The View From Here: 2014

Thursday, October 23, 2014

I Couldn't Disagree More With Glenn Greenwald About His Take on Acts of Terrorism in Canada

By Fareed Khan

October 23, 2014 -- I generally agree with Glenn Greenwald. He's one of the most incisive and intelligent journalists to write on issues of international politics and public policy. His reports last year on the Edward Snowden NSA leaks were the definitive stories about US abuses of their national security apparatus to spy on ordinary Americans and on US allies.

But on the issue of terror attacks in Canada I couldn't disagree with him more (for the most part)!

GLEN GREENWALD: Canada, At War For 13 Years, Shocked That "A Terrorist" Attacked Its Soldiers

He obviously hasn't followed the political nuances and internal debates of what has occurred in Canada over the past 13 years when it comes to terrorism and related issues and so I question his logic since he couldn't have read up on more than a decade of Canadian political dialogue and the public debates they generated in the day or so since he wrote his article. In addition, his linking Canada's role in Afghanistan to the attack on the Canadian soldier outside Montreal earlier this week is a total disconnect since one has nothing to do with the other. (NOTE: His article was written before the Ottawa attack.)

Related:
* Terrorism rocks Ottawa
* Ottawa terrorist attack prompts worldwide step-up in security from Australia to England to Iqaluit
* Day of chaos in the capital leaves soldier and terrorist dead
* Terror strikes Canadian capital as attacks leave one soldier and one suspect dead
* Ottawa shooting: Harper, Mulcair, Trudeau speak about attack
* Ottawa shooting: How the terror unfolded
* Quebec hit-and-run attacker 'radicalized,' PMO says
* Ottawa terror payback for Harper's war in Iraq?

Where I do agree however is his take on the use of the word "terrorism" by governments (particularly the US) to define acts of violent protest that governments disagree with. The US has used the word terrorism to lable many actions against American policy over the past two decades. And since 9/11 Russia, China, France, Israel and others have applied the terrorism lable to any acts of political protest or political violence that are in opposition to the policies of those nations. In Canada the Conservative government of Stephen Harper has used the terror lable to try and silence environmental groups that have opposed the Conservative governments pro-oil and anti-environment policies.

However, where we don't see the word terrorism used (and it should be) is when the governments of the US, the UK, France, Israel, India and many others take military actions which target supposed terrorists but instead end up killing and maiming mostly innocent people far away from the centres of power. And while most will agree that the attack in Ottawa yesterday was an act of terror, we should also then agree that any act of brutal violence (whether perpetrated by an individual or by a government) are acts that terrorize people.

With this in mind one has to question how acts of terrorism are labled. For example, why was the Ottawa attack considered an act of terror while the June 2014 shootings of five RCMP officers (three of whom died) which terrorized Moncton, New Brunswick were not. Certainly that entire community was terrorized as a killer roamed the streets targeting RCMP officers the same way that the Ottawa shooter targeted the Canadian Forces members at the National War Memorial and Parliament. There was a similar incident in May 2014 which terrorized the community of St. Paul, Alberta where an individual once again tried to kill RCMP officers. And then there was the Mayerthorpe, Alberta incident where four RCMP officers were ambushed and killed. That incident certainly terrorized and traumatized a community and the nation.

So if the definition of terrorism isn't locked down, as Greenwald says, and is used by politicians selectively then maybe it should be defined more accurately by those who make a career of studying and writing about it. Or better yet, why don't we just define it as any deliberate violent act that creates the feeling of terror in people. That way school shootings and gun violence in the US would also be considered acts of terror and maybe the American government would finally do something about that (but I digress).

We should also keep in mind that when US drones and fighter jets drop bombs and missiles from 20,000 feet on unsuspecting villagers in Pakistan, Yemen or Somalia, with the goal of killing terrorists, and when a large number of the dead and dismembered are innocent civilians, that too is terrorism, and more so it is by international definition a war crime. Studies and interviews done with those who live in those affected areas have certainly demonstrated that those people feel terrorized everyday, but the (state) terrorism lable is never applied to those circumstances.

