going to moscow - still trying

We should all enjoy the right to question and try to understand the very basic principals and common point of any society we live in, given if it’s given to us which is the case in democracies.
Role of law, civil institutions and philanthropic organization are to ensure these rights for us. But they are not to hinder our perception of society and very same values they promote.
If we are offended or we think our rights has been violated we could undertake endeavors to know why without necessarily filing petition against the perpetrator in one of the above institutions.
But the trend seems to be changing, increasing, the right to creativity is being undermined by strong institutions with bias mandates. Their pre-established system procedure is assumed to be applicable to all situations, if not they make it applicable. Most of these pre-established system procedures (Pre-ESP) is imported from academia with high level of intellectual capacity and is not well understood by implementers at local levels. This in a way is counter productive and breaches conscious citizens’ right of creativity and freedom of investigation.
Creativity is not necessarily about bringing about new way, solution or method, but it’s also about self-expression and new artisitic way of perception.

Psychological experiments in the fields of motivation and learning have disclosed the power of novelty as an inducement to action. Lack of novelty or the inability to cease them at a point of time in the hope of perfectionism will lead to inaction.

Microcosm of society stimulates the tension between the establishment and maintenance of structural constancies and the interruption of achieved equilibria in the interest of new possibilities of experience. This doesn’t mean that new possibilities meet resistance; it’s simple the character of an healthy evolvement of the society.

judith's thought

PRECONDITIONS:

A: Person X is from Afghanistan

B: Person X applies for a Visa to Russia

C: Person X is refused to get a VISA

QUESTION:

Why does Person X get no VISA?
 Circumstances?
o 1. Lack of necessary documents
o 2. No allowment for people of this origin
o 3. A special case/special circumstances of that person make it impossible to give a VISA (e.g. criminal past…)
o 4. Arbitrary treatment/decision-making by institutions or/and individuals

Solutions/Approaches:

To 1.) provide all needed documents
 partly in applicants responsibility
 partly applicants dependence on others
(analog: Why does Person X does not get the required documents? -> Circumstances…)


To 3.) Person X is probably incapable of changing anything about this decision (in case
his special preconditions are proven and acknowledged [by ?])



Number 2 (???) and 4 go together considering their absence of valid and internationally acknowledged rules in the determination of the reasonable neglection of VISA:

To 2. and 4.) Person X can look for judicial opportunities to
claim his rights
 possible institutions/judicial background:
o human rights
o court of justice (international context)
o UNO?


Precondition:

1. Person X is from Afghanistan

2. Person X is refused to get a VISA for Russia

3. The refusal is not based on any reasonable or internationally acknowledged basis.

Question:

Why Person X is refused to get a VISA?
 Circumstances?
o Individual decision
o Inofficial set of rules
o Bureaucratic structures


Approach (not solution!):

The level of individual
The level of institutional
Both intertwined?

Both levels base their decisions on the same criteria as racism does?

The determination of the human individual and its qualities and weaknesses
through their origin, their appearance, their language.

Within this framework the individual does not even have the right or the
opportunity to proof its individuality.

The result is the stigmatization of a certain group of people who are described as
having decisive aspects in common, such could be religion, ideology, thinking,
same solutions for conflicts, goals, world view etc.

Through this the individual is no longer acknowlegded as such. It is dissolved in
stereotypes, which is in fact other people’s ideas of the group the individual is
associated with.

Going to Moscow

I want to go to Moscow for Easter holidays, and I didn’t want to question the perception of individuals who didn’t give me equal treatment as well as organizational bureaucratic systems which promotes racial profiling. But things are not easy; it’s not just like getting a visa and going there.
Young friends at the university who are hard working and pluralistic and don’t have a single image of issues and narrowly defined stereotypes understands the concept of how Moscow could be fun for me.
But individuals who are burden by organizational processes and has predefined image of me provided by stereotype can’t understand why I go to Moscow. They question my sense of adventure and enjoyment.

I am filming the perception of people. The different faces of their perception and how different and the same they are.
These are so abstract concepts. My interviews with the people translate these abstract concepts by building their relationship to my daily life. You’ll see how I am getting increasingly vulnerable to human rights violations and marginalization. Specifically you’ll see here in this documentary what kind of challenges an individual faces when he wants to travel.

Stereotypical image of me by media, HR organization and governments PR is not my reality. This is the reality made by some person some where who doesn’t know me. It’s setting expectations, and a lot of the time we don’t do as expected. I might not do what it’s expected of me, but thousands of people who are potential receipiant will expect me to do this. this expectation is reflected in stereotyping. information builds a negative stereotype. No information will build a neutral stereotype if not positive.

