I’ve been tagged with ‘Have you read these banned books?’

Over the weekend, I posted about a young woman – known only as ‘Kat Atreides‘ – who has turned her locker into an ‘underground library’, lending out books banned by her high school (presumably in the USA).

It seems that people are wondering about which of these banned books others have read – or why they have not read some of them.  And, it would appear that ‘tagging’ people with this question is ‘today’s internet meme’…and I’ve been tagged (The Landed Underclass ):

“Have you read these banned books?  If not, why not?”

  • The Perks of Being a Wallflower
    • This is the first time I ever heard of this book by Steven Chobsky… but, as Wikipedia claims it is ‘inspired’ by ‘The Catcher in the Rye’ – a book I REALLY tried to read, but could not wade through all the useless whining – I doubt I will pick this one up
  • His Dark Materials trilogy
    • My son owns the trilogy and gave it a 3/5, so I picked the first one up and started to read it.  I could not ‘buy into’ the ‘world’ the author tried to create….and I did not like the WAY the archetypes were being messed with.  So, to avoid frustration, I put the book down…
  • Sabriel
    • This is the first time I have heard of this book by Garth Nix.  I’m not much into the ‘fantasy’ world of this type: I have a hard time buying into it…
  • The Canterbury Tales
    • Of course – I read it in high-school… so, it’s been a while!  This is a good reminder to let my older son read it this summer.
  • Candide
    • I have some books by Voltaire, but ‘Candide’ is not one of them…
  • The Divine Comedy
    • Yes, of course – again, I’ve read this in my early teens.
  • Paradise Lost
    • I read bits… as part of a high-school curriculum…
  • The Godfather
    • Yes, I’ve read it.  I still have a copy – but it’s falling apart…so I don’t re-read it much.
  • Mort
    • I’m not big on Terry Pratchett… I find his writing too preachy and manipulative to be enjoyable.  Instead of reading something by Pratchett, why not read a GOOD book?
  • Interview with the Vampire
    • Nor an Ann Rice fan – really, I don’t get her books.  People cannot ‘buy into’ a mythological world when the mythology is so blatantly wrong…
  • The Hunger Games
    • This is the first time I’ve heard of this book – sounds like an interesting take on the old archetype.  I just might pick this one up…
  • The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy
    • YES!!!
    • My hubby has the complete original radio series – taped off the radio
    • We have the complete original TV series on DVD
    • We still have the computer game – though we no longer have the Atari to run it on
    • We have the movie on DVD (that one’s really just for ‘completeness’)
    • When my hubby and I got married, we each had a complete set of the books…
    • Then we bought the hardcover copies – and got Douglas Adams to autograph them – and he got a great kick out of hearing we had met when we both took a physics course at University named for one of his books – and taught by a ‘Dr. Watson’!
    • Should I go on?  OK – I will!
    • I am also rather partial to the Dirk Gently series – I rather see myself in Svlad Cjelli (without the more clever, witty bits)… and I have no doubt that had ‘that school’ been familiar with them, they would have banned them….
  • A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court
    • I read this one when I was very young… and not in the original English.  My memory of it is VERY sketchy….I think I’ll pick up a copy in English now.
  • Animal Farm
    • Of course…
  • The Witches
    • Presumably, this is the Dahl book (though there are other books with that title)…  No, I did not read it nor do I plan to.  I saw part of the movie – if you want to see hate-speech, the movie is a perfect fit.  I walked out.  Then again, what do you expect from a writer who thinks that twisted, creepy dystopia of ‘Charlie and the Chocolate Factory’ is somehow a story for kids….  I tried to read THAT book.  What is that saying?  ‘Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me….’
  • Shade’s Children
    • Sounds like this school really does not like Garth Nix and his books… I think I’ll pick this one up and give it a try.
  • The Evolution of Man
    • Which book is this?  There are a number with this title…  and, yes, I have read a bit about the evolution of humans….but, I don’t know if this book is one of the ones I read or not.
  • the Holy Qu’ran
    • While I do not know enough Arabic to read THE ‘Holy Qu’ran’, I do own a copy.  I also own a couple of translations of it into English – from the ‘official’ Saudi translation to a scholarly one which explains the ‘linguistic twists’ and their significance.  The translations, I have read – so, perhaps I’m pushing the envelope a little, but I turned the letters green to show I read it, even if only in translations.
  • One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest
    • Did not know it was also a book…
  • The Picture of Dorian Gray
    • Yes.
  • Slaughterhouse-5
    • Just not worth the time…  Kurt Vonnegut is a skilled writer who can make his worlds and characters come to life.  Too bad his ideas don’t live up to his writing skills…
  • Lord of the Flies
    • I wanted to read it – and bought the book.  But, my hubby and older son read it first, and then convinced me that I should NOT read it, because if I did, they’d have to put up with me ranting on and on about it for weeks…they thought I’d get too much ‘into’ the book.  But, I am familiar with the contents, having helped a few people write book reports on it (obviously, I helped with the ‘mechanics’ of writing the report, not the content…but was exposed to it nonetheless).
  • Bridge to Terabithia
    • Yes. (Did not see the movie…)
  • Catch-22
    • Yes.
  • East of Eden
    • Sort of….  Steinbeck is ‘sort of’ the opposite of Vonnegut:  great ideas (plot) and sense of humour, even his ‘plot timing’ is great.  It’s just the writing that sucks!  I don’t know if it is the degree to which he attempts to inject ideology into his books (something translators can negate through the means in which they translate ‘imagery’) or if it is just a complete inability to write.  However, a good translator can do wonders:  I have greatly enjoyed reading Steinbeck’s works when translated into other languages.  But in English – sorry, I just could not slog through it… even re-reading books I LOVED in the original English poisoned the books for me for ever…
  • The Brothers Grimm Unabridged Fairytales.
    • Yes.  A MUST read!

