No immunity for child sexual abuse

Mostly, I stay away from commenting on issues involving religion.  I am an ignorant atheist, scarcely qualified to venture into discussing matters of faith which are exceptionally well-considered by others, not least THM's own stargazer.

But the free pass the Catholic Church has given to it's members to sexually abuse children is not just about religion, it's about power, and I'm going to wade in there.  There are adult survivors of child sexual abuse perpetrated by Catholic Church staff in at least 65 countries.  The numbers of people harmed will be in the many thousands - one survivor support group alone has 12,000 members.

Turns out it wasn't enough for Pope Ratzinger to just move priests from parish to parish while they were sexually abusing children, rather than take action against them.  Nor was it enough to take years to respond to allegations when he was chief enforcer for the church in the years before his papacy, allowing priests more opportunities to abuse.

No, now he is apparently seeking immunity from plans of a European state to issue a warrant for his arrest - sent to the Vatican on 4th February, just a week before Pope Ratzinger resigned.

Not content with staying in the Vatican forever in the hope justice will not reach him there, he's also arranged a meeting on February 23 with the Italian head of state, President Napolitano to beg for Italy's protection in allegations of child sexual abuse crimes.

Where will the Catholic Church, the Vatican and the Italian government decide to stand on the issue of child sexual abuse?  With the thousands and thousands of survivors around the world, and international criminal law?  Or with a man, sheltering other men, who carried out and/or enabled rapes of thousands of vulnerable children to carry on for decades?

faith & feminism

so back in july, chally at zero at the bone sent some questions on feminism & faith.  since they weren't easy questions and since i'm an ace procrastinator, i didn't get around to answering them til this month.  she has now put up my answers at her blog, so if you're interested, i'd recommend you go on over to her place to have a read.

i've closed comments on this post, because i think it's better that any comments are put up over there.

exhibition

this week is islam awareness week.  it's a week where the muslim community in nz makes an effort to open it's doors and invite the community to get to know us.  not that the doors are closed at any other time of the year, but sometimes people need an invitation before they'll come in.  it's an attempt to break down barriers, to provide a positive response to prejudice & discrimination, to stop being "other" and show that we are part of an increasingly diverse community.

the dominion post decided to lead in to islam awareness week with an article about a museum in lower hutt holding an exhibition, a small part of which is not accessible to men.  i'm not saying this isn't a newsworthy item - of course it's something people would want to know about and be able to discuss.  but i really debate that it was so newsworthy that it merited most of the front page, with a large picture of a woman in a burqa.  i've written about the use of such pictures before, but funnily enough, this would be one of the few stories where such a picture might actually be appropriate.

the decision to place the story in this way and with such prominence was clearly deliberately, with the decision-makers perfectly aware of the consequences.  they want those consequences: the outrage, the furious letters to the editor (yup, they published one stating that Muhammad was a rapist), the howls of complaint from some white men about discrimination.  of course they wanted all that - it's what sells papers and makes money.

what do they care how it affects a minority community that already gets plenty of vilification in this country.  not their business if the lives of muslim women are made more difficult, if prejudice is more entrenched, if they knowingly inflame the bigots.  in covering this issue the way they did and subsequently choosing to publish the letters in the way they have, they are clearly giving a nice, big "f**k you" to the well-being of muslim women in this country.  and don't tell me publishing letters is a freedom of speech issue, because it really isn't.  the paper does not publish every letter it receives verbatim.  there are plenty it chooses not to publish, plenty it chooses to abridge.  letters to the editor are a censored medium, published at the whim of the editorial team, and when they decide to put your name under the "points noted" bit without publishing your letter, they don't even bother to give an explanation as to why they've made that decision.

no, this was a deliberate decision to provoke, at the expense of a minority community, as our media so loves to do.  because it works.  hence michael laws, leighton smith, paul holmes and so many more.  these people would not get column space for some pretty awful views otherwise.

on the other hand, i find that rosemary mcleod has actually had some sensible things to say on the subject, particularly this [emphasis added]:

I'm not sure what the exact purpose of the video is, but I suspect the reaction is exactly what the maker expected. It creates in our non-Muslim men a deep curiosity over something they normally take for granted, a curiosity unwelcome to women who regard the male gaze as such a problem that they hide all of themselves, apart from their eyes, when they're in public.

That turns men who insist on viewing them into voyeurs, who seek to over-ride their wishes, which are in effect a demand for privacy.... Mr Young believes there is a 'human right' involved in his being able to peek at women who don't want him to. That's an attitude a rather long stretch, but a relevant one, from that of Julian Assange. It's about consent. The Wiki Leaks hero-to-some seems to think that a woman consents to everything he feels like doing to her if she has once succumbed to his manifold charms. He is wrong.

that's what it's about for me: the entrenched sense of entitement to women's bodies, including their faces, the view that women's bodies are somehow public property which leads to this notion that women choosing to deny access to men is somehow an infringement of human rights.  it also has it's roots in a colonialist view of eastern women.  when europeans came to the east, they came with this romaticised notion of exotic eastern women, and their sense of entitlement of these women.  the fact that european men were denied access by a cultural practice of segregation and seclusion lead to a similar sense of outrage from early travellers to the east, and a similar condemnation.  all couched in the rhetoric of emancipation and empowerment, which of course only belonged to european women.  their eastern sisters apparently needed to be freed from their bonds, but for what exactly was never made clear.  it's not like women's education improved with the arrival of colonisers, nor their participation in public life.

much of the outrage over this is couched in the language of culture and cultural supremacy.  this exclusion/seclusion is apparently not part of nz culture - it's how they do things "over there", definitely not what we do here.  which nicely disappears all kiwi muslims who very much belong here, and very much have equal right to determine how culture over here develops.  and if some of these women choose seclusion, well allowing them to make that choice is exactly how we do things over here.  and if women here allowed to make that choice, then why can't qatari women?

here's another excellent post on the issue, one that deals really well with the issue of privilege.  and also this:

If we really cared about the rights of Islamic women, rather than just using them as a political football when it is expedient, we would listen to them, and respect their choices.  Respecting someones rights means respecting their autonomy and treating them as they wish to be treated.  Going against the express wishes of the artist and the women who consented to be in her video is not helping islamic women, it is saying that their voices don’t matter and their decisions are not to be respected.

