5 February, 2006 | 1 Comment

Feminist icon Betty Friedan, whose work “permanently transformed the social fabric of the United States and countries around the world,” died on Saturday, her birthday.

From the LA Times: “Her bestselling book [The Feminine Mystique] identified ‘the problem that has no name,’ the unhappiness of post-World War II American women unfulfilled by traditional notions of female domesticity. Melding sociology and humanistic psychology, the book became the cornerstone of one of the 20th century’s most profound movements, unleashing the first full flowering of American feminism since the mid-1800s.”

Betty Friedan’s death has reminded me that books can change the world, even today. In a turbulent week when freedom of speech is under violent assault, it’s important to remember that.

Sadly, Ms. Friedan is the second prominent American feminist to die within the space of a week. Who else suspects that Bush must be involved in this somehow? Gloria Steinem, watch your back!

Buy The Feminine Mystique:
Amazon US
Amazon UK
Powell’s
Women & Children First

4 February, 2006 | Comments

The cartoon controversy seems to be intensifying. I know I am obsessed with this story, but I think it could be a tipping point in the so-called “clash of civilizations” between Islam and the West.

Though the vast majority of American and UK media outlets have avoided publishing or showing the cartoons, most of Europe remains defiant. (Color me surprised.) I have no idea what is going to diffuse this increasingly scary situation. At a rally in London yesterday, people carried inflammatory signs the likes of which you’d expect to see only in a place like Tehran. Many of the signs praised the 7/7 and 9/11 terrorist attacks and advocated the murder of the cartoonists and even the BBC broadcasters who showed the cartoons. Outraged members of the public were kept away from the protestors by the police. Tony Blair’s government saw fit to put the head of the British National Party on trial recently for making hateful comments against Islam, yet the outright advocacy of murder by masked militants on the streets of London is apparently legal. Someone please explain the logic of this to me. I’ve yet to see any government official condemn these terrorist threats against the public.

Asghar Bukhari, chairman of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee, told the BBC that the police should have stopped the rally because protestors were advocating violence. “The placards and chants were disgraceful and disgusting. Muslims do not feel that way.” Amazingly, not one of the 500 to 700 protestors was even arrested.

As we all know, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten originally published the cartoons that sparked this controversy. This is apparently a right-wing newspaper. I have not seen the original publication and I have no idea if printing the cartoons was a legitimate attempt to open a dialogue or if the cartoons were printed simply to offend and provoke a religious minority. If the latter, the newspaper’s action were wrong. Responsible journalists should not abuse their position by publishing things simply to offend people, though in a free society, they have every right to do so.

The heart of this debate is not whether Jyllands-Posten should have published the cartoons, but whether or not they had the right to do so. Angry and threatening protestors demanded that the Danish government censure the newspaper, resort to censorship and offer an official government apology to Muslims. The government, citing the freedom of the press and its function within a free society (and perhaps playing to anti-immigration groups), refused to do so, though the paper has apologized with no effect. A free press is the cornerstone of a democratic society and in support of this ideal, other European newspapers have published (and continue to publish) the cartoons. Astonishingly, this was not some sort of orchestrated effort, but the result of editorial decisions made at many different newspapers across Europe. While some Westerners have condemned the actions of the papers as despicable attempts to provoke and incite, a great many others applaud their actions as a necessary stand against the increasing global menace of religious fundamentalism. Many fundamentalist groups believe they can burn a few flags, make threats and the world will run for cover. This is what usually happens.

Over the past few days, I have read a tremendous amount about this issue and I apologize for not being able to include links for everything. From my reading, it has become clear that newspapers in many Middle Eastern countries publish cartoons mocking Jews on a regular basis. This fact undermines the outrage of Middle Eastern politicians.

In my first post on this issue, I wrote that I did not know why the cartoon controversy was exploding now, when the cartoons were originally published last September. It appears that last September, the cartoons did cause a bit of controversy, but apparently not enough for some tastes. Several radical Imams from Denmark travelled to the Middle East in January with the cartoons – and a few additional cartoons that were never published or even commissioned by Jyllands-Posten. The new cartoons were the most offensive, including a drawing of Muhammad with a pig snout, and were passed off as cartoons from the newspaper. For their own political reasons, these Imams from Denmark wanted to incite the firestorm we are now witnessing.

