18 May, 2007 | Enter your password to view comments

19 May, 2006 | 4 Comments

Pardon my French, but the critics can go screw themselves. Given the savage reviews this film has gotten, I expected it to be unwatchable. It wasn’t. It’s no better or worse than the rest of the crap that Hollywood produces. I think the media piling-on is in many ways a childish reaction to the lack of pre-release press screenings. I mean, yes, this film is overly long and super talky and very hokey, but I was still entertained (until my ass turned numb). And given that this is a mainstream Hollywood film with a feminist, heretical message that dares to show members of the clergy behaving like thugs in an inner-city street gang, I must give it two thumbs up.
Tags: The Da Vinci Code

19 May, 2006 | 3 Comments

I’ve written on this blog before that I have not read The Da Vinci Code, but I am pleased that its themes of female exclusion and suppression within organized Christianity have struck a nerve with millions of people. This is one of my big issues and the fact that people are actually talking about it thrills me.

I would probably go see the movie version (opening worldwide today) no matter what, but the fact that the Vatican, US evangelicals and religious groups around the world are condemning and/or banning this film means that I will definitely see it. The critics who’ve seen the film have not been kind, but I really don’t care if it’s as boring as watching snow melt. That’s not the point. (And really, who had faith in Ron Howard’s abilities? Not me.)

Via Feministing, I’ve discovered a new website called HerCode.org. Sponsored by the organization Faith and Feminism and inspired by The Da Vinci Code phenomenon, the site encourages women to share their stories of struggling with religious faith. The stories are very poignant. One of the site’s creators, Helen LaKelly Hunt, writes in her introductory letter:

(more…)

14 April, 2006 | 2 Comments

The weather was absolutely gorgeous today and I went out for a nice stroll. As I suspected, it seems this entire country has shut down until Tuesday. In my neighbourhood, the streets are virtually empty and almost everything is closed – except for Tesco, natch. Most convenience stores are closed, which is strange. The whole point of convenience stores is that they stay open all the time. And 99 percent of the pubs I passed were closed up. I didn’t think that Britons ever passed up a chance to get sloshed, so color me surprised.

Over in yonder U.S., almost everything is open on Friday, Saturday and Monday of this holiday period. Many restaurants, grocery stories and movie theatres will also be open on Easter Sunday. When I had a proper job, I never had Good Friday or the day after Easter off from work. Schools do shut down for a few days, but under the euphemism “Spring Recess.”

Today on my walk, I was passed by those double-decker tour buses filled with tourists, including Americans who are probably shocked that everything will be closed for the next four days. It’s strange being in a country that has no separation of Church and State, and whose commercial sector observes Christian holidays in such a way. While the sacred tenet of the separation of Church and State is only hanging on by a thread Stateside (unless the masses rise up), I’m thankful it’s still there in theory. I do think it’s sad, however, that Americans never seem to take a break from working. Most businesses would probably close on Friday and/or Monday if they weren’t so damn greedy.

25 March, 2006 | Comments

I am appalled by the story of the 41-year-old Afghan man who is on trial for converting to Christianity and could be executed. Western leaders have been on the phone with Afghan president (and U.S. puppet) Hamid Karzai, urging him to intervene. The German Chancellor and the Canadian Prime Minister have both said Karzai assured them the man would not be executed.

If the media is to be believed, the majority of people in Afghanistan want Christian convert Abdul Rahman dead. According to an AP report, senior Muslim clerics have stated that “if the government caves in to Western pressure and frees” Rahman, they will incite the people to kill him.

Abdul Raoulf, who stood up to the Taliban and is considered a moderate, was quoted as saying: “Rejecting Islam is insulting God. We will not allow God to be humiliated. This man must die.” This so-called moderate goes on to say: “Cut off his head! We will call on the people to pull him into pieces so there’s nothing left.”

Another senior cleric stated that if Rahman is freed, his must not be allowed to go into exile. “If he is allowed to live in the West, then others will claim to be Christian so they can too. We must set an example. … He must be hanged.”

As you know, I’m usually never at a loss for words. But this story just leaves me speechless.

