http://www.victorhanson.com/
Readers should go to the above.
The book is Culture and Carnage by Victor Davis Hanson. Let's just say it is not politically correct. But brutally honest. Moderate, rational Muslims should take a look. And those of us who are thinking of giving the radical Muslim an even break should seriously consider breaking a few radical Muslim bones in defence of the freedoms all of us including moderate Muslims seem to take for granted.
Veiled Muslim Women in Britain.
I could not believe the recent controversy in the British media over veiled Muslim women. The short of it is, if you want to wear the veil, in all locations at all times and under all circumstances, go back to wherever obviously and radically less enlightened place it is you came from. Wearing the veil gives you a psychological advantage; you can see me, all of me, my body language and facial expressions all in, whereas depending on the precise shape or form of your full-length clothing I will have difficulty deciphering your body language and it will be impossible to decipher your face (it will be covered). Religion is irrelevant here. You are gaining an advantage that could be critical in some situations of social interaction. To deny it is to deny plain and simple, observable fact.
Does the average veiled Muslim woman in Europe, railing against various European politicians' recent pronouncements on the issue, realise that the Malaysian civil service absolutely bans its civil servants from wearing veils in the performance of duties? And that all Malaysians, good Muslim women included, carry identity cards that - in the case of Muslim women - contain the photograph unveiled of the woman whose identity is stated on the card?
It is a silly argument to use labels such as insensitive, racist or over-simplification. **Totally** stupid if you ask me. Time to wake up to reality. You are living in Britain. One of the world's greatest countries. You could be living in Somalia. Count your blessings.
LMT
LawMan's Dogs
Killer Beasts Doing Breakfast
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
The Old Man Must Learn to Let Go
The Old Man has to learn that his time is past. When he was PM he created a culture of fear. Operation Lallang was his doing. Anwar's sodomy trial and related actions were his doing. Twas he who sacked Tun Salleh Abbas. So Malaysia is no less an oppressed society now than when he was at the helm.
The Old Man can be praised for doing great things. I won't go through the list of his achievements here. No space. Suffice to say that when Al Gore came to KL and insulted the entire nation at a dinner at which he was the guest of honour and we were the host, I felt sufficiently annoyed to register an email address in the Old Man's name for myself and to circulate a non-anonymous email to all my friends at that time, denouncing Al Gore's lack of any grasp whatsoever of the subject matter of his speech. I thought it was a defining moment of the Old Man's career when, irregardless of who he may have annoyed, the entire nation stepped back and gave him its full backing against what was an obviously unwarranted attack by a rude, arrogant guest. Hopefully the guest has learned something in the intervening decade. He has, after all lost a US Presidential election in the meantime.
Anyway, back to the core of this post: whatever great things the Old Man did, his time is past. He did it to himself; no one else. So to now try to do a Jesus or a Lazarus (come back from the political dead) is downright bad taste. Let go. Your time is over, Old Man. You retired. It was your choice. Now stay retired so the rest of us can get on with our lives.
LMT.
The Old Man can be praised for doing great things. I won't go through the list of his achievements here. No space. Suffice to say that when Al Gore came to KL and insulted the entire nation at a dinner at which he was the guest of honour and we were the host, I felt sufficiently annoyed to register an email address in the Old Man's name for myself and to circulate a non-anonymous email to all my friends at that time, denouncing Al Gore's lack of any grasp whatsoever of the subject matter of his speech. I thought it was a defining moment of the Old Man's career when, irregardless of who he may have annoyed, the entire nation stepped back and gave him its full backing against what was an obviously unwarranted attack by a rude, arrogant guest. Hopefully the guest has learned something in the intervening decade. He has, after all lost a US Presidential election in the meantime.
Anyway, back to the core of this post: whatever great things the Old Man did, his time is past. He did it to himself; no one else. So to now try to do a Jesus or a Lazarus (come back from the political dead) is downright bad taste. Let go. Your time is over, Old Man. You retired. It was your choice. Now stay retired so the rest of us can get on with our lives.
LMT.
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Freedom of Speech
I have always thought that it is important not to give in to bullies.
When someone wants to shut off all debate on an issue because of some perceived or alleged (meaning it has not actually happened) threat to society's general wellbeing, I get a little worried. I cannot help but suspect that the rush to shut the debate down before it has even begun is happening not so much because of any threat to society but because of a threat to the establishment and the established order, and vested interests who do not wish things to change - not for any high moral reason, but because they are gaining too much from the status quo.
IN other words, killing debate in many instances serves the bullies who are in power and who know that their position cannot be defended by rational argument. Rather than be proven wrong on the level playing field of rational debate, they decide to strong-arm a solution from a position of physical strength.
In recent history this has included certain American politicians trying to employ the war on terror as a flag to kill off proper and important debate on the limitations to individual freedoms; and the Hindu religious chauvinists mentioned in this article from the Sun,Malaysia, below.
LMT.
