Archive for the 'Politics Rights' Category
…where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe.
There is an intruiging article about blindly stupid decisions made in German law that claims to show you can have Multiculturalism, or Equal Rights - not both, as respecting religious differences in a multicultural society means accepting violations of normal human rights.
Now, I agree wholeheartedly that the judges in these cases have been total morons, no two ways about it. But to claim that this means you cannot have multiculturalism at all, is like the old saw: ‘Alma Cogan is dead, therefore all dead people are Alma Cogan’. It’s muddy thinking. Throwing the baby out with the bath water. Some other appropriate cliche.
Society is made up of elements, all agreed upon by society. They evolve, as societies do. Slavery is a prime example of that. It was once acceptable, even endorsed by the common religious beliefs of the time. But both the society, and the religious beliefs, evolved, matured, changed, and it was recognised as inherently abhorrent.
In a monocultural society, assimilation is expected, and, from the Wikipedia entry on Multiculturalism : ‘Assimilation implies the need for groups that fall out of the homogeneous norm to fully embrace and accept the dominant cultural paradigm as their own without concurrent adjustments from the dominant group‘. However, conversely, Multiculturalism is then about groups embracing the dominant cultural paradigm, while the dominant group makes concurrent adjustments. Its like any relationship, adjustments, compromise, workable solutions. Groups have blended in, accepted the laws and ways of the land - the first generation finds it harder, but the second and successive find it easier, while bringing the rich gifts of their cultural history. However, it was always with the proviso that the law of the land held sway, priority over formerly known laws. Again, subsequent generations had found it easier, normal, natural to follow that. Not always, there will always be elements that have trouble with that transition - criminal gangs, extreme religious factions etc. But in the majority - which, after all, is what defines society.
But a monoculture is stagnant and doomed to failure. Evolution, as with any species, is vital. However, the evolution of a society is comparable to artificial selection in much of its working, with elements of natural selection occuring as part of that process. People decide the progression of their society. Laws and rules, acceptable mores and customs change. Fashions change. Hairstyles change. Umm, where was I? Oh yes, change is VITAL, but, in societal terms, is, or at least MUST be, directed.
But while change is occuring, and this change is defined by the society, it does not mean blind acceptance of all elements of a migrating group is required for multiculturalism. Society should be grown based on the BEST elements of each culture. Pick and choose. From the Wikipedia article on artificial selection : ‘[Darwin] originally coined the term as an illustration of his proposed wider process of natural selection. He noted that many domesticated animals and plants had special properties that were developed by intentionally encouraging the breeding potential of individuals who both possessed desirable characteristics, and discouraging the breeding of individuals who had less desirable characteristics.‘
Desirable characteristics folks. It’s all about whats desirable. And I completely fail to see how retrogressive steps in human rights could be regarded by any reasonable society as desirable. So lets chuck that one out right away, shall we? Also,while it is bad for a society in its lessening of rights, it also leads to discord and disharmony when one group or another has their particular beliefs given precedence over the laws of the lands. If the majority agree the law is wrong, as with slavery, it gets changed. However, what if immigrants decided (as in the case of these women, it is not far from), that slavery is acceptable. Do we allow them to keep slaves? No, they must change their ways. Part of the concurrent adjustment to the dominant paradigm, accepting the laws of their new society. They have the RIGHT to try and influence society to change, but they MUST accept the outcome, whatever that may be. Tht is how bad laws get changed, after all.
In short, while Multiculturalism is good for a society, blindly allowing groups priority over the greater good of the community is foolish, AGAINST the tenets of multiculturalism, and dangerous. It leads to discord, racism, group against group, element against element. Immigration is nto the problem. Extreme ends of the scale are - all groups given the freedom to do as they wish, or demands they give up ALL that was good about their society, and blindly follow this new one absolutely.
And if you have read this far, it is time for a nice cup of tea. If more people did that, sat down and paused with a cuppa before being silly, dangerous, or violent, what would the world be like?:)
…is the basic principle of all social progress.