Link: Amnesty International

12 March, 2006 | Comments

I should really do a web search of my blog name more often. I just discovered that on February 10th, Anglofille got a little bit of coverage in Slate magazine. They have a column called “Today’s Blogs,” which provides a round-up of the hot topics being discussed in cyberspace that day. And my post on HBO’s hillbilly perv drama Big Love got a rather nice paragraph, which you can read here (scroll down towards the bottom). The author of the column (who has his own blog) referred to me as a “Latter-Day Londoner,” which is not true, but I’ve been called worse. Hooray for Anglofille! You can read my original post here.

Big Love premiered tonight on HBO. Did anyone watch it? USA Today gave it a bad review. NPR seems to have done a lot of coverage on it. One of their reporters even sat down with “real-life” polygamists and had them watch the first episode. (I refuse to listen to this.) If NPR can find these polygamists, why can’t the police? Well, I guess that’s obvious. They’re not looking for them.

12 March, 2006 | 2 Comments

In anticipation of the upcoming Da Vinci Code film, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops have launched a website called Jesus Decoded, which refutes the claims made in the bestselling book. If you need a good laugh, check it out.

My favorite section is called “What Do You Say to a Da Vinci Code Believer?” The site then breaks down such misguided individuals into three categories:

1: “Those who believe every assertion made in the novel is true…”

2: “Those who are startled by the claims of the novel, suspicious because they’ve never heard them before, but at the same time accepting of the possibility.”

3: “Finally, there are those who really don’t care about the exact content of The Da Vinci Code, but are glad that it subverts Christianity, and so ‘believe’ in the project in general, and heartily approve of it.”

This is followed by pages and pages of possible scenarios you might find yourself in if you’re, say, walking down the street and some deranged Da Vinci Code fan holds you up at gunpoint. Behold an excerpt:

“They say…forget the details. The fact is, there were alternate visions of Christianity, and they were brutally suppressed by the Church so that Mary Magdalene’s presence would be erased and women’s voices would be silenced and the males in charge would retain power.

You say….let’s try some logic, before we get to the facts.”

There are then several very lame bulleted points of rebuttal, including this one:

“If those early Christian male powers wanted to suppress the ‘real story’ of Jesus’ ministry and purpose, you would frankly wonder about their sanity.”

Touché!

I suggest adding this point to the list: God has read the Da Vinci Code, and She is pissed.

Besides being hilarious, this website is just sad. Don’t these guys have anything better to do with their time? I’m sure there are other men like former Boston Cardinal and current Vatican resident Bernard Law who could use their help fleeing the country to escape prosecution. Get your priorities straight, fellas!

3 March, 2006 | 6 Comments

Well, who would’ve thought I’d have to whip out the America the Disgraceful headline twice in one week? With all the problems in the world – big, major, nasty problems involving nuclear weapons and the destruction of the planet and genocide and other horrible stuff– Americans’ attention is focused right where it should be: Women’s uteruses. The American uterus is a bigger war zone than Iraq.

What Would Jesus Do?

Mississippi was hoping to pass a South Dakota-style abortion ban, but those hopes were dashed when a few of the legislators decided they didn’t want to burn in Hell.

From the ABC affiliate in the state:

During an emotional 2 1/2-hour debate during which several members quoted scripture, the House voted 62-56 to allow abortions in pregnancies caused by rape or incest.

Anyone who voted for this bill in any form should be dropped into the Gulf of Mexico – preferably with something heavy tied around their ankles.

In other news, thanks to Salon’s women’s blog Broadsheet, I stumbled upon links to other scary news stories. Here’s my take:

Salvation in 30 Minutes or Less

The founder of Domino’s Pizza, Thomas S. Monaghan, is founding his own town 25 miles east of Naples, Florida. The utopian hamlet of Ave Maria will be governed by strict Catholic principles and there will be no abortion, pornography — or birth control.

No, I am not making this up.

From the AP: “The pizza magnate is bankrolling the project with at least $250 million and calls it ‘God’s will.’”

Impossible, you say. This is America, not Afghanistan! Well, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush was at the recent groundbreaking himself. According to the AP, Jeb “lauded the development as a new kind of town where faith and freedom will merge to create a community of like-minded citizens.”