All right – YOUR turn!

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Student runs ‘underground library’ from her locker

What do the writers Dante, Douglas Adams, Mario Puzzo, Geoffrey Chaucer, George Orwell, John Milton, Joseph Heller, Philip Pullman, Mark Twain, the Brothers Grimm and a whole lot of others have in common?

Their books are part of the newest ‘underground library’…

OK, this is one of those bad-story/good-story things… unless it is a very sophisticated plot by a school to get kids (well, teenagers) to read books!

It seems that a school (presumably in the US) has banned a whole slew of books.  That is always bad (banning books does not stop the ideas they carry and is an evil act in itself), but some of these books are, well, books that ‘ought to’ be on the curriculum of any school worthy of educating our kids!

Many of the students are not allowed – or afraid(!) to borrow the books from the public library… 

Here comes the ‘good’ part of the story:  one of the students (currently un-named) has taken on this challenge and turned the empty locker beside her own into an ‘underground library’!

BoingBoing! dug the story up at ‘Yahoo Answers’ when the student in question described the situation, then asked:

“Anyway, I now operate a little mini-library that no one has access to but myself. Practically a real library, because I keep an inventory log and give people due dates and everything. I would be in so much trouble if I got caught, but I think it’s the right thing to do because before I started, almost no kid at school but myself took an active interest in reading! Now not only are all the kids reading the banned books, but go out of their way to read anything they can get their hands on. So I’m doing a good thing, right?”

“But is what I’m doing wrong because parents and teachers don’t know about it and might not like it, or is it a good thing because I am starting appreciation of the classics and truly good novels (Not just fad novels like Twilight) in my generation?”

You ARE doing the RIGHT THING!!!

It is never wrong to distribute ‘banned’ information, literature or ideas! And it is never wrong to oppose those who would keep you in the dark in order to control your thoughts!

Just for interest, here is a partial list of the banned books (which this student has begun to lend out from the ‘underground library’ in her locker:

  • The Perks of Being a Wallflower
  • His Dark Materials trilogy
  • Sabriel
  • The Canterbury Tales
  • Candide
  • The Divine Comedy
  • Paradise Lost
  • The Godfather
  • Mort
  • Interview with the Vampire
  • The Hunger Games
  • The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy
  • A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court
  • Animal Farm
  • The Witches
  • Shade’s Children
  • The Evolution of Man
  • the Holy Qu’ran
  • One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest
  • The Picture of Dorian Gray
  • Slaughterhouse-5
  • Lord of the Flies
  • Bridge to Terabithia
  • Catch-22
  • East of Eden
  • The Brothers Grimm Unabridged Fairytales.

This person deserves a medal!!! And, her school could learn a few lessons from her…

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Warrantless searches permitted – if you have a radio at home…

This is for our US cousins – and, if anyone knows the law in Canada and other Western countries on this, I would appreciate the info:

Apparently, the FCC has the right to enter and search/inspect – without a warrant – any private home where RF devices are in use.

You know, like radio, garage-door openers, wireless router for your internet…even cordless phones, burglar alarms or baby monitors…

Wired.com has the scoop:

‘It would appear that a never-challenged, little known law from 1934…You may not know it, but if you have a wireless router, a cordless phone, remote car-door opener, baby monitor or cellphone in your house, the FCC claims the right to enter your home without a warrant at any time of the day or night in order to inspect it.’

‘The FCC claims it derives its warrantless search power from the Communications Act of 1934, though the constitutionality of the claim has gone untested in the courts.’

‘But refusing the FCC admittance can carry a harsh financial penalty. In a 2007 case, a Corpus Christi, Texas, man got a visit from the FCC’s direction-finders after rebroadcasting an AM radio station through a CB radio in his home. An FCC agent tracked the signal to his house and asked to see the equipment; Donald Winton refused to let him in, but did turn off the radio. Winton was later fined $7,000 for refusing entry to the officer.’

‘But if inspectors should notice evidence of unrelated criminal behavior — say, a marijuana plant or stolen property — a Supreme Court decision suggests the search can be used against the resident.’

So, let’s get this straight…

  • The FCC’s agents can enter any private property where they have a reason to believe someone is using any RF device.
  • Denying the agents entry is illegal
  • While the agents are on the private property, they are empowered to search it for RF devices and inspect the devices
  • If they uncover any evidence of ‘illegal activity’ of any kind, they can collect the evidence
  • This evidence can be handed over to police and can be used to prosecute the resident

Ah!

So, the US is not becoming a ‘police state’ – it is much too sophisticated for that!  Instead, the police use minions and sidekicks to do their ‘dirty work’ and remain beyond criticism…

Sweet!

Hat tip:  Dvorak Uncensored

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Union of Unions: is ‘labour’ organized a little ‘too well’?

