Month of August
Diary: Social Stuff
Spent three Saturdays of the month down Dungeon but did enjoy a change on the 21st by going camping at Labyrinth instead :o) I was a bit worried that the hour's walk from the nearest road would be harder than last year because I've not really had nearly as much exercise since becoming unemployed (the hours walk home every day after work was a really good excuse that I don't have at the moment). I turned out to be less unfit than I thought though as neither the walk there or back again seemed particularly bad; it wasn't an easy or light walk (especially not with a rucksack stocked with wine) but it didn't leave me really out of breath like it did the first couple of times I went.
It looked a bit on the wet side so we didn't make use of the Great Enclosure this time but in the sheltered area nearby after putting a tarp up above it :o) Did make it out once to wonder about and get lost this time, ending up at the hut type building (I think Oz calls it the X-Rune Configuration Chamber?) for a fair while before heading back. People did go out again later on but I felt that wondering around aimlessly in the dark once was enough :oP
I was actually the first up for some reason... little odd because I wasn't the first to sleep :o) Had my tent packed away before the others as well (unless I missed someone) but that just meant I had to wait a very long time before everyone else was ready to head off :oP
Managed to make two of LittleCyberAlex's Sunday gaming nights but missed the first one because I couldn't get a lift (need to pass my driving test sometime soon!) :o) LittleCyberAlex was at Infest on the 29th so I went to visit my brother instead and dragged Bert along. Got in one game of Settlers of Catan before playing Ideology, which we seem to have finally got the hang off. Finished off the night with some very drunk Starcraft (on my part anyway...) before watching Monkey Dust on DVD :o)
Slept over Luke's and spent the bank holiday there too playing more Starcraft, more Settlers of Catan and more Ideology. :oD Also eat lots of junk food :o)
Diary: Hospital Stuff
Getting very close to getting somewhere with the kidney stuff now! :oP
I got a train up to and back from Portsmouth on Tue 03 in order to have the same set blood, urine and weird carbon stick thingy tests that I had to begin with but to be sent away to be tested elsewhere as part of getting authorisation from the Minister of Health and the relevant board to go ahead. I got confirmation back on Tue 10th that everything was okay except that the low white blood cell count they detected in the first set of tests was still there, so they wanted to check it again. Managed to organise the blood to be taken locally at my GP on the next day though so didn't involve a trip up to Portsmouth :oP
That also confirmed the low blood cell count. I'd explained a few times (including the very first time back six or so months ago when I had the first tests) that I remembered something similar being detected when I was a teenager and they just wanted to confirm with my GP's records. They managed to get around to this over a week later on Thursday 19th but then wanted to talk to a haematologist about it, which they thought they'd get done by Tue 24th. They didn't phone me back so I phoned up on Wed 25th and told they'd contact me on Thur 31st. Phoned them on Thur 31st where they initially thought they'd need to call me back on the following Thursday but then later called me back to say that it has all been okayed :oD
Which now means I have to go back in Mon 6th Sept to have more blood tests to be sent off to be matched with someone for the operation.
Still feels like the whole thing is dragging on and on and I never expected to be still jumping through hoops this long on (if I'd known it would take over seven months before I'd be looking at possibly getting a date for the operation, I might have thought twice about volunteering) but I appear to be nearly there now... soon I should have a date, which will allow me to book my next driving exam and will mean I'll be more aware of how it might impact any job opportunities that might come up.
Here's to hoping the rest goes smoothly! :oP
Films: Frequently Asked Questions About Time Travel, Alice in Wonderland
I caught Frequently Asked Questions About Time Travel on Iplayer, didn't know anything about it other than it being a sci-fi comedy about Time Travel. It's not the most brilliant thing ever but it was fairly entertaining. Helps that it has Chris O'Dowd (Roy from IT Crowd) as the central character.
It plays with a few different Time Travel issues fairly well, although it handwaves the Chaos Theory problem with Time Travel (but it does manage to do so in a way that doesn't insult the viewer yet fits in with the shows comedic attitude).
It's quite hard to understand how all the time lines fit together but that's not really an important part of the plot. In fact, the whole thing hinges around one item that's never explained (and never needs to be).
I'd also say that it's worth watching until the very end of the credits for the few scenes they've put there :o)
----
Finally got a chance to sit down and watch Tim Burton's Alive in Wonderland. I thought it was okay. Not better than okay though, just okay.I
There were plenty of references to the books for those familar with them and some of the visuals and interpretations were interesting but somehow it didn't really feel like Alice in Wonderland. Rather, it was something based vaguely on Alice and Wonderland but changed in theme and substance to suit a particular type of audience.
Part of that is apparently intentional. Apparently Burton felt unable to connect emotionally to the story because it was just Alice wandering randomly from character to character, so he tried to make sure that his movie had a strong over-arching plot, which also meant creating a more intelligable setting. I could accept that if it managed to keep some of the tone and atmosphere of the original works. I can put up with things like the Red Queen and the Queen of Hearts being merged but if you make it too intelligable then you lose the essential absurdity of the original. At the end of the day, Alice in Wonderland was a work of literary nonsense and, although it's been a little while since I last read the books, some of the most entertaining parts (I felt) where the jokes on language and logic, which seemed oddly absent from this film.
Basically, the whole thing seems to rest on special effects, which I find to be ultimately boring because, whilst I appreciate special effects to some degree, they become boring without content. I wonder whether Burton ought to have just not tried to make an Alice in Wonderland movie if he wasn't that keen on the text itself...