Florida Attorney General Charlie “McWackjob” Crist is quoted as saying: “The community has the right to provide a wholesome environment…If someone disagrees, they have the right to go to court and present facts before a judge.”

Yes, this is a government official. I promise! And the ACLU is already planning to take them to court.

The only real glitch so far is that the town’s motto – Shut Up, Bitch and Bring Me Another Beer – doesn’t fit on the license plates.

No Eggs For Me…But I’ll Have a Side of Sperm To Go

In Arizona, it is now illegal for a woman to sell her eggs. Men, however, are free to sell their seed wherever they damn well please. Ah, America.

From the Arizona Daily Star: “On a voice vote, the House of Representatives said that a woman who sells her eggs could be sent to prison for up to a year and fined up to $150,000. The same penalty would apply to any organization or doctor who made the purchase.”

Rep. Bob Stump said the law is necessary to protect women. After all, women cannot make their own choices. Bob Stump should decide for them.

Abortion in the Bush Era

A pregnant woman in Virginia shot herself in the abdomen, causing the death of her full-term baby. Tammy Skinner has been arrested and charged with illegally inducing an abortion, which could result in a 10-year prison sentence and a $100,000 fine.

The 22-year-old is already supporting two small children and was depressed. No one knows if she tried to get an abortion before shooting herself, but according to Salon.com, NARAL gives Virginia an F on their abortion report card, meaning that access to abortion is difficult. Whether this woman attempted to get an abortion through legal channels or not, if South Dakota and Mississippi and the Supreme Court have their way, self-induced abortions by desperate women are going to become much more common.

2 March, 2006 | 4 Comments

I have never read The Da Vinci Code. Friends and family rave about it and have urged me to give it a try because of its subject matter, but that ain’t never gonna happen. I’m too much of a book snob. I’m not a slave to high-brow culture – far from it. I love cheesy movies and my favourite music is 80s pop. But books are a different matter. I cannot waste time reading The Da Vinci Code when I haven’t read, for example, The Hunchback of Notre Dame. Books are too important to me.

But I applaud Dan Brown for writing pop fiction that grapples with issues of theology and feminism. The Da Vinci Code is the bestselling hardback adult novel of all time and it’s clearly struck a nerve. I’ve seen previews for the movie, opening in May, and I will definitely go see it. Any film that pokes a sharp stick in the eye of patriarchal religion goes right to the top of my must-see list. The Vatican has attacked it. Hurrah! Even little ol’ Westminster Abbey refused to let them film there. Boo hoo! (Meanwhile, one of its substitutes in the film, Winchester Cathedral, is laughing all the way to the bank.)

Author Dan Brown is currently in London, where he is being sued for plagiarism. If the case is successful, I’ll have to take the Eurostar to Paris to see the film, since it won’t be shown here. Two British writers claim Brown based his novel on their books, called Holy Blood and Holy Grail. The third co-author of the books did not join the lawsuit.

From the Telegraph: “At the heart of the case is their theory that Christ did not die on the cross but married Mary Magdalene and had a child, starting a bloodline that was protected by the Knights Templar and hushed up by the Catholic Church. Brown’s thriller is also based on the notion that Jesus married Mary, starting a family in France where their descendants continue to live.” Hey – if this is true, perhaps George W. Bush and the rest of the Christian fundamentalists in America will lay down their weapons and become non-believers. You know how much they hate the French.

Dan Brown openly admits he used the books as research for his novel and apparently, one of the characters even refers to them. This trial – currently on hiatus while the judge reads the books! – is something all writers should be paying attention to. As a fiction writer, I use non-fiction works all the time for my research. The possible implications of this case are chilling. (And as the author of this blog, I regularly commit copyright infringement, but that’s another story.)

In the Guardian, editor Joel Rickett, contemplating a judgment against Brown, says: “It would have seismic implications. Novelists would have to be very, very careful when using non-fiction sources to build their fiction. Many novelists read a single work of history and use it as the basis of their book.”

In the same Guardian piece, Professor Lisa Jardine says: “They are not going to win. I don’t think plagiarism any longer holds up - we live in a world of cut and paste, and in a global village. Creativity is always a beautifully arranged patchwork that nudges something a little further on.”

