To those who care and Mr. Askvig 30-4-09
This letter is personal, because your letter made indirect remarks about my person, and that is, to use a legalistic term, a defamation of character.
You write matter-of-factly, dry and use a legalistic language, void of any empathy, typical of a lawyer. You accuse me of being aggressive, others would call it passionate. The individual who cut down the trees is looked upon as aggressive and brash by some. Even your reaction to Friluftsetaten was, according to a witness, very confrontational and even hostile. Another neighbor has been described as crazy, whose reactions have inflicted discomfort on many. So why is it that I should be hung out to dry for blowing some steam, something people obviously do in this neighborhood association from time to time?
I feel, unlike you, as if I were a character in Nathaniel Hawthorne’s novel, the Scarlet Letter, where a woman was obligated to wear a big A on her chest for having committed adultery. She would walk around the village reminding everyone and herself of her supposed sin. In my case, your letter represents that big A. Furthermore, I think about the women in the Crucible by Arthur Miller, accused of practicing what these uptight Puritans believed to be witchcraft. Like these women, I feel blacklisted.
I do not believe anyone of us should walk around on our high horses and claim victory or righteousness of any sort. We both know, that both camps pulled all the strings they had in order for their case to be a success. Upon a suggestion from you at the meeting, I took on the task to do a little research for myself and found some compelling information that was entirely ignored. Ignored, by some people who I thought to be very good friends of mine. So this issue became personal, and people were hurt. A meeting called for a swift vote to cut all trees or nothing, instead of voting on each individual tree, as had been suggested so courteously by a gentleman three times. The vote was a mere formality, and a way to figure out if the costs were to be placed on the “sameiet” or the municipality. Consequentially, trees were cut down without an inch of consideration for the new evidence. Friends did not listen to the beckoning call of friends. Our only interest in the matter was to gain clarity, achieve fairness, and figure out if the approved application from the “bydel” to cut the trees was in fact valid, or not.
You and your henchmen do not represent the 21st century, but that of the 19th and 20th century where man was only too happy to raze nature to make way for man’s increasing omnipresence. You are like the man who sought to subjugate and control nature for the benefit of one’s selfish vain interests. The future of the 21st century lies on the quality of our schools, healthcare and environment. Today, when natural resources are dwindling, it is important that future generations understand the importance of maintaining the vitality of nature. We are stepping into an age where trees are venerated and considered to be valuable and so, you and your kind represent a retrograde thinking. And although cutting down the birch tree and the oak tree might be a mere trifle for you, they have no real negative effect on the people who desired the trees to be cut down for the sake of their allergies; for all around us birches strut in front of most people’s yards, and municipal property, except for ours. Allergies will not disappear with the disappearance of these trees. For them, it’s all about vanity and a difference of opinion about what is pleasing to the eye.
The purpose of trees is not only environmental, geographical or for health matters, but trees also provide aesthetic experiences. Trees highlight the change in seasons, especially the birch and oak trees, because the pine trees that are left do not change at all, they are constant. Trees act as elements of a painterly landscape that awakens, inspires and soothes the soul, something you cannot buy from the self help section at Tanuum. Trees soften what could be a monotonous and sterile environment; somewhat like the view at Vesteraasvien 14 now. Trees protect, provide a home for animals or simply, a branch for birds to perch on and chirp. Trees give a place an individual character; unlike the view now, at Vesteraasvien 14.
People were provoked by the fact that I chose to voice an opinion, claiming that I am not an “owner,” and thus not entitled to opine on the matter. Yet, the trees exist (existed) on the property belonging to the municipality; Vesteraasveien 14 has no special claim on this property. So, as an active citizen I took it on as my civic duty to inform myself, and others about the matter, and I found what I found. Upon telling you that I had used 15 minutes on the internet to find information that stood contrary to yours you exclaimed to me with indignation, “Were you the one that did all this?” Yes, Mr. Askvig it was I, and all the others in the neighborhood who acted according to their sense of what’s right.