This really isn’t about men being able to view the exhibit, at it’s core this issue is about people setting boundaries about what they feel is appropriate behaviour in New Zealand. Apparently many people feel that islamic women setting boundaries for safe space for themselves, in accordance with their wishes and their religion is inappropriate in New Zealand.  In New Zealand we value diversity but only if it is palatable, and fits in with “New Zealand values” whatever that might mean.  People seem to be more willing for the Dowse gallery to give up the exhibition than actually respect the artists wishes.

the thing is that i see coverage like this, i see the way the debate is couched and often find myself in despair.  how does one even begin to counter it?  well, i was reminded by the secretary of the waikato interfaith council that we counter it by organising things like islam awareness week, but engaging directly with the community and creating spaces where we can foster and model harmony rather than division.  the council has been hugely supportive of islam awareness week, both in participation and organisation, and it has made a huge difference to our community here in the waikato.

so check out the islam awareness week website for events, and if you're in the waikato, please do come to the mosque open day in the morning or the interfaith tree planting in the afternoon.  we would love to see you there.

why do you need to wonder?

there's been a lot of coverage about the sky city worker who faced disciplinary action for carrying a bible around in her pocket.  bit of a silly decision by sky city to put her through the various meetings & create such a fuss.  surely it's not hard to figure out that a bible is not the same as a mobile phone or other bits & bobs a person has in their pocket.  as long as she wasn't preaching to anyone or reading during times she was supposed to be working, i really can't see what the problem is.

possibly because a bible might remind people of moral issues, which for some people might make them reconsider their decision to be gambling?  who knows.

but one thing i do want to point out is yet another gratuitous use of muslims.  this is not a story about muslims.  if you asked muslims in nz, i'd bet the majority of them would side would the worker in this case, and her right to carry her holy book with her.  and yet we still get dragged into the issue by one pastor mark nicholas:


A pastor to the casino worker facing disciplinary action for carrying a pocket Bible at work has questioned whether she would have met the same fate if she had been caught with a Koran....

Her pastor at Faith City Church, Mark Nicholas, said the Christian message was one of love and because of this, Parata may have been seen as a "soft target"

"I wonder what the response would have been if she was carrying another religious symbol - a Koran or something."

why do you need to wonder?  why is it even an issue?  let's put aside from the fact that a muslim who felt the need to carry a qur'an with them would not be working in a casino.  to say that the christian message one of love, and then to put out a very unloving implication in your next comment?  yeah i can think of a few words to describe that.  and i can also think of many christians who practice this love and who would never dream of implying what this particular pastor is implying.

the implication is that those who might carry a qur'an ( with an "or something" thrown in an attempt to sound a little less bigoted?) get some kind of special treatment.  we're oh so special, and nobody is allowed to complain about us, right?  except for regular letters to the editor in various papers - one of my favourites implying that what happened in norway is to be expected if you let muslims into your country.  except for any number of websites and books.  except for any number of comments on talkback radio.

[ETA: there is also the implication that the christian message is one of love, while other religions aren't.  again, why?  why do you need to say that, and to bring it in up when talking about this particular case of discrimination?  it's not relevant, it's not helpful, and from my own perspective, it's certainly not true.]

it makes me so very angry when some christians who face discrimination turn around and immediately discriminate against another religious group.  the fact is that if they took the trouble to ask, they'd find strong allies within that very group.  these issues of religious discrimination could be solved much more positively and quickly if we worked together, instead of playing oppression olympics, and trying to prove that somehow my discrimination is way worse than your discrimination.

and yes, i know that people who don't subscribe to any faith also face discrimination, and that too is wrong.  i'd be happy to support anyone in that situation as well.  there's no need for us to be pitted against each other.

moderating note:  i've turned comments off because i don't have the time or energy right now to deal with the kind of comments this post is likely to attract.  if you don't like what i've written, feel free to vent about it on your own blog.

who hates who?

i've been meaning to write a post about mona eltahawy's article published in foreign policy, entitled "why do they hate us".  if you haven't heard about it yet, it's a piece that details misogyny in the middle east, and has caused quite a bit of controversy.

the controversy lies in something i've mentioned many times here: that it is very difficult to deal with issues of misogyny when they intersect with racism or bigotry.  in other words, the very act of raising issues of misogyny is likely to increase the level of discrimination faced by the very women who are the subject of misogyny.  in other words, the way you frame the debate very much determines whether or not that group of women will continue to be stereotyped as helpless victims in need of saving, as women who have little agency or ability.

as i read the first few paragraphs of the ms eltahawy's piece, my heart sank a little.  they were based on fiction, but are definitely part of the reality of many women's lives.  but not just arab women: there are women all over the world who are used for sex by men who have little concern about women's desire or pleasure, who are trapped in relationships for various reasons but very often related to poverty.  not only that, but islamic law actually requires husbands to ensure that their wives have sexual satisfaction within the relationship.  but ms eltahawy mentions none of this - you don't get that kind of context at all.

which is a pity, because the lives of these women, who are used or trapped, they need to be improved.  and cultural change is part of the process, as is structural and political change.  all of these are required, and her main point that there is a danger of women's rights being lost in the aftermath of the arab spring is a very important and valid one.

she accepts a lot of the criticism of her piece, and responds by saying that she had made it deliberately controversial just to kick-start the conversation. you can hear her saying this during a debate with leila ahmed:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

incidentally, i have a book on women in islam by leila ahmed on my bookshelf, but this is the first time i've seen her speak and i was much impressed.  i think she brought a lot of good points to the debate, and you can read her thoughts as part of a suite of responses at foreign policy here.  the links to the other 5 responses can be found here, and though it was separate from the main issue, i did like the critique of the photographs accompanying ms eltahawy's piece contained in the 5th piece.

as always, my facebook friends provide me with valuable insights, and here is a comment from one of them:

Eltahwy's piece - whether well intended, providing advice for women, pointing to problems that exist within the context of the revolution period- can only be sustained by a racist orientalist narrative that juxtaposes a Western emancipatory culture with Arab and Muslim society as regressive and misogynistic. Moreover, what is missing in the critiques of Eltahawy and broader feminist debates is under what notion of woman, freedom, equality, subjectivity and autonomy is Eltahawy's feminist critique of Arab and Muslim society operating under? People like her talk about oppression, freedom, etc. as if they're neutral categories and have universal meanings. This isn't a cultural relativist argument, rather, it is pointing to the fact that when Western observers like Elthawy judges and scrutinises other societies and their practice, they are participating in an arrogant assumption that they know best and their version of freedom, agency, and desire - as such should be applied uniformly. Lord Cromer and Laura Bush echoed similar sentiments. Further, they also rely on the assumption that FGM, rape, virginity tests, etc. should only be understood within a uni-dimensional narrative. How do you reconcile the reality that FGM is largely enforced by women themselves? Or are going to fall into the 'false consciousness' trap? Moreover, Eltahawy's entire career has been reliant upon pitting herself as liberal, free, enlightened against her abject and silent sisters of which she alone has a permission to narrate their experiences for they have the inability to speak for themselves. This is Said's Orientalism 101 and the fact that Eltahawy is Arab and Muslim doesn't change her incredibly racist views. The fact that she is unaware of the implications of everything she writes and even supports the banning of niqab in the context of a rise in Islamophobia in the West reaffirms her parochial and naive politics. Her voice SHOULD be silenced through discrediting her in whatever way possible; I'm not interested in the postmodernist argument that every voice has a validity, authenticity and value to be heard when these narratives are deployed to wage wars, structurally marginalise entire communities and perpetuate racist views that dehumanise others. They are products of colonial mimesis: mimicking the voice of empire. The greatest irony here is that Eltahawy participates in the ultimate violence against women and Islam: an epistemic violence that erases entire histories and cultural realities with a narcissistic cry of self-righteous indignation.

