Press Release

Metro Detroit – American Citizens for Justice (ACJ)/Asian American Justice Center and other Asian American organizations object to the U.S. Senate candidate Peter Hoekstra’s campaign ad “Debbie spend it now” which aired during the 2012 Super Bowl on Sunday Feb. 5th.  The ad shows a young Asian actress in broken English thanking U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow for China’s growing economy and blaming Senator Stabenow for U.S. government’s debt obligation to China.

Irresponsible political advertising, like Hoekstra’s ad, perpetuates negative stereotypes of minorities and creates anti-Chinese and anti-Asian sentiments in viewers.  Negative ads also turn back the progress we have made as a society over racial and social justice.  Back in 1982, during the recession, anti-Japanese sentiments led to the brutal beating death of Vincent Chin (a Chinese American) who was mistaken to be of Japanese descent.  Following the 9/11 attacks, misguided citizens shot and killed a Sikh gas station owner in Arizona in 2001. Resorting to blatant racial and ethnic messages violate the virtues of tolerance, threaten the civil rights of targeted minorities, and in this case threaten the safety and security of Asian Americans.

American Citizens for Justice president Prasanna Vengadam stated, “We should have political debate and discourse without resorting to fear of other ethnic groups, stereotyping and scapegoating.  Xenophobia has no place in public debate.”  “From 2000 to 2010, the Asian American community grew at the largest rate (34.9%) of all racial groups and continues to be a major contributor to the economy in Michigan” said Stephanie Gray-Chang, president of APIAVote MI.  In December 2011, 35 Asian Pacific American organizations in Michigan gathered at Council of Asian Pacific Americans’ (CAPA) annual Leadership Summit to strategize on revitalizing Michigan’s economy. 

ACJ and other supporting organizations ask candidate Hoekstra to issue an apology and withdraw his anti-Chinese ad and message from his campaign.  American Citizens for Justice is a nonprofit civil rights organization dedicated to serving the Asian Pacific American communities of Metro Detroit, Midwest and all Americans through education, outreach, and advocacy. ACJ began in 1983 with the baseball bat beating death of a 27-year old Chinese American Vincent Chin, and the ensuing civil rights case brought against his killers. 

Organizations in support of this press release:

Alliance for Immigration Rights and Reform (AIR)
Asian Pacific Islander American Vote Michigan (APIAVote MI)
Association of Chinese Americans (ACA)
Arab Community Center for Economic & Social Services (ACCESS)
Bangladeshi American Public Affairs Committee (BAPAC)
Bharatiya Cultural and Community Center (BCCC)
Chinese Association of Greater Detroit (CAGD)
Council of Asian Pacific Americans (CAPA)
Filipino American Community Council (Filamcco)
80/20 Intiative SE Michigan Chapter
International Institute of Metropolitan Detroit
Korean American Community Center of Michigan (KACCM)
Michigan Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights
Michigan Immigration Rights Center (MIRC)
Michigan Indian American Democratic Caucus (MIADC)
Philippine American Community Center of Michigan (PACCM) 
Sikh Foundation, Inc.
Thai American Association of Michigan (TAAM)

14-8

By Paul Krugman

Mitt Romney has a gift for words — self-destructive words. On Friday he did it again, telling the Conservative Political Action Conference that he was a “severely conservative governor.”

As Molly Ball of The Atlantic pointed out, Mr. Romney “described conservatism as if it were a disease.” Indeed. Mark Liberman, a linguistics professor at the University of Pennsylvania, provided a list of words that most commonly follow the adverb “severely”; the top five, in frequency of use, are disabled, depressed, ill, limited and injured.

That’s clearly not what Mr. Romney meant to convey. Yet if you look at the race for the G.O.P. presidential nomination, you have to wonder whether it was a Freudian slip. For something has clearly gone very wrong with modern American conservatism.

Start with Rick Santorum, who, according to Public Policy Polling, is the clear current favorite among usual Republican primary voters, running 15 points ahead of Mr. Romney. Anyone with an Internet connection is aware that Mr. Santorum is best known for 2003 remarks about homosexuality, incest and bestiality. But his strangeness runs deeper than that.

For example, last year Mr. Santorum made a point of defending the medieval Crusades against the “American left who hates Christendom.”

Historical issues aside (hey, what are a few massacres of infidels and Jews among friends?), what was this doing in a 21st-century campaign?

Nor is this only about sex and religion: he has also declared that climate change is a hoax, part of a “beautifully concocted scheme” on the part of “the left” to provide “an excuse for more government control of your life.” You may say that such conspiracy-theorizing is hardly unique to Mr. Santorum, but that’s the point: tinfoil hats have become a common, if not mandatory, G.O.P. fashion accessory.

Then there’s Ron Paul, who came in a strong second in Maine’s caucuses despite widespread publicity over such matters as the racist (and conspiracy-minded) newsletters published under his name in the 1990s and his declarations that both the Civil War and the Civil Rights Act were mistakes. Clearly, a large segment of his party’s base is comfortable with views one might have thought were on the extreme fringe.

Finally, there’s Mr. Romney, who will probably get the nomination despite his evident failure to make an emotional connection with, well, anyone. The truth, of course, is that he was not a “severely conservative” governor. His signature achievement was a health reform identical in all important respects to the national reform signed into law by President Obama four years later. And in a rational political world, his campaign would be centered on that achievement.

But Mr. Romney is seeking the Republican presidential nomination, and whatever his personal beliefs may really be — if, indeed, he believes anything other than that he should be president — he needs to win over primary voters who really are severely conservative in both his intended and unintended senses.

So he can’t run on his record in office. Nor was he trying very hard to run on his business career even before people began asking hard (and appropriate) questions about the nature of that career.

Instead, his stump speeches rely almost entirely on fantasies and fabrications designed to appeal to the delusions of the conservative base. No, President Obama isn’t someone who “began his presidency by apologizing for America,” as Mr. Romney declared, yet again, a week ago. But this “Four-Pinocchio Falsehood,” as the Washington Post Fact Checker puts it, is at the heart of the Romney campaign.

How did American conservatism end up so detached from, indeed at odds with, facts and rationality? For it was not always thus. After all, that health reform Mr. Romney wants us to forget followed a blueprint originally laid out at the Heritage Foundation!

My short answer is that the long-running con game of economic conservatives and the wealthy supporters they serve finally went bad.

For decades the G.O.P. has won elections by appealing to social and racial divisions, only to turn after each victory to deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthy — a process that reached its epitome when George W. Bush won re-election by posing as America’s defender against gay married terrorists, then announced that he had a mandate to privatize Social Security.

Over time, however, this strategy created a base that really believed in all the hokum — and now the party elite has lost control.

