Pro-choice, not pro-death.

You know, you don't blog for a while and suddenly all the settings change and you're trying to work out how to post.  It's like starting a blog all over again.

But I digress.  After all, what could I have read that galvanised me into blogging again? 

An article that's been trending on my friends' list recently, namely an article by a group of "medical ethicists" from Oxford University.  In it, they suggest that newborn babies are still no different to foetuses and embryos as they lack real personhood.  Therefore, it should be permissible for a "partial-birth abortion" to take place. 

I'm sorry, but isn't that infanticide?

As a pro-choicer, I am all for a woman choosing abortion when a pregnancy threatens her life, health (physical, mental, emotional), wellbeing or the life or quality thereof of the foetus.  Yes, that includes if the pregnancy was unplanned and "inconvenient" to the woman, but that's a whole other argument over contraception education and choice.  If a woman goes through a pregnancy to term, that implies explicitly that she thought about keeping the child and is willing to go through it (or unwillingly, sometimes.  Again, different argument.).  But on the whole, preparations have been made and responsibilities have been accepted, whether those involve raising the child or having someone else raise them (family or the state).  That includes if the child is disabled.  However, medical ethicists Alberto Giublini and Francesca Minerva suggest that

The case for “after-birth abortion” draws a logical path from common pro-choice assumptions to infanticide. It challenges us, implicitly and explicitly, to explain why, if abortion is permissible, infanticide isn’t.

There is a massive difference between a foetus and a baby, even if some people on either side of the argument say otherwise.  A foetus is still in its cellular stages; it's still no different to a parasite or a tumour, as harsh as that sounds.  The mother still has a choice whether she wants to keep it as a child.  It's still a difficult choice for many, don't misinterpret that.  Abortion isn't easy for a lot of women, even if society implies it's just a form of contraception for "whores and sluts".  A foetus that can viably survive outside of the womb is a baby, and like all babies and children, is vulnerable and in need of protection.  To suggest killing them after birth is inhumane to me, even if they are unwanted by the parents.  As flawed as the system might be, adoptoion and foster care is still an option for those babies.  They shouldn't be killed because they're inconvenient.  If that was the argument, what's preventing us from killing "inconvenient children" and freeing up space in a crowded adoption system?  It's not as if a baby is safe at home either because they are still vulnerable to abuse and death at the hands of family if they decide they can't cope with raising the kid. 

Now, the ethicists and Journal of Medical Ethics say this isn't a new argument and they wanted to engage people in debate and thought.  I'd say they did a pretty good job and making me want to argue with someone as the very thought of "partial-birth abortion" sends chills down my spine.  After all, to suggest that there is no moral difference between abortion and killing a newborn is like saying there's no difference between selective breeding and ethic cleansing. 

I suppose what also really got me boiling is the language in some of the articles covering this topic.  Yes, it's a hot debate topic with a lot of twists and arguments.  There's also a lot of mudslinging on both sides, but I guess I focussed and took to heart the arguments that pro-choicers are pro-murderers.  A pro-choice person would not actively seek to kill a child once out of the womb.  At the very least, not a mentally and morally sane one.  To suggest partial or post birth abortion of an otherwise healthy, viable child is scary and abhorrent.

Links:
Telegraph
Breibart
Slate

Starry Starry Night

It's been a while since my last update, but here's a quick little story that made me chuckle. 

Moviemaker James Cameron has re-edited a scene in Titanic showing stars sparkling in the night sky - after a leading astronomer told him the astral alignment was incorrect.

Cameron tells Culture magazine, "Oh, there is one shot that I fixed. It's because Neil deGrasse Tyson, who is one of the US' leading astronomers, sent me quite a snarky email saying that, at that time of year, in that position in the Atlantic in 1912, when Rose is lying on the piece of driftwood and staring up at the stars, that is not the star field she would have seen, and with my reputation as a perfectionist, I should have known that and I should have put the right star field in.

"So I said, 'All right, you son of a b**ch, send me the right stars for the exact time, 4.20am on April 15, 1912, and I'll put it in the movie.' So that's the one shot that has been changed."

 Not a lot of people would probably notice, but it's interesting and amusing all the same.

Militant secularisation - worse than militant theocracy.

There are some things you hear about that you need to do a double take with sometimes.  Take an article I read today, for example.  Lady Warsi, a British MP, has called for Christianity to be given a more central role in society and government after the latest furore over the removal of prayer sessions before council meetings.  She claims that British secularisation is "that at its core and in its instincts it is deeply intolerant. It demonstrates similar traits to totalitarian regimes – denying people the right to a religious identity because they were frightened of the concept of multiple identities."

It's not strange to hear a religious conservative stand against secularisation; at the most harmless level you can take it, they believe supporting religion is standing up for core nationalist values, that religion plays a massive part in creating the identity of a culture and society.   However, the danger with allowing religion into politics and parliament is that it's supporting one particular religion over another; religious favourtisism has never been a fair system in government and usually involves other religions being at a disadvantage at large.  Using a theocratic system I am familiar with, the Brunei government favours its Muslim citizens, allowing better benefits to them over their smaller Buddhist, Christian. Hindu and atheist citizens.  Their reasoning is that Brunei is a Muslim country, built on Muslim values.  It's by no means a fair system.  And that's in a country where a non-Muslim population is at a significantly small ratio that an uprising against that unfairness would probably take many years to overcome.  In England, where religious diversity is far more, well, diverse, favouring one religion over another would light a powder keg of dispute.  In fact, not unlike the powder keg that one Guy Fawkes had attempted. 