all of this does ignore the fact that ms eltahawy was herself the subject of extreme violence, which is also likely to inform her views.  and it also doesn't help us solve the conundrum: what is the right way to raise & discuss these issues?  what perspective would work and how do we achieve real change?  and when we talk of change, what is the change that is best for those women living in that environment, as opposed to the change that we, sitting so far away, would want for them?

i certainly haven't arrived at any satisfactory answers to those questions.  if anything, i'm involved in trying to provide practical support through the provision of social services (at a governance level rather than hands-on provision), but this doesn't foster cultural, societal or political change.  the only organisation that seems to be attempting the latter is shakti, but their approach is similar to ms eltahawy's, only more so, and i'm personally very uncomfortable with it.  somehow we have to find a way to improve women's lives while also ensuring we don't exacerbate views like this (yes, that would the same fred barret from tirau who i wrote about here, still going strong).


i'll just finish off linking to some more reading on this issue, if this post wasn't enough for you, a couple of which i got from here (a piece supporting ms eltahawy, and rightly pointing out that a great deal of the controversy surrounding Eltahawy’s essay, revolves around who she is and what her perceived intentions are, rather than what she stands for or the issues she raises).  there is this piece in the guardian which i really liked (avoid comments), and this piece in the atlantic which raised some good points but started to get a little too apologetic for my liking (the comments are relatively not so bad here, at least for the first half, and worth a quick look).  and finally there's this piece, which is sort of relevant in that it deals with islam & feminism.

Please pass Bacchus the ring, Jesus

Personally, being able to get married is not on my wish list, much as I recognise it's a human right to be able to honour those we love, regardless of their gender.

That's partly because of the sexist, homophobic and racist history of marriage in the western world at least, but mostly it's not on my wish list because I don't feel I need state, Church or other institutional approval for wanting to love someone else. My longest relationship to date lasted ten years, survived familial disapproval (threats from her parents to try and remove her children based on our relationship), enjoyed huge social support (when we broke up, many of our friends were devastated) and would not have been one bit stronger, for me, if we had chosen to mark it with some kind of ceremony.

So with all those qualifiers in place and being clear I respect that others make different decisions which are wonderful for them, I found this article about 4th century Christian men, St Serge and St Bacchus, enjoying some love of the marital kind endorsed by no less than Jesus Christ pretty smile-worthy.

Severus of Antioch in the sixth century explained that “we should not separate in speech [Serge and Bacchus] who were joined in life.” More bluntly, in the definitive 10th century Greek account of their lives, Saint Serge is described as the “sweet companion and lover (erastai)” of St. Bacchus.

Legend says that Bacchus appeared to the dying Sergius as an angel, telling him to be brave because they would soon be reunited in heaven.

Even if none of the same-sex marriages the article references are between women, it still makes "traditional" marriage just a little more interesting.

there are plenty of better reasons than these

i'm no fan of brian tamaki, not by a long shot. there are plenty of views he has put forward that really don't sit well with me. i don't like the way he runs his church or the way he lives his life. i don't think he should be getting government funds to set up his planned village (or whatever it is).

regardless of all of that, i don't believe these comments are appropriate:

... Pita Sharples made the comment about Government funding. Could I suggest tha the Rev Brian Tamaki make an application to all the Maori tribes receiving mega dollars from the Treaty settlements to enable him to fund this promised land that he would like to create and accept with open arms all the fallen sinners into his fold - mostly teenagers - to teach the way of the Destiny Church and put them on the right path to righteousness. Or does the reverend only accept paying parishioners who can afford to pay to belong to this church?

Also, Mrs Tamaki could start up her own woman's Institute [sic] within the confines of the new establishment and bring in all the young underage girls who are pregnant and teach them skills and parenting...

these words were penned by one ann ridley of thames, and published in the waikato times. note the attacks on treaty settlements, which pay out very little of the value of assets (mis)appropriated by settlers and lost to maori. there's no acknowledgement of any of the social services that are already being provided with the assistance of these funds. and on top of that, we have the lovely stereotyping of young people, as if plenty of the older generations aren't as disfunctional and destructive as the young.

that letter is immediately followed by this one by s gallop from cambridge:

On January 11, I took a quick look at the Maori news. Brian Tamaki wants the Government to pay for his new church settlement. Excuse me? Why does he have to go to the Government? He has a cheek.

... If he cannot raise the money for his church activities and buildings, he can hold his services in large tents or on a pa.

don't you just love that implication that mr tamaki is a "cheeky darky"? it seems to me that these people don't object to Government money going towards a church group, but they object to the fact that the church group is predominantly made up of brown people. after all, plenty of other religious groups get government funding, or get exemptions from taxation and rates. why so much fuss about this particular one?

it reminds of the fuss made by the waikato times last year when they had the full front page devoted to the fact that tainui holdings is not required to pay tax on its business income. it created all kinds of anger, but the same paper has consistently failed to do a similar front page spread on sanitarium which has been in the same position for many, many years.

there are plenty of grounds to criticise mr tamaki's quest for government funding, but the very thinly veiled racism and the clear double standards are completely inappropriate.

but it's not even about us

following on from a facebook discussion, i'm going to explain further why i really don't like this post from john pagani.

first a little context, if you don't want to click over. it's generally about the billboard by st matthew-in-the-city of the virgin mary holding a pregnancy test and looking, well, not overjoyed (mr edwards has an image if you want to see it). it's apparently what they do - put up something controversial to get people talking in a hells pizza kind of way, but not for economic gain and not quite in the same league of offensiveness.

at least not to me, but then i'm not christian so i accept that i might have a different perspective on it. some people did find it extremely offensive for their own reasons, which is fair enough. but they went a step too far and defaced the billboard, instead of using their right to freedom of expression to explain why they were unhappy about it via press release or to put up a billboard of another kind or to have a vocal protest outside the thing to which they could invite the media.

so what does any of this have to do with muslims? nothing, right? no muslim organisation or individual has publicly commented, nothing islamic is involved. it's two christian groups having a disagreement, which they are perfectly entitled to do. so you would think muslims could keep a low profile and stay well away from this one.