18 February, 2006 | Comments

My dad sent me this cartoon. It’s a brilliant commentary on two of my recent postings, one on Brokeback and the other on polygamy. And by now, we all know that editorial cartoons satirizing religious groups are the most threatened form of expression in the western world, so I thought I’d better post this while it’s still legal.

12 February, 2006 | Comments

Minette Marrin published a brilliant editorial today in the London Sunday Times about the cartoon controversy called “Muslims Are Trading Respect for Fear.” It’s one of the best commentaries I’ve read on this issue and well worth checking out. I can’t possibly encapsulate it here, but I’d like to post a few excerpts:

“…All the terrifying Muslim uprisings across the world in response to the Danish cartoons have all been about a demand for respect, as of right. They are demanding respect for religion, or at any rate for their own religion and their own religious sensibilities. The same is true of the more moderate demonstrations in London yesterday. Worse, many westerners are penitentially admitting that Muslims do indeed have a right to respect for their faith, and that it is wrong to express disrespect for a religion. This is disastrous.”

I couldn’t agree more! This week – and I swear I’m not making this up – the EU Justice and Security Commissioner, Franco Frattini, announced he is considering the creation of a voluntary media code of conduct that “would encourage the media to show ‘prudence’ when covering religion.” Says Frattini: “The press will give the Muslim world the message: We are aware of the consequences of exercising the right of free expression,” he told the newspaper. ‘We can and we are ready to self-regulate that right.’” Chilling.

Again, from Marrin’s editorial: “It is hardly surprising, now, that the more extreme and politicised Muslims…feel entitled, in defiance of our greatest freedoms, to demand respect from us, as of right. The tragedy is that what they are now getting from the rest of us is not respect at all, but fear, posing as respect.”

I hope the bureaucrats of the EU actually consider the ramifications of what they’re doing. If they do, perhaps they’ll come to the realization that it’s more important to defend the values of western civilization than it is to pander to extremist groups who threaten violence and economic sanctions.

Here is a link to Franco Frattini’s website that includes various ways to contact him.

10 February, 2006 | 5 Comments

Thanks to William for alerting me to HBO’s new series called Big Love, which stars Bill Paxton as a polygamist in Utah married to three women. The show is actually set in the real Utah town where I spent more than a decade of my growing up years. Oy vey.

Big Love is apparently going to be a high-profile venture, given that it is produced by Tom Hanks and is premiering March 12th after The Sopranos. In the show, Paxton plays a businessman who owns three homes that sit side-by-side; each home contains one of his wives and the kids she has produced. Watch a preview here.

Not surprisingly, given that this is HBO, the show seems to be one big sex romp. The main joke is that Paxton’s character has to take tons of Viagara. HAHAHAHAHA! I swear, you cannot pay these Hollywood scribes enough. I mean, polygamist…taking…Viagara! Hot damn, that’s some cutting edge programming.

The Mormon Church and some conservative groups have condemned the show and have asked HBO to run a disclaimer stating that “plural marriage” is no longer an official practice of the LDS church. Perhaps HBO, privy to the news events of this week, will decide it’s wise to run the disclaimer. After all, they don’t want Bill Paxton taken hostage and beheaded by an angry mob. God-fearing people are the scariest kind.

I have mixed feelings about this show. Well, that’s not entirely true. I think it’s stupid and I wish it didn’t exist. But since it does, I’m glad that the Mormon Church and the people of Utah will once again be shamed on the international stage for the disgusting and degrading practice of polygamy. Despite being outlawed by the Church over a century ago (ahem), it is still practiced by tens of thousands of people in Utah and the Colorado/Arizona border towns. Church leaders and government officials have done virtually nothing to put a stop to a practice that often sees very young girls (we’re talking 12-year-olds) “married” to 60-year-old men. The whole state deserves to suffer from the stigma and ridicule that continues to be heaped upon them.

I am disturbed, however, that the show is making polygamy seem sexy. Yes, I realize that this is HBO, whose idea of realism is Sex and the City. But the general public is for the most part completely ignorant of Mormon practices and life in Utah. I hope that Big Love does not lead uninformed couch potatoes to think that polygamy is just another lifestyle choice. It’s not.