And it's not just favouring Christianity as a whole that Lady Warsi is advocating.  She's organising a delegation to the Vatican to argue that "Europe needs to be more confident in its Christianity".  Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a trip to the Vatican itself an advocation for Catholicism being the preferred Christian denomination?  Historically, England turned Protestant under King Henry the Eighth in protest against Roman Catholicism.  Doesn't that imply that Protestant Christianity is far more important to English heritage than that of Catholic Christianity? 

Lady Warsi says she doesn't want a theocracy but that faith should play a bigger role in politics.  In what way?  It's fine if a person wants to practice their faith in private.  The problem secularists have with religion in politics and public office is that it interferes with maintaining government neutrality and fairness.  If faith was allowed to dictate what was moral, that risks pulling the country back several decades, if not centuries.  Religion as a whole has massive disdain for hot political topics such as equal rights for homosexuals and women as well as abortion and marriage, to name but a handful.  By allowing the religious right to advocate their faith in office, the worst case scenario would be to face having to fight for rights we already have. 

In the midst of this whole debate, there is one thing that strikes me as ironic.  Lady Warsi herself is a Muslim.  I wonder how her Muslim constituents must feel about her pushing for putting Christianity over her roots in Islam.

Fear and Understanding.

Phobia:  An extreme or irrational fear of, or aversion to something.

Last night, there was a programme on the BBC called The Magicians.  During the show, a magician swallowed a maggot and described its journey through his sinuses before making it pop out of his eye, with the camera close up so you see the whole eye plus maggot.

Cool trick aside, I didn't think it at the time.  You see, through the whole thing, I was getting more and more disgusted and agitated.  When the trick came to its final climax, I screamed and ran into the kitchen in tears.  Why the reaction?  Since I was a child, I have been terrified of maggots.  I remember the trigger; I was eating an outdoor meal with my family when a maggot came out of my food and crawled up my arm.  I didn't notice it until I felt it on my skin and when I realised, I freaked.  I didn't know what it was at the time - to my child mind, the only thing I associated with wriggling creatures was snakes (we lived in tropical climes).  When I screamed that there was a tiny snake on my arm, my mother took it upon herself to poke and tickle me, declaring she saw more on my body. 

I haven't been able to stand maggots since.  I had learnt about them not long after, but knowing they ate flesh did nothing for my fear.  Now I was even more convinced I didn't want them near me, despite reassurances that they were harmless and only ate rotting flesh.  That's the funny thing about developing a fear, I suppose.  No matter how much you rationalise it, no matter how much you think it's just a silly fear, when you are facing it, all reason flies out of your head. 

I guess I'm at a bit of an advantage with my fear.  Maggots aren't usually common to see around (here anyway - they were everywhere when I was growing up in Brunei), so sometimes I forget how scared I get around them until I see one.  There are times when I can take it better than others.  I enjoy crime dramas like CSI, so seeing a decaying body with a swarm of the creatures gets my hackles up, but not much more.  The difference with The Magicians I think is the fact it was a live studio audience at the time, combined with the extreme stunt.  But it was a stark reminder of how "not okay" I was with them.

In describing this to one of my best friends, she pointed something out to me with some irony.  I should be more understanding towards her and her phobia of spiders as a result.  It was a slap in the face, I have to admit.  I used to tease her about spiders and often cited my sadness and displeasure at her killing them when they were so easy to catch and release outside.  Using my own fear as her example, I realised how cruel I had been to her in suggesting she catches them and release them, because I wouldn't be able to do that with a maggot. 

It's strange how you get hit with a lesson you didn't realise you needed to learn.  I would still encourage her to face her fear, just as I would hope someone would support me if and when I have to see one again.  But maybe now I'd be a little more aware when I laugh when she screams at the sight of a house spider.  I know I don't appreciate being laughed at for screaming at a maggot.

Someone get this man a lesson in culture and sociology.

What do we have here?  A high ranking religious leader promoting bigotry?  When did this happen? 

The Archbishop of York, Dr John Setanmu, is telling people that whilst he's fine with homosexuals having a civil partnership, he thinks that they shouldn't get married and that is was not "the role of the government to alter social structures that had been in place for centuries".

"I don't think it is the role of the state to define what marriage is. It is set in tradition and history and you can't just [change it] overnight, no matter how powerful you are"

Hmmm.  What is the definition of marriage, I wonder...

Marriage (or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but is usually an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged. (-Wikipedia)

That sounds pretty cut and dry to me as far as definitions go.  So what's the problem with allowing gay couples to be married?  Well, according to Dr Sentamu and many other religious people from other faiths who share his view, marriage is a sacred union as endorsed by their God.  And since according to his mind that God hates men sticking their dicks up other men's arses, or women having scissor sex, these people should not be allowed to have their long relationships made into marriage unions, and thus "endorsed by God".

(On the vein of opposition to gay men and lesbians, why are more people of extreme faith against the former?  Is it because penises are going into poop holes and not vaginas?  Is it because lesbians are stereotypically thought of as page three models and therefore it's hot?  Seriously, I am curious to know why gay men are more hated on than gay women.)