Thoughts: Accidental Offence
This is a note I wrote on facebook in response to someone who got very rude about a friend who deleted them because of the use of the term 'paki'. This included insulting the friend, insulting everyone else who also felt it was inappropriate and then later to make a post referring to n*iggers, chinks and a variety of other slurs. I kept hoping he'd just apologise and make everything okay but, by the time he decided that the best reaction was to try to cause as much offence as possible, I deleted him too.
Here's the note I wrote afterwards:
In most cases, if someone accidentally offends someone else then they'll respond by apologising, explaining that they didn't mean it that way and then move on. Most people will also probably try to bear it in mind in future. Unfortunately, people seem much less likely to respond this way when it involves race, gender, sexual orientation or anything else politically sensitive. Instead they're more likely to accuse the other person of being 'over-sensitive' or otherwise just to suggest that they don't have to be sorry for offending them because it's their fault for being offended.
Accidental offence happens; I think that's part of life. Sometimes we say things without thinking through the implications and connotations of what we say. Sometimes we don't stop to consider how our words and behaviour might make other people feel. Sometimes we're just not aware of some special circumstance or situation that makes it so sensitive and we'd never have said/done it if we only knew.
It happens, I suspect, to everyone.
I do personally try to be considerate as far as I can without censoring what I truly think. I try to use less offensive words and phrases where I have a choice. If I know that I'm talking about a sensitive and/or controversial issue, I struggle to express myself in a way that's both true to myself but yet tactful. It's a delicate balance.
If I accidentally upset someone, especially if it's someone I care about or think well of, then I try to carefully listen to why they're upset and I either try to explain myself better or, if appropriate, retract what I said and change my opinion. I like to stress that I didn't mean any offence and am genuinely sorry that it happened. I think that's reasonable enough and, as long as I do that, I try not to give myself a hard time over the matter.
Of course, there are times when I decide that I don't care if I upset someone, although I prefer to have worked this out before I risk upsetting someone. That's a very different thing though and usually involves me losing all or most of my respect for such a person. However, in general, I like to avoid upsetting people and genuinely feel various levels of bad if I do so inadvertently.
Why does this seem so alien to people? What's so hard about apologising for causing offence when you didn't mean to?
It's definitely better than getting into a big defensive rant, which usually only increases the level of offence caused and makes you look like a bit of an arse. It's one thing to accidentally cause offence but it's another to be cold and callous about having done so. Everyone makes mistakes but good people own up to them and apologise for them. Sometimes it's better to just swallow your pride, take on a little humility and, more likely than not, no hard feelings will be held against you.
For instance, I've laughed at dead baby jokes. I've even passed them on. I try to be a little cautious of when, where and to whom I tell them because I recognise that dead baby jokes can be very upsetting to some people. If I misjudged a situation and accidentally told a dead baby joke to someone who had recently had their baby die, I'd probably be mortified at my mistake. Okay, I know that I didn't mean any offence and of course I'm sad for their lose but I can recognise how upsetting my mistake could be for that person. I'd apologise at once and hope for forgiveness. Sometimes good intentions just are not enough...
Thoughts: Revisiting the Burqa Debate
About four years ago I wrote a long piece talking about some people's criticisms of the veil: linky
In it I discussed people's concerns about whether it should be accepted for all occupations, whether it constituted a security risk, whether or not it harmed 'cultural integration' and some personal worries. In some of these cases, I sympathised with some concerns in particular situations and I also expressed my own but I also was very strongly against a ban.
That rant was inspired by a Question Time episode on the issue. I recently watched a new episode of Question Time where they discussed the Burqa with a lot of similar concerns coming up. Now I want to discuss a different criticism that I've seen and didn't discuss in the above; what about women who are forced to wear it?
Now, obviously I don't believe that any woman should be forced to wear a Burqa. I want women free to choose to wear the Burqa according to their own beliefs and values and not have any decision imposed on them by their spouse, their family or the state. However, to discuss this properly I want to break it down a bit; here are a few situations I can imagine:
(1) A woman decides decides freely with no pressure to wear a Burqa
(2) A woman experiences pressure from her family and fears ostracisation from her family if she doesn't wear a Burqa, so decides to on those grounds
(3) A woman is forced by threat of violence (or similar) to wear a Burqa despite not wanting to
(4) A woman is forced by the state/her society to wear a Burqa
Obviously, there may be complexities that I've not consider but I think this is a fair range of the problem.
(1) is obviously the easiest to accept; she's made the choice herself and that has to be respected.
The justifications that I can remember hearing from women in Burqas mainly revolve around the modesty issue; it's not a religious ethic that I subscribe to but one I can respect. One explanation that I can sympathise with is the argument that it's an escape from the oppressive objectification of women seen in western culture. I can sympathise with that easy; despite having my reservations about the Burqa as a cultural practice, I also have some pretty strong worries about western beauty norms too.
I'm sure there are plenty of women out there who could explain their reasons for wearing a Burqa in ways that I would not sympathise with at all. I can believe that a lot of women choose freely to wear a Burqa for reasons of internalised sexism. I do not like this, but I accept it; I accept it in the same way that I accept that all women should be free to make choices influenced by internalised sexism and that I do not have a right to impose my ideological beliefs upon them.
With (2) we're obviously into territory where I disapprove. I do not approve of family's using their influence to force religious/cultural customs on their children, especially not when those children have grown to be adults and where the custom is so severe in nature.
The issue here would revolve around what means that use to enforce their preferences. If the woman is now an adult then they technically have no legal responsibilities to have her in their life; they are free to disown her if she breaks with religious tradition. I don't approve, but it has to be respected. My feelings on this issue are very similar to my feelings on parents who disown children who come out as gay. I strongly dislike and disapprove of their actions but, if the child is an adult, they haven't actually done anything illegal.