but no. mr richard boock decides, in his need to berate the catholic church (or at least the "fanatics among" them) for these acts, to bring muslims into the picture. it seems that the group doing the vandalising hasn't been condemned enough, and if they had been muslims they would have been condemned from all quarters. hence this group should be treated the same as muslim fanatics and be condemned from all quarters. or something. i think he's making that point more in relation to what they were saying (some apparently vitriolic stuff) than what they were doing (ie vandalising).

while it's a minor point in mr boock's piece, mr pagani picks up that little paragraph in his post and highlights it with the title. and i object. i object to the gratuitous use of muslims in this argument at all. it's not like we're starving for media attention. it's not like we need focus directed towards us on a matter that is completely and totally unrelated. it's not about us, so why do the authors need to make it about us?

and yes, i do get the point that they are, in their own way, trying to be nice about muslims by pointing out some unfair treatment. but really, this whole issue isn't about unfair treatment of muslims. it's about some people committing vandalism, then saying some things you disagree with. so stick to that topic - tell us why you disagree with what they did and what they said, but please don't use us muslims as a tool to drive your point home.

furthermore i really, sincerely don't think that muslims have been brought into these two pieces because the authors have a deep well of caring and concern about us. at least it doesn't come across that way. so i don't see that they should be getting some kind of brownie points for being all progressive and inclusive, when i don't think that's what they were trying to be. especially when mr pagani hasn't yet figured out (as was nicely pointed out on facebook) that people can't be islamic, they are muslim.

and yes, of course they are free to say what they want. but then i'm free to say i don't like it. that's how freedom of expression works. people have the right to take offence and to express why a certain thing offends them. (they don't have the right to go vandalising stuff, but that's a different issue.) it's up to others whether they want to take on board those issues or not.

"beautification of mosques for women"

baby steps, but steps nonetheless. it was nice to read this piece (via facebook) about turkey making mosques more women-friendly:

"This is about mosques being a space for women," declared Kadriye Avci Erdemli, Istanbul's deputy mufti, the city's second most powerful administrator of the Islamic faith. "When a woman enters a mosque, she is entering the house of God and she should experience the same sacred treatment. In front of God, men and women are equal; they have the same rights to practice their religion."

As part of the "Beautification of Mosques for Women" project, Erdemli sent 30 teams to visit all of Istanbul's mosques and report back on the facilities for women. What the teams found was shocking, she claimed. "Many of the mosques have no toilets for women, no place for women to wash before praying," Erdemli recounted. "Most of the places allocated for women were used as storage places, and those that weren't were usually filthy and freezing cold in winter."

Istanbul's mosques are now under strict instructions to clean up and provide equal facilities for both men and women by February 2012. But it's not only a push for cleanliness and improved sanitation that is underway. The way mosques are arranged is also being changed, according to Erdemli. "In most mosques, the women's area was divided by a curtain or a wall, and this is not fair," she elaborated. "They are sacred places and women have the right to take advantage of their spiritual feeling as well.

the thing is that originally, mosques were open to men and women alike, and there were no physical barriers at all. this idea of having curtains or walls separating the women is a more recent phenomenon - i don't know where it started or how it caught on, but it's against the spirit of the mosque.

mosques were social centres as much as they were places of worship. they were places where foreign delegations would visit and would stay, sometimes for months. they were places where physical contests such as wrestling or foot races were held. they were places of education, where lectures were given. the mosque was the hub of the community, and open to all people at all times.

it would actually be good to have a review of mosques in nz as well. they vary in the quality of space, but all bar one mosque does have space for women, and they have separate toilet and washing facilities for women as well. some have plenty of space as well as other rooms available for use, others have spaces that are just too cramped.

internationally, women's space in mosques tends to depend on geographic location. so in the indian subcontinent, women going to the mosque has traditionally been frowned on, and very few mosques will accommodate women. from what i hear, this is starting to change, particularly in the cities. malaysian and indonesian mosques, on the other hand, tend to all have women's spaces that are roomy and comfortable. and women from this part of the world are very used to being in the mosque.

the other thing about the very early mosques is that they were simple. the first one had a dirt floor and palm leaves for a roof. no fancy calligraphy, no expensive floor coverings or elaborate decorations. of course this reflected the state of the community, which was quite impoverished at the time, so couldn't afford more. but even so, i don't believe in pouring money into elaborate buildings, be they places of worship or something else. i think it's much more important to spend money on people - on ensuring that they are fed, clothed, housed and have opportunies for education and work.

i totally understand the desire for people to create beautiful places to aid in spiritual contemplation. i just disagree with it. the opportunity cost is too high, and in a world where people are dying of starvation and preventable diseases in such high numbers, i know i'd much rather have that money spent elsewhere, and let the spiritual reward of saving lives uplift us more than the aesthetic beauty of a building.

however, the turkish project is more than just beautification. it's about claiming women's spaces, and through that, their places in society. equality in the mosque will slowly lead to equality outside the mosque, so it's a good place to start.

talking to pregnancy counselling services

do you believe in coincidences? well i have one for you. a few weeks ago i was contacted by someone from pregnancy counselling services, asking if i could present to them about any particular issues regarding muslims their counsellors should be aware of. so this saturday morning, a friend came with me to present to the group a muslim perspective on issues around unwanted pregnancy.

we had split it up so that i did the "theory", in terms of religious beliefs and requirements, while she covered the more practical aspects. i went through the sources of muslim law, before talking about contraception, abortion, marriage, motherhood. some of these things are more difficult than others.

marriage and motherhood are pretty straightforward, with a very high value placed on both. but on the issues of contraception and abortion, things aren't as clear-cut as people think. views on contraception range from the liberal to the conservative - the most conservative believing it isn't allowed at all; the liberal view being that it is allowed as long as both parties agree.

abortion is generally thought to be forbidden, but i've read and heard various views on this. it certainly isn't forbidden in all muslim countries, and at various times in history under different regimes, it has been sometimes allowed and sometimes not allowed. there is actually no mention in the qur'an of abortion, and it is really a matter of interpretation.

what isn't contentious is the notion that the soul enters the fetus at the end of the first trimester. on that basis, some jurists say abortion is allowed before the first trimester. others say it is allowed only in the first 40 days. there are those who say it isn't allowed at all. any abortion after the first trimester would only be considered allowable if the life of the mother was at risk, or if the fetus was so severely deformed that to carry on would entail significant hardship on both the child that is born and the family that is faced with the burden of care.

for abortions in the first trimester, even many conservative scholars would say it's allowed for "valid reasons". one reason, for example, is that a woman is allowed to have a two-year gap between pregnancies, and should she fall pregnant before that gap, then she can have an abortion.

