ISRAEL: THE DEMOCRATIC STATE WHERE DISCRIMINATION IS LEGAL

Recently, the US publicly stated that “Israel is the only democratic State of the entire Middle East”. The case I am going to report now clearly contradicts this statement: Israel is NOT a democratic State.. not even close.

June 3^rd, 2014: A unanimous rejection met the appeal of 21 members of the “Ani-Israeli” (I am Israeli) association headed by the linguist Professor (emeritus) Uzzi Ornan. Their request? Being registered as Israeli nationals, instead of the common practice of registering the nationality according to their ethnicity and religion. Jews, Arabs, Burmeses, Druzes and Russians were the ones presenting the petition.

The verdict is clear: there is NOT and there CANNOT BE one nationality for all Israeli citizens. The state may and does openly and officially discriminate between its citizens according to their religious and ethnic origins.

According to Hon. Rubinstein, “The State of Israel as a Jewish and Democratic State is a highly precious pledge deposited in our hands, it is the realization of the Zionist idea, it is the only Jewish state on earth, while it must aspire to offer appropriate equality for minorities; and this court cannot be expected to erode its essence and its character.” Kind of perplexing, right? How can you protect the “essence and character” of the Jewish State, while granting “appropriate” equality to minorities? And what exactly does it mean, “appropriate”?

The truth is, citizens of “Jewish nationality” are treated differently from citizens of other “nationalities” – especially from citizens who have “Arab nationality”. It happens just about anywhere.. from the border control checkpoints, to the military government’s checkpoints in the occupied territories, in the Ministry of the Interior. “AdministrationA non-Jewish citizen going abroad for a few years will discover that his or her citizenship had been revoked. A Jew may always present oneself after being absent for dozens of years and enjoy the perks of “the Law of Return”. Spouses and even children of non-Jewish citizens normally are not recognized for citizenship and mostly not even allowed residency”.

The entry gates to the Jewish state are, and always will be, hermetically locked for all those who were not born Jewish or had not converted into Judaism.

Now, how is this “democratic”?

SOURCE:

http://mondoweiss.net/2014/06/discrimination-decisions-nationality

CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND CATHOLIC CHURCH: HISTORICAL APPROACH

The relationships between the Catholic Church and the Church of England are historically characterized by ups and downs.

First and foremost I'd like to describe briefly the historical formation of the Church of England for having a better comprehension of it.

Until the Kingdom of Henry VIII England was one of the most Catholic nation in the world but with the schism in 1534 the Church of England became independent from Rome and the Papacy.

The king’s decision made a turning point in the history of Great Britain. According to the Elizabethan Settlement the Church of England (in Latin term Anglicana Ecclesia, term also used before the schism) is both Catholic and Reformed.

It is divided in two main dioceses: York in the north and Canterbury in the South.

So, in the Church’s structure there are two primates: the Archbishop of Canterbury for the southern province of England, and the Archbishop of York, for the northern province.

The archbishop of Canterbury is also the Primate of all England. The Church is essentially pluralistic and inside of it we can find different groups as the Anglo Catholics, the Reformed and the Evangelicals, all of them with different doctrinal point of view.

Along the centuries the diplomatic relations between the Holy See (the central government of the Church recognized as a sovereign entity with its ambassador called “Apostolic Nunzio”) and the UK were not symmetrical and easy oriented: many times they were broken and re-established from different sovereigns and Popes.

Diplomatic links between London and the Vatican Rome were first established in 1479 but were interrupted during the English Reformation in the 16th century.

Formal diplomatic ties between the UK and the Holy See were restored in 1914 and raised to ambassadorial level in 1982.

After the conclusion of Vatican Council II the common relationships between the two Churches were about theological dialogue for a engagement in prayers, testimony and mission.

About political issues we can affirm that a matter of tension was the situation of Ireland during the British sovereignty period because of the influence of Roman Catholic clergy on the island.

Instead the relationship of Dublin with Rome has always been strong , faithful and loyal because the majority of Irish population is still catholic. Many Bishops and Cardinals in Rome are from Ireland too.

Another serious problem in Vatican British relations was the question of Ulster during the late 60’: the Vatican expressed that the conflict in the Northern Ireland which was opposing Catholics and Protestants, could have been faced and resolved speedily, respecting the positions of Catholic citizens for a just solution and a long peace period.

An important aspect of diplomatic issues are the travels of Heads of States.

Before becoming the Queen of England, Princess Elizabeth visited the Vatican during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII, while her second visit to the Vatican was during a state visit to the Italian Republic in 1962 under the pontificate of Pope John XXIII.

The first Pope went to England for a Papal Visit was Benedict XVI in order of a State visit in 2010.

In December 2014 the UK and Vatican celebrated the centenary of re-established common diplomatic relations with a solemn Mass in the Basilica St Paul’s outside the Walls in city of Rome. In that occasion many important authorities were presents: for the Vatican Cardinal Parolin , Secretary of State, for the UK Baroness Anelay, Britain's minister of state at the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, and the British ambassador to the Holy See, Nigel Baker.

