Obama and the Sikh Golden Temple in Amritsar...

The White House has cancelled a visit by the President to the Sikh Golden Temple in Amritsar during Obama's visit to India. The fear is that all visitors must wear a head covering and the likelihood that a photo of Obama wearing the head covering would spread virally throughout the internet. The expectation is that the photo would be picked up by those wanting to re-ignite the debate on whether Obama is actually a US citizen and qualified to be president. The White House is also concerned that any photo that became available would re-ignite the debate about whether or not the president is a Muslim or a Christian.

Obama vs. McCain in 2008 produced this billboard, perhaps this billboard is what triggered that fear.

Ho hum...

Indonesia to Ban Blackberries?

The United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia have moved to ban Blackberry messaging, email, and web browsing services. The belief is that the way Research In Motion (RIM), the owner of Blackberry technology, encrypts this information is a serious threat to security.

The suggestion is that terrorists can use Blackberries to wreak havoc and mayhem. Alternatively, this may just be a case of "big brother" wanting to ensure that it has access to every single thing that you do on your mobile.

Not wanting to be left behind in the draconian law stakes, Indonesia is mulling a ban on Blackberry services on the grounds of security. The Indonesian Telecommunication Regulation Authority (BRTI) will be taking the lead in determining whether a ban should be put into place. The idea of a ban is not surprising, and the "national security" card was expected at some point. The move to ban Blackberry services is just part of a much broader assault on the freedoms of ordinary Indonesians to go about their business without government interference.

It should not be to long before all houses are built with glass or perspex walls and curtains are banned in the interests of national security. After all, terrorists might plan their heinous crimes in darkened houses with drawn curtains, and heaven forbid (even with 72 virgins awaiting for some) we cannot have that!

But, on a more serious note, and Blackberry related, it is estimated that there are some 1.2 million Blackberry users in Indonesia. The vast majority of these users are law abiding citizens using their devices for business or pleasure (such as social networking or downloading Indonesian celebrity sex tapes). A ban on Blackberry is likely to encounter stiff resistance, and not only from those downloading porn, but from regular Indonesians who rely on Blackberry services to go about their business. The plan, if it is such, will also harm business and presumably impact on investment.

Interestingly, Barack Obama still uses his Blackberry. My guess is that the encryption services offered by RIM are only the tip of the iceberg on his Blackberry. I would reckon there were probably a couple of addition layers of encryption and other unknown state-of-the-art security features attached to his device.

As an aside, I will need to do a little research. It was not all that long ago that Indonesia was talking about ousting RIM and Blackberry from Indonesia by banning the devices (aka smartphones) if RIM did not open a representative office in Indonesia and go about setting up a mirror site in Indonesia to improve services and decrease end costs to Blackberry users. The research relates to whether that ever went ahead, as my understanding is that there is not a mirror site. I have not read about RIM opening a representative office. I do recall I wrote about this before, so I guess I go back into the RAB files and see what I can come up with.

Anyway, to all my Indonesian followers, friends, and colleagues who are Blackberry users....Big Brother is coming!

The Axe Effect -- Faking News...

Now, here is a story that is worth a read, true or not. It should be remembered that this story is on the same site that brought the world the news that Shahrukh Khan was going to star in the first ever gay James Bond movie (includes a movie poster).

The story appears on "Faking News" (www.fakingnews.com) and relates to a legal suit filed by an unhappy Unilever customer. Unilever is the company that makes the "Axe" range of grooming products for men. Axe or, more specifically, the 'Axe Effect' has seemingly failed dismally in helping this young 26-year-old Indian from finding a girlfriend or even scoring a single solitary date.

The crux of the case rests on false and misleading advertising which has subsequently resulted in the plaintiff suffering mental anguish at his inability to score a date despite doing everything in the manner that the advertisements show. In essence, the plaintiff liberally applies the products and goes in search of a girl (seemingly any girl) but never manages to get what he is looking for.

I am still chuckling as I write this. I have watched the ads for Axe products and those relating to the Axe Effect. Now, I would be noting that in the ads the roles are always played by beautiful people. Perhaps this suggests that the axe effect will not work for everyone. For example, if you are so unattractive (for whatever reason) that women avoid you or resist your advances, then it is unlikely that any amount of axe is going to change their mind.

There are some great pictures on the internet associated with the "Axe Effect".