This is just a tiny peek at Canadian ‘organized labour’ in particular, though I expect that the results will be similar for many of the ‘developed’ countries – and I am not naive enough not to understand that a supranatural organization of labour unions also exists.

This is only natural:  one just has to look at the nature of people who are drawn to ‘organized labour’ to start with!

These are usually people who are very, very good at ‘organizing’ things – and other people.  So, it is only natural that they would – well – organize themselves, too! And, there is nothing wrong with that:  freedom of association and all that.  Plus, many (perhaps most) of them are motivated by a belief that they are doing right by their members – also a commendable thing!

Where I DO have a problem is that in Canada (and many other places), this very freedom of association – something the labour unions had to fight bitter battles to win a legal right for – is now not respected BY the labour unions themselves…

As in, we have ‘closed shop‘ workplaces (or something practically indistinguishable from it), where every single employee is forced to belong to a specified labour union.  These ‘exclusively union-held’ workplaces are to be found in private industry and – perhaps this is the most troubling aspect – they have a monopoly on all levels of the civil service!  While I am very uncomfortable with all the aspects of this, that is not the topic of this rant.

Instead, I would like to demonstrate that this incredible skill at ‘organizing’, as practiced by labour unions, has – in a very real sense – led to a situation where just about every unionized employee in Canada effectively has to obey just one single boss

Unions arose because there was a need for balance:  as the industrial revolution transformed the ‘Western World’, the employer-employee relationship gave too much power to the employer and not enough to the employee.  Following the age-long adage ‘there is strength in numbers’, people refused to give in to oppression and did something to change it, both in law and in practice.  I suspect that were I living back then, I might well have been proud to be part of this movement!

But, the effects of human actions tend to act a little bit like a pendulum:  if you push hard to correct a wrong, chances are that a really successful ‘push’ will ‘swing the pendulum’ to the opposite extreme… and, with ‘organized labour’, I fear that that is exactly where we are now!  (At least, in the ‘Western world’!)

Now, we have a situation where an employer may not be allowed to hire the best people for a specific job (or, at least, the people the employer wishes to hire), but must have all their employment choices approved by a labour union.  In effect, the Unions in Canada (at the present time) form a layer of management which is NOT under the control of the employer, but whose very existence is predicated on ensuring that there is strife between the employer and the employee (as the ‘raison d’etre’ of the union is to mediate any disputes between the two, ensuring there is plenty of ‘stuff’ to mediate seems only prudent).

As in that story (sorry, I cannot find an online link, but it happened in the 1980s, so there may not be an online copy) where a lady owned a business and wanted to leave it to her grandson in her will.  To make sure that he really knew the business, from the bottom up, she wanted to hire him during his summer holidays in different departments of her company – working in the entry-level jobs of all the departments and getting to know them from the ‘bottom up’!

Frankly, I think this is commendable:  if you intend to leave a company in someone’s hands, it is only responsible that he know all the aspects of its workings!

However, not long before, this lady’s company became unionized.  AND, it was a ‘closed shop’…

And – since the labour union (I don’t know which one was involved) saw the hiring of the owner’s grandson as ‘nepotism’ and something to be opposed, they refused to grant him a memership in the union.  That meant that – whether paid or not – the grandson was not allowed to work at this company…except, perhaps, as the CEO…but he was denied the ability to ‘learn the business’ in order to become an effective manager!

The story ends sadly.  The confrontation between the owner and the labour union did not resolve the situation:  and, rather than be denied the right to hire whom she chose, the owned closed the company – putting everyone out of work.

Yes, it sounds like an urban legend:  still, at the time, it was a big story, covered by the major papers…

I guess what I am trying to say is that while 100+ years ago, the ‘strength’ was with the employers, that is no longer the case.  Now, the ‘strength’ lies with the unions who control BOTH the employer AND the employees, without any accountability to the former and with only a ‘lip-service’ level of accountability to the latter.

That, in my never-hmble-opinion, is a problem!

Because, like it or not – notice it or not – what has happened over the last 100 years (or so) is that individual workers have united to form unions, restoring balance to the ‘equation’:  but, they then went much, much further!  They created ‘unions of unions’ – until now, in Canada, there is one body – the Canadian Labour congress – which controls the vast majority of unionized employees in the land!

From their ‘about’ page:

‘The Canadian Labour Congress brings together Canada’s national and international unions, the provincial and territorial federations of labour and 136 district labour councils.’

‘With roots everywhere in Canada, the labour movement plays a key role…’

‘Active in every aspect of the economic, social and political life of Canadians…’

‘On Parliament Hill, in boardrooms, at international conferences, in media events, in demonstrations or on picket lines, the CLC supports and educates unionists in the fight for strong workplaces, pressures governments for change, builds coalitions with like-minded groups, and strengthens solidarity between workers in Canada and other countries.’

This really does seem to be an organization – perhaps with supranational strings attached – which controls a great deal of what goes on in the daily life of Canadians!

If the CLC were to decide that each one of its members (or the members of its minion organizations) were to go on strike, the whole country would come to a standstill! Industry, government, infrastructure, construction – even entertainment:  all these workers are subject to the whims of the CLC… either directly, or through the labour unions that they belong to – and which all answer to the CLC!

Is this not too much control in the hands of just one group of people – especially a group of people NOT ACCOUNTABLE to Canadians?