In this official ceremony Cardinal Parolin says it’s a very important anniversary because it’s important to dialogue and have channels of communication to deal together with the problems of the world today.

On the possibility of Pope Francis could make a visit to Britain, the cardinal said that the Pope has many journeys already planned, and so for the moment there’s nothing fixed for Great Britain. At the same time he also remembered the good experience of former Pope Benedict during his latest visit in 2010 in UK , hoping a future trip of Pope Bergoglio.

SOURCES:

http://www.wantedinrome.com/news/2003573/uk-celebrates-100-years-of-diplomatic-relations-with-vatican.

http://www.vietcatholic.net/News/

http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2014/12/03/cardinal_parolin_on_importance_of_uk-holy_see_relations/1113400

ANTI-MUSLIM MARCHES IN GERMANY

Last December an anti-Muslim march was held in Dresden, eastern Germany. There were 17.000 people, a huge participation for a city where there isn’t a large number of Muslims. This initiative was promoted by the Pegida movement, which was born in October and it opposes to the Islamization of the West.

The phenomenon gradually spread in Germany. According to a recent opinion poll 1 in 8 German would join the march if Pegida organized one in their city. And though many people consider the worries of the movement too exaggerated, about a 29% of German people admit that the influence of Islam is strong and someone give a justification for the movement.

On the other side there were also attitudes of hostility towards this movement . The Cologne Chattedral switch off its light against the anti-Muslim movement. The dean of the cathedral said: “By switching off the floodlighting we want to make those on the march stop and think. It is a challenge: consider who you are marching alongside.” The same initiative was adopted by Dresden’s Semperoper opera house.

The problem is particularly complex for the increase of immigrants from the Middle East, because of the war in Syria and Palestine. To get away from its Nazi past Germany adopted very liberal rules about asylum. The result is a huge increase of request of asylum and social and political tensions. Protesters accuse Merkel government of not being firm enough, the government instead condemns the leaders of the movement as extremists.

These tensions involve many other European countries such as England, France, Sweden, Netherlands. In Sweden there have been many acts of violence and vandalisms against Mosques. This combined with a recovery of the neo-Nazi party produces a situation of fear and instability.

The problem doesn't have a solution at the moment. The government doesn’t want to consider the movement but aside xenophobia a problem exists and is perceived by the population.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/02/cologne-cathedral-switch-off-lights-protest-march-pegida

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/1/1/pegida-germany-immigration.html

http://www.lastampa.it/2015/01/02/esteri/merkel-Tnk0h2PKioVgM7OeKMGLdK/pagina.html

WEEK 4: THE ROLE OF THE POPE IN THE RECONCILIATION BETWEEN USA AND CUBA

On December the 17^th the relationship between the United States of America and Cuba entered a new era. An exchange of prisoners permitted the resumption of diplomatic relations between the countries. These relations had been interrupted since 1961, the year in which the Soviet missile crisis began. The resumption of diplomatic relations was announced by Barack Obama and Raul Castro through speeches which took place at the same time. These leaders had a telephone conversation which lasted forty-five minutes. It was the first significant conversation between the presidents of the countries from the years of the big crisis. The agreement was reached after a year of secret negotiations. The release of prisoners seems lay the fundations for new agreements on subjets like travel restrictions and money transfer. Perhaps United States could remove the embargo imposed to Cuba by J. F. Kennedy in 1961 and soon Washington could open an embassy in L’Avana. Holy See played a crucial role in these events as reported cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Secretary of State. Catholic Church was always interested to promote the dialogue between Cuba and United States of America. It is possible to understand this considering the famous message of Giovanni XXIII (1962) and the travels in the island of Giovanni Paolo II (1998) and Benedetto XVI (2012). Nowadays the role of Pope Francesco has been decisive because he wrote a letter to the presidents inviting them to find a point of covergence. Infact the Pope comes from Argentina and he knows very well the reality of all the continent. Then the most important aim of Holy See’s diplomacy is that to favour paece and dialogue among the countries of all over the world. In the specific case Vatican diplomacy offered its good offices because the States begin to negotiate. Cuban Catholic Church followed these events joyfully hoping to increase its freedom in the future. Many people wish that the courage demonstrated by Obama and Castro inspire other leaders to act to exceed contrasts and conflicts.

Sources:

http://it.radiovaticana.va/news/2014/12/18/parolin_determinante_ruolo_francesco_nel_dialogo_cuba-usa/1115253

http://notizie.tiscali.it/esteri/feeds/14/12/17/t_01_04_2014-12-17_1171208744.html?esteri

Turkey lifts its ban on the hijab: long live women's power to choose!

If you want gender equality, let women be free to choose whatever they want to wear. It’s as simple as that – forcing a woman to wear something is just as bad as forcing her to give it up. Turkey has realized it too, finally, after years and years of banishing the hijab, the traditional headscarf. Ever since the founding father of the Republic, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, took power, anything that could be related to the “old fashioned Islam”, the Islam of the obsolete empire, was, at the very least, strongly discouraged.