The only difference between the incidents mentioned above and what happened in Ottawa yesterday is that drone attacks and bombings by fighter jets always happen out of sight of the western media. And since we didn't see it happen on TV or watch the progress of the event on social media it's as if it never happened and, therefore, it wasn't an act of terror. But if you talk to the survivors of those attack I will bet that they would think differently. And if we as Canadian citizens and our government are truly committed to fighting and eliminating terrorism then we should be thinking and acting differently also.

© Fareed Khan. © The View From Here. All Rights Reserved.

Monday, August 11, 2014

69 years and Counting: Looking Back At Hiroshima and Nagasaki

By Fareed Khan

August 6th and August 9th marked the 69th anniversary of the dropping of atomic bombs by the United States on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The days came and went this year with little political or public commentary on two of the most horrific events in the history of war.

Conservative estimates of the death toll in the days and weeks after the bombing are approximately 150,000 dead in Hiroshima and 75,000 dead in Nagasaki. However, in the years that followed survivors of the bombings began to die as a result of various cancers, bomb-related diseases and injuries resulting from radiation exposure and physical trauma. It is estimated that by 1950, 200,000 more people from the two cities had died. And of those survivors who did not die, many became victims of various types of cancers as they aged.

While the U.S. justified its use of atomic weapons by claiming it was the only way to end the war with Japan without sustaining many thousands more American casualties Many experts, politicians,and scientists came forward before and after the bombings to state that the war could have been ended quickly without the use of the atomic bombs and that Japan was on the cusp of surrendering at the time the decision was made to use the weapons.

Among the critics of the decision were: Admiral William Leahy, chief military advisor to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman; General Dwight Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander in Europe; General Douglas MacArthur, Supreme Allied Commander in the Pacific; General Curtis LeMay, future head of the U.S. Air Force; Navy Secretary James Forrestal; former President Herbert Hoover; Albert Einstein; as well as a number of the lead scientists of the Manhattan Project.

DWIGHT EISENHOWER

Supreme Allied Commander in Europe

"Japan was already defeated and dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary . . . I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'.”

ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY

Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons."

HERBERT HOOVER

Former President of the United States

On May 28, 1945, Hoover visited President Truman and suggested a way to end the Pacific war quickly: "I am convinced that if you, as President, will make a shortwave broadcast to the people of Japan - tell them they can have their Emperor if they surrender, that it will not mean unconditional surrender except for the militarists - you'll get a peace in Japan - you'll have both wars over."

GENERAL DOUGLAS MacARTHUR

Supreme Allied Commander in the Pacific

MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: "...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible . . . Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."

Today, almost seven decades later, it's difficult to imagine why a country would justify unleashing the horror of such weapons on anyone. And while no nation other than the United States has used nuclear weapons against an adversary, the nine nuclear nations of the world combined sit on a stockpile of nuclear weapons many times more powerful than those dropped on Japan. If even a fraction of these weapons were ever used they would render the Earth uninhabitable to almost all life on this planet. In total the nuclear nations of the world possess 17,300 nuclear warheads among them with Russia (8,500 warheads) and the United States (7,700 warheads) accounting for 92% of that number.

As this anniversary passes and the 70th anniversary of the bombings approaches next year let us hope that the campaign initiated in 2007 to declare nuclear weapons illegal under international law gains momentum and reaches a point where that goal can be achieved.

“Nuclear abolition is the democratic wish of the world's people, and has been our goal almost since the dawn of the atomic age. Together, we have the power to decide whether the nuclear era ends in a bang or worldwide celebration.”

~ Archbishop Desmond Tutu

Related:
* Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 69 Years Later

* August 6th – A Date Which Will (Not) Live in Infamy

* The Living Myths About Nuclear Murder: Remembering Hiroshima and Nagasaki

* CIA: No Evidence of Iranian Nuclear Weapons Program

* Israeli Asher Karni & Nuclear Terrorism Network

* The Unspoken Alliance: New Book Documents Arms, Nuclear and Diplomatic Ties
Between Israel and Apartheid South Africa

* Secrets About Suspected Israeli Theft of U.S. Weapons-Grade Nuclear Material
Declassified

* Let’s Be Honest About Israel’s Nukes

* China, India, Pakistan boost nuclear arsenals

* Is The U.S. Planning A Horrific Global Nuclear War?