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

‘The Shawn Little affair’: background to the ‘influence-peddling’ trial of Ottawa’s ‘Mayor Larry’

Today was the first day in the ‘influence peddling’ trial of Ottawa Mayor Larry O’Brien. While this in itself may hold only limited interest, there are ‘other factors’ which are at play here: and these ‘other factors’ have implications way beyond the sleepy little town of Ottawa…

It is these ‘other factors’ which I would like to look at. Still, I ought to provide a little background of the events to date and their historical context….from my personal point of view.

  • In 2000/2001, the many municipalities of the Ottawa area and their over-arching regional government were all  amalgamated into one entity:  The City of Ottawa.
  • This created a geographically large city, with urban, sub-urban, and rural wards.
  • The former ‘Regional Chair’, Bob Chiarelli (acknowledged as a very skilled ‘political operator’), was elected to be the Mayor of the newly amalgamated city.

During that first amalgamated election (2000), an interesting thing happened…

‘The Shawn Little affair’

    • Shawn Little ran against Linda Davis, who had previously been on the Regional Council (headed by Bob Chiarelli, who was now running for Mayor)
    • The campaign got nasty.
    • Following the election, based on a complaint by Ms. Davis, Elections Ottawa investigated Mr. Little’s campaign spending.
    • The audit found that Mr. Little had not declared all of his campaign spending and made a list of the ‘undeclared items’, estimated their cost and incorporated this cost into Mr. Little’s account of the campaign spending.
    • This list included such items as a toilet-bowl brush for the campaign office washroom.  Mr. Little defended himself, saying this was not purchased but that a volunteer working in the office brought it in, and following the campaign, took it back home.  Still, the auditors said, the toilet-bowl brush had value, and he had not declared it:  this, in their eyes, was Mr. Little’s admission of guilt…
    • With the ‘estimated cost’ of the ‘omitted items’ incorporated into his spending, the auditor (after months of investigating) declared that Mr. Little had gone over his election spending cap by $2,600.00
    • Mr. Little was charged with violating the Municipal Elections Act
    • After a lengthy court battle Mr. Little was cleared of any legal wrongdoing
    • It took another legal battle for Mr. Little to get the City of Ottawa (who lost the case against him) to cover at least a part of his legal fees (he had almost lost his house…)
    • Throughout the affair, and for years following it, the press, led by The Ottawa Citizen, ran many unfavourable stories about Mr. Little.  (Perhaps these were deserved – it is true that while this was all going on, Mr. Little was not as effective a councilor as he ought to have been…)
    • An aside:  in the past, Shawn Little was a vociferous opponent of the ‘National Capital Commission’ (NCC) – a federal body which looks after ‘stuff’ in the nation’s capital region on behalf of the Federal Government.  At times, the NCC has been known to unilaterally (as in, they set the ‘market price’, no appeal process available) expropriate land – for the good of the ‘Capital Region’….only to flip the land in a few years for more than 50 times what they paid for it during the ‘expropriation’, making millions in the process…  This was not obvious during this affair, but… the majority of the directors of the board of the NCC at that time (MANY new appointments had been made, especially in 2007 – and I cannot seem to find the ‘historical snapshot’ from ealier – if anyone can find it, I will be happy to link to it here!!!  Let it suffice to say that during this era, the NCC BOD was heavily laden with ‘Chretien Liberal’ appointees…) were ‘land developers’ (or ‘urban planners’), many of them were rumoured to have had ‘ties’ with the ‘Chiarelli family’.
  • OK – this was DEEP background:  still, the important things here are:
    • ‘Lawfare’ (on this scale) was found to be a highly useful tool to render an elected councilor ineffective, both due to distraction (legal proceedings, financial issues, stress) and because it tarnished that politician’s public image.
    • ‘The Ottawa Citizen’ coverage of this election was – in my opinion – highly favourable to Mr. Bob Chiarelli.
    • Even years after this affair had been settled, ‘The Ottawa Citizen’ continued to run stories highly unfavourable of Mr. Little.

This is going really far – for ‘political memory’ of the average ‘voter’.  But, it is my never-humble opinion that ‘The Shawn Little’ affair has direct bearing on what is happening in the current trial of Larry O’Brien, Ottawa’s ‘Mayor Larry’.

If it is hard to see the connections – please, stay tuned.  I will first point out a few other ‘pieces of the puzzle’ (from my highly personal point of view), then and only then will I be able to explain just how they fit together….

My next post will look at (to be linked here, once posted) at the issues which dominated the next municipal election in 2003.

From Persia to Iran: a tutorial by CodeSlinger

Iran – and its colourful president Ahmadinejad – are in the news a quite lot these days…

But how many of us really know that much about how Iran became what it is today – a hard-line, fascist theocracy with a decidedly apocalyptic fetish?

While I do know a little bit of their history, my interest in the region kind of waned when they stopped building ziggurats, so I’m a little bit out of touch…  (Aside: soon, I’ll be putting up a video with instructions on how to build a model of a ziggurat, inspired by the Ziggurat of Ur – I’m in the process of preparing kits of it for a class-full of eager grade-5-ers!  Fun!)

In other words, I needed a bit of a tutorial on the more recent (say, 20th century) history of Iran.  CodeSlinger was happy to oblige!

