Polygamy perpetuates women’s already lower social and economic status by forcing women to share already scarce resources.
Year: 2010
-
Theocracy in Scotland
Jeezis, these people are scary. They’re getting their way.
Peter Kearney, the director of the Scottish Catholic Media Office, made his comments after the sacking of SFA referees’ chief Hugh Dallas over allegations he sent an offensive e-mail about the Pope during his recent visit to Scotland.
Mr Kearney warned: “Let no-one be in any doubt, with this shameful episode, Catholics in Scotland have drawn a line in the sand.
Yes, they have! They’ve drawn a line that says “you may not send an ‘offensive’ email about the pope, and if you do, we will get you pushed out of your job.”
That’s quite a line. Hugh Dallas didn’t work for the church, or even for a “faith” school. He had a fully secular job – yet Catholic rage about a failure to respect their horrible pope got him forced out of that job. I find that simply terrifying. What business can it possibly be of theirs what some guy says in an email, and where do they get the power to force him out of his job?!
Peter Kearney certainly thinks he has every right to tell all of Scotland what to do and how quickly.
“The bigotry, the bile, the sectarian undercurrents and innuendos must end. Such hateful attitudes have had their day. They poison the well of community life. They must be excised and cast out once and for all.”
Mr Kearney sent a letter to the SFA last week demanding Mr Dallas’s dismissal if the accusations over the e-mail were true.
He said yesterday that “tasteless” e-mails may simply be “the tip of a disturbing iceberg of anti-Catholicism in Scottish society”.
And that people should lose their jobs for writing “tasteless” emails about a guy who tells Africans not to use condoms and who thinks ordination of women is a desperate crime while raping children is a regrettable accident.
As Craig Ferguson likes to say, I look forward to your letters.
-
Catholic spokesman says what must be cast out
“Let no-one be in any doubt, with this shameful episode, Catholics in Scotland have drawn a line in the sand.”
-
Bishop suspended for dissing royal wedding
He apologized, he groveled, he said he knew it was “deeply offensive,” but it was no use.
-
Promise-breakers
Really.
The people who do the New International Version (translation) of the bible have taken out the pesky “too liberal” gender-neutral language they wickedly and liberally stuck into the 2005 edition, because the knuckle-draggers were pissed off at them.
They’ve retained some of the language of the 2005 edition. But they also made changes — like going back to using words like “mankind” and “man” instead of “human beings” and “people” — in order to appease critics.
And the critics were pissed off by that because…what? Because they want everyone to think that human beings and people are in fact men and that women don’t count because they’re some kind of weird abberration? Or what? What other possible reason is there to object to language that is actually more precise and accurate and explanatory than the alternative?
Today, the Committee on Bible Translation, which translated the NIV, admits Today’s New International Version, the revision released in 2002, was a mistake. They substituted “brothers and sisters” where the New Testament writers used “brothers.”
They also broke a promise they’d made to James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, John Piper, pastor of Minneapolis megachurch Bethlehem Baptist, and other conservative pastors, not to produce a gender-inclusive NIV.
Thus reminding us that, in the words of the old proverb, yes God does hate women.
-
Council of Europe resolution on the dangers of creationism in education
The aim is to warn against certain tendencies to pass off a belief as science.
-
Updated NIV bible reverts to male-centered translation
Went back to using words like “mankind” and “man” instead of “human beings” and “people” in order to appease critics.
-
Saudi women sue male “guardians”
Judges throw the women in jail.
-
Waleed Al-Husseini on why he left Islam
Renouncing Islam is a choice offered to everyone and anyone has the right to do so.
-
Catholic church gets football referee fired
Because he allegedly forwarded an e-mail during the Pope’s visit that referred to the child abuse scandal.
-
The Marquess of Queensbury
The Guardian apparently disapproves of Hitchens’s still-unapologetic atheism; at least it allows its reporter to misrepresent what he said.
If it had been a boxing match Hitchens would have been described as landing blow after blow, many of them decidedly low – especially those about circumcision or women’s rights. He described the aid work done by religious missions as “conscience money” to make up for the harm they have done. After all, why bother treating HIV-infected people in Africa while working against the use of condoms?
