The Mexican Drug War: An American Problem

Hey everybody! This is a preview from our full length winter issue of Inquire Magazine our power in society issue. We're looking to solicit as many responses as possible to publish alongside our articles. Length doesn't matter, we're just focused on providing the community with a variety of perspectives. Feel free to comment on the article of interest. In the future we'll be posting a link to an online version of the publication, which will include some of your great contributions.

Isabel Barrera

The escalation of drug-related violence in Mexico has recently brought to light the severity of the problem rooted in the illegal drug trade. Violence stemming from fierce competition between drug cartels has caused significant damage to the people of Mexico; it has resulted in the deaths of over 5000 people in 2008 as reported by the U.S State Department. Mexico’s President Felipe Calderon has vowed to crack down on the drug cartels, prompting the initialization of an increased military presence. But the Calderon’s efforts have had little effect on decreasing drug-related violence in Mexico’s most troubled states.  Recently, concern in the U.S over Mexico’s drug problems have become heightened as violence has begun to seep across the border, primarily in “gateway” cities such as Phenoix where illegal drugs are known to enter the U.S. The problem that has existed in Mexico for decades has finally become a concern for the American government, as they now have a vested interest in reducing drug-related violence which has begun to take its toll on American citizens.

The complex nature of the drug-trade in Latin American countries makes it highly difficult to for the Mexican government to effectively address. The global drug trade has an estimated value of over $400 billion dollars, which helps fuel the rampant corruption that hinders efforts to impede the illegal drug trade. Corruption penetrates almost every facet of the Mexican justice system, such that authorities are often unable to hold drug dealers accountable even after they are apprehended. Further complicating the issue, Mexico’s strict gun laws have done little to prevent members of drug cartels from being extremely well armed; it has been estimated that 95 percent of weapons acquired by cartels members are smuggled into Mexico from the U.S, where it is possible to purchase weapons from an unlicensed dealer with no questions asked. It is clear that the Mexican government is faced with limited resources and limited capacity to effectively address the drug problem in its country. 

Mexico is the largest foreign source of marijuana in the U.S, with the International Narcotics Strategy Control Report estimating that approximately 15 800 metric tons of marijuana were produced in Mexico in 2007, most of which was bound for U.S markets. The high demand for drugs in the U.S exemplifies the intimate relationship that exists between the drug-related problems in Mexico and U.S policy. It is difficult to image how the issue of supply in Mexico can be addressed without first addressing the demand which fuels the production and transport of these illegal substances.

As Hilary Clinton stated at a 2009 press conference in Mexico City, “our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade, and our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police officers, soldiers and civilians.” 

 The striking correlation between the demand in the U.S for drugs and the push to meet this demand in Latin American countries makes it clear that any viable solution must involve active cooperation between the Mexican and U.S governments. The demand for marijuana in the U.S is an issue that has garnered a high degree of media attention; the legalization of marijuana has been heavily debated as an action that has the potential to radically influence the outcome of the drug war in Mexico. In addition to its effects on the drug trade, it has been estimated that the legalization of marijuana would save $13.7 billion dollars in government expenditures for the enforcement of marijuana laws

. With the majority of profits on the illegal sale of marijuana being garnered by Mexican drug cartels, its legalization could remove a significant portion of the revenue collected; revenue that is currently put towards fostering corruption and purchasing weapons, among other things. The power of the drug cartels is founded on the demand for the products they produce, great quantities of which can be sourced back the United States. Consequently, a large part of the burden and responsibility to deal with the root of the problem should be shifted to the U.S government; a government that is politically and structurally better equipped to target the issue than its Mexican counterpart.

Only through a combination of U.S policy changes and increased transparency within the Mexican system can the violence caused by the illegal drug trade be effectively stopped. Until carefully addressed, widespread corruption within many facets of the Mexican government will continue to hinder any efforts to stem the influence of the powerful drug cartels. The vicious circle of corruption and violence that has plagued the Mexican people with terror and economic hardship cannot be stopped without decisive and targeted U.S policy intervention. Whether it be tighter gun regulations, the legalization of marijuana, or stricter border policies, the U.S government will likely continue to see an increase in drug-related violence migrating to American cities, unless it takes an active and mutually cooperative approach to tackling the increasingly serious problem at hand.

A Forgotten Minority

Hey everybody! This is a preview from our full length winter issue of Inquire Magazine our power in society issue. We're looking to solicit as many responses as possible to publish alongside our articles. Length doesn't matter, we're just focused on providing the community with a variety of perspectives. Feel free to comment on the article of interest. In the future we'll be posting a link to an online version of the publication, which will include some of your great contributions.

