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.

Curious Reading: Answers to Non-Muslims' Common Questions about Islam, Part 2

And here we go with the second installment of my ripping through Dr Naik's booklet "Answers to Non-Muslims' Common Questions about Islam".  So without further ado, let's get to it!

Chapter 3. Hijab for Women

Here we go into another tricky topic for those with an interest in Islam and Women's Rights.  Doctor Naik begins the chapter by pointing out how ancient civilisations of the past have degraded their women, citing Babylon, Greek, Roman and Egyptian civilisations.  He uses Pandora as an example for Greek civilisation's degradation of women, for being the root cause of misfortune to human beings world wide. Please tell me I'm not the only one who felt like laughing at the irony that he used a myth as an example?  Not only that, but he himself calls her an 'imaginary woman'.  But I digress.  He also mentions in all these civilisations, sexual perversion and prostitution is rife, with women at the bottom tier of all societies.  Even in Pre-Islamic Arabia, he says that Arabs looked down on women.  (No change there, really).

So, what of his argument for the hijab?  Well, first he extols Islam as giving women equality and expects them to maintain status.  He hastens to add that men also have hijabs.

"Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: and Allah is well acquainted with all that they do." (Al-Qur'an an 24:30)

So, a man's hijab is merely to look away if he starts thinking 'brazen or unashamed thoughts' about a woman he's looking at.  But if that's the case, then any honest man will end up walking into walls or lamposts more often.  Let's face it, men are no strangers to sexual thoughts, just like women.  And what of women?

"And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appeart thereof; that they should draw veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands' fathers, their sons..." (Al Qur'an an 24:31)

Doesn't that seem a little one sided to anyone?  A man has to look away, but a woman has to cover up?  I have nothing against modesty - I think every woman has her day where she doesn't want to slap up but really, is full body coverage necessary?

So, Doctor Naik, what are the criterion for hijab?  Well, first off, he very briefly lays out the obligatory dress code for men, namely 'to cover the body at least from the navel to the knees'. For women, 'the extent of covering obligatory is to cover the complete body except the face and hands upto the wrist.  If they wish to, they can cover even these parts of the body'.  All right...still not helping on the one-sidedness there. And there's more as well, although this time it applies to both genders.

• The clothes worn should be loose and should not reveal the figure.
• The clothes worn should not be transparent such that someone can see through them.
• The clothes worn should not be so glamourous as to attract the opposite sex.
• The clothes worn should not resemble that of the opposite sex.
• The clothes worn should not resemble that of the unbelievers i.e. they should not wear clothes that are specifically identities or symbols of the unbelievers' religions.

Quite the dress code there.  Pass me that potato sack, Doctor Naik, I'm feeling decidedly exposed now compared to that list.

Oh wait, fuck that!

There is nothing wrong with the human body that it requires a complete camoflage like that.  As for resembling the opposite sex, that's a point against encouraging transexuals or effeminate or butch dressers in their community as well.  And we all know that sexual attraction ranks lowest when we view the opposite sex, obviously!  That's why we don't have to even look at them or be interesting to look at; how dare we?  Actually, that's something I don't get - the suggested covering for men is only from the belly button to the knees, and yet you can't attract the opposite sex with the way you dress.  Don't they think a woman would catch a big eyeful if guys went along with that, or is that too immodest for the woman as well? (Oh wait, of course it is.  We're not supposed to be sexually aware).

But the hijab isn't all about how you dress.  It's about how you act as well.  Everything should be modest, from how we walk, talk, behave.  Bland, dull and homogenous.  I don't know if it occured to Dr Naik and others like him, but we're humans, not sheep.  We possess a thing called individuality.  Personality.  Some of us will be louder than others, more confident.  This enforced dress code is simply a way to drain independant thought from people, not just women.  And when you take that away from people, then they are far easier to preach to with no argument.

But that's not all.  The other reason for hijab for women - their own protection!  The hijab is supposed to be a billboard for men; that the woman is of the modest sort and it will put them off raping her.  There's also a situational example provided - the Example of Twin Sisters.

Suppose two sisters who are twins, and who are equally beautiful, walk down the street.  One of them is attired in the Islamic hijab i.e. the complete body is covered, except for the face and the hands up to the wrists.  The other sister is wearing western clothes or a mini skirt.  Just around the corner there is a hooligan or ruffian who is waiting for a catch, to tease a girl.  Whom will he tease?  The girl wearing the Islamic Hijab or the girl wearing the mini skirt?  Naturally he will tease the girl wearing the mini skirt.  Such dresses are an indirect invitation to the opposite sex for teasing and molestation.  The Qur'an rightly says that hijab prevents women from being molested.