The point is that today’s dismal G.O.P. field — is there anyone who doesn’t consider it dismal? — is no accident. Economic conservatives played a cynical game, and now they’re facing the blowback, a party that suffers from “severe” conservatism in the worst way. And the malady may take many years to cure.

14-8

By MJ Rosenberg

These are strange times for those of us who follow the debate about a possible war with Iran. It is clear that the Israeli government and its neoconservative camp followers here in the United States are increasing pressure on President Obama to either attack Iran or let Israel do it (in which case, we would be forced to join in). But the idea of another Middle East war is so outlandish that it seems inconceivable it could actually occur.

Still the conventional wisdom holds that it can and the main reason is that this is an election year and no one will say no to Binyamin Netanyahu in an election year.

War enthusiasm will rise to a fever pitch by March, when AIPAC holds its annual policy conference. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will, if past example holds, bring the crowd of 10,000 to its feet by depicting Iran as the new Nazi Germany and by coming very close to stating that only war can stop these new Nazis. Other speakers will say the same. The few who mention the idea of diplomacy will be met by stony silence.

From the convention center, 10,000 delegates will be dispatched to Capitol Hill with two or three “asks” for Members of Congress. One will, no doubt, be that “containment” of a nuclearized Iran be ruled off the table (leaving war as the only remaining option should Iran get the bomb). Another will likely be that the U.S. stop all dealings with the Palestinian Authority should Hamas and Fatah permanently reconcile.

A third could apply either to Iran or Palestine and will, no doubt, demand fealty to whatever Netanyahu’s policy of the moment happens to be. I’ve sat in those meetings where the AIPAC “asks” are developed and it was always clear that the substance didn’t matter all that much.

The goal of the “asks” is ensuring that Congress follow the script.

Invariably at least one of these AIPAC goals will be put into legislative language and quickly pass both chambers of Congress. In fact, usually the “ask” is already in legislative form, so that the AIPAC citizen lobbyists can simply demand that their legislators sign on as co-sponsors (if they haven’t already done so). Once the AIPAC bill has the requisite number of co-sponsors, the House and Senate leadership brings it to the floor where it passes with few dissenters.

All hell breaks loose if a member of Congress objects.

One Member of Congress has actually described what happened when she voted no on an AIPAC “ask.” Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN) refused to support a bill (opposed by the State Department) that would have essentially banned all U.S. contacts with Palestinians. AIPAC was not pleased with her recalcitrance.

In a letter to AIPAC executive director, Howard Kohr, McCollum described what happened next. In short, she was threatened by an AIPAC official from her district, called a terrorist supporter and warned that her behavior “would not be tolerated.” In response, McCollum told AIPAC not to come near her office again until it apologized.

McCollum was not, of course, the only legislator threatened that way.

She is, however, the only one in memory who went public.

As one who worked on Capitol Hill for 20 years, I know that many, if not most, legislators who vote with AIPAC complain about its strong-arm tactics — but only in private. In fact, some of the most zealous defenders of Netanyahu and faithful devotees of the lobby complain most of all. Among staff, AIPAC’s arrival in their offices during the conference is a source of dread. Hill staff, much like legislators themselves, like to think they are perhaps a little important. AIPAC eliminates that illusion. Although AIPAC calls its requests “asks,” they are, in fact, “tells” and “no” is not a permissible response.

(Staffers who like AIPAC, and there are a few, tend to work with it hand-in-glove which is how AIPAC invariably knows what is going on even before the elected representatives do).

Despite all this, I do not think that either Netanyahu or his lobby is all that eager to go to war. After all, Israel’s intelligence community opposes it for a host of reasons starting with the fact that it would not eliminate Iran’s nuclear program. There is also the fear that Iran’s Hezbollah allies in Lebanon, on Israel’s northern border, have tens of thousands of missiles that they can let fly if Iran is attacked. Above all is the understanding that no one knows if an attack would make Israel safer or threaten its very existence.

So here’s a theory. Netanyahu and his camp followers here do not really want a war now. They just want it understood that they can dictate whether there is one or not. And when. In other words, they want to show who is boss (it’s not like we don’t know).

As for Obama, he may just be playing along with Netanyahu and AIPAC because he understands their strategy. Perhaps he knows that it isn’t war they want but the illusion of control.

Only, it’s not an illusion. And it certainly won’t be if Netanyahu gets the president he wants in November, a Republican who will fight the war Netanyahu wants but isn’t eager to fight himself. Surely Mitt or Rick or Newt will do it for him.

Follow MJ Rosenberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mjayrosenberg

14-8

Karin Friedemann, TMO

This week, I am unable to come up with any deep observations on politics, psychology or spirituality, because my daughter came home with lice. Those parents who have gone through this know how embarrassing, time consuming, and stressful it can be. I even got a second call from the school nurse telling me I didn’t do a good enough job picking out the nits. Both the nurse and my daughter’s kindergarten teacher spent time removing lice eggs from my daughter’s long, beautiful hair. I am grateful, and humbled.

I guess my eyes must be going bad, and the evening lighting in my apartment isn’t that bright, but I am truly doing the best I can. After shampooing myself and four children with the recommended medication and combing through everyone’s hair, I have been doing laundry around the clock for the past two days, losing sleep – all the while my youngest engages in “cute” antics like dumping corn starch all over the living room, peeing on the carpet, and well, you know what it’s like to have kids. This article is devoted to parents facing the stress of lice. As if we didn’t have enough to worry about.

I remember bursting into tears the fifth time my kids got lice from visiting their cousins in Queens. A nice Pakistani lady calmed me down reminding me it’s no big deal. It is often humiliating to be found with lice in your family, because lice is common in places where people have less access to running water. It is associated with being poor and dirty. However, lice are very happy to live in clean people’s homes too. Lice live on the scalp, sucking your blood. But they do not die from shampoo. So even if your children bathe frequently, they could get lice. If you are diligent about brushing your children’s hair often while looking closely at the scalp and each strand of hair as you comb through it, you might catch the lice sooner than if your kids’ hair stays braided or messy.

If you catch lice early, you will find white little bubbles about the size of a pencil dot sticking to shafts of hair near the scalp. You have to use your fingernails to slide the egg down the hair shaft and remove it. If lice goes on for a long time left untreated, you will find little crusty brown dots stuck to the scalp that require a fingernail dig to dislodge. In any case, as soon as you realize all these eggs are in your child’s hair you have to use the lice shampoo, and then manually search through every blade of hair. And wash your hands afterward of course. We might think: Who has the time for this???!!!

It is part of primate biology to be vulnerable to insect parasites, but God created biology with some interesting psychology mixed in! Monkeys and gorillas comb each others’ fur and pick out insects (and eat them) as a way of showing love and affection. They can sit together for hours, just exchanging their beingness with one another, providing a little gentle skin massage to their beloved in the process. I knew a woman whose husband had such fond memories of his mother searching his hair for lice while he lay his head on her lap, that he enjoyed his wife to pretend to look for lice as part of their mating ritual! That woman is now an elected official – so don’t let the fear of real or imagined lice hold you back.