Also in my previous post, I wrote that no American newspaper would publish these cartoons. So far, I have been proven right. None have. To be fair, no English newspaper has published them either. The UK-based Spectator magazine had them on their website and then quickly took them down. Television news is a slightly different story. In the UK, the BBC and Channel 4 did show some of the cartoons on their evening newscasts. As for the US, I saw a Fox News report via the web in which they did show the cartoons and apparently, ABC News showed them on Nightline. CNN, however, is refusing to air the images and along with other US television stations, is actually blurring images of the cartoons in their reports.

In my opinion, the English-speaking media’s failure to show the cartoons as part of a news story amounts to journalistic malpractice. This is now an international news story with possibly very serious consequences. We don’t need the media to play Mommy and Daddy (as the US media did after 9/11 when they censored images of the World Trade Center carnage). Viewers/readers have a right to see the images that have set off this huge controversy so that they can make informed opinions. The refusal to show the images as part of a serious news report is a breach of journalistic ethics. Some newspapers have included links to European web sites that are displaying the cartoons and this is a cop-out of the worst kind.

Most of the media outlets refusing to show the cartoons have stated that they are not doing so because they do not want to offend Muslims. According to an AFP news report:

“Peter Gavrilovich, foreign editor of the daily Detroit Free Press in the state of Michigan, which has one of the largest Arab communities outside the Middle East, said it was out of the question for his paper to reprint the cartoons, either to illustrate the story or to show solidarity with counterparts in Europe. ‘I don’t think we would run a cartoon in this newspaper that would be deemed offensive to any religious figure,’ Gavrilovich told AFP. “We’re very careful in terms of any photo or any caricature that we run.’”

Other media outlets are citing similar reasons and this raises many troubling issues. Should the secular media, who are charged with objectively reporting the news, give special treatment to religious groups? Are religious groups off-limits to serious examination? To me, the media should report on, say, the Catholic Church, in the same way they’d report on General Motors or the government of Venezuela or the price of corn. There should be no difference. Why does the Catholic Church deserve reverence from the secular media? They influence the lives of hundreds of millions of people. They are far more powerful than the governments of most countries.

And which religions are we including in this sweeping protection? Besides Christians, Muslims and Jews, do we include smaller religions? What about Wiccans? If so, no more editorial cartoons featuring witches on broomsticks. That’s offensive to Wiccans (and BTW, I like Wiccans). To make things easier, someone needs to print a huge book that contains a list of everything that might offend any religious group on earth. One advantage to this rule is that our newspapers are going to be much shorter and will take less time to read.

And why stop at religious groups? Let’s not print anything that might be even remotely offensive to any racial group, to gays, to women, to the disabled, to the poor, to the rich, to fat people, to short people, to old people, to blonds, to Southerners, to Canadians, to dogs and cats, to figure skaters, to homeless people, to cult members, etc., etc., a millions times etc. It’s not fair to offend any of these groups, is it?

It’s obvious that this rule of not offending people will only be applied selectively. So is there a scale for measuring who is too important to offend? Does belief in a higher power exempt a group from criticism? Should groups that threaten violence be given preferential treatment? (Too bad for you, Quakers!) The Guardian newspaper (which I generally have a lot of respect for) has stated it will not publish the cartoons so as not to offend, but they had no qualms about publishing this image of Jesus as a flasher:

I wish the editors of the Guardian would get off their high horses and explain this hypocrisy.

A friend recently suggested that the failure of the US media to publish the cartoons is probably the result of government pressure. Given the appalling track record of the US media, I’m sure this has some truth to it. The Bushies have probably been on the phone, reminding CNN and the like that if they show the images they will be putting the troops in danger. No news outlet can afford that kind of P.R. disaster. And corporate media owners, including Time Warner and Viacom, don’t want the hassle of a boycott. If CNN shows the cartoons, the next Warner Brothers flick might not make as much money.

It’s clear what the US administration’s stance on the issue is. A State Department spokeswoman said: “Inciting religious or ethnic hatred in this manner is not acceptable. We call for tolerance and respect for all communities and for their religious beliefs and practices.”

Tony Blair has refused to enter the fray, but he conveniently had his foreign secretary, Jack Straw, do it for him. Straw said: “I believe that the republication of these cartoons has been unnecessary, it has been insensitive, it has been disrespectful and it has been wrong. There are taboos in every religion. We have to be very careful about showing the proper respect in this situation.”