Adil Ali


On August 11, 1947, addressing the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan following his election as the first President, Muhammad Ali Jinnah proclaimed: “You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State.” Jinnah, the founding father of Pakistan, would be rolling over in his grave if he saw the current state of minorities in Pakistan. 

Parts of Jinnah’s speech have been downplayed, altered or omitted altogether by the Government of Pakistan to appease religious groups within the country, such acts are demonstrative of the power wielded by clerics in Pakistan. Their influence has grown exponentially in the past few decades and the brunt of this power shift has been mainly felt by the fledgling minorities of the country. 

Ahmadis, a religious minority, have been on the receiving end of systematic and particularly severe persecution from their fellow countrymen as well as the Pakistani State. Soon after the partition of India, clerics belonging to the Sunni majority began engaging in anti-Ahmadi agitation. On May 1, 1949, Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam, a Muslim separatist movement, made its first public demand that Ahmadis be declared a non-Muslim minority. It used outlandish conspiracy theories accusing the Ahmadis of conspiring with India against Pakistan’s Sunni population. This was after all, and still is, the oldest trick in the book to malign an individual or an entity in Pakistan. 

Even though the attacks against the Ahmadis continued for the next two decades, it wasn’t until 1974 that the Government of Pakistan decided to engage in state-sponsored religious discrimination against the community. In 1974, the Sunni clerics saw a new spate of violence against the Ahmadis as an opportunity to pressure the then Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto to declare Ahmadis as non-Muslims. As a result, the Pakistani parliament introduced Articles 260(3)(a) and (b), which defined the meaning of the term “Muslim” in the Pakistani context and listed religious groups that were declared non-Muslims. Put into effect on September 6, 1974, the amendment deprived Ahmadis of their identity as Muslims and consequently curtails their religious freedoms. 

For fear of being charged, Ahmadis could no longer profess their faith, either verbally or in writing. Law enforcement agencies destroyed Ahmadi translations of the Quran and banned Ahmadi publications. Furthermore, Ordinance XX prohibited Ahmadis from declaring their faith publicly, propagating their faith, building mosques, or making the call for Muslim prayers. This amounts to a de facto criminalization of any public act of worship for Ahmadis. Over the last three decades, the clerics’ propaganda has influenced the masses and that has led to widespread hatred against the Ahmadis. The hatred has been woven so deep into the fabric of Pakistani society that the country refuses to acknowledge the only Nobel laureate it has ever produced— Dr. Abdus Salam Khan won the Nobel Prize for physics but because he belonged to the Ahmadiyya Community, there is no monument to celebrate him and no universities named after him. The hatred was such that the word "Muslim" on his gravestone was also erased. 

There has been no let-up in violence against the community in recent times. On May 28, 2010, two teams of attackers stormed Ahmadiyya mosques in Lahore during the Friday prayers and slaughtered 94 members of the community. The violence, as gruesome as it was, wasn’t the most disturbing aspect. It was the reaction of the Pakistani society that was most abhorrent. The Pakistani media, which is normally quite vociferous, remained uncharacteristically restrained. The media did not even consider the victims worthy enough to be characterized as “martyrs”, a title usually conferred upon any victims of terrorist attacks. Even the elected representatives in the parliament chose to remain mute on the issue rather than voicing their support for the Ahmadiyya community. It wasn’t until three brave female MPs crossed party lines to propose a resolution condemning the attacks that the parliament even acknowledged the violence against the persecuted community. When Pakistan's main opposition leader and former Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif, used the phrase "our brothers" for the murdered Ahmadis, leaders from 11 religious political parties came together to condemn him and threatened to issue a fatwa declaring him a heretic. This is a stark demonstration of how the clerics have maintained a tight grip on the politicians in Pakistan and how their influence extends into the public sphere. 

Apart from being victimized by extremist militant groups, the Ahmadis have often found themselves to be targets of blasphemy allegations and open discrimination in their daily lives. In October this year, 10 students, including seven girls, and a female teacher were expelled from Chenab Public School and Muslim Public School, in the Punjab province, for being Ahmadis. According to Saleemuddin, the spokesperson of the Ahmadiyya community, the expulsion came in the aftermath of a public meeting held in the city where religious preachers openly indulged in hate speeches against the community. Muslim Public School Principal, Yasir Abbas admitted to caving under pressure from the clerics who demanded the expulsion of Ahmadi students from his school. Khalil Ahmed, whose three daughters were expelled, told The Express Tribune: “It is extremely unfortunate that my daughters are being deprived of the most basic and fundamental human right such as education all because of religious intolerance.” “I have no alternative to ensure that their education continues,” he added.