There are some truly creative people out there in the world. And it is this level of creativity that restores faith in the idea that we as human beings have great capacities to think outside the box. That might seem a little out of place in this post. However, think about it, if someone can come up with the idea to sue Unilever because they used a product for false and misleading advertising because he remains without a girlfriend after seven long years of almost religious use of the Axe product, then imagine if that creativity was put to more serious endeavours...

Still shaking my head at the thought of this possibly being real :)

Howard Snubbed for the Status Quo?

It would seem that being a cricket tragic and the former Prime Minister of Australia for 10 or so years are not qualifications enough to be rubber-stamped as a vice president of the International Cricket Council (ICC). The current format sees a rotational policy in operation where the vice-presidents rotate through the presidency of the ICC.

Unfortunately, for the former PM and self-declared cricket tragic, the powers that be aligned against him and have seemingly thwarted his attempt for a chair at the big table.

I am not sure that this should necessarily be seen as an insult to either John Howard or to Australia. The wash-up of this is likely to focus on a desire of some nations to keep the status quo, perhaps even some might want to discuss that the corrupting nature of power is at work here where vested interests are not going to allow the organisation to be cleaned up. There have been charges in the past that corruption is rampant in cricket and that the ICC does not have the desire or the power to clean it up.

There is one thing for sure, John Howard would be coming in all guns blazing. But, this is all hypothetical now as his nomination has hit the skids big time.

Too bad, but Ho Hum...

Hate Crime in Australia...

The murder of a 21-year-old Indian student, Nitin Garg, in a West Footscray park is a tragedy. The young man studying in Australia was on his way to work at a local Hungry Jacks when he was stabbed and killed. However, the murder is certainly testing the bilateral relationship between Australia and India, particularly so with the publication of the above cartoon.

The cartoon, published in Delhi's Mail Today, depicts an Australian police office in Ku Klux Klan garb. The suggestion being that Australian police are racist and not doing enough to solve the murder of Garg. The further suggestion is that Australia is a overtly racist country that is not only unwelcoming of foreigners but a country with a long history of racism towards the indigenous population (Australian Aborigines).

It is not like Australia is the only country in the world that has issues to deal with on the racism front or the treatment of its indigenous population. It is not all that difficult to find Australians who acknowledge as much. However, the majority of Australians are good people, welcoming, caring, understanding, and humble. There are those, though, that exhibit none of these redeeming features. The reality though is that this is true of all countries. India, for example, is not a place that is free from the scourge of racism or violence. The simple truth being that people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

The murder of any person I find abhorrent. And, it is no different in this case.

However, to state that the murder of this young man was racially motivated is premature to say the least. It is premature because at this point in time there is not a suspect, at least not that is being publicly discussed. This murder may be a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Yet, let the police do their job, and if it turns out that the crime is racially motivated, then that is something we as a community must address and deal with no matter what colour, religion, gender, or political persuasion we might have and irrespective of whether we be citizens, residents, tourists, or international students.

The cartoon is offensive. However, I personally do not feel that it goes beyond the line in the sand with respect to what constitutes free speech. The cartoonist is entitled to his opinion, which he has seemingly expressed through this cartoon. Nevertheless, offensive or not, the cold hard reality is that police still have a job to do, and that is everything that they can to find the young man's killer(s).

Perhaps rather than cartoons designed to inflame the situation further we should come together as a community and seek ways to address the concerns of racism and violence in our communities in constructive ways that will see us all creating a better community for our children and our children's children.

Yoga...

I wonder if this is an example of tantric yoga?

I have never learned myself, but it would seem that there are some interesting positions and some hands on requirements, particularly if you find yourself in the position of teacher or Yogi.

I am sure that this photo lends itself to a pun or two.

Foreign Students and Visa Fraud -- Australia

The Australian government is set to crack down on visa fraud by foreign students and those that assist them in getting the necessary visas to study in Australia. The visa fraud that the government is targeting relates to whether prospective students have sufficient financial reserves to support them through the course of their studies.

It is expected that prospective students will need at least AUD 12,000 for living expenses for each year they intend to study plus any applicable tuition fees.

The main targets of this crackdown are going to be prospective students from India, Mauritius, Nepal, Brazil, Zimbabwe, and Pakistan. The crackdown is to be launched immediately. In essence, the crackdown means that applications from prospective students from any of the listed countries are going to be subject to enhanced scrutiny and have restrictions placed on their ability to lodge applications online, according to Immigration Minister Chris Evans.

Applications by prospective students has increased by some 20% over the last 12 months and some 28,000 applications were rejected.

