Postfeminism? Is Feminism Irrelevant today – Noelle McCarthy writes

Noelle McCarthy: Press your shirt dear? Pass me the irony …

Do you consider yourself a feminist? Noelle McCarthy believes very few women in her generation (30s) do.

5:00AM Saturday August 09, 2008
By Noelle McCarthy

My hairdresser asked me last week if I was a feminist. I was flummoxed.

I am used to random questions from my hairdresser; she is a singular person with an unusual capacity for lateral thinking. And yet, on this occasion I found myself stuck for an answer.

Ten years ago, a teenage me would have railed at her. A feminist! Of course I’m a feminist, I’d have bellowed in my most unladylike baritone, and flung an Ani Di Franco CD at her for having the temerity to even ask the question.

Heading into my twenties, head full of Adrianne Rich poems and bons mots from de Beauvoir, my feminist credentials were as firmly established as my penchant for black velvet swing-coats and Rimmel Black Cherry lipstick. And yet, how we change.

A decade on and it is far harder to say whether the term still has any meaning at all for my generation, or whether it has simply been subsumed into the morass of labels and -isms that reek of days gone by.

In our post-modern era of fractured texts, virtual realities and multiple layers of meaning, the idea of having only one system, one theory through which one sees the world, is impossibly old fashioned, quaint even. Feminism, Bolshevism, pacifism, post-structuralism, dadaism. “Ism”s belong to a more innocent time, when people had the luxury (or the misfortune) to see things only one way.

We live – as we are constantly reminded by everyone from Paris Hilton to Barack Obama – in an age of irony. Irony is the most important filter in the way we see, and talk about, our world.

It’s the reason John McCain can use a video of Paris to take a pot shot at Obama, and Paris can use a video of herself to take a pot shot at McCain. Parody, satire, self-reflexiveness. If I ever was a feminist, all of these things mean I can’t be one any more.

Twenty years ago, or even 10, a sentence like the last one would have been enough to ensure a predictable deluge of what is euphemistically referred to as feedback.

The denial of feminism used to be a fairly dependable kick-start for a nicely rabid debate. And in between the “how dare yous” and the “good on yous” would have been many expressions of valid opinion on the issue. Because it was an issue that people – men as well as women – cared about. And now, I’ll be surprised if there are any at all.

How many women of my generation would consider themselves feminists? Very few, I’d wager. It’s a hopelessly dated term, and also, really, a given. Most of the women I know work, talk, and live in a state of equality with men.

They’re paid as much, or more, and are just as ambitious, if not more. If single, they’re likely to pursue exactly the sorts of sexual relationships that suit them, and ensure their own financial independence, rather than bet on Prince Charming ponying up when the time comes.

If they’re married or attached, they’re less likely to assume the traditional carer roles in the household, and more likely to share childcare duties in order to have a family and a career. This isn’t a state of affairs that is endlessly pontificated on, or even discussed in anything beyond a cursory manner. Really, we just take it for granted and get on with it.

Anything else is just navel gazing, and we’re far too busy lorrying back the pinot gris, blowing our disposable income and enjoying equally disposable love affairs to have too much time for that.

The equality enjoyed by women of my generation, and of the generations on either side of it, is a legacy of hundreds of years of thankless, fruitless-seeming juggling, grafting and struggling by all the women who came before us, and yet it is harder now than ever to identify with women’s liberation as a movement.

Why? Because it is an artefact, because it has ceased to be contemporary and vital and real. That’s not to say women aren’t still struggling. The statistics don’t lie; the lowest-paid workers in the world are women, the mothers and the daughters and the sisters who are still bearing the brunt of subsistence-level agriculture all over the world.

It is the women who work in sweatshops and the women who harvest the crops and the women who are trying to feed families in Sierra Leone.

But improving the lot of women like that is a question of global economics, rather than feminist dogma in action. Raising their consciousness and imbuing them with ideas of sisterhood are not the answer to the question of whether the developing world is owed a fair price for its labour.

I realise the iniquities and indignities that have been visited on my gender from the first witch ducking to headlines calling Britney fat. I know we live in an unfair world; it’s the reason why, no matter how much money I earn, or how important my job, I won’t ever feel comfortable asking a man out or splitting the bill on a date. Does that make me anti-feminist, or just confused and contemporary?

