"The homosexualising of America"

The above is a cartoon from MSNBC.com which I found on Logan Berry's blog: "Yes, the boys saw that "Brokeback Mountain" movie and now they're playing cowboys." Ha ha!

Pleasantville

You can imagine my shock on Saturday afternoon when, as I flicked over to BBC World and the usual newstime images of rioting were broadcast into my room, my complacency was jolted first by a preponderance of tracksuits and Celtic football shirts and then by the realisation that I recognised the street and the white Ford Transit vans with "Garda" on the front and sides.

Oh my god! This wasn't Palestine. It wasn't outraged muslims protesting cartoons in middle-eastern countries. It was Ireland! It was Dublin! It was O'Connell Street!

I imagine everybody's complacency has been shaken by the weekend's events. I had completely forgotten that there was a segment of the Irish population outside the loophole of Ireland's political classes. These are people who don't blog on whatever Kevin Myers writes in the IT about the 1916 rebellion. Nor do they write letters to the editor about it. Sinn Fein has been strong in Dublin's inner-city for decades now - ever since they supposedly sorted out the heroin problem there. Firebrand republicanism mixed with disenfranchisement and marginalisation is a heady concoction. As Sinn Fein move further towards political respectability it is all too likely that they will leave many erstwhile supports behind, for whom the "struggle" would always be of more interest than the progress. Today it's the supposed affront of Orangemen parading through Dublin's capital streets. How ideological is the rioters' braun? How promsiscuous is it? Could it be harnessed in the future for bigotry of a more sinister nature? What of the Gardaí? Did they really not have any intelligence on it? Have 14 people suffered injury thanks to the Gardai's complacency? What happened to the Irish media on Saturday afternoon? Could not even destruction on O'Connell Street and burning cars on South Leinster Street rouse it from its lethargic complacency? And what of complacent middle-class Dublin that just went on with its shopping and with its chattering over pints in opulent bars? When did we become so detached as a nation? When did that happen?

Air to the throne

Prince Charles has taken the Daily Mail to court over its publication of extracts from a journal he wrote on the handing back of Hong Kong in 1997. He claims the newspaper group has violated his privacy and infringed his copyright. As Eddie Izzard once said of the Corinthians' invitation to St. Paul to be their penpal: "well, that backfired in a major way!" The judge ordered for the entire journal to be distributed in the court and so all the media got their hands on it.

Perhaps even more damaging to the prince is the sworn statement on behalf of the defendants given by his former deputy private secretary, Mark Bollands. In it, Bolland alleges that the prince actively sought to influence public opinion and government policy by using "all the means of communication at his disposal, including meetings with Ministers and others, speeches and correspondence with leaders in all walks of life and politicians. He was never party-political, but to argue that he was not political was difficult." British monarchs are constitutionally forbidden to infract on the country's political life. With regard to the correspondce, Bolland says: "These letters were not merely routine and non-controversial letters, but letters written at times in extreme terms from the Prince to various people, including members of the Government, Members of Parliament and other people in positions of power and influence, containing his views of political matters and individual politicians at home and abroad and on international issues."

And just to leave no doubt as to the prince's intentions, Bolland states: "The Prince's very definite aim in all this activity, as he explained to me, was to influence opinion. He saw that as part of the job of the heir apparent. He carried out in a very considered, thoughtful and researched way. He often referred to himself as a "dissident" working against the prevailing political consensus."

I am conjuring up images of the Prince in a Che Guevara beret with a big Cuban cigar hanging off his royal Windsor lips. Expect t-shirts.

Surely, the most damaging of all the damaging revelations in Bolland's statement, though, is this:

"The Prince's office operated in a very old-fashioned way when I was there. Even young people, who you would expect to be computer literate, would dictate shorthand to their secretaries, and when I left the office it still did not have external email or the facility for people to print out their own documents."

Bollands left the prince's office in 2002!!!! Damn it, even remote African villages had "external email" in 2002! What's worse is the idea of young people (were some of the in their 20s???) dictating to short-hand typists!!!!

Out with it all! The prince must drag himself into the 21st century and I know how he can get computer literate and continue his dissidence at the same time: he should start a blog! Not a crappy one on the royal website written by some stiff plonking away on a BBC 64 (that's what they were called, isn't it?). No, the prince needs to get his own blog on Blogger. Maybe he isn't too late to grab http://dissident.blogspot.com - but even if he is, there are loads of possible cool names for an English prince's blog. And he could have his own Halo-scan comments box, as well. Just so he doesn't accidently get cut off from the public mood. Just think how much the tax payer would save! His office could be shut down. All those fancy vellum "from the prince's pen" stationary sheets would remain trees (very much one of the prince's interests). All that sealing wax could be burned away more practically as part of a candle. All those dictating stiffs and short-hand secretaries could find gainful employment, and the prince could blog away to his heart's content on all those matters he finds so vital to the nation's interest.

