Padd Solutions

Converted by Falcon Hive

The veiled truth

Posted by moses @ 21:28 • , , , , , • 0 comments


What I'm going to talk about this time is certainly a controversial topic. And I think must state clearly that this is my opinion. I don't like saying that because I don't like how opinions are commonly regarded (i.e. as either equally right or equally wrong). But as I cannot claim to have a very informed opinion on this matter, it's better to be humble when there's reason to be, isn't it?

Recently, France has moved towards partially banning the burqa in public places. Of course this has provoked both outrage and approval, often across traditional political lines. I'm not exactly going to take a side on this issue, since my own position straddles both sides of the debate somewhat. I think that this is not a good move, especially with how it has been portrayed by its proponents—I'm not a fan of European views on foreign cultures and integration. However, I don't agree with those who say that this is a clear violation of the freedom of conscience as I disagree that the veil is Islamic.

And I say that because I have a generally positive view of Islam, which can be more progressive than Christianity in issues of social justice (as the Christian conservative majority seeks to prove daily). The notion of an Islamic veil, therefore, sits uncomfortably with me.

Ultimately, the argument boils down to whether hadiths should be seen as binding and what implications this has on one's faith and devotion. In the article, an imam answers the former in the negative, stating there is nothing in the Quran that directs women to cover their faces. And I agree with him. I think that Islam is primarily based on the Quran and that hadiths, as a secondary source on the words and deeds of the Prophet, are a matter of tradition. Thus, I don't think they can be binding, and they should certainly not reflect on the strength of one's faith and devotion.

However, as a more detailed treatment of Islamic doctrine is beyond my ability, I shall offer a logical and ethical argument for this view. There are, I'm sure, many practices based on religious traditions that are uncontroversially disallowed in modern societies. Female genital mutilation is one good example. Of course, not all of them are based on such an old and supposedly weighty set of traditions. But if an ancient and important religious authority did prescribe the practice of female genital mutilation, does that make it more acceptable? (Of course, this question presumes at least some degree of moral realism; I am assuming that we don't think something is right just because people think that it is, or that moral statements merely reflect our emotions)

I also find it disturbing that people are using the notion of freedom to support repressive ideas and practices. Is the veil even really worn for the purposes of modesty today? Cultural norms have changed, and I think the only reason why the veil remains in a lot of places is the patriarchal traditions that some Muslims subscribe to. Besides, if it is about modesty, why do men not wear it as well?

The only good thing that I've heard about it (found here) is that it potentially renders the issue of female looks irrelevant to career prospects in jobs that don't technically require good looks. However, communities that place great importance on it also don't tend to value women's education and work as much as men's. That certainly has implications on the notion that it serves as a gender equaliser.

And as with any other issue, to shout about freedom in arguing for the acceptance of repressive things is inherently contradictory. The logical conclusion of such a view would be akin to the extreme libertarian view, as espoused by Robert Nozick, that someone is free to sell him/herself into slavery. The contradiction in such a line of thinking should be clear, and if we subscribe to the notion of fundamental rights we cannot at the same time think that people can give them up. If that is the case, they wouldn't be 'fundamental'; the argument is thus self-defeating.

Hence, also noting that the ban is after all only partial, I disagree with a lot of the criticisms of this move. But, having said that, I do think that it is misguided in the way it has been conceived and recommended. Even if equality is to be merely paid lip-service, the legislation shouldn't have been expressly aimed at Muslims. Otherwise, it sends a message that xenophobia plays a part in the decision. And if you like to think in slippery slopes, you can imagine what sort of precedent this might set on the issue of integration.

The Importance of Being Destructive

Posted by moses @ 16:51 • , , , • 0 comments


People say there is no such thing as a free lunch. Surprisingly, the very same people who might say something like that often seem to expect it.

Let's not talk about corporate bailouts and taxpayer-funded bonuses. That's too much of a fish in a barrel (though it's a large fish that manages to swim away nonetheless). Let's talk about public action, in the sense that the public takes action to negotiate—diplomatically or otherwise—with the authorities.

I've written some time ago that people must organise themselves to fight for their interests, and that legality is not a necessary moral consideration because of the imperfections of the legal system. The angle I'm going to take here is similar but slightly different. It can be encapsulated by a question: What are the ethics of public action?

And, to go straight to the point, I will ask another question: What is the moral worth of representative democracy if the representatives are not willing to, first and foremost, present the interests of the people they represent but are overwhelmingly concerned about being 'constructive'?

Certainly, there are valid considerations that call into question the idea that you must do exactly as the people you represent wish. What if you think that what they want isn't in their interest or is morally wrong? But the issue is not quite so complex here. The issue is whether the desire to be constructive trumps the proper presentation of a legitimate concern of the public.

Well, unlike in what seem to pass for public campaigns these days, the ethics of public action should not be based primarily on etiquette. Whether you are seen as being polite or positive should not be considered ahead of doing what is necessary to push for the interests of the people you are representing. This isn't business, and the fact that business etiquette has bled into politics is quite alarming.


