Individual Reservation Group Or Event Name: Fill & Download for Free

The 1951 refugee convention[1][1][1][1] defines refugees thusAs a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.The 1951 limit was removed later in the 1967 refugee protocol.[2][2][2][2] India is not a signatory to either, but it is a good way to define who a refugee is.So, can a Pakistani Muslim be a refugee?At the outset, the answer might seem to be no. Pakistan is a Muslim-majority nation. The numerical dominance of Muslims in Pakistan[3][3][3][3] is way higher than that of Hindus in India. Moreover, Pakistan is constitutionally an Islamic republic.[4][4][4][4] Clearly, a Pakistani Muslim cannot avail of refugee status in the name of persecution simply by means of being a Muslim.But there is more to it, of course. Muslims come in many flavours. And it can often happen that a minority sect of Muslims is persecuted more than the non-Muslims in Muslim majority nations.And so is it with Pakistan. About 15% of Muslim population in Pakistan are Shias who have been claiming discrimination by the majority.[5][5][5][5] Hazaras are a group who have been particularly under attack.[6][6][6][6] In addition to the official discrimination, they also have to bear targeted terror attacks.[7][7][7][7]But all this pales in comparison to what the Ahmedi Muslims[8][8][8][8] of Pakistan have to face.[9][9][9][9] They have been the target of massive riots[10][10][10][10][11][11][11][11] and terror attacks,[12][12][12][12] but that is not even the worst. The Pakistani government has gone so far as to classify them as non-Muslim! Behold ordinance XX[13][13][13][13]298-B. Misuse of epithets, descriptions and titles, etc., reserved for certain holy personages or places:(1) Any person of the Qadiani group or the Lahori group who call themselves 'Ahmadis' or by any other name who by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation- (a) refers to or addresses, any person, other than a Caliph or companion of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), as "Ameer-ul-Mumineen", "Khalifatul- Mumineen", Khalifa-tul-Muslimeen", "Sahaabi" or "Razi Allah Anho"; (b) refers to, or addresses, any person, other than a wife of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), as "Ummul-Mumineen"; (c) refers to, or addresses, any person, other than a member of the family "Ahle-bait" of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), as "Ahle-bait"; or (d) refers to, or names, or calls, his place of worship a "Masjid"; shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine. (2) Any person of the Qadiani group or Lahori group (who call themselves "Ahmadis" or by any other name) who by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation refers to the mode or form of call to prayers followed by his faith as "Azan", or recites Azan as used by the Muslims, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.298-C. Person of Qadiani group, etc., calling himself a Muslim or preaching or propagating his faith:Any person of the Qadiani group or the Lahori group (who call themselves 'Ahmadis' or by any other name), who directly or indirectly, poses himself as a Muslim, or calls, or refers to, his faith as Islam, or preaches or propagates his faith, or invites others to accept his faith, by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representations, or in any manner whatsoever outrages the religious feelings of Muslims shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.(Emphasis mine)Forget propagating their faith, even calling themselves Muslim is enough to get them imprisoned. And believe it or not, Pakistan has enshrined this into their Constitution[14][14][14][14]A person who does not believe in the absolute and unqualified finality of The Prophethood of Muhammad (Peace be upon him), the last of the Prophets or claims to be a Prophet, in any sense of the word or of any description whatsoever, after Muhammad (Peace be upon him), or recognizes such a claimant as a Prophet or religious reformer, is not a Muslim for the purposes of the Constitution or law.Imagine modifying your Constitution to brand a group of people as non-Muslims. And then they defaced the tomb of the only science-Nobel-recipient to remove the word “Muslim” from it.