularly ignorant man will use the blunt cudgel of retribution to cause deep harm and grievous damage to America's social, political, scientific and environmental fabric.
Like every other pestilence, however, this one will, in time, pass. Then, munificent Americans must set to work, together, to repair and rebuild after the storm as best they can.
In this endeavour, truth and knowledge must be their north star and citizens who subscribe to the transformative necessity and value of facts must be the shepherds out of darkness into enlightenment.
----
Andrew Mitrovica is an award-winning investigative reporter and journalism instructor.
Source: aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2017/01/canada-muzzle-scientists-fail-170131114444393.html
-----
Trump, Iran and Mixing Up the Issues
By Abdulrahman al-Rashed
1 February 2017
We have wasted many years without differentiating between Iran’s interests and our own interests and without differentiating between honest causes and fake ones. The Iranian regime has succeeded in exploiting our causes, such as the Palestinian cause, and other Arabs’ and Muslim causes, and has used them to achieve its aims.
Many could only comprehend this truth when it was too late and realized it after they saw Iran’s crimes in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Bahrain. We will see how Iran, and parties which are in its camp, repeat their acts and launch campaigns to confront the new administration in the United States and other governments which oppose them. Therefore, we must not mix up facts and interests. Let Iran and its friends fight on their own.
So what’s the aim of all these loud confrontations which the US President Donald Trump is involved in? I think his aim is to establish presidential popularity to confront his rivals – and there are many – in the media, the Democratic Party, the Congress and others.
For instance, due to citizens’ complaints that foreigners are taking their jobs, he decided to build a wall with the country’s neighbour Mexico to prevent illegal immigration of more than 700,000 people a year. Since there are worries of terrorism, he banned the citizens of seven Islamic countries, where there is chaos and terror, from entering the US for three months. Since labor unions oppose American companies which open their factories outside the US, he pledged he will impose fines on their imported goods.
In order to convince those who criticize government contracts that he is against corruption, he returned two major contracts for review. One of these contracts is for building his presidential airplane. Since there are conservative people who are against abortion, he ordered to suspend government spending on abortions, and so on.
Not Against Muslims
We cannot say Trump is against Muslims. Proof to that is he is building a wall to prevent the illegal immigration of Mexicans who are mostly Christians. He promised he will deport illegal residents in the US and they are more than 11 million, most of whom are not Muslims. From among 57 Muslim countries, Trump only imposed a travel ban on seven of them because there are wars, unrest and a weak central authority there.
Most countries stall granting visas to these countries’ residents because there is no central authority they can coordinate with on the security level. Terrorism is not limited to these countries as there is terrorism in countries in central Asia.
There is terrorism in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and other Muslim countries. There is even terrorism in western countries like Belgium, France, Italy and others. The reason Trump banned these seven countries from traveling to the US is because there are no central governments and security apparatuses which they can coordinate with and thus decrease threats.
Trump’s battle is not with Muslims or Mexicans but it’s with the American street. Trump feels that he made promises to his voters and he will try and keep up most of these promises which people elected him for. Despite his insistence, he may not win his battles as a result of popular protests and due to legal obstructions. In all cases, this is an internal American affair.
The US is the country which benefitted from migrants, refugees and naturalized citizens the most. It even benefitted from illegal residents in managing its economy, which is a major force in the world. The American experience of containing others has become inspiring for many countries which seek economic competition. These countries have altered their standards which are now relevant to the gains and benefits which laborers bring to the state and the market.
It is normal for those who are unemployed or who are less fortunate in the society to reject these foreigners. This happens in all societies due to competition for job opportunities and tussle among political parties which use these issues in their electoral campaigns, like Trump did.
The new enthusiastic president with all the power he has will not be able to prevent terrorism or to deport all illegal residents or to prevent people from illegally entering the US through Mexico. However, he will try to achieve whatever he can inside the US.
The same goes to his work on the foreign level as he will not win all his battles. Perhaps the most important of his decisions is not cooperating with Iran. This will anger Tehran which will direct its puppets in Gaza, Iraq, Syria and Yemen and extremist groups which falsely operate under the name of Islam against him.
----
Abdulrahman al-Rashed is the former General Manager of Al Arabiya News Channel. A veteran and internationally acclaimed journalist, he is a former editor-in-chief of the London-based leading Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat, where he still regularly writes a political column. He has also served as the editor of Asharq al-Awsat’s sister publication, al-Majalla. Throughout his career, Rashed has interviewed several world leaders, with his articles garnering worldwide recognition, and he has successfully led Al Arabiya to the highly regarded, thriving and influential position it is in today.
Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2017/02/01/Trump-Iran-and-mixing-up-the-issues.html
----
Trump Presidency Should Stimulate US Civil Society
By Mohammed Nosseir
1 February 2017
Many people worldwide were shocked when Donald Trump was elected US president. People who habitually advocate thinking outside the box were probably astonished to see a president emerge from outside the political arena, which has dominated nearly all American presidencies. Trump’s presidency invalidates any kind of political sensibility.
The adoption of a moderate, reasonable approach to our global challenges has proven to be an ineffective US policy that people who believe in liberal democracy have been trying to advocate for years.
