Afghanistan: Malalai Joya Speaking for Democracy With Justice ...

This blog was inspired in the interests of truth, freedom of speech, democracy and transparency. I am practicing my democracy with an intention of truth and based on my own experience. My desire from this blog is to wake up our media here in Australia to become bastions of freedom, to question without bias and to lead the World in excellence in journalism. Otherwise the bar lowers and the public loses and our democracy fails.

Malalai Joya has been termed the bravest woman in Afghanistan. I am posting her story in the next blog.? Below is an Australian ABC interview with journalist Emma Alberici. I have to say after watching the interview I was astounded at the inherent bias in the questioning of Malalai Joya by an ABC journalist. I will point out the bias in the questions. I don?t see it as deliberate bias (I hope not) I see it as lack of training and a belief in the journalist that the Australian Government has helped the Afghan people and she is seeking the good in Australia?s involvement and trying to bring that out in the interview. I will highlight how the question could be asked without bias.

In truth our own Australian bias is the belief that what our Government is saying is the truth and that soldiers are not sent into harms way for no good reason. The truth can be hard to swallow when our fundamental values are questioned by the so-called ?other side?. Yet when we don?t engage democracy in a format of conflict resolution where all parties are given equal air time and with an intention of problem solving rather than justification we end up with a biased perception of what is really happening in Afghanistan and why Australia is involved. The media?s role is critical. The media must be the ones who are dedicated to truth and peace. For if they are not they become accomplices of misinformation and injustice. Real people suffer as a result.

I guess I could be deemed biased as I lived with an Afghan for 6 years and I recall noting my own ignorance when I first met him. My partner was not religious he was questioning his own country and the situation happening inside Afghanistan. His protest was in surrealist paintings where he painted the plight of women. I met his mother who at 13 was married to her sister?s husband as her own sister had died. She ended up with 7 children. She died at 50 of cancer, both her breasts were removed. I recall her breathing heavy about the plight of women in Afghanistan and her horror at the vioence. Kabir informed me that women could not got outside their homes unaccompanied by a man. They had to wear the Burqa full cover. Yes they did feel safe but never did they feel the wind on their faces. If a man raped a woman she would be disowned or stoned to death. Under Sharia Law four men are required as witnesses. Her word is worth half of a man. Kabir said to me that women are considered stupid in his country, so you can imagine the barriers. Religion of course is reference used for justice and it is clearly biased against women in Afghanistan. Kabir explained to me his sisters were doctors and if a Taliban was around they had to wear the Burqa when operating. I?ve tried on one of these and you are fully covered, there is gauze enabling you to see. It looks like bars, a good symbol of oppression women feel. Kabir told me of the stonings in the Kabul football stadium and he painted men hung there with the words of the Koran circling them. Through paints he spoke of the blind movement of fundamentalism and the cruelty towards women. He opened my world in a way, that in retrospect, was priviledged as I was able to see into this culture and what lay behind the news. In truth the news never reported the pain and deeper problems of the Afghan people, we were given short film grabs and sound bytes displaying the military power and if our side has casualties, never the reality on the ground in truth. I recall seeing in a documentary the Afghan regular soldiers ferreted into houses first and the US soldiers coming up behind. I remember thinking they are being used as cannon fodder. The Australians treatment by the British in WWI come to mind. Australians were regarded as brave. Our people were used this way. This comment about cannon fodder was mentioned in the interview below. I also recall a documentary where a group of British soldiers were with a simple Afghan man sitting on the floor in his empty house. They had just given him a wod of money for the killing of his family. How can you compensate for the deaths of loved ones? Democracy Now indicates that they paid them $2,500 for losing family members by US and allied forces. They went onto say if they lost their car they were paid the same. I wondered how can you value the car the same as a human life? Imagine if that happened in Australia.