* The Dangers of a Middle East Nuclear War

* Nuclear Hero's 'Crime' Was Making Us Safer

NOTE: All links in this article were current and working at the time of posting. If any links no longer work please post a note and the problem will be corrected where possible.

© Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.

Injustice Must Be Opposed

Injustices, whether in words or actions, that go unchallenged are an affront to civil society and are dangerous to the long term health of the social order.

How would things have been different in 1920s and 1930s Germany if people had spoken out against the growing institutional and societal oppression of that country's Jewish population?

What if the world had opposed the Apartheid policies in South Africa from their inception?

How would society have been bettered if gay and lesbian populations in all societies hadn't faced oppression and persecution?

Would there be peace in Israel and Palestine today if the world had opposed Israel's occupation of Palestinian lands and their unjust policies of oppression?

History has shown that to remain silent in the face of injustice is to condemn the population that is being victimized to pain, suffering and death. It means that those who don't speak out or take action against injustice become accomplices to the injustices being perpetrated.

It is something that is unconscionable, especially in a democratic society where human rights are suppose to be guaranteed.

As members of civil society, as human beings, we should never allow words or acts of injustice to go unchallenged. To do so is to take a step on the path to the breakdown of civil society and the social order, and towards the darkness of barbarism.

Thursday, June 05, 2014

Tiananmen Square Massacre Remembered 25 Years Later

By Fareed Khan

June 4th marked the 25th anniversary of a tragic day in history -- a subject that has become taboo in China, banned from textbooks, websites and public discussions. It was on that day in 1989 that the Chinese government ordered the brutal suppression of protests for democratic reform in Tiananmen Square that resulted in the massacre of unarmed demonstrators.

According to a Time magazine interview with an official of the Chinese Red Cross the following year it was estimated that approximately 2,600 people were killed in the military crackdown with thousands more being wounded. However, most estimates by Western diplomats and organizations like Amnesty International put the death toll anywhere from a few hundred to more than 1000. Exact numbers of the dead and wounded are difficult to verify due to government secrecy and the suppression of information about the events surrounding the democracy protests by Chinese authorities.

* 1989: Massacre in Tiananmen Square

* Wikipedia: Tiananmen Square protests of 1989

* Tiananmen Square 25th anniversary – the massacre as it happened

As has become normal practice in China since 1989 there will be no public commentary about the significance of this date. And the image of the protesting "tank man", which became an iconic image around the world of the Chinese suppression of the protests, will not be found in any Chinese media since the government has done everything possible to scrub the events and images of that period from the national memory.

Those who were witnesses to the events leading up to that day are unlikely to talk about it since doing so could bring a visit from authorities which would then mean a long stay in a political re-education camp. In addition to references to the Tiananmen demonstrations being removed from Chinese information sources, any efforts to find any references online through Western media would meet with failure due to heavy censorship by Chinese internet search engines. Consequently, the generation that was born in the subsequent decades are completely oblivious to the historic and tragic events that occurred in Tiananmen Square in 1989.

The initial demonstrations that led up to the June 4th crackdown began in April of that year in response to the death of Hu Yaobang, a former Communist Party leader who was considered to be a liberal reformer and was critical of corruption in the Communist Party and the limited economic opportunities for the country's youth. The Beijing student gatherings to mourn Hu's death morphed into expressions of frustration and anger over lack of government accountability, government corruption, lack of press freedoms and freedom of speech, and the diminishing control of industry by workers.

The demonstrations were led by students from Beijing's universities and supported by the citizens of Beijing. Media coverage of the protests galvanized citizens in other cities and by mid-May sympathetic protests had sprung up in 400 cities around China. At the height of the protests it is estimated that a million people assembled in the Square.