Dr Sentamu goes another step further and compares the government's interference on marriage values a dictatorship.

"We've seen dictators do it in different contexts, and I don't want to redefine very clear social structures that have been in existence for a long time and then overnight the state believes it could go in a particular way."

Well, let's examine history on social change where the government was involved.  How about one that should be close to the Archbishop's heart - slavery and equal rights for black people.  Once upon a time, black people were thought of as lower than anyone with pale skin.  They were hunted and shipped out of their home countries like cattle, sold like property, abused, unheard, ignored.  It was a massive joke to suggest to a white man to let his slaves go free, or to give them a basic wage, or even just to stop sticking his boot in their faces.  Then what happened?  White people grew a conscience.  White people started recognising that it was wrong to abuse someone because of the colour of their skin.  White people spoke up and fought back for the rights of their fellow humans, for the sake of human decency.  Obviously, they were resisted.  They were scoffed at or accused of being "black lovers" like it was a sin (which it was thought of at the time).  There were fights, battles, wars.  And the thing with fights and wars is that they build up in scale.  The government would HAVE to get involved.  The government would HAVE to listen to their people.

As history has proven in the Western world, slavery was abolished but not without the backing of the governments.  Not without the changing of laws that allowed the atrocity to happen.  Yes, it took a very long time.  Even now, race crimes are not uncommon, but they are just that now - crimes.  You cannot deny a black person's basic rights to welfare, work, relationships, marriage based on the colour of their skin.  And that extends to other races as well.

How is that fight any different to now?  People are fighting in this day and age to help another disadvantaged group; the LGBT community.  They are still people, they are still humans.  You wouldn't know them to be any different to another straight person unless they told you.  And yet people still think it's okay to deny them the same rights a straight person enjoys, that it's okay to sneer at them, to abuse them, to kill them because they love the wrong gender.  The government has to get involved now because the public WANTS them to. 

The problem Dr Sentamu has with the government getting involved is that he knows the public domain is supportive of gay marriage. Hopefully in March, when the government has had their consultation regarding gay marriage, Dr Sentamu and the people who agree with this homophobic bigotry will see that social change can and will happen at a government level, but not because the Prime Minister is a dictator, but because the British public have voted for equal rights instead of religious privilage and bigotry. 

(Sourced from The Guardian)

Tentacles for charity!

So, hands up who's into a little kinky erotica?

Oceana, a charity dedicated to saving the world's oceans, is looking for submissions for their latest anthology.  A collection of short stories devoted to that popular Japanese trope, tentacle porn.

Tentacle sex celebrates helplessness in the face of ravenous, remorseless, undeniable lust. I want to see stories with characters, settings, and plots. People change. The world is revealed. Things happen. They don't have to be deep, but they have to be there.

Stories set in any time period, setting, or sub-genre are fine. Any flavor of speculative fiction is fair game, and if you can figure out a way to do it with a contemporary setting, I'm good with that too!

Stories should be between 2,500 and 7,500 words.  Exceptions will be made for outstanding stories.

If you're still curious and want to know more (or even sneakily submit a story, you can check out the site.

I would comment more, but I think I said enough already.

I'd call them animals, but that'd be an insult to animals.

I used to think I'd like to visit Egypt one day.  Then something like this pops up and I rethink any future travel plans. 

“My roommates and I fell to the ground when they attacked us. The people pulled my pants off even as I yelled and tried to fight,” she continued.

She said that after the men pulled their pants off, they continued to grab and grobe the woman’s bodies. “It is disgusting. They put fingers up my ass,” she revealed.  Luckily, the women were somehow pulled from the violence by a man and a woman and taken to safety. She said she doesn’t recall exactly how she was saved from the violent attack.

What the bloody fuck?  

What kind of mental processes must go through the minds of these men when they decide it's perfectly okay to strip and sexually molest women in the middle of a public square without warning?  It's depraved and sickening and it goes without saying, absolutely wrong.  The world is watching the country after the people rose up to remove a corrupt power from their government, but it seems that corruption runs far deeper than in just the upper echleons of politics.  It's running rampant in the streets, amongst the people and poisoning the society itself.  It must be, if this is what's happening in the general population after the revolution.

Thankfully, people in Tahrir are speaking out and speaking against these assaults, calling for people to be exposed and brought to face their crimes.

Activists called the attacks on women completely “unacceptable” and must be exposed no matter what. They demanded an end to all violence toward women.
“What happened in Tahrir today has no justification and must be fully exposed even if it taints Tahrir!” wrote EgyptSecularist on Twitter.

However, some people close to the assaulted women don't seem to agree with these sentiments.  Heather, the young woman who came forward with the story of her assault above, was told by people not to share her story as it would "taint the image of the revolution".  I say, good for her and fuck her naysayers.  It has tainted the image of the revolution, but this is a good kind of taint.  If the mobs are made to at least face up to the nature of their crimes and see that the international stage won't allow this kind of behaviour, maybe it could steer them towards a more civilised movement.  However, this optimism is a little strained - the numbers and ingrained mentality involved is exceedingly great.  It will take so much more work and so many more women to come forward and shame the men who assault them, and for the population against this abuse to support them.

Though with the statistics involved, it's going to be a long fight.