I do have some bias here but I am also trained in conflict resolution and I see that skill not utlised or enshrined in policy as a first step or even a last step or even as part of a peace process where we train Afghans in conflict resolution. We don?t seem to understand the importance of taking real responsibility in acknowledging the part we have played in creating the problem, questioning the erroneous information that influenced Australian politicians and military when the intelligence agencies did not see any threat regarding weapons of mass destruction e.g. Iraq or indeed a direct threat from Afghanistan. It is so important that we all learn to retrospectively look to learn from our mistakes and have the courage to face the truth. I am not into the blame game I am into what works. If something is not working or people are being harmed then we do need to drill down to discover the truth and with courage face up to our responsibility as global citizens rather than hooking our wagon to countries who are being influenced by self interest. The slogan I?ve heard since childhood is ?lest we forget? is a powerful mantra and it is about learning from the past. It is about not repeating mistakes and not wasting innocent lives of civilians or soldiers. The impacts are far reaching and move us away from a peaceful society and world that values higher standards of international relations. It is the truth that sets us free. The times we are in the truth is surfacing and we will be brought to account for our part.

Looking at the interviews, the discourse, the conversations around this issue, it is in truth about asking the right questions. The right questions emerge from our intent to know what is true not what makes us feel good or justifies brutality in order to sustain a line of thought that we believe. It is a lesson for Australian journalism I feel and all those who jumped on the Iraq and Afghan bandwagons toting that the war is right. I might add as an Australian citizen it was easy to forget both these wars were happening as the media hardly mentioned it when we were losing. It seems we only go for winners.

I see injustice and bias in this and what I deem as a collective blindspot. When I was teaching truth to children I used two methods. I used a mirror ball and I said imagine the ball as the earth and all the mirrors are people expressing their truth. When we seek to see ourselves in this ball it is obscured by all the mirrors. However, if we look into our own mirror we can see our truth. The second technique I used was a blindspot test to demonstrate how the mind deceives what it sees. Imagine two dots on a white card, if you stare at one dot the other disappears as the blindspot fades. I see this as a metaphor when we think we are right we just focus on what we believe is true (one dot) and the other side disappears (second dot). I see this clearly in situations of war when there is a ?us versus them? created, like a sporting competition. Patriotism raises its head and anyone critiquing for truth will be seen as somehow being a traitor. We see this even more strongly in the US. Bush?s statement ?you?re either with us, or against us? for me was a clear statement to force people on side rather than encourage democratic discourse that would flush out truth. It was a sign that democracy was not being protected it was being peverted. We can easily turn our side into heroes and the other into demons, yet in truth it is not a competition it is about seeing ?what is? as part of life?s challenges. To decide who we are in relation to a challenge. To feel our values and what we personally stand for, even if that is divergent from the prevailing viewpoints of the day. When you have an intention for truth you will see clearly without bias, you will see both sides (dots), when you seek to be right you will only see your side. That is one of the key problems in the World today. We see it as our view being right whether it be of our superiority in the West, righteousness in religion or dogma, gender issues, money as power, politics as governance, economics as material security, violent entertainment as fun etc. It emerges from competition (separation) and subtle negativity rather than cooperation (oneness) and love. An open mind seeks truth over being right and when coupled with virtues is what gives genuine inspiration and hope to others. When we start to see the other as ourselves, we will join with them in peace and we will never support ?us versus them? again. We will take full responsibility for the shape of our World and seek to assist all on their journey to peace, harmony and unity. Truth and love is what leads us there. I feel Gandhi in this moment.

So returning to the key point of questions. I have worked in community radio and as a market analyst, I have had some experience asking questions, it is so important that questions are asked without bias, simple and straight forward to enable the respondent to clearly deal with those questions without being lead by the interviewer. If the person answering is not into truth it can be difficult to get to the essence, however they will demonstrate their dishonesty through evasiveness. I believe when we all seek for truth and open our minds, especially when we are challenged by those lifting the mask of our own deception to show us to ourselves, then we will grow. I taught kids the most intelligent thing they could say is ?i might be wrong?. They asked why? I said because you open your mind to possibilities. It is not the ego defending a position it is the mind opening for truth. It is a powerful feeling. I encourage all people to stop being a surface dweller and look deeply into the content of what is actually being said and your own experience and question that. Emotions will be there but to drill down into the essence of what is really being said. If you don?t know if it is true then keep it in suspension in your mind until you do. It is important in an interview process to repeat back to others or probe more deeply to understand what they mean. In cross cultural interviews you have to really work hard as they often have different meanings. For example if you talk to Afghans and Iranians they will speak of those hurting their people as mafia and terrorists, it can sound very strong, but they tend to be more emotional and say what they feel without filter. In Australian culture we would couch our language more carefully and emotions would be hidden. So it is to understand cultural differences and interivew without judgement.