I do approve of the state providing support for anyone suddenly finding themselves emotionally or otherwise troubled by suddenly being disowned by their family, whether that's because they came out as gay or because they refused to wear a Burqa. However, I can't see a justification for targeting the families. I certainly don't think this is any kind of justification for banning the Burqa.
When we reach (3), we've now moved into territory that is clearly illegal. This moves beyond being family being intolerant and into the territory of spousal abuse. I hate the idea of a husband forcing his wife to wear a Burqa.
My feelings on this subject echo a huge range of subjects. I would feel similarly disgusted at the idea of a husband who forces his wife to have an abortion that she doesn't want or to carry a child to term even though she wants an abortion. I would feel horrified at the idea of a husband forcing his wife to have cosmetic surgery that she doesn't want. I feel obviously horrified at the idea of a husband forcing his wife to have sex. In fact, as soon as we get to 'her husband forced her to do it' we're in an area where I'm bound to feel some level of disapproval.
But does that justify banning the Burqa? No, I don't think so. Banning the Burqa is no more a solution then banning any of the other things I mentioned is. It's not what she's being forced to do that's the problem, it's the fact that she's being forced to do it.
(4) is obviously the worst of the bunch. We moved from an isolated problem suffered by a minority of women to a society-wide injustice. All women in this society have had their right to wear what they want removed. That's outrageous.
Here's the interesting point though; I think you can turn all of these around. Just as the second, third and fourth examples are bad when we're talking about forcing a woman to wear the Burqa, I think they're bad when they're forcing a woman to not wear a Burqa:
I dislike the idea of a woman being disowned from her family because she converted to Islam and freely choose to start wearing a Burqa.
I hate the idea of a woman whose religious/cultural values and convictions lead her to want to wear a Burqa but her husband forces her not to.
I am appalled by the idea of society banning the Burqa and thus removing the choice from all women.
Which brings me back to the original criticism; no, I don't think you can remove a woman's right to choose to wear a Burqa out of concern that she might be forced to wear one against her will. You don't solve the problem of her family or spouse taking her choice away by having the state take it away instead. You can't liberate women by taking away their liberties.
Thoughts: Is the Burqa religious?
I've seen this question raised in defence of the idea that it should be banned. It's held that the Burqa is not religious and thus it's okay to ban it.
Before I even address the question, I feel the need to question whether it's really an important one. Whether or not a woman is wearing the Burqa for religious reasons, it's clearly a decision based on her own beliefs and values (provided she's not being forced). I most definitely support people's right to non-religious ideological expression; for instance, I'm very opposed to Germany's ban on the Swastika (which also illustrates the point that I don't feel required to approve of the Burqa to defend people's right to wear it). Also, I don't think behaviours get a free pass purely for being religious... if someone's religious belief demands that they behave in a way that is harmful to non-consenting others then I don't think it should be defended. That returns the issue to what I've already discussed in this entry; is the Burqa harming anyone?
But it still seems like an odd question because it so obviously is a religious issue.
For a start, the people who choose to wear this garment are pretty much exclusively by Muslims and a smaller number of Jews. That ought to be telling in itself but let's look at why particular Muslims might wear a Burqa.
As I read the relevant passages in the Koran, they don't seem to support the Burqa as a religious obligation. It does clearly prescribe modest dress and behaviour for women. Whilst this gives different Muslim women the scope to interpret the verses differently, those that interpret it to support the Burqa (even if it's a misinterpretation) are deciding to wear the Burqa based on their reading of the Koran. That clearly means their choice is religious in nature.
Some of the Hadiths refer to the Burqa. Unlike the Koran, the Hadiths are not considered to be the inerrant word of God. They are the recorded sayings of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, usually passed down orally and the majority of which were not recorded in writing until a hundred years after Muhammad's death. The validity of individual Hadiths is a matter of ongoing debate amongst Muslims and, as I understand it, Sunni and Shia Muslims hold different Hadiths as canon and, even then, they are sorted into 'sound', 'weak' and 'fabricated'. Some Muslims deny their authority completely.
None the less, the Hadiths are clearly religious texts. A Muslim women who dresses in a Burqa due to her reading of certain Hadiths is clearly making a decision that has a religious basis.
Lastly, religious behaviours and beliefs do not have to be based in scripture. This has certainly not been the case with Christianity and I don't see why it should be the case for Islam.
Firstly, religious belief and behaviour can expand beyond what scripture states is obligatory. Just because scripture does not state something to be obligatory does not mean that religious believers are not allowed to go beyond the merely obligatory. The wearing of a Crucifix or cross is not considered morally obligatory by most Christians yet many Christians choose to do so as an expression of their belief. Head coverings are not widely accepted amongst Christians as morally obligatory, yet some Christians (most notably the Amish) do believe it's morally praiseworthy to do so. From the interviews I have seen, this seems to be very similar to how the Burqa is regarded by many Muslim women who choose to wear them... they agree that it's not morally obligatory but have chosen to wear it regardless as an expression of their faith.
Religion is not always just about straight interpretation of scripture alone. Many religious people also draw from their religious communities or structure, their religious community, religious experience and the simple exercise of religion to expand on their religious beliefs and expressions. Scripture does not alone define a religion.
Also, sometimes religious beliefs and expressions are contrary to the corresponding scripture, whether due to misinterpretation or scripture. For a member of such religions, this is clearly a serious issue and worth of such debate. Such beliefs and behaviours may be considered heretical but, even if we agree, they are still clearly religious. For instance, some Christians believe that the creation and display of crucifixes is heretical on aniconic views based on biblical proscription of idolatry. Even if we accept that these Christians are correct and wearing a Crucifix is biblically forbidden, it is still a religious expression to wear a crucifix.
