Marriage under Sharia

April 3, 2009 — xanthippa

Sharia is more than a legal code.  Sharia is based on the Koran and the Sunnah (the ways of the Prophet Muhammad).  It governs every aspect of a person’s life.  It also contains detailed rules governing marriage and divorce.  In this post, I would like to explore some of the various rules and regulations over the customs and practices of marriage in Islam.

If my understanding is erroneous or imperfect, please, do comment on it:  I will be very happy to have any of my misconceptions corrected.  My aim is to bring the reality of marriage under Sharia forward, so that even non-Muslims may understand it and its implications.

There are several aspects of Islamic marriage which are addressed under Sharia.  These are the terms of the marriage itself, the terms of any divorce (which is permitted and regulated under Sharia), the ‘marriage present’, or ‘bride price’, which is obligatory under Sharia, and who may or may not enter into a marriage contract.

1.  Islamic marriage

There are several types of marriages in Islam. In all cases, a marriage is a social contract, with legal documents specifying the terms of the marriage.  Here is a list of the main ones, with a brief explanation:

Nikah

This is the most common Islamic marriage.  It is a ‘permanent’ marriage – and somewhat similar to the ‘Western’ concept of ‘marriage’.  However, instead of equal obligations among the husband and wife, the husband is responsible for the welfare of the wife, and becomes her legal guardian (as a woman cannot be emancipated under Sharia – her status is equal to that of a minor).

According to the Koran, a man may have up to 4 wives through Nikah marriage at any point in time. A wife is not permitted to have multiple husbands at the same time.

Divorce is permitted, provided it follows the proper rules under Sharia.

Nikah Mut’ah

This is a ‘fixed term’ or ‘temporary’ marriage (mainly practiced under Shi’a form of Islam – and which is promoted in Iran as an alternative to young people having extra-marital affairs).

Even before the marriage is entered into, a time limit is specified for the duration of this marriage. This period can last years, or it can be as little as one hour.  Following this period, the marriage is dissolved.  The same rules and obligations now apply to the couple as under an Islamic divorce.

‘Fixed term’ or ‘temporary’ marriages do not count towards the maximum of 4 wives.

Nikah Misyar

This is also termed ‘traveler’s marriage’ – and also does not count towards the maximum of 4 wives.

Under this type of marriage, the husband’s obligations are significantly reduced, as he does not have to support this wife.  In return, she retains more independence.  This is mostly a ‘Sunni’ practice, just as the nikah mut’ah is a mostly Shi’a practice.

The husband is not responsible for the maintanance of this wife, though he enjoys the marital privileges of ‘visiting her’ as frequently (or seldom) as he pleases.

Special Case 1:  female slaves (prisoners)

If a man cannot support a wife (or multiple wives) sufficiently, it is recommended that instead of entering into a marriage, he should purchase a female slave.  Sharia has very specific rules on slavery:  female slaves are ‘permitted’ to a man who owns them, without binding him with the obligations a marriage entitles.

Female prisoners are considered equivalent to slaves:  that is why, according to some Islamic scholars, part of the ‘punishment’ of a female prisoner is rape by her jailers.  Both ‘slaves’ and ‘prisoners’ are referred to in the Koran as ‘those whom your right hand possesses’.

Special Case 1:  ‘broken’ wives

It is well recognized that sexual intercourse with infants or other very young females may cause permanent physical damage to them (including sterility).  Sharia has a specific rule to deal with this ‘special case’:  if a young ‘wife’ becomes ‘broken’ through the husband’s sexual practices, the husband cannot divorce her and remains responsible for her maintenance for the rest of her life.  She will remain ‘available’ to him – but will not count towards the maximum of 4 wives.

2.  Mahr – Marriage present (bride price)

When the marriage contract is signed, the groom must give the bride a ‘present’:  this is meant to be her ‘nest-egg’ and support her in case of divorce.  In some traditions, the bride’s parents request a very high ‘marriage present’, in order for the groom to prove his worthiness.

Because under Sharia, a woman is not a legal person (as in, a mature person – her legal standing under Sharia is equal to that of a minor), a woman may ‘own’ property, but not control it.  Just like minors in ‘The West’ who have a trust-fund, there is guardian who is appointed to oversee any property ‘owned’ by a woman and who controls it.  Under Sharia, this guardian of a woman’s property is also the woman’s guardian.

So it is with this ‘marital present’:  it is usually (not always) entrusted to the male guardian who authorized the marriage contract.  The reasoning behind this is that in the case of divorce, this man will again become the guardian of the ‘bride’, and will therefore be able to use this ‘marriage present’ to maintain her until he can arrange another marriage for her.

In my next post, I will explore the rules of divorce under Sharia as well as who may or may not enter into a marriage contract… and some of the real-life implications of these rules.

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

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , . 4 Comments »

Women’s rights must not be subject to referendum

April 2, 2009 — xanthippa

Sometimes, it takes us a while to recognize things for what they are.

For example, when Britain adopted Sharia as a parallel, not state-controlled legal system, the publicity spin on the whole thing was – to some people – palatable.

Not to me – I consider it a matter of principle that a government must exercise control over its judiciary, just as the judiciary must exercise control over the government:  the two are parts of the ‘checks and balances’ of our legal system.  Therefore, I consider any legal system parallel t0 – yet independant – of the government and its judiciary to be a serious breech of our governance structures, and therefore unacceptable.  It is a threat to the very foundations of the way we govern ourselves!