In my view the Afghan women and children were the true casualties of the war in Afghanistan. They have suffered endlessly and I am thankful I met one man from that country who really cared about their suffering. He himself sufferred every day, he felt guilt for being alive, living in Australia, earning money (he sent them money) and health problems where he would stop breathing during the night, he would painfully pass gall stones and suffer continual gastric problems from worry. He showed me the suffering as did his family. That was the real truth that was revealed to me up front and personal. He showed me another side of the conflict which drew me in as an ignorant Australian to wake up to inhumanity in all its forms. As a peacemaker he gave me deep insights into why peace is important and not just a diplomatic catchcry. He was not a muslim he is closer to what I would term a universalist or humanist. He questioned for truth and it lead him to paint images of the suffering of women. He commented through paint on the horror of the Banyan Buddha being blown up by painting in the women in burqa?s in the shadows, the forgotten victims as everyone cried over statues not people. He painted their desperate whispers in bridges of pashto (afghan language), he showed the strategic games being played out on a chessboard where the men had dug the black holes for the women to fall through. He painted about fundamentalism and he saw it in the face of the Taliban and George Bush. He painted his country with his mother as the shape of it, the injured dove was on her shoulder bleeding, the damaged clock tower in Kabul where all time had stopped (return to the dark ages), he painted the factions like skin peeling across the canvas, he painted the wood (nature) that was destroyed by war and he painted the flames on the frame of the painting, for even the frame could not contain the pain women experienced. He painted the graves of the children, the women and he would have water in the painting as this was the only real freedom, after death. His words were in images and the power of these images burned in my heart as a woman and human being. I see the images within images across our world where injustice prevails and war is seen as ushering in democracy and peace which of course is a misnomer. War is not inevitable, killing people is not an unfortunate product of war, it is a human tragedy justified by power games. It is ?disgusting? as Malalai said and repeated when I interviewed Major Douglas Rokke say (former Head of Depleted Uranium Project, Pentagon). All soldiers who have seen the absolute horror of war suffer for years with post traumatic stress, nightmares and many broken marriages. Kabir explained the suffering never ends when you have experienced warfare. War is not going to pave a road to peace nor a sustainable future, it is indeed a dinosaur in our thinking and is one of the greatest untruths paraded as security. It ushers in the opposite of what we truly want.

I saw in Kabir and Malalai true courage and a desire for democracy unknown in my country. I see in my own country a deep ignorance of what peace and freedom is. It is the true democracy we have never experienced yet we speak of as if our way of life is an example of it. As a market analyst asking questions of the public, I can assure you we do not live in a true democracy. If we did everyone would be asked what they think and what they want. We saw 200,000 people protesting in Sydney and I stood in a crowd of thousands in Melbourne protesting our going to war. I recall in Canberra the majority of the people did not want self government, in a referendum they said no and yet it was imposed. I have never been asked what I want, I am told to vote for personalities who don?t inspire me or care what is important to me. How can we speak of democracy with any credibility when in truth we do not practice it. This is what we say we fight for, sending soldiers out to kill in the name of freedom. Why not in the name of love instead?

So yes I come to this blog with biases but when I interview people I keep it neutral. I recall undertaking research with the public into evaluating advertising to do with calling the National Security HotLine. I am not in favour of any kind of dobbing in suspected terrorists as I would be concerned about innocent people being targetted or fear being raised. Yet in this situation I had to ask with total lack of bias questions of people. I wrote everything down without any changes. It was then that I saw I am able to divorce my personal opinion from my professional role. I conducted the research with a sense of integrity and openmindedness.

