The House of representative Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, which is chaired by James McGovern (D - MA) with ranking republican congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA), will hold a hearing on human rights and religious freedom in Morocco on Thursday June 17th, 2010.
The hearing will be open to the press and the public. The reason for the hearings, according to the commission, is the deportation of approximately 40 American citizens and scores of other foreign nationals on charges of proselytism, thus “it has raised serious concerns about the status of religious freedom in Morocco”.
The individuals deported, according to a statement from the commission, ran a wide array of humanitarian organizations, which provided services vital to the community. One of the organizations targeted was the Village of Hope, an orphanage that takes in children that have been abandoned by their parents.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
US Congress Investigates Moroccan Expulsions
Frank Wolf will be leading U.S. Congressional hearings into the recent deportations from Morocco:
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Scenes From Morocco: El Hedim
El Hedim, Meknes' main plaza, is located in the old city across from the gigantic gate Bab Mansour.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Scenes From Morocco: Construction Workers
These guys accosted me from a few stories up. They got a real kick out of the fact that I spoke Arabic.
The Gaza Flotilla Seen From Morocco
As in much of the world the intercepted Gaza-bound "Peace Flotilla" has also been in the news in Morocco the past few days.
The first time I heard about the event, I didn't really understand what was going on. As I was leaving the cafe in the morning, one of the waiters approached me and started talking to me quickly. All I could understand was the word "Israel". He kept motioning towards the TV, where Al-Jazeera news plays non-stop except when soccer games are on. He didn't seem happy, but that's about all I could gather.
Only when I returned home and read the news online did I realize what had happened. Israel had boarded a ship in international waters and killed a number of activists who were trying to break Israel's blockade of Gaza in order to deliver humanitarian supplies. The following coverage of the event from sources on three continents has been interesting.
Some American sources are reflexively pro-Israel to an extreme, and some American and European coverage was quite balanced. I suppose it goes without saying that Arab media is reflexively pro-Palestine. However, the coverage by Al-Jazeera has been in general quite good. They had reporters aboard the flotilla and were able to give a perspective other news organizations couldn't. Of course, on the other hand, they were also confused about the legality of boarding a ship trying to break a blockade in international waters.
Naturally, people who only view one source of media are convinced everyone else is misled. When I spoke with the same waiter a few days later, I explained that I didn't understand what he was referring to when we first spoke, but that since I had read much about the subject. His first question was a suspicious one: "But from American news?" I told him I read a little from a number of sources and he seemed slightly more satisfied.
The general perception here tends to be that American (and to a lesser extent European) media is controlled by Jews and gives a biased picture of the Middle East. Without getting into conspiracy theories, I will concede that, for whatever reason, you are much more likely to see scenes of Palestinian suffering in the Arab media than you are in the United States. And the lack of such stark imagery does have its effect. Most Americans in their support of the much persecuted Jews fail to realize the plight of the Palestinians.
In one of my classes, we were studying passive modal statements ("...should be done...", "...must be established...") So I asked my students to propose what should be done in response to Israel's raid. The responses were tepid at best. My Moroccan students, like much of the Arab world, are disgusted with the impotence of Arab governments and world deliberative bodies to do anything to relieve the suffering of Palestinians. So while they had a very strong moral outrage at the events, their answers lacked an earnest belief that anything they proposed could actually happen.
As is usual, I just let them speak, correcting their grammar errors. But at the end one student asked me what I thought. I hesitated at first, but then I explained my view. I pointed out that I thought Israel's response was disproportionate and politically counter-productive, but that the activists had attacked the Israeli soldiers--they were not Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr.'s by any stretch of the imagination. I also tried to draw attention to the issue of the blockade itself. If you admit that Israel has a right to keep Hamas from getting any sort of building materials because they can be used for purposes of war, then Israel clearly can stop boats. That's what a blockade is all about. However, if the blockade is unjust (and it does keep an awful lot of things out of Gaza that Palestinians could use for non-military purposes), then breaking the blockade is morally permissible and then we can start talking about the way it should be done. My students didn't seem to agree. They were pretty sure anything the Israeli military did was unequivocally wrong. Eventually I had to just cut off the discussion and move on to a boring grammar exercise.
This event had personal ramifications for some Moroccans. One of the teachers at the center had a brother-in-law aboard another ship of the flotilla. A handful of other Moroccans were on board and were received back in Morocco later in the week with a hero's welcome.
On Thursday, a noisy march a few streets away disrupted my night class. The only other time I had heard such a din was after soccer games. I asked my students what was up and they told me it was a march in support of the Palestinians. I nodded my head and continued my regularly planned lesson.
The first time I heard about the event, I didn't really understand what was going on. As I was leaving the cafe in the morning, one of the waiters approached me and started talking to me quickly. All I could understand was the word "Israel". He kept motioning towards the TV, where Al-Jazeera news plays non-stop except when soccer games are on. He didn't seem happy, but that's about all I could gather.
Only when I returned home and read the news online did I realize what had happened. Israel had boarded a ship in international waters and killed a number of activists who were trying to break Israel's blockade of Gaza in order to deliver humanitarian supplies. The following coverage of the event from sources on three continents has been interesting.
Some American sources are reflexively pro-Israel to an extreme, and some American and European coverage was quite balanced. I suppose it goes without saying that Arab media is reflexively pro-Palestine. However, the coverage by Al-Jazeera has been in general quite good. They had reporters aboard the flotilla and were able to give a perspective other news organizations couldn't. Of course, on the other hand, they were also confused about the legality of boarding a ship trying to break a blockade in international waters.