I can vaguely imagine a person wearing a Burqa for non-religious reasons, although I still believe that such a decision ought to be protected, but I rather suspect that the vast majority of women who freely choose to wear these items are doing so according to religious motivations.
On that note, the pressure some women are no doubt facing to wear a Burqa even though they don't want to seems fairly religious in nature. Like a lot of religious pressures, it can also be clearly tied in to patriarchy, paternalism and other dislikeable forces but that doesn't change the religious context of such pressures. Of course, as I stated earlier, the fact that such pressures are religious is no defence. Forcing women to wear a Burqa is a violation of her liberty and should be illegal. Pressuring a woman to wear a Burqa may or may not be able to be made illegal but is still something I fiercely disapprove of and condemn. A woman choosing to wear a Burqa? As long as she's not forced, I don't care whether it's religious when it comes down to it...
Links: Interviews with Muslims about the Veil
Interview: Dr Nazreen Nawaz (Womens Media Representative Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain) responds to Nicolas Sarkozys ban burqa comments
I found this to be a very interesting interview.
One issue she focuses on is the hypocrisy of Nicolas Sarkozys' attack on how the Burqa subjugates women despite his uncritical attitude towards pornography and his reputation as a womaniser, suggesting that he is only concerned about sexist attitudes when they are not western.
A lot of her arguments overlap a lot with anti-porn feminism. In some ways, that's not surprising as that's a very comfortable area for people strongly subscribing to Abrahamic religious beliefs to overlap on. For me, that's quite illuminating; I recognise the dangers in both issues like prostitution, pornography and general objectification of women as well as the dangers that come with the Burqa tradition - I just don't think that banning either is a good response.
She seems to take this cultural critique as a place to launch an attack on 'liberalism' and 'secularism'. As a self-identified 'liberal' and 'secularist', I obviously don't agree with her words. Of course, the 'liberalism' and 'secularism' I support is not anti-religion, whilst the 'secularism' and 'liberalism' of Nicolas Sarkozys is clearly anti-religion (at least, non-western religion). Let's remember that France also banned Jewish Skullcaps, Sikh turbans and large Christian crosses from schools.
Perhaps the difference is that I believe that having a secular state is very important but I don't think that having a secular society is important. That's possibly a big distinction.
She makes some points about the history of Islam and women's rights, which I believe to be accurate but not too relevant to contemporary Islam. A better point is how a ban on Burqa's forces women of such convictions to choose between staying true to their convictions or taking part freely in society. She notes how a Burqa ban could cause many women to be denied the same opportunities, including educational, as other women due to their religious convictions.
FRENCH ADDRESS: ATTACK OF THE NIQAB VEIL BURQA - Part 1
The first interview on this youtube link is from an very religious Muslim talking from a very religiously conservative angle. She's clearly disapproving of secularism and contemporary liberalism as well as western values in general. She interprets the French Burqa ban as an attack of Islam.
Here's an interesting quote though: "What hypocrisy that a country that claims to be a bastion of freedom, allows a woman to dress with almost nothing on or even as a prostitute, yet that same freedom does not extend to Muslims when they choose to clothe themselves for religious reasons"
Part of me is a little worried about these sorts of cultural critiques. I wonder about what would happen if they became common; we might see the other side of the coin. Instead of banning Burqas we might be banning skimpy clothes.
As expressed here, it seems acceptable however. It's clear that the speaker disapproves of immodest dress and prostitution but the thrust of the argument is that 'freedom goes both ways'.
PART 2: ATTACK OF THE NIQAB VEIL BURQA - interview with niqabi sisters
This is another interview with a woman in full Burqa, this time speaking in English.
There's an interesting retort to Philip Hollobone's call to ban face coverings and stated that the Niqab (veil) was offensive. They responded by saying how offensive they find the saturation of sexual images in British society and how they have to cover the eyes of children in order to shield them from the displays of sexuality in the street from 'naked' women in the street.
Again, I don't like the labelling of such women's choices as 'offensive' no more than I like people saying that the Burqa is 'offensive', although I think there are good criticisms to be made of both. However, I can accept the term 'offensive' being applied as long as people's rights to choose for themselves are respected.
She also critiques the pressures on women in British society to wear make-up and dress in certain ways. It's an interesting reversal of the criticisms directed at the Burqa.
'Burka ban' MP meets veiled women in Whitechapel
The above mentioned MP, Philip Hollobone, is taken to talk to someone women wearing the Burqa in the street in this youtube clip.
He's forced to admit that the first woman he talks to is not at all offensive or intimidating in appearance.
He asks the woman if she can understand why people find it strange and 'unnatural' to wear a veil. She suggests that people need to learn more about people's reasons. She reacts to the idea of a ban with the statement that it would be 'intruding on her personal space'.
The clip then moves to two teenage girls, one of whom is 18 who has been wearing a viel for a year.
Hollobone attempts to draw a comparison to a man wearing a balaclava covering his face and asks them how they would react. It's a comparison I find unfair; I would react differently due to cultural context. The girls react by saying that they would judge it on context.
They make an interesting reference to not judging people by appearance; referencing Goths and Punks. They state that people should be judged on demeanour and behaviour, not clothes.
BBC News story
Just a short interview with a woman in a veil stating that it's her choice and that she's not been forced to wear it.