Nor can I ever accept the principle that there ought to be different classes of citizens, with different sets of laws for each class.  To me, that very concept is highly repellent!  No longer are citizens equal to each other in the eyes of the law – they no longer even share the same law…  NO!  A person’s a person, no matter how small!  (or of which religion…)

These are two very powerful reasons why I could never support a judicial apartheid:  whatever form it may take!

These two reasons alone would make any parallel legal system 100% unacceptable to me – no matter how good they might be.   Yet, my rant  has not even touched on what I find unacceptable about Sharia…

Yet, the outrage many of us expresses at Britain’s official acceptance of Sharia as the legal system for its Muslim citizens was shrugged off by much of the MSM who assured us that Sharia was just a traditional way of doing things, that it really was a question of cultural preference, and that Muslims in Britain want it anyways, so we ought to butt out and shut up.

It’s not really all that long ago that Ontario’s Premier, Dalton McGuinty (his name – and track record – always makes me think of ‘bodymaster McGuinty’ from ‘The Valley of Fear’), almost instituted Sharia in Ontario.  And, before he considered it, he had commissioned a study, to make sure that Sharia would not be harmful to any Ontarians.  Marion Boyd, a lifelong feminist (as well as an environmentalists) and former NDP member of provincial parliament, authored the study which found that Sharia law was just fine, and fully compatible with feminist principles…

And let’s not even mention France… Muslim feminists, like Wafa Sultan advise women who are attempting to escape from oppression under Sharia law not to go to France, as they would not be safe there.

And Barak Obama, the higly popular US President, had (August 2006) campaigned in Kenya for his kinsman, Raila Odinga, whose election platform included the imposition of Sharia!

It seems to me that we have rather normalized the idea that ‘Muslims want to live under Sharia’ and that it is not our place to interfere…

In the last few days, many of us (myself included) have sharply criticized the new proposed law in Afghanistan, which would strip women (among other things) of parental rights, the freedom of movement and would legalize marital rape.  This ‘new law’ would govern the Shi’a minority (about 20%) of the Afghani population.

Please, indulge me in a chain of logic here:

  • The Shi’a minority in Afghanistan is ‘very conservative’ (some would say radicalized)
  • This Shi’a minority recognizes Koran as the only authority on law
  • This Koran-only-derived law is called – yes – Sharia
  • Therefore, this law which advocates ‘marital rape’ and strips women of basic human rights is – Sharia!!!

Perhaps we ought to thank the Afghani President, Hamid Karzai, for actually spelling out in this new Afghani law exactly what Sharia truly means!

As the following video shows:  women’s rights must never be subject to a referendum:

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

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , . 1 Comment »

‘Democracy’ is not an absolute

April 1, 2009 — xanthippa

I never thought this would have to state this so specifically:  rape is not acceptable, ever, ever, ever – not even within marriage!

Yet, not everyone seems to understand that!

Let me explain:  the new law proposed in Afghanistan would make rape within marriage perfectly legal – at least among its Shi’a minority. In addition, it would strip mothers and grandmothers of all parental rights, and deny the women freedom of movement (they could only leave their houses with their husband’s permission).

That is bad – very bad.  It is a law that contravenes human rights – obviously – and it contravenes the treaties to uphold these human rights which the Afgahni government has entered into.

What is even worse is how so many people here, in ‘The West’, have reacted to this proposal.  From radio call-in shows to all kinds of other fora where people express their opinions, the reaction I hear is rather frightening!

So many of ‘us’ are saying things along the lines of:

‘Well, it is their democratically elected government which is passing this law, so we must not interfere!’

‘It’s their culture, and if they democratically decide to make these rules, it would be wrong for us to stop them.’

‘We must not criticize this law.  We brought them democracy, and they are democratically choosing to do this, so to criticize this law would be hypocritical of us.’

These sentiments are SO outrageous, I don’t know where to start…

Fist and foremost, let me start with ‘democracy’, as it was originally concieved of by the ancient Greeks:

Brought to us by Athenians in the 4-5th century BCE (though there were earlier proto-democracies as far back as perhaps 2000 BCE), democracy was a straight ‘rule of majority’.  Only free males were considered citizens (women and slaves were excluded), and could vote.  This was a major advance over the previous systems, but…

The problem with this type of democracy is that majority opinion rules.  It can easily become a ‘tyranny of the majority‘ – and tyranny in any form is a bad thing. (Sad that I have to even state that…but, it seems, in today’s world, I do.)

Let me give an example:

Imagine there is a small village of only 5 farmsteads.  They have an ‘absolute democracy’ – meaning, whatever the majority votes, goes.  On one of these farmsteads, there live 4 beautiful, very intelligent young women – their father has saved and scrimped, and is proudly planning to send them off to the big city to get a University education.

This is not to the liking of the other 4 farmers, each of whom has a son – and each of whom would like to see his son marry one of these beautiful, intelligent women.  So, they hold a vote:  unsurprisingly, the vote is 1 for letting the girls go to school, and 4 for letting the 4 young men marry them instead.

Majority rules!!!  Instead of buying textbooks, the funds are used to celebrate 4 weddings…

That WAS democracy in action!

Or, let’s consider another example:

A country has ‘absolute democracy’.  Most of the people in this country are Christian.  About 40% of the population belongs to other religions:  Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Budhism, Sikhism, or some other religion.  Some of this 40% may practice no religion at all.

Still, 60% of the population is Christian.  One day, a radical preacher introduces a bill which would force the conversion of every one of those 40% of the population to become Christian – no more Mosques, Synagogues, or any other temples.  No more questioning of the Christian dogma – by anyone, anywhere!