It definitely takes a lot of love to pick nits out of someone’s hair. And a lot of time and patience. Single parents definitely face a challenge because there is no one around to comb through their hair, after they have combed through their children’s hair. Some barber shops will help out on the sly. But it is always a situation where you are begging someone for a serious favor!

Hazrat Ali said (something like) that he KNOWS there is a God, because every time he makes plans, something else could happen. You might have thought you were going to reorganize your recipe box this weekend. But instead, you are dealing with life. I mean, lice.

Karin Friedemann is a Boston-based freelance writer. Karinfriedemann.blogspot.com please comment!

By Oded Yaron

The hacker group “Anonymous” released a video Friday threatening to begin a ‘reign of terror’ against Israel, in the latest round of cyber warfare between pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli hackers.

The video, which was posted on YouTube in the early hours of the morning, blamed Israel for committing ‘crimes against humanity,’ and criticizing it for its treatment of Palestinians.

“Through the use of media deception and political bribery, you have amassed the sympathies of many. You claim to be democratic, yet in reality this is far from the truth. In fact, your only goal is to better the lives of a select few while carelessly trampling the liberties of the masses,” says the clip’s computer-generated narrator over ominous background music.

The video also makes reference to the possibility of an Israeli strike on Iran, claiming that Israel has “taken steps to ensure a nuclear holocaust,” and that it will not be allowed “to attack a sovereign country based upon a campaign of lies.”

Moreover, the video threatens to start a crusade against Israel that will take the form of three steps, only revealing that the first of these steps will attempt to systematically remove Israel from the internet.

It must be noted that, to date, not all of the group’s threats have been carried out. Anonymous has previously threatened to attack the Knesset website, although the site did not suffer any damage. Furthermore, due to the decentralized nature of the group, previous hacking threats on sites such as Facebook were later discovered to be the result of misunderstandings between members of the group.

Over the past month, pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli hackers have been battling in cyberspace. Starting on January 3, the hackers group, “Group-XP”, claimed it had obtained personal information of about 400,000 Israelis, but checks carried out by the credit card issuers and the Bank of Israel determined that the details of between 14,000 and 15,000 active cards had been exposed. According to Maglan Internet Defense Technologies, a total of 31,000 credit card numbers had been exposed in all, some of them belonging to foreign nationals.

Haaretz

14-8

I. The Arab “Spring”

By Geoffrey Cook, TMO

Richmond (Va.)–The title of this essay ends with the Roman numeral for three (III)since this is the narrator’s  third look at this subject, for it is a quickly changing subject, and, of course, your writer has modified his views considerably with the turning situation.  Also, because of this flux, it must remain in the “genre” of (hopefully) learned opinion.

At the moment the struggle for Arab Democracy in the west of Dar al Islam, which has partially (?) been successful, is termed the Arab “Spring.”  Your correspondent puts spring in parenthesis because the historical outcome is far from known.   So far, Tunisia seems to have the most chance for success while Egypt is still rioting against its interim military government.  Libya is a big question because of the festering sores of the Civil War.  Yemen has a good chance of a possibly “democratic” regime change, but tribal fractures there lead to many unanswered questions.  Although Syria is almost at Civil War, the former U.S. Ambassador to both Israel and Egypt — at different times, though, told your reporter that he did not believe that the Damascus Administration will fail.  It is noteworthy that those nations that the “Spring’s” success or potential success are republics and but none monarchies yet.  Could the last sentence have something to say to South Asia? 

In Tunisia and — so far — in the extended Egyptian elections, the Islamist Parties have or are dominating the new political landscape. (Of course, Turkey, whom [former Pakistani President] Pervez Musharraf had admired), has been led competently by an Islamist party for several years, and, in fact, is the only Islamic-majority NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization)nation; and, thus, integrated into Europe as well as an emerging regional hegemon, and has tolerably constructive — but recently deteriorating — relations with Tel Aviv.) 

The reaction of the Israelis is most important to the success or failure of Arab Democracy, and, conversely, the “Spring” should be a positive factor towards the liberation of the Occupied Territories.   Ominously, though, Tel Aviv has stated that a government formed by the Islamic Brotherhood would be totally unacceptable to them.  (This is ludicrous because the Brotherhood is a democratic Party, who wishes to put the moral principles of their religion into their policy and politics.)  Hopefully, Israel will react diplomatically rather than militarily, but the peace treaty with their neighbor on the African side of their border is further faltering.  This, also, is a big factor in whether more Arab mercenaries will enter into the AfPak and Kashmir theaters, or emigrate into the Abrahamic Holy Land to contest its future.

It is uncontestable that a “sea-change.” has subsumed much of Arab North Africa (the Maghreb and Egypt).  The three countries that have had successful outcomes so far are Tunisia, Egypt and Libya.  Libya, tragically, overcame their ancien regime through a bloody civil war.  Curiously, NATO’s air intervention was the determinate in that conflict.  (The United States and the United Kingdom had a grave grudge against the Khadafy regime [Lockerbie], and the rest of the EU [the European Union] wished to solidify its access to Tripoli’s oil.)  It is, also, a curiosity that NATO is across the Durand Line from Pakistan, and has had conflicts with the Pakistani Army over the conduct of their parallel Wars.  Is this meaningful, too?

Basically, your contributor ruminates that the gravest influence of the Arab “Spring” upon (Islamic) South Asia will be more strategic than political, for Radical contemporary (violent) Jihadism actually arose in the Middle East, and was initially directed against their own governments, and immigrated into the South Asian regions becoming international in scope.  If the Arab-Israeli crisis moves towards resolution along with succesful democratization of the indigenous Semitic lands, “fundamentalist” Arab mercenaries will be migrating into the AfPak and Kashmir Theaters because any populous support for them in the Arabic-speaking terrain will have disappeared with the advent of the success of the current unfolding transition.

Contemporary “violent” Jihad (versus the original theological Koranic concept of “inter-struggle”) — reasserted itself in the historically central terrain of the Muslim world as a reaction to the repressive modern Post-Colonial governments there.  It grew out of the Sunni Wahhabis which was developed theologically in Saudi Arabia, and arose to resist the European Colonial governments in the Nineteenth Century.  In the Twentieth Century a Takfir sect broke off from the (“fundamentalistic”) denomination of the Salafis developing into non-national entities; e.g., Al-Qaida which formed in the Middle East and moved to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets during the 1980s .