because these issues aren't clear cut, i've come to the conclusion that a woman's decision to have an abortion is between her & God. the state should provide safe abortions, and leave her to her own conscience. abortions should be provided in a timely fashion, and particularly for women who do believe it has to occur in the first trimester, they shouldn't be hindered because of loopholes created by the state, or because the state doesn't provide sufficient funding for adequate health services.

the fact is that no human being can look directly into the heart of another. no-one has the lived experience or the exact same personality as another. what is bearable for one person is unbearable to another. i don't see how we can judge one against the other and say "so-and-so can manage, therefore you should also be able to manage in a similar situation". because no two situations are exactly equal and no two people are exactly the same.

when it comes to counselling, my message to the counsellors was that they were there to help and support the woman who had contacted them. they needed to be guided by her - to understand her fears, to find out the kinds of pressures she might be facing. most of all, they should provide all the options, and leave any judgement at the door.

i felt really uncomfortable at the questioning of one of the women there - she couldn't understand how a family could shun a young, unwed pregnant woman and was quite condemning. what she was failing to understand was the cultural and social pressures, and the wider consequences faced by the family. when a culture is set-up a certain way, it's totally understandable that individual actors within it are going to act in the best interests of themselves and their loved ones. this can involve competing interests within the family: what might be in the best interests of the pregnant woman might not be in the best interests of the family as a whole and particularly of other siblings.

her failure to grasp that or to even understand the source of the pressure (ie societal) didn't make me very hopeful that she could provide appropriate advice to someone who was in need of help. women who call the service are going to be feeling scared, feeling guilty, feeling conflicted. and what they really don't need is someone giving them a critique of their culture or criticism of their families at a time they're feeling particularly vulnerable. not to say that this particular counsellor (or any other) would do that, but the thing is that when you feel a contempt for something or someone, it tends to show through, much as you try to hide it.

in an ideal world, every pregnant woman would be well-supported and provided full information so that she could make a free choice without feeling guilty about it. but we don't live in that ideal world. not anywhere. we live in the world we have, try to change it for the better as best we can, and in the meantime support people knowing that they have to deal with all kinds of injustice.

there was one other main message i gave to the group: that religion and culture are two different things. religious beliefs are often influenced by cultural practices and the latter sometimes trump religious beliefs. sometimes people following a religion don't even know the difference between practices and traditions arising from local culture, and those arising from religious requirements. when so much is open to interpretation, i find it really hard to be dogmatic. others apparently don't have any qualms.

but if i'm going to be asked for advice, then this is what i'll say: err on the side of compassion. provide support and safety for the living women who find themselves in difficult circumstances, and be slow to judge. that is all.

Guest post: Abortion as an act of love

By pohutu, cross-posted from threewisewomen

When you’re in a defensive crouch in the face of those on the march against reproductive rights, you can find you wake up one day to discover they’ve seized big swaths of ground that you’d never really even thought about defending. Perhaps because you never thought the ground was yours in the first place. Or perhaps because you’d simply never really thought about it.

One of those swaths of ground is love. Yes, don’t be shocked: love. Abortion and love.

Anti-abortionists began their assault on the ‘love’ ground decades ago: God loves you and your baby; we love you and your baby; we are the ones who love; you are the ones who hate and kill. Opposing abortion was the ‘loving’ position to take. For a while, this love-focus was directed primarily at the fetus. Save the life of the unborn child. We want to force you to continue an unwanted pregnancy because we love babies, we love your baby, we love children.

But if you really were doing this for love, how could you tell a woman that she was a murderer, a killer? How could you scream obscenities at her on a picket outside a clinic? Being all about love, and being so cruel to pregnant women wasn’t a good look. So, in recent years, there’s been an increased focus on the woman, with a lot of anti energy going into making the case that abortion hurts women. Now, it’s that we want to force you to continue this pregnancy not just because we love ‘the baby’, but because we love you, too.

In a culture that reveres mother-love, it’s easy to see abortion as anything but an act of love, and so we on the pro-choice side just gave away the ‘love’ ground without really even realizing it was there, without really even thinking about it.

Let’s take it back: “Abortion as an act of love.” Does that statement shock you? Does it seem a radical thing to say? If it does, why? If it doesn’t, hey, you get it. Abortion as an act of love. How could that possibly work? What could that possibly mean?

Just as there are as many reasons for having a child as there are women who have children, there are as many reasons for having an abortion as women who have abortions. Is every birth an act of love? Is every abortion its opposite? Let’s say you were unhappily pregnant and forced to give birth against your will (what anti-abortion advocates, out of ‘love’, want to make a reality). Would that birth be an act of love? Let’s say you had three children, lived in poverty, became pregnant and for the sake of your children, had an abortion. Would that abortion be an act of love? Let’s say you were 13 and pregnant and wanted an abortion. Your mother arranged it for you. Would your mother’s act be an act of love?

Abortion can be love just as motherhood can be love. Abortion might not be an act of love – coerced abortions, for example; motherhood might not be an act of love – coerced motherhood, for example. Or, an abortion might be simply a raw need. It might be desperation. It might be a mistake. It might be a million other things. And one of the those things is love: Abortion as an act of love.

***

This is part of a week of Pro-Choice Postings hosted here at The Hand Mirror starting on Friday 28th October 2011.  For an index of all the posts, being updated as they go up, please check the Pro-Choice Postings index.  And if you'd like to submit a post for cross-posting, guest posting or linking to please email thehandmirror@gmail.com. 

Raise your daughters well

50s style black & white photo of a mother and daughter in aprons with various cooking-related implements.  Mother:  Dreams and goals are Satan's way of distracting you from making dinner.

default human

i've read plenty of posts around the feminist blogosphere about how the default human is male. there's plenty of evidence this is true, but i had another reminder in this weekend's paper.

gwynne dyer is a well-known columnist who is published in the fairfax papers, and i think the herald also published his pieces at some point. he certainly comes across as progressive, and i generally enjoy reading his columns. until this week's one, which includes the following:

And it's Muslims (British Muslims this time), who keep their women indoors or make them cover up when they go out, who are the main victims of this disease.

so, the default "muslim" is male. the women belong to the males, apparently, and have no individual identity or agency. according to mr dyer, it's not even a possibility that the women might choose to cover themselves, having thought about the issue and come to a decision. the possiblity that some of these women are covering themselves when the men who apparently own them would rather they didn't.

the whole construction of this sentence sickens me. that it comes from a writer that is clued up on so many issues rather than jihad watch or pamela gellar just makes it worse. it's so much harder when you have to try to convince people who, on the face of it, appear to be on your own side, that you come under the definition of human being (or muslim human being in this case). and i don't believe he's using "muslim" to mean muslim men in opposition to the arabic "muslimah" for muslim women, because he doesn't bother to use "muslimah" anywhere in the article to describe muslim women. he just sees them as appendages to the actual humans, being the men.