From Reproductive Rights, via Feministing:
” Two months pregnant and bleeding, Yanira Then says she went to a clinic in her low-income Santo Domingo neighborhood, where her doctor said she had suffered a miscarriage.
Then was still in her hospital gown that February morning when her doctor’s office was stormed by police, prosecutors and television news cameras. Accused of having had an abortion, Then, a 27-year-old law student, was arrested along with two other patients, the nurses and her physician.
She faces 3 to 10 years in prison. The doctor faces 50.”
A miscarriage is a traumatic enough event. This, this is just piling vile abuse of human rights on top. Vile, wrong, apalling…
…we ourselves act in the certainty that violence is no longer acceptable, that it’s tired and outdated no matter how many cling to it in the stubborn belief that it still works and that it’s still valid.
A prominent tech/geek blogger, Kathy Sierra, is having to hide because of threats of violence and sexual assault on a number of blogs, in response to criticisms and responses to debates. This is not free speech, it is abuse, and it is intolerable. Noone is required to agree with anything anyone else says, but you damn well should be not be violent in your response.
The police regard this as criminal behaviour, and rightly so. This is unacceptable, whether on or offline, and we must not allow this sort of behaviour to continue unopposed.
From a Manic Street Preacher’s song:
If you tolerate this, then your children will be next.
UPDATES
Robert Scoble, who has been criticised by Kathy in the past, has blogged in revulsion and shock at her treatment….
Feministing also has a discussion on it.
…is nothing less than the power to overcome danger, misfortune, fear, injustice, while continuing to affirm inwardly that life with all its sorrows is good; that everything is meaningful even if in a sense beyond our understanding; and that there is always tomorrow.
This woman embodies courage and heroism and all that is good and right in the world. In these times of cynical despair, rejoice and be heartened that such as Irena Sandler live.
…against injustice. Enough committed fleas biting strategically can make even the biggest dog uncomfortable and transform even the biggest nation.
A nightmare for any parent, the death of their child. This was the death, in Iraq, of their soldier daughter. A sadly everyday tragedy.
But it wasn’t. The Army claimed that LaVena Johnson had committed suicide.
Yet, Army documents show that she had:
- Indications of physical abuse that went unremarked by the autopsy
- The absence of psychological indicators of suicidal thoughts; indeed, testimony that LaVena was happy and healthy prior to her death
- Indications, via residue tests, that LaVena may not even have handled the weapon that killed her
- A blood trail outside the tent where Lavena’s body was found
- Indications that someone attenpted to set LaVena’s body on fire
There is good evidence to suggest Lavena’s rape and murder. There is an online petition and more background details here. The petition urges the US Army to reopen the investigation. ( Coverage of rape coverups and denials, of women, serving in the US Army in Iraq, at Salon .)
Justice cries on this woman’s grave.
…fools are also inconsistent, and also foolish.
“The world might be less stressful if the president of the most powerful nation didn’t so frequently convey the impression that he has no idea what’s going on.”
Four bewildering remarks from the Bush Administration.
…we give rights to ourselves and to our country.
Digital Rights Management is a huge issue, but one thats hard to explain to anyone - say, like Dear Old Dad (trust me, this I know). So, This is a great article:
How to explain DRM to Dad (or anyone really!)
…the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
There is a man who seems capable of far more than TWO contradictory beliefs simulataneously. He can hold however many are required to get what he wants. This man wishes to be the next US president.
John McCain To Deliver Keynote Speech For Creationists
Anyone else behaving like this gets called a whore.
…endeavors to silence by persecution, in old days by fire and sword, in modern days by the tongue.
Godless bigots beyond belief , according to a blogpost in one of the online Australian newspapers. Atheists are supposedly launching a ‘jihad’ (funny, as that is inferring a holy war) against religion. This author spews venom against us godless types forcing religious people to endure our point of view. For daring to suggest the Bible holds much that is cruel and just plain wrong. That the God of religions is often cruel and vengeful. He accuses atheists of forgetting cruelty by Stalin, Hitler, and Mao, noted atheists, as proving we are also bad. Accusing of us of bigotry actually is an attempt to silence, by taking some sort of spurious moral high ground.