At first, the Revolutions from the Colonial oppressors during the 1950s-the1960s in the Middle East were highly influenced by the thinking of President Nasser of Egypt, who was Nationalistic and progressive in the Western sense, but did not give much respect to the Islamic religion itself.  Part of the uprising in the “Spring” is the assertion of traditional Islamic values!

Ultimately, the Arab ”Spring” might make South Asia less secure – especially Pakistan were its neighbor, Iran’s, nuclear ambition to counter the Israeli arsenal may eventually threaten Pakistan, boxing it in tandem with India.  Further, your researcher discovered an Israeli-Pakistani nuclear threat which he is revisiting to see if it still is in place since the end of Ariel Sharon’s (Hebrew) Prime Minister-ship.

II. The Spring and South Asian Governance

Politically, your commentator does not deem a “Spring” will erupt in South Asia because the former Colonial power, from which most of the countries in the Subcontinental region acquired their form of Westminster governance, and, subsequently, further, grew it Constitutionally into the image of their very own populaces, gives them the basis for personal self-agency.  Therefore,  democracy does not have to be invented as in the Middle East.  Thus, democracy is already a given at least theoretically for most of South Asia.   The really exacerbating challenges for Civil Society in the area are corruption, the Mosque versus the Military in the Islamic Republics and voting reform as well as wide-spread social inequalities .  These are civil issues can be resolved short of regime change with the democratic institutions in place — either actualized or envisioned through principle.

The foundation for a democratic tradition by the heirs of the British Indian Empire with Ceylon (Sri Lanka) and the Maldives added  have existed over the terrain since even before 1947.  Other nations historically independent from the British…such as Nepal who  recently have had their own Revolution — and it was a bloody one unfortunately — were able to establish their form of democracy highly influenced by their neighbors and China. 

Miniscule Bhutan is a questionable case.  By expelling all non-Bhutanese, the Kingdom there in a sense has renounced development.  Of all the countries in the area, it is the most vulnerable to “people power” because of the desire of its citizens’ desire for financial expansion.  Economics and political transformation are siblings! 

The Maldives are an interesting case, too.  They are a miniscule “enlightened” Muslim monarchy with a thriving economy.  Most of the “enlightened” Middle East Monarchies are, also, surviving so far, but, in the Indo-Pakistani cultural zone, Afghanistan had an “enlightened” monarchy, also, before their Communist Party overthrew their “progressive” King which led to the subsequent Russian invasion into the Hindu Kush followed by a Civil War and the rise of the Talban.  The AfPak “district” has only a slight prospect of change through Civil Society as in the Middle East but, alas, it appears it will be settled through international War! 

A feudal-like arrangement is found still within India, Pakistan and Bangladesh – especially in the rural boroughs — where, although supposedly democratic,  groups are encouraged to vote the preferences of their traditional leaders.  This “block” polling has led to the discouragement of the independent new urban voter who could “revolt” for the denial of economic opportunity.   A significant portion of the most advanced citizenry of the State(s) has little individual say in the creation of policy under this socio-political system.

Many in the West here consider Tibet to be historically part of South Asia because of their culture as they do Afghanistan.  Peking is purposely moving Han Chinese to the Lhasa plateau.  At the moment, only 50% of Tibet is Tibetan although there is an active unsuccessful rebellion high in that Himalayan “Autonomous” region.  Sri Lanka has only just emerged from a most bloody Civil War of several decades which ended with a brutal suppression of Tamil human rights.  Your observer is not so sure that the Tigers or a like-mind organization will not rise again on that Island.  The same is true in the Indian Punjab with the Sikhs – although the resistance has reached military suppression.   (Both) question(s) have not been politically resolved; therefore, resistance may arise again.  Kashmir is in the midst of asymmetrical warfare along-side indigenous Civil Society resistance.  Unfortunately, this is the second most dangerous flash point for a (nuclear) War worldwide.  This is an issue that demands the international collective’s attention immediately!  

What does the Arab “Spring” indicate for South Asia?   The full results are far from us.  Your Columnist hopes to continue his examination in future articles as the question becomes more defined (historically), but he is certain the Islamic West of Dar al-Islam will have an impact upon (Islamic and non-Islamic) South Asia.  The likelihood of a “Spring” breaking out in South Asia, only time (history)can  tell comprehensively.

Dar al Islam — and those across its immediate boundaries — is a complicated complex expanse where one part affects the other:  No more so than now.

14-8

The immediate damage could have been worse, but the consequences for the Middle East could still be disastrous

By Ian Black, Middle East editor

It could have been worse: one bomb slightly injured the wife of an Israeli diplomat and three other people in Delhi. Another device targeting an embassy car was made safe in Tbilisi, Georgia, before it exploded. But the consequences could still prove to be disastrous: in the tinder box that is the Middle East sparks such as these can set off a huge conflagration. Much depends, as always, on how governments choose to respond.

It came as little surprise that Israel’s prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, blamed Iran and Hezbollah for Monday’s twin attacks – though he did so extremely swiftly and without any sign of hesitation.
Iran, in turn, has repeatedly pointed the finger at Israel for an ongoing campaign of sabotage and assassination against scientists working on a nuclear programme Tehran insists is peaceful and Israel and western countries are adamant is not. Four scientists have been killed in the last two years, the most recent last month. These attacks are a highly volatile element in an extremely unstable landscape.

Against a background of extraordinary turbulence across the Middle East, the Israeli-Iranian confrontation is by far the most dangerous element – amid near-constant speculation about a pre-emptive strike Israel might launch to stop the Islamic Republic acquiring a nuclear capability. An Israeli attack could draw in the US and cause Iran to block the narrow strait of Hormuz, retaliate against Arab Gulf targets and disrupt global oil supplies. Anything that could trigger such a chain of events clearly has to be taken very seriously.

Underlining these fears, Exclusive Analysis, an intelligence company, forecast on Monday increasing probability of an Israeli strike on two or three key Iranian nuclear facilities, from 50% in about April rising to 60% by September.

But an Israeli raid on Iran is not the only possible scenario. Experts believe another possibility is a clash involving Iran’s loyal protege, the Lebanese Shia movement Hezbollah, whose daring cross-border attack in 2006 triggered the last devastating Israeli onslaught on Lebanon. Hezbollah’s long-range rockets are intended to deter Israel, but they could also be used to divert attention from the unprecedented domestic crisis engulfing its ally Syria.

Hezbollah also has a clear motive for revenge against Israel: Sunday was the fourth anniversary of the assassination of its operations chief, Imad Mughniyeh, in a highly professional car bombing in Damascus in 2008 that was widely blamed on the Mossad secret service. Israel has never admitted responsibility but it did little to hide its satisfaction at Mughniyeh’s violent demise and the chilling message it sent about its own long reach and deterrent power.

