The Blasphemous Teddy Bear

When we get to the comparative context of this class, the term: Sharia -- Islamic legal code which many argue should supercede civil law in countries such as Iran and Nigeria (Hauss) -- will come into curricular focus. But with Sharia spreading in Northern Africa, a flashpoint in the continuing Clash of Cultures or Jihad vs. McWorld has sparked again. Last year, it was political cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed in a Danish newspaper. This time, it was the naming of a teddy bear by the Prophet's name that has resulted in the row.

As CNN and then a link to Time.com report, even the naming of a teddy bear can become an international incident in the age of globalization and lack of understanding.
________________

KHARTOUM, Sudan (CNN) -- A Sudanese court found a British teacher guilty of insulting religion and sentenced her to 15 days in prison Thursday for allowing a teddy bear to be named "Mohammed," British authorities and her lawyer reported.

Gillian Gibbons also faces deportation from Sudan after her prison term, her lawyer told CNN.
He said that he was "very disappointed" with the verdict and that Gibbons planned to appeal.
Gibbons was not convicted of two other charges brought against her -- inciting hatred and showing contempt for religious beliefs, her lawyer said.

Gibbons, 54, was arrested Sunday after she asked her class of 7-year-olds in Khartoum to name the stuffed animal as part of a school project, the British Foreign Office said. She had faced charges under Article 125 of Sudan's constitution, the law relating to insulting religion and inciting hatred.

Although there is no ban in the Quran on images of Allah or the Prophet Mohammed, Islam's founder, likenesses are considered highly offensive by Muslims.

The courthouse was heavily guarded by police, who kept journalists -- and, for a while, even one of her attorneys -- away.

Gibbons could have faced a sentence of 40 lashes, a fine, or a jail term of up to a year, according to the Foreign Office, which expressed Britain's dissatisfaction with the verdict.

___________

From Time.com

It probably seemed like the most innocent of ideas to the newly arrived teacher from England, still settling into life in the Sudanese capital Khartoum. She asked her class of six- and seven-year-olds to dress up and name a teddy bear, and keep a diary of his outings. She hoped it would provide material for projects for the rest of the year. And it might have, except for the name the children chose for their bear: Muhammad.

Now Gillian Gibbons, 54, is spending her second night in a Sudanese prison, accused of insulting Islam's Prophet. She faces a public lashing or up to six months in prison if found guilty on charges of blasphemy. And Unity High School — one of a number of exclusive British-run schools in the Sudanese capital — has been closed as staff fear reprisals from Islamic extremists. Robert Boulos, the school's director, said the incident had been blown out of all proportion, but added that the school would remain closed until January to let ill feelings blow over.

"This was a completely innocent mistake," he said in an office decorated with sepia photographs dating back to the school's colonial heyday. "Miss Gibbons would have never wanted to insult Islam."

Police raided the school, where Gibbons also lives, on Sunday.

"We tried to reason with them but we felt they were coming under strong pressure from Islamic courts," said Boulos. "There were men with big beards asking where she was and saying they wanted to kill her."

A similar angry crowd had gathered by the time she arrived at the Khartoum police station where she is being held.

Unity, founded early in the last century, is one of several British schools run along Christian lines in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. Its high brick walls shut out the dust of everyday Sudanese life, transporting the visitor into the shady courtyard of an Oxbridge college or English private school. Many of its pupils come from well-to-do Sudanese families keen for their children to get the best education that money can buy. But Sudan is ruled by religious conservatives. Sharia law was introduced in 1991; alcohol is banned and women must wear headscarves. Convicted criminals are routinely flogged or executed.

The bizarre turn of events that led to the teacher's arrest began in September, soon after she arrived in the country, according to colleagues who have rallied in her support. Her young class was due to study the behavior and habitat of bears, so she suggested that pupils bring in a teddy bear to serve as a case study. A seven-year-old girl brought in her favorite cuddly toy and the rest of the class was invited to name him. After considering the names Hassan and Abdullah, they voted overwhelmingly in favor of Muhammad — the first name of the most popular boy in the class.

