Geoff Coupe's Blog

Reflections on life at “De Witte Wand”…

Category: Society

  • Tatchell on Qaradawi

    Peter Tatchell has an excellent opinion piece on the UK government’s decision to ban Muslim extremist cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi from entering Britain. Tatchell sees it as "illiberal, unwarranted and unmerciful". I agree. We also both agree that Qaradawi is an intolerant hypocrite, but what better way to show up his true nature than to allow him to enter Britain for needed medical treatment? As Tatchell says,
    "Let’s hope his surgeon is a gay Israeli Jew – and that he performs a successful operation, so that Qaradawi is forced to acknowledge that he owes his life to a Jewish sodomite".

  • Open Mouth…

    …Change feet. It appears as though Dr. Williams is on a roll at the moment. I hope he comes to his senses soon.
     
    Update: I think Andrew Brown’s comment in The Guardian pretty much nails it:
    "Only if Islamic law can be reduced to a game played between consenting adults can it be acceptably enforced in this country; and that’s not, I think, how it is understood by its practitioners." 
    Update 2: Yasmin Alibhai-Brown also has her doubts: What he wishes on us is an abomination. I can’t help but feel that she’s right.

  • Space Psychiatry

    Vaughan, over at Mind Hacks, has an interesting piece on space psychiatry. The topic dates back to 1959, when a special issue of the American Journal of Psychiatry was devoted to it. Given the time, it was not surprising that one article:
    …discusses the possibilities of using psychological selection techniques for space crew and notes that it should exclude "the person with a history of constantly fighting and rebelling both against peers and authority figures, as well as those with pressing homosexual or other major neurotic conflicts."
    Thankfully, times change. Go and read the piece. It contains references to Stanislaw Lem (a favourite author of mine) and to another related piece in Wired.

  • Offended?

    I see that the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has banned an advert produced by a Christian group, The Christian Congress for Traditional Values (CCTV). The advert shows a photo of a traditional family – man, woman and two children, with the slogan: "Gay aim: abolish the family".
     
    The ASA said that the advert broke advertising rules on social responsibility, decency, matters of opinion and truthfulness, adding that "We concluded that the poster was likely to cause serious or widespread offence and might lead to anti-social behaviour." Oh dear, I’m not sure I want to be lumped in with the ever-growing group of people who take offense at the slightest thing. Frankly, the advert is pathetic, and a clear reflection of the stupidness of the organisation that produced it, but I don’t feel offended by it. I am more struck by the time-warped attitudes of the people who produced it. Clearly a bunch of god-bothering wankers.
     
    I note that the group "defended the poster, citing gay organisations’ manifesto documents from the 1970s which described the traditional family unit as working against homosexuality." From the 1970s?! Clearly they are stuck in a time warp. They are getting exercised over the old Gay Liberation Front manifesto produced in 1971, which was indeed a child of its time. But we’ve all grown up since then – or at least, some of us have. Earth to the CCTV: families come in all shapes and sizes. Get over it.

  • Count Your Blessings

    As I’ve said before, I feel very fortunate to be able to live in a society where I don’t have to live in fear because of who I am. Others are not so lucky. GayUganda has two posts up about a situation that is developing in Senegal. Read his first post, At Home, and then his second. Depressing.
     
    Update: 7 Feb 2008: the BBC reports that the Sengalese men have been freed. I hope that this is good news, but I also note the last sentence of the Beeb’s report:
    Senegal is a predominantly Muslim country and gay men and women remain socially marginalised. 
    Not good.

  • I’m Sorry, I’ll Read That Again

    Sometimes, I feel that I agree with some of the observations that Rowan Williams makes. But sometimes, I wonder whose side he is on. Cue this speech. And Ophelia, as usual, points out the poison in the guts.

  • Tourist Warning

    Welcome to New York. Although, if you’re a family visiting on a shopping trip, then you’d better be careful.

  • Pot, Kettle, Black

    And just as a footnote to my post about Mr. Cruise’s eloquent demonstration of his self-delusion; Julian Baggini asks: Is Cruise Really So Crazy? Well of course, the answer is no, when you consider that the Vatican has a Chief Exorcist, who is clearly as deluded as Tom Cruise. It’s just that the roots of Father Gabriele Amorth’s delusion go back a lot longer. That’s why it’s called a religion and not a cult. Otherwise, not too much to choose between them, I’d say. As Ophelia says of Father Amorth’s writings: "This is nasty, bad, harmful stuff, and the Vatican should be ashamed of itself. It never is, but it should be."  

  • Confounding the Stereotype

    Johann Hari has an interesting interview with Nathan Shaked, Mr. International Gay for 2007. He’s not what you might think.
     
    Oh, and after you’ve read that, you should check out his interview wih Peter Tatchell, a secular saint.

  • The Chess Player

    It seems as though the newspapers have been full of stories about the death of Bobby Fischer this week (I count eight in The Guardian alone), and I’m slightly at a loss to understand why. Perhaps it’s the horrendous contrast between his sheer genius at chess, and the fact that he was so piss-poor at playing the game of being a human. It may be that we look at examples like Fischer where the gift of genius comes at the cost of simple humanity and give heartfelt thanks that we were not cursed with such a gift. 
     