But by the end of May hardliners within the Chinese leadership had pushed out those who were sympathetic to the protestors. They declared martial law and ordered the "People's Liberation Army" into Beijing backed by tanks and armoured personel carriers. An estimated 300,000 troops were brought into the capital and were ordered to use deadly force to break up the protests. One-third of the troops were committed to clearing out Tiananmen Square of protestors. The killing along all the major routes leading to the Square started before midnight with soldiers firing their automatic rifles and the armoured personnel carriers firing their machine guns indiscriminately into the huge crowds and small groups.

By June 5th the Square had been cleared of crowds and the 33-foot statue representing democracy and freedom had been destroyed. In the weeks that followed the Chinese leadership purged government and media organizations of those who had expressed sympathies towards the demonstrators. Where possible, leaders of the demonstrations were rounded up and jailed as "counter-revolutionaries" although a few of the student leaders managed to escape to Western countries. In addition, mass arrests were carried out against thousands of workers who supported the students. Many were tried for crimes against the state and summarily executed.

The Chinese government's crackdown on the protestors was widely denounced by Western governments and in Western media. And in the weeks that followed the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and various foreign governments suspended loans to China. In addition, foreign direct investments were cancelled, economic embargoes were imposeded and tourism to China declined substantially.

Although China suffered an economic hit in the short-term, in the long-term the West seems to have forgotten about those who died fighting for the freedoms that those in the West take for granted. In the years since June 4, 1989 the outrage that was expressed by the West has diminished, economic embargoes put in place were lifted, supported by their governments Western corporations became one of the biggest sources of foreign investment in China and contributed to the personal wealth of the Chinese leadership, and Western tourism to China increased dramatically. Today it is unlikely that Western governments or business executives even consider the events of 25 years ago or the authoritiarian ideology that permitted the massacre to occur when they talk business with the Chinese government (an ideology which continues to guide the present day leaders of China).

It has to be said that it’s a sad reality that no matter how brutally a government may treat its citizens in the long run the leaders of that government will benefit financially because Western governments and companies are willing to deal with authoritarian governments because the pursuit of profits always seems to trump struggles for freedom, democracy and human rights.

NOTE: All links in this article were current and working at the time of posting. If any links no longer work please post a note and the problem will be corrected where possible.

Friday, May 16, 2014

9-11 Museum Opening Ceremonies Silent on the Hundreds of Thousands Killed by America's "War On Terror"

By Fareed Khan

It was a solemn day in New York City yesterday (May 15, 2014). This day marked the official opening of the 9/11 museum which commemorates the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The museum is the principal institution concerned with exploring the implications of the events of the September 11th terrorist attacks and documenting the impact of those events. But for the majority of American it is seen as the national memorial to the 2,977 people who were victims of 9/11. The museum opening received wide media coverage , as is appropriate for the opening of a memorial for such a tragic event.

But while it was solemn day for those in New York City the opening of the museum should also be marked as a tragic day for the millions of people who were half a world away, had no direct involvement in the attacks of September 11th, and yet are victims of 9/11 just as much as the people who died on that sunny Tuesday morning. I refer to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan who became victims of violence perpetrated by the United States and its allies as it lashed out in response to the events of September 11th.

The tragedy of yesterday's museum opening is manifested in the fact that while the deaths of the 9/11 victims are being remembered in the U.S. by the opening of a memorial that cost over $700 million to build, totally forgotten is the reality of the many hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi and Afghani men, women and children who died as a direct result of America's "war on terror", a war which was justified in the name of those who were killed on 9/11.

These are innocent victims who have no national memorials and are only remembered in the hearts and minds of their family members. Their deaths and life changing injuries are not and will not be an occasion for mass media events, museums or memorials. There will be no heartfelt speeches about them by political leaders. And the public will not see their photograph on a commemorative wall or hear the voices of their family members describing their tragic last moments of life. And there will be few in the United States or other western countries that will remember their faces let alone mourn for them.

It is conservatively estimated that the American-led efforts to combat terrorism has directly resulted in the deaths of over 500,000 people in Iraq alone, created approximately 4.5 million refugees in the countires where the U.S. has launched military actions, and has cost the American government more than $6 trillion. And this cumulative body count does not include those who have died due to the suffering caused by the destruction of civilian infrastructure (i.e. hospitals, water/sewage treatment facilities, power generation plants, etc.).

