The UN has told of a “bloodbath and total disregard for human life” in Sri Lanka. Three UK journalists were kicked out of the country over the weekend after they reported on the horrors of the refugee camps. So if a government gets the media on side, have they won the argument? And is it justified to kick the media out when an argument gets too tough?
Here’s a good summary on the dire situation in Pakistan. Fighting a war without a strategy seems to be doing more harm than good. Is it too late for Pakistan? And who poses more danger to the countrry – the West or the Taleban?
Berlusconi does not want a multi ethnic Italy. He seems to have torn the country in two by calling the idea of multi-ethnicity one of the left. Another Italian MP has also caused controversy by calling for native Italians to get separate seating areas on public transport for security reasons. A slip of the tongue or have they got a point ? Is multiculturalism a utopian dream?
RSS feed
BBC World Have Your Say 
well driving away the media does no good to the government because it only makes the world know that you are hiding something. i don’t think the media should be there for the government to use when things go right for them and when it go bad you kick them out. the media makes people see the real story behind the fighting in sri lanka. in sierra Leone my country it was the work of the b.b.c report sorious samura that made the world realize how bad the war was going and the u.n sent peace keeping troops who helped bring sanity to our country. it is in no way justified to drive out the media so let the sri lanka government leave the media to do their work.
you know the thing happening in Italy makes me laugh because i think gone are the days for those arguments. multiculturalism is almost in each and every country but it does not show i don’t think it should be a topic. or are we going to see apartheid in another version in italy what a digrace to the president and the m.p for such comment. well i think that’s why racism is so popular in italy.
Multi culturalism will not work at all but people in U.K thinks it will work but every other nation like Srilanka wanted one land ,one people,one religion.that is why the war is there. If the Tamils say that they will study sinhalese and will eventually become sinhalese Buddhists,Immediately Demon Rajapakse will cal;l the offensive off.Even in India Muslims lead their separate way of life like a Lotus leaf which does not stick to the water in the pond.I have tried to dance like Englishman but failed because that can be done by the English and we will always join with our communities.As the community gets bigger then the bondage among them will get stronger and will alienate itself from the Majority.
Re multiculturalism: the Japanese, who have a cult of their own racial uniquness, don’t want it; the Koreans want to keep Korea Korean and remain one of the world’s most ethnically homogeneous countries; Africans call the dispossession and expulsion of non-Africans ‘Africanisation’ and rally to the slogan of ‘Africa for Africans’; Arabs in the Gulf states are careful to deny all rights of settlement to foreign ‘guest workers’, and all rights full stop, with a view to preserving the Arab identity of their countries; the Chinese are notorious for their xenophobia and chauvinism and have shown no signs that they intend sharing China’s growing wealth with non-Chinese immigrants; Indian officials openly declare that theirs ‘is not a country of immigration’; etc.
Multiculturalism is rejected completely by the black, brown and oriental majority of the world’s population. Only its occasional rejection by Westeners is considered a moral outrage and matter of controversy. That’s the real story.
Three questions, three answers. First, the media is a tool, nothing more. Knowledge is power and the press is a reasonably good tool for spreading it. The press can be crucial in winning any issue but it is far from a guarantee.
Second, the question is not, is the west or Taliban more dangerous to Pakistanis, the question is, why are Pakistanis dying. The answer is obvious. There is a war going on that is bigger than the country. It is between the west and the Taliban. Anyone living in the area of the active fighting is in danger. The battle moves to anyplace the Taliban finds good footing. Until one side looses the desire or ability to fight, people somewhere will die.
Third, due to easy travel and communications we are faced with a multicultural world. Countries can not stand alone. Individuals will always fight this to some degree. It is an aspect of fear knows as racism. We can only hope that politicians can see beyond this and run their governments in a way that does not try to fight this reality. It is an embarrassment that the US has laws that distinguish differences in race and gender.
This is pure hypocrisy. We know it is war there. So does it mean only when the media is doing enough photshots do we allow ourselves to care. War is war. People are killed, limbs severed, homes destroyed. We all know this. It is called war. Humans against Humans slaying each other. Do we need graphic pictures to call a spade a spade and condemn the obvious? Has there been a bloodless war?
Sri Lankan crisis:
It appears to me that the IC ‘closes the barn door after the horse has bolted’ so to
say, when it comes to genocide, particularly in third world countries like Sri Lanka
or Ruwanda. Can jailing a few ring leaders for war crimes after the event ever deter, compare or compensate for the hundreds of thousands of victims of death,
destruction and horrendous torture and sufferings?
Right before the ‘eyes’ of the IC a slow motion genocide is taking place over a fairly long period of time in Sri Lanka and the major players on the international
arena are playing the ‘ostrich’ for highly dubious reasons.
Even at this very late stage, the major players and the IC as a whole are hardly doing anything worthy of its name to stem the floods of blood of the Sri Lankan minority that are flowing. Will it not be a farce to have the inevitable ‘war crimes” trial without hardly lifting a finger by way of ceasefire even at this very, very late stage?