So you see, it’s the position of the American and British governments that we respect Muslims enough not to publish the cartoons. However, dropping bombs on them is still okay.

3 February, 2006 | 2 Comments

The cartoon flap continues. Today in London, protestors took to the streets to exercise their right to free expression…while vowing to kill those who dare to do the same. Irony was thick in the air, but no one seemed to notice.

As a defender of freedom of speech, I welcome protest and debate. If Muslim groups want to protest the cartoons and boycott the countries that published them, fine, great, knock yourself out. But those threatening murder, bombings and a 9/11-style terrorist event as revenge possess a mindset that is impossible for rational people to understand. No matter how hard I try, I cannot imagine, under any circumstances, wanting to kill another person because of a cartoon, even if I thought it was blasphemous and denigrated everything I believe in.

And I do wonder about something. The British parliament this week passed a watered-down version of a very controversial law restricting freedom of speech if it insults a religious group. But apparently, wearing a mask in public while threatening mass murder is okay? Whew, I feel safe now. These MPs are really earning their pay! Great work!

I will have more analysis of the cartoon controversy tomorrow.

3 February, 2006 | Comments

(thanks to E.K.!)

2 February, 2006 | 2 Comments

I’ve been wrapped up in Alito coverage recently, but there is another story I’ve been itching to write about.

I’m not sure if this is a big story in the U.S., but it is over here. A huge controversy has erupted amongst Muslims worldwide because a Danish newspaper printed a series of 12 cartoons that depicted Muhammad in controversial ways. (For example, wearing a turban in the shape of a bomb with a lit fuse.) In Islam, it is considered blasphemous to even create an image of Muhammad at all, and not surprisingly, the cartoons have not been received well.

The cartoons were printed last September, but for whatever reason, the controversy has just now exploded. Middle Eastern countries have erupted with rage and fury: Ambassador’s are being recalled; Danish citizens living in Saudi Arabia have had to flee because of death threats; Danish products are being boycotted; gunmen took over the EU office in Gaza. Last week, most people didn’t know what the Danish flag even looked like and now it’s being torched across the Middle East.

And then yesterday, something completely stunning happened.

On Wednesday, in an act of solidarity with the Danish newspaper and in support of freedom of expression, seven newspapers across Europe reprinted the drawings, including prominent papers in Germany and France. According to the AP, France Soir ran the following statement: “The appearance of the 12 drawings in the Danish press provoked emotions in the Muslim world because the representation of Allah and his prophet is forbidden. But because no religious dogma can impose itself on a democratic and secular society, France Soir is publishing the incriminating caricatures.” French government officials are commenting negatively on the newspaper’s actions (a rare move), while also saying they support freedom of the press, natch. The French-Egyptian owner of the paper has fired the managing editor and is tripping over himself to apologize to anyone who will listen. The paper’s staff has come out in support of the fired editor and at least one French MP has spoken out against the firing.

According to the BBC: “In Berlin, Die Welt argued there was a right to blaspheme in the West, and asked whether Islam was capable of coping with satire. ‘The protests from Muslims would be taken more seriously if they were less hypocritical,’ it wrote in an editorial.” (Apparently, Middle Eastern papers have run cartoons showing Jewish rabbis in a negative way.) You can view some of the offending images here. The cover of France Soir is here.

The chairman of the French organization Reporters Without Borders, Robert Menard, issued the following statement: “I understand that Muslims feel shocked because of depictions of the prophet. They have the right to, but they cannot force others to have the same opinion. It is not up to them to judge what a newspaper in a non-Muslim country should publish.”

The editors who decided to reprint these images demonstrated a breathtaking level of courage. By reprinting the controversial cartoons (and at the height of the controversy, no less) they were essentially giving a big fat middle finger to the enraged mobs demanding censure and censorship. This took courage. This took a hell of a lot of courage. Many of the militant groups protesting the cartoons are not the kind of people you want to piss off.

I cannot imagine an American newspaper taking a stand like this. The mainstream news media in the United States does not have my respect. Why? Let’s see: There’s the rampant corporate ownership and influence; the major scandals that have rocked The New York Times; a White House press corps that has given George W. Bush a free ride throughout his entire presidency; and the way that news networks like CNN are slanting their coverage to the Right in an attempt to catch ratings-leader Fox News. And when it comes to religion, the American media absolutely refuses to offer any sort of honest coverage whatsoever. When the Pope died last year, the news coverage in the United States was a complete love fest. I’ve never seen journalistic ethics thrown out the window in such a brazen way.