It’s put to the vote:  and, surprisingly enough, 59% of the population votes to pass this bill into law!  Now, everyone is forced to become a practicing Christian.

Again, majority rules!!!  This was decided democraticly!

I sincerely hope that you found both of these outcomes unacceptable!

Why?

Because they oppress a part of the populace!

That is why we do not practice ‘absolute democracy’.  Instead, we have improved on this ancient concept in some very, very important ways.  I suppose it started with the Magna Carta…  (Or, if you are a history buff, with Cyrus the Great!)

Cyrus the Great (even more than King John – who was forced into it) recognized and stated a really important principle – later paraphrased by my favourite philosopher, Theodor Seuss Geisel:

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

In other words, Cyrus brought us the idea that there are some rights which are inherrent to each individual – and which no ruler – monarch or democrat or anyone else – has the right to strip from him or her.  Considering that at that time, Cyrus was an absolute monarch, that is a rather enlightened thing to say.

Yet, Cyrus did not just say it – he codified it.  We have ‘the cylinder’ which was Cyrus’s constitution:  individual rights are inherent to the individual, and nobody can strip one of them!!!  Oh, how we need ‘a Cyrus’ now!!!  It was in the very area where Afghanistan and Iran is now, that this cradle of democracy and human rights was located.  So, please, do not let anyone tell you that recognition of and respect for inherrent human rights is not part of the Afghani cultural heritage:  it originates there!!!

From the first declaration of human rights by Cyrus the Great, to the US constitution, to the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Freedoms – we all recognize that while we may be ruled by a democracy, it is a constitutional democracy:  it is only allowed to pass laws which do not violate basic human rights!!!

If you are up on the UN’s document, you will see that my first example violates Article 16.2 of the UN’s declaration, while my second example violates Article 18.  That is what makes these scenarios unacceptable to us – and rightly so!

Now, the proposed Afghan law also violates a few of these – specifically, it violates Article 1, Article 2, Article 3, Article 4, Article 5, Article 6, Article 7, Article 13, Articles 16.1 and 16.2, Article 18, Article 20.1, all 3 sections of Article 21, perhaps Article 22, Article 23.1 and 23.4, perhaps Articles 25 and 26, Article 27.1 and 27.2, and, finally, Article 28.

That is quite a score – for a single law!!!

Please, I invite you to follow the link to the UN’s declaration of Universal Human Rights and Freedoms, and verify that I have indeed listed the breeches of the UN’s declaration accurately:  if anything, I erred on the side of not listing an Article or two which might also be breeched!

And, the fledling Afghani government HAD signed a treaty, which binds it to respect and not breech these human rights!  Therefore, any laws it DEMOCRATICALLY passes MUST NOT BREECH these basic human rights and freedoms.

This is not a question of denying the Afghanis the right to rule themselves democratically.  This is a question of demanding that they only pass laws which respect the basic rights and freedoms of its citizens – something the Afghani government has legally bound itself to do!

Hiding behind the word ‘democracy’ does not permit ‘tyranny of the majority’ – yet, that is what those who would accept this Afghani law which strips its Shi’a female citizens of their fundamental rights and freedoms are willing to accept.  People in our own culture lack the ability to differentiate between ‘tyranny of the majority’ and a ‘constitutional democracy’!

Shame on us all!!!

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

Posted in freedoms, opression, philosophy, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , . 7 Comments »

Police raid on home of WikiLeaks.de owner

March 25, 2009 — xanthippa

I wish I could say this was a surprise!

Here is the press release (in full):

‘March 24, 2009

EDITORIAL (Wikileaks)

Excerpt raid documentation

Excerpt raid documentation

Shortly after 9pm on Tuesday the 24th of March 2009, seven police officers in Dresden and four in Jena searched the homes of Theodor Reppe, who holds the domain registration for “wikileaks.de”, the German name for wikileaks.org. According to police documentation, the reason for the search was “distribution of pornographic material” and “discovery of evidence”. Police claim the raid was initiated due to Mr. Reppe’s position as the Wikileaks.de domain owner.

Police did not want to give any further information to Mr. Reppe and no contact was made with Wikileaks before or after the search. It is therefore not totally clear why the search was made, however Wikileaks, in its role as a defender of press freedoms, has published censorship lists for Australia, Thailand, Denmark and other countries. Included on the lists are references to sites containing pornography and no other material has been released by Wikileaks relating to the subject.

Some details of the search raise questions:

  • Wikileaks was not contacted before the search, despite Wikileaks having at least two journalists which are recognized members of the German Press Association (Deutscher Presse Verband).
  • The time of at least 11 police detectives was wasted conducting a futile raid on the private home of volunteer assistant to a media organization.
  • Police asked for the passwords to the “wikileaks.de” domain and for the entire domain to be disabled.
  • Mr Reppe was not informed of his rights; police documentation clearly shows that box to be left unchecked.
  • Contrary to what is stated in the police protocol, Mr. Reppe did not agree to “not having a witness” present.

Ultimately, Mr Reppe refused to sign the police documentation due to its inaccuracies.

The raid appears to be related to a recent German social hysteria around child pornography and the controversial battle for a national censorship system by the German family minister Ursula von der Leyen. It comes just a few weeks after a member of parliament, SPD minister Joerg Tauss had his office and private house searched by police. German bloggers discussing the subject were similarly raided.

Mr. Reppe sponsors the Wikileaks German domain registration and mirrors a collection of Wikileaks US Congressional Research Service reports but is not otherwise operationally involved. Mr Reppe is also maintainer of one of the most popular German Tor-proxy servers (morphium.info) but only the connection to Wikileaks was mentioned during the raid.