If I had to be a woman...

Like most people these days, I imagine, I watch TV with the laptop open and connected to the net. The number of screens vying for my attention can get as high as 3 if I find myself having to reply to a text message on my mobile. The whole TV versus internet is a good thing. It means the quality has to get better on TV as the internet, being more interactive, normally wins out. If a film or programme can get me to raise my head from my computer and keep it raised then it's good. Goldie Hawn raised my head tonight in the very funny Housesitter, a 1992 film starring her and Steve Martin. If I had to be a woman, I'd want to be Goldie Hawn.

"Contrary to American Values"

That phrase comes up again and again in the memo outlining the sanctioning of "cruel, inhuman and degrading" treatment of detainees at Guantánamo, which former general counsel to the US navy, Alberto J. Mora, penned for Vice Admiral Albert Church, the man who headed a Pentagon investigation into the abuses.

The memo gives credence to the claims in the recent UN report of practices amounting to torture at the naval base and reveals the complete falsity of Don Rumsfeld's remarks at a recent press conference when he rubbished the report's findings and claimed that detainees were subject to excellent treatment.

Fukuyama on Neoconservatism

Sunday's NYT magazine offers us an idea of what to expect from Francis Fukuyama's forthcoming book,America at the Crossroads. In an essay entitled After Neoconservatism, Fukuyama does an excellent job of making sense. He draws our attention to an inherent contradiction in the philosophy that held sway until recently in the Bush admin.:
"[A] view that ambitious social engineering often leads to unexpected consequences and thereby undermines its own ends" caused Neocons to reject domestic policies such as affirmative action and welfare. Yet "the belief in the potential moral uses of American power ... implied that American activism could reshape the structure of global politics."

Continuing with the theme of consequences, Fukuyama makes this obvious point:

"The reaction against a flawed policy can be as damaging as the policy itself, and such a reaction is an indulgence we cannot afford, given the critical moment we have arrived at in global politics."

But by consequences, he isn't just referring to further radicalization in the Arab world:

"More than any other group, it was the neoconservatives both inside and outside the Bush administration who pushed for democratizing Iraq and the broader Middle East. They are widely credited (or blamed) for being the decisive voices promoting regime change in Iraq, and yet it is their idealistic agenda that in the coming months and years will be the most directly threatened. Were the United States to retreat from the world stage, following a drawdown in Iraq, it would in my view be a huge tragedy, because American power and influence have been critical to the maintenance of an open and increasingly democratic order around the world."

R-E-S-P-E-C-T

Moscow mayor Yuri Luzhkov's refusal to even consider an application by gay organisations in Russia for a permit to conduct what would be the country's first gay pride parade on the grounds that it "outraged" Russian society should be of interest to all who have followed the Danish Muhammad cartoon furore. Representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church, the Muslim community and the Jewish community have spoken out condemning the planned parade. Chief Rabbi, Berl Lazar, has been the most moderate of the spiritual leaders, limiting himself to saying it would be a "blow for morality". According to Friday's English Independent, Orthodox Bishop Daniil of Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk said the plans were a "cynical mockery" and likened homosexuality to leprosy. Not to be outdone, the Supreme Mufti of the Central Muslim Board in Russia, Talgat Tadzhuddin, warned that Muslims would stage violent protests if the parade went ahead, and said:

"If they come out on to the streets anyway they should be flogged. Any normal person would do that - Muslims and Orthodox Christians alike ... [The protests] might be even more intense than protests abroad against those controversial cartoons."

He went on to justify the killing of gays in accordance with the teachings of the Koran and to say that they had "no rights".

Although Tadzhuddin would appear to hold a position of great authority over Russian muslims, the chief Mufti is in fact a controversial figure within his religious community, having apparently been sacked in 2003 after declaring a jihad against the US. As far as I can make out, his position as "supreme Mufti" is due to his seniority in age over his fellow Muftis and I have not been able to establish how he has apparently maintained his title and position in spite of his "sacking". Interestingly, his reaction to the Danish cartoons was quite modest.

If not for the violence of Tadzhuddin's comments, one could relish their irony in light of the worldwide protests over the last few weeks and months.
Taking advantage of their right to assemble by staging a picket of the European Commission's building in Moscow last week, Muslims held banners declaring "freedom is not insulting religious feelings". Now here we have one of their supposed spiritual leaders advocating extreme violence against another social minortiy that wishes to take advantage of its right to assemble.

The reaction in Russia to the proposed gay pride march is interesting as it shows how religious groups may effectively cooperate to neutralise a minority social group's legitimate claims to recognition and respect.