Naturally, people who only view one source of media are convinced everyone else is misled. When I spoke with the same waiter a few days later, I explained that I didn't understand what he was referring to when we first spoke, but that since I had read much about the subject. His first question was a suspicious one: "But from American news?" I told him I read a little from a number of sources and he seemed slightly more satisfied.
The general perception here tends to be that American (and to a lesser extent European) media is controlled by Jews and gives a biased picture of the Middle East. Without getting into conspiracy theories, I will concede that, for whatever reason, you are much more likely to see scenes of Palestinian suffering in the Arab media than you are in the United States. And the lack of such stark imagery does have its effect. Most Americans in their support of the much persecuted Jews fail to realize the plight of the Palestinians.
In one of my classes, we were studying passive modal statements ("...should be done...", "...must be established...") So I asked my students to propose what should be done in response to Israel's raid. The responses were tepid at best. My Moroccan students, like much of the Arab world, are disgusted with the impotence of Arab governments and world deliberative bodies to do anything to relieve the suffering of Palestinians. So while they had a very strong moral outrage at the events, their answers lacked an earnest belief that anything they proposed could actually happen.
As is usual, I just let them speak, correcting their grammar errors. But at the end one student asked me what I thought. I hesitated at first, but then I explained my view. I pointed out that I thought Israel's response was disproportionate and politically counter-productive, but that the activists had attacked the Israeli soldiers--they were not Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr.'s by any stretch of the imagination. I also tried to draw attention to the issue of the blockade itself. If you admit that Israel has a right to keep Hamas from getting any sort of building materials because they can be used for purposes of war, then Israel clearly can stop boats. That's what a blockade is all about. However, if the blockade is unjust (and it does keep an awful lot of things out of Gaza that Palestinians could use for non-military purposes), then breaking the blockade is morally permissible and then we can start talking about the way it should be done. My students didn't seem to agree. They were pretty sure anything the Israeli military did was unequivocally wrong. Eventually I had to just cut off the discussion and move on to a boring grammar exercise.
This event had personal ramifications for some Moroccans. One of the teachers at the center had a brother-in-law aboard another ship of the flotilla. A handful of other Moroccans were on board and were received back in Morocco later in the week with a hero's welcome.
On Thursday, a noisy march a few streets away disrupted my night class. The only other time I had heard such a din was after soccer games. I asked my students what was up and they told me it was a march in support of the Palestinians. I nodded my head and continued my regularly planned lesson.
Friday, June 4, 2010
I Live In A Partly Free Country
According to Freedom House, Morocco is a "Partly Free" country. It joins a handful of countries such as Lebanon, Kuwait, and Yemen (!?) as the only Arab countries not classified as "Not Free".
The report covers a large number of topics. Here is the paragraph on religious liberty:
The report covers a large number of topics. Here is the paragraph on religious liberty:
Nearly all Moroccans are Muslims, but the small Jewish community is permitted to practice its faith without government interference. However, Moroccan authorities are growing increasingly intolerant of social and religious diversity as reflected in arrest campaigns against Shiites and Muslim converts to Christianity. Authorities have also detained several members of the Moroccan Alternative Movement for Individual Freedoms for planning a public “picnic” during the month of Ramadan to protest against the law that forbids eating during fasting hours. While university campuses generally provide a space for open discussion, professors practice self-censorship when dealing with sensitive topics like Western Sahara, the monarchy, and Islam.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Scenes From Morocco: Our Former View
The view of the old medina from our apartment has recently been obscured by a new building.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Expulsion vs. Proceedings
In light of recent events, I should rethink my criticism of the Moroccan government.
Two months ago, I wrote about the expulsion of Christian orphanage families:
Well, as it turns out, Morocco is not the only country that expels non-citizens rather than giving them a hearing in court. Other countries curtail the right of non-citizens to defend themselves and deprive them of a fear hearing on what they have done. Italy recently expelled two Moroccans under those same circumstances.
Both stories have received little news coverage. Morocco's first major expulsions of foreigners in March raised some media awareness, but quickly died down. But the government has learned its lesson and has continued the expulsions more discretely. The case of the Italian expulsions of Moroccans has also received little media exposure as GetReligion points out.
The one major difference between the two sets of expulsions: the expelled Moroccans were attempting to obtain explosives to blow up the pope, the expelled foreigners from Morocco were Christians trying to take care of orphans.
Two months ago, I wrote about the expulsion of Christian orphanage families:
It is becoming clearer and clearer that the serious issue in this case is due process of law. The laws were not consistently applied, and excessively severe measures were taken. If there had been consistent standards throughout the process, either The Village of Hope would not have been allowed to be established in the first place or certain activities would have been curtailed since the refounding of the orphanage over 10 years ago. Furthermore, if there had been due process of law, the families would have been allowed a hearing in a court of law or in a real public forum before their deportation.
Well, as it turns out, Morocco is not the only country that expels non-citizens rather than giving them a hearing in court. Other countries curtail the right of non-citizens to defend themselves and deprive them of a fear hearing on what they have done. Italy recently expelled two Moroccans under those same circumstances.
Both stories have received little news coverage. Morocco's first major expulsions of foreigners in March raised some media awareness, but quickly died down. But the government has learned its lesson and has continued the expulsions more discretely. The case of the Italian expulsions of Moroccans has also received little media exposure as GetReligion points out.
The one major difference between the two sets of expulsions: the expelled Moroccans were attempting to obtain explosives to blow up the pope, the expelled foreigners from Morocco were Christians trying to take care of orphans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
