WLUML invites short reflective articles for our forthcoming newsletter

Submitted by wluml on Tue, 06/12/2007 - 23:00

Source:

WLUML

Are you an emerging activist, researcher or networker? Tell us what you're doing! The deadline is 3 July, 2007.

WLUML is inviting short personal reflections for our forthcoming newsletter (Issue 4, July 2007) from networkers, activists, researchers and students.

Articles should be submitted by 3 July 2007 on one of the following topics:

(1) How do you, in the course of activism and research in your respective contexts, deal with charges of ‘disloyalty’ to your country, religion, government and/or culture when criticising or questioning specific aspects of prevailing laws and practices? While we do not anticipate this being the experience of all networkers and activists, some may find that they frequently have to justify themselves against allegations that they are being disloyal by exposing human rights violations where they see them. This may be particularly pertinent in situations where, for example, activists defend the rights of religious minorities in their country against attacks or intimidation. Others may find they are accused of playing into the hands of ‘outsiders’ and ‘Islamophobes’. What have your experiences been?

(2) How we clothe ourselves each day depends on many factors including: personal choice, familial expectations, occupation, state regulations, religious denomination, prevailing customs, age, gender and marital status. Currently, the issue of headscarves and face veils have been hotly debated in courts, in the media, and amongst individuals. To what extent do you see the politics of clothing impacting upon your daily life? How do issues of dress and veiling affect your activism?

(3) Reflecting on the first half of 2007, what would you say have been the most pressing issues facing women in your community, city, country, or region? How have you responded to the challenges faced and what are the major obstacles or successes you have encountered?

Some guidelines

* Each short piece should be maximum 400 words in length (about 1 page single-spaced).

* Entries must be submitted by 3 July 2007 to pubs@wluml.org. The subject line should read: REFLECTIONS

* Any photographs of yourself, for example at recent events or conferences, are also welcome though not required.

* You might begin the piece with a brief introduction about yourself and your work. Use a few specific examples to illustrate your point.

* This is a personal reflection not a report, so the language can be relatively informal and can edited for grammar.

Related info/URLs:

Example

Below is an excerpt from Pakistani political analyst Dr. Ayesha Siddiqa’s response to the detention of Haleh Esfandiari in Iran. Siddiqa has faced opposition to the recent publication of her book, Military Inc.: Inside Pakistan's Military Economy, and has been accused by the Pakistani government of violating the constitution.

In her article "In defence of the pen", Dr. Ayesha Siddiqa writes:

“Research is not just based on experience or how one feels about an issue — it is about scientifically analysing material. What Haleh [Esfandiari] had done in her work, much to the displeasure of those in power in Iran, was to present an alternative view of her country, a picture of women whose lives the revolution has changed for the worse. My study, on the other hand, looks inside the power of the military and how it affects our everyday life and the future of Pakistan.

Haleh’s and mine are two perspectives but not the only ones. Social, economic and political growth (and development) in a country depends on the presentation and consideration of multiple views. […] What researchers and scholars do is to present an analysis and leave the rest to the people.

It was my understanding of what was my duty as a researcher that I consciously chose not to hold the emergency launch of my book on the stairs of the Supreme Court which had been offered by friends as an alternative. My decision was based on the understanding of my place in the larger scheme of things. My book is an academic venture which must be treated as such — no more, nor less.

However, as I mentioned earlier the powers that be are not amused by the contents of the work and pressure continues to be exerted on me. Like many others, I am being accused of violating the constitution. How might they have arrived at such a conclusion is beyond me. The 1973 Constitution gives me the right of expression and to present my analysis. What I have written does not violate the constitution or legal norms of the land.

I must confess, though, to one error: of saying that my religion is not the military or any other institution of the state. The armed forces, like other institutions in the country, are man-made and, hence, can be evaluated. In fact, it is the president, his generals and his cronies who are trying to turn the military into a matter of religion and faith which cannot be questioned. It was interesting to hear the information minister say that people could criticise the government but not the military and the judiciary. It is the same principle on which the national accountability ordinance is based.

The problem, unfortunately, with issues of faith and religion is that any outside argument then becomes sacrilegious. The faithful become blinded to the larger argument that there is always be the possibility of presenting more than one view.”

Source: Daily Times, 4 June 2007