Homosexuality was decriminalised in Russia in 1993 under Yeltsin, but Russian attitudes towards it today are "glacial", according to the Independent. The plan to hold a parade has not been unanimously supported even within Russia's gay community, with some gay rights organisations declaring it "suicidal". The problem of Russia's gay community's lack of a foothold in its society must be compounded by the apparent conformity of Russians' public sexual morals with religious dictates. No doubt the legacy of communism, which punished homosexuality severely, is also brought to bear.

Moscow's mayor's characterisation of the parade as "outrage" is not that far away from the bigoted remarks of the three wise men quoted above. Surely, though, what's outrageous is a community leader's incitement to violence being effectively endorsed by government authorities. And surely, the "blow for morality" was sustained when the claims of members of a community pleading grave insult to their identity at the publication of a few drawings trumped the claims of those whose desire merely to celebrate their identity is met with death threats from a leader of the former group.

In early 2003 the chairman of the Russian council of Muftis, Ravi Gainutdin, declared "no Muslim should now hold prayer with Talgat Tadzhuddin or follow any order or advice issued by him" after the latter's call for jihad against the US. Will Gainutdin now remind Russian muslims of this injunction in light of Tadzhuddin's comments on the gay pride parade? Will he think to inform his community that freedom means a lot more than "not insulting religous feeling"?

Those who have so righteously condemned western newspapers' irresponsbility and "abuse" of the right to freedom of expression in the last few weeks no doubt have been silent about the fate of Russia's first gay pride parade as they have been catching their breath and nursing hoarse throats. I'm sure they will once again be in full voice by the time the curator of the Andrei Sakharov Musuem in Moscow, Yury Samodurov, goes ahead with his plans to mount an exhibition of the Danish cartoons.

Red Star Rising

Looks like the Oompa-Loompa from Tim Burton's recent Charlie & the Chocolate Factory remake has been moonlighting for the Chinese government..... or maybe it's his costume designer.

Brokeback - one step forward or two steps back?

Update: as is evident from the final paragraph, this piece is way too shrill. An anonymous commenter pointed out that Hari has already devoted columns to certain negative aspects of gay culture, so my posturing has been exposed. For some reason, I felt compelled to post a piece on Brokeback and I have to say that Hari's unincisive doom and gloom review struck me as not quite focussing on what is culturally significant about the movie. My shrillness and failure to really take on Hari mar even further this rather lame post. Nevertheless, read on, if you wish!

Back at the beginning of the year, Johann Hari took issue with the film Brokeback Mountain, challenging the widely held belief that it marks a milestone in the gay struggle for acceptance into the mainstream.

In his article, published in the Independent on January 3, Hari argues that Brokeback is just one more in a long line of Hollywood movies to retrieve from the back of the stock-character closet, the stereotype of the tragic, self-loathing gay. He says that, like other movies dealing with gay themes to have gotten full studio backing (Philadelphia, for example), Brokeback Mountain shows its audience that if you're gonna engage in some homo-action, then death or a life of suffering is all that awaits. For Hari, Hollywood's other stock gay character, the chaste gay, is exemplified by the character of Will, from Will & Grace, who is happy, successful, fun and yet - strangely for somebody combining these attractive attributes - very, very single.

Hari may have a point but I think that as well as labouring it a little, he's guilty of ignoring certain salient facts to make it stick. Brokeback is a milestone because it is the first serious film about a gay relationship to get full studio backing. It is also a milestone because it has managed to fill cinema screens across the United States, not only in gay-populous metropoli such as NYC and SF, but in crucial "middle-America" cities and towns in Texas, Kansas and Ohio*.

The film needs to be taken in its context. With sex more and more banished from big Hollywood productions (see the original Batman and last year's Batman Begins for a good example of changing times), it would be churlish to complain that scenes of physical intimacy were kept to a minimum in order not to alienate any viewers. Philadelphia, probably the last full-budget Hollywood movie with a gay man as its central character, was not a gay movie. Rather it was a variation on a well-worn Hollywood fave: heroic man's struggle and eventual triumph against injustice. Brokeback is too a variation on another universal theme. But this time the theme is love. Hollywood churns out countless films about tragic love. This time it just happens to be about two guys. The homophobia and self-loathing don't bother me. They strike me as pretty accurate given that the characters are from small towns and meet in 1963. Anyway, really only Ledger's character is homophobic and self-loathing.**

All in all, I think Brokeback Mountain is having a very positive effect on mainstream perceptions of gays. Its box-office success reflects the significant integration of gays into conventional society achieved in a short period of time, and I don't doubt that it will succeed in challenging the attitudes of many social conservatives who end up viewing it.

Personally, I objected to Annie Proulx' tale when I read it because I thought it fed into a gay tendency towards fatalism. I was fed up hearing gay people championing this "beautiful and tragic" story of gay love. Nevertheless, I could see its merits as a literary tale. For me, the movie dragged in parts (I assume because I'd read the book)and I thought Ledger's wife was too passive. I remember her as much more of a sexually-frustrated bitch in the novella.