[15][15][15][15]So, do I think that if an Ahmedi Muslim claims religious persecution, should India give them asylum and citizenship? Damn right we should!And this is one of my major issues with the citizenship amendment act. NRC+CAA is a potential weapon against Indian Muslims, but even without the NRC, CAA has issues. Unlike some, I don't think that we should not invite persecuted minorities from nearby countries. Sure, it is not without costs, but allowing them to settle in different parts of the country and then letting them find their livelihood on their own is definitely something a large nation like India can afford. And I believe that India is one nation in the region which should take the moral leadership in doing the right thing — others can either not afford it or do not care to. But in addition to taking in a Bangladeshi Hindu who had to leave due to riots or a Pakistani Hindu facing forced conversion, India should open its doors also to an Ahmedi Muslim who could be imprisoned in their country simply for calling themselves Muslim, a Rohingya who is threatened by ethnic cleaning or anyone else fleeing religious persecution irrespective of affiliation. And we have not even got started with the people who are attacked and killed precisely for standing up for the rights of minorities in their country.[16][16][16][16] Should they or their families be able to seek asylum in India?There was a way to make the citizenship amendment bill secular and still do the right thing to help persecuted religious minorities. But the right thing was not in the mind of this government.PS: More of my answers on the NRC/CAB combo are aggregated here. And before you comment, a few “FAQ”s.Hindus have nowhere else to go but Muslims have N (=51?) other countries to go. Well, there exist many other secular nations in the world which could accept refugees. What matters is where they can realistically go. Where are Ahmedi Muslims in Pakistan supposed to go? To Afghanistan where they were legally executed?[17]Assam cannot manage all the refugees. I understand the sentiment. But the government of India, if it wants, can resettle the population with less burden than deporting the entire lot. And I think that it is cruel to ask a person to leave where they have lived all their life simply because of fear of becoming minorities in your own land. It is their “own” land too.But real Indian Muslims have nothing to worry from NRC. Right, if you define “real” as someone who has documents to prove their ancestry back to decades before they were even born. Don't kid yourself about the number of most backward individuals in India who have no access to such records.It is going to be very expensive. Ehm, have you thought about how much a nationwide NRC process and dealing with the aftermath is going to cost?[18]Ahmedi Muslims were proponents of the two nation theory. But that generation is dead. Today's Ahmedi Muslims had no more choice to be born in their respective countries than you or me. And what if someone says “But Pakistani Hindus chose not to migrate to India after partition”?Ahmedis are not real Muslims. Fuck you. And fuck you even more if you are going to use any derogatory terms against them.Footnotes[1] Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees - Wikipedia[1] Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees - Wikipedia[1] Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees - Wikipedia[1] Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees - Wikipedia[2] Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees - Wikipedia[2] Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees - Wikipedia[2] Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees - Wikipedia[2] Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees - Wikipedia[3] Religion in Pakistan - Wikipedia[3] Religion in Pakistan - Wikipedia[3] Religion in Pakistan - Wikipedia[3] Religion in Pakistan - Wikipedia[4] Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan[4] Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan[4] Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan[4] Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan[5] Sectarian violence in Pakistan - Wikipedia[5] Sectarian violence in Pakistan - Wikipedia[5] Sectarian violence in Pakistan - Wikipedia[5] Sectarian violence in Pakistan - Wikipedia[6] Hazaras - Wikipedia[6] Hazaras - Wikipedia[6] Hazaras - Wikipedia[6] Hazaras - Wikipedia[7] September 2010 Lahore bombings - Wikipedia[7] September 2010 Lahore bombings - Wikipedia[7] September 2010 Lahore bombings - Wikipedia[7] September 2010 Lahore bombings - Wikipedia[8] Ahmadiyya - Wikipedia[8] Ahmadiyya - Wikipedia[8] Ahmadiyya - Wikipedia[8] Ahmadiyya - Wikipedia[9] Persecution of Ahmadis - Wikipedia[9] Persecution of Ahmadis - Wikipedia[9] Persecution of Ahmadis - Wikipedia[9] Persecution of Ahmadis - Wikipedia[10] 1953 Lahore riots - Wikipedia[10] 1953 Lahore riots - Wikipedia[10] 