Wikileaks.de and other Wikileaks domains were unaffected by the raid.

Wikileaks is a non-profit project, sponsored by transparency groups and investigative journalists world wide. To support our defense of this and other cases, see http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikileaks‘

Is this what it has come to?  Are reputable journalistic organizations no longer allowed to report on the facts of censorship, without the fear of having their peoples’ homes searched?  Are police going to be allowed to take ‘shortcuts’ from proper procedures?

It is no co-incidence that the police raid was not carried out against any of the journalists, or that the WikiLeaks office was not notified:  no, picking on the techie volunteer and raiding his home is a deliberate attempt to intimidate!  It is meant to send a clear and unequivocal message:  if you stand up for your rights, we will get you!

Please, make no mistake:  the goal of the state here is NOT to ‘protect children from abuse’ or ‘protect children from pornography’ (as if THAT second one were the state’s role, when it is clearly 100% the parents’ role)!  No, this is a pretext.  The goal is transparently simple:  assert power, normalize the concept that the government has the power to monitor and censor all your communication, until nothing you say, type, read, see or hear will not go unrecorded, un-stored and, if you dare oppose the government, un-used to destroy you completely and totally!

How do I know this?

It is simple reasoning:

How can you make child pornography?  By recording the act of sexually abusing a child, right?

So, if you prevent children from being sexually abused, you will prevent child pornography, on the internet, or anywhere else.  Still correct?

Therefore, if a government is serious about stopping child pornography on the internet, one would expect such a government to strengthen its laws against pedophilia, would one not?

But, the German government, so eager to protect children from child pornography has already stated that it plans to legalize pedophilia!

Hard to believe, but true!  That a government so eager to throw its weight about, pushing around techie volunteers for reputable journalistic organizations – all in the name of protecting children from child abuse – is actually going to enshrine into law that ‘pedophilia’ is a ‘protected grounds’ against which one may not be discriminated against!

Only the constitutional challenge by a lone German MP has prevented Germany from ratifying the Lisbon Treaty, and the German President had, in October 2008, stated his intention to sign the Lisbon Treaty into law by May 2009…

What is the significance of the Lisbon Treaty?  It is the new set of laws which all EU states must submit to, one which clearly and unequivocally includes ‘pedophilia’ as a ‘protected grounds’ on which one is not allowed to be discriminated against!  If you think I am exaggerating, please, listen to someone who is better at expressing this than I am:

So, the next time an EU politician excuses abuse of power in the name of ‘protecting children from sexual abuse’ – you know they are lying!  If they were truly concerned about the kids, they would stop the practice, NOT LEGALIZE IT!!!

Don’t let their pretense at righteousness fool you:  they are after raw power and are doing nothing less than normalizing these abhorrent practices into accepted means of exerting control over their populace!

Hat tip:  Somebody Think of the Children !

P.S.  My own link to the ‘Danish banned list’ stopped working within 24 hours of when I posted it.
add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , , , , . 1 Comment »

What an evening!

March 21, 2009 — xanthippa

Tonight (OK, so by the ‘clock convention’, it was ‘last night’ – but the sun has not yet risen when I write this, so, to my ‘regimented mind’, this is ‘tonight’) was awesome!

The Neeje Foundation put on an excellent ‘do’!

And, while I would usually avoid (like the plague) an organization whose name and mission statement appears to be as misandristic as this one appears to be.  Yet, the ‘panel’ – as well as the moderator – were irresistable!

While I knew one ‘ought to’ expect brilliance from Tarek Fatah (he is one of my heroes!!!) – and Barbara Kay is no lightweight (metaphorically speaking), either – the whole panel was most awesome!!!

And, I must admit, the topics on which they spoke (and what the panelists said about it) were very relevant:  both in the realms of freedom of speech, freedom of religion and the separation of the mosque (church) and state, but also in the fact that both the female panelists addressed (and lamented) the denigration and disenfranchisement of males in our society!

Since so many awesome and brilliant bloggers (and journalists, too) were there (I sat with Kathy Shaidle – she, too, is one of my heroes!!!), I fully expect that there will be most awesome accounts of what was said tonight, written by people more focused and better at actually writing than I could ever aspire to, very, very soon!

Let me just make some simple observations of my own…not necessarily of what was said, but also of what I made of some of the ‘connections’.  Please, note that the following is my construct – I am not quoting the panelists and I do not want to pretend they said the following ‘stuff’ – this is just my interpretation and musings which are the results of my thoughts in response to what was said tonight…  In other words, my conjecture, this should not reflect negatively on anyone else but me….

We are all aware that in many Islamic countries, women have the legal worth or 1/2 that of a man:  from legal testimony to other aspects of life.  Some of the most Islamist countries legally regard women as 1/2-human:  on par with a boy-child, as far as the legal system is concerned.

Now, this is a very contentious issue:  back in the time of Muhammad – in the region of the world where he lived – to be recognized as 1/2-human was a MAJOR step forward in women’s rights!  And, while I have met Muslims who have ‘frozen’ this interpretation of the status of women in Islam at 1/2 that of a man’s status, I have also met Muslim men who have shown that the eventual ‘goal’ of Muhammad was ‘full equality’ of the sexes – he just had to start somewhere!  And, these Muslims insist that the message of Muhammad was NOT to ‘freeze’ the status of women at 1/2-a-human status, but that by ‘taking the first step’, Muhammad was ordering all Muslims to work towards an eventual equality of the sexes.