As a Pakistani myself, it wasn’t until I read an article about Ahmadi persecution that I realized that over the years I have personally witnessed and to a certain extent, contributed towards this blatant oppression. While applying for a passport or national ID card, I never cared to read the oath that I was signing. An oath that no Muslim anywhere in the world is asked to sign goes like this: “I consider Mirza Ghulam Ahmad an impostor prophet. And also consider his followers, whether belonging to the Lahori or Qadiani group, to be non-Muslims.”

 This reference to the Ahmadiyya community is a requirement for all Muslims to sign when applying for a new passport in Pakistan, which by the way is the only country to have officially declared the Ahmadis to be non-Muslims.

As I delve into the path that my country has taken throughout history, it leaves me with a sense of sadness knowing that Pakistan, at the time of its independence, guaranteed more rights and freedoms to its minorities than even the United States of America. While the US transformed itself from being a segregated society to a nation that championed equality and fairness throughout the rest of the world, Pakistan has chosen to distance itself from the vision of its founder, Muhammad Ali Jinnah and as a result, become a hotbed for discrimination and religious bigotry that has been suffocating its citizens for years. Belonging to the majority Sunni sect, I can choose to ignore the persecution of Ahmadis in my country and go on living my life espousing sheer indifference, but my conscience tells me otherwise. I believe that Martin Niemöller’s famous quote “Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me” perfectly sums up my feelings towards this issue and injects some much needed urgency to the state of minorities in Pakistan and Ahmadis in particular, which has now reached a crisis point. 

Emerging Face of a Nationless World

The blog post this week comes from Ruyi Wang (Bachelors of Arts and Science Candidate, 2014) Inquire's very own Co-VIce-President of Initiatives. We're glad she stumbled across this treasure as it deserves to be shared. The campaign encompasses not only an artist's musical skill and talent, but the cultural influences behind it. With a medium as ubiquitous as music we hope that this campaign will spread insight into the parallels between all communities.

Emerging Face of a Nationless World is a campaign begun by the New York based artist Jie-Song Zhang, under the not-for-profit company, Stone Forest New York, which promotes international cultural exchange projects. The campaign is being supported by National Geographic for its artistic and cultural value. The first promotional video speaks volumes about the change in global cultures in its short six minutes.

“The distances that once existed between continents, countries, and cultures, is disappearing.” With the increase of globalization in recent years, the freedom of the migration of people, and the lifestyles which they choose to live has increased immensely. In large “melting pot” cities with a dynamic mix of people from various cultures, the emergence of a nationless world is especially prominent. The city is a collective home to those who come from different homelands, creating its own unique blend as a result of the exchange that takes place. The Internet also plays a large role in the exchange of ideas and cultures. Though it seems that the infusion of technology into modern society has driven people farther apart, it has also brought people closer together. The idea of a nationless world is truly inspiring. Perhaps one day, we can cast aside the borders of nations, cultures, and continents, and defined ourselves under the common identity of the human race.

If you're interested in the project, more of Jie-Song Zhang and his Emerging Face of a Nationless World campaign can be found here.

Warren Buffett on Taxing the ‘Super Rich’

Welcome to the Inquire Blog! This post goes well with our most recent event, a showing of "Capitalism: A Love Story" which we hope that some of you had time to catch. We'd like to take a moment to thank Trisha Egberts (Bachelors of Commerce Candidate 2012, Queen's University), the author of this post, for contributing time and effort to put forward a great guest blog post for us!

Warren Buffett: American business man, investor, philanthropist, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, and 3^rd wealthiest person in the world. The man is an expert at making money, but now it seems he wants the American government to take its share.

Over the past few months, Buffett has made claims that the United States government is coddling the “mega-rich”, allowing them to pay taxes at far lower rates than their lower-income fellow citizens. After conducting a study in his own office at Berkshire, he found that he was paying taxes at roughly 17.4%, while the 17 employees he interviewed were paying between 33 and 41% of their annual incomes in taxes.

How is it possible that someone so rich living in a country with a progressive tax rate system – one in which higher income earners are taxed at higher rates – can achieve such a low average tax rate? The answer, in short, is capital gains. Capital gains occur when a capital asset (anything from a building to a mutual fund security) is sold for more than the price at which it was purchased. So how do capital gains provide a tax break? In both the United States and Canada, they are taxed at a preferential rate: a max of 15%, and 50% respectively. In addition to these rates, capital gains are only taxed when the gains are realized. So while an asset can increase in value over time, businesses need only pay tax on these gains at the time the asset is sold.