1953 Lahore riots - Wikipedia[10] 1953 Lahore riots - Wikipedia[11] 1974 Anti-Ahmadiyya riots - Wikipedia[11] 1974 Anti-Ahmadiyya riots - Wikipedia[11] 1974 Anti-Ahmadiyya riots - Wikipedia[11] 1974 Anti-Ahmadiyya riots - Wikipedia[12] 2010 Ahmadiyya mosques massacre - Wikipedia[12] 2010 Ahmadiyya mosques massacre - Wikipedia[12] 2010 Ahmadiyya mosques massacre - Wikipedia[12] 2010 Ahmadiyya mosques massacre - Wikipedia[13] Ordinance XX - Wikipedia[13] Ordinance XX - Wikipedia[13] Ordinance XX - Wikipedia[13] Ordinance XX - Wikipedia[14] Second Amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan - Wikipedia[14] Second Amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan - Wikipedia[14] Second Amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan - Wikipedia[14] Second Amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan - Wikipedia[15] Raziman T.V. (റസിമാൻ ടി.വി.)'s answer to The epitaph on Abdus Salam's tomb initially read “First Muslim Nobel Laureate”. Why did the Pakistani government remove the word “Muslim” later?[15] Raziman T.V. (റസിമാൻ ടി.വി.)'s answer to The epitaph on Abdus Salam's tomb initially read “First Muslim Nobel Laureate”. Why did the Pakistani government remove the word “Muslim” later?[15] Raziman T.V. (റസിമാൻ ടി.വി.)'s answer to The epitaph on Abdus Salam's tomb initially read “First Muslim Nobel Laureate”. Why did the Pakistani government remove the word “Muslim” later?[15] Raziman T.V. (റസിമാൻ ടി.വി.)'s answer to The epitaph on Abdus Salam's tomb initially read “First Muslim Nobel Laureate”. Why did the Pakistani government remove the word “Muslim” later?[16] Salman Taseer - Wikipedia[16] Salman Taseer - Wikipedia[16] Salman Taseer - Wikipedia[16] Salman Taseer - Wikipedia[17] Ahmadiyya in Afghanistan - Wikipedia[18] Raziman T.V. (റസിമാൻ ടി.വി.)'s answer to How feasible is the idea of Nationwide NRC? What will be the consequences of such move?

All of the answers given so far are currently accurate except I don’t know about whether or not Meetup Pro allows access to members’ email addresses. Haven’t seen anything in their description of service to indicate that it does.Still, despite the fact that you cannot access the addresses, as noted by others you are able to collect them when members RSVP to your events.Members will often choose to skip providing this information unless you indicate that it’s required. I do this by inserting : [REQUIRED] at the beginning of the question asking that email addresses be provided. In addition, I usually require that first and last (legal) names are also provided.There’s nothing wrong with “requiring” this information because as organizers we have different reasons for needing it, and it’s a legitimate request to make from any attendees.Transferring this info from the group can be a hassle so I would suggest if it’s important to you that you have everyone reserve by sending them to a different platform such as TicketLeap or Eventbrite and from there it’s much easier to manage and build a database or export to your business contacts.Both of those services are free to use for both paid and unpaid events. They do charge a small fee for paid events and both have terrific features for list management. Presently, I’m leaning more in the favor of TicketLeap just because of the simplicity of design. That’s not to say that Eventbrite doesn’t have massively wonderful list management features, because they do.If you do use this method for your reservations make certain that you clearly state in your event description that RSVPs on the Meetup group site will not be considered confirmed and that they must use the special link you’ve setup for this purpose.And, even though you do let them know, don’t be surprised if you see members RSVPing on your group’s site. Just make sure that you remind them before the date of the event that they need to use the special link.A quick and easy way to do this is to post a comment to the event as you get closer to the date and provide the link within it. This comment will be emailed by Meetup to all of the members who have mistakenly RSVP’d on the group site. Therefore, there’s no need to individually message these members.You can also send a mass email to everyone in the group, or just selectively to the members who have RSVP’d on the group site with this reminder.Meetup is great for email marketing of events, but they don’t want you treating the members as “just a mailing list” because their priority is to keep organizers “community-minded” . This is actually a powerful idea and it’s what makes Meetup groups an outstanding events marketing tool.