Originally, he posted this as a part (!) of a comment to an earlier post of mine, in which he was answering several of my questions – including What is ‘Cultural Marxism’? (which became a post of its own).

With his permission, here is CodeSlinger’s tutorial on the 20th century events, through which Persia became the Iran of today:

Now that we have all that out of the way , we can see what I mean when I say that the manner in which the Pahlavi Shahs went about modernizing Iran subjected the country to the destructive effects of cultural Marxism.  I’m certainly not saying the Shah of Iran was a Marxist.  I’m pretty sure he was nominally Muslim, though he vigorously pursued the policy of secularization begun by his father, so what they really believed is hard to say.

But I don’t think either of them deliberately set out to harm their country, though the father was clearly the shrewder and more ruthless of the two.  The sense I get from reading about them is that they meant to rule well, if at all possible, but they meant to rule in any case.  The social reforms they introduced were being put into practice everywhere in the modern world at the time, but nowhere had they been in place long enough to allow the tree to be known by its fruit.

The father first appears on the stage of history as Reza Khan, commander of the Persian Cossack Brigade, which he used to seize control of Persia and put and end to the Qajar dynasty in 1923, upon which he became Reza Shah and took the surname Pahlavi.  Being broke, in danger of being swallowed by the Russians, and in danger of being overthrown by the Shiite Imams, Reza Shah implemented a strongly anti-communist police state and gave carte-blanche to the British.

To weaken the Shiites, he mandated European dress for men and supported the so-called Women’s Awakening, which included allowing women to work outside the home and banning the chador (!) in 1931.  Another move calculated to weaken the Imams was finalizing the release of the Jews from the ghettos and repealing restrictions on their entry into the professions.  Anyone in government who seriously opposed him was killed.  In the process, he became one of the richest men in Persia, became loved by the city dwellers but alienated the majority of the population, who were still country folk and devout Muslims, and got into a major confrontation with the Imams.

When he felt strong enough, he turned on the British and broke their stranglehold on the country’s infrastructure.  He cancelled the Anglo-Persian Oil Company’s concession, took control of the currency away from the British Imperial Bank, and nationalized the telegraph system.  He encouraged trade with Germany and Italy to further weaken British and Russian influence.  He also changed the name of the country from Persia to Iran, which means Land of the Aryans in Farsi.  Even so, he declared neutrality when World War II broke out, and allowed neither the Axis nor the Allies to operate on Iranian soil.

Not that it helped him.  In 1941, the British and the Russians, whom he had so far successfully played off against each other, joined forces and occupied Iran — ostensibly because they needed a route by which the Allies could supply war materiel to the Russians, but recouping losses was definitely part of the agenda.  The first thing the British did was force Reza Shah to abdicate in favour of his son, who, they correctly assumed, would be easier to handle.  So Prince Mohammad Reza Pahlavi became Shah of Iran at the age of 22.

In any case, Anglo-Persian Oil Company resumed operations under the new name of Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, and carried on until 1951, when Mohammed Mosaddeq got the Iranian parliament to vote him in as Prime Minister after engineering a coalition that nationalized the company.  In response, Anglo-Iranian pulled all of its people out of Iran and the British navy blockaded the Persian Gulf, which cut off oil revenues and turned Iran into a pressure cooker.

Mosaddeq assumed emergency powers, stripped the Shah of money and authority, and broke off diplomatic relations with Britain.  The Shah fled the country.  All kinds of factions emerged and before long, everybody was stabbing everybody else in the back.  Mosaddeq’s manoeuvrings became increasingly desperate and totalitarian, and this gave the British MI6 what they needed to convince the American CIA that Mosaddeq might get in bed with the communists in a last-ditch effort to keep himself in power.  The CIA mounted Operation Ajax in cooperation with MI6.

To make a long story short, the CIA threw a lot of money around, played everyone against everyone and engineered a coupe that deposed Mosaddeq and put the Shah back on the throne in 1953.  All the gory details of Operation Ajax can be found <a href=”http://web.payk.net/politics/cia-docs/” rel=”nofollow”>here</a>, if you’re interested.  In the end, Anglo-Iranian became British Petroleum, took the lead of a consortium of oil companies, and resumed production.  To consolidate his power, the Shah created a new secret police called SAVAK, whose agents were trained by the CIA and the Israeli Mossad (!) and beefed up the Iranian army, which was funded and equipped by the Americans.  Then he proceeded with his White Revolution in 1963, which we have already touched on.

All of this, of course created the perfect set-up for the backlash that dethroned the Shah for the second and last time in 1979 and put Khomeini firmly in control of Iran.  And for all the reputation that SAVAK had for brutality and torture, its replacement, called VEVAK, has a reputation for being a hundred times worse — of course, not much hard information is available outside Iran, since VEVAK operates without government supervision, but instead answers directly to the Supreme Leader, currently Ayatollah Ali Khamenei — in any case, the stories that are told are perfectly consistent with the methods known to be used by their friends and neighbours, the Taliban.

So, who are the good guys in this story?  I’ll be damned if I can find any.  If I had to pick anybody as the least bad, I guess it would have to be the Shah, but that isn’t saying much.  Not much at all.