So the actions of these European newspapers have restored my faith in the press (the European press, at least) and by extension, democracy. Apparently, there are still people willing to stand up to bullies, even if they have to risk their lives to do so. There are people who refuse to appease religious groups and cower in fear. There are people willing to stand up for freedom of expression and democratic values. After a week in which the United States has taken a giant step backwards, these events are heartening.

There is hope, after all.

Excerpt from France Soir, courtesy of The Guardian:

It is necessary to crush once again the infamous thing, as Voltaire liked to say. This religious intolerance that accepts no mockery, no satire, no ridicule. We citizens of secular and democratic societies are summoned to condemn a dozen caricatures judged offensive to Islam. Summoned by who? By the Muslim Brotherhood, by Syria, the Islamic Jihad, the interior ministers of Arab countries, the Islamic Conferences - all paragons of tolerance, humanism and democracy.

So, we must apologise to them because the freedom of expression they refuse, day after day, to each of their citizens, faithful or militant, is exercised in a society that is not subject to their iron rule. It’s the world upside down. No, we will never apologise for being free to speak, to think and to believe.

Because these self-proclaimed doctors of law have made this a point of principle, we have to be firm. They can claim whatever they like but we have the right to caricature Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha, Yahve and all forms of theism. It’s called freedom of expression in a secular country …

For centuries the Catholic church was little better than this fanaticism. But the French Revolution solved that, rendering to God that which came from him and to Caesar what was due to him.

1 February, 2006 | 10 Comments

Ladies, please keep your legs crossed.

We woke up to a different America this morning. With Alito’s confirmation to the Supreme Court, every branch of the United States government is now controlled by religious ideologues. From George W. Bush on down, these right-wing radicals are free to implement their fundamentalist beliefs and remake America according to their frightening vision. And who is going to stop them? The Democrats? Well, they’ve done a great job so far.

The last election was all about this. George W. Bush scared people into thinking it was about the Middle Eastern bogeymen lurking around every corner, waiting to blow up your local shopping mall. The terrorists are going to poison our drinking water – vote for Bush! The terrorists are going to nuke Red Lobster – vote for Bush! And because John Kerry looked French, you couldn’t rely on him to save the country. Never mind that he served in Vietnam, while George W. Bush hid under his mommy’s skirt. What was at stake in the last election – the soul of America – was obscured by scare rhetoric. Millions of Americans, uneducated about the real issues, believing Saddam Hussein planned 9-11 and deluded into thinking one of the highest-spending presidents of all time would improve the economy, went into the voting booth and voted for Bush. In so doing, they supported a revolution that is slowly overturning all of the values that made America great, values that millions of Americans have fought and died to protect.

According to Esther Kaplan, author of With God on Their Side: George W. Bush and the Christian Right, “On the Supreme Court, the combination of Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito has the potential to be a right-wing juggernaut, which could swing the door open to a thoroughgoing infiltration of Christianity into government, from school prayer to taxpayer-funded conversion efforts, and turn the clock back on women’s rights, gay rights and civil rights.”

Today is a sad day. It’s also a wake-up call.

It’s interesting that the hysterical fear of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism is what has kept Bush in power, yet Bush and the Right have pushed the United States away from its allies and more into line with the theocracies of the Middle East. I guess it’s a case of Our God is better than your God, a philosophy fanatics on all sides share. With the confirmation of Alito, a man who actively seeks to dismantle the separation of Church and State, America is moving closer to Iran every day.

Again, going back to Esther Kaplan on Bush and the Christian Right: “The movement’s vision, in the broadest sense, is to bring God’s law into civic and political life, that is the Christian right’s conservative evangelical version of God’s law. While they don’t want to completely exclude non-believers and religious minorities from participating in American public life, this is nevertheless a theocratic vision…Conservative Christian faith will be considered an important qualification for public office. Policy on everything from media to medicine will be guided by conservative evangelical moralism, not such values as public health or pluralism. They do view America as, at heart, a Christian nation, and see their role as restoring the country to its early Christian roots. This is a misreading of the foundations of American democracy, but a very popular one.”

