Capitalism And India
Posted by Tanya Hutchens
I am totally tuned in to the incentives, rewards, labour and profit motives of capitalism. It is not perfect. But it is historically absurd to deny that price and profit signals under capitalism have done a far better job of allocating scarce resources and sustaining long periods of economic growth than any other alternative.
Communism proved itself to be a disaster wherever and in whatever name practised. Remember the USSR? East Germany? Bulgaria? Romania? Albania? And the devastation of Cuba under Fidel Castro that his ageing brother Raul cannot fix? Socialism, too, has had its innings in the west as well as in the east, and failed. State-sponsored capitalism — once the hot East-Asian model — saw too much of the state, and relatively less of private capital, resulting in overarching ambitions, needlessly grandiose projects and poor long-term returns. Go to Dubai and see for yourself. And the mixed economy with the state occupying the ‘commanding heights’ meant one thing: too much of command with little or no height worth the name.
So, if you were to closely observe the dirty, disordered canvas of economic progress during the 20th and 21st century, you should conclude that, for all its warts, capitalism has been the winner. It has sometimes caused pain; suffered from serious cycles; and often needed the clout of the state — such as we have seen from September 2008. It has also been quite resistant to sensible regulation. Even so, the basic institutions of capitalism have worked, not just in the US and the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and development) nations, but also many developing countries, of which India is one. And worked better than alternative mechanisms.
That brings me to India. As we move on to the second decade of the 21st century, here’s my core hypothesis: India is geared to have significantly more of capitalism than what we have had up to now. And the more the better.
Let us begin with agriculture. Nowhere is there a more intensely capitalistic venture than farmers choosing the crops that they sow, water, weed, harvest and sell. Since the late 1960s, economists have run thousands of regressions called supply response functions, which quantitatively determine what best explains crop acreage and output over long periods. What are the results? From the turn of the 20th century right up to now, crops were planted according to expected prices and/or profits — surrogated by the price signals of the previous few years. Of course, other variables mattered such as rainfall, irrigation and fertiliser use. But the driving force was profits. Capitalism, therefore, defines 17 per cent of India’s GDP, namely agriculture.
Now to services, which accounts for 55 per cent of GDP. If you deduct the share of government services, there is still some 40 per cent of GDP, much of it in the private sector. This is huge. And many of the activities are driven largely by profits. Whether it be mobile telephony, retail trade, restaurants, real estate, storage, hotels, road transport or finance, each service — big, medium, small or holes in the wall — rises, shrinks, falls, re-grows or disappears according to supply, demand, costs and pricing. Even earlier anti-market behemoths such as public sector banks and insurance companies have become more attuned to prices and profits than anyone could have imagined in the mid-1990s.
Thus, 57 per cent of India’s GDP is tuned to capitalism. What about industry, which accounts for 28 per cent of GDP? Some two-thirds of it is purely private. That is another 18 per cent approximately. Moreover, most public sector undertakings are more price-and-profit oriented than ever before.
So, hello capitalism! It accounts for at least three-quarters of our GDP. It may be higher still. But 75 per cent will do for now. Contrary to what the CPI, CPI(M) and some ‘don’t confuse me with facts’ professors tell you, India is awash with capitalism. Like China, you turn any corner, and you will meet someone who wants to start some business or the other: a photocopying shop, an STD booth, a local agency for Dabur, Godrej or Hindustan Unilever, automobile spare parts — the list is endless.
Oklahoma City Bombing
Posted by Tanya Hutchens
Remembering this speech we can see how terrorism has changed today and has taken on a hole new meaning in our society.