However, it’s interesting to note the speculations that the CIA has backed every player in this game since the 1940’s, including Khomeini–!  Why would they do that?  Because it gives them leverage no matter how the balance comes out.  And in the present circumstances, that means leverage to manipulate the level of tension in the region to whatever level they need to set the price of oil where they want it, while justifying whatever level of military presence they deem necessary to keep control of Persian Gulf oil fields out of Russian and Chinese hands.  At the same time, it breeds terrorism, which they can use as a scourge of fear to justify increasingly repressive measures against their own population, back home in America.

As Baron Harkonnen said to Muad D’ib, “there are feints within feints within feints.”

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Holocaust Rememberance Day

Let us not forget:  never again!

We all have the responsibility – as individuals and as members of the human race – to never again let this happen!  It does not matter who the victims are:  if they are a specific race, or religion, or whatever!   Because, as my favourite philosopher says:

A person’s a person, no matter how small!

So, as we ponder and remember this horrible thing that happened – the Holocaust – we must not lie to ourselves about HOW something like that could possibly occur.

Some people are quick to point out that the Holocaust did not begin with actions – and they are right.  The Holocaust began with the BANNING OF FREE SPEECH!

Pre-Hitler Germany had very strong ‘hate-speech laws’ – ones which were eerily similar to the ‘hate-speech’ laws we, in Canada, much of the EU, and other ‘Western countries’, have now.  And, the Jewish community in Germany then was quite ‘satisfied’ with the way these laws were used to prosecute people who SPOKE anti-semitic sentiments.  Just as many Jewish groups say they are ‘satisfied’ with the ‘hate-speech’ laws here, now…

These very same ‘hate-speech’ laws were used in 1930’s Germany to muzzle anyone who spoke up against the ACTIONS and government policies which brought about the Holocaust!  Remember my first law of human dynamics:  if a law CAN be abused in any way – IT WILL.  Do people really not see the danger how laws which allow governments to silence people on topics of their choice can be abused?  Or that they are indeed being abused now…that the seeds of abuse of these very laws have already been sown in our society and are beginning to sprout?

Look around yourself now:  we are seeing more and more people becoming muzzled (even including lifetime bans to speak or communicate in any way on a whole topic!) for speaking up against certain government policies!!!

This is ONE lesson we MUST learn from history – because the Holocaust is something we must never allow to be repeated!

Never again!
add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

White flowers for Aisha

The story of Aisha Ibrahim Duhuhulow – the child who was stoned for the crime of being raped – has really touched me.

The young girl grew up under one application of Sharia, where ‘justice’ meant that rapists are caught and punished.  However, her local Mosque had come under ‘new management’:  the ‘elders’ (Islamic scholars) who now controlled it applied Sharia very, very differently.   Admitting to having been raped was interpreted by them as admitting to having had sexual intercourse outside of marriage, which is punishable by stoning.  And, while stoning her, the cleric, Sheik Hayakallah, continued to praise ‘sister Aisha’ for ‘wanting Sharia and its punishment to apply’!

And THIS is why Sharia – even if it were fully compatible with ‘Western’ laws and principles (which it is not) – is UNACCEPTABLE !!!

This ‘Islamic Law’ and its applications are not consistent:  the local Islamic leader has the authority to interpret it in any way he deems to be correct!  (This does not even take into consideration that there is no consensus as to what training (if any) a person requires in order to be an Imam or an ‘Islamic scholar’.  Currently, any man who considers himself to be knowledgeable of the Koran and the Sunnah can declare himself to be  an Islamic scholar and act as an Imam.)

Thus, a simple change of Imams at a Mosque could completely change the rules under which are ‘the laws’ which govern every aspect of public and private behaviour in the local community.  And, the people might remain completely unaware how the changed interpretation of Sharia will be meted out:  unaware, that is, until someone like Aisha gets stoned for having been raped!

THAT, in my never-humble-opinion, is a big problem!

As for Aisha, not only was her story criminally mis-reported (at first), she herself has remained faceless:  no amount of Googling has revealed any pictures online of the unfortunate girl.  (If you find one – please, let me know!)

Since I could not find a picture of her, I decided to paint one…  this is my impression of ‘Aisha’:

Aisha

Then, someone posted this comment about Aisha:

WHITE FLOWERS FOR AISHA
I could not sleep for days after reading about Aisha’s tragedy. I would have wanted to bring flowers to her grave, but there was no grave to be reached. I felt so powerless!
But then I got the idea that we should all try and create a wave of sweetness and kindness in the love of Aisha, all over the world. May her death not have been in vain. Let us transform it into a stimulus to spread lovingkindness.
I decided to buy a bunch of white flowers and offer one of them, together with a 5 dollar bill and a piece of candy,to every homeless person I woud find at the railway station,
mentioning Aisha’s name and sending her a blessing every time.
I also made an offer to Amnesty international to honor her name.
Let us all do something, let us create a wave of white flowers and of kind actions so as to try and counterbalance the horror of her death. And let us pray for her, telling her we all love her.
Ilaria

Yes!  WHITE FLOWERS FOR AISHA!

What a beautiful idea:  the innocent blossom, plucked before her time!

White Flowers for Aisha

White Flowers for Aisha

This is my take on ‘White Flowers for Aisha‘!  What is yours?

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

‘Marriage under Sharia’ permits child prostitution

My first law of human-dynamics is:  if a law can be abused, it will!

That is why every law must be examined very, very carefully; all the ways it can be perverted and abused must be considered and weighed.  This should – preferebly – be done before such a law is accepted and before it becomes the norm in a society.