--- Article Information ---
This article was printed from Welcome to Sun2Surf
Article's URL: http://www.sun2surf.com/article.cfm?id=15714
---------------------------
Preserve the right to free expression
By: Jacqueline Ann Surin (Thu, 05 Oct 2006)
The UK's Daily Telegraph recently ran an article headlined "Hindus threaten cinemas over film exposing plight of India's 'City of Widows'."
The film is Indian-born director Deepa Mehta's Water which highlights the cruel Hindu tradition of treating widows as social outcasts. According to this tradition, it is a widow's bad karma that caused her husband's demise.
As a result, many of India's 40 million widows are cast out of family and society, and have to fend for themselves. They are forced to shave their heads and dress in white.
About 10,000 seek sanctuary in Vrindavan - the City of Widows - a holy town in northern India where they rely on charity. Those not fortunate enough are forced into prostitution and begging.
The film is being nominated for an Oscar for best foreign language film, but it is not being nominated by India, but by Mehta's adopted homeland, Canada.
See, Mehta has received death threats for her film and had to finish making it abroad. Protesting mobs attacked her film set and no cinema in India will show her film for fear of reprisals.
Hindu nationalist groups have accused the filmmaker of "insulting" Hindu culture, and of a "conspiracy to tarnish India's image".
The Daily Telegraph quotes World Hindu Council national convenor Prakash Sharma as declaring, "We will not tolerate a screening under any circumstances. We will attack cinemas if necessary."
The furore over Mehta and her film in India should resonate in Malaysia.
Sure, the context and actors may be different, but it wasn't too long ago when protesting mobs tried to prevent two Article 11 forums on Malaysians' constitutional rights from proceeding. Unfortunately, with the government ban on any other Article 11 forum, the use of threats and mob rule has proven highly effective in Malaysia.
And, wasn't it just last month that death threats against Muslim lawyer Malik Imtiaz Sarwar circulated on the Internet, purportedly in the name of defending Islam - a great religion that seeks peace and justice, and that has a rich tradition of diversity and consultation.
Groups like Sisters in Islam and public intellectuals such as Farish Noor, who speak out against unjust practices committed in the name of religion, are also constantly accused of "belittling" and "insulting" Islam. They, too, have been labelled and threatened in attempts to suppress and silence.
Freedom of expression is a necessary prerequisite of any thinking, thriving democracy. Freedom of expression ensures that different voices, representing a plurality of interests that is inevitable in any human society, have the space to be heard and the opportunity to engage in public discourse.
It ensures that injustices such as the inhumane ostracisation of Hindu widows can be highlighted and addressed, rather than left to perpetuate and fester.
We know that it's not just in religion that strong threats against freedom of expression exist in Malaysia.
Movies, most recently Lelaki Komunis Terakhir, numerous publications and theatre performances are repeatedly and arbitrarily banned or censored in Malaysia.
Academics and students, meanwhile, are effectively prevented from speaking up publicly, for example, through the media, by the Universities and University Colleges Act and the Aku Janji pledge.
Those who would want to silence the people who speak out against the wrongs in our society - be they cultural or religious practices or in institutions like universities - are asking us to acquiesce to ongoing injustices.
You can usually tell when that happens from the arguments that they use, whether they be in India, Malaysia or any other part of the world.
To speak out is to "tarnish", "insult", "attack", "disparage" or "undermine" the sanctity of a religion, an institution, "Asian values" or whatever notion of social harmony is being promoted.
We would all do well to remember these arguments. It's usually an effective test to discern if freedom of expression is being suppressed to our collective detriment.
LAST month, to commemorate International Right to Know Day on Sept 28, the Freedom of Information (FOI) Coalition launched a campaign to advocate for a FOI Act in Malaysia.
The call for "No More Secrets" is long overdue, and the 10 principles for the FOI campaign (see www.cijmalaysia.org/info_cafe) are crucial and commendable.
What was highly disappointing, however, was the poor turnout at the launch.
Although the FOI Coalition comprises more than 32 organisations, none of their representatives, except for the Centre for Independent Journalism, turned up.
No political party representative or MP turned up either, despite being invited. In fact, only 10 people turned up, two of whom were foreigners.
"People must like their secrets very much," one foreign observer remarked.
It was hard to dispute that especially since coalition members themselves could not be present to show support for a campaign they want the public to embrace.
Jacqueline Ann Surin believes that you cannot be neutral on a moving train. She is an assistant news editor at theSun. Comments: feedback@thesundaily.com
--- end ---
When someone wants to shut off all debate on an issue because of some perceived or alleged (meaning it has not actually happened) threat to society's general wellbeing, I get a little worried. I cannot help but suspect that the rush to shut the debate down before it has even begun is happening not so much because of any threat to society but because of a threat to the establishment and the established order, and vested interests who do not wish things to change - not for any high moral reason, but because they are gaining too much from the status quo.