There is a two layer of the issue. The tangible and intangible part of the issue. The tangible is about the visa. I can’t get a visa. I will use available means. The second part is intangible part of the issue.
It’s about a person. Who wants to travel, this person wants to be anyone, but he can’t, he can only be the one who he is perceived to be by the people in the society. Majority perceive me through a generalized image of stereotypes.
Majority’s image of me affects my life.

This confidence and ignorance is projected in stereotyping. We all live in stereotypes. I am not going to bore you out with bla bla reasons of why we live in them, but I will see how people project them on me as an individual which is not part of their society. The stereotype is an image: built of excessive information from the media being over simplified and individuals encounter and experiences. The stereotypes build confidence in individual and help one to think less and react natural with an unknown person or situation.
The media, the governments and the international organizations is helping individual build a stereotypical image of a Muslim who has pre-existing feelings of resentment and frustration; and the current conflict and social segregation exacerbates it and erodes their confidence in the authorities and any established system and they are at the prevailingly supporting organizations that advocate violent methods to protest injustices suffered by Muslims, including terrorism.
Human right organizations warn the majority population that experiences of discrimination and exclusion may result in Muslims adopting behaviors that further underscore their segregation in relation to the majority population. This warning in itself leaves no other option for the majority than to perceive any Muslim as a treat.
I have been to various organizations such as media outlets, HR organizations and university, the people who disseminate information or heavily depend on information to prove the point such as Amnesty international, to disagree about their coverage. Their coverage contributes to build stereotypes, and like most of contemporary stereo types these are negative image in the European public and they also predicts a stereo typical reaction of the Muslims.

the cartoon crisis

The number of deads rose to eleven in Afghanistan today as the cartoon crisis spread to the southern part of the country.

The cartoons were originally published in a Danish paper, Jyllands-Posten, after Danish writer Kare Bluitgen complained he was unable to find an illustrator for his children's book about the Prophet, because no one wanted to break an Islamic tenet banning the portrayal of his image.

I believe there have been more reasons to publishing the cartoons than what Kare Buitgen has been saying. Why would the cartoons need to be published if it’s for children illustration in Denmark’s leading daily newspaper, is Denmark a nation of three year olds?!

I was reading some of the Muslim newspapers and weblogs in reaction to this incident and there were two reasons which were most commonly spread. The more extreme writers believed it’s another manifestation of Western–Christian hostility toward Islam. They claimed the western “Politicians and the media have a tendency to see Muslims only as criminal, anti-social elements and as potential rapists” This could be seen in the irony of the cartoons, where the media connects the most prominent Islamic character with backwardness, bomb and criminality.
The other reason was, it’s also connected with a lot of home issues which still remains unsolved in Europe, such as freedom of expression. The traditional European censorship comes to a dead end with the rise of right wing governments in power.
Twentieth century history of the Scandinavian countries has had a reputation for being peace-loving and harmless.
That might still be true. But the perception among millions of Muslims has changed; the cartoons are not only breaking the ban and insulting, but it’s also provocative and hostile. Many Scandinavian’s has realized that their reputation is at risk and latest figures shows that almost 80% of the Danes regret the action of Jylland Posten. Many Muslim governments have demanded an official apology from the Danish government, I believe if the Danish government responds positively that would make a big difference.
The polish daily Rzeczospolita decided to republish the cartoons the other day, following the lead of many other papers in France, Germany, and Norway. This is after Jyllands-Posten apology, which admitted that their right of free expression has insulted some other people.
This clearly means that Rzeczospolita realizes the reprint of Mohammad’s cartoon portray is a provocative action, but they still want to go ahead with it. This brings up a good scenario for the polish government; will they allow the cartoons to reinforce their commitment to western values at the cost of exacerbated relationship with the Muslim countries and Muslims inside Poland. Poland is especially interesting to picture in this crisis as it has deep rooted Catholicism tradition and it’s currently ruled by PiS, a socially conservative party who is more toward religious values.
The sentiment of the Scandinavians as very secular societies where religion has never been much important is understandable, but Poland is even more religious than ‘classical countries’ such as Italy. How would a very religious European country insult to another religion? Will Poland standby if Rzeczospolita publishes similar cartoons of Jesus.

The tenet banning of Mohammad’s portrayal in Afghanistan also led to an over exaggeration of the caricatures. No one knew what was originally drawn and this is where the rumors start. rumors of the picture which has gone around Kabul is more obscene.
But even if the presumed cartoons were published I believe violence and attacks are no way to go.
I wonder how would Mohammad (pbuh) reacted if he was around. It has been said he was a very tolerant person with a very good sense of humor, and if he could have understood the Danish sense of humor, he would have set a good precedent for a lot of his followers.