That’s not what he said, to put it mildly. This is what he said:
Furthermore, if you are going to grant this to Catholic charities, I would say, which I hope are doing a lot of work in Africa, if I was a member of a church that had preached that AIDS was not as bad as condoms, I would be putting some conscience money into Africa too, I must say. I’m not trying to be funny. If I was trying to be funny, you mistook me. It won’t bring back the millions of people who have died wretched deaths because of that teaching, that still goes on.
Absolutely nothing to do with “why bother,” you see? A million miles from “why bother.” Talk about a “low blow.”
And while we’re on the subject, why is it a low blow for Hitchens to cite genital mutilation (not circumcision – he mentioned a sharp rock and genitals, not circumcision) and women’s rights? I think it’s a much lower blow for Tony Blair to join a woman-hating church in late adulthood.
-
The Independent on Hitchens v Blair
To make sure that religion is indeed a positive force, Blair teaches about it at Yale.
-
The Guardian on Hitchens v Blair
Hitchens landed “blow after blow, many of them decidedly low – especially those about circumcision or women’s rights.” Eh?
-
Transcript of Hitchens-Blair debate
Blair points out that “there are many situations in which wrong has been done, without religion playing any part in it at all.”
-
Polygamy in Canada Should Remain Illegal
Polygamy is illegal in Canada but to date no one has been arrested or faced the consequences for being in a polygamist relationship. This inaction has led to no enforcement of the law. Such policies allow polygamist families to legally enter Canada by declaring the first wife as the legal wife and the second, third and fourth “wives” as dependents along with their children. Young girls are pushed into polygamy relationships by the leaders of their parents’ religion. A wave of women involved in polygamy fled from Bountiful (BC) and presented their case publicly. Books and articles were written by these brave women. They discussed the effects of polygamy on their lives and their children, they talked about women’s oppression, sexual abuse and of men’s aggression towards young girls. They described child sexual abuse masquerading as a marriage and child trafficking for the purpose of marriage. Some courageous women went even further and discussed the effects of polygamy in society at large. Sadly no law enforcement was involved in any of these cases, even though Act 293 was present on the law books.
Now after all the reports by these women bringing attention to the plight of being caught in a polygamy relationship, and after all the evidence of injustice, discrimination and abuse, something is actually happening. But not for women and children who have suffered in polygamy relationships, not for the ones who put their lives in danger by presenting their cases to media. Instead the situation allows for further victimization of women and compromising women’s right for the sake of religious rights. This is a disgrace to humanity.
Today there was a challenge over Section 293 of the Criminal Code in the British Columbia Supreme Court. The attempt was to de-criminalize polygamy. The distressing part is that the attempt was said to be beneficial for women! The following are some statements that have been put forward under the name of women’s rights !
- Polygamy laws actually helped enable abuse in closed, religious communities such as the one in Bountiful. – Beverley Baines
- Women in legal polygamous marriage will not be able to immigrate to Canada. – Beverley Baines
- The door is legally closed for women in Canada who want to terminate their polygamous relationship. – Beverley Baines
- Because Canada has adopted a policy of multiculturalism, it follows that Canada needs to adapt laws to accommodate the diversity of the population. – Beverley Baines
The reality is the law in Canada needs to be more progressive which means a move more towards gender equality that is not based on an assumption of gender equality as we are far behind it. Some residents involved in polygamy in Canada still follow the 7th century tradition of Sharia law, and some remain hundred years behind the civilized world. The authorities need to enforce progressive laws and regulations or else women will never be able to gain full and unconditional equality. Only by putting in place laws and progressive measures women will be able to gain complete equality in Canada. I am for repealing of any law and regulation that restricts the rights of women and puts them in position as second class citizens.
It should be known to everyone by now that women in Islamic communities are pressured by their family, members of the community and religion to become involved in a degrading relationship such as polygamy. In these communities, men are considered as “head of the family”. He is in charge of the family’s finance, choice of residence, up–bringing of the children, and control of the social interaction of his wife and children. Can anyone see gender equality in this picture? That is not all, men have right to marry more than one wife and many seegheh (temporary wives). Women in these sects, cults or Islamic communities would never, ever have the right to have two or three husbands at the same time. The consequences of getting emotionally involved with another man is harsh, sometimes as harsh as losing their life or being disowned by all members of their community. Women are forbidden to see their own children. All these injustices are happening in all provinces of Canada.