Hmm, now, I'm not a criminal psychologist, but won't a rapist firstly focus on assaulting a woman walking by on her own?  Not with her sister or friends or whatever?  They don't particularly want to be caught, after all.  It won't matter if that woman was modestly dressed - if a man already has it in his head he wants to rape a woman, he will do it, hijab or not.  And is it me, or does the whole dress thing also smack heavily of "blame the victim"?  I'll be frank, I once thought like that.  That if you dress like a whore, expect to be treated like one.  However, I had since looked in the mirror.  I have walked out the door in shorts or mini skirts before.  It's not me inviting men, indirectly or otherwise, to molest me.  Oh, and incidentally, the men who do see me dressed like that don't instantly decide to attack me.  Oh no, don't tell me, it must be that those men ARE NOT MINDLESS FUCKING ANIMALS!  They are free to appreciate a woman's beauty, but it's not as if they're going to instantly want to rape them!  Leave that to the ruffians, hooligans and people whom other men would not want representing their gender. 

The argument Dr Naik presents about Western society's false claim of women's liberation being a disguised form of exploitation then becomes laughable.  We are not degraded in body, soul and honour.  Having pride in our appearance is not degrading, and our souls are not any more tarnished for it.  We are not "mere tools in the hands of pleasure seekers and sex marketeers". 

The closing sentiment in this chapter is the kicker as well.  After his talk of the hijab preserving a woman's modesty, he brings out statistics on rape cases in America, which leads onto, wait for it....

Implementation of Islamic Sharia law!

You KNEW that was coming.

But wait!  It makes PERFECT sense.  Sharia law implements capital punishment for rapists, so that should be reason enough.  What husband doesn't want to punish a man who rapes his wife?  What father wouldn't want to kill the man who would hurt his little girl?  But hang on a sec.  Isn't this Sharia Law the same one that demands that a woman brings four male witnesses OF THE RAPE IN ACTION to prove it!?  Isn't this the same law that decrees that a married woman cannot be raped because sex is part of her duties as a wife, no questions asked?  Isn't this the same law that punishes raped women who cannot find witnesses to their rapes, executing them and labelling them adulterers? 

Umm, excuse me Dr Naik, but keep your Sharia Law.  I much prefer living in secular Britain, where religion has no place in politics and law, where a woman isn't blamed for her sexual assault, where a woman's testimony is enough to start an investigation and where she is not at risk of being executed for being a liar. 

Curious Reading: Answers to Non-Muslims' Common Questions about Islam, Part 1

I have recently bought myself some booklets off eBay about Islam, produced by the Islamic Dawah Centre International (I.D.C.I), thinking they should be an interesting read.  And interesting they are.  The first one I opened up is titled Answers to Non-Muslims' Common Questions about Islam, written by Dr Zakir Naik.  I did a little background research on him, and let's just say he's not very well liked in Muslim circles either.  So, this already picqued my curiosity on what he has to say...

Chapter 1.  Polygamy

And we hurtle headlong into one of my favourite topics in Islam.  And wow, does it get the blood boiling.  Here, Dr Naik attempts to justify polygyny (a man taking on multiple wives), firstly by pointing out that the Qur'an is the only holy text that encourages men to "marry only one", quoting this verse

"Marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one." (Al-Qur'an an 4:3)

 The clause there is that you should deal justly with all of them, but how many men can say they can?  Ah, there's a verse for that as well.

"You are never able to be fair and just as between women..." (Al- Qur'an an 4:129)

He goes on to say therefore that polygyny isn't a rule, but an exception.  It's permissible in Islam, but not compulsory.  But then why is is even mentioned in the first place?  Well, Dr Naik says that it isn't PRACTICAL for a man to only have one wife.  The ratio of men to women in the world leans too greatly to the women, therefore, there's not enough potential husbands out there for these women.  And the alternative for these women, living as unmarried spinsters, isn't even an option for him.