Apart from blind Democratic or Republican party loyalists, a large segment of American society decided, quite contentedly, to vote for Trump. These citizens were won over by his ideas and policies, period. Apparently unhappy with the “politics-as-usual” tactics that established American politicians have been applying for decades, they decided to bring in a business tycoon who knows nothing about politics.
US politics is known as a tale of sin and virtue. Bringing Trump to power will highlight the country’s sinful policies, making them more bold and obvious, to the detriment of its traditional sugar-coated policies. Trump, who is driving the US toward more racism and ignorance, constitutes a very real challenge for Americans. Efforts to expand liberal values should be multiplied substantially, simply to offset Trump’s impact.
Despite heavy criticism of him from the moment he became a presidential candidate, the US media (once recognized as a fundamental player in manipulating citizens in the country and worldwide) failed drastically to persuade Americans of Trump’s shortcomings.
A large portion of society probably saw the media as a biased entity that does not convey the truth — which it does not. The US media should thus re-examine its ethical role and impact on citizens.
People who believe strongly in liberal values should not only recognize their defeats, but come up with new ideas and a more functional structure to promote their beliefs. Trump will not be able to change the world or the US political dynamic. This can only be achieved via a strong advocating mechanism, not by a single person, even if that person is the US president. An important potential advantage of Trump’s presidency is that it may motivate American civil society to strengthen its role.
By realizing his presidential campaign promises that are full of racism and hatred, Trump is, in a way, helping the world become a better place. Building a wall on the border with Mexico and prohibiting citizens of certain Muslim-majority countries from entering the US are clearly prejudicial policies. Nevertheless, they should serve to vitalize Americans who reject Trump’s political stances, prompting them to promote their liberal and moral values more energetically.
Being the legitimate US president will not automatically empower Trump to be a world leader. Eventually, Americans will either intensify their endorsement of him or reinforce the role of civil society.
People who fervently believe in democratic values, especially those currently in powers, should extend their efforts beyond rhetoric. Advocates of liberal democracy should explain to citizens the consequences of his policies.
• Mohammed Nosseir, a liberal politician from Egypt, is a strong advocate of political participation and economic freedom. He can be reached on Twitter @MohammedNosseir.
Source: arabnews.com/node/1047846
---
Trump Wall Awakens Mexican Patriotism
By Yemeli Ortega
Mexicans are replacing profile pictures on social media with their country’s flag. Others are calling for boycotts of American products like Coca-Cola and Starbucks.
US President Donald Trump’s vow to make Mexicans pay for a massive border wall has not only caused a diplomatic row, it has sparked patriotic fervor south of the border.
On Twitter, Facebook and Instagram, people are using the hashtag #WeAreAllMexico, punctuating anti-Trump tweets with cries of “Viva Mexico!” and boasting that they live in “the best country in the world.”
President Enrique Pena Nieto’s spokesman, his foreign and finance ministers, and government departments have made the country’s green, white and red flag their profile photo on Twitter.
Telecommunications magnate Carlos Slim, the world’s fourth richest man, called a rare news conference to express his “great pleasure” at the burst of national pride and support for the president, even though Pena Nieto’s economic reforms have chipped away at the billionaire’s telephone empire.
“This is the most surprising display of national unity that I have seen in my life,” Slim said, urging Mexicans to support Pena Nieto’s negotiations with the US administration. Pena Nieto, whose popularity fell to 12 percent earlier in January after protests erupted over an increase in gasoline prices, has seized on the renewed patriotic pride.
In a video message late Monday, he touted this “national unity” and said it “must be the cornerstone of our strategy and our actions inside and outside the country.”
He boasted: “Today like never before, I feel proud to be Mexican.”
Pena Nieto vowed to be firm in his defense of Mexico’s “dignity and independence” from the US government, though he said that his phone conversation with Trump on Friday “opened spaces” for the two governments to continue their dialogue.
Jesus Velasco, an expert on US-Mexico relations at Tarleton State University in Texas, said that fixing ties “will take a while” because “the damage has been done.”
Mexicans praised Pena Nieto for canceling a meeting with Trump in Washington scheduled for this week, after the US president ordered the construction of the wall and insisted that Mexico pay for it.
Opposition leaders rallied behind Pena Nieto and even his longtime rival, two-time leftist presidential election runnerup Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, applauded the move.
But Pena Nieto’s popularity appears to have had a limited bounce.
An opinion poll published in the daily Excelsior on Tuesday showed his approval rating rising by a handful of points to 16 percent – though the survey was conducted only among 400 Mexicans and had a five-point margin of error.
“Mexico tends to be a nationalist country when it is attacked from outside,” said Damaso Morales, a foreign relations expert at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. “Throughout our history, we have wrapped ourselves in the flag and thrown ourselves into a nationalism that could even be irrational,” Morales said.
But Javier Oliva, a Mexican political and security expert at the London School of Economics, said Mexico’s nationalism is merely “reactive” and does not pose a threat.
“One of the things that we have to thank Trump for is that the world now knows where Mexico is,” Oliva said. – AFP
Source: saudigazette.com.sa/opinion/trump-wall-awakens-mexican-patriotism/
URL: https://newageislam.com/middle-east-press/quebec-mosque-shooting-happened-new/d/109920