Now to the interview below and the issues of bias. Firstly listen for yourself and find your own truth. I recommend you watch the interview with the Afghan activist Malalai Joya and Emma Alberici please go to http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3473632.htm

I will post the biased interviewing below as a means of learning.

I will extract questions out of this interview that are inherently biased. I will also include some answers and possible ways the person could be questioned. I will place my suggestions in italics underneath. Refer to transcript for full context and meaning.? I will also paste the interviees answers where relevant.? I encourage ou to be patient with this as there are real insights to be found when we slow down to really hear what is asked and what is said in response.? In our culture listening is not a skill we have learned.? We often approach conversations with our own thoughts in mind.? The challenge in a democracy is to deeply listen.? In fact the indigenous people advise this, it is a wise teaching.? When we truly listen we can hear, when we hear we can find the right questions to ask, when we ask the right questions we will deeply learn.? When honesty and truth is in our intention, we will face the challenges that confront us.? Truth will be our light.

EMMA ALBERICI: Tell us, you want troops out entirely from the country, but is the local military ready to take responsibility?

An alternative question.

You have stated you want troops out of Afghanistan, why do you want the troops out? (probe:? what will happen?)

MALALAI JOYA: Um, 10 years ago US and NATO invaded our country under the fake banner of women rights, human rights and democracy, under the name of so-called War on Terror.

Alternative questions in italics:?

Why do you believe the US and NATO invaded your country? (using her words)

What in your opinion is the War on Terror about?

EMMA ALBERICI: But you would have to say that Afghanistan today is a better place, especially for women, than it was 10 years ago.

NB: Words like ?but? is blocking (shows she is opposing).? The word ?but? was used a lot in this interview which showed me the interviewer was resisting what was said.? The statement ?you would have to say ?? is a leading question. It shows the interviewer believes the situation has improved for women.?

An alternative question.

In your opinion has the situation for women improved, stayed the same or worsened since the war began? (probe why?)

EMMA ALBERICI: But this seems extraordinary when we hear that back in 2001 the average life expectancy for a woman in Afghanistan was 44. Now, some 10, 11 years later, it?s 62.

You yourself were running an underground school that can now flourish in the open. Aren?t you evidence yourself of the advancement of women in Afghanistan, the fact that you made it into the Parliament?

NB: ?this seems extraordinary?? is emotional and shows bias as she can?t believe what has been said. She brings in evidence to support her belief that things have improved by quoting that the life expectancy for women in Afghanistan was 44 ?it?s 62. Life expectancy is irrelevant in respect to the comment made about violence against women as the reasons why the situation for women has not improved. So the questioner is arguing her belief rather than conducting a neutral interview to investigate the comment further.

The interviewer uses the interviewee as evidence for her belief that the situation of women has improved. She uses the word ?advancement? without understanding the sheer desperation and risk calling for women to be educated and to speak up. Women in Afghanistan are mutilated and killed if they speak up, they are not seen as equal. This is not a Germain Greer women?s rights issue, it is life and death.? So any women standing up are risking their lives, this is the real issue, the courage to face death asking for equality we take for granted in western countries. This is not an advancement it is a situation where they have to stand up for their lives it is the war under the face of another war that is being conducted.?? I hear the interviewer seeking validation that the allies are involved to help women, yet the activism is self motivated by courage and desperation.?? The interviewee has already stated earlier on that she perceives the mask of human rights, women?s rights and democracy was worn by the occupying forces. The issue of parliament as validation for advancement is again the interviewer seeking to argue for her own point, she is debating not interviewing in a neutral standpoint.? It would be interesting to find out how effective women activists have been in their struggle.? The Revolutionary Women?s Afghan Association would be good to look at.

An alternative structuring of the question without bias:

You have been a member of the Afghan parliament, what do you think would you consider your appointment a sign of change for women?s rights or not??

Has there been any assistance by the international community in encouraging women?s rights in Afghanistan?

EMMA ALBERICI: But you made it into parliament. I understand you were kicked out of the parliament in 2007. What were the circumstances?