While reading this post, you may think I’ve come unglued or have lost my mind, yet I’m dead serious. One of the sacred tenets of the United States Constitution is the separation of Church and State. It’s what sets America apart from the majority of countries on earth and it is being chipped away at frightening speed without many people even making a peep. What’s the big deal, right? Many Americans, educated on political matters by the likes of Bill O’Reilly, think of the separation of Church and State as that pesky law that removes the nativity scene from city hall at Christmas. Left-wing bastards! It doesn’t take a genius to figure out what the majority of screwed up countries on the planet have in common – the marriage of religion and politics. And that’s where we’re headed. That’s where we’re at.

Many Americans – I would argue the vast majority, even in this post-9/11 world – believe that the American way of life and our rights are not in danger, that they could never be in danger. After all, things don’t change in America. People who hold this view, besides being completely ignorant of world history, are appallingly arrogant. In London, I live on a square where half the buildings were levelled by bombs in WWII. I just found this out the other day. Most Americans (with exceptions, including those descended from slaves) don’t have this kind of history. We take things for granted. But before 9-11, who would have thought the World Trade Center towers could crumble to the ground or that terrorists would come thisclose to flying a plane into the U.S. capitol? Things change. Nothing stays the same. There are no guarantees.

I have always been rabid in my views that religion and politics should never mix (having lived in Utah for many years, I’ve seen the results first-hand). It’s easy to become complacent, however. A few years ago I read the memoir Reading Lolita in Tehran by Azar Nafisi. This book, by a woman who watched her country destroyed by religious fanatics and who taught literature classes to women in secret (lest she be thrown in prison), scared me to death. It reminded me to never take anything for granted. Ever.

As a feminist, the separation of Church and State is even more important because when religion and politics mix, women lose. In a recent interview, Salman Rushdie (who knows a thing or two about religious nuts) said that the West does not understand that Islamic fundamentalism is rooted in men’s fear of women’s sexuality. I think that Christian fundamentalism and Christian terrorism in the United States has the same root. The fight between Left and Right has abortion at its core. Of course, the argument is not actually about abortion, but about what abortion represents: women’s sexual and reproductive freedom.

As the line between religion and politics disappears, women’s lives and freedoms will be in jeopardy. We all know the story of one of Bush’s appointments to an FDA panel, gynecologist “Dr.” David Hager, who prescribes prayer as a treatment to women with PMS and even cancer. He also claims that God intervened and blocked FDA approval of Plan B, the emergency contraception pill. This sickening example is only the tip of the iceberg. What’s to come is even worse. Roe v. Wade will likely be overturned, letting the states decide on abortion. The “blue” states will have abortion rights and the “red” states will not. Women in the red states will continue to have abortions, however, because abortion is a fact of life everywhere on earth and that will never change. Then women in the red states will die, mostly poor women, but at some point a photogenic blond teenager from suburbia will bleed to death at the hands of a back alley abortion doctor and the nation will be shocked and saddened and enraged. The way this is going to play out is very predictable and very preventable. As the saying goes, those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

Despite the doom and gloom I’ve unleashed here, Alito’s confirmation is not the end of anything. No, it’s only the beginning of the fight. Liberals must take back the White House and Congress in order to blunt the effect of religious extremism. Finding Democratic candidates with vision and integrity is a top priority (and it won’t be easy). The mid-term elections this November will, I believe, be the beginning of the backlash. The unfortunate events of this week have radicalized me and prompted me to take action like never before. I know I’m not alone.

Organizations:
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
CODEPINK
Emily’s List
Feminist Majority
League of Women Voters
MoveOn
NAACP*
NARAL
People for the American Way
Planned Parenthood
Political Research Associates

*Bruce S. Gordon, head of the NAACP, believes that senators who voted to cut off debate on Alito should be awarded a “Badge of Shame.” While we’re handing out the “Badge of Shame,” here are the four Democrats who voted in favor of Alito (w/ contact info): Kent Conrad (N.D.); Tim Johnson (S.D.); Ben Nelson (Neb.); and former Klu Klux Klan member Robert Byrd (W.V.).

“Lately, what has been of great concern, in addition to what I’ve already said, is the merger of…religion and politics. Because I happen to be a Christian and I think my religion teaches me that you should render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s. Thomas Jefferson, one of our Founding Fathers, said that we should build a wall between the church and state. That wall is being deliberately and ostentatiously, not secretly, broken down. So, there has been an increasing merger in this country of fundamentalism on the religious side, fundamentalism on the political side, and the two have come together.”

—President Jimmy Carter on the Daily Show last December