I am perplexed how someone can call oneself a concerned global citizen but close her or his eyes to the inhuman treatment of women and children.
After 100 years of having a law that makes polygamy illegal in Canada, polygamy still goes on. It is not the fault of Act 293. It is because although the Act is on the law books, it has never been enforced by the police and the court system. I believe for the past seventy years only one case went through the court system in this regard.
Polygamy needs to remain illegal but Act 293 needs to be amended. Right now the assumption of this Act is that women and men have gained gender equality and women willingly enter into these relationships. The truth is because of the adopted policy of multiculturalism, some sects and cults who have been living in this country for past century never had chance to live according to today’s progressive ways of living. The policy of multiculturalism has put thick invisible walls between communities. Each community lives according to their home country culture, traditions and religion. They are encouraged to do so. In some cases these communities receive financial support and validation from the Canadian government in order to keep their way of living instead of integrating in Canadian society.
In all these equations, there is no consideration for women’s rights. It should not come to our surprise if we hear or witness women are set on fire and are burnt for losing their virginity, young girls and women face honour killings for not being obedient or for having a boyfriend in Canada. Child trafficking for the sake of marriage is another down side of multiculturalism.
Therefore as long as the policy of multiculturalism maintains in Canada, gender equality is out of picture, so to prosecute women who are involved in polygamy relationships is a joke. I believe Act 293 prosecutes women and men equally for being in polygamist relationship. As I said it before, the assumption is that men and women have an equal say in their marriage. Most women involved in polygamy relationship have no control over their body and mind. The right of choice has been taken from them right from birth by their parents, culture, and religion.
It is justified to say the Act 293 must get amended in such a way that all men or anyone who performs or assists in polygamy marriages must be arrested and prosecuted for the crime against women and children.
We need to get a lot tougher with polygamists and start prosecuting men and religious leaders who perform such a marriages. Polygamy is a disgrace to gender equality.
It has been said that to criminalize polygamy is against the Charter of Rights of Freedom of religion. Women’s rights and children’s rights must not be compromised under any circumstances and that includes religion. As everyone is aware, in Islam and some other restricted religions, child brides is an on going practice even in Canada, behind the closed doors by laws such as Sharia laws. But because it is an ongoing practice, we did not drop the Act for Universal Rights of the Child to suite Sharia law or of any other religion, for the sake of freedom of religion. Instead child brides are considered a crime and men caught in this matter would face charges for sexual assault. The same should go towards polygamy. Religions should be declared as private affair of the individuals and not allowed to interfere with any law in Canada. The civilization in 21st century should not tolerate interference of religion in laws and regulation.
I have been aware that a woman with two male common–law partners is challenging the polygamy law in Canada.
In response to this case I must say in this particular situation gender equality exists, all three parties have control over their own bodies and minds. They are all adults and there is no form of coercion to push them into this relationship. They all have equal rights in their family setting. They all equally make decisions concerning the family’s property and finances and all matters concerning cohabitation. They all participate in caring for children in their family. In this case free and consensual sexual relationship is undeniable right. They are completely free in deciding over their sexual relationship. Voluntary relationships of adults with each other are their private affair and no person or authority has the right to scrutinize it, interfere with it or make it public. I consider this relationship modern and progressive. This revolutionary relationship does not need any permission (marriage license) from the government or any religious leaders. This case is not comparable with adult women living in sects or cults or in Islamic communities in Canada. They can not be put in the same category. One belongs to today’s modern world while the other belongs to an ancient time. How else can one describe it, when adult women practically have no choice to choose their own partners? They are never able to live with two male partners, not even in their dreams.
In these closed communities women have no control over their sexuality and have to accept the husband her parents or the elder of her community chooses for her. And if she disagrees, she will face harsh consequences. No free women ever will agree to be in a relationship with someone she has no feeling for.
Polygamy in Canada should remain illegal and enforced by police in order to empower women and eliminate discrimination against women; in order to abolition of man’s privileges as the so-called “head of the household”; in order to prevent degradation and violent treatment of women and girls in the family. In order to eliminate any form of degrading, male-chauvinistic, patriarchal and unequal treatment of women in family, community and public institutions.