NB: There are no questions flushing out more of this woman?s voice regarding her critique of women as not advancing but facing injustice, democracy not working and the issue of corruption. This is not brought out in the question above. Instead the journalist focuses on her being thrown out of Parliament. I sense this question is asked from a list in front of the journalist who is not really hearing the women speaking. The question above again is biased in ?you made it into parliament? again a subtle endorsement that she has advanced women?s issues. Then the journalist states ?you were kicked out of parliament?. This gives the impression she is a rebel by the words ?kicked out?.?

The interviewer focuses still on her belief that women have been advanced in Afghanistan thus her line of questioning continues on this line. In the transcript Malalai has raised serious issues of the mockery of democracy and the war on terror through her life story. She is raising allegations about the burqa as a symbol of oppression. She speaks of the lack of security and the real issues of injustice, corruption, joblessness, poverty etc. She speaks of corruption in respect of the formation of the parliament and the lack of respect for democracy and voting relayed by an adage ?It?s not important who?s voting, it?s important who is counting.? She goes onto say ??And majority seats of the parliament belongs to the warlords, stragglers, even to the Taliban.?

An alternative question could be:

You have mentioned in your view that women are oppressed by violence against them. What can the international community do to effectively assist the women of Afghanistan?

You spoke of your experience in parliament and raised issues of corruption and the pervertion of democracy. In your view, how do you think a real democracy can be implemented in Afghanistan?

What in your opinion will empower women in transitioning Afghanistan into a true democracy?

What in your view will be the outcome for the Afghan people if nothing changes in the parliament (business as usual)?

MALALAI JOYA: The reason because I never sat silence there and I exposed the brutalities of these warlords who these 10 years they have had and still they have mask of democracy and now they are already negotiating with the terrorist Taliban as well. And I exposed their brutalities and there ? because I was the small voice of the voiceless people of Afghanistan inside of this disgusting parliament telling the truth. And as I was woman, as well of course, they couldn?t tolerate me as I never did compromise with them.

That?s why like political conspiracy, they censor one of my interview and expelled me, which was quite illegal act. And despite national, international condemnation they did not allow me to go back to this mafia parliament.

And I wanted to go back, the reason was to be there and not allow them to make easier this kind of disgusting laws against woman especially misogynist laws. And all the laws that today in Afghanistan these 10 years, we have this constitution, but unfortunately all these beautiful laws just on the papers. And if it was benefit for these bunch of killers, warlords who are in power, they will use it; otherwise they will look like a waste paper.

NB: This statement makes it clear that Malalai sees herself as a democratic voice silenced. She indicates she wants to return to the parliament and feels her role is to protect the rights of women and those without a voice.? She indicates she sees herself as a truth speaker. She regards those in parliament as those into power and violence rather than democracy.

The interviewer could have picked up on these comments.-

What threats have you experienced as a result of your decision to speak up for women and those you perceive as voiceless?

What has inspired you to struggle for democracy and the rights of women in your country?? (probe:? how do you overcome fear of being killed, strength etc.)

What was the response to your expulsion from the parliament by democratic countries such as the United States and Australia?

Given that Afghanistan has never known a democratic structure of government. What if any, influence does the US and allies have in ensuring women?s voices are heard in the parliament? (probe:? what can afghans do?)

What advice would you give the government of Afghanistan in crafting a parliament that represents all the voices of the Afghan people? (probe:? why is it important?)

This was the question (below) the interviewer asked after the previous statement by Malalai.

EMMA ALBERICI: You mentioned earlier that Afghanistan now has three enemies where before it only had one, the Taliban. You said the ? now you have the Taliban, the warlords and the occupiers. You mean the US and its allies, Australia?

EMMA ALBERICI: Do you see Australia as an enemy?

NB: The interviewer has not gone near the legitimacy of democracy and corruption issues in Afghanistan or probe further the expulsion of Malalai for speaking up. Instead she goes to the three enemies.? The questioning shifts to Australia as the enemy.

Can you explain what you mean by ?the enemy? of the Afghan people? (probe: what, why, who?)

