Khamisa Sawadi: yet another victim of Sharia!

Khamisa Sawadi is a 75-year-old woman – and a widow.

Since she is, under Saudi law, allowed to leave her house without a male guardian (who must be a close relative), she had often asked neighbours to help her get food.  This time, she had asked her nephew, Fahd al-Anzi, for help.

Fahd al-Anzi and his friend and business partner Hadiyan bin Zein did indeed bring several loaves of bread – Khamisa Sawadi’s one week’s supply of food (!!!) to the old woman.  Most normal people would consider this to be a good act, demonstrating kindness and respect to one’s elders.  Right?

Well, not according to all people.

Someone in the neighbourhood saw the two young men enter the old woman’s presence – and dissapproved.  This busybody then went and reported to the ‘religious police’ (what a concept, eh?  ‘religious police’!!!), properly called ‘Commission for the propagation of virtue and prevention of vice’, who promptly arrested the young men…

It seems that the young man’s father, brother of the widow’s late husband, had also complained to the police that his sister-in-law is ‘corrupting’ his son!

Here is where things get a little sketchy:  the woman was her nephew’s ‘milk-mother’ (being a child’s wet-nurse, under Sharia, gives a woman an equivalent status to that of its ‘mother’, when defining ‘close male relatives’) and should therefore, under strict Sharia interpretation, be innocent of any wrongdoing.  Yet, the AP news report cryptically states:

“Because she said she doesn’t have a husband and because she is not a Saudi [Sawadi was born in Syria], conviction of the defendants of illegal mingling has been confirmed,” the court verdict read.

So, a woman’s marital status and place of birth are the determining factors of her guilt???

And, what was the punishment the court ordered for this 75 year old woman for asking her surrogate son to bring her food?

40 LASHES, 4 months in prison and deportation!!!

Both young men will also be lashed…

I cannot wrap my brain around this!  Truly:  I got a bad headache when I first heard of it, and it has been getting worse all day.  I really, really get worked up about these types of things!  Do you know why?  Here is a picture of ‘whipping’ as administered in Saudi Arabia…

Can a 75-year-old woman survive this?  And then, 4 months in prison (instead of hospitalization)?

But of course, that is not of interest to the very people who have made up – and now enforce – these laws!  After all, they would have been perfectly willing to see her starve to death – which is why the ‘religious police’ got ‘tipped off’ by someone in the neighbourhood that this ‘immoral act’ of bringing an old widow her weekly supply of food is happening!

That is pretty scary!!!

Yet, there is hope:  the AP article reports that unjust and downright ridiculous rulings such as this one are alienating some of the population.

“Others have also spoken out against the case against Sawadi, accusing the religious police of going too far”

And, if this Saudi woman rights activist, Wajiha Al-Huweidar is correct, there is indeed hope.  Not in the near future, but hope!

“Look, the early signs that a wrong ideology is dying  are fanaticism and extremism.  This is obvious.

Have you ever seen a dead body that is soft?  When the body dies, it goes rigid.  Similarly, this ideology will become increasingly rigid, and will reach the height of fanaticism, but it is constantly in the process of dying.

Take a look at history.

Let’s examine what happened to the Church in Europe.  It became rigid and persecuted ideologies, killing and burning scientists, until people rebelled against it and this led to its collapse.

History tells us this holds true for all ideologies…”

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

The plight of the Palestinian people in Gaza

More and more Palestinians in Gaza blame Hamas for all the violence they are suffering!!!

Most Palestinians may have voted for Hamas during the last elections, but they have since learned that living under the rule of Hamas is terrible!  Now, they know that Hamas and their disrespect for human life is the cause of their suffering – including the Israeli attacks! 

But, what can they do now? Who will protect them from their own government?  Hamas may have been legitimately elected in Gaza, but they are not using legitimate methods to govern!

Since coming to power, Hamas has seriously oppressed the Gazan population.  Right away, opposition party members (Fatah) were jailed – many were executed.  Journalists were gagged:  no more freedom of the press, thus keeping the world from seeing what they were doing to the people who had elected them.  Demonstrations by the civilian population were brutally suppressed (doctors being specifically targetted).

And, not much was said about it in the world… This is the ‘soft racism’ of mainstream media which consistently fails to report abuses done by a ‘favoured’ groups, like Hamas has become. 

