I don't know why we put such faith in legislation. It is as thought the immortal insecurity of humans has led us to a state of unquenchable fear. And that fear a kind of madness for scapegoats. The greatest scapegoat of the day: a new law.
Belguim has just voted on a disgusting new law. I think this law shows us 3 things: 1 all politions should have other full time jobs, because they are just killing time thinking up new ways to govern society to justify their single job status. 2 disproportion has no meaning in the face of legislation and 3 the desire for uniformity in society is approaching new and dangerous levels.
The new law, now sitting before Senate in Belgium, after passing uncontested through the lower house, will effect about 30 women in the tiny European country. This law will not in anyway empower these women to change their mode of dress, all it will result in is a kind of house arrest for them. Of course this means other Belgians won't have to look at them, making them feel more confident that there are no terrorists in their midst. (Because we all know the real threat that has for centries excisted from masked women). Belgium would like to ban the use of the niqab and burka in all public places intended to serve citizens. This includes buildings; parks, street and so on.
What a load of baloney!
In the western world, what does it matter what you wear? Even if you want to wear nothing at all. This stinks of assimilation laws banning mother tongue use, banning traditional costume use, banning the use of cultural assests. It is rife with, what I hope will one day be recognized as, the false belief that to be beautiful is more valuable than to be happy. That the only mode of self expression is through proudly showing your body to the world. This is non-sense and if we hope to empower people to love their bodies and be proud of them, ask questions about them, explore them and know them, then the last thing we need is legislation about how to adorn them.
Suggestions will do.
Showing posts with label legislation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label legislation. Show all posts
Friday, April 30, 2010
Monday, November 30, 2009
Anti-islamism
It is hard these days to keep track of how to be open-minded, open-hearted, tolerant and kind. It is hard these days to remember those school-yard lessons of acceptance, of outcasting, of shaming and of helping. These days it gets harder and harder to remember what we meant when we said imagine a world...
Today(or yesterday), over 50% of the citizens in Switzerland supported a ban on the construction of minarets as part of the construction of a mosque building. There are several things at play here. Switzerland being an oldish country with a long and honourable history enjoys maintaining the symbols of its old and unique culture. There are already laws that suggest new building designs must complement and coinside with surrounding buildings. This kind of law is common in Europe, where my grandmother lived in England they have laws saying new buildings on the highstreet, along with all signage must be in a Georgian style as that is the predominant ethos of the community.
However, many citizens are quoted as saying, this vote is not just about maintaining community stylistic ethos, nor is it Muslims themselves being voted against, but against (sepcifically against)a building that symbolizes Islamisation. What does that means?
What is Islamisation? Presumably it is the gradual shifting of style, taste, and landscape to incorporate the styles taste and symbols of contemporary Islamic architechture. I don't know what it is like to live in a monoculture. That is to be raised in a monoculture. That is, I don't really know how it feels to distinguish my culture from another culture. Canadian culture is Islamisation, is hockeyisation, is maple syrupisation, is catholicasation, and protestanization and mormanization, creeation, and inuization, and hippization and the complex and unending integration of all cultures known to all the citizens of Canada. As an immigrant to Canada, I came to learn to be proud of my country as a complex mixing, blending and integrating of cultures, cultural symbols, cultural practices and so on.
That doesn't mean I wasn't glad a few years back when the Ontario high courts said no to Sharia Law. Not because of any fear os islamasation, simply because Ontario has laws, which all citizens of the province abide by (more or less) and that should there be parts of Sharia Law not covered by Ontario law, then those parts may be brought forward and proposed as new law in legislature. This is because no segment of society is different from any other segment of society. What I must abide by, you must abide by; what i am responsible for you too are responsible for. But it is for this reason that the double applicability of Sharia Law was refused in Ontario. Not because it was a symbol of Islamisation, but because it would act to segmatize our unified society.
But perhaps in countries like Europe, (for it is almost a country now...like Africa ;) where each state has for hundreds of years created unity through the sameness of culture, it must be hard to understand how all humans are human. How the symbols of any culture are merely a symbol with the meaning attached to it by humans. Treating humans as humans makes for humanely meaningful symbols (like the pyramids, roman ruins, crosses on churches, kimono, chopsticks and drums of the world). But treating humans like somekind of outsider, some different thing of less value, of less equality, of less right to belong, you associate those same treatments to the meaning of symbols.
Having been raised learning that we are all Swiss and Swiss looks a certain way, eats a certain food, builds buildings with plants in the walls, It must be hard to feel that identity changing.
Unfortunately (or well I think fortunately) all the votes in the world, all the public opinion in the world, all the generally held contempt for change will never stop change from happening. God made the world to change. That is the only truth in any religion, culture, or system of belief. Change is. And change is irresistable. Babies have to stop breast feeding eventually, people have to start earning money eventually, you will one day think it cool to wear neon green or velvet or pleather or fleece, and that horrible blocky retro building you once though to tacky for words will grow on you and soon become and important mark of your community.
