Free speech....or maybe a nominal fee?

"Life isn't black or white. It's a million shades of grey." I have no idea who first coined that phrase, but for me it's attributed to my father. Definitely one of his wiser musings I feel. That's where so much conflict arises these days, isn't it?So many people think that way. 'X' is either black or white, right or wrong. The end. For most of us, we have evolved far enough to realise that life has the unfortunate habit of just not being that damn simple. However, are there not some things which we all have to agree are of paramount importance, that are definitively 'right' or 'wrong'?

Such as the importance of free speech for example. Surely that's a black and white issue. Right? Er...well...maybe. Personally, free speech is one of the things I hold dear. We are all entitled to our own opinion. Some people's opinions are downright ridiculous, no doubt. They are entitled to them nonetheless. I may not agree with what someone is saying, but I will defend to the death their right to say it. And that's where I often run into difficulty, unfortunately. I often get into trouble for having a habit of playin devil's advocate a bit too much. I see great importance in seeing all sides of an argument, that's all.

The most recent example to get me thinking on this is an incident in Greater Manchester recently, where a street preacher and his father were "threatened with arrest" for preaching the Bible in public. The particular verses he was citing included the passages Romans 1.27 and 1 Corinthians 6.9 from the King James Bible:

"And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another; men with men working that which is unseemly..."

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor effiminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind."

Well you don't have to be a genius to work out what ol' preacher was getting at. More than likely it was the evils of homosexuality. Apparently he was threatened with arrest for "offensive" statements, which to some, amount to incitement to hatred. Now, see, that's were I get a bit stuck. I came across the story on a progressive Anglican blog, and one of my favourite blogs in general. The author, who I think is a brilliant man who writes very scholarly and articulate articles, takes this view. As someone advocating reform and inclusion in the Church of England and wider Anglican Communion, he believes the preacher's selective Bible quoting is incitement to hatred. I'm not so sure I agree on that. Oh I have been on the recieving end of many a fire-and-brimstone merchant, whose empassioned recital of the above Bible passages have certainly gotten on my nerves from time to time. That relentless evangelical zeal can be hard to escape (especially the American "missionaries" that seem to love Ireland so much). The guy in this article, as with many of them, has a preoccupation with the "sinfulness" of homosexuality. Which I disagree with, naturally enough. They are at best highly amusing and at worst downright annoying. But do they have a right to stand at the side of the street and tell I'm going to hell? Well, yes, I believe they do. I don't see it as incitement to hatred. They don't seem to be advocating harm against gay people. Now I know many will argue that they do untold psychological harm to vulnerable gay people, and I wholeheartedly agree. I was one of those people damaged for many years by negative ideas of homosexuality given by religion, so I know. That doesn't change my belief that religious conservatives or evangelicals such as this guy have a right to preach in public though. People are free to make up their own minds. I don't think some zealot screeching "REPENT! Lest the Devil shove a poker up your..." is incitement to hatred. Now, if it's a case of someone actively advocating harm against homosexuals (or anyone) then that's different. The likes of Fred Phelps and his WBC nutters or many extremist Islamic clerics advocating violence and death against gay people is completely wrong, and in that case, free speech is being violated to incite hatred. The current plight of gay men in Iraq is a sad example.

You can apply the same logic to racism, Islamophobia, sexism, etc. But there lies another question, which the author on the Changing Attitudes blog and many others would rightly raise: would the same rules apply to other groups apart from homosexuals? Would any form of racist sentiment be tolerated by free speech, for example? That's I good argument. I would refer to the "white nationalists" of Stormfront I mentioned in a previous post: are they entitled to espouse "white nationalism" as an ideology, once the don't advocate harm to ethnic minorities? I suppose, going on my own reasoning, that provided they don't advocate harm against ethnic minorities, then yes, they are entitled to believe white people are better than black people. However, the problem is, racism and Neo Nazism are rarely purely ideolgogical principles. They are based on hatred, rather like Fred Phelps and his attitude to gays, and require action. So they advocate harm to people, therefore are not entitled to propagate their opinion. But is someone who expresses concerns about immigration policy necessarily a racist? I don't think so.