Israel had already reported attempted terrorist attacks in Thailand and Azerbaijan in recent weeks and its diplomats have been on alert to the heightened possibility of action by Hezbollah. Avigdor Lieberman, its foreign minister, said Israel “knows exactly who is responsible”.

International responses were a reminder of high anxiety about possible escalation. Britain’s foreign secretary, William Hague, issued a statement saying he was shocked and appalled at the incidents in Tbilisi and Delhi.

Hard facts about covert actions only rarely emerge. But in a sensational and solid-looking report by the US channel NBC last week US officials were quoted as saying Israel had used an Iranian opposition group to carry out those much-publicised assassinations of nuclear scientists. The group is the MEK (Mojahedin-e Khalq or People’s Mujahedin), which since 1997 has been designated a terrorist group by the US.

Richard Dalton, a former British ambassador to Iran, warned at the time that the campaign against the scientists was entering a dangerous phase. “The next step is for Iran to answer like for like. If a state is behind this then this is international state terrorism and it’s inviting a response. It looks like a further twist that will lead to a tit-for-tat.”

The use in Delhi of a sticky bomb attached to an Israeli embassy vehicle by a man riding a motorbike seemed to mimic the modus operandi used by Israel’s agents in Tehran. Hints, surely, do not come much heavier than that?

Nor could the stakes be higher. In June 1982 an assassination attempt on the Israeli ambassador to London by the renegade Palestinian faction led by the Iraqi-backed Abu Nidal provided the pretext for war against Yasser Arafat’s PLO in Lebanon, despite a ceasefire that had held for nearly a year. Ariel Sharon, then defence minister, was pressing to attack and persuaded the prime minister, Menachem Begin, to go ahead.

“Abu Nidal, Abu Shmidal,” Begin reportedly replied as his security chiefs explained the crucial detail and significance of the London attack. Full scale invasion, thousands of dead and years of war and occupation were the result.

Guardian.co.uk

14-8

WAYLAND, MA–Middlesex District Attorney Gerry Leone announced  that Wayland resident Aliya Khalidi was hired as the newest Assistant District Attorney for the Middlesex District Attorney’s Office. Aliya is the daughter of the late scholar Dr. Omar Khalidi of MIT.

Khalidi, a graduate of Wellesley College and Suffolk University Law School, will be working as an ADA out of Framingham District Court. During her time at Suffolk University Law School, Khalidi was selected as the Commencement Speaker and was the recipient of the John E. Fenton, Jr. Public Service Award, which is awarded to students who have demonstrated an exceptional commitment to public service law as a career and excelled academically. Additionally, she was president and founder of the Muslim Law Students Association and the vice president of the South Asian Law Students Association.

“We’re very pleased to be welcoming Aliya as a new member of our prosecution team,” District Attorney Leone said.  “Her enthusiasm and determination to begin her career as a prosecutor will be truly beneficial to the people of Middlesex County.”

Prior to joining the office, Khalidi spent the 2010-2011 school year teaching Constitutional Law to high school students at the Cambridge Rindge and Latin School in Cambridge as part of the Marshall-Brennan Constitutional Literacy Project, which is a nationwide program dedicated to teaching high school students about their constitutional rights. 

In January 2010 until May 2011, Khalidi volunteered as a Pro Bono Legal Volunteer with the American Civil Liberties Union where she represented clients in the Boston Police Department Internal Affairs Complaint process. In additional to her role as a volunteer, Khalidi also conducted “Know Your Rights” trainings for community members.

Her career as a prosecutor began in June 2010 when she worked as a student prosecutor with the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office in Roxbury District Court.  There she gained court room experience by arraigning defendants, presenting bail arguments and amending charges.  Additionally, she investigated cases and assisted victims during the court process.

14-8

Baroness Warsi (above) gave a speech on the role of faith in contemporary society on 14 February 2012

Your Eminences. Excellencies. Reverend Fathers. Colleagues, Ladies and Gentlemen.

It is an immense honour for me to stand here today…

…in what is, for more than a billion people, the spiritual capital of the world.

And it is a further privilege to lead the largest ever ministerial delegation from the United Kingdom to the Holy See.

To celebrate the relationship between our two states:

The oldest formal diplomatic relationship in my country’s history.

…and today, one of the strongest.

Our diplomatic relationship began here in 1479, only a short distance from where we now stand.

For reasons we all know too well, we broke diplomatic relations…

…only to restore them during the First World War.

This year marks 30 years since full diplomatic relations were re-established between us.

We want to build upon our bond, to show it to the rest of the world, and to let it inspire others.

Because our relationship enables us to act together in the name of the common good: To promote democracy.

To fight for human rights.

To encourage fair, responsible trade.

To tackle climate change.

And to help build stable nations.

We are grateful for the superb work our Ambassador Nigel Baker is doing here…

…building on the tremendous tenure of his predecessor Francis Campbell.

The UK recognises that, as the smallest state in the world, the Holy See has the widest global reach.

It therefore seems inevitable that the UK with its global reach and historic and current interests should nurture, strengthen and promote our relationship.

The areas upon which, by working together, we can achieve tangible, practical outcomes are both so vast and so important that they, in many ways, contextualise our differences.

And I believe the strength of our relationship can give tremendous hope and inspiration to others across the world.

This year, the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth are celebrating a person who has worked hard to bring our two great states closer.

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

Her Majesty’s visits here to the Vatican over a 60-year reign, and before when she came as a young Princess Elizabeth…

Her work to encourage harmony between Catholics and Protestants…

Her groundbreaking visit to the people of Ireland in 2011…

And her steadfast commitment to all her people…

…are just some of the reasons her Diamond Jubilee makes this year such a special one for my country.

And of course it was on her invitation that the Holy Father graced the United Kingdom with the first papal State Visit in our history. PAPAL VISIT

The visit of September 2010 was historic, momentous and unforgettable…

…and I want to thank the Holy Father on behalf of all four nations in our country.

The hand of friendship was warmly received across our isles.

Reaching out to Catholics and non-Catholics.

To those of faith and those of none.

From the cheering crowds on the streets of Scotland…

…to those in silent contemplation during the Mass in Birmingham. And the many millions watching on their television screens or holding special events…

…in school assemblies, community groups and workplaces.

It was a milestone in our relationship, a milestone in UK history – where heart truly spoke unto heart.

On a personal level, I heeded the words of the Holy Father during his landmark speech in Westminster Hall.

And I had the immense honour of enjoying an audience during a special event to promote interfaith relations.

It was a humbling, moving moment for me.

And having made my speech at the Anglican Bishops’ Conference two days earlier on the importance of governments ‘doing God’…

…marking a clean break with the approach from the past, saying that our Government would be on the side of faith….

…the Holy Father urged me to carry on making the case for faith in society. MAIN ARGUMENT

So today I want to make one simple argument.