Do you regard Australia as ?the enemy??? Can you explain your reasons why?

MALALAI JOYA: Of course. Because in this 10 years of occupation, Australian Government, unfortunately they did not act independently. They followed the wrong policy of the US, which we believe is war crime. And tens of thousands of innocent civilians have been killed, most of them women and children, during these bloody wars and criminal war.

And even Australian Government goes to such extent that support criminal warlords like Matiullah Khan in Oruzgan Province that he is receiving $340,000 per month from Australia Government, US government and other Western governments. \

And they are the friends of the enemies of Afghan people who are great obstacles for the true democratic-minded elements in Afghanistan. And that?s why we believe that this 10 years they just wasted the blood of their soldiers and also the attacks (inaudible).

NB: There are several revelations mentioned here 1) Australia involved in a war crime 2) Support of criminal warlords and paying #340,000 per month from US and allies. Malalai makes clear she sees this involvement as aiding the enemies of the Afghan people and hindering those who are democratically minded.

Some alternative questioning?

The Australian government position of military engagement in Afghanistan was to fight the war on terrorism as an ally to the United States. You have indicated earlier in the interview that you believe the US and allies used the mask of human rights, women?s rights and democracy as the reason for war in Afghanistan. In your opinion, what was the reason why Australia was fighting in the war in Afghanistan?

You mentioned that Australia was involved in paying $340,000 per month to a criminal warlord Matiullah Khan. What evidence do you have to prove Ausralia?s involvement?

(probe: how much did Australia pay?) This is delving deeper into the issue of corruption and whether this can be substantiated. This question would be in the public interest given tax payers money.

You indicated that Australia?a involvement in the war was an obstacle to the democratically minded Afghans. Could you please explain in what way Australia was an obstacle to democracy?

This next question (below) is incredible given the line of discussion that has just occured. Moreover, there is no sensitivity to the loss of life of Afghans. This is the face of nationalism and speaking to the Australian audience. It is not a question it is a statement without any direction. The interviewee is then directed to address Australian losses. Again none of the revelations above are explored in the public interest, the issue of corruption and lack of democracy is side stepped in favour of the emotive issue of Australian soldiers deaths. Yet Afghan deaths are not mentioned at all. That is a clear bias and using emotions for the audience watching.

EMMA ALBERICI: Many young Australian soldiers have died in Afghanistan.

NB: This is not a question, it is an emotive statement. The emotion evoked is the bias.? It is to bring the Australian audience onside and creates a sense of Australians being victims.

MALALAI JOYA: Yes, condolences not enough to those families who lost their sons and daughters in other country. And unfortunately their government send them for this criminal war for occupation. And they suffer ? Australian family, US family, they should know that democracy never come by military invasion, by urinating the corpses of Afghan, by doing massacres, by bombing our wedding parties, what they did in Ingahar (phonetic spelling), in Nuristan.

And recently in Kandahar Province, these cruel American soldiers killed 16 innocent civilians, most of them women and children. And unfortunately, Australia Government follow and still they are following this war policy of the US and Afghanistan, and for our people there is no difference between the Australian troops or Italian troops or 40 other countries who under the name of NATO (inaudible) followed the criminal policy of the US in Afghanistan as they are there for their own (inaudible) agendas.

They want to change Afghanistan into their military base, an intelligence base into Asia.

NB. The key point raised is the assertion that it is a criminal war of self interest. The last point was very interesting.

The journalist rather than following up on the issues raised and gaining more information in the public interest decides to defend the allies and Australia by evoking the flag of democracy when the interviewee has made clear with examples this is not the reason they were in Afghanistan and in her view was not the outcome. As a journalist I would have thought she would have probed the comments more about what she thinks is the US war policy and why in her view Australia followed? The last point is an absolute must to find out what evidence she has for the allegation of the US changing Afghanistan into a military base with an intelligence capability into Asia. If true, that would have implications for the Asia Pacific area and Australia?s security and relationships with Asian countries in this region.

Suggested reframing of questions:

In your opinion what is the war policy of the United States?