IN other words, killing debate in many instances serves the bullies who are in power and who know that their position cannot be defended by rational argument. Rather than be proven wrong on the level playing field of rational debate, they decide to strong-arm a solution from a position of physical strength.
In recent history this has included certain American politicians trying to employ the war on terror as a flag to kill off proper and important debate on the limitations to individual freedoms; and the Hindu religious chauvinists mentioned in this article from the Sun,Malaysia, below.
LMT.
--- Article Information ---
This article was printed from Welcome to Sun2Surf
Article's URL: http://www.sun2surf.com/article.cfm?id=15714
---------------------------
Preserve the right to free expression
By: Jacqueline Ann Surin (Thu, 05 Oct 2006)
The UK's Daily Telegraph recently ran an article headlined "Hindus threaten cinemas over film exposing plight of India's 'City of Widows'."
The film is Indian-born director Deepa Mehta's Water which highlights the cruel Hindu tradition of treating widows as social outcasts. According to this tradition, it is a widow's bad karma that caused her husband's demise.
As a result, many of India's 40 million widows are cast out of family and society, and have to fend for themselves. They are forced to shave their heads and dress in white.
About 10,000 seek sanctuary in Vrindavan - the City of Widows - a holy town in northern India where they rely on charity. Those not fortunate enough are forced into prostitution and begging.
The film is being nominated for an Oscar for best foreign language film, but it is not being nominated by India, but by Mehta's adopted homeland, Canada.
See, Mehta has received death threats for her film and had to finish making it abroad. Protesting mobs attacked her film set and no cinema in India will show her film for fear of reprisals.
Hindu nationalist groups have accused the filmmaker of "insulting" Hindu culture, and of a "conspiracy to tarnish India's image".
The Daily Telegraph quotes World Hindu Council national convenor Prakash Sharma as declaring, "We will not tolerate a screening under any circumstances. We will attack cinemas if necessary."
The furore over Mehta and her film in India should resonate in Malaysia.
Sure, the context and actors may be different, but it wasn't too long ago when protesting mobs tried to prevent two Article 11 forums on Malaysians' constitutional rights from proceeding. Unfortunately, with the government ban on any other Article 11 forum, the use of threats and mob rule has proven highly effective in Malaysia.
And, wasn't it just last month that death threats against Muslim lawyer Malik Imtiaz Sarwar circulated on the Internet, purportedly in the name of defending Islam - a great religion that seeks peace and justice, and that has a rich tradition of diversity and consultation.
Groups like Sisters in Islam and public intellectuals such as Farish Noor, who speak out against unjust practices committed in the name of religion, are also constantly accused of "belittling" and "insulting" Islam. They, too, have been labelled and threatened in attempts to suppress and silence.
Freedom of expression is a necessary prerequisite of any thinking, thriving democracy. Freedom of expression ensures that different voices, representing a plurality of interests that is inevitable in any human society, have the space to be heard and the opportunity to engage in public discourse.
It ensures that injustices such as the inhumane ostracisation of Hindu widows can be highlighted and addressed, rather than left to perpetuate and fester.
We know that it's not just in religion that strong threats against freedom of expression exist in Malaysia.
Movies, most recently Lelaki Komunis Terakhir, numerous publications and theatre performances are repeatedly and arbitrarily banned or censored in Malaysia.
Academics and students, meanwhile, are effectively prevented from speaking up publicly, for example, through the media, by the Universities and University Colleges Act and the Aku Janji pledge.
Those who would want to silence the people who speak out against the wrongs in our society - be they cultural or religious practices or in institutions like universities - are asking us to acquiesce to ongoing injustices.
You can usually tell when that happens from the arguments that they use, whether they be in India, Malaysia or any other part of the world.
To speak out is to "tarnish", "insult", "attack", "disparage" or "undermine" the sanctity of a religion, an institution, "Asian values" or whatever notion of social harmony is being promoted.
We would all do well to remember these arguments. It's usually an effective test to discern if freedom of expression is being suppressed to our collective detriment.
LAST month, to commemorate International Right to Know Day on Sept 28, the Freedom of Information (FOI) Coalition launched a campaign to advocate for a FOI Act in Malaysia.
The call for "No More Secrets" is long overdue, and the 10 principles for the FOI campaign (see www.cijmalaysia.org/info_cafe) are crucial and commendable.
What was highly disappointing, however, was the poor turnout at the launch.
Although the FOI Coalition comprises more than 32 organisations, none of their representatives, except for the Centre for Independent Journalism, turned up.
No political party representative or MP turned up either, despite being invited. In fact, only 10 people turned up, two of whom were foreigners.
"People must like their secrets very much," one foreign observer remarked.
It was hard to dispute that especially since coalition members themselves could not be present to show support for a campaign they want the public to embrace.
Jacqueline Ann Surin believes that you cannot be neutral on a moving train. She is an assistant news editor at theSun. Comments: feedback@thesundaily.com
--- end ---
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)