I think it is an incredibly tricky issue. A lot of common sense is needed. There is a glaring difference between expressing concern about Islamic fundamentalism, and inciting Islamophobia. With relation to religion, most religions believe that theirs is correct; therefore others must be "wrong". They seek to save the unbelievers, therefore must attempt to prosletyse them. This involves telling them that their religion, or lack thereof, is wrong. And they are entitled to do so. Most of us would have the common sense not to tell people of other faiths they will go to hell, even if we believed so. However some people feel it is their duty to save the world from itself. And however idiotic it may be, they do have a right to express their opinion. As a Christian, I do tend to get a bit annoyed when people deliberately say offensive things about Jesus to piss me off. The idea of living in a nanny state that tells them they can't "commit blasphemy", however, pisses me off a great deal more. As offensive a person's opinion may be, I think once they are not advocating harm, slandering or libeling anybody, then they are free to say what they like. There's no litmus test for offence, unfortunately. Some people have incredibly thick skins, others don't. I think another thing that often gets forgotten about free speech and other civil liberties is that they work both ways. Take Bible Billy and his holy rolling friends: we gays espouse our right to freely contradict his views, don't we? So doesn't he have that same right? "But he's in the wrong!" you say. Maybe. But to him we're in the wrong. So one of us is wrong, but who decides which one? That's why free speech and debate are vital.

Community Alert Area...

I am currently sitting in the garden with a nice cup of coffee, watching the brother's dog manically running around after her ball, while my cranky aul fella sits there eyeing her with the contempt and disdain only a 9-and-a-half year old Cavelier King cross could muster. The wind is whistling gently through the trees, and the clouds' threats appear to be empty thus far. It is a truly peaceful and zen-like experience. Well it would be, apart from the godforsaken alarm screeching at me from across the road, piercing my brain like a searing hot poker. It has been blaring for about thirty minutes now. It's not even a car alarm, it's one of those shrill burglar alarms. Listening to this infernal din has led me to ask myself: does anybody actually take a blind bit of notice of these things? Think about it. Anytime you hear a burglar alarm, or a car alarm, or even a fire alarm going off, do you think twice? Does anyone feel inclined to investigate if they hear the electronic wailing eminating from their neighbour's car/house? I don't think so. Now 9 times out of 10 it's a false alarm anyway. Just the other day, my friend somehow managed to set off a car alarm by sending a text message while walking past it. No seriously. The hypersensitivity of these things is perhaps necessary, but it does lead to a spot of cry wolf syndrome, which leaves them blatantly ignored.

Or is it that we just don't care? That's what I'm currently pondering, as I try in vain to concentrate hard enough on this post that I may enter a trance-like state, thus eliminating the painful racket (it's not working by the way). It brings me back to the individual versus community idea. Coming from a small enough town, where everybody knows everybody and 90% of the population can be traced back to the same two families, I have always tended to rail against the oppression of "community". The thought of small towns and the militant officials of the Curtain Twitching brigade repulses me. It's not so much Big Brother as Mrs Murphy is watching, but at least Big Brother is invisible, therefore can't tut disapprovingly at you while on her way to tell Bridie and Agnes all about your shenanigans. I love the idea of living in cities. I like the anonymity. I am a bit of a lone wolf by nature, valuing my own space and privacy. I like to be left alone to go about my business, and pay the same courtesy to others.

So privacy, anonymity and individualism are a good thing. Thing is, like all good things, you can have too much of it. Yeah we all need space and privacy, some more than others perhaps. However the general consensus about human beings is that we are social creatures, even cantankerous old sods like me. We need other people, a community, to survive. It goes beyond the social aspect. Back to the screeching alarms. Yes it's usually a false alarm, but what if it wasn't? The point is, we generally don't even bother to check. The drawback to being left to go about your business is that you're left to it all the time. Some social conservatives would happily tell us that the idea of community is well and truly dead, thanks to the evils of sex drugs and rock and roll. Nobody gives a damn about anyone else anymore, and we all gladly leave each other to rot, once it doesn't impact on us. While most extreme social conservatives are reactionary and slightly hysterical by their very nature, you have to admit they have a point.

We generally don't care anymore. If we walk down the street and see someone harassing somebody, will we stop to help? Not bloody likely. I remember being in Mass once and reading an article in the newsletter where the priest asked us to go and visit elderly people in the area who would be alone at Christmas. How many of us would actually bother to do such a thing? Very few. We're far too busy, of course. But how much time would it actually take? Even half an hour would probably make some old lady's entire day. Just calling to the door to check in on them would probably suffice. I hate small towns and interfering busybodies as much as, if not more than, the next person. But as with almost everything in life, we are generally in danger of throwing out the baby with the bath water. It doesn't have to be individual versus community; it can be individual and community. We can have our privacy and freedom to live life without interference, and still have time to give five minutes to consider our fellow human beings, surely?

Identity crisis...

Seeing as the theme of this week seems to be the notion of "identity", I've decided to have a stab at exploring mine. I suppose the first question to be considered is "What is identity?". Me, being the pedantic Anglophile that I am, decided to look for a specific definition to start with. The Oxford English Dictionary has this to offer:

identity

• noun (pl. identities) 1 the fact of being who or what a person or thing is. 2 the characteristics determining this. 3 a close similarity or affinity.

So for the purposes of the exercise at hand, I think 1 and 2 are the most relevant. So one needs to consider the fact of being who or what a person is, and the characteristics which determine this. An exercise which is far easier in theory than practice, I have discovered...

So what is me? What is the essence of my being? What defines me? In short, who AM I? I struggled to find a simple or definitive answer. Which is a good thing, because I don't think it is a simple or definitive question. In my struggle to overcome my effective writer's block on the situation, I began to formulate what is essentially a list of adjectives to describe myself. What is interesting is what happens when I begin to consider how important each is to my perception of my own identity.

Well I suppose the first logical thing that is noticeable about me is I am a woman. As soon as I open my mouth it becomes abundantly clear that I'm Irish. And therefore, I am by default European. I am also gay. I consider myself to be a religious person, specifically Christian. Until recently, I would have narrowed that down to Catholic; however that is currently under revision. Hmm, maybe I'll bore you with that next...

Anyway, the were some of the main factors I could come up with for defining identity. The appear to be areas such as gender, nationality, nationality, religion and sexual orientation. Other things I could come up with seemed to correspond more closely with personality traits. Not being a completely narcissistic individual, I did ask for feedback from friends. The list they and I came up with is as follows:

*Intelligent,
*Religious,
*Talkative,
*Caring,
*Friendly,
*Open-minded
*Strong principles, but respects others
*Respectful
*Good listener
*Kind
*Smart
*Tolerant
*Good friend
*Sees all points of view in argument

Those adjectives would describe accurately describe my personality, I believe. But is personality the same as identity? Perhaps so. A friend who blogged on this subject recently said he believed the two were not mutually exclusive (http://stephenspillane.com/blog/). I would be inclined to agree. In fact, I think identity probably influences our personality, and therefore our beliefs and actions. Take me for example (well I'm not exactly qualified to speak for anyone else, am I?). Taking the factors I identified (ha, see what I did there) earlier in order, I evaluated their relevance to my identity as I see it. So first of all, there was gender. I am a woman. No denying that. But the key question I had to ask was: Is being a woman important to me? It is a fundamental part of who I am. I identify as female, in so far as I don't identify as male. What I mean is, I don't feel being a woman is the most important thing about me, but to say it isn't a defining factor would be ridiculous. I don't see myself as being either inferior or superior to my male counterparts. I wholeheartedly support equality, but wouldn't consider myself exactly feminist. That's where I feel identity impacts on personality and beliefs.


Next on the list was nationality. Yes, I am Irish. Again, I had to ask: is this important to me? I quite like being Irish, no doubt about it. However, I have often gotten in trouble with friends and exes alike for being too fond of the Brits. I'll admit it: I am a self confessed Anglophile. I love English culture, language, literature, humour, comedy, you name it. Do I approve of the colonisation and plantation of Ireland? No I don't. Do I feel that Ireland has a right to sovereignty? Yes I do. Do I think the "800 years of oppression" Brit-bashing of some Irish people today is ridiculous? Yes, I most certainly do. Find me one person in Britain alive today that was responsible for Irish oppression. So in that sense, I guess I am not particularly "nationalistic". But I am quite proud to be Irish. However, I don't believe that it is in any way superior to any other nationality. As for Europe, I consider Ireland's involvement in the EU to have been invaluable to us. Seriously like, where would we be without it? I mean honestly. So yes I would consider myself European.

The other consideration for my identity is sexual orientation. I am gay. Is this important to me? Not as much as you might think. If you've read my post on gay marriage, you will see that I tend to disagree with "mainstream" gay opinion on the matter. I regularly contend that proper CP legislation is perfectly adequate, and that the fight for the word "marriage" should be dropped. This leads to the logical conclusion that my sexual orientation isn't that important to me. I guess that is a fair assumption. I am in no way ashamed of being gay. However, I have had to ask myself just how important it is to my identity? It seems to be something which many people place huge emphasis on in relation to their identity. Perhaps I could be accused of placing too little. But it just doesn't feel like a very important factor to me. Yes, it makes me different. But how much influence should it have on my overall identity? I'll give you an example. People have said to me in the past that "you should support Sinn Fein, because they are the party that best promotes gay rights!". Others have said I should join the Unitarian Church because they are very gay affirming. Yes, Sinn Fein do support gay rights very admirably. But I disagree with them on many fundamental political issues, and wouldn't dream of voting for them! Similarly, I have had wonderful experiences with Unitarians. Some of their fundamental spiritual beliefs directly conflict with my own though. so how could I join their church? Merely because they are pro gay? I don't think so. Now before anyone gets ready to beat me with the "internalised homophobia" stick, please listen. I am not ashamed of being gay. I would not tolerate any form of discrimination against myself or the wider LGBT community. I tend to disagree sometimes on what exactly counts as discrimination, but that's about it. I just don't feel it should be the biggest discerning factor in my identity and my subsequent beliefs and actions.

The last one I had was religion. I think that my Christianity is probably the most important to me, out of all the factors listed. For me is shapes who I am far more than my gender, nationality or sexual orientation. It forms the basis of my personal morality and principles. The things on the list which friends described me as, such as kind, a good listener, open minded, etc, for me stem from my Christian beliefs. I strive to achieve these things. Similarly, I believe in things like justice and fairness for the same reason. Now lest any atheists or non Christians get offended, I'm not saying Christians have the monopoly on morals or good works. We're talking about my identity, remember?

So having weighed up all those things, have I reached a definitive answer on identity? Nope, not a chance. However, the point of the exercise is to make you think about your identity, and how it makes you relate to others. Do our perceptions of our own identity impact on how we interact with others? If, for example, nationality plays a huge part in our identity, do we then allow this to colour our attitude to other nationalities in a negative way? The same can be said of religion. Does this impact on our personality? For me, I think my identity and personality are linked in many ways. The factors I outlined above are important in making up my identity. But they are in no way definitive. There are many other things which contribute. So to answer the question "What am I?". Well, I am me. That's the thing we have to remember about identity; we are all different, no matter what we have in common. And we need to respect that. Rather than compromising our identity, respecting those that differ will enrich it.

http://www.kalimunro.com/declaration-of-self-esteem.html

On the buses...

So upon finding myself divested of babysitting duty today, I decided to be true to my student nature and arrange to spend the day arsing around town having coffee with various friends. To this end, I had to make use of the public transport disservice. So off I trotted to the no. 2 stop. Now, perhaps I am peculiar in this. God knows, it can be a fitting adjective for me at times. But I always find myself amazed by the things that run through my mind on the bus. They range from the downright banal to the positively epiphanous. Today I found myself gazing around, as usual. Catching the eye of fellow passengers, but being super careful not too keep eye contact too long, as that just doesn't seem to be the done thing, you know. Having spent around three seconds wondering why the grey haired elderly gent to my left could possibly look so grim, my eyes wandered absently towards the back. Sitting a few seats from the back, I noticed this little girl sitting with her father. She was pointing at a dog out the window and smiling back at daddy with that amazing joy that only children can seem to muster. I expect it's due to them yet being tainted by the cynicism the rest of us need for survival in the world. Anyway, the girl and her father were talking about the doggy, and laughing and smiling away whilst giving each other a cuddle. The thought in my head was "Nyaww,cute". I'm not really a kid person at all. But it was touching and sweet, and made me smile.

So you probably think that's the point of this post, relaying a sweet moment I observed on a busy day. Well no I'm afraid, not quite. Having observed the nice Hallmark moment for a few seconds, I glanced off to the other side of the bus. There were two, er, gentlemen (I use the term extremely loosely) sitting behind daddy and little girl, looking over and glaring at them. They were talking to each other and it was clear they were talking about the pair on the other side of the bus. And they were not pleased by their presence at all. "Why on earth would they be bothered by an adorable little girl and her dad having fun?!" you ask.

Quite simple, dear reader. Daddy and the little girl were black. As I looked from one to the other, I thought back to yesterday, when during a general conversation on politics a friend sent me a link to the Irish section of the "white nationalist", neo Nazi website, Stormfront (he was appalled by its existence, by the way, not endorsing it!). I had been to the website once before, after an image search for some celebrity had bizarrely led me there. Being curious as to whether it was actually as bad as was reported, I had a look around. And I found it was every bit as bad, and worse. Oh, there were no forum posts arranging mobs to go attacking blacks and Jews. That's only available to registered users. The site's owner,(who is formed head of the KKK. Need I say more?) is keen on making "white nationalism" appeal to the mainstream. Having read several "logical" arguments about why whites are superior to, oh, everybody, I inevitably came across the typical "f***k off back to the jungle you monkey" imbecile, who couldn't quite keep himself from spewing his vile, blind hatred for the sake of keeping a veneer of respectability.

Because some of them do. They almost sound as if they are having a sound, reasonable debate, and may even have a modicum of sense. They almost sound respectful of their opponents. Kind of like "well I totally respect you, Mr black/Jewish man, but see, I just think we're a bit different and shouldn't mix, is all". Think it's impossible? Not really. Hitler was probably one of the best orators of the 20th century. It's not about speaking truthfully. It's about speaking convincingly. To quote one of my favourite Shakespeare plays, "the devil can cite scripture for his purpose." And that's why we have to be careful, and remember to think for ourselves; use our own minds. That's why people like Mr. imbecile are so handy. They are to anti racists what Fred Phelps is to gay rights campaigners: invaluable, because they show these scumbags for what they really are. Ignorant, disgusting bigots. No amount of charismatic verbosity should disguise that. The two cretins sitting glaring, pointing and laughing at an innocent child and her father are further evolved and genetically superior, are they? Looking at daddy and the little girl, I thought back to the same Shakespeare play. "Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands,organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same
food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases,
heal'd by the same means, warm'd and cool'd by the same winter
and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If
you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?" Replace Jew and Christian with black and white, and think about it.

Mini Musings: Materialism gone mad...

All that use of the word marriage in the previous post has gotten me thinking about something which provoked/amused/appalled me earlier today. On the subject of weddings, my sister in law's mother was telling us over tea how she was going to a wedding of some cousin at the end of August. All very lovely indeed. Sure who doesn't love a good wedding? They eventually got around to the subject of acceptable amounts of money to give as a wedding present, to which point her mother pointed out that the last wedding she attended all the guests contributed 200 euro. Having managed the tricky task of navigating between choking on my tea and splurting it out all over the cat, I increduously asked was she mad. She replied that this appeared to be the standard amount people were giving these days. And when couples had lists of gifts they would like, they tended to average out around that mark too. I mean really. That's about two thirds of a minimum wage earner's weekly pay packet! Not to mention, you know, the R-Word. However when you consider the exorbitant amounts of money that people are spending on weddings these days, they probably need it to cover the costs. Banks certainly won't throw that kind of money at you now. Seriously though, who needs a ten grand wedding? Isn't marriage supposed to a momentous religious event/symbol of two people's love for each other/tax break, depending on your perspective? I would have thought all three would have warranted less materialistic indulgence. Next wedding I attend will get a sodding toaster and have done with it.