Having lived in Utah, a place that probably has more polygamists than anywhere outside of the Middle East, I know a few things about polygamy. I’ve known polygamists, including a family with a living situation similar to the one portrayed in Big Love. From my knowledge and experience, polygamists are:

1) Desperate losers who no one else would marry
2) Crazy
3) Religious fanatics
4) Wife beaters and child rapists
5) Butt ugly
6) Violent thugs
7) Uneducated, inbred freaks who make the average Jerry Springer Show guest look like Albert Einstein

I am not exaggerating. Polygamous families operate like cults. Extremely violent cults. Think Waco and David Koresh. That’s the kind of mentality that exists. Most of the women in polygamous relationships grew up in this cult-like environment and were “married” as very young girls to old men. These women are uneducated and disempowered. There are privately-run shelters in Salt Lake City (like the one operated by Tapestry) for women and girls trying to escape from polygamy. These women fear for their lives and rightly so. Polygamy in Utah has a long history of murder and violence. There are small towns in Utah, Colorado and Arizona that are by run by polygamous cult leaders, Colorado City being the most famous example. In these towns, even the police are polygamists, meaning that widespread crimes like child rape and domestic violence go unpunished. I know it’s hard to believe that such things are happening right now in America, but I assure you that they are. Click here for more info. With rare exceptions, the authorities in Utah stand by and do nothing. They claim it’s impossible to prove charges of polygamy, given that the participants are not legally married. My theory is that state officials, almost all of them Mormon, cannot condemn these modern-day polygamists without also condemning their own lineage and the church founders.

You may be wondering how a man can support seven wives and 40 children. Well, he’s not supporting them. The American taxpayer is. Polygamists drain the welfare system. Because the wives are not legally married to the husband, they are considered single mothers. The few prosecutions of polygamists that I’ve seen involve welfare fraud.

So HBO can show Bill Paxton sleeping with three different glamorous women, popping his Viagara and having a grand old time. Meanwhile, thousands of innocent victims caught up in the web of polygamy will continue to suffer because no one will help them. They’re an embarrassing secret and it’s just easier to pretend they don’t exist.

9 February, 2006 | Comments

After my latest post on the cartoon controversy, I decided I wasn’t going to publish anything else about it until/unless something of importance happened. Well, I think this qualifies.

The London-based magazine The Liberal published one of the cartoons on its website next to an editorial that staunchly defended freedom of speech. (In case you haven’t been following the coverage of this story, the UK print media has avoided publishing the cartoons.) Now it turns out that The Liberal has removed the cartoon from its website. From the Guardian: “Senior police officers at Scotland Yard warned the magazine its staff could not be guaranteed protection from possible protests, after which the cartoon was pulled from the Liberal’s website and replaced by a large white square with the word ‘censored’ placed over it.”

The news of this warning from Scotland Yard sends a chill down my spine. It smacks of government interference and, indeed, a form of censorship. I bet even George Orwell just rolled over in his grave.

According to the Guardian: “Following the withdrawal of the cartoon, Ben Ramm, the magazine’s editor, announced on the website: ‘Despite our wishes and convictions, for reasons of safety the magazine will no longer carry the cartoon itself.’”

Yet before the cartoon was removed, the editorial that accompanied it stated: “[The Liberal] will not be coerced into self-censorship by the threat of violence from those who use a platform of free speech to call for the destruction of the very system that enfranchises them.”

The irony of this is breathtaking. Memo to The Liberal: If you’re going to make such bold pronouncements about free speech, you better be prepared to back them up, don’t you think?

In other media news:

Charlie Hebdo

The French weekly Charlie-Hebdo has just published the cartoons, in addition to new ones mocking Muhammad and other religious figures. According to the Guardian, the special edition of the paper went on sale after French Muslims lost a court battle to prevent it from happening. From the Guardian: “Charlie Hebdo’s cover shows Muhammad covering his eyes with his hands, saying: ‘It’s hard to be loved by idiots.’” The special edition is expected to shatter sales records.

My take on this is that members of the French media have already proven that they are not intimidated by threats and will defend free speech even at great personal and professional risk. I applaud this. However, at this point, they are just pouring fuel on the fire – not fire, raging inferno – and I wonder if it serves any legitimate purpose?