... I would like to say something to the paramilitary groups and to others who believe the greatest threat to America comes not from terrorists from within our country or beyond our borders, but from our own government. I want to say this to the militias and to others who believe this, to those nearby and those far away: I am well aware that most of you have never violated the law of the land. I welcome the comments that some of you have made recently condemning the bombing in Oklahoma City. I believe you have every right, indeed you have the responsibility, to question our government when you disagree with its policies. And I will do everything in my power to protect your right to do so. But I also know there have been law-breakers among those who espouse your philosophy. I know from painful personal experience as a governor of a state who lived through the cold-blooded killing of a young sheriff and a young African-American state trooper who were friends of mine by people who espouse the view that the government was the biggest problem in America and that peopole had a right to take violence into their own hands. So I ask you to hear me now. It is one thing to believe that the federal government has too much power and to work within the law to reduce it. It is quite another to break the law of the land and threaten to shoot officers of the law if all they do is their duty to uphold it. It is one thing to believe we are taxed too much and work to reduce the tax burden. It is quite another to refuse to pay your taxes, though your neighbor pays his. It is one thing to believe we are over-regulated and to work to lessen the burden of regulation. It is quite another to slander our dedicated public servants, our brave police officers, even our rescue workers who have been called a hostile army of occupation. This is a very free country. Those of you in the militia movements have broader rights here than you would in any other country in the entire world. Do people who work for the government sometimes make mistakes? Of course they do. They are human. Almost every American has some experience with this--a rude tax collector, an arbitrary regulator, an insensitive social worker, an abusive law officer. As long as human beings make up our government there will be mistakes. But our Constitution was established by Americans determined to limit those abuses. And think of the limits--the Bill of Rights, the separation of powers, access to the courts, the right to take your case to the country through the media, and the right to vote people in or out of office on a regular basis. But there is no right to resort to violence when you don't get your way. There is no right to kill people who are doing their duty, or minding their own business, or children who are innocent in every way. Those are the people who perished in Oklahoma City. And those who claim such rights are wrong and un-American. Whenever in our history people have believed that violence is a legitimate extension of politics they have been wrong. In the 1960s, many good things happened and there was much turmoil. But the Weathermen of the radical left who resorted to violence in the 1960s were wrong. Today, the gang members who use life on the mean streets of America, as terrible as it is, to justify taking the law into their own hands and taking innocent life are wrong. The people who came to the United States to bomb the World Trade Center were wrong. Freedom of political speech will never justify violence--never. Our founding fathers created a system of laws in which reason could prevail over fear. Without respect for this law there is no freedom. So I say this to the militias and all others who believe that the greatest threat to freedom comes from the government instead of from those who would take away our freedom: If you say violence is an acceptable way to make change, you are wrong. If you say that government is in a conspiracy to take your freedom away, you are just plain wrong. If you treat law enforcement officers who put their lives on the line for your safety every day like some kind of enemy army to be suspected, derided and, if they should enforce the law against you, to be shot, you are wrong. If you appropriate our sacred symbols for paranoid purposes and compare yourselves to colonial militias who fought for the democracy you now rail against, you are wrong. How dare you suggest that we in the freest nation on Earth live in tyranny. How dare you call yourselves patriots and heroes. I say to you, all of you, the members of the Class of 1995, there is nothing patriotic about hating your country, or pretending that you can love your country but despise your government. There is nothing heroic about turning your back on America, or ignoring your own responsibilities. If you want to preserve your own freedom, you must stand up for the freedom of others with whom you disagree. But you also must stand up for the rule of law. You cannot have one without the other. The real American heroes today are the citizens who get up every morning and have the courage to work hard and play by the rules--the mother who stays up the extra half hour after a long day's work to read her child a story; the rescue worker who digs with his hands in the rubble as the building crumbles about him; the neighbor who lives side-by-side with people different from himself; the government worker who quietly and efficiently labors to see to it that the programs we depend on are honestly and properly carried out; most of all, the parent who works long years for modest pay and sacrifices so that his or her children can have the education that you have had, and the chances you are going to have. I ask you never to forget that . . . .
President Obamas speech in Cairo
By Tanya Hutchens
This is the most concerning speech that President Obama has delivered I am deeply puzzled about many issues here.
I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning, and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt’s advancement. Together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress. I am grateful for your hospitality, and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. I am also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: assalaamu alaykum.
We meet at a time of tension between the United States and Muslims around the world – tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of co-existence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.
Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11th, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. This has bred more fear and mistrust.
So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. This cycle of suspicion and discord must end.