According to studies conducted by the Egyptian Center for Women’s Right (ECWR) in 2008, 98 percent of foreign women and 83 percent of Egyptian women surveyed had experienced sexual harassment in Egypt.
Meanwhile, 62 percent of Egyptian men confessed to harassing women and 53 percent of Egyptian men faulted women for “bringing it on.”

Bringing it on?  I'd like to meet each of those men and bring it on.

Preferably with a sledgehammer.

(Article found on Butterflies and Wheels)

Oh you sick bastards.

Some times you learn something new and disturbing, you wonder if it's some horrible sick joke or troll.  Maybe a piece of propaganda.  Then you research a little deeper and you start fearing for humanity that little bit more.

Now, it's not new news to learn about Muhammad and his infamous marriage to Aisha, a girl aged six.  When I was younger, I had already been fed a few lines about their marriage.  One, that she was thirteen at the time of consumation and two, that it was appropriate for the time, both in a societal and welfare context.  Since then, I obviously had both illusions shattered, especially when placed in contemporary context.  Many Muslims exonerate Muhammad for marrying Aisha at six and having sex with her at nine years old, some using it as a divine example to follow.  Many moderate Muslims don't follow that, thankfully, but a sizable number of literal extremists and perverts have taken those teachings to heart, and to my despair, to the extreme.

‘A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate vaginally, but sodomising the child is acceptable. If a man does penetrate and damage the child then, he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl will not count as one of his four permanent wives and the man will not be eligible to marry the girl’s sister… It is better for a girl to marry at such a time when she would begin menstruation at her husband’s house, rather than her father’s home. Any father marrying his daughter so young will have a permanent place in heaven.’

That was quoted from Ayatollah Khomeini, a high ranking scholar of Islam, from his book ‘Tahrir al Wasilah’.  I apologise for my language and imagery, but what the bloody fuck?  There is so much wrong in that paragraph right there!  Raping babies is bad enough, but he tries to make it okay by saying it's fine if the man only sticks it up her pooper!  Where's the logic or humanity in that?  Incidentally, this did raise a flag in my head - why is it okay to sodomise a baby when two adult consensual men are put to death?  And never mind the permanent damage done to the child.  The only punishment a man receives is that he's not allowed to go on to marry that baby or her sister and has to take care of the victim for the rest of her life.  And not only that, but fathers are encouraged to allow their daughters to marry as young as possible and not taint his house with her first spot of menstrual blood so that HE gets the place in heaven. 

Why is this important now?  It's not like it's widely practiced, right? 

A recent census in Hormozgan in Iran had found there were five marriages of girls under the age of 10 in the province.  24,506 girls and 5, 519 boys have been married off whilst under fourteen years old.  This is too high a number in one province of Iran alone.  Nayereh Akhavan of the Islamic Assembly and it's Judicial Commission has basically trivialised these statistics by saying that most children have reached sexual and intellectual puberty by the age of ten, so it's okay!  And besides, it'd contradict Sharia law and paint Muhammed as fallible as a prophet.  They can't have that, so child marriages can't be banned.

The next video is of Doctor Ahmad Al-Mu'bi, a Saudi Marriage Officiant.

First off, marriage is only two things apparently - the contract and the consumation.  What he is basically advocating is the marriage of children because there is no minimal age of consent - as long as the father gives his permission for his daughter to marry, it's all fine and dandy.  That'd be okay if it weren't for the fact some fathers would give up his daughters so willingly.  What I find poignant is that he doesn't give an age limit as such, but brings up that culture, environment and local laws have a lot to do with age of sexual activity.  Note I said activity, not CONSENT.  I won't go into age limits because that's a whole other kettle of fish (but maybe a topic I will touch on another day), but the bare bones of sex is that it should be between consenting, preferably properly informed people.  Personally, I don't think a thirteen year old is old enough for sex but then again, what do I know.  I wasn't ready for heavy petting, never mind sex, until I was nineteen.  But that was my own personal experience.  What's even more worrying is more the age gaps between these so called married couples, often a child and an adult man. 

The next video is brief but features a woman speaking about the topic of thighing a child, and I agree with her sentiment tremendously. 

It is sexual abuse, it is in violation of a child's rights, and it's outrageous that Sharia allows this practice to happen.  What I also love is that the guy obviously doesn't like this being laid out to him.  Power to the lady for having the cajones to speak up about this. 


(Thanks to Maryam Namazie for this)

Prevention is better than a cure

Except when what's being prevented is some real education.

I was mooching over in the news websites of my birth country and came across this little nugget. 

EFFORTS to prevent HIV/AIDS must continue even if the number of people suffering from the disease in the Sultanate is low.
This was stressed in the weekly sermon yesterday by Imams at mosques throughout Brunei.

Okay, I resist the urge to prejudge.  After all, just because this advice is coming from the religious leaders of a predominantly Muslim country, it doesn't mean that they can't offer some words of wisdom.  They do mention that making the public aware of the disease and proper medical facilities and practice should be in place to help lower instances of AIDS and HIV infection.  The sermon also mentions to people that unsafe sex was a factor in spreading the disease and anyone who thought they were at risk should be tested.

Brilliant!  What more could the sermon also tell their congregation?  Perhaps some basic level education on how to practice safe sex, or on drug use?  PAH. 