Just as Swiss will immigrate to other countries, Muslims, Brits, people with 6 fingers will all emmigrate to Swizterland. And if they aren't welcome, well then I suggest looking west to Canada.
Today(or yesterday), over 50% of the citizens in Switzerland supported a ban on the construction of minarets as part of the construction of a mosque building. There are several things at play here. Switzerland being an oldish country with a long and honourable history enjoys maintaining the symbols of its old and unique culture. There are already laws that suggest new building designs must complement and coinside with surrounding buildings. This kind of law is common in Europe, where my grandmother lived in England they have laws saying new buildings on the highstreet, along with all signage must be in a Georgian style as that is the predominant ethos of the community.
However, many citizens are quoted as saying, this vote is not just about maintaining community stylistic ethos, nor is it Muslims themselves being voted against, but against (sepcifically against)a building that symbolizes Islamisation. What does that means?
What is Islamisation? Presumably it is the gradual shifting of style, taste, and landscape to incorporate the styles taste and symbols of contemporary Islamic architechture. I don't know what it is like to live in a monoculture. That is to be raised in a monoculture. That is, I don't really know how it feels to distinguish my culture from another culture. Canadian culture is Islamisation, is hockeyisation, is maple syrupisation, is catholicasation, and protestanization and mormanization, creeation, and inuization, and hippization and the complex and unending integration of all cultures known to all the citizens of Canada. As an immigrant to Canada, I came to learn to be proud of my country as a complex mixing, blending and integrating of cultures, cultural symbols, cultural practices and so on.
That doesn't mean I wasn't glad a few years back when the Ontario high courts said no to Sharia Law. Not because of any fear os islamasation, simply because Ontario has laws, which all citizens of the province abide by (more or less) and that should there be parts of Sharia Law not covered by Ontario law, then those parts may be brought forward and proposed as new law in legislature. This is because no segment of society is different from any other segment of society. What I must abide by, you must abide by; what i am responsible for you too are responsible for. But it is for this reason that the double applicability of Sharia Law was refused in Ontario. Not because it was a symbol of Islamisation, but because it would act to segmatize our unified society.
But perhaps in countries like Europe, (for it is almost a country now...like Africa ;) where each state has for hundreds of years created unity through the sameness of culture, it must be hard to understand how all humans are human. How the symbols of any culture are merely a symbol with the meaning attached to it by humans. Treating humans as humans makes for humanely meaningful symbols (like the pyramids, roman ruins, crosses on churches, kimono, chopsticks and drums of the world). But treating humans like somekind of outsider, some different thing of less value, of less equality, of less right to belong, you associate those same treatments to the meaning of symbols.
Having been raised learning that we are all Swiss and Swiss looks a certain way, eats a certain food, builds buildings with plants in the walls, It must be hard to feel that identity changing.
Unfortunately (or well I think fortunately) all the votes in the world, all the public opinion in the world, all the generally held contempt for change will never stop change from happening. God made the world to change. That is the only truth in any religion, culture, or system of belief. Change is. And change is irresistable. Babies have to stop breast feeding eventually, people have to start earning money eventually, you will one day think it cool to wear neon green or velvet or pleather or fleece, and that horrible blocky retro building you once though to tacky for words will grow on you and soon become and important mark of your community.
Just as Swiss will immigrate to other countries, Muslims, Brits, people with 6 fingers will all emmigrate to Swizterland. And if they aren't welcome, well then I suggest looking west to Canada.
Saturday, August 01, 2009
Topless
As summer heat drives millions to the beaches of the world the question and quiet discomforts surface once more. As a young woman the question and pressures return, to go topless or not? A recent article in the BBC Magazine suggests that these days more and more women are choosing to keep their tits in the tops at the beach. This trend is interpreted as evidence of the increasing failures of feminism to liberate women and allow them the equal freedom men enjoy when they doff their tops in the summer sun.
The article claims women feel sexualized and "stared at" when they go topless, attention they feel is demeaning, unfair and sexists (directed at them just because they are women). Therefore choose to remain covered. But ladies...let's be fair: when a guy with a nice body doffs his top don't you stare? Don't you sexualize him? Don't you think "mmm yummy"? Further when an fat old construction worker does it don't you sexually evaluate him too thinking yuck, hide that gut, cover that hair... we don't just sexualize women but all people. When given the opportunity to evaluate them in their natal state, we unthinking, instantly respond with these evaluations. We assess and make predictions about their virility and quality for breeding.
I don't want to make it sound as though all we do is spend our days thinking about who to mate with, but for brief moments now and then when given appropriate stimuli...of course we do.