The result is that tax breaks, initially intended to encourage capital investment, have allowed business owners to increase after-tax gains in unusual ways. The problem is that the difference between ordinary business income and a capital gain is often unclear, and also very costly for the government to investigate. While jurisprudence plays an extensive role in this matter, the reality is that many forms of income that should be taxed at an ordinary progressive rate are in fact being taxed at far lower rates as a capital gain.

Another source of tax savings for Buffett and his “mega-rich” friends is carried interest, a form of compensation for general partners of hedge and private equity funds, which is taxed upon receipt. Partners are paid a portion of a corporation’s profit annually in order to align their goals with that of the business, and thus are only taxed when they receive the money.

In light of all this, Buffett has

challenged the American government to take action. He proposes raising taxes – including those on dividends and capital gains – for those earning $1,000,000 or more, and establishing additional tax hikes for those earning more than $10,000,000 per year. This leaves 99.7% of the taxpayers unchanged, and will allow for better redistribution of wealth, greater tax equity, and increased government revenue during economic crisis.

While this all seems fine and dandy, Buffett has been somewhat misleading in his claims. For one, Buffett has ignored the effect of corporate income tax – the tax paid on dividends at the corporate level – which would increase his supposed 17.4% tax rate. Furthermore, Buffett’s income structure is extraordinarily unusual, even among his wealth category. Buffett takes only $100,000 in salary, and earns about $40,000,000 of annual income in dividends and capital gains – taxed at lower rates. If Buffett was serious about the government collecting its fair share of income, he could merely readjust his income structure: take a drastically larger salary (as most CEOs would), and pay income taxes on those rather than at the preferential rates he receives otherwise. But let’s face it: being rich must be difficult. Let’s give the poor guy a break.

Photo credits:

1. http://warren-buffett.org/

2. http://pol.moveon.org/budget10/chart/?id=15734-7176625-v_IiG8x&t=1

3. http://celebrityhub.blogspot.com/2008/11/business-man-warren-buffett-biography.html

Money, Inequality and Power: Palestine and the Universality of Human Rights

A lecture given by Edward Said at the Berkeley University

-We realize that at an hour and 38 minutes there are few of us who have time to listen to the speech in its entirety, but this lecture is particularly moving, a call to arms for the resurgence of compassion and humanism. We hope that at some point when you are contemplating all your free time, that you take a moment to watch this passionate articulation of Israel's impact on Palestine. The following commentary on this lecture was written by Jorge Caicedo, VP of finance for Inquire Publication.

“I have retained this unsettled sense of many identities – mostly in conflict with each other – all my life, together with an acute memory of the despairing feeling that I wish we could have been all-Arab, or all-European and American, or all-Orthodox Christian, or all-Muslim, or all-Egyptian, and so on.” – Edward Said, Out of Place (5)

A writer, literary critic, cultural critic and musician, Edward Said who was most recognized for his book Orientalism, fought for open discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Although a contentious topic, Edward Said’s perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was a very unique one. Born and raised in the Middle East, but educated in an American private school and later at Princeton and Harvard, he was able to “see” the conflict from both perspectives. Yet what is most apparent in this lecture at the University of California at Berkeley, given eight months before his death, is his desire for honesty, transparency, and most importantly a degree of self-criticism and awareness not only on the part of government, but also on the part of individuals that comes from studying and experiencing other peoples, traditions, and ideas (Akeel Bilgrami).

“With so many dissonances in my life I have learned to actually prefer being not quite right and out of place.”

– Edward Said, Out of Place (295)

Recommended reading: Humanism and Democratic Criticism by Edward W. Said.

Inquire Publication is having its first event of the year!

When: 11:00 pm on Thursday, October 27^th

Where: Zappas Lounge, 178 Ontario St.

Theme: STOPLIGHT! (Red means taken, Yellow means it's complicated, Green means available)

Cost: $5

Come out and support Inquire and learn more about our upcoming plans and events.

We will be working with Soul Foods, a student run club that delivers food to shelters around Kingston, and will be donating a portion of the proceeds towards their cause.

For more details come check us out on Facebook at Inquire Publication or send us an email at copresidents@gmail.com.

We look forward to planning more exciting events in the future for Inquire Publication!

Cheers,

Ruyi and John

VPs of Initiatives

The F Word

Why “Feminism” has become the more taboo of the F words

By Genevieve Rochon-Terry

My brother just watched me write that title, and then shook his head. “You’re such a feminist”.