Please, take a look.  This is how Hamas treats the Gazans:

 

Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia on Hamas, which would appear to give independant support to the claims in the video above:

In addition to killing Israeli civilians and armed forces, Hamas has also attacked suspected Palestinian collaborators, and Fatah rivals.[167]

On February 2007, members of the Palestinian Red Crescent, speaking on conditions on anonymity, said that Hamas had confiscated their humanitarian supply convoys that were destined for Palestinian civilians. Hamas claims the supplies were heading to former members of Fatah.[citation needed]

Human Rights Watch has cited a number of summary executions as particular examples of violations of the rules of warfare, including the case of Muhammad Swairki, 28, a cook for Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas’s presidential guard, who was thrown to his death, with his hands and legs tied, from a 15-story apartment building in Gaza City.[168]

Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups frequently extra judicially execute or otherwise punish those they consider collaborators with Israel. Frequent killings of unarmed people have also occurred during Hamas-Fatah clashes.[169][170]

Thousands of angry Hamas loyalists marched on 24 February 2008 at the funeral of a Muslim preacher who died in PNA custody, turning the ceremony into a rare show of defiance against President Mahmoud Abbas.[171]

Hamas imprisoned their political opponenets, tortured and executed them…  Hamas stole humanitarian supplies from the already suffering people, sold them to the highest bidder and used the money to buy more weapons.  When they could no longer buy sewage pipes  from Israel because it was discovered they used them to build Kassam rockets, they started ripping up the already aging sewer system for more pipes….causing sewage floods severe enough that some people (including kids) died. 

As disgusting as it is, it is true.  Hamas did not care if what they did caused the children in Gaza to drown in sewage, if it helped them fight Israel…  Do you think the people of Gaza have not realized this? 

 

Hamas may have been legitimately elected, but they are not using legitimate methods to govern!

Here is another video which shows how Hamas ‘maintains order’ in Gaza…

When Israel has invaded Gaza – in order to stop the shelling of its civilian populations by Hamas – what was the first thing Hamas did?  It shot several hundred Gazan civilians in their legs (kneecapped them) because they feared that the very people of Gaza would welcome the Israeli forces as liberators from Hamas oppression and help them!!!

Let me say it again, in no uncertain words:  Hamas knows that the civilian population of Gaza is ready to work even with the ‘hated Israelis’, if it will free them of Hamas!

Hamas, whose top leadership lives in Syria – not Gaza – has many goals… but the well-being of ordinary Gazans is not one of them.  Now, the Palestinian people living in Gaza know it, too. 

Hamas is anti-Israel, not pro-Palestinian people!  The two are not the same!

Please, if you wish to support the Palestinian people, if you are truly moved by their plight and wish to join a demonstration to show your support – do NOT tolerate any show of support for Hamas there.  Please, tell any co-demonstrator who seems unaware of this that showing support for Hamas is anti-Palestinian people. 

Please, do not allow the oppressors to continue to hijack the demonstrations meant to show support for their very victims.  Support the people of Gaza, not Hamas!

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

Religion (definition): part 2

To recap from Religion (definition): part 1 :

Religion is a particular state of mind.  It covers beliefs (faith), convictions and even concepts or principles that humans find note-worthy, worship-worthy or love-worthy.  I attempted to demonstrate that different people define ‘religion’ very differently from each other (and from my above definition), providing example of a school librarian who only considered several sects of Christianity as ‘religion’ (not even covering all of Christianity) and classifying all else as ‘mythology’.  As there is no provision in our society for ‘protection from discrimination on the grounds of mythology’, should everyone define the term as narrowly (or according to their own particular liking), this would effectively place many ‘religions’ outside of legal protection…. 

C.G. Jung’s definition of ‘religion’ (which I happen to like because it is clear, concise and can be workable in both a personal and a legal context – as well as being a definition I think most people could accept), is as follow:

Religion appears to me to be a peculiar attitude of the mind which could be formulated in accordance with the original use of the word religio, which means a careful consideration and observation of certain dynamic factors that are conceived as “powers”: spirits, demons, gods, laws, ideas, ideals, or whatever name man has given to such factors in his world as he has found powerful, dangerous, or helpful enough to be taken into careful consideration, or grand, beautiful, and meaningful enough to be devoutly worshiped and loved.

This definition would effectively eliminate the problem which I cited in the ‘librarian’ example – and more.

This definition of religion limits it to a peculiar attitude of the mindnot the practices or ritualswhich accompany it.

As such, whereever freedom of religion was guaranteed, a person could believe, admit and openly discuss all aspects of their religion freely, without regard to how ‘offensive’ this may be to other religions or to some members of the society.   However, since religion is limited (by definition) to a state of mind – not actions – one could not claim protection under ‘freedom of religion’ laws for taking action which would contravene the laws of the land that person would happen to be living in.  In my never-humble-opinion, drawing a very firm line between ‘beliefs/thoughts/ideas’ and expressing them freely (protected) and actions (not protected) is very, very important.