OK – so this is NOT the interpretation many Islamists are atuned to.  Granted.  But…

Now, I would like to jump to the ‘other part’ of tonight’s presentation:  the minimization and denigration of the importance of the role of ‘father’ and ‘husband-for-life’….  We all know the popular culture is guilty of this – and the panelists provided some very thought-provoking examples, too.

So, this got me thinking….

What happens if a young man is exposed to BOTH messages???

What happens if he is bombarded with the very palpable social message that he is ‘not necessary’ and that he is ‘weighing down’ his beloved and preventing her from achieving ‘true happiness’ through her own denial for the need of his companionship…..AND he is ALSO bombarded by the message that in the most radicalized forms of Islam, the male (husband, father) is not only an integral part of the family – he RULES it?

Would this combination of ‘denial’ on the one hand, and the exaggeration on the other, have a profound impact on Muslim youths???  Could it not be the very vehicle through which their radicalization could be achieved?

I don’t pretend to have the answers…

In fact, it is rather late at night – following a busy and thought provoking evening.  Yet, if you have ideas of how this combination of social pressures might affect our young people, I would love to hear from you!

UPDATE: Deborah Gyapong has a much better post on what was actually presented and discussed by the panelists at the event.  And, she took pictures!

Posted in freedoms, politics, religion. Tags: , , , , , . 9 Comments »

Pat Condell: ‘Free speech is sacred’

March 20, 2009 — xanthippa

Posted in atheism, freedoms, ignosticism, opression, philosophy, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , . 1 Comment »

The first rule of censorship is that you are not allowed to talk about censorship

March 18, 2009 — xanthippa

WOW!!

This sounds like a bad movie!

(Not that ‘Fight Club’ was a bad movie – just that a ‘Government enforced’ version of ‘Fight Club existence’ would be a very, very bad movie!!!)

This is beyond comprehensible!

OK… I’ll slow down enough to fill you in on what I’m talking about.

Imagine a dystopia where the government has a ‘black list’ of things you are not allowed to do and not allowed to talk about.  Or, perhaps, a list of websites you are not allowed to click on.  They are still visible, you are just not allowed to click on them.  IF you breach this strict prohibition, you will be hunted down and punished, with the full weight of the state hurled at you to crush you.

Pretty bad, right?  Where would you say this is taking place?

Well, on the surface of it, you might suggest places like Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and, perhaps, Pakistan.  Yet, I speak of a different place…

Perhaps more clues are needed in order for you to recognize the country I speak of:  would it be helpful if I told you that there, this ‘black list’ is actually secret?

Yes, you read this correctly:  nobody KNOWS they have broken the rules until AFTER they have broken the rules!

Do you not believe such a thing could happen today???

Well, you would be wrong.

Not only does it happen in our world, it is happening as we are having our virtual conversation:  and it is happening in a ‘Western Democracy’!!!

The ‘black list’?

Is it some ‘democracy-in-name-only, a country stiffeled under the yoke of the EU oppression?  As in the manner of ‘Prison?  Then is the world one…in which there are many confines, wards and dungeons, Denmark being one o’th’worst!’

I’m sorry to disappoint you – I am not speaking of a EU nation-state.

I speak of no other place than Australia!!!

Yes, Australia!!!

The Sydney Morning Herald from 17. March 2009 reports:

‘The Australian communications regulator says it will fine people who hyperlink to sites on its blacklist, which has been further expanded to include several pages on the anonymous whistleblower site Wikileaks.

Wikileaks was added to the blacklist for publishing a leaked document containing Denmark’s list of banned websites.’

Aside:  Just in case you happened to be in Denmark, or wanted to travel there, and did NOT want to run afoul of the local laws by accidentally clicking on one of the thousands of websites banned in Denmark, the ‘Wikileaks’ page listing them is here.

But, please, consider the implications of this action!!!

  1. A number (a very big number) of websites get banned – people get fined for accessing them, and their internet providers are legally obligated to monitor their subscribers’ activity online and notify the government (and provide them with the necessary documentation, to be used in court) if ANY one of their subscribers accesses one of these sites.
  2. An internet website publishes this list of banned websites:  after all, people ought to KNOW where they are not allowed to click – right???
  3. The internet pages actually providing this public notice are themselves banned – for the very reason that they ARE informing people WHAT is and is not legal!!!

In other words, our governments are wrapping themselves in the cloak of righteous indignation over the ‘problem of internet pedophilia’ and banning websites, left, right and centre (though, mostly right of centre)…NOT just sites that (horrid and reprehensible as they are) abuse kids.  And, to make sure that nobody notices EXACTLY WHAT it is they are banning, they will ALSO ban any pages which actually tell people what it is that is banned!!!

So, the first time you will find out that a site is ‘blacklisted’ is when you loose your internet service and get dragged to court for having ‘clicked on something’!!!

And, if you think that only websites that contain ‘child pornography’ (or whatever euphemism you want to use for this horrible, horrible abuse of kids) are being put onto these ‘blacklists’, please, think again (my emphasis):

‘The site has also published Thailand’s internet censorship list and noted that, in both the Thai and Danish cases, the scope of the blacklist had been rapidly expanded from child porn to other material including political discussions.

Already, a significant portion of the 1370-site Australian blacklist – 506 sites – would be classified R18+ and X18+, which are legal to view but would be blocked for everyone under the proposal. The Government has said it was considering expanding the blacklist to 10,000 sites and beyond.’

To infinity 10,000 sites – and beyond!!!

‘EFA said the Government’s “spin is starting to wear thin” and it could no longer be denied that the ACMA blacklist targets a huge range of material that is legal and even uncontroversial.’

