| Gaz's profileGaz's Blog™PhotosBlogLists |  Tools  Help |
|
|
October 09 Ban-a-burqa When one comments about sexism, notably against women, one can't help but conjure up words like 'opression' and 'domination'. Women are being kept down by being made to conform to stereotypes: to be beautiful one has to be skinny and wear the right clothes, for example. Few would disagree that such practices are misogynistic regardless of whence such social edicts came. The question I wish to pose to you today, though, is whether or not the burqa (or burka) - the full-body covering used by women in Islam - is just as sexist as fake boobs and stereotypical supermodels? I think there's sufficient evidence to say so. It must first be said that not all women are made to wear the burqa, and do it off of their own backs. This is no less insulting to a modern liberal nation (such as our own) than not allowing women to occupy certain roles in society or any suchlike discrimination based on gender. The truth is that the burqa may well be a cultural norm, but it is certainly not a religious one. I challenge anyone to give me a verse of the Qu'ran that explicitly states that women must be covered at all times. It does advocate decency and moral fortitude in both men and women, but I'm not sure what sort of perverted game of chinese whispers went on to turn that into the need for women to walk around fully covered. Though this issue has been one that I've considered absent-mindedly for a while now, it is only recently, with Egypt proposing to ban the burqa that I find myself writing this. In addition to Egypt, France and Italy want to make a strict point that any ostentatious religious paraphenalia will not be allowed in state buildings, should they get their way. Monsieur Sarkozy has even gone so far as to say that burqas are 'not welcome' in France. Throw into the mix the political turmoil that gripped Turkey a short while ago with the Prime Minister, Gul, allowing headscarves in state buildings and Canadian muslim groups also vying for attention to get the burqa outlawed and one soon has a recipe that leads to one clear conclusion: the burqa being seen as an outdated mean of repression. Fashions change - such is evident when you take a look at any high street and see an absence of ruffs and men in tights. With fashion changes social mores, especially concerning modesty. What was immodest in the heights of Victorian prudishness is tame by modern standards. My point? Religions need to adapt to avoid being seen as outmoded and out of touch. The burqa is the prime exemplar of the failure by certain orthodox Islamic sects to do so. In a nutshell, the burqa has no place in a modern, liberal, western society. In a time of unprecedented social integration and multiculturalism, certain sects should not be erecting barriers between faiths and cultures, but should rather be tearing them down. Multiculturalism is, after all, a two-way process. Gaz out. December 16 Mugabe may be all talk and no trousers; though at least it shows he has ballsIt’s nice to know that diplomacy isn’t dead. It’s perhaps even nicer to know that occasionally, one party decides to suspend a peaceful discussion of a topic and resort to petty name-called that’s just the wrong side or risqué. Such a thing happened yesterday when Robert Mugabe, president of Zimbabwe and his crony and minister for Information Sikhanyiso Ndlovu came face to face with the bureaucrats and bigwigs of the EU concerning the ‘new Africa’.
Fair enough, Mugabe deserves to get a share of stick from his human rights abuses, massive economic downturn (what could buy you a four-bedroom house in Harare in 1991 with a swimming pool and all the trimmings can now just about buy you a single brick) and colossal emigration from Zimbabwe: up 1,400% some estimate. I’m not for one second advocating some sort of legitimate mandate for the man when I say that he is a genius. Not a political one or a diplomatic one, but certainly a comic one.
I think it was all off on the bad foot when Ndlovu called Merkel, the chancellor of Germany a “Nazi remnant”. Naturally, Merkel was free to respond, giving a nice eloquent response and rubbishing the entire Zimbabwean regime. Ndlovu piped up again, telling Merkel that Germany needed a leader “like Otto von Bismarck”. As if that wasn’t enough, when Merkel tried defending herself, Mugabe piped up; telling Merkel, articulate as ever, to “shut up”.
Christ, if the man had brains he’d be dangerous. I’m actually wondering how long it’ll be before the EU actually does something, rather than sitting around pointing the finger and writing stern letters, though I doubt they’d go to war. Might make them seem a bit less sissy and more balls-and-trousers, mind.
This whole thing reminds me of Churchill’s famous quips. I’m not comparing possibly our greatest prime minister with a nutjob in Africa, though the two do make me laugh on a political level. Consider these two gems from Churchill:
Bessie Braddock: “Sir, you are drunk.”
Churchill: “Madam, you are ugly. In the morning, I shall be sober.” Nancy Astor: “Sir, if you were my husband, I would give you poison.”