All actions which contravene the laws of the land – no matter how much rooted in or motivated by ‘religion’ – ought not enjoy any protection under ‘freedom of religion’.

Example:

Human sacrifice is an integral part of many bona fide religions.  From ancient Egypt and other parts of Africa, to China and Japan, to Europe, and the Americas – human sacrifice was an integral part of many religious rituals.  If actions based on religious belief were to be protected under ‘freedom of religion’, any person claiming to subscribe to any one of these religions could commit ritual murder without fear of prosecution or any kind of legal action.  The murderer would be protected under ‘freedom of religion’.

I particularly selected human sacrifice for my example because it is so extreme.  Yet, it is a well documented part of many religious rituals!  If there is a blanket protection for actions based on religious belief, even such extreme acts as ritualized murder would be protected.

In no way am I proposing that this ought to be so.  To the contrary.  I am demonstrating in as strong terms as I can think of that ‘freedom of religion’ must not be allowed to excuse acts which are in breech of secular laws.  OK, so the ‘religious practice’in question need not be as drastic as human sacrifice:  it could be polygamy, ritual rape, paedophilia (child-brides), ritual cannibalism, genital mutilation (male and female) – the list could go on for pages… 

The particulars of the practice are really not important.  The key is that freedom of religion ought to protect one from discrimination based on thoughts, belief, ideas – but must not in any way protect behaviour which contravenes the secular laws of the land.

We must protect everyone’s right to believe and hold ideas freely and openly.  At the same time, we must not allow cries of ‘this is part of my religion’ to protect illegal behaviour:  this would only lead to the hijacking of religions by criminal minded people or those who wish to oppress -or worse. 

It would be wrong of us to allow religions to be abused in this manner.

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

Big Brother in India

While most of our information is saturated with the news of the latest wave of fighting in the Middle East, with the latest terrorist attacks around the world, it is understandable that we become more and more afraid about our physical well being.   Add to this the whole ‘world financial crisis’ and the fear that we might soon loose our ability to pay our bills…

This has lead to two things:  increased sense of danger (justifiably, perhaps) with the accompanying desire to give our ‘authorities’ all the means necessary to protect us (physically and fiscally) on the one hand and a sense of apathy (or, perhaps, information overload) when it comes to ‘non-urgent’ or ‘non-critical’ news. 

It is understandable – Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, and all that. 

These dangers are very real.  Yet, let’s face it:  for most of us, they are not as immediately dangerous as the atmosphere created by the mainstream media would make us feel.  (Yes, I do use the word feel rather than think – most of this coverage beamed constantly at us is not designed to make us think, but rather to evoke an emotional response from us:  feelings and emotions sell better than making people think does.)

While we are busy paying attention to these perceived dangers, we are not paying attention to some very real, very immediate dangers around us.  Perhaps they may not deprive us of our livelihood, or our life – but they are certainly depriving us of our liberty!

We are all aware that in many ‘not-so-free’ states, internet censorship is high.  Very high.  Malaysia, for example, has now been monitoring Malaysian bloggers to make sure they did not post anything that could be insulting to Islam.  (Actually, this does seem in keeping with the UN again passing the ‘blasphemy is not allowed under free speech’ resolution…)   And we all remember the fuss the MSM reporters kicked up when they got to the Beijing Olympics and found their internet access limited:  they did not particularly care if the Chinese citizens were oppressed or not (after all, they went to Beijing to ‘celebrate’ the current Chinese oppressors), they were just upset that their own ‘special privilages’ may have been limited….  But, I am going off on a tangent again…

The next country whose internet Big Brother has turned his attention to?  India.

Many people consider India to be a part of ‘The West’ – and, despite the fact that it is geographically located rather east, I concur that, philosophically, economically and politically, India is indeed more of a ‘Western’ country than not.  It is a democracy – and quite a big one – where the standard of living has risen, education has become the standard, and people do enjoy a lot of freedoms (including the freedom of religion).  In my never-humble-opinion, India has been succeeding in integrating the best things from ‘The West’ into its distinctly ‘Eastern’ culture – and has not lost her identity in the process.  No country is perfect, of course, but – as countries go – I think India is moving in the right direction.

That is why I was so chilled when I learned that the extent of interntet survailance which India’s new laws would permit (nay, require!).  Via Slashdot and Zero Paid , here is an article (very well written) on Countercurrents.org by Binu Karunakaran:  ‘India Sleepwalks to Total Surveillance’.

The Information Technology (Amendment) Bill, 2006 passed by the Indian Parliament recently allows the government to intercept messages from mobile phones, computers and other communication devices to investigate any offence. Not just cognizable offence, the kind you witnessed in Mumbai 26/11, but any offence.