I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.
I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, “Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.” That is what I will try to do – to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.
Part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I am a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.
As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam. It was Islam – at places like Al-Azhar University – that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.
I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America’s story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President John Adams wrote, “The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims.” And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, served in government, stood for civil rights, started businesses, taught at our Universities, excelled in our sports arenas, won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers – Thomas Jefferson – kept in his personal library.
So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.
But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words – within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum: “Out of many, one.”
Much has been made of the fact that an African-American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President. But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores – that includes nearly seven million American Muslims in our country today who enjoy incomes and education that are higher than average.
Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one’s religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state of our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That is why the U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.
So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations – to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.
Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.
For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. And when innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.
This is a difficult responsibility to embrace. For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes subjugating one another to serve their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners of it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; progress must be shared.
That does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite: we must face these tensions squarely. And so in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together.
The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.
In Ankara, I made clear that America is not – and never will be – at war with Islam. We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security. Because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.
The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America’s goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice, we went because of necessity. I am aware that some question or justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet Al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.
Make no mistake: we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.
That’s why we’re partnering with a coalition of forty-six countries. And despite the costs involved, America’s commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths – more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam. The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind. The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace.
We also know that military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who have been displaced. And that is why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend upon.
Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: “I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be.”
Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future – and to leave Iraq to Iraqis. I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq’s sovereignty is its own. That is why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq’s democratically-elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, and to remove all our troops from Iraq by 2012. We will help Iraq train its Security Forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron.
And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter our principles. 9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.
So America will defend itself respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.
The second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world.
America’s strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.
Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed – more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction – or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews – is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.
On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people – Muslims and Christians – have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations – large and small – that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.
For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It is easy to point fingers – for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought by Israel’s founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.
That is in Israel’s interest, Palestine’s interest, America’s interest, and the world’s interest. That is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience that the task requires. The obligations that the parties have agreed to under the Road Map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them – and all of us – to live up to our responsibilities.
Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America’s founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It’s a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.
Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel’s right to exist.
At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel’s right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine’s. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.
Israel must also live up to its obligations to ensure that Palestinians can live, and work, and develop their society. And just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel’s security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.
Finally, the Arab States must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state; to recognize Israel’s legitimacy; and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.
America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.
Too many tears have flowed. Too much blood has been shed. All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed (peace be upon them) joined in prayer.
The third source of tension is our shared interest in the rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons.
This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is indeed a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I have made it clear to Iran’s leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question, now, is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.
It will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America’s interests. It is about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.
I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America’s commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. And any nation – including Iran – should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the Treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I am hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.
The fourth issue that I will address is democracy.
I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.
That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.
There is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments – provided they govern with respect for all their people.
This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they are out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.
The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom.
Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind, heart, and soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it is being challenged in many different ways.
Among some Muslims, there is a disturbing tendency to measure one’s own faith by the rejection of another’s. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld – whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. And fault lines must be closed among Muslims as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.
Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.
Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit – for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.
Indeed, faith should bring us together. That is why we are forging service projects in America that bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews. That is why we welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah’s Interfaith dialogue and Turkey’s leadership in the Alliance of Civilizations. Around the world, we can turn dialogue into Interfaith service, so bridges between peoples lead to action – whether it is combating malaria in Africa, or providing relief after a natural disaster.
The sixth issue that I want to address is women’s rights.
I know there is debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well-educated are far more likely to be prosperous.
Now let me be clear: issues of women’s equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women’s equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.
Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons, and our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity – men and women – to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.
Finally, I want to discuss economic development and opportunity.
I know that for many, the face of globalization is contradictory. The Internet and television can bring knowledge and information, but also offensive sexuality and mindless violence. Trade can bring new wealth and opportunities, but also huge disruptions and changing communities. In all nations – including my own – this change can bring fear. Fear that because of modernity we will lose of control over our economic choices, our politics, and most importantly our identities – those things we most cherish about our communities, our families, our traditions, and our faith.