And, yes, Australia’s ‘blacklist’ of banned websites is also very, very secret.  As a matter of fact, the article suggests that it was the fear that the Aussie list would also ‘get published’ which prompted the Australian government to ban (block access to) sites which list the Danish ‘blacklist’.

Is THIS what our democracies, the only defenders of the individual’s inherent rights to make his or her own choices, have been reduced to?!?!?  If so, then I want a ticket out of here!

(Sorry, I get really, really worked up over this stuff – this is NOT just some hypothetical thing, this is a REAL THREAT to our freedoms!  Now, let’s get some of you people ‘out there’ – who have the right background to make this technically possible – to start working on a censorship-proof subnet… which will, eventually, replace the now so obviously dying internet‘!)

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

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , , , . 3 Comments »

Divide and Censor

March 14, 2009 — xanthippa

The internet has succeeded in breaking down borders:  political (to some extent) and geographical – with great success.  Paradoxically, it is precisely this success that has created new types of borders.

These ‘virtual borders’ are now between various ‘virtual communities’ which have sprung up around specific fields of interest.

These communities may not be physical, in the old-fashioned sense of communities which get together in one room, yet they are very real communities: rich and vibrant within themselves.  However, there is very little interaction between most of the ‘online communities’.  And, the interaction between these various groups is pretty non-existent.  After all, when there is no reason to interact – why would they?

Yet, this is also our ‘Achille’s heel’ which allows us to be manipulated…

The very fact that there are so many people on the internet, that there are so many different ‘groups’ and ‘communities’ means that we cannot really ‘absorb’ them all into ‘our world’.  Our brains are used to only interacting with a certain number of people (groups) – anything outside of that, we can only conceive of in terms of ‘labels’ and ‘stereotypes’.

(I have gone on and on about this phenomenon in my series of posts on ‘scaling up communities’:  the whole ‘monkeysphere’/’Dunbar’s number thing… the reason why one death is a ‘tragedy’ while a million deaths is a ‘statistic’.)

This is not a bad thing in itself – it is simply the natural way our brain operates.

However, it means that the ‘online community’ is not really one ‘online community’:  rather, it is a mosaic of many, many communities, divided by the strongest border there is:  the border of ‘non interest’

How easy it then becomes for those who wold like to ‘divide and censor’ to manipulate these stereotypes, in order to strip us of our rights, one ‘virtual community’ at a time!!!

Please, consider the following:  for ‘non-techie’ types, what does the phrase ‘peer to peer network’ bring to mind?  Or the name ‘Bit-Torrents’?  Or ‘Pirate Bay’?

Unless I am terribly mistaken, this will make most non-techies think of ‘stealing movies‘:  people who abuse the internet to steal ‘content’ and make it difficult for everyone else.

Yet, my husband and his brother use this method to transmit our family photos to each other:  this way, if our server ever ‘blows up’, we have backups at his house, and vice versa.

My son likes to download ‘public domain’ (i.e. no payment required) games and programming tools, using Bit Torrnets.  No laws are being broken – to the contrary:  many of these people are working hard to improve the internet experience for all of us – free of charge to everybody!

And, there are actually legitimate businesses which use the ‘Bit Torrent’ technology for legitimate, legal, copyright-upholding transactions.

If the terms ‘peer to peer’ and ‘Bit Torrents’ DID make you have a dismissive – or even more negative – reaction, then YOU have been a victim of some wonderful ‘spin’ designed to ‘divide and censor’!!!

And, that does not even take into consideration what happened with ‘Pirate Bay’:  this company was operating WITHIN THE LAW!  Yet, the US movie industry did not like what they were doing:  so, they ‘influenced’ the US lawmakers, who ‘influenced’ the Swedish government, who – despite the advice of its own lawyers that the company is not breaking any laws – Swedish or international – the Swedish government ORDERED A POLICE RAID on the company’s business and siezed its assetts!!!

How is that even possible?

Yet, most ‘online communities’ think this is ‘just kids stealing movies’ – why loose sleep over it?

WHY?

Because it sets precedents, that’s why!!!

In my never-humble-opinion, I have found that most ‘online communities’ outside the ‘dedicated techies’ just could not care about the issues of ‘Bit Torrents’ and ‘channel choking’!

On the other hand…

I have as yet to meet ‘dedicated techies’ – on or off-line – who pay much attention to the ‘Free Speechers’!!!  Yeah, a bunch of people, going on about court cases and nazis – so what?  Instead, they try to figure out how to technically circumvent the latest form of censorship of their channels…

Then there are the people who are fighting the ‘Creeping Sharia/Anti-Islamists’ – they do, to some extent, overlap with the ‘Free Speechers’.  But, not totally.  They show little interest in the curbing of free speech, if it does not involve Islamists – come on, be honest!  And the Free Speechers do support the ‘Creeping Sharia/Anti-Islamists’ to a great extent – especially when it comes to the suppression of free speech on the topic of Islamist atrocities….

I suggest that the overlap between these two groups is so great because they are currently both threatened from similar sources.  And, I suggest that the ‘techies’ do not overlap with these two groups because the danger to them is coming from a ‘completely different direction’!

But, is it???

I suggest to you that it is NOT.

I know, I am not doing a good job of expressing here what I am trying to say.  I have re-written this at least 5 times, and it is getting worse, not better….  I feel like my ‘focus’ is slipping away as I try to make my explanations understandable – while when I gloss over the explanations and focus on my main point, the whole thing sounds hollow, because the explanations are too shallow to make much sense…

So, please, let me try to speak more plainly….  I’ll go to point form – then, whatever needs to be covered deeper, please, comment on and I will do my best to expand on it.