So why are more women keeping their tits in their tops. Perhaps they think they look better there. Many swim suits are accessorized to make you look more colourful and attractive. Often tops are padded making breasts look larger and holding them on top of the chest giving them a more appealing shape. Perhaps women feel they don't need to reveal everything about themselves to the world when they just want to enjoy some sun at the beach. Perhaps it's true that women are simple responding to social pressures to keep themselves covered. Perhaps our generation has accepted what our feminist mothers tried to throw off, that women are just different, play different roles, accept a different place in our society with different expectations and rules...
Whatever the reason for the current trend it is not reason to ban toplessness, it should be an available freedom. For many women its is not a necessary practice. Just because it isn't necessary doesn't mean it needs to be banned. You know... like for many people drinking coffee isn't a necessary practice, doesn't mean it should be banned, or eating dogs...just because lots of people don't do it, doesn't mean we need to ban it, some people still enjoy it from time to time.
The article claims women feel sexualized and "stared at" when they go topless, attention they feel is demeaning, unfair and sexists (directed at them just because they are women). Therefore choose to remain covered. But ladies...let's be fair: when a guy with a nice body doffs his top don't you stare? Don't you sexualize him? Don't you think "mmm yummy"? Further when an fat old construction worker does it don't you sexually evaluate him too thinking yuck, hide that gut, cover that hair... we don't just sexualize women but all people. When given the opportunity to evaluate them in their natal state, we unthinking, instantly respond with these evaluations. We assess and make predictions about their virility and quality for breeding.
I don't want to make it sound as though all we do is spend our days thinking about who to mate with, but for brief moments now and then when given appropriate stimuli...of course we do.
So why are more women keeping their tits in their tops. Perhaps they think they look better there. Many swim suits are accessorized to make you look more colourful and attractive. Often tops are padded making breasts look larger and holding them on top of the chest giving them a more appealing shape. Perhaps women feel they don't need to reveal everything about themselves to the world when they just want to enjoy some sun at the beach. Perhaps it's true that women are simple responding to social pressures to keep themselves covered. Perhaps our generation has accepted what our feminist mothers tried to throw off, that women are just different, play different roles, accept a different place in our society with different expectations and rules...
Whatever the reason for the current trend it is not reason to ban toplessness, it should be an available freedom. For many women its is not a necessary practice. Just because it isn't necessary doesn't mean it needs to be banned. You know... like for many people drinking coffee isn't a necessary practice, doesn't mean it should be banned, or eating dogs...just because lots of people don't do it, doesn't mean we need to ban it, some people still enjoy it from time to time.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Is it true?
I recently have faced several proposals that to become truely creative people we must hold up freedom of speech as the pinicle goal of democratic society.
But, creativity demands restriction. Creativity flourishes under oppression. Creativity is the intelligent response to a problem. In a world without problems how can creativity possibly exist. What is creativity anyway? Ken Robinson defines it as the ability to have original ideas that have value. This is a very useful definition as we can look at how we create value in an idea and how we produce original ideas.
As I have suggested original ideas are predicated by problems. If there was no need to solve problems, if there was no need to find new ways to express ourselves within the limits of our time our context our location and our human and other relations, there would be little creative activity beyond the asthetic production of things. But the production of various forms of art as only one very narrow part of the whole of creativity. I argue quite the opposite that creativity flourish best under circumstances of restriction, of oppression, suppression of free speech and the threat of these things.
Let's look at some of the great creative moments. During the Rennaissance there was barely a paltry freedom of speech. And yet that time produced great minds like DiVinci and Michalangelo. It was following the return of the King when freedom of speech was greatly curtailed in England that Milton wrote Paradice Lost, a work that through and through demonstrates a creative outlet for Milton's perhaps controversial political views. Even Christ, if we look at him as just a man who in history had some good advice about how to live, brought forth his ideas against a strongly oppressive regime. We could look to Mohammed too and see that his time no more encourage free thought or action, and yet he produced (transmitted?) a greatly creative work that looked at the problems of his contemporary world and sought to offer new and original solutions that have proved to be very valuable. Further let's look at the Manhattan project, a spectacular demostration of human creativity driven by the fear of forced changes in freedom of thought. If we didn't find away to end aggressions we would be engulfed by war and the possibility of colonization/annexation by various members of the "evil empires".
As I look into my own experience and think about some of my most creative moments it is when I have been somehow restricted, by time, by resource, by motivation, by expectation that I have produced some of my most creative work. Not just of art and writing, but I think in methods of learning material, in means of facing the challenges of school.
Freedom of speech must be valued and allowed, but not because it causes creativity. I think quite the opposite that restrictions and problems in the world cause creativity, a bi-product of which is the valuing of free speech.