Any email you send, any message you text are now open to the prying eyes of the government. So are the contents of your computer you surfed in the privacy of your home. “

The amended Act also grants the state absolute power to block access to any website in the national interest. In short a total gag and surveillance act that doesn’t set any limits for law enforcers, or have inbuilt safeguards against misuse. “

‘Policing’ and ‘pornography’ (in one form or another):  these are the two things always evoked as states usurp freedoms – this is the predictable pattern!  ‘National security’ and ‘morality’ – how come we are still buying into this debunked pretence???  (Yes, I have written on this before, so I don’t want to belabour the point…but, are humans really this gullible?)

What is quite frightening in the current laws passed by India is not just the extent to which these laws abolish privacy, but also the means through which the laws are to be implemented:

“…A law so sweeping in its powers that it allows a police officer in the rank of a sub-inspector to walk in or break in to the privacy of your home and see if you were surfing porn or not. It’s the personal morality of the official that will decide whether the picture/content you were looking at was lascivious or appeals to prurient interest.”

I wonder if Jennifer Lynch, the chief opressor of Human Rights in Canada, is planning any expensive trips to India to ‘study’ these laws – and to try to figure out how to implement them here!

In his article, Binu Karunakaran goes on to explain that people in India are now going to have to follow 3 new commandments:

  1. Thou shalt not author a joke.  Not even forward one.
  2. Thou shalt not surf Bollywood news (even things not explicitly pornographic, but ones which could ‘evoke lascivious thoughts’, are banned).
  3. Thou shalt not watch porn.

He explains each commandment.  Read the whole article hereif you dare!

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

DMCA’s a an instrument of censorship

As 2009 opens, I am encouraged to see that more and more people are waking up to the dangers to the growing trend of censorship of free speech – with the dangers this entails!

It really does not matter who it is that is attempting to impose censorship of free speech:  it is the attempt itself that must be opposed, by every freely thinking human being, regardless of their particular world view, philosophy, religion, or whatever else they choose to call their outlook on life!

In Canada, we have seen the insultingly called ‘human rights commissions’ censoring any speech that seems to advance the Christian point of view.  Ezra Levant higlighted this when he demonstrated that publishing the very same words which got a Christian pracher, father Boissoin, a lifetime ban (!!!) on conveying his opinions on marriage and homosexuality (he was, among other things, a marriage councellor, so this, in fact, deprived him of his livelihood). Yet, when Mr. Levant – a Jew – published the very same letter that father Boission had written, he was not persecuted…. 

Thus, Mr. Levant demostrated clearly that it was the speaker’s religious affiliation – not the words he spoke (or published) – which determined his ‘guilt’….

On the other hand, we have the ‘YouTube case’ where several radicalized Christian organizations had abused the Digiatal Millenium Copyright Act in an attempt to censor areligious and anti-rligious voices.  It really is chilling!  Please, join in the fight to stop DMC abuse to impose censorship on this particular forum or free thought:

All of this is not happening in a ‘vacuum’ or in some sort of ‘isolation’.  During this time, the UN has, quietly, decided that it is reasonable to limit freedom of speech in order to suppress ANY SPEECH that would criticize any ‘religion’!  This should strike the fear of censorship into every one of our hearts!

The great philosopher Hypatia had said:

“All forms of dogmatic religions are fallatious and should never be accepted by self-respecting persons as final!”

While I agree wholeheartedly with Hypatia’s sentiment, if it would not be too presumptuous of me, I would like to ‘update’ her statement to encompass the relalities of today:

“All forms of dogmatic doctorines (religious or secular) are fallatious and must never be accepted by self-respecting persons as final – and must never be allowed to form a basis for laws and policies!”

Hypatia’s martyrdom marked the end of the classical era and the onset of the ‘Dark Ages’:  times where thought was replaced by blind obedience to dogmatic doctorine, learning was replaced by ignorance, respect for knowledge was replaced by book-burning and the destruction of all who entertained ‘opposing thought’

Are we at similar crossroads now?

Much of what is happening in the world indicates that we just might be. 

Yet, the dawn of 2009 is also bringing to us the beginning of the awareness of the danger of being at such a crossroads!  And, whether it is ‘Christian thought’ which is being censored – or which is attempting to do the censoring – the ‘dogma-affiliation’ (religious or secular dogma, it really makes little difference) is much less important than the action it takes:  censoring free speech and, by extention, free thought!  I really do not care who it is that is the censor, or who is being censored.  

Those are just the details of the larger precedent:  the desire and ability to censor!