Here's the full BBC broadcast with Philip Hollobone: Part 1 and Part 2
Spent three Saturdays of the month down Dungeon but did enjoy a change on the 21st by going camping at Labyrinth instead :o) I was a bit worried that the hour's walk from the nearest road would be harder than last year because I've not really had nearly as much exercise since becoming unemployed (the hours walk home every day after work was a really good excuse that I don't have at the moment). I turned out to be less unfit than I thought though as neither the walk there or back again seemed particularly bad; it wasn't an easy or light walk (especially not with a rucksack stocked with wine) but it didn't leave me really out of breath like it did the first couple of times I went.
It looked a bit on the wet side so we didn't make use of the Great Enclosure this time but in the sheltered area nearby after putting a tarp up above it :o) Did make it out once to wonder about and get lost this time, ending up at the hut type building (I think Oz calls it the X-Rune Configuration Chamber?) for a fair while before heading back. People did go out again later on but I felt that wondering around aimlessly in the dark once was enough :oP
I was actually the first up for some reason... little odd because I wasn't the first to sleep :o) Had my tent packed away before the others as well (unless I missed someone) but that just meant I had to wait a very long time before everyone else was ready to head off :oP
Managed to make two of LittleCyberAlex's Sunday gaming nights but missed the first one because I couldn't get a lift (need to pass my driving test sometime soon!) :o) LittleCyberAlex was at Infest on the 29th so I went to visit my brother instead and dragged Bert along. Got in one game of Settlers of Catan before playing Ideology, which we seem to have finally got the hang off. Finished off the night with some very drunk Starcraft (on my part anyway...) before watching Monkey Dust on DVD :o)
Slept over Luke's and spent the bank holiday there too playing more Starcraft, more Settlers of Catan and more Ideology. :oD Also eat lots of junk food :o)
Diary: Hospital Stuff
Getting very close to getting somewhere with the kidney stuff now! :oP
I got a train up to and back from Portsmouth on Tue 03 in order to have the same set blood, urine and weird carbon stick thingy tests that I had to begin with but to be sent away to be tested elsewhere as part of getting authorisation from the Minister of Health and the relevant board to go ahead. I got confirmation back on Tue 10th that everything was okay except that the low white blood cell count they detected in the first set of tests was still there, so they wanted to check it again. Managed to organise the blood to be taken locally at my GP on the next day though so didn't involve a trip up to Portsmouth :oP
That also confirmed the low blood cell count. I'd explained a few times (including the very first time back six or so months ago when I had the first tests) that I remembered something similar being detected when I was a teenager and they just wanted to confirm with my GP's records. They managed to get around to this over a week later on Thursday 19th but then wanted to talk to a haematologist about it, which they thought they'd get done by Tue 24th. They didn't phone me back so I phoned up on Wed 25th and told they'd contact me on Thur 31st. Phoned them on Thur 31st where they initially thought they'd need to call me back on the following Thursday but then later called me back to say that it has all been okayed :oD
Which now means I have to go back in Mon 6th Sept to have more blood tests to be sent off to be matched with someone for the operation.
Still feels like the whole thing is dragging on and on and I never expected to be still jumping through hoops this long on (if I'd known it would take over seven months before I'd be looking at possibly getting a date for the operation, I might have thought twice about volunteering) but I appear to be nearly there now... soon I should have a date, which will allow me to book my next driving exam and will mean I'll be more aware of how it might impact any job opportunities that might come up.
Here's to hoping the rest goes smoothly! :oP
Films: Frequently Asked Questions About Time Travel, Alice in Wonderland
I caught Frequently Asked Questions About Time Travel on Iplayer, didn't know anything about it other than it being a sci-fi comedy about Time Travel. It's not the most brilliant thing ever but it was fairly entertaining. Helps that it has Chris O'Dowd (Roy from IT Crowd) as the central character.
It plays with a few different Time Travel issues fairly well, although it handwaves the Chaos Theory problem with Time Travel (but it does manage to do so in a way that doesn't insult the viewer yet fits in with the shows comedic attitude).
It's quite hard to understand how all the time lines fit together but that's not really an important part of the plot. In fact, the whole thing hinges around one item that's never explained (and never needs to be).
I'd also say that it's worth watching until the very end of the credits for the few scenes they've put there :o)
----
Finally got a chance to sit down and watch Tim Burton's Alive in Wonderland. I thought it was okay. Not better than okay though, just okay.I
There were plenty of references to the books for those familar with them and some of the visuals and interpretations were interesting but somehow it didn't really feel like Alice in Wonderland. Rather, it was something based vaguely on Alice and Wonderland but changed in theme and substance to suit a particular type of audience.
Part of that is apparently intentional. Apparently Burton felt unable to connect emotionally to the story because it was just Alice wandering randomly from character to character, so he tried to make sure that his movie had a strong over-arching plot, which also meant creating a more intelligable setting. I could accept that if it managed to keep some of the tone and atmosphere of the original works. I can put up with things like the Red Queen and the Queen of Hearts being merged but if you make it too intelligable then you lose the essential absurdity of the original. At the end of the day, Alice in Wonderland was a work of literary nonsense and, although it's been a little while since I last read the books, some of the most entertaining parts (I felt) where the jokes on language and logic, which seemed oddly absent from this film.
Basically, the whole thing seems to rest on special effects, which I find to be ultimately boring because, whilst I appreciate special effects to some degree, they become boring without content. I wonder whether Burton ought to have just not tried to make an Alice in Wonderland movie if he wasn't that keen on the text itself...