I find it interesting that nobody ever complains about portrayals of gay characters by novelists. What is it about images that they can provoke us so much more? Hari would do better, I feel, chastising his fellow travellers instead of Hollywood. Doubtless, there is still a lot to be done in terms of moving gays more into the mainstream (aside from the argument about on whose terms and what gays stand to lose from this embrace of convention). It is still necessary for straight actors to play gay roles and it is impossible for gay men to play straight roles. There's the rub, if you ask me. Also, as evidenced by Ledger's and Gyllenhall's childish antics while introducing Brokeback at the Screen Actors' Guild Awards earlier this month, it's clear that gays still have a lot of work to do in getting straight people to see them as equal (possibly related to the arguments mentioned in the parenthesis above). Nonetheless, Brokeback Mountain is, I believe, a decisive step forward for gay acceptance into the mainstream. I hope Hari will see fit to dedicate an entire column in the Independent to an excoriation of the tendencies in the gay world which will inevitably produce a porn equivalent entitled Bareback Mounting!




*Incidentally, its box-office success appears to have been worldwide, even in Ireland, where only 8 years ago the Department of Health's safe-sex campaign trailer in Irish cinemas would provoke vocal wretching and loud expressions of disgust from many audience members when two out-of-focus naked man were shown caressing.

**The homophobia and self-loathing evident in the original British Queer as Folk TV series strike me as much more worrisome. This was a programme whose script writer was given carte blanche and which was supposed to champion gay life. The overwhelming message, though, was that gays were inherently dysfunctional and incapable of healthy relationships. It took the producers of the US version to introduce a little self-esteem into the series by setting about writing completely new episodes from the second series on. While they also managed to deal with all the relevant "gay culture issues", they didn't compromise the overall message that gay people are as capable of happiness and mature relationships as breeders.

Wrestlemania

Expectation are high this week that the President of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, will challenge US President, George W. Bush, and British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, to a cage match to settle once and for all their on-going war of words.

While of late President Bush has avoided passing comments on Mr Chávez' style of government, he was last week dragged back into the verbal wrestling ring after comments made by his secretary for defense, Donald Rumsfeld. At a recent press conference, "Rummie" launched a salvo at the Venezuelan president by observing that, like Adolf Hitler, he had come to power legally but had then consolidated in an undemocratic fashion (the inference being with disastrous consequences for not only his country but the world).

Chávez, not one to allow his opponents to hoist themselves on their own petards, countered in characteristically statesmanlike fashion:

"The imperialist, genocidal, fascist attitude of the US president has no limits. I think Hitler would be like a suckling baby next to George W Bush,"

However, expectation as to the imminent cage fight shot up this week after Mr. Chávez' comments eerily started harking back to the glory days of WWF and Wrestlemania. One would have been forgiven for thinking that Mean Gene Okerlund was standing by his side holding the microphone when the Venezuelan leader, addressing Tony Blair, came out with gems such as "you messed with me so put up with me" and "I sting those who rattle me, Mr Blair."

These comments were in response to Mr Blair's less WWF-esque remarks in parliament that Venezuela should abide by the rules of the international community if it wishes to be respected by it. Mr Chávez also said to Mr Blair:"Vayase largo al cipote", a South-American Spanish phrase that can be alternately translated as "go to hell" or "piss off".

In the likely event of the tag-team cage fight, it is as yet unknown who Mr Chávez' partner would be. Former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein has been ruled out as he is currently engaged in his own cage match of sorts with the new Iraqi judicial system. Zimbabwean leader, Robert Mugabe, North Korean leader, Kim Il Sung, and Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, are all on excellent terms with Mr Chávez and doubtless all would relish the opportunity to have a go at one or other of Mr Chávez' tag-team opponents.

President Bush is expected any day now to make an announcement along the lines of: "I've been saying my prayers and I've been eating my vitamins, and what you gonna do Hugo, when Bush/Blair-mania gets its arms round you?????????"

No Comment

In light of recent posts on many blogs in defense of the publication and dissemination of the Mohammed cartoons in the name of freedom of expression, I wonder if any blogger has reflected on their attitude to blog comments.

Many bloggers warn their readers that "flamers" will not be tolerated in their comments boxes. Others go further still and post a comments "policy" on their sites stating their right to delete comments without explanation. But is there something of hypocrisy in censoring a commenter on your own blog while steadfastly proclaiming the importance of defending freedom of expression in your blog posts?

Like many, I imagine, I got into blogging through first reading blogs and posting in their comments boxes. Now and again I got into contentious quibbles with other commenters. Although I have never "flamed" and I have always tried to avoid emotive language in trying to make my point, I don't have any real problem with flamers as I don't expect other commenters to adopt my own personal standards of what I believe is reasonable debate.