"No parents or teachers complained because they knew she had no bad intention," said Boulos. Until last week. Parents from another class raised concerns with the school. Then Sudan's feared police came calling at the weekend. Gibbons' colleagues said they feared a disgruntled member of staff may be using the issue to cause trouble.

Bishop Ezikiel Kondo, chairman of the school council, said: "The thing may be very simple, but they just may make it bigger. It's a kind of blackmail." Khartoum has exploded with anger at accusations of blasphemy in the past. Last year angry demonstrators denounced cartoons of the Prophet that appeared in Danish newspapers.

Now everyone is waiting to see whether religious leaders or politicians will take their supporters onto the streets this time. Most parents arriving at the school gates were supportive of the British teacher.

One mother, whose seven-year-old son was in Gibbons' class, said her family had not been offended by the name. "Our Prophet Muhammad tells us to be forgiving," she said. "So she should be released. She didn't mean any of this at all."

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1687755,00.html

President, Iraqi PM sign Treaty Light

Same great taste without all those heavy Senate approval hearings.

U.S. and Iraqi leaders signed a plan for bilateral relations, setting the stage for formal negotiations about the long-term presence of American troops in Iraq.

President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki on Monday signed the nonbinding agreement via video conference.

The Guardian (UK) reports:

"Iraq's government is preparing to grant the US a long-term troop presence in the country and preferential treatment for American investors in return for a guarantee on long-term security, it emerged today.

Iraqi officials said that, under the proposed formula, Iraq would get full responsibility for internal security and American troops would relocate to bases outside cities. The proposals foresee a long-term presence of about 50,000 US troops, down from the current figure of more than 160,000.

Preferential treatment for US investors could provide a huge windfall if Iraq can achieve enough stability to exploit its vast oil resources."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2217387,00.html

Reading through the White House Fact Sheet on the, "US-Iraq Declaration of Principles for Friendship and Cooperation," http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/11/20071126-1.html and the United Nations Treaty Guide, which states:

" Treaty as a specific term: There are no consistent rules when state practice employs the terms "treaty" as a title for an international instrument. Usually the term "treaty" is reserved for matters of some gravity that require more solemn agreements. Their signatures are usually sealed and they normally require ratification. Typical examples of international instruments designated as "treaties" are Peace Treaties, Border Treaties, Delimitation Treaties, Extradition Treaties and Treaties of Friendship, Commerce and Cooperation. The use of the term "treaty" for international instruments has considerably declined in the last decades in favor of other terms."

This would sound like a Treaty to the average AP Government student. But alas, AP Government is all that because it is changing everyday. No text book definitions here. Afterall, we know the President has the constitutional power to negotitate treaties. They are ratified by that check to balance the executive branch, Senate approval.

But for this thing -- "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is,'' Bill Clinton once rationalized to the Grand Jury -- I guess it depends on what the meaning of treaty is.

Bush and Maliki set the stage for the formal negotiations by separately signing a "not-binding" agreement on a set of principles during a secure videoconference on Monday, Lieutenant General Douglas Lute said at a White House briefing.

"It's a mutual statement of intent that will be used to frame our formal negotiations in the course of the upcoming year. It's not a treaty, but it's rather a set of principles from which to begin formal negotiations," he said.

If only Woodrow Wilson had videoconference technology in 1919.

Constitutional Showdown: Subpoena vs. Executive Privilege

Last Spring, there was an impending Constitutional Showdown over Presidential Executive Privilege and the Congressional Power to Subpoena. Over the U.S. Attorneys standoff, White House Counsel Fred Fielding mentioned "the constitutional prerogatives of the presidency" in a letter offering a compromise to Congress. Democratic members had demanded that Administration officials testify under oath about why eight U.S. attorneys were fired.



With our test on Tuesday, the re-runned post should be helpful in figuring out what the heck the terms mean.


Executive privilege: George Washington invoked it, Dwight Eisenhower named it and Richard Nixon abused it. Now it looms as the nuclear option in George W. Bush's battle with Congress over its investigation into the firing of eight U.S. attorneys. So what the heck does it mean, and how much weight will it carry in the current standoff?