But I also know that human progress cannot be denied. There need not be contradiction between development and tradition. Countries like Japan and South Korea grew their economies while maintaining distinct cultures. The same is true for the astonishing progress within Muslim-majority countries from Kuala Lumpur to Dubai. In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.
This is important because no development strategy can be based only upon what comes out of the ground, nor can it be sustained while young people are out of work. Many Gulf States have enjoyed great wealth as a consequence of oil, and some are beginning to focus it on broader development. But all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century, and in too many Muslim communities there remains underinvestment in these areas. I am emphasizing such investments within my country. And while America in the past has focused on oil and gas in this part of the world, we now seek a broader engagement.
On education, we will expand exchange programs, and increase scholarships, like the one that brought my father to America, while encouraging more Americans to study in Muslim communities. And we will match promising Muslim students with internships in America; invest in on-line learning for teachers and children around the world; and create a new online network, so a teenager in Kansas can communicate instantly with a teenager in Cairo.
On economic development, we will create a new corps of business volunteers to partner with counterparts in Muslim-majority countries. And I will host a Summit on Entrepreneurship this year to identify how we can deepen ties between business leaders, foundations and social entrepreneurs in the United States and Muslim communities around the world.
On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim-majority countries, and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create jobs. We will open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and appoint new Science Envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, and grow new crops. And today I am announcing a new global effort with the Organization of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio. And we will also expand partnerships with Muslim communities to promote child and maternal health.
All these things must be done in partnership. Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments; community organizations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life.
The issues that I have described will not be easy to address. But we have a responsibility to join together on behalf of the world we seek – a world where extremists no longer threaten our people, and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own, and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes; a world where governments serve their citizens, and the rights of all God’s children are respected. Those are mutual interests. That is the world we seek. But we can only achieve it together.
I know there are many – Muslim and non-Muslim – who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division, and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn’t worth the effort – that we are fated to disagree, and civilizations are doomed to clash. Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur. There is so much fear, so much mistrust. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith, in every country – you, more than anyone, have the ability to remake this world.
All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort – a sustained effort – to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children, and to respect the dignity of all human beings.
It is easier to start wars than to end them. It is easier to blame others than to look inward; to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There is also one rule that lies at the heart of every religion – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. This truth transcends nations and peoples – a belief that isn’t new; that isn’t black or white or brown; that isn’t Christian, or Muslim or Jew. It’s a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in the heart of billions. It’s a faith in other people, and it’s what brought me here today.
We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.
The Holy Koran tells us, “O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.”
The Talmud tells us: “The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace.”
The Holy Bible tells us, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.”
The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God’s vision. Now, that must be our work here on Earth. Thank you. And may God’s peace be upon you.
Chief Justice of Canada to discuss accessing the justice system at Law Society public forum
VANCOUVER — With some predicting the recent economic downturn will make it harder for low and middle income people to access the justice system, the time is now to discuss how to ensure people have access to one of the cornerstones of our democracy. This is especially true as many already find the cost and length of time it takes to pursue justice to be too much.
One of the groups with a big challenge in accessing the justice system is the middle class. They don’t have a low enough income to qualify for legal aid or pro bono services. And with the high cost of trials they might have to consider second mortgages or dipping into their children’s education funds to defend their civil rights — a decision that is even more difficult during tough economic times.
“Inaccessible justice is no justice,” said Gordon Turriff, QC, President of the Law Society of BC. “Ways must be found to ensure access for people who need help resolving their problems and need the court to decide right and wrong.”
“The Benchers of the Law Society — the board of directors — see access to justice as a matter of critical importance,” added Turriff, “so one of the many steps we’re taking is to present a public forum to discuss some of the barriers to accessing the justice system and potential creative solutions to overcome obstacles.”
The Law Society is presenting the forum, Clearing the Path to Justice, at 6:00 pm on Wednesday, January 28 at the Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue, SFU, located at 580 W. Hastings Street. Journalists are welcome. For advance media interviews, please contact Dana Bales, Cara McGregor or Michael Bernard.
The Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin, PC, Chief Justice of Canada, is the keynote speaker at the forum. Other distinguished panelists who will talk about access issues, including culture and language barriers are:
* Grand Chief Edward John of the First Nations Summit of BC;
* Lyall Knott, QC, of S.U.C.C.E.S.S, which runs legal clinics for people who speak Korean, Japanese and Mandarin in Greater Vancouver in conjunction with the Western Canada Society to Access Justice; and
* Sue Talia, a private family law judge in California who will discuss a solution she’s been working on in her state to reduce the cost of legal services — a potential solution called unbundling that is expanding in British Columbia.
Community partners for the event are the Legal Services Society, the Western Canada Society to Access Justice and S.U.C.C.E.S.S.
The Law Society of BC was incorporated in 1884 and is the governing body of the legal profession in BC. Under the provisions of the Legal Profession Act, the Law Society is responsible for the licensing, professional conduct and discipline of the more than 11,000 lawyers in BC.
Hamilton and Brantford – Resale Market – Contraction in Resale Market
To date, MLS sales in the Hamilton CMA are down by 23 per cent and are expected to fall 21 per cent in 2009 to 9,600 sales before rising in 2010. In Brantford, MLS sales will fall by 29 per cent this year to 1,500 sales and rise five per cent next year to 1,575 sales. A slowing job market and more cautious consumer spending will dampen existing home demand. Gradual economic recovery will improve housing conditions in 2010.
- Image by Mikey G Ottawa via Flickr
More first time buyers in the market means that many of the homes being purchased will be less expensive single-detached homes and other entry-level home types such as townhouses and condominium apartments. There will be fewer sales of homes in all sub-markets across the CMA, and prices will fall by more in some of the more expensive markets, or where there was more rapid price growth in recent years.
For example the average prices of single-detached homes in the more expensive markets of Ancaster, Burlington and Flamborough – priced above $400,000 a year ago – fell to $398,000, $363,000 and $334,000, respectively this year. Home sales fell by more than half in all three areas, with the largest drop in sales in Burlington. The average price will fall to $208,000 in Brantford this year.
Because the price drop in Brantford has been less dramatic, fewer buyers are taking advantage of the buyer market conditions. Supporting first time buying, home ownership affordability in Hamilton’s resale market is better today than a year ago as a result of lower home prices and low mortgage rates. Com- paring the average actual incomes of homeowners and renters and the average income required income to own a home allows an evaluation of affordability. Home owners’ actual incomes exceed required incomes more than they did in 2006, indicating that affordability has increased.
Furthermore, home ownership affordability for first time buyers coming from the rental market has significantly improved, assuming that most renter households would take advantage of the variety of accessible mortgage products. The percentage by which required income exceeds the actual average income of renters is now as low as it was in 1996, just prior to the decade-long surge in housing prices. First time buyers represent approximately 15 per cent of all renter households and they will typically have higher annual incomes than most other renters. We will see improved affordability impact the market more in 2010 with economic improvement.
Average new listings will fall in 2009 by about three per cent since fewer home owners are willing to put their homes up for sale in an uncertain market. Declining economic condi- tions in Hamilton will result in slower home buying and selling activity. The typical seller profile will be home owners looking to take advantage of falling prices and move up into a larger home or those who have a pressing need to move out of their current homes. Average sales however will continue to fall at a faster pace than that of listings, and therefore the market will move towards the low end of the balanced market this year. Reviewed by Tanya Hutchens.
What is “The Canada – Ontario Affordable Housing Program”
I have mentioned “The Canada – Ontario Affordable Housing Program” many times on my other blogs, so i just figured i might as well give you some more details what this is.
The Canada – Ontario Affordable Housing Program comprises a commitment, notes Tanya Hutchens, of $301 million from each of the two senior levels of government. In total, the federal, provincial and municipal governments will invest at least $734 million in the program, which will provide affordable housing for 20,000 households in Ontario.
Last fall, the Government of Canada committed more than $1.9 billion over the next five years to improve and build new affordable housing and to help the homeless. Canada’s Economic Action Plan builds on this with an additional one-time investment of more than $2 billion over two years in new and existing social housing and lending of up to another $2 billion to municipalities for housing-related infrastructure.