Thoughts: Accidental Offence
This is a note I wrote on facebook in response to someone who got very rude about a friend who deleted them because of the use of the term 'paki'. This included insulting the friend, insulting everyone else who also felt it was inappropriate and then later to make a post referring to n*iggers, chinks and a variety of other slurs. I kept hoping he'd just apologise and make everything okay but, by the time he decided that the best reaction was to try to cause as much offence as possible, I deleted him too.
Here's the note I wrote afterwards:
In most cases, if someone accidentally offends someone else then they'll respond by apologising, explaining that they didn't mean it that way and then move on. Most people will also probably try to bear it in mind in future. Unfortunately, people seem much less likely to respond this way when it involves race, gender, sexual orientation or anything else politically sensitive. Instead they're more likely to accuse the other person of being 'over-sensitive' or otherwise just to suggest that they don't have to be sorry for offending them because it's their fault for being offended.
Accidental offence happens; I think that's part of life. Sometimes we say things without thinking through the implications and connotations of what we say. Sometimes we don't stop to consider how our words and behaviour might make other people feel. Sometimes we're just not aware of some special circumstance or situation that makes it so sensitive and we'd never have said/done it if we only knew.
It happens, I suspect, to everyone.
I do personally try to be considerate as far as I can without censoring what I truly think. I try to use less offensive words and phrases where I have a choice. If I know that I'm talking about a sensitive and/or controversial issue, I struggle to express myself in a way that's both true to myself but yet tactful. It's a delicate balance.
If I accidentally upset someone, especially if it's someone I care about or think well of, then I try to carefully listen to why they're upset and I either try to explain myself better or, if appropriate, retract what I said and change my opinion. I like to stress that I didn't mean any offence and am genuinely sorry that it happened. I think that's reasonable enough and, as long as I do that, I try not to give myself a hard time over the matter.
Of course, there are times when I decide that I don't care if I upset someone, although I prefer to have worked this out before I risk upsetting someone. That's a very different thing though and usually involves me losing all or most of my respect for such a person. However, in general, I like to avoid upsetting people and genuinely feel various levels of bad if I do so inadvertently.
Why does this seem so alien to people? What's so hard about apologising for causing offence when you didn't mean to?
It's definitely better than getting into a big defensive rant, which usually only increases the level of offence caused and makes you look like a bit of an arse. It's one thing to accidentally cause offence but it's another to be cold and callous about having done so. Everyone makes mistakes but good people own up to them and apologise for them. Sometimes it's better to just swallow your pride, take on a little humility and, more likely than not, no hard feelings will be held against you.
For instance, I've laughed at dead baby jokes. I've even passed them on. I try to be a little cautious of when, where and to whom I tell them because I recognise that dead baby jokes can be very upsetting to some people. If I misjudged a situation and accidentally told a dead baby joke to someone who had recently had their baby die, I'd probably be mortified at my mistake. Okay, I know that I didn't mean any offence and of course I'm sad for their lose but I can recognise how upsetting my mistake could be for that person. I'd apologise at once and hope for forgiveness. Sometimes good intentions just are not enough...
Thoughts: Revisiting the Burqa Debate
About four years ago I wrote a long piece talking about some people's criticisms of the veil: linky
In it I discussed people's concerns about whether it should be accepted for all occupations, whether it constituted a security risk, whether or not it harmed 'cultural integration' and some personal worries. In some of these cases, I sympathised with some concerns in particular situations and I also expressed my own but I also was very strongly against a ban.
That rant was inspired by a Question Time episode on the issue. I recently watched a new episode of Question Time where they discussed the Burqa with a lot of similar concerns coming up. Now I want to discuss a different criticism that I've seen and didn't discuss in the above; what about women who are forced to wear it?
Now, obviously I don't believe that any woman should be forced to wear a Burqa. I want women free to choose to wear the Burqa according to their own beliefs and values and not have any decision imposed on them by their spouse, their family or the state. However, to discuss this properly I want to break it down a bit; here are a few situations I can imagine:
(1) A woman decides decides freely with no pressure to wear a Burqa
(2) A woman experiences pressure from her family and fears ostracisation from her family if she doesn't wear a Burqa, so decides to on those grounds
(3) A woman is forced by threat of violence (or similar) to wear a Burqa despite not wanting to
(4) A woman is forced by the state/her society to wear a Burqa
Obviously, there may be complexities that I've not consider but I think this is a fair range of the problem.
(1) is obviously the easiest to accept; she's made the choice herself and that has to be respected.
The justifications that I can remember hearing from women in Burqas mainly revolve around the modesty issue; it's not a religious ethic that I subscribe to but one I can respect. One explanation that I can sympathise with is the argument that it's an escape from the oppressive objectification of women seen in western culture. I can sympathise with that easy; despite having my reservations about the Burqa as a cultural practice, I also have some pretty strong worries about western beauty norms too.
I'm sure there are plenty of women out there who could explain their reasons for wearing a Burqa in ways that I would not sympathise with at all. I can believe that a lot of women choose freely to wear a Burqa for reasons of internalised sexism. I do not like this, but I accept it; I accept it in the same way that I accept that all women should be free to make choices influenced by internalised sexism and that I do not have a right to impose my ideological beliefs upon them.
With (2) we're obviously into territory where I disapprove. I do not approve of family's using their influence to force religious/cultural customs on their children, especially not when those children have grown to be adults and where the custom is so severe in nature.
The issue here would revolve around what means that use to enforce their preferences. If the woman is now an adult then they technically have no legal responsibilities to have her in their life; they are free to disown her if she breaks with religious tradition. I don't approve, but it has to be respected. My feelings on this issue are very similar to my feelings on parents who disown children who come out as gay. I strongly dislike and disapprove of their actions but, if the child is an adult, they haven't actually done anything illegal.