I turned to him. “Do you think women should have the same chance as men to succeed?”

“Yeah”.

“Do you think that a woman should not have to choose between personal success and having kids? Do you think that women should be able to live their lives without fearing sexual assault, and not be blamed or ridiculed if they are sexually assaulted?”

“Well yeah, of course”.

“Then you’re a feminist too”.

Feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression. That definition comes from bell hooks, an American author, feminist and social

activist. The definition she gives is simple and precise. It’s about sexism. It isn’t about hating men – or women, for that matter, who can also be perpetrators of sexism.

So why are many of the people who believe in these very goals so scared of feminism? I’ve often heard from other people, “I’m not a feminist but I support equal pay”. “I’m not a feminist but I believe in equal opportunity.” The thing is, the second halves of both these statements are in line with feminist beliefs. Why are people so afraid to call themselves feminists when clearly the goals of feminism can lead to a better life for themselves and their loved ones? Are they afraid of the stereotypes that come with the description? That they will no longer be attractive to the gender of their desire? That identifying as a feminist will affect their masculinity or femininity?

Those who are brave enough – because at this point, it does take courage– to declare themselves feminists are mostly met with awkward silence, aggression, or general discomfort. It’s not anyone’s fault. For most people, knowledge of feminism comes third-hand. The problem is that we’ve been raised to equate feminism with being anti-men, anti-nature, and in search of superiority over males. “They” are seen as cold-hearted, bitchy, humorless, bra-burning, loud, and un-feminine. A quick peruse through some forums responding to the question "why do people hate feminism” proves this. The view of feminism that prevails today is often one that has been handed down through the generations. It’s true that feminism began out of anger towards males – how could it not, when the males in power back then perpetrated blatant injustice involving whether women were even people. However, as time has gone on, the movement has realized that women can also be perpetrators of sexism, and feminism has reshaped itself towards creating gender justice.

After all these negative stereotypes, it’s not surprising that the media and many of the general public are pleased to proclaim that feminism is on the decline. Time magazine even ran a cover story in 1998 asking “Is feminism dead?” (the articles inside answered yes). Even though that story is over ten years old, the sentiments remain today. But to say that feminism is declining is to say that there is no longer a need to fight for inequality between men and women. This is incorrect – even the fact that we’re so afraid of feminism shows that there is work to be done in terms of gender equality.

If you believe that women and men have equal rights, think about this…

• Imagine if men in politics were vastly outnumbered by women, rather than the other way around. Weird, huh?
• Canada’s child-care programs fall short of commitments and need, meaning that more parents – mostly moms - are forced to stay at home rather than work. For many mothers, having kids means forgetting about career dreams.
• Like all of my female friends, I usually can’t walk home at night without being made to feel unsafe and uncomfortable by leering groups of guys – no matter what I’m wearing.
• Sexual assault remains a huge problem, with victim blaming rampant and perpetrators often getting away with it.
• According to Statistics Canada, women are more likely than men to be the victims of the most severe forms of spousal assault, as well as spousal homicide, sexual assault and criminal harassment (stalking).
• The Human Resources and Skills Development Canada website contains information about ensuring pay equity – equal pay for women and men doing work of equal value in the same establishment. If there were already pay equity, these kinds of websites wouldn’t be necessary. This inequity begins early – a recent survey discovered that newly graduated women MBAs make an average of $4,600 less at their first jobs than their male counterparts. And the split only widens as careers advance.”

…and those are just a few Canadian examples.

Feminism isn’t perfect – there are issues involving race and class that have fractured the movement. But fear of feminism isn’t going to help deal with these issues. By increasing awareness of what feminism can be, we can help to reclaim the word as something positive for everyone.

There are many different kinds of feminism, and there really is something for every person – whether you are the hands-on kind who wants to get out and be heard, the kind who chooses to support politicians who have a strong women’s rights platform, or the kind who just wants to learn more about feminism by reading some blogs. As bell hooks says in her excellent book, Feminism is for Everybody, “Come closer. See how feminism can touch and change your life and all our lives. Come closer and know firsthand what feminist movement is all about. Come closer and you will see: feminism is for everybody”.

*Note: I have focused above on feminism in Canada in particular. I haven’t even ventured into the extremely important, multi-faceted dimensions of feminism that involve race, religion, class, politics, and I don’t claim to speak for anyone.

References:

http://sophieatherton.wordpress.com/

Harvard Business Review. http://blogs.hbr.org/research/2010/04/the-pay-gap-and-delusions-of-p.html

http://paradigmsubverter.wordpress.com/category/feminism/