Sharia is based on the Koran and the Sunnah (the ways of the Prophet Muhammad).  It governs every aspect of a person’s life.  Here is the definition of Sharia from the Islamic Dictionary:

“Way to the water.” The “way” of Islam in accord with the Qur’an and Sunna, ijma’ and qiyas. Sharia is the law of Islam. It is based on the teachings of the Qur’an and the Sunna, though there are many sources outside these two, such as Arab Bedouin law, commercial law from Mecca, and the law of some conquered nations such as Roman and Jewish law. The Sharia extends beyond what Westerners consider law. It covers the totality of religious, political, social, including private life and makes no distinction between sin and law.

While there are several ‘schools’ of Sharia, they all have the same roots and tend to be considered complementary of each other, rather than in opposition to each other.  And, they are in agreement on many of the most fundamental rules of human behaviour and social organization.

One thing that is troubling about ‘Sharia Courts’ is that there is no formal differentiation between these various legal interpretations of the Islamic laws:  rather, it is the leadership of the local Mosque which determines what ‘school’ of Sharia applies to the congregation.  If a change occurs in the leadership (or ‘elders’) in the Mosque, the legal standards are automatically changed, without any notice being given to the populace.

It is my conviction that Aisha Ibrahim Dhuhulow was a victim of such a change.  She grew up under the interpretation of Sharia where rapists were caught and punished.  That is why, after this 13-year-old child was raped, she went to her local officials and ‘demanded that justice be done’.  Unbeknown to her, her town Mosque was recently taken over by officials who subscribed to the most extreme form of Sharia, where the rape victim is stoned to death for adultery.  That explains why she kept begging for her life and calling for help, while the officials who sentenced her to death praised her for ‘demanding that justice according to Sharia be done’…

Both courses of action are possible under different schools of Sharia!  How was the child to know that things could change THAT drastically?!?!?

Which brings me back to my original statement:  if a law can be abused, it will!

Now, I would like to ask you to consider  the rules which govern marriage under Sharia:  I have posted some of the major rules here and here. And, human nature being what it is, I would like you to consider the most twisted possible interpretation of these rules which will not be breaking the letter of the rules.  Because, sooner or later, that is exactly how every law will be applied.  (The background information is in my two earlier posts on this, linked at the beginning of this post).

The example of Muhammad, the Prophet:

  • Muslims emulate the behaviour of Prophet Muhammad, because Islam teaches that they are supposed to do that in order to lead good and pious lives.
  • Muhammad had married his ‘only virgin wife’, Aisha, when she was 6 years old (thought he waited until she was 8 (or 9 – the lunar year calculations are a little different from the solar ones)).  Therefore, that is the example that all Muslims are taught to emulate.
  • Therefore, most countries governed by Sharia allow – nay, encourage – marrying girls of  ‘Aisha’s age’.

‘Age of consent’ in the Koran:

  • Neither the Koran, nor the Sunnah, specify what is the minimum age for a person (male or female) to enter into marriage.  Therefore, there is no prohibition against very young people entering into marriage.
  • In order to ensure adequate protection of the ‘fair sex’, females – both children and adult women – have male guardians to look after them.  A girl/woman’s first guardian is her father, then her husband, her brother, and, eventually, her son.  As such, this guardian represents the girl/woman’s interests in all legal matters, such as management of property and conracts, like marriage and divorce.
  • The Koran has very specific laws about divorce.  IVery specific rules are set out in order to ensure that a husband retains control of any offspring sired – but not yet born – at the time of divorce.
  • Among these rules are ‘special cases’ for widdows, as well as for divorce from women who are no longer fertile because they have reached menopause or because they have not yet reached sexual maturity.
  • Putting these things together, the majority of Muslim scholars support the marriage of pre-pubescent girls, provided her father/guardian permits the marriage.  Some assert that ‘sexual enjoyment’ is permitted with females as young as one day old, though penetration is not ‘recommended’ (but not forbidden).
  • Following a divorce, the guardianship of the girl/woman reverts back to her father – or her closest male relative, who is free to (and encouraged to) arrange the next marriage for the girl/woman in question.

‘Bride Price’

  • Many Muslim scholars do not like the term ‘Bride Price’ – it is supposed to be a ‘nest-egg’ to support the wife in the case of divorce, until her guardian can arrange another marriage for her.  In practice, however, that is exactly what it is.
  • The size of this ‘present’ is usually set by the bride’s father or guardian, who arranges the marriage.

Hmmm…  is it really that difficult to see how this can be (and is) exploited for prostituting children?

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Marriage under Sharia – part 2

In Part 1 of ‘Marriage under Sharia’, I explained the types of marriages which Sharia (Islamic law) permits: Nikah (‘permanent’ marriage), Nikah Mut’ah (temporary marriage) and Nikah Misyar (traveler’s marriage).  I also explained the Mahr – the ‘marriage present’ or ‘bride price’ which is paid by the groom at the time of the marriage.

Here, I would like to look at who is and is not eligible to enter into a marriage contract well as the rules of divorce under Sharia.

3.  Islamic Divorce (Koran, Chapter 65)

In Islam, divorce is not considered sinful, as it is in some forms of Christianity.  To the contrary, it is perfectly acceptable and there are very specific rules under Sharia which regulate it:  both the husband and the wife (through her guardian) can request a divorce.