I do approve of the state providing support for anyone suddenly finding themselves emotionally or otherwise troubled by suddenly being disowned by their family, whether that's because they came out as gay or because they refused to wear a Burqa. However, I can't see a justification for targeting the families. I certainly don't think this is any kind of justification for banning the Burqa.
When we reach (3), we've now moved into territory that is clearly illegal. This moves beyond being family being intolerant and into the territory of spousal abuse. I hate the idea of a husband forcing his wife to wear a Burqa.
My feelings on this subject echo a huge range of subjects. I would feel similarly disgusted at the idea of a husband who forces his wife to have an abortion that she doesn't want or to carry a child to term even though she wants an abortion. I would feel horrified at the idea of a husband forcing his wife to have cosmetic surgery that she doesn't want. I feel obviously horrified at the idea of a husband forcing his wife to have sex. In fact, as soon as we get to 'her husband forced her to do it' we're in an area where I'm bound to feel some level of disapproval.
But does that justify banning the Burqa? No, I don't think so. Banning the Burqa is no more a solution then banning any of the other things I mentioned is. It's not what she's being forced to do that's the problem, it's the fact that she's being forced to do it.
(4) is obviously the worst of the bunch. We moved from an isolated problem suffered by a minority of women to a society-wide injustice. All women in this society have had their right to wear what they want removed. That's outrageous.
Here's the interesting point though; I think you can turn all of these around. Just as the second, third and fourth examples are bad when we're talking about forcing a woman to wear the Burqa, I think they're bad when they're forcing a woman to not wear a Burqa:
I dislike the idea of a woman being disowned from her family because she converted to Islam and freely choose to start wearing a Burqa.
I hate the idea of a woman whose religious/cultural values and convictions lead her to want to wear a Burqa but her husband forces her not to.
I am appalled by the idea of society banning the Burqa and thus removing the choice from all women.
Which brings me back to the original criticism; no, I don't think you can remove a woman's right to choose to wear a Burqa out of concern that she might be forced to wear one against her will. You don't solve the problem of her family or spouse taking her choice away by having the state take it away instead. You can't liberate women by taking away their liberties.
Thoughts: Is the Burqa religious?
I've seen this question raised in defence of the idea that it should be banned. It's held that the Burqa is not religious and thus it's okay to ban it.
Before I even address the question, I feel the need to question whether it's really an important one. Whether or not a woman is wearing the Burqa for religious reasons, it's clearly a decision based on her own beliefs and values (provided she's not being forced). I most definitely support people's right to non-religious ideological expression; for instance, I'm very opposed to Germany's ban on the Swastika (which also illustrates the point that I don't feel required to approve of the Burqa to defend people's right to wear it). Also, I don't think behaviours get a free pass purely for being religious... if someone's religious belief demands that they behave in a way that is harmful to non-consenting others then I don't think it should be defended. That returns the issue to what I've already discussed in this entry; is the Burqa harming anyone?
But it still seems like an odd question because it so obviously is a religious issue.
For a start, the people who choose to wear this garment are pretty much exclusively by Muslims and a smaller number of Jews. That ought to be telling in itself but let's look at why particular Muslims might wear a Burqa.
As I read the relevant passages in the Koran, they don't seem to support the Burqa as a religious obligation. It does clearly prescribe modest dress and behaviour for women. Whilst this gives different Muslim women the scope to interpret the verses differently, those that interpret it to support the Burqa (even if it's a misinterpretation) are deciding to wear the Burqa based on their reading of the Koran. That clearly means their choice is religious in nature.
Some of the Hadiths refer to the Burqa. Unlike the Koran, the Hadiths are not considered to be the inerrant word of God. They are the recorded sayings of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, usually passed down orally and the majority of which were not recorded in writing until a hundred years after Muhammad's death. The validity of individual Hadiths is a matter of ongoing debate amongst Muslims and, as I understand it, Sunni and Shia Muslims hold different Hadiths as canon and, even then, they are sorted into 'sound', 'weak' and 'fabricated'. Some Muslims deny their authority completely.
None the less, the Hadiths are clearly religious texts. A Muslim women who dresses in a Burqa due to her reading of certain Hadiths is clearly making a decision that has a religious basis.
Lastly, religious behaviours and beliefs do not have to be based in scripture. This has certainly not been the case with Christianity and I don't see why it should be the case for Islam.
Firstly, religious belief and behaviour can expand beyond what scripture states is obligatory. Just because scripture does not state something to be obligatory does not mean that religious believers are not allowed to go beyond the merely obligatory. The wearing of a Crucifix or cross is not considered morally obligatory by most Christians yet many Christians choose to do so as an expression of their belief. Head coverings are not widely accepted amongst Christians as morally obligatory, yet some Christians (most notably the Amish) do believe it's morally praiseworthy to do so. From the interviews I have seen, this seems to be very similar to how the Burqa is regarded by many Muslim women who choose to wear them... they agree that it's not morally obligatory but have chosen to wear it regardless as an expression of their faith.
Religion is not always just about straight interpretation of scripture alone. Many religious people also draw from their religious communities or structure, their religious community, religious experience and the simple exercise of religion to expand on their religious beliefs and expressions. Scripture does not alone define a religion.
Also, sometimes religious beliefs and expressions are contrary to the corresponding scripture, whether due to misinterpretation or scripture. For a member of such religions, this is clearly a serious issue and worth of such debate. Such beliefs and behaviours may be considered heretical but, even if we agree, they are still clearly religious. For instance, some Christians believe that the creation and display of crucifixes is heretical on aniconic views based on biblical proscription of idolatry. Even if we accept that these Christians are correct and wearing a Crucifix is biblically forbidden, it is still a religious expression to wear a crucifix.