This is something we must all stand together to oppose.  I just hope enough of us realize this and, setting aside our doctorinal differences, we lend our voices to the battle which would silence us all!

Corporate censorship – tip of the iceberg…

‘The Economy of Ideas’ by John Perry Barlow, the co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, is an excellent (if a little long – but well worth reading) essay published in 1994 in Wired Magazine.  I would be a visionary essay were it published today!  Here, Barlow warns us that in the coming years, corporate censorship could be the greatest danger to our freedom of speech.

A provocative – but well reasoned – position, to say the least. 

“Throughout the history of copyrights and patents, the proprietary assertions of thinkers have been focused not on their ideas but on the expression of those ideas. The ideas themselves, as well as facts about the phenomena of the world, were considered to be the collective property of humanity.”

“Notions of property, value, ownership, and the nature of wealth itself are changing more fundamentally than at any time since the Sumerians first poked cuneiform into wet clay and called it stored grain. Only a very few people are aware of the enormity of this shift, and fewer of them are lawyers or public officials.”

“Whenever there is such profound divergence between law and social practice, it is not society that adapts. Against the swift tide of custom, the software publishers’ current practice of hanging a few visible scapegoats is so obviously capricious as to only further diminish respect for the law. “

“I believe that law, as we understand it, was developed to protect the interests which arose in the two economic “waves” which Alvin Toffler accurately identified in The Third Wave. The First Wave was agriculturally based and required law to order ownership of the principal source of production, land. In the Second Wave, manufacturing became the economic mainspring, and the structure of modern law grew around the centralized institutions that needed protection for their reserves of capital, labor, and hardware.

Both of these economic systems required stability. Their laws were designed to resist change and to assure some equability of distribution within a fairly static social framework. The empty niches had to be constrained to preserve the predictability necessary to either land stewardship or capital formation.

In the Third Wave we have now entered, information to a large extent replaces land, capital, and hardware, and information is most at home in a much more fluid and adaptable environment. The Third Wave is likely to bring a fundamental shift in the purposes and methods of law which will affect far more than simply those statutes which govern intellectual property.” (my emphasis) 

Barlow makes the case that corporate interests will, if allowed, protect their investment in the ‘ideas’ which are the ‘currency’ of the Third Wave – and that could involve significant curbing of our freedom of expression.

Interestingly enough, I have come across this video (and there are many others which raise this issue) that might just demonstrate a tiny little bit of what Barlow is talking about:

It is something to ponder….

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

Help fight Sharia

It took the Western society several centuries to separate the Church and the State. I like that.

No longer are great thinkers like Bruno (and many, many others) burned alive for the crime of saying what they think… It took a lot of work and many lives, but we have achieved a wonderful thing: we govern ourselves by laws which are made by men (I use the term inclusively) – so they can change to accommodate our evolving society. As flawed as this system is, this system respects our human rights, regardless of who we happen to be.

In contrast, all forms of religious laws are necessarily oppressive: they are dictated by immutable dogma which does not evolve along with the society. Here, I should be clear that I am not critical of religious laws that people choose to impose upon themselves in addition to the society’s legal system. I do not mean the term ‘religious laws’ in this sense. What I am describing is using religious laws as the legal system of a society. That is a very different thing.

The effect of dogma-based legal systems are always to freeze the society in the time and place where these laws were formed. As the circumstances of the society change, this society has no room to evolve to accommodate these changes… Social stagnation necessarily follows.

We have seen this replayed in many societies, in many different times. That is why I find it so surprising that some Western democracies are returning to this oppressive system.

As many of you may be aware, Britain has instituted Sharia courts as part of its legal system. Yes, it is true. Sharia court decisions are now legally binding in Britain. Yes, it is true. Even though the Sharia courts operated in Britain in an unofficial capacity for years (and this was widely reported on early in 2008), their ‘official’ status is not all that widely known about, especially in the USA. Perhaps this is because this happened in September of 2008….when much of the Western media was busy covering the US presidential election (and not much else).

I must be honest here – Sharia scares me. It scares me a lot. As an immigrant (and as someone who still helps immigrants learn English), I get to meet a lot of people who come to Canada from all kinds of places: including places where Sharia is the legal system.  They have helped me understand exactly how Sharia works…  And even though we have succeeded in exorcising the spectre of official Sharia in Ontario, there is more and more ‘Sharia creep’ in our society. 

This makes me feel powerless and frustrated.  Which is why I was very happy to find that there IS something every one of us can do to help stop Sharia’s growth!  It may not be much, but every avalanche starts with a snowflake…

The above link is a petition which people worldwide can sign to protest the institution of Sharia Courts in Britain.  One does not have to be British to sign it.  Every signature counts:  it was the large scale protests by Muslim women in Europe that helped avert the imposition of Sharia on our Canadian Muslims. 