Last spring, a subcommittee in the House of Representatives voted to issue subpoenas to several Bush Administration officials in the House investigation about the firings of 8 U.S. attorneys from the Justice Department.

Legislative subpoena power gives members of Congress the ability to interview Americans under oath as part of their investigative powers. But President Bush claims that using this power to question his advisors threatens the quality of advice given to the Chief Executive.

Advisors will be less forthright, he argues, if their words might one day appear on the public record.This is one of the issues that makes divided government so intriguing. Whether it was the Congressional investigation into Watergate, Iran-Contra or Bill Clinton’s financial dealings, legislative inquiry of the Executive Branch gets to the heart of separation of powers these days.



The question is, not whether you think Attorney General Gonzales or Karl Rove should (have been) fired, but whether Congress should have the power to call these advisors into a committee hearing and question them under oath. Is the scenario heathy or hurtful to our constitutional structure?


Time.com has a good article on all of this stuff from last March posted here:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1601450,00.html

Cheers! A toast to Popp (not soda here) Point leaders

Last spring, I found this random advertising map, in which the Department of Cartography and Geography from East Central University (Oklahoma) tracked where people called soft drinks whatever. It is a Blue v. Red country after all, but it’s not a Pepsi winner. The true-blue winner: “No Coke, Pop!” Not surprisingly 50-80% of us in Chicagoland call soft drinks POP. But look how Atlanta-based Coca-Cola controls the language in the South.

Okay, I digress. The point of this post is our Popp Point Scoreboard. ("Popp Points" named after graduate Alex Popp, who helped me create the blog last year.) Remember a maximum 10 EC points are available for blogging here. Here are the standings as of 11/24 (Anything below the top 7 are wasted points!):

1. Garrett B. 27 (10 EC points)
2. Sean A. 15 (10 EC points)
3. Shreharha N. 14 (10 EC points)
4. Vivi D. 12 (10 EC points)
5. Sahil P. 11 (10 EC points)
5. Amina G. 11 (10 EC points)
7. Kacy M. 10 (10 EC points)
7. Andrew D. 10 (10 EC points)
7. Alex C. 10 (10 EC points)
7. Kajsa N-S. 10 (10 EC points)
11. Carlos O. 6 (6 EC points)
12. Rebecca T. 5 (5 EC points)
12. Jeremy S. 5 (5 EC points)
13. Feifan Y. 4 (4 EC points)
13. Jack G. 4 (4 EC points)
13. Alice W. 4 (4 EC points)
13. Jean S. 4 (4 EC points)
17. Will C. 3 (3 EC points)
17. Alice W. 3 (3 EC points)
17. Yunus K. 3 (3 EC points)
20. Imran Z. 2 (2 EC points)
20. Heather Z. 2 (2 EC points)
20. Jenny S. 2 (2 EC points)

Caught up in Red, White & Blue Tape

One of the arguments in the immigration debate in this country against a "comprehensive reform" policy that would provide about 12 million illegal immigrants a legal path towards citizenship, is that it would give amnesty to those who did not follow the rule of law.

But on Thanksgiving Day, the Washington Post reported that: "Hundreds of thousands of people may not be able to vote in next year's US presidential election because of a huge citizenship application backlog."

The story is another example of bureaucratic red, white and blue tape getting in the way of people trying to follow the legal policy towards citizenship. It is also more politics getting in the way of governing. The Post story is linked here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/21/AR2007112102419.html

Those left waiting for citizenhsip will also be disenfranchised or not eligible to vote in the 2008 election.

Immigration, chief Hillary Clinton strategist Mark Penn said, is emerging as "a new wedge issue" for Republicans, who will attempt to use it to paint Democrats as weak on border security.

In last month's Democratic Presidential candidates debate, when asked about New York Gov. Eliot L. Spitzer's proposal to provide driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, Clinton initially refused to answer, but her campaign put out a statement the next day saying she does support such a move.

All of the Democratic contenders have embraced some form of "comprehensive reform" -- including a failed measure, backed by President Bush, that would have given about 12 million illegal immigrants a path toward legal citizenship. Most of the Republican presidential candidates opposed that legislation and have focused their rhetoric on improving border security.