For years, women have been fighting for the right to wear the hijab everywhere – especially universities. It has nothing to do with religious fundamentalism; it’s just about women taking the power to decide what to put on their own bodies. It could be a headscarf or bunny’s ears, it just shouldn’t matter, as long as it’s not offensive to anyone.

As Shalina Litt, a popular Muslim radio presenter in Birmingham says, “Much of the negativity about headscarves and veils comes from a lack of understanding about what they mean and why women choose wear them. […]Wearing the veil can be surprisingly empowering”, especially when talking to men, who “are having to listen to my words, not judge me by my clothes or my face, but paying attention purely to what I have to say." One could or could not agree with this statement, it doesn’t really matter. The point is, let women be free to choose! No one ever tells men what they can or cannot put on their own bodies -  and God knows, sometimes it wouldn’t be such a bad idea – so why should anyone feel he or she has the right to tell a woman what to wear?

"A dark time eventually comes to an end," Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said in a speech to the parliament. "Headscarf-wearing women are full members of the republic, as well as those who do not wear it."

Sources:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131011-hijab-ban-turkey-islamic-headscarf-ataturk/

ITALY: THE EXPOSURE OF THE CRUCIFIX INTO SCHOOLS

In 1924 and in 1928 the fascist regime issued two decrees which provided the presence of the crucifix in the classrooms. In the following decades, in spite of the collapse of the regime and the entry into force of a lay Constitution, the new republican governments did not repeal these laws. In this way the problem of their validity arose. The exposure of the crucifix into schools was questioned because some people perceived it as a symbol which protected the traditional values but for others its presence was a sign of discrimination towards people who had a different cultural identity.

Since the 80s the citizens have raised to the courts some appeals against the presence of the crucifix in the classrooms. In spite of this, the judges have always dismissed these actions asserting that the crucifex did not limit everyone’s freedom to manifest his religious convinctions. Besides the courts proclaimed that the crucifex had not only a meaning connected to the Catholicism but it was also an universal symbol of western culture and identity.

In 2004 the most important italian court case about the crucifix began. The case was faced by a lot of newspapers and TV programmes and it started when Soile Lautsi, a finnish citizen living in Abano Terme (near Padua), complained that the exposure of the crucifix in his son’s classroom violated the principles of laicity and impartiality recognised by the Constitution. Therefore she raised an appeal to the Veneto’s TAR. In 2005 this court dismissed the action proclaiming that the crucifix transmitted values like freedom, equality and religious tolerance. At this point Soile Lautsi raised an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. She complained the violation of the parent’s right to educate a son in accordance with his/her values. It is a right recognised by the “Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms”. The Chamber composed of seven judges examined the case and in 2009 it issued a judgement establishing that the presence of the crucifix in the classrooms discriminated people who had a different belief. Taking note of this the italian government decided to present an appeal to the the Grand Chamber made up of seventeen judges. The action of the government was successful: in 2011 the court proclaimed that the crucifix was a “passive” symbol because its exposure was not connected to forms of religious indoctrination. Consequently the State can continue to adopt the praxis to show the crucifix into schools. Nevertheless this topic is debated again and it continues to divide the public opinion of our country.

Sources:

http://www.olir.it/areetematiche/75/documents/palma_lautsi.pdf

http://www.camera.it/application/xmanager/projects/leg17/attachments/sentenza/sintesi_sentenzas/000/000/422/sintesi_Lautsi_e_altri_c._Italia.pdf

QUEBEC SECULARISM PLAN

Last year in the Canadian region of Quebec a controversial plan to abolish religious symbols in public places was being discussed. The problem had been  discussed for months, and tension was very high. The two opposing factions clashed harshly without arriving at a solution.

The bill proposed by “The parti Québécois” (PQ) in 2013 provided that all the public employees couldn’t show conspicuous religious symbols. Example of prohibited symbol were headscarves, yarmulkes, turbans, and big crucifixes. Instead little crucifixes, rings and other small items could be worn.

The people in favour of this plan argued that it was “essential” and “reflect who we are as a society”. According to them Quebec had always adapted to the influences of the various religions losing its identity.

The people against this plan thought it was “ discriminatory and unnecessary” and forced a lot of public employees to choose between work and faith. They recognized the importance of a secularism however they didn’t agree with this solution. They proposed an alternative, in which the ban concerned only those who had a position of authority.

This project died in 2014. The liberal won the election in April and the plan was abandoned.

The issue of religious symbols affects not only Quebec but different countries. In 2004 France abolished all religious symbols in public places. On one hand, there is the pressure of increasing secularism in society. On the other hand, this pressure responds to a perceived fear among the population towards minorities especially Islamic considered different and dangerous. Islam is often associated to ISIS and terrorist acts.

The discussion of this paper is in fact accompanied by a widespread Islamophobia. There have been several cases in Quebec of vandalism against mosques.

The problem is not solved yet, but it should address the issue in the right way to avoid violence.

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/9/14/quebec-proposal-yourheadscarforyourjob.html

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/11/11/quebec-ottawa-islamophobia.html