A retro-style Lady? And what the hell is a Rules Girl anyway? The post-Sex and the City generation can be forgiven for being confused about what exactly constitutes an evolved woman; we’re told she can have it all, but all she really needs are the two “Ls” – labels and love.

I don’t remember there being much about Vuitton in The Second Sex, but de Beauvoir’s arrangement with Sartre was certainly a very modern sort of love. Alas history doesn’t recall if he called her by Wednesday for a Saturday night date, so we don’t know if she followed The Rules on that one or not.

De Beauvoir being de Beauvoir, I suspect she would have done exactly whatever the hell she wanted, which is really the only true feminist template those who wish to honour her legacy should be aiming to follow. That, despite what Andrea Dworkin or Germaine Greer would have you believe, is really all there is to it.

The legacy of feminism is freedom to choose, and it is that freedom that remains important and worth celebrating even though the term itself has gone the way of key-parties, macrame and fondue.

DO YOU THINK THE BOOBS ON BIKES PARADE SHOULD GO AHEAD?

Last year we had quite a debate about this parade – freedom of speech or degrading to women and society generally? Your thoughts?

Boobs on Bikes man indignant at injunction threat
3:45PM Thursday August 14, 2008

Steve Crow
The Auckland City Council have gone to court to try and stop a topless parade from travelling down Queen St.

A majority of Auckland City Councillors have today voted to seek a court injunction to prevent the Boobs On Bikes parade from happening in Auckland’s CBD next week.

However, the parade’s organiser says he won’t stand by and let a court injunction prevent the event from going ahead.

The display is to promote the Erotica Lifestyles Expo.

Organiser Steve Crow says it is not against the law to ride on the back of a motorbike topless, so there is little the council can do. He says he does not have a permit for the parade, and has never needed one.

Mr Crow says it is hard to see how the District Court could issue an injunction which would overturn the Bill of Rights.

Some members of the city council, however, are unimpressed.

Councillor Cathy Casey says the organiser’s claim the parade is about freedom of expression is “absolute crap”. She says it just free advertising for a porn show, and the council finds the parade offensive. Ms Casey is confident the District Court will grant the injunction.

However, councillor Bill Christian believes the council is overreacting, saying the parade attracts a decent crowd.

“It’s simply an aspect of life in the 21st Century that we have to accept there are times when women will bare their breasts, let’s hope it stops at that.”

– NEWSTALK ZB

Should Australia and New Zealand Law Allow Polygamy?

Many new immigrants come from polygamous countries where the penalty for adultery is severe. Allowing polygamous marriage could protect both women and men in the groups. What do you think? Read the arguments in the news article below….

Australia – Polygamous Marriages: Multiple Reactions
By Neena Bhandari

Sydney (Women’s Feature Service) – Aamina was 27 when she married Ayoub to become his second wife in Tripoli, Lebanon. While Aamina viewed her marriage as something that fate had ordained, the family’s decision to migrate to Australia meant that Ayoub had to divorce his first wife, as polygamous marriages are not legally recognised in Australia.

Like Ayoub, who ensured that his first wife was sponsored to Australia by their son, there are Muslim men from countries such as Egypt, Jordan and Sudan, who have migrated with more than one wife, but their multiple marriages don’t have the legal sanction in their adopted country.

The issue of polygamous marriages is causing a furore in the country with the government categorically stating that polygamy shall remain forbidden. However, some Muslim leaders argue that such marriages exist and should be recognised on cultural and religious grounds to protect the rights of women.

Recently, two senior leaders of the Islamic community in Sydney called on the government to recognise polygamous marriages, or men marrying more than one woman, in order to protect the rights of women in such marriages.

One of the most vocal advocators of changing the Australian law to accommodate the multiple marriages is Keysar Trad, the president of the Islamic Friendship Association of Australia, who grew up in a home with a mother and stepmother. “There was nothing out of the ordinary in our extended family. My mother and my stepmother were best of friends. Even though a polygamous marriage was not the norm, the Lebanese society even in the 1960s was very open-minded,” recalls Trad.

“My father’s first wife was ill and could not look after their five children when he married my mother. For the children my mother was a godsend and they addressed her as ‘khaala’, or maternal aunt, and made her feel tremendously appreciated and respected,” he says, “It’s a solution that our faith offers to social problems.”