Muslims need to stop themselves and their families from committing sins such as premarital sex.
"It is our responsibility as a Muslim, a parent, a guardian, a neighbour and a friend to give advice and reprimand if we ever catch our children, family members or friends committing an action that is against the religion," the sermon stated, adding that individuals should not be ashamed to do so.
"Remember that the act of not caring is one of the factors why sinful acts such as fornication and misuse of drugs continue to happen, without realising that these factors are the causes of AIDS."

What sort of advice is this to give?  Sex outside of marriage is bad and causes AIDS?  It's against their brand of religion and thus you shouldn't do it?  What about offering real advice, like education about safe, consensual sex or about drug use and safety?  Education is not about condoning the behaviour, but keeping the individual safe from harm and yet some people are so willfully ignorant of that fact.  That last paragraph also had a nice little bit of blame laced through it.  If a friend or family member is aware of someone close to them being "immoral", then they are as much to blame if they fail to warn them of the folly of their ways. 

Parents are told to be clever yet firm in handling their children in this matter, but how are the parents supposed to do this with so little information themselves?  They aren't taught anything about safe sex, or about birth control or condoms or the dangers of things like sharing needles.  Most of these parents only have their Imams and scriptures to go back on for advice, which are woefully lacking in facts.  Some children might be lucky enough to have enlightened parents who might be able to offer advice that the rest of us take for granted, but I'm not so optimistic about that.  Instead, abstinence is taught, but that in itself doesn't work.  Just because you're a Muslim who follows doctrine doesn't mean you're going to be able to shut down your sexual urges until your wedding night.  I mean, bloody hell, but I have known some pretty damned horny Bruneians, not just of my generation but of the older generation as well! 

Brunei always prided itself on being modern yet upholding traditions, on being leaders in the Second World when it comes to development and society.  But news like this makes me shake my head and remember that the country's population still has a ways to go.

But you know, let's not end on a downer.  Happy New Year, everyone!

I was expecting to burn since I was little anyway...

The speaker for bigotted British Muslims has reared his head for his pre-Christmas hate speech again this year.  Anjem Choudary is telling Muslims that celebrating Christmas is a pathway to Hell and calls for his fellow bigots to boycott Christmas.

'In the world today many Muslims, especially those residing in Western countries, are exposed to the evil celebration Christmas,' he raged in a sermon broadcast on the internet. 

Many take part in the festival celebrations by having Christmas turkey dinners.  Decorating the house, purchasing Christmas trees or having Christmas turkey meals are completely prohibited by Allah.  Many still practise this corrupt celebration as a remembrance of the birth of Jesus.  How can a Muslim possibly approve or participate in such a practice that bases itself on the notion Allah has an offspring?  The very concept of Christmas contradicts and conflicts with the foundation of Islam.  Every Muslim has a responsibility to protect his family from the misguidance of Christmas, because its observance will lead to hellfire. 

Protect your Paradise from being taken away - protect yourself and your family from Christmas.'

I wish this guy would shut his trap; it's guys like this who ruin it for others, especially the Muslims who do enjoy this season.  This year, my family's been quite lucky that my mother hasn't descended into her annual tradition of guilt-ridden rants of banning Christmas in our house.  Our tree's up, presents wrapped, Christmas table's been set and we intend to celebrate Christmas as we do every year - with as little religion as possible, because we are gathered together as a family. 

And if celebrating being a family is going to land us in Hell, I will gladly be first in line to face Satan down myself. 

(Nod to Maryam Namazie; sourced from The Citizens Report and The Daily Mail)

It's a TRAAAAP

Admiral Ackbar will be proud.

While most lingerie brands would usually pick a buxom lady to model their latest underwear collections, Dutch department store Hema have opted for a more unconventional choice.

Male model Andrej Pejic fronts the campaign for the ‘Mega Push-Up Bra’ from Hema that promises to ‘add two cup sizes’

I'm really impressed with this guy - it's hard enough for a woman to get a modelling deal like this.  And he makes an extremely attractive woman.

And as another feather in his cap, FHM ranked him 98th in their 2011 "100 Sexiest Women in the World".  Although in classic lads' mags fashion, his award was accompanied with a message to readers asking to "pass the sick bucket", which has since been removed from their website.  Someone must have had a crisis of sexuality in the office. 

I have to say, as far as advertising goes, this is really good.  If that bra can give a man that good a lift, it's a pretty damn good bra for a woman to consider.

Taking the piss (literally)

Some good news for the lovers of water sports in the Islamic world! 

Scientific proof that men's pee is purer than women's pee!  Never mind that the study was presided over by a professor who is commisioned to make scientific sense of his scripture of choice.  Or that biologically, it is easier to collect urine samples free from fecal contamination from boys than it is from girls.

An interesting fact about E.Coli is that not all of it is harmful to health.  In fact, it's present in our bodies almost all our lives and can even produce vitamin K, as well preventing the establishment of pathogenic bacteria in our intestines.  Don't know how that ruins your hypothesis, professors, but I think you need to work a bit harder still to sell your religious science.

(Nearly forgot to credit Maryam Namazie)

Sometimes I am ashamed of being English

The following video is not recommended to those who are easily enraged.

There's simply no words for the bitter disappointment and outrage I feel towards this woman.  This is her British country?  Well fucking whoop-di-doo.  If she represents what a "true Brit" is, then I refuse to be called a British citizen.