Well, heres a couple of points.
- No atheist claimed perfection. Atheists are just as bad as Christians. Actually,all religious types are worse, because they comit crimes against their religious moral code, whereas we just do wrong.
- Hitler was a committed Christian, who thought he was justified by his religion.
- When an atheist is moral, it is for morality’s sake, not for fear of some god type retribution.
- The Bible IS full of much cruelty, contradiction, revenge, retribution, gloating over suffering, and general nastiness. Rape, incest, and slavery are lauded. The Old Testament is a frightening book to read. When Christians talk of following the Bible, they gloss over these contradictions, the evil, the direction to keep slaves, to rape, to be endlessly punitive.
And there are extremes of atheism, sure, who are vehemently anti religious. What, its like religion DOESN’T have extremists? Puhlease. The overwhelming majority of atheists and agnostics aren’t anti religion. We, for I am one of those types, just are sick of religion dictating elements of our lives. For trying to force science to recant (evolution, anyone?). For trying to force THEIR pov on our children, in education (’intelligent design, anyone? banning subversive books like Harry Potter, because if witchcraft, which is against their beliefs?), in our daily lives (oh, the protests over Life of Brian, and films like The Last Temptation of Christ). Heaven forfend (hehehe, heaven) that we should decide for ourselves what to think, read, see. Our health, especially women’s health, (abortion is always popular). Our rights - women’s rights in many very religious groups, communities, and even whole countries, are completely trampled.
See, heres the thing. Atheists are actually happy to agree to disagree, as long as religious types just go and do their thing without expecting, demanding, forcing us to do the same as them. Enlightened communities evolve (oo, that bad word!) beyond that religious dependency .
Screaming that Australia was founded on JudeoChristian principles
1)ignores the Aboriginal beliefs that were here over 40000 years before the British et al arrived, and
2)assumes nothing has changes since that occured over 200 years ago. What we were is not equal to what we are.
So, in answer to that blog, your intolerance is noted. You are guilty of just what you accuse atheists of being. Singling out extremists provides an easy target. It does NOT address any of the issues, or acknowledge our right to want to live our lives without your beliefs being part of them. A society of mutual respect is what we are after. Freedom to pursue belief or lack of them. If you want religious educaton, have it just not in state run schools. Religion does NOT belong as the generic option. You can hear Christian outrage when the Muslim community is perceived as pushing their beliefs onto our ‘Aussie way of life’ . Muslims howl equally at Western(Judeo Christian) influences. We athesists just want none. No religion guiding society. (Thats not communism or socialism, those too are almost religious beliefs, and are generally enforced by force). We just want a free, fair, democratic society, where religion is a personal thing, not societal.
Why does that thought make religious types so damned nervous?
The only bigotry here is the clanging sound of closed minds reverberating. Thats not about atheism or even about religion. Its abput inposing your beliefes on others. Atheists don’t have beliefs o force on otehrs. We work on science, which isnt our god, or worshipped. Ideas come and go in sceince, and proof, fact, and evidence either supports a theory or not. Faith has no place. We have our own code of ethics and morality, which is generally based on the principles of doing anything for the sake of it, such as charity, not because of brownie points from a religion. We do wrong because we fail at society’s rules. What, the prisons are only full of the naughty atheists now? Tsk tsk.
In short, another example of religious paranoia, masked by the attack on our supposed ‘bigotry’. No points. New player please.
…may be convenient for leaders in the short term, but it is suicidal for nations in the long term.
Feministing has an interview with an amazing woman, a woman who sees herself as ordinary, but nonetheless decided to lift her voice in protest at what she saw happening in her world. She wrote a letter that has become an amazing book.
Helen Nichols: Open Letter to George W. Bush