416-737-9500
-
I decided I wanted to see the beautiful colors of life
Ever pondered what it’s actually like to wear a niqab?
“I had to wear the full niqab when I was 8 years old,” she says of the face veil worn by women here. “I couldn’t breathe. I saw the world in dark colors. I fell down because I couldn’t see when I walked. Men should put this on for one day. They would change their thinking. They don’t know how horrible it is under sun, heat and sweat. It’s a kind of torture. I decided I wanted to see the beautiful colors of life — red, blue, green. Not black.”
It’s like what you think it’s like. It’s horribly hot and uncomfortable. It impedes your vision and makes you fall (and presumably get bumped by pedestrians and hit by cars). You can’t breathe, or move freely. And most hideous of all, you can’t even look at the world. Imagine it – your whole life – apart from your own house and if you’re lucky a courtyard or garden, you can’t ever see anything clearly. You can’t see the streets, people, trees, buildings, anything – you’re shrouded. For life. Because you’re female.
-
The most sacred thing
In other news, a teenage girl was arrested for burning a booklet. The booklet was a translation of the Koran, so she was arrested “on suspicion of inciting religious hatred.” She wasn’t sent to have a talk with the head teacher, she was arrested. She is currently out on bail.
Catherine Heseltine, chief executive officer of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee, said burning the Koran was one of the most offensive acts to Muslims that she could imagine.
She said: “The Koran is the most sacred thing to over a billion Muslims worldwide.”
“You can see that in the way Muslims treat the Koran, washing before touching it and in many Muslim homes you will find it on the top shelf above all other books and we will never destroy the Koranic texts.”
“We believe it is the word of God. God’s guidance for us in this life,” she added.
Therefore, everyone in the world is required to treat the Koran the same way. Because over a billion people make a fetish of a particular book, including all editions and all translations of said book, however flimsy the edition or bad the translation, failure to treat all editions and translations with deference is criminal, whether particular jurisdictions agree or not. Happily the UK apparently does agree.
-
Yemen: a barefaced advocate for women’s rights
“I couldn’t breathe. I saw the world in dark colors. I decided I wanted to see the beautiful colors of life — red, blue, green. Not black.”
-
UK: girl, 15, arrested over Koran-burning video
She was arrested “on suspicion of inciting religious hatred.”
-
Officers would be likely to be alarmed
Apparently in the UK it’s illegal to make “offensive” comments about Allah. I wonder if that law applies to “offensive” comments about God too – they are supposed to be the same man, after all, even if Malaysians are forbidden to use the first word to mean the second unless they are Muslims.
A man has been fined for making offensive comments about Allah during the English Defence League protest in Leicester.Lee Whitby was found guilty of using racially aggravated abusive words during the protest in the city centre on Saturday, October 9.
…
Alexandra Blossom, prosecuting, said the comments made were bound to cause harassment, alarm or distress because of Leicester’s multicultural society and the fact the words were said in the city centre.
She said: “A number of people present that day were likely to be offended.
“It was a high-profile event and members of the public would have been in the city on a Saturday.
“The remarks are even offensive to police.
“A clear message needs to be sent out about using such behaviour in a multicultural city.”
Notice all the conditionals and subjunctives. Bound to cause; were likely to be; would have been. There’s nothing about anyone who actually was “offended,” except for the police. The police were offended, and other people could would were likely to be, but in fact as far as anyone knows were not, no doubt because they didn’t hear anything. It was only the police who heard the “offensive” comments and the police were obligingly “offended” so Lee Whitby (who is no doubt a repellent unpleasant bully) gets done for saying something that could have offended people if only the people had been in earshot.
Mr Moore said: “It is a fact you were with others chanting and police were within hearing distance but there is no evidence of non-police officers within hearing distance.
“It is likely that a police officer or officers hearing the words would be likely to be alarmed and for that reason we find you guilty of this offence.”
Whitby was fined £200 and ordered to pay a further £200 in costs, as well as a £15 victim surcharge.
A victim surcharge, despite the admitted lack of any actual victim. £415 because police officers would be likely to be alarmed.
You know what? I should send a copy of Does God Hate Women? to the Leicester police department. Surely the Leicester cops would be likely to be alarmed by the last three pages of that little book. If that’s a criminal offense, surely I am guilty.