Churchill: “If I were your husband I would take it.” Come on, politicians – where’s the fun in politics? Screw political correctness and stiff upper-lippedness and say what you mean. Call Gordon Brown an overweight gasbag who will make a decent leader the same day Satan skates to work and comment that David Cameron has a forehead so large and shiny he’s in danger of blinding someone. Bring back pantomime politics!
Gaz out. July 01 Some free, but still fuming...Britain is now smoke free – well at least publicly. Aye, today, the smoking ban for the united kingdom came into force, making it illegal to smoke in public or work places in England- Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland already banned it as much as a year or so ago. That said, if the figures of Scotland are anything to go by, it will benefit the people of the England immensely – of the 5 million or so Scots, around 44,000 of the smokers have given up since the ban came into effect meaning that, per head, (and working on the assumption that everyone is a smoker) every 115th person gave up. Translated into England, and based on the same maths, we can expect some 441,000 smokers to give up in their first year, which is fantastic. Personally, I don’t like the act of smoking – I find it dirty and inconsiderate; though do find limited sympathy for those amongst the smokers that accept this.
So where would the Blog be without some sort of history tied into all this? The first smoking ban was for thirteen days in 1590, under the reign of Pope Urban VII, where he threatened to excommunication anyone who chewed, smoked or snuffed (sucked) tobacco. James I of England was also anti-smoking, and outlawed it in his presence. The first modern, nationwide, ban on smoking was actually (oddly enough) in Nazi Germany – Hitler wasn’t a fan of smokers, and founded the Institute for Tobacco Hazards Research in 1941. The Nazis used anti-smoking propaganda right up until their last days in power, and a ban in all Government (and party) buildings – hospitals, universities and military HQs in particular – was strictly enforced.
Of democracies, Ireland (Eire) was the first to ban it in public places in March 2004, followed closely by Norway in July of the same year. The US state of Minnesota banned it in all workplaced in 1975, followed by California and New York in 1998, though I guess they don’t count as nationwide or democracies, so don’t really count.
Britian, then, is actually quite far down the line, as most European countries have either already banned it or agreed on a date to have it banned, though I suppose it’s better late than never. We’ve a fair way to go, though, until we level with Bhutan, the only country to have an outright ban on smoking and the sale of all tobacco products – such would be fantastic not only for our health but also for our pockets, saving smokers, on average £3,000 a year. Come on Britain – let’s go completely smoke free.
Gaz out. June 30 Capital IdeaIt would appear that Britain is, once more, the target for terrorism. Now, I’m putting aside the inherent flaws of logic in such an attack in order to focus at what is an inherent flaw in the justice system – namely; If someone hates a country so much as to attack it and its property, why live there when you are perfectly free to leave at any time?; Why drive a vehicle into an unpopulated airport terminal exterior?; And why set yourself on fire when your target is not yourself? (I can’t think of an instance off the top of my head where one would want to terrorise oneself, though I’m sure some basket case has attempted it before now.)
Now, two men that plot for however long to kill innocent civilians for whatever cause deserve no less than death. I would say that life incarceration would be an option, however such a sentence usually means around six years in this country, much to the contrary of any connotations carried in the name. If there were a way to actually lock them in a room and throw away the key so that they could never ever be released under any circumstances, then I’d overlook what I’m about to suggest in favour of this generally more ‘acceptable’ strategy – I think it’s about time Britain re-introduced the death penalty.
Obviously such a penalty would have to be reserved for extreme cases where there was undeniable evidence against the criminals – say a terrorist that has confessed or been seen in the undertaking of whatever act, or a paedophile that has an extensive collection – serial rapists and murders would be other examples. People don’t change. Fact. They may pretend to, though this would be nothing further than expediency on their part to get to their desired goals. We may pretend and pray that cognitive behaviour therapy works, but it doesn’t. The only way to rid ourselves once and for all of the menace and threat presented in such proven criminals would be to rid ourselves of them.
I guess sometimes you’ve got to say – “Humanitarianism. Who gives one?” And that, in a case such as this or, retrospectively, people like Harold Shipman and Ian Huntley, is the only way, I believe, to approach such a situation. Get Medieval on their collective arses, and per column pendateur.*
Gaz out.