The issue remains when it's the public itself that is overly concerned about the tone of the negotiations. Essentially, the point is you are either prepared to do some tough bargaining if it proves necessary, or you won't change anything. Being positive is not a trump card and asking for charity is seldom going to work. There's no free lunch, remember?

Or is that an excuse for some things only?

But going deeper than that, being constructive means accepting the framework that is imposed by those in positions of power. And by doing so, you are often being put on the defensive when you should be on the offensive.

To take an example from real life, the fact that students pay (sometimes exorbitant) fees for their education is a fact. Hence, that the executives making decisions for the university feel that they are free to increase those fees while cutting services should not, from every reasonable perspective, simply be accepted. It should be resisted as far as possible by the students. However, by choosing to be strictly 'constructive', a student union that is supposed to fight for their interests has already given up half the fight. By doing so, it is assuming a weaker position and is relying on the goodwill of the executives to grant concessions on a matter where there is a conflict of interest between the students and the university. And how such a body can thereafter retain the claim to represent students is beyond me.

On the contrary, the ethics of public action should demand that the necessary actions be taken to fight for the interests of the public. And if that means having to be less constructive and even destructive, so be it.

However, we must note that being destructive does not necessarily mean being physically destructive. In many cases, physical destruction is unwarranted and morally wrong. Rather, being destructive means the opposite of being constructive, and that is not to accept the imposed framework, rejecting it from the democratic perspective of the people's right to decide their affairs. For what is the moral worth of democracy if the people are merely suppliants bound by codes of conduct, amongst other fetters? Similarly, the ethics of public action must be closely tied to the public itself, the subject and the object of public action.

Now, having rejected the imposed framework, negotiations might come to an impasse. And this is where we return to the subject of tough bargaining. Only when you are able to threaten the prevailing order will you have any basis for negotiations. Only when you are willing to commit fully to your own cause will you get anything. To think otherwise is naive and irresponsible.

There are other reasons for declining rates of political participation in some liberal democracies, but the impotence of the public, its inability to effect the desired changes, certainly plays a part.

After all, if we can only go as far as it's polite to do, then we're only going to be politely declined. So what's the point?

The Prestige

Posted by moses @ 18:28 • , , , • 0 comments


There's plenty to hate about pop culture. I'm sure all that can be said has been said and is being said again, even by the same people who embrace it daily. Also, I personally don't hate pop culture. I'm fascinated by it to some extent. I think the feeling that it should sometimes inspire is not so much hate (contempt, perhaps, when you're faced with its excesses). Rather, I think the occasional feeling towards it should be fear.

Why be afraid? Well, because of its power and its blindness. And while the weight of its mass is blind, it is controllable and is controlled. On one hand, it expresses the fickleness of public opinion. On the other, it reeks of the real possibility of moulding and pushing that ephemeral opinion one way or another. Moreover, this is done under an appealing visage of individuality and 'culture'.

Take the death of Michael Jackson as an example. Just before it happened, he was a joke, a figure receiving of laughter and contempt in the public consciousness. He was hated for being a likely paedophile, reviled for opting to disfigure himself to change his skin colour and labelled as a has-been. That was the kind of image that the media portrayed.

And then he died. Suddenly, he was a star again. He was remembered as the king of pop, not the has-been that he had just been regarded as. His unsavoury lifestyle and habits were forgotten amidst a worldwide phenomenon of mourning. And that is itself phenomenal. People suddenly acted as if he was a hero, as if he was universally loved for his contributions. But what has he done to merit such an image? Can he really be considered a heroic figure?

So what could explain such a turnaround? What else, if not the fact that people buy readily into hype? And hype is just one face of the manipulation of public opinion that pop culture facilitates and disguises. Behind the phenomena, there are people who want you to think this or that at their whim. One day you're allied with Eurasia and at war with Eastasia; tomorrow, you're suddenly allied with Eastasia and at war with Eurasia – and that is accepted with hardly a blink!

Don't you get a shudder when you think of this? But perhaps you wouldn't, simply because such an incredible leverage is not used for overtly sinister purposes. Why, at most these controlling interests ultimately want you consume this or that, right?

But, once again, that is only one face of the whole machinery, a vast apparatus that is also perpetuating all sorts of problems across the world. And that is because it is an amoral force, a force motivated by objects and concepts that are not even actual objects except by the tacit acknowledgement of people who want them to be. It is an inhuman force.

In this instance, however, the force appears very much human. Pop culture is frequently about celebrating individuality, about expressing yourself. It is called culture. Yet it is one that is mass produced, packaged and marketed to as many people as possible. It celebrates the same 'individual' identities that many celebrate, and also that certain people want you to celebrate. It appears as some sort of social consciousness, but it is one that is very much controlled by large profit-oriented private interests. Clearly, it is paradoxical and absurd.

I guess the fear really lies in the thought that this might be both the present and the future, the idea that we could be watching an unending show that sickens us. And that is because society is unable to break free from the mechanisms behind the phenomena. We watch, engrossed for a while, but as soon as we care to look into it, we realise the trick. And with horror we witness how it captures the audience again and again.

Perhaps they want to believe what they are seeing.

Are you watching closely?