So, if you, too, think that separating state from religion – be it a church, a mosque, a temple or a coven – if you think separating these is a good idea, here is your chance to stand up and be counted.  (Well, actually, more like ‘click and be counted’, but you get the idea..)

Here is the statement from the petition:

Global Statement

Sharia Law is discriminatory, cruel and barbaric.

People of all nations should be unequivocally supported in their struggle against Sharia law and should be able to live in societies where universal human rights and nationwide citizenship rights are guaranteed.

There is no place in the 21st century for Sharia.  Full stop.

The full manifesto is here.

You can sign the petition here

(edit – adding in a video on it)

Go forth and sign!  And don’t forget to share the linkie with your friends!

 

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

The rise of ‘Unions’ – Part 1

This is part of The Big Picture series of posts – my attempt to explain what is happening in the world around us.

Trade Unions  (labour unions) had been a puzzle to me for years:  I could not reconcile their stated goal, their self-proclaimed ‘raison d’etre’, with their behaviour. 

For years – while a teen, I watched my parent’s employers and their attitudes towards their employees.  My mom worked for a large crown corporation – a union shop – while my dad worked for a huge, multinational hi-tech company (no union). 

I had learned in school that unions were there solely to protect the employees from the ruthlessness of the employer – yet, my mom’s militant union constantly bullied her and caused her incredible stress.  Even when the union was not planning a strike – there were a lot of tentions raised by them in everyday life at my mom’s work.  And whenever the union ‘pushed’ the employer, the employer ‘pushed’ right back, leaving the employees stuck in the middle.  It was stressful, to say the least.

Contrast that with my dad’s employer:  they had first class benefits (my mom often used my dad’s ‘family member’ plan, when her own union-won plan would not cover things), they had much higher salaries (OK – so it was a high-tech company, but even their secretaries were better paid than the secretaries at my mom’s work), there was hardly any discord or any of the ’employer-employee stress’ that was present at my mom’s work.  There were family picnics and all kinds of ‘family stuff’ at my dad’s work (like summer jobs for employees’ kids, if they wanted them) that were completely unthinkable at my mom’s work.

It seemed to me that while my dad’s non-unionized employer motivated their employees with the proverbial ‘carrot’, my mom’s unionized place of work employed what could only be called a ‘double stick’ – one weilded by the employer, the other by the union.

Since then, I have worked a number of jobs – two of them unionized.  I have had good employers whom I would go to the end of the world for – and bad ones, whom I would like to leave at the end of the world.  And, I have started a number of small businesses which employed people – so, I guess I have had a ‘job’ as the employer, too.  Yet, I must admit, that my two unionized jobs were by far the most stressful environments – way more stressful than figuring out how to meet payroll in difficult times.

So, why unions?

Of course, history answers that one – that is a no-brainer! 

Yet, I cannot but think that the very reason why unions came about is also the reason why they are no longer a positive influence.  It all has to do with the whole ‘Scaling up of communities‘and ‘scaling up of caring’ rant I have been on lately… 

What started up as a small group to protect the rights of its members grew – and grew – and grew…  until it became too big to ‘care about’ (represent) each member of the union as an individual.  Just as we have seen with states, the ‘scaling up’ of any organization requires the introduction of governance structures which necessitates replacing ‘caring’ and ‘social bonds’ with ‘rules’ and ‘procedures’.

That is exactly what happened with unions!

Instead of being a small, yet ‘caring managable’ sub-group which represented each member, unions became a separate organization of its own – there are now even ‘unions of unions’, umberella organizations which organize the unions ‘from above’ and remove the ability of individual members to affect significantly the course of the union’s actions!  In effect, the unions have now become an additional layer of highly bureaucratized management which battles with the employer’s management structure for power over the employees…

And all because the unions grew to a size where they lost the ability to ‘care’!

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

Scaling up communities – part 4

As part of capturing The Big Picture of our society, I have been examining the benefits and costs of scaling up of our communities.

In Part 3, I looked at the establishment of governance structures as a necessity to administer our societies which have scaled up to become states.  The people who enable the governance structures are, in the core meaning of the term, ‘agents of the state’.  (The lead-up posts can be found here:  Part 1 and Part 2.)

The moral dilemma which agents of the state face is simple in its mechanics, but complex in its resolution.  Perhaps it cannot really be satisfactorily resolved – only ‘put up with’, or managed, in one way or another.  And, in a way, this dilemma is also the ‘last check’ on the power of the state…

There is an inherent dichotomy between being an individual – with individual moral views and opinions – and being an agent of the state whose very purpose is to carry out the will of the state.  This cannot be easy, as it is unlikely that every agent of the state will agree with every single policy of the state – yet, it is their job to implement them all.