New York Press

Like the UK media, the US media has in large part refused to publish the cartoons. The alternative weekly, New York Press, was set to publish them in a special edition. At the last minute, however, the publishers chickened out. As a result, the 4-person editorial staff quit in protest. From the New York Observer: “New York Press, like so many other publications, has suborned its own professed principles. For all the talk of freedom of speech, only the New York Sun locally and two other papers nationally have mustered the minimal courage needed to print simple and not especially offensive editorial cartoons that have been used as a pretext for great and greatly menacing violence directed against journalists, cartoonists, humanitarian aid workers, diplomats and others who represent the basic values and obligations of Western civilization.”

This situation is even more interesting given the fact that New York Press has, on at least one occasion, insulted Catholics just for kicks. As the Pope was dying last year, Matt Taibbi wrote an article called “The 52 Funniest Things about the Death of the Pope.” This article created a huge firestorm in the universe of cable news, at least. The article, which was not funny, original or insightful, was only published to provoke people. It can still be found on the paper’s website. So why were the Muhammad cartoons pulled, when they were being published not to provoke, but to illustrate an important news story? Is it because the publishers weren’t afraid that extremist Catholic fringe groups would firebomb their offices?

NYT and Arab European League

The New York Times – you know, the “paper of record” that is neglecting its journalistic duties by refusing to publish any of the cartoons – weighed in with an article yesterday called “West Beginning to See Islamic Protests as Sign of Deep Gulf.” In the article, which is worth checking out, it discussed how the Arab European League is now publishing their own cartoons mocking Christians and Jews. Their website has apparently crashed due to massive web traffic, so they’ve started their own blog on Blogger. The first cartoon portrayed Hitler in bed with Anne Frank. (To view it, click here.)

This pathetic cartoon is not brave at all. Considering the anti-Semitism that appears regularly in the Arab media, I don’t see anything new about it. And furthermore, it makes no point whatsoever about freedom of speech. With the publication of this cartoon, the Arab European League just proves that they don’t get what this whole debate is about. They do not “get it” and I’m afraid they never will.

8 February, 2006 | 2 Comments

It seems to me that the US media is not covering the cartoon flap in great depth, probably because it’s not occurring on American soil. This is not surprising. The American media is notoriously nearsighted. (For an interesting report on this, click here.)

It’s difficult for me to get an exact sense of how this story is playing out in the US because I don’t have access to US television news or talk radio from here. However, I do peruse the online editions of the major newspapers on a daily basis and it doesn’t seem that this story is a matter of great concern.

My impression is that the right-wing media (Fox News, talk radio, bloggers) is running with this story because it plays into their Islamophobic agenda. The right-wing in Europe is also using this story to their advantage, but at least they are balanced by extensive coverage in the mainstream press. Many right-wing American bloggers (click here for an example) have whipped themselves into a frenzy over this story. However, I doubt their motivation is the defense of secular values. Rather, this story allows the Christian right-wing to attack Islam and in a roundabout way, offer support for George Bush’s Iraq War.

It’s interesting, isn’t it, that the Religious Right in America actively seeks to impose their religious values on a secular society, yet when they witness other religions attempting to do it, they go berserk.

From where I sit, it appears that the right-wing has hijacked this story in the American media. Perhaps I am wrong, and I hope I am. But I would not be surprised if liberal writers and thinkers in the States avoid taking on this story because they’re afraid to be lumped in with the right-wing. I think that many liberals are terrified to do anything that may be deemed politically incorrect.

If the Left in America ignores this story out of fear of association with the Right, and let’s the Right shape and define this story, that is a tragedy. This story is extremely important for a number of reasons. It has nothing to do with the cartoons as such, but whether the media should consider certain topics taboo. Most reasonable people agree that the media should not provoke and insult people just for kicks, but at the same time, should the beliefs of one specific group be placed above the rights of everyone else? And an examination into the way the media self-censors in regards to religion is long overdue. This is a news story that serious writers and thinkers must not be afraid to wrestle with.