it all brings to mind the whole richard dawkins thing, and his use of muslim women to put down the very valid concerns of another women. this atheist wants to speak for us or about us in other forums, as if we couldn't possibly speak for themselves, as if we need this white knight to come to our rescue, as if we're just tools to be used in argument.

this all goes back to the point i was trying to make in my last post: that there is so much cr*p out there about muslim women, and it takes so much effort to get just one article giving us a voice and allowing us to talk for ourselves. sometimes it feels like an impossible task.

anatomy of a story

it's taken a bit of work, but we finally have a wonderful piece in the herald on sunday, finally giving a positive narrative about nz muslim women. that is hugely important in itself, but to have it supported by this editorial makes it even more special.

i thought i'd spend a bit of time writing about how this story came about. i know bryce johns from when he was editor of the waikato times. i found him to be incredibly supportive any time i approached him with an op-ed piece or an idea for a story. i'd pretty much lost touch with him since he shifted to HoS, but had occasion to email him about something. his response was prompt as always, and in an email exchange about various bits and pieces, i directed him to this piece i'd written.

he suggested that they could do a feature article, and he'd pass the idea on to the appropriate person. i got contacted by susan pepperell about 10 days ago. we set up an appointment for the friday before last, and i spent about 45 minutes with her. we then met with some of the young women in the mosque on sunday, which took about another hour. in the meantime, susan had also talked to aliya danziesen, who was out of the country at the time, and kate parr at pirongia forest park lodge.

then i got a call on wednesday, asking for a photo shoot involving an action shot. kate had originally organised for a session at the rock-climbing place in hamilton, but what with my work commitments & the young women being busy at university, it took me almost two hours on the phone to set up the shoot out at the lodge on thursday morning. it was another two and half hours driving the young women and the photographer (stephen barker, genuinely nice guy) out to pirongia, having kate set up the abseil and doing the shots. most of this time (friday, wednesday & thursday) had to be made up by me working longer hours at work. radiya had to rearrange a tutorial to be there.

the end result is, needless to say, fantastic. but i just wanted to highlight how much energy it takes to get just one piece in the paper. how much co-operation, and the level of support from the publication itself. i know all stories don't involve so much co-ordination, but they all involve time. a smaller piece in the waikato times last monday (you can find details on my own blog here) also took up a reasonable amount of time. and because contact was initiated by the paper, the focus was on much more negative aspects, though they had the same information that HoS had.

the point is that it's seems so much easier to put out negative stories, to run negative narratives. the burqa-wearing women prevented from using public transport generated a huge level of coverage and comment, dealing with a small minority of the muslim community but impacting on the whole community. it's not so much the stories themselves that were so much the problem, but the commentary it engenders - plenty of it full of hate, misinformation and straight-out bigotry (looking at you there paul holmes).

as a minority community, it's pretty hard to counter that kind of thing. there's so much of it and even one article giving an alternate view takes a significant amount of effort. i have to say that i've been heartened by the people who have been supportive in their own spheres of influence - whether it be facebook, blogs, comments on websites, discussions with friends or family, pieces in more mainstream media.

it means a lot, to me personally and to our community. we're not perfect, there are things that need changing, as is the case with all communities. but as i've always said, it's so much harder to push for those changes when you're feeling under siege in a hostile environment. every little bit of support counts.

so huge big virtual hugs to bryce johns, as well as to susan pepperell and stephen barker. and especially to aliya danziesen and the young muslim women of the waikato, who are amzingly awesome. just a final comment for accuracy: it was aliya who set up the organisation and whose vision & motivation drives the group. i'm very much a support person.

Why I'm okay with Goff et al speaking at the Family First conference

A reminder:  Each of the bloggers here at The Hand Mirror have their own opinions.  Unless we've explicitly said something like "we've talked about this and decided X" then kindly do not automatically assume we agree.  I have no idea if any of the other writers here agree with the substance of this post and am prepared for possible counter-posts or comments to ensue.  Also please do not assume silence means agreement.  For me silence usually means no resources to respond right then.

When Hone, Pita, Tau and Shane went to speak at Destiny's conference I ended up in a twitter scrap* about it with many people I usually agree with. 

I suspect this post is going to put me in the same position again, because I think it's okay for John Key and Phil Goff (and indeed any other politician) to speak at the Family First conference.

Politicians have a duty to engage.  I'm one of Them now, thanks to my election to local government, and it's sharpened my focus on these issues considerably.  If Family First or Destiny invited me to speak at one of their events would I?  Probably yes.

If we don't speak to the groups we disagree with, even the ones that preach hate that we oppose, we cede that ground to the haters.  We leave them unchallenged in their safe spaces, continuing to validate their own views in an echo chamber.  We abandon any silent allies we might have in those rooms.

Sometimes the bigots will blurt out those hateful views in a forum where they get the feedback they deserve.  Alasdair Thompson's widespread condemnation for his antiquated and inaccurate attitude about women's productivity is a recent example of this.  But if there was someone on the EMA Board, a high-powered CEO, or even more than one, who Thompson circulated with who told him how wrong he was when he was spouting off at The Northern Club or in the Koru Lounge, wouldn't that have been useful too?

I believe politicians should try to accept every invitation they get, particularly the ones where they are being asked clear transparent questions about their policies and views in public.  To oppose politicians speaking at the Family First or Destiny conferences is akin** to believing they shouldn't speak at the Gay Auckland Business Association pre-election debates, or indeed the Suffrage Eve Debate the team here organised in 2008. 

How can we make informed decisions about who to vote for if politicians are not upfront about their intentions?  Even when we don't like or agree with the people asking the questions?  I agree wholeheartedly with this quote from George's thought-provoking post at Public Address:

I don’t begrudge the PM or Leader of the opposition meeting with their constituents. Everybody has the right to participate in politics, no matter how disturbing we find their ideas. Unfortunately, Russel Norman seemed unable to make this distinction. I hate the Exclusive Brethren with an absolute vengeance – my own grandfather was blocked from entering his brother’s funeral, but I do not think this disqualifies their right to act politically. The same goes for Family First and the Australian Christian Lobby. What is a problem is hiding that contact, and leveraging one group while pretending your views and positions are different. [my emphasis added]

Personally I will consider the answers that Key and Goff give in their so-called interviews with Bob McCoskrie helpful in determining where I'll put my ticks on November 26th.  Possibly in a diametrically opposed fashion from what His Bobness might like, but still it'll be useful for me and for others who support marriage equality, pro-choice abortion law reform, and other trendy socially progressive Good Stuff.