You mentioned Australia is following the US, in what way is the Australian Government following?

Are you aware of the Australian government policy in respect of the war in Afghanistan?

You mentioned that the purpose of US and allied involvement in Afghanistan is to create a military base with an intelligence capability into Asia, what evidence do you have about this?

Instead this statement?

EMMA ALBERICI: Well, I guess fundamentally they were hoping that democracy might have a chance to flourish, which you yourself say is your aim?

This clearly biases towards the US and Allies promoting that fundamentally (at base) they are hoping for democracy to flourish.??? This is a defence of the Australian position.? Again, what has been said by Malalai is not heard.? She has stated they are not implementing democracy and regarding the situation as a war crime.? The real questions are not asked.

MALALAI JOYA: You know, the democracy, elementary meaning of democracy is government of people for people, but unfortunately this 10 years of occupation, enemies of Afghan people imposed on them, especially these misogynist terrorist elements. And day by day they are making disgusting laws especially against woman ?

EMMA ALBERICI: What?s the alternative?

MALALAI JOYA: Yes, the alternative of course that first troops should withdraw, because ?

EMMA ALBERICI: What does that leave for Afghanistan? If you say there are warlords and Taliban, well, what else is there?

NB. The journalist cuts her off. Again, she is putting a biased question and nonsensical given the interview up to this point whereby the interviwee has made it clear in her view Afghanistan is worse off with US and allied involvement. She as made it clear that in her view there has been massacres, murder of innocent civilians, paying of warlords and an ineffective parliament and vested interests (agendas) etc. It is as if the journalist is not really listening to what is being said. She is making her bias clear as she sees no alternative to US and allied occupation.

Another approach could be:

Given that the US and allies will withdraw troops who in your opinion will fill the void and govern Afghanistan? (probe warlords, Taliban, outcomes)

MALALAI JOYA: They must let Afghan to decide their own future or in another vote self-determination.

Also democratic-minded forces of Afghanistan are the only alternative that who are able to fight against fundamentalism and against terrorism and people trust them. And democracy without justice is meaningless. And those bunch of killers who committed crimes and did massacres and killed innocent civilians in Afghanistan, these decades of war, still they are in power with the mask of democracy.

People of Afghanistan want them that they should be ? they must be brought to the national, International Criminal Court, and first of all they must be powerless. And these 10 years they shed the blood of innocent people of Afghanistan under the name of so-called War on Terror, but now US officials publicly, they confess that Taliban are not their enemies.

They are true that Taliban, warlords, Al-Qaeda, Osama and all these other terrorists, they are not their enemies and they are the enemies of Afghan people and they have been acknowledged and created by US Government and still support them for their own interest.

NB. The key issue her is democracy and justice. The revelation stated here is that the US created the Taliban, warlords, Al-Qaeda, Osama and other terrorists. This would be an important statement to probe further and again seek for evidence of the allegations. Again this is in the public interest and are very serious allegations.

Instead this statement is made ?

EMMA ALBERICI: But in every war there are casualties on both sides. It?s just one of the unfortunate products of war, isn?t it?

NB. An incredible statement that is avoiding the deeper issues raised as if not heard. The journalist turns to defend violence stating there are casualities on both sides and it is an unfortunate product of war. The issue of casualties is not raised in Malalai?s previous statement so the question is not relating to her points raised. The journalists subtle acceptance of war simply side tracks and distracts from the revelations raised. Furthermore, she is giving tacit consent to the killing of people in a war zone as unfortunate and a product of war. Incredible given civilians are not troops. Her opinion is not being asked for in this interview, the purpose of an interview is to find out the voice of the other and ask relevant questions about why the person thinks as they do and proactively critique for truth. Instead there appears to be denial or lack of understanding about the reality of war and an acceptance of its inevitability. I would question that. A person killed is not an unfortunate product of war. The notion of war as unquestioned I find interesting given the interviewer is a journalist.