Of course, people will have different ideas about blogs and comments boxes. I suppose many bloggers operate under the idea that they have absolute discretion as to what kind of comment is acceptable or unacceptable on their blogs. For them, comments boxes are the instant equivalent of newspapers' letters to the editor.

Most internet forums have moderators responsible for ensuring that comments are on-topic and not offensive. While I question the necessity for these moderators, I can see the argument in their favour: namely that in this situation the moderators are impartial and their purpose is more or less to facilitate the discussion at hand and protect participants' sensibilities by weeding out the irrelevant and/or offensive posts.

With blogs, however, the people who exercises this job are the bloggers themselves, and in deleting comments they cannot be said necessarily to be facilitating the debate but rather controlling it. Often it is not their readers' sensibilities that they are seeking to protect but their own.

Yahoo and, more recently, Google, have come under fire from free-speech advocates for agreeing to Chinese government demands that they censor their Chinese search engines. Like these free-speech advocates, I believe the internet is a new frontier in the fight for complete freedom of expression and no censorship. To me there is something inherently contradictory in a blogger moderating their comments box.

In recent months I have been drawn to reading Irish blogs and I have often left comments on posts that have interested me. I'm not that au fait with what other Irish bloggers repeatedly refer to as the "Irish blogosphere" but I can see that it is still very much in its infancy. Anybody who reads blogs beyond the Irish sphere will have come across comments boxes with 200 or more responses. Often these comments are comprised of endless backs and forths between two people who steadfastly refuse to take on board any of their adversaries arguments. Often they contain flaming posts which ridicule the blogger. And often they contain lively discussions between two or more people who have long since gone off-topic. Damien Mulley recently asked who the first blogger in Ireland was and he defined "blog" as the first site to allow comments on a page as opposed to in a guestbook. I think it's fair to say that comments boxes are considered to be important parts of a blog (I know that many successful blogs do not offer comments, nevertheless).

As I acquaint myself with the "Irish blogosphere" I am becoming aware of bloggers' tendencies to delete even reasonable comments from their sites. Leaving aside my earlier point about hypocrisy, I wonder, in the interests of seeing the "Irish blogosphere" grow, and while Irish bloggers are engaging in an attempt to find out more about each other's socio-political backgrounds, is now not a good moment for them also to reflect on and discuss the role the comments box has to play in the development of their blogosphere, and the justifications as well as the implications, if any, of deleting comments from their blogs?

Outrageousness: the new blasphemy

In response to the Iranian government's announcement of a holocaust cartoon competition, this in Tuesday's NYT:

In Washington, the State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack, said: "Any attempt to mock or to in any way denigrate the horror that was the Holocaust is simply outrageous."

Doesn't he mean "simply outrageous to anyone with western values"?

Sphere of the unknown

Found this article linked to at Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish. I think it states its case quite well and passionately. It's by Ibn Warraq, the pseudonymous author of Why I Am Not A Muslim, a critique of Islam which the author was moved to pen in response to the fatwa issued against Salman Rushdie in 1989 by Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini.

Over the weekend, while the whole cartoon thing was going on, I made a half-hearted effort to find some blogs with some dialogue between muslims and non-muslims. I didn't come up with any. The coverage of this whole thing on Irish blogs has been pretty unenlightening (I include myself in this criticism). The amazon.com link here to Warraq's book is interesting for its 232 customer reviews (at the time of posting), some written in the last month as the cartoon kerfuffle heated up in the middle-east . Devout muslims write long criticisms or two-line dismissals of a book they haven't read, while westerners take them to task (many not having read the book either). At least it approaches some form of internet dialogue, something patently absent from our flurry of posts in the Irish blogoparish over the weekend.

Why Bromptons now suck even more

The bicycle manufacturing industry, like the car industry, has diversified a little in the last 10 years or so, and the fold-up bicycle is to the former what the SUV is to the latter. Bromptons have been the benchmark of this niche since forever, but the bike pictured above would easily relegate them to the bargain bin if it were to see production. For the moment, it's just a concept bike, designed for Cannondale Europe by Philippe Holthuizen and Rodrigo Clavel, two design students studying at the Elisava design school here in Barcelona. The Cannondale Jack Knife is so called for the way it folds up, and it features a no-mess, low-maintenance hydraulic drive system, which would obviously have appeal to to the commuting hoards.

The idea of a fold-up appeals as I've had two bikes stolen here in BCN - the first was my prized Cannondale Badboy, my trusty steed for nearly 3 years of bicycle couriering in Dublin before I headed over here. However, I wouln't be caught dead on a Brompton as I reckon cycling one must be about as much fun as working out on a spinning bike in a suit.

Funnily, these days in BCN you see lots of fold-ups left un-folded and tied to lamp posts with two locks!!!

En fin. Sin comentarios.

Half Man Half Monkey?????

I've just seen the Arctic Monkeys' new single, When the Sun Goes Down, on MTV. Haven't heard the album so can't be sure, but isn't there something decidedly Half Man Half Biscuit about their sound?

