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)

Never too young

Chris Whitehead from Cambridgeshire is a brave young man.  With the warmer weather that usually signals the summer, school kids obviously want the chance to wear cooler uniforms.  However, due to school policy brought into effect two years ago, boys at Impington Village College aren't allowed to wear shorts in the warmer months.  In protest, Chris attended school in a skirt, thanks to a loophole that didn't prevent boys from doing so.  He reasons that it's discriminatory against boys as girls were allowed to switch to skirts come summer time, but boys have to remain in long trousers.

In the summer girl students are allowed to wear skirts but boys are not allowed to wear shorts. We think that this discriminates against boys. I will march in a skirt with other boys waving banners and making a lot of noise.

I will be wearing the skirt at school all day in protest at the uniform policy and addressing the assembly with the student council, wearing a skirt.

I find it really uplifting that this young man was able to find the courage within himself to make a bold statement for what he perceived to be a wrong in school policy.  He has been cited as being interested in politics as a career.  Good luck to him, I say.  If he can hang on to his guts and his strong principles, then I can see him becoming a valuable asset in the world of politics.

Extra thought:  With the loophole in their uniform policy allowing boys to wear skirts, could this not be an opprtunity for possible transgendered boys to feel more comfortable in school?  I know kids can be cruel and bullying rife in any school, but this is an opportunity or and inspiration for others to use in their own fight for equality in school.

A step in the right direction

 As reported by the Daily Telegraph , a group of Jesuits have agreed to pay out a massive cash sum to victims of abuse from the priesthood as "part of bankruptcy proceedings".  This is a massive win for the victims - an order of Catholic priests have actually put their hands up and admitted to the crimes performed by members of their fraternity and are giving out proper compensation and apology for it. 

In recognition of their atrocities, the US Northwest order of Jesuits "has agreed to pay $166 million to compensate some 500 mostly American Indian child victims of 'horrific' sexual abuse at religious mission schools".  For some, unfortunately, this compensation would come too late as they have passed on.  However, more recent victims could take some hope away with them from this story - if these Catholic priests are willing to put their hands up and admit the crimes commited in their brotherhood, then it'll be only a matter of time until the more recent victims can have some closure.  We can only hope, can't we?

Too Much Too Young?

Sex!

Got your attention, didn't it?  It is a buzz word after all and opens up a lot of discussion and debates on every angle.  No more volatile a topic it becomes than when you put it into the context of education.  Teachers and parents are already under a lot of pressure to properly teach their children about the birds and the bees, given the rates of teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.  But when do you start teaching them?  What's the right age to start explaining different things to them?  It's already a hard enough question without some nuts barging in and putting their two cents in.

I'm refering to the Christian Institute here in England.  They have recently released a report that I shamelessly ripped the title of to name this post. According to this news article by the Guardian, 

Children as young as five are being shown "explicit" images to teach them about sex.

The Christian Institute has complained that at least 10 books or teaching packs used in English primary schools for lessons on sex and relationships, contain images or descriptions that are "obviously unsuitable". 

Now, being told that five-year old children are being shown "explicit" images is bound to get people talking.  But, how sordid are we talking here?

I'll wait until you finish laughing.

Apart from that looking like a bit of fun for us grown-ups, I have to say that it's not as explicit as some would think.  Heck, I drew worse when I was six! (I was a precocious little brat).  This delightful little picture is from the book "Mummy Laid an Egg" by Babette Cole.  I read the full version of the book and continued laughing. Through the chuckling, I was impressed.  I would show this book to my youngest niece, who is coincidentally five years old.  Apart from the page with the clowns (seriously, read the book), there is nothing in here that might surprise her.  She knows full well what a woman's body looks like, and I don't think seeing how it differs from a man's body would scar her for life (especially when the drawing in question left me feeling very sorry for the guy).  And it does show in a very biological sense how babies are made without being too sordid. 

The Christian Institute suggests that parents would be upset that these pictures were being shown to their children.  Okay, maybe you would be a little shocked - I don't think anyone over the age of twenty remembers ever being taught about sex in primary school because it was too taboo.  But speaking from a scientifically biological standpoint, knowing how babies are made isn't that bad anymore.  What child is satisfied with "the stork brought you" anymore?  I didn't buy it when I was five, what modern five year old would nowadays? 

I would also like to see what resources they have collected.  I had a nosey at the Christian Institute's website and came across this press release. There's books on oral and anal sex for ages five and up?  Prostitution?  Identifying the clitoris?  Some adult men can't find it, what makes you think a five year old could?  Again though, this sounds more like drum banging and inciting mob outrage.  I highly doubt that those books are for 5 year olds.  15-year olds, yes.   

To feel a little less raging at this article, I was happy to find another report on the subject by someone who knows what he's talking about.  In his counter article (also in the Guardian), Justin Hancock (editor for a sex and relationships website for young people) points out that sex education in the curriculum is more than just showing porn in classes to kids too young to understand.  It's about teaching about the family and friends, feeling that can arise in relationships, how to spot abuse and basically how your body works.  I had a read through the curriculum and at the questions posed.  Hancock states that this curriculum is also a recommendation - teachers and parents who have had regular contact with children are the only ones who can tell when a child is ready and able to understand the different points being made with regards to sex ed.  And I explicitly agree with one other thing - parents have a lot to do with their child's education.  It's no use plonking them in school and expecting the teacher to be able to teach them everything.  If a touchy topic like this comes up, I don't think you have any right to be outraged because you've made the decision to wash your hands of teaching your children anything when they come home. If you made a baby and intend to raise it into a fully stable adult, you need to have a large role in educating them properly.

As for teaching children when to recognise sexual abuse, I'm all for it.  Too many kids are being sexually abused and they don't understand why or how.  A little excerpt from the curriculum for 3-6 year olds asks

• Which parts of my body are private?
• When is it OK to let someone touch me?
• How can I say ‘no’ if I don’t want someone to touch me?
• Who should I tell if someone wants to touch my private parts?

It's a tough subject, but I am VERY sure there are plenty of people out there who wish they could have been told where they could go for help, or when they're victims of "bad touching". It doesn't stop at age 6 either, or at sexual abuse.  As you go higher up the age brackets, the curriculum suggests when to teach about how to spot when you're being abused, when to start sexual health issues and talking about homosexual relationships.  I might contest some of the age ranges for individual topics, but only based on my own experience and the level of understanding of the children in question.

Right, rant over.  Now I'm going to read "Mummy Laid an Egg" again and wonder how exactly you can have sex whilst tied to balloons in midair.