An ‘agent of the state’ is anyone who is directly hired by the state (civil servant) or who is officially licensed (contracted) by the state to deliver a service on behalf of the state.   (In this series of posts, I use the word ‘state’ in its core meaning:  it could mean provincial, municipal, federal, state, or whatever other political unit has sovereignity of a specific geographic area within a specific sphere of influence.)

This is not the ‘licensing’ – as in certification, where the state accredits someone to practice in a specific field on their own – like, say, plumbers or electricians.  Plumbers and electricians (etc.) may be ‘licensed’ by the state, but their clients contract them privately, not to deliver a government-mandated service.  (There are exceptions, where the state may hire private contractors also licensed to practice by the state, but that is ‘special case’.)

It is a different kind of ‘licensing’.  This kind of licence contracts the licencee to perform services on behalf of the state:  it is this ‘on behalf of the state’ which makes such a licensee an agent of the state

When delivering services to its citizens, the government is bound by a different set of rules than a private citizen, or a private business, is (or, at least, it ought to be).  A private contractor may bid on a job – but is not obligated to enter into a contract to pave someone’s laneway in pink interlock brick, if pink annoys him. 

The government already has a pre-existing contract with each citizen to deliver certain services in return for the taxes already levied upon its citizens.  Once a citizen chooses to exercise their part of the contract, the government is obligated to deliver such services.  And, the person who has accepted to be the government contractor is obligated to deliver this.

To put it into different terms:  if I run my own soup shop, I may need a business licence – but it is my shop and I pick what is on the menu.  If, on the other hand, the government got elected on a promise to provide 5 specific kinds of soup in soup kitchens, free to every citizen once a day, and if I get contracted by the government to run a soup kitchen, I cannot then turn around and say I will not make pea soup (that being one of the 5), because it is against my convictions or conscience or whatever!  Either, I open my own shop, and run it pea-soup-free – and get paid by my clients.  Or I accept to be paid by the government, in which case I will indeed be serving pea soup. 

This, of course, translates into areas much more controversial than pea soup….which, by the way, I rather like. 

Socialized healthcare, for instance, is one such area:  each and every physician who does not hand a bill directly to the patient (or their insurance company), but is paid by the state – each one of these physicians is an agent of the state.  And, each and every one of them is obligated to serve pea soup – or prescribe ‘the morning after’ pill, or perform abortions, or whatever other medical procedure the government has agreed to provide to its citizens, as long as the physician is profesionally qualified to perform such services. 

Yes, I know – many of my conservative readers may not like this.  It seems repugnant to many of us that a physician who is opposed to abortion on demand may be forced to prescribe ‘the abortion pill’…. 

I agree – it is WRONG. 

But it is not wrong because the government is forcing the physician to ‘act against their conscience’.  The government is doing no such thing:  the physician had agreed to abdicate his or her personal convictions or beliefs when he or she accepted to act as an agent of the state!

So, the fault does not lie with the demand that agent of the state actually deliver the services they are contracted to. 

The fault lies in forcing physicians be the agents of the state in the first place!

If a physician has a private practice, there is no way a government should be able to compel him or her to perform a procedure the physician does not want to – whether through moral convictions or because the doctor is having a bad hair day.  Independant professionals ought not be compelled to perform services against their will.  

But, it is a completely different situation if the physician is an ‘agent of the state’ … 

If the agents of the state refuse to carry out the very tasks the state has mandated – ones necessary for the state to fulfill its contract to its citizenry, that state will cease to function.  If not remedied, the state will cease to exist. 

This is the ‘last check’ on the state which I mentioned earlier:  by refusing to carry out the will of the state, should the action be too abhorrent, its agents can indeed bring about the end of such a state!

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

Aqsa Parvez – we remember you

jijabvictim.jpg

Aqsa Parvez – a martyr of ‘official multiculturalism’

One year ago today, Aqsa Parvez, a girl on the cusp of womanhood – was brutally murdered by her family because she dared to make a choice:  to be herself.  Now, her body lies in an unmarked grave – no name, no picture, just #774

The story of Aqsa Parvez touches me very deeply.  I am an immigrant who successfully integrated into the mainstream society – despite the disaproval from some members of my cultural community.  December 10th is the anniversary of when I arrived in Canada.  Aqsa and I both desired freedom.  The date which marks the beginning of my life in freedom is the very same as on which hers ended- what a tragic irony! 