The solemnity of the New York City event was punctuated by the fact that it was attended by President Barack Obama and his wife Michelle. Also in attendance was a who's who of political heavy weights, including former president Bill Clinton and former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, current New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, former mayors Michael Bloomberg and Rudy Giuliani, and former New York governor George Pataki. In addition to the political celebrities in attendance were many family members of 9/11 victims as well as some of those who survived the collapse of the twin towers.

In his remarks during the opening ceremonies President Obama said that the "sacred place of healing and hope" will ensure that "generations yet unborn will never forget" the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

It is unlikely that what happened on 9/11 will ever forgotten given how the events of that day were seared into the memories of millions of people in the United States and hundreds of millions around the world by the media, by the volumes of academic research that has been devoted to this single act of terrorism over the 12 years since the event, and because of the geopolitical actions undertaken by the U.S. government in the aftermath of the attacks.

Yes, yesterday was a solemn day in New York City, and the September 11th attacks and their victims should be remembered. But we in the West also need to remember the hundreds of thousands if not millions of people who have been killed and maimed (directly and indirectly) because of the so-called ‟war on terror”.

We need to remember the face of Ali Ismail Abbas, a 12 year old Iraqi boy, who lost his limbs as well as his parents and extended family when his family home was ‟accidentally” bombed by U.S. forces in 2004.

We need to remember the scores of people killed in a wedding party (including women and children) in southern Afghanistan in 2002 when the celebration in their village was bombed because military analysts incorrectly thought it was a gathering of Taliban insurgents.

And we need to acknowledge the physical and psychological trauma suffered by hundreds of thousands of families in Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries who mourn their dead outside of the media spotlight, without multi-million dollar memorials commemorating their dead, and out of the minds of vast majority of people in the west who don't give a second thought to the innocent victims that have died and suffered, victims who are not memorialized in a museum in New York City. Only if we do that can we legitimately claim the right to our belief that we are a compassionate, caring and civilized society.

Monday, March 24, 2014

On the Road to Darkness: Thoughts on the Fascist Disease Infecting Western Society

Most people who live in Western democracies believe that we live in societies that value freedom, liberty and tolerance – principles and values that were purchased with human blood (during World War II) and at an immense cost to the national treasuries of most Western democracies (during both World War II and the Cold War). In the former conflict Allied soldiers fought against nations whose leaders were committed to political ideologies that plunged the world into madness and resulted in the death of more than 63 million people (a number slightly less than the current population of the United Kingdom).

The architects of those ideologies and the war they instigated died almost seven decades ago. However, people who believe in many aspects of those ideologies, and want to see governments based on them, continue to exist and have managed to influence politics in many Western democracies, particularly over the past two decades. The ideology to which I refer is fascism – a word that comes with all kinds of historical baggage, a word that most people are unlikely to use when referring to some present-day Western leaders and politicians. But despite the reticence of the mainstream media or political commentators to use that term, the truth is that many of the policies being implemented by governments, in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and other Western democracies have their roots in an ideology that millions shed their blood to defeat.

Present day fascism is an ideology that comes in many forms, an ideology where one size does not fit all. It manifests itself in The West by the actions of political, financial and corporate elites who desire to maintain and grow the existing infrastructure of wealth and power that favours their interests – that is, preserve the existing hierarchical and imbalanced socio-economic culture using the tools built into the globalized, corporation dominated economic order that has developed over the past 20 years.

The classical definition of fascism revolves around a joining of government and private corporations to exploit all available resources in pursuit of private profit, regardless of whether that profit is achieved by the exploitation and suffering of the vast majority of society, or even if it undermines the democratic underpinnings of that society.