1.  We can only enjoy our level of online freedom (which translates into practical freedom in ‘off-line’ life) if the internet remains ‘free’ (NOT monetarily – just as in ‘not censored’)

2.  Freedom of Speech is constantly being attacked in our society… several completely different guises and excuses

3.  The ‘ human rights’ component:  the ‘Free Speechers/Anti-Islamists’ are aware of this one
– The UN submission to ‘Blasphemy laws’ (and their desire to force all of its member nations to comply with these)
– The ‘Human Rights Commissions’ and their thought police, political correctness busybodies…
– The EU’s manipulation… even legalizing pedophelia under the guise of ‘tolerance’ -Lisbon treaty… mandatory…
– Can you say ‘Geert Wilders’?

4.  The ‘commercial/IP rights’ component:
– Powerful lobbies from entertainment AND soft&hardware makers are succeeding in reducing ‘consumer rights’
– ‘Fair use’ is more and more limited – companies have the right for more and more intrusive ‘monitoring’
– ‘Consumer privacy’ is being legislated away

5.  The ‘community protection’ component
– Under the guise of ‘community protection’, more and more privacy is being legislated away
– More and more intrusive methods of monitoring are being implemented: ostensibly to protect kids from pedophelia (!!!)
– ‘Accussation’ of something triggers penalties as if one were found ‘guilty’, to stop them ‘doing harm’ IF they were guilty…
– And, this falls loosely into this ‘community protection’ – but we are talking about the ‘environmental fascism’ movement,  which is also pushing for more intrusive ‘monitoring and compliance’ for ‘stuff’ in order to ‘protect’ – yet which is also practicing censorship in a very real way…  Personally, I think these are eco-statists, who are undermining the health of our environment by attempting to ‘freeze it’ in its current state – but that is a different rant.  Yet, they ARE a very real part of this ‘censorship’ puzzle…

To sum it up:  this is a bit of a ‘picer move’ happening.  No, I don’t think there is a wide-ranging conspiracy thingy happening! Yet, the effects of each of these separate forces are in the same directions, and are supportive of each other. Sort of like wawes, that build upon each other, rising in amplitude as one is superimposed over the other….until it sweeps all notions of ‘Freedom of Speech’ out to sea!!!

Because there IS a connection:  the GOVERNMENT is the connection.  It is our government which controls the laws on how ‘human rights’ are – or are not – observed.  And, it is the government who passes the ‘consumer’ laws.  AND, it is the government which REGULATES the industries:  and, any industry ‘actor’ which would not ‘comply’ with government regulation will loose its license to do business…while compliance with the government policies in a highly regulated marketplace usually equals (or comes close to) a monopoly for the company doing the complying…

All the ‘threads’ lead back to the same place… givning our governments grweater and greater control over every aspect of our lives.  And, while I think most democracies are not ‘intentionally evil’, I AM very suspicious of the bureaucracies which run the governments…  I have seen too many high-level bureaucrats who are much too skilled at handling the elected governments…

So, what we need to do is to get all these diverse groups which would be affected by the end of the internet as we know it (and as I have written about in my last post), and begin comparing notes.  Because, people may not always be ‘smart’, but we are always ‘clever:  those who would oppress – whether for ideological or commercial reasons – there are laws which give someone (government, business – whatever) an ability to oppress, people will ALWAYS find the maximum possible way to do the oppressing.

That is just human nature…

So, we need to seriously begin comparing notes! Not to dismiss each other, because of the ‘labels’ applied to the different online communities by those who would like to eliminate us!  Because, if we stay divided, each of us will only see a bit of the picture – and none of us will build a sufficient defense…if that were even possible!

I suppose one could call it a case of ‘DIVIDE AND CENSOR’!

And, perhaps, we need to begin to build an alternative to the internet:  something where there will not be centralized ‘providers’ who can be contrlolled by governments (and thus become tools of censorship) – yet, which would connect us all, the way the internet does now.  A sort of an ‘ungerground internet’, if you please… a SUBNET!  I don’t know HOW, but knowing we must beging to think about it is a start!

Sorry to have rambled on so long….and for sounding so ‘preachy’.  Perhaps it’s my Cassandra complex that’s kicking in.  It’s just that – I can see it happening!

And I don’t know how to fix it… and it really, really frightens me!

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, religion, science, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , , , . 3 Comments »

Is it time to abolish the UN?

March 11, 2009 — xanthippa

This year, the UN plans to make its ‘Blasphemy Resolution’ BINDING on ALL ITS MEMBER STATES!!!!!!!!!

When the League of Nations became irrelevant, it was abolished.

For those of you cursed with a ‘recent’ North American education, here is a very brief explanation:

Following ‘The Great War’ (WWI), people decided that wars were a bad thing that should – and could – be prevented.  So, they set up this organization whose purpose was to do exactly that by providing a supranational governance structure and a forum for a negotiated conflict resolution.  They called it the League of Nations.

Promptly, the new ‘world government’ set about defining The Rights of Man, and other unarguably worthy things.  Collectivists of the world unite, and all that…

Yet, the League of Nations was singularly bad at actually accomplishing any of the things it had claimed it wanted to do.  For example, when the LoN tried to give a stern talking to the likes of Mussolini and Hitler, Mussolini told them that ‘human rights’ don’t apply to ‘Ethiopians’ because they are ‘not fully human’ (!) and Hitler told them they had no right to interfere in Germany’s internal policies (you know, the Holocaust).

It was at roughly this point in time that people realized that the League of Nations was not actually doing what it thought it was doing, and pulled the plug on it.