    Reading some of this week’s articles about Fischer written by writers on the game of chess, I was also somewhat reminded of Charles Harness’ short story The Chess Players (found in his book The Rose).  It’s about a group of chess players who critique the abilities of one of their number, completely oblivious to the fact that he is, in fact, a pet rat. The only important thing, in their eyes, is whether he is any good as a chess player.

  • Rants and Raves

    I’ve just come across a blog apparently written by a gay Kenyan man. What took me aback somewhat was the entry where he says that commenting on politics was outside of his blog philosophy. Part of me says that I can understand that, but part of me screams that nothing, but nothing, is ever outside of politics. It’s what we are as humans. Politics may be described as religion, or society, but at ground zero – it’s politics. It’s how humans rub up against other humans both physically and mentally.

  • The Report on Saudi Arabia

    The New Humanist Blog draws our attention to the report on Saudi Arabia produced by the UN’s Committee on Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. The report contains the responses from a Saudi delegation to various questions posed by the Committee. I notice that apparently Saudi Arabian women are not allowed to study geology at university, it does seem rather an odd thing to prohibit. There are some lovely bits of deadpan reporting. For example, why women are forbidden to drive in Saudi Arabia:
    "With regards to the issue of driving, in the early stages of Islam, there were no cars, and women rode camels or donkeys, and participated in all walks of life. This was history, and could not be forgotten. The matter was not related to Sharia. However, the problem was not related to the laws of the State, it was a matter for society. When people and the mentality were ready, then women would be allowed to drive cars. Once there was a need for women to drive, then it would be permitted. The Government was worried about women, and this was why those who were responsible were against the idea of women driving cars."
    Even the act of a woman going out is hedged about with some suspicious verbiage:
    "Saudi society was different in terms of its inter-dependence – the family was very tight, and mothers were considered to be the guardians of their children. The best proof was that if any woman wished to go out and needed permission from her husband, then this was for her own protection, and not to constrain or restrict her movements."
    Then we have the independence of women when it comes to health issues:
    "Regarding health, there was a misconception that a woman could not sign a consent document agreeing to a surgical procedure, and this was entirely wrong. An adult, mentally-sound woman could consent to procedures on her body, except if the procedure related to reproduction or infertility, in which case the consent of the male guardian was required. A mother could also give consent to medical procedures performed on her children."
    I do love the sound of that phrase: "the male guardian". It rather undermines the whole impression that they try to give of equality between the sexes. But the concluding remarks of the delegation’s chairman (yes, of course it was a man, what did you think?) should put all our minds at rest:
    "Saudi Arabia would like to emphasise the fact that it respected women, and protected their rights, and stood against anyone violating these rights. The concept of human rights in a society like that of Saudi Arabia was a concept that could be relatively new, but in reality, all the values of human rights which were encompassed in conventions, with the exception of some reservations such as homosexual marriage, which was not accepted, were accepted by Saudi Arabia. 
    Well, it’s clearly all hunky-dory, then.
     

  • Bizarre

    As I always seem to be saying: never underestimate the human capacity for self-delusion. Here’s another example, from Dr. J. Carter-Wood, over at Obscene Desserts: the Nuwabians. And it’s a doozy, let me tell you. But don’t take my word for it, let John lay it out for you, and be sure to check out the photographic essay by A. Scott. Words fail me.

  • A Land Called Paradise

    As something of an antidote to all the "fear and loathing" stories that I seem to read these days in the media, here’s a music video:
     
     
    (hat tip to Rachel)

  • First Impressions

     
    Also by the same filmmakers:
     
    People in Order
     

  • Snuffed Out

    Lord, this sort of thing is depressing. Human rights should outweigh cultural rights every time. Obviously something that Maged Thabet Al-Kholidy doesn’t agree with, may Allah damn his soul.

  • A Plea For Violence

    When I read things like this, I realise that some people’s thinking is completely alien to me, and that I am not a cultural relativist.

  • The Edge Question for 2008

    After you’ve read the Richard Dawkins essay that I referred to a couple of days ago, I hope that you will go to the Edge to read the answers from the rest of the 163 contributors to this year’s question: What have you changed your mind about? Why?

  • The Banality of Evil?

    It’s become almost a mantra these days to believe that anyone, given the right circumstances, is capable of committing evil acts. After all, look at the experiments of Milgram and Zimbardo. In the light of this, it’s interesting to come across this article in The Psychologist that questions that view of "the banality of evil". The traditional view is that:
    …psychologists and historians have agreed that ordinary people commit evil when, under the influence of leaders and groups, they become blind to the consequences of their actions. This consensus has become so strong that it is repeated, almost as a mantra, in psychology textbooks and in society at large. 
    But the alternative view might be:
    People do great wrong, not because they are unaware of what they are doing but because they consider it to be right. This is possible because they actively identify with groups whose ideology justifies and condones the oppression and destruction of others. 
    As the authors say, this raises a whole set of new questions that perhaps should be pursued.

  • He’s Baaack!

    Dylan Evans, I mean. I’ve mentioned him before, as he does seem to write an awful lot of what strikes me as the purest codswallop. He’s popped up again in today’s Guardian. This time his thesis is that the boisterous play that was once an accepted feature of boys’ behaviour is now ruthlessly curbed by a feminist-inspired thought police. Cough. As one of the female commentors on his piece so aptly says:
    Oh for goodness sake – when will boys get over the fear that we’re going to chop their willies off!
    Quite.