That in order to ensure faith has a proper space in the public sphere…

In order to encourage social harmony…

People need to feel stronger in their religious identities, more confident in their beliefs.

In practice this means individuals not diluting their faith…

…and nations not denying their religious heritage.

If you take this thought to its conclusion then the idea you’re left with is this:

Europe needs to become more confident in its Christianity.

Let us be honest:

Too often there is a suspicion of faith in our continent….

…where signs of religion cannot be displayed or worn in government buildings.

…where states won’t fund faith schools.

…and where faith is sidelined, marginalised and downgraded.

It all hinges on a basic misconception:

That somehow to create equality and space for minority faiths and cultures we need to erase our majority religious heritage.

But it is my belief that the societies we are, the cultures we’ve created, the values we hold and the things we fight for…

…stem from something we’ve argued over, dissented from, discussed and built up:

Centuries of Christianity.

It’s what the Holy Father called the “unrenounceable Christian roots of [our] culture and civilisation”.

Which shine through our politics, our public life, our culture, our economics, our language and our architecture.

You cannot and should not erase these Christian foundations from the evolution of our nations any more than you can or should erase the spires from our landscapes.

Let me get one thing very clear:

I am not saying that everything done in the name of faith has been a blessing for our continent.

Too much blood has been shed in the name of religion.

But trying to erase this history or blind ourselves to the role of religion on our continent is wrong.

We need to realise what drives us, what binds us and what inspires us is a history we are in danger of denying.

I know, in a globalised world, it is easy to think that to relate to others you must water down your identity.

But my point today is that being sure of who you are is the only way in which you will be more accommodating of others.

And there is a second strand to this argument.

That true confidence has the power to guarantee openness.

Because only when you’re content in your own identity…

…only when you realise that the ‘Other’ does not jeopardise who you are…

…can you truly accept and not merely tolerate the presence of difference.

Just as the bully bullies because he or she is insecure…

…so too the state suppresses, marginalises, dictates and dismisses…

…when it feels its identity is at stake.

In the United Kingdom, we have guarded against such fear…

…by recognising the importance of the Established Church and our Christian heritage – our majority faith…

And that is what has created religious freedom and a home for people like me, of minority faiths.

Majority faiths and minority faiths – as a Muslim who was born and raised in – and now serves – a Christian country, I have experience of both.

So I hope you will permit me to start by telling you a bit about my early life in the north of England in the 1970s and 80s.

PERSONAL

When I was growing up, as the daughter of Pakistani immigrants, the debate in my country was not about religion but race.

As a teenager what shaped me was the obvious injustice of Apartheid.

In my student days I campaigned for racial equality.

And in the years that followed I launched campaigns to bolster race relations.

But after 9/11 I saw the debate shifting – with difference being defined not by race but by religion.

My loyalty to my country was not in question because of my parents’ home country or even the colour of my skin, but because of the religion I was born into.

I began to look back at my faith and the choices I made, as well as the lessons I learnt from my parents.

I attended a relatively conservative mosque.

My father inspired me to learn – to seek knowledge of both the history of my country and the foundation of my faith.

He said that to truly understand my religion I needed to understand history as much as theology.

He taught me to think about my identity in the following way:

To see my religious identity, my faith, as a river that changes its appearance according to the bed on which it flows.

The river reflecting the colour and the texture of the bed.

Like the river, my faith reflects the nation I belong to.

So what made me feel even more confident as a British Muslim…

What truly enabled me to learn about my faith and to practice it…

Was that my country – the bed over which the river of my faith flowed – had a strong Christian identity.

This defined, shaped and gave me confidence in my own faith…

Which, combined with the confidence of my country’s principles and values….

…Have since been evident in the decisions I’ve taken as an adult.

One decision which I think demonstrates how strongly I believe this…

…was my choice of school for my daughter:

An Anglican convent school.

Many might think it is unusual for a Muslim mother to send her daughter to a Christian school.

But I knew she would be free to follow her faith there…

…that she would not be looked down on because she believed.

And as I had hoped, she found it strengthened her faith.

Allowing her to define her Muslim identity, allowing her to reflect Christianity within that, adopting the Lord’s Prayer as her own by simply substituting the word “Amen” with “Ameen”

It also left her posing a lot of questions about religion.

As she once said to me, during one of the frequent debates about religious symbols:

“Mother Robina is going to get really upset about everyone being nasty about women who wear the hijab, because she wears one.”

As so often is the case, the youth shed light on situations like this and innocence brings clarity…

…with my 9-year-old daughter bringing into sharp focus the similarities between the veil and the hijab.

Summing up exactly why I don’t support the outright banning of religious symbols…

Because, for me, it’s about personal choice and the right to express one’s faith – whatever their faith.

So with my daughter’s school, as with my own upbringing, a strong sense of Christianity didn’t threaten our Muslim identity – it actually reinforced it.

It enabled me to make the case for further interfaith debate, discussion and work.

It motivated me to stand up and speak out against anti-Muslim hatred, the persecution of Christians and anti-Semitism.

And it inspired me to challenge the growing marginalisation of faith in my country and in Europe.

AROUND THE WORLD

As I look around the world today, my resolve is strengthened.

Where we see faith inspiring, driving and motivating good works…

…is where certainty of conviction is at its strongest.

As the Bible teaches us: “For even as the body without the spirit is dead: so also faith without works is dead.”

The Quran teaches us something similar – that: “those who believe and do good works are the best of created beings”.

We see the proof every day – globally, locally and individually.

From the Catholic Church being instrumental in toppling communism…

…to its key role in securing peace in Northern Ireland.

From the Catholic Schools in the UK, many of which are outperforming other institutions…

…to the domestic response to the earthquake in Haiti, the floods in Pakistan and the drought in East Africa.

And where day by day, faith sustains people through their darkest, most desperate periods…

There is no denying the link between these positive actions and faith. Perhaps the best example I have seen of this was on my visit to Pakistan last month….

…a visit I promised the late Shahbaz Bhatti, the country’s tragically assassinated minorities minister, I would undertake: meeting the Christian communities of Karachi.

There I met four wonderful sisters at the Convent of Jesus and Mary School, including two Irish nuns.

One of them had spent 58 years of her life teaching girls in Pakistan.

Sister Berchmans, a native of County Clare – one of the most westerly spots in Europe – had left rural Ireland as a young nun to go and work in Pakistan.

There in Karachi, at the age of 80, and wearing her white habit and veil, she led the morning assembly in prayer in English.

And then she led the singing of the Pakistan national anthem in Urdu.

It was remarkable to see and to think of the practical and silent, discreet witness that Sister Berchmans and her fellow Nuns have shown to generations of young Pakistani girls, many of them Muslim…

…and one of them who grew up to become a Prime Minister, the first female to govern the modern Islamic world: the late Benazir Bhutto.

Sister Berchmans did not have to dilute her own faith or require others to dilute theirs.

Rather she was doing what countless generations have done before her – witnessing and living side by side with other cultures and faiths.

With Sister Berchmans rooted in her beliefs, and the Pakistani community she serves unwavering in its…

…I saw not the diminishment of faith but the ultimate enactment of the common good. And I want to share some news with you today.

Sister Berchmans, and another person of faith who has laboured in Pakistan for over 35 years – Father Robert McCulloch of Australia, who is with us here today…

…have just been recognised for their lifetime of services to the people and development of Pakistan…

And the President of Pakistan have awarded them Pakistan’s highest civilian honour: the Sitarai-e- Quaid-i-Azam. INTERFAITH

I believe the same commitment is needed for dialogue and service between faiths to continue to succeed.

Its interlocutors need to demonstrate the strength of faith shown by Sister Berchmans…

…and the strength of appreciation and gratitude shown by the people of Pakistan.

Because different faiths must realise that, just because they don’t worship together, doesn’t mean that they can’t work together.

A great deal of this progress has been made thanks to the efforts of the Catholic Church…

…through its educational outreach or the work of groups like Caritas International and its federation of aid agencies around the world…

…and landmark documents like in Britain Meeting God in Friend and Stranger. As a UK cabinet minister of the Muslim faith, representing a country with an Anglican Established Church, visiting our friends in the spiritual home of Catholicism…

…you will find no greater champion of understanding between faiths than me.

But I believe that where interfaith dialogue does not work…

…is where faiths are dumbed down in order to find common ground.

Just as the European language of Esperanto, which attempted to build a new tongue, neautralises our component languages…

…a common language between faiths risks watering down the diversity and intensity of our respective religions.

Instead, interfaith dialogue works when we debate our differences, when we wear our beliefs on our sleeves.

It’s not about you giving your version of God, and me giving my version of God.

And us coming to some watered-down compromise.

But about establishing our areas of consensus.

And being firm enough in our devotion to work together.

That’s why, when I visited the Tomb of David in Jerusalem…

…I felt no contradiction saying my nafils, or prayers, in an alternative place of worship.

It’s why when Vatican Two, whose 50th anniversary we celebrate this year, set out Nostra Aetate, its acceptance of other faiths…

…it was not a sign of the church’s weakness of belief, but a sign of its strength.

And why, when the Holy Father made his historic visit to the Blue Mosque in Istanbul…

…he was not weakening his own faith but reaffirming it.

DEFEATING BIGOTRY

The point is that in so many ways, being sure of your faith adds a layer of strength to society.

Confidence in our own beliefs enables us to defend attacks on others.

Faith asks you to stand up for your neighbour.

As the fourth Muslim caliph Ali ibn Abu Talib said:

“Every man is your brother…either your brother in faith or your brother in humanity.” This is the spirit which inspired Muslims to protect Jews during the Holocaust.

…which motivated Christians to support Muslims fleeing persecution in Darfur…

…and which led Chief Rabbi Sacks to call for action against persecution in Bosnia.

It’s something I’ve been arguing for a long time.

That persecution somewhere is persecution everywhere.

That if you oppress my neighbour you are oppressing me.

That an attack on a gudwara is an attack on a mosque, a church, a temple, a synagogue. Today I’m moving that thought on…

…and saying that standing up for your neighbour of another faith doesn’t make you less of a Christian, less of a Jew or less of a Muslim – it makes you more of one.

When British Jews stand up to the political factions promoting anti Muslim hatred…

When Christians understand the horrors of the Holocaust and tackle anti-Semitism…

When Muslims and Sikhs stand shoulder to shoulder to protect their temples and Mosques…

…it is not a betrayal of their own faith or a threat to it.

…it is the most powerful demonstration of security in their own faith. MARGINALISATION OF FAITH

But the confident affirmation of religion which I have spoken of is under threat.

It is what the Holy Father called ‘the increasing marginalisation of religion’ during his speech in Westminster Hall.

I see it in United Kingdom and I see it in Europe.

Spirituality, suppressed.

Divinity, downgraded.

Where, in the words of the Archbishop of Canterbury, faith is looked down on…

…as the hobby of ‘oddities, foreigners and minorities’.

Where religion is dismissed as an eccentricity…

…because it’s infused with tradition.

Where we undermine people who attribute good works to their belief…

…and require them to deny it as their motivation.

And where faith is overlooked in the public sphere…

…with not even a word about Christianity in the preface of the “European Constitution”.

When I pledged that the new government in the United Kingdom would ‘do God’, in some quarters there was uproar.

More telling were the countless comments I received of quiet support…

…a relief that finally someone had said what they had been thinking.

This fact alone shows the extent to which religion has been sidelined by some.

Because in parts of Europe there have been misguided beliefs that in order to accommodate people from other backgrounds, we must somehow become less religious or less Christian.

That somehow society must level itself out so that faith becomes something that is marginalised…

…and limited to the private confines of one’s home or even one’s mind.

But those calls are not coming from other faith communities.

They are coming from two types of people.

First, the well-intentioned liberal elite…

…who, conversely, are trying to create equality by marginalising faith in society.

…who think that the route to religious pluralism is by creating a path of faith-neutrality.

…who downgrade religion to a mere subcategory in public life.

But look at their supposed level playing field.

Its terrain is all but impassable to anyone of belief.

One of the arguments of the liberal elite is that faith and reason are incompatible.

But they don’t realise, as the Holy Father has argued for many years, that faith and reason go hand in hand.

As he said to us in Westminster Hall:

“…the world of secular rationality and the world of religious belief…need one another and should not be afraid to enter into a profound and ongoing dialogue, for the good of our civilisation.”

In other words, just as reason should not be excluded from debates about faith…

…so too spirituality should not be excluded when we look at worldly matters.

Second, there are the anti-religionists, the faith deniers.

The people who dine out on free-flowing media and sustain a vocabulary of secularist intolerance….

…attempting to remove all trace of religion from culture, history and public discourse.

While ignoring the fact that people of faith give more to charity and that the number of people going to a place of worship is globally on the up.

My theory is that we are so afraid – and rightly so – of going backwards in history to the bad days when religion was imposed on people by despotic regimes…

…that we have got to the stage where aggressive secularism is being imposed by stealth.

Leaving us with the ironic situation where, to stave off intolerance against minorities…

…we end up being intolerant towards religion itself.

For me, one of the most worrying aspects about this militant secularisation is that at its core and in its instincts it is deeply intolerant.

It demonstrates similar traits to totalitarian regimes – denying people the right to a religious identity and failing to understand the relationship between religious loyalty and loyalty to the state.

That’s why in the 20th Century, one of the first acts of totalitarian regimes was the targeting of organised religion.

Why? Because, to them, a religious identity struck at the heart of their totalitarian ideology.

In a free market of ideas, they knew their ideology was weak.

And with the strength of religions, established over many years, followed by many billions…

…their totalitarian regimes would be jeopardised.

Our response to militant secularisation today has to be simple.

Holding firm in our faiths.

Holding back intolerance.

Reaffirming the religious foundations on which our societies are built…

And reasserting the fact that, for centuries, Christianity in Europe has been inspiring, motivating, strengthening and improving our societies.

In public life – driving people to do great things, like setting up schools, creating public services, leading the way in charitable acts.

In politics – inspiring parties on both the left and the right.

In economics – providing many of the foundations for our market economy and capitalism.

In culture – influencing our monuments, our music, our paintings, and our engravings. I’m delighted that the UK Government understands this…

…from supporting faith schools and faith charities at home and abroad…

…to helping religious groups to deliver vital public services…

And, most powerfully, when our Prime Minister spoke out unequivocally about the lasting impact of the King James Bible on our country.

THE FUTURE

But we must take this confident, open faith and apply it beyond the present.

I see a growing problem in some parts of our world today…

…with governments dictating:

What is a church and what isn’t.

Where people can build a place of worship and where they cannot.

Which faith they can belong to and which they cannot.

And whether they can display their beliefs in public or not.

I believe this is a misguided attempt at shoring up majority religions.

These governments need to realise that pluralism is not a threat to tradition.

Closer to home we see a similar suspicion.

For example, from the politicians who say that inviting Turkey to join the European Union is a threat to the roots of Europe and its Christian heritage.

Because they worry that the inclusion of a Muslim-majority country would diminish the Christianity of other countries.

They are mistaken.

The solution is not to shut the door on people of other faiths, but to strengthen our continent’s identity.

Just as German Chancellor Angela Merkel said of her country:

“The problem is not that we have too much Islam, it’s that we have too little Christianity and too few discussions about the Christian view of mankind.”

Those discussions will only come about if Europe is more confident in its Christianity.

So our continent needs the zeal of a convert…

…not from discovering something new but rediscovering something which has underpinned our civilisations for centuries.

FAITH’S SEAT AT THE TABLE

At the same time, politicians need to give faith a seat at the table in public life.

Not the privileged position of a theocracy, but that of an equal informer of our public debate.

So we are not afraid to acknowledge when the debate derives from a religious basis.

And not afraid to take onboard – and take on – the solutions offered up by religion.

Politicians must also not be afraid to speak out when we think people who speak in the name of faith have got it wrong.

For example, in the UK today, Bishops in the House of Lords, the chamber in which I sit, are opposing the government’s reforms to welfare…

…where the government is trying to restore the dignity of work by putting responsibility back at the heart of society.

I welcome the role of the Bishops in scrutinising the legislation.

I support their right to bring their view to the table.

But I reserve the right to disagree.

I am not saying that faith leaders should have a monopoly on morality. Because, of course, as our Prime Minister David Cameron said, there are Christians who don’t live by a moral code and there are atheists and agnostics who do. But for people who do have a faith, their faith can be a helpful prod in the right direction.

Therefore, I’m arguing that religion needs a role when we look at the problems today.

So that even the most committed atheist can find that those who are committed to religion have something to offer…

…and that faith can be good for society, good for communities and good for those who choose to follow a faith.

When religion has a role in public life, it enables us to look at our economy and refer to the Christian principles on which our markets were founded.

It means we can take solace from teachings such a Rerum Novarum and Caritas in Veritate, which offer up answers for creating moral markets. It means we can look at our social problems and be inspired by Catholic Social Teaching.

…looking at our welfare system and thinking, how does this impact on human dignity?

…looking at social breakdown and thinking, are we reinforcing responsibility between citizens?

…looking at governance and thinking, are we relying on large organisations to do what smaller units could achieve?

…all the while thinking and remembering that many of our values…

…loving our neighbours…

…acting as the Good Samaritan would…

…supporting and championing the family unit…

…doing to others as you would be done by… … are Biblical, spiritual and religious in their origin.

UNDERSTANDING FAITH

This action at a national and at a political level should have an impact at a social level.

Where individuals’ stronger rooting in their own religion will inspire a stronger understanding of faith.

And there is no better remedy to the distortion of our respective faiths.

As the Holy Father said last year in Assisi:

“[Violence] is not the true nature of religion. It is the antithesis of religion and contributes to its destruction.”

Yet it remains a sad fact that in the modern world we see faith hijacked in the name of evil acts.

Utterly contrary to the teachings of the mainstream religions of the world.

Perhaps if states were more rooted in their religious heritages then faiths would be less prone to being distorted and hijacked for political gains.

At the same time it is this distortion which leads to believers being victimised for the actions of their co-religionists.

Whether it’s Christians in Pakistan…

Muslims in the USA…

Or Jews in Britain…

Targeted, victimised and facing the backlash of actions by their co-religionists.

It’s unacceptable and it must stop. CONCLUSION

I started today by talking about the bond between the UK and the Holy See…

…about how we have overcome our differences to form our oldest formal diplomatic relationship.

I established that appreciating these differences was a sign of our strength, not weakness.

And this strength of identity has shone through…

…in our actions in the name of the common good…

…in the Holy Father’s State Visit to the UK in 2010…

…and, I trust, in our visit today.

Today I am urging individuals and nations to take the same approach when it comes to faith.

And saying that in order to create harmony…

…people need to strengthen their own identity…

…being sure of their nation’s religious foundations…

…and secure in their own beliefs.

At a time of great change taking place throughout the Muslim world, particularly during the Arab awakening.

Many countries, political parties and individuals are redefining their identity.

They are looking to their faith as source of inspiration to define the values by which they want to govern.

This is a great opportunity for them…

…to show that good governance can be rooted in religion….

…to show the world the true, peaceful spirit of religion…

…to demonstrate that defending your neighbour, whatever their faith, is an obligation defined by religion….

….to openly say that their countries are a home for all people of any religion. …recognising that defending another faith does not diminish your own…

…being sure of your foundations and protecting minorities…

…preventing faith from being undermined and creating a space for faith – any faith – to thrive.

For Europe this means becoming more confident in its Christianity…

…and with that confidence, becoming more open.

People need to realise that, in our continent and beyond, Christianity’s teachings and values…

…are as permanent as Westminster Abbey…

…as indelible as Da Vinci’s Last Supper…

…and as solid as Christ the Redeemer.

And that Christianity is as vital to our future as it is to our past.

Our two states have lots to learn and much to teach…

…and I have hope, and yes faith, that others will continue with us on this path.

14-8