8 February, 2006 | Comments

Just today, news broke that the first British newspaper published one of the controversial cartoons along with an article on the subject. The paper is the University of Cardiff student newspaper, Gair Rhydd. Once the administration found out, they recalled thousands of copies of the paper and suspended the editor and three journalists. Click here for the university’s statement. According to the Guardian, local councilor Joe Carter said: “We have to have tolerance of people’s views and culture.”

The article continues: “Ashgar Ali, the chairman of Cardiff’s Medina mosque, criticised the publication. ‘You can’t play with someone’s religion,’ he told the website. ‘The Muslim students at the university are going to be upset.’”

But in a free, multicultural society, do we really have a right not to be offended? Are the students at the University of Cardiff so fragile that they will be permanently damaged by seeing the cartoons – which they’ve probably all seen online anyway?

As a feminist, the ideals of women’s empowerment and equality are as dear to me as any religious faith, yet the exploitation of women is widespread in all forms of media. I have to tolerate this misogyny and in exchange, I have the freedom to express my own views. I think this is a better lesson to teach college students.

7 February, 2006 | Comments

Not surprisingly, the cartoon controversy now has a death toll. Several protestors rioting in Afghanistan were killed by police and an Italian priest in Turkey was shot dead in his church by a teenager. Turkish officials “hope there is no link” between the priest’s murder and the cartoon controversy. The Turkish government can’t help but be worried that their hopes of joining the EU are going up in flames along with the Danish flag.

A man who attended last weekend’s London protests dressed as a suicide bomber (pictured) has been arrested by police and is now in prison. The tabloids launched a campaign against Omar Khayam, demanding the authorities take action. Feeling the heat, Khayam gave a press conference yesterday in which he apologized. Many commentators thought this apology was heartfelt and sincere, but as I suspected, he was just trying to save his ass. He is on parole for drug charges and his recent behaviour is a violation of his parole. I think this story is worrying on another level. How did the police know this guy wasn’t a real suicide bomber? Granted, most suicide bombers go to great lengths to conceal their explosives, but the police should have treated this guy as a real bomber until they knew otherwise. An innocent Brazilian suspected of being a suicide bomber was shot dead by the police last summer, yet Omar Khayam walks around in suicide bomber gear without any officials stopping him. Scary.

An Iranian newspaper is launching a competition, asking people to submit cartoons about the Holocaust. This is an attempt “to test the boundaries of free speech, echoing the reasons European papers gave for publishing the caricatures.” Oh, how brave! What a fabulous idea! Given the anti-Semitic filth published in Iran already, I really don’t see how they expect this to shock anyone. I have a better idea for this newspaper. If they want to shock the West, why don’t they print some cartoons mocking their insane president? That would surely test the bounds of free speech.

Former British resident Omar Bakri Mohammed has called for the Muhammad cartoonists to be executed. In a rare moment of sanity, he said that those in Britain should not kill them because it was against British law. Instead, he wants the cartoonists to be tried under Islamic law.

Better late than never: “Tony Blair today told senior MPs on the liaison committee that political correctness must not stand in the way of prosecuting Muslim protesters who broke the law. The prime minister said there was a justifiable sense of “outrage” at extremist placards used during the London demonstrations.” Read the Guardian article.

The Bush administration is also backtracking now. Like the British government, the US immediately condemned the cartoons but not the violent backlash. Now Bush has called the Danish PM to say the US stands in “support and solidarity” with the Danes. White House spokesman Scott McClellan said: “We understood why many Muslims found the cartoons offensive, but we also spoke out very clearly in support of freedom of the press.” (Really? I don’t remember that.) The White House has also belatedly condemned cartoons mocking Christian and Jews that appear in the Arab press. Bush’s latest step is to call on the Saudis to step in and ease Mid East tensions. Well, I’m sure W. has the Saudi Royal Family on speed dial. Pick up the phone and give them a call.

In an editorial in today’s Telegraph, Simon Heffer takes the government and the police to task over their mishandling of the London protests. He brings up a number of good points. Apparently, those who dared to protest the foxhunting ban a while back were dealt with quite harshly by the police, yet people threatening terrorism were given a free pass. Heller wonders if a group of Christians advocating the murder of Muslims would have been allowed to roam the streets without any police interference. Heller writes that these blatant double standards play right into the hands of the Right.

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.

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