I did find some glimmer of hope though.  There's a young man (I assuming he's Carribbean) sat behind this atrocious woman, who was obviously getting extremely upset with her racist tirade (to the point where he even stood up quite aggressively, ready to confront her).  Not long after, a young white woman goes over to him and comforts him, even giving him a hug to help him calm down.  I also commend the women at the end of the video who stood up and took on this woman in front of everyone on behalf of the British public who abhor and despise this level of bigotry amongst the population.

That is what Britain should be about - kindness, support, respect and courage.  Not this wench of a woman who does not deserve to raise the child on her lap. 

These are the real demons

Evil has penned another name for itself, in the name of the Synagogue Church of All Nations (SCOAN).  An undercover report by Sky News has found out that this so-called church has been telling HIV sufferers that go to them to throw away their medication and go start families because they have been cured by the power of God.

WHAT THE HELL!?

A sprinkling of water and a few words shouted over a person isn't going to drive any illness out of a person's body and yet these people have the audacity to claim a 100% success rate at curing HIV sufferers!  And as a result of people believing this, at least 6 known people have died.  People who didn't need to suffer and die when real medicine and real professionals can help keep them alive and living as comfortably and normally as possible!

One pastor, Rachel Holmes, told one of the undercover reporters (who is a real HIV sufferer) that if she continues to vomit or suffer from diarrhea, she should not take her medication - it's evidence that the disease is leaving her body.  Never mind that this is already a recognised condition associated with HIV!  It's easy to say perhaps they deserved to die for beliving this drivel, but these people would have been desperate and looking for a permanent cure.  So they become easy prey for these vultures who call themselves pastors and prophets. 

And to me, the cherry on this sundae of disaster is the fact SCOAN is registered in the UK as a charity.  It's almost ironic, but I seriously hope the Charity Commision revokes that.  Why should these people get rich off the backs of vulnerable people and the country by peddling death and stupidity?

What has the church got to say about this whole debacle?

"We are not the Healer - God is the Healer. Never a sickness God cannot heal. Never a disease God cannot cure. Never a burden God cannot bear. Never a problem God cannot solve.
"To His power, nothing is impossible. We have not done anything to bring about healing, deliverance or prosperity. If somebody is healed, it is God who heals.
"We must have a genuine desire if we come to God. We are not in position to question anybody's genuine desire. Only God knows if one comes with true desire. Only God can determine this.
"That is why, if anybody comes in the name of God, we pray for them. The outcome of the prayer will determine if they come genuinely or not."

  You hear that?  It's not their fault if you're still sick and on death's door.  It's all God's work, so if you don't go in believing in his all-powerful healing, then it's actually your fault you're not cured.  Way to pass the buck, guys.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need something sweet to wash the bitter taste of rage and horror from my mouth.

Awww, just kiss and make up already.

Advertising is designed to get certain emotions going to sell their products or ideology.  Quite a few adverts cause controversy.  United Colors of Benetton have released one such ad campaign which has sent people up in arms.

Benetton's Unhate campaign is trying to spread the message of tolerance and "unhate".  Quoted from their website...

What does UNHATE mean? UN-hate. Stop hating, if you were hating. Unhate is a message that invites us to consider that hate and love are not as far away from each other as we think. Actually, the two opposing sentiments are often in a delicate and unstable balance. Our campaign promotes a shift in the balance: don’t hate, Unhate

I think this is a WONDERFUL message to spread.  It's not everyday that a big firm would release a specific campaign urging people the world over to stop hating each other.  Unfortunately, this message is a little lost on some people.  First in line to argue this "controversial advertising" is the Vatican, on behalf of Pope Benedict.

Don't they make a lovely couple?

Locking lips with the Pope in that image is Sheik Ahmed el-Tayeb, a prominant imam and scholar of Sunni Islam from Cairo.  Other images in the campaign has Barack Obama kissing the leaders from China and Venezuela, Angela Merkel kissing Nicolas Sarkozy, the President of Palestine kissing the Prime Minister of Israel, and another personal favourite of mine, Kim Jong-il kissing the president of South Korea, Lee Myung-bak.

Unfortunately, the Pope's poster hasn't been up for more than an hour before they were forced to pull it from their website due to complaints from Vatican City. 

"This shows a grave lack of respect for the Pope, an offence to the feelings of believers, a clear demonstration of how publicity can violate the basic rules of respect for people," said Father Federico Lombardi, the Vatican's spokesman.

The posters were unveiled in a "series of guerilla actions" according to the company, with the posters of Benedict/Ahemd, Merkel/Sarkozy and Obama/Hu Jintao being revealed in Rome, Paris and Milan respectively.  As of yet, the Pope is the only one considering taking legal action against the company for his particular poster, although I would be very interested in hearing the reactions of the other posters from the other featured leaders.  Alessandro Benetton, the deputy head of the company, knew what he was doing in this provocative campaign but wanted to share the ideal notion of love through these posters.  Good on him, I say; I love this campaign.

"The central theme is the kiss, the most universal symbol of love, between world political and religious leaders," Alessandro Benetton said in a statement.

 I suggest heading over to their website and check out the other posters.  It's like looking at movie posters for an upcoming rom-com next summer.  

(News source: Daily Telegraph)

Poppies and Poundland.