As marriages in the 21st century go beyond the traditional to encompass de facto relationships and recognition of gay and lesbian alliances, some are arguing for polygamous marriages to be protected and granted equal rights under the law.

According to Sheikh Khalil Chami of the Islamic Welfare Centre in Sydney’s Lakemba suburb, polygamous marriages, although illegal, exist in Australia. He reveals that he has been asked almost weekly to conduct polygamous religious ceremonies. But while he refuses, he knows there are ‘imams’ (clerics) who do not.

Those seeking legalisation of polygamy cite that in traditional indigenous Aboriginal communities in Australia’s Northern Territory, unofficially, such marriages exist and that these relationships are even recognised when the government grants welfare benefits.

In fact, in February this year, the United Kingdom ruled that it would grant welfare benefits to all spouses in a polygamous marriage, if the marriages had taken place in countries where polygamy is legal. Nearly 1,000 men are said to be living legally with multiple wives in Britain.

Polygamy is also common in Indonesia, but remains a controversial lifestyle choice. In the United States, polygamous sects such as the Mormons and practicing polygamists have conflicts with the law constantly.

“For religious men, polygamy essentially protects them from committing adultery. Adultery in Islam is strictly prohibited. If a man decides to have a sexual relationship with another woman, he has to marry her. In countries like Saudi Arabia, where polygamy is legalised, adultery or extra marital affair is rare,” says Faten Dana, 45, President, Muslim Welfare Association of Australia.

“In Australia, one of the benefits of legalising polygamous marriages would be that men would openly talk about their relationships rather than under the garb of secrecy. Making these relationships formal will also grant the women and children in such relationships certain rights as men would have obligations and responsibilities towards them,” says Dana, who migrated to Australia from Lebanon 19 years ago.

In 2006, there were 114,222 registered marriages, but there is no figure for polygamous marriages. The author of ‘Islam: Its Law and Society’, Jamila Hussain says, “The origin of polygamy dates back to the early days of Islam, to the battle of Uhud, when many men were killed. Men marrying more than one woman was a social welfare measure, ensuring that widows and fatherless children were looked after, as during those days there was no government social support system.”

Citing similar situations that still exist, Hussain explains, “If we look at the massacres of men in Srebernica and Bosnia, polygamy can be justified on the grounds of providing material and emotional support for the women left behind. However, polygamy is and was never meant to be an excuse for men to indulge their sexual fantasies. Some men over the years have abused this right and maintained harems, but that doesn’t affect the original rule which imposes a restriction of a maximum of four wives to be treated equally.”

Hussain further adds, “In Australia there is a great deal of hypocrisy. The government recognises de facto relationships as legal. According to some estimates, as many as 75 per cent Australians are living in de facto relationships, which has become normal and acceptable. Even married men may be living in de facto relationships and, in some cases, in more than one de facto relationship. These are perfectly legal – no fuss. There is also a push for homosexual relationships to be legalised. But there is an outcry if Muslims want to marry more than once.”

“A polygamous marriage is like any other marriage with trials and tribulations. It is not always a burden for women. In the current scenario, given the rise of HIV and STDs, in any sexual relationship one must tread with caution,” says Hussain, a lecturer in Islamic Law at the University of Technology, Sydney.

The Qur’an allows Muslim men to have four wives as long as they can support and treat them equally. However, evidence shows that polygamous men cannot always adequately and equitably feed, shelter, educate, and emotionally cherish all their spouses and dependents.

The Australian Muslim population, at 340,400 or 1.7 per cent of the total population, is noteworthy for its diversity in terms of ethnicity, national origins, language, and class and not all in the community want polygamy to be sanctioned by law. The National Imams Council says, “As Australian Muslims we recognise that the Marriage Act 1961 prohibits polygamy and we are not proposing any changes to this law.”

The government is in no mood to take a liberal view on the issue. Australia’s Attorney-General Robert McClelland says, “There is absolutely no way that the government will be recognising polygamist relationships. They are unlawful and they will remain as such. Under Australian law, marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. Polygamous marriage necessarily offends this definition.”

But what do the ordinary Muslim women have to say on this issue. Safiya Husain, 75, who migrated to Australia in 1981, feels polygamous marriages are not in the interest of women and children. She says, “In the times we live today, no man can treat all his wives equally. The women in such relationships can never be happy. The worst affected are the children.”