I judged the politicians who spoke at Destiny not for going, but for what they said when they were there.  I was disappointed not to hear any media reports of any of the four seriously challenging Destiny's views.  I'll be doing the same as the news comes out from the Family First forum too.  I'll judge Key, Goff and other pollies not on where they say things, but on what they say, how they say it, how they plan to do what they say, and then how they follow through. 

Destiny and Family First may be giving politicians platforms at their grand events to sway them, to encourage them to agree with their views, but that doesn't mean those who accept that platform accept those rules.  They can play to their own needs, speak to their own base.  They can act with integrity, even when it might mean some boos or slow claps.  I have several times said clearly that I am pro-choice at election debates held in churches, including at least one quite fundamentalist one***, and while it hasn't been popular I've yet to have anyone even be rude to me as a result.  If anything there has been a grudging respect for being upfront and clear about my views.  Which I think is the basic responsibility of any politician, really.

Challenging people is hard, especially when you are challenging them about their hate, and in their space.  It doesn't mean you shouldn't do it, but you do need to think carefully about how to do it.  Prompt people to think, to question, to reassess what they thought they knew for sure; that's what progressive politicians who speak at regressive forums should be doing imho.

The performances of Rudd and Howard at the Australian Christian Lobby in 2007 were not that.  They did not challenge, they capitulated.  It remains to be seen (at the time of writing) if Goff and/or Key will nod and agree or politely yet firmly critique the prejudices of their hosts .



* A twap maybe?
**  Cousins rather than siblings - Destiny and Family First do promote hate imho, whereas GABA certainly do not to the best of my knowledge.
***  The question, which was a written one supplied by the organisers ahead of time, although I hadn't received them in advance like everyone else, was very similar to "In NZ 16,000 unborn children are killed every year.  What does your party intend to do to end this?"  It was in 2002, hence the lower figure for the abortion rate than currently. 

yet another burqa post

so i've been away overseas while the news about the burqa-wearing women being refused entry on buses happened. so i wasn't able to return the calls from close-up & breakfast to speak on the issue. as it happens, this turned out to be a good thing, because we got to hear from burqa-wearing women instead. probably a first for a nz television news programme, and you could see the women were extremely nervous. this is not surprising, given the general nasty commentary that comes to the surface every time a burqa-related story hits the local news.

i know one of these women very well, she has grown up in nz & is a fully qualified lawyer. which doesn't make her comments any more valid than the other woman, whose history i don't know. what does bother me is the fact that these women should have to defend what they wear, in a way that no-one else really does. it bothers me that every time something comes up, we have to go through all the same arguments, deal with the same ignorant comments and the same belittling of women who have caused no harm. which is why i'm not going to go through it all again in this post. i've done plenty of burqa-related posts already.

i also hate that the public discourse of muslim women in this country centres around the burqa, especially when the vast majority of muslim women don't even wear them. yet we are all defined by it. stories that have the word muslim in them, if they are accompanied by a picture, inevitably have a picture of burqa-clad women. even when the story hasn't got anything to do with the burqa or even with women.

it's an image that is being forcibly associated in the public mind with muslim women, and one that is really very hard to counter. in hamilton, we tried to counter it when a social service organisation produced a pamphlet depicting a burqa-clad woman (who was simply a model), which we felt unfairly stereotyped all muslim women. there was mediation, the organisation agreed to pull the pamphlet but has failed to do so. they agreed not to speak to the media but did. so the mediation, to this date, has been unsuccessful. and this was just one case, which takes a reasonable amount of time & effort to follow through.

i know a lot of muslim women are frustrated by this image and want to change it, and i'd be really interested in hearing about some manageable steps we could make in that direction. muslim women have tried to get positive stories into print media, based on events or visits, but we've been stonewalled. and yes, we've done media training, we've heard about angles and hooks and what makes a good story. we see significant non-stories (or at least ones that have much less basis to them) getting covered when our own stories are ignored.

we are so much more than a piece of cloth covering the face.

note: i'm pretty jet-lagged & probably not going to be in a particularly good mood at the time this post goes up. so expect moderation to be tough on this post.

Quick bits & pieces

The pay equity discussion continues, with the Prime Minister saying there shouldn't be pay discrimination on the basis of pay and he's unaware of any evidence that there is, despite all the evidence that there is.

Hannah Tamaki has been disqualified from running for the leadership of the Maori Women's Welfare League.  More at Maui Street on this.

I did an interview for an article on feminism that was in the Herald on Sunday on the weekend but it isn't online yet.  They also talked to other online feministy types Alana and Coley.

Lots of discussion about the issue of bus drivers turning away women in burqa.  

There's a new (historic) rape complaint being laid against Dominique Strauss-Kahn.

erased

i've been thinking twice about posting on the women in that photo - the one of mr obama et al watching the killing of osama bin laden - being obliterated from the photograph before it was published in a religious newspaper.

i hesitate for a number of reasons. mostly because i hate how people will take some bizarre thing done by some group of muslims in the world and use that as an excuse to point fingers & ridicule us all. and i hate how i'm supposed to be on the defensive when such a thing happens, or how i'm supposed to somehow explain the thing away or loudly say "that's not me, i don't believe in that" and distance myself even though i really don't feel i have any obligation to do so. especially when other groups don't have the same expectation placed on them, and neither should they. and also because all types of people from all kinds of demographics do stupid stuff, and i don't at all believe any unrelated third person from the same demographic should be held responsible in any way.

another reason is that there is a whole history of anti-semitism that has been going on for many centuries and had caused the deaths of millions across any number of countries. to throw something out there that could potentially add to all of that, regardless of the wrongness or rightness of the particular issue, just feels like an awful thing to do.

then there is this whole thing about how muslims apparently all hate jews and here i am being a typical muslim hating on a jewish community. of course those who have read any history or happen to meet people from a variety of communities quickly learn that myth isn't true. but still the stereotype exists & it's pretty much impossible to ignore the context of the environment i'm living in when i assess the impact of highlighting any particular issue.

more than that, there'll be the underlying subtext of me trying to deflect criticism of the muslim community by saying "look, they're just as bad". even if it wasn't my intention to do so, that suspicion remains.

but let's think even wider. there isn't just the anti-semitism and the islamophobia that i'm dealing. there's also that group of people that love to hate on anything religious and to blame religion for all the ills of society. and somehow they think that's ok, since they hate and blame all religions equally. to me, that is the equivalent to someone saying to me "oh don't worry, i've just said nasty about indians, but i feel equally nasty towards africans, chinese, and everyone who is a different colour to me". would you even consider not calling such a person racist? the racism doesn't have a lesser effect just because you're equally racist to people from a variety of different races.

if i choose to highlight this particular act in this particular paper, published by this particular religious group, the haters are all going to be like "see those religous nutcases! all religions are stupid and the people who follow them are spectacularly so".