So it's getting to that time of year when a particular paper flower is being adorned on almost every lapel in the British Isles.  Everyone from politicians and news readers to the proprietor of your local corner shop is likely to be sporting one like the annual fashion accessory it's become.  I will be wearing one as well - have done for years and its meaning to me hasn't changed; not just as a symbol of rememberence for the wars our nation has fought in the past but also as a symbol of solidarity for our troops today. 

As a whole, society agrees to this interpretation.  Sometimes though, a little too fanatically - an employee in Poundland in Lisburn was asked to remove their poppy because the store's dress policy doesn't allow for it.  Like any grown-up in a workplace, she walked out and the media was alerted.  As expected, Poundland didn't intend for any offence.

"On 28 October a situation in Northern Ireland was brought to the company's attention where a store colleague was politely asked to remove a poppy by our store manager in order to comply with company policy."

"The store colleague decided to walk out and stated that she would return on Monday next wearing her poppy."

Most work places allow the wearing of a poppy, but if somewhere doesn't approve of "accessorising" the uniform, as it were, then as an employee you are contractually obliged to comply.  If you don't agree with it, then bring it up in a mature manner, perhaps through a union or with a few of your colleagues who agree with you.  Walking out and proclaiming you haven't learnt anything isn't going to win you much favour in the workplace and will most likely label you as a troublemaker.  If anything else, just don't wear the poppy at work - there's nothing stopping you from pinning one on your coat after you leave.

I read another blogger's take on this (The Guyliner on Huffington Post UK) and he makes a good point. For some reason, people look down on you when you don't wear a poppy, or when you walk past the collection tins without putting something in.  When I was more naive, I used to think the same way about people who didn't wear poppies for Rememberence Day, and every year I would buy a poppy in part to show my support and in part because I didn't want people to think I DIDN'T support the soldiers.

Until recently, I had a fabric rose pinned to my coat for the local hospice when they were collecting outside my local supermarket.  I say until recently, because like anything pin to my coat, I eventually lose it from general moving around.  I lamented the loss slightly (it was a nice rose) but you know what?  Only I'd notice the missing flower.  And it didn't mean I lost my support for the organisation either.  The same applies here.  Just because there isn't a poppy on your lapel doesn't mean you don't support the troops or the charity - really, I think you can do no worse than the extremists last year who burned poppies as a deliberate act of incitement and display of non-support.

Breast Cancer Awareness has a pink ribbon, the Marie Curie Foundation has a yellow daffodil.  Heck, Help the Heroes has a little medal.  And yet, no one will look at you strangely if you don't wear any of these.  Just because this time of year, it becomes almost high fashion for this red poppy to be worn everywhere (and yes, high enough fashion that there are designer poppies for sale as well).  I think this story is a little blown out of proportion - a bit like when nurses and air stewardesses are asked to remove their crucifixes at work, though the reasoning behind this example is only slightly different. 

All in all, I guess what I was trying to say is that there's no need to blow up because your employer told you not to wear a flower to work - I can't wear my favourite ring to work and I don't whinge about it.  There's more important things to worry about and if you're worried about being able to wear a poppy to work, maybe you should be worrying more about why you're wearing that poppy in the first place.  In fact, maybe you should be thinking more about the troops who are represented by that flower than the flower itself.

It's a busy weekend.

Anyone else surprised we made it to the 22nd of October?  No?  Good, let's move on...

Another chapter in political history has been made with the death of a tyrant.  Colonel Muannmar "Mad Dog" Gadaffi, as we all know by now, had been killed two days ago.  This is bittersweet news - the people have a chance at a true democracy after over forty years under his harsh reign.  However, I got the same disappointed dread I felt when Osama Bin Laden was killed earlier this year.  For all the crimes he is guilty of, Gadaffi should have been made to stand trial and made accountable for everything he has done, in a court of justice.  Instead, he was executed, although reports have argued against it, saying he had been mortally wounded before being shot in the head.  If that was the case, if they were so eager for him to die, why not let him bleed to death instead of helping along?  And not only that, but allowing his body to be photographed by everyone on their mobile phones whilst it lays in refrigeration, awaiting transportation. 

It may have been a war, but I don't understand why a little decorum from the rebels couldn't have been practiced.  But then again, this is my shallow opinion of the matter.  The next step would be for Libya to pick itself up again and show the world what it can do with its own people speaking up for themselves. 

Sharia Law isn't special or unique, no matter how you dress it.

Well, it's been a while since my last post.  I was going to post up another Curious Reading since I've found where I hid my booklets by Dr Naik, but something else has set my blood pressure going (which, given its poor state anyway, is probably a good thing in the long run). 

BRUNEI Darussalam will soon see the creation of a unique hybrid legal system where Islamic laws are integrated into existing civil legislation, making them Syariah-compliant.

In a country that already runs on traditional religious grounds, this only convinces me that rather than sell itself as a modern, fair nation, it's taking five steps back into the Dark Ages.  A senior council member commented that instead of having a seperate law for Muslims and non-Muslims, the two systems will be integrated into one Penal Code, to comply with Sharia law for offences punishable under the Quran.  According to the text, there are six areas of punishable crimes - Theft and Robbery (for some reason, they are separate sections), Illicit Sexual Relations, Unproven Accusations of Illicit Sexual Relations, Drinking Intoxicants and Apostasy. 