Cartoon time

Speaking against the motion at the latest Doha debate, Mona Eltahawy made my point about critical thinking. The motion that 'This House believes that Arab media needs no lessons in journalism from the West' was roundly rejected (67 to 33, I think) by the largely Arab audience. I'll post a link to the transcript when it becomes available. I don't know if these debates get put out on regular BBC channels, but they and Hard Talk are two reasons why it's worth having BBC World. I am increasingly critical of the BBC's news reporting standards but they can still give us interesing and lively discussion programmes. On the latest edition of Hard Talk, Stephen Sakur brought Flemming Rose, Jyllands-Posten newspaper editor, and Imam Ahmed Abu Laban, the leader of Islamic Faith Society, Denmark (the group responsible for stirring things up in other Arab countries) to the table. Neither of them managed to completely convince with their arguments. Laban was pretty evasive about some questions. You could see he just didn't agree with with the fundamental right to free expression. He made a charge that also came up in the Doha debate: namely, that the west expects muslims to sit there quietly like well-behaved students while they get a master class on democracy. Actually, he didn't phrase it as well as I've just done (he,he) but that was his essential point. Rose was weak on defending his initial reasoning for commissioning the drawings. Stephen Sakur's okay but I wish they'd bring back Tim Sebastian! He's completely wasted chairing the Doha debates.


Disillusioned Lefty has a good post today on some of the absurdities thrown up by all this kerfuffle.

Red rags to a bull

Okay, so now everybody's blogging about the cartoons. I view the republication of them in a different light to their original publication. I don't buy the high moral ground argument of freedom of expression. Am I being cynical when I think there's more to it than that? Newspapers are in the business of selling newspapers. Losing ground to the internet on a daily basis, they are getting themselves lots of publicity (and maybe even sales!!!) and really stealing the thunder from the web in running with this. The story has moved on. What we need now are cartoons that lampoon the story as it is now, not what is effectively old news. The one that appeared in Le Monde, for example, is what I mean by a cartoonist running with the story (the link is to a neat little slide show of the original offending cartoons and others on the same theme). Stevel Bell's cartoon in the Guardian on Friday went over my head, I'm afraid.

I guess the closest thing in recent western society - apart from the Jerry Springer Opera - is Andres Serrano's Piss Christ. At the time there was a joke going around in the US: what's the difference between art and pornography? The latter gets a government grant! Outraged Christians mobilised to protest this "blasphemy" but none of the protesting came close to the scenes we've witnessed in the last few days.

Here's US satirist Bill Maher taking a knock at a religio when he stood in for Larry King on his CNN show on August 11, 2005. Discussing his own religious views, he stated that he was an agnostic with an open mind as to God's existence. Then he took a call:

CALLER: "Hi. Well, my question is, the Lord spoke to me approximately three years ago, and if the Lord spoke to you [Maher], I was wondering if you'd become a believer."

MAHER: "No, I'd check into Bellevue, which is what you should do..."

He then addressed any scientologists that might have been watching to make his stance clear:

"You [a Scientologist], like all religious people, have a neurological disorder. And the only reason why people think it's sane is because so many other people believe the same thing. It's sanity by consensus."

I talk to God too, but I'm pretty much with Maher on this one. Anyway, all hope isn't lost. The Muslim extremists may yet see the light. After all, the Danish newspaper that published the cartoons used to be a Nazi-party supporting, dictatorship-advocating, right-wing publication!!!

It's all fun and games till somebody loses an eye for an eye

The furore over the cartoons of Mohammed originally published in the Danish daily Jyllands-Posten back in September is gathering momentum as European newspapers are choosing to publish the cartoons, apparently to take a stance on the right to freedom of expression. Needless to say, this has upped the ante considerably in areas where Muslims are, sometimes violently, protesting. Go to this article in wikipedia for the background and timeline.

Let's leave to one side the possible arguments for and against the re-publication of the cartoons and go instead to the source. The original article accompanying the cartoons criticized alleged self-censorship in the western media as a result of pressure, according to its writer, from "some Muslims" who rejected modern, secular society and insisted on "special consideration of their own religious feelings", a claim which the article said was "incompatible with contemporary democracy and freedom of speech, where you must be ready to put up with insults, mockery and ridicule." Out of about 40 Danish cartoonists invited to draw Mohammed as they saw him, 12 responded with caricatures. It is quite clear from the drawings, that some of the cartoonists chose to lampoon the newspaper for opportunism and staging publicity stunts and not Mohammed. This fact would appear to have been lost on the many protesting Muslims around the world. Quoted in the NYT, Jamila Al Shanty, a Hamas representative newly elected to the Palestinian Authority's parliament, said, "We are angry — very, very, very angry. No one can say a bad word about our prophet." What Jamila Al Shanty may not realise is that she is protesting against arguably one of the most important bases of democracy. Not freedom of expression, but rather the faculty of critical thinking. Some of the cartoonists questioned the motives of the newspaper that commissioned their work, and they reflected this in their art. This is a simle example of a human trait that has been one of the driving forces behind every step of progress that western society has made over the centuries. Ms Al Shanty is being critical but she is not thinking critically.