I can vaguely imagine a person wearing a Burqa for non-religious reasons, although I still believe that such a decision ought to be protected, but I rather suspect that the vast majority of women who freely choose to wear these items are doing so according to religious motivations.
On that note, the pressure some women are no doubt facing to wear a Burqa even though they don't want to seems fairly religious in nature. Like a lot of religious pressures, it can also be clearly tied in to patriarchy, paternalism and other dislikeable forces but that doesn't change the religious context of such pressures. Of course, as I stated earlier, the fact that such pressures are religious is no defence. Forcing women to wear a Burqa is a violation of her liberty and should be illegal. Pressuring a woman to wear a Burqa may or may not be able to be made illegal but is still something I fiercely disapprove of and condemn. A woman choosing to wear a Burqa? As long as she's not forced, I don't care whether it's religious when it comes down to it...
Links: Interviews with Muslims about the Veil
Interview: Dr Nazreen Nawaz (Womens Media Representative Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain) responds to Nicolas Sarkozys ban burqa comments
I found this to be a very interesting interview.
One issue she focuses on is the hypocrisy of Nicolas Sarkozys' attack on how the Burqa subjugates women despite his uncritical attitude towards pornography and his reputation as a womaniser, suggesting that he is only concerned about sexist attitudes when they are not western.
A lot of her arguments overlap a lot with anti-porn feminism. In some ways, that's not surprising as that's a very comfortable area for people strongly subscribing to Abrahamic religious beliefs to overlap on. For me, that's quite illuminating; I recognise the dangers in both issues like prostitution, pornography and general objectification of women as well as the dangers that come with the Burqa tradition - I just don't think that banning either is a good response.
She seems to take this cultural critique as a place to launch an attack on 'liberalism' and 'secularism'. As a self-identified 'liberal' and 'secularist', I obviously don't agree with her words. Of course, the 'liberalism' and 'secularism' I support is not anti-religion, whilst the 'secularism' and 'liberalism' of Nicolas Sarkozys is clearly anti-religion (at least, non-western religion). Let's remember that France also banned Jewish Skullcaps, Sikh turbans and large Christian crosses from schools.
Perhaps the difference is that I believe that having a secular state is very important but I don't think that having a secular society is important. That's possibly a big distinction.
She makes some points about the history of Islam and women's rights, which I believe to be accurate but not too relevant to contemporary Islam. A better point is how a ban on Burqa's forces women of such convictions to choose between staying true to their convictions or taking part freely in society. She notes how a Burqa ban could cause many women to be denied the same opportunities, including educational, as other women due to their religious convictions.
FRENCH ADDRESS: ATTACK OF THE NIQAB VEIL BURQA - Part 1
The first interview on this youtube link is from an very religious Muslim talking from a very religiously conservative angle. She's clearly disapproving of secularism and contemporary liberalism as well as western values in general. She interprets the French Burqa ban as an attack of Islam.
Here's an interesting quote though: "What hypocrisy that a country that claims to be a bastion of freedom, allows a woman to dress with almost nothing on or even as a prostitute, yet that same freedom does not extend to Muslims when they choose to clothe themselves for religious reasons"
Part of me is a little worried about these sorts of cultural critiques. I wonder about what would happen if they became common; we might see the other side of the coin. Instead of banning Burqas we might be banning skimpy clothes.
As expressed here, it seems acceptable however. It's clear that the speaker disapproves of immodest dress and prostitution but the thrust of the argument is that 'freedom goes both ways'.
PART 2: ATTACK OF THE NIQAB VEIL BURQA - interview with niqabi sisters
This is another interview with a woman in full Burqa, this time speaking in English.
There's an interesting retort to Philip Hollobone's call to ban face coverings and stated that the Niqab (veil) was offensive. They responded by saying how offensive they find the saturation of sexual images in British society and how they have to cover the eyes of children in order to shield them from the displays of sexuality in the street from 'naked' women in the street.
Again, I don't like the labelling of such women's choices as 'offensive' no more than I like people saying that the Burqa is 'offensive', although I think there are good criticisms to be made of both. However, I can accept the term 'offensive' being applied as long as people's rights to choose for themselves are respected.
She also critiques the pressures on women in British society to wear make-up and dress in certain ways. It's an interesting reversal of the criticisms directed at the Burqa.
'Burka ban' MP meets veiled women in Whitechapel
The above mentioned MP, Philip Hollobone, is taken to talk to someone women wearing the Burqa in the street in this youtube clip.
He's forced to admit that the first woman he talks to is not at all offensive or intimidating in appearance.
He asks the woman if she can understand why people find it strange and 'unnatural' to wear a veil. She suggests that people need to learn more about people's reasons. She reacts to the idea of a ban with the statement that it would be 'intruding on her personal space'.
The clip then moves to two teenage girls, one of whom is 18 who has been wearing a viel for a year.
Hollobone attempts to draw a comparison to a man wearing a balaclava covering his face and asks them how they would react. It's a comparison I find unfair; I would react differently due to cultural context. The girls react by saying that they would judge it on context.
They make an interesting reference to not judging people by appearance; referencing Goths and Punks. They state that people should be judged on demeanour and behaviour, not clothes.
BBC News story
Just a short interview with a woman in a veil stating that it's her choice and that she's not been forced to wear it.
Here's the full BBC broadcast with Philip Hollobone: Part 1 and Part 2