*May they hang by the neck June 29 'Ghost' turns out to be a piece of fluffThe supernatural is one of those topics that people will instinctively differ on – whether this be through belief, reason or plain arse-facedness changes from time to time, but any one person can be described as a ‘believer’ (if of sorts) or a ‘sceptic’. I guess I fall into the former category, as I’d like to believe in a world of ghosts and spirits as it gives a tint of the unknown to everything and further compounds the question of what happens after we die. That said, I’m also not stupid about it. I don’t believe in psychics and so-called “channellers”, nor that we can make contact with the dead – otherwise they wouldn’t be dead, so sort of see-through. Imagine my excitement and subsequent amusement upon seeing this image on wikipedia being hailed as ‘a ghost’. My primary instinct was to laugh. Then to wonder if the wrong thing had been circled. Finally, I decided to check I’d clicked the right image and, sure enough, I had. This Orange fleck on an already-fuzzy camera screen is supposed to be concrete evidence that there is another plane to existance? Fat chance. More likely, it’s proof that there are incredibly gullible and/or stupid people in the world that really want to believe, and it is, in fact, a bit of fluff. Granted, it is as ‘unexplainable’ as the reporters hail, though that’s more down to the poor image quality and the fact that an orange spot could be, quite feasibly, practically anything that is orange. (An orange perhaps? A coin? An oompa-loompa? Robert Kilroy-Silk? We shall never know.) That said, such a blunt put-down of a grainy picture would make a rather pathetic blog, and so I’m going to focus in on the stupidity of some of the believers. Ranging from the most believable to the downright silly, we have; “No, the apparition in the video is not a ghost or an alien, instead it appears to be a case of ‘ball lightning.’” –Nathan Hampton “If you look at the police car near the bottom front door, I was able to see an image of a male’s face,” -Marylou Parnala Another woman, who didn’t provide her name but reported she is a spiritual reader who sometimes sees pictures of the dead, said she saw five separate spirits in the video — one man with red on him, one sitting on what appeared to be a train, another near the tree, a woman with a hat and a child. “Have you consulted a reputable channeler? If you need help let me know.” –Silly Woman There we have it, then. Four more reasons to make idiocy history. Gaz out. June 27 And so begins the end of days...Today, something magical happened. Not only did Tony Blair resign as Prime Minister, and not only did Gordon Brown become the new one, but Labour effectively shot itself in the foot. I mean, looking at the pictures from outside number 10 of Mr and Mrs Brown, I couldn’t help but think I was actually watching that scene in Jabba’s palace from Star Wars VI. How could anyone actually like them? Gordon may have done a good job in the treasury, but that’s only because he didn’t actually have to be in the media’s eye – hell, they hid him in the 2005 election because they were afraid of what he could do to the party.
It comes to something when my Swedish friend, who isn’t even into British politics (though is every bit as Conservative as I am) commented that Brown looked a mess, which I have already agreed with – this being someone who judges a man for the first real time (and thus enforcing the ‘no one actually knows who he is’ comment).
Anyway, enough of the politics. I was watching BBC news and the transition between Blair and Brown and the vast interim period where Brown was meeting with the Queen – the longest in history so I was informed for forty-five straight minutes by the various stalling reporters. Such a long period left several eventualities time to spring forth into my mind;
1. Gordon Brown was strangled with Piano wire by the Queen.
2. Gordon Brown strangled the Queen with Piano wire. 3. Gordon Brown fought off the Queen armed with nothing but a toothpick and a dining spoon he keeps in his breast pocket for special occasions whilst she launches at him with a large machete cunningly concealed beneath the sovereign star. Now, because no one else was in the room, any of these eventualities were viable and equally amusing, until Brown emerged unharmed. Or at least, so I thought. (About there being no one else in the room, not about there being a struggle between the sovereign and the first lord of the treasury.) I was given this log of the meeting some minutes afterwards, which I think makes very interesting reading. (And not least because the conversation was actually carried out on MSN.) Check it out;
Gordon Brown says:
"Hello Ma'am" The Queen says: "Ah. Gordon - not quite the man one wanted but there we are." The Queen says: "It is my duty as your sovereign to invite you to form a Government. Do you accept?" Gordon Brown says: "Erm, well, that's the thing, you see..... I've already kind of had a governmental-invitation thingy today, and I sort of said I would accept..." The Queen says: "Oh? One was kind of banking on you saying yes there..." Gordon Brown says: "You don't mind, do you?" The Queen says: "This kind of leaves on up a certain creek without a certain paddle... like those poor chaps over in Yorkshire..." The Queen says: "What if I said please?" Gordon Brown says: "Well, they did offer me a pay rise- and free dental insurance" The Queen says: "Pretty please?" Gordon Brown says: "Oh come on Your Majesty, you've got loads of money! You can spare a few quid for me, we're strapped down here, didn't you see the budget??" The Queen says: "Don't you 'oh come on your majesty' me! One is the bloody queen and you'll do what one bloody well says! Now one will ask you again... pretty please with a sodding cherry on top and three free state assassinations?" Gordon Brown says: "AND new d écor for number 10?"The Queen says: "Fine. But you can only have two assassinations..." Gordon Brown says: "Damn it! Very well then... but I'm NOT going to work on my accent like you asked, it's this or nothing" The Queen says: "But you sound like a moron! You'll show us both up - you for speaking like that and one for actually inhabiting the same patch of land as you. Now you just think about that whilst one goes to the lavvy - it's only in the east wing, so should only take ten minutes or so..." Gordon Brown says: "Ah, ok then" [30 mins later]
The Queen says:
"Good GOD that felt good... So, have you thought about it?" Gordon Brown says: "Well, alright.... I suppose the world isn't ready to find out I'm really Welsh, I'll carry on with the Scottish thing for a while" The Queen says: "One knows... imagine.. a Welsh Prime Minister - We'd be the laughing stock of the world. I guess we'll be fine so long as that Iranian 'Iwannajihad' chappie stays in. So, any news on the new chancellor?" Gordon Brown says: "My secretaries have been holding interviews... though most of them couldn't even hold a pen. One prospective junior seems quite interesting though, a young upstart by the name of GARETH MORRIS..." [Queen gasps in shock]
The Queen says:
"But he's... Conservative, no?" Gordon Brown says: "We don't quite know just what he is yet Ma'am- we thought it best to bring him in for our own protection. Keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer, no?" The Queen says: "Hmmm... One guesses that we could give it a shot. We'll have to keep it on the down-low, if you get what one is saying? People might talk." Gordon Brown says: "Of course, Your Majesty. And now, I must leave, for the BBC commentators ran out of things to say long, long ago." The Queen says: "Oh, one knows. One has been having people come and go by the front door to give the impression that something was happening, only to come back inside again. Anyway, One does hope you won't cock up like that Blair fellow did." The Queen says: "Now piss off." Gaz out. June 26 Fundies, part IIHallelujah! (Well, perhaps not quite.) It would appear that the Government of the UK doesn’t lack all of the sense I claim it does – please refrain from thinking, however, that I’ve turned into some sort of pro-Labour excuse for a human being – and after hearing this press release today, I couldn’t help but smile;
“The (UK) Government is aware that a number of concerns have been raised in the media and elsewhere as to whether creationism and intelligent design have a place in science lessons. The [UK] Government is clear that creationism and intelligent design are not part of the science National Curriculum programmes of study and should not be taught as science.”
It’s about fecking time.
People (mainly yanks and fundamentalists, if the two can be differentiated at all) have been pushing the line for a while now – banning the teaching of evolution in lieu of creationism and intelligent design in some American states and local areas around the world really got me going – I mean do these religious nut jobs not listen to sense? Evolution is a sound theory that has scientific roots, and can’t be completely discredited by another idea, which makes it as good as infallible. I’m not saying that it’s the absolute truth, but I am saying that it make sense.
This follows what the EU released back on June 18th;
“Investigation of the creationists’ growing influence shows that the arguments between creationism and evolution go well beyond intellectual debate. If we are not careful, the human rights (the values that are the very essence of the Council of Europe) will be under direct threat from creationist fundamentalists.”
This also makes sense, so far as I’m concerned. I am a Christian, I should point out at this point, but, like my political allegiance, I am a Conservative Christian – I use the bible as a guide to live by. Fundamentalists of any religion are a disgrace to their faith and to the culture they represent, in my opinion, as they can’t see the divide between logical ethical assumption and undeniable reason. To further this point on listening to sense over essence (play on ‘spirit’, alright?), I point you to a comment by the Vatican, made on November 9th, 2005;
“The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim."
They also point out an interesting point, though; that ‘Science should also listen to religion. The atomic bomb [is from] reason with no ethical or religious link’
So far as I’m concerned, Science and Religion, 1; Fundamentalist nut jobs; 0.
Gaz out. |
|
|
![[Unfortunately, I can't post the image due to copyright, so I'll invite you to look at the wikipedia version instead.]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikinews/en/5/56/Unknown_Object_June_2007_Santa_Fe_NM.jpg){kind=link}