Silma Ihram, an Anglo-Australian convert to Islam and one of the pioneers of Muslim education in Australia, believes most women are smart, educated, financially independent and don’t want such relationships.

Courtesy: Women’s Feature Service

Should ALAC's 'Lisa' ad be taken off air?

Click here to watch the Lisa Ad

For those who haven’t seen the ad, or are unable to follow the link above (sorry, could not embed it):

It shows a young woman who has a few drinks with her workmates to relax, a few turns into a lot – we then see her dancing uncoordinatedly in a bar, finally stumbling outside into a dark alley where she is grabbed and led away by a man who has been watching her earlier. We see her struggle and protest, and the ad fades to black….’It’s not the drinking, it’s how we’re drinking.’

There have been several concerns about this ad, mainly that it perpetuates rape myths, and that it implies the victim bears some responsibility for the rape.

What are people’s thoughts? Is the ad effective in that it will encourage women to drink moderately in future, and so should remain on air? Or should it be taken off, due to it’s problematic implications?

Women's role in terrorism alarms EU

EUROPE: Females involved in everything from suicide bombings to logistics

 

By Jason Burke

Monday, August 4, 2008, NZ Herald

 

European intelligence chiefs have launched a major investigation into the threat posed by female Islamic militants within the EU, whose involvement they say runs from logistics or propaganda to suicide bombing.

 

“This phenomenon has not been really taken into account yet and we need to explore and understand it,” said one diplomat connected with the probe. “It is a new strategy by al Qaeda.”

 

 The moves follow a spate of attacks in the Middle East by women bombers and concerns among European security services about increased radicalization of female militants. The officials specifically cite Britain and North Africa as problem areas.

 

Women’s involvement in recruiting volunteers is a key concern

 

Though the only known European female suicide bomber was Muriel Degauque, a 38-year-old convert from Belgium who killed herself in Iraq in 2005, European security officials said services were monitoring dozens of women involved in logistics or propaganda. There are also fears of women bombers being sent from overseas, particularly North Africa.

 

“The problem is knowing who is just fundraising or running websites, who is recruiting and who is a potential bomber,” said on French intelligence specialist. “Then how do you pick up someone coming in from outside the EU? That’s hard to do.”

 

Gilles de Kerchove, European counterterrorism co-ordinator, has asked British, French, Spanish, German and other security services to pool their intelligence through Brussels’ strategic analyst unit, the Joint Situation Centre, to produce a report by the northern autumn.

 

“The issue is a very high priority,” one EU official said.

 

In Britain, the involvement of women in militant activities has been limited. Yet security services fear that this may not last.

 

“Time and again we have seen al Qaeda trying tactics in one place and, if they work, trying them again elsewhere,” said the French specialist.

 

Women bombers have become relatively common in Iraq because they can more easily penetrate much-tightened security. They elicit less suspicion, can hide explosives under their clothes, and male soldiers are unwilling to search them.

 

In Algeria, according to security sources, the “al Qaeda in the Maghreb group” now use women in bombing campaigns.

 

“Women are largely responsible for support material: medicine, food, clothes,” said one. “But some have more major roles. Last year we dismantled a logistical network run by a woman.”

 

The source said militants “seek to recruit women with a brother, father or son already with the extremist groups”.

 

Expert say this may be because, in traditional Islamic societies, women without close male relatives are exposed to economic and social problems that make them more vulnerable to recruitment.

 

In Iraq, US intelligence officers say militants are marrying women then allowing them to be raped knowing that the subsequent dishonor will make them easier to groom as bombers. The officers have also noted women who have had relatives killed in the fighting turning to violence.

 

The issue is not without controversy in militant circles. Recent statements by al Qaeda deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri that women should restrict themselves to caring for the homes and children of male fighters provoked an outcry on extremist websites.

 

A Taleban spokesman has denied an American news report that Zawahiri might have been killed or wounded in a missile strike in Pakistan’s border region last week.

 

“Zawahiri has been killed by them several times, but once again this is baseless,” Maulvi Omar told Reuters from an undisclosed location.