Freedom of expression and information access has been one of the deadliest phenomena since volatile peace has return to this country in 2002. Protests in May 2005 against the alleged insult to Quran in Guantinamo brought at least 15 causalities.

آيا اروپا واقعا به آزادی بيان اعتقاد دارد و آن را رعايت می کند؟ ... شايد اگر دقت کنيد، در ‌می‌ يابيد که برخورد اروپا و غرب با آزادی بيان مانند بسياری از برخوردهای ايرانيان، متناقض است و غرب در رفتار خود کاملا عمل متناقضی را از خود بروز می دهد.
بعنوان مثال، می‌توان به مساله‌ هولوکاست در غرب اشاره نمود. اينجانب هولوکاست را نفی نمی‌ کنم اما آيا اروپاييان برای ارايه نظرات مخالف خود پيرامون هولوکاست از آزادی بيان لازم برخوردارند؟
kazemzadeh.blogfa.com
نه محمد، ما سانسور نمی کنيم ... - همه چيز درباره آمريکای من - ۵ فوريه
... به نظر می آيد هربار "جهان اسلام" از چيزی رنجيده می شود، حتی چيزی خيلی کوچک، عکس العمل بسياری از آنان خشونت است. پرچم ها يا اشياء و حتی ساختمان ها را به آتش می کشند، غارت می کنند، انسان های بی گناه را می کشند و خواستار اعدام "توهين کنندگان" به باورهايشان می شوند.

تقدس و آزادی بيان - فرنگوپوليس - سيما شاخساری - ۳ فوريه
من فکر می کنم که مقوله هايی مثل "آزادی" و "دموکراسی" و "سکولاريسم" در دنيای امروزی ما شکل تقدس به خود گرفته اند. يعنی سکولاريسم در خود به مذهب تبديل شده و بعضی از حاميان آن تا حد بنيادگرايی هم می روند.
... و اين کارتون ها هم در مقطعی از تاريخ و در مکانی چاپ شده اند که جو ضد اسلام و مسلمانان باعث شده که مهاجران مسلمان مورد تبعيض و تنفر جوامعی که در آن زندگی می کنند قرار بگيرند. ... نمی شود تحت نام "آزادی بيان" خشونتی که اين کارتون ها در سطح ملی و فراملی به همراه دارند را ناديده گرفت.
... بنيادگرايی مذهبی، تصوير آيينه ای بنيادگرايی سکولار است. حالا خشونتش چه به اسم آزادی بيان باشد چه به اسم محمد، چه به اسم مسيح، چه به اسم شيوا، چه به اسم موسی.
farangeopolis.blogspot.com
کاريکاتورهای توهين آميز و جنگ هويت - مداد - حسين نوش آذر - ۳ فوريه
اعتراض يکپارچه و گسترده مسلمانان جهان به دولت دانمارک و تحريريه روزنامه "يولاندز پستن" نه تنها در اعتقادات مذهبی مسلمانان ريشه دارد، بلکه بيش از هر چيز از بحران هويتی نشان دارد که از شروع انقلاب اسلامی در ايران هر دم بر ابعاد آن افزوده می شود.
جنگ های اخير با ابعاد جهانی و فرا ملی در خاورميانه تنها جنگ ميان غرب و جهان اسلام نيست. اين جنگ ها، جنگ هويت است. مسلمانان استعمار شده در يکسو قرار دارند و مسيحيان و صهيونيست های استعمارگر در سوی ديگر.
www.medad.net/wpm
فرهنگ افراطی نرنجاندن - BuzzMachine - جف جارويس - ۵ فوريه
من اغلب از اين ناليده ام که آمريکا به فرهنگ نرنجاندن تبديل شده، جايی که هر چه ممکن است موجب رنجش کسی شود را نبايد گفت ...
... آيا ما نبايد بيشتر، از عکس العمل خشونت آميز در مخالفت با بيان يک عقيده ناراحت شويم تا از ابراز آن عقيده؟ آيا نبايد اين موضوع را بيان کنيم؟ ... آيا ما - دولت ها، ناشران، روزنامه نگاران، شهروندان - مرعوب خشونت شده ايم؟ ...
آيا روزنامه نگاران آمريکايی برای ابراز همبستگی با ناشران اروپايی بايد اين کاريکاتورها را منتشر می کردند؟ ... آيا اين تصاوير بخشی از داستان نيستند که برای فهميده شدن بايد به نمايش در می آمدند؟ آيا حقی برای ديدن آنها هست؟ آيا مسئوليتی روزنامه نگارانه که آنها را در گزارش ها نشان دهيم وجود ندارد؟
وقتی اهانت، به گناه و جرم تبديل می شود و موجبی برای مجازات و حتی خشونت، هيچ وقت مشخص نيست که خط قرمز کجاست؟ اما زمانی که ابر