so. maybe it's best if i just let it go. even though it does totally annoy me that women are completely erased from the picture on the grounds of religious belief, and the constitutional first amemdment has been used to justify doing so. powerful women who have worked hard to achieve their positions (and continue to work hard) don't get to be in the picture.

even though i feel that way, i don't live in a vacuum and i'm too conscious of the undercurrents that surround me. so i'm not going to link to the picture or to anyone who has written about it. the only reason i raise it at all is to raise all those other issues and to try and think about a way we can do this (ie express our outrage) without making things worse. i still haven't come up with an answer to that.

commenting note: i've thought about turning comments off for this post, but i won't for now. i will ask people to be respectful of all people of faith and those who don't believe in any religion, equally. moderation will be tight on this post.

when in rome... do whatever you damn well please!

as a member of a cultural & religious minority group, one of the statement that completely and totally annoys the heck out of me* is the phrase "when in rome, do like the romans". the purpose of this phrase is to try to eliminate all difference, especially difference practiced by persons of colour. it's the cry of the fearful: "be like us, we don't want to have to deal with something we aren't familiar with; we're too lazy to adjust; it's your own fault for being different so you should do all the work required to change; and you're in OUR country, geddit, it's OUR country & you have to do what WE say."

the false premise underlying "when in rome etc" is this: if only you behaved more like us, we would love you and treat you exactly like one of us. when the only difference remaining is your skin colour, which you can't help**, then you will no longer face any kind of discrimination. lose your accent, lose that clothing, lose the smelly food, and YOU WILL BELONG.

this is a false premise because the people who believe in the "when in rome" doctrine have no intention of liking or treating certain people as equals. because people who do everything right & try to fit in still face problems, still get excluded. they are still "them" and "migrants" and other.

more than that, it nicely puts the responsibility for discrimination back on the discriminated. it is one of the most blatant forms of victim blaming i've seen. the people who blithely spit out this line can then comfortably go on being arrogant and hateful while smugly knowing they are completely in the right.

i recognise that one of the reasons behind this attitude is a fear of losing the local culture. but why? it's not like you aren't in the majority. it's not like you don't hold the positions of power and influence. it's not like you don't have the greatest public voice. and if one day you aren't in the majority any more, then according to your own beliefs, you don't have the right to cultural dominance any more. hopefully, when you're in the minority (around 2025 or so?), the new majority will have gone way past the "when in rome" thing, and will be happy for you to live, dress, pray & eat the way you want.

and what happens when the person you are directing the whole "when in rome" thing at is actually one of the romans? like me, for example. i'm one of the romans, so that surely means you're going to change your ways to become more like me? right?? ooohhh, of course not. cos i'm still in the minority therefore i must still be wrong.

in which case, let's break down each one of your cultural beliefs and practices. let's examine them one by one. and if any one of them fails to fall within the definition of what the "majority" does, then you will definitely stop doing that thing, right? right?? we're all going to wear the same types of clothing, and worship in the same way (too bad atheists, christians are in the majority), and eat meat & 2 veg for dinner (no more thai green curry, mate, that's not OUR traditional food) & a mince pie for lunch. majority rules, yippee, and we will live according to the weekly opinion polls on matters cultural, so that we will all know what is the appropriate way to be. it'll be a wonderful life. why don't you believe me?

or maybe you're going to pull the length-of-time-in-nz line. the one which starts with "well, i was BORN here" and keeps going with "and so were my parents and grand-parents [etc etc, as applies to your family situation]. this makes me MORE of a nz'er than you; it's means i have the greater entitlement than you and i get to tell you what to do, because YOU are in MY country. that means YOU'RE still the one that has to change".

i love it when people pull that one. because, people who pull the length-of-time argument do surely forget that there are a brown-skinned people who will totally win that one. so, i say sweetly, if it's length-of-time that makes you more of a nz'er than me, then surely you support the schools all switching to te reo for the full curriculum? you're totally willing to change and adopt tikanga, cos they are surely more nz'er than you could ever be, right?? right??? i thought not.

and finally, if you're really going to invoke romans, have you read about how the romans behaved when they went to other countries? do you know any history at all? because if those who migrate to this country behave like the romans did when they migrated, your goose is surely cooked. be careful what you ask for.


*i had to work really hard not to use swear words there, and only did so because i don't want filters to block the blog for those who are forced to have them. so just imagine a whole lot of f-itty-f words replacing what's there.

**well, actually you could help, if you would only take the time & trouble to invest in bleaching treatments, you lazy lot. michael jackson could do it, why can't you?.

on Q & A

here is a link to the video of my spot on Q & A. i don't know how to embed it so you'll have to watch on the tvnz site. here's a link to the transcript if you don't have access to broadband or are living outside nz.

these things always go so fast, and i had a whole heap of things i wanted to say but never got a chance to cover. still, it was much, much less hostile than i was expecting even though the questions were challenging. it was helped by the opportunity to chat with graham redding, the prinicipal of the knox centre in otago. he is indeed a lovely man, and we found that we had much more in common than we had differences.

a couple of things i wanted to note. first of all, i wondered if you noticed that i was the only woman on the show. thank goodness for matt mccarten, otherwise they would all have been white males. there's a point to made about how much time is given to women's voices, especially in when it comes to discussing serious issues & political news. i'm not a regular watcher of Q & A, so don't know how much of a balance they usually have, but i'm really hoping it isn't like this all the time.

what is there to say about the wayne mapp interview? the SAS should never have been sent to afghanistan. combat troops were pulled out in 2005, and there was absolutely no reason to send them back. the war in afghanistan is going nowhere and achieving nothing. there is no plan in sight, there's no sense of when it might be over or what needs to happen so that foreign troops can say they've "won".

a couple of important links: the scoop report here is longish but well worth reading. the rolling stone article i referred to in my segment can be found here, but i'll put in a strong trigger warning on the material & especially the photographs (which i haven't looked at). it documents the cold-blooded murder of innocent civilians, and the taking & circulating of trophy photographs.

i wanted to respond to a point made by glyn carpenter, director of the nz christian network. he commented that while christian leaders condemned the qur'an-burning, muslim leaders hadn't condemned the killing of UN workers in afghanistan. well, he's just plain wrong about that. the OIC is the most power international group of muslim nations, and here is their press release. here is a video and a transcript of an interview on CNN with a representative of CAIR, and a press release from another american muslim organisation. i've condemned it on the programme & do so again - it's a tragic and horrific reaction to events in america.

finally, i'd have preferred not to be in the room with dr brash for some time, though we did manage to have a robust debate on a couple of issues. i'm not going to say what it was about, but let's just say that i could not resist the opportunity to take him on. i've actually met him before, though i very much doubt he remembers me, but i have to say that i certainly don't look forward to the possibility of him re-entering parliament.