 

US broadcaster CBS said it had obtained an intercepted letter from Pakistani Taleban commander Baitullah Mehsud requesting urgent medical help for Zawahiri, who was in “severe pain” with infected wounds.

 

-Observer, additional reporting Telegraph Group Limited

 

Surely Slavery is a thing of the past? No? ABC Australia reports.

Do you think we have sexual slavery in NZ? Apparently our brothels are very nice according two nice Women Institute ladies from the UK who did a tour of them recently see “NZ brothels get thumbs up from UK Grannies”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10524269&ref=rss

ABC News
http://www.abc.net.au:80/news/stories/2008/07/28/2316175.htm

Australia: Modern Face of Slavery
By Kathleen Maltzahn

July 28, 2008

We should not look for shackles, but rather at the impact of the slave traders, at their power to reduce a person to a commodity. (Getty Images: Sean Garnsworthy, file photo)

____________________________________________________________

“You must be mindful to have your Negroes shaved and made Clean to look well at every Island you touch at and to strike a good Impression on the Buyers…” – Humphrey Morice, Member of Parliament, Governor of the Bank of England, slave trader, England, 1730s

“I’ve paid $45,000; why can’t they look decent.” – Trevor “Papa” McIvor, brothel owner, Australia, 2000s

From the safety of distance, historical crimes look obvious. We would have been one of the ones who fought against that, we tell ourselves, it is so obvious that was wrong.

Things get murkier once they get closer.

In the 1990s, trafficking in women and children, particularly for prostitution, emerged as crime of concern in many parts of the world. In 2001, the then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan called it “one of the most egregious human rights violations of our time”. Report after report talked about this “modern form of slavery”.

Few countries escaped being either a source, transit or destination country.

Australia seemed to be an exception.

While in 1999 the Commonwealth had brought in laws outlawing sexual slavery and put the crime at a million dollar a week industry in Australia, by 2003 then justice minister Senator Chris Ellison was confident the problem had been solved. “Slavery chains,” he told the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee, “where people are traded in, as goods and chattels might be,” did not exist in Australia.

Doing outreach to brothels in the late 1990s and 2000s, however, I wasn’t so sure. I was seeing women who looked very much to me like they were being treated as “goods and chattels” and at least one court case reinforced what I thought. In 1999, Melbourne man Gary Glazner was charged with breaches of the Victorian Prostitution Control Act for crimes relating to trafficking. The investigating police officer believed Glazner had bought up to 100 Thai women, enslaved and then prostituted them. The case echoed an earlier Sydney case, where the AFP had uncovered a trafficking ring.

Both uncovered the practice of bringing “contract girls” to Australia – women forced to pay of “debts” from $30,000 to $50,000 through prostitution. Neither the debts nor contracts were real, but both were enforced through threats and violence, including rape. Women frequently had to do up to 500 “jobs”, unable to refuse drunk, demeaning or dangerous customers, and told by traffickers that if they went for help they would simply be deported.

In 2003, after researching trafficking, including through interviews with “contract girls”, my organisation, Project Respect, began a successful campaign to change federal government policy on trafficking. After years of deporting trafficked women and ignoring the traffickers, in October that year the government brought in a $20 million counter-trafficking package, committed to strengthening the laws against trafficking, and gave trafficked women visas to stay in Australia while they recovered.

In the same year, the AFP charged a Melbourne brothel owner with sexual slavery, the first significant prosecution under the 1999 sexual slavery laws. Five years on, that case has gone all the way to the High Court. When the full bench of the court hands down its decision in a few weeks, it will redefine slavery in Australia.

There are two possible positions the court could take. It could say, as people now charged with trafficking contend, that being a Thai prostitute on “contract” is not slavery. It’s an argument made by people such as Byron Bay criminal lawyer Bruce Peters, who is currently representing Trevor McIvor against trafficking charges.

“These girls were not exploited,” Mr Peters is reported to have said (Sydney Morning Herald, July 6, 2008). “No one argues that they came here illegally but they were brought here voluntarily so everyone could make money. They were not my client’s chattel slaves. They had mobile phones. They were free to come and go as they pleased.”

The alternate view is that being on “contract”, being forced to pay off imaginary debts of up to $50,000 through unwanted prostitution, is indeed a modern form of slavery. We should not look for shackles – the enslavement tool of the transatlantic slave trade – but rather at the impact of the slave traders, at their power to reduce a person to a commodity.