Aqsa’s tragedy reminds me of probably the smartest, most intelligent person I had ever met.  She went to University with me and my husband – and graduated with the highest marks in her Engineering class.  A year or so after University, she met up with my husband and me and told us she just got engaged to a distant relative in the Pakistani community in England. 

She had met him once, for about an hour, and they talked.  She said thay both shared similar background:  growing up in a traditional family, needing to always be trying to balance their expectations and their desire to be part of the mainstream culture.  She thought this would be a good common ground from which they could build a relationship which balanced all these pressures.  So, both of them told their families they will agree to the marriage.

That was the last time we saw her or heard from her.  I was no longer allowed by her family to communicate with her – even to give her a wedding present my husband and I got for her.  Nor would they accept the present from us and forward it on to her.  We have no idea what happened to her.  Back then, we did not really understand it – so we were puzzled, instead of frightened for her.  Now it is too late to find her.  So, when I see Aqsa, I see my friend, too, and wonder what her fate is.

What happened to Aqsa – and my friend – and what continues to happen to many other men and women and children – is a scathing denunciation of our official multiculturalism, because this is where the road of official multiculturalism necessarily leads.

Aqsa Parvez was murdered because she dared to cross the boundaries of multiculturalism’s cultural apartheid!

The difficulty with ‘official multiculturalism’ is that is actively works to prevent the integration of immigrants into mainstream culture (or between different groups within one culture).  It is difficult enough to integrate as it is, but when there are official, semi-official, or, ‘officially tolerated’ barriers added, overcoming these real and artificial barriers becomes very difficult to achieve.  In Aqsa’s case, it proved impossible!

In effect, multiculturatsm introduces something very similar to a caste system.  A  ‘cultural cast’ system, if you will.   If you are in one pidgeonhole, then you are judged according to these rules, if you are in a different pidgeonhole, a different set of rules applies!  And never the two shall meet!

I have criticized this in the past, because it gives the leaders of the immigrant’s ‘cultural community’ power over the newcomer – and impacts how the integration will happen.  It often traps people into the same cultural norms they had fought hard to escape from!

And while I do not advocate ‘assimilation’ – which would require an immigrant to abandon who they were before coming here – it is essential that we ensure successful ‘integration’ of new immigrants!  Without learning how to succesfully interact with people in the mainstream culture, without the opportunity to create social bonds outside of their narrow ‘cultural community’, the new immigrants will, in fact, become ghettoized!

Policing in a multicultural society becomes difficult, too.  Each ‘cultural minority’ is taught not to identify with the over-arching state and its structures.  Many of the people within these communities are victimized by their neighbours – but seeking police protection has come to be seen as a betrayal of one’s own cultural community…  So, immigrant communities become not just socially isolated – they become legally isolated, too.  And very, very vulnerable…

It is time to call ‘official multiculturalism’ by its proper name:  CULTURAL APARTHEID!

Equal, but separate! 

We were not willing to tolerate this bigotry when the divisions were based on skin colour!  Does a person control the culture into which they are born any more than they control the colour of their skin? 

So, please, can someone explain to me why should we now be bullied into tolerating apartheid based on culture?

Because, at both its philosophical core and in its practice, that is exactly what multiculturalism is!

Political Correctness be damned – I will say it, true and direct, because if I do not, my fellow Canadians will continue to suffer.   (I apologize for my rough language, but I really get worked up about this!)

Wearing a headscarf has nothing to do with Islam.  There are plenty of good Muslimas who choose not to wear one!  We must get this straight, because wearing a headscarf is not a religious custom, it is a cultural one.  Yet, some people truly believe that it is part of Islam – and if we ignore this connection, we can never hope to improve this situation! 

This needs to be addressed:  both the role of the scarf (hijab) and the relative roles within the family, whatever the religious or cultural background.  We are all citizens, with certain rights that must not be taken away from us.  Regardless of my belief  (cultural, religious or anything else) in my rightness in doing something – if it is against our secular laws, no amount of ‘religious tolerance’ or ‘cultural tolerance’ can excuse such an action! 

I am very happy to say, Canadian Muslim leaders – from the moderate and brilliant Tarek Fatah, founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress  to the ultra-conservative and extremely controversial Imam Syed Soharwardy – have spoken up to openly condemn what happened to Aqsa Parvez…. from robbing her of her life to the dishonour of burrying her in an unmarked grave!

 

It is time for all of us to have a critical, realistic look at  what are the practical results of official multiculturalism?  Has it helped our society?  Has it helped immigrants?  Has it helped anyone but the bureaucrats who make a career out of administering it?

The data from the experiment of ‘multiculturalism’ is in – let us see how the numbers add up!

It seems pretty clear they add up to #774!

 

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