In practice, it is much easier for the husband to obtain divorce than it is for the wife, as in some schools of Sharia, women are sometimes not allowed to address the court (and thus request divorce) without her husband accompanying her there.  Other times, women may be allowed to go to court, but a a male relative intervene on their behalf or the divorce will not be granted against the husband’s wishes (this may be difficult, as in many cases, the husband is in full control of whom the wife may or may not contact – including her relatives).  There are even cases where young married women are told they are too young to request a divorce:  to come back when they ‘reach maturity’!

The wife must observe a ‘waiting period’ (iddah) of three menstrual cycles following the divorce, to see if pregnancy resulted from the marriage.  (The ‘waiting period’ for a widow is 3 lunar months and 10 days.)

Special Case 1:  Pregnancy

If the marriage resulted in pregnancy, the husband must support the wife for the duration of the pregnancy.  Once the child is born, it is the father’s choice to either take custody of the infant right away, or to continue to support the mother (ex wife) while she nurses the child.  Once the child is weaned (or a specific time period set by the father is up), the child will be handed over to the father and his obligations toward the mother will end.  (This will also end any claim – legal (guardianship) or moral – that the mother has towards the child, including visitation rights.)

Special Case 2:  Infertile wives

There is a special provision in Koran for divorce from women who are not fertile, because they are either too old or too young to have their ‘monthly courses’.  Their ‘waiting period’ cannot  be ‘three monthly courses’ – because they do not have them.  Therefore, their ‘waiting period) is set at 3 months.

Special Case 3:  Unconsummated Marriage

If the marriage has never been consummated (and this ‘consummation’ is up to the will of the husband – he has up to 1 lunar year to ‘consummate’ the marriage from the date of the marriage contract), the ‘waiting period’ following divorce is cut down to 1 lunar month.

4.  Who may marry whom

There are very, very specific rules over who is – and who is not – allowed to marry whom.

A man may marry any female except those who are

  • direct blood relatives:  mother, sister or daughter
  • direct ‘nursing’ relative:  his wet-nurse (she is considered to be his ‘milk mother’)
  • a female child who is a direct blood relative of his ‘milk mother’ (that is, anyone a woman who was nursed by his ‘milk mother’
  • a female who is a ‘milk mother’ relative of (was nursed by) his wives or his mother
  • not ‘of the book’ – that is, not Muslim, Christian or Jewish  (all children resulting from this marriage MUST be Muslim) – this prohibition does not apply to female slaves.

In addition, a woman may never marry any man who is not a Muslim, because it is not permissible for a non-Muslim to be the ‘superior to’/’in the position of power over’ (in business, politics – or marriage, where the husband is the superior of the wife) a Muslim.

A man may re-marry his ex-wife, provided she had been married to another man in between the marriages to him.

In order to get married, the terms of the marriage must be negotiated by the groom and the bride’s guardian.  The bride must then formally consent to the marriage – silence is considered to be ‘consent’.  In practice, this ‘consent’ is often forced by threats – and if the bride refuses, the alternative is ‘honour killing’ or the ‘ever-growing-in-popularity’ honour suicide!

Islam does NOT set any age limits on the age of the bride or groom.

However, the Koran states that onlywomen are to be veiled:  men and children (including female children, before they are ‘ready for marriage’).  It is up to the father to decide when his daughter is ready for marriage.  When he judges that she is available for an Islamic marriage, he signals that fact to the community by having her wear the veil (hijab)  in public.

(If you take nothing else away from this post, please, understand this: when we see little girls, as young as 7 or 8, wearing hijabs to school, we are allowing their fathers to advertize that they are actively seeking a suitor for their daughters!)

There are many Islamic experts who assert that it is ‘not recommended’ that a female should ‘reach her first course [of menstruation] in her father’s house’, but rather that she should do so in her husband’s house!

There is no limit on how young a female should be upon marriage:  the Ayatollah Khomeini unequivocally stated that a man may ‘enjoy’ a girl – a suckling –  as young as 1 day old – he just should not ‘penetrate’ her ‘right away’…

Here is a YouTube video of an Islamic expert, being interviewed on the topic of Islamic marriage with ‘underage girls’:

What is more – Islam dictates that in order to live a righteous life, men must emulate the actions of Prophet Muhammad.  He is well documented to have married his ‘only virgin wife’, Aisha, when she was 6 years old, and he consumated the marriage when she was 8 years old (sometimes reported as 9:  this discrepancy is due to the use of Lunar callendar to measure age in Islam – as Allah is the name of the Arabic Lunar God, not the Arabic word for ‘God’ as it is often stated to – and the lunar and solar years do not line up perfectly).

Therefore, it is ‘pious’ for Muslim men to marry females who are as young as Aisha was when Muhammad consumated his marriage with her:  8 or 9 years old!  And, a Muslim woman must submit to her husband’s sexual desires and preferences at his whim:  there is no option for her to say ‘no’ to anything her husband may desire.

The Prophet Muhammad is even reported to advise one of his friends that it is better to marry a child-bride, rather than a grown woman, so he can ‘have sport with her’…

I suspect I have left out a lot that really ought to be said…but, it is a beginning at bringing about an understanding of what Marriage under Sharia truly means!

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank