Earlier today I found myself thinking about one of the main stories which has made the headlines here in London. There was outrage and indignation by many in the public about the British states' decision to cut the compensation payments for rape victims who have been drinking. Cries arose of "blaming the victim" and of blatant sexism against women and the newspaper columns were filled quickly by opinionated intellectuals eagerly catering to the public frenzy. The intellect becomes subservient to madness, a symptom so common in Western society. To be very blunt, all these people have no right to speak since it is they who accepted sticking a price tag on honour. Offering money to women who have been raped is not justice, punishment of the perpetrator is. Those who are angry now would not have been outraged had more money been offered to victims who had been drinking. They would not say that the initial sum was just and no further amount is necessary, they would have applauded this move as just, perhaps claiming that no amount of money could compensate for such horror. So the government is more just the more money it gives these people and less just if it takes away. Conveniently ignored is the fact that the government offered the money in the first place, and like a buyer examining a horse, they can offer less if they find something to fault with. In this case, according to the state, if the victims had been drinking, then they get less money.
British society and popular culture is saturated with Mill's Liberty Principle, that society has no right to interfere with an individual provided that what they are doing is not harmful to others. It is based on Mill's concern with the tyranny of society imposing it's social norms and values on those daring few who seek their own way. I like to think of it as the "License Principle" instead because of the way it is applied by the many who are ignorant. You can see how the state, making a judgement about a persons conduct such as drinking (purely out of financial consideration of course) can be so strongly condemned for infringing on the sphere of the individual in such a way. It is the English equivalent of the pig in the temple and the only thing which riles people is not that there has been a rape but that somebody would dare invoke that most horrid of human emotions, guilt, about their choice of lifestyle. All but eliminated in the post-modern West, people greet it's resurgence with a mixture of worry and anger that quickly become apparent when these debates start.
I was rudely reminded of the stupidity which is fueled by self-styled intellectuals when reading an article by Johann Hari of the Independent. Mr Hari believed that 'we' should stop being such cowards in the face of
Islam. As an atheist, Mr Hari believed that he has a duty to expose the contradictions and fallacies which are the foundations of many religions and whilst admittedly being gentler with Islam than Christianity, was essentially claiming that the Prophet Muhammad was a paedophile. Apparently a new book had been rejected publication because it was centered around the life of Aisha, whom the Prophet was wed with at 7 and consummated with at 9. Described with hard, factual words perhaps to portray Islam or the Prophet in a negative light, this man, who enjoys having sexual relations with other men, puts himself in a position to condemn the marriages and sex life of one of the most just men in human history and in a single breath also claiming that billions of rational, intelligent people, both past and present, are self deluded and subjects of self censorship, simply because they did not grapple with his sensationalist news topic and instead chose to continue being Muslim. I don't need to do anything to protect the Prophet Muhammed, firstly because he is dead, and secondly because the record speaks for itself both in answer of Mr Hari's cheap shot and also in terms of his character. Just go and read. My final intellectual shock of the day came when I read Layla Anwar's
Whore of Babylon blog post. Deeply disturbing and stabbing into the heart of masculine injustice and the exertion of power, I realised that her discourse is no more "anti" male as it is "pro" female. It is a cry for justice which transcends gender and the inherent bias for power to side with "Man" rather than "Woman". A call against occupation and domination, it was the ultimate expression of anger against injustice and it troubled and shook me to my core.
Whilst the British state and the people who keep it alive argue about how much money should be awarded to rape victims and whether they should have been drunk in the first place or not, their country is raping an entire nation. They are forcing thousands of Iraqi girls as young as the age of ten to have sex with rich men for money. These rich men make their money from the West's greed for oil, for a 'modern' lifestyle. Yes I'm sure Mr Hari has written article against the war and all it entailed, but he is more concerned about being "strong" against Islam than about 10 year old Iraqi girls who are prostituted. Yes Mr Hari, thank you for your clarion call for morality, for justice, you who are unjust to yourself and unjust by virtue of the passport you hold and the taxes you pay and the status quo you support as well as criticize. Yes, oh amazing British people, how dare anybody suggest that a woman who is drunk and half dressed, "for fun" and to "look nice" of course, is partly responsible for putting herself in a situation where she could be raped. Likewise, how dare we claim that because those Iraqi children are penniless refugees made destitute by your countries aggression against their homes (because it is 'your' country and it is 'you' who re-elected Blair since you are a precious democracy) that they are being preyed upon by perverts with money. Money which you have given them and whose corruption you fuel, yet whom you love to condemn too, because you need a bad guy to feel good about yourselves. How dare we indeed? How dare we pass a moral judgment on you as a nation, as a people both man and woman in how you live your lives. On how immoral and obscene you are, how lewd and lascivious you are, on how greedy you are. Fuck you and your corruption.
View Original
Although both scientific and public opinion seems to be running against the authenticity of the find, some of its supporters have remarked that its authenticity has not been “disproven” so far. This reveals a misunderstanding of the scientific process. If someone told you that there is a blue elephant on Pluto, your inability to fully disprove it does not make it so, or even likely. When extraordinary claims are made, the onus is on the claimants to properly support their assertions in a thoroughly documented and detailed scientific report. Neither Lines nor Baugh have come close to doing this with the Delk print, nor any of the “over 80” human prints Baugh claims to have documented in Cretaceous rock. Even major creationist groups such as “Answers in Genesis” agree, and acknowledge that there has never been a compelling case of human remains or footprints in Mesozoic rock (Snelling, 1991).
3:17
.. ولكن لأجل الحق والحقيقة كتبت ما سبق )