From what I am able to recall, these rules aren't anything new for the country.  Corporal punishment is in effect in Brunei and as a child, I remember seeing PSAs on television regarding the punishments a person faces for performing illegal acts (mostly to do with drug trafficking).  I do remember that unrelated, unmarried men and women weren't allowed to be alone together in public or private and there have been reports of couples being arrested for such "crimes" (and being cousins doesn't exempt you from this, by the way).  Drinking was always forbidden for Muslims and given the society out there, I don't blame anyone raised in an Islamic household for not coming out if they stopped believing in Allah. 

There have been complaints to this new system of laws, over the "draconian punishments" prescribed under Hudud (restrictions and punishments for serious crimes), such as amputation of hands for theft and flogging for adultery.  In defence, Zuraini Haji Sharbawi, a senior counsel, points out that the burden of proof under Hudud is "very, very difficult".  An example -

For someone to be punished for sex with a minor, there must be at least four witnesses to fulfil the burden of proof.

Who does this protect, really?  The minor or the offender?  This can only be an advantage to the predator in this situation; where is the victim going to find four witnesses to their abuse?   When sex outside of marriage has such a taboo in their society, who is even going to believe them when they try to report their abuse?  In fact, even if they are brave enough to report their sexual abuse, if they are unable to prove that an adult has had sex with them through witnesses, the victim themselves will be punished for unproven accusations of illicit sexual relations.  Sure, some can claim that this law prevents innocent people from being accused of being sexual predators, but this protects the abusers more than saves the innocent accused.  And even outside of the whole paedophilia net, unmarried couples aren't allowed to "fornicate" either.  And affairs are punishable by flogging.  How is this considered right by any means?  Suppressing people's sexual desires doesn't make them any more or less moral than anyone who sleeps around as long as no one is hurt. 

In addition to this reformation, there will be a review panel to decide if every case should be brought to the Hudud court, or the Takzir court (civil offences with no punishment under Hudud).  Forgive my cynicism here, but if the people employed on the panel are supporters of such a system, who support a moral code based on a scripture as opposed to a society's opinions, I don't hold a lot of hope for anyone who is unlucky enough to be caught drinking, not believing in Allah or for having sex out of marriage and wedlock. 

This system has been cited as unique and special to Brunei, but I fail to see how this is anything more than a redressing of Sharia Law.  At the end of the day, they are still using religion to punish people and I don't see how this will result in a fair and just judicial system.

Surreal Late Night Conversations with Dad

I adore my Dad, no question about it.  He's always been the stable, reasonable, rational force in my upbringing, even when he wasn't there half the time.  It's thanks to him I had the foundations to be able to think skeptically as a child, in an environment where hard questions were dismissed or silenced.

So sometimes, when it's late at night, there's nothing but pessimism on the news and he's downed a few, I get a bit shocked by what he admits.  Like his belief that the world will end at 2012.  That the police should all be given guns and orders to open fire.  That we should arm ourselves ready for society's collapse.  That he wishes he had sturdier legs to run on when the apocalypse happens. 

There's something surreal in trying to associate those admissions with the man who taught me to always keep an open yet skeptical mind. 

Morals? There's an app for that!

Or at least, a psychological test. 

In browsing through my reading lists, I came across a website called Yourmorals.org, where they have studies and surveys to test your moral thinking and ranking them according to how liberal or conservative you are.  I took the first survey on the list, "Moral Foundation Questionnaire", which was developed by Jesse Graham and Jonathan Haidt from the University of Virginia.  Their questionnaire relies on five pillars of moral foundation, based on Harm/Care, Fairness/Reciprocity, Ingroup/Loyalty, Authority/Respect and Purity/Sanctity. 

It doesn't come as too big a surprise that each foundation is ranked differently according to either group, I suppose accounting for those who are more in the middle of the road with their affiliation.  In sense of accuracy and proper surveying, I would have prefered there be more conservatives taking this survey as liberals are very highly represented. 

Anyway, I'll post up my results for comparison and analysis.  The green bars are my results, blue for average liberal result and red for general conservative result.  The scales are based on the 0-5 system, with 0 being a complete rejection of that foundation and 5 being a full endorsement of that foundation and the basis of which you build your morality upon.

Harm/Care (4.3) - I'm not surprised this is my highest score, but what I am surprised with is just how highly it ranked.  I always thought myself empathic towards others and against harming someone intentionally, but I'm not exactly the most gentle person to have existed either.

Fairness (3.7) - Andrew Hall mentioned that this was the "Superhero Virtue"; so I suppose my sense of justice is nicely placed for a small time hero, like a minor mutant in the X-Men Academy.


Loyalty (2.5) - About average, so no real comment here. 

Authority (3.0) - Leaning more towards the conservative thinking here, but again, I'm not surprised.  I had been raised in a very authoritarian home and I do have a certain respect for people in positions of authority (police, military personnel, leaders, parents, teachers, employers etc), but that does mean my expectations of their conduct is high as well. 

Purity (2.5) - Again, slightly surprised with this one, though I suppose my lingering naivety has influenced a lot of this.  There's very few things I would consider "icky" nowadays, but I suppose hat does beg the question of just how "icky" are the things I was considering when filling out the survey ;-)

Man, I love doing things like these.  It fascinates me to actually see in some rudimentary form how I think.

Kudos to Andrew Hall (Laughing in Purgatory) for the link.