Both.Bear in mind, first, that the term 'ethnic group' is not a synonym for 'race', even though people often seem to use it that way nowadays. Your ethnicity is not defined by your skin colour. Rather, the term refers to any group of people who share a common culture and heritage, which they identify with. Race can be a part of that definition, yes: but so can language, religion, laws, styles of clothing, types of food, and other traditions. While you can't change your race, it is possible to become a member of a different ethnic group, if you embrace its culture so thoroughly that even people who were born in that group accept you as 'one of us'.This is important because the Cossacks were, originally, a group of people from many different backgrounds who joined together, about 600 years ago, to form a new society and cultural group on the fringes of Russian society. Cossacks were originally people who embraced the cossack way of life, not members of a specific ethnicity. Over time, however, the Cossacks became a fixed, hereditary group, and a culture and ethnicity in their own right.A thousand years ago, the Princes of Kiev ruled over all the 'Russian lands', from the borders of Poland and Hungary to the Baltic and White Sea. However, in 1236 the Mongols invaded, and shortly after that Kiev was destroyed. For the next three centuries the Russian lands lived under the so-called 'Tatar Yoke'. ('Tatar' was a name used then to describe Eurasian steppe nomads in general, both Mongol and Turkic.) The Mongol Golden Horde ruled directly over only the steppe lands to the south and east, but the many small Russian principalities which survived the destruction of Kiev further north were forced to obey their laws and pay them regular tribute.The Golden HordeBy the end of the 14th century, however, the Golden Horde was itself in decline, collapsing into several smaller states. This allowed the Russian principalities to break free, and some -- notably Muscovy -- began their own expansion. However, this was a turbulent time, with many rival factions -- Tatar, Russian, Polish/Lithuanian, and others -- all struggling to see which of them would be able to fill the power vacuum left by the decline of the Golden Horde.The region north of the Black Sea, on either side of the River Dnieper, became a war-torn land which was called by contemporaries the 'Wild Fields' (Dikoye Polye in Russian). Turks and Tatars from the Crimea led slave-raids north into Slavic lands, while the Russians sent their own war-parties south to retaliate. Few people were able to live in the Wild Fields themselves due to the constant raiding and warfare.During the 15th century — possibly earlier, but records are scanty — groups of people from the north started venturing into the Wild Fields to make a living there. This was dangerous, and they had to be well-armed; but the region had rich natural resources which were going untouched due to the depopulation caused by the wars. At first, these groups tended to send expeditions into the Wild Fields to hunt, fish in the rivers, and collect resources, then return home when winter approached; but eventually they started to establish heavily-fortified permanent settlements.‘On the Wild Fields’ by Józef Brandt, 1896Many of these settlers were escaped serfs who fled their bondage on the estates of the nobility to start a new, free life on the frontier. The etymology of the word 'cossack' is uncertain, but most believe that it comes from a Turkic word for 'free men'. The early Cossacks organised their own self-governing communities, with elected leaders; they were necessarily a highly militarised society since they had to fight for survival. Their light cavalry, skirmishing using sabres, bows and later firearms, was especially useful in raids and warfare on the open steppe, while their fortified villages gave them a secure base.The Cossacks gradually began to organise into larger political units. A notable event was in 1552 when a leader named Dmytro Vyshnevetsky fortified a base on Khortytsia, an island in the River Dnieper, from which to raid the Crimean Tatars. The island was located south of a major set of rapids in the Dnieper, in a region that was thus known as Zaporozhia ('beyond the rapids'). The Zaporozhian Cossacks quickly became a major military and political power as smaller groups joined them. Their governing body, the Sich Rada ('Fortress Council'), was an assembly open to all adult male Cossacks, and elected the Starshyna or political-military officials who served for a year at a time.Further east in the valley of the River Don were other groups of Cossacks, who followed similar traditions to the Zaporozhian Cossacks of the Dnieper region. They had a common assembly or Krug, and elected political and military leaders called atamans. Regiments of Don Cossacks under their own atamans are recorded as assisting Ivan the Terrible of Muscovy in his campaigns against the Tatars of Kazan and Astrakhan in the 1550s.The Zaporozhian Cossacks were considered to be under the sovereignty of Poland-Lithuania, though in practice the kings of Poland had little authority over them. The Ottoman Sultan made frequent complaints that the Cossacks were raiding his lands even when his Empire and Poland were supposed to be at peace. (To be fair, Ottoman vassal khans were doing much the same in reverse.)Contemporary drawing of a meeting of the Sich Rada, the Zaporozhian government assemblyIn 1572 King Sigismund II Augustus of Poland attempted to recruit a formal, standing military unit from the Zaporozhian Host. A Cossack Registry was set up, originally with just 300 names (expanded to 40,000 by 1649); these Registered Cossacks were expected to act as border guards and garrisons, and form a regiment when Poland-Lithuania went to war. In return they were guaranteed a salary (up to 12 zloty per quarter) and many