Vancity Springboard Homeownership Program – Metro Vancouver, British Columbia
In November 2006 Vancity Credit Union, the largest in Canada outside Quebec, launched Springboard Mortgage, the latest in a long line of affordable homeownership programs. The goal of Springboard Mortgage is to help people living in non-profit, rental housing move on to homeownership, which helps that family directly and frees a non-profit housing unit for someone else in need.
By the fall of 2008, Vancity had approved 16 mortgages worth $2.8 million through the Springboard Mortgage program. 18 non profit homes have been vacated and 67 applicants have been pre-approved through the program.
Qualifying applicants usually purchase their homes in the Fraser Valley communities of the Lower Mainland or the Tri-Cities (Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam and Port Moody) area of suburban Vancouver, for prices ranging from $160,000 to $350,000. Most of the purchasers are low income families and single mothers.
To qualify for the Springboard Homeownership Program, applicants must be living in non-profit housing and have a low income. They must have verifiable employment or pension income and no rental arrears in the last two years. They are also required to take a Homeownership Readiness financial literacy course to ensure they fully understand the responsibilities of homeownership.
For qualifying applicants who agree to comply with Springboard’s requirements, Vancity provides a two-part loan that comprises 100 per cent of a home’s purchase price. One component is an interest-free loan to be paid back over 10 years. This serves as the 20 per cent down payment. The second component is a mortgage amortized over 25 years with a 10 year fixed interest rate, with interest only as the minimum payment.
After 10 years, says Tanya Hutchens, the purchaser will have repaid the “down payment” and can then negotiate a conventional mortgage for the principal amount outstanding. Under Springboard, Vancity does not dwell on an applicant’s credit rating, as long as applicants have no frauds or bankruptcies. Applicants must become members of Vancity. In addition, the borrower needs to understand that late loan or mortgage payments will immediately trigger foreclosure. Finally, they must find a home to purchase that is affordable according to Vancity’s guidelines. Under these guidelines:
- In order to ensure mortgage payments are made on time each month, the applicant’s estimated mortgage, loan, property tax and strata fees payments should be reflective of their current rent payment plus 25%.
- The total of both loan and mortgage cannot exceed $300,000, which is why the program has been most successful in suburban areas, where housing prices are lower.
- The prospective buyer must take the Homeownership Readiness course delivered in partnership with the Mennonite Central Committee. The course content is based on earlier development work done by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC). Once applicants have selected a home to purchase, Vancity provides technical assistance.
Minister Finley Announces Recipients of CMHC Housing Research Grants
OTTAWA, April 29, 2009 — The Honourable Diane Finley, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development Canada and Minister Responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), today awarded 17 Canadian researchers grants of up to $25,000 each under CMHC’s External Research Program. What a great program, says Tanya Hutchens.
“The External Research Program is an excellent way to encourage researchers to conduct relevant, high-quality and innovative housing research projects that address the housing needs of Canadians and contribute to improving the sustainability of housing in Canada.” said Tanya Hutchens.
“Our Government applauds the individuals who have been selected and their dedication to ensuring that our housing system and technologies meet the needs of future generations.” said Minister Finley.
This year’s grants, which total approximately $375,000, encourage researchers working in universities, private consulting firms, housing-related professions and the housing industry to conduct research on housing issues. Research produced under the program is available through CMHC’s Canadian Housing Information Centre (CHIC).
A national committee of housing experts, that includes experienced researchers and practitioners in academic institutions and housing-related professions, selects grant recipients on the basis of the quality of their proposals. Under the program, researchers submit their proposed projects in the fall, and they are reviewed in February.
Launched in 1980, the External Research Program has provided more than 655 grants for research on a number of topics such as energy efficiency, sustainability, and assessing the housing conditions and needs of at-risk populations.
CMHC has been Canada’s national housing agency for more than 60 years. CMHC is committed to helping Canadians access a wide choice of quality, affordable homes, while making vibrant, healthy communities and cities a reality across the country.