"Suppose my sister happens to be one of the unmarried women living in the USA, or suppose your sister happens to be one of the unmarried women living in the USA.  The only two options remaining for her are that she either marries a man who already has a wife or becomes 'public property'.  There is no other option.  All those who are modest will opt for the first."  (Emphasis mine)

 "Most women would not like to share their husband with other women.  But in Islam when the situation deems it necessary Muslim women endued with faith could bear a small personal loss to prevent a greater loss of letting other Muslim sisters becoming 'public properties'."

 Public property!?  Women are not objects to be shared around the community and yet unless she's married, she's fair game?  And I love the cheek of the second paragraph.  It's down to the already married woman to show grace and allow her husband to take a second wife so that her 'sister' doesn't end up living the shameful life of being public property.  So by not allowing her husband to commit polygamy, it's the wife who's at fault.  Nice one.  After all, it's the lesser of two evils, isn't it?

Chapter 2. Polyandry

And what of the other side of the coin?  Why is polygyny allowed, but not polyandry (woman taking on multiple husbands)?  Here's what he says

"Let me first state emphatically, that the foundation of an Islamic society is justice and equality.  Allah has created men and women as equal, but with different capabilities and different responsibilities.  Men and women are different, physiologically and psychologically.  Their roles and responsibilities are different.  Men and women are equal in Islam, but not identical."

Here we go, straight into the roundabout nature of gender roles.  So, what reasons does he give?

1. If a man has more than one wife, the parents of the children born of such marriages can easily be identified.  In case of a woman marrying more than one husband, only the mother of the children born of such marriages will be identified and not the father.

This was his longest reason, going on to say how psychologically damaging it is for a child to not know their parents and that if a woman with more than one husband had to enrol her child into school, she would have to endure the shame of submitting two names for the child.  He does admit DNA tests nowadays can remove that confusion, citing "this point was applicable for the past may not be applocable for the present".  No shit.  Besides, there are plenty of children in the world who don't know their parents.  It's not nice, but they don't all instantly become psychologically damaged - it's down to how they are raised with the guardians they do have.  Hell, my youngest niece barely knows what her father looks like and she's the brightest, smartest and most well adjusted child I know.  And that's because she has a wonderful mother to raise her.

2. Man is more polygamous by nature as compared to a woman.

What?  Wow, so by nature, a man wants more sex than a woman?  That's why he's allowed more than one wife?  So, what of the women out there who do have multiple partners?  I suppose they're the exception to the rule, or are they 'public property'?

3. Biologically, it is easier for a man to perform his duties as a husband despite having several wives.  A woman, in a similar position, having several husbands, will not find it possible to perform her duties as a wife.  A woman undergoes several psychological and behavioural changes due to different phases of the menstural cycle.

And he tries delving into science for this one.  So, a man is completely capable of sleeping with more women, but a woman can't possibly sleep with more than one man?  Because she's biologically incapable to do so?  Oh, and lastly...

4. A woman who has more than one husband will have several sexual partners at the same time and has a high chance of acquiring venereal or sexually transmitted diseases which can also be transmitted back to her husband even if all of them have no extra-marital sex.  This is not the case in a man having more than one wife, and none of them having extra-marital sex.

I don't know how to break it to you, "Doctor" Naik, but STIs don't work like that.  All it takes is for one of either gender to have an infection for all of them to catch it through sex.  It doesn't matter if it's one wife between a couple of husbands or one husband between a couple of wives and none of them sleep with someone outside of the marriage.

And just in case those reasons don't leave you scratching your head, this chapter's closing statement is this.

The above reasons are those that one can easily identify.  There are probably many more reasons why Allah, in His Infinite Wisdom, has prohibited polyandry.

These reasons all scream extreme bullshit to me.  Although he tries to paint polygamy as inherrently good for women, he has done nothing but insult both women AND men in his reasonings.  Men are promiscuous, so having multiple partners is a good thing for him.  It's like saying men are inherrently violent, so we should allow them to beat the crap out of other people.  And women are not honourable unless they marry, even if it mean marrying a man who is already married, or else she becomes 'public property' and lives an unprotected and undignified life.  Well, excuse me Dr Naik, but I am my own woman.  I am not public property and by implying I am such is incredibly insulting and frankly, false.

There are many problems associated with polygamy, whichever gender follows it.  I find it very difficult to understand why someone would attempt to defend it, especially when they argue on behalf of one gender and not the other.  It just screams of entitlement and in this case, male supremacy.  Which, to be honest, Zakir Naik is a massive fan of. 

I'll stop the post here for now.  There're more chapters of this booklet which I will tear through in a later blog post, just so I don't overload this one.