Nor are those Muslim leaders who have called on the Danish Prime Minister to punish the cartoons' publisher. Indeed they would appear to be wilfully ignorant of how western democratic societies work. They might also be accused of cynically attempting to curry favour with their constituents. As the wikipedia article shows, much of the protest in Muslim countries has been orchestrated by Muslim groups who have arrived from Europe to spread disinformation in a clear attempt to whip up public feeling.

At this end of things, what must be of interest to any westerner (and most particularly to the five Irish people who read this blog) is the extent to which blasphemy is or has been a punishable offence in Europe in recent years. The controversy ignited by the Paddy Power ad that accompanies this post shows that Muslims are not the only religious group highly sensitive to media treatment of their religion. In this case a standards authority stepped in and the bookies were obliged to remove the offending poster. But what about a charge of blasphemy going to the courts?

In his article, Free Speech, Religious Freedom and the Offence of Blasphemy, published in the Penguin paperback, Free Expression Is No Offence (ed. Lisa Appignanesi, Penguin 2005),Anthony Lester,QC, cites an interesting case that came before the Irish Supreme Court in 2000. Corway vs. Independent Newspapers was a prosecution brought by a Mr John Corway who complained that he and others had "suffered offence and outrage by reason of the insult, ridicule and contempt shown towards the sacrament of the Eucharist as a result of the publication" in 1995 in the Irish Independent of a cartoon accompanying an article by Conor Cruise O'Brien on the implications of the recent divorce referendum. In Lester's words, the cartoon depicted "on the right a plump and comic caricature of a priest. The priest was holding a host in his right hand and a chalice in his left hand. He appeared to be offering the host to three prominent Irish politicians, but they appeared to be turning away, and waving goodbye." The three pols were the then leaders of the rainbow coalition, Bruton, De Rossa and Quinn. The caption read " Hello Progress, bye bye Father?" The words were a play on a slogan used by anti-divorce campaigners in the run-up to the referendum: "Hello divorce - bye bye daddy."

The court ruled against the plaintiff concluding that punishing the mere act of publication of blasphemous matter without proof of any attempt to blaspheme would be difficult to reconcile with a secular constitution that guarantees the right to freedom of conscience, freedom of religion and freedom of expression. It said it was "impossible to say of what the offence of 'blasphemy' consists. In the absence of legislation and in the present uncertain state of the law the Court could not see its way to authorizing the institution of a criminal prosecution for blasphemy."

Lester also cites another interesting case taken by Barbara Whitehouse against Gay News in 1979 after it published a poem by James Kirkup entitled The Love That Dares to Speak Its Name, which dealt with the author's fantasies of necrophilic sex with Jesus Christ. Whitehouse won her case and the editor got a suspended sentence and fine while the publishers were just fined. You can read the offending piece here.

I'm not sure that the offending Danish cartoons would make for a successful blasphemy prosecution, based on the Irish supreme court's reading. However, had Britain's Labour government not had its racial and religious hatred bill defeated in parliament on Wednesday, there is no doubt that the Danish cartoons, if published by a British newspaper, would have fallen foul of its provisions to punish what is considered to be insulting and abusive.

Islamophobia is on the rise in the western world. In order to understand ourselves, we must understand its phenomenon.There is precious little understanding or acknowledgement of how western society was until relatively recently very similar to many of today's Islamic states in its irrational religiousness. The employment of critical faculties will be essential for the task. In the meantime, fundamental rights cannot be forsaken in an effort to appease fundamentalism.

Same-sex marriage

Disillusioned Lefty adds his two cents.

Hillary Clinton's new look

Looks like the senator for New York has gone overboard on the botox!

Hat tip: The Daily Dish

Dumb, Dumber & Astute

I don't agree with Richard Waghorne's argument that Ken Mehlman, US Republican National Committee chairman and a former Bush/Cheney 04 campaign manager, is not fair game for media and Democrat party members' speculation about his sexuality. Mehlman has come under fire from Democrat activists for dodging reporters' questions about said matter. As a supporter of the marriage protection act and an alleged closet gay,the RNC boss is being called both hypocritical and dishonest by his opponents. Lining him up with two other people in the news for their sexual proclivities- Lib Demmers,Mark Oaten and Simon Hughes - Waghorne argues that Mehlman is an undeserving target of personal attacks as he is not necessarily being dishonest or hypocritical in supporting the marriage protection act and being gay. Oaten and Hughes, on the other hand, RW goes on, are fair game for the media as the first, apart from breaking the law, has been hypocritical, while the second has been dishonest.