privileges including immunity to most taxes. In reality the Polish government only rarely had enough money to pay the wages it promised, but the other privileges were valuable enough that many people wanted to become Registered Cossacks, and pressured the Crown to expand the Register.Relations between the Polish government and the Zaporozhian Cossacks were often tense. Most of the common people of Poland-Lithuania were serfs, and in fact this period saw a steady erosion of their rights. Freedom from serfdom was a core part of the Cossack identity, however, and this seemed to be threatened by the growing power of the szlachta or Polish-Lithuanian nobility. Religious issues were also a problem, since most Cossacks identified with the Russian Orthodox religion while the Polish monarchs and nobles were Roman Catholic. Several uprisings occurred, most seriously in 1648 when the Zaporozhian Cossacks attempted to form their own independent state.In 1654 the secessionist Cossack leadership took the dramatic step of pledging allegiance to the Tsar of Russia in return for protection, in the Treaty of Pereyaslav. The Ukraine region thus passed out of the control of Poland and became part of the Russian Empire instead: a major shift in the balance of power.The Russian Crown promised to respect the rights of the Cossacks in return for their allegiance, and permit them a high degree of autonomy and self-government. This promise was kept for about a century. Finally, in 1775 Empress Catherine the Great forcibly dissolved the Zaporozhian Cossack Host, using 65,000 troops to destroy its main fortress and disarm the people. As Catherine saw it, the region of the Ukraine was no longer a disputed border region between Slavs and Tatars, but the fertile heart of her empire; it had no further need for a heavily-armed, autonomous warrior caste. Some of the ex-Zaporozhian Cossacks were, however, permitted to migrate to the east, to the Kuban Steppe, to continue their lifestyle there. The Kuban region was still, relatively speaking, an unsettled wilderness where Cossacks were still useful.The Don Cossacks had a less tumultuous history than their western compatriots, at least prior to the 20th century. They were always considered loyal to Russia, though only loosely under the control of the Tsar's government: they paid no taxes, for example. The Don Host was a self-governing region of the Russian Empire, and its troops won great praise for their part in the defeat of Napoleon's invasion in 1812.Cossacks also played a major role in Russian expansion into Siberia, though often using boats rather than their trademark horses. Much of Russia's colonisation of the region was carried out by private expeditions, not by the State; mirroring the original Cossack settlement of the Wild Fields a couple of centuries earlier. As Russia expanded to the east and south, several more Cossack Hosts were established to defend the borders.By the 19th century, the Cossacks had become something of an anachronism. Russia no longer had long, open borders with the steppe people which needed to be defended by a string of fortified settlements. However, the Cossacks evolved and found a new role as the military defenders of the Tsarist regime.Cossacks in the Ural Mountains in 1799A total of ten Cossack Hosts were officially recognised in the mid-19th century, increasing to 13 by its end. Their lands were treated as autonomous provinces of the Russian Empire, with their own self-government. They had extensive privileges including freedom from serfdom and immunity to most taxes, but in return they were expected to serve the Emperor as soldiers. Male Cossacks were, by 1900, expected to serve for 20 years in the army, including five years on active duty and 15 years in the reserves. In effect, the Cossacks were a survival of feudalism, providing military service in return for land and privileges. They were considered to be excellent light cavalry for scouting and raiding duties, but lacking in training and discipline compared to the regular cavalry of the Russian Imperial Army.More significantly, as an autonomous and privileged military caste living in their own lands and isolated from the rest of Russian society, the Cossacks were seen as being loyal to the Tsar above all. They were unlikely to be 'tainted' by the ideologies of democracy, liberalism and socialism that were gaining popularity as the 19th century went by. As such, Cossack troops were commonly relied upon to crush rebellions, suppress demonstrations, and enforce the rule of the Tsar. They naturally came to be hated by democrats, liberals and socialists. They were seen as the symbol of repression: a sad fall from their origins as the Free People of the Wild Fields.Cossacks killing unarmed demonstrators in St Petersburg, 1905It should also be noted that the Cossacks were becoming an exclusive caste. Merely living in the territory of a Cossack Host did not automatically entitle you to the privileges of being a Cossack. In 1913, the territory of the Don Cossacks, the Oblast’ Voyska Donskogo, had a population of 3.8 million, but only 55% of them were officially Cossacks. The Cossacks owned all the land, however, and the other 1.7 million inhabitants lived there on their sufferance.All this meant that when the Russian Revolution broke out, the Cossacks were seen by the Bolsheviks as their hated enemies. In return the Cossack leadership gave extensive support to the Whites in the Civil War, though some individual Cossacks were loyal to the Reds. When the Bolsheviks were victorious they took revenge by a systematic campaign to destroy the Cossack ethnic identity, through a mixture of violent repression (executions and deportations) and removing all trace of their special legal privileges. In modern times, following the fall of Communism, there has been an attempt to revive the Cossack identity.