Tommy Sexton Centre St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador
Until 2006, there was no shelter or supportive living program east of Montréal for people living with HIV/AIDS. When people are diagnosed with HIV or AIDS, they often undergo drastic changes in their lives, including not only deterioration in health, but job loss, financial distress and social isolation. They often need a place to retreat where they can receive support services such as counselling and plan for their future care. In addition, a sanitary environment is necessary to protect their lowered immune systems.The AIDS Committee of Newfoundland and Labrador (ACNL) worked for many years to raise funds to establish a shelter. One of the committee’s ardent supporters was the mother of Newfoundland actor Tommy Sexton, who died from AIDS-related complications in 1993. Sara Sexton’s goal was to establish a shelter and supportive services program in her son’s honour. In 2006, the Tommy Sexton Centre opened in St. John’s, as the only supportive shelter in the Atlantic provinces for people living with HIV/AIDS. The ACNL-operated centre is located on a former military base in the Pleasantville district of St. John’s, on land donated by the provincial Department of Transportation and Works. The attractive energy-efficient building is universally accessible to people with disabilities. The Centre consists of three distinct program areas: a short-term shelter, supportive housing for persons living with HIV-AIDS and the ACNL offices. The short-term shelter has four- units, while the supportive housing has six-units for longer stays. The supportive housing provides safe and affordable one- and two-bedroom apartments to people with HIV/AIDS and their caregivers while they find more permanent living arrangements. The ACNL offices offer services including individual support and advocacy services, prevention education and access to a variety of support and health resources. Funding for construction of the $1.4 million centre included $450,000 in capital funding from CMHC and the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, through the Affordable Housing Initiative and $870,000 from the Government of Canada’s National Homelessness Initiative. The province of Newfoundland and Labrador contributed additional funding and the City of St. John’s provided in-kind contributions. The Public Health Agency of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador provide annual funding for the centre’s operations. This CMHC report was reviewed by Tanya Hutchens.
Buying a Condo Who You Need on Your Team
When you buy a condo, you’re not just buying a place to live. You’re becoming part of a community. Before you make an offer on your dream condo, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) recommends that you get some expert advice to help you navigate through the process. CMHC has identified many industry professionals who are available to provide you with information. They are the following:
- Real estate agent: A real estate agent who specializes in condominiums can save you time, energy and help you make an offer once you’ve found the condo that’s right for you. Make sure you’re clear about who’s paying their commission and what your obligations will be once you’ve signed any agreement. Be specific about the type, features, location and price range you’re looking for in a condo. This will allow your agent to pre-screen properties that are within your specifications.
- Real estate lawyer: A lawyer who is knowledgeable about condominiums can protect your legal interests, explain all the documentation and review the purchase and sale agreements. Your lawyer will determine whether or not there are any legal actions pending against the condominium. If your offer is accepted, he or she will also be responsible for many of the closing arrangements.
- Home inspector: A qualified home inspector will go through the condominium unit and common elements and perform a comprehensive visual inspection. The inspector will determine the components that are not performing properly as well as items that are beyond their useful life or are unsafe. He/she will also identify areas where repairs may be needed or where there may have been problems in the past. Inspections are intended to provide you with a better understanding of property’s condition before you buy. All too often, people make purchase decisions too quickly in anticipation of competing offers. This can leave you vulnerable to substantial additional repair and renovation costs that a pre-purchase inspection might have detected.
- Financial Institution: Your bank manager or financial advisor can help customize your mortgage to suit your financial goals and ensure you can afford your monthly mortgage payments.
- You should also investigate the financial well being of the condominium corporation you’ll be buying into. For resale condominiums, check documents such as the estoppel or status certificate as well as annual operating budgets and end-of-year financial statements. Technical audits and reserve fund studies can also offer insight on the condition of the building and the adequacy of the reserve fund to meet future major repairs and building renewal work. For new buildings, also review the full disclosure statement.
For more than 60 years, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) has been Canada’s national housing agency and a source of objective, reliable housing expertise. This CMHC report was reviewed by Tanya Hutchens.