To marry or not to marry? C'est le question...

God, I'm about as good at blogging as I am at keeping a diary. If I fill half of one in a year, I'm lucky. "Sporadic" is an understatment...

Anyhow, I've decided to give it a proper go. My topic this time is possibly the most divisive one going at the moment. Well I don't do things by halves. Yes folks that's right, it's good old gay marriage. Whether you're a dyed-in-the-wool conservative Christian/Muslim/Jew or an out and proud screaming queen, the chances are you'll have an opinion on this one. And maybe you'll even have an opinion that differs from all your other dyed-wool and screaming friends! Oh dear oh dear...

No but seriously. It's something I've given a lot of thought to, and am currently in the middle of another debate about. The question at hand is gay marriage versus civil partnership: which should we fight for? This is the main divisive issue within the gay community itself. Personally, I've always more or less favoured CP. Cue the self righteous screams of internalised homophobia from some quarters. I'm afraid it's not that simple however, and good old IH cannot explain away my opinion, or those of many other LGBT people. I believe that as a gay person, I am no different from anyone else, and deserve to be treated equally. In my mind, marriage is predominantly a religious matter, and I respect the right of religions to reject gay marriage as incompatible with their doctrine. While I personally have reconciled my sexuality with my faith, I do not expect my Church to reconcile itself with gay marriage.

So right, that's the religious aspect sorted. "But marriage is a civil matter!", they scream. As regards the civil situation, much of the argument to me seems to boil down to semantics. The main bone of contention seems to lie in the term "marriage". And while I am completely aware of the concept of civil marriage currently exists in most countries, as I said earlier it is construed as mainly a religious matter. I think the majority of objection to the whole concept of gay marriage comes from that association. Obviously, there are some "religious" zealots who froth at the mouth at the mere thought of any kind of social acceptance for gay people. I do think these are the minority though. I think most merely oppose the term marriage, seeing it as a sacred sacramental rite. Therefore, personally speaking, I don't see why properly functioning Civil Partnership legislation, which affords all the same rights and legal protections, can't be a viable option.

However, in relation to our case here in Ireland, the current Bill does not meet those requirements. I find the UK and French models to be more satisfactory. So I think fighting to improve the current bill may be a more pragmatic step than attempting to fight to have it called marriage. Yes, it may be a different name, but if it were amended to a proper and satisfactory standard to do essentially the same thing, then where is the inequality? I agree that marriage is in no way an exclusively religious preserve, although to me personally, that is a key aspect. I meant that society as a whole perceives it as such, thus making the actual term "marriage" so contentious. I think we have to be willing to compromise. Not roll over and take second class citizenship, by any means. But a modicum of pragmatism and realism is required here people. There appears to be a majority of people who support recognition for same sex couples, yes; but see marriage as being a religious institution for one man and one woman. And in the wonderful system we call liberal democracy, I'm afraid majority rules. So, do we try to change their minds by either a) shouting and screaming at them and telling them they're wrong, or b) organising mass protests demanding they accept gay marriage. Or, do we attempt to work with what is essentially the essence of politics: compromise? A huge factor in the debate here in Ireland is the fact that the proposed CP Bill doesn't offer protection to children of gay couples, thus denying the existance of LGBT families. I agree, that needs changing. Sorry to disappoint all you social conservatives out there, but rather like LGBT people themselves, LGBT families are a de facto reality, whether you think it's right or not. And they need legal protections. I just think that these can be achieved just as well with proper CP legislation. I'm arguing that we compromise on terminology. Think about it: why do LGBT people (who are not religious, that is) want to marry? To have civil rights such as kinship, inheritance, family stability etc. So if civil partnerships could provide these, does the name matter?