We often think of slavery in terms of ill-treatment, and imagine that violence is unrelenting. But slavery does not necessarily mean constant abuse. Eighteenth century slave trader Humphrey Morice had firm views on the treatment of slaves – he thought they should be treated well. “Take care your Negroes have their Victualls in proper Season and at regular times and that their food be well boyled and prepared,” he told his captain in 1721, “and do not Sufferr any of your Shipp’s Company to abuse them”.

It is important, then, to look at the limits of such treatment. Here’s Morice again:

The slaves are to be served water three times a day, Tobacco once a week and Pipes when they want…Be mindful to iron your strong rugged men Slaves, but favour the young striplings or those who begin to be sick: and let them in general be washt at convenient times: in an Evening divert them with musick letting them dance.

It doesn’t matter if women have mobile phones, it doesn’t matter if they are taken on outings, it doesn’t matter if they have food and drink. If a person’s agency is taken away, if their identity is stolen, if they cannot remove themselves from violence, and if they can be bought and sold at whim, they are slaves. This is the reality of many women on “contract” in Australia.

Whether or not we can see this present day form of slavery, and not just look for its past manifestation, is a test of our capacity to recognise a crime against humanity.

At the end of the day, however, it is perhaps not our views that are most important.

The final word should go to the women who say they have been trafficked, and in the McIvor case, the women’s statements are very clear. “I don’t know why they treated me that way,” one woman has said in her victim impact statement, “as if I was not a human being.”

Kathleen Maltzahn is the author of Trafficked, the first book-length account of the trafficking of women and girls for prostitution in Australia, published this month by UNSW Press. She was founding director of Project Respect, which spearheaded the successful campaign to change government responses sexual slavery in Australia.

France rejects Muslim woman over radical practice of Islam

From The Guardian

Angelique Chrisafis in Paris

Saturday July 12, 2008

A woman in a burqa

A woman wearing a burqa. France has denied citizenship to a Moroccan woman who wears a burqa on the grounds of ‘insufficient assimilation’. Photograph: John Moore/Getty Images

France has denied citizenship to a Moroccan woman who wears a burqa on the grounds that her “radical” practice of Islam is incompatible with basic French values such as equality of the sexes.

The case yesterday reopened the debate about Islam in France, and how the secular republic reconciles itself with the freedom of religion guaranteed by the French constitution.

The woman, known as Faiza M, is 32, married to a French national and lives east of Paris. She has lived in France since 2000, speaks good French and has three children born in France. Social services reports said she lived in “total submission” to her husband. Her application for French nationality was rejected in 2005 on the grounds of “insufficient assimilation” into France. She appealed, invoking the French constitutional right to religious freedom and saying that she had never sought to challenge the fundamental values of France. But last month the Council of State, France’s highest administrative body, upheld the ruling.

“She has adopted a radical practice of her religion, incompatible with essential values of the French community, particularly the principle of equality of the sexes,” it said.

“Is the burqa incompatible with French citizenship?” asked Le Monde, which broke the story. The paper said it was the first time the level of a person’s personal religious practice had been used to rule on their capacity be to assimilated into France.

The legal expert who reported to the Council of State said the woman’s interviews with social services revealed that “she lives almost as a recluse, isolated from French society”.

The report said: “She has no idea about the secular state or the right to vote. She lives in total submission to her male relatives. She seems to find this normal and the idea of challenging it has never crossed her mind.”

The woman had said she was not veiled when she lived in Morocco and had worn the burqa since arriving in France at the request of her husband. She said she wore it more from habit than conviction.

Daniele Lochak, a law professor not involved in the case, said it was bizarre to consider that excessive submission to men was a reason not to grant citizenship. “If you follow that to its logical conclusion, it means that women whose partners beat them are also not worthy of being French,” he told Le Monde.

Jean-Pierre Dubois, head of France’s Human Rights League, said he was “vigilant” and was seeking more information.

France is home to nearly 5 million Muslims, roughly half of whom are French citizens. Criteria taken into account for granting French citizenship includes “assimilation”, which normally focuses on how well the candidate speaks French. In the past nationality was denied to Muslims who were known to have links with extremists or who had publicly advocated radicalism, but that was not the case of Faiza M.