Lastly, I do not care for the tone of your letter. It is arrogant, elitist and hoity-toity. You asked “Hva er det du tillater deg?” What does that mean anyway? Are we not equals? Do you expect me to refrain from addressing you out of respect for maintaining class/gender differences? Or occupational differences? I allow myself to talk to you, just as you allowed yourself to mismanage this whole affair and explode to Friluftsetaten. I allow myself the same audacity as the neighbor who cut down the trees in all haste, despite his “friends” trying to talk some sense to him.
Ciara Victoria Solheim
Monday, May 4, 2009
Friday, May 1, 2009
To those who care and Mr. Askvig, Sameiet
30-4-09
This letter is personal, because your letter made indirect, yet obvious, remarks about my being, and that is, to use a legalistic term, defamation of character.
You write matter-of-factly, dry and use a legalistic language, void of any empathy, typical of a lawyer. You accuse me of being aggressive, others would call it passionate. According to some, the individual who cut down the trees is looked upon as aggressive and brash. Even your reaction to Friluftsetaten was, according to a witness, very confrontational and even hostile. Another neighbor has been described as crazy, whose reactions have inflicted discomfort for many. So why is it that I should be hung out to dry for blowing some steam, something people obviously do in this neighborhood association from time to time?
I feel, unlike you, as if I were a character in Nathaniel Hawthorne’s novel, the Scarlet Letter, where a woman was obligated to where a big A on her chest for having committed adultery. She would walk around the village reminding everyone and herself of her supposed sin. In my case, your letter represents that big A. In addition to this, I think about the women in the Crucible by Arthur Miller, accused of practicing what these uptight Puritans believed to be witchcraft. Like these women, I feel blacklisted.
I do not believe anyone of us should walk around on our high horses and claim victory or righteousness of any sort. We both know, that both camps pulled all the strings they had in order for their case to be a success. Upon a suggestion from you, I took on the task to do a little research for myself and found some compelling information that was entirely ignored. Ignored, by some people who I thought to be very good friends of mine. So this issue became personal, and people were hurt. A meeting called for a swift vote to cut all trees or nothing, instead of voting on each individual tree, as had been suggested so courteously by a gentleman three times. The vote was a mere formality, and a way to figure out if the costs were to be placed on the “sameiet” or the municipality. Consequentially, trees were cut down without an inch of consideration for the new evidence. Friends did not listen to the beckoning call of friends, whose only interest in the matter was to gain clarity, achieve fairness, and figure out if the approved application from the “bydel” to cut the trees was in fact valid, or not.
You and your henchmen do not represent the 21st century, but that of the 19th and 20th century where man was only too happy to raze nature to make way for man’s increasing omnipresence. You are like the man who sought to subjugate and control nature for the benefit of one’s selfish vain interests. The future of the 21st century lies on the quality of our schools, healthcare and environment. Today, when natural resources are dwindling, it is important that future generations understand the importance of maintaining the vitality of nature. And although cutting down the two trees might be a mere trifle for you, the birch tree and the oak tree, has no implications at all for the people who appealed to the board to cut the trees down for the sake of their allergies; for all around us birches strut in front of most people’s yards, and municipal property, expect for ours.
The purpose of trees is not only environmental, geographical or for health matters, but trees provide aesthetic experiences. Trees highlight the changes in seasons, especially the birch and oak trees, because the pine trees that are left do not change at all, they are constant. Trees act as elements of a painterly landscape that awakens , inspires and soothes the soul, something you cannot buy from the self help section at Tanuum. Trees soften what could be a monotonous and sterile environment; somewhat how the view at Vesteraasvien 14 has become now. Trees protect, provide a home for animals or simply, a branch for birds to perch on and chirp. Trees give a place an individual character; unlike the view now, at Vesteraasvien 14.
People were provoked by the fact that I chose to voice an opinion, claiming that I am not an “owner,” and thus not entitled to opine on the matter. Yet, the trees exist (existed) on the property belonging to the municipality; Vesteraasveien 14 has no special claim on this property. So, as an active citizen I took it on as my civic duty to inform myself, and others about the matter, and I found what I found. Upon telling you that I had used 15 minutes on the internet to find information that stood contrary to yours you exclaimed to me with indignation, “Were you the one that did all this?” Yes, Mr. Askvig it was I, and all the others in the neighborhood who acted according to their sense of what’s right.