Following WWII, people decided that wars were a bad thing that should – and could – be prevented.  So, they set up this organization whose purpose was to do exactly that by providing a supranational governance structure and a forum for a negotiated conflict resolution.  They called it the United Nations.

Promptly, the new ‘world government’ set about making the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and other unarguably worthy things.  Collectivists of the world unite, and all that…

Sound familiar?

Except that, the UN was LoN.2:  an upgraded release, with much more functionality and much wider reaching ambitions.

Now, the UN does not only want to ‘prevent war’ by providing a supranational governance structure, or to resolve international conflicts peacefully.  Now, it had taken upon itself the role of a ‘World Busybody’:  from the environment to our internal laws, nothing is outside of the UN’s scope of interest.

Don’t believe me just how intrusive the UN plans to be into the economic and social development of sovereign states?  Read it yourself – and you WILL weep!

Look at something as simple as the ages-old concept:  freedom of the seas!

Contrary to some modern claims that this is a new idea, the concept that the seas were not anyone’s sovereign property and that all have the right to travel them freely was a concept that has been around since (at least) the time of Cicero.  Yet, the UN has – criminally, in my never-humble-opinion – chosen to abort the ‘Freedom of the Seas’ and replace it with ‘Law of the Seas’!

Now, in this post, I don’t intend to delve too deeply into the L.O.S.T.:  this would take at least 1000 words, and most of them expletive.  Let it suffice to point out that under this ‘law’, the UN would have to protect all the seas:  so, anything that might affect them would be under their jurisdiction – including all the watersheds!  Want to build a city?  Is it in a watershed that drains to some sea somewhere?  Then the UN has the right to say when and how you can do it:  it has to protect the waters, you see.

Yes:  L.O.S.T. gives the UN the power over all the water on Earth!!!  And, the right – nay, the DUTY – to regulate EVERYTHING which might ‘affect water’.

Am I exaggerating?  Check it out.  Please!  I would very much like to be wrong on this one.  I may be presenting the extreme to which the letter of this ‘convention’ may be applied – I will grant this easily.  Yet, when have humans who want power have ‘established’ something, history shows us that they WILL push things ALL THE WAY to the extremes.  Therefore, it is only prudent that we examine what COULD be permitted under a law – because, eventually, it WILL be.

You see, replacing ‘Freedom’ with ‘Law’ is something the UN loves to do.  And, gaining more and more power over its member nations – being more and more intrusive in their internal policies – well, that is part of the observable pattern of the UN behaviour.

Please, consider this latest little ‘drop in the bucket’.

We are all aware that for several years in a row, the UN has submitted to pressures from ‘religious groups’ and has declared that the human right to freedom of speech MUST be limited in order to protect religious sensibilities.  Most of us refer to this as ‘The Blasphemy Law’.

What this means – in practice – is the re-criminalization of blasphemy against any religion in general, and Islam in particular.

By – yet again submitting – the UN has turned the clock of our civilization to back before the time of the Renaissance!!!

IT GETS WORSE!!!

This year, the UN plans to make its ‘Blasphemy Resolution’ BINDING on ALL ITS MEMBER STATES!!!!!!!!!

HOW DARE THEY!!!

Frankly, I don’t care WHICH religion:  I WILL BLASPHEME THEM ALL!!!

I suppose I am an ‘equalist’ when it comes to BLASPHEMY!

Why?

Because while I respect each person’s individual spirituality, I regard EACH and EVERY religion to be a manipulation of this very human spiritual dimension, sub-verted into the hands of powerhungry individuals in order to coerce obedience from the rest of us.

If THIS is what the UN wants to impose, I say it is time to abolish it!

What do YOU say?

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

Posted in freedoms, ignosticism, opression, philosophy, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , . 4 Comments »

Anti-Islamist coalition

February 20, 2009 — xanthippa

A new blog has entered ‘The ‘Sphere’!

Anti-Islamist Coalition

Anti-Islamist Coalition

Thanks to Babazee for creating this logo!

And, just to avoid any possible confusion, let me re-state this once again:

Islam is not the same as Islamism.

Islam is a religion, which is practiced in peace by millions of wonderful people.  I know and love some of them, and I certainly respect many of them.

Islamism is not the same sort of thing at all.  It is a political movement, intent on world domination, which just happens to be dressed up in the guise of Islam. These types of political movements have plagued humanity for thousands of years – and they have usually sought to legitimize themselves by wrapping themselves in the respectability of a ‘religious movement.  It just happens that this particular political movement is abusing Islam for its ends!

Certainly, Islamists believe themselves to be following Islam – which is why they cite it as a justification for their crimes.  And many Islamists truly believe what they are doing is following their god’s will – which is what makes this such a dangerous combination.

Which is what makes it that same old …

Go ahead and hate your neighbour,

Go ahead and cheat your friend,

Do it in the name of Heaven Islam,

So you can justify it in the end …

And THAT is why Islamism must be opposed.

It is an insult to Islam, and a deadly threat to the rest of us.  Never forget what happened to the ‘Mountain People’…  If you don’t know, then, listen, children, to the story that was recorded long ago…

(Please, take a special note of how the ‘Valley People’ reacted when invited in to share, as equals…  Of couse, were I the composer, I would have the ‘Treasure’ say ‘Freedom of Speech and Equal Rights for ALL’!  In my never-humble-opinion, without these, there can be no true peace!  But, that might be too big a mouthful for a song…)

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

Posted in atheism, freedoms, human nature, opression, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , . Leave a Comment »
« Older posts
Newer posts »