The most obvious signs of potential fraud are, apparently, large one-off transfers of cash to the bank account of the prospective student and enrollment in lesser known institutions. The government has been unequivocal in stating that legitimate students need not fear any additional scrutiny of their applications. A legitimate application will still be approved irrespective of where the applicant comes from.

The international student industry in Australia is worth some AUD 15.5 billion per year.

I wonder how much the increased scrutiny will impact the bottom line?

Shah Rukh Khan -- US Immigration Hassles -- The Daily Show...

Here is Jon Stewart's take on the Shah Rukh Khan incident. I wrote about this previously here. In that post I alluded to the fact that it might have been a beat up, but Jon Stewart is a much more famous funny man than I ever will be, so here he is with The Daily Show interpretation.

Enjoy!

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Shah Rukh Khan Detained at Newark
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Healthcare Protests

Fatwas and Terrorism...

The idea of issuing a fatwa (edict) against terrorism is an appealing one. If for no other reason than it would serve to distance the more moderate adherents to the faith from the more radical. However, the big question is how binding are these fatwas on Muslims and what are the real world punishments for failing to adhere to them?

More importantly, how should Muslims respond to competing fatwas or competing interpretations of what is acceptable with respect to violence perpetrated in the defense of the religion of Allah? There are plenty of Muslim organizations, and Muslims, throughout the world that are seeking to issue fatwas against terrorism as a means of distancing the faith from the criminal acts of a few. The YouTube video below relates to a fatwa issued in India.

This post is not suggesting that terrorism is a Muslim issue alone or that only Muslims perpetrate terror. However, the post is dealing with the issue of fatwas and terrorism, and this is a discussion within the framework of Islam and the interpretation of what is forbidden (haram) and what is permitted / legitimate (halal).

This is an interesting question. I thank Harry over at Multibrand for, in essence, challenging me on the issue, and also Tikno over at Love Ely for pointing me to the Indonesia version of a 2004 Fatwa on terrorism issued by the Indonesian Ulema Council (Majelis Ulama Indonesia / MUI).

In the Indonesian context, a fatwa is not binding in a strict legal sense. The government may consider them and may even adopt them if they are so inclined. However, adoption would require the codification of the fatwa into law. This is something that happens to a certain degree in matters relating to Islamic finance where the MUI plays a role in determining what financial products are legitimate under the rules of Islam. These are then codified in laws and regulations enacted by the state.

Furthermore, Indonesia already has an Anti-Terrorism Law (Interim Law No. 1 of 2002 / Law No. 15 of 2003) so is there a need for a fatwa forbidding conduct which is already prohibited in the criminal legal sense? For an interesting paper on the subject you can read Simon Butt's paper by downloading it from here.

I have taken the time to translate the MUI fatwa and would be happy to send it out if anyone wanted a copy in English. I am reluctant just to post it here because I am hopeless at formatting and "stuff" within the blogspot framework.

The fatwa is interesting because it does not forbid in an absolute sense the killing of oneself in the defense of the religion of Allah. Yet, the fatwa goes to considerable lengths to try and point out that random suicide bombings with undefined targets is absolutely against the teachings of Islam.

The primary difference in the fatwa between terrorism and jihad is that terrorism is used for destructive purposes and to cause chaos and fear whereas jihad is a legitimate struggle to defend the faith. Unfortunately, the violence perpetrated in both cases can be the same, but the intent of the perpetrator is what makes the difference. If the perpetrator is amaliyah al-istisyhad or undertaking the action in search of syahid, then this is acceptable. In contrast, where the perpetrator is one who kills themselves and others because they are a pessimist has therefore sinned in the eyes of God and has committed a crime that can never be permitted by Allah or Islam.

Therefore, the violence is a matter of perception with respect to whether it is legitimate or forbidden. Yet, the fatwa states that the act of suicide bombing is an act of despair and is therefore forbidden under the laws of Islam irrespective of whether it is done in a time of peace or a time of war or in an area dominated by Muslims or in areas dominated by other faiths.

But, in the next point of the fatwa a suicide death where the losses inflicted on the enemies of Islam are greater than those inflicted upon Islam would constitute amaliyah al-istisyhad. However, this is seemingly modified by the phrase dar al-harb which is reasonably translated as regions at war. Yet, it can also be translated to places where Muslims are in the minority and are therefore in constant struggle to practice their faith.

What is interesting about the MUI fatwa was that it was issued in 2004 and even today it is not widely known and has not been widely discussed. It is interesting because wider and more open discussion of the fatwa and terrorism could have made a significant contribution to the understanding of the "problem" of terror and how the Indonesian Muslim community is seeking to deal with it.

There are plenty of sites dedicated to debunking fatwas on terrorism as nothing more than fakes of ways of diverting attention from the real intents and purposes of terrorism. To each their own.

Harry Potter vs. Hari Puttar

And the winner is Hari Puttar.

When one first looks at the title of the film "HariPuttar" you could be forgiven for thinking that this is rip-off of the highly successful Harry Potter books and films. However, on closer inspection it is not hard to see that Hari Puttar A Comedy of Terrors has more in common with Kevin McCallister / Macaulay Culkin than he does with Harry Potter / Daniel Radcliffe.

In order to protect its intellectual property Warner Bros brought a law suit in India claiming that the film Hari Puttar was an infringement of its copyright. The Indian court quite rightly rejected the claim and went to some length to point out why people generally would not be confused by the two. This included the obvious, Hari Puttar has nothing to do with magic!

It is good to see that an Indian court has been able to bring a bit of common sense to this overly-sensitive IPR claim from Warner Bros.

Thanks to this case I now know that Hari is Hindi for God and Puttar is Punjabi for son.

Travel Horoscope -- What's Yours?

By way of Life In Mono.

Travel Horoscope for Aries

When you travel, you literally want to see a whole different world. You want a vacation full of adventure, exotic sights, and tons of variety. You should travel to: India Kenya New Zealand Brazil Thailand

What's" Your Travel Horoscope?

A Cricketing Saga!

The racial vilification saga that plagued the Second Test between India and Australia seems to have been resolved in India's favour...no shock on that one. There should be no shock either in realizing that the International Cricket Council (ICC) caved into the demands of the BCCI (Board of Control for Cricket India). Nor should there be any confusion that the threats of the Indian management that they would have been required by the BCCI to pull out of the tour and that planes had been chartered to squirrel the team out of Australia in the middle of the night be under-estimated because from all accounts this is true.

Could the result of the appeal gone any other way...I thought that India was a country with a common law tradition and an understanding of an independent judiciary. This is not to say that the judge in the appeal here was threatened or caved into any particular wishes. He did not! But the mere thought of the BCCI jumping up and down on the spot like a petulant child leaves a sour taste in one's mouth.

What suffers here is cricket!

There should be no doubting that the ICC must now vote itself out of existence and let the BCCI run the game particularly if what is being reported is true. That is; Cricket Australia (CA) was more worried about a potential USD 60 million lawsuit than making a principled stand against racism in sport and forcing the players to follow their less than courageous lead supposedly for "the good of the game".

The appeal and review process seems to have set the standard for racism at the "beyond all reasonable doubt" level before a penalty can be imposed. So, the alleged offender had the charge downgraded and eventually was fined 50% of his match fee -- in essence a slap on the wrist and sent home without a ban. The alleged offender as part of the deal did acknowledge that he used offensive language (see an earlier blog entry as to what he said) although at the time this whole sorry saga broke he denied he said anything offensive either...what is the truth, who knows!

So, the BCCI has effectively flexed its muscles and had an umpire replaced and sent home, forced the ICC to alter the rules governing appeals, and forced the ICC to back down on the racism charge...in a boxing analogy this is no mere points decision, this is a first round KO for the BCCI of the ICC. The ICC should not be allowed back into the ring until it gets a medical clearance stating that it is fit to represent the interests of world cricket. I thought these blokes were paid well to have a spine!

The idea that the outcome of the hearing would see India go off and try and establish a separate cricketing organization is fear-mongering at its worst. The reality is that the BCCI has some much financial clout because of international cricket -- the BCCI needs the teams from the rest of the world to remain profitable. It is about time that both the BCCI and the ICC realized this...If the rest of the world was to pack its cricketing kits and tell the BCCI to shove there demands in a place where there aint no sunshine, then BCCI revenues would soon fall.

The World Series of Cricket and rebel cricket tours to South Africa during the hey day of apartheid showed us that rebel leagues have only passing fascination and ultimately the fans return to the real deal.

All in all it has been a sorry saga and a saga hopefully not to be repeated.

Racism in Sport

Some news from my homeland, the land down under, Australia!

The conclusion of the second cricket test has left a bitter taste in many mouths not so much by the way India capitulated on the final day to lose a test which seemed destined for a draw and an end to the Australian pursuit of the all time consecutive wins record at 15, just one shy of the magical 16, but rather as a result of the subsequent suspension of Harbhajan Singh for a racist taunt against Andrew Symonds. Symonds alleges that Singh called him a monkey.

Now, calling someone a monkey in and of itself is not racist, but when the person being called a monkey is Australia's only black player then the question was almost certainly going to arise as to whether it was a racist taunt. But what about if Singh had called Ponting and Symonds a pair of monkeys would that have been racist?

There is a long history of racism associated with calling a black person a monkey. If you do not believe it, then a simple Google search with the right terms will enlighten you no end. The insinuation is that the person is a throwback to the apes, perhaps representative of the missing link, and it is undoubtedly derogatory and intended to offend. Human beings can be really offensive when they want to be.

If Singh called Symonds a monkey he should be punished for it. Is a 3 match ban the most appropriate form of punishment; maybe, maybe not. But even more appropriate would be for the offender to get some counselling and then be required to make public service announcements regarding the danger of racism. This would go to the fundamental goal of achieving a recognition that racism has no place in sport.

But what about more general forms of sledging and taking the piss out of your opponents. Unfortunately, the good ol' days of "ya mother wears army boots" are long gone. Insults of this nature just no longer cut the mustard. Yet, is the best course of action in the light of this fiasco to ban sledging altogether?

Back to the case at hand. I have read some interesting articles and attempts to justify and execute Singh for the alleged comment. It was heard supposedly by a number of people although Singh has strenuously denied he uttered the offending word. But the most interesting article I read related to the Hindi word for motherfucker (the debate on whether an insult, and it is an insult with sexist connotations, is offensive based on whether it is an adjective or a noun is a different debate and a different post, but for an excellent academic discussion on the use of "fuck" see this link) which is "Maa Ki" to an untrained Australian ear this may indeed sound like 'monkey'. So, should Singh be given the benefit of the doubt here? Perhaps and particularly so in light of his vehement denials that he used monkey.

Let's face it, motherfucker may not be racist but the connotation is clear and as such it is offensive. The difference here is it is not racist and as such would have seemingly attracted no ban (but see the next point on the counter claim relating to the use of the word bastard--this may attact a ban of up to 4 matches). Further, the fact that Singh has now been labelled a racist this is a tag that will follow him for the rest of his career and into his post-cricket life too. What happened on the field should have stayed on the field and been settled there as well. In this age of political correctness the Dons that rule our little worlds would never stand for it. Is Dons racist or something offensive...Dons is used here in the sense of the head honcho of a mafia outfit, The Don. My Ma tells a great story about going to a wedding in her youth where the bride and groom were both of Italian ancestry.

Keeping on the offensive theme. India has lodged a counter-claim against Brad Hodge that he used the term 'bastard' when addressing a couple of the Indian players. Bastard in the technical sense refers to a child born out of wedlock and initially was intended to offend. Overtime the term has lost much of its offensiveness and it is now used in a number of ways like 'you lucky bastard' to signal that someone has enjoyed a considerable bit of good fortune. For example, when Symonds was given not out after edging the ball and standing his ground, you could safely say you were a lucky bastard not to be given out. Unfortunately, for Brad Hogg he suggested he was going to run through you bastards, which simply means he intended to take the Indians wickets as cheaply as possible, has become a test of consistency for the Match Referee.

So, in a country or culture that does not look favourably on children born out of wedlock, then being a bastard is stigma that is particularly offensive. Australians are likely to argue that bastard is no longer an offensive term as it is used regularly. The Indians made a similar claim that in Indian culture the monkey is a revered creature, and it is a deity, and as such hardly offensive. This is perhaps an oversimplification and India would be better served to argue that Singh did not use a racist epithet but rather he called Symonds a motherfucker. I am not sure that I can see the overall distinction here on an offensiveness level but if someone thinks that the insult of one's mother is less offensive than racism on the offense scale then so be it. Let the powers that be explain that one!

Hopefully, this is a storm in a tea cup that over time will dissipate and be dispatched into the pages of history. Racism is a serious issue but there are too many questions about whether there is a sufficient preponderance of circumstantial evidence to convict and punish Singh for his alleged indiscretion.

The bigger issue in the long term was the preponderance of mistakes made by the umpires which had the impact of completely changing the outcome of the contest. This has given rise to an active debate as to how much technology should be allowed into the game. These are separate but related issues. Related because better microphone technology might have picked up the exchange between Singh and Symonds putting to rest once and for all the dispute as to whether he did or did not say it.

The optimist in me says that cricket and sport will be a better game for this experience.