The fascism of the 20th Century was a reactionary ideology primarily in response to the advance of communism, and it was expressed through the following characteristics:

protection and enhancement of the power of industrial / corporate elites;
control of the mass media;
rampant cronyism and political corruption;
election fraud and voter manipulation / suppression;
contempt for decisions and policies based on sound research;
identifying and targeting so-called “enemies” or scapegoating as a unifying cause;
fixation on national security, crime and punishment, and "order" in society;
political rhetoric emphasizing and elevating the place of police and the military in society;
historical revisionism;
disdain for civil liberties, human rights and social justice;
suppression of and attacks on legal political dissent and political opponents;
tolerance for sexism and misogyny;
support and advancement of ethnic and / or cultural nationalism; and
attacks on and suppression of organized labour.

If we examine the way that governments in most Western democracies, through their policies and actions, have evolved during the past two decades then we would see that many if not all of the characteristics that define fascism are present in the political cultures of The West.

If the allied soldiers who gave their lives for democracy, free speech, human rights and the other things that define a truly free and democratic society were alive today they would be appalled at what has transpired. Because what has happened is the creation of a political culture and societal attitude, shaped by governments and corporations following a neo-liberal / neo-conservative ideology, which has copied many aspects of the fascist ideology that Allied nations fought against in World War II, and the authoritarian ideology they continued to fight during the Cold War with the Soviet Union. And while what exists in western democracies lacks many of the more horrific and ethno-nationalist aspects of 20th Century fascism, in many of its major characteristics the political culture that has evolved in The West is proto-fascist if not actually fascist.

This is has not gone unobserved by journalists, academics and political pundits. It is something that has been noted by Canadian pollster and political commentator Allan Gregg among others. In a speech given on September 5, 2012 at Carleton University he compared what has happened to politics in Canada under Prime Minister Stephen Harper to the dystopian George Orwell novel Nineteen Eighty-Four – an analysis that is noteworthy because of Gregg’s historical connections to the predecessor of the Conservative Party of Canada. While the world we live in may not mirror what Orwell described in his novel, there are disturbing parallels between what is happening to politics and the democratic process in Canada and elements of Orwell’s novel.

In his remarks Gregg outlined the various policy changes that Harper has implemented at the federal level. By presenting the facts Gregg asks his audience to put together the pieces of the puzzle and conclude for themselves that Canada is well down the road to fascism courtesy of the Harper government. He then observes that despite how Canada has been transformed during Harper’s tenure as prime minister, there is no hue and cry from Canadians in protest. And yet there is much that Canadians and citizens of Western democracies should be protesting.

Another critic of the fascist political culture that has evolved in The West over the past two decades is Prof. Henry Giroux, Global Television Network Chair in English and Cultural Studies at McMaster University. In many of his writings Giroux provides analysis and insight into the state of modern society / culture in the U.S. and asks U.S. citizens to do what is necessary to challenge a culture and political mindset where the views of the majority of citizens / voters are relegated to the bottom of the list of interests that politicians cater to while the interests of corporations and elites are addressed with little thought as to the harmful effects they may have on society at large.

In a recent article, Intellectualism in the Age of Mass Surveillance, Giroux states that “[corporate] media are mostly engaged in what Noam Chomsky called ‘manufactured consent’, producing spectacles of [inanity and] violence, and pushing celebrity culture that becomes the ultimate model of a [debilitating] mode of consumption. He goes on to say that “loyalty to fame, money, and authority is far more important than the truth, a sense of social responsibility, or a passion and commitment to a more just world.”

Through their commentary People like Gregg, Giroux, Chomsky and others are trying to open the eyes of the masses, trying to raise awareness that we are living in a time where those who have the courage to hold authority accountable are treated like criminals or terrorists (i.e. Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, Bradley Manning) while those who use the power and authority of the state and mega corporations to commit horrendous crimes are treated as patriots and held up as models of leadership.

Giroux’s articles and critiques, as well as those of Allan Gregg, Noam Chomsky and others like them, should be heeded and used as inspirations for the changes that must be implemented if The West’s political culture (and by extension Western society) is to be prevented from stepping into an era of political and social darkness.

Please note that all links in this article were current and working at the time of posting. If any links no longer work please post a note in the comments section and I will post a link that works.
~ Fareed Khan