The ruling comes weeks after a controversy prompted by a court annulment of the marriage of two Muslims because the husband said the wife was not a virgin as she had claimed to be.

France’s ban on headscarves and other religious symbols in state schools in 2004 sparked a heated debate over freedom and equality within the secular republic. The French government adheres to the theory that all French citizens are equal before the republic, and religion or ethnic background are matters for the private sphere. In practice, rights groups say, society is plagued by discrimination.

The president, Nicolas Sarkozy, has stressed the importance of “integration” into French life. Part of his heightened controls on immigrants is a new law to make foreigners who want to join their families sit an exam on French language and values before leaving their countries.

Tony Veitch's statement in full

Tony Veitch’s statement in full, From the NZ Herald

5:00AM Thursday July 10, 2008

This week there have been reports of an incident between my former partner and me two and a half years ago. I deeply regret what happened and have done so since it occurred.

On the night in question I agreed to let Kristin come over to my house. Following dinner we had a major disagreement and we argued for a long time. In the end my frustration took over. I broke, and lashed out in anger – something I will regret until the end of my days.

Some of what’s been said by the media is untrue, but again, no excuses.

It’s the thing I will most regret in my life. I have lived with that on my conscience ever since and I will always do so. I make no excuse for what I did, except to say at the time my relationship with Kristin had just ended. I was working seven days a week and two stressful jobs and was emotionally and physically exhausted. I was taking medication for the exhaustion. I was at the lowest ebb of my life and I needed help, but again, it was inexcusable. In the long period after the event took place we remained in contact with each other.he reason I have not spoken until now is that Kristin and I made an agreement about confidentiality because we did not want this to play out in the public.

That agreement included payment to Kristin for loss of income and distress I caused her. I had no wish to breach that confidentiality, but because of the growing controversy and the positions I hold and the standards of behaviour those positions demand, I feel it important to offer some words of explanation and I have no desire to put Kristin through any further distress.

Following the incident I undertook weekly counselling for a year, counselling which enabled me to form the relationship I now have with my wife, Zoe. Indeed, I told Zoe what had happened shortly after we started seeing each other. She has been completely supportive and I am grateful beyond words for that support and for her love.

Once again I know what I did was wrong and it will never happen again.

I apologise to Kristin. I apologise to TVNZ and the Radio Network for the embarrassment this has caused them and I sincerely apologise to the New Zealand public. Thank you.

 

Virtual Misogyny

To add to the list of masculinist standardization: 

Women with long fingernails are complaining that iPhones are sexist, according to the Los Angeles Times. The iPhone’s virtual keyboard responds to the electrical charge emitted by fingertips, not fingernails. “Considering ergonomics and user studies indicating men and women use their fingers and nails differently, why does Apple persist in this misogyny?” says Erica Watson-Currie, 39, a consultant and lecturer. (Source NZ Herald).

AUGUST/OCTOBER 2008, FEMINIST POLITICAL DEBATE

For anyone that may be interested – in some political discussion.  I’m a Committee/Board Member for ALba – I have been organising with my Committee, various events for 2008.

We have just organised for MP Lousisa Wall – to come and speak to the group (in August), she will sharing about her journey to becoming MP, etc…

 I’ve been interested in some politcial debates.  I love political discussions!!!  My Committee are organising (October) for various members of the different Parties, to come and have a discussion.  Sue Bradford, has just confirmed her attendence, as well as two from the Maori Party.  We are yet to finalise details, and this will be up-dated on our website.

 Alba is an Auckland (women’s only group).  I’m a heterosexual women…..but this group, are predominately lesbian women.  However, not inclusive of this – as I’m on the Committee.  Gay-friendly attitude is vital.  ALba support a strong networking of business enterprise and encouraging women in various professions, to reach their full-potential.  I’m involved with ALba, as I believe in its vision and find that hearing the various women political speakers (and other successful women speakers), are encouraging – from a feminist point of view.  We can learn key points, from hearing about (ie) their journey into Parliament and experiences.  Or the sacrifices made along the way, in achievement of their goals.  I look forward to hearing Sue Bradford speak.

 Cost is $5 for members or $10 for non-members.  This just covers our costs with payment to speakers, advertising, venue expenses and catering, etc…. 

Cheers,

Cherie (student)