Polls showed a majority of Americans supported that legislation, but two-thirds also thought the United States was not doing enough to stem the tide of illegal immigration, according to an ABC News poll taken in September.

At the same time, according to a CNN poll last month, 76 percent of Americans oppose giving licenses to illegal immigrants, compared with 23 percent who favor it.

A Wedge issue is a social or political issue, often of a divisive or otherwise controversial nature, which is used by one political group to split apart or create a "wedge" in the support base of an opposing political group, with a view to enticing voters to give their support to the first group. The use of wedge issues gives rise to wedge politics.

And in this case, even for the Democrats, the complicated issue of immigration is not a valence issue. An issue that is uniformly liked or disliked among the electorate, as opposed to a position issue on which opinion is divided.

Post your position on immigration reform here. And be thankful you are not waiting in line for citizenship.

[Re] Viewing our Reflection

Upon further judicial review of an ealier post, with the help of the 2 Regular guys at CBS2Chicago.com:

As Kajsa said in her 11/11 post on Illinois' law instituted moment of silence under the "Silent Game" post the controversial public law has failed to pass federal court constitutional muster this past week.

A U.S. Federal Judge from the Northern Illinois District, Robert Gettleman, ordered a preliminary injunction prohibiting District 214 from observing this law. He suspects this law violates the First Amendment protection against an "establishment of religion." His decision is based upon a civil suit brought by a Buffalo Grove student. Judge Gettleman stopped short of applying his injunction to all public schools in Illinois. He did state, however, that the Illinois state school supertintendent lacked the power to enforce the law.

This story is interesting on many levels.

First it reminds us of the importance of our rights. But it also reminds us of the power of federal judges. Judge Gettleman practiced here a concept known as "judicial review." Judicial review is the power given to federal judges to rule on the constitutionality of law. Despite the democratic process that passed this law in Illinois, a single judge, appointed by a president, serving a life term, can nullify the provision. This is an extraordinary power. The precedent was set in the court case Marbury v. Madison (1803).

This moment of silence law has cause quite a lot of talk here in Illinois. "The Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act" is worthy of our debate. This week we are reminded of another topic worth discussing. Do federal judges have too much power? What prevents judges from taking their power and authority too far? Does judicial review somehow make judges above the law?

If only we had time for reflection.

VIDEO: CBS 2 School: Moment Of Silence In Schools

Drew Peterson plays Hardball: "The Press is the Enemy"

In Hardball Chris Matthews writes:

"You may be one of those cocky types who watch some guy getting fried to a crisp on 60 Minutes and wonder why anyone with a brain larger than a moth's would consent to be interviewed."

Later he writes in advice to Pols, "There are only two kinds of media-wise politicians: Those who are born fearing the press, and those who learn to fear it the hard way.

"Matthews also says of the press: 'Their mission is to produce a good story, and in their business it's generally the bad news that makes the best headlines. Failure, misery, disaster — that's what makes the bells go off in a journalist's nervous system: the kind of story where somebody gets hurt.'

"Matthews' key point on the subject of journalists was: 'Like policemen, they're always on duty.' He's right.

Richard Nixon used to say the "Press is the Enemy." I thought of that and how common that scapegoating claim is used by seemingly anyone in trouble.

Former Mayor of Washington D.C. Marion Barry blamed the press for ruining his career after he was filmed smoking crack.

A National Home Builder says the press is to blame for poor home sales:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/09/business/09toll.html?_r=2&ref=business&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

And now former Bolingbrook police officer Drew Peterson is baming the media for having the public believe he murdered his missing fourth wife, and possibly his late third wife as well. But does the public by the press scapegoating?

Apparently not, according to this tracking done by MediaCurves.com of Peterson's interview with Matt Lauer, which did not post correctly on an earlier blog. While this polling does not pass traditional scientific polling muster, it is interesting in our Time when, You is the "Person of the Year."

http://www.mediacurves.com/NationalMediaFocus/J6584/

This is good video, after my previous Peterson video clip did not work.