I am adding this not to be biased but to provide a context in respect of casualties. I sense the journalist does not have a realistic sense of the carnage in Afghanistan, hence her passive and insensitive questions. According to US statistics 2,000 US military personnel were killed, 38 Australian soldiers were killed 12,793 Afghan civilian deaths. That gives me a sense that the casualties are mostly civilian and my question to this journalist would be ? is this an unfortunate product of war or a war crime? Is war inevitable or are there alternatives? What is the truth of this war and Australian involvement? Is it a war crime? This is to be investigated in the public interest as they paid for it in the belief of stopping terrorism and fundamentalism as the case was put to them. The fundamental question is ? What is the truth? That is why we pay for journalists to get to the bottom of it.

we continue?

MALALAI JOYA: You know, war itself is enough that values like democracy, women rights, human rights is not ? never coming by war. And you are mentioning that me as example, you know.

You know, by chance I?m alive. And many woman like me, many other activists, democratic-minded like me that ? who are alive and still they are underground and facing these challenge, obstacles, risks, threats, and they are trying to build their countries.

If US and NATO let them a little bit threaten peace. And those who come in our country for their own interest, they occupied. So that?s why we believe that they are wasting the blood of their own soldiers, use them as a tool for their criminal war. That?s why those troops who are in Afghanistan, they should learn from those brave troops who refuse to go in Afghanistan, Iraq in other countries that where these warmongers are waging wars. They says we don?t want to be war criminal.

And, anyway, but they all ? for example these troops who are going in Afghanistan, they are not the son or daughter or Julia Gillard or Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. They have their own parents and I think this 10 years is enough for Australian justice-loving people, American peace-loving people in around the world that should know about this disgusting war and they should put pressure on their government that stop and end this criminal war as soon as possible, this occupation.

And please let Afghan people ? again I stress in this comment that they should ? they are the one that should get ? decide about their own future. But no question that we need helping hand of justice-loving people around the world.

My message is this: that when we want the withdraw of the troops, but we are asking for the international solidarity of justice-loving, peace-loving people around the world. Millions who agree with us and they are against war, against occupation, they strongly believe in justice and peace. They must educationally support my people, that as education is a key against occupation and towards emancipation.

EMMA ALBERICI: Malalai Joya, I thank you so much for coming in. We?ll have to leave it there.

NB. I will finish with education as the key.

A wording of the questions is suggested:

What type of eduation does Afghanistan require?

How would education move Afghanistan towards emancipation?

If Australia wanted to assist the people of Afghanistan, how could they assist in developing education?

What do the Afghans need to be empowered to re-build their country?

Education of course is also the answer to the refugee problem. You will never stop the boats, it is to understand we are playing a role in creating war and injustice and the price has clearly been civilian casualties. The central issues here are the human rights violations of the citizens of Afghanistan by all sides. Is it not surprising some seek to escape and take risks to find safety. A boat is a much better option than having your house raided in the middle of the night and your family shot. If you are Hazara that is likely to happen given the discrimination by pashtuns. Given most Afghan refugees are Hazara (I saw many of them in a detention centre I visted). If you were they what would you do? I love the new series called ?Send them Back to Where They Came From? on SBS. There is nothing like a real experience to give you the truth of the matter. I do understand why Australians believe what they believe, but I feel it is so important to find out the truth and become involved in creating a true democracy and a better future for all children.

Given what you know now, how will you contribute to a peace loving world that values democracy and justice?

Until we recouple justice, human rights with trade we will see civilians suffer needlessly. The clue to our problem here is trade or indeed greed which seeks to satisfy self interest over best interest. I feel we need to create a global democracy and this would start at the United Nations and be enforced by the International Criminal Court. The UN would need to be reformed for one vote one value and removal of the Security Council given their involvement in the arms trade.

The above analysis has been a good exercise for me highlighting the need globally for peace journalism with a conflict resolution framework, it would be exciting to create and would empower the community by example, to live the democracy we say we prize.

May our world find peace through the uncomfortable road to truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Source: http://wpas.worldpeacefull.com/2012/10/afghanistan-malalai-joya-speaking-for-democracy-with-justice/

mike rowe shld 2012 sec football schedule medifast sinead oconnor braylon edwards jimmer fredette