But, creativity demands restriction. Creativity flourishes under oppression. Creativity is the intelligent response to a problem. In a world without problems how can creativity possibly exist. What is creativity anyway? Ken Robinson defines it as the ability to have original ideas that have value. This is a very useful definition as we can look at how we create value in an idea and how we produce original ideas.
As I have suggested original ideas are predicated by problems. If there was no need to solve problems, if there was no need to find new ways to express ourselves within the limits of our time our context our location and our human and other relations, there would be little creative activity beyond the asthetic production of things. But the production of various forms of art as only one very narrow part of the whole of creativity. I argue quite the opposite that creativity flourish best under circumstances of restriction, of oppression, suppression of free speech and the threat of these things.
Let's look at some of the great creative moments. During the Rennaissance there was barely a paltry freedom of speech. And yet that time produced great minds like DiVinci and Michalangelo. It was following the return of the King when freedom of speech was greatly curtailed in England that Milton wrote Paradice Lost, a work that through and through demonstrates a creative outlet for Milton's perhaps controversial political views. Even Christ, if we look at him as just a man who in history had some good advice about how to live, brought forth his ideas against a strongly oppressive regime. We could look to Mohammed too and see that his time no more encourage free thought or action, and yet he produced (transmitted?) a greatly creative work that looked at the problems of his contemporary world and sought to offer new and original solutions that have proved to be very valuable. Further let's look at the Manhattan project, a spectacular demostration of human creativity driven by the fear of forced changes in freedom of thought. If we didn't find away to end aggressions we would be engulfed by war and the possibility of colonization/annexation by various members of the "evil empires".
As I look into my own experience and think about some of my most creative moments it is when I have been somehow restricted, by time, by resource, by motivation, by expectation that I have produced some of my most creative work. Not just of art and writing, but I think in methods of learning material, in means of facing the challenges of school.
Freedom of speech must be valued and allowed, but not because it causes creativity. I think quite the opposite that restrictions and problems in the world cause creativity, a bi-product of which is the valuing of free speech.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Missing the point
It is tragic but true the US, in an attempt to liberate it citizens of a very mundane and costly habit, have completely missed the point. I think this is yet another example of legislation without vision. Rather than looking at why people smoke, why people take up smoking and finding ways to intervene and to encourage the nation to take up different habits like papercrafts and cycling they will try to intervene and tell people what they cannot enjoy.
It is the same as the approach to North Korea. NK says that signing sanctions against the NK will be seen as an act of war. And will respond accordingly. (Partly I just think they are looking for something to rally their citizens against and so incited the pending sanction response) But if we just ignored the NK they would have nothing to say. If rather than making laws that we can't trade with them, we just said "no thank you" every time they tried to buy from us or sell to us...what could they do. It is how we should act globally, if we don't agree with a countries activities then just ignore and silently boycott that country. It works with dogs it works with children, i know it works with adults too.
I find when I engage my friends and keep them doing other things they don't think about smoking and go for hours without a cigarette. But once we sit down and stop moving stopping cooking singing dancing etc then out come the ciggies and lighters. We should take note of this behaviour because it is endemic. Rather than spending billions trying to stop a negative behaviour why not spend millions encourage good behaviours sponsor sports and art invest and interest based community activities...
Or...i guess put scarier pictures on the products, put heavier taxes on the users, increase the medical costs...penalize penalize penalize....i think this business of negative reinforcement completely misses the point of why we want to change to role of smoking in our society. And without taking a good look at the role we want tobacco to play we cannot hope to find ways to end the negative roles it currently fills.
It is the same as the approach to North Korea. NK says that signing sanctions against the NK will be seen as an act of war. And will respond accordingly. (Partly I just think they are looking for something to rally their citizens against and so incited the pending sanction response) But if we just ignored the NK they would have nothing to say. If rather than making laws that we can't trade with them, we just said "no thank you" every time they tried to buy from us or sell to us...what could they do. It is how we should act globally, if we don't agree with a countries activities then just ignore and silently boycott that country. It works with dogs it works with children, i know it works with adults too.
I find when I engage my friends and keep them doing other things they don't think about smoking and go for hours without a cigarette. But once we sit down and stop moving stopping cooking singing dancing etc then out come the ciggies and lighters. We should take note of this behaviour because it is endemic. Rather than spending billions trying to stop a negative behaviour why not spend millions encourage good behaviours sponsor sports and art invest and interest based community activities...
Or...i guess put scarier pictures on the products, put heavier taxes on the users, increase the medical costs...penalize penalize penalize....i think this business of negative reinforcement completely misses the point of why we want to change to role of smoking in our society. And without taking a good look at the role we want tobacco to play we cannot hope to find ways to end the negative roles it currently fills.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