While I agree with Richard in so far as it's possible to be gay and to rationally support the marriage protection act, I think the validity of his argument about media interest in Ken Mehlman's sexual orientation would have to rest on how he, and Mr Mehlman, Mr Mehlman's opponents, and the media define homosexuality. If being gay is simply about who you have sex with, then Messrs Waghorne and Mehlman are quite correct to say it is nobody's business except that of the consenting adults involved. However,if being gay is about more than simply who you bed, then surely media speculation as to Mr Mehlman's sexuality - not his sex life - is justifiable and not necessarily invasive.

I'm with Pope Benedict on this one. He believes being homosexual is about far more than who you have sex with, as his recent Instruction to catholic seminaries not to admit or ordain gay men - even those who kept their vow of celibacy - makes plain.

Mehlman doesn't have things as clear as the new pope, unfortunately. Here's an excerpt from his June 05 appearance on NBC's Meet the Press">:


MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?

MR. MEHLMAN: I don't know the answer to that question. I don't think it matters to the fundamental question here because at bottom, this president believes in non-discrimination. He believes in equal treatment. He believes in respect for all. He also believes, separate and apart from that question, that the fundamental question of marriage ought to be defined in the way it's been defined for more than 200 years of our nation's history, which is by the people's representative at the state legislatures.

MR. RUSSERT: But the Log Cabin Republicans will say if you're born gay, it's a biological determination, not a matter of choice.

MR. MEHLMAN: And that's--that may be, but the fact is that's irrelevant to question of the public definition of marriage. They're two totally different issues.

And indeed, they may well be. But when as the incumbent president's election campaign manager, you use the marriage protection act as a political
tool
to get out the vote, and further, when you are working for an administration which can be realistically charged with homophobia and conduct prejudicial to gays, then I say you're fair game when it comes to speculation about your sexuality.

To me all this is a fine example of how political gays always want to have it both ways. While having it both ways is to be energetically encouraged in the bedroom, I fear it's rather less robustly defensable beyond those narrow confines. Gay activists are so often quick to deplore media witch hunts unless they are the ones instigating them. At the same time, those gays who benefit so much from their homosexuality not being disclosed like to trot out the whole "it's a private matter" thing and completely ignore the wider picture of on-going discrimination against gays in daily life. What gives the lie to that argument is the complete unwillingness of those who use it in their defense to be unequivocal about their sexuality. Were Mehlman to state categorically that he is indeed gay, surely he would lend weight to the pro-marriage protection act lobby? Likewise, if all the celibate gay priests in the catholic church were to come out, wouldn't they be a significant counter-argument to those who say that the church is institutionally homophobic?

As for Oaten and Hughes, well, I have to say I am not without sympathy for the former, although, obviously, the weight of my sympathy is with his wife and children.
Clearly he deserved his comeuppance as two years ago he chose to pass moral judgement on a high-court judge who was discovered to be having sex with prostitutues. As for RW's opinion that there is an inherent conflict between breaking the law and running for high office, well, I don't think it's as black and white as that. Clearly, such an argument would have put paid to Senator Norris' public career (something which by all accounts might gratify Waghorne). I'm not sure that engaging the services of a prostitute in a private place is in fact a crime in Britain anyway. This BBC article appears to say that it in fact isn't. Oaten has my sympathy because those who aired the story of his philandering saw fit to include details of what went on that are clearly of no public interest whatsoever. The irony of the prostitute being allowed to pass moral judgement on his customer by the NOFTW wasn't lost on me.

The last of the trio is Simon Hughes, who ran against gay activist Peter Thatchell in the 1983 British general election as the "straight candidate"(!!!) and won. While it's perfectly feasible that Hughes at the time was less than sure, or even ignorant, of his homosexuality, I think a full disclosure and a public, or at least private, apology to Thatchell would have been in order about the same time he began to indulge his penchant for gay chat lines.

Hughes' situation more closely resembles Ken Mehlman's than Oaten's does. They have played on prejudice to get votes, if not in Mehlman's case directly for himself, then for his party and his employer. While public speculation about what one does in bed with one or more people, in my opinion, should never be entertained beyond the realms of idle gossipers, media speculation about a public figure's sexuality may indeed be justified when it can be argued that there is a conflict of interest, so to speak. For as long as there's debate about whether the Bush admin is promoting, in Mehlman's words, "non-discrimination...equal treatment [and] respect for all" when it comes to gays, I'm afraid Ken Mehlman's sexuality is going to be part of that debate.

Fair play to Peter Thatchell for his Orwellian sensitivity to language:


“The media's use of the epithet 'rent boy' has a whiff of homophobia. It is a dated, insulting term from the anti-gay past. A 23 year old man is not a boy.”

“Such language infantilises gay men and risks conflating homosexuality with paedophilia.”