With this letter, I bare no resignation to you or others. Today when we are at risk of suffering a pandemic, you never know when you need a neighbor to reach out a hand. Despite everything, I would reach out to you, even if your pride might not let your reach back; remember though to unclench your fist.
This has been an appeal to your inner humanity, and yes, I forgive you for vilifying me.
30-4-09
This letter is personal, because your letter made indirect, yet obvious, remarks about my being, and that is, to use a legalistic term, defamation of character.
You write matter-of-factly, dry and use a legalistic language, void of any empathy, typical of a lawyer. You accuse me of being aggressive, others would call it passionate. According to some, the individual who cut down the trees is looked upon as aggressive and brash. Even your reaction to Friluftsetaten was, according to a witness, very confrontational and even hostile. Another neighbor has been described as crazy, whose reactions have inflicted discomfort for many. So why is it that I should be hung out to dry for blowing some steam, something people obviously do in this neighborhood association from time to time?
I feel, unlike you, as if I were a character in Nathaniel Hawthorne’s novel, the Scarlet Letter, where a woman was obligated to where a big A on her chest for having committed adultery. She would walk around the village reminding everyone and herself of her supposed sin. In my case, your letter represents that big A. In addition to this, I think about the women in the Crucible by Arthur Miller, accused of practicing what these uptight Puritans believed to be witchcraft. Like these women, I feel blacklisted.
I do not believe anyone of us should walk around on our high horses and claim victory or righteousness of any sort. We both know, that both camps pulled all the strings they had in order for their case to be a success. Upon a suggestion from you, I took on the task to do a little research for myself and found some compelling information that was entirely ignored. Ignored, by some people who I thought to be very good friends of mine. So this issue became personal, and people were hurt. A meeting called for a swift vote to cut all trees or nothing, instead of voting on each individual tree, as had been suggested so courteously by a gentleman three times. The vote was a mere formality, and a way to figure out if the costs were to be placed on the “sameiet” or the municipality. Consequentially, trees were cut down without an inch of consideration for the new evidence. Friends did not listen to the beckoning call of friends, whose only interest in the matter was to gain clarity, achieve fairness, and figure out if the approved application from the “bydel” to cut the trees was in fact valid, or not.
You and your henchmen do not represent the 21st century, but that of the 19th and 20th century where man was only too happy to raze nature to make way for man’s increasing omnipresence. You are like the man who sought to subjugate and control nature for the benefit of one’s selfish vain interests. The future of the 21st century lies on the quality of our schools, healthcare and environment. Today, when natural resources are dwindling, it is important that future generations understand the importance of maintaining the vitality of nature. And although cutting down the two trees might be a mere trifle for you, the birch tree and the oak tree, has no implications at all for the people who appealed to the board to cut the trees down for the sake of their allergies; for all around us birches strut in front of most people’s yards, and municipal property, expect for ours.
The purpose of trees is not only environmental, geographical or for health matters, but trees provide aesthetic experiences. Trees highlight the changes in seasons, especially the birch and oak trees, because the pine trees that are left do not change at all, they are constant. Trees act as elements of a painterly landscape that awakens , inspires and soothes the soul, something you cannot buy from the self help section at Tanuum. Trees soften what could be a monotonous and sterile environment; somewhat how the view at Vesteraasvien 14 has become now. Trees protect, provide a home for animals or simply, a branch for birds to perch on and chirp. Trees give a place an individual character; unlike the view now, at Vesteraasvien 14.
People were provoked by the fact that I chose to voice an opinion, claiming that I am not an “owner,” and thus not entitled to opine on the matter. Yet, the trees exist (existed) on the property belonging to the municipality; Vesteraasveien 14 has no special claim on this property. So, as an active citizen I took it on as my civic duty to inform myself, and others about the matter, and I found what I found. Upon telling you that I had used 15 minutes on the internet to find information that stood contrary to yours you exclaimed to me with indignation, “Were you the one that did all this?” Yes, Mr. Askvig it was I, and all the others in the neighborhood who acted according to their sense of what’s right.
With this letter, I bare no resignation to you or others. Today when we are at risk of suffering a pandemic, you never know when you need a neighbor to reach out a hand. Despite everything, I would reach out to you, even if your pride might not let your reach back; remember though to unclench your fist.
This has been an appeal to your inner humanity, and yes, I forgive you for vilifying me.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Abid Q. Raja wrote about a meeting on religion at Literaturhuset in an article in Aftenposten :
Manisk applaus.
"Hvor salens sympati lå, ble klart da Shakil Rehman, broren til stand-up-komikeren Shabana, tok ordet. Han benyttet anledningen til å hamre løs mot den kvinnelige lederen av Muslimsk Studentsamfunn, Bushra Ishaq, som satt i panelet. Jeg var omringet av journalister der jeg satt og forsøkte å blogge da en av dem lente seg frem og poengterte at ingen hadde fått sterkere applaus enn Rehman.
Poenget var overflødig. Jeg hadde selv observert de nesten hypnotiserte klakørene; plutselig var det noe fanatisk over salen. Men samtidig, uten å ha sagt et ord, klarte forsamlingen å avdekke sine tilslørte holdninger. Og det er nettopp disse holdningene minoritetsungdom med refleksjonsevne ser; mennesker rundt en som ikke bare misforstår dem og ikke liker dem, men som også helst ønsker dem bort!"
Dear Abid,
Shabana Rehman's brother did not attack the lovely Miss Bushra Ishaq. He merely asked her a question which was never answered, because those monitoring the debate reformulated the question wrong. He asked, in a passionate but thoughtful manner, is there nothing wrong with Islam? Is there nothing you can pinpoint within Islam that might be interpreted to support violence and discrimination of women?
What I do not find appealing with your further comments was the way you described the audience who applauded Rehman's brother. You describe them as if they were a sycophantic mob that applauded loudly in support of what you interpret to be racist. You described the audience as fanatic in their reaction; hypnotized clappers who lack critical thinking skills. You refer to this man as "Rehman's" brother, so as to discard his point of view and relevance, as if he had nothing to say because he is her brother.....
Manisk applaus.
"Hvor salens sympati lå, ble klart da Shakil Rehman, broren til stand-up-komikeren Shabana, tok ordet. Han benyttet anledningen til å hamre løs mot den kvinnelige lederen av Muslimsk Studentsamfunn, Bushra Ishaq, som satt i panelet. Jeg var omringet av journalister der jeg satt og forsøkte å blogge da en av dem lente seg frem og poengterte at ingen hadde fått sterkere applaus enn Rehman.
Poenget var overflødig. Jeg hadde selv observert de nesten hypnotiserte klakørene; plutselig var det noe fanatisk over salen. Men samtidig, uten å ha sagt et ord, klarte forsamlingen å avdekke sine tilslørte holdninger. Og det er nettopp disse holdningene minoritetsungdom med refleksjonsevne ser; mennesker rundt en som ikke bare misforstår dem og ikke liker dem, men som også helst ønsker dem bort!"
Dear Abid,
Shabana Rehman's brother did not attack the lovely Miss Bushra Ishaq. He merely asked her a question which was never answered, because those monitoring the debate reformulated the question wrong. He asked, in a passionate but thoughtful manner, is there nothing wrong with Islam? Is there nothing you can pinpoint within Islam that might be interpreted to support violence and discrimination of women?
What I do not find appealing with your further comments was the way you described the audience who applauded Rehman's brother. You describe them as if they were a sycophantic mob that applauded loudly in support of what you interpret to be racist. You described the audience as fanatic in their reaction; hypnotized clappers who lack critical thinking skills. You refer to this man as "Rehman's" brother, so as to discard his point of view and relevance, as if he had nothing to say because he is her brother.....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
